CORNELL UNIVERSITY L BRARY

I
The Robert M. and Laura Lee
Lintz

Book Endowment

for the

Humanities

Class of

1924

CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

1924 088 200 096

Cornell University Library

The
tlie

original of

tiiis

book

is in

Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright

restrictions in
text.

the United States on the use of the

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924088200096

THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK

THE

LAST TWELVE VERSES

OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

S.

MARK

VINDICATED AGAINST RECENT CRITICAL OBJECTORS AND ESTABLISHED

BY

JOHN W. BURGON
VICAR OF
S.

B.D.

MARy-THE-VJKCIN'S,

FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE,

IN DIVINITY.

AND GRESHAM LECTURER

WITH FACSIMILES OF CODEX K AND CODEX L

" 'Advice
that you
. .
.

to you,'
1

'

wished

Then let vtyifyin^ your rifertmt!,

sir, 'in studying Divinity?' Did you say would give you a few words of advice, sir ? me recommend to you the practice of always
'

sir!"
Cont'ersation of the late

President Roi'th.

xforD "anb

tkitilionj

JAMES

PAB.KEpR^ ANJ^ CO.

1871.

On

tlic

opposite page

is

exhibited au vxaci Fnc-simi/f, obfol.

tained by Photography, of

28

b of the
:

Codex Sixaiticus
ter-

at S. Petersburg, (Tischendorf's k)

shewing the abrupt

luiuntion of S.

Mark's Gospel

at the

words e*obotnto tap

(chap. XVI. 8), as explained at p. 70,

and pp. 86

8.

The

original Photograph,

which

is

here reproduced on a dimifull

nished scale, measures in height

one- eighth
;

fourteen inches and

It

in breadth, full thirteen inches.

was proof the

cured for

me

through the friendly and zealous

>S.

ofiBces

English Chaplain at
P.D.
has
;

Petersburg, the Rev. A. S. Thompson,

by favour of the Keeper of the Imperial Library, who

hearty thanks for his liberality and consideration.

my

It will

be perceived that the text begins

first

at S.

Mark

xvi. 2,

and ends with the

words

of S.

Luke

i.

18.

Up
of

to this houi", every

endeavour

to obtain a

Photograph

the corresponding page of the Codex Yaticaxus, B,

(N. 1209, in the Vatican,) has

proved unavailing.

If the

present Vindication of the genuineness of Twelve Verses of

the everlasting Gospel should have the good fortune to ap-

prove

itself to his

Holiness,

Pope Pius

IX., let

me

be per-

mitted in this unadorned and unusual manner,

I

(to

which

would fain add some

circumstance of respectful ceremony

if I

knew how,)

very

humbl)' to entreat his Holiness to

allow

me

to

possess

a Photograph, corresponding in size

13
(it is

with the original, of the page of Codex

fol.

numbered

1303,)

which exhibits the abrupt termination of the

Gospel according to S. Mark.

J.

TV. B.

OBIEL COIXies, OZPOBD,

JuM

14, 1871.

iixrK'N
>

K>v'

KN.-

Y **^*^'

Jr.
e'-'

A.e

v:o*iT~><i GPi i-ro

-

>

CTxe o i<xi o Y' SI o'.-.K.c M e M

J I

A
'

cneixH nt?rrioKX-i
entJXf ^^^^ox^-l*MK Txxxcexi hJH rncj>j

>

c>.| ei -|"t>N
II

KWi ixfJToriXHoo*
-i

w xo MTOY KY

ccxetDKieic'

pfbTOyH^loy
/vi

neriTiuNnenxH'
e Ki H M Ki n fV'M*^''-' KXOU)eTlXrXOCAN H H MOixr T^jxncxj' Tin rrrxi kXi y" Hfc TKi re>ioi.i;6 woiity Xo ro^GikOite kxmoi ri X| H KoxoYanK-ri
i
I

*ivv> v^>> >>>-

fO'a>o fH Mew a>M;

.x-oM c= H a w Zar?wii> j-xTo YYM XM x^s

NTo Y*-xoYn f^pC'T

e p N-e KTH ce Y
."i,*^-)

cucj^oHxeXYT'"*^"* AO C KY^'^^TU? ce KX!

-j;

>

O Y i^ ^'

AFT*-

'lor KXll?T>J'.VXOrf'
'.

riOKiTo ye Y<^'^^^ oYTDY^ Y >^ *>f^

vxxpxcjWoH <>J
'

wi^<.KY>^rtrM eh4-'~
>^<.x^->^J^ XJ>

f.K-M>

Kre l.tUCK^^CiH.LCO 1 J-XYXI Kf XT >"

1

!"

Y" M W h4 M e o Ktej
I
r

>

KAPH MeMpKi'eKi' -Tofcj>ve3: oi ifn et ^e RAH M t M O M-crfV >i^ W >-= -Y KM W- KKI

i

Ax>ru7 NITH M XtxJj A. MX:-- Grer-ie-tofeN

|^LEo<:erineceni -^ -nxY^o'^'' CI CM iuE n j^ocxyrOXI -nt?XO CM H<i>-6r| U?AXXflXi.(0-T76!'H f'.OYOeH HXfHc;ic> coy KXI H rvH Hic-y
1 1

VY ^=X>a^r>
1c

exe

cxg.e'T^nG^>^^y+

"x<Jl A^<^'>t ' ^'Hc

TeYfTi-

'/r>Yioi>;.Kj

,ircGicTt>6M 9MXXY KXie* i^f

OKe xe T^* AY=3r>^ fti

CAvKJ

eie4>

*-+e r ' ^*^'*>*'

)-!

CTAJx>-rxcol KXiX
I

-:-"'>/ r-'YrJvTflcr

TeTo h ccVa-Y
J
-;

*"

ijrn n" I O - -f f e r Off OY l-'"C -Tl^v!

fe . i^

>

c&xi cxr,T ^i* ^1 irrXMXfiAj^^KXJp; XJ*.

TH

\D e r : n H rfcri Gcei AY-nY>s>-flHGoVTvi

i-("7Xi r^k

r> /.XiA-cic kX-j nox

Me rxr^

PTI Q'J
>^-^

<

<po^f7P^H>*ma 'rny& if noffeYOM 6

e-IMH OAXlcKKi kj KM > xci i*rTb kyJ^ , *fH r.r ro I KXK)Y^si^'

M WTi H ^vVin^c-v
oyTTXHce'Hc^^rXJe

MOMTOLM*^t|Xoy

*vKi

>

JssV.Y''r\ps^reTf ^t

*cYTt^>Mnt*\V:ytrrreS-eis-rj J Ki j-p
-

o n i; I Y*^ 0*r l-n I <> \ e rY ^ r/v: M-W<? CT J

.A >

^YTra>tT6KHi6>5K)#'
OTrri

"*

.erre?7XK>u AM<po

K N H 6Xe U-X|.'T

jPorHoe Ae*?=TAi

ewVvYstDK' t4Vj>y

?.'

l^ta

r* j-oKEfcH

ko

A* IVM*-t-i:KGi>

TTPc-eNrrXlCHMeTXi' }^*ia>UHtytrt,,

HeiHKeixenicnj* -KM KXfAixprXTe

/ct>H fin >Tq^^>^>'
,

^^Y1?^'
;-sJp>*j

rx:rGYeM'xY^>J
ot t Xiio
5

<?"

rHTX3t-r*<C6<f>M
^i

r^tioejcaiippo

M;nxcXf5'^naY^>**^

T'o'i'K'l

e|-oY'

>

!>ef>4 J,:,>Y>>.-YT'-'

TJOKK iToyorirKxnX *Tieooc^fMctrxT'i

-lo: .vr>j Kii a>kjM

oi-f i?ieMX>^;>?

XcSsX^et^eyM 'X

TO

SIR
ufijju

ROUNBELL PALMER,
Sfc,
8,-c.,

Q.C., M.P.,

yap \fya>

v^'iv,
8fc.
r,

ecof

iv Tvap^xer, 6 ovpapos Ka\

,,pala ov
fcot

yij,

-ra

^^

f,la

^^ ^apUdr, dno roO .6pov,

yiurjrat.

Deab Sis Roiwdzll,

I
mit
do viy^elf ihe honour
inc to
is

av irdvTa

qfiiiscn'/jiiig this

volume

to you.

Per-

(xphin the

rcasoii uhij.

(VKOiraiTfpov St
roi.

(an
I

It

not mereli/ that

I may

give expression to a sentiment of

ovpa^hu kui t^v yij^ napiXduu,

fii'au

private friendship tihich dates back

from

the pleasant time irhen

V Tov vofiov
o

Kfpalav ireaelu.

im? Curate

to

your Father,
;

uhose
much

memory I
in

never recal

tritfiouf love

and veneration

nor even

order to afford myself

ovpavhs Koi
01 S

tJ

y^ TrapeXevaouTai,
fiij

the

opportunity of testifying hoir

honour you for the

X6yoi fiov ov
Kat fau

TrapeXdcoa-i.

hohlf example of conscientious uprightness

and

integrity

which

you

set

us on a recent public occasion.

to

It is for no such reason

ny

d^aiprf

that

I dedicate
because

you

this vindication

of the

last Tirelve Verses

ani> rc2^ X6ycov fiifiXov rij, npo<pr}T(la, ra^rrj,,

^(fiaiprjaii

(f

the Gospel according to S.

Mark.
to

6 Geoy to p.(pos airoD

TTJs' ^(orjs,

It

is

desire

supremely

submit the argument con-

CTTO fil^Xov

tained in the ensuing ])ages to a practised Judicial intellect of the

lofricst

stamp.

Recent Editors of the

New

Testament

insist that

Kai fK rqs iroXicos ttjs ayia^,

thife " last Twelve

to a
dice-

Verses" arc not genuine.

The

Critics,

almost

Kai

Tw

yeypanp.ivav iv

fiifiXicc rovTcp.

man, avow themselves of the same opinion.

Popular Prejuside.

has been for a long time past warmly enlisted on the same
as convinced as

I am
truth.

I am

of

my
tJie

life, it

that the reverse

is

is

the

It

is

not even with

vie as

trith

certain learned

friends of mine, icho, admitting

adversary's premisses, con-

tent themselves with denying the validity of his inference.

How-

evxr true

it

may

be,

and

it

is true,

that from

those premisses

the proposed conclusion does not follow, I yet venture to correctness of those premisses altogether. I insist, on

deny the
the con-

VI
irarij, ihai the

DEDICATION.
Evidcucc relied on
is

untrmticorthy,

untrusi-

H'orihy in crcry pnrticiilnr.

Ifoir,
in

the uuaritiinc, can such an one as

it is

I am

hope

to

jtcrsiiade the irorld that

as

I say,
is

whik

the most iUitstrioits

?

Biblical Critics at

home and abroad arc agreed, and against me

to secure

Clearly, the first thing to be done

for myself a full

irrittcu

PREFACE.
mniS

and patient hearing.

With

this vieir,

have

a book.

But

next,

instead of icaitlng for the slow verdict of Public

Opinion, (ichich yet,

know, must come after

many

days,)

I
.-hen

towavcls the better n.y contribution uhich is destined, understanding of a subject

volun.o

is

desiderate for the Evidence

have
is

collected,

a competent and an
to

it

shall

have grown

vindiinto a Science, to
to enjoy para-

impartial Judge.

And

that

nhy I dedicate my book

you.

cate for itself a

mighty province, and

If I can but get

about the result.

this case fairly tried,

I have

no doubt whatever

Lnnt
of the

attention.

Textual Criticism I allude to the

all

New
this

Testament Scriptures.

Wliether you arc able

it

to

find time

to

read these pages, or not,

That

Study

is still

in

its

infancy,

may

see

shall content

me

to

hare shewn in

this

manner

the confidence

frith

which

advocate

my

cause

the kind of test to tchich

I
so,

on which The very principles

because

it is

based are as yet

propose

to bring

my

reasonings.

If

I may / am

be allowed to

say

The reason is obvious. understood. only imperfectly have not yet been the very foundations
It is
l,ia,

S.

Mark's

last Twelve Verses shall no longer remain a

subject of dispute

among men.
and
to

able

to

prove that

which inadequate extent,) on (except to a wholly

this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be sjmrious on

superstructure is to rise. the future

A careful

colla-

irholly mistaken

grounds

this

ought in fairness to close

extant Hoii of every

Codex, (executed

after the

man-

the discussion.

But I claim

have done more.

I claim

to

have

shewn,
that

from

considerations uhich have been hitherto overlooked,

its

genuineness must needs be reckoned

among

the things

that are absolutely certain.

Scrivener's labours in er of the Kev. F. H. to indispensable preliminary p.utment,) is the first not to Another, is a revised Text, real progress. Versions. knowledge, of the oldest !. a moi-e exact
Scarcely of inferior

this

dc

I am,

with sincere regard

and

importance would be

critically

respect,

Bear Sir Roundell,

Very
faithfully yours,

JOHN
Oriel,
July, 1871.

W.

BURGON.

and Fathers of the Clnirch; Lrect editions of the far commeans be furnished with lose must by all yet been atTexts tbau have ever pleter Indices of
single Father to be

tempted.-There is not a wiUi even been hitherto fui.ished Lose Works have which he Index of the places in tolerably complete

named


Vlll

PREFACE.

TREFACr.

IX

either quotes, or else clearly refers to, the

Text

of the

tivelv laboured, they

of thenhave erected monuments

New
MSS.

Testament

while scarcely a tithe of the

known

of the Gospels

have as yet been

satisfactorily

Thenwill endure for ever. learning and ability which Testament will not be superEditions of the Kew
seded by any

collated.

Strange to relate,

we

are to this hour with-

new

discoveries,

by any

future advances

out so

much

as a satisfactory Catalogue of the Copies

to be extant.

in the Science of

Textual Criticism.

The MSS. which

which are known

But when

all this

has been done,

(and the Science

unre-

remain among the most prethey have edited wiU to them future study. All honour
cious materials for

deserves, aud requires, a little

more public encourage-

If in the

warmth
of

shall appear to of controversy I

ment than has

and

hitherto

been bestowed on the arduous

bave spoken
deference, let
to blame,

becommg them sometimes without

here once for
all

let nie

not be ashamed to add the word

me

confess that I

am

munerativc labour of Textual Criticism,)

it Avill

be

discovered that the popular and the prevailing Theory

is

and express my regret. pardon publicly begged S. Mark's

I wrong they have done him,
their

When
for

they have

the grievous

a mistaken one.

The plausible hypothesis on which

will very

humbly beg

recent recensions of the

Text have been

for the

most

pardon

also.

part conducted, will be seen to be no longer tenable.

The

latest

decisions will

in

consequence be gene-

rally reversed.

to offer my In conclusion, I desire Collate Fellow of Brasenose Rev. John Wordsworth, they perusal of these sheets as

thanks to the

lege for his patient

bavc passed

am

not of course losing sight of what has been

through the press, and

for favouring

me

already achieved in this department of Sacred Learning. "While our

knowledge of the uncial MSS. has been

complete,
(chiefly

rendered tolerably exact and

lent beginning has been

an excel-

made,

by the Bev.

To him may be suggestions. with several judicious President Eouth on receiving applied the saying of Wordsworth at his lodgings, a visit from Bishop son of a learned Father, sir!'' <I see the learned
Let

F.

H.

Scrivener, the

most judicious living Master

me be

permitted to add that

my

friend inherits

of Textual Criticism,) in acquainting us with the contents of about seventy of the cursive

MSS.

of the

Kew

and accurate judgment also. the Bishop's fine taste at which I have And now I dismiss this Work,
conscientiously

Testament.

And

though

it is

impossible to deny that

laboured for
it

many days and many

it

the published Texts of Doctors Tischendorf and Tregelles

nights

beginning

in joy

and ending

in sorrow.

as

Texts

are

wholly inadmissible, yet

is

it

The Colle-e
it
is

the most part written in which I have for

its

equally certain

that

by the conscientious diligence

of designated in the preamble

Charter and

with which those distinguished Scholars have respec-

already Statutes, (which are in its Foundation

much


^
rnEFACE.
old,) as

more than half a thousand years Schohrium in Sacra Theologid

imporihus duraturum.
pious

CoUcf/ium

studcntium.pcrpetuis

Indebted, under God, to the munificence of the Founder of Oriel 'for my opportunities of study, I venture, in what
I

CONTENTS.
DEDICATION
p. p.
Ill

must

needs
extent

call

evil

days,

to

hope that

have
(the

"employed

my

advantages,"

to

some

PREFACE

expresits

sion occurs in a prayer

used by this Society on

three solemn anniversaries,)

CHAPTER
The
case of the

I.

as

oui-

Founder and

last

Tvtelte Verses of
STATED.

S.

Make's GosrEL,

Benefactors

"would approve
what we do."

if

they were

now upon
this opinion

earth to witness

These Venes geiieraUi/ suspected at the present

iii,ie.
.

The poputarit]/ of
.

accounted for

p. 1

J.
Okiel,
July, 1871.

W.

B.

CHAPTER
The

II.

hostile teedict of Biblical Cnrrics shetvs to be quite of

BECENT DATE.
O'ricsliaeh

the first to deny the gemiiticness

(p. 8)

of

these /f/ifi (p. 6).

Lach-

innnn's fetal principle

the

cine

to

the vnfatovrolle verdict of

(p.

Tischendurf

(p. 9),

of Treadles
li/

(p. 10),

of Alford

12)

which has

been gencrallt/ adopted

I'he

snlseqiiciit

Scholars and Dicities (p. 13).

.

nature of the present ingiiiry CTplained (p.lb).

p. 5

CHAPTER
The eahly Fathebs appealed
to,

111.

akd obseeted to beab favoub-

ABLE -WITXESS TO THESE VekSES.

I'alristic evidence sonictinies the most important

of any

(p. 20).

The im-

portance of such ecideitce exjdained

to these Verses,

produced

{^.

iZ).

(p. 21).

Kinetecn Patristic iritaesses

. .

Sui,ii<irj/ {^.'iQ).

p.

19

CHAPTER

IV.
to

The eably Veksioxs examised, and foukd

held cxfaltebikg

TESTiMOxr to the genxtikesess of these Verses.

The Peshilo,

the

Hharkcl

(p.

Curetoiiiau Syriac, and the R'ccnuon of Thomas of Z'i).The Vulgate {\i.H)and the Veins llala (p.35),

the Gothic (p.35)

and the Egyptian Versions

.

(p- 35).
. .

Renew of
.

the

Ecidencr np

to this point (p. 3G).

p.

32

xn

CONTENTS.

CONTENTS.

xni

CHArTElJ
ThK

V.

J^monian" oulUr of the so-called " Codcrhh m.-.i'>:'"onius not the Code, L (,.. ) C^sarius," a m.nomer^-^^^^^ (1,132;.-" Hi'ctions (y,.\io).Ej.iphan

p. 1

" The AI.LKGED HOSTILK WITNESS OF CKBTAIN' OF THE EAKLY

I-HOVED TO DE AN IMiGI.VATIOX OF

133). Cal'''inr" misrepresented (p.

FaTHEBS

THE ChITICS.

CHAPTER
51); aho
(p. 57)
.
,-

IX.
BEVKKBE OF

TIf hdstdke concerniiiff GrerjOTi/ of Kyssa (p.39). T/^- uisconception con.

cerniiiff

EuxelAiis

(j).

41). y/i? oternjht

courerniiiff

Jerome

(p.

coiicerning Uesyrhius

and

of Jerusnlfm, (or ehe Hetenis of AnCtoch)

of Aiitioch
(p. 59).

DEMONSTBATED TO BE_ THE VERY 1NIEBN.VE Ev.r.NCE UNFATOrRABLE TO THESE \ EBSES.

The
'-

ihe mis-statement conrerniiij Victor

p.

3S
not

- Phrascologf of these fer.s "^^-^'^ Style" and SMark's.-lnsecurily of s.ch Cr,.

^f^'^;;,;:'^

CHAPTER

VI.

Chan

xvi

MaXTSCKIPT TESIIMOXY shewn to be OTEnirnELMIXGLT IN FATOrB OF THESE VeHSES. PaBT I.

S.

tm)-The
;i

/^ style of chap. .. 9-20 shcrn to be the sam- a> the parl.culars, and ,. t.rnly.^cren "Phraseology" examined
145),-.-^
.

^/^

-^^^^ ^9-20

be suspicious in none (p.

>be,on to be the

reverse (p. 170).-,S./<

/-J-.7--^-' >'":;' ,'

^-

--

Mark
Cod.
(p.

xvi.

20, containei in etery

MS.

in the

irorli except tieo,

Judged or by a

truer, a

Test, more delicate andjh,losoph,cal

(\>

Fers^^ these ';^,L

Irrational claim to Infallibilitj/ set

(p. 75).

78),

tip on behalf of Cod. B (p. 73) and These iico Codices iheiru to be full of gross Omissions Interpolations (p. 80), Corruptions of the Text (p.Sl),and

genuine proved to be most probably

A, 0).

Perversions of the Truth (p. 83). The testimony of Cod. B to S. xvi. 9 20, sheu:n to be favourable, noticithttandiiu/ (p. 86). .

CHAPTER
The

X.

Mark
p.

70

shewn to be absolttteiy testimony or the Leciionabies GENUINENESS OF THESE A ERSES. DECISIVE AS TO THE
the

CHAPTEE

VII.
in

The Lectionar, of

East shcrn

MaNTSCBIPI TESTIMONT shewn to be OTEEWHELMIKGLY OF THESE VeBSES. PaKT II.

The other chiefpeculiarity of Codices
if 'Z<p(a<f

FATOrB

l,^L-J'rLltobeolder u,Jto the raih.rs (p.l9S).-/ tLr, of the in.O '^" /"' r.elre

antiquity be a ,rork of extraordinary the GospeUbyan than any extant MS. of this l^ct.onary, (''''''"' ";'/^to

Verses of

S Mark's

Gospel have

B and

from Ephes.

i.

1) considered.

Antiquity

H(r'>. the omission of the tcords

unfaroiirable to the

The Modems infelicitous in their of those tcords (p. 93). attempts to account for their omission (p. 100). Marcion probably the
omission

conspicu... as trell as '^o.thonou^^ from affir,. occupied a most ante-i.cene Chnsthis becomes the test.mony of place (.Wi).-Ko,e, 1^^ Pdecisive (p. 209). therefore tendom in Ih, ir favour, and is
.

author of this corruption of the Text of Scripture (p. 106). Other peculiarities of Codex S disposed of, and fheicu to be errors (p. 109). p. 91

CHAPTER
The
omission of these

XI.
in certain ancient Copies

Twelve Vebses

CHAPTER
The
PtTBPORT

VIII.

and accounted fob. OF THE Gospels, explained

ANXIENT ScHOLIA AND NOTES IK MSS. ON THE SrBJECT OF THESE VeBSES, SHEWN TO BE THE EETEESE OF WHAT IS
OF

C0JI3I0NLT SUPPOSED.

Later Editors of the Keic Testament the victims of their predecessors^ inaccuracies. Birch's unfortunate Mistake (p. 117). Schoh' serious

instances, to Uncials proved, by an induction of The Text of cur five oldest operation of throughout by the lave snfered depravation S.Mark , Church (p.217).-M. om.sswn of l^ctionary system of the Ecclesiasttcal Lectton, (constituting an integral 'lastZh' Verses," only one ore example ancient MSS. to be probably ,he,cn by an appeal to

^'ea^

blunders
(pp.

Griesiach's siceepiny misstatement 119 and pp. 120-1). 121-2). The grave misapprehension tchich has resulted from all this
(p.

influence (^.iU). of Ihe same depraving by the the problem corroborated Thi solution of

,,:.d

of Hesychius
the Gospels

(p.

232)

a,_ tvell

as favoured by the

'7-^;^^;^^^^ order^^f^ Wester,

inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3).

(f.n^).


XIV

XV
CONTENTS.
CX1 ENTT5.

CHAPTER
:

XII.
On
the

APPENDIX (G\
,0.caUed)

"A^oMa."
With

GENEUiL BETIEW or THE QEESTION SEMMAJIT OF THE ETTDEXCE AKD COSCLUSIOX OF THE WnOLE SmjECI.
Thh
dii^riissioM

a Dissertation.
ally found in

sore occou.it

je ^^^;fZl^'J^:^Z. of
the Tables oj Ji

(p.29o). Greek and Syriac MSS.

narrowed

to

a iiwgle

issue (p. 244).

Thai

S.

Mjri'i Gospel
(p. 24G).'

teas iriijierfect from the ter^ first,

APPENDIX
On

(H;.

a thing altogether inerediUe

But
this

that at some

very Te>ote period Copies hare suffered mutilation,

a supposition proLnlle
admission {f. 252).

Farting Kords

in

He

highest degree (p. 24S).

(fi.ihi).
.

Conseqvenees of
.

Text ./Code. ..^ the Interpolation of the xxrii. 4S or 49 (p. 313).

Code. S,

at S. Mat.l.ov

p.

243

POSTSCRIPT

(p. 319).

L'E.yror.

APPENDIX
On
the Importance

(A).

of attending

to Patristic Citations of Scripture.

ii.

The

GENERAL INDEX.

correct Text of

S.LrKE

14, estallished (p. 257).

APPENDIX
EusEsrus "ad Marinum" concerning
Kith S. Matthew

(B).
6/"

the reconcilement

S.

Mark

xvi.

The Tacsi^ule

of Coi-zx

the comes immediately before

Title.

aa,d

jtsviii.

(p. 265).

'"ufSSc^l-L. wi.h
dialclj aficr page 124-

its

pa,e of description, comes imme-

APPENDIX
Proof that Hestchius
is

(C).

a Copyist only

in

what he says concerning

(p. 267).

the

end

of S. Nark's Gospel

APPENDIX

(D).

Some arcosnt of XlCTOJi or Aktioch's Commentary en S. Mart's Gospel; together tcifh a descriptire enumeration of IfSS. uhieh contain Victor's

Work

(p. 269).

APPENDIX

(E).

Text of the concluding Scholion of VlcioH OF Asiioch's Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel ; in ichieh Victor heart emphatic Testimony to the

Genuineness of "the last Ticehe Verses" (p.28S).

APPENDIX
0*
the relative antiquity

(F).
(B),

of the Codex Vaticaxcs SiKAITICUS (N) (p. 291).

and

the

Codex

Subjoined, for coniDiiencr, are "the Last Twelve Verses.

Avairras
fie

Tzptot Trpuyrr]

aajSjSdrou

t^aiTj TptoTov Mopi'a tj MaySaXiyvfl,

(9) Now when Ji;srs was risen early the first dav of the week,

He
iKfiVT]
aiiToii
0ll(7.

appeared

first to

Mary Mag-

dalene, out of -whom

ropfvBi'iaa mr^yytiXc xolr
/it'

yevo^ivois, vtvBuvat kqi icXailcdlC(T|/CI

QKOVO-ain-fC OTL

f?/ (cai

i6fa6r) vn' aiTrjc r]i;'iaTt]aav

had cast Bcven devils. (10) And she went nnd told them that had been -with Hiui, as they mounied and wept. (11) And they, when they hod heard that He was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
(12) After that He appeared another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the eountry. (13) And they went and told it unto the residue neither believed they them.
in

He

VEBSES OE THE THE LAST TWELVE S. MARK. GOSPEL ACCOKDIKG TO

McTO

fie

Tai'Ta

dfaif e avruv
iv

ntpiiraToiJatv

t<pavfpwdjj

*Ttpa
KaroTj

CHAPTER
/; .,nerted at mpectea ai These Tnfcs generalhj of this vpivion
.

I.

liop<fi^, nopfvofiii'Ots fit jcfifoi

aypov.

aTT('K66vTfS

aTTTfyytiXav

XoiTToTf' ovfit (KflvOtS f7ritrTV(TaV.

TWELVE VERSES THE CASE OF THE LAST GOSPEL, STATED. OF S. MARK'S

the present time.

YaTtpov

avaKfiptifOii airroit roTf

cvficKa f<f>av(pu>6q,

kqi iivftSiae r^u

<rK\r]poKapbtav,

airnrriav aiirav kqi

oTi Toii
jifvov

Bfairapivois airtov
fTrloTfvaav.

iyiytpcin'cv

oi'K

Km

(14) Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, becau.se they believed not them which had seen Him after

The popuhrity

aemmted Jor.

ovToir,

"

noptuflcVrf t ir tov Kocfiov

anavTa, Ktipv^ati to trayycXioK jrdcrp

He was risen. (15) And He said unto them, "Go ye into all the
world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that
shall they they shall speak with new tongues; (18) they shall take up serpents; and if tliey drink any deadly thing, it ehall not hurt them ; they ^all lay hands on the sick, and they

Tp

KTitTfi.

6 TTitrrfvaas kqi ^anritT'

fie

bec.n.e .be *^:J MarK, as u f.'*: I Verses of the Gospel according to b. 1 constttute no ^nt.g a that those verses at e a -d fact generally supposed (1) It seems to be r f the Gocpel fatal to their c a.jn^ of MSS. is altogether

W U.^,
t
.

ion

jf^f

Bf'iS

(Ta6q<rTai' 6

aTrioT^aaf KaraSf TOir Trtarei-

^1-

(^)"; it

Kpi6ri<riTai.
cratri

cri)/X(Ta

"the early Fathers" witness P -b' c f\\ That from considerations

given up.

the

internal J,^
ol

Toura TrapoKoXovd^aci' eV ry

^:^'^Il^^r.^ be

It shall be

.y

ovopari
y\bO(Tffais

pov

dai/iovia

fK^aXoiai'
o^ftr

believe

In

My Name
;

XaX^fTouai

Kaii/air*
ri

cast out devils

dpoviri'
fi^

ki/

davdatpof

niuaiv, ov

avTois

^Xd^n*

<Vi

appuarovs

Xf'ipot iiriBTjtrovat, Ka\

KaXus c^ov-

pages to she. ndeavour in'the ensui.g t^e^ overwhelmingly ;tt manuscript evidence is so suspicion :-That left for doubt or nvour that no room is or late. of the Fathers, early not so much as one i ie spurious .-

on the contrary

shall recover."

'O

/ifv

oJx Kv/)10{, /JTa TO XoX^ovpavbv,

o-ai avTois, avt\i)<t>0ri tis t6i<

KOI

tKaSifTtv

tK it^Lav Toil

6(oC'

iKflvoi 6(

f^t\66vTs tKTipv^av tjav-

TQXOVy ToO KvpiOV fTUfC^oOl^Or, KQI

Toi*

Xdyov fit^aioitiTos
ITTjpttull.

fiia

tuv eVaAftlJI'.

KoXovdoVVTUI'

(19) So then after the Lobd had spoken unto them, He -was received up into Heaven, and sat on the Right Hand of God. (20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Loed working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.

wl^lives it as bis opinion from internal considera\l rlat the argument derived and unsubstantial as ^o be baseless

that these verses are

i
"

prove! 0^

inU

Bri
ny

in doing more. hope that I shall succeed

It shall

be

genuineness of in question the reason whatever for calling suffialso that there exist portion of Holv Writ, but d^ that it --^

endeavour to shew

really is not only that there

no

Amen.

ctnt'easons
genuine.

for f;eling confident

is clearly

This

as

much

as it

is

possible for

me ^^

Diflifoit
to achieve.

groi'iiifi

of Doubt

[cHAr.

']

i),

Amicnt and

in

Modern Tinm.

But wlicn

Ibis has been done, I venture to

hope

of the ancients

that the verses in dispute will for the future be allowed to

retain their place iu the second Gospel unmolested.

It will of course be asked, And yet, if all this be bo, how does it happen that both in very ancient, and also in very modern times, this proposal to suppress twelve verses

for 1300 years and and which, at all events sunk into oblivion. upwards, have deservedly divine explication of the
;

^rVhih

of the Gospel has enjoyed a certain amount of popularity ?

At

the two different periods, (I answer,) for widely different

Athanasian Christian belief," t ^ ehiefCst articles of our But then of incessant assau ts^ Creed \ is made the object '-chantabl as that statements quite it is rlmcmbered 16th contains are found in the Creed as anv which this the words fact concluding chapter ; are

write,

thai

"most

erL

of S. Mark's

reasons,

of

Him

whose very

Name

is

Love.

The

precious rcarnrng

In the ancient days, when it was the universal belief of Christendom that the Word of God must needs be consistent witb itself in every part, and proA^e in every part (like its Divine Author) perfectly "faithful and true," the difficulty (which was deemed all but insuperable) of bringing certain statements in S. Mark's last Twelve Verses into harmony with certain statements of the other Evangelists,
(1.)
is

",,.,

I sav, (miscalled

discovered to have troubled Divines exceedingly.

" In

fact," (says

Mr.

Scrivener,) "it brought suspicion

verses,

Eusebius."
to this

and caused their omission in That the maiming process is indeed attributable cause and came about in this particular way, I am
if the desire to

upon these some copies seen by

nent ^fficiousness is for least proceeded from Divine bps -at in. with an apology, inconbe genuine. How shall th. these conducing verses i more effectually dea t with than venient circumstance be ^^* of the most '^^^Z'^^^^^' by accepting the suggestion addition are an unauthorised S Mark's concluding verses the passage "If it be acknowledged that to his GoM>el? Dean Stanley,) "unlike the (remarks bas a harsl. sound," came not to condemn but to.
.

"damnatory ^") which an impertiweakenglossing with a rubric and

unable to persuade myself; but,

escape from
occasion that copies of S.

provide an

a serious critical difficulty did not actually

who u.ual utterances of Him almos belater times have shewn, save, the discoveries of part of S.Mark's Gospel, h.t lui doubt, that it is not a weakness in the ddif;..n /,/ anoaer land; of which the with the internal evidence in external evidence coincides
proving
its

Mark's Gospel were mutilated,

it

'." later origin

certainly

was the reason whj', in very early times, such mutilated copies were viewed without displeasure b)' some, and appealed to with complacency by others. "We have recently been (2.) But times are changed. assured on high authority that the Church has reversed her
ancient convictions in this respect
:

Modern

prejudice,

then,-added

to a singularly exagge-

critical rated estimate of the

importance of the testimony

11-13.

S
Abp

bv

oil

moans Hooker, E.
of opiniou that

P.. v. xlii.
it

"Tui. i.

Servtc of .be Church:" T>d

tbc publ, "sbould not retain .ts place suteen reason, for the Pean Stanley gives
laj-men,

that

7ioic,

" most sound

theologians have no dread whatever of acknowledging minute

which is that "many excellent L,nc opi..-.on-tbo fifteenth of Oeorgo III., have declined ^'>^;^^^ ^^"^'11,^ ZnTKi... (r.0 ^.,.r, of0.e B..l
<
i.

m-

"in the fourfold narrative even of the life of the Eedeemer ." There has arisen in these last days a singular impatience of Dogmatic Truth, (especially Dogma of an unpalatable kind,) which has even rendered popular the pretext afforded by these same mutilated copies for the grave resuscitation of doubts, never as it would seem seriously entertained by any
points of disagreement"
(i.e.

minute

errors)

iut

.-Xn</n..o^ (Kcx. L.. r. x-uc";. In tl.B words of thouRhtful friend, t, In the oras oi . i these u..> unocistana mvself, n uttenng 1 dcr6tand , are of. what these clanses -%.,;.

f;7;';;;i:V;"X

.i.

., ,

,-. . ..... -.1.

-rjrrr"vX^
"";

1.1. L.,.a.

.to

ft.

.'~ '-'P

'<

""''"''

Abp.

Tiiit'6

Barmont/ of Sevelation and

the Sciences, (1864,) p. 21.

Serine. Aug.. 1670, pp. 158, 159).

B 2


Olrw"i
Qiirxfions.

[CIIAP.

I.

concern.ng ^hich I shall have more to say "^^"" " '^' '""^ P'^- ' popular tt' tt ';^7T"; that the last twelve verses of S.Mark are a spurious appendix to his Gospel.

of our tuo oldest Cod.cc. (another of the "discoveries of later

,res

--

CHAPTER
fnt

II.

Not ^hat Evangebst

Biblical Critics
left off at

would have us believe that the verse 8, intending that the words,-

THE HOSTILE AT:RDICT OF BIBLICAL CRITICS SHEWN TO BE QUITE OF RECENT DATE.

Grieilach
f/ie

afraid, should be the conclusion of his Gospel "Xoone can imagine." (writes Griesbach.) "that Mark cut sh;rt the thread of his narrative at that place It is on all hands eagerly admitted, that so abrupt a termination must be held to mark an incomplete or else an uncompleted work. How then ,n the original autograph of the Evangelist, is it sup! posed that the narrative proceeded? This is what no one has even ^^ntured so much as to conjectiire. It is assumed, however, that tlie original termination of the Gospel, whatever it may have been, has perished, ^e

to

deny (he genuineness of these Verses

princijile (p.

(p. 6).

Lachmann's fatal
verdict
(p.

8)

the

clue

to

the

unfaiouralle

of Tischendorf (p. 9), of Trcyilhs (p. 10), of Alford 12); trhich has leen generally adopted ly tuhequent Scholars
{p. 13).

and Divines
(p. 15.)

T7ie nature

of the present inquiry explained

It
tion

is only since the appearance of Griesbach's second edi[171)61806] that Critics of the New Testament have

permitted themselves to handle the last twelve verses of

S.

to

ask,) IS the supposed necessity for regarding the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel as a spurious substitute for what the Evangelist originaUy wrote? What, in other words has been the history of these modern doubts; and by what steps have they established themselves in books, and won the public ear ?

is actual termination: and.-Of what nature then, (we

appeal; of course,

of the
is

Previous critical editions Testament are free from this reproach. " There no reason for doubting the genuineness of tlais portion of

Mark's Gospel with disrespect.

New

Scripture," wrote Mill in 1707, after a review of the evi(as far as he was acquainted with it) for and against. Twenty-scveu years later, appeared Bengel's edition of the

dence

New

Testament (1734)

seventeen years (17ol-2), followed in the same

editors, after rehearsing
left

and AVetstein, at the end of another Both field.

the adverse

To

explain

this, shall

chapters.
'

be the object of the next ensuing

Criticiis,
ii.

testimony

in

extenso,

the passage in undisputed possession of its place.

Alter

Comintnlarius

in 1780-7,
197.

and Birch in 1788% (suspicious as the

its

latter evi-

dently was of

genuineness.) followed their predecessors'

example.

But Matthaei, (who also brought his labours to a close in the year 1788.) was not content to give a silent suffrage. He had been for upwards of fourteen years a laborious collator of Greek MSS. of the New Testament, and was so convinced of the insuflBciency of the arguments which had been brought against these twelve verses of S. Mark,

Quatvar Xtangelia Oraece cum variant ibus a texiu

Biblioihecae Yaticanae, etc.

lectioniliia

Codd.

MSS.

Jtissu el svmtilus regiis edidit

Andreai

Birch, Earmiae, 1788.

feu iu
tlie

copy of this very rare and sumptuous

folio

may be

King's Library (Brit. Uus.)

"
Gn'evlne/i's vihl

Theory

[chap.
acuteness, he

it

Verses. conccnumj thne Twchv

3

that with no ordinarj- warmth, no

insisted on their genuineness.

common

wTverv

"With Griesbach,"(remarksDr.Tregclles'',) "Texts which may be called really critical begin;" and Griesbach is the first to insist tliat the concluding verses of S. Mark are spurious.
That he did not suppose the second Gospel to have always ended at verse 8, we have seen already '. He was of opinion, however, that "at some very remote period, the original ending of the Gospel perished, disappeared perhaps from

disappeared of S.Mark, which and genuine ending into a smgle volume Gospels were collected befo e the be so accommodatmg as _lTo her words, if men will but S.Mark's Gospel d.sapconclusion of ;: assume that the of ranscr.bmg one had the opportunity pear;d before any they will have no

has crept into intelligible how there becomes perfectly written, from the second codex which has been different from the or. a section quite entu V downwards,

la

Lr

fh

the ErangeHsf's

own copy,

and

that the present ending was

by some one substituted in its place." Griesbach further invented the following elaborate and extraordinary hj'pothesis to account for the existence of S. Mark xvi. 9 20.

He

invites his readers to believe that

when, (before the

end of the second century,) the four Evangelical narratives were collected into a volume and dignified with the title of
" The Gospel," S. Mark's narrative was furnished by some unknown individual with its actual termination in order to

remedy its manifest incompleteness; and that this volume became the standard of the Alexandrine recension of the text in other words, became the fontal source of a mighty family of MSS. by Griesbach designated as "Alexandrine." But there will have been here and there in existence isolated copies of one or more of the Gospels and in all of these,
:

conclusion understanding that the difficulty I. S. Maik^ not really written by S Mark's Gospel was Gnesbach in passing, that should perhaps be stated 1 unsupported conjecture curious maze of .as drive" into this ;" which, inashis " Recension Theory bv the exi-^encies of not now occupy since exploded, need h as it has been long argument already observing that the But it is worth weight of breaks down under t^e xhi^ted. (such as it is,) obhged to lay which its learned author is the very first fact witness fo B..-the solitary manuscript

Evangelist's inspired

autograph,

P-nt

of

ton r;..,

Codex

will have ended These copies of single Gospels, when collected together, are presumed by Griesbach to have constituted " the Western recension." If, in codices
S.

Mark's Gospel,

(by the

hypothesis,)

abruptly at the eighth verse.

of this family also, the self-same termination

universally found, the fact
is

is

now
for,

all

but

to

be accounted

(Gries-

bach

says,)

by the

natural desire which possessors of the

their imperfect
ac-

Gospels will have experienced to supplement

copies as best they might.

" Let this conjecture be

claimed b> Gne.bacU been already ^f^^^^f^^^^^^ been discovered,)-had Recension. so-called " Alexandrine "fa chid- exponenTof his we have seen own hypothesis, (as But th ... on the Critic's to have conought, on the contrary, fladv) Codex B. to be got over ? How was that inconvenient fact /i O^dex Bin a f-t-note that GHesbach quietly remarks -Ihe mis Eastern family of MSS. "has atlwity with the theory was surely saddled with a worthless fo une of being this By the time we have reached lever more apparent. bmg so we are reminded of p^ n in the investigation, patiently- purtraveUer -bo. having as of the weary it at through half t^^/'eb'-teholds sued nn iejnis fatnus up to hi. him untQ it has conducted Lst vanish; but not

the clause in question

(for

^1

cepted," proceeds the learned veteran,

rently that

(unconscious appa-

he has been demanding acceptance for at least

^'KeiUit^H^tnor

balf-a-dozen whollj' unsupported as well as entirely gratuitous conjectures,)

"and

every diflBculty disappears; and

Accoumt of the Printed Text,

p. 83.

'

See above,

p. 3.

Scholz his pupil.-who of Griesbach with modifications 1830 ro pectivliy followed s nin the unfavourable his receiision-theory.-concurred he predecessor ^ad passed on :ce which their illustrious even latter S.Mark's Gospel. The concluding portion of

inl808 and


Lachmann
eagerly vindicated
its

the Originafor of

[chap.

.]

fll pririj>l><:f

TfrlmlJItmim.

whose unsatisfactory text of the 1842, originated a new principle

ancient

genuineness*.

But with Lachmann,

Gospels

v he
Tr J.e
fi

ll Slid to be at present in
..

undisputed possession
enjof. .

appeared in

The

iirst-nomed

Mt.r

.. repuU-

of Textual Revision the principle, namely, of pa3'ing exclusive and absolute deference to the testimony of a few arbitrarily selected

documents

no regard being paid to

antiquity.

others
is

of
tlie

the same or of yet higher

This

not

:r:i,ru'ni.sv'xrti^:iirT^,

.-

right place for discussing this plausible

convenient scheme of textual revision.

conclusions
little
it

and certainly most That it leads to

I notice
it

short of irrational,

is certain.

only because
as S. at

supplies the clue to the result which, as far

Mark

xvi. 9

20

is

concerned, has been since arrived

Tregelles,

by Dr. Tischendorf, Dr.

the three latest critics

and Dean Alford', who have formally undertaken

to

But must be surrendered. centuries in this respect in this particular nd Tregelles are wrong Tend

eTs .0 help for

it

of e.ght^ n but that the conv.c.tons

i t

li
fo^-

reconstruct the sacred Text.

otof
that the genuine

is thrown over necessity 'that doubt

-hde
e

They agree

in assuring their readers

tbeir critical

method.

T^^7/^,\^;

Gospel of S.Mark extends no further than ch. xvi. ver. 8:

follows the words i<f)o^ovvTo an unauthorized addition by some later hand " a fragment," distinguishable from the rest of the Gospel not less by internal evidence than bj' external testimony. This
in other words, that all that
rfap is
;

suspicion, il pipe of theirs incurs mistaken. shall prove to be in //(IS instance

their oeiioe

^^

-^^*
-^^^^^

"""TlLhendorf sentence. "That

disposes of the

-boMuest.n

.n a

written bj Maik, these verses were not

addres.d
to

.. .

..

introduction

verdict becomes the

more important because

it

proceeds from
;

men

of undoubted earnestness and high ability

who cannot

B and A set down >" in,, of Codd. ^f ^"f^ >.e ^ Text o ed.t.o.. o Tregeiies. bcidcs his

--^J^^^'^lJ I^^T;^
;^
__

;,

,,

, on the

be suspected of being either unacquainted with the evidence

subject of S.

Mark

xv..

9-20,

in Ins

Ac

^.^_^^^^ .^^^^_ ^^^^

^^^

^^

^^^^^^.^

on which the point in dispute

has been independently reached

tis- Introduction to

>'

^"
'^^f-

rests,

nor inexperienced in
unhesi-

the art of weighing such evidence.

;

Moreover, their verdict

is

unanimous

is

.,ro<f.)-"- Alford. besies .W,dg,ncnfforthe ""'" f ed.t.ons of sUies.- put forth ^wo

"^
"J a

l^l^^/^

^^^

o^^, Lament, and

an

;^; ^/.^^
^^

%,en

.t the Univer-

.f^'^^^^ English

Readers," and three

tating; has been eagerly proclaimed bj' all three on

different occasions as well as in manj' different places
'
'

many
;

and

one ui "r- d y\::X':^:^^-^^*;," and revised; in everj m ve.y e *-,i,.

1
..

^J'^ J^ ^,^^ ^^, ,,^^,, Greek ---^^" -^^^

,

" Earn esse autheuticaiii rationes iuternaeet eiternne probant gravissimae."

to say

placed here p...ably an addition, Scrivener Bp^ El . The Rev. F. H

-J^i
last

P^^^^^

^^,,.^,^

,.
this

I find it difficult

what

distress

the sudden reuioval of this

I

aiui:ilile

able exceptions to this

remark.

The

na

D.ieluc.antly
h^^self ;"

and accomplished Scholar occasions me, just as

am

finishing

my

task.

I consign these pages to the press with a sense of downright reluctance,

(coustraiued however by the importance of the subject,)

seeing that he

\3

no

may not ^^^^^'^^ admitting that " this portion and Bi.hp KUicott a la S. Mark h,.ve been written by
VK,rtion

^'^^^l ^^

,,, ot
^^^

^^'''-'^^^'^^S^;^ r-^^ v
To the ho genuineness and canomcit)_

alike reso-

^^
^

lunger HUiong us eiiher to accept or to dispute a single proposition.

<lo
is

All 1 can
least an-

utelj insist

on

its

^^^^

to erase every
;

word which might have occasioned him the

as

noyance

and indeed,

seldom as possible to introduce his respected name.

Criticism, r,ng master of Textual speak as a to be understood to

,J.
,.e

f d.snpW
.;;
t

.'^^.^f

An open
'

grave reminds one of the tothingness of earthly controversy; as

nothing else does, or indec<l can do.

Tischendorl', besides eight editions of his laborious critical revision of the

has never at any time '-::. TMtUout Gospel. this portion of the genuineness of formly maintained the
pp. 7 anil

^^^^^
!!,
i.

"Jj

7^ i.tated that
,^,^,,
uni-

^;^-';"f;l, B
S.

Wing" he has

Mark

il,roductio>:

Ori-ek Text,

has edited our English "Authorized Version" (Tauchnitz, 18G9,)

429-32.)

10
(he saTS,)

Br. TiHchoidorfa

tcrdicl.

[chap.

,..]

The rm/icf of Dr.

TregcUcK.

11

"admits of

ealisfactoiy proof."

He

then recites

in detail the adverse external testimony

cessors
;

which his predehad accumulated remarking, that it is abundantly confinned by internal evidence. Of this he supplies a solitary sample
;

with to whom it does not seem inonlv critic I have met actually conclude his Gospel in credible that S. Mark did "perhaps we do not know abrupt way: observing that
this

but declares that the whole passage

is

" abbeing

horrent" to

S.

Mark's manner.

"

The

facts of the case

such," (and with this he dismisses the subject,)

piety reclaims against the endeavours of those

"a healthy who are for

so plainly

palming

off as

Mark's what the Evangelist

is

have known nothing at all about ''." A mass of laborious annotation which comes surging in at the close of verse 8, and fills two of Tischendorfs pages, has the effect

shewn

to

S.Mark when he wrote his cuou-h of the circumstances of not leave it with a coiiiGo Jel to say whether he did or did Dr. In this modest suggestion at least pletc termination." nothing since we know absolutely Tre.'elles is unassailable, " the circumstances of S. Mark," (or of any whatever about wrote his Gospel:" neither other Evangelist,) "when be But when he sure who S.Mark urn. indeed are we quite "that the rcmaming goes on to declare, notwithstanding, full claim by whomsoever written, have a
twelve verses,
10

of entirely divorcing the twelve verses in question from the

inspired text of the Evangelist.

On

the other hand, the evi-

dence infarottr of the place

lines.

is

despatched in less than twelve

"Wliat can be the reason that an Editor of the New Testament parades elaborately every particular of the evi-

dence, (such as

it is,)

against the genuineness of a consider;

able portion of the Gospel

and yet makes summary work

part of the second Gospel; be received as an authentic "there is in some minds a kind of and complains that Scripture, as if all our notions timidity with regard to Holy on our knowing who was the of its authority depended seeing particular portion ; instead of simply >> ritcr of each given forth from Gon, and that it and owning that it was were the Commandments of the Law
is

as

much His

as

That Tischendorf has at least entire]}' made up his mind on the matter in hand is plain. Ebewhere, he speaks of the Author of these verses
with the evidence in
its

favour ?

written by His

learned writer
at issue,

"^ the finger on the tables of stone ;" misapprehension of the question betrays a

own

which we are

as " Pseiido Marcus^."

2.

such a quarter.

We

admire

in least of all prepared to encounter his piety but it is at the ex-

Dr. Tregelles has expressed himself most fully on this

subject in his "

New
to

Account of the Printed Text of the Greek Testament" (1854). The respected author undertakes shew "that the early testimony that S.Mark did not
is

write these verses

confirmed by existing monuments."

For the question is not at all pense of his critical sagacity. only one of gcmiinniesK Have the one of authorship, but not contain these verses? codices been muUMed which do these verses be held to be gcnuwe. If they have, then must been siijujkmenfed But on the contrary. Have the codices

Accordingly, he announces as the resalt of the propositions

which he thinks he has established, "that the look of Mark He is the himself extends no further than iif)o^owTo yap."
**

certainly which contain them ? Then are these verses but they must either be held There is no help for it rious. and therefore, in default to bo an integral part of the Gospel,
of

spu-

any proof

"

Hsc

"QuEe testimouia
rersu 9.
fai'iam a

noD a Marco scripta esse argnmentis probatur idoneis," (p. 320.) aliis corroborantur arguinenti^ ut quod coulatis prioribus
i^' f s
ixfiffi.

other

by S. Mark as any named; or else an nntwelve verses wliich can be

to the contrary, as certainly
it.

aulhorize.1 addition to
slolic

If they belong to the post-apo-

parum apte adduntur verba

Marci ratione abborrent."

item quod siugnla

niulti-

(p. 322.)

quote from the 7th Leipsic

age

il

is

idle to

insist

on their Inspiration, and to

but in Tischendorf's 8th ed. (1866k PP- 403, 406,) the same verdict is repeatd, with the following addition: "Quae quum ita siiit, saiise erga
ed.
;

claim

that

this

"authentic anonymous addition to what

sacrum textum pietati adversari videutor qui pro apostolicis venditare per-

God Mark himself wrote down" is as much the work of by His own "as were the Ten Commandments written
<-

gnnt quae a Marco aliena esse tarn luculenter docemnr." Erangelia Apocrypha, 1853, Proleg. p. Ivi.

(p.

407.)
pp. 253,

79.


12

The opinion of Den n AlforH.

[chap.
II.]

Thomson Green, Xorlon,

,

Wisteoti, Meyer.

13

finger on tte tables of stone."

On

the other hand,

if

they

"ought as much
is)

to be received as part of our second Gospel

as the last chapter of

is

Deuteronomy (unknown as the writer

difficult to

cither been silent Mill (1707), the editors of the N. T. have only that this section on the subject, or else have whispered Gcspel is to be received with less of confidence than

of the

received as the right and proper conclusion of the

book of Moses,"
their contest,
after Ter. 8.

In

it is

understand

why

the learned

editor should think himself at liberty to sever

them from and introduce the subscription kata mapkon

short, "

present century to the rest, it has been reserved for the The ancient suspicions into actual charges. convert the field have been the first to execute Griesenter the
latest to

How

persons

who

believe that

years ago, and to bach's adverse sentence pronounced fifty Evangelist with bonds. load the blessed
It

these verses did not form a part of the original Gospel of

mi"ht have been foreseen

that

when

Critics so con-

Mark, but were added afterwards, can

of the second Gospel, that
ture, passes
is,

sa)'

that they have

a good claim to be received as an authentic or genuine part a portion of canonical ScripIt passes even

precious spicuous permit themselves thus to handle tlie take courage to hurl their thunderdeposit, others would
bolts in the

comprehension."
;

Dr. Davidson's
liis ;)

same direction with probable," (says Abp. Thomson

the less concern.

in

"It

is

the Bihle Dictionnnj,)

comprehension
at trifles
3.

(for

the foregoing words are

is

and

Dr. Davidson, as some of us are aware,

'.

not a

man

to stick

" that this section is from a different hand, and was annexed The Apostles"'." to the Gospels soon after the times of the

Dean Alford went

a little furl her than

any of

his pre-

decessors.

He

saj-s

that this passage " was placed as a com-

pletion of the Gospel soon after the Apostolic period,

the

Rev. T. iS. Green ", without respect,) considers that "tbe hypothesis of very evidence," early interpolation satisfies the body of facts in " point unmistakably in the direction of a spurious which

(an able scholar, never to

be mentioned

Gospel
left

having been, for some reason unknown to us, incomplete. The most probable supposition" (he adds)
itself

"is, that Ihc last leaf of the original Gospel

was torn

aicai/."

The
same

italics in this

conjecture (which was originally Gries-

bach's) are not mine.

The

internal evidence (declares the

origin."" In respect of Mark's Gospel," (writes Professor Norton in a recent work on the Genuineness of the Gospels,) " there is ground for believing that the last twelve verses were not vvritlen by the Evangelist, but were added by some other writer to supply a short conclusion to the work, which
Foine cause had prevented the author from completing"." who, jointly with the Rev. F. J. A. Hort, Professor Westcott

learned writer) " preponderates vastly against the au;"

thorship of Mark " its genuineness as a work of the Evangelist."

or (as

he elsewhere expresses
38) he describes

it)

against

Accordit

ingly, in his

Prolegomena,

(p.

as "

tfie

announces a revised Textassures us that "the original text, from whatever cause it may have happened, terminated

vtmarkahle fragmeni at the end of the Gospel."

After

this,

we are the

less
;

astonished to find that he closes the second

;

The rest abruptly after the account of the Angelic vision." " was added at another time, and probably by another hand."
"
It
is

8 introduces the Subscription there and encloses the twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets.
Go>y>e1 at rer.

in

close."

vain to speculate on the causes of this abrupt " The remaining verses cannot be regarded as part
S.

Thus, whereas from the days of our illustrious countryman

" mani-

of

tlie

original narrative of

Mark p."Meyer

insists that

this is
In bis
festlv
first

edition (IS-iS, vol.

i.

p.

1G3) Dr. Davidson pronounced

it

an "apocryphal fragment," and reproduces all the arguments, external and internal, which have ever been
" Vol.
"
ii.

untenable" tbat S.Mark's Gospel n-as the last written; and assigned In bis second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), be l.D. 64 as " its most probable" date. "\\Tien we consider tbat the Gospel teas not written till tie second jays:
efiiluri/,

p. 230.
i.

Devtloprd Criticism, [1857],

p. 53.

KJ. 1S17,

p. 17.

He

reTOininends this view to bis reader's acceptance

internal evidence loses

mucb of

its

force against tbe authenticity of

in tivc p-mis,

p|i.

216 lo 221.
the Sliidi/ of the Gotpds, p. 311.

these

verKi."Introduction

to If. T.

f lilt rod Hit io II to

u
arrayed ngainst
insolent').
(ver.

Groinifh
if,

fif ihi-

hosiUf rcrdhi.

[cHAr.

"]

J/

r,

I'

'

r,, /

Eri'f' HIT.

15

'J

without a particle of misgivini;.

The
even

that the former alternative

is

the correct one.

Our oppo-

"note" with which he takes leave of the

subject

is

(he sa3's) of these "fragments" and 19) with the parallel places in the other Gospels and in the Acts, shews how vacillating and various were tlie Apostolical traditions concerning the appearances

A comparison

18

the versos did not form part of nents maintain that these But it is a known Evangelist. original autograph of the on that the burthen of proof lies rule in the Law of Evidence AVe have the issue ' aJUrmathe of the party who asserts the supthe present instance what the
therefore to ascertain in posed proof is exactly worth
;

of our

His Resurrection, and concernin'^ His Ascension. ("Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?")
after

Lonn

remembering always that

of probability
is

the hostile verdict concerning these last twelve verses which I venture to dispute, and which I trust
is

Such, then,

<{e,Qree this subject-matter a Aiy< proof which is attainable. of

the only

I shall live to see reversed.

found to rely

(1.)

MSS.
(3.)

and

(2.)

The writers above cited will be on the external evidence of certain ancient on Scholia which state " that the more
is

ancient and accurate copies terminated the Gospel at ver. 8."

They

assure us that this

confirmed by a formidable
Internal proof
is

array of Patristic authorities.

When, for example, it is kind in S.John's first Epistle contended that the famous words regarded as genuine, he not to be (1 S John V. 7, 8,) are every known Codex they are away from almost fact that from the that they were also away is accepted as a proof weighty evidence, far less autograph of the Evangelist. On yield the hearty are at all times prepared to in fact, wc department of sacred understanding in this
assent of our

(4.)

declared

not to be wanting.
are pointed out.

Certain incoherences and inaccuracies

In

fine,

"the phraseology and

style of
its

the section" are declared to be "unfavourable to

thenticity ;" not a few of the words

au-

"foreign to the diction of Mark."

all

and expressions being I propose to shew that

overwhelming be fouud that evidence of is required in different kind, weight, if not of an entirely as I proceed to explain. instance theOTescnt Lord s reply to the AM.cn it is contended that our 1

And

yet

it will

these confident and imposing statements are to a great

Younc

ruler

(S.

Matt. xix. 17) was not TL

e! fih

fie

\f/ets dyaOov

extent either mistakes or exaggerations, and that the slender

oiheh AyaOh..

residuum of
to

fact is about as powerless to achieve the purpose

of the critics as were the seven green withs of the Philistines

bind Samson.
In order to exhibit successfully what I have to
offer

on

this subject, I find it necessary to begin (in the at the

next chapter)

very beginning.

I think

it

right, however, in this

the same time inepccTa, ^ep) toO ayaOov ; ei, eariv sisted that // ,ra, Tl /^e the former words only beIt is proposed to omit o iyaduT at hand, which it is proposed cause an alternative clause is to substitute in its room. When it is claimed that some given passage 2 A" .in Mark xv. 28, for example, of theVxtus Ileceptus,-S.
eU, o

eed.,-it

is at

place to premise a few plain considerations which will be of

use to us throughout all our subsequent inquiry

and which
sight of

indeed

we

shall never be able to afford

to

lose

for long.

The question

at issue being simply this,

Whether

it is

reasonable to suspect that the last twelve verses of S.

Mark

are a spurious accretion and unauthorized supplement to his

Gospel, or not?

the whole

of our business clearly resolves

^^^^' ^''^ ^'^^ "''''"'' .^'" spurious, in S. Matth. vi. 13,-is yiadv,) or the Doxology unauthothat certain words are an all that is pretended is text ; and that by simply rized addition to the inspired to its far restoring the Gospel omitting them we are so every is to be said concerning original integritv.-The same which can be named. If the other charye of' interpolation for instance, be indeed celebrated "p;ricopa de adultcra,"
(Kai i-rrXvp'^er, v ypa4>h ^
balio qui
.lioil.

itself into an examination of

1

what has been urged

pp. 182, 186

in proof

Critical

and Exegetical Commentary, 1855, 8vo.

.>ou qui negat."

Tvlor on the

Law

of Ev.dence.lS68,

..

p.

369.

92.


16
not genuine,
T/if pfrii/iur nature of

,..]

17

[chap.

the required Eridenee.

wc have

but to leave out those twelve verses

vii.

logically reduced
critics arc onlj'

;)

ihi>>

we

are

not certainly told.

The

of S.John's Gospel, and to read chap.

with. chap. viii. 12;

52

in close

sequence

agreed in assuming that S. Mark's Gospel

present conclude
it.

possession of the text us spired Author.

and we are assured that we are put in it came from the liands of its in-

teas at first tcithout the rerse-i uhieh nf

But
to

this assumption,

(that a

Jfor, (it must be admitted), is any difficulty whatever occasioned thereby for there is no reason assignable wliy the two last-named verses should not cohere (there is no internal improbability, I mean, in the supposition ;)
;
;

be

complete work for

work which has been held seventeen centuries and upwards

was

originally incomplete,) of course requires proof.

The

foregoing improbable theories, based on a gratuitous assumption, are confronted in limine with a formidable obstacle

neither does there exist any a priori reason

why

a consider-

able portion of narrative should be looked for in that par^

licular part of the Gospel.
3.

which must be absolutely got rid of before they can be thought entitled to a serious hearing. It is a familiar and a fatal circumstance that the Gospel of S. Mark has been
furnished with
its

But the

case

is

altogether dififerent, as

all

must

see,

present termination ever since the second,

'.

it is proposed to get rid of the twelve verses which 1700 years and upwards have formed the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel no alternative conclusion being proposed to our acceptance. For let it be only observed what this proposal practicall}'' amounts to and means.

when

centurj' of the Christian sera

In default, therefore, of dis-

for

tinct historical evidence or definite

at

documentary proof that

some earlier period than

that it

terminated abruptly, no-

thing short of the utter unfitness of the verses which at present conclude S. Mark's Gospel to be regarded as the

work

(a.)

And

first, it

does not

mean

that S.

Mark

himself, with

of the Evangelist, would warrant us in assuming that they

design, brought his Gospel to a close at the words i<f>o^ovvTo

rydp.

arc the spurious accretion of the post-apostolic age

and as

Thai supposition would in

fact be

irrational.

It does

such, at the end of eighteen centuries, to be deliberately

rejected.

not mean, I say, that by simply leaving out those last

twelve verses

We

must absolutely be furnished,

I say,

with in;

we

shall be restoring the second Gospel to

its

ternal evidence of the most unequivocal character

or else
if

original integrity.

And

this it is

which makes the present

fuller,

with external testimony of a direct and definite kind,

is

we

a different case from every other, and necessitates a

if

are to admit that ths actual conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel

not a different kind of proof.

(b.)

an unauthorized substitute for something quite different

What

then ? It means that although an abrupt and

that has been

impossible termination would confessedly be the result of

omitting verses 9

20, no

nearer approximation to the oriis

lost. I can onlj' imagine one other thing which could induce us to entertain such an opinion and that would be the general consent of MSS., Fathers, and
;

ginal autograph of the Evangelist

at present attainable.

Versions in leaving these verses out.

that

Else,

it

is

evident

"Whether
Gospel,
in

S.

Mark was
will

interrupted before he could finish his

we

are logically forced to adopt the far easier supposi-

(as Dr. Tregelles

which case it in an unfinished

state

and Professor Norton suggest;) have been published by its Author or whether " the last leaf was torn
is

tion that, {not S.

left a

Mark,

but) some copyist of the third century

;

copy of S.Mark's Gospel unfinished

cop3' beciime the fontal source of the mutilated copies

which unfinished which

away" before a
cured,

single copy of the original could be pro-

have come down to our own times *.

(a

view which
;)

found

to

have recommended

itself
This
is frt'i'lj-

to Griesbach

in

which case

it

will have once

;

ferent termination from at present

had a difwhich termination how;

allowed by

all.

" Certiores facti Eumus banc pericopam jam

in secundo bil'cuIo Icctam fuisse tauquaui bujns evaogelii partem." Tregelles

A', r. p.
'

214.
ill

ever, bj' the hypothesis, has since been irrecoverably lost

This

flirt is

how Bengel

(X. T. p. 526) accounts for the

8, reliquanj

phenomenon

(and to one of

tliesc

two wild hypotheses the

critics

are

" Fieri

potiiit

ut librarios, scripto versu

partem Ecribere

differret,


18
JmoniihttiKy of
I have thought
at the outset;
t/ini
it
(hi-

Critic^.

[chap.

II.

right to explain the matter thus fully

(for

not in order to prejudge the question,

the reader

could answer no good purpose,) but only in order that may have clearly set before him the real nature

of the issue.

"Is

it

reasonable to suspect that the conclud-

CHAPTER

III.

Mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized supplement to his Gospel, or not ?" T/mt is the quesing rerses of S.
tion

which we have

to consider,

the

one question.
all

And

THE EARLY FATHERS APPEALED TO, AND OBSERVED TO BEAR FAVOURABLE WITNESS.
rairislir ttidoicc tomctimcs the MOit imporiard of
iniporiiiiice

while I proceed to pass under careful review

the evidence

any

(p. 20).

The

on this subject with which I

am

acquainted, I shall be again

of tuch evidence exjildiiied (p. 21).

Verses,

Kinef/en Patristic
(p. 30).

and again obliged to direct the attention of my reader to its bearing on the real point at issue. In other words, we shall have again and again to ask ourselves, how far it is rendered
probable by each fresh article of evidence that S. Alark's Gospel, when it left the hands of its inspired Author, was an
unfinished work

icitiifffff to these

produced

(p. 23).

fiummary

The

present inquiry

of Evidence, external

must be conducted solely on grounds and internal. For the full considera"
:

tion of the former, seven Chapters will be necessary

for

the last chapter ending abruptly at ver. 8 ? I will only point out, before passing on, that the course which has been adopted towards S. Mark xvi. 920, by the
;

a discussion of the latter, one seventh of that space will

suffice
*".

"We have

first to

ascertain
xvi. 9
it

whether the external

is

testimony concerning S.
as to constrain us to

Mark

20
is

of such a nature

latest

Editors of the

New

Testament,

is

simply

illogical.

admit that

highly probable that

Either they regard

these verses as pos>-ihhj genuine, or else

those twelve verses are a spurious appendix to S. Mark's

as certainly spurious.

If they entertain (as they say they do) a decided opinion that they are }wi genuine, they ought text". (if they would be consistent) io banish them from the

Gospel.
1.

It

is

well

New
(3.)

Testament,
:

known that for determining we are dependent on three

on Manuscripts,
it is

the Text of the

chief sources of

Conversely, since they do not banish them from the

;

text,

they

informal ion

viz, (1.)

(2.)

onYEKSioNS,
Fa-

have no right to pass a fatal sentence upon them to desig;" to handle them in nate their author as " pseudo-Marcus truth is, these learned men contemptuous fashion. The plain are better than their theory ; the worthlessness of which they
are
to feel in the present most conspicuous instance. It has landed them in inIt reduces them to perplexity. consistency and error.They will find it necessary in the

on F.\THEKs.

And

even self-evident that the most

ancient

MSS.,

the

earliest

Versions,

the

oldest of the

thers, will

probably be in everj' instance the most trust-

worthy witnesses.
the Gospels
it is obvious that a really ancient Codex of must needs supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise Text of Scripture than can possibly Ik" rendered by any Translation, however faithful:

2.

Further,

made

end to reverse their

convictions.

They cannot too speedily

reconsider their verdict, and retrace their steps.

et id exemplar, easu

while Patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive

authority, even these
:

than Versions.

non perfectum,

alii

quasi perfectum eequereutur, praeser-

The

reasons are

chiefly

[a.)
;

Fathers often quote Scripture loosely, if not

tim

quum

ea pars

cum

reliqua historia cvangelica minus coiigruerc ^ideTetu^."

S.

" It is

tbus

tliat

Tiscbcnduif treats

Luke

ixiv. 12,

and

licentiously
quote.
{}).)

(iu bis latest edi-

and sometimes

allude only

when they seem

loose
>

to

tion) S. .TobD xxi. 25.

Thej' appear to have too often depended on their

memory, and sometimes are demonstrably

and inac-

Cliap.

111.VlU., aUo Chap. X.

Chap. IX.

c2


20
Patristic citafioiia suppffincnt

[chap.

HI.]

our scanty

MS.

evidence.

21

curate in their citations

to quote the

the same Father being observed

centuries are very

in

numerous indeed,

the copies

incrensing

Editors

in different ways, (c.) Copyists and not be altogether depended upon for the exact form of such supposed quotations. Thus the evidence of

same place

may

number in a rapid ratio as we Our primitive manuscript witnesses, therefore, are but five And of these it has never been in number at the utmost.
descend the stream of Time.
pretended tlmt
tlie oldest is

Fathers must always be to some extent precarious. 3. On the other hand, it cannot be too plainly pointed
out that

to be referred to an earlier date

it is

than the besinning of the iv"" century, while

thought
possibly

when,

words cmptoi/ed exact sequence,

instead of certifying ourselves of the actual by an Evangelist, precise form and our only whether
their

by competent judges that the

last

named may very

object is

to ascertain

have been written quite late in the vi"". 6. Are we then reduced to this fourfold, (or at most
fold,)

five-

a considerable passage of Scripture

be rejected or retained
earliest)

genuine or not ; is to was known or was not known in the

is

evidence concerning the text of the Gospels,

on

evi-

then, instead of supplying the ; important evidence, Fathers become by far the most valuable witnesses of all. This entire subject may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal to the problem before us.
least
4. Of course, if we possessed copies of the Gospels coeval with their authors, nothing could compete with such evidence. But then unhappily nothing of the kind is the case. The facts admit of being stated within the compass of a few

ages of the Church

dence of not quite certain date, and yet (as we all believe) not reaching further back than to the iv"' century of our aera ?
Certainly not.

Here, F.\thers come to our

as an

aid.

There are

hundred Ecclesiastical Writers older while between 'than the oldest extant Codex of the N. T. A.D. 300 and a.d. 600, (within whirh limits our five oldest MSS. may be considered certainly to fall,) there exist about two hundred Fathers more. True, that many of these have left wondrous little behind them; and that the quotations
perhaps as

many

have one Codex (the Vatican, B) which is thought to belong to the first half of the iv"" century ; and another, the newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus, (at St. Petersburg, s) which is certainly not quite so old, perhaps by 50 years.
lines.

We

scribed as rare

from Holy Scripture of the greater part may justly be deand unsatisfactory. But what then ? From
the three hundred,

make

a liberal reduction

and an hunthe

dred writers will remain

Testament, and who,
Cod. S or Cod. B.

who

frequently quote
it,

New

Next come two famous codices the Alexandrine (in the Museum, A) and the Codex Ephraemi (in the Paris Library, C), which are probably from 60 to 100 j-ears more recent still. The Codex Bezae (at Cambridge, D) is considered by competent judges to be the depository of a re;

when they do quote

are probably

British

as trustworthy witnesses to the

We

Truth of Scripture as either have indeed heard a great deal too

much

of the precariousness of this class of evidence: not

nearlv enough of the gross inaccuracies which disfigure the

test of those

cension of the text as ancient as any of the others.

Notit

two Codices.

Quite surprising

is it

to discover

withstanding its strangely depraved condition therefore, the many " monstra potius quam variae lectiones" which
contains,

to what an extent Patristic quotations

from the

New

Testa-

though
them.
IX
th

it

it be reckoned with the preceding four, must be 50 or 100 years later than the latest of

may

ment have evidently retained their exact original form. What we chiefly desiderate at this time is a more careful re^ision of the text of the Fathers, and more skilfully
elaborated indices of the works of each
:

After this,
of the

we drop down,
MSS. of the
x*"" ',

(as far as S.
viii""

Mark

not one of

them

is

cerned,) to 2 uncial
ix""
:

century,

con-

of the
xii""

or

while cursives of the xi""

r,

and
9

having been hitherto satisfactorily indexed. It would be easy to demonstrate the importance of bestowing far more
attention on this subject

than

it

seems to have hitherto

'

Viz. E, L, [viii]

K, M, V,

A,

(quaere),

(Tiscb. ed. 8va.) [ii]

G, X, S,

[ix, x].
I.

(ver.

914),

The roUowing uncials are N. O. P, Q, E, T. W, Y. Z.

defective here,

(vcr.

enjoyed
instance

19),

but I shall content myself with citing a single and for this, (in order not to distract the reader's

22

Iiiij'Orfanef

of Patnltic
to

ciitiiions.

[chap.
"\Yhat
is

in.

rajW('',Jiixtiit Mar/;/r,Iren(i

/(*.

23
that

attention), I shall refer

least

him

the Appendix

"".

at

Ilia!

their rntmor!/

is

in fault, as their

Judgment, in

beyond the limits of controversy, whenever

the genuine-

paraphrase, to they evidently hold themselves at liberty to

recast, to reconstruct
it is
".

ness of a considcrabk

jmmgc

of Scripture

is

the point in dis-

pute, the testimony of Fathers

who undoubtedly

recognise
testi-

that passage,

is

beyond comparison the most valuable

be only considered

mony we can
6.

enjoy.
it

impossible to resist the inference that Papi.^s 1. Thus, records a marvellous refers to S. Mark xvi. 18 when he "how concerning "Justus surnamed Barsabas,"^
tradition
that after

For
a

let

a Patristic appeal to the Gospel.

that

what is implied by It amounts to this:

Church,

conspicuous personage, probably a Bishop

of the one, therefore, whose history, date, place, are all

grace drinking noxious poison, through the LoRn's does not give he experienced no evil consequence'." He It is even surprising how comt/,( icord^ of the Evangelist.
pletely

he passes them by

and yet the allusion

is

to the place

more

or less matter of notoriet)',

gives us his written assurto

just cited is manifest.

Kow, Papias

a writer

who

lived so

ance that the passage

uncial codex,

in question was found in that copy of the Gospels which he was accustomed himself to employ
t?ie

near the time of the Apostles that he

to collect their traditional sayings.

made

it

his delight
to

His date (according

(it

has long since perished) which lehnged

Clinton)
'

is a.d.

100.

Jiimself,

short,

Church which he served. It is evident, in that any objection to quotations from Scripture in the
or to the

of those quotations
certain that

writings of the ancient Fathers can only apply to the form not to their substance. It is just as ;

Apology is Justin Martyr, the date of whose first tbat, say concerning the Apostles^ A.u. 151, is observed to Ascension, e^X^WTey iravjaxov iiciP"after our Lord's
II.

^avf. which
verse of S.

is

nothing
thus

else

but a quotation from the

last

Father who unmistakedl}with him

;

a verse of Scripture was actually read by the refers to it, as if we had read it even though the gravest doubts may be enter-

Mark's

Gospel,eVeiwi Sa i^\06v7e<; iK,]pv^av

it is

tained as to the 'ipsissima verba' which were found in his

found that the conclusion of within fifty years S. Maik's Gospel was familiarly known of the death of the last of the Evangelists.
^ravraxov.

And

own

particular copy.

He may have

trusted to his

memory
:

III.

When

or copyists
editors

may have taken liberties with his writings may have misrepresented what they found in

or

deliberately
last

Book against Heresies, of the quotes and remarks upon the 19th verse
Iren;eus, in his third

the

chapter of S.Mark's Gospel

S we

are put in possession of

written copies. The form of the quoted verse, I repeat, may have suffered almost to any extent. The substance, on the
contrarj',

inasmuch as

it

lay wholl}' be)'ond their province,

may be
7.

looked upon as an indisputable /ac^

of place

S.Luke xiiv.39; and Cousidor how Ignatius {ad Sn,>/r.. c. 3) quotes 3 in his Ep. ad Ephes. c. 17. how hi- rcfors to S. John xii. ihy i^iKt^TiStyra Bap<ra' nairfas] U.pov iropriSofo.- irtpl 'lova-,ov

-IffTop.: [sc.

pa,

Some such preliminary remarks, (never out

YOo'l' -evidently

a slip of the fen for

BapaaPay rhy ii,,KXveiyra Iovotok

when

quotations from the Fathers are to be considered,)

immediately after ards.)-ij 87,\.rrP>(<tv Acts i. 23, quoted hj Eusebius ^o/'''^^^.ov it.m6yros Kal Ml5i' iv^'S S.i tJ,. toC Kvplov xap'"

cannot well be withheld when the most venerable Ecclesiastical writings are appealed to.

EuKh. Bisl. Eccl

iii.

39.
in
c.

The

earliest of the Fathers

Al-ol. 1. c.

45. The supposed quoUtions

ivi.

froui the

are observed to quote with singular licence,

Jleturrectione (Wcstcott and others) are

clearly references to

t n Fragment JJt S.Luke xiiv..-

to allude rather

nol to S.
'

Mark
el

than to quote.
incurred

Strange to relate, those ancient

men seem

hb.

iii.

c. X.

scarcely to have been aware of the grave responsibility they

Murcuf,

Evaugehi ait ad Jin. (ed. Stieren, i. p. 402). "In fine autem locuUis est eh, receftus est m quidem Domimis Jesus, posiqtiam
Accordingly, against S.

when

they substituted expressions of their

It is

the utterances of the Spirit.

'

own for evidently not so much

ii.

cados, et sedet ad deTieram Dei."

Mark

ivi.

19 in

H.rL MS. 5G47 (=

schohum, whicn Evan. 72) occurs the foUowing marginal

*'

See Appendix

(A),

on the true reading of S. Luke

14.

'A^oariKi^y'^vdo-. Cr..mtr bus already published :E;piiTot i tUp toDto 4.-4>(>' Tb ^tjtoi- ij MopK*. ttpvi^'yoy. w^V. Til aipiaut K6y<t

-"t


24
Irtnaufi,

Hippohjius,

r//"

Council

[chap.
consi-

111.]

of Cnii/ingeAcia

PilatiAp.

CoiniUulioi,^.

25

the certain fact that the entire passage

now under

Also in his

deration was estant in a copy of the Gospels which was

used

b)'

the Bishop of the Church of Lyons someti'.ne about

the year a.d. 180, and which therefore cannot possibly have

the heresy of Noetus^, Hippolytus reference to this section of S. Mark's Gospel. lias n plain might seem To an inattentive reader, the passage alluded to fragment of a Creed but this is not the the

Homily on

to

be only

been written

much more than

hundred years
while
it

after the

case.

In the Creeds, Christ

is

imarially spoken of as

date of the ETangclist himself:

'

may have been

written by a contemporary of S.

written
sees

bj-

one

who

lived

Mark, and probably nas immediately after his time. Who

ai/aXij^^eVra'. uvt\eovTa: in the Scriptures, imarinhly as says of Him, avaKafi^averai el<! So that when Hippolytus

ovpavov, Kal eV Be^iwv

HaTpoi

naei^eTai, the reference

must

not that this single piece of evidence

is

in itself suffi-

needs be to S.

Mark

xvi. 19,

cient to outweigh the testinion}' of

in fact a

mere trifling "Manuscript" and "Patristic" testimony in a case like this for (as I have already explained) the passage quoted from S. Mark's Gospel by Irenaeus is to all intents and purposes a fragmeni from a dated manmcrijd ; and Ihat MS., demonstrably older by at least one hundred and fifty years than the oldest copy of the Gospels which has come down
:

any codex extant? It is with words to distinguish between

under V. At the Seventh Covxcil of Cakthage held baptizing of Heretics,) VincenCj-prian, a.d. 256, (on the from Carthage,) in tius, Bishop of Tbibari, (a place not far
African bishops, the presence of the eighty-seven assembled consideration " and Augusquoted two of the verses under
;

tine,

about a century and a half

later, in his reply, recited

the words afresh".

to our times.

the VI. The Apocryphal Acta Pilati (sometimes called assigns without hesi"Gospel of Nicodemus") Tischendorf
tation

IV. Take another proof that these concluding verses of S. Mark were in the second century accounted an integral
part of his Gospel.

HI^poL^^us, Bishop of Portus near

century; whether rightly or wrongly It is at all events a very 1 have no means of ascertaining. 17th and ancient forgery, and it contains the 15th, 16th,
to

the

iii'*

Rome

(190

227),

a contemporary of Irenseus, quotes the

17th and 18th verses in his fragment IJepX Xapia /jAjcavK

'

First published as his

by Fabricius (vol

i.

245.)

Its authorship has never

been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of Hippolytus (inscribed on the

chair of bis marble eiEgy in the Latcran

18th verses of this chapter". ver. VII. This is probably the right place to mention that the (so-called) " Apo15 is clearly alluded to in two places of (with STOUCAi, CoNSTiTDTioNSi';" and that verse 16 is quoted
In specified in the text. tend no further than the single chapter (the iv") "^M<'tw>' (containing S. Mark xvi. 17, 18,) the meantime the fragment irtpi

Museum

at Borne)

is

read,

nEPI
in
It

XAPlZMATflN
(rk
fiiv olv

and by that name the fragment

i^(6ffif$a

in question is actually de-

signated in the third chapter of the (so called) " Apostolical Constitutions,"

xv

vpura tvv \6yov

x*pl ruv Xapiapiaruv,

k.t.A.),

is

identical throughout.
p. 1 to p. 4,

which singular monument of Antiquity the fragment

is

itself is also found.

tending from

and

BeUqiiia, exIt forms the first article in Lagarde's headed A.8oirKo\(a rCv ayluiy 'K-roa-riKuv
is

there

in fact nothing else but the first

iv''

two chapters of the " Apostolical Constiis also

tutions;" of which the

chapter

claimed for Bippolytus, (though

last edition of

'
'

with evidently far

less reason,)

and as such appears in the

the
p.

Father's collected works, (Uippoli/ti

cd. Lagarde, 16oS,)

Rumani qua feruniur omnia Orace,

Ad Jin. See Routb's Opuscula, i. p. 80. remark (ed. 8va. For which reason 1 cordially subscribe to Tischendorrs tU rots oipivovs dicit, 407), "Quod idem [Justinus] Christum 4>ii\fl.lTa

p. 74.

The work thus assigned

heading,
\iTov,)
is

to Hippolytus, (e%-idently on the strength of the

'

AiarHtit ray avTuf aylur

Airoar6\ay lepl

x<'Ptoi'iui', Sii 'Iirro-

lApol. I. c. 60 ?] minus valet." " " In nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellit," (Cyprian 0pp. 18,)-" / vomine 237 iRtUqq. Sacr. iii. p. 124,] quoting S. Mark xvi. 17,
V.

pjrt of the "Oetateucbus Clementinus," concerning which Lagarde

ifo

daemonia

ejicient

habebunt." super egrotos manu> imponent ct bene

c.

has several remarks in the preface to his lieliquia Juris JEccletiastici Antiquis-

Respoma ad Episcopos,

44, (Reliqq. v. 248.)

The composition in question extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the last-named publication. The exact corresijondence between the " Oetateucbus Clemeutiuos " and the Pseudo- Apostolical Constitutions will be found to exlima, 1856.

and 851: also Etang.lia Apocrnpha, ed. Tischendorf, 1853. pp. 243
Ivi.
,

Proleg. p.

In

I.

vii. e.

7 (adjin.),\a$6yrn iyroKh"

"p" <^"'

"IP^i"

""^

''"Tl'''""'


26
KxxrJiiuK,

Mfiriiiiis,

Aphrnnlcs.
Tlic
'.

[CHA?.
in an earlier

Ail>rosr,CI,ryso-<toi,Jcromr
....]

no Tariety of reading from the

assigned to the
or
tlie iv"'

Tr.rtiis trccpfiis'i)

part of the same ancient work.

iii"'

"Constitutions" are

century
in

VIII and IX.

It will be

shewn

Chapter V. that Euseac-

Bivs, the Eiclesiastical Historian,

was profoundly well

quainted with these verses.

them largely, and (as I shall prove in the chapter referred to) was by no means disposed to question their genuineness. Ilis Church History
discusses

He

was published a.d. 325.

^SlAitiNUS also,

(whoever that individual

may have
is

been,)

contemporary of Eusebius,

inasmuch

as he

introduced

to our notice

by Eusebius himself

as asking a question con-

cerning the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel without

a trace of misgiving as to the genuineness of that about

question. of the Homilies in But the proposed attribution for nearly 14(IU years, in _tlH.u"h it has been acquiesced have come to Quite lately the Syriac originals i. incorrect. the of Aphraates to be the work lipht, and they prove known Father of and the earliest j.^,, Sage,"-a Bishop, (which bears date Church. In the first Homily, the Syrian xvi. are quot^ed ,18 of S. Mark A.n. 337), verses 16, 17, Curetonian Syr.ac, the version known as the vet not from then, as another Peshito exactly ".-Here, .or vet from the twelve verses of to the last wholly independent witness oldest copies of the certainly with the two S.Mark, coeval Gosiicl extant, B and K. oqo-7N fr.^.Ur (a.d. 3.4-397) freely XI AMimosE, Archbishop of Milan ver. 15 four portion of the Gospel,-citing
, .

quotes

this

which he

inquires,

is

a competent witness in their favor

each three times: ver. times: verses 16, 17 and 18,

20,

who

has hitherto been overlooked in this discussion.

his followers state that Jacobus Kisi-

X. Tischendorf and

""xn. The

benus quotes these verses. For " Jacobus Nisibenus" read " Aphbaates the Persian Sage," and the statement will be The history of the mistake is curious. correct
Jerome, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, makes no mention of Jacob of Kisibis, a famous Syrian Bishop

(a.d. 400) has been testimony of Chrvsostom for him In part of a Homily claimed nil but overlooked. that S. Luke he points out by his Benedictine Editors, S.Matdescribes the Ascension: uione of the Evangelists record^g of it,-S. Mark .,ew and S. John not speaking This Then he quotes verses li, 20. the event only.

Genpresent at the Council of Nicaea, a.d. 325. on Jerome's list to the nadius of Marseille, (who carried year 495) asserts that the reason of this omission was Je-

who was

(he adds)

tended

Mark makes no exthe end of the Gospel. Elsewhere he has an >." mention of the Ascension
'
is

rome's ignorance of the Syriac language; and explains that Jacob as the author of twenty-two Syriac Homilies*. Of
there exists a very ancient Armenian translation which was accordingly edited as the work of Jacobus Nisibenus with a Latin version, at Rome, in 1756. Gallandius
these,

xvi. 9 '. unmistakable reference to S. Mark moie this, is entitled to XIII Jerome, on a point like Father of t^^. CJ-^^attention than any other ^.^.^ and died in (for he was born in 331 at a very early period, Biblical lf;";g'4-,'0,)- endowed with extraordinary of a professed Editor

man

of excellent

judgment,-and

reprinted both the

dius (vol.
is
ij

V.)

Armenian and the Latin j and to Gallanwe are referred whenever " Jacobus Nisibenus"
iiroor Aoit pfXAoi/oi rh

See Dr. Wright's ed. of

ia..blod to ,-hc learned Editor's

. .

" Aphraates." (V. 1869,) i. P- 21. I the text. Preface for the informat.on

ana entirely

quoted.
jAof riv K6ciiov
:

Archdea.n Kron. Dr. Wright, and ,v brother quote ver ^5 E and vol. ii. 461
Vol.
vol.
i.
i.

ose.
1^4

7%

ami in
iraffp

/.

viii. e. 1,

Titun toTs

10

ii.

603 B.

fvayyiKmr itoTr> tXAcif

<

if Kiiaii.
(at the

Observe, this immediately follows

Vol.
C3;(

E and

vol.

ol. .. quotes ver. 15 to 8. A quote ver. 1/, 18. ii. 400 A

l.<

B Aq

^^^
^^^

^^ ^^ ^^ q

^ol.

no

the quotation of verses 17, 18.

Lib. vi.
c.

15.

The quotation
-p.

beginning of
its

lib. viii.)

of the 17th
p. 24.

viT. 20.

and
'

ISA verses,
Api

has been already noticed in

421.
ii.

proper place.

Svpra,

Scriiener'e Introduction,

Chrvs. Oji: x. 355 B.

Hieron. Opp. ei. Vallars.,

951

-4.

28
the

Jerome,

AuriuHline,
facilities,

Ktaioriv.s.

[chap.

^^^-j

Cyril,- Victor,-m-Hf>i'>s,-Sy>ioj>m.
e.

29
Augustine

New

Testament, for the execution of which task he

enjoyed extraordinarj'
weight}'.

his

road in the Church

All this

is

noteworthy.

testimony
is

is

most

Not unaware am

that Jerome

commonly

'''Xv'ind

supposed to be a witness on the opposite side: concerning which mistake I shall have to speak largely in Chapter V. But it ought to be enough to point out that we should not have met with these last twelve verses in the Vulgate, had

part of S- Mark's Gospe^^ penuTneness of the concluding which Nestobius, manner furnished by the unhesitating

XvfI^lther

to the very important tesUmony

Jerome held them to be spurious".

He

familiarly quotes
;

the 9th verse in one place of his writings

in another place in certain of the

after ver.

he makes the extraordinary statement that copies, (especially the Greek,) was found
reply of the eleven Aposfles,

;i. own'. Let his adding a few words of accepts his quotation, to he discovery^ mind that this is tantamount it be'borne?n of the last twe^e vei.es dated codices containing f impossible to say by is S.Ma,k,-and that date anterior (it

ver. e heresiarcb. quotes

20; and ^^^^^

^^^^^Z

14 the when our Saviouk " upbraided

how many years) to a.d. 430. XVII. Victor of Antioch,

.!,. in 1 largely in

(concerning whon. I
.,; u V.,) flourished

Bhal

them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because thej' believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen '." To discuss so weak and worthless a forgery, no trace of which is found in any MS. in existence, and of which nothing whatever is known except what Jerome here tells us, ^would be to waste our time indeed. The fact re-

rhaoter 1 Cbapter have to speak very which he bears to the critical testimony AD 425 The than is to be verses is n>ore emphatic

about

genuineness of these It may other ancient Father. met with in the pages of any testimony which it most conclusive be characterized as the

mains, however, that Jerome, besides giving these last twelve

verses a place in the Vulgate, quotes S. ^lark xvi. 14, as
well as ver. 9, in the course of his writings.

power to render. by a singular oversight, XVIII Hesvchius of Jerusalem, verses. the impugners of these has been reckoned among advocate and champion^ eager

was in

his

have been expected that Augustine would but he more than quotes them. He brings them forward again and again*, discusses them as the work of S. Mark, remarks that " in diebus Paschalibus," S. Mark's narrative of the Resurrection was publicly
It

XIV.

was

to

quote these verses

on the contrary their observation t>f ft seems to have escaped /"-.^ta (published "Homily on the Eesunection,"

He

is

j;\7^ n the

of his

to and erroneously ascribed works of Gregory of Nyssa, 19th verse and quotes appeals to the That Father,) Hesj chius The date of Hesychius xs unat length.
It

as S.

Mark's

certain
*

"

CogU "
quae

(lie

says to Pope DaiuBSus) " nt post exeioplam Scripturarum

;

the

vi'-

toto orbc dispersa quasi quidaiii arbiter sedeani

Eint
ilia

et quia iuter se rariaot, quae

cum Gracca

consentiaut

veritate decernam.

Haec

praesens

praefatinncula pollicetur quatuor vaiigelia .... codicum Graeeorum emen-

SACBAE.-an ancient work ence to the Sy>-opsis ScRiPTtiKAE

XIX

teconsid-ed to belong to but he may, I suppose, in Chapter V. His evidence is discussed century. close with a referto a Tliis list shall be brought

data conlatione, sed et veterum."

Vol.

i.

p.

327

{ed. Vallars.)
:

Contra Pelagianoa, II. 15, (0pp. ii. 744-5) " In qnibusdam eiemplaribua et uiaiime in Graecis codicibus, juzta Marcum in fine Evangelii acribitur:
Posiea quuHi accnhuissent undecim^ apparuif
el^ Jesus, ei

Vol. V. 997 F, 098 B. C.

^^.

^^.

exprohratU incre-

iulilatem et duritiam cordis coram, quia his qui riderani earn resvrgeniem,

Ls
first

c.

OHlodo.0,

(Cjril.

vol. Alexand. adr. Xestor.a.. 0pp.

v,.

46 BO

To

non credideruti.

X^t illi tatisfaciehant dicentes

et incredulitalit luhstanlia est,

quae non

sinit

Sacvlum ittud iniquilatis per immundot spiritus veram

:

...icb,

C,ril replies.-.,

..' ^'^'^

:rT%:^^T'^:^^^
.',,,_< S.t.i.-

Dei apprehendi virfutem

i c.g.

idcirco Jam nunc reeela justitiam tuam."

;

noticed by Matlbaei

(%" ZV''161-)
ili.

ver. 12 in vol.

vol. V.

391 E, 985

515 C (Ep. 149) vol. i. 22 F.

ii.

Vol. v. P88

CA'crses

15, 16, in

ToC eioC.

Greg. Kyss. 0pp.

415.


30
li(UiCitr<itv Iii(/iris

of Tc'ti.

Siunhiori/

[chap.

n..J

of

(hi.

r,iti'<^tir

EihUnee.

31

ascribed lo Athanasius
that Fatlier.
It is

but probably not the production of at all events of much older date than
'',
;

any of the
tents of S.
It

later uncials

and
'.

it

rehearses in detail the con-

Mark
;

xvi.

920

would be easy to prolong this enumeration of Patristic authorities as, by appealing to Gregentius in the yi"" century, and to Gregory tlie Great, and Modestus, patriarch of Conto Yen. Bade and John Damascene Thcophylact in the xi"" ;_to Euthymius in the xii"""^ but I forbear. It would add no strength to my argument that I should by such evidence support it ; as the reader will admit when he has read my X"" chapter.
yii"'
;

Constantinople,-IIierapolis,C^-=areaandEdessa,-Carthagc, and Portus. And thus, upAlexandria and Hippo,_Rome have been to all intents and wards of nineteen early codexes various lands by unprejudu^ed purposes inspected for us in date than least of more ancient
witncsses,-.sr of them at Gospels extant. the oldest copy of the

stantinople in the

an instant when the the decisive testimony acquainted with reader has been made
this subject for I propose to recur to

.i,

in the viii"'

; to

which ancient Versions supply. themselves. n short Chapter to

But the Versions deserve

It will be observed then that i/nre competent Patristic

witnesses of the
I

ii'"'

iv'\four of the

v"',

bably) of the vi"", these " last Twelve Verses."

century,ydwr of the iii"^"", six of the and firo (of uncertain date, but prohave admitted their familiarity with

Yet do they not belong

to one

particular age, school, or country.

trarj',

'

They come, on the con:

from every part of the ancient Church

ii.

Antioch and
vii., viii.

Athnnasii Opjy. vol.

p.

181 T, 182 A.
let

See the Prcefat., pp.

Id dismissiug tliU cnumeratiou,

exist

me

be allowed to point out that there

must
sity

many more

Patristic citations which I bare overlooked.

The

neces-

one is uuder, on occasions like the present, of depending to a great extent on " Indices," is fatal ; so scandalously inaccurate is almost every Index of
Texts that can be named.

To judge from

the Index in Oehler's edition of

Tertullian, that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times.

According to the Benedictine Index, Ambrose docs not quote them

as once.

so

much

Ambrose, nevertheless, quotes

;

five of these verses

no

less

than four-

teen times
S.

while Tertullian, as far as I

am

able to discover, does not quote

Mark

xvi.

920 at

all.

Again. One hoped that the Index of Texts in Diudorrs new Oxford ed. of Clemens Alex, was going to remedy the sadly defective Index in Potter's ed. But we are still exactly where we were. S. John i. 3 (or 4), so remarkably

quoted in
412,
1.
:

vol.

iii.

433,

1.

S.

John

i.

18, 50,

memorably represented

in vol.

iii.
:

2G S. Mark i. 13, interestingly referred to in vol. iii. 455, lines 5, 6, 7 are nowhere noticed in the Index: The Voice from Heaven at our Savioub'8 Baptism, a famous misquotation (vol. i. 145, 1.14), does not appear in the

Index of quotations from S. Matthew

(iii.

(iii.

17),

S.

Mark

(i.

11), or S.

Luke

22.)

Gregentius apud Gallund.

xi.

C53 E.
275.

Modestus
vol.
i.

apiid Pliotium cod.

Joliannis

Greg. Mag.

(IIoui. xxix. in

Evang.)
1712)

Pamasccni 0pp.
all the verses)

(ed.

608 E.
in loc.

Bedc,

and Theophylact (who quotes

and Euthy-

mius

iv.l

Syriac. The " Curdonian" mid Philo.reviau

33

of the blc-cd Gospel."

The Peshito

is
;

referred

by common

consent to

tlie

ii^'^

century of our ara

and

is

found to con-

question. tain the verses in

CHAPTER

lY.

THE EAKLY VERSIONS EXAMINED, AND FOUND TO YIELD UNFALTERING TESTIMONY TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.
The Peshito,

Syriac translation of the fragments of another very ancient Cukeits discoverer " The Golpels, (called from the name of translahave come to light" : and in this

II

This, however,

is

not

all.

Within the

last thirty years,

toman SVKIAC")
tion

also the verses

in

question arc

^''''^^\-

He Recemion of Thomas of Eharhl (p. 33.) ^/'e Vulgate (p. ZA)and the Vetus Itala the Gothic (p. 35) and the Egyptian Veniom (p. 35). (p. 35)
the Ctireionian Syriac,

and

mcntarv codex is what century.

referred by Cureton
earlier

Sevicic of the Evidence up

to this

point, (p. 36).

older the original Greek been executed,-as well as how much translator employed,can copy mnv have been which this But it is clear that we are of course' only be conjectured. another truly primitive witness to the genuinelistening to

middle of the V date the Translation may have

to the

'^^^^ ^'""^^

It was declared at the outset that when we are seeking to

establish in detail the
is

ness of the text the

hist)

now under

consideration

; a

witness (like

Text of the Gospels, the testimony

of Manuscripts

incomparably the most important of all. To early Versions, the second place was assigned. To Patristic citations,

the Vatican more ancient more ancient, therefore, Codex 15, or the Sinaitic Codex s Gospels in existence. We shall tlian any' Greek copy of the
vastly

than
;

either

the third.

But

it

was explained that whenis

not be thought rash

if

we claim

it for

the

iii'*

century.

ever (as here) the onlj' question to be decided

whether

a considerable portion of Scripture be genuine or not, then,

Patristic references yield to

ance.

To which statement

it

no class of eridence in importmust now be added that second

is to

only to the testimony of Fathers on such occasions

be

reckoned the evidence of the oldest of the Versions. The reason is obvious, (a.) We know for the most part the approximate date of the principal ancient Versions of the New Testament {h.) Each Version is represented by at least one very ancient Codex and (c.) It may be safely assumed that Translators were never dependant on a single copy of the
: :

fully represent the sum III. Even this, however, does not language bears on this of the testimony which the Syriac (HieraPhiloxenus, Monophysite Bishop of Mabug subject. a revision of the Peshito caused polis) in Eastern Syria, Chorepiscopus Polycarp, a.d. Syriac to be executed by his approved and accurate Greek f/oS ; and bv the aid of three was again remanuscripts, this revised version of Polycarp the monastery of Antonia vised by Thomas of Hharkel, in The Hharklensian Revision, (comat Alexandria, a.d. C16.
"^

monly

called

the " Philoxeniak,")

is

therefore an extra:

original
tions.

Proceed

Greek when they executed their several Translawe now to ascertain what evidence the oldest
:

antiquity indeed ordinary monument of ecclesiastical Translation of the bein- ihe Revision of a revised

for,

New

of the Versions bear concerning the concluding verses of

fiom MSS. which Testament known to have been executed the v*" century, it exmust have been at least as old as

Mark's Gospel and first of all for the Syriac. I. " Literary history," (saj's Mr. Scrivener,) " can hardly afford a more powerful case than has been established for
S.

Dr. \Vriebt iufonus

ac

Version have (1S71) that some more leaves of this

just Iwou rciuvorod.

By

h^i-i'v

contains the last four providence, one of the fragments

vtTtes.

the identity of the Version of the Syriac now called the ' Peshito ' with that used by the Eastern Church long before the great schism

In the

murem,

against S. Matth. isviii. 6,

Thomas writes,-" / tnbui

codicil,,,

had

its

beginning, in the native land

nom.!,, NH7nrem.s.>"-Cf.

TersionU, uon inventom est G,aci^. et in nuo Syriaco antiquae Sj^-r., p. 97. ad ixvii. 35.-Adler*s if. T. Verss.


34
Tho

IV.]

Jtrumhm

Si/iinc.

T/ic Vnlgnte.

[CIIAP.

T/iC olrl Latin, the Gothic,

and

the Egi/ptian.

.'J")

hibits the result of

what may be called

is a

a collation of copies

lie

consulted several,)

made

at a time

when only

four of our extant uncials

were

coni])lacency our
exist)
tliat

we learn to survej' with diminished own slender stores (if indeed any at all
antiquit3'.

in existence.

Here, then,

singularly important accumu-

of corresponding

It is needless to
:

add
such

lation of manuscript evidence on the subject of the verses

the Vulgate contains the disputed verses

this
this,

that from
in

which of
Bpurious.

late years

it

has become the fashion to treat as

no copy of
a

Version

are

they awaj'.
is

Now,

And

yet, neither

by Polycarp nor by Thomas

matter as

Jerome's testimon)'

very weighty indeed.

as

of Hliarkel, are the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel

omitted''.

V. The Vulgate, however, was but the revision of a much

older
translation,

generally
is

known
tlic

the

Vetus

Itai.a.

To
tions,

these, if I do not

add the " Jerusalem version,"

century,
is

(as

Tliis

Old Latin, which

of African origin and of almost

ii"''

an independent Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical Secperhaps of the

far
v*''

Apostolic antiquit}', (supposed of

with

century,) conspires
it
^
:

is called ',)

it

is

because

the Vulgate in the testimonj' which

bears to

tlie

our fourfold Syriac evidence In

itself, it

already abundantly

sufficient.

pcnuincuess of the end of S. Mark's Gospel

an emphatic

that can be shewn on the other side.

outweighs in respect of antiquity anything Turn we next to the

witness that in the African province, from the earliest time,

no doubt whatever was entertained concerning the genuineness of these last twelve verses.

Churches of the AVest. IV. That Jerome, at the bidding of Pope Damasus (a.d. 382), was the author of that famous Latin version of the It seems Scriptures called The Vui.gate, is known to all.
Bcarcelj' possible to overestimate the critical

VI. The next place

may

well be given to the venerable

a.d. 350.

version of the Gothic Bishop Ulphilas,

a Cnjipadociau, Ulphilas

Himself
to

probably derived his copies from

is
;

importance of

Asia Minor.

