{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_26134/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_26134","id":"gutenberg_26134","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26134","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Mark XVI, 9-20 -- Criticism, Textual","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"THE\n\n THE LAST TWELVE VERSES\n\n OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO\n\n S. MARK\n\n Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors\n\n And Established\n\n by\n\n John W. Burgon B.D.\n\n Vicar of S. Mary-The-Virgin\u2019s, Fellow of Oriel College,\n\n and Gresham Lecturer in Divinity.\n\n _With Facsimiles of Codex \u05d0 And Codex L_\n\n \"\u2019Advice to you,\u2019 sir, \u2019in studying Divinity?\u2019 Did you say that you\n \u2019wished I would give you a few words of advice,\u2019 sir?... Then let me\nrecommend to you the practice of always _verifying your references_, sir!\"\n\n _Conversation of the late_ PRESIDENT ROUTH\n\n Oxford and London:\n\n James Parker and Co.\n\n 1871.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nThe Codex\nDedication: To Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C., M.P.\nPreface.\nThe Last Twelve Verses.\nChapter I. THE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK\u2019S GOSPEL, STATED.\nChapter II. THE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN TO BE QUITE OF\nRECENT DATE.\nChapter III. THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR\nFAVOURABLE WITNESS.\nChapter IV. THE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING\nTESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.\nChapter V. THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY FATHERS\nPROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF THE CRITICS.\nChapter VI. MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF\nTHESE VERSES.\u2014PART I.\nChapter VII. MANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF\nTHESE VERSES.\u2014PART II.\nChapter VIII. THE PURPORT OF ANCIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES IN MSS. ON THE\nSUBJECT OF THESE VERSES, SHEWN TO BE THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY\nSUPPOSED.\nChapter IX. INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY REVERSE OF\nUNFAVOURABLE TO THESE VERSES.\nChapter X. THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE ABSOLUTELY\nDECISIVE AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.\nChapter XI. THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT COPIES\nOF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR.\nChapter XII. GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE; AND\nCONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE SUBJECT.\nAPPENDIX (A).\nAPPENDIX (B).\nAPPENDIX (C).\nAPPENDIX (D).\nAPPENDIX (E).\nAPPENDIX (F).\nAPPENDIX (G).\nAPPENDIX (H).\nPOSTSCRIPT.\nL\u2019ENVOY\nGENERAL INDEX.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CODEX\n\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: This e-book contains much Greek text which is central\nto the point of the book. In the ASCII versions of the e-book, the Greek\nis transliterated into Roman letters, which do not perfectly represent the\nGreek original; especially, accent and breathing marks do not\ntransliterate. The HTML and PDF versions contain the true Greek text of\nthe original book.]\n\nOn the next page is exhibited an _exact Fac-simile_, obtained by\nPhotography, of fol. 28 _b_ of the CODEX SINAITICUS at S. Petersburg,\n(Tischendorf\u2019s \u05d0): shewing the abrupt termination of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel at\nthe words \u0395\u03a6\u039f\u0392\u039f\u03a5\u039d\u03a4\u039f \u0393\u0391\u03a1 (chap. xvi. 8), as explained at p. 70, and pp.\n86-8. The original Photograph, which is here reproduced on a diminished\nscale, measures in height full fourteen inches and one-eighth; in breadth,\nfull thirteen inches. It was procured for me through the friendly and\nzealous offices of the English Chaplain at S. Petersburg, the Rev. A. S.\nThompson, B.D.; by favour of the Keeper of the Imperial Library, who has\nmy hearty thanks for his liberality and consideration.\n\nIt will be perceived that the text begins at S. Mark xvi. 2, and ends with\nthe first words of S. Luke i. 18.\n\nUp to this hour, every endeavour to obtain a Photograph of the\ncorresponding page of the CODEX VATICANUS, B, (No. 1209, in the Vatican,)\nhas proved unavailing. If the present Vindication of the genuineness of\nTwelve Verses of the everlasting Gospel should have the good fortune to\napprove itself to his Holiness, POPE PIUS IX., let me be permitted in this\nunadorned and unusual manner,\u2014(to which I would fain add some circumstance\nof respectful ceremony if I knew how,)\u2014very humbly to entreat his Holiness\nto allow me to possess a Photograph, corresponding in size with the\noriginal, of the page of CODEX B (it is numbered fol. 1303,) which\nexhibits the abrupt termination of the Gospel according to S. Mark.\n\nJ. W. B.\n\nORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD,\n_June 14, 1871_.\n\n [[Illustration: Codex Sinaiticus facsimile page.]]\n\n [[Illustration: Codex Sinaiticus facsimile page.]]\n\n\n\n\n\n\"MY WORD WILL NOT PASS AWAY\"\n\n\n \u1f00\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd,\n \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b3\u1fc6,\n \u1f30\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f13\u03bd \u1f22 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5,\n \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd,\n \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b3\u1fc6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1fc7\n \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3.\n\n\n\n\n\nDEDICATION: TO SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, Q.C., M.P.\n\n\nDEAR SIR ROUNDELL,\n\nI do myself the honour of inscribing this volume to you. Permit me to\nexplain the reason why.\n\nIt is not merely that I may give expression to a sentiment of private\nfriendship which dates back from the pleasant time when I was Curate to\nyour Father,\u2014whose memory I never recall without love and veneration;\u2014nor\neven in order to afford myself the opportunity of testifying how much I\nhonour you for the noble example of conscientious uprightness and\nintegrity which you set us on a recent public occasion. It is for no such\nreason that I dedicate to you this vindication of the last Twelve Verses\nof the Gospel according to S. Mark.\n\nIt is because I desire supremely to submit the argument contained in the\nensuing pages to a practised judicial intellect of the loftiest stamp.\nRecent Editors of the New Testament insist that these \u201clast Twelve Verses\u201d\nare not genuine. The Critics, almost to a man, avow themselves of the same\nopinion. Popular Prejudice has been for a long time past warmly enlisted\non the same side. I am as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse\nis the truth. It is not even with me as it is with certain learned friends\nof mine, who, admitting the adversary\u2019s premisses, content themselves with\ndenying the validity of his inference. However true it may be,\u2014and it is\ntrue,\u2014that from those premisses the proposed conclusion does not follow, I\nyet venture to deny the correctness of those premisses altogether. I\ninsist, on the contrary, that the Evidence relied on is\nuntrustworthy,\u2014untrustworthy in every particular.\n\nHow, in the meantime, can such an one as I am hope to persuade the world\nthat it is as I say, while the most illustrious Biblical Critics at home\nand abroad are agreed, and against me? Clearly, the first thing to be done\nis to secure for myself a full and patient hearing. With this view, I have\nwritten a book. But next, instead of waiting for the slow verdict of\nPublic Opinion, (which yet, I know, must come after many days,) I\ndesiderate for the Evidence I have collected, a competent and an impartial\nJudge. And _that_ is why I dedicate my book to you. If I can but get this\ncase fairly tried, I have no doubt whatever about the result.\n\nWhether you are able to find time to read these pages, or not, it shall\ncontent me to have shewn in this manner the confidence with which I\nadvocate my cause; the kind of test to which I propose to bring my\nreasonings. If I may be allowed to say so,\u2014_S. Mark\u2019s last Twelve Verses\nshall no longer remain a subject of dispute among men._ I am able to prove\nthat this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be spurious on wholly\nmistaken grounds: and this ought in fairness to close the discussion. But\nI claim to have done more. I claim to have shewn, from considerations\nwhich have been hitherto overlooked, that its genuineness must needs be\nreckoned among the things that are absolutely certain.\n\nI am, with sincere regard and respect,\nDear Sir Roundell,\nVery faithfully yours,\nJOHN W. BURGON.\n\nORIEL,\nJuly, 1871.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThis volume is my contribution towards the better understanding of a\nsubject which is destined, when it shall have grown into a Science, to\nvindicate for itself a mighty province, and to enjoy paramount attention.\nI allude to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament Scriptures.\n\nThat this Study is still in its infancy, all may see. The very principles\non which it is based are as yet only imperfectly understood. The reason is\nobvious. It is because the very foundations have not yet been laid,\n(except to a wholly inadequate extent,) on which the future superstructure\nis to rise. A careful collation of every extant Codex, (executed after the\nmanner of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener\u2019s labours in this department,) is the\nfirst indispensable preliminary to any real progress. Another, is a\nrevised Text, not to say a more exact knowledge, of the oldest Versions.\nScarcely of inferior importance would be critically correct editions of\nthe Fathers of the Church; and these must by all means be furnished with\nfar completer Indices of Texts than have ever yet been attempted.\u2014There is\nnot a single Father to be named whose Works have been hitherto furnished\nwith even a tolerably complete Index of the places in which he either\nquotes, or else clearly refers to, the Text of the New Testament: while\nscarcely a tithe of the known MSS. of the Gospels have as yet been\nsatisfactorily collated. Strange to relate, we are to this hour without so\nmuch as a satisfactory Catalogue of the Copies which are known to be\nextant.\n\nBut when all this has been done,\u2014(and the Science deserves, and requires,\na little more public encouragement than has hitherto been bestowed on the\narduous and\u2014let me not be ashamed to add the word\u2014_unremunerative_ labour\nof Textual Criticism,)\u2014it will be discovered that the popular and the\nprevailing Theory is a mistaken one. The plausible hypothesis on which\nrecent recensions of the Text have been for the most part conducted, will\nbe seen to be no longer tenable. The latest decisions will in consequence\nbe generally reversed.\n\nI am not of course losing sight of what has been already achieved in this\ndepartment of Sacred Learning. While our knowledge of the uncial MSS. has\nbeen rendered tolerably exact and complete, an excellent beginning has\nbeen made, (chiefly by the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, the most judicious living\nMaster of Textual Criticism,) in acquainting us with the contents of about\nseventy of the cursive MSS. of the New Testament. And though it is\nimpossible to deny that the published Texts of Doctors Tischendorf and\nTregelles as _Texts_ are wholly inadmissible, yet is it equally certain\nthat by the conscientious diligence with which those distinguished\nScholars have respectively laboured, they have erected monuments of their\nlearning and ability which will endure for ever. Their Editions of the New\nTestament will not be superseded by any new discoveries, by any future\nadvances in the Science of Textual Criticism. The MSS. which they have\nedited will remain among the most precious materials for future study. All\nhonour to them! If in the warmth of controversy I shall appear to have\nspoken of them sometimes without becoming deference, let me here once for\nall confess that I am to blame, and express my regret. When they have\npublicly begged S. Mark\u2019s pardon for the grievous wrong they have done\n_him_, I will very humbly beg their pardon also.\n\nIn conclusion, I desire to offer my thanks to the Rev. John Wordsworth,\nlate Fellow of Brasenose College, for his patient perusal of these sheets\nas they have passed through the press, and for favouring me with several\njudicious suggestions. To him may be applied the saying of President Routh\non receiving a visit from Bishop Wordsworth at his lodgings,\u2014\u201cI see the\nlearned son of a learned Father, sir!\u201d\u2014Let me be permitted to add that my\nfriend inherits the Bishop\u2019s fine taste and accurate judgment also.\n\nAnd now I dismiss this Work, at which I have conscientiously laboured for\nmany days and many nights; beginning it in joy and ending it in sorrow.\nThe College in which I have for the most part written it is designated in\nthe preamble of its Charter and in its Foundation Statutes, (which are\nalready much more than half a thousand years old,) as _Collegium\nScholarium in Sacr\u00e2 Theologi\u00e2 studentium,\u2014perpetuis temporibus duraturum_.\nIndebted, under GOD, to the pious munificence of the Founder of Oriel for\nmy opportunities of study, I venture, in what I must needs call evil days,\nto hope that I have to some extent \u201cemployed my advantages,\u201d\u2014(the\nexpression occurs in a prayer used by this Society on its three solemn\nanniversaries,)\u2014as our Founder and Benefactors \u201cwould approve if they were\nnow upon earth to witness what we do.\u201d\n\nJ. W. B.\n\nORIEL,\n_July, 1871_.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE LAST TWELVE VERSES.\n\n\n_Subjoined, for convenience, are_ \u201cthe Last Twelve Verses.\u201d\n\n\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3 (9) Now when Jesus was\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd risen early the first day\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7, \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd of the week, He appeared\n\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 first to Mary Magdalene,\n\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1. \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 out of whom He had cast\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 seven devils. (10) And\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, she went and told them\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9. that had been with Him,\n\u03ba\u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 as they mourned and wept.\n\u03b6\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 (11) And they, when they\n\u1f20\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. had heard that He was\n alive, and had been seen\n of her, believed not.\n\u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f40\u03c5\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03be (12) After that He\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd appeared in another form\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1fc7, unto two of them, as they\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd. walked, and went into the\n\u03ba\u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 country. (13) And they\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2; went and told it unto the\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. residue: neither believed\n they them.\n\u1f5d\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 (14) Afterward He\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 appeared unto the eleven\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f60\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 as they sat at meat, and\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 upbraided them with their\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 unbelief and hardness of\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd heart, because they\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba believed not them which\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd had seen Him after He was\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u201c\u03a0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 risen. (15) And He said\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, unto them, \u201cGo ye into\n\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd all the world, and preach\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9. \u1f41 the Gospel to every\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 creature. (16) He that\n\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 believeth and is baptized\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 shall be saved; but he\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 that believeth not shall\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9; \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 be damned. (17) And these\n\u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 signs shall follow them\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9; \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 that believe; In My Name\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2; \u1f44\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 shall they cast out\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9; \u03ba\u1f70\u03bd \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u1f70\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 devils; they shall speak\n\u03c0\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 with new tongues; (18)\n\u03b2\u03bb\u03ac\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9; \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 they shall take up\n\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 serpents; and if they\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f15\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\u201d drink any deadly thing,\n it shall not hurt them;\n they shall lay hands on\n the sick, and they shall\n recover.\u201d\n\u1f48 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f44\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 (19) So then after the\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 LORD had spoken unto\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 them, He was received up\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 into Heaven, and sat on\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6; \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 the Right hand of GOD.\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd (20) And they went forth,\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 and preached every where,\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd the LORD working with\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd them, and confirming the\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. word with signs\n\u1f08\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd. following. Amen.\n\n\n\n\n\n Chapter I.\n\n\nTHE CASE OF THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK\u2019S GOSPEL, STATED.\n\n\n These Verses generally suspected at the present time. The\n popularity of this opinion accounted for.\n\n\nIt has lately become the fashion to speak of the last Twelve Verses of the\nGospel according to S. Mark, as if it were an ascertained fact that those\nverses constitute no integral part of the Gospel. It seems to be generally\nsupposed, (1) That the evidence of MSS. is altogether fatal to their\nclaims; (2) That \u201cthe early Fathers\u201d witness plainly against their\ngenuineness; (3) That, from considerations of \u201cinternal evidence\u201d they\nmust certainly be given up. It shall be my endeavour in the ensuing pages\nto shew, on the contrary, That manuscript evidence is so overwhelmingly in\ntheir favour that no room is left for doubt or suspicion:\u2014That there is\nnot so much as _one_ of the Fathers, early or late, who gives it as his\nopinion that these verses are spurious:\u2014and, That the argument derived\nfrom internal considerations proves on inquiry to be baseless and\nunsubstantial as a dream.\n\nBut I hope that I shall succeed in doing more. It shall be my endeavour to\nshew not only that there really is no reason whatever for calling in\nquestion the genuineness of this portion of Holy Writ, but also that there\nexist sufficient reasons for feeling confident that it must needs be\ngenuine. This is clearly as much as it is possible for me to achieve. But\nwhen this has been done, I venture to hope that the verses in dispute will\nfor the future be allowed to retain their place in the second Gospel\nunmolested.\n\nIt will of course be asked,\u2014And yet, if all this be so, how does it happen\nthat both in very ancient, and also in very modern times, this proposal to\nsuppress twelve verses of the Gospel has enjoyed a certain amount of\npopularity? At the two different periods, (I answer,) for widely different\nreasons.\n\n(1.) In the ancient days, when it was the universal belief of Christendom\nthat the Word of GOD must needs be consistent with itself in every part,\nand prove in every part (like its Divine Author) perfectly \u201cfaithful and\ntrue,\u201d the difficulty (which was deemed all but insuperable) of bringing\ncertain statements in S. Mark\u2019s last Twelve Verses into harmony with\ncertain statements of the other Evangelists, is discovered to have\ntroubled Divines exceedingly. \u201cIn fact,\u201d (says Mr. Scrivener,) \u201cit brought\nsuspicion upon these verses, and caused their omission in some copies seen\nby Eusebius.\u201d That the maiming process is indeed attributable to this\ncause and came about in this particular way, I am unable to persuade\nmyself; but, if the desire to provide an escape from a serious critical\ndifficulty did not actually _occasion_ that copies of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel\nwere mutilated, it certainly was the reason why, in very early times, such\nmutilated copies were viewed without displeasure by some, and appealed to\nwith complacency by others.\n\n(2.) But times are changed. We have recently been assured on high\nauthority that the Church has reversed her ancient convictions in this\nrespect: that _now_, \u201cmost sound theologians have no dread whatever of\nacknowledging minute points of disagreement\u201d (i.e. minute _errors_) \u201cin\nthe fourfold narrative even of the life of the Redeemer.\u201d(1) There has\narisen in these last days a singular impatience of Dogmatic Truth,\n(especially Dogma of an unpalatable kind,) which has even rendered popular\nthe pretext afforded by these same mutilated copies for the grave\nresuscitation of doubts, never as it would seem seriously entertained by\nany of the ancients; and which, at all events for 1300 years and upwards,\nhave deservedly sunk into oblivion.\n\nWhilst I write, _that_ \u201cmost divine explication of the chiefest articles\nof our Christian belief,\u201d the Athanasian Creed,(2) is made the object of\nincessant assaults.(3) But then it is remembered that statements quite as\n\u201cuncharitable\u201d as any which this Creed contains are found in the 16th\nverse of S. Mark\u2019s concluding chapter; are in fact the words of Him whose\nvery Name is Love. The precious _warning clause_, I say, (miscalled\n\u201cdamnatory,\u201d(4)) which an impertinent officiousness is for glossing with a\nrubric and weakening with an apology, proceeded from Divine lips,\u2014at least\nif these concluding verses be genuine. How shall this inconvenient\ncircumstance be more effectually dealt with than by accepting the\nsuggestion of the most recent editors, that S. Mark\u2019s concluding verses\nare an unauthorised addition to his Gospel? \u201cIf it be acknowledged that\nthe passage has a harsh sound,\u201d (remarks Dean Stanley,) \u201cunlike the usual\nutterances of Him who came not to condemn but to save, the discoveries of\nlater times have shewn, almost beyond doubt, that it is _not a part of S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel, but an addition by another hand_; of which the weakness in\nthe external evidence coincides with the internal evidence in proving its\nlater origin.\u201d(5)\n\nModern prejudice, then,\u2014added to a singularly exaggerated estimate of the\ncritical importance of the testimony of our two oldest Codices, (another\nof the \u201cdiscoveries of later times,\u201d concerning which I shall have more to\nsay by-and-by,)\u2014must explain why the opinion is even popular that the last\ntwelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious appendix to his Gospel.\n\nNot that Biblical Critics would have us believe that the Evangelist left\noff at verse 8, intending that the words,\u2014\u201cneither said they anything to\nany man, for they were afraid,\u201d should be the conclusion of his Gospel.\n\u201cNo one can imagine,\u201d (writes Griesbach,) \u201cthat Mark cut short the thread\nof his narrative at that place.\u201d(6) It is on all hands eagerly admitted,\nthat so abrupt a termination must be held to mark an incomplete or else an\nuncompleted work. How, then, in the original autograph of the Evangelist,\nis it supposed that the narrative proceeded? This is what no one has even\nventured so much as to conjecture. It is assumed, however, that the\noriginal termination of the Gospel, whatever it may have been, has\nperished. We appeal, of course, to its actual termination: and,\u2014Of what\nnature then, (we ask,) is the supposed necessity for regarding the last\ntwelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel as a spurious substitute for what the\nEvangelist originally wrote? What, in other words, has been the history of\nthese modern doubts; and by what steps have they established themselves in\nbooks, and won the public ear?\n\nTo explain this, shall be the object of the next ensuing chapters.\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n\nTHE HOSTILE VERDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE.\n\n\n Griesbach the first to deny the genuineness of these Verses (p.\n 6).\u2014Lachmann\u2019s fatal principle (p. 8) the clue to the unfavourable\n verdict of Tischendorf (p. 9), of Tregelles (p. 10), of Alford (p.\n 12); which has been generally adopted by subsequent Scholars and\n Divines (p. 13).\u2014The nature of the present inquiry explained (p.\n 15.)\n\n\nIt is only since the appearance of Griesbach\u2019s second edition [1796-1806]\nthat Critics of the New Testament have permitted themselves to handle the\nlast twelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel with disrespect. Previous critical\neditions of the New Testament are free from this reproach. \u201cThere is no\nreason for doubting the genuineness of this portion of Scripture,\u201d wrote\nMill in 1707, after a review of the evidence (as far as he was acquainted\nwith it) for and against. Twenty-seven years later, appeared Bengel\u2019s\nedition of the New Testament (1734); and Wetstein, at the end of another\nseventeen years (1751-2), followed in the same field. Both editors, after\nrehearsing the adverse testimony _in extenso_, left the passage in\nundisputed possession of its place. Alter in 1786-7, and Birch in 1788,(7)\n(suspicious as the latter evidently was of its genuineness,) followed\ntheir predecessors\u2019 example. But Matthaei, (who also brought his labours\nto a close in the year 1788,) was not content to give a silent suffrage.\nHe had been for upwards of fourteen years a laborious collator of Greek\nMSS. of the New Testament, and was so convinced of the insufficiency of\nthe arguments which had been brought against these twelve verses of S.\nMark, that with no ordinary warmth, no common acuteness, he insisted on\ntheir genuineness.\n\n\u201cWith Griesbach,\u201d (remarks Dr. Tregelles,)(8) \u201cTexts which may be called\nreally critical begin;\u201d and Griesbach is the first to insist that the\nconcluding verses of S. Mark are spurious. That he did not suppose the\nsecond Gospel to have always ended at verse 8, we have seen already.(9) He\nwas of opinion, however, that \u201cat some very remote period, the original\nending of the Gospel perished,\u2014disappeared perhaps _from the Evangelist\u2019s\nown copy_,\u2014and that the present ending was by some one substituted in its\nplace.\u201d Griesbach further invented the following elaborate and\nextraordinary hypothesis to account for the existence of S. Mark xvi.\n9-20.\n\nHe invites his readers to believe that when, (before the end of the second\ncentury,) the four Evangelical narratives were collected into a volume and\ndignified with the title of \u201cThe Gospel,\u201d\u2014S. Mark\u2019s narrative was\nfurnished by some unknown individual with its actual termination in order\nto remedy its manifest incompleteness; and that this volume became the\nstandard of the Alexandrine recension of the text: in other words, became\nthe fontal source of a mighty family of MSS. by Griesbach designated as\n\u201cAlexandrine.\u201d But there will have been here and there in existence\nisolated copies of one or more of the Gospels; and in all of these, S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel, (by the hypothesis,) will have ended abruptly at the eighth\nverse. These copies of single Gospels, when collected together, are\npresumed by Griesbach to have constituted \u201cthe Western recension.\u201d If, in\ncodices of this family also, the self-same termination is now all but\nuniversally found, the fact is to be accounted for, (Griesbach says,) by\nthe natural desire which possessors of the Gospels will have experienced\nto supplement their imperfect copies as best they might. \u201cLet this\nconjecture be accepted,\u201d proceeds the learned veteran,\u2014(unconscious\napparently that he has been demanding acceptance for at least half-a-dozen\nwholly unsupported as well as entirely gratuitous conjectures,)\u2014\u201cand every\ndifficulty disappears; and it becomes perfectly intelligible how there has\ncrept into almost every codex which has been written, from the second\ncentury downwards, a section quite different from the original and genuine\nending of S. Mark, which disappeared before the four Gospels were\ncollected into a single volume.\u201d\u2014In other words, if men will but be so\naccommodating as to assume that the conclusion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel\ndisappeared before any one had the opportunity of transcribing the\nEvangelist\u2019s inspired autograph, they will have no difficulty in\nunderstanding that the present conclusion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel was not\nreally written by S. Mark.\n\nIt should perhaps be stated in passing, that Griesbach was driven into\nthis curious maze of unsupported conjecture by the exigencies of his\n\u201cRecension Theory;\u201d which, inasmuch as it has been long since exploded,\nneed not now occupy us. But it is worth observing that the argument\nalready exhibited, (such as it is,) breaks down under the weight of the\nvery first fact which its learned author is obliged to lay upon it. Codex\nB.,\u2014the solitary manuscript witness for _omitting_ the clause in question,\n(for Codex \u05d0 had not yet been discovered,)\u2014had been already claimed by\nGriesbach as a chief exponent of his so-called \u201cAlexandrine Recension.\u201d\nBut then, on the Critic\u2019s own hypothesis, (as we have seen already,) Codex\nB. ought, on the contrary, to have _contained_ it. How was that\ninconvenient fact to be got over? Griesbach quietly remarks in a foot-note\nthat Codex B. \u201c_has affinity_ with the Eastern family of MSS.\u201d\u2014The\nmisfortune of being saddled with a worthless theory was surely never more\napparent. By the time we have reached this point in the investigation, we\nare reminded of nothing so much as of the weary traveller who, having\npatiently pursued an _ignis fatuus_ through half the night, beholds it at\nlast vanish; but not until it has conducted him up to his chin in the\nmire.\n\nNeither Hug, nor Scholz his pupil,\u2014who in 1808 and 1830 respectively\nfollowed Griesbach with modifications of his recension-theory,\u2014concurred\nin the unfavourable sentence which their illustrious predecessor had\npassed on the concluding portion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. The latter even\neagerly vindicated its genuineness.(10) But with Lachmann,\u2014whose\nunsatisfactory text of the Gospels appeared in 1842,\u2014originated a new\nprinciple of Textual Revision; the principle, namely, of paying exclusive\nand absolute deference to the testimony of a few arbitrarily selected\nancient documents; no regard being paid to others of the same or of yet\nhigher antiquity. This is not the right place for discussing this\nplausible and certainly most convenient scheme of textual revision. That\nit leads to conclusions little short of irrational, is certain. I notice\nit only because it supplies the clue to the result which, as far as S.\nMark xvi. 9-20 is concerned, has been since arrived at by Dr. Tischendorf,\nDr. Tregelles, and Dean Alford,(11)\u2014the three latest critics who have\nformally undertaken to reconstruct the sacred Text.\n\nThey agree in assuring their readers that the genuine Gospel of S. Mark\nextends no further than ch. xvi. ver. 8: in other words, that all that\nfollows the words \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 is an unauthorized addition by some later\nhand; \u201ca fragment,\u201d\u2014distinguishable from the rest of the Gospel not less\nby internal evidence than by external testimony. This verdict becomes the\nmore important because it proceeds from men of undoubted earnestness and\nhigh ability; who cannot be suspected of being either unacquainted with\nthe evidence on which the point in dispute rests, nor inexperienced in the\nart of weighing such evidence. Moreover, their verdict has been\nindependently reached; is unanimous; is unhesitating; has been eagerly\nproclaimed by all three on many different occasions as well as in many\ndifferent places;(12) and may be said to be at present in all but\nundisputed possession of the field.(13) The first-named Editor enjoys a\nvast reputation, and has been generously styled by Mr. Scrivener, \u201cthe\nfirst Biblical Critic in Europe.\u201d The other two have produced text-books\nwhich are deservedly held in high esteem, and are in the hands of every\nstudent. The views of such men will undoubtedly colour the convictions of\nthe next generation of English Churchmen. It becomes absolutely necessary,\ntherefore, to examine with the utmost care the grounds of their verdict,\nthe direct result of which is to present us with a mutilated Gospel. If\nthey are right, there is no help for it but that the convictions of\neighteen centuries in this respect must be surrendered. But if Tischendorf\nand Tregelles are wrong in this particular, it follows of necessity that\ndoubt is thrown over the whole of their critical method. The case is a\ncrucial one. Every page of theirs incurs suspicion, if their deliberate\nverdict in _this_ instance shall prove to be mistaken.\n\n1. Tischendorf disposes of the whole question in a single sentence. \u201cThat\nthese verses were not written by Mark,\u201d (he says,) \u201cadmits of satisfactory\nproof.\u201d He then recites in detail the adverse external testimony which his\npredecessors had accumulated; remarking, that it is abundantly confirmed\nby internal evidence. Of this he supplies a solitary sample; but declares\nthat the whole passage is \u201cabhorrent\u201d to S. Mark\u2019s manner. \u201cThe facts of\nthe case being such,\u201d (and with this he dismisses the subject,) \u201ca healthy\npiety reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming off as\nMark\u2019s what the Evangelist is so plainly shewn to have known nothing at\nall about.\u201d(14) A mass of laborious annotation which comes surging in at\nthe close of verse 8, and fills two of Tischendorf\u2019s pages, has the effect\nof entirely divorcing the twelve verses in question from the inspired text\nof the Evangelist. On the other hand, the evidence _in favour_ of the\nplace is despatched in less than twelve lines. What can be the reason that\nan Editor of the New Testament parades elaborately every particular of the\nevidence, (such as it is,) _against_ the genuineness of a considerable\nportion of the Gospel; and yet makes summary work with the evidence in its\nfavour? That Tischendorf has at least entirely made up his mind on the\nmatter in hand is plain. Elsewhere, he speaks of the Author of these\nverses as \u201c_Pseudo Marcus_.\u201d(15)\n\n2. Dr. Tregelles has expressed himself most fully on this subject in his\n\u201cAccount of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament\u201d (1854). The\nrespected author undertakes to shew \u201cthat the early testimony that S. Mark\ndid not write these verses is confirmed by existing monuments.\u201d\nAccordingly, he announces as the result of the propositions which he\nthinks he has established, \u201cthat the _book of Mark himself_ extends no\nfurther than \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1.\u201d He is the only critic I have met with to whom\nit does not seem incredible that S. Mark did actually conclude his Gospel\nin this abrupt way: observing that \u201cperhaps we do not know enough of the\ncircumstances of S. Mark when he wrote his Gospel to say whether he did or\ndid not leave it with a complete termination.\u201d In this modest suggestion\nat least Dr. Tregelles is unassailable, since we know absolutely nothing\nwhatever about \u201cthe circumstances of S. Mark,\u201d (or of any other\nEvangelist,) \u201cwhen he wrote his Gospel:\u201d neither indeed are we quite sure\n_who_ S. Mark _was_. But when he goes on to declare, notwithstanding,\n\u201cthat the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full\nclaim to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel;\u201d and\ncomplains that \u201cthere is in some minds a kind of timidity with regard to\nHoly Scripture, as if all our notions of its authority depended on our\nknowing who was the writer of each particular portion; instead of simply\nseeing and owning that it was given forth from GOD, and that it is as much\nHis as were the Commandments of the Law written by His own finger on the\ntables of stone;\u201d(16)\u2014the learned writer betrays a misapprehension of the\nquestion at issue, which we are least of all prepared to encounter in such\na quarter. We admire his piety but it is at the expense of his critical\nsagacity. For the question is not at all one of _authorship_, but only one\nof _genuineness_. Have the codices been _mutilated_ which do _not_ contain\nthese verses? If they have, then must these verses be held to be\n_genuine_. But on the contrary, Have the codices been _supplemented_ which\ncontain them? Then are these verses certainly _spurious_. There is no help\nfor it but they must either be held to be an integral part of the Gospel,\nand therefore, in default of any proof to the contrary, as certainly by S.\nMark as any other twelve verses which can be named; or else an\nunauthorized addition to it. If they belong to the post-apostolic age it\nis idle to insist on their Inspiration, and to claim that this \u201cauthentic\nanonymous addition to what Mark himself wrote down\u201d is as much the work of\nGOD \u201cas were the Ten Commandments written by His own finger on the tables\nof stone.\u201d On the other hand, if they \u201cought as much to be received as\npart of our second Gospel as the last chapter of Deuteronomy (unknown as\nthe writer is) is received as the right and proper conclusion of the book\nof Moses,\u201d\u2014it is difficult to understand why the learned editor should\nthink himself at liberty to sever them from their context, and introduce\nthe subscription \u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u039c\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u039f\u039d after ver. 8. In short, \u201cHow persons who\nbelieve that these verses did not form a part of the original Gospel of\nMark, but were added afterwards, can say that they have a good claim to be\nreceived as an authentic or genuine part of the second Gospel, that is, a\nportion of canonical Scripture, passes comprehension.\u201d It passes even Dr.\nDavidson\u2019s comprehension; (for the foregoing words are his;) and Dr.\nDavidson, as some of us are aware, is not a man to stick at trifles.(17)\n\n3. Dean Alford went a little further than any of his predecessors. He says\nthat this passage \u201cwas placed as a completion of the Gospel soon after the\nApostolic period,\u2014the Gospel itself having been, for some reason unknown\nto us, left incomplete. The most probable supposition\u201d (he adds) \u201cis, that\n_the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away_.\u201d The italics in this\nconjecture (which was originally Griesbach\u2019s) are not mine. The internal\nevidence (declares the same learned writer) \u201cpreponderates vastly against\nthe authorship of Mark;\u201d or (as he elsewhere expresses it) against \u201cits\ngenuineness as a work of the Evangelist.\u201d Accordingly, in his Prolegomena,\n(p. 38) he describes it as \u201c_the remarkable fragment_ at the end of the\nGospel.\u201d After this, we are the less astonished to find that he _closes\nthe second Gospel at ver._ 8; introduces the Subscription there; and\nencloses the twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets. Thus,\nwhereas from the days of our illustrious countryman Mill (1707), the\neditors of the N. T. have either been silent on the subject, or else have\nwhispered only that this section of the Gospel is to be received with less\nof confidence than the rest,\u2014it has been reserved for the present century\nto convert the ancient suspicions into actual charges. The latest to enter\nthe field have been the first to execute Griesbach\u2019s adverse sentence\npronounced fifty years ago, and to load the blessed Evangelist with bonds.\n\nIt might have been foreseen that when Critics so conspicuous permit\nthemselves thus to handle the precious deposit, others would take courage\nto hurl their thunderbolts in the same direction with the less concern.\n\u201cIt is probable,\u201d (says Abp. Thomson in the _Bible Dictionary_,) \u201cthat\nthis section is from a different hand, and was annexed to the Gospels soon\nafter the times of the Apostles.\u201d(18)\u2014The Rev. T. S. Green,(19) (an able\nscholar, never to be mentioned without respect,) considers that \u201cthe\nhypothesis of very early interpolation satisfies the body of facts in\nevidence,\u201d\u2014which \u201cpoint unmistakably in the direction of a spurious\norigin.\u201d\u2014\u201cIn respect of Mark\u2019s Gospel,\u201d (writes Professor Norton in a\nrecent work on the _Genuineness of the Gospels_,) \u201cthere is ground for\nbelieving that the last twelve verses were not written by the Evangelist,\nbut were added by some other writer to supply a short conclusion to the\nwork, which some cause had prevented the author from\ncompleting.\u201d(20)\u2014Professor Westcott\u2014who, jointly with the Rev. F. J. A.\nHort, announces a revised Text\u2014assures us that \u201cthe original text, from\nwhatever cause it may have happened, terminated abruptly after the account\nof the Angelic vision.\u201d The rest \u201cwas added at another time, and probably\nby another hand.\u201d \u201cIt is in vain to speculate on the causes of this abrupt\nclose.\u201d \u201cThe remaining verses cannot be regarded as part of the original\nnarrative of S. Mark\u201d(21)\u2014Meyer insists that this is an \u201capocryphal\nfragment,\u201d and reproduces all the arguments, external and internal, which\nhave ever been arrayed against it, without a particle of misgiving. The\n\u201cnote\u201d with which he takes leave of the subject is even insolent.(22) A\ncomparison (he says) of these \u201cfragments\u201d (ver. 9-18 and 19) with the\nparallel places in the other Gospels and in the Acts, shews how\nvacillating and various were the Apostolical traditions concerning the\nappearances of our LORD after His Resurrection, and concerning His\nAscension. (\u201cHast thou killed, and also taken possession?\u201d)\n\nSuch, then, is the hostile verdict concerning these last twelve verses\nwhich I venture to dispute, and which I trust I shall live to see\nreversed. The writers above cited will be found to rely (1.) on the\nexternal evidence of certain ancient MSS.; and (2.) on Scholia which state\n\u201cthat the more ancient and accurate copies terminated the Gospel at ver.\n8.\u201d (3.) They assure us that this is confirmed by a formidable array of\nPatristic authorities. (4.) Internal proof is declared not to be wanting.\nCertain incoherences and inaccuracies are pointed out. In fine, \u201cthe\nphraseology and style of the section\u201d are declared to be \u201cunfavourable to\nits authenticity;\u201d not a few of the words and expressions being \u201cforeign\nto the diction of Mark.\u201d\u2014I propose to shew that all these confident and\nimposing statements are to a great extent either mistakes or\nexaggerations, and that the slender residuum of fact is about as powerless\nto achieve the purpose of the critics as were the seven green withs of the\nPhilistines to bind Samson.\n\nIn order to exhibit successfully what I have to offer on this subject, I\nfind it necessary to begin (in the next chapter) at the very beginning. I\nthink it right, however, in this place to premise a few plain\nconsiderations which will be of use to us throughout all our subsequent\ninquiry; and which indeed we shall never be able to afford to lose sight\nof for long.\n\nThe question at issue being simply this,\u2014Whether it is reasonable to\nsuspect that the last twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion\nand unauthorized supplement to his Gospel, or not?\u2014the whole of our\nbusiness clearly resolves itself into an examination of what has been\nurged in proof that the former alternative is the correct one. Our\nopponents maintain that these verses did not form part of the original\nautograph of the Evangelist. But it is a known rule in the Law of Evidence\nthat _the burthen of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative\nof the issue_.(23) We have therefore to ascertain in the present instance\nwhat the supposed proof is exactly worth; remembering always that in this\nsubject-matter a _high degree of probability_ is the only kind of proof\nwhich is attainable. When, for example, it is contended that the famous\nwords in S. John\u2019s first Epistle (1 S. John v. 7, 8,) are not to be\nregarded as genuine, the fact that they are away from almost every known\nCodex is accepted as a proof that they were also away from the autograph\nof the Evangelist. On far less weighty evidence, in fact, we are at all\ntimes prepared to yield the hearty assent of our understanding in this\ndepartment of sacred science.\n\nAnd yet, it will be found that evidence of overwhelming weight, if not of\nan entirely different kind, is required in the present instance: as I\nproceed to explain.\n\n1. When it is contended that our LORD\u2019s reply to the young ruler (S. Matt.\nxix. 17) _was not_ \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f41\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2,\u2014it is at the same time insisted that _it was_ \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6; \u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2. It is proposed to omit the former words _only_\nbecause an alternative clause is at hand, which it is proposed to\nsubstitute in its room.\n\n2. Again. When it is claimed that some given passage of the Textus\nReceptus,\u2014S. Mark ch xv. 28, for example, (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 \u1f21 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1,\n\u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7,) or the Doxology in S. Matth. vi. 13,\u2014is\nspurious, all that is pretended is that certain words are an unauthorized\naddition to the inspired text; and that by simply omitting them we are so\nfar restoring the Gospel to its original integrity.\u2014The same is to be said\nconcerning _every other charge of interpolation which can be named_. If\nthe celebrated \u201cpericopa de adulter\u00e2,\u201d for instance, be indeed not\ngenuine, we have but to leave out those twelve verses of S. John\u2019s Gospel,\nand to read chap. vii. 52 in close sequence with chap. viii. 12; and we\nare assured that we are put in possession of the text as it came from the\nhands of its inspired Author. Nor, (it must be admitted), is any\ndifficulty whatever occasioned thereby; for there is no reason assignable\nwhy the two last-named verses should _not_ cohere; (there is no internal\nimprobability, I mean, in the supposition;) neither does there exist any\n_\u00e0 priori_ reason why a considerable portion of narrative should be looked\nfor in that particular part of the Gospel.\n\n3. But the case is altogether different, as all must see, when it is\nproposed to get rid of the twelve verses which for 1700 years and upwards\nhave formed the conclusion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel; no alternative conclusion\nbeing proposed to our acceptance. For let it be only observed what this\nproposal practically amounts to and means.\n\n(_a._) And first, it does _not_ mean that S. Mark himself, with design,\nbrought his Gospel to a close at the words \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1. _That_\nsupposition would in fact be irrational. It does not mean, I say, that by\nsimply leaving out those last twelve verses we shall be restoring the\nsecond Gospel to its original integrity. And this it is which makes the\npresent a different case from every other, and necessitates a fuller, if\nnot a different kind of proof.\n\n(_b._) What then? It means that although an abrupt and impossible\ntermination would confessedly be the result of omitting verses 9-20, no\nnearer approximation to the original autograph of the Evangelist is at\npresent attainable. Whether S. Mark was _interrupted_ before he could\nfinish his Gospel,\u2014(as Dr. Tregelles and Professor Norton suggest;)\u2014in\nwhich case it will have been published by its Author in an unfinished\nstate: or whether \u201c_the last leaf was torn away_\u201d before a single copy of\nthe original could be procured,\u2014(a view which is found to have recommended\nitself to Griesbach;)\u2014in which case it will have once had a different\ntermination from at present; which termination however, by the hypothesis,\nhas since been irrecoverably lost;\u2014(and to one of these two wild\nhypotheses the critics are logically reduced;)\u2014_this_ we are not certainly\ntold. The critics are only agreed in assuming that S. Mark\u2019s Gospel _was\nat first without the verses which at present conclude it_.\n\nBut this assumption, (that a work which has been held to be a complete\nwork for seventeen centuries and upwards was originally incomplete,) of\ncourse requires _proof_. The foregoing improbable theories, based on a\ngratuitous assumption, are confronted _in limine_ with a formidable\nobstacle which must be absolutely got rid of before they can be thought\nentitled to a serious hearing. It is a familiar and a fatal circumstance\nthat the Gospel of S. Mark has been furnished with its present termination\never since the second century of the Christian \u00e6ra.(24) In default,\ntherefore, of distinct historical evidence or definite documentary proof\nthat _at some earlier period than that_ it terminated abruptly, nothing\nshort of the utter unfitness of the verses which at present conclude S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel to be regarded as the work of the Evangelist, would warrant\nus in assuming that they are the spurious accretion of the post-apostolic\nage: and as such, at the end of eighteen centuries, to be deliberately\nrejected. We must absolutely be furnished, I say, with internal evidence\nof the most unequivocal character; or else with external testimony of a\ndirect and definite kind, if we are to admit that the actual conclusion of\nS. Mark\u2019s Gospel is an unauthorized substitute for something quite\ndifferent that has been lost. I can only imagine one other thing which\ncould induce us to entertain such an opinion; and that would be the\n_general_ consent of MSS., Fathers, and Versions in leaving these verses\nout. Else, it is evident that we are logically _forced_ to adopt the far\neasier supposition that (_not_ S. Mark, but) _some copyist of the third\ncentury_ left a copy of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel unfinished; which unfinished copy\nbecame the fontal source of the mutilated copies which have come down to\nour own times.(25)\n\nI have thought it right to explain the matter thus fully at the outset;\nnot in order to prejudge the question, (for _that_ could answer no good\npurpose,) but only in order that the reader may have clearly set before\nhim the real nature of the issue. \u201cIs it reasonable to suspect that the\nconcluding verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized\nsupplement to his Gospel, or not?\u201d _That_ is the question which we have to\nconsider,\u2014the _one_ question. And while I proceed to pass under careful\nreview all the evidence on this subject with which I am acquainted, I\nshall be again and again obliged to direct the attention of my reader to\nits bearing on the real point at issue. In other words, we shall have\nagain and again to ask ourselves, how far it is rendered probable by each\nfresh article of evidence that S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, when it left the hands of\nits inspired Author, was an unfinished work; the last chapter ending\nabruptly at ver. 8?\n\nI will only point out, before passing on, that the course which has been\nadopted towards S. Mark xvi. 9-20, by the latest Editors of the New\nTestament, is simply illogical. Either they regard these verses as\n_possibly_ genuine, or else as _certainly_ spurious. If they entertain (as\nthey say they do) a decided opinion that they are _not_ genuine, they\nought (if they would be consistent) _to banish them from the text_.(26)\nConversely, _since they do not banish them from the text_, they have no\nright to pass a fatal sentence upon them; to designate their author as\n\u201cpseudo-Marcus;\u201d to handle them in contemptuous fashion. The plain truth\nis, these learned men are better than their theory; the worthlessness of\nwhich they are made to _feel_ in the present most conspicuous instance. It\nreduces them to perplexity. It has landed them in inconsistency and\nerror.\u2014They will find it necessary in the end to reverse their\nconvictions. They cannot too speedily reconsider their verdict, and\nretrace their steps.\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n\nTHE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.\n\n\n Patristic evidence sometimes the most important of any (p.\n 20).\u2014The importance of such evidence explained (p. 21).\u2014Nineteen\n Patristic witnesses to these Verses, produced (p. 23).\u2014Summary (p.\n 30).\n\n\nThe present inquiry must be conducted solely on grounds of Evidence,\nexternal and internal. For the full consideration of the former, seven\nChapters will be necessary:(27) for a discussion of the latter, one\nseventh of that space will suffice.(28) We have first to ascertain whether\nthe external testimony concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is of such a nature as\nto constrain us to admit that it is highly probable that those twelve\nverses are a spurious appendix to S. Mark\u2019s Gospel.\n\n1. It is well known that for determining the Text of the New Testament, we\nare dependent on three chief sources of information: viz. (1.) on\nMANUSCRIPTS,\u2014(2.) on VERSIONS,\u2014(3.) on FATHERS. And it is even\nself-evident that the _most ancient_ MSS.,\u2014the _earliest_ Versions,\u2014the\n_oldest_ of the Fathers, will probably be in every instance the most\ntrustworthy witnesses.\n\n2. Further, it is obvious that a really ancient Codex of the Gospels must\nneeds supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise Text\nof Scripture than can possibly be rendered by any Translation, however\nfaithful: while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive\nauthority, even than Versions. The reasons are chiefly these:\u2014(_a._)\nFathers often quote Scripture loosely, if not licentiously; and sometimes\n_allude_ only when they seem to _quote_. (_b._) They appear to have too\noften depended on their memory, and sometimes are demonstrably loose and\ninaccurate in their citations; the same Father being observed to quote the\nsame place in different ways. (_c._) Copyists and Editors may not be\naltogether depended upon for the exact form of such supposed quotations.\nThus the evidence of Fathers must always be to some extent precarious.\n\n3. On the other hand, it cannot be too plainly pointed out that\nwhen,\u2014instead of certifying ourselves of the _actual words employed_ by an\nEvangelist, their precise _form_ and exact _sequence_,\u2014our object is only\nto ascertain whether a considerable passage of Scripture is genuine or\nnot; is to be rejected or retained; was known or was not known in the\nearliest ages of the Church; then, instead of supplying the least\nimportant evidence, Fathers become by far the most valuable witnesses of\nall. This entire subject may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal to\nthe problem before us.\n\n4. Of course, if we possessed copies of the Gospels coeval with their\nauthors, nothing could compete with such evidence. But then unhappily\nnothing of the kind is the case. The facts admit of being stated within\nthe compass of a few lines. We have one Codex (the Vatican, B) which is\nthought to belong to the first half of the ivth century; and another, the\nnewly discovered Codex Sinaiticus, (at St. Petersburg, \u05d0) which is\ncertainly not quite so old,\u2014perhaps by 50 years. Next come two famous\ncodices; the Alexandrine (in the British Museum, A) and the Codex Ephraemi\n(in the Paris Library, C), which are probably from 50 to 100 years more\nrecent still. The Codex Bezae (at Cambridge, D) is considered by competent\njudges to be the depository of a recension of the text as ancient as any\nof the others. Notwithstanding its strangely depraved condition\ntherefore,\u2014the many \u201cmonstra potius quam variae lectiones\u201d which it\ncontains,\u2014it may be reckoned with the preceding four, though it must be 50\nor 100 years later than the latest of them. After this, we drop down, (as\nfar as S. Mark is concerned,) to 2 uncial MSS. of the viiith century,\u20147 of\nthe ixth,\u20144 of the ixth or xth,(29) while cursives of the xith and xiith\ncenturies are very numerous indeed,\u2014the copies increasing in number in a\nrapid ratio as we descend the stream of Time. Our primitive manuscript\nwitnesses, therefore, are but _five_ in number at the utmost. And of these\nit has never been pretended that the oldest is to be referred to an\nearlier date than the beginning of the ivth century, while it is thought\nby competent judges that the last named may very possibly have been\nwritten quite late in the vith.\n\n5. Are we then reduced to this fourfold, (or at most fivefold,) evidence\nconcerning the text of the Gospels,\u2014on evidence of not quite certain date,\nand yet (as we all believe) not reaching further back than to the ivth\ncentury of our \u00e6ra? Certainly not. Here, FATHERS come to our aid. There\nare perhaps as many as an hundred Ecclesiastical Writers older than the\noldest extant Codex of the N. T.: while between A.D. 300 and A.D. 600,\n(within which limits our five oldest MSS. may be considered certainly to\nfall,) there exist about two hundred Fathers more. True, that many of\nthese have left wondrous little behind them; and that the quotations from\nHoly Scripture of the greater part may justly be described as rare and\nunsatisfactory. But what then? From the three hundred, make a liberal\nreduction; and an hundred writers will remain who _frequently_ quote the\nNew Testament, and who, when they do quote it, are probably as trustworthy\nwitnesses to the Truth of Scripture as either Cod. \u05d0 or Cod. B. We have\nindeed heard a great deal too much of the precariousness of this class of\nevidence: not nearly enough of the gross inaccuracies which disfigure the\ntext of those two Codices. Quite surprising is it to discover to what an\nextent Patristic quotations from the New Testament have evidently retained\ntheir exact original form. What we chiefly desiderate at this time is a\nmore careful revision of the text of the Fathers, and more skilfully\nelaborated indices of the works of each: _not one_ of them having been\nhitherto satisfactorily indexed. It would be easy to demonstrate the\nimportance of bestowing far more attention on this subject than it seems\nto have hitherto enjoyed: but I shall content myself with citing a single\ninstance; and for this, (in order not to distract the reader\u2019s attention),\nI shall refer him to the Appendix.(30) What is at least beyond the limits\nof controversy, whenever _the genuineness of a considerable passage of\nScripture_ is the point in dispute, the testimony of Fathers who\nundoubtedly recognise that passage, is beyond comparison the most valuable\ntestimony we can enjoy.\n\n6. For let it be only considered what is implied by a Patristic appeal to\nthe Gospel. It amounts to this:\u2014that a conspicuous personage, probably a\nBishop of the Church,\u2014one, therefore, whose history, date, place, are all\nmore or less matter of notoriety,\u2014gives us his written assurance that the\npassage in question was found in that copy of the Gospels which he was\naccustomed himself to employ; _the uncial codex_, (it has long since\nperished) _which belonged to himself_ or to the Church which he served. It\nis evident, in short, that any objection to quotations from Scripture in\nthe writings of the ancient Fathers can only apply to the form of those\nquotations; not to their _substance_. It is just as certain that a verse\nof Scripture was actually read by the Father who unmistakedly refers to\nit, as if we had read it with him; even though the gravest doubts may be\nentertained as to the \u201cipsissima verba\u201d which were found in his own\nparticular copy. He may have trusted to his memory: or copyists may have\ntaken liberties with his writings: or editors may have misrepresented what\nthey found in the written copies. The _form_ of the quoted verse, I\nrepeat, may have suffered almost to any extent. The _substance_, on the\ncontrary, inasmuch as it lay wholly beyond their province, may be looked\nupon as an indisputable _fact_.\n\n7. Some such preliminary remarks, (never out of place when quotations from\nthe Fathers are to be considered,) cannot well be withheld when the most\nvenerable Ecclesiastical writings are appealed to. The earliest of the\nFathers are observed to quote with singular licence,\u2014to _allude_ rather\nthan to quote. Strange to relate, those ancient men seem scarcely to have\nbeen aware of the grave responsibility they incurred when they substituted\nexpressions of their own for the utterances of the SPIRIT. It is evidently\nnot so much that their _memory_ is in fault, as their _judgment_,\u2014in that\nthey evidently hold themselves at liberty to paraphrase, to recast, to\nreconstruct.(31)\n\nI. Thus, it is impossible to resist the inference that PAPIAS refers to S.\nMark xvi. 18 when he records a marvellous tradition concerning \u201cJustus\nsurnamed Barsabas,\u201d \u201chow that after drinking noxious poison, through the\nLORD\u2019s grace he experienced no evil consequence.\u201d(32) He does not give\n_the words_ of the Evangelist. It is even surprising how completely he\npasses them by; and yet the allusion to the place just cited is manifest.\nNow, Papias is a writer who lived so near the time of the Apostles that he\nmade it his delight to collect their traditional sayings. His date\n(according to Clinton) is A.D. 100.\n\nII. JUSTIN MARTYR, the date of whose first Apology is A.D. 151, is\nobserved to say concerning the Apostles that, after our LORD\u2019s\nAscension,\u2014\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd:(33) which is nothing else but a\nquotation from the last verse of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel,\u2014\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6. And thus it is found that the conclusion of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel was familiarly known within fifty years of the death of the last of\nthe Evangelists.\n\nIII. When IREN\u00c6US, in his third Book against Heresies, deliberately quotes\nand remarks upon the 19th verse of the last chapter of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel,(34) we are put in possession of the certain fact that the entire\npassage now under consideration was extant in a copy of the Gospels which\nwas used by the Bishop of the Church of Lyons sometime about the year A.D.\n180, and which therefore cannot possibly have been written much more than\na hundred years after the date of the Evangelist himself: while it _may_\nhave been written by a contemporary of S. Mark, and probably _was_ written\nby one who lived immediately after his time.\u2014Who sees not that this single\npiece of evidence is in itself sufficient to outweigh the testimony of any\ncodex extant? It is in fact a mere trifling with words to distinguish\nbetween \u201cManuscript\u201d and \u201cPatristic\u201d testimony in a case like this: for\n(as I have already explained) the passage quoted from S. Mark\u2019s Gospel by\nIren\u00e6us is to all intents and purposes _a fragment from a dated\nmanuscript_; and _that_ MS., demonstrably older by at least one hundred\nand fifty years than the oldest copy of the Gospels which has come down to\nour times.\n\nIV. Take another proof that these concluding verses of S. Mark were in the\nsecond century accounted an integral part of his Gospel. HIPPOLYTUS,\nBishop of Portus near Borne (190-227), a contemporary of Iren\u00e6us, quotes\nthe 17th and 18th verses in his fragment \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.(35) Also in his\nHomily on the heresy of Noetus,(36) Hippolytus has a plain reference to\nthis section of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. To an inattentive reader, the passage\nalluded to might seem to be only the fragment of a Creed; but this is not\nthe case. In the Creeds, CHRIST is _invariably_ spoken of as \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1: in\nthe Scriptures, _invariably_ as \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.(37) So that when Hippolytus\nsays of Him, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\nthe reference must needs be to S. Mark xvi. 19.\n\nV. At the Seventh COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE held under Cyprian, A.D. 256, (on\nthe baptizing of Heretics,) Vincentius, Bishop of Thibari, (a place not\nfar from Carthage,) in the presence of the eighty-seven assembled African\nbishops, quoted two of the verses under consideration;(38) and Augustine,\nabout a century and a half later, in his reply, recited the words\nafresh.(39)\n\nVI. The Apocryphal ACTA PILATI (sometimes called the \u201cGospel of\nNicodemus\u201d) Tischendorf assigns without hesitation to the iiird century;\nwhether rightly or wrongly I have no means of ascertaining. It is at all\nevents a very ancient forgery, and it contains the 15th, 16th, 17th and\n18th verses of this chapter.(40)\n\nVII. This is probably the right place to mention that ver. 15 is clearly\nalluded to in two places of the (so-called) \u201cAPOSTOLICAL\nCONSTITUTIONS;\u201d(41) and that verse 16 is quoted (with no variety of\nreading from the _Textus Receptus_(42)) in an earlier part of the same\nancient work. The \u201cConstitutions\u201d are assigned to the iiird or the ivth\ncentury.(43)\n\nVIII and IX. It will be shewn in Chapter V. that EUSEBIUS, the\nEcclesiastical Historian, was profoundly well acquainted with these\nverses. He discusses them largely, and (as I shall prove in the chapter\nreferred to) was by no means disposed to question their genuineness. His\nChurch History was published A.D. 325.\n\nMARINUS also, (whoever that individual may have been,) a contemporary of\nEusebius,\u2014inasmuch as he is introduced to our notice by Eusebius himself\nas asking a question concerning the last twelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel\nwithout a trace of misgiving as to the genuineness of that about which he\ninquires,\u2014is a competent witness in their favor who has hitherto been\noverlooked in this discussion.\n\nX. Tischendorf and his followers state that Jacobus Nisibenus quotes these\nverses. For \u201cJacobus Nisibenus\u201d read \u201cAPHRAATES the Persian Sage,\u201d and the\nstatement will be correct. The history of the mistake is curious.\n\nJerome, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, makes no mention of\nJacob of Nisibis,\u2014a famous Syrian Bishop who was present at the Council of\nNic\u00e6a, A.D. 325. Gennadius of Marseille, (who carried on Jerome\u2019s list to\nthe year 495) asserts that the reason of this omission was Jerome\u2019s\nignorance of the Syriac language; and explains that Jacob was the author\nof twenty-two Syriac Homilies.(44) Of these, there exists a very ancient\nArmenian translation; which was accordingly edited as the work of Jacobus\nNisibenus with a Latin version, at Rome, in 1756. Gallandius reprinted\nboth the Armenian and the Latin; and to Gallandius (vol. v.) we are\nreferred whenever \u201cJacobus Nisibenus\u201d is quoted.\n\nBut the proposed attribution of the Homilies in question,\u2014though it has\nbeen acquiesced in for nearly 1400 years,\u2014is incorrect. Quite lately the\nSyriac originals have come to light, and they prove to be the work of\nAphraates, \u201cthe Persian Sage,\u201d\u2014a Bishop, and the earliest known Father of\nthe Syrian Church. In the first Homily, (which bears date A.D. 337),\nverses 16, 17, 18 of S. Mark xvi. are quoted,(45)\u2014yet not from the version\nknown as the Curetonian Syriac, nor yet from the Peshito\nexactly.(46)\u2014Here, then, is another wholly independent witness to the last\ntwelve verses of S. Mark, coeval certainly with the two oldest copies of\nthe Gospel extant,\u2014B and \u05d0.\n\nXI. AMBROSE, Archbishop of Milan (A.D. 374-397) freely quotes this portion\nof the Gospel,\u2014citing ver. 15 four times: verses 16, 17 and 18, each three\ntimes: ver. 20, once.(47)\n\nXII. The testimony of CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 400) has been all but overlooked.\nIn part of a Homily claimed for him by his Benedictine Editors, he points\nout that S. Luke alone of the Evangelists describes the Ascension: S.\nMatthew and S. John not speaking of it,\u2014S. Mark recording the event only.\nThen he quotes verses 19, 20. \u201cThis\u201d (he adds) \u201cis the end of the Gospel.\nMark makes no extended mention of the Ascension.\u201d(48) Elsewhere he has an\nunmistakable reference to S. Mark xvi. 9.(49)\n\nXIII. JEROME, on a point like this, is entitled to more attention than any\nother Father of the Church. Living at a very early period, (for he was\nborn in 331 and died in 420,)\u2014endowed with extraordinary Biblical\nlearning,\u2014a man of excellent judgment,\u2014and a professed Editor of the New\nTestament, for the execution of which task he enjoyed extraordinary\nfacilities,\u2014his testimony is most weighty. Not unaware am I that Jerome is\ncommonly supposed to be a witness on the opposite side: concerning which\nmistake I shall have to speak largely in Chapter V. But it ought to be\nenough to point out that we should not have met with these last twelve\nverses in the Vulgate, had Jerome held them to be spurious.(50) He\nfamiliarly quotes the 9th verse in one place of his writings;(51) in\nanother place he makes the extraordinary statement that in certain of the\ncopies, (especially the Greek,) was found after ver. 14 _the reply of the\neleven Apostles_, when our SAVIOUR \u201cupbraided them with their unbelief and\nhardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after\nHe was risen.\u201d(52) To discuss so weak and worthless a forgery,\u2014no trace of\nwhich is found in any MS. in existence, and of which nothing whatever is\nknown except what Jerome here tells us,\u2014would be to waste our time indeed.\nThe fact remains, however, that Jerome, besides giving these last twelve\nverses a place in the Vulgate, quotes S. Mark xvi. 14, as well as ver. 9,\nin the course of his writings.\n\nXIV. It was to have been expected that AUGUSTINE would quote these verses:\nbut he more than quotes them. He brings them forward again and\nagain,(53)\u2014discusses them as the work of S. Mark,\u2014remarks that \u201cin diebus\nPaschalibus,\u201d S. Mark\u2019s narrative of the Resurrection was publicly read in\nthe Church.(54) All this is noteworthy. Augustine flourished A.D. 395-430.\n\nXV. and XVI. Another very important testimony to the genuineness of the\nconcluding part of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel is furnished by the unhesitating\nmanner in which NESTORIUS, the heresiarch, quotes ver. 20; and CYRIL of\nALEXANDRIA accepts his quotation, adding a few words of his own.(55) Let\nit be borne in mind that this is tantamount to the discovery of _two_\ndated codices containing the last twelve verses of S. Mark,\u2014and _that_\ndate _anterior_ (it is impossible to say by how many years) to A.D. 430.\n\nXVII. VICTOR OF ANTIOCH, (concerning whom I shall have to speak very\nlargely in Chapter V.,) flourished about A.D. 425. The critical testimony\nwhich he bears to the genuineness of these verses is more emphatic than is\nto be met with in the pages of any other ancient Father. It may be\ncharacterized as the most conclusive testimony which it was in his power\nto render.\n\nXVIII. HESYCHIUS of Jerusalem, by a singular oversight, has been reckoned\namong the impugners of these verses. He is on the contrary their eager\nadvocate and champion. It seems to have escaped observation that towards\nthe close of his \u201cHomily on the Resurrection,\u201d (published in the works of\nGregory of Nyssa, and erroneously ascribed to that Father,) Hesychius\nappeals to the 19th verse, and quotes it as S. Mark\u2019s at length.(56) The\ndate of Hesychius is uncertain; but he may, I suppose, be considered to\nbelong to the vith century. His evidence is discussed in Chapter V.\n\nXIX. This list shall be brought to a close with a reference to the\nSYNOPSIS SCRIPTURAE SACRAE,\u2014an ancient work ascribed to Athanasius,(57)\nbut probably not the production of that Father. It is at all events of\nmuch older date than any of the later uncials; and it rehearses in detail\nthe contents of S. Mark xvi. 9-20.(58)\n\nIt would be easy to prolong this enumeration of Patristic authorities; as,\nby appealing to Gregentius in the vith century, and to Gregory the Great,\nand Modestus, patriarch of Constantinople in the viith;\u2014to Ven. Bede and\nJohn Damascene in the viiith;\u2014to Theophylact in the xith;\u2014to Euthymius in\nthe xiith(59): but I forbear. It would add no strength to my argument that\nI should by such evidence support it; as the reader will admit when he has\nread my Xth chapter.\n\nIt will be observed then that _three_ competent Patristic witnesses of the\niind century,\u2014_four_ of the iiird,\u2014_six_ of the ivth,\u2014_four_ of the\nvth,\u2014and _two_ (of uncertain date, but probably) of the vith,\u2014have\nadmitted their familiarity with these \u201clast Twelve Verses.\u201d Yet do they\nnot belong to one particular age, school, or country. They come, on the\ncontrary, from every part of the ancient Church: Antioch and\nConstantinople,\u2014Hierapolis, C\u00e6sarea and Edessa,\u2014Carthage, Alexandria and\nHippo,\u2014Rome and Portus. And thus, upwards of nineteen early codexes have\nbeen to all intents and purposes inspected for us in various lands by\nunprejudiced witnesses,\u2014_seven_ of them at least of more ancient date than\nthe oldest copy of the Gospels extant.\n\nI propose to recur to this subject for an instant when the reader has been\nmade acquainted with the decisive testimony which ancient Versions supply.\nBut the Versions deserve a short Chapter to themselves.\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n\nTHE EARLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO\nTHE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.\n\n\n The Peshito,\u2014the Curetonian Syriac,\u2014and the Recension of Thomas of\n Hharkel (p. 33.)\u2014The Vulgate (p. 34)\u2014and the Vetus Itala (p.\n 35)\u2014the Gothic (p. 35)\u2014and the Egyptian Versions (p. 35).\u2014Review\n of the Evidence up to this point, (p. 36).\n\n\nIt was declared at the outset that when we are seeking to establish in\ndetail _the Text_ of the Gospels, the testimony of Manuscripts is\nincomparably the most important of all. To early Versions, the second\nplace was assigned. To Patristic citations, the third. But it was\nexplained that whenever (as here) the only question to be decided is\nwhether a considerable portion of Scripture be genuine or not, then,\nPatristic references yield to no class of evidence in importance. To which\nstatement it must now be added that second only to the testimony of\nFathers on such occasions is to be reckoned the evidence of the oldest of\nthe Versions. The reason is obvious, (_a._) We know for the most part the\napproximate date of the principal ancient Versions of the New\nTestament:\u2014(_b._) Each Version is represented by at least one very ancient\nCodex:\u2014and (_c._) It may be safely assumed that Translators were never\ndependant on a single copy of the original Greek when they executed their\nseveral Translations. Proceed we now to ascertain what evidence the oldest\nof the Versions bear concerning the concluding verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel:\nand first of all for the Syriac.\n\nI. \u201cLiterary history,\u201d (says Mr. Scrivener,) \u201ccan hardly afford a more\npowerful case than has been established for the identity of the Version of\nthe Syriac now called the \u2018PESHITO\u2019 with that used by the Eastern Church\nlong before the great schism had its beginning, in the native land of the\nblessed Gospel.\u201d The Peshito is referred by common consent to the iind\ncentury of our \u00e6ra; and is found to contain the verses in question.\n\nII. This, however, is not all. Within the last thirty years, fragments of\n_another_ very ancient Syriac translation of the Gospels, (called from the\nname of its discoverer \u201cTHE CURETONIAN SYRIAC,\u201d) have come to light:(60)\nand in this translation also the verses in question are found.(61) This\nfragmentary codex is referred by Cureton to the middle of the vth century.\nAt what earlier date the Translation may have been executed,\u2014as well as\nhow much older the original Greek copy may have been which this translator\nemployed,\u2014can of course only be conjectured. But it is clear that we are\nlistening to another truly primitive witness to the genuineness of the\ntext now under consideration;\u2014a witness (like the last) vastly more\nancient than either the Vatican Codex B, or the Sinaitic Codex \u05d0; more\nancient, therefore, than any Greek copy of the Gospels in existence. We\nshall not be thought rash if we claim it for the iiird century.\n\nIII. Even this, however, does not fully represent the sum of the testimony\nwhich the Syriac language bears on this subject. Philoxenus, Monophysite\nBishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria, caused a revision of the\nPeshito Syriac to be executed by his Chorepiscopus Polycarp, A.D. 508; and\nby the aid of three(62) approved and accurate Greek manuscripts, this\nrevised version of Polycarp was again revised by Thomas of Hharkel, in the\nmonastery of Antonia at Alexandria, A.D. 616. The Hharklensian Revision,\n(commonly called the \u201cPHILOXENIAN,\u201d) is therefore an extraordinary\nmonument of ecclesiastical antiquity indeed: for, being the Revision of a\nrevised Translation of the New Testament known to have been executed from\nMSS. which must have been at least as old as the vth century, it exhibits\nthe result of what may be called a collation of copies made at a time when\nonly four of our extant uncials were in existence. Here, then, is a\nsingularly important accumulation of manuscript evidence on the subject of\nthe verses which of late years it has become the fashion to treat as\nspurious. And yet, neither by Polycarp nor by Thomas of Hharkel, are the\nlast twelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel omitted.(63)\n\nTo these, if I do not add the \u201cJerusalem version,\u201d\u2014(as an independent\nSyriac translation of the Ecclesiastical Sections, perhaps of the vth\ncentury, is called,(64))\u2014it is because our fourfold Syriac evidence is\nalready abundantly sufficient. In itself, it far outweighs in respect of\nantiquity anything that can be shewn on the other side. Turn we next to\nthe Churches of the West.\n\nIV. That Jerome, at the bidding of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382), was the author\nof that famous Latin version of the Scriptures called THE VULGATE, is\nknown to all. It seems scarcely possible to overestimate the critical\nimportance of such a work,\u2014executed at such a time,\u2014under such\nauspices,\u2014and by a man of so much learning and sagacity as Jerome. When it\nis considered that we are here presented with the results of a careful\nexamination of the best Greek Manuscripts to which a competent scholar had\naccess in the middle of the fourth century,\u2014(and Jerome assures us that he\nconsulted several,)\u2014we learn to survey with diminished complacency our own\nslender stores (if indeed any at all exist) of corresponding antiquity. It\nis needless to add that the Vulgate contains the disputed verses: that\nfrom no copy of this Version are they away. Now, in such a matter as this,\nJerome\u2019s testimony is very weighty indeed.\n\nV. The Vulgate, however, was but the revision of a much older translation,\ngenerally known as the VETUS ITALA. This Old Latin, which is of African\norigin and of almost Apostolic antiquity, (supposed of the iind century,)\nconspires with the Vulgate in the testimony which it bears to the\ngenuineness of the end of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel:(65)\u2014an emphatic witness that\nin the African province, from the earliest time, no doubt whatever was\nentertained concerning the genuineness of these last twelve verses.\n\nVI. The next place may well be given to the venerable version of the\nGothic Bishop Ulphilas,\u2014A.D. 350. Himself a Cappadocian, Ulphilas probably\nderived his copies from Asia Minor. His version is said to have been\nexposed to certain corrupting influences; but the unequivocal evidence\nwhich it bears to the last verses of S. Mark is at least unimpeachable,\nand must be regarded as important in the highest degree.(66) The oldest\nextant copy of the GOTHIC of Ulphilas is assigned to the vth or early in\nthe vith century: and the verses in question are there also met with.\n\nVII. and VIII. The ancient Egyptian versions call next for notice: their\ntestimony being so exceedingly ancient and respectable. The MEMPHITIC, or\ndialect of Lower Egypt, (less properly called the \u201cCoptic\u201d version), which\nis assigned to the ivth or vth century, contains S. Mark xvi.\n9-20.\u2014Fragments of the THEBAIC, or dialect of Upper Egypt, (a distinct\nversion and of considerably earlier date, less properly called the\n\u201cSahidic,\u201d) survive in MSS. of very nearly the same antiquity: and one of\nthese fragments happily contains the last verse of the Gospel according to\nS. Mark. The Thebaic version is referred to the iiird century.\n\nAfter this mass of evidence, it will be enough to record concerning the\nArmenian version, that it yields inconstant testimony: some of the MSS.\nending at ver. 8; others putting after these words the subscription,\n(\u1f10\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd,) and then giving the additional verses with a new\nsubscription: others going on without any break to the end. This version\nmay be as old as the vth century; but like the Ethiopic [iv-vii?] and the\nGeorgian [vi?] it comes to us in codices of comparatively recent date. All\nthis makes it impossible for us to care much for its testimony. The two\nlast-named versions, whatever their disadvantages may be, at least bear\nconstant witness to the genuineness of the verses in dispute.\n\n1. And thus we are presented with a mass of additional evidence,\u2014so\nvarious, so weighty, so multitudinous, so venerable,\u2014in support of this\ndisputed portion of the Gospel, that it might well be deemed in itself\ndecisive.\n\n2. For these Versions do not so much shew what individuals held, as what\nChurches have believed and taught concerning the sacred Text,\u2014mighty\nChurches in Syria and Mesopotamia, in Africa and Italy, in Palestine and\nEgypt.\n\n3. We may here, in fact, conveniently review the progress which has been\nhitherto made in this investigation. And in order to bar the door against\ndispute and cavil, let us be content to waive the testimony of Papias as\nprecarious, and that of Justin Martyr as too fragmentary to be decisive.\nLet us frankly admit that the citation of Vincentius \u00e0 Thibari at the\nviith Carthaginian Council is sufficiently inexact to make it unsafe to\nbuild upon it. The \u201cActa Pilati\u201d and the \u201cApostolical Constitutions,\u201d\nsince their date is somewhat doubtful, shall be claimed for the ivth\ncentury only, and not for the iiird. And now, how will the evidence stand\nfor the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel?\n\n(_a_) In the vth century, to which Codex A and Codex C are referred, (for\nCodex D is certainly later,) at least three famous Greeks and the most\nillustrious of the Latin Fathers,\u2014(_four_ authorities in all,)\u2014are\nobserved to recognise these verses.\n\n(_b_) In the ivth century, (to which Codex B and Codex \u05d0 probably belong,\nfive Greek writers, one Syriac, and two Latin Fathers,\u2014besides the\nVulgate, Gothic and Memphitic Versions,\u2014(_eleven_ authorities in\nall,)\u2014testify to familiar acquaintance with this portion of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel.\n\n(_c_) In the iiird century, (and by this time MS. evidence has entirely\nforsaken us,) we find Hippolytus, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Thebaic\nVersion, bearing plain testimony that at that early period, in at least\n_three_ distinct provinces of primitive Christendom, no suspicion whatever\nattached to these verses. Lastly,\u2014\n\n(_d_) In the iind century, Iren\u00e6us, the Peshito, and the Italic Version as\nplainly attest that in Gaul, in Mesopotamia and in the African province,\nthe same verses were unhesitatingly received within a century (more or\nless) of the date of the inspired autograph of the Evangelist himself.\n\n4. Thus, we are in possession of the testimony of _at least six_\nindependent witnesses, of a date considerably anterior to the earliest\nextant Codex of the Gospels. They are all of the best class. They deliver\nthemselves in the most unequivocal way. And their testimony to the\ngenuineness of these Verses is unfaltering.\n\n5. It is clear that nothing short of direct adverse evidence of the\nweightiest kind can sensibly affect so formidable an array of independent\nauthorities as this. What must the evidence be which shall set it entirely\naside, and induce us to believe, with the most recent editors of the\ninspired Text, that the last chapter of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, as it came from\nthe hands of its inspired author, ended abruptly at ver. 8?\n\nThe grounds for assuming that his \u201clast Twelve Verses\u201d are spurious, shall\nbe exhibited in the ensuing chapter.\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n\nTHE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY FATHERS PROVED TO BE\nAN IMAGINATION OF THE CRITICS.\n\n\n The mistake concerning Gregory of Nyssa (p. 39).\u2014The misconception\n concerning Eusebius (p. 41).\u2014The oversight concerning Jerome (p.\n 51);\u2014also concerning Hesychius of Jerusalem, (or else Severus of\n Antioch) (p. 57);\u2014and concerning Victor of Antioch (p. 59).\n\n\nIt would naturally follow to shew that manuscript evidence confirms the\nevidence of the ancient Fathers and of the early Versions of Scripture.\nBut it will be more satisfactory that I should proceed to examine without\nmore delay the testimony, which, (as it is alleged,) is borne by a cloud\nof ancient Fathers against the last twelve verses of S. Mark. \u201cThe absence\nof this portion from some, from many, or from most copies of his Gospel,\nor that it was not written by S. Mark himself,\u201d (says Dr. Tregelles,) \u201cis\nattested by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of\nAntioch, Jerome, and by later writers, especially Greeks.\u201d(67) The same\nFathers are appealed to by Dr. Davidson, who adds to the list Euthymius;\nand by Tischendorf and Alford, who add the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem.\nThey also refer to \u201cmany ancient Scholia.\u201d \u201cThese verses\u201d (says\nTischendorf) \u201care not recognised by the sections of Ammonius nor by the\nCanons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and C\u00e6sarius bear witness to the fact.\u201d(68)\n\u201cIn the Caten\u00e6 on Mark\u201d (proceeds Davidson) \u201cthe section is not explained.\nNor is there any trace of acquaintance with it on the part of Clement of\nRome or Clement of Alexandria;\u201d\u2014a remark which others have made also; as\nif it were a surprising circumstance that Clement of Alexandria, who\nappears to have no reference to the last chapter of _S. Matthew\u2019s_ Gospel,\nshould be also without any reference to the last chapter of _S. Mark\u2019s_:\nas if, too, it were an extraordinary thing that Clement of Rome should\nhave omitted to quote from the last chapter of S. Mark,\u2014seeing that the\nsame Clement does not quote from S. Mark\u2019s Gospel _at all_.... The\nalacrity displayed by learned writers in accumulating hostile evidence, is\ncertainly worthy of a better cause. Strange, that their united industry\nshould have been attended with such very unequal success when their object\nwas to exhibit the evidence _in favour of_ the present portion of\nScripture.\n\n(1) Eusebius then, and (2) Jerome; (3) Gregory of Nyssa and (4) Hesychius\nof Jerusalem; (5) Severus of Antioch, (6) Victor of Antioch, and (7)\nEuthymius:\u2014Do the accomplished critics just quoted,\u2014Doctors Tischendorf,\nTregelles, and Davidson, really mean to tell us that \u201cit is attested\u201d by\nthese seven Fathers that the concluding section of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel \u201cwas\nnot written by S. Mark himself?\u201d Why, there is _not one_ of them who says\nso: while some of them say the direct reverse. But let us go on. It is, I\nsuppose, because there are Twelve Verses to be demolished that the list is\nfurther eked out with the names of (8) Ammonius, (9) Epiphanius, and (10)\nC\u00e6sarius,\u2014to say nothing of (11) the anonymous authors of Caten\u00e6, and (12)\n\u201clater writers, especially Greeks.\u201d\n\nI. I shall examine these witnesses one by one: but it will be convenient\nin the first instance to call attention to the evidence borne by,\n\nGREGORY OF NYSSA.\n\nThis illustrious Father is represented as expressing himself as follows in\nhis second \u201cHomily on the Resurrection;\u201d(69)\u2014\u201cIn the more accurate copies,\nthe Gospel according to Mark has its end at \u2018for they were afraid.\u2019 In\nsome copies, however, this also is added,\u2014\u2018Now when He was risen early the\nfirst day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He\nhad cast seven devils.\u2019 \u201d\n\nThat this testimony should have been so often appealed to as proceeding\nfrom Gregory of Nyssa,(70) is little to the credit of modern scholarship.\nOne would have supposed that the gravity of the subject,\u2014the importance of\nthe issue,\u2014the sacredness of Scripture, down to its minutest jot and\ntittle,\u2014would have ensured extraordinary caution, and induced every fresh\nassailant of so considerable a portion of the Gospel to be very sure of\nhis ground before reiterating what his predecessors had delivered. And yet\nit is evident that not one of the recent writers on the subject can have\ninvestigated this matter for himself. It is only due to their known\nability to presume that had they taken ever so little pains with the\nforegoing quotation, they would have found out their mistake.\n\n(1.) For, in the first place, the second \u201cHomily on the Resurrection\u201d\nprinted in the iiird volume of the works of Gregory of Nyssa, (and which\nsupplies the critics with their quotation,) is, as every one may see who\nwill take the trouble to compare them, _word for word the same Homily_\nwhich Combefis in his \u201cNovum Auctarium,\u201d and Gallandius in his\n\u201cBibliotheca Patrum\u201d printed as the work of Hesychius, and vindicated to\nthat Father, respectively in 1648 and 1776.(71) Now, if a critic chooses\nto risk his own reputation by maintaining that the Homily in question is\nindeed by Gregory of Nyssa, and is not by Hesychius,\u2014well and good. But\nsince the Homily can have had but one author, it is surely high time that\none of these two claimants should be altogether dropped from this\ndiscussion.\n\n(2.) Again. Inasmuch as page after page of the same Homily is observed to\nreappear, _word for word_, under the name of \u201cSeverus of Antioch,\u201d and to\nbe unsuspiciously printed as his by Montfaucon in his \u201cBibliotheca\nCoisliniana\u201d (1715), and by Cramer in his \u201cCatena\u201d(72) (1844),\u2014although it\nmay very reasonably become a question among critics whether Hesychius of\nJerusalem or Severus of Antioch was the actual author of the Homily in\nquestion,(73) yet it is plain that critics must make their election\nbetween the two names; and not bring them _both_ forward. No one, I say,\nhas any right to go on quoting \u201cSeverus\u201d _and_ \u201cHesychius,\u201d\u2014as Tischendorf\nand Dr. Davidson are observed to do:\u2014\u201cGregory of Nyssa\u201d _and_ \u201cSeverus of\nAntioch,\u201d\u2014as Dr. Tregelles is found to prefer.\n\n(3.) In short, here are three claimants for the authorship of one and the\nsame Homily. To whichever of the three we assign it,\u2014(and competent judges\nhave declared that there are sufficient reasons for giving it to Hesychius\nrather than to Severus,\u2014while _no one_ is found to suppose that Gregory of\nNyssa was its author,)\u2014_who_ will not admit that no further mention must\nbe made of the other two?\n\n(4.) Let it be clearly understood, therefore, that henceforth the name of\n\u201cGregory of Nyssa\u201d must be banished from this discussion. So must the name\nof \u201cSeverus of Antioch.\u201d The memorable passage which begins,\u2014\u201cIn the more\naccurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at \u2018for they\nwere afraid,\u2019 \u201d\u2014is found in _a Homily which was probably written by\nHesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem,\u2014a writer of the vi_th_ century_. I\nshall have to recur to his work by-and-by. The next name is\n\nEUSEBIUS,\n\nII. With respect to whom the case is altogether different. What that\nlearned Father has delivered concerning the conclusion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel\nrequires to be examined with attention, and must be set forth much more in\ndetail. And yet, I will so far anticipate what is about to be offered, as\nto say at once that if any one supposes that Eusebius has anywhere plainly\n\u201cstated that it is _wanted in many MSS._,\u201d(74)\u2014he is mistaken. Eusebius\nnowhere says so. The reader\u2019s attention is invited to a plain tale.\n\nIt was not until 1825 that the world was presented by Cardinal Angelo\nMai(75) with a few fragmentary specimens of a lost work of Eusebius on the\n(so-called) Inconsistencies in the Gospels, from a MS. in the Vatican.(76)\nThese, the learned Cardinal republished more accurately in 1847, in his\n\u201cNova Patrum Bibliotheca;\u201d(77) and hither we are invariably referred by\nthose who cite Eusebius as a witness against the genuineness of the\nconcluding verses of the second Gospel.\n\nIt is much to be regretted that we are still as little as ever in\npossession of the lost work of Eusebius. It appears to have consisted of\nthree Books or Parts; the former two (addressed \u201cto Stephanus\u201d) being\ndiscussions of difficulties at the beginning of the Gospel,\u2014the last (\u201cto\nMarinus\u201d) relating to difficulties in its concluding chapters.(78) The\nAuthor\u2019s plan, (as usual in such works), was, first, to set forth a\ndifficulty in the form of a Question; and straightway, to propose a\nSolution of it,\u2014which commonly assumes the form of a considerable\ndissertation. But whether we are at present in possession of so much as a\nsingle entire specimen of these \u201cInquiries and Resolutions\u201d exactly as it\ncame from the pen of Eusebius, may reasonably be doubted. That the work\nwhich Mai has brought to light is but a highly condensed exhibition of the\noriginal, (and scarcely that,) its very title shews; for it is headed,\u2014\u201cAn\nabridged selection from the \u2018Inquiries and Resolutions [of difficulties]\nin the Gospels\u2019 by Eusebius.\u201d(79) Only _some_ of the original Questions,\ntherefore, are here noticed at all: and even these have been subjected to\nso severe a process of condensation and abridgment, that in some instances\n_amputation_ would probably be a more fitting description of what has\ntaken place. Accordingly, what were originally two Books or Parts, are at\npresent represented by XVI. \u201cInquiries,\u201d &c, addressed \u201cto Stephanus;\u201d\nwhile the concluding Book or Part is represented by IV. more, \u201cto\nMarinus,\u201d\u2014of which, _the first_ relates to our LORD\u2019S appearing to Mary\nMagdalene after His Resurrection. Now, since the work which Eusebius\naddressed to Marinus is found to have contained \u201cInquiries, with their\nResolutions, concerning our SAVIOUR\u2019S _Death_ and Resurrection,\u201d(80)\u2014while\na quotation professing to be derived from \u201cthe _thirteenth_ chapter\u201d\nrelates to Simon the Cyrenian bearing our SAVIOUR\u2019S Cross;(81)\u2014it is\nobvious that the original work must have been very considerable, and that\nwhat Mai has recovered gives an utterly inadequate idea of its extent and\nimportance.(82) It is absolutely necessary that all this should be clearly\napprehended by any one who desires to know exactly what the alleged\nevidence of Eusebius concerning the last chapter of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel is\nworth,\u2014as I will explain more fully by-and-by. Let it, however, be\ncandidly admitted that there seems to be no reason for supposing that\nwhenever the lost work of Eusebius comes to light, (and it has been seen\nwithin about 300 years(83),) it will exhibit anything essentially\ndifferent from what is contained in the famous passage which has given\nrise to so much debate, and which may be exhibited in English as follows.\nIt is put in the form of a reply to one \u201cMarinus,\u201d who is represented as\nasking, first, the following question:\u2014\n\n\u201cHow is it, that, according to Matthew [xxviii. 1], the SAVIOUR appears to\nhave risen \u2018in the end of the Sabbath;\u2019 but, according to Mark [xvi. 9],\n\u2018early the first day of the week\u2019?\u201d\u2014Eusebius answers,\n\n\u201cThis difficulty admits of a twofold solution. He who is for getting rid\nof the entire passage,(84) will say that it is not met with in _all_ the\ncopies of Mark\u2019s Gospel: the accurate copies, at all events, making the\nend of Mark\u2019s narrative come after the words of the young man who appeared\nto the women and said, \u2018Fear not ye! Ye seek JESUS of Nazareth,\u2019 &c.: to\nwhich the Evangelist adds,\u2014\u2018And when they heard it, they fled, and said\nnothing to any man, for they were afraid.\u2019 For at those words, in almost\nall copies of the Gospel according to Mark, comes the end. What follows,\n(which is met with seldom, [and only] in some copies, certainly not in\nall,) might be dispensed with; especially if it should prove to contradict\nthe record of the other Evangelists. This, then, is what a person will say\nwho is for evading and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem.\n\n\u201cBut another, on no account daring to reject anything whatever which is,\nunder whatever circumstances, met with in the text of the Gospels, will\nsay that here are two readings, (as is so often the case elsewhere;) and\nthat _both_ are to be received,\u2014inasmuch as by the faithful and pious,\n_this_ reading is not held to be genuine rather than _that_; nor _that_\nthan _this_.\u201d\n\nIt will be best to exhibit the whole of what Eusebius has written on this\nsubject,\u2014as far as we are permitted to know it,\u2014continuously. He\nproceeds:\u2014\n\n\u201cWell then, allowing this piece to be really genuine, our business is to\ninterpret the sense of the passage.(85) And certainly, if I divide the\nmeaning into two, we shall find that it is not opposed to what Matthew\nsays of our SAVIOUR\u2019s having risen \u2018in the end of the Sabbath.\u2019 For Mark\u2019s\nexpression, (\u2018Now when He was risen early the first day of the week,\u2019) we\nshall read with a pause, putting a comma after \u2018Now when He was\nrisen,\u2019\u2014the sense of the words which follow being kept separate. Thereby,\nwe shall refer [Mark\u2019s] \u2018when He was risen\u2019 to Matthew\u2019s \u2018in the end of\nthe Sabbath,\u2019 (for it was _then_ that He _rose_); and all that comes\nafter, expressive as it is of a distinct notion, we shall connect with\nwhat follows; (for it was \u2018_early_, the first day of the week,\u2019 that \u2018He\n_appeared to Mary Magdalene_.\u2019) This is in fact what John also declares;\nfor he too has recorded that \u2018early,\u2019 \u2018the first day of the week,\u2019 [JESUS]\nappeared to the Magdalene. Thus then Mark also says that He appeared to\nher early: not that He _rose_ early, but long before, (according to that\nof Matthew, \u2018in the end of the Sabbath:\u2019 for though He _rose_ then, He did\nnot _appear to Mary_ then, but \u2018early.\u2019) In a word, two distinct seasons\nare set before us by these words: first, the season of the\nResurrection,\u2014which was \u2018in the end of the Sabbath;\u2019 secondly, the season\nof our SAVIOUR\u2019s Appearing,\u2014which was \u2018early.\u2019 The former,(86) Mark writes\nof when he says, (it requires to be read with a pause,)\u2014\u2018Now, when He was\nrisen,\u2019 Then, after a comma, what follows is to be spoken,\u2014\u2018Early, the\nfirst day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had\ncast seven devils.\u2019 \u201d(87)\u2014Such is the entire passage. Little did the\nlearned writer anticipate what bitter fruit his words were destined to\nbear!\n\n1. Let it be freely admitted that what precedes is calculated at first\nsight to occasion nothing but surprise and perplexity. For, in the first\nplace, there really is _no problem to solve_. The discrepancy suggested by\n\u201cMarinus\u201d at the outset, is plainly imaginary, the result (chiefly) of a\nstrange misconception of the meaning of the Evangelist\u2019s Greek,\u2014as in fact\nno one was ever better aware than Eusebius himself. \u201cThese places of the\nGospels would never have occasioned any difficulty,\u201d he writes in the very\nnext page, (but it is the commencement of his reply to the _second_\nquestion of Marinus,)\u2014\u201cif people would but abstain from assuming that\nMatthew\u2019s phrase (\u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) refers to _the evening of the\nSabbath-day_: whereas, (in conformity with the established idiom of the\nlanguage,) it obviously refers to an advanced period of the ensuing\nnight.\u201d(88) He proceeds:\u2014\u201cThe self-same moment therefore, or very nearly\nthe self-same, is intended by the Evangelists, only under different names:\nand there is no discrepancy whatever between Matthew\u2019s,\u2014\u2018in the end of the\nSabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,\u2019 and\nJohn\u2019s\u2014\u2018The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalen early, when it was\nyet dark.\u2019 The Evangelists indicate by different expressions one and the\nsame moment of time, but in a broad and general way.\u201d And yet, if Eusebius\nknew all this so well, why did he not say so at once, and close the\ndiscussion? I really cannot tell; except on one hypothesis,\u2014which,\nalthough at first it may sound somewhat extraordinary, the more I think of\nthe matter, recommends itself to my acceptance the more. I suspect, then,\nthat the discussion we have just been listening to, is, essentially, _not\nan original production_: but that Eusebius, having met with the suggestion\nin some older writer, (in Origen probably,) reproduced it in language of\nhis own,\u2014doubtless because he thought it ingenious and interesting, but\nnot by any means because he regarded it as true. Except on some such\ntheory, I am utterly unable to understand how Eusebius can have written so\ninconsistently. His admirable remarks just quoted, are obviously a full\nand sufficient answer,\u2014the proper answer in fact,\u2014to the proposed\ndifficulty: and it is a memorable circumstance that the ancients generally\nwere so sensible of this, that they are found to have _invariably_(89)\nsubstituted what Eusebius wrote in reply to the _second_ question of\nMarinus for what he wrote in reply to _the first_; in other words, for the\ndissertation which is occasioning us all this difficulty.\n\n2. But next, even had the discrepancy been real, the remedy for it which\nis here proposed, and which is advocated with such tedious emphasis, would\nprobably prove satisfactory to no one. In fact, the entire method\nadvocated in the foregoing passage is hopelessly vicious. The writer\nbegins by advancing statements which, if he believed them to be true, he\nmust have known are absolutely fatal to the verses in question. This done,\nhe sets about discussing the possibility of reconciling an isolated\nexpression in S. Mark\u2019s Gospel with another in S. Matthew\u2019s: just as if on\n_that_ depended the genuineness or spuriousness of the entire context: as\nif, in short, the major premiss in the discussion were some such postulate\nas the following:\u2014\u201cWhatever in one Gospel cannot be proved to be entirely\nconsistent with something in another Gospel, is not to be regarded as\ngenuine.\u201d Did then the learned Archbishop of C\u00e6sarea really suppose that a\ncomma judiciously thrown into the empty scale might at any time suffice to\nrestore the equilibrium, and even counterbalance the adverse testimony of\nalmost every MS. of the Gospels extant? Why does he not at least deny the\ntruth of the alleged facts to which he began by giving currency, if not\napproval; and which, so long as they are allowed to stand uncontradicted,\nrender all further argumentation on the subject simply nugatory? As\nbefore, I really cannot tell,\u2014except on the hypothesis which has been\nalready hazarded.\n\n3. Note also, (for this is not the least extraordinary feature of the\ncase,) what vague and random statements those are which we have been\nlistening to. The entire section (S. Mark xvi. 9-20,) \u201c_is not met with in\nall_ the copies:\u201d at all events _not_ \u201c_in the accurate_\u201d ones. Nay, it is\n\u201c_met with seldom_.\u201d In fact, it is _absent from_ \u201c_almost all_\u201d copies.\nBut,\u2014Which of these four statements is to stand? The first is\ncomparatively unimportant. Not so the second. The last two, on the\ncontrary, would be absolutely fatal,\u2014if trustworthy? But _are_ they\ntrustworthy?\n\nTo this question only one answer can be returned. The exaggeration is so\ngross that it refutes itself. Had it been merely asserted that the verses\nin question were wanting in _many_ of the copies,\u2014even had it been\ninsisted that _the best copies_ were without them,\u2014well and good: but to\nassert that, in the beginning of the fourth century, from \u201c_almost all_\u201d\ncopies of the Gospels they were away,\u2014is palpably untrue. What had become\nthen of the MSS. from which the Syriac, the Latin, _all_ the ancient\nVersions were made? How is the contradictory evidence of _every copy of\nthe Gospels in existence but two_ to be accounted for? With Iren\u00e6us and\nHippolytus, with the old Latin and the Vulgate, with the Syriac, and the\nGothic, and the Egyptian versions to refer to, we are able to assert that\nthe author of such a statement was guilty of monstrous exaggeration. We\nare reminded of the loose and random way in which the Fathers,\u2014(giants in\nInterpretation, but very children in the Science of Textual\nCriticism,)\u2014are sometimes observed to speak about the state of the Text in\ntheir days. We are reminded, for instance, of the confident assertion of\nan ancient Critic that the true reading in S. Luke xxiv. 13 is not\n\u201cthree-score\u201d but \u201c_an hundred_ and three-score;\u201d for that so \u201cthe\naccurate copies\u201d used to read the place, besides Origen and Eusebius. And\nyet (as I have elsewhere explained) the reading \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03be\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 is\naltogether impossible. \u201cApud nos mixta sunt omnia,\u201d is Jerome\u2019s way of\nadverting to an evil which, serious as it was, was yet not nearly so great\nas he represents; viz. the unauthorized introduction into one Gospel of\nwhat belongs of right to another. And so in a multitude of other\ninstances. The Fathers are, in fact, constantly observed to make critical\nremarks about the ancient copies which simply _cannot_ be correct.