Concerning VICTOR himself, nothing whatever is known except that he was “a

presbyter of Antioch.” Concerning his Work, I will not here repeat what I

have already stated elsewhere; but, requesting the Reader to refer to what

was remarked at pp. 59 to 65, I propose to offer a few observations with

which I was unwilling before to encumber the text; holding it to be a

species of duty for those who have given any time and attention to a

subject like the present to contribute the result, (however slender and

unsatisfactory it may prove,) to the common store. Let abler men enlarge

the ensuing scanty notices, and correct me if in any respect I shall have

inadvertently fallen into error.

1. There exists a Commentary, then, on S. Mark’s Gospel, which generally

claims on its front “VICTOR, PRESBYTER OF ANTIOCH,” for its Author.(508) A

Latin translation of this work, (not the original Greek,) was, in the

first instance, published at Ingolstadt in 1580,(509) by Theodore

Peltanus. His Latin version found its way at once into “Bibliothecæ,” (or

Collections of Writings of the Fathers,) and has been again and again

reprinted.

2. The Greek text of Victor was first published at Rome by Peter Possinus

in 1673, from a MS. existing somewhere in Germany; which Bathazar

Corderius had transcribed and presented to Possinus about thirty years

before. Corderius gave Possinus at the same time his transcript of an

anonymous Commentary on S. Mark preserved in the Vatican; and Possinus had

already in his possession the transcript of a third Commentary on the same

Evangelist (also anonymous) which he had obtained from the Library of

Charles de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse. These three transcripts Possinus

published in a well-known volume. It is to be wished that he had kept them

distinct, instead of to some extent blending their contents confusedly

into one.(510) Still, the dislocated paragraphs of Victor of Antioch are

recognisable by the name of their author (“Victor Antiochenus”) prefixed

to each: while “Tolosanus” designates the Toulouse MS.: “Vaticanus” (or

simply “Anonymus”) the Vatican.

3. At the end of another century, (1775) C. F. Matthaei put forth at

Moscow, with his usual skill and accuracy, a new and independent Edition

of Victor’s Commentary:(511) the text of which is based on four of the

Moscow MSS. This work, which appeared in two parts, has become of

extraordinary rarity. I have only just ascertained (June, 1871,) that one

entire Copy is preserved in this country.

4. Lastly, (in 1840,) Dr. J. A. Cramer, in the first volume of his

_Catenae_ on the N. T., reproduced Victor’s work from independent MS.

sources. He took for his basis two Codices in the Paris Library, (No. 186

and No. 188), which, however, prove to have been anciently so exactly

assimilated the one to the other [_infrà_, p. 279] as to be, in fact, but

duplicates of one and the same original. Cramer supplemented their

contents from Laud. Gr. 33, (in the Bodleian:) Coisl. 23: and Reg. 178 at

Paris. The result has been by far the fullest and most satisfactory

exhibition of the Commentary of Victor of Antioch which has hitherto

appeared. Only is it to be regretted that the work should have been

suffered to come abroad disfigured in every page with errors so gross as

to be even scandalous, and with traces of slovenly editorship which are

simply unintelligible. I cannot bring myself to believe that Dr. Cramer

ever inspected the MSS. in the Paris Library in person. Else would the

slender advantage which those abundant materials have proved to so learned

and accomplished a scholar, be altogether unaccountable. Moreover, he is

incorrect in what he says about them:(512) while his reasons for proposing

to assign the work of Victor of Antioch to Cyril of Alexandria are

undeserving of serious attention.

On a comparison of these four Editions of the same work, it is discovered

that the Latin version of Peltanus (1580), _represents the same Greek

text_ which Possinus gave to the world in 1673. Peltanus translates very

loosely; in fact he paraphrases rather than translates his author, and

confesses that he has taken great liberties with Victor’s text. But I

believe it will be found that there can have been no considerable

discrepancy between the MS. which Peltanus employed, and that which

Possinus afterwards published.—Not so the text which Matthaei edited,

which is in fact for the most part, (though not invariably,) rather an

Epitome of Victor’s Commentary. On the other hand, Cramer’s text is more

full than that of Possinus. There seem to be only a few lines in Possinus,

here and there, which are not to be met with in Cramer; whereas no less

than twenty-eight of Cramer’s pages are not found in the work of Possinus.

Cramer’s edition, therefore, is by far the most complete which has

hitherto appeared. And though it cries aloud for revision throughout;

though many important corrections might easily be introduced into it, and

the whole brought back in countless particulars more nearly to the state

in which it is plain that Victor originally left it;—I question whether

more than a few pages of _additional matter_ could easily be anywhere

recovered. I collated several pages of Cramer (Oct. 1869) with every MS.

of Victor in the Paris Library; and all but invariably found that Cramer’s

text was fuller than that of the MS. which lay before me. Seldom indeed

did I meet with a few lines in any MS. which had not already seen the

light in Cramer’s edition. One or other of the four Codices which he

employed seems to fill up almost every hiatus which is met with in any of

the MSS. of this Father.

For it must be stated, once for all, that an immense, and I must add, a

most unaccountable discrepancy is observable between the several extant

copies of Victor: yet not so much in respect of various readings, or

serious modifications of his text; (though the transpositions are very

frequent, and often very mischievous;(513)) as resulting from the

boundless license which every fresh copyist seems to have allowed himself

chiefly in _abridging_ his author.—To skip a few lines: to omit an

explanatory paragraph, quotation, or digression: to pass _per saltum_ from

the beginning to the end of a passage: sometimes to leave out a whole

page: to transpose: to paraphrase: to begin or to end with quite a

different form of words;—proves to have been the rule. Two copyists

engaged on the same portion of Commentary are observed to abridge it in

two quite different ways. I question whether there exist in Europe three

manuscripts of Victor which correspond entirely throughout. The result is

perplexing in a high degree. Not unfrequently (as might be expected) we

are presented with two or even three different exhibitions of one and the

same annotation.(514) Meanwhile, as if to render the work of collation (in

a manner) impossible,—(1) Peltanus pleads guilty to having transposed and

otherwise taken liberties with the text he translated: (2) Possinus

confessedly welded three codices into one: (3) Matthaei pieced and patched

his edition out of four MSS.; and (4) Cramer, out of five.

The only excuse I can invent for this strange licentiousness on the part

of Victor’s ancient transcribers is this:—They must have known perfectly

well, (in fact it is obvious,) that the work before them was really little

else but a compilation; and that Victor had already abridged in the same

merciless way the writings of the Fathers (Chrysostom chiefly) from whom

he obtained his materials. We are to remember also, I suppose, the labour

which transcription involved, and the costliness of the skins out of which

ancient books were manufactured. But when all has been said, I must

candidly admit that the extent of license which the ancients evidently

allowed themselves quite perplexes me.(515) _Why_, for example, remodel

the structure of a sentence and needlessly vary its phraseology? Never I

think in my life have I been more hopelessly confused than in the

_Bibliothèque_, while attempting to collate certain copies of Victor of

Antioch.

I dismiss this feature of the case by saying that if any person desires a

sample of the process I have been describing, he cannot do better than

bestow a little attention on the “Preface” (ὑπόθεσις) at the beginning of

Victor’s Commentary. It consists of thirty-eight lines in Cramer’s

edition: of which Possinus omits eleven; and Matthaei also, eleven;—_but

not the same eleven_. On the other hand, Matthaei(516) _prolongs_ the

Preface by eight lines. Strange to relate, the MS. from which Cramer

professes to publish, goes on differently. If I may depend on my hasty

pencilling, after ἐκκλησίαις [_Cramer_, i. p. 264, line 16,] Evan. 300, [

= Reg. 186, _fol._ 93, line 16 from bottom] proceeds,—Κλήμης ἐν ἕκτῳ τῶν

ὑποτυπώσεων, (thirty-one lines, ending) χαρακτήρ ἐγένετο.

On referring to the work of Possinus, “Anonymus Vaticanus” is found to

exhibit so admirable a condensation (?) of the ὑπόθεσις in question, that

it is difficult to divest oneself of the suspicion that it must needs be

an original and independent composition; the germ out of which the longer

Preface has grown.... We inspect the first few pages of the Commentary,

and nothing but perplexity awaits us at every step. It is not till we have

turned over a few pages that we begin to find something like exact

correspondence.

As for the Work,—(for I must now divest myself of the perplexing

recollections which the hurried collation of so many MSS. left behind; and

plainly state that, in spite of all, I yet distinctly ascertained, and am

fully persuaded that the original work was _one_,—the production, no

doubt, of “Victor, Presbyter of Antioch,” as 19 out of the 52 MSS.

declare):—For the Commentary itself, I say, Victor explains at the outset

what his method had been. Having failed to discover any separate

exposition of S. Mark’s Gospel, he had determined to construct one, by

collecting the occasional notices scattered up and down the writings of

Fathers of the Church.(517) Accordingly, he presents us in the first few

lines of his Commentary (p. 266) with a brief quotation from the work of

Eusebius “to Marinus, on the seeming inconsistency of the Evangelical

accounts of the Resurrection;” following it up with a passage from “the

vith [viith?] tome of Origen’s Exegetics on S. John’s Gospel.” We are thus

presented at the outset with _two_ of Victor’s favorite authorities. The

work of Eusebius just named he was evidently thoroughly familiar

with.(518) I suspect that he has many an unsuspected quotation from its

pages. Towards the end of his Commentary, (as already elsewhere

explained,) he quotes it once and again.

Of Origen also Victor was evidently very fond(519): and his words on two

or three occasions seem to shew that he had recourse besides habitually to

the exegetical labours of Apolinarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Titus

of Bostra.(520) Passages from Cyril of Alexandria are occasionally met

with;(521) and once at least (p. 370) he has an extract from Basil. The

historian Josephus he sometimes refers to by name.(522)

But the Father to whom Victor is chiefly indebted is Chrysostom,—whom he

styles “the blessed John, Bishop of the Royal City;” (meaning

Constantinople(523)). Not that Victor, strictly speaking, _transcribes_

from Chrysostom; at least, to any extent. His general practice is slightly

to adapt his Author’s language to his own purpose; sometimes, to leave out

a few words; a paragraph; half a page.(524) Then, he proceeds to quote

another Father probably; or, it may be, to offer something of his own. But

he seldom gives any intimation of what it is he does: and if it were not

for the occasional introduction of the phrase ὁ μέν φησι or ἄλλος δέ

φησι,(525) a reader of Victor’s Commentary might almost mistake it for an

original composition. So little pains does this Author take to let his

reader know when he is speaking in his own person, when not, that he has

not scrupled to retain Chrysostom’s phrases ἐγὼ δὲ οἶμαι,(526) &c. The

result is that it is often impossible to know to _whose_ sentiments we are

listening. It cannot be too clearly borne in mind that ancient ideas

concerning authorship differed entirely from those of modern times;

especially when Holy Scripture was to be commented on.

I suspect that, occasionally, copyists of Victor’s work, as they

recognised a fragment here and there, prefixed to it the name of its

author. This would account for the extremely partial and irregular

occurrence of such notes of authorship; as well as explain why a name duly

prefixed in one copy is often missing in another.(527) Whether Victor’s

Commentary can in strictness be called a “Catena,” or not, must remain

uncertain until some one is found willing to undertake the labour of

re-editing his pages; from which, by the way, I cannot but think that some

highly interesting (if not some important) results would follow.

Yet, inasmuch as Victor never, or certainly very seldom, prefixes to a

passage from a Father _the name of its Author_;—above all, seeing that

sometimes, at all events, he is original, or at least speaks in his own

person;—I think the title of “Catena” inappropriate to his Commentary.

As favourable and as interesting a specimen of this work as could be

found, is supplied by his annotation on S. Mark xiv. 3. He begins as

follows, (quoting Chrysostom, p. 436):—“One and the same woman seems to be

spoken of by all the Evangelists. Yet is this not the case. By three of

them one and the same seems to be spoken of; not however by S. John, but

another famous person,—the sister of Lazarus. This is what is said by

John, the Bishop of the Royal City.—Origen on the other hand says that she

who, in S. Matthew and S. Mark, poured the ointment in the house of Simon

the leper was a different person from the sinner whom S. Luke writes about

who poured the ointment on His feet in the house of the

Pharisee.—Apolinarius(528) and Theodorus say that all the Evangelists

mention one and the same person; but that John rehearses the story more

accurately than the others. It is plain, however, that Matthew, Mark, and

John speak of the same individual; for they relate that Bethany was the

scene of the transaction; and this is a _village_; whereas Luke [viii. 37]

speaks of some one else; for, ‘Behold,’ (saith he) ‘a woman _in the city_

which was _a sinner_,’ ” &c., &c.

But the most important instance by far of independent and sound judgment

is supplied by that concluding paragraph, already quoted and largely

remarked upon, at pp. 64-5; in which, after rehearsing all that had been

said against the concluding verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, Victor vindicates

their genuineness by appealing in his own person to the best and the most

authentic copies. The Reader is referred to Victor’s Text, which is given

below, at p. 288.