His version

said to

have been exposed

such a work,

executed such time, and by a man of so much learning and sagacity as Jerome.
at a

under such auspices,

crrlain corrupting influences

but the unequivocal evidence

which

it

bears to the last verses of S.

Mark

is

at least un-

"When

it is

considered that we are here presented with the

of the best Greek

inipoaihablc, aud

must be regarded as important in the

results of a careful examination scripts to

Manuthe

highest degree*.

The

oldest ext:int copj' of the

Gothic

of
:

which a competent scholar had access in middle of the fourth century, (and Jerome assures us that
'

Ulphilas

is

assigned to the v"' or early in the

vi""

century

That among the 437 various readings and marginal notes on the Gospels
is

and the verses in question are there also met with. VI Laud VIII. The ancient Egyptian versions
for notice
:

call

next

relegated to the Philoxcnian uiargiu, should occur the worthless supplement

their

testimon)' being

so exceedingly ancient

which

Of

only found besides in Cod. L. (see ch. viii.) is not at all surprising. these 437 readings and notes, 91 are not found in White's Edition; while
in question being oue of

and respectable.
is

The Memphitic, or

dialect

of Lower

Egyjit, (less properly called the " Coptic" version),

which
xvi.

105 (the supplement

This creates a suspicion that in part at eihibit traces of the assiduity of subsequent

them) arc found in White only. least the Philoxenian margin must
critics

of the Syriac text.

(So

Fragments
-I'.
('^
'

as.signed to the iv"" or v"" centurj', contains S.

Mark

of the Thebaic,

or dialect of

Upper

Adlcr on S.Matth. xxvi. 40.)

margin:ii notes

To unders'and the character of some of those and annotations, the reader has but to refer to Adlcr's learned
S.
:

^e.^'P*'
It

distinct version

and of considerably

earlier date,

wort, (pp. 79
XV. 21
:

XX.

134) and examine the notes on the following places ; Matth. Lu. 17 (= B D) 42. S.Mk. 16 28 = D) iivi.
(

does not sensibly detract from

c.Hlex,

the value of this evidence that one

auciint
" a

7.

i.

xii.

S.

x.

the " Codex Bobhiensis"

42

= B)

= B N L)
!

xi.

53.

S. Jo.

ii.

1 [3] (

= N)

Jit-

26

vii.

39 (partly

rf\ iM-d

text, in

X. 8, ic.

ic.

ll'niiti,1 tfxt, ic. p.

(k), which Tregelles describes as which the influence of ancient MSS. is discernible," 170.] and which therefore may not be cited iu the present

This work has at last under the following title: Etangdiarium Mierosolj/mit auum ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino demprompait edidil, Latiiie verlil, ProlegomenU et Olostario adormavit. Comes FBiKCif crs Miniscaichi Ebizzo.
,

been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona, 1861-4,

'"""^'*

''">.

exhibits

after ver.

a Latin translation of the spurious wordi

which
'

"

aUo found in Cod. L. IJiukI Gothicum testimonium baud

lire

scio

an

critici satis
iv.

agnovcrint, vel

prii dipnitiite

aostiuiavcrint."

Mai, Noia Patt. Bill.

25C.

d2


36
less

The Anmiiiaii,
properly called the
(lie

the Elhiopic, the Giort/laii.

[chap.

IV.]

Rcrku- of the Etidcncc up to

this point.

37

" Sabidic,") survive in

ajitiquity
:

MSS.

of

very nearly

same

and one of these fragis

ments
ing to
iii'*

linppily contains the last verse of the Gospel accordS. ilark.

Codex C centurv, to wliich Codex A and certainly later,) at least three are referred, (for Codex'P is Fathers, and the most illustrious of the Latin
()

In the

V'"

faraoui Greeks

The Thebaic version

it

referred to the

to recognise these _(7b.'r authorities in all,) are observed

VO'SOS.

century.
will be
it

After this mass of evidence,

enough

to record

concerning the Armenian version, that

testimony
:

yields inconstant
;

some of the MSS. ending at ver. 8 others putting after these words the subscription, {evayyiXiov Kara MapKov,) and then giA-ing the additional verses with a new subscription others going on without any break to the end. This version may be as old as the v"" century but like the Etbiopic [iv vii ?] and the Georgian [vi ?] it comes to us in codices of comparatively recent date. AH this makes it impossible for us to care much for its testimony. The two last-named versions, whatever their dis:
;

which Codex B and Codex s one Syriac, and two probablv belong, five Greek writers, Vulgate, Gothic and MemLatin Fathers,besides the
II)

In theiv'" centurv,

(to

in all,)-tcstify to famiphitic Versions, (r/rn authorities with this portion of S, Mark's Go>pel.
liar

acquaintance

(,)

In the

iii"'

centurv, (and by this time

MS.

evidence

Ilij.polytus, the Curetonian hn. entirely forsaken us,) we find bearing plam testimony Svriac and the Thebaic Version, least three distinct provinces that ai that early period, in at

of primitive Christendom,
to those verses.
(,/)

no suspicion whatever attached

Lastly,

advantages

may
thus
so

be, at

least

bear constant witness to the

genuineness of the verses in dispute.

1.

And

evidence,

venerable,
pel, that it

we

are presented with a mass of additional

so

various,

weighty, bo multitudinous, so

and the century, Irenieus, the Peshito, that in Gaul, in MesoItalic Version as plainly attest the same verses potamia and in the African province, century (more or unhesitatingly received within a
In the
ii""

ucre
less)

in support of this disputed portion of the Gos-

of the date

the Evanof the inspired autograph of

tlie

might well be deemed in itself decisive. 2. For these Versions do not so much shew what individuals held, as what Churches have believed and taught concerning the sacred Text, mighty Churches in Syria and Mesopotamia, in Africa and Italj', in Palestine and Egypt.

gelist himself.

4
.,>

TLu we are in possession of

r j testmiony of at
_

lea^t

considerably anterior to independent witnesses, of a date Gospels. They are all of the earliest extant Codex of the themselves in the most unthe best class. They deliver to the genumeness of equivocal way. And their testimony
these Verses
is

unfaltering.

3.

"We ma}- here, in

fact,

conveniently review the progress

in this investigation.

which has been hitherto made

And

in order to bar the door against dispute and cavil, let us

be content to waive the testimony of Papias as precarious,

and tliat of Justin Martyr as too fragmentary to be decisive. Let us frankly admit that the citation of Vincentius 4
Thibari at the
exact to
vii""
it

Carthaginian Council
it.

is

sufficiently in-

make

unsafe to build upon

The "Acta

Pi-

lati" and the " Apostolical Constitutions," since their date

is

adverse evidence that nothing short of direct an sensibly afi-ect so formidable of the weightiest kind can the What must as this. arrav of independent authorities induce us set it entirely aside, and evidence be which shall recent editors of the inspired Text, to Ixlieve with the most S.Mark's Gospel, as it came from that the last chapter of ended abruptly at ver. 8 ? the hands of its inspired author, ^^ that his " last Twelve Verses assuming
5
It is clear

The grounds

for

somewhat doubtful, shall be claimed for the iv**" century And now, how will the evionly, and not for the iii"*. last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel ? dence stand for the

the ensuing chapter. are spurious, shall be exhibited in

cuAF. v.]

Tuchc

allcjcd hostile

WHun^^^-

'^'^

of S. J^Iork's: reference to the last chapter be also without any thing that Clen.ent of an extraordinary, if, too, it wer; the last chapter of have omitted to quote from Borne should Clement does not quote the same S Mark, -seeing that The alacrity disphn ed b

CHAPTER

from

Y.

THE ALLEGED HOSTILE WITNESS OF CERTAIN OF THE EARLY FATHERS FROVED TO BE AN IMAGINATION OF THE CRITICS.
The misiale ccncerig Gregory of Nyssa {p. 39). The minconcejifion eonctriting Euschius (/j. 41). The oversight concerning
Jerome
{^p.

should

Mark's Gospel at all. am hostile evidence ,s ce. arned writers in accumulating umted industry Stra.ge, that their rthv of a Utter cause. unequal success attended with such very have been
S.
.

when

their object

was

to_

exhibit the evidence

u>

fnmn

of

51);

also concerning

Seterus of Antioch) (p. 51);

(i>,59).

Sesychius of Jerusalem, (or else and concerning Victor of Antioch

Scripture. the present portion of of >yssa and (2) Jerome; (3) Gregory (1) Eusebius then, of Antioch, Jerusalem (5) Severu^ and (4) Hesvchius of accomand (7) Euthymius :-Do the Antioch, (6) Victor of Tregelles quoted.-Doctors Tischendorf pl shed critics just a^ested b) to tell us that " it is
;

Ld

It would naturally follow to shew that manuscript evidence confirms the e\'idence of the ancient Fathers and of
the
earlj'

Versions of Scripture.

But

factory that I should proceed to

dela3' the testimony,

which,

(as it

it will be more satisexamine without more is alleged,) is borne by

Davidson, really mean of S Ma the concluding sec ion ^ these seven Fathers that there ^^ -}, S. Mark himself Gospel "was not written by them say th says so while some of them who
.<

is

fot one of

direct reverse.

a cloud of ancient Fathers against the last twelve verses of

S.Mark. "The absence of this portion from some, from many, or from most copies of his Gospel, or that it was not written by S. Mark himself," (saj's Dr. Tregelles,) " is attested by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Sererus of Antioch, Jerome, and by later writers, especially Greeks '." The same Fathers are appealed to bj' Dr. Davidson, who adds to the list Euthymius ; and b}' Tischendorf and Alford, who add the name of Ilesj'cbius of Jerusalem. They "These verses" also refer to "manj' ancient Scholia." (says Tischendorf) "are not recognised by the sections of Ammonius nor by the Canons of Eusebius Epiphanius and Caesarius bear witness to the fact*"." "In the Catenae on Mark" (proceeds Davidson) "the section is not explained. Nor is there any trace of acquaintance with it on the part of Clement of Rome or Clement of Alexandria;" a remark which others have made also as if it were a surprising circumstance that Clement of Alexandria, who appears to have
:

But let us go on^ I^^^ h^ .Tt^The li t is be demolished that th there are Twelve Verses to Epinames of (8) Ammonius, (9 fuither eked out with the H) tbe of Ca3sarius,-to say nothmg
phanius, and (10)

anlTmous authJs

of Catena,

and

writers, es(12) "later

will

one but ^T I'^sharexamine these witnesses one by attention caU instance

:

it

be convenient in the evidence borne by,

first

to

to the

Gregory of Nyssa.
himsell represented as expressing This illustrious Father is "Homily on the Re^';; as follows in his second Mark the Gospel according to .. In the more accurate copies, how were afraid.' In some eopes has its end at 'for they He was risen ea ly the

ever, this also is

first

added,-'

Now when

Magdalene, first to Mary day of the week. He appeared devils.'" seven out of whom He had cast

no

reference to the last

chapter of S. Mattheu's Gospel, should

p.

.p.t,p<iTr,

caPPir..

(sic)

^^^".-0-1638)
iii.

a^ ***.* " ",(, rj l^aytoKr,^

M.

iirri 8a.^^wa.

Oj);). (ed.

411 B.

Account of the Prinled Text,

247.

'

Or. Test.

p. 322.

^isiuhc conccrmiuj Grt(jortj of Nj/ssa.

[rii\r.

That
credit

this

testimony should have been so often appealed

Eiinhin''T/ic Eridciicc of
]
,

41
yet

lioch
it is

to as proceeding

from Grcgor}' of
scholarsliip.

Isyssa'', is little

to the

the Homily m question was the actual author of make their election between the plain that critics must

of

modern

One would have supposed

issue,
its

the importance of the the sacredness of Scripture, down to minutest and would have ensured extraordinarj' caution, and
that the gravity of the subjeet,
jot
tittle,

in-

them Loth forward. !^^o two names; and not bring quoting " Severus and Hesj right to go on I sav, has any observed to Tiscbendorf and Dr. Davidson are ehius"-as "Severus of Antioch, -as Gregory of Nyssa" and

owe,

do:-"
Dr
(3
)

duced every fresh assailant of so considerable

a portion

of

Tregelles

the Gospel to be vcr)' sure of his ground before reiterating

what

his predecessors

bad delivered.

And
It
is

j-et it is

evident

of oiie and the

that not one of the recent writers on the subject can have
investigated this matter for himself.

of the three same Homily. To whichever judges have declared hat wc assign it,-(and competent her

In

is found to prefer. . , , claimants for the authorsh.p short, here are three

only due to their

so little

known

ability to

presume that had they taken ever

pains with the foregoing quotation, they would have found

out their mistake.

(1.)

For, in the

first

place, the second "

iii""

Eesurrection" printed in the

Homily on the volume of the works of

for giving it to Hesychius ra there are sufficient reasons ha no one is found to suppose than to Severus,-while will not adm.t that autbor,)-"-/,o Gregory of Nyssa was its other two? mention must be made of the no further understood, therefore, that henceforth
_

th
this

name

Gregory of K3'ssa, (and which supplies the critics with their quotation,) is, as everj' one may see who will take the trouble to compare them, word for word the same Homih/ which Combefis in his " Novum Auctarium," and Gallandius in his "Bibliotheca Patrum" printed as the work of Hesychius,

The

from "Gregory of Nyssa" must be banished " Severus of Antioch. name of discussion. So must the the more ac^ passage which begins,-^' In memorable
of

Let

it

be clearly

Gospel according to curate copies, the

nt 'for

Mark

they ^'ere

afraid,'

"-is found

has its end Eonnly wluch .

and vindicated to that Father, respectively in 1648 and 1776*. Now, if a critic chooses to risk his own reputation by maintaining that the Homilj' in question
is

presbyter of Jerusalen,.-written ly Hesychius. ,-a. prohahhj to his work I shaU have to recur the r/- ccd.ry.

IwL
11
feren't

of

bv-and^bv.

The next name

respect to

is

indeed

ECSEBIUP,

and by Gregory of Nyssa, and is have had but one author, good. But since the Homily can it is surely high time that one of these two claimants should be altogether dropped from this discussion. Inasmuch as page after page of the same (2.) Again. Homily is observed to reappear, word for word, under the name of "Severus of Antioch," and to be unsuspiciously
not by Hesychius,
printed as his
his " Catena'" (1844), niana" (1715), although it may very reasonablj"^ become a question among critics whether Hesychius of Jerusalem or Severus of An-

well

With

whom

the case

is

altogether

dif-

What

the conclusion of

delivered concerning that learned Father has examined S.Mark's Gospel requires to be

be set forth much more lith attention, and must

is about to

detail.

be offered, what And yet, I will so far anticipate tbat Eusebms has if any one supposes as tola; at once that >.>auy J/SS. . "stated that it is ,canted , anywhere plainly

by Montfaucon in and by Cramer in

his

" Bibliotheca Coisli-

-heismiLken
It

Eusebius nowhere says

so.

The

readei s

plain tale. attention is invited to a

the world was presented by was not until 1825 that

...

.sS^(i.t.M^.>^----^^^
gWe
this hon,il, to

* Tregelles,

PrinteS Text,

p.

24S, also in

Home's Inirod. iv.

434-6.

So Nor(3. .

ton, Alford, Davidson,

and the rest, following Wetstein, yot. Auct.u 743-74. Jiif. Vett. PP. xi. 221-6. ' IBM. CoUl. pp. 6S-75. Catena, i. 243-51.

GrieSbaeli, Scliolz, &c.

50) to

Severus^-M.

yc^.

^no^
^

^P^^^

nion on the Bubject.


42
Th<
IohI

work
l^lai''

bi/ Eitxcbiii'i

of"

Qiieesfioiics

[chap.

v.]

ad Slep/iaiiiim" and " ad ilariunm."

43

Cardinal Angelo

with a

few fragmcntarj' specimens

the

work which Mai has brought

;

to light is

but a highly
its

of a

work of Euscbius on the (so-Ciillcd) Inconsistencies in the Gospels, from a 5IS. in the A'alican'. These, the
lost

scarcely that,) condensed exhibition of the original, (and

learned Cardinal republished

his

more
*

accurately in 1847, in

"Nova

Patruni IJibliothcca

;"
cite

and hither we are

in-

Tariably referred
against

by those who
of the

Euscbius as a witness

An abridged selection very title shews for it is headed," difficulties] in the from the Inquiries and Resolutions [of original QuesGospels' by Eusebius"." Only some of the even these have and therefore, are here noticed at all
'

tions,

the genuineness

concluding verses of the

second Gospel.
It
is

condensation and been subjected to so severe a process of would proabridgment, that in some instances amputation
taken place. bably\e a more fitting description of what has or Parts, are Accordingly, what were originally two Books " Inquiries," &c., addressed at present represented by XVI. " to Stephanus ;" while the concluding Book or Part is represented
relates to

much

to be regretted that

we

are

still

as

little

as

ever in possession of the lost

to

work of Eusebius. It appears have consisted of three Books or Parts; the former two

(addressed "to Stephanas") being discussions of diflBculties

at the beginning of the Gospel,

the

last ("to

Marinus")

relating to difficulties

in

its

concluding chapters'.
first,

The
to set

by IV. more, " to Marinus," of which, (he fnt after our Lord's appearing to Mary Magdalene

Author's plan, (as usual in such works), was,

forth a difficulty in the
;

form of a Question and straightway, to propose a Solution of it, which commonlj' assumes the form of a considerable dissertation. But whether we are
at present in possession of so

much

as a single entire specias

it

Eusebius adHis Resurrection. Now, since the work which " Inquiries, is found to have contained dressed to Marinus concerning our Saviour's Death and with their Resolutions, be deResurrection"," whUe a quotation professing to chapter" relates to Simon the rived from "the thirteenth

men

of these " Inquiries

and Resolutions " exactly

from the pen of Eusebius, ma)' reasonably be doubted.

i

came That

jit is obvious that Cyrenian bearing our Saviour's Cross have been very considerable, and the original work must an utterly inadequate that what Mai has recovered gives
idea of
its

Scrlptonim Vett. Nova CoUeeiio, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1 101. At p. 217, (ed. 1847), Mai designates it as " Codex Vat. Palat. cxx pulchemmos, ssculi ferme x." At p. 268, be numbers it rigbtly, ccxx. We are there informed tbat the work of Eusebius extends irom fol. 61 to 96 of
'

extent and importance

crri^f

p.

It

is

absolutely neces-

-ExXoyJ,

iv

the Codex.
k A'ol. iv. pp.
'

219309.
iv.

Sec SoTtt P. P. BilUoOieca,

255.

Tbat
255
i)

it

was

styled " Inquiries with

their Resolutions " (Zirr^^oTa koX Avtrcis), Euscbius leiids us to suppose

by
3
also

himself twice referring to

it

unJcr that name, (Demonslr. Etang.

lib. vii.
is

the t.tle of vol. .. ed, 1625.) pn 219. 255.-(See the plate of facsimiles facing ircpl ToG S.-'ou TaBous /ral t,j " Ziaie-os .... ivrah ^pU MapT.o. ^-rl ral, less I quote the place from the K.T.X. i.,.,Tj,... r.T.. Kal iKKi..... assigned to Severus of Ant.och: of Crner, (ii. 389,) where it is knwn Caf-na (See ilai, iv. 299.)

.pU

M.p:...] ..Pl

-^

xpbs 2r.>a.o. [and i" t. <r.^.e.W-- i-^ Et^.fl-'o. E-77.A.'o.5 ivr,,ir.v Kal Kv...v.
^y

"'

md

also in the Preface to Marinus,

Mai,

iv.

which

his abbreviator

btitoccursalsoinCbrdeWiCa(..J<.a.p.436. This piage is too grand to be withheld :-06 yip

|o.5a(u,., (S.S <pr,a,v

(.<ft t.i

iv

rp n6\u

observed to employ (UTai,

iv.

219, 255.)

But

I suspect that be

and others so
its
:

designate the work only from the nature of its contents; and that
title is correctly

actual

indicated by Jerome,

De

Evangeliorutn DiaphoniS

" Edi-

dit" (he says) "de Evangeliorum Diaphonia," {De Scripit. Illustt. c. 61.) Again, Aicu^ucria Eva77A(ii', (Hieron. in Mattk. i. 16.) Consider also the
testimony of Latiuus Latinius, given below,
p.
4-1-,

Maplvov.) t Kari t.S 8.8rfXo Ei'|3. K^f^Xal^.y ^P>>' hp't. ts Ml'" <-...u,r, rp ^pi.a.ov .iv ara.ph. fiaarica, 4xV i ii in Marcini, f.SiS.) Ta XpiToD M'a'f"'"'?- {Possiui Cat are observed Catena;, inasmuch as their compilers 'qg
'

note

(q).
rijs

'Indicated* by
toKovcn)t Iv ro7s

Jerome,

say: for the entire title was probably, Tltpl

.questions, are evidently full o( diyecia to have been very curious in such but for the most part by tbe.r form ; tra of the work. These are recognisable author. Accordingly, Catena, actually retain the name of their

Mai

iv

-The

sometimes they

f Jo7-)fAioii K.T.X. Jio^a-i-foJ.

The Author of the Catena ou S.Mark

-rphs
:

edited

by

have

far.,lsl,ed

Cramer

(i.

p. 266), quotes an opinion of Euscbius iv rf

Kap7vor

-rip} rris

toKoitnis iv toTs 4a>7(A/oiJ irtpl -rns

avaariafus

far as a

Siaipuvlas

words which are

extracted from the

same MS. by Simon, Biat.

him,) be has edited with

additional materials ;wh.ch (as Mai with a considerable boJy of A. se Vat. 1611,] enabled MS. Catena of Kicetas on S. Luke. [Cod. mto a kmd o. considerable industry; throwing tbem
(^'ol.iv. pp.

Crit.

N. T.

p. 89.

Supplement,

268-282, and

pp.

283-298.)

It

.s

only Burpr.sn.g

44
Eary thai

IIoiv Etinhiiifi
all lliis sliould

])rojiO'<(fl to

rccoiH-ik

[chap.

S. Jfat/Iieir

xj-riii.

1 oii'l S.

Mark rn.

9.

An

be clearly appreliended by any one

who

desires 1o

know

exactly wliat the alleged evidence of

Euscbius concerning the last chapter of S. Mark's Gospel is worth, as I will explain more fuUj' by-and-bv. Let it, however, be candidly admitted that there seems to be no

that it is not met entire passagc^ will say rtttinc rid of the the accurate copies, copies of Mark's Gospel fvi.h in .// the after making the end of Murk's narrative come , till events,
:

,1,0

reason for Bup]>osin'g that whenever the lost work of I^usebius comes to light, (and
it has been seen within about 300 years',) it will exhibit anything essentially different from what is contained in the famous passage which has

who appeared words of the young man ^azareth, &c not ye! Ye seek Jesus of M,d said, 'Fear they heard it, Evangelist adds,-' .\nd when ,o which the for they were said nothing to any man, ,1,0V fled, and the words, in almost all copies of
:

to the

women

'

afraid

For

at those

given rise to so

much

debate, and
It is

which may be exhibited

in English as follows.

one " Mariuus,"

lowing question
:

who

is

put in the form of a reply to represented as asking, first, the fol-

"How

is it,

that, according to
to

Matthew

[xxviii. 1], the

;'

Saviouk appears

have risen

'

in the end of the Sabbath

but, according to

Mark

[xvi. 9], 'early the first

day of the
is for

week'?"

Eusebius answers,
He who
Mai has not coutrivcd
It to enlighteu us

" This difficulty admits of a twofold solution.

tbat with the stores at bis coiuinand,

comes GoMK'l according to Mark, copies, cerseldom, [and only] in some (which is met with if it might be dispensed u^th especially tainly not in all,) the record of the other Evange.houid prove to contradict person wdl say who is for This, then, is what a lists rid of a gratuitous problem evading and entirely getting daring to reject anything "But another, on no account whatever circumstances, met with whatever which is, under readGospels, will say that here are two in the text of the elsewhere;) and that lof/, are to the case
;

the end.

What

follows,

inrs

(as is so

often

more on this curious subject. dry passages which he has ovcrlooVed.

little

noald not be difEcuU to indicate sunNeither indeed can

it

as by the be r'eceivcd,-inasmuch genuine rather than ihaf reading is not held to be

.faithful

and

pious,
;

//..,

nor

that

be denied that

the learned Cardinal has executed his task in n somcnhat slovenly manner.

*''

He

does not seem to have noticed tbat

is

what be quotes
iit

295,

at pp. 357-8

to be found in the Catena of Corderius

pp. 44S-9

149 J50
(

2622S3
457.

^He quotes (p. 300)

p. IGO,)

from an unedited Homily of John Xipbilinus,

in I'ossinus
;

Cod. Tat.

what be might bare found

liis

and

in

He was

eridcntly \uiacquainted with Cramer's work, though

Cramer too, (p. 446.) it had been pubwas

in his

of what Eusebius has be best to exhibit the whole as we are permitted to know far written on this subject,-as : continuously. He proceeds it piece to be really genuine, our .' Well then, allowing this
It

Im

business
tainlv
it

is

lished 3 (if not 7) years before

own,

else,

at p. 299, instead of quoting

i.

if I

And eerof the passage-. to interpret the sense into two, we shall find that the meaning
divide
s
'

Shuon, be would have quoted Cramer's Cattiur,

solve bis cwii slireud doubt, (at p. 299,

2GC.

concerning

It

power to

is n<.t

of our S.av.our opposed to what Matthew says in the

the text of a passage iu

Possinns, p. 3t3,) seeing that the Catena

scribed by Corderius

which Possinus published was tran(I'ossini Pro-fat. p.

(p.
il.)

Laving risen

end

of the Sabbath.'

For Mark

ex-

from n

31 S. in the Vatican.

In
.

the Vatican, too, he

p.

might have found the frai^ment he quotes

300) from

3C4 of the Catena of Possinus.

In countless places be might, by such refer116.) to Andreas

T*,.

JL
fi

enccs, have
4

improved Lis often manifestly faulty text.

Lati'jius

IL m lictness, the
ii.

sense,-the text being manifestly corrupt. translate according to the probably a gloss, explana orj of ^^ <.a<rK..a. p.Ko^. is and extends to the end K.,<i.-.o. begins at ch. xv. 42,

^^^--

Mai quotes the following from Latinus

(0pp.

T^,

Itlasins.

Sirletus (Cardinnlis) "scire te vnlt in Siciliu inventos esse ... libros

:^s:^-J^:^o..
to dcnol,.

ties Kusebii Cacsariensis

de Evangeliorum Diaphonid, qui nt ipse sperat breri

recovered,
:

iu lucem prodibunt."
I

suspect tbat

The letter is datd 15G3. when the original of this work

:

on the contrary, in
is
it

will be

found

this place seems to " lesson." denote the liturgical c/;oii, or

.

But this term was in S.Mark. There are 4S such K.<(.aXo.a Greek itthers. (. ^ and it is evidently so u ed here. ncp..o.^. a passage of Scripture, to have its true tecbmcal meanmg, and
1

^^^^[^:^"^:i

that Eusebius digested his " Questions" under heads

TTif toKOt'irijs

e.g. rtp]

toC Tcupov, koI

'A.iy...,a

(like

tia^uviai (p. 264)

^fpl r^s taKoi/iT>)t ircp) rijs ifainaaius iia-

h.re usel in

its

. x .. 4 h. foregon,g note,) eern t be ..,..0^, spoken of in the bturg.cal .ect.on. or designate the technical sense, and to
iii

^un'oi.

(p.

299)

"

lectio."

See Suicer,

voce.


4fi

Tlie (rificdl ^tiqqe.tliom of

[chap.

-1

E'>iihii>% r( marled upon.

'

prcssion,

('Now Mlien He was

shall read

risen early the first day of the

after

ibut

it is

the

commencement of

week,')
'

\\-Q

with a pause, putting a comma

risen,'

.V M.rinus)-"if people would

;

second qucshis reply to the but abstain from as-

Now when
ITc
(for

lie

was

the
He

sense of the words which

refer [Mark's]

r-inl

Maihew'sVhLe
:

(3^^

.a^r..)
it

refers

to

follow being kept separate.

Thereby, we shall

Teevelung of the Sallatl.-day

whereas. (,n

conformity with

'when
bath,'

was
it

risen' to ]\Iatthew's 'in the

end of the Saball

was 1h<n that

ro)>()

and

that

comes

nftcr, expressive as it is of

a distinct notion, we shall con-

nect with

what follows

(for it
to

was

'

earhj, the first

day of the
This
is

te TstabLhed idiom of He pro night period of the ensumg to an advanced nearly therefore, or very cecds-"The self-same moment Evangelists on 3- unde. tl^e self-same, is intended by
.

the language,)

oWsly

ref

week,' that
fact

'He

appeared

Mary
;

Mayilahne.')

in

different

what John
'the

also declares

'early,*

first

the Magdalene.

for he too has recorded that day of the week,' [Jesl's] appeared to Thus then Mark also says that He ap:

names: and there is no it began of the Sabbath, as :^en Matthew's,-' in the end "d John sweek first day of the to dawn toward the the week cometh Mary day of
'

discrepancy whatever be

peared to her early

not that

He
'

rose early, but long before,

The Jhen
in

first
it

was yet dark

'

^f^^^^^"^ difThe Evangelists rndicat. b,'

(according to that of Matthew,

for

in the end of the Sabbath

to

:'

though
'

He

rofiC

then,

He

did not apjxar

Mary

then,

and the ferent expressions one general way. a broad and

-And
;

"
11

vet,

a.

-^^^^^^

but

In a word, two distinct seasons are set before us by these words first, the season of the Eesurrection, which was ' in the end of the Sabbath ;' secondly, the season of our Saviour's Appearing, which was earh.' The former ', Mark writes of when he says, (it requires to be read with a pause,) Now, when He was risen.' Then, after 'Earlj-, the first a comma, what follows is to be spoken,
early.')
:

once, and dos^^e why did he not say so at 1 this so well, except I really cannot tell -;j> ^"^ ^^^ discussion ? somewhat ex raoidi ;

-which

although

at first

it

may sound

J3-the-eIofthemanerr.^^^^^^

'

'

rr;s;^er;L^^rt:^nt^y,-"^^^^^ with the sugges^

ZdZion
t
:

day of the week. He appeared to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He bad cast seven devils".'" Such is the entire passage. Little did the learned writer anticipate what bitter fruit his words were destined to bear 1. Let it be freelj' admitted that what precedes is calcu-

on

lated

at first sight

to occasion

nothing but surprise and

there really
is

perplexity.
to sohe.

For, in the

first place,

no problem
at the

The discrepancy suggested by " Marinus"

imaginary, the result

language of his but not by -X '"-ng I^us and interesting, theoij, I am Except on some such he regarded it as true. how Eusebius can have writte. . t fy unable to understand just q-ted, a e His admirable remarks To ii consistently. answer,-the proper answ i obv^us^y a full and sufficient a memovab e difficulty: and it is n flct-tothe proposed generally w^^ so -si^^^^

"n

met but that Eu.ebius, ha.-ing probably,) reproducd writer, (in Origen some older thought own.-doubtless because be

^^^^

outset, is plainly

(chiefly) of a strange

misconception of the meaning of the Evangelist's Greek,

found to have wvanahty of this, that they are

.

Ifumstance tb^t

L -ents

substituted

no one was ever better aware than Eusebius " These places of the Gospels w ould never have himself. occasioned any difficulty," he writes in the very next page,
in fact
'

as

X, Ma,,

.V.

9r25/.

So

far, I far i

only of wbat Eusebius have given tbe substance ba e g ^.^^^ ^^^ ^.,^, ^^.5^, ..,.

Tlic text

of Eusebius seems to Lave experienced stme disarraDgement

here.

^V.-o. "rf

"'-*
";'''"';.'7/"rJ"e

text. principal words in tbe

Bud deprnvatioD

of

tliis

Mai, Bill. P.P. JVora, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the origuial passage is given in tbe Api)endix (B).

see the Appendix (B) adfn. , c ^ovum Auclnr.u col. 780. v,.,n Avclnrium, places :_Combefis, .'l allude to tbe following

48

Tliv fifmitgpiir'.ss

of

irhni Eu$<liu>i

[chap.

^]

/((7S

m^QCficl tvucernhxg tht^f Verses.

iittot

49

what Euscbius wrote in reply to the f^Kond question of Marinus for what he wrote in reply to fhc fint ; in other words, for the dissertation which is occasioning us all this
difficulty.

(S
all'

Mark

xvi.

920,) "
in the
it is

met uiih

in o//

the copies:" at
it is

" events not

mcm-atv" ones.
is

Nay.
to

" met with

,cUIom."

In

fact,

ah^vt from " almost all" copies.

But,

Which

of these four statements

stand?

2. Hut next, even had the discrepancy been real, the remedy for it which is here proposed, and which is advocated with such tedious emphasis, would probably prove

comparntivelv unimportant.

satisfactory to
in the

no

one.

In

fact,
is

the entire method advocated

A-icious.
if

so the absolutely fatal,if trustbe two, on the contrary, would worthy ? But are they trustworthy ? be returned. The To this question only one answer can

Not

The first is The last second.

foregoing passage

hopelessly

begins hy advancing statements which,

to

The writer he believed them

exaggeration

is

itself. so gro^s that it refutes

Had

it

been

mcr%
copies

be true, he must have

known

are absolutely fatal to the

,2/ofthecopies,-even

were wanting in asserted that the verses in question insisted that the best had it been
:

verses in question.

This done, he sets about discussing the

possibility of reconciling

an isolated expression in
:

S.

Mark's

Gospel with another in S. Matthew's

just as if on that

depended the genuineness or spuriousness of the entire Conas if, in short, the major premiss in the discussion text
:

but to assert that, were without them,-well and good from "almost all" fourth century, in the beginning of the is palpably untrue. the Gospels ther were away, copies of which the Synac, had become then of the MSS. from

What

were some such postulate as the following;

in

"Whatever

one Gospel cannot be proved to be entirely consistent

is

with something in another Gospel,

as genuine."

not to be regarded

Did then the learned Archbishop of Caesarea really suppose that a comma judiciously thrown into the empty scale might at any time suffice to restore the equilibrium, and even counterbalance the adverse testimony of almost every MS. of the Gospels extant ? Wh}' does he not at least deny the truth of the alleged facts to which he began by giving currency, if not approval and which, so
;

long as they are allowed to stand uncontradicted, render

further argumentation on the subject simply nugatory
before, I really cannot
tell,

all

As

except on the hypothesis which

not the
least extraordinary fea-

How is the the ancient Versions were made ? existGospels eoju, of the contradictory evidence o{ aery Irena^us and HipWith for ? ntce hut t,ro io be accounted with the Synac, the old Latin and the Vulgate, polytus with versions to refer to, we and the Gothic, and the Egyptian author of such a statement was are able to assert that the are reminded of the exaggeration. cuilty of monstrous Fathers,-(g.nnts in in which the loose" and random way of Textual but very children in the Science Interpretation, about the state observed to speak Criticism ) are sometimes are reminded, for instance, their days. of the Text in an ancient Critic that the true of the confident assertion of but ;' is not ' three- score' reading in S. Luke xxiv. 13 copies ;" for that so "the accurate
the Latin,
all

.'.

We

We

hundred and three-score

has been already hazarded.

3.

Note

also, (for this is

ture of the case.) what vague and

random statements those The entire section arc which we have been listening to.

Origen and Eusebius. ^ And used to read the place, besides Ka, explained) the reading c/carov vet (as I have elsewhere sunt "Apud nos mixta k^^lvra is altogether impossible. of adverting to an evil which, omnia," is Jerome's way he reprewas yet not nearly so great as
serious as
it

Mosq. 13S, (printed by Mattliaci, Ancctt. Grac. u. 62.) also Cod. N. T. ix. 223-4.) Cod. Coislin. 195 fol. 165. Cod. Coislin. 23, (published by Cramer, Call. i. 251.) Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T. i. 4, Any one desirous of knowing ^Cod. Bodl. Laud. Gr. 33, fol. 79. fol. 169. more on tliis subjeet will do well to begin by reading Simon Mist. Crit. du
Jlosq. 130, (sec

Cod.

sents

was, into one Gospel the unauthorised introduction another. And 60 in a multitude of what belongs of right to obThe Fathers are, in fact, constantly of other- instances. copies about the ancient served to nrnke critical remarks
;

viz.

y. T.

p. 89.

SfC Mai's

foot-uote, iv. p. 257.

which simply cannot be

correct.

50

EiiscUks

)iof

aihcrKC to S.

Mark

xri.

20.

[chap.
it

']

The

Tcfiimoiij/

of Jerome.

51

And

yet the author of the exaggeration under review, be

is

He
I

appeared unto the Eleven as thej' sat at meat."

May
know

observed,

clearly

tioi

Eiaibinf:.

It

is

evident that

fie

has

be permitted to declare that I

am

distrustful of the pro-

nothing to say against the genuineness of the conclusion of Those random statements about the copies S. Mark's Gospel.
with which he began, do not even purport to express his

posed inference, and shall continue to feel so, until I

something more about the scholium in question ? Up to the time when this page is printed I have not succeeded in obtaining from

own

sentiments. Nay, Eusebius in a manner repudiates them for he introduces them with a phrase which separates them from himself: and, "This then is what a person -will say," is the remark with which he finally dismisses them.
;

Moscow the
which

details I

wish

for

but they must

the result

be already on the way, and I propose to

in a "Postscript" shall

embody
last

form the

page of the

Appendix

to the present

volume.

It would, in fact,
.

be to make this learned Father stultify

Are we

then to suppose that there was no substratum of

himself to suppose that he proceeds gravely to discuss a

portion of Scripture which he had already deliberately rejected

truth in the allegations to which Eusebius gives such pro-

minence in the passage under discussion

But, indeed, the evidence before us " Here are two eflFectuall}' precludes any such supposition. readings," he sa}'s, " (as is so often the case elsewhere ;)
as spurious.

The mutilated Codex (B) and

ciently

both of
ful

which are to be received,

pious,
t/iis

inasmuch
And

as

by the

faith-

(but in

? By no means. Mark's Gospel in the Vatican especially in the Sinaitic Codex (s) suffiestablishes the contrarj'. Let it be freely conceded, fact it has been freely conceded already,) that there

state of

S.

and

reading

is

not held to be genuine rather

thus

than

t/iat ;

nor that than

this."

we seem

to be
it

must have existed in the time of Eusebius }i)aiii/ copies of S. Mark's Gospel which were without the twelve concluding
verses.

presented with the actual opinion of Eusebius, as far as

can be ascertained from the present passage,

is

do but

insist that

there

is

nothing whatever in
I

if

indeed he

that circumstance to lead us to entertain one serious doubt

as to the genuineness of these verses.
to

to

be thought here to
;

offer

any personal opinion on the

part, I entirely doubt.

am

but concerned
tlie

subject at all

which, for

my own

maintain

tlint

there

is

nothing whatever in
us,

evidence

But whether we are

(

at liberty to infer the actual sentiments

which has hitherto come before

evidence o/ EiifefAtis,

of this Father from anything here delivered or not, quite certain at least is it that to print only the first half of the
passage, (as Tischendorf and Tregelles have done,) and then
to give the

to

certainly

not in the

induce us to believe that they are

a spurious addition to S.

Mark's Gospel.

III.

We

liave

next to consider what

reader to understand that he

is

reading the

Jehome
has delivered on this subject.

adverse testimony of Eusebius

as to the genuineness of the

else

end of

S.

Mark's Gospel,
;

is

nothing

but to misrepresent

command
and
it

the facts of the case

ceive those

and, however unintentionally, to dethe quotation

for

is

So great a name must needs any question of Textual Criticism commonly pretended that Jerome pronounces emattention in
:

who

are unable to verify

phatically against the genuineness of the last twelve verses

themselves.

of the Gospel according to S.

Mark.

little attention to
it is
;

been urged indeed that Eusebius cannot have recognised the verses in question as genuine, because a scholium purporting to be his has been cited by Matthaei from
It has

the actual testimony borne by this Father will,

siifiice

thought,

to exhibit it in a wholly

unexpected light

and
its

in-

duce us to form an entirely different estimate of

tical

prac-

a Catena at Moscow, in which he appears to assert that "according to Mark," our Saviour "is not recorded to have

bearing upon the present discussion.

appeared to His Disciples after His Resurrection :" whereas " Afterwards in S. Mark xvi. 14 it is plainly recorded that

be convenient that I should premise that it is in one of his many exegetical Epistles that Jerome discusses this matter. A lady named Hedibia, inhabiting the furthest
It will

e2


52
Jerome's actoiini of /lii
uisiia)

mvthod.

[chap.

//<
.]

(v

>-t,iwn io be

h(rc a Copyist of Etifichius.

53

extremil)' of Gaul, and

known

of her piety, had sent to

Jerome only by the ardoor prove him with hard questions.

to
:

Father, to discover that, on such occasions with this learned

ITedibia, instead of hearing Jerome addiessing

(vho

had
is

lie resolves her difficulties from Bethlehem ^

and I may

which interrogated him concerning the very problem

i)rescnt

at

be allowed to remind the reader of what is found to have been Jerome's practice on similar occasions, which, to

engaging our attention,)

we

find ourselves

only

judge from his writings, were of constant occurrence. In fact, Apodcmius, who brought Jerome the Twelve problems from Hedibia, brought him Eleven more from a noble
neighbour of hers, Algasia'. Once, when a single messenger had conveyed to him out of the African province a quantity of similar interrogatories, Jerome sent two Egyptian

Mariiius. listening to Einebiiis over again, addressing " Thii difficulty admits of a two-fold solution,"
;

Jerome

as if determined that no doubt shall be entertained bi cins Then, (making short as to the source of his inspiration.

work of the tedious disquisition of Eusebius,) " Either we is met with in shall reject the testimony of Mark, which almost all the Greek scarcely any copies of the Gospel,

monks the following account

of

how he

liad

proceeded

codices being

in respect of the inquiry,

(it

concerned
:

which they had addressed to him " Being pressed for time, I have presented you with the opinions of all the Commentators; for the most part, translating their very words; in order both to get rid of your question, and to put j'ou in possession of ancient authorities on the subject." This learned Father does not even profess to have been in
the habit of delivering his o\vn opinions, or speaking his

1 Cor. xv. 51,)

without this passage : (especially since it or seems to narrate what contradicts the other Gospels :) state what is true else, we shall reply that both Evangelists

Matthew, when he says that our Lord ^eek :' Mark, v hen he says that Mary Magdalene saw

rose 'late in the

Him

earlv, the first

own

sentiments on such occasions.

" This has been hastily

to his constant

dictated," he says in conclusion,

practice,

(alluding

which was to dictate, rather than to write,) " in order that I might lay before you what have been the

opinions of learned

men on

and presently, after of the week. a pause, must be added,' Early, the first day therefore who had He appeared to Mary Magdalene.' He Himself, risen late in the week, according to Matthew, Mark, appeared carlv the first day of the week, according to And this is what John also means, to Marv Magdalene. apshewiusi that it was early on the next day that He in what precedes peared." To understand how faithfully
thus pointed,'
:'

day of the week.' When He was risen

For the passage must be

this subject, as well as the argu-

ments by which they have recommended their opinions, ^ly own authority, (who am but nothing,) is vastly inferior Then, after speto that of our predecessors in the Lord." cial commendation of the learning of Origen and Eusebius, and the valuable Scriptural expositions of many more,
" M}' plan," (he says,) "is to read the ancients;
all

Jerome treads
of the other,

in the footsteps of Eusebius, it is absolutely

necessary to set the Latin of the one over against the Greek

to

prove

and to compare them. In order to facilitate of the this operation, I have subjoined both originals at foot is here page from which it will be apparent that Jerome not so much adopting the sentiments of Eusebius as simply
:

traii^lfitiiiij

his irords^.

things, to hold fast that which

Btedfast in the faith

good of the Catholic Church.

is

and to abide I muot now

'

" Hrjiis iiuKStionis duplex solutio

est.

[Toirov

Smh

iv

tl-n ri

Xu<rii.]

Aut

dictat-e replies, either original or at

second-hand, to other

eiiim

ncn

r> i-iiiimus

JIarci testimonium,

quod

in raris fertur [airatius fc tuti

lice capituluiu [t* Kf<pa\aun'

Questions which
after this
'

"We are not surprised, straightforward avowal of what was the method
lie

before me"."

^tpififia' Kviiugeliif,

omnibus Griecia:
i

libria

pcne

QiniT in
Tr.

fill.'

imn babentibus

[^i- toi/t<?

yap

ff^fS'"' '" *''<" ^O'l a;'Ti7pi^oi5

Ep. CXI. Opera,

Ibid. p. 844.

(ed. Vallara.) vol.

L pp.

811 43.

diversa HOTS NvKoi- itorrfXfou irtp.>t7pairToi t tc'Aoj] J prffisertim cum atque coiitraria Evangclistis ceteris uarrare videntur [/ictXiaro fhfp lx<>''

iniXo-iim Tf

Ibid. p.

793810.

See especially pp. 794, 809, 810.

Aut boo respondendum, T.:.' Aomi)' tiayytKiariiv iiaprvpia.'^ qnod utorviuf verum dixerit [ixaripay TrapaSiKrf'ap inrapxf'>'-<'"^X'-'P'>"l'^''"'

;:

54
This, however,

JTidibid'it

qnnlious

to

Jerome

[CHAV.
feature of

sheiin to

Ulong

to the region offnhlr.

!)0

is

not by

any means the strongest

.A Iho
.

the case.

freely of the materials

That Jerome should have availed himself ever so which he found ready to his hand in
all extra-

:;

::
"d

the pages of Eusebius cannot be regarded as at

ordinary, fter what

from himself of his customary method of proceeding. It would of course have suggested the gravest doubts as to whether we were here
just heard

we have

;::

Wha

listening to the personal seutiment of this Father, or not

but that would have been aU.

insi^ection to

"WTiat are

we

to think,

how-

ever, of the fact .that Hedihia's question to

Jerome proves on
to JEuseliiis ?

of the was the ancient notion ages of th have prevailed in different r, d fllvent ideas fabrication begins ;-that ends and .or Id s to where fiction on the subject ev n views are entertained

Whether Iledibia was an more attentively than to de idewho have considered that cunous proWem,to do ever f^-Hen in my way
allocable

explanation, can be which admits of only one It of course shelves result. a bv ord V one practical evidence of Jerome is con as t..
fict

uelrasL

actual personage or not,

Fiction?

"delv

discrepant

nil

must be aware.

I decline to investi-

be nothing more than a translation of the very

qucHtion tchich

Marinus had long before addressed

;

and speedily make the notable discovery that her next question, and her next, are also translations irord for word of the next two of
read on, perplexed at the coincidence Marinus.

We

do irtrpXron rpresent occasion. ofI doubbut ca^l or the

claim

fob-'
bat

established beyond

possibility

wha -e

For the proof of

this statement the reader is again

T^lJ^Tot an It is for the benefit of f iith translating b

with /. not tl. t^tmony^ are here presented Father amused evident that this learned
by the way, work of Eusebms (which, abridged fonn .n possessed in the same
j

^^^^^^^^^^^

referred to the foot of the page .

It

is

at least decisive

r^nrt of

the
to

(lost)

L'iom
tb
h
t

havJ
it

ourselves has come down to

:)

-and

he seems to
tbe

(Tvai i\7)Soi/i.]

Mattbaeas, quaudo Doniinus surrcxcrit vespere Babbati

Mar-

cus auleui, quaudo turn Tideril Maria Magdalena, id est,

Ita enim diBtiaguendum est,
yvuirtiov
:

mane prima

Eabbati.

Lvr

larded

attribute to " Hedibia as allowable to

'Acwras 5^:]

et,

Cum aotcm resurrcxisset [^era SiacrroX^s ivapammpcr, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima
:

Eabbati
fLif

mane

apparuit Maria; Magdalena:

iipitii Mapiqi

[iTra !moaTi\avT(i

^ii-riov,

Tlput rp

riv aafiPirmiy

Tp Mo^SaXiii/p.]
KarOatif,
otf'i

Ut

qui vespere sabbati, juxta

ylip iyliyfpTO.']

Matthsum
ipse

suiiexerat, [xapa

rf

caBPaTuv' tot

^'''^

mane prion
fii^

eabbati, juxta

yip Tp

Tou ra$0dTou iipdn)

significat,

Marcum, apparuerit Marise Magdaleuse. [irpwf Maptf Tp MoySaXiji'p.] Quod quidem et Joalterius diei

'CrpeTstTo
1 oc themselves.

TZlL^^o^^^^<^^^ solutions of possibly

distinction,
;

Scripture

diffi-

who

had never

annes EvangeBita
avrhy

mane Eum

visum

esse

demonstrans."

[toDto yovy iS^tcat

napTvp-fjtrms,^

Km

before Tea d ti thordifficulties

6 *luivviis vpwi Koi avrhi rp fitf rod aafifidrov &tp6at

For tbc Latin of tbe above,

p.

sec JJieronymi

Opera,

(ed. Vallars.) vol.

i.

rr gatories

T offer this only in the I

^y7

and even to representee as ongmattng^^th which suggested them way of suggestion, and

819
*

for tbe Greek, with its context, sec

Appendix (B).

lipuras ^h vpvror,

Hbis
255.)]

am

not concerned to

^he only
.

iytyfpfifyos t SfcTiip, "rapa tt

t^ MaT0ai^' ij/c oa^^druy ^af'CTai t^ KipKif itpwi rp /119 Twv aa$^aTwy ; [Eusebius
Tapa
fiiy

eerned to

^!f^^^ ^ l^^^'j^ ^ -^^^^/f^^^r tbat^t

wd

point 1

am

con-

^
is

/,,./.^or,

not

Euselius

who
it

ad JUarinum, (Mai,
Primura quois,
in

iv.

Cur Mattbaeus

dixerit, vespere
;

autem Sabbati

illucescente ejus

ZrS::t:t^J^::^^- ^^
. -

'.

critic to

pr^end

that

mia Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse

et

Marcus mane resurreetionein

factam esse commemorat. [HieroDjnius ad Hedibiam, (0pp. i. 818-9.)J riws, Hara rbr MarBatov, otf'i aafiBiruy if MayBaXtjyii Tcdca^ieVi; t^v ivitrraatyj

Ii<

.raBBirwy V MaySaXrir})

M"i

rn$ SxMjt Miopias

KUTa T^f
[

'lo'ii'i'^

17

avT^ ijtwaa vXaff

rapa t^

fLvritifitf

Tp ^la rov aapfiaTov,

,.., Kaxi

ri.y

'l.i.n,..

[Vt supra,

P-

26-J

Ut tvpra,

p. 257.]

Qo,.lo. juxta
vidit

Quomodo, juxta Matthxum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene

Domi-

pedibus MaTi.4 advoluta sit

^^f-^^-'^^l^'-^ZZL SaUatons, cum

^^^. ^^^ ^Heri Joanuem,adient .

num

resurgentcm

et
?

Joannes Evaugelista refert earn mane una sabbati

Domim., Noli

me

tangere. [P< supra, p.821.J

juxta sepulcrum 4ere

[17 rupra,

p. 819.]

'

56
is

Jn-omr xof a(hrrs(

io S.

Marl;

xri.

20.

[chap.

v.]

Jirusohm. Scierus of Aiitioch, or Ucsychius of

(Ti

in

any sense the

;

tesliinoiiy of

presented with

that

Jerome

is

Jerome which we are here one of those Fathers "who,

fact'',"

even though

tliey

copied from their predecessors, were yet

he actually quotes it, conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel that but to prove this, is to prove : and on more than one occasion 1 am concerned only to demorequired '.

competent to transmit the record of a

misunderstand the case.
adopts, but translates,

more than
lish

is

entirely to

the prolh-m
it

The man who

translates,

not
:

as well as its solution

who

deliberately asserts that

biting the furthest

emanated from a Ladj' inhaextremity of Gaul, who nevertheless was

its

is here Trcgelles, and Alford, the assertion of Tischendorf, and concerning the testimony of and Davidson, and so manv more, pass on, c-biming to Jerome and I have demolished it. I as an adverse witness have shewn that the name of Jerome
;

must

demonstrably not

author

who goes on

to propose as

ncA-cr again appear in this discussion. remarks of Eusebius are IV. and V. But now, while the

hers question after question rerhatim as he found them written

vet fresh in the

"n

memorv, the reader

is

invited to recal for

and then resolves them one by one in the rery language of the same Father such a writer has clearly conducted us into a region where his individual responsibility quite disappears from sight. We must hear no more about Jerome, therefore, as a witness against the genuineness of the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel. On the contrarj'. Proof is at hand that Jerome held these
in the

pages of Eusehius

the Resurthe author of the of Nyssa (above, Gregory rection," contained in the works of It will be rehas delivered on the same, subject. p. 39), that not membered that we saw reason for suspecting

moment what

"Homily on

Severus of Axtioch, but Hesychius of Jerusalem,

century,) has the better in question ', which, claim to the authorship of the Homily the Ulustnous at all events be assigned to
(both of

them writers of the

A-i'"

verses to be genuine.

The proper evidence

of this

is

supplied

by the

fact that

he gave them a place in

his revision of the

old Latin version of the Scriptures.

If he had been indeed

however, cannot Great. Bishop of Nyssa, the brother of Basil the

"In

the

persuaded of their absence from "almost all the Greek codiees,"

does any one imagine that he would have suffered them to

more accurate
cordiun- to

copies," (says this writer,)

its

stand in the Vulgate ?

If he had met with them in "scarcely

do men really suppose that he would yet have retained them ? To believe this would, again, be to forget what was the known practice of this Father who, because he found the expression "without a cause" (ftVj;, S. Matth. v. 22,) onlj' " in certain of his codices," but " in the true ones," omitted it from the Vulgate. Because, not
any
copies of the Gospel,"

'Now when He some copies, however, this also is added, He appeared first was risen early the first day of the week. devils.' Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven
to

Mark has

" the Gospel acend at 'for they were afraid.' In

Mnry

to This, however, seems to contradict

some extent what we

that the hour of the before delivered; for since it happens known, how does it come ni"ht when our Saviour rose is not But the saying that He rose ' early ?' to%e here written
will

however, he read "righteousness" (where

in S. Matth. vi. 1,

we

read "alms")

he exhibits "justitiam" in his revision of On the other hand, though he knew of 5ISS. (os he expressly relates) which read "works" for "children" [epyuv ior reKvwv) in S. Matth. xi. 19, he does
the old Latin version.

read with skill. prove to be no ways contradictory, if we inteUigently to introduce a comma after, "We must be careful He was risen :* and then to proceed,' Early in

Now when

the Sabbath
that

He appeared first to Mary Magdalene in order with 'when He was risen' may refer (in conformity
:'

not admit that (mauifestl)' corrupt) reading,

ever, is found both in the
Sinaiticus.

which, how-

Codex Vaticanus and the Codex

Let this
is

further.

It

I forbear to press the matter an additional proof that Jerome accepted the
suffice.
'

'early what Matthew says) to the foregoing season; while appearance to Mary."*-1 presume it is connected with the any remarks would be to abuse a reader's patience to offer

on aU

this.
p.

passage If a careful perusal of the foregoing

Trogelles, Printed Text, p. 247.

See above,

2a

'Sec above,

p. 40-1.

See the Appendii (C)

2.


5S
HcjiihiHS
also copiea Euscliua.

[chap.

v.]

Victor of Aitiioc/i.

does not convince

him that Ilesychius

fact.

is

here only reproduc-

at all events

ing what he had read in Eusebius, nothing that I can say

will

cluding verses of S.

cannot be thouglit to have repudiated the conMark for at the end of his discourse,
:

persuade him of the

;

The
is

icords

indeed are

b)-

no means the same

but the sense

altogether identical.

he quotes the 19th verse entire, without hesitation, in confinniition of one of his statements, and declares that the

He
the

seems to have also known the work of Victor of Antiocb.

to remove all doubt from the reader's mind that work of Eusebius was in the hands of Hesychius while he wrote, I have printed in two parallel columns and transferred to the Appendix what must needs be conclusive ' for it will be seen that the terms are only not identical in which Eusebius and Hesj'chius discuss that favourite problem with the ancients, the consistency of S. Matthew's 6-^e r&v aajS^drmv with the trptoi of S. Mark. It is, however, only needful to read through the Homily in question to see that it is an attempt to weave into one piece a quantity of foreign and incongruous materials. It is in fact not a Homily at all, (though it has been thrown into

However,

words are written by S. Mark ^. I shall not be thought unreasonable, therefore, if I contend that Hesychius is no longer to be cited as a witness in this behalf: if I point out that it is entirely to misunderstand

and misrepresent the case to quote n pw-'iiig allusion of Iiih to as uliaf Eusebius had long hforc (hUvcrcl on thv xanie subject, It is demonteaching. if it exhibited his own individual he is not bearing testimony to the condition of the MSS. of S. Mark's Gospel in his own age neither, inHe is simply amusing deed, is he bearing testimony at all. himself, (in what is found to have been his favourite way,) with reconciling an apparent discrepancy in the Gospels; and he does it by adopting certain remarks of Eusebius.
strable' that
:

that

form;) but a Dissertation,

is

into

which, Hesychius,,

(who
tliat

known

to

have been very curious in questions of

kind*",) is

observed to introduce solutions of most of

Living so late as the vi**" century ; conspicuous neither for a copyist only, so far as his his judgment nor his learning remarks on the last verses of S. Mark's Gospel are con;

those famous diflBculties which cluster round the sepulchre of

cerned

; this

writer does not really deserve the space and

Redeemer on the morning of the first Easter Day'; and which the ancients seem to have delighted in discussing, as, the number of the Marys who visited the sepulchre the angelic appearances on the morning of the
the world's

attention

we have been compelled to bestow upon him. VI. We may conclude, by inquiring for the evidence
Victor of Antioch. the familiar style in which this Father's

borne by

Resurrection

and above

all

the seeming discrepancy, already

And from
is

name
than

adverted

to,

in the Evangelical notices of the time at

which

always introduced into the present discussion, no

less

our

Lord

rose from the dead.

I need not enter

more par-

ticularlj' into

but I must not dismiss

See

an examination of this (so-called) 'Homily': it without pointing out that its author
1.

from the invariable practice of assigning to him the date " A.D. 401," it might be supposed that "Victor of Antioch" Yet is there scarcely a Comis a well-known personage.
mentator of antiquity about whom less is certainly known. Authors" Clinton (who enumerates cccxxii "Ecclesiastical from A.i). 70 to a.d. 685) does not even record his name.

llie

Appendix (C)

For the rtatement in

(iii.

line 5, see 2.

'

In the Sccl. Grac. Monumenia of Cotelerius,

of 60 problems, bended,
TTJs

53,) may be Been the

example of

dis.'Ofsion if

"ixnayayTi knopiSiv xal luiKuatinv, iKktyi7<ra

The
is

recent "Dictionary of Greek and

Roman Biography"
(his latest editor)

i-wnopL^ 4k

*vayyf\iKris avfi^vlas

rov aytov *HtTvxiov irpfff0VT^pov

'Upoao\iiiut:

From

this it appears that Hesychius, following the

just as silent

concerning him.
Ti?

Cramer

Eusebius, wrote a work on " Gospel

Harmony,"

of which

nothing but an
I"

abridgment has come down to

'

us.

6iu>ius

<col

ri irapi
iii.

WapK<f yfypanfiffoV

"O

fu)'

olv ILvpios,

it.T.X.

He

says that he writes,

Uphs r^v toS viroKci/i/fou irpo/SA^fiaroi

pr)juiv

At'o-if, xal
(f.T.A.

Greg. KysH. 0pp.

'

415

D. See

above, p. 29, note (g).

Ta'i'

i\Xa?>'

rur kotI
iii.

riir

Hiraaiv Tur
C.

iva^voufvav fijT^ireiDj',

Greg. Xyss. 0pp.

400

See bulow, chap. X. " Fasli Somatti, vol.

ii.

Appendix

viii.

pp. 395

195.

60
calls his

Victor of Andoch, and

/n'fi

[chap.
to attribute

v.]

Catena on 8. Mark's
it

Go-^j>cl.

01

very existence in question; proposing

S.

that

Lis

Commentary on

Mark

to Cyril of Alexandria".

Kot
an in-

to delay the reader needlessly,

Victor of Antioch
of the

is

teresting

and unjustly neglected Father

Church

tSL
Sgm
1

whose date,
to

from Cyril of Alexandria

took place a.u. 407),
v"'

he apparently quotes sometimes died a.d. 444, and yet seems have written soon after the death of Chrysostom, which
as

(inasmuch

who

may

be assigned

to the first half of the

century,

suppose a.d. 425

450.

And

in citing

him

author's plan not s much proves to have been the acquaintance with the results of his o give the general Theodorus of Mopsuestia. of Origen, ApoUinarius. with or without acknowEusWus, and Chrysostom; as, (hut -^h great license to transcribe largely . Thus, the -^olc of h these writers. ffom one or other of any hint that 39, is taken, without lote on S.Mark xv. 38, uord.) from Chrj(much of it, ,cord /or "t is not oric^inal. The Gospel". R. Matthew's
.
'

Z^h Homily
e

on

I shall

always refer to the best (and most easily

accessible)

of his work, that of volume of his " Catenae."

edition

':T: to
S

sa"; of\he

first

Cramer (1840)
behind.

in the first

Ma I

xvi. 9.

On

the other

on twelve lines of his note latter half of th hand, the

Lett
From
the confident

mentioned professes to

.'-

the sul^tance o
It is

.ha
act an

But
air in

a far graver charge

is

which Victor's authority is appealed to by those who deem the last twelve verses of S. Clark's Gospel spurious, it would of course be inferred that his evidence is hostile
to the

eM t

verses in
is

question;

whereas his evidence to their

genuineness
record.

the most emphatic and extraordinary on Dr. Tregelles asserts that " his tcsiimbny to the

absence of these twelve verses from some or

stands iu contrast to his

many

copies,

own

ojnnion on the subject."

is

But
the

the same subject Euscliu. had written on con" Quaestlones ad Marmum from those very th s offered already. -bich so much has been c en mterest or the detract from the houlh it does not sensibly to eh nge must be admitted entirely tal^: of Victor's work, comes before supposed evidence. He Ihe character of his of an Author : his of a CompUer than us rather in the light as than a Commentary: and :.oki rather a'' Catena" plam is it, at Quite V f.nt it is irenerally described.

AH

Victor delivers no " opinion :" and his " testimony "
direct reverse of

:?itrnt

Ut tlie'IIimLts
to,

contained in
all.

what Dr. Tregelles

asserts

it

to be.

This

Xcd

arc .ot

Victor's at
is

learned and respected critic has strangelj* misapprehended

the evidence
I
".

no one but Chrysostom

responsible:

Tor one half of them for the other half, no

^^f^^^^

must needs be brief in this place. I shall therefore confine myself to those facts concerning " Victor of Antioch," or rather concerning his work, which are necessary for the
purpose iu hand
i*.

"Bu:i"!:::r'sl.miliar

Now, his Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel, as all must see who will be at the pains to examine it, is to a great extent a compilation. The same thing may be said, no doubt, to some extent, of almost every ancient Commentary in existence. But I mean, concerning this particular work,
Vol. L Prafat. p. xiviii. See below, note Qj). " Victor AntiocbeDus" (Tites Dr. Tregelles in

E^^^^^ use of the writings of concernof hard Questions -especially of those Resolutions Evangelical accounts Inconsistencies in the ;;;: the seeming Eusebius address^ to Marinus. oHh Resurrection," which concentrated^ attention is now to be n wbich the reader's the .ery first of Eusebius by nam Victor cites that work also contains
'

That his last page !at of ti Commentary. pointed na>nc), has been already fauot tion from it, (also ?,/ concerning to what is found

our

Attention
xvi.

is

now
in

in.-ited

S Mark

9-20

the

ta-st

page lut one

(p.

444) of

"

dicit irt vfvdBfvTtti

f

his K. T. toL th vaph KdpKi^ TfKtvraiov tv not <pfp6fifVov"

i.

p.

214.)

For additional

details

concerning Victor of Antioch, and bis work, the

EtndiouB in Eucb matters are referred to the Appendix (D).

toUaCop^J\^iofEmehiH^
62
Victor's vork.

C3

Victor of A))imh
Il sliall

al^'O

*hnni
;

[CHAI>.

be given

in

English

because I will
,be

convince unlearned as well

us learned readers. Victor, (after

quoting four lines from the 89""

reconciles (exactly as Euscbius
is

HomUy

^oA "/''"\!^

of Cbrysoslom'),

observed to do') the notes

1,

cita in tho

i. Evangttol ''*'"-;_

'

..

ope wa, aotually lying dispute. .,i,a beyond

of time contained severally in S. Matth. xxviii.

w'\. 2,

S.Mark

S.

Luke

xxiv.

1,
:

and

S.

John

xx. 1.

After which,

he proceeds as follows

"In certain copies of Mark's Gospel, next comes, 'Now when [Jesl's] was risen early the first day of the week. He appeared to Mary Magdalene ;' a statement which seems inconsistent with Matthew's narrative. This might be met

;rp?e::=:erx:--i.n.o-bi._
. T1.0

following

is

the crijin.l of

"'.'"j^^f "i'lrrL'Tj
^

4"^'? toD .aP., ,a,a

pri.ou ,pu.t,

l^i^

(see l>elo )

Map'?

"J

,^^.^

g^. ^..,^,.,

by asserting, that the conclusion of Mark's Gospel, though found in certain copies, is spurious. However, that we ma)' not seem to betake ourselves to an off-band answer, we
propose to read the place thus
risen:' then, after a
:

llrl, --

i->-"'M'- "*";"''! l;;l^-."

/rom LThe extract

left

Now when
'

comma,

to go on,

'early the

[Jesus] was
first

f.Jcol
/fj-<

: the
'

e.hibHi>>3"'e

day

O/EUSEBIUB

arf Jlf<"-''-

of the

Mary Magdalene.' In this refer [Mark's] 'Now when [Jesvs] was risen' to way we Matthew's ' in the end of the sabbath,' (for then we believe Him to have rken ;) and all that comes after, expressive as it is of a different notion, we connect with what follows. Mark relates that He wbo ' arose (according to Matthew) in the end of the Sabbath,' uas seen by Mary Magdalene early' This is in fact what John also declares; for he too has reto
'

week He appeared

(VICTOB.)

(...,.t",.p"^ M.^-r'""""

.=s.;..p-- '""'';

tv

^"

corded that

'

early,'

'

the

first

day of the week,' [Jesus]

appeared to the Magdalene.

are set before us

In a word, two distinct seasons

' ;

Eesurrection,

which

by these words: first, the season of the was in the end of the Sabbath

secondly, the season of onr Saviovk's Appearing,

which
2a,Tiipo, ^...J..^-'".
^'''

was 'early".'"

No one,
to

I presume, can read this passage

is

and yet hesitate

^f"iv. P-

admit that he
over again.

here listening to Eusebius "ad Mari-

num"

But

if

any one
is

really retains a particle

[EusEKirB. apud ilai,

-ob.J

of doubt on the subject, he

requested to cast his eye to

Cramer, i. P^.^^^^^ A^TIOCH., .rf. . ^da. .^^ _^^ ^ j.^^ ^,,^jj ^'^ 'e^' /''"" Evan<;o, 0/ Me
Keg. 178.)]

the foot of the present page; and even an unlearned reader,

'

Compnrc
Mai,

Criinicr's Vicl. jli//.

p. 441^, line

9,

with Field's Chrys.

iii.

p. 539, line

721.
257-8.
i.

v.o. ... c.. . ..... -r;:i^::,t,':::~.^rnHS .o.. ..p. ^--* "',:r;r.tr;r;c "til'^irvK-.. . cop,in.. see >..

iv. p.

"

Cramer,

vol.

p. 444, line

19 top. 445,

line 4.

64
"
I

Memorable Tatimoiii/ of Vicfor

[chap.

v.]

to th,

,uuinfuf'<'i

ofthrse Vers,

C")

know very
who are
ffiis

well," he

603-8,

those
in

at Ihc

placed."

paim But when writing on

" what has been suggested by io remore the apparent inconaistencics

S.

wniCI LXHIBITS

Mark

xvi.

20,
what

he does more.

After abridging, (as his manner

is,)

Eusebius explains with such tedious emphasis, (giving the substance of five columns in about three times as many
Hues,) he adopts the exact expressions of Eusebius,

him in his very mistakes, and finally transcribes The reader is therefore requested to bear in mind

follows
what

TO SAY, FROM GOSPUL VEK.TV: THAT IS ^VAS RISEN EAULY THE rv.^DS. '>-0W W,.EN [Jk<U.] TO WITH S.ONS FOLTHE WEEK/ ^C DOWN D.V words Victor of Antioch lowU: A>.HN ^'-And With these on S. Mark to an end. biin-- his Coum-.entarv m.elroundly stated by a h,gh y H^;. hen we tindU century^
-.HE

L
a

'

Hg"
)

his words.

that

are

he has been listening to is not tlit tatimony of Victor at all: but the tcitimony of Eusebius. This is hut one more echo
therefore of a passage of which

alent theylmebeen
(2
)

first half of the vFather, writing in the of S Mark last Twelve Verses That the reason why the Gospel is beeause ancient copies of his

fL

son.e Copy^^ls d.hh,roiely omitted by

we

are

all

beginning

b)'

this

JgLt

onnssion was the subjeetne That the ground for such appea to the result of any
of indi:iduals.-o/

time to be weary

so exceedingly rash are the statements

doclentary

with which
all to

it is

introduced, so utterlj- preposterous the prodiflSculty

posed method of remedying a

be purely imaginary.
"XATiat

which proves after

held that Victor, therefore, clearly consequence of been e.punged in theTer'es n question had the with what is met w.th iheiJSeniing; inconsistency
evidence.

then

is

the testimonj' of Victor

.''

Does he

offer

independent statement on the question in dispute,

any from

"%';:fhe.
by
reference t^

convinced on the other hand, bad that " accurate" copies, "very many" and
:

himself

which his own private opinion (though nowhere stated) may be lawfully inferred ? Yes indeed. Victor, tliough frequenth' a Transcriber only, is observed ever)' now and then to come forward in his own person, and deliver his inBut nowhere throughout his work dividual sentiment*. does he deliver such remarkable testimony as in this place. Hear him
!

genuine the verses in question are v- i, o Copy, ^hich enparticular the Palestinian That in
(4

r,i\

mIucU ne the deliberate testimony

" Notwithstanding that

in

very
'

many

eopies of the present

Gospel, the jmssagc beginning, early the fr-it day of the week,
dalene,' be not found,

Kow

when \Jesvs\ was

risen

He

ajipiared first io

Mary Magit

at all events, inasmuch as in very IT TO EXIST, HAVE, OCT OF ACCURATE COPIES, SUBJOINED ALSO THE AOUXT OF OUR LoRD's Ascension, (following the words 'for they were afraid,') IN conformity with the Palestinian exemplar of Mark
he spurious,)

{eertain

individuals having supposed

to
z-

yet irs,

MAXY ME HAVE DISCOVERED

frequently met with that the statement gorical refutation of Antioch is irMo^ them. the work of Victor of prosum up ; and to review the
Inquiry. hitherto made in this gress which has been ' been examined who ar F he. of the Church have

;tl ihe Ticihe Vert-es

d isjni t e ;v>aicD.

is

i-ttw=

We are now

at liberty to

ovK

iyvoi^' i(
Sia\!!<rai

us

ttaiit>^povs

oinaatas
A'ict.

yfyti'iiffffai ipaaiv

ol riiv ioKovffav Siai.

commonly
:

hostile represented as beating

;

^uriav

aTovid^otTts.

Ant. ed. Cramer, vol.

iv.

p.

445, L 23-5
:

last
.

Gospel Twelve Verses of S. Mark's

f^^.^J^^^l and thej have been

U
referred to

referring to

what Eu^ebius eajs ajiud Mai,

2G4 aiidZGo

iiii)

287

290

Portt.e original of this

reader re.ar.aWe passage tbe

( V. vi, vii.) e.g. in the passage last quoted.

Appenilix (K).

66
casilj'

The

{siijipof-fcJ)

fiofdk triiknce of

[chap.

-]

revieurd. S,> Fafhn-!^ of the C/nireh,

07

Three of them, (Ilesychius, Jerome, The remaining two, Yictor,) prove to be echoes, not roicts. (Gregory of Nyssa and Severus,) are neither voices nor
reduced to
one.

echoes, but merely TKnius

Gkegory of Nvssa having

really

to have been of Eusebius are found unknown writer oi by an adopted, and in part transcribed, Sever'JS is not cercenturv,-whether IIesvchius or the vi"> not were Hesychius, then ,t was tainlv known:" but if it

II

The observations

no more to do with this discussion than Philip of Macedon and " Severus" and " Hesychius" representing one and the same individual. Only by a Critic seeking to mislead his
reader will any one of these
five

Fathers be in future cited

as witnessing against the genuineness of S.

Mark

x\-i.

20.

Eusebius
I.

is

the solitary witness

*.

who

survives the ordeal of

exact inquiry

But,
(as

EusEBius,

we have

seen), instead of

proclaiming his

distrust of this portion of the Gospel, enters

upon an elabowhat His is found in the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. John. testimony is reducible to two innocuous and whollj' unconrate proof that its contents are not inconsistent with

1 his writer, howSeverus, then not Hesychius. convince us have been,) is careful to ever, (whoever he may about the entertained no doubt uhaternthat individuals he snys that he Scripture, for he genuineness of "this part of objections of remove the (hypothetical) frites in order to ^a>, he their (imaginary doubts others, and to silence that hey weie as ejcmunc, and declares freelv quote, the rer.cs the public certain Sunday night read' ill his dav on a anone,-(it To represent such Service of the"Church. ... whether we call him 'Hesychius matters nothing. I repeat, hostile wit" of Antioch,")-PS a
Seve"rus
;

if

of Jerusalem" or

nected propositions

the

first,

Tliat

there existed in his

Severus He is case. misrepresent the facts of the ness, is simply to verses which champion of the on the contrarv, the strenuous
he

day a vast number of copies in which the last chapter of (the correlative S. Mark's Gospel ended abruptly at ver. 8 of which of course would be that there also existed a vast number which were furnished with the present ending.) The second, That by putting a comma after the word 'AvaaTa<:, S.Mark xvi. 9, is capable of being reconciled with S. Matth.
;

xxviii. 1
it

'

I profess myself unable to understand

how

comes that illustrious Father Ill \s for Jerome, since only, he is a tmnsMor of Eusebius before us in this place as says concerning for what Eusebius no more responsible Hobbcs of Malmesbury is responS Mark xvi 9-20, than related concerning that Thucydides has sible for anvthing a,n Individually, however, it is cer the Peloponnesia: war.
of that

is

commonly represented

as

impugning.

can be pretended that Eusebius would have subscribed to the opinion of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that the Gospel of S.

Mark was

never finished by
it

its
;

inspired Author,

the genuineness Jerome was convinced of writings he not difi-erent places of his for in two xvi 9-20 aU the 14th verses, but he exhibits only quotes the 9th and
:

S.Mark

or was mutilated before

came abroad

at all events, that

twelve in the Vulgate.

the last Twelve Verses are spurious.

'

How

shrewdly was

it

remarked by

Mattliaei, eighty years ago,

" Scholia

an age when Victor of Aktioch, who wrote of infallible oracle on points Eusebius w;s held to be an

lY

Lastlv,

m
,

eerie, id quibus

de integritate hujus
foDte

loci dubitatnr,

omnia ex uno fonie pro-

Biblical Criticism,
rest
)

-having

dutifully

rehearsed

Gike the

tnanarunt.
loco

Ex codem

Hieronymum etiam

hausisse intelligitur ex ejus

qnem

laudavit Wetst. ad ver. 9.

Similiter

Scholiastse
4<raia

omoes

in principio

TonlL

hajas Eraiigelii in disputationc de lectione ir

dent.

t^

ir/>i>4>4T>)

ex nno penii.

Jortasse Origenes atwior

reader
is

est

hvjus dubiialioait." (N. T. vol.

p. 270.) p.

The

invited

to remcinber

what was

ofl'ered

above

in

47

(line 23.)
Jt is

not often, 1 think, that one finds in 5ISS. a point actually inserted

that illustrious Fath^^^f^'^J"^the feeble expedient of with the narrative of S.Matthew, S.Mark xvi. 9 of Eusebius concerning observed to cite the statements -is S.Mark, only in order to refuse of ike lost Tueke Verses the to opinion,- for Kot that he opposes opinion them. this be^ Victor of Antioch on opinions of Eusebius and of
h'alf

after 'Aratrras ii.

Snch a point
72,)

is

found, however, in Cod. 34

in

(= Coisl.

195,)

and Cod. 22

(= Beg.

and doubtless

many

other copies.

counter-statement,-fact

but statement he m^ts^ were probably identical;) Scarce!) he confronts with fact.

r2

v]
68
Till
I'n'ii^t,',- (.
ii/i i,ri-

viihciut io

Eidhuttum

Zli/'il"',ii(s.

on

(li^>iii^f:(ll,

icitll

[dlAI".

ot un..vor.ble.

He says,-" Some
(viz. at ver. 8.)

of the

Commentators

can aiijlliing be iiuagiued more emphatic than his testimony,

or more fonclusivc.

.UAo tl.t here,"

"the

Go.spel accord.ng to
is

Mark
is

For the reader

r.ijirrssl;/

requested to observe that here

first

is

an

Ecclesiastic, writing in the

uitncse'i 1o
lie

half of the

v'''

century,

who

yntiiiii(iir>'x

of the Verses iu dispute.

of one " (^Vhich clearly is his version of the statements iion testimony has already Fathers whose or more of the four' we attention.) " This portion a share of our occupied .. large
,nus
also iir.etTret,
is

fini.V.es;

and that what follows

a spurious add,-

and ascertained their existence in very many 5ISS. (to? ev TrXeiaToi?). He had derived his text from " accurate" ones (ef uKpi^wv dimlie
reference,

had made

he says,

proceculs,) however," (Euthymius

since
it

there
idle

ypd^tov.)

More than

that: he leads his reader to infer that

he

liad personally resorted to tlic

famous Palestinian Copy,

the inspired verity,
either to Je-

ihc text of which was held

to exhibit

and had

satisfied

himself that the concluding section of S.

Mark's Gospel

tcai ilicre.

He had, therefore, been

;

had inquired for those venerable records which had once belonged to Origen and Pamphilus*"
rusalem, or else to Caesarea

ll>c proceed to discuss it. Poli S,.opmr and then quote seeks support from desperate which ca.e mast indeed be EccleWhat po.ssible sanction can an a quarter like this. to the hypobe supposed to yield siastic of the xi.<" century of its mGospel, as it left the hands thesis that 5. Mark's work ? Author, was an unfinished
'

no:hin. in it to linger ov^er such

prejudicial to the truth

a writer.

^'-But

One

might almost as well

spi red
I,

and had inspected them. weightj', I was going to

say,

Testimony more express, more more decisive, can scarcely

be imagined.
discussion.

It

may

with truth be said to close the present

With

this, in fact, Victor lays

down

his pen.

So

also

the evidence of the Mbb. remains to ascertain ^vhat is the more And the ISISS. require to be on thi= -.biect. our opponent it is to ifiem that .utcnti'velv "studied, because On tliem in confidently to appeal are accu.toiued most the most ancient The nature and the value of l-.,ct thev r.lv. scrupulously inavailable, shall be
Mnnusc'ripi "testimony

may

I.

I submit that nothing whatever which has hitherto

Chapters. vestigated iu the next two

come before us lends the slightest countenance to the modern dream that S. Mark's Gospel, as it left the hands of its inNeither Eusebius spired Author, ended abruptly at ver. 8. nor Jerome; neither Severus of Antioch nor Hesychius of least of all Jerusalem certainly not Victor of Antioch
;

in loc.

Gregorj' of Nyssa,
strous fancy.

yield a
notion

particle of support to that

mon-

The

is

an invention, a pure imagina-

tion of the Critics ever since the days of Griesbach.

It remains to be seen whether the V'hat less unaccommodating.

MSS.

will prove

some-

VII. For

it

can be of no possible avail, at this stage of

the discussion, to appeal to

EVTHYMIUS ZiGABENUS,
the Author of an interesting Commentarj', or rather Compilation on the Gospels, assigned to a.d. 1116. in fact, full five

Euthymius

lived,

hundred

jears too late for his testimony to

be of ihe slightest importance.

'

Such as

it is,

however,

it is

Scrivener's JniroSvrtion, pp.47, 125, 431.

m.

Yi.]

J/SS. only nol vmiuimons tonceruing

thisc Ver^e^.

71

of the

MSS.

is

even extraordinary.

"With the exception of

is

the two uncial

tiot

MSS. which have

just been named, there

one

Codex

in existence, uncial or cursive,

(and we aie

acquainted with, at least, eighteen other uncials'", and about

six

hundred cursive Copies of

this Gospel,)

which leaves out

CHAPTER
IN&M
. Jr.>t xvi.
l.N

VI.

the last twelve verses of S. Mark.

FAAOLK OF THESE VEHSES.-Pahi

the

I.

Irrational

9-20, c.^,,^ / ,,,,y MS. in Clam to InfallMity ut up on

world except two,-

dCod.^(^.U).-nnet^o Codices Ommon, (p. I^^-Mnpolation.

itxt (p.

Uhalf of Cod. B (p. 73) shcun tolefullofgroL

81),_W Terur,iom
"".

(p. ^Q),-Corrupliom of the of the Truth (p. 83).-TAe teM-

'' 71' n, ''/ (p. 8C). noticdhitandmg

*'

^'"'

""

'-'"' *^--'

'" *^

Z"^"-*'^.

The inference whicL an unscientific observer would draw this fact, is no doubt in this instance the correct one. He demands to be shewn the Alexandrine (A) and the Parineither of thcin probably removed by much sian Codox (C), more than fiftj' years from the dale of the Codex Sinaiticus, and both unquestionabl}' drririd from different originals; and he ascertains that no countenance is lent by either of those venerable monuments to the proposed omission of this lie discovers that the Codex Bezae part of the sacred text, (D), the only remaining verj' ancient MS. authority, notfrom

withstanding that

it is

observed on most occasions to exhibit

at least seems to be required to account for the marked difference between them. If the first belongs to the beginning the second may be referred to the middle or latter part of the iv'" century. But the two Manuscripts agree in this that they are tcithout the last tuelrc verges

The two oldest Copfe. of the Gospek in existence are the famous Codex in the Vatican Library at Rome, known as Codex 11 and the Codex which Tischendorf brought from Mount Sinai in 1859, and which he designates by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (k). These two manuscripts are probably not of equal antiquity \ An interval of fifty years
;

an extraordinary sjinpathy with the Vatican (B),

with

here

sides

and

against

and

H.

He

inquires after all the

other uncials and all the cursive

of

them dating from the

x"" ceutuiy,)

explained to

him

irhy it is

in existence, (some and requests to have it to be supposed that all these

MSS.

manv
ates,

witnesses,

belonging

to so nianj' different patriarch-

provinces, ages of the

Church,

have

entered into

grand conspiracy to bear false witness on a point of this magnitude and importance ? But he obtains no intelligible
a

answer to this question.

student to

lu both,

after

e'^o^5.ro

^^

(vor.

of S.Mark's Gospel 8), comes the subscription

How, then, is an unprejudiced draw any inference but one from the premisses?
tells

That single peculiaritj' (he

himself) of bringing the

MAPKot' Let it not be supposed that we have any more

class to produce.

'* """''''' '"

^^-

'-"ArrEA,ON KATA
facts of this

second Gospel abruptlj' to a close at the 8th verse of the

xvi'' chapter, is absolutelj' fatal to the
tion.

two Codices in ques-

It

is

useless to din into his ears that those Codices

AU

has been stated.

It

endence of Manuscripts is one,-the evidence of Fathers and Versions another. The very
reverse
is

is

not that the

are probably both of the iv"" century,

unless

men

are pre-

pared to add the assurance that a Codex of the

is

iv"" centurj-

the case.

Manu-

scripts, lathers,

of liicemty a

and Versions

alike, are only not

in bearing consistent testimony.

unanimous

Gospels, than a

more trustworthy witness to the text of the Codex of the v*. The omission of these
itself, destroj's
[viii]

But the consentient witness

is

twelve verses, I repeat, in

his confidence in
r,

For .ome remarks od

this

subject the reader

referred to the

pcudiji (F).

Ad'^

Viz. A,

[v]

D [vi]

E,

F. K,

M, V,

A.

(quarc),

[ix]

G, H, X, S,

[ix, x].

72
Cod.

C/i'iniifiT

of CoihJ.
:

B and k
is

1o Ir

amrlaiiml

[chap.

V,.]

Gnural Character

of Codex B.
their testimony in

R and

Cod. S

for it

obvious that a copy of the Gos-

alternative will he left us but to reject

respect of S. IMark xvi.
tion
;

]icls wliicli li:;s

boon so seriously inutilafcd in one place

may

920

with something like indigna-

liavc
to

been slightly tnmpcrcd with in another.

He

is

willing

and

universal Christento acquiesce in the belief of

suspend his judgment, of course.

of their high antiquity.

The two

oldest copies of

dom 'for

the Gospels in existence arc entitled to great reverence heraii'ir

Tliey must bo allowed a most

jKiticnt,

most

unprejudiced, most respectful, nay, a most

indulgent hearing.
corded, on

But when

all this

has been freely ac-

verses arc eighteen hundred years that these twelve unhesitating acceptance as any ju>t as much entitled to our wliich can be named? other twelve verses in the Gospel last in the meantime, that for the I. It is undeniable, demand it has become the fashion to quarter of a eenfurv,
for the

no

intelligible principle can

in the world.

more be claimed

for

readings of" Codex

B
for
it

something veiy
this
in

like absolute

any two
will

MSS.

deference.
Mistru.st

The grounds
can describe

superstitious

sentiment,

The rejoinder

to all this is sufficiently obvious.

JV

no doubt have been thrown over the evidence borne to the text of Scripture in a thousand other places by Cod. B and Cod. s, after dcmousiration that tliotc iico Codices exhibit a mutilated text in the present place. But what else is this
but the very point requiring demonstration ?
not these two be right, and all the other
I propose, therefore, that

no apt or way,) I profess (lor reallv I Codex B comes to us without nivself unable to discover. except that without recommendation of any kind,
a history
:

of its antiquitv.

every pa'-c

It bears traces of careless transcription The mistakes which the original transcriber

Why

maj'

MSS. wrong ?
Proceed

we

reverse the process.

wc

examine the evidence borne by these two witnesses on certain other occasions which admit of no difference of opinion or next to none. Let us endeavour, I say, to asto
;

"They are chiefly omisare of perpetual recurrence. halt three words; but sometimes of sions, of one, two, or of several verses .... I hesia verse, a whole verse, or even find a folio conit would be easier to tate not to assert that
mad^
omissions than to light on one taining three or four such without any^" In the Gospels alone. which" should be no less than leaves out words or whole clauses

certain the character of the Witnesses

by

a patient

and unpre-

Codex

judiced examination of their Evidence,

or in two, or in three
;

not

in one place,

but on several important occasions,

find it invariably consentient

and throughout.
will

If

we

and

largest proportion is 1491 times": of which by far the IMany of these, no doubt, are found in S. Mark's Gospel. the proximity of a "like endmg'." to be accounted for by

invariably truthful, then of course a mighty presumption

The Vatican MS.

.

(like

the Sinaitic') was

Coiice

ongmaUy

de-

have been established, the very strongest

adverse

possible, that

VcrccUonc,

- DeJ

antichissimo

Vaticauo deUa Billia Greca,

their
S.

testimony in

respect of the conclusion

of

Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.)

1

Mark's Gospel must needs be worthy of

if,

all acceptation.
.

DMh,

Vxiv.

Mog- (Nov.

. , v c Scnvener. Q<l p. 93. 1859.) p. 620. quoted by

II..'

But

on the contrary, our inquiries shall conduct us to

happen but that our confidence in these two SISS. will be hojDelessly shaken ? "We roust in such case be prepared to admit that it is just as likely as not that this is onlj' one more occasion on which these " two false witnesses" have conspired to witness falsely. If, at this juncture, extraneous evidence of an entirely trustworthy kind can be procured to confront them: above all, if some one ancient witness of unimpeachable veracity can
the very opposite result,
else can

what

p..age

ixm. to l.U ed. of the Codei Bezx. p. See Scrivo>.or-s If reduction the 2ud 1. o at the end of hU Preface to refcrrct to reappear
instances, th.s from Cod. Si,,aHic..s.-AiA to his

Ins

S.Matth.

Collation of the

>iii.2,3:-

KAI6KA0HTO nANti) ATTOT [HN Ae H61AeAATT0T] CCC ACTPAHH

liy the scribe of

It is philii
is

wrote .ttok. outou

u-.

aaTpax-j.-Tho next

from S. l.nUo xsiv. 31

AlHNTrH

be found

who

shall bear contradictory evidence

what other

CAN

Ol

OteAAMOl

The ]>h(i of IhfaUihilHy rccoithj

rived from an older

[chap.

VI.]

M-<

up for

Codtl.

B and K,

itiimisouallc.

7o

Codex which contained about twelve

^.

or thirteen letters in a line

And

it

will

be found that

Bome of

its

omissions which have given rise to prolonged

referred to nothing else but the discussion arc probably to be such a codex before him : oscilancy of a transcriber with hypothesis; reconrse to any more abstruse

KAI [CntrNWCAN ATT6 KM] ATTOC A*AN TOO erNTO

Hence the omission of
the omission from
nai irf ) mffoi' airroi- in

without having hith;-ccrtaMy wHhoiit without any imputation of bad omiUerl did not exld in ihc uispved wonh

smming

that ihe

K-

(and U) of the Ascension at S.

The following Luke xxiv. 52

:

explains

An ATTfiON KAI [AN *PeTO IC TON

then it is undeniable that uidoarauh of ihc EvaugcU.f. But Cod. B are not to be so explained. some of the omissions in the fact that the codex On the other hand, I can testify to with repetitious. The original scribe throughout
is

disfigured

OTPANON
TCI

KAI] AT
Luke

is often

nPOCKTNHCi

The neit explains why iiii. 64

;

reads rtpiKaXxnfiayrfs tirripuTuv auTov in S.

same words twice found to have not only written the whenever he did so to take any over, but to have failed he had done. notice with his pen of what again inquire,) are the grounds lor must
which is entertained in certam the superstitious reverence If it be a secret of Codex B? quarters for the readings of the New Testament, they known to the recent Editors

APONTC KAI n PIKAAT*ANTeC [TTHTON ATTOT TO npocconoN kai C]

The next in S (2d G)
explains
at S.

What

then, (I

nHPti)T&)N ATTo why the words Kai Trot Luke xvL 16 eTArr6
:

tii

outjjc J3iaJ'cTai are b>ent

keep have certainly contrived to

it

wondrous

close.

nAC ATTHN Bl AZeTAl] CTKOnO) T6PON Af tCTlN To

AlzeTAI [KAI
IC
'

claim to co-ordinate primacy has II Jlore "recently, a Tischendorf the Codex Sinaiticus. been set up on behalf of remodeUiug his seventh Leipsic ediin
is

actually

engaged

tion

In this nay, (at S. John

xvii. 15, 16),

the obviously corrupt reading of

Cod.

(ico

T7;(n)(ri)s

avrovs *K To Koafiov)

of the copy used by Athanasius (0pp. p.

1035

which, however, was the reading 825) explained

:

discovered MS.' and pen, to an extent not uuwith "errors of the eye firstrather unusual in documents of mrallcled. but happily
rate importance."

with the readings of his lately chiefly in conformity yet the Codex in question abounds And

al. ed. p.

is

On many

occasions. 10. 20, 30,

CK TOT [nONHPOT. CK TOT] KOCMOT OTK CICIN KAemc

Thus also is explained why S.Lukexxiv. 42:

are dropped

veiy carelessness ^ twice sentences, a.e frequently written ,,ords. even whole

through

40 words "Letters and

(with K, A, D, L) omits a precious clause iu

h
*;

In this

way the famous

OnTOTMfPOC KAI
[AHO MCAICCI OT KHPIOT KAI] AABC0N CNCOniON same HGS. (all bat A) omit an important (N T<>> IPa) [AIN OTNTeC KAI] 6TAO

Luke

vi. 1, is

omission (S, B, L) of the word l.^.po.fi.^, being explained :say the least) capable of (U> A CN CAB erCNCTO

in

And why
liiv. 63

the

clause in S.

Luke
and of
..ou

npojTO) ceAi
B.pax.o. (K)

BATO) A[6TTPO A]iAnopTe

S. M"'^^*";

rOTNTfC TON eN
And why B (with K L) tation (S. Luke iv. 6)
:

^"^f^J" AIMATOC ZAXAPIOT [TIOT BAPAXIOT] ON t*ONTCAT

omits an important clause iu the history of the Temp-

ANAPAPCON AT TON [61C OPOC TVH AON] (AlZeN ATTCt)

KAI

vol. iL (1 Cor^ v^ 70 reached the 4S0tb page of have been words . 1.. this way . 90 words in o. .lonu xx. 5 o -if^.i- i <io.A -"^^^'^^^^J'^.X "xx o, o -" "" S.Mark i. ^i-* words jYi. 1 : 19
.

He

h,.s

et
.

'^

-<1

in S.

John

xix. 20. 21.


~~

70
over, or

T/ic

clniiit

to ro-onliiKitc Pn'tKfUi/ icccut/y

[ciiAr.

V,.]

scf

vp on brhnlf of Cod.

S, unrtaHOunhlr.

begun and
.
. .

imiiicflinlely cancelled
is

while tint gross

it

It

is,

blunder

wlicrcby a clause

omitted because

happens

to

the
n,>d

great uncials.^ in fact, one of our five to exist,-cxcept.ng Greek Text is known

No

older

MS.

of

always A, B.

end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament. Tregelles has frecljpronounced that 'the state of the
the
first

text, as

proceeding from

scribe,
first

when "the
like to

m;iy be regarded as rcri/ rough '.' " But scribe" and his " veiy rough" performance
of,

have been thus unceremoniously disposed

be informed what remains to
?
Is,

one would
respect in

command

Codex N

then, manuscript

aiifliorifi/

exercising itself upon the corrections with cdilorwl caprice, " at least ten different revisers," who, from the vi"" to tlie of
xii""

to be confounded

n text

century, haA'c been endeavouring to lick into shape which its original author left " vcri/ rough f"

Tlie co-ordinate primacy, (as I

must needs

call

it,)

which,

In he than that of Codex "eltrptions an^d interpolations Ld.tor,) of its learned and accurate Acts. (<o use the language reproduces exaggeration to assert that > .-it is hardlv an one of the in the same way that the fcrU. r'cccplus much Old Jesta does the Hebrew of the best Chaldee Targums constant variations in tie dict.on, so so wide are the ,nent narrative by of expanding the ,nd inveterate the practice seldom recommend themselves ,neans of interpolations which a semblance of .nlernal P'J^^'l'* , s genuine by even tb probability that two MSS of then, is the a priori Where, .o be beard have not only a super, or claim iv<" century shall readings are right to dictate which but almost an exclusive

And

yet no text

is

more thoroughly disfigured

by

within the last few years, has been claimed for Codex

and Codex

S,

threatens to grow into a sjiccies of tyranny,

^^:t::^^^r:^^editors of the New

hammer

Testament

from which I venture to predict there will come in the end on unreasonable and uusalutary recoil. It behoves us, therefore, to

look closely into this matter, and to require a reason

is

for

what

being done.

The

text of the sacred deposit

to

is

far too precious a

thing to be sacrificed

an

irrational, or

at least a superstitious devotion to

two 3ISS.,

simply

be-

have shewn themselves to m S,-not anvil of Codd. B and sometimes to the serious and evS nee of aU other MSS., admit of striking lUustraof the deposit.-would detr .nent Tischendorf's English details. for such tbi were this place the three with various readings from

the sacred text on he defiance of the unfrequently

!;.rT..^<c;.,"-at the foot of every

cause the)' maj' possibly be older by a hundred years than " Id verius quod prius," is an anj' other which we possess.

Jrcelebrated manuscripts

of the Greek

Text"

t^ijn.s

ated

axiom which holds every bit as true in Textual Criticism as Dogmatic Truth. But on that principle, (as I have already shewn,) the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are fully
in

to page,-is a recent attempt (1869) we have to ^^^^ popularize the doctrine that ^f^^^f^the would pos ess ^^^ oldest copies, if we

Lo

or three of the 7ord of Go. in its integrity.

Dean Alford's eo-

"PP-

and b)- consequence, the credit of Codd. B and K sustains a severe shock. Again, " Id verius quod prius ;" but it does not of course follow that a Codex of
established"';

the

iv""

century shall exhibit a more correct text of Scripv'"",

ture than one written in the

in the x"'.

or even than one written

(if it

th^ Authorized Version (l^JO) Jo in his revision of the and B thereby generally Codd^ S oldest MSS.. (meaning endeavour to lanai is an abler with one or two others"), am bent on with the same belief. I U Hze the public mind ch-acter o nothing whatever in the

shewing thL there

is

For the proof

of this statement,

can be sup-

dthe"

servile question to warrant this of the Codices in

posed to require proof,)

it is

enough

to appeal to
is

Codex D.
century.

That venerable copy of the Gospels

'

of the

vi"*

'trAnd first.-Ought
n o e.g.

it

from our not sensibly to detract

^.

Scrivener's Full Cullalioii,

ii.)

&.c.,

\i.

nv.; quoting Ticgciles' N. T. J'art II.

piigc

io Con. Be^ae, p.Hv. Scrivener's Introiuctio,, L)- "*' l"S.John i. 42 (meaning only s- , in
vi.

^,

" See Cliap. IV.

p. 37.

(K,B,C,L)t

22 (A, B. L). &c.

78

Samjikf ofihf
tlicir

Oi)iis-^ioii?

[chap.
if
is

,-..]

t;i

CodejT

and Codex

H.

70

opinion of the value of

easier to
the one

evidence to discover thnt

in

scribe of Cod.

find iirocoitKcniiiic rerffs

llirin

uhich

tlic

iiro2lSS.

differ,

ing to S. John

from the othir,

tiro eonfreiifirc reraes in tr/iieli

ihey

entirely agree ?

Now

this is a plain

matter of

fact, of

which

s had aho omitted the end of the Gospel accord- ^^ In this suppression of ver. 25, Cod. K stands A cloud of primitive witnesses vouch alone among MSS. Surely, it is nothing else genuineness of the verse. for the
"i.

any one who pleases may easily convince himself. But the character of tTO witnesses who habitually contradict one
another has been accounted, in every age, precarious.
ing the truth.
fess

but the

re.ductio

ad ahMiirdion of a theory of recension, (with

Tischcndorf in his last edition,) to

accommodate our printed

On
con-

text to the vicious standard of the original

penman

of Cod. K,

every such occasion, only one of them can possibl}* be speakShall I be thought unreasonable
if I

and bring the last chapter of S. John's Gospel to a close

at ver. 24
!

that these perpetual inconsistencies between Codd.

H,

and
ones,

grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even altogether destroy my confidence in either

P

gross

Cod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two solemn verses wherein S. Luke describes our Lord's " Agony

and bloody Sweat," together with the act of the ministering

An"-el'.
as

(i)

On

the other hand, discrepant as the testimony of

is

these

two MSS.

throughout, they yet, strange to say,

exhibiting minute coras to betray

As to the genuineness of those verses, recognised they are by Justin Martp, Irenajus, Hippolytus, Epiphaby
all

conspire evevy here and there in

nius, Didj'mus,

ruptions of such an unique

and peculiar kind

doret,

Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Theothe oldest versions, and by almost every MS.

a (probably not very remote)

common

corrupt original.

in existence, including Cod. S,

it

admits of no doubt. Here

These coincidences in fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish a real connexion between those two
codices;

then

is

proof positive that in order to account for omissions

might be
witnesses
(f)

and that connexion is fatal to any claim which set up on their behalf as wholly independent
p.

from the Gospel in the oldest of the uncials, there is no need whatever to resort to the hypothesis that such portions of
the Gospel are not the genuine work of the Evangelist. " The admitted error of Cod. B in this place," (to quote the words of Scrivener,) " ought to make some of its advocates

Further,

it is

evident that both alike have been sub-

jected,

probably during the process of transcription, to the same depraving influences. But because such statements

more chary of their confidence in cases where it is less countenanced by other witnesses than in the instance before us."

require to be established bj' an induction of instances, the

reader's attention

must now be invited

to a few samples of

Cod.
(as

(not Cod. N) is further guilty of the " grave error"

justly styles
:

the grave blemishes which disfigure our two oldest copies

of the Gospel.
1.

Dean Alford
;

record of the Evangelist

since
it is

" Then said

it,)

of omitting that solemn Jesus, Father, forIt also with-

And

first,

the omission of the end of S.Mark's

give them

for they

know

not what they do."

Gospel which has given rise to the present discussion, it becomes a highly significant circumstance that the original
f e.g.

holds the statement that the inscription on the Cross was "in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew'." Cod H, on

the other hand, omits the confession of the

S.

man born

blind

Mattb.

i.

25

xii.

24, 27

S.
i.

Luke

xi.

15, 18, 19 (St tf.iSoi/X).

i.

1 Cor.

xiii.

3 (fravx^frvM^i)*
vi.

Pot. 07.).

S. Mark
xvii.

S.James 20
{rinofti).

Acts S. Mattli. xiv. 30 (mx^P'"')-

17 (oTroaKUKr/iaToi).
vi. 1 (Sjurfpoirpii'T^
liis

(6 Se

edtr],

Tnarevu)

Kvpw

icaX

TrpoaeKvvtjaev axnui) in S.

John

5 {iv

w.
ix.
iii.

S.

Luke

38.

Both

Cod.

N and Cod.
hU

retain nothing but the

FroUgg. p. lix. Luke xxii. 43, 44.

32 (MtjX). Acts
S.

i.

19

(ia/?

omitted). S. Mattb. xiv. 27 (to op-)upm).

Mattb.

22

(o-wrrpt^ofurnii').

S. Luke

<

See Tischendorf e note in

'n^flri SJ owTif

reprint of the Cod. Sin.,

-fhv.

omitted).
'

iY)i\osKa-aSM.vona hX t^v
ti iroioDai, (xiiii. 34)
.

S.

See more in TiscbendorTs Prolegomena to

p. xxxri.

4to. rej)rint of the Cod. Sin.

6 ti 'IjjffoCj

fpiiifuiaiv 'Z\KTii>tKo7s ko) 'Pw/ioikoij

On

this head the reader is also referred to Scrivener's very interKol

xliii.

"E/SfioiKiiij, (xxiii.

38.)

esting Collation of the Cod. Siuailicus, Introduetioii, p.

seq.


80
Siiiiipkv

of

ili(-

Interpolations

[chap.

v.]

ill

Codex

(incl

Codex

K.