\n\nAnd yet the author of the exaggeration under review, be it observed, is\nclearly _not Eusebius_. It is evident that _he_ has nothing to say against\nthe genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. Those random\nstatements about the copies with which he began, do not even purport to\nexpress his own sentiments. Nay, Eusebius in a manner repudiates them; for\nhe introduces them with a phrase which separates them from himself: and,\n\u201cThis then is what a person will say,\u201d\u2014is the remark with which he finally\ndismisses them. It would, in fact, be to make this learned Father stultify\nhimself to suppose that he proceeds gravely to discuss a portion of\nScripture which he had already deliberately rejected as spurious. But,\nindeed, the evidence before us effectually precludes any such supposition.\n\u201cHere are two readings,\u201d he says, \u201c(as is so often the case elsewhere:)\n_both_ of which are to be received,\u2014inasmuch as by the faithful and pious,\n_this_ reading is not held to be genuine rather than _that_; nor _that_\nthan _this_.\u201d And thus we seem to be presented with the actual opinion of\nEusebius, as far as it can be ascertained from the present passage,\u2014if\nindeed he is to be thought here to offer any personal opinion on the\nsubject at all; which, for my own part, I entirely doubt. But whether we\nare at liberty to infer the actual sentiments of this Father from anything\nhere delivered or not, quite certain at least is it that to print only the\nfirst half of the passage, (as Tischendorf and Tregelles have done,) and\nthen to give the reader to understand that he is reading the adverse\ntestimony of Eusebius as to the genuineness of the end of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel, is nothing else but to misrepresent the facts of the case; and,\nhowever unintentionally, to deceive those who are unable to verify the\nquotation for themselves.\n\nIt has been urged indeed that Eusebius cannot have recognised the verses\nin question as genuine, because a scholium purporting to be his has been\ncited by Matthaei from a Catena at Moscow, in which he appears to assert\nthat \u201caccording to Mark,\u201d our SAVIOUR \u201cis not recorded to have appeared to\nHis Disciples after His Resurrection:\u201d whereas in S. Mark xvi. 14 it is\nplainly recorded that \u201cAfterwards He appeared unto the Eleven as they sat\nat meat.\u201d May I be permitted to declare that I am distrustful of the\nproposed inference, and shall continue to feel so, until I know something\nmore about the scholium in question? Up to the time when this page is\nprinted I have not succeeded in obtaining from Moscow the details I wish\nfor: but they must be already on the way, and I propose to embody the\nresult in a \u201cPostscript\u201d which shall form the last page of the Appendix to\nthe present volume.\n\nAre we then to suppose that there was no substratum of truth in the\nallegations to which Eusebius gives such prominence in the passage under\ndiscussion? By no means. The mutilated state of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel in the\nVatican Codex (B) and especially in the Sinaitic Codex (\u05d0) sufficiently\nestablishes the contrary. Let it be freely conceded, (but in fact it has\nbeen freely conceded already,) that there must have existed in the time of\nEusebius _many_ copies of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel which were without the twelve\nconcluding verses. I do but insist that there is nothing whatever in that\ncircumstance to lead us to entertain one serious doubt as to the\ngenuineness of these verses. I am but concerned to maintain that there is\nnothing whatever in the evidence which has hitherto come before\nus,\u2014certainly not _in the evidence of Eusebius_,\u2014to induce us to believe\nthat they are a spurious addition to S. Mark\u2019s Gospel.\n\nIII. We have next to consider what\n\nJEROME\n\nhas delivered on this subject. So great a name must needs command\nattention in any question of Textual Criticism: and it is commonly\npretended that Jerome pronounces emphatically against the genuineness of\nthe last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark. A little\nattention to the actual testimony borne by this Father will, it is\nthought, suffice to exhibit it in a wholly unexpected light; and induce us\nto form an entirely different estimate of its practical bearing upon the\npresent discussion.\n\nIt will be convenient that I should premise that it is in one of his many\nexegetical Epistles that Jerome discusses this matter. A lady named\nHedibia, inhabiting the furthest extremity of Gaul, and known to Jerome\nonly by the ardour of her piety, had sent to prove him with hard\nquestions. He resolves her difficulties from Bethlehem:(90) and I may be\nallowed to remind the reader of what is found to have been Jerome\u2019s\npractice on similar occasions,\u2014which, to judge from his writings, were of\nconstant occurrence. In fact, Apodemius, who brought Jerome the Twelve\nproblems from Hedibia, brought him Eleven more from a noble neighbour of\nhers, Algasia.(91) Once, when a single messenger had conveyed to him out\nof the African province a quantity of similar interrogatories, Jerome sent\ntwo Egyptian monks the following account of how he had proceeded in\nrespect of the inquiry,\u2014(it concerned 1 Cor. xv. 51,)\u2014which they had\naddressed to him:\u2014\u201cBeing pressed for time, I have presented you with the\nopinions of all the Commentators; for the most part, translating their\nvery words; in order both to get rid of your question, and to put you in\npossession of ancient authorities on the subject.\u201d This learned Father\ndoes not even profess to have been in the habit of delivering his own\nopinions, or speaking his own sentiments on such occasions. \u201cThis has been\nhastily dictated,\u201d he says in conclusion,\u2014(alluding to his constant\npractice, which was to dictate, rather than to write,)\u2014\u201cin order that I\nmight lay before you what have been the opinions of learned men on this\nsubject, as well as the arguments by which they have recommended their\nopinions. My own authority, (who am but nothing,) is vastly inferior to\nthat of our predecessors in the LORD.\u201d Then, after special commendation of\nthe learning of Origen and Eusebius, and the valuable Scriptural\nexpositions of many more,\u2014\u201cMy plan,\u201d (he says,) \u201cis to read the ancients;\nto prove all things, to hold fast that which is good; and to abide\nsteadfast in the faith of the Catholic Church.\u2014I must now dictate replies,\neither original or at second-hand, to other Questions which lie before\nme.\u201d(92) We are not surprised, after this straightforward avowal of what\nwas the method on such occasions with this learned Father, to discover\nthat, instead of hearing _Jerome_ addressing _Hedibia_,\u2014(who had\ninterrogated him concerning the very problem which is at present engaging\nour attention,)\u2014we find ourselves only listening to _Eusebius_ over again,\naddressing _Marinus_.\n\n\u201cThis difficulty admits of a two-fold solution,\u201d Jerome begins; as if\ndetermined that no doubt shall be entertained as to the source of his\ninspiration. Then, (making short work of the tedious disquisition of\nEusebius,)\u2014\u201cEither we shall reject the testimony of Mark, which is met\nwith in scarcely any copies of the Gospel,\u2014almost all the Greek codices\nbeing without this passage:\u2014(especially since it seems to narrate what\ncontradicts the other Gospels:)\u2014or else, we shall reply that both\nEvangelists state what is true: Matthew, when he says that our LORD rose\n\u2018late in the week:\u2019 Mark,\u2014when he says that Mary Magdalene saw Him \u2018early,\nthe first day of the week.\u2019 For the passage must be thus pointed,\u2014\u2018When He\nwas risen:\u2019 and presently, after a pause, must be added,\u2014\u2018Early, the first\nday of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene.\u2019 He therefore who had\nrisen late in the week, according to Matthew,\u2014Himself, early the first day\nof the week, according to Mark, appeared to Mary Magdalene. And this is\nwhat John also means, shewing that it was early on the next day that He\nappeared.\u201d\u2014To understand how faithfully in what precedes Jerome treads in\nthe footsteps of Eusebius, it is absolutely necessary to set the Latin of\nthe one over against the Greek of the other, and to compare them. In order\nto facilitate this operation, I have subjoined both originals at foot of\nthe page: from which it will be apparent that Jerome is here not so much\nadopting the sentiments of Eusebius as simply _translating his words_.(93)\n\nThis, however, is not by any means the strangest feature of the case. That\nJerome should have availed himself ever so freely of the materials which\nhe found ready to his hand in the pages of Eusebius cannot be regarded as\nat all extraordinary, after what we have just heard from himself of his\ncustomary method of proceeding. It would of course have suggested the\ngravest doubts as to whether we were here listening to the personal\nsentiment of this Father, or not; but that would have been all. What are\nwe to think, however, of the fact that _Hedibia\u2019s question to Jerome_\nproves on inspection to be nothing more than a translation of _the very\nquestion which Marinus had long before addressed to Eusebius_? We read on,\nperplexed at the coincidence; and speedily make the notable discovery that\nher next question, and her next, are _also_ translations _word for word_\nof the next two of Marinus. For the proof of this statement the reader is\nagain referred to the foot of the page.(94) It is at least decisive: and\nthe fact, which admits of only one explanation, can be attended by only\none practical result. It of course shelves the whole question as far as\nthe evidence of Jerome is concerned. Whether Hedibia was an actual\npersonage or not, let those decide who have considered more attentively\nthan it has ever fallen in my way to do that curious problem,\u2014What was the\nancient notion of the allowable in Fiction? That different ideas have\nprevailed in different ages of the world as to where fiction ends and\nfabrication begins;\u2014that widely discrepant views are entertained on the\nsubject even in our own age;\u2014all must be aware. I decline to investigate\nthe problem on the present occasion. I do but claim to have established\nbeyond the possibility of doubt or cavil that what we are here presented\nwith _is not the testimony of Jerome at all_. It is evident that this\nlearned Father amused himself with translating for the benefit of his\nLatin readers a part of the (lost) work of Eusebius; (which, by the way,\nhe is found to have possessed in the same abridged form in which it has\ncome down to ourselves:)\u2014and he seems to have regarded it as allowable to\nattribute to \u201cHedibia\u201d the problems which he there met with. (He may\nperhaps have known that Eusebius before him had attributed them, with just\nas little reason, to \u201cMarinus.\u201d) In that age, for aught that appears to\nthe contrary, it may have been regarded as a graceful compliment to\naddress solutions of Scripture difficulties to persons of distinction, who\npossibly had never heard of those difficulties before; and even to\nrepresent the Interrogatories which suggested them as originating with\nthemselves. I offer this only in the way of suggestion, and am not\nconcerned to defend it. The only point I am concerned to establish is that\nJerome is here a _translator_, not an original author: in other words,\nthat it is _Eusebius_ who here speaks, and not Jerome. For a critic to\npretend that it is in _any_ sense the testimony of Jerome which we are\nhere presented with; that Jerome is one of those Fathers \u201cwho, even though\nthey copied from their predecessors, were yet competent to transmit the\nrecord of a fact,\u201d(95)\u2014is entirely to misunderstand the case. The man who\ntranslates,\u2014not adopts, but _translates_,\u2014_the problem_ as well as its\nsolution: who deliberately asserts that it emanated from a Lady inhabiting\nthe furthest extremity of Gaul, who nevertheless was demonstrably not its\nauthor: who goes on to propose as hers question after question _verbatim\nas he found them written in the pages of Eusebius_; and then resolves them\none by one _in the very language of the same Father_:\u2014such a writer has\nclearly conducted us into a region where his individual responsibility\nquite disappears from sight. We must hear no more about Jerome, therefore,\nas a witness against the genuineness of the concluding verses of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel.\n\nOn the contrary. Proof is at hand that Jerome held these verses to be\ngenuine. The proper evidence of this is supplied by the fact that he gave\nthem a place in his revision of the old Latin version of the Scriptures.\nIf he had been indeed persuaded of their absence from \u201c_almost all the\nGreek codices_,\u201d does any one imagine that he would have suffered them to\nstand in the Vulgate? If he had met with them in \u201c_scarcely any copies of\nthe Gospel_\u201d\u2014do men really suppose that he would yet have retained them?\nTo believe this would, again, be to forget what was the known practice of\nthis Father; who, because he found the expression \u201cwithout a cause\u201d\n(\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ae,\u2014S. Matth. v. 22,) only \u201cin certain of his codices,\u201d but not \u201cin the\ntrue ones,\u201d _omitted_ it from the Vulgate. Because, however, he read\n\u201crighteousness\u201d (where we read \u201calms\u201d) in S. Matth. vi. 1, he exhibits\n\u201c_justitiam_\u201d in his revision of the old Latin version. On the other hand,\nthough he knew of MSS. (as he expressly relates) which read \u201cworks\u201d for\n\u201cchildren\u201d (\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd for \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd) in S. Matth. xi. 19, he does not admit that\n(manifestly corrupt) reading,\u2014which, however, is found both in the Codex\nVaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Let this suffice. I forbear to press\nthe matter further. It is an additional proof that Jerome accepted the\nconclusion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel that he actually quotes it, and on more\nthan one occasion: but to prove this, is to prove more than is here\nrequired.(96) I am concerned only to demolish the assertion of\nTischendorf, and Tregelles, and Alford, and Davidson, and so many more,\nconcerning the testimony of Jerome; and I have demolished it. I pass on,\nclaiming to have shewn that the name of Jerome as an adverse witness must\nnever again appear in this discussion.\n\nIV. and V. But now, while the remarks of Eusebius are yet fresh in the\nmemory, the reader is invited to recall for a moment what the author of\nthe \u201cHomily on the Resurrection,\u201d contained in the works of Gregory of\nNyssa (above, p. 39), has delivered on the same subject. It will be\nremembered that we saw reason for suspecting that not\n\nSEVERUS OF ANTIOCH, but\nHESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM,\n\n(both of them writers of the vith century,) has the better claim to the\nauthorship of the Homily in question,(97)\u2014which, however, cannot at all\nevents be assigned to the illustrious Bishop of Nyssa, the brother of\nBasil the Great. \u201cIn the more accurate copies,\u201d (says this writer,) \u201cthe\nGospel according to Mark has its end at \u2018for they were afraid.\u2019 In some\ncopies, however, this also is added,\u2014\u2018Now when He was risen early the\nfirst day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He\nhad cast seven devils.\u2019 This, however, seems to contradict to some extent\nwhat we before delivered; for since it happens that the hour of the night\nwhen our SAVIOUR rose is not known, how does it come to be here written\nthat He rose \u2018early?\u2019 But the saying will prove to be no ways\ncontradictory, if we read with skill. We must be careful intelligently to\nintroduce a comma after, \u2018Now when He was risen:\u2019 and then to\nproceed,\u2014\u2018Early in the Sabbath He appeared first to Mary Magdalene:\u2019 in\norder that \u2018when He was risen\u2019 may refer (in conformity with what Matthew\nsays) to the foregoing season; while \u2018early\u2019 is connected with the\nappearance to Mary.\u201d(98)\u2014I presume it would be to abuse a reader\u2019s\npatience to offer any remarks on all this. If a careful perusal of the\nforegoing passage does not convince him that Hesychius is here only\nreproducing what he had read in Eusebius, nothing that I can say will\npersuade him of the fact. The _words_ indeed are by no means the same; but\nthe sense is altogether identical. He seems to have also known the work of\nVictor of Antioch. However, to remove all doubt from the reader\u2019s mind\nthat the work of Eusebius was in the hands of Hesychius while he wrote, I\nhave printed in two parallel columns and transferred to the Appendix what\nmust needs be conclusive;(99) for it will be seen that the terms are only\nnot identical in which Eusebius and Hesychius discuss that favourite\nproblem with the ancients,\u2014the consistency of S. Matthew\u2019s \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd with the \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af of S. Mark.\n\nIt is, however, only needful to read through the Homily in question to see\nthat it is an attempt to weave into one piece a quantity of foreign and\nincongruous materials. It is in fact not a Homily at all, (though it has\nbeen thrown into that form;) but a Dissertation,\u2014into which, Hesychius,\n(who is known to have been very curious in questions of that kind(100),)\nis observed to introduce solutions of most of those famous difficulties\nwhich cluster round the sepulchre of the world\u2019s Redeemer on the morning\nof the first Easter Day;(101) and which the ancients seem to have\ndelighted in discussing,\u2014as, the number of the Marys who visited the\nsepulchre; the angelic appearances on the morning of the Resurrection; and\nabove all the seeming discrepancy, already adverted to, in the Evangelical\nnotices of the time at which our LORD rose from the dead. I need not enter\nmore particularly into an examination of this (so-called) \u201cHomily\u201d: but I\nmust not dismiss it without pointing out that its author at all events\ncannot be thought to have repudiated the concluding verses of S. Mark: for\nat the end of his discourse, he quotes the 19th verse entire, without\nhesitation, in confirmation of one of his statements, and declares that\nthe words are written by S. Mark.(102)\n\nI shall not be thought unreasonable, therefore, if I contend that\nHesychius is no longer to be cited as a witness in this behalf: if I point\nout that it is entirely to misunderstand and misrepresent the case to\nquote _a passing allusion of his to what Eusebius had long before\ndelivered on the same subject_, as if it exhibited his own individual\nteaching. It is demonstrable(103) that he is not bearing testimony to the\ncondition of the MSS. of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel in his own age: neither, indeed,\nis he bearing testimony _at all_. He is simply amusing himself, (in what\nis found to have been his favourite way,) with reconciling an apparent\ndiscrepancy in the Gospels; and he does it by adopting certain remarks of\nEusebius. Living so late as the vith century; conspicuous neither for his\njudgment nor his learning; a copyist only, so far as his remarks on the\nlast verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel are concerned;\u2014this writer does not really\ndeserve the space and attention we have been compelled to bestow upon him.\n\nVI. We may conclude, by inquiring for the evidence borne by\n\nVICTOR OF ANTIOCH.\n\nAnd from the familiar style in which this Father\u2019s name is always\nintroduced into the present discussion, no less than from the invariable\npractice of assigning to him the date \u201cA.D. 401,\u201d it might be supposed\nthat \u201cVictor of Antioch\u201d is a well-known personage. Yet is there scarcely\na Commentator of antiquity about whom less is certainly known. Clinton\n(who enumerates cccxxii \u201cEcclesiastical Authors\u201d from A.D. 70 to A.D.\n685(104)) does not even record his name. The recent \u201cDictionary of Greek\nand Roman Biography\u201d is just as silent concerning him. Cramer (his latest\neditor) calls his very existence in question; proposing to attribute his\nCommentary on S. Mark to Cyril of Alexandria.(105) Not to delay the reader\nneedlessly,\u2014Victor of Antioch is an interesting and unjustly neglected\nFather of the Church; whose date,\u2014(inasmuch as he apparently quotes\nsometimes from Cyril of Alexandria who died A.D. 444, and yet seems to\nhave written soon after the death of Chrysostom, which took place A.D.\n407), may be assigned to the first half of the vth century,\u2014suppose A.D.\n425-450. And in citing him I shall always refer to the best (and most\neasily accessible) edition of his work,\u2014that of Cramer (1840) in the first\nvolume of his \u201cCatenae.\u201d\n\nBut a far graver charge is behind. From the confident air in which\nVictor\u2019s authority is appealed to by those who deem the last twelve verses\nof S. Mark\u2019s Gospel spurious, it would of course be inferred that his\nevidence is hostile to the verses in question; whereas his evidence to\ntheir genuineness is the most emphatic and extraordinary on record. Dr.\nTregelles asserts that \u201chis _testimony_ to the absence of these twelve\nverses from some or many copies, stands in contrast to his own _opinion_\non the subject.\u201d But Victor delivers _no_ \u201copinion:\u201d and his \u201ctestimony\u201d\nis the direct reverse of what Dr. Tregelles asserts it to be. This learned\nand respected critic has strangely misapprehended the evidence.(106)\n\nI must needs be brief in this place. I shall therefore confine myself to\nthose facts concerning \u201cVictor of Antioch,\u201d or rather concerning his work,\nwhich are necessary for the purpose in hand.(107)\n\nNow, his Commentary on S. Mark\u2019s Gospel,\u2014as all must see who will be at\nthe pains to examine it,\u2014is to a great extent a compilation. The same\nthing may be said, no doubt, to some extent, of almost every ancient\nCommentary in existence. But I mean, concerning this particular work, that\nit proves to have been the author\u2019s plan not so much to give the general\nresults of his acquaintance with the writings of Origen, Apollinarius,\nTheodorus of Mopsuestia, Eusebius, and Chrysostom; as, with or without\nacknowledgment, to transcribe largely (but with great license) from one or\nother of these writers. Thus, the whole of his note on S. Mark xv. 38, 39,\nis taken, without any hint that it is not original, (much of it, _word for\nword_,) from Chrysostom\u2019s 88th Homily on S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel.(108) The\nsame is to be said of the first twelve lines of his note on S. Mark xvi.\n9. On the other hand, the latter half of the note last mentioned professes\nto give the substance of what _Eusebius_ had written on the same subject.\nIt is in fact an extract from those very \u201cQuaestiones ad Marinum\u201d\nconcerning which so much has been offered already. All this, though it\ndoes not sensibly detract from the interest or the value of Victor\u2019s work,\nmust be admitted entirely to change the character of his supposed\nevidence. He comes before us rather in the light of a Compiler than of an\nAuthor: his work is rather a \u201cCatena\u201d than a Commentary: and as such in\nfact it is generally described. Quite plain is it, at all events, that the\nsentiments contained in the sections last referred to, are _not Victor\u2019s\nat all_. For one half of them, no one but Chrysostom is responsible: for\nthe other half, no one but Eusebius.\n\nBut it is Victor\u2019s familiar use of the writings of Eusebius,\u2014especially of\nthose Resolutions of hard Questions \u201cconcerning the seeming\nInconsistencies in the Evangelical accounts of the Resurrection,\u201d which\nEusebius addressed to Marinus,\u2014on which the reader\u2019s attention is now to\nbe concentrated. Victor cites that work of Eusebius _by name_ in the very\n_first_ page of his Commentary. That his _last_ page also contains a\nquotation from it, (also _by name_), has been already pointed out.(109)\nAttention is now invited to what is found concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20 in\nthe _last page but one_ (p. 444) of Victor\u2019s work. It shall be given in\nEnglish; because I will convince unlearned as well as learned readers.\nVictor, (after quoting four lines from the 89th Homily of\nChrysostom(110)), reconciles (exactly as Eusebius is observed to do(111))\nthe notes of time contained severally in S. Matth. xxviii. 1, S. Mark xvi.\n2, S. Luke xxiv. 1, and S. John xx. 1. After which, he proceeds as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n\u201cIn certain copies of Mark\u2019s Gospel, next comes,\u2014\u2018Now when [JESUS] was\nrisen early the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene;\u2019\u2014a\nstatement which seems inconsistent with Matthew\u2019s narrative. This might be\nmet by asserting, that the conclusion of Mark\u2019s Gospel, though found in\ncertain copies, is spurious, However, that we may not seem to betake\nourselves to an off-hand answer, we propose to read the place thus:\u2014\u2018Now\nwhen [JESUS] was risen:\u2019 then, after a comma, to go on,\u2014\u2018early the first\nday of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene.\u2019 In this way we refer\n[Mark\u2019s] \u2018Now when [JESUS] was risen\u2019 to Matthew\u2019s \u2018in the end of the\nsabbath,\u2019 (for _then_ we believe Him to have _risen_;) and all that comes\nafter, expressive as it is of a different notion, we connect with what\nfollows. Mark relates that He who \u2018_arose_ (according to Matthew) _in the\nend of the Sabbath_,\u2019 _was seen_ by Mary Magdalene \u2018_early_.\u2019 This is in\nfact what John also declares; for he too has recorded that \u2018early,\u2019 \u2018the\nfirst day of the week,\u2019 [JESUS] appeared to the Magdalene. In a word, two\ndistinct seasons are set before us by these words: first, the season of\nthe Resurrection,\u2014which was \u2018in the end of the Sabbath;\u2019 secondly, the\nseason of our SAVIOUR\u2019S Appearing,\u2014which was \u2018early.\u2019 \u201d(112)\n\nNo one, I presume, can read this passage and yet hesitate to admit that he\nis here listening to Eusebius \u201cad Marinum\u201d over again. But if any one\nreally retains a particle of doubt on the subject, he is requested to cast\nhis eye to the foot of the present page; and even an unlearned reader,\nsurveying the originals with attention, may easily convince himself that\n_Victor is here nothing else but a copyist_.(113) That the work in which\nEusebius reconciles \u201cseeming discrepancies in the Evangelical narratives,\u201d\nwas actually lying open before Victor while he wrote, is ascertained\nbeyond dispute. He is observed in his next ensuing Comment to quote from\nit, and to mention Eusebius as its author. At the end of the present note\nhe has a significant allusion to Eusebius:\u2014\u201cI know very well,\u201d he says,\n\u201cwhat has been suggested _by those who are at the pains to remove the\napparent inconsistencies in this place_.\u201d(114) But when writing on S. Mark\nxvi. 9-20, he does more. After abridging, (as his manner is,) what\nEusebius explains with such tedious emphasis, (giving the substance of\nfive columns in about three times as many lines,) he adopts the exact\nexpressions of Eusebius,\u2014follows him in his very mistakes,\u2014and finally\ntranscribes his words. The reader is therefore requested to bear in mind\nthat what he has been listening to is _not the testimony of Victor at\nall_: but _the testimony of Eusebius_. This is but one more echo therefore\nof a passage of which we are all beginning by this time to be weary; so\nexceedingly rash are the statements with which it is introduced, so\nutterly preposterous the proposed method of remedying a difficulty which\nproves after all to be purely imaginary.\n\nWhat then _is_ the testimony of Victor? Does he offer any independent\nstatement on the question in dispute, from which his own private opinion\n(though nowhere stated) may be lawfully inferred? Yes indeed. Victor,\nthough frequently a Transcriber only, is observed every now and then to\ncome forward in his own person, and deliver his individual sentiment.(115)\nBut nowhere throughout his work does he deliver such remarkable testimony\nas in this place. Hear him!\n\n\u201cNotwithstanding that in very many copies of the present Gospel, the\npassage beginning, \u2018Now when [JESUS] was risen early the first day of the\nweek, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene,\u2019 be not found,\u2014(certain\nindividuals having supposed it to be spurious,)\u2014yet WE, at all events,\ninasmuch as in very many we have discovered it to exist, have, out of\naccurate copies, subjoined also the account of our Lord\u2019s Ascension,\n(following the words \u2018for they were afraid,\u2019) in conformity with the\nPalestinian exemplar of Mark which exhibits the Gospel verity: that is to\nsay, from the words, \u2018Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first day of\nthe week,\u2019 &c., down to \u2018with signs following. Amen.\u2019(116)\u2014And with these\nwords Victor of Antioch brings his Commentary on S. Mark to an end.\u201d\n\nHere then we find it roundly stated by a highly intelligent Father,\nwriting in the first half of the vth century,\u2014\n\n(1.) That the reason why the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark are absent from\nsome ancient copies of his Gospel is _because they have been deliberately\nomitted by Copyists_:\n\n(2.) That the ground for such omission was the _subjective judgment_ of\nindividuals,\u2014_not_ the result of any appeal to documentary evidence.\nVictor, therefore, clearly held that the Verses in question had been\n_expunged_ in consequence of their (seeming) inconsistency with what is\nmet with in the other Gospels:\n\n(3.) That he, on the other hand, had convinced himself by reference to\n\u201cvery many\u201d and \u201caccurate\u201d copies, that the verses in question are\ngenuine:\n\n(4.) That in particular the Palestinian Copy, which enjoyed the reputation\nof \u201cexhibiting the genuine text of S. Mark,\u201d contained the Verses in\ndispute.\u2014To _Opinion_, therefore, Victor opposes _Authority_. He makes his\nappeal to the most trustworthy documentary evidence with which he is\nacquainted; and the deliberate testimony which he delivers is a complete\ncounterpoise and antidote to the loose phrases of Eusebius on the same\nsubject:\n\n(5.) That in consequence of all this, following the Palestinian Exemplar,\nhe had from accurate copies _furnished his own work with the Twelve Verses\nin dispute_;\u2014which is a categorical refutation of the statement frequently\nmet with that the work of Victor of Antioch is _without_ them.\n\nWe are now at liberty to sum up; and to review the progress which has been\nhitherto made in this Inquiry.\n\nSix Fathers of the Church have been examined who are commonly represented\nas bearing hostile testimony to the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel; and they have been easily reduced to _one_. Three of them,\n(Hesychius, Jerome, Victor,) prove to be echoes, not voices. The remaining\ntwo, (Gregory of Nyssa and Severus,) are neither voices nor echoes, but\nmerely _names_: GREGORY OF NYSSA having really no more to do with this\ndiscussion than Philip of Macedon; and \u201cSeverus\u201d and \u201cHesychius\u201d\nrepresenting one and the same individual. Only by a Critic seeking to\nmislead his reader will any one of these five Fathers be in future cited\nas witnessing against the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Eusebius is\nthe solitary witness who survives the ordeal of exact inquiry.(117) But,\n\nI. EUSEBIUS, (as we have seen), instead of proclaiming his distrust of\nthis portion of the Gospel, enters upon an elaborate proof that its\ncontents are not inconsistent with what is found in the Gospels of S.\nMatthew and S. John. His testimony is reducible to two innocuous and\nwholly unconnected propositions: the first,\u2014That there existed in his day\na vast number of copies in which the last chapter of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel\nended abruptly at ver. 8; (the correlative of which of course would be\nthat there also existed a vast number which were furnished with the\npresent ending.) The second,\u2014That by putting a comma after the word\n\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2, S. Mark xvi. 9, is capable of being reconciled with S. Matth.\nxxviii. 1(118).... I profess myself unable to understand how it can be\npretended that Eusebius would have subscribed to the opinion of\nTischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that the Gospel of S. Mark was never\nfinished by its inspired Author, or was mutilated before it came abroad;\nat all events, that the last Twelve Verses are spurious.\n\nII. The observations of Eusebius are found to have been adopted, and in\npart transcribed, by an unknown writer of the vith century,\u2014whether\nHESYCHIUS or SEVERUS is not certainly known: but if it were Hesychius,\nthen it was not Severus; if Severus, then not Hesychius. This writer,\nhowever, (whoever he may have been,) is careful to convince us that\nindividually he entertained _no doubt whatever_ about the genuineness of\nthis part of Scripture, for he says that he writes in order to remove the\n(hypothetical) objections of others, and to silence their (imaginary)\ndoubts. Nay, he freely _quotes the verses as genuine_, and declares that\nthey were read in his day on a certain Sunday night in the public Service\nof the Church.... To represent such an one,\u2014(it matters nothing, I repeat,\nwhether we call him \u201cHesychius of Jerusalem\u201d or \u201cSeverus of Antioch,\u201d)\u2014as\na hostile witness, is simply to misrepresent the facts of the case. He is,\non the contrary, the strenuous champion of the verses which he is commonly\nrepresented as impugning.\n\nIII. As for JEROME, since that illustrious Father comes before us in this\nplace as a _translator_ of Eusebius only, he is no more responsible for\nwhat Eusebius says concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20, than Hobbes of Malmesbury\nis responsible for anything that Thucydides has related concerning the\nPeloponnesian war. Individually, however, it is certain that Jerome was\nconvinced of the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: for in two different\nplaces of his writings he not only quotes the 9th and 14th verses, but he\nexhibits all the twelve in the Vulgate.\n\nIV. Lastly, VICTOR OF ANTIOCH, who wrote in an age when Eusebius was held\nto be an infallible oracle on points of Biblical Criticism,\u2014having\ndutifully rehearsed, (like the rest,) the feeble expedient of that\nillustrious Father for harmonizing S. Mark xvi. 9 with the narrative of S.\nMatthew,\u2014is observed to cite the statements of Eusebius concerning _the\nlast Twelve Verses_ of S. Mark, only in order to refute them. Not that he\nopposes opinion to opinion,\u2014(for the opinions of Eusebius and of Victor of\nAntioch on this behalf were probably identical;) but statement he meets\nwith counter-statement,\u2014fact he confronts with fact. Scarcely can anything\nbe imagined more emphatic than his testimony, or more conclusive.\n\nFor the reader is requested to observe that here is an Ecclesiastic,\nwriting in the first half of the vth century, who _expressly witnesses to\nthe genuineness_ of the Verses in dispute. He had made reference, he says,\nand ascertained their existence in very many MSS. (\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2). He\nhad derived his text from \u201caccurate\u201d ones: (\u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd.) More\nthan that: he leads his reader to infer that he had personally resorted to\nthe famous Palestinian Copy, the text of which was held to exhibit the\ninspired verity, and had satisfied himself that the concluding section of\nS. Mark\u2019s Gospel _was there_. He had, therefore, been either to Jerusalem,\nor else to C\u00e6sarea; had inquired for those venerable records which had\nonce belonged to Origen and Pamphilus;(119) and had inspected them.\nTestimony more express, more weighty,\u2014I was going to say, more\ndecisive,\u2014can scarcely be imagined. It may with truth be said to close the\npresent discussion.\n\nWith this, in fact, Victor lays down his pen. So also may I. I submit that\nnothing whatever which has hitherto come before us lends the slightest\ncountenance to the modern dream that S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, as it left the\nhands of its inspired Author, ended abruptly at ver. 8. Neither Eusebius\nnor Jerome; neither Severus of Antioch nor Hesychius of Jerusalem;\ncertainly not Victor of Antioch; least of all Gregory of Nyssa,\u2014yield a\nparticle of support to that monstrous fancy. The notion is an invention, a\npure imagination of the Critics ever since the days of Griesbach.\n\nIt remains to be seen whether the MSS. will prove somewhat less\nunaccommodating.\n\nVII. For it can be of no possible avail, at this stage of the discussion,\nto appeal to\n\nEUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS,\n\nthe Author of an interesting Commentary, or rather Compilation on the\nGospels, assigned to A.D. 1116. Euthymius lived, in fact, full five\nhundred years too late for his testimony to be of the slightest\nimportance. Such as it is, however, it is not unfavourable. He says,\u2014\u201cSome\nof the Commentators state that here,\u201d (viz. at ver. 8,) \u201cthe Gospel\naccording to Mark finishes; and that what follows is a spurious addition.\u201d\n(Which clearly is his version of the statements of one or more of the four\nFathers whose testimony has already occupied so large a share of our\nattention.) \u201cThis portion we must also interpret, however,\u201d (Euthymius\nproceeds,) \u201csince there is nothing in it prejudicial to the\ntruth.\u201d(120)\u2014But it is idle to linger over such a writer. One might almost\nas well quote \u201cPoli _Synopsis_\u201d and then proceed to discuss it. The cause\nmust indeed be desperate which seeks support from a quarter like this.\nWhat possible sanction can an Ecclesiastic of the xiith century be\nsupposed to yield to the hypothesis that S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, as it left the\nhands of its inspired Author, was an unfinished work?\n\nIt remains to ascertain what is the evidence of the MSS. on this subject.\nAnd the MSS. require to be the more attentively studied, because it is to\n_them_ that our opponents are accustomed most confidently to appeal. On\nthem in fact they rely. The nature and the value of the most ancient\nManuscript testimony available, shall be scrupulously investigated in the\nnext two Chapters.\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n\n\nMANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE\nVERSES.\u2014PART I.\n\n\n S. Mark xvi. 9-20, contained in every MS. in the world except\n two.\u2014Irrational Claim to Infallibility set up on behalf of Cod. B\n (p. 73) and Cod. \u05d0 (p. 75).\u2014These two Codices shewn to be full of\n gross Omissions (p. 78),\u2014Interpolations (p. 80),\u2014Corruptions of\n the Text (p. 81),\u2014and Perversions of the Truth (p. 83).\u2014The\n testimony of Cod. B to S. Mark xvi. 9-20, shewn to be favorable,\n notwithstanding (p. 86).\n\n\nThe two oldest Copies of the Gospels in existence are the famous Codex in\nthe Vatican Library at Rome, known as \u201cCodex B;\u201d and the Codex which\nTischendorf brought from Mount Sinai in 1859, and which he designates by\nthe first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (\u05d0). These two manuscripts are\nprobably not of equal antiquity.(121) An interval of fifty years at least\nseems to be required to account for the marked difference between them. If\nthe first belongs to the beginning, the second may be referred to the\nmiddle or latter part of the ivth century. But the two Manuscripts agree\nin this,\u2014that _they are without the last twelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel_. In both, after \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 (ver. 8), comes the subscription: in\nCod. B,\u2014\u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u039c\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u039f\u039d; in Cod. \u05d0,\u2014\u0395\u03a5\u0391\u0393\u0393\u0395\u039b\u0399\u039f\u039d \u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u039c\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u039f\u039d.\n\nLet it not be supposed that we have any _more_ facts of this class to\nproduce. All has been stated. It is not that the evidence of Manuscripts\nis one,\u2014the evidence of Fathers and Versions another. The very reverse is\nthe case. Manuscripts, Fathers, and Versions alike, are _only not\nunanimous_ in bearing consistent testimony. But the consentient witness of\nthe MSS. is even extraordinary. With the exception of the two uncial MSS.\nwhich have just been named, there is _not one_ Codex in existence, uncial\nor cursive,\u2014(and we are acquainted with, at least, eighteen other\nuncials,(122) and about six hundred cursive Copies of this Gospel,)\u2014which\nleaves out the last twelve verses of S. Mark.\n\nThe inference which an unscientific observer would draw from this fact, is\nno doubt in this instance the correct one. He demands to be shewn the\nAlexandrine (A) and the Parisian Codex (C),\u2014neither of them probably\nremoved by much more than fifty years from the date of the Codex\nSinaiticus, and both unquestionably _derived from different\noriginals_;\u2014and he ascertains that no countenance is lent by either of\nthose venerable monuments to the proposed omission of this part of the\nsacred text. He discovers that the Codex Bezae (D), the only remaining\nvery ancient MS. authority,\u2014notwithstanding that it is observed on most\noccasions to exhibit an extraordinary sympathy with the Vatican (B),\u2014here\nsides with A and C against B and \u05d0. He inquires after all the other\nuncials and all the cursive MSS. in existence, (some of them dating from\nthe xth century,) and requests to have it explained to him _why_ it is to\nbe supposed that all these many witnesses,\u2014belonging to so many different\npatriarchates, provinces, ages of the Church,\u2014have entered into a grand\nconspiracy to bear false witness on a point of this magnitude and\nimportance? But he obtains no intelligible answer to this question. How,\nthen, is an unprejudiced student to draw any inference but one from the\npremisses? _That_ single peculiarity (he tells himself) of bringing the\nsecond Gospel abruptly to a close at the 8th verse of the xvith chapter,\nis absolutely fatal to the two Codices in question. It is useless to din\ninto his ears that those Codices are probably both of the ivth\ncentury,\u2014unless men are prepared to add the assurance that a Codex of the\nivth century is _of necessity_ a more trustworthy witness to the text of\nthe Gospels than a Codex of the vth. The omission of these twelve verses,\nI repeat, in itself, destroys his confidence in Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0: for it\nis obvious that a copy of the Gospels which has been so seriously\nmutilated in one place may have been slightly tampered with in another. He\nis willing to suspend his judgment, of course. The two oldest copies of\nthe Gospels in existence are entitled to great reverence _because_ of\ntheir high antiquity. They must be allowed a most patient, most\nunprejudiced, most respectful, nay, a most indulgent hearing. But when all\nthis has been freely accorded, on no intelligible principle can more be\nclaimed for any two MSS. in the world.\n\nThe rejoinder to all this is sufficiently obvious. Mistrust will no doubt\nhave been thrown over the evidence borne to the text of Scripture in a\nthousand other places by Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0, _after demonstration that\nthose two Codices exhibit a mutilated text_ in the present place. But what\nelse is this but the very point requiring demonstration? Why may not these\ntwo be right, and all the other MSS. wrong?\n\nI propose, therefore, that we reverse the process. Proceed we to examine\nthe evidence borne by these two witnesses on certain _other_ occasions\nwhich admit of _no_ difference of opinion; or next to none. Let us\nendeavour, I say, to ascertain _the character of the Witnesses_ by a\npatient and unprejudiced examination of their Evidence,\u2014not in one place,\nor in two, or in three; but on several important occasions, and\nthroughout. If we find it invariably consentient and invariably truthful,\nthen of course a mighty presumption will have been established, the very\nstrongest possible, that their adverse testimony in respect of the\nconclusion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel must needs be worthy of all acceptation.\nBut if, on the contrary, our inquiries shall conduct us to the very\nopposite result,\u2014what else can happen but that our confidence in these two\nMSS. will be hopelessly shaken? We must in such case be prepared to admit\nthat it is just as likely as not that this is only _one more occasion_ on\nwhich these \u201ctwo false witnesses\u201d have conspired to witness falsely. If,\nat this juncture, extraneous evidence of an entirely trustworthy kind can\nbe procured to confront them: above all, if some one ancient witness of\nunimpeachable veracity can be found who shall bear contradictory evidence:\nwhat other alternative will be left us but to reject their testimony in\nrespect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with something like indignation; and to\nacquiesce in the belief of universal Christendom for eighteen hundred\nyears that these twelve verses are just as much entitled to our\nunhesitating acceptance as any other twelve verses in the Gospel which can\nbe named?\n\nI. It is undeniable, in the meantime, that for the last quarter of a\ncentury, it has become the fashion to demand for the readings of Codex B\nsomething very like absolute deference. The grounds for this superstitious\nsentiment, (for really I can describe it in no apter way,) I profess\nmyself unable to discover. Codex B comes to us without a history: without\nrecommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces\nof careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original\ntranscriber made are of perpetual recurrence. \u201cThey are chiefly omissions,\nof one, two, or three words; but sometimes of half a verse, a whole verse,\nor even of several verses.... I hesitate not to assert that it would be\neasier to find a folio containing three or four such omissions than to\nlight on one which should be without any.\u201d(123) In the Gospels alone,\nCodex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times:(124)\nof which by far the largest proportion is found in S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. Many\nof these, no doubt, are to be accounted for by the proximity of a \u201clike\nending.\u201d(125) The Vatican MS. (like the Sinaitic(126)) was originally\nderived from an older Codex which contained about twelve or thirteen\nletters in a line.(127) And it will be found that some of its omissions\nwhich have given rise to prolonged discussion are probably to be referred\nto nothing else but the oscitancy of a transcriber with such a codex\nbefore him:(128) without having recourse to any more abstruse hypothesis;\nwithout any imputation of bad faith;\u2014_certainly without supposing that the\nwords omitted did not exist in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist_.\nBut then it is undeniable that some of the omissions in Cod. B are not to\nbe so explained. On the other hand, I can testify to the fact that the\ncodex is disfigured throughout with _repetitions_. The original scribe is\noften found to have not only written the same words twice over, but to\nhave failed whenever he did so to take any notice with his pen of what he\nhad done.\n\nWhat then, (I must again inquire,) are the grounds for the superstitious\nreverence which is entertained in certain quarters for the readings of\nCodex B? If it be a secret known to the recent Editors of the New\nTestament, they have certainly contrived to keep it wondrous close.\n\nII. More recently, a claim to co-ordinate primacy has been set up on\nbehalf of the Codex Sinaiticus. Tischendorf is actually engaged in\nremodelling his seventh Leipsic edition, chiefly in conformity with the\nreadings of his lately discovered MS.(129) And yet the Codex in question\nabounds with \u201cerrors of the the eye and pen, to an extent not\nunparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate\nimportance.\u201d On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through\nvery carelessness.(130) \u201cLetters and words, even whole sentences, are\nfrequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while\nthat gross blunder ... whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to\nend in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115\ntimes in the New Testament. Tregelles has freely pronounced that \u2018the\nstate of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as\n_very rough_.\u2019 \u201d(131) But when \u201cthe first scribe\u201d and his \u201cvery rough\u201d\nperformance have been thus unceremoniously disposed of, one would like to\nbe informed what remains to command respect in Codex \u05d0? Is, then,\n_manuscript authority_ to be confounded with _editorial\ncaprice_,\u2014exercising itself upon the corrections of \u201cat least ten\ndifferent revisers,\u201d who, from the vith to the xiith century, have been\nendeavouring to lick into shape a text which its original author left\n\u201c_very rough_?\u201d\n\nThe co-ordinate primacy, (as I must needs call it,) which, within the last\nfew years, has been claimed for Codex B and Codex \u05d0, threatens to grow\ninto a species of tyranny,\u2014from which I venture to predict there will come\nin the end an unreasonable and unsalutary recoil. It behoves us,\ntherefore, to look closely into this matter, and to require a reason for\nwhat is being done. The text of the sacred deposit is far too precious a\nthing to be sacrificed to an irrational, or at least a superstitious\ndevotion to two MSS.,\u2014simply because they may possibly be older by a\nhundred years than any other which we possess. \u201cId verius quod prius,\u201d is\nan axiom which holds every bit as true in Textual Criticism as in Dogmatic\nTruth. But on that principle, (as I have already shewn,) the last twelve\nverses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel are fully established;(132) and by consequence,\nthe credit of Codd. B and \u05d0 sustains a severe shock. Again, \u201cId verius\nquod prius;\u201d but it does not of course follow that a Codex of the ivth\ncentury shall exhibit a more correct text of Scripture than one written in\nthe vth, or even than one written in the xth. For the proof of this\nstatement, (if it can be supposed to require proof,) it is enough to\nappeal to Codex D. That venerable copy of the Gospels is of the vith\ncentury. It is, in fact, one of our five great uncials. No older MS. of\nthe Greek Text is known to exist,\u2014excepting always A, B, C and \u05d0. And yet\n_no_ text is more thoroughly disfigured by corruptions and interpolations\nthan that of Codex D. In the Acts, (to use the language of its learned and\naccurate Editor,) \u201cit is hardly an exaggeration to assert that it\nreproduces the _textus receptus_ much in the same way that one of the best\nChaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament: so wide are the\nvariations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of\nexpanding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend\nthemselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.\u201d(133)\nWhere, then, is the _\u00e0 priori_ probability that two MSS. of the ivth\ncentury shall have not only a superior claim to be heard, but almost an\nexclusive right to dictate which readings are to be rejected, which\nretained?\n\nHow ready the most recent editors of the New Testament have shewn\nthemselves to hammer the sacred text on the anvil of Codd. B and \u05d0,\u2014not\nunfrequently in defiance of the evidence of all other MSS., and sometimes\nto the serious detriment of the deposit,\u2014would admit of striking\nillustration were this place for such details. Tischendorf\u2019s English \u201c_New\nTestament_\u201d\u2014\u201cwith various readings from the three most celebrated\nmanuscripts of the Greek Text\u201d translated at the foot of every page,\u2014is a\nrecent attempt (1869) to popularize the doctrine that we have to look\nexclusively to two or three of the oldest copies, if we would possess the\nWord of GOD in its integrity. Dean Alford\u2019s constant appeal in his\nrevision of the Authorized Version (1870) to \u201cthe oldest MSS.\u201d (meaning\nthereby generally Codd. \u05d0 and B with one or two others(134)), is an abler\nendeavour to familiarize the public mind with the same belief. I am bent\non shewing that there is nothing whatever in the character of either of\nthe Codices in question to warrant this servile deference.\n\n(_a_) And first,\u2014Ought it not sensibly to detract from our opinion of the\nvalue of their evidence to discover that _it is easier to find two\nconsecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other,\nthan two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_? Now this is a\nplain matter of fact, of which any one who pleases may easily convince\nhimself. But the character of two witnesses who habitually contradict one\nanother has been accounted, in every age, precarious. On every such\noccasion, only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be\nthought unreasonable if I confess that these _perpetual_ inconsistencies\nbetween Codd. B and \u05d0,\u2014grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross\nones,\u2014altogether destroy my confidence in either?\n\n(_b_) On the other hand, discrepant as the testimony of these two MSS. is\nthroughout, they yet, strange to say, conspire every here and there in\nexhibiting minute corruptions of such an unique and peculiar kind as to\nbetray a (probably not very remote) common corrupt original. These\ncoincidences in fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish\na real connexion between those two codices; and that connexion is fatal to\nany claim which might be set up on their behalf as wholly independent\nwitnesses.(135)\n\n(_c_) Further, it is evident that both alike have been subjected, probably\nduring the process of transcription, to the same depraving influences. But\nbecause such statements require to be established by an induction of\ninstances, the reader\u2019s attention must now be invited to a few samples of\nthe grave blemishes which disfigure our two oldest copies of the Gospel.\n\n1. And first, since it is the omission of the end of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel\nwhich has given rise to the present discussion, it becomes a highly\nsignificant circumstance that the original scribe of Cod. \u05d0 had _also_\nomitted the _end of the Gospel according to S. John_.(136) In this\nsuppression of ver. 25, Cod. \u05d0 stands _alone_ among MSS. A cloud of\nprimitive witnesses vouch for the genuineness of the verse. Surely, it is\nnothing else but the _reductio ad absurdum_ of a theory of recension,\n(with Tischendorf in his last edition,) to accommodate our printed text to\nthe vicious standard of the original penman of Cod. \u05d0 and bring the last\nchapter of S. John\u2019s Gospel to a close at ver. 24!\n\nCod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two solemn verses\nwherein S. Luke describes our LORD\u2019s \u201cAgony and bloody Sweat,\u201d together\nwith the act of the ministering Angel.(137) As to the genuineness of those\nverses, recognised as they are by Justin Martyr, Iren\u00e6us, Hippolytus,\nEpiphanius, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, by all\nthe oldest versions, and by almost every MS. in existence, including Cod.\n\u05d0,\u2014it admits of _no_ doubt. Here then is proof positive that in order to\naccount for omissions from the Gospel in the oldest of the uncials, there\nis no need whatever to resort to the hypothesis that such portions of the\nGospel are not the genuine work of the Evangelist. \u201cThe admitted error of\nCod. B in this place,\u201d (to quote the words of Scrivener,) \u201cought to make\nsome of its advocates more chary of their confidence in cases where it is\nless countenanced by other witnesses than in the instance before us.\u201d\n\nCod. B (not Cod. \u05d0) is further guilty of the \u201cgrave error\u201d (as Dean Alford\njustly styles it,) of omitting that solemn record of the Evangelist:\u2014\u201cThen\nsaid JESUS, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.\u201d It also\nwithholds the statement that the inscription on the Cross was \u201cin letters\nof Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew.\u201d(138) Cod. \u05d0, on the other hand, omits\nthe confession of the man born blind (\u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7, \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9, \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7) in S. John ix. 38.\u2014Both Cod. \u05d0 and Cod. B retain\nnothing but the word \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03bd of the expression \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd,\nin S. Matth. i. 25; and suppress altogether the important doctrinal\nstatement \u1f41 \u1f60\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7, in S. John iii. 13: as well as the clause\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc6\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, in S. John viii. 59.\nConcerning all of which, let it be observed that I am neither imputing\nmotives nor pretending to explain _the design_ with which these several\nserious omissions were made. All that is asserted is, that they cannot be\nimputed to the carelessness of a copyist, but were intentional: and I\ninsist that they effectually dispose of the presumption that when an\nimportant passage is observed to be wanting from Cod. B or Cod. \u05d0, its\nabsence is to be accounted for by assuming that it was also absent _from\nthe inspired autograph of the Evangelist_.\n\n2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or\nof \u05d0, or of both, has clearly been _interpolated_. There does not exist in\nthe whole compass of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this\nthan is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our\nRedeemer\u2019s side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and\nCod. \u05d0, where it is introduced at the end of ver. 49,\u2014in defiance of\nreason as well as of authority.(139) \u201cThis interpolation\u201d (remarks Mr.\nScrivener) \u201cwhich would represent the SAVIOUR as pierced while yet living,\nis a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may\ncombine in attesting a reading unquestionably false.\u201d(140) Another\nsingularly gross specimen of interpolation, in my judgment, is supplied by\nthe purely apocryphal statement which is met with in Cod. \u05d0, at the end of\nS. Matthew\u2019s account of the healing of the Centurion\u2019s servant,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf \u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b7 \u03c9\u03c1\u03b1, \u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c5\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (viii. 13.)\u2014Nor can anything well be weaker than the\nsubstitution (for \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, in S. John ii. 3) of the\nfollowing,(141) which is found _only_ in Cod. \u05d0:\u2014\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bf \u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nBut the inspired text has been depraved in the same licentious way\nthroughout, by the responsible authors of Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0, although such\ncorruptions have attracted little notice from their comparative\nunimportance. Thus, the reading (in \u05d0) \u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 (S. John ix. 4) carries with it its own sufficient\ncondemnation; being scarcely rendered more tolerable by B\u2019s substitution\nof \u03bc\u03b5 for the second \u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2.\u2014Instead of \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd (S.\nLuke vi. 48), B and \u05d0 present us with the insipid gloss, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd.\u2014In the last-named codex, we find the name of \u201cIsaiah\u201d\n(\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5) thrust into S. Matth. xiii. 35, in defiance of authority and of\n*fact*.\u2014Can I be wrong in asserting that the reading \u03bf \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 (for\n\u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2) in S. John i. 18, (a reading found in Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0 alike,) is\nundeserving of serious attention?\u2014May it not also be confidently declared\nthat, in the face of all MS. evidence,(142) no future Editors of the New\nTestament will be found to accept the highly improbable reading \u03bf \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03bf \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, in S. John ix. 11, although the same two Codices\nconspire in exhibiting it?\u2014or, on the authority of one of them (\u05d0), to\nread \u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b6\u03c9\u03b7 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd(143) (for \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u1f23\u03bd) in S. John i. 4?\u2014Certain\nat least it is that no one will _ever_ be found to read (with B)\n\u03b5\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03d9\u03bf in S. Luke x. 1,\u2014or (with \u05d0) \u03bf \u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 (instead\nof \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6) in S. John i. 34.\u2014But let me ask, With what show of\nreason can the pretence of _Infallibility_, (as well as the plea of\nPrimacy), be set up on behalf of a pair of MSS. licentiously corrupt as\nthese have already been _proved_ to be? For the readings above enumerated,\nbe it observed, are either critical depravations of the inspired Text, or\nelse unwarrantable interpolations. They _cannot_ have resulted from\ncareless transcription.\n\n3. Not a few of the foregoing instances are in fact of a kind to convince\nme that the text with which Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0 were chiefly acquainted,\nmust have been once and again subjected to a clumsy process of _revision_.\nNot unfrequently, as may be imagined, the result (however tasteless and\ninfelicitous) is not of serious importance; as when, (to give examples\nfrom Cod. \u05d0,) for \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 (in S. Luke v. 1) we are\npresented with \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd:\u2014when for \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 (in S. Luke xv.\n13) we read \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd; and for \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd (in S. Luke\nxxii. 25), we find \u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd [\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd] \u03b5\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9,\n(which is only a weak reproduction of S. Matth. xx. 25):\u2014when again, for\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 (in S. John vi. 17), we are shewn \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03b7 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1: and when, for \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd (in S. John vi.\n64) we are invited to accept \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b7\u03bd \u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.(144)\nBut it requires very little acquaintance with the subject to foresee that\nthis kind of license may easily assume serious dimensions, and grow into\nan intolerable evil. Thus, when the man born blind is asked by the HOLY\nONE if he believes \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (S. John. ix. 35), we are by no\nmeans willing to acquiesce in the proposed substitute, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5: neither, when the SAVIOUR says, \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd (S. John\nx. 14) are we at all willing to put up with the weak equivalent \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03bc\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03bc\u03b1. Still less is \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3 any equivalent at all for\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac in S. John xvii. 10: or, \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b6\u03c9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, for \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b6\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bf\u1f44\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, in S. John xxi. 18. Indeed, even when our LORD is\nnot the speaker, such licentious depravation of the text is not to be\nendured. Thus, in S. Luke xxiii. 15, Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0 conspire in\nsubstituting for \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd,\u2014\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2; which leads one to suspect the copyist was misled by the narrative\nin ver. 7. Similar instances might be multiplied to an indefinite extent.\n\nTwo yet graver corruptions of the truth of the Gospel, (but they belong to\nthe same category,) remain to be specified. Mindful, I suppose, of S.\nJames\u2019 explanation \u201chow that _by works_ a man is justified,\u201d the author of\nthe text of Codices B and \u05d0 has ventured to alter our LORD\u2019s assertion (in\nS. Matth. xi. 19,) \u201cWisdom is justified of _her children_,\u201d into \u201cWisdom\nis justified by _her works_;\u201d and, in the case of Cod. \u05d0, his zeal is\nobserved to have so entirely carried him away, that he has actually\nsubstituted \u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd for \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd in the parallel place of S. Luke\u2019s\nGospel.\u2014The other example of error (S. Matth. xxi. 31) is calculated to\nprovoke a smile. Finding that our SAVIOUR, in describing the conduct of\nthe two sons in the parable, says of the one,\u2014\u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, and of the other,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd; some ancient scribe, (who can\nhave been but slenderly acquainted with the Greek language,) seems to have\nconceived the notion that a more precise way of identifying the son who\n\u201c_afterwards_ repented and went,\u201d would be to designate him as \u1f41 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\nAccordingly, in reply to the question,\u2014\u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2; we are presented (but _only in Cod._ B) with the astonishing\ninformation,\u2014\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf \u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. And yet, seeing clearly that this made\nnonsense of the parable, some subsequent critic is found to have\n_transposed the order of the two sons_: and in that queer condition the\nparable comes down to us in the famous Vatican Codex B.\n\n4. Some of the foregoing instances of infelicitous tampering with the text\nof the Gospels are, it must be confessed, very serious. But it is a yet\nmore fatal circumstance in connexion with Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0 that they are\nconvicted of certain perversions of the truth of Scripture which _must_\nhave been made with deliberation and purpose. Thus, in S. Mark xiv, they\nexhibit a set of passages\u2014(verses 30, 68, 72)\u2014\u201cwhich bear clear marks of\nwilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod. \u05d0, only\npartially in Cod. B; the object being so far to assimilate the narrative\nof Peter\u2019s denial with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the\nfact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed _twice_. (In Cod.\n\u05d0, \u03b4\u03af\u03c2 is omitted in ver. 30,\u2018\u2014\u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 and \u03b4\u03af\u03c2 in ver. 72,\u2014\u2019and \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 in ver. 68: the last change being countenanced by\nB.)\u201d(145) One such discovery, I take leave to point out, is enough to\ndestroy all confidence in the text of these two manuscripts: for it proves\nthat another kind of corrupting influence,\u2014besides carelessness, and\naccident, and tasteless presumption, and unskilful assiduity,\u2014has been at\nwork on Codices B and \u05d0. We are constrained to approach these two\nmanuscripts with suspicion in all cases where a supposed critical\ndifficulty in harmonizing the statements of the several Evangelists will\naccount for any of the peculiar readings which they exhibit.\n\nAccordingly, it does not at all surprise me to discover that in both\nCodices the important word \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 (in S. Matth. xxviii. 8) has been\naltered into \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. I recognise in that substitution of \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf for \u1f14\u03be\nthe hand of one who was not aware that the women, when addressed by the\nAngel, were _inside the sepulchre_; but who accepted the belief (it is\nfound to have been as common in ancient as in modern times) that they\nbeheld him \u201csitting on the stone.\u201d(146)\u2014In consequence of a similar\nmisconception, both Codices are observed to present us with the word\n\u201c_wine_\u201d instead of \u201c_vinegar_\u201d in S. Matthew\u2019s phrase \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd: which results from a mistaken endeavour on the part of some\nancient critic to bring S. Matth. xxvii. 34 into harmony with S. Mark xv.\n23. The man did not perceive that the cruel insult of the \u201cvinegar and\ngall\u201d (which the SAVIOUR tasted but would not drink) was quite a distinct\nthing from the proffered mercy of the \u201cmyrrhed wine\u201d which the SAVIOUR put\naway from Himself altogether.\n\nSo again, it was in order to bring S. Luke xxiv. 13 into harmony with a\nsupposed fact of geography that Cod. \u05d0 states that Emmaus, (which Josephus\nalso places at sixty stadia from Jerusalem), was \u201c_an hundred_ and sixty\u201d\nstadia distant. The history of this interpolation of the text is known. It\nis because some ancient critic (Origen probably) erroneously assumed that\n_Nicopolis_ was the place intended. The conjecture met with favour, and\nthere are not wanting scholia to declare that this was the reading of \u201cthe\naccurate\u201d copies,\u2014notwithstanding the physical impossibility which is\ninvolved by the statement.(147)\u2014Another geographical misconception under\nwhich the scribe of Cod. \u05d0 is found to have laboured was that Nazareth (S.\nLuke i. 26) and Capernaum (S. Mark i. 28) were _in Jud\u00e6a_. Accordingly he\nhas altered the text in both the places referred to, to suit his private\nnotion.(148)\u2014A yet more striking specimen of the preposterous method of\nthe same scribe is supplied by his substitution of \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 for \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\nin Acts viii. 5,\u2014evidently misled by what he found in viii. 40 and xxi.\n8.\u2014Again, it must have been with a view of bringing Revelation into\nharmony with the (supposed) facts of physical Science that for the highly\nsignificant Theological record \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 at the\nCrucifixion,(149) has been substituted both in B and \u05d0, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\u2014a statement which (as the ancients were perfectly well\naware(150)) introduces into the narrative an astronomical\ncontradiction.\u2014It may be worth adding, that Tischendorf with singular\ninconsistency admits into his text the astronomical contradiction, while\nhe rejects the geographical impossibility.\u2014And this may suffice concerning\nthe text of Codices B and \u05d0.\n\nIII. We are by this time in a condition to form a truer estimate of the\nvalue of the testimony borne by these two manuscripts in respect of the\nlast twelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. If we were disposed before to\nregard their omission of an important passage as a serious matter, we\ncertainly cannot any longer so regard it. We have by this time seen enough\nto disabuse our minds of every prejudice. Codd. B and \u05d0 are the very\nreverse of infallible guides. Their deflections from the Truth of\nScripture are more constant, as well as more licentious by far, than those\nof their younger brethren: their unauthorized omissions from the sacred\ntext are not only far more frequent but far more flagrant also. And yet\nthe main matter before us,\u2014_their omission of the last twelve verses of S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel_,\u2014when rightly understood, proves to be an entirely\ndifferent phenomenon from what an ordinary reader might have been led to\nsuppose. Attention is specially requested for the remarks which follow.\n\nIV. To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the\noldest we possess, S. Mark\u2019s Gospel ends abruptly at the 8th verse of the\nxvith chapter, and that the customary subscription (\u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u039c\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u039f\u039d)\nfollows,\u2014is true; but it is far from being _the whole_ truth. It requires\nto be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been\nto begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of _the next ensuing\ncolumn_ to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding\nbook, has at the close of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel deviated from his else\ninvariable practice. He has left in this place one column entirely vacant.\nIt is _the only vacant column_ in the whole manuscript;\u2014a blank space\n_abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless\nwithheld. Why_ did he leave that column vacant? _What_ can have induced\nthe scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule?\nThe phenomenon,\u2014(I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to\nit,)\u2014is in the highest degree significant, and admits of only one\ninterpretation. _The older MS._ from which Cod. B was copied must have\ninfallibly _contained_ the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was\ninstructed to leave them out,\u2014and he obeyed: but he prudently left a blank\nspace _in memoriam rei_. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was\nsilence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the\nVatican Codex is made to _refute itself_ even while it seems to be bearing\ntestimony against the concluding verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, by\nwithholding them: for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary\ncircumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By\n_leaving room_ for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at\nthe end of fifteen centuries and a half, _a more ancient witness than\nitself_. The venerable Author of the original Codex from which Codex B was\ncopied, is thereby brought to view. And thus, our supposed adversary\n(Codex B) proves our most useful ally: for it procures us the testimony of\nan hitherto unsuspected witness. The earlier scribe, I repeat,\nunmistakably comes forward at this stage of the inquiry, to explain that\n_he_ at least is prepared to answer for the genuineness of these Twelve\nconcluding Verses with which the later scribe, his copyist, from his\nomission of them, might unhappily be thought to have been unacquainted.\n\nIt will be perceived that nothing is gained by suggesting that the scribe\nof Cod. B. _may_ have copied from a MS. which exhibited the same\nphenomenon which he has himself reproduced. This, by shifting the question\na little further back, does but make the case against Cod. \u05d0 the stronger.\n\nBut in truth, after the revelation which has been already elicited from\nCod. B, the evidence of Cod. \u05d0 may be very summarily disposed of. I have\nalready, on independent grounds, ventured to assign to that Codex a\nsomewhat later date than is claimed for the Codex Vaticanus.(151) My\nopinion is confirmed by observing that the Sinaitic contains no such blank\nspace at the end of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel as is conspicuous in the Vatican\nCodex. I infer that the Sinaitic was copied from a Codex which had been\nalready mutilated, and reduced to the condition of Cod. B; and that the\nscribe, only because he knew not what it meant, exhibited S. Mark\u2019s Gospel\nin consequence as if it really had no claim to those twelve concluding\nverses which, nevertheless, _every_ authority we have hitherto met with\nhas affirmed to belong to it of right.\n\nWhatever may be thought of the foregoing suggestion, it is at least\nundeniable that Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0 are at variance on the main point. They\n_contradict_ one another concerning the twelve concluding verses of S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel. For while Cod. \u05d0 refuses to know anything at all about\nthose verses, Cod. B admits that it remembers them well, by volunteering\nthe statement that they were found in the older codex, of which it is in\nevery other respect a faithful representative. The older and the better\nmanuscript (B), therefore, refutes its junior (\u05d0). And it will be seen\nthat logically this brings the inquiry to a close, as far as the evidence\nof the manuscripts is concerned. We have referred to the oldest extant\ncopy of the Gospels in order to obtain its testimony: and,\u2014\u201cThough without\nthe Twelve Verses concerning which you are so solicitous,\u201d (it seems to\nsay,) \u201cI yet hesitate not to confess to you that an older copy than\nmyself,\u2014the ancient Codex from which I was copied,\u2014actually did contain\nthem.\u201d\n\nThe problem may, in fact, be briefly stated as follows. Of the four oldest\nCodices of the Gospels extant,\u2014B, \u05d0, A, C,\u2014two (B and \u05d0) are _without_\nthese twelve verses: two (A and C) are _with_ them. Are these twelve\nverses then an unauthorized _addition_ to A and C? or are they an\nunwarrantable _omission_ from B and \u05d0? B itself declares plainly that from\nitself they are an omission. And B is the oldest Codex of the Gospel in\nexistence. What candid mind will persist in clinging to the solitary fact\nthat from the single Codex \u05d0 these verses are away, in proof that \u201cS.\nMark\u2019s Gospel was at first without the verses which at present conclude\nit?\u201d\n\nLet others decide, therefore, whether the present discussion has not\nalready reached a stage at which an unprejudiced Arbiter might be expected\nto address the prosecuting parties somewhat to the following effect:\u2014\n\n\u201cThis case must now be dismissed. The charge brought by yourselves against\nthese Verses was, that they are an unauthorized addition to the second\nGospel; a spurious appendix, of which the Evangelist S. Mark can have\nknown nothing. But so far from substantiating this charge, you have not\nadduced a single particle of evidence which renders it even probable.\n\n\u201cThe appeal was made by yourselves to Fathers and to MSS. It has been\naccepted. And with what result?\n\n(_a_) \u201cThose many Fathers whom you represented as hostile, prove on\ninvestigation to be reducible to _one_, viz. Eusebius: and Eusebius, as we\nhave seen, _does not say_ that the verses are spurious, but on the\ncontrary labours hard to prove that they may very well be genuine. On the\nother hand, there are earlier Fathers than Eusebius who quote them without\nany signs of misgiving. In this way, the positive evidence in their favour\nis carried back to the iind century.\n\n(_b_) \u201cDeclining the testimony of the Versions, you insisted on an appeal\nto MSS. On the MSS., in fact, you still make your stand,\u2014or rather you\nrely on _the oldest_ of them; for, (as you are aware,) _every MS. in the\nworld except the two oldest_ are against you.\n\n\u201cI have therefore questioned the elder of those two MSS.; and it has\nvolunteered the avowal that an older MS. than itself\u2014_the Codex from which\nit was copied_\u2014was furnished with those very Verses which you wish me to\nbelieve that some older MS. still must needs have been without. What else\ncan be said, then, of your method but that it is frivolous? and of your\ncharge, but that it is contradicted by the evidence to which you\nyourselves appeal?\n\n\u201cBut it is illogical; that is, it is unreasonable, besides.\n\n\u201cFor it is high time to point out that even if it so happened that the\noldest known MS. was observed to be without these twelve concluding\nverses, it would still remain a thing unproved (not to say highly\nimprobable) that from the autograph of the Evangelist himself they were\nalso away. Supposing, further, that no Ecclesiastical writer of the iind\nor iiird century could be found who quoted them: even so, it would not\nfollow that there existed no such verses for a primitive Father to quote.\nThe earliest of the Versions might in addition yield faltering testimony;\nbut even so, _who_ would be so rash as to raise on such a slender basis\nthe monstrous hypothesis, that S. Mark\u2019s Gospel when it left the hands of\nits inspired Author was without the verses which at present conclude it?\nHow, then, would you have proposed to account for the consistent testimony\nof an opposite kind yielded by every other known document in the world?\n\n\u201cBut, on the other hand, what are the facts of the case? (1) The earliest\nof the Fathers,\u2014(2) the most venerable of the Versions,\u2014(3) the oldest MS.\nof which we can obtain any tidings,\u2014_all_ are observed to _recognize these\nVerses_. \u2018Cadit quaestio\u2019 therefore. The last shadow of pretext has\nvanished for maintaining with Tischendorf that \u2018Mark the Evangelist knew\nnothing of\u2019 these verses:\u2014with Tregelles that \u2018The book of Mark himself\nextends no further than \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1:\u2019\u2014with Griesbach that \u2018the _last\nleaf of the original Gospel was probably torn away_.\u2019... It is high time,\nI say, that this case were dismissed. But there are also costs to be paid.\nCod. B and Cod. \u05d0 are convicted of being \u2018two false witnesses,\u2019 and must\nbe held to go forth from this inquiry with an injured reputation.\u201d\n\nThis entire subject is of so much importance that I must needs yet awhile\ncrave the reader\u2019s patience and attention.\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n\n\nMANUSCRIPT TESTIMONY SHEWN TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THESE\nVERSES.\u2014PART II.\n\n\n The other chief peculiarity of Codices B and \u05d0 (viz. the omission\n of the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 from Ephes. i. 1) considered.\u2014Antiquity\n unfavourable to the omission of those words (p. 93).\u2014The Moderns\n infelicitous in their attempts to account for their omission (p.\n 100).\u2014Marcion probably the author of this corruption of the Text\n of Scripture (p. 106).\u2014Other peculiarities of Codex \u05d0 disposed of\n (p. 109).\n\n\nThe subject which exclusively occupied our attention throughout the\nforegoing chapter admits of apt and powerful illustration. Its vast\nimportance will be a sufficient apology for the particular disquisition\nwhich follows, and might have been spared, but for the plain challenge of\nthe famous Critic to be named immediately.\n\n\u201cThere are two remarkable readings,\u201d (says Tischendorf, addressing English\nreaders on this subject in 1868,) \u201cwhich are very instructive towards\ndetermining the age of the manuscripts [\u05d0 and B], and _their authority_.\u201d\nHe proceeds to adduce,\u2014\n\n1. The absence from both, of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel,\u2014concerning which, the reader probably thinks that by this time he\nhas heard enough. Next,\u2014\n\n2. He appeals to their omission of the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 from the first verse\nof S. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Ephesians,\u2014_another peculiarity, in which\nCodd._ \u05d0 _and B stand quite alone among MSS._\n\nI. Here is an extraordinary note of sympathy between two copies of the New\nTestament indeed. Altogether unique is it: and that it powerfully\ncorroborates the general opinion of their high antiquity, no one will\ndeny. But how about \u201ctheir _authority_\u201d? Does the coincidence also raise\nour opinion of _the trustworthiness of the Text_, which these two MSS.\nconcur in exhibiting? for _that_ is the question which has to be\nconsidered,\u2014the _only_ question. The ancientness of a reading is one\nthing: its genuineness, (as I have explained elsewhere,) quite another.\nThe questions are entirely distinct. It may even be added that while the\none is really of little moment, the latter is of all the importance in the\nworld. I am saying that it matters very little whether Codd. \u05d0 and B were\nwritten in the beginning of the ivth century, or in the beginning of the\nvth: whereas it matters much, or rather it matters _everything_, whether\nthey exhibit the Word of GOD faithfully, or occasionally with scandalous\nlicense. How far the reading which results from the suppression of the\nlast two words in the phrase \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3, is\n_critically allowable_ or not, I forbear to inquire. That is not the point\nwhich we have to determine. The one question to be considered is,\u2014May it\n_possibly_ be the true reading of the text after all? Is it any way\n_credible_ that S. Paul began his Epistle to the Ephesians as\nfollows:\u2014\u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6?... If it be eagerly declared in\nreply that the thing is simply incredible: that the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 are\nrequired for the sense; and that the commonly received reading is no doubt\nthe correct one: then,\u2014there is an end of the discussion. Two\nextraordinary notes of sympathy between two Manuscripts will have been\nappealed to as crucial proofs of the _trustworthiness of the Text_ of\nthose Manuscripts: (for of their high _Antiquity_, let me say it once\nmore, there can be no question whatever:) and it will have been proved in\none case,\u2014admitted in the other,\u2014that _the omission is unwarrantable_.\u2014If,\nhowever, on the contrary, it be maintained that the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3\nprobably had no place in the original copy of this Epistle, but are to be\nregarded as an unauthorized addition to it,\u2014then, (as in the case of the\nTwelve Verses omitted from the end of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, and which it was\n_also_ pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we demand to be shewn\nthe evidence on the strength of which this opinion is maintained, in order\nthat we may ascertain what it is precisely worth.\n\nTischendorf,\u2014the illustrious discoverer and champion of Codex \u05d0, and who\nis accustomed to appeal triumphantly to its omission of the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3\nas _the other_ conclusive proof of the trustworthiness of its text,\u2014may be\npresumed to be the most able advocate it is likely to meet with, as well\nas the man best acquainted with what is to be urged in its support. From\nhim, we learn that the evidence for the omission of the words in question\nis as follows:\u2014\u201cIn the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians we read,\n\u2018to the saints which are at Ephesus;\u2019 but Marcion (A.D. 130-140), did not\nfind the words \u2018at Ephesus\u2019 in his copy. The same is true of Origen (A.D.\n185-254); and Basil the Great (who died A.D. 379), affirmed that those\nwords were wanting in _old_ copies. And this omission accords very well\nwith the encyclical or general character of the Epistle. At the present\nday, our ancient Greek MSS., and all ancient Versions, contain the words\n\u2018at Ephesus;\u2019 yea (_sic_), even Jerome knew no copy with a different\nreading. Now, only the Sinaitic and the Vatican correspond with the _old_\ncopies of Basil, and those of Origen and Marcion.\u201d(152)\u2014This then is the\nsum of the evidence. Proceed we to examine it somewhat in detail.\n\n(1) And first, I take leave to point out that the learned writer is\nabsolutely without authority for his assertion that \u201cMarcion _did not\nfind_ the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 in his copy\u201d of S. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the\nEphesians. Tischendorf\u2019s one pretence for saying so is Tertullian\u2019s\nstatement that certain heretics, (Marcion he specifies by name,) had given\nto S. Paul\u2019s \u201cEpistle to the Ephesians\u201d the unauthorized title of \u201cEpistle\n_to the Laodiceans_.\u201d(153) This, (argues Tischendorf,) Marcion could not\nhave done had he found \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 in the first verse.(154) But the proposed\ninference is clearly invalid. For, with what show of reason can\nMarcion,\u2014whom Tertullian taxes with having dared \u201c_titulum interpolare_\u201d\nin the case of S. Paul\u2019s \u201cEpistle to the Ephesians,\u201d\u2014be _therefore_,\nassumed to have read the first verse differently from ourselves? Rather is\nthe directly opposite inference suggested by the very language in which\nTertullian (who was all but the contemporary of Marcion) alludes to the\ncircumstance.(155)\n\nThose, however, who would really understand the work of the heretic,\nshould turn from the African Father,\u2014(who after all does but say that\nMarcion and his crew feigned concerning S. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the\n_Ephesians_, that it was addressed to the _Laodiceans_,)\u2014and betake\nthemselves to the pages of Epiphanius, who lived about a century and a\nhalf later. This Father had for many years made Marcion\u2019s work his special\nstudy,(156) and has elaborately described it, as well as presented us with\ncopious extracts from it.(157) And the account in Epiphanius proves that\nTischendorf is mistaken in the statement which he addresses to the English\nreader, (quoted above;) and that he would have better consulted for his\nreputation if he had kept to the \u201cut videtur\u201d with which (in his edition\nof 1859) he originally broached his opinion. It proves in fact to be no\nmatter of opinion at all. Epiphanius states distinctly that the _Epistle\nto the Ephesians_ was one of the ten Epistles of S. Paul which Marcion\n_retained_. In his \u201cApostolicon,\u201d or collection of the (mutilated)\nApostolical Epistles, the \u201cEpistle to the Ephesians,\u201d (identified by the\nconsiderable quotations which Epiphanius makes from it,(158)) stood (he\nsays) _seventh_ in order; while the (so called) \u201cEpistle to the\nLaodiceans,\u201d\u2014a distinct composition therefore,\u2014had the _eleventh_, that\nis, the last place assigned to it.(159) That this latter Epistle contained\na corrupt exhibition of Ephes. iv. 5 is true enough. Epiphanius records\nthe fact in two places.(160) But then it is to be borne in mind that he\ncharges Marcion with having derived that quotation _from the Apocryphal\nEpistle to the Laodiceans_;(161) instead of taking it, as he ought to have\ndone, from the genuine Epistle to the Ephesians. The passage, when\nfaithfully exhibited, (as Epiphanius points out,) by its very form refutes\nthe heretical tenet which the context of Marcion\u2019s spurious epistle to the\nLaodiceans was intended to establish; and which the verse in question, in\nits interpolated form, might seem to favour.(162)\u2014I have entered into this\nwhole question more in detail perhaps than was necessary: but I was\ndetermined to prove that Tischendorf\u2019s statement that \u201cMarcion (A.D.\n130-140) did not find the words \u2018at Ephesus\u2019 in his copy,\u201d\u2014is absolutely\nwithout foundation. It is even _contradicted_ by the known facts of the\ncase. I shall have something more to say about Marcion by-and-by; who, it\nis quite certain, read the text of Ephes. i. 1 exactly as we do.\n\n(2.) The _only_ Father who so expresses himself as to warrant the\ninference that the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 were absent from his copy, is Origen, in\nthe beginning of the third century. \u201cOnly in the case of the Ephesians,\u201d\n(he writes), \u201cdo we meet with the expression \u2018the Saints which are:\u2019 and\nwe inquire,\u2014Unless that additional phrase be simply redundant, what can it\npossibly signify? Consider, then, whether those who have been partakers of\n_His_ nature who revealed Himself to Moses by the Name of I AM, may not,\nin consequence of such union with Him, be designated as \u2018those _which\nare_:\u2019 persons, called out, of a state of _not_-being, so to speak, into a\nstate of _being_.\u201d(163)\u2014If Origen had read \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3\nin his copy, it is to me incredible that he would have gone so very far\nout of his way to miss the sense of such a plain, and in fact,\nunmistakable an expression. Bishop Middleton, and Michaelis before\nhim,\u2014_reasoning however only from the place in Basil,_ (to be quoted\nimmediately,)\u2014are unwilling to allow that the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 were ever\naway from the text. It must be admitted as the obvious inference from what\nJerome has delivered on this subject (_infr\u00e0_, p. 98 _note_) that he, too,\nseems to know nothing of the reading (if reading it can be called) of\nCodd. B and \u05d0.\n\n(3) The influence which Origen\u2019s writings exercised over his own and the\nimmediately succeeding ages of the Church, was prodigious. Basil, bishop\nof C\u00e6sarea in Cappadocia, writing against the heresy of Eunomius about 150\nyears later,\u2014although he read \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 in his own copy of S. Paul\u2019s\nEpistles,\u2014thought fit to avail himself of Origen\u2019s suggestion. It suited\nhis purpose. He was proving the eternal existence of the SON of GOD. Even\n_not to know_ GOD (he remarks) is _not to be_: in proof of which, he\nquotes S. Paul\u2019s words in 1 Cor. i. 28:\u2014\u201cThings _which are not_, hath GOD\nchosen.\u201d \u201cNay,\u201d (he proceeds,) the same S. Paul, \u201cin his Epistle to the\nEphesians, inasmuch as he is addressing persons who by intimate knowledge\nwere truly joined to Him who \u2018IS,\u2019 designates them specially as \u2018those\n_which are_:\u2019 saying,\u2014\u2018To the Saints _which are_, and faithful in CHRIST\nJESUS.\u2019 \u201d That this fancy was not original, Basil makes no secret. He\nderived it, (he says,) from \u201cthose who were before us;\u201d a plain allusion\nto the writings of Origen. But neither was _the reading_ his own, either.\nThis is evident. He had _found_ it, he says,\u2014(an asseveration\nindispensable to the validity of his argument,)\u2014but only after he had made\nsearch,(164)\u2014\u201c_in the old copies_.\u201d(165) No doubt, Origen\u2019s strange fancy\nmust have been even _unintelligible_ to Basil when first he met with it.\nIn plain terms, it sounds to this day incredibly foolish,\u2014when read apart\nfrom the mutilated text which alone suggested it to Origen\u2019s fervid\nimagination.\u2014But what there is in all this to induce us to suspect that\nOrigen\u2019s reading was after all the _right_ one, and _ours_ the _wrong_, I\nprofess myself wholly at a loss to discover. Origen himself complains\nbitterly of the depraved state of the copies in his time; and attributes\nit (1) to the carelessness of the scribes: (2) to the rashness of\ncorrectors of the text: (3) to the licentiousness of individuals, adopting\nsome of these corrections and rejecting others, according to their own\nprivate caprice.(166)\n\n(4) Jerome, a man of severer judgment in such matters than either Origen\nor Basil, after rehearsing the preceding gloss, (but only to reject it,)\nremarks that \u201ccertain persons\u201d had been \u201cover-fanciful\u201d in putting it\nforth. He alludes probably to Origen, whose Commentary on the Ephesians,\nin three books, he expressly relates that he employed:(167) but he does\nnot seem to have apprehended that Origen\u2019s text _was without the words_ \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3. If he was acquainted with Origen\u2019s text, (of which, however, his\nwritings afford no indication,) it is plain that he disapproved of it.\nOthers, he says, understand S. Paul to say not \u201cthe Saints _which are_:\u201d\nbut,\u2014\u201cthe Saints and faithful _which are at Ephesus_.\u201d(168)\n\n(5) The witnesses have now all been heard: and I submit that there has\nbeen elicited from their united evidence nothing at all calculated to\nshake our confidence in the universally received reading of Ephesians i.\n1. The facts of the case are so scanty that they admit of being faithfully\nstated in a single sentence. Two MSS. of the ivth century, (exhibiting in\nother respects several striking notes of vicious sympathy,) are found to\nconspire in omitting a clause in Ephesians i. 1, which, (necessary as it\nis to the sense,) may be inferred to have been absent from Origen\u2019s copy:\nand Basil testifies that it was absent from \u201cthe old copies\u201d to which he\nhimself obtained access. This is really the whole of the matter: in which\nit is much to be noted that Origen does not say that he _approved_ of this\nreading. Still less does Basil. They both witness to _the fact_ that the\nwords \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 were omitted from _some_ copies of the iiird century, just\nas Codd. B and \u05d0 witness to the same fact in the ivth. But what then?\nOrigen is known occasionally to go out of his way to notice readings\nconfessedly worthless; and, why not here? For not only is the text all but\n_unintelligible_ if the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 be omitted: but (what is far more\nto the purpose) the direct evidence of _all_ the copies, whether uncial or\ncursive,(169)\u2014and of _all_ the Versions,\u2014is _against_ the omission. In the\nface of this overwhelming mass of unfaltering evidence to insist that\nCodd. B and \u05d0 must yet be accounted right, and all the rest of Antiquity\nwrong, is simply irrational. To uphold the authority, in respect of this\nnonsensical reading, of _two_ MSS. confessedly untrustworthy in countless\nother places,\u2014against _all_ the MSS.\u2014_all_ the Versions,\u2014is nothing else\nbut an act of vulgar prejudice. I venture to declare,\u2014(and with this I\nshall close the discussion and dismiss the subject,)\u2014that _there does not\nexist one single instance in the whole of the New Testament_ of a reading\neven probably correct in which the four following notes of spurious origin\nconcur,\u2014which nevertheless are observed to attach to the two readings\nwhich have been chiefly discussed in the foregoing pages: viz.\n\n1. The adverse testimony of _all the uncial MSS. except two_.\n\n2. The adverse testimony of all, or _very nearly all_, the cursive MSS.\n\n3. The adverse testimony of _all the Versions_, without exception.\n\n4. The adverse testimony of _the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers_.\n\nTo which if I do not add, as I reasonably might,\u2014\n\n5. _The highest inherent improbability_,\u2014it is only because I desire to\ntreat this question purely as one of _Evidence_.\n\nII. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity _to account for_ the\nphenomenon on which we have been bestowing so many words. The endeavour is\ncommendable; but I take leave to remark in passing that if we are to set\nabout discovering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for every\ncorrupt reading which found its way into the sacred text during the first\nthree centuries subsequent to the death of S. John, we shall have enough\nto do. Let any one take up the Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way, Cod.\nB shews marvellous sympathy(170),) and explain if he can why there is a\ngrave omission, or else a gross interpolation, in almost every page; and\nhow it comes to pass that Cod. D \u201creproduces the \u2018textus receptus\u2019 of the\nActs much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the\nHebrew of the Old Testament; so wide are the variations in the diction, so\nconstant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means\nof interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a\nsemblance of internal probability.\u201d(171) Our business as Critics is not\n_to invent theories_ to account for the errors of Copyists; but rather to\nascertain where they have erred, where not. What with the inexcusable\ndepravations of early Heretics,\u2014the preposterous emendations of ancient\nCritics,\u2014the injudicious assiduity of Harmonizers,\u2014the licentious caprice\nof individuals;\u2014what with errors resulting from the inopportune\nrecollection of similar or parallel places,\u2014or from the familiar\nphraseology of the Ecclesiastical Lections,\u2014or from the inattention of\nScribes,\u2014or from marginal glosses;\u2014however arising, endless are the\ncorrupt readings of the oldest MSS. in existence; and it is by no means\nsafe to follow up the detection of a depravation of the text with a theory\nto account for its existence. Let me be allowed to say that such theories\nare seldom satisfactory. _Guesses_ only they are at best.\n\nThus, I profess myself wholly unable to accept the suggestion of\nUssher,\u2014(which, however, found favour with Garnier (Basil\u2019s editor),\nBengel, Benson, and Michaelis; and has since been not only eagerly\nadvocated by Conybeare and Howson following a host of German Critics, but\nhas even enjoyed Mr. Scrivener\u2019s distinct approval;)\u2014that the Epistle to\nthe Ephesians \u201cwas _a Circular_ addressed to other Asiatic Cities besides\nthe capital Ephesus,\u2014to Laodicea perhaps among the rest (Col. iv. 16); and\nthat while some Codices may have contained the name of Ephesus in the\nfirst verse, _others may have had another city substituted, or the space\nafter_ \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd _left utterly void_.\u201d(172) At first sight, this\nconjecture has a kind of interesting plausibility which recommends it to\nour favour. On closer inspection,\u2014(i) It is found to be not only\ngratuitous; but (ii) altogether unsupported and unsanctioned by the known\nfacts of the case; and (what is most to the purpose) (iii) it is, as I\nhumbly think, demonstrably erroneous. I demur to it,\u2014\n\n(1) Because of its exceeding Improbability: for (_a_) when S. Paul sent\nhis Epistle to the Ephesians we know that Tychicus, the bearer of it,(173)\nwas charged with _a distinct Epistle_ to the Colossians:(174) an Epistle\nnevertheless so singularly like the Epistle to the Ephesians that it is\nscarcely credible S. Paul would have written those two several Epistles to\ntwo of the Churches of Asia, and yet have sent only a duplicate of one of\nthem, (_that_ to the Ephesians,) furnished with a different address, to so\nlarge and important a place as Laodicea, for example, (_b_) Then further,\nthe provision which S. Paul made at this very time for communicating with\nthe Churches of Asia which he did not separately address is found to have\nbeen different. The Laodiceans were to read in their public assembly S.\nPaul\u2019s \u201c_Epistle to the Colossians_,\u201d which the Colossians were ordered to\nsend them. The Colossians in like manner were to read the Epistle,\u2014(to\nwhom addressed, we know not),\u2014which S. Paul describes as \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\n\u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.(175) If then it had been S. Paul\u2019s desire that the Laodiceans\n(suppose) should read publicly in their Churches his Epistle to the\nEphesians, surely, he would have charged the Ephesians to procure that\n_his Epistle to them should be read in the Church of the Laodiceans_. Why\nshould the Apostle be gratuitously assumed to have simultaneously adopted\none method with the Churches of _Colosse_ and Laodicea,\u2014another with the\nChurches of _Ephesus_ and Laodicea,\u2014in respect of his epistolary\ncommunications?\n\n(2) (_a_) But even supposing, for argument\u2019s sake, that S. Paul _did_ send\nduplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ephesians to certain of the\nprincipal Churches of Asia Minor,\u2014why should he have left the salutation\n_blank_, (\u201ccarta bianca,\u201d as Bengel phrases it,(176)) for Tychicus to fill\nup when he got into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short\nof _this_ would account for the reading of Codd. B and \u05d0.\n\n(_b_) Let the full extent of the demand which is made on our good nature\nbe clearly appreciated. We are required to believe that there was (1) A\ncopy of what we call S. Paul\u2019s \u201cEpistle to the Ephesians\u201d sent into Asia\nMinor by S. Paul with a blank address; i.e. \u201cwith the space after \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd left utterly void:\u201d (2) That Tychicus neglected to fill up that\nblank: and, (what is remarkable) (3) That no one was found to fill it up\nfor him. Next, (4) That the same copy became the fontal source of the copy\nseen by Origen, and (5) Of the \u201cold copies\u201d seen by Basil; as well as (6)\nOf Codd. B and \u05d0. And even this is not all. The same hypothesis constrains\nus to suppose that, on the contrary, (7) _One other_ copy of this same\n\u201cEncyclical Epistle,\u201d filled up with the Ephesian address, became the\narchetype of _every other copy of this Epistle in the world_.... But of\nwhat nature, (I would ask,) is the supposed necessity for building up such\na marvellous structure of hypothesis,\u2014of which the top story overhangs and\noverbalances all the rest of the edifice? The thing which puzzles us in\nCodd. B and \u05d0 is not that we find the name of _another City_ in the\nsalutation of S. Paul\u2019s \u201cEpistle to the Ephesians,\u201d but that we find the\nname of _no_ city at all; nor meet with any vacant space there.\n\n(_c_) On the other hand, supposing that S. Paul actually did address to\ndifferent Churches copies of the present Epistle, and was scrupulous (as\nof course he was) to fill in the addresses himself before the precious\ndocuments left his hands,\u2014then, doubtless, each several Church would have\nreceived, cherished, and jealously guarded its own copy. But if _this_ had\nbeen the case, (or indeed if Tychicus had filled up the blanks for the\nApostle,) is it not simply incredible that we should never have heard a\nword about the matter until now? unaccountable, above all, that there\nshould nowhere exist traces of _conflicting testimony_ as to the Church to\nwhich S. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas _all_ the\nmost ancient writers, without exception,\u2014(Marcion himself [A.D. 140(177)],\nthe \u201cMuratorian\u201d fragment [A.D. 170 or earlier], Iren\u00e6us [A.D. 175],\nClemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprian,\nEusebius,)\u2014and all copies wheresoever found, give one unvarying,\nunfaltering witness. Even in Cod. B. and Cod. \u05d0, (and this is much to be\nnoted,) the _superscription_ of the Epistle attests that it was addressed\n\u201cto the Ephesians.\u201d Can we be warranted (I would respectfully inquire) in\ninventing facts in the history of an Apostle\u2019s practice, in order to\naccount for what seems to be after all only an ordinary depravation of his\ntext?(178)\n\n(3) But, in fact, it is high time to point out that such \u201c_a Circular_\u201d as\nwas described above, (each copy furnished with a blank, to be filled up\nwith the name of a different City,) would be a document without parallel\nin the annals of the primitive Church. It is, as far as I am aware,\nessentially a modern notion. I suspect, in short, that the suggestion\nbefore us is only another instance of the fatal misapprehension which\nresults from the incautious transfer of the notions suggested by some\nfamiliar word in a living language to its supposed equivalent in an\nancient tongue. Thus, because \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 or \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 confessedly signifies\n\u201ccircularis,\u201d it seems to be imagined that \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae may mean \u201ca\nCircular Letter.\u201d Whereas it really means nothing of the sort; but\u2014\u201c_a\nCatholic Epistle_.\u201d(179)\n\nAn \u201c_Encyclical_\u201d (and _that_ is the word which has been imported into the\npresent discussion), was quite a different document from what _we_ call \u201ca\nCircular.\u201d Addressed to no one Church or person in particular, it was\nCatholic or General,\u2014the common property of all to whom it came. The\nGeneral (or Catholic) Epistles of S. James, S. Peter, S. John are\n\u201cEncyclical.\u201d(180) So is the well-known Canonical Epistle which Gregory,\nBp. of Neoc\u00e6sar\u00e6a in Pontus, in the middle of the third century, sent to\nthe Bishops of his province.(181) As for \u201c_a blank circular_\u201d to be filled\nup with the words \u201cin Ephesus,\u201d \u201cin Laodicea,\u201d &c.,\u2014its like (I repeat) is\nwholly unknown in the annals of Ecclesiastical Antiquity. The two notions\nare at all events inconsistent and incompatible. If S. Paul\u2019s Epistle to\nthe Ephesians was \u201ca Circular,\u201d then it was not \u201cEncyclical:\u201d if it was\n\u201cEncyclical\u201d then it was not \u201ca Circular.