And now, with the evidence thus all before us, will any one say that

it is lawfully a question for discussion which of these two readings

must exhibit the genuine text of S. John i. 4? (For I treat it as a

question of authority, and reason from _the evidence_,—declining to

import into the argument what may be called _logical_

considerations; though I conceive them to be all on my side.) I

suspect, in fact, that the inveterate practice of the primitive age

of reading the place after the following strange fashion,—ὁ γέγονεν

ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, was what led to this depravation of the text. Cyril

in his Commentary [heading of lib. i, c. vi.] so reads S. John i. 3,

4. And to substitute ἐστί (for ἦν) in such a sentence as _that_, was

obvious.... Chrysostom’s opinion is well known, “Let us beware of

putting the full stop” (he says) “at the words οὐδὲ ἐν,—as do the

heretics.” [He alludes to Valentinus, Heracleon (Orig. _Opp._ i.

130), and to Theodotus (_apud_ Clem. Alex.). But it must be

confessed that Irenæus, Hippolytus (_Routh, Opusc._ i. 68), Clemens

Alex., Origen, Concil. Antioch. (A.D. 269, _Routh_ iii. 293),

Theophilus Antioch., Athanasius, Cyril of Jer.,—besides of the

Latins, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus (_Routh_ iii. 459), and

Augustine,—point the place in the same way. “It is worth our

observation,” (says Pearson,) “that Eusebius citing the place of S.

John to prove that the HOLY GHOST was made by the SON, leaves out

those words twice together by which the Catholics used to refute

that heresy of the Arians, viz. ὁ γέγονεν.”]

Chrysostom proceeds,—“In order to make out that THE SPIRIT is a

creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the

Evangelist’s language is made unintelligible.” (_Opp._ viii.

40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not

by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson’s note,

referred to _infrà_), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the

sentence as we do.—See by all means on this subject Pearson’s _note_

(_z_), ART. viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh’s _Opusc._ i.

88-9.

189 It may not be altogether useless that I should follow this famous

Critic of the text of the N. T. over the ground which he has himself

chosen. He challenges attention for the four following readings of

the Codex Sinaiticus:—

(1.) S. JOHN i. 4: εν αυτω ζωη εστιν.—(2.) S. MATTH. xiii. 35: το

ρηθεν δια ησαιου του προφετου.—(3.) S. JOHN xiii. 10: ο λελουμενος

ουχ εχι χρειαν νιψασθαι.—(4.) S. JOHN vi. 51: αν τις φαγη εκ του

εμου αρυου, ζησει εις τον αιωνα;—ο αρτος ον εγω δωσω υπερ της του

κοσμου ζωης η σαρξ μου εστιν. (And this, Dr. Teschendorf asserts to

be “indubitably correct.”)

On inspection, these four readings prove to be exactly what might

have been anticipated from the announcement that they are almost the

private property of the single Codex א. The last three are

absolutely worthless. They stand self-condemned. To examine is to

reject them: the second (of which Jerome says something _very_

different from what Tisch. pretends) and fourth being only two more

of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired

Text, of which this Codex contains so many sorry specimens: the

third being clearly nothing else but the result of the carelessness

of the transcriber. Misled by the like ending (ὁμοιοτέλευτον) he has

_dropped a line_: thus:—

ΟΥΧ ΕΧΙ ΧΡΕΙΑΝ [ΕΙ

ΜΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ] ΝΙ

ΨΑΣΘΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΣΤΙΝ

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

110.

190 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 386. The whole Chapter deserves

careful study.

191 Deut. xvi. 19.

_ 192 Printed Text_, p. 254.

193 Viz. Codd. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137,

138, 143, 181, 186, 196, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222.

194 Wetstein quoted 14 Codices in all: but Griesbach makes no use of his

reference to Reg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242?) which = Evan.

15, 19, 299 (?) respectively.

_ 195 Variae Lectiones_, &c. (1801, p. 225-6.)—He cites Codd. Vatt. 358,

756, 757, 1229 (= our 129, 137, 138, 143): Cod. Zelada (= 181):

Laur. vi. 18, 34 (= 186, 195): Ven. 27 (= 210): Vind. Lamb. 38, 89,

Kol. 4 (= 221, 222, 108): Cod. iv. (_leg._ 5 ?) S. Mariæ Bened.

Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6, 10 (= 206, 209.)

_ 196 Nov. Test._ vol. i. p. 199.

197 Vat. 756, 757 = our Evan. 137, 138.

198 Quo signo tamquam censoria virgula usi sunt librarii, qua

Evangelistarum narrationes, in omnibus Codicibus non obvias, tamquam

dubias notarent.—_Variae Lectiones_, &c. p. 225.

199 In Cod. 264 (= Paris 65) for instance, besides at S. Mk. xvi. 9, +

occurs at xi. 12, xii. 38, and xiv. 12. On the other hand, no such

sign occurs at the _pericope de adulterá_.

200 Further obligations to the same friend are acknowledged in the

Appendix (D).

201 Similarly, in Cod. Coisl. 20, in the Paris Library, (which = our

36,) against S. Mark xvi. 9, is this sign [symbol: inverse or open

x]. It is intended (like an asterisk in a modern book) to refer the

reader to the self-same annotation which is spoken of in the text as

occurring in Cod. Vat. 756, and which is observed to occur in the

margin of the Paris MS. also.

202 ἐντεῦθεν ἔως τοῦ τέλους ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται: ἐν δε τοῖς

ἀρχαίοις, πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται.—(Codd. 20 and 300 = Paris 188,

186.)

203 See more concerning this matter in the Appendix (D), _ad fin._

204 At the end of S. Matthew’s Gospel in Cod. 300 (at fol. 89) is

found,—

εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμοις

παλαιὼν ἀντιγράφων, ἐν στίχοις βφιδ

and at the end of S. Mark’s, (at fol. 147 _b_)—

εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν

ἐσπουδασμένων στίχοις αφς κεφαλαίοις σλξ

This second colophon (though not the first) is found in Cod. 20.

_Both_ reappear in Cod. 262 ( = Paris 53), and (with an interesting

variety in the former of the two) in [what I suppose is the first

half of] the uncial Codex Λ. See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 125.

205 = Paris 72, _fol._ 107 _b_. He might have added, (for Wetstein had

pointed it out 79 years before,) that _the same note precisely_ is

found between verses 8 and 9 in Cod. 15 ( = Paris 64,) _fol._ 98

_b_.

206 See more at the very end of Chap. XI.

207 Cod. 1. (at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (which = Venet. 6 and 10)

contain as follows:—

ἔν τισι μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ Εὐαγγελιστὴς, ἕως οἱ

καὶ Ἐυσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν; ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ ταῦτα φέρεται;

ἀναστὰς, κ.τ.λ.

But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV. [_lege_

5],) according to Birch (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has

only this:—

ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖνται [?] ταῦτα.

208 It originated in this way. At the end of S. Matthew’s Gospel, in

both Codices, are found those large extracts from the “2nd Hom. on

the Resurrection” which Montfaucon published in the _Bibl. Coisl._

(pp. 68-75), and which Cramer has since reprinted at the end of his

_Catena in S. Matth._ (i. 243-251.) In Codd. 34 and 39 they are

ascribed to “Severus of Antioch.” See above (p. 40.) See also pp. 39

and 57.

209 See above, pp. 64, 65.

210 22-3 (199, 206, 209) = 19 + 1 (374) = 20.

211 viz. Codd. L, 1, 199, 208, 209:—20, 300:—15, 22.

212 Cod. Λ, 20, 262, 300.

213 Evan. 374.

214 viz. Evan. 24, 36, 37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137,

138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222. (Birch _Varr. Lectt_. p.

225.) Add Evan. 374 (Scholz.) Add Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the

Moscow Codex (qu. Evan. 253?) employed by Matthaei.

215 2 (viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 (enumerated in the preceding

note) = 24.

216 Paris 62, _olim,_ 2861 and 1558.

217 See the facsimile.—The original, (which knows nothing of

Tischendorf’s crosses,) reads as follows:—

ΦΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΥ

ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ

ΠΑΝΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΗ

ΓΓΕΛΜΕΝΑ ΤΟΙΣ

ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΕΤΡΟΝ

ΣΥΝΤΟΜΩΣ ΕΞΗ

ΓΓΙΛΑΝ - ΜΕΤΑ

ΔΕ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΡ

Ο ΙΣ, ΑΠΟ ἈΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ

ΚΑΙ ἈΧΡΙ ΔΥΣΕΩΣ

ἘΞΑΠΕΣΤΙΛΕΝ ΔΙ

ΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝ

ΚΑΙ ἉΦΘΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΗ

ΡΥΓΜΑ - ΤΗΣ ΑΙΩ

ΝΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑΣ

ΕΣΤΗΝ ΔΕ ΚΑΙ

ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΟ

ΜΕΝΑ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟ

ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ

ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ ΠΡΩΙ

ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩ

_i.e._—φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦτα

Πάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τον Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήλλειλαν:

μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως

ἐξαπέστειλεν δι᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου

σωτηρίας.

Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου.

218 As, the Codex Bobbiensis (k) of the old Latin, and the margin of two

Æthiopic MSS.—I am unable to understand what Scholz and his copyists

have said concerning Cod. 274. I was assured again and again at

Paris that they knew of no such codex as “Reg, 79a,” which is

Scholz’ designation (_Prolegg._ p. lxxx.) of the Cod. Evan. which,

after him, we number “274.”

219 Nec AMMONII Sectionibus, nec EUSEBII Canonibus, agnoscuntur ultimi

versus.—Tisch. _Nov. Test._ (_ed. 8va_), p. 406.

_ 220 Printed Text_, p. 248.

221 The reader is invited to test the accuracy of what precedes for

himself:—Ἀμμώνιος μὲν ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς, πολλὴν, ὡς εἰκὸς, φιλοπονίαν

καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγηοχὼς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν

εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν

περικοπὰς παραθεὶς, ὥς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν

τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὅφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως.

222 Ἵνα δὲ σωζομένου καὶ τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν δι᾽ ὅλου σώματός τε καὶ εἱρμοῦ,

εἰδέναι ἔχοις τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τό πους, ἐν οἷς

κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν φιλαληθῶς εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ

προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς εἰληφὼς ἀφορμὰς, καθ᾽ ἑτέραν μέθοδον κανόνας

δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους.

223 This seems to represent _exactly_ what Eusebius means in this place.

The nearest English equivalent to ἀφορμή is “a hint.” Consider

Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ v. 27. Also the following:—πολλὰς λαβόντες

ἀφορμάς. (Andreas, _Proleg. in Apocalyps._).—λαβόντες τὰς ἀφρμάς.

(Anastasius Sin., _Routh’s Rell._ i. 15.)

224 κανόνας ... διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. This at least is

decisive as to the authorship of the Canons. When therefore Jerome

says of Ammonius,—“_Evangelicos canones excogitavit_ quos postea

secutus est Eusebius Cæsariensis,” (_De Viris Illust._ c. lv. vol.

ii. p. 881,) we learn the amount of attention to which such off-hand

gain statements of this Father are entitled.

What else can be inferred from the account which Eusebius gives of

the present sectional division of the Gospels but that it was also

his own?—Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ τὼν ὑποτεταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις: ἡ δὲ

σαφὴς αὐτῶν διήγησις, ἔστιν ἤδε. Ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων

ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, εἶτα

δευτέρου, καὶ τρίτου, καὶ καθεξῆς προιὼν δι᾽ ὅλου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους

τοῦ βιβλίου. He proceeds to explain how the sections thus numbered

are to be referred to his X Canons:—καθ᾽ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν

ὑποσημείωσις διὰ κινναβάρεως πρόκειται, δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τῶν δέκα

κανόνων κείμενος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει.

225 “Frustra ad Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis provocant. Quæ

supersunt vix quicquam cum Ammonio aut Tatiano commune habent.”

(Tischendorf _on S. Mark_ xvi. 8).—Dr. Mill (1707),—because he

assumed that the anonymous work which Victor of Capua brought to

light in the vith century, and conjecturally assigned to Tatian, was

the lost work of Ammonius, (_Proleg._ p. 63, § 660,)—was of course

warranted in appealing to the authority of Ammonius _in support_ of

the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. But in truth Mill’s

assumption cannot be maintained for a moment, as Wetstein has

convincingly shewn. (_Proleg._ p. 68.) Any one may easily satisfy

himself of the fact who will be at the pains to examine a few of the

chapters with attention, bearing in mind what Eusebius has said

concerning the work of Ammonius. Cap. lxxiv, for instance, contains

as follows:—Mtt. xiii. 33, 34. Mk. iv. 33. Mtt. xiii. 34, 35: 10,

11. Mk. iv. 34. Mtt. xiii. 13 to 17. But here it is _S. Matthew’s

Gospel_ which is dislocated,—for verses 10, 11, and 13 to 17 of ch.

xiii. come _after_ verses 33-35; while ver. 12 has altogether

disappeared.

The most convenient edition for reference is Schmeller’s,—_Ammonii

Alexandrini quæ et Tatiani dicitur Harmonia Evangeliorum_. (Vienna,

1841.)

