Codex א, p. 70-90, 77, 109-13, 218-22, 252, 257, 313;
how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 88-90;
omissions, 73-5, 79, 80;
Ephes. i. 1, 91-109;
interpolations and depravations, p. 80-6;
affected by the Lectionary practice, p. 217-24;
sympathy with B, 78;
not so old as B, 291-4;
_facsimile_, p. ii.
A, p. 220-1, 222, 257-9, 311.
B, p. 70-90, 257, 202, 217-20, 222-3, 313;
how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 86-90;
omissions, 74-5, 79, 80;
Ephes. i. 1, 91-109;
interpolations and depravations, p. 80-6;
affected by the Lectionary practice, p. 217-24;
sympathy with א, 78;
older than א 291-4.
C, p. 218, 221-2, 302, 311;
depraved by the Lectionary practice, p. 220.
D, p. 100, 219-25, 257, 262, 302.
E, p. 305, 311.
F, p. 302.
G, p. 306, 311.
H, p. 302, 306, 311.
K, p. 197, 302, 311.
L, p. 123-5, 218, 225, 311;
_facsimile_, p. 124.
M, p. 197, 305, 306, 311.
P, Q, R, Y, Z, p. 302.
S, V, Δ, Π, p. 311.
Tb, p. 305.
U, p. 218, 311.
Wb, p. 302.
Wd, p. 305.
Γ, p. 218, 224, 311.
Λ, p. 119, 122, 311.
Codex 1, p. 120, 123, 125.
Codex 7, p. 239.
Codex 10, p. 224, 231.
Codex 12, p. 122, 278, 288-9.
Codex 13, p. 226.
Codex 15, p. 119.
Codex 19, p. 240, 278.
Codex 20, p. 118-9 22, 271, 9, 280, 1, 2.
Codex 22, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242.
Codex 23, p. 120.
Codex 24, p. 121-3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 288-9.
Codex 25, p. 225, 280.
Codex 27, p. 239.
Codex 30, p. 231.
Codex 33, p. 123.
Codex 34, p. 66, 120, 121-3, 280.
Codex 36, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9.
Codex 37, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9.
Codex 38, p. 121-3.
Codex 39, p. 120, 121-3, 271, 281.
Codex 40, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9.
Codex 41, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9.
Codex 47, p. 226.
Codex 50, p. 271, 281.
Codex 54, 56 _and_ 61, p. 226.
Codex 63, p. 240-1.
Codex 69, p. 123, 226.
Codex 72, p. 23, 218, 314.
Codex 77, p. 283.
Codex 90, p. 240.
Codex 92 _and_ 94, p. 283.
Codex 108, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.
Codex 113, p. 218.
Codex 117, p. 302.
Codex 124, p. 226.
Codex 129, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.
Codex 137, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Codex 138, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Codex 143, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Codex 146, p. 286.
Codex 181 _and_ 186, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.
Codex 194, p. 284.
Codex 195, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Codex 197, p. 284.
Codex 199, 206 _and_ 209, p. 120, 1-3, 5.
Codex 210, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Codex 215, p. 285.
Codex 221 _and_ 222, p. 121-3, 285, 8-9.
Codex 233, p. 286.
Codex 237 _and_ 238, p. 285, 8-9, 321.
Codex 239, p. 321.
Codex 253, p. 285.
Codex 255, p. 285, 288-9, 319-23.
Codex 256, p. 239, 286.
Codex 259, p. 286, 288-9, 321.
Codex 262, p. 119, 122, 305.
Codex 263, p. 302, 304.
Codex 264, p. 117, 305-6.
Codex 265, p. 225.
Codex 266, p. 238.
Codex 267, p. 216.
Codex 268, p. 231.
Codex 270, p. 224.
Codex 274, p. 124.
Codex 282 _and_ 293, p. 231.
Codex 299, p. 122, 281, 288-9.
Codex 300, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 280, 1, 2.
Codex 301, p. 282.
Codex 304, p. 283.
Codex 309, p. 239, 282.
Codex 312, p. 282.
Codex 329, p. 122, 282, 288-9.
Codex 332 _and_ 353, p. 286.
Codex 373, p. 287.
Codex 374, p. 122, 121, 2, 286, 288-9.
Codex 379 _and_ 427, p. 287.
Codex 428 _and_ 432, p. 286.
Codex 436, p. 218.
Codex 439, p. 226.
Addit. 7, 157, p. 309.
Addit. 12,141, p. 215.
Addit. 14,449, p. 215, 306, 309.
Addit. 14,450, p. 215, 306, 310.
Addit. 14,451, p. 306.
Addit. 14,452-4-5, p. 215, 306.
Addit. 14,456, p. 215.
Addit. 14,457-8, p. 215, 306, 309.
Addit. 14,461, p. 215.
Addit. 14,463, p. 215, 306.
Addit. 14,464, p. 215.
Addit. 14,469, p. 306.
Addit. 14,485-8, p. 208.
Addit. 14,492, p. 208.
Addit. 17,113, p. 215, 306.
Addit. 17,114-5-6, p. 215.
Addit. 17,213, p. 310.
Ambros. M. 93, p. 286.
Basil., p. 283, (three Codd.)
Bobbiensis, p. 35, 124, 186.
Bodleian, _see_ Codd. Γ, Λ, 47, 50, 54, Dawkins.
Coisl. 19, p. 122, 282, 8-9.
Coisl. 20, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9.
Coisl. 21, p. 121-3, 281, 8-9.
Coisl. 22, p. 281, 288.
Coisl. 23, p. 271, 281, 288.
Coisl. 24, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9.
Coisl. 195, p. 66, 120, 1-3, 280.
Dawkins 3, p. 306-9.
Escurial Υ, ii. 8, p. 286.
Florence, S. Mar. Ben. Cod. iv. p. 120, 1-3, 5.
Harl. 1, 810, p. 218.
Harl. 5,107, p. 226.
Harl. 5,647, p. 23, 218, 314.
Laur. vi. 18, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.
Laur. vi. 33, p. 284.
Laur. vi. 34, p. 284, 288.
Laur. viii. 14, p. 284.
Matthaei’s a, 286, 288-9, 321.
Matthaei’s d, p. 285, 288-9.
Matthaei’s e, p. 285, 288-9.
Matthaei’s 10, p. 285.
Matthaei’s 12, p. 285, 288, 319-23.
Matthaei’s 14, p. 239, 286.
Meerman 117, p. 218.
Middle Hill 13, 975, p. 287.
Monacen. 99 _and_ 381, p. 286.
Monacen 465, p. 287.
Moscow, _see_ Matthaei.
Reg. 14, p. 123.
Reg. 50, p. 226.
Reg. 53, p. 119, 122, 305.
Reg. 61 p. 302, 304.
Reg. 62, _see_ Codex L.
Reg. 64, p. 119.
Reg. 65, p. 117, 305-6.
Reg. 66, p. 225.
Reg. 67, p. 238.
Reg. 69, p. 216.
Reg. 71, p. 239.
Reg. 72, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242.
Reg. 73, p. 231.
Reg. 75, p. 224.
Reg. 77, p. 120.
Reg. 79, p. 124.
Reg. 90, p. 231.
Reg. 91, p. 224, 231.
Reg. 100, p. 231.
Reg. 115, p. 239.
Reg. 117, p. 231.
Reg. 177, p. 121, 281, 8-9.
Reg. 178, p. 121, 3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 8, 9.
Reg. 186, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 280, 1, 2.
Reg. 187, p. 282.
Reg. 188, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 9, 280, 1, 2.
Reg. 189, p. 240, 278.
Reg. 191, p. 225, 280.
Reg. 194, p. 283.
Reg. 201, p. 239, 282.
Reg. 206, p. 282.
Reg. 230, p. 122, 278, 288-9.
Reg. 703, p. 282.
2pe, p. 226.
7pe, p. 286.
cscr, p. 226.
iscr _and_ sscr, p. 302.
Tb, p. 305.
Taurin. xx b. iv. 20, p. 286.
Toledo, p. 286.
Vat. 358, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.
Vat. 756-7, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Vat. 1,229 p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Vat. 1,423, p. 287.
Vat. 1,445, p. 122, 286, 288-9.
Vat. 1,769, p. 287.
Vat. Palat. 5, p. 286.
Venet. 6, 10, p. 120, 121-3, 5.
Venet. 27, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Venet. 495, p. 285.
Venet. 544, p. 285.
Vind. Kell. 4, Forlos. 5, p. 121, 3, 283, 288-9.
Vind. Kell. Nep. 114, Lambec. 29, p. 283.
Vind. Kell. 117, Vind. Kell. 38, p. 121-3, 285, 288-9.
Vind. Kill. 118, 31, p. 226.
Vind. Kill. 180, 39, p. 121-3, 285, 288-9.
Wake, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, p. 311.
Xavier de Zelada, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.
Cod. Evstt. 47 _and_ 50, p. 197.
Paul, 67, p. 99.
Collation of MSS. p. vii.-viii., 218.
Colossians, Ep. to, p. 101, 162. _See_ Texts.
Commentaries, Ancient, p. 287.
Common Prayer, _see_ Book.
Concordance test, p. 173.
Constantinople, p. 275.
Conybeare and Howson, p. 103.
Coptic Version, p. 35.
Copyists of MSS., p. 262, 273-4, 320-3.
Corderius, B., p. 44, 134, 270, 4, 7.
Corrupt readings in MSS., p. 100-1, 112, 262-3.
Cosmas Indicopleustes, p. 258.
Council of Carthage, p. 25, 249.
Cramer, Dr. J. A., p. 44, 60, 271-3.
Creed of Jerusalem, p. 184-5.
_see_ Athanasian.
Curetonian Syriac Version, p. 33.
Cyprian, 25, 249.
Cyprus, p. 315.
Cyril of Alex., p. 29, 60, 110, 198, 201, 258, 271, 5, 7, 9, 281, 315.
Cyril of Jer., p. 184-5, 195, 258, 261.
Cyrus in Syria, p. 317, 8.
Damascene, John, p. 30.
Dated MSS., p. 208, 224, 309.
Davidson. Dr., p. 12, 38, 114, 133-5, 6; 142, 8; 153, 160, 1, 4; 185.
De Touttée, p. 184, 261.
δευτεροπρώτῳ, p. 75, 220.
Diatessaron, p. 126, 314-8.
Diodorus, p. 314-8.
Dionysius of Corinth, p. 245.
Dionysius Syrus, p. 41.
δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, p. 257-63.
Easter Lessons, p. 204-6, 238-9.
Eden, Rev. C. P., p. 3.
ἐγκύκλιον, p. 104-5.
ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ and ἀπό, p. 153.
ἐκεῖνος, p. 166-7.
ἔκλειψις, p. 86.
Ellicott, Bishop, p. 9.
Encyclical, p. 101-5.
Ephesians, Ep. to, p. 91-109. _See_ Texts.
ἐπί, verbs compounded with, p. 163-4.
ἐπιφανία, τὰ, p. 204.
Epiphanius, p. 95, 132-3, 199, 202-3, 258.
Epiphany, Festival of, p. 204, 7;
lessons, 199.
Erizzo, F. M. p. 34.
Ethiopic Version, p. 36.
εὐδοκία, p. 257-63.
Eulogius, p. 258.