81

word v\6v of tlie expression titv vlov avTiji toj' irpwroroKov, in S. Matth. i. 25 ond suppress altogether the important
;

doctrinal stalenieut o

mv
59.

ev

tu

ovpavu), in S.

John

iii.

13
it

as well as the clause huXOiov Sia fiecov aiirSiV koL Traptjyev

OOTO)?, in

depraved in the same But the inspired text has been throughout, by the responsible authors of licentious way corruptions have attracted Cod. B and Cod. s, although such Thus, their comparative unimportance. notice from
little

S.John

viii.

Concerning

all

of which, let

the reading

be observed that 1

am
tJie

neither imputing motives nor pre-

tending to explain

design with which these several serious

omissions were made.

All that

is

asserted

is,

that they can-

not be imputed to the carelessness of a copyist, but were

intentional
:

epya tov irepfavk) ^/^a? hei epya^eaOai to carries with it its own sufficient Tos npo<: (S. John ix. 4) by condemnation; being scarcely rendered more tolerable the second Tj/io?. Instead of reOeB's substitution of pe for and s pre67rl rijv -rhpav (S. Luke vi. 48), B
(in

pe\lwTO yip

and

I insist that they effectually dispose of the

is

presumption that when an important passage

be wanting from Cod.

observed to
is

to /caXta? oiKohopeiadai sent us with the insipid gloss, ha codex, we find the name of auTTji'. In the last-named

or Cod. K,
it

its

absence

to be ac-

"Isaiah"

{riaaiov) thrust into S.

Matth.

xiii.

35, in defiance

counted for by assuming that

was

also absent

from

the

of authority and of

fact. Can

I be

wrong

in asserting that

inspired autograpih of the Evangelist

2.

To the foregoing must be added

the

many

places

where
Testa-

the test of

or of

{^,

or of both, has clearly been interpolated.

There does not exist in the whole compass of the

New

ment a more monstrous instance of this than is furnished by the transfer of th e incident of the piercing of our Redeemer's side from S. John six. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and Cod. N, where it is introduced at the end of
ver. 49,

^^

'

w/os) in S. John i. 18, the reading o fiovoyevrjs 0eoi (for Cod. K alike,) is undeserving (a reading found in Cod. B and May it not also be confidently deof serious attention evidence ^ no future clared that, in the face of all MS. to accept the Editors of the New Testament will be found a Xeyopevos Irjaovf, highly improbable reading o avOpeoTros two Codices conspire inS. John ix. 11, although the same them (s), or, on the authority of one of exhibiting it

in

in defiance of reason as well as of authority'.

to read ev airrp
i.

?&);

eariv^ (for ev ainw

that no one

^toi]

in

S.

John

" This interpolation" (remarks

represent the

Mr.

Scrivener)

"which would
good

4?_Certain

at least it is

will eicr

be found

Saviouk

as pierced while yet living, is a

to read (with

example of the fact that some of our highest authorities nia)' combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false"." Another singularlj' gross specimen of interpolation, in my

1,or B) e^hopv^ovTa hvo in S. Luke x. toO eeov, in of o (with h) o eK\eKTO<; rov deov (instead ask. With what show of reason S. John i. 34. But let me

vm

can the pretence of

Infallihility,

(as well as the

plea of

judgment,
which
is

is

supplied by the purely apocryphal statement

in Cod. N, at the end of S. Matthew's ac-

met with

count of the healing of the Centurion's servant,

CTpeyfras o eKUTOvTap^oi

/cat vtto-

en rov

pair of IMSS. licentiously Primacy), be set up on behalf of a 7;ro!e</ to be? For the corrupt as these have already been observed, are either critireadings above enumerated, be it unwarrantable of the inspired Text, or else
cal depravations

oikov avrov ev avrrj n] ccpa,

13.)

evpev TO!/ iraiha vyiaivovra

well be
in S.

(viii.

Nor

can anything

interpolations.

They eannot have

resulted

from careless
, fact ot a
,

weaker than the substitution (for ia-Tep^aapTo^ otvov, John ii. 3) of the following which is found only in
'',
:

transcription.
3.
,.

Not a few of the foregoing instances are

it

j kind

Cod.N

oivov ovK

ei-)(ov,

oti avveTe\ea6r} o

ouio<s

rov yapov.
is

XoU- that

Loll

sXAot if Xafiuv Aoyxi''

'"'>'

atnovriif irAtupar,

km

tl^KBti'

vtap kui

oi/ia.

not -Kcspondit, " TrepelU's nssume;) but

this reading to claim the a mistake for the advocates of -yov, k.t.A. 'A-^pfeT, .'k.^oj, 'AKflp.o, K.,6,.,.o^ versions as allies. Jesus," (a, both r.scl.e,,.lorf and lUe homo qui dicitur
is

Eespcdit

iUe,

Hon.o." 4c..-as

Yet B, C.
'

and

K contain

this

Coll.

of the Cod.

Sin., p. xWii.

rTbis reading
^

>vill

be found

discussed in

in verses 2o and 3G end of a footnote (p) at the

So, in the nDargin of tlie BharklenEian revision.

82

The hat of Coihx

and

Codcjr

[CHAr.

VI.]

/khs

been tsciioicily eoniipted.

83

to conviiKC jnc that the test ^rith wbicli Cod.

and Cod. k were chiefly acquainted, must have been once and again Not unfrequently, eubjccted to a clumsy process of rciisloii.
as

^iucroro-n' ae, koi Troirjaovtnv

ftifffi. A-al olfffi 07701/

aoi ocra ov 6e\eis, for a\\o<: ae

ov deXeti, in S.
is

John

xxi. 18.

Indeed,
licentious

even when our

Lord
Cod.

not the speaker, such

is

may

be imagined, the result (however tasteless and inis

depravntion of the text

felicitous)

not of serious importance

K,) for

as

when,

(to give

S.Lukc
irpoi

xxiii. 15,

Thus, in not to be endured. conspire in substituting and Cod. K

-Trpos

examples from Cod.

S.

top oxKov

iiriKelcrOat.

avrw

(in
:

for airrre/ii/ra

yap

vfia.<!

amiv.aveireif^ev yap avTOv

Luke V. 1) we are presented with avvax^-qvai rov o-)(\.ov when for ifwi' acruTus (in S. Luke xv. 13) we read et? ympav
fiuKpav; and for
oi

V^n?

misled by

which leads one to suspect the copyist was Similar instances might the narrative iu vcr. 7.
;

i^ovtrid^omes

amdv

(in S.

Lukexxii.

25),

we

find ot ap-)(0VTe<;
is onl)'

(which

tuv [edvwv] e^ovaia^ovaiv avrosv, xai, a weak reproduction of S. Mattb. xx. 25)
:

John vi. 17), we are shewn KarekajSev 2e avrovs r) aKorta and when, for Koi ris icniv 6 nrapahmauiv airrov (in S. John vi. 64) we are invited to accept /cat tk rjv o pteWav avrov "TrapaBiSovai^. But it requires very little acquaintance with tbe subject to

when

again, for aKoria

i^hij

eyeyovei (in S.

be multiplied to an inde6nite extent. of the Gospel, Tvco yet graver corruptions of the truth category,) remain to be spe(but they belong to the same Mindful, I suppose, of S.James' explanation "how
cified.

that by trorh a

man
r?

is

justified," the

autbor of the text of

of her children,"

Codicos

and

has ventured to alter our Lord's assertion

"

(in S. Alatth. xi. 19,)

Wisdom

is justified

foresee that this kind of license

may

easilj'

assume serious
Thus, when
if
bj'

" "Wisdom is justi6ed by her trorks ;" and, in the case into so entirely carried his zeal is observed to have of Cc-d. S,

dimensions, and grow into an intolerable

the
eirl

evil.

him away,

epymv for that he has actually substituted

is

TeKvav

man born
Tov
v'lov

blind

is

asked by the
(S.

Holy One
we are

tov 6tov

John.

is. 35),

he believes no means

Luke's in tbe parallel place of S. Mattb. xxi. 31) ample of error (S.
a smile.

Gospel.The other excalculated to provoke

willing to acquiesce in the proposed substitute, tov viov tov

when the Saviour says, yivtoaKOfiai inro John x. 14) are we at all willing to put up with the weak equivalent yivwaKOvai fie to efia. Still less is Kai e/iot avTovt eSuxas any equivalent at all for Kai to e/ui navTa tjd eoTi, koX to, aa ifid, in S. John x^"ii. 10 or, aXXot
av6po)vov
:

neither,

duct of

the conFinding that our Saviour, in describing says of the one, the two sous in the parable,
iTr^xeep, and of the other,-;.al
scribe,

tS)v e/ifov (S.

iffTepov ik fieratieXvGeh
oi,Ka-r,',\eer;

(who can have been but Greek language,) seems to slenderlv acquainted with the

some ancient

more precise way of idenhave conceived the notion that a "afterwards repented and went," would the son who
tifyins:

'

Tbe folloniug may be

/3a(ri\(is
:

addi'd
:

from Cod.

fKydAoi abTuv (iu S. Mark x.

(iu S,
all

42) cbuugcd into

<itc (id S. ilark xir. 58) substituted for ifiiut

IjKovaafitf aiiTou \iyoyros

ffiiofiijKoyra

itaaapvv
:

Lu.

ii.

37) for

O75o7ifc

and twpaKiv at
Cod.

(iu S. Jo. viii. 57) for tupana

in

wbicli four readings

is

nitbout support.

[Scrivener, Coll. Cod. Sin. p. li.]

S.

Tbe
;

epitbet

Accordingly, in reply to be to designate him as 6 vcnepos. iraeV tuv Bvo i-iroiricep to 0i\vfia tov tbe question, T.'s presented (but onhj in Cod. B) with the asrpos: sve are seeinformation,Xeyoufffi/ o voTepos. And yet,
tonishing

fityay, introduced (in

tbe same codex) before XlBor in

Mark
i.

xv. 46

and

koi

warpias inserted into tbe pbrase <{ oIkov Aa^iS iu S. Lu.

27,

are two. more

B
1

specimens of uiistuken

ofiSciousness.

In the same infelicitous spirit. Cod.

(S.

and Cud.

nonsense of the parable, some ing clearly that this made found to have transposed the order of the subsequent critic is comes and in that queer condition the parable :
ftco

concur in omitting laxvpif

Matt.

liv. 30),

irvKfa for wuyfif,

and pavrtauiTai

for fiaw^lau^Tal in S.

and in substituting Mark vii. 3 and 4

viii.

f?ns

down
4

to us in the

famous Vatican Codex B.

wbile tbe iuterpol-ation of raaaofitvos after ilowriav in S. Matlb.

of tbe parallel place iu S. Luke's Gospel;
avarijpos
ei

9, because

aud tbe substitution of vSpunos

ifSpuvos iu S. Mattb. xiv. 24,

(from S. Luke xii. 21) for

aiiKnp'us tl

arc proofs that yet another kind of corrupting infiueuce has been here at

work

infelicitous taraperof the foregoing instances of Gospels are, it must be confessed, ine'with the text of the circumstance in But it is a yet more fatal serious.

Some

verv

besides those which have been already specified.

connexion with Cod.

convicted and Cod. H that they are

g2


84
The
texi

VI.]

of ddibrrote dej/rarafion.
S.

85
did not perceive

of Co'M.

and K convldcd

[chap.

harmony with
Thus, in

Mark

xv. 23.

The man

of certain perversions 'of the truth of Scripture which nntit

have been made with deliberation and purpose.

S.

gall" (which the that the cruel insult of the "vinegar and Saviour tasted but would not drink) was quite a distinct

Mark

72)

"which bear clear marks of

xiv, they exhibit a set of passages

(verses 30, 68,

" myrrhed wine" thing from the proflered mercy of the

wilful

and

critical correction,

thoroughly carried out in Cod.

s, only partially in Cod.

the object being so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's

denial with those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress

which the Saviour put away from Himself altogether. So again, it was in order to bring S. Luke xxiv. 13 into harmony with a supposed fact of geography that Cod. K
states that

the fact, vouched for

Ucice.

by

S.

Mark

only, that the cock

ver.

crowed

Eramaus, (which Josephus also places at sixty and sixty" stadia stadia from Jerusalem), was "an hundred
distant.

(In Cod. k,

and

8/s in ver. 72,

" and

Si'r

is

omitted in

30,"

Ik Bevripov
in ver. 68

The
It is

Koi aXeKTup

i<f)d)VT]ae

known.

is history of this interpolation of the text some ancient critic (Origcn probably) because

the last change being countenanced by

discovery, I take leave to point out,
all
is

'.")

One such
to destroy
:

enough

confidence in the text of these two manuscripts

for it

place intended. erroneously assumed that NicopoUs was the favour, and there are not wanting The conjecture met with declare that this was the reading of "the accuscholia to

proves that another kind of corrupting influence,

carelessness,

besides

rate"

presumption, and work on Codices B and s. We are constrained to approach these two manuscripts with suspicion in all cases where a supposed critical difSculty in harmonizing the statements of the several Evangelists will account for any of the peculiar readings which they extasteless

and accident, and

which

is

copies, notwithstanding the physical impossibility involved by the statemtst'. Another geographical

unskilful assiduity,

has been

at

to misconception under which the scribe of Cod. s is found (S. Luke i. 26) and Caperhave laboured was that Nazareth

naum

hibit.

Accordingly,

it

does not at

all

surprise

me

to discover
(in

Accordingly he has 28) were f Judaa. places referred to, to suit his altered the text in both the the preprivite notion*. A yet more striking specimen of scribe is supplied by his subposterous method of the same in Acts viii. 5, stitution of Kaiaapias for Safiapeias
(S.

Mark

i.

that in both Codices the important word i^ekOovaai

S.

evidently misled by

Matth.

xxviii. 8)

has been altered into airekOovaat.

Aeam,

it

recognise in that substitution of airo for ef the hand of one who was not avrare that the women, when addressed by the

lation into

what he found in viii. 40 and xxi. 8. must have been with a view of bringbg Reveharmony with the (supposed) facts of physical

Angel, were imidc

lief (it is

Ihc scpiikfire

but

found to have been as

who common

accepted the bein ancient as in

''."

Theological record Science that for the highly significant the Crucifixion % has been subKm ecKOTice-n 6 TjXios at
Etituted both in

and

K,

rov Tfkiov K\i7rovTo<;,

state-

modern

times) that they beheld

him "

sitting on the stone

In consequence
fiivov
:

Tachendorf accordingly

u forced,

for once, to reject the reading of his

of a similar misconception, both (bodices

oritur

are observed to present us with the word " nine" instead of

ft 'f'""^

' t^o^e^ '' ^^

is

of tbc text in this place

discussion ^y "^"K '"^ Eusebius. His How is it that such instructive and even diverting.

" riiicgar" in S. Matthew's phrase o^os fiera j^oX^r

fie/iiy-

which results from a mistaken endeavour on the

part of some ancient critic to bring S. Matth. xivii. 34 into

ejes of Prejudice itself to the an ii_<3ce as the present docs not open the even of Origen, of of pinning iU faith to the consentient testimony dasr;The reader is reminded of hat was offered Euieilci, aud of Cod. >< ?
abcTc. ic the lower part of p. 49.
'

Scrivener, Coll. Cod. Sin. p. xlvii.

similar perversion of the truth of Scripture

:

is

found at S.Luke
It does not

iv.

44,

Add

to the autliorities comnionir appealed to for i^t\B. Cbrjra.

(twice,)

(cf.

iLi piiaUcl pl. S. Matth. iv. 23

S.

Mark

i.

39).

mend the

quoted in Cramer's Cal.'"). The mistake adverted to in tlie text is at 287), wlio asks, Uus least as old as the time of Eusebius (Mai, iv. p. 264 wapi T# KarBiiif tj May5a\ii>T| Mofi'o m'to t^j K\A))S Maplas f{v toC /u^/iaTO>
(also

v:i'.u: tc find

S.

tr, rj

supported this time by Codd. B, C, L, Q, R. t^^"""' 45 :(> ovUroTt Tfiitpov awi$n, i^" *l '' ^v. (Chry.TU.824 C.) Tt\.-reai t^(\\f itol yif Uttva. tolnwv TiSiroi .iffx

La.

liiii.

^h^f

idpamr rhy

fva <77*<"' /<9<M"'">' '"f ^'*r

'">''

M>'<M<toj, k.tA.

80

The Vadcan Coikx

(as

rccogid'scsi

[chap.

Ti.]

ihc Coiicfiimii

0/ S.

M<irl.'.i Gosj,rf.

87

ment which

the ancients were

perfectly well aware')

introduces into the narrative an astronomical contradiction.

It
And

may be worth
he

adding, that Tischendorf with singular

follows,-is true; but customary subscription (kata mapkon) It requires to be stated ihe uhole truth. it is far from being is found to have been addition that the scribe, whose plan
in

inconsistency admits into his text the astronomical contradiction, while

this
rejects

to

the geographical impossibility.

may
are

suffice

concerning the text of Codices

and s

at the top of the cjrt be-in every fresh book of the Bible concluding words amdug cohmn to that which contained the the close of S. Mark s Gospel of the preceding book, has at He has left practice. deviated from his else invariable

form a truer estimate of the Aalue of the testimony borne by these two
III.
this time in a condition to

Wc

by

this place

is one column entirely vacant. It manuscript ;-a blank space column in the whole
s,'jfic!ei to

the only vacant

al,n,rle,>M!/

manuscripts in respect of the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel. If we were disposed before to regard their omission
of an important passage as a serious matter,

IM

we
this

certainly

occasion to depart from induced the scribe on this solitary

his established rule ?
first

Why did

he neierthek.s ,nlhcontain the t,rehe terses uhich have that column vacant ? Tf hat can

he leave

cannot any longer so regard

it.

We

have by

time seen

The phenomenon,-(I

believe I

was the

enough to disabuse our minds of every prejudice. Codd. B and K are the very reverse of infallible guides. Their deflections from the Truth of Scripture are more constant, as well as more licentious bj' far, than those of their younger
brethren
:

o/Ar

it,)-is in the highest deto caU distinct attention to i-e one interpretation cree significant, and admits of only copied must have infallibly
dispute. contained the twelve verses in

their unauthorized omissions far

arc not only far

more frequent but And yet the main matter before us,
ttrehe verses of S.

from the sacred text more flagrant also.

of the
la-it

The coppst was inobeyed: but he pruhe structed to leave them out,-and memoriam rci. Never was blanlc left a blank space in dently
more
this
is

MS. from which

Cod.

was

their omission

Mark's Gospel,

when

rightly understood,

proves to be an entirely diflerent

phenomenon from what an

Attention
follow.
is

made

relate. the\atican Codex simple expedient, strange to teseven while it seems to be bearing

intelligible

Never was

silence

more eloquent

By

to refate itself

ordinary reader might have been led to suppose.

is

specially requested for the

remarks which

IV. To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which

un-

questionably the oldest we possess, S. Mark's Gospel ends

verses of timony against the concluding which, it forbids the inference bv withholding them: for been drawn from must have u'nder ordinary circumstances, By leaving room for the does more.
that omission.
verses
it

S.Marks

Gospc^l.

It

abruptly at the 8th verse of the xvi"" chapter, and that the
'

twins si

fill

tlwuirt rivfs fKAfi^iv tlyai

rh ytyfvrifi4voy, Ir rp rtaaapftTKaiSf:

Kcfrp Ti^t*pa Tijs af^TjfJts

yiyovt ri 0x670$

3t

XkKh^iv

ffv^^rfvai afi^x^^'Of^*

So Victor of Antiocb, in bis Catena on S. Mark (ed. Possiu.) He makes the remark twice first (p. 351) in the midst of an abridgment of the beginning of Cbr,v8ostom'E SStb Hoiuily on S. Matthew next (p. 352) more fuUy, after quoting " tlie great Uionysius" of Alexandria, See also an interesting passage on
:
:

the same sabjcct in Cramer's Catena in Matth.

rived, I

i.

p.

237,

from
vii.

whom

de-

know

not

but professing to be from Chrysostom.

(Note, that the

10

lines i^

iymyfiiitiov, boginning p. 236, line

in Cbrysostom's published
txKti'fiis,

33

= Chrys.
(p.

824, D, E.)

The very next words

lows
:

Homily

825

A.) arc as fol-

'Oxf

>4/>
Jjf,

ovK ^K

i\\' ipyh TC tal ayavi.KTri7is, oix iyrtvOey

rpfts yiip

at the end of brings into prominent notice tcitness than ,tself. a more ancient fifteen centuries and a half, f^on^/^ich Author of the original Codex The venerable brought to view. And thus Codex B was copied, is thereby useful (Codei B) proves our most our supposed adversary hitherto unsustestimony of an for it procures us the allv unmistakably The earlier scribe, I repeat, pe;ted witness. that of the inquiry, to explain comes forward at this stage of these answer for the genuineness he at least is prepared to scribe, his Verses with which the later Twelve concluding De of them, might unhappily copyist, from his omission

omits,

it

li6vov SriXov

o\a4

Kal iirh toC

icBif>aC-

Upas vapefuivev, q 3i

(K\titfiis

iv

itia

ylytrai Kuipov ^oirf .

Anyone who would investigate this matter further

louj}

thought
It

should by all

means read Matthaei's

note on S.

Luke

xxiii. 45.

have been unacquainted. nothing will be perceived that

to

is

gained by suggesting


88
Cod.

B ami Cod.

here contradict each other,

[chap.

,-..]

The Etidtnce

uj) to this

jmnt

reritircf.

89
N,

that the scribe of Cod. B. hunj have copied from a exhibited the same phenomenon which he has

MS. which
himself re-

the four oldest Codices of the Gospels extant,

B,

A, C,

two (B and H) are

are
vit/i

icit/ioiit

these twelve verses

two (A and C)

produced.

back, does but

This, by shifting the question a little further make the case against Cod. s the stronger.

opinion confirmed by observing that the Sinaitic contains no such blank space at the end of S. Mark's Gospel as is conspicuous in the Vatican Codex. I infer that the Sinaitic was copied from a Codex which bad been already mutilated,
is

which has been already from Cod. B, the evidence of Cod. s may be very summarily disp.osed of. I have already, on independent grounds, ventured to assign to that Codex a somewhat later date than is claimed for the Codex VaticanusK. My
elicited

IJut in truth, after the revelation

Are these twelve verses then an unauthoA and C? or are they an unwarrantable omission from B and N ? B itself declares plainly that from And B is the oldest Codex of itself they are an omission. What candid mind will persist in the Gospel in existence. clinging to the solitary fact that from the single Codex H these verses are away, in proof that " S. Mark's Gospel was
them.
rized addition to
at first

without the verses which

at present conclude it ?

"

sion has

Let others decide, therefore, whether tlie present discusnot already reached a stage at which an unpre-

and

re-

judiced Arbiter might be expected to address the prosecuting

parties

duced to the condition of Cod. B ; and that the scribe, only because he knew not what it meant, exhibited S. Mark's Gospel in consequence as if it really bad no claim
to those

somewhat

to the following effect

The charge brought by yourselves against these Verses was, that they are an un-

" This case must

now be

dismissed.

we have
of right.

twelve concluding verses which, nevertheless, every authority hitherto met with has affirmed to belong to it

authorized addition to the second Gospel

pendix, of

a spurious ap-

Whatever may be thought of the foregoing suggestion, at least undeniable that Cod. B and Cod. N are at variance on the main point. They contradict one another concernit is

which the Evangelist S. Mark can have known But so far from substantiating this charge, you nothing. have not adduced a single particle of evidence which renders it even probable. " The appeal was made by yourselves to Fathers and to

ing the twelve concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel. For while Cod. k refuses to know anything at all about those verses, Cod. B admits that it remembers them well, by volunteering the statement that they were found in the older codex, of which it is in every other respect a faithful representative.

MSS.
(a)
tile,

It

" Those

has been accepted. many Fathers

And with whom you

what

result ?

represented as hosone, viz.

i-ay

prove on investigation to be reducible to

:

Euse-

bius

and Eusebius, as

we have

seen, does not

that the

verses are' spurious, but

on the contrary

labours hard to

The

older

and the better manuscript

(B), there-

prove that they

may

very well be genuine.

On

the other

fore, refutes its junior (n).

And

it will

be seen that logically

this brings the inquiry to a close, as far as

the evidence of

hand, there are earlier Fathers than Eusebius who quote In this way, the them without any signs of misgiving.
positive evidence in their favour is carried back to the ii"*
centurj'.
(6)

the manuscripts

is

concerned.

We

have referred to the

oldest extant copy of the Gospels in order to obtain its testi-

mony

and," Though without the Twelve Verses concern(it

" Declining the testimony of the Versions, you insisted

seems to say,) " I yet hesitate not to confess to you that an older copy than myself, the ancient Codex from which I was copied, actually did contain them."

ing which you are so solicitous,"

on an appeal to
your stand,
(as

MSS.

On

the MSS., in

fact,

you

still

make
;

or

rather you rely on the oldest of them

in

for,

you are aware,) every MS.

the world except

the ttro

The problem may,

in fact, be briefly stated as follows.

p. 70,

Of

S*e above,

and

tlie

Appendix

(F).

against you. " I have therefore questioned the elder of those two MSS. and it has volunteered the avowal that an older MS. than
oldest are

90
itself

TIk Verdict aniicipalcd.

ihe

[niAP. VI.

with those vcr_v

tchirh it irnx copied was furnished which tou wish me to believe that some older MS. still must needs have been without. ^Vhat else can be said, then, of your method but that it is frivoA'^crsos

Coda from

lous?

and of your charge, but that

it is it is

it

is

contradicted by

the evidence to which you yourselves appeal ?

" ]Jut
" For

illogical

that

is, it is

unreasonable, besides.
if it so

CHAPTER

VII.

high time to point out that even

hap.

pened that the oldest known MS. was observed to be without these twelve concluding verses, it would still remain a thing

BE O^TKW^ELMMAKUSCRTPT TESTIMONY SHEUN" TO VERSES.-Pait HIKGLY IN rAVOTIR OF THESE

unproved (not to say highly improbable) that from the autograph of the Evangelist himself they were also away. Supposing, further, that no Ecclesiastical writer of the ii* or
iii'*

ne

Co.ic. otler elief peculiarity of

B ar, S
^'"''*

(./. the

'^^^/f
(?"

^^l^^

century could be found

who quoted them: even

earliest of the Versions
;

so, it

favonralh

to

those the omission of

93).-rA.

.Uorf r

would not follow that there existed no such verses

mitive Father to quote.

for a pri-

The

might

if^icitous Marcion prolahly the author of

tare (p.

account fir in their attempts to

the.

--'of the

P")

);

this corruption

in addition yield faltering testimony

who would be so rash as to raise on such a slender basis the monstrous hj"pothesis, that S. Mark's Gospel when it left the hands of
so,

but even

I06).-0ther

peculiarities of

Mex S deposed of {v

^-j.

/ '^^^
109).

The
ful

subiect which

its

inspired Author was without the verses which at present

it ?

throughout the foregoing

ilLtration.

attention exclusively occupied our apt and power chapter admits of

conclude

How,

then, would you have proposed to ac-

count for the consistent testimony of an opposite kind jielded

by every other known document in the world ? " But, on the other hand, what are the facts of the case ? (2) the most venerable of (1) The earliest of the Fathers, the Versions, (3) the oldest MS. of which we can obtain all are observed to recognise these Venes. any tidings, 'Cadit quaestio' therefore. The last shadow of pretext has

Its vast importance follov^s, and which ^J^^^'^^ particular disquisition npoloKV for the challenge of the ^ut for the plain

^^l^

n^tfhavc been 'spared,

famous Critic to be

addressing towards determming are very instructive

thc^r manuscripts [H and B], and

tischendorf readings. (-J^^J^ "There are two remarkable ^ff ^J^; wh ch subject xn 1868,) English readers on t us

named immediately.

He proceeds aMor^y. }}^--^-^l^l^

vanished for maintaining with Tischendorf that 'Mark the

Evangelist knew nothing
that
'

of

these verses

with Tregelles
last leaf

^"f Thl'Tbsence

The book
yap :'

of

Mark

<j)o^ovvTo

with

himself extends no further than

'

Griesbach that

the

of the

Twelve Verse, of from both, of the last which, the -dei^ pr^^^^^^ S. Mark's Gospel,-concerning has l?'''-'';^"^thinks that by this time he

original Gospel tca^ probably torn aicai/.' ... It is

I say, that this case

high time,
*

were dismissed.

But there

are also costs

to be paid.

God.

false witnesses,'

B and Cod. s are convicted of being two and must be held to go forth from this inis

.,^ ,f .> of the words c. appeals to their omission J Paul's Epistle to the from fhe fiS verse of S. stand ,ude alone Codd. and 2

He

Eph-

'%. E

u:hich anoihcr peculiarity, in

quiry with an injured reputation."

"'"rI!X
that I must
attention.

This entire subject

of so

much importance
and

^^
is it:

of an extraordinary note indeed. Testament of

sympathy between

Z Z.
it

needs yet awhile crave the reader's patience

and that

the general opi powerfully corroborates

^^^^Z

92

Oinimon fiom

the icif of Ephes.

i.

1.

[chai-.

vn.] of their high antiquity, no one will deny.

Emhnec for

the oh/'-'ioii stated.

93

But how about

also

"their authorU ij" ?

Does the coincidence

raise our

to

opinion of the fruifworf/iiness of the Text, which these two

this ,be strength of which be shewn the evidence on we may ascertam what order .hat opinion is maintained, in
it is

MSS.

concur in exhibiting? for that

is

has to be considered,
a reading
is

the
:

the question which

precisely worth.

oiili/

question.

The ancientuess

of

one thing

its

genuineness, (as I have explained

discoverer and Tischendorf.-the illustrious appeal tnumphan ly to and who is accustomed to Codex
H,

i. r champton of

elsewhere,) quite another.

tinct.
little

The

questions are entirely disis

Us omission of the words

h '.^e<ra,

as

//,.

other conclusive

It

may

even be added that while the one

latter is of all
it

really of

moment, the
I

the importance in the

world.

little whether were written in the beginning of the iv"" century, or in the beginning of the v"' whereas it matters much, or rather it matters everything, whether they exhibit

am

saying that

matters very

Codd. N and

presumed to of its te.t,-may be proof of the trustworthiness meet with, as we 1 it is likely to be the most able advocate urged in its acquainted with what is to be as the man best evidence for th him, we learn that the
support.

omLion
saints

e In is as follows:of the words in question we read to the the Ephesians beginning of the Epistle to

From

the T^^ord of
license.

God

faithfullj^,

or occasionally with scandalous

Marcion which are at Ephesus;' but

,

(A.n.

130-140),

How

far the reading

which

results

from the sup-

pression of the last two words in the phrase 70is ayioi<: roh

Lnotfindthewoi.s.atI,h.us'inhis.p. anu iioo i (a.d. Ibo -'o^J is true of Origen

T^^^^

ovatv cV 'E<f>eao),
inquire.

is

critkaUij allowalk or not, I forbear to

to determine.
it

That

is

not the point which we have

to be considered
is,

The one question

credible that S.

May

possibly be

wanting that those words were (who died A.D. 379), affirmed very well with And this omission accords n old conies. At the character of the Epistle c 1 or general he

the true reading of the text after all?

follows

Is it any way Paul began his Epistle to the Ephesians as

HavKoi

aTrooroXo? 'Irjaov Xpiarov hia

deXi'jfiaTOi
.

Qeov, ToU
If
it

arfioii rols ovai

xat inarol'; iv XpicrTw 'Irjaov ?

..

be eagerly declared in reply that the thing is simply incredible that the words eV 'JB^eo-w are required for the sense and that the commonl}' received reading is no doubt the correct one: then, there is an end of the discussion. Two extraordinary notes of sympathj' between two Manuscripts will have been appealed to as crucial proofs of the
:

and all ancient Yera'ncient Greek MSS., pr sent d y, our ;' yea (-^.;-" InscontaiL the words 'at Ephesus ^ow onlj the a different readmg. knew no copv with the o/. copies correspc^ui with SnaTtic and'the Yatican Marcion". -This then of Origen and Basil and those someProceed we to examine it fhe sum of the evidence.

lyS

--

what in

trusttrorthiuess of the Text of those ISIanuscripts (for of their high Antiquity, let me saj' it once more, there can be no
:

, Ipnrned out that ^^^^^^"^^ I take leave to point (1) assertion hat authority for his wr r is absolutely without his copy of the words iv ^E<t>eav " cion did not find one preEphesians. Tischendorf s S Paul's Epistle to the thatcert^ statement is TevtuUian's
,

detail.

And

first.

L^rlor
heretics

spying so (Marcion he

specifies

by name,) had

f^^n

to e

question whatever
case,

rantable.

admitted in the that however, on the contrary,

other,
If,
it,

:)

and

it

will

have been proved in one

the omiasion
it
is

vnxrar-

SPau?s"
of " Eni

the unauthorized Epistle to the Ephesians"

tit

tie to the

Laodicean.

^"

be maintained that

the words iv 'E<f)<r<p probably had no place in the original copy of this Epistle, but are to be regarded as an unauthorized
addition to

had Marclrcouid not have done proposed inference But the

firs^versc^
.

This, (argues Tischendorf,) the he found eV 'E<^

.^

is

clearly

mvahd.
EngU.h

then,

(as in

the case of the Twelve Yerses

Tische,.aorrs

" LXro^ucUo,,- to

bU ,T-hnUz)

oai.ion of the

omitted from the end of S. Mark's Gospel, aiid which it was ako pretended are an unauthorized supplement,) we demand
e

'"Tituliim

emm

'

aa liooaicenos

94

11(1' )ni><((ihe qfxiijiportiiif/

ihol ilarciou

[chap. Ter-

VII.]

(lid

noi find

tin-

<ronh iv

'E(})e<ra> in hi'i

copy.

95

For, with wliat show of reason can Marcion,

case of S. Puul's " Epistle to the Ephesians,"

whom

tullian taxes wilh having dared " tittthim intcrpolare" in the

he

therefore,

have read the first verso differently from ourselves P Rather is the directly opposite inference suggested by the ver)' language in which TertuUian (who was nil but the contemporary of Marcion) alludes to the
to

assumed

proves that Tischendorf is misthe account iu Epiphanius statement which he addresses to the English taken in the that he would have better conreader, (quoted above ;) and if he had kept to the "ut videtur" reputation
sulted for his

he originally broached with which (in his edition of 1859) in fact to be no matter of opinion It proves opinion.
his
at
all.

Epiphanius

states distinctly that the Episllc to the

circumstance

*.

Ephe'^ioHH

Those, however,

who would

reallj'

understand the work

which was one of the ten Epistles of S. Paul " Apostolicon," or collection of Marcion reldhml In his
Epistles, the " Epistle to the the (mutilated) Apostolical considerable quotations which Ephesians," (identified by the

of the heretic, should turn from the African Father,

:(who

after all does but say that Marcion and his crew feigned concerning S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephci-iaus, that it was addressed to the Laodiceans,) and betake themselves to the

Epiphanius makes from

it",)

stood

(he

says)

.sr//<

in

pages of Epiphanius, who lived about a century and

later.

a half

This Father had for

his special

many

years

made Marcion's
it,

work

study', and has elaborately described

it'.

as well as presented us with copious extracts from

ita in Ealutatione

And
(N. T.

"Epistle to the Laodiceans,"order; while the (so called) therefore,had the tkrenth, that is, the a distinct composition That this latter Epistle contained it ^ last place assigned to EpiEphes. iv. 5 is true enough. a corrupt exhibition of But then it is to places'. phanius records the fact in two charges Marcion with having in mind that he

be borne

verba if

'Eficiry

omntiio uou Icgisse ccusendas est."

in he.)
' "Ecclesia-

quidem

veritote Epistol.im islam 'ad Ephesios' liabemus cinisei

saia,
tiit,

non 'ad Laodiceuos;' eed Uarcion

titaluiu aliquando iiitcrpolare ges-

the Apoeryphal Epistle to the derived that quotation from it, as he ought to have done, Laodieeaus^; instead of taking The passage, to the Ephesians. from the genuine Epistle

quasi et in isto diligentissiuios ciplorator."

Adv. Marcion.

lib. v. c.

xni,

when
its

pp. 322-3 (ed. Oehler.)

* iuli
'

Ituv iKavuv. (Epipbaa. Opp.

i.

310

C.)
i.

He

describes its structure minutely at vol.

312-7; 318
Jones,

321.

pP'

3W 310,

and from pp.

[Note, by the way, the gross blunder which has crept

into the printed text of Epiphanius at p. 321

pointed out long since by

llarcion had rejected

mtended epistle to the Laodiceaus was of Marcion's spurious in question, in its interwhich the verse to establish; and favour'.-I have entered into form, might seem to polated
of lie seems to say

verv

Epiphanius points faithfully exhibited, (as tenet which the context form refutes the heretical
out,)

by

On

the Canon,

ii.

38.]

His plan

is

excellent,

every Gospel except S. Luke's, and of

ten,

S. Paul's

Eiiistles

had retained only

Marcion,
I'ool

viz. (Ist)

Galatians, (2nd and 3rd) I and II Coriulhians, (4th) Bonians,

(5th and

and 11 Thessalonians, (7tli) j>liesiaits, (6th) Colossians, (9th) Philemon, (10th) Philippians. Even these he hud mutilated and depraved.
Ctli) I

And

yet out of that one mutilated Gospel, Epiphanius selects 78 passages,

He
i.

21); by

(pp. 312-7),

means of which 118

and out of those ten mutilated Epistles, 40 texts he undertakes to

passages more (pp. 318

refu'e the heresy of

Oi..

p.

quotes Ephes. 318 itnd 371-2.)

to suppose thy ilisllow wits learn Could quench a life Uke t'.ial. Go, That cut into ten thousand bits bum Vet every hit would breathe and 11,' 12, 13, 14: v. 14: v. 31. ii.
I

(See Epiphanius,

Marcion. (pp.322

50:

HoO

.^jj p.
,

318

C(= 371

B),

and 319 A

(=3,4

A.)

74.)

[It will be.perceived that TertuUian goes

. . Very beautiful, and well worthy comes before us in a somewhat incorrect form,) is the remark of Epiphanius concerning the living energy of God's Word, even ivhen dismembered and exhibited in a fragmentary shape. 'OXov "lof) tov

over Uarcion's work in

much the same way.]

it

374. But note, I,;, \ 319 and depravation iu the Editor, the through itlnavcrlence

tha, th.ough error .n the cop.es or else commented on at p. 374

of the student's attention, (though

n,c,
I

is lost

sight of at p.

S..e below, at

319 B. the end of the next note.

atifiSLTOS
i>f

^uyros, &S
t^''

i<r7i',

t^i 0tas

ypaipfis, vo7ov rjvpiaKf (sc.

Marcion) fif^os
;
. .

Aa5.K.a..-

Kphv Kara

outoC

yviifnif, IfairapfiaayiyTi t^dSos

'^"''^

Kara

Tf,s ii\riefias

^^'^J2r

al

5m xi....
a hint of

.ol

i.

...."

(Epiphan. Orp.
'..."P^.

irapf'tfoi^c

iroA\a ruv fifKuv, Kareax* ^^ ^^"^

*P'

iavrf-' al
^Ji-

aina

Sf

Ta
ttis

voTtp';"!? ie^c ut;:ouslv

.... i...X^

^PX-

-*'

KaToavftftWo

^ti {wI'TO ov ivvarai vtKpodoBai,

a\X* ^KfT

to ^urtKhv

t/Kpivfus, Kfy T ftvplus rap' oiry (coro Afwriv

oiroT/iTjPtiT).

(p.

375

B.)

vu.]

The Etid-ncc of Ba^il considcnd.

!I7

The Eridcnto of Origfn comidvyfd.

this Avhole question
cessar)'
:

[chap.

unmistakable an expression.

more

in detail

perhaps than was ne-

chaelis before him,

Basil, (to

reasoning

Bishop Middleton, and Mihoiccicr only

from

the place in

but I was determined to prove that Tischendorf's

(a.d.

Bintemcnt that "Marcion

130

words 'at Ephesus' in his copy,"

foundation.
the case.
It
is

140) did not find the absolute!}' without

is

he quoted immediately,) are unwilling to allow words eV 'E<f>iao) were ever away from the text. It that the must be admitted as the obvious inference from what Jerome

even contradicted bv the known facts of

to say

has dehvcred on this subject {infra,

p.

98

note (s)) that he, too,

it

I shall
;

have something more

it

about Marcion

seems to know

nothing of the reading (if reading

can bo

by-and-by
i.

who,

is

quite certain, read the text of Ephes,

called) of Codd.
(3)

1 exactly as
(2.)

we

do.

The

onh/ Father

who

so expresses himself as to war-

his

B and s. The influence which Origcn'e writings exercised over own and the immediately succeeding ages of the Church,
Basil, bishop

rant the inference that the words iv 'E^eatp were absent

was prodigious.

of Cajsarca in Cappadocia,

from his copy, is Origen, in the beginning of the third cen" Only in the case of the Ephesians," (he writes), tury. " do we meet with the expression the Saints which are :'
'

writing against the heresy of Eunomius about 150 years of later, although he read iv 'E<f>ea^ in his own copy

and we inquire,

Unless
it

that additional phrase be simply

possibly signify ?

Epistles, thought fit to avail himself of Origen's He was iroving the It suited his purpose. suggestion.
S. Paul's

redundant, what can

Consider, then,

eternal existence of the

Sox of God.
Ic:
in
i.

Even

not to

know God
not,

whether those who have been partakers of His nature who revealed Himself to Moses by the Name of I am, may not,
in consequence of such union with
'

(he remarks)
S. Paul's

is

not
1

to

proof of which, he quotes

which arc

words in

Cor.

28: "Things

Him, be designated as :' those which arc persons, called out, of a state of noU being, so to speak, into a state of Icing "." If Origen had read tols ay lots rots ovaip iv ^E^eaw iu his cop}', it is

to

me

incredible that he would have gone so very far out

of his

way

to miss the sense of such a plain,

and

in fact,

hath God chosen." " Nay," (he proceeds,) the same S. Paul, " in his Epistle to the Ephesians, inasmuch as he is addresstruly joined ing persons who by intimate knowledge were specially as those which is,' designates them to Him who which arc, and faithful in are:' saying,- 'To the Saints original, Basil Christ Jesvs.'" That this fancy was not (he says,) from "those makes no secret. He derived it,
'

'

&\A^Xaf ixovffuv: [Ma/nrfwfos yap rov

T^i iiorapxtas
oi/x
To/iiji'

iiaraiotppovo^ iiiayfia, fts rp(7s

i.

&px^^

Kal

Sia(f>ciri>'.

Athanas.

231

.] but, (snys Kpipbanius),

ttal

who were
Origen.
is

ovTus

^x" V
irapet

"^ov

aytou 'Airo7TttAoi/ {nr66ns

TjtrtpaXitrfifvov
tlie
'

K-i\pvyiitL.
'

before us ;" a plain allusion to the writings of But neither was the reading his own, either. This

4ax4 &AAut

Ti aiv iroi^fu/ia.

Tlicn he contrasts with

iv.

fabricat'on

of Wrcion, the inspired verity,

waripa M&mwv,

rir ahrhv M itii^ui\

Eph.

5: declaring iva Ocbv, t^v avrhii

koi iv xaffi, k.t.A.

p.

374

C.

Epipbanius reproaches Marcion with having obtained inatrialB ixTis tdu

Euay^cXfov koI toD *AiroffT0Aou' oh yap f5u{f t^ iXtfivordrifi KapKtuvt
rphs 'E^firiovs tovtt}v
rijs irpif
iiirh

rijs

tV f^aprvpiav \fyftVf
iiii

(sc.

the words qaoted above,) dAA&

he says, (an asseveration inbut only after dispensable to the validity of his argument,) >." No doubt, he had made search ", " f the old cojncs vnintelligihle to Origen's strange fancy must have been even terras, it sounds to first he met with it. In plain
evident.

He had found

it,

Basil
this

when

AaoiiKtas, T^i

otarif Iv T^j

'fiVoCTiXif. (p.

375

A.)

(Epiphanius
S. Paul's

here uses 'AiriiffToAos in

Kpistles.)

its

technical sense,

viz. as

synouymous with

from the mutiday incredibly foolish, when read apart Origen's fervid imalated text which alone suggested it to
xii. 14, &c. Consider S. John L 42, 44, 46 v. 14 is. 85 t^'Ovt. 8i' litttwj 'E^.ff.ois iTiaiiM.uv is yvrialai iKu/icVoij 'AAAo m! ol<Ti, wv6pia,!fv, tUiy "toTi kyloit toTi 7.<r.>r.u,s, "ii-raj" oiroir. HiafoWa-t '" ^''"'' 'P5*8""'". *"';';" Kal ^..TTors ir Xp.(7T- -iTjaoC." fT' 7ip "l ' ^P^ Kotc also what immediately foUows.

"

'ClpiyivTis t( ^7)171,

'Eirl nivuiv

'Eipfotuv fvpofifv Kiliitvov rh " toTi aylois

*'

"

Tois ovoi''* Hat ^rrrovfifv, ci fi^

vapiXxn rpoaKtintvov Th
tl ^j)

ro7s ayiots To7y oSffi,"

rt tvvttTat ariiiad'ttv
;^pl}^aTi{fi)l'

Spa oZv

&ffirtp iv rfi

*Ll6b{f Hvofid iprjatv iavrov 6

'*

Mwffi ri ix Tov

"HN ovtus
that
tls

oi fitrixovrti

tov uitoi ytvovrat

hvT(%" icaAo^pii

pitvot olovti

fiT]

rh dvai.

**

i^tKflmo yap i Qths to

ivja"

iprtah 6 ainhs Iloi/Aoi,

i.

" Iko to ivra KOTopy^irp."

Cramer's

Tm

,aAa.or, t;.. i.,rtypi<^v ,ipi,Ka^^v.

i.

Catena in Ephes.

(Basil 0pp.

p.

254 E, 255 A.)

1, vol.

vi. p.

102.

98

W/i(i(

Jerome ,w/v ou
is

i/iis

mbjed.

[chap.

VII.]

Summary of the

ancient Erkknce.

99

gination.-But Mhat there

in all this to induce us to

after aU the right one, suspect that Origen's reading 'nas wrong, I profess myself ^\io\\y at a loss to

and ours the Origen himself complains bitterly of the depraved discover. and attributes it (1) to the Slate of the copies in his time
;

testifies that it was absent from " the old copies" to which he himself obtained access. This is really the whole of the matter in which it is much to be noted that Origen

Basil

does not say that he approved of this reading.

Basil.
'E(j>ia(i>

Still less

does

They both witness

to the fact

that the words eV

iii"*

rashness of correctors carelessness of the scribes : (2) to the of individuals, adoptof the text : (3) to the licentiousness
rejecting others, according ing some of these corrections and
to their
(4)

were omitted from some copies of the

century,

just as Codd.

own private

caprice

i.

and s witness to the same fact in the iv"". But what then ? Origen is known occasionally to go out of his way to notice readings confessedly wortlilcss; and,

Jerome, a

man

of severer

judgment in such matters

why
far

not

here

For not only

is

the

text
:

all

but

uiiis

rehearsing the preceding than either Origen or Basil, after persons" it,) remarks that "certain (but only to reject
gloss,

intelligihle if

the words eV 'E<f>ia^ be omitted

but (what

had been "over-fanciful"

in putting it forth.

He

alludes

more to the purpose) the direct evidence of all the copies, whether uncial or cursive', and of all the Versions, is

on the Ephesians, probably to Origen, M-hose Commentary relates that he employed' : but in three boots, he expressly that Origen's text ho does not seem to have apprehended If he icas acquainted with '</.aa,. mthout the xcorch eV writings afiFord no indiOrigen's tert, (of ^^hich, however, his disapproved of it. Others, he says, cation,) it is plain that he not " the Saints whieli are :" but,

against tbe omission.

In the face of this overwhelming mass

of unfaltering evidence to insist that Codd,

yet be accounted right,
is

vm

simply irrational.

B and K must and all the rest of Antiquity wrong, To uphold the authority, in respect of
two

this nonsensical reading, of

MSS.

worthy
all

in countless other places,

understand S. Paul to say

the Versions,
I

against

confessedly untrustall

the

MSS.

is

nothing

else

_" the
(5)

Ephesus Saints and faithful which are at

all

^"

judice.

venture to declare,

but an act of vulgar pre(and with this I shall close

that there does not

The witnesses have now

been heard

and I submit

the discussion and dismiss the subject,)

exist

that there has been elicited from our confidence in the unithing at all calculated to shake Ephesians i. 1. The facts of the versally received reading of admit of being faithfully stated case are so scanty that they Two MSS. of the iv^^ century, (ex-

their united evidence no-

one finr/h ini^tance in the irhole of the

New

Testament of

a reading even probably correct in

which the four following

notes of spurious origin concur,

which nevertheless are ob:

served to attach to the two readings which have been chiefly

discussed in the foregoing pages
1.

in a single sentence. striking notes of vicious hibiting in other respects several a clause in are found to conspire in omitting

viz.
all the uncial

The adverse testimony of

MSS.

except

sympathy,)

fuo.
2.

Ephesians

may which, (necessary as it is to the sense,) Origen's copy : and from be inferred to have been absent Inirod. pp. 381-91; Particularly places quoted by Scrivener.
i.

1,

cursive

The adverse MSS.

cursive "Cod.

testimon}' of

all,

or very nearly

all,

the

See tbe

p 385

'

Hieron. 0pp.

vol. rii. p. tria

coB.n.oneo, ut sciatic

Origenem

Pnefat.one 543 :-<' Ulud quoque banc Epistolam conscnps.sse. volumiua in

'

The

S'.6/

ting " (Tisoli.) these words.

at

nuem
.
'

ct nos ex parte Bequnti

Bumus."

Vienna, piei-cl 302

vol.
ii.

" (or "ffp") is improperly quoted as "omitTbe reference is to a MS. in tbe Imperial Library our Paul 67), collated by Alter Lambcc 34, wbicb

"Quidau. curiosius quam

dices
filiis

Haec

Israel,

Qn
sint.'

i1,is

Cf "qui sunt Epbcsi." r?<,.] appellentur b Eo qui e*t,' bi qui sunt ' li. ut
eos
rii. p.

dictum necesse est putant ex eo quod MojB. sunt [>ote est niisit me,' etiam eos qui Ephesi nunsancti ct fidcles, essentiae vocabolo
. .

et

(N. T. 17SC.

pp. 415

558),

who

says of

it (p.

490),

"cod. iv

iipiaif

piinclU

-qui TcC nonVd Hieron. 0pp.

arbitrantur."

sed <qui Epbesi sancti et fideles sinf

AUi vero s.mriptum

The MS. must have B curious history. H. Trescbow describes it in bis Tentamen Detcriptionis Codd. aliquot Oraece, &c. Havn. 1773, pp. 62 73. Also, A. C. Hwiid in bis Libellus Criiicut de iitdole Cod. MS. Graa-i S. T. Lamlfc. xxxiv. &c. Havn. 1785. It appears to have been
fiii/.if."

545

a. b.

corrected bv sniue Critic,

perhaps from Cod. B

itself.

h2

100
3.

The

ilotkrii'i iiifilkitom in their

[chap.

^TI.]

fiifcDijits to (iccoui)t

for

this Omission.

101

The adverse

testimony of

af/ the Versions,

without ex-

follow

up the detection of
account for
its

a depravation of the text with

ception.
4.

a theory to
oldest Ecclesiastical Writers.

existence.

Let

me

be allowed to
Guesses onlj'

The adverse testimony of the

if

say thnt such theories are seldom satisfactor)'.

To which
5. it is

I do not add, as I reasonably might,

The

hiyfitst inherent inijirohalilitij,

I desire

they arc at best.

Thus, I profess mj'self wholly unable to accept the suggestion of Fssher,

only because

to treat this question purely as

one of Evidence.
II.

(which,

however, found favour with Gar-

uier (Basil's editor),

Bengel, Benson, and Michaelis; and

for the

Learned men have tasked their ingenuity to account phenomenon on which we have been bestowing so
words.

has since been not onl}- eagerly advocated by Conybearc and

Howson following

a host of

German

Critics,

but has even

many

commendable; but I take leave to remark in passing that if we are to set about discovering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for every orrupt reading which found its way into the sacred
is

The endeavour

enjoyed Mr. Scrivener's distinct approval j) that tlie Ejjistlc to the Ephesians " was a Circular addressed to other Asiatic
Cities

besides the capital

Ephcsus,

to

Laodicca

perhaps

text during the of S. John,

first

three centuries subsequent to the death

among the rest (Col. iv. 16); and that while some Codices may have contained the name of Ephcsus in the first verse,
others mnij hare

up the
is

we shall have enough to do. Let any cje take Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way. Cod. B shews
if

had another

city substituted, or the space after

Tots avail'

left

utterly raid's."

At

first sight, this

conjecture
it

marvellous sympathy",) and explain

every page

he can

why

there

has a kind of interesting plausibility which recommends

to our favour.

a grave omission, or else a gross interpolation, in almost

;

On
;

closer inspection,

comes to pass that Cod. D " reproduces the ' textus receptus' of the Acts much in the same way that one of the best Cbaldee Targums does the Hebrew

and how

it

not only gratuitous

sanctioned by the

but

(ii)

found to be altogether unsupported and un(i)

It is

known
I

facts of the case

and (what

is

most

to the purpose)

(iii) it is,

as I
it,

humbly think, demon:

wide are the variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom
;

of the Old Testament

so

strably erroneous.
(1)

demur

to

Because of

its

exceeding Improbability

for (a)

when

recommend themselves
internal probability*."

as

genuine by even a semblance Our business as Critics is not

errors of Copyists;

of
to

S. Paul sent his Epistle to the Ephesians we know that Tvchicus, the bearer of it', was charged with a di-sfinet

Epistle to the Colossians

"

an Epistle nevertheless so singuit is

invent theories to account for the

but

rather to ascertain where they have erred, where not.

What

with the inexcusable depravations of early Heretics,

preposterous emendations of ancient Critics,
assiduity of Harmonizers,

the

larly like the Epistle to the Ephesians that

scarcely

the injudicious

from the inopportune of similar or parallel places, or from the familiar phraseology of the Ecclesiastical Lections, or from
viduals
;

what with

the

licentious caprice of indi-

credible S. Paul would have written those two several Epistles to two of the Churches of Asia, and yet have sent only a duplicate of one of them, {that to the Ephesians,) furnished with a diflerent address, to so large and important a place

errors resulting

recollection

as Laodicea, for example,

at this

(i)

Then

further, the provision

the inattention of Scribes,

or
and

from marginal glosses;

it

however
oldest
<

arising, endless are

the corrupt readings of the

is

which S. Paul made the Churches of Asia which he did not separatelj' address is found to have been different. The Laodiceans were to read in their public assembly S. Paul's " Epistle to the Colossians,"
very time for communicating with

MSS.

in existence;

by no means

safe to
p. xlix.

which

tlio

Colossians were ordered to send them.

f

The

Colos-

So indeed does Cod.

H occasionally.
Coda

See ScmeneT'e Collation,

Scrivener, Coll. of Cod. Sin. p. ilv.

Scrivener's Introduction to

JBezae, p. liv.

K|)li. vi.

21, 22.

Colnss. iv. 7, K'

102

The imy.rohahilHy thai S.Paul hft a blank

[chap.

vn.]
tie to

Ill

some eopies of hi^ Ejmtle

to the

Ephcmn^.

103

Bians in like

manner were lo read the Epistle, (to whom addressed, we know not), n-hich S. Paul describes as tjji' Ik

at all
{(\

the name of the Ephesians," but that v^e find space there. nor meet with any vacant

m city

AaohiKiias^.

If then

it

had been

S. Paul's desire that

the

Laodiceans (suppose) should read publicly in their Churches

his Epistle to the Ephesians, surely,

he would have charged

the Ephesians to procure that his Epistle to them should be read in

the

Church of the Laodieeans.

gratuitously assumed to

Whj' should the

Paul actually did the other hand, supiwsing that S. of the present Epistle, copies address to different Churches was) to fill in the adwas scrupulous (as of course he and documents left Ins hands, dre^=e* himself before the i,recious received several Church would have

On

-then,

doubtless, each

Apostle be

have simultaneously adopted one method with the Churches of Colosse and Laodicea, another with the Churches of Ej)hesus and Laodicea,

in respect of his
(2)
(a)

epistolar)'

communications?

S.

for argument's sake, that Paul did send duplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ephe-

But even supposing,

own copy. cherbhed, and jealously guarded its Tychicus had fille<l up, the blanks been the case, (or indeed if simply incredible that we should for the Apostle,) is it not the matter until now? unacnever have heard a word about nowhere exist traces above all, that there should
,J

But

tins

had

countable,

of

sians to certain of the principal

Churches of Asia Minor,

why

should he have

left

the salutation hlank, {" carta bianca,"

it ',) for Tychicus to fill up when he got Minor ? And yet, by the hj^pothesis, nothing short of this would account for the reading of Codd. B and K. (i) Let the full extent of the demand which is made on our good nature be clearly appreciated. We are required to

as Bengel phrases

which S. Paul s testimony as to the Church to addressed? whereas all the Epi'tie to the Ephesians was exccption,-(Marc,on himself most ancient writers, without fragment [a.t>. 170 or earherj, [a d HO"], the "Muratorian"
cr.,llicting

into Asia

Irenffus [a d. 175],

Dionvsius

Clemens Alexandrinus, TertuUian, Ongen, all copies Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Eusebius,)-and

was (1) A copy of what we call S. Paul's " Epistle to the Ephesians " sent into Asia Minor by S. Paul with a blank address i.e. " with the space after rots ovcriv
believe that there
;

that blank

to fill up That no one was (3) found to fill it up for him. Next, (4) That the same copy became the fontal source of the copy seen by Origen, and as well as (6) Of (5) Of the " old copies" seen by Basil Codd. B and n. And even this is not all. The same hypothesis constrains us to suppose that, on the contrary, (7) One other copy of this same " Encyclical Epistle," filled up with the Ephesian address, became the archet)-pe of ereri/ other copy of this Ejmtle in the uorld But of what nature, (I would ask,) is the supposed necessity for building up such a marvellous structure of hypothesis, of which the top story overhangs and overbalances all the rest of the edifice ? The thing which puzzles us in Codd. B and N is not that we find
left

utterly void:" (2)

:

That Tychicus neglected

remarkable)

and, (what

is

unvarying, unfaltering witness whe/esoever found, give one this is much to be noted,) Even in Cod. B. and Cod. K, (and attests that it was addressed the^uperseription of the Epistle w-ould respcct" to the Ephesians." Can we be warranted (I of an Apostle s inventing facts in the history fullv inquire) in seems to be after all order to account for what pra"ctice. in depravation of his text'? only an ordinary
-

"s

al>ove pp.

93-6. Asforthc ^apposed testimony o(

Ignatius

(<.f

Ephe..

lU)

the notes, cd. Jacobson.

Sec also Lnrdner, vol. n

of this e.ped.ent for account.s

Codd. B. and S, !. f!^ the state of the text of gran MSS.bytheiringe..uity. ^"U 'f e ;ldtf:I:set.o f:^ d/-"-'" remain, by their own .dm.ss.on, in question al th^" V the Codices

"it" be clearly understood b, tbe advocates noth.ng whatever that

pa.ned

J^^

and Ho.son can do. [For with Conybcare ::*:S' ; thetueft\^ing they from Ephesus eject the words " at Paul 491), to of A YrJ (i,/. and Letters of S. , ^j^^ ^^^j, ^. .^ ^^^^.^
.

^^^^

the

name

oi another City in the salutation of S. Paul's "Epis'

Uln supra.

Gnomon,

in

Epbes.

i.

1,

ad

inil.

EpUUe s

Sa,ts . Ephe.u,, veritably addressed to the

104

W/iat the Ancients calhd an " nci/clicnl"

it is

[chap.

vn.]

is

not irhat thi

Modems

call a

" Circular:'

105

(3) But, in fact,

high time to point out that euch

"a Circular"
City,)

with a blank, to be filled

was described above, (each copy furnished up with the name of a different would be a document without parallel in the annals of
as It
is,

rethe words " in Ephesus," " in Laodicea," &c., its like (I Ecclesiastical peat) is wholly unknown in the annals of

Antiquity.

The two notions

If

are at all events inconsistent

and incompatible.

the primitive Church.

tially a

as far as I

am

aware, essen-

modern notion.

I suspect, in short, that the sugges-

S.Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians was "a Circular," then it was not "Encyclical:" if it was "Encyclical" then it was not "a Circular."

tion before us is

only another instance of the fatal misappre-

hension which results from the incautious transfer of the

notions suggested bj'some familiar
to its

word

in a living language

Are we then deliberately to believe, (for to this necessity we are logically reduced,) that the Epistle which occupies from the fifth place among S. Paul's writings, and which
the beginning of the

supposed equivalent in an ancient tongue. Thus, because KVKkioi or irfKvxXios confessedly signifies " circularis,"
it

second century,

that

is,

from the

seems to be imagined that iyKVKKios eTrtaroXri may mean " a Circular Letter." Whereas it really means nothing of
;

the sort

but" a

Catholic Epistle

'."

evidence, has been known as very dawn " the Epistle to the Ephesians," was an " Encyclic.il," " Cato'k: tholic" or "General Epistle," addressed fols a'/iot<{ There does not live eV Xptajm 'Iv<tov ? olci, KaX TTtffToty
of Ilistorical
the

word which has been imported into the present discussion), was quite a different document from what we call "a Circular." Addressed to no one Church or person in particular, it was Catholic or
"Encyclical," (and that is the

An

man who

will accept so irrational a supposition.

The
aci.

suggestion therefore by which it has been proposed to Ephes. count for the absence of the words iv 'E<f>effw in

General,

the

common property

of all to

whom

it

came.

degree improbable, and is not only in itself in the highest evidence to which we have access contradicted by all the

The General (or Catholic) Epistles of S. James, S. Peter, So is the well-known Canonical S. John are " Encyclical b."
Epistle

which Gregory, Bp. of Neocaesaraea in Pontus,

in the

even inadmissible on critical grounds, and must It is observed to collapse be unconditionally surrendered be applied to it. before every test which can
but
it

is

'.

middle of the third century, sent to the Bishops of his

pro\^nce^
Church."'}
will

As

for

"a

blank circular," to be filled

up with

In tbe former ease, they will be exbibiting a cariosity j viz. tbey be sbewing us bow (they think) a duplicate (" carta bianca") copy of the

omnibus, dividi pas f im et pervuVai i, privatim dicfirunt, scd publioe describi ah Uac igitur cpisU.b.o com omnibus populis comraunic.ri voluerunt. atque partem quia HvK\6a(, quoquJ. versum ct in omncm vocatac sunt,
iyKiKMo,

mittcbantuT." Suicer
1

in roc.

Epistle looked with

"the space after

Tori oiai left utterly void :" in tbe latter,

they will be representing tbe archctypiil copy which was sent to the Metropolitau SCO of Epbesus.
[tv 'Zipiaif]
itaj

But by

printing the text thus,

rorj ayiois

-rots

olatv

ihe Greet Art. the whole." says Bishop Middlcton, (Doctrine of " I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (ou Col. iv. 10.) p. 355) Tycbicus, who carried their the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by

"On

'that

irtarois K.r.K.,

they are acting on an entirely different theory.

letter, to

They arc merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every MS. in the world B and S- This is clearly to forsake the " Encyclical " hypothesis altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the same footing as any other disputed
except Codd.
text of Scripture which can be
'

order to them to comsend a copy of it to the Laodiceans; with an suggestion is intended to meet another it to the Coloisians.'"Tliis of the reading of Ephes. i. 1 untouched. difficultv, and leaves the question

municate

It proposes only to explain

what

S.

Paul means by the enigmatical expression

has found favour with many subsequent S. Paul is found not to Tycbicus, who carried their letter, to send

named.
alii intcr-

which

is

found

in Col. Iv.

16.
it

'L-fKiKhioi' iTiBToXitv, vel

:

iyKVKXia ypiiifiara Christophorsonus et

Mackui"hf8 suggestion, though

Divines, appears to

prctautur Uferat eirculares

ego cum

viris doctis

malim Episiolas

vcl lilerat

puHictu, ad omnes
KaBoMxis.

fideles

pertincntes,

quas Graici ali^ vocant iirurroXas

iH voce, 'ZyKiK\ios.
aliis

have sent the

a copy of
it

me improbable Colossiam "word by

in a high degree.

Suicer
est,

in voce.

f KafaAiKal Kiyovrat aurai, olocci V^KiiicXioi.

^

Routh'e Seliquia, vol.

iii.

p. 2GG.

See Suicer " Tum ex ConcUiis, turn ex

Patrum

Bcriptis

notum

consuevissc piiuios Ecelesiae Patres acta ct decrcta Conci-

lioruni

passim ad omues Dei Kcclesias mittcrc per cpistolas, quas non uni

charged them, himself, to do so. ^Tiy, such to be thought to have adopted two at the same instant, is the Apostle important end r And y.ln. methods of achieving one and tbe same diQercnt the Ephesians of communication, were not instead of this roundabout method Tychicus,-to scud a copy ol at least by ordered -if not by S.Paul himself,
to the Laodiceans."

He

106

Marcion

the

Jlcnfic jD-obahh/ the

it is

[chap.
!o me,

VII.]

Author ofthi"
Philippians.
'".

t/cprnnitioii

of Ephcs.

i.

1.

107
in

III. Altogether
if

marvellous in the meantime

sians,

All this

men must needs account

from this place,

has been fully explained

(V 'Eipecru)

that

for the omission of the words

thej'

a preceding page

should have recourse

But

it is

also evident that

to wild, improbable,

and wholly unsupported

;

those which go before

while an easy,
of the problem

the obvious,

solution

theories, like
to say

another Epistle,

of which

Marcion put forth as

S.
is,

Paul's
tliat it

all

we know

for certain

was going

is close at

hand, aud

contained portions of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and purported to be addressed by S. Paul " to the Laodiccans." To
ascertain with greater precision the truth of this matter at the

even

solicits

acceptance.
(a.d.

Marcion the heretic,

TertuUian
later,
(a.d.

140)

is

distinctly charged

by

end of upwards of seventeen centuries

is

perhaps impossible.
only

200), and

by Jerome

a century and a half

Nor
a

is it

necessary.

Obvious

is

it

to su.pcct that not

with having abundantly mutilated the text of Scripture, and of S. Paul's Epistles in particular. Epiphanius

did this heretical teacher at some period of his career prefix

new heading

to certain copies of the Epistle to the

Ephe-

compares the

writing which

Marcion tampered with

to

"Instead of a stylus," (says Tertula moth-eaten coat''. " What wonder if he lian,) " Marcion employed a knife."
omits syllables, since often he omits whole pages'P" S.Paul's
Epistle to the

but also that some of his followers iiidustriouslv erased from certain other copies the words ev 'E<})eaa> in ver. 1, as
sians,

being the only two

uoriJs in the entire Epistle

It

which
it

efiectuall)'

refuted their Master.

to multiply copies

was not

needful, (be

observed,)

Ejihesians, TertuUian even

singles
it

out

bj'

of the Epistle for the propagation of

name; accusing Marcion of having furnished

title.

with a new

Marcion's
teri/

deceit.

Only two words had

ire

to

be erased,

the

All this has been fully explained above, from page 93

two words whose omission

are trying to account for,

to

to

page 96.

in order to give

some colour

to his proposed attribution of

Now, that Marcion recognised as S. Paul's Epistle " io Ephiiiam" that Apostolical writing which stands fifth in our Canon, (but which stood seventh in his,) is just as certain as that he recognised as such S.Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, ColosIhe
thcir Epistle to Colosse direct P

the Epistle, (" quasi in isto diligentissimus exploraf or,") the Laodiccans.
fallen into the

One

of these mutilated copies will

hands of Origen,
:

who often complains of the

critical

have

corrupt state of his text

while the

personages for
will probabU'
copies.

whom
we not

Cod.

and Cod. k were transcribed

And why do nc

have been acquainted with other such mutilated

find the ColossianE charged

Are

to read puhlicly tiiv Ik AooSixc/as,

only n copy,
liavc

instead of

t^*" /{ 'E<pfaov,

which (by the hypothesis) would bare heen which, (by the Bame hypothesis,) would

led, as it

were by the hand, to take some such view

satisfactorilj',

of the case ?

In this way we aceount

historic evidence, for the

and on

Kay, why is it not designated by S. Paul, 17(1' rpis 'E^f o/ovs, (if indeed it was his Epistle to the Ephesians which is alluded to,) instead of Tqv ix AaoSiKilas ; which would hardly be an intelligible way of
been the original ?

grounds of
I

omission which has

exercised the Critics so severely.

indicating the doconicut ?

Lastly,

why

arc not the Colossians ordered to com-

do not

lose sight of the fact that the

Epistle to the

municate a copy of their Epistle to the illustrious Cburch of the

b1$o,

EphetiaM

Ephesians ends without salutations, without personal notices

of any kind.

which had been originally addressed by S. Paul

If the Colossians must

But

in this respect

it is

not peculiar

".

That,

needs read the Epistle (so like their o\vn) which the Apostle bad just written
to the Ephesians, surely the Ephesians

a eight of the Epistle which S. Paul

Colossians

must aUo be supposed to have required had at the same time written to the

^joined to a singular absence of identif\-ing allusion,

sufcir-

ficientlj'
tle for

explains

why Marcion

selected this particular Epis-

the subject of his fraud.

But, to infer from this

311 D. " Marcion cierte et palam machxra non stilo usus est, qaoniam ad materiain suam csedcm Scripturaruni confecit." (TertuUian Prascript. Ear. c. 38,
'

Epiphan. 0pp.

i.

cumstance, in defiance of the Tradition of the Church Universal,

and
by

in defiance of its very Title, that the Epistle is

p.

p. 50.)

"Non

miror

ai

syllabas suhtrahit,
lib. v, c. xvii, p.

cum paginus

totas plerumqne sub-

See above
" Sec,

93,

and sec note

(f) p.

94.
iii.

ducat."

{Adv. Marcion.

455.)

nil nu<an;>,

Alford on this subject, vol.

Protfgg. pp. 13

15.

108
'

Then can
tlic

be no iJoalt Unit the coutuion

[CHAV.
;

VI 1.]
I

reading of Ephes.
;

i.

/v

the true reading.

lO'J

Encyclical/ in

technical sense of that word

in

and

to

go

addition

foisted into the text of

:

Ephes.

i.

1 as far back as

on to urge this characteristic as an argument

tlie

support of

the Apostolic age

an interpolation which, instead of

dying

omission of the words iv

;

^E<l>((roy,

is clearly

the device of

an eager Advocate
judiced Judge.

not the method of a calm and unpreit is

True

that S. Paul,

who,

writing to

and estaout, and at last all but disappearing, has spread in every copy, are blished itself, untU the words are found in represented in every translation, have been recognised
in every country, witnessed to by every Father, received the one question every age of the Church ? 1 repeat that

the Corinthians from Ephcsus, says " the Churches of Axia

salute you," (1 Cor. xvi. 19,)

may have known very well that an Epistle of his " to the Ephesians," would, as a matter of course, be instantly

communicated to others besides the members of that particular Church and in fact this may explain why there is nothing specially "Ephesian" in
:

came which has to be decided is, not how the words eV 'E<\)icTU> simply whether, on but to be put in, or came to be left out
;

the contents of the Epistle. The Apostle, (as when he addressed " the Churches of Galatia,") may have had cer-

(with an impartial review of the evidence, it be reasonable so maiiy Tischcndorf, Tregclles, Conybeare and Ilowson, and enclose them more,) to suspect their genuineness and

brackets
rious

Is

it

credible that the

words iv

'E<i>iau>

are a spu-

tain of the other

neighbouring Churches in bis mind while

all

and unauthorized addition

.

to the inspired

autograph

he wrote.
before us
:

But

this is wholl)' foreign to the question

this,

of the Apostle?.

the one onh/ question being

Which of the
Paul must be
verse of his

three following addresses represents

what

S.

have already, as I think, obtained has been shewn, a satisfactory answer to this question. It is possible, that as conclusively as in inquiries of this nature

.We

considered to have actually written in the " Epistle to the Ephesians " ?
(1)
(2) (3)

first

in respect of the reading of Ephesians

i.

1,

Codd.

B and H

Tot? ayioii TOif ovaiv iv

Toty aylois TOt? oiiaiv iv

'Eipeffcfi

Kal
Kal

irto-Toi? iv
Tr/o-Tot? iv

X. X.

'I.
'I.

Tots 07/0*5 TOts overt, Kal TTjffTotj iv

X.
:

'I.

What
lutelj'

I have been saying amounts to this

that

it is

abso-

go out of their way to invent a theory wanting every element of probability in order to account for the omission of the words iv 'E(piaa from S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians while they have under their eyes the express testimony of a competent witness of the ii^ century that a certain heretic, named Marcion, " preunreasonable for
to
;

men

are even most conspicuously at fault. of error IV. But if these two Codices are thus convicted upof the one remaining text which their chief in respect make their selected, and to which they still holders have point out that most confident appeal, what remains, but to their that men should be invited to disabuse
it is

high time been so minds of the extravagant opinion which they have
value of the two industriously taught to entertain of the an It has aheady degenerated into Codices in question? and threatens at last to add one more unreasoning prejudice,
to the already

sumed
("
title

to prefix
ei

an unauthorized

title to

that very Epistle,"

V. I

overgrown catalogue of " vulgar errors." Tischendorf cannot, I suppose, act more fairly by

Marcion

titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit,")

which

obviously could not stand unless those two words were first

from the text. To interpolate that new title, and to erase the two words which were plainly inconsistent with it, were obviously correlative acts which must always have been
erased

on the four than by transcribing in conclusion his remarks to which he triumphantly remaining readings of Codex K single remark. appeals promising to dismiss them all with a readers,) in his " IntroducHe says, (addressing unlearned
:

performed together.

Testament tion" to the Tauchnitz (English) New " To these examples, others might be added. Thus,
says on

: Ongen

But however

all this

may

be,

(as already pointed out,)

is,

John

i.

4, that in
'

some copies
life.'

it is

the only question to be determined by us

whether

it

Him

is life,'

for
-

in

Him

was

This

was written, 'in a reading which

be credible that the words iv 'E^iau) are an unauthorized

p.

liv. See above, pp.

8, 9, note (f).

110

The &IIV readimj of S. John

find in

i.

4.

Other
it

[chav.

vii.]

jicculiar ratdin'iy in

Coder

Nj disposed of.

Ill

we

sundry quotations before the time of OiigcnP;

all

serves that in the third century Porphyrj', the antagoni>t

but now,
Sitiai/ir,

muong
null

known Greek WSS.

old Coder Bczac,
it is
;

is

only in the

of Christianity, had found fault with the Evangelist Matthew

for

the /aitioiis

Gospels at Cambridge
early Latin

yet

copy of the also found in most of the

a

having

said,

'

which was spoken by the prophet Esaias.'

but Jerome

writing of the second century had already witnessed to

versions, in the

the oldest Coptic.

f

Again,

in Matth. xiii. 35,

most ancient Syriac, and in Jerome ob-

the

same reading
all

adds further that well-

informed men had long ago removed the name of Esaias.

Among
One
is

our

MSS.
to,

of a thousand years old and upwards,

ratlier surprised to find tlie facts of the case so unfairly represented

in addressing

unlearned readers;

who

there

is

not a solitary example eonfnining the

are entitled to

tlic

largest

amount of
the text referred
:

iugcuuousness, and to entire sincerity of stutement.

(1) Valentt.

TLc

facts are tbcsc

name of Esaiaa
a

in

ixeept the Sinnltic, to wliich

few of

(apud Irenivuni), (2) Clemens AJei., and (3) TLcodotus (apud Clem.) read ta-ii: but tlieu (1) Irenaeus himself, (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Thcodotus (apud Clem.) also read ^r. These testimonies, therefore, clearlv
neutralize each other.

less

than a thousand years old

xiii.

may
read

be added.

Once
is

more,

Origcn quotes John

10 six times;

but only the Sinaitic

the same as Origcn
:

Cyprian also has both readings. Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads taji; hut Oiigeu, (though he remarks that to-ri is "perhaps
not BU improbable reading,") reads
i)ii

und serend
'

aneieid Latin

MSS.

it

He

that

is

washed needeth not to wash, but

vi.

clean every

ten oreleeen iimei.

'Hi- is also

the read-

whit.'

In John

51, also,
is

ing of Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Tlicodoret,

of the

cult to settle,

the Sinaitie
;

where the reading is very difiialone among all Grech copies in-

Vulgate, of the Slemphitic, of the Pcshito. and of the Philoxenian Versions

as wi'll us of U,

A, C,

in fact of aU

tlie

JilSS. in the uorld, eicejit of

K and D.

All that remains to be set on the other ide are the Thebaic
Syriac, together with

and Cureton'a

most copies of the early Latin.

all before us, will any one say that it is which of these two readings must exhibit the

and Tertullian, at the end of the second ' If any miin eat of century, confirms the Sinaitic reading bread that I will give mj' bread, he shall live for ever. The
dubitably correct
:

And now, with

the evidence thus

for the life of the world

is

my

flesh.'

We

omit to indicate

lawfully a question for discussion

further illustrations of this kind, although there are manj'

genuine text of S. John

reason from the evidence,

i.

(For 1 treat

it as

a question of authority, and

declining to import into the argument what may ho

;

others like them '."

called logical considerations

I suspect, in fact, that

though

conceive them to be

all

on

my

side.)

Let
1

it

be declared without offence, that there appears to

altogether useless that I should follow this famous Critic

the inveterate practice of the primitive age of reading

h ytyoftt' iy airrf (wi) ^v,

It

may not be

the place after the following strange fashion,

was
such

of the text of the X. T. over the ground which he has himself chosen.
challenges attention for the four following readings of the Codex Siiiaiticus
(1.) S.
ijcraiov

He
:

what led to this depravation of the text.

lib.
i,

Cyril in his

Commentary [heading of
^itti
is

c. vi.] so

reads S.

John

i.

3, 4.
. . .

And

to substitute

(for ^r) in

.lOUX

i.

fv

atnu

fa-Tj

forty.
xiii.

(2.)

S.

Matth.

xiii.

35

to

ptiSfy 8io

a sentence as that, was obvious.

Chrysostom's opinion

well known,
fi,
i.

"Let

us beware of putting the full stop" (he says) "at the words oiSS
heretics."

as do the
Hippo-

Tov rpoipriTov.

(3.) S.
:

6ai.

[He

(4.) S.
01'

John

vi.

51

10: o XiXoufifvos ovx fX' XP^'"" "4""^' ay ris ^ayrj fx rov t/iov aprov, fijffti (is toy aiwya'
tou Koopiiiu
fii!j)i ij

JoHN

alludes to Valcntinus, Heraclcoii (Orig. 0pp.

130), and to

o apTos

)< luaic

imp

ttjs

aapl /lou toTtv.

(And

this.

Theodotus (apud Clem. Alex.).

lytus (South, Oputc.
i.

I)ut

it

must be coufrssed that

Ireiiaius,

Dr. Tischcndorf asserts to be " indubitably correct.")

CS),

Clemens

Alex., Origcn, Concil. Autioch. (a.d. 269,

South

iii.

293), Theojihilus Antioch., Atlianasius, Cyril of Jer.,

besides of the

On

insjiection, these four readings

prove to be exactly what might have been

anticipated from the aiinauncement that they are almost the private properly

Latins, Tcrtulliau, Lactantius, Victorinns (South

point the place in the

son,)

same way.

" It

is

iii. 459), and Augustine, worth our observatiou," (says Pear-

John to prove that the HoLT Ghost was made by the Sos, leaves out those words twice together by which the
"that Eusebius citing the place of
S.

The last three are absolutely worthless. They stand To examine is to reject them the second (of which Jerome says something rcry difl'erent from what Tisch. pretends} and fourth being only two more of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired
of the single Codex KBclf-condeninod.
:

Catholics used to refiitc that heresy of the Arians, viz. t yiyovtv. "J Chrysostom proceeds, " In order to make out that THE Spibit

Text, of which this Codex contains so

is

many

sorry specimens

the third being

a crea-

clearly nothing

else

but

the result

of the carelessness of the transcriber.

ture, they read

*0

yt'iofi, ip airif fw?;

tjK,-

by which means, the

Evangelist's
is

language

is

made

unintelligible."

(Opp.y'm. 40.)

theless adopted

by Trfgcllcs,

but not by Tischeiidorf.

This punctuation
meaus on

Misled by the like ending

(iu.oi<yriK(\noy)

he has dropped a line: thus:

never-

OTX

exi xpfiAN [ei

nius (quoted in Pearson's note, referred to iiifra), Cyprian,

The Peshito, EpiphaJerome and the

this subject Peari.

Vulgate divide the sentence as we do.

son's note (r),

See by

MH TOTC nOAAC] NI ^ACeAl AAAA CTIN

The
first, 1

all

have discussed

briefly in

the foregoing footnote (p) p.

HO.

Abt.

viii, (ii. p.

262 ed. Burton).

Also South's Opusc.

88-9.

112
exist in

Iii(i(!i)i(js iiol

tnn- l-rdust Ihtif arc oh/.

[chap.

tlic

mind

of this illustrious Critic a hopeless con-

fusion between the nntiquifii of a Codex

and the
is

tahic of its

readings.

I venture to assert that a reading

valuable or

the contrary, exactly in proportion to the probability of its being true or false. Interesting it is sure to be, be it what
it

but the editor of Scripture must needs bring every reading, wherever found, to this test at
:

may, if it be found and often instructive

in a very ancient codex,

interesting

last:

Is it to be thought that what I am here presented with is what the Evangelist or the Apostle actually wrote ? If an answer in the negative be obtained to this question,

then, the fact that one, or two, or three of the early Fathers
place, will not avail to impart to the rejected reading one particle of tahtc. And yet Tischendorf thinks it enough in all the preceding passages to assure his reader that a given reading in Cod. was recognised by

appear to have so read the

Origen, by Tertullian, by Jerome. To have established this one point he evidently thinks sufficient. There is implied in
all this

an utterly

false

major premiss

viz.

That Scriptural

quotations found in the writings of Origen, of Tertullian, of

Jerome, must needs be the

Whereas
the

it is

ipsissima rcrha of the Spirit. notorious " that the worst corruptions to which

New Testament has ever been subjected originated within hundred years after it was composed that Irenseus and a the whole AVestern, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Heceptus'." And one is astonished that a Critic of bo much sagacity, (who of course knows
:

better,) should deliberately put forth so gross a fallacy,

not only without a word of explanation, a word of caution,

but in such a manner as inevitably to mislead an unsuspecting reader. AVithout offence to Dr. Tischendorf, I must be
allowed to declare that, in the remarks

we have

been con-

on glorifying the "Codex Sinaiticus" than in establishing the Truth of the pure Word of Gon. He convinces me that to have found
sidering, he shews himself far more bent
'

Scrivener's Introduction, p. 386.

The wbole

Cliaptr dcEerres careftil study.

^,

]
,

Tfik opjwsiJe page exhibits an

crrirf Fnr-siiiiii/i;

obfnincd bv

rfrHKANAy T^OH-^AAAAVnAri Tf elnAT't'TMCMA

O/lOyf
r^ HT^AI C AV iT
fl

CyNTrIMWtf A" rriAAN-^ Mf^A

Photography, of

fol.

113 of Evan.

Coi). L, ("Oo.Ips Regius,"

No. 62,) at Paris; containing S.

plained at pp. 123-4.
lislied

Mark

xvi.

to

as ex-

The Text
See
p. 206.

of that

MS. has been pub-

^f TTA YrA KAiAVTl

mT AnCAN'lT^t^H'

byDr.Tischendorf in his "Monumenta Sacra Inedila,"

y KaI
eif

(1840, pp.

57399.)

The

original

Photograph was executed

(Oct. 1809) by the

KAIAVM^YfflVf
n/JOArnyMAf
f^^An/cTTIA^H^l
TT|lNnAAJ;VAiAN

obliging permission of

M.

de Wailly, wlio presides over the

tlie

Manuscript Department of

" Bibliotheqne."

He

has jny

aVJT W MT'
pyriOu-*-

J f

!
f

best thauks for the kindness with

which he promoted

my

wishes and facilitated ray researches.

It should perhaps be stated that f/w mnrgin of "
is

flCfJAVTCNiwH Tfrf KATtrWC/inP

KAIA<|>refA'r^ftl^

Codex

L"

^hca'H Niiyrw^HpiAC*^

somewhat ampler than can be represented

folio

in

an octavo

volume; each

measuring very nearly nine inches, by

very nearly six inches and a half.

VAVTAmepo,;

Vf N^I^AV+ACTiH

VII.]

A prediction

concruing Codices

D and ^.

113

au early uncial Codex, is every bit as fatal as to Lave "taken Verily, " H doili Hind the eyes of the wise'." a gift."

And
that

w!ih this, I sball conclude

famous Codices.

humbly record

my remarks on these two my deliberate conviction

;

sent only in its infancy,

when the Science of Textual Criticism, which is at precomes to be better understood (and a careful collation of ever}' existing Codex of the New Testament is one indispensable preliminary to its being ever
placed on a trustworthy basis;) a very different estimate
will

be formed of the impoi-tance of not a few of those read-

ings which at present are received with unquestioning eubmissiou, chiefly on the authority of

Codex

11

On

the oiher hand,

it is

perfectly certain that

and Codex Nno future collacredible that

tions,

no

I'uture discoveries, will

ever

make

it

the la;t Twelve A^'erses of S. Mark's Gospel are a spurious

Eupplemeui

to

the

Evangelical

Narrative

or that the

words eV 'Eipeau) are an unauthorized interpolation of the

inspired Text.

And
I

thus much concerning Codex B and Codex swould gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion

of the "Internal Evidence," but that the external testimony

commonly appealed to is not yet fully disposed of. There remain to be considered certain ancient "Scholia" and "Notes," and indeed whatever else results from the critical inspection and all this of ancient MSS., whether uncial or cursive
:

may

reasonablj' claim

one entire Chapter to

Deut. xvi. 19.

itself.

c..r. vn..]
\

Later Editors

tU

ricfims of their predecessors.

115

^e
t
'
:

r" x""; "? } r^ " No e or Scholion"

assort tha

^'

CHAPTER
TIIZ

VIII.
'
.

PURPORT OF A^CIENT SCHOLIA, AND NOTES IN MSS. ON TIIE SUL1JECT OF THESE VERSES, SHEAVN TO BE THE REATRSE OF WHAT IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED.

Lnicr Editort of the

inaccuracies.

Birch's unfortunate
ffwrf

New

Teetament the victhm of their predeceuort'

mistake (p. 117).

Schoh'

seri-

ous blunders (p. 119

pp. 120-1).

Grieslach's sweeping

mis1

the other hand notes or scholia which state the exact ever !' re\ere, (viz. that "in tie "*" older" or "<t, . ';*-' the more accurate ,.. copies" the la.t , twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel .,. containll ) re ur even perpetually The plain truth is this :-These euL n Frsons have taken their information at second-hanS partly from Griesbach, partly from Picion and without inquiry. I3ut then the have 11] th misrepresented Scholz; and Scholz (1830) slightly
.

^:L "f. 'T-'"' -except in then- own

,

""""'^^

*"^ '^"^"''- I ^^-eIj deny that which these learned persons affi^ to
^^^ ^"3' existence

whTteC

i.naginations.

On

SchoC.ilutf

statement (pp. 121-2).

The grate misapprehension which has

not the author of the so-called "

re-

ood Gnoshach; and Griesbach (179G) took liberties

ll'e consequence

^2

sulted from at! this inaccuracy of detail (pp. 122-3).

whh

Codex

L (p.

123).
Sections

Ammonius
{ji.

monian"

a misnomer.

" The Catenae,"

125).

Epiphatiius (p. 132).

"

Am-

Caesarius,"

misrepresented (p. 133).

In the present Chapter, I propose to pass under review

whatever manuscript testimony
still

remains unconsidered;

our attention having been hitherto exclusively devoted to Codices B and s\ True, that the rest of the evidence may
be disposed of in a single short sentence
isience with the exception
I.
:

The Twelve Versa

in er-

^V

under discussion are found in every copy of the Gospels of Codices

B and K.

But

then,

We are assured, (by

Dr. Tregelles for example,)

that

his own credit. Let be allowed to explain in detail what has occurred 2. Griesbach is found to have pursued the truly German plan of setting down all the twenty-five MSS.- and all the hve Patristic authorities which up to his time had been cited as bearing on the genuineness of S. Mark xvi 9-20 giving the former in numerical order, and
to
rue

might have been anticipated The Truth, once thrust out of sight, certain erroneous statement ha^e usurped its p ace,-,vhich every succeeding Critic now reproduces, evident y to his own entire satisfacL; tho^I not, U must be declared, altogether

t..kes.

"a Note

or a Scholion stating the absence of these verses

from wavy, from most, or from the most correct copies (often from Victor or Severus) is found in twenty-five other cursive Codices'." Tischendorfhasnearly the same words: "Scholia'
(he says) " in very

many MSS.

state that the

Gospel of Mark

in the most ancient (and most accurate) copies

ended

at the

ninth verse."
tion

That distinguished Critic supports his asserto seven

by appealing

MSS.

in particular,

and

refer-

ring generally to "about twenty-five others."

Dr. Davidson
true, this deserious

adopts every word of this blindfold.

1. Now of course if all that precedes were partment of the Evidence would become deserving of

the verses in question were anciently wanting in some, or in most, or in almost all the Greek copies, or in the most accurate ones:-or else that they y,- eve found '^ a few, or in the more accurate copies, or in many, or in most of them, specially in the Palestinian Gospel." The learned writer (who had made up his mind long before that the verses in question are to be rejected) no doubt perceived that this would be the most couvenient way of disposing of the evidence for and against l>ut one IS nt a loss to understand how

conceding them that in one or other of those It would be found recorded "that

stating generallv
authorities

iiave

English scholars can acquiesced in such a slipshod statement for well nigh
41,-108,
129, 137.

'

Printed Teii, p.254.

U3,

Viz. Co,1.1. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37. 38, 39, 40, J81, ISO, li.5, 199,

138

200,209,210,221,222.

l2

116
a

BMonj

of the

rrrov'i in

Schofz' iwte

(:).

[chap.
|

VIII.]

lilnh^s

iiii/orfiiiiriti

>isf<i!,i

ir,

hundred years. A very little study of the subject would have ehewn them that Griesbach derived the first eleven of *. his references from Wetstcin ', the last fourteen from Birch Scholz, he unsuspiciously adopted Griesbach's fatal As for adding five to the number ; and enumeration of Codices the series here and there, in order to onlv inferrupting
;

witnesses against the genuineness of the (he Gospel according to S. Mark.

last

twelve verses of

And
'

yet,

(let

me

say

it

without offence,) a very

little

attention ought to be

enough to convince any one familiar

inadmissible.
'

with this subject that the proposed inference is absolutely For, in the first place, a wfitnn/ asterisk (not

insert the quotations

which

'NVetstein

had already supplied

at all a rare

phenomenon

in ancient MSS.''} has of necessity

from certain of them. TVith Scholz, therefore, rests the blame of everj'thing which has been written since 1830 concerning the MS. evidence for this part of S.Mark's
subsequent critics having been content to adopt his statements without acknowledgment and without examina-

no such
j
|

signification.

And

even

if it

docs sometimes in-

Gospel

Unfortunately Scholz did his work (as usual) in such a slovenly style, that besides perpetuating old mistakes he invented new ones ; which, of course, have been reproduced
tion.

which follow arc suspicious, (of which, however, I have never seen an example,) it clearly could not have that signification here, for a reason whicli I should have thought an intelligent boy might discover. Well aware, however, that I should never be listened to, with Birch and Griesbach, Scholz and Tischendorf, and indeed every one else against me, I got a learned friend at Kome to visit the Vatican Library for me, and inspect the two Codices in question *. That he would find Birch right
in /lis facts, I had no reason to doubt; but I much more than doubted the correctness of his proposed inference from them. I even felt convinced that the meaning and purpose

dicate that all the verses

who have simply translated or transcribed him. I shall examine his not* " (=) *", with which pracsubject tically all that has since been delivered on tliis Tischendorf, Tregelles, Davidson, and the rest, is iden-

by

those

And now
by

tical.

Scholz (copying Griesbach) first states that in two MSS. in the Vatican Library ' the verses in question " are marked with an asterisk." The original author of this
(1.)

followed it up by explaining the mark*. From that day to this, the asterisks in Codd. Vatt. 756 and 757 have been reliand it is unigiously reproduced by every Critic in turn taken for granted that they represent two ancient versally

statement was Birch,

who

fatal signification of this

of the asterisks in question would be demonstrably different from what Birch had imagined. Altogether unprepared was I for the result. It is found that the learned Dane has here made one of those (venial, but) unfortunate blunders to which every one is liable who
registers

phenomena of

this

class

in haste, and does not

methodize his memoranda until he gets home. there prores to he no asterisk at at/, cit/ier

To be
in

brief

Cod. 756,

or in Cod. 757.

'

\Vetstein quoted 14 Codices in all

but Griesbach makes no use of

lii

On

the contrary.

reference to Beg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242 ?) wbich

= Evan. 15, 19,

:

After 90poOvTO rdp, the former Codex

has, in the text of S.

Mark
-Hf

xvi. 9 (fol. 150

b),

a plain cross,

299
'

(?) respectively.

rariae LectloMts, ic. (1801,

225-6.) He

cites

129, 137. 138, 143) : Cod. Zelada (= 222, (=186, 195): V. 27 (=210): Vind. Lamb. 38, 39, Kol. 4 (=221, 10 108): Cjd. iv. (leg. 6?) S. Maris Bened. Tlor. (=109) Codd. Vcn. 6,
757, 1229

(=onr

Codd. Vatt. 358. 756, 181) Laur. vi. 18, 3*

{not an
thus

asterisk, thus

or

5j<

or >^ or

>X<.

hut a cross,

+), the
to

intention of which
b,

is to refer

the reader to

an annotation on fol. 151

also,)

(marked, of course, with a cross

the effect
201

that

S.

Mark

xvi.

920
S.

is

(= 206, 209.)

'

undoubtedly
xvi. 9,

iTor. Tett. vol.

i.

Vat. 756, 757

= our Evan. 137, 138.

ccnsoria
vii;gn1ii us!

p. 199.

'

In

Coil.

(= Paris
aud

65) for instance, besides at

Mk.

>^ occurs

Quosiguo tamquam

sunt

librarii,

qua Evangelistaruni

at li. 12, lii. 3H,

xiv. 12.

On

narratioues

in oaanibus Codicibns
p. 225.

non obvias, tamquam dubins notarcnt.

periiope de
friend arc

ailiilterd.

tbe other hand, no such sign occurs at the Further obligations to the same

acknuwlcdgcd

in the

Var'iae Leeiionet, 4c.

Appendix (D).


118
gciiuiiicK

Details concent ill ff Codices

20

aixl 300.

[chap.

vni.]

Scholz' serious misapprehenmns.

jjg

The evidence, therefore, not onlj' breaks hopedown ; but it is discovered that this witness has been by accident put into the wrong box. This is, in fact, a witness tiof for the plaintiff, but for the defendant ! As for the other
lessly

(3.) Yet more important is the record contained in the same two MSS., (of which also Scholz says nothing,) viz. that they exhibit a text which had been "collated with \\ic ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem"." What need to

Codex,

it

exhibits neither asterisk nor cross

but contains

the same note or scholion attesting the genuineness of the

last

twelve verses of S. Mark.

point out that so remarkable a statement, taken in conjunction with the express voucher that " although some copies of the Gospels are without the verses under discussion, yet that
in

I suppose I

may now

pass on

but I venture to point

the ancient copies all the verses are found," is a critical

which remain to be examined are able to produce very different testimony from that borne bj' the last two, the present inquiry cannot be brought to
out that unless the Witnesses
a close too soon.

attestation to the genuineness of S.

Mark

xvi.

9 f o 20, far out-

weighing the bare statement (next

deniable historical fact that, "
at rer. 8,
(4.)
in

to be noticed) of the

unends

(" I took thee to curse

mine enemies,

and,

but " in many

is

some copies," S. docs not " ?

Marh

them altogether.") (2.) In Codd. 20 and 300 (Scholz proceeds) we read as follows " From here to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. In the anciaif copies, hoiccver, it all forms part of the text ''." Scholz (who was the first to adduce
behold, thou hast blessed
:

Scholz proceeds

+ TcAoc
cv Tioi

Cod. 22, read the following rubric :"

: " In

after eipopoOvTO

rdp

Twv dvTirpdqjwv ?wc wbe nAHpoOrai 6 cuarreAioTaOra

(peperai".

THc- v noAAoTc be kqI

this important testimonj' to the

genuineness of the verses

now under

consideration) takes no notice of the singular cir-

cumstance that the two MSS. he mentions have been exactly

assimilated in ancient times to a

is complacently copied by subsequent Critics and Editors,cross, and "tIaoc," and all, as an additional ancient attestation to the fact that

And

the whole of this statement

all

" The

common model

End"

and that
Strange,
that the

they correspond one with the other so entirely both of them,

the text.

incredible rather, that among so

.

(tIaoc) ofS. Mark's Gospel is indeed at ch. xvi. 8.

many

'

learned

foregoing rubrical annotation appears in the icrong place in

viz. at the close ofver. 15,

persons, not one should have perceived that " t^Aoc " in this

where

it

interrupts

This was, therefore, once a echolion written in the margin of some very ancient Codex, which has lost ita

place merely denotes that here a tcell-knoirn Ecclesiastical section comes to an end .' . . As far, therefore, as the present dis-

cussion

is

concerned, the circumstance

in Cod.

is

purely irrelevant "

(at fol.

way

in the process of transcription

it

(for there

can be no

At the end of S. Matthew's Gospel

300

doubt that
let it

was originally written against

its

ver. 8.)
;

And
it

89)

is

found,

cuarffAiov

Kara Marealov

rpd9H

ko!

avTEpAHOH

be noted that

testimon}' is express

and that

Twv
and

'

lepo(joAu)ioic
end of
S.

naAaiwv
fol.

avouches for the fact that "in the ancient copies," S.Mark
xvi.
'

dvTirpdtpoiv, v oti)(oic
147 A)

aZ^

at tlic

Mark's, (at

920

"formed part of the

Coisl. 20, in
if.

text."

ciarre^iov Kord

MdpKOV

erpdqiH koi dvxepAHeH djiiofwc

Similarly, in Cod.

against S.

Mark

xvi. 9,

this sign

the Paris Library, (which

It in intended (like

= onr
is

36,)
in

Twv eonoubaofievtov
(

oti'xoic a(pc Kfq>aAaioic cAS

tirs:) is

an asterisk which

Tnis second colophon (though not the

pear in Cod. 202
of the two) in

found

in

modern book)

to refer the reader to the self-same annotation

is

spoken

of in the text as occurring in Cod. Vat. 756, and which

in the margin of the Paris

observed to occnr

= Paris 53), and (with an iuterestiog variety

I suppose is the first half of] the nncial
b.

Cod. 20.
in

JBoth reap-

the former

[what

MS.

Codex A.

also.

See

Scrivener's lulroduction, p. 125.

it

JvreCeev lac

xoC icAouc v riai tcov dvnrpdtpwv ov

dpxaioic,

= Paris li.fol. 107

in Co<l.
1

He

might have added,

b.

(for
it

KeTiar
'

ev he

to?c

navra

dnapdAnnia
(D),

Keixai.

out 79 ycnrs before,) that the same note precisely

6
(

Pans lb, IbO.) (Codd. ao and 300 See more concerning this matter in the Appendix

and 9
*

= Paris 64,)/o/. 98

Wetstem had pointed found between verses 8

ad Jin.

See more at the very end of Chap. XI.

120

Schoh'

nerioiis fitsiiic

of

mi^faJ.t

[chap.
less said

VIM.]

G/'(V.vAr7f//'*

iincpimj

)iii>^stati

nicnts.

121

and, (as I propose to

about
(5.)

it

sbew in Chapter XI,) tbe by the opposite party, tbe better.

four, (he

"23"
celled.)

with

"Coi'^/.

23," but " Coisl.

23"

is

his

"39," of

which by-nnd-by.
three,)

This reference therefore has to be cana scholion of precisely the opposite

Scholz further states that in

means

Cod. 41 contains
:

other Codices very nearly the

same colophon

as the preced-

tendency
copies

I mean, a scholion

which avers that

last

the accurate
rcrscs.

ing recurs, with an important additional clause.

199, 20G, 209, (he says)
is

In Codd.

I,

of S. Marl's Gospel contain these

twelve

read,

(Scholz borrowed this

wrong

reference from Wetstein,

who,

"In
vj) to

certain of the copies, tbe Evangelist finishes here;

tihkh place 'EuHthius ihc friend of Pnmphib.i.s canonized.

is

There
pel to

by an oversight, quotes Cod. 41 three times instead of twice.) remain but Codd. 34 and 39 and in neither of
;

In other copies, however,

found

as follows '."

And

then

those two manuscripts, from the

tlic

comes tbe rest of

I sball

S.

Mark's Gospel.

last,

f age of S. Jlark's Gosdoes there exist any "scholion of Secerns

first

have more to say about this reference to Eusebius, and what he "canonized," by-and-by. But what is there in
all this,
(let

of Antioch" trhatcrcr.

Scholz, in a word, has inadvertently

'
;

made

a gross

misstatement

and every Critic who has since

me

in the

meantime
;

ask), to

recommend the
its

written on this subject has adopted his words,

without
is

opinion that the Gospel of S.

Mark

was published by

Author in an incomplete state

verses of
(6.) it

or that the last twelve

acknowledgment and without examination evidence on which it is proposed to prove that

not write
(7.) tlie last

Such
S.

the

Mark did

are of spurious origin ?

reader's attention is epeciallj' invited to the im-

twelve verses of his Gospel!

The

Suliolz proceeds to

enumerate the following twenty-

posing statement which follows. Codd. 23, 34, 39, 41, (says Scholz,) " contain these words of Severus of Antioch " lu the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to
:

two Codices : 24,

this

34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137,

138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222.

And

imposing catalogue

is

what has misled Tischendorf,

Mark has

its

end at

'

for the}'

however, this also

is

added,

were
*

afraid.'

In some copies,

Tregelles and the rest.

&c. This, however, seems to what was before delivered," &c. It may sound fabulous, but it is strictlj* true, that every word of this, (unsuspiciously adopted as it has been by every Critic who has since gone over the same ground,) is a mere
tissue of mistakes.
irfiaterer

when He was risen,' contradict to some extent

Now

a mere transcript of Grieshach's

only to

They have not perceived that it is list ; which Scholz interrupts give from Cod. 24, (imperfectly and at second-hand,)

the weighty scholion, (Wetstein had given it from Cod. 41,) which relates, on the authority of an eye-witness, that
S.