\u201d\n\nAre we then deliberately to believe, (for to this necessity we are\nlogically reduced,) that the Epistle which occupies the fifth place among\nS. Paul\u2019s writings, and which from the beginning of the second\ncentury,\u2014that is, from the very dawn of Historical evidence,\u2014has been\nknown as \u201cthe Epistle to the Ephesians,\u201d was an \u201cEncyclical,\u201d \u201cCatholic\u201d\nor \u201cGeneral Epistle,\u201d\u2014addressed \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6? There does not live the man who will accept so irrational a\nsupposition. The suggestion therefore by which it has been proposed to\naccount for the absence of the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 in Ephes. i. 1 is not only\nin itself in the highest degree improbable, and contradicted by all the\nevidence to which we have access; but it is even inadmissible on critical\ngrounds, and must be unconditionally surrendered.(182) It is observed to\ncollapse before every test which can be applied to it.\n\nIII. Altogether marvellous in the meantime it is to me,\u2014if men must needs\naccount for the omission of the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 from this place,\u2014that they\nshould have recourse to wild, improbable, and wholly unsupported theories,\nlike those which go before; while an easy,\u2014I was going to say the\nobvious,\u2014solution of the problem is close at hand, and even solicits\nacceptance.\n\nMarcion the heretic, (A.D. 140) is distinctly charged by Tertullian (A.D.\n200), and by Jerome a century and a half later, with having abundantly\nmutilated the text of Scripture, and of S. Paul\u2019s Epistles in particular.\nEpiphanius compares the writing which Marcion tampered with to a\nmoth-eaten coat.(183) \u201cInstead of a stylus,\u201d (says Tertullian,) \u201cMarcion\nemployed a knife.\u201d \u201cWhat wonder if he omits syllables, since often he\nomits whole pages?\u201d(184) S. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Ephesians, Tertullian\neven singles out by name; accusing Marcion of having furnished it with a\nnew title. All this has been fully explained above, from page 93 to page\n96.\n\nNow, that Marcion recognised as S. Paul\u2019s Epistle \u201c_to the Ephesians_\u201d\nthat Apostolical writing which stands fifth in our Canon, (but which stood\nseventh in his,) is just as certain as that he recognised as such S.\nPaul\u2019s Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians,\nColossians, Philippians. All this has been fully explained in a preceding\npage.(185)\n\nBut it is also evident that Marcion put forth as S. Paul\u2019s _another_\nEpistle,\u2014of which all we know for certain is, that it contained portions\nof the Epistle to the Ephesians, and purported to be addressed by S. Paul\n\u201cto the Laodiceans.\u201d To ascertain with greater precision the truth of this\nmatter at the end of upwards of seventeen centuries is perhaps impossible.\nNor is it necessary. Obvious is it to suspect that not only did this\nheretical teacher at some period of his career prefix a new heading to\ncertain copies of the Epistle to the Ephesians, but also that some of his\nfollowers industriously erased from certain other copies the words \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 in ver. 1,\u2014as being _the only two words in the entire Epistle_ which\neffectually refuted their Master. It was not needful, (be it observed,) to\nmultiply copies of the Epistle for the propagation of Marcion\u2019s deceit.\nOnly two words had to be erased,\u2014_the very two words whose omission we are\ntrying to account for_,\u2014in order to give some colour to his proposed\nattribution of the Epistle, (\u201cquasi in isto diligentissimus\nexplorator,\u201d)\u2014to the Laodiceans. One of these mutilated copies will have\nfallen into the hands of Origen,\u2014who often complains of the corrupt state\nof his text: while the critical personages for whom Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0 were\ntranscribed will probably have been acquainted with other such mutilated\ncopies. Are we not led, as it were by the hand, to take some such view of\nthe case? In this way we account satisfactorily, and on grounds of\nhistoric evidence, for the omission which has exercised the Critics so\nseverely.\n\nI do not lose sight of the fact that the Epistle to the Ephesians ends\nwithout salutations, without personal notices of any kind. But in this\nrespect it is not peculiar.(186) _That_,\u2014joined to a singular absence of\nidentifying allusion,\u2014sufficiently explains why Marcion selected this\nparticular Epistle for the subject of his fraud. But, to infer from this\ncircumstance, in defiance of the Tradition of the Church Universal, and in\ndefiance of its very Title, that the Epistle is \u201cEncyclical,\u201d in the\ntechnical sense of that word; and to go on to urge this characteristic as\nan argument in support of the omission of the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3,\u2014is clearly\nthe device of an eager Advocate; not the method of a calm and unprejudiced\nJudge. True it is that S. Paul,\u2014who, writing to the Corinthians from\nEphesus, says \u201c_the Churches of Asia_ salute you,\u201d (1 Cor. xvi. 19,)\u2014may\nhave known very well that an Epistle of his \u201cto the Ephesians,\u201d would, as\na matter of course, be instantly communicated to others besides the\nmembers of that particular Church: and in fact this may explain why there\nis nothing specially \u201cEphesian\u201d in the contents of the Epistle. The\nApostle,\u2014(as when he addressed \u201cthe Churches of Galatia,\u201d)\u2014may have had\ncertain of the other neighbouring Churches in his mind while he wrote. But\nall this is wholly foreign to the question before us: the one _only_\nquestion being _this_,\u2014Which of the three following addresses represents\nwhat S. Paul must be considered to have actually written in the first\nverse of his \u201cEpistle to the Ephesians\u201d?\u2014\n\n(1) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7. \u1f38.\n\n(2) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7. \u1f38.\n\n(3) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7. \u1f38.\n\nWhat I have been saying amounts to this: that it is absolutely\nunreasonable for men to go out of their way to invent a theory wanting\nevery element of probability in order to account for the omission of the\nwords \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 from S. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Ephesians; while they have\nunder their eyes the express testimony of a competent witness of the iind\ncentury that a certain heretic, named Marcion, \u201cpresumed to prefix an\nunauthorized title to that very Epistle,\u201d (\u201cMarcion ei titulum aliquando\ninterpolare gestiit,\u201d)\u2014which title obviously _could not stand unless those\ntwo words were first erased from the text_. To interpolate that new title,\nand to erase the two words which were plainly inconsistent with it, were\nobviously correlative acts which must always have been performed together.\n\nBut however all this may be, (as already pointed out,) the only question\nto be determined by us is,\u2014whether it be credible that the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3\nare an unauthorized addition; foisted into the text of Ephes. i. 1 as far\nback as the Apostolic age: an interpolation which, instead of dying out,\nand at last all but disappearing, has spread and established itself, until\nthe words are found in every copy,\u2014are represented in every\ntranslation,\u2014have been recognised in every country,\u2014witnessed to by every\nFather,\u2014received in every age of the Church? I repeat that the one\nquestion which has to be decided is, not _how_ the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 came to\nbe put in, or came to be left out; but simply whether, on an impartial\nreview of the evidence, it be reasonable (with Tischendorf, Tregelles,\nConybeare and Howson, and so many more,) to suspect their genuineness and\nenclose them in brackets? Is it _credible_ that the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 are a\nspurious and unauthorized addition to the inspired autograph of the\nApostle?... We have already, as I think, obtained a satisfactory answer to\nthis question. It has been shewn, as conclusively as in inquiries of this\nnature is possible, that in respect of the reading of Ephesians i. 1,\nCodd. B and \u05d0 are even _most_ conspicuously at fault.\n\nIV. But if these two Codices are thus convicted of error in respect of the\none remaining text which their chief upholders have selected, and to which\nthey still make their most confident appeal,\u2014what remains, but to point\nout that it is high time that men should be invited to disabuse their\nminds of the extravagant opinion which they have been so industriously\ntaught to entertain of the value of the two Codices in question? It has\nalready degenerated into an unreasoning prejudice, and threatens at last\nto add one more to the already overgrown catalogue of \u201cvulgar errors.\u201d\n\nV. I cannot, I suppose, act more fairly by Tischendorf than by\ntranscribing in conclusion his remarks on the four remaining readings of\nCodex \u05d0 to which he triumphantly appeals: promising to dismiss them all\nwith a single remark. He says, (addressing unlearned readers,) in his\n\u201cIntroduction\u201d to the Tauchnitz (English) New Testament(187):\u2014\n\n\n \u201cTo these examples, others might be added. Thus, Origen says on\n John i. 4, that in some copies it was written, \u2018in Him _is_ life\u2019\n for \u2018in Him _was_ life.\u2019 This is a reading which we find in sundry\n quotations before the time of Origen;(188) but now, among all\n known Greek MSS. it is _only in the Sinaitic, and the famous old\n Codex Bezae_, a copy of the Gospels at Cambridge; yet it is also\n found in most of the early Latin versions, in the most ancient\n Syriac, and in the oldest Coptic.\u2014Again, in Matth. xiii. 35,\n Jerome observes that in the third century Porphyry, the antagonist\n of Christianity, had found fault with the Evangelist Matthew for\n having said, \u2018which was spoken by the prophet Esaias.\u2019 A writing\n of the second century had already witnessed to the same reading;\n but Jerome adds further that well-informed men had long ago\n removed the name of Esaias. Among all our MSS. of a thousand years\n old and upwards, _there is not a solitary example containing the\n name of Esaias in the text referred to,\u2014except the Sinaitic_, to\n which a few of less than a thousand years old may be added.\u2014Once\n more, Origen quotes John xiii. 10 six times; but _only the\n Sinaitic and several ancient Latin MSS._ read it the same as\n Origen: \u2018He that is washed needeth not to wash, but is clean every\n whit.\u2019\u2014In John vi. 51, also, where the reading is very difficult\n to settle, the _Sinaitic is alone among all Greek copies_\n indubitably correct; and Tertullian, at the end of the second\n century, confirms the Sinaitic reading: \u2018If any man eat of my\n bread, he shall live for ever. The bread that I will give for the\n life of the world is my flesh.\u2019 We omit to indicate further\n illustrations of this kind, although there are many others like\n them.\u201d(189)\n\n\nLet it be declared without offence, that there appears to exist in the\nmind of this illustrious Critic a hopeless confusion between the\n_antiquity_ of a Codex and the _value_ of its readings. I venture to\nassert that a reading is valuable or the contrary, exactly in proportion\nto the probability of its being true or false. Interesting it is sure to\nbe, be it what it may, if it be found in a very ancient codex,\u2014interesting\nand often instructive: but the editor of Scripture must needs bring every\nreading, wherever found, to this test at last:\u2014Is it to be thought that\nwhat I am here presented with is what the Evangelist or the Apostle\nactually wrote? If an answer in the negative be obtained to this question,\nthen, the fact that one, or two, or three of the early Fathers appear to\nhave so read the place, will not avail to impart to the rejected reading\none particle of _value_. And yet Tischendorf thinks it enough in _all_ the\npreceding passages to assure his reader that a given reading in Cod. \u05d0 was\nrecognised by Origen, by Tertullian, by Jerome. To have established this\none point he evidently thinks sufficient. There is implied in all this an\nutterly false major premiss: viz. That Scriptural quotations found in the\nwritings of Origen, of Tertullian, of Jerome, must needs be the _ipsissima\nverba_ of the SPIRIT. Whereas it is notorious \u201cthat the worst corruptions\nto which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a\nhundred years after it was composed: that Iren\u00e6us and the whole Western,\nwith a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to\nthose employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries\nlater, when moulding the Textus Receptus.\u201d(190) And one is astonished that\na Critic of so much sagacity, (who of course knows better,) should\ndeliberately put forth so gross a fallacy,\u2014not only without a word of\nexplanation, a word of caution, but in such a manner as inevitably to\nmislead an unsuspecting reader. Without offence to Dr. Tischendorf, I must\nbe allowed to declare that, in the remarks we have been considering, he\nshews himself far more bent on glorifying the \u201cCodex Sinaiticus\u201d than in\nestablishing the Truth of the pure Word of GOD. He convinces me that to\nhave found an early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal as to have \u201ctaken\na gift.\u201d Verily, \u201c_it doth blind the eyes of the wise_.\u201d(191)\n\nAnd with this, I shall conclude my remarks on these two famous Codices. I\nhumbly record my deliberate conviction that when the Science of Textual\nCriticism, which is at present only in its infancy, comes to be better\nunderstood; (and a careful collation of every existing Codex of the New\nTestament is one indispensable preliminary to its being ever placed on a\ntrustworthy basis;) a very different estimate will be formed of the\nimportance of not a few of those readings which at present are received\nwith unquestioning submission, chiefly on the authority of Codex B and\nCodex \u05d0. On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that no future\ncollations, no future discoveries, will ever make it credible that the\nlast Twelve Verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel are a spurious supplement to the\nEvangelical Narrative; or that the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 are an unauthorized\ninterpolation of the inspired Text.\n\nAnd thus much concerning Codex B and Codex \u05d0.\n\nI would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion of the \u201cInternal\nEvidence,\u201d but that the external testimony commonly appealed to is not yet\nfully disposed of. There remain to be considered certain ancient \u201cScholia\u201d\nand \u201cNotes,\u201d and indeed whatever else results from the critical inspection\nof ancient MSS., whether uncial or cursive: and all this may reasonably\nclaim one entire Chapter to itself.\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n\n\nTHE PURPORT OF ANCIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES IN MSS. ON THE SUBJECT OF THESE\nVERSES, SHEWN TO BE THE REVERSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED.\n\n\n Later Editors of the New Testament the victims of their\n predecessors\u2019 inaccuracies.\u2014Birch\u2019s unfortunate mistake (p.\n 117).\u2014Scholz\u2019 serious blunders (p. 119 and pp. 120-1).\u2014Griesbach\u2019s\n sweeping misstatement (pp. 121-2).\u2014The grave misapprehension which\n has resulted from all this inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3); Codex\n L (p. 123).\u2014Ammonius not the author of the so-called \u201cAmmonian\u201d\n Sections (p. 125).\u2014Epiphanius (p. 132).\u2014\u201cCaesarius,\u201d a\n misnomer.\u2014\u201cThe Catenae,\u201d misrepresented (p. 133).\n\n\nIn the present Chapter, I propose to pass under review whatever manuscript\ntestimony still remains unconsidered; our attention having been hitherto\nexclusively devoted to Codices B and \u05d0. True, that the rest of the\nevidence may be disposed of in a single short sentence:\u2014_The Twelve Verses\nunder discussion are found in every copy of the Gospels in existence with\nthe exception of Codices B and \u05d0_. But then,\n\nI. We are assured,\u2014(by Dr. Tregelles for example,)\u2014that \u201ca Note or a\nScholion stating the absence of these verses from _many_, from _most_, or\nfrom the _most correct_ copies (often from Victor or Severus) is found in\ntwenty-five other cursive Codices.\u201d(192) Tischendorf has nearly the same\nwords: \u201cScholia\u201d (he says) \u201cin very many MSS. state that the Gospel of\nMark in the most ancient (and most accurate) copies ended at the ninth\nverse.\u201d That distinguished Critic supports his assertion by appealing to\nseven MSS. in particular,\u2014and referring generally to \u201cabout twenty-five\nothers.\u201d Dr. Davidson adopts every word of this blindfold.\n\n1. Now of course if all that precedes were true, this department of the\nEvidence would become deserving of serious attention. But I simply _deny\nthe fact_. I entirely deny that the \u201cNote or Scholion\u201d which these learned\npersons affirm to be of such frequent occurrence has any existence\nwhatever,\u2014except in their own imaginations. On the other hand, I assert\nthat notes or scholia which state the exact reverse, (viz. that \u201cin the\nolder\u201d or \u201cthe more accurate copies\u201d the last twelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel _are contained_,) recur even perpetually. The plain truth is\nthis:\u2014These eminent persons have taken their information at\nsecond-hand,\u2014partly from Griesbach, partly from Scholz,\u2014without suspicion\nand without inquiry. But then they have slightly misrepresented Scholz;\nand Scholz (1830) slightly misunderstood Griesbach; and Griesbach (1796)\ntook liberties with Wetstein; and Wetstein (1751) made a few serious\nmistakes. The consequence might have been anticipated. The Truth, once\nthrust out of sight, certain erroneous statements have usurped its\nplace,\u2014which every succeeding Critic now reproduces, evidently to his own\nentire satisfaction; though not, it must be declared, altogether to his\nown credit. Let me be allowed to explain in detail what has occurred.\n\n2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly German plan of setting\ndown _all_ the twenty-five MSS.(193) and _all_ the five Patristic\nauthorities which up to his time had been cited as bearing on the\ngenuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20: giving the former _in numerical order_,\nand stating generally concerning them that in one or other of those\nauthorities it would be found recorded \u201cthat the verses in question were\nanciently _wanting_ in some, or in most, or in almost all the Greek\ncopies, or in the most accurate ones:\u2014or else that they were _found_ in a\nfew, or in the more accurate copies, or in many, or in most of them,\nspecially in the Palestinian Gospel.\u201d The learned writer (who had made up\nhis mind long before that the verses in question are to be rejected) no\ndoubt perceived that this would be the most convenient way of disposing of\nthe evidence for and against: but one is at a loss to understand how\nEnglish scholars can have acquiesced in such a slipshod statement for well\nnigh a hundred years. A very little study of the subject would have shewn\nthem that Griesbach derived the first eleven of his references from\nWetstein,(194) the last fourteen from Birch.(195) As for Scholz, he\nunsuspiciously adopted Griesbach\u2019s fatal enumeration of Codices; adding\nfive to the number; and only interrupting the series here and there, in\norder to insert the quotations which Wetstein had already supplied from\ncertain of them. With Scholz, therefore, rests the blame of everything\nwhich has been written since 1830 concerning the MS. evidence for this\npart of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel; subsequent critics having been content to adopt\nhis statements without acknowledgment and without examination.\nUnfortunately Scholz did his work (as usual) in such a slovenly style,\nthat besides perpetuating old mistakes he invented new ones; which, of\ncourse, have been reproduced by those who have simply translated or\ntranscribed him. And now I shall examine his note \u201c(z)\u201d,(196) with which\npractically all that has since been delivered on this subject by\nTischendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, and the rest, is identical.\n\n(1.) Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two MSS. in the\nVatican Library(197) the verses in question \u201care marked with an asterisk.\u201d\nThe original author of this statement was Birch, who followed it up by\nexplaining the fatal signification of this mark.(198) From that day to\nthis, the asterisks in Codd. Vatt. 756 and 757 have been religiously\nreproduced by every Critic in turn; and it is universally taken for\ngranted that they represent two ancient witnesses against the genuineness\nof the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark.\n\nAnd yet, (let me say it without offence,) a very little attention ought to\nbe enough to convince any one familiar with this subject that the proposed\ninference is absolutely inadmissible. For, in the first place, a\n_solitary_ asterisk (not at all a rare phenomenon in ancient MSS.(199))\nhas of necessity no such signification. And even if it does sometimes\nindicate that all the verses which follow are suspicious, (of which,\nhowever, I have never seen an example,) it clearly _could_ not have that\nsignification here,\u2014for a reason which I should have thought an\nintelligent boy might discover.\n\nWell aware, however, that I should never be listened to, with Birch and\nGriesbach, Scholz and Tischendorf, and indeed every one else against me,\u2014I\ngot a learned friend at Rome to visit the Vatican Library for me, and\ninspect the two Codices in question.(200) That he would find Birch right\n_in his facts_, I had no reason to doubt; but I much more than doubted the\ncorrectness of his proposed inference from them. I even felt convinced\nthat the meaning and purpose of the asterisks in question would be\ndemonstrably different from what Birch had imagined.\n\nAltogether unprepared was I for the result. It is found that the learned\nDane has here made one of those (venial, but) unfortunate blunders to\nwhich every one is liable who registers phenomena of this class in haste,\nand does not methodize his memoranda until he gets home. To be\nbrief,\u2014_there proves to be no asterisk at all,\u2014either in Cod. 756, or in\nCod. 757_.\n\nOn the contrary. After \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, the former Codex has, in the text of\nS. Mark xvi. 9 (_fol. 150 b_), a plain cross,\u2014(_not_ an asterisk, thus\n[symbol: x with dots in corners] or [symbol: broken x with corner dots] or\n[symbol: inverse or open x], but a cross, thus +),\u2014the intention of which\nis to refer the reader to an annotation on _fol. 151 b_, (marked, of\ncourse, with a cross also,) _to the effect that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is\nundoubtedly __ genuine_.(201) The evidence, therefore, not only breaks\nhopelessly down; but it is discovered that this witness has been by\naccident put into the wrong box. This is, in fact, a witness _not_ for the\nplaintiff, but _for the defendant!_\u2014As for the other Codex, it exhibits\nneither asterisk nor cross; but contains the same note or scholion\nattesting the genuineness of the last twelve verses of S. Mark.\n\nI suppose I may now pass on: but I venture to point out that unless the\nWitnesses which remain to be examined are able to produce very different\ntestimony from that borne by the last two, the present inquiry cannot be\nbrought to a close too soon. (\u201cI took thee to curse mine enemies, and,\nbehold, thou hast blessed them altogether.\u201d)\n\n(2.) In Codd. 20 and 300 (Scholz proceeds) we read as follows:\u2014\u201cFrom here\nto the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. _In the\nancient copies, however, it all forms part of the text_.\u201d(202) Scholz (who\nwas the first to adduce this important testimony to the genuineness of the\nverses now under consideration) takes no notice of the singular\ncircumstance that the two MSS. he mentions have been _exactly_ assimilated\nin ancient times to a common model; and that they correspond one with the\nother so entirely(203) that the foregoing rubrical annotation appears _in\nthe wrong place_ in both of them, viz. _at the close of ver._ 15, where it\ninterrupts the text. This was, therefore, once a scholion written in the\nmargin of some very ancient Codex, which has lost its way in the process\nof transcription; (for there can be no doubt that it was originally\nwritten against ver. 8.) And let it be noted that its testimony is\nexpress; and that it avouches for the fact that \u201c_in the ancient copies_,\u201d\nS. Mark xvi. 9-20 \u201c_formed part of the text_.\u201d\n\n(3.) Yet more important is the record contained in the same two MSS., (of\nwhich also Scholz says nothing,) viz. that they exhibit a text which had\nbeen \u201ccollated with the ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem.\u201d(204)\nWhat need to point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in\nconjunction with the express voucher that \u201calthough some copies of the\nGospels are without the verses under discussion, yet that _in the ancient\ncopies_ all the verses are found,\u201d is a _critical attestation to the\ngenuineness_ of S. Mark xvi. 9 to 20, far outweighing the bare statement\n(next to be noticed) of the undeniable historical fact that, \u201c_in some\ncopies_,\u201d S. Mark _ends at ver._ 8,\u2014but \u201cin many _does not_\u201d?\n\n(4.) Scholz proceeds:\u2014\u201cIn Cod. 22, after \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 + \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 is read the\nfollowing rubric:\u201d\u2014\n\n\u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2: \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.(205)\n\nAnd the whole of this statement is complacently copied by _all_ subsequent\nCritics and Editors,\u2014cross, and \u201c\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\u201d and all,\u2014as an additional ancient\nattestation to the fact that \u201c_The End_\u201d (\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) _of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel_ is\nindeed at ch. xvi. 8. Strange,\u2014incredible rather,\u2014that among so many\nlearned persons, not one should have perceived that \u201c\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\u201d in this place\nmerely denotes that here _a well-known Ecclesiastical section comes to an\nend_!... As far, therefore, as the present discussion is concerned, the\ncircumstance is purely irrelevant;(206) and, (as I propose to shew in\nChapter XI,) the less said about it by the opposite party, the better.\n\n(5.) Scholz further states that in four, (he means three,) other Codices\nvery nearly the same colophon as the preceding recurs, with an important\nadditional clause. In Codd. 1, 199, 206, 209, (he says) is read,\u2014\n\n\u201cIn certain of the copies, the Evangelist finishes here; _up to which\nplace Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus canonized_. In other copies,\nhowever, is found as follows.\u201d(207) And then comes the rest of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel.\n\nI shall have more to say about this reference to Eusebius, and what he\n\u201ccanonized,\u201d by-and-by. But what is there in all this, (let me in the\nmeantime ask), to recommend the opinion that the Gospel of S. Mark was\npublished by its Author in an incomplete state; or that the last twelve\nverses of it are of spurious origin?\n\n(6.) The reader\u2019s attention is specially invited to the imposing statement\nwhich follows. Codd. 23, 34, 39, 41, (says Scholz,) \u201ccontain these words\nof Severus of Antioch:\u2014\n\n\n \u201cIn the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its\n end at \u2018for they were afraid.\u2019 In some copies, however, this also\n is added,\u2014\u2018Now when He was risen,\u2019 &c. This, however, seems to\n contradict to some extent what was before delivered,\u201d &c.\n\n\nIt may sound fabulous, but it is strictly true, that every word of this,\n(unsuspiciously adopted as it has been by _every Critic_ who has since\ngone over the same ground,) is a mere tissue of mistakes. For first,\u2014Cod.\n23 contains _nothing whatever pertinent to the present inquiry_. (Scholz,\nevidently through haste and inadvertence, has confounded _his own_ \u201c23\u201d\nwith \u201c_Coisl._ 23,\u201d but \u201cCoisl. 23\u201d is his \u201c39,\u201d\u2014of which by-and-by. This\nreference therefore has to be cancelled.)\u2014Cod. 41 contains a scholion of\n_precisely the opposite tendency_: I mean, a scholion which avers that\n_the accurate copies of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel contain these last twelve\nverses_. (Scholz borrowed this wrong reference from Wetstein,\u2014who, by an\noversight, quotes Cod. 41 three times instead of twice.)\u2014There remain but\nCodd. 34 and 39; and in neither of those two manuscripts, from the first\npage of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel to the last, does there exist _any _\u201cscholion of\nSeverus of Antioch\u201d_ whatever_. Scholz, in a word, has inadvertently made\na gross misstatement;(208) and every Critic who has since written on this\nsubject has adopted his words,\u2014without acknowledgment and without\nexamination.... Such is the evidence on which it is proposed to prove that\nS. Mark did not write the last twelve verses of his Gospel!\n\n(7.) Scholz proceeds to enumerate the following twenty-two Codices:\u201424,\n34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 199,\n206, 209, 210, 221, 222. And this imposing catalogue is what has misled\nTischendorf, Tregelles and the rest. They have not perceived that it is _a\nmere transcript of Griesbach\u2019s list_; which Scholz interrupts only to give\nfrom Cod. 24, (imperfectly and at second-hand,) the weighty scholion,\n(Wetstein had given it from Cod. 41,) which relates, on the authority of\nan eye-witness, that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 existed in the ancient Palestinian\nCopy. (About that Scholion enough has been offered already.(209)) Scholz\nadds that very nearly the same words are found in 374.\u2014What he says\nconcerning 206 and 209 (and he might have added 199,) has been explained\nabove.\n\nBut when the twenty MSS. which remain(210) undisposed of have been\nscrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite different from what is\ncommonly supposed. One of them (No. 38) has been cited in error: while the\nremaining nineteen are nothing else but copies of _Victor of Antioch\u2019s\ncommentary on S. Mark_,\u2014no less than _sixteen_ of which contain the famous\nattestation that in _most of the accurate copies, and in particular the\nauthentic Palestinian Codex, the last twelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel_\nWERE FOUND. (See above, pp. 64 and 65.).... And this exhausts the\nevidence.\n\n(8.) So far, therefore, as \u201cNotes\u201d and \u201cScholia\u201d in MSS. are concerned,\nthe sum of the matter proves to be simply this:\u2014(_a_) Nine Codices(211)\nare observed to contain a note to the effect that the end of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel, though wanting \u201cin some,\u201d was yet found \u201cin others,\u201d\u2014\u201cin\nmany,\u201d\u2014\u201c_in the ancient copies_.\u201d\n\n(_b_) Next, four Codices(212) contain subscriptions vouching for the\ngenuineness of this portion of the Gospel by declaring that those four\nCodices had been _collated with approved copies preserved at Jerusalem_.\n\n(_c_) Lastly, sixteen Codices,\u2014(to which, besides that already mentioned\nby Scholz,(213) I am able to add at least five others, making twenty-two\nin all,(214))\u2014contain a weighty critical scholion asserting categorically\nthat in \u201cvery many\u201d and \u201caccurate copies,\u201d specially in the \u201ctrue\nPalestinian exemplar,\u201d _these verses had been found by one who seems to\nhave verified the fact of their existence there for himself_.\n\n(9.) And now, shall I be thought unfair if, on a review of the premisses,\nI assert that I do not see a shadow of reason for the imposing statement\nwhich has been adopted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that\n\u201cthere exist about thirty Codices which state that from the more ancient\nand more accurate copies of the Gospel, the last twelve verses of S. Mark\nwere absent?\u201d I repeat, there is not so much as _one single Codex_ which\ncontains such a scholion; while twenty-four(215) of those commonly\nenumerated state _the exact reverse_.\u2014We may now advance a step: but the\ncandid reader is invited to admit that hitherto the supposed hostile\nevidence is on the contrary entirely _in favour_ of the verses under\ndiscussion. (\u201cI called thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast\naltogether blessed them these three times.\u201d)\n\nII. Nothing has been hitherto said about Cod. L.(216) This is the\ndesignation of an uncial MS. of the viiith or ixth century, in the Library\nat Paris, chiefly remarkable for the correspondence of its readings with\nthose of Cod. B and with certain of the citations in Origen; a peculiarity\nwhich recommends Cod. L, (as it recommends three cursive Codices of the\nGospels, 1, 33, 69,) to the especial favour of a school with which\nwhatever is found in Cod. B is necessarily right. It is described as the\nwork of an ignorant foreign copyist, who probably wrote with several MSS.\nbefore him; but who is found to have been wholly incompetent to determine\nwhich reading to adopt and which to reject. Certain it is that he\ninterrupts himself, at the end of ver. 8, to write as follows:\u2014\n\n\n \u201c_SOMETHING TO THIS EFFECT IS ALSO MET WITH_:\n\n\n \u201cAll that was commanded them they immediately rehearsed unto Peter\n and the rest. And after these things, from East even unto West,\n did JESUS Himself send forth by their means the holy and\n incorruptible message of eternal Salvation.\n\n\n \u201c_BUT THIS ALSO IS MET WITH AFTER THE WORDS, _\u2018FOR THEY WERE\n AFRAID:\u2019\n\n\n \u201cNow, when He was risen early, the first day of the week,\u201d(217)\n &c.\n\n\nIt cannot be needful that I should delay the reader with any remarks on\nsuch a termination of the Gospel as the foregoing. It was evidently the\nproduction of some one who desired to remedy the conspicuous\nincompleteness of his own copy of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, but who had imbibed so\nlittle of the spirit of the Evangelical narrative that he could not in the\nleast imitate the Evangelist\u2019s manner. As for the scribe who executed\nCodex L, he was evidently incapable of distinguishing the grossest\nfabrication from the genuine text. The same worthless supplement is found\nin the margin of the Hharklensian Syriac (A.D. 616), and in a few other\nquarters of less importance.(218)\u2014I pass on, with the single remark that I\nam utterly at a loss to understand on what principle Cod. L,\u2014a solitary\nMS. of the viiith or ixth century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious\ntext,\u2014is to be thought entitled to so much respectful attention on the\npresent occasion, rebuked as it is for the fallacious evidence it bears\nconcerning the last twelve verses of the second Gospel by all the\nseventeen remaining Uncials, (three of which are from 300 to 400 years\nmore ancient than itself;) and by _every cursive copy of the Gospels in\nexistence_. Quite certain at least is it that not the faintest additional\nprobability is established by Cod. L that S. Mark\u2019s Gospel when it left\nthe hands of its inspired Author was in a mutilated condition. The copyist\nshews that he was as well acquainted as his neighbours with our actual\nconcluding Verses: while he betrays his own incapacity, by seeming to view\nwith equal favour the worthless alternative which he deliberately\ntranscribes as well, and to which he gives the foremost place. _Not_ S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel, _but Codex L_ is the sufferer by this appeal.\n\nIII. I go back now to the statements found in certain Codices of the xth\ncentury, (derived probably from one of older date,) to the effect that\n\u201cthe marginal references to the Eusebian Canons extend no further than\nver. 8:\u201d\u2014for so, I presume, may be paraphrased the words, (see p. 120,)\n\u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56 \u0395\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, which are found at the end of ver.\n8 in Codd. 1, 206, 209.\n\n(1.) Now this statement need not have delayed us for many minutes. But\nthen, therewith, recent Critics have seen fit to connect another and an\nentirely distinct proposition: viz. that\n\nAMMONIUS\n\nalso, a contemporary of Origen, conspires with Eusebius in disallowing the\ngenuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. This is in fact a piece\nof evidence to which recently special prominence has been given: every\nEditor of the Gospels in turn, since Wetstein, having reproduced it; but\nno one more emphatically than Tischendorf. \u201cNeither by _the sections of\nAmmonius_ nor yet by the canons of Eusebius are these last verses\nrecognised\u201d(219) \u201cThus it is seen,\u201d proceeds Dr. Tregelles, \u201cthat just as\nEusebius found these verses absent in his day from the best and most\nnumerous copies (_sic_), _so was also the case with Ammonius_ when he\nformed his Harmony in the preceding century.\u201d(220)\n\n(The opposite page exhibits an _exact Fac-simile_, obtained by\nPhotography, of fol. 113 of EVAN. COD. L, (\u201cCodex Regius,\u201d No. 62,) at\nParis; containing S. Mark xvi. 6 to 9;\u2014as explained at pp. 123-4. The Text\nof that MS. has been published by Dr. Tischendorf in his \u201cMonumenta Sacra\nInedita,\u201d (1846, pp. 57-399.) See p. 206.)\n\n [[Illustration: Codex Regius facsimile page.]]\n\n(The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1869) by the obliging\npermission of M. de Wailly, who presides over the Manuscript Department of\nthe \u201cBiblioth\u00e8que.\u201d He has my best thanks for the kindness with which he\npromoted my wishes and facilitated my researches.)\n\n(It should perhaps be stated that _the margin_ of \u201cCodex L\u201d is somewhat\nampler than can be represented in an octavo volume; each folio measuring\nvery nearly nine inches, by very nearly six inches and a half.)\n\nA new and independent authority therefore is appealed to,\u2014one of high\nantiquity and evidently very great importance,\u2014Ammonius of Alexandria,\nA.D. 220. But Ammonius has left behind him _no known writings whatsoever_.\nWhat then do these men mean when they appeal in this confident way to the\ntestimony of \u201cAmmonius?\u201d\n\nTo make this matter intelligible to the ordinary English reader, I must\nneeds introduce in this place some account of what are popularly called\nthe \u201cAmmonian Sections\u201d and the \u201cEusebian Canons:\u201d concerning both of\nwhich, however, it cannot be too plainly laid down that nothing whatever\nis known beyond what is discoverable from a careful study of the\n\u201cSections\u201d and \u201cCanons\u201d themselves; added to what Eusebius has told us in\nthat short Epistle of his \u201cto Carpianus,\u201d\u2014which I suppose has been\ntranscribed and reprinted more often than any other uninspired Epistle in\nthe world.\n\nEusebius there explains that Ammonius of Alexandria constructed with great\nindustry and labour a kind of Evangelical Harmony; the peculiarity of\nwhich was, that, retaining S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel in its integrity, it\nexhibited the corresponding sections of the other three Evangelists by the\nside of S. Matthew\u2019s text. There resulted this inevitable inconvenience;\nthat the sequence of the narrative, in the case of the three last Gospels,\nwas interrupted throughout; and their context hopelessly destroyed.(221)\n\nThe \u201cDiatessaron\u201d of Ammonius, (so Eusebius styles it), has long since\ndisappeared; but it is plain from the foregoing account of it by a\ncompetent witness that it must have been a most unsatisfactory\nperformance. It is not easy to see how room can have been found in such a\nscheme for entire chapters of S. Luke\u2019s Gospel; as well as for the larger\npart of the Gospel according to S. John: in short, for anything which was\nnot capable of being brought into some kind of agreement, harmony, or\ncorrespondence with something in S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel.\n\nHow it may have fared with the other Gospels in the work of Ammonius is\nnot in fact known, and it is profitless to conjecture. What we know for\ncertain is that Eusebius, availing himself of the hint supplied by the\nvery imperfect labours of his predecessor, devised an entirely different\nexpedient, whereby he extended to the Gospels of S. Mark, S. Luke and S.\nJohn all the advantages, (and more than all,) which Ammonius had made the\ndistinctive property of the first Gospel.(222) His plan was to retain the\nFour Gospels in their integrity; and, besides enabling a reader to\nascertain at a glance the places which S. Matthew has in common with the\nother three Evangelists, or with any two, or with any one of them, (which,\nI suppose, was the sum of what had been exhibited by the work of\nAmmonius,)\u2014to shew which places S. Luke has in common with S. Mark,\u2014which\nwith S. John only; as well as which places are peculiar to each of the\nfour Evangelists in turn. It is abundantly clear therefore what Eusebius\nmeans by saying that the labours of Ammonius had \u201c_suggested to him_\u201d his\nown.(223) The sight of that Harmony of the other three Evangelists with S.\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel had suggested to him the advantage of establishing a\nseries of parallels throughout _all the Four Gospels._ But then, whereas\nAmmonius had placed alongside of S. Matthew _the dislocated sections\nthemselves_ of the other three Evangelists which are of corresponding\npurport, Eusebius conceived the idea of accomplishing the same object by\nmeans of a system of double numerical _references_. He invented X Canons,\nor Tables: he subdivided each of the Four Gospels into a multitude of\nshort Sections. These he numbered; (a fresh series of numbers appearing in\neach Gospel, and extending from the beginning right on to the end;) and\nimmediately under every number, he inserted, in vermillion, another\nnumeral (I to X); whose office it was to indicate in which of his X\nCanons, or Tables, the reader would find the corresponding places in any\nof the other Gospels.(224) (If the section was unique, it belonged to his\nlast or Xth Canon.) Thus, against S. Matthew\u2019s account of the Title on the\nCross, is written 335/I: but in the Ist Canon (which contains the places\ncommon to all four Evangelists) parallel with 335, is found,\u2014214, 324,\n199: and the Sections of S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John thereby designated,\n(which are discoverable by merely casting one\u2019s eye down the margin of\neach of those several Gospels in turn, until the required number has been\nreached,) will be found to contain the parallel record in the other three\nGospels.\n\nAll this is so purely elementary, that its very introduction in this place\ncalls for apology. The extraordinary method of the opposite party\nconstrains me however to establish thus clearly the true relation in which\nthe familiar labours of Eusebius stand to the unknown work of Ammonius.\n\nFor if that earlier production be lost indeed,(225)\u2014if its precise\ncontents, if the very details of its construction, can at this distance of\ntime be only conjecturally ascertained,\u2014what right has any one to appeal\nto \u201c_the Sections of Ammonius_,\u201d as to a known document? Why above all do\nTischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest deliberately claim \u201cAmmonius\u201d for\ntheir ally on an occasion like the present; seeing that they must needs be\nperfectly well aware that they have no means whatever of knowing (except\nfrom the precarious evidence of Caten\u00e6) what Ammonius thought about any\nsingle verse in any of the four Gospels? At every stage of this\ndiscussion, I am constrained to ask myself,\u2014Do then the recent Editors of\nthe Text of the New Testament really suppose that their statements will\n_never_ be examined? their references _never_ verified? or is it thought\nthat they enjoy a monopoly of the learning (such as it is) which enables a\nman to form an opinion in this department of sacred Science? For,\n\n(1st.) _Where_ then and _what_ are those \u201cSections of Ammonius\u201d to which\nTischendorf and Tregelles so confidently appeal? It is even notorious that\nwhen they _say_ the \u201cSections of Ammonius,\u201d what they _mean_ are the\n\u201cSections of _Eusebius_.\u201d\u2014But, (2dly.) Where is the proof,\u2014where is even\nthe probability,\u2014that these two are identical? The Critics cannot require\nto be reminded by me that we are absolutely without proof that so much as\n_one_ of the Sections of Ammonius corresponded with _one_ of those of\nEusebius; and yet, (3dly.) Who sees not that unless the Sections of\nAmmonius and those of Eusebius can be proved to have corresponded\nthroughout, the name of Ammonius has no business whatever to be introduced\ninto such a discussion as the present? They must at least be told that in\nthe entire absence of proof of any kind,\u2014(and certainly nothing that\nEusebius says warrants any such inference,(226))\u2014to reason from the one to\nthe other as if they were identical, is what no sincere inquirer after\nTruth is permitted to do.\n\nIt is time, however, that I should plainly declare that it happens to be\nno matter of opinion at all whether the lost Sections of Ammonius were\nidentical with those of Eusebius or not. It is demonstrable that they\n_cannot_ have been so; and the proof is supplied by the Sections\nthemselves. It is discovered, by a careful inspection of them, that they\n_imply_ and _presuppose the Ten Canons_; being in many places even\nmeaningless,\u2014nugatory, in fact, (I do not of course say that they are\n_practically_ without _use_,)\u2014except on the theory that those Canons were\nalready in existence.(227) Now the Canons are confessedly the invention of\nEusebius. He distinctly claims them.(228) Thus much then concerning the\nsupposed testimony of Ammonius. It is _nil_.\u2014And now for what is alleged\nconcerning the evidence of Eusebius.\n\nThe starting-point of this discussion, (as I began by remarking), is the\nfollowing memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.:\u2014\u201cThus far did Eusebius\ncanonize;\u201d(229) which means either: (1) That his Canons recognise no\nsection of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel subsequent to \u00a7 233, (which number is commonly\nset over against ver. 8:) or else, (which comes to the same thing,)\u2014(2)\nThat no sections of the same Gospel, after \u00a7 233, are referred to any of\nhis X Canons.\n\nOn this slender foundation has been raised the following precarious\nsuperstructure. It is assumed,\n\n(1st.) That the Section of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel which Eusebius numbers \u201c233,\u201d\nand which begins at our ver. 8, _cannot have extended beyond_ ver.\n8;\u2014whereas it may have extended, and probably did extend, down to the end\nof ver. 11.\n\n(2dly.) That because no notice is taken in the Eusebian Canons of any\nsectional _number_ in S. Mark\u2019s Gospel subsequent to \u00a7 233, no _Section_\n(with, or without, such a subsequent number) can have existed:\u2014whereas\nthere may have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly\nnumbered.(230) This notwithstanding, Eusebius, (according to the\nmemorandum found in certain ancient MSS.), may have _canonized_ no further\nthan \u00a7 233.\n\nI am not disposed, however, to contest the point as far as Eusebius is\nconcerned. I have only said so much in order to shew how unsatisfactory is\nthe argumentation on the other side. Let it be assumed, for argument sake,\nthat the statement \u201cEusebius canonized no farther than ver. 8\u201d is\nequivalent to this,\u2014\u201c_Eusebius numbered no Sections after ver._ 8;\u201d (and\nmore it cannot mean:)\u2014What _then_? I am at a loss to see what it is that\nthe Critics propose to themselves by insisting on the circumstance. For we\nknew before,\u2014it was in fact Eusebius himself who told us,\u2014that Copies of\nthe Gospel ending abruptly at ver. 8, were anciently of frequent\noccurrence. Nay, we heard the same Eusebius remark that one way of\nshelving a certain awkward problem would be, to plead that the subsequent\nportion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel is frequently wanting. What _more_ have we\nlearned when we have ascertained that the same Eusebius allowed no place\nto that subsequent portion in his Canons? The new fact, (supposing it to\nbe a fact,) is but the correlative of the old one; and since it was\nEusebius who was the voucher for _that_, what additional probability do we\nestablish that the inspired autograph of S. Mark ended abruptly at ver. 8,\nby discovering that Eusebius is consistent with himself, and omits to\n\u201ccanonize\u201d (or even to \u201csectionize\u201d) what he had already hypothetically\nhinted might as well be left out altogether? (See above, pp. 44-6.)\n\nSo that really I am at a loss to see that one atom of progress is made in\nthis discussion by the further discovery that, (in a work written about\nA.D. 373,)\n\nEPIPHANIUS\n\nstates casually that \u201cthe four Gospels contain 1162 sections.\u201d(231) From\nthis it is argued(232) that since 355 of these are commonly assigned to S.\nMatthew, 342 to S. Luke, and 232 to S. John, there do but remain for S.\nMark 233; and the 233rd section of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel confessedly begins at\nch. xvi. 8.\u2014The probability may be thought to be thereby slightly\nincreased that the sectional numbers of Eusebius extended no further than\nver. 8: but\u2014Has it been rendered one atom more probable that the inspired\nEvangelist himself ended his Gospel abruptly at the 8th verse? _That_\nfact\u2014(the _only_ thing which our opponents have to establish)\u2014remains\nexactly where it was; entirely unproved, and in the highest degree\nimprobable.\n\nTo conclude, therefore. When I read as follows in the pages of\nTischendorf:\u2014\u201cThese verses are not recognised by the Sections of Ammonius,\nnor by the Canons of Eusebius: Epiphanius and C\u00e6sarius bear witness to the\nfact;\u201d\u2014I am constrained to remark that the illustrious Critic has drawn\nupon his imagination for three of his statements, and that the fourth is\nof no manner of importance.\n\n(1.) About the \u201cSections of Ammonius,\u201d he really knows no more than about\nthe lost Books of Livy. He is, therefore, without excuse for adducing them\nin the way of evidence.\n\n(2.) That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either as to the \u201cSections\nof Ammonius\u201d or to \u201cCanons of Eusebius,\u201d Tischendorf is perfectly well\naware. So is my reader.\n\n(3.) His appeal to\n\nC\u00c6SARIUS\n\nis worse than infelicitous. He intends thereby to designate the younger\nbrother of Gregory of Nazianzus; an eminent physician of Constantinople,\nwho died A.D. 368; and who, (as far as is known,) _never wrote anything_.\nA work called \u03a0\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, (which in the xth century was attributed to\nC\u00e6sarius, but concerning which nothing is certainly known except that\nC\u00e6sarius was certainly _not_ its author,) is the composition to which\nTischendorf refers. Even the approximate date of this performance,\nhowever, has never been ascertained. And yet, if Tischendorf had\ncondescended to refer to it, (instead of taking his reference at\nsecond-hand,) he would have seen at a glance that the entire context in\nwhich the supposed testimony is found, _is nothing else but a condensed\nparaphrase of that part of Epiphanius_, in which the original statement\noccurs.(233)\n\nThus much, then, for the supposed evidence of AMMONIUS, of EPIPHANIUS, and\nof C\u00c6SARIUS on the subject of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel.\nIt is exactly _nil_. In fact Pseudo-C\u00e6sarius, so far from \u201cbearing witness\nto the fact\u201d that the concluding verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel are spurious,\n_actually quotes the 16_th_ verse as genuine_.(234)\n\n(4.) As for Eusebius, nothing whatever has been added to what we knew\nbefore concerning his probable estimate of these verses.\n\nIV. We are now at liberty to proceed to the only head of external\ntestimony which remains undiscussed. I allude to the evidence of\n\nTHE CATEN\u00c6.\n\n\u201cIn the Caten\u00e6 on Mark,\u201d (crisply declares Dr. Davidson,) \u201cthere is no\nexplanation of this section.\u201d(235) \u201cThe Caten\u00e6 on Mark:\u201d as if they were\nquite common things,\u2014\u201cplenty, as blackberries!\u201d But,\u2014_Which_ of \u201cthe\nCaten\u00e6\u201d may the learned Critic be supposed to have examined?\n\n1. Not the Catena which Possinus found in the library of Charles de\nMontchal, Abp. of Toulouse, and which forms the basis of his Catena\npublished at Rome in 1673; because _that_ Codex is expressly declared by\nthe learned Editor to be defective from ver. 8 to the end.(236)\n\n2. Not the Catena which Corderius transcribed from the Vatican Library and\ncommunicated to Possinus; because in _that_ Catena the 9th and 12th verses\nare distinctly commented on.(237)\n\n3. Still less can Dr. Davidson be thought to have inspected the Catena\ncommonly ascribed to Victor of Antioch,\u2014which Peltanus published in Latin\nin 1580, but which Possinus was the first to publish in Greek (1673). Dr.\nDavidson, I say, cannot certainly have examined _that_ Catena; inasmuch as\nit contains, (as I have already largely shewn, and, in fact, as every one\nmay see,) a long and elaborate dissertation on the best way of reconciling\nthe language of S. Mark in ver. 9 with the language of the other\nEvangelists.(238)\n\n4. Least of all is it to be supposed that the learned Critic has inspected\neither of the last two editions of the same Catena: viz. that of Matthaei,\n(Moscow 1775,) or that of Cramer, (Oxford 1844,) from MSS. in the Royal\nLibrary at Paris and in the Bodleian. This is simply impossible, because\n(as we have seen), in _these_ is contained the famous passage _which_\ncategorically asserts the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel.(239)\n\nNow this exhausts the subject.\n\nTo _which_, then, of \u201cthe Caten\u00e6 on Mark,\u201d I must again inquire, does this\nlearned writer allude?\u2014I will venture to answer the question myself; and\nto assert that this is only one more instance of the careless, second-hand\n(and third-rate) criticism which is to be met with in every part of Dr.\nDavidson\u2019s book: one proof more of the alacrity with which worn-out\nobjections and worthless arguments are furbished up afresh, and paraded\nbefore an impatient generation and an unlearned age, whenever (_tanquam\nvile corpus_) the writings of Apostles or Evangelists are to be assailed,\nor the Faith of the Church of CHRIST is to be unsettled and undermined.\n\nV. If the Reader will have the goodness to refer back to p. 39, he will\nperceive that I have now disposed of every witness whom I originally\nundertook to examine. He will also, in fairness, admit that there has not\nbeen elicited one particle of evidence, from first to last, which renders\nit in the slightest degree probable that the Gospel of S. Mark, as it\noriginally came from the hands of its inspired Author, was either an\nimperfect or an unfinished work. Whether there have not emerged certain\nconsiderations which render such a supposition in the highest degree\n_un_likely,\u2014I am quite content that my Reader shall decide.\n\nDismissing the external testimony, therefore, proceed we now to review\nthose internal evidences, which are confidently appealed to as proving\nthat the concluding Verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel cannot be regarded as\nreally the work of the Evangelist.\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n\n\nINTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO\nTHESE VERSES.\n\n\n The \u201cStyle\u201d and \u201cPhraseology\u201d of these Verses declared by Critics\n to be not S. Mark\u2019s.\u2014Insecurity of such Criticism (p. 140).\u2014The\n \u201cStyle\u201d of chap. xvi. 9-20 shewn to be the same as the style of\n chap. i. 9-20 (p. 142).\u2014The \u201cPhraseology\u201d examined in twenty-seven\n particulars, and shewn to be suspicious in none (p. 145),\u2014but in\n twenty-seven particulars shewn to be the reverse (p. 170).\u2014Such\n Remarks fallacious (p. 173).\u2014Judged of by a truer, a more delicate\n and philosophical Test, these Verses proved to be most probably\n genuine (p. 175).\n\n\nA distinct class of objections remains to be considered. An argument much\nrelied on by those who deny or doubt the genuineness of this portion of S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel, is derived from considerations of internal evidence. In the\njudgment of a recent Editor of the New Testament,\u2014These twelve verses\n\u201cbear traces of _another hand_ from that which has shaped the _diction_\nand _construction_ of the rest of the Gospel.\u201d(240) They are therefore \u201can\naddition to the narrative,\u201d\u2014of which \u201cthe internal evidence will be found\nto preponderate vastly against the authorship of Mark.\u201d\u2014\u201cA difference,\u201d\n(says Dr. Tregelles,) \u201chas been remarked, and truly remarked, between _the\nphraseology_ of this section and the rest of this Gospel.\u201d\u2014According to\nDr. Davidson,\u2014\u201cThe _phraseology and style_ of the section are unfavourable\nto its authenticity.\u201d \u201cThe characteristic peculiarities which pervade\nMark\u2019s Gospel do not appear in it; but, on the contrary, terms and\nexpressions,\u201d \u201cphrases and words, are introduced which Mark never uses; or\nterms for which he employs others.\u201d(241)\u2014So Meyer,\u2014\u201cWith ver. 9, we\nsuddenly come upon an excerpting process totally different from the\nprevious mode of narration. The passage contains none of Mark\u2019s\npeculiarities (no \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, no \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd, &c, but the baldness and lack of\nclearness which mark a compiler;) while in single expressions, it is\naltogether contrary to Mark\u2019s manner.\u201d\u2014\u201cThere is\u201d (says Professor Norton)\n\u201ca difference so great between the use of language in this passage, and\nits use in the undisputed portion of Mark\u2019s Gospel, as to furnish strong\nreasons for believing the passage not genuine.\u201d\u2014No one, however, has\nexpressed himself more strongly on this subject than Tischendorf.\n\u201cSingula\u201d (he says) \u201cmultifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.\u201d(242)... Here,\nthen, is something very like a consensus of hostile opinion: although the\nterms of the indictment are somewhat vague. Difference of \u201cDiction and\nConstruction,\u201d\u2014difference of \u201cPhraseology and Style,\u201d\u2014difference of \u201cTerms\nand Expressions,\u201d\u2014difference of \u201cWords and Phrases;\u201d\u2014the absence of S.\nMark\u2019s \u201ccharacteristic peculiarities.\u201d I suppose, however, that all may be\nbrought under two heads,\u2014(I.) STYLE, and (II.) PHRASEOLOGY: meaning by\n\u201cStyle\u201d whatever belongs to the Evangelist\u2019s manner; and by \u201cPhraseology\u201d\nwhatever relates to the words and expressions he has employed. It remains,\ntherefore, that we now examine the proofs by which it is proposed to\nsubstantiate these confident assertions, and ascertain exactly what they\nare worth by constant appeals to the Gospel. Throughout this inquiry, we\nhave to do not with Opinion but with Fact. The unsupported dicta of\nCritics, however distinguished, are entitled to no manner of attention.\n\n1. In the meantime, as might have been expected, these confident and\noften-repeated asseverations have been by no means unproductive of\nmischievous results:\n\nLike ceaseless droppings, which at last are known\nTo leave their dint upon the solid stone.\n\nI observe that Scholars and Divines of the best type (as the Rev. T. S.\nGreen(243)) at last put up with them. The wisest however reproduce them\nunder protest, and with apology. The names of Tischendorf and Tregelles,\nMeyer and Davidson, command attention. It seems to be thought incredible\nthat they can _all_ be _entirely_ in the wrong. They impose upon learned\nand unlearned readers alike. \u201cEven Barnabas has been carried away with\ntheir dissimulation.\u201d He has (to my surprise and regret) two suggestions:\u2014\n\n(_a_) The one,\u2014That this entire section of the second Gospel may possibly\nhave been written long after the rest; and that therefore its verbal\npeculiarities need not perplex or trouble us. It was, I suppose,\n(according to this learned and pious writer,) a kind of after-thought, or\nsupplement, or Appendix to S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. In this way I have seen the\nlast Chapter of S. John once and again accounted for.\u2014To which, it ought\nto be a sufficient answer to point out that there is _no appearance\nwhatever_ of any such interval having been interposed between S. Mark xvi.\n8 and 9: that it is highly improbable that any such interval occurred: and\nthat until the \u201cverbal peculiarities\u201d have been ascertained to exist, it\nis, to say the least, a gratuitous exercise of the inventive faculty to\ndiscover reasons for their existence. Whether there be not something\nradically unsound and wrong in all such conjectures about\n\u201cafter-thoughts,\u201d \u201csupplements,\u201d \u201cappendices,\u201d and \u201csecond editions\u201d when\nthe everlasting Gospel of JESUS CHRIST is the thing spoken of,\u2014a confusing\nof things heavenly with things earthly which must make the Angels weep,\u2014I\nforbear to press on the present occasion. It had better perhaps be\ndiscussed at another opportunity. But \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2(244) will forgive my\nfreedom in having already made my personal sentiment on the subject\nsufficiently plain.\n\n(_b_) His other suggestion is,\u2014That this portion may not have been penned\nby S. Mark himself after all. By which he clearly means no more than\nthis,\u2014that as we are content not to know _who_ wrote the conclusion of the\nBooks of Deuteronomy and Joshua, so, if needful, we may well be content\nnot to know who wrote the end of the Gospel of S. Mark.\u2014In reply to which,\nI have but to say, that after cause has been shewn why we should indeed\nbelieve that not S. Mark but some one else wrote the end of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel, we shall be perfectly willing to acquiesce in the new fact:\u2014but\n_not till then_.\n\n2. True indeed it is that here and there a voice has been lifted up in the\nway of protest(245) against the proposed inference from the familiar\npremisses; (for the self-same statements have now been so often\nreproduced, that the eye grows weary at last of the ever-recurring string\nof offending vocables:)\u2014but, with _one_ honorable exception,(246) men do\nnot seem to have ever thought of calling the premisses themselves in\nquestion: examining the statements one by one: contesting the ground inch\nby inch: refusing absolutely to submit to any dictation whatever in this\nbehalf: insisting on bringing the whole matter to the test of severe\ninquiry, and making every detail the subject of strict judicial\ninvestigation. This is what I propose to do in the course of the present\nChapter. I altogether deny the validity of the inference which has been\ndrawn from \u201cthe style,\u201d \u201cthe phraseology,\u201d \u201cthe diction\u201d of the present\nsection of the Gospel. But I do more. I entirely deny the accuracy of\nalmost _every individual statement_ from which the unfavourable induction\nis made, and the hostile inference drawn. Even _this_ will not nearly\nsatisfy me. I insist that one only result can attend the exact analysis of\nthis portion of the Gospel into its elements; namely, a profound\nconviction that S. Mark is most certainly its Author.\n\n3. Let me however distinctly declare beforehand that remarks on \u201cthe\nstyle\u201d of an Evangelist are singularly apt to be fallacious, especially\nwhen (as here) it is proposed to apply them to a very limited portion of\nthe sacred narrative. Altogether to be mistrusted moreover are they, when\n(as on the present occasion) it is proposed to make them the ground for\npossibly rejecting such a portion of Scripture as spurious. It becomes a\nfatal objection to such reasoning that _the style_ may indeed be\nexceedingly diverse, and yet _the Author_ be confessedly one and the same.\nHow exceedingly dissimilar in style are the Revelation of S. John and the\nGospel of S. John! Moreover, practically, the promised remarks on \u201cstyle,\u201d\nwhen the Authorship of some portion of Scripture is to be discussed, are\ncommonly observed to degenerate at once into what is really quite a\ndifferent thing. Single words, perhaps some short phrase, is appealed to,\nwhich (it is said) does not recur in any part of the same book; and thence\nit is argued that the Author can no longer be the same. \u201cAccording to this\nargument, _the recurrence of the same words_ constitutes identity of\nstyle; the want of such recurrence implies difference of style;\u2014difference\nof style in such a sense as compels us to infer diversity of authorship.\nEach writer is supposed to have at his disposal a limited number of\n\u2018formul\u00e6\u2019 within the range of which he must work. He must in each chapter\nemploy these formul\u00e6, and these only. He must be content with one small\nportion of his mother-tongue, and not dare to venture across the limits of\nthat portion,\u2014on pain of losing his identity.\u201d(247)\n\n4. How utterly insecure must be every approximation to such a method of\njudging about the Authorship of any twelve verses of Scripture which can\nbe named, scarcely requires illustration. The attentive reader of S.\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel is aware that a mode of expression which is _six times\nrepeated_ in his viiith and ixth chapters is perhaps only once met with\nbesides in his Gospel,\u2014viz. in his xxist chapter.(248) The \u201cstyle\u201d of the\n17th verse of his ist chapter may be thought unlike anything else in S.\nMatthew. S. Luke\u2019s five opening verses are unique, both in respect of\nmanner and of matter. S. John also in his five opening verses seems to me\nto have adopted a method which is not recognisable anywhere else in his\nwritings; \u201crising strangely by degrees,\u201d (as Bp. Pearson expresses\nit,(249)) \u201cmaking the last word of the former sentence the first of that\nwhich followeth.\u201d\u2014\u201c_He_ knoweth that he saith true,\u201d is the language of\nthe same Evangelist concerning himself in chap. xix. 35. But, \u201c_we_ know\nthat his testimony is true,\u201d is his phrase in chap. xxi. 24. Twice, and\ntwice only throughout his Gospel, (viz. in chap. xix. 35: xx. 31), is he\nobserved to address his readers, and on both occasions in the same words:\n(\u201cthat _ye_ may believe.\u201d) But what of all this? Is it to be supposed that\nS. Matthew, S. Luke, S. John are not the authors of those several places?\nFrom facts like these no inference whatever is to be drawn as to the\ngenuineness or the spuriousness of a writing. It is quite to mistake the\nCritic\u2019s vocation to imagine that he is qualified, or called upon, to pass\nany judgment of the sort.\n\n5. I have not said all this, of course, as declining the proposed\ninvestigation. I approach it on the contrary right willingly, being\nconfident that it can be attended by only one result. With what is true,\nendless are the harmonies which evolve themselves: from what is false, the\ntrue is equally certain to stand out divergent.(250) And we all desire\nnothing but the Truth.\n\nI. To begin then with the \u201cSTYLE AND MANNER\u201d of S. Mark in this place.\n\n1. We are assured that \u201cinstead of the _graphic, detailed_ description by\nwhich this Evangelist is distinguished, we meet with an abrupt,\nsententious manner, resembling that of brief notices extracted from larger\naccounts and loosely linked together.\u201d(251) Surely if this be so, the only\nlawful inference would be that S. Mark, in this place, _has_ \u201cextracted\nbrief notices from larger accounts, and loosely linked them together:\u201d and\nunless such a proceeding on the part of the Evangelist be judged\nincredible, it is hard to see what is the force of the adverse criticism,\nas directed against the _genuineness_ of the passage now under\nconsideration.\n\n2. But in truth, (when divested of what is merely a gratuitous\nassumption,) the preceding account of the matter is probably not far from\nthe correct one. Of S. Mark\u2019s practice of making \u201c_extracts_,\u201d I know\nnothing: nor Dr. Davidson either. That there existed _any_ \u201clarger\naccounts\u201d which would have been available for such a purpose, (except the\nGospel according to S. Matthew,) there is neither a particle of evidence,\nnor a shadow of probability. On the other hand, that, notwithstanding the\nabundant oral information to which confessedly he had access, S. Mark has\nbeen divinely guided in this place to handle, in the briefest manner, some\nof the chiefest things which took place after our LORD\u2019S Resurrection,\u2014is\nsimply undeniable. And without at all admitting that the style of the\nEvangelist is in consequence either \u201cabrupt\u201d or \u201csententious,\u201d(252) I yet\nrecognise the inevitable consequence of relating many dissimilar things\nwithin very narrow limits; namely, that the transition from one to the\nother forces itself on the attention. What wonder that the same phenomenon\nshould _not_ be discoverable in other parts of the Gospel where the\nEvangelist is _not_ observed to be doing the same thing?\n\n3. But wherever in his Gospel S. Mark _is_ doing the same thing, he is\nobserved to adopt the style and manner which Dr. Davidson is pleased to\ncall \u201csententious\u201d and \u201cabrupt.\u201d Take twelve verses in his first chapter,\nas an example. Between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark i. 9-20, I profess\nmyself unable to discern any real difference of style. I proceed to\ntranscribe the passage which I deliberately propose for comparison; _the\ntwelve corresponding verses_, namely, in S. Mark\u2019s _first_ chapter, which\nare to be compared with the twelve verses already under discussion, from\nhis _last_; and they may be just as conveniently exhibited in English as\nin Greek:\u2014\n\n(_S. MARK_ i. 9-20.)\n\n(ver. 9.) \u201cAnd it came to pass in those days, that JESUS came from\nNazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. (10.) And\nstraightway coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opened, and the\nSPIRIT like a dove descending upon Him: (11.) and there came a voice from\nheaven saying, Thou art My beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased. (12.)\nAnd immediately the SPIRIT driveth Him into the wilderness. (13.) And He\nwas there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the\nwild beasts; and the Angels ministered unto Him. (14.) Now after that John\nwas put in prison, JESUS came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the\nkingdom of GOD, (15.) and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom\nof GOD is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel. (16.) Now, as He\nwalked by the sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting\na net into the sea: for they were fishers. (17.) And JESUS said unto them,\nCome ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. (18.) And\nstraightway they forsook their net\u2019s, and followed Him. (19.) And when He\nhad gone a little farther thence, He saw James the son of Zebedee, and\nJohn his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. (20.) And\nstraightway He called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the ship\nwith the hired servants, and went after Him.\u201d\n\n4. The candid reader must needs admit that precisely the self-same manner\nis recognisable in this first chapter of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel which is\nasserted to be peculiar to the last. Note, that from our SAVIOUR\u2019S Baptism\n(which occupies the first three verses) the Evangelist passes to His\nTemptation, which is dismissed in two. Six months elapse. The commencement\nof the Ministry is dismissed in the next two verses. The last five\ndescribe the call of four of the Apostles,\u2014without any distinct allusion\nto the miracle which was the occasion of it.... How was it _possible_ that\nwhen incidents considerable as these had to be condensed within the narrow\ncompass of twelve verses, the same \u201cgraphic, detailed description\u201d could\nreappear which renders S. Mark\u2019s description of the miracle performed in\nthe country of the Gadarenes (for example) so very interesting; where a\nsingle incident is spread over twenty verses, although the action did not\nperhaps occupy an hour? I rejoice to observe that \u201cthe _abrupt\ntransitions_ of this section\u201d (ver. 1-13) have also been noticed by Dean\nAlford: who very justly accounts for the phenomenon by pointing out that\nhere \u201cMark appears as _an abridger of previously well-known facts_.\u201d(253)\nBut then, I want to know what there is in this to induce us to suspect\n_the genuineness_ of either the beginning or the end of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel?\n\n5. For it is a mistake to speak as if \u201cgraphic, detailed description\u201d\n_invariably_ characterise the second Gospel. S. Mark is quite as\nremarkable for his practice of occasionally exhibiting a considerable\ntransaction in a highly abridged form. The opening of his Gospel is\nsingularly concise, and altogether _sudden_. His account of John\u2019s\npreaching (i. 1-8) is the shortest of all. Very concise is his account of\nour SAVIOUR\u2019S Baptism (ver. 9-11). The brevity of his description of our\nLORD\u2019S Temptation is even extraordinary (ver. 12, 13.)\u2014I pass on;\npremising that I shall have occasion to remind the reader by-and-by of\ncertain peculiarities in these same Twelve Verses, which seem to have been\nhitherto generally overlooked.\n\nII. Nothing more true, therefore, than Dr. Tregelles\u2019 admission \u201cthat\narguments on _style_ are often very fallacious, and that _by themselves_\nthey prove very little. But\u201d (he proceeds) \u201cwhen there does exist external\nevidence; and when internal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression,\nand connection, are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming\na judgment; then, these internal considerations possess very great\nweight.\u201d\n\nI have already shewn that there exists _no_ such external evidence as Dr.\nTregelles supposes. And in the absence of it, I am bold to assert that\nsince nothing in the \u201cStyle\u201d or the \u201cPhraseology\u201d of these verses ever\naroused suspicion in times past, we have rather to be _on our guard_\nagainst suffering our judgment to be warped by arguments drawn from such\nprecarious considerations now. As for determining from such data the\nauthorship of an isolated passage; asserting or denying its genuineness\nfor no other reason but because it contains certain words and expressions\nwhich do or do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel of which it forms\npart;\u2014let me again declare plainly that the proceeding is in the highest\ndegree uncritical. We are not competent judges of what words an Evangelist\nwas likely on any given occasion to employ. We have no positive knowledge\nof the circumstances under which any part of any one of the four Gospels\nwas written; nor the influences which determined an Evangelist\u2019s choice of\ncertain expressions in preference to others. We are learners,\u2014we _can_ be\nonly learners here. But having said all this, I proceed (as already\ndeclared) without reluctance or misgiving to investigate the several\ncharges which have been brought against this section of the Gospel;\ncharges derived from its PHRASEOLOGY; and which will be found to be\nnothing else but repeated assertions that a certain Word or Phrase,\u2014(there\nare about twenty-four such words and phrases in all,(254))\u2014\u201coccurs nowhere\nin the Gospel of Mark;\u201d with probably the alarming asseveration that it is\n\u201cabhorrent to Mark\u2019s manner.\u201d ... The result of the inquiry which follows\nwill perhaps be not exactly what is commonly imagined.\n\nThe first difficulty of this class is very fairly stated by one whose name\nI cannot write without a pang,\u2014the late Dean Alford:\u2014\n\n(I.) The expression \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, for the \u201cfirst day of the week\u201d (in\nver. 9) \u201cis remarkable\u201d (he says) \u201cas occurring so soon after\u201d \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (a precisely equivalent expression) in ver. 2.\u2014Yes, it is\nremarkable.\n\nScarcely more remarkable, perhaps, than that S. Luke _in the course of one\nand the same chapter_ should four times designate the Sabbath \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\nand twice \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1: again, twice, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\u2014twice, \u1f21 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5,\u2014and once, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.(255) Or again, that S. Matthew should _in\none and the same chapter_ five times call the Sabbath, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b2\u03c4\u03b1, and\nthree times, \u03c4\u03cc \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.(256) Attentive readers will have observed that\nthe Evangelists seem to have been fond in this way of varying their\nphrase; suddenly introducing a new expression for something which they had\ndesignated differently just before. Often, I doubt not, this is done with\nthe profoundest purpose, and sometimes even with manifest design; but the\nphenomenon, however we may explain it, still remains. Thus, S. Matthew,\n(in his account of our LORD\u2019S Temptation,\u2014chap. iv.,) has \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 in\nver. 1, and \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd in ver. 3, for him whom our SAVIOUR calls \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2\nin ver. 10.\u2014S. Mark, in chap. v. 2, has \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1,\u2014but in ver. 5, \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.\u2014S. Luke, in xxiv. 1, has \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1; but in the next verse, \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd7\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014\u1f18\u03c0\u03af with an accusative twice in S. Matth. xxv. 21, 23, is twice\nexchanged for \u1f10\u03c0\u03af with a genitive in the same two verses: and \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03cb (in\nver. 32) is exchanged for \u1f10\u03c1\u03af\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1 in ver. 33.\u2014Instead of \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2\n(in S. Luke viii. 41) we read, in ver. 49, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2: and for \u03bf\u1f31\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 (in ix. 10) we find \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 in ver. 12.\u2014\u039f\u1f56\u03c2 in S. Luke xxii.\n50 is exchanged for \u1f60\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd in the next verse.\u2014In like manner, those whom S.\nLuke calls \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 in Acts v. 6, he calls \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 in ver. 10.... All\nsuch matters strike me as highly interesting, but not in the least as\nsuspicious. It surprises me a little, of course, that S. Mark should\npresent me with \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (in ver. 9) instead of the phrase \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, which he had employed just above (in ver. 2.) But it does not\nsurprise me much,\u2014when I observe that \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd _occurs only once in\neach of the Four Gospels_.(257) Whether surprised much or little,\nhowever,\u2014Am I constrained in consequence, (with Tischendorf and the rest,)\nto regard this expression (\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5) as a note of _spuriousness_?\nThat is the only thing I have to consider. Am I, with Dr. Davidson, to\nreason as follows:\u2014\u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7, Mark would scarcely have used. It should have\nbeen \u03bc\u03af\u03b1, &c. as is proved by Mark xvi. 2, &c. The expression could\nscarcely have proceeded from a Jew. It betrays a Gentile author.\u201d(258) Am\nI to reason thus?... I propose to answer this question somewhat in detail.\n\n(1.) That among the Greek-speaking Jews of Palestine, in the days of the\nGospel, \u1f21 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd was the established method of indicating \u201cthe\nfirst day of the week,\u201d is plain, not only from the fact that the day of\nthe Resurrection is so designated by each of the Four Evangelists in\nturn;(259) (S. John has the expression twice;) but also from S. Paul\u2019s use\nof the phrase in 1 Cor. xvi. 2. It proves, indeed, to have been the\nordinary Hellenistic way of exhibiting the vernacular idiom of\nPalestine.(260) The cardinal (\u03bc\u03af\u03b1) for the ordinal (\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7) in this phrase\nwas a known Talmudic expression, which obtained also in Syriac.(261)\n\u03a3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd and \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1,\u2014designations in strictness of the _Sabbath-day_,\u2014had\ncome to be _also_ used as designations of the _week_. A reference to S.\nMark xvi. 9 and S. Luke xviii. 12 establishes this concerning \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd: a\nreference to the six places cited just now in earlier note establishes it\nconcerning \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1. To see how indifferently the two forms (\u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd and\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1) were employed, one has but to notice that S. Matthew, _in the\ncourse of one and the same chapter_, five times designates the Sabbath as\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1, and three times as \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.(262) The origin and history of\nboth words will be found explained in a note at the foot of the page.(263)\n\n(2.) Confessedly, then, a double Hebraism is before us, which must have\nbeen simply unintelligible to Gentile readers. \u039c\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd sounded as\nenigmatical to an ordinary Greek ear, as \u201c_una sabbatorum_\u201d to a Roman. A\nconvincing proof, (if proof were needed,) how abhorrent to a Latin reader\nwas the last-named expression, is afforded by the old Latin versions of S.\nMatthew xxviii. 1; where \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd is\ninvariably rendered, \u201cVespere _sabbati_, qu\u00e6 lucescit in _prima sabbati_.\u201d\n\n(3.) The reader will now be prepared for the suggestion, that when S.\nMark, (who is traditionally related to have written his Gospel _at\nRome_,(264)) varies, in ver. 9, the phrase he had employed in ver. 2, he\ndoes so for an excellent and indeed for an obvious reason. In ver. 2, he\nhad conformed to the prevailing usage of Palestine, and followed the\nexample set him by S. Matthew (xxviii. 1) in adopting the enigmatical\nexpression, \u1f21 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. That this would be idiomatically represented\n_in Latin_ by the phrase \u201cprima sabbati,\u201d we have already seen. In ver. 9,\ntherefore, he is solicitous to record the fact of the Resurrection afresh;\nand _this_ time, his phrase is observed to be _the Greek equivalent for\nthe Latin _\u201cprima sabbati;\u201d viz. \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. How strictly equivalent\nthe two modes of expression were felt to be by those who were best\nqualified to judge, is singularly illustrated by the fact that the\n_Syriac_ rendering of both places is _identical_.\n\n(4.) But I take leave to point out that this substituted phrase, instead\nof being a suspicious circumstance, is on the contrary a striking note of\ngenuineness. For do we not recognise here, in the last chapter of the\nGospel, the very same hand which, in the first chapter of it, was careful\nto inform us, just for once, that \u201cJud\u00e6a,\u201d is \u201ca _country_,\u201d (\u1f21 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\n\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1,)\u2014and \u201cJordan,\u201d \u201ca _river_,\u201d (\u1f41 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2)?\u2014Is not this the\nvery man who explained to his readers (in chap. xv. 42) that the familiar\nJewish designation for \u201cFriday,\u201d \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae, denotes \u201c_the day before the\nSabbath_?\u201d(265)\u2014and who was so minute in informing us (in chap. vii. 3, 4)\nabout certain ceremonial practices of \u201cthe Pharisees and all the Jews?\u201d\nYet more,\u2014Is not the self-same writer clearly recognisable in this xvith\nchapter, who in chap. vi. 37 presented us with \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 (the Latin\n_spiculator_) for \u201can executioner?\u201d and who, in chap. xv. 39, for \u201ca\n_centurion_,\u201d wrote\u2014not \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, but\u2014\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd?\u2014and, in chap. xii.\n42, explained that the two \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03ac which the poor widow cast into the\nTreasury were equivalent to \u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, the Latin _quadrans_?\u2014and in chap.\nvii. 4, 8, introduced the Roman measure _sextarius_, (\u03be\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2)?\u2014and who\nvolunteered the information (in chap. xv. 16) that \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03ae is only another\ndesignation of \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (_Pr\u00e6torium_)?\u2014Yes. S. Mark,\u2014who, alone of the\nfour Evangelists, (in chap. xv. 21,) records the fact that Simon the\nCyrenian was \u201c_the father of Alexander and Rufus_,\u201d evidently for the sake\nof his _Latin_ readers:(266) S. Mark,\u2014who alone ventures to write in Greek\nletters (\u03bf\u1f50\u03ac,\u2014chap. xv. 29,) the Latin interjection \u201c_Vah!_\u201d\u2014obviously\nbecause he was writing where that exclamation was most familiar, and the\nforce of it best understood:(267) S. Mark,\u2014who attends to the Roman\ndivision of the day, in relating our LORD\u2019S prophecy to S. Peter:(268)\u2014S.\nMark, I say, no doubt it was who,\u2014having conformed himself to the\nprecedent set him by S. Matthew and the familiar usage of Palestine; and\nhaving written \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, (which he knew would sound like \u201c_una\nsabbatorum_,\u201d(269)) in ver. 2;\u2014introduced, also for the benefit of his\nLatin readers, the Greek equivalent for \u201c_prima sabbati_,\u201d (viz. \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5,) in ver. 9.\u2014This, therefore, I repeat, so far from being a\ncircumstance \u201c_unfavourable_ to its authenticity,\u201d (by which, I presume,\nthe learned writer means its _genuineness_), is rather corroborative of\nthe Church\u2019s constant belief that the present section of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel\nis, equally with the rest of it, the production of S. Mark. \u201cNot only was\nthe document intended for Gentile converts:\u201d (remarks Dr. Davidson, p.\n149,) \u201cbut there are also appearances of its adaptation to the use of\nRoman Christians in particular.\u201d Just so. And I venture to say that in the\nwhole of \u201cthe document\u201d Dr. Davidson will not find a more striking\n\u201cappearance of its adaptation to the use of Roman Christians,\u201d\u2014_and\ntherefore of its genuineness_,\u2014than this. I shall have to request my\nreader by-and-by to accept it as one of the most striking notes of Divine\norigin which these verses contain.\u2014For the moment, I pass on.\n\n(II.) Less excusable is the coarseness of critical perception betrayed by\nthe next remark. It has been pointed out as a suspicious circumstance that\nin ver. 9, \u201cthe phrase \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 is attached to the\nname of Mary Magdalene, although she had been mentioned three times before\nwithout such appendix. It seems to have been taken from Luke viii.\n2.\u201d(270)\u2014Strange perversity, and yet stranger blindness!\n\n(1.) The phrase _cannot_ have been taken from S. Luke; because S. Luke\u2019s\nGospel was written after S. Mark\u2019s. It _was_ not taken from S. Luke;\nbecause _there_ \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f27\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9,\u2014here, \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\n\u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 is read.\n\n(2.) More important is it to expose the shallowness and futility of the\nentire objection.\u2014Mary Magdalene \u201chad been mentioned three times before,\n_without such appendix_.\u201d Well but,\u2014What _then_? After twice (ch. xiv. 54,\n66) using the word \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03ae without any \u201cappendix,\u201d in the very next chapter\n(xv. 16) S. Mark adds, \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014The beloved Disciple having\nmentioned himself without any \u201cappendix\u201d in S. John xx. 7, mentions\nhimself with a very elaborate \u201cappendix\u201d in ver. 20. But what of it?\u2014The\nsister of the Blessed Virgin, having been designated in chap. xv. 40, as\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1fc6 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1; is mentioned with one half of\nthat \u201cappendix,\u201d (\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1fc6) in ver. 47, and _in the very next verse_,\nwith the other half (\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5.)\u2014I see no reason why the\nTraitor, who, in S. Luke vi. 16, is called \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, should be\ndesignated as \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd in S. Luke xxii. 3.\u2014I am\nnot saying that such \u201cappendices\u201d are either uninteresting or unimportant.\nThat I attend to them habitually, these pages will best evince. I am only\ninsisting that to infer from such varieties of expression that a different\nauthor is recognisable, is abhorrent to the spirit of intelligent\nCriticism.\n\n(3.) But in the case before us, the hostile suggestion is peculiarly\ninfelicitous. There is even inexpressible tenderness and beauty, the\ndeepest Gospel significancy, in the reservation of the clause \u201cout of whom\nHe had cast seven devils,\u201d for this place. The reason, I say, is even\nobvious why an \u201cappendix,\u201d which would have been meaningless before, is\nintroduced in connexion with Mary Magdalene\u2019s august privilege of being\nthe first of the human race to behold the risen SAVIOUR. Jerome (I rejoice\nto find) has been beforehand with me in suggesting that it was done, in\norder to convey by an example the tacit assurance that \u201cwhere Sin had\nabounded, there did Grace much more abound.\u201d(271) Are we to be cheated of\nour birthright by Critics(272) who, entirely overlooking a solution of the\ndifficulty (_if_ difficulty it be) Divine as this, can see in the\ncircumstance grounds only for suspicion and cavil? \u0391\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5.\n\n(III.) Take the next example.\u2014The very form of the \u201cappendix\u201d which we\nhave been considering (\u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f26\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1) breeds offence.\n\u201cInstead of \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc,\u201d (oracularly remarks Dr. Davidson,) \u201cMark has\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba.\u201d(273)\n\nNothing of the sort, I answer. S. Mark _once_ has \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba,(274) and\n_once_ \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc. So has S. Matthew, (viz. in chap. vii. 4 and 5): and\nso has S. Luke, (viz. in chap. vi. 42, and in Acts xiii. 50.)\u2014But what of\nall this? _Who_ sees not that such Criticism is simply nugatory?\n\n(IV.) We are next favoured with the notable piece of information that the\nword \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cnever used by S. Mark, is three times contained in this\npassage;\u201d (viz. in verses 10, 12 and 15.)\n\n(1.) Yes. The uncompounded verb, never used _elsewhere_ by S. Mark, is\nfound here three times. But what then? The _compounds_ of \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 are\ncommon enough in his Gospel. Thus, short as his Gospel is, he alone has\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3-\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03ba-\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc-\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1-\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _oftener\nthan all the other three Evangelists put together_,\u2014viz. twenty-four times\nagainst their nineteen: while the compound \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is _peculiar to\nhis Gospel_.\u2014I am therefore inclined to suggest that the presence of the\nverb \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 in these Twelve suspected Verses, instead of being an\nadditional element of suspicion, is rather a circumstance slightly\ncorroborative of their genuineness.\n\n(2.) But suppose that the facts had been different. The phenomenon\nappealed to is of even perpetual recurrence, and may on no account be\nrepresented as _suspicious_. Thus, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, a word used only by S.\nMatthew among the Evangelists, is by him used four times; yet are all\nthose four instances found _in one and the same chapter_. S. Luke alone\nhas \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, and he has it three times: but all three cases are met\nwith _in one and the same chapter_. S. John alone has \u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03b7, and he has it\nfour times: but all the four instances occur _in one and the same\nchapter_.\n\n(3.) Such instances might be multiplied to almost any extent. Out of the\nfifteen occasions when S. Matthew uses the word \u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, no less than\nfourteen occur in one chapter. The nine occasions when S. Luke uses the\nword \u03bc\u03bd\u1fb6 all occur in one chapter. S. John uses the verb \u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\ntransitively only four times: but all four instances of it are found in\none chapter.\u2014Now, these three words (be it observed) are _peculiar to the\nGospels_ in which they severally occur.\n\n(4.) I shall of course be reminded that \u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd and \u03bc\u03bd\u1fb6 are unusual\nwords,\u2014admitting of no substitute in the places where they respectively\noccur. But I reply,\u2014Unless the Critics are able to shew me _which_ of the\nordinary compounds of \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 S. Mark could _possibly_ have employed\nfor the uncompounded verb, in the three places which have suggested the\npresent inquiry, viz.:\u2014\n\nver. 10:\u2014\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nver. 12:\u2014\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd ... \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nver. 13:\u2014\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd;\u2014\n\ntheir objection is simply frivolous, and the proposed adverse reasoning,\nworthless. Such, in fact, it most certainly is; for it will be found that\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 in ver. 10,\u2014\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 in ver. 12,\u2014\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in ver.\n15,\u2014_also_ \u201cadmit of no substitute in the places where they severally\noccur;\u201d and therefore, since the verb itself is one of S. Mark\u2019s favourite\nverbs, not only are these three places above suspicion, but they may be\nfairly adduced as indications that _the same_ hand was at work here which\nwrote all the rest of his Gospel.(275)\n\n(V.) Then further,\u2014the phrase \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 (in ver. 10) is\nnoted as suspicious. \u201cThough found in the Acts (xx. 18) it _never occurs\nin the Gospels_: nor does the word \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af in this passage.\u201d\n\n(1.) The phrase \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 occurs nowhere in the Acts or in\nthe Gospels, _except here_. But,\u2014Why _should_ it appear elsewhere? or\nrather,\u2014How _could_ it? Now, if the expression be (as it is) an ordinary,\neasy, and obvious one,\u2014_wanted_ in this place, where it _is_ met with; but\n_not_ met with elsewhere, simply because elsewhere it is _not_\nwanted;\u2014surely it is unworthy of any one calling himself a Critic to\npretend that there attaches to it the faintest shadow of suspicion!\n\n(2.) The essence of the phrase is clearly the expression \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n(The aorist participle of \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, is added of necessity to mark the\npersons spoken of. In no other, (certainly in no simpler, more obvious, or\nmore precise) way could the followers of the risen SAVIOUR have been\ndesignated at such a time. For had He not just now \u201covercome the sharpness\nof Death\u201d?) But this expression, which occurs four times in S. Matthew and\nfour times in S. Luke, occurs also four times in S. Mark: viz. in chap. i.\n36; ii. 25; v. 40, _and here_. This, therefore, is a slightly\ncorroborative circumstance,\u2014not at all a ground of suspicion.\n\n(3.) But it seems to be implied that S. Mark, because he mentions \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 often elsewhere in his Gospel, ought to have mentioned them here.\n\n(a) I answer:\u2014He does not mention \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 nearly so often as S.\nMatthew; while S. John notices them twice as often as he does.\n\n(b) Suppose, however, that he elsewhere mentioned them five hundred times,\nbecause he had occasion five hundred times to speak of them;\u2014what reason\nwould _that_ be for his mentioning them here, where he is _not_ speaking\nof them?\n\n(_c_) It must be evident to any one reading the Gospel with attention that\nbesides \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af,\u2014(by which expression S. Mark always designates _the\nTwelve Apostles_,)\u2014there was a considerable company of believers assembled\ntogether throughout the first Easter Day.(276) S. Luke notices this\ncircumstance when he relates how the Women, on their return from the\nSepulchre, \u201ctold all these things unto the Eleven, and _to all the rest_,\u201d\n(xxiv. 9): and again when he describes how Cleopas and his companion (\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf\n\u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd as S. Luke and S. Mark call them) on their return to Jerusalem,\n\u201cfound the Eleven gathered together, _and them that were with them_\u201d\n(xxiv. 33.) But this was at least as well known to S. Mark as it was to S.\nLuke. Instead, therefore, of regarding the designation \u201c_them that had\nbeen with Him_\u201d with suspicion,\u2014are we not rather to recognise in it one\ntoken more that the narrative in which it occurs is unmistakably genuine?\nWhat else is this but one of those delicate discriminating touches which\nindicate the hand of a great Master; one of those evidences of minute\naccuracy which stamp on a narrative the impress of unquestionable Truth?\n\n(VI.) We are next assured by our Critic that \u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u201cis unknown to Mark;\u201d\nbut it occurs twice in this section, (viz. in ver. 11 and ver. 14.)\n_Another_ suspicious circumstance!\n\n(1.) A strange way (as before) of stating an ordinary fact, certainly!\nWhat else is it but to assume the thing which has to be proved? If the\nlearned writer had said instead, that the verb \u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, here twice\nemployed by S. Mark, occurs _nowhere else_ in his Gospel,\u2014he would have\nacted more loyally, not to say more fairly by the record: but then he\nwould have been stating a strictly ordinary phenomenon,\u2014of no\nsignificancy, or relevancy to the matter in hand. He is probably aware\nthat \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in like manner is to be found in two consecutive verses\nof S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel; \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, twice in the course of one verse:\nneither word being used on any other occasion _either by S. Matthew, or by\nany other Evangelist_. The same thing precisely is to be said of \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\nand \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, of \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, and \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, in S. Luke: of\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 and \u03b6\u03c9\u03bd\u03bd\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 in S. John. But who ever dreamed of insinuating\nthat the circumstance is suspicious?\n\n(2.) As for \u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, we should have reminded our Critic that this verb,\nwhich is used seven times by S. John, and four times by S. Matthew, is\nused only three times by S. Luke, and only twice by S. Mark. And we should\nhave respectfully inquired,\u2014What possible suspicion does \u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 throw\nupon the last twelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel?\n\n(3.) None whatever, would have been the reply. But in the meantime Dr.\nDavidson hints that the verb _ought_ to have been employed by S. Mark in\nchap. ii. 14.(277)\u2014It is, I presume, sufficient to point out that S.\nMatthew, at all events, was not of Dr. Davidson\u2019s opinion:(278) and I\nrespectfully submit that the Evangelist, inasmuch as he happens to be here\n_writing about himself_, must be allowed, just for once, to be the better\njudge.\n\n(4.) In the meantime,\u2014Is it not perceived that \u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is the very word\nspecially required in these two places,\u2014though _nowhere else in S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel_?(279) The occasion is one,\u2014viz. the \u201cbeholding\u201d of the person of\nthe risen SAVIOUR. Does not even natural piety suggest that the uniqueness\nof such a \u201cspectacle\u201d as _that_ might well set an Evangelist on casting\nabout for a word of somewhat less ordinary occurrence? The occasion cries\naloud for this very verb \u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9; and I can hardly conceive a more apt\nillustration of a darkened eye,\u2014a spiritual faculty perverted from its\nlawful purpose,\u2014than that which only discovers \u201ca stumbling-block and\noccasion of falling\u201d in expressions like the present which \u201cshould have\nbeen only for their wealth,\u201d being so manifestly designed for their\nedification.\n\n(VII.) But,\u2014(it is urged by a Critic of a very different stamp,)\u2014\u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\n\u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 (ver. 11) \u201cis a construction only found here in the New\nTestament.\u201d\n\n(1.) Very likely; but what then? The learned writer has evidently\noverlooked the fact that the passive \u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 occurs but _three times_ in\nthe New Testament _in all_.(280) S. Matthew, on the _two_ occasions when\nhe employs the word, connects it with a dative.(281) What is there\n_suspicious_ in the circumstance that \u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc should be the\nconstruction preferred by S. Mark? The phenomenon is not nearly so\nremarkable as that S. Luke, on one solitary occasion, exhibits the phrase\n\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc,(282)\u2014instead of making the verb govern the accusative, as\nhe does three times _in the very next verse_; and, indeed, eleven times in\nthe course of his Gospel. To be sure, S. Luke in this instance is but\ncopying S. Matthew, who _also_ has \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc once;(283) and seven\ntimes makes the verb govern an accusative. This, nevertheless, constitutes\nno reason whatever for suspecting the genuineness either of S. Matth. x.\n28 or of S. Luke xii. 4.\n\n(2.) In like manner, the phrase \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd will be found to\noccur once, and once _only_, in S. Mark,\u2014once, and once only, in S.\nLuke;(284) although S. Mark and S. Luke use the verb \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 upwards of\nforty times. Such facts are interesting. They may prove important. But no\none who is ever so little conversant with such inquiries will pretend that\nthey are in the least degree _suspicious_.\u2014I pass on.\n\n(VIII.) It is next noted as a suspicious circumstance that \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd occurs\nin ver. 11 and in ver. 16; but nowhere else in the Gospels,\u2014except in S.\nLuke xxiv. 11, 14.\n\nBut really, such a remark is wholly without force, as an argument against\nthe genuineness of the passage in which the word is found: for,\n\n(1.) Where else in the course of this Gospel _could_ \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd have\noccurred? Now, unless some reason can be shewn why the word _should_, or\nat least _might_ have been employed elsewhere, to remark upon its\nintroduction in this place, _where it __ could scarcely be dispensed\nwith_, as a ground of suspicion, is simply irrational. It might just as\nwell be held to be a suspicious circumstance, in respect of verses 3 and\n4, that the verb \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd occurs there, _and there only_, in this\nGospel. Nothing whatever follows from the circumstance. It is, in fact, a\npoint scarcely deserving of attention.\n\n(2.) To be sure, if the case of a verb exclusively used by the two\nEvangelists, S. Mark and S. Luke, were an unique, or even an exceedingly\nrare phenomenon, it might have been held to be a somewhat suspicious\ncircumstance that the phenomenon presented itself in the present section.\nBut nothing of the sort is the fact. There are no fewer than forty-five\nverbs _exclusively used by S. Mark and S. Luke_. And why should not\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd be, (as it is,) one of them?\n\n(3.) Note, next, that this word _is used twice_, and in the course of his\nlast chapter too, also _by S. Luke_. Nowhere else does it occur in the\nGospels. It is at least as strange that the word \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd should be found\ntwice in the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Luke, as in the\nlast chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark. And if no shadow of\nsuspicion is supposed to result from this circumstance in the case of the\nthird Evangelist, why should it in the case of the second?\n\n(4.) But, lastly, _the noun_ \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 (which occurs in S. Mark xvi. 14)\noccurs in two other places of the same Gospel. And this word (which S.\nMatthew uses twice,) is employed by none of the other Evangelists.\u2014What\nneed to add another word? Do not many of these supposed suspicious\ncircumstances,\u2014_this_ one for example,\u2014prove rather, on closer inspection,\nto be confirmatory facts?\n\n(IX.) We are next assured that \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 (ver. 12) \u201c_is not found in\nMark_, though many opportunities occurred for using it.\u201d\n\n(1.) I suppose that what this learned writer means, is this; that if S.\nMark had coveted an opportunity for introducing the phrase \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\nearlier in his Gospel, he might have found one. (More than this cannot be\nmeant: for _nowhere_ before does S. Mark employ _any other phrase_ to\nexpress \u201cafter these things,\u201d or \u201cafter this,\u201d or \u201cafterwards.\u201d)\n\nBut what is the obvious inference from the facts of the case, as stated by\nthe learned Critic, except that the blessed Evangelist _must be presumed\nto have been unconscious of any desire to introduce the expression under\nconsideration on any other occasion except the present_?