Eusebius, p. 26, 41-51, 43, 61-4, 66, 84, 126-33, 332-8, 240, 249-52,
265-6, 267-8, 275, 314, 316, 323;
knew nothing of Cod. א, p. 293-4;
was the Author of the “Ammonian” Sections, p. 295;
Eusebian Tables in Syriac MSS., p. 309-10;
Scholion wrongly ascribed to, p. 319-23.
εὐθέως, p. 168-9.
Euthymius Zig., p. 30, 68-9.
Evangelia, _see_ Codices.
Evangeliaria, p. 195, 197, 214-5.
Evangelists vary their expressions, p. 147.
Evidence, Law of, p. 15.
ἐξελθόντες, p. 188.
Facsimile of Cod. א, p. ii.;
of Cod. L, p. 124.
Fathers badly indexed, p. vii, 21, 30, 315: _see_ Patristic.
Festivals of the Church, p. 203.
Field’s ed. of Chrysostom, p. 180.
Florence. _See_ Codices.
Formulæ of the Lectionaries, p. 215-224, 5.
Gandell, Rev. Prof., p. 148.
Garnier, J., p. 101.
Genesis, when read, p. 201.
Gennadius, p. 26.
Georgian Version, p. 36.
_Gloria in Excelsis_, p. 257-63.
Gothic Version, p. 35, 262.
Green, Rev. T. S., p. 13, 137, 153.
Gregentius, p. 30.
Gregory of Nazianzus, p. 258.
Gregory of Nyssa, p. 29, 39-41, 66, 267-8.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, p. 180.
Gregory the Great, p. 30.
Griesbach, D. J. J., p. 4-7, 115-6, 232, 251, 319.
Harleian. _See_ Codices.
_Harmonia, &c._, Oxon. 1805, p. 298.
Harmony of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with the other Gospels, p. 188-90,
Tables of, in Greek MSS., p. 304-6;
in Syriac MSS., p. 306-11.
Harris, A. C, p. 293.
Hedibia, p. 51-6.
Hesychius of Jerusalem, p. 29, 40-1, 57-9, 67, 204, 237, 267-8.
Heurtley, Rev. Prof., p. 184.
Hharklensian Revision, p. 33, 124, 315.
Hierosolymitan Version, p. 34, 199.
Hippolytus, p. 24-5, 248.
Hort, Rev. F. J. A., p. 13.
Huet, P. D., p. 269, 275, 314.
Hypapante, p. 207.
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, p. 165.
Indices, p. vii-viii, 21, 30, 315.
Interpolations in B and א p. 80-6;
from the Lectionary practice, p. 217-214.
Irenæus, p. 23, 246, 8, 260.
Itala, Vetus, p. 35.
Jacobus Bar-Salibi, p. 41.
“Jacobus Nisibenus,” p. 26, 258.
James’ _Ecloga_, p. 236.
Jerome, p. 26, 27-8, 34, 42, 49, 51-7, 67, 98, 106, 128, 153, 236, 260,
295, 312, 314.
Jerusalem, Version, p. 34, 199.
Copies at, p. 119.
_See_ Creed.
Jewish Church, p. 192.
Jewish Lectionary, p. 194.
JOHN, S. _See_ Texts.
John Damascene, p. 30.
Josephus, p. 275.
Justin Martyr, p. 23, 193.
καθαρίζων, p. 179-80.
κανονίζειν, p. 120-1, 125.
Kay, Rev. Dr. W., p. 140, 183.
κείμενον, p. 131, 282.
κεφάλαιον, p. 45, 229, 298.
Kollar, p. 269.
κτίσις, p. 161-2, 180.
Κύριος, p. 165, 185.
Lachmann, C., p. 8, 259, 263-4
Laodiceans, Ep. to, p. 93-107.
Latinus Latinius, p. 42-44.
Lectionary System, p. 191-211, 214-5, 217-24, 240, 313-5, 318.
Eastern p. 196-211.
Jewish, p. 192-4.
Syrian, p. 205-8.
the New, p. 200.
Lections, p. 238-9. _See_ Lectionary System, Syrian Lessons.
Lessons. _See_ Lections.
Licentious. _See_ Copyists.
Liturgical Formulæ, p. 216-25.
Lloyd, Bishop C, p. 298.
λόγος, p. 165.
LUKE, S. _See_ Texts.
Macknight, p. 105.
Mai, Card. A., p. 42-4, 242, 265.
Manuscripts. _See_ CODICES.
Marcion, p. 93-6, 103, 106-8.
Marginal references, p. 298-304.
Marinus, p. 26, 53-6, 249-50.
Mark, S., p. 161-2.
MARK, S. (_See_ Texts), p. 167, 176, 7, 9;
Latinisms, 149-51;
style of ch. i. 9-20, p. 143-4;
phraseology of ch. i. 1-12, p. 174-5;
ch. xvi. 9-20, p. 36-73;
structure of ch. xvi. 9-20, p. 181-4.
xvi. 9-20, a Lection in the Ancient Church, p. 204-11.
Matthaei, C. F., p. 5, 66, 191, 197, 227, 247, 271-3, 319-23. _See_
Codices.
MATTHEW, S. _See_ Texts.
μέγα σάββατον, p. 194.
Meerman 117, Cod., p. 218.
Memphitic Version, p. 35.
Menologium, p. 197.
Methodius, p. 258.
Meyer, p. 13, 136, 160.
τῶν σαββάτων, p. 146-51.
Michaelis, J. D., p. 101.
Middle Hill, _see_ Codices.
Middleton, Bp., p. 105.
Mill, Dr. John, p. 129, 130, 2.
Modestus, p. 30.
Montfaucon, B. de, p. 121.
Moscow, _see_ Codices, Rev. W. G. Penny.
Munich, _see_ Codices.
Muratorian fragment, p. 103.
Nativity, Festival of, p. 199, 204.
Nazianzus, _see_ Gregory.
Nestorius, p. 29.
Neubauer, M., p. 307.
Nisibenus, _see_ Aphraates.
Norton, Prof., p. 13, 137, 245.
Nyssa, _see_ Gregory.
Omissions in B and א, p. 73-5, 79, 80, 91, &c.
ὁμοιοτέλευτον, p. 73, 4.
Order of the Gospels, p. 239-240.
Oriel College, p. ix, x.
Origen, p. 47, 66, 85, 93-9, 107, 179, 222, 236, 245, 258, 260-1, 275,
277, 282;
on S. Mark, 235.
Palestinian exemplar, p. 64-5, 121, 289.
πάλιν, p. 168-9.
Palmer, Sir Roundell, p. v, vi.
Palmer, Rev. W. J., p. v.
Papias, p. 23.
παρά, verbs compounded with, p. 163-4.
Parallel passages. _See_ Tables of Reference.
παρασκευή, p. 150.
Paris, MSS. at, p. 228-31, 278-83:
_see_ Codices, Coisl. _and_ Reg.
Passion-tide Lessons, p. 202, 204.
“Patres App.,” p. 240.
Patristic Citations of SS., p. 20-3, 37, 257-63.
Paul, S., p. 161-2.
Peltanus, p. 134, 270-3.
Penny, Rev. W. G., p. 319-23.
περιγράφειν τὸ τέλος, p. 233-4.
περικοπή, p. 45, 196, 8, 298.
Peshito Version, p. 32.
Peter, S., p. 161-2, 179, 180-1. _See_ Texts.
Peter of Laodicea, p. 284, 286.
Petersburg. _See_ Rev. A. S. Thompson.
Petrus junior, p. 315.
Phillipps, Sir T. _See_ Codices (Middle Hill).
Philoxenian Version, p. 33, 4.
Phraseology of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. 136-173, 146.
Pius IX., p. ii.
Polycarp, p. 240.
πορεύεσθαι, p. 153.
Possevinus, p. 235.
Possinus, p. 44, 134, 226, 270-4, 277, 290-2.
Prayer-Book, _see_ Book.
Proclus, p. 258.
Proper, see Lessons.
πρώτη σαββάτου, p. 146-51.
Reference Bibles, p. 300-1.
ancient Tables of, p. 304-11.
Revision of Auth. Version, p. 263-4.
Greek Text, p. 263.
Lectionary, p. 200-1.
Rose, Ven. Archd., p. 27.
Rev. W. F., p. 218.
Routh, Rev. President, p. ix.
Rufinus, p. 314.
S. (G. V.) p. 264.
σαββατοκυριακαί, p. 194.
σάββατον—τα, p. 146-51.
Sahidic Version, p. 36.
Saturday Lessons, p. 193, 4.
Scholia, p. 122, 236, 288-9, 314, 319-23.
Scholz, J. M. A., p. 7, 116-222, 197, 227, 242.
Scrivener, Rev. F. H., p. vii, viii, 9, 77, 139, 197, 215, 227, 246,
302-4.
Sections without Canons in MSS., p. 302;
their use, 303-10.
_see_ Ammonian.
σελίδες, p. 294.
Severus of Antioch, p. 40-1, 57-9, 67, 121, 267-8, 315.
σημείωσις, p. 314.
Simon, Père, p. 48, 269.
Sinaiticus, _see_ Codex.
Sirletus, Card., p. 44.
Smith, Dean Payne, p. 41, 205-6, 214, 306.
Stanley, Dean A. P., p. 3.
Style of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. 136-45.
Subscription of Gospels, p. 230-1.
Suidas, p. 309, 311.
Synagogue worship, p. 192-3.
Synaxarium, p. 197.
“Synopsis Script. S.,” p. 29.
Syriac MSS., p. 208, 214-5, 225, 306-11.
Syrian Lessons, p. 205, 226, 238-9.
Tables of Reference in MSS, p. 304-11.
Tait, Abp., p. 2, 3, 189, 314-8.
Tatian, p. 129, 314-8.
τέλος, p. 119-20, 224-42.
Tertullian, p. 30, 93-4, 106.
Textual Criticism, p. vii-ix, 113.
TEXTS.
S. MATTHEW i. 10, p. 178;
i. 25, p. 80.
iii. 16, p. 178;
iii. 17, p. 30.
iv. 18-22, p. 295-6.
viii. 9, p. 82;
viii. 13, p. 80, 222.
xi. 19, p. 83;
xi. 20, p. 221.
xii. 9, p. 221.
xiii. 35, p. 81, 110-1;
xiii. 36, p. 221;
xiii. 39, 55, p. 178.
xiv. 14, p. 221;
xiv. 22, p. 216;
xiv. 30, p. 82.
xv. 22, p. 178.
xvi. 10, p. 177;
xvi. 12, p. 178-9;
xvi. 15, p. 162.
xx. 17, p. 223;
xx. 29, p. 178.
xxi. 8, p. 178;
xxi. 31, p. 83.
xxv. 24, p. 82.
xxvi. 34, 75, p. 178;
xxvi. 39, p. 217-8.
xxvii. 32, p. 188;
xxvii. 34, p. 84;
xxvii. 35, p. 75;
xxvii. 48, 49, p. 80, 218, 313-8;
xxvii. 54, 55, p. 315.
xxviii. 2, 3, p. 73;
xxviii. 8, p. 84;
xxviii. 19, 20, p. 178.