226 Only by the merest license of interpretation can εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς be

assumed to mean that Eusebius had found the four Gospels ready

divided to his hand by Ammonius into exactly 1165 sections,—every

one of which he had simply adopted for his own. Mill, (who

nevertheless held this strange opinion,) was obliged to invent the

wild hypothesis that Eusebius, _besides_ the work of Ammonius which

he describes, must have found in the library at Cæsarea the private

copy of the Gospels which belonged to Ammonius,—an unique volume, in

which the last-named Father (as he assumes) will have numbered the

Sections and made them exactly 1165. It is not necessary to discuss

such a notion. We are dealing with facts,—not with fictions.

227 For proofs of what is stated above, as well as for several remarks

on the (so-called) “Ammonian” Sections, the reader is referred to

the Appendix (G).

228 See above, p. 128, note (f).

229 See above, p. 125.

230 As a matter of fact, Codices abound in which the Sections are noted

_without_ the Canons, throughout. See more on this subject in the

Appendix (G).

231 τέσσαρα εἰσιν εὐαγγέλια κεφαλαίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν ἑξηκονταδύο. The

words are most unexpectedly, (may I not say _suspiciously_?), found

in Epiphanius, _Ancor._ 50, (_Opp._ ii. 54 B.)

232 By Tischendorf, copying Mill’s _Proleg._ p. 63, § 662:—the fontal

source, by the way, of the twin references to “Epiphanius and

Cæsarius.”

233 Comp. Epiph. (_Ancor._ 50,) _Opp._ ii. 53 C to 55 A, with Galland.

_Bibl._ vi. 26 C to 27 A.

234 Galland. _Bibl._ vi. 147 A.

235 Vol. i. 165 (ii. 112).—It it only fair to add that Davidson is not

alone in this statement. In substance, it has become one of the

common-places of those who undertake to prove that the end of S.

Mark’s Gospel is spurious.

236 See Possini _Cat._ p. 363.

237 Ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. [= ver. 9] ταύτην Εὐσέβιος ἐν τοῖς

πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἑτέραν λέγει Μαρίαν παρὰ τὴν θεασαμένην τὸν νεανίσκον.

ἥ καὶ ἀμφότεραι ἐκ τῆς Μαγδαληνῆς ἢσαν. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν

περιπατοῦσι. καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς [= ver. 12.] τοὺς ἀμφὶ τὸν Κλέοπαν, καθὼς ὁ

Λουκᾶς ἱστορεῖ, (Possini sini _Cat._ p. 364):—Where it will be seen

that _Text_ (κείμενον) and _Interpretation_ (ἑρμηνεία) are

confusedly thrown together. “Anonymus [Vaticanus]” also quotes S.

Mark xvi. 9 at p. 109, _ad fin._—Matthaei (N.T. ii.

269),—overlooking the fact that “_Anonymus Vaticanus_” (or simply

“_Anonymus_”) and “_Anonymus Tolosanus_” (or simply “_Tolosanus_”)

denote two distinct Codices,—falls into a mistake himself while

contradicting our learned countryman Mill, who says,—“Certe Victor

Antioch. ac Anonymus Tolosanues huc usque [sc. ver. 8] nec ultra

commentantur.”—Scholz’ dictum is,—“Commentatorum qui in catenis SS.

Petrum ad Marcum laudantur, nulla explicatio hujus pericopæ

exhibetur.”

238 See above pp. 62-3. The Latin of Peltanus may be seen in such

Collections as the _Magna Bibliotheca Vett. PP._ (1618,) vol. iv. p.

330, col. 2 E, F.—For the Greek, see Possini _Catena_, pp. 359-61.

239 See above, pp. 64-5, and Appendix (E).

240 Alford on S. Mark xvi. 9-20.

_ 241 Introduction_, &c. ii. p. 113.

_ 242 Nov. Test._ Ed. 8va i. p. 406.

_ 243 Developed Crit._ pp. 51-2.

244 ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντων φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—Arist. _Eth.

Nic._ I. iii.

245 To the honour of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener be it said, that _he_ at

least absolutely refuses to pay any attention at all “to the

argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged

difference in style from the rest of the Gospel.” See by all means

his remarks on this subject. (_Introduction_, pp. 431-2.)—One would

have thought that a recent controversy concerning a short English

Poem,—which some able men were confident _might_ have been written

by Milton, while others were just as confident that it could not

possibly be his,—ought to have opened the eyes of all to the

precarious nature of such Criticism.

246 Allusion is made to the Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.,—“Professor of

Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist

Theological Seminary, Greenville, S.C.,”—the author of an able and

convincing paper entitled “Exegetical Studies” in “_The Baptist

Quarterly_” for July, 1869 (Philadelphia), pp. 355-62: in which “the

words and phrases” contained in S. Mark xvi. 9-20 are exclusively

examined.

If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor’s

hands, he will perceive that I must have written the present Chapter

_before_ I knew of his labours: (an advantage which I owe to Mr.

Scrivener’s kindness:) my treatment of the subject and his own being

so entirely different. But it is only due to Professor Broadus to

acknowledge the interest and advantage with which I have compared my

lucubrations with his, and the sincere satisfaction with which I

have discovered that we have everywhere independently arrived at

precisely the same result.

247 Dr. Kay’s _Crisis Hupfeldiana_, p. 34,—the most masterly and

instructive exposure of Bp. Colenso’s incompetence and presumption

which has ever appeared. Intended specially of _his_ handling of the

writings of Moses, the remarks in the text are equally applicable to

much which has been put forth concerning the authorship of the end

of S. Mark’s Gospel.

248 S. Matth. viii. 1 (καταβάντι αὐτῷ):—5 (εἰσελθόντι τω Ἰ.):—23

(ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ):—28 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ):—ix. 27 (παράγοντι τῷ Ἰ.):—28

(ἐλθόντι):—xxi. 23 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ).

_ 249 On the Creed_, Art. ii. (vol. i. p. 155.)

250 τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθεῖ πάντα συνᾴδει τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ ψευδεῖ ταχὺ

διαφωνεῖ τὰληθές. Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ I. c. vi.

251 Davidson’s _Introduction_, &c. i. 170.

252 And yet, if it were ever so “sententious,” ever so “abrupt;” and if

his “brief notices” were over so “loosely linked together;”—these,

_according to Dr. Davidson_, would only be indications that S. Mark

actually _was_ their Author. Hear him discussing S. Mark’s

“characteristics,” at p. 151:—“In the consecution of his narrations,

Mark _puts them together very loosely_.” “Mark is also characterised

by a _conciseness_ and apparent incompleteness of delineation which

are allied to the obscure.” “The _abrupt_ introduction” of many of

his details is again and again appealed to by Dr. Davidson, and

illustrated by references to the Gospel. What, in the name of common

sense, is the value of such criticism as this? What is to be thought

of a gentleman who blows hot and cold in the same breath: denying at

p. 170 the genuineness of a certain portion of Scripture _because_

it exhibits the very peculiarities which at p. 151 he had

volunteered the information are _characteristic_ of its reputed

Author?

253 N.T. vol. i. _Prolegg._ p. 38.

254 It may be convenient, in this place, to enumerate the several words

and expressions about to be considered:—

(i.) πρώτη σαββάτου (_ver._ 9.)—See above.

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

(iii.) ἐκβάλλειν ἀπό (_ver._ 9.)—See p. 153.

(iv.) πορεύεσθαι (_vers._ 10, 12, 15.)—_Ibid._

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

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

(vii.) θεαθῆναι (_ver._ 11.)—See p. 158.

(viii.) ἀπιστεῖν (_ver._ 11 and 16.)—_Ibid._

(ix.) μετὰ ταῦτα (_ver._ 12.)—See p. 159.

(x.) ἕτερος (_ver._ 12.)—See p. 160.

(xi) ὅστερον (_ver._ 14.)—_Ibid._

(xii.) βλάπτειν (_ver._ 18.)—_Ibid._

(xiii.) πανταχοῦ (_ver._ 20.)—See p. 161.

(xiv. and xv.) συνεργεῖν—βεβαιοῦν (_ver._ 20.)—_Ibid._

(xvi.) πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (_ver._ 15.)—_Ibid._

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

(xviii. and xix.) παρακολουθεῖν—ἐπακολουθεῖν (_ver._ 17 and 19.)—See

p. 163.

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

(xxi. and xxii.) μὲν οὖν—ὁ Κύριος (_ver._ 19 and 20.)—_Ibid._

(xxiii.) ἀναληφθῆναι (_ver._ 19.)—See p. 166.

(xxiv.) ἐκεῖνος used in a peculiar way (_verses_ 10, 11 [and

13?].)—_Ibid._

(xxv.) “Verses without a copulative,” (_verses_ 10 and 14.)—_Ibid._

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

255 S. Luke vi. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9: xiii. 10, 14, 15, 16. S. Luke has, in

fact, all the four different designations for the Sabbath which are

found in the Septuagint version of the O. T. Scriptures: for, in the

Acts (xiii. 14: xvi. 13), he twice calls it ἡ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων.

256 S. Matth. xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.

257 It occurs in S. Matth. xxviii. 1. S. Mark xvi. 2. S. Luke xxiv. 1.

S. John xx. i. 19. Besides, only in Acts xx. 7.

_ 258 Introduction_, &c. i. 169.

259 See the foregoing note.

260 See Buxtorf’s _Lexicon Talmudicum_, p. 2323.

261 Lightfoot (on 1 Cor. xvi. 2) remarks concerning S. Paul’s phrase

κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων,—“תבשב דהב [_b’had b’shabbath_,] ‘_In the first_

[lit. _one_] _of the Sabbath_,’ would the Talmudists say.”—Professor

Gandell writes,—“in Syriac, the days of the week are similarly

named. See Bernstein [lit. _one in the Sabbath_, _two in the

Sabbath_, _three in the Sabbath._]”

262 S. Mark xii. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12.

263 The Sabbath-day, in the Old Testament, is invariably תבש

(_shabbath_): a word which the Greeks could not exhibit more nearly

than by the word σάββατον. The Chaldee form of this word is אתבש

(_shabbatha:_) the final א (_a_) being added for emphasis, as in

Abb_a_, Aceldam_a_, Bethesd_a_, Ceph_a_, Pasch_a_, _&c_.: and this

form,—(I owe the information to my friend Professor

Gandell,)—because it was so familiar to the people of Palestine,

(who spoke Aramaic,) _gave rise to another form of the Greek name

for the Sabbath_,—viz. σάββατα: which, naturally enough, attracted

the article (τό) into agreement with its own (apparently) plural

form. By the Greek-speaking population of Judæa, the Sabbath day was

therefore indifferently called το σαββατον and τα σαββατα: sometimes

again, η ημερα του σαββατου, and sometimes η ημερα των σαββατων.

Σάββατα, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense.

(Accordingly, it is _invariably_ rendered “_Sabbatum_” in the

Vulgate.) Thus, in Exod. xvi. 23,—σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις ἁγία τῷ Κυρίῳ:

and 25,—ἔστι γὰρ σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις τῷ Κυρίῳ. Again,—τῇ δὲ ἡμέρα τῇ

ἑβδόμη σάββατα. (Exod. xvi. 26: xxxi. 14. Levit. xxiii. 3.) And in

the Gospel, what took place on _one definite Sabbath-day_, is said

to have occurred ἐν τοῖς σάββασι (S. Luke xiii. 10. S. Mark xii. 1.)

It will, I believe, be invariably found that the form ἐν τοῖς

σάββασι is strictly equivalent to ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ; and was adopted for

convenience in contradistinction to ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις (1 Chron.

xxiii. 31 and 2 Chron. ii. 4) where Sabbath _days_ are spoken of.

It is not correct to say that in Levit. xxiii. 15 תותבש is put for

“weeks;” though the Septuagint translators have (reasonably enough)

there rendered the word ἑβδομάδας. In Levit. xxv. 8, (where the same

word occurs twice,) it is once rendered ἀναπαύσεις; once, ἑβδομάδες.

Quite distinct is עובש (_shavooa_) i.e. ἑβδομάς; nor is there any

substitution of the one word for the other. But inasmuch as the

recurrence of the _Sabbath-day_ was what constituted _a week_; in

other words, since the essential feature of a week, as a Jewish

division of time, was the recurrence of the Jewish day of rest;—τὸ

σάββατον or τὰ σάββατα, the Hebrew name for _the day of rest_,

became transferred to _the week_. The former designation, (as

explained in the text,) is used once by S. Mark, once by S. Luke;

while the phrase μία τῶν σαββάτων occurs in the N.T., in all, six

times.

264 So Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._ ii. 15), and Jerome (_De Viris Illust._

ii. 827), on the authority of Clemens Alex. and of Papias. See also

Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ vi. 14.—The colophon in the Syriac Version

shews that the same traditional belief prevailed in the Eastern

Church. It also finds record in the _Synopsis Scripturæ_ (wrongly)

ascribed to Athanasius.

265 παρασκευὴ, ὅ ἐστι προσάββατον.—Our E. V. “preparation” is from

Augustine,—“Parasceue Latine præparatio est.”—See Pearson’s

interesting note on the word.

266 Consider Rom. xvi. 13.

267 Townson’s _Discourses_, i. 172.

_ 268 Ibid._

269 See the Vulgate transl. of S. Mark xvi. 2 and of S. John xx. 19. In

the same version, S. Luke xxiv. 1 and S. John xx. 1 are rendered

“_una sabbati_.”