\n\n(2.) Then, further, it is worth observing that while the phrase \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\noccurs five times in S. Luke\u2019s Gospel, it is found only twice in the Acts;\nwhile S. Matthew _never employs it at all_. Why, then,\u2014I would\nrespectfully inquire\u2014_why_ need S. Mark introduce the phrase _more than\nonce_? Why, especially, is his solitary use of the expression to be\nrepresented as a suspicious circumstance; and even perverted into an\narticle of indictment against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of\nhis Gospel? \u201cWould any one argue that S. Luke was not the author of the\nActs, because the author of the Acts has employed this phrase only\ntwice,\u2014\u2018often as he _could_ have used it?\u2019 (Meyer\u2019s phrase here.(285))\u201d\n\n(X.) Another objection awaits us,\u2014\u201c\u1f1b\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 also is unknown to Mark,\u201d says\nDr. Davidson;\u2014which only means that the word occurs in chap. xvi. 12, but\nnot elsewhere in his Gospel.\n\nIt so happens, however, that \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 also occurs once only in the Gospel of\nS. John. Does it therefore throw suspicion on S. John xix. 37?\n\n(XI.) The same thing is said of \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd (in ver. 14) viz. that it \u201coccurs\nnowhere\u201d in the second Gospel.\n\nBut why not state the case thus?\u2014\u1f5d\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, a word which is twice employed\nby S. Luke, occurs only _once_ in S. Mark and _once_ in S. John.\u2014_That_\nwould be the true way of stating the facts of the case. But it would be\nattended with this inconvenient result,\u2014that it would make it plain that\nthe word in question has no kind of bearing on the matter in hand.\n\n(XII.) The same thing he says of \u03b2\u03bb\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (in ver. 18).\n\nBut what is the fact? The word occurs _only twice in the Gospels_,\u2014viz. in\nS. Mark xvi. 18 and S. Luke iv. 35. It is one of the eighty-four words\nwhich are peculiar to S. Mark and S. Luke. What possible significancy\nwould Dr. Davidson attach to the circumstance?\n\n(XIII.) Once more.\u2014\u201c\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u201d (proceeds Dr. Davidson) \u201cis unknown to\nMark;\u201d which (as we begin to be aware) is the learned gentleman\u2019s way of\nstating that it is only found in chap. xvi. 20.\n\nTischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford insist that it _also_ occurs in S. Mark\ni. 28. I respectfully differ from them in opinion: but when it has been\npointed out that the word _is only used besides in S. Luke_ ix. 6, what\n_can_ be said of such Criticism but that it is simply frivolous?\n\n(XIV. and XV.) Yet again:\u2014\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd and \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd are also said by the same\nlearned Critic to be \u201cunknown to Mark.\u201d\n\nS. Mark certainly uses these two words only once,\u2014viz. in the last verse\nof the present Chapter: but what there is suspicious in this circumstance,\nI am at a loss even to divine. He _could_ not have used them oftener; and\nsince one hundred and fifty-six words are peculiar to his Gospel, why\nshould not \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd and \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd be two of them?\n\n(XVI.) \u201c\u03a0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is Pauline,\u201d proceeds Dr. Davidson, (referring to a\nfamous expression which is found in ver. 15.)\n\n(1.) All very oracular,\u2014to be sure: but _why_ \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 should be\nthought \u201cPauline\u201d rather than \u201cPetrine,\u201d I really, once more, cannot\ndiscover; seeing that S. Peter has the expression as well as S. Paul.(286)\n\n(2.) In this place, however, the phrase is \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. But even this\nexpression is no more to be called \u201cPauline\u201d than \u201cMarcine;\u201d seeing that\nas S. Mark uses it once and once only, so does S. Paul use it once and\nonce only, viz. in Rom. viii. 22.\n\n(3.) In the meantime, how does it come to pass that the learned Critic has\noverlooked the significant fact that the word \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 occurs besides in S.\nMark x. 6 and xiii. 19; and that it is a word which _S. Mark alone of the\nEvangelists uses_? Its occurrence, therefore, in this place is a\ncircumstance the very reverse of suspicious.\n\n(4.) But lastly, inasmuch as the opening words of our LORD\u2019S Ministerial\nCommission to the Apostles are these,\u2014\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7 \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 (ver. 15): inasmuch, too, as S. Paul in his Epistle to the\nColossians (i. 23) almost reproduces those very words; speaking of the\nHope \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 ... \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7 [\u03c4\u1fc7] \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd:\u2014Is it not an allowable conjecture that _a direct reference_ to\n_that_ place in S. Mark\u2019s Gospel is contained in _this_ place of S. Paul\u2019s\nEpistle? that the inspired Apostle \u201cbeholding the universal tendency of\nChristianity already realized,\u201d announces (and from imperial Rome!) the\nfulfilment of his LORD\u2019S commands in his LORD\u2019S own words as recorded by\nthe Evangelist S. Mark?\n\nI desire to be understood to deliver this only as a conjecture. But seeing\nthat S. Mark\u2019s Gospel is commonly thought to have been written at Rome,\nand under the eye of S. Peter; and that S. Peter (and therefore S. Mark)\nmust have been at Rome before S. Paul visited that city in A.D.\n61;\u2014seeing, too, that it was in A.D. 61-2 (as Wordsworth and Alford are\nagreed) that S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, and wrote it\nfrom _Rome_;\u2014I really can discover nothing unreasonable in the\nspeculation. If, however, it be well founded,\u2014(and it is impossible to\ndeny that the coincidence of expression _may_ be such as I have\nsuggested,)\u2014then, what an august corroboration would _this_ be of \u201cthe\nlast Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark!\u201d ... If, indeed,\nthe great Apostle on reaching Rome inspected S. Mark\u2019s Gospel for the\nfirst time, with what awe will he have recognised in his own recent\nexperience the fulfilment of his SAVIOUR\u2019S great announcement concerning\nthe \u201csigns which should follow them that believe!\u201d Had he not himself\n\u201ccast out devils?\u201d\u2014\u201cspoken with tongues more than they all?\u201d\u2014and at\nMelita, not only \u201cshaken off the serpent into the fire and felt no harm,\u201d\nbut also \u201claid hands on the sick\u201d father of Publius, \u201cand he had\nrecovered?\u201d ... To return, however, to matters of fact; with an apology\n(if it be thought necessary) for what immediately goes before.\n\n(XVII.) Next,\u2014\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (ver. 17) is noticed as another suspicious\npeculiarity. The phrase is supposed to occur only in this place of S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel; the Evangelist elsewhere employing the preposition\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03af:\u2014(viz. in ix. 37: ix. 39: xiii. 6.)\n\n(1.) Now really, if it were so, the reasoning would be nugatory. _S. Luke_\nalso once, and once only, has \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5: his usage elsewhere\nbeing, (like S. Mark\u2019s) to use \u1f10\u03c0\u03af. Nay, in two consecutive verses of ch.\nix, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u2014\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 is read: and yet, in the very next chapter, his\nGospel exhibits an unique instance of the usage of \u1f10\u03bd. Was it ever thought\nthat suspicion is thereby cast on S. Luke x. 17?\n\n(2.) But, in fact, the objection is an oversight of the learned (and\ngenerally accurate) objector. The phrase recurs in S. Mark ix. 38,\u2014as the\ntext of that place has been revised by Tischendorf, by Tregelles and by\nhimself. This is therefore a slightly _corroborative_, not a suspicious\ncircumstance.\n\n(XVIII. and XIX.) We are further assured that \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (in ver. 17)\nand \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (in ver. 20) \u201care both _foreign to the diction of Mark_.\u201d\n\n(1.) But what can the learned author of this statement possibly mean? He\nis not speaking of the uncompounded verb \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, of course; for S.\nMark employs it at least twenty times. He cannot be speaking of the\ncompounded verb; for \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd occurs in S. Mark v. 37. He cannot mean\nthat \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, because the Evangelist uses it only once, is\nsuspicious; for that would be to cast a slur on S. Luke i. 3. He cannot\nmean generally that verbs compounded with prepositions are \u201cforeign to the\ndiction of Mark;\u201d for there are no less than _forty-two_ such verbs which\nare even _peculiar to S. Mark\u2019s short Gospel_,\u2014against thirty which are\npeculiar to S. Matthew, and seventeen which are peculiar to S. John. He\ncannot mean that verbs compounded with \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac and \u1f10\u03c0\u03af have a suspicious\nlook; for at least _thirty-three_ such compounds, (besides the two before\nus,) occur in his sixteen chapters.(287) What, then, I must really ask,\ncan the learned Critic possibly mean?\u2014I respectfully pause for an answer.\n\n(2.) In the meantime, I claim that as far as such evidence goes,\u2014(and it\ncertainly goes a very little way, yet, _as far as it goes_,)\u2014it is a note\nof S. Mark\u2019s authorship, that within the compass of the last twelve verses\nof his Gospel these two compounded verbs should be met with.\n\n(XX.) Dr. Davidson points out, as another suspicious circumstance, that\n(in ver. 18) the phrase \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 occurs; \u201cinstead of\n\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9.\u201d\n\n(1.) But on the contrary, the phrase \u201c_is in Mark\u2019s manner_,\u201d says Dean\nAlford: the plain fact being that it occurs no less than three times in\nhis Gospel,\u2014viz. in chap. viii. 25: x. 16: xvi. 18. (The other idiom, he\nhas four times.(288)) Behold, then, one and the same phrase is appealed to\nas a note of genuineness _and_ as an indication of spurious origin. What\n_can_ be the value of such Criticism as this?\n\n(2.) Indeed, the phrase before us supplies no unapt illustration of the\nprecariousness of the style of remark which is just now engaging our\nattention. Within the space of three verses, S. Mark has _both_\nexpressions,\u2014viz. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 (viii. 23) and also \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af (ver. 25.) S. Matthew has the latter phrase once; the former,\ntwice.(289) _Who_ will not admit that all this (so-called) Criticism is\nthe veriest trifling; and that to pretend to argue about the genuineness\nof a passage of Scripture from such evidence as the present is an act of\nrashness bordering on folly?... The reader is referred to what was offered\nabove on Art. VII.\n\n(XXI. and XXII.) Again: the words \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd\u2014\u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (ver. 19 and ver. 20)\nare also declared to be \u201c_foreign to the diction of Mark_.\u201d I ask leave to\nexamine these two charges separately.\n\n(1.) \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd occurs only once in S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, truly: but then _it\noccurs only once in S. Luke_ (iii. 18);\u2014only twice in S. John (xix. 24:\nxx. 30):\u2014in S. Matthew, never at all. What imaginable plea can be made out\nof such evidence as this, for or against the genuineness of the last\nTwelve Verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel?\u2014Once more, I pause for an answer.\n\n(2.) As for \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 being \u201c_foreign to the diction of Mark_ in speaking\nof the LORD,\u201d\u2014I really do not know what the learned Critic can possibly\nmean; except that he finds our LORD _nowhere called_ \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 _by S. Mark,\nexcept in this place._\n\nBut then, he is respectfully reminded that neither does he find our LORD\nanywhere called by S. Mark \u201cJESUS CHRIST,\u201d except in chap. i. 1. Are we,\ntherefore, to suspect the beginning of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel as well as the end\nof it? By no means, (I shall perhaps be told:) a reason is assignable for\nthe use of _that_ expression in chap. i. 1. And so, I venture to reply,\nthere is a fully sufficient reason assignable for the use of _this_\nexpression in chap. xvi. 19.(290)\n\n(3.) By S. Matthew, by S. Mark, by S. John, our LORD is called \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2,\u2014but _only in the first Chapter_ of their respective Gospels. By\nS. Luke nowhere. The appellation may,\u2014or may not,\u2014be thought \u201cforeign to\nthe diction\u201d of those Evangelists. But surely it constitutes no reason\nwhatever why we should suspect the genuineness of the beginning of the\nfirst, or the second, or the fourth Gospel.\n\n(4.) S. John _three times in the first verse of his first Chapter_\ndesignates the Eternal SON by the extraordinary title \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2; but\n_nowhere else in his Gospel_, (except once in ver. 14,) does that Name\nrecur. Would it be reasonable to represent _this_ as a suspicious\ncircumstance? Is not the Divine fitness of that sublime appellation\ngenerally recognised and admitted?(291)\u2014Surely, we come to Scripture to be\nlearners only: not to teach the blessed Writers how they ought to have\nspoken about GOD! When will men learn that \u201cthe Scripture-phrase, or\n_language of the Holy Ghost_\u201d(292) is as much above them as Heaven is\nabove Earth?\n\n(XXIII.) Another complaint:\u2014\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, which is found in ver. 19, occurs\nnowhere else in the Gospels.\n\n(1.) True. S. Mark has no fewer than seventy-four verbs which \u201coccur\nnowhere else in the Gospels:\u201d and this happens to be one of them? What\npossible inconvenience can be supposed to follow from that circumstance?\n\n(2.) But the remark is unreasonable. \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 and \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 are words\n_proper to the Ascension of our _LORD_ into Heaven_. The two Evangelists\nwho do _not_ describe that event, are _without_ these words: the two\nEvangelists who _do_ describe it, _have_ them.(293) Surely, these are\nmarks of genuineness, not grounds for suspicion!\n\nIt is high time to conclude this discussion.\u2014Much has been said about two\nother minute points:\u2014\n\n(XXIV.) It is declared that \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u201cis nowhere found absolutely used by\nS. Mark:\u201d (the same thing may be said of S. Matthew and of S. Luke also:)\n\u201cbut always emphatically: whereas in verses 10 and 11, it is absolutely\nused.\u201d(294) Another writer says,\u2014\u201cThe use of \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 in verses 10, 11, and\n13 (twice) in a manner synonymous with \u1f41 \u03b4\u03ad, is peculiar.\u201d(295)\n\n(1.) Slightly peculiar it is, no doubt, but not very, that an Evangelist\nwho employs an ordinary word in the ordinary way about thirty times in\nall, should use it \u201cabsolutely\u201d in two consecutive verses.\n\n(2.) But really, until the Critics can agree among themselves as to\n_which_ are precisely the offending instances,\u2014(for it is evidently a moot\npoint whether \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 be emphatic in ver. 13, or not,)\u2014we may be excused\nfrom a prolonged discussion of such a question. I shall recur to the\nsubject in the consideration of the next Article (XXV.)\n\n(XXV.) So again, it may be freely admitted that \u201cin the 10th and 14th\nverses there are sentences without a copulative: whereas Mark always has\nthe copulative in such cases, particularly \u03ba\u03b1\u03af.\u201d But then,\u2014\n\n(1.) Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other sections of S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel _resembling the present_,\u2014(I mean, passages in which S. Mark\nsummarizes many disconnected incidents, as he does here,)\u2014is it not plain\nthat such an objection is wholly without point?\n\n(2.) Two instances are cited. In the latter, (ver. 14), Lachmann and\nTregelles read \u1f54\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad: and the reading is not impossible. So that the\ncomplaint is really reduced to this,\u2014That in ver. 10 the Evangelist begins\n\u1f18\u03ba\u03b5\u1f76\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1, instead of saying \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1. And (it is\nimplied) there is something so abhorrent to probability in this, as\nslightly to strengthen the suspicion that the entire context is not the\nwork of the Evangelist.\n\n(3.) Now, suppose we had S. Mark back among us: and suppose that he, on\nbeing shewn this objection, were to be heard delivering himself somewhat\nto the following effect:\u2014\u201cAye. But men may not find fault with _that_ turn\nof phrase. I derived it from Simon Peter\u2019s lips. I have always suspected\nthat it was a kind of echo, so to say, of what he and \u2018the other Disciple\u2019\nhad many a time rehearsed in the hearing of the wondering Church\nconcerning the Magdalene on the morning of the Resurrection.\u201d And then we\nshould have remembered the familiar place in the fourth Gospel:\u2014\n\n\u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03af \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2; \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2; \u1f18\u039a\u0395\u038a\u039d\u0397 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nAfter which, the sentence would not have seemed at all strange, even\nthough it be \u201cwithout a copulative:\u201d\u2014\n\n\u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1. \u1f18\u039a\u0395\u038a\u039d\u0397 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n(4.) For after all, the _only_ question to be asked is,\u2014Will any one\npretend that such a circumstance as this is _suspicious_? Unless _that_ be\nasserted, I see not what is gained by raking together,\u2014(_as one easily\nmight do in any section of any of the Gospels_,)\u2014every minute peculiarity\nof form or expression which can possibly be found within the space of\nthese twelve verses. It is an evidence of nothing so much as an\nincorrigible coarseness of critical fibre, that every slight variety of\nmanner or language should be thus pounced upon and represented as a note\nof spuriousness,\u2014in the face of (_a_) the unfaltering tradition of the\nChurch universal that the document has _never_ been hitherto suspected:\nand (_b_) the known proclivity of all writers, as free moral and\nintellectual agents, sometimes to deviate from their else invariable\npractice.\u2014May I not here close the discussion?\n\nThere will perhaps be some to remark, that however successfully the\nforegoing objections may seem to have been severally disposed of, yet that\nthe combined force of such a multitude of slightly suspicious\ncircumstances must be not only appreciable, but even remain an\ninconvenient, not to say a formidable fact. Let me point out that the\nsupposed remark is nothing else but a fallacy; which is detected the\ninstant it is steadily looked at.\n\nFor if there really had remained after the discussion of each of the\nforegoing XXV Articles, a slight residuum of suspiciousness, _then_ of\ncourse the aggregate of so many fractions would have amounted to something\nin the end.\n\nBut since it has been proved that there is absolutely _nothing at all_\nsuspicious in _any_ of the alleged circumstances which have been hitherto\nexamined, the case becomes altogether different. The sum of ten thousand\nnothings is still nothing.(296) This may be conveniently illustrated by an\nappeal to the only charge which remains to be examined.\n\n(XXVI. and XXVII.) The absence from these twelve verses of the adverbs\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd,\u2014(both of them favourite words with the second\nEvangelist,)\u2014has been pointed out as one more suspicious circumstance. Let\nus take the words singly:\u2014\n\n(_a_) The adverb \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 (or \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03cd\u03c2) is indeed of _very_ frequent occurrence\nin S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. And yet its absence from chap. xvi is _proved_ to be\nin no degree a suspicious circumstance, from the discovery that though it\noccurs as many as\n\n12 times in chap. i;\nand 6 times in chap. v;\nand 5 times in chap. iv, vi;\nand 3 times in chap. ii, ix, xiv;\nand 2 times in chap. vii, xi;\nit yet occurs only 1 times in chap. iii, viii, x, xv;\nwhile it occurs 0 times in chap. xii, xiii, xvi.\n\n(b) In like manner, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd, which occurs as often as\n\n6 times in chap. xiv;\nand 5 times in chap. x;\nand 3 times in chap. viii, xv;\nand 2 times in chap. ii, iii, vii, xi, xii;\nand 1 times in chap. iv, v;\noccurs 0 times in chap. i, vi, ix, xiii. xvi.(297)\n\n(1.) Now,\u2014How can it possibly be more suspicious that \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd should be\nabsent from _the last twelve_ verses of S. Mark, than that it should be\naway from _the first forty-five_?\n\n(2.) Again. Since \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 is not found in the xiith or the xiiith chapters\nof this same Gospel,\u2014nor \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd in the ist, vith, ixth, or xiiith\nchapter,\u2014(for the sufficient reason that _neither word is wanted in any of\nthose places_,)\u2014what possible \u201csuspiciousness\u201d can be supposed to result\nfrom the absence of both words from the xvith chapter also, where _also_\nneither of them is wanted? _Why_ is the xvith chapter of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel,\u2014or rather, why are \u201cthe last twelve verses\u201d of it,\u2014to labour under\nsuch special disfavor and discredit?\n\n(3.) Dr. Tregelles makes answer,\u2014\u201cI am well aware that arguments on\n_style_ are often very fallacious, and that _by themselves_ they prove\nvery little: but when there does exist external evidence, and when\ninternal proofs as to style, manner, verbal expression, and connection,\nare in accordance with such independent grounds of forming a judgment;\nthen these internal considerations possess very great weight.\u201d(298)\u2014For\nall rejoinder, the respected writer is asked,\u2014(_a_) But when there _does\nnot_ exist any such external evidence: what then? Next, he is reminded\n(_b_) That whether there does, or does not, it is at least certain that\n_not one_ of those \u201cproofs as to style,\u201d &c., of which he speaks, has been\nable to stand the test of strict examination. Not only is the\nprecariousness of all such Criticism as has been brought to bear against\nthe genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 excessive, but the supposed facts\nadduced in evidence have been found out to be every one of them\n_mistakes_;\u2014being either, (1) demonstrably without argumentative cogency\nof any kind;\u2014or else, (2) distinctly corroborative and confirmatory\ncircumstances: indications that this part of the Gospel is indeed by S.\nMark,\u2014_not_ that it is probably the work of another hand.\n\nAnd thus the formidable enumeration of twenty-seven grounds of suspicion\nvanishes out of sight: fourteen of them proving to be frivolous and\nnugatory; and _thirteen_, more or less clearly witnessing _in favour_ of\nthe section.(299)\n\nIII. Of these thirteen expressions, some are even eloquent in their\nwitness. I am saying that it is impossible not to be exceedingly struck by\nthe discovery that this portion of the Gospel contains (as I have\nexplained already) so many indications of S. Mark\u2019s undoubted manner. Such\nis the reference to \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (in ver. 15):\u2014the mention of \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 (in ver.\n14):\u2014the occurrence of the verb \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (in ver. 10 and 12),\u2014of the\nphrase \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (in ver. 17),\u2014and of the phrase \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c4\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 (in ver. 18):\u2014of the Evangelical term for our LORD\u2019S Ascension,\nviz. \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 (in ver. 19):\u2014and lastly, of the compounds \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd and\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (in verses 17 and 20.)\n\nTo these Thirteen, will have to be added all those other notes of identity\nof authorship,\u2014such as they are,\u2014which result from recurring identity of\nphrase, and of which the assailants of this portion of the Gospel have\nprudently said nothing. Such are the following:\u2014\n\n(xiv.) \u1f08\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, for rising _from the dead_; which is one of S. Mark\u2019s\nwords. Taking into account the shortness of his Gospel, he has it thrice\nas often as S. Luke; _twelve times_ as often as S. Matthew or S. John.\n\n(xv.) The idiomatic expression \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, of which S. Matthew\ndoes not present a single specimen; but which occurs three times in the\nshort Gospel of S. Mark,(300)\u2014of which ver. 12 is one.\n\n(xvi.) The expression \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03af (in ver. 9,)\u2014of which S. Mark avails himself\nsix times: i.e. (if the length of the present Gospel be taken into\naccount) almost five times as often as either S. Matthew or S. John,\u2014S.\nLuke never using the word at all. In his first chapter (ver. 35), and here\nin his last (ver. 2), S. Mark uses \u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd in connexion with \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03af.\n\n(xvii.) The phrase \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (in ver. 15) is another of S.\nMark\u2019s phrases. Like S. Matthew, he employs it four times (i. 14: xiii.\n10: xiv. 9: xvi. 15): but it occurs neither in S. Luke\u2019s nor in S. John\u2019s\nGospel.\n\n(xviii.) The same _words_ singly are characteristic of his Gospel. Taking\nthe length of their several narratives into account, S. Mark has the word\n\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd more than twice as often as S. Matthew: three times as often as\nS. Luke.\n\n(xix.) \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\u2014a word which occurs only in the first two Gospels,\u2014is\nfound twice as often in S. Mark\u2019s as in S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel: and if the\nrespective length of their Gospels be considered, the proportion will be\nas three to one. It occurs, as above stated, in ver. 15.\n\n(xx.) If such Critics as Dr. Davidson had been concerned to vindicate _the\ngenuineness_ of this section of the Gospel, we should have been assured\nthat \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is another of S. Mark\u2019s words: by which they would have\nmeant no more than this,\u2014that though employed neither by S. Matthew nor by\nS. Luke it is used thrice by S. Mark,\u2014being found twice in this section\n(verses 12, 14), as well as in ch. iv. 22.\n\n(xxi.) They would have also pointed out that \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 is another of S.\nMark\u2019s words: being employed neither by S. Luke nor by S. John,\u2014by S.\nMatthew only once,\u2014but by S. Mark on _two_ occasions; of which ch. xvi. 14\nis one.\n\n(xxii.) In the same spirit, they would have bade us observe that \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\n(ver. 20)\u2014unknown to S. Matthew and S. John, and employed only once by S.\nLuke,\u2014is _twice_ used by S. Mark; one instance occurring in the present\nsection.\n\nNor would it have been altogether unfair if they had added that the\nprecisely similar word \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd (or \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd) is only found in this same\nGospel,\u2014viz. in ch. i. 45.\n\n(xxiii.) They would further have insisted (and this time with a greater\nshow of reason) that the adverb \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 (which is found in ver. 18) is\nanother favorite word with S. Mark: occurring as it does, (when the length\nof these several narratives is taken into account,) more than twice as\noften in S. Mark\u2019s as in S. John\u2019s Gospel,\u2014just three times as often as in\nthe Gospel of S. Matthew and S. Luke.\n\n(xxiv.) A more interesting (because a more just) observation would have\nbeen that \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, in the sense of \u201cto be,\u201d (as in the phrase \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\nver. 18,) is characteristic of S. Mark. He has it oftener than any of the\nEvangelists, viz. six times in all (ch. i. 32, 34: ii. 17: v. 23: vi. 55:\nxvi. 18.) Taking the shortness of his Gospel into account, he employs this\nidiom twice as often as S. Matthew;\u2014three times as often as S. John;\u2014four\ntimes as often as S. Luke.\n\n(xxv.) They would have told us further that \u1f04\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is another of S.\nMark\u2019s favorite words: for that he has it _three_ times,\u2014viz. in ch. vi.\n5, 13, and here in ver. 18. S. Matthew has it only once. S. Luke and S.\nJohn not at all.\n\n(xxvi.) And we should have been certainly reminded by them that the\nconjunction of \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 (in ver. 10) is characteristic of S.\nMark,\u2014who has \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 in ch. v. 38: \u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 in the very next verse. As for \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, it is one of the 123 words\ncommon to S. Matthew and S. Mark, and peculiar to their two Gospels.\n\n(xxvii.) Lastly, \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 (in ver. 16), instead of \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, is Mark\u2019s\nword, (comp. x. 33: xiv. 64).\u201d The simple verb which is used four times by\nS. Matthew, five times by S. Luke, nineteen times by S. John, is never at\nall employed by S. Mark: whereas the compound verb he has oftener in\nproportion than S. Matthew,\u2014more than twice as often as either S. Luke or\nS. John.\n\nStrange,\u2014that there should be exactly \u201cxxvii\u201d notes of genuineness\ndiscoverable in these twelve verses, instead of \u201cXXVII\u201d grounds of\nsuspicion!\n\nBut enough of all this. Here, we may with advantage review the progress\nhitherto made in this inquiry.\n\nI claim to have demonstrated long since that all those imposing assertions\nrespecting the \u201cStyle\u201d and \u201cPhraseology\u201d of this section of the Gospel\nwhich were rehearsed at the outset,(301)\u2014are destitute of foundation. But\nfrom this discovery alone there results a settled conviction which it will\nbe found difficult henceforth to disturb. A page of Scripture which has\nbeen able to endure so severe an ordeal of hostile inquiry, has been\n_proved_ to be above suspicion. _That_ character is rightly accounted\n_blameless_ which comes out unsullied after Calumny has done her worst;\ndone it systematically; done it with a will; done it for a hundred years.\n\nBut this is not an adequate statement of the facts of the case in respect\nof the conclusion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. Something _more_ is certain than\nthat the charges which have been so industriously brought against this\nportion of the Gospel are without foundation. It has been also proved that\ninstead of there being discovered twenty-seven suspicious words and\nphrases scattered up and down these twelve verses of the Gospel, there\nactually exist exactly as many words and phrases which attest with more or\nless certainty that those verses are nothing else but the work of the\nEvangelist.\n\nIV. And now it is high time to explain that though I have hitherto\ncondescended to adopt the method of my opponents, I have only done so in\norder to shew that it proves fatal to _themselves_. I am, to say the\ntruth, ashamed of what has last been written,\u2014so untrustworthy do I deem\nthe method which, (following the example of those who have preceded me in\nthis inquiry,) I have hitherto pursued. The \u201cConcordance test,\u201d\u2014(for\n_that_ is probably as apt and intelligible a designation as can be devised\nfor the purely _mechanical_ process whereby it is proposed by a certain\nschool of Critics to judge of the authorship of Scripture,)\u2014is about the\ncoarsest as well as about the most delusive that could be devised. By\nmeans of this clumsy and vulgar instrument, especially when applied, (as\nin the case before us,) without skill and discrimination, it would be just\nas easy to prove that _the first_ twelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel are of\na suspicious character as _the last_.(302) In truth, except in very\nskilful hands, it is no test at all, and can only mislead.\n\nThus, (in ver. 1,) we should be informed (i.) that \u201cMark nowhere uses the\nappellation JESUS CHRIST:\u201d and (ii.) that \u201c\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u201d is\n\u201c_Pauline_\u201d\u2014We should be reminded (iii.) that this Evangelist nowhere\nintroduces any of the Prophets by name, and that therefore the mention of\n\u201cIsaiah\u201d(303) (in ver. 2) is a suspicious circumstance:\u2014(iv.) that a\nquotation from the Old Testament is \u201cforeign to his manner,\u201d\u2014(for writers\nof this class would not hesitate to assume that S. Mark xv. 28 is no part\nof the Gospel;)\u2014and (v.) that the fact that here are quotations from _two_\ndifferent prophets, betrays an unskilful hand.\u2014(vi.) Because S. Mark three\ntimes calls Jud\u00e6a by its usual name (\u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1, viz. in iii. 7: x. 1: xiii.\n14), the _unique_ designation, \u1f21 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 (in ver. 5) would be\npronounced decisive against \u201cthe authorship of Mark.\u201d\u2014(vii.) The same\nthing would be said of the _unique_ expression, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff7, which\nis found in ver. 5,\u2014seeing that this Evangelist three times designates\nJordan simply as \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 (i. 9: iii. 8: x. 1).\u2014(viii.) _That_ entire\nexpression in ver. 7 (_unique_, it must be confessed, in the Gospel,) \u03bf\u1f56\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u2014\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, would be pronounced \u201cabhorrent to the\nstyle of Mark.\u201d\u2014(ix.) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 _twice_, (viz. in ver. 10 and ver. 12) we\nshould be told is never used by the Evangelist absolutely for the HOLY\nGHOST: but always \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f0d\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (as in ch. iii. 29: xii. 36: xiii.\n11).\u2014(x.) The same would be said of \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (in ver. 5) for \u201cthe\ninhabitants of Jerusalem:\u201d we should be assured that S. Mark\u2019s phrase\nwould rather be \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd,\u2014as in ch. iii. 8 and 22.\u2014And (xi.) the\nexpression \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff7 (ver. 15), we should be informed\n\u201ccannot be Mark\u2019s;\u201d\u2014who either employs \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 and the accusative (as in ch.\nix. 92), or else makes the verb take a dative (as in ch. xi. 31: xvi. 13,\n14.)\u2014We should also probably be told that the ten following words are all\n\u201cunknown to Mark:\u201d\u2014(xii.) \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c7\u03b5\u03c2,\u2014(xiii.) \u03b4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7,\u2014(xiv.) \u1f40\u03c3\u03c6\u03cd\u03c2,\u2014(xv.)\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2,\u2014(xvi.) \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9,\u2014(xvii.) \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,(six instances in a single verse\n(ver. 6): a highly suspicious circumstance!),\u2014(xviii.) \u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\u2014(xix.)\n\u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c2,\u2014(xx.) \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, (all three instances in ver. 7!)\u2014(xxi.)\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd,\u2014(xxii.) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf ... \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd (ver. 9),\u2014unique in S.\nMark!\u2014(xxiii.) \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 (ver 9), another unique phrase!\u2014(xxiv.) \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af _twice_, (viz. in verses 10, 11) yet elsewhere, when _S. Mark_\nspeaks of Heaven, (ch. vi. 41: vii. 34: viii. 11: xvi. 19) he always uses\nthe singular.\u2014Lastly, (xxv.) the same sorry objection which was brought\nagainst the \u201clast twelve verses,\u201d (that \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd, a favourite adverb with S.\nMark, is not found there,) is here even more conspicuous.\n\nTurning away from all this,\u2014(not, however, without an apology for having\nlingered over such frivolous details so long,)\u2014I desire to point out that\nwe have reverently to look below the surface, if we would ascertain how\nfar it is to be presumed from internal considerations whether S. Mark was\nindeed the author of this portion of his Gospel, or not.\n\nV. We must devise, I say, some more delicate, more philosophical, more\n_real_ test than the coarse, uncritical expedient which has been hitherto\nconsidered of ascertaining by reference to the pages of a Greek\nConcordance whether a certain word which is found in this section of the\nGospel is, or is not, used elsewhere by S. Mark. And I suppose it will be\ngenerally allowed to be deserving of attention,\u2014in fact, to be a\nsingularly corroborative circumstance,\u2014that within the narrow compass of\nthese Twelve Verses we meet with _every principal characteristic of S.\nMark\u2019s manner_:\u2014Thus,\n\n(i.) Though he is the Author of the shortest of the Gospels, and though to\nall appearance he often merely reproduces what S. Matthew has said before\nhim, or else anticipates something, which is afterwards delivered by S.\nLuke,\u2014it is surprising how often we are indebted to S. Mark for precious\npieces of information which we look for in vain elsewhere. Now, this is a\nfeature of the Evangelist\u2019s manner which is susceptible of memorable\nillustration from the section before us.\n\nHow many and how considerable are the _new circumstances_ which S. Mark\nhere delivers!\u2014(1) That Mary Magdalene was _the first_ to behold the risen\nSAVIOUR: (2) That it was _He_ who had cast out from her the \u201cseven\ndevils:\u201d (3) _How the men were engaged_ to whom she brought her joyful\nmessage,\u2014(4) who not only did not believe _her_ story, but when Cleopas\nand his companion declared what had happened to themselves, \u201c_neither\nbelieved they them_.\u201d (5) The terms of the Ministerial Commission, as set\ndown in verses 15 and 16, are unique. (6) The announcement of the \u201csigns\nwhich should follow them that believe\u201d is even extraordinary. Lastly, (7)\nthis is the only place in the Gospel where _The Session at the right Hand\nof _GOD is recorded.... So many, and such precious incidents, showered\ninto the Gospel Treasury at the last moment, and with such a lavish hand,\nmust needs have proceeded if not from an Apostle at least from a companion\nof Apostles. O, if we had no other token to go by, there could not be a\nreasonable doubt that this entire section is by no other than S. Mark\nhimself!\n\n(ii.) A second striking characteristic of the second Evangelist is his\nlove of picturesque, or at least of striking details,\u2014his proneness to\nintroduce exceedingly minute particulars, often of the profoundest\nsignificancy, and always of considerable interest. Not to look beyond the\nTwelve Verses (chap. i. 9-20) which were originally proposed for\ncomparison,\u2014We are reminded (_a_) that in describing our SAVIOUR\u2019S\nBaptism, it is only S. Mark who relates that \u201cHe came _from Nazareth_\u201d to\nbe baptized.\u2014(_b_) In his highly elliptical account of our LORD\u2019S\nTemptation, it is only he who relates that \u201cHe was _with the wild\nbeasts_.\u201d\u2014(_c_) In his description of the Call of the four Disciples, S.\nMark alone it is who, (notwithstanding the close resemblance of his\naccount to what is found in S. Matthew,) records that the father of S.\nJames and S. John was left \u201cin the ship _with the hired\nservants_.\u201d(304)\u2014Now, of this characteristic, we have also within these\ntwelve verses, at least four illustrations:\u2014\n\n(_a_) Note in ver. 10, that life-like touch which evidently proceeded from\nan eye-witness,\u2014\u201c\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\u201d S. Mark relates that when Mary\nconveyed to the Disciples the joyous tidings of the LORD\u2019S Resurrection,\n_she found them overwhelmed with sorrow_,\u2014\u201cmourning and weeping.\u201d\n\n(_b_) Note also that the unbelief recorded in ver. 13 is _recorded only\nthere._\n\n(_c_) Again. S. Mark not only says that as the two Disciples were \u201cgoing\ninto the country,\u201d (\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd,(305) ver. 12,) JESUS also \u201cwent\nwith them\u201d\u2014(\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd-\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, as S. Luke relates;)\u2014but that it was _as they\nactually _\u201cwalked\u201d_ along_ (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) that this manifestation took\nplace.\n\n(_d_) Among the marvellous predictions made concerning \u201cthem that\nbelieve;\u201d what can be imagined more striking than the promise that they\nshould \u201c_take up serpents_;\u201d and suffer no harm even if they should\n\u201c_drink any deadly thing_\u201d?\n\n(iii) Next,\u2014all have been struck, I suppose, with S. Mark\u2019s proneness to\nsubstitute some expression of his own for what he found in the Gospel of\nhis predecessor S. Matthew: or, when he anticipates something which is\nafterwards met with in the Gospel of S. Luke, his aptness to deliver it in\nlanguage entirely independent of the later Evangelist. I allude, for\ninstance; to his substitution of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b5 (xiv. 72) for S.\nMatthew\u2019s \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2 (xxvi. 75);\u2014and of \u1f41 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (vi. 3) for \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe7\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (S. Matth. xiii. 55).\u2014The \u201cwoman of Canaan\u201d in S. Matthew\u2019s\nGospel (\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03a7\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b1, ch. xv. 22), is called \u201ca Greek, a Syrophenician by\nnation\u201d in S. Mark\u2019s (\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1f76\u03c2, \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, ch. vii. 26).\u2014At the\nBaptism, instead of the \u201c_opened_\u201d heavens of S. Matthew (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff7\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, ch.\niii. 16) and S. Luke (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff3\u03c7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, ch. iii. 22), we are presented by S.\nMark with the striking image of the heavens \u201c_cleaving_\u201d or \u201c_being rent\nasunder_\u201d (\u03c3\u03c7\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,(306) ch. i. 10).\u2014What S. Matthew calls \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\n\u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac (ch. xv. 39), S. Mark designates as \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8 \u0394\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ac (ch. viii.\n10.)\u2014In place of S. Matthew\u2019s \u03b6\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7 \u03a3\u03b1\u03b4\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd (ch. xvi. 6), S. Mark has\n\u03b6\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7 \u1f29\u03c1\u03ce\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 (ch. viii. 15.)\u2014In describing the visit to Jericho, for the\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03af of S. Matthew (ch. xx. 29), S. Mark gives \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 ... \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd (ch. ch. 46.)\u2014For the \u03ba\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 of S.\nMatth. xxi. 8, S. Mark (ch. xi. 8) has \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2; and for the other\u2019s \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 (xxvi. 34), he has \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b4\u03af\u03c2 (xiv. 30.)\u2014It is so\nthroughout.\n\nAccordingly,\u2014(as we have already more than once had occasion to\nremark,)\u2014whereas the rest say only \u1f21 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, S. Mark says \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (in ver. 9).\u2014Whereas S. Luke (viii. 2) says \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f27\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9,\u2014S. Mark records that from her \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1.\u2014Very\ndifferent is the great ministerial Commission as set down by S. Mark in\nver. 15, 16, from what is found in S. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20.\u2014And whereas\nS. Luke says \u201c_their eyes were holden_ that they should not know Him,\u201d S.\nMark says that \u201cHe appeared to them _in another form_.\u201d ... Is it credible\nthat any one fabricating a conclusion to S. Mark\u2019s narrative after S.\nLuke\u2019s Gospel had appeared, would have ventured so to paraphrase S. Luke\u2019s\nstatement? And yet, let the consistent truthfulness of either expression\nbe carefully noted. _Both_ are historically accurate, but they proceed\nfrom opposite points of view. Viewed on the heavenly side, (God\u2019s side),\nthe Disciples\u2019 \u201ceyes\u201d (of course) \u201c_were __ holden_:\u201d\u2014viewed on the\nearthly side, (Man\u2019s side), the risen SAVIOUR (no doubt) \u201c_appeared in\nanother form_.\u201d\n\n(iv.) Then further, S. Mark is observed to introduce many expressions into\nhis Gospel which confirm the prevalent tradition that it was _at Rome_ he\nwrote it; and that it was with an immediate view to _Latin_ readers that\nit was published. Twelve such expressions were enumerated above (at p.\n150-1); and such, it was also there shewn, most unmistakably is the phrase\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 in ver. 9.\u2014It is simply incredible that any one but an\nEvangelist writing under the peculiar conditions traditionally assigned to\nS. Mark, would have hit upon such an expression as this,\u2014the strict\nequivalent, to Latin ears, for \u1f21 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, which has occurred just\nabove, in ver. 2. Now this, it will be remembered, is one of the hacknied\nobjections to the genuineness of this entire portion of the Gospel;\u2014quite\nproof enough, if proof were needed, of the exceeding _improbability_ which\nattaches to the phrase, in the judgment of those who have considered this\nquestion the most.\n\n(v.) The last peculiarity of S. Mark to which I propose to invite\nattention is supplied by those expressions which connect his Gospel with\nS. Peter, and remind us of the constant traditional belief of the ancient\nChurch that S. Mark was the companion of the chief of the Apostles.\n\nThat the second Gospel contains many such hints has often been pointed\nout; never more interestingly or more convincingly than by Townson(307) in\na work which deserves to be in the hands of every student of Sacred\nScience. Instead of reproducing any of the familiar cases in order to\nillustrate my meaning, I will mention one which has perhaps never been\nmentioned in this connexion before.\n\n(_a_) Reference is made to our LORD\u2019S sayings in S. Mark vii, and\nspecially to what is found in ver. 19. _That_ expression, \u201cpurging all\nmeats\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd(308) \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1), does really seem to be no part\nof the Divine discourse; but the Evangelist\u2019s inspired comment on the\nSAVIOUR\u2019S words.(309)\n\nOur SAVIOUR (he explains) by that discourse of His\u2014ipso, facto\u2014\u201c_made all\nmeats clean_.\u201d How doubly striking a statement, when it is remembered that\nprobably Simon Peter himself was the actual author of it;\u2014the same who, on\nthe house-top at Joppa, had been shewn in a vision that \u201cGOD _had made\nclean_\u201d (\u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5(310)) _all_ His creatures!\n\n(_b_) Now, let a few words spoken by the same S. Peter on a memorable\noccasion be considered:\u2014\u201cWherefore of these men which have companied with\nus all the time that the LORD JESUS went in and out among us, _beginning\nfrom the Baptism of John_, unto that same day that _He was taken up_\n(\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7) from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His\nResurrection.\u201d(311) Does not S. Peter thereby define the precise limits of\nour SAVIOUR\u2019S Ministry,\u2014shewing it to have \u201cbegun\u201d (\u1f00\u03c1\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) \u201cfrom the\nBaptism of John,\u201d\u2014and closed with the Day of our LORD\u2019S Ascension? And\nwhat else are those but the exact bounds of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel,\u2014of which the\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae (ch. i. 1) is signally declared to have been _the Baptism of\nJohn_,\u2014and the utmost limit, the day when (as S. Mark says) \u201c_He was taken\nup_ (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7) into Heaven,\u201d\u2014(ch. xvi. 19)?\n\n(_c_) I will only further remind the reader, in connexion with the phrase,\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, in ver. 15,\u2014(concerning which, the reader is referred back\nto page 162-3,)\u2014that both S. Peter and S. Mark (but no other of the sacred\nwriters) conspire to use the expression \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.(312) S. Mark\nhas besides \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (ch. xiii. 19); while S. Peter alone\nstyles the ALMIGHTY, from His work of Creation, \u1f41 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (1 S. Pet. iv.\n19).\n\nVI. But besides, and over and above such considerations as those which\nprecede,\u2014(some of which, I am aware, might be considerably evacuated of\ntheir cogency; while others, I am just as firmly convinced, will remain\nforcible witnesses of GOD\u2019S Truth to the end of Time,)\u2014I hesitate not to\navow my personal conviction that abundant and striking evidence is\ngarnered up within the brief compass of these Twelve Verses that they are\nidentical in respect of fabric with the rest of the Gospel; were clearly\nmanufactured out of the same Divine materials,\u2014wrought in the same\nheavenly loom.\n\nIt was even to have been expected, from what is found to have been\nuniversally the method in other parts of Scripture,\u2014(for it was of course\nforeseen by ALMIGHTY GOD from the beginning that this portion of His Word\nwould be, like its Divine Author, in these last days cavilled at, reviled,\nhated, rejected, denied,)\u2014that the SPIRIT would not leave Himself without\nwitness in this place. It was to have been anticipated, I say, that\nEternal Wisdom would carefully\u2014(I trust there is no irreverence in so\nspeaking of GOD and His ways!)\u2014would carefully make provision: meet the\ncoming unbelief (as His Angel met Balaam) with a drawn sword: plant up and\ndown throughout these Twelve Verses of the Gospel, sure indications of\ntheir Divine Original,\u2014unmistakable notes of purpose and\ndesign,\u2014mysterious traces and tokens of Himself; not visible indeed to the\nscornful and arrogant, the impatient and irreverent; yet clear as if\nwritten with a sunbeam to the patient and humble student, the man who\n\u201ctrembleth at GOD\u2019S Word.\u201d(313) Or, (if the Reader prefers the image,) the\nindications of a Divine Original to be met with in these verses shall be\nlikened rather to those cryptic characters, invisible so long as they\nremain unsuspected, but which shine forth clear and strong when exposed to\nthe Light or to the Heat; (Light and Heat, both emblems of Himself!) so\nthat even he that gropeth in darkness must now see them, and admit that of\na truth \u201cthe LORD is in this place\u201d although he \u201cknew it not!\u201d\n\n(i.) I propose then that in the first instance we compare the conclusion\nof S. Mark\u2019s Gospel with the beginning of it. We did this before, when our\nobject was to ascertain whether the _Style_ of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 be indeed\nas utterly discordant from that of the rest of the Gospel as is commonly\nrepresented. We found, instead, the most striking resemblance.(314) We\nalso instituted a brief comparison between the two in order to discover\nwhether the _Diction_ of the one might not possibly be found as suggestive\nof _verbal_ doubts as the diction of the other: and so we found\nit.(315)\u2014Let us for the third time draw the two extremities of this\nprecious fabric into close proximity in order again to compare them.\nNothing I presume can be fairer than to elect that, once more, our\nattention be chiefly directed to what is contained within the twelve\nverses (ver. 9-20) of S. Mark\u2019s _first_ chapter which exactly correspond\nwith the twelve verses of his _last_ chapter (ver. 9-20) which are the\nsubject of the present volume.\n\nNow between these two sections of the Gospel, besides (1) the obvious\n_verbal_ resemblance, I detect (2) a singular parallelism of _essential\nstructure_. And this does not strike me the less forcibly because nothing\nof the kind was to have been _expected_.\n\n(1.) On the verbal coincidences I do not propose to lay much stress. Yet\nare they certainly not without argumentative weight and significancy. I\nallude to the following:\u2014\n\n(a) [\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 (a) \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 (xvi. 16)\n(i. 4)\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n(i. 5)\u2014\u1f10\u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n(i. 8)]\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 (i.\n9)\n(b) [\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b4 (b) \u1f10\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd (xvi. 20)\n(i. 7)]\n(b and c) \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 (c) \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (i. 14)\u2014[\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (xvi. 15)\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (i. 1)]\n(c and d) \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 (d) \u1f20\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (xvi.\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 (i. 15) 11)\u2014\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (xvi.\n 13)\u2014\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (xvi. 14)\u2014\u1f41\n \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n (xvi. 16)\u2014\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\n (xvi. 17.)\n\nNow this, to say the least, shews that there exists an unmistakable\nrelation of sympathy between the first page of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel and the\nlast. The same doctrinal phraseology,(316)\u2014the same indications of Divine\npurpose,\u2014the same prevailing cast of thought is observed to occur in both.\n(i.) _A Gospel_ to be everywhere _preached_;\u2014(ii.) _Faith_, to be of all\nrequired;\u2014(iii.) _Baptism_ to be universally administered; \u201cone LORD, one\nFaith, one Baptism:\u201d\u2014Is not _this_ the theme of the beginning of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel as well as of the end of it? Surely it is as if on comparing the\ntwo extremities of a chain, with a view to ascertaining whether the fabric\nbe identical or not, it were discovered that those extremities are even\nmeant _to clasp_!\n\n(2.) But the _essential_ parallelism between S. Mark xvi. 9-20 and S. Mark\ni. 9-20 is a profounder phenomenon and deserves even more attention. I\nproceed to set down side by side, as before, what ought to require neither\ncomment nor explanation of mine. Thus we find,\u2014\n\n(A) _in ch._ i. 9 _to_ (A) _in ch._ xvi. 9 _to_\n11:\u2014Our LORD\u2019S 11:\u2014Our LORD\u2019S appearance\nManifestation to the to Mary Magdalene (\u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7)\nWorld (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1) on HIS after HIS Resurrection\n\u201ccoming up (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd) (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2) from death:\nout of the water\u201d of \u201cThou art My SON, this\nJordan: (having been day have I begotten\n\u201cburied by Baptism,\u201d as Thee.\u201d\nthe Apostle speaks:) when\nthe Voice from Heaven\nproclaimed,\u2014\u201cThou art My\nbeloved SON in whom I am\nwell pleased.\u201d\n \u201412 _to_ 14:\u2014Two other\n Manifestations\n (\u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7) to Disciples.\n(B) \u201412, 13:\u2014CHRIST\u2019S (B) \u201417, 18:\u2014CHRIST\u2019S\nvictory over Satan; promise that \u201cthey that\n(whereby is fulfilled the believe\u201d \u201cshall cast out\npromise \u201cThou shalt tread devils\u201d and \u201cshall take\nupon the lion and adder: up serpents:\u201d (as [in S.\nthe young lion and the Luke x. 19] He had given\ndragon shalt Thou trample the Seventy \u201cpower to\nunder feet.\u201d) tread on serpents and\n scorpions, and over all\n the power of the Enemy.\u201d)\n(C) \u20148:\u2014The Pentecostal (C) \u201417:\u2014The chief\nGift foretold: \u201cHe shall Pentecostal Gift\nbaptize you with the HOLY specified: \u201cThey shall\nGHOST.\u201d speak with new tongues.\u201d\n\n(D) _in ch._ i. 14, (D) _in ch._ xvi. 15,\n15:\u2014CHRIST \u201ccomes into 16:\u2014He commands His\nGalilee, preaching the Apostles to \u201cgo into all\nGospel ... and saying ... the world and preach the\nRepent ye, and believe Gospel to every creature.\nthe Gospel.\u201d He that believeth and is\n baptized shall be saved.\u201d\n(E) \u201415: His (E) \u201419:\u2014S. Mark\u2019s record\nannouncement, that \u201cThe concerning Him, that \u201cHe\ntime is fulfilled, and was received up into\nthe Kingdom of God is at Heaven, and sat on the\nhand.\u201d right hand of GOD\u201d (where\n He must reign till He\n hath put all enemies\n under His feet.)\n(F) \u201416 _to_ 20:\u2014The four (F) \u201420:\u2014The Apostles\u2019\nApostles\u2019 Call to the Ministry, which is\nMinistry: (which [S. Luke everywhere miraculously\nv. 8, 9] is miraculously attested,\u2014\u201cThe LORD\nattested.) working with them, and\n confirming the word by\n the signs that followed.\u201d\n\nIt is surely not an unmeaning circumstance, a mere accident, that the\nEvangelist should at the very outset and at the very conclusion of his\nGospel, so express himself! If, however, it should seem to the Reader a\nmere matter of course, a phenomenon without interest or\nsignificancy,\u2014nothing which I could add would probably bring him to a\ndifferent mind.\n\n(3.) Then, further: when I scrutinize attentively the two portions of\nScripture thus proposed for critical survey, I am not a little struck by\nthe discovery that the VIth Article of the ancient Creed of Jerusalem\n(A.D. 348) is found in the one: the Xth Article, in the other.(317) If it\nbe a purely fortuitous circumstance, that two cardinal verities like\nthese,\u2014(viz. \u201c_He ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the Right Hand of\n_GOD\u201d\u2014and \u201c_One Baptism for the Remission of sins_,\u201d) should be found at\neither extremity of one short Gospel,\u2014I will but point out that it is\ncertainly one of a very remarkable series of fortuitous circumstances.\u2014But\nin the thing to be mentioned next, there neither is, nor can be, any talk\nof fortuitousness at all.\n\n(4.) Allusion is made to the diversity of Name whereby the Son of Man is\nindicated in these two several places of the Gospel; which constitutes a\nmost Divine circumstance, and is profoundly significant. He who in _the\nfirst_ verse (S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint title \u201c\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\u201d and\n\u201c\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2,\u201d\u2014here, in the last two verses (S. Mark xvi. 19, 20) is styled\nfor the first and for the last time, \u201c\u1f49 \u039a\u03a5\u03a1\u0399\u039f\u03a3\u201d\u2014the LORD.(318)\n\nAnd why? Because He who at His Circumcision was named \u201cJESUS,\u201d (a Name\nwhich was given Him from _His Birth_, yea, and before His Birth); He who\nat His Baptism became \u201cthe CHRIST,\u201d (a Title which belonged to _His\nOffice_, and which betokens His sacred _Unction_);\u2014the same, on the\noccasion of His Ascension into Heaven and Session at the Right Hand of\nGOD,\u2014when (as we know) \u201call power had been given unto Him in Heaven and in\nEarth\u201d (S. Matth. xxviii. 18),\u2014is designated by His Name of _Dominion_;\n\u201cthe LORD\u201d JEHOVAH ... \u201cMagnifica et opportuna appellatio!\u201d\u2014as Bengel well\nremarks.\n\nBut I take leave to point out that all this is what never either would or\ncould have entered into the mind of a fabricator of a conclusion to S.\nMark\u2019s unfinished Gospel. No inventor of a supplement, I say, _could_ have\nplanted his foot in this way in exactly the right place. The proof of my\nassertion is twofold:\u2014\n\n(_a_) First, because the present indication that the HOLY GHOST was indeed\nthe Author of these last Twelve Verses is even appealed to by Dr. Davidson\nand his School, _as a proof of a spurious original_. Verily, such Critics\ndo not recognise the token of the Divine Finger even when they _see_ it!\n\n(_b_) Next, as a matter of fact, we _have_ a spurious Supplement to the\nGospel,\u2014the same which was exhibited above at p. 123-4; and which may here\nbe with advantage reproduced in its Latin form:\u2014\u201cOmnia autem quaecumque\npraecepta erant illis qui cum Petro erant, breviter exposuerunt. Post haec\net ipse Iesus adparuit, et ab oriente usque in occidentem misit per illos\nsanctam et incorruptam praedicationem salutis aeternae.\nAmen.\u201d(319)\u2014Another apocryphal termination is found in certain copies of\nthe Thebaic version. It occupies the place of ver. 20, and is as\nfollows:\u2014\u201cExeuntes terni in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt Evangelium\nin mundo toto, CHRISTO operante cum iis in verbo confirmationem cum signis\nsequentibus eos et miraculis. Atque hoc modo cognitum est regnum Dei in\nterra tota et in mundo toto Israelis in testimonium gentium omnium harum\nquae exsistunt ab oriente ad occasum.\u201d It will be seen that the Title of\n_Dominion_ (\u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\u2014the LORD) is found in neither of these fabricated\npassages; but the Names of _Nativity_ and of _Baptism_ (\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 and\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\u2014JESUS and CHRIST) occur instead.\n\n(ii.) Then further:\u2014It is an extraordinary note of genuineness that such a\nvast number of minute but important facts should be found accumulated\nwithin the narrow compass of these twelve verses; and should be met with\n_nowhere else_. The writer,\u2014supposing that he had only S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel\nbefore him,\u2014traverses (except in one single instance) _wholly new ground_;\nmoves forward with unmistakable boldness and a rare sense of security; and\nwherever he plants his foot, it is to enrich the soil with fertility and\nbeauty. But on the supposition that he wrote after S. Luke\u2019s and S. John\u2019s\nGospel had appeared,\u2014the marvel becomes increased an hundred-fold: for how\nthen does it come to pass that he evidently draws his information from\nquite independent sources? is not bound by any of their statements? even\nseems _purposely_ to break away from their guidance, and to adventure some\nextraordinary statement of his own,\u2014which nevertheless carries the true\nGospel savour with it; and is felt to be authentic from the very\ncircumstance that no one would have ever dared to invent such a detail and\nput it forth on his own responsibility?\n\n(iii.) Second to no indication that this entire section of the Gospel has\na Divine original, I hold to be a famous expression which (like \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5) has occasioned general offence: I mean, the designation of Mary\nMagdalene as one \u201cout of whom\u201d the LORD \u201chad cast seven devils;\u201d and\n_that_, in immediate connexion with the record of her august privilege of\nbeing the first of the Human Race to behold His risen form. There is such\nprofound Gospel significancy;\u2014such sublime improbability,\u2014such exquisite\npathos in this record,\u2014that I would defy any fabricator, be he who he\nmight, to have achieved it. This has been to some extent pointed out\nalready.(320)\n\n(iv.) It has also been pointed out, (but the circumstance must be by all\nmeans here insisted upon afresh,) that the designation (found in ver. 10)\nof the little company of our LORD\u2019S followers,\u2014\u201c\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\u201d\u2014is another rare note of veracious origin. No one but S.\nMark,\u2014or just such an one as he,\u2014would or could have so accurately\ndesignated the little band of Christian men and women who, unconscious of\ntheir bliss, were \u201cmourning and weeping\u201d till after sunrise on the first\nEaster Day. The reader is reminded of what has been already offered on\nthis subject, at p. 155-6.\n\n(v.) I venture further to point out that no writer but S. Mark, (or such\nan one as he(321)), would have familiarly designated the Apostolic body as\n\u201c\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1,\u201d in ver. 14. The phrase \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1, he uses in\nproportion _far_ oftener than any other two of the Evangelists.(322) And\nit is evident that the phrase \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 soon became an equally recognised\ndesignation of the Apostolic body,\u2014\u201cfrom which Judas by transgression\nfell.\u201d Its familiar introduction into this place by the second Evangelist\nis exactly what one might have looked for, or at least what one is fully\nprepared to meet with, _in him_.\n\n(vi.) I will close this enumeration by calling attention to an unobtrusive\nand unobserved verb in the last of these verses which (I venture to say)\nit would never have entered into the mind of any ordinary writer to employ\nin that particular place. I allude to the familiar word \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nThe precise meaning of the expression,\u2014depending on the known force of the\npreposition with which the verb is compounded,\u2014can scarcely be missed by\nany one who, on the one hand, is familiar with the Evangelical method; on\nthe other, is sufficiently acquainted with the Gospel History. Reference\nis certainly made to the final departure of the Apostolic body _out of the\ncity of Jerusalem_.(323) And tacitly, beyond a question, there is herein\ncontained a recollection of our SAVIOUR\u2019S command to His Apostles, twice\nexpressly recorded by S. Luke, \u201cthat they should _not depart from\nJerusalem_, but wait for the promise of the FATHER.\u201d \u201cBehold,\u201d (said He,)\n\u201cI send the promise of My FATHER upon you: but _tarry ye in the city of\nJerusalem_, until ye be endued with power from on high.\u201d(324)... After\nmany days \u201c_they went forth_\u201d or \u201c_out_.\u201d S. Mark, (or perhaps it is\nrather S. Peter,) expressly says so,\u2014\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Aye, and _that_ was a\nmemorable \u201coutgoing,\u201d truly! What else was its purpose but the\nevangelization of the World?\n\nVII. Let this suffice, then, concerning the evidence derived from Internal\nconsiderations. But lest it should hereafter be reckoned as an omission,\nand imputed to me as a fault, that I have said nothing about the alleged\n_Inconsistency_ of certain statements contained in these \u201cTwelve Verses\u201d\nwith the larger notices contained in the parallel narratives of S. Luke\nand S. John,\u2014I proceed briefly to explain _why_ I am silent on this head.\n\n1. I cannot see for whom I should be writing; in other words,\u2014what I\nshould propose to myself as the end to be attained by what I wrote. For,\n\n2. What would be gained by demonstrating,\u2014(as I am of course prepared to\ndo,)\u2014that there is really _no inconsistency whatever_ between anything\nwhich S. Mark here says, and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should\nhave proved that,\u2014(assuming the _other_ Evangelical narratives to be\nauthentic, i.e. historically true,)\u2014the narrative before us cannot be\nobjected to on the score of its not being authentic also. But _by whom_ is\nsuch proof required?\n\n(_a_) Not by the men who insist that errors are occasionally to be met\nwith in the Evangelical narratives. In _their_ estimation, _the\ngenuineness of an inspired writing_ is a thing not in the least degree\nrendered suspicious by the erroneousness of its statements. According to\nthem, the narrative may exhibit inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and may\nyet be the work of S. Mark. If the inconsistencies be but \u201ctrifling,\u201d and\nthe inaccuracies \u201cminute,\u201d\u2014these \u201csound Theologians,\u201d (for so they style\nthemselves,(325)) \u201chave no dread whatever of acknowledging\u201d their\nexistence. Be it so. Then would it be a gratuitous task to set about\nconvincing _them_ that no inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable\nwithin the compass of these Twelve concluding Verses.\n\n(_b_) But neither is such proof required by faithful Readers; who, for\nwant of the requisite Scientific knowledge, are unable to discern the\nperfect Harmony of the Evangelical narratives in this place. It is only\none of many places where a prim\u00e2 facie discrepancy, though it does not\nfail to strike,\u2014yet (happily) altogether fails to distress them.\nConsciously or unconsciously, such readers reason with themselves somewhat\nas follows:\u2014\"GOD\u2019S Word, like all GOD\u2019S other Works, (and I am taught to\nregard GOD\u2019S Word as a very masterpiece of creative skill;)\u2014the blessed\nGospel, I say, is _full_ of difficulties. And yet those difficulties are\nobserved invariably to disappear under competent investigation. Can I\nseriously doubt that if sufficient critical skill were brought to bear on\nthe highly elliptical portion of narrative contained in these Twelve\nVerses, it would present no exception to a rule which is observed to be\nelse universal; and that any apparent inconsistency between S. Mark\u2019s\nstatements in this place, and those of S. Luke and S. John, would also be\nfound to be imaginary only?\"\n\nThis then is the reason why I abstain from entering upon a prolonged\nInquiry, which would in fact necessitate a discussion of _the Principles\nof Gospel Harmony_,\u2014for which the present would clearly not be the proper\nplace.\n\nVIII. Let it suffice that, in the foregoing pages,\u2014\n\n1. I have shewn that the supposed argument from \u201cStyle,\u201d (in itself a\nhighly fallacious test,) disappears under investigation.\n\nIt has been proved (pp. 142-5) that, on the contrary, the style of S. Mark\nxvi. 9-20 is exceedingly like the style of S. Mark i. 9-20; and therefore,\nthat _it is rendered probable by the Style_ that the Author of the\nbeginning of this Gospel was also the Author of the end of it.\n\n2. I have further shewn that the supposed argument from \u201cPhraseology,\u201d\u2014(in\nitself, a most unsatisfactory test; and as it has been applied to the\nmatter in hand, a very coarse and clumsy one;)\u2014breaks down hopelessly\nunder severe analysis.\n\nInstead of there being twenty-seven suspicious circumstances in the\nPhraseology of these Twelve Verses, it has been proved (pp. 170-3) that in\ntwenty-seven particulars there emerge _corroborative considerations_.\n\n3. Lastly, I have shewn that a loftier method of Criticism is at hand; and\nthat, tested by this truer, more judicious, and more philosophical\nstandard; _a presumption_ of the highest order is created _that these\nVerses must needs be the work of S. Mark_.\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X.\n\n\nTHE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE AS TO\nTHE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.\n\n\n The Lectionary of the East shewn to be a work of extraordinary\n antiquity (p. 195).\u2014Proved to be older than any extant MS. of the\n Gospels, by an appeal to the Fathers (p. 198).\u2014In this Lectionary,\n (and also in the Lectionary of the West,) the last Twelve Verses\n of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel have, from the first, occupied a most\n conspicuous, as well as most honourable place, (p. 204.)\u2014Now, this\n becomes the testimony of ante-Nicene Christendom in their favour\n (p. 209.)\n\n\nI have reserved for the last the testimony of THE LECTIONARIES, which has\nbeen hitherto all but entirely overlooked;(326)\u2014passed by without so much\nas a word of comment, by those who have preceded me in this inquiry. Yet\nis it, when rightly understood, altogether decisive of the question at\nissue. And why? Because it is not the testimony rendered by a solitary\nfather or by a solitary MS.; no, nor even the testimony yielded by a\nsingle Church, or by a single family of MSS. But it is _the united\ntestimony of all the Churches_. It is therefore the evidence borne by a\n\u201cgoodly fellowship of Prophets,\u201d a \u201cnoble array of Martyrs\u201d indeed; as\nwell as by _MSS. innumerable which have long since perished_, but which\nmust of necessity once have been. And so, it comes to us like the voice of\nmany waters: dates, (as I shall shew by-and-by,) from a period of\naltogether immemorial antiquity: is endorsed by the sanction of all the\nsucceeding ages: admits of neither doubt nor evasion. This subject, in\norder that it may be intelligibly handled, will be most conveniently\napproached by some remarks which shall rehearse the matter from the\nbeginning.\n\nThe Christian Church succeeded to the Jewish. The younger society\ninherited the traditions of the elder, not less as a measure of necessity\nthan as a matter of right; and by a kind of sacred instinct conformed\nitself from the very beginning in countless particulars to its\ndivinely-appointed model. The same general Order of Service went on\nunbroken,\u2014conducted by a Priesthood whose spiritual succession was at\nleast as jealously guarded as had been the natural descent from Aaron in\nthe Church of the Circumcision.(327) It was found that \u201cthe Sacraments of\nthe Jews are [but] types of ours.\u201d(328) Still were David\u2019s Psalms\nantiphonally recited, and the voices of \u201cMoses and the Prophets\u201d were\nheard in the sacred assemblies of God\u2019s people \u201cevery Sabbath day.\u201d\nCanticle succeeded to Canticle; while many a Versicle simply held its\nground. The congenial utterances of the chosen race passed readily into\nthe service of the family of the redeemed. Unconsciously perhaps, the very\nmethod of the one became adopted by the other: as, for example, the method\nof beginning a festival from the \u201cEve\u201d of the preceding Day. The\nSynagogue-worship became transfigured; but it did not part with one of its\ncharacteristic features. Above all, the same three great Festivals were\nstill retained which declare \u201cthe rock whence we are hewn and the hole of\nthe pit whence we are digged:\u201d only was it made a question, a controversy\nrather, whether Easter should or should not be celebrated _with the\nJews_.(329)\n\nBut it is the faithful handing on to the Christian community of _the\nLectionary practice_ of the Synagogue to which the reader\u2019s attention is\nnow exclusively invited. That the Christian Church inherited from the\nJewish the practice of reading a first and a second Lesson in its public\nassemblies, is demonstrable. What the Synagogue practice was in the time\nof the Apostles is known from Acts xiii. 15, 27. Justin Martyr, (A.D. 150)\ndescribes the Christian practice in his time as precisely similar:(330)\nonly that for \u201cthe Law,\u201d there is found to have been at once substituted\n\u201cthe Gospel.\u201d He speaks of the writings of \u201c_the Apostles_\u201d and of \u201cthe\nProphets.\u201d Chrysostom has the same expression (for the two Lessons) in one\nof his Homilies.(331) Cassian (A.D. 400) says that in Egypt, after the\nTwelve Prayers at Vespers and at Matins, two Lessons were read, one out of\nthe Old Testament and the other out of the New. But _on Saturdays_ and\n_Sundays_, and the fifty days of Pentecost, both Lessons were from the New\nTestament,\u2014one from the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles; the other,\nfrom the Gospels.(332) Our own actual practice seems to bear a striking\nresemblance to that of the Christian Church at the earliest period: for we\nhear of (1) \u201cMoses and the Prophets,\u201d (which will have been the carrying\non of the old synagogue-method, represented by our first and second\nLesson,)\u2014(2) a lesson out of the \u201cEpistles or Acts,\u201d together with a\nlesson out of the \u201cGospels.\u201d(333) It is, in fact, universally received\nthat the Eastern Church has, from a period of even Apostolic antiquity,\nenjoyed a Lectionary,\u2014or established system of Scripture lessons,\u2014of her\nown. In its conception, this Lectionary is discovered to have been\nfashioned (as was natural) upon the model of the Lectionary of God\u2019s\nancient people, the Jews: for it commences, as theirs did, _in the\nautumn_, (in September(334)); and prescribes two immovable \u201cLections\u201d for\nevery _Saturday_ (as well as for every Sunday) in the year: differing\nchiefly in this,\u2014that the prominent place which had been hitherto assigned\nto \u201cthe Law and the Prophets,\u201d(335) was henceforth enjoyed by the Gospels\nand the Apostolic writings. \u201cSaturday-Sunday\u201d lections\u2014(\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03af,\nfor so these Lections were called,)\u2014retain their place in the \u201cSynaxarium\u201d\nof the East to the present hour. It seems also a singular note of\nantiquity that the Sabbath and the Sunday succeeding it do as it were\ncohere, and bear one appellation; so that the week takes its name\u2014_not_\nfrom the Sunday with which it commences,(336) but\u2014from the\nSabbath-and-Sunday with which _it concludes_. To mention only one out of a\nhundred minute traits of identity which the public Service of the\nsanctuary retained:\u2014Easter Eve, which from the earliest period to this day\nhas been called \u201c\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\u201d(337) is discovered to have borne the\nself-same appellation in the Church of the Circumcision.(338)\u2014If I do not\nenter more minutely into the structure of the Oriental Lectionary,\u2014(some\nwill perhaps think I have said too much, but the interest of the subject\nought to be a sufficient apology,)\u2014it is because further details would be\nirrelevant to my present purpose; which is only to call attention to the\nthree following facts:\n\n(I.) That the practice in the Christian Church of reading publicly before\nthe congregation certain fixed portions of Holy Writ, according to an\nestablished and generally received rule, must have existed from a period\nlong anterior to the date of any known Greek copy of the New Testament\nScriptures.\n\n(II.) That although there happens to be extant neither \u201cSynaxarium,\u201d (i.e.\nTable of Proper Lessons of the Greek Church), nor \u201cEvangelistarium,\u201d (i.e.\nBook containing the Ecclesiastical Lections _in extenso_), of higher\nantiquity than the viiith century,\u2014yet that the scheme itself, as\nexhibited by those monuments,\u2014certainly in every essential particular,\u2014is\nolder than any known Greek MS. which contains it, by _at least_ four, in\nfact by full _five_ hundred years.\n\n(III.) Lastly,\u2014That in the said Lectionaries of the Greek and of the\nSyrian Churches, the twelve concluding verses of S. Mark which are the\nsubject of discussion throughout the present pages are observed\n_invariably_ to occupy the same singularly conspicuous, as well as most\nhonourable place.\n\nI. The first of the foregoing propositions is an established fact. It is\nat least quite certain that in the ivth century (if not long before) there\nexisted a known Lectionary system, alike in the Church of the East and of\nthe West. Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 348,) having to speak about our LORD\u2019s\nAscension, remarks that by a providential coincidence, on the previous\nday, which was Sunday, the event had formed the subject of the appointed\nlessons;(339) and that he had availed himself of the occasion to discourse\nlargely on the subject.\u2014Chrysostom, preaching at Antioch, makes it plain\nthat, in the latter part of the ivth century, the order of the lessons\nwhich were publicly read in the Church _on Saturdays and Sundays_(340) was\nfamiliarly known to the congregation: for he invites them to sit down, and\nstudy attentively beforehand, at home, the Sections (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c2) of the\nGospel which they were about to hear in Church.(341)\u2014Augustine is express\nin recording that in his time proper lessons were appointed for Festival\ndays;(342) and that an innovation which he had attempted on Good Friday\nhad given general offence.(343)\u2014Now by these few notices, to look no\nfurther, it is rendered certain that a Lectionary system of _some_ sort\nmust have been in existence at a period long anterior to the date of any\ncopy of the New Testament Scriptures extant. I shall shew by-and-by that\nthe fact is established by the Codices (B, \u05d0, A, C, D) themselves.\n\nBut we may go back further yet; for not only Eusebius, but Origen and\nClemens Alexandrinus, by their habitual use of the technical term for an\nEcclesiastical Lection (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1,) remind us that\nthe Lectionary practice of the East was already established in their\ndays.(344)\n\nII. The Oriental Lectionary consists of \u201cSynaxarion\u201d and \u201cEclogadion,\u201d (or\nTables of Proper Lessons from the Gospels and Apostolic writings daily\nthroughout the year;) together with \u201cMenologion,\u201d (or Calendar of\nimmovable Festivals and Saints\u2019 Days.) That we are thoroughly acquainted\nwith all of these, as exhibited in Codices of the viiith, ixth and xth\ncenturies,\u2014is a familiar fact; in illustration of which it is enough to\nrefer the reader to the works cited at the foot of the page.(345) But it\nis no less certain that the scheme of Proper Lessons itself is of much\nhigher antiquity.\n\n1. The proof of this, if it could only be established by an induction of\nparticular instances, would not only be very tedious, but also very\ndifficult indeed. It will be perceived, on reflection, that even when the\noccasion of a Homily (suppose) is actually recorded, the Scripture\nreferences which it contains, apart from the Author\u2019s statement that what\nhe quotes _had_ formed part of that day\u2019s Service, creates scarcely so\nmuch as a presumption of the fact: while the correspondence, however\nstriking, between such references to Scripture and the Lectionary as we\nhave it, is of course no proof whatever that we are so far in possession\nof the Lectionary of the Patristic age. Nay, on famous Festivals, the\nemployment of certain passages of Scripture is, in a manner,\ninevitable,(346) and may on no account be pressed.\n\n2. Thus, when Chrysostom(347) and when Epiphanius,(348) preaching on\nAscension Day, refer to Acts i. 10, 11,\u2014we do not feel ourselves warranted\nto press the coincidence of such a quotation with the Liturgical section\nof the day.\u2014So, again, when Chrysostom preaches on Christmas Day, and\nquotes from S. Matthew ii. 1, 2;(349) or on Whitsunday, and quotes from S.\nJohn vii. 38 and Acts ii. 3 and 13;\u2014though both places form part of the\nLiturgical sections for the day, no _proof_ results therefrom that either\nchapter was actually used.\n\n3. But we are not reduced to this method. It is discovered that nearly\nthree-fourths of Chrysostom\u2019s Homilies on S. Matthew either begin at the\nfirst verse of _a known Ecclesiastical Lection_; or else at the first\nensuing verse after the close of one. Thirteen of those Homilies in\nsuccession (the 63rd to the 75th inclusive) begin with _the first words of\nas many known Lections_. \u201cLet us attend to this delightful section\n(\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae) which we never cease turning to,\u201d\u2014are the opening words of\nChrysostom\u2019s 79th Homily, of which \u201cthe text\u201d is S. Matth. xxv. 31, i.e.\nthe beginning of the Gospel for Sexagesima Sunday.\u2014Cyril of Alexandria\u2019s\n(so called) \u201cCommentary on S. Luke\u201d is nothing else but a series of short\nSermons, for the most part delivered on _known Ecclesiastical Lections_;\nwhich does not seem to have been as yet observed.\u2014Augustine (A.D. 416)\nsays expressly that he had handled S. John\u2019s Gospel in precisely the same\nway.(350)\u2014All this is significant in a high degree.\n\n4. I proceed, however, to adduce a few distinct proofs that the existing\nLectionary of the great Eastern Church,\u2014as it is exhibited by Matthaei, by\nScholz, and by Scrivener from MSS. of the viiith century,\u2014and which is\ncontained in Syriac MSS. of the vith and viith\u2014must needs be in the main a\nwork of extraordinary antiquity. And if I do not begin by insisting that\nat least one century more may be claimed for it by a mere appeal to the\nHierosolymitan Version, it is only because I will never knowingly admit\nwhat may prove to be untrustworthy materials(351) into my foundations.\n\n(_a_) \u201cEvery one is aware,\u201d (says Chrysostom in a sermon on our SAVIOUR\u2019S\nBaptism, preached at Antioch, A.D. 387,) \u201cthat this is called the Festival\nof the Epiphany. Two manifestations are thereby intended: concerning both\nof which _you have heard this day S. Paul discourse in his Epistle to\nTitus_.\u201d(352) Then follows a quotation from ch. ii. 11 to 13,\u2014which proves\nto be the beginning of the lection for the day in the Greek Menology. In\nthe time of Chrysostom, therefore, Titus ii. 11, 12, 13 formed part of one\nof the Epiphany lessons,\u2014as it does to this hour in the Eastern Church.\nWhat is scarcely less interesting, it is also found to have been part of\nthe Epistle for the Epiphany in the old Gallican Liturgy,(353) the\naffinities of which with the East are well known.\n\n(_b_) Epiphanius (speaking of the Feasts of the Church) says, that at the\nNativity, a Star shewed that the WORD had become incarnate: at the\n\u201cTheophania\u201d (_our_ \u201cEpiphany\u201d) John cried, \u201cBehold the Lamb of GOD,\u201d &c.,\nand a Voice from Heaven proclaimed Him at His Baptism. Accordingly, S.\nMatth. ii. 1-12 is found to be the ancient lection for Christmas Day: S.\nMark i. 9-11 and S. Matth. iii. 13-17 the lections for Epiphany. On the\nmorrow, was read S. John i. 29-34.\n\n(_c_) In another of his Homilies, Chrysostom explains with considerable\nemphasis the reason why the Book of the Acts was read publicly in Church\nduring the interval between Easter and Pentecost; remarking, that it had\nbeen the liturgical arrangement of a yet earlier age.(354)\u2014After such an\nannouncement, it becomes a very striking circumstance that Augustine also\n(A.D. 412) should be found to bear witness to the prevalence of the same\nliturgical arrangement in the African Church.(355) In the old Gallican\nLectionary, as might have been expected, the same rule is recognisable. It\nought to be needless to add that the same arrangement is observed\nuniversally to prevail in the Lectionaries both of the East and of the\nWest to the present hour; although the fact must have been lost sight of\nby the individuals who recently, under pretence of \u201c_making some\nadvantageous alterations_\u201d in our Lectionary, have constructed an entirely\nnew one,\u2014vicious in principle and liable to the gravest objections\nthroughout,\u2014whereby _this_ link also which bound the Church of England to\nthe practice of Primitive Christendom, has been unhappily broken; _this_\nnote of Catholicity also has been effaced.(356)\n\n(_d_) The purely arbitrary arrangement, (as Mr. Scrivener phrases it), by\nwhich the Book of Genesis, instead of the Gospel, is appointed to be\nread(357) on the _week_ days of Lent, is discovered to have been fully\nrecognised in the time of Chrysostom. Accordingly, the two series of\nHomilies on the Book of Genesis which that Father preached, he preached in\nLent.(358)\n\n(_e_) It will be seen in the next chapter that it was from a very remote\nperiod the practice of the Eastern Church to introduce into the lesson for\nThursday in Holy-week, S. Luke\u2019s account (ch. xxii. 43, 44) of our LORD\u2019S\n\u201cAgony and bloody Sweat,\u201d _immediately after S. Matth._ xxvi. 39. _That_\nis, no doubt, the reason why Chrysostom,\u2014who has been suspected, (I think\nunreasonably,) of employing an Evangelistarium instead of a copy of the\nGospels in the preparation of his Homilies, is observed to quote those\nsame two verses in that very place in his Homily on S. Matthew;(359) which\nshews that the Lectionary system of the Eastern Church in this respect is\nat least as old as the ivth century.\n\n(_f_) The same two verses used to be _left out_ on the Tuesday after\nSexagesima (\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fbd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5) for which day S. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1,\nis the appointed lection. And _this_ explains why Cyril (A.D. 425) in his\nHomilies on S. Luke, passes them by in silence.(360)\n\nBut we can carry back the witness to the Lectionary practice of omitting\nthese verses, at least a hundred years; for Cod. B, (evidently for that\nsame reason,) _also_ omits them, as was stated above, in p. 79. They are\nwanting also in the Thebaic version, which is of the iiird century.\n\n(_g_) It will be found suggested in the next chapter (page 218) that the\npiercing of our LORD\u2019S side, (S. John xix. 34),\u2014thrust into Codd. B and \u05d0\nimmediately after S. Matth. xxvii. 49,\u2014is probably indebted for its place\nin those two MSS. to the Eastern Lectionary practice. If this suggestion\nbe well founded, a fresh proof is obtained that the Lectionary of the East\nwas fully established in the beginning of the ivth century. But see\nAppendix (H).\n\n(_h_) It is a remarkable note of the antiquity of that Oriental Lectionary\nsystem with which we are acquainted, that S. Matthew\u2019s account of the\nPassion (ch. xxvii. 1-61,) should be there appointed to be read _alone_ on\nthe evening of Good Friday. Chrysostom clearly alludes to this\npractice;(361) which Augustine expressly states was also the practice in\nhis own day.(362) Traces of the same method are discoverable in the old\nGallican Lectionary.(363)\n\n(_i_) Epiphanius, (or the namesake of his who was the author of a\nwell-known Homily on Palm Sunday,) remarks that \u201cyesterday\u201d had been read\nthe history of the rising of Lazarus.(364) Now S. John xi. 1-45 is the\nlection for the antecedent Sabbath, in all the Lectionaries.\n\n(_k_) In conclusion, I may be allowed so far to anticipate what will be\nfound fully established in the next chapter, as to point out here that\nsince in countless places the text of our oldest Evangelia as well as the\nreadings of the primitive Fathers exhibit unmistakable traces of the\ncorrupting influence of the Lectionary practice, _that_ very fact becomes\nirrefragable evidence of the antiquity of the Lectionary which is the\noccasion of it. Not only must it be more ancient than Cod. B or Cod. \u05d0,\n(which are referred to the beginning of the ivth century), but it must be\nolder than Origen in the iiird century, or the Vetus Itala and the Syriac\nin the iind. And thus it is demonstrated, (1st) That fixed Lessons were\nread in the Churches of the East in the immediately post-Apostolic age;\nand (2ndly) That, wherever we are able to test it, the Lectionary of that\nremote period corresponded with the Lectionary which has come down to us\nin documents of the vith and viith century, and was in fact constructed in\nprecisely the same way.\n\nI am content in fact to dismiss the preceding instances with this general\nremark:\u2014that a System which is found to have been fully recognised\nthroughout the East and throughout the West in the beginning of the fourth\ncentury, _must of necessity have been established very long before_. It is\nas when we read of three British Bishops attending the Council at Arles,\nA.D. 314. The Church (we say) which could send out those three Bishops\nmust have been _fully organized_ at a greatly antecedent period.\n\n4. Let us attend, however, to the great Festivals of the Church. These are\ndeclared by Chrysostom (in a Homily delivered at Antioch 20 Dec. A.D. 386)\nto be the five following:\u2014(1) Nativity: (2) the Theophania: (3) Pascha:\n(4) Ascension: (5) Pentecost.(365) Epiphanius, his contemporary, (Bishop\nof Constantia in the island of Cyprus,) makes the same enumeration,(366)\nin a Homily on the Ascension.(367) In the Apostolical Constitutions, the\nsame five Festivals are enumerated.(368) Let me state a few Liturgical\nfacts in connexion with each of these.\n\nIt is plain that the preceding enumeration could not have been made at any\nearlier period: for the Epiphany of our SAVIOUR and His Nativity were\noriginally but one Festival.(369) Moreover, the circumstances are well\nknown under which Chrysostom (A.D. 386) announced to his Eastern auditory\nthat in conformity with what had been correctly ascertained at Rome, the\nancient Festival was henceforth to be disintegrated.(370) But this is not\nmaterial to the present inquiry. We know that, as a matter of fact, \u201cthe\nEpiphanies\u201d (for \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 is the name of the Festival) became in\nconsequence distributed over Dec. 25 and Jan. 5: our LORD\u2019S _Baptism_\nbeing the event chiefly commemorated on the latter anniversary,(371)\u2014which\nused to be chiefly observed in honour of His _Birth_(372)\u2014Concerning the\nLessons for Passion-tide and Easter, as well as concerning those for the\nNativity and Epiphany, something has been offered already; to which may be\nadded that Hesychius, in the opening sentences of that \u201cHomily\u201d which has\nalready engaged so much of our attention,(373) testifies that the\nconclusion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel was in his days, as it has been ever since,\none of the lections for Easter. He begins by saying that the Evangelical\nnarratives of the Resurrection were read on the Sunday night; and proceeds\nto reconcile _S. Mark\u2019s_ with the rest.\u2014Chrysostom once and again adverts\nto the practice of discontinuing the reading of the Acts after\nPentecost,(374)\u2014which is observed to be also the method of the\nLectionaries.\n\nIII. I speak separately of the Festival of the Ascension, for an obvious\nreason. It ranked, as we have seen, in the estimation of Primitive\nChristendom, with the greatest Festivals of the Church. Augustine, in a\nwell-known passage, hints that it may have been of Apostolical\norigin;(375) so exceedingly remote was its institution accounted in the\ndays of the great African Father, as well as so entirely forgotten by that\ntime was its first beginning. I have to shew that in the Great Oriental\nLectionary (whether of the Greek or of the Syrian Church) the last Twelve\nVerses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel occupy a conspicuous as well as a most\nhonourable place. And this is easily done: for,\n\n(_a_) The Lesson for Matins _on Ascension-Day_ in the East, in the oldest\ndocuments to which we have access, consisted (as now it does) of _the last\nTwelve Verses_,\u2014neither more nor less,\u2014of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. At the Liturgy\non Ascension was read S. Luke xxiv. 36-53: but at Matins, S. Mark xvi.\n9-20. The witness of the \u201cSynaxaria\u201d is constant to this effect.\n\n(_b_) The same lection precisely was adopted among the Syrians by the\nMelchite Churches,(376)\u2014(the party, viz. which maintained the decrees of\nthe Council of Chalcedon): and it is found appointed also in the\n\u201cEvangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.\u201d(377) In the Evangelistarium used in the\nJacobite, (i.e. the Monophysite) Churches of Syria, a striking difference\nof arrangement is discoverable. While S. Luke xxiv. 36-53 was read at\nVespers and at Matins on Ascension Day, _the last seven_ verses of S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel (ch. xvi. 14-20) were read _at the Liturgy_.(378) Strange,\nthat the self-same Gospel should have been adopted at a remote age by some\nof the Churches of the West,(379) and should survive in our own Book of\nCommon Prayer to this hour!\n\n(_c_) But S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was not only appointed by the Greek Church to\nbe read upon Ascension Day. Those same twelve verses constitute the third\nof the xi \u201c_Matin Gospels of the Resurrection_\u201d which were universally\nheld in high esteem by the Eastern Churches (Greek and Syrian(380)), and\nwere read successively on Sundays at Matins throughout the year; as well\nas daily throughout Easter week.\n\n(_d_) A rubricated copy of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel in Syriac,(381) _certainly\nolder than _A.D. 583, attests that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was the \u201cLection for\nthe great First Day of the week,\u201d (\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae, i.e. Easter Day). Other\ncopies almost as ancient(382) add that it was used \u201cat the end of the\nService at the dawn.\u201d\n\n(_e_) Further, these same \u201cTwelve Verses\u201d constituted the Lesson at Matins\nfor _the 2nd Sunday after Easter_,\u2014a Sunday which by the Greeks is called\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, but with the Syrians bore the names of \u201cJoseph and\nNicodemus.\u201d(383) So also in the \u201cEvangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.\u201d\n\n(_f_) Next, in the Monophysite Churches of Syria, S. Mark xvi. 9-18 (or\n9-20(384)) was also read at Matins on _Easter-Tuesday_.(385) In the\nGallican Church, the third lection for _Easter-Monday_ extended from S.\nMark xv. 47 to xvi. 11: for _Easter-Tuesday_, from xvi. 12 to the end of\nthe Gospel.(386) Augustine says that in Africa also these concluding\nverses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel used to be publicly read _at Easter tide_.(387)\nThe same verses (beginning with ver. 9) are indicated in the oldest extant\nLectionary of the Roman Church.(388)\n\n(_g_) Lastly, it may be stated that S. Mark xvi. 9-20 was with the Greeks\nthe Gospel for the Festival of S. Mary Magdalene (\u1f21 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2), July\n22.(389)\n\n_He_ knows wondrous little about this department of Sacred Science who can\nrequire to be informed that such a weight of _public_ testimony as this to\nthe last Twelve Verses of a Gospel is simply overwhelming. The single\ndiscovery that in the age of Augustine [385-430] this portion of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel was unquestionably read at Easter in the Churches of Africa, added\nto the express testimony of the Author of the 2nd Homily on the\nResurrection, and of the oldest Syriac MSS., that they were also read by\nthe Orientals at Easter in the public services of the Church, must be held\nto be in a manner decisive of the question.\n\nLet the evidence, then, which is borne by Ecclesiastical usage to the\ngenuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, be summed up, and the entire case caused\nagain to pass under review.\n\n(1.) That Lessons from the New Testament were publicly read in the\nassemblies of the faithful according to a definite scheme, and on an\nestablished system, _at least_ as early as the fourth century,\u2014has been\nshewn to be a plain historical fact. Cyril, at Jerusalem,\u2014(and by\nimplication, his namesake at Alexandria,)\u2014Chrysostom, at Antioch and at\nConstantinople,\u2014Augustine, in Africa,\u2014all four expressly witness to the\ncircumstance. In other words, there is found to have been _at least at\nthat time_ fully established throughout the Churches of Christendom a\nLectionary, which seems to have been essentially one and the same in the\nWest(390) and in the East. That it must have been of even Apostolic\nantiquity may be inferred from several considerations. But that it dates\nits beginning from a period _anterior to the age of __ Eusebius,\u2014which is\nthe age of Codices B and_ \u05d0,\u2014at least admits of _no_ controversy.\n\n(2.) Next,\u2014Documents of the vith century put us in possession of the great\nOriental Lectionary as it is found at that time to have universally\nprevailed throughout the vast unchanging East. In other words, several of\nthe actual Service Books, in Greek and in Syriac,(391) have survived the\naccidents of full a thousand years: and rubricated copies of the Gospels\ncarry us back three centuries further. The entire agreement which is\nobserved to prevail among these several documents,\u2014added to the fact that\nwhen tested by the allusions incidentally made by Greek Fathers of the\nivth century to what was the Ecclesiastical practice of their own time,\nthere are found to emerge countless as well as highly significant notes of\ncorrespondence,\u2014warrants us in believing, (in the absence of testimony of\nany sort to the contrary,) that the Lectionary we speak of differs in no\nessential respect from that system of Lections with which the Church of\nthe ivth century was universally acquainted.\n\nNothing scarcely is more forcibly impressed upon us in the course of the\npresent inquiry than the fact, that documents alone are wanting to make\n_that_ altogether demonstrable which, in default of such evidence, must\nremain a matter of inevitable inference only. The forms we are pursuing at\nlast disappear from our sight: but it is only the mist of the early\nmorning which shrouds them. We still hear their voices: still track their\nfootsteps: know that others still see them, although we ourselves see them\nno longer. We are sure that _there they still are_. Moreover they may yet\nreappear at any moment. Thus, there exist Syriac MSS. of the Gospels of\nthe viith and even of the vith century, in which the Lessons are\nrubricated in the text or on the margin. A Syriac MS. (of part of the Old\nT.) is actually _dated_ A.D. 464.(392) Should an Evangelium of similar\ndate ever come to light of which the rubrication was evidently by the\noriginal Scribe, the evidence of the Lectionaries would at once be carried\nback full three hundred years.\n\nBut in fact we stand in need of no such testimony. Acceptable as it would\nbe, it is plain that it would add no strength to the argument whatever. We\nare already able to plant our footsteps securely in the ivth and even in\nthe iiird century. It is not enough to insist that inasmuch as the\nLiturgical method of Christendom was at least fully established in the\nEast and in the West at the close of the ivth century, it therefore must\nhave had its beginning at a far remoter period. Our two oldest Codices (B\nand \u05d0) bear witness throughout to the corrupting influence of a system\nwhich was evidently in full operation before the time of Eusebius. And\neven this is not all. The readings in Origen, and of the earliest versions\nof the Gospel, (the old Latin, the Syriac, the Egyptian versions,) carry\nback our evidence on this subject unmistakably to _the age immediately\nsucceeding that of the Apostles_. This will be found established in the\ncourse of the ensuing Chapter.\n\nBeginning our survey of the problem at the opposite end, we arrive at the\nsame result; with even a deepened conviction that in its essential\nstructure, the Lectionary of the Eastern Church must be of truly primitive\nantiquity: indeed that many of its leading provisions must date back\nalmost,\u2014nay _quite_,\u2014to the Apostolic age. From whichever side we approach\nthis question,\u2014whatever test we are able to apply to our premisses,\u2014our\nconclusion remains still the very same.\n\n(3.) Into this Lectionary then,\u2014so universal in its extent, so consistent\nin its witness, so Apostolic in its antiquity,\u2014\u201c_the_ LAST TWELVE VERSES\n_of the Gospel according to S. Mark_\u201d from the very first are found to\nhave won for themselves not only an entrance, a lodgment, an established\nplace; but, _the place of highest honour_,\u2014an audience on two of the\nChurch\u2019s chiefest Festivals.\n\nThe circumstance is far too important, far too significant to be passed by\nwithout a few words of comment.\n\nFor it is not here, (be it carefully observed,) as when we appeal to some\nPatristic citation, that the recognition of a phrase, or a verse, or a\ncouple of verses, must be accepted as a proof that the same ancient Father\nrecognised the context also in which those words are found. Not so. _All\nthe Twelve Verses in dispute are found in every known copy_ of the\nvenerable Lectionary of the East. _Those same Twelve Verses_,\u2014neither more\nnor less,\u2014_are observed to constitute one integral Lection_.\n\nBut even this is not all. The most important fact seems to be that to\nthese Verses has been assigned a place of the highest possible\ndistinction. It is found that, from the very first, S. Mark xvi. 9-20 has\nbeen everywhere, and by all branches of the Church Catholic, claimed for\n_two_ of the Church\u2019s greatest Festivals,\u2014Easter and Ascension. A more\nweighty or a more significant circumstance can scarcely be imagined. To\nsuppose that a portion of Scripture singled out for such extraordinary\nhonour by the Church universal is a spurious addition to the Gospel, is\npurely irrational; is simply monstrous. No unauthorized \u201cfragment,\u201d\nhowever \u201cremarkable,\u201d could by possibility have so established itself in\nthe regards of the East and of the West, from the very first. No suspected\n\u201caddition, placed here in very early times,\u201d would have been tolerated in\nthe Church\u2019s solemn public Service six or seven times a-year. No. _It is\nimpossible._ Had it been one short clause which we were invited to\nsurrender: a verse: two verses: even three or four:\u2014the plea being that\n(as in the case of the celebrated _pericopa de adulter\u00e2_) the Lectionaries\nknew nothing of them:\u2014the case would have been entirely different. But for\nany one to seek to persuade us that these Twelve Verses, which exactly\nconstitute one of the Church\u2019s most famous Lections, are every one of them\nspurious:\u2014that the fatal taint begins with the first verse, and only ends\nwith the last:\u2014_this_ is a demand on our simplicity which, in a less\nsolemn subject, would only provoke a smile. We are constrained to testify\nastonishment and even some measure of concern. Have the Critics then,\n(supposing them to be familiar with the evidence which has now been set\nforth so much in detail;)\u2014Have the Critics then, (we ask) utterly taken\nleave of their senses? or do they really suppose that we have taken leave\nof ours?\n\nIt is time to close this discussion. It was declared at the outset that\nthe witness of the Lectionaries to the genuineness of these Verses, though\nit has been generally overlooked, is the most important of any: admitting,\nas it does, of no evasion: being simply, as it is, decisive. I have now\nfully explained the grounds of that assertion. I have set the Verses,\nwhich I undertook to vindicate and establish, on a basis from which it\nwill be found impossible any more to dislodge them. Whatever Griesbach,\nand Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and the rest, may think about the\nmatter,\u2014the Holy Eastern Church in her corporate capacity, has never been\nof their opinion. _They_ may doubt. _The ante-Nicene Fathers_ at least\nnever doubted. If \u201cthe last Twelve Verses\u201d of S. Mark were _deservedly_\nomitted from certain Copies of his Gospel in the ivth century, utterly\nincredible is it that these same TWELVE VERSES should have been\ndisseminated, by their authority, throughout Christendom;\u2014read, by their\ncommand, in all the Churches;\u2014selected, by their collective judgment, from\nthe whole body of Scripture for the special honour of being listened to\nonce and again at EASTER time, as well as on ASCENSION-DAY.