It only remains to point out, that since Chrysostom, (whom Victor speaks

of as ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις,[p. 408,] and ὁ μακαριος, [p. 442,]) died in A.D. 407,

it _cannot_ be right to quote “401” as the date of Victor’s work. Rather

would A.D. 450 be a more reasonable suggestion: seeing that extracts from

Cyril, who lived on till A.D. 444, are found here and there in Victor’s

pages. We shall not perhaps materially err if we assign A.D. 430-450 as

Victor of Antioch’s approximate date.

I conclude these notices of an unjustly neglected Father, by specifying

the MSS. which contain his Work. Dry enough to ordinary readers, these

pages will not prove uninteresting to the critical student. An enumeration

of all the extant Codices with which I am acquainted which contain VICTOR

OF ANTIOCH’S Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel, follows:—

(i.) EVAN. 12 ( = Reg. 230) _a most beautiful MS._

The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned to VICTOR by name; being a

recension very like that which Matthaei has published. S. Mark’s text is

given _in extenso_.

(ii.) EVAN. 19 ( = Reg. 189: anciently numbered 437 and 1880. Also 134 and

135. At back, 1603.) _A grand folio, well-bound and splendidly written.

Pictures of the Evangelists in such marvellous condition that the very

tools employed by a scribe might be reproduced. The ground gilded.

Headings, &c. and words from Scripture all in gold._

Here also the Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel is assigned to VICTOR. The

differences between this text and that of Cramer (e.g. at fol. 320-3,

370,) are hopelessly numerous and complicated. There seem to have been

extraordinary liberties taken with the text of this copy throughout.

(iii.) EVAN. 20 (= Reg. 188: anciently numbered 1883.) _A splendid

folio,—the work of several hands and beautifully written._

Victor’s Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel is generally considered to be

claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA by the following words:

ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΑΓΙΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ

ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑΣ ΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΑΓΙΟΙΣ

ΚΥΡΙΛΛΟΥ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ.

The correspondence between Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 [_infrà_, No. xiv], (=

Reg. 188 and 186), is extraordinary.(529) In S. Mark’s Gospel, (which

alone I examined,) _every page begins with the same syllable, both of Text

and Commentary_: (i.e. Reg. 186, fol. 94 to 197 = Reg. 188, fol. 87 to

140). Not that the number of words and letters in every line corresponds:

but the discrepancy is compensated for by a blank at the end of each

column, and at the foot of each page. Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 seem,

therefore, in some mysterious way referable to a common original. The

sacred Text of these two MSS., originally very dissimilar, has been made

identical throughout; some very ancient (the original?) possessor of Reg.

188 having carefully assimilated the readings of his MS. to those of Reg.

186, the more roughly written copy; which therefore, in the judgment of

the possessor of Reg. 188, exhibits the purer text. But how then does it

happen that in both Codices alike, each of the Gospels (except S.

Matthew’s Gospel in Reg. 188,) ends with the attestation that it has been

collated with approved copies? Are we to suppose that the colophon in

question was added _after_ the one text had been assimilated to the other?

This is a subject which well deserves attention. The reader is reminded

that these two Codices have already come before us at pp. 118-9,—where see

the notes.

I proceed to set down some of the discrepancies between the texts of these

two MSS.: in every one of which, Reg. 188 has been made conformable to

Reg. 186:—

(COD. REG. 186.) (COD. REG. 188.)

(1) Matth. xxvi. 70. αυτων παντων λεγων

αὐτῶν λέγων

(2) Mk. i. 2. ώς κάθως

(3) Mk. i. 11. ῷ σοι

(4) Mk. i. 16. βάλλοντας ἀμφιβάλλοντας

ἀμφίβληστρον ἀμφίβληστρον

(5) Mk. ii. 21. παλαιῷ: παλαιῷ: εἰ δὲ μή, αἅρει

εἰ δἐ μή γε αἱρεῖ απ᾽ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ

αυτοῦ τὸ πλήρωμα

(6) Mk. iii. 10. ἐθεράπευσεν

ἐθεράπευεν

(7) Mk. iii. 17. τοῦ Ἰακώβου

Ἰακώβου

(8) Mk. iii. 18. καὶ καί Μ. τὸν τελώνην καὶ Θ.

Ματθαῖον καὶ Θ.

(9) Mk. vi. 9. μὴ ἐνδέδυσθαι

ἐνδύσησθε

(10) Mk. vi. 10. μένετε μείνατε

In the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th of these instances, Tischendorf is found (1869)

to adopt the readings of Reg. 188: in the last four, those of Reg. 186. In

the 1st, 4th, and 5th, he follows neither.

(iv.) EVAN. 24 (= Reg. 178.) _A most beautifully written fol._

Note, that this Codex has been mutilated at p. 70-1; from S. Matth. xxvii.

20 to S. Mark iv. 22 being away. It cannot therefore be ascertained

whether the Commentary on S. Mark was here attributed to Victor or not.

Cramer employed it largely in his edition of Victor (_Catenae_, vol. i. p.

xxix,), as I have explained already at p. 271. Some notices of the present

Codex are given above at p. 228-9.

(v.) EVAN. 25 (= Reg. 191: anciently numbered Colb. 2259): 1880. _Folio:

grandly written._

No Author’s name to the Commentary on S. Mark. The text of the Evangelist

is given _in extenso_.

(vi.) EVAN. 34 (= Coisl. 195.) _A grand folio, splendidly written, and in

splendid condition: the paintings as they came from the hand of the

artist._

At fol. 172, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR. It will be

found that Coisl. 23 (_infrà_, No. ix.) and Coisl. 195 are derived from a

common original; but Cod. 195 is the more perfect copy, and should have

been employed by Cramer in preference to the other (_suprà_, p. 271.)

There has been an older and a more recent hand employed on the Commentary.

(vii.) EVAN. 36 (= Coisl. 20.) _A truly sumptuous Codex._

Some notices of this Codex have been given already, at p. 229. The

Commentary on S. Mark is Victor’s, but is without any Author’s name.

(viii.) EVAN. 37 (= Coisl. 21.) _Fol._

The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR at fol. 117. It seems to

be very much the same recension which is exhibited by Coisl. 19 (_infrà_,

No. xviii.) and Coisl. 24 (_infrà_, No. xi.) The Text is given _in

extenso_: the Commentary, in the margin.

(ix.) EVAN. 39 (= Coisl. 23.) _A grand large fol. The writing singularly

abbreviated._

The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR: but is very dissimilar in

its text from that which forms the basis of Cramer’s editions. (See above,

on No. vi.) It is Cramer’s “P.” (See his _Catenae_, vol. i. p. xxviii; and

_vide supra_, p. 271.)

(x.) EVAN. 40 (= Coisl. 22.)

No Author’s name is prefixed to the Commentary (fol. 103); which is a

recension resembling Matthaei’s. The Text is _in extenso_: the Commentary,

in the margin.

(xi.) EVAN. 41 (= Coisl. 24.) _Fol._

This is a Commentary, not a Text. It is expressly claimed for VICTOR. The

recension seems to approximate to that published by Matthaei. (See on No.

viii.) One leaf is missing. (See fol. 136 b.)

(xii.) EVAN. 50 (= Bodl. Laud. Gracc. 33.) 4to. The Commentary here seems

to be claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, but in the same unsatisfactory way

as No. iii and xiv. (See Coxe’s _Cat._ i. 516.)

(xiii.) EVAN. 299 (= Reg. 177: anciently numbered 22423).

The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor’s, but is without any Author’s name.

The Text of S. Mark is given _in extenso_: Victor’s Commentary, in the

margin.

(xiv.) EVAN. 300 (= Reg. 186: anciently numbered 692, 750, and 1882.) _A

noble Codex: but the work of different scribes. It is most beautifully

written._

At fol. 94, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA,

in the same equivocal manner as above in No. iii and xii. The writer

states in the colophon that he had diversely found it ascribed to Cyril

and to Victor. (ἐπληρώθη σὺν Θεῷ ἡ ἑρμηνεία τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον ἁγίου

εὐαγγελίου ἀπὸ φωνῆς, ἔν τισιν εὗρον Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξανδρέως, ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ

Βίκτορος πρεσβυτέρον.)

See above, the note on Evan. 20 (No. iii),—a MS. which, as already

explained, has been elaborately assimilated to the present.

(xv.) EVAN. 301 (= Reg. 187: anciently numbered 504, 537 and 1879.) _A

splendid fol. beautifully written throughout._

The Commentary on S. Mark is here claimed for VICTOR.

(xvi.) EVAN. 309 (= Reg. 201: anciently numbered 176 and 2423.) _A very

interesting little fol.: very peculiar in its style. Drawings old and

curious. Beautifully written._

The Commentary is here claimed for VICTOR. This is not properly a text of

the Gospel; but parts of the text interwoven with the Commentary. Take a

specimen(530): (S. Mark xvi. 8-20.)

ΚΑΙ ΕΞΕΛΘΟΥΣΑΙ ΕΦΥΓΟΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΜΝΗΜΕΙΟΥ. ΕΙΧΕΝ ΔΕ ΑΥΤΑΣ ΤΡΟΜΟΣ ΚΑΙ

ΕΚΣΤΑΣΙΣ. ΕΩΣ ΔΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΕΠΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΝΤΩΝ ΣΗΜΕΙΩΝ.

Over the text is written ΚΕΙΜ (κειμένον i.e. _Text_) and over the

Commentary ΕΡΜ (ἑρμηνεία, i.e. _Interpretation_.) See the next.

(xvii.) EVAN. 312 (= Reg. 206: anciently numbered 968, 1058, 2283; and

behind, 1604. Also A. 67.) _A beautiful little fol._

Contains only the Commentary, which is expressly assigned to VICTOR. This

Copy of Victor’s Commentary is very nearly indeed a duplicate of Cod. 309,

(No. xvi.) both in its contents and in its method; but it is less

beautifully written.

(xviii.) EVAN. 329 (= Coisl. 19.) _A very grand fol._

The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor’s, but is without any Author’s name.

(See above, on No. viii.)

(xix.) REG. 703, (anciently numbered 958: 1048, and Reg. 2330: also No.

18.) _A grand large 4__to__._

The Commentary is here claimed for ORIGEN. Such at least is probably the

intention of the heading (in gold capital letters) of the Prologue:—

ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΠΡΟΛΟΓΟΣ ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΥ.

See on this subject the note at foot of p. 235.

(xx.) EVAN. 304 ( = Reg. 194. Teller 1892.) The text of S. Mark is hero

interwoven with a Commentary which I do not recognise. But from the

correspondence of a note at the end with what is found in Possinus, pp.

361-3, I am led to suspect that the contents of this MS. will be found to

correspond with what Possinus published and designated as “Tolosanus.”

(xxi.) EVAN. 77 (Vind. Ness. 114, Lambec. 29.) Victor’s Commentary is here

anonymous.

(xxii.) EVAN. 92 (which belonged to Faesch of Basle [see Wetstein’s

_Proleg._], and which Haenel [p. 658 _b_] says is now in Basle Library).

Wetstein’s account of this Codex shows that the Commentary on S. Mark is

here distinctly ascribed to Victor. He says,—“Continet Marcum et in eum

_Victoris Antiocheni Commentarios_, foliis 5 mutilos. Item Scholia in

Epistolas Catholicas,” &c. And so Haenel.

(xxiii.) EVAN. 94 (As before, precisely; except that Haenel’s [inaccurate]

notice is at p. 657 _b_.) This Codex contains VICTOR of Antioch’s

Commentary on S. Mark, (which is evidently hero also assigned to him _by

name_;) and Titus of Bostra on S. Luke. Also several Scholia: among the

rest, I suspect, (from what Haenel says), the Scholia spoken of _suprà_,

p. 47, note (x).

(xxiv.) In addition to the preceding, and before mentioning them, Haenel

says there also exists in the Library at Basle,—“VICTORIS Antiocheni

Scholia in Evang. Marci: chart.”(531)

(xxv.) EVAN. 108 (Vind. Forlos. d. Koll. 4.) Birch (p. 225) refers to it

for the Scholion given in the next article. (Append. E.)

(xxvi.) EVAN. 129 (Vat. 358.) ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ. ΠΓ ΑΝΤΙΟΧ ΕΡΜ ΕΙΣ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ. The

Commentary is written along the top and bottom and down the side of each

page; and there are references (α, β, γ) inserted in the text to the

paragraphs in the margin,—as in some of the MSS. at Paris. Prefixed is an

exegetical apparatus by Eusebius, &c.

Note, that of these five MSS. in the Vatican, (358, 756, 757, 1229, 1445),

the 3rd and 4th are without the prefatory section (beginning πολλῶν εἰς τὸ

κατὰ Μ.)—All 5 begin, Μάρκος ὁ εὐαγγελιστής. In all but the 4th, the

second paragraph begins σαφέστερον.