S. MARK i. 1, p. 180, 185;
i. 9-20, p. 182;
i. 10, p. 178;
i. 11, 13, p. 30;
i. 16-20, p. 295-6;
i. 28, p. 85.
vi. 3, p. 178.
vii. 3, 4, p. 82;
vii. 19, p. 179;
vii. 26, p. 178.
viii. 10, 15, p. 178.
x. 6, p. 180;
x. 42, p. 82;
x. 46, p. 178.
xi. 8, p. 178.
xiii. 19, p. 180.
xiv. 3, p. 221;
xiv. 30, p. 178;
xiv. 30, 68, 72, p. 84;
xiv. 41, p. 225;
xiv. 58, p. 82;
xiv. 72, p. 177.
xv. 28, p. 301;
xv. 46, p. 82.
xvi. 8 and 9, p. 239;
xvi. 8-20, p. 306;
xvi. 9, p. 152-3, 178-9, 187, 216;
xvi. 9-20, p. 182, 224;
xvi. 10, 14, p. 187, 319;
xvi. 15, p. 180;
xvi. 15, 16, p. 178;
xvi. 19, p. 180, 195.
S. LUKE i. 26, p. 85;
i. 27, p. 82.
ii. 14, p. 257-63;
ii. 37, p. 82.
iii. 22, p. 30, 178;
iii. 23, p. 220.
iv. 5, p. 74;
iv. 16, p. 220;
iv. 44, p. 85.
(S. LUKE) v. 1, p. 82, 220;
i. 1-11, p. 295-6;
i. 17, p. 220.
vi. 1, p. 75, 220;
vi. 37, p. 220;
vi. 48, p. 81.
vii. 1, p. 220;
vii. 31, p. 216.
viii. 2, p. 152, 178.
ix. 57, p. 220.
x. 1, p. 81, 220;
x. 25, p. 220.
xiii. 2, p. 221.
xv. 13, p. 82.
xvi. 6, p. 178;
xvi. 16, p. 74;
xvi. 19, p. 220.
xviii. 15, p. 220.
xix. 45, p. 220.
xx. 1, p. 220.
xxii. 25, p. 82;
xxii. 43, 44, p. 79, 201, 217-8, 301;
xxii. 64, p. 74.
xxiii. 15, p. 83;
xxiii. 34, p. 79, 219;
xxiii. 38, p. 79;
xxiii. 45, p. 85-6.
xxiv. 12, p. 222;
xxiv. 13, p. 85, 236;
xxiv. 16, p. 178-9;
xxiv. 31, p. 73;
xxiv. 36, p. 221;
xxiv. 42, 52, 53, p. 74;
xxiv. 51, p. 195.
S. JOHN i. 3, 4, p. 30, 110;
i. 3, 18, 50, p. 30;
i. 4, p. 81, 109-11;
i. 18, p. 30, 81;
i. 28, p. 236;
i. 29, 44, p. 221;
i. 34, p. 81;
i. 50, p. 30.
ii. 3, p. 80.
iii. 13, p. 80.
vi. 14, p. 221;
vi. 17, 64, p. 82;
vi. 51, p. 111.
vii. 53-viii. 11, p. 219.
viii. 57, p. 82;
viii. 59, p. 80, 222.
ix. 4, 11, p. 81;
ix. 35, p. 82;
ix. 38, p. 79.
x. 14, p. 82;
x. 29, p. 223.
xiii. 3, p. 221;
xiii. 10, p. 111.
xiv. 1, p. 220;
xiv. 31, p. 188.
xvii. 10, p. 82;
xvii. 15, 16, p. 76.
xviii. 1, p. 188.
xix. 13, p. 223;
xix. 17, p. 188;
xix. 34, p. 218, 313-5.
xxi. 1, p. 221, 3;
xxi. 1-6, 11, p. 295-6;
xxi. 12, 13, 15-17, p. 297;
xxi. 18, p. 83;
xxi. 25, p. 79.
ACTS i. 2, 22, 23, p. 180;
i. 9, p. 195.
iv. 12, p. 262.
viii. 5, p. 85.
x. 15, p. 180.
xiii. 15, 27, p. 192.
EPHES. i. 1, p. 91-109.
vi. 21, 2, p. 101.
COLOSS. i. 23, p. 162.
iv. 7, 16, p. 101, 105.
1 S. PET. ii. 13, p. 180.
iv. 19, p. 180.
2 S. PET. iii. 4, p. 180.
ECCLUS. xliii. 11, 12, p. 301.
1 MACC. iv. 59, p. 301.
θεᾶσθαι, p. 156-8.
Thebaic Version, p. 35.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, p. 275, 7.
Theodoret, p. 258, 317-8.
Theodotus of Ancyra, p. 258.
Theophania, p. 207.
Theophylact, p. 30, 266.
θεωρεῖν, p. 157.
Thompson, Rev. A. S., p. ii, 252.
Thomson, Abp., p. 13.
Tischendorf, Dr., p. 8, 9, 10, 38, 77-9, 85-6, 93, 109-14, 123, 125-33,
137, 153, 222, 7, 242, 4, 251-2, 9, 260-1, 280, 293, 311, 322,
viii-ix.
Titus of Bostra, p. 258, 275, 283.
Toledo, _see_ Codices.
Townson, Rev. Dr., p. 151, 179.
Tregelles, Dr., p. 9, 10-12, 38, 9, 60, 76, 114, 126-9, 136, 145, 169,
222-3, 227, 234, 242, 4, 5, 7, 251, 9, 260, 319, viii-ix.
Turin, _see_ Codices.
Ulphilas, p. 35, 262.
Uncial MSS. p. 20, 71. _See_ Codices.
ὑπόθεσις, p. 274-5.
ὕστερον, p. 160.
Vatican, p. 117, 283-4, 288-9: _see_ Codices.
Vaticanus, _see_ Codex.
Venice, _see_ Codices.
Vercellone, C., p. 73.
Versions, _see_ Armenian, &c.
Vetus Itala, p. 35.
Victor of Antioch, p. 29, 59-65, 67, 122, 134, 178, 180, 235, 250, 268,
269-87;
Codices, 278-87;
Scholion, 288-90.
Victor of Capua, p. 129.
Vienna, _see_ Codices.
Vincentius a Thibari, p. 25.
Vulgate, p. 34.
Westcott, Rev. Prof., p. 13, 23.
Wetstein, J. J., p. 121, 125, 129.
Wordsworth, Bishop, p. ix, 9.
Wordsworth, Rev. John, p. ix.
Wright, Prof., p. 27, 33, 206, 8, 214-5, 225, 306, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Xavier de Zelada, _see_ Codices.
Xiphilinus, John, p. 44.
ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.
FOOTNOTES
1 Abp. Tait’s _Harmony of Revelation and the Sciences_, (1864,) p. 21.
2 See by all means Hooker, E. P., v. xlii. 11-13.
3 Abp. Tait is of opinion that it “should not retain its place in the
public Service of the Church:” and Dean Stanley gives sixteen
reasons for the same opinion,—the fifteenth of which is that “many
excellent laymen, including King George III., have declined to take
part in the recitation.” (_Final_) _Report of the Ritual
Commission_, 1870, p. viii. and p. xvii.
4 In the words of a thoughtful friend, (Rev. C. P.
Eden),—“_Condemnatory_ is just what these clauses are not. I
understand myself, in uttering these words, not to condemn a fellow
creature, but to acknowledge a truth of Scripture, GOD’S judgment
namely on the sin of unbelief. The further question,—In whom the sin
of unbelief is found; _that_ awful question I leave entirely in His
hands who is the alone Judge of hearts; who made us, and knows our
infirmities, and whose tender mercies are over all His works.”
5 “The Athanasian Creed,” by the Dean of Westminster (_Contemporary
Review_, Aug., 1870, pp. 158, 159).
_ 6 Commentarius Criticus_, ii. 197.
_ 7 Quatuor Evangelia Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus Codd.
MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, etc. Jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit
Andreas Birch, Havniae_, 1788. A copy of this very rare and
sumptuous folio may be seen in the King’s Library (Brit. Mus.)
_ 8 Account of the Printed Text_, p. 83.
9 See above, p. 3.
10 “Eam esse authenticam rationes internae et externae probant
gravissimae.”
11 I find it difficult to say what distress the sudden removal of this
amiable and accomplished Scholar occasions me, just as I am
finishing my task. I consign these pages to the press with a sense
of downright reluctance,—(constrained however by the importance of
the subject,)—seeing that _he_ is no longer among us either to
accept or to dispute a single proposition. All I can do is to erase
every word which might have occasioned him the least annoyance; and
indeed, as seldom as possible to introduce his respected name. An
open grave reminds one of the nothingness of earthly controversy; as
nothing else does, or indeed can do.
12 Tischendorf, besides eight editions of his laborious critical
revision of the Greek Text, has edited our English “Authorized
Version” (Tauchnitz, 1869,) with an “Introduction” addressed to
unlearned readers, and the various readings of Codd. א, B and A, set
down in English at the foot of every page.—Tregelles, besides his
edition of the Text of the N. T., is very full on the subject of S.
Mark xvi. 9-20, in his “Account of the Printed Text,” and in his
“Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.” (vol. iv. of
Horne’s _Introd._)—Dean Alford, besides six editions of his Greek
Testament, and an abridgment “for the upper forms of Schools and for
passmen at the Universities,” put forth two editions of a “N. T. for
English Readers,” and three editions of “the Authorized Version
newly compared with the original Greek and revised;”—in every one of
which it is stated that these twelve verses are “probably an
addition, placed here in very early times.”
13 The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, and Bp. Wordsworth, are
honourable exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent
Divine reluctantly admitting that “this portion may not have been
penned by S. Mark himself;” and Bishop Ellicott (_Historical
Lectures_, pp. 26-7) asking “Why may not this portion have been
written by S. Mark at a later period?;”—both alike resolutely insist
on its genuineness and canonicity. To the honour of the best living
master of Textual Criticism, the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, (of whom I
desire to be understood to speak as a disciple of his master,) be it
stated that he has never at any time given the least sanction to the
popular outcry against this portion of the Gospel. “Without the
slightest misgiving” he has uniformly maintained the genuineness of
S. Mark xvi. 9-20. (_Introduction_, pp. 7 and 429-32.)
14 “Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,” (p.
320.) “Quæ testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis, ut quod
conlatis prioribus versu 9. parum apte adduntur verba αφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβ
item quod singula multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.” (p.
322.)—I quote from the 7th Leipsic ed.; but in Tischendorf’s 8th ed.
(1866, pp. 403, 406,) the same verdict is repeated, with the
following addition:—“Quæ quum ita sint, sanæ erga sacrum textum
pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare pergunt qua
a Marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.” (p. 407.)
_ 15 Evangelia Apocrypha_, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi.
16 Pp. 253, 7-9.
17 In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson pronounced
it “manifestly untenable” that S. Mark’s Gospel was the last
written; and assigned A.D. 64 as “its most probable” date. In his
second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), he says:—“When we consider that _the
Gospel was not written till the second century_, internal evidence
loses much of its force against the authenticity of these
verses.”—_Introduction to N.T._
18 Vol. ii. p. 239.
_ 19 Developed Criticism_, [1857], p. 53.
20 Ed. 1847. i. p. 17. He recommends this view to his reader’s
acceptance in five pages,—pp. 216 to 221.
_ 21 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels_, p. 311.
_ 22 Critical and Exegetical Commentary_, 1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186-92.
23 In the Roman law this principle is thus expressed,—“Ei incumbit
probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.” Taylor _on the Law of Evidence_,
1868, i. p. 369.
24 This is freely allowed by all. “Certiores facti sumus hanc pericopam
jam in secundo sæculo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.”