\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n\n\nTHE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT COPIES OF THE\nGOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR.\n\n\n The Text of our five oldest Uncials proved, by an induction of\n instances, to have suffered depravation throughout by the\n operation of the ancient Lectionary system of the Church (p.\n 217).\u2014The omission of S. Mark\u2019s \u201clast Twelve Verses,\u201d\n (constituting an integral Ecclesiastical Lection,) shewn to be\n probably only one more example of the same depraving influence (p.\n 224). This solution of the problem corroborated by the language of\n Eusebius and of Hesychius (p. 232); as well as favoured by the\n \u201cWestern\u201d order of the Gospels (p. 239).\n\n\nI am much mistaken if the suggestion which I am about to offer has not\nalready presented itself to every reader of ordinary intelligence who has\ntaken the trouble to follow the course of my argument thus far with\nattention. It requires no acuteness whatever,\u2014it is, as it seems to me,\nthe merest instinct of mother-wit,\u2014on reaching the present stage of the\ndiscussion, to debate with oneself somewhat as follows:\u2014\n\n1. So then, the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel were anciently\noften observed to be missing from the copies. Eusebius expressly says so.\nI observe that he nowhere says that _their genuineness_ was anciently\n_suspected_. As for himself, his elaborate discussion of their contents\nconvinces me that individually, he regarded them with favour. The mere\nfact,\u2014(it is best to keep to his actual statement,)\u2014that \u201cthe entire\npassage\u201d(393) was \u201cnot met with in all the copies,\u201d is the sum of his\nevidence: and two Greek manuscripts, yet extant, supposed to be of the\nivth century (Codd. B and \u05d0), mutilated in this precise way, testify to\nthe truth of his statement.\n\n2. But then it is found that these self-same Twelve Verses,\u2014neither more\nnor less,\u2014anciently constituted _an integral __ Ecclesiastical Lection_;\nwhich lection,\u2014inasmuch as it is found to have established itself in every\npart of Christendom at the earliest period to which liturgical evidence\nreaches back, and to have been assigned from the very first to two of the\nchiefest Church Festivals,\u2014must needs be a lection of almost Apostolic\nantiquity. Eusebius, I observe, (see p. 45), designates the portion of\nScripture in dispute by its technical name,\u2014\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae; (for so\nan Ecclesiastical lection was anciently called). Here then is a rare\ncoincidence indeed. It is in fact simply unique. Surely, I may add that it\nis in the highest degree suggestive also. It inevitably provokes the\ninquiry,\u2014Must not these two facts be not only connected, but even\n_interdependent_? Will not the omission of the Twelve concluding Verses of\nS. Mark from certain ancient copies of his Gospel, have been in some way\n_occasioned by the fact_ that those same twelve verses constituted an\nintegral Church Lection? How is it possible to avoid suspecting that the\nphenomenon to which Eusebius invites attention, (viz. that certain copies\nof S. Mark\u2019s Gospel in very ancient times had been mutilated from the end\nof the 8th verse onwards,) ought to be capable of illustration,\u2014will have\nin fact _to be explained_, and in a word _accounted for_,\u2014by the\ncircumstance that at the 8th verse of S. Mark\u2019s xvith chapter, one ancient\nLection _came to an end_, and another ancient Lection _began_?\n\nSomewhat thus, (I venture to think,) must every unprejudiced Reader of\nintelligence hold parley with himself on reaching the close of the\npreceding chapter. I need hardly add that I am thoroughly convinced he\nwould be reasoning rightly. I am going to shew that the Lectionary\npractice of the ancient Church does indeed furnish a sufficient clue for\nthe unravelment of this now famous problem: in other words, enables us\nsatisfactorily to account for the omission of these Twelve Verses from\nancient copies of the collected Gospels. But I mean to do more. I propose\nto make my appeal to documents which shall be observed to bear no\nfaltering witness in my favour. More yet. I propose that Eusebius himself,\nthe chief author of all this trouble, shall be brought back into Court and\ninvited to resyllable his Evidence; and I am much mistaken if even _he_\nwill not be observed to let fall a hint that we have at last got on the\nright scent;\u2014have accurately divined how this mistake took its first\nbeginning;\u2014and, (what is not least to the purpose,) have correctly\napprehended what was his own real meaning in what he himself has said.\n\nThe proposed solution of the difficulty,\u2014if not the evidence on which it\nimmediately rests,\u2014might no doubt be exhibited within exceedingly narrow\nlimits. Set down abruptly, however, its weight and value would inevitably\nfail to be recognised, even by those who already enjoy some familiarity\nwith these studies. Very few of the considerations which I shall have to\nrehearse are in fact unknown to Critics: yet is it evident that their\nbearing on the problem before us has hitherto altogether escaped their\nnotice. On the other hand, by one entirely a novice to this department of\nsacred Science, I could scarcely hope to be so much as understood. Let me\nbe allowed, therefore, to preface what I have to say with a few\nexplanatory details which I promise shall not be tedious, and which I\ntrust will not be found altogether without interest either. If they are\nanywhere else to be met with, it is my misfortune, not my fault, that I\nhave been hitherto unsuccessful in discovering the place.\n\nI. From the earliest ages of the Church, (as I shewed at page 192-5,) it\nhas been customary to read certain definite portions of Holy Scripture,\ndetermined by Ecclesiastical authority, publicly before the Congregation.\nIn process of time, as was natural, the sections so required for public\nuse were collected into separate volumes: Lections from the Gospels being\nwritten out in a Book which was called \u201c_Evangelistarium_,\u201d\n(\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,)\u2014from the Acts and Epistles, in a book called\n\u201c_Praxapostolus_,\u201d (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2). These Lectionary-books, both Greek and\nSyriac, are yet extant in great numbers,(394) and (I may remark in\npassing) deserve a far greater amount of attention than has hitherto been\nbestowed upon them.(395)\n\n_When_ the Lectionary first took the form of a separate book, has not been\nascertained. That no copy is known to exist (whether in Greek or in\nSyriac) older than the viiith century, proves nothing. Codices in daily\nuse, (like the Bibles used in our Churches,) must of necessity have been\nof exceptionally brief duration; and Lectionaries, more even than Biblical\nMSS. were liable to injury and decay.\n\nII. But it is to be observed,\u2014(and to explain this, is much more to my\npresent purpose,)\u2014that besides transcribing the Ecclesiastical lections\ninto separate books, it became the practice at a very early period _to\nadapt copies of the Gospel to lectionary purposes_. I suspect that this\npractice began in the Churches of Syria; for Syriac copies of the Gospels\n(_at least_ of the viith century) abound, which have the Lections more or\nless systematically rubricated in the Text.(396) There is in the British\nMuseum a copy of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel according to the Peshito version,\n_certainly written previous to _A.D. 583, which has at least five or six\nrubrics so inserted by the original scribe.(397) As a rule, in all later\ncursive Greek MSS., (I mean those of the xiith to the xvth century,) the\nEcclesiastical lections are indicated throughout: while either at the\nsummit, or else at the foot of the page, the formula with which the\nLection was to be introduced is elaborately inserted; prefaced probably by\na rubricated statement (not always very easy to decipher) of the occasion\n_when_ the ensuing portion of Scripture was to be read. The ancients, to a\nfar greater extent than ourselves,(398) were accustomed,\u2014(in fact, they\nmade it _a rule_,)\u2014to prefix unauthorized formul\u00e6 to their public\nLections; and these are sometimes found to have established themselves so\nfirmly, that at last they became as it were ineradicable; and later\ncopyists of the fourfold Gospel are observed to introduce them\nunsuspiciously into the inspired text.(399) All that belongs to this\nsubject deserves particular attention; because it is _this_ which explains\nnot a few of the perturbations (so to express oneself) which the text of\nthe New Testament has experienced. We are made to understand how, what was\noriginally intended only as a _liturgical note_, became mistaken, through\nthe inadvertence or the stupidity of copyists, for a _critical\nsuggestion_; and thus, besides transpositions without number, there has\narisen, at one time, the insertion of something unauthorized into the text\nof Scripture,\u2014at another, the omission of certain inspired words, to the\nmanifest detriment of the sacred deposit. For although the _systematic_\nrubrication of the Gospels for liturgical purposes is a comparatively\nrecent invention,\u2014(I question if it be older in Greek MSS. than the xth\ncentury,)\u2014yet will persons engaged in the public Services of GOD\u2019S House\nhave been prone, from the very earliest age, to insert memoranda of the\nkind referred to, into the margin of their copies. In this way, in fact,\nit may be regarded as certain that in countless minute particulars the\ntext of Scripture has been depraved. Let me not fail to add, that by a\njudicious, and above all by an _unprejudiced_ use of the materials at our\ndisposal, it may, even at this distance of time, in every such particular,\nbe successfully restored.(400)\n\nIII. I now proceed to shew, by an induction of instances, that _even in\nthe oldest copies in existence_, I mean in Codd. B, \u05d0, A, C, and D, the\nLectionary system of the early Church has left abiding traces of its\noperation. When a few such undeniable cases have been adduced, all\nobjections grounded on _prim\u00e2 facie_ improbability will have been\nsatisfactorily disposed of. The activity, as well as the existence of such\na disturbing force and depraving influence, _at least_ as far back as the\nbeginning of the ivth century, (but it is in fact more ancient by full two\nhundred years,) will have been established: of which I shall only have to\nshew, in conclusion, that the omission of \u201cthe last Twelve Verses\u201d of S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel is probably but one more instance,\u2014though confessedly by far\nthe most extraordinary of any.\n\n(1.) From Codex B then, as well as from Cod. A, the two grand verses which\ndescribe our LORD\u2019S \u201cAgony and Bloody Sweat,\u201d (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44,) are\nmissing. The same two verses are absent also from a few other important\nMSS., as well as from both the Egyptian versions; but I desire to fasten\nattention on the confessedly erring testimony in this place of Codex B.\n\u201cConfessedly erring,\u201d I say; for the genuineness of those two verses is no\nlonger disputed. Now, in every known Evangelistarium, the two verses here\nomitted by Cod. B follow, (the Church so willed it,) S. Matth. xxvi. 39,\nand are read as a regular part of the lesson for the Thursday in Holy\nWeek.(401) Of course they are also _omitted_ in the same Evangelistaria\nfrom the lesson for the Tuesday after Sexagesima, (\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fbd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5, as\nthe Easterns call that day,) when S. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1 used to be\nread. Moreover, in all ancient copies of the Gospels which have been\naccommodated to ecclesiastical use, _the reader of S. Luke xxii. is\ninvariably directed by a marginal note to leave out those two verses_, and\nto proceed per saltum from ver. 42 to ver. 45.(402) What more obvious\ntherefore than that the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in\nS. Luke\u2019s Gospel is to be attributed to nothing else but the Lectionary\npractice of the primitive Church? Quite unreasonable is it to impute\nheretical motives, or to invent any other unsupported theory, while this\nplain solution of the difficulty is at hand.\n\n(2.) The same Cod. B., (with which Codd. \u05d0, C, L, U and \u0393 are observed\nhere to conspire,) introduces the piercing of the SAVIOUR\u2019S side (S. John\nxix. 34) at the end of S. Matth. xxvii. 49. Now, I only do not insist that\nthis must needs be the result of the singular Lectionary practice already\ndescribed at p. 202, because a scholion in Cod. 72 records the singular\nfact that in the Diatessaron of Tatian, after S. Matth. xxvii. 48, was\nread \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c5\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1. (Chrysostom\u2019s codex was evidently vitiated in _precisely_ the same\nway.) This interpolation therefore may have resulted from the corrupting\ninfluence of Tatian\u2019s (so-called) \u201cHarmony.\u201d See Appendix (H).\n\n(3.) To keep on safe ground. Codd. B and D concur in what Alford justly\ncalls the \u201cgrave error\u201d of simply omitting from S. Luke xxiii. 34, our\nLORD\u2019S supplication on behalf of His murderers, (\u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5, \u03a0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1,\n\u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f34\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9). They are not quite singular in so\ndoing; being, as usual, kept in countenance by certain copies of the old\nLatin, as well as by both the Egyptian versions. How is this \u201cgrave error\u201d\nin so many ancient MSS. to be accounted for? (for a \u201cgrave error\u201d or\nrather \u201ca fatal omission\u201d it certainly is). Simply by the fact that in the\nEastern Church the Lection for the Thursday after Sexagesima _breaks off\nabruptly, immediately before these very words_,\u2014to recommence at ver.\n44.(403)\n\n(4.) Note, that at ver. 32, _the eighth _\u201cGospel of the Passion\u201d_\nbegins_,\u2014which is the reason why Codd. B and \u05d0 (with the Egyptian\nversions) exhibit a singular irregularity in that place; and why the\nJerusalem Syriac introduces the established formula of the Lectionaries\n(\u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6) at the same juncture.\n\n(If I do not here insist that the absence of the famous _pericopa de\nadulter\u00e2_ (S. John vii. 53-viii. 11,) from so many MSS., is to be\nexplained in precisely the same way, it is only because the genuineness of\nthat portion of the Gospel is generally denied; and I propose, in this\nenumeration of instances, not to set foot on disputed ground. I am\nconvinced, nevertheless, that the first occasion of the omission of those\nmemorable verses was the lectionary practice of the primitive Church,\nwhich, on Whitsunday, read from S. John vii. 37 to viii. 12, _leaving out\nthe twelve verses_ in question. Those verses, from the nature of their\ncontents, (as Augustine declares,) easily came to be viewed with dislike\nor suspicion. The passage, however, is as old as the second century, for\nit is found in certain copies of the old Latin. Moreover Jerome\ndeliberately gave it a place in the Vulgate. I pass on.)\n\n(5.) The two oldest Codices in existence,\u2014B and \u05d0,\u2014stand all but alone in\nomitting from S. Luke vi. 1 the unique and indubitably genuine word\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3; which is also omitted by the Peshito, Italic and Coptic\nversions. And yet, when it is observed that an _Ecclesiastical lection\nbegins here_, and that the Evangelistaria (which _invariably_ leave out\nsuch notes of time) simply drop the word,\u2014only substituting for \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3\nthe more familiar \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9,\u2014every one will be ready to admit that if\nthe omission of this word be not due to the inattention of the copyist,\n(which, however, seems to me not at all unlikely,(404)) it is sufficiently\nexplained by the Lectionary practice of the Church,\u2014which may well date\nback even to the immediately post-Apostolic age.\n\n(6.) In S. Luke xvi. 19, Cod. D introduces the Parable of Lazarus with the\nformula,\u2014\u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd; which is nothing else but a\nmarginal note which has found its way into the text from the margin; being\n_the liturgical introduction of a Church-lesson_(405) which afterwards\nbegan \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd.(406)\n\n(7.) In like manner, the same Codex makes S. John xiv. begin with _the\nliturgical formula_,\u2014(it survives in our Book of Common Prayer(407) to\nthis very hour!)\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6: in which it is\ncountenanced by certain MSS. of the Vulgate and of the old Latin Version.\nIndeed, it may be stated generally concerning the text of Cod. D, that it\nbears marks _throughout_ of the depraving influence of the ancient\nLectionary practice. Instances of this, (in addition to those elsewhere\ncited in these pages,) will be discovered in S. Luke iii. 23: iv. 16 (and\nxix. 45): v. 1 and 17: vi. 37 (and xviii. 15): vii. 1: x. 1 and 25: xx. 1:\nin all but three of which, Cod. D is kept in countenance by the old Latin,\noften by the Syriac, and by other versions of the greatest antiquity. But\nto proceed.\n\n(8.) Cod. A, (supported by Athanasius, the Vulgate, Gothic, and\nPhiloxenian versions,) for \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, in S. Luke ix. 57, reads \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72,\u2014which\nis the reading of the Textus Receptus. Cod. D, (with some copies of the\nold Latin,) exhibits \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. All the diversity which is observable in\nthis place, (and it is considerable,) is owing to the fact that _an\nEcclesiastical lection begins here_.(408) In different Churches, the\nformula with which the lection was introduced slightly differed.\n\n(9.) Cod. C is supported by Chrysostom and Jerome, as well as by the\nPeshito, Cureton\u2019s and the Philoxenian Syriac, and some MSS. of the old\nLatin, in reading \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 at the beginning of S. Matth. xi. 20. That the\nwords have no business there, is universally admitted. So also is the\ncause of their interpolation generally recognized. _The Ecclesiastical\nlection_ for Wednesday in the ivth week after Pentecost _begins at that\nplace_; and begins with the formula,\u2014\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff3, \u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\n\u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n(10.) Similarly, in S. Matth. xii. 9, xiii. 36, and xiv. 14, Cod. C\ninserts \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2; a reading which on all three occasions is countenanced\nby the Syriac and some copies of the old Latin, and on the last of the\nthree, by Origen also. And yet there can be no doubt that it is only\nbecause _Ecclesiastical lections begin at those places_,(409) that the\nHoly Name is introduced there.\n\n(11.) Let me add that the Sacred Name is confessedly an interpolation in\nthe six places indicated at foot,\u2014its presence being accounted for by the\nfact that, in each, an _Ecclesiastical lection begins_.(410) Cod. D in one\nof these places, Cod. A in four, is kept in countenance by the old Latin,\nthe Syriac, the Coptic and other early versions;\u2014convincing indications of\nthe extent to which the Lectionary practice of the Church had established\nitself so early as the second century of our \u00e6ra.\n\nCod. D, and copies of the old Latin and Egyptian versions also read \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, (instead of \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,) in S. Mark xiv. 3; which is only because _a\nChurch lesson begins there_.\n\n(12.) The same Cod. D is all but unique in leaving out that memorable\nverse in S. Luke\u2019s Gospel (xxiv. 12), in which S. Peter\u2019s visit to the\nSepulchre of our risen LORD finds particular mention. It is only because\nthat verse was claimed both as the _conclusion_ of the ivth and also as\nthe _beginning_ of the vth Gospel of the Resurrection: so that the\nliturgical note \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae stands at the beginning,\u2014\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 at the end of it.\nAccordingly, D is kept in countenance here only by the Jerusalem\nLectionary and some copies of the old Latin. But what is to be thought of\nthe editorial judgment which (with Tregelles) encloses this verse within\nbrackets; and (with Tischendorf) _rejects it from the text altogether_?\n\n(13.) Codices B, \u05d0, and D are _alone_ among MSS. in omitting the clause\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc6\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, at the end of the 59th verse\nof S. John viii. The omission is to be accounted for by the fact that just\n_there_ the Church-lesson for Tuesday in the vth week after Easter _came\nto an end_.\n\n(14.) Again. It is not at all an unusual thing to find in cursive MSS., at\nthe end of S. Matth. viii. 13, (with several varieties), the spurious and\ntasteless appendix,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f64\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1: a clause which owes its existence\nsolely to the practice of ending the lection for the ivth Sunday after\nPentecost in that unauthorized manner.(411) But it is not only in cursive\nMSS. that these words are found. _They are met with also in the Codex\nSinaiticus_ (\u05d0): a witness at once to the inveteracy of Liturgical usage\nin the ivth century of our \u00e6ra, and to the corruptions which the \u201cCodex\nomnium antiquissimus\u201d will no doubt have inherited from a yet older copy\nthan itself.\n\n(15.) In conclusion, I may remark generally that there occur instances,\nagain and again, of perturbations of the Text in our oldest MSS.,\n(corresponding sometimes with readings vouched for by the most ancient of\nthe Fathers,) which admit of no more intelligible or inoffensive solution\nthan by referring them to the Lectionary practice of the primitive\nChurch.(412)\n\nThus when instead of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 (S. Matth. xx.\n17), Cod. B reads, (and, is almost unique in reading,) \u039c\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2; and when Origen sometimes quotes the place in the\nsame way, but sometimes is observed to transpose the position of the Holy\nName in the sentence; when again six of Matthaei\u2019s MSS., (and Origen\nonce,) are observed to put the same Name _after_ \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1: when, lastly,\ntwo of Field\u2019s MSS.,(413) and one of Matthaei\u2019s, (and I dare say a great\nmany more, if the truth were known,) omit the words \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\nentirely:\u2014_who_ sees not that the true disturbing force in this place,\nfrom the iind century of our \u00e6ra downwards, has been _the Lectionary\npractice of the primitive Church_?\u2014the fact that _there_ the lection for\nthe Thursday after the viiith Sunday after Pentecost began?\u2014And this may\nsuffice.\n\nIV. It has been proved then, in what goes before, more effectually even\nthan in a preceding page,(414) not only that Ecclesiastical Lections\ncorresponding with those indicated in the \u201cSynaxaria\u201d were fully\nestablished in the immediately post-Apostolic age, but also that at that\nearly period the Lectionary system of primitive Christendom had already\nexercised a depraving influence of a peculiar kind on the text of\nScripture. Further yet, (and _this_ is the only point I am now concerned\nto establish), that _our five oldest Copies of the Gospels_,\u2014B and \u05d0 as\nwell as A, C and D,\u2014exhibit not a few traces of the mischievous agency\nalluded to; errors, and especially _omissions_, which sometimes seriously\naffect the character of those Codices as witnesses to the Truth of\nScripture.\u2014I proceed now to consider the case of S. Mark xvi. 9-20; only\nprefacing my remarks with a few necessary words of explanation.\n\nV. He who takes into his hands an ordinary cursive MS. of the Gospels, is\nprepared to find the Church-lessons regularly indicated throughout, in the\ntext or in the margin.\n\nA familiar contraction, executed probably in vermillion [\u03c7 over \u03b1\u03c1], \u1f00\u03c1,\nindicates the \u201cbeginning\u201d (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae) of each lection: a corresponding\ncontraction (\u03b5 over \u03c4, \u03c4\u03b5, \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb), indicates its \u201cend\u201d (\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3.) Generally,\nthese rubrical directions, (for they are nothing else,) are inserted for\nconvenience into the body of the text,\u2014from which the red pigment with\nwhich they are almost invariably executed, effectually distinguishes them.\nBut all these particulars gradually disappear as recourse is had to older\nand yet older MSS. The studious in such matters have noticed that even the\nmemorandums as to the \u201cbeginning\u201d and the \u201cend\u201d of a lection are rare,\nalmost in proportion to the antiquity of a Codex. When they do occur in\nthe later uncials, they do not by any means always seem to have been the\nwork of the original scribe; neither has care been always taken to\nindicate them in ink of a different colour. It will further be observed in\nsuch MSS. that whereas the sign where the reader is to begin is\ngenerally\u2014(in order the better to attract his attention,)\u2014inserted in _the\nmargin_ of the Codex, the note where he is to leave off, (in order the\nmore effectually to arrest his progress,) is as a rule introduced _into\nthe body of the text_.(415) In uncial MSS., however, all such symbols are\nnot only rare, but (what is much to be noted) they are exceedingly\nirregular in their occurrence. Thus in Codex \u0393, in the Bodleian Library,\n(a recently acquired uncial MS. of the Gospels, written A.D. 844), there\noccurs no indication of the \u201cend\u201d of a single lection in S. Luke\u2019s Gospel,\nuntil chap. xvi. 31 is reached; after which, the sign abounds. In Codex L,\nthe original notes of Ecclesiastical Lections occur at the following rare\nand irregular intervals:\u2014S. Mark ix. 2: x. 46: xii. 40 (where the sign has\nlost its way; it should have stood against ver. 44): xv. 42 and xvi.\n1.(416) In the _oldest_ uncials, nothing of the kind is discoverable. Even\nin the Codex Bez\u00e6, (vith century,) not a single liturgical direction\n_coeval with the MS._ is anywhere to be found.\n\nVI. And yet, although the practice of thus indicating the beginning and\nthe end of a liturgical section, does not seem to have come into general\nuse until about the xiith century; and although, previous to the ixth\ncentury, systematic liturgical directions are probably unknown;(417) the\n_need_ of them must have been experienced by one standing up to read\nbefore the congregation, long before. The want of some reminder where he\nwas to begin,\u2014above all, of some hint where he was to leave off,\u2014will have\ninfallibly made itself felt from the first. Accordingly, there are not\nwanting indications that, occasionally, \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 (or \u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3) was written in\nthe margin of Copies of the Gospels at an exceedingly remote epoch. One\nmemorable example of this practice is supplied by the Codex Bez\u00e6 (D):\nwhere in S. Mark xiv. 41, instead of \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f64\u03c1\u03b1,\u2014we meet with the\nunintelligible \u0391\u03a0\u0395\u03a7\u0395\u0399 \u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0397 \u03a9\u03a1\u0391. Now, nothing else has here\nhappened but that a marginal note, designed originally to indicate the end\n(\u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3) of the lesson for the third day of the iind week of the\nCarnival, has lost its way from the end of ver. 42, and got thrust into\nthe text of ver. 41,\u2014to the manifest destruction of the sense.(418) I find\nD\u2019s error here is shared (_a_) by the Peshito Syriac, (_b_) by the old\nLatin, and (_c_) by the Philoxenian: venerable partners in error, truly!\nfor the first two probably carry back this false reading to _the second\ncentury of our \u00e6ra_; and so, furnish one more remarkable proof, to be\nadded to the fifteen (or rather the forty) already enumerated (pp.\n217-23), that the lessons of the Eastern Church were settled at a period\nlong anterior to the date of the oldest MS. of the Gospels extant.\n\nVII. Returning then to the problem before us, I venture to suggest as\nfollows:\u2014What if, at a very remote period, this same isolated liturgical\nnote (\u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3) occurring at S. Mark xvi. 8, (which _is_ \u201cthe end\u201d of _the\nChurch-lection_ for the iind Sunday after Easter,) should have unhappily\nsuggested to some copyist,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 _quam vel Critic\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6 vel rerum\nLiturgicarum peritior_,\u2014the notion that the entire \u201c_Gospel according to\nS. Mark_,\u201d came to an end at verse 8?... I see no more probable account of\nthe matter, I say, than this:\u2014That the mutilation of the last chapter of\nS. Mark has resulted from the fact, that some very ancient scribe\n_misapprehended the import of the solitary liturgical note_ \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 (or \u03a4\u039f\n\u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3) which he found at the close of verse 8. True, that he will have\nprobably beheld, further on, several additional \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9. But if he did, how\ncould he acknowledge the fact more loyally than by leaving (as the author\nof Cod. B is observed to have done) one entire column blank, before\nproceeding with S. Luke? He hesitated, all the same, _to transcribe_ any\nfurther, having before him, (as he thought,) an assurance that \u201cTHE END\u201d\nhad been reached at ver. 8.\n\nVIII. That some were found in very early times eagerly to acquiesce in\nthis omission: to sanction it: even to multiply copies of the Gospel so\nmutilated; (critics or commentators intent on nothing so much as\nreconciling the apparent discrepancies in the Evangelical\nnarratives:)\u2014appears to me not at all unlikely.(419) Eusebius almost says\nas much, when he puts into the mouth of one who is for getting rid of\nthese verses altogether, the remark that \u201cthey would be in a manner\nsuperfluous _if it should appear that their testimony is at variance with\nthat of the other Evangelists_.\u201d(420) (The ancients were giants in\nDivinity but children in Criticism.) On the other hand, I altogether agree\nwith Dean Alford in thinking it highly improbable that the difficulty of\nharmonizing one Gospel with another in this place, (such as it is,) was\nthe cause why these Twelve Verses were originally suppressed.(421) (1)\nFirst, because there really was no need to withhold more than three,\u2014at\nthe utmost, five of them,\u2014if _this_ had been the reason of the omission.\n(2) Next, because it would have been easier far to introduce some critical\ncorrection of any supposed discrepancy, than to sweep away the whole of\nthe unoffending context. (3) Lastly, because nothing clearly was gained by\ncausing the Gospel to end so abruptly that every one must see at a glance\nthat it had been mutilated. No. The omission having originated in a\nmistake, was perpetuated for a brief period (let us suppose) only through\ninfirmity of judgment: or, (as I prefer to believe), only in consequence\nof the religious fidelity of copyists, who were evidently always\ninstructed to transcribe exactly what they found in the copy set before\nthem. The Church meanwhile in her corporate capacity, has never known\nanything at all of the matter,\u2014as was fully shewn above in Chap. X.\n\nIX. When this solution of the problem first occurred to me, (and it\noccurred to me long before I was aware of the memorable reading \u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3\nin the Codex Bez\u00e6, already adverted to,) I reasoned with myself as\nfollows:\u2014But if the mutilation of the second Gospel came about in this\nparticular way, the MSS. are bound to remember _something_ of the\ncircumstance; and in ancient MSS., if I am right, I ought certainly to\nmeet with _some_ confirmation of my opinion. According to my view, at the\nroot of this whole matter lies the fact that at S. Mark xvi. 8 a\nwell-known Ecclesiastical lesson comes to an end. Is there not perhaps\nsomething exceptional in the way that the close of that liturgical section\nwas anciently signified?\n\nX. In order to ascertain this, I proceeded to inspect every copy of the\nGospels in the Imperial Library at Paris;(422) and devoted seventy hours\nexactly, with unflagging delight, to the task. The success of the\nexperiment astonished me.\n\n1. I began with _our_ Cod. 24 ( = Reg. 178) of the Gospels: turned to the\nlast page of S. Mark: and beheld, in a Codex of the xith Century wholly\ndevoid of the Lectionary apparatus which is sometimes found in MSS. of a\nsimilar date,(423) at fol. 104, the word + \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 + conspicuously written\nby the original scribe immediately after S. Mark xvi. 8, as well as at the\nclose of the Gospel. _It occurred besides only at ch._ ix. 9, (the end of\nthe lesson for the Transfiguration.) And yet there are _at least seventy_\noccasions in the course of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel where, in MSS. which have been\naccommodated to Church use, it is usual to indicate the close of a\nLection. This discovery, which surprised me not a little, convinced me\nthat I was on the right scent; and every hour I met with some fresh\nconfirmation of the fact.\n\n2. For the intelligent reader will readily understand that three such\ndeliberate liturgical memoranda, occurring solitary in a MS. of this date,\nare to be accounted for only in one way. They infallibly represent a\ncorresponding peculiarity in some far more ancient document. The fact that\nthe word \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 is here (_a_) set down unabbreviated, (_b_) in black ink,\nand (_c_) as part of the text,\u2014points unmistakably in the same direction.\nBut that Cod. 24 is derived from a Codex of much older date is rendered\ncertain by a circumstance which shall be specified at foot.(424)\n\n3. The very same phenomena reappear in Cod. 36.(425) The sign + \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 +,\n(which occurs punctually at S. Mark xvi. 8 and again at v. 20,) is found\nbesides in S. Mark\u2019s Gospel only at chap. i. 8;(426) at chap. xiv. 31; and\n(+ \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 \u03a4\u039f\u03a5 \u039a\u0395\u03a6\u0391\u039b) at chap. xv. 24;\u2014being on every occasion incorporated\nwith the Text. Now, when it is perceived that in the second and third of\nthese places, \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 has clearly lost its way,\u2014appearing where _no_\nEcclesiastical lection came to an end,\u2014it will be felt that the MS. before\nus (of the xith century) if it was not actually transcribed from,\u2014must at\nleast exhibit at second hand,\u2014a far more ancient Codex.(427)\n\n4. Only once more.\u2014Codex 22 ( = Reg. 72) was never prepared for Church\npurposes. A rough hand has indeed scrawled indications of the beginnings\nand endings of a few of the Lessons, here and there; but these liturgical\nnotes are no part of the original MS. At S. Mark xvi. 8, however, we are\npresented (as before) with the solitary note + \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 +\u2014, incorporated with\nthe text. Immediately after which, (in writing of the same size,) comes a\nmemorable statement(428) in red letters. The whole stands thus:\u2014\n\n\u03a6\u039f\u0392\u039f\u03a5\u039d\u03a4\u039f \u0393\u0391\u03a1 + \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 +\u2014\n[cross] \u0395\u039d \u03a4\u0399\u03a3\u0399 \u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0399\u0393\u03a1\u0391\u03a6\u03a9\u039d.\n\u0395\u03a9\u03a3 \u03a9\u0394\u0395 \u03a0\u039b\u0397\u03a1\u039f\u03a5\u03a4\u0391\u0399 \u039f \u0395\u03a5\n\u0391\u0393\u0393\u0395\u039b\u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u0397\u03a3: \u0395\u039d \u03a0\u039f\u039b\u039b\u039f\u0399\u03a3\n\u0394\u0395. \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u03a4\u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u0391 \u03a6\u0395\u03a1\u0395\u03a4\u0391\u0399 +\u2014\n\u0391\u039d\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u03a3 \u0394\u0395. \u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u0399 \u03a0\u03a1\u03a9\u03a4\u0397 \u03a3\u0391\u0392\u0392\u0391\u03a4\u03a9\u039d.\n\nAnd then follows the rest of the Gospel; at the end of which, the sign +\n\u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 + is again repeated,\u2014which sign, however, occurs _nowhere else_ in\nthe MS. _nor at the end of any of the other three Gospels_. A more\nopportune piece of evidence could hardly have been invented. A statement\nso apt and so significant was surely a thing rather to be wished than to\nbe hoped for. For here is the liturgical sign \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 not only occurring in\nthe wholly exceptional way of which we have already seen examples, but\nactually followed by the admission that \u201cIn certain copies, _the\nEvangelist proceeds no further_.\u201d The two circumstances so brought\ntogether seem exactly to bridge over the chasm between Codd. B and \u05d0 on\nthe one hand,\u2014and Codd. 24 and 36 on the other; and to supply us with\nprecisely the link of evidence which we require. For observe:\u2014During the\nfirst six centuries of our \u00e6ra, no single instance is known of a codex in\nwhich \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 is written at the end of a Gospel. The subscription of S. Mark\nfor instance is _invariably_ either \u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u039c\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u039f\u039d,\u2014(as in B and \u05d0): or else\n\u0395\u03a5\u0391\u0393\u0393\u0395\u039b\u0399\u039f\u039d \u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u039c\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u039f\u039d,\u2014(as in A and C, and the other older uncials):\n_never_ \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3. But here is a Scribe who first copies the _liturgical_ note\n\u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3,\u2014and then volunteers the _critical_ observation that \u201cin some copies\nof S. Mark\u2019s Gospel the Evangelist proceeds no further!\u201d A more\nextraordinary corroboration of the view which I am endeavouring to\nrecommend to the reader\u2019s acceptance, I really cannot imagine. Why, the\nancient Copyist actually comes back, in order to assure me that the\nsuggestion which I have been already offering in explanation of the\ndifficulty, is the true one!\n\n5. I am not about to abuse the reader\u2019s patience with a prolonged\nenumeration of the many additional conspiring circumstances,\u2014insignificant\nin themselves and confessedly unimportant when considered singly, but of\nwhich the cumulative force is unquestionably great,\u2014which an examination\nof 99 MSS. of the Gospels brought to light.(429) Enough has been said\nalready to shew,\n\n(1st.) That it must have been a customary thing, at a very remote age, to\nwrite the word \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 against S. Mark xvi. 8, even when the same note was\nwithheld from the close of almost every other ecclesiastical lection in\nthe Gospel.\n\n(2ndly.) That this word, or rather note, which no doubt was originally\nwritten as a liturgical memorandum in the margin, became at a very early\nperiod incorporated with the text; where, retaining neither its use nor\nits significancy, it was liable to misconception, and may have easily come\nto be fatally misunderstood.\n\nAnd although these two facts certainly prove nothing in and by themselves,\nyet, when brought close alongside of the problem which has to be solved,\ntheir significancy becomes immediately apparent: for,\n\n(3rdly.) As a matter of fact, there are found to have existed before the\ntime of Eusebius, copies of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel which _did_ come to an end at\nthis very place. Now, that _the Evangelist_ left off there, no one can\nbelieve.(430) _Why_, then, did _the Scribe_ leave off? But the Reader is\nalready in possession of the reason why. A sufficient explanation of the\ndifficulty has been elicited from the very MSS. themselves. And surely\nwhen, suspended to an old chest which has been locked up for ages, a key\nis still hanging which fits the lock exactly and enables men to open the\nchest with ease, they are at liberty to assume that the key _belongs_ to\nthe lock; is, in fact, the only instrument by which the chest may lawfully\nbe opened.\n\nXI. And now, in conclusion, I propose that we summon back our original\nWitness, and invite him to syllable his evidence afresh, in order that we\nmay ascertain if perchance it affords any countenance whatever to the view\nwhich I have been advocating. Possible at least it is that in the\nPatristic record that copies of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel were anciently defective\nfrom the 8th verse onwards _some_ vestige may be discoverable of the\nforgotten truth. Now, it has been already fully shewn that it is a mistake\nto introduce into this discussion any other name but that of\nEusebius.(431) Do, then, the terms in which _Eusebius_ alludes to this\nmatter lend us any assistance? Let us have the original indictment read\nover to us once more: and _this_ time we are bound to listen to every word\nof it with the utmost possible attention.\n\n1. A problem is proposed for solution. \u201cThere are two ways of solving it,\u201d\n(Eusebius begins):\u2014\u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 [\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78] \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f14\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5: \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. \u03bf\u1f36\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1.\u201d \u1f18\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a4\u039f\n\u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3(432) ... Let us halt here for one moment.\n\n2. Surely, a new and unexpected light already begins to dawn upon this\nsubject! How is it that we paid so little attention before to the terms in\nwhich this ancient Father delivers his evidence, that we overlooked the\nimport of an expression of his which from the first must have struck us as\npeculiar, but which _now_ we perceive to be of paramount significancy?\nEusebius is pointing out that _one_ way for a man (so minded) to get rid\nof the apparent inconsistency between S. Mark xvi. 9 and S. Matth. xxviii.\n1, would be for him to reject the entire \u201cEcclesiastical Lection\u201d(433) in\nwhich S. Mark xvi. 9 occurs. Any one adopting this course, (he proceeds;\nand it is much to be noted that Eusebius is throughout delivering the\nimaginary sentiments of another,\u2014not his own:) Such an one (he says) \u201cwill\nsay that it is _not met with in all_ the copies of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. The\naccurate copies, at all events,\u201d\u2014and then follows an expression in which\nthis ancient Critic is observed ingeniously to accommodate his language to\nthe phenomenon which he has to describe, so as covertly to insinuate\nsomething else. Eusebius employs an idiom (it is found elsewhere in his\nwritings) sufficiently colourless to have hitherto failed to arouse\nattention; but of which it is impossible to overlook the actual design and\nimport, after all that has gone before. He clearly _recognises the very\nphenomenon to which I have been calling __ attention_ within the last two\npages, and which I need not further insist upon or explain: viz. that _the\nwords_ \u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 _were_ in some very ancient (\u201c_the accurate_\u201d) copies\n_found written after_ \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1: although to an unsuspicious reader\nthe expression which he uses may well seem to denote nothing more than\nthat the second Gospel _generally came to an end_ there.\n\n3. And now it is time to direct attention to the important bearing of the\nforegoing remark on the main point at issue. The true import of what\nEusebius has delivered, and which has at last been ascertained, will be\nobserved really to set his evidence in a novel and unsuspected light. From\nthe days of Jerome, it has been customary to assume that Eusebius roundly\nstates that, in his time _almost all the Greek copies_ were without our\n\u201clast Twelve Verses\u201d of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel:(434) whereas Eusebius really\n_does nowhere say so_. He expresses himself enigmatically, resorting to a\nsomewhat unusual phrase(435) which perhaps admits of no exact English\ncounterpart: but what he says clearly amounts to no more than this,\u2014that\n\u201c_the accurate_ copies, at the words \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, circumscribe THE END\n(\u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3) of Mark\u2019s narrative:\u201d that _there_, \u201cin almost all the Copies\nof the Gospel according to Mark, is circumscribed THE END.\u201d He says no\nmore. He does not say that _there_ \u201cis circumscribed _the Gospel_.\u201d As for\nthe twelve verses which follow, he merely declares that they were \u201c_not\nmet with in all_ the copies;\u201d i.e. that some copies did not contain them.\nBut this, so far from being a startling statement, is no more than what\nCodd. B and \u05d0 in themselves are sufficient to establish. In other words,\nEusebius, (whose testimony on this subject as it is commonly understood is\nso extravagant [see above, p. 48-9,] as to carry with it its own\nsufficient refutation,) is found to bear consistent testimony to the two\nfollowing modest propositions; which, however, are not adduced by him as\nreasons for rejecting S. Mark xvi. 9-20, but only as samples of _what\nmight be urged_ by one desirous of shelving a difficulty suggested by\ntheir contents;\u2014\n\n(1st.) That from _some_ ancient copies of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel these last\nTwelve Verses were away.\n\n(2nd.) That in _almost_ all the copies,\u2014(whether mutilated or not, he does\nnot state,)\u2014the words \u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 were found immediately after ver. 8; which,\n(he seems to hint,) let those who please accept as evidence that there\nalso is _the end of the Gospel_.\n\n4. But I cannot dismiss the testimony of Eusebius until I have recorded my\nown entire conviction that this Father is no more an original authority\nhere than Jerome, or Hesychius, or Victor.(436) He is evidently adopting\nthe language of some more ancient writer than himself. I observe that he\nintroduces the problem with the remark that what follows is one of tho\nquestions \u201cfor ever mooted by every body.\u201d(437) I suspect (with Matthaei,\n[_supr\u00e0_, p. 66,]) that _Origen_ is the _true_ author of all this\nconfusion. He certainly relates of himself that among his voluminous\nexegetical writings was a _treatise on S. Mark\u2019s Gospel_.(438) To Origen\u2019s\nworks, Eusebius, (his apologist and admirer,) is known to have habitually\nresorted; and, like many others, to have derived not a few of his notions\nfrom that fervid and acute, but most erratic intellect. Origen\u2019s writings\nin short, seem to have been the source of much, if not most of the\nmistaken Criticism of Antiquity. (The reader is reminded of what has been\noffered above at p. 96-7). And this would not be the first occasion on\nwhich it would appear that when an ancient Writer speaks of \u201c_the accurate\ncopies_\u201d, what he actually _means is the text of Scripture which was\nemployed or approved by Origen_.(439) The more attentively the language of\nEusebius in this place is considered, the more firmly (it is thought) will\nthe suspicion be entertained that he is here only reproducing the\nsentiments of another person. But, however this may be, it is at least\ncertain that the precise meaning of what he says, has been hitherto\ngenerally overlooked. He certainly does _not_ say, as Jerome, from his\nloose translation of the passage,(440) evidently imagined,\u2014\u201c_omnibus __\nGraeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus_:\u201d but\nonly,\u2014\u201c_non in omnibus Evangelii exemplaribus hoc capitulum inveniri_;\u201d\nwhich is an entirely different thing. Eusebius adds,\u2014\u201cAccuratiora saltem\nexemplaria FINEM narrationis secundum Marcum circumscribunt in verbis\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1;\u201d\u2014and, \u201cIn hoc, fere in omnibus exemplaribus Evangelii\nsecundum Marcum, FINEM circumscribi.\u201d\u2014The point, however, of greatest\ninterest is, that Eusebius here calls attention to the prevalence in MSS.\nof his time of the very _liturgical peculiarity_ which plainly supplies\nthe one true solution of the problem under discussion. His testimony is a\nmarvellous corroboration of what we learn from Cod. 22, (see above, p.\n230,) and, rightly understood, does not go a whit beyond it.\n\n5. What wonder that Hesychius, because he adopted blindly what he found in\nEusebius, should at once betray his author and exactly miss the point of\nwhat his author says? \u03a4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (so he writes) \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u201c\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1,\u201d \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3.(441)\n\n6. This may suffice concerning the testimony of Eusebius.\u2014It will be\nunderstood that I suppose Origen to have fallen in with one or more copies\nof S. Mark\u2019s Gospel which exhibited _the Liturgical hint_, (\u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3,)\nconspicuously written against S. Mark xvi. 9. Such a copy may, or may not,\nhave there terminated abruptly. I suspect however that it _did_. Origen at\nall events, (_more suo_,) will have remarked on the phenomenon before him;\nand Eusebius will have adopted his remarks,\u2014as the heralds say, \u201cwith _a\ndifference_\u201d\u2014simply because they suited his purpose, and seemed to him\ningenious and interesting.\n\n7. For the copy in question,\u2014(_like_ that other copy of S. Mark from which\nthe Peshito translation was made, and in which \u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 most inopportunely\noccurs at chap. xiv. 41,(442))\u2014will have become the progenitor of several\nother copies (as Codd. B and \u05d0); and some of these, it is pretty evident,\nwere familiarly known to Eusebius.\n\n8. Let it however be clearly borne in mind that nothing of all this is in\nthe least degree essential to my argument. Eusebius, (for aught that I\nknow or care,) may be _solely_ responsible for every word that he has\ndelivered concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Every link in my argument will\nremain undisturbed, and the conclusion will be still precisely the same,\nwhether the mistaken Criticism before us originated with another or with\nhimself.\n\nXII. But _why_, (it may reasonably be asked,)\u2014_Why_ should there have been\nanything exceptional in the way of indicating the end of this particular\nLection? _Why_ should \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 be so constantly found written after S. Mark\nxvi. 8?\n\nI answer,\u2014I suppose it was because the Lections which respectively ended\nand began at that place were so many, and were Lections of such unusual\nimportance. Thus,\u2014(1) On the 2nd Sunday after Easter, (\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae \u03b3\u1fbd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, as it was called,) at the Liturgy, was read S. Mark xv. 43 to\nxvi. 8; and (2) on the same day at Matins, (by the Melchite Syrian\nChristians as well as by the Greeks,(443)) S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The\nseverance, therefore, was at ver. 8. (3) In certain of the Syrian Churches\nthe liturgical section for Easter Day was S. Mark xvi 2-8:(444) in the\nChurches of the Jacobite, or Monophysite Christians, the Eucharistic\nlesson for Easter-Day was ver. 1-8.(445) (4) The second matin lesson of\nthe Resurrection (xvi. 1-8) also ends,\u2014and (5) the third (xvi. 9-20)\nbegins, at the same place: and these two Gospels (both in the Greek and in\nthe Syrian Churches) were in constant use not only at Easter, but\nthroughout the year.(446) (6) _That_ same third matin lesson of the\nResurrection was also the Lesson at Matins on Ascension-Day; as well in\nthe Syrian(447) as in the Greek(448) Churches. (7) With the Monophysite\nChristians, the lection \u201cferiae tertiae in albis, ad primam vesperam,\u201d\n(i.e. for the Tuesday in Easter-Week) was S. Mark xv. 37-xvi. 8: and (8)\non the same day, at Matins, ch. xvi. 9-18.(449)\u2014During eighteen weeks\nafter Easter therefore, _the only parts_ of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel publicly read\nwere (_a_) the last thirteen [ch. xv. 43-xvi. 8], and (_b_) \u201c_the last\ntwelve_\u201d [ch. xvi. 9-20] verses. Can it be deemed a strange thing that it\nshould have been found _indispensable_ to mark, with altogether\nexceptional emphasis,\u2014to make it unmistakably plain,\u2014where the former\nLection came to an end, and where the latter Lection began?(450)\n\nXIII. One more circumstance, and but one, remains to be adverted to in the\nway of evidence; and one more suggestion to be offered. The circumstance\nis familiar indeed to all, but its bearing on the present discussion has\nnever been pointed out. I allude to the fact that anciently, in copies of\nthe fourfold Gospel, _the Gospel according to S. Mark frequently stood\nlast_.\n\nThis is memorably the case in respect of the Codex Bezae [vi]: more\nmemorably yet, in respect of the Gothic version of Ulphilas (A.D. 360): in\nboth of which MSS., the order of the Gospels is (1) S. Matthew, (2) S.\nJohn, (3) S. Luke, (4) S. Mark. This is in fact _the usual Western order_.\nAccordingly it is thus that the Gospels stand in the Codd. Vercellensis\n(_a_), Veronensis (_b_), Palatinus (_e_), Brixianus (_f_) of the old Latin\nversion. But this order is not _exclusively_ Western. It is found in Cod.\n309. It is also observed in Matthaei\u2019s Codd. 13, 14, (which last is _our_\nEvan. 256), at Moscow. And in the same order Eusebius and others of the\nancients(451) are occasionally observed to refer to the four\nGospels,\u2014which induces a suspicion that they were not unfamiliar with it.\nNor is this all. In Codd. 19 and 90 the Gospel according to S. Mark stands\nlast; though in the former of these the order of the three antecedent\nGospels is (1) S. John, (2) S. Matthew, (3) S. Luke;(452) in the latter,\n(1) S. John, (2) S. Luke, (3) S. Matthew. What need of many words to\nexplain the bearing of these facts on the present discussion? Of course it\nwill have _sometimes_ happened that S. Mark xvi. 8 came to be written _at\nthe bottom of the left hand page_ of a MS.(453) And we have but to suppose\nthat in the case of one such Codex the next leaf, which would have been\n_the last_, was missing,\u2014(_the very thing which has happened in respect of\none of the Codices at Moscow_(454))\u2014and what else _could_ result when a\ncopyist reached the words,\n\n\u0395\u03a6\u039f\u0392\u039f\u03a5\u039d\u03a4\u039f \u0393\u0391\u03a1. \u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3\n\nbut the very phenomenon which has exercised critics so sorely and which\ngives rise to the whole of the present discussion? The copyist will have\nbrought S. Mark\u2019s Gospel to an end there, _of course_. What else could he\npossibly do?... Somewhat less excusably was our learned countryman Mill\nbetrayed into the statement, (inadvertently adopted by Wetstein,\nGriesbach, and Tischendorf,) that \u201cthe last verse of S. John\u2019s Gospel _is\nomitted_ in Cod. 63:\u201d the truth of the matter being (as Mr. Scrivener has\nlately proved) that _the __ last leaf_ of Cod. 63,\u2014on which the last verse\nof S. John\u2019s Gospel was demonstrably once written,\u2014_has been lost_.(455)\n\nXIV. To sum up.\n\n1. It will be perceived that I suppose the omission of \u201cthe last Twelve\nVerses\u201d of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel to have originated in a sheer error and\nmisconception on the part of some very ancient Copyist. He _saw_ \u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3\nwritten after ver. 8: he _assumed_ that it was the Subscription, or at\nleast that it denoted \u201cthe End,\u201d _of the Gospel_.\n\n2. Whether certain ancient Critics, because it was acceptable to them,\nwere not found to promote this mistake,\u2014it is useless to inquire. That\nthere may have arisen some old harmonizer of the Gospels, who, (in the\nwords of Eusebius,) was disposed to \u201cregard what followed as superfluous\nfrom its seeming inconsistency with the testimony of the other\nEvangelists;\u201d(456)\u2014and that in this way the error became propagated;\u2014is\nlikely enough. But an error it most certainly was: and to that _error_,\nthe _accident_ described in the last preceding paragraph _would have_ very\nmaterially conduced, and it may have very easily done so.\n\n3. I request however that it may be observed that the \u201caccident\u201d is not\n_needed_ in order to account for the \u201cerror.\u201d The mere presence of \u03a4\u039f\n\u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 at ver. 8, so near the end of the Gospel, would be quite enough to\noccasion it. And we have seen that in very ancient times the word \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3\nfrequently _did_ occur in an altogether exceptional manner in that very\nplace. Moreover, we have ascertained that its meaning was _not understood_\nby the transcribers of ancient MSS.\n\n4. And will any one venture to maintain that it is to him a thing\nincredible that an intelligent copyist of the iiird century, because he\nread the words \u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 at S. Mark xvi. 8, can have been beguiled thereby\ninto the supposition that those words indicated \u201cthe End\u201d of _S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel_?\u2014Shall I be told that, even if _one_ can have so entirely\noverlooked the meaning of the liturgical sign as to suffer it to insinuate\nitself into his text,(457) it is nevertheless so improbable as to pass all\ncredence that _another_ can have supposed that it designated _the\ntermination of the Gospel_ of the second Evangelist?\u2014For all reply, I take\nleave to point out that Scholz, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Mai\nand the rest of the Critics have, _one and all, without exception,\nmisunderstood the same word occurring in the same place, and in precisely\nthe same way_.\n\nYes. The forgotten inadvertence of a solitary Scribe in the _second_ or\n_third_ century has been, _in the nineteenth_, deliberately reproduced,\nadopted, and stereotyped by every Critic and every Editor of the New\nTestament in turn.\n\nWhat wonder,\u2014(I propose the question deliberately,)\u2014What wonder that an\nancient Copyist should have been misled by a phenomenon which in our own\ndays is observed to have imposed upon two generations of professed\nBiblical Critics discussing this very textual problem, and therefore fully\non their guard against delusion?(458) To this hour, the illustrious\nEditors of the text of the Gospels are clearly, one and all, labouring\nunder the grave error of supposing that \u201c\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 + \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\u201d\u2014(for\nwhich they are so careful to refer us to \u201cCod. 22,\u201d)\u2014is an indication that\n_there_, by rights, comes _the _\u201cEND\u201d_ of the Gospel according to S.\nMark_. They have failed to perceive that \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 in that place is only _a\nliturgical sign_,\u2014the same with which (in its contracted form) they are\nsufficiently familiar; and that it serves no other purpose whatever, but\nto mark that _there_ a famous _Ecclesiastical Lection_ comes to an end.\n\nWith a few pages of summary, we may now bring this long disquisition to an\nend.\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n\n\nGENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION: SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF\nTHE WHOLE SUBJECT.\n\n\n This discussion narrowed to a single issue (p. 244).\u2014That S.\n Mark\u2019s Gospel was imperfect from the very first, a thing\n altogether incredible (p. 246):\u2014But that at some very remote\n period Copies have suffered mutilation, a supposition probable in\n the highest degree (p. 248).\u2014Consequences of this admission (p.\n 252).\u2014Parting words (p. 254.)\n\n\nThis Inquiry has at last reached its close. The problem was fully\nexplained at the outset.(459) All the known evidence has since been\nproduced,(460) every Witness examined.(461) Counsel has been heard on both\nsides. A just Sentence will assuredly follow. But it may not be improper\nthat I should in conclusion ask leave to direct attention to the _single\nissue_ which has to be decided, and which has been strangely thrust into\nthe background and practically kept out of sight, by those who have\npreceded me in this Investigation. The case stands simply thus:\u2014\n\nIt being freely admitted that, in the beginning of the ivth century, there\nmust have existed Copies of the Gospels in which the last chapter of S.\nMark extended no further than ver. 8, the Question arises,\u2014_How is this\nphenomenon to be accounted for?_... The problem is not only highly\ninteresting and strictly legitimate, but it is even inevitable. In the\nimmediately preceding chapter, I have endeavoured to solve it, and I\nbelieve in a wholly unsuspected way.\n\nBut the most recent Editors of the text of the New Testament, declining to\nentertain so much as the _possibility_ that certain copies of the second\nGospel _had experienced mutilation in very early times_ in respect of\nthese Twelve concluding Verses, have chosen to occupy themselves rather\nwith conjectures as to how it may have happened that S. Mark\u2019s Gospel _was\nwithout a conclusion from the very first_. Persuaded that no more probable\naccount is to be given of the phenomenon than that _the Evangelist himself\nput forth a Gospel which_ (for some unexplained reason) _terminated\nabruptly at the words_ \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 (chap. xvi. 8),\u2014they have unhappily\nseen fit to illustrate the liveliness of this conviction of theirs, by\npresenting the world with his Gospel mutilated in this particular way.\nPractically, therefore, the question has been reduced to the following\nsingle issue:\u2014Whether of the two suppositions which follow is the more\nreasonable:\n\n_First_,\u2014That the Gospel according to S. Mark, as it left the hands of its\ninspired Author, _was in this imperfect or unfinished state_; ending\nabruptly at (what we call now) the 8th verse of the last chapter:\u2014of which\nsolemn circumstance, at the end of eighteen centuries, Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0\nare the alone surviving Manuscript witnesses?... or,\n\n_Secondly_,\u2014That certain copies of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel _having suffered\nmutilation_ in respect of their Twelve concluding Verses in the\npost-Apostolic age, Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0 are the only examples of MSS. so\nmutilated which are known to exist at the present day?\n\nI. Editors who adopt the former hypothesis, are observed (_a_) to sever\nthe Verses in question from their context:(462)\u2014(_b_) to introduce after\nver. 8, the subscription \u201c\u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u039c\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u039f\u039d:\u201d(463)\u2014(_c_) to shut up verses 9-20\nwithin brackets.(464) Regarding them as \u201cno integral part of the\nGospel\u201d(465)\u2014\u201cas an authentic anonymous addition to what Mark himself\nwrote down,\u201d(466)\u2014a \u201cremarkable Fragment,\u201d \u201cplaced as a completion of the\nGospel in very early times;\u201d(467)\u2014they consider themselves at liberty to\ngo on to suggest that \u201cthe Evangelist may have been interrupted in his\nwork:\u201d at any rate, that \u201csomething may have occurred, (as the death of S.\nPeter,) to cause him to leave it unfinished.\u201d(468) But \u201cthe most probable\nsupposition\u201d (we are assured) \u201cis, that _the last leaf of the original\nGospel was torn away_.\u201d(469)\n\nWe listen with astonishment; contenting ourselves with modestly suggesting\nthat surely it will be time to conjecture _why_ S. Mark\u2019s Gospel was left\nby its Divinely inspired Author in an unfinished state, when the fact has\nbeen established that it probably _was_ so left. In the meantime, we\nrequest to be furnished with some evidence of _that fact_.\n\nBut not a particle of Evidence is forthcoming. It is not even pretended\nthat any such evidence exists. Instead, we are magisterially informed by\n\u201cthe first Biblical Critic in Europe,\u201d\u2014(I desire to speak of him with\ngratitude and respect, but S. Mark\u2019s Gospel is a vast deal more precious\nto me than Dr. Tischendorf\u2019s reputation,)\u2014that \u201c_a healthy piety reclaims\nagainst the endeavours of those who are for palming off as Mark\u2019s what the\nEvangelist is so plainly shewn_ [where?] _to have known nothing at all\nabout_.\u201d(470) In the meanwhile, it is assumed to be a more reasonable\nsupposition,\u2014(\u03b1) That S. Mark published an imperfect Gospel; and that the\nTwelve Verses with which his Gospel concludes were the fabrication of a\nsubsequent age; than,\u2014(\u03b2) That some ancient Scribe having with design or\nby accident left out these Twelve concluding Verses, copies of the second\nGospel so mutilated become multiplied, and in the beginning of the ivth\ncentury existed in considerable numbers.\n\nAnd yet it is notorious that very soon after the Apostolic age, liberties\nprecisely of this kind were freely taken with the text of the New\nTestament. Origen (A.D. 185-254) complains of the licentious tampering\nwith the Scriptures which prevailed in his day. \u201cMen add to them,\u201d (he\nsays) \u201cor _leave out_,\u2014as seems good to themselves.\u201d(471) Dionysius of\nCorinth, yet earlier, (A.D. 168-176) remarks that it was no wonder his own\nwritings were added to and _taken from_, seeing that men presumed to\ndeprave the Word of GOD in the same manner.(472) Iren\u00e6us, his\ncontemporary, (living within seventy years of S. John\u2019s death,) complains\nof a corrupted Text.(473) We are able to go back yet half a century, and\nthe depravations of Holy Writ become avowed and flagrant.(474) A competent\nauthority has declared it \u201cno less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,\nthat _the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has been ever\nsubjected_ originated within a hundred years after it was composed.\u201d(475)\nAbove all, it is demonstrable that Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0 abound in\nunwarrantable omissions very like the present;(476) omissions which only\ndo not provoke the same amount of attention because they are of less\nmoment. One such extraordinary depravation of the Text, _in which they\nalso stand alone among MSS._ and to which their patrons are observed to\nappeal with triumphant complacency, has been already made the subject of\ndistinct investigation. I am much mistaken if it has not been shewn in my\nVIIth chapter, that the omission of the words \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 from Ephes. i. 1,\nis just as unauthorized,\u2014quite as serious a blemish,\u2014as the suppression of\nS. Mark xvi. 9-20.\n\nNow, in the face of facts like these, and in the absence of _any Evidence\nwhatever_ to prove that S. Mark\u2019s Gospel was imperfect from the first,\u2014I\nsubmit that an hypothesis so violent and improbable, as well as so wholly\nuncalled for, is simply undeserving of serious attention. For,\n\n(1st.) It is plain from internal considerations that the improbability of\nthe hypothesis is excessive; \u201cthe contents of these Verses being such as\nto preclude the supposition that they were the work of a post-Apostolic\nperiod. The very difficulties which they present afford the strongest\npresumption of their genuineness.\u201d No fabricator of a supplement to S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel would have ventured on introducing so many minute _seeming_\ndiscrepancies: and certainly \u201chis contemporaries would not have accepted\nand transmitted such an addition,\u201d if he had. It has also been shewn at\ngreat length that the Internal Evidence for the genuineness of these\nVerses is overwhelmingly strong.(477) But,\n\n(2nd.) Even external Evidence is not wanting. It has been acutely pointed\nout long since, that the absence of a vast assemblage of various Readings\nin this place, is, in itself, a convincing argument that we have here to\ndo with no spurious appendage to the Gospel.(478) Were this a deservedly\nsuspected passage, it must have shared the fate of all other deservedly\n(or undeservedly) suspected passages. It never could have come to pass\nthat the various Readings which these Twelve Verses exhibit would be\n_considerably fewer_ than those which attach to the last twelve verses of\nany of the other three Gospels.\n\n(3rd.) And then surely, if the original Gospel of S. Mark had been such an\nincomplete work as is feigned, the fact would have been notorious from the\nfirst, and must needs have become the subject of general comment.(479) It\nmay be regarded as certain that so extraordinary a circumstance would have\nbeen largely remarked upon by the Ancients, and that evidence of the fact\nwould have survived in a hundred quarters. It is, I repeat, simply\nincredible that Tradition would have proved so utterly neglectful of her\noffice as to remain _quite_ silent on such a subject, if the facts had\nbeen such as are imagined. Either Papias, or else John the\nPresbyter,\u2014Justin Martyr, or Hegesippus, or one of the \u201cSeniores apud\nIren\u00e6um,\u201d\u2014Clemens Alexandrinus, or Tertullian, or Hippolytus,\u2014if not\nOrigen, yet at least Eusebius,\u2014if not Eusebius, yet certainly\nJerome,\u2014_some_ early Writer, I say, must _certainly_ have recorded the\ntradition that S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, as it came from the hands of its inspired\nauthor, was an incomplete or unfinished work. The silence of the Ancients,\njoined to the inherent improbability of the conjecture,\u2014(_that_ silence so\nprofound, _this_ improbability so gross!)\u2014is enough, I submit, _in the\nentire absence of Evidence on the other side_, to establish _the very\ncontradictory_ of the alternative which recent Critics are so strenuous in\nrecommending to our acceptance.\n\n(4th.) But on the contrary. We have indirect yet convincing testimony that\nthe _oldest_ copies of all _did contain_ the Verses in question:(480)\nwhile so far are any of the Writers just now enumerated from recording\nthat these verses were absent from the early copies, that five out of\nthose ten Fathers actually quote, or else refer to the verses in question\nin a way which shews that in their day they were the recognised\ntermination of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel.(481)\n\nWe consider ourselves at liberty, therefore, to turn our attention to the\nrival alternative. Our astonishment is even excessive that it should have\nbeen seriously expected of us that we could accept without Proof of any\nsort,\u2014without a particle of Evidence, external, internal, or even\ntraditional,\u2014the extravagant hypothesis that S. Mark put forth an\nunfinished Gospel; when the obvious and easy alternative solicits us, of\nsupposing,\n\nII. That, at some period _subsequent_ to the time of the Evangelist,\ncertain copies of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel suffered that mutilation in respect of\ntheir last Twelve Verses of which we meet with _no trace whatever, no\nrecord of any sort, until the beginning of the fourth century_.\n\n(i.) And the facts which _now_ meet us on the very threshold, are in a\nmanner conclusive: for if Papias and Justin Martyr [A.D. 150] do not refer\nto, yet certainly Iren\u00e6us [A.D. 185] and Hippolytus [A.D. 190-227]\n_distinctly quote_ Six out of the Twelve suspected Verses,\u2014which are also\nmet with in the two oldest Syriac Versions, as well as in the old Latin\nTranslation. Now the latest of these authorities is earlier by full a\nhundred years than _the earliest record_ that the verses in question were\never absent from ancient MSS. At the eighth Council of Carthage, (as\nCyprian relates,) [A.D. 256] Vincentius a Thiberi, one of the eighty-seven\nAfrican Bishops there assembled, quoted the 17th verse in the presence of\nthe Council.\n\n(ii.) Nor is this all.(482) Besides the Gothic and Egyptian versions in\nthe ivth century; besides Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, and\nAugustine in the vth, to say nothing of Codices A and C;\u2014the Lectionary of\nthe Church universal, _probably from the second century of our \u00e6ra_, is\nfound to bestow its solemn and emphatic sanction on _every one_ of these\nTwelve Verses. They are met with _in every MS. of the Gospels in\nexistence_, uncial and cursive,\u2014_except two_;(483) they are found _in\nevery Version_; and are contained besides in _every known Lectionary_,\nwhere they are appointed to be read at Easter and on Ascension Day.(484)\n\n(iii.) Early in the ivth century, however, we are encountered by a famous\nplace in the writings of Eusebius [A.D. 300-340], who, (as I have\nelsewhere explained,(485)) is the _only_ Father who delivers any\nindependent testimony on this subject at all. What he says has been\nstrangely misrepresented. It is simply as follows:\u2014\n\n(_a_) One, \u201cMarinus,\u201d is introduced _quoting this part of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel\nwithout suspicion_, and enquiring, How its opening statement is to be\nreconciled with S. Matth. xxviii. 1? Eusebius, in reply, points out that a\nman whose only object was to get rid of the difficulty, might adopt the\nexpedient of saying that this last section of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel \u201cis _not\nfound in all the copies_:\u201d (\u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.) Declining, however, to\nact thus presumptuously in respect of anything claiming to be a part of\nEvangelical Scripture, (\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f41\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,)\u2014_he adopts the hypothesis that the text is\ngenuine_. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, he begins:\nand he enters at once without hesitation on an elaborate discussion to\nshew _how the two places may be reconciled_.(486) What there is in this to\ncountenance the notion that in the opinion of Eusebius \u201cthe Gospel\naccording to S. Mark originally terminated at the 8th verse of the last\nchapter,\u201d\u2014I profess myself unable to discover. I draw from his words the\nprecisely opposite inference. It is not even clear to me that the Verses\nin dispute were absent from the copy which Eusebius habitually employed.\nHe certainly quotes one of those verses once and again.(487) On the other\nhand, the express statement of Victor of Antioch [A.D. 450?] _that he knew\nof the mutilation, but had ascertained by Critical research the\ngenuineness of this Section of Scripture, and had adopted the Text of the\nauthentic _\u201cPalestinian\u201d_ Copy_,(488)\u2014is more than enough to outweigh the\nfaint presumption created (as some might think) by the words of Eusebius,\nthat his own copy was without it. And yet, as already stated, there is\nnothing whatever to shew that Eusebius himself deliberately rejected the\nlast Twelve Verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. Still less does that Father\nanywhere say, or even hint, that in his judgment the original Text of S.\nMark was without them. If he may be judged by his words, _he accepted them\nas genuine_: for (what is at least certain) he argues upon their contents\nat great length, and apparently without misgiving.\n\n(_b_) It is high time however to point out that, after all, the question\nto be decided is, not _what Eusebius thought_ on this subject, but what is\nhistorically probable. As a plain matter of fact, the sum of the Patristic\nEvidence against these Verses is the hypothetical suggestion of Eusebius\nalready quoted; which, (after a fashion well understood by those who have\ngiven any attention to these studies), is observed to have rapidly\npropagated itself in the congenial soil of the vth century. And even if it\ncould be shewn that Eusebius deliberately _rejected_ this portion of\nScripture, (which has never been done,)\u2014yet, inasmuch as it may be\nregarded as certain that those famous codices in the library of his friend\nPamphilus at C\u00e6sarea, to which the ancients habitually referred,\n_recognised it as genuine_,(489)\u2014the only sufferer from such a conflict of\nevidence would surely be Eusebius himself: (not _S. Mark_, I say, but\n_Eusebius_:) who is observed to employ an incorrect text of Scripture on\nmany other occasions; and must (in such case) be held to have been unduly\npartial to copies of S. Mark in the mutilated condition of Cod. B or Cod.\n\u05d0. His words were translated by Jerome;(490) adopted by Hesychius;(491)\nreferred to by Victor;(492) reproduced \u201cwith a difference\u201d in more than\none ancient scholion.(493) But they are found to have died away into a\nvery faint echo when Euthymius Zigabenus(494) rehearsed them for the last\ntime in his Commentary on the Gospels, A.D. 1116. Exaggerated and\nmisunderstood, behold them resuscitated after an interval of seven\ncenturies by Griesbach, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles and the rest: again\ndestined to fall into a congenial, though very differently prepared soil;\nand again destined (I venture to predict) to die out and soon to be\nforgotten for ever.\n\n(iv.) After all that has gone before, our two oldest Codices (Cod. B and\nCod. \u05d0) which alone witness to the truth of Eusebius\u2019 testimony as to the\nstate of certain copies of the Gospels in his own day, need not detain us\nlong. They are thought to be as old as the ivth century: they are\ncertainly without the concluding section of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. But it may\nnot be forgotten that both Codices alike are disfigured throughout by\nerrors, interpolations and omissions without number; that their testimony\nis continually divergent; and that it often happens that where they both\nagree they are both demonstrably in error.(495) Moreover, it is a highly\nsignificant circumstance that the Vatican Codex (B), which is the more\nancient of the two, exhibits _a vacant column_ at the end of S. Mark\u2019s\nGospel,\u2014_the only vacant column in the whole codex_: whereby it is shewn\nthat the Copyist was aware of the existence of the Twelve concluding\nVerses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, even though he left them out:(496) while the\noriginal Scribe of the Codex Sinaiticus (\u05d0) is declared by Tischendorf to\nhave actually _omitted the concluding verse of S. John\u2019s Gospel_,\u2014in which\nunenviable peculiarity _it stands alone among MSS._(497)\n\n(I.) And thus we are brought back to the point from which we started. We\nare reminded that the one thing to be accounted for is _the mutilated\ncondition of certain copies of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel in the beginning of the\nfourth century_; of which, Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0 are the two solitary\nsurviving specimens,\u2014Eusebius, the one historical witness. We have to\ndecide, I mean, between the _evidence_ for this _fact_,\u2014(namely, that\nwithin the first two centuries and a-half of our \u00e6ra, the Gospel according\nto S. Mark _suffered mutilation_;)\u2014and the _reasonableness_ of the other\n_opinion_, namely, that S. Mark\u2019s _original autograph_ extended no farther\nthan ch. xvi. 8. All is reduced to this one issue; and unless any are\nprepared to prove that the Twelve familiar Verses (ver. 9 to ver. 20) with\nwhich S. Mark ends his Gospel _cannot_ be his,\u2014(I have proved on the\ncontrary that he must needs be thought to have written them,(498))\u2014I\nsubmit that it is simply irrational to persist in asseverating that the\nreason why those verses are not found in our two Codexes of the ivth\ncentury must be because they did not exist in the original autograph of\nthe Evangelist. What else is this but to set unsupported _opinion_, or\nrather unreasoning _prejudice_, before the _historical evidence_ of a\n_fact_? The assumption is not only gratuitous, arbitrary, groundless; but\nit is discountenanced by the evidence of MSS., of Versions, of Fathers,\n(Versions and Fathers much older than the ivth century:) is rendered in\nthe highest degree improbable by every internal, every external\nconsideration: is condemned by _the deliberate judgment of the universal\nChurch_,\u2014which, in its corporate capacity, for eighteen hundred years, in\nall places, has not only solemnly accepted the last Twelve Verses of S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel as genuine, but has even singled them out for special\nhonour.(499)\n\n(II.) Let it be asked in conclusion,\u2014(for this prolonged discussion is now\nhappily at an end,)\u2014Are any inconveniences likely to result from a frank\nand loyal admission, (_in the absence of any Evidence whatever to the\ncontrary_,) that doubtless the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel are\njust as worthy of acceptation as the rest? It might reasonably be\nsupposed, from the strenuous earnestness with which the rejection of these\nVerses is generally advocated, that some considerations must surely be\nassignable why the opinion of their genuineness ought on no account to be\nentertained. Do any such reasons exist? Are any inconveniences whatever\nlikely to supervene?\n\n_No_ reasons whatever are assignable, I reply; neither are there _any_\ninconvenient consequences of any sort to be anticipated,\u2014except indeed to\nthe Critics: to whom, it must be confessed, the result proves damaging\nenough.\n\nIt will only follow,\n\n(1st) That Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0 must be henceforth allowed to be _in one more\nserious particular_ untrustworthy and erring witnesses. They have been\nconvicted, in fact, of bearing false witness in respect of S. Mark xvi.\n9-20, where their evidence had been hitherto reckoned upon with the most\nundoubting confidence.\n\n(2ndly) That the critical statements of recent Editors, and indeed the\nremarks of Critics generally, in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, will have\nto undergo serious revision: in every important particular, will have to\nbe unconditionally withdrawn.\n\n(3rdly) That, in all future critical editions of the New Testament, these\n\u201cTwelve Verses\u201d will have to be restored to their rightful honours: never\nmore appearing disfigured with brackets, encumbered with doubts, banished\nfrom their context, or molested with notes of suspicion. On the contrary.\nA few words of caution against the resuscitation of what has been proved\nto be a \u201cvulgar error,\u201d will have henceforth to be introduced _in memoriam\nrei_.\n\n(4thly) Lastly, men must be no longer taught to look with distrust on this\nprecious part of the Deposit; and encouraged to dispute the Divine sayings\nwhich it contains on the plea that _perhaps_ they may not be Divine, after\nall; for that _probably_ the entire section is not genuine. They must be\nassured, on the contrary, that these Twelve Verses are wholly\nundistinguishable in respect of genuineness from the rest of the Gospel of\nS. Mark; and it may not be amiss to remind them the Creed called the\n\u201cAthanasian\u201d speaks no other language than that employed by the Divine\nAuthor of our Religion and Object of our Faith. The Church warns her\nchildren against the peril incurred by as many as wilfully reject the\nTruth, in no other language but that of the Great Head of the Church. No\nperson may presume to speak disparagingly of S. Mark xvi. 16, any more.\n\n(III.) Whether,\u2014after the foregoing exposure of a very prevalent and\nhighly popular, but at the same time most calamitous misapprehension,\u2014it\nwill not become necessary for Editors of the Text of the New Testament to\nreconsider their conclusions in countless other places:\u2014whether they must\nnot be required to review their method, and to remodel their text\nthroughout, now that they have been shewn the insecurity of the foundation\non which they have so confidently builded, and been forced to reverse\ntheir verdict in respect of a place of Scripture where at least they\nsupposed themselves impregnable;\u2014I forbear at this time to inquire.\n\nEnough to have demonstrated, as I claim to have now done, that _not a\nparticle of doubt_, that _not an atom of suspicion_, attaches to \u201cTHE LAST\nTWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK.\u201d\n\n\u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX (A).\n\n\n On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of\n Scripture.\u2014The correct Text of S. LUKE ii. 14, established.\n\n\n(Referred to at p. 22.)\n\nIn Chapter III. the importance of attending to Patristic citations of\nScripture has been largely insisted upon. The controverted reading of S.\nLuke ii. 14 supplies an apt illustration of the position there maintained,\nviz. that this subject has not hitherto engaged nearly as much attention\nas it deserves.\n\nI. Instead of \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, (which is the reading of the \u201cTextus\nReceptus,\u201d) Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford present us with \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Their authority for this reading is the consentient\ntestimony of THE FOUR OLDEST MSS. WHICH CONTAIN S. Luke ii. 14 (viz. B, \u05d0,\nA, D): THE LATIN VERSIONS generally (\u201c_in hominibus bonae voluntatis_\u201d);\nand THE GOTHIC. Against these are to be set, COD. A (in the Hymn at the\nend of the Psalms); ALL THE OTHER UNCIALS; together WITH EVERY KNOWN\nCURSIVE MS.; and EVERY OTHER ANCIENT VERSION in existence.\n\nSo far, the evidence of mere Antiquity may be supposed to preponderate in\nfavour of \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2: though no judicious Critic, it is thought, should\nhesitate in deciding in favour of \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, even upon the evidence already\nadduced. The advocates of the popular Theory ask,\u2014But _why_ should the\nfour oldest MSS., together with the Latin and the Gothic Versions,\nconspire in reading \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, if \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 be right? That question shall be\nresolved by-and-by. Let them in the mean time tell us, if they can,\u2014How is\nit credible that, in such a matter as this, _every other MS. and every\nother Version in the world_ should read \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, if \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 be wrong? But\nthe evidence of Antiquity has not yet been nearly cited. I proceed to set\nit forth in detail.\n\nIt is found then, that whereas \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 _is read by none_, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 is read\nby all the following Fathers:\u2014\n\n(1) ORIGEN, in three places of his writings, [i. 374 D: ii. 714 B: iv. 15\nB,\u2014A.D. 240.]\n\n(2) The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, twice, [vii. 47: viii. 12 _ad\nfin._,\u2014IIrd cent.]\n\n(3) METHODIUS, [_Galland._ iii. 809 B,\u2014A.D. 290.]\n\n(4) EUSEBIUS, twice, [_Dem. Ev._ 163 C: 342 B,\u2014A.D. 320.]\n\n(5) APHRAATES THE PERSIAN, (for whose name [_supr\u00e0_, pp. 26-7] that of\n\u201cJacobus of Nisibis\u201d has been erroneously substituted), twice, [i. 180 and\n385,\u2014A.D. 337.]\n\n(6) TITUS OF BOSTRA, twice, [_in loc._, but especially in S. Luc. xix. 29\n(_Cramer_, ii. 141, _line_ 20),\u2014A.D. 350.]\n\n(7) GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, [i. 845 C,\u2014A.D. 360.]\n\n(8) CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, [A.D. 370], as will be found explained below.\n\n(9) EPIPHANIUS, [i. 154 D,\u2014A.D. 375.]\n\n(10) CHRYSOSTOM, four times, [vii. 311 B: 674 C: viii. 85 C: xi. 374 B\nexpressly,\u2014A.D. 400.]\n\n(11) CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, in three places, [_Comm. on S. Luke_, pp. 12 and\n16. Also _Opp._ ii. 593 A: vi. 398 C,\u2014A.D. 420.]\n\n(12) THEODORET, [_in Coloss._ i. 20,-A.D. 430.]\n\n(13) THEODOTUS OF ANCYRA, [_Galland._ x. 446 B,\u2014A.D. 430.]\n\n(14) PROCLUS, Abp. of Constantinople, [_Gall._ x. 629 A,\u2014A.D. 434.]\n\nTo which may be added the evidence of\n\n(15) COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, four times repeated, [_Coll. Nov. PP._,\n(Montfaucon,) ii. 152 A, 160 D, 247 E, 269 C,\u2014A.D. 535.]\n\n(16) EULOGIUS, Abp. of Alexandria, [_Gall._ xii. 308 E,\u2014A.D. 581.]\n\n(17) ANDREAS OF CRETE, twice, [_Gall._ xiii. 100 D, 123 C,\u2014A.D. 635.]\n\nNow, when it is considered that these seventeen Fathers of the Church(500)\nall concur in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn _as our own Textus Receptus\nexhibits it_,\u2014(viz. \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1,)\u2014_who_ does not see that the\nfour oldest uncial authorities for \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 are hopelessly outvoted by\nauthorities yet older than themselves? Here is, to all intents and\npurposes, a record of what was once found in _two Codices of the iii_rd_\ncentury_; in _nine of the iv_th; in _three of the v_th;\u2014added to the\ntestimony of the two Syriac, the Egyptian, the Ethiopic, and the Armenian\nversions. In this instance therefore the evidence of Antiquity is even\noverwhelming.\n\nMost decisive of all, perhaps, is the fact this was the form in which _the\nChurches of the East_ preserved the Angelic Hymn in their private, as well\nas their solemn public Devotions. Take it, from a document of the vth\ncentury:\u2014\n\n\u0394\u039f\u039e\u0391 \u0395\u039d \u03a5\u03a8\u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u039f\u0399\u03a3 \u0398\u0395\u03a9\n\u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0395\u03a0\u0399 \u0393\u0397\u03a3 \u0395\u0399\u03a1\u0397\u039d\u0397\n\u0395\u039d \u0391\u039d\u0398\u03a1\u03a9\u03a0\u039f\u0399\u03a3 \u0395\u03a5\u0394\u039f\u039a\u0399\u0391.(501)\n\nBut the text of this Hymn, as a Liturgical document, at a yet earlier\nperiod is unequivocally established by the combined testimony of the\nApostolical Constitutions (already quoted,) and of Chrysostom, who says\nexpressly:\u2014\u0395\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u0394\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1. [_Opp._ xi. 347 B.] Now this incontestably\nproves that _the Church\u2019s established way of reciting the Angelic Hymn in\nthe iv_th_ century_ was in conformity with the reading of the Textus\nReceptus. And this fact infinitely outweighs the evidence of any extant\nMSS. which can be named: for it is the consentient evidence of\nhundreds,\u2014or rather of thousands of copies of the Gospels of a date\nanterior to A.D. 400, which have long since perished.\n\nTo insist upon this, however, is not at all my present purpose. About the\ntrue reading of S. Luke ii. 14, (which is _not_ the reading of Lachmann,\nTischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,) there is clearly no longer any room for\ndoubt. It is perhaps one of the best established readings in the whole\ncompass of the New Testament. My sole object is to call attention to the\ntwo following facts:\u2014\n\n(1) That _the four oldest Codices which contain S. Luke_ ii. 14 (B, \u05d0, A,\nD, A.D. 320-520), and two of the oldest Versions, conspire in exhibiting\nthe Angelic Hymn _incorrectly_.\n\n(2) That we are indebted to _fourteen of the Fathers_ (A.D. 240-434), and\nto the rest of the ancient Versions, for the true reading of that\nmemorable place of Scripture.\n\nII. Against all this, it is urged (by Tischendorf) that,\u2014\n\n1. IREN\u00c6US sides with the oldest uncials.\u2014Now, the Greek of the place\nreferred to is lost. A Latin translation is all that survives. According\nto _that_ evidence, Iren\u00e6us, having quoted the place in conformity with\nthe Vulgate reading (iii. c. x. \u00a7 41,\u2014\u201c_Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra\npax hominibus bonae voluntatis_,\u201d) presently adds,\u2014\u201cIn eo quod dicunt,\n_Gloria in altissimis __DEO__ et in terra pax_, eum qui sit altissimorum,\nhoc est, supercaelestium factor et eorum, quae super terram omnium\nconditor, his sermonibus glorificaverunt; qui suo plasmati, hoc est\nhominibus suam benignitatem salutis de caelo misit.\u201d (_ed._ Stieren, i.\n459).\u2014But it must suffice to point out (1) that these words really prove\nnothing: and (2) that it would be very unsafe to build upon them, even if\nthey did; since (3) it is plain that the Latin translator exhibits the\nplace in the Latin form most familiar to himself: (consider his\nsubstitution of \u201cexcelsis\u201d for \u201caltissimis.\u201d)\n\n2. Next, ORIGEN is claimed on the same side, on the strength of the\nfollowing passage in (Jerome\u2019s version of) his lost Homilies on S.\nLuke:\u2014\u201cSi scriptum esset, _Super terram pax_, et hucusque esset finita\nsententia, recte quaestio nasceretur. Nunc vero in eo quod additum est,\nhoc est, quod post pacem dicitur, _In hominibus bonae voluntatis_, solvit\nquaestionem. Pax enim quam non dat Dominus super terram, non est pax bonae\nvoluntatis.\u201d (_Opp._ iii. p. 946.) \u201cFrom this,\u201d (says Tischendorf, who is\nfollowed by Tregelles,) \u201cit is plain that Origen regarded \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 as the\ntrue reading; not \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u2014which is now thrice found in his Greek\nwritings.\u201d\u2014But,\n\nIs one here more struck with the unfairness of the Critic, or with the\nfeebleness of his reasoning? For,\u2014(to say nothing of the insecurity of\nbuilding on a Latin Translation,(502) especially in such a matter as the\npresent,)\u2014How can testimony like this be considered to outweigh the three\ndistinct places in the original writings of this Father, where he reads\nnot \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 but \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1? Again. Why is a doubt insinuated concerning the\ntrustworthiness of those three places, (\u201cut _nunc_ reperitur,\u201d) where\nthere really is _no_ doubt? How is Truth ever to be attained if\ninvestigations like the present are to be conducted in the spirit of an\neager partisan, instead of with the calm gravity of an impartial judge?\n\nBut I may as well state plainly that the context of the passage above\nquoted shews that Tischendorf\u2019s proposed inference is inadmissible. Origen\nis supposing some one to ask the following question:\u2014\u201cSince Angels on the\nnight when CHRIST was born proclaimed \u2018on earth _Peace_,\u2019\u2014why does our\nSAVIOUR say, \u2018I am _not_ come to send Peace upon earth, but a sword?\u2019...\nConsider,\u201d (he proceeds) \u201cwhether the answer may not be this:\u201d\u2014and then\ncomes the extract given above. Origen, (to express oneself with colloquial\ntruthfulness,) is _at his old tricks_. He is evidently acquainted with the\nreading \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2: and because it enables him to offer (what appears to\nhim) an ingenious solution of a certain problem, he adopts it for the\nnonce: his proposal to take the words \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 together, being\nsimply preposterous,\u2014as no one ever knew better than Origen himself.(503)\n\n3. Lastly, CYRIL OF JERUSALEM is invariably cited by the latest Critics as\nfavouring the reading \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Those learned persons have evidently\noverlooked the candid acknowledgment of De Toutt\u00e9e, Cyril\u2019s editor, (p.\n180, cf. bottom of p. 102,) that though _the MSS. of Cyril_ exhibit\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured _to print_\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. This therefore is one more Patristic attestation to the\ntrustworthiness of the Textus Receptus in respect of S. Luke ii. 14, which\nhas been hitherto unaccountably lost sight of by Critics. (May I, without\noffence, remind Editors of Scripture that instead of _copying_, they ought\nin every instance _to verify_ their references?)\n\nIII. The history of this corruption of the Text is not hard to discover.\nIt is interesting and instructive also.\n\n(1.) In the immediately post-Apostolic age,\u2014if not earlier still,\u2014some\nCopyist will have omitted the \u1f10\u03bd before \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. The resemblance of the\nletters and the similarity of the sound (\u0395\u039d, \u0391\u039d,) misled him:\u2014\n\n\u0395\u039d\u0391\u039d\u0398\u03a1\u03a9\u03a0\u039f\u0399\u03a3\n\nEvery one must see at a glance how easily the thing may have happened. (It\nis in fact precisely what _has_ happened in Acts iv. 12; where, for \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, D and a few cursive MSS. read \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\u2014being countenanced\ntherein by the Latin Versions generally, and by them only.)\n\n(2.) The result however\u2014(\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1)\u2014was obviously an impossible sentence. It could not be allowed to\nstand. And yet it was not by any means clear what had happened to it. In\norder, as it seems, to _force_ a meaning into the words, some one with the\nbest intentions will have put the sign of the genitive (\u03a3) at the end of\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1. The copy so depraved was destined to play an important part; for\nit became the fontal source of the Latin Version, which exhibits the place\nthus:\u2014_Gloria in altissimis __DEO__, et in terra pax hominibus bonae\nvoluntatis...._ It is evident, by the way, (if the quotation from Iren\u00e6us,\ngiven above, is to be depended upon,) that Iren\u00e6us must have so read the\nplace: (viz. \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.)\n\n(3.) To restore the preposition (\u0395\u039d) which had been accidentally thrust\nout, and to obliterate the sign of the genitive (\u03a3) which had been without\nauthority thrust in, was an obvious proceeding. Accordingly, _every Greek\nEvangelium extant_ exhibits \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2: while _all but four_ (B, \u05d0, A,\nD) read \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1. In like manner, into some MSS. of the Vulgate (e.g. the\n_Cod. Amiatinus_,) the preposition (\u201cin\u201d) has found its way back; but the\ngenitive (\u201cbonae voluntatis\u201d) has never been rectified in a single copy of\nthe Latin version.\u2014The Gothic represents a copy which exhibited \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.(504)\n\nThe consequence is that a well-nigh untranslatable expression retains its\nplace in the Vulgate to the present hour. Whether (with Origen) we connect\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 with \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7,\u2014or (with the moderns) we propose to understand \u201cmen\nof good pleasure,\u201d\u2014the result is still the same. The harmony of the\nthree-part Anthem which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity is\nhopelessly marred, and an unintelligible discord substituted in its place.\nLogic, Divinity, Documents are here all at one. The reading of Stephens is\nunquestionably correct. The reading of the latest Editors is as certainly\ncorrupt. This is a case therefore where the value of Patristic testimony\nbecomes strikingly apparent. It affords also one more crucial proof of the\nessential hollowness of the theory on which it has been recently proposed\nby Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest to reconstruct the text\nof the New Testament.\n\nTo some, it may perhaps seem unreasonable that so many words should be\ndevoted to the establishment of the text of a single place of\nScripture,\u2014depending, as that text does, on the insertion or the omission\nof a single letter. I am content to ask in reply,\u2014_What_ is important, if\nnot the utterance of Heaven, when, at the laying of the corner-stone of\nthe New Creation, \u201cthe Morning Stars sang together, and all the Sons of\nGOD shouted for joy?\u201d\n\nIV. Only one word in conclusion.\n\nWhenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized\nVersion (1611), it will become necessary that she should in the first\ninstance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons\ncarefully to revise the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know\nprecisely what it is they have to translate before they can pretend to\ntranslate it. As for supposing that Scholars who have been appointed to\nrevise _a Translation_ are competent at a moment\u2019s notice, as every fresh\ndifficulty presents itself, to develop the skill requisite for revising\n_the original Text_,\u2014it is clearly nothing else but supposing that experts\nin one Science can at pleasure shew themselves proficients in another.\n\nBut it so happens that, on the present occasion, that _other_ Science is\none of exceeding difficulty. Revisionists _here_ will find it necessary\naltogether to disabuse their minds of the _Theory_ of Textual Criticism\nwhich is at present the dominant and the popular one,\u2014and of which I have\nmade it my business to expose the fallaciousness, in respect of several\ncrucial texts, in the course of the present work.\n\nI cannot so far forget the unhappy circumstances of the times as to close\nthis note without the further suggestion, (sure therein of the approval of\nour trans-Atlantic brethren,) that, for a Revision of the Authorized\nVersion to enjoy the confidence of the Nation, and to procure for itself\nacceptance at the hands of the Church,\u2014it will be found necessary that the\nwork should be confided to _Churchmen_. The Church may never abdicate her\nfunction of being \u201ca Witness and a Keeper of Holy Writ.\u201d Neither can she,\nwithout flagrant inconsistency and scandalous consequence, ally herself in\nthe work of Revision with the Sects. Least of all may she associate with\nherself in the sacred undertaking an Unitarian Teacher,\u2014one who avowedly\n[see the letter of \u201cOne of the Revisionists, G. V. S.,\u201d in the \u201cTimes\u201d of\nJuly 11, 1870] denies the eternal GODhead of her LORD. That the individual\nalluded to has shewn any peculiar aptitude for the work of a Revisionist;\nor that he is a famous Scholar; or that he can boast of acquaintance with\nany of the less familiar departments of Sacred Learning; is not even\npretended. (It would matter nothing if the reverse were the case.) What\nelse, then, is this but to offer a deliberate insult to the Majesty of\nHeaven in the Divine Person of Him who is alike the Object of the\nEverlasting Gospel, and its Author?\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX (B).\n\n\n EUSEBIUS \u201cad Marinum\u201d concerning the reconcilement of S. Mark xvi.\n 9 with S. Matthew xxviii. 1.\n\n\n(Referred to at pp. 46, 47, 54, and 233.)\n\nSUBJOINED is the original text of EUSEBIUS, taken from the \u201cQu\u00e6stiones ad\nMarinum\u201d published by Card. Mai, in his \u201cNova Patrum Bibliotheca\u201d (Romae,\n1847,) vol. iv. pp. 255-7.\n\nI. \u03a0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u1ff7 \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n\u03a4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f04\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2; \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 [\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 _del._?(505)]\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5; \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03be\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u201c\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd.\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9: \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f14\u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1.\u201d \u1f18\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2;\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3. \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1.\n\u1f0c\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f41\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f25\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n\u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd,\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f04\u03bd \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2; \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u201c\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03be\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd;(506) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f40\u03c8\u03ad\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ae\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf; \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd,\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c8\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2; \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f66\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u1ff3\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7. \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af. \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf. \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af, \u1f43\u03bd \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd (\u1f43 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd) \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad; \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7, \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f26\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1.\n\nII. \u03a0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n\u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd\n\u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u1f7a \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX (C).\n\n\n Proof that HESYCHIUS is a copyist only in what he says concerning\n the end of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel.\n\n\n(Referred to at pp. 57-58.)\n\n\u00a7 1. It was confidently stated above (at p. 58) that HESYCHIUS, discussing\nthe consistency of S. Matthew\u2019s \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (chap. xxviii. 1), with\nthe \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af of S. Mark (chap. xvi. 9), is a _copyist_ only; and that he\ncopies from the \u201cQuaestiones ad Marinum\u201d of EUSEBIUS. The proof of that\nstatement is subjoined. It should perhaps be explained that the extracts\nin the right-hand column have been dislocated in order to shew their close\nresemblance to what is set down in the left-hand column from Eusebius:\u2014\n\n(EUSEBIUS.) (HESYCHIUS, or SEVERUS.)\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f7a \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f11\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03af ...\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u1f7a \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 ... \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2. \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 ...\n\u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f64\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ce\u03b8\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03b7\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2;\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; \u03bf\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f64\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd,\n\u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd; \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3; \u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\u1f44\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f41 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\u1f1c\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2.\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31\n\u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd; \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af;\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1,\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n(EUSEBIUS ad Marinum, (GREG. NYSS. [_vid.\n_apud_ Mai, vol. iv. p. supr\u00e0_, p. 39 bto 41.]\n257-8.) _Opp._ vol. iii. p. 402.)\n\n\u00a7 2. Subjoined, in the right-hand column, is the original text of the\npassage of HESYCHIUS exhibited in English at p. 57. The intention of\nsetting down the parallel passages from EUSEBIUS, and from VICTOR of\nAntioch, is in order to shew the sources from which Hesychius obtained his\nmaterials,\u2014as explained at p. 58:\u2014\n\n(EUSEBIUS.) (HESYCHIUS, or SEVERUS.)