The third passage begins in all 5, Ἰσοδυναμεῖ τοῦτο. Any one seeking to

understand this by a reference to the editions of Cramer or of Possinus

will recognise the truth of what was stated above, p. 274, line 24 to 27.

(xxvii.) EVAN. 137 (Vat. 756.) The Commentary is written as in Vat. 358

(No. xxvi): but no Author’s name is given.

(xxviii.) EVAN. 138 (Vat. 757.) On a blank page or fly-leaf at the

beginning are these words:—ὁ ἀντίγραφος (_sic_) οὗτος ἐστὶν ὁ Πέτρος ὁ τῆς

Λαοδικείας ὅστις προηγεῖται τῶν ἄλλων ἐξηγητῶν ενταῦθα. (Comp. No. xlvii.)

The Commentary and Text are not kept distinct, as in the preceding Codex.

Both are written in an ill-looking, slovenly hand.

(xxix.) EVAN. 143 (Vat. 1,229.) The Commentary is written as in Vat. 358

(No. xxvi), but without the references; and no Author’s name is given.

(xxx.) EVAN. 181 (Xavier, Cod. Zelada.) Birch was shewn this Codex of the

Four Gospels in the Library of Cardinal Xavier of Zelada (_Prolegomena_,

p. lviii): “Cujus forma est in folio, pp. 596. In margine passim occurrunt

scholia ex Patrum Commentariis exscripta.”

(xxxi.) EVAN. 186 (Laur. vi. 18.) This Codex is minutely described by

Bandini (_Cat._ i. 130), who gives the Scholion (_infra_, p. 388-9), and

says that the Commentary is without any Author’s name.

(xxxii.) EVAN. 194 (Laur. vi. 33.) Βίκτορος πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας

ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον. (See the description of this Codex

in Bandini’s _Cat._ i. 158.)

(xxxiii.) EVAN. 195 (Laur. vi. 34.) This Codex seems to correspond in its

contents with No. xxxi. _suprà_: the Commentary containing the Scholion,

and being anonymous. (See Bandini, p. 161.)

(xxxiv.) EVAN. 197 (Laur. viii. 14.) The Commentary, (which is Victor’s,

but has no Author’s name prefixed,) is defective at the end. (See Bandini,

p. 355.)

(xxxv.) EVAN. 210 (Venet. 27.) “Conveniunt initio Commentarii eum iis qui

Victori Antiocheno tribuuntur, progressu autem discrepant.” (Theupoli

_Graeca D. Marci Bibl. Codd. MSS._ Venet. 1740.) I infer that the work is

anonymous.

(xxxvi.) Venet. 495. “VICTORIS ANTIOCHENI Presbyteri expositio in

Evangelium Marci, collecta ex diversis Patribus.” (I obtain this reference

from the Catalogue of Theupolus.)

(xxxvii.) EVAN. 215 (Venet. 544.) I presume, from the description in the

Catalogue of Theupolus, that this Codex also contains a copy of Victor’s

Commentary.

(xxxviii.) EVAN. 221 (Vind. Ness. 117, Lambec. 38). Kollar has a long note

(B) [iii. 157] on the Commentary, which has no Author’s name prefixed.

Birch (p. 225) refers to it for the purpose recorded under No. xxv.

(xxxix.) EVAN. 222 (Vind. Ness. 180, Lambec. 39.) The Commentary is

anonymous. Birch refers to it, as before.

Add the following six MSS. at Moscow, concerning which, see Matthaei’s

Nov. Test. (1788) vol. ii. p. xii.:—

(xl.) EVAN. 237 (This is Matthaei’s d or D [described in his _N. T._ ix.

242. Also _Vict. Ant._ ii. 137.] “SS. Synod. 42:”) and is one of the MSS.

employed by Matthaei in his ed. of Victor.—The Commentary on S. Mark has

no Author’s name prefixed.

(xli.) EVAN. 238 (Matthaei’s e or E [described in his _N. T._ ix. 200.

Also _Vict. Ant._ ii. 141.] “SS. Synod. 48.”) This Codex formed the basis

of Matthaei’s ed. of Victor, [See the _Not. Codd. MSS._ at the end of vol.

ii. p. 123. Also _N. T._ ix. 202.] The Commentary on S. Mark is anonymous.

(xlii.) EVAN. 253 (Matthaei’s 10 [described in his _N. T._ ix. 234.] It

was lent him by Archbishop Nicephorus.) Matthaei says (p. 236) that it

corresponds with a (_our_ Evan. 259). No Author’s name is prefixed to the

Commentary on S. Mark.

(xliii.) EVAN. 255 (Matthaei’s 12 [described in his _N. T._ ix. 222. Also

_Vict. Ant._ ii. 133.]) “SS. Synod. 139.” The Scholia on S. Mark are here

entitled ἐξηγητικαὶ ἐκλογαί, and (as in 14) are few in number. For some

unexplained reason, in his edition of Victor of Antioch, Matthaei saw fit

to designate this MS. as “B.” [N.T. ix. 224 _note_.] ... See by all means,

_infrà_, the “Postscript.”

(xliv.) EVAN. 256 (Matthaei’s 14 [described in his _N. T._ ix. 220.]

“Bibl. Typ. Synod. 3.”) The Commentary on S. Mark is here assigned to

VICTOR, presbyter of Antioch; but the Scholia are said to be (as in “12”

[No. xxxix]) few in number.

(xlv.) EVAN. 259 (Matthaei’s a or A [described in his _N. T._ ix. 237.

Also _Vict. Ant._ ii. 128.] “SS. Synod. 45.”) This is one of the MSS.

employed by Matthaei in his ed. of Victor. No Author’s name is prefixed to

the Commentary.

(xlvi.) EVAN. 332 (Taurin. xx _b_ iv. 20.) Victor’s Commentary is here

given anonymously. (See the Catalogue of Pasinus, P. i. p. 91.)

(xlvii.) EVAN. 353 (Ambros. M. 93): with the same Commentary as Evan. 181,

(i.e. No. xxx.)

(xlviii.) EVAN. 374 (Vat. 1445.) Written continuously in a very minute

character. The Commentary is headed (in a later Greek hand) + ἑρμηνεία

Πέτρου Λαοδικείας εἰς τοὺς δ᾽ αγ [ίους] εὐαγγελιστάς +. This is simply a

mistake. No such work exists: and the Commentary on the second Evangelist

is that of Victor. (See No. xxviii.)

(xlix.) EVAN. 428 (Monacensis 381. Augsburg 11): said to be duplicate of

Evan. 300 (i.e. of No. xiv.)

(1.) EVAN. 432 (Monacensis 99.) The Commentary contained in this Codex is

evidently assigned to VICTOR.

(li.) EVAN. 7pe (ix. 3. 471.) A valuable copy of the Four Gospels, dated

1062; which Edw. de Muralto (in his Catalogue of the Greek MSS. in the

Imperial Library at S. Petersburg) says contains the Commentary of VICTOR

ANT. (See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 178.).

(lii.) At Toledo, in the “Biblioteca de la Iglesia Mayor,” Haenel [p. 885]

mentions:—“VICTOR ANTIOCHENUS Comm. Graec. in iv. [?] Evangelia saec. xiv.

membr. fol.”

To this enumeration, (which could certainly be very extensively

increased,) will probably have to be added the following:—

EVAN. 146 (Palatino Vat. 5.)

EVAN. 233 (Escurial [Upsilon]. ii. 8.)

EVAN. 373 (Vat. 1423.)

EVAN. 379 (Vat. 1769.)

EVAN. 427 (Monacensis 465, Augsburg 10.)

Middle Hill, No. 13,975,—a MS. in the collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps.

In conclusion, it can scarcely require to be pointed out that VICTOR’S

Commentary,—of which the Church in her palmiest days shewed herself so

careful to multiply copies, and of which there survive to this hour such a

vast number of specimens,—must needs anciently have enjoyed very peculiar

favour. It is evident, in fact, that an Epitome of Chrysostom’s Homilies

on S. Matthew, together with VICTOR’S_ compilation on S. Mark_,—Titus of

Bostra on S. Luke,—and a work in the main derived from Chrysostom’s

Homilies on S. John;—that these four constituted the established

Commentary of ancient Christendom on the fourfold Gospel. Individual

copyists, no doubt, will have been found occasionally to abridge certain

of the Annotations, and to omit others: or else, out of the multitude of

Scholia by various ancient Fathers which were evidently once in

circulation, and must have been held in very high esteem,—(Irenæus,

Origen, Ammonius, Eusebius, Apolinarius, Cyril, Chrysostom, the Gregorys,

Basil, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodore of Heraclea,) they will have

introduced extracts according to their individual caprice. In this way,

the general sameness of the several copies is probably to be accounted

for, while their endless discrepancy in matters of detail is perhaps

satisfactorily explained.

These last remarks are offered in the way of partial elucidation of the

difficulty pointed out above, at pp. 272-4.

APPENDIX (E).

Text of the concluding Scholion of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH’S Commentary

on S. Mark’s Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic testimony to

the genuineness of “the last Twelve Verses.”

(Referred to at p. 65.)

I have thought this very remarkable specimen of the method of an ancient

and (as I think) unjustly neglected Commentator, deserving of

extraordinary attention. Besides presenting the reader, therefore, with

what seems to be a fair approximation to the original text of the passage,

I have subjoined as many various readings as have come to my knowledge. It

is hoped that they are given with tolerable exactness; but I have been too

often obliged to depend on printed books and the testimony of others. I

can at least rely on the readings furnished me from the Vatican.

The text chiefly followed is that of Coisl. 20, (in the Paris Library,—our

EVAN. 36;) supplemented by several other MSS., which, for convenience, I

have arbitrarily designated by the letters of the alphabet.(532)

Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ “Ἀναστὰς(533) δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ

Μαγδαληνῇ,” καὶ τὰ ἐξῆς ἐπιφερόμενα, ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ παρὰ(534)

πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται,(535) (ὡς νόθα γὰρ ἐνόμισαν αὐτά τινες

εἶναι(536)) ἀλλ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων, ὡς ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες

αὐτὰ,(537) κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια,

συντεθείκαμεν(538) καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομόνην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν, μετὰ

τὸ “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ”(539) τούτεστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ “ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτῃ

σαββάτου,” καὶ καθ᾽ ἑξῇς μέχρι τοῦ “διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων.

Αμήν.”(540)

More pains than enough (it will perhaps be thought) have been taken to

exhibit accurately this short Scholion. And yet, it has not been without

design (the reader may be sure) that so many various readings have been

laboriously accumulated. The result, it is thought, is eminently

instructive, and (to the student of Ecclesiastical Antiquity) important

also.

For it will be perceived by the attentive reader that not more than two or

three of the multitude of various readings afforded by this short Scholion

can have possibly resulted from careless transcription.(541) The rest have

been unmistakably occasioned by the merest licentiousness: every fresh

Copyist evidently considering himself at liberty to take just whatever

liberties he pleased with the words before him. To amputate, or otherwise

to mutilated; to abridge; to amplify; to transpose; to remodel;—this has

been the rule with all. The _types_ (so to speak) are reducible to two, or

at most to three; but the varieties are almost as numerous as the MSS. of

Victor’s work.

And yet it is impossible to doubt that this Scholion was originally one,

and one only. Irrecoverable perhaps, in some of its minuter details, as

the actual text of Victor may be, it is nevertheless self-evident that _in

the main_ we are in possession of what he actually wrote on this occasion.

In spite of all the needless variations observable in the manner of

stating a certain fact, it is still unmistakably one and the same fact

which is every time stated. It is invariably declared,—

(1.) That from certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel the last Twelve Verses

had been LEFT OUT; and (2) That this had been done because their

genuineness had been by certain persons suspected: but, (3) That the

Writer, convinced of their genuineness, had restored them to their

rightful place; (4) Because he had found them in accurate copies, and in

the authentic Palestinian copy, which had supplied him with his exemplar.

It is obvious to suggest that after familiarizing ourselves with this

specimen of what proves to have been the licentious method of the ancient

copyists in respect of the text of an early Father, we are in a position

to approach more intelligently the Commentary of Victor itself; and, to

some extent, to understand how it comes to pass that so many liberties

have been taken with it throughout. The Reader is reminded of what has

been already offered on this subject at pp. 272-3.

APPENDIX (F).

On the Relative antiquity of the CODEX VATICANUS (B), and the

CODEX SINAITICUS (א).

(Referred to at p. 70.)

I. “Vix differt aetate a Codice Sinaitico,” says Tischendorf, (_ed. 8va_,

1869, p. ix,) speaking of the Codex Vaticanus (B). Yet does he perpetually

designate his own Sinaitic Codex (א) as “omnium antiquissimus.” Now,

(1) The (all but unique) sectional division of the Text of Codex

B,—confessedly the oldest scheme of chapters extant, is in itself a

striking note of primitiveness. The author of the Codex knew nothing,

apparently, of the Eusebian method. But I venture further to suggest that

the following peculiarities in Codex א unmistakably indicate for it a

later date than Codex B.