270 Davidson’s _Introduction_, &c. i. 169, _ed._ 1848: (ii. 113, _ed._

1868.)

271 “Maria Magdalene ipsa est ‘a quâ septem dæmonia expulerat’: _ut ubi

abundaverat peccatum, superabundant gratiæ_.” (Hieron. _Opp._ i.

327.)

272 So Tischendorf,—“Collatis prioribus, parum apte adduntur verba ἀφ᾽

ἦσ ἐκβεβλήκει ε. δ.” (p. 322.) I am astonished to find the same

remark reiterated by most of the Critics: e.g. Rev. T. S. Green, p.

52.

_ 273 Introduction_, &c. vol. i. p. 169.

274 viz. in chap. vii. 26.

275 Professor Broadus has some very good remarks on this subject.

276 Consider the little society which was assembled on the occasion

alluded to, in Acts i. 13, 14. Note also what is clearly implied by

ver. 21-6, as to the persons who were _habitually_ present at such

gatherings.

277 S. Luke (v. 27) has ἐθεασατο τελώνην. S. Matthew (ix. 9) and S. Mark

(ii. 14) have preferred εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον (Λευίν τὸν τοῦ Ἀλφαίου)

καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον.

278 See S. Matth. ix. 9.

279 One is reminded that S. Matthew, in like manner, carefully

_reserves_ the verb θεωρεῖν (xxvii. 55: xxviii. 1) for the

contemplation of the SAVIOUR’S Cross and of the SAVIOUR’S Sepulchre.

280 S. Matth. vi. 1: xxiii. 5. S. Mark xvi. 11.

281 Πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς, (vi. 1); and τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, (xxiii. 5).

282 S. Luke xii. 4.

283 S. Matth. x. 28.

284 S. Mark iv. 41. S. Luke ii. 9.

285 Professor Broadus, _ubi suprà_.

286 Col i. 15, 23. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.

287 παραβάλλειν [I quote from the Textus Receptus of S. Mark iv.

30,—confirmed as it is by the Peshito and the Philoxenian, the Vetus

and the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Armenian versions,—besides Codd.

A and D, and all the other uncials (except B, L, Δ, א,) and almost

every cursive Codex. The evidence of Cod. C and of Origen is

doubtful. _Who_ would subscribe to the different reading adopted on

countless similar occasions by the most recent Editors of the

N.T.?]: παραγγέλλειν: παράγειν: παραγίνεσθαι: παραδιδόναι:

παραλαμβάνειν: παρατηρεῖν: παρατιθέναι: παραφέρειν: παρέρχεσθαι:

παρέχειν: παριστάνει.—ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι: ἐπαισχύνεσθαι: ἐπανίστασθαι:

ἐπερωτᾷν: ἐπιβάλλειν: ἐπιγινώσκειν: ἐπιγράφειν: ἐπιζητεῖν:

ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι: ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι: ἐπιλύειν: ἐπιπίπτειν: ἐπιρράπτειν:

ἐπισκιάζειν: ἐπιστρέφειν: ἐπισυνάγειν: ἐπισυντρέχειν: ἐπιτάσσειν:

ἐπιτιθέναι: ἐπιτιμᾷν: ἐπιτρέπειν.

288 S. Mark v. 23: vi. 5: vii. 32: viii. 23.

289 S. Matth. ix. 18:—xix. 13, 15.

290 See below, pp. 184-6.

291 See Pearson _on the Creed_, (ed. Burton), vol. i. p. 151.

_ 292 Ibid._ p. 183,—at the beginning of the exposition of “_Our _LORD.”

293 S. Mark xvi. 19. S. Luke ix. 51. Acts i. 2.

294 Alford.

295 Davidson.

296 Exactly so Professor Broadus:—“Now it will not do to say that while

no one of these peculiarities would itself prove the style to be

foreign to Mark, the whole of them combined will do so. It is very

true that the multiplication of _littles_ may amount to much; but

not so the multiplication of _nothings_. And how many of the

expressions which are cited, appear, in the light of our

examination, to retain the slightest real force as proving

difference of authorship? Is it not true that most of them, and

those the most important, are reduced to absolutely nothing, while

the remainder possess scarcely any appreciable significance?”—p.

360, (see above, p. 139, note g.)

297 S. John has πάλιν (47 times) much oftener than S. Mark (29 times).

And yet, πάλιν is not met with in the iind, or the iiird, or the

vth, or the viith, or the xvth, or the xviith chapter of S. John’s

Gospel.

_ 298 Printed Text_, p. 256.

299 It will be found that of the former class (1) are the

following:—Article iii: vii: ix: x: xi: xii: xiii: xiv: xv: xxi:

xxiv: xxv: xxvi: xxvii. Of the latter (2):—Art. i: ii: iv: v: vi:

viii: xvi: xvii: xviii: xix: xx: xxii: xxiii.

300 Ch. xiii. 16,—ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν ὤν: and ch. xv. 21,—ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽

ἀγροῦ,—an expression which S. Luke religiously reproduces in the

corresponding place of his Gospel, viz. in ch. xxiii. 26.

301 See above, p. 146.

302 The reader will be perhaps interested with the following passage in

the pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 139 note g) alluded

to:—“It occurred to me to examine the twelve just preceding verses,

(xv. 44 to xvi. 8,) and by a curious coincidence, the words and

expressions not elsewhere employed by Mark, footed up precisely the

same number, seventeen. Those noticed are the following (text of

Tregelles):—ver. 44, τέθηκεν (elsewhere ἀποθνήσκο):—ver. 45, γνοὺς

ἀπό, a construction found nowhere else in the New Testament: also

ἐδωρήσατο and πτῶμα: ver. 46, ἐνείλησεν, λελατομημένον, πέτρας,

προσεκύλισεν:—chap. xvi. ver. 1, διαγενομένου, and ἀρώματα: ver. 2,

μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων:—ver. 3, ἀποκυλίσει:—ver. 4, ἀνεκεκύλισται. Also,

σφόδρα, (Mark’s word is λίαν.) Ver. 5, ἀν τοῖς δεξιοῖς is a

construction not found in Mark, or the other Gospels, though the

word δεξιός occurs frequently:—ver. 8, εἶχεν, in this particular

sense, not elsewhere in the New Testament: τρόμος.

“This list is perhaps not complete, for it was prepared in a few

hours—about as much time, it may be said, without disrespect, as

Fritsche and Meyer appear to have given to their collections of

examples from the other passage. It is not proposed to discuss the

list, though some of the instances are curious. It is not claimed

that they are all important, but that they are all real. And as

regards the single question of the _number_ of peculiarities, they

certainly form quite an offset to the number upon which Dean Alford

has laid stress.”—p. 361.

303 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.

304 S. Mark i. 9: 14: 20.

305 The same word is found also in S. Luke’s narrative of the same

event, ch. xxiv. 13.

306 On which, Victor of Antioch (if indeed it be he) finely

remarks,—Σχίζονται δὲ οἱ οὐρονοὶ, ἢ κατὰ Ματθαον ἀνοίγονται, ἵνα

τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀποδοθῇ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἁγιασμὸς, καὶ συναφθῇ τος

ἐπιγείοις τὰ οὐράνια.—(Cramer i. p. 271.)

307 Disc. v. Sect. ii.

308 This appears to be the true reading.

309 So Chrysostom:—ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησὶν, ὅτι “καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα,” ταῦτα

ἔλεγεν. [vii. 526 a].—He seems to have derived that remark from

Origen [_in Matth._ ed. Huet. i. 249 D]:—κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα

ὁ Σωτὴρ “καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.”—From the same source, I

suspect, Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen’s disciple), Bp. of Neocæsarea

in Pontus, A.D. 261, [_Routh_, iii. 257] derived the following:—καὶ

ὁ Σωτὴρ ὁ “πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα” οὐ τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον, φησὶ,

κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον.—See, by all means,

Field’s most interesting _Adnotationes in Chrys._, vol. iii. p.

112.... Εντευθεν (finely says Victor of Antioch) ὁ καινὸς ἄρχεται

νόμος ὁ κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα. (_Cramer_ i. 335.)

310 Acts x. 15.

311 Acts i. 22, 23. Cf. ver. 2,—ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ... ἀνελήφθη.

312 S. Mark x. 6: xiii. 19.—2 S. Pet. iii. 4 (Cf. 1 S. Pet. ii. 13.)

313 Is. lxvi. 2.

314 See above, p. 143-5.

315 See above, p. 174-5.

316 My attention was first drawn to this by my friend, the Rev. W. Kay,

D.D.

317 The Creed itself, (“ex variis Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis

collectum,”) may be seen at p. 84 of De Touttée’s ed. of Cyril. Let

the following be compared:—

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

19.)

ἈΝΕΛΘΌΝΤΑ ΕἸΣ ΤΟῪΣ ΟῪΡΑΝΟῪΣ, ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΊΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ

(ART. VI.) This may be seen _in situ_ at p. 224 C of Cyril.

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

ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝ (ART. X.) This may be seen at

p. 295 C of Cyril.

The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in

Professor Heurtley’s little work _De Fide et Symbolo_, 1869, p. 9.

318 See above,—p. 165-6.

_ 319 Cod. Bobbiensis_ (k): which however for “illis” has “et:” for

“Petro,” “puero:” and for “occidentem,” “orientem.” It also repeats

“usque.” I have ventured to alter “ab orientem” into “ab

oriente.”—Compare what is found in the Philoxenian margin, as given

by White and Adler.

320 See above (Art. II.) p. 152-3.

321 Consider S. Luke xxiv. 9: 33. Acts ii. 14.

322 S. Matth. xxvi. 14, 29, 47.—S. Mark iv. 10: vi. 7: ix. 35: x. 32:

xi. 11: xiv. 10, 17, 20, 43.—S. Luke viii. 1: ix. 1, 12: xviii. 31:

xxii. 8, 47.—S. John vi. 37, 70, 71: xx. 24.

323 Compare S. Luke xxii. 39; and especially S. John xviii. 1,—where the

moment of departure _from the city_ is marked: (for observe, they

had left the house and the upper chamber at ch. xiv. 31). See also

ch. xix. 17,—where the going _without the gate_ is indicated: (for

ἔξω τῆς πύλης ἔπαθε [Heb. xiii. 12.]) So Matth. xxvii. 32. Consider

S. Luke xxi. 37.

324 S. Luke xxiv. 49. Acts i. 4.

325 See above, p. 2.

326 The one memorable exception, which I have only lately met with, is

supplied by the following remark of the thoughtful and accurate

Matthaei, made in a place where it was almost safe to escape

attention; viz. in a footnote at the very end of his _Nov. Test._

(ed. 1803), vol. i. p. 748.—“Haec lectio in Evangeliariis et

Synaxariis omnibus ter notatur tribus maxime notabilibus temporibus.

Secundum ordinem temporum Ecclesiae Graecae primo legitur κυριακῇ

τῶν μυροφόρων, εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον. Secundo, τῷ ὄρθρῳ τῆς ἀναλήψεως.

Tertio, ut ἑωθινὸν ἀναστάσιμον γ᾽. De hoc loco ergo vetustissimis

temporibus nullo modo dubitavit Ecclesia.”—Matthaei had slightly

anticipated this in his ed. of 1788, vol. ii. 267.

327 Τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποστόλων διαδοχάς,—are _the first words_ of the

Ecclesiatical History of Eusebius.

328 See the heading of 1 Cor. x. in our Authorised Version.

329 See Bingham’s _Origines_, Book xx. ch. v. §§ 2, 3, 4.

330 Τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ, πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἥ ἀγροὺς μενόντων

ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν

ἀποστόλων, ἤ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται, μέχρις

ἐγχωρεῖ. Then came the Sermon,—then, all stood and prayed,—then

followed Holy Communion.—_Apol._ i. c. 67, (_ed_. Otto, i. 158.)

331 ὁ μάτην ἐνταῦθα εἰσελθὼν, εἰπὲ, τίς προφήτης, ποῖος ἀπόστολος ἡμῖν

σήμερον διέλχθη, καὶ περὶ τίνων;—(_Opp._ ix. p. 697 E. Field’s

text.)

332 Cassian writes,—“Venerabilis Patrum senatus ... decrevit hunc

numerum [sc. duodecim Orationum] tam in Vespertinis quam in

Nocturnis conventiculis custodiri; quibus lectiones geminas

adjungentes, id est, unam Veteris et aliam Novi Testamenti.... In

die vero Sabbati vel Dominico utrasque de Novo recitant Testamento;

id est, unam de Apostolo vel Actibus Apostolorum, et aliam de

Evangeliis. Quod etiam totis Quinquagesimae diebus faciunt hi,

quibus lectio curae est, seu memoria Scripturarum.”—_Instit._ lib.

ii. c. 6. (_ed_.1733, p. 18.)

_ 333 Constitutiones Apostolicae_, lib. ii. c. 57, 59: v. 19: viii. 5.

334 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 74, and the reff. in note (k)

overleaf.

335 English readers may be referred to Horne’s _Introduction_, &c.

(_ed._ 1856.) vol. iii. p. 281-2. The learned reader is perhaps

aware of the importance of the preface to Van der Hooght’s _Hebrew

Bible_, (_ed._ 1705) § 35: in connexion with which, see vol. ii. p.