For

first,

Cod. 23
(wiiicb

contains nothing
(Scholz, evidently
his

Mark xvi. 9 20 existed in the ancient Palestinian Copy. (About that Scholion enough has been offered already'.) Scholz adds that very nearly the same words are found in

pertinent to the present inquiry.

through baste and inadvertence, has confounded

> Cod. 1. (at Basle), and Codd. 206,
s follows
:

own

209

= Venet.6and 10) coutain

tv

says concerning 206 and 209 (and he might have added 199,) has been explained above. But when the twenty MSS. which remain ' undisposed of have been scrutinized, their testimony is found to be quite

374.

"What he

v Tioi

(Liev

Toiv dvTirpd9aiv

coic Jibe TTAHpoOrai 6 Euar-

'

It originnled in this

way.

At the end of

S.

Matthew's Gospel, in both

the Resurrec-

fEAioTHC, eooc

ou KOI

'

Euoepioc 6 TTaiiipiAou eKovoviaev

k.t.A.

Codices, arc fimnd tliosc large extracts from the

"2nd Horn, on

dAAoic be TaOra jpepexar dvaordc,

But Cod. 199 (which
ing to Bircli
(p.

tion" which Montfauron imblished

in

the Bill. Cvisl. (pp.68 /o), and which

S.

Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV.

Cramer has
[lege S], accord-

226)

who

supplies the quotation, has only this

251.)
:

since reprinted at the end of his Catena in S. Malth. (i. 243 In Ciuhl. 3t and 39 they are ascribed to " Severus of Antioch." See

above

(p. 40.)

See also pp. 39 and 57.

Iv Tioi

Twv

dvTirpt5<pwv 00 keTvtoi [?] ToCia.

'

See above, pp. 01, 65.

223

(199, 206, 200)

= 19

+ 1 (374)

= 20.

122
different

The foregoing
from wliat
is

cn'deiice

aliogdhcr favourahh'. supposed.

tlie

[chap.
of

vni.]

Some

account of Coder L.

123

commonly
:

One

them

while twenty-four
the exact rcane.

(N". 38) has been cited in error

while

remaining nineof which contain

of those

"VTe

commonly enumerated state may now advance a step but the

:

teen are nothing else but copies of Victor of Antioch's com-

candid reader

is

mentary on S. Mark,

no

invited to admit that hitherto the supis

less

than

sirteeii

posed hostile evidence

on the contrary entirely

the famous attestation that in most of the accurate copies,

in

and

of the verses under discussion.

in favour ("I called thee to curse

particular the authentic Palestinian Codex, the last twehe

mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast altogether

these three times.")
II.

blessed

them
This

tenes of S. Mark's Gospel

were ForxD.

(See above, pp. 64

in

and Go.) ....

(8.)

And

this exhausts the eridence.

Nothing has been hitherto said about Cod. L.*

So
(a)

far, therefore, as

"Notes" and " Scholia"

MSS.

is

the designation of an uncial

MS.

of the

viii""

or ix""

are concerned, the

this:

sum of

the matter proves to be simply

Nine Codices* are observed to contain a note to the effect that the end of S. Mark's Gospel, though wanting "in some," was yet found "in others," "in many,"

century, in the Library at Paris, chiefly remarkable for the correspondence of its readings with those of Cod. B and

with certain of the citations in Origen

a peculiaritj- which

"

recommends Cod. L,
of the Gospels,
1,

(as it

recommends three cursive Codices

found in Cod.

in the ancient copies."

33, 69,) to the especial favour of a school

is

Next, four Codices* contain subscriptions vouching for the genuineness of this portion of the Gospel by declaring that those four Codices had been collated with ap[b)

with which whatever

right.

is

necessarily

work of an ignorant foreign copyist, who probably wrote with several MSS. before him
It
is

described as the

prored copies preserted at Jerusakm.

(c)

Lastly, sixteen

Codices,

but
(to

who

is

which, besides that

able to add
at least

mine which reading

it is

found to have been wholly incompetent to deterto adopt and which to reject. Certain
:

alread}'

mentioned by Scholz", I

am

five others,

making twenty-two

in

all *,)

that he interrupts himself, at the end of ver. 8, to

contain a weighty

write as follows

critical scholion asserting categorically that in " very

many"

" SoyiTEISG TO TUTS EFFECT

IS ALSO ilET

and " accurate copies," specially in the " true Palestinian exemplar," these verses had been found by one iclio seems to
hate verified the fact of their existence therefor himself. (9.) And now, shall I be thought unfair if, on a review of the premisses, I assert that I do not see a shadow of

WITB

"All that was commanded them they immediatel}' rehearsed

unto Peter and the rest. And after these things, from East even unto West, did Jescs Himself send forth by their means
the holy and incorruptible message of eternal Salvation. "

reason for the imposing statement which has been adopted

by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest, that "there exist about thirty Codices which state that from the more ancient
and more accurate copies of the Gospel, the last twelve I repeat, there is not so verses of S. Mark were absent ?" much as one single Codex which contains such a scholion;
viz. Codd. L, 1, 199, 206, 209 Cod. A, 20, 2G2, 300.

But

tbis also js jiet

'

with after
.'

tee wouds,
" Now, when He was week '," &c.
J

tor tbet were afraid

early, the first

risen

day of the

:20. 300 :15,

_ 24.
22.
'

(viz.

Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 (enumerated in the preceding note) * Paris 62, olim, 2861 and 1558.

Sec the racfimile.

The
:
;

original, (which

knows nothing of Tischendorra

crosses,) rends as follows

Evan. 374.

z. Evan. 24, 36, 37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222. (Birch Farr. Leett. p. 225.) Add Evan.

epcie HOT
KAl TAtTA
i

874 (Scholz.) Add Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the Moscow Codex (qu. 253 ?) employed by Matthaei.

Eraii.

ANTA ai TA nAPH rrCAMfNA TOiC ntPi TON nerpoN

124
It

Arnmtii of

C'vd'.r

L,

lOniiiivcd.

[chap.

VI II .]

' -A lit ,o,< I 'IS "

liteil (tH ail

A itthoiitij.

25

cannot be needful that

should delay the reader with

nny remarks on Euch a tcriuiuation of the Gospel as the It was evidently the production of some one foregoing.

be thought entitled to so much respectful attention on the present occasion, rebuked as it is for the fallacious evidence the second Gosit bears concerning the last twelve verses of
pel by
all

who desired to remedy the conspicuous incompleteness of his own copy of S.Mark's Gospel, but who had imbibed so
little

the seventeen remaining Uncials, (three of which

of the spirit of the Evangelical narrative that he could

are from 300 to 400 years more ancient than itself;) and by Quite certain evcrii cui-mf copy of He Gospels in cristoicc.
at least
is
it

not in the least imitate the EAangelist's manner.

scribe

As

for the

that not the faintest additional probability

is

who

executed Codex L, he was evidently incapable

found, in the

of distinguishing the grossest fabrication from the genuine

text.

The same worthless supplement

'.

is

margin

S.Mark's Gospel when it left the hands of its inspired Author was in a mutilated conThe copyist shews that he was as well acquainted dition.
established

by Cod.

that

of the Hharklensian Syriac (a.d. 616),

quarters of less importance

and

in a few other

I pass on, with the single

while as his neighbours with our actual concluding Verses : betrays his own incapacity, by seeming to view with he
equal favour the worthless alternative which he deliberately foremost transcribes as well, and to which he gives the
place.

remark that I am utterly at a loss to understand on what principle Cod. L, a solitary ^IS. of the \-iii"' or ix"" century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious text, is to

Kof S.Mark's Gospel,

I

hnf Codex

is

the sufferer

CTNTOMWC 6HH
rriAAN - MTA hi TATTA KAi AfrOC 6 rS, "Ano 'ANATGAHC KAI 'AXPI AlCfCOC

by

this appeal.

III.

go back now

to the statements

found in certain

eHAnecTiACN ai ATTtON TO I^PON KAi 'A4>eAFrON KH PTFMA - THC Aid) NIOT CblTHPlAC -

from one of Codices of the x*^ century, (derived probably to the effect that " the marginal references older date,) :" for further than ver. 8 to the Eusebian Canons extend no

so,

I presume,

may be paraphrased
6

the words, (see p. 120,)

ewe ou Eioepioc

nan9iAou {kovovioev, which are found

need not have delayed us for

at the end of ver. 8 iu Codd. 1, 206, 209.

(1.)

Kow

this statement

6CTHN Ae KAI

TATTA

ePO

many
seen

minutes.
fit

But

then, therewith, recent Critics

have

MCNA MfTA TO

to connect
:

another and an

entirely distinct pro-

^OBOTNTO
TAP
-

position

viz. that

Ammoxius
conspires with Eusebius in also, a contemporary of Origen, genuineness of the conclusion of S. Mark's disallowing the
.

y^NACTAc hi npcol
npcoTH cabbat8
i.e
:

ipifitrai

tov ho] toGto.

irfp)

special prominence has been given

rir Ilirpov evrr6iiai llrfyyt'^av firti tf
lijfpi

Tliyra S< ri wapirrytXiiffa ToTi

ravra Ka\ axnhs i

iiphy
Ktti

'lijaots iirh

ivaro^^s Kal

tvo*a:s.i^ttirfaTfi\(y it*

avrvf t^

i^aprov

iriipvyfia riji

aiuftov auTtipiat.
iipo^ovtrro tap.

^EcTTif 8f leal

Tavra ^epofitya fitra rh

which recently every Editor of the it j but Gospels in turn, sinoe "Wetstein, having reproduced^ " Neither by emphatically than Tischendorf. no one more ///( of AniMOiiius nor yet by the canons of EuseGospel.

This

is

in fact a piece of evidence to

:

seetioii^

'Ayairras ti wpu't tpiirp aa0PdTou.

bius are these last verses recognised"."

" Thus

it is

seen,"

As, the C'odei Bobbiensis (k) of the old Latin, and the margin of two

JEthiopic

MSS.

1 am uuable to uiidcrstaud what Schilz and his copyists have

"

I nas as.^ured again and again at Paris that they knew of no such codex as " Beg, 79'," which is Scholz" designation (ProUgg. " 274." p. lux.) of the Cod. Evan, which, after him, we number caid concerning Cod. 274.

Ncc Ammonii

ngnosrnntiir Soctionibus. ncc ErerBil C.n.ombns,

Tttl. {ed.Sra), p. 40C.

ullin.i

versus. l-isili. -Vi-r.


127

12G

The

loii

'

Liatmarou" of

[CHAV.

viii.]

ADDiioniiis of Alexandria,

A.T>.

220.

proceeds Dr. TrcgcUcs, "

tlint just

as Eusebius found these

verses absent in Lis day from the best

and most nume-

rous copies

(iV), so

inis

aho

Ihc cnne trith Atniiwiiiiis

when

performance. It is not have boon a most unsatisfactory been found in such a scheme ea-sy to sec how room can have Gospel; as well as for the for* entire chapters of S.Luke's
S. laroer part of the Gospel according to

he formed

his

Harmony

in the

preceding century

'."

John

in short, for

A
to,

new and independent

authority therefore

is

appealed

one

of high antiquity and evidently verj' great im-

being brought into some any thins which was not capable of correspondence with somekind of^agreemcnt, harmony, or
thing in
S.
it

portance,

Ammonius of Alexandria,
left

a.d. 220.

But Ammo"V^Tiat

Matthew's Gospel.

nius has

behind him no hnoirn writings uJiafsoncr.

then do these

men mean when they appeal in this confident way to the testimony of " Ammonius?" To make this matter intelligible to the ordinary English

may have fared with the other Gospels in the How known, and it is profitless work of Ammonius is not in fact What we know for certain is that Eusebius, to conjecture.
supplied availing himself of the hint
labours'" of his predecessor,

by the very imperfect

some account of what are popularly called the "Ammonian Sections" and the " Eusebian Canons :" concerning both of which, howreader, I must needs introduce in this place
ever, it cannot be too plainl}' laid do^vn that nothing what-

devised an entirely different exto the Gospels of S. Mark pedient, whereby he extended advantages, (and more than all,) S Luke and S. John all the the distinctive property of the

ever

is

known beyond what

is

discoverable from a careful

;

study of Ihe " Sections" and " Canons" themselves

to

added

what Eusebius has told us in that short Epistle of his "to Carpianus," which I suppose has been transcribed and reprinted more often than any other uninspired Epistle

which Ammonius had made Gospels His plan was to retain the Four first Go<pc^. ascertam besides enabling a reader to their integrity; and, which S. Matthew has in common at a -lauce the places with Evangelists, or with any two, or

in the world.

Eusebius there explains that

gelical

Ammonius

of Alexandria

constructed with great industry and labour a kind of Evan-

Harmony;

the peculiarity of
its

which was,
it

that, re-

taining S. Matthew's Gospel in

integrity,

exhibited

the corresponding sections of the other three Evangelists

by the
in

side of S.

Matthew's
three

text.

There resulted

this in-

suppose, was the sum of what any cue of them, (which, I work of Ammoniu8,)-to shew had Kvu exhibited by the common with S. Mark,-which which places S.Luke has in pccuhar to well as which places are with S John onlv; as It is abundantly clear in turn. each of the four EvangeUsls means by saying that the latherefore what Eusebius The " suggested to him" his ONvn bours of Ammonius had other three Evangelists ^ith
sicht of that

with the other three

Harmony

of the

evitable inconvenience; that the sequence of the narrative,

the case of the

last

Gospels,

was interrupted
it),

of establishing

suggested to him the advantage S Matthew's Gospel had throughout all the Four a series of parallels

throughout; and their context hopelessly destroyed*. The " Diatessaron " of Ammonius, (so Eusebius stj-les
has long since disappeared; but

GonnU
.

had placed alongBut then, whereas Ammonius

side of S.

Matthew
1

themselves the dislocated sections

T.D

ol

the

going account of

it

it is plain from the foreby a competent witness that it must

..tc.iyo.
..;!<;...

Ao.,S.

J.-

oh ari Ui<rrov .iorr-A'^oD r6 .o.s, iy

.!5.Va. 8X0. a^^-arrf, r. 1 .ip^ot. ru,. aura,. v.^X'

Printed Text,

p. 248.

'

Tbc reader
5(ck

is

invited to test the accuracy of wliat precedes for himself:

ical

'Alifui'i'ios /iff

i *A^flavSptvs, voWiiVf us cutis, ^iKowtrlav

avovihi' tioaynO'

Y^s, T^

TtaaJtpwv

iiiuv

KaruX^Xot-wtv tvayyihtmr,

Ty Kara MarBeuov

tos
.

"V x;;:s...s to represent .c//y what E..bius means

V. 27.

in this

pUc. ^he

i/ioipuvovs

rhv

riji

ruv Xoiwuv fvaYy'f^"^"" "P'KOTiis iropaedi, i/s iucoXovtiat tip^ihv Tur -rfrnv ItaifBaprivai, tvop

i( hviyKris
-rif

niiPvyai
riiJ

6(pfi

i^"

near;.i:..-V.l>e,u-.valenttoi^,.i."a .AXi. A.flrf.. a^op.i,. AUo the following

V.nt."

^<>^''^^Z^f;X:t (^^/^ ,f ,^.)

.

yviifffui.


128
TIk

CflilOiiS O/'JEllsehillS.

[chap.
VIII.]

" T/if Sections ofAinmoniirs",

if

irhat ?

12!

other tlircc Evangelists wLich are of corresponding purport, Huscbius conceived the idea of accomplishing the same
object

For

that earlier production be lost indeed

*,

if its

pre-

cise contents, if the ver}' details of its construction,

can at

by means of

a system of double numerical references.

:

this distance of

time be only conjecturally ascertained,

lie invented

X
(a

Canons, or Tables

he subdivided each of the

I'our Gospels into a multitude of short Sections.

These
in

lie

what right has any one to appeal to "the Sections of Amas to a known document ? Why above all do tiioiiiu:-,"
Tischeudorf, Tregelles,

numbered

fresh series of

numbers appearing

each

Gospel, and extending from the beginning right on to the end;) and immediately under every number, he inserted, iu Vermillion, another numeral (I to X) ; whose oflScc it was
to indicate in

monius"

for their ally

and the rest deliberately claim " Amon an occasion like the present

seeing that they must needs be perfectly well aware that

they have no means whatever of

precarious evidence
of Catena;)

which of his

X Canons,

or Tables, the reader

knowing (except from the what Ammonius thouglit

would

find the corresponding places in

'.

any of the other

last

about any single verse in an)' of the four Gospels ?

stage of this discussion, I

At

cvcrj-

Gospels

(If the section

was unique,

it

belonged to his

am

constrained to ask myself,

or X"" Canon.)
Title

Thus, against S. Matthew's account of the

is

Do

then the recent Editors of the Text of the

New

Testa-

on the Cross,

written ?p: but

in the

P' Canon

ment

really suppose that their statements will never be ex?

(which contains the places

parallel with 335,
is

common

amined

their reftrences never verified ? or is it

thought

to all four Evangelists)

that they enjoy a

tions

found, 214, 324, 199: and the Secof S.Mark, S.Luke, and S. John thereby designated,

which enables a man

monopoly of the learning (such as it u) to form an opinion in this department

of sacred Science? For,

(Ist.) Where then and tc/iai are those "Sections of Ammonius" to which Tischendorf and Tregelles so confidently appeal ? It is even notorious that when they sai/ the " Sections of Ammonius," what they mean are the " Sections of

(which are discoverable by merely casting one's eye down the margin of each of those several Gospels in turn, until the required number has been reached,) will be found to
contain the parallel record in the other three Gospels.

AU

this is BO purely elementary, that its very introducthis

iiid'iiis."

tion in

place calls

for apology.

The extraordinary

the probability,

method of the opposite party constrains

establish thus clearly the true relation in
liar

me however to which the familabours of Eusebius stand to the unknown work of

iroi

AMiere But, that these two

(2dly.)

is

the proof,

where

is

even

are identical?

The

Critics

cannot require to be reminded by

I
'^

me

that

we are

absolutely

Frostra ad

Ammoniiis.
'

supersunt vix qoicqoam

cbendjrf on
KUf^yat .... 2ifxapa{(j
tovs ^vorcToy^fVovs.
Tliis at least is decisive

Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis prorocant. Qusa cum Ammouio aut Tatiano commune babent." (TisS.Mark ivi. 8). Dr. Mill (1707), because he assumed that the

OS to the nutliorsliip of tbe Callous.

iiius,
**

Wlieii therefore

Jerome bvs of Ammolearn tlie aoiouiit of

auonvmous work which Victor of Capna brought to light iu the vi"' cfntury, and conjecturally arsigned to Tatian, was the lost work of Ammonius, (ProUg.
p. 63, 660,)

^vatyelicos canones excogiiavit quos postea eecutus est Eusebius

c. Iv. vol. ii.

was of course warranted

p. 68.)

in appexling to the authority of

Am-

Cnjjariensis," (i)e Vir'n Illiist.

p. 881,)

we

moniiis in

nyport of tbe

last twelve rerscs of S.

Mark's Gospel.

But

in truth

attention to which sucli

ofl'-bantl

gain statements of this Father are entitled.

Mill's sssuoiption

cannot be maintained for a moment, as Wetstein has con-

What
fi\v

else tan

be inferred from the account nhich Eusebius gires of the

it
rj

viadnrlj shi-wn. (FroUg.

fact

Any one may

easily satisfy himself of the

present sectional division of the Gospels but that

oZy ^ Twr inortmyiifiuv Kai'6vuv vir66tais'
*^' txaartf

was

also his

own

Airrq

who

will be at tbe pains to

examine a frw of the chapters with attention,

said concerning the
:

aaipTjs

airiiv iiTiyijaiS,

beanc^

in

mind what Eusebius has

10, 11.

work

of

iffny ^Sc*

ruv rtaaapuv fiiayytAluy

iipiBfios

tis

wpSKfirat Kara

Cap. Uxiv, for instance, contains as fullows

Mtt.
xiii.

xiii.

33, 34.

Ammoniu. Mk. iv. S3.

Itipot, iipxit^*"**

i'^ ToP

Tpiirou, tiro Sfuripov, Ka) rpiroi; Kai KaBilvs vpoTuP

fiiB^iov.

Mtt. xiii 34, 35

Mk.
is

iv.

34.

Mtt.

13 to 17.
10, 11,

Sr SAov fifXP' '

TfAom ToS

He

proceeds to explain

how

the sections

S.ilattkeic's Gospel
ch. liii,

which

dislocated,

for verses

But here it is and 13 to 17 of

thus numbered are to be referred to his

vwomifittutTis

&

Canons

koS' fxaaroy Si ipiBiihy

fStv ficxa xavivuv Kil-

Kiymftapeus wpiKfirat, SijXovira iv

irotif

luvos i iiptenhs rvyxiyt-

come after verses 33 35 ; while ver. 12 has altogetLtr disappiared. Toe mast convenient edition for reference is Schmellcr's, Ammouii AUzandrini g<r et Taliani diciivr Hartuomia Evangeliomm. (\'ieiin, lt>41.)

130 Th, " Amimmiai" Scctiom,

Avitliout

ffiv

irork

of Eiischius.

[cHAr.

VIII.]

Fiifi/ifi/

of Ihe present argnnmitntion.

\^\

proof

tliat bo

much

as

otic

of the Sections of Atn;

nionius corresponded with one of those of Eusebius

{3dlv.)

and

yet,

Who

sees not that unless the Sections of

Ammonius

Ihrouirhout, the
cvci" to

nnd those of Eusebius can be proved to have corresponded name of Ammonius has no business whatbe introduced into euch a discussion as the present p

means cither: (1) That his Canons recognise no section of S. Mark's Gospel subsequent fo g 233, (which number is commonly set over against vcr. 8 :) or else, (which comes to the same thing,)_(2) That no sections of the same Gospel, after 233, are referred to any of his X Canons.

They must at least be told that in the entire absence of (and certainly nothing that Eusebius proof of any kind, to reason from the says warrants any such inference'',) one to the other as if they were identical, is Avhat no sincere

On this slender foundation has been raised the following precarious superstructure. It is assumed,
(1st.) That the Section of S. Mark's Gospel which Eusebius numbers "233," and wbich begins at our ver.

8, cannot

hare

crtcndai Injond yer.

8; whereas
down
to the

it

mav have

exteuded, and

inquirer after Truth

It is

is

permitted to do.
it

probably did extend,

(2dly.) Tliat

end of ver. 11.

time, however, that I should plainly declare that

happens to be no matter of opinion at all whether the lost Sections of Ammonius were identical with those of Eusebius
or not.
It is demonstrable that thej' cannot
is

have been so
It
is

and the proof

discovered,

supplied

by the Sections themselves.

;

is taken in the Euscbian Canons of any sectional mimhcr in S. Mark's Gospel subsequent to 233, no Section (with, or without, such a subsequent number) can have existed .-whereas there may have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly num-

because no notice

by

a careful inspection of

and

prcsiijijjose ihe

Ten Canons

them, that they imply being in many places even

meaningless,

nugatorj',

in fact, (I
ttsc,)

do not of course say

that they are jyyactically without

lh.it

except on the theory

Now He
the

This notwithstanding, Eusebius, (according to the in certain ancient MSS.), may have canonized no further than 233.
'.

bered

memorandum found
I
^

am

those Canons were already in existence'.

Eusebius
to

not disposed, however, to contest the point as far as is concerned. I have only said so much in order

tinctl}'

disCanons are confessedly the invention of Eusebius. claims them J. Thus much then concerning the sup-

posed testimony of

Ammonius.

It

is

nil.

And

now

for

what

is

alleged concerning the evidence of Eusebius.

starting-point of this discussion, (as I
is

The
ancient

began by

re-

shew how unsatisfactory is the argumentation on the Let it be assumed, for argument sake, that the statement "Eusebius canonized no farther than ver. 8" is equivalent to ih\s," Eusehins luimhered no Sections after vcr. 8 ;" (and more it cannot mean :) What then ? I am at
other side.
a loss to see

marking),

the following
:

MSS.

"Thus

memorandum found

in certain

what

it is

that the Critics propose to themselves

far did Eusebius canonize'';" which

^ Only by tbc merest license of interpretation can fiKqfiit iipopitis be assumed to mean that Eusebius bad found tbc four Goepcls readjr divided to

by insisting on the circumstance. For we knew before it was in fact Eusebius himself who told us, that Copies

bis

band by Ammonius

into exactly

1165

Ecctions,

every one of wbich be bad

simply adopted fur bis own. Mill, (wbo ncvertbeless bcid tbis strai^e opinion,) nas obliged to invent tbe wild bypotbesis tliat Eusebius, besides tbc work of

of the Gospel ending abruptly at ver. 8, were anciently of frequent occurrence. Nay, we heard the same Eusebius remark that one way of shelving a certain awkward proS.

Ammonius nbich be

describes,

must

biive

found in tbe library at Csesarea the

private cojiy of tbe Gospels wbicb belonged to

in nbicb tbe last-named Fatber (as

be assumes)

Ammouius, an unique volume will bave numbered tbe Sections

blem would be, to plead that the subsequent portion of Mark's Gospel is frequently wanting. AVhat wjorc have we

and made tbem exactly 1165. It is not necessary to discuss such a notion. We arc dealing nitb facts, not witb fictions. I For proofs of wbat is sLnted above, as well as for several remarks on the

we have ascertained that the same Eusebius allowed no place to that subsequent portion in his Canons ?
learned wlien

The new
'

fact,

(supposing
fact. Codices

it to

be a
in

fact,) is

but the correla-

(so-called) " Ammoniau" Sections, tbe reader

I

is

referred to tbe Appendix (G)

See above, p. 128, note

(f).

See above,

p.

125.

As a uinttor of

abound

wbicb tbe Sections are noted viih-

out tbc Canons,

tbrougbout

See more on this subject in the Appendix (G).

k2


132

The

ajipenl to

Epiphaniwi and

to

[chap.

v.n.]
(2.)

Canarius, nhevn

to

trorlhkss.

133

tivc of the old

one

voucher for
at Ycr. 8,

that,

and since it was Eusebius who was the what additional probability do we esta;

as to the " Sections of

bius," Tiscbendorf
(3.)
is

That Epiphanius bears no witness whatever either Ammonius" or to " Canons of Euseperfectly well aware.

blish that the inspired

autograph of S.

Mark ended
is

abruptly

So

is

my

reader.

by discovering that Eusebius

consistent with

His appeal

to

himself,

and omits to "canouLse" (or even to "sectionize") what he had already hypothetically hinted might as well be
left

ClSARIUS

out altogether P

(See above, pp. 44-6.)

at a loss to see that one

So that really I
gress is
that, (in

am

atom of pro-

made in this discussion by the a work written about a.d. 373,)

Epiphakius

further discovery

He intends thereby to designate the younger brother of Gregory of Nazianzus ; an eminent physician of Constantinople, who died a.d. 308 and who, j (as far as is known,) never irrotc anythiug. A work called
is

worse than

infelicitous.

Utvam,
rius,

(which in the x"> century was attributed to Cajsabut concerning which nothing is certainly known exits

states

casually that " the

four Gospels contain 1162 sec-

cept that Cajsarius was certainly not

position to

author,)

is

the com-

tions "."

From

this it is

argued that since 355 of these

which Tiscbendorf
this

refers.

Even

the approxi-

are

commonly assigned
to S.

to S.

Matthew, 342

to S.

Luke, and
;

mate date of
ascertained.
refer to
it,

performance,

however, has never been

John, there do but remain for S. Mark 233 and the 233rd section of S. Mark's Gospel confessedly begins at

232

ch. xvi. 8.

The

probability

may be thought
:

to be thereby

slightly increased that the sectional

numbers of Eusebius
it

extended no further than ver. 8

self

but

Has

been rendered

cue atom more probable that the inspired Evangelist him-

is found, is nothhg else hut a condensed paraphrase of that part of Epiphanius, in which the original statement occurs ".

he would which the supposed testimony

had condescended to (instead of taking his reference at second-hand,) have seen at a glance that the entire context in

And

yet, if Tiscbendorf

ended his Gospel abruptly at the 8th verse P That fact thing which our opponents have to establish) remains exactly where it was ; entirely unproved, and in the

(the only

Thus much, then, for the supposed evidence of Ammonius, of Epiphanids, and of Cjesarius on the subject of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel. It is exactly nil. In
fact Pseudo-Caesarius, so far from " bearing witness to the fact" that the concluding verses of S.Mark's Gospel are

highest degree improbable.

To conclude,
the Sections of

therefore.
:

pages of Tiscbendorf

"These verses are not recognised by

of Eusebius
;"
'

When

I read as follows in the

spurious, actually quotes the 16th terse as genuine f.

(4.)

Ammonius, nor by the Canons

As

for Eusebius, nothing whatever has been

added

Epiphanius and Cscsarius bear witness to the fact

am

to

what we knew before concerning

his probable estimate

constrained to remark that the illustrious Critic has drawn

of these verses.

upon bis imagination

the fourth
is

for three of his statements,

and that

of no manner of importance.

(1.) About the " Sections of Ammonius," he really knows no more than about the lost Books of Livy. He is, therefore,

IV. are now at liberty to proceed to the only head of external testimony which remains undiscussed. I allude to the evidence of

We

without excuse for adducing them in the

" riaaapa
tiaiv

way

of evidence.
The word*

The Catek.1. " In the Catenae on Mark," (crisply declares Dr. Davidson,) " there is no explanation of this section '."

mayyiXia Kc^aXafuf
ii.

x<Aiwi> Ixarhy i^tiKoyTatio.

?),

Comp. Epiph. lAncor.

to

60,) Opji.

ii.

urc most aneipectedly, (may I uot say tutpiciously

found in Epipbniu,
foutal source,

63 c to 55

A,

with Galland. ibl.

r\.

vi.

26 c
*>

27
i.

A.

Ancor. 60, (Ofip.

54

B.)

Vol.

165

(ii.

112).

By Tiscbendorf, copying

Mill's Proleg. p. 63,

662 : the

GaUand. iH.

147
is

A.

It is only fair to
it

add that Davidson

is

not alone in

this statement.

In substance,

has become one of the common-places of those

spurious.

by the way, ofibe twin riTereuccs to "Epiphanius and Cseiarius."

who

uudciiiikc to prove tlint the end of S. Mark's Gosiwl

134
"

Dr. Diiikhoii's diduut concerning

[chap.

Vlll.]

" the Ciitmir on

Mark," charactirmd.

135

The Catenae on Mark

things,

"plenty,
may

:" as if

they were quite But,

common
of "the

as blackberries!"

W/,kfi

Catena;"

the learned Critic be supposed to bare ex-

Catena: viz. that of Matthaei, (Moscow 1775,) or that of Cramer, (Oxford 1844,) from ]^ISS. in the Royal Library This is simply impossible, at Paris and in the Bodleian.
because (as

amined ? 1. Not the Catena which Possinus found in the library of Charles de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse, and which forms the basis of his Catena published at Home in 1673 because
;

we have

seen), in

///fsc is

contained the famous

passage which categorically asserts the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel ".

Now
To

this exhausts the subject.

Codex is expressly declared by the learned Editor defective from ver. 8 to the end .
l/iaf

n-hich, then, of

to

be

inquire, does this learned writer allude?

" the Catenie on Mark," I must again I will venture to

2.

Not the Catena which Corderius transcribed from the

Vatican Library and communicated to Possinus j because

in that Catena the 9th

answer the question myself; and to assert that this is only one more instance of the careless, second-hand (and tliirdrate) criticism

which
:

is

to

be met with in every part

of

and 12th

verses are distinctly com-

mented on '.
3.

Dr. Davidson's book

one proof more of the alacrity with

Still less

can Dr. Davidson be thought to have inspected

to Victor of Antioch,-^which

the Catena

commonly ascribed
to

which worn-out objections and worthless arguments are furbished up afresh, and paraded before an impatient generation and an unlearned age, whenever {fangiiam rile corpus) the
writings of Apostles or Evangelists are to be assailed, or the Faith of the Church of Christ is to be unsettled and under-

Peltanus published in Latin in 1580, but which Possinus

was the

first

publish in Greek

(1673).
f/iaf

Dr. Davidson,

I say, cannot certainly have examined

Catena; inas-

much

mined.

have already largely shewn, and, in fact, as every one may see,) a long and elaborate dissertation on the best way of reconciling the language of S. Mark
as
it

contains, (as I

in ver. 9 with the

4.

language of the other Evangelists

is it

'.

V. If the Reader will have the goodness to refer back to have now disposed of every p. 39, he will perceive that I undertook to examine. lie will witness whom I originally has not been elicited one also, in fairness, admit that there
particle of evidence, from
first

Least of all

to be supposed that the learned Critic

to last,

which renders

it

in

has inspected either of the last two editions of the same

'

See Possini Cal. p. 363.

'E^einj vpurmf

of S. IMark, as the slightest degree probable that the Gospel of its inspired Author, originally came from the hands
it

Mapl^ rp MaySoXiji-p. [^ vr. 9.] TauTiji' Zvaf$Lof iv rms wphs Map7vov irtfav Xtytt Kaplav irapa rhf Btaaafi4vi)v t)>v vtavlaKov. % *^ iifi^&Tipat iK T^t Ha^SoAiji'^s ^aav. /<f ra fie ravra Svirlv ^{ ai/rwy -rfptvaTovmu
KUi

TO <{5j

[= vex.
361)
:

12.] Tohs
it

afi(p\

Thy KXioiray, KaBiis

AovKas Imopti, (Poi-

was either an imperfect or an unfinished work. Whether render there have not emerged certain considerations which wwlikely, I am such a supposition in the highest degree
quite content that

sini Cat. p.

Where
xvi.

will be seen tbat

Text

(Kcf/xevoi)

and Interpretm-

my Reader

shall decide.

Hon

(jp/iiifcfa)

are confusedly

also quotes

S.MaA

thrown together, "Anonjmos [VaticannsJ* 9 at p. 109, arf/n. Matthaei (X. T. ii. 269),oto^
(or simply

looking the tact that " Anoiii/mus Vaticanas" (or Bimply " .^noaymo*") '^

now

Dismissing the external testimony, therefore, proceed we which are conto review those internal evidences,

" Anonymua ToUuanui"

falls

" Tolosanus") denote two distinct CodiM^ into a mistake himself while contradicting our learned countryman MiH

the fidently appealed to as proving that

concluding Verses

who

says,

"Certe

of S. l^lark's

Gospel cannot be regarded as really the work

Victor Antioch. ac

ver. 8]

nee ultra eonimentantur."

Sclioh' dictum " Commentatorum

is,

Auonymus

Tolosanus hnc nsguc [t

q> explicatio hujus pcricof*

of the Evangelist.

in cateuis SS.

Patmrn ad Marcum laudantur, nulla

See above, pp. 64-5, and Appendix (E).

exliibctur."

as the

Sec above pp.G2-3. The Latin of Peltanus inny be seen in such Collection! Magna BiUiotluca Tell. PP. (1618,) vol. iv. p. 330, col. 2 E, F. For

the Greek, sec

Poani

Catena, pp.

309-

61.

CH. IX.]

"Slyk" and " Phrauoloyy"

qfS.

Math xvi. 920. 137

;)

ncss and lack of clearness which

single expressions,
it is

mark a compiler

while in

CHAPTER

IX.

ner."

" There is" (says Professor Norton) "a

altogether contrary to Mark's

manits

difference so

great between tbe use of language in this passage, and

INTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE VERY REVERSE OF UNFAVOURABLE TO THESE ATIRSES.

The " Style" and "Phraseology" of thete Vencs dtdarcd ly CrUics to he not S.Mark'i. Insecurity of such Criticiem (p. 140). The " Style" of chap. xvi. 9 20 shewn to he the sanu as the style of

use in the undisputed portion of Mark's Gospel, as to furnish

strong reasons for believing the passage not genuine."

ject than Tischendorf."

No

one, however, has expressed himself more strongly on this sub-

" Singula" (he says) " multifariam a

.

Marci ratione abhorrent'."

Here, then,
:

is

something very

chap.
seve7i

i.

920

(p.

142). The "Phraseology" examined

and shewn
io he suspicious in

in ticenty-

like a consensus of hostile opinion

particulars,

noM

(p. 145),

indictment are somewhat vague.

Construction,"

although tho terms of the Difference of " Diction and

hut in twenty-seven particulars shewn to be the reierse (p. 170).

delicate

Such RemarJiS fallacious (p. 173). Judged of hy a truer, a more and philosophical Test, these Verses proved to be most pro-

hahly genuine (p. 175).

DISTINCT class of objections remains to be considered.

An argument much

relied on by those who deny or doubt the genuineness of this portion of S. Mark's Gospel, is de-

rived from considerations of internal evidence.

In the judgThese twelve verses " bear traces of another hand from that which has shaped the diction and construction of the rest of the Gospel *." They are therefore " an addition to the narra-

ment of a recent Editor

of the

New

Testament,

of "Phraseology and Style," and Expressions," difference of " Words and Phrases;" the absence of S. Mark's "characteristic peculiarities." I suppose, however, that all may be brought under two heads, (I.) Style, and (II.) Piiraseology meaning by "Style" whatever belongs to the Evangelist's manner; and by "Phraseology" whatever relates to the words and expressions he has employed. It remains, therefore, that we now examine the proofs by which it is proposed to substantiate these confident assertions, and ascertain exactly
difference of " Terms

difference

tive,"-

of which "the internal evidence will be found to preponderate vastly against the authorship of Mark."
difference," (says Dr. TregeUes,)

"A

" has been remarked, and truly remarked, between t/ie phraseology of this section and the rest of this Gospel." According to Dr. Davidson, " The phraseology arid siyk of the section are unfavourable

what Ihey are worth bj' constant appeals to the Gospel. Throughout this inquirj*, we have to do not with Opinion but with Fact. The unsupported dicta of Critics, however distinguished, are entitled to no manner of attention. 1. In the meantime, as might have been expected, these confident and often-repeated asseverations have been by no

means unproductive of mischievous

To

results

Like ceaseless droppings, wliich at last are known

leave tbeir dint upon the solid stone.

to its authenticity." " The characteristic peculiarities which pervade Mark's Gospel do not appear in it but, on the contrary, terms and expressions," " phrases and words, are introduced which Mark never uses or terms for which he employs others ^" So Meyer, "With ver. 9, we suddenly come upon an excerpting process totally different from the
;

I observe that Scholars and Divines of the best type (as

the Rev. T. S. Green ""j at last put

up with them.

The wisest

previous

mode

of narration.

The passage
no

contains none of

however reproduce them under protest, and with apology. The names of Tischendorf aud Tregelles, Meyer and DavidIt seems to be thought incredible son, command attention. They impose that they can all be entirely in the wrong.

Mark's peculiarities (no

evBiias,

iroKiv, &c., but the bald''

upon learned and unlearned readers

'

alike.

" Even Barnab.is

Crit. pi". 51-2.

Alford on

S.Mark

xri.

920.

IntrodvetioH, 4c.

ii.

p. 113-

Nor.

Test.

Ed.

8"

i.

p. 406.

Developed


138

Thv

cj/lct

of a popuhir outcry.

[chap.

IX.]

Rev. F. If. Stn'niter.

Pro/esvor Broadun.

139

has been carried nwnj- with their dissimulation."

(to

He

has

my
{a)

and regret) two suggestions That this entire section of the second The one,
surprise
:

Gospel

may

possibly have been written long after the rest

its

and that therefore

or trouble us.

verbal peculiarities need not perplex

True indeed it is that here and there a voice has been lifted up in the way of protest' against the proposed inference from the familiar premisses ; (for the self-same statements have now been so often reproduced, that the eye grows weary at last of the ever-recurring string of offending voca2.

It was, I suppose, (according to this learned

bles

:)

but, with one honorable exception

:
:

",

men do
:

not seem

and pious writer,) a kind of after-thought, or supplement, In this way I have seen or Appendix to S. Mark's Gospel. last Chapter of S. John once and again accounted for. the To which, it ought to be a sufiBcient answer to point out
that there
is

to have ever thought of calling the premisses themselves in

question

examiuing the statements one by one

contesting

the ground inch by inch

refusing absolutely to submit to

any

dictation whatever in this behalf: insisting

on bringing

no apjycaraucc uliatcicr of any such interval

:

the whole matter to the test of severe inquiry, and making

having been interposed between S. Mark xvi. 8 and 9 that it is highly improbable that any such interval occurred: and that until the " vijrbal peculiarities" have been ascertained to exist,
it is, to

every detail the subject of

is

what

I propose to

strict judicial investigation. This do in the course of the present Chapter.

say the least, a gratuitous exercise of

I altogether deny the validit}' of the inference which has been drawn from "the style," "the phraseology," "the dic-

the inventive faculty to discover reasons for their existence.

tion" of the present section of the Gospel.

But
is

I do more.

Whether there be not something radicallj' unsound and wrong in all such conjectures about " after-thoughts," " supplements," "appendices," and "second editions" when the
everlasting Gospel of Jesus Chkist
is

I entirely deny the accuracy of almost every inilhiduat state-

ment from which the unfavourable induction

hostile inference drawn.

made, and the

Even

t/iis

will not nearly' satisfy

the thing spoken

of,

a confusing of things heavenly with things earthly which must make the Angels weep, I forbear to press on the pre-

'

To

tlio

honour of the Kv. F. H. Scrivener be

it

said, tliat

?ie

at least

"^

sent occasion.

It had better perhaps be discussed at another But ^iXoi avBpes' will forgive my freedom in having already made my personal sentiment on the subject

opportunity.

"to the argument agninst these twelve verses arising from their allegol iliffen'ucc in atylc from the rest of the Gospel." See bj all means his remarks on this subject. (lutrodudion, pp. 431-2.) One woold have thought that a recent coutroversy concerning which some able men were couBdent might have a short English Poem,
absolute.'!)'

refuses to pay

any attention

at all

to

sufficiently plain.
(b)

His other suggestion is, That this portion may not have been penned by S. Mark himself after all. By which he clearly means no more than this, that as we are content not to know 7/o wrote the conclusion of the Books of

been wTitlen by Milton,

possibly be his,

irhile others

were just as confident that

all to

it

could not

ought
made

have opened the eyes of

the precarious nature

of such Criticism.
Allusion is

to the Eev.

John A. Broadus, D.D.,

in

" Profe-sor of In-

Ji-

terpretation

of the

New

Testament

the Southern Baptist Theological

Deuteronomy and Joshua,

content not to
S.

so, if needful,

we may

Seminary, Greenville, S.C.,"

well be

the

author of an able and convincing paper

entitled "Esegetical Studies" in

"The Baptist Quarterly"

Mark.

In reply

know who wrote

the end of the Gospel of

(Philadelphia), pp.
S.

35562:

in which

for July, 1809 "the words and phrases" contained in

to which, I have but to say, that after

Mark

ivi.

920 are

exclusively examined.

shewn why we Mark but some one else wrote the end of S. Mark's Gospel, we shall be perfectly willing to acquiesce in the new
cause has been
S.

should indeed believe that not

If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor's bands, be will
perceive that I must have written the preent Chapter before I

knew
:)

of his
treat-

labours

(an advantage which

the subject and his

owe to Mr. Scrivener's kindness

so entirely diSerent.

my
it

ment of
which
1

own being

But

is

only

fact:
'

but mi
yap

(ill then.
^fAoii', Sirioy nfoiiiiav

due to Professor Broadus to acknowledge the interest and advantage with

iudioiv

Si'Tfc'i'

tV

ij<^9nati,

Arist.

have compared

JElli- l*'^-

tion with

which

my lucubr;itioiis with bis, and the sincere safisfuchave discovered that we have everywhere independently

1. iii.

arrived at precisely the same result.

140 me.
I insist

Fulluciomm fS ofjmhjingfvom

[CHAV. the exact

.X.]

"

t/ic

Sti/k'" of ticilvc verses of Script tire.

141

Hat one only

result

can attend
its
is

such a method of judging about the Authorship of any

twelve verses of Scripture which can
requires illustration.

analysis of this portion of tbe Gospel into

elements;

be named, scarcely

namely, a profound conviction that

tainl}' its

S.

Mark

most

cer-

Author.

Gospel

is

aware that a

The attentive reader of S. Matthew's mode of expression which is eix times

ix^''

however distinctly declare beforehand that remarks on "the style" of an Evangelist are singularly
3.

Let

me

repeated in his viii"'

and

chapters

is

perhaps only once

apt to be fallacious,
to apply
tive.

especiallj*

when

(as here) it is

proposed

them

to

a very limited portion of the sacred narra-

Altogether to be mistrusted moreover arc they,

when

xxi" chapter '. met with besides in his Gospel, i"' chapter may be The "style" of the 17th verse of his S. Luke's five thought unlike anything else in S. Matthew. of manner and opening verses are unique, both in respect
viz. in his

on the present occasion) it is proposed to make them the ground for possibly rejecting such a portion of Scripture It Iccomes a fatal objection to such reasoning as spurious. that fhe ttyle may indeed be exceedingly diverse, and yet ffie Author be confessedly one and the same. How exceediuglj- dissimilar in style are the Eevelation of S. John and Moreover, practicallj', the promised the Gospel of S. John on "style," when the Authorship of some portion remarks
(as
!

of matter.

S.John
else in

also in his five

opening verses seems to

is

me

to have adopted a

method which
it"",)

not recognisable
the last

anywhere
grees,"

his writings;

"rising strangely by de-

(as

Bp. Pearson expresses

"making

word of the former sentence the first of that ^hich followeth." "iZf knoweth that he saith true," is the language of the same Evangelist concerning himself in chap. xix. 35. But, " ice know that his testimony is true," is his phrase in
chap. xxi. 24. Twice, and twice only throughout his Gospel, xx. 31), is he observed to address his (viz. in chap. xix. 35
:

of Scripture

is to

be discussed, are comnionly observed to

is really

degenerate at once into what

quite a different thing.

is

Single words, perhaps some short phrase,

appealed

to,

which (it is said) does not recur in any part of the same book and thence it is argued that the Author can no longer be the same. "According to this argument, the recurrence of the same words constitutes identity of style; the want
;

and on both occasions in the same words (" that But what of all this ? Is it to be supye may believe.") that S. Matthew, S. Luke, S. John are not the authors posed inference of those several places? From facts like these no
readers,
:

of Buch recurrence implies difference of style;

authorship.

whatever

is

to be

drawn

as to the genuineness or the spuriIt is quite to mistake the Critic's

is qualified,

difference

ousness of a writing.

of style in such a aense as compels us to infer diversity of

vocation to imagine that he

pass any judgment of the
6.

or called upon, to
declining the pro-

Each writer is supposed to have at his disposal a limited number of formulfe' within the range of which he must work. He must in each chapter employ these formulae, and these onl}'. He must be content with one
'

sort.

I have not said

all this, of course, as

posed investigation.

small portion of his mother-tongue, and not dare to venture

across the limits of that portion,

on

on the contrary right being confident that it can be attended by only willingly, With what is true, endless are the harmonies result.
I approach
it

one

pain of losing his

io

identity
4.

''."

which evolve themselves: from what is equally certain to stand out divergent '.
nothing but the Truth.
1

false,

the true

is

And we

all desire

How

utterly insecure

must be every approximation

Dr. Kay's Crisis Sugfeldiana, p. 34, tlie most masterly and mrtructive exposnre of Bp.Coleuso' iucompetence and presumption which has ever ap^

S.

Malth.

viii.

1 (.oTaearTi oJt#)

: B

{t<r^e(^m

airv) -.-28 (Mfld^Ti .frrv) :-ii. 27 (Tapiyoyji

({\eilTt
^
'

t#

'I.)

rf l.):23 (ii^Piim :-28 {M6yr,) ! xii. 23

ahi).
-rV

peared.

Intended EpceiaDj of his handling of the writings of Moses, the

rcmarls in the text arc equaliy applicable to much which has been put forth concerning the authorship of the end of S.Mark's Gospel.

Oh tie Creed, Art. ii. (vol. i. p. 155.) rf^ir-)apU^eu^iyra cv.iiu rli i,Ufx<n^,
1. c. vi.

*.^5.7 tbX" *"'

lixrieb. Ariitot. Eth. Sic.


142
I.

The 'Sii/k ami M(u,m,-' of

llicn

S.

Murh

i.

920,

[ciiap.

IX.]

and of S. 2faih xvi. 9

20,

the uri/ same.

143

S.

To begin Mark in this

1.

with Ibc "Style and manner " of

inevitable consequence of relating

many

dissimilar things

place.

description

^Vc are assured thai "instead of the graphic, dctaikd by which this Evangelist is distinguished, we meet with an abrupt, sententious manner, resembling that of brief notices extracted from larger accounts and loosely
linked together","

within very narrow limits; namely, that the transition from one to the other forces itself on the attention. What wonder that tlic same phenomenon should not be discoverable in
other
jiarts

of the Gospel where the Evangelist

is

not ob-

served to be doing the

3.

same thing

? S.

the onlj' lawful inference would be that S. Mark, in this place, has " exif this
so,

Surely

be

lUit

wherever in his Gospel

is

Mark

is

doing the same

tracted brief notices from larger accounts,

and loosely linked

them together
what
2.
is

and imless such a proceeding on the part of the Evangelist be judged incredible, it is hard to see
the force of the adverse criticism, as directed against

:"

observed to adopt the style and manner which Dr. Davidson is pleased to call " sententious" and "abrupt." Take twelve verses in his first chapter, as an example.
thiua, he

Betwoou

S.

Mark

xvi.

920
any

and

S.

Murk

i.

9 20,

I profess

myself unable

to discern

real difference of style.

I pro-

the genuineness of the passage

now under

consideration.
is

ceed to transcribe the passage which I deliberately propose

for comparison;
the
iircfre

But

in truth,

(when divested of what

merely a gra-

corresponding rerses, namelj', in

tuitous assumption,) the preceding account of the matter

is

S. ^Maik's frst chapter,

probably not far from the correct one.

practice of

making

"extracts," I

Of S. Mark's know nothing: nor Dr.

twelve verses

which are to be compared with the already under discussion, from his last; and

they
in

may be

just as conveniently exhibited in English as

Davidson

either.

That there existed any "larger accounts"

for such a purpose, (except
is

Greek:
{S. Mask i. 920.) came to pass in those daj-s, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John (10.) And straightway coming up out of the in Jordan. wafer, He saw the heavens opened, and the Snuix like (11.) and there came a a dove descending upon Him

which would have been available

ticle of evidence,

the Gospel according to S. Matthew,) there

neither a par-

(ver. 9.) "

And

it

nor a shadow of probabilit)'. Ou the other hand, that, notwithstanding the abundant oral information to which confessedly he had access, S. Mark has been divinely guided in this place to handle, in the briefest manner,

"

"
"
"

some of the chiefest things which took place after our Lord's
consequence yet recognise the either "abrupt" or "sententious"," I
is in

" voice from heaven saying.

Thou

art Mj' beloved Son, in

simply undeniable. admitting that the style of the Evangelist

is

Resurrection,

And

without at

all

"

whom

am

well pleased.

(12.)

And

immediately the

" SriKiT driveth Him into the wilderness. (13.) And He " was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan " and was with the wild beasts
;

" Davidson's Introduction, Ac.

'

i.

170.
if hij

Aiid yet, if

it

were ever so " seotcntious," ever bo "abrupt;" nnd

" unto Him. (14.) " Jesus came into

Now

after that

and the Angels ministered John was put in prison,

Galilee,

preaching the gospel of the

"brief notices" were ever so "loose]}- liulied togetber;"

these, according to

Antbor.

Dr. Daridton, would only be indications that S. Mark actually teas Hear bim discussing S. Mark's " cbaracteristics," at p. 151 :

" 1

tbi-ir

" kingdom of God, (15.) and sajong. The time is fulfilled, " and the Eiugdom of God is at hand repent ye, and be:

the consecution of bis narrations, Mark puis them togellier very lootety! "Mark is also cbaractcrised by a conciseness and apparent incompleteness of
delineation wliicli are allied to tbe obscure."

" lieve the Gospel. " of Galilee, He saw " a net iuto the sea
:

Now, as He walked by the sea Simon and Andrew his brother casting
(16.)

"The abrupt
l)r.

introduction

for

they were

fishers.

(17.)

And

Jesus

of

many

of bis details

is

again and again appealed to by

Davidson, auo
sense, -"

illustrated
is

by references to tbo Gospel.

?

What,

in tbe

name of comujon
p.

of a cert."un portion of Scripture because

tbe value of sucb criticism as this

in tbe

What
:

is

to be thought of a gentleuian

which

at

p.

it exhibits the very pcculiarilios 151 be had volunteered the information arc characteristic of
?

who blows bot and cold

same breath

denying at

170 the genuineness

its roput<^1

Author

144

"

Sli/fi

and

Mamm" of S. Mark
(18.)

i.

920.
ill

[chap.

IX.]

The argument from " Words" and "P/ira'^a."

11 j

" Baid unto them, Come ye after Mc, and I v

" to become fishers of men.

make you

iiig (i. 1

8)

is

the shortest of

all.

And

straightway they

count of our Saviour's

Baptism

(ver.

Very concise is his ac911). The brevity

is

" forsook their nets, and followed Ilim. (19.) And when " He had gone a little farther thence. He saw James the " son of Zebcdec, and John his brother, who also were in
(20.) And straightway He " called them ; and they left their father Zebedee in the " ship with the hired servants, and went after Him."

of his description of our Lord's Temptation

even extrashiill

ordinary (ver. 12, 13.)

pass on

premising that I

have occasion to remind the reader by-and-bv of certain

peculiarities in these

" the ship mending their nets.

same Twelve Verses, which seem

true, therefore,
sti/te

to

have been hitherto generally overlooked.

II. Js'otbing

more

than Dr. Tiegcllcs' adfiillacious,

(lie

The candid reader roust needs admit that precisely the self-same manner is recognisable in this first chapter of
4.

mission "that arguments on

that
li/

are often very

little.

and
in-

ilamiehei they prove very

But"

i)rocceds)

Mark's Gospel which is asserted to be peculiar to the last. Note, that from our Saviotjr's Baptism (which occupies the first three verses) the Evangelist passes to His TempS. tation,

"when

there does exist external evidence; and

when

ternal proofs as to style,

manner, verbal expression, and conwith such independent grounds of

nection, are in accordance

which is dismissed in two. Six months elapse. The commencement of the Ministry is dismissed in the next two The last five describe the call of four of the Apoverses.
stles,

forming a judgment
sess

then, these internal considerations pos-

very great weight."

I have alreadj' shewn that there exists no such external

evidence as Dr. Tregelles supposes.
it,

without

any

distinct allusion
it.
.
.

to the miracle

which

was the occasion of

was it possible that when had to be condensed within the narrow compass of twelve verses, the same " graphic, detailed description" could reappear which renders S. Mark's
.

How

am

And in the absence of bold to assert that since nothing in the " Style" or
we have
rather to be on our guard against suffer-

incidents considerable as these

the "Phraseology" of these verses ever aroused suspicion in

times past,

ing our judgment to be warped by arguments drawn from

such precarious considerations now.

description of the miracle performed in the countrj' of the

As

for

determining

Gadarenes
incident
is

(for

example) so very interesting

where a single

from such data the authorship of an isolated passage; asserting or denying

because
it

spread over twenty verses, although the action did not perhaps occupy an hour ? I rejoice to observe that " the abnipi transUiom of this section" (ver. 1 13) have

its

genuineness for no other reason but

forms
is

contains certain words and expressions which do

it

or do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel of which

part
in
;

also been noticed

for

by Dean' Alford who very justly accounts the phenomenon by pointing out that here " Mark
:

let

me

again declare plainly that the proceeding

uncritical.

appears as an abridger of previous/!/ well-lnowii facts'." But then, I want to know what there is in this to induce us to
suspect the genuineness of either the beginning or the end of
S.

AVe are not competent judges of what words an Evangelist was likely on any given occasion to emploj'. We have no positive knowledge of the
the highest degree

circumstances under which

any part

of any one of the four

Gospels was written

nor the influences which determined

5.

Mark's Gospel ? For it is a mistake

to

speak as

if

"graphic, de-

an Evangelist's choice of certain expressions in preference to

others.

tailed description" iniariably characterise the second Gospel.

S.

We

are learners,
said all this,

we

can be only learners here.

Mark

is

quite as remarkable for

his practice of occa-

But having

I proceed (as already declared)

sionally exhibiting a considerable tiansaclion in a highly

abridged form.
concise,

The opening of

without reluctance or misgiving to investigate the several charges which have been brought against this section of the

his

Gospel

is

singularly

and altogether si/iWf/i. His account of John's preachN. T.

vol.
i.

Gospel; charges derived from

w ill be found

to be

its Phraseology; and which nothing else but repeated assertions that

ProUgg.

p. 38.


146
a certain

mmdmd.
[chap.

Uf

(xpm^ioit irpdrt) tra^^dTOv

or

)x.]

The

Eiaiif/(7kts jiioiic to vnnj their jJua^r.

\^~

Word

Buch words aiul

Phrase, (there are about twenty-four phrases in all p,) " occurs nowhere in the

asseveration Gospel of Mark;" with probably the alarming The result of that it is "abhorrent to Mark's manner." which follows will perhaps be not exactly what the inquiry
is

and once, t adff^ara i. Or again, that S. Matthew should ill one and the same chapter five times call the Sabbath, t ad^^ara, and three times, to adfi^ajov'. Attentive readers
will

have observed that the Evangelists seem

;

to

have been

fond in this

commonly imagined. The first" difficulty of

:

ducing a
this class is very fairly staled

way of varying their phrase suddenly intronew expression for something which they had deOften, I doubt not, this
is

by

signated differently just before.

pang the late one whose name I cannot write without a Dean Alford aa^^drov, for the " first day of (1.) The expression irpwrr, remarkable" (he says) " as occurthe week" (in ver. 9) "is
ring so soon after"
expression) in ver.
/it'a

done with the profoundest purpose, and sometimes even with manifest design but the phenomenon, however we mav
;

explain

it, still

remains.

Tlius, S. Matlliew, (in his account

of our Lonn's Temptation,

ver. 1,
calls

S.

eh.np. iv.,)

has 6 Eid^oXo<; in
Sa-\1()1
lias
it

aa^^drcov
it is

(a precisely equivalent

and 6 ireipd^av

in ver. 3, for

2.Yes,

remarkable.

SaTavaf

in ver. 10.

him whom our

in

Mark,

chap.

v. 2,

S. Luke Scarcek more remarkable, perhaps, than that and the same chapter should four times in Ihc count of one ta ad^^aia designate the Sabbath to aa^^a-rov, and twice twice, ij vi^epa toO aafi^dTov, again, twice, to ff(i/3)3aT0i',

S. Luke, in xxiv.l, has fivi'ifiara. but in the next verse, to fivqfiuov. '771 with an accusative twice in S. Matth. xxv. 21, 23, is twice exchanged
fiVTjfifia,

but in ver. 5, ra
;

Ta

TO

fivP)fia

for i-nl with a genitive in the

(in ver. 32)
is

same two verses

and

epi<f>oi

exchanged and

for epi^ia in ver. 33.

Instead of
10)

p It

may

several words and be convenient, in this place, to enumerate the

:

apx<^f T^y avvay(Dyri<; (in S.

ap-)(ttTVi'd'ya>yoi
:

Luke viii. 41) we

oTroaToXot
(in

read, in ver. 49,

is.

expressions aboat to bo considered

(i.) irpuTJi
(ii.)
iitt>'

for 01 iu

aofiBirov (wr.

9.) Sec above,

o! ScoBtKa in ver. 12.

OD?
Acts

we

find
for

S.Luke xxii. 50
he

is

exchanged

fis

i^tMifi
i.-it6

*Ta Impiivia {ver. 9.) See p. 153.

wTiov

ill

the next verse.

In like manner, those whom S.Luke

v. 6,

(iu.)

iK^iWay
(11

(rer.

9.) See

p. 153.

(iv.) iropetfffftu (vers. 10,

12, li.)Ibid.
10.)

calls o! veunepoi in

calls veaitTKoi in ver. 10.

(v.)

(it'

niroS

ft>'6iuroi {ver.

Sec p. 155.

All such matters strike

me

as highlj- interesting, but not in

(vi.) etiaecLi {rer.

11 and 14.)See p. 156.

(vii.) Sioe^j-ai uit6 {ver. 11.)

(viii.) aTio-Tttr {rer.

See
160.

p. 158.

the least as suspicious. It surprises me a little, of course, that S. Mark should present me with irpoyri) aa^^arov (in

11 and 16.)

Illd.

(ix.) /if Ti

Torra

(r*^.

12.) Sec p. 159.

p.

(\.) tripos [rer.

(xi.)
(xii.)
(xiii.)

12.) See

iaripoy {rer. 14.)

Ibid.

eKarTtof {rer. 18.) Hid.

iron-ox*;; (rer.

which he had employed just above (in ver. 2.) But it does not surprise me much, when I observe that fita aa^^drasv occiin only once AVhether surprised much or ill each of the Four Goipc/s^.
ver. 9) instead of the phrase fila aa^^drtov,

(xiv.

and

iv.)

20.) Sec p. 161. avyipyfiePfPaiovv {ver. 20.) Ibid.

little,

however,

Am

I constrained in consequence, (with

(xvi.) Tafftt Jirrliri! {rer. 15.)

(xvii.) in
(xviii.

Hid.
IT.) See p. 162. p. J

Tischciidorf

and the

rest,) to

regard this expression

(TrpcoTrj

rf

iriiiarl fiov {ver.

(Tafi^drov) as a note of spiiriousiicfs ?

1 S.

That
S.

is

the only thing

has, iu fact, all

19.) Sec and lit) TopaKoKoueufiiraKaXouef^y {ver. 17 and

(xx.) x'C^' iViicai irt riva {rer. 18.) (xxi.

See p. 164.

Lulie

vi. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7,

liii.

10, 14, 15, 16.

Luke
(xiii.

and xxiL)

fiiv

(xxiii.) ifaXrrpeiirai {rer.

olvi Kvptas {ver. 19.) Sec p. 166.

19 and 20.) J4W.

Ibid.

the four diilercut designations for the Sabbath which are found in the Septuagint vcrbion of the O. T. Scriptures
;

for, in

the Acts

14

ivi. 13),

he

[and 13 J].) (xxiv.) iKtUoi used in a peculiar way {verses 10, 11 ii.) Ibid. (ixv.) " Verses witliout a copulative," {verses 10 and Absonic of fuBiu's and iroAic. See p. 168. ixxvi. and xirii.)

twice calls

'

it

ri

vh^P<^ 'ruv aa$0dTui'.

S. Miilth. xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.

Itocciirein S. Matth.xxviii.l.
i.

S.
7.

Mark

xvi. 2.

S.

Luke

xxiv. 1.

S.

John

XX.

19.

Ucsidcs, only in Acts xx.

l2


148
I

explained,

The foniis au^^arov and aa^^ara

[chap.

,X.]
(2.)

and

(iccontilid for.
is

140
before us,

have to consider.
fiia,

Am
is

follows

: " TrptiTj;, Mark

&c. as

with Dr. Davidson, to reason as would scarcely have used. It should

I,

Confessedly, then, a double Hebraism

wliich must have been simply unintelligible to Gentile readers.

have been

proved by Mark xvi. 2, &c. The expression could scarcely have proceeded from a Jew. It
betrays a Gentile author'." pose to answer this question

Mia TUP aa^^diuiv sounded

Greek
ear, as
(if

as enigmatical to an ordinary

"una salbatorum"
proof were needed,)

to a

Roman.
is

convinc-

Am

I to reason thus? ... I proin detail.

ing proof,

how

abhorrent to a Latin
afforded b}' the old
;

somewhat

reader was the last-named expression,

Greek-speaking Jews of Palestine, (1.) That among the aa^^driov was the estain the days of the Gospel, -q fiia Tmv " the first day of the week," is blished method of indicating
plain, not only

Latin versions of

S.

Matthew
ft?

xxviii. 1

where o^e aafiis

^uTuv,

rfj

(TTi<}>wcrKovajj

filav

aa^^druiv

invariabl}'
sahhali."

rendered, " Yespere sahhaii,

(3.)

qua

lucescit in

prima

from the

fact that the

day of the ResurrecEvangelists in

tion

is
;

so designated
(S.

by each of the Four

;)

that

The reader will now be prepared for tlie suggestion, when S. Mark, (who is traditionally related to have
9,

turn"

John has the expression twice

1

but also from

It proves,

written his Gospel a1 lioinc^,) varies, in ver.

final

the phrase

S. Paul's use of the phrase in

Cor. xvi. 2.

indeed, to have been the ordinary Hellenistic

way of exhivernacular idiom of Palestlne^ The cardinal biting the this phrase was a known (/itaffor the ordinal {-irpanTj) in
Talmudie expression, which obtained also in Syriac y. Xdfiin strictness of the Sabfiarov and o-a/3/3aTa, designations to be ako used as designations of the hafh-dai/.hai come 12 reference to S. Mark xvi. 9 and S. Luke xviii. ucfJ;.

(o)

being added for emphasis, as in Abba, AoeManio, Bethcsda.

:

C'q)hn,

Piischn, &c.

and this form,

it

Professor Gnndcll,)

because

(I

owe the infomiatiou

to

my

friend

was

so familiar to the people of Palestine,

(who

spoke Aramaic.) ^ai rise 1o another form of the Grftk name for the Sallath,

viz.

<Ta8$ma: which, nntunilly enough, attracted the

its

arliile (rij) into agree-

ment with

own

(appiirently) plural form.

By

the Greek-speaking populari irajS^a-

tion of Judiua, the

Sabbath day was therefore

:

ii.difi'erently called

70V and ri aiPBara

7]

sometimes again,

ri

iftiipa

toC ca^fiaTov, and sonietinies

yfitpa

rwv

ffafifiarwi',

establishes this concerning

six places cited just

ad^fiarov

a reference to the

2afl/8oTo, although

oordingly,
]'^xod. xvi.

it

is

plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense. (Acinrariably rendered " Sallatiim" in the Vulgate.) Thus, in

ffd^^ara.
fiaTov

To see and cd^^uTo) were employed, one has but

now in note (') establishes it concerning how indifferently the two forms (adBto notice

23,

aa^^ara
Kvpiif.'.

ifd-ravtris ayta tif Kvpl(f

and 25,

Hitti

ai'diravaii rtp

Again,

Tp

yap aa0&aTa
(Kx'od. xvi.
]>laec

8 ht^*P^

t^ i^io^r) od^Bara.

2C

xxxi. 14.

Levit. xxiii. 3.)

is

And

in the Gosptl,

what took
(!J.

on one
xiii.

definite Sallalh-day,

said to

the same chapter, five that S. [Matthew, in the course of one and as to. ffd^^ara, and three times designates the Sabbath The origin and history of both times as to cd^^aTov'. explained in a note at the foot of the found

have occurred ir

Torj ad$B'^<"

Luke

10.

S.Mark

xii. ].)

It will, 1 believe,

be invariably found that the form iy toTi aiBBaai

;

is strictly

equivalent to tr
tinction to iy

t^ aa$$irip
of.

and was adopted

xxiii.

for couveuicuce in contradis-

Ttiis

words

will

be

aaPBirois (1 Chron.

31 and 2 Chron.

ii.

4) where

Sabbath daj/s arc spoken

page".

It is not correct to say that iu Levit. xxiii.

i.

15 nirci:?

is

put for "weeks;"

Introduction, &c.

169.

See the forcgoiug note

S. Paul's pbrasc

(s).

2323. Sec BuxtorPs Lexicon Talmudicum, p. concerning Liglitfoot (on 1 Cor. ivi. 2) remarks

though the Septnagint translators have (reasonably enough) there rendered the word ifiSofidSas. In Levit. ixv. 8, (where the same word occurs twice,) it is
_

Kori M'"'
'<

once rendered
i

imraians
nor
is

once,

I /3Sii^i{Scs.

Quite distinct

is

^dT

(shaaoa)

,aBpiru:-"raB-2

[yhadVshallath.-] 'In the first [lit. one] 0/ writes, "in Svnac. Sallath; would tbe TabuudisU say." Professor Gandcll See Bernstein B. v. J^-A* similarly named. the (lavs of tbe week are

ira

e.

ipSofidf

there any substitution of the one word for the other.

But

inasmuch as the recuiTcnce of the Sallath-dai/ was what constituted a treek

in

other words, since the essential feature of a week, as a Jewish division of

U*=. Ik^l
HaObut/i,
S.
.

U
111

^il

U*

^-

Pit.

one in the Salhath,

t:o i.

time,
floTo,

was the recurrence of the Jewish

the

d.iy

of rest;

-l ad$BaTor or

t<J

aa$-

"

tlie

time

llie

bauuath.y'

Hebrew name

for the
(as

day of
/i(o

rest,

became transferred
is

to the trtti.
S.

,r<ipj8aT..

Mark xiL 1, 2, 5, 8, 10. 11. 12. , ;; ,l\ invariably HSW (xia"''"'^ ' The Sabbath-dav. in the Old Testament, is ""^ exhibit more nearly "T^ word which the Greeks uld not """'J'y (,hahhatha:) tl> The Chaldee form of this word is KHatt?

The former designation,

once by S.
all,

explained in tbe text,)

used once by

Mark,

Luke ; while the phrase

ii.

Ttc caPBaruy occurs

in the K.T., in

six times.

'

So Euscbius (rcc7. Hist.

15),

and Jerome {De Tlris Ilhst.

ii.

827), on


150
Tin
c.rjirivsioii irptoTtj

[ciiai-.

tliisr

aa^^ujov, a

sin'ling

IX.]

indication of the gcniiinohss of

Virsi--.

]."<!

he had employed in vcr.

2,

indeed for an obvious reason.

ple set

he does so for an excellent and lu vcr. 2, lie had conformed

which the poor widow cast into the Treasury were equivalent to KohpdvTi]s, the Latin qiiadrans ?
4, 8,

and

in chap, vii,
(^e'crTrjs) ?

to the prevailing usage of Palestine,

and followed the exam-

introduced the

Roman measure

i>cxtarins,
(in

him by

S.

Matthew

(xxviii. 1) in adojiting the eni<-

and who volunteered the information

aiiXi)
is
riiiin) 1

chap. xv. IC) that

{Pra-to-

idiomatically
sabbati,"

maticul expression, ^ fita aa^^uTrnv. That this would be represented in Latin by the phrase " prima

only another designation of irpanoapiov

S.

Yes.

Mark,

who, alone of
chap.

tlie

four Evangelists,

we have already

seen.

In

ver. 9, therefore,

he
;

is

(in chap. xv. 21,)

records the fact that Simon the Cyrenian

solicitous to record the fact of the

ihis

Eesurrection afresh

and

was "

the father of Alexander

and Unfits,"
xv.

cvidcntlj' for tlic

time, his phrase is observed to be ihc Gird- cquiinknt for fill- Latin "prima mblati ;" viz. irpcoTr] aaft^drov. How
strictly equivalent the

sake of bis Latin readers*: S. Mark,

to write in

who
21>,)

alone ventures

Greek

letters {ova,

the Latin in-

two modes of expression were

felt to

be by those
illustrated

who were best qualified to judge, is singularly by the fact, that the Si/rinc rendering of both

places
(4.)

is identical.

But I take leave to point out that this substituted phrase, instead of being a suspicious circumstance, is on the
contrary a striking note of genuineness.

obviously because he was writing where that exclamation was most and the of brst underetood JIark, who attends the Roman division of the day, in relating our Lord's prophecj' to Peter no doubt was Mark, I having conformed
terjection

"Vah !"
"
:

familiar,

forci'

it

S.

to

S.

'

5.

say,

it

wlio,
bj'

himself to the precedent set him

familiar usage of Palestine
;

S.

Matthew and the

fuias

For do we not
it,

and having written r^y

recognise here, in the last chapter of the Gospel, the very

a-a^fidrwv, (which he
toriini',") in ver.

same hand which,

inform
(i)

in the first chapter of

was careful

to

us, just for

once, that " Juda3a,"

is

" a country,"

Latin readers, the Greek equivalent for "prima aabbati,"

(viz. trpdiTr)

'lovBaia "x^mpa,)

TOTafiog) ?

Is not this
ij

and "Jordan,"
the

"a river," (o ^lopBdvtji very man who explained to his

t/ic

introduced, aa^^drov,) in
2;
ver. 9.

knew would sound

like " una sabba-

also for the benefit of his

This, therefore, I repeat,

to its au-

so far

from being a circumstance " unfarourablc

readers (in chap. xv. 42) that the familiar Jewish designation for " Friday,"
the Salhath' ?"
Trapaffxevi], denotes "

thenticity," (by which, I presume, the learned writer

its genuineness), is

means

day

before (in

rather corroborative of the Cl)urch's conS.

and who was so minute in informing us

stant belief that the present section of

vii. 3, 4) about certain ceremonial practices of " the Pharisees and all the Jews ?" Yet more, Is not the self-

chap.

equally with the rest of

it,

the production of S. Mark.

Mark's Gospel is, " Not

also

:" only was the document intended for Gentile converts

same writer
in chap. vi.
xpiciilatur) for

clcarlj*

recognisable in this xvi"" chapter, who

(remarks Dr. Davidson,

ances of
its

p.

149,)

"but there are

appearthe

37 presented us with (rtreKovKaTwp (the Latin " an executioner ?" and who, in chap. xv. 39,

adaptation to the use of

Roman

Christians in

particular."

Just

so.

And

I venture to say that in

for

"a

centurion," wrote

pt'av ?

and, in chap.

not

eKarovTapxo'!, but

kcvtv-

xii. 42,

explained that the two XeTrro

whole of "the document" Dr. Davidson will not find a more striking " appearance of its adaptation to the use of Roman and therefore of its genuineness, than this. Christians,"

I shall
the autlioril}- of Clemens Alex,
14.

have to request

my

reader by-aud-by to accept

it

as

The

and of Papias.

See also Eueeb. Mist. Bed.

li-

colopliou in the Syriae Version

shews that the same

traditional

one of the most striking notes of Divine origin which these

verses contain.

belief prevailed in the

Eastern Church.

It also finds record in the Si/iioj'sis

For the moment, I pass on.

Scriptura (wTongly) ascribed to Albanasius.

'

-wapaaKfvii, S iatt

tine,

Trpoaa$fiaTov.OuT E. V. "preparation" is from Angus"Parasceue Latine pra'paratio est." See Pearson's interesting not*

on the nord.

' Ibid. ' Tonnson's Discourses, i. 172. In the Sec the Vulgate transl. of S. Mark ivi. 2 and of S. John xx. 10. same versiun, S. Luke xxiv. 1 and S. John xx. 1 are rendered " tallati."

Consider liom. xvi. 13.

'

1'J2
(II.)

Th(

cxjifcssion,

d^'

?';?

fV/Se/SXjjKei
critical

[chap.
perccp-

IX.]

6 rd Baifiona, considered.

IVj

Lcfs excusable

is

the coarseness of
It

lion of (he clause

for
lliis

"out of

whom He had

cast seven devils,"

lion betrayed as a

by ibc next remark.

has been pointed out

place.

The

reason, I say, is even obvious

why un
is

suspicious circumstance tliat in ver. 9,

"the phrase

a^ */? K^c^\i'lKei e-ma haifiovia is attached to the name of Mary Magdalene, although she had been mentioned three
times before without such appendix. It seems to have been taken from Luke viii. 2 e." Strange perversity, and yet

"aj)i)cndis," which would have been meaningless before,

inlroduced in connexion with

privilege of being the
first

Marj' Magdalene's august of the human race to behold

(I

the risen Savioi'r.

beforeliand with

Jerome

rejoice to find) has been

me

in suggesting that it

was done,
tliiit

in order

stranger blindness
(1.)

to convey by an example the tacit assurance

The phrase

"where

cannot have been taken from

S.Luke;

because S. Luke's Gospel was written after S. Mark's. It mix not taken from S. Luke because ihert acf) rji Baifiovia
eiTTa i^e\i]\vOi,
is

Sin had abounded, there did Grace niucli more abound''." Arc we to be cheated of our birtliright by Critics' wlm,
entirely overlooking a solution of the difficulty
it be) IJivine as this,
(;>'

difficulty

here,

d^' ^j
it to

eKy8e/3Xj;Ke(

cTna Baifiovia

can see in the circumstance grounds

read.
(2.)

only for suspicion and cavil ? "Airaye.

is

expose the shallowness and futility of the entire objection. Mary Magdalene " had been mentioned three times before, wiihout such appendix."

More important

(111.) Take the next example. The very form of the "appendix" which we have been considering (dcf)' ijg eV/36/3\i']Kei t-TTTa

haifiovta) breeds offence.

" Instead of iK^dWeiv

but, "What ilun ? After twice (ch. the word avXi) without any " appendix,"
"Well

xiv. 54, 66)

using

u-TTo," (oracularly

remarks Dr. Davidson,)

sort, I

"Mark

has eVy3d\-

in the very

next

Xeip fV ."
once has ck^uXSo has S.Matthew, (viz. in chap. vii. 4 and 5) and so has S. Luke, (viz. in chap. vi. 42, and in Acts xiii. 50.) But wliat of all this ? W/io sees not that such Criticism is simply nugatory F

chapter (xv. 16) S. Mark adds, o i<ni -Trpairwpiov.The beloved Disciple having mentioned himself without any

Kothingofllie

answer.

S.Mark

Xeiu eV, and once eK^dXXfU' diro.

:

" appendix" in
elaborate
sister of

S. John xx.^, mentions himself with a very "appendix" in ver. 20. But what of it?The

the Blessed Virgin, having been designated in chap.

XV. 40, as
is

MapCa ij 'laKW^ov tov jMlicpov Ka\ 'laxrrj ix-qTrjp; mentioned with one half of that " appendix," (Mapia ij
in ver. 47,' and in ihe very next verse, with the other
jj

(lY.)

information that the word iropevecrdai,

S.

"We are next favoured with the notable piece of "never used by
is

'Jtuffj})

Mark,
(1.)

three times contained in this passage ;"

(viz.

in

half

{Mapia

toO 'laKOiPov.)

see

no reason why the

A-erses 10, 12

and

15.)

Luke vi. 16, is called 'lovhas 'laKapitoTrjt, should be designated as 'lovSav tov iiriKaXovfievov 'laKaTraitor, who, in S.
pi<liTr)v

Yes.

The uncompounded
is

verb, never used cheir/iere

in S.

Luke
them

xxii. 3.

I am not saying

by S.Mark,

found here three times.

of iropevecrBai are

But what then?

in his
ei'tr-

that such "ap-

The

conijiouiids

common enough
is,

pendices" are either uninteresting or unimportant.

I attend to
I

That

Gospel.

Thus, short as his Gospel

he alone has

habitually, these pages will best evince.

jTopevtaflaijiK-TropevecrOat, crv/J,-';ropeva0ai,7rapa-7ropevea6ai,

am

only insisting that to infer from such varieties of exis

qftcncr than all the other three Eiangclists

put
:

tor/ether,

viz.

pression that a different author is recognisable,

to the spirit of intelligent Criticism!

abhorrent
pe-

twenty-four times against their nineteen

''

while the comcxpulcrnt':

i.

"Itluriii Mag:dAlt?ue

ipsa est

' qua septem

dxmonia

til

vbi

But in the case before culiarly infelicitous. There

(3.)

us,
is

the hostile suggestion

is

aluudarinit yeccttium, auperalinidaret gralia." (Uieron. 0pp.

'

even inexpressible tenderness

significancy, in the reserva:

So

Tisilioudorf,

"
:

327.)

Collatis prioribu?,
I

and beauty, the deepest Gospel

^/(/Sf/3Ai'jK<i

J." (p. 322.)

Critics

am

astonisLiJ to find tbc

S.

prum npte adduntur verba i^' Jt same remark reiterated

'

by uiost of the
^

e.g.
i.

Rev. T.
p. 169.

Greeu, p. 52.
viz. in cliap. vii. 26.

Davidson's Introduction, &c.

i.

169, ed. 1848

(ii.

113, ed. 186S.)

Infrodui-tioii, 4c. vol.


154

iixr

[chap.
I
i.\.]

The
c.rpi;
--/.;;/,
o't

fier'

S.Marl;'^

of -rropfiKoBai, (0U'<khrv(J.
Gospel.

avjov yevofievoi,

co),-id,

nd.

l.O")

pound TpoffTvopeveaOai
ecrOai in these

is jicctiVinr to hi'<

am

there-

ver. 12,

TTopnfiiTej in ver. 15,

fore inclined to suggest tbut Ibe presence of the verb iropeu-

stitute in the places

fore, since tlic

n/so "admit of no subwhere they severally occur;" and there-

Twelve suspected Verses, instead

is

of being an

additional

clement of suspicion,
facts

rather a circumstaDce

verb itself is one of S. ]\Iark's favourite verbs, not only arc these three places above suspicion, but they

slightly corroborative of their genuineness.

But suppose that the phenomenon appealed to is

(2.)

had been

different.

The
Thus,

may be fairly adduced as indications that the same hand was at work here which wrote all the rest of his Gospel "'.
(V.)

of even perpetual recurrence,

suspicious.

Then
(x.\.

further,
is
it

the

phrase roty

fier'

avrov yevoftein

aiid

may on no

account be represented as
S.

vots (in ver. lOj

noted as suspicious.

"Though found
:

jrapovaia, a
gelists, is

word used only by

Matthew among the Evanall

the Acts

IS)

mnr

occurs in the Go>^pek

nor does the

by him used four times; yet are

it

those four
alone

word
(1.)

fia6i}Tai in this passage."

instances found in one and the same ehapfcr.

S.Luke
:

The phrase
it

ol fier'

avrov

yct'6/j.evoi

has xapi^eadai, and he has

cases are

three times

but

all three

in

the Acts or in the

Gospels, ijccjd

alone has

met with in one and the same chapter, S. John but all the four Xvirr), and he has it four times
:

Khouhl

ap])car elsewhere? or

hm. liuf, Wliy rather, How tunld it ? Now,

it
)*

occurs nowhere

if the expression

be

(as it is)

an ordinary, easy, and obvious

instances occur in one and the same chapter.

one,

uantcd in this place, where

elsewhere, simply
it

met with
elsewhere

but not
is

Such instances might be multiplied to almost any Out of the fifteen occasions when S. Matthew uses extent. the word rdXavrov, no less tlian fourteen occur in one The nine occasions when S. Luke uses the word chapter. occur in one chapter. S. John uses the verb aviafiva all
(3.)

met with
wanted
;

because

it

surely

not

is

unworthy of any one calling himself

it

Critic

to pretei^d that there attaches to

!

the faintest

shadow of suspicion (2.) The essence of the phrase

01 fier'

is

clearly the expression

yi'vofiai is

but all four instances Tavai transitively only four times Now, these three words chapter. of it are found in one (be it observed) are peculiar to the Gospek in which they
:

avrov.

(The aorist participle of

the persons spoken of

added of

necessity to

mark

In no otlicr, (cerprecise)

tainly in no simpler,

more obvious, or more

way

scverallj' occur.
(4.)

I shall of course be reminded that ToXavrov

and

fiva

are unusual words,

could the followers of the risen S.wiour have been dcsi"nated at such a time. For had He not just now "overcome

admitting of no substitute in the places

where they respectively occur. But I replj', Unless the Critics are able to shew me uhieh of the ordinary compounds of iTopevofiai S. Mark could po'^'iihhj have employed for the uucompounded A-erb, in the three places which have suggested the present inquiry,
ver. 10
:

the sharpness of Death"

also four times in S.

?)

But
:

this expression,
S.
;

which occurs
Luke, occurs
ii.

four times in S. Matthew and four times in

Mark

viz. in chap.

i.

36

25

v.

40,

and

here.

This, therefore, is a slightl)' corroborative circumat all a

stance,
(3.)

not
But

ground of suspicion.
lie

viz.

it

seems to be implied that S. Jfark, because

fiaOijrd'; often

eKeivr)

iropevOelda aTn'jyyeiXe

toii /xer' avTOV

mentions rovi
to have

elsewhere in his Gospel, ought

yevofievoii.

mentioned them here.

answer
:

12 ver. 13
ver.

Bvaiv ef avruv
jropev0ivTe<;

iropevopevois

ds aypov.

()

He does not mention rovt

;

/xaBi^rds nearly

TO vayyi\iov

et?

jbv Koafiov airavja, Ktjpv^are

so often as S.

Matthew

while S. John notices them twice

as often as he does.
(i)

their objection is simply frivolous, and the proposed adverse

Suppose, however, that he elsewhere mentioned them

times, because

reasoning, worthless. Such, in fact, it most certainlj' is ; for iropevofievois in it will be found that -iropevdelaa in ver. 10,

five hundi'cd

he had occasion

five

hundred

"

Profi'ssoi-

Broados has eome very good remarks on tbis Buljcct.


15G The
c.rjm-nioi) ol fitj'
tlicni
;

avTov yevofievoi, considered, [chap.

i/iaf

IX.]

6'. J/rtr/.'i- ttse

of the

icrli

OeuaBai, coiisidtrcd.

157
eithi

times to speak of

what reason would

is

be for bis

verse
I;/

neither word being used on any other occasion

mentioning tbeni here, wberc be

(r)

)wt speaking of

tbem

S. Mil ft heir, or by anij other Evajigell'it.

The

-sniiie

thiiKj

It

must be evident

to anj'

one reading tbe Gospel

jiricix Iv is

to be

said of ava^rjTelv

and
S.

avTa-rroliSovat,
:

of

witb attention that besides

sion S.

ol fiaO-qrai,

Mark always
first

designates ihe

(by which expresTwelve there

AposllvK,)

aiTiapepy^ecrdai

and ScaTiOeaOai, ia
S.

Luke

of aV/crrnVat
in-

and

twii'vi'ai

in

John.

But who ever drcaiucd of

was a considerable corapanj- of believers assembled together

throughout the
Easter Da)'".

siuuLiting that the circumstance is suspicious ?

(2.)

S.Luke

notices

this

As

for OeaaOai,

we should have rcmiiidod our

is

Critic

circumstance when he relates how the Women, on their return from the Sepulchre, " fold all these things unto the Eleven, and fo all the re^t," (xxiv. 9) and again when he
:

that this verb, four times

S.

and Matthew, is used only tlircc times by Luke, and only twice b}' S.Mark. And we should have reS. Jolin,

which
S.

used seven times by

by

describes
S.

to Jerusalem, " found the Eleven gathered together, and them that

how Cleopas and his companion (Bvo e'f Luke and S. Mark call them) on their return
But
to S.

aincbv as

spectfully inquired,

What

possible suspiiioii docs OcuaOai

throw upon the

(3.)

last

twelve verses of S. ^Mark's Gospel?

the reply.

None whatever, would have been

S.

Bui

iu

Kcrc uith them." (xxiv. 33.)

this

was

at least as well

the meantime Dr. Davidson hints that the verb oiajht to have

known

to S.

Mark

as

it

was

Luke.

Instead, therefore,

been employed by
sufficient to point

Mark

in chap.
S.

ii.

14

It

is,

presume,

of regarding the designation " them that had been uith Jlim"

with suspicion,

are
tlie

we not rather
is

to recognise in
it

it

one

token more that

narrative in which

occurs

is

unmis-

takably genuine? "\Miat else

this but one of those delicate

Matthew, at all events, was not of Dr. Davidson's opinion and I respectfully submit that the Evangelist, inasmuch as he happens to be here irriiiug nhoi't himself, must be allowed, just for once, to be
out thai
"^

discriminating touches which indicate the hand of a great

the better judge.

(4.)
is

Master; one of those evidences of minute accuracy which

Iu the meantime,

Is

it

not perceived that Oeiiafiai

i ?

stamp on a narrative the impress of unquestionable Truth ? (VI.) We are next assured by our Critic that OeaaOai "is unknown to Mark " but it occurs twice in this section, (viz. in ver. 11 and ver. 14.) Another suspicious circumstance (].) A strange way (as before) of stating an ordinary fact, certainlj"! What else is it but to assume the thing which has to be proved ? If the learned writer had said instead, that the verb OeaaOai, here twice employed by S. Mark, occurs noirhere eke in his Gospel, he would have acted more loyally, not to saj' more fairly by the
j
!

the very word specially required iu these two places,

in S.

though nowhere eke

one,

Mark's Gospel

The

occasion

is

viz.

the 'beholding' of the person of the risen S.wjoi

k.

Does not even natural piety suggest that the uniqueness of

such a 'spectacle' as that might well set an Evangelist on
casting about for a

word of somewhat

less

ordinary occur-

rence? Tiie occasion cries aloud for this very verb 6eacr0at;

and I can hardly conceive a more apt

darkened eye,
purix)5e,

illustration
its

of a

record:

but then he would have been stating a

strictly

ordinary phenomenon,
the matter in hand.
in like
S.
"

of no
is

significancj', or relevancy to

than that which only discovers " a stumbling-block and occasion of falling" in expressions like the present which " should have been only for their wealth," being so manifestly
''

a spiritual

faculty perverted from

lawful

He

probably aware that irapa^atveiv

designed for their edification.

(v. 27)

manner is to be found in two consecutive verses of Matthew's Gospel; irapaKoveiv, twice in the course of one
Consider
tlie little society

5.

Luke

has

iStdaaTo
P

tcXiJitji'.

S.

Matthew
ix. 9.

(ix.

P)

and S.Mark

(ii.

14) have preferred tlhtv

fifflpwiroi/

(Acutf thv rov 'A\^aiov) Kadijfjiffov irl

rh T.\a-.i(i).

Sec S. Matth.
like

which was assembled on

tlie

occasion alluded

'

Oue

is

rominded that
(xxvii.

S.

Matthew, in

manner, carefully reserres the

to, in

Acts

i.

13, 14.

Note

also

what

is

clearly implied

by ver.

21,

as to

verb
Ci\>*<

<l(ay>^^

55: xxviii. 1) for the contemplation of the Satiovii's

the persons

who were

kabiluallj/ present at

such gatherings.

and of the SiVlocii's Sepulchre.


158
(A'll.)
Tilt iJjirC'xiou

eOecWv
irn
aiiTrj^,

IX.]
S.

and

\ni'

Mark's use of

the verb diriaTuv, considind.

icifh,

1J9
is

Rut, (it
in

Btamp,)

cdeiiOr] vtt' avT)]<; (ver.

found here
(1.)

urged by a Critic of n very (lifrereiit 11) "is a construction only the New Testament."
is
;

could M'nrccly he disj)cnscd

as a

ground of

suspicion,

Eimply irrational.

It

might just

as well be held to be a sus-

picious circumstance, in respect of verses 3

Very

likely

but what then?

The learned

writer has

and 4, that the verb aT70Kv\l^iv occurs there, and there only, in this Gospel.

evidently overlooked the fact that the passive OeaaOai occurs but i/irfc ti)ii(-< in the New Testament in al/i. S. Matthew, on

Nothing whatever follows from the circumstance.

fact, a
(2.)

It

is,

in

point scarcely deserving of attention.

the

a dative'.

the word, connects it with there SKopinious in the circumstance that 6ea(r6ai vtto should be the construction preferred by S.Mark ?
tico

occasions

when he employs
is

To be

sure, if the case of a verb exclusively used

S.

by

AATiat

The phenomenon
on one

is

not nearly so remarkable as that S.Luke,

Luke, were an unique, or even an exceedingly rare phenomenon, it might have been held to be a somewhat suspicious circumstance that the i)hcS.

the two Evangelists,

Mark and

avo ", instead of making the verb govern the accusative, as he does three times in the very next rcrsc ; and, indeed, eleven times in the course of his Gospel. To be sure, S. Luke in
Ibis instance
is

solitary occasion, exhibits the

phrase

fit)

(po^eiade

nomcuon presented
of the sort
is

itself in

the present section. But nothing

the fact.
tiscd

There are no fewer than forty-five

by S.

verbs exclusively

Mark and
is

S. Luke.
?

And

wliy

should not aTriaTeip be,

(3.)

(as it is,)

one of them

but copying S. Matthew,

;

who

also has

(iri

Note, next, that this word

used twice, and in the

and seven times makes the verb govern This, nevertheless, constitutes no reason an accusative. whatever for suspecting the genuineness either of S. Matth. X. 28 or of S. Luke xii. 4.
ff)o^ia0e airo once*
(2.) In like manner, the phrase if>o^7]dr)cTav ^ofiov fieyav will be found to occur once, and once onfi/, in S. Mark, once, and once only, in S. Luke " ; although S. Mark and S. Luke use the verb ^oySeto-^at upwards of fortj' times. Such facts are interesting. They may prove important. But no one who is ever so little conversant with such inquiries will pretend that they are in the least degree suspicions. I pass on. (VIII.) It is next noted as a suspicious circumstance that airtcTTflv occurs in ver. 11 and in ver. 16 but nowhere else

course of his last chapter too, also by S. Luke.

else docs
it

Nowhere

occur in the Gospels.

It

is

at least as strange

that the word airiareiv should be found twice in the last

chapter of the Gospel according to S. Luke, as in the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark.

And

if

no
in

shadow of suspicion

is

supposed to result from this circumit

stance in the case of the third Evangelist, whj- should

the case of the second ?

(4.)

But, lastly, the noun aiTKnla (which occurs in S.

Mark

two other places of the same Gospel. And this word (which S. Matthew uses twice,) is employed by none of the other Evangelists. '\^Tiat need to add another

xvi

14) occurs in

word

Do

not

many

of these supposed suspicious circum-

in the Gospels,

except in
:

S.

Luke

xxiv. 11, 14.

stances,

this

one for example,

prove

rather, on closer in-

But really, such a remark is wholly without force, as an argument against the genuineness of the passage in which the word is found for,
(1.)

spection, to be confirmatory facts ?

(IX.)

We

not found in

are next assured that fiera ravra (ver. 12) "is Mark, though many opportunities occurred for

AVhere

else in the course

of this Gospel could avi<rrav

using

it."

have occurred?

Now,

unless

the word should, or at least

some reason can be shewn why might have been emplo3ed elseii

(1.) I

suppose that what this learned writer means,

is

this

that if S.

Mark had
/tiera

coveted an opportunity for introducing

where, to remark upon

1 S.
'

its

introduction in this place, uhcre

xvi. 11.

the phrase

found one.
Matth.
vi.

xxiii. 5.

S.Mark
;

Upht ri BmBnvai airois,

S.

(vi. 1)

and

Tavra earlier in his Gospel, he might have (More than this cannot be meant for nowhere before docs S. Mark employ any other phrase to express
:

roij offlpwirais, xxiii. B).

Luke

xii. 4.

'

S. JlutHi. x. 28.

S.

Murk

iv.

41.

S.

Luke

ii.

9-

"after those things," or "after this," or "afterwards.")


IGO
T5ut

comidcrcd.

[chap.
IX.]

trapTa^ov
S.

K-icrts.

neja TavTU,

trepoi, varepov,

crvvepyelv0f^aiovv

IGI

what

is

the obvious inference fiom the facls of the case,

tlie

and

Luke.

What

possible significancy would Dr. David-

as stated
gcH.-)t

by

learned Critic, except that the blessed Evan.

io Ikiiv hccii iniconsdoiis

son attach to the cii'cumstance ?

(XIII.)
son)

muhl be

jirciiiiiied

io iidrodiHc // ixjircssion tiiidcr consideration

C(i'<ioii

of aiii/ desire on any other oc-

"is
is

i.ri/jif

the jircscnt ?
it

aware)
is

Once more. " iravraxov" (proceeds Dr. Davidunknown to Mark;" which (as we begin to be the learned gentleman's way of stating that it is
it

(2.)

Then, further,

worth observing that while the

it is

only found in chap. xvi. 20.

Tischcndorf, Tregelles, and Alford insist that
in S.
i.

phrase /xfrd lavra occurs five times in S. Luke's Gospel,

also occurs
:

found only twice in the Acts; while S.Matthew never emploi/s it

irhtj
.

(it

(d1.

^Vhy, then,

I would
;

respectfully inquire
?

but

Mark 28. I respectfully differ from them when it has been pointed out that the word
is

in opinion
is

onhj tisid

need S.Mark introduce the phrase more than onee

is

Why,
into

besides in S. Lid,e ix. C,

what can be said of such Criticism but

?
:

especially,

his solitary use of the expression to be repre-

that it

simply frivolous

sented as a suspicious circumstance

and even perverted

an

indictment against the genuineness of the last " Would any one argue that twelve verses of his Gospel ?
article of
S.

(XIV. and XV.) Yet again a-uvepyetv and ^e^aiovv are also said by the same learned Critic to be " unknown to Mark."
S.

Luke was not the

autlior of the Acts, because the author

'

of the Acts has emploj'ed this phrase only twice,

often as

Mark

certainly

u<!es

these two words only once,

:

viz. in

the last verse of the present Chapter

picious in this circumstance, I

but what

tliere is sus-

he eoidd have used

(X.)

it?'

(Mejer's phrase here'.)"

am

at a loss even to divine.

;

Another objection awaits us. "Erepci also "is unknoAvn to Mark," says Dr. Davidson which only means that the word occurs in chap. xvi. 12, but not elsewhere in
;

He eouhl not
and
fifty-six

have used them oftener

and since one hundred

words are peculiar to his Gospel,

why

should

his Gospel.
It so

not avvepyeiv and ^e^aiovv be two of them ? (XA'I.) " Ildda KTiGis is Pauline," proceeds Dr. Davidson,
(referring to a
(1.)

happens, however, that erepos also occurs once only

in the Gospel of S.

John.

Does

it

therefore throw suspicion

All very oracular,

famous expression which is found in ver. 15.) to be sure: but uhy irdaa KTitrn

on S. John xix. 37 ?
that

should be thought "Pauline" rather than " Petrine," I really,

(XL) The same thing is said of varepov (in ver. 14) viz. it "occurs nowhere" in the second Gospel. But why not state the case thus?^'To-Tf/jof, a word which is twice emplo3'ed b)' S. Luke, occurs only once in S. Mark and Oiiic in S. John. That would be the true way of stating
the facts of the case.

once more, cannot discover

seeing that S. Peter has the ex-

pression as well as S. Paul'.

(2.)

In this place, however, the phrase

is

irdaa

tJ

icTiai':.

But

But even this expression is no more to be called "Pauline" than "Marcine;" seeing that as S.Mark uses it once and
once only, so does S. Paul use
in
it

it
it

inconvenient result,

that

would be attended with this would make it plain that the

once and once only,

viz.

Eom.
(3.'>

viii.

22.
it

word
hand.

in question has

no kind of bearing on the matter in

In the meantime, how does

come

to pass that the

learned Critic has overlooked the significant fact that the

(XII.) The same thing he saj's of ^dirreiv (in ver. 18). But what is the fact? The word occurs OH/y twice in the

word Krlait occurs besides in S. Mark x. G and

that
it is

xiii.

19

and

and S. Luke iv. 35. It is one of the eighty- four words which are peculiar to S. Mark
Gospels,
viz. in S.

Mark

word which

S.

Mark

xvi. 18

atone of the Erangelists uses ?

Its occurrence, therefore, in this

verj- reverse

place

is

a circumstance the

of suspicious.
lastly,
'

I'lofessor

Broadus, uli supra.

(4.)

But

inasmuch as the opening, words of our

Col.
i.

15,23.

1 S.Pet.ii. 13.


102

Coincithttct

and a Conjecture.

[chap.

IX.]

ep

rw

6i>6fj.ari

Trap-

and cV- oKoXovOetv.

]G3
:

these Lord's Ministerial Commission to the Apostles are

where emploj-iug the preposition evi:

xiii. 6.)

(viz. in is.

37

ix.

39

fjpvfaTe TO evayyeXiov vdar)

inasinueli, too, as

-rrj

Kjiaei

(ver. 15)

Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians very words; speaking of the (i. 23) almost reproduces those toO Krjpvx^evTos ev vdar, Hope Tov evayyeXiov -."Is it not an allowahle [Tfj] KTlaei -rf, inro rov ovpavov
S.
. . .

(1.)

Now

really, if it

were

so, tlie

reasoning would be nu-

gatory.

S. Ltilc also once, and once only, has ev 7u> ovofiarl

(like

oov. his usage elsewhere being,

S.Mark's) to use

i-n-l.

S. I^Iavk's conjecture that a direct reference to tliat place in S. Paul's Epistle? that Gospel is contained in this place of tendency of the inspired Apostle " beholding the universal
iinperidl Christianity already realized," announces (and from in his Loud's the fulfilment of his Lokd's commands

two consecutive verses of ch. ix, eirX tc3 ovofiari fiov GOV is read and yet, in the very next chapter, his Gospel exhibits an unique instance of the usage of AVas it

Na}', in

e'l^.

ever thouglit that suspicion

(2.)

is

tlicroby cast on S.
is

Luke

x.

17 ?

But, in

fact,

the objection

an

ovcrsiglit
jjlirase

of the
recurs

Home !)

learned (and generally accurate) objector. Tlie

in S.
bj'

own words
ture.

as recorded

by the Evangelist
S.

S.

^Mark?

Mark

ix.

38,

as

tlie

text of that place has been revised

as a conjecI desire to be understood to deliver this only

Tischcndorfj

bj'

Tregclles and by himself.

This

is

(here-

Mark's Gospel is commonly thought eye of S. Peter; to have been written at Rome, and under the bton at and that S. Peter (and therefore S. l^Iark) must have

But seeing that

fore a slightl}' corrolorativc, not a suspicious circumstance.

(XVIII. and XIX.) "We are furtlier assured that irapaKOXovdelv (in ver. 17) and eiraKoXovdeiv (in ver. 20) " are both
foreign
(1.)
to the diction ofMarh." But what can the learned author of

Kome
too,

before S. Paul visited that city in a.d. 01

it

; seeing,
arc

that

was

in

a.tj.

61-2

(as

Wordsworth and Alford

this

statement

Colossians, and agreed) that S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the unreaI really can discover nothing wrote it from Borne

possibly

mean

He
He

is

not speaking of the uncompounded

verb aKoXovdelv, of course

sonable in the epeculation.

If,

however,

it

be well founded,

twenty times.
verb
not
it

for S. Mark employs it at least ; cannot be speaking of the compounded

(and

of eximpossible to deny that the coincidence then, what an pression may be such as I have suggested,) last Twelve august corroboration would this be of "the If, indei, S. Mark !" . . Verses of the Gospel according to Rome inspected S. Mark 8 the great Apostle on reaching
it is
.

; for avvaKoXovdelv occurs in S. Mark v. 37. He canmean that irapaKoXovGeXv, because the Evangelist uses

only once,

is

euspicious

for that

would be

to cast a slur

cannot mean general!)- that verbs com]K)unded with prepositions are " foreign to the diction of
on S.

Luke
;"

i.

3.

He

Gospel for the

first

time, with

what awe

will

he have recog-

Mark
thirty

for

there are no less than foriy-tico such verbs

fulfilment of h>9 nised in his own recent experience the > concerning the " signs whic Saviour's great announcement '^casl himself should foUow them that believe \" Had he not "" spoken with tongues more than they aU out devils? into the tore and at Melita, not only " shaken ofif the serpent father and felt no barm," but also "laid hands on the sick" " and he had recovered ? "... To return, however, of Publius, bs thought necesto matters of fact; with an apology (if it

to S. Mark's short Gospel, against which are peculiar to S. Matthew, and seventeen which arc peculiar to S. John. He cannot mean that verbs compounded with irapd and eiri have a suspicious look ; for at least thirty-three such compounds, (besides the two be-

which arc even peculiar

fore us,) occur in his sixteen chapters

'.