(2) Cod. א, (like C, and other later MSS.,) is broken up into short

paragraphs throughout. The Vatican Codex, on the contrary, has very few

breaks indeed: e.g. it is without break of any sort from S. Matth. xvii.

24 to xx. 17: whereas, within the same limits, there are in Cod. א as many

as _thirty_ interruptions of the context. From S. Mark xiii. 1 to the end

of the Gospel the text is absolutely continuous in Cod. B, except in _one_

place: but in Cod. א it is interrupted upwards of _fifty_ times. Again:

from S. Luke xvii. 11, to the end of the Gospel there is but _one_ break

in Cod. B. But it is broken into well nigh _an hundred and fifty_ short

paragraphs in Cod. א.

There can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex B, (resembling the

style of the papyrus of _Hyperides_ published by Mr. Babington,) is the

more ancient. The only places where it approximates to the method of Cod.

א, is where the Commandments are briefly recited (S. Matth. xix. 18, &c.),

and where our LORD proclaims the eight Beatitudes (S. Matth. v.)

(3) Again; Cod. א is prone to exhibit, on extraordinary occasions, _a

single word_ in a line, as at—

S. MATTH. XV. 30.

ΧΩΛΟΥΣ

ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ

ΚΥΛΛΟΥΣ

ΚΩΦΟΥΣ

S. MARK X. 29.

Η ΑΔΕΛΦΑΣ

Η ΠΑΤΕΡΑ

Η ΜΗΤΕΡΑ

Η ΤΕΚΝΑ

Η ΑΓΡΟΥΣ

S. LUKE XIV. 13

ΠΤΩΧΟΥΣ

ΑΝΑΠΗΡΟΥΣ

ΧΩΛΟΥΣ

ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ

This became a prevailing fashion in the vith century; e.g. when the Cod.

Laudianus of the Acts (E) was written. The only trace of anything of the

kind in Cod. B is at the Genealogy of our LORD.

(4) At the commencement of every fresh paragraph, the initial letter in

Cod. א _slightly projects into the margin_,—beyond the left hand edge of

the column; as usual in all later MSS. This characteristic is only not

undiscoverable in Cod. B. Instances of it there are in the earlier Codex;

but they are of exceedingly rare occurrence.

(5) Further; Cod. א abounds in such contractions as ΑΝΟΣ, ΟΥΝΟΣ (with all

their cases), for ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ, ΟΥΡΑΝΟΣ, &c. Not only ΠΝΑ, ΠΗΡ, ΠΕΡ, ΠΡΑ, ΜΡΑ

(for ΠΝΕΥΜΑ, ΠΑΤΗΡ-ΤΕΡ-ΤΕΡΑ, ΜΗΤΕΡΑ), but also ΣΤΡΘΗ, ΙΗΛ, ΙΗΛΗΜ, for

ΣΤΑΥΡΩΘΗ, ΙΣΡΑΗΛ, ΙΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΗΜ.

But Cod. B, though familiar with ΙΣ, and a few other of the most ordinary

abbreviations, knows nothing of these compendia: which certainly _cannot_

have existed in the earliest copies of all. Once more, it seems reasonable

to suppose that their constant occurrence in Cod א indicates for that

Codex a date subsequent to Cod. B.

(6) The very discrepancy observable between these two Codices in their

method of dealing with “the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel,”

(already adverted to at p. 88,) is a further indication, and as it seems

to the present writer a very striking one, that Cod. B is the older of the

two. Cod. א is evidently _familiar_ with the phenomenon which _astonishes_

Cod. B by its novelty and strangeness.

(7) But the most striking feature of difference, after all, is only to be

recognised by one who surveys the Codices themselves with attention. It is

_that_ general air of primitiveness in Cod. B which makes itself at once

_felt_. The even symmetry of the unbroken columns;—the work of the _prima

manus_ everywhere vanishing through sheer antiquity;—the small, even,

_square_ writing, which partly recalls the style of the Herculanean rolls;

partly, the papyrus fragments of the _Oration against Demosthenes_

(published by Harris in 1848):—all these notes of superior antiquity

infallibly set Cod. B before Cod. א; though it may be impossible to

determine whether by 50, by 75, or by 100 years.

II. It has been conjectured by one whose words are always entitled to most

respectful attention, that Codex Sinaiticus may have been “one of the

fifty Codices of Holy Scripture which Eusebius prepared A.D. 331, by

Constantine’s direction, for the use of the new Capital.” (Scrivener’s

_Collation of the Cod. Sin._, Introd. p. xxxvii-viii.)

1. But this, which is rendered improbable by the many instances of grave

discrepancy between its readings and those with which Eusebius proves to

have been most familiar, is made impossible by the discovery that it is

without S. Mark xv. 28, which constitutes the Eusebian Section numbered

“216” in S. Mark’s Gospel. [Quite in vain has Tischendorf perversely

laboured to throw doubt on this circumstance. It remains altogether

undeniable,—as a far less accomplished critic than Tischendorf may see at

a glance. Tischendorf’s only plea is the fact that in Cod. M, (he might

have added and in the Codex Sinaiticus, _which explains the phenomenon_ in

Cod. M), _against ver._ 29 is set the number, “216,” instead of against

ver. 28. But what then? Has not the number _demonstrably_ lost its place?

And is there not _still_ one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And _which_

can it _possibly_ have been, if it was not S. Mark xv. 28?] Again. Cod. א,

(like B, C, L, U, Γ, and some others), gives the piercing of the SAVIOUR’S

side at S. Matth. xxvii. 49: but if Eusebius had read that incident in the

same place, he would have infallibly included S. John xix. 34, 35, with S.

Matth. xxvii. 49, in his viith Canon, where matters are contained which

are common to S. Matthew and S. John,—instead of referring S. John xix.

31-37 to his xth Canon, which specifies things peculiar to each of the

four Evangelists. Eusebius, moreover, in a certain place (_Dem. Evan._ x.

8 [quoted by Tisch.]) has an allusion to the same transaction, and

expressly says that it is recorded _by S. John_.

2. No inference as to the antiquity of this Codex can be drawn from the

Eusebian notation of Sections in the margin: _that_ notation having been

confessedly added at a subsequent date.

3. On the other hand, the subdivision of Cod. א into paragraphs, proves to

have been made without any reference to the sectional distribution of

Eusebius. Thus, there are in the Codex thirty distinct paragraphs from S.

Matthew xi. 20 to xii. 34, inclusive; but there are comprised within the

same limits only seventeen Eusebian sections. And yet, of those seventeen

sections only nine correspond with as many paragraphs of the Codex

Sinaiticus. This, in itself, is enough to prove that Eusebius knew nothing

of the present Codex. His record is express:—ἐφ᾽ ἐκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων

εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος κ.τ.λ.

III. The supposed resemblance of the opened volume to an Egyptian

papyrus,—when eight columns (σελίδες) are exhibited to the eye at once,

side by side,—seems to be a fallacious note of high antiquity. If Cod. א

has four columns in a page,—Cod. B three,—Cod. A two,—Cod. C has only one.

But Cod. C is certainly as old as Cod. A. Again, Cod. D, which is of the

vith century, is written (like Cod. C) across the page: yet was it “copied

from an older model similarly divided in respect to the lines or

verses,”—and therefore similarly written across the page. It is almost

obvious that the size of the skins on which a Codex was written will have

decided whether the columns should be four or only three in a page.

IV. In fine, nothing doubting the high antiquity of both Codices, (B and

א,) I am nevertheless fully persuaded that an interval of at least half a

century,—if not of a far greater span of years,—is absolutely required to

account for the marked dissimilarity between them.

APPENDIX (G).

On the so-called “AMMONIAN SECTIONS” and “EUSEBIAN CANONS.”

(Referred to at p. 130.)

I. That the Sections (popularly miscalled “_Ammonian_”) with which

EUSEBIUS [A.D. 320] has made the world thoroughly familiar, and of which

some account was given above (pp. 127-8), cannot be the same which

AMMONIUS of Alexandria [A.D. 220] employed,—but must needs be the

invention of EUSEBIUS himself,—admits of demonstration. On this subject,

external testimony is altogether insecure.(542) The only safe appeal is to

the Sections themselves.

1. The Call of the Four Apostles is described by the first three

Evangelists, within the following limits of their respective Gospels:—S.

Matthew iv. 18-22: S. Mark i. 16-20: S. Luke (with the attendant

miraculous draught of fishes,) v. 1-11. Now, these three portions of

narrative are observed to be dealt with in the sectional system of

EUSEBIUS after the following extraordinary fashion: (the fourth column

represents the Gospel according to S. John):—

(1.) § 29, (v. 1-3)

(2.) § 20, (iv. § 9, (i.

17, 18) 14-1/2-16)

(3.) § 30, (v. 4-7) § 219, (xxi.

1-6)

(4.) § 30 (v. 4-7) § 222, (xxi.

11)

(5.) § 31, (v.

8-10-1/2)

(6.) § 21, (iv. § 10, (i. 17, § 32, (v.

19, 20) 18) 10-1/2, 11)

(7.) § 22, (iv. § 11, (i. 19,

21, 22) 20)

It will be perceived from this, that EUSEBIUS subdivides these three

portions of the sacred Narrative into ten Sections (“§§;”)—of which three

belong to S. Matthew, viz. §§ 20, 21, 22:—three to S. Mark, viz. §§ 9, 10,

11:—four to S. Luke, viz. §§ 29, 30, 31, 32: which ten Sections, EUSEBIUS

distributed over four of his Canons: referring three of there to his IInd

Canon, (which exhibits what S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke have in

common); four of them to his VIth Canon, (which shews what S. Matthew and

S. Mark have in common); one, to his IXth, (which contains what is common

to S. Luke and S. John); two, to his Xth, (in which is found what is

peculiar to each Evangelist.)

Now, the design which EUSEBIUS had in breaking up this portion of the

sacred Text, (S. Matth. iv. 18-22, S. Mark i. 16-20, S. Luke v. 1-11,)

after so arbitrary a fashion, into ten portions; divorcing three of those

Sections from S. Matthew’s Gospel, (viz. S. Luke’s §§ 29, 30, 31); and

connecting one of these last three (§ 30) _with two Sections_ (§§ 219,

222) _of S. John;_—is perfectly plain. His object was, (as he himself

explains,) to shew—not only (_a_) what S. Matthew has in common with S.

Mark and S. Luke; but also (_b_) _what S. Luke has in common with S.

John_;—as well as (_c_) what S. Luke has _peculiar to himself_. But, in

the work of AMMONIUS, _as far as we know anything about that work_, all

this would have been simply impossible. (I have already described his

“Diatessaron,” at pp. 126-7.) Intent on exhibiting the Sections of the

other Gospels which correspond with the Sections of _S. Matthew_, AMMONIUS

would not if he could,—(and he could not if he would,)—have dissociated

from its context S. Luke’s account of the first miraculous draught of

fishes in the beginning of our LORD’S Ministry, for the purpose of

establishing its resemblance to S. John’s account of the _second_

miraculous draught of fishes which took place after the Resurrection, and

is only found in S. John’s Gospel. These Sections therefore are

“EUSEBIAN,” not _Ammonian_. They are _necessary_, according to the scheme

of EUSEBIUS. They are not only unnecessary and even meaningless, but

actually impossible, in the AMMONIAN scheme.

2. Let me call attention to another, and, as I think, a more convincing

instance. I am content in fact to narrow the whole question to the

following single issue:—Let me be shewn how it is rationally conceivable

that AMMONIUS can have split up S. John xxi. 12, 13, into _three distinct

Sections_; and S. John xxi. 15, 16, 17, into _six?_ and yet, after so many

injudicious disintegrations of the sacred Text, how it is credible that he

can have made but _one_ Section of S. John xxi. 18 to 25,—which

nevertheless, from its very varied contents, confessedly requires even

_repeated_ subdivision?... Why EUSEBIUS did all this, is abundantly plain.

His peculiar plan constrained him to refer the _former_ half of ver.

12,—the _latter_ half of verses 15, 16, 17—to his IXth Canon, where S.

Luke and S. John are brought together; (ἐν ᾧ οἱ δύο τὰ παρακλήσια

εἰρήκασι):—and to consign the _latter_ half of ver. 12,—the _former_ half

of verses 15, 16, 17,—together with the whole of the _last eight verses_

of S. John’s Gospel, to his Xth (or last) Canon, where what is peculiar to

each of the four Evangelists is set down, (ἐν ᾧ περὶ τίνων ἕκαστος αὐτῶν

ἰδίως ἀνέγραψεν.) But AMMONIUS, because he confessedly _recognised no such

Canons_, was under no such constraint. He had in fact _no such

opportunity_. He therefore simply _cannot_ have adopted the same

extraordinary sectional subdivision.