\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u201c\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. \u03bf\u1f36\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1,\u201d \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9; ... \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f76\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1.\u201d\n(EUSEBIUS ad Marinum,\n_apud_ Mai, iv. p. 255.)\n(VICTOR OF ANTIOCH.)\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 ... \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u201c\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\u201d \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1. \u201c\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\u201d \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3.... \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1;\n [\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f64\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd\n \u1f24\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7, \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af\u201d\n \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f31]\n\u03bf\u1f45\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1; \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2\n\u201c\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72,\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1fd6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c2;\n\u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u201c\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72,\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3\n\u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7;\u201d \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u201c\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\u201d\u2014 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7.\u201d \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u201c\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\u201d\n(VICTOR ANTIOCH, _ed.\nCramer_, vol. i. p. 444,\nline 19 to line 27.)\n [\u1f14\u03c7\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03b4\u1f72 \u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af\u201d \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7.]\n (GREG. NYSS. _Opp._ vol.\n iii. p. 411, B, C, D:\n which may be also seen in\n Cramer\u2019s _Catenae_, [vol.\n i. p. 250, line 21 to\n line 33,] ascribed to\n \u201cSEVERUS, Archbishop of\n Antioch,\u201d [_Ibid._, p.\n 243.])\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX (D).\n\n\n Some account of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH\u2019S Commentary on S. Mark\u2019s\n Gospel; together with an enumeration of MSS. which contain\n Victor\u2019s Work.\n\n\n(Referred to at p. 60.)\n\n\u201cApr\u00e8s avoir examin\u00e9 avec soin les MSS. de la Biblioth\u00e8que du Roi,\u201d (says\nthe P\u00e8re Simon in his _Hist. Crit. du N. T._ p. 79,) \u201cj\u2019ai r\u00e9connu que cet\nouvrage\u201d (he is speaking of the Commentary on S. Mark\u2019s Gospel popularly\nascribed to Victor of Antioch,) \u201cn\u2019est ni d\u2019Orig\u00e9ne, ni de Victor\nd\u2019Antioche, ni de Cyrille, ni d\u2019aucun autre auteur en particulier. C\u2019est\nun recueil de plusieurs P\u00e8res, dont on a marqu\u00e9 les noms dans quelques\nexemplaires; et si ces noms ne se trouvent point dans d\u2019autres, cela est\nassez ordinaire \u00e0 ces recueils, qu\u2019on appelle _cha\u00eenes_.\u201d(507) It will be\nseen from the notices of the work in question already offered, (_supr\u00e0_,\np. 59 to p. 65,) that I am able to yield only a limited acquiescence in\nthis learned writer\u2019s verdict. That the materials out of which VICTOR OF\nANTIOCH constructed his Commentary are scarcely ever original,\u2014is what no\none will deny who examines the work with attention. But the Author of a\ncompilation is an Author still; and to put Victor\u2019s claim to the work\nbefore us on a level with that of Origen or of Cyril, is entirely to\nmisrepresent the case and hopelessly to perplex the question.\n\nConcerning VICTOR himself, nothing whatever is known except that he was \u201ca\npresbyter of Antioch.\u201d Concerning his Work, I will not here repeat what I\nhave already stated elsewhere; but, requesting the Reader to refer to what\nwas remarked at pp. 59 to 65, I propose to offer a few observations with\nwhich I was unwilling before to encumber the text; holding it to be a\nspecies of duty for those who have given any time and attention to a\nsubject like the present to contribute the result, (however slender and\nunsatisfactory it may prove,) to the common store. Let abler men enlarge\nthe ensuing scanty notices, and correct me if in any respect I shall have\ninadvertently fallen into error.\n\n1. There exists a Commentary, then, on S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, which generally\nclaims on its front \u201cVICTOR, PRESBYTER OF ANTIOCH,\u201d for its Author.(508) A\nLatin translation of this work, (not the original Greek,) was, in the\nfirst instance, published at Ingolstadt in 1580,(509) by Theodore\nPeltanus. His Latin version found its way at once into \u201cBibliothec\u00e6,\u201d (or\nCollections of Writings of the Fathers,) and has been again and again\nreprinted.\n\n2. The Greek text of Victor was first published at Rome by Peter Possinus\nin 1673, from a MS. existing somewhere in Germany; which Bathazar\nCorderius had transcribed and presented to Possinus about thirty years\nbefore. Corderius gave Possinus at the same time his transcript of an\nanonymous Commentary on S. Mark preserved in the Vatican; and Possinus had\nalready in his possession the transcript of a third Commentary on the same\nEvangelist (also anonymous) which he had obtained from the Library of\nCharles de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse. These three transcripts Possinus\npublished in a well-known volume. It is to be wished that he had kept them\ndistinct, instead of to some extent blending their contents confusedly\ninto one.(510) Still, the dislocated paragraphs of Victor of Antioch are\nrecognisable by the name of their author (\u201cVictor Antiochenus\u201d) prefixed\nto each: while \u201cTolosanus\u201d designates the Toulouse MS.: \u201cVaticanus\u201d (or\nsimply \u201cAnonymus\u201d) the Vatican.\n\n3. At the end of another century, (1775) C. F. Matthaei put forth at\nMoscow, with his usual skill and accuracy, a new and independent Edition\nof Victor\u2019s Commentary:(511) the text of which is based on four of the\nMoscow MSS. This work, which appeared in two parts, has become of\nextraordinary rarity. I have only just ascertained (June, 1871,) that one\nentire Copy is preserved in this country.\n\n4. Lastly, (in 1840,) Dr. J. A. Cramer, in the first volume of his\n_Catenae_ on the N. T., reproduced Victor\u2019s work from independent MS.\nsources. He took for his basis two Codices in the Paris Library, (No. 186\nand No. 188), which, however, prove to have been anciently so exactly\nassimilated the one to the other [_infr\u00e0_, p. 279] as to be, in fact, but\nduplicates of one and the same original. Cramer supplemented their\ncontents from Laud. Gr. 33, (in the Bodleian:) Coisl. 23: and Reg. 178 at\nParis. The result has been by far the fullest and most satisfactory\nexhibition of the Commentary of Victor of Antioch which has hitherto\nappeared. Only is it to be regretted that the work should have been\nsuffered to come abroad disfigured in every page with errors so gross as\nto be even scandalous, and with traces of slovenly editorship which are\nsimply unintelligible. I cannot bring myself to believe that Dr. Cramer\never inspected the MSS. in the Paris Library in person. Else would the\nslender advantage which those abundant materials have proved to so learned\nand accomplished a scholar, be altogether unaccountable. Moreover, he is\nincorrect in what he says about them:(512) while his reasons for proposing\nto assign the work of Victor of Antioch to Cyril of Alexandria are\nundeserving of serious attention.\n\nOn a comparison of these four Editions of the same work, it is discovered\nthat the Latin version of Peltanus (1580), _represents the same Greek\ntext_ which Possinus gave to the world in 1673. Peltanus translates very\nloosely; in fact he paraphrases rather than translates his author, and\nconfesses that he has taken great liberties with Victor\u2019s text. But I\nbelieve it will be found that there can have been no considerable\ndiscrepancy between the MS. which Peltanus employed, and that which\nPossinus afterwards published.\u2014Not so the text which Matthaei edited,\nwhich is in fact for the most part, (though not invariably,) rather an\nEpitome of Victor\u2019s Commentary. On the other hand, Cramer\u2019s text is more\nfull than that of Possinus. There seem to be only a few lines in Possinus,\nhere and there, which are not to be met with in Cramer; whereas no less\nthan twenty-eight of Cramer\u2019s pages are not found in the work of Possinus.\nCramer\u2019s edition, therefore, is by far the most complete which has\nhitherto appeared. And though it cries aloud for revision throughout;\nthough many important corrections might easily be introduced into it, and\nthe whole brought back in countless particulars more nearly to the state\nin which it is plain that Victor originally left it;\u2014I question whether\nmore than a few pages of _additional matter_ could easily be anywhere\nrecovered. I collated several pages of Cramer (Oct. 1869) with every MS.\nof Victor in the Paris Library; and all but invariably found that Cramer\u2019s\ntext was fuller than that of the MS. which lay before me. Seldom indeed\ndid I meet with a few lines in any MS. which had not already seen the\nlight in Cramer\u2019s edition. One or other of the four Codices which he\nemployed seems to fill up almost every hiatus which is met with in any of\nthe MSS. of this Father.\n\nFor it must be stated, once for all, that an immense, and I must add, a\nmost unaccountable discrepancy is observable between the several extant\ncopies of Victor: yet not so much in respect of various readings, or\nserious modifications of his text; (though the transpositions are very\nfrequent, and often very mischievous;(513)) as resulting from the\nboundless license which every fresh copyist seems to have allowed himself\nchiefly in _abridging_ his author.\u2014To skip a few lines: to omit an\nexplanatory paragraph, quotation, or digression: to pass _per saltum_ from\nthe beginning to the end of a passage: sometimes to leave out a whole\npage: to transpose: to paraphrase: to begin or to end with quite a\ndifferent form of words;\u2014proves to have been the rule. Two copyists\nengaged on the same portion of Commentary are observed to abridge it in\ntwo quite different ways. I question whether there exist in Europe three\nmanuscripts of Victor which correspond entirely throughout. The result is\nperplexing in a high degree. Not unfrequently (as might be expected) we\nare presented with two or even three different exhibitions of one and the\nsame annotation.(514) Meanwhile, as if to render the work of collation (in\na manner) impossible,\u2014(1) Peltanus pleads guilty to having transposed and\notherwise taken liberties with the text he translated: (2) Possinus\nconfessedly welded three codices into one: (3) Matthaei pieced and patched\nhis edition out of four MSS.; and (4) Cramer, out of five.\n\nThe only excuse I can invent for this strange licentiousness on the part\nof Victor\u2019s ancient transcribers is this:\u2014They must have known perfectly\nwell, (in fact it is obvious,) that the work before them was really little\nelse but a compilation; and that Victor had already abridged in the same\nmerciless way the writings of the Fathers (Chrysostom chiefly) from whom\nhe obtained his materials. We are to remember also, I suppose, the labour\nwhich transcription involved, and the costliness of the skins out of which\nancient books were manufactured. But when all has been said, I must\ncandidly admit that the extent of license which the ancients evidently\nallowed themselves quite perplexes me.(515) _Why_, for example, remodel\nthe structure of a sentence and needlessly vary its phraseology? Never I\nthink in my life have I been more hopelessly confused than in the\n_Biblioth\u00e8que_, while attempting to collate certain copies of Victor of\nAntioch.\n\nI dismiss this feature of the case by saying that if any person desires a\nsample of the process I have been describing, he cannot do better than\nbestow a little attention on the \u201cPreface\u201d (\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) at the beginning of\nVictor\u2019s Commentary. It consists of thirty-eight lines in Cramer\u2019s\nedition: of which Possinus omits eleven; and Matthaei also, eleven;\u2014_but\nnot the same eleven_. On the other hand, Matthaei(516) _prolongs_ the\nPreface by eight lines. Strange to relate, the MS. from which Cramer\nprofesses to publish, goes on differently. If I may depend on my hasty\npencilling, after \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 [_Cramer_, i. p. 264, line 16,] Evan. 300, [\n= Reg. 186, _fol._ 93, line 16 from bottom] proceeds,\u2014\u039a\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f15\u03ba\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, (thirty-one lines, ending) \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nOn referring to the work of Possinus, \u201cAnonymus Vaticanus\u201d is found to\nexhibit so admirable a condensation (?) of the \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in question, that\nit is difficult to divest oneself of the suspicion that it must needs be\nan original and independent composition; the germ out of which the longer\nPreface has grown.... We inspect the first few pages of the Commentary,\nand nothing but perplexity awaits us at every step. It is not till we have\nturned over a few pages that we begin to find something like exact\ncorrespondence.\n\nAs for the Work,\u2014(for I must now divest myself of the perplexing\nrecollections which the hurried collation of so many MSS. left behind; and\nplainly state that, in spite of all, I yet distinctly ascertained, and am\nfully persuaded that the original work was _one_,\u2014the production, no\ndoubt, of \u201cVictor, Presbyter of Antioch,\u201d as 19 out of the 52 MSS.\ndeclare):\u2014For the Commentary itself, I say, Victor explains at the outset\nwhat his method had been. Having failed to discover any separate\nexposition of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, he had determined to construct one, by\ncollecting the occasional notices scattered up and down the writings of\nFathers of the Church.(517) Accordingly, he presents us in the first few\nlines of his Commentary (p. 266) with a brief quotation from the work of\nEusebius \u201cto Marinus, on the seeming inconsistency of the Evangelical\naccounts of the Resurrection;\u201d following it up with a passage from \u201cthe\nvith [viith?] tome of Origen\u2019s Exegetics on S. John\u2019s Gospel.\u201d We are thus\npresented at the outset with _two_ of Victor\u2019s favorite authorities. The\nwork of Eusebius just named he was evidently thoroughly familiar\nwith.(518) I suspect that he has many an unsuspected quotation from its\npages. Towards the end of his Commentary, (as already elsewhere\nexplained,) he quotes it once and again.\n\nOf Origen also Victor was evidently very fond(519): and his words on two\nor three occasions seem to shew that he had recourse besides habitually to\nthe exegetical labours of Apolinarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Titus\nof Bostra.(520) Passages from Cyril of Alexandria are occasionally met\nwith;(521) and once at least (p. 370) he has an extract from Basil. The\nhistorian Josephus he sometimes refers to by name.(522)\n\nBut the Father to whom Victor is chiefly indebted is Chrysostom,\u2014whom he\nstyles \u201cthe blessed John, Bishop of the Royal City;\u201d (meaning\nConstantinople(523)). Not that Victor, strictly speaking, _transcribes_\nfrom Chrysostom; at least, to any extent. His general practice is slightly\nto adapt his Author\u2019s language to his own purpose; sometimes, to leave out\na few words; a paragraph; half a page.(524) Then, he proceeds to quote\nanother Father probably; or, it may be, to offer something of his own. But\nhe seldom gives any intimation of what it is he does: and if it were not\nfor the occasional introduction of the phrase \u1f41 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 or \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad\n\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9,(525) a reader of Victor\u2019s Commentary might almost mistake it for an\noriginal composition. So little pains does this Author take to let his\nreader know when he is speaking in his own person, when not, that he has\nnot scrupled to retain Chrysostom\u2019s phrases \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,(526) &c. The\nresult is that it is often impossible to know to _whose_ sentiments we are\nlistening. It cannot be too clearly borne in mind that ancient ideas\nconcerning authorship differed entirely from those of modern times;\nespecially when Holy Scripture was to be commented on.\n\nI suspect that, occasionally, copyists of Victor\u2019s work, as they\nrecognised a fragment here and there, prefixed to it the name of its\nauthor. This would account for the extremely partial and irregular\noccurrence of such notes of authorship; as well as explain why a name duly\nprefixed in one copy is often missing in another.(527) Whether Victor\u2019s\nCommentary can in strictness be called a \u201cCatena,\u201d or not, must remain\nuncertain until some one is found willing to undertake the labour of\nre-editing his pages; from which, by the way, I cannot but think that some\nhighly interesting (if not some important) results would follow.\n\nYet, inasmuch as Victor never, or certainly very seldom, prefixes to a\npassage from a Father _the name of its Author_;\u2014above all, seeing that\nsometimes, at all events, he is original, or at least speaks in his own\nperson;\u2014I think the title of \u201cCatena\u201d inappropriate to his Commentary.\n\nAs favourable and as interesting a specimen of this work as could be\nfound, is supplied by his annotation on S. Mark xiv. 3. He begins as\nfollows, (quoting Chrysostom, p. 436):\u2014\u201cOne and the same woman seems to be\nspoken of by all the Evangelists. Yet is this not the case. By three of\nthem one and the same seems to be spoken of; not however by S. John, but\nanother famous person,\u2014the sister of Lazarus. This is what is said by\nJohn, the Bishop of the Royal City.\u2014Origen on the other hand says that she\nwho, in S. Matthew and S. Mark, poured the ointment in the house of Simon\nthe leper was a different person from the sinner whom S. Luke writes about\nwho poured the ointment on His feet in the house of the\nPharisee.\u2014Apolinarius(528) and Theodorus say that all the Evangelists\nmention one and the same person; but that John rehearses the story more\naccurately than the others. It is plain, however, that Matthew, Mark, and\nJohn speak of the same individual; for they relate that Bethany was the\nscene of the transaction; and this is a _village_; whereas Luke [viii. 37]\nspeaks of some one else; for, \u2018Behold,\u2019 (saith he) \u2018a woman _in the city_\nwhich was _a sinner_,\u2019 \u201d &c., &c.\n\nBut the most important instance by far of independent and sound judgment\nis supplied by that concluding paragraph, already quoted and largely\nremarked upon, at pp. 64-5; in which, after rehearsing all that had been\nsaid against the concluding verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, Victor vindicates\ntheir genuineness by appealing in his own person to the best and the most\nauthentic copies. The Reader is referred to Victor\u2019s Text, which is given\nbelow, at p. 288.\n\nIt only remains to point out, that since Chrysostom, (whom Victor speaks\nof as \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,[p. 408,] and \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, [p. 442,]) died in A.D. 407,\nit _cannot_ be right to quote \u201c401\u201d as the date of Victor\u2019s work. Rather\nwould A.D. 450 be a more reasonable suggestion: seeing that extracts from\nCyril, who lived on till A.D. 444, are found here and there in Victor\u2019s\npages. We shall not perhaps materially err if we assign A.D. 430-450 as\nVictor of Antioch\u2019s approximate date.\n\nI conclude these notices of an unjustly neglected Father, by specifying\nthe MSS. which contain his Work. Dry enough to ordinary readers, these\npages will not prove uninteresting to the critical student. An enumeration\nof all the extant Codices with which I am acquainted which contain VICTOR\nOF ANTIOCH\u2019S Commentary on S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, follows:\u2014\n\n(i.) EVAN. 12 ( = Reg. 230) _a most beautiful MS._\n\nThe Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned to VICTOR by name; being a\nrecension very like that which Matthaei has published. S. Mark\u2019s text is\ngiven _in extenso_.\n\n(ii.) EVAN. 19 ( = Reg. 189: anciently numbered 437 and 1880. Also 134 and\n135. At back, 1603.) _A grand folio, well-bound and splendidly written.\nPictures of the Evangelists in such marvellous condition that the very\ntools employed by a scribe might be reproduced. The ground gilded.\nHeadings, &c. and words from Scripture all in gold._\n\nHere also the Commentary on S. Mark\u2019s Gospel is assigned to VICTOR. The\ndifferences between this text and that of Cramer (e.g. at fol. 320-3,\n370,) are hopelessly numerous and complicated. There seem to have been\nextraordinary liberties taken with the text of this copy throughout.\n\n(iii.) EVAN. 20 (= Reg. 188: anciently numbered 1883.) _A splendid\nfolio,\u2014the work of several hands and beautifully written._\n\nVictor\u2019s Commentary on S. Mark\u2019s Gospel is generally considered to be\nclaimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA by the following words:\n\n\u03a5\u03a0\u039f\u0398\u0395\u03a3\u0399\u03a3 \u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u03a4\u039f \u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u039c\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u039f\u039d \u0391\u0393\u0399\u039f\u039d \u0395\u03a5\u0391\u0393\u0393\u0395\u039b\u0399\u039f\u039d\n\u0395\u039a \u03a4\u0397\u03a3 \u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u039d \u0395\u03a1\u039c\u0397\u039d\u0395\u0399\u0391\u03a3 \u03a4\u039f\u03a5 \u0395\u039d \u0391\u0393\u0399\u039f\u0399\u03a3\n\u039a\u03a5\u03a1\u0399\u039b\u039b\u039f\u03a5 \u0391\u039b\u0395\u039e\u0391\u039d\u0394\u03a1\u0395\u0399\u0391\u03a3.\n\nThe correspondence between Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 [_infr\u00e0_, No. xiv], (=\nReg. 188 and 186), is extraordinary.(529) In S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, (which\nalone I examined,) _every page begins with the same syllable, both of Text\nand Commentary_: (i.e. Reg. 186, fol. 94 to 197 = Reg. 188, fol. 87 to\n140). Not that the number of words and letters in every line corresponds:\nbut the discrepancy is compensated for by a blank at the end of each\ncolumn, and at the foot of each page. Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 seem,\ntherefore, in some mysterious way referable to a common original. The\nsacred Text of these two MSS., originally very dissimilar, has been made\nidentical throughout; some very ancient (the original?) possessor of Reg.\n188 having carefully assimilated the readings of his MS. to those of Reg.\n186, the more roughly written copy; which therefore, in the judgment of\nthe possessor of Reg. 188, exhibits the purer text. But how then does it\nhappen that in both Codices alike, each of the Gospels (except S.\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel in Reg. 188,) ends with the attestation that it has been\ncollated with approved copies? Are we to suppose that the colophon in\nquestion was added _after_ the one text had been assimilated to the other?\nThis is a subject which well deserves attention. The reader is reminded\nthat these two Codices have already come before us at pp. 118-9,\u2014where see\nthe notes.\n\nI proceed to set down some of the discrepancies between the texts of these\ntwo MSS.: in every one of which, Reg. 188 has been made conformable to\nReg. 186:\u2014\n\n(COD. REG. 186.) (COD. REG. 188.)\n(1) Matth. xxvi. 70. \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\n(2) Mk. i. 2. \u03ce\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03c9\u03c2\n(3) Mk. i. 11. \u1ff7 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\n(4) Mk. i. 16. \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n(5) Mk. ii. 21. \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff7: \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff7: \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ae, \u03b1\u1f05\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f10 \u03bc\u03ae \u03b3\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b1\u03c0\u1fbd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\n(6) Mk. iii. 10. \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd\n(7) Mk. iii. 17. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\n(8) Mk. iii. 18. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u039c. \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0398.\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0398.\n(9) Mk. vi. 9. \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\n(10) Mk. vi. 10. \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\n\nIn the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th of these instances, Tischendorf is found (1869)\nto adopt the readings of Reg. 188: in the last four, those of Reg. 186. In\nthe 1st, 4th, and 5th, he follows neither.\n\n(iv.) EVAN. 24 (= Reg. 178.) _A most beautifully written fol._\n\nNote, that this Codex has been mutilated at p. 70-1; from S. Matth. xxvii.\n20 to S. Mark iv. 22 being away. It cannot therefore be ascertained\nwhether the Commentary on S. Mark was here attributed to Victor or not.\nCramer employed it largely in his edition of Victor (_Catenae_, vol. i. p.\nxxix,), as I have explained already at p. 271. Some notices of the present\nCodex are given above at p. 228-9.\n\n(v.) EVAN. 25 (= Reg. 191: anciently numbered Colb. 2259): 1880. _Folio:\ngrandly written._\n\nNo Author\u2019s name to the Commentary on S. Mark. The text of the Evangelist\nis given _in extenso_.\n\n(vi.) EVAN. 34 (= Coisl. 195.) _A grand folio, splendidly written, and in\nsplendid condition: the paintings as they came from the hand of the\nartist._\n\nAt fol. 172, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR. It will be\nfound that Coisl. 23 (_infr\u00e0_, No. ix.) and Coisl. 195 are derived from a\ncommon original; but Cod. 195 is the more perfect copy, and should have\nbeen employed by Cramer in preference to the other (_supr\u00e0_, p. 271.)\nThere has been an older and a more recent hand employed on the Commentary.\n\n(vii.) EVAN. 36 (= Coisl. 20.) _A truly sumptuous Codex._\n\nSome notices of this Codex have been given already, at p. 229. The\nCommentary on S. Mark is Victor\u2019s, but is without any Author\u2019s name.\n\n(viii.) EVAN. 37 (= Coisl. 21.) _Fol._\n\nThe Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR at fol. 117. It seems to\nbe very much the same recension which is exhibited by Coisl. 19 (_infr\u00e0_,\nNo. xviii.) and Coisl. 24 (_infr\u00e0_, No. xi.) The Text is given _in\nextenso_: the Commentary, in the margin.\n\n(ix.) EVAN. 39 (= Coisl. 23.) _A grand large fol. The writing singularly\nabbreviated._\n\nThe Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR: but is very dissimilar in\nits text from that which forms the basis of Cramer\u2019s editions. (See above,\non No. vi.) It is Cramer\u2019s \u201cP.\u201d (See his _Catenae_, vol. i. p. xxviii; and\n_vide supra_, p. 271.)\n\n(x.) EVAN. 40 (= Coisl. 22.)\n\nNo Author\u2019s name is prefixed to the Commentary (fol. 103); which is a\nrecension resembling Matthaei\u2019s. The Text is _in extenso_: the Commentary,\nin the margin.\n\n(xi.) EVAN. 41 (= Coisl. 24.) _Fol._\n\nThis is a Commentary, not a Text. It is expressly claimed for VICTOR. The\nrecension seems to approximate to that published by Matthaei. (See on No.\nviii.) One leaf is missing. (See fol. 136 b.)\n\n(xii.) EVAN. 50 (= Bodl. Laud. Gracc. 33.) 4to. The Commentary here seems\nto be claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, but in the same unsatisfactory way\nas No. iii and xiv. (See Coxe\u2019s _Cat._ i. 516.)\n\n(xiii.) EVAN. 299 (= Reg. 177: anciently numbered 22423).\n\nThe Commentary on S. Mark is Victor\u2019s, but is without any Author\u2019s name.\nThe Text of S. Mark is given _in extenso_: Victor\u2019s Commentary, in the\nmargin.\n\n(xiv.) EVAN. 300 (= Reg. 186: anciently numbered 692, 750, and 1882.) _A\nnoble Codex: but the work of different scribes. It is most beautifully\nwritten._\n\nAt fol. 94, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA,\nin the same equivocal manner as above in No. iii and xii. The writer\nstates in the colophon that he had diversely found it ascribed to Cyril\nand to Victor. (\u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u1f21 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2, \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u0392\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.)\n\nSee above, the note on Evan. 20 (No. iii),\u2014a MS. which, as already\nexplained, has been elaborately assimilated to the present.\n\n(xv.) EVAN. 301 (= Reg. 187: anciently numbered 504, 537 and 1879.) _A\nsplendid fol. beautifully written throughout._\n\nThe Commentary on S. Mark is here claimed for VICTOR.\n\n(xvi.) EVAN. 309 (= Reg. 201: anciently numbered 176 and 2423.) _A very\ninteresting little fol.: very peculiar in its style. Drawings old and\ncurious. Beautifully written._\n\nThe Commentary is here claimed for VICTOR. This is not properly a text of\nthe Gospel; but parts of the text interwoven with the Commentary. Take a\nspecimen(530): (S. Mark xvi. 8-20.)\n\n\u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0395\u039e\u0395\u039b\u0398\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\u0391\u0399 \u0395\u03a6\u03a5\u0393\u039f\u039d \u0391\u03a0\u039f \u03a4\u039f\u03a5 \u039c\u039d\u0397\u039c\u0395\u0399\u039f\u03a5. \u0395\u0399\u03a7\u0395\u039d \u0394\u0395 \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u0391\u03a3 \u03a4\u03a1\u039f\u039c\u039f\u03a3 \u039a\u0391\u0399\n\u0395\u039a\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u03a3. \u0395\u03a9\u03a3 \u0394\u0399\u0391 \u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u0395\u03a0\u0391\u039a\u039f\u039b\u039f\u03a5\u0398\u039f\u03a5\u039d\u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u03a3\u0397\u039c\u0395\u0399\u03a9\u039d.\n\nOver the text is written \u039a\u0395\u0399\u039c (\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd i.e. _Text_) and over the\nCommentary \u0395\u03a1\u039c (\u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, i.e. _Interpretation_.) See the next.\n\n(xvii.) EVAN. 312 (= Reg. 206: anciently numbered 968, 1058, 2283; and\nbehind, 1604. Also A. 67.) _A beautiful little fol._\n\nContains only the Commentary, which is expressly assigned to VICTOR. This\nCopy of Victor\u2019s Commentary is very nearly indeed a duplicate of Cod. 309,\n(No. xvi.) both in its contents and in its method; but it is less\nbeautifully written.\n\n(xviii.) EVAN. 329 (= Coisl. 19.) _A very grand fol._\n\nThe Commentary on S. Mark is Victor\u2019s, but is without any Author\u2019s name.\n(See above, on No. viii.)\n\n(xix.) REG. 703, (anciently numbered 958: 1048, and Reg. 2330: also No.\n18.) _A grand large 4__to__._\n\nThe Commentary is here claimed for ORIGEN. Such at least is probably the\nintention of the heading (in gold capital letters) of the Prologue:\u2014\n\n\n \u03a9\u03a1\u0399\u0393\u0395\u039d\u039f\u03a5\u03a3 \u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u039b\u039f\u0393\u039f\u03a3 \u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u03a4\u0397\u039d \u0395\u03a1\u039c\u0397\u039d\u0395\u0399\u0391\u039d \u03a4\u039f\u03a5 \u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u039c\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u039f\u039d \u0395\u03a5\u0391\u0393\u0393\u0395\u039b\u0399\u039f\u03a5.\n\n\nSee on this subject the note at foot of p. 235.\n\n(xx.) EVAN. 304 ( = Reg. 194. Teller 1892.) The text of S. Mark is hero\ninterwoven with a Commentary which I do not recognise. But from the\ncorrespondence of a note at the end with what is found in Possinus, pp.\n361-3, I am led to suspect that the contents of this MS. will be found to\ncorrespond with what Possinus published and designated as \u201cTolosanus.\u201d\n\n(xxi.) EVAN. 77 (Vind. Ness. 114, Lambec. 29.) Victor\u2019s Commentary is here\nanonymous.\n\n(xxii.) EVAN. 92 (which belonged to Faesch of Basle [see Wetstein\u2019s\n_Proleg._], and which Haenel [p. 658 _b_] says is now in Basle Library).\nWetstein\u2019s account of this Codex shows that the Commentary on S. Mark is\nhere distinctly ascribed to Victor. He says,\u2014\u201cContinet Marcum et in eum\n_Victoris Antiocheni Commentarios_, foliis 5 mutilos. Item Scholia in\nEpistolas Catholicas,\u201d &c. And so Haenel.\n\n(xxiii.) EVAN. 94 (As before, precisely; except that Haenel\u2019s [inaccurate]\nnotice is at p. 657 _b_.) This Codex contains VICTOR of Antioch\u2019s\nCommentary on S. Mark, (which is evidently hero also assigned to him _by\nname_;) and Titus of Bostra on S. Luke. Also several Scholia: among the\nrest, I suspect, (from what Haenel says), the Scholia spoken of _supr\u00e0_,\np. 47, note (x).\n\n(xxiv.) In addition to the preceding, and before mentioning them, Haenel\nsays there also exists in the Library at Basle,\u2014\u201cVICTORIS Antiocheni\nScholia in Evang. Marci: chart.\u201d(531)\n\n(xxv.) EVAN. 108 (Vind. Forlos. d. Koll. 4.) Birch (p. 225) refers to it\nfor the Scholion given in the next article. (Append. E.)\n\n(xxvi.) EVAN. 129 (Vat. 358.) \u0392\u0399\u039a\u03a4\u039f\u03a1\u039f\u03a3. \u03a0\u0393 \u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0399\u039f\u03a7 \u0395\u03a1\u039c \u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u039c\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u039f\u039d. The\nCommentary is written along the top and bottom and down the side of each\npage; and there are references (\u03b1, \u03b2, \u03b3) inserted in the text to the\nparagraphs in the margin,\u2014as in some of the MSS. at Paris. Prefixed is an\nexegetical apparatus by Eusebius, &c.\n\nNote, that of these five MSS. in the Vatican, (358, 756, 757, 1229, 1445),\nthe 3rd and 4th are without the prefatory section (beginning \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c.)\u2014All 5 begin, \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2. In all but the 4th, the\nsecond paragraph begins \u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nThe third passage begins in all 5, \u1f38\u03c3\u03bf\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf. Any one seeking to\nunderstand this by a reference to the editions of Cramer or of Possinus\nwill recognise the truth of what was stated above, p. 274, line 24 to 27.\n\n(xxvii.) EVAN. 137 (Vat. 756.) The Commentary is written as in Vat. 358\n(No. xxvi): but no Author\u2019s name is given.\n\n(xxviii.) EVAN. 138 (Vat. 757.) On a blank page or fly-leaf at the\nbeginning are these words:\u2014\u1f41 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 (_sic_) \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1. (Comp. No. xlvii.)\nThe Commentary and Text are not kept distinct, as in the preceding Codex.\nBoth are written in an ill-looking, slovenly hand.\n\n(xxix.) EVAN. 143 (Vat. 1,229.) The Commentary is written as in Vat. 358\n(No. xxvi), but without the references; and no Author\u2019s name is given.\n\n(xxx.) EVAN. 181 (Xavier, Cod. Zelada.) Birch was shewn this Codex of the\nFour Gospels in the Library of Cardinal Xavier of Zelada (_Prolegomena_,\np. lviii): \u201cCujus forma est in folio, pp. 596. In margine passim occurrunt\nscholia ex Patrum Commentariis exscripta.\u201d\n\n(xxxi.) EVAN. 186 (Laur. vi. 18.) This Codex is minutely described by\nBandini (_Cat._ i. 130), who gives the Scholion (_infra_, p. 388-9), and\nsays that the Commentary is without any Author\u2019s name.\n\n(xxxii.) EVAN. 194 (Laur. vi. 33.) \u0392\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. (See the description of this Codex\nin Bandini\u2019s _Cat._ i. 158.)\n\n(xxxiii.) EVAN. 195 (Laur. vi. 34.) This Codex seems to correspond in its\ncontents with No. xxxi. _supr\u00e0_: the Commentary containing the Scholion,\nand being anonymous. (See Bandini, p. 161.)\n\n(xxxiv.) EVAN. 197 (Laur. viii. 14.) The Commentary, (which is Victor\u2019s,\nbut has no Author\u2019s name prefixed,) is defective at the end. (See Bandini,\np. 355.)\n\n(xxxv.) EVAN. 210 (Venet. 27.) \u201cConveniunt initio Commentarii eum iis qui\nVictori Antiocheno tribuuntur, progressu autem discrepant.\u201d (Theupoli\n_Graeca D. Marci Bibl. Codd. MSS._ Venet. 1740.) I infer that the work is\nanonymous.\n\n(xxxvi.) Venet. 495. \u201cVICTORIS ANTIOCHENI Presbyteri expositio in\nEvangelium Marci, collecta ex diversis Patribus.\u201d (I obtain this reference\nfrom the Catalogue of Theupolus.)\n\n(xxxvii.) EVAN. 215 (Venet. 544.) I presume, from the description in the\nCatalogue of Theupolus, that this Codex also contains a copy of Victor\u2019s\nCommentary.\n\n(xxxviii.) EVAN. 221 (Vind. Ness. 117, Lambec. 38). Kollar has a long note\n(B) [iii. 157] on the Commentary, which has no Author\u2019s name prefixed.\nBirch (p. 225) refers to it for the purpose recorded under No. xxv.\n\n(xxxix.) EVAN. 222 (Vind. Ness. 180, Lambec. 39.) The Commentary is\nanonymous. Birch refers to it, as before.\n\nAdd the following six MSS. at Moscow, concerning which, see Matthaei\u2019s\nNov. Test. (1788) vol. ii. p. xii.:\u2014\n\n(xl.) EVAN. 237 (This is Matthaei\u2019s d or D [described in his _N. T._ ix.\n242. Also _Vict. Ant._ ii. 137.] \u201cSS. Synod. 42:\u201d) and is one of the MSS.\nemployed by Matthaei in his ed. of Victor.\u2014The Commentary on S. Mark has\nno Author\u2019s name prefixed.\n\n(xli.) EVAN. 238 (Matthaei\u2019s e or E [described in his _N. T._ ix. 200.\nAlso _Vict. Ant._ ii. 141.] \u201cSS. Synod. 48.\u201d) This Codex formed the basis\nof Matthaei\u2019s ed. of Victor, [See the _Not. Codd. MSS._ at the end of vol.\nii. p. 123. Also _N. T._ ix. 202.] The Commentary on S. Mark is anonymous.\n\n(xlii.) EVAN. 253 (Matthaei\u2019s 10 [described in his _N. T._ ix. 234.] It\nwas lent him by Archbishop Nicephorus.) Matthaei says (p. 236) that it\ncorresponds with a (_our_ Evan. 259). No Author\u2019s name is prefixed to the\nCommentary on S. Mark.\n\n(xliii.) EVAN. 255 (Matthaei\u2019s 12 [described in his _N. T._ ix. 222. Also\n_Vict. Ant._ ii. 133.]) \u201cSS. Synod. 139.\u201d The Scholia on S. Mark are here\nentitled \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b1\u03af, and (as in 14) are few in number. For some\nunexplained reason, in his edition of Victor of Antioch, Matthaei saw fit\nto designate this MS. as \u201cB.\u201d [N.T. ix. 224 _note_.] ... See by all means,\n_infr\u00e0_, the \u201cPostscript.\u201d\n\n(xliv.) EVAN. 256 (Matthaei\u2019s 14 [described in his _N. T._ ix. 220.]\n\u201cBibl. Typ. Synod. 3.\u201d) The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned to\nVICTOR, presbyter of Antioch; but the Scholia are said to be (as in \u201c12\u201d\n[No. xxxix]) few in number.\n\n(xlv.) EVAN. 259 (Matthaei\u2019s a or A [described in his _N. T._ ix. 237.\nAlso _Vict. Ant._ ii. 128.] \u201cSS. Synod. 45.\u201d) This is one of the MSS.\nemployed by Matthaei in his ed. of Victor. No Author\u2019s name is prefixed to\nthe Commentary.\n\n(xlvi.) EVAN. 332 (Taurin. xx _b_ iv. 20.) Victor\u2019s Commentary is here\ngiven anonymously. (See the Catalogue of Pasinus, P. i. p. 91.)\n\n(xlvii.) EVAN. 353 (Ambros. M. 93): with the same Commentary as Evan. 181,\n(i.e. No. xxx.)\n\n(xlviii.) EVAN. 374 (Vat. 1445.) Written continuously in a very minute\ncharacter. The Commentary is headed (in a later Greek hand) + \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\n\u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fbd \u03b1\u03b3 [\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2] \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 +. This is simply a\nmistake. No such work exists: and the Commentary on the second Evangelist\nis that of Victor. (See No. xxviii.)\n\n(xlix.) EVAN. 428 (Monacensis 381. Augsburg 11): said to be duplicate of\nEvan. 300 (i.e. of No. xiv.)\n\n(1.) EVAN. 432 (Monacensis 99.) The Commentary contained in this Codex is\nevidently assigned to VICTOR.\n\n(li.) EVAN. 7pe (ix. 3. 471.) A valuable copy of the Four Gospels, dated\n1062; which Edw. de Muralto (in his Catalogue of the Greek MSS. in the\nImperial Library at S. Petersburg) says contains the Commentary of VICTOR\nANT. (See Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 178.).\n\n(lii.) At Toledo, in the \u201cBiblioteca de la Iglesia Mayor,\u201d Haenel [p. 885]\nmentions:\u2014\u201cVICTOR ANTIOCHENUS Comm. Graec. in iv. [?] Evangelia saec. xiv.\nmembr. fol.\u201d\n\nTo this enumeration, (which could certainly be very extensively\nincreased,) will probably have to be added the following:\u2014\n\nEVAN. 146 (Palatino Vat. 5.)\nEVAN. 233 (Escurial [Upsilon]. ii. 8.)\nEVAN. 373 (Vat. 1423.)\nEVAN. 379 (Vat. 1769.)\nEVAN. 427 (Monacensis 465, Augsburg 10.)\n\nMiddle Hill, No. 13,975,\u2014a MS. in the collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps.\n\nIn conclusion, it can scarcely require to be pointed out that VICTOR\u2019S\nCommentary,\u2014of which the Church in her palmiest days shewed herself so\ncareful to multiply copies, and of which there survive to this hour such a\nvast number of specimens,\u2014must needs anciently have enjoyed very peculiar\nfavour. It is evident, in fact, that an Epitome of Chrysostom\u2019s Homilies\non S. Matthew, together with VICTOR\u2019S_ compilation on S. Mark_,\u2014Titus of\nBostra on S. Luke,\u2014and a work in the main derived from Chrysostom\u2019s\nHomilies on S. John;\u2014that these four constituted the established\nCommentary of ancient Christendom on the fourfold Gospel. Individual\ncopyists, no doubt, will have been found occasionally to abridge certain\nof the Annotations, and to omit others: or else, out of the multitude of\nScholia by various ancient Fathers which were evidently once in\ncirculation, and must have been held in very high esteem,\u2014(Iren\u00e6us,\nOrigen, Ammonius, Eusebius, Apolinarius, Cyril, Chrysostom, the Gregorys,\nBasil, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodore of Heraclea,) they will have\nintroduced extracts according to their individual caprice. In this way,\nthe general sameness of the several copies is probably to be accounted\nfor, while their endless discrepancy in matters of detail is perhaps\nsatisfactorily explained.\n\nThese last remarks are offered in the way of partial elucidation of the\ndifficulty pointed out above, at pp. 272-4.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX (E).\n\n\n Text of the concluding Scholion of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH\u2019S Commentary\n on S. Mark\u2019s Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic testimony to\n the genuineness of \u201cthe last Twelve Verses.\u201d\n\n\n(Referred to at p. 65.)\n\nI have thought this very remarkable specimen of the method of an ancient\nand (as I think) unjustly neglected Commentator, deserving of\nextraordinary attention. Besides presenting the reader, therefore, with\nwhat seems to be a fair approximation to the original text of the passage,\nI have subjoined as many various readings as have come to my knowledge. It\nis hoped that they are given with tolerable exactness; but I have been too\noften obliged to depend on printed books and the testimony of others. I\ncan at least rely on the readings furnished me from the Vatican.\n\nThe text chiefly followed is that of Coisl. 20, (in the Paris Library,\u2014our\nEVAN. 36;) supplemented by several other MSS., which, for convenience, I\nhave arbitrarily designated by the letters of the alphabet.(532)\n\n\u0395\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u201c\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2(533) \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7,\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70(534)\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,(535) (\u1f61\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9(536)) \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70,(537) \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1,\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd(538) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u201c\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1\u201d(539) \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u201c\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5,\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f11\u03be\u1fc7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u201c\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\u0391\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd.\u201d(540)\n\nMore pains than enough (it will perhaps be thought) have been taken to\nexhibit accurately this short Scholion. And yet, it has not been without\ndesign (the reader may be sure) that so many various readings have been\nlaboriously accumulated. The result, it is thought, is eminently\ninstructive, and (to the student of Ecclesiastical Antiquity) important\nalso.\n\nFor it will be perceived by the attentive reader that not more than two or\nthree of the multitude of various readings afforded by this short Scholion\ncan have possibly resulted from careless transcription.(541) The rest have\nbeen unmistakably occasioned by the merest licentiousness: every fresh\nCopyist evidently considering himself at liberty to take just whatever\nliberties he pleased with the words before him. To amputate, or otherwise\nto mutilated; to abridge; to amplify; to transpose; to remodel;\u2014this has\nbeen the rule with all. The _types_ (so to speak) are reducible to two, or\nat most to three; but the varieties are almost as numerous as the MSS. of\nVictor\u2019s work.\n\nAnd yet it is impossible to doubt that this Scholion was originally one,\nand one only. Irrecoverable perhaps, in some of its minuter details, as\nthe actual text of Victor may be, it is nevertheless self-evident that _in\nthe main_ we are in possession of what he actually wrote on this occasion.\nIn spite of all the needless variations observable in the manner of\nstating a certain fact, it is still unmistakably one and the same fact\nwhich is every time stated. It is invariably declared,\u2014\n\n(1.) That from certain copies of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel the last Twelve Verses\nhad been LEFT OUT; and (2) That this had been done because their\ngenuineness had been by certain persons suspected: but, (3) That the\nWriter, convinced of their genuineness, had restored them to their\nrightful place; (4) Because he had found them in accurate copies, and in\nthe authentic Palestinian copy, which had supplied him with his exemplar.\n\nIt is obvious to suggest that after familiarizing ourselves with this\nspecimen of what proves to have been the licentious method of the ancient\ncopyists in respect of the text of an early Father, we are in a position\nto approach more intelligently the Commentary of Victor itself; and, to\nsome extent, to understand how it comes to pass that so many liberties\nhave been taken with it throughout. The Reader is reminded of what has\nbeen already offered on this subject at pp. 272-3.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX (F).\n\n\n On the Relative antiquity of the CODEX VATICANUS (B), and the\n CODEX SINAITICUS (\u05d0).\n\n\n(Referred to at p. 70.)\n\nI. \u201cVix differt aetate a Codice Sinaitico,\u201d says Tischendorf, (_ed. 8va_,\n1869, p. ix,) speaking of the Codex Vaticanus (B). Yet does he perpetually\ndesignate his own Sinaitic Codex (\u05d0) as \u201comnium antiquissimus.\u201d Now,\n\n(1) The (all but unique) sectional division of the Text of Codex\nB,\u2014confessedly the oldest scheme of chapters extant, is in itself a\nstriking note of primitiveness. The author of the Codex knew nothing,\napparently, of the Eusebian method. But I venture further to suggest that\nthe following peculiarities in Codex \u05d0 unmistakably indicate for it a\nlater date than Codex B.\n\n(2) Cod. \u05d0, (like C, and other later MSS.,) is broken up into short\nparagraphs throughout. The Vatican Codex, on the contrary, has very few\nbreaks indeed: e.g. it is without break of any sort from S. Matth. xvii.\n24 to xx. 17: whereas, within the same limits, there are in Cod. \u05d0 as many\nas _thirty_ interruptions of the context. From S. Mark xiii. 1 to the end\nof the Gospel the text is absolutely continuous in Cod. B, except in _one_\nplace: but in Cod. \u05d0 it is interrupted upwards of _fifty_ times. Again:\nfrom S. Luke xvii. 11, to the end of the Gospel there is but _one_ break\nin Cod. B. But it is broken into well nigh _an hundred and fifty_ short\nparagraphs in Cod. \u05d0.\n\nThere can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex B, (resembling the\nstyle of the papyrus of _Hyperides_ published by Mr. Babington,) is the\nmore ancient. The only places where it approximates to the method of Cod.\n\u05d0, is where the Commandments are briefly recited (S. Matth. xix. 18, &c.),\nand where our LORD proclaims the eight Beatitudes (S. Matth. v.)\n\n(3) Again; Cod. \u05d0 is prone to exhibit, on extraordinary occasions, _a\nsingle word_ in a line, as at\u2014\n\nS. MATTH. XV. 30.\n\u03a7\u03a9\u039b\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\n\u03a4\u03a5\u03a6\u039b\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\n\u039a\u03a5\u039b\u039b\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\n\u039a\u03a9\u03a6\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\n\nS. MARK X. 29.\n\u0397 \u0391\u0394\u0395\u039b\u03a6\u0391\u03a3\n\u0397 \u03a0\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0391\n\u0397 \u039c\u0397\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0391\n\u0397 \u03a4\u0395\u039a\u039d\u0391\n\u0397 \u0391\u0393\u03a1\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\n\nS. LUKE XIV. 13\n\u03a0\u03a4\u03a9\u03a7\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\n\u0391\u039d\u0391\u03a0\u0397\u03a1\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\n\u03a7\u03a9\u039b\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\n\u03a4\u03a5\u03a6\u039b\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\n\nThis became a prevailing fashion in the vith century; e.g. when the Cod.\nLaudianus of the Acts (E) was written. The only trace of anything of the\nkind in Cod. B is at the Genealogy of our LORD.\n\n(4) At the commencement of every fresh paragraph, the initial letter in\nCod. \u05d0 _slightly projects into the margin_,\u2014beyond the left hand edge of\nthe column; as usual in all later MSS. This characteristic is only not\nundiscoverable in Cod. B. Instances of it there are in the earlier Codex;\nbut they are of exceedingly rare occurrence.\n\n(5) Further; Cod. \u05d0 abounds in such contractions as \u0391\u039d\u039f\u03a3, \u039f\u03a5\u039d\u039f\u03a3 (with all\ntheir cases), for \u0391\u039d\u0398\u03a1\u03a9\u03a0\u039f\u03a3, \u039f\u03a5\u03a1\u0391\u039d\u039f\u03a3, &c. Not only \u03a0\u039d\u0391, \u03a0\u0397\u03a1, \u03a0\u0395\u03a1, \u03a0\u03a1\u0391, \u039c\u03a1\u0391\n(for \u03a0\u039d\u0395\u03a5\u039c\u0391, \u03a0\u0391\u03a4\u0397\u03a1-\u03a4\u0395\u03a1-\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0391, \u039c\u0397\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0391), but also \u03a3\u03a4\u03a1\u0398\u0397, \u0399\u0397\u039b, \u0399\u0397\u039b\u0397\u039c, for\n\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u03a5\u03a1\u03a9\u0398\u0397, \u0399\u03a3\u03a1\u0391\u0397\u039b, \u0399\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\u0391\u039b\u0397\u039c.\n\nBut Cod. B, though familiar with \u0399\u03a3, and a few other of the most ordinary\nabbreviations, knows nothing of these compendia: which certainly _cannot_\nhave existed in the earliest copies of all. Once more, it seems reasonable\nto suppose that their constant occurrence in Cod \u05d0 indicates for that\nCodex a date subsequent to Cod. B.\n\n(6) The very discrepancy observable between these two Codices in their\nmethod of dealing with \u201cthe last twelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel,\u201d\n(already adverted to at p. 88,) is a further indication, and as it seems\nto the present writer a very striking one, that Cod. B is the older of the\ntwo. Cod. \u05d0 is evidently _familiar_ with the phenomenon which _astonishes_\nCod. B by its novelty and strangeness.\n\n(7) But the most striking feature of difference, after all, is only to be\nrecognised by one who surveys the Codices themselves with attention. It is\n_that_ general air of primitiveness in Cod. B which makes itself at once\n_felt_. The even symmetry of the unbroken columns;\u2014the work of the _prima\nmanus_ everywhere vanishing through sheer antiquity;\u2014the small, even,\n_square_ writing, which partly recalls the style of the Herculanean rolls;\npartly, the papyrus fragments of the _Oration against Demosthenes_\n(published by Harris in 1848):\u2014all these notes of superior antiquity\ninfallibly set Cod. B before Cod. \u05d0; though it may be impossible to\ndetermine whether by 50, by 75, or by 100 years.\n\nII. It has been conjectured by one whose words are always entitled to most\nrespectful attention, that Codex Sinaiticus may have been \u201cone of the\nfifty Codices of Holy Scripture which Eusebius prepared A.D. 331, by\nConstantine\u2019s direction, for the use of the new Capital.\u201d (Scrivener\u2019s\n_Collation of the Cod. Sin._, Introd. p. xxxvii-viii.)\n\n1. But this, which is rendered improbable by the many instances of grave\ndiscrepancy between its readings and those with which Eusebius proves to\nhave been most familiar, is made impossible by the discovery that it is\nwithout S. Mark xv. 28, which constitutes the Eusebian Section numbered\n\u201c216\u201d in S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. [Quite in vain has Tischendorf perversely\nlaboured to throw doubt on this circumstance. It remains altogether\nundeniable,\u2014as a far less accomplished critic than Tischendorf may see at\na glance. Tischendorf\u2019s only plea is the fact that in Cod. M, (he might\nhave added and in the Codex Sinaiticus, _which explains the phenomenon_ in\nCod. M), _against ver._ 29 is set the number, \u201c216,\u201d instead of against\nver. 28. But what then? Has not the number _demonstrably_ lost its place?\nAnd is there not _still_ one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And _which_\ncan it _possibly_ have been, if it was not S. Mark xv. 28?] Again. Cod. \u05d0,\n(like B, C, L, U, \u0393, and some others), gives the piercing of the SAVIOUR\u2019S\nside at S. Matth. xxvii. 49: but if Eusebius had read that incident in the\nsame place, he would have infallibly included S. John xix. 34, 35, with S.\nMatth. xxvii. 49, in his viith Canon, where matters are contained which\nare common to S. Matthew and S. John,\u2014instead of referring S. John xix.\n31-37 to his xth Canon, which specifies things peculiar to each of the\nfour Evangelists. Eusebius, moreover, in a certain place (_Dem. Evan._ x.\n8 [quoted by Tisch.]) has an allusion to the same transaction, and\nexpressly says that it is recorded _by S. John_.\n\n2. No inference as to the antiquity of this Codex can be drawn from the\nEusebian notation of Sections in the margin: _that_ notation having been\nconfessedly added at a subsequent date.\n\n3. On the other hand, the subdivision of Cod. \u05d0 into paragraphs, proves to\nhave been made without any reference to the sectional distribution of\nEusebius. Thus, there are in the Codex thirty distinct paragraphs from S.\nMatthew xi. 20 to xii. 34, inclusive; but there are comprised within the\nsame limits only seventeen Eusebian sections. And yet, of those seventeen\nsections only nine correspond with as many paragraphs of the Codex\nSinaiticus. This, in itself, is enough to prove that Eusebius knew nothing\nof the present Codex. His record is express:\u2014\u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nIII. The supposed resemblance of the opened volume to an Egyptian\npapyrus,\u2014when eight columns (\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2) are exhibited to the eye at once,\nside by side,\u2014seems to be a fallacious note of high antiquity. If Cod. \u05d0\nhas four columns in a page,\u2014Cod. B three,\u2014Cod. A two,\u2014Cod. C has only one.\nBut Cod. C is certainly as old as Cod. A. Again, Cod. D, which is of the\nvith century, is written (like Cod. C) across the page: yet was it \u201ccopied\nfrom an older model similarly divided in respect to the lines or\nverses,\u201d\u2014and therefore similarly written across the page. It is almost\nobvious that the size of the skins on which a Codex was written will have\ndecided whether the columns should be four or only three in a page.\n\nIV. In fine, nothing doubting the high antiquity of both Codices, (B and\n\u05d0,) I am nevertheless fully persuaded that an interval of at least half a\ncentury,\u2014if not of a far greater span of years,\u2014is absolutely required to\naccount for the marked dissimilarity between them.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX (G).\n\n\n On the so-called \u201cAMMONIAN SECTIONS\u201d and \u201cEUSEBIAN CANONS.\u201d\n\n\n(Referred to at p. 130.)\n\nI. That the Sections (popularly miscalled \u201c_Ammonian_\u201d) with which\nEUSEBIUS [A.D. 320] has made the world thoroughly familiar, and of which\nsome account was given above (pp. 127-8), cannot be the same which\nAMMONIUS of Alexandria [A.D. 220] employed,\u2014but must needs be the\ninvention of EUSEBIUS himself,\u2014admits of demonstration. On this subject,\nexternal testimony is altogether insecure.(542) The only safe appeal is to\nthe Sections themselves.\n\n1. The Call of the Four Apostles is described by the first three\nEvangelists, within the following limits of their respective Gospels:\u2014S.\nMatthew iv. 18-22: S. Mark i. 16-20: S. Luke (with the attendant\nmiraculous draught of fishes,) v. 1-11. Now, these three portions of\nnarrative are observed to be dealt with in the sectional system of\nEUSEBIUS after the following extraordinary fashion: (the fourth column\nrepresents the Gospel according to S. John):\u2014\n\n(1.) \u00a7 29, (v. 1-3)\n(2.) \u00a7 20, (iv. \u00a7 9, (i.\n17, 18) 14-1/2-16)\n(3.) \u00a7 30, (v. 4-7) \u00a7 219, (xxi.\n 1-6)\n(4.) \u00a7 30 (v. 4-7) \u00a7 222, (xxi.\n 11)\n(5.) \u00a7 31, (v.\n 8-10-1/2)\n(6.) \u00a7 21, (iv. \u00a7 10, (i. 17, \u00a7 32, (v.\n19, 20) 18) 10-1/2, 11)\n(7.) \u00a7 22, (iv. \u00a7 11, (i. 19,\n21, 22) 20)\n\nIt will be perceived from this, that EUSEBIUS subdivides these three\nportions of the sacred Narrative into ten Sections (\u201c\u00a7\u00a7;\u201d)\u2014of which three\nbelong to S. Matthew, viz. \u00a7\u00a7 20, 21, 22:\u2014three to S. Mark, viz. \u00a7\u00a7 9, 10,\n11:\u2014four to S. Luke, viz. \u00a7\u00a7 29, 30, 31, 32: which ten Sections, EUSEBIUS\ndistributed over four of his Canons: referring three of there to his IInd\nCanon, (which exhibits what S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke have in\ncommon); four of them to his VIth Canon, (which shews what S. Matthew and\nS. Mark have in common); one, to his IXth, (which contains what is common\nto S. Luke and S. John); two, to his Xth, (in which is found what is\npeculiar to each Evangelist.)\n\nNow, the design which EUSEBIUS had in breaking up this portion of the\nsacred Text, (S. Matth. iv. 18-22, S. Mark i. 16-20, S. Luke v. 1-11,)\nafter so arbitrary a fashion, into ten portions; divorcing three of those\nSections from S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, (viz. S. Luke\u2019s \u00a7\u00a7 29, 30, 31); and\nconnecting one of these last three (\u00a7 30) _with two Sections_ (\u00a7\u00a7 219,\n222) _of S. John;_\u2014is perfectly plain. His object was, (as he himself\nexplains,) to shew\u2014not only (_a_) what S. Matthew has in common with S.\nMark and S. Luke; but also (_b_) _what S. Luke has in common with S.\nJohn_;\u2014as well as (_c_) what S. Luke has _peculiar to himself_. But, in\nthe work of AMMONIUS, _as far as we know anything about that work_, all\nthis would have been simply impossible. (I have already described his\n\u201cDiatessaron,\u201d at pp. 126-7.) Intent on exhibiting the Sections of the\nother Gospels which correspond with the Sections of _S. Matthew_, AMMONIUS\nwould not if he could,\u2014(and he could not if he would,)\u2014have dissociated\nfrom its context S. Luke\u2019s account of the first miraculous draught of\nfishes in the beginning of our LORD\u2019S Ministry, for the purpose of\nestablishing its resemblance to S. John\u2019s account of the _second_\nmiraculous draught of fishes which took place after the Resurrection, and\nis only found in S. John\u2019s Gospel. These Sections therefore are\n\u201cEUSEBIAN,\u201d not _Ammonian_. They are _necessary_, according to the scheme\nof EUSEBIUS. They are not only unnecessary and even meaningless, but\nactually impossible, in the AMMONIAN scheme.\n\n2. Let me call attention to another, and, as I think, a more convincing\ninstance. I am content in fact to narrow the whole question to the\nfollowing single issue:\u2014Let me be shewn how it is rationally conceivable\nthat AMMONIUS can have split up S. John xxi. 12, 13, into _three distinct\nSections_; and S. John xxi. 15, 16, 17, into _six?_ and yet, after so many\ninjudicious disintegrations of the sacred Text, how it is credible that he\ncan have made but _one_ Section of S. John xxi. 18 to 25,\u2014which\nnevertheless, from its very varied contents, confessedly requires even\n_repeated_ subdivision?... Why EUSEBIUS did all this, is abundantly plain.\nHis peculiar plan constrained him to refer the _former_ half of ver.\n12,\u2014the _latter_ half of verses 15, 16, 17\u2014to his IXth Canon, where S.\nLuke and S. John are brought together; (\u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9):\u2014and to consign the _latter_ half of ver. 12,\u2014the _former_ half\nof verses 15, 16, 17,\u2014together with the whole of the _last eight verses_\nof S. John\u2019s Gospel, to his Xth (or last) Canon, where what is peculiar to\neach of the four Evangelists is set down, (\u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd.) But AMMONIUS, because he confessedly _recognised no such\nCanons_, was under no such constraint. He had in fact _no such\nopportunity_. He therefore simply _cannot_ have adopted the same\nextraordinary sectional subdivision.\n\n3. To state the matter somewhat differently, and perhaps to exhibit the\nargument in a more convincing form:\u2014The Canons of EUSEBIUS, and the\nso-called \u201cAMMONIAN _SECTIONS_,\u201d\u2014(by which, confessedly, nothing else\nwhatever is _meant_ but the Sections of EUSEBIUS,)\u2014are discovered mutually\nto imply one another. Those Canons are without meaning or use apart from\nthe Sections,\u2014for the sake of which they were clearly invented. Those\nSections, whatever convenience they may possess apart from the Canons,\nnevertheless are discovered to presuppose the Canons throughout: to be\nmanifestly subsequent to them in order of time: to depend upon them for\ntheir very existence: in some places to be even unaccountable in the\neccentricity of their arrangement, except when explained by the\nrequirements of the EUSEBIAN Canons. I say\u2014_That_ particular sectional\nsubdivision, in other words, to which the epithet \u201cAMMONIAN\u201d is popularly\napplied,\u2014(applied however without authority, and in fact by the merest\nlicense,)\u2014proves on careful inspection to have been only capable of being\ndevised by one _who was already in possession of the Canons of _EUSEBIUS.\nIn plain terms, they are demonstrably _the work of _EUSEBIUS_\nhimself_,\u2014who expressly claims _The Canons_ for his own (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9), and leaves it to be inferred that he is the Author\nof the Sections also. Wetstein (_Proleg._ p. 70,) and Bishop Lloyd (in the\n\u201cMonitum\u201d prefixed to his ed. of the Greek Test. p. x,) so understand the\nmatter; and Mr. Scrivener (_Introduction_, p. 51) evidently inclines to\nthe same opinion.\n\nII. I desire, in the next place, to point out that a careful inspection of\nthe Eusebian \u201cSections,\u201d (for Eusebius himself calls them \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03af, not\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1,) leads inevitably to the inference that they are only rightly\nunderstood when regarded in the light of \u201cMARGINAL REFERENCES.\u201d This has\nbeen hitherto overlooked. Bp. Lloyd, in the interesting \u201cMonitum\u201d already\nquoted, remarks of the Eusebian Canons,\u2014\u201cquorum haec est utilitas, ut\neorum scilicet ope quivis, nullo labore, Harmoniam sibi quatuor\nEvangeliorum possit conficere.\u201d The learned Prelate can never have made\nthe attempt in this way \u201cHarmoniam sibi conficere,\u201d or he would not have\nso written. He evidently did not advert to the fact that Eusebius refers\nhis readers (in his IIIrd Canon) from S. John\u2019s account of the _Healing of\nthe Nobleman\u2019s son_ to the account given by S. Matthew and S. Luke of the\n_Healing of the Centurion\u2019s servant_. It is perfectly plain in fact that\nto enable a reader \u201cto construct for himself _a Harmony of the Gospels_,\u201d\nwas no part of Eusebius\u2019 intention; and quite certain that any one who\nshall ever attempt to avail himself of the system of Sections and Canons\nbefore us with that object, will speedily find himself landed in hopeless\nconfusion.(543)\n\nBut in fact there is no danger of his making much progress in his task.\nHis first discovery would probably be that S. John\u2019s weighty doctrinal\nstatements concerning our LORD\u2019S _Eternal _GOD_head_ in chap. i. 1-5: 9,\n10: 14, are represented as parallel with the _Human Genealogy_ of our\nSAVIOUR as recorded by S. Matthew i. 1-16, and by S. Luke iii. 23-38:\u2014the\nnext, that the first half of the Visit of the Magi (S. Matthew ii. 1-6) is\nexhibited as corresponding with S. John vii. 41, 42.\u2014Two such facts ought\nto open the eyes of a reader of ordinary acuteness quite wide to the true\nnature of the Canons of Eusebius. They are _Tables of Reference only_.\n\nEusebius has in fact himself explained his object in constructing them;\nwhich (he says) was twofold: (1st) To enable a reader to see at a glance,\n\u201c_which_ of the Evangelists have said _things of the same kind_,\u201d (\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2\u03b9: the phrase occurs _four times_ in the course of\nhis short Epistle): and (2ndly), To enable him to find out _where_ they\nhave severally done so: (\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f20\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd; Eusebius uses the phrase _twice_.) But\nthis, (as all are aware) is precisely the office of (what are called)\n\u201cMarginal References.\u201d Accordingly,\n\n(_a._) Whether referring _from_ S. Matth. x. 40 (\u00a7 98); S. Mark ix. 37 (\u00a7\n96); or S. Luke x. 16 (\u00a7 116);\u2014we find ourselves referred _to_ the\nfollowing _six_ places of S. John,\u2014v. 23: xii. 44, 45: xiii. 20: xiv. 21:\nxiv. 24, 25: xv. 23(544) (= \u00a7\u00a7 40, 111, 120, 129, 131, 144.) Again,\n\n(_b._) Whether we refer _from_ S. Matth. xi. 27 (\u00a7\u00a7 111, 112,) or S. Luke\nx. 22 (\u00a7 119),\u2014we find ourselves referred _to_ the following _eleven_\nplaces of S. John,\u2014i. 18: iii. 35: v. 37: vi. 46: vii. 28, 29: viii. 19:\nx. 15: xiii. 3: xv. 21: xvi. 15: xvii. 25 (\u00a7\u00a7 8, 30, 44, 61, 76, 87, 90,\n114, 142, 148, 154.)\n\n(_c._) So also, from S. Matthew\u2019s (xvi. 13-16), S. Mark\u2019s (viii. 27-29),\nand S. Luke\u2019s (ix. 18-20) account of S. Peters Confession at C\u00e6sarea\nPhilippi,\u2014we are referred to S. John i. 42, 43,\u2014a singular reference; and\nto S. John vi. 68, 69.\n\n(_d._) From the mention of the last Passover by the three earlier\nEvangelists, (S. Matth. xxvi. 1, 2: S. Mark xiv. 1: S. Luke xxii. 1,) we\nare referred to S. John\u2019s mention of the _first_ Passover (ii. 13 = \u00a7 20);\nand of the _second_ (vi. 4 = \u00a7 48); as well as of the fourth (xi. 55 = \u00a7\n96.)\n\n(_e._) From the words of Consecration at the Last Supper, as recorded by\nS. Matth. (xxvi. 16), S. Mark (xiv. 22), and S. Luke (xxii. 19),\u2014we are\nreferred to the four following Sections of our LORD\u2019S Discourse in the\nSynagogue at Capernaum recorded by S. John, which took place a year\nbefore,\u2014S. John vi. 35, 36: 48: 51: 55: (\u00a7\u00a7 55, 63, 65, 67).\n\n(_f._) Nothing but the spirit in which \u201cMarginal References\u201d are made\nwould warrant a critic in linking together three incidents like the\nfollowing,\u2014similar, indeed, yet entirely distinct: viz. S. Matth. xxvii.\n34: S. Mark xv. 24: and S. John xix. 28, 29.\n\n(_g._) I was about to say that scarcely could such an excuse be invented\nfor referring a Reader from S. Luke xxii. 32, to S. John xxi. 15, and 16,\nand 17 (= \u00a7\u00a7 227, 228, 229,)\u2014but I perceive that the same three References\nstand in the margin of our own Bibles. Not even the margin of the English\nBible, however, sends a Reader (as the IXth Canon of Eusebius does) from\nour LORD\u2019S eating \u201cbroiled fish and honeycomb,\u201d in the presence of the ten\nApostles at Jerusalem on the evening of the first Easter-Day, (S. Luke\nxxiv. 41-43 (= \u00a7 341,)) to His feeding the seven Apostles with bread and\nfish at the Sea of Galilee many days after. (S. John xxi. 9, 10: 12: 13 =\n\u00a7\u00a7 221, 223, 224.)\u2014And this may suffice.\n\nIt is at all events certain that the correctest notion of the use and the\nvalue of the Eusebian Sections will be obtained by one who will be at the\npains to substitute for _the Eusebian Numbers_ in the margin of a copy of\nthe Greek Gospels _the References_ which these numbers severally indicate.\nIt will then become plain that the system of Sections and Canons which\nEusebius invented,\u2014ingenious, interesting, and useful as it certainly is;\nhighly important also, as being the known work of an illustrious Father of\nthe Church, as well as most precious occasionally for critical\npurposes,(545)\u2014is nothing else but a clumsy substitute for what is\nachieved by an ordinary \u201cReference Bible\u201d:\u2014participating in every\ninconvenience incidental to the unskilfully contrived apparatus with which\nEnglish readers are familiar,(546) and yet inferior in the following four\nrespects:\u2014\n\n(1st.) The references of Eusebius, (except those found in Canon X.),\nrequire in every instance to be _deciphered_, before they can be verified;\nand they can only be deciphered by making search, (and sometimes laborious\nsearch,) in another part of the volume. They are not, in fact, (nor do\nthey pretend to be,) references to the inspired Text at all; but only\n_references to the Eusebian Canons_.\n\n(2ndly.) In their scope, they are of course strictly _confined to the\nGospels_,\u2014which most inconveniently limits their use, as well as\ndiminishes their value. (Thus, by no possibility is Eusebius able to refer\na reader from S. Luke xxii. 19, 20 to 1 Cor. xi. 23-25.)\n\n(3rdly.) By the very nature of their constitution, reference even to\n_another part of the same Gospel_ is impossible. (Eusebius is unable, for\nexample, to refer a reader from S. John xix. 39, to iii. 1 and vii. 50.)\n\nBut besides the preceding, which are disadvantages inherent in the scheme\nand inseparable from it, it will be found (4thly), That Eusebius, while he\nintroduces not a few wholly undesirable references, (of which some\nspecimens are supplied above), is observed occasionally to withhold\nreferences which cannot by any means be dispensed with. Thus, he omits to\nrefer his reader from S. Luke\u2019s account of the visit to the Sepulchre\n(chap. xxiv. 12) to S. John\u2019s memorable account of the same transaction\n(chap. xx. 3-10): _not_ because he disallowed the verse in S. Luke\u2019s\nGospel,\u2014for in a certain place _he discusses its statements_.(547)\n\nIII. It is abundantly plain from all that has gone before that the work of\nEUSEBIUS was entirely different in its structure and intention from the\nwork of AMMONIUS. Enough, in fact, has been said to make it fully apparent\nthat it is nothing short of impossible that there can have been any\nextensive correspondence between the two. According to EUSEBIUS, S. Mark\nhas 21 Sections(548) _peculiar to his Gospel_: S. Luke, 72: S. John,\n97.(549) According to the same EUSEBIUS, 14 Sections(550) are common to S.\nLuke and S. Mark _only_: 21, to S. Luke and S. John _only_. But those 225\nSections can have found _no place_ in the work of AMMONIUS. And if, (in\nsome unexplained way,) room _was_ found for those parts of the Gospels,\n_with what possible motive can _AMMONIUS_ have subdivided them into\nexactly 225 portions_? It is nothing else but irrational to assume that he\ndid so.\n\nNot unaware am I that it has been pointed out by a most judicious living\nCritic as a \u201cground for hesitation before we ascribe the Sections as well\nas the Canons to Eusebius, that not a few ancient MSS. contain the former\nwhile they omit the latter.\u201d(551) He considers it to be certainly\nindicated thereby \u201cthat in the judgment of critics and transcribers,\n(whatever that judgment may be deemed worth,) the Ammonian Sections had a\nprevious existence to the Eusebian Canons, as well as served for an\nindependent purpose.\u201d But I respectfully demur to the former of the two\nproposed inferences. I also learn with surprise that \u201cthose who have\nstudied them most, can the least tell what use the Ammonian Sections can\nserve, unless in connection with Canons of Harmony.\u201d(552)\n\nHowever irregular and arbitrary these subdivisions of the Evangelical text\nare observed to be in their construction, their usefulness is paramount.\nThey are observed to fulfil _exactly the same office_ as our own actual\ndivision of the Text into 89 Chapters and 3780 Verses. Of course, 1165\nsubdivisions are (for certain purposes) somewhat less convenient than\n3780;\u2014but on the other hand, a place in the Gospels would be more easily\ndiscovered, I suspect, for the most part, by the employment of such a\nsingle set of consecutive numbers, than by requiring a Reader first to\nfind the Chapter by its Roman numeral, and then the Verse by its Arabic\nfigure. Be this as it may, there can be at least only one opinion as to\nthe _supreme convenience to a Reader_, whether ancient or modern, of\nknowing that the copy of the Gospels which he holds in his hands is\nsubdivided into exactly the same 1165 Sections as every other Greek copy\nwhich is likely to come in his way; and that, in every such copy, he may\ndepend on finding every one of those sections invariably distinguished by\nthe self-same number.\n\nA Greek copy of the Gospels, therefore, having its margin furnished with\nthe Eusebian _Sectional_ notation, may be considered to correspond\ngenerally with an English copy merely divided into Chapters and Verses.\nThe addition of the Eusebian _Canons_ at the beginning, with numerical\nreferences thereto inserted in the margin throughout, does but superadd\nsomething analogous to the convenience of our _Marginal References_,\u2014and\nmay just as reasonably (or just as unreasonably) be dispensed with.\n\nI think it not improbable, in fact, that in the preparation of a Codex, it\nwill have been sometimes judged commercially expedient to leave its\npurchaser to decide whether he would or would not submit to the additional\nexpense (which in the case of illuminated MSS. must have been very\nconsiderable) of having the Eusebian Tables inserted at the commencement\nof his Book,(553)\u2014without which _the References_ thereto would confessedly\nhave been of no manner of avail. In this way it will have come to pass,\n(as Mr. Scrivener points out,) that \u201cnot a few ancient MSS. contain the\n_Sections_ but omit the _Canons_.\u201d Whether, however, the omission of\nReferences to the Canons in Copies which retain in the margin the\nsectional numbers, is to be explained in this way, or not,\u2014AMMONIUS, at\nall events, will have had no more to do with either the one or the other,\nthan with our modern division into Chapters and Verses. It is, in short,\nnothing else but a \u201cvulgar error\u201d to designate the Eusebian Sections as\nthe \u201cSections of AMMONIUS.\u201d The expression cannot be too soon banished\nfrom our critical terminology. Whether banished or retained, to _reason\nabout_ the lost work of AMMONIUS from the Sections of EUSEBIUS (as\nTischendorf and the rest habitually do) is an offence against historical\nTruth which no one who values his critical reputation will probably\nhereafter venture to commit.\n\nIV. This subject may not be dismissed until a circumstance of considerable\ninterest has been explained which has already attracted some notice, but\nwhich evidently is not yet understood by Biblical Critics.(554)\n\nAs already remarked, the necessity of resorting to the Eusebian Tables of\nCanons in order to make any use of a marginal reference, is a tedious and\na cumbersome process; for which, men must have early sought to devise a\nremedy. They were not slow in perceiving that a far simpler expedient\nwould be to note at the foot of every page of a Gospel _the numbers_ of\nthe Sections of that Gospel contained _in extenso_ on the same page; and,\nparallel with those numbers, to exhibit the numbers of the corresponding\nSections in the other Gospels. Many Codices, furnished with such an\napparatus at the foot of the page, are known to exist.(555) For instance,\nin Cod. 262 (= Reg. 53, at Paris), which is written in double columns, at\nfoot of the first page (_fol._ 111) of S. Mark, is found as follows:\u2014\n\n [[Illustration: Apparatus Table From Cod. 262.]]\n\nThe meaning of this, every one will see who,\u2014(remembering what is\nsignified by the monograms \u039c\u03a1, \u039b\u039f, \u0399\u03a9, \u039c\u0398,(556))\u2014will turn successively to\nthe IInd, the Ist, the VIth, and the Ist of the Eusebian Canons.\nTranslated into expressions more familiar to English readers, it evidently\namounts to this: that we are referred,\n\n(\u00a7 1) From S. Mark i. 1, 2,\u2014to S. Matth. xi. 10: S. Luke vii. 27.\n(\u00a7 2) From S. Mark i. 3,\u2014to S. Matth. iii. 3: S. Luke iii. 3-6.\n(\u00a7 3) From S. Mark i. 4, 5, 6,\u2014to S. Matth. iii. 4-6.\n(\u00a7 4) From S. Mark i. 7, 8,\u2014to S. Matth. iii. 11: S. Luke iii. 16: S. John\ni. 15, 26-27, 30-1: iii. 28.\n\n(I venture to add that any one who will compare the above with the margin\nof S. Mark\u2019s Gospel in a common English \u201creference Bible,\u201d will obtain a\nvery fair notion of the convenience, and of the inconveniences of the\nEusebian system. But to proceed with our remarks on the apparatus at the\nfoot of Cod. 262.)\n\nThe owner of such a MS. was able to refer to parallel passages, (as\nabove,) _by merely turning over the pages of his book_. E.g. The parallel\nplaces to S. Mark\u2019s \u00a7 1 (\u0391) being \u00a7 70 of S. Luke (\u039f) and \u00a7 103 of S.\nMatthew (\u03a1\u0393),\u2014it was just as easy for him to find those two places as it\nis for us to turn to S. Luke vii. 27 and S. Matth. xi. 10: perhaps easier.\n\nV. I suspect that this peculiar method of exhibiting the Eusebian\nreferences (Canons as well as Sections) at a glance, was derived to the\nGreek Church from the Syrian Christians. What is certain, a precisely\nsimilar expedient for enabling readers to discover _Parallel Passages_\nprevails extensively in the oldest Syriac Evangelia extant. There are in\nthe British Museum about twelve Syriac Evangelia furnished with such an\napparatus of reference;(557) of which a specimen is subjoined,\u2014derived\nhowever (because it was near at hand) from a MS. in the Bodleian,(558) of\nthe viith or viiith century.\n\nFrom this MS., I select for obvious reasons the last page but one (_fol._\n82) of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, which contains ch. xvi. 8-18. The Reader will\nlearn with interest and surprise that in the margin of this page against\nver. 8, is written in vermilion, _by the original scribe_, 281/1: against\nver. 9,\u2014282/10: against ver. 10,\u2014283/1: against ver. 11,\u2014284/8: against\nver. 12:\u2014285/8: against ver. 13,\u2014286/8: against ver. 14,\u2014287/10: against\nver. 15,\u2014288/6: against ver. 16,\u2014289/10: against ver. 19,\u2014290/8. That\nthese sectional numbers,(559) with references to the Eusebian Canons\nsubscribed, are no part of the (so-called) \u201c_Ammonian_\u201d system, will be\nrecognised at a glance. According to _that_ scheme, S. Mark xiv. 8 is\nnumbered 233/2. But to proceed.\n\nAt the foot of the same page, (which is written in two columns), is found\nthe following set of rubricated references to parallel places in the other\nthree Gospels:\u2014\n\n [[Illustration: Syriac Reference Table.]]\n\nThe exact English counterpart of which,\u2014(I owe it to the kind help of M.\nNeubauer, of the Bodleian),\u2014is subjoined. The Reader will scarcely require\nto be reminded that the reason why \u00a7\u00a7 282, 287, 289 do not appear in this\nTable is because those Sections, (belonging to the tenth Canon,) have\nnothing parallel to them in the other Gospels.\n\n_Luke_ _Matthew_ _Mark_ _John_ _Luke_ _Matthew_ _Mark_\n391 ... 286 247 390 421 281\n... 426 288 247 390 421 283\n ... 391 ... 284\n ... 393 ... 285\n\nThe general intention of this is sufficiently obvious: but the Reader must\nbe told that on making reference to S. MATTHEW\u2019S Gospel, in this Syriac\nCodex, it is found that \u00a7 421 = chap, xxviii. 8; and \u00a7 426 = chap. xxviii.\n19, 20:\n\nThat, in S. LUKE\u2019S Gospel,\u2014\u00a7 390 = chap. xxiv. 8-10: \u00a7 391 = chap. xxiv.\n11; and \u00a7 393 = chap. xxiv. 13-17:(560)\n\nThat, in S. JOHN\u2019S Gospel,\u2014\u00a7 247 = chap. xx. 17 (\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5 down to \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.)\n\nSo that, exhibited in familiar language, these Syriac _Marginal\nReferences_ are intended to guide a Reader,\n\n(\u00a7 281) From S. Mark xvi. 8,\u2014to S. Matth. xxviii. 8: S. Luke\nFrom S. Mark xxiv. 8-10: S. John xx. 17 (\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5 _to the end of the\nverse_).\n(\u00a7 283) From S. Mark xvi. 10,\u2014to the same three places.\n(\u00a7 284) From S. Mark xvi. 11,\u2014to S. Luke xxiv. 11.\n(\u00a7 285) From S. Mark xvi. 12,\u2014to S. Luke xxiv. 13-17.\n(\u00a7 286) From S. Mark xvi. 13,\u2014to S. Luke xxiv. 11.\n(\u00a7 288) From S. Mark xvi. 15,\u2014to S. Matth. xxiv. 19, 20.\n\nHere then, although the Ten Eusebian Canons are faithfully retained, it is\nmuch to be noted that we are presented with _a different set of Sectional\nsubdivisions_. This will be best understood by attentively comparing all\nthe details which precede with the Eusebian references in the inner margin\nof a copy of Lloyd\u2019s Greek Testament.\n\nBut the convincing _proof_ that these Syriac Sections are not those with\nwhich we have been hitherto acquainted from Greek MSS., is supplied by the\nfact that they are so many more _in number_. The sum of the Sections in\neach of the Gospels follows; for which, (the Bodleian Codex being\nmutilated,) I am indebted to the learning and obligingness of Dr.\nWright.(561) He quotes from \u201cthe beautiful MS. Addit. 7,157, written A.D.\n768.\u201d(562) From this, it appears that the Sections in the Gospel according\nto,\u2014\n\nS. MATTHEW, (instead of being from 359 to 355,) are 426: (the last\nSection, \u00a7 426/6, consisting of ver. 19, 20.)\n\nS. MARK, (instead of being from 241 to 233,) are 290: (the last Section, \u00a7\n290/8, consisting of ver. 19, 20.)\n\nS. LUKE, (instead of being from 349 to 342,) are 402: (the last Section, \u00a7\n402/10, consisting of ver. 52, 53.)\n\nS. JOHN, (instead of being 232,) is 271: (the last Section, \u00a7 271/10,\nconsisting of ver. 18-25.)\n\nThe sum of the Sections therefore, in _Syriac_ MSS. instead of being\nbetween 1181 and 1162,(563) is found to be invariably 1389.\n\nBut here, the question arises,\u2014Did the Syrian Christians then retain the\nTen Tables, dressing their contents afresh, so as to adapt them to their\nown ampler system of sectional subdivision? or did they merely retain the\nelementary principle of referring each Section to one of Ten Canons, but\nsubstitute for the Eusebian Tables a species of harmony, or apparatus of\nreference, at the foot of every page?\n\nThe foregoing doubt is triumphantly resolved by a reference to Assemani\u2019s\nengraved representation, on xxii Copper Plates, of the X Eusebian Tables\nfrom a superb Syriac Codex (A.D. 586) in the Medicean Library.(564) The\nstudent who inquires for Assemani\u2019s work will find that the numbers in the\nlast line of each of the X Tables is as follows:\u2014\n\n _Matthew_ _Mark_ _Luke_ _John_\nCanon i 421 283 390 247\nCanon ii 416 276 383 ...\nCanon iii 134 ... 145 178\nCanon iv 394 212 ... 223\nCanon v 319 ... 262 ...\nCanon vi 426 288 ... ...\nCanon vii 425 ... ... 249\nCanon vii ... 290 401 ...\nCanon ix ... ... 399 262\nCanon x 424 289 402 271\n\nThe Syrian Church, therefore, from a period of the remotest antiquity, not\nonly subdivided the Gospels into a far greater number of Sections than\nwere in use among the Greeks, but also habitually employed Eusebian Tables\nwhich\u2014identical as they are in _appearance_ and in _the principle_ of\ntheir arrangement with those with which Greek MSS. have made us\nfamiliar,\u2014yet differ materially from these as to _the numerical details_\nof their contents.\n\nLet abler men follow up this inquiry to its lawful results. When the\nextreme antiquity of the Syriac documents is considered, may it not almost\nbe made a question whether Eusebius himself put forth the larger or the\nsmaller number of Sections? But however _that_ may be, more palpably\nprecarious than ever, I venture to submit, becomes the confident assertion\nof the Critics that, \u201cjust as EUSEBIUS found these Verses [S. Mark xvi.\n9-20] absent in his day from the best and most numerous [_sic_] copies,\n_so was also the case with _AMMONIUS when he formed his Harmony in the\npreceding century.\u201d(565)To speak plainly, the statement is purely\nmythical.\n\nVI. Birch [_Varr. Lectt._ p. 226], asserts that in the best Codices, the\nSections of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel are not numbered beyond ch. xvi. 8.\nTischendorf prudently adds, \u201c_or_ ver. 9:\u201d but to introduce _that_\nalternative is to surrender everything. I subjoin the result of an appeal\nto 151 Greek Evangelia. There is written opposite to,\n\nver. 6, ... \u00a7 232, in 3 Codices, (viz. A, U, 286)\nver. 8, ... \u00a7 233, in 34 Codices, (including L, S)(566)\nver. 9, (?) \u00a7 234, in 41 Codices, (including \u0393, \u0394, \u03a0)(567)\nver. 10, (?) \u00a7 235, in 4 Codices, (viz. 67, 282, 331, 406)\nver. 12, (?) \u00a7 236, in 7 Codices, (the number assigned by Suidas)(568)\nver. 14, (?) \u00a7 237, in 12 Codices, (including \u039b)(569)\nver. 15, ... \u00a7 238, in 3 Codices, (viz. Add. 19,387: 27,861, Ti)\nver. 17, ... \u00a7 239, in 1 Codex, (viz. G)\nver. 19, ... \u00a7 240, in 10 Codices, (including H, M, and the Codices\nfrom which the Hharklensian Revision, A.D. 616, was made)(570)\nver. 20, ... \u00a7 241, in 36 Codices, (including C, E, K, V)(571)\n\nThus, it is found that 114 Codices sectionize the last Twelve Verses,\nagainst 37 which close the account at ver. 8, or sooner. I infer\u2014(_a_)\nThat the reckoning which would limit the sections to precisely 233, is\naltogether precarious; and\u2014(_b_) That the sum of the Sections assigned to\nS. Mark\u2019s Gospel by Suidas and by Stephens (viz. 236) is arbitrary.\n\nVII. To some, it may not be unacceptable, in conclusion, to be presented\nwith the very words in which Eusebius explains how he would have his\nSections and Canons used. His language requires attention. He says:\u2014\n\n\u0395\u1f30 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5, \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 \u1fa7 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f20\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd,\n\u1f27\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9 \u1f44\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c3\u1fc3\n\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd; \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9 \u1fa7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nJerome,\u2014who is observed sometimes to exhibit the sense of his author very\nloosely,\u2014renders this as follows:\u2014\n\n\u201cCum igitur aperto Codice, verbi gratia, illud sive illud Capitulum scire\nvolueris cujus Canonis sit, statim ex subjecto numero doceberis; et\nrecurrens ad principia, in quibus Canonum est distincta congeries,\neodemque statim Canone ex titulo frontis invento, illum quem qu\u00e6rebas\nnumerum, ejusdem Evangelist\u00e6, qui et ipse ex inscriptione signatur,\ninvenies; atque e vicino ceterorum tramitibus inspectis, quos numeros e\nregione habeant, annotabis. Et cum scieris, recurres ad volumina\nsingulorum, et sine mora repertis numeris quos ante signaveras, reperies\net loca in quibus vel eadem, vel vicina dixerunt.\u201d\n\nThis may be a very masterly way of explaining the use of the Eusebian\nCanons. But the points of the original are missed. What Eusebius actually\nsays is this:\u2014\n\n\u201cIf therefore, on opening any one soever of the four Gospels, thou\ndesirest to study any given Section, and to ascertain which of the\nEvangelists have said things of the same kind; as well as to discover the\nparticular place where each has been led [to speak] of the same\nthings;\u2014note the number of the Section thou art studying, and seek that\nnumber in the Canon indicated by the numeral subscribed in vermilion. Thou\nwilt be made aware, at once, from the heading of each Canon, how many of\nthe Evangelists, and which of them, have said things of the same kind.\nThen, by attending to the parallel numbers relating to the other Gospels\nin the same Canon, and by turning to each in its proper place, thou wilt\ndiscover the Evangelists saying things of the same kind.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX (H).\n\n\n On the Interpolation of the text of CODEX B and CODEX \u05d0 at S.\n MATTHEW xxvii. 48 or 49.\n\n\n(Referred to at pp. 202 and 219.)\n\nIt is well known that our two oldest Codices, Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0, (see\nabove, p. 80,) exhibit S. Matthew xxvii. 49, as follows. After \u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\n[_Cod. Sinait._ \u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9] \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, they read:\u2014\n\n(COD. B.)\n\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03c9\n\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd\u03c5\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03be\u03b7\u03bb\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c5\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\n\n(COD. \u05d0.)\n\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03c7\u03b7\n\u03b5\u03bd\u03c5\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a4\u0397\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03be\u03b7\u03bb\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c5\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03b9\n\u03bc\u03b1\n\nThen comes, \u03bf \u03b4\u03b5 \u0399\u03a3 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The same is also the reading of\nCodd. C, L, U, \u0393: and it is known to recur in the following cursives,\u20145,\n48, 67, 115, 127.(572)\n\nObvious is it to suspect with Matthaei, (ed. 1803, vol. i. p. 158,) that\nit was the Lectionary practice of the Oriental Church which occasioned\nthis interpolation. In S. John xix. 34 occurs the well-known record,\u2014\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u1fc3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c5\u03be\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1: and it was the established practice of the Easterns, in the\nEcclesiastical lection for Good Friday, (viz. S. Matth. xxvii. 1-61,) _to\ninterpose S. John_ xix. 31 _to_ 37 between the 54th and the 55th verses of\nS. Matthew. This will be found alluded to above, at p. 202 and again at\npp. 218-9.\n\nAfter the pages just quoted were in type, while examining Harl. MS. 5647\nin the British Museum, (_our_ Evan. 72,) I alighted on the following\nScholion, which I have since found that Wetstein duly published; but which\nhas certainly not attracted the attention it deserves, and which is\nincorrectly represented as referring to the end of S. Matth. xxvii. 49. It\nis _against ver._ 48 that there is written in the margin,\u2014\n\n(\u0397(573) \u1f4d\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9:\n\n(\u0397 \u1f0c\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ce\u03bd: \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c5\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nThis writer is perfectly correct in his statement. In Chrysostom\u2019s 88th\nHomily on S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, (_Opp._ vii, 825 C: [vol. ii, p. 526, _ed._\nField.]) is read as follows:\u2014\u1f18\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f28\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2: (which is clearly meant to be a summary of\nthe contents _of ver._ 48: then follows) \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03ce\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u1fc3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c5\u03be\u03b5. (Chrysostom quotes no further, but proceeds,\u2014\u03a4\u03af \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\n\u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.)\n\nI find it impossible on a review of the evidence to adhere to the opinion\nI once held, and have partially expressed above, (viz. at p. 202,) that\nthe Lectionary-practice of the Eastern Church was the occasion of this\ncorrupt reading in our two oldest uncials. A corrupt reading it undeniably\nis; and the discredit of exhibiting it, Codd. B, \u05d0, (not to say Codd. C,\nL, U, \u0393,) must continue to sustain. That Chrysostom and Cyril also\nemployed Codices disfigured by this self-same blemish, is certain. It is\nan interesting and suggestive circumstance. Nor is this all. Severus(574)\nrelates that between A.D. 496 and 511, being at Constantinople, he had\nknown this very reading strenuously discussed: whereupon had been produced\na splendid copy of S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, traditionally said to have been\nfound with the body of the Apostle Barnabas in the Island of Cyprus in the\ntime of the Emperor Zeno (A.D. 474-491); and preserved in the palace with\nsuperstitious veneration in consequence. It contained no record of the\npiercing of the SAVIOUR\u2019S side: nor (adds Severus) does any ancient\nInterpreter mention the transaction in that place,\u2014except Chrysostom and\n_Cyril of Alexandria_; into whose Commentaries it has found its way.\u2014Thus,\nto Codices B, \u05d0, C and the copy familiarly employed by Chrysostom, has to\nbe added the copy which Cyril of Alexandria(575) employed; as well as\nevidently sundry other Codices extant at Constantinople about A.D. 500.\nThat the corruption of the text of S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel under review is\nancient therefore, and was once very widely spread, is certain. The\nquestion remains,\u2014and this is the only point to be determined,\u2014How did it\n_originate_?\n\nNow it must be candidly admitted, that if the strange method of the\nLectionaries already explained, (viz. of interposing seven verses of S.\nJohn\u2019s xixth chapter [ver. 31-7] between the 54th and 55th verses of S.\nMatth. xxvii,) really were the occasion of this interpolation of S. John\nxix. 34 after S. Matth. xxvii. 48 or 49,\u2014two points would seem to call for\nexplanation which at present remain unexplained: First, (1) Why does _only\nthat one verse_ find place in the interpolated copies? And next, (2) How\ndoes it come to pass that _that_ one verse is exhibited in so very\ndepraved and so peculiar a form?\n\nFor, to say nothing of the inverted order of the two principal words,\n(which is clearly due to 1 S. John v. 6,) let it be carefully noted that\nthe substitution of \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ce\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd, for \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u1fc3 of the Evangelist, is a tell-tale circumstance. The turn thus\nlicentiously given to the narrative clearly proceeded from some one who\nwas bent on weaving incidents related by different writers into a\nconnected narrative, and who was sometimes constrained to take liberties\nwith his Text in consequence. (Thus, S. Matthew having supplied the fact\nthat \u201cONE OF THEM ran, and _took a sponge_, and filled it with vinegar,\nand put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink,\u201d S. John is made to say, \u201cAND\nANOTHER\u2014_took a spear_.\u201d) Now, this is exactly what Tatian is related by\nEusebius to have done: viz. \u201cafter some fashion of his own, to have\ncomposed out of the four Gospels one connected narrative.\u201d(576)\n\nWhen therefore, (as in the present Scholion,) an ancient Critic who\nappears to have been familiarly acquainted with the lost \u201cDiatessaron\u201d of\nTatian, comes before us with the express declaration that in that famous\nmonument of the primitive age (A.D. 173), S. John\u2019s record of the piercing\nof our SAVIOUR\u2019S side was thrust into S. Matthew\u2019s History of the Passion\nin this precise way and in these very terms,\u2014(for, \u201cNote,\u201d he says, \u201cThat\ninto the Evangelical History of Diodorus, of Tatian, and of divers other\nholy Fathers, is introduced [here] the following addition: \u2018And another\ntook a spear and pierced His side, and there came out Water and Blood.\u2019\nThis, Chrysostom also says\u201d),\u2014it is even unreasonable to seek for any\nother explanation of the vitiated text of our two oldest Codices. Not only\nis the testimony to the critical fact abundantly sufficient, but the\nproposed solution of the difficulty, in itself the reverse of improbable,\nis in the highest degree suggestive as well as important. For,\u2014May we not\nventure to opine that the same \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\u2014as this Writer\naptly designates Tatian\u2019s work,\u2014is responsible for not a few of the\n_monstra potius quam variae lectiones_(577) which are occasionally met\nwith in the earliest MSS. of all? And,\u2014Am I not right in suggesting that\nthe circumstance before us is _the only thing we know for certain_ about\nthe text of Tatian\u2019s (miscalled) \u201cHarmony?\u201d\n\nTo conclude.\u2014That the \u201cDiatessaron\u201d of Tatian, (for so, according to\nEusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled it,) has long since\ndisappeared, no one now doubts.(578) That Eusebius himself, (who lived 150\nyears after the probable date of its composition,) had never seen it, may\nI suppose be inferred from the terms in which he speaks of it. Jerome does\nnot so much as mention its existence. Epiphanius, who is very full and\nparticular concerning the heresy of Tatian, affords no indication that he\nwas acquainted with his work. On the contrary. \u201cThe Diatessaron Gospel,\u201d\n(he remarks in passing,) \u201cwhich some call the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, is said to have been the production of this writer.\u201d(579) The\nmost interesting notice we have of Tatian\u2019s work is from the pen of\nTheodoret. After explaining that Tatian the Syrian, originally a Sophist,\nand next a disciple of Justin Martyr [A.D. 150], after Justin\u2019s death\naspired to being a heretical leader,\u2014(statements which are first found in\nIren\u00e6us,)\u2014Theodoret enumerates his special tenets. \u201cThis man\u201d (he\nproceeds) \u201cput together the so-called _Diatessaron Gospel_,\u2014from which he\ncut away the genealogies, and whatever else shews that the LORD was born\nof the seed of David. The book was used not only by those who favoured\nTatian\u2019s opinions, but by the orthodox as well; who, unaware of the\nmischievous spirit in which the work had been executed, in their\nsimplicity used the book as an epitome. _I myself found upwards of two\nhundred such copies honourably preserved in the Churches of this place_,\u201d\n(Cyrus in Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made Bishop, A.D.\n423,)\u2014\u201call of which I collected together, and put aside; substituting the\nGospels of the Four Evangelists in their room.\u201d(580)\n\nThe diocese of Theodoret (he says) contained eight hundred Parishes.(581)\nIt cannot be thought surprising that a work of which copies had been\nmultiplied to such an extraordinary extent, and which was evidently once\nheld in high esteem, should have had _some_ influence on the text of the\nearliest Codices; and here, side by side with a categorical statement as\nto one of its licentious interpolations, we are furnished with documentary\nproof that many an early MS. also was infected with the same taint. To\nassume that the two phenomena stand related to one another in the way of\ncause and effect, seems to be even an inevitable proceeding.\n\nI will not prolong this note by inquiring concerning the \u201cDiodorus\u201d of\nwhom the unknown author of this scholion speaks: but I suppose it was\n_that_ Diodorus who was made Bishop of Tarsus in A.D. 378. He is related\nto have been the preceptor of Chrysostom; was a very voluminous writer;\nand, among the rest, according to Suidas, wrote a work \u201con the Four\nGospels.\u201d\n\nLastly,\u2014How about the singular introduction _into the Lection for\nGood-Friday_ of this incident of the piercing of the REDEEMER\u2019S side? Is\nit allowable to conjecture that, indirectly, the Diatessaron of Tatian may\nhave been the occasion of that circumstance also; as well as of certain\nother similar phenomena in the Evangeliaria?\n\n\n\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT.\n\n\n(PROMISED AT p. 51.)\n\nI proceed to fulfil the promise made at p. 51.\u2014C.F. Matthaei (_Nov.\nTest._, 1788, vol. iii. p. 269) states that in one of the MSS. at Moscow\noccurs the following \u201cScholion of EUSEBIUS:\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2.\u201d On this, Griesbach remarks (_Comm. Crit._\nii. 200),\u2014\u201cquod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset:\u201d\nthe record in S. Mark xvi. 14, being express,\u2014\u1f5d\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7. The epigrammatic smartness of Griesbach\u2019s dictum\nhas recommended it to Dr. Tregelles and others who look unfavourably on\nthe conclusion of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel; and to this hour the Scholion of\nMatthaei remains unchallenged.\n\nBut to accept the proposed inference from it, is impossible. It ought to\nbe obvious to every thoughtful person that problems of this class will not\nbear to be so handled. It is as if one were to apply the rigid\nmathematical method to the ordinary transactions of daily life, for which\nit is clearly unsuitable. Before we move a single step, however, we desire\na few more particulars concerning this supposed evidence of Eusebius.\n\nAccordingly, I invoked the good offices of my friend, the Rev. W. G.\nPenny, English Chaplain at Moscow, to obtain for me _the entire context_\nin which this \u201cScholion of Eusebius\u201d occurs: little anticipating the\ntrouble I was about to give him. His task would have been comparatively\neasy had I been able to furnish him (which I was not) with the exact\ndesignation of the Codex required. At last by sheer determination and the\ndisplay of no small ability, he discovered the place, and sent me a\ntracing of the whole page: viz. fol. 286 (the last ten words being\noverleaf) of Matthaei\u2019s \u201c12,\u201d (\u201cSynod. 139,\u201d) our EVAN. 255.\n\nIt proves to be the concluding portion of Victor\u2019s Commentary, and to\ncorrespond with what is found at p. 365 of Possinus, and p. 446-7 of\nCramer: except that after the words \u201c\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd,\u201d and before\nthe words \u201c\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u201d [Possinus, _line_ 12 _from bottom_: Cramer,\n_line_ 3 _from the top_], is read as follows:\u2014\n\n\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f66\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u1fb3.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd: \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03c9\u03bc\u1fb6 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03c9\u03bc\u1fb6. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6\u03bd: \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u1fb3 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2:\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03a3\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nBut surely no one who considers the matter attentively, will conceive that\nhe is warranted in drawing from this so serious an inference as that\nEusebius disallowed the last Section of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel.\n\n(1.) In the first place, we have already [_supr\u00e0_, p. 44] heard Eusebius\nelaborately discuss the Section in question. That he allowed it, is\ntherefore _certain_.\n\n(2.) But next, this \u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 at the utmost can only be regarded as\na general summary of what Eusebius has somewhere delivered concerning our\nLORD\u2019S appearances after His Resurrection. _As it stands_, it clearly is\nnot the work of Eusebius.\n\n(3.) And because I shall be reminded that such a statement cannot be\naccepted on my own mere \u201cipse dixit,\u201d I proceed to subjoin the original\nScholion of which the preceding is evidently only an epitome. It is found\nin three of the Moscow MSS., (our Evan. 239, 259, 237,) but without any\nAuthor\u2019s name:\u2014\n\n\u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bd, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd _\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7_ \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 _\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd;_ \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2. _\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70_ \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd _\u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd,_ \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 _\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1fb3_\n\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; _\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70_ \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd _\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2_ \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd _\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7_ \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc, _\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2_ \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\n\u0398\u03c9\u03bc\u1fb6. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03c9\u03bc\u1fb6,_ \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2,\n\u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd. _\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2,_ \u03bf\u03cd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0399\u0391 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b6. _\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70_ \u03b4\u1f72 _\u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u1fb3 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03a3\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,_ \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 _\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7_ \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 _\u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd;_ \u1f61\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b6. \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3, \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03ce\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u1fc3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb7 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2.(582)\n\n(4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here,\u2014the _only_ thing in\nfact which I am concerned to point out,\u2014is the notable circumstance that\nthe supposed dictum of Eusebius,\u2014(\u201cquod scribere non potuisset si\npericopam dubiam agnovisset,\u201d)\u2014_is no longer discoverable_. To say that\n\u201cit has disappeared,\u201d would be incorrect. In the original document _it has\nno existence_. In plain terms, the famous \u201c\u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u201d proves to be\nevery way a figment. It is a worthless interpolation, thrust by some\nnameless scribe into his abridgement of a Scholion, of which Eusebius (as\nI shall presently shew) _cannot_ have been the Author.\n\n(5.) I may as well point out _why_ the person who wrote the longer\nScholion says nothing about S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. It is because there was\nnothing for him to say. He is enumerating our LORD\u2019S _appearances to His\nDisciples_ after His Resurrection; and he discovers that these were\nexactly seven in number: _one_ being peculiar to S. Matthew,\u2014_three_, to\nS. John,\u2014_three_, to S. Luke. But because, (as every one is aware), there\nexists _no_ record of an appearance to the Disciples _peculiar_ to S.\nMark\u2019s Gospel, the Author of the Scholion is silent concerning S. Mark\n_perforce_.... How so acute and accomplished a Critic as Matthaei can have\noverlooked all this: how he can have failed to recognise the identity of\nhis longer and his shorter Scholion: how he came to say of the latter,\n\u201cconjicias ergo Eusebium hunc totum locum repudiasse;\u201d and, of the former,\n\u201cultimam partem Evangelii Marci videtur tollere:\u201d(583) lastly, how\nTischendorf (1869) can write,\u2014\u201cest enim ejusmodi ut ultimam partem\nevangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, excludat:\u201d(584)\u2014I profess myself unable\nto understand.