What,

then, I

must

sary) for

what immediately goes

before.
fiov (ver. 17) is

(XVII.)

Next, e./ Tm ovo^arl

noticed

Mark iv. 30, confirmed and tlie I'biloxenian, the Vetus and the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Anncninn veiiious, besides Codd. A and D, and all the other The evidence of uncials (except H, L, A, n,) and almost every cursire Codex.
vapaBi\\ii''[l quote from the Tt-xtus Beccptus of S.
as it is

by

tlic I'lisbito

another suspicious peculiarity.

The phrase is supposed to

;

occur

only in this place of S. Mark's Gospel

elsethe Evangelist

Who would subscribe to the difl'creut rendCod. C and of Origen is doubtful. ing adopted on countless similar occaiions by the most recent Editors of the
N. T.
f]
:

irafioy)VAXii'

Trapdytir

vapayinaBai

tOfuSiUyv

TafaXai>.^atftiy

1G4

Thf

pfirnii' )(eipai

itrnidevai

iiri

mean
?

[chap.

.X.]

fi(p

OVV 6 Kvpia,

co>isi(k)-cd.

](;5

really ask, can

the learned

Critic possibl}'

re-

(1.) fiiv

o^v occurs only once

occurs only once in

in S.

Mark's Gospel, truly

(iii.

Bpectfully pause for au answer,

(2.)

but then
far as

S.Lnlc

18)

; only

tnicc

In the meantime, I claim tbat as

it

such evidence

goes,
it

goes,)

(and

certainly goes a very little w&y, yet, os far as

it is

a note of S. Mark's authorship, that within the

compass of the last twelve verses of his Gospel these two

compounded verbs should be met with. {XX. ) Dr. Davidson points out, as another suspicious

(xix. 24: xx. 30).--in S. Matthew, never" at all imaginable plea can be made out of such evidence as this, for or against the genuineness of the lust Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel ?-Once more, I pause for on answer.

in S.

John

What

cir-

cumstance, that (in ver. 18) the phrase ^et/sas iimidevai iwi Tiva occurs ; " instead of x^'P"? 7riTi0evai rivi." (1.) But on the contrarj', the phrase "is in Math's man.

(2.) As for o Kvpio<i being "fonir,,, to the didlon of Mark in speaking of the Lord,''-I really do not know

what

the learned Critic can possibly

mean
h,,

except

our

Lord nouhvre

called 6

Kvpios

S.

he finds Mark, cjcpl in this

tliat

ner," says

Dean Alford: the

:

plain fact being that

it

occurs

place.

no 25

less
:

than three times in his Gospel,

viz. in chap. viii.

(The other idiom, he has four times *.) xvi. 18. X. 16 Behold, then, one and the same phrase is appealed to as
a note of genuineness and as an indication of spurious origin.

But then, he is respectfully reminded that neither docs he find our Lord an3-n-here called by S. Mark " Jesis Christ," except in chap. i. 1. Are we, therefore,
to suspect
it ?

the beginning of

S.

Mark's Gospel
tliat

as well as the
:)

end of
is

"What can be the value of such Criticism

(2.)

as this ?
illus-

By no

means,

(I shall

perhaps be told

a reason
i.

assignso,

Indeed, the phrase before us supplies no unapt

able for the use of

expression in chap.

1.

And

tration of the precariousness of the style of

is

just

three verses, S.

now engaging our attention. Mark has hoih expressions,

(viii.

remark which Within the space of

I venture to reply, there is a fully sufficient reason assignable for the use of t/iis expression in chap. xvi. 19 ^
(3.)
is

viz. iiriOels

to?

By

S.

Matthew, by
Gospels.

S.

X^tpai avrm
25.)
S.

23) and also eTridrjKe to? j^etpaj

latter phrase once
;

iiri (ve r.

called 'J;ctoOs Xpiaros,

but

Mark, by
f/i/y in

S.

John, our
fir.sf

Loud

the

Chapfcr of

Matthew has the

the former,

their

respective

twice ^.

Who

will not admit that all this (so-called)

;

Cr iti-

pellation

may,

or

By S. Luke nowliere. The apmay not,be thought "foreign to the

But surely
it

cism

is

the veriest trifling

and that

to

pretend to argu e

diction" of those Evangelists.

constitutes

no

about the genuineness of a passage of Scripture from such evidence as the present is an act of rashness bordering o n
folly ?
. . .

reason whatever

why we

should suspect

the genuineness

of the beginning of the

Gospel.

first,

or the second, or the fourth

The reader

is

referred to

what was

ofiered

above

on Art VII. (XXI. and XXII.) Again

(ver.

the words fih ovv

Kvpios
to the

(4.) S.John three times in the frit rerse of his first Chapter designates the Eternal Son by the extraordinary title o

19 and

ver. 20) are also declared to

be "foreign

A6'T/o<!;

but notchere eke

in

his

Gospel, (except
it

once in ver.

diction of

Mark."

I ask leave to examine these two charges

14,) does that

Name

recur.

Would

be reasonable to re-

separatel}'.
waparripflv
irapaTi9fVai
:

present this as a suspicious circumstance ?

fitness of that
fiiTaioi.
:

Is not the Divine sublime appellation generally recognised and

wapa^ifuv
:

itapfpx"'^'"
:

'

rapix't"
:

iirKyyiK\(a6ai
OKfty
:

iwaicrxwfffSai
:

iiraviaraaBai

iwfpuTfy
:

iTiPih^ttf
:

iriT""'
'

iwiypi<t>fiy
:

iifijTK
:

iiriXaiiSii'Krdat
:

iriKavBdrtffBai
:

iTt\i(i>'

*"'
*

iriTTCii'

Ittfpiirrtiv
:

iiriamiiffiv
: :

iirtiTTp(<t>uy

iiriawiyfiy

inaurrpfX"'

*? Surely, we come to Scripture to be learners only: not to teach the blessed Writers how they ought to have spoken about God When will men learn that " the
admitted
I

inniaafW tuntBiyai iwnifiay itirpiwuy. viii. 23. S. Mark v. 23 vii. 32 vi. 5

:
: :

'
''

Sic

li.

low, pp. 181G.

i.

Sio Tciirson on the Creed, (ed. Burton), vol.

p. 151.

"

S.

Matth.

ix.

18 -.xix. 13, 15.


ICG

[chap.
"^

,x.]

A
Setitciuc

iriffioiii

a cojmlalire.

Uu
cases,

ava\Tj<})dijvai eVeei'oy, considered.

Scripturc-phiasp,

or

hnu/iiagc

of

(lie

Ilohj

Gftost

"

is

as

tivc

much nbovc them

as Heaven is above Earth ? (XXIII.) Another complaint: iii>d\T)<f>d7lvai, which found in ver. 19, occurs nowhere else in the Gospels.

particularly
is

whereas !Mark always has the copulative in such Kai" But then,
presenf,

(1.)

Unless we can be shewn at least two or three other

t/ie

sections of S. Mark's Gospel rcscmb/ing

(I

mean,

S. ^lark has no fewer than seventy- four verbs (1.) True. which " occur nowhere else in the Gospels :" and this hapAYhat possible inconvenience can pens to be one of them ?

passages in which

S.

Mark summarizes many

disconnected

incidents, as he does here,)

is

it

not plain that such an

In the latter,

objection
(2.)

is

wholly without point?

instances are cited.
(ver.

be supposed to follow from that circumstance ? and ' Ava\i)(})6 qvai (2.) But the remark is unreasonable.
apd>i.r]yfn<:

Two

14),

Lachmann and
is

Tregellcs read vcr-repov Be: and the reading

are words proper

to the

Ascension of our
not

Lord

info

not impossible.
to this,

Ilcarcn.

The two Evangelists who do

uHhout these words
have
:

describe that

duced
'EKfii'T]

So that the complaint is really reThat in ver. 10 the Evanpilist begins

of saying
is

event, are

the two Evangelists

who

do

iropevBilaa, instead

Ka\

tKcU't)

tropiv-

describe
ness, not

it,

them

'.

Surel)', tliese are

!

marks of genuine-

6ilaa.

And

(it is

implied) there

sometliing so abhorrent

grounds

for suspicion

to probability in this, as slightly to strengthen the suFpicion

It is

high

time to conclude this discussion.

:

Much

has

that the entire context

(3.)

been suid about two other minute points

{XX IV.)
absolutelj'

It is

declared that eKeiPos "

is

nowhere found

is not the work of the Evangelist. Now, suppose we had S. Mark back among us and suppose that he, on being shewn this objection, were to be
:

of S.

Murk :" (the same thing may be said Matthew and of S. Luke also :) " but always emphaused by S.
:

heard delivering himself somewhat

I derived

to the following effect

tically

whereas in verses 10 and 11,

Another writer says,

*"."

"The use
it is,

it is

absolutely used*."

of eKelvos in verses 10, 11,

Be,
is

and 13 (twice) in a manner synonymous with o

peculiar
(1.)

no doubt, but not verj', that ordinary word in the ordiabout thirty times in all, should use it " absolutely" nary way in two cousfecutive verses. among them(2.) But really, until the Critics can agree
Slightly peculiar

"Aye. But men may not find fault with ihat turn of phrase. it from Simon Peter's lip?. I have alwaj-s suspected that it was a kind of echo, so to say, of what he and 'the other Disciple' had many a time rehearsed in the hearing of the wondering Church concerning the MagdaAnd then we lene on the morning of the Resurrection."
should have remembered the familiar place in the fourth

nn Evangelist

who employs an

Gospel

r^vvai ri icKateis; Ti'va trjTeis; 'EKEiNH

BoKovaa k.t.\.
all

selves as to uliic/i are

(for
it

precisely the offending instances,

After which, the sentence would not have seemed at strange, even though it he " without a copulative :"
a^' ^y
(4.)

evidently a moot point whether eVeti/oy be emphatic in ver. 13, or not,) we may be excused from a prolonged discussion of such a question. I shall recur to the
is

eVySf/SXjJ/cet CTrra Baifiovta.

all,

'ekeInh -TropevOelaa k.t.X.

is,

For after

the

on/i/

question to be asked

Will
is .<-

any one pretend

picioiis ?

that such a circumstance as this

is

subject in the consideration of the next Article

(XXV.)

Unless that be asserted, I see not what

{as

gained by

(XXV.) So again, it may be freely admitted that " in the 10th and 14th verses there are sentences without a copula-

raking togciher,
of
the Gosptts,)

one

tasili/

might do

in

any

section of

amj

every minute peculiarity of form or expres-

sion
of "

twelve verses.

which can possibly be found within the space of these It is an evidence of nothing so much as

Ibid. p.
S.

Mark

183, at the bcpinning of ilie ejiposition Acts i. 2. S. Luke ix. 51. xvi. 19.
'

Our Lord."

an ineoriigible coarseness of critical fibre, that every slight variety of manner or language should be thus pounced upon

Alford.

Davidsou.


1C8

The

arjgrcgatr of twthii>g>^,

/s

hofhiufj.

[criAV.

,X.]

<S'.

Mnrl:'" ">< of evPeojs

to be in

and
a

i7a\iv.

JGO

and represented as a note of spuriousncss, in the face of [a) the unfiiltcring triidition of tlie Church universal that and the document has mrcr been liifhcrto suspected {h) the known proclivity of all writers, as free moral and intellectual agents, sorattimes to deviate from their else
:

chap, xvi

is

proml

no degree

suspicious circum-

stance, from the discovery that though it occurs as

many

as

12 times in chap,

i;

and 6

invariable practice.

May

not here close the discussion

perhaps be some to remark, that however successfully the foregoing objections may seem to have been

There

will

severally disposed of, yet that the combined force of such

a multitude of slightly suspicious circumstances must be not

only appreciable, but even remain an inconvenient, not to

Euy a formidable fact.

Let

me

point out that the supposed

;

remark

is

nothing

else

but a fallacy

which

is

detected the

instant it is steadily looked at.

For

if

there really had remained after the discussion of

each of the foregoing

XXV Articles,

a slight

residuum of
manj' frac-

susi)iciousness, then of course the aggregate of so

tions

would have amounted to something in the end. But since it has been jjroved that there is absolutely
the alleged circumstances
alto-

twilling at all suspicious in atpj of

which have been hitherto examined, the case becomes

gether different.

nothing

ten thousand nothings is still be conveniently illustrated by an appeal to the only charge which remains to be examined. (XXVI. and XXVII.) The absence from these twelve
'.

The sum of

This

may

verses of the adverbs

favourite

words

evOews and iraXiv, (both of them with the second Evangelist,) has been

pointed out as one more suspicious circumstance.

take the words singly
(a)
:

Let us

The adverb evdlaa

(or ev.6vs) is indeed of very frequent

occurrence in S. Mark's Gospel.

'

And

yet

its

absence from

Kxactly so Professor Broadus

: " Now
itself
so.

no one of these peculiarities would

tlie

wliilc it will not do to say tbat prove the style to be foreign to Mark,

whole of them combined will do

It is very true tbat the multiplication

may amount to much; but not so the And how many of the expressions which are cited,
of littla

multiplication of nothinssappear, in the light of our

inijiorlaut, are

ulliorexamiuatiou, to retain the slightest real force as proving difierencc of

ship ?

Is it not true tbat

most of them, and those the most

reduced to absolutely nothing, while the remainder po.-sess scarcely

preciable significance?" p. 3G0, (seeahove, p. 130, note g.)

any ap-


170
'

The Talks fumed'

respected
a'jniii^f f/ie Critics.

IX.]

171

[chap.

Notes of identity of Authorship.

rejoinder, the

writer

is

asked,

{a)
:

there docs not exist any such external evidence

But when what then ?

of S. Mark's words.
his Gospel,

he has

it

thrice as often as S.

Next, he
not,
it is

is

reminded

{b)

That whether there does, or does

Taking into account the shortness of Luke; tirchc times

at least certain that not one of those "proofs as to

Btyle,"

&c., of

which he speaks, has been able to stand

the test of strict examination.

ncss of
all

Kot only

Matthew or S. John. The idiomatic expression iropevofievois ei? dypov, of which S. Matthew does not present a single specimen
as often as S.
(xv.)
;

is

the precarious-

the genuineness of S.

such Criticism as has been brought to bear against Mark xvi. 9 20 excessive, but the

of which
(xvi.)

but which occurs three times in the short Gospel of S.Mark",

ver.

12

is one.

The expression Trpat

i.e.

(in ver.
(if

supposed facts adduced in evidence have been found out to be every one of them mistalcs; being either, (1) demon-

9,) of which

S.

Mark

avails himself six times:

the length of the present

strably without argumentative cogenc}' of

else,
(2)
:

any kind;

or

either

distinctly corroborative

stances
S.

indications that this part of the Gospel

not that it
is

Mark,

and confirmatory circumis indeed by probably the work of another hand.

:

Gospel be taken into account) almost five times as often as S.Matthew or S.John, S.Luke never using the word
all.

at

In his

first

(ver. 2), S.
(xvii.)

Mark

chapter (ver. 35), and here in his last uses \Cav in connexion with Trpm.

The

And

thus the formidable enumeration of twenty-seven

jihrase xr}pvaaeiv to evayyeXiov (in ver. 15) is

another of S. Mark's phrases.

it

Like

S.
:

Matthew, he employs
:

grounds of suspicion vanishes out of sight fourteen of them proving to be frivolous and nugatory and thirteen, more or
;

four times

(i.

14

xiii.

10: xiv. 9

xvi. 15)

but

it

occurs

neither in S. Luke's nor in S. John's Gospel

(xviii.)

less clearly

witnessing

in

favour of the section".

impossible not to be

III.

Of these

thirteen expressions, some are even eloquent

Gospel.

in their witness.

am

The same irords singly are characteristic of his Taking the length of their several narratives into

saying that

it is

account, S.
often as S.

Mark has
Matthew
:

the word Ki)pvaaeiv

more than twice

as

exceeding]}' struck by the discovery that this portion of the

Gospel contains
dications of S.

ence to
ver. 14)

fi
:

and

12),

(as I have explained already) so many inMark's undoubted manner. Such is the referthe mention of airiaria (in KTun<i (in ver. 15) the occurrence of the verb iropeveadai (in ver. 10 of the phrase iu ru> ovofiari fiov (in ver. 17), and
:

(xix.) (i/ayyiXiov,

found twice as often in S. Mark's as in S. Matthew's Gospel and if the respective length of their
is
:

two Gospels,

three times as often as S. Luke.

a

word w hich occurs only

in the first

of the phrase ^^eipay eTriTide'vai

iiri

Tiva (in ver. 18)

Gospels be considered, the proportion will be as three to one. It occurs, as above stated, in ver. 15.
(xx.) If such Critics as Dr. Davidson

of the

had been concerned

Evangelical term for our Lord's Ascension,

(in ver. 19)
:

viz. aveXijtpffrj

and

to vindicate the genuineness of this section of the Gospel,

we

lastly,

of the compounds TrapaKoXovOeiv

should have been assured that ^avepowBai

S.

is

another of

and ivaKoXovdelv

(in verses

17 and 20.)
all

Mark's words
this,

To
result

these Thirteen, will have to be added

those other

notes of identity of authorship,

such
:

as they are,

whicli

than

that
Luke

by which they would have meant no more though employed neither by S. Matthew
used thrice by
S.

nor by
(xxi.)

S.

it is

Mark,

being

found
22.

from

recurring identity of phrase,

assailants of this

and of which the portion of the Gospel have prudently said

dead; which
:

twice in this section (verses 12, 14), as well as in ch.

iv.

nothing.

Such are the following

(xiv.) ^Avitrravat, for rising /roi the

is

one
iii

They would have also pointed out that akXrjpoKapBla is another of S. Mark's words being employed neither by S. Luke nor by S. John, by S. Matthew only once, but
:

>v

"

It will be foniid that of the former class (1) arc the following

Article
Of
: :

by
"

S.

Mark on
xiii. 10,

tiro

occasions
:

of which ch. xvi. 14

and ch. XV. 21,

is

one.

vii: ix:

x:
:

xi

xii
i
:

xiii
:

xiv: xv: xxi:

xxiv: xiv
:

xxvi: xxvii.
:

tlio

latter (2)

Art.

ii

iv

vi

viii

xvi

xvii

iviii

xix

xx

xxii

xxiii.

Cb.

fit

'hr iyphv

Ipxiffo"

*'' ^TP"''.

nn cx]ircfsion which
of his

S.

Luke

religiously reproduces in the corics|>oiiding p'acc

(josi>e1, viz. iu ch. xxiii.

26.

172
(xxii.)

Tirol fi/-!i<fn) jiiir/lnihirs indic(itire

[chap.

IX.]

of

iifciifi/i/

of AiifJiorn/iiji,

Kjxrifici/.

ira

In the Kanio

spirit, tliey

would

liave
to S.

serve that Travraj^ov (ver. 20)

unknown

bade us obis fnice

Matthew and
used

Strange, that there should be exactly "xxvii" noles of

genuineness discoverable in these twelve verses, instead of
"

S.John, and employed only once by S.Luke,

by

Mark one instance occurring in the present section. Nor would it have been altogether unfair if thej' had
S.
;

XXVII"

grounds of suspicion
all

But enough of

this.

Here, we

may

with advantage

review- the progress hitherto

added that the precisely similar word vavTaxodev (or ttiIvTodfv) is only found in this same Gospel, viz. in eh. i. 45. (xxiii.) They would further have insisted (and this time with a greater show of reason) that the adverb /taXw? (which is found in ver. 18) is another favorite word with S. Mark: occurring as it does, (when the length of these several nar-

made

in this inquiry.

I claim to have demonstrated long since that all those imposing assertions respecting the " Style" and "Phraseology"
of this section of the Gosjjcl which were rehearsed at
outset",
tlie

are

destitute of foundation.

But from

this
it

dis-

covery aloue there results a settled conviction which be found

difficult

will

henceforth to disturb.

ratiA-es is
S.

Mark's
(xxiv.)

taken into account,) more than twice as often in as in S. John's Gospel, just three times as often

page of

Scrij)-

ture which has

hostile inquiry,

been able to endure so severe un ordeal of

has been proved to be above suspicion.
T/iaf

as in the Gospel of S.

Matthew and

S.

Luke.

A more interesting (because a more just) observawould have been that ex""' ' ^^ sense of " to be," (as in the phrase koKCh exeiv, ver. 18,) is characteristic of S. Mark. He has it oftener than anj' of the Evangelists, viz. six times in all (ch. i. 32 ; 34 ii. 17 x. 23 vi. 55 x\i. 18.) Taking the shortness of his Gospel into account, be emploj's this idiom twice as often as S. Matthew three times as often as S. John four times as often as S. Luke. (xxv.) They would have told us further that appcoaTOs is another of S. Mark's favorite words for that he has it tfiree times, viz. in ch. vi. 5, 13, and here in ver. 18. S. Matthew has it onl}' once. S. Luke and S. John not at all. (xxvi.) And we should have been certainly reminded by them that the conjunction of irevdoixri koI Kkaiovai (in ver. 10) is characteristic of S. Mark, who has KXaiovraf koi a\a\d^ovras in ch. v. 38 Bopv^eicrOe kcli KKaiere in the very next verse. As for irevdeiv, it is one of the 123 words common to S. Matthew and S. Mark, and peculiar to their two Gospels. (xxvii.) Lastly, " KajaKpivm (in ver. 16), instead of Kpli'o,
tion
: :

character

is

rightly accounted hhtmclciss which

unsullied after
matically; done

Calumny has done her worst ;

it

comes out done it syste-

with a will; done it for a hundred years. an adequate statement of the facts of the case in respect of the conclusion of S. ^Mark's Gospel. Something more is certain than that the charges which have been so industriously brought against this portion of the Gospel are

But

this is not

without foundation.

It has been also proved that instead of

there beiug discovered twentj'-seven suspicious

words aud

phrases scattered

up and down

these twelve verses of the

as

Gospel, there actually exist

exactlj'

many words and

those

phrases which attest with

verses are nothing else

more or less certainty that but the work of the Evangelist.

IV.

Aud now

it

is

high time to explain that though

I have hitherto condescended to adopt the method of my opponents, I have only done so in order to shew that it
proves fatal to thenuehes.

I am, to say the truth, ashamed of

what has

last

been written,

so untrustworthy do I

deem

the

method which, (following the example of those who have preceded me in this inquiry,) I have hitherto pursued. The
" Concordance test,"

Mark's word, (comp. x. 33 xiv. 64)." The simple verb which is used four times by S. Matthew, five times by S. Luke, nineteen times by S. John, is never at all emplojed by S. Mark whereas the compound verb he has oftener in more than twice as often as proportion than S. Matthew,
is
:
:

(for that is

probably as apt and intel-

ligible a designation as

can be devised for the purely methait is

uical process

proposed by a certain school of is about Critics to judge of the authorship of Scripture,) thai could be the coarsest as well as about the most delusive

whereby

"

either S.

Luke

or S. John.

Sec above, p.

14(5.

IX.]

174
devised.
especially
skill

Th( faJlaciouincsH of such

Rcmarhs

[ciiAr.

^hcini, by applying

them

to

S.Marh \.d'2(y
is

170

By means
wbcn

of this

clumsy and vulgar instrument,

expression,

ei^

'lophdvij iroTafiS,

which

found in

ver. 5,

applied, (as in the case before us,) without

it

seeing

th.it

this Evangelist three times designates Jordan

(i.

would be just as easy to prove that the firat twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are of a suspicious character as the lastf. In truth, except in very Bkilful hands, it is no test at all, and can only mislead.
Thus, (in ver. 1,) we should be informed (i.) that "Mark nowhere uses the appellation Jesus Christ:" and (ii.) that " eiiayyeXiov 'Ir^aov Xpitnov" is "Pauline." "We should be reminded (iii.) that this Evangelist nowhere introduces any of the Prophets by name, and that therefore the mention of

and discrimination,

Eimpfv as 'lopBdvvs

8 x. 1). (viii.) That entire must be confessed, in the Gosexpression in ver. 7 {unique, it would be propel,) ov ovK el/u lKav6svTrot7)fidT(oi> ainov, 9
:

iii.

nounced " abhorrent to the style of Mark." (ix.) to Tlvcvua should be told is never ticice, (viz. in ver. 10 and ver. 12) we
used by the Evangelist absolutely for the Holy Ghost: but xii. 30 always to Ilvevfia to "Ayiov (as in ch. iii. 29 (x.) The same would be said of o't 'lepoaoXvu'nai xiiL 11).
:
:

" Isaiah*" (in ver. 2)

is

a suspicious circumstance

: (iv.)that

Testament is " foreign to his manner," (for writers of this class would not hesitate to assume that S. Mark xv. 28 is no part of the Gosjjel ;) and (v.) that the fact that here are quotations from two different prophets, betrays an unskilful hand. (vi.) Because S. Mark three times
a quotation from the Old

"the inhabitants of Jerusalem :" we should airo be assured that S. Mark's phrase would rather be ol 'I(po(To\vncov,as in ch. iii. 8 and 22. And (xi.) the exshould be pression iriffreveiv iv tw evayye\ia> (ver. 15), we " caunot be Mark's;" who either employs els and informed
(in ver. 5) for

the accusative (as in ch. ix. 92), or else

a dative tas iu ch. xi. 31
:

calls
xiii.

Judxa by
14), the

its

usual

name

(lovSaia, viz. in
tj

iii.

x.

'louBaia X'^P"^ ("^ "^'^i"- ^) would be pronounced decisive against " the authorship of
tiuiqiie

designation,

makes the verb take 14.)We should also pro" unknown bably be told that the ten following words are all BepfiaTlvt),{\h.) oa^ii, to Mark :" (iii.) Tpix, (xiii.)
xvi. 13, (xv.) d/^p/S6y,(xvi.)

Mark."

(vii.)

The same thing would be

said of the unique

a single verse

(ver. G)

|t\t, (xvii.) aypic;, (six instances in a highly suspicious circumstance !),

(xviiL) /fi^TTTftj^,- (xix.)

'

Tbe reader

will

be pcrliaps interested with the following passage in tbc

(p.

pages of Professor Broadus already

139 note g) alluded to "

:

It occurred to

(XX.) vTzoh')^a7a, (aU three .VJ !)-(xxi.) riSoKel.', (xxii.) Kai eyh-ero instances in ver. 7 9), unique in S. Mark ! (xxiii.) ^aTTTj^ea^at
. .

ijXeev (vor.
els (ver 9),

mc

to examine the twelre just preceding verses, (xv.

44

to xvi. 8,)

and by

a curious coincidence, tbe words

Mark, footed up precisely

and expressions not elsewhere employed by the same number, seventeen. Those noticed are tbe
:

fulloning (text of TregcUes)

ver.

44, riBvriKty (elsewhere i.Toiri)aKu)

else in

ver. 45, fvous iwi, a construction

found nowhere

the

New

Testament

tiriee, another unique phrase! (xxiv.) ol oipavol yet elsewhere, when S.Mark speaks (viz. in verses 10, 11) 11 : xvi. 19) he always of Heaven, (ch. vi. 41 vii. 34: viii. (xxv.) the same sorry objection singular. Lastly,
:

uses the

also iSupifffaTO
Hv\t<rtpi

and

irru^

a: ver. 46, ivdKiitrfv, A^Xaro^ij^eVof, vtrpas, vpoff*'

chap.

xvi. ver, 1, iiaytyofitvovt

and

iptitfiarai ver. 2,

fu^

twv

ffa$'

fiiruv

verses," (that which was brought against the "last twelve S. Mark, is not found there.) with TTtiXii', a favourite adverb
is

ver. 3, iir(>Ki/\{i;ci

: ver.

4,

irfKCKuXto-Tai.
is

Also, aipitpa,

(Mark's

word

is Ai'ai'.)

Ver. 5, iv roit ic{io7f

a construction not found in Mark, or

:

here even more conspicuous.

the other Gospels, though the word Stji^i occnrs frequently

this p.<rlicttlar sense, not elsewhere in

ver. 8, Ix>'> 'U

Turning away from

apology for

the

New
it

Testament

7p6itos.

hanng

this, (not, however, without an lingered over such frivolous details so

all

"This

list is

pcrbaps not complete, for

it

wag' prepared iu a few hours

long,)"-!-! desire to

nhout as much time,

may he

slid,

without disrespect, as Fritsche and Meyer

appear to have given to their collections of examples from the other passage.
It It
is

below the
presumetl

not proposed to discuss the not claimed that they are

list,

though some of the instances are

curions.

we have reverently to look how far it is to be surface, if we whether S. Mark was from internal considerations
point out that

would ascertain

is

all

important, but that tbcy are

all real.

And

as regards the single question of tbe

form quite an

ofl'set

to tbe

number of peculiarities, they certainly number upon which Dean Alford has laid stress.''

Gospel, or not. indeed the author of this portion of his delicate, more phdo"We must devise, I say, some more the coarse, uncritical expedient

p. 3G1.

Tischcndorf, Tregelles, Alfurd.

sophical,

more

real test

than

[chap.
IX.]

&'.

Mark't

177

17G

more

delicate (itid real Ti-sf at hand.

characteristics rccogui^ahk here.

which has been hitherto considered of asceitniniiig by reference to the i)a<j;e8 of a Greek Concordance whether a certain word which is found in this section of the Gospel is, or is
not,

often of the

siderable interest.

(chap.

i.

20)

profonndest significancy, and always of conNot to look beyond the Twelve Verses

which were
it is

originallj'

proposed for comrelates that "

(//)

used elsewhere by S. Mark.

And

suppose

it

will be

parison,

We

are reminded (a) that in describing our Sa-

generally allowed to be deserving of atteution,

in fact, to

viour's Baptism,

only S. :Mark
to

who

He

that within the narrow compass of these Twelve Verses we meet with every fin'iicipal eharacieridic of S. Mail's maimer Thus,

be a singularl}' corroborative circumstance,

came from Nazareth"

elliptical

be baptized.

In
it

his higlily
is

account of our Lord's Temptation,

only he

who
it

relates that

"He

was

irith

the wild lcaHti<''(r) In his

(i.)

Though he

is

the

Author

of the shortest of the Gos-

description of the Call of the four Disciples, S.

is

Mark

alone

pels, and though to all appearance he often merely reproduces what S. ^latthew has said before him, or else antici-

pates something,
it is

which
hov,'

is

afterwards delivered by

S.

Luke,
for

who, (notwithstanding the close resemblance of liis account to what is found in S.Matthew,) records that the father of S.James and S.John was left "in the ship iriih
the hired servants'^."

surprising

often

we

are indebted to S.

Mark

Now,

of

tliis

characteristic,

we have

precious pieces of information

which we look

for in vain

also within these twelve verses, at least four illustrations:

{a)

elsewhere.

Now,
is

ner which

a feature of the Evangelist's mansusceptible of memorable illustration from the

this is

Note

in ver. 10, that life-like touch

which evidently
to the Disciples

proceeded from an eye-witness,

S.

"

irevOova-i koI KKaiovai."

section before us.

Mark

relates that

when Marj' conveyed

How many and how

which
S.

considerable are the neic eircumstances

!

the joyous tidings of the Lord's Resurrection, she found

That Mary Magdalene was the first to behold the risen Saviour (2) That it was He who had cast out from her the " seven devils :" (3) Hoio the men were engaged to whom she brought her jo)'ful meshere deliA'ers
(1)
:

Mark

them overwhelmed with sorrow,

(6)

" mourning and weeping."

is

Note

also that the unbelief recorded in ver. 13

re-

corded only there.

sage,

(4)

who not only did not

belicA'e her stor}*,

but when

Cleopas and his companion declared what had happened to themselves, " neither believed they them." (5) The terms of
the Ministerial Commission, as set
are unique.
(6)

Again. S. Mark not only says that as the two Disciwere "going into the country," {vopevofitvoi eh aypiv', (avv-eTopeveTO, as ver. 12,) Jesus also "went with them" but that it w;is as they actually "walked" S. Luke relates;)
(c)

ples

should follow

down in verses 15 and 16, The announcement of the "signs which them that believe" is. even extraordinary.

along {n-epmaToiicriv) that this manifestation took place.

{d)

Among

the marvellous predictions

"them
suffer
(iii)

that believe;"

made concerning what can be imagined more striking

tip

than the promise that they should "take

serpents;"

and
?

where The Session at the right lland of God is recorded. ... So many, and such precious incidents, showered into the Gospel Treasury at the last moment, and with such a lavish hand, must needs have proceeded if not from an Apostle at least from
Lastly, (7) this is the only place in the Gospel

no harm even
Next,

if thej*

should "drink any deadly thing"

all

have been struck, I suppose, with S.Mark's

a companion of Apostles.

O,
S.

if

we had no
himself

other token to

own for what he found in the Gospel of his predecessor S. Matthew or, when he anticipates something which is afterwards met with in the Gospel of S. Lute, his aptness to deliver it in lanproneness to substitute some expression of his
:

go by, there could not be a reasonable doubt that this entire

section
(ii.)

guage entirely independent of the later Evangelist. I allude,

for instance, to his substitution of
1
ill

is

by no other than

Mark

evi^aXwv exXaie
'

(xiv.

72)
alto

second striking characteristic of the second EvanS.

gelist is his love of picturesque, or at least of striking details,

Mark

i.

9 : 14

20.

The tame word U found

13.

S.

Luke's narrative of tLe same event,

cli. jiiiv.

his proneuess to introduce exceedingly

minute particulars.


178
for
(vi.

The

chnrar/tristics

of S.

Murk
;

[chap.
6 rticron'

IX.]

recognisabie in these Verses.

179

S.Matthew's eKKavat
for

Trt/f/jwy

(xxTi.75)
(S.

and of

Matth. xiii. 55). The 3) "iroman of Canaan" in S. Matthew's Gospel (7111'^ Xavavaia, ch. xv. 22), is called "a Greek, a Syrophenieian by nation " in S. Mark's (EXKrivis, ^vpo^otviaaa tw yivei, ch. vii. 2G). At the Baptism, "instead of the "opened" heavens of S. ^Matthew (dvf^x^^^'^^t ch. iii. 16) and S. Luke
o

ToO jiicrovo^ vios

holden ;"

viewed on the earthly side, (Man's side), the risen Saviour (no doubt) " appeared in another form."
(iv.)

Then

further,

S.

Mark

is

observed to introduce

many

expressions into his

tradition that
it

Gospel which confirm the prevalent was at Rome he wrote it and that it Mas
;

with an immediate view to Latin readers that

lished.
(at p.

{avfoyj^drjvtti,

ch.

iii.

22),

we

are presented

by

S.

Mark

with

it was pubTwelve such expressions were enumerated above 150-1); and such, it was also there shewn, most un-

the striking image of the heavens "clearing" or "being rent

asunder" {axi^ofiivovs * , ch. i. 10). What S. ^Matthew calls TO opia MayBakd (ch. xv. 39), S. Mark designates as to /lepij AoKitavovOd (ch. viii. 10.) In place of S. Matthew's

mistakably

is

the phrase Trpdnj) aafipd-ov in ver.

9.

It

is

simply incredible that any one but an Evangelist writing

under the peculiar conditions traditionally assigned to S. Mark, would have hit upon such an expression as this,

^vfiT)

SaBSovxalcov (ch. xvi.

6), S.

Mark

has

^vfJ^rj

'Hptohov

(ch. viii. 15.)

In describing the
Matth. xxi.
8, S.

visit to Jericho, for the Bvo

rv(p\oi of S.

Matthew

(ch. xx. 29), S.

Mark

gives

v'io<:

Tifiaiov

BapTifiatoi 6 rvcfiXos .... TrpoaairSiv (ch. x. 40.)

For

ca^^aTwv, } /i/a which has occurred just above, in ver. 2. Now this, it will be remembered, is one of the hacknied objections to the gethe strict equivalent, to Latin ears, for

the

kKAIov^ of
fidBav;

S.

Mark

(ch. xi. 8)

has aioi-

enough,

nuineness of this entire portion of the Gospel; quite proof if proof were needed, of the exceeding improbability

and for the other's

(as

irplv

oKeKTopa

(fxcvrjaat (xxvi.

34), he has irplp ^ Bit (xiv. 30.)

Accordingly,
sion to

^ditov, S.
S.
S.

we have already more than once had remark,) whereas the say
rest
onlj'
17

which attaches to the phrase, in the judgment of those who

have considered
this question the most.
(v.)

It is so throughout.
occa-

The

last peculiarity of S.
is

Mark

to

which I propose

fii'a

Ta>v aafi-

to invite attention

supplied by those expressions which

Mark

says vpdiTT] aafifidrov (in ver.

d(f>'

9).

"Whereas

Luke

(viii.

2) says

^? Bai/iovia eirTo.

i^fXrjXvdei,

Mark

records that from her

e>t/9e)3X7jet eTrra Batfiovia.

connect his Gospel with S. Peter, and remind us of the constant traditional belief of the ancient Chuich that S. Mark

Very diflFerent is the great ministerial Commission as set down by S.Mark in ver. 15, 16, from what is found in S. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20. And whereas S.Luke sajs "t/ieir eyet were holdcn that they should not know Him," S. Mark says that "He appeared to them in another fonn." ... Is it credible that any one fabricating a conclusion to S. Mark's

was the companion of the chief of the Apostles. That the second Gospel contains many such hints has often been pointed out; never more interestingly or more convincingly than bj' Townson in a work which deserves
to be in tlie

hands of

everj' student of Sacred Science.

In-

narrative after S. Luke's Gospel had appeared, would have ventured so to paraphrase S.Luke's statement? And jet, let the consistent truthfulness of either expression be carefully noted.

stead of reproducing any of the familiar cases in order to illustrate my meaning, I will mention one which has perhaps never been mentioned in this connexion before. {a) Reference is made to our Lord's sayings in S.Mark vii,

Both are historically accurate, but they pro-

ceed from opposite points of view. Viewed on the heavenly side, (God's side), the Disciples' "eyes" (of course) "were
On
wliicb, Victor of Antiocli (if inded
it be he) finely remarks, 2x'{"'" 9 Kara WatBaiov iLvotyoinai, %va rois ivSpiiirots d-roSoi-j il ovpayot koi avya^Bp toT> inyttoit ri oipifm. (Cramer i. p. 271.)

and specially to what is found in ver. 19. Tliat expression, "purging all meats" (Ka6apifytv^ irdvra rd Ppd>fiaTa), does really seem to be no part of the Divine discourse; but the
Evangelist's inspired

comment on
'

the Saviock's words".

Disc. V. Sect.

ii.

Thie appears to be the true reading.

ti a< tipavol,

t iyiair/i^i,

So ChryeOHtom

i H

WdpKOS

ipv'i', Ti "Kaiapltuiy

t4 fl/^^aro," raCra

t\,-)- [vii.

626 a]. He leemi

Orisen [i to hare derived tbat ren.ark from

k2


180
S.

"

Marl's GvsjkI coiHHchil

(he explains)
nil
it

nillt

S.Pifir.

[chap.

ix.J

ProbabilUy that

these Verses irouhl be proricleil for.

181

Our Saviour
facto

" made

Ly

that discourse of His

ipso
state-

mcata clean."

How
it
;

douhly striking a

ment, when

is

remembered that probably Simon Peter

himself was the actual author of

the same who, on the

"Gon
!

which precede, (some of which, I am aware, might be considerably evacuated of their cogency; while others, I am just as firmly convinced, will remain forcible witnesses
as those

of God's Truth to the end of

Time,)I

hesitate not to

avow

house-top at Joppa, had been shewn in a vision that

my personal
is

conviction that abundant and striking evidence

had

clean" (6 0e6s tKaOapicre^) all His creatures Now, let a few words epoken by the same S. Peter on a memorable occasion be considered " AVherefore of these men which have conipanied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from (he Baptism of John, unto that same day that He iras iahen up (ave\ij^67}) from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His Resurrection J." Does not S. Peter thereby
iiiaile

{b)

garnered up within the brief compass of these Twelve tliat they are identical iu respect of fabric with the rest of the Gospel ; were clearly manufactured out of the
Verses

define the precise limits of our Saviour's Ministry,

shew-

same Divine materials, wrought in the same heavenly loom. It was even to have been expected, from what is found to have been universally the method iu other parts of Scrip(for it was of course foreseen by Almighty God ture, from the beginning that this portion of His "Word would

ing

it to

John,"

and closed with the Day of

else are those

have "begun" {ap^dfj-evo^) " from the Baptism of

our Lord's Ascension?

And what
Gospel,
to

but the exact bounds of S. Mark's

which the apx>} (ch. i. 1) is signally declared have been the Baptism of John, and the utmost limit, the daj' when (as S. Mark says) " Se was tahen up {a.ve\i](}>6i) into Heaven," (ch. xvi. 19)? (c) I will only further remind the reader, in connexion

of

Divine Author, in these last days cavilled at, redenied,) that the Spirit would not It was to have leave Himself without witness in this place. been anticipated, I say, that Eternal Wisdom would carebe, like its

viled, hated, rejected,

with the phrase,

which, the reader
S.

iraaj}
is

tj)

KTicrei, in ver. 15,

referred

back

to

page 162-3,)

(concerning that both

S.
;

(I trust there is no irreverence in so speaking of God and His ways !) would carefully make provision meet the coming unbelief (as His Angel met Balaam) with a drawn sword plant up and down throughout these Twelve Verses of the Gospel, sure indications of their Divine Original,unmistakable notes of purpose and design, mysterious traces

fully

and tokens of Himself; not

visible indeed to the scornful

Peter and S.

Mark

(but

no other

of the sacred writers)

conspire to use the expression dv' dpxvs KTiofoa'.

has besides

KTt'<reQ3<;

j}?

cKTiae 6 eo? (ch.

xiii.

19)

Mark whue

and arrogant, the impatient and irreverent ; yet clear as if written with a sunbeam to the patient and humble student, Or, (if the the man who "trembleth at God's Word'."
Reader prefers the image,) the indications of a Divine Original to be

S. Peter alone styles the

Almighty, from His work

of Crea-

tion, o KTiarijs (1 S. Pet. iv. 19).

met with

in these verses shall be likened rather

YI. But besides, and over and above such considerations

Mallh.
ed. Haet.i.

remain to thoee cryptic characters, invisible so long as they forth clear and strong when unsuspected, but which shine
(Light and Heat, both exposed to the Light or to the Heat that even he that gropeth in darkemblems of Himself!) so truth " the ness must now see them, and admit that of a
;

249 ] : Karek rhv Kipton (Ktyt ravra

I suspect,

rima

t4 /B/kS^ioto." From the Bame source,

t ScfrV ""9o/i(>' Gregory "liauniaturpii

iii-

(Origcn's disciple), Bp. of Neocccsarea iu Po'ntus, a.d. 261, iSouti,

2.><J

''' xa) 6 iuriip 6 "irivra KaBapl^uy ri ppifi^ri'" * See, ixiiopfviuivov, tiairopfvifjLivor, ^7)1, koii o7 -rhv tv^parwov, th

derived the following:

aWa

most iutcrestmg Adtiotationes in CArys., vol. iii. P-H2 'EvTtvBfy (fiuely snys Victor of Antioch) S xaifhs ipx'Toi fSfios i
tneans. Field's
iryfvtia.
'

w"

(Cramer
i.

i.

335.)
Cf. ver. 2,

Acts

1. 15.

Acts

22, 23.
x.

ixf' 5'

Vf'p"

dyf^^^Bnii.

" knew it not ! in this place" although he the first instance we compare (i.) I propose then that in Gospel with the beginning of it. the conclusion of S. Mark's ascertain whether "We did this before, when our object was to

Lord

is

S.Mark

liii.

19. 2 S.Pct.

iii.

i (Cf. 1

S. Pet.

13.)

Is. livi. 2.


182
Verbal coincidences
Iclicecn
i.

9-20
8f

x\i. 9-20,

IX.]
anil
>i'iiiJiiiifi/

uf
ffy'tifint

[tHAr.
dis-

drnclurc

183

the Slyle of S.

Mark

xvi. 9

20

be indeed as utterly
is

cordant from that of the rest of the Gospel as

represented.
blance''.

commonlj-

Mark's Gospel and the last. The same doctrinal phraseology*. the same indications of Divine purpose, the same
S.

We

found, instead, the most striking resem-

prevailing cast of thought

(i.)

is

observed to occur in
7)rf(7c///;

both,

We

also instituted a brief

comparison between

A
all

Goyifl to be everywhere
requited;
{in.)

(ii.)

Faif/i, to

be

the two in order to discover whether the Diction of the one

of

Bnpiifm

to be universally

administered;

might not possibly be found

as the diction of the other:

as suggestire of rerbal doubts

and so we found it'. Let us draw the two extremities of this precious fabric into close proximity in order again to compare them. Nothing I presume can be fairer than to elect that, once more, our attention be chiefly directed to what is contained within the twelve verses (ver.9 20) of S. Mark's ^rsi chapter whicb exactly correspond with the twelve verses of his hat chapter (ver. 9 20) which are tlie subject of the present
for the third time

("one Loud, one Faith, one Baptism:") Is not i/iis the theme of tlie beginning of S. Mark's Gospel as well as of the end of it? Surely it is as if on comparing the two extremities of a chain, with a view to ascertaining whether

the fabric be identical or not,

extremities are even meant
(2.)
IJiit

it

were discovered thai those

to c/a-j' f

the

essential parallelism
i.

between

S.

Mark

xvi. 9

20 and S. Mark
by
side, as before,

20

is

a profounder
I

phenomenon and

deserves even more attention.

proceed to set

down

side

volume.

Now
(1)

between these two sections of the Gospel, besides

nor explanation of
(a) in
cli. i.

what ought to require neither comment mine. Thus we find,

{k]
in

parallelism of essential structure.

the obvious rerbal resemblance, I detect (2) a singular And this does not strike
the less forcibly because nothing of the kind was to have

9 /o 11

: OurLoED's
"coming

ch.

xvi. Q to

Our
Mary
His

Maiiifostation to the AVorld

Lobd's appearance to

me

{Int^mvua) on His

Magdalene
Dtatli
said,

(t'l^pwj)

after

been expected.

do not propose to lay much stress. Yet are they certainly not without argumentaI allude to the following: tive weight and significancy.
(1.)

On

the verbal coincidences

(o) [pairriCav, /Saimtr/ui

Kai

(i.

4)

iPaiTTiCovTO

(i.

5)

(i.

(fl)

^aiXTiaBtis (xvi. 16)

/3djr-

up {ava^aivar) out of the water" of Jordan (having been " buried by Baptism," asthcApostle Bpeaks :) wLcn the Voice from Heaven proclaimed, "Thou art My beloved Sox in whom I am
:

Resurrection {ayao-nic) from

:

(of

which Gob had

art

"Thou
12
to

My Son, this

day have I begotten Thee."

14
:

Two other

Manifestations (((^acryjudi;) to
Disciples.

Tura, ^airriati (i. 8)J

Koi /3-

well pleased."
7)]
(J) iKr/pv^av (xVl.

anriaOti

(1.

9)

(J) [KJipiairav, tK^pvavc

20)

(b)

12,

13: Chbist's
;

(b)

(J

and
(i.

c)

KTjpiaaav to tvayyiXiov

(c) Kijpv^arf to tvayyt^'ov ^XVl.

victory over Satan

(wherepromise

17, 18 : Chbisi's promise that " they that be-

14)
1)3

[o/JXI ''O" tvayytXlov

15)
o***

by
---

is

fulfilled the

lieve" "shall cast out devils"

(i-

(e

and d) TKrrtvtTt
yeXi'p (i.

iv

ry tvay-

(rf)

rjrriimjvtui

(xvi.

1 1 )

16)

iTriarvtrav
iiturr'tav,

(xvi.

13)

rif
[(c)

upon the ' Thou lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt
shalt tread

and "Bhalltakeupserpents:"
(as [in

S.Luke 1. 19 j He had

given the Seventy

to tread on serpents

"power
and scor-

ovk inlarrmav (XVl.

Thou trample under feet")

pions,

and over idl the power

17

14)
(xvi.

6 mcrrciiTat, i airicn^<ro

16)

of the Encaiy.")

Toir

iriOTw<ro<"

:The Pentecos-

(c)

The

chief

(xvi. 17.)

shews that there exists an unmistakable relation of sj'mpathy between the first page of

tal Gift foretold:

"He shall
Holt

Pentecostal

Gift

specified:

Now

this,

to say the least,

baptize you with the

" They shall speak with

tongues."

new

Ghost."]

'

See above,

p. 143-5.

Se above, p. 174

6.

Mj attention

was

first

drawn

to tbis bj

mv friend,

tbe Eev.

W, Ka>, DD.


184
Tiro Articles in the Creed of Jerusalem.
ch.
i.

[chap.
IX.]

reserved for this plaec.

The

title

Kvpim

185

CO

U. 15:

CiniisT

(d) in ch. xvi. 15, 16

" tomes into

ing
tlic

: Ho

com-

tuitous circumstance, that two cardinal verities like those,

(viz.

Galilte, preach-

mands His Apostles

into all the world

to "

go

Gospel
.

ing ...

and saylUjK'Dt TO, and be-

" Jle auduled into Heaien, and sat of God,"

down

and preach
bap-

Hand

the Gospel to every creature.

and "One Baptism for

at the Right

the Remission of sins,")

lieve the Gospel."

He that bclieveth and

tized shall be saved."
1

should be found at either extremity of one short Gospel,

is

15: His announce- (e) mcnt,that "The time is ful-

9 : S. Mark's re-

and the Kingdom of God is at hand "

filled,

Him, that was received up into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of God :" (where He must reign till He hath put

cord concerning

I will but point out that it is certainly one of a very remarkable series of fortuitous circumstances.But in the thing to be mentioned next, there neither is, nor can be,

"He

any

talk of fortuitousness at all.

(4.)

Allusion

is is

made

to the diversitj' of

the Sou of

Man
;

indicated in these

the Gospel

which constitutes

Name whereby two several places of a most Divine circumstance,

He who
in
the firnt vcr.se

all

enemies under His feet.")

and

is

profoundly significant.

16 <o 20: The four

(f)

20:The Apostles'
Ministry,

Apostles' Call to the Ministry: (which [S. Luke v. 8,9] is miraculously attested.)

"The LoED working with

them,

which la everywhere miraculously attested,

and
confirming the
the
signs

(S. Mark i. 1) was designated by the joint title "'Itjo-ovs" and " Xpta-Tos," here, in the last two verses (S. Mark xvi. 19. 20) is styled for the first and for the last time, " 'o ktpioz"

the I-OKD
named

'.

And why

word by
followed."

that

" Jesus," (a

It

is

surely not an

unmeaning circumstance, a mere

I

acci-

dent, that the Evangelist should at the very outset and at the very conclusion of his Gospel, so express himself If, however, it should seem to the Reader a mere matter of course, a phenomenon without interest or significancy, nothing which I could add would probably bring him to a different

Birth, yea, ; " the Christ," (a Title which belonged to became

He who at His Circumcision was Name which was given Him from Sis and before His Birth) He who at His Baptism
?

Because

His

and which betokens His sacred Unction) ; the same, on the occasion of His Ascension info Heaven and Session at the Eight Hand of God, when (as we know) " all power had

Office,

been given unto

xxviii. 18),

Him

in

Heaven and

in

Earth"

(S.

Matth.
;

mind.
(3.) Then, further : when I scrutinize attentively the two portions of Scripture thus proposed for critical survey, I am

is

designated by His

Lord" Jehovah ..."

as

" the Magnifica et opportuna appellatio !"

of Dominion

Name

Bengel well remarks.

struck by the discovery that the Vlth Article of the ancient Creed of Jerusalem (a.d. 348) is found in th* one: the Xth Article, in the other If it be a purely forlittle
-J.

not a

The Creed itself, ("ei may be seen at p. 84 of De

pared
:

variia Cyrillianarum

Catacheseon

locis

coUectum,")

I lake leave to point out that all this is what never would or could have entered into the mind of a fabriNo cator of a conclusion to S. Mark's unfinished GospeL of a supplement, I say, could have planted his foot inventor The proof of my in this way in exactly the right place.

But

either

Touttte'a ed. of CjttI.

Let the following be com-

assertion

is

twofold

8.{.aii- toS e5 (ch. xvi. 19.) ANEAe6NTA eIs T0 OtPANOi-2, KaI KAeflANTA 'EK AEilfiN TOT nATP02 (Aet. VI.) This ma, be seen in ,Uu at 224 of Cyril.

4Xli^, f/jTi, obpav6,; al iKii,t, (k

(fl) First, because the present indication that the Holy Ghost was indeed the Author of these last Twelve Verses

p.

Pirriaiia nfToroias us

tifitiriv

inapriuv (ch.

i.

4.)

BAnxiSMA METANofAX El5 'A+EJIN 'AMAPTlfiN

be seen at p. 295 c of Cyril.

(Abt. X.)

This

m*J

even appealed to by Dr. Davidson and his School, as a proof of a spurious original. Yerily, such Critics do not recognise the token of the Divine Finger even when they
is

The point
HeurUey's

will be

little

most intelligently and instructively studied in ProfeMor work De Fide el Si/mbolo, 1869, p. 9.

see

it

See aljove, p. 165-6.

18C
(t)

Four more
Next, as a matter of

fiiigular notes

of

[til* p.

,X.]

genuineness
his

and

reraciousnest.

187

fact, we have a spurious Supplesame which was exhibited above at p. 123-4 ; and which may here be with advantage reproduced in its Latin form " Omnia autem quaecumquc prac-

mcnt of

own,

which
;

nevertheless carries the true Gos-

tuent to the Go.'pel,

the
:

and is felt to be authentic from the very circumstance that no one would have ever dared to invent such a detail and put it forth on his own responsibility ?
pel savour with
it
(iii.)

ccpta erant

illis

qui

cum

Petro erant, breviter exposuerunt.

et

Second to no indication that this entire section of

Post haec

el

ipse Iesus adparuit,

illos

occidenlem misit per

sanctam

et

cationem salutis aeternae.

It occupies

Amen '."

ab oriente usque in iucorruptam praediAnother apocrj-phal

the Gospel has a Divine original, I hold to be a famous expression which (like TrpojTij aa/S/SoTou) has occasioned

termination is found in certain copies of the Thebaic version.

the place of ver. 20, and is as follows: "Exeuntes terni in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt Evange-

general offence as one " out of

mean, the designation of Mary Magdalene ;" whom" the Lord " had cast seven devils
I
first
is

and

tltat,

in

immediate connexion with the record of her

of the

august privilege of being the

Human Race

to

lium in

mundo toto, Chris'tg operante cum iis in verbo concum signis sequentibus eos et miraculis. Atque hoc modo cognitum est regnum Dei in terra tota et in mundo toto Israelis in testimonium gentium omnium harum quae exsistunt ub oriente ad occasum." It will be seen
firmationem
that the Title of Dominion
(o

behold His risen form.

nificancy,

There

such profound Gospel sig-

such

sublime

improbability,

such

exquisite

pathos in this record,

he who he might, to

that I would defy any fabricator, be have achieved it. This has been to

Kvpio<;

the

Lord)

is

found

in neither of these fabricated passages; but the

Names of

Nativity

and of Baptism (IijaoOs and Xpiaroi Jesds and

some extent pointed out already ^. (iv.) It has also been pointed out, (but the circumstance must be by all means here insisted upon afresh,) that the designation (found in ver. 10) of the little company of our Lord's
followers,

Christ) occur instead.

"rot?

fier'

airrov yevo/ievois,"

is

another rare

(ii.) Then further : is an extraordinary note of genuineness that such a vast number of minute but im-

It

note of veracious origin.

No

one but S. Mark,

or just such

portant facts should be found accumulated within the nar-

an one as he, would or could have so accurately designated the little band of Christian men and women who, unconscious of their bliss,

row compass of these twelve verses and should be met with nowhere else. The writer, supposing that he had only S. Matthew's Gospel before him, traverses (except in one single instance) wholly new ground ; moves forward with unmistakable boldness and a^ rare sense of security ; and wherever he plauts his foot, it is to enrich the soil with fertility and beauty. But on the supposition that he wrote after S. Luke's and S. John's Gospel had appeared, the marvel becomes increased an hundred-fold for how then does it come to pass that he evidently draws his information from quite independent sources P is not bound by any of their statements ? even seems purposely to break away from
;

sunrise on the first Easter

were "mourning and weeping" till after Day. The reader is reminded of
at p. 155-6.

what has been already offered on this subject,

(v.)

I venture further to point out that

(or

no writer but

such an one as he*"), would have familiarly desigthe Apostolic body as " ainoh rots evSeKU," in ver. 14. nated The phrase ot Bdihexa, he uses in proportion far oftener than

S.Mark,

any other two of the Evangelists '. And it is evident that the phrase o/ evBeKa soon became an equally recognised de" from which Judas by signation of the Apostolic body,

transgression fell."

Its familiar introduction into this place

by
'

the second Evangelist is exactly

See alwve (Art.
Consdder S.
S. Mitth.
II.) p. 152-3.

what one might have

their guidance,
'

and
Qa)
:

to adventure
which hon-ever

some extraordinary
"et
:" for

state-

Cod.

BolliemU
for

for "illis" has

"Petro,"
<

"puero:" and
is

" occidcntem," "orieiitem."

It also repeats "nequc."

oriente."

1 have ventured to alter

"ab oricntem"

into

"ab

Compare

what

liT.

Acts ii. 14. xxir. 9: 33. iiri 14, 29, 47. S. Mark iv. 10 vi. ii. 35 10, 17. 20, 43. S.Lnke vui. 1: ii. 1, 12: xviii. 81:

Luke

x.

32

xi.

11

xiii. 3.

47.

found in the Philozeniau margin, as giren bj

^\'hite

and Adler.

S.

John

Ti.

87, 70, 71

xi. 24.

188
looked
with,
for,

One more

note of genuineness.
is

[chap.

IX.]

Siip])0>>rd Inconsistencies

not noticed:

and why.

ISfi

or at least what one

fully prepared to

meet

words,

in

him.

attained by
2.

(vi.) I will close this enumeration by calling attention to an unobtrusive and unobserved verb in the last of these verses which (I venture to say) it would never have entered into the mind of any ordinary .'writer to employ in that

I should propose to myself as the end what 1 wrote. For, What would be gained by demonstrating, (as

what

to be

of course prepared to do,)

si'ifciicii

that

am

there

is really

no incon-

irhatcier between anything which S. Mark here says, and what the other Evangelists deliver? I should have

particular place.

I allude to

the familiar word efeX^ovTes.

proved

that,

(assuming the
i.e.

other Evangelical narratives to

The precise meaning of the expression, depending on the known force of the preposition with which the verb is
compounded,

be authentic,

historicall}' true,)

tlic its

narrative before us

can
is is

cannot be objected to on the score of

also.
((?)

not being authentic

?

scarcely be missed

the one hand,

familiar with the Evangelical

sufficiently
is

by any one who, on method;

But
Isot

hi/

uhoni

is

such proof required

by the

men who

insist that errors arc occasion:ill_v

on the other,
History.

acquainted with the Gospel

to be

met with

in the Evangelical narratives.

is

In

thiir esti-

Reference

certainly

made
citi/

to the final departure

mation, the genuineness of an inspired urifiin/

a thing not

of the Apostolic body out of the tacitly, beyond a question, there

collection of our SAViotR's

is

of Jerimkm\ And herein contained a re-

in the least degree rendered suspicious bj' the erroncousness

to His Apostles, twice Luke, " that they should not depart from Jerumlem, but wait for the promise of the Father." "Behold," (said He,) "I send the promise of My Father upon you but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high '." After many days

command

expressly recorded

by

S.

According to them, the narrative may exhibit inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and may yet be the work of S. Mark. If the inconsistencies be but " trifling," and the inaccuracies " minute," these " sound Theologians," (for so they style themselves"",) "have no dread whatever Be it so. Then would of acknowledging" their existence. set about convincing them that it be a gratuitous task to
of
its

statements.

Mark, (or perhaps it is rather S. Peter,) expressly says so, e'l^eX^on-ej. Aye, and that was a memorable " outgoing," truly What else was
S.
!

"Jhey went forth," or " out."

no inconsistency, no inaccuracy is discoverable within the compass of these Twelve concluding Verses. (i) But neither is such proof required by faithful Readers
who, for want of the requisite Scientific knowledge, are unable to discern the perfect Harmony of the Evangelical
narratives in this place.
It
is

its

purpose but the evangelization of the World

>

Let this suffice, then, concerning the evidence derived from Internal considerations. But lest it should hereII.

only one of
it

many

places
fail to

be reckoned as an omission, and imputed to me as a fault, that I have said nothing about the alleged Inconsistency of certain statements contained in these " Twelve
after

where a prima facie discrepancy, though

strike,

does not

yet

(happily)

altogether

fails

to

distress them.

Terses" with the larger notices contained in the parallel

narratives of S.

Luke and
silent

S.

John, I

proceed briefly to

Consciously or unconsciously, such readers reason with them" God's Word, like all God's selves somewhat as follows taught to regard God's Word as other Works, (and I am
:

explain uhy I
1.

am

on

this head.

a verv masterpiece of creative skill

I sav,
is

;)

the

blessed Gospel,
difficulties are

I cannot see for

whom

I should be writing; in other

/'/ of difficulties.

And

yet those

Compare S.Luke ixii. 39; and especially S.John xriii. 1, where the moment of departore/roni the cifj/ is marked (for observe, they had left the house and the npper chamber at ch. xit. 31). See a'.so ch. lU. 17, where the going vHhouf tie gate is indicated (for ((w t5j irvAiji hmSt [Heb.xiii.l2.])
'^

observed invariably to disappear under competent investiCan I seriously doubt that if sufficient critical skill gation.

were brought

to bear

on the highly

elliptical portion of narit

rative contained in these

Twelve Verses,
p. 2.

would present no

So Matth.'iirii. 82.
'

Consider

S.

Luke

xii. 37.

S.

Luke

xiiv. 49.

Acts

i.

4.

" See above,


190
Rnicic of the foregoing Chapter.
is

;;

[chap. ix.

exception to a rule which

ohscrved to be else universal

and that any apparent inconsistency between S. Mark's Etatcments in this place, and those of S. Luke and S. John, would also be found to be imaginary only?"
This then
is

CHAPTER
THESE VERSES.
7/,f Di-'iiinary of the

X.

THE TISTIMONY OF THE LECTIONAHIES SHEWN TO BE ABSOLUTELY DECISHT: AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF

East shcicn
in le

the reason

a prolonged Inquiry,

why I abstain from entering upon which would in fact necessitate a disHarmony,

cussion of the Principles of Gospel

a uork of (.rtraordinary an-

for

which the

iiqui^u (p. 195).

Proved

to

le otdtr than

any cxtmii MS. of

i lie

present would clearly not be the proper place.

Go'/:'*, by an appeal to the Fathers (p.

{a,.d alfo
iti

198). /

this Ltetionnry,

VIII. Let
1.

it

suffice that, in

the foregoing pages,

disappears under inves-

the

Ledionary of

the West,) the last

Tuehe

T'enes (f

I have shewn that the supposed argument from "Style,"

S. Mark's Gospel hare,

as

from

the fret, oerapiid a most co>npieuou>,

(]i.

(ii> itself

a highly fallacious

test,)

vdl

as most honourable place,

20-1.)

Xoii; this leivmis the

(j).

tigation.

testimony of aiiie-Nicciie Christendom in their faronr

209.)

It has

style of S.
S.

been proved (pp. 142-5) that, on the contrary, the Mark xvi. 9 20 is exceedingly like the style of

Mark

i.

20

and therefore, that

it

is

rendered probable

I HAVE reserved for the last the testimony of the LecTiONAKiEs, which has been hitherto all but entirely overlooked * ; passed by without so much as a word of comment,

by the Style that the Author of the beginning of this Gospel

by those who have preceded

me

in this inquiry.

Tet

is it,

was

Author of the end of it. 2. I have further shewn that the supposed argument from "Phraseology," (in itself, a most unsatisfactory test and as it has been applied to the matter in hand, a very coarse and clumsy one;) breaks down hopelessly under
also the

when

rightly understood, altogether decisive of the question

at issue.

And why

Because

it is

not the testimony reu-

dered by a solitary Father or

by a solitary MS.; no, nor testimony yielded by a single Church, or by even the But it is the united testimony of rill a single family of MSS.
the Churches. It is therefore

severe anal^'sis.

Instead of there being twenty-seven suspicious circum-

fellowship of Prophets,'

a 'noble

the evidence borne by a goodly army of Martyrs' in'

stances iu the Phraseology of these

Twelve Verses,

it

haa

deed

as well as

by MSS. innumerable which have

long since

been proved (pp. 170-3) that in twenty-seven particulars there

pcrish'.d,
Eo, it

emerge
3.

corroborative 'considerations.

but which must of necessity once have been. And comes to us like the voice of many waters dates, (as
:

Lastly, I have
;

is at hand and more philosophical standard, a presumption of the highest order is created that these Verses must needs be the trork

shewn that a loftier method of Criticism and that, tested by this truer, more judicious,

shew by-and-by,) from a period of altogether immemorial antiquity is endorsed by the sanction of aU the succeeding a^es: admits of neither doubt nor evasion. This subject, in order that it may be intelligibly handled, will be
I shall
:

of S.

Mart

Tbe one

iiiomcrable cxccptioD,

which 1 have

oiilj-

lately

met with,

is

sup-

plied
in at

hv the foll.Mviug remark of the thoughtful and accurate Mattbaei, made a piact whae it was almost safe to escape attention; vii. in a footnote

tvangeliiHis
temporibci.
Ki'pitwj

the very eml of his Sov. Test. (ed. 1803), vol. i. p. 748." Haec lectio in notahilibus el Synaxariis omnihus tcr notntur tribns maxime

Sivundum ordinem temporum Ecclesiae Graecae primo

fivf^if'ipuiv,

legitur

Tir

fls

thy ipOpov.
y'.

Secuudo,

xi^i

ipeptp t^j

li'a\i.^tus.

Tertio, u!

iuenif avaaTicifioy

Ve hoc

loco ergo vetusfissimis tcniporibus

nullo moi.^ dubiuvit Ecclesia."- Matthaei

his d. of

had slightly anticipated

this in

17SS,

vol. a. 267.


192 Thb ChrMian Church
the coulimiaiion of the JeirUi.

lO.'l

[uiav.

.\.]

LcciioiKirij-jiracticc

of the primittrc Church.

most coiivcuiently approached by Bomc remarks which ehuU rehearse the matter from the beginning.

Martyr, (a.d. 150) describes the Christian practice in his lime as precisely similar*: only that for " the Law," there
is
'

The Christian Church succeeded

to the

Jewish.

The

Toungcr society inherited the traditions of the elder, not 1cm and by UP a measure of necessity than as a matter of right a kind of sacred instinct conformed itself from the very b<
;

found to have been at once substituted "the Gospel." He speaks of the writings of " the Apostles" and o{ "the Prophets."

Chrysostom has the same expression

'.

(for the

two

Lessons) in one of his Homilies

j

Cassian (a.d. 400) says that

ginning in countless particulars to

model.

its

divinely-appointed

The same general Order of Service went on unbroken, conducted by a Priesthood whose spiritual 6uccsion was at least as jealously guarded as had been the natural It descent from Aaron in the Church of the Circumcision " the Sacraments of the Jews are [but] type* was found that Still were David's Psalms antiphonally recit^. of ours'." and the voices of " Moses and the Prophets" were heard in the sacred assemblies of Gon's people " every Sabbath day."

Twelve Prayers at Vespers and at Matins, two Lessons were read, one out of the Old Testament and
in Egypt, after the

the other out of the

New.

But

on Safurdni/s and Suudiii/s,

and the

''.

New

days of Pentecost, both Lessons were from the Testament, one from the Epistles or the Acts of the
fift}'

Apostles

the other, from the Gospels".

Our own

actual

practice seems to bear a striking resemblance to that of the

Christian

Church at the earliest period: for we hear of (1) " Moses and the Prophets," (which will have been the car-

simply ; while many a Versicle congenial utterances of the chosen held its ground. The rerace passed readily into the service of the family of the the very method of the deemed. Unconsciously perhaps,
Canticle succeeded to Canticle

^
'

rying on of the old 83'nagogue-method, represented by our first and second Lesson,) (2) a lesson out of the " Epistles

or Acts," together with a lesson out of the " Gospels'"."

in fact, universally received that the Eastern Church from a period of even Apostolic antiquity, enjoyed a Lectionarj-, or established system of Scripture lessons, of her
It
is,

one became adopted by the other : prothod of beginning a festival from the " Eve" of the became transfigured ; ceding Day. The Sj-nagogue-worship
but
it

as, for example, the

me-

has,

own.

In

its

conception, this Lectionary

(as

is

discovered to

Above
which
tion, a

of the pit

features. did not part with one of its characteristic still retained all, the same three great Festivals were the hole declare " the rock whence we are hewn and :" only was it made a ques-

was natural) upon the model of the Lectionary of God's ancient people, the Jews for it commences, as theirs did, in the autumn, (in September ') and
have been fashioned
: ;

whence we are digged should controversy rather, whether Easter should or

irith the Jctrs
"*.

T^ rov

ijktov \fyofifyTi

iif^^ptft

irdvruv kotA ir6Ktis

1j

dypovs

fjifv6vrwv
ij

M
c.

rh

>

avrb <rvvf\tvats ylvfrai, Hal ri dirofii'i]HovfV^aTa

ruy

&iroa'T(fAwf,

to

avyyptifx-

not be celebrated

Mara Tuv
llien, all
t

irpoiprirui' ctroT'ii'iiffKfTai,

commuthe faithful handing on to the Christian to which the nity of the Ltctionary practiee of the Synagogue the CUnreader's attention is now exclusively invited. That practice of readtian Church inherited from the Jewish the
But
it is

Blood and prayed,

i.

then

Afxp" ^yX'^P''followed Holy

Then came Commnniou.

the Seimon,

Apol.

i.

67,

{fJ. Otto,
'

158.)

fidriiif

^mavBa

ufff\6dtv, tlni, t/s wpotp-ttnjs, wo7os iLir6ff7o\os

8.Xi'x97), Kol wtp) -rlvuy;

CaEsian writes,

ing a

first

and a second Lesson in

its

public assemblies,

i
ruin [sc. duodctiin
ticulis custodiri ct
;

demonstrable.

What
is

time of the Apostles

k tical

''

was in I ' the Synagogue practice Justin known from Acts xiii. 15, 2*.
Ibe tiaioxis,aTe the firtt teordj of

" Veiierabilis Patrum senatus .... dccrevit hunc nnmeOrationum] tarn in Vcspcrtinis quam in Koctum<s couvenquibus lectiooes geminas adjungentes, id est, unam Yeteris

(0pp.

ijfiiif

clifitpoy

ix. p.

697

E. Field's text.)

aljam Xovi Testament! .... In die vero Sabbati vel Douiinico utrasquc

de

Xovo

redtaiit Testaniento; id est,

Tit

-riv Itpur

drocriKuv

Ecd

tolorum, et alium de Evangeliis.

unam de Apostolo Tel Actibus AposQuod etiam totis Quinquagesiuiae diebui

Inttit. lib.
ii.

faciuDt hi, quibus lectio curae est, sen uieuioria Scripturarum."

e. 6.

Hiftory of Enseliius.
Versiou. See the heading of 1 Cor. x. in our Authorized
(ed. 1733, p. 18.)
'
'

See Binghaui'i Origints, Book xx. ch.

v.

2, 3, 4-

Constitutlones Apostolicae, lib.

ii.

c.

57, 59

v.
red',

19:

viii. 5.

See ScriveuiT's Inlroduction, p. 74, and the

in note (k) overleaf.


194
Aniiquity of the Lcctionaiy
."//sfrm

[en AT.
X.]

cshiUln/icd by an ujtpcal

the Fiilhir*.

]f.:

prescribes tv\o inimovable

well as for every

this,

that the prominent

"Lections" for every Sattirdai/ (as Sunday) in the year: differing chiefly in
place which had been hitherto as-

Church), nor " Evangelistarium,"

the

(i.e.

Book containing
itself,

tlie

Ecclesiastical Lections in cztenso), of higher antiquity than

viii""

signed to "the

the Prophets''," was henceforth enjoyed by the Gospels and the Apostolic writings. " Satur-

Law and

century,-yet that the scheme

by those monuments,
lar,
it,

day-Sunday" lections
tions

were called,)

[aa^^aTOKvpiaKai, for bo these Lecretain their place in the " Synaxarium "

certainly in

as exhibited

every essential particu-

is

older than

by

at leant four, in fact

(III.)

Lastly,

of the East to the present hour. It seems also a singular note of antiquity that the Sabbath and the

any known Greek JIS. which contains by full fire hundred years. That in the said Lectionaries of the

Sunday succeeding
;

it

do as

it

were cohere, and bear one appellation

so that the

week takes its name not from the Sunday with which it commences ', but from the Sabbath-and-Sunday with which

Greek and of the Syrian Churches, the twelve concluding verses of S. Mark which are the subject of discussion lliroughout the present pages are observed ininrially to occupy the same singularly conspicuous, as well as most honourable
place.
I.
fact.

1/

concludes.

To mention only one

out of a hundred minute

The
It
is

first

of the foregoing propositions

is

an established

traits

of identitj' which the public Service of the sanctuary

Easter Eve, whicii from the earliest period to day has been called " fieya ad^^arov "," is discovered to have borne the self-same appellation in the Church of the
this

retained:

at least quite certain that in the iv"" century (if not

long before) there existed a known Lectionary system, alike in the Church of the East and of the "West. Cyril of Jeru,

Circumcision".

salem (a.d. 348,) having to speak about our Lord's Ascension,

If I do not enter more minutely into the

structure of the Oriental Lectionary,

(some

remarks that by a providential coincidence, on the

will perhaps

previous day, which was Sunday, the event had formed the
subject of the appointed lessons"
;

think I have said too much, but the interest of the subject

ought to be a sufficient apology,)

tails

and that he had availed

it

it is

because further deis

himself of the occasion to discourse largely on the subject.

would be irrelevant to

my

present purpose; which

:

Chrysostom, preaching at Antioch, makes

plain that, in
lC-7] t^j rltrrtut

only to call attention to the three following facts

(I.)

That the practice in the Christian Church of reading

Ka)

fl

luv iHoKoviia t^j iitaaKaKlai

[cf. Cyril, p. 4, lines

ij

publicly before the congregation certain fixed portions of

irpotrptrfv tlwdv Koi ra rtpl Tijs 'Aya\'ij\fi(ut' &\X*

TXijptffTaTd at iiKodaai, Karck
Kvpteuctiv' ifoT* otKovontav

rov Giov

x^^^

tfKovi^rtCt

Holy Writ, according to an established and generally remust have existed from a period long anterior to the date of any kno^vn Greek copy of the New Testament
ceived rule,
Scriptures.
(II.)

tV

ht^fTtpnv kaBivfiav, Tp x^i$ i]nfp^ Kara irjv

rrjs

t^j Betas xiiptros, if rp Si/falci

iv6bov rod ^anripos

rwy tLvayvutrndruv
iKtytio

iuco\ov0ias
ii

T& rtpl

Trjs f is ovpayolis

i}fiuv rfptfx"v(r^s'

tA \ry6pfva, fiiKtara

fiiv

ti^ wdyras, Kal tia rh

fl

tuv rtffruv dpov vX^0oi*

OTSas yap Sti ^

i^atpfrvs Si htd ac* ^TyrtTrat ii

Tpoataxts

To7s \fyofiffots.
ci't

That although there happens

(i.e.

" Synaxarium,"
'

to be extant neither Table of Proper Lessons of the Greek

(erf.

ixoXoveia T^t nlcTfus tiiiiTKn at martutiv

HmpA- KAI 'ANEAedNTA eIs TOi-S AESIAn tot nATP02 liiXiata ftif oZy firtg/iofivciv
Aiji'

t6n XNAZTA'NTA T$ TPfxH O-rPANOtX KAt KAeiSANTA "EK

ct
vofiliti

t^i iliiyiictut.

Vf wapatpopif Ka) yZv vnoiiifiyiiaKui at tuv

(ipijfiiniii.

(CyTil. Hicr. Cat,

EnglUh readers may be referred to Home's Introduction, 4c.

iii.

1856.)

liv. c. 24. Oj)p. p.

217

c, r.)

Of

that Sennou of

his, Cyril

again and again

vol.

perhaps awnre of the importance of the preface to Tan der Hooght'a Hebrew BibU, {ed. 1705) 35 : in connciioo
p. 281-2.

The learned
ii.

reader

is

reminds

bia auditory.

M</i>'i)ao ii Ka)

tuv

tlpiiiiinDv /loi

voXXiKis rtp} toE, ^k

B.

St(iuv tot narphs Kafl/ftffSni t^k Tihy,

he says. Hid.
Twy 4k

p.

219

A little lower
iK

with which, tee roL

'

p.

352

4.

down, Kvy

ii vftas tnrofiyriartoy iKlywy,

Thus, the nvfioK-ii rrit rvpoipiyov is " Quinqnagesima Sunday;" but '** meet of " the cheese-eater " is the week previotts.
Sec Suicer's Tifsaurus, vol.

ii.

it^iwv Tov naTp^5 Ka6t^ta6at rhy tidy.

Ibid. D.

woWuy

fipijfitywv vtp] rov,

920.
Sic vocatur Sabp. 2323.

S.

From this it becomes plain Lule xxiv. 61, or Acts i.

wit/ Cj/ril nowhere quotes S. Itark xvi. 19,

9.

or

He must o 2

needs have enlarged upon those

"Apud Rabbinoa, bStiri n2t SaUathum Magnum.

proximum uite Pascha."

three inecitable places of Scripture, the day before.

battDoi

Buxtorf, Lexicon Talmud,

lOG
tlie lafter

The

Fiitficr-s

fjou rally

appcnhd

to.

[CHAI-.

X.]

Difiitulii/

of diicovcfinri

j/nr/iciihir jirorifa.

iri7

part of the

iv"" ccntur)-,

the order of the lessons

Satiu-ilai/s
:

together

with " Meuologion,"

(or

Calendar of immovable

which were publicly read in the Church on

and Sundays^ was familiarly known to the congregation for he invites them to sit down, and study attentively beforehand,
at

Festivals and Saints* Days.)

That

we

are thoroughh' ac-

quainted with
viii"',

all

of these, as exhibited in Codices of the

ix"'

and

x"" centuries,
it
is

is

a familiar fact; in illus-

home, the Sections

{irepiicoTTas) of

the Gospel which they

is

were about to hear in Church .

Augustine

tration of which

enough

to refer the reader

".

to the

express in

works

cited at the foot of the

page

But

it is

no
is

less cer-

recording that in his time proper lessons were appointed for

tain that the scheme of Proper Lessons itself

of

much

and that an innovation which he had attempted on Good Friday had given general offence '. Now by these few notices, to look no further, it is rendered certain that a Lectionarj' sj-stem of some sort must have been in existence at a period long anterior to the date of any copy of the New Testament Scriptures extant. I shall shew by-and-by that the fact is established by the Codices (B, K, A, C, D) themselves. But we may go back further yet for not only Eusebius, but Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus, by their habitual use of the technical term for an Ecclesiastical Lection (ttcpwoTTJj, avdyvwais, avdyvucrfia,) remind us that the Lectionary practice of the East was already established in
Festival days"^;

higher antiquity.
1.

The proof of

this, if it

could only be established by an

induction of particular instances, would not onlj' be very

tedious, but also very difficult indeed.
It will be perceived,

on
it

reflection, that
is

even when the occasion of a Uomil}' (sup-

pose)

actually recorded, the Scripture references

which

contains,

apart from the Author's statement that what

tiiat

he quotes had formed part of

scarcely so

day's Service, creates

:

much

as a presumption of the fact

while the
of course

correspondence, however striking, between such references

to Scripture

and the Lectionary no proof whatever that we are

as

we have

it, is

so far in possession of tho

Lectionary of the Patristic age.

Nay, on famous Festivals,

their

days

'.

U. The Oriental Lectionary

and " Eclogadion,"

consists of " Synaxarion"

Proper Lessons from the Gospels and Apostolic writings daily throughout the j'ear ;)
(or Tables of
f

At the beginning of everj- volume of the first cil. of bis Jior. Test. {I'.ipa, " Loctioncs Ki iloiastica; " of the 178S) Mattlwei has laboriouslv edited the Greek Church. Si>e iilso his Apiwndiccs, viz. vol. ii. pii. 272318 and 322

303.

His

2iid ed. (Wittenberg, 18l>3,)

is

distinguished by the valuable jwcu-

liarity of iudicaliiig the Ecclesiastical sections

throughout, in the manner of

See al)Ove, p. 193 and

p.

194.

nu ancient MS.
{opio
(i.

^ 'fiiTTC
Ital

it fviiaOiaTtpov ytytirBat rhv Xiyov^ BtSfifBa Ka) irapaKoXovAifi'i i^*P

72308

and that, with citraordinarv fulness and accuracy. His ^i/i-oand iii. 121) though not iutelligible perhaps to ordinary

Tuv
tiv

KWuv

ypaipuv VfwOffjKafKv, irpoKaiiBavfiv,

^{Tji-eiffSai.

ttj**
i.

TfptKoti]y ntt
r\i.

ypa^s

ty iiiWufity

In

readers, are very important.

Mattli.

.ffoui.

(0pp.
t/fiiy

13

B.)

nates '

B"

He derived them from MSS. which he desigand " H," but which are or " Evstt. 47 and 50," uncial Evangecentury (See Scrivener's latrod.
p.

Kara iiiay

(rafifiaruyf

^ Kal Kara oafi^aroVf T^f fifWouaav iv

avayyuaSriafffdai

listaria of the viii"

214.)

ruy fvayytXiwy

ircptiroir^i', touttji'

wph tovtvv tuv

fiiyitr fKaff-Tot olxot

Tiii.
'

xaBiuKyos iyayiyaaKtru."

rifitpuy fifrk X*'P'* Ao/i-

Scholz, at the end of vol. L of his

N.T.

p.

III

Joann.

Som.

ii,

(Opji-

62
It

B.)

caused bim (he says) to interrupt his leaching.

" Sed quia nunc

inter,

posita est Gollemnitas

sanctorum dierum, quibus certas ei Evangelic

lectionos

oportet in Ecclesi^ recitari,

ille

quae ita sunt annuae ut aliae esse noii possint; ordo qnem susceperamus necessitate paullulum intermissus est, non amissus.
iii.

naxarium"nnd " Menologium " of Codd. K See also his vol. ii. pp. 45669. L'nfortuuntely, (as Scrivener recognises, done,as usual with this Editor; and therefore p. 110,) all hero is carelessly His slovenliness is cstraordinary. The " Gospels great extent useless. to a
Ti- aytay of the Passion" (riy ayluy woea-r), he entitles

45393, gives in full the " Syand M, (viii'* or ii" century.)

vdyray

(p.

472);

and

so throughout.

(Op;>.Tol.
'

P.

ii.

p. 825, Frol.)

The place

will

be found quoted below, p. 202, note

:

(o).

' See Soicer, (i. 247 and 9 ii. 673). He is much more full and satisfactorji, than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve attention, (iVor. Test. vol. Frolegg. p. xxii.) See also above, p. 45, notes (r) and (s).

(Iiilroduciiot, pp. 6875,) has given by far the most inLectionary of account of this matter, by cihibitiug iii JTw^/is* the (" gathered chiefly from Evangelist. Arund. 617, Parham the Eastern Cliuich, Coll. Camb.") ; and supplying the re18, llarl. 5598, liurney 22, and Christ's S.-e, bj all weans, bis IMruduc ordin.Tiy way. Scripture in the

Mr. Scrivener

telligible

for'.nces to
lion, pp.

0205

also, pji.

211225.


198

The Hux/cni

Lcctiouari/

iril/i

uhich kc arc

[chap.
is,

X.]

acquainted, knoini to

Chrymtom
a

an'l Epijihaniui^.

\W

the employment of certain

passages

of Scripture

in

4. I proceed,

however, to adduce

few distinct proofs that

a manner, inevitable*, and maj' on no account be pressed.

2.

Thus, when Chrj'sostomy and when Epiphanius", preachi.

ing on Ascension Daj', refer to Acts

feel ourselves

10, 11,

we

do not

it the existing Lectionary of the great Eastern Church, as Matthaei, by Scholz, and by Scrivener from is exhibited by and which is contained in Syriac of the viii"* century,

warranted to press the coincidence of such

.

MSS. MSS.
a

a quotation with the Liturgical section of the

again,

day.

So,

the main of the vi'" and vii"" must needs be in And if I do not begin antiquity. work of extraordinary
insisting that at least one century

quotes

when Chrysostom preaches on Christmas Day, and from S.Matthew ii. 1, 2*; or on Whitsunday, and
vii.

by

more may be claimed

it is

for it

by

Version, a mere appeal to the Ilierosolymitan

will never knowingly admit what

quotes from S.John

38 and Acts

ii.

3 and 13

though
is dis-

both places form part of the Liturgical sections

jproo/ results therefrom that either chapter
3.

for the da)', no was actually used.

But we

are not reduced to this method.

It

only because I foundations. to be untrustworthy materials' info my Chrysostom in a sermon (a) "Every one is aware," (says A.u. 387,) on our Saviouk's Baptism, preached at Antioch,
" that this
is

may prove

covered that nearlj' three-fourths of Chrysostom's Homilies

on

S.

Matthew

either begin
;

at the

first

verse of a knotni

Ecclmanfical Lecfioii

or else at the

first

ensuing verse after

firsf irords

the close of one.

as

Thirteen of those Homilies in succession

tfie

Epiphany. Two concerning both of manifestations are thereby intended: in his Epistle which yon have heard this day S. Paul discourse from ch. ii. 11 to 13, Then follows a quotation to Titus^." for the to be the beginning of the lection
called the Festival of the

(the C3rd to the 75th inclusive) begin with

of

which

proves

many known

Lections.

" Let us attend to this delightful

to,"

day in the Greek Menology.

section {irepucowij)

which we never cease turning

are

the opening words of Chrj'sostom's 79th Homily, of which

In the time of Chrysostom, formed part of one of the therefore, Titus ii. 11, 12, 13 in the Eastern Epiphany lessons,-as it does to this hour
Epistle for the Epiphany in the to have been part of the affinities of which with the old Gallican Liturgy', the East are well known. (speaking of the Feasts of the Church) (b) Epiphanius Star shewed that the Word says that at the Nativity, a Theophania" (our "Epihad'become incarnate: at the "

Matth. xxv. 31, i.e. the beginning of the Gospel for Sexagesima Sunday. Cyril of Alexandria's (so called) "Commentary on S.Luke" is nothing else but a
is

"the text"

S.

Church

AVhat

is

scarcely less interesting,

it

is also

found

series of short

Ecclesiastical Lections

Sermons, for the most part delivered on knoint ; which does not seem to have been as
(a.d. 416) says expressly that he John's Gospel in precisely the same way
".

yet observed.

^Augustine
S.
following
iv
:

had handled

All
'
.

this is significant in a
tlie

high degree.
mavpov
Tjfivy o

Consider

'Zv rp in^ipf toS cravpov to rtp\ tov

eafifidrtp
rii

vcErra hvaytviaaHOittv,
Kipios, Sri iaraupuBii,
rits

r^

r^

iifyiK(f>

waXtVf Sri TapfiSBrj

in

irfSavt

Kara aipKa,

Sri haipri' rleos oiy ivtKfy '

firf

of God." &c., and phany") John cried, "Behold the Lamb His Baptism. Acproclaimed Him at a Voice from Heaven the ancient Matth. ii. 1-12 is found to be cordiuglv, S. and S. Matth. S.Mark i. 9-11 lection f^r Christmas Day On the morrow, was for Epiphany.
:

rpd^fis

ruv awoffT6\wy 06
; (I

'fitrk tt*** tr(trr7jKoa77}y i-vaytvuiTKOfifyi

oi

iii.

13-17
S.

the lections
i.

iyiyoyro, Koi ipxh" ff^aPoy

AguiD

Cbrj'B.

yip T^Tf

Ijp^ayro

0pp. itokTv t4 in)/*(Ta

iii.

88.
oi

read
iit6<rro\oi, Ifyow ^tri
rfl'

Kvplov lydffraaiy, rirt (Sfi ko] ri PtBKloy ivayiyiiaKtaOai tovto.

f/)l

imp yap rJ
^vatrraffti

TOV aravpov iy Tp

rjiitpq

aravpov iyayty^trKo^ty, Kul to iy t

Chrysostom explains with In another of his Homilies, why the Book of the Acts considerable emphasis the reason Church during the interval between
(r)

John

2934.
.

iftotuit "oi iStt Kol

TO iy

ixJiffrTi

ioprfi

ytyoydra rp owrp vaKty avayivuffKOftty, ovtvs

r/fifpats

ri $avfiaTa ra awoirro\iKa iy ra7s

iyayiyaiTKfatai.
'

Hid.

Twy

iiiroffToXiKuy ffi^M"**'

was read publicly in remarking, that Easter and Pentecost;

it

had been the

^ V ^^

p.

89

D.

Opp. ii. 290 b. 0pp. ii. 357 KOpp. ii. 454 B. D. " Meiniiiit 8.tnctita< vcstra rngelium secundum Joaiineni ex ordine

246. Sec Sciivener'e Inirodiiciion, p. Scrivener, vl, .upro. Opp. ii. 369 B, c.-Con.pare ChrVBOstom

Ed.

Hiibillon, p. 116.

<:......,

c cnlfrp nirtare."

(Ofp.

iii.

P.

ii.

825 Prol.)

-'00

Till-

proposed

Xcr

Enfjlisl, Ln/iQiiKri/.

[chap.

X.]

Gnat

aul'qiiit;/

of the Euitcrn Lcdlonaiij.

201

liturgical

arrangement of a yet earlier age '.After Biich an announcement, it becomes a very striking circumstance that Augustine also (a.d. 412) should be found to bear witness to
the prevalence of the same liturgical arrangement in the African Cliurch . In the old Gullican Lectionary, as might have been expected, the same rule is recognisable. It ought
to be needless to

{(l)

Tlie purel}- arbitrary arrangement, (as

it),

Mr. Scrivener

by which the Book of Genesis, instead of the Gospel, is appointed to be read on the iiech days of Lent, is discovered to have been fully recognised in the time of
phrases
'

Chrysostom.
in Lent''.
{e)

Accordinglj-, the two series of Homilies on

the Book of Genesis which that Father preached, he preached

It will be seen in the nest chapter that it

universally to

add that the same arrangement is observed prevaU in the Lectionaries both of the East

was from

and of the West to the present hour; although the fact must have been lost sight of by the individuals who recently,
-under pretence of "making some adranfageoiis alteratiom" in our Lectionarj', have constructed an entirely new one,

a very remote period the practice of the Eastern Church

to introduce into
tlie

lesson

for

S. Luke's account (ch. xxii. 43, 44) of our

Thursday in Holy-week, Lord's " Agony

and
That

blood}'
is,

Sweat," imuicdiatih/ after S. Matth. xxvi. 39.

vicious in principle

and

throughout,

which bound the Church of England to the practice of Primitive Christendom, has been unhappily broken this note of Catholicity also has been effaced''.
this link also
;

whereby

liable to the gravest objections

no doubt, the reason why Chrysostom, who has been suspected, (I think unreasonabl}',) of employing an
Evangelistarium instead of a copy of the Gospels in the preparation of his Homilies, is observed to quote those same

Ojyj. vol.

iii.

p.

85 B: 68 a:

t/toj ccckh' oi Trartpts tiy,wv

Kocrfi rh $i0\{of ri* Trpi^un> ivaytviivKfaBat ivoiiotirriaav.

0i0Kloi>
ffKfTai.

ivrf wtrr^irayirm-

rtyos ivtutr ri

ruv

irpi^ftav

ruiv tMoaidKiaii in tif Kaip<f T^i

iremj/coffTfli

two verses in that very place in his Homily on S.Matthew'; which shews that the Lectionary system of the Eastern Church in this respect is at least as old as the iv"" century. (/) The same two verses used to be left out on the Tuesdaj' after Sexagesima {jfi 7 r^y rvpoifxiyov) for which daj' S.Luke
xxii.

" AnDiverEnrifi sollcmnitate post passionem Domini nostis ilium libnun

39

xxiii. 1, is the

appointed lection.

And

this

ex-

rccitiiri."
'

Opp.

iii.

(P.

ii.)

p.

337 o.
permanent record of

plains

why

Cyril

(a.d.

425) in his Homilies on S. Luke,

witness to the Lectionar}' pracleast

I desire to leave in this place the

my

deliberate con-

viction that the Lectioiiur; which, last year, was hurried with such indi-ccnl haste through Convocation, passed in a half-empty House by the casiing ul

passes

them by in silence ". But we can carry back the

of the Prolocutor,

and

rudely pressed upon the Church'a acceptance by tk

its

tice of

omitting these verses, at

a hundred )ear6; for

Legislature in the course of

present sessiou,

is

the gravest calamity which

claims of immemorial antiquity ;
of their

has beralleu the Church of England for a long time past. Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered.

these Commissioners, (evidently unconscious

us a Lectionary

Appointed

(in 1SC7) for

an

tntireli/ difl'erent purpose, (viz.

the

OmamcBt*
'"""^

own unfitness for their self-imposed task,) have giveu which will recommend itself to none but the lovers of novelty,

the impatieut,

and A'^cstments question,) 29 Commissiouers (14 Clerical and 15 lay) * themselves further instructed " to suggest aud report tchethtr any ama o alterations and amtudmeuli may be advautageously made in the cleclKio
Lessons to be read at the time of Divine Service."

and the enemies of Divine Truth.

That the blame, tie guilt lies at the door of our Bishopt, is certain ; hut the Church has no one but herself to thanl: for the injury which has been thus deliberately inflicted npon her. She has suffered herself to be robbed of her
ancient birthright without resistance
corporate ca)wcity) so
right in this
heritance
place.
'

Thereupon, these individuals, (the Liturgical attainmenU of niDC-t*l of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself to eharactn-" * truthfully,) at once imposed nimn themselves the duty of inventiug
^iVe/y neio

without remonstrance

without (in her

way
.

to

much as a word of audible de&and those who are to come

on other
occasions,) liberaci

dissatisfaction.

Can

it

be

after us of their law ful in-

Xnr/ionary for the Church of England.

am amazed and

grieved beyond measure at w-hdt is taking

deliberations.

be quite impo-itW iDgw " to undcrstaud a single Bible story, or discover the sequence of principle of U"* of narrative,seems to have beeutheuuiiliDg nected portion With reckless eclecticism,entire forgetfulness of the "S"'2"

So

to mutilate the AVord of

God

that

it

shall henceforth

At

loasf, (as

animam meant.

trace of this remains in the old Galilean Liturgy,

'

pp. 137-8.
791
B.

'
_,.

Uiugluini, xiT. iiL 3.

Opp.

vol. vii. p.

Tradition aud nients of the poor hrother.-strauge disregard for Catholic

Sec Demi Payne Smith's Transition,

p. 863.


202
Great
(n,1iqit!,

of n,( Eastern Lcdionanj.

[cuap.

X.]

Great Festicah of the Church.

203

Cod. B, (evidently for that same reason.) aho omits tbem as was stated above, in p. 70. T],ey are wanting also in the Thebaic version, which is of the iii"' century. {a) It will be found suggested in the next chapter
(pacre

ancient than Cod.

or Cod. s, (which are referred to the

218) that the piercing of our Lord's side, (S. John thrust into Codd. 13 and s immediately
xxvii.

xix. 34)

after S.

Mattb'

40,-is probably indebted

If this suggesobtained that the Lectionary of the East was fully established in the beginning of the iv"' century. But see Appendix (H).
tion be well founded, a fresh proof
is

MSS.

for its place in those

it must be older than Vetus Itala and the Syriac in the ii"''. And thus it is demonstrated, (1st) That fixed Lessons were read in the Churches of the East in the immediately post- Apostolic age and (2ndl3') That, wherever

beginning of the iv* century), but Origen in the

iii"*

century, or the

two

to the Eastern Lectionary practice.

we

are able to test

it,

the Lectionar}' of that remote period

corresponded with the Lectionarj' which has come

us in documents of the
vi""

down

to
in

fact constructed in preciselj'

and vii*'' century, and was the same way.

a System which
is

It is a remarkable note (//) Oriental Lectionary system with that S.Matthew's account of the should be there appointed to be

of the antiquity of that

am

content in fact to dismiss the preceding instances

which we are acquainted,

Passion (ch. xxvii. 161,) read alone on the evening

with this general remark:

to have

that

found

been fully recognised throughout the East and

hare been established very long before.
It

throughout the West in the beginning of the fourth centurj-,

Chrysostom clearly alludes to this practice"; which Augustine expressly states was also the pracTraces of the same method are discoverable in the old Gallican Lectionary p. () Epiphanius, (or the namesake of his who was the author of a well-known Homily on Palm Sunday,) remarks that "yesterday" had been read the history of the rising of Lazarus 1. Now S.John xi. 145 is the lection for the antecedent Sabbath, in all the Lectionaries.
tice

of

Good Friday.
in his

must of
as

fiecessifi/

is

when we

read of three British Bishops attending the

own day.

Council at Aries, a.d. 314.

The Church (we

say) which

could send out those three Bishops must have been fully
organized at a greatly antecedent period.
4.

Church.

Let us attend, however, to the great Festivals of the These are declared by Chrysostom (in a Homily
Nativity: (2) the Theophania: (3) Pascha (4) Epiphanius, his contemporary, Pentecost'. (5)
:

delivered at Antioch 20 Dec. A-U. 386) to be the five follow-

ing: (1)
Ascension:

In conclusion, I may be allowed eo far to anticipate be found fuUy established in the next chapter, as to point out here that since in countless places the text of our oldest Evangelia as well as the readings of the priniitive Fathers exhibit unmistakable traces of the corrupting influence of the Lectionary practice, that very fact becomes
(/)

what

will

(Bishop of Constantia in the island of Cyprus,) makes the same enumeration", in a Homily on the Ascension*. In
the Apostolical Constitutions, the same five Festivals are enumerated". Let me state a few Liturgical facts in con-

nexion with each of these.

'

irrefragable

evidence of the antiquity of the Lectionarjit.

which
Kori 0pp.

vii.

is

the occasion of
tLtyiX^v tov
c.

Kot only must

it

be more

'

airys. Opp. i. 497 The learned reader

both passages.

" Epiph. Opp. ii. 2S5-6. be delighted and instructed too by the perusal of Ch-ysistom declares that Christmas-Day is the greatest

c.

will

rh
618

niaxa

iairipap rajro irdyra ii/oyif.SanfTai. Clirv*.

of Festivals

since all the others are

but consequences of the Incarnation.

'Passio .nutcm, qnin uno die legitur, non Bolet legi nisi securduni MbIVolueram aliquaiido nt per sinpjos annos secundum omne8 Ev.ngvlistas etiam Passio legcretur. Factum est. Kon audicrunt homines quod cun-

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

thxuva.

Constt. Jpoftt. Ub.

viii. c.

33.

aueverant, et pcrturbati sujit."

''

0pp.

vol. v. p.
i

9S0E.
Opp.
ii.

d.

ilalillon, pp. 130-5.

Ep')ih.

152-3.

(1) the Resurrection, (2) indication that this enst;-(4) Ntivity;-(5) Epiphany. [Note this clear sul.sequcnt was written or interpolaUd at a viii"- Book of ihe CoLstitutions

week of

Ascension-Day

After the week of the Passion and the i mentioned ; (3) Peute-

date to that commonly assigned to ihc work.]


201
It
is

Cvicj'icuoiiK jilfuc occvjjiid by

[IIAP.

X.]

S.

Morh

xvi. 9

20

('

the Eastern Lcrtionanj.

2uj

plain that
at

(lie

preceding enuniciation could nol liavc

:

ceedingly remote was

that time was

its

institution accounted in the days of

been made

any earlier jjcriod for tbc Epiphany of our Saviovu and His Nativity were originally but one Festival ^ Moreover, tbc circumstances are well known under which Chrysostom (a.d. 380) announced to bis Eastern auditory that iu conformity with what bad been correctly ascertained
at

the great African Father, as well as so entirelj' forgotten hy

its

first

beginning.

I have to shew that in

the Great Oriental Lectiouarj' (whether of the Greek or of

the Syrian Church) the last

Twelve
for,

^''erses

of S. Mark's

Gospel occupy a conspicuous as well as a most honourable

place.
{a)

Rome,
'.

tegrated

We
TO.

the ancient Festival was henceforth to be disinBut this is not material to the present inquiry.
that, as a
is

And

this is easily

done

The Lesson
it

for

Matins on A-'iccmion-Day in the East,

to

know

matter of

fact,

"the Epiphanies"

(for

in the oldest
(as

documents

which we have access, consisted

of the Festival) became in consequence distributed over Dec. 25 and Jan. 5 our Lonn's
:

iiri^avia

the

name

Bapfim being the event chiefly commemorated on the latter anniversary*, which used to be chiefly observed in honour of His Birth '.Concerning the Lessons for Passion-tide and Easter, as well as concerning those for the Nativity and Epiphany, something has been oflered already; to which may be added that Ilesychius, in the opening sentences of that " Homily" which has already engaged so much of our attention testifies that the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel was in his days, as it has been ever since, one of the lections for Easter. He begins by saying that the Evangelical narratives
"=,

Iwchc Vcr<cs, neither more nor less, of S.Mark's Gospel. At the Liturgy on Ascension was read S.Luke xxiv. 3653 but at Matins, S.Mark xvi. 920. The witness of the "Synaxaria" is constant to this eflect. (i) The same lection preciselj' was adopted among the

now

does) of the

last

(the party, viz. which Syrians by the Melchite Churches', maintained the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon ): and it " Evangeliarium Hierosolymiis found appointed also in the

tanumf."

In the Evangelistarium used in the Jacobite,

(i.e.

the Monophysite) Churches of Syria, a striking difierence "While S. Luke xxiv. 36 of arrangement is discoverable.

53 was read
the last
#,

at

of the Eesurrection were read on the Sunday night; and proceeds to reconcile S. Mark's with the rest. Chrysostom

en? verses of S.
at the Liturgy^.

Vespers and at Matins on Ascension Day, Mark's Gospel (ch. xvi. 1420)
Strange, that the self-same Gos-

were read

once and again adverts to the practice of discontinuing the reading of the Acts after Pentecost ", which is observed to
be also the method of the Lectionaries. III. I speak separately of the Festival of the Ascension, for an obvious reason. It ranked, as we have seen, iu the
estimation of Primitive Christendom, with the greatest Festivals of the

pel should have been adopted at a remote age

by some of
in our

the Churches of the "West

',

Church.

Augustine, in a well-known passage,

of Apostolical origin'
;

Book of Common Prayer to 20 was not only appointed by the (c) But S. Mark xvi. 9 Greek Church to be read upon Ascension Day. Those same twelve verses constitute the third of the xi "Matin Gosjtek of the Haiirrection," which were universally held in high
1

and should survive this hour

own

hints that
'

it

may have been

so ex-

tus de cceIo Spiritns Sancti anniTersaria BoUemnitate cclebrantur."

Ep. ad
ad mat.