3. To state the matter somewhat differently, and perhaps to exhibit the

argument in a more convincing form:—The Canons of EUSEBIUS, and the

so-called “AMMONIAN _SECTIONS_,”—(by which, confessedly, nothing else

whatever is _meant_ but the Sections of EUSEBIUS,)—are discovered mutually

to imply one another. Those Canons are without meaning or use apart from

the Sections,—for the sake of which they were clearly invented. Those

Sections, whatever convenience they may possess apart from the Canons,

nevertheless are discovered to presuppose the Canons throughout: to be

manifestly subsequent to them in order of time: to depend upon them for

their very existence: in some places to be even unaccountable in the

eccentricity of their arrangement, except when explained by the

requirements of the EUSEBIAN Canons. I say—_That_ particular sectional

subdivision, in other words, to which the epithet “AMMONIAN” is popularly

applied,—(applied however without authority, and in fact by the merest

license,)—proves on careful inspection to have been only capable of being

devised by one _who was already in possession of the Canons of _EUSEBIUS.

In plain terms, they are demonstrably _the work of _EUSEBIUS_

himself_,—who expressly claims _The Canons_ for his own (κανόνας δέκα τὸν

ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι), and leaves it to be inferred that he is the Author

of the Sections also. Wetstein (_Proleg._ p. 70,) and Bishop Lloyd (in the

“Monitum” prefixed to his ed. of the Greek Test. p. x,) so understand the

matter; and Mr. Scrivener (_Introduction_, p. 51) evidently inclines to

the same opinion.

II. I desire, in the next place, to point out that a careful inspection of

the Eusebian “Sections,” (for Eusebius himself calls them περικοπαί, not

κεφάλαια,) leads inevitably to the inference that they are only rightly

understood when regarded in the light of “MARGINAL REFERENCES.” This has

been hitherto overlooked. Bp. Lloyd, in the interesting “Monitum” already

quoted, remarks of the Eusebian Canons,—“quorum haec est utilitas, ut

eorum scilicet ope quivis, nullo labore, Harmoniam sibi quatuor

Evangeliorum possit conficere.” The learned Prelate can never have made

the attempt in this way “Harmoniam sibi conficere,” or he would not have

so written. He evidently did not advert to the fact that Eusebius refers

his readers (in his IIIrd Canon) from S. John’s account of the _Healing of

the Nobleman’s son_ to the account given by S. Matthew and S. Luke of the

_Healing of the Centurion’s servant_. It is perfectly plain in fact that

to enable a reader “to construct for himself _a Harmony of the Gospels_,”

was no part of Eusebius’ intention; and quite certain that any one who

shall ever attempt to avail himself of the system of Sections and Canons

before us with that object, will speedily find himself landed in hopeless

confusion.(543)

But in fact there is no danger of his making much progress in his task.

His first discovery would probably be that S. John’s weighty doctrinal

statements concerning our LORD’S _Eternal _GOD_head_ in chap. i. 1-5: 9,

10: 14, are represented as parallel with the _Human Genealogy_ of our

SAVIOUR as recorded by S. Matthew i. 1-16, and by S. Luke iii. 23-38:—the

next, that the first half of the Visit of the Magi (S. Matthew ii. 1-6) is

exhibited as corresponding with S. John vii. 41, 42.—Two such facts ought

to open the eyes of a reader of ordinary acuteness quite wide to the true

nature of the Canons of Eusebius. They are _Tables of Reference only_.

Eusebius has in fact himself explained his object in constructing them;

which (he says) was twofold: (1st) To enable a reader to see at a glance,

“_which_ of the Evangelists have said _things of the same kind_,” (τίνες

τὰ παραπλήσια εἰρήκαςι: the phrase occurs _four times_ in the course of

his short Epistle): and (2ndly), To enable him to find out _where_ they

have severally done so: (τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τόπους, ἐν οἶς

κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν εἰπεῖν; Eusebius uses the phrase _twice_.) But

this, (as all are aware) is precisely the office of (what are called)

“Marginal References.” Accordingly,

(_a._) Whether referring _from_ S. Matth. x. 40 (§ 98); S. Mark ix. 37 (§

96); or S. Luke x. 16 (§ 116);—we find ourselves referred _to_ the

following _six_ places of S. John,—v. 23: xii. 44, 45: xiii. 20: xiv. 21:

xiv. 24, 25: xv. 23(544) (= §§ 40, 111, 120, 129, 131, 144.) Again,

(_b._) Whether we refer _from_ S. Matth. xi. 27 (§§ 111, 112,) or S. Luke

x. 22 (§ 119),—we find ourselves referred _to_ the following _eleven_

places of S. John,—i. 18: iii. 35: v. 37: vi. 46: vii. 28, 29: viii. 19:

x. 15: xiii. 3: xv. 21: xvi. 15: xvii. 25 (§§ 8, 30, 44, 61, 76, 87, 90,

114, 142, 148, 154.)

(_c._) So also, from S. Matthew’s (xvi. 13-16), S. Mark’s (viii. 27-29),

and S. Luke’s (ix. 18-20) account of S. Peters Confession at Cæsarea

Philippi,—we are referred to S. John i. 42, 43,—a singular reference; and

to S. John vi. 68, 69.

(_d._) From the mention of the last Passover by the three earlier

Evangelists, (S. Matth. xxvi. 1, 2: S. Mark xiv. 1: S. Luke xxii. 1,) we

are referred to S. John’s mention of the _first_ Passover (ii. 13 = § 20);

and of the _second_ (vi. 4 = § 48); as well as of the fourth (xi. 55 = §

96.)

(_e._) From the words of Consecration at the Last Supper, as recorded by

S. Matth. (xxvi. 16), S. Mark (xiv. 22), and S. Luke (xxii. 19),—we are

referred to the four following Sections of our LORD’S Discourse in the

Synagogue at Capernaum recorded by S. John, which took place a year

before,—S. John vi. 35, 36: 48: 51: 55: (§§ 55, 63, 65, 67).

(_f._) Nothing but the spirit in which “Marginal References” are made

would warrant a critic in linking together three incidents like the

following,—similar, indeed, yet entirely distinct: viz. S. Matth. xxvii.

34: S. Mark xv. 24: and S. John xix. 28, 29.

(_g._) I was about to say that scarcely could such an excuse be invented

for referring a Reader from S. Luke xxii. 32, to S. John xxi. 15, and 16,

and 17 (= §§ 227, 228, 229,)—but I perceive that the same three References

stand in the margin of our own Bibles. Not even the margin of the English

Bible, however, sends a Reader (as the IXth Canon of Eusebius does) from

our LORD’S eating “broiled fish and honeycomb,” in the presence of the ten

Apostles at Jerusalem on the evening of the first Easter-Day, (S. Luke

xxiv. 41-43 (= § 341,)) to His feeding the seven Apostles with bread and

fish at the Sea of Galilee many days after. (S. John xxi. 9, 10: 12: 13 =

§§ 221, 223, 224.)—And this may suffice.

It is at all events certain that the correctest notion of the use and the

value of the Eusebian Sections will be obtained by one who will be at the

pains to substitute for _the Eusebian Numbers_ in the margin of a copy of

the Greek Gospels _the References_ which these numbers severally indicate.

It will then become plain that the system of Sections and Canons which

Eusebius invented,—ingenious, interesting, and useful as it certainly is;

highly important also, as being the known work of an illustrious Father of

the Church, as well as most precious occasionally for critical

purposes,(545)—is nothing else but a clumsy substitute for what is

achieved by an ordinary “Reference Bible”:—participating in every

inconvenience incidental to the unskilfully contrived apparatus with which

English readers are familiar,(546) and yet inferior in the following four

respects:—

(1st.) The references of Eusebius, (except those found in Canon X.),

require in every instance to be _deciphered_, before they can be verified;

and they can only be deciphered by making search, (and sometimes laborious

search,) in another part of the volume. They are not, in fact, (nor do

they pretend to be,) references to the inspired Text at all; but only

_references to the Eusebian Canons_.

(2ndly.) In their scope, they are of course strictly _confined to the

Gospels_,—which most inconveniently limits their use, as well as

diminishes their value. (Thus, by no possibility is Eusebius able to refer

a reader from S. Luke xxii. 19, 20 to 1 Cor. xi. 23-25.)

(3rdly.) By the very nature of their constitution, reference even to

_another part of the same Gospel_ is impossible. (Eusebius is unable, for

example, to refer a reader from S. John xix. 39, to iii. 1 and vii. 50.)

But besides the preceding, which are disadvantages inherent in the scheme

and inseparable from it, it will be found (4thly), That Eusebius, while he

introduces not a few wholly undesirable references, (of which some

specimens are supplied above), is observed occasionally to withhold

references which cannot by any means be dispensed with. Thus, he omits to

refer his reader from S. Luke’s account of the visit to the Sepulchre

(chap. xxiv. 12) to S. John’s memorable account of the same transaction

(chap. xx. 3-10): _not_ because he disallowed the verse in S. Luke’s

Gospel,—for in a certain place _he discusses its statements_.(547)

III. It is abundantly plain from all that has gone before that the work of

EUSEBIUS was entirely different in its structure and intention from the

work of AMMONIUS. Enough, in fact, has been said to make it fully apparent

that it is nothing short of impossible that there can have been any

extensive correspondence between the two. According to EUSEBIUS, S. Mark

has 21 Sections(548) _peculiar to his Gospel_: S. Luke, 72: S. John,

97.(549) According to the same EUSEBIUS, 14 Sections(550) are common to S.

Luke and S. Mark _only_: 21, to S. Luke and S. John _only_. But those 225

Sections can have found _no place_ in the work of AMMONIUS. And if, (in

some unexplained way,) room _was_ found for those parts of the Gospels,

_with what possible motive can _AMMONIUS_ have subdivided them into

exactly 225 portions_? It is nothing else but irrational to assume that he

did so.

Not unaware am I that it has been pointed out by a most judicious living

Critic as a “ground for hesitation before we ascribe the Sections as well

as the Canons to Eusebius, that not a few ancient MSS. contain the former

while they omit the latter.”(551) He considers it to be certainly

indicated thereby “that in the judgment of critics and transcribers,

(whatever that judgment may be deemed worth,) the Ammonian Sections had a

previous existence to the Eusebian Canons, as well as served for an

independent purpose.” But I respectfully demur to the former of the two

proposed inferences. I also learn with surprise that “those who have

studied them most, can the least tell what use the Ammonian Sections can

serve, unless in connection with Canons of Harmony.”(552)

However irregular and arbitrary these subdivisions of the Evangelical text

are observed to be in their construction, their usefulness is paramount.

They are observed to fulfil _exactly the same office_ as our own actual

division of the Text into 89 Chapters and 3780 Verses. Of course, 1165

subdivisions are (for certain purposes) somewhat less convenient than

3780;—but on the other hand, a place in the Gospels would be more easily

discovered, I suspect, for the most part, by the employment of such a

single set of consecutive numbers, than by requiring a Reader first to

find the Chapter by its Roman numeral, and then the Verse by its Arabic

figure. Be this as it may, there can be at least only one opinion as to

the _supreme convenience to a Reader_, whether ancient or modern, of

knowing that the copy of the Gospels which he holds in his hands is

subdivided into exactly the same 1165 Sections as every other Greek copy

which is likely to come in his way; and that, in every such copy, he may

depend on finding every one of those sections invariably distinguished by

the self-same number.

A Greek copy of the Gospels, therefore, having its margin furnished with

the Eusebian _Sectional_ notation, may be considered to correspond

generally with an English copy merely divided into Chapters and Verses.

The addition of the Eusebian _Canons_ at the beginning, with numerical

references thereto inserted in the margin throughout, does but superadd

something analogous to the convenience of our _Marginal References_,—and

may just as reasonably (or just as unreasonably) be dispensed with.

I think it not improbable, in fact, that in the preparation of a Codex, it

will have been sometimes judged commercially expedient to leave its

purchaser to decide whether he would or would not submit to the additional

expense (which in the case of illuminated MSS. must have been very

considerable) of having the Eusebian Tables inserted at the commencement

of his Book,(553)—without which _the References_ thereto would confessedly

have been of no manner of avail. In this way it will have come to pass,

(as Mr. Scrivener points out,) that “not a few ancient MSS. contain the

_Sections_ but omit the _Canons_.” Whether, however, the omission of

References to the Canons in Copies which retain in the margin the

sectional numbers, is to be explained in this way, or not,—AMMONIUS, at

all events, will have had no more to do with either the one or the other,

than with our modern division into Chapters and Verses. It is, in short,

nothing else but a “vulgar error” to designate the Eusebian Sections as

the “Sections of AMMONIUS.” The expression cannot be too soon banished

from our critical terminology. Whether banished or retained, to _reason

about_ the lost work of AMMONIUS from the Sections of EUSEBIUS (as

Tischendorf and the rest habitually do) is an offence against historical

Truth which no one who values his critical reputation will probably

hereafter venture to commit.