\n\n(6.) The epitomizer however, missing the point of his Author,\u2014besides\nenumerating _all_ the appearances of our SAVIOUR which S. Luke anywhere\nrecords,\u2014is further convicted of having injudiciously _invented_ the\nnegative statement about S. Mark\u2019s Gospel which is occasioning us all this\ntrouble.\n\n(7.) And yet, by that unlucky sentence of his, he certainly did not mean\nwhat is commonly imagined. I am not concerned to defend him: but it is\nonly fair to point out that, to suppose he intended _to disallow the end\nof S. Mark\u2019s Gospel_, is altogether to misapprehend the gist of his\nremarks, and to impute to him a purpose of which he clearly knew nothing.\nNote, how he throws his first two statements into a separate paragraph;\ncontrasts, and evidently _balances_ one against the other: thus,\u2014\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7,\u2014\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u1fb3.\n\nPerfectly evident is it that the \u201cplena locutio\u201d so to speak, of the\nWriter would have been somewhat as follows:\u2014\n\n\u201c[The first two Evangelists are engaged with our SAVIOUR\u2019S appearance to\nHis Disciples _in Galilee_: but] by S. Mark, He is _not_\u2014by S. Matthew, He\n_is_\u2014related to have been actually _seen_ by them there.\n\n\u201c[The other two Evangelists relate the appearances _in Jerusalem_: and]\naccording to S. John, &c. &c.\n\n\u201cAccording to S. Luke,\u201d &c. &c.\n\n(8.) And on passing the \u201cQuaestiones ad Marinum\u201d of Eusebius under review,\nI am constrained to admit that the Scholion before us is just such a\nclumsy bit of writing as an unskilful person might easily be betrayed\ninto, who should attempt to exhibit in a few short sentences the substance\nof more than one tedious disquisition of this ancient Father.(585) Its\nremote parentage would fully account for its being designated \u201c\u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u201d all the same.\n\n(9.) Least of all am I concerned to say anything more about the longer\nScholion; seeing that S. Mark is not so much as mentioned in it. But I may\nas well point out that, _as it stands_, Eusebius cannot have been its\nAuthor: the proof being, that whereas the Scholion in question is a note\non S. John xxi. 12, (as Matthaei is careful to inform us,)\u2014its opening\nsentence is derived _from Chrysostom\u2019s Commentary on that same verse_ in\nhis 87th Homily on S. John.(586)\n\n(10.) And thus, one by one, every imposing statement of the Critics is\nobserved hopelessly to collapse as soon as it is questioned, and to vanish\ninto thin air.\n\nSo much has been offered, only because of the deliberate pledge I gave in\np. 51.\u2014Never again, I undertake to say, will the \u201cScholion of Eusebius\u201d\nwhich has cost my friend at Moscow, his Archimandrites, and me, so much\ntrouble, be introduced into any discussion of the genuineness of the last\nTwelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark. As the oversight of one\n(C. F. Matthaei) who was singularly accurate, and towards whom we must all\nfeel as towards a Benefactor, let it be freely forgiven as well as loyally\nforgotten!\n\n\n\n\n\nL\u2019ENVOY\n\n\nAs one, escaped the bustling trafficking town,\nWorn out and weary, climbs his favourite hill\nAnd thinks it Heaven to see the calm green fields\nMapped out in beautiful sunlight at his feet:\nOr walks enraptured where the fitful south\nComes past the beans in blossom; and no sight\nOr scent or sound but fills his soul with glee:\u2014\nSo I,\u2014rejoicing once again to stand\nWhere Siloa\u2019s brook flows softly, and the meads\nAre all enamell\u2019d o\u2019er with deathless flowers,\nAnd Angel voices fill the dewy air.\nStrife is so hateful to me! most of all\nA strife of words about the things of GOD.\nBetter by far the peasant\u2019s uncouth speech\nMeant for the heart\u2019s confession of its hope.\nSweeter by far in village-school the words\nBut half remembered from the Book of Life,\nOr scarce articulate lispings of the Creed.\n\nAnd yet, three times that miracle of Spring\nThe grand old tree that darkens Exeter wall\nHath decked itself with blossoms as with stars,\nSince I, like one that striveth unto death,\nFind myself early and late and oft all day\nEngaged in eager conflict for GOD\u2019S Truth;\nGOD\u2019S Truth, to be maintained against Man\u2019s lie.\nAnd lo, my brook which widened out long since\nInto a river, threatens now at length\nTo burst its channel and become a sea.\n\nO Sister, who ere yet my task is done\nArt lying (my loved Sister!) in thy shroud\nWith a calm placid smile upon thy lips\nAs thou wert only \u201ctaking of rest in sleep,\u201d\nSoon to wake up to ministries of love,\u2014\nOpen those lips, kind Sister, for my sake\nIn the mysterious place of thy sojourn,\n(For thou must needs be with the bless\u2019d,\u2014yea, where\nThe pure in heart draw wondrous nigh to GOD,)\nAnd tell the Evangelist of thy brother\u2019s toil;\nAdding (be sure!) \u201cHe found it his reward,\nYet supplicates thy blessing and thy prayers,\nThe blessing, saintly Stranger, of thy prayers,\nSure at the least unceasingly of mine!\u201d\n\nOne other landed on the eternal shore!\nOne other garnered into perfect peace!\nOne other hid from hearing and from sight!...\nO but the days go heavily, and the toil\nWhich used to seem so pleasant yields scant joy.\nThere come no tokens to us from the dead:\nSave\u2014it may be\u2014that now and then we reap\nWhere not we sowed, and _that_ may be from _them_,\nFruit of their prayers when we forgot to pray!\nMeantime there comes no message, comes no word:\nDay after day no message and no sign:\nAnd the heart droops, and finds that it was Love\nNot Fame it longed for, lived for: only Love.\n\nCANTERBURY.\n\n\n\n\n\nGENERAL INDEX.\n\n\n_Under_ \u201cCodices\u201d _will be found all the Evangelia described or quoted:\nunder_ \u201cTexts\u201d _all the places of Scripture illustrated or referred to._\n\n\u201cActa Pilati,\u201d p. 25.\n\nACTS, p. 199-200. _See_ Texts.\n\nAddit. _See_ Codices.\n\nAdler, J. G. C, p. 33-4.\n\nAlford, Dean, p. 8, 13, 38, 77, 103, 164, 227, 244-5, 259.\n\nAlgasia, p. 52.\n\nAmbrose, p. 27.\n\n\u201cAmmonian\u201d Sections, p. 126-32, 295-311;\n in the four Gospels, p. 309;\n in S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, p. 311.\n\nAmmonius, p. 125-32.\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, p. 196.\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, p. 45, 196.\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, p. 166.\n\nAndreas of Crete, p. 258.\n\nAngelic Hymn, p. 257-63.\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7, p. 119.\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, p. 225, 6.\n\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae, p. 127, 137.\n\nAphraates the Persian, p. 26-7, 258.\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, p. 158-9.\n\nApocrypha, p. 301.\n\nApolinarius, p. 275, 277.\n\n\u201cApostolical Constitutions,\u201d p. 25, 258.\n\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, p. 224-5.\n\nArmenian Version, p. 36, 239.\n\nAscension, The, p. 195.\n Lessons, p. 204-5, 238-9.\n\nAssemani, p. 309-10, 315.\n\nAsterisks, p. 116-8, 218.\n\nAthanasian Creed, p. 3, 254.\n\nAthanasius, p. 30, 275;\n how he read S. Jo. xvii. 15, 16, p. 74.\n\nAugustine, p. 28, 198, 200.\n\nBabington, Rev. C, p. 291.\n\nBasil, p. 93-9, 275.\n\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c2, p. 275.\n\nBasle, p. 283. _See_ Codices.\n\nBede, Ven., p. 30.\n\nBengel, J. A., p. 17, 101-2, 185.\n\nBenson, Rev. Dr., p. 101.\n\n\u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac and \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, p. 236.\n\n_Biblioth\u00e8que_ at Paris, p. 228-31, 278-83.\n\nBirch\u2019s N. T., Andr., p. 5, 116-8, 311.\n\n\u0392\u03bb\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, p. 160.\n\nBobbiensis, Codex, p. 35, 124, 186.\n\nBodleian. _See_ Codices.\n\nBook of Common Prayer, p. 215.\n\nBostra, _see_ Titus.\n\nBosworth, Rev. Prof., p. 262.\n\nBroadus, Prof., p. 139, 155, 168, 174.\n\nC\u00e6sarius, p. 133.\n\nCanons, p. 127-31, 295-312. _See_ Sections.\n\nCarpian, Letter to, p. 126-8, 311-2.\n\nCarthage. _See_ Council.\n\nCassian, p. 193.\n\nCatena\u00e6, p. 133-5. _See_ Corderius, Cramer, Matthaei, Peltanus, Possinus,\n Victor.\n\nChrysostom, p. 27, 85, 110, 179, 193, 198-9, 201-4, 223, 258-9, 275-7,\n 278, 314-6, 323.\n\nChurch, the Christian, p. 192.\n Festivals, p. 203.\n\nChurton, Rev. W. R., p. 236.\n\n\u201cCircular,\u201d A, p. 101-5.\n\nCitations, _see_ Patristic.\n\nClemens Alex., p. 30.\n\nCodices, depraved, p. 80-6, 217-24.\n _See_ Corrupt readings, Dated, Syriac.\n 151, referred to p. 311.\n\nCODICES.\n Codex \u05d0, p. 70-90, 77, 109-13, 218-22, 252, 257, 313;\n how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 88-90;\n omissions, 73-5, 79, 80;\n Ephes. i. 1, 91-109;\n interpolations and depravations, p. 80-6;\n affected by the Lectionary practice, p. 217-24;\n sympathy with B, 78;\n not so old as B, 291-4;\n _facsimile_, p. ii.\n A, p. 220-1, 222, 257-9, 311.\n B, p. 70-90, 257, 202, 217-20, 222-3, 313;\n how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 86-90;\n omissions, 74-5, 79, 80;\n Ephes. i. 1, 91-109;\n interpolations and depravations, p. 80-6;\n affected by the Lectionary practice, p. 217-24;\n sympathy with \u05d0, 78;\n older than \u05d0 291-4.\n C, p. 218, 221-2, 302, 311;\n depraved by the Lectionary practice, p. 220.\n D, p. 100, 219-25, 257, 262, 302.\n E, p. 305, 311.\n F, p. 302.\n G, p. 306, 311.\n H, p. 302, 306, 311.\n K, p. 197, 302, 311.\n L, p. 123-5, 218, 225, 311;\n _facsimile_, p. 124.\n M, p. 197, 305, 306, 311.\n P, Q, R, Y, Z, p. 302.\n S, V, \u0394, \u03a0, p. 311.\n Tb, p. 305.\n U, p. 218, 311.\n Wb, p. 302.\n Wd, p. 305.\n \u0393, p. 218, 224, 311.\n \u039b, p. 119, 122, 311.\n Codex 1, p. 120, 123, 125.\n Codex 7, p. 239.\n Codex 10, p. 224, 231.\n Codex 12, p. 122, 278, 288-9.\n Codex 13, p. 226.\n Codex 15, p. 119.\n Codex 19, p. 240, 278.\n Codex 20, p. 118-9 22, 271, 9, 280, 1, 2.\n Codex 22, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242.\n Codex 23, p. 120.\n Codex 24, p. 121-3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 288-9.\n Codex 25, p. 225, 280.\n Codex 27, p. 239.\n Codex 30, p. 231.\n Codex 33, p. 123.\n Codex 34, p. 66, 120, 121-3, 280.\n Codex 36, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9.\n Codex 37, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9.\n Codex 38, p. 121-3.\n Codex 39, p. 120, 121-3, 271, 281.\n Codex 40, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9.\n Codex 41, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9.\n Codex 47, p. 226.\n Codex 50, p. 271, 281.\n Codex 54, 56 _and_ 61, p. 226.\n Codex 63, p. 240-1.\n Codex 69, p. 123, 226.\n Codex 72, p. 23, 218, 314.\n Codex 77, p. 283.\n Codex 90, p. 240.\n Codex 92 _and_ 94, p. 283.\n Codex 108, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.\n Codex 113, p. 218.\n Codex 117, p. 302.\n Codex 124, p. 226.\n Codex 129, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.\n Codex 137, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9.\n Codex 138, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9.\n Codex 143, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.\n Codex 146, p. 286.\n Codex 181 _and_ 186, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.\n Codex 194, p. 284.\n Codex 195, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.\n Codex 197, p. 284.\n Codex 199, 206 _and_ 209, p. 120, 1-3, 5.\n Codex 210, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.\n Codex 215, p. 285.\n Codex 221 _and_ 222, p. 121-3, 285, 8-9.\n Codex 233, p. 286.\n Codex 237 _and_ 238, p. 285, 8-9, 321.\n Codex 239, p. 321.\n Codex 253, p. 285.\n Codex 255, p. 285, 288-9, 319-23.\n Codex 256, p. 239, 286.\n Codex 259, p. 286, 288-9, 321.\n Codex 262, p. 119, 122, 305.\n Codex 263, p. 302, 304.\n Codex 264, p. 117, 305-6.\n Codex 265, p. 225.\n Codex 266, p. 238.\n Codex 267, p. 216.\n Codex 268, p. 231.\n Codex 270, p. 224.\n Codex 274, p. 124.\n Codex 282 _and_ 293, p. 231.\n Codex 299, p. 122, 281, 288-9.\n Codex 300, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 280, 1, 2.\n Codex 301, p. 282.\n Codex 304, p. 283.\n Codex 309, p. 239, 282.\n Codex 312, p. 282.\n Codex 329, p. 122, 282, 288-9.\n Codex 332 _and_ 353, p. 286.\n Codex 373, p. 287.\n Codex 374, p. 122, 121, 2, 286, 288-9.\n Codex 379 _and_ 427, p. 287.\n Codex 428 _and_ 432, p. 286.\n Codex 436, p. 218.\n Codex 439, p. 226.\n Addit. 7, 157, p. 309.\n Addit. 12,141, p. 215.\n Addit. 14,449, p. 215, 306, 309.\n Addit. 14,450, p. 215, 306, 310.\n Addit. 14,451, p. 306.\n Addit. 14,452-4-5, p. 215, 306.\n Addit. 14,456, p. 215.\n Addit. 14,457-8, p. 215, 306, 309.\n Addit. 14,461, p. 215.\n Addit. 14,463, p. 215, 306.\n Addit. 14,464, p. 215.\n Addit. 14,469, p. 306.\n Addit. 14,485-8, p. 208.\n Addit. 14,492, p. 208.\n Addit. 17,113, p. 215, 306.\n Addit. 17,114-5-6, p. 215.\n Addit. 17,213, p. 310.\n Ambros. M. 93, p. 286.\n Basil., p. 283, (three Codd.)\n Bobbiensis, p. 35, 124, 186.\n Bodleian, _see_ Codd. \u0393, \u039b, 47, 50, 54, Dawkins.\n Coisl. 19, p. 122, 282, 8-9.\n Coisl. 20, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9.\n Coisl. 21, p. 121-3, 281, 8-9.\n Coisl. 22, p. 281, 288.\n Coisl. 23, p. 271, 281, 288.\n Coisl. 24, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9.\n Coisl. 195, p. 66, 120, 1-3, 280.\n Dawkins 3, p. 306-9.\n Escurial \u03a5, ii. 8, p. 286.\n Florence, S. Mar. Ben. Cod. iv. p. 120, 1-3, 5.\n Harl. 1, 810, p. 218.\n Harl. 5,107, p. 226.\n Harl. 5,647, p. 23, 218, 314.\n Laur. vi. 18, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.\n Laur. vi. 33, p. 284.\n Laur. vi. 34, p. 284, 288.\n Laur. viii. 14, p. 284.\n Matthaei\u2019s a, 286, 288-9, 321.\n Matthaei\u2019s d, p. 285, 288-9.\n Matthaei\u2019s e, p. 285, 288-9.\n Matthaei\u2019s 10, p. 285.\n Matthaei\u2019s 12, p. 285, 288, 319-23.\n Matthaei\u2019s 14, p. 239, 286.\n Meerman 117, p. 218.\n Middle Hill 13, 975, p. 287.\n Monacen. 99 _and_ 381, p. 286.\n Monacen 465, p. 287.\n Moscow, _see_ Matthaei.\n Reg. 14, p. 123.\n Reg. 50, p. 226.\n Reg. 53, p. 119, 122, 305.\n Reg. 61 p. 302, 304.\n Reg. 62, _see_ Codex L.\n Reg. 64, p. 119.\n Reg. 65, p. 117, 305-6.\n Reg. 66, p. 225.\n Reg. 67, p. 238.\n Reg. 69, p. 216.\n Reg. 71, p. 239.\n Reg. 72, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242.\n Reg. 73, p. 231.\n Reg. 75, p. 224.\n Reg. 77, p. 120.\n Reg. 79, p. 124.\n Reg. 90, p. 231.\n Reg. 91, p. 224, 231.\n Reg. 100, p. 231.\n Reg. 115, p. 239.\n Reg. 117, p. 231.\n Reg. 177, p. 121, 281, 8-9.\n Reg. 178, p. 121, 3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 8, 9.\n Reg. 186, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 280, 1, 2.\n Reg. 187, p. 282.\n Reg. 188, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 9, 280, 1, 2.\n Reg. 189, p. 240, 278.\n Reg. 191, p. 225, 280.\n Reg. 194, p. 283.\n Reg. 201, p. 239, 282.\n Reg. 206, p. 282.\n Reg. 230, p. 122, 278, 288-9.\n Reg. 703, p. 282.\n 2pe, p. 226.\n 7pe, p. 286.\n cscr, p. 226.\n iscr _and_ sscr, p. 302.\n Tb, p. 305.\n Taurin. xx b. iv. 20, p. 286.\n Toledo, p. 286.\n Vat. 358, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.\n Vat. 756-7, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9.\n Vat. 1,229 p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.\n Vat. 1,423, p. 287.\n Vat. 1,445, p. 122, 286, 288-9.\n Vat. 1,769, p. 287.\n Vat. Palat. 5, p. 286.\n Venet. 6, 10, p. 120, 121-3, 5.\n Venet. 27, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.\n Venet. 495, p. 285.\n Venet. 544, p. 285.\n Vind. Kell. 4, Forlos. 5, p. 121, 3, 283, 288-9.\n Vind. Kell. Nep. 114, Lambec. 29, p. 283.\n Vind. Kell. 117, Vind. Kell. 38, p. 121-3, 285, 288-9.\n Vind. Kill. 118, 31, p. 226.\n Vind. Kill. 180, 39, p. 121-3, 285, 288-9.\n Wake, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, p. 311.\n Xavier de Zelada, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.\n\nCod. Evstt. 47 _and_ 50, p. 197.\n Paul, 67, p. 99.\n\nCollation of MSS. p. vii.-viii., 218.\n\nColossians, Ep. to, p. 101, 162. _See_ Texts.\n\nCommentaries, Ancient, p. 287.\n\nCommon Prayer, _see_ Book.\n\nConcordance test, p. 173.\n\nConstantinople, p. 275.\n\nConybeare and Howson, p. 103.\n\nCoptic Version, p. 35.\n\nCopyists of MSS., p. 262, 273-4, 320-3.\n\nCorderius, B., p. 44, 134, 270, 4, 7.\n\nCorrupt readings in MSS., p. 100-1, 112, 262-3.\n\nCosmas Indicopleustes, p. 258.\n\nCouncil of Carthage, p. 25, 249.\n\nCramer, Dr. J. A., p. 44, 60, 271-3.\n\nCreed of Jerusalem, p. 184-5.\n _see_ Athanasian.\n\nCuretonian Syriac Version, p. 33.\n\nCyprian, 25, 249.\n\nCyprus, p. 315.\n\nCyril of Alex., p. 29, 60, 110, 198, 201, 258, 271, 5, 7, 9, 281, 315.\n Cyril of Jer., p. 184-5, 195, 258, 261.\n\nCyrus in Syria, p. 317, 8.\n\nDamascene, John, p. 30.\n\nDated MSS., p. 208, 224, 309.\n\nDavidson. Dr., p. 12, 38, 114, 133-5, 6; 142, 8; 153, 160, 1, 4; 185.\n\nDe Toutt\u00e9e, p. 184, 261.\n\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3, p. 75, 220.\n\nDiatessaron, p. 126, 314-8.\n\nDiodorus, p. 314-8.\n\nDionysius of Corinth, p. 245.\n\nDionysius Syrus, p. 41.\n\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, p. 257-63.\n\nEaster Lessons, p. 204-6, 238-9.\n\nEden, Rev. C. P., p. 3.\n\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, p. 104-5.\n\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba and \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc, p. 153.\n\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, p. 166-7.\n\n\u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, p. 86.\n\nEllicott, Bishop, p. 9.\n\nEncyclical, p. 101-5.\n\nEphesians, Ep. to, p. 91-109. _See_ Texts.\n\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03af, verbs compounded with, p. 163-4.\n\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f70, p. 204.\n\nEpiphanius, p. 95, 132-3, 199, 202-3, 258.\n\nEpiphany, Festival of, p. 204, 7;\n lessons, 199.\n\nErizzo, F. M. p. 34.\n\nEthiopic Version, p. 36.\n\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, p. 257-63.\n\nEulogius, p. 258.\n\nEusebius, p. 26, 41-51, 43, 61-4, 66, 84, 126-33, 332-8, 240, 249-52,\n 265-6, 267-8, 275, 314, 316, 323;\n knew nothing of Cod. \u05d0, p. 293-4;\n was the Author of the \u201cAmmonian\u201d Sections, p. 295;\n Eusebian Tables in Syriac MSS., p. 309-10;\n Scholion wrongly ascribed to, p. 319-23.\n\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, p. 168-9.\n\nEuthymius Zig., p. 30, 68-9.\n\nEvangelia, _see_ Codices.\n\nEvangeliaria, p. 195, 197, 214-5.\n\nEvangelists vary their expressions, p. 147.\n\nEvidence, Law of, p. 15.\n\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, p. 188.\n\nFacsimile of Cod. \u05d0, p. ii.;\n of Cod. L, p. 124.\n\nFathers badly indexed, p. vii, 21, 30, 315: _see_ Patristic.\n\nFestivals of the Church, p. 203.\n\nField\u2019s ed. of Chrysostom, p. 180.\n\nFlorence. _See_ Codices.\n\nFormul\u00e6 of the Lectionaries, p. 215-224, 5.\n\nGandell, Rev. Prof., p. 148.\n\nGarnier, J., p. 101.\n\nGenesis, when read, p. 201.\n\nGennadius, p. 26.\n\nGeorgian Version, p. 36.\n\n_Gloria in Excelsis_, p. 257-63.\n\nGothic Version, p. 35, 262.\n\nGreen, Rev. T. S., p. 13, 137, 153.\n\nGregentius, p. 30.\n\nGregory of Nazianzus, p. 258.\n Gregory of Nyssa, p. 29, 39-41, 66, 267-8.\n Gregory Thaumaturgus, p. 180.\n Gregory the Great, p. 30.\n\nGriesbach, D. J. J., p. 4-7, 115-6, 232, 251, 319.\n\nHarleian. _See_ Codices.\n\n_Harmonia, &c._, Oxon. 1805, p. 298.\n\nHarmony of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with the other Gospels, p. 188-90,\n Tables of, in Greek MSS., p. 304-6;\n in Syriac MSS., p. 306-11.\n\nHarris, A. C, p. 293.\n\nHedibia, p. 51-6.\n\nHesychius of Jerusalem, p. 29, 40-1, 57-9, 67, 204, 237, 267-8.\n\nHeurtley, Rev. Prof., p. 184.\n\nHharklensian Revision, p. 33, 124, 315.\n\nHierosolymitan Version, p. 34, 199.\n\nHippolytus, p. 24-5, 248.\n\nHort, Rev. F. J. A., p. 13.\n\nHuet, P. D., p. 269, 275, 314.\n\nHypapante, p. 207.\n\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, p. 165.\n\nIndices, p. vii-viii, 21, 30, 315.\n\nInterpolations in B and \u05d0 p. 80-6;\n from the Lectionary practice, p. 217-214.\n\nIren\u00e6us, p. 23, 246, 8, 260.\n\nItala, Vetus, p. 35.\n\nJacobus Bar-Salibi, p. 41.\n\n\u201cJacobus Nisibenus,\u201d p. 26, 258.\n\nJames\u2019 _Ecloga_, p. 236.\n\nJerome, p. 26, 27-8, 34, 42, 49, 51-7, 67, 98, 106, 128, 153, 236, 260,\n 295, 312, 314.\n\nJerusalem, Version, p. 34, 199.\n Copies at, p. 119.\n _See_ Creed.\n\nJewish Church, p. 192.\n\nJewish Lectionary, p. 194.\n\nJOHN, S. _See_ Texts.\n\nJohn Damascene, p. 30.\n\nJosephus, p. 275.\n\nJustin Martyr, p. 23, 193.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd, p. 179-80.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, p. 120-1, 125.\n\nKay, Rev. Dr. W., p. 140, 183.\n\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, p. 131, 282.\n\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, p. 45, 229, 298.\n\nKollar, p. 269.\n\n\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, p. 161-2, 180.\n\n\u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, p. 165, 185.\n\nLachmann, C., p. 8, 259, 263-4\n\nLaodiceans, Ep. to, p. 93-107.\n\nLatinus Latinius, p. 42-44.\n\nLectionary System, p. 191-211, 214-5, 217-24, 240, 313-5, 318.\n Eastern p. 196-211.\n Jewish, p. 192-4.\n Syrian, p. 205-8.\n the New, p. 200.\n\nLections, p. 238-9. _See_ Lectionary System, Syrian Lessons.\n\nLessons. _See_ Lections.\n\nLicentious. _See_ Copyists.\n\nLiturgical Formul\u00e6, p. 216-25.\n\nLloyd, Bishop C, p. 298.\n\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, p. 165.\n\nLUKE, S. _See_ Texts.\n\nMacknight, p. 105.\n\nMai, Card. A., p. 42-4, 242, 265.\n\nManuscripts. _See_ CODICES.\n\nMarcion, p. 93-6, 103, 106-8.\n\nMarginal references, p. 298-304.\n\nMarinus, p. 26, 53-6, 249-50.\n\nMark, S., p. 161-2.\n\nMARK, S. (_See_ Texts), p. 167, 176, 7, 9;\n Latinisms, 149-51;\n style of ch. i. 9-20, p. 143-4;\n phraseology of ch. i. 1-12, p. 174-5;\n ch. xvi. 9-20, p. 36-73;\n structure of ch. xvi. 9-20, p. 181-4.\n xvi. 9-20, a Lection in the Ancient Church, p. 204-11.\n\nMatthaei, C. F., p. 5, 66, 191, 197, 227, 247, 271-3, 319-23. _See_\n Codices.\n\nMATTHEW, S. _See_ Texts.\n\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, p. 194.\n\nMeerman 117, Cod., p. 218.\n\nMemphitic Version, p. 35.\n\nMenologium, p. 197.\n\nMethodius, p. 258.\n\nMeyer, p. 13, 136, 160.\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, p. 146-51.\n\nMichaelis, J. D., p. 101.\n\nMiddle Hill, _see_ Codices.\n\nMiddleton, Bp., p. 105.\n\nMill, Dr. John, p. 129, 130, 2.\n\nModestus, p. 30.\n\nMontfaucon, B. de, p. 121.\n\nMoscow, _see_ Codices, Rev. W. G. Penny.\n\nMunich, _see_ Codices.\n\nMuratorian fragment, p. 103.\n\nNativity, Festival of, p. 199, 204.\n\nNazianzus, _see_ Gregory.\n\nNestorius, p. 29.\n\nNeubauer, M., p. 307.\n\nNisibenus, _see_ Aphraates.\n\nNorton, Prof., p. 13, 137, 245.\n\nNyssa, _see_ Gregory.\n\nOmissions in B and \u05d0, p. 73-5, 79, 80, 91, &c.\n\n\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, p. 73, 4.\n\nOrder of the Gospels, p. 239-240.\n\nOriel College, p. ix, x.\n\nOrigen, p. 47, 66, 85, 93-9, 107, 179, 222, 236, 245, 258, 260-1, 275,\n 277, 282;\n on S. Mark, 235.\n\nPalestinian exemplar, p. 64-5, 121, 289.\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd, p. 168-9.\n\nPalmer, Sir Roundell, p. v, vi.\n Palmer, Rev. W. J., p. v.\n\nPapias, p. 23.\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac, verbs compounded with, p. 163-4.\n\nParallel passages. _See_ Tables of Reference.\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae, p. 150.\n\nParis, MSS. at, p. 228-31, 278-83:\n _see_ Codices, Coisl. _and_ Reg.\n\nPassion-tide Lessons, p. 202, 204.\n\n\u201cPatres App.,\u201d p. 240.\n\nPatristic Citations of SS., p. 20-3, 37, 257-63.\n\nPaul, S., p. 161-2.\n\nPeltanus, p. 134, 270-3.\n\nPenny, Rev. W. G., p. 319-23.\n\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, p. 233-4.\n\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, p. 45, 196, 8, 298.\n\nPeshito Version, p. 32.\n\nPeter, S., p. 161-2, 179, 180-1. _See_ Texts.\n Peter of Laodicea, p. 284, 286.\n\nPetersburg. _See_ Rev. A. S. Thompson.\n\nPetrus junior, p. 315.\n\nPhillipps, Sir T. _See_ Codices (Middle Hill).\n\nPhiloxenian Version, p. 33, 4.\n\nPhraseology of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. 136-173, 146.\n\nPius IX., p. ii.\n\nPolycarp, p. 240.\n\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, p. 153.\n\nPossevinus, p. 235.\n\nPossinus, p. 44, 134, 226, 270-4, 277, 290-2.\n\nPrayer-Book, _see_ Book.\n\nProclus, p. 258.\n\nProper, see Lessons.\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, p. 146-51.\n\nReference Bibles, p. 300-1.\n ancient Tables of, p. 304-11.\n\nRevision of Auth. Version, p. 263-4.\n Greek Text, p. 263.\n Lectionary, p. 200-1.\n\nRose, Ven. Archd., p. 27.\n Rev. W. F., p. 218.\n\nRouth, Rev. President, p. ix.\n\nRufinus, p. 314.\n\nS. (G. V.) p. 264.\n\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03af, p. 194.\n\n\u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u2014\u03c4\u03b1, p. 146-51.\n\nSahidic Version, p. 36.\n\nSaturday Lessons, p. 193, 4.\n\nScholia, p. 122, 236, 288-9, 314, 319-23.\n\nScholz, J. M. A., p. 7, 116-222, 197, 227, 242.\n\nScrivener, Rev. F. H., p. vii, viii, 9, 77, 139, 197, 215, 227, 246,\n 302-4.\n\nSections without Canons in MSS., p. 302;\n their use, 303-10.\n _see_ Ammonian.\n\n\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, p. 294.\n\nSeverus of Antioch, p. 40-1, 57-9, 67, 121, 267-8, 315.\n\n\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, p. 314.\n\nSimon, P\u00e8re, p. 48, 269.\n\nSinaiticus, _see_ Codex.\n\nSirletus, Card., p. 44.\n\nSmith, Dean Payne, p. 41, 205-6, 214, 306.\n\nStanley, Dean A. P., p. 3.\n\nStyle of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. 136-45.\n\nSubscription of Gospels, p. 230-1.\n\nSuidas, p. 309, 311.\n\nSynagogue worship, p. 192-3.\n\nSynaxarium, p. 197.\n\n\u201cSynopsis Script. S.,\u201d p. 29.\n\nSyriac MSS., p. 208, 214-5, 225, 306-11.\n\nSyrian Lessons, p. 205, 226, 238-9.\n\nTables of Reference in MSS, p. 304-11.\n\nTait, Abp., p. 2, 3, 189, 314-8.\n\nTatian, p. 129, 314-8.\n\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, p. 119-20, 224-42.\n\nTertullian, p. 30, 93-4, 106.\n\nTextual Criticism, p. vii-ix, 113.\n\nTEXTS.\n S. MATTHEW i. 10, p. 178;\n i. 25, p. 80.\n iii. 16, p. 178;\n iii. 17, p. 30.\n iv. 18-22, p. 295-6.\n viii. 9, p. 82;\n viii. 13, p. 80, 222.\n xi. 19, p. 83;\n xi. 20, p. 221.\n xii. 9, p. 221.\n xiii. 35, p. 81, 110-1;\n xiii. 36, p. 221;\n xiii. 39, 55, p. 178.\n xiv. 14, p. 221;\n xiv. 22, p. 216;\n xiv. 30, p. 82.\n xv. 22, p. 178.\n xvi. 10, p. 177;\n xvi. 12, p. 178-9;\n xvi. 15, p. 162.\n xx. 17, p. 223;\n xx. 29, p. 178.\n xxi. 8, p. 178;\n xxi. 31, p. 83.\n xxv. 24, p. 82.\n xxvi. 34, 75, p. 178;\n xxvi. 39, p. 217-8.\n xxvii. 32, p. 188;\n xxvii. 34, p. 84;\n xxvii. 35, p. 75;\n xxvii. 48, 49, p. 80, 218, 313-8;\n xxvii. 54, 55, p. 315.\n xxviii. 2, 3, p. 73;\n xxviii. 8, p. 84;\n xxviii. 19, 20, p. 178.\n S. MARK i. 1, p. 180, 185;\n i. 9-20, p. 182;\n i. 10, p. 178;\n i. 11, 13, p. 30;\n i. 16-20, p. 295-6;\n i. 28, p. 85.\n vi. 3, p. 178.\n vii. 3, 4, p. 82;\n vii. 19, p. 179;\n vii. 26, p. 178.\n viii. 10, 15, p. 178.\n x. 6, p. 180;\n x. 42, p. 82;\n x. 46, p. 178.\n xi. 8, p. 178.\n xiii. 19, p. 180.\n xiv. 3, p. 221;\n xiv. 30, p. 178;\n xiv. 30, 68, 72, p. 84;\n xiv. 41, p. 225;\n xiv. 58, p. 82;\n xiv. 72, p. 177.\n xv. 28, p. 301;\n xv. 46, p. 82.\n xvi. 8 and 9, p. 239;\n xvi. 8-20, p. 306;\n xvi. 9, p. 152-3, 178-9, 187, 216;\n xvi. 9-20, p. 182, 224;\n xvi. 10, 14, p. 187, 319;\n xvi. 15, p. 180;\n xvi. 15, 16, p. 178;\n xvi. 19, p. 180, 195.\n S. LUKE i. 26, p. 85;\n i. 27, p. 82.\n ii. 14, p. 257-63;\n ii. 37, p. 82.\n iii. 22, p. 30, 178;\n iii. 23, p. 220.\n iv. 5, p. 74;\n iv. 16, p. 220;\n iv. 44, p. 85.\n (S. LUKE) v. 1, p. 82, 220;\n i. 1-11, p. 295-6;\n i. 17, p. 220.\n vi. 1, p. 75, 220;\n vi. 37, p. 220;\n vi. 48, p. 81.\n vii. 1, p. 220;\n vii. 31, p. 216.\n viii. 2, p. 152, 178.\n ix. 57, p. 220.\n x. 1, p. 81, 220;\n x. 25, p. 220.\n xiii. 2, p. 221.\n xv. 13, p. 82.\n xvi. 6, p. 178;\n xvi. 16, p. 74;\n xvi. 19, p. 220.\n xviii. 15, p. 220.\n xix. 45, p. 220.\n xx. 1, p. 220.\n xxii. 25, p. 82;\n xxii. 43, 44, p. 79, 201, 217-8, 301;\n xxii. 64, p. 74.\n xxiii. 15, p. 83;\n xxiii. 34, p. 79, 219;\n xxiii. 38, p. 79;\n xxiii. 45, p. 85-6.\n xxiv. 12, p. 222;\n xxiv. 13, p. 85, 236;\n xxiv. 16, p. 178-9;\n xxiv. 31, p. 73;\n xxiv. 36, p. 221;\n xxiv. 42, 52, 53, p. 74;\n xxiv. 51, p. 195.\n S. JOHN i. 3, 4, p. 30, 110;\n i. 3, 18, 50, p. 30;\n i. 4, p. 81, 109-11;\n i. 18, p. 30, 81;\n i. 28, p. 236;\n i. 29, 44, p. 221;\n i. 34, p. 81;\n i. 50, p. 30.\n ii. 3, p. 80.\n iii. 13, p. 80.\n vi. 14, p. 221;\n vi. 17, 64, p. 82;\n vi. 51, p. 111.\n vii. 53-viii. 11, p. 219.\n viii. 57, p. 82;\n viii. 59, p. 80, 222.\n ix. 4, 11, p. 81;\n ix. 35, p. 82;\n ix. 38, p. 79.\n x. 14, p. 82;\n x. 29, p. 223.\n xiii. 3, p. 221;\n xiii. 10, p. 111.\n xiv. 1, p. 220;\n xiv. 31, p. 188.\n xvii. 10, p. 82;\n xvii. 15, 16, p. 76.\n xviii. 1, p. 188.\n xix. 13, p. 223;\n xix. 17, p. 188;\n xix. 34, p. 218, 313-5.\n xxi. 1, p. 221, 3;\n xxi. 1-6, 11, p. 295-6;\n xxi. 12, 13, 15-17, p. 297;\n xxi. 18, p. 83;\n xxi. 25, p. 79.\n ACTS i. 2, 22, 23, p. 180;\n i. 9, p. 195.\n iv. 12, p. 262.\n viii. 5, p. 85.\n x. 15, p. 180.\n xiii. 15, 27, p. 192.\n EPHES. i. 1, p. 91-109.\n vi. 21, 2, p. 101.\n COLOSS. i. 23, p. 162.\n iv. 7, 16, p. 101, 105.\n 1 S. PET. ii. 13, p. 180.\n iv. 19, p. 180.\n 2 S. PET. iii. 4, p. 180.\n\n ECCLUS. xliii. 11, 12, p. 301.\n 1 MACC. iv. 59, p. 301.\n\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, p. 156-8.\n\nThebaic Version, p. 35.\n\nTheodore of Mopsuestia, p. 275, 7.\n\nTheodoret, p. 258, 317-8.\n\nTheodotus of Ancyra, p. 258.\n\nTheophania, p. 207.\n\nTheophylact, p. 30, 266.\n\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, p. 157.\n\nThompson, Rev. A. S., p. ii, 252.\n\nThomson, Abp., p. 13.\n\nTischendorf, Dr., p. 8, 9, 10, 38, 77-9, 85-6, 93, 109-14, 123, 125-33,\n 137, 153, 222, 7, 242, 4, 251-2, 9, 260-1, 280, 293, 311, 322,\n viii-ix.\n\nTitus of Bostra, p. 258, 275, 283.\n\nToledo, _see_ Codices.\n\nTownson, Rev. Dr., p. 151, 179.\n\nTregelles, Dr., p. 9, 10-12, 38, 9, 60, 76, 114, 126-9, 136, 145, 169,\n 222-3, 227, 234, 242, 4, 5, 7, 251, 9, 260, 319, viii-ix.\n\nTurin, _see_ Codices.\n\nUlphilas, p. 35, 262.\n\nUncial MSS. p. 20, 71. _See_ Codices.\n\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, p. 274-5.\n\n\u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, p. 160.\n\nVatican, p. 117, 283-4, 288-9: _see_ Codices.\n\nVaticanus, _see_ Codex.\n\nVenice, _see_ Codices.\n\nVercellone, C., p. 73.\n\nVersions, _see_ Armenian, &c.\n\nVetus Itala, p. 35.\n\nVictor of Antioch, p. 29, 59-65, 67, 122, 134, 178, 180, 235, 250, 268,\n 269-87;\n Codices, 278-87;\n Scholion, 288-90.\n\nVictor of Capua, p. 129.\n\nVienna, _see_ Codices.\n\nVincentius a Thibari, p. 25.\n\nVulgate, p. 34.\n\nWestcott, Rev. Prof., p. 13, 23.\n\nWetstein, J. J., p. 121, 125, 129.\n\nWordsworth, Bishop, p. ix, 9.\n Wordsworth, Rev. John, p. ix.\n\nWright, Prof., p. 27, 33, 206, 8, 214-5, 225, 306, 7, 8, 9, 10.\n\nXavier de Zelada, _see_ Codices.\n\nXiphilinus, John, p. 44.\n\n\u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n 1 Abp. Tait\u2019s _Harmony of Revelation and the Sciences_, (1864,) p. 21.\n\n 2 See by all means Hooker, E. P., v. xlii. 11-13.\n\n 3 Abp. Tait is of opinion that it \u201cshould not retain its place in the\n public Service of the Church:\u201d and Dean Stanley gives sixteen\n reasons for the same opinion,\u2014the fifteenth of which is that \u201cmany\n excellent laymen, including King George III., have declined to take\n part in the recitation.\u201d (_Final_) _Report of the Ritual\n Commission_, 1870, p. viii. and p. xvii.\n\n 4 In the words of a thoughtful friend, (Rev. C. P.\n Eden),\u2014\u201c_Condemnatory_ is just what these clauses are not. I\n understand myself, in uttering these words, not to condemn a fellow\n creature, but to acknowledge a truth of Scripture, GOD\u2019S judgment\n namely on the sin of unbelief. The further question,\u2014In whom the sin\n of unbelief is found; _that_ awful question I leave entirely in His\n hands who is the alone Judge of hearts; who made us, and knows our\n infirmities, and whose tender mercies are over all His works.\u201d\n\n 5 \u201cThe Athanasian Creed,\u201d by the Dean of Westminster (_Contemporary\n Review_, Aug., 1870, pp. 158, 159).\n\n_ 6 Commentarius Criticus_, ii. 197.\n\n_ 7 Quatuor Evangelia Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus Codd.\n MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, etc. Jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit\n Andreas Birch, Havniae_, 1788. A copy of this very rare and\n sumptuous folio may be seen in the King\u2019s Library (Brit. Mus.)\n\n_ 8 Account of the Printed Text_, p. 83.\n\n 9 See above, p. 3.\n\n 10 \u201cEam esse authenticam rationes internae et externae probant\n gravissimae.\u201d\n\n 11 I find it difficult to say what distress the sudden removal of this\n amiable and accomplished Scholar occasions me, just as I am\n finishing my task. I consign these pages to the press with a sense\n of downright reluctance,\u2014(constrained however by the importance of\n the subject,)\u2014seeing that _he_ is no longer among us either to\n accept or to dispute a single proposition. All I can do is to erase\n every word which might have occasioned him the least annoyance; and\n indeed, as seldom as possible to introduce his respected name. An\n open grave reminds one of the nothingness of earthly controversy; as\n nothing else does, or indeed can do.\n\n 12 Tischendorf, besides eight editions of his laborious critical\n revision of the Greek Text, has edited our English \u201cAuthorized\n Version\u201d (Tauchnitz, 1869,) with an \u201cIntroduction\u201d addressed to\n unlearned readers, and the various readings of Codd. \u05d0, B and A, set\n down in English at the foot of every page.\u2014Tregelles, besides his\n edition of the Text of the N. T., is very full on the subject of S.\n Mark xvi. 9-20, in his \u201cAccount of the Printed Text,\u201d and in his\n \u201cIntroduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.\u201d (vol. iv. of\n Horne\u2019s _Introd._)\u2014Dean Alford, besides six editions of his Greek\n Testament, and an abridgment \u201cfor the upper forms of Schools and for\n passmen at the Universities,\u201d put forth two editions of a \u201cN. T. for\n English Readers,\u201d and three editions of \u201cthe Authorized Version\n newly compared with the original Greek and revised;\u201d\u2014in every one of\n which it is stated that these twelve verses are \u201cprobably an\n addition, placed here in very early times.\u201d\n\n 13 The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, and Bp. Wordsworth, are\n honourable exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent\n Divine reluctantly admitting that \u201cthis portion may not have been\n penned by S. Mark himself;\u201d and Bishop Ellicott (_Historical\n Lectures_, pp. 26-7) asking \u201cWhy may not this portion have been\n written by S. Mark at a later period?;\u201d\u2014both alike resolutely insist\n on its genuineness and canonicity. To the honour of the best living\n master of Textual Criticism, the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, (of whom I\n desire to be understood to speak as a disciple of his master,) be it\n stated that he has never at any time given the least sanction to the\n popular outcry against this portion of the Gospel. \u201cWithout the\n slightest misgiving\u201d he has uniformly maintained the genuineness of\n S. Mark xvi. 9-20. (_Introduction_, pp. 7 and 429-32.)\n\n 14 \u201cH\u00e6c non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,\u201d (p.\n 320.) \u201cQu\u00e6 testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis, ut quod\n conlatis prioribus versu 9. parum apte adduntur verba \u03b1\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\n item quod singula multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.\u201d (p.\n 322.)\u2014I quote from the 7th Leipsic ed.; but in Tischendorf\u2019s 8th ed.\n (1866, pp. 403, 406,) the same verdict is repeated, with the\n following addition:\u2014\u201cQu\u00e6 quum ita sint, san\u00e6 erga sacrum textum\n pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare pergunt qua\n a Marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.\u201d (p. 407.)\n\n_ 15 Evangelia Apocrypha_, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi.\n\n 16 Pp. 253, 7-9.\n\n 17 In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson pronounced\n it \u201cmanifestly untenable\u201d that S. Mark\u2019s Gospel was the last\n written; and assigned A.D. 64 as \u201cits most probable\u201d date. In his\n second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), he says:\u2014\u201cWhen we consider that _the\n Gospel was not written till the second century_, internal evidence\n loses much of its force against the authenticity of these\n verses.\u201d\u2014_Introduction to N.T._\n\n 18 Vol. ii. p. 239.\n\n_ 19 Developed Criticism_, [1857], p. 53.\n\n 20 Ed. 1847. i. p. 17. He recommends this view to his reader\u2019s\n acceptance in five pages,\u2014pp. 216 to 221.\n\n_ 21 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels_, p. 311.\n\n_ 22 Critical and Exegetical Commentary_, 1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186-92.\n\n 23 In the Roman law this principle is thus expressed,\u2014\u201cEi incumbit\n probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.\u201d Taylor _on the Law of Evidence_,\n 1868, i. p. 369.\n\n 24 This is freely allowed by all. \u201cCertiores facti sumus hanc pericopam\n jam in secundo s\u00e6culo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.\u201d\n Tregelles _N.T._ p. 214.\n\n 25 This in fact is how Bengel (N. T. p. 626) accounts for the\n phenomenon:\u2014\u201cFieri potuit ut librarius, scripto versu 8, reliquam\n partem scribere differret, et id exemplar, casu non perfectum, alii\n quasi perfectum sequerentur, praesertim quum ea pars cum reliqu\u00e2\n histori\u00e2 evangelic\u00e2 minus congruere videretur.\u201d\n\n 26 It is thus that Tischendorf treats S. Luke xxiv. 12, and (in his\n latest edition) S. John xxi. 25.\n\n 27 Chap. III.-VIII., also Chap. X.\n\n 28 Chap. IX.\n\n 29 Viz. E, L, [viii]: K, M, V, \u0393, \u0394, \u039b (qu\u00e6re), \u03a0 (Tisch. _ed._ 8va.)\n [ix]: G, X, S, U [ix, x]. The following uncials are defective\n here,\u2014F (ver. 9-19), H (ver. 9-14), I, N, O, P, Q, R, T, W, Y, Z.\n\n 30 See Appendix (A), on the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14.\n\n 31 Consider how Ignatius (_ad Smyrn._, c. 3) quotes S. Luke xxiv. 39;\n and how he refers to S. John xii. 3 in his Ep. _ad Ephes._ c. 17.\n\n 32 \u1f39\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 [sc. \u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2] \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2,\u2014evidently a slip of the pen for \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f38\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (see Acts i. 23, quoted by Eusebius immediately\n afterwards,)\u2014\u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ iii. 39.\n\n_ 33 Apol._ I. c. 45.\u2014The supposed quotations in c. 9 from the Fragment\n _De Resurrectione_ (Westcott and others) are clearly references to\n S. Luke xxiv.,\u2014_not_ to S. Mark xvi.\n\n 34 lib. iii. c. x. _ad fin._ (ed. Stieren, i. p. 462). \u201cIn fine autem\n Evangelii ait Marcus, _et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est\n sis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei._\u201d\n Accordingly, against S. Mark xvi. 19 in Harl. MS. 5647 ( = Evan. 72)\n occurs the following marginal scholium, which Cramer has already\n published:\u2014\u0395\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fbd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 35 First published as his by Fabricius (vol. i. 245.) Its authorship\n has never been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of\n Hippolytus (inscribed on the chair of his marble effigy in the\n Lateran Museum at Rome) is read,\u2014\u03a0\u0395\u03a1\u0399 \u03a7\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u03a3\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u03a9\u039d; and by that name\n the fragment in question is actually designated in the third chapter\n of the (so called) \u201cApostolical Constitutions,\u201d (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c3\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.),\u2014in which singular\n monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It is in\n fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the \u201cApostolical\n Constitutions;\u201d of which the ivth chapter is also claimed for\n Hippolytus, (though with evidently far less reason,) and as such\n appears in the last edition of the Father\u2019s collected works,\n (_Hippolyti Romani qu\u00e6 feruntur omnia Gr\u00e6ce_, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)\u2014p.\n 74.\n\n The work thus assigned to Hippolytus, (evidently on the strength of\n the heading,\u2014\u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5,) is part of the \u201cOctateuchus Clementinus,\u201d concerning\n which Lagarde has several remarks in the preface to his _Reliqui\u00e6\n Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquissim\u00e6_, 1856. The composition in question\n extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the last-named publication. The exact\n correspondence between the \u201cOctateuchus Clementinus\u201d and the\n Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions will be found to extend no further\n than the single chapter (the ivth) specified in the text. In the\n meantime the fragment \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (containing S. Mark xvi. 17,\n 18,) is identical throughout. It forms the first article in\n Lagarde\u2019s _Reliqui\u00e6_, extending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there\n headed \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f09\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n_ 36 Ad fin._ See Routh\u2019s _Opuscula_, i. p. 80.\n\n 37 For which reason I cordially subscribe to Tischendorf\u2019s remark (ed.\n 8va. p. 407), \u201cQuod idem [Justinus] Christum \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 dicit, [_Apol._ I. c. 50?] minus valet.\u201d\n\n 38 \u201cIn nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellite,\u201d (Cyprian Opp. p.\n 237 [_Reliqq. Sacr._ iii. p. 124,] quoting S. Mark xvi. 17,\n 18,)\u2014\u201c_In nomine meo daemonia ejicient ... super egrotos manus\n imponent_ et bene habebunt.\u201d\n\n_ 39 Responsa ad Episcopos_, c. 44, (_Reliqq._ v. 248.)\n\n_ 40 Evangelia Apocrypha_, ed. Tischendorf, 1853, pp. 243 and 351: also\n _Proleg._ p. lvi.\n\n 41 In _l._ vii. _c._ 7 (_ad fin._),\u2014\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd: and in _l._ viii. _c._ 1,\u2014\u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9.\n Observe, this immediately follows the quotation of verses 17, 18.\n\n_ 42 Lib._ vi. _c._ 15.\u2014The quotation (at the beginning of _lib._ viii.)\n of the 17th and 18th verses, has been already noticed in its proper\n place. _Supra_, p. 24.\n\n 43 Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 421.\n\n_ 44 Apud_ Hieron. _Opp. ed._ Vallars., ii. 951-4.\n\n 45 See Dr. Wright\u2019s ed. of \u201cAphraates,\u201d (4to. 1869.) i. p. 21. I am\n entirely indebted to the learned Editor\u2019s _Preface_ for the\n information in the text.\n\n 46 From Dr. Wright, and my brother Archdeacon Rose.\n\n 47 Vol. i. 796 E and vol. ii. 461 D quote ver. 15: 1429 B quotes ver.\n 15 and 16: vol. ii. 663 B, C quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 127 A\n quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 639 E and vol. ii. 400 A quote ver.\n 17, 18. Vol. i. 716 A quotes ver. 20.\n\n_ 48 Opp._ iii. 765 A, B.\n\n 49 \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f50\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3 [\u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7].\n Chrys. _Opp._ ch. 355 B.\n\n 50 \u201cCogis\u201d (he says to Pope Damasus) \u201cut post exemplaria Scripturarum\n toto orbe dispersa quasi quidam arbiter sedeam; et quia inter se\n variant, quae sint illa quae cum Graec\u00e2 consentiant veritate\n decernam.\u2014Haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evangelia\n ... codicum Graecorum emendata conlatione, sed et veterum.\u201d\n\n 51 Vol. i. p. 327 C (_ed._ Vallars.)\n\n_ 52 Contra Pelagianos_, II. 15, (Opp. ii. 744-5):\u2014\u201cIn quibusdam\n exemplaribus et maxima in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum in fine\n Evangelii scribitur: _Postea quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis\n Jesus, et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia\n his qui viderant eum resurgentem, non crediderunt. Et illi\n satisfaciebant dicentes: S\u00e6culum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis\n substantia est, quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei\n apprehendi virtutem: idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam._\u201d\n\n 53 E.g. ver. 12 in vol. ii. 515 C (Ep. 149); Vol. v. 988 C.\u2014Verses 15,\n 16, in vol. v. 391 E, 985 A: vol. x. 22 F.\n\n 54 Vol. v. 997 F, 998 B, C.\n\n 55 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd. Nestorius _c. Orthodoxos_: (Cyril. Alexand. _adv.\n Nestorian._ Opp. vol. vi. 46 B.) To which, Cyril replies,\u2014\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76. (_Ibid._ D.) This quotation was\n first noticed by Matthaei (_Enthym. Zig._ i. 161.)\n\n 56 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; \u1f49 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f44\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\u2014\u1f10\u03ba\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii. 415.\n\n 57 Athanasii _Opp._ vol. ii. p. 181 F, 182 A. See the _Pr\u00e6fat._, pp.\n vii., viii.\n\n 58 In dismissing this enumeration, let me be allowed to point out that\n there must exist many more Patristic citations which I have\n overlooked. The necessity one is under, on occasions like the\n present, of depending to a great extent on \u201cIndices,\u201d is fatal; so\n scandalously inaccurate is almost every Index of Texts that can be\n named. To judge from the Index in Oehler\u2019s edition of Tertullian,\n that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times.\n According to the Benedictine Index, Ambrose does not quote them so\n much as once. Ambrose, nevertheless, quotes five of these verses no\n less than fourteen times; while Tertullian, as far as I am able to\n discover, does not quote S. Mark xvi. 9-20 at all.\n\n Again. One hoped that the Index of Texts in Dindorf\u2019s new Oxford ed.\n of Clemens Alex. was going to remedy the sadly defective Index in\n Potter\u2019s ed. But we are still exactly where we were. S. John i. 3\n (or 4), so remarkably quoted in vol. iii. 433, l. 8: S. John i. 18,\n 50, memorably represented in vol. iii. 412, l. 26: S. Mark i. 13,\n interestingly referred to in vol. iii. 455, lines 5, 6, 7:\u2014are\n nowhere noticed in the Index. The Voice from Heaven at our SAVIOUR\u2019S\n Baptism,\u2014a famous misquotation (vol. i. 145, l. 14),\u2014does not appear\n in the Index of quotations from S. Matthew (iii. 17), S. Mark (i.\n 11), or S. Luke (iii. 22.)]\n\n 59 Gregentius _apud_ Galland. xi. 653 E.\u2014Greg. Mag. (Hom. xxix. in\n Evang.)\u2014Modestus _apud_ Photium cod. 275.\u2014Johannis Damasceni _Opp._\n (ed. 1712) vol. i. 608 E.\u2014Bede, and Theophylact (who quotes _all_\n the verses) and Euthymius _in loc._\n\n 60 Dr. Wright informs me (1871) that some more leaves of this Version\n have just been recovered.\n\n 61 By a happy providence, one of the fragments contains the last four\n verses.\n\n 62 In the margin, against S. Matth. xxviii. 5, Thomas writes,\u2014\u201c_In\n tribus codicibus Gr\u00e6cis_, et in uno Syriaco antiqu\u00e6 versionis, non\n inventum est nomen, \u2018Nazarenus.\u2019 \u201d\u2014Cf. ad xxvii. 35.\u2014Adler\u2019s _N. T.\n Verss. Syrr._, p. 97.\n\n 63 That among the 437 various readings and marginal notes on the\n Gospels relegated to the Philoxenian margin, should occur the\n worthless supplement which is only found besides in Cod. L. (see ch.\n viii.)\u2014is not at all surprising. Of these 437 readings and notes, 91\n are not found in White\u2019s Edition; while 105 (the supplement in\n question being one of them) are found in White only. This creates a\n suspicion that in part at least the Philoxenian margin must exhibit\n traces of the assiduity of subsequent critics of the Syriac text.\n (So Adler on S. Matth. xxvi. 40.) To understand the character of\n some of those marginal notes and annotations, the reader has but to\n refer to Adler\u2019s learned work, (pp. 79-134) and examine the notes on\n the following places:\u2014S. Matth. xv. 21: xx. 28 ( = D): xxvi. 7. S.\n Mk. i. 16: xii. 42. S. Lu. x. 17 ( = B D): 42 ( = B \u05d0 L): xi. 1: 53.\n S. Jo. ii. 1 [3] ( = \u05d0): iii. 26: vii. 39 (partly = B): x. 8, &c.\n &c.\n\n 64 This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona,\n 1861-4, under the following title:\u2014_Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum\n ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino demprompsit, edidit, Latine vertit,\n Prolegomenis et Glossario adornavit, Comes_ FRANCISCUS MINISCALCHI\n ERIZZO.\n\n 65 It does not sensibly detract from the value of this evidence that\n one ancient codex, the \u201cCodex Bobbiensis\u201d (k), which Tregelles\n describes as \u201ca revised text, in which the influence of ancient MSS.\n is discernible,\u201d [_Printed text_, &c. p. 170.] and which therefore\n may not be cited in the present controversy,\u2014exhibits after ver. 8 a\n Latin translation of the spurious words which are also found in Cod.\n L.\n\n 66 \u201cQuod Gothicum testimonium haud scio an critici satis agnoverint,\n vel pro dignitate aestimaverint.\u201d Mai, _Nova Patt. Bibl._ iv. 256.\n\n_ 67 Account of the Printed Text_, p. 247.\n\n_ 68 Gr. Test._ p. 322.\n\n 69 \u1f18\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f7a\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1, \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (sic) \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f26\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1. _Opp._ (ed. 1638) iii,\n 411 B.\n\n 70 Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 248, also in Horne\u2019s _Introd._ iv.\n 434-6. So Norton, Alford, Davidson, and the rest, following\n Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, &c.\n\n_ 71 Nov. Auct._ i. 743-74.\u2014_Bibl. Vett. PP._ xi. 221-6.\n\n_ 72 Bibl. Coisl._ pp. 68-75.\u2014_Catena_, i. 243-51.\n\n 73 Dionysius Syrus (i.e. the Monophysite Jacobus Bar-Salibi [see Dean\n Payne Smith\u2019s _Cat. of Syrr. MSS._ p. 411] who died A.D. 1171) in\n his _Exposition of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel_ (published at Dublin by Dudley\n Loftus, 1672, 4to.) seems (at p. 59) to give this homily to\n Severus.\u2014I have really no independent opinion on the subject.\n\n 74 Alford, _Greek Test._ i. p. 433.\n\n_ 75 Scriptorum Vett. Nova Collectio_, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1-101.\n\n 76 At p. 217, (_ed._ 1847), Mai designates it as \u201cCodex Vat. Palat. cxx\n pulcherrimus, s\u00e6culi ferme x.\u201d At p. 268, he numbers it\n rightly,\u2014ccxx. We are there informed that the work of Eusebius\n extends from fol. 61 to 96 of the Codex.\n\n 77 Vol. iv. pp. 219-309.\n\n 78 See _Nova P. P. Bibliotheca_, iv. 255.\u2014That it was styled \u201cInquiries\n with their Resolutions\u201d (\u0396\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2), Eusebius leads us to\n suppose by himself twice referring to it under that name,\n (_Demonstr. Evang. lib._ vii. 3: also in the Preface to Marinus,\n _Mai_, iv. 255:) which his abbreviator is also observed to employ\n (_Mai_, iv. 219, 255.) But I suspect that he and others so designate\n the work only from the nature of its contents; and that its actual\n title is correctly indicated by Jerome,\u2014_De Evangeliorum Diaphoni\u00e2_:\n \u201cEdidit\u201d (he says) \u201cde Evangeliorum Diaphoni\u00e2,\u201d (_De Scriptt.\n Illustt._ c. 81.) Again, \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, (_Hieron._ in Matth.\n i. 16.) Consider also the testimony of Latinus Latinius, given\n below, p. 44, note (q). \u201cIndicated\u201d by Jerome, I say: for the entire\n title was probably, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. The Author of the Catena on S. Mark edited by Cramer (i.\n p. 266), quotes an opinion of Eusebius \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2: words which\n are extracted from the same MS. by Simon, _Hist. Crit. N. T._ p. 89.\n\n 79 \u1f18\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u0395\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd [and\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd] \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd.\n _Ibid._ pp. 219, 255.\u2014(See the plate of fac-similes facing the title\n of vol. i. ed. 1825.)\n\n 80 \u03a3\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. I quote the place from\n the less known Catena of Cramer, (ii. 389,) where it is assigned to\n Severus of Antioch: but it occurs also in _Corderii Cat. in Joan._\n p. 436. (See Mai, iv. 299.)\n\n 81 This passage is too grand to be withheld:\u2014\u039f\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f24\u03bd \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, (\u1f65\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03b9\u03b3 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9; \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f41 \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f45\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3. (_Possini Cat. in\n Marcum_, p. 343.)\n\n 82 Mai, iv. p. 299.\u2014The Caten\u00e6, inasmuch as their compilers are\n observed to have been very curious in such questions, are evidently\n full of _disjecta membra_ of the work. These are recognisable for\n the most part by their form; but sometimes they actually retain the\n name of their author. Accordingly, Caten\u00e6 have furnished Mai with a\n considerable body of additional materials; which (as far as a MS.\n Catena of Nicetas on S. Luke, [Cod. A. _seu_ Vat. 1611,] enabled\n him,) he has edited with considerable industry; throwing them into a\n kind of Supplement. (Vol. iv. pp. 268-282, and pp. 283-298.) It is\n only surprising that with the stores at his command, Mai has not\n contrived to enlighten us a little more on this curious subject. It\n would not be difficult to indicate sundry passages which he has\n overlooked. Neither indeed can it be denied that the learned\n Cardinal has executed his task in a somewhat slovenly manner. He\n does not seem to have noticed that what he quotes at pp.\n 357-8\u2014262\u2014283\u2014295, is to be found in the _Catena_ of _Corderius_ at\n pp. 448-9\u2014449\u2014450\u2014457.\u2014He quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of\n John Xiphilinus, (_Cod. Vat._ p. 160,) what he might have found in\n Possinus; and in Cramer too, (p. 446.) He was evidently unacquainted\n with Cramer\u2019s work, though it had been published 3 (if not 7) years\n before his own,\u2014else, at p. 299, instead of quoting Simon, he would\n have quoted Cramer\u2019s _Caten\u00e6_, i. 266.\u2014It was in his power to solve\n his own shrewd doubt, (at p. 299,\u2014concerning the text of a passage\n in Possinus, p. 343,) seeing that the Catena which Possinus\n published was transcribed by Corderius from a MS. in the Vatican.\n (Possini _Pr\u00e6fat._ p. ii.) In the Vatican, too, he might have found\n the fragment he quotes (p. 300) from p. 364 of the _Catena_ of\n Possinus. In countless places he might, by such references, have\n improved his often manifestly faulty text.\n\n 83 Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latinius (_Opp._ ii. 116.) to\n Andreas Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis) \u201cscire te vult in Sicili\u00e2\n inventos esse ... libros tres Eusebii C\u00e6sariensis _de Evangeliorum\n Diaphoni\u00e2_, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt.\u201d The letter\n is dated 1563.\n\n I suspect that when the original of this work is recovered, it will\n be found that Eusebius digested his \u201cQuestions\u201d _under heads_: e.g.\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (p. 264): \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. (p. 299.)\n\n 84 I translate according to the sense,\u2014the text being manifestly\n corrupt. \u03a4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd is probably a gloss,\n explanatory of \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc. In strictness, the \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n begins at ch. xv. 42, and extends to the end of the Gospel. There\n are 48 such \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 in S. Mark. But this term was often loosely\n employed by the Greek Fathers, (as \u201ccapitulum\u201d by the Latins,) to\n denote _a passage_ of Scripture, and it is evidently so used here.\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, on the contrary, in this place seems to have its true\n technical meaning, and to denote the liturgical _section_, or\n \u201clesson.\u201d\n\n 85 \u1f08\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 (like \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, spoken of in the foregoing note,) seems to\n be here used in its technical sense, and to designate the liturgical\n _section_, or \u201clectio.\u201d See Suicer, _in voce_.\n\n 86 The text of Eusebius seems to have experienced some disarrangement\n and depravation here.\n\n 87 Mai, _Bibl. P.P. Nova_, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the\n original of this passage is given in the Appendix (B).\n\n 88 Mai, iv. 257. So far, I have given the substance only of what\n Eusebius delivers with wearisome prolixity. It follows,\u2014\u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f21 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u1f7a\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u201c\u1f40\u03c8\u1f72\u2014\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u201d [xxviii. 1.] \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u201c\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7\u2014\u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\u201d [xx. 1.] \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9. [xxviii. 1.]\u2014For the principal\n words in the text, see the Appendix (B) _ad fin._\n\n 89 I allude to the following places:\u2014Combefis, _Novum Auctarium_, col.\n 780.\u2014Cod. Mosq. 138, (printed by Matthaei, _Anectt. Gr\u00e6c._ ii.\n 62.)\u2014also Cod. Mosq. 139, (see N. T. ix. 223-4.)\u2014Cod. Coislin. 195\n _fol._ 165.\u2014Cod. Coislin. 23, (published by Cramer, _Catt._ i.\n 251.)\u2014Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T. i. 4, _fol._ 169.\u2014Cod. Bodl.\n Laud. Gr. 33, _fol._ 79.\u2014Any one desirous of knowing more on this\n subject will do well to begin by reading Simon _Hist. Crit. du N.\n T._ p. 89. See Mai\u2019s foot-note, iv. p. 257.\n\n 90 Ep. cxx. _Opera_, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. pp. 811-43.\n\n_ 91 Ibid._ p. 844.\n\n_ 92 Ibid._ p. 793-810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810.\n\n 93 \u201cHujus qu\u00e6stionis duplex solutio est. [\u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03bd \u1f21\n \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.] Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris\n fertur [\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03c3 \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1] Evangeliis, omnibus Gr\u00e6ci\u00e6 libris\n pene hec capitulum [\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78] in fine non habentibus; [\u1f10\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2]; pr\u00e6sertim cum diversa atque\n contraria Evangelistis ceteris narrare videntur [\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3.] Aut hoc\n respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit [\u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd\n \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03d7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd ... \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2.] Matth\u00e6us, quando Dominus\n surrexerit vespere sabbati: Marcus autem, quando tum viderit Maria\n Magdalena, id est, mane prima sabbati. Ita enim distinguendum est,\n Cum autem resurrexisset: [\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad:]\n et, parumper, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima sabbati mane\n apparuit Mari\u00e6 Magdalen\u00e6: [\u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd, \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7.] Ut qui vespere sabbati, juxta\n Matth\u00e6um surrexerat, [\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3, \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n \u1f10\u03b3\u03ae\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf.] ipse mane prima sabbati, juxta Marcum, apparuerit Mari\u00e6\n Magdalen\u00e6. [\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03af \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7.]\n Quod quidem et Joannes Evangelista significat, mane Eum alterius\n diei visum esse demonstrans.\u201d [\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f66\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.]\n\n For the Latin of the above, see _Hieronymi Opera_, (ed. Vallars.)\n vol. i. p. 819: for the Greek, with its context, see Appendix (B).\n\n 94 \u1f20\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\u2014\u03a0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd;\n [Eusebius _ad Marinum_,(Mai, iv. 255.)]\n\n Primum qu\u00e6ris,\u2014Cur Matth\u00e6us dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati\n illucescente in una Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse; et Marcus mane\n resurrectionem ejus factam esse commemorat. [Hieronymus _ad\n Hedibiam_, (Opp. i. 818-9.)]\n\n \u03a0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u1f01\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u03bc\u03af\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. [_Ut supr\u00e0_, p. 257.]\n\n Quomodo, juxta Matth\u00e6um, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit\n Dominum resurgentem; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam mane una\n sabbati juxta sepulcrum fiere? [_Ut supr\u00e0_, p. 819.]\n\n \u03a0\u1ff6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u1f01\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2\n \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c8\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f21 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ae \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. [_Ut supr\u00e0_, p.\n 262.]\n\n Quomodo, juxta Matth\u00e6um, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alter\u00e2\n Mari\u00e2 advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joannem,\n audierit \u00e0 Domino, Noli me tangere. [_Ut supr\u00e0_, p. 821.]\n\n 95 Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 247.\n\n 96 See above, p. 28.\n\n 97 See above, p. 40-1.\n\n 98 See the Appendix (C) \u00a7 2.\n\n 99 See the Appendix (C) \u00a7 1.\u2014For the statement in line 5, see \u00a7 2.\n\n 100 In the _Eccl. Grac. Monumenta_ of Cotelerius, (iii. 1-53,) may be\n seen the discussion of 60 problems, headed,\u2014\u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f29\u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd. From this it appears that\n Hesychius, following the example of Eusebius, wrote a work on\n \u201cGospel Harmony,\u201d\u2014of which nothing but an abridgment has come down\n to us.\n\n 101 He says that he writes,\u2014\u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Greg. Nyss._ Opp._ iii. 400 c.\n\n 102 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc;\u1f49 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii. 415 D.\u2014See above, p. 29, note (g).\n\n 103 See below, chap. X.\n\n_ 104 Fasti Romani_, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp. 395-495.\n\n 105 Vol. i. _Pr\u00e6fat._ p. xxviii. See below, note (p).\n\n 106 \u201cVictor Antiochenus\u201d (writes Dr. Tregelles in his N. T. vol. i. p.\n 214,) \u201cdicit \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\u201d\n\n 107 For additional details concerning Victor of Antioch, and his work,\n the studious in such matters are referred to the Appendix (D).\n\n_ 108 Opp._ vol. vii. p. 825 E-826 B: or, in Field\u2019s edition, p. 527,\n line 3 to 20.\n\n 109 Cramer, i. p. 266, lines 10, 11,\u2014\u1f65\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. And at p. 446, line 19,\u2014\u0395\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\n \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n 110 Compare Cramer\u2019s _Vict. Ant._ i. p. 444, line 6-9, with Field\u2019s\n _Chrys._ iii. p. 539, line 7-21.\n\n 111 Mai, iv. p. 257-8.\n\n 112 Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to p. 445, line 4.\n\n 113 The following is the original of what is given above:\u2014\u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3, \u201c\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af, \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 (see below) \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc6 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7,\u201d \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\n \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f76\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3, \u1f72\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n \u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1;\n \u201c\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72,\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7.\u201d \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 [_The extract from_ VICTOR _is\n continued below in the right hand column: the left exhibiting the\n text of_ EUSEBIUS \u201c_ad Marinum_.\u201d] [Transcriber\u2019s Note: The extracts\n will be on alternating paragraphs.]\n\n (Eusebius.) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u201c\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2,\u201d \u1f00\u03bd[\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd?] \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3\n \u201c\u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\u201d (\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ae\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf.) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2, \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c8\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n (Victor.) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u201c\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2,\u201d \u1f70\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3 \u201c\u1f40\u03c8\u1f72\n \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\u201d (\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2, \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f44\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c8\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2;\n\n (Eusebius.) (\u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af\u201d \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u201c\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7.\u201d)\n\n (Victor.) (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u201c\u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\n \u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af\u201d \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd.)\n\n (Eusebius.) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u201c\u03c4\u1fc7\n \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u201d \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n (Victor.) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u201c\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u201d \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n [31 words here omitted.]\n\n (Eusebius.) \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf; \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u201c\u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\u201d \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af.\u201d\n\n (Victor.) \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf; \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u201c\u1f40\u03c8\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5;\u201d \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u201c\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03af.\u201d\n\n [EUSEBIUS, _apud Mai_, iv. p. 256.]\n\n [VICTOR ANTIOCH, _ed. Cramer_, i. p. 444-5: (_with a few slight\n emendations of the text from_ Evan. Cod. Reg. 178.)]\n\n Note, that Victor _twice_ omits the word \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, and _twice_ reads\n \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, (instead of \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5), _only because\n Eusebius had inadvertently_ (three times) _done the same thing_ in\n the place from which Victor is copying. See Mai. _Nova P. P. Bibl._\n iv. p. 256, line 19 and 26: p. 257 line 4 and 5.\n\n 114 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u1ff6 \u03b4\u1f10 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Vict. Ant. _ed. Cramer_, vol. i. p.\n 445, l. 23-5: referring to what Eusebius says _apud Mai_, iv. 264\n and 265 (\u00a7 iiii): 287-290 (\u00a7\u00a7 v, vi, vii.)\n\n 115 e.g. in the passage last quoted.\n\n 116 For the original of this remarkable passage the reader is referred\n to the Appendix (E).\n\n 117 How shrewdly was it remarked by Matthaei, eighty years ago,\u2014\u201cScholia\n certe, in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur, omnia _ex uno\n fonte promanarunt_. Ex eodem fonte Hieronymum etiam hausisse\n intelligitur ex ejus loco quem laudavit Wetst. ad ver. 9.\u2014Similiter\n Scholiast\u00e6 omnes in principio hujus Evangelii in disputatione de\n lectione \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7 ex uno pendent. _Fortasse Origenes\n auctor est hujus dubitationis._\u201d (N.T. vol. ii. p. 270.)\u2014The reader\n is invited to remember what was offered above in p. 47 (line 23.)\n\n 118 It is not often, I think, that one finds in MSS. a point actually\n inserted after \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad. Such a point is found, however, in Cod.\n 34 ( = Coisl. 195,) and Cod. 22 ( = Reg. 72,) and doubtless in many\n other copies.\n\n 119 Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, pp. 47, 125, 431.\n\n 120 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd. \u03a7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd.\u2014Euthym. Zig. (_ed._\n Matthaei, 1792), _in loc._\n\n 121 For some remarks on this subject the reader is referred to the\n Appendix (F).\n\n 122 Viz. A, C [v]; D [vi]; E, L [viii]; F, K, M, V, \u0393, \u0394, \u039b (qu\u00e6re), \u03a0\n [ix]; G, H, X, S, U [ix, x].\n\n 123 Vercellone,\u2014_Del antichissimo Codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca_,\n Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.)\n\n_ 124 Dublin Univ. Mag._ (Nov. 1859,) p. 620, quoted by Scrivener, p. 93.\n\n 125 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 126 See Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_ to his ed. of the Codex Bez\u00e6, p.\n xxiii. The passage referred to reappears at the end of his Preface\n to the 2nd ed. of his _Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus_.\u2014Add to his\n instances, this from S. Matth. xxviii. 2, 3:\u2014\n\n \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0395\u039a\u0391\u0398\u0397\u03a4\u039f \u0395\n \u03a0\u0391\u039d\u03a9 \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a5 [\u0397\u039d \u0394\u0395\n \u0397 \u0395\u0399\u0394\u0395\u0391 \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a5] \u03a9\u03a3\n \u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u03a1\u0391\u03a0\u0397\n\n It is plain why the scribe of \u05d0 wrote \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7.\u2014The\n next is from S. Luke xxiv. 31:\u2014\n\n \u0394\u0399\u0397\u039d\u03a5\u0393\u0397\n \u03a3\u0391\u039d \u039f\u0399 \u039f\u03a6\u0398\u0391\u039b\u039c\u039f\u0399\n \u039a\u0391\u0399 [\u0395\u03a0\u0395\u0393\u039d\u03a9\u03a3\u0391\u039d \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\n \u039a\u0391\u0399] \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a3 \u0391\u03a6\u0391\u039d\n \u03a4\u039f\u03a3 \u0395\u0393\u0395\u039d\u0395\u03a4\u039f\n\n Hence the omission of \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd in \u05d0.\u2014The following\n explains the omission from \u05d0 (and D) of the Ascension at S. Luke\n xxiv. 52:\u2014\n\n \u0391\u03a0 \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u039a\u0391\u0399 [\u0391\u039d\n \u0395\u03a6\u0395\u03a1\u0395\u03a4\u039f \u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u03a4\u039f\u039d\n \u039f\u03a5\u03a1\u0391\u039d\u039f\u039d \u039a\u0391\u0399] \u0391\u03a5\n \u03a4\u039f\u0399 \u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a3\u039a\u03a5\u039d\u0397\u03a3\u0399\n\n The next explains why \u05d0 reads \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd in S. Luke\n xxii. 64:\u2014\n\n \u0394\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u039d\u03a4\u0395\u03a3 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u03a0\u0395\n \u03a0\u0399\u039a\u0391\u039b\u03a5\u03a8\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0395\u03a3 \u0395\n [\u03a4\u03a5\u03a0\u03a4\u039f\u039d \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a5 \u03a4\u039f\n \u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a3\u03a9\u03a0\u039f\u039d \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u03a3]\n \u03a0\u0397\u03a1\u03a9\u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\n\n The next explains why the words \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 are\n absent in \u05d0 (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16:\u2014\n\n \u0395\u03a5\u0391\u0393\u0393\u0395\n \u039b\u0399\u0396\u0395\u03a4\u0391\u0399 [\u039a\u0391\u0399 \u03a0\u0391\u03a3\n \u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u0397\u039d \u0392\u0399\n \u0391\u0396\u0395\u03a4\u0391\u0399] \u0395\u03a5\u039a\u039f\u03a0\u03a9\n \u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u039d \u0394\u0395 \u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u039d \u03a4\u039f\n\n 127 In this way, (at S. John xvii. 15, 16), the obviously corrupt\n reading of Cod. B (\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5)\u2014which, however,\n was the reading of the copy used by Athanasius (_Opp._ p. 1035: _al.\n ed._ p. 825)\u2014is explained:\u2014\n\n \u0395\u039a \u03a4\u039f\u03a5 [\u03a0\u039f\u039d\u0397\u03a1\u039f\u03a5.\n \u0395\u039a \u03a4\u039f\u03a5] \u039a\u039f\u03a3\u039c\u039f\u03a5\n \u039f\u03a5\u039a \u0395\u0399\u03a3\u0399\u039d \u039a\u0391\u0398\u03a9\u03a3\n\n Thus also is explained why B (with \u05d0, A, D, L) omits a precious\n clause in S. Luke xxiv. 42:\u2014\n\n \u039f\u03a0\u03a4\u039f\u03a5 \u039c\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u03a3 \u039a\u0391\u0399\n [\u0391\u03a0\u039f \u039c\u0395\u039b\u0399\u03a3\u03a3\u0399\n \u039f\u03a5 \u039a\u0397\u03a1\u0399\u039f\u03a5 \u039a\u0391\u0399]\n \u039b\u0391\u0392\u03a9\u039d \u0395\u039d\u03a9\u03a0\u0399\u039f\u039d\n\n And why the same MSS. (all but A) omit an important clause in S.\n Luke xxiv. 53:\u2014\n\n \u0395\u039d \u03a4\u03a9 \u0399\u0395\u03a1\u03a9 [\u0391\u0399\u039d\n \u039f\u03a5\u039d\u03a4\u0395\u03a3 \u039a\u0391\u0399] \u0395\u03a5\u039b\u039f\n \u0393\u039f\u03a5\u039d\u03a4\u0395\u03a3 \u03a4\u039f\u039d \u0398\u0397\u039f\u039d\n\n And why B (with \u05d0, L) omits an important clause in the history of\n the Temptation (S. Luke iv. 5) :\u2014\n\n \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u039d\u0391\u0393\u0391\u0393\u03a9\u039d \u0391\u03a5\n \u03a4\u039f\u039d [\u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u039f\u03a1\u039f\u03a3 \u03a5\u03a8\u0397\n \u039b\u039f\u039d] \u0395\u0394\u0399\u039e\u0395\u039d \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u03a9\n\n 128 In this way the famous omission (\u05d0, B, L) of the word \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3,\n in S. Luke vi. 1, is (to say the least) capable of being explained:\u2014\n\n \u0395\u0393\u0395\u039d\u0395\u03a4\u039f \u0394 \u0395 \u0395\u039d \u03a3\u0391\u0398\n \u0392\u0391\u03a4\u03a9 \u0394[\u0395\u03a5\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u039f\n \u03a0\u03a1\u03a9\u03a4\u03a9 \u0394]\u0399\u0391\u03a0\u039f\u03a1\u0395\u03a5\u0395\n\n and of \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 (\u05d0) in S. Matth. xxvii. 35:\u2014\n\n \u0391\u0399\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u03a3 \u0396\u0391\u03a7\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u039f\u03a5\n [\u03a5\u0399\u039f\u03a5 \u0392\u0391\u03a1\u0391\u03a7\u0399\u039f\u03a5]\n \u039f\u039d \u0395\u03a6\u039f\u039d\u0395\u03a5\u03a3\u0391\u03a4\u0395\n\n 129 He has reached the 480th page of vol. ii. (1 Cor. v. 7.)\n\n 130 In this way 14 words have been omitted from Cod. \u05d0 in S. Mark xv.\n 47\u2014xvi. 1:\u201419 words in S. Mark i. 32-4:\u201420 words in S. John xx. 5,\n 6:\u201439 words in S. John xix. 20, 21.\n\n 131 Scrivener\u2019s _Full Collation_, &c., p. xv.; quoting Tregelles\u2019 N. T.\n Part II. page ii.\n\n 132 See Chap. IV. p. 37.\n\n 133 Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction to Con. Bezae_, p. liv.\n\n 134 e.g. in S. John i. 42 (meaning only \u05d0, B, L): iv. 42 (\u05d0, B, C): v.\n 12 (\u05d0, B, C, L): vi. 22 (A, B, L), &c.\n\n 135 e.g. S. Matth. x. 25; xii. 24, 27: S. Luke xi. 15, 18, 19\n (\u03b2\u03b5\u03b5\u03b6\u03b5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb).\u20141 Cor. xiii. 3 (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9).\u2014S. James i. 17\n (\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2).\u2014Acts i. 5 (\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd. \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0. \u03b1\u03b3.).\u2014S. Mark vi. 20\n (\u03b7\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9).\u2014S. Matth. xiv. 30 (\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd).\u2014S. Luke iii. 32 (\u1f30\u03c9\u03b2\u03b7\u03bb).\u2014Acts\n i. 19 (\u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 omitted).\u2014S. Matth. xxv. 27 (\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1).\u2014S. Matth.\n xvii. 22 (\u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd).\u2014S. Luke vi. 1 (\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u1ff3 omitted).\u2014See\n more in Tischendorf\u2019s _Prolegomena_ to his 4to. reprint of the _Cod.\n Sin._ p. xxxvi. On this head the reader is also referred to\n Scrivener\u2019s very interesting _Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus_,\n Introduction, p. xliii. _seq._\n\n 136 See Tischendorf\u2019s note in his reprint of the Cod. Sin., _Prolegg._\n p. lix.\n\n 137 \u1f6c\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd. S. Luke xxii. 43, 44.\n\n 138 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\u2014\u03c4\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9, (xxiii. 34):\u2014\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1fec\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, (xxiii. 38.)\n\n 139 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd\u03c5\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03be\u03b7\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c5\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1. Yet B, C, L and \u05d0 contain this!\n\n_ 140 Coll. of the Cod. Sin._, p. xlvii.\n\n 141 So, in the margin of the Hharklensian revision.\n\n 142 Note, that it is a mistake for the advocates of this reading to\n claim the _Latin_ versions as allies. \u1f08\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. is not \u201cRespondit, Ille homo qui dicitur\n Jesus,\u201d (as both Tischendorf and Tregelles assume;) but \u201c_Respondit\n ille_, Homo,\u201d &c.,\u2014as in verses 25 and 36.\n\n 143 This reading will be found discussed in a footnote (p) at the end of\n Chap. VII.,\u2014p. 110.\n\n 144 The following may be added from Cod. \u05d0:\u2014\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd (in S. Mark x.\n 42) changed into \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2: \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd (in S. Mark xiv. 58) substituted\n for \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2: \u03b5\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd (in S. Lu.\n ii. 37) for \u1f40\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03b7\u03ba: and \u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5 (in S. Jo. viii. 57) for\n \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2:\u2014in all which four readings Cod. \u05d0 is without support.\n [Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. li.] The epithet \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd, introduced\n (in the same codex) before \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd in S. Mark xv. 46; and \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2\n inserted into the phrase \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03b4 in S. Lu. i. 27,\u2014are two\n more specimens of mistaken officiousness. In the same infelicitous\n spirit, Cod. B and Cod. \u05d0 concur in omitting \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd (S. Matt. xiv.\n 30), and in substituting \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 for \u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u1fc7, and \u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 for\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 in S. Mark vii. 3 and 4:\u2014while the interpolation of\n \u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 after \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd in S. Matth. viii. 9, because of the\n parallel place in S. Luke\u2019s Gospel; and the substitution of \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9 (from S. Luke xix. 21) for \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 in S.\n Matth. xxv. 24, are proofs that yet another kind of corrupting\n influence has been here at work besides those which have been\n already specified.\n\n 145 Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. xlvii.\n\n 146 Add to the authorities commonly appealed to for \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8. Chrys.^834\n (twice,) (also quoted in Cramer\u2019s _Cat._ 241). The mistake adverted\n to in the text is at least as old as the time of Eusebius, (Mai, iv.\n p. 264 = 287), who asks,\u2014\u03a0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03ac\u03b9\u1ff3 \u1f21 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n 147 Tischendorf accordingly _is forced_, for once, to reject the reading\n of his oracle \u05d0,\u2014witnessed to though it be by Origen and Eusebius.\n His discussion of the text in this place is instructive and even\n diverting. How is it that such an instance as the present does not\n open the eyes of Prejudice itself to the danger of pinning its faith\n to the consentient testimony even of Origen, of Eusebius, and of\n Cod. \u05d0?... The reader is reminded of what was offered above, in the\n lower part of p. 49.\n\n 148 A similar perversion of the truth of Scripture is found at S. Luke\n iv. 44, (cf. the parallel place, S. Matth. iv. 23: S. Mark i. 89).\n It does not mend the matter to find \u05d0 supported this time by Codd.\n B, C, L, Q, R.\n\n 149 S. Lu. xxiii. 45:\u2014\u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f22 \u1f10\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\n \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f26\u03bd. (Chrys. vii. 824 c.)\n\n 150 \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f10\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2:\u2014\u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bc\u03ae\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. So Victor of Antioch, in his Catena on S. Mark\n (ed. Possin.) He makes the remark twice: first (p. 351) in the midst\n of an abridgment of the beginning of Chrysostom\u2019s 88th Homily on S.\n Matthew: next (p. 352) more fully, after quoting \u201cthe great\n Dionysius\u201d of Alexandria. See also an interesting passage on the\n same subject in Cramer\u2019s _Catena in Matth._ i. p. 237,\u2014from whom\n derived, I know not; but professing to be from Chrysostom. (Note,\n that the 10 lines \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5, beginning p. 236, line 33 = Chrys.\n vii. 824, D, E.) The very next words in Chrysostom\u2019s published\n Homily (p. 825 A.) are as follows:\u2014\u1f4d\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd\n \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6; \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f00\u03c1 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1fe5\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc7.\u2014Anyone who would investigate this matter further should\n by all means read Matthaei\u2019s long note on S. Luke xxiii. 45.\n\n 151 See above, p. 70, and the Appendix (F).\n\n 152 Tischendorf\u2019s \u201c_Introduction_\u201d to his (Tauchnitz) edition of the\n English N.T., 1869,\u2014p. xiii.\n\n 153 \u201cEpistola quam nos \u2018ad Ephesios\u2019 pr\u00e6scriptam habemus, h\u00e6retici vero\n \u2019ad Laodicenos.\u201d _Adv. Marcion._ lib. v. c. xi, p. 309 (ed. Oehler.)\n\n 154 \u201c \u2018Titulum\u2019 enim \u2018_ad Laodicenos_\u2019 ut addidisse accusatur a\n Tertulliano, ita in salutatione verba \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 omnino non legisse\n censendus est.\u201d (N. T. _in loc._)\n\n 155 \u201cEcclesi\u00e6 quidem veritate Epistolam istam \u2018ad Ephesios\u2019 habemus\n emissam, non \u2018ad Laodicenos;\u2019 sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando\n interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.\u201d\n _Adv. Marcion._ lib. v. c. xvii, pp. 322-3 (ed. Oehler.)\n\n 156 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd. (Epiphan. _Opp._ i. 310 c.)\n\n 157 He describes its structure minutely at vol. i. pp. 309-310, and from\n pp. 312-7; 318-321. [Note, by the way, the gross blunder which has\n crept into the printed text of Epiphanius at p. 321 D: pointed out\n long since by Jones, _On the Canon_, ii. 38.] His plan is excellent.\n Marcion had rejected every Gospel except S. Luke\u2019s, and of S. Paul\u2019s\n Epistles had retained only ten,\u2014viz. (1st) Galatians, (2nd and 3rd)\n I and II Corinthians, (4th) Romans, (5th and 6th) I and II\n Thessalonians, (7th) _Ephesians_, (8th) Colossians, (9th) Philemon,\n (10th) Philippians. Even these he had mutilated and depraved. And\n yet out of that one mutilated Gospel, Epiphanius selects 78\n passages, (pp. 312-7), and out of those ten mutilated Epistles, 40\n passages more (pp. 318-21); by means of which 118 texts he\n undertakes to refute the heresy of Marcion. (pp. 322-50: 350-74.)\n [It will be perceived that Tertullian goes over Marcion\u2019s work in\n much the same way.] Very beautiful, and well worthy of the student\u2019s\n attention, (though it comes before us in a somewhat incorrect form,)\n is the remark of Epiphanius concerning the living energy of GOD\u2019S\n Word, even when dismembered and exhibited in a fragmentary shape.\n \u201c\u1f4d\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b7\u1f55\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5 (sc. Marcion) \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7 \u03c8\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; ... \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03c8\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,\n \u03ba\u1fb4\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bd.\u201d (p. 375 B.) He\n seems to say of Marcion,\u2014\n\n Fool! to suppose thy shallow wits\n Could quench a fire like that. Go, learn\n That cut into ten thousand bits\n Yet every bit would breathe and burn!\n\n 158 He quotes Ephes. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14: v. 14: v. 31. (See Epiphanius,\n _Opp._ i. p. 318 and 371-2.)\n\n_ 159 Ibid._ p. 318 C ( = 371 B), and 319 A ( = 374 A.)\n\n_ 160 Ibid._ p. 319 and 374. But note, that through error in the copies,\n or else through inadvertence in the Editor, the depravation\n commented on at p. 374 B, C, is lost sight of at p. 319 B.\n\n 161 See below, at the end of the next note.\n\n 162 \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2:\u2014\u201c\u0395\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f15\u03bd \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2\n \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\u201d\n (Epiphan. _Opp._ vol i. p. 374.) Here is obviously a hint of \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd: [\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Athanas. i. 231 E.] but, (says Epiphanius), \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1. \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1. Then he contrasts with the\n \u201cfabrication\u201d of Marcion, the inspired verity,\u2014Eph. iv. 5: declaring\n \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\u2014\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\n \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\u2014p. 374 C.\n\n Epiphanius reproaches Marcion with having obtained materials \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5; \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f14\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3\n \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, (sc. the\n words quoted above,) \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u1ff3 (p. 375 A.) (Epiphanius here uses \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 in its\n technical sense,\u2014viz. as synonymous with S. Paul\u2019s Epistles.)\n\n 163 \u201c\u1f68\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9,\u2014\u201d\u1f18\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u201c\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b9;\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n \u201c\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b9,\u201d \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f18\u03be\u03cc\u03b4\u03c9 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f41 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u039c\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03af \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f6c\u039d \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u201c\u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f74\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. \u201c\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\u201d \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f41\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u201c\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b7.\u201d\u2014Cramer\u2019s _Catena in Ephes._\n i. 1,\u2014vol. vi. p. 102.\n\n 164 Consider S. John i. 42, 44, 46: v. 14: ix. 35: xii. 14, &c.\n\n 165 \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f4c\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u201c\u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\u201d \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f60\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd: \u201c\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6.\u201d \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03ce\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\n Note also what immediately follows. (Basil _Opp._ i. p. 254 E, 255\n A.)\n\n 166 See the places quoted by Scrivener, _Introd._ pp. 381-91;\n particularly p. 385.\n\n 167 Hieron. _Opp._ vol. vii. p. 543:\u2014\u201cIllud quoque in Pr\u00e6fatione\n commoneo, ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistolam\n conscripsisse, quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus.\u201d\n\n 168 \u201cQuidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum\n est \u2018Haec dices filiis Israel, QUI EST misit me,\u2019 etiam eos qui\n Ephesi sunt [Note this. Cf. \u2018qui sunt Ephesi,\u2019 _Vulg._] sancti et\n fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos: ut ... ab EO \u2018qui est,\u2019 hi\n \u2018qui sunt\u2019 appellentur.... Alii veto simpliciter, non ad eos \u2018qui\n sint,\u2019 sed \u2018qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint\u2019 scriptum\n arbitrantur.\u201d Hieron. _Opp._ vii. p. 545 A, B.\n\n 169 The cursive \u201cCod. No. 67\u201d (or \u201c672\u201d) is improperly quoted as\n \u201comitting\u201d (Tisch.) these words. The reference is to a MS. in the\n Imperial Library at Vienna, (Nessel 302: Lambec. 34, which = our\n Paul 67), collated by Alter (N.T. 1786, vol. ii. pp. 415-558), who\n says of it (p. 496),\u2014\u201c_cod. \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 punctis notat_.\u201d ... The MS.\n must have a curious history. H. Treschow describes it in his\n _Tentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece_, &c. Havn. 1773, pp.\n 62-73.\u2014Also, A. C. Hwiid in his _Libellus Criticus de indole Cod.\n MS. Graeci N. T. Lambec. xxxiv._ &c. Havn. 1785.\u2014It appears to have\n been corrected by some Critic,\u2014perhaps from Cod. B itself.\n\n 170 So indeed does Cod. \u05d0 occasionally. See Scrivener\u2019s _Collation_, p.\n xlix.\n\n 171 Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction to Codex Bezae_, p. liv.\n\n 172 Scrivener, _Coll. of Cod. Sin._ p. xlv.\n\n 173 Eph. vi. 21, 22.\n\n 174 Coloss. iv. 7, 16.\n\n_ 175 Ubi supr\u00e0_.\n\n_ 176 Gnomon_, in Ephes. i. 1, _ad init._\n\n 177 See above, pp. 93-6. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius (_ad\n Ephes._ c. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also Lardner,\n vol. ii.\n\n 178 Let it be clearly understood by the advocates of this expedient for\n accounting for the state of the text of Codd. B. and \u05d0, that nothing\n whatever is gained for the credit of those two MSS. by their\n ingenuity. Even if we grant them all they ask, the Codices in\n question remain, by their own admission, _defective_.\n\n Quite plain is it, by the very hypothesis, that one of two courses\n alone remains open to them in editing the text: either (1) _To leave\n a blank space_ after \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd: or else, (2) _To let the words_ \u1f10\u03bd\n \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 _stand_,\u2014which I respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they\n can do. [For with Conybeare and Howson (_Life and Letters of S.\n Paul_, ii. 491), to eject the words \u201cat Ephesus\u201d from the text of\n Ephes. i. 1, and actually to substitute in their room the words \u201cin\n Laodicea,\u201d\u2014is plainly abhorrent to every principle of rational\n criticism. The remarks of C. and H. on this subject (pp. 486 ff)\n have been faithfully met and sufficiently disposed of by Dean Alford\n (vol. iii. _Prolegg._ pp. 13-8); who infers, \u201cin accordance with the\n prevalent belief of the Church in all ages, that this Epistle was\n _veritably addressed to the Saints in Ephesus_, and _to no other\n Church_.\u201d] In the former case, they will be exhibiting a curiosity;\n viz. they will be shewing us how (they think) a duplicate (\u201ccarta\n bianca\u201d) copy of the Epistle looked with \u201cthe space after \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b9\n left utterly void:\u201d in the latter, they will be representing the\n archetypal copy which was sent to the Metropolitan see of Ephesus.\n But by printing the text thus,\u2014\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd [\u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9] \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., they are acting on an entirely different theory.\n They are merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every MS.\n in the world except Codd. B and \u05d0. This is clearly to forsake the\n \u201cEncyclical\u201d hypothesis altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the\n same footing as any other disputed text of Scripture which can be\n named.\n\n 179 \u1f18\u03b3\u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd, vel \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 Christophorsonus et alii\n interpretantur _literas circulares_: ego cum viris doctis malim\n _Epistolas_ vel _literas publicas_, ad omnes fideles pertinentes,\n quas Gr\u00e6ci ali\u00e0s vocant \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c2.\u2014Suicer _in voce_.\n\n 180 \u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f30\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u2014See Suicer _in voce_,\n \u1f18\u03b3\u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 181 Routh\u2019s _Reliqui\u00e6_, vol. iii. p. 266.\u2014\u201cTum ex Conciliis, tum ex\n aliis Patrum scriptis notum est, consuevisse primos Ecclesiao Patres\n acta et decreta Conciliorum passim ad omnes Dei Ecclesias mittere\n per epistolas, quas non uni privatim dic\u00e2runt, sed publice describi\n ab omnibus, dividi passim et pervulgari, atque cum omnibus populis\n communicari voluerunt. Hac igitur epistolae \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 vocatae sunt,\n quia \u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5, quoqu\u00f2 versum et in omnem partem mittebantur.\u201d\u2014Suicer\n _in voc._\n\n 182 \u201cOn the whole,\u201d says Bishop Middleton, (_Doctrine of the Greek Art._\n p. 355) \u201cI see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (on\n Col. iv. 16,)\u2014\u2018that the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by Tychicus,\n who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans;\n with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians.\u2019 \u201d\u2014This\n suggestion is intended to meet _another_ difficulty, and leaves the\n question of the reading of Ephes. i. 1 untouched. It proposes only\n to explain what S. Paul means by the enigmatical expression which is\n found in Col. iv. 16.\n\n Macknight\u2019s suggestion, though it has found favour with many\n subsequent Divines, appears to me improbable in a high degree. S.\n Paul is found not to have sent _the Colossians_ \u201cword by Tychicus,\n who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans.\u201d\n He charged them, himself, to do so. Why, at the same instant, is the\n Apostle to be thought to have adopted two such different methods of\n achieving one and the same important end? And why, instead of this\n roundabout method of communication, were not _the Ephesians_\n ordered,\u2014if not by S. Paul himself, at least by Tychicus,\u2014to send a\n copy of their Epistle to Colosse direct? And why do we find the\n Colossians charged to read publicly \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, which (by the\n hypothesis) would have been only a copy,\u2014instead of \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5,\n which, (by the same hypothesis,) would have been the original? Nay,\n why is it not designated by S. Paul, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\u2014(if indeed\n it was his Epistle to the Ephesians which is alluded to,) instead of\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; which would hardly be an intelligible way of\n indicating the document? Lastly, why are not the Colossians ordered\n to communicate a copy of their Epistle to the illustrious Church of\n the _Ephesians_ also, which had been originally addressed by S.\n Paul? If the Colossians must needs read the Epistle (so like their\n own) which the Apostle had just written to the Ephesians, surely the\n Ephesians must also be supposed to have required a sight of the\n Epistle which S. Paul had at the same time written to the\n Colossians!\n\n 183 Epiphan. _Opp._ i. 311 D.\n\n 184 \u201cMarcion exerte et palam mach\u00e6ra non stilo usus est, quoniam ad\n materiam suam c\u00e6dem Scripturarum confecit.\u201d (Tertullian _Pr\u00e6script.\n H\u00e6r._ c. 38, p. 50.) \u201cNon miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas\n totas plerumque subducat.\u201d (_Adv. Marcion._ lib. v, c. xvii, p.\n 455.)\n\n 185 See above p. 95, and see note (f) p. 94.\n\n 186 See, by all means, Alford on this subject, vol. iii. _Prolegg._ pp.\n 13-15.\n\n 187 p. xiv.\u2014See above, pp. 8, 9, note (f).\n\n 188 One is rather surprised to find the facts of the case so unfairly\n represented in addressing unlearned readers; who are entitled to the\n largest amount of ingenuousness, and to entire sincerity of\n statement. The facts are these:\u2014\n\n (1) Valentt. (_apud_ Iren\u00e6um), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus\n (_apud_ Clem.) read \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9: but then (1) Iren\u00e6us himself, (2) Clemens\n Alex., and (3) Theodotus (_apud_ Clem.) _also_ read \u1f26\u03bd. These\n testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also\n has _both_ readings.\u2014Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9; but\n Origen, (though he remarks that \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 is \u201cperhaps not an improbable\n reading,\u201d) reads \u1f26\u03bd _ten or eleven times_. \u1f2e\u03bd is also the reading of\n Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Theodoret,\u2014of the\n Vulgate, of the Memphitic, of the Peshito, and of the Philoxenian\n Versions; as well as of B, A, C,\u2014in fact of _all the MSS. in the\n world_, except of \u05d0 and D.\n\n All that remains to be set on the other side are the Thebaic and\n Cureton\u2019s Syriac, together with most copies of the early Latin.\n\n And now, with the evidence thus all before us, will any one say that\n it is lawfully a question for discussion which of these two readings\n must exhibit the genuine text of S. John i. 4? (For I treat it as a\n question of authority, and reason from _the evidence_,\u2014declining to\n import into the argument what may be called _logical_\n considerations; though I conceive them to be all on my side.) I\n suspect, in fact, that the inveterate practice of the primitive age\n of reading the place after the following strange fashion,\u2014\u1f41 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u1f26\u03bd, was what led to this depravation of the text. Cyril\n in his Commentary [heading of lib. i, c. vi.] so reads S. John i. 3,\n 4. And to substitute \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af (for \u1f26\u03bd) in such a sentence as _that_, was\n obvious.... Chrysostom\u2019s opinion is well known, \u201cLet us beware of\n putting the full stop\u201d (he says) \u201cat the words \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd,\u2014as do the\n heretics.\u201d [He alludes to Valentinus, Heracleon (Orig. _Opp._ i.\n 130), and to Theodotus (_apud_ Clem. Alex.). But it must be\n confessed that Iren\u00e6us, Hippolytus (_Routh, Opusc._ i. 68), Clemens\n Alex., Origen, Concil. Antioch. (A.D. 269, _Routh_ iii. 293),\n Theophilus Antioch., Athanasius, Cyril of Jer.,\u2014besides of the\n Latins, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus (_Routh_ iii. 459), and\n Augustine,\u2014point the place in the same way. \u201cIt is worth our\n observation,\u201d (says Pearson,) \u201cthat Eusebius citing the place of S.\n John to prove that the HOLY GHOST was made by the SON, leaves out\n those words twice together by which the Catholics used to refute\n that heresy of the Arians, viz. \u1f41 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd.\u201d]\n\n Chrysostom proceeds,\u2014\u201cIn order to make out that THE SPIRIT is a\n creature, they read \u1f49 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u1f26\u03bd; by which means, the\n Evangelist\u2019s language is made unintelligible.\u201d (_Opp._ viii.\n 40.)\u2014This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,\u2014but not\n by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson\u2019s note,\n referred to _infr\u00e0_), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the\n sentence as we do.\u2014See by all means on this subject Pearson\u2019s _note_\n (_z_), ART. viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh\u2019s _Opusc._ i.\n 88-9.\n\n 189 It may not be altogether useless that I should follow this famous\n Critic of the text of the N. T. over the ground which he has himself\n chosen. He challenges attention for the four following readings of\n the Codex Sinaiticus:\u2014\n\n (1.) S. JOHN i. 4: \u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b6\u03c9\u03b7 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd.\u2014(2.) S. MATTH. xiii. 35: \u03c4\u03bf\n \u03c1\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\u2014(3.) S. JOHN xiii. 10: \u03bf \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03bf\u03c5\u03c7 \u03b5\u03c7\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03bd\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\u2014(4.) S. JOHN vi. 51: \u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b7 \u03b5\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1;\u2014\u03bf \u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03b3\u03c9 \u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b6\u03c9\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03be \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. (And this, Dr. Teschendorf asserts to\n be \u201cindubitably correct.\u201d)\n\n On inspection, these four readings prove to be exactly what might\n have been anticipated from the announcement that they are almost the\n private property of the single Codex \u05d0. The last three are\n absolutely worthless. They stand self-condemned. To examine is to\n reject them: the second (of which Jerome says something _very_\n different from what Tisch. pretends) and fourth being only two more\n of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired\n Text, of which this Codex contains so many sorry specimens: the\n third being clearly nothing else but the result of the carelessness\n of the transcriber. Misled by the like ending (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd) he has\n _dropped a line_: thus:\u2014\n\n \u039f\u03a5\u03a7 \u0395\u03a7\u0399 \u03a7\u03a1\u0395\u0399\u0391\u039d [\u0395\u0399\n \u039c\u0397 \u03a4\u039f\u03a5\u03a3 \u03a0\u039f\u0394\u0391\u03a3] \u039d\u0399\n \u03a8\u0391\u03a3\u0398\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u039b\u039b\u0391 \u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u039d\n\n The first, I have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p.\n 110.\n\n 190 Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 386. The whole Chapter deserves\n careful study.\n\n 191 Deut. xvi. 19.\n\n_ 192 Printed Text_, p. 254.\n\n 193 Viz. Codd. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137,\n 138, 143, 181, 186, 196, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222.\n\n 194 Wetstein quoted 14 Codices in all: but Griesbach makes no use of his\n reference to Reg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242?) which = Evan.\n 15, 19, 299 (?) respectively.\n\n_ 195 Variae Lectiones_, &c. (1801, p. 225-6.)\u2014He cites Codd. Vatt. 358,\n 756, 757, 1229 (= our 129, 137, 138, 143): Cod. Zelada (= 181):\n Laur. vi. 18, 34 (= 186, 195): Ven. 27 (= 210): Vind. Lamb. 38, 89,\n Kol. 4 (= 221, 222, 108): Cod. iv. (_leg._ 5 ?) S. Mari\u00e6 Bened.\n Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6, 10 (= 206, 209.)\n\n_ 196 Nov. Test._ vol. i. p. 199.\n\n 197 Vat. 756, 757 = our Evan. 137, 138.\n\n 198 Quo signo tamquam censoria virgula usi sunt librarii, qua\n Evangelistarum narrationes, in omnibus Codicibus non obvias, tamquam\n dubias notarent.\u2014_Variae Lectiones_, &c. p. 225.\n\n 199 In Cod. 264 (= Paris 65) for instance, besides at S. Mk. xvi. 9, +\n occurs at xi. 12, xii. 38, and xiv. 12. On the other hand, no such\n sign occurs at the _pericope de adulter\u00e1_.\n\n 200 Further obligations to the same friend are acknowledged in the\n Appendix (D).\n\n 201 Similarly, in Cod. Coisl. 20, in the Paris Library, (which = our\n 36,) against S. Mark xvi. 9, is this sign [symbol: inverse or open\n x]. It is intended (like an asterisk in a modern book) to refer the\n reader to the self-same annotation which is spoken of in the text as\n occurring in Cod. Vat. 756, and which is observed to occur in the\n margin of the Paris MS. also.\n\n 202 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f14\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9: \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\u2014(Codd. 20 and 300 = Paris 188,\n 186.)\n\n 203 See more concerning this matter in the Appendix (D), _ad fin._\n\n 204 At the end of S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel in Cod. 300 (at fol. 89) is\n found,\u2014\n\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c6\u03b9\u03b4\n\n and at the end of S. Mark\u2019s, (at fol. 147 _b_)\u2014\n\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bb\u03be\n\n This second colophon (though not the first) is found in Cod. 20.\n _Both_ reappear in Cod. 262 ( = Paris 53), and (with an interesting\n variety in the former of the two) in [what I suppose is the first\n half of] the uncial Codex \u039b. See Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 125.\n\n 205 = Paris 72, _fol._ 107 _b_. He might have added, (for Wetstein had\n pointed it out 79 years before,) that _the same note precisely_ is\n found between verses 8 and 9 in Cod. 15 ( = Paris 64,) _fol._ 98\n _b_.\n\n 206 See more at the very end of Chap. XI.\n\n 207 Cod. 1. (at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (which = Venet. 