Biiigbam's Origines, B. ix. c. iv. 2. Chrjs. 0pp. ii. 355. (See the Monitum,

Januarlam, (Opp.
'

"Lect.

fer.

124 B, c). quint., quae etiam Festum Adsccnsionis Dni in

ii.

caelos,

p. 352.)

Cbry*. Opp. ii. 3G0 D. b Epiphaniup, Adv. Hacr. ti, c. ti. c (0pp. i. 439 A.) gpe a\>o\e, pp. 68-9 ood 67. * Opp. iii. 102 B. See Bingbam on this entire subject, B. liv, c. iii. ' " Ilia quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus,quae quidcm tolo terrarnui

eadem ac

leci. tert.

Resurrect,
is

in

Eucbar.

Icct. Bext.

Resurrect."
f,"

But " Lect.

3653."

7 Kesurrectio-.iis" See Dean r=i\-ne

'

" Marc.

xvi.

920 :"

"Lect.

" Luc. xxiv.

orbe observnntur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis CouciliU

quorum

in Ecelesia caluberrium autboritas,

commcndata

atque etatuta

rt-ti-

Smith's Cafahgus Codd. Sgrr. (1804) pp. 116, 127. ' R. Pajne Smith's Catal. p. 148. See above, p. 34, note (e). (ed. Sieronyiai Comes, {td. Pamel. ii. 31.) Bat it U not the Gallican. in this ... It strikes me as just possible that a clue may be 155.) Mabillon,
p.

uuri. Sicut quoil

Domini

Passio.et Bcsurroctio, et Asccusio iu ctulis, ut Advcn-

way supplied

to the singular

phenomenon noted above at

22-8. p. 118, line

206

S.

Mart: ivi.

920

rend at Easter.

[cii Ar.

N.]

liciifir

of the
little

last foiiriceii jiage'i.

2(>7

esteem by the Eastern Churches (Greek and Syrian*), and were read successively on Sundays at Matins throughout the year ; as well as daily throughout Easter week. {(I) A rubricated copy of S. Mark's Gospel in Syriac*. ceridinly older than a.d. 583, attests that S.

III

knows wondrous

about this department of Sacred

to

Science wlio can require to be informed that such a weight

of jnihlic testimony as this
a

the last

Twelve Verses of
single discoverv

Gospel

is

simply overwhelming.

The

Mark xvi. 920 was

the "Lection for the great First Day of the week," (jieydX^ KvptaK^, i.e. Easter Day). Other copies almost as ancient f add that it was used " at the end of the Service at the dawn." (e) Further, these same "Twelve Verses" constituted the Lesson at Matins for the 2;id Sunday after Easter, a.

thnt in the age of Augustine

S. Clark's

[385430] tliis portion of Gospel was nnquestionablj' read at Easter in the

Churches of Africa, added to the express testimony of the Author of the 2nd Homily on the Resurrection, and of the
oldest Syriac

MSS., that

thej'

were also read by the Oiicnlals Church, must bu held

bj' Ecclesiastical

Sunday

which by the Greeks is called KvpuiK^ r&v iivpo<l,6pu>v, but with the Syrians bore the names of "Joseph and Nicodemus '." So also in the " Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum." (/) Next, in the Monophysite Churches of Syria, S. Mark xvi. 918 (or 920"') was also read at Matins on EasterTuesday \ In the Gallican Church, the third lection for Easter-Monday extended from S. Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 11 for
:

at Easter in the public services of the

to be in a

manner

decisive of the question.

is

Let the evidence, then, which

usage to the genuineness of S.
up,

Mark

borne xvi. 9

20, be summed
as early as the

(1.)

and the entire case caused again to pass under review. That Lessons from the New Testament were publicly
sj'steni, at least

read in the assemblies of the faithful according to a definite

scheme, and on an established

fourth century,

Easter-Tuesday, from xvi. 12 to the end of the Gospel'. Augustine says that in Africa also these concluding verses
of S. Mark's Gospel used to be publicly read at Easter tide*. The same verses (beginning with ver. 9) are indicated in the oldest extant Lectionary of the Roman Church '.
{g)

been shewn to be a plain historical (and by implication, his namefact. Cyril, at Jerusalem, sake at Alex!indria,) Chrj'sostora, at Antioch and at Constantinople,

has

Augustine, in
least at

Africa,

all

four expressly witness

tliere is

to the circumstance.

In other words,

found to have

Lastly,

it

may

be stated that S.

Mark

xvi.

920

was

with the Greeks the Gospel for the Festival of S. Magdalene {rj fivpo^opos), July 22'.
EuottAio ivttcraaiiiii iutivL See Scrivener's Introduction, B. P. Smith's Catal. p. 12?. See by aU means. Snicer's Thes. Eccl. Dr. Wright's Catal. p. 70, N. ex. (Addit. 14,464 : fol. 61 i.) t Itid. K. LXi (fol. 92 J), and i.xxn (fol. 87 4).
'

Mary
Bud

throughout the Churches of Christendom a Lectionary, which seems to have been essentiiill)' one and the same in the West* and in the
been at
that time fully established

p. 72,
i.

East.

That
its

it

must have been of even Apostolic antiquity

1229.

may be
dates

inferred from several considerations.

But
to

that

it

beginning from a period anterior

addition to
nil

the age of

p.
is

" Quae titulo Josephi et Xicodemi insignitnr." (R. Payne Smith's Catal. 116.) In the "Synaiarinm" of Matthaei (Nov. Test. 1803, J. p. 731) it styled K. ray /i. xal 'lKari<p toD StKalov. " Adler's If. T. Tern. S^rr. p. 71. Dean Payne Smith's Catal. p. 146. Sd. Mabilton, pp. 144-6. " Besurrectio Domini nostri l.C. ex more legitar bis dicbus [Pascbalibn*]

Kote,

(in

that has gone before,) that the Festivals are

in the earliest L:itin Service Books "Pascha," " I'entecoitcs," (the second,
in
:

artaallv de>i$n>)ted

by

Ihcir

Greek names

notoulv
third

'

Thixijihania," " Epipliauia,"

and

fonrtli

of which appellations snnive in the Church of the West,

;)

me-

ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii." (Opp. v. 977 c)

"Quoniam hoc moris t

moriam, to the present hour

by the
of
Orient.ils in the time

but " Hypapantc," which was the

title t>estowed

.... JUarci Evangelium est quod modo, com legeretnr, andivimns." " Quid Marcnm dicentem?" And be subjoins a quotation from S. Miirk xvi. 12.Hid. 997 P, 998 B. Bieron. Comes (ed. Pamel. ii. 27.) ' So Scrivener's Introduction, p. 75. Little stress, however, is to be laid on
ergo andivimus

of Justinian, on Candlemas Day, (our Feast of the

Purification, or Presentation of

CnElsr

in the Temple-,)

Symeon on

llmt occasion.

Fridiiy, or wapaaKfvri,

from the "Meeting" was called " Paraieere" in

the West. (Mab. Lit. Gall. p. 129.)

So entire was the sympsthy of the East

Day lessons. In Matthaei's " Menologium " (ICob. Test. 1803, i. p. 765), I find that S. Luke viii. 1 4, or else S. John xx. 11 18 was the appointed Lection. See his note (') at p. 750.
Saint's

with the West in such matters in very early times, that when
celebrate the Nativity on the 25th December,

Rome
(as

decided to

Cbrysostom

we have been

reminded) publicly announced the fact at Constantinople ; and it was drterluiued that in this matter East and West would walk by the same rule.

208

Documents alone fail

is

m in

ihix Ingiiirif.

[cmai'.

X.]

These Vereses

conntlftitc

one integral Lection.

200

Eiiscliti.o. tcf.ic/i

the

age of Codices

and

k,

at least

ever come to light of which the rubrication was evidently by

the original Scribe, the evidence of the Lectionaries would
at

admits of no controversy.
of the vi"' centurj' put us in posBBSsion of the great Oriental Lectionary as it is found at that time to have universally prevailed throughout the vast unchanging East. In other words, several of the actual Service Books, in Greek and in Syriac*, have survived the accidents of full a thousand years and rubricated copies of the Gospels carry us back three centuries further.
(2.)
:

Next,Documents

once be carried back

full

three hundred years.

But

in fact
it

we stand

in need of
it

no such testimony.
it

Ac-

ceptable as

would be,

is

plain that

would add no

strength to the argument whatever.

to plant
iii""

We
iv""

are already able

The

which is observed to prevail among these several documents, added to the fact that when tested by
the allusions incidentally
time, there are found to

entire agreement

made by Greek Fathers of the iv**" century to what was the Ecclesiastical practice of their own
emerge countless as
significant notes of correspondence,

and even in the enough to insist that inasmuch as the Liturgical method of Christendom was nt least fully established in the East and in the AVest at the clo5c of tlic iv"" century, it therefore must have had its beginuing at a far remoter period. Our two oldest Codices (U and )
our footsteps securely in the
It is not

century.

bear witness throughout to the corrupting iuflucncc of a sys-

warrants us
any

well as highly in believ-

tem which was evidently

of Eusebius.

in full operation before the time

And even

this

is

not

all.

The

reading's in

ing, (in the absence of testimony of

trary,) that the

sort to the con-

Origen, and of the earliest versions of the Gospel, (the old

Latin, the Syriac, the Egyptian versions,) carry back our

Lectionary we speak of differs in no esfrom that system of Lections with which the Church of the iv"" century was universally acquainted. Nothing scarcely is more forcibly impressed upon us in
sential respect

evidence on this subject unmistakably to the age immediately

succeeding that of the Apostles.
in the course of the

This will be found established

ensuing Chapter.

the course of the present inquiry than the fact, that documents alone are wanting to make ihat altogether demondefault of such evidence, must remain a matter of inevitable inference only. The forms we are pursuing at last disappear from our sight but it is only the
:

we

Beginning our survey of the problem at the opposite end, arrive at the same result; with even a deepened conthat in
its

strable which, in

viction

essential

structure, the

Lectionary of

the Eastern Church must be of truly primitive antiquity

indeed that
almost,
side
to

many
quite,

of

its

leading provisions must date back

mist of the early morning wbich shrouds them. still hear their voices still track their footsteps know that
: :

We

nay

to the Apostolic age.

From
test

whichever
able

we approach

this question,

others
longer.

still

see

them, although

we

ourselves see them no

still are.

apply to our premisses,

our conclusion remains

of the

whatever

we are
still

the

AVe are sure that there they

Moreover they

very same.
(3.)

may
MSS.
in

yet reappear at any moment.

of the Gospels of the

Thus, there exist Syriac

Into this Lectionary then,

so universal in its extent,

vii'*" and even of the vi"" century, which the Lessons are rubricated in the text or on the

"the
place
;

so consistent

in its witness, so Apostolic in its antiquity,

margin.

Syriac

dated a.d. 464".

MS. (of part of the Old T.) is actually Should an Evangelium of similar date

Last Twelve Verses S.Mark" from the verj' first

onlj'

Gospel according

to

are found to have

won

for

themselves not

From
it

(1870)

Professor Wright's Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in Ihe British appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is dated A.D. 824; tbe

Hum*

but, the place of highest honour,

an entrance, a lodgment, an established an audience on two

of the Church's chiefest Festivals.

oldest Nettorian, aj>.

662; the oldest Malkite, a.d. 1023. Tbe respcrti^* numbers of the MSS. are 14,485 j 14,492 ; and 14,488. See bis Catalos'f,
Part
"

The circumstance
to

is

far too important, far too significant

be passed by without a few words of comment.

1.

pp.146. 178, 194.

For
Cod. Aleiandrinus (A.)

it

is

not here, (be

it

carefully observed,)

as

when

It is exhibited in tbe snine glass-case with tbe


210
Tlif (iiiti-Nicciic Tfttiiiioiii/ fo l/u-fc Vcrxi-s

[diav.
X.]
itiii

qui local uikI dtvisiti.

211

we
as

oj)j)(?al

to

some Patristic
f-aino

citation, tliat the recognition of

acc'ej)lo(l
tlic

senses? or do
of ours ?

t!iey really

suppose that

we have taken have

was declared
at tlie

a phrase, or a verse, or a a

couplo of verses, must be

niicicnt

proof that the

Fallicr

recognised

It is time to close this discussion.

It

context also in which tliosc words arc found.

ihf

Not

so.

All
roji;/

outset that

tlie

witness of the Lectionaries to the genuineit

Twchc
tlie

Verses hi dispute arc

fomul

in

cirri/ kiioini

ness of those Yerses, though

is

has been generally overlooked,

:

of

venerable Lectionarj' of the Ea't.

Tlioie

same Ticlrr
coiixlilutc

the most important of any

:

admitting, as
decisive.
I

it

!'(/.-( V,

neither

docs, of

no
the

more nor
not
all.

less,

arc obscncil to

evasion

being simply, as

it is,

have now
I

fullv

one iiitigral Lection.

explained the grounds of that assertion.

have

set

But even

this is

The most important

fact

seems

Yerses, which I undertook to vindicate and establish, on

a basis

to be that to these

higliest possible distinction.

fiist,

S.

Yerses has been assigned a place of the It is found that, from the very 20 has been everywhere, and by all ilark xvi. 9

from which
them.

it

will be

found

impo.'isible

any more

to dislodge

"Whatever GricsbaL-h, and Tischendoif,

and
the

Tregelles, and the rest,

may
in

think about the matter,

brunches of the Church Catholic, claimed for two of the

Holy

luistern

Church

her corporate capacity, has

Thtii

Easter and Ascension. A more more significant circumstance can scarcelv he imagined. To suppose that a portion of Scripture singled out for such extraordinary honour by the Ciiurch universal
Church's greatest Festivals,
weijrhtv or a
is

never been of their opinion.

JVieeiic Fiif/iei-s at least

may

never doubted.
dc^scriedli/

doubt. If " tlie

The uulilast

Twelve

A'erses" of S.

Mark were

omitted from certain

should liave been

Copies of his Gospel in the

is
it

iv"'

century, utterly incredible

dis;

a spurious addition to the Gospel, is purely irrational

is

that these same

Twklve Yerses
in all the

simply monstrous.
" remarkable," could
in

No
by

unauthorized "fragment," however

possibility

seminated, by their authority, througliout Christendom

read, by their

have so established itself the regards of the East and of the "West, from the very

first.

Xo

suspected "addition, placed here in very early

public Service six or seven times a-j'ear.

been tolerated in the Church's solemn No. It is imj>osiible. Had it been one short clause which we were invited to surrender: a verse: two verses: even three or four:
times," would have

by judgment, from the whole body of Scripture for the special honour of being listened to once and again at Eastek time, as well as on Ascension-Day.
selected,
tlicir collective

command,

Churches;

the plea being that (as in the case of the celebrated perieopn the de udulteru) the Lectionaries knew nothing of them any one But for case would have been cntirel}' different.
:

persuade us that these Twelve Verses, which Lections, exactly constitute one of the Church's most famous that the fatal taint begins are every one of them spurious
to

seek

to

with the
a

first

verse,

and only ends with the

last:

//" >

demand on our simplicity which,

would only provoke a smile.

Critics then, (supposing

We

in a less solemn are constrained to testify

subject,

astonishment and even some measure of concern.

Have

tuc

dence which has

them now been set

evito be familiar with the

forth so

much

in detail ;)--

Have

of their the Critics then, (wc ask) utterly taken leave

1-2

CHAP.

XI.]

These Tuelre Verses, irhy

aiicicittly omitted.

213
found

Eccksiastiral Lcetion;

which

lection,

inasmuch as

it is

CHAPTER

XI.

to have established itself in every part of Christendom at

THE OMISSION OF THESE TWELVE VERSES IN CERTAIN ANCIENT COPIES OF THE GOSPELS, EXPLAINED AND ACCOUNTED FOR.
7'lif

the earliest period to which liturgical evidence reaches back, and to have been assigned from the very first to two of the
chiefest

Church

Festivals,

must needs be a
Here then
is

lection of almost
p.

Apostolic antiquity.

Eusebius, I observe, (see

45), desig-

Text of our

fie

oldest

Uncials proved, ly an induction of in-

nates the portion of Scripture in dispute by

its

technical

ttancet, to

the ancient

have suffered depravation throughout ly the operation of Lectionary system of the Church (p. 217). The omis{constituting an integral

name, tion was anciently

indeed.
It
is

K<f>dXaiou or irepiKoir^; (for so an Ecclesiastical leccalled).

fact

a rare coincidence

sion of

S.Mark's "last Twelve Verses"

sheun
to he

in

simply unique.

Surely, I ma}- add

Ecclesiastical Lection,')

probably only one more example

that

it is

in the highest degree suggestive also. It inevitably

of the same depraving influence (p. 224).

I7iis solution

and of ITesyehius

of the problem corroborated by the language of Euttlius (p. 232) ; as well as favoured by the " Western"

order of the Gospels (p. 239).

provokes the inquiry, ^lust not these two facts be not only connected, but even interdependmt f AVill not the omission of the Twelve concluding Verses of S. Mark from certain ancient copies of his Gospel, have been in some way occasioned by the fact that those

AM much mistaken

if the

suggestion which I
itself to

am

ahout

same twelve verses constituted an

to offer

has not alread}' presented

every reader of

ordinarj' intelligence

who

has taken the trouble to follow

far with attention.
It reit is, as it

the course of m}'

argument thus

How is it possible to avoid susintegral Church Lection ? the phenomenon to which Eusebius invites pecting that attention, (viz. that certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel in very
ancient times had been mutilated from the end of tlie 8th verse onwards,) ought to be capable of illustration, will

quires no acuteness whatever,

merest instinct of
follows

mother-wit, on

seems to me, the

reaching the present

stage of the discussion, to debate with oneself somewhat as

:

1. So then, the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel were anciently often observed to be missing from the copies. Eusebius expressly says so. I observe that he nowhere says

and in a word accounted for, have in circumstance that at the 8th verse of S. Mark's xvi"" by the chapter, one ancient Lection eoiue to an eifl, and another
fact to be explained,

ancient Lection began

that their genuineness

self,

was anciently

suspected.

As

for him-

must every unpreHeader of intelligence hold parley with himself ou judiced

Somewhat

thus, (I venture to think,)

his elaborate discussion of their contents convinces

me

that individually, he regarded

fact,

them with

favour.

The mere

(it

is

best to keep to his actual statement,)

all

that

reaching the close of the preceding chapter. I need hardly add that I am thoroughly convinced he would be reasoning I am going to shew that the Lectionary practice rightly.
of the ancient Church does indeed furnish a sufficient clue in other for the unravelment of this now famous problem enables us satisfactorily to account for the omission words,
:

" the entire passage " was " not met with in
is

the copies,"

and two Greek manuscripts, yet extant, supposed to be of the iv*"* century (Codd. B and k).
the

sum of

his evidence

mutilated in this precise wa}', testify to the truth of his

statement.

of these Twelve Verses from ancient copies of the collected But I mean to do more. I propose to make my Gospels.

'

But then it is found that these self-same Twelve Terscs, anciently constituted an inleginl neither more nor less,
2.

appeal to documents which shall be observed to bear no More yet. I propose that faltering witness in my favour.

The resder

in

requested to refer back to

p.

45, and the note there. The

Eusebius himself, the chief author of all this trouble, shall resyllable his be brought back into Court and invited to

iictnil irordt

of usebiua are given in Appendix (B).


214

Copin of the Goxpch uml

I an,

ancicfly io he
if

[^nAT.

X..]

ii'/np/i

'I

io Lnt'iOiiarij ptii-pose.-

21;

Evidence; and
observed to

let fall

even he will not be a Lint that we have at lust got on xZ

this
least

much mistaken

passing) deserve a far greater

hitheito been bestowed upon

amount of attention than has them

'^.

"""'^'^ ''""^'^ ^" took i.'T* ;T^"-" t'^k Its first beg,,g;_ad, (what is not purpose.) have correctly apprehended what was meaning in what he himself has said.

mistake
to

When

the Lectionary

first

took the form of a sejiarate

the
real

book, has not been ascertained.

exist (whether in

That no copy

is

known

to

his

own

Greek or

in Syriac) older

than the

viii"'

The proposed
dence on which
exhibited

century,

proves notliing.

solution of the difficulty.-if not the eviIt

Codices in daily use. (like

the

withm exceedingly narrow

its

immediately rests.-might no doubt be

limits.

Bibles used in our Churches,) must of necessity have been of exceptionally brief duration; and Lectionaries. more even

weight and value would inevitably fail to be recognised, even by those who already enjoy some fannharity w th tbese studies. Very few of the cinsid": ons which I shall have to rehearse are in fact
evident that their bearing on the problem before us has hitherto altogether escaped their notice. Om the other hand, by one entirely a novice to this depart.nent of sacred Science. I eould scarcely hope to be so much as understood. Let me be allowed, therefore, to preface what 1 have to say with a ie^ explanatory details which I promise shaU not be tedious, and which I trust ^iU not be tound altogether without interest either. If they are anywhere else to be met with, it is my misfortune, not my fault, that I have been hitherto unsuccessful in discovering the place. i. l<rom the earliest ages of the Church,
it

abruptly, however,

Set

down

than Biblical
II.

MSS. were

liable to injury

and decay.

But
to

it is

to be observed,

more

my

present purpose,)
lections

that besides transcribing

it

(and

to explain lliis, is

much
llie

Ecclesiiistical

into separate books,

became the
began
in
(ai

to Critics:

yet

unknown

practice at a very early period io adapl copies of the Go!<j>eh

io kciioiian/ piirposif.

is

I suspect that this practice

;

the Cliurches of Syria

leaiii

for Syriac copies of the

Gospels

of the

vii""

century) abound, which have the Lections

more or
is in

less systematically rubricated in tlie

Text*.

There

the British

Museum

a copy of S. Mark's Gospel ac-

cording to the Peshito version, ceriainhj uriiien previoua io A.D. 583, which has at least five or six rubrics so inserted

by the original
MSS.,
(I

scribe'.
tliose

As

a rule, in all later cursive

xii"" to

Greek

mean

of the

the xv"" century,) the

:

Ecclesiastical lections are indicated throughout

while either
elaborately

(as I

at

page 192-5.)

shewed
certain

at the summit, or else at the foot of the page, the formula

it

has been customary to read

with which the Lection was to be introduced

inserted
;

is

defimte portions of Holy Scripture, det'ermined by Ecclesiastical authority, publicly before the Congregation. In process of time, as was natural, the sections so required for public use were collected into separate volumes Lections Irom the Gospels being written out in a Book which was
:

prefaced probably

b)'

a rubricated statement (not

always ver)- easy to decipher) of the occasion trhen the ensuing portion of Scripture was to be read.
a far greater extent than
*

The

ancients, to

ourselves',

were accustomed,
nondum
sic ut decet

" Evangclistarionim codices

literis

uncialibus script!

Ecauaelisfariumr {ei,a'^y,\c<yT6ptov.)-irom the Acts and Epistles, in a book called " Praxaposfoh,,," [-Trpa^a-nocTToXos:). These Lectionary-books, both Greek and Syriac. are yet extant in great numbers b, and (I may remark in
"

CBi.\eA''

in usuni rrilicuiu conversi sunt."

Tisthendorf, quoted by Scrivener, [^Introl)oen sepirately

duclioH to Cod. Augiensit,

80

pages which have

and arc
ture

trrll

deserving of study,

p. 4S,]

who

adds,

"

published

cannot even conjec-

why an
of the

Kvangelistarium should be thought of Icss value than another

age."

WS.
-

Biinie

See also Scrivener's Introiuelion, 4c.

:

p. 211.

c.g. .J</.W.

J/SS. 12,141

14,449: 14,430-2-4-5-0-7-8: 14,461-3: 17,113-

S3Ctbecnomeration of Greek Service-Book,

'''';,

"'^ ^^""'^ Loctionaries, see Dean Pavne Smith's Cala. (18G4) pp. 114.29.31.45.8: also Professor V^r.^U'.' Catalogue, (1870) pp 146 to 203.-I ava,I mjselfof this opportunity to thank both those learned Scholars for their valuable assistance, always most obligingly rendered.

r %.

"7

in Scrivener's 7^rfr//<,.,

4-5-6: (= 15 Codd.
Catalogtit,

in all:)

from

p.

45 to

p.

06 of Professor Wright's
p. 70.)

J"

Adtlil.

MS.

14,404.

(See Dr. Wright's Catalogue,

'Add to

the eight examples adduced

p. 11),

by Mr. Scrivener from our ll>ok

of C. P., (Introduction,

the following

: Gospels

for Quinquagc=inui,


216
The Lcctiumry System fw<
I,

to the

[chap.

X..]

tl,j>rnrafion

of Codil. B, k. A, C, D.

2i:

a rk,)-io prefix unauthorized forluulfc to tbe.r public Lections ; and these are sometimes found lo Lave established themselves so firmlv, that
it

(in fact, they

made

the text of Scripture has been depraved.

add, that by a judicious, and above all

Let

me

not

fail

to

by an

viijmjiitficetl

became as
fourfold

at last they

it

were ineradicable; and

use of the materials at our disposal,

.

it

later copyists

maj', even at this

of the

Gospel are observed to introduce them unsuspi. ciously into the inspired text"'. All that belongs to this
;

distance of time, in every such particular, be successfully'

restored

subject deserves particular attention because it is which explains not a few of the perturbations (so to express oneself) which the text of the New Testament has

Mm

III. I

now proceed
niid

to shew,

by an induction of
exinteiice,

instances,

that crni
N,

in the oldest copies in

mean
'When

in Codd. ]{,

A, C,
left

D, the Lcctionary system of the early Church

its

experienced

^A e are made to understand how, what was originally intended only as a liturgical note, became mistaken, through the inadvertence or the stupidity of copyists, for a critical

has

abiding traces of

operation.
all

a few such

undeniable cases have been adduced,

objections grounded

on prima
disposed

facie

improbability will have been satisfuctorily

activity, as well as the existence of
lia-st

and thus, besides transpositions without number, there has arisen, at one time, the insertion of something unsiu/ffistion
;

of.

The

such

a disturbing force and depraving influence, at

as far
in fact

authorized into the text of Scripture,-at another, the omission of certain inspired words, to the manifest detriment of the sacred deposit. For although the systematic rubrication of the Gospels for liturgical purposes is a comparatively recent invention, (I question if it be older in Greek MSS. than the x"" century,)yet will persons engaged in the public Services of God's House have been prone, from the very earliest age, to insert memoranda of the kind
referred
fact, it
to,

back as

tlie

beginning of the
full

iv"" centur}-,

(but

it is

more ancient by
established
sion,
:

two hundred

years,)] will

have been

that the

of which I shall only have to shew, in concluomission of " the last Twelve A'^erses" of

S. Mark's Gospel is probably but one more instance, though confessedly by far the most extraordinary of any. (1.) From Codex B then, as well as from Cod. A, tlie two grand verses which describe our Lord's "Agony and Bloody

into the

margin of

Sweat,"

(S.

Luke

xxii. 43, 44,) are missing.

their copies.

In

this

way, in

may

be regarded as certain that in countless minute particulars

after TrinitT, Whitsunday. Aeccn.iou below, p. 220), AU Saints. Thus the words tUt ti i Kipto, (S.Luke yd. 31) which introducf on i.ccUa.lical Lection (Friday iu the iii'fwe^k of S.Lule,) inasmuch a> the words are found in no uncial MS, and are omitted besides by the Syriac, Vulgate, Gothic and Coptic Versions, must needs be regarded as a liturgical inter-

verses arc absent also from a few other important

The same two MSS., as

fas-

well as from both the Egyptian versions

but I desire to

2nd S. .(Ict Ea.ter, 9tli, 12th, 22nd Day, SS. Philip and James (see

ten attention on the confessedly erring testimony in this place of Codex B.

" Confessedly erring," I

is

saj*

for the genuine-

place. It wiU be kindred to the present inquiry that I should point out that in S. Mark ivi. 9, 'Ay^ri, i Iva^ov, IS constantly met with in Greek MSS., and even in some copies of the A ulgate; and yet there can be no doubt that here also the Holy Name i an
interpolation which has originated from the same cause as the preceding.
f.ict

and which owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Teitus Receptus, in the Vulgate and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the Gospel for the IX' Sunday after Pentecost hegint at thai
;

polation. The same is to be said of i -i^mC, in which Origen and Chrysostom. as

S. JIatth. liv.

22,-worJ.

well as the Syriac versions, omit

clearly

no longer disputed. Now, in every known Evangelistarium, the two verses here omitted by Cod. B follow, (the Church so willed it,) S. Matth. xxvi. 39, and are read as a regular part of the lesson for the Thursday in Holy Week'. Of course they are also omitted in the same Evangelistaria from the lesson for the Tuesday
ness of tliose two verses
**

Kot, of course, so long

11,

as the present senseless fashion prevails of

1,

regard-

ing Codex

(to

which,

if

Cod. L. and Codd.

all

33 and 69 are added,

it is

on/y

because they agree vlth ), as an

Scripture
;

but

infallible

guide in settling the text of

in exist-

and quietly taking

it

for

granted that all the other IISS.

The

ence have entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive mankind.

Until this

is.

singularly

iUustrated by the insertion

of "

10

'

in

Cod. 2i7

most
>

uncritical method, this

most unpliilosophical theory,

is

is

unconditionally

(=

Beg. 69,) rutro above tie tame contraction

(for 6 -Incovs) iu the text.

abandoned, progress in this department of sacred Science See Matthaei'i

simply impossible.

uoU on

S.

Luke

xxii. 43,

{Not. Test. ed. 1803.)


218
T(.HofCoil(l.]i,^,A,C,D(hpr(ticil
(rri

[cimi-.

xi.]

hi/ 11.'

oprinfion of

ili(

DcticDKuy

Si/^lon-

210

after Scxagesiinn,

rijy rvpo<f>uyov, as tlio

Easterns

that day,) wlicn S.

used to be read. Moreover, in nil ancient copies of the Gospels which have been accoinmodated to ecclesiastical use, f/ic readrr of S. Luhr
xxii.
xxiii. 1

Luke

39

call

jrXevpm-

Afll f'fOXflei'

vtcop Koi al/ia.

(Chrysostom's codex was

evidently vitiated in iircrhclij

the same nay.)

This interpola-

xxii.

I's

intaridUy (Urcclid

hi/

a wanjitwl note to have out thor

ver. 42 to ver. 45 ^. tiro jv AVhat nioie obvious tliei efore than that the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in S. Luke's Gospel is to be attributed to nothing else but tlie Lectionary practice of the Quite unreasonable is it to impute heprimitive Church ? retical motives, or to invent any other unsupported theory,
;-,

and

to proceed jicr mltiim

from

influence tion therefore >/-'7//have resulted from the corrupting See Appendix (H). of Tatian's (so-called) "Harmony." B and concur in what (3.) To keep on safe ground. Cudd. Alford justly cr-lls the "grave error" of simply omitting from S. Luke xxiii. 34, our Loitn's supplication on behalf of 'Iijaov<; eXeye, Udrep, a<p<! avToh' ov murderers, (o

His yap

o't^aai tI -TTOtovai).
;

They

are not quite singular in so

while this plain solution of the difficulty

(2.)

is

at hand.
n, C, L,

countenance by certain Egyptian copies of the old Latin, as well as by both the in so many ancient How is this "grave error" versions.
doing
being, as
usual,

kept in

The same Cod.

B., (with

which Codd.
at the

U and T
Matth.

are observed here to conspire,) introduces the piercing of the

MSS. to "a fatal

Saviour's side
xxvii. 49.

(S. Jolin

xix. 34)

end of

S.

Kow,

I only

do not

insist that this

must needs

be the result of the singular Lectionarj' practice already* described at p. 202, because a scholiou in Cod. 72 records the

"grave error," or rather Simply by the fact that omission" it certainly is). Thursday after in the Eastern Church the Lection for the iiiimedintcli/ before thc^e rery Sexagesiina lr,aJ.-'< of ahriipthj, to recommence at ver. 44 iiorild,
bo accounted for?
(for a

'.

singular fact that in the Dlatessaron of Tatian,' after S. Matth.

xxvii. 48,

was read

SXKo'; Se \a^u>v "Koyxrjv evv^ev airov t^v

be best understood by actual reference to a manuscript. In Cod. EviiM. 436 (Meerman 117) nbicb lies before me, tbesc directions are
^ Tliis will

" Gospel of the PasNote, that at ver. 32, t/w eighth why Codd. B and S (with cion" t(;////.s, which is the reason in the Egyptian versions) exhibit a singular irregularity Syriac introduces the that place and why the Jerusalem 'Irjcrov) at established formula of the Lectiouaries (aw toJ
(4.)
;

given as fullons.

After t6

<rhv

yfvtaSiD

(i.e. tlie

last

words of

ver. 42), is rit-

ten {rnipfia tU t4 tJi 7.

after

Then, at the end of

koI ivainas. Sic.
clinp. xxvi,

ver. 44, is written

tp^ou t5 7,

the same juncture. absence of the famous (If I do not here insist that the
perieopn
rfc

which follows the text

S.

adulferd

(S.

John

vii.

53 viii.

11,)

from so
it

In
for

Matthew's Gospel, at

which contains the Liturgical section

Thursday in Holy Week (rp ii-)lq xa) /u7oAp '), my Codex has been only ini|)crfectly rubricated. Let me therefore be allowed to quote from Ilarl. MS. 1810, (our Cod. Evan. 113) which, at fol. 84, at the end of S. Matth.
xxvi. 30, reads as follows,
(i.e.

manv M^S.,
is is

is to be explained in precisely the

same way,

Gospel only because the genuineness of that portion of the propose, in this enumeration generally denied; and I

immediately after the words,

is

i\\' at ov

'.

S(

vndfTa.)

But

in order to explain what

:

meant, the above rubricated

Jj^

word and sign are

re)>eated at foot, as follows

:

vndvTa

t'ls

-rh

koto Aovrir

I am conof instam-cs, not to set foot on disputed ground. occasion of the omission vinced, nevertheless, that the first practice of the of those memorable verses was the lectionary

iv Kf^aKaiif p9. &<p0Ti St avTtp AyytKos

cTto arpatpfU ivravBa niKiVj h.iyf' ool

S. to)

IpXfTai vpls Tovs naBriris

which arc the 6rst words of

from primitive Church, which, on "Whitsunday, read

vii.

S.

John

Matth. xxvi. 40.

immediately after

Accordingly,

my

Codex (No. 436, above referred

37 to

viii.

12, lenrhig out

the tirelve rerfea in question.

S.Luke

xxii. 42, besides

rris iityiKris i.

the rubric already quoted, has the following: if(ev Then come the two famous verses (ver. 43, 44); and, after the the following rubric occurs
:

words iyacrris
TTJs fityaKris t

oirJ ttjs irpoatvx^s,

irai'Ta til t4

from the nature of their contents, (as Augusviewed with dislike or sustine declares,) easily came to be century, Tiie passage, however, is as old as the second

Those

verses,

picion.

Mard, tpxtTtu pis tovs fiafiijrds. [With the help of my nephew, (Rev. W. . Kose, Curate of Holy Trinity, Its text most nearly Windsor,) 1 have collated every syllable of Cod. 436.

for

found in certain copies of the old Latin. Jerome deliberately gave it a place in the Vulgate.
it is
I

Moreover
I pass on.)

resembles the Itev. F.

H.

Scrivener's

1,

m,

n.]

Sec by

all

means Mntthaci's

yor>. Test. (ed. 1803,)

i.

p. 491,

and 492.


220
(5.)

'

Ttit of CmhI. B,ti, A, C, IJ (lepra led

[chap.

XI.]

/.//

t/,(

ojimi/ion of the Leclioiiari/

is

.Sy7<7./.

22]

The two

oldest

Codices in existence,
S.

and
is

n,

reads tyheTO Se', which

tus.

the rending of the Textus Ecccp-

stand all but alone in omitting from

Luke

vi. 1

the unique
also

and indubitably genuine word ievTtpoTrpcoTq) ; which omitted by the Peshito, Italic and Coptic rersions.
j-et,

Ka\

Latin,) exhibits Cod. D, (with some copies of the old is observable in this All the diversity which eyivfTo.

And
hegim

place,

(and

it

is

considerable,)

is

owing
In

to the fact that

when

it is

observed that an

Ecclesta-iiical lection
iiivarinbfi/

an

E'cch<ir..<tiral

lection

begins herev.

different Churche?,

here,

and that the Evangelistaria (which

more familiar
if

leave out

was introduced slightly the formula w4th which the lection

differed.

such notes of time) simply drop the word,

for eV cra/9/3aTa) the

only substituting

tois

aa^^aai,

everj'

one

will be

ready to admit that

the omission of this word be

not due to the inattention of the copyist, (which, however,

seems to

me

not at

all

unlikely,)

it is

suflBciently explained

by the Lectionary practice of the Church, which may well date back even to the immediately post- Apostolic age. (6.) In S. Luke xvi. 19, Cod. D introduces the Parable of Lazarus with the formula, eltrev S koX eripav Trapaj3o\i^v which is nothing else but a marginal note which has found its way into the text from the margin being the liturgical introduction of a Church-le-ison'' which afterwards began elirev o Kvpios T7JI' vapa0o\r)v Tavrqv". (7.) In like manner, the same Codex makes S. John xiv.
;

supported by Chrysostom and Jerome, as and the Philoxenian Syiiae, well as by the Peshito, Cureton's reading o 'Irjaoin at the and Eome MSS. of the old Latin, in words have no busibeginning of S. :Matth. xi. 20. That the So also is the cause of there, is universally admitted.
(9.)

Cod.

is

ness

The Eecl,siai<lical recognized. their interpolation generally after Pentecost begins in the iv"" week lection for Wednesday begins with the formula, tV tu> icaipu
at that

phur

and

oveihlfyiv. eVfiVw, vpSoTO 6 'Itjo-ov? Similarly, in S. Matth. xii. (10.)

;

9, xiii. 30,

and

xiv. 14,

which on all three occaCod. C inserts 6 ''Irjaov^ a reading Syriac and some copies of the sions is countenanced by the three, by Origen also. And Latin, and on the last of the
old

begin with the liturgical formula,

(it

survives in our

Book of

that ret there can be no doubt

'siastical

it

is

only because Eccle-

Common
ainov
:

Prayer* to this very hour!)

it
is

places", ihat the lections begin at those

Holy Name

KaX elirevroli |xa6r||^a^s

in which

countenanced by certain

Vulgate and of the old Latin Version.

MSS. of the Indeed, it may be

it

is

introduced there.
(11
)

stated generally concerning the text of Cod. D, that

bears

marks throughout of the depraving

Lectionary practice.

influence of the ancient

Instances of this, (in addition to those

elsewhere cited in these pages,) will be discovered in S. Luke

iii.

23
:

iv.

16 (and
:

xix. 45)
:

v. 1
:

and 17:

vi.

37 (and

xviii.

15)

rii. 1

Cod.

is

xx. 1 in all but three of which. kept in countenance by the old Latin, often by the
x. 1

and 25

that the Sacred Name is confessedly an indicated at foot,-its presence interpolation in the six places fact that, in each, an Eecleswstical being accounted for by the in one of these places, Cod. A in Cod. lection bci,lns\ by the old Latin, the Syriac, the four is kept in countenance ;-convincing indications of Coptic and other early versions Lectionary practice of the Church the extent to which the as the second century of established itself so early
Let

me add

had
our

Syriac,

and by other
Cod. A,

versions of the greatest antiquity.

But

tcra.

to proceed.
(8.)

old Latin and Egyptian verCod D. and copies of the

(instead of avrov.) in S.

(supported

by Athanasius, the Vulgate,

sions also read toO 'Iv<^ov,

xiv. 3;
r

Mark
A
also

Gothic, and Philoxenian versions,) for KaC, in S.

"

Luke

ix. 57,

which

is

only because a Church

i.e.

lesson begins there.

vi..

coB^ir^- e:

the

ix'"

Saturday in S. Luke.-Note that Cod.

See above,

p. 75,

note (h).
quite

SucL variations
:

ai'e

common.

For the 6tb Sunday of S. Luke. Matthaei, with his nsual accurarv,
i.

't:Jt;:.'w"^tl:;^N
ilipviii''

Thur.aoy
S.

the

vi.'

.eek after Pentecost

points out several

p.

e.g. A'ot. Teil.

(1788) vol.
15), &c.

p.

19 (note

26), p.

23

vol.

ii.

10 (note 12),

p.

14 (notes 14 and

SS. Philip and Janu-s.

V2.

M^.

SuiuUv after Pentecost. 2 iv.36.

:

John

i.

29 (ri.a..,.): 44: V..14.

,,, .......

;:

222
(12.)

Trxt ofli,

s,

A,C,D

[chap.
(1.3
,

drprawl

hi/ Liliirijiciiljhnniildi'

2J:5

The same Cod. D is nil but unique in leaving oul that memorable verse in S. Luke's Gosi)cl (xxiv. 12), in which S. I'eter's visit to the Sc])ulchre of our risen Loru
finds particular mention.
It is

only because
of the
iv"'

tliat

verse was

remark generally In conclusion, I may of the again, of perturbations ocur' instances, again and somet.nies with (corresponding Text in our oldest MSS.. ancient of the lathers.) for by the most .e?dio"s vouched

that there

claimed both as the

hfgiiiniiiff

coiicfiision

and

also as the

;;ch^aamit of no more
than by
nrimitive Church'.

solut intelligible or inoffcns.ve

of the v"' Gospel of the Resurrection: so that the

Lect.onary practice of the roforrlng the.n to the

instead of .al

liturgical note apx'' stands at the beginning,

rcXoy at the

end of
Latin.

it.

Accordingly,

'

is

kept in countenance here only

by the Jerusalem Lectionarj' and some copies of the old

But what

is to

be thought of the editorial judgment

which (with Tregelles) encloses this verse within brackets and (with Tischendorf) rejects if from the text altogether ? (13.) Codices B, s, and D are ahiie among ^ISS. in omitting the clause SieXOwv Bta fikaov axnCiv' Koi irapTyyev oCrwy,
at the
is

aln . Cod. B reads, and, .s_ .o'Xv.a (S. Matth. XX. 17), and o h,aov. . iva^airn^ unique in reading,) MeXX<.. ,n tl- "-e sometimes quotes the place
,

Xs when

ava^aU^.v

, 6U.o..
.

e. Upo-

when Orison

sometitnes

is

observed to ^^^-^^^^^^^ ^^^

IlolvXame

in the sentence;

when

.^'^^^^
two
of

end of the 59th verse of S. John

viii.

The

omission

to be accounted for

by the

fact that just there the

v"'

Church-

M^^ i.:: m".^

are (and Origen once,)

observed to
lastly,

"2-7-^,^^'^^:, e put the sau

Field

rf,r'Ie;oa6Xv^a:

when,

lesson for

Tuesday in the

Aveek

after Easter

came

to.

LVe
Tt
hi

(and and one'of Matthaei's. known,) omit the words 'if the truth were

I dare say a grea

many
I.aov.

an end.
(14.)

;i

Again.

It is not at all
at the

in cursive
ral

MSS.,

end of S.

an unusual thing to find Matth. viii. 13, (with sevetasteless

^faco,

. true disturbing force :-'rAo sees not that the downwards, h our a.ra from the ii- century of

Ce:!fiyL<ctionnr,
fac

practice of

varieties),

the

spurious

and

appendix,

KaX

for the that tl.nr the lection

thepnm.tire Thursday after the

b
.

mu f'''^'^

viroarpey^av 6 e/Karoi'Tap^o? ei? tov oIkov ainov iv avrfi rp

(opa evpev tov TT-alBa vyialvovra
:

tLayanerl.ntecostWan^-A,.Un.nia^
IT
It

a clause which owes

its

then, in has been proved

,1,..,

existence solely to the practice of ending the lection for the

iv""

Sunday
it is

But

manner'. words are not only in cursive MSS. that these

after Pentecost in that unauthorized

found.

Thei/ are

met with also in the Code*

Sinnitictis (K)

a witness at once to the inveteracj' of Liturgical usage in

the
iv""

""

century of our

a;ra,

and

to the
will

conuptions which

exercised n

aepraMug ''rrX

La "0.
1

ot . peculiar k".d ,1 /7,,\. ic the onlv /

. 0,.

"

-."

pomt

the

"Codex omnium antiquissimus"

no doubt have

in-

t.xt of Scripture.

herited from a yet older copy than

itself.

^ now

of tic

^-^^rJ-1\^thl that concerned to establish), as well as A. Go^j>cl.r-B and K

t^.

^n ^.

" '"/

C and
, .,

Zi.. J^.^
iH.

to

which Bhould perhaps be added xxi.

1,

where B, K, A,

(nolD) nil
1

*lr}aovs.

See by
vol.

till
i.

means Matthaei's interesting note on the

113-4.
It Bhould

place,

Abr.

Tetl-

j-^.,,,
L.
a

r*ial

'>'"" 29

x>''-

.eh

(and four other uuciaU), together with the Philoxeiiian and Hierosolymitan versions, concur " Origcnc* Matthaei remarks, exhibiting the same spurious clause.
(17SS)
p.

be mentioned that

Col C

phraseology . pl.oe.. wbil. tbv

-'^-^ -- ;^: ""

^'"J

lo. ixi 1^ "'

1but the
'. .

attentive student will

jj similar ::;:?u;:a -i^iL .hichtbe

,,,
;,

^^j..^^'

discovered that

in

euni > 171 d) banc pericopaiu baud adeo diligentcr recenseiu termint "' Will not the disturbing Leciiouary-praelice of his day ytrtieiyrai aoi."
(iv.

.naj begins . Uu.se places.jo force of.be d-turb.ng the name i. jo.^.i.u of

e.bibUs

....

so exeee .ng

""^^^J^'^t^^.e
p.

^^^^^ that e have

a.rch
Tvi,.

J..<.'..

^^_^

^,_^^.^^ f

ami M.

(Field's

ar,..

ficicntly explain Origen's omission ?

Cv..to:., .v n,ade so entirely arc Itey ovalooUed

litUc account
?

^^^^'^^^Xs. of?
>J;_^|;^^.^_
^,

for cxanU-K'.
,.,, .,

-'>

.,..

'2'2i

JlSS./iinii^ficd of the

trit/i

LHi(rf/ica/ dinctioiix.

[chap.
to

XI.] xvi.

"teaoc"
31
is

or
;

"to teaoc"

i)i

Gnd

Evnn^ilin.

2J">

not a few traces

errors,
affect

mischievous agcncj' nlluded

reached

after

which, the sign abounds. In Codex

nnd especially

oiiii>'sioiif!,

which sometimes seriously

L, the original notes of Ecclesiastical Lections occur at the following rare and irregular intervals
X.
:

the character of those

Truih of Scripture.
S.

JIark xvi. 9

20
is

proceed

Codices as witnesses to the now to consider the case of

S.

46

xii.

40 (where the sign has

ver. 44)
:

lost its

Mark way it
;

ix.

should

onl}-

prefacing m)' remarks with a few

have stood against

oJdcf't

xv. 42 and xvi. 1

r.

In the

necessary words of explanation.

uncials, nothing of the

(vi"'

kind

is

discoverable.

Even

in

V, lie who takes into his hands an ordinary cursive

of the Gospels,
larly indicated

MS.

the Codex Bczx,

tion coeral

century,) not a single liturgical direcis

prepared to find the Church-lessons regu-

nUh

the

MS.

anywhere

to be found.

throughout, in the text or in the margin.

"^
i

YI.

And

yet,

although the practice of thus indicating the

familiar contraction, executed probably in verraillion

beginning and the end of a liturgical section, docs not socni to have come iuto general use until about the xii"' century;

ap, indicates the

"beginning" (apxv) of each

*

lection

a corre-

and although, previous

to the ix"' century, sysiciiiatic litur-

sponding contraction
(reXo?.)

a.

.^

indicates

its

"end"
body of
j

gical directions are probably

unknown';

the

nnd

of tbcm

Generally, these rubrical directions, (for they are

else,)

iiothing

are inserted for convenience into the

the text,

from which

the red pigment with which they are

almost invariably executed, effectually distinguishes them.

must have been experienced by one standing up to read beThe want of some refore the congregation, long before. minder where he was to begin, above all, of some hint where he was to leave off, will have infallibly made itself Accordingly, there are not wanting infelt from the first.

But
had

all these

particulars gradually disappear

as.

recourse
in

is
'

dications that, occasionally, tcAoc (or to

leAoc; was written

to older

and 3et older MSS.

tlie

matters have noticed that even the

The studious memorandums

Codex.

such

as to the

"beginning" and

"end"

of a lection are rare, almost

in proportion to the antiquity of a

When
;

they do
i

in the margin of Copies of the Gospels at an exceedingly remote epoch. One memorable example of this practice is where in S. Mark xiv. 41, supplied by the Codex Bezaj (D) wpa, we meet with the unr, instead of a-rrexec v^Oev
:

occur in the later uncials, the}' do not

by any means always

l

intelligible
else

anexti to

teAoc

kqi

wpa.

Now, nothing

seem to have been the work of the original scribe

has care been always taken
a different colour.
that whereas the sign
rally

neither

to indicate

them

in

ink of

It will further be observed in such

MSS.
gene/

has here happened but that a marginal note, designed originally to indicate the end (to teAocj of the lesson for
J

where the reader

is to

begin

is

In Bome cursive

MSS.

also,

(in

order
(lie

the better to attract his attention,)

in-

auciout originals), Uie eame

phenomenon

(which have been probaUy transcribed from Thus, iu Evan. 205 is observed.
ix.

serted in

Margin of the Codex, the note where he

introduced info the body of the
to be noted)

is to

{=
T\l
'

Keg. CO), TEA only occurs, iu S. Mark, at

8.

9 and 41

iv.

32 and 41

leave

off,

(in

order the more effectuall}' to arrest his profext^.

Apx

ttt

xvi. 1.

It ir

striking to observe that so Uttle were these tccle-

gress,) is as a rule

In

Elastical notes

(embedded

in the text)

understood by the possessor of the IIS.,

(he
* '''-

uncial MSS., however, all such sj'mbols are not onl}' rare,

(where "TeA":" stands that iu the margin, over against ch. xv. 41,
teit) a

but (what

is

much

somewhat Uter hand has ivTittcn,-Te>i>j] T[lt] <l>p>0-

regular in their occurrence.

they are exceedingly irThus in Codex T, in the Bod-

lar liturgical note

(

=Keg.
:

may he seen over against ch. ix. 9, and elsewhere. Cod. 25 of Utuigical 191), at the end of S. Mark's Gosfol, has only tiio notes
viz. at ch. xv. 1

leian Library, (a recently acquired uncial

pels,

MS.

of the Gos-

endings

and 42.

written a.d. 844), there occurs

"end"

of a single lection

no indication of the in S.Luke's Gospel, until chap.

occur the Si/r!ac Evaugelia, as explained above (p. 215), instances tlic original scribe. of far more aueient MSS. which exhibit a text rubricated by 4C Even here, however, (as may he learned from Ur. Wright's Calaloffue, ly.

Among

e.g. in

Cod. Evan. 10 and 270.

66,) such Rubrics hive been only irregularly

inserted in the oldest copies.

226
the third

The

nnifilailon acco'nitcd for

ii""

[aur.

XU-]
to traincrihc

of Codd.

B and^,

at S.Jfurl- xvi. 8.
(as

227
he thought,)
8.

day of the

waj- from the end of ver.

of ver. 41,

to

week of the Carnival, has lost iu J2, and got thrust into the t<?xt
I find
(i)

any further, having before him,

an assurance that

"the end" had been

omission
:

reached at ver.

tlic
is

D's error hcic

manifest destruction of the sense'. shared () by the Poshito Syriac,

{c)
! :

YIII. That some were found in very early times eagprly

to acquiesce in this

by

to sanction
;

it

even to mulor

the old Latin, and

ners in error, truly

this false

by the Philoxenian renerable partfor the first two probably carry back

tiply copies of the

Gospel so mutilated

(critics

commenapparent
to

tators intent on

nothing so
the
^.

much

as reconciling, the

reading to the second cfufuri/ of our ara ; and bo, furnish one more remarkable proof, to be added to the fifteen
(or rather

discrepancies in

Evangelical narratives:)

appears

me not

at all unlikely

Eusebius almost says as much, when

is

the forty) already enumerated (pp. 21 7-23), that the

he puts into the mouth of one who

these versos altogether,
a
i-1

for getting rid of

lessons of the Eastern

Church were

settled at a period long

tlic
//

remark

that "the}'

would be in
(The ancients

anterior to the date of the oldest

MS.

of the Gospels extant.

us, I venture

manner

superfluous ;/
irith

should apjunr that ihiir tcsliniony

)i>-tt

VII. Returning then to the problem before

to suggest as follows
this

at variance

that of the other Ernixji

'."

:What

if,

at a very remote period,

were giants in
it

Di^-initj-

but children iu Criticism.)

On

the

same isolated
xvi. 8,
ii'"'

liturgical

note (to reAoc) occurring at

other hand, I altogether agree with

Dean Alford
it

iu thinking

S.Mark
for the

suggested to

(which k "the end" of the Church-kclion Sunday after Easter,) should have unhappily some cojjyist, /caX\ypoi/)('a? quam vel Criiiat
pcrifior,

highly improbable that the

difiBcuIty

of harmonizing one
is,)

Gospel with another in this place, (such as

cause
(1)
wlij'

was the
''.

these Twelve Verses were originall}' suppressed

Sacra
entire

ret

rcrum Liturgicarum
according
see
to

the notion
to

that the
at

First, because there reallj'

was no need

to withhold
if this
it

more

" Gospel
8
?

S.

Marl;" came

an end

than three,

at
(i.

the utmost, five of them,

(2)

no more probable account of the matter, I say, than this : That the mutilation of the last chapter of S.Mark has resulted from the fact, that some very ancient
scribe tni=tnpprchcnded the import of the solitary liturgical note

verse

.... I

the reason of the omission.

'

Kext, because

had been would have

a codicc
niirniii

So

Scliolz

200)

" Pericopa hn;c cam qvodam fors.Tn cicidurat

defcetus iste in alios libros
tiaiisiit.

quodam Alcxnndrino; undo

Ncc

TcAoc (or TO TcAoc)

IVue, that

which he found

at the close of verse 8.

have probably beheld, further on, several additional a-rixoi. But if he did, how could he acknowledge the fact more loyally than by leaving (as the author of Cod. B is observed to have done) one entire column blank,
will

he

hunc defectum multis, immo in ccrlis regionibus pleri^quc scribis arrisissc Cf. confitciitur cnim ex ipsorum opinionc llarcum Matth.to rcpugnare. niaxime Euscbium ad Marinum," &c. ' irtpnrii av tti), Kol ^oXurra ffirtp txotn uyttXot'itui rp Tar Xotruiv (iiayytKinTuti fia/nvpia. (Mai, Bill. P.P. Sova, vol iv. p. 256.)
* Alford's

N. T.

vol.

i.

p.

433, (ei. 18CS.) And so TLn-hendorf, (ed. 8va.

pji.

406-7.)

"Talcui dissentioncm ad Mnrci librum tarn misere niuti):indum ad-

duxisse^quempiam, ct qnidcm tauto

ullo probari potest

cum

successu, prorsus incrcdibilc est, nee

is

before proceeding with S.

Luke ? He

hesitated, all the same.

cxemplo."

TregcUes

of the same opinion.

(Prinled

Note, that the Codei from which Cod.

Text, pp. 2556.) " Una ferently.

Matthaci,
:

a competent judge, seems to have thought diffuit

autcm causa cur hie locus omitleretur

quod Marcus

in

was copied

will

have cihibittd
is

the text thns,

aneXCl TO TCAOC H\eev H

But the
ijxfltv

wpawhich
Note
tlie

the read-

repugnare ceteris vidctur Evangelistis." The general observation which " Qua ergo vel obscura, vel repngnantia, vel param follows is true enough
his

ing of Cod. 13 (= llcg. 60.) prove the sense, snhstitntcd for

scrilw of Cod. D, in order to imtat.

decora quorundam opinionc habcbantur, ra olim ah Criticis

nonnullis vel sublata, vel iu

et

interpretibuB

the word

scholion lAo.

dubium vocata

esse,

ex

aliis

locis

sanctorum

321 -.dirix". rovriari, itrX^rai, riKos (x'l rh iror' ifti. Bos'dcs the said Cod. 13, the same reading U found in 47 and 64 (in the Bodl.) 50 (at Line. Coll.) CI (i.e. Cod. Montfort.) 69 (i.e. Cod. Lciccstr.)
:

Vaf] in

Possinus, p.

Evangcliorum
p. 270,)

" In EummS.

intelligitur."

(A'oc. Test. 178S, vol.

ii.

p. 266.)

Presently, (at

Videtur unus et item alt*r ex interpretibus, qui ha>c

opinehatur, in

exteris evangeliis rcpugnare

dubium

vocasse.

Hunc dcindc
Dr.

12i

(i.e.

Cod. Vind.

of Muralt's S.

Lambeth. 1177): 2'' (i.e. the Snd Petersburg Codd.); and Cod. 439 (i.e. Addit. Brit. Mus. 6107).
(i.e.

Lamb. 31): c'"

plures tcmerc secnti sunt, ut plerumque factum esse animadvertimus."

Davidson says the same thing

portance.) Mr. Scrivener also.

(ii.

116.) and, (what

is

of vastly

more im-

All these clcTCD

MSS.

read aV/x" ri ttKot at S.Mark xiv. 41.

(Coll. Cod. Sim. p. xliv.)

q2

2-28

The 2ISS.

tficnisclves

arc (liicotiird

[aiAP.
XI.]
fo ionfriii
Its
ill

oi'r ojn'iiion.

22!)

been easier

far to introduce

some

critical correction of

any

supposed discrepancy, than to sweep away the whole of the unoflending context. (3) Lastly, because nothing clearly was gained by causing the Gosjiel to end so abruptly that
every one must see at a glance that it had been mutilated. No. The omission having originated in a mistake, was perpetuated for a brief period (let us suppose) only through infirmity of judgment: or, (as I prefer to believe), only in

well as at the close of the Gospel.

(d ch. ix. 0, (the

It ocrtiirid biaiiku

oiiJij

end of the
ltn>-t

lesson for the Transfiguration.)

scrciifi/

And

yet there are at

occasions in

tlie

course
ac-

of S. Mark's Gospel where, in

MSS. which have been

commodated

to

Church

use,

it is

usual to indicate the close

of a Lection. This discovery, which surprised

me

not a

little,

convinced nie that I was on the right scent

I

and every hour

consequence of the religious fidelity of copyists,

who were

evidently alwa3-s instructed to transcribe exactly what they

found in the copy set before them. The Church meanwhile in her corporate capacity, has never known anything at all
as was fully shewn above in Chap. X. IX. When this solution of the problem first occurred to me, (and it occurred to me long before I was aware of the
of the matter,

met with some fresh confirmation of the fact. 2. For the intelligent reader will readily understand tliat three such deliberate liturgical memoranda, occurring solitarj' in a MS. of this date, arc to be accounted for only in one way. They infallibly represent a corresponding pcnuThe fact that Uaritj' in some far more ancient document. {n) set down unabbreviated, (h) in the word t\0c is here
black ink, and
(r)

memorable reading to teAoc in the Codex

adverted
to,)

as part of the text,

Bczse, already
:

points unmistakably

I reasoned with myself as follows

But

if

the

mutilation of the second Gospel

cular way, the

MSS.

are bound to

came about in this remember sonufhing

parti-

of the

circumstance; and in ancient MSS., if I

certainly to

am

same direction. But that Cod. 24 is derived from a Codex of much older date is rendered certain by a circumstance which shall be specified at foot '. The 3. The very same phenomena reappear in Cod. SG*".
in the

right, I

ought

meet with some confirmation of my opinion. According to m}' view, at the root of this whole matter lies the fact that at S. Mark xvi. 8 a well-known Ecclesiastical lesson comes to an end. Is there not perhaps something exceptional in the vray that the close of that liturgical section was anciently signified ? X. In order to ascertain this, I proceeded to inspect every copy of the Gospels in the Imperial Library at Paris'; and
devoted seventy hours exactlj', with unflagging delight, to
the task.
1.

sif n -f TtAoc

+, (which occurs punctually at

v. 20,) is
i.

S.

Mark

xvi.

and again at
only at chap.

found besides in S. Mark's Gof]>tl

8'; at chap. xiv. 31; and

(+

t.\oc

tou

KtepaA/) at chap. xv. 24 ; being on every occasion incorporated with the Text. Kow, when it is perceived that in

the second and third of these places, TeXoc has clearly lost
its

way,

appearing where
be
felt

no Ecclesiastical lection came to

an

endjit will
if it

that the

MS.

before us (of the

xi""

century)

was not actually transcribed from, must

at

The

success of the experiment astonished me.

least exhibit at second

t

hand, a

far

more ancient Codex

Gospel, only

^.

(= Reg. 178) of the Gospels: turned to the last page of S. Mark and beheld, in a Codex of the xi*'' Century wholly devoid of the Lectionary apparatus which is sometimes found in MSS. of a similar
I began with our Cod. 24
:

AMiereiis in the course of S. Matthew's

two

cianiples ot
case the

+ TCAOC +
note
it

occur, (riz. at ch. xivi. 35 and iivii.

2,) in the former

;

lias eutirily lost its

way

in

the process of transcription

standing whirc
1 sus-

has no business to appear.

Ko

Liturgical section ends thereabouts.

word -H teAoc by the original scribe immediately

date', at fol. 104, the
'

conspicuously written

after S.

Mark

xvi. 8, as

anciently pect that the transition (ImlfPaa,!) scribe desired to call attention. to which the

made

at ver. SD,

was the thing

=Coisl. 20.

have to (ickuowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M. de

tlie

Church

purposes, apiwai-s to

This sumptuous MS., which has not been adapted for me to be the work of the same scribe who proi

Woilly,
'

chief of the Manuscript department.

p.

Sec above,

224.

exhibits a different Uxt. duccd Reg. 178, (the codex described above) but it century. Bound up with it arc some leaves of the LXX of about the viii"' the Sunday before Epiphany. End of Iho Lection for so written only twice, vii. lu S.Mftttliew's Gosiicl, 1 could find TCAOC
'


X..]

(fthc accuraey of our

for instance
is

opinioti.

231

230
4.

Further confifwaiion from

MSS.

[ciur.
S.

Only once more. Codex 22 (= Picg. 72) was never prepared for Church purposes. A rough hand has indeed
scrawled indications of the beginnings and endings of a few
of the Lessons, here

Mark

ixmrinll;/ cither

(as in (as in

B A

and

s)

or else

KATA A\APKON, GYArrCAION KATA A\APKON

:

and C, and the other older uncials)

is a

ucrer

teAoc

and there

but these liturgical note*

But here

Scribe

who

first

copies the liturgical note leAoc,

arc no paii of the original

ever,

MS.

At

S.

Mark

xvi. 8,

how-

wc

TcAoc H

are presented (as before) with the solitary note

,

incorporated with the text. Iiumediatelj' after

size,)

observation that "in some then volunteers the Evangelist proceeds no furcopies of S. Mark's Gospel the A more extraordinar)- corroboration of the view

and

f(v7iVv7^

tlierl"

which, (in writing of the same

comes a memorable

which I am endeavouring
-.

to

recommend

to the

reader's

statement in red letters.

'

The whole

(popoOvTO rap
N TlCl

teAocH

stands thus :

i [

acceptance, I really cannot imagine. order to assure Copyist actually comes back, in
!

Wliy, the ancient

mc

that

TWN

aNTirpdtpWN.

eojc toAe

nAHpouTOi o eu
:

arrcAicTHC
ie.

N noAAoTc

Koi TQUTa q>cpeTai H

be. npujt

already oQcring in cxthe suggestion which I have been true one plan.ation of the difficulty, is the abuse the reader's patience with 5. I am not about to the many additional conspiring a prolonged enumeration of confessedly circumslances, insignificant in themselves and
'

A vaoToio

npwTH

oap^dTo^v.

And then

follows the rest of the Gospel; at the end of

which the cuunimportant when considered singly, but of which an examinamulntive force is unquestionably great,
tion of 09

which, the sign

tcAoc

is

again repeated,

which

'!

MSB.

of the Gospels brought to light.

Enough

sign,
I

however, occurs now/zf/e clsein the MS. norat the end of any of
the other three

Gospek,

A more opportune piece of evidence

A
statement so apt and

\\
]

could hardly have been invented.

so significant
to

was surely a thing rather to be wished than be hoped for. For here is the liturgical sign teAoc not

has been said already to shew, been a customary thing, at (1st.) That it must have the word tcAoc against S. Mark a very remote age, to write note was withheld from the xvi 8, even when the same
close

of almost everj- other

ecclesiastical

lection

in

tlie

only occurring in the wholly exceptional

wav

of which

wo
I

'c-ndly.)

That

this word, or rather note,

which no doubt

have already seen examples, but actually followed by the admission that " In certain copies, the Erangelkt proceeds no
further."

'

The two circumstances so brought together seem exactlj' to bridge over the chasm between Codd. B and K on the one hand, and Codd. 24 and 36 on the other and to supply us with precisely the link of evidence which we re-

(
*

which has leen adapted to Evan 282 (^Tittcn a-B. 1176),-a codci sav, is i,^erted into the purposos.-the sign t. and ^ strange to Ledionnry

(1) In

lodv of the Text, only at

(o)

quire.
acra,
is

For observe

During the
is

first

six centuries of our

no single instance

known

of a codex in which tcAoc

S. Marl- xv. 47 and xvi. 8. , , . evidently left unfinished, the pictures 26S, (a tralv superb MS., Lcctio.iary sketched in ink.) as never prepared for of the KvaiiBclists only more remarkable tbat, between l,p.6oi,-.oyif purpr..os; which makes it the Rold. body of the text, tJ. should be found inserted into the and 4r.T.(s. S.Luke's, or of vrith copies of S.Matthew's, or of met (3) 1 have often subscription in which -riXos occurs: but Go=pcl, unfurnished ith a
.

Kvun

<!

written at the end of a Gospel.

cli. li.

The

subscription of
viii.

nt

23 and xxvi. 75

iu S.

Lute only once, viz.

at ch.

39.

Tbwo,

rii. tiic in all three instances, arc tbc coucladlng verses of famous Lcfsons, Sundiy Sunday after Christmas Day, tbc iii"' Gospel of tUe Passion, the vi"

according an instance of a Codex where the Gospel scarcelv ever have I seen from which it was wanting ; much less ilark was one of two, or of three lo S the following that respect. On the other hand, in xvhere it stood alone in Four 293,-S. Mark's is the only Gospel of the 22 30
Codice.

John's

-Evan. 10

which

is

furnished with the subscription,

of S. Luke.
'
:

This has already come before os in a different connection (see p. cxbibiuJ * but it must needs be roproduicd here; and this time, it shall be
faithfully as

HO

'

or simply

+ -rtKosrovKartiKdpKov.iary'^iov-..hares this Evan. 282, S.Matthew's Gospel + Wxos + .... In

peculiarity with S.Mark's.

my

notes

jjcrujit.


232 was
Hiischitis iiailc'l to

[chap.
XI.]
1

vcyllahk his

viidciicc.

233

originall}' written as a liturgical

niemorandam

in

the

margin, became at a very early period incorporated with the text; where, retaining neither its use nor its significancy, it

proposed for solution. -.-o it," (Eusebius begins) ways of solving

problem
rSp'

is

"There
fiev

are two
/ce./.-

7"P

[to

Xaiou avro]

tovto

was

liable to misconception,

and may have

facts certainly

easily

come to be

fatally misunderstood.

And

although these two

j'et,

prove nothing in

and by themselves, problem which has

(3rdly.)

when brought
for,

close alongside of the

ivr^ypacj>oi, tov Kara u,) iv airacLV avrljv TtA02 Toi.^ ivTcypd<}>a>v t6 McloKOV ,vayye\ioV ra yovv i>cpc^rj Xoyoi,^ MdpKOV laropla, iv Toh -rrepiypaieL rf,, Kara rhv " ohUvl ovlh elirop, i<j>o^ovvTO yap.

^acKovaav <j>epea0a, roh

-^repiKO-rrhv a^exo..,

e\-rroi

uv

KT\. oh

i-:n\kyu,

kcu

to be solved, their significancy

:

becomes

immediatelj'^ apparent

,}vriypd<}>oi^ rov Kara MapKov 'Ev TOVTCo axeSov iv ^Traa to teacup. ... Let us halt here eiayyeXlov -^epcyiypa^rai to

As

a matter of fact, there are found to

existed

before

the time

of Eusebius,

copies of S.

have Mark's

for

one moment.
Surely, a

Gospel which did come to an end

that the Erangelist left
oflf

at this

very place.

Now,

there,

then, did the Scribe leave off?

in possession of the reason

no one can believe". Win/, But the Reader is already

How is it that we paid so da^n. upon this subject terms in which this ancient lather attention before to the the import of an evidence, that we overlooked
little
!

i begins new and unexpected light already

i

to

delivers his

why.

sufficient explanation of
verj'

the

difficult}'

has been elicited from the

ilSS. theii>-

selves.

And

surely when, suspended to an old chest which

is still

has been locked up for ages, a key

fits

hanging which
belongs to

the lock exactly and enables

men

to

open the chest with

ease, the}' are at liberty to

assume that the key

the lock

is,

in fact, the only instrument by which the chest

may

lawfully be opened.

would be for him to 9 and S. Matth. xxviii. 1, " Ecclesiastical Lection-' in which S. Mark reject the entire (be proceeds Any one adopting this course xvi. 9 occurs. delithat Eusebius is throughout and it is much to be noted
S.

the first must have struck usas expression of his which from perceive to be of paramount sigpeculiar but which o-r we oe way for a man Eusebius is pointing out that nificancy ? inconsistency between rid of the apparent (so minded) to get

Mark

xvi.

XI.

And now,

in conclusion, I propose that

we summon

back our original "Witness, and invite him to syllable his evidence afresh, in order that we may ascertain if perchance
it

affords

any countenance whatever

Possible at least

to the view
it is

which I have

own :) sentiments of another,-not his vering the imaginary " say that it is uot ,net udU ,n aU Such an one (he says) will The accurate copies at all Gospel. the copies of S.Mark's in which this then follows an expression
events''-and
ingeniously to accommodate his ancient Critic is observed which he has to describe, so as laneua.'e to the phenomenon

been advocating.
tive

that in the Patristic

record that copies of S. Mark's Gospel were anciently defec-

from the 8th verse onwards some vestige

may

be dis-

coverable of the forgotten truth.

fully

Now,

it

has been already

shewn that it is a mistake to introduce into this discussion any other name but that of Eusebius". Do, then, the terms in which Eusebius alludes to this matter lend us any assistance P Let us have the original indictment read over to us once more and this time we are bound to listen to every word of it with the utmost possible attention.
:

an something else. Eusebius employs covertly to insinuate in his writings) sufficiently idiom (it is found elsewhere but failed to arouse attention ; hitherto colourl ss to have overlook the actual design impossible to of which it is has gone before. He clearly import, after all that and phe.omuon to uhieh I hare been call.ug

Zogni's
P p

the rcnj

The English lue r.uti

read.-r .-ill follow

exactness the text .itb sufficient

if

be

will

"Nemiui in meDtem venire potest Marcnm nairationis suae filum inept issime abrupissc rerbis i<po$ovi>TO yap." Griesbach Comintnt. CriV. (i'- 19' )

read refer back, .u.d care to see, in

from the

l..st

taking

two

places, for

hne ot p. 'the end.

^i^,,, line of

p.4o,
entire

the
i

......

The

"

So, in fact,

vno ore

all

the Critics.

Chap. V.

See above, pp. C6-7.

given in theAppend.xacontent oftbe Greek is i lie nnieceuii <picKou<rav ^(p'KOTTiy. q t^,, toSto must be an exrl-'-'n'o'-J- S^"^^' 1 SLSIKCI

^,^^_

aM,)


234
Etiachiiis

rieir.

[chap.
XI.]

ohcrvi d

to sanction

our

Origin
is

sutsjuctcd.

235

attention within <he last

two pages, and

:

-nliich I

further insist upon or explain

iccrc in

viz. that t/ic

need not words to xeAOC

xrrit-

a startling statement,

no more than what Codd.

it is

some

ver)' ancient (" thv

:

mcuvatc") copies /o/(//</

themselves arc sufficient to establish.

bius,

B and K in In other words, Eusecommonly

yap although to an unsuspicious reader the expression which he uses may well seem to denote nothing more than that the second Gosjiel (jcncrally came
ton after (f>o^ovvTo
to

(whose testimony on this subject as

is

understood with
it

so extravagant [see above, p. 48-9,] as to carry

sufficient refutation,) is

an end
3.

tliere.

it is time to direct attention to the important bearing of the foregoing remark on the main point at issue. The true import of what Eusebius has delivered, and which

And now

found to bear contwo following modest propositions which, however, are not adduced by him as reasons for reits

own

sistent testimony to the

jecting S.

Mark

xvi.

20, but only as samples of n/mt

difficulty sug-

mi'jht be urged

by one desirous of shchnng a

S.

has at last been ascertained, will be observed really to set his evidence in a novel and unsuspected light. From the
-

gested by their contents

(1st.)

days of Jerome,
copies

has been customary to assume that Eusebius roundly states that, in his time almost all the Greek
it

these

last

That from some ancient copies of Twelve Verses were away.

That in almost
all

Mark's Gos])tl

(2nd.)

were without our "last Twelve Verses" of S. Mark's Gospel': whereas Eusebius really docs noichcre say so. Ho

or not, he does not state,)

the copies, (whether mutilated the woi'ds to tcaoc were found

;

expresses himself enigmatically, resorting to a

somewhat un-

which, (he seems to who please accept as evidence that there also those

immediately after ver, 8

hint,) let
is the

end

usual phrase' which perhaps admits of no exact English coun-

amounts to no more than words e^o^ovvro yap, circumscribe the end (to tcaoc) of Mark's narrative :" that
terpart
this,
:

but what he says

of the Goq.(l. 4. But I cannot dismiss the testimony of Eusebius until

clearl}'

that "the accurate

" in almost
is

copies, at the

thf^rc,

all

the Copies of the Gospel according to

circumscribed the end." He says no more. does not say that there " is circumscribed the Gospel."

Mark,

Ho
As

my own entire conviction that this Father is more an original authority here than Jerome, or Hesyno He is evidently adopting the language of chius, or Victor'. I observe that he ancient writer than himself. some more the problem with the remark that what follows introduces " for ever mooted by every body "." is one of the questions
I

have recorded

he merely declares that thej' were " not met irith in all the copies ;" i.e. that some copies did not contain them. But this, so far from being
for the twelve verses

which

follow,

I suspect (with Matthaei, [supra, p. 6G,] ) that Origen

true author

is

the

of all this
his

confusion.

He

certainly relates of him-

'

" This

tlicn is clear," (is Dr. Tregcllcs'

tlic

comment,)

'

that the greater part

.\

self that
tise

among

voluminous exegetical writings was a trea-

on S. Mark's Gospel^.
See above,
p.

To Origen's works, Eusebius,

" TJSpfiin
i'C'
. . .

(his

of the Greek copies bad not

verses in question."
tliis

Observe, the peculiarity of the expression in

Printed Text, p. 247. place of Eusebius consist*

<

66 and

p. 67.

rfis tip tixn li-v

entirely in his iutroductioD of the

aKptfi^i K. T,

words th tc'ao.

Had he merely

ssid ti!

amuv

ToiTOTf ToTj Toiri

fjiToiSjifyo [sic].

Mai, vol.

iv. p.

255.

Twv dtniyp&tpbtv ri ^vayytKiov Kara MipKov wtpiypdipei iv To"f Xo7oif A *Ei' Toinip yap trj^fihv iv &iraffi tois ttyriypi^ois wtpiyfyparrat t KOTO MipKov (tayytXtov, there would have been nothing extraordinary in

Origen. {Opp.
to
to

" Consontit antcm nobis ad traetatum quern fecimus de tcriplurd llarci." Tract af. xxxv. ih Matlh. [1 owe the reference iii. 929 B.)

the

mode of expression.

We

should have been reminded of such places as the

following in the A\Titiug8 of Eusebius himself:

'O KXiiprit

"

'^i*'

Ko>irf8v
.

Cave (i. 116.) It seems to have escaped the vigilance of Huet.] This serves eiplaiuwhy Victor of Antioch's Catena on S. Mark was sometimes anciently attributed to Origon as in Paris Cod. 703, [pUm 2330, 958, and 1048 also
: :

TtAturV Tfpiypiipti rovs xP^^o^^t

/irl

(Sisl. Heel.

lib. vi. c. 6.)

'lirr6\vrot

16.] whore

is

read (at

fol.

247), 'Cipiytvous rp6Xoyos

is

tU

tV

ipimvilav toD koto

ri irpuToy (tos airoKpaTopos *AXt{<Jr8;>0K tows XP"''""' "f'T''"^"' C' See the note of Valosius on the place.) Or this, referred to by Ptophanus (/ voce), 'Evhs 8* ^ti fiinjaBtU vipiypdi^ta riy \6yov, {Praep. J^vamg.
c.

KipKov

tiKCYri\'"u.

Note, that Reg. 937

22.

preceding ; n hich has been transcribed

Posscvinus [Apparat. Sac.
states tlial there
is

[xviii'''

but a (xvi" cent.) counterpart of the cent. ] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40.

lib. vi. c.

10, [p. 280c, ed. 1C2S].)

;

But the

substitution of t Tt'Aoj for ri

satisfactorily explained in

'or

in the

y4\tov wants explaining

and can he only

one way-

Mark's Gospel by Origen.

ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet, Oriytniana, p. 274) Library of C.C.C, Oxford, a Commentary on S. The source of this misstatement has been acutely


23G
Origcn smjiccfcd
is

XI.]

ofuU

the iimchicf.

Ilcsychim.

237
:"

to he the

author

[CHAI'.
re-

npologist and admirer,)

Borted
;

known

to

have habitually

and, like

many

Gmaiii librispcne hoc eapitulum iu fine non haleutlhus but only," nou in omnibus Erangelii cxeinplaribus hoc eapiviluii

others, to

have derived not a few

of his notions from that fervid and acute, but most erratic
intellect.

Origcn's writings in short, eeem to have been

the source of much, if not most of the mistaken Criticism

of Antiquity.

tulum im-ihiri ;" which is an entirely different thing. Eusbius adds, " Accuratiora saltern exemplaria fixem narraitpo^ovvTO tionis secundum Slarcum circumscribunt in verbis

reminded of what has been And this would not be the first offered above at p. 96-7). occasion on which it would appear that when an ancient
is

(The reader

<ydp;"aud, " In hoc, fere in omnibus exeraplaribus Evangelii

secundum Marcum, finem circumscribi."

The

point,

how-

Writer speaks of "the accurate copien" what he actually

vieanfi is the text

of Scr'qiture uhkh was employed or approved

attentively the language of Euse-

attention ever, of "reatest interest is, that Eusebius here calls time of the very liturgical to the prevalence in MSS. of his of peculiarity which plainly supplies the one true solution His testimony is a marthe problem under discussion.
vellous corroboration of

by Origen
bius in

'.

The more
place
is

what we learn from Cod.

22, (sec

this

thought) will
onlj'

more firmly (it is the suspicion be entertained that he is here

considered,

the

whit above, p. 230,) and, rightly understood, does not go a

beyond
5.

it.

reproducing the sentiments of another person.

But,

however this may be, it is at least certain that the precise meaning of what he says, has been hitherto generally overlooked.

What wonder

that

Hesychius, because

he adopted

He

certainly does

twt

say, as

Jerome, from his

betray blindly what he found in Eusebius, should at once what his author his author and exactly miss the point of writes) /xexpt toO says ? Ti) Kara Mdpxov evayyiXiov (so he

loose translation of the passage*, e^'idently imagined,

poiutcd out to
Ciiiitabj-ig.,"

" om-

"

i4>ofiovi-TO yap," ex^i

6.

t6 taoc

''.

me by

the Eev.

(1600,

lib. i. p.

Churton. James, in his "Ecloga Oxonio49,) mentions " Eomiliae Origeiiis super Evan-

W. K.

gelio

Marcae, Stnbat ad monumentum." Head instead, (with Rev. H. 0. Coxe, "Cat. Codd. MSS. C.C.C.;" [>'. 142, 4,]) as follows :" Origcnis prcBb. Horn, in istad Jobanuis, Maria ttalal ad monumentum" &c. But what actually led Possevinus astray, I perceive, was James's consummation of bis own blunder in lib. ii. p. 49, which Possevinus has simply appropriated.

concerning the testimony of Eusebius. It will be understood that I suppose Origen to have fallen Gospel which exin with one or more copies of S. Mark's
This

may

suffice

hibited against

thi

written Liturgical hint, (to tcaoc,) conspicuously may, or may not, S.Mark'xvi. 9. Such a copy

'

So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading

(iv.

'Rrfiafiofi.

140) says that not only ax*^^'' f' """ Tors ivnypiipois, but also that apud Heracleonem, (who wrote within 50 years of S. John's death,) he

Origcn

found

iriBaiila

written in 8. John

i.

2S.

Moved by geographical

considerations,

however, (as he explains,) for

BijOavfa,

Origen proposes to read BriBaPapi.

however that it have there terminated abruptly. I suspect will have remarked Origen at all events, {more suo,) did. will have on the phenomenon before him; and Eusebius " with a difcradopted his remarks, as the heralds say, because they suited his puipose, and seemed
ff<./'_iniply
to

Chrysostom

(vlii.

96 D),

after noticing the former reading, declares,

iaa ti

Tuv airnypd(puv i,Kpi^(a7tpov (x*^ ^^ BijdajSapa ipTjaiv : but he goes on to reproduce Origen'i reasoning; thereby betraying himself. The author of the

7.

Catena in ilatth. (Cramer,

yiviiiffKuv 0TI

i.

190-1) simply reproduces Chrysostom

XP^

'

S.

him ingenious and interesting. copy of For the copy in question, (like that other was made, and Mark from which the Peshito translation

Scholia

T& &Kpi3^ Tuv i^tniypA^uv iv BTtOaPapi vcpifx^*' And 60 other until at last what was only due to the mistaken assiduity of Origen,
as the reading of the

occurs at chap. xiv. in which to t6aoc most inopportunely 41c,)_will have become the progenitor of several other
copies (as Codd.

became generally received

"more

accurate copies."

A scholium

and

and some of

these, it is pretty

on

S.
is

Luke

xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the true read-

ing of that place

not " CO" hut " 160,"

ovtus yip t4 ixpiS^ irtpUxfii ""i ^

evident, were familiarly

Latinus
e=,

known

to Eusebius.

'npiytfous TTJs a\ri8flas 0ffia(uins.

iu the

Accordingly, Euaebius also reads the place

noli de gratnito

munere

est jndicare. et, ut vulgarc provcrbium

same erroneous way.

(O/yi. vii. 537,)

Jerome says of himself

:

trausfcro

aut Graecos lege

(si

Latinum cjusdem linguae babes scieutiam) But si tantum

"Non dignc GrascA in

equi denies intpieere donali."

"

See abjvo. pp. 57-9

also

Appendix

(C), 2.

'

See above, pp. --o-C.


238
8.

irfii/

found Kfifien nfiev

S.

The rcaaoH

reXo?

is

so often

[ciup.

X..]

Mark

xri. 8.

239

Let

it

however be clearly borne in mind that nothing

the least degree essential to

of

all this is in

my
may

argument.

Eusebius, (for aught that I

know

or care,)

be

solely

responsible for every word that he has delivered concerning

S.

^lark xvi. 9

20.

Every link in

my

Monopbysite Christians, the lection "feriae tertiae in primam vesperam," (i.e. for the Tuesday in EasterAVeek) was S.Mark xv. 37 xvi. 8: and (8) on the same During eighteen weeks day, at Matins, ch. x^^. 9 IS*"'.
the
albis, lid

argument
still

will re-

main undisturbed, and the conclusion

nated with another or with himself.

after Easter therefore,

the

onhj parts of S. Clark's Gospel

[ch. xv.

will be

precisely

publicly read

were
last

[a)

the last thirteen

[ch. xvi.
it

43

the same, whether the mistaken Criticism before us origi-

xvi.
Can

8],
it

and

{I)

"the

iwehc"

9 20]

verses.

XII. But

iclii/, (it

may reasonably be

asked,)

W/nj should
way
JJ^i)/

be deemed a strange thing that

iii'llxjHnsnhh'

should have been found

there have been anything exceptional in the

of indi-

cating the end of this particular Lection ?

to make

should

TeXo? be bo constantl)' found written after S. I^Iark xvi. 8P

I answer,

suppose

respectively ended

it was because the Lections which and began at that place were so manj-,

and were Lections of such unusual importance. Thus, (1) On the 2nd Sundaj' after Easter, {icvpiaici) y' t&v fivpo(fiopuv, as it was called,) at the Liturgy, was read S. Mark XV. 43 to xvi. 8 and (2) on the same day at Matins, (by
;

mark, with altogether exceptional emjjhasis, ])lain, whcie the former Lection came to an end, and where the latter Lection began'? XIII. One more circumstance, and but one, remains to be adverted to in the way of evidence and one more sugThe circuiostance is familiar indeed gestion to be offered. to all, but its bearing on the present discussion has never
to
it

unmistakably

been pointed out.

I allude to

the fact that anciently, in

copies of the fourfold Gospel, the Gospel according to S.

frequeutli/ stood last.

Mark

the Melchite Syrian Christians as well as by the Greeks'",)

S.

Mark

xvi.

20.

The

severance, therefore, was at ver.

8.

(3)

for Easter

In certain of the Syrian Churches the liturgical section Day was S. Mark xvi 2 8 " in the Churches of

'.

is memorably the case in respect of the Codex Bezae more memorably yet, in respect of the Gothic version in both of which MSS., the order of riphilas (a.d. 360) of the Gospels is (1) S. Matthew, (2) S. John, (3) S. Luke,

This
:

[vi]

the Jacobite, or Monopbysite Christians, the Eucharistic

lesson for Easter-Day

was

ver. 1

lesson of the Resurrection

(xvi.

8 1

(4) S. ^lark.

This

is

in fact the usual Western order.

Accord-

(4)

The second matin

ends,
:

8) also

and

ingly

it is

thus that the Gospels stand in the Codd. YercelBrixianus (/) of the

(5)

the third (xvi. 9

20) begins, at the same place

in the

lensis {a), A''eronensis {h), Palatinus (e),

and these

old Latin version.

It is

But

this order

is

not exchisircly Western.

two Gospels (both

Greek and in the

Sj'rian Churches)

found in Cod. 309.

is

It

is

also observed in Matthaei's

were in constant use not only at Easter, but throughout the 3'ear8. (6) T/iai same third matin lesson of the Resurrection

Codd. 13, 14, (which last

Codex (Evan. 7
Cod. 27

our Evan. 25G), at Moscow.

:

And

was

also the

Lesson at Matins on Ascension-Day; as

(7)

= Paris Reg. 71.) the following rubric

'
:

well in the Syrian'' as in the Greek' Churches.

"

With

txPlrov, Kol rot SpBpov rrj! afoA^i^cus.

'

tAoi toD rphov toD R. Payne Smith's Caial. p. 146.

is \vritteu

(xi) is

not provided with any lectionary apparatus, and

continuously tliroughout

and yet at

S.

Mark

xvi.

9 a

fresh paragraph is

K. Payne Smith's Catal

70.
p. 206, also
'

p. 116.

'

See Adler's N. T. Vertt.

ob^rved

t\>

commence.

Sj/rr., p.

'

K. Payne

Smitli'B Calal. p. 146.

Not

dissimilar is tiie

phenomenon recorded

in respect of

some copies of the

K. Payne Smith's Calal. p. 117. Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 (= Paris Keg. 6?) is read, at S. Mark
See
note (k).
i(l>oftQvino yip. [then, rulro,^ t/Aos TOii B' iuBliov, 8 (fol. 125), as follows T^f KvpioKris fuv fivpo^6puy. dpxl]. [then tlic text;] 'Afatrrcfs icT.A.
:

xvi.
leal

Armenian version. " The Armenian, iu the edition of Zohrab, separates the Many of the oldest MSS., concluding 12 verses from the rest of the Gospel . after the words i<poPovvTo yip, put the final HayyiXiov icot4 MapKur, and then give the additional verses with a new superscription." (Trcgelles, Printed
. .

After ver. 20, (at fol. 126 of tbe same Codex)

cluding rubric
:

is

TfAot toP

foand the following confound in another

Tfxi, p. 25S).
dence,

We

are

now

in a position to understand the

Armenian

evi-

T'

luBlnv fvayyiXtov.
is

which has been described above, at

p. 86, as well as to estimate its

In the same place,

(viz. at

the end of S.Uark's Gospel,)

exact value.


240
in the

II.

241
S.John's

In some

Cod'I., S.

Marl's Goapcl siamh

laat.

[ciur.

The sum of the

linf of Cod. 63,

matter.
last verse of

Eame order Eusebius and others of the

ancients"' ore

it.<l

on

which the

occasionallj' observed to refer to the four Gospels,

which
it.

induces a suspicion that they were not unfamiliar with

Gospel was demonstrably once XIV. To sum up.

1.

written,

has hetn lo^f^.

Nor
to

In Codd. 19 and 90 the Gospel according though in the former of these the S. Mark stands last
is

this

all.

It will

be perceived that I

suppose the omission

of

order of the three antecedent Gospels

is (1) S. John, (2) S. Matthew, (3) S.Luke* ; in the latter, (1) S.John, (2) S.Lukc, "What need of manj' words to explain the (3) S. Matthew. facts on the present discussion ? bearing of these Of course it will have soDietimes happened that S. Maik xvi. 8 came to

"the last Twelve Verses" of S.Mark's Gospel to have originated in a sheer error and misconception on the pnrt
of

some very ancient Copyist.

8: he assumed that
it

He

t^air

to iAoc written after

at least

ver.

it

was the Subscription, or

that
2.

denoted "the End," ofth Go-p>I.

be written at the bottom of the left hand page of a MS." And .we have but to suppose that in the case of one such Codex

the next

leaf,

which would have been

the fast,

was missing,

Wliether certain ancient Critics, because it was acceptthem, were not found (o promote this inislake, That tliere may have arisen some it is useless to inquire. old harmonizer of the Gospels, who, (in the words of Euseable to

{the rcvy thing

uhich has happened in respect of one of the

Codices

at

Moscow")

and

what
TAP.

else

conhl result

when a

copyist reached the words,

E^OBOYNTO
and which gives
rise to

TO TEAOC
critics so sorely

was disposed to "regard what followed as superfrom its seeming inconsistency with the testimony of and that in this way the error the other Evangelists';" But an error it is likely enough. became propagated
bius,)

fluous

but the very phenomenon which has exercised

most certainly was

in the last

and

to that error, the accident described

the whole of the present discussion ?

else

The

copyist will have brought S.'Mark's Gospel to an end

there, of course.

"What

could he possibly do?

...

preceding paragraph irould hare very materially conduced, and it may have very easily done so. 3. I request however that it may be observed that the
" accident" is not needed in order to account for the " error."

Somewhat
tein,
S.

excusably was our learned countryman Mill betrayed into the statement, (inadvertently adopted by Wetsless

Griesbach, and Tischendorf,) that " the last verse of

is omitted in Cod. 63 :" the truth of the matter being (as Mr. Scrivener has lately proved) that the

John's Gospel

The mere presence of lo reAoc at ver. 8, so near the end of And we the Gospel, would be quite enough to occasion it. times the word tcAoc frehave seen that in very ancient
quently did occur in an altogether exceptional manner in
that very place.
ISIoreover, we have ascertained that its meaning was not understood by the transcribers of ancient

" Euseb. apud Mai,

nullior of tlie

Again at p. 289-90. So also tlie 264 p. 287. 2nd Uomily ou tbc Rcsurr. (Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 411-2.)
ir. p.

And
(ed.

Bee tlie tbird

of the fragments ascribed to Poljcarp.

Palres

Ajioslol.,

MSS.
4.

'

Jacobson)

ii.

p. 515.

And

will

any one venture

to maintain that

it is

to

him
cen-

1 believe this will

be fonnd to be tbe invariable order of tbe Gospels

a thing incredible that

an intelligent copyist of the

iii'*

the Lfctionaries.

This

is

the case for instance in Evan. 15

{=

I allnde
ix. p.

of course to Mattbaei's Cod. g.

Reg. 64). Scefol. 98 b. (See the note in bis N. T. vol.

as right in bis conjecture
left

tury, because

he read the words to reAoc

at S. JIark xvi. 8,

228.)

Whether or no tbe learned

Kor,
if

critic

can have been beguiled thereby into the supposition that those words indicated "the End" of S.Mark's Gosj)el?-^
Shall I be told that, even if one can have so entirely overit looked the meaning of the liturgical sign as to suffer
to insinunto itself into his text
'

"aliquot folia excidisse," matters nothing.

irords tipofiovrro yap.

The

TtXos had followed,

itself

been the inference that the Gospel

of S.

hand page ends at the how obvious would have Mark had come to au end there
1
:

Xote, that in the Codex Beza; (D), S. Mark's Gospel euds at ver. 15 iu tbe Gothic Codex Argenteus, at ver. 11. The Codex Vercell. (n) proves to be imperfect from cb. I V.

',

it

is

nevertheless so im*

15 ; Cod. Veron.

(i)

from

xiii.

24 ; Cod. Urix. (/) from

xiv. 70.

Scrivener, Coll. Cod. Sin. p. lix.

'

Sec

p.

227.

See above,

p.

226.


>42

Modern CrUka
all

laiiyht in the old traji.

[(.hap. xi.

probable as to pass
that
it

designated the terminafion of

credence that another can have suppfjjiod He Gospel of the eccond

Evangelist?

For

all reply, I

take leave to point out that

Scbolz, and
rest

Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and

all,

Mai and

the

CHAPTER
SUBJECT.
This discHBsion narrowed
to

XII.
:

of the Critics have, one and

uil/ioiif exception, tuiin

uiidcmtood the same tcord occurring in the same place, and

jirtcisehj the

same

uaij.

GENERAL REAIEW OF THE QUESTION SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE; AND CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE
a single iisnc (p. 244).
rtri/ first,

Yes.

The

forgotten inadvertence of a solitary Scribe in

in the nineteenth, delibe-

the second or third century has been,

rately reproduced, adopted, and stereotyped

.

by

everj' Critic

Thnt S. Marl's

and every Editor of the

TVTiat wonder,

New Testament

Gospel was imperfect from the

dible (p. 2-16):

a thing altogether incre-

in turn.

But

that at some rcry remote period Copies hare

in
flic

(I

propose the question deliberately,)

suffered mutilation, a supposition probable

(p. 248).

highest degree

AVhat wonder that an ancient Copyist should have been misled by a phenomenon which in our own days is observed to have imposed upon two generations of professed Biblical Critics discussing this very textual problem, and therefore fully on their guard against delusion ? To this hour, the
'

Consequences

of this

admission

(p. 252).

Parting

teords (p. 254.)

illustrious Editors of the text of the

and

all,

Gospels are clearly, one labouring under the grave error of supposing that

This Inquiry has at last reached its close. The problem was fully explained at the outset ". All the known evidence has since been produced'', every Witness examined'. Counsel has been heard on both sides. A just Sentence will assuredly
follow.

" i(j)o^ovvTO fdp

to refer us to
rights,

TeXos,"

" Cod. 22,")

the

(for
is

which they are bo careful an indication that there, by

to

But

it

may

not be improper that I should in con-

clusion ask leave to direct attention to the single issue which

comes

"End"

of the Gospel according

S.Mari.
is

has to be decided, and which has been strangely thrust into

the background and practically kept out of sight,
bj'

They have
a

failed to perceive that

^e^cc in that place

only

those
case

same with which (in its form) they are sufficiently familiar and that it
liturgical sign,
;

the

contracted
serves no

who have preceded me

stands simply thus
It
iv""
:

in

this

Investigation.

The

other purpose whatever, but to

Ecclesiastical Lection

mark

that there a famous

this

being freely admitted

in

that, in the

beginning of the
extended no
is

comes to an end.

century, there must have existed Copies of the Gos-

With

a few pages of

summary, we may now bring

pels

which the
than ver.
to 8,

last

chapter of S.

Mark

long disquisition to an end.

So Scbolz " hie 22] post yip Tiscbendorf," Testantor scbolia
:

i'urther

the Question arises,

,
.

How

this

phe-

nomenon
[sc.

be accounted for ?

The problem

is

not only

+
.

Tt'Xoi

dein atraincnto rubro," te.

.

vcren 9 /! Erangelium . haluute. Ita, ut de 30 fere Codd. certe tres videamus, 22 babct i<t>opci^ TtAf yap + rf\os. tkti," Ac. Tregelles appeals to copies, " sometimes with
.
.

Hard

inevitable.

highly interesting and strictly legitimate, but it is even In the immediately preceding chapter, I have
it,

endeavoured to solve
pected way.

and I

believe in a wholly unsus-

iuterposed after ver. 8,"

spirit (p. 254.) Mai (iv. 256) in the same " Codex Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex quo Eusebium producimus, post octaTBB "" versum hahet quidem vorem Tf Xos, nt alibi interdum obser>'atum fiiit i

remarVs

But tho most recent Editors of the text of the New Testament, declining to entertain so much as the possihility that
certain copies of the second Gospel had experienced mutilation in vcnj early times in respect of these

iamen ibidem eadcm manu subscribitur iucremcntum cum progrcdientiW*

ccctioDum Dotis."

Twelve concluding
Chap. Ill, V,aiid

Chap.

I. anil li.

1'

Chap. IV,

VI-X.
It

'

ViU.


244
A'^erses,

UtinasoiHib/cncss o/nssumiiifj that S. Marl!

[chap.

XII. j

left his

Gospil

ill

an unfinished
occurred,
it

state.

245

have chosen

to
it

occupy themselves rather with conma}' have happened

that S. Mark's
the vcnj first.

that

" something

may have

(as

jectures as to

how

S. Peter,) to

cause him to leave

unfinished

''."

the death of But " the

Gospel uas uithout a conchtHion from

that no

Persuaded

more probable account

is

to be given of the pheno-

most probable supposition" (we are assured) "is, that the Inst leaf of the original Gospel was torn away '."

menon than
the

that the Evangelist himself put forth a Gospel

AVc

listen w

itli

astonishment

contenting ourselves with

will

vhich (for some unexplained reason) terudnatcd abniptlii at

modestly suggesting that surely

it

be time to conjecture

norch i<^o^ovvTo yap (chap. xvi.

fit

8),

they

have un-

happilj' seen

to illustrate the liveliness of this conviction

of theirs,

by presenting the world with

his Gospel mutilated

in this particular way.

Practicallj', therefore,

the question
:

has been reduced to the following single issue

of the able:

Whether

nhy iS. Mark's Gospel was left by its Divinely inspired Author in an unfinished state, when the fact has been established that it probably itas so left. In the meantime, we request to be furnished with some evidence of that fact.

But not

a particle of E\4dence

is

forthcoming.

It is not

two suppositions which follow

is

the more reason-

even pretended that an)- such evidence exists. Instead, we are magisteriallj' informed by " the first Biblical Critic in

First, That the Gospel according to S. Mark, as it left the hands of its inspired Author, teas in this imperfect or unfinished state ; ending abruptlj' at (what we call now) the 8th verse of the last chapter of which solemn circumstance, at the end of eighteen centuries. Cod. B and Cod. s are the alone surviving Manuscript witnesses ? ... or. Secondly, That certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel haring suffered mutilation in respect of their Twelve concluding Verses in the post- Apostolic age, Cod. B and Cod. h are the only examples of MSS. so mutilated which are known to
:

Europe,"
spect,

(I desire to

speak of him with gratitude and reis

but S. Mark's Gospel

a vast deal

more precious

to

me
oft'

than Dr. Tischendorf 's reputation,)

as

that "a healthy pieiy

palming
shewn [where?]

reclninii against

the endearours of those icho are for

the Erangclift
is

Mark's uhat

so plainly

exist at the present

I.
(r/)

day

Editors

who

adopt the former hypothesis, are observed

*
:

to sever the Verses in question from their context

(t)

In the meanwhile, it more reasonable supposition, (o) That and that the Twelve S. Mark published an imperfect Gospel Verses with which his Gospel concludes were the fabricathan, That some ancient tion of a subsequent age ifi) with design or by accident left out these Scribe having Twelve concluding Verses, copies of the second Gospel so mutilated become multiplied, and in the beginning of the
to
is

hare hiioun nothing at all about "."

assumed

to be a

to introduce after ver. 8, the subscription " kata mapkon

:"

iv'*"

(c)

to shut as

them

up verses 920 within brackets'. Regarding " no integi'al part of the Gospel f," " as an au-

century existed in considerable numbers. And j'et it is notorious that very soon after the Apostolic
text'

age, liberties precisely of this kind were freel}' taken with

thentic

what ]\Iark himself wrote down ''," a " remarkable Fragment," " placed as a com;" they consider pletion of the Gospel in very early times' themselves at liberty to go on to suggest that " the Evan-

anonymous

addition

to

the

of the

New

Testament.

complains of the licentious

Origen (a.d. 185 254) tampering with the Scriptures

gelist

'

may

have been interrupted in his work :" at any

rate,

which prevailed in his day. " Men add to them," (he says) "ov leave out, as seems good to themselves"." Dionj'sius of Corinth, yet earlier, (a.d. 168 176) remarks that it was

no wonder his own writings were added to and tahen from,

Tischendorf, TregelleB, Alford.
Trcgelles, Alford.
'

Alford.

seeing that

men presumed

to deprave the

Word

of

God
ISno

" Hsec non a Marco ecripta esse argumenlie probatur idoneis." ipst of Tischcndori's verdict, supra, p. 10 j aud opposite, p. 245. Tregellee' Account of the Printed Text, p. 259.
'
'

See ""

So Norton, Trcgelles, and others.

This liuggestion, which was originally Grlesbach's,
is

foond
italics
vol.

in Alford's

Test. vol.

i.

p.

433, {ed. 1868.) See above,

p. 10.

p. 12.

The
0pp.

ore not mine.

p.

Alford'f Ketv lest. vol.

i.

Proleg. [p. 38] and p. 437.

" Vide supra,

iii.

C71.


246
IhtrcasonahkHPx^ of amimlng ihat S.

Mark

[c,u^

X>I.]

hft hi< Gosj)cl

in

on nnfiiiinh/d

slate.

ur,

Ireuacus, his contemporary, (Uvinc within seventy years of S. John's death,) complains of a cor rupfed Texti-. are able to go back yet half a centurr and the depravations of Holy Writ become

in the same manner'.

tainly

" his contemporaries would not have accepted

if

and
been

transmitted such an addition,"

he had.