IV. This subject may not be dismissed until a circumstance of considerable

interest has been explained which has already attracted some notice, but

which evidently is not yet understood by Biblical Critics.(554)

As already remarked, the necessity of resorting to the Eusebian Tables of

Canons in order to make any use of a marginal reference, is a tedious and

a cumbersome process; for which, men must have early sought to devise a

remedy. They were not slow in perceiving that a far simpler expedient

would be to note at the foot of every page of a Gospel _the numbers_ of

the Sections of that Gospel contained _in extenso_ on the same page; and,

parallel with those numbers, to exhibit the numbers of the corresponding

Sections in the other Gospels. Many Codices, furnished with such an

apparatus at the foot of the page, are known to exist.(555) For instance,

in Cod. 262 (= Reg. 53, at Paris), which is written in double columns, at

foot of the first page (_fol._ 111) of S. Mark, is found as follows:—

[[Illustration: Apparatus Table From Cod. 262.]]

The meaning of this, every one will see who,—(remembering what is

signified by the monograms ΜΡ, ΛΟ, ΙΩ, ΜΘ,(556))—will turn successively to

the IInd, the Ist, the VIth, and the Ist of the Eusebian Canons.

Translated into expressions more familiar to English readers, it evidently

amounts to this: that we are referred,

(§ 1) From S. Mark i. 1, 2,—to S. Matth. xi. 10: S. Luke vii. 27.

(§ 2) From S. Mark i. 3,—to S. Matth. iii. 3: S. Luke iii. 3-6.

(§ 3) From S. Mark i. 4, 5, 6,—to S. Matth. iii. 4-6.

(§ 4) From S. Mark i. 7, 8,—to S. Matth. iii. 11: S. Luke iii. 16: S. John

i. 15, 26-27, 30-1: iii. 28.

(I venture to add that any one who will compare the above with the margin

of S. Mark’s Gospel in a common English “reference Bible,” will obtain a

very fair notion of the convenience, and of the inconveniences of the

Eusebian system. But to proceed with our remarks on the apparatus at the

foot of Cod. 262.)

The owner of such a MS. was able to refer to parallel passages, (as

above,) _by merely turning over the pages of his book_. E.g. The parallel

places to S. Mark’s § 1 (Α) being § 70 of S. Luke (Ο) and § 103 of S.

Matthew (ΡΓ),—it was just as easy for him to find those two places as it

is for us to turn to S. Luke vii. 27 and S. Matth. xi. 10: perhaps easier.

V. I suspect that this peculiar method of exhibiting the Eusebian

references (Canons as well as Sections) at a glance, was derived to the

Greek Church from the Syrian Christians. What is certain, a precisely

similar expedient for enabling readers to discover _Parallel Passages_

prevails extensively in the oldest Syriac Evangelia extant. There are in

the British Museum about twelve Syriac Evangelia furnished with such an

apparatus of reference;(557) of which a specimen is subjoined,—derived

however (because it was near at hand) from a MS. in the Bodleian,(558) of

the viith or viiith century.

From this MS., I select for obvious reasons the last page but one (_fol._

82) of S. Mark’s Gospel, which contains ch. xvi. 8-18. The Reader will

learn with interest and surprise that in the margin of this page against

ver. 8, is written in vermilion, _by the original scribe_, 281/1: against

ver. 9,—282/10: against ver. 10,—283/1: against ver. 11,—284/8: against

ver. 12:—285/8: against ver. 13,—286/8: against ver. 14,—287/10: against

ver. 15,—288/6: against ver. 16,—289/10: against ver. 19,—290/8. That

these sectional numbers,(559) with references to the Eusebian Canons

subscribed, are no part of the (so-called) “_Ammonian_” system, will be

recognised at a glance. According to _that_ scheme, S. Mark xiv. 8 is

numbered 233/2. But to proceed.

At the foot of the same page, (which is written in two columns), is found

the following set of rubricated references to parallel places in the other

three Gospels:—

[[Illustration: Syriac Reference Table.]]

The exact English counterpart of which,—(I owe it to the kind help of M.

Neubauer, of the Bodleian),—is subjoined. The Reader will scarcely require

to be reminded that the reason why §§ 282, 287, 289 do not appear in this

Table is because those Sections, (belonging to the tenth Canon,) have

nothing parallel to them in the other Gospels.

_Luke_ _Matthew_ _Mark_ _John_ _Luke_ _Matthew_ _Mark_

391 ... 286 247 390 421 281

... 426 288 247 390 421 283

... 391 ... 284

... 393 ... 285

The general intention of this is sufficiently obvious: but the Reader must

be told that on making reference to S. MATTHEW’S Gospel, in this Syriac

Codex, it is found that § 421 = chap, xxviii. 8; and § 426 = chap. xxviii.

19, 20:

That, in S. LUKE’S Gospel,—§ 390 = chap. xxiv. 8-10: § 391 = chap. xxiv.

11; and § 393 = chap. xxiv. 13-17:(560)

That, in S. JOHN’S Gospel,—§ 247 = chap. xx. 17 (πορεύου down to Θεὸν

ὑμῶν.)

So that, exhibited in familiar language, these Syriac _Marginal

References_ are intended to guide a Reader,

(§ 281) From S. Mark xvi. 8,—to S. Matth. xxviii. 8: S. Luke

From S. Mark xxiv. 8-10: S. John xx. 17 (πορεύου _to the end of the

verse_).

(§ 283) From S. Mark xvi. 10,—to the same three places.

(§ 284) From S. Mark xvi. 11,—to S. Luke xxiv. 11.

(§ 285) From S. Mark xvi. 12,—to S. Luke xxiv. 13-17.

(§ 286) From S. Mark xvi. 13,—to S. Luke xxiv. 11.

(§ 288) From S. Mark xvi. 15,—to S. Matth. xxiv. 19, 20.

Here then, although the Ten Eusebian Canons are faithfully retained, it is

much to be noted that we are presented with _a different set of Sectional

subdivisions_. This will be best understood by attentively comparing all

the details which precede with the Eusebian references in the inner margin

of a copy of Lloyd’s Greek Testament.

But the convincing _proof_ that these Syriac Sections are not those with

which we have been hitherto acquainted from Greek MSS., is supplied by the

fact that they are so many more _in number_. The sum of the Sections in

each of the Gospels follows; for which, (the Bodleian Codex being

mutilated,) I am indebted to the learning and obligingness of Dr.

Wright.(561) He quotes from “the beautiful MS. Addit. 7,157, written A.D.

768.”(562) From this, it appears that the Sections in the Gospel according

to,—

S. MATTHEW, (instead of being from 359 to 355,) are 426: (the last

Section, § 426/6, consisting of ver. 19, 20.)

S. MARK, (instead of being from 241 to 233,) are 290: (the last Section, §

290/8, consisting of ver. 19, 20.)

S. LUKE, (instead of being from 349 to 342,) are 402: (the last Section, §

402/10, consisting of ver. 52, 53.)

S. JOHN, (instead of being 232,) is 271: (the last Section, § 271/10,

consisting of ver. 18-25.)

The sum of the Sections therefore, in _Syriac_ MSS. instead of being

between 1181 and 1162,(563) is found to be invariably 1389.

But here, the question arises,—Did the Syrian Christians then retain the

Ten Tables, dressing their contents afresh, so as to adapt them to their

own ampler system of sectional subdivision? or did they merely retain the

elementary principle of referring each Section to one of Ten Canons, but

substitute for the Eusebian Tables a species of harmony, or apparatus of

reference, at the foot of every page?

The foregoing doubt is triumphantly resolved by a reference to Assemani’s

engraved representation, on xxii Copper Plates, of the X Eusebian Tables

from a superb Syriac Codex (A.D. 586) in the Medicean Library.(564) The

student who inquires for Assemani’s work will find that the numbers in the

last line of each of the X Tables is as follows:—

_Matthew_ _Mark_ _Luke_ _John_

Canon i 421 283 390 247

Canon ii 416 276 383 ...

Canon iii 134 ... 145 178

Canon iv 394 212 ... 223

Canon v 319 ... 262 ...

Canon vi 426 288 ... ...

Canon vii 425 ... ... 249

Canon vii ... 290 401 ...

Canon ix ... ... 399 262

Canon x 424 289 402 271

The Syrian Church, therefore, from a period of the remotest antiquity, not

only subdivided the Gospels into a far greater number of Sections than

were in use among the Greeks, but also habitually employed Eusebian Tables

which—identical as they are in _appearance_ and in _the principle_ of

their arrangement with those with which Greek MSS. have made us

familiar,—yet differ materially from these as to _the numerical details_

of their contents.

Let abler men follow up this inquiry to its lawful results. When the

extreme antiquity of the Syriac documents is considered, may it not almost

be made a question whether Eusebius himself put forth the larger or the

smaller number of Sections? But however _that_ may be, more palpably

precarious than ever, I venture to submit, becomes the confident assertion

of the Critics that, “just as EUSEBIUS found these Verses [S. Mark xvi.

9-20] absent in his day from the best and most numerous [_sic_] copies,

_so was also the case with _AMMONIUS when he formed his Harmony in the

preceding century.”(565)To speak plainly, the statement is purely

mythical.

VI. Birch [_Varr. Lectt._ p. 226], asserts that in the best Codices, the

Sections of S. Mark’s Gospel are not numbered beyond ch. xvi. 8.

Tischendorf prudently adds, “_or_ ver. 9:” but to introduce _that_

alternative is to surrender everything. I subjoin the result of an appeal

to 151 Greek Evangelia. There is written opposite to,

ver. 6, ... § 232, in 3 Codices, (viz. A, U, 286)

ver. 8, ... § 233, in 34 Codices, (including L, S)(566)

ver. 9, (?) § 234, in 41 Codices, (including Γ, Δ, Π)(567)

ver. 10, (?) § 235, in 4 Codices, (viz. 67, 282, 331, 406)

ver. 12, (?) § 236, in 7 Codices, (the number assigned by Suidas)(568)

ver. 14, (?) § 237, in 12 Codices, (including Λ)(569)

ver. 15, ... § 238, in 3 Codices, (viz. Add. 19,387: 27,861, Ti)

ver. 17, ... § 239, in 1 Codex, (viz. G)

ver. 19, ... § 240, in 10 Codices, (including H, M, and the Codices

from which the Hharklensian Revision, A.D. 616, was made)(570)

ver. 20, ... § 241, in 36 Codices, (including C, E, K, V)(571)

Thus, it is found that 114 Codices sectionize the last Twelve Verses,

against 37 which close the account at ver. 8, or sooner. I infer—(_a_)

That the reckoning which would limit the sections to precisely 233, is

altogether precarious; and—(_b_) That the sum of the Sections assigned to

S. Mark’s Gospel by Suidas and by Stephens (viz. 236) is arbitrary.

VII. To some, it may not be unacceptable, in conclusion, to be presented

with the very words in which Eusebius explains how he would have his

Sections and Canons used. His language requires attention. He says:—

Εἰ οὖν ἀναπτύξας ἕν τι τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ὁποιονδήποτε, βουληθείης

ἐπιστῆναι τινι ᾧ βούλει κεφαλαίῳ, καὶ γνῶναι τίνες τὰ παραπλήσια εἰρήκασι,

καὶ τοὺς οἰκείους ἐν ἑκάστῳ τόπους εὑρεῖν ἐν οἶς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν,

ἧς ἐπέχεις περικοπῆς ἀναλαβὼν τὸν προκείμενον ἀριθμὸν, ἐπιζητήσας τὲ αὐτὸν

ἔνδον ἐν τῷ κανόνι ὄν ἡ διὰ τοῦ κινναβάρεως ὑποσημείωσις ὑποβέβληκεν, εἴσῃ

μὲν εὐθὺς ἐκ τῶν ἐπὶ μετώπου τοῦ κανόνος προγραφῶν, ὁπόσοι καὶ τίνες τὰ

παραπλήσια εἰρήκασιν; ἐπιστήσας δὲ καὶ τοῖς τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμοῖς

τοῖς ἐν τῷ κανόνι ᾧ ἐπέχεις ἀριθμῷ παρακειμένοις, ἐπιζητήσας τὲ αὐτοὺς

ἔνδον ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις ἑκάστου εὐαγγελίου τόποις, τὰ παραπλήσια λέγοντας

εὑρήσεις.

Jerome,—who is observed sometimes to exhibit the sense of his author very

loosely,—renders this as follows:—

“Cum igitur aperto Codice, verbi gratia, illud sive illud Capitulum scire

volueris cujus Canonis sit, statim ex subjecto numero doceberis; et

recurrens ad principia, in quibus Canonum est distincta congeries,

eodemque statim Canone ex titulo frontis invento, illum quem quærebas

numerum, ejusdem Evangelistæ, qui et ipse ex inscriptione signatur,

invenies; atque e vicino ceterorum tramitibus inspectis, quos numeros e

regione habeant, annotabis. Et cum scieris, recurres ad volumina

singulorum, et sine mora repertis numeris quos ante signaveras, reperies

et loca in quibus vel eadem, vel vicina dixerunt.”