6 and 10)\n contain as follows:\u2014\n\n \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd; \u1f10\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9;\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV. [_lege_\n 5],) according to Birch (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has\n only this:\u2014\n\n \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 [?] \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n 208 It originated in this way. At the end of S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, in\n both Codices, are found those large extracts from the \u201c2nd Hom. on\n the Resurrection\u201d which Montfaucon published in the _Bibl. Coisl._\n (pp. 68-75), and which Cramer has since reprinted at the end of his\n _Catena in S. Matth._ (i. 243-251.) In Codd. 34 and 39 they are\n ascribed to \u201cSeverus of Antioch.\u201d See above (p. 40.) See also pp. 39\n and 57.\n\n 209 See above, pp. 64, 65.\n\n 210 22-3 (199, 206, 209) = 19 + 1 (374) = 20.\n\n 211 viz. Codd. L, 1, 199, 208, 209:\u201420, 300:\u201415, 22.\n\n 212 Cod. \u039b, 20, 262, 300.\n\n 213 Evan. 374.\n\n 214 viz. Evan. 24, 36, 37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137,\n 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222. (Birch _Varr. Lectt_. p.\n 225.) Add Evan. 374 (Scholz.) Add Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the\n Moscow Codex (qu. Evan. 253?) employed by Matthaei.\n\n 215 2 (viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 (enumerated in the preceding\n note) = 24.\n\n 216 Paris 62, _olim,_ 2861 and 1558.\n\n 217 See the facsimile.\u2014The original, (which knows nothing of\n Tischendorf\u2019s crosses,) reads as follows:\u2014\n\n \u03a6\u0395\u03a1\u0395\u03a4\u0395 \u03a0\u039f\u03a5\n \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u03a4\u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u0391\n\n \u03a0\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u0394\u0395 \u03a4\u0391 \u03a0\u0391\u03a1\u0397\n \u0393\u0393\u0395\u039b\u039c\u0395\u039d\u0391 \u03a4\u039f\u0399\u03a3\n \u03a0\u0395\u03a1\u0399 \u03a4\u039f\u039d \u03a0\u0395\u03a4\u03a1\u039f\u039d\n\n \u03a3\u03a5\u039d\u03a4\u039f\u039c\u03a9\u03a3 \u0395\u039e\u0397\n \u0393\u0393\u0399\u039b\u0391\u039d - \u039c\u0395\u03a4\u0391\n \u0394\u0395 \u03a4\u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u0391 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a1\n \u039f \u0399\u03a3, \u0391\u03a0\u039f \u1f08\u039d\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u039b\u0397\u03a3\n \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u1f08\u03a7\u03a1\u0399 \u0394\u03a5\u03a3\u0395\u03a9\u03a3\n \u1f18\u039e\u0391\u03a0\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u039b\u0395\u039d \u0394\u0399\n \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u03a9\u039d \u03a4\u039f \u0399\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u039d\n \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u1f09\u03a6\u0398\u0391\u03a1\u03a4\u039f\u039d \u039a\u0397\n \u03a1\u03a5\u0393\u039c\u0391 - \u03a4\u0397\u03a3 \u0391\u0399\u03a9\n \u039d\u0399\u039f\u03a5 \u03a3\u03a9\u03a4\u0397\u03a1\u0399\u0391\u03a3\n\n \u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0397\u039d \u0394\u0395 \u039a\u0391\u0399\n \u03a4\u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u0391 \u03a6\u0395\u03a1\u039f\n \u039c\u0395\u039d\u0391 \u039c\u0395\u03a4\u0391 \u03a4\u039f\n \u0395\u03a6\u039f\u0392\u039f\u03a5\u039d\u03a4\u039f \u0393\u0391\u03a1\n\n \u0391\u039d\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u03a3 \u0394\u0395 \u03a0\u03a1\u03a9\u0399\n \u03a0\u03a1\u03a9\u03a4\u0397 \u03a3\u0391\u0392\u0392\u0391\u03a4\u03a9\n\n _i.e._\u2014\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n\n \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd:\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n \u1f1c\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1.\n\n \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n 218 As, the Codex Bobbiensis (k) of the old Latin, and the margin of two\n \u00c6thiopic MSS.\u2014I am unable to understand what Scholz and his copyists\n have said concerning Cod. 274. I was assured again and again at\n Paris that they knew of no such codex as \u201cReg, 79a,\u201d which is\n Scholz\u2019 designation (_Prolegg._ p. lxxx.) of the Cod. Evan. which,\n after him, we number \u201c274.\u201d\n\n 219 Nec AMMONII Sectionibus, nec EUSEBII Canonibus, agnoscuntur ultimi\n versus.\u2014Tisch. _Nov. Test._ (_ed. 8va_), p. 406.\n\n_ 220 Printed Text_, p. 248.\n\n 221 The reader is invited to test the accuracy of what precedes for\n himself:\u2014\u1f08\u03bc\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b7\u03bf\u03c7\u1f7c\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, \u1f65\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f31\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f45\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n 222 \u1f3d\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f31\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6,\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03cc \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f20\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n 223 This seems to represent _exactly_ what Eusebius means in this place.\n The nearest English equivalent to \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae is \u201ca hint.\u201d Consider\n Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ v. 27. Also the following:\u2014\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c2. (Andreas, _Proleg. in Apocalyps._).\u2014\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c2.\n (Anastasius Sin., _Routh\u2019s Rell._ i. 15.)\n\n 224 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. This at least is\n decisive as to the authorship of the Canons. When therefore Jerome\n says of Ammonius,\u2014\u201c_Evangelicos canones excogitavit_ quos postea\n secutus est Eusebius C\u00e6sariensis,\u201d (_De Viris Illust._ c. lv. vol.\n ii. p. 881,) we learn the amount of attention to which such off-hand\n gain statements of this Father are entitled.\n\n What else can be inferred from the account which Eusebius gives of\n the present sectional division of the Gospels but that it was also\n his own?\u2014\u0391\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c4\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2: \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f24\u03b4\u03b5. \u1f18\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. He proceeds to explain how the sections thus numbered\n are to be referred to his X Canons:\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd\n \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n 225 \u201cFrustra ad Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis provocant. Qu\u00e6\n supersunt vix quicquam cum Ammonio aut Tatiano commune habent.\u201d\n (Tischendorf _on S. Mark_ xvi. 8).\u2014Dr. Mill (1707),\u2014because he\n assumed that the anonymous work which Victor of Capua brought to\n light in the vith century, and conjecturally assigned to Tatian, was\n the lost work of Ammonius, (_Proleg._ p. 63, \u00a7 660,)\u2014was of course\n warranted in appealing to the authority of Ammonius _in support_ of\n the last twelve verses of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel. But in truth Mill\u2019s\n assumption cannot be maintained for a moment, as Wetstein has\n convincingly shewn. (_Proleg._ p. 68.) Any one may easily satisfy\n himself of the fact who will be at the pains to examine a few of the\n chapters with attention, bearing in mind what Eusebius has said\n concerning the work of Ammonius. Cap. lxxiv, for instance, contains\n as follows:\u2014Mtt. xiii. 33, 34. Mk. iv. 33. Mtt. xiii. 34, 35: 10,\n 11. Mk. iv. 34. Mtt. xiii. 13 to 17. But here it is _S. Matthew\u2019s\n Gospel_ which is dislocated,\u2014for verses 10, 11, and 13 to 17 of ch.\n xiii. come _after_ verses 33-35; while ver. 12 has altogether\n disappeared.\n\n The most convenient edition for reference is Schmeller\u2019s,\u2014_Ammonii\n Alexandrini qu\u00e6 et Tatiani dicitur Harmonia Evangeliorum_. (Vienna,\n 1841.)\n\n 226 Only by the merest license of interpretation can \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c2 be\n assumed to mean that Eusebius had found the four Gospels ready\n divided to his hand by Ammonius into exactly 1165 sections,\u2014every\n one of which he had simply adopted for his own. Mill, (who\n nevertheless held this strange opinion,) was obliged to invent the\n wild hypothesis that Eusebius, _besides_ the work of Ammonius which\n he describes, must have found in the library at C\u00e6sarea the private\n copy of the Gospels which belonged to Ammonius,\u2014an unique volume, in\n which the last-named Father (as he assumes) will have numbered the\n Sections and made them exactly 1165. It is not necessary to discuss\n such a notion. We are dealing with facts,\u2014not with fictions.\n\n 227 For proofs of what is stated above, as well as for several remarks\n on the (so-called) \u201cAmmonian\u201d Sections, the reader is referred to\n the Appendix (G).\n\n 228 See above, p. 128, note (f).\n\n 229 See above, p. 125.\n\n 230 As a matter of fact, Codices abound in which the Sections are noted\n _without_ the Canons, throughout. See more on this subject in the\n Appendix (G).\n\n 231 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f11\u03be\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf. The\n words are most unexpectedly, (may I not say _suspiciously_?), found\n in Epiphanius, _Ancor._ 50, (_Opp._ ii. 54 B.)\n\n 232 By Tischendorf, copying Mill\u2019s _Proleg._ p. 63, \u00a7 662:\u2014the fontal\n source, by the way, of the twin references to \u201cEpiphanius and\n C\u00e6sarius.\u201d\n\n 233 Comp. Epiph. (_Ancor._ 50,) _Opp._ ii. 53 C to 55 A, with Galland.\n _Bibl._ vi. 26 C to 27 A.\n\n 234 Galland. _Bibl._ vi. 147 A.\n\n 235 Vol. i. 165 (ii. 112).\u2014It it only fair to add that Davidson is not\n alone in this statement. In substance, it has become one of the\n common-places of those who undertake to prove that the end of S.\n Mark\u2019s Gospel is spurious.\n\n 236 See Possini _Cat._ p. 363.\n\n 237 \u1f18\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7. [= ver. 9] \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd.\n \u1f25 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f22\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 [= ver. 12.] \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f41\n \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6, (Possini sini _Cat._ p. 364):\u2014Where it will be seen\n that _Text_ (\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) and _Interpretation_ (\u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1) are\n confusedly thrown together. \u201cAnonymus [Vaticanus]\u201d also quotes S.\n Mark xvi. 9 at p. 109, _ad fin._\u2014Matthaei (N.T. ii.\n 269),\u2014overlooking the fact that \u201c_Anonymus Vaticanus_\u201d (or simply\n \u201c_Anonymus_\u201d) and \u201c_Anonymus Tolosanus_\u201d (or simply \u201c_Tolosanus_\u201d)\n denote two distinct Codices,\u2014falls into a mistake himself while\n contradicting our learned countryman Mill, who says,\u2014\u201cCerte Victor\n Antioch. ac Anonymus Tolosanues huc usque [sc. ver. 8] nec ultra\n commentantur.\u201d\u2014Scholz\u2019 dictum is,\u2014\u201cCommentatorum qui in catenis SS.\n Petrum ad Marcum laudantur, nulla explicatio hujus pericop\u00e6\n exhibetur.\u201d\n\n 238 See above pp. 62-3. The Latin of Peltanus may be seen in such\n Collections as the _Magna Bibliotheca Vett. PP._ (1618,) vol. iv. p.\n 330, col. 2 E, F.\u2014For the Greek, see Possini _Catena_, pp. 359-61.\n\n 239 See above, pp. 64-5, and Appendix (E).\n\n 240 Alford on S. Mark xvi. 9-20.\n\n_ 241 Introduction_, &c. ii. p. 113.\n\n_ 242 Nov. Test._ Ed. 8va i. p. 406.\n\n_ 243 Developed Crit._ pp. 51-2.\n\n 244 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.\u2014Arist. _Eth.\n Nic._ I. iii.\n\n 245 To the honour of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener be it said, that _he_ at\n least absolutely refuses to pay any attention at all \u201cto the\n argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged\n difference in style from the rest of the Gospel.\u201d See by all means\n his remarks on this subject. (_Introduction_, pp. 431-2.)\u2014One would\n have thought that a recent controversy concerning a short English\n Poem,\u2014which some able men were confident _might_ have been written\n by Milton, while others were just as confident that it could not\n possibly be his,\u2014ought to have opened the eyes of all to the\n precarious nature of such Criticism.\n\n 246 Allusion is made to the Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.,\u2014\u201cProfessor of\n Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist\n Theological Seminary, Greenville, S.C.,\u201d\u2014the author of an able and\n convincing paper entitled \u201cExegetical Studies\u201d in \u201c_The Baptist\n Quarterly_\u201d for July, 1869 (Philadelphia), pp. 355-62: in which \u201cthe\n words and phrases\u201d contained in S. Mark xvi. 9-20 are exclusively\n examined.\n\n If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor\u2019s\n hands, he will perceive that I must have written the present Chapter\n _before_ I knew of his labours: (an advantage which I owe to Mr.\n Scrivener\u2019s kindness:) my treatment of the subject and his own being\n so entirely different. But it is only due to Professor Broadus to\n acknowledge the interest and advantage with which I have compared my\n lucubrations with his, and the sincere satisfaction with which I\n have discovered that we have everywhere independently arrived at\n precisely the same result.\n\n 247 Dr. Kay\u2019s _Crisis Hupfeldiana_, p. 34,\u2014the most masterly and\n instructive exposure of Bp. Colenso\u2019s incompetence and presumption\n which has ever appeared. Intended specially of _his_ handling of the\n writings of Moses, the remarks in the text are equally applicable to\n much which has been put forth concerning the authorship of the end\n of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel.\n\n 248 S. Matth. viii. 1 (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7):\u20145 (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9 \u1f38.):\u201423\n (\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7):\u201428 (\u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7):\u2014ix. 27 (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38.):\u201428\n (\u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9):\u2014xxi. 23 (\u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7).\n\n_ 249 On the Creed_, Art. ii. (vol. i. p. 155.)\n\n 250 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fb4\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u1f7a\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f70\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03c2. Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ I. c. vi.\n\n 251 Davidson\u2019s _Introduction_, &c. i. 170.\n\n 252 And yet, if it were ever so \u201csententious,\u201d ever so \u201cabrupt;\u201d and if\n his \u201cbrief notices\u201d were over so \u201cloosely linked together;\u201d\u2014these,\n _according to Dr. Davidson_, would only be indications that S. Mark\n actually _was_ their Author. Hear him discussing S. Mark\u2019s\n \u201ccharacteristics,\u201d at p. 151:\u2014\u201cIn the consecution of his narrations,\n Mark _puts them together very loosely_.\u201d \u201cMark is also characterised\n by a _conciseness_ and apparent incompleteness of delineation which\n are allied to the obscure.\u201d \u201cThe _abrupt_ introduction\u201d of many of\n his details is again and again appealed to by Dr. Davidson, and\n illustrated by references to the Gospel. What, in the name of common\n sense, is the value of such criticism as this? What is to be thought\n of a gentleman who blows hot and cold in the same breath: denying at\n p. 170 the genuineness of a certain portion of Scripture _because_\n it exhibits the very peculiarities which at p. 151 he had\n volunteered the information are _characteristic_ of its reputed\n Author?\n\n 253 N.T. vol. i. _Prolegg._ p. 38.\n\n 254 It may be convenient, in this place, to enumerate the several words\n and expressions about to be considered:\u2014\n\n (i.) \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (_ver._ 9.)\u2014See above.\n\n (ii.) \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f26\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 (_ver._ 9.)\u2014See p. 152.\n\n (iii.) \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc (_ver._ 9.)\u2014See p. 153.\n\n (iv.) \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (_vers._ 10, 12, 15.)\u2014_Ibid._\n\n (v.) \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 (_ver._ 10.)\u2014See p. 155.\n\n (vi.) \u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (_ver._ 11 and 14.)\u2014See p. 156.\n\n (vii.) \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (_ver._ 11.)\u2014See p. 158.\n\n (viii.) \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (_ver._ 11 and 16.)\u2014_Ibid._\n\n (ix.) \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 (_ver._ 12.)\u2014See p. 159.\n\n (x.) \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (_ver._ 12.)\u2014See p. 160.\n\n (xi) \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd (_ver._ 14.)\u2014_Ibid._\n\n (xii.) \u03b2\u03bb\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (_ver._ 18.)\u2014_Ibid._\n\n (xiii.) \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 (_ver._ 20.)\u2014See p. 161.\n\n (xiv. and xv.) \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u2014\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd (_ver._ 20.)\u2014_Ibid._\n\n (xvi.) \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (_ver._ 15.)\u2014_Ibid._\n\n (xvii.) \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (_ver._ 17.)\u2014See p. 162.\n\n (xviii. and xix.) \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u2014\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (_ver._ 17 and 19.)\u2014See\n p. 163.\n\n (xx.) \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 (_ver._ 18.)\u2014See p. 164.\n\n (xxi. and xxii.) \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd\u2014\u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (_ver._ 19 and 20.)\u2014_Ibid._\n\n (xxiii.) \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (_ver._ 19.)\u2014See p. 166.\n\n (xxiv.) \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 used in a peculiar way (_verses_ 10, 11 [and\n 13?].)\u2014_Ibid._\n\n (xxv.) \u201cVerses without a copulative,\u201d (_verses_ 10 and 14.)\u2014_Ibid._\n\n (xxvi. and xxvii.) Absence of \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd.\u2014See p. 168.\n\n 255 S. Luke vi. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9: xiii. 10, 14, 15, 16. S. Luke has, in\n fact, all the four different designations for the Sabbath which are\n found in the Septuagint version of the O. T. Scriptures: for, in the\n Acts (xiii. 14: xvi. 13), he twice calls it \u1f21 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n 256 S. Matth. xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.\n\n 257 It occurs in S. Matth. xxviii. 1. S. Mark xvi. 2. S. Luke xxiv. 1.\n S. John xx. i. 19. Besides, only in Acts xx. 7.\n\n_ 258 Introduction_, &c. i. 169.\n\n 259 See the foregoing note.\n\n 260 See Buxtorf\u2019s _Lexicon Talmudicum_, p. 2323.\n\n 261 Lightfoot (on 1 Cor. xvi. 2) remarks concerning S. Paul\u2019s phrase\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\u2014\u201c\u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d3\u05d4\u05d1 [_b\u2019had b\u2019shabbath_,] \u2018_In the first_\n [lit. _one_] _of the Sabbath_,\u2019 would the Talmudists say.\u201d\u2014Professor\n Gandell writes,\u2014\u201cin Syriac, the days of the week are similarly\n named. See Bernstein [lit. _one in the Sabbath_, _two in the\n Sabbath_, _three in the Sabbath._]\u201d\n\n 262 S. Mark xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.\n\n 263 The Sabbath-day, in the Old Testament, is invariably \u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\n (_shabbath_): a word which the Greeks could not exhibit more nearly\n than by the word \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. The Chaldee form of this word is \u05d0\u05ea\u05d1\u05e9\n (_shabbatha:_) the final \u05d0 (_a_) being added for emphasis, as in\n Abb_a_, Aceldam_a_, Bethesd_a_, Ceph_a_, Pasch_a_, _&c_.: and this\n form,\u2014(I owe the information to my friend Professor\n Gandell,)\u2014because it was so familiar to the people of Palestine,\n (who spoke Aramaic,) _gave rise to another form of the Greek name\n for the Sabbath_,\u2014viz. \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1: which, naturally enough, attracted\n the article (\u03c4\u03cc) into agreement with its own (apparently) plural\n form. By the Greek-speaking population of Jud\u00e6a, the Sabbath day was\n therefore indifferently called \u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd and \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1: sometimes\n again, \u03b7 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, and sometimes \u03b7 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n \u03a3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense.\n (Accordingly, it is _invariably_ rendered \u201c_Sabbatum_\u201d in the\n Vulgate.) Thus, in Exod. xvi. 23,\u2014\u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3:\n and 25,\u2014\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3. Again,\u2014\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. (Exod. xvi. 26: xxxi. 14. Levit. xxiii. 3.) And in\n the Gospel, what took place on _one definite Sabbath-day_, is said\n to have occurred \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 (S. Luke xiii. 10. S. Mark xii. 1.)\n\n It will, I believe, be invariably found that the form \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 is strictly equivalent to \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3; and was adopted for\n convenience in contradistinction to \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 (1 Chron.\n xxiii. 31 and 2 Chron. ii. 4) where Sabbath _days_ are spoken of.\n\n It is not correct to say that in Levit. xxiii. 15 \u05ea\u05d5\u05ea\u05d1\u05e9 is put for\n \u201cweeks;\u201d though the Septuagint translators have (reasonably enough)\n there rendered the word \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2. In Levit. xxv. 8, (where the same\n word occurs twice,) it is once rendered \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2; once, \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2.\n Quite distinct is \u05e2\u05d5\u05d1\u05e9 (_shavooa_) i.e. \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c2; nor is there any\n substitution of the one word for the other. But inasmuch as the\n recurrence of the _Sabbath-day_ was what constituted _a week_; in\n other words, since the essential feature of a week, as a Jewish\n division of time, was the recurrence of the Jewish day of rest;\u2014\u03c4\u1f78\n \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd or \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, the Hebrew name for _the day of rest_,\n became transferred to _the week_. The former designation, (as\n explained in the text,) is used once by S. Mark, once by S. Luke;\n while the phrase \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd occurs in the N.T., in all, six\n times.\n\n 264 So Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._ ii. 15), and Jerome (_De Viris Illust._\n ii. 827), on the authority of Clemens Alex. and of Papias. See also\n Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ vi. 14.\u2014The colophon in the Syriac Version\n shews that the same traditional belief prevailed in the Eastern\n Church. It also finds record in the _Synopsis Scriptur\u00e6_ (wrongly)\n ascribed to Athanasius.\n\n 265 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1f74, \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014Our E. V. \u201cpreparation\u201d is from\n Augustine,\u2014\u201cParasceue Latine pr\u00e6paratio est.\u201d\u2014See Pearson\u2019s\n interesting note on the word.\n\n 266 Consider Rom. xvi. 13.\n\n 267 Townson\u2019s _Discourses_, i. 172.\n\n_ 268 Ibid._\n\n 269 See the Vulgate transl. of S. Mark xvi. 2 and of S. John xx. 19. In\n the same version, S. Luke xxiv. 1 and S. John xx. 1 are rendered\n \u201c_una sabbati_.\u201d\n\n 270 Davidson\u2019s _Introduction_, &c. i. 169, _ed._ 1848: (ii. 113, _ed._\n 1868.)\n\n 271 \u201cMaria Magdalene ipsa est \u2018a qu\u00e2 septem d\u00e6monia expulerat\u2019: _ut ubi\n abundaverat peccatum, superabundant grati\u00e6_.\u201d (Hieron. _Opp._ i.\n 327.)\n\n 272 So Tischendorf,\u2014\u201cCollatis prioribus, parum apte adduntur verba \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd\n \u1f26\u03c3 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5. \u03b4.\u201d (p. 322.) I am astonished to find the same\n remark reiterated by most of the Critics: e.g. Rev. T. S. Green, p.\n 52.\n\n_ 273 Introduction_, &c. vol. i. p. 169.\n\n 274 viz. in chap. vii. 26.\n\n 275 Professor Broadus has some very good remarks on this subject.\n\n 276 Consider the little society which was assembled on the occasion\n alluded to, in Acts i. 13, 14. Note also what is clearly implied by\n ver. 21-6, as to the persons who were _habitually_ present at such\n gatherings.\n\n 277 S. Luke (v. 27) has \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. S. Matthew (ix. 9) and S. Mark\n (ii. 14) have preferred \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd (\u039b\u03b5\u03c5\u03af\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03bb\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5)\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 278 See S. Matth. ix. 9.\n\n 279 One is reminded that S. Matthew, in like manner, carefully\n _reserves_ the verb \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (xxvii. 55: xxviii. 1) for the\n contemplation of the SAVIOUR\u2019S Cross and of the SAVIOUR\u2019S Sepulchre.\n\n 280 S. Matth. vi. 1: xxiii. 5. S. Mark xvi. 11.\n\n 281 \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, (vi. 1); and \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, (xxiii. 5).\n\n 282 S. Luke xii. 4.\n\n 283 S. Matth. x. 28.\n\n 284 S. Mark iv. 41. S. Luke ii. 9.\n\n 285 Professor Broadus, _ubi supr\u00e0_.\n\n 286 Col i. 15, 23. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.\n\n 287 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd [I quote from the Textus Receptus of S. Mark iv.\n 30,\u2014confirmed as it is by the Peshito and the Philoxenian, the Vetus\n and the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Armenian versions,\u2014besides Codd.\n A and D, and all the other uncials (except B, L, \u0394, \u05d0,) and almost\n every cursive Codex. The evidence of Cod. C and of Origen is\n doubtful. _Who_ would subscribe to the different reading adopted on\n countless similar occasions by the most recent Editors of the\n N.T.?]: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9:\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9:\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9.\u2014\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9:\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03bd: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd:\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd:\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd:\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fb7\u03bd: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n 288 S. Mark v. 23: vi. 5: vii. 32: viii. 23.\n\n 289 S. Matth. ix. 18:\u2014xix. 13, 15.\n\n 290 See below, pp. 184-6.\n\n 291 See Pearson _on the Creed_, (ed. Burton), vol. i. p. 151.\n\n_ 292 Ibid._ p. 183,\u2014at the beginning of the exposition of \u201c_Our _LORD.\u201d\n\n 293 S. Mark xvi. 19. S. Luke ix. 51. Acts i. 2.\n\n 294 Alford.\n\n 295 Davidson.\n\n 296 Exactly so Professor Broadus:\u2014\u201cNow it will not do to say that while\n no one of these peculiarities would itself prove the style to be\n foreign to Mark, the whole of them combined will do so. It is very\n true that the multiplication of _littles_ may amount to much; but\n not so the multiplication of _nothings_. And how many of the\n expressions which are cited, appear, in the light of our\n examination, to retain the slightest real force as proving\n difference of authorship? Is it not true that most of them, and\n those the most important, are reduced to absolutely nothing, while\n the remainder possess scarcely any appreciable significance?\u201d\u2014p.\n 360, (see above, p. 139, note g.)\n\n 297 S. John has \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd (47 times) much oftener than S. Mark (29 times).\n And yet, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd is not met with in the iind, or the iiird, or the\n vth, or the viith, or the xvth, or the xviith chapter of S. John\u2019s\n Gospel.\n\n_ 298 Printed Text_, p. 256.\n\n 299 It will be found that of the former class (1) are the\n following:\u2014Article iii: vii: ix: x: xi: xii: xiii: xiv: xv: xxi:\n xxiv: xxv: xxvi: xxvii. Of the latter (2):\u2014Art. i: ii: iv: v: vi:\n viii: xvi: xvii: xviii: xix: xx: xxii: xxiii.\n\n 300 Ch. xiii. 16,\u2014\u1f41 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f64\u03bd: and ch. xv. 21,\u2014\u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6,\u2014an expression which S. Luke religiously reproduces in the\n corresponding place of his Gospel, viz. in ch. xxiii. 26.\n\n 301 See above, p. 146.\n\n 302 The reader will be perhaps interested with the following passage in\n the pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 139 note g) alluded\n to:\u2014\u201cIt occurred to me to examine the twelve just preceding verses,\n (xv. 44 to xvi. 8,) and by a curious coincidence, the words and\n expressions not elsewhere employed by Mark, footed up precisely the\n same number, seventeen. Those noticed are the following (text of\n Tregelles):\u2014ver. 44, \u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd (elsewhere \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf):\u2014ver. 45, \u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc, a construction found nowhere else in the New Testament: also\n \u1f10\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf and \u03c0\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1: ver. 46, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd:\u2014chap. xvi. ver. 1, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, and \u1f00\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1: ver. 2,\n \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd:\u2014ver. 3, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9:\u2014ver. 4, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Also,\n \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1, (Mark\u2019s word is \u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.) Ver. 5, \u1f00\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 is a\n construction not found in Mark, or the other Gospels, though the\n word \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 occurs frequently:\u2014ver. 8, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd, in this particular\n sense, not elsewhere in the New Testament: \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n \u201cThis list is perhaps not complete, for it was prepared in a few\n hours\u2014about as much time, it may be said, without disrespect, as\n Fritsche and Meyer appear to have given to their collections of\n examples from the other passage. It is not proposed to discuss the\n list, though some of the instances are curious. It is not claimed\n that they are all important, but that they are all real. And as\n regards the single question of the _number_ of peculiarities, they\n certainly form quite an offset to the number upon which Dean Alford\n has laid stress.\u201d\u2014p. 361.\n\n 303 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.\n\n 304 S. Mark i. 9: 14: 20.\n\n 305 The same word is found also in S. Luke\u2019s narrative of the same\n event, ch. xxiv. 13.\n\n 306 On which, Victor of Antioch (if indeed it be he) finely\n remarks,\u2014\u03a3\u03c7\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76, \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f41 \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1.\u2014(Cramer i. p. 271.)\n\n 307 Disc. v. Sect. ii.\n\n 308 This appears to be the true reading.\n\n 309 So Chrysostom:\u2014\u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1,\u201d \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd. [vii. 526 a].\u2014He seems to have derived that remark from\n Origen [_in Matth._ ed. Huet. i. 249 D]:\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n \u1f41 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.\u201d\u2014From the same source, I\n suspect, Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen\u2019s disciple), Bp. of Neoc\u00e6sarea\n in Pontus, A.D. 261, [_Routh_, iii. 257] derived the following:\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f41 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f41 \u201c\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u201d \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76,\n \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014See, by all means,\n Field\u2019s most interesting _Adnotationes in Chrys._, vol. iii. p.\n 112.... \u0395\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd (finely says Victor of Antioch) \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. (_Cramer_ i. 335.)\n\n 310 Acts x. 15.\n\n 311 Acts i. 22, 23. Cf. ver. 2,\u2014\u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7.\n\n 312 S. Mark x. 6: xiii. 19.\u20142 S. Pet. iii. 4 (Cf. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.)\n\n 313 Is. lxvi. 2.\n\n 314 See above, p. 143-5.\n\n 315 See above, p. 174-5.\n\n 316 My attention was first drawn to this by my friend, the Rev. W. Kay,\n D.D.\n\n 317 The Creed itself, (\u201cex variis Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis\n collectum,\u201d) may be seen at p. 84 of De Toutt\u00e9e\u2019s ed. of Cyril. Let\n the following be compared:\u2014\n\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (ch. xvi.\n 19.)\n\n \u1f08\u039d\u0395\u039b\u0398\u038c\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u0395\u1f38\u03a3 \u03a4\u039f\u1fea\u03a3 \u039f\u1fea\u03a1\u0391\u039d\u039f\u1fea\u03a3, \u039a\u0391\u1fda \u039a\u0391\u0398\u038a\u03a3\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u1f18\u039a \u0394\u0395\u039e\u0399\u03a9\u039d \u03a4\u039f\u03a5 \u03a0\u0391\u03a4\u03a1\u039f\u03a3\n (ART. VI.) This may be seen _in situ_ at p. 224 C of Cyril.\n\n \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd (ch. i. 4.)\n\n \u0392\u0391\u03a0\u03a4\u0399\u03a3\u039c\u0391 \u039c\u0395\u03a4\u0391\u039d\u039f\u0399\u0391\u03a3 \u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u0391\u03a6\u0395\u03a3\u0399\u039d \u0391\u039c\u0391\u03a1\u03a4\u0399\u03a9\u039d (ART. X.) This may be seen at\n p. 295 C of Cyril.\n\n The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in\n Professor Heurtley\u2019s little work _De Fide et Symbolo_, 1869, p. 9.\n\n 318 See above,\u2014p. 165-6.\n\n_ 319 Cod. Bobbiensis_ (k): which however for \u201cillis\u201d has \u201cet:\u201d for\n \u201cPetro,\u201d \u201cpuero:\u201d and for \u201coccidentem,\u201d \u201corientem.\u201d It also repeats\n \u201cusque.\u201d I have ventured to alter \u201cab orientem\u201d into \u201cab\n oriente.\u201d\u2014Compare what is found in the Philoxenian margin, as given\n by White and Adler.\n\n 320 See above (Art. II.) p. 152-3.\n\n 321 Consider S. Luke xxiv. 9: 33. Acts ii. 14.\n\n 322 S. Matth. xxvi. 14, 29, 47.\u2014S. Mark iv. 10: vi. 7: ix. 35: x. 32:\n xi. 11: xiv. 10, 17, 20, 43.\u2014S. Luke viii. 1: ix. 1, 12: xviii. 31:\n xxii. 8, 47.\u2014S. John vi. 37, 70, 71: xx. 24.\n\n 323 Compare S. Luke xxii. 39; and especially S. John xviii. 1,\u2014where the\n moment of departure _from the city_ is marked: (for observe, they\n had left the house and the upper chamber at ch. xiv. 31). See also\n ch. xix. 17,\u2014where the going _without the gate_ is indicated: (for\n \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5 [Heb. xiii. 12.]) So Matth. xxvii. 32. Consider\n S. Luke xxi. 37.\n\n 324 S. Luke xxiv. 49. Acts i. 4.\n\n 325 See above, p. 2.\n\n 326 The one memorable exception, which I have only lately met with, is\n supplied by the following remark of the thoughtful and accurate\n Matthaei, made in a place where it was almost safe to escape\n attention; viz. in a footnote at the very end of his _Nov. Test._\n (ed. 1803), vol. i. p. 748.\u2014\u201cHaec lectio in Evangeliariis et\n Synaxariis omnibus ter notatur tribus maxime notabilibus temporibus.\n Secundum ordinem temporum Ecclesiae Graecae primo legitur \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc7\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. Secundo, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n Tertio, ut \u1f11\u03c9\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1fbd. De hoc loco ergo vetustissimis\n temporibus nullo modo dubitavit Ecclesia.\u201d\u2014Matthaei had slightly\n anticipated this in his ed. of 1788, vol. ii. 267.\n\n 327 \u03a4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03ac\u03c2,\u2014are _the first words_ of the\n Ecclesiatical History of Eusebius.\n\n 328 See the heading of 1 Cor. x. in our Authorised Version.\n\n 329 See Bingham\u2019s _Origines_, Book xx. ch. v. \u00a7\u00a7 2, 3, 4.\n\n 330 \u03a4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f25 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f24 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6. Then came the Sermon,\u2014then, all stood and prayed,\u2014then\n followed Holy Communion.\u2014_Apol._ i. c. 67, (_ed_. Otto, i. 158.)\n\n 331 \u1f41 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f72, \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03bb\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd;\u2014(_Opp._ ix. p. 697 E. Field\u2019s\n text.)\n\n 332 Cassian writes,\u2014\u201cVenerabilis Patrum senatus ... decrevit hunc\n numerum [sc. duodecim Orationum] tam in Vespertinis quam in\n Nocturnis conventiculis custodiri; quibus lectiones geminas\n adjungentes, id est, unam Veteris et aliam Novi Testamenti.... In\n die vero Sabbati vel Dominico utrasque de Novo recitant Testamento;\n id est, unam de Apostolo vel Actibus Apostolorum, et aliam de\n Evangeliis. Quod etiam totis Quinquagesimae diebus faciunt hi,\n quibus lectio curae est, seu memoria Scripturarum.\u201d\u2014_Instit._ lib.\n ii. c. 6. (_ed_.1733, p. 18.)\n\n_ 333 Constitutiones Apostolicae_, lib. ii. c. 57, 59: v. 19: viii. 5.\n\n 334 See Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 74, and the reff. in note (k)\n overleaf.\n\n 335 English readers may be referred to Horne\u2019s _Introduction_, &c.\n (_ed._ 1856.) vol. iii. p. 281-2. The learned reader is perhaps\n aware of the importance of the preface to Van der Hooght\u2019s _Hebrew\n Bible_, (_ed._ 1705) \u00a7 35: in connexion with which, see vol. ii. p.\n 352 _b._\n\n 336 Thus, the \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 is \u201cQuinquagesima Sunday;\u201d but _the\n week_ of \u201cthe cheese-eater\u201d is the week _previous_.\n\n 337 See Suicer\u2019s _Thesaurus_, vol. ii. 920.\n\n 338 \u201cApud Rabbinos, \u05dc\u05d5\u05d3\u05d2\u05d7 \u05ea\u05d1\u05e9 _Sabbathum Magnum_. Sic vocatur Sabbathum\n proximum ante Pascha.\u201d\u2014Buxtorf, _Lexicon Talmud._ p. 2323.\n\n 339 \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 [cf. Cyril, p. 4, lines 16-7]\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2: \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1fa0\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03b8\u1f72\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2: \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70\n \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2:\n \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5: \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. \u039f\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a4\u039f\u039d\n \u1f08\u039d\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u03a4\u0397 \u03a4\u03a1\u0399\u03a4\u0397 \u0397\u039c\u0395\u03a1\u0391: \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u1f08\u039d\u0395\u039b\u0398\u039f\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u03a4\u039f\u03a5\u03a3 \u039f\u03a5\u03a1\u0391\u039d\u039f\u03a5\u03a3, \u039a\u0391\u0399\n \u039a\u0391\u0398\u0399\u03a3\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u1f18\u039a \u0394\u0395\u039e\u0399\u03a9\u039d \u03a4\u039f\u03a5 \u03a0\u0391\u03a4\u03a1\u039f\u03a3\u2014\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. \u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. (Cyril. Hier. _Cat._ xiv. c. 24. _Opp._ p. 217 C, D.)\u2014Of\n that Sermon of his, Cyril again and again reminds his auditory.\n \u039c\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd,\u2014he says, _ibid._ p. 219 B. A little\n lower down, \u039d\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a5\u1f31\u03cc\u03bd.\u2014_Ibid._ D.\n\n From this it becomes plain _why Cyril nowhere quotes S. Mark_ xvi.\n 19,\u2014_or S. Luke_ xxiv. 51,\u2014_or Acts_ i. 9. He must needs have\n enlarged upon those three _inevitable_ places of Scripture, the day\n before.\n\n 340 See above, p. 193 and p. 194.\n\n 341 \u1f6d\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd,\n \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f06\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\u2014In Matth. _Hom._ i.\n (_Opp._ vii. 13 B.)\u2014\u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f25 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd, \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9.\u2014In Joann. _Hom._ ix, (_Opp._ viii. 62 B.)\n\n 342 It caused him (he says) to interrupt his teaching. \u201cSed quia nunc\n interposita est sollemnitas sanctorum dierum, quibus certas ex\n Evangelio lectiones oportet in Ecclesi\u00e2 recitari, quae ita sunt\n annuae ut aliae esse non possint; ordo ille quem susceperamus\n necessitate pauliulum intermissus est, non amissus.\u201d\u2014(_Opp._ vol.\n iii. P. ii. p. 825, _Prol._)\n\n 343 The place will be found quoted below, p. 202, note (o).\n\n 344 See Suicer, (i. 247 and 9: ii. 673). He is much more full and\n satisfactory than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve\n attention, (_Nov. Test._ vol. i, Prolegg. p. xxxi.) See also above,\n p. 45, notes (r) and (s).\n\n 345 At the beginning of every volume of the first ed. of his _Nov.\n Test._ (Riga, 1788) Matthaei has laboriously _edited_ the \u201cLectiones\n Ecclesiastic\u00e6\u201d of the Greek Church. See also his Appendices,\u2014viz.\n vol. ii. pp. 272-318 and 322-363. His 2nd ed. (Wittenberg, 1803,) is\n distinguished by the valuable peculiarity of indicating the\n Ecclesiastical sections throughout, in the manner of an ancient MS.;\n and that, with extraordinary fulness and accuracy. His \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 (i.\n 723-68 and iii. 1-24) though not intelligible perhaps to ordinary\n readers, are very important. He derived them from MSS. which he\n designates \u201cB\u201d and \u201cH,\u201d but which are _our_ \u201cEvstt. 47 and\n 50,\u201d\u2014uncial Evangelistaria of the viiith century (See Scrivener\u2019s\n _Introd._ p. 214.)\n\n Scholz, at the end of vol. i. of his N. T. p. 453-93, gives in full\n the \u201cSynaxarium\u201d and \u201cMenologium\u201d of Codd. K and M, (viiith or ixth\n century.) See also his vol. ii. pp. 456-69. Unfortunately, (as\n Scrivener recognises, p. 110,) all here is carelessly done,\u2014as usual\n with this Editor; and therefore to a great extent useless. His\n slovenliness is extraordinary. The \u201cGospels of the Passion\u201d (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd), he entitles \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (p. 472); and so\n throughout.\n\n Mr. Scrivener (_Introduction_, pp. 68-75,) has given by far the most\n intelligible account of this matter, by exhibiting _in English_ the\n Lectionary of the Eastern Church, (\u201cgathered chiefly from\n Evangelist. Arund. 547, Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, and\n Christ\u2019s Coll. Camb.\u201d); and supplying the references to Scripture in\n the ordinary way. See, by all means, his _Introduction_, pp. 62-65:\n also, pp. 211-225.\n\n 346 Consider the following:\u2014\u1f18\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7\n \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7:\n \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd;\u2014Chrys. _Opp._ iii. 88.\n\n Again:\u2014\u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f25\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f24\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf.\n \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\u2014_Ibid._ p. 89 D.\n\n_ 347 Opp._ ii. 454 B, D.\n\n_ 348 Opp._ ii. 290 B.\n\n_ 349 Opp._ ii. 357 E.\n\n 350 \u201cMeminit sanctitas vestra Evangelium secundum Joannnem ex ordine\n lectionum nos solere tractare.\u201d (_Opp._ iii. P. ii. 825 _Prol._)\n\n 351 See Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 246.\n\n 352 Chrysostom _Opp._ ii. 369 b, c.\u2014Compare Scrivener, _ubi supra_, p.\n 75.\n\n_ 353 Ed._ Mabillon, p. 116.\n\n_ 354 Opp._ vol. iii. p. 85 B: 88 A:\u2014\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\u2014\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n 355 \u201cAnniversari\u00e2 sollemnitate post passionem Domini nostis illum librum\n recitari.\u201d _Opp._ iii. (P. ii.) p. 337 G.\n\n 356 I desire to leave in this place the permanent record of my\n deliberate conviction that the Lectionary which, last year, was\n hurried with such indecent haste through Convocation,\u2014passed in a\n half-empty House by the casting vote of the Prolocutor,\u2014and rudely\n pressed upon the Church\u2019s acceptance by the Legislature in the\n course of its present session,\u2014is the gravest calamity which has\n befallen the Church of England for a long time past.\n\n Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered.\n\n Appointed (in 1867) for an _entirely_ different purpose, (viz. the\n Ornaments and Vestments question,) 29 Commissioners (14 Clerical and\n 15 Lay) found themselves further instructed \u201cto suggest and report\n _whether any and what alterations and amendments may be\n advantageously made_ in the selection of Lessons to be read at the\n time of Divine Service.\u201d\n\n Thereupon, these individuals,\u2014(the Liturgical attainments of\n nine-tenths of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself\n to characterise truthfully,)\u2014at once imposed upon themselves the\n duty of inventing _an entirely new Lectionary for the Church of\n England_.\n\n So to mutilate the Word of GOD that it shall henceforth be quite\n impossible to understand a single Bible story, or discover the\n sequence of a single connected portion of narrative,\u2014seems to have\n been the guiding principle of their deliberations. With reckless\n eclecticism,\u2014entire forgetfulness of the requirements of the poor\n brother,\u2014strange disregard for Catholic Tradition and the claims of\n immemorial antiquity;\u2014these Commissioners, (evidently unconscious of\n their own unfitness for their self-imposed task,) have given us a\n Lectionary which will recommend itself to none but the lovers of\n novelty,\u2014the impatient,\u2014and the enemies of Divine Truth.\n\n That the blame, _the guilt_ lies at the door of _our Bishops_, is\n certain; but the Church has no one but herself to thank for the\n injury which has been thus deliberately inflicted upon her. She has\n suffered herself to be robbed of her ancient birthright without\n resistance; without remonstrance; without (in her corporate\n capacity) so much as a word of audible dissatisfaction. _Can_ it be\n right in this way to defraud those who are to come after us of their\n lawful inheritance?... I am amazed and grieved beyond measure at\n what is taking place. At least, (as on other occasions,) _liberavi\n animam meam_.\n\n 357 A trace of this remains in the old Gallican Liturgy,\u2014pp. 137-8.\n\n 358 Bingham, xiv. iii. 3.\n\n_ 359 Opp._ vol. vii. p. 791 B.\n\n 360 See Dean Payne Smith\u2019s Translation, p. 863.\n\n 361 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\u2014Chrys.\n _Opp._ vii. 818 C.\n\n 362 \u201cPassio autem, quia uno die legitur, non solet legi nisi secundum\n Matth\u00e6um. Voluerain aliquando ut per singulos annos secundum omnes\n Evangelistas etiam Passio legeretur. Factum est. Non audierunt\n homines quod consueverant, et perturbati sunt.\u201d\u2014_Opp._ vol. v. p.\n 980 E.\n\n_ 363 Ed._ Mabillon, pp. 130-5.\n\n 364 Epiph. _Opp._ ii. 152-3.\n\n 365 Chrys. _Opp._ i. 497 C.\n\n 366 Epiph. _Opp._ ii. 285-6.\n\n 367 The learned reader will be delighted and instructed too by the\n perusal of both passages. Chrysostom declares that Christmas-Day is\n the greatest of Festivals; since all the others are but consequences\n of the Incarnation.\n\n Epiphanius remarks with truth that Ascension-Day is the crowning\n solemnity of all: being to the others what a beautiful head is to\n the human body.\n\n_ 368 Constt. Apostt._ lib. viii. c. 33. After the week of the Passion\n and the week of (1) the Resurrection,\u2014(2) Ascension-Day is\n mentioned;\u2014(3) Pentecost;\u2014(4) Nativity;\u2014(5) Epiphany. [Note this\n clear indication that this viiith Book of the Constitutions was\n written or interpolated at a subsequent date to that commonly\n assigned to the work.]\n\n 369 Bingham\u2019s _Origines_, B. xx. c. iv. \u00a7 2.\n\n 370 Chrys. _Opp._ ii. 355. (See the _Monitum_, p. 352.)\n\n 371 Chrys. _Opp._ ii. 369 D.\n\n 372 Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. LI, c. xvi. (_Opp._ i. 439 A.)\n\n 373 See above, pp. 58-9 and 67.\n\n_ 374 Opp._ iii. 102 B. See Bingham on this entire subject,\u2014B. xiv, c.\n iii.\n\n 375 \u201cIlla quae non scriptu, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto\n terrarum orbe observantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis,\n vel plenariis Conciliis quorum in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas,\n commendata atque statuta retineri. Sicut quod Domini Passio, et\n Resurrectio, et Ascensio in c\u0153lis, ut Adventus de c\u0153lo Spiritus\n Sancti anniversaria sollemnitate celebrantur.\u201d\u2014_Ep._ ad Januarium,\n (_Opp._ ii. 124 B, C).\n\n 376 \u201cLect. fer. quint., quae etiam Festum Adscensionis Domini in caelos,\n ad mat. eadem ac lect. tert. Resurrect.; in Euchar. lect. sext.\n Resurrect.\u201d\u2014But \u201cLect. \u03b3 Resurrectionis\u201d is \u201cMarc. xvi. 9-20:\u201d\n \u201cLect. \u03c3,\u201d \u201cLuc. xxiv. 36-53.\u201d\u2014See Dean Payne Smith\u2019s _Catalogus\n Codd. Syrr._ (1864) pp. 116, 127.\n\n 377 See above, p. 34, note (e).\n\n 378 R. Payne Smith\u2019s _Catal._ p. 148.\n\n_ 379 Hieronymi Comes_, (_ed_. Pamel. ii. 31.)\u2014But it is not the\n Gallican. (ed. Mabillon, p. 155.) ... It strikes me as just possible\n that a clue may be in this way supplied to the singular phenomenon\n noted above at p. 118, line 22-8.\n\n 380 \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u1f70 \u1f11\u03c9\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac. See Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 72,\n and R. P. Smith\u2019s Catal. p. 127. See by all means, Suicer\u2019s _Thes.\n Eccl._ i. 1229.\n\n 381 Dr. Wright\u2019s _Catal._ p. 70, No. cx. (Addit. 14,464: _fol._ 61_ b._)\n\n_ 382 Ibid._ No. lxx (_fol._ 92 _b_), and lxxii (_fol._ 87 _b_).\n\n 383 \u201cQuae titulo Josephi et Nicodemi insignitur.\u201d (R. Payne Smith\u2019s\n _Catal._ p. 116.)\u2014In the \u201cSynaxarium\u201d of Matthaei (_Nov. Test._\n 1803, i. p. 731) it is styled \u039a. \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n 384 Adler\u2019s _N. T. Verss. Syrr._ p. 71.\n\n 385 Dean Payne Smith\u2019s _Catal._ p. 146.\n\n_ 386 Ed._ Mabillon, pp. 144-5.\n\n 387 \u201cResurrectio Domini nostri I. C. ex more legitur bis diebus\n [Paschalibus] ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii.\u201d (_Opp._ v. 977\n C)\u2014\u201cQuoniam hoc moris est ... _Marci Evangelium_ est quod modo, cum\n legeretur, audivimus.\u201d \u201cQuid ergo audivimus Marcum dicentem?\u201d And he\n subjoins a quotation from S. Mark xvi. 12.\u2014_Ibid._ 997 F, 998 B.\n\n_ 388 Hieron. Comes_ (_ed._ Pamel. ii. 27.)\n\n 389 So Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 75.\u2014Little stress, however, is to\n be laid on Saint\u2019s Day lessons. In Matthaei\u2019s \u201cMenologium\u201d (_Nov.\n Test._ 1803, i. p. 765), I find that S. Luke viii. 1-4, or else S.\n John xx. 11-18 was the appointed Lection. See his note (5) at p.\n 750.\n\n 390 Note, (in addition to all that has gone before,) that the Festivals\n are actually designated by their _Greek_ names in the earliest Latin\n Service Books: not only \u201cTheophania,\u201d \u201cEpiphania,\u201d \u201cPascha,\u201d\n \u201cPentecostes,\u201d (the second, third and fourth of which appellations\n survive in the Church of the West, _in memoriam_, to the present\n hour;) but \u201cHypapante,\u201d which was the title bestowed by the\n Orientals in the time of Justinian, on Candlemas Day, (our Feast of\n the Purification, or Presentation of CHRIST in the Temple,) from the\n \u201cMeeting\u201d of Symeon on that occasion. Friday, or \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae, was\n called \u201c_Parasceve_\u201d in the West. (Mab. _Lit. Gall._ p. 129.) So\n entire was the sympathy of the East with the West in such matters in\n very early times, that when Rome decided to celebrate the Nativity\n on the 25th December, Chrysostom (as we have been reminded) publicly\n announced the fact at Constantinople; and it was determined that in\n this matter East and West would walk by the same rule.\n\n 391 From Professor Wright\u2019s _Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British\n Museum_ (1870) it appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is\n dated A.D. 824; the oldest Nestorian, A.D. 862; the oldest Malkite,\n A.D. 1023. The respective numbers of the MSS. are 14,485; 14,492;\n and 14,488.\u2014See his _Catalogue_, Part I. pp. 146, 178, 194.\n\n 392 It is exhibited in the same glass-case with the Cod. Alexandrinus\n (A.)\n\n 393 The reader is requested to refer back to p. 45, and the note\n there.\u2014The actual words of Eusebius are given in Appendix (B).\n\n 394 See the enumeration of Greek Service-Books in Scrivener\u2019s\n _Introduction_, &c. pp. 211-25. For the Syriac Lectionaries, see\n Dean Payne Smith\u2019s _Catalogue_, (1864) pp. 114-29-31-4-5-8: also\n Professor Wright\u2019s _Catalogue_, (1870) pp. 146 to 203.\u2014I avail\n myself of this opportunity to thank both those learned Scholars for\n their valuable assistance, always most obligingly rendered.\n\n 395 \u201cEvangelistariorum codices literis uncialibus scripti nondum sic ut\n decet in usum criticum conversi sunt.\u201d Tischendorf, quoted by\n Scrivener, [_Introduction to Cod. Augiensis_,\u201480 pages which have\n been separately published and are _well_ deserving of study,\u2014p. 48,]\n who adds,\u2014\u201cI cannot even conjecture why an Evangelistarium should be\n thought of less value than another MS. of the same age.\u201d\u2014See also\n Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, &c. p. 211.\n\n 396 e.g. _Addit. MSS._ 12,141: 14,449: 14,450-2-4-5-6-7-8: 14,461-3:\n 17,113-4-5-6:--(= 15 Codd. in all:) from p. 45 to p. 66 of Professor\n Wright\u2019s _Catalogue_.\n\n_ 397 Addit._ MS. 14,464. (See Dr. Wright\u2019s _Catalogue_, p. 70.)\n\n 398 Add to the eight examples adduced by Mr. Scrivener from our Book of\n C. P., (_Introduction_, p. 11), the following:\u2014Gospels for\n Quinquagesima, 2nd S. after Easter, 9th, 12th, 22nd after Trinity,\n Whitsunday, Ascension Day, SS. Philip and James (see below, p. 220),\n All Saints.\n\n 399 Thus the words \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (S. Luke vii. 31) _which introduce\n an Ecclesiastical Lection_ (Friday in the iiird week of S. Luke,)\n inasmuch as the words are found in _no_ uncial MS., and are omitted\n besides by the Syriac, Vulgate, Gothic and Coptic Versions, must\n needs be regarded as a liturgical interpolation.\u2014The same is to be\n said of \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 in S. Matth. xiv. 22,\u2014words which Origen and\n Chrysostom, as well as the Syriac versions, omit; and which clearly\n owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Textus Receptus, in\n the Vulgate and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the\n Gospel for the ixth Sunday after Pentecost _begins at that\n place_.\u2014It will be kindred to the present inquiry that I should\n point out that in S. Mark xvi. 9, \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 is constantly met\n with in Greek MSS., and even in some copies of the Vulgate; and yet\n there can be _no_ doubt that here also the Holy Name is an\n interpolation which has originated from the same cause as the\n preceding. The fact is singularly illustrated by the insertion of \u201c\u039f\n \u0399\u03a3\u201d in Cod. 267 ( = Reg. 69,) _rubro_ above _the same contraction_\n (for \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) in the text.\n\n 400 Not, of course, so long as the present senseless fashion prevails of\n regarding Codex B, (to which, if Cod. L. and Codd. 1, 33 and 69 are\n added, it is _only because they agree with B_), as an all but\n infallible guide in settling the text of Scripture; and quietly\n taking it for granted that _all the other MSS. in existence_ have\n entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive mankind. Until this most\n uncritical method, this most unphilosophical theory, is\n unconditionally abandoned, progress in this department of sacred\n Science is simply impossible.\n\n 401 See Matthaei\u2019s note on S. Luke xxii. 43, (_Nov. Test. ed._ 1803.)\n\n 402 This will be best understood by actual reference to a manuscript. In\n Cod. Evan. 436 (Meerman 117) which lies before me, these directions\n are given as follows. After \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 (i.e. the last words of\n ver. 42), is written \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fbd. Then, at the end of ver.\n 44, is written\u2014\u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fbd, after which follows the text \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2, &c.\n\n In S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, at chap, xxvi, which contains the Liturgical\n section for Thursday in Holy Week (\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ad), my Codex\n has been only imperfectly rubricated. Let me therefore be allowed to\n quote from Harl. MS. 1810, (our Cod. Evan. 113) which, at fol. 84,\n at the end of S. Matth. xxvi. 39, reads as follows, immediately\n after the words,\u2014\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5:\u2014\u03a0/\u03a5, [Cross] (i.e. \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.) But in\n order to explain what is meant, the above rubricated word and sign\n are repeated at foot, as follows:\u2014[Cross] \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1f70\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03a1\u0398. \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2: \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd,\n \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2\u2014which are the first words of S.\n Matth. xxvi. 40.\n\n Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after\n S. Luke xxii. 42, _besides_ the rubric already quoted, has the\n following: \u1f04\u03c1\u03be\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ad. Then come the two famous verses\n (ver. 43, 44); and, after the words \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, the\n following rubric occurs: \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ad \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8. \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2.\n\n [With the help of my nephew, (Rev. W. F. Rose, Curate of Holy\n Trinity, Windsor,) I have collated every syllable of Cod. 436. Its\n text most nearly resembles the Rev. F. H. Scrivener\u2019s l, m, n.]\n\n 403 See by all means Matthaei\u2019s _Nov. Test._ (ed. 1803,) i. p.491, and\n 492.\n\n 404 See above, p. 75, note (h).\n\n 405 For the 5th Sunday of S. Luke.\n\n 406 Such variations are quite common. Matthaei, with his usual accuracy,\n points out several: e.g. _Nov. Test._ (1788) vol. i. p. 19 (_note_\n 26), p. 23: vol. ii. p. 10 (_note_ 12), p. 14 (_notes_ 14 and 15),\n &c.\n\n 407 SS. Philip and James.\n\n 408 viz. \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b8: i.e. the ixth Saturday in S. Luke.\u2014Note that Cod. A\n also reads \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03ad in S. Lu. xi. 1.\n\n 409 viz. Monday in the vth, Thursday in the vith week after Pentecost,\n and the viiith Sunday after Pentecost.\n\n 410 viz. S. Luke xiii. 2: xxiv. 36. S. John i. 29 (\u1f41 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2): 44: vi.\n 14: xiii. 3,\u2014to which should perhaps be added xxi. 1, where B, \u05d0, A,\n C (not D) read \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2.\n\n 411 See by all means Matthaei\u2019s interesting note on the place,\u2014_Nov.\n Test._ (1788) vol. i. p. 113-4. It should be mentioned that Cod. C\n (and four other uncials), together with the Philoxenian and\n Hierosolymitan versions, concur in exhibiting the same spurious\n clause. Matthaei remarks,\u2014\u201cOrigenes (iv. 171 D) hanc pericopam haud\n adeo diligenter recensens terminat eum in \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9.\u201d Will not\n the disturbing _Lectionary-practice_ of his day sufficiently explain\n Origen\u2019s omission?\n\n 412 I recall S. John x. 29: xix. 13: xxi. 1;\u2014but the attentive student\n will be able to multiply such references almost indefinitely. In\n these and similar places, while the phraseology is exceedingly\n simple, the variations which the text exhibits are so exceeding\n numerous,\u2014that when it is discovered that _a Church Lesson begins in\n those places_, we may be sure that we have been put in possession of\n the name of the disturbing force.\n\n 413 Viz. K and M. (Field\u2019s _Chrys._ p. 251.)\u2014How is it that the readings\n of Chrysostom are made so little account of? By Tregelles, for\n example, why are they overlooked entirely?\n\n 414 See above, p. 197 to 204.\n\n 415 e.g. in Cod. Evan. 10 and 270.\n\n 416 In some cursive MSS. also, (which have been probably transcribed\n from ancient originals), the same phenomenon is observed. Thus, in\n Evan. 265 ( = Reg. 66), \u03a4\u0395\u039b only occurs, in S. Mark, at ix. 9 and\n 41: xv. 32 and 41: xvi. 8. \u0391\u03a1\u03a7 at xvi. 1. It is striking to observe\n that so little were these ecclesiastical notes (embedded in the\n text) understood by the possessor of the MS., that in the margin,\n over against ch. xv. 41, (where \u201c\u03a4\u0395\u039b:\u201d stands _in the text_,) a\n somewhat later hand has written,\u2014\u03a4\u0395[\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2] \u03a4[\u03b7\u03c2] \u03a9\u03a1[\u03b1\u03c2]. A similar\n liturgical note may be seen over against ch. ix. 9, and elsewhere.\n Cod. 25 (= Reg. 191), at the end of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel, has _only two_\n notes of liturgical endings: viz. at ch. xv. 1 and 42.\n\n 417 Among the _Syriac_ Evangelia, as explained above (p. 215), instances\n occur of far more ancient MSS. which exhibit a text rubricated by\n the original scribe. Even here, however, (as may be learned from Dr.\n Wright\u2019s _Catalogue_, pp. 46-66,) such Rubrics have been only\n _irregularly_ inserted in the oldest copies.\n\n 418 Note, that the Codex from which Cod. D was copied will have\n exhibited the text thus,\u2014\u0391\u03a0\u0395\u03a7\u0395\u0399 \u03a4\u039f \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 \u0397\u039b\u0398\u0395\u039d \u0397 \u03a9\u03a1\u0391.\u2014which is the\n reading of Cod. 13 ( = Reg. 50.) But the scribe of Cod. D, in order\n to improve the sense, substituted for \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd the word \u03ba\u03b1\u03af. Note the\n scholion [_Anon. Vat._] in Possinus, p. 321:\u2014\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9,\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad.\n\n Besides the said Cod. 13, the same reading is found in 47 and 54 (in\n the Bodl.): 56 (at Linc. Coll.): 61 (i.e. Cod. Montfort.): 69 (i.e.\n Cod. Leicestr.): 124 (i.e. Cod. Vind. Lamb. 31): csecr (i.e.\n Lambeth, 1177): 2pe (i.e. the 2nd of Muralt\u2019s S. Petersburg Codd.);\n and Cod. 439 (i.e. Addit. Brit. Mus. 5107). All these eleven MSS.\n read \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 at S. Mark xiv. 41.\n\n 419 So Scholz (i. 200):\u2014\u201cPericopa h\u00e6c _casu quodam_ forsan exciderat a\n codice quodam Alexandrino; unde defectus iste in alios libros\n transiit. Nec mirum hunc defectum multis, immo in certis regionibus\n plerisque scribis arrisisse: confitentur enim ex ipsorum opinione\n Marcum Matth\u00e6o repugnare. Cf. maxima Eusebium ad Marinum,\u201d &c.\n\n 420 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f70\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3. (Mai, _Bibl. P.P. Nova_, vol. iv. p. 256.)\n\n 421 Alford\u2019s N.T. vol. i. p. 433, (_ed_. 1868.)\u2014And so Tischendorf, (ed.\n 8va. pp. 406-7.) \u201cTalem dissentionem ad Marci librum tam misere\n mutilandum adduxisse quempiam, et quidem tanto cum successu, prorsus\n incredibile est, nec ullo probari potest exemplo.\u201d\u2014Tregelles is of\n the same opinion. (_Printed Text_, pp. 255-6.)\u2014Matthaei, a competent\n judge, seems to have thought differently. \u201cUna autem causa cur hic\n locus omitteretur fuit quod Marcus in his repugnare ceteris videtur\n Evangelistis.\u201d The general observation which follows is true\n enough:\u2014\u201cQu\u00e6 ergo vel obscura, vel repugnantia, vel parum decora\n quorundam opinione habebantur, ca olim ab Criticis et interpretibus\n nonnullis vel sublata, vel in dubium vocata esse, ex aliis locis\n sanctorum Evangeliorum intelligitur.\u201d (_Nov. Test._ 1788, vol. ii.\n p. 266.) Presently, (at p. 270,)\u2014\u201cIn summ\u00e2. Videtur unus et item\n alter ex interpretibus, qui h\u00e6c c\u00e6teris evangeliis repugnare\n opinebatur, in dubium vocasse. Hunc deinde plures temere secuti\n sunt, ut plerumque factum esse animadvertimus.\u201d Dr. Davidson says\n the same thing (ii. 116.) and, (what is of vastly more importance,)\n Mr. Scrivener also. (_Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. xliv.)\n\n 422 I have to acknowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M.\n de Wailly, the chief of the Manuscript department.\n\n 423 See above, p. 224.\n\n 424 Whereas in the course of S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, only two examples of +\n \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 + occur, (viz. at ch. xxvi. 35 and xxvii. 2,)\u2014in the former\n case the note has entirely lost its way in the process of\n transcription; standing where it has no business to appear. _No_\n Liturgical section ends thereabouts. I suspect that the transition\n (\u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) anciently made at ver. 39, was the thing to which the\n scribe desired to call attention.\n\n 425 = Coisl. 20. This sumptuous MS., which has not been adapted for\n Church purposes, appears to me to be the work of the same scribe who\n produced Reg. 178, (the codex described above); but it exhibits a\n different text. Bound up with it are some leaves of the LXX of about\n the viiith century.\n\n 426 End of the Lection for the Sunday before Epiphany.\n\n 427 In S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, I could find \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 so written only\n twice,\u2014viz. at ch. ii. 23 and xxvi. 75: in S. Luke only once,\u2014viz.\n at ch. viii. 39. These, in all three instances, are the concluding\n verses of famous Lessons,\u2014viz. the Sunday after Christmas Day, the\n iiird Gospel of the Passion, the vith Sunday of S. Luke.\n\n 428 This has already come before us in a different connection: (see p.\n 119): but it must needs be reproduced here; and _this_ time, it\n shall be exhibited as faithfully as my notes permit.\n\n 429 (1) In Evan. 282 (written A.D. 1176),\u2014a codex which _has been\n adapted_ to Lectionary purposes,\u2014the sign \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb and \u03b5\u03c4, strange to\n say, _is inserted into the body of the Text, only at S. Mark_ xv. 47\n _and_ xvi. 8.\n\n (2) Evan. 268, (a truly superb MS., evidently left unfinished, the\n pictures of the Evangelists only sketched in ink,) was never\n prepared for Lectionary purposes; which makes it the more remarkable\n that, between \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 and \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2, should be found inserted\n into the body of the text, \u03c4\u1f72. in gold.\n\n (3) I have often met with copies of S. Matthew\u2019s, or of S. Luke\u2019s,\n or of S. John\u2019s Gospel, unfurnished with a subscription in which\n \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3 occurs: but scarcely ever have I seen an instance of a Codex\n where the Gospel _according to S. Mark_ was one of two, or of three\n from which it was wanting; much less where it stood alone in that\n respect. On the other hand, in the following Codices,\u2014Evan. 10: 22:\n 30: 293,\u2014S. Mark\u2019s is _the only Gospel of the Four_ which is\n furnished with the subscription, + \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n [cross] or simply + \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 + .... In Evan. 282, S. Matthew\u2019s Gospel\n shares this peculiarity with S. Mark\u2019s.\n\n 430 \u201cNemini in mentem venire potest Marcum narrationis suae filum\n ineptissime abrupisse verbis\u2014\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1.\u201d\u2014Griesbach _Comment.\n Crit._ (ii. 197.) So, in fact, _uno ore_ all the Critics.\n\n 431 Chap. V. See above, pp. 66-7.\n\n 432 The English reader will follow the text with sufficient exactness if\n he will refer back, and read from the last line of p. 44 to the\n ninth line of p. 45; taking care to see, in two places, for \u201cthe\n end,\u201d\u2014\u201cTHE END\u201d.... The entire context of the Greek is given in the\n Appendix (B).\n\n 433 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd. The antecedent phrase, (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc,) I suspect must be an explanatory gloss.\n\n 434 \u201cThis then is clear,\u201d (is Dr. Tregelles\u2019 comment,) \u201cthat the greater\n part of the Greek copies had not the verses in question.\u201d\u2014_Printed\n Text_, p. 247.\n\n 435 Observe, the peculiarity of the expression in this place of Eusebius\n consists entirely in his introduction of the words \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. Had he\n merely said \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. ... \u1f18\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\u2014there\n would have been nothing extraordinary in the mode of expression. We\n should have been reminded of such places as the following in the\n writings of Eusebius himself:\u2014\u1f49 \u039a\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 ... \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03bc\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, (_Hist. Eccl._ lib. vi. c. 6.)\u2014\u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9,\n (_Ibid._ c. 22. See the note of Valesius on the place.)\u2014Or this,\n referred to by Stephanus (_in voce_),\u2014\u1f19\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03c9\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, (_Praep. Evang._ lib. vi. c. 10, [p. 280 c, _ed._ 1628].)\n But the substitution of \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 for \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd wants explaining;\n and can be only satisfactorily explained in one way.\n\n 436 See above, p. 66 and p. 67.\n\n 437 \u03a0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd ... \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\n [_sic_].\u2014Mai, vol. iv. p. 255.\n\n 438 \u201cConsentit autem nobis ad _tractatum quem fecimus de scriptur\u00e2_\n Marci.\u201d\u2014Origen. (_Opp._ iii. 929 B.) _Tractat._ xxxv. in _Matth._ [I\n owe the reference to Cave (i. 118.) It seems to have escaped the\n vigilance of Huet.]\u2014This serves to explain why Victor of Antioch\u2019s\n Catena on S. Mark was sometimes anciently attributed to Origen: as\n in Paris Cod. 703, [_olim_ 2330, 958, and 1048: also 18.] where is\n read (at fol. 247), \u1f68\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. Note, that Reg. 937 is but a (xvith cent.)\n counterpart of the preceding; which has been transcribed [xviiith\n cent.] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40.\n\n Possevinus [_Apparat. Sac._ ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet, _Origeniana_,\n p. 274) states that there is in the Library of C.C.C., Oxford, a\n Commentary on S. Mark\u2019s Gospel by Origen. The source of this\n misstatement has been acutely pointed out to me by the Rev. W. R.\n Churton. James, in his \u201cEcloga Oxonio-Cantabrig.,\u201d (1600, lib. i. p.\n 49,) mentions \u201c_Homiliae Origenis super Evangelio Marcae_, Stabat ad\n monumentum.\u201d\u2014Read instead, (with Rev. H. O. Coxe, \u201cCat. Codd. MSS.\n C.C.C.;\u201d [No. 142, 4,]) as follows:\u2014\u201cOrigenis presb. Hom. in istud\n Johannis, _Maria stabat ad monumentum_,\u201d &c. But what actually led\n Possevinus astray, I perceive, was James\u2019s consummation of his own\n blunder in lib. ii. p. 49,\u2014which Possevinus has simply appropriated.\n\n 439 So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac.\n\n Origen (iv. 140) says that not only \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n but also that _apud Heracleonem_, (who wrote within 50 years of S.\n John\u2019s death,) he found \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 written in S. John i. 28. Moved by\n _geographical_ considerations, however, (as he explains,) for\n \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, Origen proposes to read \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac.\u2014Chrysostom (viii. 96 d),\n after noticing the former reading, declares,\u2014\u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd: but he goes on _to reproduce\n Origen\u2019s reasoning_;\u2014thereby betraying himself.\u2014The author of the\n _Catena in Matth._ (Cramer, i. 190-1) simply reproduces\n Chrysostom:\u2014\u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9. And so, other Scholia; until at last what was\n only due to the mistaken assiduity of Origen, became generally\n received as the reading of the \u201cmore accurate copies.\u201d\n\n A scholium on S. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the\n true reading of that place is not \u201c60\u201d but \u201c160,\u201d\u2014\u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u1f68\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n Accordingly, _Eusebius_ also reads the place in the same erroneous\n way.\n\n 440 Jerome says of himself (_Opp._ vii. 537,)\u2014\u201cNon digne Gr\u00e6ca in\n Latinum transfero: aut Gr\u00e6cos lege (si ejusdem linguae habes\n scientiam) aut si tantum Latinus es, noli de gratuito munere\n judicare, et, ut vulgare proverbium est: _equi dentes inspicere\n donati_.\u201d\n\n 441 See above, pp. 57-9: also Appendix (C), \u00a7 2.\n\n 442 See above, pp. 225-6.\n\n 443 R. Payne Smith\u2019s _Catal._ p. 116.\n\n 444 See Adler\u2019s N. T. _Verss. Syrr._, p. 70.\n\n 445 R. Payne Smith\u2019s _Catal._ p. 146.\n\n 446 See p. 206, also note (k).\n\n 447 R. Payne Smith\u2019s _Catal._ p. 117.\n\n 448 Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 (= Paris Reg. 67) is read, at S. Mark\n xvi. 8 (_fol_. 125), as follows:\u2014\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1. [then, _rubro_,]\n \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0392\u1fbd \u1f11\u03c9\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd. \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae. [then\n the text:] \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. ... After ver. 20, (at _fol_. 126 of the\n same Codex) is found the following concluding rubric:\u2014\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0393\u1fbd\n \u1f11\u03c9\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n In the same place, (viz. at the end of S. Mark\u2019s Gospel,) is found\n in another Codex (Evan. 7 = Paris Reg. 71,) the following\n rubric:\u2014\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f11\u03c9\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n 449 R. Payne Smith\u2019s _Catal._ p. 146.\n\n 450 Cod. 27 (xi) is not provided with any lectionary apparatus, and is\n written continuously throughout: and yet at S. Mark xvi. 9 a fresh\n paragraph is observed to commence.\n\n Not dissimilar is the phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies\n of the Armenian version. \u201cThe Armenian, in the edition of Zohrab,\n separates the concluding 12 verses from the rest of the Gospel....\n Many of the oldest MSS., after the words \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, put the\n final \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, and then give the additional verses\n with a new superscription.\u201d (Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 253)....\n We are now in a position to _understand_ the Armenian evidence,\n which has been described above, at p. 36, as well as to estimate its\n exact value.\n\n 451 Euseb. apud Mai, iv. p. 264 = p. 287. Again at p. 289-90.\u2014So also\n the author of the 2nd Homily on the Resurr. (Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii.\n 411-2.)\u2014And see the third of the fragments ascribed to Polycarp.\n _Patres Apostol._, (ed. Jacobson) ii. p. 515.\n\n 452 I believe this will be found to be the _invariable_ order of the\n Gospels _in the Lectionaries_.\n\n 453 This is the case for instance in Evan. 15 (= Reg. 64). See _fol._ 98\n _b_.\n\n 454 I allude of course to Matthaei\u2019s Cod. g. (See the note in his _N.\n T._ vol. ix. p. 228.) Whether or no the learned critic was right in\n his conjecture \u201caliquot folia excidisse,\u201d matters nothing. _The left\n hand page ends at the words_ \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1. Now, if \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 had\n followed, how obvious would have been the inference that the Gospel\n itself of S. Mark had come to an end there!\n\n Note, that in the Codex Bez\u00e6 (D), S. Mark\u2019s Gospel ends at ver. 15:\n in the Gothic Codex Argenteus, at ver. 11. The Codex Vercell. (_a_)\n proves to be imperfect from ch. xv. 15; Cod. Veron. (_b_) from xiii.\n 24; Cod. Brix. (_f_) from xiv. 70.\n\n 455 Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. lix.\n\n 456 See p. 227.\n\n 457 See above, p. 226.\n\n 458 So Scholz:\u2014\u201chic [sc. 22] post \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 + \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2; dein atramento rubro,\u201d\n &c.\u2014Tischendorf,\u2014\u201cTestantur scholia ... _Marci Evangelium_ ... versu\n 9 _finem habuisse_. Ita, ut de 30 fere Codd. certe tres videamus, 22\n habet: \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 + \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9,\u201d &c.\u2014Tregelles appeals to\n copies, \u201csometimes with \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 interposed after ver. 8,\u201d (p.\n 254.)\u2014Mai (iv. 256) in the same spirit remarks,\u2014\u201cCodex\n Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex quo Eusebium producimus, post octavum\n versum _habet quidem_ vocem \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, ut alibi interdum observatum\n fuit; _sed tamen_ ibidem eadem manu subscribitur incrementum cum\n progredientibus sectionum notis.\u201d\n\n 459 Chap. I. and II.\n\n 460 Chap. IV, VI-X.\n\n 461 Chap. III, V, and VIII.\n\n 462 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.\n\n 463 Tregelles, Alford.\n\n 464 Alford.\n\n 465 \u201cH\u00e6c non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis.\u201d\u2014See the\n rest of Tischendorf\u2019s verdict, _supr\u00e0_, p. 10; and opposite, p. 245.\n\n 466 Tregelles\u2019 _Account of the Printed Text_, p. 259.\n\n 467 Alford\u2019s _New Test._ vol. i. _Proleg._ [p. 38] and p. 437.\n\n 468 So Norton, Tregelles, and others.\n\n 469 This suggestion, which was originally Griesbach\u2019s, is found in\n Alford\u2019s _New Test._ vol. i. p. 433, (_ed._ 1868.)\u2014See above, p. 12.\n The italics are not mine.\n\n 470 Vide _supr\u00e0_, p. 10.\n\n_ 471 Opp._ vol. iii. p. 671.\n\n 472 Eusebius _Eccl. Hist._ iv. 28. Consider Rev. xxii. 18, 19.\n\n 473 Note the remarkable adjuration of Iren\u00e6us, _Opp._ i. 821, preserved\n by Eusebius, _lib._ v. 20.\u2014See Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 383-4.\n Consider the attestations at the end of the account of Polycarp\u2019s\n martyrdom, _PP. App._ ii. 614-6.\n\n 474 Allusion is made to the Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus;\n especially to the work of Marcion.\n\n 475 Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, pp. 381-391.\n\n 476 See Chap. VI.\n\n 477 Chap. IX.\n\n 478 \u201cAd defendendum hunc locum in primis etiam valet mirus Codicum\n consensus in vocabulis et loquendi formulis singulis. Nam in locis\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, etiam multo brevioribus, quo plures sunt Codices, eo\n plures quoque sunt varietates. Comparetur modo Act. xv. 18, Matth.\n viii. 13, et loca similia.\u201d\u2014C. F. Matthaei\u2019s _Nov. Test._ (1788)\n vol. ii. p. 271.\n\n 479 Speaking of the abrupt termination of the second Gospel at ver. 8,\n Dr. Tregelles asks,\u2014\u201cWould this have been transmitted as a fact by\n good witnesses, if there had not been real grounds for regarding it\n to be true?\u201d\u2014(_Printed Text_, p. 257.) Certainly not, we answer. But\n _where_ are the \u201cgood witnesses\u201d of the \u201ctransmitted fact?\u201d _There\n is not so much as one._\n\n 480 See above, pp. 86-90.\n\n 481 See Chap. III.\n\n 482 See above, Chap. III. and IV.\n\n 483 \u201cHabent periocham hanc Codices Gr\u00e6ci, si unum b excipias, omnes.\u201d\n (Scholz, adopting the statement of Griesbach.)\u2014See above, p. 70.\n\n 484 See above, Chap. X.\n\n 485 See above, pp. 66-68.\n\n 486 See above, pp. 41 to 51: also Appendix (B).\n\n 487 The reader is referred to Mai\u2019s _Nov. PP. Bibl._ vol. iv. p. 262,\n line 12: p. 264 line 28: p. 301, line 3-4, and 6-8.\n\n 488 See above, p. 64-5: also Appendix (E).\n\n 489 P. 68 and note (d); p. 119 and note (m).\n\n 490 P. 51-7.\n\n 491 P. 57-9.\n\n 492 P. 59-66.\n\n 493 P. 114-125.\n\n 494 P. 68-9.\n\n 495 Chap. VI.\n\n 496 See above, pp. 86 to 88.\n\n 497 Will it be believed that Tischendorf accordingly rejects _that_\n verse also as spurious; and brings the fourth Gospel to an end at\n ver. 24, as he brings the second Gospel to an end at ver. 8? For my\n own part,\u2014having (through the kindness and liberality of the Keeper\n of the Imperial MSS. at S. Petersburg, aided by the good offices of\n my friend, the Rev. A. S. Thompson, Chaplain at S. Petersburg,)\n obtained a photograph of the last page of S. John\u2019s Gospel,\u2014I must\n be allowed altogether to call in question the accuracy of Dr.\n Tischendorf\u2019s judgment in this particular. The utmost which can be\n allowed is that the Scribe may have possibly changed his pen, or\n been called away from his task, just before bringing the fourth\n Gospel to a close.\n\n 498 See Chap. IX.\n\n 499 Chapter X.\n\n 500 Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pseudo-Basil, Patricius, and Marius\n Mercator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration.\n\n 501 Codex A,\u2014\u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c9\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 at the end of the Psalms.\n\n 502 The old Latin Interpreter of Origen\u2019s Commentary on S. Matthew seems\n to have found in Origen\u2019s text a quotation from S. Luke ii. 14 which\n is _not represented in the extant Greek text of Origen_. Here also\n we are presented with \u201chominibus _bonae voluntatis_.\u201d (_Opp._ iii.\n 537 C). We can say nothing to such second-hand evidence.\n\n 503 Consider his exactly similar method concerning Eph. i. 1. (_Supr\u00e0_,\n pp. 96-99.)\n\n 504 From the Rev. Professor Bosworth.\n\n_ 505 Vid. supr\u00e0_, p. 233.\n\n 506 P.S. I avail myself of this blank space to introduce a passage from\n THEOPHYLACT (A.D. 1077) which should have obtained notice in a much\n earlier page:\u2014\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2; \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03be\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f31\u03c0\u03ad; \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc7. \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af (\u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n \u03bf\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7;) \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03af \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 (\u03b1\u1f54\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2,) \u1f25\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd; [_Opp._ vol. i. p. 263 C.\n\n It must be superfluous to point out that Theophylact also,\u2014like\n Victor, Jerome, and Hesychius,\u2014is here only reproducing Eusebius.\n See above, p. 66, note (c).\n\n 507 Kollar, (editing Lambecius,\u2014iii. 159, 114,) expresses the same\n opinion.\u2014Huet (_Origeniana_, lib. iii. c. 4, pp. 274-5,) has a brief\n and unsatisfactory dissertation on the same subject; but he arrives\n at a far shrewder conclusion.\n\n 508 The copies which I have seen, are headed,\u2014\u0392\u0399\u039a\u03a4\u039f\u03a1\u039f\u03a3 (sometimes\n \u0392\u0399\u039a\u03a4\u03a9\u03a1\u039f\u03a3) \u03a0\u03a1\u0395\u03a3\u0392\u03a5\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u03a5 \u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0399\u039f\u03a7\u0395\u0399\u0391\u03a3 \u0395\u03a1\u039c\u0397\u039d\u0395\u0399\u0391 \u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u03a4\u039f \u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u039c\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u039f\u039d\n \u0395\u03a5\u0391\u0393\u0393\u0395\u039b\u0399\u039f\u039d; or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no\n Author\u2019s name is given. Rarely is the Commentary assigned to Cyril,\n Origen, &c.\u2014_Vide infr\u00e0_, No. iii, xii, xiv, xix, xlviii. Also, No.\n xlvii (comp, xxviii.)\n\n_ 509 Victoris Antiocheni in Marcum, et Titi Bostrorum Episcopi in\n Evangelium Lucae commentarii; ante hac quidem nunquam in lucem\n editi, nunc vero studio et oper\u00e2 Theodori Peltani luce simul et\n Latinitate donati._ Ingolstadt. 1580, 8vo. pp. 510.\n\n 510 \u201cEx hoc ego, quasi metallo triplici, una conflata massa, inde\n annulos formavi, quos singulos Evangelici contextus articulis\n aptatos, inter seque morsu ac nexu mutuo commissos, in torquem\n producerem, quo, si possem consequi, sancto Evangelistae Marco decus\n et ornamentum adderetur.\u201d\u2014_Pr\u00e6fatio_: from which the particulars in\n the text are obtained.\n\n 511 \u0392\u0399\u039a\u03a4\u03a9\u03a1\u039f\u03a3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03c3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd: ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit\n C. F. Matth\u00e6i, Mosquae, 1775.\n\n 512 P. xxvii-xxviii.\n\n 513 To understand what is alluded to, the reader should compare the\n upper and the lower half of p. 442 in Cramer: noting that he has one\n and the same annotation before him; but diversely exhibited. (The\n lower part of the page is taken from Cod. 178.) Besides transposing\n the sentences, the author of Cod. 178 has suppressed the reference\n to Chrysostom, and omitted the name of Apolinarius in line 10.\n (Compare Field\u2019s ed. of _Chrys._ iii. 529, top of the page.)\n\n 514 Thus the two notes on p. 440 are found substantially to agree with\n the note on p. 441, which = Chrys. p. 527. See also _infr\u00e0_, p. 289.\n\n 515 Let any one, with Mai\u2019s edition of the \u201cQuaestiones ad Marinum\u201d of\n Eusebius before him, note how mercilessly they are abridged,\n mutilated, amputated by subsequent writers. Compare for instance p.\n 257 with Cramer\u2019s \u201cCatenae,\u201d i. p. 251-2; and this again with the\n \u201cCatena in Joannem\u201d of Corderius, p. 448-9.\n\n 516 With whom, Reg. 177 and 703 agree.\n\n 517 p. 263, line 3 to 13, and in Possinus, p. 4.\n\n 518 Eusebius is again quoted at p. 444, and referred to at p. 445 (line\n 23-5). See especially p. 446.\n\n 519 What is found at p. 314 (on S. Mark v. 1,) is a famous place. (Cf.\n Huet\u2019s ed. ii. 131.) Compare also Victor\u2019s first note on i. 7 with\n the same edit. of Origen, ii. 125 C, D,\u2014which Victor is found to\n have abridged. Compare the last note on p. 346 with Orig. i. 284 A.\n Note, that \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9, (foot of p. 427) is also Origen. Cf.\n Possinus, p. 324.\n\n 520 See pp. 408, 418, 442.\n\n 521 e.g. the first note on p. 311; (comp. Possinus, p. 95): and the last\n note on p. 323; (comp. Poss. p. 123.) Compare also Cramer, p. 395\n (line 16-22) with Poss. p. 249.\u2014I observe that part of a note on p.\n 315 is ascribed by Possinus (p. 102) to Athanasius: while a scholium\n at p. 321 and p. 359, has no owner.\n\n 522 e.g. p. 408, 411 (twice).\n\n 523 In p. 418,\u2014\u1f41 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. For instances\n of quotation from Chrysostom, comp. V. A. p. 315 with Chrys. pp.\n 398-9: p. 376 with Chrys. pp. 227-8: p. 420 with Chrys. p. 447, &c.\n\n 524 Take for example Victor\u2019s Commentary on the stilling of the storm\n (pp. 312-3), which is merely an abridged version of the first part\n of Chrysostom\u2019s 28th Homily on S. Matthew (pp. 395-8); about 45\n lines being left out. Observe Victor\u2019s method however. Chrysostom\n begins as follows:\u2014\u1f49 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd. (Then follows S. Luke\n viii. 22.) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2. \u039f\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2; \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6. Victor, because he had S. Mark (not S.\n Matthew) to comment upon, begins thus:\u2014\u1f49 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u039b\u03bf\u1fe6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2; \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2; \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6.\n\n 525 e.g. V. A. p. 422 (from \u1f41 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd to \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) = Chrys. p.\n 460. Observe the next paragraph also, (p. 423,) begins, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\u2014So again, V. A. pp. 426-7 = Chrys. pp. 473-6: where \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad\n \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9, at the foot of p. 427 introduces a quotation from Origen, as\n appears from Possinus, p. 324\u2014See also p. 209, line 1,\u2014which is from\n Chrys. p. 130,\u2014\u1f24 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 being the next words.\u2014The first three\n lines in p. 316 = Chrys. p. 399. Then follows, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. See\n also pp. 392: 407 (\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\u2014\u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd): pp. 415 and 433.\n After quoting Eusebius by name (p. 446-7), Victor says (line 3)\n \u1f05\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n 526 e.g. V. A. p. 420 line 15, which = Chrys. p. 447.\n\n 527 e.g. Theod. Mops., (p. 414,) which name is absent from Cod. Reg.\n 201:\u2014Basil, (p. 370) whose name Possinus does not seem to have\n read:\u2014Cyril\u2019s name, which Possinus found in a certain place (p.\n 311), is not mentioned in _Laud._ Gr. 33 _fol._ 100 _b_, at top, &c.\n\n 528 So in the _Catena_ of Corderius, in _S. Joannem_, p. 302.\n\n 529 I believe it will be found that Cod. Reg. 186 corresponds _exactly_\n with Cod. Reg. 188: also that the contents of Cod. Reg. 201\n correspond with those of Cod. Reg. 206; to which last two, I believe\n is to be added Cod. Reg. 187.\n\n 530 Note, that this recurs at fol. 145 of a Codex at Moscow numbered 384\n in the _Syr. Cat._\n\n_ 531 Catalogue Librorum MSS._ Lips. 1830, 4to. p. 656 _b_.\n\n_ 532 Reg._ 177 = A: 178 = B: 230 = C.\u2014_Coisl._ 19 = D: 20 = E: 21 = F:\n 22 = G: 24 = H.\u2014_Matthaei\u2019s_ d _or_ D = I: _his_ e _or_ E = J: _his_\n 12 = K: _his_ a _or_ A = L.\u2014_Vat._ 358 = M: 756 = N: 757 = O: 1229 =\n P: 1446 = Q.\u2014_Vind. Koll._ 4 _Forlos._ 5 = R.\u2014_Xav. de Zelada_ =\n S.\u2014_Laur._ 18 = T: 34 = U.\u2014_Venet._ 27 = V.\u2014_Vind. Lamb._ 38 = W :\n 39 = X.\n\n 533 So B-E (which I chiefly follow) begins,\u2014\u03a4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n 534 B begins thus,\u2014\u0395\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1. It is at this word (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1) that most copies of the present\n scholion (A, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U,\n V, W, X) begin.\n\n 535 So far (except in its opening phrase) E. But C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L,\n M, N, O, P, T, begin,\u2014\u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 [I, \u03bf\u03c5\n \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9: J, \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5] \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1 [M, O, T om. \u03c4\u03b1] \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b5\u03bd [D,\n F, H om. \u03b5\u03bd] \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd [B, \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9] \u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u1ff3.\n\n 536 So I, J, K, L, and H. P proceeds,\u2014\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n But B, C, D, E, F, G, M, N, O, T exhibit,\u2014\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 [B om. \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2] \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. On the other hand, A and Q begin and\n proceed as follows,\u2014\u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1 [Q om. \u03c4\u03b1]\n \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b5\u03bd [A om. \u03b5\u03bd] \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u1ff3 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\n \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 [Q, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 (a clerical error): A om. \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2] \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\n \u03b5\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n 537 So B, except that it omits \u03c9\u03c2. So also, A, D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N,\n O, P, Q, T, except that they begin the sentence, \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5.\n\n 538 So D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, O, P, T: also B and Q, except that they\n prefix \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 to \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf \u03a0. B is peculiar in reading,\u2014\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b7 \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\n \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 (transposing \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5): while C and P read,\u2014\u03bf\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03be\n \u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff3\n \u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u1ff3 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b7 \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n 539 So all, apparently: except that P reads \u03b5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd for\n \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd; and M, after \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd inserts \u03b5\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, with a\n point (.) before \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1: while C and P (after \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\u03b9\u03bd,) proceed,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd [C, \u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1] \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b7\n \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2. \u03b1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd. But J [and I think,\n H] (after \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1) proceeds,\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u03ba\n \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff3 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff3 \u03b7\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff3 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff3 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. \u03b1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd.\n\n 540 So B. All, except B, C, H, J, P seem to end at \u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1.\n\n 541 e.g. \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad for \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n 542 Jerome evidently supposed that Ammonius was the author of _the\n Canons_ as well:\u2014\u201cCanones quos _Eusebius_ Caesariensis Episcopus\n _Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium_ in decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in\n Graeco habentur expressimus.\u201d (_Ad Papam Damasum. Epist._) And\n again: \u201c_Ammonius ... Evangelicos Canones excogitavit_ quos postea\n secutus est Eusebius Caesariensis.\u201d (_De Viris Illustr._ c. 55\n [_Opp._ ii. 881.])\u2014See above, p. 128.\n\n 543 There was published at the University Press in 1805, a handsome\n quarto volume (pp. 216) entitled _Harmonia quatuor Evangeliorum\n juxta Sectiones Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones_. It is merely the\n contents of the X Canons of Eusebius printed _in extenso_,\u2014and of\n course is no \u201cHarmony\u201d at all. It would have been a really useful\n book, notwithstanding; but that the editor, strange to say, has\n omitted to number the sections.\n\n 544 This last \u00a7 according to _Tischendorf\u2019s_ ed. of the Eusebian Canons.\n\n 545 Thus, certain disputed passages of importance are proved to have\n been recognised at least _by Eusebius_. Our LORD\u2019S Agony in the\n Garden for instance, (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44\u2014wanting in Cod. B,) is by\n him numbered \u00a7 283: and that often rejected verse, S. Mark xv. 28,\n he certainly numbered \u00a7 216,\u2014whatever Tischendorf may say to the\n contrary. (See p. 203.)\n\n 546 It is obvious to suggest that, (1) whereas our Marginal References\n follow the order of the Sacred Books, they ought rather to stand in\n the order of their importance, or at least of their relevancy to the\n matter in hand:\u2014and that, (2) actual Quotations, and even Allusions\n to other parts of Scripture when they are undeniable, should be\n referred to in some distinguishing way. It is also certain that, (3)\n to a far greater extent than at present, _sets_ of References might\n be kept _together_; not scattered about in small parcels over the\n whole Book.\u2014Above all, (as the point most pertinent to the present\n occasion,) (4) it is to be wished that _strictly parallel places_ in\n the Gospels might be distinguished from those which are illustrative\n only, or are merely recalled by their similarity of subject or\n expression. All this would admit of interesting and useful\n illustration. While on this subject, let me ask,\u2014Why is it no longer\n possible to purchase a Bible with References to the Apocrypha? _Who_\n does not miss the reference to \u201cEcclus. xliii. 11, 12\u201d at Gen. ix.\n 14? _Who_ can afford to do without the reference to \u201c1 Macc. iv. 59\u201d\n at S. John x. 22?\n\n 547 Mai, vol. iv. p. 287. See also p. 293.\n\n 548 Tischendorf says 19 only.\n\n 549 Tischendorf says 96 only.\n\n 550 Tischendorf says 13 only.\n\n 551 Scrivener specifics the following Codd. C, F, H, I, P, Q, R, W6, Y,\n Z, 54, 59, 60, 68, 440, iscr, sscr. Also D and K. (_Cod. Bez\u00e6_, p.\n xx, and _Introd._ pp. 51, 2.) Add Evan. 117: (but I think _not_\n 263.)\n\n 552 Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, pp. 51 and 52: _Cod. Bez\u00e6_, p. xx. note\n [2.]\n\n 553 Evan. 263, for instance, has certainly _blank_ Eusebian Tables at\n the beginning: the _frame_ only.\n\n 554 See Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 51 (note 2),\u2014where Tregelles (in\n Horne\u2019s _Introd._ iv. 200) is quoted.\n\n 555 e.g. Codd. M, 262 and 264. (I saw at least one other at Paris, but I\n have not preserved a record of the number.) To these, Tregelles adds\n E; (Scrivener\u2019s _Introduction_, p. 51, note 2.) Scrivener adds W,\n and Tischendorf T, (Scrivener\u2019s _Cod. Bezae_, p. xx.)\n\n 556 The _order_ of these monograms requires explanation.\n\n 557 Addit. MSS. 14,449: 14,450, and 1, and 2, and 4, and 6, and 7, and\n 8: 14,463, and 9: 17,113. (Dr. Wright\u2019s _Catalogue,_ 4to. 1870.)\n Also Rich. 7,157. The reader is referred to Assemani; and to Adler,\n p. 52-3: also p. 63.\n\n 558 \u201cDawkins 3.\u201d See Dean Payne Smith\u2019s _Catalogue_, p. 72.\n\n 559 It will be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme, _every\n verse_ of S. Mark xvi, from ver. 8 to ver. 15 inclusive, constitutes\n an independent section (\u00a7\u00a7 281-288): ver. 16-18 another (\u00a7 289); and\n verr. 19-20, another (\u00a7 290), which is the last. The Greek scheme,\n as a rule, makes independent sections of verr. 8, 9, 14, 19, 20; but\n throws together ver. 10-11: 12-13: 15-16: 17-18. (_Vide infr\u00e0_, p.\n 311.)\n\n 560 Note that \u00a7 392/9 = S. Luke xxiv. 12: \u00a7 394/10 = ver. 18-34: \u00a7 395/8\n = ver. 35: \u00a7 396/9 is incomplete. [Dr. Wright supplies the lacune\n for me, thus: \u00a7 396/9 = ver. 36-41 (down to \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd): \u00a7 397/9 =\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 down to the end of ver. 41: \u00a7 398/9 = ver. 42: \u00a7 399/9\n = ver. 43: \u00a7 400/10 = ver. 44-50: \u00a7 401/8 = 51: \u00a7 402/10 = ver. 52,\n 3.\n\n Critical readers will be interested in comparing, or rather\n contrasting, the Sectional system of a Syriac MS. with that which\n prevails in all Greek Codices. S. John\u2019s \u00a7 248/1 = xx. 18: his \u00a7\n 249/9 = ver. 19 to \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd in ver. 21: his $ 250/7 = ver. 21\n (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c2 to the end of the verse): his \u00a7 251/10 = ver. 22: his \u00a7 252/7\n = ver. 23: his \u00a7 253/[10] = ver. 24-5: his \u00a7 254/[9] = ver. 26-7:\n his \u00a7 255/10 = ver. 28 to the end of xxi. 4: his \u00a7 256/9 = xxi. 5:\n his \u00a7 257/9 = xxi. 6 (to \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5): his \u00a7 258/9 = ver. 6, (\u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd to\n the end): his \u00a7 259/[10] = ver. 7, 8: his \u00a7 260/[9] = ver. 9: his \u00a7\n 261/[10] = ver. 10: his \u00a7 262/9 = ver. 11: his \u00a7 263/9 = first half\n of ver. 12: his \u00a7 264/10 is incomplete.\n\n [But Dr. Wright, (remarking that in his MSS., which are evidently\n the correcter ones, 263/10 stands opposite the middle of ver. 12\n [\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1], and 264/9 opposite ver. 13 [\u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd],) proceeds\n to supply the lacune for me, thus: \u00a7 264/9 = ver. 13: \u00a7 265/10 =\n ver. 14-5 (down to \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1ff6 \u03c3\u03b5; \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7): \u00a7 266/9 = \u03b2\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\n \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, (end of ver. 15): \u00a7 267/10 = ver. 16 (down to \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1ff6 \u03c3\u03b5): \u00a7 268/9\n = \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, \u03a0\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (end of ver. 16): \u00a7 269/10 =\n ver. 17 (down to \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1ff6 \u03c3\u03b5): \u00a7 270/9 = \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f41 \u1f38., \u03b2. \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0. \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n (end of ver. 17): \u00a7 271/10 = ver. 18 to 25.\n\n 561 \u201cI have examined for your purposes, Add. 14,449; 14,457; 14,458; and\n 7,157. The first three are Nos. lxix, lxx, and lxxi, in my own\n Catalogue: the last, a Nestorian MS., is No. xiii in the old\n Catalogue of Forshall and Rosen (London, 1838). All four agree in\n their numeration.\u201d\n\n 562 See the preceding note.\u2014Availing myself of the reference given me by\n my learned correspondent, I read as follows in the Catalogue:\u2014\u201cInter\n ipsa textus verba, numeris viridi colore pictis, notatur Canon\n harmoniae Eusebianae, ad quem quaevis sectio referenda est. Sic,\n [glyph] [i.e. 1] indicat canonem in quo omnes Evangelistae\n concurrunt,\u201d &c. &c.\n\n 563 Suidas [A.D. 980], by giving 236 to S. Mark and 348 to S. Luke,\n makes the sum of the Sections in Greek Evangelia 1,171.\n\n 564 This sheet was all but out of the printer\u2019s hands when the place in\n vol. i. of Assemani\u2019s Bibliotheca Medicea, (fol. 1742,) was shewn me\n by my learned friend, P. E. Pusey, Esq., of Ch. Ch.\u2014Dr. Wright had\n already most obligingly and satisfactorily resolved my inquiry from\n the mutilated fragments of the Canons, as well as of the Epistle to\n Carpianus in Add. 17,213 and 14,450.\n\n 565 Dr. Tregelles. (_Vide supr\u00e0_, pp. 125-6.) And so, Tischendorf.\n\n 566 The others are 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 32, 37, 40, 45, 52, 98, 113, 115,\n 127, 129, 132, 133, 134, 137, 169, 186, 188, 193, 195, 265, 269,\n 276, 371. Add. 18,211, Cromwell 15, Wake 12 _and_ 27.\n\n 567 The others are 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 24, 29, 54 [more \u00a7\u00a7 ?], 65, 68,\n 111, 112, 114, 118, 157, 183, 190, 202, 263, 268, 270, 273, 277,\n 278, 284, 287, 294, 414, 438, 439. Rich 7,141. Add. 17,741 _and_\n 17,982. Cromw. 16. Canonici 36 _and_ 112. Wake 21.\n\n 568 Viz. 184, 192, 264, hscr, Add. 11,836. Ti. Wake 29.\n\n 569 The others are 10, 20, 21, 36, 49, 187, 262, 266, 300, 364. Rawl.\n 141.\n\n_ 570 Vide supr\u00e0_, p. 33. Assemani, vol. i. p. 28. (Comp. Adler, p. 53.)\n The others are 8, 26, 72, 299, 447. Bodl. Miscell. 17. Wake 36.\n\n 571 The others are 7, 27, 34, 38, 39, 46, 74, 89, 105, 116, 117, 135,\n 179, 185, 194, 198, 207, 212, 260, 261, 267, 275, 279, 293, 301,\n 445, kscr. Add. 22,740. Wake 22, 24, 30; _and_ 31 in which, ver. 20\n is numbered CMB.\n\n 572 But Cod. U inserts \u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 before \u03b5\u03be\u03b7\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd; and (at least two of the\n other Codices, viz.) 48, 67 read \u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c5\u03c3\u03c9\u03c1.\n\n 573 \u03a3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is what we call an \u201cAnnotation.\u201d [On the sign in the text,\n see the Catalogue of MSS. in the Turin Library, P. i. p. 93.] On the\n word, and on \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, (consider 2 Thess. iii. 14,) see the\n interesting remarks of Huet, _Origeniana_, iii. \u00a7 i. 4. (at the end\n of vol. iv. of Origen\u2019s _Opp._ p. 292-3.)\u2014Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ v.\n 20) uses \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in this sense. (See the note of Valesius.) But it\n is plain from the rendering of Jerome and Rufinus (_subscriptio_),\n that it often denoted a \u201csignature,\u201d or signing of the name.\n Eusebius so employs the word in _lib._ v. 19 _ad fin._\n\n 574 He was Patriarch of Antioch, A.D. 512-9.\u2014The extract (made by Petrus\n junior, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, A.D. 578,) purports to be\n derived from the 26th Epistle, (Book 9,) which Severus addressed to\n Thomas Bp. of Germanicia after his exile. See Assemani, _Bibl.\n Orient._ vol. ii. pp. 81-2.\n\n 575 I cannot find the place in Cyril. I suppose it occurs in a lost\n Commentary of this Father,\u2014whose Works by the way are miserably\n indexed.\n\n 576 \u1f49 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd [viz. the sect of the Severiani] \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f41 \u03a4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u1fbd \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. \u1f49 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. The next words are every way suggestive. \u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bd.\u2014Eusebius, _Hist.\n Eccl._ iv. 29, \u00a7 4.\n\n 577 See, for example, the readings of B or \u05d0, or both, specified from p.\n 80 to p. 86.\n\n_ 578 Vid. supr\u00e0_, p. 129, note (g.)\n\n_ 579 Opp._ vol. i. p. 391 D.\n\n_ 580 Haeret. Fab._ lib. i. c. xx. (_Opp._ iv. 208.)\n\n 581 Clinton, F. R. ii. _Appendix_, p. 473, quoting Theodoret\u2019s \u201cEp. 113,\n p. 1190. [_al._ vol. iii. p. 986-7].\u201d\n\n_ 582 Quoted by Matthaei, N. T._ (1788) vol. ix. p. 228, _from_ g, a, d.\n\n_ 583 Ibid_., ii. 69, and ix. 228.\n\n_ 584 Nov. Test._ (1869), p. 404.\n\n 585 Let the reader examine his \u201cQuaestio ix,\u201d (Mai, vol. iv. p. 293-5):\n his \u201cQuaestio x,\u201d (p. 295, last seven lines). See also p. 296, line\n 29-32.\n\n 586 See Chrys. _Opp._ vol. viii. p. 522 _c_:\u2014\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5\n \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd.","title":"The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":128981}