It has also

We

shewn

at great length

that the Internal Evidence for the

is

flagranti.
less true to

avowed

an'd

genuineness of these Yerses

competent authority has declared it "no fact than paradoxical in sound, that i/,e
tror*/

overwhelmingly strong '. But, (2nd.) Even external Evidence is not wanting. It has
;

been acutely pointed out long since, that the absence of

a vast assemblage of various
itself,

corruptions io uhich ihc

New
is

Tcsfameiit

jeded originated within a hundred years

posed ^"

has been ever tubafter it

Readings

in this place,

is,

in

was comdemonstrable that Cod. B and Cod. N abound in unwarrantable omissions very like the present*; omissions which only do not provoke the same amount of attention because they are of less moment. One such extraordinary depravation of the Text, in uhich they aho stand alone among MSS. and to a hich their patrons are observed to appeal with triumphant complacency, has been

a convincing argument that

to

we have here
'.

to

do with
fate of

Above

all,

it

no spurious appendage
all

the Gospel
it

"\Ycre this a de-

servedly suspected passage,

must have shared the

other deservedly

(or undeservedly) suspected

passages.

come to pass that the various Readings which these Twelve Yerses exhibit would be con-fidi-ralkj fcKcr than those which attach to the last twelve verses of
It never could have
anj' of the other three Gospels.

alrea-ly

made the
if it

subject of distinct investigation.

has not been shewn in my YII"' chapter, that the omission of the words ep 'E4>ea^ from Ephes. i. 1,'
is

much mistaken

am

(3rd.)

And

then surely,

if

the original Gospel of

S.Mark

just as unauthorized, quite as serious a.blemish, as the

had been such an incomplete work as is feigned, the fact would have been notorious from the first, and must needs have become the subject of general comment". It may be
regarded as certain that so extraordinary a circumstance would have been largely remarked upon by the Ancients, and
that evidence of the fact would have survived in a hundred It is, I repeat, simply incredible that Tradition quarters.

suppression of S.

Mark

xvi.

920.

Now,

in the face of facts like these, and in the absence of

aui/ Evidence uhaicvcr to prove that S. Mark's Gospel was imperfect from the first, I submit that an hypothesis so

violent
18

and improbable, as well as so wholly uncalled simply undeserving of serious attention. For,

for,

(1st.) It is plain from internal considerations that the improbability of the hj^pothesis is excessive; "thfe contents of these Yerses being such as to preclude the supposition that they were the work of a postApostolic; period. The very difficulties which they present afford the strongest presumption of their genuineness." No fabricator of supplea

would have proved so utterly neglectful of her office as to remain quite silent on such a subject, if the facts had been such as are imagined. Either Papias, or else John the PresJustin Martyr, or Hegesippus, or one of the " Senibyter, Clemens Alexandrinus, or Tertullian, ores apud Irenaeum,"

or Hippolytus,

'

if

not Origen, yet at least Eusebius,

if

not

Cliap. IX.

" Ad defeudendum hone locum

in primis

etiam valet miros Codicum con-

S.Mark's Gospel would have ventured on introducing so many minute seeming discrepancies and certo
:

ment

sensus in vocabnlis et loqnendi formulis singulis.

Nam

in locis wopfTTp^TToit,

etiam niulto brevioribus, quo plures sunt Codices, co plures quoque sunt varicCoraparctur modo Act. it. 18, Mattb. viii. 13, et loca similin." tates.
C. F. Jlftttbaei's

JS'or.

If

EuBcbius ccl. Mist.

iv.

23.

Consider Bcv.

uiL

18, 19.
i.

Tut. (1788)

vol.

ii.

p.

271.

Note tbe remarkable adjuration of

Irenteus, 0/.^.

621, presened by Eiue-

Spciikiug of tbe abrupt termination of tbe second Gospel at ver. 8, Dr.

20. See Scrivener's Introduction, p. 3S3-4. Consider the attesUtions at tbe end of tbe account of Poljcarp's martvrdom. PP. App. ii. 614-6.
biuB. lib. V.
1 tlie
'

Tregolli's atks,

" AVonld
p. 257.)

this have been transmitted as a fact

real

by good wit-

nesses, if there

bad not been

grounds for regarding

it

to be true F"

Allusion

is

made

to the Gnostics Basilides aiid Valentinus

especiaUy to

(Printed Text,

Certainly not,

we

answer.
is

But

ichere are the

"good

work of Marcion.
Scrivener's latroduclion,

witnesses" of tbe " transmitted fact ?"

Thfre

not to

mud

ai one.

pp.881 391.

Zx

Cliap. VI.


248
Eusebius, yet certainly Jeiome,

Rcmomllemss o/ txippviitig
that certain copies

[cmkt.

XII.]

Gof<pel sufcred mutilation. (f S. Mark's

249

fomc early Writer, 1 av, must certainly have recorded the tradition that S. Mark' Gospel, as it came from the hands of its inspired author,

earlier

by

full a

the verses in

hundred years than the earliest record that question were ever absent from ancient MSS.
(as

mm

At the eighth Council of Carthage,

C5-prian relates,)

an incomplete or unfinished work.

The silence of the Ancients, joined to the inherent improbability of the conjecture, {that silence so profound, this improbability so gross!)

Thiberi, one of the eighty-seven [a.d. 2oG] Vincentius a the 17th verse in African Bishops there assembled, quoted

is

enough, I submit,

in the entire ahsenee

of Evidence on the

other side, to establish the very contradictory of the alternntiTc

which recent Critics are

our acceptance.
(4tb.)

so strenuous in

recommending
j'et

to

But on the

contrary.

We

have indirect

convinc-

ing testimony that the

Verses in question *
just
:

oldest copies of all

did contain the

the presence of the Council. Besides the Gothic and Egyptian (ii.) Nor is this all ^ Ambrose, Cyril of Alexversions in the iV'' century ; besides the v'\ to say nothing of andria, Jerome, and Augustine in universal, and C ;-the Lectionary of the Church Codices our tera, is found to bestow prohahlufrom the second century of emphatic sanction on cary one of these Twelve

its

solemn and

while so far are any of the Writers

now enumerated

from recording that these verses were

absent from the early copies, that five out of those ten Fathers actually quote, or else refer to the verses in question
in a

MS. of the Gospeh tn t,co\ they are found in cursiwe,-except existence unci'al and contained besides in every hioicn Leccveri/ r. rmn ; and are and they are appointed to be read at Easter
Verses

Thev

are

met with

in

every

tionary,

where

way which shews

that in their da)' they

were the recog-

nised termination of S.Mark's Gospel'.

We
that

consider ourselves at liberty, therefore, to turn our

attention to the rival alternative.

excessive that
it

Our astonishment
of.

is

even

should have been seriously expected of us

we

could accept without Proof

any

sort,

without

a particle of Evidence, external, internal, or even traditional, the extravagant hypothesis that S. Mark put forth an

on Ascension Day ". are encouniv'" century, however, we (iii ) Early in the writings of Eusebius [a.d. the tered by a famous place in explained',) is the only 300340], who, (as I have elsewhere independent testimony on this subFather who delivers any What he says has been strangely misrepreject at aE : It is simply as foUows sented.
la)

One, "Marinus,"
is to

is

unfinished Gospel
solicits us,

when the obvious and easy

alternative

of supposing,

II. That, at some period sulsequent to the time of the Evangelist, certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel suffered that

mutilation in respect of their last Twelve Verses of which

we meet with no
(i.)

trace whatever,

no record of any

sort, tintti

the beginning of the fourth century.

the facts which now meet us on the very threshold, are in a manner conclusive : for if Papias and Justin

And

be reconciled with S. Matth. xxviu.l ? that a man whose only object Eusebius, in replv, points out might adopt the expedient of ^as to <^t rid of the difficulty, of S. Mark's Gospel "is not Baying "that this last section Declining, :" (jii, eV i-rraac ^.kpecdav.) found in all the copies presumptuously in respect of anything "however, to act thus Evangelical Scripture, {ovh ortov^ claiming to be a part of ypa4>r, b^ioaovv iv rg tw.. evayyeXioyp ToXixci.. ieeretv tC>v

S Marl's openin- statement

Gospel trithout suspicion,

introduced quoting this part of and enquiring, How its

do not refer to, yet certainly Irenaeus [a.d. 185] and Hippolytos [a.d. 190227] distinctly quote Six out of the Twelve suspected Verses, which are also met

Martyr

[a.d. 150]

hypothesis that the text^ is genuin^. 4,cpof.a-u^v,)-he adopts the av^x">povp.kvov eivat aXi?0ou?, he
Si) rovSe tov fJ^ipovi without hesitation on an elabegins: and he enters at once

Kal

'

Avith in

the two oldest Syriac Versions, as well as in the old

Latin Translation.

Now

the latest of these authorities

See Chap. III.

See above, pp. 86

90.

and IV. Sec l>ove, Chap. UL exap.aa, omnes. Codices Gneci. nBum B ..Hlvut periocham banc ^ -bacbO-See above. (ScboU. .d^ptlng tbe statement a. ' Sec ali>vc, Chap.
. .

P^^O^^^

XI..]

250

ReaiOhabhtieis of siijipoiiiKj Hint cfrtain copirn

lioir
flic

[chai'.

of S.

M/irl.'s

Goijut sufTrrod mutllalion.

2ol

borate discussion to shew

cihd^.

tiro

places

may

he rccou-

Paniphilus at Csesarea, to which the ancients habitually referred, rccogittHcd

it

countenance the notion that in the opinion of Eusehius "the Gospel according to S.Mark originallj' terminated at the 8th verse of the last chapter,"
llicre is in this to

Wliat

as genuine*,

the only sufferer from such

be Eusebius himself: (not

a conflict of evidence
S. Mar);, I say,

would

snrelj'
;)

but Eusebius

profess myself unable to discover.

I
is

draw from

his words

incorrect test of Scripture

the precisely opposite inference.

It

not even clear to

me

must

(in

such case)

is observed to employ an on many other occasions; and be held to have been unduly partial to

who

that the Verses in dispute were absent from the copy which Eusebius habitually employed. He certainly quotes one of

copies of S.

Mark

in the mutilated condition of Cod.

or

those verses once and again

'. On the other hand, the express statement of Yictor of Antioch [a.d. 450?] ihat he

His words were translated by Jerome''; adopted by Hesychius' referred to by Victor^ ; reproduced " with a difCod. K.
;

ference" in

more than one ancient schoHon''.

But they arc

kiieir

of ihe mutilation, but had ascertained by Critical research

the genuineness of this Section of Scripture,

Text of the authentic "Palestinian" Copy^,

and had adopted the is more than

found to have died away into a very faint echo when EuIhvmius Zigabeuus' rehearsed them for the last time in his

Commentary on the

Gospels, a.d. 1116.

Exaggerated and

enough to outweigh the faint presumption created (as some might think) by the words of Eusebius, that his own copy was without it. And yet, as already stated, there is nothing whatever to shew that Eusebius himself deliberately rejected the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel. Still less does that Father anywhere say, or even hint, that in his judgment the original Test of S. Mark was without them. If he may be judged by his words, he accepted them as genuine : for (what is at least certain) he argues upon their contents at great length, and apparently without misgiving.
high time however to point out that, after all, is, not uhaf Eusebius thought on this subject, but what is historically probable. As a plain matter of fact, the sum of the Patristic Evidence against these Verses is the hypothetical suggestion of Eusebius already quoted which, (after a fashion well understood by
(b)

misunderstood, behold

them

resuscitated after an interval of

seven centuries by Griesbach, and Tischeudorf, and Treagain destined to fall into a congegellcs and tbe rest
:

nial,

though very
(I

differentlj'

prepared

soil;

and again des-

tined

venture to predict) to die out and soon to be forthat has gone before, our two oldest Codices

gotten for ever.

(iv.)

After

all

(Cod.

and Cod. k) which alone witness to the truth of

Eusebius' testimony as to the state of certain copies of the Gospels in his own day, need not detain us long. They are

It is

thought

to

be as old as the

iv**"

century

they are ceitainly

the question to be decided

without the concluding section of S. Mark's Gospel.

it

But

mav

not be forgotten that both Codices alike are dis-

figured throughout by errors, interpolations and omissions

without number; that their testimony is continually diand that it often happens that where thej' both vergent
;

those

who have

given an}' attention to these studies),

itself in

is

ob-

served to have rapidly propagated

the congenial soil of the v* century. And even if it could be shewn that Eusebius deliberately rejected this portion of Scripture, (which has

agree thej' are both demonstrablj' in error". Moreover, it is a hi<^hly significant circumstance that the Vatican Codex
the more ancient of the two, exhibits a vacant the only vacant column column at the end of S.Mark's Gospel, whereby it is shewn that the Copyist was in the irhole codex :
(B),

which

is

never been done,)

yet,

inasmuch as

it

may

be regarded as

certain that those famous codices in the library of his friend

I

See above, pp. 41 to 51

is

p,

Tbe reader 264 liue 28

:

p.

Appendix (B). referred to Mai's Kov. PP. Bill, 301, line 3-^, and 68.
:

aware of the existence of the Twelve concluding Verses of while the S. Mark's Gospel, even though he left them out "
:

also

vol, iv. p. 2C2, line

12

t
i

p.

CS and note

(d)

p.

119 and note

"^

(ni).

'

P. 51-7.

'

P. 57-9. P. G8-9.

P.

6y66.
VI.

P-

114125.

'

'

See above,

p.

64-5: also Appendix (E).

"

Cliiip.

"

Sec above, pp. 86 to 88.

252

The practical

issue.

What

results from

[tuxr.

xii]

the re-vstahlishment of S.
is

Marl; xvi. 9

20.

Qj-i

original Scribe of the

Codex Sinaiticus

() is declared

by

external consideration

condemned by

Tischendorf to have actually omitted the concluding tertt o/ S. John's Goytil, in which unenriable peculiarity it standi

nunt of

the universal

Church,

which,

the delllcrate ju'hj-

in its corporate capa-

alone

among MSS.-

which we

thus v,e are brought back to the point from "We are reminded that the one thing to be accounted for is the mutilated condition of certain copieit
(I.)

And

city, for eighteen hundred j'ears, in all places, has not only solemnly accepted the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel as genuine, but has even singled them out for special

started.

honour
(II.)

'.

Let

it

be asked in conclusion,

of S. Marie's Gospel
of which, Cod.

in

the beginning of the fourth century

discussion

is

now happily
ainj

at an end,)

and Cod. n are the two solitary su^^^Ting one historical witness. We have 'to decide, I mean, between the eridencc for this fact, (namely, that within the first two centuries and a-half of our sera, the Gospel according to S. Mark suffered mutilation ;) and the
specimens,

Are

(for this

prolonged

any inconvethat

Eusebius, the

niences likely to result from a frank and loyal admission,

{in

th(

nlsmec of

Evidence uhatcver

to the eontrnri/,)

doubtless the last

just as

Twelve Verses of

S.

Mark's Gospel are

reasonableness of the other opinion, namely, that S.

original autogrriph extended

Mark's no farther than eh. xvi. 8. All is reduced to this one issue; and unless any are prepared to prove that the Twelve familiar Verses (ver. 9 to ver. 20) with which S. Mark ends his Gospel cannot be his, (I have proved on the contrarj' that he must needs be thought to

worthy of acceptation as the rest ? It might reasonably be supposed, from the strenuous earnestness with which the rejection of these Verses is generally advocated, that

have written themP,)

some considerations must surely be assignable why the opinion of their genuineness ought on no account to be entertained. Do any such reasons exist? Are any inconveniences whatever likel}' to supervene ? Ko reasons whatever are assignable, I reply neither are
;

submit that

it is

simply irrational

to persist in asseverating that the reason

why
iv'''

those verses

are not found in our two Codexes of the

century must

inconvenient consequences of any sort to be anticipated, except indeed to the Critics to whom, it must be confessod, the result proves damaging enough.
there
aiii/

be because they did not exist in the original autograph of

the Evangelist.
opinion,

It will
(1st)

only follow,

"What else is this but to set unsupported or rather unreasoning prejudice, before the historical

That Cod.

B and

Cod. s must be henceforth allowed

convicted, in
of bearing

to be

i"/i

one more serious particular untrustworthy and erring

evidence of a fact ?

The assumption
;

is

not only gratuitous,

witnesses.

They have been

of S.

fact,

arbitrary, groundless

but

it is

discountenanced by the evi-

false witness in respect

Mark

xvi. 9

20, where their

dence of MSS., of Versions, of Fathers, (Versions

Fathers

and

much

older than

the iv"" century:)

is

rendered

evidence had been hitherto reckoned upon with the most undoubting confidence.
(2ndly) That the critical statements of recent Editors,

in the highest degree improbable by every internal, every

Will
J

it

be believed that Tischendorf accordingly rejects

tlie

tliai

verse also as

and indeed the remarks of Critics generally, in respect of S. Mark xvi. 9 20, will have to undergo serious revision

an end at ver. 2i, as be brings the second Gospel to an end at rer. 8 ? For my own part, ^having (through the kindness and liberality of the Keeper of the Imperial MSS. at S. Petersburg, aided by the good offices of my friend, the Rev. A. S. Thompson, Chaplain at
spurious

and brings

fourth Gospel to

in every

important particular, will have to be unconditionally withdrawn.

(3rdly) That, in all future critical editions of the

New Tes-

S. Petersburg,)

obtained a photograph of the

last

page of S. Jobn'i Gospel,

dorf's

must be allowed altogether to call in question the accuracy of Dr. Tiscbenjudgment in this particular. The utmost which can be allowed is that

the Scribe

may have

possibly changed his pen, or been called

'

away from

his

have to be restored to their rightful honours never more appearing disfigured with brackets, encumbered with doubts, banished from their
will
:

tament, these

"Twelve Verses"

task, just before bringing the fourth Gospel to a close.

See Chap. IX.

Chapter X.

2o4

rat-tiny Wotih.

[chai-. xii.

context, or molested 'with notes of suspicion.

trary.

On

the con-

few words of caution against the resuscitation of what has been proved to be a " vulgar error," will have
henceforth to be introduced
(4thly) Lastly,
in

mcmoriam

rei.

longer taught to look with distrust on this precious part of the Deposit; and encouraged to dispute the Divine sayings which it contains

men must be no

on the plea that perhaps they

may

not be Divine, after

all

for that prolahly the entire section is not genuine.

They

must he

assured,

on the

contrarj', that these

Twelve Verses

are wholly undistinguishable in respect of genuineness from

the rest of the Gospel of

to

and it may not be amiss S. Mark remind them the Creed called the "Athanasian" speaks no other language than that employed by the Divine Author of our Religion and Object of our Faith. The Church warns
;

her children against the peril incurred

fully reject the

bj' as

many

as wil-

Truth, in no other language but that of the

Great Head of the Church.

speak disparagingly of
(III.)
S.

No

person

Mark

xvi. 16,

may presume any more.

to
;

il X

ATDT^TTI^TIT^ X J^ 1>
-I

Whether,

after the foregoing exposure of a very

prevalent and highly popular, but at the same time most

calamitous misapprehension,
for Editors of

it will

not become necessary

Testament to reconsider their conclusions in countless other places whether they must not be required to review their method, and to remodel their text throughout, now that they have been shewn the
:

the Text of the

New

insecurity of the foundation

fidently builded,

respect of a

on which they have so conand been forced to reverse their verdict in place of Scripture where at least thej' supposed

themselves impregnable;

I forbear at this time to inquire.

Enough

to have demonstrated, as I claim to

have now

done, that not a particle of doubt, that not an

atom of LAST

suspicion, attaches to

" the

Twelve Vehses of the Gospel according to

S.

Mark."

TO TfAOC.

CONTENTS.

APPENDIX
(A.) On ihe Iwporfance of attending to Patristic Citations
of Scripture.
hliihcd

(A).

The

correct

Text of S.

LrxE

ii.

14, esta'

Oit the

importance of attending

to

Palris/ic Cilaliont of Scripture.

P-

257

The

correct Text ofS.

Luke

ii.

14, cddllideJ.

(B.) ErsEBius

ment ofS.

"ad Marinum" concerning the Mark xvi. 9 with S.Matthew xxviii.

Hesichius
is

(Ikfcrrcd to at
reconcile1
.
.

p. 22.)

p.

265

(C.) Proof that

a Copyist only in tchat he says

p.

citations of Scripture

In Chapter III. the importance of attending to Patristic has been largely insisted upon. The

concerning the end of S. Mark's Gospel

267

controverted reading of S.

Luke

ii.

14 supplies an apt

illus-

(D.) Some accoimt of Yictoh or Aktioch's Commentary on S. Marl's Gospel ; together with a descriptive enumeration

tration of the position tliere maintained, viz. that this subject

p.

has not hitherto engaged nearly as

much

attention as

it

of MSS.

which contain Victor's

Work

269

deserves.
I.

Instead of iv avOpwiron eiSoxla, (which

is

the reading

(E.) Text of the concludi)ig Scholion of Victob of Aktioch's Commentary on S. 3farVs Gospel ; in which Victor bears

of the " Textus reccptus,")

Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregellcs

emphatic

Testimony

to

ihe

Genuineness

of " the

last p.

Twehe Verses"
(F.)

288

and Alford present us with ip avOpdinots eihoKlas. Their authority for this reading is the consentient testimony of

On the relative antiquity of the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sikaiticus (k)

(B),
p.

291

(G.)

On

the {so-called)
:

"Ammokian"
a Dissertation.

Sections and on the

ErszBiAN Cauoks

With some account of the Talles of Reference occasionally found in Greek

THE FOUR OLDEST MSS. ^VHICH CONTAIN S. Luke ii. 14 (viz. THE Latin Versions generally {"in homiB, s, A, D) nihus bonne voluntatis ") ; and the Gothic. Against these are to be set, Cod. A (in the Hymn at the end of the Psalms) ALL THE OTHER UnCIALS J together with EVERY KNOWN CURand every other ancient Version in existence. SIVE MS.
:

and Syriac

MSS
Text of Codex

p.

295

(H.) On the Interpolation of the

and
p. p.

to

Codex

K,

fl<

S.

Matthew

sxvii.

48 or 49

313

the evidence of mere Antiquity may be supposed pieponderate in favour of evBoxlai though no judicious Critic, it is thought, should hesitate in deciding in favour

So

fur,

POSISCEIPT

319

L'ENroT.

upon the evidence already adduced. The the popular Theory ask, But why should the advocates of four oldest MSS., together with the Latin and the Gothic
of fi/BoKia, even

Gexeeax Ltdei

p.

325

Versions, conspire in reading evBoicuif, it evSoKt'a be right? Let them in That question shall be resolved by-and-by.
the
in

mean time

tell us, if

they can, How

eiert/ other

is it

credible that,

every other such a matter read evBoKla, if evSoKta be wrong f Version in the world should But the evidence of Antiquity has not yet been nearly cited.
as this,

MS. and

I proceed to set it forth in detail.


258
It
is

Early Fathers
to

[Apr.
A.]

Testlmo)!!/ of

the true

Rcadiug o/S. Luke

ii.

14.

259
authorities

found then, that whereas (vEoKias

read by
all

is
:

read by tunu

ritics

for euSo/e/ia?

are hopelessly outvoted

by

eiiZoKia is
(1)
ii.

the following Fathers

240.]

vet older than themselves?

[i.

OiiiGKN, in tliree places of his writings,

It:

374

i>:

purposes,
the iii"*

Here is, to a record of what was once found

all

intents

and

in tiro Codices of

714
(2)

iv.

15

b, a.d.

The Apostolical CoNSTrruxioNS,

iii.

twice,

[vii.

47

viii.

century ; in nine of the iv'*; in three of the v'*; ndded to the testimony of the two Syriac, the Egyptian, the
Ethiopic,

809 b,a.d. 290.] (4) EusEHius, twice, [Dem. Ev. 1G3 c: 342 b, a.d. 320.] (5) Aphkaates the Persian, (for whose name [xuprd, pp. 26-7] that of Jacobus of Nisibis' has been erroneously a.d. 337.] substituted), twice, [i. 180 and 385, (G) Titus of Bostka, twice, [in loc, but esjjecially iu S. Luc. xix. 29 (Cramer, ii. 141, line 20), a.d. 350.] a.d. 360.] (7) Gregory of Nazianzus, [i. 845 c, (8) Cyril of Jerusalem, [a.d. 370], as will be found ex'

12 a(lfii).,n.V^ cent.] (3) Methodius, [Galland

and the Armenian

all,

versions.
is

In this instance there-

fore the evidence of Antiquity

even overwhelming.
the fact this was the form

Most
in

decisive of

perhaps,

is

which

the Churches of the East

preserved the Angelic

Hymn
tions.

in their private, as well as their solemn public Devo-

Take

it,

from a document of the

v"'

century

AOEA CN mUCTOlC

660)

KAi eni fHC eiPHNH CN ANePCOnOlC eTAOKlA'.

But the text of

at a yet earlier

this

Hymn,
is

as a Liturgical

document,

plained below.
(9) Epipha.sius,
[i.

154

d,

a.d. 375.]
[vii.

period

unequivocally established by the

Ev)(apia-

combined testimony of the Apostolical Constitutions (already

:

(10) CiiRYsosTOM, four times, a.d. 400.] xi. 374 B expressly, (11)
S.

311 b

674 c

viii.

85 c:

quoted,)

and of Chrj'sostom, who says expressly

[Ojjjj. xi.

rovvTCi \eyofiev, AoJ^a iv ir^iajois 0fa>, Koi

iv

iirl

7^?

elpi]vr),

Cyril of Alexandria, in three places, [Comw. on Lithe, pp. 12 and 16. Also 0/;;;. ii. 593 a vi. 398 c,
:

avBpdjTTOis evBoKia.

347

b.]

Now

this incon-

testably proves that the Church's established tray of reciting the

a,d. 420.]
(12)

Angelic

Hymn

in the iv'*

century was in conformity with the

(13)
(14)

Theodoret, \in Coloss.i. 20, a.d. 430.] Theodotus of Ancyra, [Ga/tand. x. 446 b, Proclus, Abp. of Constantinople, [GaU.

x.

a.d. 430.]

629

a,

And this fact infinitely reading of the Textus Receptus. outweighs the evidence of any extant MSS. which can be
named
:

for it is the consentient evidence of hundreds,

or

A.D. 434.]

rather of thousands of copies of the Gospels of a date anterior to A.D.

To which maj' be added the evidence of

(15) Cosmas Indicopleustes, four times repeated, [Coll.

400, which have long since perished.

Nov. PP., (Montfaucon,)

A.D. 535.]

ii.

152

a,

160

d,

247

E,

269

c,
e,

sent purpose.

(16) EuLOGius,
A.D. 581.]

Abp. of Alexandria, [GaN.

Crete, twice, [Gall.
xiii.

xii.

308
d,

c,

upon this, however, is not at all my preAbout the true reading of S.Luke ii. 14, (which is not the reading of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,) there is clearly no longer any room for

To

insist

(17)

Andreas of

100

123

A.D. 635.] Now, when it is considered that these seventeen Fathers of the Church" all concur in exhibiting the Angelic Hymn
as our oirn Tcxttis Jieccptus exhibits
evSoKt'a,)
'

It is perhaps one of the best established readings in sole object is the whole compass of the New Testament. to call attention to the two following facts doubt.

My

(1)

iv who does not see that the four oldest uncial authoit,

(B, N,

That the/our oldest Codices irhich contain S. Lithe ii. 14 A, D, A.D. 320520), and two of the oldest VerAngelic

(viz.

avOp^'"^"'^

sions, conspire in exhibiting the

Hymn

incorrectly.

(2)

That we are indebted

k

to fourteen of the Fathers (a.d.

end of the
Psaluis.

Pseudo-Gregory Tbaumaturgus, Peeudo- Basil, Patricius, and Marios Mercator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration.

Codex A,vni'os

iuBii'6s at tlie

S2

2G0

The Eikhncc of Innaus, of Origni,

All-.

uihI of Cyril, not lifiroif.

201

240434), and
II.
1
.

to the rest of the ancient Tcrsions, for the true reading of that memorable place of Scripture.

rspccially in such a

matter as the present,)

How can
Wliy
is

lesti-

moiiy like this bo considered to outweigh the three distinct

places
in

Against all this, it is urged (by Tischendorf) that, IuenjEus sides with the oldest uncials. Now, the Gntk

the original writings of this Father, where he

reads not ev^oKias but evSoKt'a ?

Again.

is

a doubt

of the place referred to

survives.

is lost.
tliat

A Latin translation

is all

that

insinuated
places, (" ut

concerning the trustworthiness of those three

nunc reperitur,") where there really
to

According to

evidence, Irenaeus, having quoted

(iii.

no doubt ?

the place in conformity with the Vulgate reading

c. x.

How
tisan,

is

Truth ever

be attained

if investigations like the

41,"

Gloria in cxcelsis

voluntatis,")
altissimis
est,

pax hominibus honor presently adds," In eo quod dicuut, Gloria in

ct in terra et in terra

Deo
pax,

present are to be conducted in the spirit of an eager par-

instead of nith

the calm gravity of an impartial

Deo

eum

qui

sit

altissimorum, hoc

judge?

supercaelestium factor et eorum, quae super terrain omniiun conditor, his sermonibus glorificaverunt qui suo plasmati, hoc est hominibus suam benignitatem salutis dc
;

But
ference

may
is

as well state plainly that the context of thr

passage above quoted shews that Tischendorf's proposed ininadmissible.

Origen
:

caelo misit."

{ed.

Stieren,

i.

459).

But

it

must

suffice to
:

ask the following question

" Since
not

is

supposing some one to

Angels on the night

point out (1) that these words really prove nothing

(2) that it

and
if

when Chkist was born

docs our Savioie
earth, but
saj',
'

proclaijned 'on earth Peace,'

why

would be very unsafe to build upon them, even

since (3)
it is

am

come

to

send Peace upon

they did

plain that the Latin translator exhiLatin form most familiar to himself: (consider his substitution of "excelsis" for " altissimis.")
;

bits the place in the

ther the answer

sword? .... Consider," (he proceeds) "whemay not be this:" and then comes the

extract given above.

Origen,

(to esj^ress oneself

with collo-

claimed on the same side, on the strength of the following passage in (Jerome's version of)
2.
is

Next,

Origen

quial tnitl) fulness,) is at his old tricls.

He

is

evidently acit

his lost Homilies

terrain

on S. Luke " Si scriptum esset, Siij>er pax, et hucusque esset finita sententia, recte quaestio
:

quainted with the reading evBoiclas

and because

enables

him
to

to

ofl'cr

(what appears to him) an ingenious solution of

it for

a certain

problem, he adopts
elprivt)

the nonce

his proposal

nasceretur.

Nunc

vero in eo quod additum

est,

hoc

est,

take the words

eiiBoKias together,

being simplj'

quod post pacem

quaestionem.

dicitur, In hominibus bonae voluntatis, solvit Pax enim quam non dat Dominus super terram, non est pax bonae voluntatis." (0pp. iii. p. 946.) "From this," (says Tischendorf, who is followed by Trogelles,)

preposterous,
himself*.
3.

as

no one ever knew better than Origen

Lastly, C^tsil of
Critics as

Jerusalem

is

invariablj' cited

latest

favouring the reading evBoKias.

Cyril's
tie

by the Those
cf.

"it

is
;

plain that Origen regarded evBoKlas as the

learned persons have evidentl)' overlooked the candid ac-

true reading

not evSoxia

Greek writings." But, Is one here more struck with the

which

is

now

thrice found in bis

knowledgment of De Touttee, bottom of p. 162,) that though

eihoKt'a,

editor,

(p.

180,

unfairness of the Critic,

of Cyril exhibit yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured to print

MSS.

or with the feebleness of his reasoning ?

For,

(to

say no-

(vBoKias.
to 8.

This therefore

is

one more Patristic attestation

thing of the insecurity of building on a Latin Translation *,

'

the trustworthiness of the Textus Receptus in respect of

Luke

ii.

14,

The

old Latin Interpreter of Origen's

to have found in Origen'e text a

Commentary on S. Matthew seemi quotation from S. Lute ii. 14 which u '

sight of

by

Critics.

which has been hitherto unaccountably lost (May I, without offence, remind Editors
they ought in every intheir references ?)
i.

represented in the extant Oreek text of Origen. Here also \re are presented with "liominibus bonae voluntatis." (Oj>p. iii. 637 c). We can say nothing
to such second-hand evidence.

of Scripture that instead of copying,

stance to
''

rerifij

Consider his cxactlj- limiliir method conctriiing Eph.

1.

{Supra, pp. 90

90.)

262
III.

n^isfori/

0/ the reading, eihoKtai.

[app.
is

A.

litriii.'ii

of the

Gnik

Text, rcjuircd.

2G3

The

history of this corniption of the

It is interesting

Text

to discover.
(1.)

not hard

The consequence
pression retains
its

is

that a well-nigh untranslatable ex-

and

instructive also.
carlirr

place in the Vulgate to the present hour.

still, some Copyist will

nm.

In the immediately post-Apostolic age, if not have omitted the eV before

The resemblance of
(cn, an.)

i,.(>f^

the letters

and the

si.uilarily

of the sound

misled him

we connect eiiBoKias with eip/jvij, or we propose to understand " men of good pleasure," The harmony of the result is still the same. the three-part Anthem which the Angels sang on the night
AVhetlicr (with Origon)

(with the moderns)

eNANGPUnOIC
Every one must
have happened.
in Acts IV. see at a glance

of the Nativity

is

hopelessly marred,
its place.

and an unintelligible

discord substituted in

Logic, Divinitj-,
of Stephens
latest
is

Documents
unquestionis

how

easily the thing

may

are here all at one.

The reading
is

(It is in fact precisely what has happened where, for cV ip0p^^on. ; and a few cursive MSS. read ivdptiironf, being countenanced therein by the Latin Versions generally, and by them only.)

ably correct.
tainl}- corrupt.

The reading of the

This

Editors

as ccr-

12

a case therefore

where the value of

It affords

Patristic testimony
also

becomes strikingly apparent.

one more crucial proof of the essential hollowness

it

(2.)
^

The

result

however (Sofa

eV

iy{rlaToi<i

OfjS xal

of the theorj- on which

has been recently proposed by

rest to

ivepmroK! ciSow'a) was obviously an impoBBible sentence. It could not be allowed to stand. And yet It was not by any means clear what had happened to it. In
elpt^vTi

eyri

7^,

Lachmnnu, Tischeudorf, TregcUes and the

struct the text of the

recon-

Xew

Testament.

To some,

it

ma)' perhaps seem unreasonable that so

many

order, as

it

seems, to force a

meaning into the words, some

words should be devoted

to the establishment of the text of

one with the

best intentions will have put the sign of the genitive (c) at the end of eihoKla. The copy so depraved was destined to play an important part
;

a single place of Scripture,

depending,
JJliaf is

as that text does,

letter.
if

on the insertion or the omission of a single

content to ask in reply,

am

for it

became the
hominibui

important,

not the

fontal source of the Latin Version,

which exhibits the place

in

utterance of Heaven, when, at the la)'ing of the corner-stone

of the

thus: for/a

in

altissimis

Beo,

et

terra

pax

New

Creation, " the

Morning Stars sang together,

for jo}' ?

by the way, (if the quotation from Irenaeus, given above, is to be depended upon,) that IrensEus must have so read the place: (viz. elp^vri
It is evident,

bonae voluntatis.

and

all

the Sons of

God shouted

"

avOpdairois eiSoKiat.)
(3.) To restore the preposition (cn) which had been accidentally thrust oat, and to obliterate the sign of the genitive (c) which had been without authority thrust in, was an obvious proceeding. Accordingly, everi/ Greek EvangcUum extant exhibits avOpomoi^ while ail but (B, N, A, D)

IV. Only one word in conclusion. "Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611), it will become necesfirst instance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons carefully to revise the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know precisely what it is they have to translate before they can

sary tliat she should in the

four manner, into some MSS. of the Vulgate (e.g. the Cod. Amiatinua,) the preposition ("in") baa found its way back but the genitive (" bonae voluntatis") has never been rectified in a single copy of the Latin version. The Gothic represents a copy which exhibited h> av:

pretend to translate

it.

As

for supposing that Scholars

who

read eiSoKi'a.

In

like

have been appointed to revise a Translation are competent at a moment's notice, as every fresh difiSculty presents itself, to
develope the
it

skill requisite for revising the original Text,

is clearly nothing else but supposing that experts in one Science can at pleasure shew themselves proficients in

dpwirotf: evSoKia<:*.
'

another.

From the Bev. Professor Bjsworth.

But

it

BO happens that,

on the present occasion, that other

264
Science
will find
is
it

licrisioii, the trorh

of the Chiinh.

[afi.

one of exceeding

difficulty.

Revisionists t'rt

the Theory of Textual Criticism which

necessary altogether to disabuse their minds of is at present iLe do-

APPENDIX
xvi. 9 tcith S.

(B).

minant and the popular one,

it

and

of which I have

made

KrsEBiis " ad Marinum" concerning the reconcilement vf S. Mark

my
I

business to expose the fallaciousness, in respect of

Matthew

xxviii. 1.

several crucial texts, in the course of the present

work.

(Referred to at pp. 46, 47, 64, and 233.)

cannot so far forget the unhappy circumstances of the

Subjoined

is

the original text of Euseiiius, taken from

times as to close this note without the further suggestion,

(sure therein of the approval of our trans- Atlantic brethren,)
that, for a Revision of the

the " Qun?stiones ad Marinum" published by Card. Mai, in his " Nova Patrum Bibliothcca" (Romac, 1847,) vol. iv.
pp. 255-7.
I.

Authorized Version to enjoy the

confidence of the Nation, and to procure for itself accept-

ance at the hands of the Church,

found necessary that the work should be confided to Churchmen. The Church ma3' never abdicate her function of being "a Witness and a Keeper of Holy Writ." Neither can she, without ilagrani inconsistenc}' and scandalous consequence, ally
it

JTwy Trapn ^kv rw

MarBatw

6\jre

aa^/SaTtav ^aivejai
Trpw'i
tjj

will be

iyeyepfiaw o StoT?;p, irapa Be

rw MdpKU)
6 fiev

iita rSiv

TovTOvhn-n) av
del*
P] T>;i'

eir)

i)

Xvo-(?'

yap

[to KecfxlXaiov aino

TOVTO

(pdcTKOVffav irepiKOTrijv d6eTo)v, eiTroi

av

/j,r)

iv

herself in the

work of Revision with

the Sects.

Least of all

aira(Tiv ainijv (fiepeaOat

toU

dvTiypd<f)oi<:
tijiv

tov Kara

MdpKov

may
\

she associate with herself in the sacred undertaking

evayyeklov' rd yovv aKpt^i)

dvT.iypdcpwv rb rekos irepi-

an Unitarian Teacher, one who avowedly [see the letter of " One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.," in the "Times" of July 11, 1870] denies the eternal Gonhead of her Lord. That the individual alluded to has shewn any peculiar aptitude for the work of a Revisionist or that he is a famous Scholar or that he can boast of acquaintance with any of
; ;

ypdd>a Tijs Kara rov MdpKov laTopla^ ev to?? \6yoif rev bd)devToi vcaviffKov tqis yvvai^l Kal elpTjKOTOs avrals " fit)
<f>o^fla0e, 'Itjctovi' fTyTetre

tov Na^aprjvov." Kal Toh

(f)vyov,

e^^js, ols

(TriKeyfi'

" xal aKovcracrai

Kal ovBevl ovSev

eiTTOv,

the less familiar departments of Sacred Learning;'

is

not

eSoBovvTO yap." 'Ev TovTtp yap a^eBov iv airaai toZ? dvTiypdAoHTOV Kara MdpKOV eiiayyeXiov TreptyeypaTTTai rb reXof TO Be f)9 <rrravia)s ev ricriv dXX' ovk iv rrdcri ^epofieva rrepirra av
e'r],

Ka\ /j-dXiara

eirrep

exoiev avrCKoyiav
ftev oiiv eirroi

rfi

r<ov ris

even pretended. were the case.)

oi

(It would matter nothing if the reverse

What

\oiircov eiciyyeXtariiiv fiaprvpla.

ravra

av

else, then, is this

but to ofier a deli-

rrapairovpevos Ka\ rrdvri] dvaipwv rrepirrbv ipairijfia.

'AWos
ruv

berate insult to the Majesty of Heaven in the Divine Person

Him who
its

Be rii ovB' ortovv roXpcav aderelv rS)v ottuxjovv iv rfj

is

alike the Object of the Everlasting Gospel,

?

and

evayyeXia^v ypnAiJ

tfjepofievosv,

Bnr\r\v elvai

<f>rjai.

r^v dvay-

Author

vwaiv, ws Ka\ iv erepois iroWols, eKurepav re irapaBeKreav

iiTrapYfii',

rw

fir)

fiaWov

ravrrjv iKeivrjs,

fi

iKelvrjv ravTr)<i,

rrapd rois Triaroh kcu evXa^eaiv iyKpiveaOai.

Kal

Bi]

rovBe rov fiepov^ avyxoipovfiivov elvai a\r)6ov<;,

rrpoa-qKei rov

row

Btepfjnjveveiv

rov dvayvwcr fiaro';'

el

yovv
aiirrjv

BieXoiaev r>]v rov Xoyov Bidvoiav,

ovk av evpoifiev

ivavrlav to?? rrapd rov

MarOalov

otfre

aa^^droyv iyi)yep0ai
rrptot rfj iiia

rov Sa>rT]pn XeXeyfievoif rb yap " dvacrrds Be

rid. mijira, p. 233.


266
EcsiDirs " ad Marinum."
[kvv.

Tov ca^^drov" Kara tov MiipKov, fiera BtaaTo\T)<! aiayi-wtrofitda' Ka] fiera to avaa-raf
Bf,'

vtroaTi^ofiev"' Ka\

APPENDIX
rrorflLif Hesychics
is

(C).

tj/j-

lida copyist oiihj in what he toys eoiiceniing

voiav a(f)opi^onai tcjv e^ns eTriXeyofievayv. tlra to

/xtv uiioff.

ras

&t>,

iiriri]v Tzapa rtu

Ma-Oaio)

6-dre

aa^^cnav. Tort fan

the end of S.

Mark's Gospel.
at rP- 57-58.)

ijtjyepTO- TO Be ef fj? eripai; ov havolas VTroaraTiKov, avidyfrio. (lev Tois iniXeyofieiioir Trpw'i yap rj] fiia rov aa^^djov i<^,Utf

(Rcftned to

Mapia
jrptj'i

r^ MayhaXTjvfj. tovto yovv eS/jXaxre kal 6 'Iwdvi-rjt Koi ainoi rf) fita rov ca^^drov <x)cf>6ai avTov rri May-

BaXrivfj fiapTvpijcras.
iif>avr)

oCtw? ovp Kal irapd

dvaards,

tw

Mdpxifi irpuA

stated above (at p. 58) that ITe^y 1. It was confidently CHiis discussing the consistency of S. Mattliew's oype twv aa^^dTwv (chap, xxviii. 1), with the 7rpui of S. Mark (cliap.
xvi.
9),
is

amfj. ov

irpcoi

dWa iroXv irpoTepov

Kara tov

a copyist

only

MaTOalov 6-^i TOV aafi^drov. tote yap dvaa-Tai e<f)dii] tJ Mapia, ov tots aWd Trpto'i. tos TrapiaTaaOav iv rovrott Kaipoiis Bvo. TOV fiiv yap t"]s dvacndaews tov oi/re toO aafifiuTov, TOV Be TrJ9

" Quaestioncs ad
statement
is

Marinum"

of Eusebius.

and that he copies from the The proof of that

subjoined.

the extracts in the

in order to

It should perhaps be explained that right-hand column have been dislocated

to

tov SuTr/pos

e'in(j)aveia<;,

tov 7rpm\, tv

eypai^ev 6 M.dpK0<; elirwv (o Kal fierd Stao-ToX^s dvayvuiaTeov) dvaa-Td<i Be'

in the left-hand

shew their close rescuiblance column from Eusebius

:

what

is set

down

elra inroaTi^avTes, to ffv? p-qrtov, vpuA

icpdvr]

(Erszurrs.)
TO oV-t

(Hestcitius, or Scvcrus.)
f'ern-f

Tp

fiia

tov aa^fiaTov

Mapia

ttj

MayBaXrjvfj,

dtfi

aaS^irav nn T^v

piv^v

ro Sc ofi aa^pdrav ov
rijv

rijv iirriijX.'ot;

eKfiefi\.i]Kei

ewTa Baifwvia. II. Uws KaTO, TOV MoTdalov o-^p-e (ra^^aTcov 17 MayBdkijvi] TeOeafievq ttjv dvdaraatv, Kara tov 'ladvvtjv rj airri] etrriaaa

i>pav n-i- fTa T^.' i^iitpav

ToO aa/3- pay

(l(t!i

t^k hiaiv roO

^OTOv XtytaBoi wroXd^oi/ifi-

....

^-J^^o'-

aXXA TO ?paiv Ka\ o^i T^r wktos.

yop Ml ifi T^t &pas \i>6a-

aWa
al

ri fipaUov Kai TrcXi

.

BuonjKot.
oi'to,

K\aUi irapd tw fivrj^ei'to t!] fiiS tov aa^^aTov. OvBev av f^riTTfBeiTj Kara tovi tottous, el to oyp-e o-aySySoTWi' fir) TTjv kaTrepivrjv &pav ttjv fierd tijv fjfiepav tov aa^fiarov XeyeaOai inroXd^oifiev, &s Tives vnei\ri<^aaiv, dXKd to ^paov
Kal otpe tT]s vvkto<;
t?}? /u-era

yip tov
ii/.c

.a'.

oSrwr

i,^\v xrlyr,-

fi,y

Xf y..r, Ko,

if roC Kmpoi.
pera

Ka\

6ts Xtyf .m,

toC Kmpoi napayiyo"''""

i^i

T^t XP"'"" oi '^'' '<'"'>' *^Xi'ou Sv<rpas

""'
ovxi

"''""

^'^'

"<""'

'^' ^''"'"'

Xoi'M-ft, oi( TO^

Tr,v

ianipap, Kat tok

pna

ijXiov

to ad^^aTov, k.t.\.

XpiiO',
.

"a

c<j>6Spa

Ppi&ioy

Toirrif

6v(rpas
flpaSioc i-r

XP""""

filXoDtrii--

aXXii

ri

injfioii'OiTtt

,- _^^> TU rpoTTa

TOK rponov r

roirroii

pijvvovai.

myself of this blank space to introduce a passage from Theophvlact (a.d. 1077) which should have obtained notice in a much earlier page: 'AvaaTdt Be o
'iTjaovs'
e<f)dvri

* P.S. I avail

Be,r

itrrtp

iupprjvdav

aiiTos

6 Morflalot

uairfp (ppjjvtiuv

iaiTor i ilareaiot ptra TO

6'i'i trafi-

iavrbv, tn^yayt Tg iiTi(}>aaKoiffg tls

piav pirwr, ii^ayt ti (irKpuaKoiari ds

piav
<rQ^|3cTan'.

aa^^muv.
hi t^k itaaav t^hopaba
iSos.^
ol

evTavBa ctI^ov, elra

Ttj

eiire'

trpcot TrpdiTj)

aafi^aTOV

Mapia

MaySaXrjvrj. ov yap dveaTt) irpcot {ris yap

;)

'E<'ot

oXijr

T^K i^hopaba aa^-

vi^^arov
'"'^''

olSe TTore dveaTt)

aXX'

i<j>dv7] irpcoi

KvpiaKij fip.epa {avn)

/SoTor o>t:v.

E/3paio

yap i) TtpuiTi) TOV ffa/S^SoTou, TOUTeoTt, t^j e^BoftdBo';,) i]V avto eVaXeae fiiav tra^^dTtov' [Oj)p. vol. i. p. 263 c] It must be superfluous to point out that Theophj'lact also,

Xwrai
Toir ri

yof* irapa Toit EiayvfXta-

avrUa yoCv
f"?
''S.'

tfayyeXtoTo'i

Tg

*? Til-

oa^^araV
tfvripa aa^-

(ra^^arav 4>aaiital

Iv li TJ

ciTijflcia,

ovra Bq

.V Tg

o-uvijfltio it-

like Victor, Jerome, and Hesvchius,

ducing Eusebius.
See above,
p. 66,

^iru,y, Kal rpini

ca^^iTUP-

XPW'^"'
Tpirijv

'"">"

oa^^aru,',

"'

is

here onlj' repro(Ev^LBirs ad Marinum, fli^urf Mm, vol. iv. p. 257-8.)

cra^^oTwr.

note

(c).

(GKEG.NTBs.[i.jVf. iy^ra, p. 39
tx)

41.] 0pp. vol.

iii.

p. 402.


208

Hzsrcmrs,

Coj)i/i.s(

only.

[ait

2. Subjoined, in the right-hand column, is the original text of the passnge of Hesychius exhibited in En^lLsh nt The intention of setting doMn the p. 57. parallel passa-oa from EusEBius, and from Vicron of Antioch, is in order^to shew the sources from which Hesychius
rials,

obtained his mate-

APPENDIX
.S/Wf arroioit

(D).
CommcHtartj on S.
Jfiirl's

as explained at p.
(ErsEBirs.)

58

:
of VicTOit of Antioch's

(Hestchits, or Screnis.)
avTiyp,:c},<,p

Gofjit!;
Victor's

Uigdlier

with

an

enumeration of

MUS.

trhiih

cuutoin

T<i
^

yo.,^ iKptfi-r,

ri,v

,V ^.V ol rot. aVp./S.o-r.po.v

TO

raot v.piypA^u

dmfv,.

Work.
(llofcrrcd to at p. CO.)

r^t

Knrh tiv yp<J0u,t ri ^arA

/icxp!

MnpKov ioTopta!
oif t'TTtUyu-

KipKou ciayyA.o^
yap,"

iv ToTt

Xo>,t k.tX.

roC " ,'<f,o8ov,^o

..."

Ka\ oi5e;

oW.V, tA TXot.

"Apres
tilt

avoir examine avec soin les

MSS. de

la

Biblio-

tmov, i<f>o^ovvTO yap."

theque du Eoi," (says the Pere

J^^.

Simon

in his Ilinl. Crit.

(EusEBics
Mai,
iv. p.

ad Moriuum, ajntd

T. p. 79,)

255.)

fl)eaking of the

(YlCTOB OF AXTIOCH.)
iitfi^ hi Zv rial
.

ascribed to

"j'ai reconnu que cet ouvrage^' (he is Comurentary on S. Mark's Gospel popularly Victor of Antioch,) "n'est ni d'Origene, ni de

vpooKfirai

t; ,,

Victor d'Antiocbe, ni de Cyrille, ni d'aucun autre auteur eu

particulicr.

.^,-

Avaaras
,
,

k.t.\. touto Si ivav-

""'^"'
tipTjpma,
'

"i/a

aon
,

...

cvfii-

TTDor

/I (pirpoaotv
[Trjs

to

marque

les

C'est un recueil de plusieurs Peres, dont on a noms dans quelques exemplaires; et si ces noms
c/iaincs "."

tiprj/ifna'

ne se trouveut point dans d'autres, cela est assez ordinaire

a ces recueils,

yap wpas t^s PVKTOt ayvdxrrov

qu'on appelle

It will be seen

from

Tvyxavoiaris KaO' ^u 6 Sar^p iviani,

the notices of the

p.

work

in question alreadj' offered,

{siijirtj,

vas

ivraiiBa avaarrivai "jrpcui" yl<f>av^ijt-

59 to

p. 65,)

that I

am

able to jield only a limited acqui-

ypamat ; dXX' oiSiv I'vavrlov

ovTas avayvaaoptSa' " 'Awiorar
Si," Ka\ t'ffooTif ai/Tf t inayapiv,
Tfl

Tai TO pr)Tov, fil

/iT

tTntmjfii)! avayi>u>a6pf6a' KOI

"npui yap

vnotrr'i^ai Set crvmrii>t'

Si,'

"

'Avatr-

pt^ Tav ffoftSaVoi/

"iva

i(f,iiri

Mapla Tas

Kai

ovrat (Trayaynv, " npat

iipavri

VI MnySaX^Kfl'"

to piv

" ivaa-

TTpaiTu
rfi

tra^parav

Tat"
(VicTOE Antioch.,
vol.
i.

npuTovtilaplf

MaySaXijKij." Iva to fiiv

" afaatu

ed.

Cramer, TOf"
l'XH
^'I"

That the materials Victor of Antioch constructed his Commentary is what no one will deny who are scarcely ever original, 13ut the Author of examines the work \vith attention. and to put Victor's claim a compilation is an Author still to the work before us on a level with thai of Origen or of CvrU, is entirely to misrepresent the case and hopelessly to
escence in this learned writer's verdict.
out of which

p. 444, line

19 to line 27.)

avatpopav

(Tvp(j)u)va!

perplex the question.

Mortfuiti), Tipos
pot),

Tov npo'Ka^ovTa koi-

TO

Si

"

trpwi "

npos

rqv

Trjt

except that he
his

Concerning Victor himself, nothing whatever is known was "a presbyter of Antioch." Concerning
VTprk, I will not here repeat
;

Mapiac
SoSe'ijj.j

ycvofifvrjv

iinif>dvciav

arro-

elsewhere

but, requesting the

what I have already stated Reader to refer to what was

Ill, B, c,

(Gbeg. Ntss. 0pp. vol. iii. p. d: which may be also

i.

remarked at pp. 59 to 65, I propose to offer a few observations with which I was unwilling before to encumber the

seen in Cramer's Catenae, [vol.

p.

250, line 21 to line 33,] as-

Kolhir, (editing

Lambecius, iii. 159, 114.) expresses

tlic

same opinion.

cribed to

"SEVEKrs, Archbishop

of Antioch," IJiid. p. 243.])

Hnet (Ortgeniaua, lib. iii. c. 4, pp. 274-5,) bas a brief and unsatisfactory dissortauoa ou tbe same subject; but be arrives at a far sbrcwdcr conclusion.

270
text; holding
it

PtUanus, Possinus, Matthaei,

to be a species of duty for those

[kVT.

1,.]

and Cratncr,

edit

Victos.

271

uho have
it

located paragraphs of Victor of

Antioch are recognisable by

given any time and attention to a subject like the present to

contribute the result, (however slender and unsatisfactory

the

name

of their author (" Victor Antiochenus"; prefixed

to each: while

"Tolosanus" designates the Toulouse MS.:

may

prove,) to the

common

the ensuing scanty notices,

I shall
1.

Let abler men enlarge and correct me if in any respect

store.

" Vaticanus" (or simply "

3.

Anonymus")

the Vatican.

At the end of another

centurj*, (1775) C. F.
skill

Matthaei

have inadvertently fallen into error. There exists a Commentary, then, on S. Mark's Gospel, which generally claims on its front "Victor, Pkesb^ter OF Aktioch," for its Author*. A Latin translation of this
work, (not the original Greek,) was, in the
first instance,

put forth at JIoscow, with his usual

a

and accuracy,

new and independent Edition of

is

Victor's

Commentary*:

the text of which

based on four of the Moscow ^ISS.

This work, which appeared in

extraordinary
raritj'.

published at Ingolstadt in 1580', by Theodore Peltanus.

His Latin version found

its

way

at once into " Bibliothecte,"

(or Collections of "Writings of the Fathers,)

and has been

again and again reprinted.

2. The Greek text of Victor was first published at Home by Fc*r Possinus in 1G73, from a MS. existing somewhere which Bathazar Corderius had transcribed and in Germany
;

two parts, has become of have only just ascertained (June, 1871,) that one entire Copy is preserved in this coimtr)-. 4. Lastly, (in 1840,) Dr. J. A. Cramer, in the first volume of his Caii'iiac on the N. T., reproduced Victor's work from independent MS. sources. He took for bis basis two Codices in the Paris Library, (No. 18G and No. 188), which, however,
1

prove to have been anciently so exactly assimilated the one to

the other linfid, p. 279] as to be, in fact, but duplicates of one

presented to Possinus about thirty years before.

Corderius

gave Possinus at the same time his transcript of an anonymous Commentary on S. Mark preserved in the Vatican and Possinus had already in his possession the transcript of a third Commentary on the same Evangelist (also anonymous) which he had obtained from the Library of Charles de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse. These three transcripts PosIt is to be wished sinus published in a well-known volume. distinct, instead of to some extent that he had kept them
;

and the same original. Cramer supplemented their contents from Laud. Gr. 33, (in the Bodleian:) Coisl. 23: and Eeg. 178 at Paris. The result has been bj' far the fullest and most satisfactory exhibition of the Commentary of Victor of Only is it to be Antioch which has hitherto appeared. regretted that the work should have been sufiered to come abroad disfigured in everj' page with errors so gross as to be
even scandalous, and with traces of slovenlj' editorship which I cannot bring myself to believe are simply unintelligible.
J

blending their contents confusedly into one*.

'

Still,

the dis-

tliat

Dr. Cramer

ever inspected the

MSS.

in

the

Paris

Library in person.
have seen, are headed, BIKTOPOC (sometimes BIKTWPOC) nPfCBTTCPOT ANTI0X61AC fPMHNeiA flC TO KATA MAPKOK TArrCA10N or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no Author's

Else would the slender advantage which

The

copies

wbich

those abundant materials have proved to so leamc-d and ac-

name
'

'a

given.

Rarely
iii,

is

the

Commentary assigned
el

to Cyril, Origen,
ixviii.)

4c.

complished a scholar, be altogether unaccountable. over, he is incorrect in what he says about them '
his

More:

while

ride infra, K.

xii, liv, xii, ilviii.

Also, N. ilvii (comp.

Titi

reasons

for

proposing to assign the work of Victor

rictoris Anliocf^ni in

Marcum,

Sosirorum Epiicopi

in ^rfl-

edtti, nunc gelium Lueae commeniarii ; ante lac quldem nunquam in lucem Indonatt. vera ttudio et operd Uieodori Peltani luce limul ei Latinitate

of Antioch to Cyril of Alexandria are undeserving of seri-

ous attention.

golstad. 15S0, 8to. pp. 510.

for' " Ex hoc ego, quasi metaUo triplici, una conflata massa, inde annulos morsn conteitus nrticnlis aptatos, inter eeque mavi, quos singulos Evangelici possem consequi, ac nexu mutuo commissos, in torquem producerem, quo, si f"" decus et ornamcntum addcretur." Pr</a<io saiicto Evangelistae Marco which the particulars in the text are obtained. it

On
is

same work, Latin version of Peltanus (1580), discovered that the

a comparison of these four Editions of the
Kcii

BIKT0P03 wpKr^urepov 'Amioxdas

t4
Ktrii

iXXuf twui' ayiuu Tar4pitv

?

/{i/irijffit

ii

NipKuy iytoy tvayfiXiov

ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit C. K. Matthiei,

'

ilo4quae, 1775.

nvii xxvUi.


::

272

The Four E<lH!om of

name Greek

Victor, compared.

[ati:

D.]

LiherticH falrn ly Copi/ists

and Editon.

273

reprcsoitii (he

world in 1G73.

text which Possinus gave to the Peltanus translates very looselj-; in fact

less license

which every fresh copyist seems to have allowed

himself chiefly in abridging his author.

to omit to pass
:

To skip a few
:

lines
:

he paraphrases rather than translates his author, and conwith Yictor's text. fesses that he has taken great liberties found that there can have been no But I believe it will be
considerable discrepancy between the MS. which Peltanus employed, and that which Possinus afterwards published.

an explanatory paragraph, quotation, or digression

per
taltiim

from the beginning to the end of a passage sometimes to leave out a whole page to transpose to paraphrase: to begin or to end with quite a different
form
of

words

proves to have been the

rule.

Two

copyists

Not

so the text

which Matthaei

edited,

which

is

in fact for

engaged on the same portion of Commentary are observed

to abridge
it

Epitome the most part, (though not invariably,) rather an hand, Cramer's On the other of Yictor's Commentary.

in two quite different ways.

ther there exist in

I question wheEurope three manuscripts of Victor

than that of Possinus. There seem to be which are not only a few lines in Possinus, here and there, no less than twentyto be met with in Cramer ; whereas the work of Poseight of Cramer's pages are not found in the most complete einos. Cramer's edition, therefore, is by far
text
is

more

full

which correspond
expected)

entirelj'

throughout.

plexing in a high degree.

exhibitions of one
as if to
sible,

The result is perNot unfrequently (as might be

''.

we are presented with two or even three different and the same annotation Meanwhile, render the work of collation (in a manner) imposPeltanus pleads guilty to having transposed
liberties with the text

aloud which has hitherto appeared. And though it cries many important correcfor revision throughout; though easily be introduced into it, and the whole tions might nearly to the brought back in countless particulars more it; is plain that Victor originally left 8tatein which it more than a few pages of additional I question wkether I collated several matter could easily be anywhere recovered. in 1869) with every MS. of Victor pages of Cramer (Oct.

(1)

and otherwise taken

(2)

he translated

Possinus confessedl}'

welded three codices into one:

(3) Matthaei pieced and patched his edition out of four MSS. and (4) Cramer, out of five. The only excuse I can invent for this strange licentious;

ness on the part of Victor's ancient transcribers

is

this

the Paris Library; and

all

but invariably found that Cra-

the MS. which lay before mer's text was fuller than that of meet with a few lines in any Seldom indeed did I rae edinot abeady seen the light in Cramer's

MS. which had One or other tion.

seems to
fill

up

employed of the four Codices which he hiatus which is met with almost every

any of the MSS. of this Father. ana that an immense, For it must be stated, once for aU, discrepancy is observable I must add, a most unaccountable w
Victor: yet not between the several extant copies of
modifacation much in respect of various readings, or serious are very f^eque . transpositions of his text; (though the -

They must have known perfectly well, (in fact it is obvious,) that the work before them was really little else but a compilation; and that Victor had alread}' abridged in the same merciless way the writings of the Fathers (Chrysostem chiefly) from whom he obtained his materials. We are to remember also, I suppose, the labour which transcription involved, and the costliness of the skins out of which ancient books were manufactured. But when all has been said, I must candidly admit that the extent of license which the ancients evidently allowed themselves
quite perplexes
>s

me

'.

JFIig, for

example, remodel the struc-

taken fiviu Cod. 178.)

Besides transposing the sentences, tbe author of

Cod. 178 has suppressed the reference to Chrysostom, and omitud the
of Apolinarins in fine 10.

and often very mischievous''

;)

boun as resulting from the

(Compare
p.

Field's ed. of Chn/s.

name UL 529, top of

the p.ige.)
,*

alluded to, the reader should . To understand ,^bat iB ^^^^'l'\lJ'^J^, one and tb 442 in Cramer : noting that he has and the lo,ver half of p. the V-^ (The lower part of

Thus

till'

two notes on

440 are found substantially

to a^ree with the

note on p. 411,
'

"lution

before

him; but

diversely exhibited.

See also infra, p. 289. Let any one, with Mai's edition of the " Qnaestioues ad MariLum" of u-

whkh

= Chrys. p. 627.

274

Some account of

Victor's compilation

[aFI'.

.]

from Origen,

Eiinliii.^,

ami C/injsoifom.
S.

275

ture of a sentence

Never

I think in

and needlessly vary its phraseology? my life have I been more hopelessly con-

failed to discover

any separate exposition of

Mark's Gos-

fused than in the Bibliotheque, while attempting to collate

certain copies of Yictor of Antioch.
I dismiss this feature of the case

one, by collecting the he had determined to construct and down the writings of up occasional notices scattered presents us in Church''. Accordingly, he
ncl

by saying
little

that if any

person desires a sample of the process I have been describing,

he cannot do better than bestoiv a

It consists

attention on

the "Preface" {yiroOetjis) at the beginning of Victor's

Com-

mentary.
edition
also,
:

of thirty -eight lines

;

in Cramer's

of which
;

Possiuus omits eleven

not the same eleven.

and Matthaei
the other hand,

eleven

but

On

Fathers of the Commentary (p. 266) with a brief the first few lines of his Eusebius "to Marmus, on he quotation from the work of e Evangelical accounts of seeming inconsistency of the the a passage from with Resurrection;" following it up on S. John s Gospel.^ tome of Origen's Excget.cs vi'" [vii'" ?] with t,ro of Victors We are thus presented at the outset Eusebius just named he The work of
favorite authorities.

MatthaeiJ prolongs the Preface by eight

relate,

lines.

Strange to

the

MS. from which Cramer

If I
i.

professes to publish, goes

I suspect that he familiar with'. was evidently thoroughly its pages. 'Toward unsuspected quotation from

has

on differently.

may depend on my
p.

hasty pencilling,

after iKKKr^cxiais \^Cramer,

264, line 16,] Evan. 300,

proceeds,

[=Reg.
/tijy

186, /o/. 93, line

16 from bottom]

KX/-

many an explained,) (as already elsewhere the end of his Commentary, again. he quotes it once and very fondj: and his also Victor was evidently
Of Ori^cn .ordson^.0
to ^^ ^^^^ ^^ or three occasions seem ^'f exegetical labour, of Apoto the recourse besides habitually Titus of Bostra". PasMopsuestia, and linarius, Theodore of occasionally met ith , of Alexandria are sages from Cyril an extract from Basil.

tv e/cTo)

Twi/ VTroTVjrcoaewv,

(thirty-one lines,

ending)

j^apaKT^p iy^veTO.

On

referring to the
is

work of

Possinus, " AnonjTnus Tati(?)

canus"
self of

found to exhibit so admirable a condensation

it

of the inroOeav^ in question, that

is difficult to

divest one-

Id

the suspicion that

;

it

independent composition
Preface has
the

must needs be an original and the germ out of which the longer
of
at

grown .... We inspect the first few pages Commentary, and nothing but perplexity awaits us
It
is

he has once at 'least (p. 370) to by name Josephus he sometimes refers The historian chiefly mdebU^d is Victor is But the Father to whom Bishop of styles " the blessed John,
.

Chrvsostom,-whom he

Sie'Boylcity;" (meaning
k
.

Constantinople^),

^ot that

every step.
that

not

till

we have

turned over a few pages

OC3
line
is

we begin to find something like exact correspondence. As for the Work, (for I must now divest myself of the

Lus

4. 3 to 13, mid in Posanus, p. to at quoted at p. 4. and referred again

p.

. ,Uo

n- 9- ^N G-ne 23-5).

See

espocU.ll.v p.

440.

perplexing recollections which the hurried collation of so many MSS. left behind ; and plainly state that, in spite of
all,

^ 1

) is

a
i.

fumous

place.

(Cf.

Huefs

I yet distinctly ascertained, and

am

fully

persuaded

that the original

work was
the

of "Victor, Presbyter

the production, no doubt, one, of .Ajitioch," as 19 out of the 52

".Tsn^cIp-'ar^So's'^t Izsn-^hich Victor found to have that Uroi: on".. 3 with Orig. .S4 ..Jo., 324.
n"-"'
is
i.

L^^^

edit of V with t.e sa.c abridged. Compare the

..X

..'

,,..

(foot of

p.

427)

is

alBO Origcn.

Of. PoEsinus, p.

MSS.

declare)

For
how

explains at the outset

gebins before him, note

Commentary itself, I say, Victor what his method had been. Having

.
"'!

e.g.tho hrst

-<-- Pm)
Athaius:

Comoro

also

f
lp

'

^"ZToZTiL
411 (twice).

mercilessly they are abridged, mutilated, mpa'

I^srioVowner.
p

part^f a note on p.315 is whUe^ Uolium at p. 321 and

Cramer, ,,.395 (l-e 16-22) ascribed by Pesp. 359.

has no

tated by enhsequent writers.

Compare for iustouce p. 257 with Cramers "Catenae," L p. 251-2; and this again with the "Catena in Joannem" of Cor'

c.g. p. 408,

derius, p. 448-9.

With whom, Reg. 177 and 703

agree-

418,-JT;i.

/3a^.^tto. 1^<!^

,, .^, . , inh.oros Iivn,s.

For inBtanccs of

T2


276
Victor,
least, to
Soitic

: ;

accouut of Victor of Aniioch's

,..]

Coinmciittn-i/

o S. Marh'ts

Gosj/il.

27-

[api-.

strictly

speaking, Iramcrihcs from Chrysostom

the
;

name

of

its

author.

This would account for the ex-

at

any

extent.

His general practice

tremely partial
nuthorsliip
in
;

is

sligbtly to

and irregular occurrence of such notes of

adapt

liis

Author's language to his

own purpose; sometimct

;

as well as explain
is

why

a
".

name duly
Whether
is

prefixed
Victor's

words; a paragraph; half a page'. Then he proceeds to quote another Father probably or, it may be, to offer something of his own. But he seldom gives any
to leave out a few

one copy

often missing in another

Commentar)- can in

strictness be called a " Catena," or not,

must remain uncertain until some one

bj'

found willing to
;

intimation of

what

it is

he does

and

if it

were not

undertake the labour of re-editing his pages

not some important) results would follow.

from which,

for the
It
(if

occasional introduction of the phrase o jiiv ^T)(n or

<f)T}ai ',

aWo?

the way, I cannot but think that some highly interesting

a reader of

A'^ictor's

Commentary might almost

mis-

it for an original composition. So little pains does thit Author take to let his reader know when he is speaking in

take

Yet, inasmuch as Victor never, or ccrtainlj- very seldom,

prefixes to a passage from a Father
flic

iKtrnc

of Ux Author

his

own

person,

when

not, that he has not scrupled to retain

olfiai^, &c.

above
title

all,

seeing that sometimes, at all events, he

;

is ori-

Clnysostom's phrases iyw Be

it is

The

ginal, or at least speaks in his

result is that

often impossible to
It cannot

know

to

ichose

sentiments

we

own person I think the of " Catena " inappropriate to his Commentar)-.
favourable and as interesting a specimen of this

are

be too clearly borne in mind that aucient ideas concerning authorship differed entirely from tliose of modern times especially when Holy Scripture was
listening.
;

As

work

as could be found, is supplied

xiv. 3.

by his annotation on

S.

Mark
all

to be

commented

on.

" One and the

He

begins as follows, (quoting Chrysostom, p. 436)

same woman seems to be spoken of by

I suspect that,
as they recognised a

occasionally, copyists of Victor's work,

fragment here and

there, prefixed to

it

quotation from Chrysostom, comp. V. A. p. 315 witli Chrys. pp. 39S-9 with Cbrjs. pp. 227-8 p. 420 with Chrys. p. 447, &c.
:

p.

376

'Tale

for

(pp. 312-3),
Btoni's 28""

example A'ictor'g Commcutary on the stitUog of the storm which is merely an abridged version of the first part of ChiytoS.

By three of Yet is this not the case. them one and the same seems to be spoken of; not however the sister of Labj' S. John, but another famous person, This is what is said by John, the Bishop of the zarus. Origen on the other hand says that she who, Ro3'al City. in S. Matthew and S. Mark, poured the ointment in the house of Simon the leper was a different person from the
the Evangelists.

Homily on

Matthew

(pp. 395-8)

about 45 lines being

:

Observe Victor's method however.

Chrysostom begins as follows

'O
ti

left

ooL
>"'

sinner

whom

S.

Luke

writes about

who poured

the ointment
*

on His

feet in

the house of the Pharisee.

all

Apolinarius

and

olv AouKai, iL-naWdrTuv iavrhv tov kiratrri^vai ruv "xpivvv

fTirei-.

tV

TO^ir, oSrirt

(Then follows

S.

Luke

viii.

22.) koI i
SiaTTjpcT.

Mipicos dfiolm.

Ovtos

*X

Theodorus say that

the Evangelists mention one and tho

ovTuf
iaurhv

aWi Koi
TOiJ

iKo\ov0lav ivraOBa

Victor, because he
:

(not S. Matthew) to

comment upon, begins thus

aAAa
ko.)

dvamiBriyai ruv ;^($ra)C

riiv Tdfif, otrrws

had S. Mf 'O lilv KipKos iira\ximf' cfrcf, 6ftoius if Koi A AovK*f

SiartipfT.
^ijcrii')

same person
curatelj'

but that John rehearses the story more ac-

6 8c MarfiaTos oirx ovtus'

'

dKoXovBlav ivravBa

e.g.

V. A.

p.

422 (from

i iniv

^aiv

to \\oj 8^

= Chrys.

p.

JW.

than the others. It is plain, however, that Matthew, Mark, and John speak of the same indi^ndual; for thej' relate that Bethany was the scene of the transaction

Obser^e the next paragraph also, (p. 423,) begins, iAAor

^ijo-ii-.

A. pp. 426-7

= Chrys. pp. 473-6

So

again,

V.
427

and

this is a riUage
;

whereas Luke " &c., &c.

[viii.
'

37] speaks of some

where AWos li
p. 130,

<tn\<ii,

at the foot of p.

introduces a quotation from Origen, as appears from Possinus, p. 324^

also p. 269, line 1,

**^
W

one else

for,

'

Behold,' (saith he)

woman

in the

ciii/

words.

The

which
:

is

from Chrys.
{<t>aal rii/tt

first

three lines in p. 316

= Chrys. p. 399.

^aw.

See also pp. 392

407

Then follows, <^ ^ Utpai Si ^ticiv) pp. 416 and 4SS.

:

which was a
' e.g.Tlieod.

sinner,'

^ ij i SxAoj being the D*t

After qaoting Eusebius by

name

(p. 446-7), Victor says (line 8) <AAef

Mops., (p. 414,) which name is absent from Cod. Beg. 201 : Cyril's nnme, whoso name Possinus docs not seem to have read H:sil, (p. 370) which Possinus found in a certain place (p. 311), is not mentioned in Lauii.
:

e.g.

V. A. p. 420 line 15, which

= Chrys.

p.

417.

Gr. 33 /o/. 100 b, at tcp, 4c. So in the Catena of Cordcrius, in S. Joannem, p. 302.


^^^
-Approxhiiati-

duh of Tictoi:
r

P.]

Cod.

Jirr/.

186

n.,r/

Cod. Ilcg. 188.

279

But Ihe most important instance by far of indcpcndciu and sound judgment is supplied by that concluding
graph, already quoted and largely remarked upon, at p,.' 04-O ; in which, after rehearsing all that had been ^id against the concluding verses of S. ]\Iark'8 Gospel Victor vindicates their genuineness by appealing in his own pcr^
to the best

(iii.)

Evan. 20 (=Reg. 188: anciently numbered 1883.)

nam

d yi foJio,

A njdcn-

the urorli ofscifral handi

and leaulifully uritttn.

is

A'ictoi's tlrrcd

Commentary on

S.

Mark's Gospel

generally consithe following

to
:

be claimed for CrniL of

Alexakdbh by

voiJ?

and the most authentic

copies.

mate

referred to Victor's Text, which is given below, at p 288 It only remains to point out, that since Chrysostom, (whora A ictor speaks of as 6 eV iyU,, [p. 4OS,] and 6 ^a.ap^o,, Lp. 442,J) died in a.d. 407, it caiinof be right to quote " 401" as the date of Victor's work. Rather would a d 450 bo a more reasonable suggestion seeing that extracts from Cyril, who lived on till a.d. 444, are found here and thcro in Victor's pages. TVe shall not perhaps materially err f we assign a.d. 430-450 as Victor of Antioch's approxi:

The Reader

i,

rnOOECIC EIC to KATA MAPKON AFION ETArrEAION EK THC EIC ATTON EPMHNEIAC TOT EN AFIOIC KTPIAAOT AAEEANAPEIAC.
Tlic correspondence
X". xiv],
(iospol,
(

between Evau. 20 and Evnn. 300 [infih,

18C),
is

= Ecg. 188 and

fol.

cxtraonlinaiy

y.

In S. M.irk's
uith the tame
fol.

(which alone I examined.) every page

(i.e.

Icgiiis

KjUahk, both of Text and CoMmeuiary:

Kcp. 18C,

01 to 197
let-

= Ecg.188,
ters in
for

87 to 140). Not that the number of words and

:

every line corresponds

but the discrepancy

is

compensated

by

a blank at the end of each column,

and at the foot of each

pngc. Evan.

20 and Evan. 300 seem, therefore, in some mysterious way referable to a common original. The sacred Text of these two

date.

IISS., originally very dissimilar, has been

made

identical through-

I conclude these notices of an unjustly neglected Father, by specifying the MSS. which contain his Work. Dry enough to ordinary readers, these pages will not prove un-

out

some very ancient (the original

?) possessor of Reg. 188

having

carefully assimilated the readings of his

MS.

to those of

Ecg. 186,

the more roughly written copy

which therefore, in the judgment

An enumeration of all the extant Codices with which I am acquainted which contain Victor of Akttoch's Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel,
follows
:

interesting to the critical student.

of the possessor of Reg. 188, exhibits the purer text.

But how

(i.) Etan. 12 (=Reg. 230) a most leant if, <1 MS. The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned name; being a recension very like that

happen that in both Codices alike, each of the Gospels (except S. Matthew's Gospel in Ecg. 188,) ends with the attestation that it has been collated with approved copies ? Are we to suppose that the colophon in question was added after the one text had been This is a subject which well deserves assimilated to the other ? The reader is reminded that these two Codices have attention.
then docs
it

lished.

S.

Mark's text

is

given in

to Victob by which Matthaei has pubextam.

already

come before us

at pp. 118-9,

where

see the notes.

I proceed to set
texts of these

down some of the discrepancies between the two MSS. in every one of which, Reg. 188 has been
:

19 (=Eeg. 189: anciently numbered 437 and 1880. Also 134 and 135. At back, 1603.) A grand folio, vtUhound and splendidly written. Pictures of the Eiangelists in wf*
(ii.)

EvAjf.

made conformable

to Reg. 186

(CoD. Reg. 186.)

(1) Matth. xxvi.70. avruv'Kiywv (2) (3) (4)
avrS)V
ddci)c

(Cod. Reg. 188.)

marvellous condition that ihe rery

reproduced.

navTuv \iyav

tools

employed by a scribe might ht

The ground

Mk.

,,

i.

2.

0.J

gilded.

Headings, ^c. and words fio

Scripture all in gold.

11.

^
a/1^1/SXijo-Tpov

aot
d/i(^tj3dXXoiTac dfi<^i/3Xi;(rrpoK

Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel is assigned to differences between this text and that of Cramer (e.g. at fol. 320-3, 370,) are hopelessly numerous and complicall.
VicroH.

Here

also the

16. jSdXXoiTar

The

There seem to have been extraordinaiy text of this copy throughout.

liberties

taken wilh the

Itcg.

Beg. 186 corresponds exactly with Cod. 168: nlso that the contents of Cod. Reg. 201 correspond with those of Cod. Rog. 20c ; to which last two, I believe is to bo added Cod. Ecg. 187.
'

I believe it will be found that Cod.

280

MSS.

conlainiixj Victor's

Commcnianj
(Cod. Reg. 188.)

[app.

u.]
(viii.)

///

t/(t

Bibliolheque at Paris.
Fol.

281

(Cod. Reg. 180.)

Evas. ST

= Coisl. 21.)

(6)Mk.ii.21.

TTCikaia' il hi
aipf'i

It})

yt

isakaiu'

(I

hi

firi,

aipn To vXr^^fux

an avTov to

7f\rjpufin

fol. 117. The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for Vicion at very much the same recension which is exhibited by It seems (o be xi.) The Text 19 (itifra, N". sviii.) and Coisl. 24 (//>, K".

Coisl.
is

(6)

iii.lO.
11

f'0tj)untVv

iBepaTTfvtrei/

majgin. given in ixttmo: the Commentary, in the

(7) (8)
(9)

17. ToC 'laKu,8nv

,, ,,

18.
\i. 9.

Koi
ftrj

Mar Saiov Ka\B.

ivhvaj)a6(

Kai

M.

Toi/ TfXditirjp Kfli

6.

(ix.)

Evan. 39

Coisl. 23.)

A grand
is

large

fol

The writing
but
is

(fhihvffOat
lifivoTf

sinqularhj allrniated.

(10)

10. ixivtrt

The Commentary on
is

S.

Mark

claimed for Victok

very

dissimilar in its text from that

which forms the

271

basis of Cramer's

In the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th of these in?tauces, Tischendorf (1869) to adopt the readings of Reg. 188 in the last four, Reg. 186. In the 1st, 4th, and 5th, he follows neither.
:

found

editions.

(Sec above, on
i.

K<>. vi.)

It is Cramer's
.)

"T."

(See his

those of

Catenae, vol.

p. xxviii

and

ride supra, p.

(iv.)

EvAX. 24

= Reg. 178.) A most henutifully written

p. 70-1
;

(x.)
fol.

EvAX. 40(

= Coisl.22.)
is

No

Author's name

prefixed to the

Kote, that this Codex has heen mutilated at

S.

from

Matth. xxvii. 20

to S.

Mark

iv.

22 heing away.

It cannot thereS.
it

which is a the Commentary, in the margin.

(xi.) Ev.ix. 41

recension resembUng Matlhaei's.

Commentary The Text is

(fol.

103);
:

in extenso

fore

attributed to Yictor or not.

be ascertained whether the Commentary on Cramer employed

i.

Mark was

hero

largely in his

(= Coisl.

24.)

Fol.

edition of Victor (Catenae, vol.

p. xxix.), as I

have explained

This
VicToB.

is

a Commentary, not a Text.

It is expressly claimed for

already at p. 271.

Some

notices of the present Codex are given

The

recension seems to approximate to tliat published

Iv". viii.)

by

above at
(v.)

p. 228-9.

Matthaci.

(See on

One

leaf is missing.

(See

fol.

136 b.)

Evan. 25
Folio
:

= Ecg. 191

anciently numbered Colb. 2259:

1880. 3 )

grandly written.
S.

Ko

Laud. Grace. 33.) 4to. The Combe claimed for CvriL of ALEXAxnEU, but mentary here seems (See Coxe's unsatisfactory way as K. iii and xiv.
(xii.)

EvAX. 50

= Bodl.
to

Author's name to the Commentary on

is

Mark.

The

text of

in the
Cat.
i.

same

the Evangelist
(vi.)

given in extenso.
(

516.)

Evan. 34

= Coisl. 195.) A
:

grand

folio,

eplendidly writ-

(xiii.) Ev-O".

299

= Reg- 177

anciently

numbered 2242').

ten, and in splendid condition hand of the artist.

the paintings as they

came from

the

Victor's, but is without any The Commentary on S. Mark is The Text of S. Mark is given in extenso : Victor's Author's name.

At

fol.

It will

Commentary on S.Mark is claimed for Yiciob. be found that Coisl. 23 {infra, K. ix.) and Coisl. 195 are
172, the

Commentary, in the margin.

(xiv.)

derived from a
fect copy,

common

original

but Cod.

95

is

the more per-

EvAX. 300(

= Reg. 186:
:

anciently

numbered 692, 750,

It is

and should have been employed by Cramer in prefwcnce to lie other (supra, p. 271.) There has been an older and a more recent hand employed on the Commentary.
(vii.)

and 1882.)

nolle Codex

hit the work of different scribes.

most leauiifuUy written. Mark is claimed for Ctbh of At fol. 94, the Commentary on S. equivocal manner as above in K. iii Alexakdeia' in the same

EvAK. 36

= Coisl. 20.) A
S.

truly sumptuous Codex.

and

xii.

The

writer states in the

it

Some The Commentary on

Author's name.

notices of this Codex have been given already, at p- 229.

versely found

ascribed to Cyril

and to Victor.

colophon that he had di(c7rX.,p<ift) alv

ini

Mark

is

Victor's,

but

is

without any

efi

<J>B>^t, ToC ara HipKov iy.'ou .iayycXiou h ippr^vila B.Vropot irpta^vripov.) KupfXXov 'K\,iavipiu,t, iv 5XXo.t 6* ,lpo,

"a.M


282

MS.

copies of Victor's

Comwoifari/

[API-.

tit

...]

Pom,
(

Silvio,

Vioiiiri,

lioMC.

283

Sec nbovc, the note on Evan. 20 (N". iii), a MS. ubiih, a already explained, has been elaborately assimilated to the prtK-nt
(xT.) Etax. 301

(ss)

EvA-x. 304

Ileg. 194.
is

TcUer 1892.)

The
^hicb
nt

text of S.
I

Mirk

and 1879.)

nncienlly numbered 501, 637 spJoidid fol. leautifully written throujlout

S.

(=I{cg. 187:

do not recognise. in Possinus, pp. the end with what is found

hero interwoven with a Commentary But from the correspondence of a note

3613,

am

led to

The Commentary on
(xvi.)

Mark

is

here claimed for Vicion.

anciently numbered 176 and
:

MS. l=pcct that the contents of this as what Possinus published and designated
with
(xsi.) EvA>-. 77

will be found to correspond

" Tolosanus."
Victor's

Evan. 309

=r Reg. 201
little

(Vind. Ness. 114,

Lambcc. 29.)

Com-

2423.)

very interesting

fol.

very peculiar in

itt

ttgU.

mentary
(xxii
.tein's

is

here nnonyraous.

Draicings old and curious.

Beautifully icrittcn.

The Commentary
the Commentary.

is

here claimed for Yictok.

;

This
xvi. 8

is not pro-

perly a text of the Gospel

but parts of the text interwoven with

:

of Pasle [sec VitEvan. 92 (which belonged to raesch s:.ys is now ,n liable 058 J] ProUg.-]. and which Hacn.l [p.
)

Take a specimen'

(S.

Mark

20.)
he.

Library)

Wctstci.i's account of this

S.

Codix shews that the Com-

mcntnir on

Kai \eouoa( eepufov ano tou jLivH^tiou.

rpojjoc KOI

ti\ev

outuc

_" Continet
foliis

Mark is Marcum

Victor. Iric distinctly ascribed to

et in

He

says,

eum

Victoria Antioehcni

Coumentarw^,

eKOTacic.

ecoc

bia

tcov

fnaKoAouSouvrtov om-

5 luutUos.

&c. Item Scholia in Epistolas Catholicas,"

And

60 Hacncl.

Over the text

is

written k6i

((cti/ifVov

i.e.

Text) and over the

Commentary cp

(c'p^jijwio, i.e.

Interpretation.)

See the next.

(xvii.) Evan. 312 ( =Reg. 206 anciently numbered 968, I05B, 2283; and behind, 1604. Also A. 67.) A leautiful little fol Contains only the Commentary, "which is expressly assigned to
:

except that Haend's Evan. 94 (As before, precisely This Codex contains Vicioe of rinaccJtc] notice is at p. 657 i.) (which is evidently here also asMark, Antiorh's Commentary on S. Al.o Titus of Bostra on S- Luke ^^ned to him ly na,ne ;) and Hacncl what among the rest, I suspect, (from several SchoUa spoken of mprh, p. 47, note (x). the Scholia
fxxiii
;

says),

ViCTOB.

This Copy of Victor's Commentar)but

beautifully written.
19.)
is

is

very nearly indeed

a duplicate of Cod. 309, (N". xvi.) both in

its

contents and in its

preceding, and before mentioning In addition to the nt Bask,also exists in the Library them, Hacnel says there .
fxxiv
)
"'

method

it is less

in Evang. Marci VicroKis Antioehcni Scholia

chart

(xviii.)

Evan. 329

(= Coisl.
S.

very grand fol.

(sxv
refers to

EvA>-.
it

108 (Vind. Forlos.

5.

Koll. 4.)
article.

Birch

(p.

225)

The Commentary on
Author's name.
(xix.)
:

Mark

Tictor's, but is
viii.)

without inj

in the next for the Scholion given

(Append. E.)

(See above, on X".

(xxvi

Eeg. 703, (anciently numbered 958: 1048, and Beg. grand large 4'. 2330 also No. 18.) The Commentary is here claimed for Oeigek. Such at least ifl probably the intention of the heading (in gold capital letters) of

MAPKON md down

ANTio fP ic KATA Evas. 129 (Vat. 358.) BIKOPOC. ifr the top and bott-^-m The Commentary is written along
the side of each page
;

and there are references {a,p,y)

the Prologue

some margin,-as to the paragraphs in the inserted in the text apparatus by Prefixed is an exegetical at Paris. of the MSS.

npiFENOTC npoAoroc eic thn epmhneian tot

xtr'that
1445)

RATA MAPKON ETArFEAIOT.

See on
this subject the note at foot of p. 235.
fol.

1929

(begilming
;^,

.oUi.

MSS. in the Vatican, (358, 756, 757, section 4th are without the prefatory the 3rd and .ioyycXu,Mdp.o. 6 ,U to ..r'a M.)-A11 5 begin
of these five

In

all

paragraph begins cra-^.or.po.. but the 4th, the second

Mps. 1830, Maloiiu^ Librorum MSS.
4to, p

Note, that this recurs nt

145 of a Codex at Moscow nambcred 381

i*
.

CDG

b.

iheSi/r.Cal.


284
The

MS.

copka of Vktoi's CoDiDinifari/ at Home,

[a rr. one Nik-

P.]

Flomice, Venice, Vienna, Moscotr.

2Sj

third passnge begins in all 5, 'laoSwaiiu roCro.

reft

Any

tarii

cum

iis

ing to understand this by a

Possinus
-n-ill

rcncc to the editions of Cramer or of recognise the truth of what was stated above, p, 274

diicrqKmt."
1740.)

qui Victori Antiocheno tribuuntur, progressu autcm (Theupoli Graeca D. Marci liihl. Codd. MSS. A'euct.

1 infer that the

work

is

anonymous.

line 24 to 27.

(xxrii.) Evan. 137 (Vat. 756.)

in Vat. 858 (X".

(xxviii.)

xxW)

The Commentary is but no Author's name is given.

writlfn ai

"Victobis Axtiocheni Preshyteri exposxsvi.) Venet. 495. Marci, coUecta ex diversis Patribus." (I obiain fitio iu Evangclium
tlii

Theupolus.) reference from the Catalogue of

I presume, from tlie dcfcripTheupolus, that this Codex also contains the Catalogue of

Etas. 138 (Vat. 757.)

:

On
6

a blank page or fly-leaf at

(sic) oiVot iari, i
i^i]yTiruv in-aiSa. di-

(xxxvii.)
tion iu
a

Evas. 215 (Venet. 544.)

the beginning are these words

dvTiypa(poc

IlfTpot 6 T^t Aao!<Hiar oerrit Trpoijyfirai

ran

SWav

copy of Victor's Commentary.

(xxsviii.)

(Comp.

N">. xlvii.)

The Commentary and Text arc not kept

Both are written in an

tinet, as in

the preceding Codex.

ill-looking,

sloTcnly hand.

KoUar has Evas. 221 (Vind. Ne?s. 117, Lambcc.38). which has no [iii. 157] on the Commentary, a lou" note (i.) refers to it for the purpose Authors name prefixed. Birch (p. 225)
recorded uuder K. xxv.

(xxix.) Etak. 143 (Vat. 1,229.)

The Commentary
;

is

WTitton a

in Vat. 358 (N. xxvi), but without the references

and no Author's Lambec. 39.) (xxxix.) Evas. 222 (Vind. Ness. 180, Birch refers to it, as before. anonymous.
i?

name

is

given.

The Commensee

tary

(zxx.) EvAK. 181 (Xavier, Cod. Zelada.)

Birch was shewn

thi

Codex of the Four Gospels

Zelada {Prolegomena, p.
cxBcripta."

in the
:

Library of Cardinal Xavier of

folio, pp. 596.

Add

the following six

MSS.

at

Moscow, concerning which,

p. xii.

Iviii)

" Cujus forma est in

Matthaoi's Kov. Test. (1788)

(xl
)

vol.

ii.

In margine passim occurront scholia ex Fatrum Commentoriis

Evan 237 (This

A' T. ix. 242.

is

Matthaei's d or n [described in his and Also Vict. Aid. ii. 137.] "SS. Synod. 42 :")
is

(zxxi.) EvAK. 186 (Laur.

scribed

ri.

18.)

This Codex

is

minutely de-

p. 388-9),

by Bandini {Cat. i. 130), who gives the SchoUon {infra, and says that the Commentary is without any Author's

MSS. employed by Matthaei in his cd. of Victor. has no Author's name prefixed. The Commentary on S.Mark
one of the

name.
(xxxii.)

EvAK. 194 (Laur.

ro Kara

ri. 33.)

BiVropot Trpetrfivripov 'Aivto-

" SS. Synod. 48.") This Codex Also r.V/.^<.ii. 141.] Matthaei's ed. of Victor, [See the Not. Codd. formed the basis of Also N. T. ix. 202.] The the end of vol. ii. p. 123.
200

fxli

")

Evan 238

(Matthaei's e or e [described in his N. T. ix.

MSS.

at

}(flat ipjirjvda (is

MapKov fiayytXiov.
Cat.
i.

(SeC the description of

Commentary on
(xlu
)

S.

Mark

is

anonymous.

this

Codex in Bandini's

158.)

Evax. 253
It ^^as lent

(Matthaei's 10 [described in his iV. T. ix.

(xxxiii.)

Evan. 195 (Laur.

its

ri.

34.)

This Codex seems to cor:

234.]

him by Archbishop Nicephorus.)

it

Matthaei

respond in

contents with K. xxxi. supra

the Commentary

savs (p. 230)

that

corresponds with a {our Evan. 259).

the Commentary on
S.

No

containing the Scholion,

p. 161.)

and being anonymous.

(See Bandini,

Author's
(xliii )

name
EvA-v

is prefixed to

Mark.
ix. 222.

255 (Matthaei's 12 [described in his N.T.

(xxxiT.) EvAK. 197 (Laur.Tiii. 14.) The Commentary, (which is Victor's, but has no Aathor's name prefixed,) is defective at the

AUo rid. Ant. ii. 133.] S Mark are here entided

"SS. Synod. 139."

i|,y,r..coi c'^Xoya.',

The

Scholia on

and

(as in 14) are

few

end.

(See Bandini, p. 355.)

(xxxv.) Etaw. 210 (Venet. 27.)

" Conveniunt

initio

Commcn-

For some unexplained reason, in his edition in number. as " a." IN. T. Matthaei saw fit to designate this MS. of Antioeh, the "Postscnpt. See by aU means, infri, ix 2-''4 (''"]

of Victor

286

Coj^ie-i

of Vidor's Commcfar!,,,chkt,

,ras

u]

a standard iiork uith the early Church.

287

Evas. 373 (Vat. 1423.)

Evan. 379 (Vat. 1769.)

EvA>-.

427 (Monacensis 465, Augsburg 10.)

lliddlo Hill, K.

13,975, a MS.

in the collection of Sir

Thomas

237.
the

Also

Hc^

^i!.

li.

128.1

mme IS prefixed to the Commentary.

is

MSS. employed by Matthi

" SS. Srnod 45

io bis

PhiUipps.
'->

Tl

^^
2-)

Y.^to

JNo ^^

ZZ^
Author.

In conclusion,
that Victor's

it

can Bcarcely require to be pointed out

Commentarj',

of

which the Church

iu her

^W^ !"'

palmiest days

shewed herself

so careful to multiply copies,

''' ^^""?- "^ *

'^^

^'-t-'^

Comment^

and of which there survive to this hour such a vast uumbor

of speciuicns,
liar favour.

must needs ancient]}' have enjoyed vety pecuIt

is

evident, in fact, that an Epitome of Chry-

t.^Tv ^T.
nnnue

'"

tary as Evan. 181,

^^^'''- " '')=

K. xxx.)

^"'

the same

Commcn-

sostom's Homilies
cojiijiil'ifioii

on S. Matthew, together with Victob's

(i.e.

on

S.Mark,

Titus

of Bostra on S.Luke,

and
ComIn-

(xMii.) Ev^v.374(Vat.HJ5.)
character.

work iu the maia derived from Chrysostom's Homilies on

The Commentary

Written continuously in a rery is headed (in a liter gLcT

S.

John

that

these four constituted the established

mentary of ancient Christendom on the fourfold Gospel.

dividual copyists,

""

^TxxrSj
(xlix
)

'''"""^ Evangelist is that

of Victor.

(Sec

Ej^-. 428 (Monacensis 381.

(i.e.

duplicate of Evan. 300

Augsburg 11):

said to be

have been found occasionally to abridge certain of the Annotations, and to omit others or else, out of the multitude of Scholia by various ancient Fathers which were evidently once in circulation, and must (Irenseus, Origeu, have boeu held in very high esteem,
will

no doubt,

of JC". xiv.)

in this

1-

^*'''

^^^ (Monaceusis 99.)

is

The Commentary

contained

Codex

evidently assigned to Victok.

(ix. 3.

Ammonius, Eusebius, Apolinarius, Cyril, Chrysostom, the Gregorys, Basil, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodore of Heraclon,) they will have introduced extracts accordIn this way, the general ing to their individual caprice.
sameness of the several copies
for,

(li.)

EvAK. 7
;

471.)

is

valuable copy of the Four

probably to be accounted
is

Gm-

^hich Edw. de Muralto (in his Catalogue of the MSS. m the Imperial Library at S. Petersburg) says contains the Commentary of Victoe Ajy-r. (See Scrivener's
(ireck
Introduction,
p. 178.)

pele dated 1062

while their endless discrepancy in matters of detail

perhaps satisfactorily explained.

These

last

remarks are offered in the way of

partial elu-

cidation of the difficulty pointed out above, at pp. 272

4.

Toledo, in the "Biblioteca de la Iglesia Mayor," Hoencl 885] mentions :-"Ticiok Antioche.vus Comm. Graec. in iv. [?] Evangelia saec. xiv. membr. fol."
[p.

(lii.)

At

To

increased,)

this enumeration, (which could certainly be very extensively wiU probably have to be added the following

Evan. 146 (Palatine- Vat. 5.) Evan. 233 (Escurial Y. ii. 8.)

API".

E.]

Victor of Axtioch'n
coy

tSchoViOii.

2.^'J

Tjneh f^ dxpi^cov dvTiypdcfim',

ev irXelaTOis evpovies avTa',

APPENDIX
Text of (he
coiichiiiiiig Scliolion ;

(E).

dXqKara to UaXaianvalov evayyeXiov MdpKov, toy e^f' V Koi ti)v ev avTi3 iTTij>epopovr)V Beairoeeia, <TVvredeiicap.ev " e^o^ovvTO ydp^" rovreaTtv diro riKijv dvd(na(7iv, perd to
Kaff e^rj^ pe'xpi Tov " uvaard'; Be irpwCirpmri) aafilidrov," Kal " Bid rCiV eiraKoXov6ovvTO)V ci]peio)V. 'Api]v\' rov

of Yictoh of Aktioch's Commentaiy

to

on S.Jl'irl's Gvupel
tie geiiuineiiess of

in which Victor lenrs emphatic tutimvtiy

last

" the

Twelve Verses."

(Referred to at p. 65.)
I HA\"i: thought this very

More

pains than

enough

(it

will

perhaps be thought)

remarkable specimen of the me-

thod of an ancient and (as I think) unjustly neglected Commentator, deserving of extraordinary attention. Besides
presenting the reader, therefore, with
fair

Scliolion. have been taken to exhibit accurately this short design (the reader mny be yet, it has not been without

And

sure)' that so

many

various readings have been laboriously

it is

what seems

accumulated.
tive,

Thcrcsult,

thought,

is

eminently instruc-

to be a

and
it

impor(to the student of Ecclesiastical Antiqiiitj)

approximation to the original text of the passage, I have

various readings as have come to my hoped that thej' are given with tolerable exactness but I have been too often obliged to depend on printed books and the testimony of others. I can at least rel)' on the readings furnished me from the Vatican.
subjoined as

many

tant also.

knowledge.
;

It is

be perceived by the attentive reader that not readmore than two or three of the multitude of various Scholion can have possibly reings afforded by this short from careless transcription'. The rest have been unFor
will

sulted

The

text chiefly followed is that of Coisl. 20, (in the Paris

Library,

our

MSS., which,
by the
letters

supplemented by several other have arbitrarily designated of the alphabet as under ".
;)

Evan. 36

every mistakably occasioned by the merest licentiousness himself at liberty to take fresh Copyist evidently considering whatever liberties he pleased with the words before
:

just

for convenience, I

B C

E, F, G,

M, N, O, T exhibit, ws
the other hand,

voSa vofnaunts oi/ra rwis

[B

oiu.

El
ev T5

Be Koi TO "

'Avaaras ^ Se

irpcoi vpcoTfj

o-a^^drov

iipdit)

T.s]

..''ai.'

On

irpSiTOV

Mapla ttj MaySaXrjvfj," Koi rd e'f ^? iirKfiepofieva, Kara MdpKOV evayyeXio) irapa " TrXeiarois dvriypd^oK
((OS

i,\uaro^s avT^ypa^oiS Javra to

^\apKOV .vayytf^w us
Tins'] ovK lOriKUV.
'

[Q

Q begin and proceed a5 fallows, Hapa om. to] .r.,f,(poMera t. [A '.'.. .r] T<f. .ara
and
t,5 [Q, T.ras
(a clerical error)
:

i-oflo

vopi.aayr.s

A om.
i> 1

ov KelvTui^,

v69a yap ivo/iiaav ai/rd rives

178 = B:

elvai^')

aXX
Q

aho. A, D, E, F, G, H, So B, except that it omits us. So sentence, t/m'S T, excipl that they begin the

J,

HI XT M,

0, >, r

177=A: 19 = D: 20 = E: 21 = r: 22 = G: 21= R.Matihaei's i or D = I: /,iseorE = J Am12 = K: * aorA = I To/. 358 = M: ?56 = N: 757 = 0: 1229 = P 1445 = Q. rind. KoH. 4 Forhs. 5 = n.Xav. de Zelada = S.Zaur. 18 = T! 34 = V.reiiet. 27 = V. Lamb. 38 = W 39 = X.
Seff.
:

230 = C.Coiil.

So

I),

K, F, G, H, J,

M, N, 0,

P.

also

B and

Q, except tLat they prefix

aXvBu^x ^lapmv (transKa, ""P'^"" cvriypa^uy
ai-ro

KOI to

KOTO TO n.

is

peculiar iu reading, j

X" V
{

posing Mo: kou): while

C and P

read,-0M<.s

W"

^K.iCTuy ov

p-no

aXXa

ko. fv

^vpoyrts Tf UaXaioTivai^ U077.X.r M"/"""

Vii,d.

' '

So

B E

(wliicli I chiefly follow)

begins,

To

us fx<' 1 oA7|9ia avvTtenKap.fV. " So all, apparently: except that

reads

m'J></>om".iv for .T.^.tpoM*'")"

(.)

"'!

$e ayavras.

It

b
'

to avaaras 5( vpui fiira to fnt^ipoiuvu wafat this word (tb^o) that most copies of the present scholion (A, C, D, '
begins thus,

Ei S(

,lr,\uoa^ty. with a point JI, after aycioTa<ny inserts

before m'to

while

xm

and

T,r [C, (after aya<TTaaiv,) proceed,-Ko<

<f

to]

ara\|.;' ko. .aB^ipa, k

'*"''

G, H,

K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, B, S, T, U, V, W, X) begin. So far (except iu its opening phrase) E. But C, D, F, H,

I, J,

l,iiuy -rov noTpoj

irptTrt.

I, J,

K, L. M,

J [and I ll.inW,
,K ytKfuy
KOI
'

H]

N, O, P,
riv

T, begin,

Tlapa irAfio-Toii avTiypaijiois ov Kcirroi

S]

ravra to [M, O,

KofKoi/ [B,
'

So

I, J,

T om. to] (iruptpoiifva (v [D, F, TK tapovri] fvayyfXuf. K, li, and H. P proceeds, us voBa fofiiaeo^a

[I, ov itfiTOiJ Jt * H cm. iv] t' ""

X,H"TV TV Oey
All,
iji'

'-"" '""' Sojo ko. t, t.^I "w < '* """ o.ox.^|a/... t^ ayaoToyn (after yap) proceeds.-S.o 5oa^ D.^vmot. yw /> '"'"^V HoTp. Ka, faoxo.^

W"

^t'

an

KOI (IS Tous Qiacos

Tuv Oiuruv. ann",

11, J,

So B.
e.g. ooit

except B, C,

seein to end at .^.^ou.'to yep.

riaa' timt.

But

'

8^ for ov KfTKTOi.


21)0
liim.

Vicfor of Aiifioch's SchoUott.

[Apr. t.
;

To amputate, or otbcrwisc
;

to mutilate
;

to abridge

amplify

been the mlr The ti/pca (so to speak) are reducible to (wo or ATith all. at most to three ; but the varieties are almost as nurncroiu as the MSS. of Victor's work.
;

to transpose

to remodel

this

to

lias

And

APPENDIX
On
the

(F).
(li;, nuil Ihc

5'et it is

impossible to doubt that this Scholion

u
Rdatlrc
aniiquitij

originally one,

and one

some of

its
is

minuter

Irrecoverable perhaps, in details, as the actual text of Victor

in ihc

only.

of the Codex VATic.OTf

SlKAITICT:- (s)-

Coiiw

may

be, it

nevertheless self-evident that

main *
I.

(Rcfcrred to at p. 70.)

are in possession of

what he

actually wrote on this occasion.

" Vix

differt aetate a

In spite of

the needless variations observable in the roanner of stating a certain fact, it is still unmistakably one and
all

dorf, {cd. Bra, 1869, p.

Codice Sinaitico," says Tischenix,) speaking of the Codex Vaticanus

Sinaitic

the same fact which

declared,

is

every time stated.

It

is

invariably

Yet does he perpetually designate his own Codex (k) as " omnium antiquissimus." Now,
(B).
(1)

(1.) That from certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel the lut Twelve Verses had been left out; and (2) That this had been done because their genuineness had been by certain persons suspected but, (3) That the Writer, con^anccd of their genuineness, had restored them to their rightful placo (4) Because he had found them in accurate copies, and in the authentic Palestinian copy, which had supplied him with
:

but unique) sectional division of the Text of Codex B, confessedly the oldest scheme of chapters extant, The author of primitiveness. is in itself a striking note of

The

(all

the Codex

But

liarities in

nothing, apparently, of the Eusebian method. pecuI venture further to suggest that the following for it a later date Codex unniistakably indicate

knew

than Codex B.

his exemplar.
It is obvious to

suggest that after familiarizing oursclrc*

liccntioui

with this specimen of what proves to have been the

method of the ancient copyists

early Father,
gentl}' the

in respect of the text of

broken up' Cod. K, (like C, and other later ilSS.,) is Vatican Codex, on into short paragraphs throughout. The e.g. it is without the contrary, has very few breaks indeed whereas, to xx. 17 break of any sort from S. Matth. xvii. 24
(2)
: :

within the same limits, there are in Cod. K as

interruptions of the context.

many
xiii.

as

thirtii

we are in a position to approach more intclliCommentarj' of Victor itself; and, to some extent, to understand how it comes to pass that so many libcr The Reader u ties have been taken with it throughout.
reminded of what has been already offered on
pp. 272-3.
this subject (

From S. Mark

1 to the

end of the Gospel the

:

text is absolutely continuous in Cod.

B,

upwards except in one place but in Cod. K it is interrupted xvii. 11, to the end of oifffy times. Again from S.Luke
:

the Gospel there

is

but one break in Cod. B.

But

it

is

broken into weU nigh an hundred and fifty

in

shovt paragraphs

Cod.KB, There can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex the style of the papyrus of Hyperida published (resembling only places by Mr. Babington,) is the more ancient. The approximates to the method of Cod. s, is where where it
the
are briefly recited (S. Matth. xix. 18, the eight Beatitudes &c.), and where our Lord proclaims

Commandments
V.)

(S.

Matth.


292
(3)

Cod.

move
is

ftiicutif

Ihau Cod. s.

[Arr.

Again

Cod. s

prone

to exhibit,

on extraordinary

occasions, a siixjlc iron/ in a line, as at

S.

Matid. XV.

294
specifies

EHfih'tHs liieir not fling of Cod. s.

[ai'P. r.

things peculiar to each of the four Evangcliit*.

Eusebius,

moreover, iu n certain place {Dtm. Ernn.

saj's

[quoted

Xty Tisch.])

and expressly
2.

x. 8 has nn allusion to the same transaction, that it is recorded hy S. John.

APPENDIX
On
the so-calkd

(G).
n

" .^m^on.ak Sr.mo>s

No

inference as to the antiquity of this Codex can bo

(Hcfcrred to at p. 130.)

drawn from the Eusebian notation of Sections in the margin t/i(i( notation having been confessedly added at a sub:

sequent date.
3.

On

graphs, proves to have been

the

the other hand, the subdivision of Cod. h into parsmade without any reference to Thus, there arc in
thirty distinct paragraphs from S.
;

the sectional distribution of Eusebius.

Codex

Matthew xi. 20

to xii. 34, inclusive

but there are comprised within the

sections.

cannoi ^^^ ^,,g above (pp. 12/-^). -P'o^-/'-^^ Alexandria [A.n. 220] ,,,,onstration. invention of Ecsebiu. insecure*. J 'l^^gether 8 external t-timo.

J^^

same limits only seventeen Eusebian

those seventeen sections only nine

And

On

this subject,

--^^"f
the Se

yet, of

The only
1.

safe appeal

is to

.on

l^.e ^^^^

correspond with as
itself, is

many

TheCaUof

the Four

Apost.s,des
'he

^^^^

3^^^.^ ^^_
i.

paragraphs of the Codex Sinaiticus. This, in

to

enough

U.ee Evangelists,

-^hm

prove that Eusebius knew

is

nothing of the present Codex.

Hifl record

express

e^' eKacnat

rwv reaaapuv evay-

si-tivc Gospels:-S3 20: S Luke l-^^*^;;

at he^-^^^^

^^^^^^^^^ g ,i,,k

16-

draught of

of narrative ^^^^ ,,,^0 portions

yeXioov aptOfiOi Tts irpoKeiTai

III.

Kara fiipos k.t.X. The supposed resemblance of the opened volume to an Egyptian papyrus, when eight columns (o-eXi'Ses) arc

ri;v:^-\r"eSrrd^:"tirnt:!
=:^u:r;^:siS^-pn^^^^^^
,

exhibited to the eye at once, side by side,

lacious note of

high antiquity.

in a
one.

page, Cod. B three, But Cod. C is certainly

:

seems be columns Cod. k has Cod. A Cod. C has

to

fal-

If

four

29, (V.

1-3)

two,

only

(2.)

20,"(iv'

9,

O-Hi-'
'

as old as Cod, A.

Again,

17, 18)
(3.)

16)
30, (v.
:

Cod. D, which is of the vi"" centurj-, is written (like Cod. C) across the page yet was it " copied from an older model
similarly divided in respect to the lines or verses," and therefore similarly written across the page. It is almost

30 (V.

47) 47)

219,(xxi. 1-C)
(-^xi. 11) 222,

(4)
(5.)
1

i31,
i

(V.

^^^

(0.)^2..(iv.^0.(i.n.lB),|32,(v.l0i.

obvious that the size of the skins on which a Codex was written will have decided whether the columns should bo
four or only three in a page.

IV. In

fine,

nothing doubting the high antiquity of both

Codices, (B

andw,) I

am

nevertheless fully persuaded that

an interval of at
span of years,

least half
is

a century, if not of a

far greater
urcssiniHs-

Uie absolutely required to account for

KA'^

'"r

nostca secutus

est.

tucu

marked

dissimilarity

between them.
riciisis.

\"^

207

/A./,-n..^-'irV"J.'c,m"S'^'''>"-

29G
It will

Eiiichin'i

must iicch hnvc hern

[ait.

o.]

be perceived from

this, lliat EiSKitius Bubdividiit

these three portions of the sacred Narrative into ten

tioiis

{"^;")

of which

Sw\it.

three belong to S.Matthew,

ti

instance. a more con^incing question to the whole

am

con

P 20, 21, S.

22

: three

to S. I^Iark, viz.

9, 10,

11

:four

to

be shewn how
iions
;

xt

which ten Sections, Ja.sk]iR's distributes over four of his Canons: referring throo of them to his II""* Canon, (which exhibits what S. Mattlicw, S. Mark, and S. Luke have in common) four of them to
viz. 29, 30, 31,

Luke,

32

canhavespbtup
and
S.

-"^^^^^.^Ta S.Johnxx.l-, 1
^o-nha^-

^^^^^
.

^^ ^^^ Ammo>..s
rlisiinci

into thr.

Sec
^^^^^

so

many

", John xsi lo, 16, lo of injudicious d..nto^-at.ns

^^^^
t^^^^^^^^

^^^^
^^^^.^^^

^^

., 53

-edible that

^^^^^ .^^

his YI"' Canon, (which

shews what
S.

S.

Matthew and

S.

Mark

S.

John XXI. 1^ to
.

have in common)
is

one, to his IX"", (which contains what

varied contents, <="^^-^^^J

sion ? . . His peculiar plan
.

f'-^^"^'^
,

common
is

to S.

Luke and
is

John)

two, to his X"", (in

Why

E.sr.ns_ did
^.^^

,,en rcpcutnl subd.viplain, f\7',i,i3 i^ abundantly ^bis. i

^^^^^

which

found what

peculiar to each Evangelist.)

in breaking
iv.

Now, the design which Evsebius had

portion of the sacred Text, (S. Matth.
i.

1822,

S.

up thit Murk
from
;

Luke ^^-^r'VtL Canon, where

S.

IX16, 17-to his -"f ;';"f tog^^^ dVjotnl;; bought

'15

"

ana a

IG

20,

S.

Luke
;

v. 1

11,) after so arbitrary a fashion,

tliose Sections
^

(eV

o5 0;

8vo Ta '^P""'^\"'%'''''

X\f of

^^ ^^^^^.^^ ^^^ verses 15, 10, 17,

S.

into
S.

ten portions

divorcing three of
(viz.

Iti^r half of

Matthew's Gospel,

S.

Luke's
(

29, 30, 31)

irith

and

_,ogether with

^;"; ...... --/^'T^^^i^the /.s^^y^^^^^ of , : the whole f

John's

.^

connecting one of these last three

30)

iiro Section*

His object (P 219, 222) of S. John ; is perfectly plain. was, (as he himself explains,) to shew not only (n) what S. Matthew has in common with S. Jlark and S. Luke ; but

Gospel, to ^^; En angeusi four to each of the

(-^^Xrsetdown,
-^

.epl ..V.v Ammonius, because

(.'v

eW.o.

al.C.. lli^^

be confessedly

7''"t J^/wasundernosuch r.c..'.--' .0 -'; ^"^;j,,,^. He theresame extraordinary

also (i) uhat S.

Lvhe has

in

common

trith S.

John

as well

what S. Luke has peculiar to himself. But, in the work of Ammonius, as far as ire hnoir anything about that (i have trork, all this would have been simplj' impossible, already described his " Diatessaron," at pp. 126-7.) Intent
as (c)

r^;:^lv^r;:;r^^;-^i

--^l^Sltter
Canons of LcsEBIU,
a

somewhat

di^V.^^^

on exhibiting the Sections of the other Gospels which correspond with the Sections of <S. Maffheir, Ammoxius would not if he could, (and he could not if he would,) have dis-

sociated

context S. Luke's account of the first miraculous draught of fishes in the beginning of our Lobi to Ministry, for the purpose of establishing its resemblance

from

is nothing else whatever discovered mu^^;;j;Ta're Sections ,,, but the ^"^^^^^^^ Canons are without ^t^^^^^^^ imply of

o.V'-(by
t^ally to

wtich-

--^f;-

its

the sake

meaning or use ^f^^ J^"^^^^^^ clearly i^;*^ ,hich they were

theless are

Those

Sections, whatever

^^^ Canons, neverto in order of time:

account of the second miraculous draught found after the Resurrection, and is only " EuskThese Sections therefore are in S. John's Gospel. the lUAN," not Ammokian. They are necessary, according to
S. John's

of fishes

eonveiiiencetheyrnaypo.es^^^^^^^^^

which took place

^^

-;\^;; ^^^ P^.^em

and scheme of Eusebius. They are not only unnecessary Ammoxian even meaningless, but actually impossible, in the
scheme.

i-^'^' their ardepend upon them [ eccentricity of unaccountable in tbe .,,ent^ of to be even
"^

^ngement, except when

Canons, the t.sri.i^A'

i saj

^^^^^^l^^,J,^,^o..X sub-"'" ^

'

298

T/ic (so-cafkd) "

Ammonuni" Srcfiom

r^p,,

C]
division, in other words, to which the epithet "
is

tornsjiOiid irith our "

in fuct there is

Marginal Jieferences."

299

Ammoman

"
gress in his task.

careful in epection to have been only capable of being devised by one tr/io uns already in possesmn of f/ic Canons of Evsxr.irs In plain terms, they are demonstrably the work

popularly applied. (applied however without authority and in fact by the merest license,)proves on

no danger of his making much proHis first discoverj' would probablj' be that S. John's weighty doctrinal statements concerning our Lord's Ettnial GoLhead in chap. i. 1 5: 9, 10: 14, are
Bat

represented as parallel with the

Unman
i.

Genealogy of our

hwrnlfx^ho
y6va<: Se>ca

of Erszujvs

expressly claims The Canons for his

own

Saviovr
iii.

as

recorded by S.Matthew

IC,

and by S.Luke

{*a-

t6v apiO^hv hiex^pa^i aa), and leaves it to bo is the Author of the Sections also. Wetstein (Prohg. p. 70,) and Bishop Lloyd (in the "
inferred that he

2333 :the
Magi
(S.

next, that the first half of the Visit of

ii.

the

Matthew
vii.

G) is

exhibited as correspondfacts

Monitum"

ing with

S.

John

41, 42.

Two such

ought

to

open

prefixed to his ed. of the Greek Test. p. x,) so understand the matter ; and Mr. Scrivener (Iniroduclion, p. 51) evidently inclines to the same opinion.
II. I desire, in the next place, to point out that a careful
calls

the eyes of a reader of ordinary acutcness quite the true nature of the
ofJiif>rtiH\ onhj.

wide to
Tiihlts

Canons of Eusebius.

They are

Eusebius has in fact himself explained his object in constructing

able a

them

which (he says) was twofold

(1")

To

en-

inspection of the Eusebian "Sections," (for Eusebius himself them irtpiKoiral, not Ke^xxKaia,) leads inevitably to the inference that they are only rightly understood when re-

reader to see at a glance, " which of the Evangelists

have said things of the same kind," (rives ra TTapaTrk-ijcna the phrase occurs four times in the course of his etpi]Kaai
:

garded in the light of " Margixal References." This has been hitherto overlooked. Bp. Lloyd, in the interesting " Monitum" already quoted, remarks of the Eusebian Canon*, "quorum haec est utilitas, ut eorum scilicet ope quivis,

short Epistle)

and

(2"'^''^),

To enable him
:

to find

out where

they have severally done so

{tovs oiKelov} eicda-Tov fvayelireip

;

7XioToO roTovs, iv ol? kotu tuv airribv ^veyOrjaav

Eusebius uses the phrase
is

twice.)

But

this, (as all are

aware)

nullo labore,
conficere."

attempt in

Harmoniam sibi quatuor Evangeliorum possit The learned Prelate can never have made the this way "Harmoniam sibi conficere,"' or be

precisely the office of (what are called) "

Marginal Refer-

ences.'"
(rt.)

Accordingly,

would not have so written. He evidently did not advert to the fact that Eusebius refers his readers (in his III"' Canon) from S. John's account of the Eealing of the Nohleman'n ton to the account given by S. Matthew and S. Luke of the
Ilcalintj

Whether referring from S. Matth. x. 40 ( 98) ; S. Mark ix. 37 ( 96) ; or S. Luke x. 16 ( 116) ; we find ourselves referred to
xii.

the following

si.r
:

places of S. John,

i"

v.

23

44, 45

xiii.

20

xiv. 21

xiv. 24,

25
xi.

xv. 23

(=

40, 111, 120, 129, 131, 144'.)

(h.)

of the Centurion's servant. It is perfectly plain in fact that to enable a reader " to construct for himself a Jlar-

or S.

Whether we refer /row Luke x. 22 ( 119), we

S.

Again, Matth,

27

111, 112,)

find ourselves referred to the

mony of the Gospe/s," was no part of Eusebius' intention and quite certain that any one who shall ever attempt to
avail himself of the system of Sections and Canons before us with that object, will speedily find himself landed in hopeless

following ekten places of S. John,

i.

18 3
:

iii.

35
:

v.
xvi.

37
15
:

vi.46
xvii.

viL 28, 29
(^ 8,

viii.

19

x.

15

xiii.

xv. 21

25

30, 44, 61, 76, 87, 90, 114, 142, 148, 154.)

(c.)

So

also,

from S.Matthew's
(ix.

(xvi.

13-16), S.Mark's
of S.

confusion

(viii.
".

2729), and S.Luke's

1820) account

There was published at tlie University Press in 1805, a handsome qaartt> volume (pp. 21C) entitled Harmoiiia quatuor Evangeliorum juzia Srctiumrs JmmoniaHas et Eusebii Caiionn. It is merely the contents of the X CunooJ

of EasolHUJ printed in eitenso,

and of course is no "Harmony " at all. It would hive been a really useful book, notwithstanding ; but that the editor, *ay, has omitted to number the sections. strango ' This List according to Tischendorft ed. of the Eusebian Canons.

f^^^
lesi ii-c/iil f/iaii

300

The

{so calkrj)

" Ammoman" Sccthm

our Manjinal RcfircntTn.

301

Peter's Confession al Cnosnrea Thilippi,

- ^e

are refcrnj

as it certainly

is

highly important also, as being the known

work of an
the mention of the last Passover by the ea.a.er Evango is.s, (S. Matth. xxvi. ), 2:
('fO

illustrious

From

precious occasionally for critical purposes',

Father of the Church, as well as most is nothing else

5 Luke XX..
6

we
(.

thr^ S.Markliv 7^
(.j.

but a clumsy substitute for

what

is

achieved by an ordinar\'
in every inconvenience

"riefercncc Bible":

/.^ Passover
48)
;

3=

are referred to S.John's mention of the 20); and of the sccon,

(xi.

participating

incidental to the unskilfully contrived apparatus with

which

as well as of the fourth

55

^l"

English readers are familiar ', and yet inferior in the follow-

J''^ as recorded
S^Luke

^;7tl^7^ds of Consecration
by
S.

96
Last Supper
(.iv.

ing four respects

(1st.)

ai the

The

references of Eusebius. (except those found in

Matth. (xxvi. 16).

S.

Mark

and

i^aum recorded by S.John, which took place a year bofrr^ vx. 35 36 : 48 ' 51 : 55 ( 65. 63. 65. 67). C/.) Nothing but the spirit in which "Marginal Refercnces are made would warrant a critic in linking toge.hcr three incidents like the foUowing.-similar, indeed, entirely distinct: viz. S. Matth. xxvii. 34: S.Mark xr. 24-

(xxu. 19),-we are referred to the four follo.?g Sections of our Lord's Discourse in the Synagogue
at CapTr!

22)rrd

Canon

X.), require in every instance to be deciphered, before

;

they can be verified

making
tend to

search, (and

and they can onlj* be deciphered b}' sometimes laborious search.) in another
not, in fact, (nor

-S^ John

part of the volume.

be,)

They are

do they preat all

;

references to the inspired

Text

but

only

re/treiiccs to Hie

Eusebian Canons.
strictly confined

(2ndly.)

In their scope, they are of course

b.

John
I

xix. 28, 29.

to say that scarcely could such
a

(as the IX^ Cnon of Eusebius does) from our Lord's eating "broUed fish and honeycomb," in the presence of the ten Apostles at Jeru. salem on the evening of the first Easter-Day, (S. Luke xxiv. 41-43 (= 341,)) to His feeding the seven Apostles with

an excuse Eeader from S. Luke xxiL 32. to b. John xxi. 15. and 16, and 17 (= 227, 228 229 ) but I perceive that the same three References stand in'tho margin of our own Bibles. Not even the margin of the English Bible, however, sends a Reader
be invented for referring

(O.)

was about

most inconveniently limits their use, as well as diminishes their value. (Thus, by no possibility is Eusebius able to refer a reader from S. Lake xxii. 19. 20 to 1 Cor. xi. 2325.)
to the Goq^els,

which

(3rdly.)

By the

very nature of their constitution, reference

is

even
'

to another

part of the same Gospel

impossible.

(Euse-

Thus, certain disputed passagos of importance arc proved to bave been re43, 44

cognised ; least tv Eusebius.

(S.

Luke uii.

wanting
may

Our Lobd's Agony in Cod. B,) is by

in Ibc

bini

Garden for instance, numbered 283 and

:

Ibat often ivjectcd verse, S.

wliateviT Tii^bendorf
''

Mark

xv. 28, be certainly

numbered

216,

say to the contrary.

(Sec p. 293.)

li

is

obvious to suggest Ibat, (1) whereas our Marginal Eefercnces follow

tlic

order of the Sacred Books, tbey ought rather to stand in the order of their

bread and
(S.

fish

at

the

John

xxi. 9,
suffice.

10:

Sea of Galilee many days after. 12: 13 221,223, 224.) -And

'

iniportaneo, or at least of their relevancy to the

(2) actual Quotatious,

matter in hand:

and that,

this

may

and even Allusions to other parts of Scripture when they arc undeniable, should be referred to in some distinguishing way. It is also certain tht, (3) to a far greater extent than at present, tets of References
niigbl be kept together
;

It 18 at all events certain that the correctest notion of the use and the value of the Eusebian Sections will be obtained

not scattered nboutin small parcels over the whole

it

Book.
is to
s

Above

all, (as

the point most pertinent to the present occasion,) (4)

by one who will be at the pains to substitute ioT the Eiotbiau in the margin of a copy of the Greek Gospels M<References which these numbers severally indicate. It will then become plain that the sj-stem of Sections and Caaons

be wished that

ttrictit/

parallel places in the Gospels might be distin-

Numbers

guished from those which are illustrative only, or are merely recalled by their All this would admit of interesting and similaritv of subject or expression.
useful illustration.
possible to purchase

While on

this subject, let

me

ask,

Why

is it

no longer
?

a Bible with Keferenccs to the Apocrypha

xliii.

WJo

which Eusebius invented.ingenious,

does not miss the reference to "Ecclus.

11,

12"
iv.

at Gen.

ix.

interesting,

and useful

can uflbrJ to do without the reference to " 1 Mace.

59"

at S.

14? ITho John x. 22 ?

'

302
bius
is

The

iroi/:

o/EmiHns

quite (fiflimit froiti t/nf

U,,
S
Jolin

G.]

of Aiiiiiioniun.JIis Sectional dirision

icr;/ nsrful.

303

unable, for example, to refer a reader from lix. 39, to iii. 1 and vii. 50.)

(whatever that judgment

nian
Sections

But besides tbc preceding, which are disadvantages inherent in the scheme and inseparable from it, it will be
foun<l

Canons, as

may be deemed worth,) the Aramohad a previous existence to the Eusebian well as served for an independent purpose." But
demur
learn
to the former of the

I respectfully

That Eusebius, while he introduces not n fewwhollr undesirable references, (of which some specimens arc .up(4tl)ly),

ences.

also

two proposed inferwith surprise that " those wlio have

least tell

studied

them most, can the

what use the Aramo-

observed occasionally to withhold reference. which cannot by any means be dispensed with. Thus Lc omits to refer his reader from S. Luke's account of the viiit to the Sepulchre (chap.xxiv. 12) to S. John's
is

plied aboTc),

nian Sections can serve, unless in connection with Canons

of

Harmony ''."
However
irregular

and

arbitrarj' these subdivisions of the

memorable
:

ac-

Evangelical text are observed to be in their construction,

tlieir

count of the same transaction (chap. xx. 310) he disallowed the verse in S. Luke's Gospel,
place he
disciisws: its statements'^.
is

not bocoutc

usefulness

is

paramount.
as our

The)' are observed to

fulfil

for in a ccrtaiD

ct^actly the

same

office

own

actual division of the Text

into
all

89 Chapters and 3780 Yerses.

Of

course,
less

11G5 subconvenient

III. It

abundantly

jjlain

from

that has gone before

divisions are (for certain purposes)

somewhat

that the work of Eusebius was entirely different in its structure and intention from the work of Ammonius. Enough, in fact, has been said to make it fully apparent that
it

than 3780;

but on the other hand, a place in the Gospels would be moie easily discovered, I suspect, for the most part,

it

nothing short of impossible that there can have been anv extensive correspondence between the two. According to ErsEDius, S.Mark has 21 Sections ;;m//(W- to hin Gon/fl: ' S. Luke, 72 S. John, 97 e. According to the same Ecskiiius,
:

by the employment of such a single set of consecutive numbers, than by requiring a Reader first to find the Chapter by its Roman numeral, and then the Verse by its Arabic figure.

Be

this as

it

maj-, there can be at least only

to

one opinion as

to the supreme convenience

a Reader, whether ancient or

S.Luke and S. Mark oiili/: 21, But those 225 Sections can hare found no place in the work of Ammonius. And if, (in some unexplained way,) room nas found for those parts of the Gospels, Kith irfiat possibfc motive can Auhokivs hare tulf
to to S.

14 Sections*' are

common
John

modern, of knowing that the copy of the Gospels which he

holds in his hands is subdivided into exactly the same 1165
Sections as every other
in his

Luke and

S.

oiiti/.

Greek

copj'

which

is

likely to

come
on

way

and

that, in every such copj',

he

may depend

finding every one of those sections invariably distinguished

(lin'ffed

them into exactly 225 portions ?

It is nothing else but

irrational to

assume that he did

I that
it

so.

Not unaware am

has been pointed out by a most

judicious living Critic as a " ground for hesitation before wo ascribe the Sections as well as the Canons to Eusebius, that

not a few ancient MSS. contain the former the latter'."

whUe

they omit

He

considers

it

to

be certainly indicated
critics

thereby " that in the judgment of

and

trauBcribcrs,

Mai,

vol. iv. p. 2S7.

Sec also

p.

293.

'

Tiechendorf says 10 onlT.

Tischcndorf fajs 13 odIj. ^.i^..>,u.. .-^
I,

by the self-same number. A Greek copj' of the Gospels, therefore, having its margin furnished with the Eusebian Sectional notation, may be considered to correspond generally with an English copy merely The addition of the dinded into Chapters and Verses. Eusebian Canons at the beginning, with numerical references thereto inserted in the margin throughout, does but superadd something analogous to the convenience of our Marginal Ke/ercnces, and may just as reasonably (or just as unreasonably) be dispensed with.

< Tiscbeiidorr snjE

'

96 ouly.
tlic

ScriveDcr specifies

following Coild. C,F. H,

P, Q, E,
p.

W,

Y, Z, &'.

I think

it

not improbable, in
will

fact,

that in the preparation

59, 60, 68, 440, i'", s-". pp. 51,

Also
:

and K.

(Corf.

Stza.

i"'d /'"<'

of a Codex,
'

it

have been sometimes judged commercially

:

2)

Add Evao. 117

(but I think nol 263.)

Scrivi'iici'i

Introduclion, pp. 51 and 52

Cod. Beza,

p.

u.

note [2.]


304
TItv ancient Sectional

c]
at the foot of the Go-tpeh, explained.

Apparatus

[ait.

305

expedient to leave

its purchaser to decide whetlicr he would or would not submit to the additional expense (which in the

other Gospels.

Many
262
(

Codices, furnished with such an ap-

paratus at the foot of the page, are

instance, in Cod.

known

to exist".

For

case of illuminated

MSS. must have been very

considcruUc)

= Reg. 53, at Paris),

:

of having the Eusebian Tables inserted at the commcnccincut of his Book*, without which the References thereto would
confessedly have been of
will have corae to pass,

in double columns, at foot of the first

S.

which is written page {foh 111) of

Mark,

is

found as follows
-e-

no manner of avail. In this way it (as Mr. Scrivener points out,) thl
contain the Sections but omit the

JU

A o
r

JL

" not a few ancient

MSS.

Canons." Whether, however, the omission of References to the Canons in Copies which retain in the margin the boctional numbers, is to

A
B

pr

H
-e-

A
IB

Amjuoxics, at

all

be explained in this way, or not, events, will have had no more to do wilh

either the one or the other, than with our

into Chapters

modern

lA

divisioo

and Verses, It is, in short, nothing else but a " vulgar error" to designate the Eusebian Sections as the
"Sections of AitnoAirs."

KH
The
meaning ol this, every one will see
is

who, (remember-

The expression cannot be too soon- banished from our critical terminology. Whether banished or retained, to reason about the lost work of AmmoNius from the Sections of Eusebius
(as

by the monograms mp, a., lu, m,") will the 11"^ the I^', the V^^ and the P' of turn successively to Translated into expressions more the Eusebian Canons.
ing what
signified

Tischendorf and the

familiar to English readers,

it

evidently amounts to this:

rest habitually do) is an offence against |historical Truth which no one who values his critical reputation will probably

that
^ 1)

we

are referred,
xi.
iii.

From S.Marki. 1,2,toS.Matth.

10: S.Luke
3
:

vii.

27.

hereafter venture to commit.

not be dismissed until o circumstance of considerable interest has been explained which baa
already attracted some notice, but which evidently
is

IV. This subject

may

(2) (3) (4)

.... .... ....

i.

3,to
4, 5, 7,

S.

Matth.
S.

S.

Luke
:

iii.

36.
iii. iii.

i.
i.

6, to
S.

Matth.

iii.

46.
S.

8, to

Matth.

iii.

11

Luke
:

16

S.

John

i.

15, 26-27, 30-1

28.

not yet

understood by Biblical Critics'.

As

Eusebian Tables of Canons in order to

a marginal reference,
for which,
is

already remarked, the necessity of resorting to the make any use of

venture to add that any one who will compare the above with the margin of S. Mark's Gospel in a common English " reference Bible," will obtain a very fair notion of
(I

men

a tedious and a cumbersome process must have early sought to devise a remedy.
in perceiving that a far simpler expe"Gospel contained and, parallel with those numbers, to

Eusebian the convenience, and of the inconveniences of the to proceed with our remarks on the apparatus system. But
at the foot of Cod. 2G3.)

They were not slow

ifte

The owner
E.g.

of such a
hi/

MS. was

able to refer to parallel pas-

dient would be to note at the foot of every page of a Gospel

luimlers of the Sections of that

sages, (as above,)

merely turning over the pages of his hook.

The

parallel places to

S.Mark's

1 (A)

being 70 of

on the same page ; exhibit the numbers of the corresponding Sections

tenso

lu tno

Kvan. 263, for instance, has certainly blank EuEcbian Tables at the begin-

other at Paris, but I have Coda. M, 262 and 264. (I saw at least one To these, Tregelles addi E ; (Scrinot preserved a record of the number.) and TUeheudorf Scrivener adds vener'B I,.lro<luclion. p. 51, note R.)

eg

W.

ning

tlic/rofjif only.

'

See Scrivener's Introduction,

iv.

p.

61 ("ol* */'
'

Vi, (Scrivener's Cvd. Sezae, p. xx-)

where Trcgellei

(in

Home's lutrod.

200)

is

quoted.

The ordrr of

these

monograms

requires eiplauatiou.

'

O.]

306

Syriac Eiangclia, the source of tfiese

[Atr.

Tables of Sectional Eeferciiccn.

807

S.Luke (0) and 103 of S. Matthew (P 0,it was just u easy for him to find those two places as it is for us to turn to S. Luke vii. 27 and S. Matth. xi. 10 perhaps easier.
:

is written in two found the following set of rubricated references to parallel places in the pther three Gospels

At

the foot of the same page, (which

is

columns),

Y. I suspect that this peculiar method of exhibiting tho

Ensebian references (Canons as well as Sections) at a glance,
K'-x.

....

oAi
jjk&i
'

was derived to the Greek Church from the Syrian Christians. TThat is certain, a precisely similar expedient for
enabling readers to discover Parallel Passage* prevails extensively in the oldest Syriac

....

OA^

\sn\

-^
I^^Z*

rti^hy

Evangelia extant.

There are

in

....

A^

...

the British
with such

Museum

about twelve Syriac Evangelia furnished

an apparatus of reference of which a specimen is 8ubjoined,^-derived however (because it was near at band) from a MS. in the Bodleian p, of the vii"" or Tiii"" century.
;

The exact English counterpart

joined.

of which,

(I

owe

it

to

the kind help of M.Neubauer, of the Bodleian),

is

sub-

The Reader

will

scarcelj' require to be

reminded

Frozn this MS., I select for obvious reasons the

but one
{/ol.

last

pago

that the reason

why

282, 287, 289 do not appear in this

82) of S. Mark's Gospel, which contains ch.

Table

is

because those Sections, (belonging to the tenth

x\L 8

18.

The Reader

will learn with interest and surthis

Canon,) have nothing parallel to them in the other Gospels.

Luke

prise that in the

margin of
bi/
ilie

written in rermilion,
ver.

original scribe,

page against ver. 8, i* 281 against

,
:

9, 10
:

282
:

against ver.

10,

283

|:

against ver.

11,

^^
ver.

against ver.

12,^^^

against ver.

13,^g:

against

liy^^Q-. against ver. 15, ^g^: against

ver.

16,

^^q: against ver.

19,^g^.

That these

sectional numbers',

with references to the Eusebian Canons subscribed, arc no part of the (so-called) " Ammonian" system, will be re-

cognised at a glance.
xiv. 8 is
Addit.

According

to that scheme, S.

Mark

numbered
MSS. 14,449
:
:

233

14,450,

But
and

to proceed.

1.

and

2,

and

4,

and

6,

and

1,

and 8

14,463,

and 9

17.113. (Dr. Wright's Catalogue, 4to. 1870.)

:

Also Bich. 7,17.

also p. 63.

The reader is referred to Asscmani j and to Adler, p. 62-3 r "Dawkins 3." See Dean Payne Smith's Catalogue, p.
1 It will

72.
''

S.

Mirk

erery be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme, constitutes an independent xvi, from ver. 8 to ver. 15 inclusive,

tion (
( 290),
-

281288)
which

ver.
last.

1618

another ( 289); and

veir.

19-80,

*^"

U the

The Greek scheme,

**as a rule, makes ""''l*^

sections of vcir. 8, 9, 14, 19,

SO; bnt throws together ver.

p. 311.)

- -

10 H

1*

'


308
So
that,

The Syriac Sectional

exhibited

5y.b/c/H diffiimit

Kp^
Syriac

c]
more
in

from
number.

that

found

in

Gmh MSS.

309

in familiar
to

language, these

The sum

of the Sections in each of the

Marginal References are intended

(281) From
S.

guide a Reader,
xx,-iii.

Gospels follows; for which, (the Bodleian Codex being muti-

Mark

xvi.

8,-to

S.

Matth.

8:

xxiv.

8 10:

S.Luke
(,.

lated,) I

am

indebted to the learning and obligingness of

S.John xx. 17

Dr. "Wright".

He

quotes from "the beautiful JIS. Addit.

(s

-^^) -^^)

pciov to the end of the terte). xvi. 10, to the same three place?.
xvi.

7,157, written a.d. 708 "."

From

this,

it

appears that the

Sections in the Gospel according

to,

(284)
(

xvi.

(S (

286)
288)

xvi. xvi.

11,to S. Luke xxiv. 11. 12, to S.Luke xxiv. 1* 17, 13,to S.Lukc xxiv. 11.

S. Matthew, (instead of being from /are

426: (the
...

last Section, 5

'

359

to 355,)) "[

. on \ consistmg of ver. in 20.) 19,

15,to

S.

Matth. xxiv. 19, 20.

2Q0
consisting of ver. 19, 20.)
8. Lttke,
(

then, although the Ten Eusehian Canons arc faithfully retained, it is much to be noted that we are presented with a different set of Sectional subdivisions. This wiU bo best understood by attentively comparing aU the detaU*

Here

349

to

342,).

402: (the last Section, ^y^'

consisting of ver. 52, 53.)

which precede with the Eusehian references in the inner margin of a copy of Lloyd's Greek Testament.

S.John,

232,).

271: (the last Section,

consisting of ver. 18

^j^'

But the convincing proof that these Syriac Sections are not those with which we have been hitherto acquainted from Greek ilSS., is supplied by the fact that they are so many
Codices.
S.

25.)

The sum But

of the Sections therefore, in Sj/riacMSS. instead of

is

being between 1181 and 1162^,

found to be invariably 1389.

Joho'B

248 -^
vet.

23 :

,g

^.^ ^

249

_ ^^^

here, the question arises,

^Did the

Syrian Christians

^^

^ ^.^^
:

^^^

.^

then retain the Ten Tables, dressing their contents afresh,

60 as to adapt

ver.

21

his

250 ^

21

{KoBiis to

the end of the veisc)

hii

^^
Tr.

them

to their

own ampler system of sectional

Ten Canons, but harmony, or of every page ?

= ver. 22
2-7
:

^^ = ver. 24-5 his hU = ver. 28 to the end of ixi. 4 h's ^56 ^ ; 5 25jf
:

his

^52

,er.

his

g=
^

subdivision P or did they merely retain the elementary principle of referring each Section to one of

,,;,

57

substitute for the Eusehian Tables a species of

= 6 (to = ver. 8
xii.
7,

.ip^o^fT.)

his

2^ =
:

apparatus of reference, at the

ver. 6, (r^oA.^ to the end)
:

foot

hi.

(-^j
j,
,

The foregoing doubt

Plates, of the

is

triumphantly resolved by a referSyriac Codex The student who

his
first

gj = ver. 9
:

his
his {

%^ =
is

ver.

10

hi. J

^62

^ ^

ence to Assemani's engraved representation, on xxii Copper

ti

half of ver. 12

2*

incomplete.

X Eusehian Tables from a superb

[But Dr. Wright, (remarking that

correcter ones.

in his MSS., which are evidently the

[o48li ti

(a.d. 580) in the Jledicean Library'^.

^^ stands opposite the middle of ver. 12

VroA^J and
last,

7,157.

" I hnve examined for your purposes. Add. 14,449; 14,457; 14,458; and Tlic first three arc K'. liix, lii, aid Ini, in my own Catalogue the
:

opposite ver. 13 [Ipxtrai uJr],) proceeds to supply the lacnne for mt,

a Kcstorian MS.,
1

is

K".

xiii in

the old Catalogue of Forsball and Rosen

thus: g

ver.

13:

^/(f

= ver.]4-5(doTi to^.A5- Aryfiatr^):

.-=

(London,

838).

All four agree in their nuxeration."

*^
S

"

See the preceding note.

Availing
est.

ity=elf

of the reference given

:

=fl.VTaipi'/a^<.u,(endofver.l5):

^^J

ver. 16

(down to ^.X* )

^
^^

my

learned correspondent, I read as follow: in the Catalogue

" Inter ipsa

in

me by

textuB verhu, numeris viridi colore pictie, notatnr Canon hannoniae Ensehianae,

\iyu

aiiif,

Xlol^aivf

ri

irp60aTii /iou (end

of ver. 16): ^o*

'^''-

ad quern quiicvis scctio referenda

Sic, { [i.e.

1] indicat

canonem

quo

(domi to 4,.\S

irc)

2g= A.'yt, airf i

'1.,

p.

ri ,. ^o (end of ver. 17)

%'

= ver. 18 to 25.]

omnes Evnngclistae concurrunt," ic. &c ' SnidiiB [a.d. 980], by giving 236 to S.Mark and 348 to S. Luke, makes the sum of tlie Sections in Greek Erangelii 1,171. * This shict was all but out of tlie jr.Ltr'j bands when llic pl-.icc in vol. !.

310

The Euselian Talks found

in Si/riac

MSS.

[ai-,.

inquires for Assemani's work will find that the numbor. "' the last line of each of the Tables is os

foUo'^

Canon

ii


<312

Jerome transMes Eimcbin^ ad Carpianiim.

[app. o.

eKUffToi TOTTOuf evpstv iv

OK Kara tuv avrwv

rivi-)^6T)aav,

tk

eVe^^eiS vepiKOViji; avaXa^tov rov vpoKetfjievov apiOfLov, iiritn-

Tqaas
TTov

"ri

avTov evSov ip tw xavovi

ij

hia rov Kivva^dptoi

vTrotTTjueiwais VTZo^efiKtjKev, etar} fiiv ev8vs fV tS>v eVi fierii-

ToO icavopo^ jrpoypa^cbv, oiroaoi Kai r/Ve? ravapaTrXijoia

hi.

elpriKaaiv eiriairiaas
api6fioi<; TO?? ip
eTTi^rjrtjcras

Koi toIs tuiv Xoittuiv evayytKltop

APPENDIX
On
the Interpolation of thf text
S.

(H).
Codex H
at

tw

kupovi u i-rrexni apiOfiw -TrapaKei/iivotv,

olicelois

re ainov^ epSop ip tois

TO, jtapaifKriaia

eKaarov tvay-

Matthew

of Codex B and xxvii. 48 or 49.

yeXlov TOTTOis,

XtyopTat

evpi^aei^.

(Referred to at pp. 202 and 219.)

Jerome,
"

who

is

observed sometimes to exhibit the sense

of his author very loosely,

renders

this as follows

It
:

is

well

known
After

that our

two

oldest Codices. Cod.

Cum

igitur aperto Codice, verbi gratia, illud sive illud

sit,

and Cod.
read:

K, (see

Capituliim scire volueris cujus Canonis

jecto

statim ex sub-

as follows.

xxvu. 49, above, p. 80,) exhibit S. Matthew avTOP, they aojawv [Cod. Sinaii. <ra>aai]
_
.

numero doceberis ; et recurrens ad principia, in quibus Canonum est distincta congeries, eodemque statim Ganone ex titulo frontis invento, illura quem quaerebas numerum,
ejusdem Evangelistse, qui
venies
;

(Cod. B.)

(Cod. N-)

aAAoc
oAAoc be Aopw
Aorx"^ evuEev aurou THv nAEupav KQi eiH\
eev uboip KGi aino be

et ipse ex inscriptione signatur, in-

Aapwv AorxH

atque e vicino ceterorum tramitibus inspectis, quos

evuEev aurou th

numeros e regione habeant, annotabis. Et cum scieris, recurres ad volumina singulorum, et sine mora repertis nunieris quos ante signaveras, reperies et loca in quibus vcl
eadem, vel vicina dixerunt."
This
missed.

nAeupav koi cEhA

eev ubcop KOt 01

MO

may

be a very masterly way of explaining the use

of the Eusebian Canons.

But

the points of the original are

is

What

Eusebius actually says

this

" If therefore, on opening any one soever of the four Gos-

thou desirest to study any given Section, and to ascertain which of the Evangelists have said things of the same kind as well as to discover the particular place where each has been led [to speak] of the same things ; note the number of the Section thou art studying, and seek that number in
pels,
;

C, L, U, T: and it is known to also the reading of Codd. cursives, 5, 48, 67, 115, 127 . recur in the following Matthaei, (ed. 1803, vol. i. Obvious is it to suspect with Lectionary practice of the Orien158,) that it was the

Then comes,

o Be t?

TaXtv npaia^

k.t.K.

The same

is

tal

In S. John interpolation. Church which occasioned this well-kmown record,dXV els t<5v crpaxix 34 occurs the

the

Canon indicated by the numeral subscribed in vermilionThou wilt be made aware, at once, from the heading of
each Canon,

'"^^ T.0,. xiyxu '^^"^ ^^^ '^'^^P^" '"f' of the practice*^ffr it was the established alaa Kal vBwp: and Ecclesiastical lection for Good Friday,
Easterns, in the
(viz
to

of the Evangelists, and which of them, have said things of the same kind. Then, by attendin ing to the parallel numbers relating to the other Gospels

how many

55th verses of S.Matthew. 37 between the 54th and the again at alluded to above, at p. 202 and This will bo found
pp. 218-9.
.

S Matth.

xxvii.

161,)

to interpose

S.John

xix.

31

the same Canon, and by the thou wilt discover the Evangelists saying things of

turning to each in its proper place,

But Cod.

inserts ..<.. before .,X9..;

aud

(at least

two of tbe other

<u iup. Codices, viz.) 48. 07 read aiixa

same kind."


314
Rcmarlahle Scholmt
in

H.]
guotiiir/ t/ic lost

ErAif. 72,
t3'pe,

[Apr.

Bialcsiaron o/Tatian.

315

After the pages just quoted were in

Harl.

while cxaiuiniug
72,) I

MS. 6647

in the British

Museum, {our Evan.

alighted on

the following Scholion, which I have eincc found that Wetstein duly published; hut which has certainly not attracted the attention
it

deserves, and

incorrectly represented as referring to the

xxvii. 49.

which i end of S. Mutth,

is

It

is

agaimi

tor.

48 that there

written in the

margin,

Qi"

'Oti

10

TO

Koe'

IcTopiav
biacpopcov

cuarfEAiov Aiabwpou Koi

drioiv

ToTtavoO
npoGKEiTQi
([h

KQi
:

aAAutv

narepwv

must continue to sustain. That Chr3'80stom employed Codices disfigured by this self-same blemish, is certain. It is an interesting and suggestive circumstance. Nor is this all. Sever us' relates that between A.D. 496 and 511, being at Constantinople, he had known whereupon had been this ver}' reading strenuousl)' discussed produced a splendid copy of S. Matthew's Gospel, traditionally said to have been found with the bod)' of the Apostle Barnabas in the Island of Cyprus in the time of the Emperor Zeno (a.d. 474 491) and preserved in the palace
C, L,
TJ, r,)

and Cyril

also

toOto

with superstitious veneration in consequence.

It contained
:

'AaAoc be Aapdjv A6rx"v IvuEev ainoO thv nAcupdv

KOI eHAecv

Obwp

KQi ai)ja

toOto Aeret koi 6

XpuOOOTO/iOC.

This writer
vii,

is

perfectly correct in
S.

Chrysostom's 88th Homily on

his statement. In Matthew's Gospel, {0pp.

is

825 c:

[vol.

ii,

p.

526,

ed.

Field.])

read as follows:

no record of the piercing of the Saviour's side nor (adds Severus) does an)' ancient Interpreter mention the transexcept Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexaction in that place, andria; into whose Commentaries it has found its way. Thus, to Codices B, ^5, C and the copy familiarly employed by Chrysostom, has to be added the copy which Cyril of Alexandria * employed as well as evidently sundr)' other

Codices extant at Constantinople about a.d. 500.

That the
is

'Evofiiaav 'H\[av eluai,

^al, tov
is
:

tcaXovpevov, koI ev0eai

corruption of the text of S. Matthew's Gospel under review

is

fworiaav ainov o^os

(which

mary of the

contents of per. 48

clearly meant to be a sumthen follows) erepos Se irpoa-

ancient therefore, and was once very widely spread,

certain.

The question remains,

e\6cov yJr>ixv avrov t^v vXevpav ew^t. (Chrysostom quotes no further, but proceeds, Tt yt'oir &v tovtcov irapapofuirepop, Ti Be BijpuoZiaTepov, k.t.\,)

to be determined,

How did
S.

and this

is

the only point

if the

it

originate ?

Now

it

must be candidly admitted, that

strange

method of the Lectionaries already explained,

posing seven verses of

(viz. of inter-

I find

it

impossible on a review of the evidence to adhere

John's xix"" chapter [ver. 31

S.

7]

to the opinion I

above, (viz. at

p.

once held, and have partially expressed 202,) that the Lectionary-practice of the

between the 54th and 55th verses of

Matth. xxvii,) really

Eastern Church was the occasion of this corrupt reading in our two oldest uncials. corrupt reading it undeniably is and the discredit of exhibiting it, Codd. S, H, (not to say Codd.

were the occasion of this interpolation of S. John xix. 34 two points would seem to after S. Matth. xxvii. 48 or 49, call for explanation which at present remain unexplained First, (1) AMiy does only that one verse find place in the in-

terpolated copies P
[On tbe <ign in the an "Annotation." On the text, see the Catalogue of MSS. in the Turin Library, P. i. p. 93.] word, and on arniftouaSat, (consider 2 Thess. iiL 14,) see the interesting remarks of Hnet, Origeniana, iii. i. 4. (at the end of vol. iv. of Origeu's Opp,
^ ^.Tiiuluats is

And

next, (2)

How

does

it

come

to pass

what we

call

He was

Patriarch

of Antioch, A.D. 612-9.

The

extract (made by

p.

292-3.)

Enscbius (Hist. Heel.

But
it is

v. 20) uses aii(iutns in this sense.

(See the

note of Valedus.)

Jerome and Rufinns (ntbserij>tio),'that it often denoted a " signature," or signing of the name. EnsebiuB to employs the word in lib. v. 19 ad Jin.
plain from the rendering of

MoDopbjsite Patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 578,) purports to be derived from the 26''' Epistle, (Book 9,) which Severns addressed to Thomas Bp. of Geruinuicia after his exile. See Assemani, Bihl. Orient, vol. it.
I'ctrus junior,

pp. 81-2.
<"

cannot find the place in Cyril.

of this Father,

whose Works by the way are miserably indexed.

I suppose it occurs in a lost

Commentary


316
The
interpolation
is

of Codd.

B ami

\i

accounted for.

[xtr

H.]
is

Th'.odoret on the lout Diatesaaron

of Tatian.

31

that that one verse

peculiar a form
?

exhibited in bo very depraved and so

in

the highest degree suggestive

as well as important.
xaff" 'ktto-

For, to say nothing of the inverted order of the to principal ^vords, (which is clearly due to 1 S.John v.
6,)

May we not venture to opine that the same plav evayyiXiov, as this Writer aptly designates
For,

Tatian's
pofiiis

work,
qiiam

is

responsible for not

'

a few of the monstra

let

be carefully notied that the substitution of SWoi hi Xa^wv \6yxvv, for fly twj; orTpaTitoruv \6yxD of the
it

aW

varine hctiones

which are occasionally met with in

the earliest

MSS. of

all ?

And,

Am

I not right in sugis

Evangelist,

is

a tell-tale circumstance.

The turn thus

li-

gesting that the circumstance

ire

before us

the

only thing

centiously given to the narrative clearly

proceeded from

knoir for certain

about the text of Tatiau's (miscalled)

the "Diatessaron" of Tatian, (for

some one who was bent on weaving incidents related by different writers into a connected narrative, and who was
sometimes constrained to take
consequence.
(Thus, S.
liberties

"Harmony?" To conclude. That

it,)

so,

with his Text

in

according to Eusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled

Matthew having supplied the fact and took a sponge, etui filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink," S. John is made to say, " And another took a spear.") Now, this is exactly what Tatian is related by Eusebius to have done viz. "after some fashion of his own, to have comthat

has long since disappeared, no one

composition,)

now

doubts*.

That

"one of them

ran,

Eusebius himself, (who lived 150 years after the probable

date of
its

inferred from the terms in

does not so

much

as

had never seen it, may I suppose be which he speaks of it. Jerome mention its existence. Epiphanins,
that he

who

is

very full and particular concerning the heresy of

posed out of the four Gospels one connected narrative

*."

Tatian, affords no indication

his work.

was acquainted with

Diatessaron Gospel,"

When

therefore, (as in the present Scholion,) an ancient

On

the contrar}'.

"The

Critic who appears to have been familiarly acquainted with the lost " Diatessaron " of Tatian, comes before us with the

express declaration that in that famous

primitive age
(a.d. 173), S.

monument
Matthew's

of the

John's record of the piercing

S.

which some call the Gospel achave been the production of this writer ''," The most interesting notice we have of Tatian's work is from the pen of Theodoret. After explaincording to the Hebrews,
is

(he remarks in passing,) "

said to

of our Saviour's side was thrust into

of the Passion in this precise
(for,

History'

"Note," he

says,

way and in these very terms, "That into the Evangelical History
:

ing that Tatian the Syrian, originally a Sophist, and next a disciple of Justin Martyr [a.d. 150], after Justin's death
aspired to being a heretical leader,
first

of Diodorus, of Tatian, and of divers other holj' Fathers,

is

found in Irena3U8,)

Theodoret

(statements which
enumerates

are

his special

introduced [here] the following addition

side,

'

And

another
'

tenets.

took a spear and pierced His

and Blood,'
text of our

and there came out Water This, Chrysostom also says"), it is even un-

called

"This man" (he proceeds) "put together the soGospel, from which he cut away the genealogies, and whatever else shews that the Lord was
Diatessaron

reasonable to seek for any other explanation of the vitiated two oldest (bodices. Not only is the testimony the critical fact abundantly sufficient, but the proposed to
Bolution of the difficulty, in itself the reverse of improbable,
'O liivToi yt Kphffos airiy [viz. the tect of the Severiani] ipxVT^' t# Ta7itLvhs trvpdiptiav rira Ha) avvayw^riv ovk oTS* iirws rwv tvayytXiuv avvBuSf

born of the seed of David.

those

The book was used not only by who favoured Tatian's opinions, but by the orthodox
;

as well

who, unaware of the mischievous spirit in which

the work had been executed, in their simplicity used the

book
such *0

as an epitome.
cajtitf

ntyself found ujncardt oftico

hundred

Sii raraipaiv tovto rpocar6fiaotr.

Kol Topi riaiy fiVcTi

vw

tptptrau

l"*
*""*

honourably jireserved in the Churches of this place," (Cyrus iu Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made
'

next words are every way euggestive.

ainhv fUTaippdaai ^ufckt,
EusebiuB, Bist. Eccl.
iv.
iis

ToD

Si

iTearSKou

^a<rl To\/i5<""

iriSuaptoliiifvov

atnuv r^v t^i ^picfo't auyroitr.

Sec, for example, the readings of

or N, or botli, B.iecified fioin p.

(i;.)
''

60 to

p. 66.

fid. supra, p. 129, note

Ojip. vol.

i.

p.

391 D.

29, J 4.

318

T/uodoret.

Diodorus. A nuggcstion.
all

[ait. m.

Bishop, A.D. 423,)"

of which I collected together, ond

put aside
in their

suhstituting the Gospels of the

Four vangcliBt

room '."
(he says) contained eight hundred
It cannot be thought surprising that a

The diocese ofTheodorct

Parishes *.

work

of

POSTSCRIPT.
(Pbomiseb at p. 51.)
I PKOCF.ED to fulfil the promise
thaei {Xor. Test., 1788, vol.
iii.

which copies had been multiplied to such an extraordinaryextent, and which was evidently once held in high esteem, should have had some influence on the text of the earliest Codices ; and here, side by side with a categorical statement as to one of its licentious interpolations, we are furnished with documentary proof that many an early MS. also was infected with the same taint. To assume that the two pho-

made

at p. 51.

C. F. Mat-

the

MSS.
:

p. 269) states that in one of at ^foscow occurs the following " Schoiion of Euse-

nomena stand
and
effect,

Kara Mdpicov fiera t!]P avd<na<nv oil Xeyerai &(f>Oai On this, Griesbach remarks (Comm. Crit. ii. rols fiaPt)Tah." " quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiara 200),
BIUS

related to one another in the

way

of cause

agnovissot :" the record in S.

Mark

xvi. 14, being express,

seems to be even an inevitable proceeding. I will not prolong this note by inquiring concerning tho " Diodorus" of whom the unknown author of this schoiion
epeaks
:

-ToTfpov avaxeifievois
mended

avTOis rots evBcKa i(f>avepw6r].

The

epigrammatic smartness of Griesbach's dictum has recomit to Dr. Tregelles and others who look unfavourablj' on the conclusion of S. Mark's Gospel ; and to this hour the Schoiion of Matthaei remains unchallenged.

but I suppose

it

was

that

Diodorus

who was made

Bishop of Tarsus
and,

in a.d. 378.
;

the preceptor of Chrj'sostom

among

the

rest,

He is related to have been was a very voluminous writer according to Suidas, wrote a work " on

the Four Gospels."

Lastly,

How

about the singular introduction into the

Is it allowable to conjecture that,

Lection for Good-Friday of this incident of the piercing of

proposed inference from it, is imposought to be obvious to every thoughtful person that problems of this class will not bear to be so handled. It is as if one were to apply the rigid mathematical method to the ordinary transactions of daily life, for which

But

to accept the It

sible.

the Redeemer's side?

it

is

clearly

unsuitable.
desire a few

Before we move a single

step,

indirectly, the Diatessaron

of Tatian

may have

been tho

however,

we

more

particulars concerning this

occasion of that circumstance also; as well as of certain

other similar phenomena in the Evangeliaria P

'

supposed e^idence of Eusebius. Accordingly, I invoked the good

offices

of

my

friend, the

Haeret. Fal.

lib.
ii.

*"

Clinton, F. R.

c. xx. ( 0pp. iv. 208.) Appendix, p. 473, quoting Thcodorefs " p.ll3,
i.

Eev.
p.

HM.

for

W. G. Penny, English Chaplain at Moscow, to obtain me th<- entire context in which this "Schoiion of Eusebius"
:

[oi.

voL iJL p. 986-7]."

little anticipating the trouble I was about to give His task would have been comparatively easy had I been able to furnish him (which I was not) with the exact designation of the Codex required. At last by sheer determination and the display of no small ability, he discovered

occurs

him.

the place, and sent

me

a tracing of the whole page

viz. fol.

286 (the lust ten words being overleaf) of Matthaei's " 12," ("Synod. 139,") our Evan. 255. It pro\-.>s to be the concluding portion of Victor's Commentary, and to correspond with what is found at p. 365 of


320
rOSTSCHIPT.
Possinus, and p. 44G-7 of

Cramer
.'

I'OSTSCltlPl'.

:jJl

except that after the

avToit
{nifrjii,

words " aiTOKvXiaeie rov \idov

"

-^j" and before the words

Xf'yfi,

tovto

^6ij

Tplrov

TOIS /XOLUlJTaiS

O)(h0Tj 6 Kvptot

aWo?

h'f

^T}iriv" [Possinus, line

tin- toj)], is

12 from bottom

Cramer,

UiTOi TTjV Cll'OL<TT(t(TlV

"V tovto hfyuiv,

i}hr]

on

fiovov TpiTov,

aKKa Ta
tij)a-

line

5 front

read as follows:

Toli oXXoit 7ra/)aXfXfi/i/iVa X/yuK, roOro

rrpos

toU SXXots

rpiTov
ix^Br)

fepwSq Toit pa6i<Tatc.

KOLTOL
/lorav

f^iv

yup tok pliOLToOilOVj

*

avToic

0X0'

KQir

A\dpKOV
;

METd thv

dvdoTaoiv ou

AercTOi

Jxpeai

cuoe
P'"

Tolc (jaSHTaic
(LiaflHTak

KOid AHarbmov jierd thv dvdoTaoiv tok

iv

ry FaAiAata

Kara

tAv

lcoai'i^i)i>,

Iv avrfj

wtpGH kv th raAiAaia :

TT) rififpa rrjs

avaaTaaiCds, rau 6vpwv KiKXeiafiffcou,

oirrniv

Kara "loodvvHV" V auTH th H^epa thc dvaoTOoecoc twv

dupu>v

U.i(TOS avTiav

((XTTj,

tv

UpovaaKrjp,

fXTj

TTaOOVTOS '*" jrapovTos koX

KCKAeio/ievwv

6 'IhooCc
koI

(ueooc
fiee'

twv
H/iiepac

juaeHTwv

jiH

Qcofia.

Koi TTaXiv fifO' rj/iepa^

&(j}6l

oktco,

napovTOc toG Ooomq Isth"

oujjnapovTOc
kqi

ndAiv oktoj

TOV Qoyiia,

mVoIr,

^iij

KiKKna-piviov tuv Ovpuv. fXtTOL TOLVTOL

toO

6coMd.

M^Td

TauTO

ndAiv cq>dvH
"

im
oil

Ti;?

6a\daar)s
(.

rrjs
fit

Ti^epiaSof

i(})ai>i)

avToTy,

GUTolc eni thc eaAaooHc thc Tipepidboc:-

rots ra

aWtt ^oKoir

Kara

AovKav
rjfJ-e'pa

cocbdrj

KAeoTTCt

avv

Kaid AgukSv d)(peH KAeoTTO ouv tw tTolpo) auroO quth

TH Hjicpa THC dvaordoecoc'IcpouoaAHju u>(p6n TH aoTH
ko!

Tw

iraipa) avTOV, avrfj rp

Ttjf

avaaraaecos. Kai
rfj ijfJLepa,

ndAtv

iinooTpe\|/aoiv

eic

TTaXiv VTToa-Tpiy\ra(Tiv eJy 'hpovcraXrjfi avrfj

HMcpa ouvHr/uevtov
KQi

tcov

AoinwA

avvrjypivcov

rav

fxaOi^rciv,

m^dr)
ort
f.

"S-ipLOivi.

Kai rraXiv
d>'aXi;(/>flfit

MaeHTWv
eic

KQi JiqieH

Zifiojvi-

ndAiv eEnrarcv auTOuc

BHOaviav kqi bicoTH dn" auTcav.

surely no one

i^ayaycov avrovs tis HrjOaviaUf

O/T

Kai Sifarq
(Ivat

aVrCOU'

i>t

'*

toOtou vaplaratrBai

rat
rjp<ov

fir

lovs padrjTas

But
serious

who
is

will conceive that

he

considers the matter attentively, warranted in drawing from this so

last

pfTa T^v avtioTatriv ysyowlas onTatrtas Tov Swr^por

plav
/lie

Irjaov XpierroO.
T^jfif

napa

Ta

MarSaiu), rpeTt 8c irapu Tai 'iwavyj), koi

Ta Aouxa

an inference as that Eusebius disallowed the In the

first place,

opoius *.

Section of S. Mark's GospeL

(1.)

(4.)

we have

already

[siiprd,

p. 44]

the
is

on/i/

Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here, thing in fact which I am concerned to point out,
circumstance that the supposed dictum of
scribere
is

heard Eusebius elaborately discuss the Section in question.

the notable

That he allowed it, is therefore certain. (2.) But next, this o-;^o\iov evaefilov at the utmost can
only be regarded as a general

Eusebius,

("quod
it

non potuisset

si

pericopam du-

biani agnovisset,")
'

no longer discoverable.

To

saj'

that

summary of what
stands,
it

Eusebius
not the

has somewhere delivered concerning our Lord's appearances

after

His Resurrection.

As

it

clearly

is

work of Eusebius.
(3.)

And

because I shall be reminded that such a

state-

ment cannot be accepted on

my own

mere

'ipse dixit, 1

In the original In plain terms, the famous It "<r;^oXioj' evae^lov" proves to be every wa)' a figment. is a worthless interpolation, thrust by some nameless scribe into his abridgement of a Scholion, of which Eusebius (as I shall presently shew) cannot have been the Author.
it

has disnppeared,' would be incorrect.

lias

document

no existence.

preproceed to subjoin the original Scholion of which the three ceding is evidently onl)' an epitome. It is found in
witliout of the Moscow MSS., (our Evan. 239, 259, 237,) but

(5.)

may

as well point out tchy the person

who wrote

ihe longer Scholion says nothing about S. Mark's Gospel,

It is

because there was nothing for

Quottd hy Malfhaei,
iV.

him

to

saj'.
a, d.

any Author's name

T. (1788) vol.

ix. p.

228, from g,


322

POSTSCIlirT.

1'OSTSCRIPT.

323

enumerating our Lord's aj)pca ranees to Jlin /)/*. and he discovers that these cipks after His Resurrection were exactly seven in number one being peculiar to S. ilatis
;
:

He

thew,

three, to S.

John,

three, to

S.

Luke.

But

because,

(as CTcr)' one is aware), there exists no record of an appearance to the Disciples peculiar to S. Mark's Gospel, the Au-

He .^-related to have by them there. [The other two Evangelists relate the appearances in Jermnhm : and] according to S. John, &c. &c.
is

S.Mark, He
'

,,o/-by S. Matthew,

been

aclu;illy seen

'According to
(8.)

And on

thor of the Scholion

is

silent

concerning

S.

Mark

S. Luke,' &c. &:c. passing the "Quaestiones ad

perforce.

Marinum"

can have overlooked

and accomplished a Critic as Matthaei all this how he can have failed to recognise the identity of his longer and his shorter Scholion how he came to say of the latter, " conjicias ergo Eusebium huQC totum locum repudiasse;" and, of the former, "ulUmam partem Evangelii Marci videtur tollere * :" lastly, how Tischendorf (1869) can write, " est enim ejusmodi ut ultimam partem evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, cxcludut :" I profess myself unable to understand. (G.) The epitomizer however, missing the point of his Author, besides enumerating all the appearances of our Saviour which S. Luke anywhere records, is further convicted of having injudiciously invented the negative statement about S. Mark's Gospel which is occasioning us all
....
so acute
:

How

of Euseblus under review, I am constrained to admit that the Scholion before us is just such a clumsy bit of writing as an unskilful person might easily be betrayed into, who should attempt to exhibit in a few short sentences the substance of more than one tedious disquisition of this ancient Father'. Its remote parentage would
fullv account for being designated " <tx6\iov eiaefflov," aU the same. (9.) Least of all am I concerned to sav
its

''

about the longer Scholion

seeing that S.

Mark

mentioned in it. But I may as well point out that Eusebius cannot have been its Author- the proof being, that whereas the Scholion in question is a note on S. John xxi. 12, (as Matthaei is careful to inform us ) Its opening sentence is derived from
as
as
tt

much

anything more is not so

stands,

Chry.ostom's Corn'men-

tary on that same rcrse in his 87"'

(10.)

this trouble.
(7.)

And

thus, one

And

did not

by that unlucky sentence of mean what is commonly imagined.

yet,

his,

he certainly

the Critics
18

S. John ^. by one, every imposing statement of

it

Homily on

IS

am

not conthat,

questioned,

and

observed hopelessly to collapse as soon as to vanish into thin air.

cerned to defend
to suppose
is

him

but

it is

only fair to point out

he

intended to disallow the

end of S. Mark's

Gosjtel,

altogether to misapprehend

the gist of his remarks, and

impute to him a purpose of which he clearly knew nothing. Note, how he throws his first two statements into
to

So much has been oflered, only because of the deliberate pledge I gave in p. 51. -Never again, I undertake to say will the "Scholion of Eusebius" which has cost

my

at

Moscow, his Archimandrites, and me,

friend

so

much

a separate paragraph
against the other
:

contrasts,

and evidently

balances one

introduced into

any

trouble be

thus,

Kara MdpKOv,
KOTQ MareaTov
v

juerd

thv avdaraoiv ou Aeretai

toqieai,

(Jtrd

thv dvaoiaoiv wtpGH,

Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark As the oversight of one (C. F. Matthaei) who was sbgularly accurate and towards whom we must all feel as towards
let it

discussion of the genuineness of the last

loTc luaeHTOir

be freely forgiven as

weU

a Benefactor' as loyally forgotten

ii,"

TH roAiAaio.
'

i'erlectiy eviUeut is it that the 'plena locutio' so to speak,

Let the raider examine his "Quaestio

(p.

"QnacBtio i."
"

295, last seven lines).

vol. viii.

of the Writer would have been somewhat as follows:

See Cho-s.

Opp

two Evangelists are engaged with our Sabut] by viour's appearance to His Disciples in Galilee
[The
first
:

^/.olut,

htyu

(Mai, vol iv p 293 51 1 '" See also p. 296 Une '9-32 p. 522 c :-.. J ^J,^-, l.^^^i,^,^^ .,,

Kt. rpirov toi-to i,pi,n^ airoTs, Ir, iyipSr, i,

n.pHy.

Ibid., u. 60,

ami

ix.

228.

''

Noc. Test. (1860),

p.

404.

y2

O
Sister,

who

ere yet

my

task
!)

is

done

Art lying (my loved

Sister

in thy shroud
lips

L'ENVOY
As
one, escaped the bustling tiaflicking town.

With
Soon

calm placid smile upon thy

As thou wert
to

only " taking of rest in sleep,"

to ministries of love,

wake up
lips,

Open

those

kind Sister, for

my

sake

Worn out and weary, climbs his favourite hill And thinks it Heaven to sec the calm green fields
Mapped
out in beautiful sunlight at his feet
fitful
;

In the mysterious place of thy sojourn,

(For thou must needs be with the
bless'd,

yea, where

The pure

in heart

draw wondrous nigh

" lie found

to God,)
toil

Or walks enraptured where the

Or
So
scent or sound but
I,

south

And
:

tell

the Evangelist of thy brother's

(be suie
!)

Comes past the beans in blossom

fills

and no sight

Adding
Yet

it

his reward.

his soul with glee

to stand

supplicates thy blessing and thy prayers.

blessing, saintly Stranger, of thy prayers.
least

lejoicing once again

voices
fill

The

AVhere Siloa's biook flows

soft!)',

and the meads

Sure at the

unceasingly of mine !"

Are

all

enamell'd o'er with deathless flowers,

And Angel

the

dewy
!

air.

One
all

other landed on the eternal shore

!

Strife is so hateful to

me

most of

One One

other garnered into perfect peace

A strife of words about the

Meant

things of God.

other hid from hearing and from sight

toil

Better by far the peasant's uncouth speech

for the heart's confession of its hope.
tlie

but the days go heavily, and the

"WTiich used to seem so pleasant yields scant joy.

Sweeter by far in village-school

words
Life,

There come no tokens

Save

to us

from the dead

But half remembered from the Book of

it

may
we

be

that now and then we reap

may be from
them,
!

Or

scarce articulate lispings of the Creed.

Where

not

sowed, and that

Fruit of their prayers

when we

forgot to pray

And

yet, three times that miracle of

Spring

The grand

old tree that darkens Exeter wall

itself

Meantime there comes no message, comes no word Da)' after day no message and no sign

Hath decked
Since
I, like

with blossoms as with

stars,

And

tl)e

heart droops, and finds that

it

it

was Love

one that striveth unto death,

Not Fame

longed

for, lived for

only Love.

Find myself early and late and oft all day Engaged in eager conflict for God's Truth

CiKTKHBUBT.
;

God's Truth, to be maintained against Man's

lie.

And
To

lo,

my
its

brook which widened out long since

Into a

river, threatens

now

ut length
sea.

burst

channel and become a

GEXERAL INDEX.
pravations, p. 80-6
;

327
p. 121-3, 281, 2S8-9.

affected
p.

by the

Codex 37,

LeclionaiT practice,
as

217

24;

38, p. 121-3.

synipntby with B, 78; not to old

11,

39, p. 120, 121-3, 271, 281.

40, p. 121-3, 281, 28S-9. 41, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9.

291-4

facsimile, p. iL

GENERAL INDEX.
Under " Codices" trill be found all tlie Evangelia detcriled or quoted: under " Texts" all the placet of Scripture illustrated or referred to.
" Acta rUati," p. 25. Acts, p. 199-200. See Texts.
Addit.

A, p. 220-1. 222, 257-9,311.

U,

p.
3, S.

7090, 257,

202, 217-20. 222-

47, p. 226.
50, p. 271, 281.
64,

813; bow it exhibits the end of Mark, 8690 ; omissions, 74-5,

56

a(? 61, p. 220.

79,

Bengcl, J.

A,

p. 17, 101-2,

185.

80; Ephes. i. 1,91109; in terpohilions and depravations, p

80-0
;

63, p. 240-1. 69, p. 123, 226. 72, p. 23, 218, 314.

Benson, Eev. Dr, p. 101.

BriBaBapi and BjiSocfa, p. 236. Sibliothique at Paris, p. 228-31,

affected
p.
;

by the Lectioiiary
217-24
;

See Codices.

practic<i

sympathy
depraved
p.

77, p. 283. 90, p. 240.

Adlcr, J. G.

C,

p. 33-4.

with K, 78

older than K. 2fll-4.

;

Alford, Deaii, p. 8, 13, 38, 77, 103,

278-83.
Birch's N. T., Andr., p. PKiiTTny, p. 160.
5,

C, p. 218, 221-2, 302, 311

92 and 94,

p.

283.

164, 227, 244-5, 259.

Algasia, p. 62.

116-8, 311.

by
D,
F,

tlic

Lectionary practice,

220.

108, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.

p. 100, 219-25, 257, 2G2, 302.

;

113, p. 218. 117, p. 302.

124, p. 226.

Ambrose, p. 27.

"Ammonian"
295
p.

Sections,
in

311

p. 12G-32,
Gos|)c1e,

Bobbiensis, Codex, p. 35, 124, 186. Bodleian. See Codices.

E; J). 305, 311.

J).

302.

the four

Book of Common Prayer,

Bostra, tee Titof

p. 215.

G,

p. 306, 911.
p.

129, p. 121-8, 283, 288-9. 137, p. 116-8, 121-8, 284. 288 9. 188, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288 9.

309 ; in

S.

Amnionins, p.
iivi-yvu>atit,

Mark's Gospel, p. 3 J 1. 125 32.

p.

p. 196.

Bosworth, Bev. Prof., p. 262. Broadus, Prof., p. 139, 155, 168, 174
Caisarius, p. 133.

H, K,
L,

302, 306, 311.

p. 197, 302, 311.

p. 123-5. 218, 225,

311

factimile,

143, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.

ii'cE^ruir/ui, p.

45, 196.

p.

124.
107, 305, 306, 311.

146, p. 286.

ivoKri^BTivat, p. 166.

M,
295-312.

p.

181 and 186,

194, p. 284.

p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.

Andreas of Crete,
Angelic

258.

Canons,

p.

127-31,

Set

Hymn,

p.

257

63.
p. 26-7, 258.

Sections.

P, Q, K, Y. Z, p. 302. S, V, A, n. p. 311.
T'', p.

195, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.

197, p. 284. 199,

iiTf/SA^Bi), p. 119.

Carpian, Letter

to, p. 126-8,

811-2.

305.

irr/x". p. 225, 6.

Carthage.
Catena;,

See Council.
133-5.

U,

p.

218,811.
p. 302.

206 and 209,

p.

120, 1-3,

6.

4^op/i4 p. 127, 137.

Cassian, p. 193.
p.

WS
See
Corderins,
r, p.

210, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.

Aphraates the Persian,

4iriiTri',

W"", p. 305.

215, p. 265.

p. 158-9.

Cramer, Mattbaei, Peltanus, Psinus, Victor.

218,224, 311.

221 and 222,

233, p. 286.

p.

121-3, 285, 8-9.

Apocrypha, p. 301.
Apolinarins, p. 275, 277.

A, p. 119, 122, 311.

Chrysostom,
p.

p. 27, 85, 110, 179, 193,

Codex l,p- 120, 123, 125.

7, p. 239.

237 and 238,

239, p. 321. 253, p. 285.

p.

285, 8-9, 321.

"Apostolical 258.

Constitations,"

25,

198-9, 201-4, 223, 258-9,

276-7,

278, 814-6, 323.

10, pu 224, 231. 12, p. 122, 278, 288-9. 13, p. 226. 16, PL 119.
19, p.240, 278.

hxh,

p. 224-5.

Church, the Christian, p. 192.

p. 36, 239.

255, p. 285, 288-9, 319-23. 256, p. 239, 260.

Armenian Version,

Festivals, p. 203.

Ascension, The, p. 195.

Lessons, p. 204-5, 238-9.

Churton, Eev.

W.

E., p. 236.

Circnlar,"A, p. 101-5.
Citations, tee Patristic.

859, p. 286, 288-9, 321. 262, p. 119, 122, 305.

263, p. 302, 304. 264, p. 117, 305-6.

Asscmani,

p.

309-10, 315.

20. p- 118-9, 22, 271, 9, 280,

Asterisla, p. 116-8, 218-

Clemens
Codices,

Alex., p. 30.

1.2.
22, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242.

Athanasian Creed, p- 3, 254.

Athaoasius, p. 30, 275 ; bow he read S. Jo. xvii. 15, 16, p. 74. Augustine, p. 28, 198, 200.

depraved, p. 80-6, 217-2*See Corrupt readings. Dated, SjTiic

151, referred to p. 311.

23, p. 120.
24, p. 121-3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280,

265, p. 225. 266, p. 238.

267, p. 216.

268

9.

CODICES.
Codex N, p. 7090, 77, 109-13, 21822, 252, 257, 313 ; how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 88-90; omissions, 73-6,79,80; Ephcs.i J, 81109; interpolations and de-

25, p. 225, 280. 27.

1>-

268, p. 231. 270, p. 224. 274, p. 124.

Babington, Eev.
Paaixis, p. 275.

C,

p. 291.

239.

Basil, p. 93-9, 275.

30, p. 231. 33, p. 123.

31, p. 6, 120, 121-3, 280.
:

282 and 293,

p.

231.

299, p. 122, 281, 288-9. 300, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9,

1, 2.

Basle, p. 283.

See Codices.

Bcde, Ven.,

p. 30.

30, p. 118, 121-8, 229, 280, 8, 9.

280,

; ;

328
Codex 301,

GENERAL INDEX.
p. 282. 3<M, p. 283.

GENERAL INDEX.
34, p. 284, 288.
14, p. 284.
a,

329
315.

Laur.

vi.
viii.

c", p. 220.

Cyprus,

p.

i'

and
p.

b"', p. 302.

Cyril of Alex., p. 29, 60, 110, 198,

300, p. 239, 282. 312, p. 282. 329, p. 122, 282, 288- 9.

MattLaci's

286, 2SS-9, 321.

V,

305.
I. iv.

d, p. 285,
e, p.

288-9.

Taurin. xx

20, p.

286

201, 258. 271, 5, 7, 9, 281, 315. of Jer., p. 184-6. 195. 258, 261.

285, 288-9.

332 and 353,

373, p. 287.

p. 28G.

10, p. 285.

Toledo, p. 286. Vat. 358, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.

Cyrus
284,

in Syria, p. 317, 8.

12, p. 285, 288, 819-23.

7567,
28S-9.

p.

116-8,

121-3,

374, p. 122, 121, 2, 286, 379 and 427, p. 287.

288

9.

14, p. 239, 280.

Damascene. Jolin, p. 30. Datd MSS., p. 208, 224, 309.

Davidson, Dr., p. 12, 38, 114, 133-5, 6; 142, 8; 153, 160, 1. 4; 185.

428 and 432,

436, p. 218.
439, p. 226.

p. 286.

Mccrinau 117, p. 218. Middle Hill 13, 975, p. 287. Monacen. 99 and 381, p. 280.
465,
p.

1,220

p.

121-3, 284, 283-9.

1,423, p. 287.
1,-115, p.

122.286,288-9.

De Touttie,

p. 184, 201.

287.

1,700, p. 287.
Pul.ll. 5, p. 286.

ttvTpoirp<ir^', p. 75,

220.

Addit. f,157, p. 309. 12,141, p. 215.

'

Moscow, tee MattLaei.Eeg. 14, p. 123.

50, p. 226. 53, p. 119, 122, 305.

Venet. G, 10,
27,
1>.

p.

120, 121-3, 5.

Diatessaron. p. 120, 314-8. Diodorus, p. 314-8.

14,449, p. 215, 306, 309. 14,450. p. 215, 806, 310. 14.451, p. 306.
14,432-4-5, p. 215, 306. 14,456, p. 215.
14,457-8, p. 215, 306, 309. 14,461, p. 215.
14,463. p. 215, 306.

121-3, 284, 288-9.

40.''.,

p.

285.

Dionysius of Corintli, p. 245. Diouysius Syrus, p. 41.

Jiffa

61

p. 302, 304.

541, p. 285.

if

viplttTois, p.

257

63.

62, 4ee

Codex L.

Vind. Kell.

4, Forlos.

5,

p. 121,

3,

64, p. 119.
63, p. 117, 305-6. 66, p. 225. 67, p. 238. 69, p. 216. 71, p. 239.
72, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242.

283, 2SS-9.

Easter Lessons,
p.

p.

204-6. 238-9.

Ncp. 114, Lambec. 29,

117,

283.

Eden. Bev. C.
iyKvH\toVf p.
iKpa?Oi.fiy Ik

P., p. 3.
5.
iird,

38, p. 121-3,

285. 288-9.
118,
180,

104 and

14,464, p. 216.

14,469, p. 306.

153.

31, p. 226. 39, p. 121-3,

iKUVOSf p. 160-7.

UKu^ts,
Ellicott,

p.

86.

14,485-8, p. 208. 14,492, p. 208.

17,113, p. 215, 300.

285, 288-0.

73, p. 231.
75, p. 224.

Wake,

Xavicr do Zelada,

22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, p. 311. p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.

Bisbop. p. 9. Encyclical, p. 101-5.

Epbcsians, Ep.
Texts.
to, p.

91109.

See

17,114-5-6, p. 215. 17,213, p. 310.

77

p. 120.

79*, p. 124.

Ambros. M. 93,

p.

286.

90, p. 231.

Cod. Evstt. 47 and 50, p. 197. Paul, 67*. p. 99.

Collation of

M, verbs compounded witb.p. 103-4.

im^avia, t&, p. 204. Epipbanins, p. 95, 132-3. 199. 202-3,
See

BasU., p. 283, (three Codd.) Bobbiensis, p. 35, 124, 186. Bodleian, e Codd. r. A, 47, 50, 54,

91, p. 224, 231.

MSS.

p. Tii.-Tiii.,

218.

100. p. 231. 115, p. 239. 117, p. 231.

Colossians, Ej). to, p. 101, 102.

258.

TexU.
Comiuciitaries, Ancient, p. 287.

Epipbany, Festival
sons, 199.

of, p.

204, 7

les-

Dawkins.
CoUl. 19. 20.
p.

122. 282. 8-9.

118,
121-3, 229,

177, p. 121, 281, 8-9.

Common
271, 3,

Prayer, tee Book.

Erizzo, F.

M.

p. 34.

p.

280,

178,

p. 121,

3,

228

9,

Coiicordiincc test, p. 173.

Etiiiopic Version, p. 36.

(vSoxfa, p. 257-63.

8.9.
21. p. 121-3. 281. 8-9. 22. p. 281, 288.
23, p. 271, 281, 288.
24. p. 120. 121-3. 281. 288-9. 195. p. 66, 120, 1-3. 180. Dawkins 3. p. 306-9.

280, 280,

8, 9.
p.

Constautinople, p. 275.

186,

118

9,

122, 271.

4,

9,

Conjbcnrc and Howson,

p.

103.

Eulogius, p. 258.

1, 2.

187. p. 282. 188, p. 118-9, 122, 271. 9, 280,

Coptic Version, p. 35. Copyists of MSS., p. 262, 273-4, 3203.

Ensebius, p. 26,
84,

4151.
332-8,

43, 61-4, 66.

126-33,

240. 249-52,
S, P- 293-4

265-6, 267-8, 275, 314, 316,323;

11., p.

1.2.
189. p. 240, 278.
191, p. 225, 280.
194, p. 283.

Corderius,

44. 134, 270, 4, 7.

in

knew nothing of Cod.

Corrupt readings

MSS.,

p. 100-1.

EscDiial r, u. 8. p. 286.

Florence. S. Mar. Ben. Cod.

iv, p.

120.

Cosmos

112, 262-3. Indieoplenstes, p. 258.

p. 25,

1-3,5.

HarL

1,810. p. 218.
5.647, p. 23, 218, 314.

201, p. 239, 282. 206, p. 282. 230, p. 122, 278, 28S-9.

703, p. 282.

Conncil of Cartilage,

249.
271-3.

was the Author of the " Ammonian" Sections, p. 295 ; Euwbian Tables in Syriac MSS.. p. 309-10 Scholion wrongly ascribed to, p.
319-23.
tieiui, p. 168-9.

Cramer, Dr. J. A.,

p. 44, 60,

5.10^, p. 226.

Creed of Jorusalem,
,

p. 184-5.

tee Atlianasiaii.

Enthymius

Zig., p. 30, 68-9.

Laur.

vi. 18, p. 121-3,

284, 8-9.

2",

p.

226.

Ciiretoniiin Syriac Version, p. 33.

Evangolia, tee Codices.

Evangeliaria, p. 195, 197, 214-6.

vi.

33, p. 284.

71", p.

286.

Cyprian, 25, 240.

330

GENERAL INDEX.
'\r\aovi XpiffTiJt, p.

GENERAL INDEX.
165. Mai, Card. A.,
p. 42-4,

331

Erangelists vary their cipressioDE, p. 147. Evidence, Law of, p. 15.

242, 205.

222. 236. 245. 258. 200-1. 275, 277. 282

;

Indices, p. vii-viii, 21, 30, Sl5. lutcrpolatioDB in and p. 80-6

Manuscripts.

Ste Codices.

on

S.

Mark, 235.
p. 64-5,

iif\e6vTs,

p.

188.

from the Lcctionary pruclicc, 217-24.

p.
ii. ;

Marcion, p. 93-6, 103, 106-8.

p.

Facsimile of Cod. p. 124.

(^,

of Cod. L,

Ireuajus, p. 23, 246, 8, 260.

Itala, Vetus, p. 35.

Marginal references, p. 298 304. Marinus, p. 20, 53-6, 249-50.

Palestinian

exemplar,

121,

289.
riKiv, p. 168-9.

Mark,

S., p.

161-2.

Make,
p. xU, 21, 30,

S. (See

TciU),

FatLers badly indexed,

9; Latinisms,
Jacobns Bar-Salibi, p. 41. "Jacobus Nisibenus," p. 26, 258. James' Ecloga, p. 236. Jerome, p. 26, 27-8, 34. 42, 49, 61-7,
67. 98, 106,
ch.

167. 176, 7, 149-51; style of

p.

Palmer, Sir Roundcll.

p. v. vi.

Bev.

W.

J., p. V.

315

tee Patristic.

L 920,
i.

p.

143-4; phraseology
p.
J

Festivals of tUc Cburch, p. 203. Field's ed. of Cbrysostom, p. 180.

of ch.

112,

174-5

ch. xvi.

Papias. p. 23. napi, verbs comixjundcd with, p. 163

4.

920,
iri.

p.

8673
9

strncture of ch.

Florence.

See Codices,
p.

920, p. 181-4.
ivi.

Parallel passages.
in

See Tables of Re-

Formula: of the Lectionaries,

215-

128. 153. 236. 260.

20,

a Lection

the

ference.

224,5.

295, 312, 314.

Ancient Church, p. 204-11.

Matthaei, C. F., p. 5, 66, 191, 197,

vapaaKevfi, p. 150.
Paris,

Jerusalem.Version, p. 34, 199. Copies at, p. 119. See Creed.

MSS.

at, p.

228-31, 278-83

Gandell. Rev. Prof., p. 148. Garnier, J., p. 101.

Genesis,

227.

247,

271-3.

319-23.

-See

tee Codices, Coisl. aiii Reg.

Jewish Church,

p.

192.

Codices.

Passion-tide Lessons, p. 202, 204.

S.

Jewish Lcctionary, p. 194.

when

read, p. 201.

Matthew.

See Texts.

" Patres App.." p. 240.

Patristic Citations of SS.. p. 20-3. 37.

Gennadins, p. 26. Georgian Version, p. 8G. Ol<)ria in ExceUis, p. 257-63. Gothic Version, p. 35, 262. Green, Rev. T. S., p. 13, 187, 153. Gregentias, p. 30. Gregory of Kaziauzus, p. 258. of Nyssa, p. 29, 3941, 66, 267-8. Thaninaturgus, p. 180.
-

JoHK, S. See Texts. John Damascene, p. 30.

Josephus, p. 275.
Justin Martyr, p. 23, 193.

ixiya aiPParor, p. 194.

Mecnnanll-,
Menologiuui,
p.

Cod., p.218.
p. 35.

257-63.
Paul.
S., p.

Mcmphitic Version,
197.

161-2,

Methodius,
Kaeapi^wv, p. 179-80.

p.

253.

Peltanus, p. 134, 270-3. Penny, Rev. W. G.. p. 319-23.

T(piypi(p(iv ri Tf'Xos, p. 233-4.
TtpiKoirh, p.45, 196, 8, 298.

Meyer,

p. 13,

136, 160.

Kvoriltiy, p. 120-1. 125.

ruv
Middle

aa$$dTtL'Vt p. 146-51.

Kay, Rev. Dr. W.,

Kftfitvoy, p.
i((4>dAaioi', p.

p. 140. 183.

Michaelis, J. D., p.

lOL

Pesbito Version, p. 32.

Peter. S.. p. 161-2. 179, 180-1.

131, 282.
45, 229, 298.

Hill, tee Codices.

See

Middleton, Bp., p. 105.

Mill, Dr. John, p. 129, 130, 2.

Texts.

tlie Great, p. 30.

J.,

Eollar. p. 269. KTlais, p. 161-2, 180.

Ki'fios, p.

Gricshach, D. J.
232, 251, 319.

p.

47,

Modestus,

p. 30.

Petersbnrg.
son.

of Laodicca, p. 284, 286. See Bev. A. S. Thomp-

115-6,

165, 185.

Montfaucou, B. de, p. 121.

Lachmann, C,
Harleian.

p. 8,

259, 263.1
.

See Codices.

Harmonia,

Harmony

Oxon. 1805, p. 298. of S. Mark xvi. 9 20 with

S^c,

Laodiceans. Ep. to. p. 93107. Latinus Latinius, p. 42-44.

Moscow, tee Codices. Bcv. Penny. Munich, tee Codices.

Muiatorian fragment,
p.

W.

Q.

Petrus junior, p. 815. Phillipps. Sir T. See Codices (Middle

Hill).

103.

Pbiloxenian Version,

p. 83. 4.

the other Gospels, p. 188-90, Tables of, in Greek MSS.,

p. 304-6; in Syriac

Lectionary System, p. 191211. 2146, 217-24. 240, 813-5. 318.

,

Phraseology of S. Mark xvi. 920.

p.

136173.
ii.

146.

MSS., p. 306-11.

,
.

Eastern, p. 196211. Jewish, p. 192-4.

Syrian, p. 205-8.

KatJvitT, Festival of, p. 199, 204.

Pius IX.. p.

Naiianius, tee Gregory.

Nestorius, p. 29.

Harris, A.

C,

p. 293.

Keubaner,

M,

Polycarp, p. 240. iropf6tffdcu, p. 153.

Possevinus, p. 235.
Possinus.
p. 44.

p. 307.

Hedibia, p. 61-6. Hesychins of Jernsalem,

the

Kew.

p.

p. 29, 40-1,

Lections, p. 238-9.

200. See Lectionary

Nisibenus, tee Aphraates.

134.

22G. 270-4,

67-9, 67, 204, 237, 267-8. Henrtley, Bev. Prof., p. 184.

System. Syrian Lessons.

Lessons.

Norton. Prof, p. Nyssa, Gregory.

13. 137. 245.

277. 290-2.

See Lections. See Copyists.

Prayer-Book, cee Book.

Proclns, p. 258.

Hbarklensian Bevision,
315.

p. 33, 124,

Licentious.

Liturgical Formula;, p. 216-r-25.

p. 34, 199.

Omissions in
91, &c.

B and

K p. 73-5, 79. 60,

Proper, tee Lessons.

vpiirti aaPfiirov, p.

Hicrosolymitan Version,
Hippolytus, p. 24-5, 248.

Lloyd, Bishop
A6yot, p. 165.

C,

p.

298.

146-51.

inoaiTtXfvroy, p. 73, 4.

Hort, BcT. F. J. A., p. 13. Huet, P. D., p. 269, 275, 314.

Luke,

S.

See Texts.
p, 105.

Order of the Gospels, p. 239-240. Orid College, p. ix, x.

Origen, p. 47. 66. 85. 93-9. 107. 179.

Reference Bibles, p. 800-1. ancient Tables .

11.

of, p.

304-

Hypapaut*,

p.

207.

Mackuight,

;;

332
nevisioii of

GENERAL INDKX.

f.];NKI(A.I,

INDK.X.
Coi-OES.
iv. 7.
i.

3M.T
23, p. 162.

Gm-k Teit,

Auth. Version,
p.

p.

2C3-4.

203.

(S.LrsEl

V.

1,

|..

N2,

220;
p.

1-11,

Lcctioiiarv, p. 200-1.

TEXTS.
vi.

|..2;tMs 17, p. 220.

1,
p.:.-..

16. p- 101, 105.

ii.

Kosu, Vcu. Arclid.,

220; 37,

220; 48,

1 S.

Pet. Pet.

13, p. 180.

p. 27.

Hcv. W. v., p. 218. Houtli, Rev. Preeidcut, p. Rufiiius, p. 314.

S. (G. V.) p. 264.

S.

Matthew
80.
iii.

i.

lo.

p.

178;

2.-.

p.

p. SI.
vii. 1. p.

iv.

19, p. 180.
iii.

220; 31,
152, 178.

p.

216.

S.

4, p. 180.

ix.

16, p.

178; 17, p- 30.

p. 295-6.
;

viii. 2, p.

iv.

18 22,
9,
1).

ix. 57, p.

220.

viii.

82

13, p. 80, 222.

p.

X. 1,

p.81, 220; 25, p. 220.

Eccirs.
1

xliii.

11. 12, p. 301.

li.

19, p.

83; 20,
221.

221.

ffa&ParoKvpiaKai, p. 194.

xiii. 2, p.

221.

Macc.

iv.

59, p. 301.

aiBParuv

to,

xii. 9, p.
xiii.

p. 146-51.
p.

IV. 13. p. 82.

J

35, p. 81, 110-1

Suhidic Version,

36, p. 221

36.
p. 193, 4.

Hi.
220.

6. p.

178;

16, p.

74; 10,

p.

39, 55, p. 178.

xiv.
p.

ifaaeai,

ji.

15G-8.
]>.

Saturday Lessons,
23.
ScUolz, J.

14. p.

221; 22.

Tlicb:iic Version,

35.

Scholia, p. 122, 236, 288-9, 314, 319,

p.

216; 80,

xviii. 15, p. 221.1.

82.

Theodore of

llopsuostiii, p. 275, 7.

xix. 4o, p. 220.

XV. 22, p. 178.

M.

XI.
p.

1, p.

220.
p.

A., p. 7, 116-22, 197,

ivi. 10, p.
p. 162.

177; 12.
p.
p.

178-9; IB,

227, 242.
Scrivener,
9,

ixiL25,
ixiii.

82
;

43, 41, p. 79, 201,

Tbcodorcf, p. 258, 317-8. Tliiodolus of Ancjra, p. 258.

Tlieopbnnia, p. 207.
Tlieopbylact, p. 30, 266.
BtwptiVf p- 157.

Rev. F. H.,
139,

2I7-S. 301

64, p. 74.
34. p. 79,

p. vii,

viii,

XX. 17, p.
xxi. 8, p.

77.

197, 215,

227. 246,

223 ; 29, 178; 31,

178.
83.

15,

p.
;

83;

219;

302-4.
ScctiouE n-itliout Canons
p.
in

3S, p.

"9

45, p. 65-6.

XXV. 24, p. 82.

MSS.,

iivi. 34, 75, p.

xxtti. 32, p.
p.

302 J tbcir
,

use, 303-10.

178; 39, p. 217-8. 188; 34, p. 84; 35.

p. 80.

see

Ammonian.
p.

ixiv. 12, p. 222; 13, p. 85, ?3G; 3b, 31, p. 73 16, p. 17S-9; 42, 52, 53, p. 74; 51, p. 221
j
;

Thompson, Rev. A. S., Thomson, Abp., p. 13.

9.

p.

ii,

252.

Tischendorf, Ur., p. 8, 9, 10, 38. 7765-6. 93. 109-14, 123, 125-33. 137. 153, 222, 7, 242, 4, 251 2, 9,

75; 48, 49,

218, 313-8
S.

atKlSts, p. 294.

p. 195.

64, 55, p. 315.

40-1, 57-9, 67,
xiviii. 2, 8, p.
p.

Sevcros of Antiocb,
121. 267-8, 315.
muifluais,
p.

Jobs
p.

i.

3, 4. p. 4, p.

30, 110

3, 18, 50,
;

260-1. 280, 293, 311, 322, viii

ix.

73

8, p.

84; 19,20,
;

3(.i;

81, 109 11

18.

178.
i.

p. 3.1,
1, p.

314.
p. 48, 269.

S.Mabk
p.

180, 185

920,
ii.

Simon, P4re,

p.

81; 29. p. 221; 34, p. 81; 50,

SO.

236;

29, 44,

Titus of Rostra, p. 258, 275, 283.

Toledo, see Codices,

p. 30.

Sinaiticus, lee Code.\.

Sirletus, Card., p. 44.

182; 10, p. 178; 11, 13, p. 30; 1620, p. 295-6 ; 28, p. 85.
178.
3. 4, p.

3. p.

Townson, Rev. Dr.,

Trcgellcs, Dr., p. 9,
p.

p. 151,

179.
38, 9, 60,

iii.

13, p. 80.

10-12,

vi. 3. p.
vii.

Smith, Dean Payne,

306. Stanley.

vi. 14,

p.

221; 17, 61,

82;

61.

p. 41. 205-6. 214,

82; 19.

p.

179; 26,

76, 114, 126-9, 136. 145, 169,

222

3,

p.in.
vii.53-viii.ll,r. 219.
viii.

227, 231, 242,

4, 5, 7, 251, 9,

260,

p 178.

Dean A.

P.. p. 3.

319,
p.

viii

viii.

10. 15. p. 178.

p.

57, p.

82; 59,

p. 80, 222. p.

ii.

Style of S.
45.

Mark

xvi.

920.
p.

p.

136-

X.

6,

180

42, p.

82

4<i,

p.

ix. 4. 11. p.
X. 14. p.

81; 35,
p.

82; 38,

79.

Turin, sec Codices.

178.

82; 29,
;

223.
Ulphilas, p. 35, 262.

Subscription of Gospels,
Suidas, p. 309, 311.

230-1.

xi. 8, p.
xiii.

178.
30, 68,
p.

xiii. 3,

p. 221

10. p. 111.

19, p. 180.

Synagogue norship,

p. 192-3.

liv. 3, p.

221

30, p. 178

xiv.l.p.220;31. p.188. xvillO, p.82; 15. 16. p. 76.

Uncial 51SS. p. 20, 71.

itietatt, p. 274-6.

See Codices.

Synaxarinin. p. 197. " Synopsis Script. S." p. 29. Syriae MSS-, p. 208. 214-5,

72. p. 84; 41, p.

72. p. 177.

225; 58.

82;

Zartpov^ p. 160.
;

ivUL

1, p. 18S.
p.

xix. 13,

223
5.

17. p.

188

34,

225,

IV. 28, p. 301; 46, p. 82.

xvi.

p.21S, 313

Vatican, p. 117, 283 4, 288-9:

see

806-11.
Syrian Lessons, p. 205. 226, 238
9.

8 and
p.

9, p.

239 ;

8 20. p. 306
187. 216;
p.

ixi.l, p. 221, 3;

16.

11. p.
;

9.

152-3,
p. 182.

178-9.

12.13,

1517. p. 207

295 6; 18, p. 83 ;
p.lDo.

Codices.
Viiticnnus, see Codex.

920.
Tables of Reference in
11.

MSB,

p.

304-

224; 10, 14, 187. 319; 15. p. 180; 15. 16, 178 ; 19, p. 180. 195.
S.

p.

2D.^79. Acii-2,22.23.p.l80;
iv.

Venice, see Codices.

9,

Vcrccllonc,

C,

p. 73.
.

Tail, Abp., p. 2. 3, 189. 314-8.

LuEE
ii.
iii.

Ii

p.

262.

Versions, sec Armenian, &c.

i.

26. p. 85

27, p. 82.

viiLo,p-85.
X. 15. p. ISO.
xiii. 15,

Veins Itda,

p. 35.

Tatian.

p. 129,

814-8.

14, p. 257-63; 37, p. 82. 22, p.

5,

Tf'Aoi, p.

119-20. 224-42.
vii

Tertullian. p. 30, 93-4, 106.

iv.

Textual Criticism, p.

30,178; 23, p. 220. p. 74; 16. p. 220; 44.

27, p.

192.

Victor of Aiitioch, p. 29, 5965, 67. 122, 134. 178, 180, 235, 250, 268,

p.

KrnE5.i.l,l>.91-l'!'vi.

ix,

113.

85.

21.2.

p.

101.

269-67 ; Codicis, lion, 288 90.

278-87

Silio-

334
Victor of Capua, p. 12D. Vienna, tee Codices.

GENKIlAl, INDEX.
Wordsworth, Bisbop,
p. \x,
{.

liev. Jolin, p. ix.

AVriglit, Prof., p. 27, 33, 20C, 8, 21
5,
1-

VinccntiuB a Tbibari, Vulgate, p. 31.

p. 25.

ST THE SAME AUTHOR.

A
rL.\IN

225, 30G,

7, 8. 0, 10.

COMMENTARY ON THE FOUB HOLY

cbicfly

GOS8vo.,

Woslcott, ncv. Prof., p. 13, 23. Welstcin, J. J., p. 121, 125, 129.

Xnvicr dc
I
'

Zelaila, sec Codices.

Xipbiliiius,

John,

p. 41.

PELS, intended cloth, 1 Is.

for

Devotional Beading.

6 voU.,

Fcap.

INSniaTION AND INTERPRETATION.

Sctcu Sermons

prcacbcd before the University of Oxford; with an Introduction, being an answer to a Volume entitled " Essays and Ecvicws." 8vo., dotb, 14s.

NINETY SHORT SERMONS FOR FAMILY READING:

following

the

Course of the Christian Seasons.

First Series.

2 vols.,

rc:ip. 8vo., cloth, 8s.

A TREATISE ON THE PASTORAL OFFICE,

to Canilidates for

addressed chiefly

Holy Orders, or to those who have recently undertaken

8vo., 12s.

th* Cure of Souls.

NINETY-ONE SHORT SERMONS FOR FAMILY READING:

following the

Course of the Christian Seasons.

Second

Series.

vols.,

Fcap. 6vo., cloth, 83.

THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE AND THE ENCYCLICAL.

A SEHMON
TO TfAOC.
preaclied at S. Mary-tlic- Virgin's, Oxford, on the Eighteenth

Sunday alter Trinity, (Oct. 20tli), 18G7, after publicly reading, by command of the Lord Bisbop of the Diocese, the Pastoral Address of the Arclibisbops, Biihojis, Metropolitans, and presiding Bishops assembled at the Lambeth
Conference.
8vo., Is.

DISESTABLISHMENT, THE NATION'S FORMAL REIECTlOX OF GOD AXD DENIAL OF THE FAITH. A SEKMON
preachetl nt S. Mary-tbe-Virgin's, Oxford,

on the Nineteenth Sunday

after

Trinity (Oct. 18, 1868).

8vo., Is.

THE ROMAN COUNCIL.

the-A'irgin*s,

A SERMON
JonK Pabsokb,

preached at
8vo., 6d.

S. Marj--

Oxford, on the Third Sunday in Advent, Dec. 12, 1669 j being

Esq.

the Sunday after the Death of

THE REVIEAV OF A YEAR.

S.

A SERMON
1,

preached at

Mary -the- Virgin's, Oxford, on January

1871.

8vo., 6d.

WOMAN'S PLACE. A SERMON

Virgiu"*, Oxford,

preached at

S. Mary-tlie-

on Scxagesima Sunday, Feb. 12, 1871.

:

8vo., 4d.

OxFOBD and Lokdok

James Pabeeb and

Co.