This may be a very masterly way of explaining the use of the Eusebian

Canons. But the points of the original are missed. What Eusebius actually

says is this:—

“If therefore, on opening any one soever of the four Gospels, thou

desirest to study any given Section, and to ascertain which of the

Evangelists have said things of the same kind; as well as to discover the

particular place where each has been led [to speak] of the same

things;—note the number of the Section thou art studying, and seek that

number in the Canon indicated by the numeral subscribed in vermilion. Thou

wilt be made aware, at once, from the heading of each Canon, how many of

the Evangelists, and which of them, have said things of the same kind.

Then, by attending to the parallel numbers relating to the other Gospels

in the same Canon, and by turning to each in its proper place, thou wilt

discover the Evangelists saying things of the same kind.”

APPENDIX (H).

On the Interpolation of the text of CODEX B and CODEX א at S.

MATTHEW xxvii. 48 or 49.

(Referred to at pp. 202 and 219.)

It is well known that our two oldest Codices, Cod. B and Cod. א, (see

above, p. 80,) exhibit S. Matthew xxvii. 49, as follows. After σωσων

[_Cod. Sinait._ σωσαι] αυτον, they read:—

(COD. B.)

αλλος δε λαβω

λογχην ενυξεν αυτου

την πνευραν και εξηλ

θεν υδωρ και αιμα

(COD. א.)

αλλος

δε λαβων λογχη

ενυξεν αυτου ΤΗ

πνευραν και εξηλ

θεν υδωρ και αι

μα

Then comes, ο δε ΙΣ παλιν κραξας κ.τ.λ. The same is also the reading of

Codd. C, L, U, Γ: and it is known to recur in the following cursives,—5,

48, 67, 115, 127.(572)

Obvious is it to suspect with Matthaei, (ed. 1803, vol. i. p. 158,) that

it was the Lectionary practice of the Oriental Church which occasioned

this interpolation. In S. John xix. 34 occurs the well-known record,—ἀλλ᾽

εἶς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξε, καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα

καὶ ὕδωρ: and it was the established practice of the Easterns, in the

Ecclesiastical lection for Good Friday, (viz. S. Matth. xxvii. 1-61,) _to

interpose S. John_ xix. 31 _to_ 37 between the 54th and the 55th verses of

S. Matthew. This will be found alluded to above, at p. 202 and again at

pp. 218-9.

After the pages just quoted were in type, while examining Harl. MS. 5647

in the British Museum, (_our_ Evan. 72,) I alighted on the following

Scholion, which I have since found that Wetstein duly published; but which

has certainly not attracted the attention it deserves, and which is

incorrectly represented as referring to the end of S. Matth. xxvii. 49. It

is _against ver._ 48 that there is written in the margin,—

(Η(573) Ὅτι εἰς τὸ καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διαδώρου καὶ Τατιανοῦ καὶ

ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων: τοῦτο πρόσκειται:

(Η Ἄλλος δὲ λαβών: λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πνευρὰν. καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ

αἷμα: τοῦτο λέγει καὶ ὁ Χρυσόστομος.

This writer is perfectly correct in his statement. In Chrysostom’s 88th

Homily on S. Matthew’s Gospel, (_Opp._ vii, 825 C: [vol. ii, p. 526, _ed._

Field.]) is read as follows:—Ἐνόμισαν Ἠλίαν εἶναι, φησὶ, τὸν καλούμενον,

καὶ εὐθέως ἐπότισαν αὐτὸν ὄξος: (which is clearly meant to be a summary of

the contents _of ver._ 48: then follows) ἕτερος δὲ προσελθών λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ

τῆν πλευρὰν ἔνυξε. (Chrysostom quotes no further, but proceeds,—Τί γένοιτ

ἄν τούτων παρανομώτερον, τί δὲ θηριωδέστερον, κ.τ.λ.)

I find it impossible on a review of the evidence to adhere to the opinion

I once held, and have partially expressed above, (viz. at p. 202,) that

the Lectionary-practice of the Eastern Church was the occasion of this

corrupt reading in our two oldest uncials. A corrupt reading it undeniably

is; and the discredit of exhibiting it, Codd. B, א, (not to say Codd. C,

L, U, Γ,) must continue to sustain. That Chrysostom and Cyril also

employed Codices disfigured by this self-same blemish, is certain. It is

an interesting and suggestive circumstance. Nor is this all. Severus(574)

relates that between A.D. 496 and 511, being at Constantinople, he had

known this very reading strenuously discussed: whereupon had been produced

a splendid copy of S. Matthew’s Gospel, traditionally said to have been

found with the body of the Apostle Barnabas in the Island of Cyprus in the

time of the Emperor Zeno (A.D. 474-491); and preserved in the palace with

superstitious veneration in consequence. It contained no record of the

piercing of the SAVIOUR’S side: nor (adds Severus) does any ancient

Interpreter mention the transaction in that place,—except Chrysostom and

_Cyril of Alexandria_; into whose Commentaries it has found its way.—Thus,

to Codices B, א, C and the copy familiarly employed by Chrysostom, has to

be added the copy which Cyril of Alexandria(575) employed; as well as

evidently sundry other Codices extant at Constantinople about A.D. 500.

That the corruption of the text of S. Matthew’s Gospel under review is

ancient therefore, and was once very widely spread, is certain. The

question remains,—and this is the only point to be determined,—How did it

_originate_?

Now it must be candidly admitted, that if the strange method of the

Lectionaries already explained, (viz. of interposing seven verses of S.

John’s xixth chapter [ver. 31-7] between the 54th and 55th verses of S.

Matth. xxvii,) really were the occasion of this interpolation of S. John

xix. 34 after S. Matth. xxvii. 48 or 49,—two points would seem to call for

explanation which at present remain unexplained: First, (1) Why does _only

that one verse_ find place in the interpolated copies? And next, (2) How

does it come to pass that _that_ one verse is exhibited in so very

depraved and so peculiar a form?

For, to say nothing of the inverted order of the two principal words,

(which is clearly due to 1 S. John v. 6,) let it be carefully noted that

the substitution of ἄλλος δὲ λαβών λόγχην, for ἀλλ᾽ εἶς τῶν στρατιωτῶν

λόγχῃ of the Evangelist, is a tell-tale circumstance. The turn thus

licentiously given to the narrative clearly proceeded from some one who

was bent on weaving incidents related by different writers into a

connected narrative, and who was sometimes constrained to take liberties

with his Text in consequence. (Thus, S. Matthew having supplied the fact

that “ONE OF THEM ran, and _took a sponge_, and filled it with vinegar,

and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink,” S. John is made to say, “AND

ANOTHER—_took a spear_.”) Now, this is exactly what Tatian is related by

Eusebius to have done: viz. “after some fashion of his own, to have

composed out of the four Gospels one connected narrative.”(576)

When therefore, (as in the present Scholion,) an ancient Critic who

appears to have been familiarly acquainted with the lost “Diatessaron” of

Tatian, comes before us with the express declaration that in that famous

monument of the primitive age (A.D. 173), S. John’s record of the piercing

of our SAVIOUR’S side was thrust into S. Matthew’s History of the Passion

in this precise way and in these very terms,—(for, “Note,” he says, “That

into the Evangelical History of Diodorus, of Tatian, and of divers other

holy Fathers, is introduced [here] the following addition: ‘And another

took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out Water and Blood.’

This, Chrysostom also says”),—it is even unreasonable to seek for any

other explanation of the vitiated text of our two oldest Codices. Not only

is the testimony to the critical fact abundantly sufficient, but the

proposed solution of the difficulty, in itself the reverse of improbable,

is in the highest degree suggestive as well as important. For,—May we not

venture to opine that the same καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον,—as this Writer

aptly designates Tatian’s work,—is responsible for not a few of the

_monstra potius quam variae lectiones_(577) which are occasionally met

with in the earliest MSS. of all? And,—Am I not right in suggesting that

the circumstance before us is _the only thing we know for certain_ about

the text of Tatian’s (miscalled) “Harmony?”

To conclude.—That the “Diatessaron” of Tatian, (for so, according to

Eusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled it,) has long since

disappeared, no one now doubts.(578) That Eusebius himself, (who lived 150

years after the probable date of its composition,) had never seen it, may

I suppose be inferred from the terms in which he speaks of it. Jerome does

not so much as mention its existence. Epiphanius, who is very full and

particular concerning the heresy of Tatian, affords no indication that he

was acquainted with his work. On the contrary. “The Diatessaron Gospel,”

(he remarks in passing,) “which some call the Gospel according to the

Hebrews, is said to have been the production of this writer.”(579) The

most interesting notice we have of Tatian’s work is from the pen of

Theodoret. After explaining that Tatian the Syrian, originally a Sophist,

and next a disciple of Justin Martyr [A.D. 150], after Justin’s death

aspired to being a heretical leader,—(statements which are first found in

Irenæus,)—Theodoret enumerates his special tenets. “This man” (he

proceeds) “put together the so-called _Diatessaron Gospel_,—from which he

cut away the genealogies, and whatever else shews that the LORD was born

of the seed of David. The book was used not only by those who favoured

Tatian’s opinions, but by the orthodox as well; who, unaware of the

mischievous spirit in which the work had been executed, in their

simplicity used the book as an epitome. _I myself found upwards of two

hundred such copies honourably preserved in the Churches of this place_,”

(Cyrus in Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made Bishop, A.D.

423,)—“all of which I collected together, and put aside; substituting the

Gospels of the Four Evangelists in their room.”(580)

The diocese of Theodoret (he says) contained eight hundred Parishes.(581)

It cannot be thought surprising that a work of which copies had been

multiplied to such an extraordinary extent, and which was evidently once

held in high esteem, should have had _some_ influence on the text of the

earliest Codices; and here, side by side with a categorical statement as

to one of its licentious interpolations, we are furnished with documentary

proof that many an early MS. also was infected with the same taint. To

assume that the two phenomena stand related to one another in the way of

cause and effect, seems to be even an inevitable proceeding.

I will not prolong this note by inquiring concerning the “Diodorus” of

whom the unknown author of this scholion speaks: but I suppose it was

_that_ Diodorus who was made Bishop of Tarsus in A.D. 378. He is related

to have been the preceptor of Chrysostom; was a very voluminous writer;

and, among the rest, according to Suidas, wrote a work “on the Four

Gospels.”

Lastly,—How about the singular introduction _into the Lection for

Good-Friday_ of this incident of the piercing of the REDEEMER’S side? Is

it allowable to conjecture that, indirectly, the Diatessaron of Tatian may

have been the occasion of that circumstance also; as well as of certain

other similar phenomena in the Evangeliaria?

POSTSCRIPT.

(PROMISED AT p. 51.)

I proceed to fulfil the promise made at p. 51.—C.F. Matthaei (_Nov.

Test._, 1788, vol. iii. p. 269) states that in one of the MSS. at Moscow

occurs the following “Scholion of EUSEBIUS:—κατὰ Μάρκον μετὰ τῆν ἀνάστασιν

οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς.” On this, Griesbach remarks (_Comm. Crit._

ii. 200),—“quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset:”

the record in S. Mark xvi. 14, being express,—Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς

τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη. The epigrammatic smartness of Griesbach’s dictum

has recommended it to Dr. Tregelles and others who look unfavourably on

the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel; and to this hour the Scholion of

Matthaei remains unchallenged.

But to accept the proposed inference from it, is impossible. It ought to

be obvious to every thoughtful person that problems of this class will not

bear to be so handled. It is as if one were to apply the rigid

mathematical method to the ordinary transactions of daily life, for which

it is clearly unsuitable. Before we move a single step, however, we desire

a few more particulars concerning this supposed evidence of Eusebius.

Accordingly, I invoked the good offices of my friend, the Rev. W. G.

Penny, English Chaplain at Moscow, to obtain for me _the entire context_

in which this “Scholion of Eusebius” occurs: little anticipating the

trouble I was about to give him. His task would have been comparatively

easy had I been able to furnish him (which I was not) with the exact

designation of the Codex required. At last by sheer determination and the

display of no small ability, he discovered the place, and sent me a

tracing of the whole page: viz. fol. 286 (the last ten words being

overleaf) of Matthaei’s “12,” (“Synod. 139,”) our EVAN. 255.

It proves to be the concluding portion of Victor’s Commentary, and to

correspond with what is found at p. 365 of Possinus, and p. 446-7 of

Cramer: except that after the words “ἀποκυλίσειε τὸν λίθον,” and before

the words “ἄλλος δέ φησιν” [Possinus, _line_ 12 _from bottom_: Cramer,

_line_ 3 _from the top_], is read as follows:—

οχολ εὐσεβίου

κατὰ Μάρκον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὦφθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς: κατὰ

Ματθαῖον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.

κατὰ Ἰωάννην: ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὁ

Ἰησοῦς μέσος τῶν μαθητῶν μὴ παρόντος τοῦ Θωμᾶ ἔστη; καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας πάλιν

ὀκτὼ συμπαρόντος καὶ τοῦ Θωμᾶ. μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς

θαλασσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος.

κατὰ Λουκᾶν: ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως:

καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ὤφθη τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ συνηγμένων τῶν

λοιπῶν μαθητῶν: καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι: καὶ πάλιν ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν

καὶ διέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν.

But surely no one who considers the matter attentively, will conceive that

he is warranted in drawing from this so serious an inference as that

Eusebius disallowed the last Section of S. Mark’s Gospel.

(1.) In the first place, we have already [_suprà_, p. 44] heard Eusebius

elaborately discuss the Section in question. That he allowed it, is

therefore _certain_.

(2.) But next, this σχόλιον εὐσεβίου at the utmost can only be regarded as

a general summary of what Eusebius has somewhere delivered concerning our

LORD’S appearances after His Resurrection. _As it stands_, it clearly is

not the work of Eusebius.

(3.) And because I shall be reminded that such a statement cannot be

accepted on my own mere “ipse dixit,” I proceed to subjoin the original

Scholion of which the preceding is evidently only an epitome. It is found

in three of the Moscow MSS., (our Evan. 239, 259, 237,) but without any

Author’s name:—

Δεικνὺς δὲ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐκέτι συνεχῶς αὐτοῖς

συνῆν, λέγει, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον _τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη_ ὁ Κύριος _μετὰ τὴν

ἀνάστασιν;_ οὐ τοῦτο λέγων, ὅτι μόνον τρίτον, ἀλλὰ τὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις

παραλελειμμένα λέγων, τοῦτο ἤδη πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις τρίτον ἐφανερώθη τοῖς

μαθηταῖς. _κατὰ_ μὲν γὰρ τὸν _Ματθαῖον,_ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς _ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαιᾳ_

μόνον; _κατὰ_ δὲ τὸν _Ἰωάννην, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τῶν θυρῶν

κεκλεισμένων, μέσος_ αὐτῶν _ἔστη_ ὄντων ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, _μὴ παρόντος_ ἐκει

Θωμᾶ. καὶ πάλιν μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, παρόντος καὶ _τοῦ Θωμᾶ,_ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς,

ἤδη κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν. _μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος

ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς,_ ού τοῖς ΙΑ ἀλλὰ μόνοις ζ. _κατὰ_ δὲ _Λουκᾶν ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν

τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ, αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς

Ἱερουσαλὴμ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν, ὤφθη Σίμωνι. καὶ πάλιν

ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν,_ ὅτε _καὶ διέστη_ ἀναληφθεὶς _ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν;_ ὡς

ἐκ τοῦτου παρίστασθαι ζ. εἶναι τοὺς μαθητὰς μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν γεγονυίας

ὀπτασίας τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. μίαν μὲν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, τρεῖς

δὲ παρὰ τῷ Ἰώαννῃ, καὶ τρεῖς τῷ Λουκᾷ ὁμοίως.(582)

(4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here,—the _only_ thing in

fact which I am concerned to point out,—is the notable circumstance that

the supposed dictum of Eusebius,—(“quod scribere non potuisset si

pericopam dubiam agnovisset,”)—_is no longer discoverable_. To say that

“it has disappeared,” would be incorrect. In the original document _it has

no existence_. In plain terms, the famous “σχόλιον εὐσεβίου” proves to be

every way a figment. It is a worthless interpolation, thrust by some

nameless scribe into his abridgement of a Scholion, of which Eusebius (as

I shall presently shew) _cannot_ have been the Author.

(5.) I may as well point out _why_ the person who wrote the longer

Scholion says nothing about S. Mark’s Gospel. It is because there was

nothing for him to say. He is enumerating our LORD’S _appearances to His

Disciples_ after His Resurrection; and he discovers that these were

exactly seven in number: _one_ being peculiar to S. Matthew,—_three_, to

S. John,—_three_, to S. Luke. But because, (as every one is aware), there

exists _no_ record of an appearance to the Disciples _peculiar_ to S.

Mark’s Gospel, the Author of the Scholion is silent concerning S. Mark

_perforce_.... How so acute and accomplished a Critic as Matthaei can have

overlooked all this: how he can have failed to recognise the identity of

his longer and his shorter Scholion: how he came to say of the latter,

“conjicias ergo Eusebium hunc totum locum repudiasse;” and, of the former,

“ultimam partem Evangelii Marci videtur tollere:”(583) lastly, how

Tischendorf (1869) can write,—“est enim ejusmodi ut ultimam partem

evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, excludat:”(584)—I profess myself unable

to understand.

(6.) The epitomizer however, missing the point of his Author,—besides

enumerating _all_ the appearances of our SAVIOUR which S. Luke anywhere

records,—is further convicted of having injudiciously _invented_ the

negative statement about S. Mark’s Gospel which is occasioning us all this

trouble.

(7.) And yet, by that unlucky sentence of his, he certainly did not mean

what is commonly imagined. I am not concerned to defend him: but it is

only fair to point out that, to suppose he intended _to disallow the end

of S. Mark’s Gospel_, is altogether to misapprehend the gist of his

remarks, and to impute to him a purpose of which he clearly knew nothing.

Note, how he throws his first two statements into a separate paragraph;

contrasts, and evidently _balances_ one against the other: thus,—

κατὰ Μάρκον, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι,—κατὰ Ματθαῖον μετὰ τὴν

ἀνάστασιν ὤφθη,—τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.

Perfectly evident is it that the “plena locutio” so to speak, of the

Writer would have been somewhat as follows:—

“[The first two Evangelists are engaged with our SAVIOUR’S appearance to

His Disciples _in Galilee_: but] by S. Mark, He is _not_—by S. Matthew, He

_is_—related to have been actually _seen_ by them there.

“[The other two Evangelists relate the appearances _in Jerusalem_: and]

according to S. John, &c. &c.

“According to S. Luke,” &c. &c.

(8.) And on passing the “Quaestiones ad Marinum” of Eusebius under review,

I am constrained to admit that the Scholion before us is just such a

clumsy bit of writing as an unskilful person might easily be betrayed

into, who should attempt to exhibit in a few short sentences the substance

of more than one tedious disquisition of this ancient Father.(585) Its

remote parentage would fully account for its being designated “σχόλιον

εὐσεβίου” all the same.

(9.) Least of all am I concerned to say anything more about the longer

Scholion; seeing that S. Mark is not so much as mentioned in it. But I may

as well point out that, _as it stands_, Eusebius cannot have been its

Author: the proof being, that whereas the Scholion in question is a note

on S. John xxi. 12, (as Matthaei is careful to inform us,)—its opening

sentence is derived _from Chrysostom’s Commentary on that same verse_ in

his 87th Homily on S. John.(586)

(10.) And thus, one by one, every imposing statement of the Critics is

observed hopelessly to collapse as soon as it is questioned, and to vanish

into thin air.

So much has been offered, only because of the deliberate pledge I gave in

p. 51.—Never again, I undertake to say, will the “Scholion of Eusebius”

which has cost my friend at Moscow, his Archimandrites, and me, so much

trouble, be introduced into any discussion of the genuineness of the last

Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark. As the oversight of one

(C. F. Matthaei) who was singularly accurate, and towards whom we must all

feel as towards a Benefactor, let it be freely forgiven as well as loyally

forgotten!

L’ENVOY

As one, escaped the bustling trafficking town,

Worn out and weary, climbs his favourite hill

And thinks it Heaven to see the calm green fields

Mapped out in beautiful sunlight at his feet:

Or walks enraptured where the fitful south

Comes past the beans in blossom; and no sight

Or scent or sound but fills his soul with glee:—

So I,—rejoicing once again to stand

Where Siloa’s brook flows softly, and the meads

Are all enamell’d o’er with deathless flowers,

And Angel voices fill the dewy air.

Strife is so hateful to me! most of all

A strife of words about the things of GOD.

Better by far the peasant’s uncouth speech

Meant for the heart’s confession of its hope.

Sweeter by far in village-school the words

But half remembered from the Book of Life,

Or scarce articulate lispings of the Creed.

And yet, three times that miracle of Spring

The grand old tree that darkens Exeter wall

Hath decked itself with blossoms as with stars,

Since I, like one that striveth unto death,

Find myself early and late and oft all day

Engaged in eager conflict for GOD’S Truth;

GOD’S Truth, to be maintained against Man’s lie.

And lo, my brook which widened out long since

Into a river, threatens now at length

To burst its channel and become a sea.

O Sister, who ere yet my task is done

Art lying (my loved Sister!) in thy shroud

With a calm placid smile upon thy lips

As thou wert only “taking of rest in sleep,”

Soon to wake up to ministries of love,—

Open those lips, kind Sister, for my sake

In the mysterious place of thy sojourn,

(For thou must needs be with the bless’d,—yea, where

The pure in heart draw wondrous nigh to GOD,)

And tell the Evangelist of thy brother’s toil;

Adding (be sure!) “He found it his reward,

Yet supplicates thy blessing and thy prayers,

The blessing, saintly Stranger, of thy prayers,

Sure at the least unceasingly of mine!”

One other landed on the eternal shore!

One other garnered into perfect peace!

One other hid from hearing and from sight!...

O but the days go heavily, and the toil

Which used to seem so pleasant yields scant joy.

There come no tokens to us from the dead:

Save—it may be—that now and then we reap

Where not we sowed, and _that_ may be from _them_,

Fruit of their prayers when we forgot to pray!

Meantime there comes no message, comes no word:

Day after day no message and no sign:

And the heart droops, and finds that it was Love

Not Fame it longed for, lived for: only Love.

CANTERBURY.

GENERAL INDEX.

_Under_ “Codices” _will be found all the Evangelia described or quoted:

under_ “Texts” _all the places of Scripture illustrated or referred to._

“Acta Pilati,” p. 25.

ACTS, p. 199-200. _See_ Texts.

Addit. _See_ Codices.

Adler, J. G. C, p. 33-4.

Alford, Dean, p. 8, 13, 38, 77, 103, 164, 227, 244-5, 259.

Algasia, p. 52.

Ambrose, p. 27.

“Ammonian” Sections, p. 126-32, 295-311;

in the four Gospels, p. 309;

in S. Mark’s Gospel, p. 311.

Ammonius, p. 125-32.

ἀνάγνωσις, p. 196.

ἀνάγνωσμα, p. 45, 196.

ἀναληφθῆναι, p. 166.

Andreas of Crete, p. 258.

Angelic Hymn, p. 257-63.

ἀντεβλήθη, p. 119.

ἀπέχει, p. 225, 6.

ἀφορμή, p. 127, 137.

Aphraates the Persian, p. 26-7, 258.

ἀπιστεῖν, p. 158-9.

Apocrypha, p. 301.

Apolinarius, p. 275, 277.

“Apostolical Constitutions,” p. 25, 258.

ἀρχή, p. 224-5.

Armenian Version, p. 36, 239.

Ascension, The, p. 195.

Lessons, p. 204-5, 238-9.

Assemani, p. 309-10, 315.

Asterisks, p. 116-8, 218.

Athanasian Creed, p. 3, 254.

Athanasius, p. 30, 275;

how he read S. Jo. xvii. 15, 16, p. 74.

Augustine, p. 28, 198, 200.

Babington, Rev. C, p. 291.

Basil, p. 93-9, 275.

βαςιλίς, p. 275.

Basle, p. 283. _See_ Codices.

Bede, Ven., p. 30.

Bengel, J. A., p. 17, 101-2, 185.

Benson, Rev. Dr., p. 101.

Βηθαβαρά and Βηθανία, p. 236.

_Bibliothèque_ at Paris, p. 228-31, 278-83.

Birch’s N. T., Andr., p. 5, 116-8, 311.

Βλάπτειν, p. 160.

Bobbiensis, Codex, p. 35, 124, 186.

Bodleian. _See_ Codices.

Book of Common Prayer, p. 215.

Bostra, _see_ Titus.

Bosworth, Rev. Prof., p. 262.

Broadus, Prof., p. 139, 155, 168, 174.

Cæsarius, p. 133.

Canons, p. 127-31, 295-312. _See_ Sections.

Carpian, Letter to, p. 126-8, 311-2.

Carthage. _See_ Council.

Cassian, p. 193.

Catenaæ, p. 133-5. _See_ Corderius, Cramer, Matthaei, Peltanus, Possinus,

Victor.

Chrysostom, p. 27, 85, 110, 179, 193, 198-9, 201-4, 223, 258-9, 275-7,

278, 314-6, 323.

Church, the Christian, p. 192.

Festivals, p. 203.

Churton, Rev. W. R., p. 236.

“Circular,” A, p. 101-5.

Citations, _see_ Patristic.

Clemens Alex., p. 30.

Codices, depraved, p. 80-6, 217-24.

_See_ Corrupt readings, Dated, Syriac.

151, referred to p. 311.