352 _b._

336 Thus, the κυριακή τῆς τυροφάγου is “Quinquagesima Sunday;” but _the

week_ of “the cheese-eater” is the week _previous_.

337 See Suicer’s _Thesaurus_, vol. ii. 920.

338 “Apud Rabbinos, לודגח תבש _Sabbathum Magnum_. Sic vocatur Sabbathum

proximum ante Pascha.”—Buxtorf, _Lexicon Talmud._ p. 2323.

339 Καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀκολουθία τῆς διδασκαλίας [cf. Cyril, p. 4, lines 16-7]

τῆς πίστεως προέτρεπεν εἰπεῖν καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς Ἀναλήψεως: ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ

Θεοῦ χάρις ᾠκονόμησε πληρέστατά σε ἀκοῦσαι, κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν

ἀσθένειαν, τῇ χθὲς ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τῆν Κυριακήν: κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν τῆς

θείας χάριτος, ἐν τῇ Συνάξει τῆς τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων ἀκολουθίας τὰ περὶ

τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνόδου τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν περιεχούσης: ἐλέγετο δὲ τὰ

λεγόμενα, μάλιστα μὲν διὰ πάντας, καὶ διὰ τὸ τῶν πιστῶν ὁμοῦ πλῆθος:

ἐξαιρέτως δὲ διά σε: ζητεῖται δὲ εἰ προσέσχες τοῖς λεγομένοις. Οἶδας

γὰρ ὅτι ἡ ἀκολουθία τῆς Πίστεως διδάσκει σε πιστεύειν εἰς ΤΟΝ

ἈΝΑΣΤΑΝΤΑ ΤΗ ΤΡΙΤΗ ΗΜΕΡΑ: ΚΑΙ ἈΝΕΛΘΟΝΤΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥΣ, ΚΑΙ

ΚΑΘΙΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ—μάλιστα μὲν οὖν μνημονεύειν σε νομίζω

τῆς ἐξηγήσεως. πλὴν ἐν παραδρομῇ καὶ νῦν ὑπομιμνήσκω σε τῶν

εἰρημένων. (Cyril. Hier. _Cat._ xiv. c. 24. _Opp._ p. 217 C, D.)—Of

that Sermon of his, Cyril again and again reminds his auditory.

Μέμνησο δὲ καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων μοι πολλάκις περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ

πατρος καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν,—he says, _ibid._ p. 219 B. A little

lower down, Νῦν δὲ ὑμᾶς ὑπομνηστέον ὀλίγων, τῶν ἐκ πολλῶν εἰρημένων

περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δειξῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱόν.—_Ibid._ D.

From this it becomes plain _why Cyril nowhere quotes S. Mark_ xvi.

19,—_or S. Luke_ xxiv. 51,—_or Acts_ i. 9. He must needs have

enlarged upon those three _inevitable_ places of Scripture, the day

before.

340 See above, p. 193 and p. 194.

341 Ὥστε δὲ εὐμαθέστερον γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον, δεόμεθα καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν,

ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων γραφῶν πεποιήκαμεν, προλαμβάνειν, τὴν

περικοπὴν τῆς γραφῆς ἦν ἆν μέλλωμεν ἐξηνεῖσθαι.—In Matth. _Hom._ i.

(_Opp._ vii. 13 B.)—Κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων, ἥ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον, τὴν

μέλλουσαν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀναγνωσθήσεσθαι τῶν εὐαγγελίων περικοπὴν, ταύτην

πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν μετὰ χεῖρας λαμβάνων ἕκαστος οἴκοι καθήμενος

ἀναγινωσκέτω.—In Joann. _Hom._ ix, (_Opp._ viii. 62 B.)

342 It caused him (he says) to interrupt his teaching. “Sed quia nunc

interposita est sollemnitas sanctorum dierum, quibus certas ex

Evangelio lectiones oportet in Ecclesiâ recitari, quae ita sunt

annuae ut aliae esse non possint; ordo ille quem susceperamus

necessitate pauliulum intermissus est, non amissus.”—(_Opp._ vol.

iii. P. ii. p. 825, _Prol._)

343 The place will be found quoted below, p. 202, note (o).

344 See Suicer, (i. 247 and 9: ii. 673). He is much more full and

satisfactory than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve

attention, (_Nov. Test._ vol. i, Prolegg. p. xxxi.) See also above,

p. 45, notes (r) and (s).

345 At the beginning of every volume of the first ed. of his _Nov.

Test._ (Riga, 1788) Matthaei has laboriously _edited_ the “Lectiones

Ecclesiasticæ” of the Greek Church. See also his Appendices,—viz.

vol. ii. pp. 272-318 and 322-363. His 2nd ed. (Wittenberg, 1803,) is

distinguished by the valuable peculiarity of indicating the

Ecclesiastical sections throughout, in the manner of an ancient MS.;

and that, with extraordinary fulness and accuracy. His Συναχάρια (i.

723-68 and iii. 1-24) though not intelligible perhaps to ordinary

readers, are very important. He derived them from MSS. which he

designates “B” and “H,” but which are _our_ “Evstt. 47 and

50,”—uncial Evangelistaria of the viiith century (See Scrivener’s

_Introd._ p. 214.)

Scholz, at the end of vol. i. of his N. T. p. 453-93, gives in full

the “Synaxarium” and “Menologium” of Codd. K and M, (viiith or ixth

century.) See also his vol. ii. pp. 456-69. Unfortunately, (as

Scrivener recognises, p. 110,) all here is carelessly done,—as usual

with this Editor; and therefore to a great extent useless. His

slovenliness is extraordinary. The “Gospels of the Passion” (τῶν

ἁγίων πάθων), he entitles τῶν ἁγίων πάντων (p. 472); and so

throughout.

Mr. Scrivener (_Introduction_, pp. 68-75,) has given by far the most

intelligible account of this matter, by exhibiting _in English_ the

Lectionary of the Eastern Church, (“gathered chiefly from

Evangelist. Arund. 547, Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, and

Christ’s Coll. Camb.”); and supplying the references to Scripture in

the ordinary way. See, by all means, his _Introduction_, pp. 62-65:

also, pp. 211-225.

346 Consider the following:—Ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ

πάντα ἀναγινώσκομεν. ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ πάλιν, ὅτι παρεδόθη

ἡμῶν ὁ Κύριος, ὅτι ἐσταυρώθη, ὅτι ἀπέθανε τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὅτι ἐτάφη:

τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν καὶ τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐ μετὰ τὴν

πεντηκοστὴν ἀναγινώσκομεν, ὅτε καὶ ἐγένοντο, καὶ ἀρχὴν

ἔλαβον;—Chrys. _Opp._ iii. 88.

Again:—εἰ γὰρ τότε ἥρξαντο ποιεῖν τὰ σημεῖα οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἤγουν μετὰ

τὴν κυρίου ἀνάστασιν, τότε ἔδει καὶ τὸ βιβλίον ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τοῦτο.

ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σταυροῦ ἀναγινώσκομεν, καὶ

τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει ὁμοίως, καὶ τὰ ἐν ἐκάστῃ ἑορτῇ γεγονότα τῇ αὐτῇ

πάλιν ἀναγινώσκομεν, οὕτως ἔδει καὶ τὰ θαύματα τὰ ἀποστολικὰ ἐν ταῖς

ἡμέραις τῶν ἀποστολικῶν σημείων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι.—_Ibid._ p. 89 D.

_ 347 Opp._ ii. 454 B, D.

_ 348 Opp._ ii. 290 B.

_ 349 Opp._ ii. 357 E.

350 “Meminit sanctitas vestra Evangelium secundum Joannnem ex ordine

lectionum nos solere tractare.” (_Opp._ iii. P. ii. 825 _Prol._)

351 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 246.

352 Chrysostom _Opp._ ii. 369 b, c.—Compare Scrivener, _ubi supra_, p.

75.

_ 353 Ed._ Mabillon, p. 116.

_ 354 Opp._ vol. iii. p. 85 B: 88 A:—τίνος ἕνεκεν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ

πεντηκοστῇ τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἐνομοθέτησαν.—τίνος

ἕνεκεν τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς

πεντηκοστῆς ἀναγινώσκεται.

355 “Anniversariâ sollemnitate post passionem Domini nostis illum librum

recitari.” _Opp._ iii. (P. ii.) p. 337 G.

356 I desire to leave in this place the permanent record of my

deliberate conviction that the Lectionary which, last year, was

hurried with such indecent haste through Convocation,—passed in a

half-empty House by the casting vote of the Prolocutor,—and rudely

pressed upon the Church’s acceptance by the Legislature in the

course of its present session,—is the gravest calamity which has

befallen the Church of England for a long time past.

Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered.

Appointed (in 1867) for an _entirely_ different purpose, (viz. the

Ornaments and Vestments question,) 29 Commissioners (14 Clerical and

15 Lay) found themselves further instructed “to suggest and report

_whether any and what alterations and amendments may be

advantageously made_ in the selection of Lessons to be read at the

time of Divine Service.”

Thereupon, these individuals,—(the Liturgical attainments of

nine-tenths of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself

to characterise truthfully,)—at once imposed upon themselves the

duty of inventing _an entirely new Lectionary for the Church of

England_.

So to mutilate the Word of GOD that it shall henceforth be quite

impossible to understand a single Bible story, or discover the

sequence of a single connected portion of narrative,—seems to have

been the guiding principle of their deliberations. With reckless

eclecticism,—entire forgetfulness of the requirements of the poor

brother,—strange disregard for Catholic Tradition and the claims of

immemorial antiquity;—these Commissioners, (evidently unconscious of

their own unfitness for their self-imposed task,) have given us a

Lectionary which will recommend itself to none but the lovers of

novelty,—the impatient,—and the enemies of Divine Truth.

That the blame, _the guilt_ lies at the door of _our Bishops_, is

certain; but the Church has no one but herself to thank for the

injury which has been thus deliberately inflicted upon her. She has

suffered herself to be robbed of her ancient birthright without

resistance; without remonstrance; without (in her corporate

capacity) so much as a word of audible dissatisfaction. _Can_ it be

right in this way to defraud those who are to come after us of their

lawful inheritance?... I am amazed and grieved beyond measure at

what is taking place. At least, (as on other occasions,) _liberavi

animam meam_.

357 A trace of this remains in the old Gallican Liturgy,—pp. 137-8.

358 Bingham, xiv. iii. 3.

_ 359 Opp._ vol. vii. p. 791 B.

360 See Dean Payne Smith’s Translation, p. 863.

361 κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην τοῦ Πάσχα ἑσπέραν ταῦτα πάντα ἀναγινώσκεται.—Chrys.

_Opp._ vii. 818 C.

362 “Passio autem, quia uno die legitur, non solet legi nisi secundum

Matthæum. Voluerain aliquando ut per singulos annos secundum omnes

Evangelistas etiam Passio legeretur. Factum est. Non audierunt

homines quod consueverant, et perturbati sunt.”—_Opp._ vol. v. p.

980 E.

_ 363 Ed._ Mabillon, pp. 130-5.

364 Epiph. _Opp._ ii. 152-3.

365 Chrys. _Opp._ i. 497 C.

366 Epiph. _Opp._ ii. 285-6.

367 The learned reader will be delighted and instructed too by the

perusal of both passages. Chrysostom declares that Christmas-Day is

the greatest of Festivals; since all the others are but consequences

of the Incarnation.

Epiphanius remarks with truth that Ascension-Day is the crowning

solemnity of all: being to the others what a beautiful head is to

the human body.

_ 368 Constt. Apostt._ lib. viii. c. 33. After the week of the Passion

and the week of (1) the Resurrection,—(2) Ascension-Day is

mentioned;—(3) Pentecost;—(4) Nativity;—(5) Epiphany. [Note this

clear indication that this viiith Book of the Constitutions was

written or interpolated at a subsequent date to that commonly

assigned to the work.]

369 Bingham’s _Origines_, B. xx. c. iv. § 2.

370 Chrys. _Opp._ ii. 355. (See the _Monitum_, p. 352.)

371 Chrys. _Opp._ ii. 369 D.

372 Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. LI, c. xvi. (_Opp._ i. 439 A.)

373 See above, pp. 58-9 and 67.

_ 374 Opp._ iii. 102 B. See Bingham on this entire subject,—B. xiv, c.

iii.

375 “Illa quae non scriptu, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto

terrarum orbe observantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis,

vel plenariis Conciliis quorum in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas,

commendata atque statuta retineri. Sicut quod Domini Passio, et

Resurrectio, et Ascensio in cœlis, ut Adventus de cœlo Spiritus

Sancti anniversaria sollemnitate celebrantur.”—_Ep._ ad Januarium,

(_Opp._ ii. 124 B, C).

376 “Lect. fer. quint., quae etiam Festum Adscensionis Domini in caelos,

ad mat. eadem ac lect. tert. Resurrect.; in Euchar. lect. sext.

Resurrect.”—But “Lect. γ Resurrectionis” is “Marc. xvi. 9-20:”

“Lect. σ,” “Luc. xxiv. 36-53.”—See Dean Payne Smith’s _Catalogus

Codd. Syrr._ (1864) pp. 116, 127.