Tregelles _N.T._ p. 214.
25 This in fact is how Bengel (N. T. p. 626) accounts for the
phenomenon:—“Fieri potuit ut librarius, scripto versu 8, reliquam
partem scribere differret, et id exemplar, casu non perfectum, alii
quasi perfectum sequerentur, praesertim quum ea pars cum reliquâ
historiâ evangelicâ minus congruere videretur.”
26 It is thus that Tischendorf treats S. Luke xxiv. 12, and (in his
latest edition) S. John xxi. 25.
27 Chap. III.-VIII., also Chap. X.
28 Chap. IX.
29 Viz. E, L, [viii]: K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π (Tisch. _ed._ 8va.)
[ix]: G, X, S, U [ix, x]. The following uncials are defective
here,—F (ver. 9-19), H (ver. 9-14), I, N, O, P, Q, R, T, W, Y, Z.
30 See Appendix (A), on the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14.
31 Consider how Ignatius (_ad Smyrn._, c. 3) quotes S. Luke xxiv. 39;
and how he refers to S. John xii. 3 in his Ep. _ad Ephes._ c. 17.
32 Ἱστορεῖ [sc. Παπίας] ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα
Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονὸς,—evidently a slip of the pen for Βαρσαβᾶν τὸν
ἐπικληθέντα Ἰοῦστον (see Acts i. 23, quoted by Eusebius immediately
afterwards,)—ὡς δηλητήριον φάρμακον ἐμπιόντος καὶ μηδὲν ἀηδὲς διὰ
τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου χάριν ὑπομείναντος. Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ iii. 39.
_ 33 Apol._ I. c. 45.—The supposed quotations in c. 9 from the Fragment
_De Resurrectione_ (Westcott and others) are clearly references to
S. Luke xxiv.,—_not_ to S. Mark xvi.
34 lib. iii. c. x. _ad fin._ (ed. Stieren, i. p. 462). “In fine autem
Evangelii ait Marcus, _et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est
sis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei._”
Accordingly, against S. Mark xvi. 19 in Harl. MS. 5647 ( = Evan. 72)
occurs the following marginal scholium, which Cramer has already
published:—Εἰρηναῖος ὁ τῶν Ἀποστόλων πλησίον, ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὰς
αἱρέσεις γ᾽ λόγῳ τοῦτο ἀνήνεγκεν τὸ ῥητον ὡς Μάρκῳ ειρημένον.
35 First published as his by Fabricius (vol. i. 245.) Its authorship
has never been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of
Hippolytus (inscribed on the chair of his marble effigy in the
Lateran Museum at Rome) is read,—ΠΕΡΙ ΧΑΡΙΣΜΑΤΩΝ; and by that name
the fragment in question is actually designated in the third chapter
of the (so called) “Apostolical Constitutions,” (τὰ μὲν σῦν πρῶτα
τοῦ λόγου ἐξεθέμεθα περὶ τῶν Χαρισμάτων, κ.τ.λ.),—in which singular
monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It is in
fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the “Apostolical
Constitutions;” of which the ivth chapter is also claimed for
Hippolytus, (though with evidently far less reason,) and as such
appears in the last edition of the Father’s collected works,
(_Hippolyti Romani quæ feruntur omnia Græce_, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)—p.
74.
The work thus assigned to Hippolytus, (evidently on the strength of
the heading,—Διατάξεις τῶν ἀυτῶν ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων περὶ χειροτονιῶν,
διὰ Ἱππολύτου,) is part of the “Octateuchus Clementinus,” concerning
which Lagarde has several remarks in the preface to his _Reliquiæ
Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquissimæ_, 1856. The composition in question
extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the last-named publication. The exact
correspondence between the “Octateuchus Clementinus” and the
Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions will be found to extend no further
than the single chapter (the ivth) specified in the text. In the
meantime the fragment περὶ χαρισμάτων (containing S. Mark xvi. 17,
18,) is identical throughout. It forms the first article in
Lagarde’s _Reliquiæ_, extending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there
headed Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγίων Ἁποστόλων περὶ χαρισμάτων.
_ 36 Ad fin._ See Routh’s _Opuscula_, i. p. 80.
37 For which reason I cordially subscribe to Tischendorf’s remark (ed.
8va. p. 407), “Quod idem [Justinus] Christum ἀνεληλυθόντα εἰς τοὺς
οὐράνους dicit, [_Apol._ I. c. 50?] minus valet.”
38 “In nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellite,” (Cyprian Opp. p.
237 [_Reliqq. Sacr._ iii. p. 124,] quoting S. Mark xvi. 17,
18,)—“_In nomine meo daemonia ejicient ... super egrotos manus
imponent_ et bene habebunt.”
_ 39 Responsa ad Episcopos_, c. 44, (_Reliqq._ v. 248.)
_ 40 Evangelia Apocrypha_, ed. Tischendorf, 1853, pp. 243 and 351: also
_Proleg._ p. lvi.
41 In _l._ vii. _c._ 7 (_ad fin._),—λαβόντες ἐντολὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ κηρύξαι
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον: and in _l._ viii. _c._ 1,—ἡμῖν
τοῖς ἀποστόλοις μέλλουσι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει.
Observe, this immediately follows the quotation of verses 17, 18.
_ 42 Lib._ vi. _c._ 15.—The quotation (at the beginning of _lib._ viii.)
of the 17th and 18th verses, has been already noticed in its proper
place. _Supra_, p. 24.
43 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 421.
_ 44 Apud_ Hieron. _Opp. ed._ Vallars., ii. 951-4.
45 See Dr. Wright’s ed. of “Aphraates,” (4to. 1869.) i. p. 21. I am
entirely indebted to the learned Editor’s _Preface_ for the
information in the text.
46 From Dr. Wright, and my brother Archdeacon Rose.
47 Vol. i. 796 E and vol. ii. 461 D quote ver. 15: 1429 B quotes ver.
15 and 16: vol. ii. 663 B, C quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 127 A
quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 639 E and vol. ii. 400 A quote ver.
17, 18. Vol. i. 716 A quotes ver. 20.
_ 48 Opp._ iii. 765 A, B.
49 Καὶ μὴν τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον τοὐναντίον λέγει, ὅτι τῇ Μαρία πρώτῃ [ὤφθη].
Chrys. _Opp._ ch. 355 B.
50 “Cogis” (he says to Pope Damasus) “ut post exemplaria Scripturarum
toto orbe dispersa quasi quidam arbiter sedeam; et quia inter se
variant, quae sint illa quae cum Graecâ consentiant veritate
decernam.—Haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evangelia
... codicum Graecorum emendata conlatione, sed et veterum.”
51 Vol. i. p. 327 C (_ed._ Vallars.)
_ 52 Contra Pelagianos_, II. 15, (Opp. ii. 744-5):—“In quibusdam
exemplaribus et maxima in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum in fine
Evangelii scribitur: _Postea quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis
Jesus, et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia
his qui viderant eum resurgentem, non crediderunt. Et illi
satisfaciebant dicentes: Sæculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis
substantia est, quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei
apprehendi virtutem: idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam._”
53 E.g. ver. 12 in vol. ii. 515 C (Ep. 149); Vol. v. 988 C.—Verses 15,
16, in vol. v. 391 E, 985 A: vol. x. 22 F.
54 Vol. v. 997 F, 998 B, C.
55 ἐξελθόντες γάρ, φησι, διεκήρυσσον τὸν λόγον πανταχοῦ. τοῦ Κυρίοῦ
συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος, διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθησάντων
σημειων. Nestorius _c. Orthodoxos_: (Cyril. Alexand. _adv.
Nestorian._ Opp. vol. vi. 46 B.) To which, Cyril replies,—τῇ παρ᾽
αὐτοῦ δυναστείᾳ χρώμενοι, διεκηρύσσοντο καὶ εἰργάζοντο τὰς
θεοσημείας οἱ θεοπέσιοι μαθηταὶ. (_Ibid._ D.) This quotation was
first noticed by Matthaei (_Enthym. Zig._ i. 161.)
56 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένον; Ὁ μὲν οὄν Κύριος—ἐκ
δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii. 415.
57 Athanasii _Opp._ vol. ii. p. 181 F, 182 A. See the _Præfat._, pp.
vii., viii.
58 In dismissing this enumeration, let me be allowed to point out that
there must exist many more Patristic citations which I have
overlooked. The necessity one is under, on occasions like the
present, of depending to a great extent on “Indices,” is fatal; so
scandalously inaccurate is almost every Index of Texts that can be
named. To judge from the Index in Oehler’s edition of Tertullian,
that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times.
According to the Benedictine Index, Ambrose does not quote them so
much as once. Ambrose, nevertheless, quotes five of these verses no
less than fourteen times; while Tertullian, as far as I am able to
discover, does not quote S. Mark xvi. 9-20 at all.
Again. One hoped that the Index of Texts in Dindorf’s new Oxford ed.
of Clemens Alex. was going to remedy the sadly defective Index in
Potter’s ed. But we are still exactly where we were. S. John i. 3
(or 4), so remarkably quoted in vol. iii. 433, l. 8: S. John i. 18,
50, memorably represented in vol. iii. 412, l. 26: S. Mark i. 13,
interestingly referred to in vol. iii. 455, lines 5, 6, 7:—are
nowhere noticed in the Index. The Voice from Heaven at our SAVIOUR’S
Baptism,—a famous misquotation (vol. i. 145, l. 14),—does not appear
in the Index of quotations from S. Matthew (iii. 17), S. Mark (i.
11), or S. Luke (iii. 22.)]
59 Gregentius _apud_ Galland. xi. 653 E.—Greg. Mag. (Hom. xxix. in
Evang.)—Modestus _apud_ Photium cod. 275.—Johannis Damasceni _Opp._
(ed. 1712) vol. i. 608 E.—Bede, and Theophylact (who quotes _all_
the verses) and Euthymius _in loc._
60 Dr. Wright informs me (1871) that some more leaves of this Version
have just been recovered.
61 By a happy providence, one of the fragments contains the last four
verses.
62 In the margin, against S. Matth. xxviii. 5, Thomas writes,—“_In
tribus codicibus Græcis_, et in uno Syriaco antiquæ versionis, non
inventum est nomen, ‘Nazarenus.’ ”—Cf. ad xxvii. 35.—Adler’s _N. T.
Verss. Syrr._, p. 97.
63 That among the 437 various readings and marginal notes on the
Gospels relegated to the Philoxenian margin, should occur the
worthless supplement which is only found besides in Cod. L. (see ch.
viii.)—is not at all surprising. Of these 437 readings and notes, 91
are not found in White’s Edition; while 105 (the supplement in
question being one of them) are found in White only. This creates a
suspicion that in part at least the Philoxenian margin must exhibit
traces of the assiduity of subsequent critics of the Syriac text.
(So Adler on S. Matth. xxvi. 40.) To understand the character of
some of those marginal notes and annotations, the reader has but to
refer to Adler’s learned work, (pp. 79-134) and examine the notes on
the following places:—S. Matth. xv. 21: xx. 28 ( = D): xxvi. 7. S.
Mk. i. 16: xii. 42. S. Lu. x. 17 ( = B D): 42 ( = B א L): xi. 1: 53.
S. Jo. ii. 1 [3] ( = א): iii. 26: vii. 39 (partly = B): x. 8, &c.
&c.
64 This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona,
1861-4, under the following title:—_Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum
ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino demprompsit, edidit, Latine vertit,
Prolegomenis et Glossario adornavit, Comes_ FRANCISCUS MINISCALCHI
ERIZZO.
65 It does not sensibly detract from the value of this evidence that
one ancient codex, the “Codex Bobbiensis” (k), which Tregelles
describes as “a revised text, in which the influence of ancient MSS.
is discernible,” [_Printed text_, &c. p. 170.] and which therefore
may not be cited in the present controversy,—exhibits after ver. 8 a
Latin translation of the spurious words which are also found in Cod.
L.
66 “Quod Gothicum testimonium haud scio an critici satis agnoverint,
vel pro dignitate aestimaverint.” Mai, _Nova Patt. Bibl._ iv. 256.
_ 67 Account of the Printed Text_, p. 247.
_ 68 Gr. Test._ p. 322.
69 Ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὺαγγέλιον
μέχρι τοῦ ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, ἔχει τὸ τέλος. ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ
ταῦτα ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτῃ σαββάτων (sic) ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ
Μαγδαληνῇ ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. _Opp._ (ed. 1638) iii,
411 B.
70 Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 248, also in Horne’s _Introd._ iv.
434-6. So Norton, Alford, Davidson, and the rest, following
Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, &c.
_ 71 Nov. Auct._ i. 743-74.—_Bibl. Vett. PP._ xi. 221-6.
_ 72 Bibl. Coisl._ pp. 68-75.—_Catena_, i. 243-51.
73 Dionysius Syrus (i.e. the Monophysite Jacobus Bar-Salibi [see Dean
Payne Smith’s _Cat. of Syrr. MSS._ p. 411] who died A.D. 1171) in
his _Exposition of S. Mark’s Gospel_ (published at Dublin by Dudley
Loftus, 1672, 4to.) seems (at p. 59) to give this homily to
Severus.—I have really no independent opinion on the subject.
74 Alford, _Greek Test._ i. p. 433.
_ 75 Scriptorum Vett. Nova Collectio_, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1-101.
76 At p. 217, (_ed._ 1847), Mai designates it as “Codex Vat. Palat. cxx
pulcherrimus, sæculi ferme x.” At p. 268, he numbers it
rightly,—ccxx. We are there informed that the work of Eusebius
extends from fol. 61 to 96 of the Codex.
77 Vol. iv. pp. 219-309.
78 See _Nova P. P. Bibliotheca_, iv. 255.—That it was styled “Inquiries
with their Resolutions” (Ζητήματα καὶ Λύσεις), Eusebius leads us to
suppose by himself twice referring to it under that name,
(_Demonstr. Evang. lib._ vii. 3: also in the Preface to Marinus,
_Mai_, iv. 255:) which his abbreviator is also observed to employ
(_Mai_, iv. 219, 255.) But I suspect that he and others so designate
the work only from the nature of its contents; and that its actual
title is correctly indicated by Jerome,—_De Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ_:
“Edidit” (he says) “de Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ,” (_De Scriptt.
Illustt._ c. 81.) Again, Διαφωνία Εὐαγγελίων, (_Hieron._ in Matth.
i. 16.) Consider also the testimony of Latinus Latinius, given
below, p. 44, note (q). “Indicated” by Jerome, I say: for the entire
title was probably, Περὶ τῆς δοκούσης ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ.
διαφωνίας. The Author of the Catena on S. Mark edited by Cramer (i.
p. 266), quotes an opinion of Eusebius ἐν τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον περὶ τῆς
δοκούσης ἐν εὐαγγελίοις περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας: words which
are extracted from the same MS. by Simon, _Hist. Crit. N. T._ p. 89.
79 Ἐκλογὴ ἐν συντόμῳ ἐκ τῶν συντεθέντων ὑπὸ Εὐσεβίου πρὸς Στέφανον [and
πρὸς Μαρῖνον] περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων.
_Ibid._ pp. 219, 255.—(See the plate of fac-similes facing the title
of vol. i. ed. 1825.)
80 Σὐσέβιος ... ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἐπὶ ταῖς περὶ τοῦ θείου πάθους καὶ
τῆς ἀναστάσεως ζητήσεσι καὶ ἐκλύσεσι, κ.τ.λ. I quote the place from
the less known Catena of Cramer, (ii. 389,) where it is assigned to
Severus of Antioch: but it occurs also in _Corderii Cat. in Joan._
p. 436. (See Mai, iv. 299.)
81 This passage is too grand to be withheld:—Οὐ γὰρ ἤν ἀξιός τις ἐν τῇ
πόλει Ἰουδαίων, (ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος κεφαλαίωιγ πρὸς Μαρνον,) τὸ κατὰ
τοῦ διαβόλου τρόπαιον τὸν σταυρὸν βαστάσαι; ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐξ ἀγροῦ, ὅς
μηδὲν ἐπικεκοινώνηκε τῇ κατὰ χριστο μιαιφονίᾳ. (_Possini Cat. in
Marcum_, p. 343.)
82 Mai, iv. p. 299.—The Catenæ, inasmuch as their compilers are
observed to have been very curious in such questions, are evidently
full of _disjecta membra_ of the work. These are recognisable for
the most part by their form; but sometimes they actually retain the
name of their author. Accordingly, Catenæ have furnished Mai with a
considerable body of additional materials; which (as far as a MS.
Catena of Nicetas on S. Luke, [Cod. A. _seu_ Vat. 1611,] enabled
him,) he has edited with considerable industry; throwing them into a
kind of Supplement. (Vol. iv. pp. 268-282, and pp. 283-298.) It is
only surprising that with the stores at his command, Mai has not
contrived to enlighten us a little more on this curious subject. It
would not be difficult to indicate sundry passages which he has
overlooked. Neither indeed can it be denied that the learned
Cardinal has executed his task in a somewhat slovenly manner. He
does not seem to have noticed that what he quotes at pp.
357-8—262—283—295, is to be found in the _Catena_ of _Corderius_ at
pp. 448-9—449—450—457.—He quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of
John Xiphilinus, (_Cod. Vat._ p. 160,) what he might have found in
Possinus; and in Cramer too, (p. 446.) He was evidently unacquainted
with Cramer’s work, though it had been published 3 (if not 7) years
before his own,—else, at p. 299, instead of quoting Simon, he would
have quoted Cramer’s _Catenæ_, i. 266.—It was in his power to solve
his own shrewd doubt, (at p. 299,—concerning the text of a passage
in Possinus, p. 343,) seeing that the Catena which Possinus
published was transcribed by Corderius from a MS. in the Vatican.
(Possini _Præfat._ p. ii.) In the Vatican, too, he might have found
the fragment he quotes (p. 300) from p. 364 of the _Catena_ of
Possinus. In countless places he might, by such references, have
improved his often manifestly faulty text.
83 Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latinius (_Opp._ ii. 116.) to
Andreas Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis) “scire te vult in Siciliâ
inventos esse ... libros tres Eusebii Cæsariensis _de Evangeliorum
Diaphoniâ_, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt.” The letter
is dated 1563.
I suspect that when the original of this work is recovered, it will
be found that Eusebius digested his “Questions” _under heads_: e.g.
περὶ το τάφου, καὶ τῆς δοκούσης διαφωνίας (p. 264): περὶ τῆς
δοκούσης περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας. (p. 299.)
84 I translate according to the sense,—the text being manifestly
corrupt. Τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν is probably a gloss,
explanatory of τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτό. In strictness, the κεφάλαιον
begins at ch. xv. 42, and extends to the end of the Gospel. There
are 48 such κεφάλαια in S. Mark. But this term was often loosely
employed by the Greek Fathers, (as “capitulum” by the Latins,) to
denote _a passage_ of Scripture, and it is evidently so used here.
Περικοπή, on the contrary, in this place seems to have its true
technical meaning, and to denote the liturgical _section_, or
“lesson.”
85 Ἀνάγνωσμα (like περικοπή, spoken of in the foregoing note,) seems to
be here used in its technical sense, and to designate the liturgical
_section_, or “lectio.” See Suicer, _in voce_.
86 The text of Eusebius seems to have experienced some disarrangement
and depravation here.
87 Mai, _Bibl. P.P. Nova_, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the
original of this passage is given in the Appendix (B).
88 Mai, iv. 257. So far, I have given the substance only of what
Eusebius delivers with wearisome prolixity. It follows,—ὥστε τὸν
αὐτὸν σχεδὸν νοεῖσθαι καιρὸν, ἡ τὸν σφόδρα ἐγγὺς, παρὰ τοῖς
εὐαγγελισταῖς διαφόροις ὀνόμασι τετηρημένον. μηδέν τε διαφέρειν
Ματθαῖον ἰρηκότα “ὀψὲ—τάφον” [xxviii. 1.] Ἰωάννου φήσαντος “τῇ δὲ
μιᾷ—ἔτι οὔσης σκοτίας.” [xx. 1.] πλατυκῶς γὰρ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν
δηλοῦσι χρόνον διαφόροις ῥήμασι. [xxviii. 1.]—For the principal
words in the text, see the Appendix (B) _ad fin._
89 I allude to the following places:—Combefis, _Novum Auctarium_, col.
780.—Cod. Mosq. 138, (printed by Matthaei, _Anectt. Græc._ ii.
62.)—also Cod. Mosq. 139, (see N. T. ix. 223-4.)—Cod. Coislin. 195
_fol._ 165.—Cod. Coislin. 23, (published by Cramer, _Catt._ i.
251.)—Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T. i. 4, _fol._ 169.—Cod. Bodl.
Laud. Gr. 33, _fol._ 79.—Any one desirous of knowing more on this
subject will do well to begin by reading Simon _Hist. Crit. du N.
T._ p. 89. See Mai’s foot-note, iv. p. 257.
90 Ep. cxx. _Opera_, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. pp. 811-43.
_ 91 Ibid._ p. 844.
_ 92 Ibid._ p. 793-810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810.
93 “Hujus quæstionis duplex solutio est. [Τοῦτου διττὴ ἂν εἴν ἡ
λύσεις.] Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris
fertur [σπανίωσ ἔν τισι φερόμενα] Evangeliis, omnibus Græciæ libris
pene hec capitulum [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ] in fine non habentibus; [ἐν
τουτῷ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον
εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος]; præsertim cum diversa atque
contraria Evangelistis ceteris narrare videntur [μάλιστα εἴπερ
ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ.] Aut hoc
respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit [ἐκατέραν παραδεκτέαν
ὑπάρϗειν ... συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς.] Matthæus, quando Dominus
surrexerit vespere sabbati: Marcus autem, quando tum viderit Maria
Magdalena, id est, mane prima sabbati. Ita enim distinguendum est,
Cum autem resurrexisset: [μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωστέον Ἀναστὰς δέ:]
et, parumper, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima sabbati mane
apparuit Mariæ Magdalenæ: [εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες ῥητέον, Πρωι τῇ μιᾷ τῶν
σαββάτων ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Ut qui vespere sabbati, juxta
Matthæum surrexerat, [παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, ὀψὲ σαββάτων, τοτε γὰρ
ἐγήγερατο.] ipse mane prima sabbati, juxta Marcum, apparuerit Mariæ
Magdalenæ. [προί γὰρ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.]
Quod quidem et Joannes Evangelista significat, mane Eum alterius
diei visum esse demonstrans.” [τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης προί
καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ὦφθαι αὐτὸν μαρτυρήσας.]
For the Latin of the above, see _Hieronymi Opera_, (ed. Vallars.)
vol. i. p. 819: for the Greek, with its context, see Appendix (B).
94 ἠρώτας τὸ πρῶτον,—Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψὲ σαββάτων φαίνεται
ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων;
[Eusebius _ad Marinum_,(Mai, iv. 255.)]
Primum quæris,—Cur Matthæus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati
illucescente in una Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse; et Marcus mane
resurrectionem ejus factam esse commemorat. [Hieronymus _ad
Hedibiam_, (Opp. i. 818-9.)]
Πῶς κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ τεθεαμένη τὴν
ἀνάστασιν, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἡ αὐτὴ ἑστῶσα κλαίει παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ τῇ
μίᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου. [_Ut suprà_, p. 257.]
Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit
Dominum resurgentem; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam mane una
sabbati juxta sepulcrum fiere? [_Ut suprà_, p. 819.]
Πῶς, κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης
Μαρίας ἁψαμένη τῶν ποσῶν τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ἡ αὐτὴ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ
σαββάτου ἀκούει μή μου ἅπτου, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην. [_Ut suprà_, p.
262.]
Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alterâ
Mariâ advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joannem,
audierit à Domino, Noli me tangere. [_Ut suprà_, p. 821.]
95 Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 247.
96 See above, p. 28.
97 See above, p. 40-1.
98 See the Appendix (C) § 2.
99 See the Appendix (C) § 1.—For the statement in line 5, see § 2.
100 In the _Eccl. Grac. Monumenta_ of Cotelerius, (iii. 1-53,) may be
seen the discussion of 60 problems, headed,—Συναγωγή ἀποριῶν καὶ
ἐπιλύσεων, ἐκλεγεῖσα ἐν ἐπιτομῇ ἐκ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς συμφωνίας τοῦ
ἁγίου Ἡσυχίου πρεσβυτέρου Ἱεροσολύμων. From this it appears that
Hesychius, following the example of Eusebius, wrote a work on
“Gospel Harmony,”—of which nothing but an abridgment has come down
to us.
101 He says that he writes,—Πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὑποκειμένου προβλήματος λύσιν,
καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐξέτασιν τῶν ῥητῶν ἀναφουμένων ζητήσεων,
κ.τ.λ. Greg. Nyss._ Opp._ iii. 400 c.
102 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένομ;Ὁ μὲν οῦν Κύριος, κ.τ.λ.
Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii. 415 D.—See above, p. 29, note (g).
103 See below, chap. X.
_ 104 Fasti Romani_, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp. 395-495.
105 Vol. i. _Præfat._ p. xxviii. See below, note (p).
106 “Victor Antiochenus” (writes Dr. Tregelles in his N. T. vol. i. p.
214,) “dicit ὅτι νενόθενται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι
φερόμενον.”
107 For additional details concerning Victor of Antioch, and his work,
the studious in such matters are referred to the Appendix (D).
_ 108 Opp._ vol. vii. p. 825 E-826 B: or, in Field’s edition, p. 527,
line 3 to 20.
109 Cramer, i. p. 266, lines 10, 11,—ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος ὁ Καισαρείας ἐν
τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον κ.τ.λ. And at p. 446, line 19,—Εὐσεβιός φησιν ὁ
Καισαρείας κ.τ.λ.
110 Compare Cramer’s _Vict. Ant._ i. p. 444, line 6-9, with Field’s
_Chrys._ iii. p. 539, line 7-21.
111 Mai, iv. p. 257-8.
112 Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to p. 445, line 4.
113 The following is the original of what is given above:—Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν
τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων πρόσκειται τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ, “ἀναστὰς δὲ τῇ
μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου πρωί, ἐφάνη (see below) Μαρίᾳ τῆ Μαγδαληνῇ,” δοκεῖ
δὲ τοῦτο διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου εὶρημένῳ, ὲροῦμεν ὡς δυνατὸν μὲν
εἰπεῖν ὅτι νενόθευται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι φερόμενον.
πλὴν ἵνα μὴ δόξωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἕτοιμον καταφεύγειν, οὔτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα;
“ἀναστὰς δὲ,” καὶ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν, “πρωί τῇ μιᾶ τοῦ σαββάτου
ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.” ἵνα [_The extract from_ VICTOR _is
continued below in the right hand column: the left exhibiting the
text of_ EUSEBIUS “_ad Marinum_.”] [Transcriber’s Note: The extracts
will be on alternating paragraphs.]
(Eusebius.) τὸ μὲν “ἀναστὰς,” ἀν[απέμψωμεν?] ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ
“ὀψὲ σαββάτων.” (τότε γὰρ ἐγήγερτο.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας
ὑποστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις.
(Victor.) τὸ μὲν “ἀναστὰς,” ὰναπέμψωμεν ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ “ὀψὲ
σαββάτων.” (τότε γὰρ ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν πιστεύομεν.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας
ὄν διανοίας παραστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις;
(Eusebius.) (“πρωί” γὰρ “τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ
Μαγδαληνῇ.”)
(Victor.) (τὸν γὰρ “ὀψὲ σαββάτων” κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγαγερμένον ἱστορεῖ
“πρωί” ἑωρακέναι Μαρίαν τὴν Μαγδαληνήν.)
(Eusebius.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης “πρωί” καί αὐτὸς “τῇ
μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου” ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.
(Victor.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ Ἰωάννες, “πρωί” καὶ αὐτὸς “τῇ μιᾷ
τῶν σαββάτων” ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.
[31 words here omitted.]
(Eusebius.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς
αναστάσεως τὸν “ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου.” τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος
ἐπιφανείας, τὸν “πρωί.”
(Victor.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν τῆς
ἀναστάσεως, τὸν “ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου;” τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος
ἐπιφανείας, τὸ “προί.”
[EUSEBIUS, _apud Mai_, iv. p. 256.]
[VICTOR ANTIOCH, _ed. Cramer_, i. p. 444-5: (_with a few slight
emendations of the text from_ Evan. Cod. Reg. 178.)]
Note, that Victor _twice_ omits the word πρῶτον, and _twice_ reads
τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου, (instead of πρῶτῃ σαββάτου), _only because
Eusebius had inadvertently_ (three times) _done the same thing_ in
the place from which Victor is copying. See Mai. _Nova P. P. Bibl._
iv. p. 256, line 19 and 26: p. 257 line 4 and 5.
114 οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δἐ ὡς διαφόρους ὀπτασίας γεγενῆσθαί φασιν οἱ τὴν δοκοῦσαν
διαφωνίαν διαλῦσαι σπουδάζοντες. Vict. Ant. _ed. Cramer_, vol. i. p.
445, l. 23-5: referring to what Eusebius says _apud Mai_, iv. 264
and 265 (§ iiii): 287-290 (§§ v, vi, vii.)
115 e.g. in the passage last quoted.
116 For the original of this remarkable passage the reader is referred
to the Appendix (E).
117 How shrewdly was it remarked by Matthaei, eighty years ago,—“Scholia
certe, in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur, omnia _ex uno
fonte promanarunt_. Ex eodem fonte Hieronymum etiam hausisse
intelligitur ex ejus loco quem laudavit Wetst. ad ver. 9.—Similiter
Scholiastæ omnes in principio hujus Evangelii in disputatione de
lectione ἐν ἡσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτη ex uno pendent. _Fortasse Origenes
auctor est hujus dubitationis._” (N.T. vol. ii. p. 270.)—The reader
is invited to remember what was offered above in p. 47 (line 23.)
118 It is not often, I think, that one finds in MSS. a point actually
inserted after Ἀναστάς δέ. Such a point is found, however, in Cod.
34 ( = Coisl. 195,) and Cod. 22 ( = Reg. 72,) and doubtless in many
other copies.
119 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 47, 125, 431.
120 Φασὶ δέ τινες τῶν ἐξηγητῶν ἐνταῦθα συμπληροῦσθαι τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον
εὐαγγέλιον; τὰ δὲ ἐφεξῆς προσθήκην εἶναι μεταγενεστέραν. Χρὴ δὲ καὶ
ταύτην ἑρμηνεῦσαι μηδὲν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ λυμαινομένην.—Euthym. Zig. (_ed._
Matthaei, 1792), _in loc._
121 For some remarks on this subject the reader is referred to the
Appendix (F).
122 Viz. A, C [v]; D [vi]; E, L [viii]; F, K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π
[ix]; G, H, X, S, U [ix, x].
123 Vercellone,—_Del antichissimo Codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca_,
Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.)
_ 124 Dublin Univ. Mag._ (Nov. 1859,) p. 620, quoted by Scrivener, p. 93.
125 ὁμοιοτέλευτον.
126 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_ to his ed. of the Codex Bezæ, p.
xxiii. The passage referred to reappears at the end of his Preface
to the 2nd ed. of his _Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus_.—Add to his
instances, this from S. Matth. xxviii. 2, 3:—
ΚΑΙ ΕΚΑΘΗΤΟ Ε
ΠΑΝΩ ΑΥΤΟΥ [ΗΝ ΔΕ
Η ΕΙΔΕΑ ΑΥΤΟΥ] ΩΣ
ΑΣΤΡΑΠΗ
It is plain why the scribe of א wrote επανω αυτου ως αστραπη.—The
next is from S. Luke xxiv. 31:—
ΔΙΗΝΥΓΗ
ΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙ
ΚΑΙ [ΕΠΕΓΝΩΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟ
ΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΣ ΑΦΑΝ
ΤΟΣ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ
Hence the omission of και επεγνωσαν αυτον in א.—The following
explains the omission from א (and D) of the Ascension at S. Luke
xxiv. 52:—
ΑΠ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ [ΑΝ
ΕΦΕΡΕΤΟ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ
ΟΥΡΑΝΟΝ ΚΑΙ] ΑΥ
ΤΟΙ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΣΙ
The next explains why א reads περικαλυψαντες επηρωτων in S. Luke
xxii. 64:—
ΔΕΡΟΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕ
ΠΙΚΑΛΥΨΑΝΤΕΣ Ε
[ΤΥΠΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟ
ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΝ ΚΑΙ Σ]
ΠΗΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΥΤΟ
The next explains why the words και πας εις αυτην βιαζεται are
absent in א (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16:—
ΕΥΑΓΓΕ
ΛΙΖΕΤΑΙ [ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣ
ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΒΙ
ΑΖΕΤΑΙ] ΕΥΚΟΠΩ
ΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΤΟ
127 In this way, (at S. John xvii. 15, 16), the obviously corrupt
reading of Cod. B (ινα τηρησης αυτους εκ του κοσμου)—which, however,
was the reading of the copy used by Athanasius (_Opp._ p. 1035: _al.
ed._ p. 825)—is explained:—
ΕΚ ΤΟΥ [ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ.
ΕΚ ΤΟΥ] ΚΟΣΜΟΥ
ΟΥΚ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΚΑΘΩΣ
Thus also is explained why B (with א, A, D, L) omits a precious
clause in S. Luke xxiv. 42:—
ΟΠΤΟΥ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ
[ΑΠΟ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΙ
ΟΥ ΚΗΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ]
ΛΑΒΩΝ ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝ
And why the same MSS. (all but A) omit an important clause in S.
Luke xxiv. 53:—
ΕΝ ΤΩ ΙΕΡΩ [ΑΙΝ
ΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ] ΕΥΛΟ
ΓΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΗΟΝ
And why B (with א, L) omits an important clause in the history of
the Temptation (S. Luke iv. 5) :—
ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΑΓΩΝ ΑΥ
ΤΟΝ [ΕΙΣ ΟΡΟΣ ΥΨΗ
ΛΟΝ] ΕΔΙΞΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ
128 In this way the famous omission (א, B, L) of the word δευτεροπρώτῳ,
in S. Luke vi. 1, is (to say the least) capable of being explained:—
ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ Δ Ε ΕΝ ΣΑΘ
ΒΑΤΩ Δ[ΕΥΤΕΡΟ
ΠΡΩΤΩ Δ]ΙΑΠΟΡΕΥΕ
and of υιου Βαραχιου (א) in S. Matth. xxvii. 35:—
ΑΙΜΑΤΟΣ ΖΑΧΑΡΙΟΥ
[ΥΙΟΥ ΒΑΡΑΧΙΟΥ]
ΟΝ ΕΦΟΝΕΥΣΑΤΕ
129 He has reached the 480th page of vol. ii. (1 Cor. v. 7.)
130 In this way 14 words have been omitted from Cod. א in S. Mark xv.
47—xvi. 1:—19 words in S. Mark i. 32-4:—20 words in S. John xx. 5,
6:—39 words in S. John xix. 20, 21.
131 Scrivener’s _Full Collation_, &c., p. xv.; quoting Tregelles’ N. T.
Part II. page ii.
132 See Chap. IV. p. 37.
133 Scrivener’s _Introduction to Con. Bezae_, p. liv.
134 e.g. in S. John i. 42 (meaning only א, B, L): iv. 42 (א, B, C): v.
12 (א, B, C, L): vi. 22 (A, B, L), &c.
135 e.g. S. Matth. x. 25; xii. 24, 27: S. Luke xi. 15, 18, 19
(βεεζεβουλ).—1 Cor. xiii. 3 (καυχησωμαι).—S. James i. 17
(αποσκιασματος).—Acts i. 5 (εν πν. βαπ. αγ.).—S. Mark vi. 20
(ηπορει).—S. Matth. xiv. 30 (ισχυρον).—S. Luke iii. 32 (ἰωβηλ).—Acts
i. 19 (ἰδίᾳ omitted).—S. Matth. xxv. 27 (τα αργυρια).—S. Matth.
xvii. 22 (συστρεφομενων).—S. Luke vi. 1 (δευτεροπρῶτῳ omitted).—See
more in Tischendorf’s _Prolegomena_ to his 4to. reprint of the _Cod.
Sin._ p. xxxvi. On this head the reader is also referred to
Scrivener’s very interesting _Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus_,
Introduction, p. xliii. _seq._
136 See Tischendorf’s note in his reprint of the Cod. Sin., _Prolegg._
p. lix.
137 Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος—καταβαίνοντα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. S. Luke xxii. 43, 44.
138 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς—τί ποιοῦσι, (xxiii. 34):—γράμμασιν Ἐλληνικοῖς καὶ
Ῥωμαῖκοῖς καὶ Ἐβραῖκοῖς, (xxiii. 38.)
139 αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και
αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!
_ 140 Coll. of the Cod. Sin._, p. xlvii.
141 So, in the margin of the Hharklensian revision.
142 Note, that it is a mistake for the advocates of this reading to
claim the _Latin_ versions as allies. Ἀπεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος, Ἄνθρωπος
λεγόμενος Ἰησοῦς κ.τ.λ. is not “Respondit, Ille homo qui dicitur
Jesus,” (as both Tischendorf and Tregelles assume;) but “_Respondit
ille_, Homo,” &c.,—as in verses 25 and 36.
143 This reading will be found discussed in a footnote (p) at the end of
Chap. VII.,—p. 110.
144 The following may be added from Cod. א:—μεγάλοι αὐτῶν (in S. Mark x.
42) changed into βασιλεις: ειπεν (in S. Mark xiv. 58) substituted
for ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτου λέγοντος: εβδομηκοντα τεσσαρων (in S. Lu.
ii. 37) for ὀγδοηκ: and εωρακεν σε (in S. Jo. viii. 57) for
ἑώρακας:—in all which four readings Cod. א is without support.
[Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. li.] The epithet μεγαν, introduced
(in the same codex) before λίθον in S. Mark xv. 46; and και πατριας
inserted into the phrase ἐξ οἴκου Δαβίδ in S. Lu. i. 27,—are two
more specimens of mistaken officiousness. In the same infelicitous
spirit, Cod. B and Cod. א concur in omitting ἰσχυρόν (S. Matt. xiv.
30), and in substituting πυκνα for πυγμῇ, and ραντισωνται for
βαπτίσωνται in S. Mark vii. 3 and 4:—while the interpolation of
τασσομενος after ἐξουσίαν in S. Matth. viii. 9, because of the
parallel place in S. Luke’s Gospel; and the substitution of ανθρωπος
αυστηρος ει (from S. Luke xix. 21) for σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος in S.
Matth. xxv. 24, are proofs that yet another kind of corrupting
influence has been here at work besides those which have been
already specified.
145 Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. xlvii.
146 Add to the authorities commonly appealed to for ἐξελθ. Chrys.^834
(twice,) (also quoted in Cramer’s _Cat._ 241). The mistake adverted
to in the text is at least as old as the time of Eusebius, (Mai, iv.
p. 264 = 287), who asks,—Πῶς παρά τῷ Ματθάιῳ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία μετὰ
τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἔξω τοῦ μνήματος ἑώρακεν τὸν ἕνα ἄγγελον
ἐπικαθήμενον τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ μνήματος, κ.τ.λ.
147 Tischendorf accordingly _is forced_, for once, to reject the reading
of his oracle א,—witnessed to though it be by Origen and Eusebius.
His discussion of the text in this place is instructive and even
diverting. How is it that such an instance as the present does not
open the eyes of Prejudice itself to the danger of pinning its faith
to the consentient testimony even of Origen, of Eusebius, and of
Cod. א?... The reader is reminded of what was offered above, in the
lower part of p. 49.
148 A similar perversion of the truth of Scripture is found at S. Luke
iv. 44, (cf. the parallel place, S. Matth. iv. 23: S. Mark i. 89).
It does not mend the matter to find א supported this time by Codd.
B, C, L, Q, R.
149 S. Lu. xxiii. 45:—ὅπερ οὐδέποτε πρότερον συνέβη, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν Αἰγύπτω
μόνον, ὅτε τὸ πάσχα τελεῖσθαι ἔμελλε; καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνα τούτων τύπος
ἦν. (Chrys. vii. 824 c.)
150 ὅπως δὲ μὴ εἰπωσί τινες ἔκλειψιν εἶναι τὸ γεγενημένον, ἐν τῇ
τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτη ἡμέρᾳ τῆς σελήνης γἐγονε τὸ σκότος:—ὅτε ἔκλειψιν
συμβῆναι ἀμήχανον. So Victor of Antioch, in his Catena on S. Mark
(ed. Possin.) He makes the remark twice: first (p. 351) in the midst
of an abridgment of the beginning of Chrysostom’s 88th Homily on S.
Matthew: next (p. 352) more fully, after quoting “the great
Dionysius” of Alexandria. See also an interesting passage on the
same subject in Cramer’s _Catena in Matth._ i. p. 237,—from whom
derived, I know not; but professing to be from Chrysostom. (Note,
that the 10 lines ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου, beginning p. 236, line 33 = Chrys.
vii. 824, D, E.) The very next words in Chrysostom’s published
Homily (p. 825 A.) are as follows:—Ὅτε γὰρ οὐκ ἦν ἔκλειψις, αλλ᾽
ὀργή τε καὶ ἀγανάκτησις, οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ
τοῦ καιροῦ; τρεῖς γἀρ ὥρας παρέμεινεν, ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ γίνεται
καιροῦ ῥοπῇ.—Anyone who would investigate this matter further should
by all means read Matthaei’s long note on S. Luke xxiii. 45.
151 See above, p. 70, and the Appendix (F).
152 Tischendorf’s “_Introduction_” to his (Tauchnitz) edition of the
English N.T., 1869,—p. xiii.
153 “Epistola quam nos ‘ad Ephesios’ præscriptam habemus, hæretici vero
’ad Laodicenos.” _Adv. Marcion._ lib. v. c. xi, p. 309 (ed. Oehler.)
154 “ ‘Titulum’ enim ‘_ad Laodicenos_’ ut addidisse accusatur a
Tertulliano, ita in salutatione verba ἐν Ἐφέσῳ omnino non legisse
censendus est.” (N. T. _in loc._)
155 “Ecclesiæ quidem veritate Epistolam istam ‘ad Ephesios’ habemus
emissam, non ‘ad Laodicenos;’ sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando
interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.”
_Adv. Marcion._ lib. v. c. xvii, pp. 322-3 (ed. Oehler.)
156 ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ἰκανῶν. (Epiphan. _Opp._ i. 310 c.)
157 He describes its structure minutely at vol. i. pp. 309-310, and from
pp. 312-7; 318-321. [Note, by the way, the gross blunder which has
crept into the printed text of Epiphanius at p. 321 D: pointed out
long since by Jones, _On the Canon_, ii. 38.] His plan is excellent.
Marcion had rejected every Gospel except S. Luke’s, and of S. Paul’s
Epistles had retained only ten,—viz. (1st) Galatians, (2nd and 3rd)
I and II Corinthians, (4th) Romans, (5th and 6th) I and II
Thessalonians, (7th) _Ephesians_, (8th) Colossians, (9th) Philemon,
(10th) Philippians. Even these he had mutilated and depraved. And
yet out of that one mutilated Gospel, Epiphanius selects 78
passages, (pp. 312-7), and out of those ten mutilated Epistles, 40
passages more (pp. 318-21); by means of which 118 texts he
undertakes to refute the heresy of Marcion. (pp. 322-50: 350-74.)
[It will be perceived that Tertullian goes over Marcion’s work in
much the same way.] Very beautiful, and well worthy of the student’s
attention, (though it comes before us in a somewhat incorrect form,)
is the remark of Epiphanius concerning the living energy of GOD’S
Word, even when dismembered and exhibited in a fragmentary shape.
“Ὅλου γὰρ τοῦ σώματος ζῶντος, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τῆς θείας γραφῆς, ποῖον
ηὕρισκε (sc. Marcion) μέλος νεκρὸν κατὰ τῆν αὐτοῦ γνώμην, ἵνα
παρεισαγάγη ψεῦδος κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας; ... παρέκοψε πολλὰ τῶν μελῶν,
κατέσχε δὲ ἔνιά τινα παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ; καὶ αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ κατασχεθέντα ἔτι
ζῶντα οὐ δύναται νεκροῦσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ μὲν τὸ ζωτικὸν τῆς ἐμφάσεως,
κᾴν τε μυρίως παρ᾽ αὐτῷ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἀποτμηθείν.” (p. 375 B.) He
seems to say of Marcion,—
Fool! to suppose thy shallow wits
Could quench a fire like that. Go, learn
That cut into ten thousand bits
Yet every bit would breathe and burn!
158 He quotes Ephes. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14: v. 14: v. 31. (See Epiphanius,
_Opp._ i. p. 318 and 371-2.)
_ 159 Ibid._ p. 318 C ( = 371 B), and 319 A ( = 374 A.)
_ 160 Ibid._ p. 319 and 374. But note, that through error in the copies,
or else through inadvertence in the Editor, the depravation
commented on at p. 374 B, C, is lost sight of at p. 319 B.
161 See below, at the end of the next note.
162 Προσέθετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ Ἀποστολικῷ καλουμένῳ καὶ τῆς καλουμένης πρὸς
Λαοδικέας:—“Εῖς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν βάπτισμα, εἶς Χριστὸς, εἶς
Θεὸς, καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.”
(Epiphan. _Opp._ vol i. p. 374.) Here is obviously a hint of τριῶν
ἀνάρχων ἀρχῶν διαφορὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλας ἐξουσῶν: [Μαρκίωνος γὰρ τοῦ
ματαιόφρονος δίδαγμα, εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχὰς τῆς μοναρχίας τομὴν καὶ
διαίρεσιν. Athanas. i. 231 E.] but, (says Epiphanius), οὐχ οὕτως
ἔχει ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀποστόλου ὑπόθεσις καὶ ἠσφαλισμένον κήρυγμα. ἀλλὰ
ἄλλως παρὰ τὸ σὸν ποιήτευμα. Then he contrasts with the
“fabrication” of Marcion, the inspired verity,—Eph. iv. 5: declaring
ἕνα Θεὸν, τὸν αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων,—τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πάντων, καὶ ἐν
πᾶσι, κ.τ.λ.—p. 374 C.
Epiphanius reproaches Marcion with having obtained materials ἐκτὸς
τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου; οὐ γὰρ ἔδοξε τῷ ἐλεεινοτάτῳ
Μαρκίωνι ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν λέγειν, (sc. the
words quoted above,) ἀλλὰ τῆς πρὸς Λαοδικέας, τῆς μὴ οὔσης ἐν τῷ
Ἀποστόλῳ (p. 375 A.) (Epiphanius here uses Ἀπόστολος in its
technical sense,—viz. as synonymous with S. Paul’s Epistles.)
163 “Ὠριγένης δέ φησι,—”Ἐπὶ μόνων Ἐφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ “τοῖς
ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι;” καὶ ζητοῦμεν, εἰ μὴ παρέλκει προσκείμενον τὸ
“τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι,” τί δύναται σημαίνειν; ὅρα οὖν εἰ μὴ ὥσπερ
ἐν τῇ Ἐξόδω ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ χρηματίζων Μωσεί τὸ ὬΝ οὕτως οἱ
μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος γίνονται “ὄντες.” καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ
εἶς αι εἰς τὸ εἶναι. “ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα,” φησὶν ὁ
αὐτὸς Παῦλος, “ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήση.”—Cramer’s _Catena in Ephes._
i. 1,—vol. vi. p. 102.
164 Consider S. John i. 42, 44, 46: v. 14: ix. 35: xii. 14, &c.
165 Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ Ὄντι δι᾽
ἐπιγνώσεως, “ὄντας” αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών: “τοῖς ἀγίοις
τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.” οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν
παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν.
Note also what immediately follows. (Basil _Opp._ i. p. 254 E, 255
A.)
166 See the places quoted by Scrivener, _Introd._ pp. 381-91;
particularly p. 385.
167 Hieron. _Opp._ vol. vii. p. 543:—“Illud quoque in Præfatione
commoneo, ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistolam
conscripsisse, quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus.”
168 “Quidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum
est ‘Haec dices filiis Israel, QUI EST misit me,’ etiam eos qui
Ephesi sunt [Note this. Cf. ‘qui sunt Ephesi,’ _Vulg._] sancti et
fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos: ut ... ab EO ‘qui est,’ hi
‘qui sunt’ appellentur.... Alii veto simpliciter, non ad eos ‘qui
sint,’ sed ‘qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint’ scriptum
arbitrantur.” Hieron. _Opp._ vii. p. 545 A, B.
169 The cursive “Cod. No. 67” (or “672”) is improperly quoted as
“omitting” (Tisch.) these words. The reference is to a MS. in the
Imperial Library at Vienna, (Nessel 302: Lambec. 34, which = our
Paul 67), collated by Alter (N.T. 1786, vol. ii. pp. 415-558), who
says of it (p. 496),—“_cod. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ punctis notat_.” ... The MS.
must have a curious history. H. Treschow describes it in his
_Tentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece_, &c. Havn. 1773, pp.
62-73.—Also, A. C. Hwiid in his _Libellus Criticus de indole Cod.
MS. Graeci N. T. Lambec. xxxiv._ &c. Havn. 1785.—It appears to have
been corrected by some Critic,—perhaps from Cod. B itself.
170 So indeed does Cod. א occasionally. See Scrivener’s _Collation_, p.
xlix.
171 Scrivener’s _Introduction to Codex Bezae_, p. liv.
172 Scrivener, _Coll. of Cod. Sin._ p. xlv.
173 Eph. vi. 21, 22.
174 Coloss. iv. 7, 16.
_ 175 Ubi suprà_.
_ 176 Gnomon_, in Ephes. i. 1, _ad init._
177 See above, pp. 93-6. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius (_ad
Ephes._ c. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also Lardner,
vol. ii.
178 Let it be clearly understood by the advocates of this expedient for
accounting for the state of the text of Codd. B. and א, that nothing
whatever is gained for the credit of those two MSS. by their
ingenuity. Even if we grant them all they ask, the Codices in
question remain, by their own admission, _defective_.
Quite plain is it, by the very hypothesis, that one of two courses
alone remains open to them in editing the text: either (1) _To leave
a blank space_ after τοῖς οὔσιν: or else, (2) _To let the words_ ἐν
Ἐφέσῳ _stand_,—which I respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they
can do. [For with Conybeare and Howson (_Life and Letters of S.
Paul_, ii. 491), to eject the words “at Ephesus” from the text of
Ephes. i. 1, and actually to substitute in their room the words “in
Laodicea,”—is plainly abhorrent to every principle of rational
criticism. The remarks of C. and H. on this subject (pp. 486 ff)
have been faithfully met and sufficiently disposed of by Dean Alford
(vol. iii. _Prolegg._ pp. 13-8); who infers, “in accordance with the
prevalent belief of the Church in all ages, that this Epistle was
_veritably addressed to the Saints in Ephesus_, and _to no other
Church_.”] In the former case, they will be exhibiting a curiosity;
viz. they will be shewing us how (they think) a duplicate (“carta
bianca”) copy of the Epistle looked with “the space after τοῖς οὔσι
left utterly void:” in the latter, they will be representing the
archetypal copy which was sent to the Metropolitan see of Ephesus.
But by printing the text thus,—τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσω] καὶ
πιστοῖς κ.τ.λ., they are acting on an entirely different theory.
They are merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every MS.
in the world except Codd. B and א. This is clearly to forsake the
“Encyclical” hypothesis altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the
same footing as any other disputed text of Scripture which can be
named.
179 Ἐγκύκλιον ἐπιστολήν, vel ἐγκύκλια γράμματα Christophorsonus et alii
interpretantur _literas circulares_: ego cum viris doctis malim
_Epistolas_ vel _literas publicas_, ad omnes fideles pertinentes,
quas Græci aliàs vocant ἐπιστολὰς καθολικάς.—Suicer _in voce_.
180 Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὕται, οἰονεὶ ἐγκύκλιοι—See Suicer _in voce_,
Ἐγκύκλιος.
181 Routh’s _Reliquiæ_, vol. iii. p. 266.—“Tum ex Conciliis, tum ex
aliis Patrum scriptis notum est, consuevisse primos Ecclesiao Patres
acta et decreta Conciliorum passim ad omnes Dei Ecclesias mittere
per epistolas, quas non uni privatim dicârunt, sed publice describi
ab omnibus, dividi passim et pervulgari, atque cum omnibus populis
communicari voluerunt. Hac igitur epistolae ἐγκύκλιοι vocatae sunt,
quia κυκλόσε, quoquò versum et in omnem partem mittebantur.”—Suicer
_in voc._
182 “On the whole,” says Bishop Middleton, (_Doctrine of the Greek Art._
p. 355) “I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (on
Col. iv. 16,)—‘that the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by Tychicus,
who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans;
with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians.’ ”—This
suggestion is intended to meet _another_ difficulty, and leaves the
question of the reading of Ephes. i. 1 untouched. It proposes only
to explain what S. Paul means by the enigmatical expression which is
found in Col. iv. 16.
Macknight’s suggestion, though it has found favour with many
subsequent Divines, appears to me improbable in a high degree. S.
Paul is found not to have sent _the Colossians_ “word by Tychicus,
who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans.”
He charged them, himself, to do so. Why, at the same instant, is the
Apostle to be thought to have adopted two such different methods of
achieving one and the same important end? And why, instead of this
roundabout method of communication, were not _the Ephesians_
ordered,—if not by S. Paul himself, at least by Tychicus,—to send a
copy of their Epistle to Colosse direct? And why do we find the
Colossians charged to read publicly τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, which (by the
hypothesis) would have been only a copy,—instead of τὴν ἐξ Ἐφέσου,
which, (by the same hypothesis,) would have been the original? Nay,
why is it not designated by S. Paul, τὴν πρὸς Ἐφεσίους,—(if indeed
it was his Epistle to the Ephesians which is alluded to,) instead of
τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας; which would hardly be an intelligible way of
indicating the document? Lastly, why are not the Colossians ordered
to communicate a copy of their Epistle to the illustrious Church of
the _Ephesians_ also, which had been originally addressed by S.
Paul? If the Colossians must needs read the Epistle (so like their
own) which the Apostle had just written to the Ephesians, surely the
Ephesians must also be supposed to have required a sight of the
Epistle which S. Paul had at the same time written to the
Colossians!
183 Epiphan. _Opp._ i. 311 D.
184 “Marcion exerte et palam machæra non stilo usus est, quoniam ad
materiam suam cædem Scripturarum confecit.” (Tertullian _Præscript.
Hær._ c. 38, p. 50.) “Non miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas
totas plerumque subducat.” (_Adv. Marcion._ lib. v, c. xvii, p.
455.)
185 See above p. 95, and see note (f) p. 94.
186 See, by all means, Alford on this subject, vol. iii. _Prolegg._ pp.
13-15.
187 p. xiv.—See above, pp. 8, 9, note (f).
188 One is rather surprised to find the facts of the case so unfairly
represented in addressing unlearned readers; who are entitled to the
largest amount of ingenuousness, and to entire sincerity of
statement. The facts are these:—
(1) Valentt. (_apud_ Irenæum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus
(_apud_ Clem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenæus himself, (2) Clemens
Alex., and (3) Theodotus (_apud_ Clem.) _also_ read ἦν. These
testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also
has _both_ readings.—Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads ἔστι; but
Origen, (though he remarks that ἔστι is “perhaps not an improbable
reading,”) reads ἦν _ten or eleven times_. Ἦν is also the reading of
Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Theodoret,—of the
Vulgate, of the Memphitic, of the Peshito, and of the Philoxenian
Versions; as well as of B, A, C,—in fact of _all the MSS. in the
world_, except of א and D.
All that remains to be set on the other side are the Thebaic and
Cureton’s Syriac, together with most copies of the early Latin.