377 See above, p. 34, note (e).

378 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 148.

_ 379 Hieronymi Comes_, (_ed_. Pamel. ii. 31.)—But it is not the

Gallican. (ed. Mabillon, p. 155.) ... It strikes me as just possible

that a clue may be in this way supplied to the singular phenomenon

noted above at p. 118, line 22-8.

380 Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ ἑωθινά. See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 72,

and R. P. Smith’s Catal. p. 127. See by all means, Suicer’s _Thes.

Eccl._ i. 1229.

381 Dr. Wright’s _Catal._ p. 70, No. cx. (Addit. 14,464: _fol._ 61_ b._)

_ 382 Ibid._ No. lxx (_fol._ 92 _b_), and lxxii (_fol._ 87 _b_).

383 “Quae titulo Josephi et Nicodemi insignitur.” (R. Payne Smith’s

_Catal._ p. 116.)—In the “Synaxarium” of Matthaei (_Nov. Test._

1803, i. p. 731) it is styled Κ. τῶν μ. καὶ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ δικαίου.

384 Adler’s _N. T. Verss. Syrr._ p. 71.

385 Dean Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 146.

_ 386 Ed._ Mabillon, pp. 144-5.

387 “Resurrectio Domini nostri I. C. ex more legitur bis diebus

[Paschalibus] ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii.” (_Opp._ v. 977

C)—“Quoniam hoc moris est ... _Marci Evangelium_ est quod modo, cum

legeretur, audivimus.” “Quid ergo audivimus Marcum dicentem?” And he

subjoins a quotation from S. Mark xvi. 12.—_Ibid._ 997 F, 998 B.

_ 388 Hieron. Comes_ (_ed._ Pamel. ii. 27.)

389 So Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 75.—Little stress, however, is to

be laid on Saint’s Day lessons. In Matthaei’s “Menologium” (_Nov.

Test._ 1803, i. p. 765), I find that S. Luke viii. 1-4, or else S.

John xx. 11-18 was the appointed Lection. See his note (5) at p.

750.

390 Note, (in addition to all that has gone before,) that the Festivals

are actually designated by their _Greek_ names in the earliest Latin

Service Books: not only “Theophania,” “Epiphania,” “Pascha,”

“Pentecostes,” (the second, third and fourth of which appellations

survive in the Church of the West, _in memoriam_, to the present

hour;) but “Hypapante,” which was the title bestowed by the

Orientals in the time of Justinian, on Candlemas Day, (our Feast of

the Purification, or Presentation of CHRIST in the Temple,) from the

“Meeting” of Symeon on that occasion. Friday, or παρασκευή, was

called “_Parasceve_” in the West. (Mab. _Lit. Gall._ p. 129.) So

entire was the sympathy of the East with the West in such matters in

very early times, that when Rome decided to celebrate the Nativity

on the 25th December, Chrysostom (as we have been reminded) publicly

announced the fact at Constantinople; and it was determined that in

this matter East and West would walk by the same rule.

391 From Professor Wright’s _Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British

Museum_ (1870) it appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is

dated A.D. 824; the oldest Nestorian, A.D. 862; the oldest Malkite,

A.D. 1023. The respective numbers of the MSS. are 14,485; 14,492;

and 14,488.—See his _Catalogue_, Part I. pp. 146, 178, 194.

392 It is exhibited in the same glass-case with the Cod. Alexandrinus

(A.)

393 The reader is requested to refer back to p. 45, and the note

there.—The actual words of Eusebius are given in Appendix (B).

394 See the enumeration of Greek Service-Books in Scrivener’s

_Introduction_, &c. pp. 211-25. For the Syriac Lectionaries, see

Dean Payne Smith’s _Catalogue_, (1864) pp. 114-29-31-4-5-8: also

Professor Wright’s _Catalogue_, (1870) pp. 146 to 203.—I avail

myself of this opportunity to thank both those learned Scholars for

their valuable assistance, always most obligingly rendered.

395 “Evangelistariorum codices literis uncialibus scripti nondum sic ut

decet in usum criticum conversi sunt.” Tischendorf, quoted by

Scrivener, [_Introduction to Cod. Augiensis_,—80 pages which have

been separately published and are _well_ deserving of study,—p. 48,]

who adds,—“I cannot even conjecture why an Evangelistarium should be

thought of less value than another MS. of the same age.”—See also

Scrivener’s _Introduction_, &c. p. 211.

396 e.g. _Addit. MSS._ 12,141: 14,449: 14,450-2-4-5-6-7-8: 14,461-3:

17,113-4-5-6:--(= 15 Codd. in all:) from p. 45 to p. 66 of Professor

Wright’s _Catalogue_.

_ 397 Addit._ MS. 14,464. (See Dr. Wright’s _Catalogue_, p. 70.)

398 Add to the eight examples adduced by Mr. Scrivener from our Book of

C. P., (_Introduction_, p. 11), the following:—Gospels for

Quinquagesima, 2nd S. after Easter, 9th, 12th, 22nd after Trinity,

Whitsunday, Ascension Day, SS. Philip and James (see below, p. 220),

All Saints.

399 Thus the words εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος (S. Luke vii. 31) _which introduce

an Ecclesiastical Lection_ (Friday in the iiird week of S. Luke,)

inasmuch as the words are found in _no_ uncial MS., and are omitted

besides by the Syriac, Vulgate, Gothic and Coptic Versions, must

needs be regarded as a liturgical interpolation.—The same is to be

said of ὁ Ἰησοῦς in S. Matth. xiv. 22,—words which Origen and

Chrysostom, as well as the Syriac versions, omit; and which clearly

owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Textus Receptus, in

the Vulgate and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the

Gospel for the ixth Sunday after Pentecost _begins at that

place_.—It will be kindred to the present inquiry that I should

point out that in S. Mark xvi. 9, Ἀναστάς ὁ Ἰησοῦς is constantly met

with in Greek MSS., and even in some copies of the Vulgate; and yet

there can be _no_ doubt that here also the Holy Name is an

interpolation which has originated from the same cause as the

preceding. The fact is singularly illustrated by the insertion of “Ο

ΙΣ” in Cod. 267 ( = Reg. 69,) _rubro_ above _the same contraction_

(for ὁ Ἰησους) in the text.

400 Not, of course, so long as the present senseless fashion prevails of

regarding Codex B, (to which, if Cod. L. and Codd. 1, 33 and 69 are

added, it is _only because they agree with B_), as an all but

infallible guide in settling the text of Scripture; and quietly

taking it for granted that _all the other MSS. in existence_ have

entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive mankind. Until this most

uncritical method, this most unphilosophical theory, is

unconditionally abandoned, progress in this department of sacred

Science is simply impossible.

401 See Matthaei’s note on S. Luke xxii. 43, (_Nov. Test. ed._ 1803.)

402 This will be best understood by actual reference to a manuscript. In

Cod. Evan. 436 (Meerman 117) which lies before me, these directions

are given as follows. After τὸ σὸν γενέσθω (i.e. the last words of

ver. 42), is written ὑπέρβα εἰς τὸ τῆς γ᾽. Then, at the end of ver.

44, is written—ἄρχου τῆς γ᾽, after which follows the text καὶ

ἀναστὰς, &c.

In S. Matthew’s Gospel, at chap, xxvi, which contains the Liturgical

section for Thursday in Holy Week (τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλη έ), my Codex

has been only imperfectly rubricated. Let me therefore be allowed to

quote from Harl. MS. 1810, (our Cod. Evan. 113) which, at fol. 84,

at the end of S. Matth. xxvi. 39, reads as follows, immediately

after the words,—αλλ᾽ ὡς συ:—Π/Υ, [Cross] (i.e. ὑπάντα.) But in

order to explain what is meant, the above rubricated word and sign

are repeated at foot, as follows:—[Cross] ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκὰν

ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ΡΘ. ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῳ ἄγγελος: εἶτα στραφεὶς ἐνταῦθα πάλιν,

λέγε: καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς—which are the first words of S.

Matth. xxvi. 40.

Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after

S. Luke xxii. 42, _besides_ the rubric already quoted, has the

following: ἄρξου τῆς μεγάλης έ. Then come the two famous verses

(ver. 43, 44); and, after the words ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς, the

following rubric occurs: ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ τῆς μεγάλης έ Ματθ. ἔρχεται

πρὸς τοῦς μαθητάς.

[With the help of my nephew, (Rev. W. F. Rose, Curate of Holy

Trinity, Windsor,) I have collated every syllable of Cod. 436. Its

text most nearly resembles the Rev. F. H. Scrivener’s l, m, n.]

403 See by all means Matthaei’s _Nov. Test._ (ed. 1803,) i. p.491, and

492.

404 See above, p. 75, note (h).

405 For the 5th Sunday of S. Luke.

406 Such variations are quite common. Matthaei, with his usual accuracy,

points out several: e.g. _Nov. Test._ (1788) vol. i. p. 19 (_note_

26), p. 23: vol. ii. p. 10 (_note_ 12), p. 14 (_notes_ 14 and 15),

&c.

407 SS. Philip and James.

408 viz. σαββάτῳ θ: i.e. the ixth Saturday in S. Luke.—Note that Cod. A

also reads ἐγένετο δέ in S. Lu. xi. 1.

409 viz. Monday in the vth, Thursday in the vith week after Pentecost,

and the viiith Sunday after Pentecost.

410 viz. S. Luke xiii. 2: xxiv. 36. S. John i. 29 (ὁ Ἰωάννης): 44: vi.

14: xiii. 3,—to which should perhaps be added xxi. 1, where B, א, A,

C (not D) read Ἰησοῦς.

411 See by all means Matthaei’s interesting note on the place,—_Nov.

Test._ (1788) vol. i. p. 113-4. It should be mentioned that Cod. C

(and four other uncials), together with the Philoxenian and

Hierosolymitan versions, concur in exhibiting the same spurious

clause. Matthaei remarks,—“Origenes (iv. 171 D) hanc pericopam haud

adeo diligenter recensens terminat eum in γενηθήτω σοι.” Will not

the disturbing _Lectionary-practice_ of his day sufficiently explain

Origen’s omission?

412 I recall S. John x. 29: xix. 13: xxi. 1;—but the attentive student

will be able to multiply such references almost indefinitely. In

these and similar places, while the phraseology is exceedingly

simple, the variations which the text exhibits are so exceeding

numerous,—that when it is discovered that _a Church Lesson begins in

those places_, we may be sure that we have been put in possession of

the name of the disturbing force.

413 Viz. K and M. (Field’s _Chrys._ p. 251.)—How is it that the readings

of Chrysostom are made so little account of? By Tregelles, for

example, why are they overlooked entirely?

414 See above, p. 197 to 204.

415 e.g. in Cod. Evan. 10 and 270.

416 In some cursive MSS. also, (which have been probably transcribed

from ancient originals), the same phenomenon is observed. Thus, in

Evan. 265 ( = Reg. 66), ΤΕΛ only occurs, in S. Mark, at ix. 9 and

41: xv. 32 and 41: xvi. 8. ΑΡΧ at xvi. 1. It is striking to observe

that so little were these ecclesiastical notes (embedded in the

text) understood by the possessor of the MS., that in the margin,

over against ch. xv. 41, (where “ΤΕΛ:” stands _in the text_,) a

somewhat later hand has written,—ΤΕ[λος] Τ[ης] ΩΡ[ας]. A similar

liturgical note may be seen over against ch. ix. 9, and elsewhere.

Cod. 25 (= Reg. 191), at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, has _only two_

notes of liturgical endings: viz. at ch. xv. 1 and 42.

417 Among the _Syriac_ Evangelia, as explained above (p. 215), instances

occur of far more ancient MSS. which exhibit a text rubricated by

the original scribe. Even here, however, (as may be learned from Dr.

Wright’s _Catalogue_, pp. 46-66,) such Rubrics have been only

_irregularly_ inserted in the oldest copies.

418 Note, that the Codex from which Cod. D was copied will have

exhibited the text thus,—ΑΠΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΗΛΘΕΝ Η ΩΡΑ.—which is the

reading of Cod. 13 ( = Reg. 50.) But the scribe of Cod. D, in order

to improve the sense, substituted for ἦλθεν the word καί. Note the

scholion [_Anon. Vat._] in Possinus, p. 321:—ἀπέχει, τουτέστι,

πεπλήρωται, τέλος ἔχει τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ.

Besides the said Cod. 13, the same reading is found in 47 and 54 (in

the Bodl.): 56 (at Linc. Coll.): 61 (i.e. Cod. Montfort.): 69 (i.e.

Cod. Leicestr.): 124 (i.e. Cod. Vind. Lamb. 31): csecr (i.e.

Lambeth, 1177): 2pe (i.e. the 2nd of Muralt’s S. Petersburg Codd.);

and Cod. 439 (i.e. Addit. Brit. Mus. 5107). All these eleven MSS.

read ἀπέχει τὸ τέλος at S. Mark xiv. 41.

419 So Scholz (i. 200):—“Pericopa hæc _casu quodam_ forsan exciderat a

codice quodam Alexandrino; unde defectus iste in alios libros

transiit. Nec mirum hunc defectum multis, immo in certis regionibus

plerisque scribis arrisisse: confitentur enim ex ipsorum opinione

Marcum Matthæo repugnare. Cf. maxima Eusebium ad Marinum,” &c.

420 περιττὰ ὰν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν

εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. (Mai, _Bibl. P.P. Nova_, vol. iv. p. 256.)

421 Alford’s N.T. vol. i. p. 433, (_ed_. 1868.)—And so Tischendorf, (ed.

8va. pp. 406-7.) “Talem dissentionem ad Marci librum tam misere

mutilandum adduxisse quempiam, et quidem tanto cum successu, prorsus

incredibile est, nec ullo probari potest exemplo.”—Tregelles is of

the same opinion. (_Printed Text_, pp. 255-6.)—Matthaei, a competent

judge, seems to have thought differently. “Una autem causa cur hic

locus omitteretur fuit quod Marcus in his repugnare ceteris videtur

Evangelistis.” The general observation which follows is true

enough:—“Quæ ergo vel obscura, vel repugnantia, vel parum decora

quorundam opinione habebantur, ca olim ab Criticis et interpretibus

nonnullis vel sublata, vel in dubium vocata esse, ex aliis locis

sanctorum Evangeliorum intelligitur.” (_Nov. Test._ 1788, vol. ii.

p. 266.) Presently, (at p. 270,)—“In summâ. Videtur unus et item

alter ex interpretibus, qui hæc cæteris evangeliis repugnare

opinebatur, in dubium vocasse. Hunc deinde plures temere secuti

sunt, ut plerumque factum esse animadvertimus.” Dr. Davidson says

the same thing (ii. 116.) and, (what is of vastly more importance,)

Mr. Scrivener also. (_Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. xliv.)

422 I have to acknowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M.

de Wailly, the chief of the Manuscript department.

423 See above, p. 224.

424 Whereas in the course of S. Matthew’s Gospel, only two examples of +

ΤΕΛΟΣ + occur, (viz. at ch. xxvi. 35 and xxvii. 2,)—in the former

case the note has entirely lost its way in the process of

transcription; standing where it has no business to appear. _No_

Liturgical section ends thereabouts. I suspect that the transition

(ὑπέρβασις) anciently made at ver. 39, was the thing to which the

scribe desired to call attention.

425 = Coisl. 20. This sumptuous MS., which has not been adapted for

Church purposes, appears to me to be the work of the same scribe who

produced Reg. 178, (the codex described above); but it exhibits a

different text. Bound up with it are some leaves of the LXX of about

the viiith century.

426 End of the Lection for the Sunday before Epiphany.

427 In S. Matthew’s Gospel, I could find ΤΕΛΟΣ so written only

twice,—viz. at ch. ii. 23 and xxvi. 75: in S. Luke only once,—viz.

at ch. viii. 39. These, in all three instances, are the concluding

verses of famous Lessons,—viz. the Sunday after Christmas Day, the

iiird Gospel of the Passion, the vith Sunday of S. Luke.

428 This has already come before us in a different connection: (see p.

119): but it must needs be reproduced here; and _this_ time, it

shall be exhibited as faithfully as my notes permit.

429 (1) In Evan. 282 (written A.D. 1176),—a codex which _has been

adapted_ to Lectionary purposes,—the sign τελ and ετ, strange to

say, _is inserted into the body of the Text, only at S. Mark_ xv. 47

_and_ xvi. 8.

(2) Evan. 268, (a truly superb MS., evidently left unfinished, the

pictures of the Evangelists only sketched in ink,) was never

prepared for Lectionary purposes; which makes it the more remarkable

that, between ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and ἀναστάς, should be found inserted

into the body of the text, τὲ. in gold.

(3) I have often met with copies of S. Matthew’s, or of S. Luke’s,

or of S. John’s Gospel, unfurnished with a subscription in which

ΤΕΛΟΣ occurs: but scarcely ever have I seen an instance of a Codex

where the Gospel _according to S. Mark_ was one of two, or of three

from which it was wanting; much less where it stood alone in that

respect. On the other hand, in the following Codices,—Evan. 10: 22:

30: 293,—S. Mark’s is _the only Gospel of the Four_ which is

furnished with the subscription, + τέλος τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου

[cross] or simply + τέλος + .... In Evan. 282, S. Matthew’s Gospel

shares this peculiarity with S. Mark’s.

430 “Nemini in mentem venire potest Marcum narrationis suae filum

ineptissime abrupisse verbis—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”—Griesbach _Comment.

Crit._ (ii. 197.) So, in fact, _uno ore_ all the Critics.

431 Chap. V. See above, pp. 66-7.

432 The English reader will follow the text with sufficient exactness if

he will refer back, and read from the last line of p. 44 to the

ninth line of p. 45; taking care to see, in two places, for “the

end,”—“THE END”.... The entire context of the Greek is given in the

Appendix (B).

433 τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν. The antecedent phrase, (τὸ κεφάλαιον

αὐτό,) I suspect must be an explanatory gloss.

434 “This then is clear,” (is Dr. Tregelles’ comment,) “that the greater

part of the Greek copies had not the verses in question.”—_Printed

Text_, p. 247.

435 Observe, the peculiarity of the expression in this place of Eusebius

consists entirely in his introduction of the words τὸ τέλος. Had he

merely said τὰ ἀκριβὴ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον

περιγράφει ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. ... Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι

τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις περιγέγραπται τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον,—there

would have been nothing extraordinary in the mode of expression. We

should have been reminded of such places as the following in the

writings of Eusebius himself:—Ὁ Κλήμης ... εἰς τὴν Κομόδου τελευτὴν

περιγράφει τοὺς χρόνους, (_Hist. Eccl._ lib. vi. c. 6.)—Ἱππόλυτος

ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος αὐτοκράτοπος Ἀλεξάνδρου τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει,

(_Ibid._ c. 22. See the note of Valesius on the place.)—Or this,

referred to by Stephanus (_in voce_),—Ἑνὸς δ᾽ ἔτι μνησθεὶς περιγράψω

τὸν λόγον, (_Praep. Evang._ lib. vi. c. 10, [p. 280 c, _ed._ 1628].)

But the substitution of τὸ τέλος for τὸ εὐαγγέλιον wants explaining;

and can be only satisfactorily explained in one way.

436 See above, p. 66 and p. 67.

437 Πάρειμι νῦν ... πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῶν αὐτῶν πάντοτε τοῖς πᾶσι ζητούμενα

[_sic_].—Mai, vol. iv. p. 255.

438 “Consentit autem nobis ad _tractatum quem fecimus de scripturâ_

Marci.”—Origen. (_Opp._ iii. 929 B.) _Tractat._ xxxv. in _Matth._ [I

owe the reference to Cave (i. 118.) It seems to have escaped the

vigilance of Huet.]—This serves to explain why Victor of Antioch’s

Catena on S. Mark was sometimes anciently attributed to Origen: as

in Paris Cod. 703, [_olim_ 2330, 958, and 1048: also 18.] where is

read (at fol. 247), Ὠριγένους πρόλογος εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ κατὰ

Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου. Note, that Reg. 937 is but a (xvith cent.)

counterpart of the preceding; which has been transcribed [xviiith

cent.] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40.

Possevinus [_Apparat. Sac._ ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet, _Origeniana_,

p. 274) states that there is in the Library of C.C.C., Oxford, a

Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel by Origen. The source of this

misstatement has been acutely pointed out to me by the Rev. W. R.

Churton. James, in his “Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrig.,” (1600, lib. i. p.

49,) mentions “_Homiliae Origenis super Evangelio Marcae_, Stabat ad

monumentum.”—Read instead, (with Rev. H. O. Coxe, “Cat. Codd. MSS.

C.C.C.;” [No. 142, 4,]) as follows:—“Origenis presb. Hom. in istud

Johannis, _Maria stabat ad monumentum_,” &c. But what actually led

Possevinus astray, I perceive, was James’s consummation of his own

blunder in lib. ii. p. 49,—which Possevinus has simply appropriated.

439 So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading Βηθαβαρά.

Origen (iv. 140) says that not only σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις,

but also that _apud Heracleonem_, (who wrote within 50 years of S.

John’s death,) he found Βηθανία written in S. John i. 28. Moved by

_geographical_ considerations, however, (as he explains,) for

Βηθανία, Origen proposes to read Βηθαβαρά.—Chrysostom (viii. 96 d),

after noticing the former reading, declares,—ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων

ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει ἐν Βηθαβαρά φησιν: but he goes on _to reproduce

Origen’s reasoning_;—thereby betraying himself.—The author of the

_Catena in Matth._ (Cramer, i. 190-1) simply reproduces

Chrysostom:—χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν

Βηθαβαρὰ περιέχει. And so, other Scholia; until at last what was

only due to the mistaken assiduity of Origen, became generally

received as the reading of the “more accurate copies.”

A scholium on S. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the

true reading of that place is not “60” but “160,”—οὕτως γὰρ τὰ

ἀκριβῆ περιέχει, καὶ ἡ Ὠριγένους τῆς ἀληθείας βεβαίωσις.

Accordingly, _Eusebius_ also reads the place in the same erroneous

way.

440 Jerome says of himself (_Opp._ vii. 537,)—“Non digne Græca in

Latinum transfero: aut Græcos lege (si ejusdem linguae habes

scientiam) aut si tantum Latinus es, noli de gratuito munere

judicare, et, ut vulgare proverbium est: _equi dentes inspicere

donati_.”

441 See above, pp. 57-9: also Appendix (C), § 2.

442 See above, pp. 225-6.

443 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 116.

444 See Adler’s N. T. _Verss. Syrr._, p. 70.

445 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 146.

446 See p. 206, also note (k).

447 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 117.

448 Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 (= Paris Reg. 67) is read, at S. Mark

xvi. 8 (_fol_. 125), as follows:—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. [then, _rubro_,]

τέλος τοῦ Β᾽ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τῆς κυριακῆς τῶν μυροφόρων. ἀρχή. [then

the text:] Ἀναστάς κ.τ.λ. ... After ver. 20, (at _fol_. 126 of the

same Codex) is found the following concluding rubric:—τέλος τοῦ Γ᾽

ἑωθίνου εὐαγγελίου.

In the same place, (viz. at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel,) is found

in another Codex (Evan. 7 = Paris Reg. 71,) the following

rubric:—τέλος τοῦ τρίτου τοῦ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τοῦ ὄρθρου τῆς ἀναλήψεως.

449 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 146.

450 Cod. 27 (xi) is not provided with any lectionary apparatus, and is

written continuously throughout: and yet at S. Mark xvi. 9 a fresh

paragraph is observed to commence.

Not dissimilar is the phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies

of the Armenian version. “The Armenian, in the edition of Zohrab,

separates the concluding 12 verses from the rest of the Gospel....

Many of the oldest MSS., after the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, put the

final Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον, and then give the additional verses

with a new superscription.” (Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 253)....

We are now in a position to _understand_ the Armenian evidence,

which has been described above, at p. 36, as well as to estimate its

exact value.

451 Euseb. apud Mai, iv. p. 264 = p. 287. Again at p. 289-90.—So also

the author of the 2nd Homily on the Resurr. (Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii.

411-2.)—And see the third of the fragments ascribed to Polycarp.

_Patres Apostol._, (ed. Jacobson) ii. p. 515.

452 I believe this will be found to be the _invariable_ order of the

Gospels _in the Lectionaries_.

453 This is the case for instance in Evan. 15 (= Reg. 64). See _fol._ 98

_b_.

454 I allude of course to Matthaei’s Cod. g. (See the note in his _N.

T._ vol. ix. p. 228.) Whether or no the learned critic was right in

his conjecture “aliquot folia excidisse,” matters nothing. _The left

hand page ends at the words_ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Now, if τελος had

followed, how obvious would have been the inference that the Gospel

itself of S. Mark had come to an end there!

Note, that in the Codex Bezæ (D), S. Mark’s Gospel ends at ver. 15:

in the Gothic Codex Argenteus, at ver. 11. The Codex Vercell. (_a_)

proves to be imperfect from ch. xv. 15; Cod. Veron. (_b_) from xiii.

24; Cod. Brix. (_f_) from xiv. 70.

455 Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. lix.

456 See p. 227.

457 See above, p. 226.

458 So Scholz:—“hic [sc. 22] post γὰρ + τέλος; dein atramento rubro,”

&c.—Tischendorf,—“Testantur scholia ... _Marci Evangelium_ ... versu

9 _finem habuisse_. Ita, ut de 30 fere Codd. certe tres videamus, 22

habet: ἐφοβουντο γαρ + τελος. εν τισι,” &c.—Tregelles appeals to

copies, “sometimes with τέλος interposed after ver. 8,” (p.

254.)—Mai (iv. 256) in the same spirit remarks,—“Codex

Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex quo Eusebium producimus, post octavum

versum _habet quidem_ vocem τέλος, ut alibi interdum observatum

fuit; _sed tamen_ ibidem eadem manu subscribitur incrementum cum

progredientibus sectionum notis.”

459 Chap. I. and II.

460 Chap. IV, VI-X.

461 Chap. III, V, and VIII.

462 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.

463 Tregelles, Alford.

464 Alford.

465 “Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis.”—See the

rest of Tischendorf’s verdict, _suprà_, p. 10; and opposite, p. 245.

466 Tregelles’ _Account of the Printed Text_, p. 259.

467 Alford’s _New Test._ vol. i. _Proleg._ [p. 38] and p. 437.

468 So Norton, Tregelles, and others.

469 This suggestion, which was originally Griesbach’s, is found in

Alford’s _New Test._ vol. i. p. 433, (_ed._ 1868.)—See above, p. 12.

The italics are not mine.

470 Vide _suprà_, p. 10.

_ 471 Opp._ vol. iii. p. 671.

472 Eusebius _Eccl. Hist._ iv. 28. Consider Rev. xxii. 18, 19.

473 Note the remarkable adjuration of Irenæus, _Opp._ i. 821, preserved

by Eusebius, _lib._ v. 20.—See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 383-4.

Consider the attestations at the end of the account of Polycarp’s

martyrdom, _PP. App._ ii. 614-6.

474 Allusion is made to the Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus;

especially to the work of Marcion.

475 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 381-391.

476 See Chap. VI.

477 Chap. IX.

478 “Ad defendendum hunc locum in primis etiam valet mirus Codicum

consensus in vocabulis et loquendi formulis singulis. Nam in locis

παρεγγράπτοις, etiam multo brevioribus, quo plures sunt Codices, eo

plures quoque sunt varietates. Comparetur modo Act. xv. 18, Matth.

viii. 13, et loca similia.”—C. F. Matthaei’s _Nov. Test._ (1788)

vol. ii. p. 271.

479 Speaking of the abrupt termination of the second Gospel at ver. 8,

Dr. Tregelles asks,—“Would this have been transmitted as a fact by

good witnesses, if there had not been real grounds for regarding it

to be true?”—(_Printed Text_, p. 257.) Certainly not, we answer. But

_where_ are the “good witnesses” of the “transmitted fact?” _There

is not so much as one._

480 See above, pp. 86-90.

481 See Chap. III.

482 See above, Chap. III. and IV.

483 “Habent periocham hanc Codices Græci, si unum b excipias, omnes.”

(Scholz, adopting the statement of Griesbach.)—See above, p. 70.

484 See above, Chap. X.

485 See above, pp. 66-68.

486 See above, pp. 41 to 51: also Appendix (B).

487 The reader is referred to Mai’s _Nov. PP. Bibl._ vol. iv. p. 262,

line 12: p. 264 line 28: p. 301, line 3-4, and 6-8.

488 See above, p. 64-5: also Appendix (E).

489 P. 68 and note (d); p. 119 and note (m).

490 P. 51-7.

491 P. 57-9.

492 P. 59-66.

493 P. 114-125.

494 P. 68-9.

495 Chap. VI.

496 See above, pp. 86 to 88.

497 Will it be believed that Tischendorf accordingly rejects _that_

verse also as spurious; and brings the fourth Gospel to an end at

ver. 24, as he brings the second Gospel to an end at ver. 8? For my

own part,—having (through the kindness and liberality of the Keeper

of the Imperial MSS. at S. Petersburg, aided by the good offices of

my friend, the Rev. A. S. Thompson, Chaplain at S. Petersburg,)

obtained a photograph of the last page of S. John’s Gospel,—I must

be allowed altogether to call in question the accuracy of Dr.

Tischendorf’s judgment in this particular. The utmost which can be

allowed is that the Scribe may have possibly changed his pen, or

been called away from his task, just before bringing the fourth

Gospel to a close.

498 See Chap. IX.

499 Chapter X.

500 Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pseudo-Basil, Patricius, and Marius

Mercator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration.

501 Codex A,—ὕμνος ἑωθινός at the end of the Psalms.

502 The old Latin Interpreter of Origen’s Commentary on S. Matthew seems

to have found in Origen’s text a quotation from S. Luke ii. 14 which

is _not represented in the extant Greek text of Origen_. Here also

we are presented with “hominibus _bonae voluntatis_.” (_Opp._ iii.

537 C). We can say nothing to such second-hand evidence.

503 Consider his exactly similar method concerning Eph. i. 1. (_Suprà_,

pp. 96-99.)

504 From the Rev. Professor Bosworth.

_ 505 Vid. suprà_, p. 233.

506 P.S. I avail myself of this blank space to introduce a passage from

THEOPHYLACT (A.D. 1077) which should have obtained notice in a much

earlier page:—Ἀναστὰς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς; ἐνταῦθα στίξον, εἶτα εἱπέ; πρωί

πρώτῇ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. οὐ γὰρ ἀνέστη πρωί (τίς γὰρ

οἴδε πότε ἀνέστη;) ἀλλ᾽ ἐφάνη πρωί κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (αὔτη γὰρ ἡ πρώτη

τοῦ σαββάτου, τουτέστι, τῆς ἑβδομάδος,) ἥν ἄνω ἐκάλεσε μίαν

σαββάτων; [_Opp._ vol. i. p. 263 C.

It must be superfluous to point out that Theophylact also,—like

Victor, Jerome, and Hesychius,—is here only reproducing Eusebius.

See above, p. 66, note (c).

507 Kollar, (editing Lambecius,—iii. 159, 114,) expresses the same

opinion.—Huet (_Origeniana_, lib. iii. c. 4, pp. 274-5,) has a brief

and unsatisfactory dissertation on the same subject; but he arrives

at a far shrewder conclusion.

508 The copies which I have seen, are headed,—ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ (sometimes

ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ) ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΙΑΣ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ

ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ; or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no

Author’s name is given. Rarely is the Commentary assigned to Cyril,

Origen, &c.—_Vide infrà_, No. iii, xii, xiv, xix, xlviii. Also, No.

xlvii (comp, xxviii.)

_ 509 Victoris Antiocheni in Marcum, et Titi Bostrorum Episcopi in

Evangelium Lucae commentarii; ante hac quidem nunquam in lucem

editi, nunc vero studio et operâ Theodori Peltani luce simul et

Latinitate donati._ Ingolstadt. 1580, 8vo. pp. 510.

510 “Ex hoc ego, quasi metallo triplici, una conflata massa, inde

annulos formavi, quos singulos Evangelici contextus articulis

aptatos, inter seque morsu ac nexu mutuo commissos, in torquem

producerem, quo, si possem consequi, sancto Evangelistae Marco decus

et ornamentum adderetur.”—_Præfatio_: from which the particulars in

the text are obtained.

511 ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἁγίων πατέρων

ἐξήσησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον: ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit

C. F. Matthæi, Mosquae, 1775.

512 P. xxvii-xxviii.

513 To understand what is alluded to, the reader should compare the

upper and the lower half of p. 442 in Cramer: noting that he has one

and the same annotation before him; but diversely exhibited. (The

lower part of the page is taken from Cod. 178.) Besides transposing

the sentences, the author of Cod. 178 has suppressed the reference

to Chrysostom, and omitted the name of Apolinarius in line 10.

(Compare Field’s ed. of _Chrys._ iii. 529, top of the page.)

514 Thus the two notes on p. 440 are found substantially to agree with

the note on p. 441, which = Chrys. p. 527. See also _infrà_, p. 289.

515 Let any one, with Mai’s edition of the “Quaestiones ad Marinum” of

Eusebius before him, note how mercilessly they are abridged,

mutilated, amputated by subsequent writers. Compare for instance p.

257 with Cramer’s “Catenae,” i. p. 251-2; and this again with the

“Catena in Joannem” of Corderius, p. 448-9.

516 With whom, Reg. 177 and 703 agree.

517 p. 263, line 3 to 13, and in Possinus, p. 4.

518 Eusebius is again quoted at p. 444, and referred to at p. 445 (line

23-5). See especially p. 446.

519 What is found at p. 314 (on S. Mark v. 1,) is a famous place. (Cf.

Huet’s ed. ii. 131.) Compare also Victor’s first note on i. 7 with

the same edit. of Origen, ii. 125 C, D,—which Victor is found to

have abridged. Compare the last note on p. 346 with Orig. i. 284 A.

Note, that ἄλλος δέ φησι, (foot of p. 427) is also Origen. Cf.

Possinus, p. 324.

520 See pp. 408, 418, 442.

521 e.g. the first note on p. 311; (comp. Possinus, p. 95): and the last

note on p. 323; (comp. Poss. p. 123.) Compare also Cramer, p. 395

(line 16-22) with Poss. p. 249.—I observe that part of a note on p.

315 is ascribed by Possinus (p. 102) to Athanasius: while a scholium

at p. 321 and p. 359, has no owner.

522 e.g. p. 408, 411 (twice).

523 In p. 418,—ὁ τῆς βασιλίδος πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος Ἰωάννης. For instances

of quotation from Chrysostom, comp. V. A. p. 315 with Chrys. pp.

398-9: p. 376 with Chrys. pp. 227-8: p. 420 with Chrys. p. 447, &c.

524 Take for example Victor’s Commentary on the stilling of the storm

(pp. 312-3), which is merely an abridged version of the first part

of Chrysostom’s 28th Homily on S. Matthew (pp. 395-8); about 45

lines being left out. Observe Victor’s method however. Chrysostom

begins as follows:—Ὁ μὲν οὖν Λουκᾶς, ἀπαλλάττων ἑαυτὸν τοῦ

ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν. (Then follows S. Luke

viii. 22.) καὶ ὁ Μάρκος ὁμοίως. Οὗτος δὲ οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ

ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα διατηρεῖ. Victor, because he had S. Mark (not S.

Matthew) to comment upon, begins thus:—Ὁ μὲν Μάρκος ἀπαλλάττων

ἑαυτὸν τοῦ ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν, ὁμοίως δὲ

καὶ ὁ Λοῦκας; ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα

διατηρεῖ.

525 e.g. V. A. p. 422 (from ὁ μέν φησιν to ἄλλος δέ φησιν) = Chrys. p.

460. Observe the next paragraph also, (p. 423,) begins, ἄλλος

φησιν.—So again, V. A. pp. 426-7 = Chrys. pp. 473-6: where ἄλλος δέ

φησι, at the foot of p. 427 introduces a quotation from Origen, as

appears from Possinus, p. 324—See also p. 209, line 1,—which is from

Chrys. p. 130,—ἤ ὡς ὁ ἄλλος being the next words.—The first three

lines in p. 316 = Chrys. p. 399. Then follows, ἄλλος δέ φησιν. See

also pp. 392: 407 (φασί τινες—ἕτερος δέ φησιν): pp. 415 and 433.

After quoting Eusebius by name (p. 446-7), Victor says (line 3)

ἅλλος δέ φησιν.

526 e.g. V. A. p. 420 line 15, which = Chrys. p. 447.

527 e.g. Theod. Mops., (p. 414,) which name is absent from Cod. Reg.

201:—Basil, (p. 370) whose name Possinus does not seem to have

read:—Cyril’s name, which Possinus found in a certain place (p.

311), is not mentioned in _Laud._ Gr. 33 _fol._ 100 _b_, at top, &c.

528 So in the _Catena_ of Corderius, in _S. Joannem_, p. 302.

529 I believe it will be found that Cod. Reg. 186 corresponds _exactly_

with Cod. Reg. 188: also that the contents of Cod. Reg. 201

correspond with those of Cod. Reg. 206; to which last two, I believe

is to be added Cod. Reg. 187.

530 Note, that this recurs at fol. 145 of a Codex at Moscow numbered 384

in the _Syr. Cat._

_ 531 Catalogue Librorum MSS._ Lips. 1830, 4to. p. 656 _b_.

_ 532 Reg._ 177 = A: 178 = B: 230 = C.—_Coisl._ 19 = D: 20 = E: 21 = F:

22 = G: 24 = H.—_Matthaei’s_ d _or_ D = I: _his_ e _or_ E = J: _his_

12 = K: _his_ a _or_ A = L.—_Vat._ 358 = M: 756 = N: 757 = O: 1229 =

P: 1446 = Q.—_Vind. Koll._ 4 _Forlos._ 5 = R.—_Xav. de Zelada_ =

S.—_Laur._ 18 = T: 34 = U.—_Venet._ 27 = V.—_Vind. Lamb._ 38 = W :

39 = X.

533 So B-E (which I chiefly follow) begins,—Το δε αναστας.

534 B begins thus,—Ει δε και το αναστας δε πρωι μετα τα επιφερομενα

παρα. It is at this word (παρα) that most copies of the present

scholion (A, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U,

V, W, X) begin.

535 So far (except in its opening phrase) E. But C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L,

M, N, O, P, T, begin,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ου κεινται [I, ου

κειται: J, ουκ ην δε] ταυτα τα [M, O, T om. τα] επιφερομενα εν [D,

F, H om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον [B, εν τω παροντι] ευαγγελιῳ.

536 So I, J, K, L, and H. P proceeds,—ως νοθα νομισθεντα τισιν ειναι.

But B, C, D, E, F, G, M, N, O, T exhibit,—ως νοθα νομισαντες αυτα

τινες [B om. τινες] ειναι. On the other hand, A and Q begin and

proceed as follows,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ταυτα τα [Q om. τα]

επιφερομενα εν [A om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιῳ ως νοθα

νομισαντες τινες [Q, τινας (a clerical error): A om. τινες] ουκ

εθηκαν.

537 So B, except that it omits ως. So also, A, D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N,

O, P, Q, T, except that they begin the sentence, ημεις δε.

538 So D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, O, P, T: also B and Q, except that they

prefix και to κατα το Π. B is peculiar in reading,—ως εχει η αληθεια

Μαρκου (transposing Μαρκου): while C and P read,—ομως ημεις εξ

ακριβων αντιγραφων και πλειστων ου μην αλλα και εν τῳ Παλαιστιναιῳ

ευαγγελιῳ Μαρκου ευροντες αυτα ως εχει η αληθεια συντεθεικαμεν.

539 So all, apparently: except that P reads εμφερομενην for

επιφερομενην; and M, after αναστασιν inserts εδηλωσαμεν, with a

point (.) before μετα: while C and P (after ανασταςιν,) proceed,—και

την [C, ειτα] αναληψιν και καθεδραν εκ δεξιων του Πατρος ῳ πρεπει η

δοξα και η τιμη νυν και εις τους αιωνας. αμην. But J [and I think,

H] (after γαρ) proceeds,—διο δοξαν αναπεμψωμεν τῳ ανασταντι εκ

νεκρων Χριστῳ τῳ Θεῳ ημων αμα τῳ αναρχῳ Πατρι και ζωοποιῳ Πνευματι

νυν και αει και εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων. αμην.

540 So B. All, except B, C, H, J, P seem to end at εφοβουντο γαρ.

541 e.g. οὐκ ἦν δέ for οὐ κεῖνται.

542 Jerome evidently supposed that Ammonius was the author of _the

Canons_ as well:—“Canones quos _Eusebius_ Caesariensis Episcopus

_Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium_ in decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in

Graeco habentur expressimus.” (_Ad Papam Damasum. Epist._) And

again: “_Ammonius ... Evangelicos Canones excogitavit_ quos postea

secutus est Eusebius Caesariensis.” (_De Viris Illustr._ c. 55

[_Opp._ ii. 881.])—See above, p. 128.

543 There was published at the University Press in 1805, a handsome

quarto volume (pp. 216) entitled _Harmonia quatuor Evangeliorum

juxta Sectiones Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones_. It is merely the

contents of the X Canons of Eusebius printed _in extenso_,—and of

course is no “Harmony” at all. It would have been a really useful

book, notwithstanding; but that the editor, strange to say, has

omitted to number the sections.

544 This last § according to _Tischendorf’s_ ed. of the Eusebian Canons.

545 Thus, certain disputed passages of importance are proved to have

been recognised at least _by Eusebius_. Our LORD’S Agony in the

Garden for instance, (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44—wanting in Cod. B,) is by

him numbered § 283: and that often rejected verse, S. Mark xv. 28,

he certainly numbered § 216,—whatever Tischendorf may say to the

contrary. (See p. 203.)

546 It is obvious to suggest that, (1) whereas our Marginal References

follow the order of the Sacred Books, they ought rather to stand in

the order of their importance, or at least of their relevancy to the

matter in hand:—and that, (2) actual Quotations, and even Allusions

to other parts of Scripture when they are undeniable, should be

referred to in some distinguishing way. It is also certain that, (3)

to a far greater extent than at present, _sets_ of References might

be kept _together_; not scattered about in small parcels over the

whole Book.—Above all, (as the point most pertinent to the present

occasion,) (4) it is to be wished that _strictly parallel places_ in

the Gospels might be distinguished from those which are illustrative

only, or are merely recalled by their similarity of subject or

expression. All this would admit of interesting and useful

illustration. While on this subject, let me ask,—Why is it no longer

possible to purchase a Bible with References to the Apocrypha? _Who_

does not miss the reference to “Ecclus. xliii. 11, 12” at Gen. ix.

14? _Who_ can afford to do without the reference to “1 Macc. iv. 59”

at S. John x. 22?

547 Mai, vol. iv. p. 287. See also p. 293.

548 Tischendorf says 19 only.

549 Tischendorf says 96 only.

550 Tischendorf says 13 only.

551 Scrivener specifics the following Codd. C, F, H, I, P, Q, R, W6, Y,

Z, 54, 59, 60, 68, 440, iscr, sscr. Also D and K. (_Cod. Bezæ_, p.

xx, and _Introd._ pp. 51, 2.) Add Evan. 117: (but I think _not_

263.)

552 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 51 and 52: _Cod. Bezæ_, p. xx. note

[2.]

553 Evan. 263, for instance, has certainly _blank_ Eusebian Tables at

the beginning: the _frame_ only.

554 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 51 (note 2),—where Tregelles (in

Horne’s _Introd._ iv. 200) is quoted.

555 e.g. Codd. M, 262 and 264. (I saw at least one other at Paris, but I

have not preserved a record of the number.) To these, Tregelles adds

E; (Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 51, note 2.) Scrivener adds W,

and Tischendorf T, (Scrivener’s _Cod. Bezae_, p. xx.)

556 The _order_ of these monograms requires explanation.

557 Addit. MSS. 14,449: 14,450, and 1, and 2, and 4, and 6, and 7, and

8: 14,463, and 9: 17,113. (Dr. Wright’s _Catalogue,_ 4to. 1870.)

Also Rich. 7,157. The reader is referred to Assemani; and to Adler,

p. 52-3: also p. 63.

558 “Dawkins 3.” See Dean Payne Smith’s _Catalogue_, p. 72.

559 It will be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme, _every

verse_ of S. Mark xvi, from ver. 8 to ver. 15 inclusive, constitutes

an independent section (§§ 281-288): ver. 16-18 another (§ 289); and

verr. 19-20, another (§ 290), which is the last. The Greek scheme,

as a rule, makes independent sections of verr. 8, 9, 14, 19, 20; but

throws together ver. 10-11: 12-13: 15-16: 17-18. (_Vide infrà_, p.

311.)

560 Note that § 392/9 = S. Luke xxiv. 12: § 394/10 = ver. 18-34: § 395/8

= ver. 35: § 396/9 is incomplete. [Dr. Wright supplies the lacune

for me, thus: § 396/9 = ver. 36-41 (down to θαυμαζόντων): § 397/9 =

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς down to the end of ver. 41: § 398/9 = ver. 42: § 399/9

= ver. 43: § 400/10 = ver. 44-50: § 401/8 = 51: § 402/10 = ver. 52,

3.

Critical readers will be interested in comparing, or rather

contrasting, the Sectional system of a Syriac MS. with that which

prevails in all Greek Codices. S. John’s § 248/1 = xx. 18: his §

249/9 = ver. 19 to εἰρήνη ὑμῖν in ver. 21: his $ 250/7 = ver. 21

(καθώς to the end of the verse): his § 251/10 = ver. 22: his § 252/7

= ver. 23: his § 253/[10] = ver. 24-5: his § 254/[9] = ver. 26-7:

his § 255/10 = ver. 28 to the end of xxi. 4: his § 256/9 = xxi. 5:

his § 257/9 = xxi. 6 (to εὑρήσετε): his § 258/9 = ver. 6, (ἔβαλον to

the end): his § 259/[10] = ver. 7, 8: his § 260/[9] = ver. 9: his §

261/[10] = ver. 10: his § 262/9 = ver. 11: his § 263/9 = first half

of ver. 12: his § 264/10 is incomplete.

[But Dr. Wright, (remarking that in his MSS., which are evidently

the correcter ones, 263/10 stands opposite the middle of ver. 12

[οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα], and 264/9 opposite ver. 13 [ἔρχεται οὖν],) proceeds

to supply the lacune for me, thus: § 264/9 = ver. 13: § 265/10 =

ver. 14-5 (down to φιλῶ σε; λέγει αυτῷ): § 266/9 = βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία

μου, (end of ver. 15): § 267/10 = ver. 16 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 268/9

= λέγει αὐτῷ, Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατα μου (end of ver. 16): § 269/10 =

ver. 17 (down to φιλῶ σε): § 270/9 = λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰ., β. τὰ π. μου

(end of ver. 17): § 271/10 = ver. 18 to 25.

561 “I have examined for your purposes, Add. 14,449; 14,457; 14,458; and

7,157. The first three are Nos. lxix, lxx, and lxxi, in my own

Catalogue: the last, a Nestorian MS., is No. xiii in the old

Catalogue of Forshall and Rosen (London, 1838). All four agree in

their numeration.”

562 See the preceding note.—Availing myself of the reference given me by

my learned correspondent, I read as follows in the Catalogue:—“Inter

ipsa textus verba, numeris viridi colore pictis, notatur Canon

harmoniae Eusebianae, ad quem quaevis sectio referenda est. Sic,

[glyph] [i.e. 1] indicat canonem in quo omnes Evangelistae

concurrunt,” &c. &c.

563 Suidas [A.D. 980], by giving 236 to S. Mark and 348 to S. Luke,

makes the sum of the Sections in Greek Evangelia 1,171.

564 This sheet was all but out of the printer’s hands when the place in

vol. i. of Assemani’s Bibliotheca Medicea, (fol. 1742,) was shewn me

by my learned friend, P. E. Pusey, Esq., of Ch. Ch.—Dr. Wright had

already most obligingly and satisfactorily resolved my inquiry from

the mutilated fragments of the Canons, as well as of the Epistle to

Carpianus in Add. 17,213 and 14,450.

565 Dr. Tregelles. (_Vide suprà_, pp. 125-6.) And so, Tischendorf.

566 The others are 11, 14, 22, 23, 28, 32, 37, 40, 45, 52, 98, 113, 115,

127, 129, 132, 133, 134, 137, 169, 186, 188, 193, 195, 265, 269,

276, 371. Add. 18,211, Cromwell 15, Wake 12 _and_ 27.

567 The others are 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 24, 29, 54 [more §§ ?], 65, 68,

111, 112, 114, 118, 157, 183, 190, 202, 263, 268, 270, 273, 277,

278, 284, 287, 294, 414, 438, 439. Rich 7,141. Add. 17,741 _and_

17,982. Cromw. 16. Canonici 36 _and_ 112. Wake 21.

568 Viz. 184, 192, 264, hscr, Add. 11,836. Ti. Wake 29.

569 The others are 10, 20, 21, 36, 49, 187, 262, 266, 300, 364. Rawl.

141.

_ 570 Vide suprà_, p. 33. Assemani, vol. i. p. 28. (Comp. Adler, p. 53.)

The others are 8, 26, 72, 299, 447. Bodl. Miscell. 17. Wake 36.

571 The others are 7, 27, 34, 38, 39, 46, 74, 89, 105, 116, 117, 135,

179, 185, 194, 198, 207, 212, 260, 261, 267, 275, 279, 293, 301,

445, kscr. Add. 22,740. Wake 22, 24, 30; _and_ 31 in which, ver. 20

is numbered CMB.

572 But Cod. U inserts ευθεως before εξηλθεν; and (at least two of the

other Codices, viz.) 48, 67 read αιμα και υσωρ.

573 Σημείωσις is what we call an “Annotation.” [On the sign in the text,

see the Catalogue of MSS. in the Turin Library, P. i. p. 93.] On the

word, and on σημειοῦσθαι, (consider 2 Thess. iii. 14,) see the

interesting remarks of Huet, _Origeniana_, iii. § i. 4. (at the end

of vol. iv. of Origen’s _Opp._ p. 292-3.)—Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ v.

20) uses σημείωσις in this sense. (See the note of Valesius.) But it

is plain from the rendering of Jerome and Rufinus (_subscriptio_),

that it often denoted a “signature,” or signing of the name.

Eusebius so employs the word in _lib._ v. 19 _ad fin._

574 He was Patriarch of Antioch, A.D. 512-9.—The extract (made by Petrus

junior, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, A.D. 578,) purports to be

derived from the 26th Epistle, (Book 9,) which Severus addressed to

Thomas Bp. of Germanicia after his exile. See Assemani, _Bibl.

Orient._ vol. ii. pp. 81-2.

575 I cannot find the place in Cyril. I suppose it occurs in a lost

Commentary of this Father,—whose Works by the way are miserably

indexed.

576 Ὁ μέντοι γε πρότερος αὐτῶν [viz. the sect of the Severiani] ἀρχηγὸς

ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων

συνθεὶς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν. Ὁ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι

νῦν φέρεται. The next words are every way suggestive. Τοῦ δὲ

ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνὰς, ὡς

ἐπιδιωρθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν.—Eusebius, _Hist.

Eccl._ iv. 29, § 4.

577 See, for example, the readings of B or א, or both, specified from p.

80 to p. 86.

_ 578 Vid. suprà_, p. 129, note (g.)

_ 579 Opp._ vol. i. p. 391 D.

_ 580 Haeret. Fab._ lib. i. c. xx. (_Opp._ iv. 208.)

581 Clinton, F. R. ii. _Appendix_, p. 473, quoting Theodoret’s “Ep. 113,

p. 1190. [_al._ vol. iii. p. 986-7].”

_ 582 Quoted by Matthaei, N. T._ (1788) vol. ix. p. 228, _from_ g, a, d.

_ 583 Ibid_., ii. 69, and ix. 228.

_ 584 Nov. Test._ (1869), p. 404.

585 Let the reader examine his “Quaestio ix,” (Mai, vol. iv. p. 293-5):

his “Quaestio x,” (p. 295, last seven lines). See also p. 296, line

29-32.

586 See Chrys. _Opp._ vol. viii. p. 522 _c_:—ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ συνεχῶς

ἐπεχωρίαζεν, οὐδὲ ὁμοίως, λέγει ὅτι τρίτον τοῦτο ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ὅτε

ἐγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν.