,,the ,,the ,,last ,,twelve ,,verses ,,of ,,the ,,gospel ,,according ,,to ,s4 ,,mark ,vindicated ,against ,recent ,critical ,objectors ,and ,established by ,john ,w4 ,burgon ,b4,d4 ,vicar of ,s4 ,mary-,the-,virgin's1 ,fellow of ,oriel ,college1 and ,gresham ,lecturer in ,divinity4 ,with ,facsimiles of ,codex ,and ,codex ,l ',advice to you1' sir1 'in studying ,divinity8' ,did you say that you 'wished ,i would give you a few words of advice1' sir8444 ,then let me recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references1 sir6 ,conversation of the late ,,president ,,routh ,oxford and ,london3 ,james ,parker and ,co4 #ahga4 ,,contents ,the ,codex ,dedication3 ,to ,sir ,roundell ,palmer1 ,q4,c41 ,m4,p4 ,preface4 ,the ,last ,twelve ,verses4 ,chapter ,i4 ,,the ,,case ,,of ,,the ,,last ,,twelve ,,verses ,,of ,s4 ,,mark',s ,,gospel1 ,,stated4 ,chapter ,,ii4 ,,the ,,hostile ,,verdict ,,of ,,biblical ,,critics ,,shewn ,,to ,,be ,,quite ,,of ,,recent ,,date4 ,chapter ,,iii4 ,,the ,,early ,,fathers ,,appealed ,,to1 ,,and ,,observed ,,to ,,bear ,,favourable ,,witness4 ,chapter ,,iv4 ,,the ,,early ,,versions ,,examined1 ,,and ,,found ,,to ,,yield ,,unfaltering ,,testimony ,,to ,,the ,,genuineness ,,of ,,these ,,verses4 ,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,alleged ,,hostile ,,witness ,,of ,,certain ,,of ,,the ,,early ,,fathers ,,proved ,,to ,,be ,,an ,,imagination ,,of ,,the ,,critics4 ,chapter ,,vi4 ,,manuscript ,,testimony ,,shewn ,,to ,,be ,,overwhelmingly ,,in ,,favour ,,of ,,these ,,verses4--,,part ,i4 ,chapter ,,vii4 ,,manuscript ,,testimony ,,shewn ,,to ,,be ,,overwhelmingly ,,in ,,favour ,,of ,,these ,,verses4--,,part ,,ii4 ,chapter ,,viii4 ,,the ,,purport ,,of ,,ancient ,,scholia1 ,,and ,,notes ,,in ,,mss4 ,,on ,,the ,,subject ,,of ,,these ,,verses1 ,,shewn ,,to ,,be ,,the ,,reverse ,,of ,,what ,,is ,,commonly ,,supposed4 ,chapter ,,ix4 ,,internal ,,evidence ,,demonstrated ,,to ,,be ,,the ,,very ,,reverse ,,of ,,unfavourable ,,to ,,these ,,verses4 ,chapter ,x4 ,,the ,,testimony ,,of ,,the ,,lectionaries ,,shewn ,,to ,,be ,,absolutely ,,decisive ,,as ,,to ,,the ,,genuineness ,,of ,,these ,,verses4 ,chapter ,,xi4 ,,the ,,omission ,,of ,,these ,,twelve ,,verses ,,in ,,certain ,,ancient ,,copies ,,of ,,the ,,gospels1 ,,explained ,,and ,,accounted ,,for4 ,chapter ,,xii4 ,,general ,,review ,,of ,,the ,,question3 ,,summary ,,of ,,the ,,evidence2 ,,and ,,conclusion ,,of ,,the ,,whole ,,subject4 ,,appendix 7,a74 ,,appendix 7,b74 ,,appendix 7,c74 ,,appendix 7,d74 ,,appendix 7,e74 ,,appendix 7,f74 ,,appendix 7,g74 ,,appendix 7,h74 ,,postscript4 ,l',,envoy ,,general ,,index4 ,footnotes ,,the ,,codex ,transcriber's ,note3 ,this e-book contains much ,greek text which is central to the point of the book4 ,in the ,,ascii versions of the e-book1 the ,greek is transliterated into ,roman letters1 which do not perfectly represent the ,greek original2 especially1 accent and breathing marks do not transliterate4 ,the ,,html and ,,pdf versions contain the true ,greek text of the original book4 ,on the next page is exhibited an exact ,fac-simile1 obtained by ,photography1 of fol4 #bh b of the ,,codex ,,sinaiticus at ,s4 ,petersburg1 7,tischendorf's 73 shewing the abrupt termination of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel at the words 7chap4 xvi4 #h71 as explained at p4 #gj1 and pp4 #hf-h4 ,the original ,photograph1 which is here reproduced on a diminished scale1 measures in height full fourteen inches and one-eighth2 in breadth1 full thirteen inches4 ,it was procured for me through the friendly and zealous offices of the ,english ,chaplain at ,s4 ,petersburg1 the ,rev4 ,a4 ,s4 ,thompson1 ,b4,d42 by favour of the ,keeper of the ,imperial ,library1 who has my hearty thanks for his liberality and consideration4 ,it will be perceived that the text begins at ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #b1 and ends with the first words of ,s4 ,luke i4 #ah4 ,up to this hour1 every endeavour to obtain a ,photograph of the corresponding page of the ,,codex ,,vaticanus1 ,b1 7,no4 #abji1 in the ,vatican17 has proved unavailing4 ,if the present ,vindication of the genuineness of ,twelve ,verses of the everlasting ,gospel should have the good fortune to approve itself to his ,holiness1 ,,pope ,,pius ,,ix41 let me be permitted in this unadorned and unusual manner1--7to which ,i would fain add some circumstance of respectful ceremony if ,i knew how17--very humbly to entreat his ,holiness to allow me to possess a ,photograph1 corresponding in size with the original1 of the page of ,,codex ,b 7it is numbered fol4 #acjc17 which exhibits the abrupt termination of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark4 ,j4 ,w4 ,b4 ,,oriel ,,college1 ,,oxford1 ,june #ad1 #ahga4 ,illustration3 ,codex ,sinaiticus facsimile page4 ,illustration3 ,codex ,sinaiticus facsimile page4 ,,my ,,word ,,will ,,not ,,pass ,,away 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 1 4 ,,dedication3 ,,to ,,sir ,,roundell ,,palmer1 ,q4,c41 ,m4,p4 ,,dear ,,sir ,,roundell1 ,i do myself the honour of inscribing this volume to you4 ,permit me to explain the reason why4 ,it is not merely that ,i may give expression to a sentiment of private friendship which dates back from the pleasant time when ,i was ,curate to your ,father1--whose memory ,i never recall without love and veneration2--nor even in order to afford myself the opportunity of testifying how much ,i honour you for the noble example of conscientious uprightness and integrity which you set us on a recent public occasion4 ,it is for no such reason that ,i dedicate to you this vindication of the last ,twelve ,verses of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark4 ,it is because ,i desire supremely to submit the argument contained in the ensuing pages to a practised judicial intellect of the loftiest stamp4 ,recent ,editors of the ,new ,testament insist that these 8last ,twelve ,verses0 are not genuine4 ,the ,critics1 almost to a man1 avow themselves of the same opinion4 ,popular ,prejudice has been for a long time past warmly enlisted on the same side4 ,i am as convinced as ,i am of my life1 that the reverse is the truth4 ,it is not even with me as it is with certain learned friends of mine1 who1 admitting the adversary's premisses1 content themselves with denying the validity of his inference4 ,however true it may be1--and it is true1--that from those premisses the proposed conclusion does not follow1 ,i yet venture to deny the correctness of those premisses altogether4 ,i insist1 on the contrary1 that the ,evidence relied on is untrustworthy1--untrustworthy in every particular4 ,how1 in the meantime1 can such an one as ,i am hope to persuade the world that it is as ,i say1 while the most illustrious ,biblical ,critics at home and abroad are agreed1 and against me8 ,clearly1 the first thing to be done is to secure for myself a full and patient hearing4 ,with this view1 ,i have written a book4 ,but next1 instead of waiting for the slow verdict of ,public ,opinion1 7which yet1 ,i know1 must come after many days17 ,i desiderate for the ,evidence ,i have collected1 a competent and an impartial ,judge4 ,and that is why ,i dedicate my book to you4 ,if ,i can but get this case fairly tried1 ,i have no doubt whatever about the result4 ,whether you are able to find time to read these pages1 or not1 it shall content me to have shewn in this manner the confidence with which ,i advocate my cause2 the kind of test to which ,i propose to bring my reasonings4 ,if ,i may be allowed to say so1--,s4 ,mark's last ,twelve ,verses shall no longer remain a subject of dispute among men4 ,i am able to prove that this portion of the ,gospel has been declared to be spurious on wholly mistaken grounds3 and this ought in fairness to close the discussion4 ,but ,i claim to have done more4 ,i claim to have shewn1 from considerations which have been hitherto overlooked1 that its genuineness must needs be reckoned among the things that are absolutely certain4 ,i am1 with sincere regard and respect1 ,dear ,sir ,roundell1 ,very faithfully yours1 ,,john ,w4 ,,burgon4 ,,oriel1 ,july1 #ahga4 ,,preface4 ,this volume is my contribution towards the better understanding of a subject which is destined1 when it shall have grown into a ,science1 to vindicate for itself a mighty province1 and to enjoy paramount attention4 ,i allude to the ,textual ,criticism of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures4 ,that this ,study is still in its infancy1 all may see4 ,the very principles on which it is based are as yet only imperfectly understood4 ,the reason is obvious4 ,it is because the very foundations have not yet been laid1 7except to a wholly inadequate extent17 on which the future superstructure is to rise4 ,a careful collation of every extant ,codex1 7executed after the manner of the ,rev4 ,f4 ,h4 ,scrivener's labours in this department17 is the first indispensable preliminary to any real progress4 ,another1 is a revised ,text1 not to say a more exact knowledge1 of the oldest ,versions4 ,scarcely of inferior importance would be critically correct editions of the ,fathers of the ,church2 and these must by all means be furnished with far completer ,indices of ,texts than have ever yet been attempted4--,there is not a single ,father to be named whose ,works have been hitherto furnished with even a tolerably complete ,index of the places in which he either quotes1 or else clearly refers to1 the ,text of the ,new ,testament3 while scarcely a tithe of the known ,,mss4 of the ,gospels have as yet been satisfactorily collated4 ,strange to relate1 we are to this hour without so much as a satisfactory ,catalogue of the ,copies which are known to be extant4 ,but when all this has been done1--7and the ,science deserves1 and requires1 a little more public encouragement than has hitherto been bestowed on the arduous and--let me not be ashamed to add the word--unremunerative labour of ,textual ,criticism17--it will be discovered that the popular and the prevailing ,theory is a mistaken one4 ,the plausible hypothesis on which recent recensions of the ,text have been for the most part conducted1 will be seen to be no longer tenable4 ,the latest decisions will in consequence be generally reversed4 ,i am not of course losing sight of what has been already achieved in this department of ,sacred ,learning4 ,while our knowledge of the uncial ,,mss4 has been rendered tolerably exact and complete1 an excellent beginning has been made1 7chiefly by the ,rev4 ,f4 ,h4 ,scrivener1 the most judicious living ,master of ,textual ,criticism17 in acquainting us with the contents of about seventy of the cursive ,,mss4 of the ,new ,testament4 ,and though it is impossible to deny that the published ,texts of ,doctors ,tischendorf and ,tregelles as ,texts are wholly inadmissible1 yet is it equally certain that by the conscientious diligence with which those distinguished ,scholars have respectively laboured1 they have erected monuments of their learning and ability which will endure for ever4 ,their ,editions of the ,new ,testament will not be superseded by any new discoveries1 by any future advances in the ,science of ,textual ,criticism4 ,the ,,mss4 which they have edited will remain among the most precious materials for future study4 ,all honour to them6 ,if in the warmth of controversy ,i shall appear to have spoken of them sometimes without becoming deference1 let me here once for all confess that ,i am to blame1 and express my regret4 ,when they have publicly begged ,s4 ,mark's pardon for the grievous wrong they have done him1 ,i will very humbly beg their pardon also4 ,in conclusion1 ,i desire to offer my thanks to the ,rev4 ,john ,wordsworth1 late ,fellow of ,brasenose ,college1 for his patient perusal of these sheets as they have passed through the press1 and for favouring me with several judicious suggestions4 ,to him may be applied the saying of ,president ,routh on receiving a visit from ,bishop ,wordsworth at his lodgings1--8,i see the learned son of a learned ,father1 sir60--,let me be permitted to add that my friend inherits the ,bishop's fine taste and accurate judgment also4 ,and now ,i dismiss this ,work1 at which ,i have conscientiously laboured for many days and many nights2 beginning it in joy and ending it in sorrow4 ,the ,college in which ,i have for the most part written it is designated in the preamble of its ,charter and in its ,foundation ,statutes1 7which are already much more than half a thousand years old17 as ,collegium ,scholarium in ,sacr ,theologi studentium1--perpetuis temporibus duraturum4 ,indebted1 under ,,god1 to the pious munificence of the ,founder of ,oriel for my opportunities of study1 ,i venture1 in what ,i must needs call evil days1 to hope that ,i have to some extent 8employed my advantages10--7the expression occurs in a prayer used by this ,society on its three solemn anniversaries17--as our ,founder and ,benefactors 8would approve if they were now upon earth to witness what we do40 ,j4 ,w4 ,b4 ,,oriel1 ,july1 #ahga4 ,,the ,,last ,,twelve ,,verses4 ,subjoined1 for convenience1 are 8the ,last ,twelve ,verses40 7#i7 ,now when ,jesus was risen early the first day 1 of the week1 ,he appeared first to ,mary ,magdalene1 4 out of whom ,he had cast seven devils4 7#aj7 ,and 1 she went and told them 4 that had been with ,him1 as they mourned and wept4 7#aa7 ,and they1 when they 4 had heard that ,he was alive1 and had been seen of her1 believed not4 7#ab7 ,after that ,he appeared in another form 1 unto two of them1 as they 4 walked1 and went into the country4 7#ac7 ,and they 2 went and told it unto the 4 residue3 neither believed they them4 7#ad7 ,afterward ,he appeared unto the eleven 1 as they sat at meat1 and upbraided them with their 1 unbelief and hardness of heart1 because they believed not them which 4 had seen ,him after ,he was 1 8 risen4 7#ae7 ,and ,he said 1 unto them1 8,go ye into all the world1 and preach 4 the ,gospel to every creature4 7#af7 ,he that 2 believeth and is baptized 4 shall be saved2 but he that believeth not shall 2 be damned4 7#ag7 ,and these signs shall follow them 2 that believe2 ,in ,my ,name 2 shall they cast out 2 devils2 they shall speak 1 with new tongues2 7#ah7 2 they shall take up 1 serpents2 and if they 40 drink any deadly thing1 it shall not hurt them2 they shall lay hands on the sick1 and they shall recover40 1 7#ai7 ,so then after the 1 ,,lord had spoken unto 1 them1 ,he was received up into ,heaven1 and sat on 2 the ,right hand of ,,god4 7#bj7 ,and they went forth1 1 and preached every where1 1 the ,,lord working with them1 and confirming the 4 word with signs 4 following4 ,amen4 ,chapter ,i4 ,,the ,,case ,,of ,,the ,,last ,,twelve ,,verses ,,of ,s4 ,,mark',s ,,gospel1 ,,stated4 ,these ,verses generally suspected at the present time4 ,the popularity of this opinion accounted for4 ,it has lately become the fashion to speak of the last ,twelve ,verses of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark1 as if it were an ascertained fact that those verses constitute no integral part of the ,gospel4 ,it seems to be generally supposed1 7#a7 ,that the evidence of ,,mss4 is altogether fatal to their claims2 7#b7 ,that 8the early ,fathers0 witness plainly against their genuineness2 7#c7 ,that1 from considerations of 8internal evidence0 they must certainly be given up4 ,it shall be my endeavour in the ensuing pages to shew1 on the contrary1 ,that manuscript evidence is so overwhelmingly in their favour that no room is left for doubt or suspicion3--,that there is not so much as one of the ,fathers1 early or late1 who gives it as his opinion that these verses are spurious3--and1 ,that the argument derived from internal considerations proves on inquiry to be baseless and unsubstantial as a dream4 ,but ,i hope that ,i shall succeed in doing more4 ,it shall be my endeavour to shew not only that there really is no reason whatever for calling in question the genuineness of this portion of ,holy ,writ1 but also that there exist sufficient reasons for feeling confident that it must needs be genuine4 ,this is clearly as much as it is possible for me to achieve4 ,but when this has been done1 ,i venture to hope that the verses in dispute will for the future be allowed to retain their place in the second ,gospel unmolested4 ,it will of course be asked1--,and yet1 if all this be so1 how does it happen that both in very ancient1 and also in very modern times1 this proposal to suppress twelve verses of the ,gospel has enjoyed a certain amount of popularity8 ,at the two different periods1 7,i answer17 for widely different reasons4 7#a47 ,in the ancient days1 when it was the universal belief of ,christendom that the ,word of ,,god must needs be consistent with itself in every part1 and prove in every part 7like its ,divine ,author7 perfectly 8faithful and true10 the difficulty 7which was deemed all but insuperable7 of bringing certain statements in ,s4 ,mark's last ,twelve ,verses into harmony with certain statements of the other ,evangelists1 is discovered to have troubled ,divines exceedingly4 8,in fact10 7says ,mr4 ,scrivener17 8it brought suspicion upon these verses1 and caused their omission in some copies seen by ,eusebius40 ,that the maiming process is indeed attributable to this cause and came about in this particular way1 ,i am unable to persuade myself2 but1 if the desire to provide an escape from a serious critical difficulty did not actually occasion that copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel were mutilated1 it certainly was the reason why1 in very early times1 such mutilated copies were viewed without displeasure by some1 and appealed to with complacency by others4 7#b47 ,but times are changed4 ,we have recently been assured on high authority that the ,church has reversed her ancient convictions in this respect3 that now1 8most sound theologians have no dread whatever of acknowledging minute points of disagreement0 7i4e4 minute errors7 8in the fourfold narrative even of the life of the ,redeemer407#a7 ,there has arisen in these last days a singular impatience of ,dogmatic ,truth1 7especially ,dogma of an unpalatable kind17 which has even rendered popular the pretext afforded by these same mutilated copies for the grave resuscitation of doubts1 never as it would seem seriously entertained by any of the ancients2 and which1 at all events for #acjj years and upwards1 have deservedly sunk into oblivion4 ,whilst ,i write1 that 8most divine explication of the chiefest articles of our ,christian belief10 the ,athanasian ,creed17#b7 is made the object of incessant assaults47#c7 ,but then it is remembered that statements quite as 8uncharitable0 as any which this ,creed contains are found in the #afth verse of ,s4 ,mark's concluding chapter2 are in fact the words of ,him whose very ,name is ,love4 ,the precious warning clause1 ,i say1 7miscalled 8damnatory107#d77 which an impertinent officiousness is for glossing with a rubric and weakening with an apology1 proceeded from ,divine lips1--at least if these concluding verses be genuine4 ,how shall this inconvenient circumstance be more effectually dealt with than by accepting the suggestion of the most recent editors1 that ,s4 ,mark's concluding verses are an unauthorised addition to his ,gospel8 8,if it be acknowledged that the passage has a harsh sound10 7remarks ,dean ,stanley17 8unlike the usual utterances of ,him who came not to condemn but to save1 the discoveries of later times have shewn1 almost beyond doubt1 that it is not a part of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 but an addition by another hand2 of which the weakness in the external evidence coincides with the internal evidence in proving its later origin407#e7 ,modern prejudice1 then1--added to a singularly exaggerated estimate of the critical importance of the testimony of our two oldest ,codices1 7another of the 8discoveries of later times10 concerning which ,i shall have more to say by-and-by17--must explain why the opinion is even popular that the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark are a spurious appendix to his ,gospel4 ,not that ,biblical ,critics would have us believe that the ,evangelist left off at verse #h1 intending that the words1--8neither said they anything to any man1 for they were afraid10 should be the conclusion of his ,gospel4 8,no one can imagine10 7writes ,griesbach17 8that ,mark cut short the thread of his narrative at that place407#f7 ,it is on all hands eagerly admitted1 that so abrupt a termination must be held to mark an incomplete or else an uncompleted work4 ,how1 then1 in the original autograph of the ,evangelist1 is it supposed that the narrative proceeded8 ,this is what no one has even ventured so much as to conjecture4 ,it is assumed1 however1 that the original termination of the ,gospel1 whatever it may have been1 has perished4 ,we appeal1 of course1 to its actual termination3 and1--,of what nature then1 7we ask17 is the supposed necessity for regarding the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel as a spurious substitute for what the ,evangelist originally wrote8 ,what1 in other words1 has been the history of these modern doubts2 and by what steps have they established themselves in books1 and won the public ear8 ,to explain this1 shall be the object of the next ensuing chapters4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,the ,,hostile ,,verdict ,,of ,,biblical ,,critics ,,shewn ,,to ,,be ,,quite ,,of ,,recent ,,date4 ,griesbach the first to deny the genuineness of these ,verses 7p4 #f74--,lachmann's fatal principle 7p4 #h7 the clue to the unfavourable verdict of ,tischendorf 7p4 #i71 of ,tregelles 7p4 #aj71 of ,alford 7p4 #ab72 which has been generally adopted by subsequent ,scholars and ,divines 7p4 #ac74--,the nature of the present inquiry explained 7p4 #ae47 ,it is only since the appearance of ,griesbach's second edition #agif-ahjf that ,critics of the ,new ,testament have permitted themselves to handle the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel with disrespect4 ,previous critical editions of the ,new ,testament are free from this reproach4 8,there is no reason for doubting the genuineness of this portion of ,scripture10 wrote ,mill in #agjg1 after a review of the evidence 7as far as he was acquainted with it7 for and against4 ,twenty-seven years later1 appeared ,bengel's edition of the ,new ,testament 7#agcd72 and ,wetstein1 at the end of another seventeen years 7#agea-b71 followed in the same field4 ,both editors1 after rehearsing the adverse testimony in extenso1 left the passage in undisputed possession of its place4 ,alter in #aghf-g1 and ,birch in #aghh17g7 7suspicious as the latter evidently was of its genuineness17 followed their predecessors' example4 ,but ,matthaei1 7who also brought his labours to a close in the year #aghh17 was not content to give a silent suffrage4 ,he had been for upwards of fourteen years a laborious collator of ,greek ,,mss4 of the ,new ,testament1 and was so convinced of the insufficiency of the arguments which had been brought against these twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark1 that with no ordinary warmth1 no common acuteness1 he insisted on their genuineness4 8,with ,griesbach10 7remarks ,dr4 ,tregelles177#h7 8,texts which may be called really critical begin20 and ,griesbach is the first to insist that the concluding verses of ,s4 ,mark are spurious4 ,that he did not suppose the second ,gospel to have always ended at verse #h1 we have seen already47#i7 ,he was of opinion1 however1 that 8at some very remote period1 the original ending of the ,gospel perished1--disappeared perhaps from the ,evangelist's own copy1--and that the present ending was by some one substituted in its place40 ,griesbach further invented the following elaborate and extraordinary hypothesis to account for the existence of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj4 ,he invites his readers to believe that when1 7before the end of the second century17 the four ,evangelical narratives were collected into a volume and dignified with the title of 8,the ,gospel10--,s4 ,mark's narrative was furnished by some unknown individual with its actual termination in order to remedy its manifest incompleteness2 and that this volume became the standard of the ,alexandrine recension of the text3 in other words1 became the fontal source of a mighty family of ,,mss4 by ,griesbach designated as 8,alexandrine40 ,but there will have been here and there in existence isolated copies of one or more of the ,gospels2 and in all of these1 ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 7by the hypothesis17 will have ended abruptly at the eighth verse4 ,these copies of single ,gospels1 when collected together1 are presumed by ,griesbach to have constituted 8the ,western recension40 ,if1 in codices of this family also1 the self-same termination is now all but universally found1 the fact is to be accounted for1 7,griesbach says17 by the natural desire which possessors of the ,gospels will have experienced to supplement their imperfect copies as best they might4 8,let this conjecture be accepted10 proceeds the learned veteran1--7unconscious apparently that he has been demanding acceptance for at least half-a-dozen wholly unsupported as well as entirely gratuitous conjectures17--8and every difficulty disappears2 and it becomes perfectly intelligible how there has crept into almost every codex which has been written1 from the second century downwards1 a section quite different from the original and genuine ending of ,s4 ,mark1 which disappeared before the four ,gospels were collected into a single volume40--,in other words1 if men will but be so accommodating as to assume that the conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel disappeared before any one had the opportunity of transcribing the ,evangelist's inspired autograph1 they will have no difficulty in understanding that the present conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel was not really written by ,s4 ,mark4 ,it should perhaps be stated in passing1 that ,griesbach was driven into this curious maze of unsupported conjecture by the exigencies of his 8,recension ,theory20 which1 inasmuch as it has been long since exploded1 need not now occupy us4 ,but it is worth observing that the argument already exhibited1 7such as it is17 breaks down under the weight of the very first fact which its learned author is obliged to lay upon it4 ,codex ,b41--the solitary manuscript witness for omitting the clause in question1 7for ,codex had not yet been discovered17--had been already claimed by ,griesbach as a chief exponent of his so-called 8,alexandrine ,recension40 ,but then1 on the ,critic's own hypothesis1 7as we have seen already17 ,codex ,b4 ought1 on the contrary1 to have contained it4 ,how was that inconvenient fact to be got over8 ,griesbach quietly remarks in a foot-note that ,codex ,b4 8has affinity with the ,eastern family of ,,mss40--,the misfortune of being saddled with a worthless theory was surely never more apparent4 ,by the time we have reached this point in the investigation1 we are reminded of nothing so much as of the weary traveller who1 having patiently pursued an ignis fatuus through half the night1 beholds it at last vanish2 but not until it has conducted him up to his chin in the mire4 ,neither ,hug1 nor ,scholz his pupil1--who in #ahjh and #ahcj respectively followed ,griesbach with modifications of his recension-theory1--concurred in the unfavourable sentence which their illustrious predecessor had passed on the concluding portion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,the latter even eagerly vindicated its genuineness47#aj7 ,but with ,lachmann1--whose unsatisfactory text of the ,gospels appeared in #ahdb1--originated a new principle of ,textual ,revision2 the principle1 namely1 of paying exclusive and absolute deference to the testimony of a few arbitrarily selected ancient documents2 no regard being paid to others of the same or of yet higher antiquity4 ,this is not the right place for discussing this plausible and certainly most convenient scheme of textual revision4 ,that it leads to conclusions little short of irrational1 is certain4 ,i notice it only because it supplies the clue to the result which1 as far as ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj is concerned1 has been since arrived at by ,dr4 ,tischendorf1 ,dr4 ,tregelles1 and ,dean ,alford17#aa7--the three latest critics who have formally undertaken to reconstruct the sacred ,text4 ,they agree in assuring their readers that the genuine ,gospel of ,s4 ,mark extends no further than ch4 xvi4 ver4 #h3 in other words1 that all that follows the words is an unauthorized addition by some later hand2 8a fragment10--distinguishable from the rest of the ,gospel not less by internal evidence than by external testimony4 ,this verdict becomes the more important because it proceeds from men of undoubted earnestness and high ability2 who cannot be suspected of being either unacquainted with the evidence on which the point in dispute rests1 nor inexperienced in the art of weighing such evidence4 ,moreover1 their verdict has been independently reached2 is unanimous2 is unhesitating2 has been eagerly proclaimed by all three on many different occasions as well as in many different places27#ab7 and may be said to be at present in all but undisputed possession of the field47#ac7 ,the first-named ,editor enjoys a vast reputation1 and has been generously styled by ,mr4 ,scrivener1 8the first ,biblical ,critic in ,europe40 ,the other two have produced text-books which are deservedly held in high esteem1 and are in the hands of every student4 ,the views of such men will undoubtedly colour the convictions of the next generation of ,english ,churchmen4 ,it becomes absolutely necessary1 therefore1 to examine with the utmost care the grounds of their verdict1 the direct result of which is to present us with a mutilated ,gospel4 ,if they are right1 there is no help for it but that the convictions of eighteen centuries in this respect must be surrendered4 ,but if ,tischendorf and ,tregelles are wrong in this particular1 it follows of necessity that doubt is thrown over the whole of their critical method4 ,the case is a crucial one4 ,every page of theirs incurs suspicion1 if their deliberate verdict in this instance shall prove to be mistaken4 #a4 ,tischendorf disposes of the whole question in a single sentence4 8,that these verses were not written by ,mark10 7he says17 8admits of satisfactory proof40 ,he then recites in detail the adverse external testimony which his predecessors had accumulated2 remarking1 that it is abundantly confirmed by internal evidence4 ,of this he supplies a solitary sample2 but declares that the whole passage is 8abhorrent0 to ,s4 ,mark's manner4 8,the facts of the case being such10 7and with this he dismisses the subject17 8a healthy piety reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming off as ,mark's what the ,evangelist is so plainly shewn to have known nothing at all about407#ad7 ,a mass of laborious annotation which comes surging in at the close of verse #h1 and fills two of ,tischendorf's pages1 has the effect of entirely divorcing the twelve verses in question from the inspired text of the ,evangelist4 ,on the other hand1 the evidence in favour of the place is despatched in less than twelve lines4 ,what can be the reason that an ,editor of the ,new ,testament parades elaborately every particular of the evidence1 7such as it is17 against the genuineness of a considerable portion of the ,gospel2 and yet makes summary work with the evidence in its favour8 ,that ,tischendorf has at least entirely made up his mind on the matter in hand is plain4 ,elsewhere1 he speaks of the ,author of these verses as 8,pseudo ,marcus407#ae7 #b4 ,dr4 ,tregelles has expressed himself most fully on this subject in his 8,account of the ,printed ,text of the ,greek ,new ,testament0 7#ahed74 ,the respected author undertakes to shew 8that the early testimony that ,s4 ,mark did not write these verses is confirmed by existing monuments40 ,accordingly1 he announces as the result of the propositions which he thinks he has established1 8that the book of ,mark himself extends no further than 40 ,he is the only critic ,i have met with to whom it does not seem incredible that ,s4 ,mark did actually conclude his ,gospel in this abrupt way3 observing that 8perhaps we do not know enough of the circumstances of ,s4 ,mark when he wrote his ,gospel to say whether he did or did not leave it with a complete termination40 ,in this modest suggestion at least ,dr4 ,tregelles is unassailable1 since we know absolutely nothing whatever about 8the circumstances of ,s4 ,mark10 7or of any other ,evangelist17 8when he wrote his ,gospel30 neither indeed are we quite sure who ,s4 ,mark was4 ,but when he goes on to declare1 notwithstanding1 8that the remaining twelve verses1 by whomsoever written1 have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second ,gospel20 and complains that 8there is in some minds a kind of timidity with regard to ,holy ,scripture1 as if all our notions of its authority depended on our knowing who was the writer of each particular portion2 instead of simply seeing and owning that it was given forth from ,,god1 and that it is as much ,his as were the ,commandments of the ,law written by ,his own finger on the tables of stone207#af7--the learned writer betrays a misapprehension of the question at issue1 which we are least of all prepared to encounter in such a quarter4 ,we admire his piety but it is at the expense of his critical sagacity4 ,for the question is not at all one of authorship1 but only one of genuineness4 ,have the codices been mutilated which do not contain these verses8 ,if they have1 then must these verses be held to be genuine4 ,but on the contrary1 ,have the codices been supplemented which contain them8 ,then are these verses certainly spurious4 ,there is no help for it but they must either be held to be an integral part of the ,gospel1 and therefore1 in default of any proof to the contrary1 as certainly by ,s4 ,mark as any other twelve verses which can be named2 or else an unauthorized addition to it4 ,if they belong to the post-apostolic age it is idle to insist on their ,inspiration1 and to claim that this 8authentic anonymous addition to what ,mark himself wrote down0 is as much the work of ,,god 8as were the ,ten ,commandments written by ,his own finger on the tables of stone40 ,on the other hand1 if they 8ought as much to be received as part of our second ,gospel as the last chapter of ,deuteronomy 7unknown as the writer is7 is received as the right and proper conclusion of the book of ,moses10--it is difficult to understand why the learned editor should think himself at liberty to sever them from their context1 and introduce the subscription after ver4 #h4 ,in short1 8,how persons who believe that these verses did not form a part of the original ,gospel of ,mark1 but were added afterwards1 can say that they have a good claim to be received as an authentic or genuine part of the second ,gospel1 that is1 a portion of canonical ,scripture1 passes comprehension40 ,it passes even ,dr4 ,davidson's comprehension2 7for the foregoing words are his27 and ,dr4 ,davidson1 as some of us are aware1 is not a man to stick at trifles47#ag7 #c4 ,dean ,alford went a little further than any of his predecessors4 ,he says that this passage 8was placed as a completion of the ,gospel soon after the ,apostolic period1--the ,gospel itself having been1 for some reason unknown to us1 left incomplete4 ,the most probable supposition0 7he adds7 8is1 that the last leaf of the original ,gospel was torn away40 ,the italics in this conjecture 7which was originally ,griesbach's7 are not mine4 ,the internal evidence 7declares the same learned writer7 8preponderates vastly against the authorship of ,mark20 or 7as he elsewhere expresses it7 against 8its genuineness as a work of the ,evangelist40 ,accordingly1 in his ,prolegomena1 7p4 #ch7 he describes it as 8the remarkable fragment at the end of the ,gospel40 ,after this1 we are the less astonished to find that he closes the second ,gospel at ver4 #h2 introduces the ,subscription there2 and encloses the twelve verses which follow within heavy brackets4 ,thus1 whereas from the days of our illustrious countryman ,mill 7#agjg71 the editors of the ,n4 ,t4 have either been silent on the subject1 or else have whispered only that this section of the ,gospel is to be received with less of confidence than the rest1--it has been reserved for the present century to convert the ancient suspicions into actual charges4 ,the latest to enter the field have been the first to execute ,griesbach's adverse sentence pronounced fifty years ago1 and to load the blessed ,evangelist with bonds4 ,it might have been foreseen that when ,critics so conspicuous permit themselves thus to handle the precious deposit1 others would take courage to hurl their thunderbolts in the same direction with the less concern4 8,it is probable10 7says ,abp4 ,thomson in the ,bible ,dictionary17 8that this section is from a different hand1 and was annexed to the ,gospels soon after the times of the ,apostles407#ah7--,the ,rev4 ,t4 ,s4 ,green17#ai7 7an able scholar1 never to be mentioned without respect17 considers that 8the hypothesis of very early interpolation satisfies the body of facts in evidence10--which 8point unmistakably in the direction of a spurious origin40--8,in respect of ,mark's ,gospel10 7writes ,professor ,norton in a recent work on the ,genuineness of the ,gospels17 8there is ground for believing that the last twelve verses were not written by the ,evangelist1 but were added by some other writer to supply a short conclusion to the work1 which some cause had prevented the author from completing407#bj7--,professor ,westcott--who1 jointly with the ,rev4 ,f4 ,j4 ,a4 ,hort1 announces a revised ,text--assures us that 8the original text1 from whatever cause it may have happened1 terminated abruptly after the account of the ,angelic vision40 ,the rest 8was added at another time1 and probably by another hand40 8,it is in vain to speculate on the causes of this abrupt close40 8,the remaining verses cannot be regarded as part of the original narrative of ,s4 ,mark07#ba7--,meyer insists that this is an 8apocryphal fragment10 and reproduces all the arguments1 external and internal1 which have ever been arrayed against it1 without a particle of misgiving4 ,the 8note0 with which he takes leave of the subject is even insolent47#bb7 ,a comparison 7he says7 of these 8fragments0 7ver4 #i-ah and #ai7 with the parallel places in the other ,gospels and in the ,acts1 shews how vacillating and various were the ,apostolical traditions concerning the appearances of our ,,lord after ,his ,resurrection1 and concerning ,his ,ascension4 78,hast thou killed1 and also taken possession807 ,such1 then1 is the hostile verdict concerning these last twelve verses which ,i venture to dispute1 and which ,i trust ,i shall live to see reversed4 ,the writers above cited will be found to rely 7#a47 on the external evidence of certain ancient ,,mss42 and 7#b47 on ,scholia which state 8that the more ancient and accurate copies terminated the ,gospel at ver4 #h40 7#c47 ,they assure us that this is confirmed by a formidable array of ,patristic authorities4 7#d47 ,internal proof is declared not to be wanting4 ,certain incoherences and inaccuracies are pointed out4 ,in fine1 8the phraseology and style of the section0 are declared to be 8unfavourable to its authenticity20 not a few of the words and expressions being 8foreign to the diction of ,mark40--,i propose to shew that all these confident and imposing statements are to a great extent either mistakes or exaggerations1 and that the slender residuum of fact is about as powerless to achieve the purpose of the critics as were the seven green withs of the ,philistines to bind ,samson4 ,in order to exhibit successfully what ,i have to offer on this subject1 ,i find it necessary to begin 7in the next chapter7 at the very beginning4 ,i think it right1 however1 in this place to premise a few plain considerations which will be of use to us throughout all our subsequent inquiry2 and which indeed we shall never be able to afford to lose sight of for long4 ,the question at issue being simply this1--,whether it is reasonable to suspect that the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized supplement to his ,gospel1 or not8--the whole of our business clearly resolves itself into an examination of what has been urged in proof that the former alternative is the correct one4 ,our opponents maintain that these verses did not form part of the original autograph of the ,evangelist4 ,but it is a known rule in the ,law of ,evidence that the burthen of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue47#bc7 ,we have therefore to ascertain in the present instance what the supposed proof is exactly worth2 remembering always that in this subject-matter a high degree of probability is the only kind of proof which is attainable4 ,when1 for example1 it is contended that the famous words in ,s4 ,john's first ,epistle 7#a ,s4 ,john v4 #g1 #h17 are not to be regarded as genuine1 the fact that they are away from almost every known ,codex is accepted as a proof that they were also away from the autograph of the ,evangelist4 ,on far less weighty evidence1 in fact1 we are at all times prepared to yield the hearty assent of our understanding in this department of sacred science4 ,and yet1 it will be found that evidence of overwhelming weight1 if not of an entirely different kind1 is required in the present instance3 as ,i proceed to explain4 #a4 ,when it is contended that our ,,lord's reply to the young ruler 7,s4 ,matt4 xix4 #ag7 was not 2 1 1 1--it is at the same time insisted that it was 2 4 ,it is proposed to omit the former words only because an alternative clause is at hand1 which it is proposed to substitute in its room4 #b4 ,again4 ,when it is claimed that some given passage of the ,textus ,receptus1--,s4 ,mark ch xv4 #bh1 for example1 7 1 17 or the ,doxology in ,s4 ,matth4 vi4 #ac1--;is spurious1 all that is pretended is that certain words are an unauthorized addition to the inspired text2 and that by simply omitting them we are so far restoring the ,gospel to its original integrity4--,the same is to be said concerning every other charge of interpolation which can be named4 ,if the celebrated 8pericopa de adulter10 for instance1 be indeed not genuine1 we have but to leave out those twelve verses of ,s4 ,john's ,gospel1 and to read chap4 vii4 #eb in close sequence with chap4 viii4 #ab2 and we are assured that we are put in possession of the text as it came from the hands of its inspired ,author4 ,nor1 7it must be admitted71 is any difficulty whatever occasioned thereby2 for there is no reason assignable why the two last-named verses should not cohere2 7there is no internal improbability1 ,i mean1 in the supposition27 neither does there exist any priori reason why a considerable portion of narrative should be looked for in that particular part of the ,gospel4 #c4 ,but the case is altogether different1 as all must see1 when it is proposed to get rid of the twelve verses which for #agjj years and upwards have formed the conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel2 no alternative conclusion being proposed to our acceptance4 ,for let it be only observed what this proposal practically amounts to and means4 7a47 ,and first1 it does not mean that ,s4 ,mark himself1 with design1 brought his ,gospel to a close at the words 4 ,that supposition would in fact be irrational4 ,it does not mean1 ,i say1 that by simply leaving out those last twelve verses we shall be restoring the second ,gospel to its original integrity4 ,and this it is which makes the present a different case from every other1 and necessitates a fuller1 if not a different kind of proof4 7b47 ,what then8 ,it means that although an abrupt and impossible termination would confessedly be the result of omitting verses #i-bj1 no nearer approximation to the original autograph of the ,evangelist is at present attainable4 ,whether ,s4 ,mark was interrupted before he could finish his ,gospel1--7as ,dr4 ,tregelles and ,professor ,norton suggest27--in which case it will have been published by its ,author in an unfinished state3 or whether 8the last leaf was torn away0 before a single copy of the original could be procured1--7a view which is found to have recommended itself to ,griesbach27--in which case it will have once had a different termination from at present2 which termination however1 by the hypothesis1 has since been irrecoverably lost2--7and to one of these two wild hypotheses the critics are logically reduced27--this we are not certainly told4 ,the critics are only agreed in assuming that ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel was at first without the verses which at present conclude it4 ,but this assumption1 7that a work which has been held to be a complete work for seventeen centuries and upwards was originally incomplete17 of course requires proof4 ,the foregoing improbable theories1 based on a gratuitous assumption1 are confronted in limine with a formidable obstacle which must be absolutely got rid of before they can be thought entitled to a serious hearing4 ,it is a familiar and a fatal circumstance that the ,gospel of ,s4 ,mark has been furnished with its present termination ever since the second century of the ,christian ra47#bd7 ,in default1 therefore1 of distinct historical evidence or definite documentary proof that at some earlier period than that it terminated abruptly1 nothing short of the utter unfitness of the verses which at present conclude ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel to be regarded as the work of the ,evangelist1 would warrant us in assuming that they are the spurious accretion of the post-apostolic age3 and as such1 at the end of eighteen centuries1 to be deliberately rejected4 ,we must absolutely be furnished1 ,i say1 with internal evidence of the most unequivocal character2 or else with external testimony of a direct and definite kind1 if we are to admit that the actual conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is an unauthorized substitute for something quite different that has been lost4 ,i can only imagine one other thing which could induce us to entertain such an opinion2 and that would be the general consent of ,,mss41 ,fathers1 and ,versions in leaving these verses out4 ,else1 it is evident that we are logically forced to adopt the far easier supposition that 7not ,s4 ,mark1 but7 some copyist of the third century left a copy of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel unfinished2 which unfinished copy became the fontal source of the mutilated copies which have come down to our own times47#be7 ,i have thought it right to explain the matter thus fully at the outset2 not in order to prejudge the question1 7for that could answer no good purpose17 but only in order that the reader may have clearly set before him the real nature of the issue4 8,is it reasonable to suspect that the concluding verses of ,s4 ,mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized supplement to his ,gospel1 or not80 ,that is the question which we have to consider1--the one question4 ,and while ,i proceed to pass under careful review all the evidence on this subject with which ,i am acquainted1 ,i shall be again and again obliged to direct the attention of my reader to its bearing on the real point at issue4 ,in other words1 we shall have again and again to ask ourselves1 how far it is rendered probable by each fresh article of evidence that ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 when it left the hands of its inspired ,author1 was an unfinished work2 the last chapter ending abruptly at ver4 #h8 ,i will only point out1 before passing on1 that the course which has been adopted towards ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 by the latest ,editors of the ,new ,testament1 is simply illogical4 ,either they regard these verses as possibly genuine1 or else as certainly spurious4 ,if they entertain 7as they say they do7 a decided opinion that they are not genuine1 they ought 7if they would be consistent7 to banish them from the text47#bf7 ,conversely1 since they do not banish them from the text1 they have no right to pass a fatal sentence upon them2 to designate their author as 8pseudo-,marcus20 to handle them in contemptuous fashion4 ,the plain truth is1 these learned men are better than their theory2 the worthlessness of which they are made to feel in the present most conspicuous instance4 ,it reduces them to perplexity4 ,it has landed them in inconsistency and error4--,they will find it necessary in the end to reverse their convictions4 ,they cannot too speedily reconsider their verdict1 and retrace their steps4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,the ,,early ,,fathers ,,appealed ,,to1 ,,and ,,observed ,,to ,,bear ,,favourable ,,witness4 ,patristic evidence sometimes the most important of any 7p4 #bj74--,the importance of such evidence explained 7p4 #ba74--,nineteen ,patristic witnesses to these ,verses1 produced 7p4 #bc74--,summary 7p4 #cj74 ,the present inquiry must be conducted solely on grounds of ,evidence1 external and internal4 ,for the full consideration of the former1 seven ,chapters will be necessary37#bg7 for a discussion of the latter1 one seventh of that space will suffice47#bh7 ,we have first to ascertain whether the external testimony concerning ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj is of such a nature as to constrain us to admit that it is highly probable that those twelve verses are a spurious appendix to ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 #a4 ,it is well known that for determining the ,text of the ,new ,testament1 we are dependent on three chief sources of information3 viz4 7#a47 on ,,manuscripts1--7#b47 on ,,versions1--7#c47 on ,,fathers4 ,and it is even self-evident that the most ancient ,,mss41--the earliest ,versions1--the oldest of the ,fathers1 will probably be in every instance the most trustworthy witnesses4 #b4 ,further1 it is obvious that a really ancient ,codex of the ,gospels must needs supply more valuable critical help in establishing the precise ,text of ,scripture than can possibly be rendered by any ,translation1 however faithful3 while ,patristic citations are on the whole a less decisive authority1 even than ,versions4 ,the reasons are chiefly these3--7a47 ,fathers often quote ,scripture loosely1 if not licentiously2 and sometimes allude only when they seem to quote4 7b47 ,they appear to have too often depended on their memory1 and sometimes are demonstrably loose and inaccurate in their citations2 the same ,father being observed to quote the same place in different ways4 7c47 ,copyists and ,editors may not be altogether depended upon for the exact form of such supposed quotations4 ,thus the evidence of ,fathers must always be to some extent precarious4 #c4 ,on the other hand1 it cannot be too plainly pointed out that when1--instead of certifying ourselves of the actual words employed by an ,evangelist1 their precise form and exact sequence1--our object is only to ascertain whether a considerable passage of ,scripture is genuine or not2 is to be rejected or retained2 was known or was not known in the earliest ages of the ,church2 then1 instead of supplying the least important evidence1 ,fathers become by far the most valuable witnesses of all4 ,this entire subject may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal to the problem before us4 #d4 ,of course1 if we possessed copies of the ,gospels coeval with their authors1 nothing could compete with such evidence4 ,but then unhappily nothing of the kind is the case4 ,the facts admit of being stated within the compass of a few lines4 ,we have one ,codex 7the ,vatican1 ,b7 which is thought to belong to the first half of the ivth century2 and another1 the newly discovered ,codex ,sinaiticus1 7at ,st4 ,petersburg1 7 which is certainly not quite so old1--perhaps by #ej years4 ,next come two famous codices2 the ,alexandrine 7in the ,british ,museum1 ,a7 and the ,codex ,ephraemi 7in the ,paris ,library1 ,c71 which are probably from #ej to #ajj years more recent still4 ,the ,codex ,bezae 7at ,cambridge1 ,d7 is considered by competent judges to be the depository of a recension of the text as ancient as any of the others4 ,notwithstanding its strangely depraved condition therefore1--the many 8monstra potius quam variae lectiones0 which it contains1--it may be reckoned with the preceding four1 though it must be #ej or #ajj years later than the latest of them4 ,after this1 we drop down1 7as far as ,s4 ,mark is concerned17 to #b uncial ,,mss4 of the viiith century1--#g of the ixth1--#d of the ixth or xth17#bi7 while cursives of the xith and xiith centuries are very numerous indeed1--the copies increasing in number in a rapid ratio as we descend the stream of ,time4 ,our primitive manuscript witnesses1 therefore1 are but five in number at the utmost4 ,and of these it has never been pretended that the oldest is to be referred to an earlier date than the beginning of the ivth century1 while it is thought by competent judges that the last named may very possibly have been written quite late in the vith4 #e4 ,are we then reduced to this fourfold1 7or at most fivefold17 evidence concerning the text of the ,gospels1--on evidence of not quite certain date1 and yet 7as we all believe7 not reaching further back than to the ivth century of our ra8 ,certainly not4 ,here1 ,,fathers come to our aid4 ,there are perhaps as many as an hundred ,ecclesiastical ,writers older than the oldest extant ,codex of the ,n4 ,t43 while between ,a4,d4 #cjj and ,a4,d4 #fjj1 7within which limits our five oldest ,,mss4 may be considered certainly to fall17 there exist about two hundred ,fathers more4 ,true1 that many of these have left wondrous little behind them2 and that the quotations from ,holy ,scripture of the greater part may justly be described as rare and unsatisfactory4 ,but what then8 ,from the three hundred1 make a liberal reduction2 and an hundred writers will remain who frequently quote the ,new ,testament1 and who1 when they do quote it1 are probably as trustworthy witnesses to the ,truth of ,scripture as either ,cod4 or ,cod4 ,b4 ,we have indeed heard a great deal too much of the precariousness of this class of evidence3 not nearly enough of the gross inaccuracies which disfigure the text of those two ,codices4 ,quite surprising is it to discover to what an extent ,patristic quotations from the ,new ,testament have evidently retained their exact original form4 ,what we chiefly desiderate at this time is a more careful revision of the text of the ,fathers1 and more skilfully elaborated indices of the works of each3 not one of them having been hitherto satisfactorily indexed4 ,it would be easy to demonstrate the importance of bestowing far more attention on this subject than it seems to have hitherto enjoyed3 but ,i shall content myself with citing a single instance2 and for this1 7in order not to distract the reader's attention71 ,i shall refer him to the ,appendix47#cj7 ,what is at least beyond the limits of controversy1 whenever the genuineness of a considerable passage of ,scripture is the point in dispute1 the testimony of ,fathers who undoubtedly recognise that passage1 is beyond comparison the most valuable testimony we can enjoy4 #f4 ,for let it be only considered what is implied by a ,patristic appeal to the ,gospel4 ,it amounts to this3--that a conspicuous personage1 probably a ,bishop of the ,church1--one1 therefore1 whose history1 date1 place1 are all more or less matter of notoriety1--gives us his written assurance that the passage in question was found in that copy of the ,gospels which he was accustomed himself to employ2 the uncial codex1 7it has long since perished7 which belonged to himself or to the ,church which he served4 ,it is evident1 in short1 that any objection to quotations from ,scripture in the writings of the ancient ,fathers can only apply to the form of those quotations2 not to their substance4 ,it is just as certain that a verse of ,scripture was actually read by the ,father who unmistakedly refers to it1 as if we had read it with him2 even though the gravest doubts may be entertained as to the 8ipsissima verba0 which were found in his own particular copy4 ,he may have trusted to his memory3 or copyists may have taken liberties with his writings3 or editors may have misrepresented what they found in the written copies4 ,the form of the quoted verse1 ,i repeat1 may have suffered almost to any extent4 ,the substance1 on the contrary1 inasmuch as it lay wholly beyond their province1 may be looked upon as an indisputable fact4 #g4 ,some such preliminary remarks1 7never out of place when quotations from the ,fathers are to be considered17 cannot well be withheld when the most venerable ,ecclesiastical writings are appealed to4 ,the earliest of the ,fathers are observed to quote with singular licence1--to allude rather than to quote4 ,strange to relate1 those ancient men seem scarcely to have been aware of the grave responsibility they incurred when they substituted expressions of their own for the utterances of the ,,spirit4 ,it is evidently not so much that their memory is in fault1 as their judgment1--in that they evidently hold themselves at liberty to paraphrase1 to recast1 to reconstruct47#ca7 ,i4 ,thus1 it is impossible to resist the inference that ,,papias refers to ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ah when he records a marvellous tradition concerning 8,justus surnamed ,barsabas10 8how that after drinking noxious poison1 through the ,,lord's grace he experienced no evil consequence407#cb7 ,he does not give the words of the ,evangelist4 ,it is even surprising how completely he passes them by2 and yet the allusion to the place just cited is manifest4 ,now1 ,papias is a writer who lived so near the time of the ,apostles that he made it his delight to collect their traditional sayings4 ,his date 7according to ,clinton7 is ,a4,d4 #ajj4 ,,ii4 ,,justin ,,martyr1 the date of whose first ,apology is ,a4,d4 #aea1 is observed to say concerning the ,apostles that1 after our ,,lord's ,ascension1-- 37#cc7 which is nothing else but a quotation from the last verse of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1-- 4 ,and thus it is found that the conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel was familiarly known within fifty years of the death of the last of the ,evangelists4 ,,iii4 ,when ,,iren,,us1 in his third ,book against ,heresies1 deliberately quotes and remarks upon the #aith verse of the last chapter of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel17#cd7 we are put in possession of the certain fact that the entire passage now under consideration was extant in a copy of the ,gospels which was used by the ,bishop of the ,church of ,lyons sometime about the year ,a4,d4 #ahj1 and which therefore cannot possibly have been written much more than a hundred years after the date of the ,evangelist himself3 while it may have been written by a contemporary of ,s4 ,mark1 and probably was written by one who lived immediately after his time4--,who sees not that this single piece of evidence is in itself sufficient to outweigh the testimony of any codex extant8 ,it is in fact a mere trifling with words to distinguish between 8,manuscript0 and 8,patristic0 testimony in a case like this3 for 7as ,i have already explained7 the passage quoted from ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel by ,irenus is to all intents and purposes a fragment from a dated manuscript2 and that ,,ms41 demonstrably older by at least one hundred and fifty years than the oldest copy of the ,gospels which has come down to our times4 ,,iv4 ,take another proof that these concluding verses of ,s4 ,mark were in the second century accounted an integral part of his ,gospel4 ,,hippolytus1 ,bishop of ,portus near ,borne 7#aij-bbg71 a contemporary of ,irenus1 quotes the #agth and #ahth verses in his fragment 47#ce7 ,also in his ,homily on the heresy of ,noetus17#cf7 ,hippolytus has a plain reference to this section of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,to an inattentive reader1 the passage alluded to might seem to be only the fragment of a ,creed2 but this is not the case4 ,in the ,creeds1 ,,christ is invariably spoken of as 3 in the ,scriptures1 invariably as 47#cg7 ,so that when ,hippolytus says of ,him1 1 the reference must needs be to ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ai4 ,v4 ,at the ,seventh ,,council ,,of ,,carthage held under ,cyprian1 ,a4,d4 #bef1 7on the baptizing of ,heretics17 ,vincentius1 ,bishop of ,thibari1 7a place not far from ,carthage17 in the presence of the eighty-seven assembled ,african bishops1 quoted two of the verses under consideration27#ch7 and ,augustine1 about a century and a half later1 in his reply1 recited the words afresh47#ci7 ,,vi4 ,the ,apocryphal ,,acta ,,pilati 7sometimes called the 8,gospel of ,nicodemus07 ,tischendorf assigns without hesitation to the iiird century2 whether rightly or wrongly ,i have no means of ascertaining4 ,it is at all events a very ancient forgery1 and it contains the #aeth1 #afth1 #agth and #ahth verses of this chapter47#dj7 ,,vii4 ,this is probably the right place to mention that ver4 #ae is clearly alluded to in two places of the 7so-called7 8,,apostolical ,,constitutions207#da7 and that verse #af is quoted 7with no variety of reading from the ,textus ,receptus7#db77 in an earlier part of the same ancient work4 ,the 8,constitutions0 are assigned to the iiird or the ivth century47#dc7 ,,viii and ,,ix4 ,it will be shewn in ,chapter ,v4 that ,,eusebius1 the ,ecclesiastical ,historian1 was profoundly well acquainted with these verses4 ,he discusses them largely1 and 7as ,i shall prove in the chapter referred to7 was by no means disposed to question their genuineness4 ,his ,church ,history was published ,a4,d4 #cbe4 ,,marinus also1 7whoever that individual may have been17 a contemporary of ,eusebius1--inasmuch as he is introduced to our notice by ,eusebius himself as asking a question concerning the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel without a trace of misgiving as to the genuineness of that about which he inquires1--is a competent witness in their favor who has hitherto been overlooked in this discussion4 ,x4 ,tischendorf and his followers state that ,jacobus ,nisibenus quotes these verses4 ,for 8,jacobus ,nisibenus0 read 8,,aphraates the ,persian ,sage10 and the statement will be correct4 ,the history of the mistake is curious4 ,jerome1 in his ,catalogue of ,ecclesiastical writers1 makes no mention of ,jacob of ,nisibis1--a famous ,syrian ,bishop who was present at the ,council of ,nica1 ,a4,d4 #cbe4 ,gennadius of ,marseille1 7who carried on ,jerome's list to the year #die7 asserts that the reason of this omission was ,jerome's ignorance of the ,syriac language2 and explains that ,jacob was the author of twenty-two ,syriac ,homilies47#dd7 ,of these1 there exists a very ancient ,armenian translation2 which was accordingly edited as the work of ,jacobus ,nisibenus with a ,latin version1 at ,rome1 in #agef4 ,gallandius reprinted both the ,armenian and the ,latin2 and to ,gallandius 7vol4 v47 we are referred whenever 8,jacobus ,nisibenus0 is quoted4 ,but the proposed attribution of the ,homilies in question1--though it has been acquiesced in for nearly #adjj years1--is incorrect4 ,quite lately the ,syriac originals have come to light1 and they prove to be the work of ,aphraates1 8the ,persian ,sage10--a ,bishop1 and the earliest known ,father of the ,syrian ,church4 ,in the first ,homily1 7which bears date ,a4,d4 #ccg71 verses #af1 #ag1 #ah of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 are quoted17#de7--yet not from the version known as the ,curetonian ,syriac1 nor yet from the ,peshito exactly47#df7--;,here1 then1 is another wholly independent witness to the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark1 coeval certainly with the two oldest copies of the ,gospel extant1--,b and 4 ,,xi4 ,,ambrose1 ,archbishop of ,milan 7,a4,d4 #cgd-cig7 freely quotes this portion of the ,gospel1--citing ver4 #ae four times3 verses #af1 #ag and #ah1 each three times3 ver4 #bj1 once47#dg7 ,,xii4 ,the testimony of ,,chrysostom 7,a4,d4 #djj7 has been all but overlooked4 ,in part of a ,homily claimed for him by his ,benedictine ,editors1 he points out that ,s4 ,luke alone of the ,evangelists describes the ,ascension3 ,s4 ,matthew and ,s4 ,john not speaking of it1--,s4 ,mark recording the event only4 ,then he quotes verses #ai1 #bj4 8,this0 7he adds7 8is the end of the ,gospel4 ,mark makes no extended mention of the ,ascension407#dh7 ,elsewhere he has an unmistakable reference to ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i47di7 ,,xiii4 ,,jerome1 on a point like this1 is entitled to more attention than any other ,father of the ,church4 ,living at a very early period1 7for he was born in #cca and died in #dbj17--;endowed with extraordinary ,biblical learning1--a man of excellent judgment1--and a professed ,editor of the ,new ,testament1 for the execution of which task he enjoyed extraordinary facilities1--his testimony is most weighty4 ,not unaware am ,i that ,jerome is commonly supposed to be a witness on the opposite side3 concerning which mistake ,i shall have to speak largely in ,chapter ,v4 ,but it ought to be enough to point out that we should not have met with these last twelve verses in the ,vulgate1 had ,jerome held them to be spurious47#ej7 ,he familiarly quotes the #ith verse in one place of his writings27#ea7 in another place he makes the extraordinary statement that in certain of the copies1 7especially the ,greek17 was found after ver4 #ad the reply of the eleven ,apostles1 when our ,,saviour 8upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart1 because they believed not them which had seen ,him after ,he was risen407#eb7 ,to discuss so weak and worthless a forgery1--no trace of which is found in any ,,ms4 in existence1 and of which nothing whatever is known except what ,jerome here tells us1--would be to waste our time indeed4 ,the fact remains1 however1 that ,jerome1 besides giving these last twelve verses a place in the ,vulgate1 quotes ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ad1 as well as ver4 #i1 in the course of his writings4 ,,xiv4 ,it was to have been expected that ,,augustine would quote these verses3 but he more than quotes them4 ,he brings them forward again and again17#ec7--;discusses them as the work of ,s4 ,mark1--remarks that 8in diebus ,paschalibus10 ,s4 ,mark's narrative of the ,resurrection was publicly read in the ,church47#ed7 ,all this is noteworthy4 ,augustine flourished ,a4,d4 #cie-dcj4 ,,xv4 and ,,xvi4 ,another very important testimony to the genuineness of the concluding part of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is furnished by the unhesitating manner in which ,,nestorius1 the heresiarch1 quotes ver4 #bj2 and ,,cyril of ,,alexandria accepts his quotation1 adding a few words of his own47#ee7 ,let it be borne in mind that this is tantamount to the discovery of two dated codices containing the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark1--and that date anterior 7it is impossible to say by how many years7 to ,a4,d4 #dcj4 ,,xvii4 ,,victor ,,of ,,antioch1 7concerning whom ,i shall have to speak very largely in ,chapter ,v417 flourished about ,a4,d4 #dbe4 ,the critical testimony which he bears to the genuineness of these verses is more emphatic than is to be met with in the pages of any other ancient ,father4 ,it may be characterized as the most conclusive testimony which it was in his power to render4 ,,xviii4 ,,hesychius of ,jerusalem1 by a singular oversight1 has been reckoned among the impugners of these verses4 ,he is on the contrary their eager advocate and champion4 ,it seems to have escaped observation that towards the close of his 8,homily on the ,resurrection10 7published in the works of ,gregory of ,nyssa1 and erroneously ascribed to that ,father17 ,hesychius appeals to the #aith verse1 and quotes it as ,s4 ,mark's at length47#ef7 ,the date of ,hesychius is uncertain2 but he may1 ,i suppose1 be considered to belong to the vith century4 ,his evidence is discussed in ,chapter ,v4 ,,xix4 ,this list shall be brought to a close with a reference to the ,,synopsis ,,scripturae ,,sacrae1--an ancient work ascribed to ,athanasius17#eg7 but probably not the production of that ,father4 ,it is at all events of much older date than any of the later uncials2 and it rehearses in detail the contents of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj47eh7 ,it would be easy to prolong this enumeration of ,patristic authorities2 as1 by appealing to ,gregentius in the vith century1 and to ,gregory the ,great1 and ,modestus1 patriarch of ,constantinople in the viith2--to ,ven4 ,bede and ,john ,damascene in the viiith2--to ,theophylact in the xith2--to ,euthymius in the xiith7#ei73 but ,i forbear4 ,it would add no strength to my argument that ,i should by such evidence support it2 as the reader will admit when he has read my ,xth chapter4 ,it will be observed then that three competent ,patristic witnesses of the iind century1--four of the iiird1--six of the ivth1--four of the vth1--and two 7of uncertain date1 but probably7 of the vith1--have admitted their familiarity with these 8last ,twelve ,verses40 ,yet do they not belong to one particular age1 school1 or country4 ,they come1 on the contrary1 from every part of the ancient ,church3 ,antioch and ,constantinople1--,hierapolis1 ,csarea and ,edessa1--,carthage1 ,alexandria and ,hippo1--,rome and ,portus4 ,and thus1 upwards of nineteen early codexes have been to all intents and purposes inspected for us in various lands by unprejudiced witnesses1--seven of them at least of more ancient date than the oldest copy of the ,gospels extant4 ,i propose to recur to this subject for an instant when the reader has been made acquainted with the decisive testimony which ancient ,versions supply4 ,but the ,versions deserve a short ,chapter to themselves4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,the ,,early ,,versions ,,examined1 ,,and ,,found ,,to ,,yield ,,unfaltering ,,testimony ,,to ,,the ,,genuineness ,,of ,,these ,,verses4 ,the ,peshito1--the ,curetonian ,syriac1--and the ,recension of ,thomas of ,hharkel 7p4 #cc47--,the ,vulgate 7p4 #cd7--;and the ,vetus ,itala 7p4 #ce7--the ,gothic 7p4 #ce7--;and the ,egyptian ,versions 7p4 #ce74--,review of the ,evidence up to this point1 7p4 #cf74 ,it was declared at the outset that when we are seeking to establish in detail the ,text of the ,gospels1 the testimony of ,manuscripts is incomparably the most important of all4 ,to early ,versions1 the second place was assigned4 ,to ,patristic citations1 the third4 ,but it was explained that whenever 7as here7 the only question to be decided is whether a considerable portion of ,scripture be genuine or not1 then1 ,patristic references yield to no class of evidence in importance4 ,to which statement it must now be added that second only to the testimony of ,fathers on such occasions is to be reckoned the evidence of the oldest of the ,versions4 ,the reason is obvious1 7a47 ,we know for the most part the approximate date of the principal ancient ,versions of the ,new ,testament3--7b47 ,each ,version is represented by at least one very ancient ,codex3--and 7c47 ,it may be safely assumed that ,translators were never dependant on a single copy of the original ,greek when they executed their several ,translations4 ,proceed we now to ascertain what evidence the oldest of the ,versions bear concerning the concluding verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel3 and first of all for the ,syriac4 ,i4 8,literary history10 7says ,mr4 ,scrivener17 8can hardly afford a more powerful case than has been established for the identity of the ,version of the ,syriac now called the #8,,peshito' with that used by the ,eastern ,church long before the great schism had its beginning1 in the native land of the blessed ,gospel40 ,the ,peshito is referred by common consent to the iind century of our ra2 and is found to contain the verses in question4 ,,ii4 ,this1 however1 is not all4 ,within the last thirty years1 fragments of another very ancient ,syriac translation of the ,gospels1 7called from the name of its discoverer 8,,the ,,curetonian ,,syriac107 have come to light37#fj7 and in this translation also the verses in question are found47#fa7 ,this fragmentary codex is referred by ,cureton to the middle of the vth century4 ,at what earlier date the ,translation may have been executed1--as well as how much older the original ,greek copy may have been which this translator employed1--can of course only be conjectured4 ,but it is clear that we are listening to another truly primitive witness to the genuineness of the text now under consideration2--a witness 7like the last7 vastly more ancient than either the ,vatican ,codex ,b1 or the ,sinaitic ,codex 2 more ancient1 therefore1 than any ,greek copy of the ,gospels in existence4 ,we shall not be thought rash if we claim it for the iiird century4 ,,iii4 ,even this1 however1 does not fully represent the sum of the testimony which the ,syriac language bears on this subject4 ,philoxenus1 ,monophysite ,bishop of ,mabug 7,hierapolis7 in ,eastern ,syria1 caused a revision of the ,peshito ,syriac to be executed by his ,chorepiscopus ,polycarp1 ,a4,d4 #ejh2 and by the aid of three7#fb7 approved and accurate ,greek manuscripts1 this revised version of ,polycarp was again revised by ,thomas of ,hharkel1 in the monastery of ,antonia at ,alexandria1 ,a4,d4 #faf4 ,the ,hharklensian ,revision1 7commonly called the 8,,philoxenian107 is therefore an extraordinary monument of ecclesiastical antiquity indeed3 for1 being the ,revision of a revised ,translation of the ,new ,testament known to have been executed from ,,mss4 which must have been at least as old as the vth century1 it exhibits the result of what may be called a collation of copies made at a time when only four of our extant uncials were in existence4 ,here1 then1 is a singularly important accumulation of manuscript evidence on the subject of the verses which of late years it has become the fashion to treat as spurious4 ,and yet1 neither by ,polycarp nor by ,thomas of ,hharkel1 are the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel omitted47#fc7 ,to these1 if ,i do not add the 8,jerusalem version10--7as an independent ,syriac translation of the ,ecclesiastical ,sections1 perhaps of the vth century1 is called17#fd77--;it is because our fourfold ,syriac evidence is already abundantly sufficient4 ,in itself1 it far outweighs in respect of antiquity anything that can be shewn on the other side4 ,turn we next to the ,churches of the ,west4 ,,iv4 ,that ,jerome1 at the bidding of ,pope ,damasus 7,a4,d4 #chb71 was the author of that famous ,latin version of the ,scriptures called ,,the ,,vulgate1 is known to all4 ,it seems scarcely possible to overestimate the critical importance of such a work1--executed at such a time1--under such auspices1--and by a man of so much learning and sagacity as ,jerome4 ,when it is considered that we are here presented with the results of a careful examination of the best ,greek ,manuscripts to which a competent scholar had access in the middle of the fourth century1--7and ,jerome assures us that he consulted several17--we learn to survey with diminished complacency our own slender stores 7if indeed any at all exist7 of corresponding antiquity4 ,it is needless to add that the ,vulgate contains the disputed verses3 that from no copy of this ,version are they away4 ,now1 in such a matter as this1 ,jerome's testimony is very weighty indeed4 ,v4 ,the ,vulgate1 however1 was but the revision of a much older translation1 generally known as the ,,vetus ,,itala4 ,this ,old ,latin1 which is of ,african origin and of almost ,apostolic antiquity1 7supposed of the iind century17 conspires with the ,vulgate in the testimony which it bears to the genuineness of the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel37#fe7--;an emphatic witness that in the ,african province1 from the earliest time1 no doubt whatever was entertained concerning the genuineness of these last twelve verses4 ,,vi4 ,the next place may well be given to the venerable version of the ,gothic ,bishop ,ulphilas1--,a4,d4 #cej4 ,himself a ,cappadocian1 ,ulphilas probably derived his copies from ,asia ,minor4 ,his version is said to have been exposed to certain corrupting influences2 but the unequivocal evidence which it bears to the last verses of ,s4 ,mark is at least unimpeachable1 and must be regarded as important in the highest degree47#ff7 ,the oldest extant copy of the ,,gothic of ,ulphilas is assigned to the vth or early in the vith century3 and the verses in question are there also met with4 ,,vii4 and ,,viii4 ,the ancient ,egyptian versions call next for notice3 their testimony being so exceedingly ancient and respectable4 ,the ,,memphitic1 or dialect of ,lower ,egypt1 7less properly called the 8,coptic0 version71 which is assigned to the ivth or vth century1 contains ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj4--;,fragments of the ,,thebaic1 or dialect of ,upper ,egypt1 7a distinct version and of considerably earlier date1 less properly called the 8,sahidic107 survive in ,,mss4 of very nearly the same antiquity3 and one of these fragments happily contains the last verse of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark4 ,the ,thebaic version is referred to the iiird century4 ,after this mass of evidence1 it will be enough to record concerning the ,armenian version1 that it yields inconstant testimony3 some of the ,,mss4 ending at ver4 #h2 others putting after these words the subscription1 7 17 and then giving the additional verses with a new subscription3 others going on without any break to the end4 ,this version may be as old as the vth century2 but like the ,ethiopic iv-vii8 and the ,georgian vi8 it comes to us in codices of comparatively recent date4 ,all this makes it impossible for us to care much for its testimony4 ,the two last-named versions1 whatever their disadvantages may be1 at least bear constant witness to the genuineness of the verses in dispute4 #a4 ,and thus we are presented with a mass of additional evidence1--so various1 so weighty1 so multitudinous1 so venerable1--in support of this disputed portion of the ,gospel1 that it might well be deemed in itself decisive4 #b4 ,for these ,versions do not so much shew what individuals held1 as what ,churches have believed and taught concerning the sacred ,text1--mighty ,churches in ,syria and ,mesopotamia1 in ,africa and ,italy1 in ,palestine and ,egypt4 #c4 ,we may here1 in fact1 conveniently review the progress which has been hitherto made in this investigation4 ,and in order to bar the door against dispute and cavil1 let us be content to waive the testimony of ,papias as precarious1 and that of ,justin ,martyr as too fragmentary to be decisive4 ,let us frankly admit that the citation of ,vincentius ,thibari at the viith ,carthaginian ,council is sufficiently inexact to make it unsafe to build upon it4 ,the 8,acta ,pilati0 and the 8,apostolical ,constitutions10 since their date is somewhat doubtful1 shall be claimed for the ivth century only1 and not for the iiird4 ,and now1 how will the evidence stand for the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel8 7a7 ,in the vth century1 to which ,codex ,a and ,codex ,c are referred1 7for ,codex ,d is certainly later17 at least three famous ,greeks and the most illustrious of the ,latin ,fathers1--7four authorities in all17--are observed to recognise these verses4 7b7 ,in the ivth century1 7to which ,codex ,b and ,codex probably belong1 five ,greek writers1 one ,syriac1 and two ,latin ,fathers1--besides the ,vulgate1 ,gothic and ,memphitic ,versions1--7eleven authorities in all17--testify to familiar acquaintance with this portion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 7c7 ,in the iiird century1 7and by this time ,,ms4 evidence has entirely forsaken us17 we find ,hippolytus1 the ,curetonian ,syriac1 and the ,thebaic ,version1 bearing plain testimony that at that early period1 in at least three distinct provinces of primitive ,christendom1 no suspicion whatever attached to these verses4 ,lastly1-- 7d7 ,in the iind century1 ,irenus1 the ,peshito1 and the ,italic ,version as plainly attest that in ,gaul1 in ,mesopotamia and in the ,african province1 the same verses were unhesitatingly received within a century 7more or less7 of the date of the inspired autograph of the ,evangelist himself4 #d4 ,thus1 we are in possession of the testimony of at least six independent witnesses1 of a date considerably anterior to the earliest extant ,codex of the ,gospels4 ,they are all of the best class4 ,they deliver themselves in the most unequivocal way4 ,and their testimony to the genuineness of these ,verses is unfaltering4 #e4 ,it is clear that nothing short of direct adverse evidence of the weightiest kind can sensibly affect so formidable an array of independent authorities as this4 ,what must the evidence be which shall set it entirely aside1 and induce us to believe1 with the most recent editors of the inspired ,text1 that the last chapter of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 as it came from the hands of its inspired author1 ended abruptly at ver4 #h8 ,the grounds for assuming that his 8last ,twelve ,verses0 are spurious1 shall be exhibited in the ensuing chapter4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,alleged ,,hostile ,,witness ,,of ,,certain ,,of ,,the ,,early ,,fathers ,,proved ,,to ,,be ,,an ,,imagination ,,of ,,the ,,critics4 ,the mistake concerning ,gregory of ,nyssa 7p4 #ci74--,the misconception concerning ,eusebius 7p4 #da74--,the oversight concerning ,jerome 7p4 #ea72--;also concerning ,hesychius of ,jerusalem1 7or else ,severus of ,antioch7 7p4 #eg72--;and concerning ,victor of ,antioch 7p4 #ei74 ,it would naturally follow to shew that manuscript evidence confirms the evidence of the ancient ,fathers and of the early ,versions of ,scripture4 ,but it will be more satisfactory that ,i should proceed to examine without more delay the testimony1 which1 7as it is alleged17 is borne by a cloud of ancient ,fathers against the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark4 8,the absence of this portion from some1 from many1 or from most copies of his ,gospel1 or that it was not written by ,s4 ,mark himself10 7says ,dr4 ,tregelles17 8is attested by ,eusebius1 ,gregory of ,nyssa1 ,victor of ,antioch1 ,severus of ,antioch1 ,jerome1 and by later writers1 especially ,greeks407#fg7 ,the same ,fathers are appealed to by ,dr4 ,davidson1 who adds to the list ,euthymius2 and by ,tischendorf and ,alford1 who add the name of ,hesychius of ,jerusalem4 ,they also refer to 8many ancient ,scholia40 8,these verses0 7says ,tischendorf7 8are not recognised by the sections of ,ammonius nor by the ,canons of ,eusebius3 ,epiphanius and ,csarius bear witness to the fact407#fh7 8,in the ,caten on ,mark0 7proceeds ,davidson7 8the section is not explained4 ,nor is there any trace of acquaintance with it on the part of ,clement of ,rome or ,clement of ,alexandria20--a remark which others have made also2 as if it were a surprising circumstance that ,clement of ,alexandria1 who appears to have no reference to the last chapter of ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 should be also without any reference to the last chapter of ,s4 ,mark's3 as if1 too1 it were an extraordinary thing that ,clement of ,rome should have omitted to quote from the last chapter of ,s4 ,mark1--seeing that the same ,clement does not quote from ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel at all4444 ,the alacrity displayed by learned writers in accumulating hostile evidence1 is certainly worthy of a better cause4 ,strange1 that their united industry should have been attended with such very unequal success when their object was to exhibit the evidence in favour of the present portion of ,scripture4 7#a7 ,eusebius then1 and 7#b7 ,jerome2 7#c7 ,gregory of ,nyssa and 7#d7 ,hesychius of ,jerusalem2 7#e7 ,severus of ,antioch1 7#f7 ,victor of ,antioch1 and 7#g7 ,euthymius3--,do the accomplished critics just quoted1--,doctors ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 and ,davidson1 really mean to tell us that 8it is attested0 by these seven ,fathers that the concluding section of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel 8was not written by ,s4 ,mark himself80 ,why1 there is not one of them who says so3 while some of them say the direct reverse4 ,but let us go on4 ,it is1 ,i suppose1 because there are ,twelve ,verses to be demolished that the list is further eked out with the names of 7#h7 ,ammonius1 7#i7 ,epiphanius1 and 7#aj7 ,csarius1--to say nothing of 7#aa7 the anonymous authors of ,caten1 and 7#ab7 8later writers1 especially ,greeks40 ,i4 ,i shall examine these witnesses one by one3 but it will be convenient in the first instance to call attention to the evidence borne by1 ,,gregory ,,of ,,nyssa4 ,this illustrious ,father is represented as expressing himself as follows in his second 8,homily on the ,resurrection207#fi7--8;,in the more accurate copies1 the ,gospel according to ,mark has its end at #8for they were afraid4' ,in some copies1 however1 this also is added1--#8,now when ,he was risen early the first day of the week1 ,he appeared first to ,mary ,magdalene1 out of whom ,he had cast seven devils4' 0 ,that this testimony should have been so often appealed to as proceeding from ,gregory of ,nyssa17#gj7 is little to the credit of modern scholarship4 ,one would have supposed that the gravity of the subject1--the importance of the issue1--the sacredness of ,scripture1 down to its minutest jot and tittle1--would have ensured extraordinary caution1 and induced every fresh assailant of so considerable a portion of the ,gospel to be very sure of his ground before reiterating what his predecessors had delivered4 ,and yet it is evident that not one of the recent writers on the subject can have investigated this matter for himself4 ,it is only due to their known ability to presume that had they taken ever so little pains with the foregoing quotation1 they would have found out their mistake4 7#a47 ,for1 in the first place1 the second 8,homily on the ,resurrection0 printed in the iiird volume of the works of ,gregory of ,nyssa1 7and which supplies the critics with their quotation17 is1 as every one may see who will take the trouble to compare them1 word for word the same ,homily which ,combefis in his 8,novum ,auctarium10 and ,gallandius in his 8,bibliotheca ,patrum0 printed as the work of ,hesychius1 and vindicated to that ,father1 respectively in #afdh and #aggf47ga7 ,now1 if a critic chooses to risk his own reputation by maintaining that the ,homily in question is indeed by ,gregory of ,nyssa1 and is not by ,hesychius1--well and good4 ,but since the ,homily can have had but one author1 it is surely high time that one of these two claimants should be altogether dropped from this discussion4 7#b47 ,again4 ,inasmuch as page after page of the same ,homily is observed to reappear1 word for word1 under the name of 8,severus of ,antioch10 and to be unsuspiciously printed as his by ,montfaucon in his 8,bibliotheca ,coisliniana0 7#agae71 and by ,cramer in his 8,catena07#gb7 7#ahdd71--;although it may very reasonably become a question among critics whether ,hesychius of ,jerusalem or ,severus of ,antioch was the actual author of the ,homily in question17#gc7 yet it is plain that critics must make their election between the two names2 and not bring them both forward4 ,no one1 ,i say1 has any right to go on quoting 8,severus0 and 8,hesychius10--as ,tischendorf and ,dr4 ,davidson are observed to do3--8,gregory of ,nyssa0 and 8,severus of ,antioch10--as ,dr4 ,tregelles is found to prefer4 7#c47 ,in short1 here are three claimants for the authorship of one and the same ,homily4 ,to whichever of the three we assign it1--7and competent judges have declared that there are sufficient reasons for giving it to ,hesychius rather than to ,severus1--while no one is found to suppose that ,gregory of ,nyssa was its author17--who will not admit that no further mention must be made of the other two8 7#d47 ,let it be clearly understood1 therefore1 that henceforth the name of 8,gregory of ,nyssa0 must be banished from this discussion4 ,so must the name of 8,severus of ,antioch40 ,the memorable passage which begins1--8,in the more accurate copies1 the ,gospel according to ,mark has its end at #8for they were afraid1' 0--is found in a ,homily which was probably written by ,hesychius1 presbyter of ,jerusalem1--a writer of the vith century4 ,i shall have to recur to his work by-and-by4 ,the next name is ,,eusebius1 ,,ii4 ,with respect to whom the case is altogether different4 ,what that learned ,father has delivered concerning the conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel requires to be examined with attention1 and must be set forth much more in detail4 ,and yet1 ,i will so far anticipate what is about to be offered1 as to say at once that if any one supposes that ,eusebius has anywhere plainly 8stated that it is wanted in many ,,mss4107#gd7--;he is mistaken4 ,eusebius nowhere says so4 ,the reader's attention is invited to a plain tale4 ,it was not until #ahbe that the world was presented by ,cardinal ,angelo ,mai7#ge7 with a few fragmentary specimens of a lost work of ,eusebius on the 7so-called7 ,inconsistencies in the ,gospels1 from a ,,ms4 in the ,vatican47#gf7 ,these1 the learned ,cardinal republished more accurately in #ahdg1 in his 8,nova ,patrum ,bibliotheca207#gg7 and hither we are invariably referred by those who cite ,eusebius as a witness against the genuineness of the concluding verses of the second ,gospel4 ,it is much to be regretted that we are still as little as ever in possession of the lost work of ,eusebius4 ,it appears to have consisted of three ,books or ,parts2 the former two 7addressed 8to ,stephanus07 being discussions of difficulties at the beginning of the ,gospel1--the last 78to ,marinus07 relating to difficulties in its concluding chapters47#gh7 ,the ,author's plan1 7as usual in such works71 was1 first1 to set forth a difficulty in the form of a ,question2 and straightway1 to propose a ,solution of it1--which commonly assumes the form of a considerable dissertation4 ,but whether we are at present in possession of so much as a single entire specimen of these 8,inquiries and ,resolutions0 exactly as it came from the pen of ,eusebius1 may reasonably be doubted4 ,that the work which ,mai has brought to light is but a highly condensed exhibition of the original1 7and scarcely that17 its very title shews2 for it is headed1--8,an abridged selection from the #8,inquiries and ,resolutions of difficulties in the ,gospels' by ,eusebius407#gi7 ,only some of the original ,questions1 therefore1 are here noticed at all3 and even these have been subjected to so severe a process of condensation and abridgment1 that in some instances amputation would probably be a more fitting description of what has taken place4 ,accordingly1 what were originally two ,books or ,parts1 are at present represented by ,,xvi4 8,inquiries10 c1 addressed 8to ,stephanus20 while the concluding ,book or ,part is represented by ,,iv4 more1 8to ,marinus10--of which1 the first relates to our ,,lord',s appearing to ,mary ,magdalene after ,his ,resurrection4 ,now1 since the work which ,eusebius addressed to ,marinus is found to have contained 8,inquiries1 with their ,resolutions1 concerning our ,,saviour',s ,death and ,resurrection107#hj7--while a quotation professing to be derived from 8the thirteenth chapter0 relates to ,simon the ,cyrenian bearing our ,,saviour',s ,cross27#ha7--;it is obvious that the original work must have been very considerable1 and that what ,mai has recovered gives an utterly inadequate idea of its extent and importance47#hb7 ,it is absolutely necessary that all this should be clearly apprehended by any one who desires to know exactly what the alleged evidence of ,eusebius concerning the last chapter of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is worth1--as ,i will explain more fully by-and-by4 ,let it1 however1 be candidly admitted that there seems to be no reason for supposing that whenever the lost work of ,eusebius comes to light1 7and it has been seen within about #cjj years7#hc717 it will exhibit anything essentially different from what is contained in the famous passage which has given rise to so much debate1 and which may be exhibited in ,english as follows4 ,it is put in the form of a reply to one 8,marinus10 who is represented as asking1 first1 the following question3-- 8,how is it1 that1 according to ,matthew xxviii4 #a1 the ,,saviour appears to have risen #8in the end of the ,sabbath2' but1 according to ,mark xvi4 #i1 #8early the first day of the week'80--,eusebius answers1 8,this difficulty admits of a twofold solution4 ,he who is for getting rid of the entire passage17#hd7 will say that it is not met with in all the copies of ,mark's ,gospel3 the accurate copies1 at all events1 making the end of ,mark's narrative come after the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said1 #8,fear not ye6 ,ye seek ,,jesus of ,nazareth1' c43 to which the ,evangelist adds1--#8,and when they heard it1 they fled1 and said nothing to any man1 for they were afraid4' ,for at those words1 in almost all copies of the ,gospel according to ,mark1 comes the end4 ,what follows1 7which is met with seldom1 and only in some copies1 certainly not in all17 might be dispensed with2 especially if it should prove to contradict the record of the other ,evangelists4 ,this1 then1 is what a person will say who is for evading and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem4 8,but another1 on no account daring to reject anything whatever which is1 under whatever circumstances1 met with in the text of the ,gospels1 will say that here are two readings1 7as is so often the case elsewhere27 and that both are to be received1--inasmuch as by the faithful and pious1 this reading is not held to be genuine rather than that2 nor that than this40 ,it will be best to exhibit the whole of what ,eusebius has written on this subject1--as far as we are permitted to know it1--continuously4 ,he proceeds3-- 8,well then1 allowing this piece to be really genuine1 our business is to interpret the sense of the passage47#he7 ,and certainly1 if ,i divide the meaning into two1 we shall find that it is not opposed to what ,matthew says of our ,,saviour's having risen #8in the end of the ,sabbath4' ,for ,mark's expression1 7#8,now when ,he was risen early the first day of the week1'7 we shall read with a pause1 putting a comma after #8,now when ,he was risen1'--the sense of the words which follow being kept separate4 ,thereby1 we shall refer ,mark's #8when ,he was risen' to ,matthew's #8in the end of the ,sabbath1' 7for it was then that ,he rose72 and all that comes after1 expressive as it is of a distinct notion1 we shall connect with what follows2 7for it was #8early1 the first day of the week1' that #8,he appeared to ,mary ,magdalene4'7 ,this is in fact what ,john also declares2 for he too has recorded that #8early1' #8the first day of the week1' ,,jesus appeared to the ,magdalene4 ,thus then ,mark also says that ,he appeared to her early3 not that ,he rose early1 but long before1 7according to that of ,matthew1 #8in the end of the ,sabbath3' for though ,he rose then1 ,he did not appear to ,mary then1 but #8early4'7 ,in a word1 two distinct seasons are set before us by these words3 first1 the season of the ,resurrection1--which was #8in the end of the ,sabbath2' secondly1 the season of our ,,saviour's ,appearing1--which was #8early4' ,the former17#hf7 ,mark writes of when he says1 7it requires to be read with a pause17--#8,now1 when ,he was risen1' ,then1 after a comma1 what follows is to be spoken1--#8,early1 the first day of the week1 ,he appeared to ,mary ,magdalene1 out of whom ,he had cast seven devils4' 07#hg7--,such is the entire passage4 ,little did the learned writer anticipate what bitter fruit his words were destined to bear6 #a4 ,let it be freely admitted that what precedes is calculated at first sight to occasion nothing but surprise and perplexity4 ,for1 in the first place1 there really is no problem to solve4 ,the discrepancy suggested by 8,marinus0 at the outset1 is plainly imaginary1 the result 7chiefly7 of a strange misconception of the meaning of the ,evangelist's ,greek1--as in fact no one was ever better aware than ,eusebius himself4 8,these places of the ,gospels would never have occasioned any difficulty10 he writes in the very next page1 7but it is the commencement of his reply to the second question of ,marinus17--8if people would but abstain from assuming that ,matthew's phrase 7 7 refers to the evening of the ,sabbath-day3 whereas1 7in conformity with the established idiom of the language17 it obviously refers to an advanced period of the ensuing night407#hh7 ,he proceeds3--8,the self-same moment therefore1 or very nearly the self-same1 is intended by the ,evangelists1 only under different names3 and there is no discrepancy whatever between ,matthew's1--#8in the end of the ,sabbath1 as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week1' and ,john's--#8,the first day of the week cometh ,mary ,magdalen early1 when it was yet dark4' ,the ,evangelists indicate by different expressions one and the same moment of time1 but in a broad and general way40 ,and yet1 if ,eusebius knew all this so well1 why did he not say so at once1 and close the discussion8 ,i really cannot tell2 except on one hypothesis1--which1 although at first it may sound somewhat extraordinary1 the more ,i think of the matter1 recommends itself to my acceptance the more4 ,i suspect1 then1 that the discussion we have just been listening to1 is1 essentially1 not an original production3 but that ,eusebius1 having met with the suggestion in some older writer1 7in ,origen probably17 reproduced it in language of his own1--doubtless because he thought it ingenious and interesting1 but not by any means because he regarded it as true4 ,except on some such theory1 ,i am utterly unable to understand how ,eusebius can have written so inconsistently4 ,his admirable remarks just quoted1 are obviously a full and sufficient answer1--the proper answer in fact1--to the proposed difficulty3 and it is a memorable circumstance that the ancients generally were so sensible of this1 that they are found to have invariably7#hi7 substituted what ,eusebius wrote in reply to the second question of ,marinus for what he wrote in reply to the first2 in other words1 for the dissertation which is occasioning us all this difficulty4 #b4 ,but next1 even had the discrepancy been real1 the remedy for it which is here proposed1 and which is advocated with such tedious emphasis1 would probably prove satisfactory to no one4 ,in fact1 the entire method advocated in the foregoing passage is hopelessly vicious4 ,the writer begins by advancing statements which1 if he believed them to be true1 he must have known are absolutely fatal to the verses in question4 ,this done1 he sets about discussing the possibility of reconciling an isolated expression in ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel with another in ,s4 ,matthew's3 just as if on that depended the genuineness or spuriousness of the entire context3 as if1 in short1 the major premiss in the discussion were some such postulate as the following3--8,whatever in one ,gospel cannot be proved to be entirely consistent with something in another ,gospel1 is not to be regarded as genuine40 ,did then the learned ,archbishop of ,csarea really suppose that a comma judiciously thrown into the empty scale might at any time suffice to restore the equilibrium1 and even counterbalance the adverse testimony of almost every ,,ms4 of the ,gospels extant8 ,why does he not at least deny the truth of the alleged facts to which he began by giving currency1 if not approval2 and which1 so long as they are allowed to stand uncontradicted1 render all further argumentation on the subject simply nugatory8 ,as before1 ,i really cannot tell1--except on the hypothesis which has been already hazarded4 #c4 ,note also1 7for this is not the least extraordinary feature of the case17 what vague and random statements those are which we have been listening to4 ,the entire section 7,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj17 8is not met with in all the copies30 at all events not 8in the accurate0 ones4 ,nay1 it is 8met with seldom40 ,in fact1 it is absent from 8almost all0 copies4 ,but1--,which of these four statements is to stand8 ,the first is comparatively unimportant4 ,not so the second4 ,the last two1 on the contrary1 would be absolutely fatal1--if trustworthy8 ,but are they trustworthy8 ,to this question only one answer can be returned4 ,the exaggeration is so gross that it refutes itself4 ,had it been merely asserted that the verses in question were wanting in many of the copies1--even had it been insisted that the best copies were without them1--well and good3 but to assert that1 in the beginning of the fourth century1 from 8almost all0 copies of the ,gospels they were away1--is palpably untrue4 ,what had become then of the ,,mss4 from which the ,syriac1 the ,latin1 all the ancient ,versions were made8 ,how is the contradictory evidence of every copy of the ,gospels in existence but two to be accounted for8 ,with ,irenus and ,hippolytus1 with the old ,latin and the ,vulgate1 with the ,syriac1 and the ,gothic1 and the ,egyptian versions to refer to1 we are able to assert that the author of such a statement was guilty of monstrous exaggeration4 ,we are reminded of the loose and random way in which the ,fathers1--7giants in ,interpretation1 but very children in the ,science of ,textual ,criticism17--are sometimes observed to speak about the state of the ,text in their days4 ,we are reminded1 for instance1 of the confident assertion of an ancient ,critic that the true reading in ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #ac is not 8three-score0 but 8an hundred and three-score20 for that so 8the accurate copies0 used to read the place1 besides ,origen and ,eusebius4 ,and yet 7as ,i have elsewhere explained7 the reading is altogether impossible4 8,apud nos mixta sunt omnia10 is ,jerome's way of adverting to an evil which1 serious as it was1 was yet not nearly so great as he represents2 viz4 the unauthorized introduction into one ,gospel of what belongs of right to another4 ,and so in a multitude of other instances4 ,the ,fathers are1 in fact1 constantly observed to make critical remarks about the ancient copies which simply cannot be correct4 ,and yet the author of the exaggeration under review1 be it observed1 is clearly not ,eusebius4 ,it is evident that he has nothing to say against the genuineness of the conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,those random statements about the copies with which he began1 do not even purport to express his own sentiments4 ,nay1 ,eusebius in a manner repudiates them2 for he introduces them with a phrase which separates them from himself3 and1 8,this then is what a person will say10--is the remark with which he finally dismisses them4 ,it would1 in fact1 be to make this learned ,father stultify himself to suppose that he proceeds gravely to discuss a portion of ,scripture which he had already deliberately rejected as spurious4 ,but1 indeed1 the evidence before us effectually precludes any such supposition4 8,here are two readings10 he says1 87as is so often the case elsewhere37 both of which are to be received1--inasmuch as by the faithful and pious1 this reading is not held to be genuine rather than that2 nor that than this40 ,and thus we seem to be presented with the actual opinion of ,eusebius1 as far as it can be ascertained from the present passage1--if indeed he is to be thought here to offer any personal opinion on the subject at all2 which1 for my own part1 ,i entirely doubt4 ,but whether we are at liberty to infer the actual sentiments of this ,father from anything here delivered or not1 quite certain at least is it that to print only the first half of the passage1 7as ,tischendorf and ,tregelles have done17 and then to give the reader to understand that he is reading the adverse testimony of ,eusebius as to the genuineness of the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 is nothing else but to misrepresent the facts of the case2 and1 however unintentionally1 to deceive those who are unable to verify the quotation for themselves4 ,it has been urged indeed that ,eusebius cannot have recognised the verses in question as genuine1 because a scholium purporting to be his has been cited by ,matthaei from a ,catena at ,moscow1 in which he appears to assert that 8according to ,mark10 our ,,saviour 8is not recorded to have appeared to ,his ,disciples after ,his ,resurrection30 whereas in ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ad it is plainly recorded that 8,afterwards ,he appeared unto the ,eleven as they sat at meat40 ,may ,i be permitted to declare that ,i am distrustful of the proposed inference1 and shall continue to feel so1 until ,i know something more about the scholium in question8 ,up to the time when this page is printed ,i have not succeeded in obtaining from ,moscow the details ,i wish for3 but they must be already on the way1 and ,i propose to embody the result in a 8,postscript0 which shall form the last page of the ,appendix to the present volume4 ,are we then to suppose that there was no substratum of truth in the allegations to which ,eusebius gives such prominence in the passage under discussion8 ,by no means4 ,the mutilated state of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel in the ,vatican ,codex 7,b7 and especially in the ,sinaitic ,codex 77 sufficiently establishes the contrary4 ,let it be freely conceded1 7but in fact it has been freely conceded already17 that there must have existed in the time of ,eusebius many copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel which were without the twelve concluding verses4 ,i do but insist that there is nothing whatever in that circumstance to lead us to entertain one serious doubt as to the genuineness of these verses4 ,i am but concerned to maintain that there is nothing whatever in the evidence which has hitherto come before us1--certainly not in the evidence of ,eusebius1--to induce us to believe that they are a spurious addition to ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,,iii4 ,we have next to consider what ,,jerome has delivered on this subject4 ,so great a name must needs command attention in any question of ,textual ,criticism3 and it is commonly pretended that ,jerome pronounces emphatically against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark4 ,a little attention to the actual testimony borne by this ,father will1 it is thought1 suffice to exhibit it in a wholly unexpected light2 and induce us to form an entirely different estimate of its practical bearing upon the present discussion4 ,it will be convenient that ,i should premise that it is in one of his many exegetical ,epistles that ,jerome discusses this matter4 ,a lady named ,hedibia1 inhabiting the furthest extremity of ,gaul1 and known to ,jerome only by the ardour of her piety1 had sent to prove him with hard questions4 ,he resolves her difficulties from ,bethlehem37#ij7 and ,i may be allowed to remind the reader of what is found to have been ,jerome's practice on similar occasions1--which1 to judge from his writings1 were of constant occurrence4 ,in fact1 ,apodemius1 who brought ,jerome the ,twelve problems from ,hedibia1 brought him ,eleven more from a noble neighbour of hers1 ,algasia47#ia7 ,once1 when a single messenger had conveyed to him out of the ,african province a quantity of similar interrogatories1 ,jerome sent two ,egyptian monks the following account of how he had proceeded in respect of the inquiry1--7it concerned #a ,cor4 xv4 #ea17--which they had addressed to him3--8,being pressed for time1 ,i have presented you with the opinions of all the ,commentators2 for the most part1 translating their very words2 in order both to get rid of your question1 and to put you in possession of ancient authorities on the subject40 ,this learned ,father does not even profess to have been in the habit of delivering his own opinions1 or speaking his own sentiments on such occasions4 8,this has been hastily dictated10 he says in conclusion1--7alluding to his constant practice1 which was to dictate1 rather than to write17--8in order that ,i might lay before you what have been the opinions of learned men on this subject1 as well as the arguments by which they have recommended their opinions4 ,my own authority1 7who am but nothing17 is vastly inferior to that of our predecessors in the ,,lord40 ,then1 after special commendation of the learning of ,origen and ,eusebius1 and the valuable ,scriptural expositions of many more1--8,my plan10 7he says17 8is to read the ancients2 to prove all things1 to hold fast that which is good2 and to abide steadfast in the faith of the ,catholic ,church4--,i must now dictate replies1 either original or at second-hand1 to other ,questions which lie before me407#ib7 ,we are not surprised1 after this straightforward avowal of what was the method on such occasions with this learned ,father1 to discover that1 instead of hearing ,jerome addressing ,hedibia1--7who had interrogated him concerning the very problem which is at present engaging our attention17--we find ourselves only listening to ,eusebius over again1 addressing ,marinus4 8,this difficulty admits of a two-fold solution10 ,jerome begins2 as if determined that no doubt shall be entertained as to the source of his inspiration4 ,then1 7making short work of the tedious disquisition of ,eusebius17--8,either we shall reject the testimony of ,mark1 which is met with in scarcely any copies of the ,gospel1--almost all the ,greek codices being without this passage3--7especially since it seems to narrate what contradicts the other ,gospels37--or else1 we shall reply that both ,evangelists state what is true3 ,matthew1 when he says that our ,,lord rose #8late in the week3' ,mark1--when he says that ,mary ,magdalene saw ,him #8early1 the first day of the week4' ,for the passage must be thus pointed1--#8,when ,he was risen3' and presently1 after a pause1 must be added1--#8,early1 the first day of the week1 ,he appeared to ,mary ,magdalene4' ,he therefore who had risen late in the week1 according to ,matthew1--,himself1 early the first day of the week1 according to ,mark1 appeared to ,mary ,magdalene4 ,and this is what ,john also means1 shewing that it was early on the next day that ,he appeared40--,to understand how faithfully in what precedes ,jerome treads in the footsteps of ,eusebius1 it is absolutely necessary to set the ,latin of the one over against the ,greek of the other1 and to compare them4 ,in order to facilitate this operation1 ,i have subjoined both originals at foot of the page3 from which it will be apparent that ,jerome is here not so much adopting the sentiments of ,eusebius as simply translating his words47#ic7 ,this1 however1 is not by any means the strangest feature of the case4 ,that ,jerome should have availed himself ever so freely of the materials which he found ready to his hand in the pages of ,eusebius cannot be regarded as at all extraordinary1 after what we have just heard from himself of his customary method of proceeding4 ,it would of course have suggested the gravest doubts as to whether we were here listening to the personal sentiment of this ,father1 or not2 but that would have been all4 ,what are we to think1 however1 of the fact that ,hedibia's question to ,jerome proves on inspection to be nothing more than a translation of the very question which ,marinus had long before addressed to ,eusebius8 ,we read on1 perplexed at the coincidence2 and speedily make the notable discovery that her next question1 and her next1 are also translations word for word of the next two of ,marinus4 ,for the proof of this statement the reader is again referred to the foot of the page47#id7 ,it is at least decisive3 and the fact1 which admits of only one explanation1 can be attended by only one practical result4 ,it of course shelves the whole question as far as the evidence of ,jerome is concerned4 ,whether ,hedibia was an actual personage or not1 let those decide who have considered more attentively than it has ever fallen in my way to do that curious problem1--,what was the ancient notion of the allowable in ,fiction8 ,that different ideas have prevailed in different ages of the world as to where fiction ends and fabrication begins2--that widely discrepant views are entertained on the subject even in our own age2--all must be aware4 ,i decline to investigate the problem on the present occasion4 ,i do but claim to have established beyond the possibility of doubt or cavil that what we are here presented with is not the testimony of ,jerome at all4 ,it is evident that this learned ,father amused himself with translating for the benefit of his ,latin readers a part of the 7lost7 work of ,eusebius2 7which1 by the way1 he is found to have possessed in the same abridged form in which it has come down to ourselves37--and he seems to have regarded it as allowable to attribute to 8,hedibia0 the problems which he there met with4 7,he may perhaps have known that ,eusebius before him had attributed them1 with just as little reason1 to 8,marinus407 ,in that age1 for aught that appears to the contrary1 it may have been regarded as a graceful compliment to address solutions of ,scripture difficulties to persons of distinction1 who possibly had never heard of those difficulties before2 and even to represent the ,interrogatories which suggested them as originating with themselves4 ,i offer this only in the way of suggestion1 and am not concerned to defend it4 ,the only point ,i am concerned to establish is that ,jerome is here a translator1 not an original author3 in other words1 that it is ,eusebius who here speaks1 and not ,jerome4 ,for a critic to pretend that it is in any sense the testimony of ,jerome which we are here presented with2 that ,jerome is one of those ,fathers 8who1 even though they copied from their predecessors1 were yet competent to transmit the record of a fact107#ie7--;is entirely to misunderstand the case4 ,the man who translates1--not adopts1 but translates1--the problem as well as its solution3 who deliberately asserts that it emanated from a ,lady inhabiting the furthest extremity of ,gaul1 who nevertheless was demonstrably not its author3 who goes on to propose as hers question after question verbatim as he found them written in the pages of ,eusebius2 and then resolves them one by one in the very language of the same ,father3--such a writer has clearly conducted us into a region where his individual responsibility quite disappears from sight4 ,we must hear no more about ,jerome1 therefore1 as a witness against the genuineness of the concluding verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,on the contrary4 ,proof is at hand that ,jerome held these verses to be genuine4 ,the proper evidence of this is supplied by the fact that he gave them a place in his revision of the old ,latin version of the ,scriptures4 ,if he had been indeed persuaded of their absence from 8almost all the ,greek codices10 does any one imagine that he would have suffered them to stand in the ,vulgate8 ,if he had met with them in 8scarcely any copies of the ,gospel0--do men really suppose that he would yet have retained them8 ,to believe this would1 again1 be to forget what was the known practice of this ,father2 who1 because he found the expression 8without a cause0 71--,s4 ,matth4 v4 #bb17 only 8in certain of his codices10 but not 8in the true ones10 omitted it from the ,vulgate4 ,because1 however1 he read 8righteousness0 7where we read 8alms07 in ,s4 ,matth4 vi4 #a1 he exhibits 8justitiam0 in his revision of the old ,latin version4 ,on the other hand1 though he knew of ,,mss4 7as he expressly relates7 which read 8works0 for 8children0 7 for 7 in ,s4 ,matth4 xi4 #ai1 he does not admit that 7manifestly corrupt7 reading1--which1 however1 is found both in the ,codex ,vaticanus and the ,codex ,sinaiticus4 ,let this suffice4 ,i forbear to press the matter further4 ,it is an additional proof that ,jerome accepted the conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel that he actually quotes it1 and on more than one occasion3 but to prove this1 is to prove more than is here required47#if7 ,i am concerned only to demolish the assertion of ,tischendorf1 and ,tregelles1 and ,alford1 and ,davidson1 and so many more1 concerning the testimony of ,jerome2 and ,i have demolished it4 ,i pass on1 claiming to have shewn that the name of ,jerome as an adverse witness must never again appear in this discussion4 ,,iv4 and ,v4 ,but now1 while the remarks of ,eusebius are yet fresh in the memory1 the reader is invited to recall for a moment what the author of the 8,homily on the ,resurrection10 contained in the works of ,gregory of ,nyssa 7above1 p4 #ci71 has delivered on the same subject4 ,it will be remembered that we saw reason for suspecting that not ,,severus ,,of ,,antioch1 but ,,hesychius ,,of ,,jerusalem1 7both of them writers of the vith century17 has the better claim to the authorship of the ,homily in question17#ig7--which1 however1 cannot at all events be assigned to the illustrious ,bishop of ,nyssa1 the brother of ,basil the ,great4 8,in the more accurate copies10 7says this writer17 8the ,gospel according to ,mark has its end at #8for they were afraid4' ,in some copies1 however1 this also is added1--#8,now when ,he was risen early the first day of the week1 ,he appeared first to ,mary ,magdalene1 out of whom ,he had cast seven devils4' ,this1 however1 seems to contradict to some extent what we before delivered2 for since it happens that the hour of the night when our ,,saviour rose is not known1 how does it come to be here written that ,he rose #8early8' ,but the saying will prove to be no ways contradictory1 if we read with skill4 ,we must be careful intelligently to introduce a comma after1 #8,now when ,he was risen3' and then to proceed1--#8,early in the ,sabbath ,he appeared first to ,mary ,magdalene3' in order that #8when ,he was risen' may refer 7in conformity with what ,matthew says7 to the foregoing season2 while #8early' is connected with the appearance to ,mary407#ih7--;,i presume it would be to abuse a reader's patience to offer any remarks on all this4 ,if a careful perusal of the foregoing passage does not convince him that ,hesychius is here only reproducing what he had read in ,eusebius1 nothing that ,i can say will persuade him of the fact4 ,the words indeed are by no means the same2 but the sense is altogether identical4 ,he seems to have also known the work of ,victor of ,antioch4 ,however1 to remove all doubt from the reader's mind that the work of ,eusebius was in the hands of ,hesychius while he wrote1 ,i have printed in two parallel columns and transferred to the ,appendix what must needs be conclusive27#ii7 for it will be seen that the terms are only not identical in which ,eusebius and ,hesychius discuss that favourite problem with the ancients1--the consistency of ,s4 ,matthew's with the of ,s4 ,mark4 ,it is1 however1 only needful to read through the ,homily in question to see that it is an attempt to weave into one piece a quantity of foreign and incongruous materials4 ,it is in fact not a ,homily at all1 7though it has been thrown into that form27 but a ,dissertation1--into which1 ,hesychius1 7who is known to have been very curious in questions of that kind7#ajj717 is observed to introduce solutions of most of those famous difficulties which cluster round the sepulchre of the world's ,redeemer on the morning of the first ,easter ,day27#aja7 and which the ancients seem to have delighted in discussing1--as1 the number of the ,marys who visited the sepulchre2 the angelic appearances on the morning of the ,resurrection2 and above all the seeming discrepancy1 already adverted to1 in the ,evangelical notices of the time at which our ,,lord rose from the dead4 ,i need not enter more particularly into an examination of this 7so-called7 8,homily03 but ,i must not dismiss it without pointing out that its author at all events cannot be thought to have repudiated the concluding verses of ,s4 ,mark3 for at the end of his discourse1 he quotes the #aith verse entire1 without hesitation1 in confirmation of one of his statements1 and declares that the words are written by ,s4 ,mark47#ajb7 ,i shall not be thought unreasonable1 therefore1 if ,i contend that ,hesychius is no longer to be cited as a witness in this behalf3 if ,i point out that it is entirely to misunderstand and misrepresent the case to quote a passing allusion of his to what ,eusebius had long before delivered on the same subject1 as if it exhibited his own individual teaching4 ,it is demonstrable7#ajc7 that he is not bearing testimony to the condition of the ,,mss4 of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel in his own age3 neither1 indeed1 is he bearing testimony at all4 ,he is simply amusing himself1 7in what is found to have been his favourite way17 with reconciling an apparent discrepancy in the ,gospels2 and he does it by adopting certain remarks of ,eusebius4 ,living so late as the vith century2 conspicuous neither for his judgment nor his learning2 a copyist only1 so far as his remarks on the last verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel are concerned2--this writer does not really deserve the space and attention we have been compelled to bestow upon him4 ,,vi4 ,we may conclude1 by inquiring for the evidence borne by ,,victor ,,of ,,antioch4 ,and from the familiar style in which this ,father's name is always introduced into the present discussion1 no less than from the invariable practice of assigning to him the date 8,a4,d4 #dja10 it might be supposed that 8,victor of ,antioch0 is a well-known personage4 ,yet is there scarcely a ,commentator of antiquity about whom less is certainly known4 ,clinton 7who enumerates cccxxii 8,ecclesiastical ,authors0 from ,a4,d4 #gj to ,a4,d4 #fhe7ajd77 does not even record his name4 ,the recent 8,dictionary of ,greek and ,roman ,biography0 is just as silent concerning him4 ,cramer 7his latest editor7 calls his very existence in question2 proposing to attribute his ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark to ,cyril of ,alexandria47#aje7 ,not to delay the reader needlessly1--,victor of ,antioch is an interesting and unjustly neglected ,father of the ,church2 whose date1--7inasmuch as he apparently quotes sometimes from ,cyril of ,alexandria who died ,a4,d4 #ddd1 and yet seems to have written soon after the death of ,chrysostom1 which took place ,a4,d4 #djg71 may be assigned to the first half of the vth century1--suppose ,a4,d4 #dbe-dej4 ,and in citing him ,i shall always refer to the best 7and most easily accessible7 edition of his work1--that of ,cramer 7#ahdj7 in the first volume of his 8,catenae40 ,but a far graver charge is behind4 ,from the confident air in which ,victor's authority is appealed to by those who deem the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel spurious1 it would of course be inferred that his evidence is hostile to the verses in question2 whereas his evidence to their genuineness is the most emphatic and extraordinary on record4 ,dr4 ,tregelles asserts that 8his testimony to the absence of these twelve verses from some or many copies1 stands in contrast to his own opinion on the subject40 ,but ,victor delivers no 8opinion30 and his 8testimony0 is the direct reverse of what ,dr4 ,tregelles asserts it to be4 ,this learned and respected critic has strangely misapprehended the evidence47#ajf7 ,i must needs be brief in this place4 ,i shall therefore confine myself to those facts concerning 8,victor of ,antioch10 or rather concerning his work1 which are necessary for the purpose in hand47#ajg7 ,now1 his ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1--as all must see who will be at the pains to examine it1--is to a great extent a compilation4 ,the same thing may be said1 no doubt1 to some extent1 of almost every ancient ,commentary in existence4 ,but ,i mean1 concerning this particular work1 that it proves to have been the author's plan not so much to give the general results of his acquaintance with the writings of ,origen1 ,apollinarius1 ,theodorus of ,mopsuestia1 ,eusebius1 and ,chrysostom2 as1 with or without acknowledgment1 to transcribe largely 7but with great license7 from one or other of these writers4 ,thus1 the whole of his note on ,s4 ,mark xv4 #ch1 #ci1 is taken1 without any hint that it is not original1 7much of it1 word for word17 from ,chrysostom's #hhth ,homily on ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel47#ajh7 ,the same is to be said of the first twelve lines of his note on ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i4 ,on the other hand1 the latter half of the note last mentioned professes to give the substance of what ,eusebius had written on the same subject4 ,it is in fact an extract from those very 8,quaestiones ad ,marinum0 concerning which so much has been offered already4 ,all this1 though it does not sensibly detract from the interest or the value of ,victor's work1 must be admitted entirely to change the character of his supposed evidence4 ,he comes before us rather in the light of a ,compiler than of an ,author3 his work is rather a 8,catena0 than a ,commentary3 and as such in fact it is generally described4 ,quite plain is it1 at all events1 that the sentiments contained in the sections last referred to1 are not ,victor's at all4 ,for one half of them1 no one but ,chrysostom is responsible3 for the other half1 no one but ,eusebius4 ,but it is ,victor's familiar use of the writings of ,eusebius1--especially of those ,resolutions of hard ,questions 8concerning the seeming ,inconsistencies in the ,evangelical accounts of the ,resurrection10 which ,eusebius addressed to ,marinus1--on which the reader's attention is now to be concentrated4 ,victor cites that work of ,eusebius by name in the very first page of his ,commentary4 ,that his last page also contains a quotation from it1 7also by name71 has been already pointed out47#aji7 ,attention is now invited to what is found concerning ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj in the last page but one 7p4 #ddd7 of ,victor's work4 ,it shall be given in ,english2 because ,i will convince unlearned as well as learned readers4 ,victor1 7after quoting four lines from the #hith ,homily of ,chrysostom7#aaj771 reconciles 7exactly as ,eusebius is observed to do7#aaa77 the notes of time contained severally in ,s4 ,matth4 xxviii4 #a1 ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #b1 ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #a1 and ,s4 ,john xx4 #a4 ,after which1 he proceeds as follows3-- 8,in certain copies of ,mark's ,gospel1 next comes1--#8,now when ,,jesus was risen early the first day of the week1 ,he appeared to ,mary ,magdalene2'--a statement which seems inconsistent with ,matthew's narrative4 ,this might be met by asserting1 that the conclusion of ,mark's ,gospel1 though found in certain copies1 is spurious1 ,however1 that we may not seem to betake ourselves to an off-hand answer1 we propose to read the place thus3--#8,now when ,,jesus was risen3' then1 after a comma1 to go on1--#8early the first day of the week ,he appeared to ,mary ,magdalene4' ,in this way we refer ,mark's #8,now when ,,jesus was risen' to ,matthew's #8in the end of the sabbath1' 7for then we believe ,him to have risen27 and all that comes after1 expressive as it is of a different notion1 we connect with what follows4 ,mark relates that ,he who #8arose 7according to ,matthew7 in the end of the ,sabbath1' was seen by ,mary ,magdalene #8early4' ,this is in fact what ,john also declares2 for he too has recorded that #8early1' #8the first day of the week1' ,,jesus appeared to the ,magdalene4 ,in a word1 two distinct seasons are set before us by these words3 first1 the season of the ,resurrection1--which was #8in the end of the ,sabbath2' secondly1 the season of our ,,saviour',s ,appearing1--which was #8early4' 07#aab7 ,no one1 ,i presume1 can read this passage and yet hesitate to admit that he is here listening to ,eusebius 8ad ,marinum0 over again4 ,but if any one really retains a particle of doubt on the subject1 he is requested to cast his eye to the foot of the present page2 and even an unlearned reader1 surveying the originals with attention1 may easily convince himself that ,victor is here nothing else but a copyist47#aac7 ,that the work in which ,eusebius reconciles 8seeming discrepancies in the ,evangelical narratives10 was actually lying open before ,victor while he wrote1 is ascertained beyond dispute4 ,he is observed in his next ensuing ,comment to quote from it1 and to mention ,eusebius as its author4 ,at the end of the present note he has a significant allusion to ,eusebius3--8,i know very well10 he says1 8what has been suggested by those who are at the pains to remove the apparent inconsistencies in this place407#aad7 ,but when writing on ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 he does more4 ,after abridging1 7as his manner is17 what ,eusebius explains with such tedious emphasis1 7giving the substance of five columns in about three times as many lines17 he adopts the exact expressions of ,eusebius1--follows him in his very mistakes1--and finally transcribes his words4 ,the reader is therefore requested to bear in mind that what he has been listening to is not the testimony of ,victor at all3 but the testimony of ,eusebius4 ,this is but one more echo therefore of a passage of which we are all beginning by this time to be weary2 so exceedingly rash are the statements with which it is introduced1 so utterly preposterous the proposed method of remedying a difficulty which proves after all to be purely imaginary4 ,what then is the testimony of ,victor8 ,does he offer any independent statement on the question in dispute1 from which his own private opinion 7though nowhere stated7 may be lawfully inferred8 ,yes indeed4 ,victor1 though frequently a ,transcriber only1 is observed every now and then to come forward in his own person1 and deliver his individual sentiment47#aae7 ,but nowhere throughout his work does he deliver such remarkable testimony as in this place4 ,hear him6 8,notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present ,gospel1 the passage beginning1 #8,now when ,,jesus was risen early the first day of the week1 ,he appeared first to ,mary ,magdalene1' be not found1--7certain individuals having supposed it to be spurious17--yet ,,we1 at all events1 inasmuch as in very many we have discovered it to exist1 have1 out of accurate copies1 subjoined also the account of our ,lord's ,ascension1 7following the words #8for they were afraid1'7 in conformity with the ,palestinian exemplar of ,mark which exhibits the ,gospel verity3 that is to say1 from the words1 #8,now when ,jesus was risen early the first day of the week1' c41 down to #8with signs following4 ,amen4'7#aaf7--;,and with these words ,victor of ,antioch brings his ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark to an end40 ,here then we find it roundly stated by a highly intelligent ,father1 writing in the first half of the vth century1-- 7#a47 ,that the reason why the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark are absent from some ancient copies of his ,gospel is because they have been deliberately omitted by ,copyists3 7#b47 ,that the ground for such omission was the subjective judgment of individuals1--not the result of any appeal to documentary evidence4 ,victor1 therefore1 clearly held that the ,verses in question had been expunged in consequence of their 7seeming7 inconsistency with what is met with in the other ,gospels3 7#c47 ,that he1 on the other hand1 had convinced himself by reference to 8very many0 and 8accurate0 copies1 that the verses in question are genuine3 7#d47 ,that in particular the ,palestinian ,copy1 which enjoyed the reputation of 8exhibiting the genuine text of ,s4 ,mark10 contained the ,verses in dispute4--,to ,opinion1 therefore1 ,victor opposes ,authority4 ,he makes his appeal to the most trustworthy documentary evidence with which he is acquainted2 and the deliberate testimony which he delivers is a complete counterpoise and antidote to the loose phrases of ,eusebius on the same subject3 7#e47 ,that in consequence of all this1 following the ,palestinian ,exemplar1 he had from accurate copies furnished his own work with the ,twelve ,verses in dispute2--which is a categorical refutation of the statement frequently met with that the work of ,victor of ,antioch is without them4 ,we are now at liberty to sum up2 and to review the progress which has been hitherto made in this ,inquiry4 ,six ,fathers of the ,church have been examined who are commonly represented as bearing hostile testimony to the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel2 and they have been easily reduced to one4 ,three of them1 7,hesychius1 ,jerome1 ,victor17 prove to be echoes1 not voices4 ,the remaining two1 7,gregory of ,nyssa and ,severus17 are neither voices nor echoes1 but merely names3 ,,gregory ,,of ,,nyssa having really no more to do with this discussion than ,philip of ,macedon2 and 8,severus0 and 8,hesychius0 representing one and the same individual4 ,only by a ,critic seeking to mislead his reader will any one of these five ,fathers be in future cited as witnessing against the genuineness of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj4 ,eusebius is the solitary witness who survives the ordeal of exact inquiry47#aag7 ,but1 ,i4 ,,eusebius1 7as we have seen71 instead of proclaiming his distrust of this portion of the ,gospel1 enters upon an elaborate proof that its contents are not inconsistent with what is found in the ,gospels of ,s4 ,matthew and ,s4 ,john4 ,his testimony is reducible to two innocuous and wholly unconnected propositions3 the first1--,that there existed in his day a vast number of copies in which the last chapter of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel ended abruptly at ver4 #h2 7the correlative of which of course would be that there also existed a vast number which were furnished with the present ending47 ,the second1--,that by putting a comma after the word 1 ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i1 is capable of being reconciled with ,s4 ,matth4 xxviii4 #a7aah74444 ,i profess myself unable to understand how it can be pretended that ,eusebius would have subscribed to the opinion of ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 and the rest1 that the ,gospel of ,s4 ,mark was never finished by its inspired ,author1 or was mutilated before it came abroad2 at all events1 that the last ,twelve ,verses are spurious4 ,,ii4 ,the observations of ,eusebius are found to have been adopted1 and in part transcribed1 by an unknown writer of the vith century1--whether ,,hesychius or ,,severus is not certainly known3 but if it were ,hesychius1 then it was not ,severus2 if ,severus1 then not ,hesychius4 ,this writer1 however1 7whoever he may have been17 is careful to convince us that individually he entertained no doubt whatever about the genuineness of this part of ,scripture1 for he says that he writes in order to remove the 7hypothetical7 objections of others1 and to silence their 7imaginary7 doubts4 ,nay1 he freely quotes the verses as genuine1 and declares that they were read in his day on a certain ,sunday night in the public ,service of the ,church4444 ,to represent such an one1--7it matters nothing1 ,i repeat1 whether we call him 8,hesychius of ,jerusalem0 or 8,severus of ,antioch107--as a hostile witness1 is simply to misrepresent the facts of the case4 ,he is1 on the contrary1 the strenuous champion of the verses which he is commonly represented as impugning4 ,,iii4 ,as for ,,jerome1 since that illustrious ,father comes before us in this place as a translator of ,eusebius only1 he is no more responsible for what ,eusebius says concerning ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 than ,hobbes of ,malmesbury is responsible for anything that ,thucydides has related concerning the ,peloponnesian war4 ,individually1 however1 it is certain that ,jerome was convinced of the genuineness of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj3 for in two different places of his writings he not only quotes the #ith and #adth verses1 but he exhibits all the twelve in the ,vulgate4 ,,iv4 ,lastly1 ,,victor ,,of ,,antioch1 who wrote in an age when ,eusebius was held to be an infallible oracle on points of ,biblical ,criticism1--having dutifully rehearsed1 7like the rest17 the feeble expedient of that illustrious ,father for harmonizing ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i with the narrative of ,s4 ,matthew1--is observed to cite the statements of ,eusebius concerning the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark1 only in order to refute them4 ,not that he opposes opinion to opinion1--7for the opinions of ,eusebius and of ,victor of ,antioch on this behalf were probably identical27 but statement he meets with counter-statement1--fact he confronts with fact4 ,scarcely can anything be imagined more emphatic than his testimony1 or more conclusive4 ,for the reader is requested to observe that here is an ,ecclesiastic1 writing in the first half of the vth century1 who expressly witnesses to the genuineness of the ,verses in dispute4 ,he had made reference1 he says1 and ascertained their existence in very many ,,mss4 7 74 ,he had derived his text from 8accurate0 ones3 7 47 ,more than that3 he leads his reader to infer that he had personally resorted to the famous ,palestinian ,copy1 the text of which was held to exhibit the inspired verity1 and had satisfied himself that the concluding section of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel was there4 ,he had1 therefore1 been either to ,jerusalem1 or else to ,csarea2 had inquired for those venerable records which had once belonged to ,origen and ,pamphilus27#aai7 and had inspected them4 ,testimony more express1 more weighty1--,i was going to say1 more decisive1--can scarcely be imagined4 ,it may with truth be said to close the present discussion4 ,with this1 in fact1 ,victor lays down his pen4 ,so also may ,i4 ,i submit that nothing whatever which has hitherto come before us lends the slightest countenance to the modern dream that ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 as it left the hands of its inspired ,author1 ended abruptly at ver4 #h4 ,neither ,eusebius nor ,jerome2 neither ,severus of ,antioch nor ,hesychius of ,jerusalem2 certainly not ,victor of ,antioch2 least of all ,gregory of ,nyssa1--yield a particle of support to that monstrous fancy4 ,the notion is an invention1 a pure imagination of the ,critics ever since the days of ,griesbach4 ,it remains to be seen whether the ,,mss4 will prove somewhat less unaccommodating4 ,,vii4 ,for it can be of no possible avail1 at this stage of the discussion1 to appeal to ,,euthymius ,,zigabenus1 the ,author of an interesting ,commentary1 or rather ,compilation on the ,gospels1 assigned to ,a4,d4 #aaaf4 ,euthymius lived1 in fact1 full five hundred years too late for his testimony to be of the slightest importance4 ,such as it is1 however1 it is not unfavourable4 ,he says1--8,some of the ,commentators state that here10 7viz4 at ver4 #h17 8the ,gospel according to ,mark finishes2 and that what follows is a spurious addition40 7,which clearly is his version of the statements of one or more of the four ,fathers whose testimony has already occupied so large a share of our attention47 8,this portion we must also interpret1 however10 7,euthymius proceeds17 8since there is nothing in it prejudicial to the truth407#abj7--;,but it is idle to linger over such a writer4 ,one might almost as well quote 8,poli ,synopsis0 and then proceed to discuss it4 ,the cause must indeed be desperate which seeks support from a quarter like this4 ,what possible sanction can an ,ecclesiastic of the xiith century be supposed to yield to the hypothesis that ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 as it left the hands of its inspired ,author1 was an unfinished work8 ,it remains to ascertain what is the evidence of the ,,mss4 on this subject4 ,and the ,,mss4 require to be the more attentively studied1 because it is to them that our opponents are accustomed most confidently to appeal4 ,on them in fact they rely4 ,the nature and the value of the most ancient ,manuscript testimony available1 shall be scrupulously investigated in the next two ,chapters4 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,manuscript ,,testimony ,,shewn ,,to ,,be ,,overwhelmingly ,,in ,,favour ,,of ,,these ,,verses4--,,part ,i4 ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 contained in every ,,ms4 in the world except two4--,irrational ,claim to ,infallibility set up on behalf of ,cod4 ,b 7p4 #gc7 and ,cod4 7p4 #ge74--,these two ,codices shewn to be full of gross ,omissions 7p4 #gh71--;,interpolations 7p4 #hj71--;,corruptions of the ,text 7p4 #ha71--;and ,perversions of the ,truth 7p4 #hc74--,the testimony of ,cod4 ,b to ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 shewn to be favorable1 notwithstanding 7p4 #hf74 ,the two oldest ,copies of the ,gospels in existence are the famous ,codex in the ,vatican ,library at ,rome1 known as 8,codex ,b20 and the ,codex which ,tischendorf brought from ,mount ,sinai in #ahei1 and which he designates by the first letter of the ,hebrew alphabet 774 ,these two manuscripts are probably not of equal antiquity47#aba7 ,an interval of fifty years at least seems to be required to account for the marked difference between them4 ,if the first belongs to the beginning1 the second may be referred to the middle or latter part of the ivth century4 ,but the two ,manuscripts agree in this1--that they are without the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,in both1 after 7ver4 #h71 comes the subscription3 in ,cod4 ,b1-- 2 in ,cod4 1-- 4 ,let it not be supposed that we have any more facts of this class to produce4 ,all has been stated4 ,it is not that the evidence of ,manuscripts is one1--the evidence of ,fathers and ,versions another4 ,the very reverse is the case4 ,manuscripts1 ,fathers1 and ,versions alike1 are only not unanimous in bearing consistent testimony4 ,but the consentient witness of the ,,mss4 is even extraordinary4 ,with the exception of the two uncial ,,mss4 which have just been named1 there is not one ,codex in existence1 uncial or cursive1--7and we are acquainted with1 at least1 eighteen other uncials17#abb7 and about six hundred cursive ,copies of this ,gospel17--which leaves out the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark4 ,the inference which an unscientific observer would draw from this fact1 is no doubt in this instance the correct one4 ,he demands to be shewn the ,alexandrine 7,a7 and the ,parisian ,codex 7,c71--neither of them probably removed by much more than fifty years from the date of the ,codex ,sinaiticus1 and both unquestionably derived from different originals2--and he ascertains that no countenance is lent by either of those venerable monuments to the proposed omission of this part of the sacred text4 ,he discovers that the ,codex ,bezae 7,d71 the only remaining very ancient ,,ms4 authority1--notwithstanding that it is observed on most occasions to exhibit an extraordinary sympathy with the ,vatican 7,b71--here sides with ,a and ,c against ,b and 4 ,he inquires after all the other uncials and all the cursive ,,mss4 in existence1 7some of them dating from the xth century17 and requests to have it explained to him why it is to be supposed that all these many witnesses1--belonging to so many different patriarchates1 provinces1 ages of the ,church1--have entered into a grand conspiracy to bear false witness on a point of this magnitude and importance8 ,but he obtains no intelligible answer to this question4 ,how1 then1 is an unprejudiced student to draw any inference but one from the premisses8 ,that single peculiarity 7he tells himself7 of bringing the second ,gospel abruptly to a close at the #hth verse of the xvith chapter1 is absolutely fatal to the two ,codices in question4 ,it is useless to din into his ears that those ,codices are probably both of the ivth century1--unless men are prepared to add the assurance that a ,codex of the ivth century is of necessity a more trustworthy witness to the text of the ,gospels than a ,codex of the vth4 ,the omission of these twelve verses1 ,i repeat1 in itself1 destroys his confidence in ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 3 for it is obvious that a copy of the ,gospels which has been so seriously mutilated in one place may have been slightly tampered with in another4 ,he is willing to suspend his judgment1 of course4 ,the two oldest copies of the ,gospels in existence are entitled to great reverence because of their high antiquity4 ,they must be allowed a most patient1 most unprejudiced1 most respectful1 nay1 a most indulgent hearing4 ,but when all this has been freely accorded1 on no intelligible principle can more be claimed for any two ,,mss4 in the world4 ,the rejoinder to all this is sufficiently obvious4 ,mistrust will no doubt have been thrown over the evidence borne to the text of ,scripture in a thousand other places by ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 1 after demonstration that those two ,codices exhibit a mutilated text in the present place4 ,but what else is this but the very point requiring demonstration8 ,why may not these two be right1 and all the other ,,mss4 wrong8 ,i propose1 therefore1 that we reverse the process4 ,proceed we to examine the evidence borne by these two witnesses on certain other occasions which admit of no difference of opinion2 or next to none4 ,let us endeavour1 ,i say1 to ascertain the character of the ,witnesses by a patient and unprejudiced examination of their ,evidence1--not in one place1 or in two1 or in three2 but on several important occasions1 and throughout4 ,if we find it invariably consentient and invariably truthful1 then of course a mighty presumption will have been established1 the very strongest possible1 that their adverse testimony in respect of the conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel must needs be worthy of all acceptation4 ,but if1 on the contrary1 our inquiries shall conduct us to the very opposite result1--what else can happen but that our confidence in these two ,,mss4 will be hopelessly shaken8 ,we must in such case be prepared to admit that it is just as likely as not that this is only one more occasion on which these 8two false witnesses0 have conspired to witness falsely4 ,if1 at this juncture1 extraneous evidence of an entirely trustworthy kind can be procured to confront them3 above all1 if some one ancient witness of unimpeachable veracity can be found who shall bear contradictory evidence3 what other alternative will be left us but to reject their testimony in respect of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj with something like indignation2 and to acquiesce in the belief of universal ,christendom for eighteen hundred years that these twelve verses are just as much entitled to our unhesitating acceptance as any other twelve verses in the ,gospel which can be named8 ,i4 ,it is undeniable1 in the meantime1 that for the last quarter of a century1 it has become the fashion to demand for the readings of ,codex ,b something very like absolute deference4 ,the grounds for this superstitious sentiment1 7for really ,i can describe it in no apter way17 ,i profess myself unable to discover4 ,codex ,b comes to us without a history3 without recommendation of any kind1 except that of its antiquity4 ,it bears traces of careless transcription in every page4 ,the mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence4 8,they are chiefly omissions1 of one1 two1 or three words2 but sometimes of half a verse1 a whole verse1 or even of several verses4444 ,i hesitate not to assert that it would be easier to find a folio containing three or four such omissions than to light on one which should be without any407#abc7 ,in the ,gospels alone1 ,codex ,b leaves out words or whole clauses no less than #a1dia times37#abd7 of which by far the largest proportion is found in ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,many of these1 no doubt1 are to be accounted for by the proximity of a 8like ending407#abe7 ,the ,vatican ,,ms4 7like the ,sinaitic7#abf77 was originally derived from an older ,codex which contained about twelve or thirteen letters in a line47#abg7 ,and it will be found that some of its omissions which have given rise to prolonged discussion are probably to be referred to nothing else but the oscitancy of a transcriber with such a codex before him37#abh7 without having recourse to any more abstruse hypothesis2 without any imputation of bad faith2--certainly without supposing that the words omitted did not exist in the inspired autograph of the ,evangelist4 ,but then it is undeniable that some of the omissions in ,cod4 ,b are not to be so explained4 ,on the other hand1 ,i can testify to the fact that the codex is disfigured throughout with repetitions4 ,the original scribe is often found to have not only written the same words twice over1 but to have failed whenever he did so to take any notice with his pen of what he had done4 ,what then1 7,i must again inquire17 are the grounds for the superstitious reverence which is entertained in certain quarters for the readings of ,codex ,b8 ,if it be a secret known to the recent ,editors of the ,new ,testament1 they have certainly contrived to keep it wondrous close4 ,,ii4 ,more recently1 a claim to co-ordinate primacy has been set up on behalf of the ,codex ,sinaiticus4 ,tischendorf is actually engaged in remodelling his seventh ,leipsic edition1 chiefly in conformity with the readings of his lately discovered ,,ms47#abi7 ,and yet the ,codex in question abounds with 8errors of the the eye and pen1 to an extent not unparalleled1 but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance40 ,on many occasions1 #aj1 #bj1 #cj1 #dj words are dropped through very carelessness47#acj7 8,letters and words1 even whole sentences1 are frequently written twice over1 or begun and immediately cancelled3 while that gross blunder 444 whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding1 occurs no less than #aae times in the ,new ,testament4 ,tregelles has freely pronounced that #8the state of the text1 as proceeding from the first scribe1 may be regarded as very rough4' 07#aca7 ,but when 8the first scribe0 and his 8very rough0 performance have been thus unceremoniously disposed of1 one would like to be informed what remains to command respect in ,codex 8 ,is1 then1 manuscript authority to be confounded with editorial caprice1--exercising itself upon the corrections of 8at least ten different revisers10 who1 from the vith to the xiith century1 have been endeavouring to lick into shape a text which its original author left 8very rough80 ,the co-ordinate primacy1 7as ,i must needs call it17 which1 within the last few years1 has been claimed for ,codex ,b and ,codex 1 threatens to grow into a species of tyranny1--from which ,i venture to predict there will come in the end an unreasonable and unsalutary recoil4 ,it behoves us1 therefore1 to look closely into this matter1 and to require a reason for what is being done4 ,the text of the sacred deposit is far too precious a thing to be sacrificed to an irrational1 or at least a superstitious devotion to two ,,mss41--simply because they may possibly be older by a hundred years than any other which we possess4 8,id verius quod prius10 is an axiom which holds every bit as true in ,textual ,criticism as in ,dogmatic ,truth4 ,but on that principle1 7as ,i have already shewn17 the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel are fully established27#acb7 and by consequence1 the credit of ,codd4 ,b and sustains a severe shock4 ,again1 8,id verius quod prius20 but it does not of course follow that a ,codex of the ivth century shall exhibit a more correct text of ,scripture than one written in the vth1 or even than one written in the xth4 ,for the proof of this statement1 7if it can be supposed to require proof17 it is enough to appeal to ,codex ,d4 ,that venerable copy of the ,gospels is of the vith century4 ,it is1 in fact1 one of our five great uncials4 ,no older ,,ms4 of the ,greek ,text is known to exist1--excepting always ,a1 ,b1 ,c and 4 ,and yet no text is more thoroughly disfigured by corruptions and interpolations than that of ,codex ,d4 ,in the ,acts1 7to use the language of its learned and accurate ,editor17 8it is hardly an exaggeration to assert that it reproduces the textus receptus much in the same way that one of the best ,chaldee ,targums does the ,hebrew of the ,old ,testament3 so wide are the variations in the diction1 so constant and inveterate the practice of expanding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability407#acc7 ,where1 then1 is the priori probability that two ,,mss4 of the ivth century shall have not only a superior claim to be heard1 but almost an exclusive right to dictate which readings are to be rejected1 which retained8 ,how ready the most recent editors of the ,new ,testament have shewn themselves to hammer the sacred text on the anvil of ,codd4 ,b and 1--not unfrequently in defiance of the evidence of all other ,,mss41 and sometimes to the serious detriment of the deposit1--would admit of striking illustration were this place for such details4 ,tischendorf's ,english 8,new ,testament0--8with various readings from the three most celebrated manuscripts of the ,greek ,text0 translated at the foot of every page1--is a recent attempt 7#ahfi7 to popularize the doctrine that we have to look exclusively to two or three of the oldest copies1 if we would possess the ,word of ,,god in its integrity4 ,dean ,alford's constant appeal in his revision of the ,authorized ,version 7#ahgj7 to 8the oldest ,,mss40 7meaning thereby generally ,codd4 and ,b with one or two others7#acd771 is an abler endeavour to familiarize the public mind with the same belief4 ,i am bent on shewing that there is nothing whatever in the character of either of the ,codices in question to warrant this servile deference4 7a7 ,and first1--,ought it not sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence to discover that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two ,,mss4 differ1 the one from the other1 than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree8 ,now this is a plain matter of fact1 of which any one who pleases may easily convince himself4 ,but the character of two witnesses who habitually contradict one another has been accounted1 in every age1 precarious4 ,on every such occasion1 only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth4 ,shall ,i be thought unreasonable if ,i confess that these perpetual inconsistencies between ,codd4 ,b and 1--grave inconsistencies1 and occasionally even gross ones1--altogether destroy my confidence in either8 7b7 ,on the other hand1 discrepant as the testimony of these two ,,mss4 is throughout1 they yet1 strange to say1 conspire every here and there in exhibiting minute corruptions of such an unique and peculiar kind as to betray a 7probably not very remote7 common corrupt original4 ,these coincidences in fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish a real connexion between those two codices2 and that connexion is fatal to any claim which might be set up on their behalf as wholly independent witnesses47#ace7 7c7 ,further1 it is evident that both alike have been subjected1 probably during the process of transcription1 to the same depraving influences4 ,but because such statements require to be established by an induction of instances1 the reader's attention must now be invited to a few samples of the grave blemishes which disfigure our two oldest copies of the ,gospel4 #a4 ,and first1 since it is the omission of the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel which has given rise to the present discussion1 it becomes a highly significant circumstance that the original scribe of ,cod4 had also omitted the end of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,john47#acf7 ,in this suppression of ver4 #be1 ,cod4 stands alone among ,,mss4 ,a cloud of primitive witnesses vouch for the genuineness of the verse4 ,surely1 it is nothing else but the reductio ad absurdum of a theory of recension1 7with ,tischendorf in his last edition17 to accommodate our printed text to the vicious standard of the original penman of ,cod4 and bring the last chapter of ,s4 ,john's ,gospel to a close at ver4 #bd6 ,cod4 ,b1 on the other hand1 omits the whole of those two solemn verses wherein ,s4 ,luke describes our ,,lord's 8,agony and bloody ,sweat10 together with the act of the ministering ,angel47#acg7 ,as to the genuineness of those verses1 recognised as they are by ,justin ,martyr1 ,irenus1 ,hippolytus1 ,epiphanius1 ,didymus1 ,gregory of ,nazianzus1 ,chrysostom1 ,theodoret1 by all the oldest versions1 and by almost every ,,ms4 in existence1 including ,cod4 1--it admits of no doubt4 ,here then is proof positive that in order to account for omissions from the ,gospel in the oldest of the uncials1 there is no need whatever to resort to the hypothesis that such portions of the ,gospel are not the genuine work of the ,evangelist4 8,the admitted error of ,cod4 ,b in this place10 7to quote the words of ,scrivener17 8ought to make some of its advocates more chary of their confidence in cases where it is less countenanced by other witnesses than in the instance before us40 ,cod4 ,b 7not ,cod4 7 is further guilty of the 8grave error0 7as ,dean ,alford justly styles it17 of omitting that solemn record of the ,evangelist3--8,then said ,,jesus1 ,father1 forgive them2 for they know not what they do40 ,it also withholds the statement that the inscription on the ,cross was 8in letters of ,greek1 and ,latin1 and ,hebrew407#ach7 ,cod4 1 on the other hand1 omits the confession of the man born blind 7 1 1 2 7 in ,s4 ,john ix4 #ch4--;,both ,cod4 and ,cod4 ,b retain nothing but the word of the expression 1 in ,s4 ,matth4 i4 #be2 and suppress altogether the important doctrinal statement 1 in ,s4 ,john iii4 #ac3 as well as the clause 2 1 in ,s4 ,john viii4 #ei4 ,concerning all of which1 let it be observed that ,i am neither imputing motives nor pretending to explain the design with which these several serious omissions were made4 ,all that is asserted is1 that they cannot be imputed to the carelessness of a copyist1 but were intentional3 and ,i insist that they effectually dispose of the presumption that when an important passage is observed to be wanting from ,cod4 ,b or ,cod4 1 its absence is to be accounted for by assuming that it was also absent from the inspired autograph of the ,evangelist4 #b4 ,to the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of ,b or of 1 or of both1 has clearly been interpolated4 ,there does not exist in the whole compass of the ,new ,testament a more monstrous instance of this than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our ,redeemer's side from ,s4 ,john xix4 #bd to ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii41 in ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 1 where it is introduced at the end of ver4 #di1--;in defiance of reason as well as of authority47#aci7 8,this interpolation0 7remarks ,mr4 ,scrivener7 8which would represent the ,,saviour as pierced while yet living1 is a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false407#adj7 ,another singularly gross specimen of interpolation1 in my judgment1 is supplied by the purely apocryphal statement which is met with in ,cod4 1 at the end of ,s4 ,matthew's account of the healing of the ,centurion's servant1-- 1 7viii4 #ac47--,nor can anything well be weaker than the substitution 7for 1 in ,s4 ,john ii4 #c7 of the following17#ada7 which is found only in ,cod4 3-- 1 4 ,but the inspired text has been depraved in the same licentious way throughout1 by the responsible authors of ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 1 although such corruptions have attracted little notice from their comparative unimportance4 ,thus1 the reading 7in 7 7,s4 ,john ix4 #d7 carries with it its own sufficient condemnation2 being scarcely rendered more tolerable by ,b's substitution of for the second 4--,instead of 7,s4 ,luke vi4 #dh71 ,b and present us with the insipid gloss1 4--,in the last-named codex1 we find the name of 8,isaiah0 77 thrust into ,s4 ,matth4 xiii4 #ce1 in defiance of authority and of 99fact994--,can ,i be wrong in asserting that the reading 7for 7 in ,s4 ,john i4 #ah1 7a reading found in ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 alike17 is undeserving of serious attention8--,may it not also be confidently declared that1 in the face of all ,,ms4 evidence17#adb7 no future ,editors of the ,new ,testament will be found to accept the highly improbable reading 1 in ,s4 ,john ix4 #aa1 although the same two ,codices conspire in exhibiting it8--or1 on the authority of one of them 771 to read 7#adc7 7for 7 in ,s4 ,john i4 #d8--;,certain at least it is that no one will ever be found to read 7with ,b7 in ,s4 ,luke x4 #a1--or 7with 7 7instead of 7 in ,s4 ,john i4 #cd4--;,but let me ask1 ,with what show of reason can the pretence of ,infallibility1 7as well as the plea of ,primacy71 be set up on behalf of a pair of ,,mss4 licentiously corrupt as these have already been proved to be8 ,for the readings above enumerated1 be it observed1 are either critical depravations of the inspired ,text1 or else unwarrantable interpolations4 ,they cannot have resulted from careless transcription4 #c4 ,not a few of the foregoing instances are in fact of a kind to convince me that the text with which ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 were chiefly acquainted1 must have been once and again subjected to a clumsy process of revision4 ,not unfrequently1 as may be imagined1 the result 7however tasteless and infelicitous7 is not of serious importance2 as when1 7to give examples from ,cod4 17 for 7in ,s4 ,luke v4 #a7 we are presented with 3--when for 7in ,s4 ,luke xv4 #ac7 we read 2 and for 7in ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #be71 we find 1 1 7which is only a weak reproduction of ,s4 ,matth4 xx4 #be73--when again1 for 7in ,s4 ,john vi4 #ag71 we are shewn 3 and when1 for 7in ,s4 ,john vi4 #fd7 we are invited to accept 47#add7 ,but it requires very little acquaintance with the subject to foresee that this kind of license may easily assume serious dimensions1 and grow into an intolerable evil4 ,thus1 when the man born blind is asked by the ,,holy ,,one if he believes 7,s4 ,john4 ix4 #ce71 we are by no means willing to acquiesce in the proposed substitute1 3 neither1 when the ,,saviour says1 7,s4 ,john x4 #ad7 are we at all willing to put up with the weak equivalent 4 ,still less is any equivalent at all for 1 in ,s4 ,john xvii4 #aj3 or1 1 1 for 2 1 in ,s4 ,john xxi4 #ah4 ,indeed1 even when our ,,lord is not the speaker1 such licentious depravation of the text is not to be endured4 ,thus1 in ,s4 ,luke xxiii4 #ae1 ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 conspire in substituting for 1-- 2 which leads one to suspect the copyist was misled by the narrative in ver4 #g4 ,similar instances might be multiplied to an indefinite extent4 ,two yet graver corruptions of the truth of the ,gospel1 7but they belong to the same category17 remain to be specified4 ,mindful1 ,i suppose1 of ,s4 ,james' explanation 8how that by works a man is justified10 the author of the text of ,codices ,b and has ventured to alter our ,,lord's assertion 7in ,s4 ,matth4 xi4 #ai17 8,wisdom is justified of her children10 into 8,wisdom is justified by her works20 and1 in the case of ,cod4 1 his zeal is observed to have so entirely carried him away1 that he has actually substituted for in the parallel place of ,s4 ,luke's ,gospel4--,the other example of error 7,s4 ,matth4 xxi4 #ca7 is calculated to provoke a smile4 ,finding that our ,,saviour1 in describing the conduct of the two sons in the parable1 says of the one1-- 1 and of the other1-- 2 some ancient scribe1 7who can have been but slenderly acquainted with the ,greek language17 seems to have conceived the notion that a more precise way of identifying the son who 8afterwards repented and went10 would be to designate him as 4 ,accordingly1 in reply to the question1-- 2 we are presented 7but only in ,cod4 ,b7 with the astonishing information1-- 4 ,and yet1 seeing clearly that this made nonsense of the parable1 some subsequent critic is found to have transposed the order of the two sons3 and in that queer condition the parable comes down to us in the famous ,vatican ,codex ,b4 #d4 ,some of the foregoing instances of infelicitous tampering with the text of the ,gospels are1 it must be confessed1 very serious4 ,but it is a yet more fatal circumstance in connexion with ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 that they are convicted of certain perversions of the truth of ,scripture which must have been made with deliberation and purpose4 ,thus1 in ,s4 ,mark xiv1 they exhibit a set of passages--7verses #cj1 #fh1 #gb7--8which bear clear marks of wilful and critical correction1 thoroughly carried out in ,cod4 1 only partially in ,cod4 ,b2 the object being so far to assimilate the narrative of ,peter's denial with those of the other ,evangelists1 as to suppress the fact1 vouched for by ,s4 ,mark only1 that the cock crowed twice4 7,in ,cod4 1 is omitted in ver4 #cj1#8-- and in ver4 #gb1--';and in ver4 #fh3 the last change being countenanced by ,b4707#ade7 ,one such discovery1 ,i take leave to point out1 is enough to destroy all confidence in the text of these two manuscripts3 for it proves that another kind of corrupting influence1--besides carelessness1 and accident1 and tasteless presumption1 and unskilful assiduity1--has been at work on ,codices ,b and 4 ,we are constrained to approach these two manuscripts with suspicion in all cases where a supposed critical difficulty in harmonizing the statements of the several ,evangelists will account for any of the peculiar readings which they exhibit4 ,accordingly1 it does not at all surprise me to discover that in both ,codices the important word 7in ,s4 ,matth4 xxviii4 #h7 has been altered into 4 ,i recognise in that substitution of for the hand of one who was not aware that the women1 when addressed by the ,angel1 were inside the sepulchre2 but who accepted the belief 7it is found to have been as common in ancient as in modern times7 that they beheld him 8sitting on the stone407#adf7--;,in consequence of a similar misconception1 both ,codices are observed to present us with the word 8wine0 instead of 8vinegar0 in ,s4 ,matthew's phrase 3 which results from a mistaken endeavour on the part of some ancient critic to bring ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #cd into harmony with ,s4 ,mark xv4 #bc4 ,the man did not perceive that the cruel insult of the 8vinegar and gall0 7which the ,,saviour tasted but would not drink7 was quite a distinct thing from the proffered mercy of the 8myrrhed wine0 which the ,,saviour put away from ,himself altogether4 ,so again1 it was in order to bring ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #ac into harmony with a supposed fact of geography that ,cod4 states that ,emmaus1 7which ,josephus also places at sixty stadia from ,jerusalem71 was 8an hundred and sixty0 stadia distant4 ,the history of this interpolation of the text is known4 ,it is because some ancient critic 7,origen probably7 erroneously assumed that ,nicopolis was the place intended4 ,the conjecture met with favour1 and there are not wanting scholia to declare that this was the reading of 8the accurate0 copies1--notwithstanding the physical impossibility which is involved by the statement47#adg7--;,another geographical misconception under which the scribe of ,cod4 is found to have laboured was that ,nazareth 7,s4 ,luke i4 #bf7 and ,capernaum 7,s4 ,mark i4 #bh7 were in ,juda4 ,accordingly he has altered the text in both the places referred to1 to suit his private notion47#adh7--;,a yet more striking specimen of the preposterous method of the same scribe is supplied by his substitution of for in ,acts viii4 #e1--;evidently misled by what he found in viii4 #dj and xxi4 #h4--;,again1 it must have been with a view of bringing ,revelation into harmony with the 7supposed7 facts of physical ,science that for the highly significant ,theological record at the ,crucifixion17#adi7 has been substituted both in ,b and 1 1--a statement which 7as the ancients were perfectly well aware7#aej77 introduces into the narrative an astronomical contradiction4--,it may be worth adding1 that ,tischendorf with singular inconsistency admits into his text the astronomical contradiction1 while he rejects the geographical impossibility4--,and this may suffice concerning the text of ,codices ,b and 4 ,,iii4 ,we are by this time in a condition to form a truer estimate of the value of the testimony borne by these two manuscripts in respect of the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,if we were disposed before to regard their omission of an important passage as a serious matter1 we certainly cannot any longer so regard it4 ,we have by this time seen enough to disabuse our minds of every prejudice4 ,codd4 ,b and are the very reverse of infallible guides4 ,their deflections from the ,truth of ,scripture are more constant1 as well as more licentious by far1 than those of their younger brethren3 their unauthorized omissions from the sacred text are not only far more frequent but far more flagrant also4 ,and yet the main matter before us1--their omission of the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1--when rightly understood1 proves to be an entirely different phenomenon from what an ordinary reader might have been led to suppose4 ,attention is specially requested for the remarks which follow4 ,,iv4 ,to say that in the ,vatican ,codex 7,b71 which is unquestionably the oldest we possess1 ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel ends abruptly at the #hth verse of the xvith chapter1 and that the customary subscription 7 7 follows1--is true2 but it is far from being the whole truth4 ,it requires to be stated in addition that the scribe1 whose plan is found to have been to begin every fresh book of the ,bible at the top of the next ensuing column to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding book1 has at the close of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel deviated from his else invariable practice4 ,he has left in this place one column entirely vacant4 ,it is the only vacant column in the whole manuscript2--a blank space abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless withheld4 ,why did he leave that column vacant8 ,what can have induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule8 ,the phenomenon1--7,i believe ,i was the first to call distinct attention to it17--is in the highest degree significant1 and admits of only one interpretation4 ,the older ,,ms4 from which ,cod4 ,b was copied must have infallibly contained the twelve verses in dispute4 ,the copyist was instructed to leave them out1--and he obeyed3 but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei4 ,never was blank more intelligible6 ,never was silence more eloquent6 ,by this simple expedient1 strange to relate1 the ,vatican ,codex is made to refute itself even while it seems to be bearing testimony against the concluding verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 by withholding them3 for it forbids the inference which1 under ordinary circumstances1 must have been drawn from that omission4 ,it does more4 ,by leaving room for the verses it omits1 it brings into prominent notice at the end of fifteen centuries and a half1 a more ancient witness than itself4 ,the venerable ,author of the original ,codex from which ,codex ,b was copied1 is thereby brought to view4 ,and thus1 our supposed adversary 7,codex ,b7 proves our most useful ally3 for it procures us the testimony of an hitherto unsuspected witness4 ,the earlier scribe1 ,i repeat1 unmistakably comes forward at this stage of the inquiry1 to explain that he at least is prepared to answer for the genuineness of these ,twelve concluding ,verses with which the later scribe1 his copyist1 from his omission of them1 might unhappily be thought to have been unacquainted4 ,it will be perceived that nothing is gained by suggesting that the scribe of ,cod4 ,b4 may have copied from a ,,ms4 which exhibited the same phenomenon which he has himself reproduced4 ,this1 by shifting the question a little further back1 does but make the case against ,cod4 the stronger4 ,but in truth1 after the revelation which has been already elicited from ,cod4 ,b1 the evidence of ,cod4 may be very summarily disposed of4 ,i have already1 on independent grounds1 ventured to assign to that ,codex a somewhat later date than is claimed for the ,codex ,vaticanus47#aea7 ,my opinion is confirmed by observing that the ,sinaitic contains no such blank space at the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel as is conspicuous in the ,vatican ,codex4 ,i infer that the ,sinaitic was copied from a ,codex which had been already mutilated1 and reduced to the condition of ,cod4 ,b2 and that the scribe1 only because he knew not what it meant1 exhibited ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel in consequence as if it really had no claim to those twelve concluding verses which1 nevertheless1 every authority we have hitherto met with has affirmed to belong to it of right4 ,whatever may be thought of the foregoing suggestion1 it is at least undeniable that ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 are at variance on the main point4 ,they contradict one another concerning the twelve concluding verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,for while ,cod4 refuses to know anything at all about those verses1 ,cod4 ,b admits that it remembers them well1 by volunteering the statement that they were found in the older codex1 of which it is in every other respect a faithful representative4 ,the older and the better manuscript 7,b71 therefore1 refutes its junior 774 ,and it will be seen that logically this brings the inquiry to a close1 as far as the evidence of the manuscripts is concerned4 ,we have referred to the oldest extant copy of the ,gospels in order to obtain its testimony3 and1--8,though without the ,twelve ,verses concerning which you are so solicitous10 7it seems to say17 8,i yet hesitate not to confess to you that an older copy than myself1--the ancient ,codex from which ,i was copied1--actually did contain them40 ,the problem may1 in fact1 be briefly stated as follows4 ,of the four oldest ,codices of the ,gospels extant1--,b1 1 ,a1 ,c1--two 7,b and 7 are without these twelve verses3 two 7,a and ,c7 are with them4 ,are these twelve verses then an unauthorized addition to ,a and ,c8 or are they an unwarrantable omission from ,b and 8 ,b itself declares plainly that from itself they are an omission4 ,and ,b is the oldest ,codex of the ,gospel in existence4 ,what candid mind will persist in clinging to the solitary fact that from the single ,codex these verses are away1 in proof that 8,s4 ,mark's ,gospel was at first without the verses which at present conclude it80 ,let others decide1 therefore1 whether the present discussion has not already reached a stage at which an unprejudiced ,arbiter might be expected to address the prosecuting parties somewhat to the following effect3-- 8,this case must now be dismissed4 ,the charge brought by yourselves against these ,verses was1 that they are an unauthorized addition to the second ,gospel2 a spurious appendix1 of which the ,evangelist ,s4 ,mark can have known nothing4 ,but so far from substantiating this charge1 you have not adduced a single particle of evidence which renders it even probable4 8,the appeal was made by yourselves to ,fathers and to ,,mss4 ,it has been accepted4 ,and with what result8 7a7 8,those many ,fathers whom you represented as hostile1 prove on investigation to be reducible to one1 viz4 ,eusebius3 and ,eusebius1 as we have seen1 does not say that the verses are spurious1 but on the contrary labours hard to prove that they may very well be genuine4 ,on the other hand1 there are earlier ,fathers than ,eusebius who quote them without any signs of misgiving4 ,in this way1 the positive evidence in their favour is carried back to the iind century4 7b7 8,declining the testimony of the ,versions1 you insisted on an appeal to ,,mss4 ,on the ,,mss41 in fact1 you still make your stand1--or rather you rely on the oldest of them2 for1 7as you are aware17 every ,,ms4 in the world except the two oldest are against you4 8,i have therefore questioned the elder of those two ,,mss42 and it has volunteered the avowal that an older ,,ms4 than itself--the ,codex from which it was copied--was furnished with those very ,verses which you wish me to believe that some older ,,ms4 still must needs have been without4 ,what else can be said1 then1 of your method but that it is frivolous8 and of your charge1 but that it is contradicted by the evidence to which you yourselves appeal8 8,but it is illogical2 that is1 it is unreasonable1 besides4 8,for it is high time to point out that even if it so happened that the oldest known ,,ms4 was observed to be without these twelve concluding verses1 it would still remain a thing unproved 7not to say highly improbable7 that from the autograph of the ,evangelist himself they were also away4 ,supposing1 further1 that no ,ecclesiastical writer of the iind or iiird century could be found who quoted them3 even so1 it would not follow that there existed no such verses for a primitive ,father to quote4 ,the earliest of the ,versions might in addition yield faltering testimony2 but even so1 who would be so rash as to raise on such a slender basis the monstrous hypothesis1 that ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel when it left the hands of its inspired ,author was without the verses which at present conclude it8 ,how1 then1 would you have proposed to account for the consistent testimony of an opposite kind yielded by every other known document in the world8 8,but1 on the other hand1 what are the facts of the case8 7#a7 ,the earliest of the ,fathers1--7#b7 the most venerable of the ,versions1--7#c7 the oldest ,,ms4 of which we can obtain any tidings1--all are observed to recognize these ,verses4 #8,cadit quaestio' therefore4 ,the last shadow of pretext has vanished for maintaining with ,tischendorf that #8,mark the ,evangelist knew nothing of' these verses3--with ,tregelles that #8,the book of ,mark himself extends no further than 3'--with ,griesbach that #8the last leaf of the original ,gospel was probably torn away4'444 ,it is high time1 ,i say1 that this case were dismissed4 ,but there are also costs to be paid4 ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 are convicted of being #8two false witnesses1' and must be held to go forth from this inquiry with an injured reputation40 ,this entire subject is of so much importance that ,i must needs yet awhile crave the reader's patience and attention4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,manuscript ,,testimony ,,shewn ,,to ,,be ,,overwhelmingly ,,in ,,favour ,,of ,,these ,,verses4--,,part ,,ii4 ,the other chief peculiarity of ,codices ,b and 7viz4 the omission of the words from ,ephes4 i4 #a7 considered4--,antiquity unfavourable to the omission of those words 7p4 #ic74--,the ,moderns infelicitous in their attempts to account for their omission 7p4 #ajj74--,marcion probably the author of this corruption of the ,text of ,scripture 7p4 #ajf74--,other peculiarities of ,codex disposed of 7p4 #aji74 ,the subject which exclusively occupied our attention throughout the foregoing chapter admits of apt and powerful illustration4 ,its vast importance will be a sufficient apology for the particular disquisition which follows1 and might have been spared1 but for the plain challenge of the famous ,critic to be named immediately4 8,there are two remarkable readings10 7says ,tischendorf1 addressing ,english readers on this subject in #ahfh17 8which are very instructive towards determining the age of the manuscripts and ,b1 and their authority40 ,he proceeds to adduce1-- #a4 ,the absence from both1 of the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1--concerning which1 the reader probably thinks that by this time he has heard enough4 ,next1-- #b4 ,he appeals to their omission of the words from the first verse of ,s4 ,paul's ,epistle to the ,ephesians1--another peculiarity1 in which ,codd4 and ,b stand quite alone among ,,mss4 ,i4 ,here is an extraordinary note of sympathy between two copies of the ,new ,testament indeed4 ,altogether unique is it3 and that it powerfully corroborates the general opinion of their high antiquity1 no one will deny4 ,but how about 8their authority08 ,does the coincidence also raise our opinion of the trustworthiness of the ,text1 which these two ,,mss4 concur in exhibiting8 for that is the question which has to be considered1--the only question4 ,the ancientness of a reading is one thing3 its genuineness1 7as ,i have explained elsewhere17 quite another4 ,the questions are entirely distinct4 ,it may even be added that while the one is really of little moment1 the latter is of all the importance in the world4 ,i am saying that it matters very little whether ,codd4 and ,b were written in the beginning of the ivth century1 or in the beginning of the vth3 whereas it matters much1 or rather it matters everything1 whether they exhibit the ,word of ,,god faithfully1 or occasionally with scandalous license4 ,how far the reading which results from the suppression of the last two words in the phrase 1 is critically allowable or not1 ,i forbear to inquire4 ,that is not the point which we have to determine4 ,the one question to be considered is1--,may it possibly be the true reading of the text after all8 ,is it any way credible that ,s4 ,paul began his ,epistle to the ,ephesians as follows3-- 1 8444 ,if it be eagerly declared in reply that the thing is simply incredible3 that the words are required for the sense2 and that the commonly received reading is no doubt the correct one3 then1--there is an end of the discussion4 ,two extraordinary notes of sympathy between two ,manuscripts will have been appealed to as crucial proofs of the trustworthiness of the ,text of those ,manuscripts3 7for of their high ,antiquity1 let me say it once more1 there can be no question whatever37 and it will have been proved in one case1--admitted in the other1--that the omission is unwarrantable4--,if1 however1 on the contrary1 it be maintained that the words probably had no place in the original copy of this ,epistle1 but are to be regarded as an unauthorized addition to it1--then1 7as in the case of the ,twelve ,verses omitted from the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 and which it was also pretended are an unauthorized supplement17 we demand to be shewn the evidence on the strength of which this opinion is maintained1 in order that we may ascertain what it is precisely worth4 ,tischendorf1--the illustrious discoverer and champion of ,codex 1 and who is accustomed to appeal triumphantly to its omission of the words as the other conclusive proof of the trustworthiness of its text1--may be presumed to be the most able advocate it is likely to meet with1 as well as the man best acquainted with what is to be urged in its support4 ,from him1 we learn that the evidence for the omission of the words in question is as follows3--8,in the beginning of the ,epistle to the ,ephesians we read1 #8to the saints which are at ,ephesus2' but ,marcion 7,a4,d4 #acj-adj71 did not find the words #8at ,ephesus' in his copy4 ,the same is true of ,origen 7,a4,d4 #ahe-bed72 and ,basil the ,great 7who died ,a4,d4 #cgi71 affirmed that those words were wanting in old copies4 ,and this omission accords very well with the encyclical or general character of the ,epistle4 ,at the present day1 our ancient ,greek ,,mss41 and all ancient ,versions1 contain the words #8at ,ephesus2' yea 7sic71 even ,jerome knew no copy with a different reading4 ,now1 only the ,sinaitic and the ,vatican correspond with the old copies of ,basil1 and those of ,origen and ,marcion407#aeb7--,this then is the sum of the evidence4 ,proceed we to examine it somewhat in detail4 7#a7 ,and first1 ,i take leave to point out that the learned writer is absolutely without authority for his assertion that 8,marcion did not find the words in his copy0 of ,s4 ,paul's ,epistle to the ,ephesians4 ,tischendorf's one pretence for saying so is ,tertullian's statement that certain heretics1 7,marcion he specifies by name17 had given to ,s4 ,paul's 8,epistle to the ,ephesians0 the unauthorized title of 8,epistle to the ,laodiceans407#aec7 ,this1 7argues ,tischendorf17 ,marcion could not have done had he found in the first verse47#aed7 ,but the proposed inference is clearly invalid4 ,for1 with what show of reason can ,marcion1--whom ,tertullian taxes with having dared 8titulum interpolare0 in the case of ,s4 ,paul's 8,epistle to the ,ephesians10--be therefore1 assumed to have read the first verse differently from ourselves8 ,rather is the directly opposite inference suggested by the very language in which ,tertullian 7who was all but the contemporary of ,marcion7 alludes to the circumstance47#aee7 ,those1 however1 who would really understand the work of the heretic1 should turn from the ,african ,father1--7who after all does but say that ,marcion and his crew feigned concerning ,s4 ,paul's ,epistle to the ,ephesians1 that it was addressed to the ,laodiceans17--and betake themselves to the pages of ,epiphanius1 who lived about a century and a half later4 ,this ,father had for many years made ,marcion's work his special study17#aef7 and has elaborately described it1 as well as presented us with copious extracts from it47#aeg7 ,and the account in ,epiphanius proves that ,tischendorf is mistaken in the statement which he addresses to the ,english reader1 7quoted above27 and that he would have better consulted for his reputation if he had kept to the 8ut videtur0 with which 7in his edition of #ahei7 he originally broached his opinion4 ,it proves in fact to be no matter of opinion at all4 ,epiphanius states distinctly that the ,epistle to the ,ephesians was one of the ten ,epistles of ,s4 ,paul which ,marcion retained4 ,in his 8,apostolicon10 or collection of the 7mutilated7 ,apostolical ,epistles1 the 8,epistle to the ,ephesians10 7identified by the considerable quotations which ,epiphanius makes from it17#aeh77 stood 7he says7 seventh in order2 while the 7so called7 8,epistle to the ,laodiceans10--a distinct composition therefore1--had the eleventh1 that is1 the last place assigned to it47#aei7 ,that this latter ,epistle contained a corrupt exhibition of ,ephes4 iv4 #e is true enough4 ,epiphanius records the fact in two places47#afj7 ,but then it is to be borne in mind that he charges ,marcion with having derived that quotation from the ,apocryphal ,epistle to the ,laodiceans27#afa7 instead of taking it1 as he ought to have done1 from the genuine ,epistle to the ,ephesians4 ,the passage1 when faithfully exhibited1 7as ,epiphanius points out17 by its very form refutes the heretical tenet which the context of ,marcion's spurious epistle to the ,laodiceans was intended to establish2 and which the verse in question1 in its interpolated form1 might seem to favour47#afb7--;,i have entered into this whole question more in detail perhaps than was necessary3 but ,i was determined to prove that ,tischendorf's statement that 8,marcion 7,a4,d4 #acj-adj7 did not find the words #8at ,ephesus' in his copy10--is absolutely without foundation4 ,it is even contradicted by the known facts of the case4 ,i shall have something more to say about ,marcion by-and-by2 who1 it is quite certain1 read the text of ,ephes4 i4 #a exactly as we do4 7#b47 ,the only ,father who so expresses himself as to warrant the inference that the words were absent from his copy1 is ,origen1 in the beginning of the third century4 8,only in the case of the ,ephesians10 7he writes71 8do we meet with the expression #8the ,saints which are3' and we inquire1--,unless that additional phrase be simply redundant1 what can it possibly signify8 ,consider1 then1 whether those who have been partakers of ,his nature who revealed ,himself to ,moses by the ,name of ,i ,,am1 may not1 in consequence of such union with ,him1 be designated as #8those which are3' persons1 called out1 of a state of not-being1 so to speak1 into a state of being407#afc7--;,if ,origen had read in his copy1 it is to me incredible that he would have gone so very far out of his way to miss the sense of such a plain1 and in fact1 unmistakable an expression4 ,bishop ,middleton1 and ,michaelis before him1--reasoning however only from the place in ,basil1 7to be quoted immediately17--are unwilling to allow that the words were ever away from the text4 ,it must be admitted as the obvious inference from what ,jerome has delivered on this subject 7infr1 p4 #ih note7 that he1 too1 seems to know nothing of the reading 7if reading it can be called7 of ,codd4 ,b and 4 7#c7 ,the influence which ,origen's writings exercised over his own and the immediately succeeding ages of the ,church1 was prodigious4 ,basil1 bishop of ,csarea in ,cappadocia1 writing against the heresy of ,eunomius about #aej years later1--although he read in his own copy of ,s4 ,paul's ,epistles1--thought fit to avail himself of ,origen's suggestion4 ,it suited his purpose4 ,he was proving the eternal existence of the ,,son of ,,god4 ,even not to know ,,god 7he remarks7 is not to be3 in proof of which1 he quotes ,s4 ,paul's words in #a ,cor4 i4 #bh3--8,things which are not1 hath ,,god chosen40 8,nay10 7he proceeds17 the same ,s4 ,paul1 8in his ,epistle to the ,ephesians1 inasmuch as he is addressing persons who by intimate knowledge were truly joined to ,him who #8,,is1' designates them specially as #8those which are3' saying1--#8,to the ,saints which are1 and faithful in ,,christ ,,jesus4' 0 ,that this fancy was not original1 ,basil makes no secret4 ,he derived it1 7he says17 from 8those who were before us20 a plain allusion to the writings of ,origen4 ,but neither was the reading his own1 either4 ,this is evident4 ,he had found it1 he says1--7an asseveration indispensable to the validity of his argument17--but only after he had made search17#afd7--8;in the old copies407#afe7 ,no doubt1 ,origen's strange fancy must have been even unintelligible to ,basil when first he met with it4 ,in plain terms1 it sounds to this day incredibly foolish1--when read apart from the mutilated text which alone suggested it to ,origen's fervid imagination4--,but what there is in all this to induce us to suspect that ,origen's reading was after all the right one1 and ours the wrong1 ,i profess myself wholly at a loss to discover4 ,origen himself complains bitterly of the depraved state of the copies in his time2 and attributes it 7#a7 to the carelessness of the scribes3 7#b7 to the rashness of correctors of the text3 7#c7 to the licentiousness of individuals1 adopting some of these corrections and rejecting others1 according to their own private caprice47#aff7 7#d7 ,jerome1 a man of severer judgment in such matters than either ,origen or ,basil1 after rehearsing the preceding gloss1 7but only to reject it17 remarks that 8certain persons0 had been 8over-fanciful0 in putting it forth4 ,he alludes probably to ,origen1 whose ,commentary on the ,ephesians1 in three books1 he expressly relates that he employed37#afg7 but he does not seem to have apprehended that ,origen's text was without the words 4 ,if he was acquainted with ,origen's text1 7of which1 however1 his writings afford no indication17 it is plain that he disapproved of it4 ,others1 he says1 understand ,s4 ,paul to say not 8the ,saints which are30 but1--8the ,saints and faithful which are at ,ephesus407#afh7 7#e7 ,the witnesses have now all been heard3 and ,i submit that there has been elicited from their united evidence nothing at all calculated to shake our confidence in the universally received reading of ,ephesians i4 #a4 ,the facts of the case are so scanty that they admit of being faithfully stated in a single sentence4 ,two ,,mss4 of the ivth century1 7exhibiting in other respects several striking notes of vicious sympathy17 are found to conspire in omitting a clause in ,ephesians i4 #a1 which1 7necessary as it is to the sense17 may be inferred to have been absent from ,origen's copy3 and ,basil testifies that it was absent from 8the old copies0 to which he himself obtained access4 ,this is really the whole of the matter3 in which it is much to be noted that ,origen does not say that he approved of this reading4 ,still less does ,basil4 ,they both witness to the fact that the words were omitted from some copies of the iiird century1 just as ,codd4 ,b and witness to the same fact in the ivth4 ,but what then8 ,origen is known occasionally to go out of his way to notice readings confessedly worthless2 and1 why not here8 ,for not only is the text all but unintelligible if the words be omitted3 but 7what is far more to the purpose7 the direct evidence of all the copies1 whether uncial or cursive17#afi7--;and of all the ,versions1--is against the omission4 ,in the face of this overwhelming mass of unfaltering evidence to insist that ,codd4 ,b and must yet be accounted right1 and all the rest of ,antiquity wrong1 is simply irrational4 ,to uphold the authority1 in respect of this nonsensical reading1 of two ,,mss4 confessedly untrustworthy in countless other places1--against all the ,,mss4--all the ,versions1--is nothing else but an act of vulgar prejudice4 ,i venture to declare1--7and with this ,i shall close the discussion and dismiss the subject17--that there does not exist one single instance in the whole of the ,new ,testament of a reading even probably correct in which the four following notes of spurious origin concur1--which nevertheless are observed to attach to the two readings which have been chiefly discussed in the foregoing pages3 viz4 #a4 ,the adverse testimony of all the uncial ,,mss4 except two4 #b4 ,the adverse testimony of all1 or very nearly all1 the cursive ,,mss4 #c4 ,the adverse testimony of all the ,versions1 without exception4 #d4 ,the adverse testimony of the oldest ,ecclesiastical ,writers4 ,to which if ,i do not add1 as ,i reasonably might1-- #e4 ,the highest inherent improbability1--it is only because ,i desire to treat this question purely as one of ,evidence4 ,,ii4 ,learned men have tasked their ingenuity to account for the phenomenon on which we have been bestowing so many words4 ,the endeavour is commendable2 but ,i take leave to remark in passing that if we are to set about discovering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for every corrupt reading which found its way into the sacred text during the first three centuries subsequent to the death of ,s4 ,john1 we shall have enough to do4 ,let any one take up the ,codex ,bezae1 7with which1 by the way1 ,cod4 ,b shews marvellous sympathy7#agj717 and explain if he can why there is a grave omission1 or else a gross interpolation1 in almost every page2 and how it comes to pass that ,cod4 ,d 8reproduces the #8textus receptus' of the ,acts much in the same way that one of the best ,chaldee ,targums does the ,hebrew of the ,old ,testament2 so wide are the variations in the diction1 so constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability407#aga7 ,our business as ,critics is not to invent theories to account for the errors of ,copyists2 but rather to ascertain where they have erred1 where not4 ,what with the inexcusable depravations of early ,heretics1--the preposterous emendations of ancient ,critics1--the injudicious assiduity of ,harmonizers1--the licentious caprice of individuals2--what with errors resulting from the inopportune recollection of similar or parallel places1--or from the familiar phraseology of the ,ecclesiastical ,lections1--or from the inattention of ,scribes1--or from marginal glosses2--however arising1 endless are the corrupt readings of the oldest ,,mss4 in existence2 and it is by no means safe to follow up the detection of a depravation of the text with a theory to account for its existence4 ,let me be allowed to say that such theories are seldom satisfactory4 ,guesses only they are at best4 ,thus1 ,i profess myself wholly unable to accept the suggestion of ,ussher1--7which1 however1 found favour with ,garnier 7,basil's editor71 ,bengel1 ,benson1 and ,michaelis2 and has since been not only eagerly advocated by ,conybeare and ,howson following a host of ,german ,critics1 but has even enjoyed ,mr4 ,scrivener's distinct approval27--that the ,epistle to the ,ephesians 8was a ,circular addressed to other ,asiatic ,cities besides the capital ,ephesus1--to ,laodicea perhaps among the rest 7,col4 iv4 #af72 and that while some ,codices may have contained the name of ,ephesus in the first verse1 others may have had another city substituted1 or the space after left utterly void407#agb7 ,at first sight1 this conjecture has a kind of interesting plausibility which recommends it to our favour4 ,on closer inspection1--7i7 ,it is found to be not only gratuitous2 but 7ii7 altogether unsupported and unsanctioned by the known facts of the case2 and 7what is most to the purpose7 7iii7 it is1 as ,i humbly think1 demonstrably erroneous4 ,i demur to it1-- 7#a7 ,because of its exceeding ,improbability3 for 7a7 when ,s4 ,paul sent his ,epistle to the ,ephesians we know that ,tychicus1 the bearer of it17#agc7 was charged with a distinct ,epistle to the ,colossians37#agd7 an ,epistle nevertheless so singularly like the ,epistle to the ,ephesians that it is scarcely credible ,s4 ,paul would have written those two several ,epistles to two of the ,churches of ,asia1 and yet have sent only a duplicate of one of them1 7that to the ,ephesians17 furnished with a different address1 to so large and important a place as ,laodicea1 for example1 7b7 ,then further1 the provision which ,s4 ,paul made at this very time for communicating with the ,churches of ,asia which he did not separately address is found to have been different4 ,the ,laodiceans were to read in their public assembly ,s4 ,paul's 8,epistle to the ,colossians10 which the ,colossians were ordered to send them4 ,the ,colossians in like manner were to read the ,epistle1--7to whom addressed1 we know not71--which ,s4 ,paul describes as 47#age7 ,if then it had been ,s4 ,paul's desire that the ,laodiceans 7suppose7 should read publicly in their ,churches his ,epistle to the ,ephesians1 surely1 he would have charged the ,ephesians to procure that his ,epistle to them should be read in the ,church of the ,laodiceans4 ,why should the ,apostle be gratuitously assumed to have simultaneously adopted one method with the ,churches of ,colosse and ,laodicea1--another with the ,churches of ,ephesus and ,laodicea1--in respect of his epistolary communications8 7#b7 7a7 ,but even supposing1 for argument's sake1 that ,s4 ,paul did send duplicate copies of his ,epistle to the ,ephesians to certain of the principal ,churches of ,asia ,minor1--why should he have left the salutation blank1 78carta bianca10 as ,bengel phrases it17#agf77 for ,tychicus to fill up when he got into ,asia ,minor8 ,and yet1 by the hypothesis1 nothing short of this would account for the reading of ,codd4 ,b and 4 7b7 ,let the full extent of the demand which is made on our good nature be clearly appreciated4 ,we are required to believe that there was 7#a7 ,a copy of what we call ,s4 ,paul's 8,epistle to the ,ephesians0 sent into ,asia ,minor by ,s4 ,paul with a blank address2 i4e4 8with the space after left utterly void30 7#b7 ,that ,tychicus neglected to fill up that blank3 and1 7what is remarkable7 7#c7 ,that no one was found to fill it up for him4 ,next1 7#d7 ,that the same copy became the fontal source of the copy seen by ,origen1 and 7#e7 ,of the 8old copies0 seen by ,basil2 as well as 7#f7 ,of ,codd4 ,b and 4 ,and even this is not all4 ,the same hypothesis constrains us to suppose that1 on the contrary1 7#g7 ,one other copy of this same 8,encyclical ,epistle10 filled up with the ,ephesian address1 became the archetype of every other copy of this ,epistle in the world4444 ,but of what nature1 7,i would ask17 is the supposed necessity for building up such a marvellous structure of hypothesis1--of which the top story overhangs and overbalances all the rest of the edifice8 ,the thing which puzzles us in ,codd4 ,b and is not that we find the name of another ,city in the salutation of ,s4 ,paul's 8,epistle to the ,ephesians10 but that we find the name of no city at all2 nor meet with any vacant space there4 7c7 ,on the other hand1 supposing that ,s4 ,paul actually did address to different ,churches copies of the present ,epistle1 and was scrupulous 7as of course he was7 to fill in the addresses himself before the precious documents left his hands1--then1 doubtless1 each several ,church would have received1 cherished1 and jealously guarded its own copy4 ,but if this had been the case1 7or indeed if ,tychicus had filled up the blanks for the ,apostle17 is it not simply incredible that we should never have heard a word about the matter until now8 unaccountable1 above all1 that there should nowhere exist traces of conflicting testimony as to the ,church to which ,s4 ,paul's ,epistle to the ,ephesians was addressed8 whereas all the most ancient writers1 without exception1--7,marcion himself ,a4,d4 #adj7agg71 the 8,muratorian0 fragment ,a4,d4 #agj or earlier1 ,irenus ,a4,d4 #age1 ,clemens ,alexandrinus1 ,tertullian1 ,origen1 ,dionysius ,alexandrinus1 ,cyprian1 ,eusebius17--and all copies wheresoever found1 give one unvarying1 unfaltering witness4 ,even in ,cod4 ,b4 and ,cod4 1 7and this is much to be noted17 the superscription of the ,epistle attests that it was addressed 8to the ,ephesians40 ,can we be warranted 7,i would respectfully inquire7 in inventing facts in the history of an ,apostle's practice1 in order to account for what seems to be after all only an ordinary depravation of his text87#agh7 7#c7 ,but1 in fact1 it is high time to point out that such 8a ,circular0 as was described above1 7each copy furnished with a blank1 to be filled up with the name of a different ,city17 would be a document without parallel in the annals of the primitive ,church4 ,it is1 as far as ,i am aware1 essentially a modern notion4 ,i suspect1 in short1 that the suggestion before us is only another instance of the fatal misapprehension which results from the incautious transfer of the notions suggested by some familiar word in a living language to its supposed equivalent in an ancient tongue4 ,thus1 because or confessedly signifies 8circularis10 it seems to be imagined that may mean 8a ,circular ,letter40 ,whereas it really means nothing of the sort2 but--8a ,catholic ,epistle407#agi7 ,an 8,encyclical0 7and that is the word which has been imported into the present discussion71 was quite a different document from what we call 8a ,circular40 ,addressed to no one ,church or person in particular1 it was ,catholic or ,general1--the common property of all to whom it came4 ,the ,general 7or ,catholic7 ,epistles of ,s4 ,james1 ,s4 ,peter1 ,s4 ,john are 8,encyclical407#ahj7 ,so is the well-known ,canonical ,epistle which ,gregory1 ,bp4 of ,neocsara in ,pontus1 in the middle of the third century1 sent to the ,bishops of his province47#aha7 ,as for 8a blank circular0 to be filled up with the words 8in ,ephesus10 8in ,laodicea10 c41--its like 7,i repeat7 is wholly unknown in the annals of ,ecclesiastical ,antiquity4 ,the two notions are at all events inconsistent and incompatible4 ,if ,s4 ,paul's ,epistle to the ,ephesians was 8a ,circular10 then it was not 8,encyclical30 if it was 8,encyclical0 then it was not 8a ,circular40 ,are we then deliberately to believe1 7for to this necessity we are logically reduced17 that the ,epistle which occupies the fifth place among ,s4 ,paul's writings1 and which from the beginning of the second century1--that is1 from the very dawn of ,historical evidence1--has been known as 8the ,epistle to the ,ephesians10 was an 8,encyclical10 8,catholic0 or 8,general ,epistle10--addressed 1 8 ,there does not live the man who will accept so irrational a supposition4 ,the suggestion therefore by which it has been proposed to account for the absence of the words in ,ephes4 i4 #a is not only in itself in the highest degree improbable1 and contradicted by all the evidence to which we have access2 but it is even inadmissible on critical grounds1 and must be unconditionally surrendered47#ahb7 ,it is observed to collapse before every test which can be applied to it4 ,,iii4 ,altogether marvellous in the meantime it is to me1--if men must needs account for the omission of the words from this place1--that they should have recourse to wild1 improbable1 and wholly unsupported theories1 like those which go before2 while an easy1--,i was going to say the obvious1--solution of the problem is close at hand1 and even solicits acceptance4 ,marcion the heretic1 7,a4,d4 #adj7 is distinctly charged by ,tertullian 7,a4,d4 #bjj71 and by ,jerome a century and a half later1 with having abundantly mutilated the text of ,scripture1 and of ,s4 ,paul's ,epistles in particular4 ,epiphanius compares the writing which ,marcion tampered with to a moth-eaten coat47#ahc7 8,instead of a stylus10 7says ,tertullian17 8,marcion employed a knife40 8,what wonder if he omits syllables1 since often he omits whole pages807#ahd7 ,s4 ,paul's ,epistle to the ,ephesians1 ,tertullian even singles out by name2 accusing ,marcion of having furnished it with a new title4 ,all this has been fully explained above1 from page #ic to page #if4 ,now1 that ,marcion recognised as ,s4 ,paul's ,epistle 8to the ,ephesians0 that ,apostolical writing which stands fifth in our ,canon1 7but which stood seventh in his17 is just as certain as that he recognised as such ,s4 ,paul's ,epistles to the ,galatians1 ,corinthians1 ,romans1 ,thessalonians1 ,colossians1 ,philippians4 ,all this has been fully explained in a preceding page47#ahe7 ,but it is also evident that ,marcion put forth as ,s4 ,paul's another ,epistle1--of which all we know for certain is1 that it contained portions of the ,epistle to the ,ephesians1 and purported to be addressed by ,s4 ,paul 8to the ,laodiceans40 ,to ascertain with greater precision the truth of this matter at the end of upwards of seventeen centuries is perhaps impossible4 ,nor is it necessary4 ,obvious is it to suspect that not only did this heretical teacher at some period of his career prefix a new heading to certain copies of the ,epistle to the ,ephesians1 but also that some of his followers industriously erased from certain other copies the words in ver4 #a1--;as being the only two words in the entire ,epistle which effectually refuted their ,master4 ,it was not needful1 7be it observed17 to multiply copies of the ,epistle for the propagation of ,marcion's deceit4 ,only two words had to be erased1--the very two words whose omission we are trying to account for1--in order to give some colour to his proposed attribution of the ,epistle1 78quasi in isto diligentissimus explorator107--to the ,laodiceans4 ,one of these mutilated copies will have fallen into the hands of ,origen1--who often complains of the corrupt state of his text3 while the critical personages for whom ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 were transcribed will probably have been acquainted with other such mutilated copies4 ,are we not led1 as it were by the hand1 to take some such view of the case8 ,in this way we account satisfactorily1 and on grounds of historic evidence1 for the omission which has exercised the ,critics so severely4 ,i do not lose sight of the fact that the ,epistle to the ,ephesians ends without salutations1 without personal notices of any kind4 ,but in this respect it is not peculiar47#ahf7 ,that1--joined to a singular absence of identifying allusion1--sufficiently explains why ,marcion selected this particular ,epistle for the subject of his fraud4 ,but1 to infer from this circumstance1 in defiance of the ,tradition of the ,church ,universal1 and in defiance of its very ,title1 that the ,epistle is 8,encyclical10 in the technical sense of that word2 and to go on to urge this characteristic as an argument in support of the omission of the words 1--is clearly the device of an eager ,advocate2 not the method of a calm and unprejudiced ,judge4 ,true it is that ,s4 ,paul1--who1 writing to the ,corinthians from ,ephesus1 says 8the ,churches of ,asia salute you10 7#a ,cor4 xvi4 #ai17--may have known very well that an ,epistle of his 8to the ,ephesians10 would1 as a matter of course1 be instantly communicated to others besides the members of that particular ,church3 and in fact this may explain why there is nothing specially 8,ephesian0 in the contents of the ,epistle4 ,the ,apostle1--7as when he addressed 8the ,churches of ,galatia107--may have had certain of the other neighbouring ,churches in his mind while he wrote4 ,but all this is wholly foreign to the question before us3 the one only question being this1--,which of the three following addresses represents what ,s4 ,paul must be considered to have actually written in the first verse of his 8,epistle to the ,ephesians08-- 7#a7 4 4 7#b7 444 4 4 7#c7 1 4 4 ,what ,i have been saying amounts to this3 that it is absolutely unreasonable for men to go out of their way to invent a theory wanting every element of probability in order to account for the omission of the words from ,s4 ,paul's ,epistle to the ,ephesians2 while they have under their eyes the express testimony of a competent witness of the iind century that a certain heretic1 named ,marcion1 8presumed to prefix an unauthorized title to that very ,epistle10 78,marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit107--which title obviously could not stand unless those two words were first erased from the text4 ,to interpolate that new title1 and to erase the two words which were plainly inconsistent with it1 were obviously correlative acts which must always have been performed together4 ,but however all this may be1 7as already pointed out17 the only question to be determined by us is1--whether it be credible that the words are an unauthorized addition2 foisted into the text of ,ephes4 i4 #a as far back as the ,apostolic age3 an interpolation which1 instead of dying out1 and at last all but disappearing1 has spread and established itself1 until the words are found in every copy1--are represented in every translation1--have been recognised in every country1--witnessed to by every ,father1--received in every age of the ,church8 ,i repeat that the one question which has to be decided is1 not how the words came to be put in1 or came to be left out2 but simply whether1 on an impartial review of the evidence1 it be reasonable 7with ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,conybeare and ,howson1 and so many more17 to suspect their genuineness and enclose them in brackets8 ,is it credible that the words are a spurious and unauthorized addition to the inspired autograph of the ,apostle8444 ,we have already1 as ,i think1 obtained a satisfactory answer to this question4 ,it has been shewn1 as conclusively as in inquiries of this nature is possible1 that in respect of the reading of ,ephesians i4 #a1 ,codd4 ,b and are even most conspicuously at fault4 ,,iv4 ,but if these two ,codices are thus convicted of error in respect of the one remaining text which their chief upholders have selected1 and to which they still make their most confident appeal1--what remains1 but to point out that it is high time that men should be invited to disabuse their minds of the extravagant opinion which they have been so industriously taught to entertain of the value of the two ,codices in question8 ,it has already degenerated into an unreasoning prejudice1 and threatens at last to add one more to the already overgrown catalogue of 8vulgar errors40 ,v4 ,i cannot1 ,i suppose1 act more fairly by ,tischendorf than by transcribing in conclusion his remarks on the four remaining readings of ,codex to which he triumphantly appeals3 promising to dismiss them all with a single remark4 ,he says1 7addressing unlearned readers17 in his 8,introduction0 to the ,tauchnitz 7,english7 ,new ,testament7#ahg73-- 8,to these examples1 others might be added4 ,thus1 ,origen says on ,john i4 #d1 that in some copies it was written1 #8in ,him is life' for #8in ,him was life4' ,this is a reading which we find in sundry quotations before the time of ,origen27#ahh7 but now1 among all known ,greek ,,mss4 it is only in the ,sinaitic1 and the famous old ,codex ,bezae1 a copy of the ,gospels at ,cambridge2 yet it is also found in most of the early ,latin versions1 in the most ancient ,syriac1 and in the oldest ,coptic4--,again1 in ,matth4 xiii4 #ce1 ,jerome observes that in the third century ,porphyry1 the antagonist of ,christianity1 had found fault with the ,evangelist ,matthew for having said1 #8which was spoken by the prophet ,esaias4' ,a writing of the second century had already witnessed to the same reading2 but ,jerome adds further that well-informed men had long ago removed the name of ,esaias4 ,among all our ,,mss4 of a thousand years old and upwards1 there is not a solitary example containing the name of ,esaias in the text referred to1--except the ,sinaitic1 to which a few of less than a thousand years old may be added4--,once more1 ,origen quotes ,john xiii4 #aj six times2 but only the ,sinaitic and several ancient ,latin ,,mss4 read it the same as ,origen3 #8,he that is washed needeth not to wash1 but is clean every whit4'--,in ,john vi4 #ea1 also1 where the reading is very difficult to settle1 the ,sinaitic is alone among all ,greek copies indubitably correct2 and ,tertullian1 at the end of the second century1 confirms the ,sinaitic reading3 #8,if any man eat of my bread1 he shall live for ever4 ,the bread that ,i will give for the life of the world is my flesh4' ,we omit to indicate further illustrations of this kind1 although there are many others like them407#ahi7 ,let it be declared without offence1 that there appears to exist in the mind of this illustrious ,critic a hopeless confusion between the antiquity of a ,codex and the value of its readings4 ,i venture to assert that a reading is valuable or the contrary1 exactly in proportion to the probability of its being true or false4 ,interesting it is sure to be1 be it what it may1 if it be found in a very ancient codex1--interesting and often instructive3 but the editor of ,scripture must needs bring every reading1 wherever found1 to this test at last3--,is it to be thought that what ,i am here presented with is what the ,evangelist or the ,apostle actually wrote8 ,if an answer in the negative be obtained to this question1 then1 the fact that one1 or two1 or three of the early ,fathers appear to have so read the place1 will not avail to impart to the rejected reading one particle of value4 ,and yet ,tischendorf thinks it enough in all the preceding passages to assure his reader that a given reading in ,cod4 was recognised by ,origen1 by ,tertullian1 by ,jerome4 ,to have established this one point he evidently thinks sufficient4 ,there is implied in all this an utterly false major premiss3 viz4 ,that ,scriptural quotations found in the writings of ,origen1 of ,tertullian1 of ,jerome1 must needs be the ipsissima verba of the ,,spirit4 ,whereas it is notorious 8that the worst corruptions to which the ,new ,testament has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed3 that ,irenus and the whole ,western1 with a portion of the ,syrian ,church1 used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by ,stunica1 or ,erasmus1 or ,stephens1 thirteen centuries later1 when moulding the ,textus ,receptus407#aij7 ,and one is astonished that a ,critic of so much sagacity1 7who of course knows better17 should deliberately put forth so gross a fallacy1--not only without a word of explanation1 a word of caution1 but in such a manner as inevitably to mislead an unsuspecting reader4 ,without offence to ,dr4 ,tischendorf1 ,i must be allowed to declare that1 in the remarks we have been considering1 he shews himself far more bent on glorifying the 8,codex ,sinaiticus0 than in establishing the ,truth of the pure ,word of ,,god4 ,he convinces me that to have found an early uncial ,codex1 is every bit as fatal as to have 8taken a gift40 ,verily1 8it doth blind the eyes of the wise407#aia7 ,and with this1 ,i shall conclude my remarks on these two famous ,codices4 ,i humbly record my deliberate conviction that when the ,science of ,textual ,criticism1 which is at present only in its infancy1 comes to be better understood2 7and a careful collation of every existing ,codex of the ,new ,testament is one indispensable preliminary to its being ever placed on a trustworthy basis27 a very different estimate will be formed of the importance of not a few of those readings which at present are received with unquestioning submission1 chiefly on the authority of ,codex ,b and ,codex 4 ,on the other hand1 it is perfectly certain that no future collations1 no future discoveries1 will ever make it credible that the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel are a spurious supplement to the ,evangelical ,narrative2 or that the words are an unauthorized interpolation of the inspired ,text4 ,and thus much concerning ,codex ,b and ,codex 4 ,i would gladly have proceeded at once to the discussion of the 8,internal ,evidence10 but that the external testimony commonly appealed to is not yet fully disposed of4 ,there remain to be considered certain ancient 8,scholia0 and 8,notes10 and indeed whatever else results from the critical inspection of ancient ,,mss41 whether uncial or cursive3 and all this may reasonably claim one entire ,chapter to itself4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,the ,,purport ,,of ,,ancient ,,scholia1 ,,and ,,notes ,,in ,,mss4 ,,on ,,the ,,subject ,,of ,,these ,,verses1 ,,shewn ,,to ,,be ,,the ,,reverse ,,of ,,what ,,is ,,commonly ,,supposed4 ,later ,editors of the ,new ,testament the victims of their predecessors' inaccuracies4--,birch's unfortunate mistake 7p4 #aag74--,scholz' serious blunders 7p4 #aai and pp4 #abj-a74--;,griesbach's sweeping misstatement 7pp4 #aba-b74--,the grave misapprehension which has resulted from all this inaccuracy of detail 7pp4 #abb-c72 ,codex ,l 7p4 #abc74--;,ammonius not the author of the so-called 8,ammonian0 ,sections 7p4 #abe74--;,epiphanius 7p4 #acb74--8;,caesarius10 a misnomer4--8,the ,catenae10 misrepresented 7p4 #acc74 ,in the present ,chapter1 ,i propose to pass under review whatever manuscript testimony still remains unconsidered2 our attention having been hitherto exclusively devoted to ,codices ,b and 4 ,true1 that the rest of the evidence may be disposed of in a single short sentence3--,the ,twelve ,verses under discussion are found in every copy of the ,gospels in existence with the exception of ,codices ,b and 4 ,but then1 ,i4 ,we are assured1--7by ,dr4 ,tregelles for example17--that 8a ,note or a ,scholion stating the absence of these verses from many1 from most1 or from the most correct copies 7often from ,victor or ,severus7 is found in twenty-five other cursive ,codices407#aib7 ,tischendorf has nearly the same words3 8,scholia0 7he says7 8in very many ,,mss4 state that the ,gospel of ,mark in the most ancient 7and most accurate7 copies ended at the ninth verse40 ,that distinguished ,critic supports his assertion by appealing to seven ,,mss4 in particular1--and referring generally to 8about twenty-five others40 ,dr4 ,davidson adopts every word of this blindfold4 #a4 ,now of course if all that precedes were true1 this department of the ,evidence would become deserving of serious attention4 ,but ,i simply deny the fact4 ,i entirely deny that the 8,note or ,scholion0 which these learned persons affirm to be of such frequent occurrence has any existence whatever1--except in their own imaginations4 ,on the other hand1 ,i assert that notes or scholia which state the exact reverse1 7viz4 that 8in the older0 or 8the more accurate copies0 the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel are contained17 recur even perpetually4 ,the plain truth is this3--,these eminent persons have taken their information at second-hand1--partly from ,griesbach1 partly from ,scholz1--without suspicion and without inquiry4 ,but then they have slightly misrepresented ,scholz2 and ,scholz 7#ahcj7 slightly misunderstood ,griesbach2 and ,griesbach 7#agif7 took liberties with ,wetstein2 and ,wetstein 7#agea7 made a few serious mistakes4 ,the consequence might have been anticipated4 ,the ,truth1 once thrust out of sight1 certain erroneous statements have usurped its place1--which every succeeding ,critic now reproduces1 evidently to his own entire satisfaction2 though not1 it must be declared1 altogether to his own credit4 ,let me be allowed to explain in detail what has occurred4 #b4 ,griesbach is found to have pursued the truly ,german plan of setting down all the twenty-five ,,mss47#aic7 and all the five ,patristic authorities which up to his time had been cited as bearing on the genuineness of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj3 giving the former in numerical order1 and stating generally concerning them that in one or other of those authorities it would be found recorded 8that the verses in question were anciently wanting in some1 or in most1 or in almost all the ,greek copies1 or in the most accurate ones3--or else that they were found in a few1 or in the more accurate copies1 or in many1 or in most of them1 specially in the ,palestinian ,gospel40 ,the learned writer 7who had made up his mind long before that the verses in question are to be rejected7 no doubt perceived that this would be the most convenient way of disposing of the evidence for and against3 but one is at a loss to understand how ,english scholars can have acquiesced in such a slipshod statement for well nigh a hundred years4 ,a very little study of the subject would have shewn them that ,griesbach derived the first eleven of his references from ,wetstein17#aid7 the last fourteen from ,birch47#aie7 ,as for ,scholz1 he unsuspiciously adopted ,griesbach's fatal enumeration of ,codices2 adding five to the number2 and only interrupting the series here and there1 in order to insert the quotations which ,wetstein had already supplied from certain of them4 ,with ,scholz1 therefore1 rests the blame of everything which has been written since #ahcj concerning the ,,ms4 evidence for this part of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel2 subsequent critics having been content to adopt his statements without acknowledgment and without examination4 ,unfortunately ,scholz did his work 7as usual7 in such a slovenly style1 that besides perpetuating old mistakes he invented new ones2 which1 of course1 have been reproduced by those who have simply translated or transcribed him4 ,and now ,i shall examine his note 87z7017#aif7 with which practically all that has since been delivered on this subject by ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,davidson1 and the rest1 is identical4 7#a47 ,scholz 7copying ,griesbach7 first states that in two ,,mss4 in the ,vatican ,library7#aig7 the verses in question 8are marked with an asterisk40 ,the original author of this statement was ,birch1 who followed it up by explaining the fatal signification of this mark47#aih7 ,from that day to this1 the asterisks in ,codd4 ,vatt4 #gef and #geg have been religiously reproduced by every ,critic in turn2 and it is universally taken for granted that they represent two ancient witnesses against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark4 ,and yet1 7let me say it without offence17 a very little attention ought to be enough to convince any one familiar with this subject that the proposed inference is absolutely inadmissible4 ,for1 in the first place1 a solitary asterisk 7not at all a rare phenomenon in ancient ,,mss47#aii77 has of necessity no such signification4 ,and even if it does sometimes indicate that all the verses which follow are suspicious1 7of which1 however1 ,i have never seen an example17 it clearly could not have that signification here1--for a reason which ,i should have thought an intelligent boy might discover4 ,well aware1 however1 that ,i should never be listened to1 with ,birch and ,griesbach1 ,scholz and ,tischendorf1 and indeed every one else against me1--,i got a learned friend at ,rome to visit the ,vatican ,library for me1 and inspect the two ,codices in question47#bjj7 ,that he would find ,birch right in his facts1 ,i had no reason to doubt2 but ,i much more than doubted the correctness of his proposed inference from them4 ,i even felt convinced that the meaning and purpose of the asterisks in question would be demonstrably different from what ,birch had imagined4 ,altogether unprepared was ,i for the result4 ,it is found that the learned ,dane has here made one of those 7venial1 but7 unfortunate blunders to which every one is liable who registers phenomena of this class in haste1 and does not methodize his memoranda until he gets home4 ,to be brief1--there proves to be no asterisk at all1--either in ,cod4 #gef1 or in ,cod4 #geg4 ,on the contrary4 ,after 1 the former ,codex has1 in the text of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i 7fol4 #aej b71 a plain cross1--7not an asterisk1 thus symbol3 x with dots in corners or symbol3 broken x with corner dots or symbol3 inverse or open x1 but a cross1 thus 71--the intention of which is to refer the reader to an annotation on fol4 #aea b1 7marked1 of course1 with a cross also17 to the effect that ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj is undoubtedly genuine47#bja7 ,the evidence1 therefore1 not only breaks hopelessly down2 but it is discovered that this witness has been by accident put into the wrong box4 ,this is1 in fact1 a witness not for the plaintiff1 but for the defendant6--,as for the other ,codex1 it exhibits neither asterisk nor cross2 but contains the same note or scholion attesting the genuineness of the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark4 ,i suppose ,i may now pass on3 but ,i venture to point out that unless the ,witnesses which remain to be examined are able to produce very different testimony from that borne by the last two1 the present inquiry cannot be brought to a close too soon4 78,i took thee to curse mine enemies1 and1 behold1 thou hast blessed them altogether407 7#b47 ,in ,codd4 #bj and #cjj 7,scholz proceeds7 we read as follows3--8,from here to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies4 ,in the ancient copies1 however1 it all forms part of the text407#bjb7 ,scholz 7who was the first to adduce this important testimony to the genuineness of the verses now under consideration7 takes no notice of the singular circumstance that the two ,,mss4 he mentions have been exactly assimilated in ancient times to a common model2 and that they correspond one with the other so entirely7#bjc7 that the foregoing rubrical annotation appears in the wrong place in both of them1 viz4 at the close of ver4 #ae1 where it interrupts the text4 ,this was1 therefore1 once a scholion written in the margin of some very ancient ,codex1 which has lost its way in the process of transcription2 7for there can be no doubt that it was originally written against ver4 #h47 ,and let it be noted that its testimony is express2 and that it avouches for the fact that 8in the ancient copies10 ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj 8formed part of the text40 7#c47 ,yet more important is the record contained in the same two ,,mss41 7of which also ,scholz says nothing17 viz4 that they exhibit a text which had been 8collated with the ancient and approved copies at ,jerusalem407#bjd7 ,what need to point out that so remarkable a statement1 taken in conjunction with the express voucher that 8although some copies of the ,gospels are without the verses under discussion1 yet that in the ancient copies all the verses are found10 is a critical attestation to the genuineness of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i to #bj1 far outweighing the bare statement 7next to be noticed7 of the undeniable historical fact that1 8in some copies10 ,s4 ,mark ends at ver4 #h1--;but 8in many does not08 7#d47 ,scholz proceeds3--8,in ,cod4 #bb1 after is read the following rubric30-- 3 47#bje7 ,and the whole of this statement is complacently copied by all subsequent ,critics and ,editors1--cross1 and 810 and all1--as an additional ancient attestation to the fact that 8,the ,end0 77 of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is indeed at ch4 xvi4 #h4 ,strange1--incredible rather1--that among so many learned persons1 not one should have perceived that 80 in this place merely denotes that here a well-known ,ecclesiastical section comes to an end6444 ,as far1 therefore1 as the present discussion is concerned1 the circumstance is purely irrelevant27#bjf7 and1 7as ,i propose to shew in ,chapter ,,xi17 the less said about it by the opposite party1 the better4 7#e47 ,scholz further states that in four1 7he means three17 other ,codices very nearly the same colophon as the preceding recurs1 with an important additional clause4 ,in ,codd4 #a1 #aii1 #bjf1 #bji1 7he says7 is read1-- 8,in certain of the copies1 the ,evangelist finishes here2 up to which place ,eusebius the friend of ,pamphilus canonized4 ,in other copies1 however1 is found as follows407#bjg7 ,and then comes the rest of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,i shall have more to say about this reference to ,eusebius1 and what he 8canonized10 by-and-by4 ,but what is there in all this1 7let me in the meantime ask71 to recommend the opinion that the ,gospel of ,s4 ,mark was published by its ,author in an incomplete state2 or that the last twelve verses of it are of spurious origin8 7#f47 ,the reader's attention is specially invited to the imposing statement which follows4 ,codd4 #bc1 #cd1 #ci1 #da1 7says ,scholz17 8contain these words of ,severus of ,antioch3-- 8,in the more accurate copies1 the ,gospel according to ,mark has its end at #8for they were afraid4' ,in some copies1 however1 this also is added1--#8,now when ,he was risen1' c4 ,this1 however1 seems to contradict to some extent what was before delivered10 c4 ,it may sound fabulous1 but it is strictly true1 that every word of this1 7unsuspiciously adopted as it has been by every ,critic who has since gone over the same ground17 is a mere tissue of mistakes4 ,for first1--,cod4 #bc contains nothing whatever pertinent to the present inquiry4 7,scholz1 evidently through haste and inadvertence1 has confounded his own 8#bc0 with 8,coisl4 #bc10 but 8,coisl4 #bc0 is his 8#ci10--of which by-and-by4 ,this reference therefore has to be cancelled47--,cod4 #da contains a scholion of precisely the opposite tendency3 ,i mean1 a scholion which avers that the accurate copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel contain these last twelve verses4 7,scholz borrowed this wrong reference from ,wetstein1--who1 by an oversight1 quotes ,cod4 #da three times instead of twice47--,there remain but ,codd4 #cd and #ci2 and in neither of those two manuscripts1 from the first page of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel to the last1 does there exist any 8scholion of ,severus of ,antioch0 whatever4 ,scholz1 in a word1 has inadvertently made a gross misstatement27#bjh7 and every ,critic who has since written on this subject has adopted his words1--without acknowledgment and without examination4444 ,such is the evidence on which it is proposed to prove that ,s4 ,mark did not write the last twelve verses of his ,gospel6 7#g47 ,scholz proceeds to enumerate the following twenty-two ,codices3--#bd1 #cd1 #cf1 #cg1 #ch1 #ci1 #dj1 #da1 #ajh1 #abi1 #acg1 #ach1 #adc1 #aha1 #ahf1 #aie1 #aii1 #bjf1 #bji1 #baj1 #bba1 #bbb4 ,and this imposing catalogue is what has misled ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles and the rest4 ,they have not perceived that it is a mere transcript of ,griesbach's list2 which ,scholz interrupts only to give from ,cod4 #bd1 7imperfectly and at second-hand17 the weighty scholion1 7,wetstein had given it from ,cod4 #da17 which relates1 on the authority of an eye-witness1 that ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj existed in the ancient ,palestinian ,copy4 7,about that ,scholion enough has been offered already47#bji77 ,scholz adds that very nearly the same words are found in #cgd4--,what he says concerning #bjf and #bji 7and he might have added #aii17 has been explained above4 ,but when the twenty ,,mss4 which remain7#baj7 undisposed of have been scrutinized1 their testimony is found to be quite different from what is commonly supposed4 ,one of them 7,no4 #ch7 has been cited in error3 while the remaining nineteen are nothing else but copies of ,victor of ,antioch's commentary on ,s4 ,mark1--no less than sixteen of which contain the famous attestation that in most of the accurate copies1 and in particular the authentic ,palestinian ,codex1 the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel ,,were ,,found4 7,see above1 pp4 #fd and #fe474444 ,and this exhausts the evidence4 7#h47 ,so far1 therefore1 as 8,notes0 and 8,scholia0 in ,,mss4 are concerned1 the sum of the matter proves to be simply this3--7a7 ,nine ,codices7#baa7 are observed to contain a note to the effect that the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 though wanting 8in some10 was yet found 8in others10--8in many10--8in the ancient copies40 7b7 ,next1 four ,codices7#bab7 contain subscriptions vouching for the genuineness of this portion of the ,gospel by declaring that those four ,codices had been collated with approved copies preserved at ,jerusalem4 7c7 ,lastly1 sixteen ,codices1--7to which1 besides that already mentioned by ,scholz17#bac7 ,i am able to add at least five others1 making twenty-two in all17#bad77--;contain a weighty critical scholion asserting categorically that in 8very many0 and 8accurate copies10 specially in the 8true ,palestinian exemplar10 these verses had been found by one who seems to have verified the fact of their existence there for himself4 7#i47 ,and now1 shall ,i be thought unfair if1 on a review of the premisses1 ,i assert that ,i do not see a shadow of reason for the imposing statement which has been adopted by ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 and the rest1 that 8there exist about thirty ,codices which state that from the more ancient and more accurate copies of the ,gospel1 the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark were absent80 ,i repeat1 there is not so much as one single ,codex which contains such a scholion2 while twenty-four7#bae7 of those commonly enumerated state the exact reverse4--,we may now advance a step3 but the candid reader is invited to admit that hitherto the supposed hostile evidence is on the contrary entirely in favour of the verses under discussion4 78,i called thee to curse mine enemies1 and1 behold1 thou hast altogether blessed them these three times407 ,,ii4 ,nothing has been hitherto said about ,cod4 ,l47#baf7 ,this is the designation of an uncial ,,ms4 of the viiith or ixth century1 in the ,library at ,paris1 chiefly remarkable for the correspondence of its readings with those of ,cod4 ,b and with certain of the citations in ,origen2 a peculiarity which recommends ,cod4 ,l1 7as it recommends three cursive ,codices of the ,gospels1 #a1 #cc1 #fi17 to the especial favour of a school with which whatever is found in ,cod4 ,b is necessarily right4 ,it is described as the work of an ignorant foreign copyist1 who probably wrote with several ,,mss4 before him2 but who is found to have been wholly incompetent to determine which reading to adopt and which to reject4 ,certain it is that he interrupts himself1 at the end of ver4 #h1 to write as follows3-- 8,,something ,,to ,,this ,,effect ,,is ,,also ,,met ,,with3 8,all that was commanded them they immediately rehearsed unto ,peter and the rest4 ,and after these things1 from ,east even unto ,west1 did ,,jesus ,himself send forth by their means the holy and incorruptible message of eternal ,salvation4 8,,but ,,this ,,also ,,is ,,met ,,with ,,after ,,the ,,words1 #8,,for ,,they ,,were ,,afraid3' 8,now1 when ,he was risen early1 the first day of the week107#bag7 c4 ,it cannot be needful that ,i should delay the reader with any remarks on such a termination of the ,gospel as the foregoing4 ,it was evidently the production of some one who desired to remedy the conspicuous incompleteness of his own copy of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 but who had imbibed so little of the spirit of the ,evangelical narrative that he could not in the least imitate the ,evangelist's manner4 ,as for the scribe who executed ,codex ,l1 he was evidently incapable of distinguishing the grossest fabrication from the genuine text4 ,the same worthless supplement is found in the margin of the ,hharklensian ,syriac 7,a4,d4 #faf71 and in a few other quarters of less importance47#bah7--;,i pass on1 with the single remark that ,i am utterly at a loss to understand on what principle ,cod4 ,l1--a solitary ,,ms4 of the viiith or ixth century which exhibits an exceedingly vicious text1--is to be thought entitled to so much respectful attention on the present occasion1 rebuked as it is for the fallacious evidence it bears concerning the last twelve verses of the second ,gospel by all the seventeen remaining ,uncials1 7three of which are from #cjj to #djj years more ancient than itself27 and by every cursive copy of the ,gospels in existence4 ,quite certain at least is it that not the faintest additional probability is established by ,cod4 ,l that ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel when it left the hands of its inspired ,author was in a mutilated condition4 ,the copyist shews that he was as well acquainted as his neighbours with our actual concluding ,verses3 while he betrays his own incapacity1 by seeming to view with equal favour the worthless alternative which he deliberately transcribes as well1 and to which he gives the foremost place4 ,not ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 but ,codex ,l is the sufferer by this appeal4 ,,iii4 ,i go back now to the statements found in certain ,codices of the xth century1 7derived probably from one of older date17 to the effect that 8the marginal references to the ,eusebian ,canons extend no further than ver4 #h30--;for so1 ,i presume1 may be paraphrased the words1 7see p4 #abj17 1 which are found at the end of ver4 #h in ,codd4 #a1 #bjf1 #bji4 7#a47 ,now this statement need not have delayed us for many minutes4 ,but then1 therewith1 recent ,critics have seen fit to connect another and an entirely distinct proposition3 viz4 that ,,ammonius also1 a contemporary of ,origen1 conspires with ,eusebius in disallowing the genuineness of the conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,this is in fact a piece of evidence to which recently special prominence has been given3 every ,editor of the ,gospels in turn1 since ,wetstein1 having reproduced it2 but no one more emphatically than ,tischendorf4 8,neither by the sections of ,ammonius nor yet by the canons of ,eusebius are these last verses recognised07#bai7 8,thus it is seen10 proceeds ,dr4 ,tregelles1 8that just as ,eusebius found these verses absent in his day from the best and most numerous copies 7sic71 so was also the case with ,ammonius when he formed his ,harmony in the preceding century407#bbj7 7,the opposite page exhibits an exact ,fac-simile1 obtained by ,photography1 of fol4 #aac of ,,evan4 ,,cod4 ,l1 78,codex ,regius10 ,no4 #fb17 at ,paris2 containing ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #f to #i2--;as explained at pp4 #abc-d4 ,the ,text of that ,,ms4 has been published by ,dr4 ,tischendorf in his 8,monumenta ,sacra ,inedita10 7#ahdf1 pp4 #eg-cii47 ,see p4 #bjf47 ,illustration3 ,codex ,regius facsimile page4 7,the original ,photograph was executed 7,oct4 #ahfi7 by the obliging permission of ,m4 de ,wailly1 who presides over the ,manuscript ,department of the 8,bibliothque40 ,he has my best thanks for the kindness with which he promoted my wishes and facilitated my researches47 7,it should perhaps be stated that the margin of 8,codex ,l0 is somewhat ampler than can be represented in an octavo volume2 each folio measuring very nearly nine inches1 by very nearly six inches and a half47 ,a new and independent authority therefore is appealed to1--one of high antiquity and evidently very great importance1--,ammonius of ,alexandria1 ,a4,d4 #bbj4 ,but ,ammonius has left behind him no known writings whatsoever4 ,what then do these men mean when they appeal in this confident way to the testimony of 8,ammonius80 ,to make this matter intelligible to the ordinary ,english reader1 ,i must needs introduce in this place some account of what are popularly called the 8,ammonian ,sections0 and the 8,eusebian ,canons30 concerning both of which1 however1 it cannot be too plainly laid down that nothing whatever is known beyond what is discoverable from a careful study of the 8,sections0 and 8,canons0 themselves2 added to what ,eusebius has told us in that short ,epistle of his 8to ,carpianus10--which ,i suppose has been transcribed and reprinted more often than any other uninspired ,epistle in the world4 ,eusebius there explains that ,ammonius of ,alexandria constructed with great industry and labour a kind of ,evangelical ,harmony2 the peculiarity of which was1 that1 retaining ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel in its integrity1 it exhibited the corresponding sections of the other three ,evangelists by the side of ,s4 ,matthew's text4 ,there resulted this inevitable inconvenience2 that the sequence of the narrative1 in the case of the three last ,gospels1 was interrupted throughout2 and their context hopelessly destroyed47#bba7 ,the 8,diatessaron0 of ,ammonius1 7so ,eusebius styles it71 has long since disappeared2 but it is plain from the foregoing account of it by a competent witness that it must have been a most unsatisfactory performance4 ,it is not easy to see how room can have been found in such a scheme for entire chapters of ,s4 ,luke's ,gospel2 as well as for the larger part of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,john3 in short1 for anything which was not capable of being brought into some kind of agreement1 harmony1 or correspondence with something in ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,how it may have fared with the other ,gospels in the work of ,ammonius is not in fact known1 and it is profitless to conjecture4 ,what we know for certain is that ,eusebius1 availing himself of the hint supplied by the very imperfect labours of his predecessor1 devised an entirely different expedient1 whereby he extended to the ,gospels of ,s4 ,mark1 ,s4 ,luke and ,s4 ,john all the advantages1 7and more than all17 which ,ammonius had made the distinctive property of the first ,gospel47#bbb7 ,his plan was to retain the ,four ,gospels in their integrity2 and1 besides enabling a reader to ascertain at a glance the places which ,s4 ,matthew has in common with the other three ,evangelists1 or with any two1 or with any one of them1 7which1 ,i suppose1 was the sum of what had been exhibited by the work of ,ammonius17--to shew which places ,s4 ,luke has in common with ,s4 ,mark1--which with ,s4 ,john only2 as well as which places are peculiar to each of the four ,evangelists in turn4 ,it is abundantly clear therefore what ,eusebius means by saying that the labours of ,ammonius had 8suggested to him0 his own47#bbc7 ,the sight of that ,harmony of the other three ,evangelists with ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel had suggested to him the advantage of establishing a series of parallels throughout all the ,four ,gospels4 ,but then1 whereas ,ammonius had placed alongside of ,s4 ,matthew the dislocated sections themselves of the other three ,evangelists which are of corresponding purport1 ,eusebius conceived the idea of accomplishing the same object by means of a system of double numerical references4 ,he invented ,x ,canons1 or ,tables3 he subdivided each of the ,four ,gospels into a multitude of short ,sections4 ,these he numbered2 7a fresh series of numbers appearing in each ,gospel1 and extending from the beginning right on to the end27 and immediately under every number1 he inserted1 in vermillion1 another numeral 7,i to ,x72 whose office it was to indicate in which of his ,x ,canons1 or ,tables1 the reader would find the corresponding places in any of the other ,gospels47#bbd7 7,if the section was unique1 it belonged to his last or ,xth ,canon47 ,thus1 against ,s4 ,matthew's account of the ,title on the ,cross1 is written #cce_/;,i3 but in the ,ist ,canon 7which contains the places common to all four ,evangelists7 parallel with #cce1 is found1--#bad1 #cbd1 #aii3 and the ,sections of ,s4 ,mark1 ,s4 ,luke1 and ,s4 ,john thereby designated1 7which are discoverable by merely casting one's eye down the margin of each of those several ,gospels in turn1 until the required number has been reached17 will be found to contain the parallel record in the other three ,gospels4 ,all this is so purely elementary1 that its very introduction in this place calls for apology4 ,the extraordinary method of the opposite party constrains me however to establish thus clearly the true relation in which the familiar labours of ,eusebius stand to the unknown work of ,ammonius4 ,for if that earlier production be lost indeed17#bbe7--;if its precise contents1 if the very details of its construction1 can at this distance of time be only conjecturally ascertained1--what right has any one to appeal to 8the ,sections of ,ammonius10 as to a known document8 ,why above all do ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 and the rest deliberately claim 8,ammonius0 for their ally on an occasion like the present2 seeing that they must needs be perfectly well aware that they have no means whatever of knowing 7except from the precarious evidence of ,caten7 what ,ammonius thought about any single verse in any of the four ,gospels8 ,at every stage of this discussion1 ,i am constrained to ask myself1--,do then the recent ,editors of the ,text of the ,new ,testament really suppose that their statements will never be examined8 their references never verified8 or is it thought that they enjoy a monopoly of the learning 7such as it is7 which enables a man to form an opinion in this department of sacred ,science8 ,for1 7#ast47 ,where then and what are those 8,sections of ,ammonius0 to which ,tischendorf and ,tregelles so confidently appeal8 ,it is even notorious that when they say the 8,sections of ,ammonius10 what they mean are the 8,sections of ,eusebius40--,but1 7#b;dly47 ,where is the proof1--where is even the probability1--that these two are identical8 ,the ,critics cannot require to be reminded by me that we are absolutely without proof that so much as one of the ,sections of ,ammonius corresponded with one of those of ,eusebius2 and yet1 7#c;dly47 ,who sees not that unless the ,sections of ,ammonius and those of ,eusebius can be proved to have corresponded throughout1 the name of ,ammonius has no business whatever to be introduced into such a discussion as the present8 ,they must at least be told that in the entire absence of proof of any kind1--7and certainly nothing that ,eusebius says warrants any such inference17#bbf77--to reason from the one to the other as if they were identical1 is what no sincere inquirer after ,truth is permitted to do4 ,it is time1 however1 that ,i should plainly declare that it happens to be no matter of opinion at all whether the lost ,sections of ,ammonius were identical with those of ,eusebius or not4 ,it is demonstrable that they cannot have been so2 and the proof is supplied by the ,sections themselves4 ,it is discovered1 by a careful inspection of them1 that they imply and presuppose the ,ten ,canons2 being in many places even meaningless1--nugatory1 in fact1 7,i do not of course say that they are practically without use17--except on the theory that those ,canons were already in existence47#bbg7 ,now the ,canons are confessedly the invention of ,eusebius4 ,he distinctly claims them47#bbh7 ,thus much then concerning the supposed testimony of ,ammonius4 ,it is nil4--,and now for what is alleged concerning the evidence of ,eusebius4 ,the starting-point of this discussion1 7as ,i began by remarking71 is the following memorandum found in certain ancient ,,mss43--8,thus far did ,eusebius canonize207#bbi7 which means either3 7#a7 ,that his ,canons recognise no section of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel subsequent to #bcc1 7which number is commonly set over against ver4 #h37 or else1 7which comes to the same thing17--7#b7 ,that no sections of the same ,gospel1 after #bcc1 are referred to any of his ,x ,canons4 ,on this slender foundation has been raised the following precarious superstructure4 ,it is assumed1 7#ast47 ,that the ,section of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel which ,eusebius numbers 8#bcc10 and which begins at our ver4 #h1 cannot have extended beyond ver4 #h2--whereas it may have extended1 and probably did extend1 down to the end of ver4 #aa4 7#b;dly47 ,that because no notice is taken in the ,eusebian ,canons of any sectional number in ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel subsequent to #bcc1 no ,section 7with1 or without1 such a subsequent number7 can have existed3--whereas there may have existed one or more subsequent ,sections all duly numbered47#bcj7 ,this notwithstanding1 ,eusebius1 7according to the memorandum found in certain ancient ,,mss471 may have canonized no further than #bcc4 ,i am not disposed1 however1 to contest the point as far as ,eusebius is concerned4 ,i have only said so much in order to shew how unsatisfactory is the argumentation on the other side4 ,let it be assumed1 for argument sake1 that the statement 8,eusebius canonized no farther than ver4 #h0 is equivalent to this1--8,eusebius numbered no ,sections after ver4 #h20 7and more it cannot mean37--,what then8 ,i am at a loss to see what it is that the ,critics propose to themselves by insisting on the circumstance4 ,for we knew before1--it was in fact ,eusebius himself who told us1--that ,copies of the ,gospel ending abruptly at ver4 #h1 were anciently of frequent occurrence4 ,nay1 we heard the same ,eusebius remark that one way of shelving a certain awkward problem would be1 to plead that the subsequent portion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is frequently wanting4 ,what more have we learned when we have ascertained that the same ,eusebius allowed no place to that subsequent portion in his ,canons8 ,the new fact1 7supposing it to be a fact17 is but the correlative of the old one2 and since it was ,eusebius who was the voucher for that1 what additional probability do we establish that the inspired autograph of ,s4 ,mark ended abruptly at ver4 #h1 by discovering that ,eusebius is consistent with himself1 and omits to 8canonize0 7or even to 8sectionize07 what he had already hypothetically hinted might as well be left out altogether8 7,see above1 pp4 #dd-f47 ,so that really ,i am at a loss to see that one atom of progress is made in this discussion by the further discovery that1 7in a work written about ,a4,d4 #cgc17 ,,epiphanius states casually that 8the four ,gospels contain #aafb sections407#bca7 ,from this it is argued7#bcb7 that since #cee of these are commonly assigned to ,s4 ,matthew1 #cdb to ,s4 ,luke1 and #bcb to ,s4 ,john1 there do but remain for ,s4 ,mark #bcc2 and the #bccrd section of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel confessedly begins at ch4 xvi4 #h4--,the probability may be thought to be thereby slightly increased that the sectional numbers of ,eusebius extended no further than ver4 #h3 but--,has it been rendered one atom more probable that the inspired ,evangelist himself ended his ,gospel abruptly at the #hth verse8 ,that fact--7the only thing which our opponents have to establish7--remains exactly where it was2 entirely unproved1 and in the highest degree improbable4 ,to conclude1 therefore4 ,when ,i read as follows in the pages of ,tischendorf3--8,these verses are not recognised by the ,sections of ,ammonius1 nor by the ,canons of ,eusebius3 ,epiphanius and ,csarius bear witness to the fact20--,i am constrained to remark that the illustrious ,critic has drawn upon his imagination for three of his statements1 and that the fourth is of no manner of importance4 7#a47 ,about the 8,sections of ,ammonius10 he really knows no more than about the lost ,books of ,livy4 ,he is1 therefore1 without excuse for adducing them in the way of evidence4 7#b47 ,that ,epiphanius bears no witness whatever either as to the 8,sections of ,ammonius0 or to 8,canons of ,eusebius10 ,tischendorf is perfectly well aware4 ,so is my reader4 7#c47 ,his appeal to ,c,,sarius is worse than infelicitous4 ,he intends thereby to designate the younger brother of ,gregory of ,nazianzus2 an eminent physician of ,constantinople1 who died ,a4,d4 #cfh2 and who1 7as far as is known17 never wrote anything4 ,a work called 1 7which in the xth century was attributed to ,csarius1 but concerning which nothing is certainly known except that ,csarius was certainly not its author17 is the composition to which ,tischendorf refers4 ,even the approximate date of this performance1 however1 has never been ascertained4 ,and yet1 if ,tischendorf had condescended to refer to it1 7instead of taking his reference at second-hand17 he would have seen at a glance that the entire context in which the supposed testimony is found1 is nothing else but a condensed paraphrase of that part of ,epiphanius1 in which the original statement occurs47#bcc7 ,thus much1 then1 for the supposed evidence of ,,ammonius1 of ,,epiphanius1 and of ,c,,sarius on the subject of the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,it is exactly nil4 ,in fact ,pseudo-,csarius1 so far from 8bearing witness to the fact0 that the concluding verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel are spurious1 actually quotes the #afth verse as genuine47#bcd7 7#d47 ,as for ,eusebius1 nothing whatever has been added to what we knew before concerning his probable estimate of these verses4 ,,iv4 ,we are now at liberty to proceed to the only head of external testimony which remains undiscussed4 ,i allude to the evidence of ,,the ,,caten4 8,in the ,caten on ,mark10 7crisply declares ,dr4 ,davidson17 8there is no explanation of this section407#bce7 8,the ,caten on ,mark30 as if they were quite common things1--8plenty1 as blackberries60 ,but1--,which of 8the ,caten0 may the learned ,critic be supposed to have examined8 #a4 ,not the ,catena which ,possinus found in the library of ,charles de ,montchal1 ,abp4 of ,toulouse1 and which forms the basis of his ,catena published at ,rome in #afgc2 because that ,codex is expressly declared by the learned ,editor to be defective from ver4 #h to the end47#bcf7 #b4 ,not the ,catena which ,corderius transcribed from the ,vatican ,library and communicated to ,possinus2 because in that ,catena the #ith and #abth verses are distinctly commented on47#bcg7 #c4 ,still less can ,dr4 ,davidson be thought to have inspected the ,catena commonly ascribed to ,victor of ,antioch1--which ,peltanus published in ,latin in #aehj1 but which ,possinus was the first to publish in ,greek 7#afgc74 ,dr4 ,davidson1 ,i say1 cannot certainly have examined that ,catena2 inasmuch as it contains1 7as ,i have already largely shewn1 and1 in fact1 as every one may see17 a long and elaborate dissertation on the best way of reconciling the language of ,s4 ,mark in ver4 #i with the language of the other ,evangelists47#bch7 #d4 ,least of all is it to be supposed that the learned ,critic has inspected either of the last two editions of the same ,catena3 viz4 that of ,matthaei1 7,moscow #agge17 or that of ,cramer1 7,oxford #ahdd17 from ,,mss4 in the ,royal ,library at ,paris and in the ,bodleian4 ,this is simply impossible1 because 7as we have seen71 in these is contained the famous passage which categorically asserts the genuineness of the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel47#bci7 ,now this exhausts the subject4 ,to which1 then1 of 8the ,caten on ,mark10 ,i must again inquire1 does this learned writer allude8--,i will venture to answer the question myself2 and to assert that this is only one more instance of the careless1 second-hand 7and third-rate7 criticism which is to be met with in every part of ,dr4 ,davidson's book3 one proof more of the alacrity with which worn-out objections and worthless arguments are furbished up afresh1 and paraded before an impatient generation and an unlearned age1 whenever 7tanquam vile corpus7 the writings of ,apostles or ,evangelists are to be assailed1 or the ,faith of the ,church of ,,christ is to be unsettled and undermined4 ,v4 ,if the ,reader will have the goodness to refer back to p4 #ci1 he will perceive that ,i have now disposed of every witness whom ,i originally undertook to examine4 ,he will also1 in fairness1 admit that there has not been elicited one particle of evidence1 from first to last1 which renders it in the slightest degree probable that the ,gospel of ,s4 ,mark1 as it originally came from the hands of its inspired ,author1 was either an imperfect or an unfinished work4 ,whether there have not emerged certain considerations which render such a supposition in the highest degree unlikely1--,i am quite content that my ,reader shall decide4 ,dismissing the external testimony1 therefore1 proceed we now to review those internal evidences1 which are confidently appealed to as proving that the concluding ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel cannot be regarded as really the work of the ,evangelist4 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,internal ,,evidence ,,demonstrated ,,to ,,be ,,the ,,very ,,reverse ,,of ,,unfavourable ,,to ,,these ,,verses4 ,the 8,style0 and 8,phraseology0 of these ,verses declared by ,critics to be not ,s4 ,mark's4--,insecurity of such ,criticism 7p4 #adj74--,the 8,style0 of chap4 xvi4 #i-bj shewn to be the same as the style of chap4 i4 #i-bj 7p4 #adb74--,the 8,phraseology0 examined in twenty-seven particulars1 and shewn to be suspicious in none 7p4 #ade71--;but in twenty-seven particulars shewn to be the reverse 7p4 #agj74--,such ,remarks fallacious 7p4 #agc74--;,judged of by a truer1 a more delicate and philosophical ,test1 these ,verses proved to be most probably genuine 7p4 #age74 ,a distinct class of objections remains to be considered4 ,an argument much relied on by those who deny or doubt the genuineness of this portion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 is derived from considerations of internal evidence4 ,in the judgment of a recent ,editor of the ,new ,testament1--,these twelve verses 8bear traces of another hand from that which has shaped the diction and construction of the rest of the ,gospel407#bdj7 ,they are therefore 8an addition to the narrative10--of which 8the internal evidence will be found to preponderate vastly against the authorship of ,mark40--8,a difference10 7says ,dr4 ,tregelles17 8has been remarked1 and truly remarked1 between the phraseology of this section and the rest of this ,gospel40--,according to ,dr4 ,davidson1--8,the phraseology and style of the section are unfavourable to its authenticity40 8,the characteristic peculiarities which pervade ,mark's ,gospel do not appear in it2 but1 on the contrary1 terms and expressions10 8phrases and words1 are introduced which ,mark never uses2 or terms for which he employs others407#bda7--,so ,meyer1--8,with ver4 #i1 we suddenly come upon an excerpting process totally different from the previous mode of narration4 ,the passage contains none of ,mark's peculiarities 7no 1 no 1 c1 but the baldness and lack of clearness which mark a compiler27 while in single expressions1 it is altogether contrary to ,mark's manner40--8,there is0 7says ,professor ,norton7 8a difference so great between the use of language in this passage1 and its use in the undisputed portion of ,mark's ,gospel1 as to furnish strong reasons for believing the passage not genuine40--,no one1 however1 has expressed himself more strongly on this subject than ,tischendorf4 8,singula0 7he says7 8multifariam a ,marci ratione abhorrent407#bdb7444 ,here1 then1 is something very like a consensus of hostile opinion3 although the terms of the indictment are somewhat vague4 ,difference of 8,diction and ,construction10--difference of 8,phraseology and ,style10--difference of 8,terms and ,expressions10--difference of 8,words and ,phrases20--the absence of ,s4 ,mark's 8characteristic peculiarities40 ,i suppose1 however1 that all may be brought under two heads1--7,i47 ,,style1 and 7,,ii47 ,,phraseology3 meaning by 8,style0 whatever belongs to the ,evangelist's manner2 and by 8,phraseology0 whatever relates to the words and expressions he has employed4 ,it remains1 therefore1 that we now examine the proofs by which it is proposed to substantiate these confident assertions1 and ascertain exactly what they are worth by constant appeals to the ,gospel4 ,throughout this inquiry1 we have to do not with ,opinion but with ,fact4 ,the unsupported dicta of ,critics1 however distinguished1 are entitled to no manner of attention4 #a4 ,in the meantime1 as might have been expected1 these confident and often-repeated asseverations have been by no means unproductive of mischievous results3 ,like ceaseless droppings1 which at last are known ,to leave their dint upon the solid stone4 ,i observe that ,scholars and ,divines of the best type 7as the ,rev4 ,t4 ,s4 ,green7#bdc77 at last put up with them4 ,the wisest however reproduce them under protest1 and with apology4 ,the names of ,tischendorf and ,tregelles1 ,meyer and ,davidson1 command attention4 ,it seems to be thought incredible that they can all be entirely in the wrong4 ,they impose upon learned and unlearned readers alike4 8,even ,barnabas has been carried away with their dissimulation40 ,he has 7to my surprise and regret7 two suggestions3-- 7a7 ,the one1--,that this entire section of the second ,gospel may possibly have been written long after the rest2 and that therefore its verbal peculiarities need not perplex or trouble us4 ,it was1 ,i suppose1 7according to this learned and pious writer17 a kind of after-thought1 or supplement1 or ,appendix to ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,in this way ,i have seen the last ,chapter of ,s4 ,john once and again accounted for4--,to which1 it ought to be a sufficient answer to point out that there is no appearance whatever of any such interval having been interposed between ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h and #i3 that it is highly improbable that any such interval occurred3 and that until the 8verbal peculiarities0 have been ascertained to exist1 it is1 to say the least1 a gratuitous exercise of the inventive faculty to discover reasons for their existence4 ,whether there be not something radically unsound and wrong in all such conjectures about 8after-thoughts10 8supplements10 8appendices10 and 8second editions0 when the everlasting ,gospel of ,,jesus ,,christ is the thing spoken of1--a confusing of things heavenly with things earthly which must make the ,angels weep1--,i forbear to press on the present occasion4 ,it had better perhaps be discussed at another opportunity4 ,but 7#bdd7 will forgive my freedom in having already made my personal sentiment on the subject sufficiently plain4 7b7 ,his other suggestion is1--,that this portion may not have been penned by ,s4 ,mark himself after all4 ,by which he clearly means no more than this1--that as we are content not to know who wrote the conclusion of the ,books of ,deuteronomy and ,joshua1 so1 if needful1 we may well be content not to know who wrote the end of the ,gospel of ,s4 ,mark4--,in reply to which1 ,i have but to say1 that after cause has been shewn why we should indeed believe that not ,s4 ,mark but some one else wrote the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 we shall be perfectly willing to acquiesce in the new fact3--but not till then4 #b4 ,true indeed it is that here and there a voice has been lifted up in the way of protest7#bde7 against the proposed inference from the familiar premisses2 7for the self-same statements have now been so often reproduced1 that the eye grows weary at last of the ever-recurring string of offending vocables37--but1 with one honorable exception17#bdf7 men do not seem to have ever thought of calling the premisses themselves in question3 examining the statements one by one3 contesting the ground inch by inch3 refusing absolutely to submit to any dictation whatever in this behalf3 insisting on bringing the whole matter to the test of severe inquiry1 and making every detail the subject of strict judicial investigation4 ,this is what ,i propose to do in the course of the present ,chapter4 ,i altogether deny the validity of the inference which has been drawn from 8the style10 8the phraseology10 8the diction0 of the present section of the ,gospel4 ,but ,i do more4 ,i entirely deny the accuracy of almost every individual statement from which the unfavourable induction is made1 and the hostile inference drawn4 ,even this will not nearly satisfy me4 ,i insist that one only result can attend the exact analysis of this portion of the ,gospel into its elements2 namely1 a profound conviction that ,s4 ,mark is most certainly its ,author4 #c4 ,let me however distinctly declare beforehand that remarks on 8the style0 of an ,evangelist are singularly apt to be fallacious1 especially when 7as here7 it is proposed to apply them to a very limited portion of the sacred narrative4 ,altogether to be mistrusted moreover are they1 when 7as on the present occasion7 it is proposed to make them the ground for possibly rejecting such a portion of ,scripture as spurious4 ,it becomes a fatal objection to such reasoning that the style may indeed be exceedingly diverse1 and yet the ,author be confessedly one and the same4 ,how exceedingly dissimilar in style are the ,revelation of ,s4 ,john and the ,gospel of ,s4 ,john6 ,moreover1 practically1 the promised remarks on 8style10 when the ,authorship of some portion of ,scripture is to be discussed1 are commonly observed to degenerate at once into what is really quite a different thing4 ,single words1 perhaps some short phrase1 is appealed to1 which 7it is said7 does not recur in any part of the same book2 and thence it is argued that the ,author can no longer be the same4 8,according to this argument1 the recurrence of the same words constitutes identity of style2 the want of such recurrence implies difference of style2--difference of style in such a sense as compels us to infer diversity of authorship4 ,each writer is supposed to have at his disposal a limited number of #8formul' within the range of which he must work4 ,he must in each chapter employ these formul1 and these only4 ,he must be content with one small portion of his mother-tongue1 and not dare to venture across the limits of that portion1--on pain of losing his identity407#bdg7 #d4 ,how utterly insecure must be every approximation to such a method of judging about the ,authorship of any twelve verses of ,scripture which can be named1 scarcely requires illustration4 ,the attentive reader of ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel is aware that a mode of expression which is six times repeated in his viiith and ixth chapters is perhaps only once met with besides in his ,gospel1--viz4 in his xxist chapter47#bdh7 ,the 8style0 of the #agth verse of his ist chapter may be thought unlike anything else in ,s4 ,matthew4 ,s4 ,luke's five opening verses are unique1 both in respect of manner and of matter4 ,s4 ,john also in his five opening verses seems to me to have adopted a method which is not recognisable anywhere else in his writings2 8rising strangely by degrees10 7as ,bp4 ,pearson expresses it17#bdi77 8making the last word of the former sentence the first of that which followeth40--8,he knoweth that he saith true10 is the language of the same ,evangelist concerning himself in chap4 xix4 #ce4 ,but1 8we know that his testimony is true10 is his phrase in chap4 xxi4 #bd4 ,twice1 and twice only throughout his ,gospel1 7viz4 in chap4 xix4 #ce3 xx4 #ca71 is he observed to address his readers1 and on both occasions in the same words3 78that ye may believe407 ,but what of all this8 ,is it to be supposed that ,s4 ,matthew1 ,s4 ,luke1 ,s4 ,john are not the authors of those several places8 ,from facts like these no inference whatever is to be drawn as to the genuineness or the spuriousness of a writing4 ,it is quite to mistake the ,critic's vocation to imagine that he is qualified1 or called upon1 to pass any judgment of the sort4 #e4 ,i have not said all this1 of course1 as declining the proposed investigation4 ,i approach it on the contrary right willingly1 being confident that it can be attended by only one result4 ,with what is true1 endless are the harmonies which evolve themselves3 from what is false1 the true is equally certain to stand out divergent47#bej7 ,and we all desire nothing but the ,truth4 ,i4 ,to begin then with the 8,,style ,,and ,,manner0 of ,s4 ,mark in this place4 #a4 ,we are assured that 8instead of the graphic1 detailed description by which this ,evangelist is distinguished1 we meet with an abrupt1 sententious manner1 resembling that of brief notices extracted from larger accounts and loosely linked together407#bea7 ,surely if this be so1 the only lawful inference would be that ,s4 ,mark1 in this place1 has 8extracted brief notices from larger accounts1 and loosely linked them together30 and unless such a proceeding on the part of the ,evangelist be judged incredible1 it is hard to see what is the force of the adverse criticism1 as directed against the genuineness of the passage now under consideration4 #b4 ,but in truth1 7when divested of what is merely a gratuitous assumption17 the preceding account of the matter is probably not far from the correct one4 ,of ,s4 ,mark's practice of making 8extracts10 ,i know nothing3 nor ,dr4 ,davidson either4 ,that there existed any 8larger accounts0 which would have been available for such a purpose1 7except the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,matthew17 there is neither a particle of evidence1 nor a shadow of probability4 ,on the other hand1 that1 notwithstanding the abundant oral information to which confessedly he had access1 ,s4 ,mark has been divinely guided in this place to handle1 in the briefest manner1 some of the chiefest things which took place after our ,,lord',s ,resurrection1--is simply undeniable4 ,and without at all admitting that the style of the ,evangelist is in consequence either 8abrupt0 or 8sententious107#beb7 ,i yet recognise the inevitable consequence of relating many dissimilar things within very narrow limits2 namely1 that the transition from one to the other forces itself on the attention4 ,what wonder that the same phenomenon should not be discoverable in other parts of the ,gospel where the ,evangelist is not observed to be doing the same thing8 #c4 ,but wherever in his ,gospel ,s4 ,mark is doing the same thing1 he is observed to adopt the style and manner which ,dr4 ,davidson is pleased to call 8sententious0 and 8abrupt40 ,take twelve verses in his first chapter1 as an example4 ,between ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj and ,s4 ,mark i4 #i-bj1 ,i profess myself unable to discern any real difference of style4 ,i proceed to transcribe the passage which ,i deliberately propose for comparison2 the twelve corresponding verses1 namely1 in ,s4 ,mark's first chapter1 which are to be compared with the twelve verses already under discussion1 from his last2 and they may be just as conveniently exhibited in ,english as in ,greek3-- 7,s4 ,,mark i4 #i-bj47 7ver4 #i47 8,and it came to pass in those days1 that ,,jesus came from ,nazareth of ,galilee1 and was baptized of ,john in ,jordan4 7#aj47 ,and straightway coming up out of the water1 ,he saw the heavens opened1 and the ,,spirit like a dove descending upon ,him3 7#aa47 and there came a voice from heaven saying1 ,thou art ,my beloved ,,son1 in whom ,i am well pleased4 7#ab47 ,and immediately the ,,spirit driveth ,him into the wilderness4 7#ac47 ,and ,he was there in the wilderness forty days1 tempted of ,satan2 and was with the wild beasts2 and the ,angels ministered unto ,him4 7#ad47 ,now after that ,john was put in prison1 ,,jesus came into ,galilee1 preaching the gospel of the kingdom of ,,god1 7#ae47 and saying1 ,the time is fulfilled1 and the ,kingdom of ,,god is at hand3 repent ye1 and believe the ,gospel4 7#af47 ,now1 as ,he walked by the sea of ,galilee1 ,he saw ,simon and ,andrew his brother casting a net into the sea3 for they were fishers4 7#ag47 ,and ,,jesus said unto them1 ,come ye after ,me1 and ,i will make you to become fishers of men4 7#ah47 ,and straightway they forsook their net's1 and followed ,him4 7#ai47 ,and when ,he had gone a little farther thence1 ,he saw ,james the son of ,zebedee1 and ,john his brother1 who also were in the ship mending their nets4 7#bj47 ,and straightway ,he called them2 and they left their father ,zebedee in the ship with the hired servants1 and went after ,him40 #d4 ,the candid reader must needs admit that precisely the self-same manner is recognisable in this first chapter of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel which is asserted to be peculiar to the last4 ,note1 that from our ,,saviour',s ,baptism 7which occupies the first three verses7 the ,evangelist passes to ,his ,temptation1 which is dismissed in two4 ,six months elapse4 ,the commencement of the ,ministry is dismissed in the next two verses4 ,the last five describe the call of four of the ,apostles1--without any distinct allusion to the miracle which was the occasion of it4444 ,how was it possible that when incidents considerable as these had to be condensed within the narrow compass of twelve verses1 the same 8graphic1 detailed description0 could reappear which renders ,s4 ,mark's description of the miracle performed in the country of the ,gadarenes 7for example7 so very interesting2 where a single incident is spread over twenty verses1 although the action did not perhaps occupy an hour8 ,i rejoice to observe that 8the abrupt transitions of this section0 7ver4 #a-ac7 have also been noticed by ,dean ,alford3 who very justly accounts for the phenomenon by pointing out that here 8,mark appears as an abridger of previously well-known facts407#bec7 ,but then1 ,i want to know what there is in this to induce us to suspect the genuineness of either the beginning or the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel8 #e4 ,for it is a mistake to speak as if 8graphic1 detailed description0 invariably characterise the second ,gospel4 ,s4 ,mark is quite as remarkable for his practice of occasionally exhibiting a considerable transaction in a highly abridged form4 ,the opening of his ,gospel is singularly concise1 and altogether sudden4 ,his account of ,john's preaching 7i4 #a-h7 is the shortest of all4 ,very concise is his account of our ,,saviour',s ,baptism 7ver4 #i-aa74 ,the brevity of his description of our ,,lord',s ,temptation is even extraordinary 7ver4 #ab1 #ac47--;,i pass on2 premising that ,i shall have occasion to remind the reader by-and-by of certain peculiarities in these same ,twelve ,verses1 which seem to have been hitherto generally overlooked4 ,,ii4 ,nothing more true1 therefore1 than ,dr4 ,tregelles' admission 8that arguments on style are often very fallacious1 and that by themselves they prove very little4 ,but0 7he proceeds7 8when there does exist external evidence2 and when internal proofs as to style1 manner1 verbal expression1 and connection1 are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming a judgment2 then1 these internal considerations possess very great weight40 ,i have already shewn that there exists no such external evidence as ,dr4 ,tregelles supposes4 ,and in the absence of it1 ,i am bold to assert that since nothing in the 8,style0 or the 8,phraseology0 of these verses ever aroused suspicion in times past1 we have rather to be on our guard against suffering our judgment to be warped by arguments drawn from such precarious considerations now4 ,as for determining from such data the authorship of an isolated passage2 asserting or denying its genuineness for no other reason but because it contains certain words and expressions which do or do not occur elsewhere in the ,gospel of which it forms part2--let me again declare plainly that the proceeding is in the highest degree uncritical4 ,we are not competent judges of what words an ,evangelist was likely on any given occasion to employ4 ,we have no positive knowledge of the circumstances under which any part of any one of the four ,gospels was written2 nor the influences which determined an ,evangelist's choice of certain expressions in preference to others4 ,we are learners1--we can be only learners here4 ,but having said all this1 ,i proceed 7as already declared7 without reluctance or misgiving to investigate the several charges which have been brought against this section of the ,gospel2 charges derived from its ,,phraseology2 and which will be found to be nothing else but repeated assertions that a certain ,word or ,phrase1--7there are about twenty-four such words and phrases in all17#bed77--8occurs nowhere in the ,gospel of ,mark20 with probably the alarming asseveration that it is 8abhorrent to ,mark's manner40 444 ,the result of the inquiry which follows will perhaps be not exactly what is commonly imagined4 ,the first difficulty of this class is very fairly stated by one whose name ,i cannot write without a pang1--the late ,dean ,alford3-- 7,i47 ,the expression 1 for the 8first day of the week0 7in ver4 #i7 8is remarkable0 7he says7 8as occurring so soon after0 7a precisely equivalent expression7 in ver4 #b4--,yes1 it is remarkable4 ,scarcely more remarkable1 perhaps1 than that ,s4 ,luke in the course of one and the same chapter should four times designate the ,sabbath 1 and twice 3 again1 twice1 1--twice1 1--and once1 47#bee7 ,or again1 that ,s4 ,matthew should in one and the same chapter five times call the ,sabbath1 1 and three times1 47#bef7 ,attentive readers will have observed that the ,evangelists seem to have been fond in this way of varying their phrase2 suddenly introducing a new expression for something which they had designated differently just before4 ,often1 ,i doubt not1 this is done with the profoundest purpose1 and sometimes even with manifest design2 but the phenomenon1 however we may explain it1 still remains4 ,thus1 ,s4 ,matthew1 7in his account of our ,,lord',s ,temptation1--chap4 iv417 has in ver4 #a1 and in ver4 #c1 for him whom our ,,saviour calls in ver4 #aj4--,s4 ,mark1 in chap4 v4 #b1 has 1--but in ver4 #e1 4--,s4 ,luke1 in xxiv4 #a1 has 2 but in the next verse1 4-- with an accusative twice in ,s4 ,matth4 xxv4 #ba1 #bc1 is twice exchanged for with a genitive in the same two verses3 and 7in ver4 #cb7 is exchanged for in ver4 #cc4--;,instead of 7in ,s4 ,luke viii4 #da7 we read1 in ver4 #di1 3 and for 7in ix4 #aj7 we find in ver4 #ab4-- in ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #ej is exchanged for in the next verse4--,in like manner1 those whom ,s4 ,luke calls in ,acts v4 #f1 he calls in ver4 #aj4444 ,all such matters strike me as highly interesting1 but not in the least as suspicious4 ,it surprises me a little1 of course1 that ,s4 ,mark should present me with 7in ver4 #i7 instead of the phrase 1 which he had employed just above 7in ver4 #b47 ,but it does not surprise me much1--when ,i observe that occurs only once in each of the ,four ,gospels47#beg7 ,whether surprised much or little1 however1--,am ,i constrained in consequence1 7with ,tischendorf and the rest17 to regard this expression 7 7 as a note of spuriousness8 ,that is the only thing ,i have to consider4 ,am ,i1 with ,dr4 ,davidson1 to reason as follows3--81 ,mark would scarcely have used4 ,it should have been 1 c4 as is proved by ,mark xvi4 #b1 c4 ,the expression could scarcely have proceeded from a ,jew4 ,it betrays a ,gentile author407#beh7 ,am ,i to reason thus8444 ,i propose to answer this question somewhat in detail4 7#a47 ,that among the ,greek-speaking ,jews of ,palestine1 in the days of the ,gospel1 was the established method of indicating 8the first day of the week10 is plain1 not only from the fact that the day of the ,resurrection is so designated by each of the ,four ,evangelists in turn27#bei7 7,s4 ,john has the expression twice27 but also from ,s4 ,paul's use of the phrase in #a ,cor4 xvi4 #b4 ,it proves1 indeed1 to have been the ordinary ,hellenistic way of exhibiting the vernacular idiom of ,palestine47#bfj7 ,the cardinal 77 for the ordinal 77 in this phrase was a known ,talmudic expression1 which obtained also in ,syriac47#bfa7 and 1--designations in strictness of the ,sabbath-day1--had come to be also used as designations of the week4 ,a reference to ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i and ,s4 ,luke xviii4 #ab establishes this concerning 3 a reference to the six places cited just now in earlier note establishes it concerning 4 ,to see how indifferently the two forms 7 and 7 were employed1 one has but to notice that ,s4 ,matthew1 in the course of one and the same chapter1 five times designates the ,sabbath as 1 and three times as 47#bfb7 ,the origin and history of both words will be found explained in a note at the foot of the page47#bfc7 7#b47 ,confessedly1 then1 a double ,hebraism is before us1 which must have been simply unintelligible to ,gentile readers4 sounded as enigmatical to an ordinary ,greek ear1 as 8una sabbatorum0 to a ,roman4 ,a convincing proof1 7if proof were needed17 how abhorrent to a ,latin reader was the last-named expression1 is afforded by the old ,latin versions of ,s4 ,matthew xxviii4 #a2 where 1 is invariably rendered1 8,vespere sabbati1 qu lucescit in prima sabbati40 7#c47 ,the reader will now be prepared for the suggestion1 that when ,s4 ,mark1 7who is traditionally related to have written his ,gospel at ,rome17#bfd77 varies1 in ver4 #i1 the phrase he had employed in ver4 #b1 he does so for an excellent and indeed for an obvious reason4 ,in ver4 #b1 he had conformed to the prevailing usage of ,palestine1 and followed the example set him by ,s4 ,matthew 7xxviii4 #a7 in adopting the enigmatical expression1 4 ,that this would be idiomatically represented in ,latin by the phrase 8prima sabbati10 we have already seen4 ,in ver4 #i1 therefore1 he is solicitous to record the fact of the ,resurrection afresh2 and this time1 his phrase is observed to be the ,greek equivalent for the ,latin 8prima sabbati20 viz4 4 ,how strictly equivalent the two modes of expression were felt to be by those who were best qualified to judge1 is singularly illustrated by the fact that the ,syriac rendering of both places is identical4 7#d47 ,but ,i take leave to point out that this substituted phrase1 instead of being a suspicious circumstance1 is on the contrary a striking note of genuineness4 ,for do we not recognise here1 in the last chapter of the ,gospel1 the very same hand which1 in the first chapter of it1 was careful to inform us1 just for once1 that 8,juda10 is 8a country10 7 17--and 8,jordan10 8a river10 7 78--,is not this the very man who explained to his readers 7in chap4 xv4 #db7 that the familiar ,jewish designation for 8,friday10 1 denotes 8the day before the ,sabbath807#bfe7--;and who was so minute in informing us 7in chap4 vii4 #c1 #d7 about certain ceremonial practices of 8the ,pharisees and all the ,jews80 ,yet more1--,is not the self-same writer clearly recognisable in this xvith chapter1 who in chap4 vi4 #cg presented us with 7the ,latin spiculator7 for 8an executioner80 and who1 in chap4 xv4 #ci1 for 8a centurion10 wrote--not 1 but--8--and1 in chap4 xii4 #db1 explained that the two which the poor widow cast into the ,treasury were equivalent to 1 the ,latin quadrans8--and in chap4 vii4 #d1 #h1 introduced the ,roman measure sextarius1 778--and who volunteered the information 7in chap4 xv4 #af7 that is only another designation of 7,prtorium78--,yes4 ,s4 ,mark1--who1 alone of the four ,evangelists1 7in chap4 xv4 #ba17 records the fact that ,simon the ,cyrenian was 8the father of ,alexander and ,rufus10 evidently for the sake of his ,latin readers37#bff7 ,s4 ,mark1--who alone ventures to write in ,greek letters 71--chap4 xv4 #bi17 the ,latin interjection 8,vah60--obviously because he was writing where that exclamation was most familiar1 and the force of it best understood37#bfg7 ,s4 ,mark1--who attends to the ,roman division of the day1 in relating our ,,lord',s prophecy to ,s4 ,peter37#bfh7--,s4 ,mark1 ,i say1 no doubt it was who1--having conformed himself to the precedent set him by ,s4 ,matthew and the familiar usage of ,palestine2 and having written 1 7which he knew would sound like 8una sabbatorum107#bfi77 in ver4 #b2--;introduced1 also for the benefit of his ,latin readers1 the ,greek equivalent for 8prima sabbati10 7viz4 17 in ver4 #i4--,this1 therefore1 ,i repeat1 so far from being a circumstance 8unfavourable to its authenticity10 7by which1 ,i presume1 the learned writer means its genuineness71 is rather corroborative of the ,church's constant belief that the present section of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is1 equally with the rest of it1 the production of ,s4 ,mark4 8,not only was the document intended for ,gentile converts30 7remarks ,dr4 ,davidson1 p4 #adi17 8but there are also appearances of its adaptation to the use of ,roman ,christians in particular40 ,just so4 ,and ,i venture to say that in the whole of 8the document0 ,dr4 ,davidson will not find a more striking 8appearance of its adaptation to the use of ,roman ,christians10--and therefore of its genuineness1--than this4 ,i shall have to request my reader by-and-by to accept it as one of the most striking notes of ,divine origin which these verses contain4--,for the moment1 ,i pass on4 7,,ii47 ,less excusable is the coarseness of critical perception betrayed by the next remark4 ,it has been pointed out as a suspicious circumstance that in ver4 #i1 8the phrase is attached to the name of ,mary ,magdalene1 although she had been mentioned three times before without such appendix4 ,it seems to have been taken from ,luke viii4 #b407bgj7--,strange perversity1 and yet stranger blindness6 7#a47 ,the phrase cannot have been taken from ,s4 ,luke2 because ,s4 ,luke's ,gospel was written after ,s4 ,mark's4 ,it was not taken from ,s4 ,luke2 because there 1--here1 is read4 7#b47 ,more important is it to expose the shallowness and futility of the entire objection4--,mary ,magdalene 8had been mentioned three times before1 without such appendix40 ,well but1--,what then8 ,after twice 7ch4 xiv4 #ed1 #ff7 using the word without any 8appendix10 in the very next chapter 7xv4 #af7 ,s4 ,mark adds1 4--,the beloved ,disciple having mentioned himself without any 8appendix0 in ,s4 ,john xx4 #g1 mentions himself with a very elaborate 8appendix0 in ver4 #bj4 ,but what of it8--,the sister of the ,blessed ,virgin1 having been designated in chap4 xv4 #dj1 as 2 is mentioned with one half of that 8appendix10 7 7 in ver4 #dg1 and in the very next verse1 with the other half 7 47--,i see no reason why the ,traitor1 who1 in ,s4 ,luke vi4 #af1 is called 1 should be designated as in ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #c4--;,i am not saying that such 8appendices0 are either uninteresting or unimportant4 ,that ,i attend to them habitually1 these pages will best evince4 ,i am only insisting that to infer from such varieties of expression that a different author is recognisable1 is abhorrent to the spirit of intelligent ,criticism4 7#c47 ,but in the case before us1 the hostile suggestion is peculiarly infelicitous4 ,there is even inexpressible tenderness and beauty1 the deepest ,gospel significancy1 in the reservation of the clause 8out of whom ,he had cast seven devils10 for this place4 ,the reason1 ,i say1 is even obvious why an 8appendix10 which would have been meaningless before1 is introduced in connexion with ,mary ,magdalene's august privilege of being the first of the human race to behold the risen ,,saviour4 ,jerome 7,i rejoice to find7 has been beforehand with me in suggesting that it was done1 in order to convey by an example the tacit assurance that 8where ,sin had abounded1 there did ,grace much more abound407#bga7 ,are we to be cheated of our birthright by ,critics7#bgb7 who1 entirely overlooking a solution of the difficulty 7if difficulty it be7 ,divine as this1 can see in the circumstance grounds only for suspicion and cavil8 4 7,,iii47 ,take the next example4--,the very form of the 8appendix0 which we have been considering 7 7 breeds offence4 8,instead of 10 7oracularly remarks ,dr4 ,davidson17 8,mark has 407#bgc7 ,nothing of the sort1 ,i answer4 ,s4 ,mark once has 17#bgd7 and once 4 ,so has ,s4 ,matthew1 7viz4 in chap4 vii4 #d and #e73 and so has ,s4 ,luke1 7viz4 in chap4 vi4 #db1 and in ,acts xiii4 #ej47--;,but what of all this8 ,who sees not that such ,criticism is simply nugatory8 7,,iv47 ,we are next favoured with the notable piece of information that the word 1 8never used by ,s4 ,mark1 is three times contained in this passage20 7viz4 in verses #aj1 #ab and #ae47 7#a47 ,yes4 ,the uncompounded verb1 never used elsewhere by ,s4 ,mark1 is found here three times4 ,but what then8 ,the compounds of are common enough in his ,gospel4 ,thus1 short as his ,gospel is1 he alone has -1 -1 -1 -1 oftener than all the other three ,evangelists put together1--viz4 twenty-four times against their nineteen3 while the compound is peculiar to his ,gospel4--,i am therefore inclined to suggest that the presence of the verb in these ,twelve suspected ,verses1 instead of being an additional element of suspicion1 is rather a circumstance slightly corroborative of their genuineness4 7#b47 ,but suppose that the facts had been different4 ,the phenomenon appealed to is of even perpetual recurrence1 and may on no account be represented as suspicious4 ,thus1 1 a word used only by ,s4 ,matthew among the ,evangelists1 is by him used four times2 yet are all those four instances found in one and the same chapter4 ,s4 ,luke alone has 1 and he has it three times3 but all three cases are met with in one and the same chapter4 ,s4 ,john alone has 1 and he has it four times3 but all the four instances occur in one and the same chapter4 7#c47 ,such instances might be multiplied to almost any extent4 ,out of the fifteen occasions when ,s4 ,matthew uses the word 1 no less than fourteen occur in one chapter4 ,the nine occasions when ,s4 ,luke uses the word all occur in one chapter4 ,s4 ,john uses the verb transitively only four times3 but all four instances of it are found in one chapter4--,now1 these three words 7be it observed7 are peculiar to the ,gospels in which they severally occur4 7#d47 ,i shall of course be reminded that and are unusual words1--admitting of no substitute in the places where they respectively occur4 ,but ,i reply1--,unless the ,critics are able to shew me which of the ordinary compounds of ,s4 ,mark could possibly have employed for the uncompounded verb1 in the three places which have suggested the present inquiry1 viz43-- ver4 #aj3-- 4 ver4 #ab3-- 444 4 ver4 #ac3-- 1 2-- their objection is simply frivolous1 and the proposed adverse reasoning1 worthless4 ,such1 in fact1 it most certainly is2 for it will be found that in ver4 #aj1-- in ver4 #ab1-- in ver4 #ae1--;also 8admit of no substitute in the places where they severally occur20 and therefore1 since the verb itself is one of ,s4 ,mark's favourite verbs1 not only are these three places above suspicion1 but they may be fairly adduced as indications that the same hand was at work here which wrote all the rest of his ,gospel47#bge7 7,v47 ,then further1--the phrase 7in ver4 #aj7 is noted as suspicious4 8,though found in the ,acts 7xx4 #ah7 it never occurs in the ,gospels3 nor does the word in this passage40 7#a47 ,the phrase occurs nowhere in the ,acts or in the ,gospels1 except here4 ,but1--,why should it appear elsewhere8 or rather1--,how could it8 ,now1 if the expression be 7as it is7 an ordinary1 easy1 and obvious one1--wanted in this place1 where it is met with2 but not met with elsewhere1 simply because elsewhere it is not wanted2--surely it is unworthy of any one calling himself a ,critic to pretend that there attaches to it the faintest shadow of suspicion6 7#b47 ,the essence of the phrase is clearly the expression 4 7,the aorist participle of 1 is added of necessity to mark the persons spoken of4 ,in no other1 7certainly in no simpler1 more obvious1 or more precise7 way could the followers of the risen ,,saviour have been designated at such a time4 ,for had ,he not just now 8overcome the sharpness of ,death087 ,but this expression1 which occurs four times in ,s4 ,matthew and four times in ,s4 ,luke1 occurs also four times in ,s4 ,mark3 viz4 in chap4 i4 #cf2 ii4 #be2 v4 #dj1 and here4 ,this1 therefore1 is a slightly corroborative circumstance1--not at all a ground of suspicion4 7#c47 ,but it seems to be implied that ,s4 ,mark1 because he mentions often elsewhere in his ,gospel1 ought to have mentioned them here4 7a7 ,i answer3--,he does not mention nearly so often as ,s4 ,matthew2 while ,s4 ,john notices them twice as often as he does4 7b7 ,suppose1 however1 that he elsewhere mentioned them five hundred times1 because he had occasion five hundred times to speak of them2--what reason would that be for his mentioning them here1 where he is not speaking of them8 7c7 ,it must be evident to any one reading the ,gospel with attention that besides 1--7by which expression ,s4 ,mark always designates the ,twelve ,apostles17--there was a considerable company of believers assembled together throughout the first ,easter ,day47#bgf7 ,s4 ,luke notices this circumstance when he relates how the ,women1 on their return from the ,sepulchre1 8told all these things unto the ,eleven1 and to all the rest10 7xxiv4 #i73 and again when he describes how ,cleopas and his companion 7 as ,s4 ,luke and ,s4 ,mark call them7 on their return to ,jerusalem1 8found the ,eleven gathered together1 and them that were with them0 7xxiv4 #cc47 ,but this was at least as well known to ,s4 ,mark as it was to ,s4 ,luke4 ,instead1 therefore1 of regarding the designation 8them that had been with ,him0 with suspicion1--are we not rather to recognise in it one token more that the narrative in which it occurs is unmistakably genuine8 ,what else is this but one of those delicate discriminating touches which indicate the hand of a great ,master2 one of those evidences of minute accuracy which stamp on a narrative the impress of unquestionable ,truth8 7,,vi47 ,we are next assured by our ,critic that 8is unknown to ,mark20 but it occurs twice in this section1 7viz4 in ver4 #aa and ver4 #ad47 ,another suspicious circumstance6 7#a47 ,a strange way 7as before7 of stating an ordinary fact1 certainly6 ,what else is it but to assume the thing which has to be proved8 ,if the learned writer had said instead1 that the verb 1 here twice employed by ,s4 ,mark1 occurs nowhere else in his ,gospel1--he would have acted more loyally1 not to say more fairly by the record3 but then he would have been stating a strictly ordinary phenomenon1--of no significancy1 or relevancy to the matter in hand4 ,he is probably aware that in like manner is to be found in two consecutive verses of ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel2 1 twice in the course of one verse3 neither word being used on any other occasion either by ,s4 ,matthew1 or by any other ,evangelist4 ,the same thing precisely is to be said of and 1 of 1 and 1 in ,s4 ,luke3 of and in ,s4 ,john4 ,but who ever dreamed of insinuating that the circumstance is suspicious8 7#b47 ,as for 1 we should have reminded our ,critic that this verb1 which is used seven times by ,s4 ,john1 and four times by ,s4 ,matthew1 is used only three times by ,s4 ,luke1 and only twice by ,s4 ,mark4 ,and we should have respectfully inquired1--,what possible suspicion does throw upon the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel8 7#c47 ,none whatever1 would have been the reply4 ,but in the meantime ,dr4 ,davidson hints that the verb ought to have been employed by ,s4 ,mark in chap4 ii4 #ad47bgg7--;,it is1 ,i presume1 sufficient to point out that ,s4 ,matthew1 at all events1 was not of ,dr4 ,davidson's opinion37#bgh7 and ,i respectfully submit that the ,evangelist1 inasmuch as he happens to be here writing about himself1 must be allowed1 just for once1 to be the better judge4 7#d47 ,in the meantime1--,is it not perceived that is the very word specially required in these two places1--though nowhere else in ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel87#bgi7 ,the occasion is one1--viz4 the 8beholding0 of the person of the risen ,,saviour4 ,does not even natural piety suggest that the uniqueness of such a 8spectacle0 as that might well set an ,evangelist on casting about for a word of somewhat less ordinary occurrence8 ,the occasion cries aloud for this very verb 2 and ,i can hardly conceive a more apt illustration of a darkened eye1--a spiritual faculty perverted from its lawful purpose1--than that which only discovers 8a stumbling-block and occasion of falling0 in expressions like the present which 8should have been only for their wealth10 being so manifestly designed for their edification4 7,,vii47 ,but1--7it is urged by a ,critic of a very different stamp17-- 7ver4 #aa7 8is a construction only found here in the ,new ,testament40 7#a47 ,very likely2 but what then8 ,the learned writer has evidently overlooked the fact that the passive occurs but three times in the ,new ,testament in all47#bhj7 ,s4 ,matthew1 on the two occasions when he employs the word1 connects it with a dative47#bha7 ,what is there suspicious in the circumstance that should be the construction preferred by ,s4 ,mark8 ,the phenomenon is not nearly so remarkable as that ,s4 ,luke1 on one solitary occasion1 exhibits the phrase 17#bhb7--;instead of making the verb govern the accusative1 as he does three times in the very next verse2 and1 indeed1 eleven times in the course of his ,gospel4 ,to be sure1 ,s4 ,luke in this instance is but copying ,s4 ,matthew1 who also has once27#bhc7 and seven times makes the verb govern an accusative4 ,this1 nevertheless1 constitutes no reason whatever for suspecting the genuineness either of ,s4 ,matth4 x4 #bh or of ,s4 ,luke xii4 #d4 7#b47 ,in like manner1 the phrase will be found to occur once1 and once only1 in ,s4 ,mark1--once1 and once only1 in ,s4 ,luke27#bhd7 although ,s4 ,mark and ,s4 ,luke use the verb upwards of forty times4 ,such facts are interesting4 ,they may prove important4 ,but no one who is ever so little conversant with such inquiries will pretend that they are in the least degree suspicious4--,i pass on4 7,,viii47 ,it is next noted as a suspicious circumstance that occurs in ver4 #aa and in ver4 #af2 but nowhere else in the ,gospels1--except in ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #aa1 #ad4 ,but really1 such a remark is wholly without force1 as an argument against the genuineness of the passage in which the word is found3 for1 7#a47 ,where else in the course of this ,gospel could have occurred8 ,now1 unless some reason can be shewn why the word should1 or at least might have been employed elsewhere1 to remark upon its introduction in this place1 where it could scarcely be dispensed with1 as a ground of suspicion1 is simply irrational4 ,it might just as well be held to be a suspicious circumstance1 in respect of verses #c and #d1 that the verb occurs there1 and there only1 in this ,gospel4 ,nothing whatever follows from the circumstance4 ,it is1 in fact1 a point scarcely deserving of attention4 7#b47 ,to be sure1 if the case of a verb exclusively used by the two ,evangelists1 ,s4 ,mark and ,s4 ,luke1 were an unique1 or even an exceedingly rare phenomenon1 it might have been held to be a somewhat suspicious circumstance that the phenomenon presented itself in the present section4 ,but nothing of the sort is the fact4 ,there are no fewer than forty-five verbs exclusively used by ,s4 ,mark and ,s4 ,luke4 ,and why should not be1 7as it is17 one of them8 7#c47 ,note1 next1 that this word is used twice1 and in the course of his last chapter too1 also by ,s4 ,luke4 ,nowhere else does it occur in the ,gospels4 ,it is at least as strange that the word should be found twice in the last chapter of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,luke1 as in the last chapter of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark4 ,and if no shadow of suspicion is supposed to result from this circumstance in the case of the third ,evangelist1 why should it in the case of the second8 7#d47 ,but1 lastly1 the noun 7which occurs in ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ad7 occurs in two other places of the same ,gospel4 ,and this word 7which ,s4 ,matthew uses twice17 is employed by none of the other ,evangelists4--,what need to add another word8 ,do not many of these supposed suspicious circumstances1--this one for example1--prove rather1 on closer inspection1 to be confirmatory facts8 7,,ix47 ,we are next assured that 7ver4 #ab7 8is not found in ,mark1 though many opportunities occurred for using it40 7#a47 ,i suppose that what this learned writer means1 is this2 that if ,s4 ,mark had coveted an opportunity for introducing the phrase earlier in his ,gospel1 he might have found one4 7,more than this cannot be meant3 for nowhere before does ,s4 ,mark employ any other phrase to express 8after these things10 or 8after this10 or 8afterwards407 ,but what is the obvious inference from the facts of the case1 as stated by the learned ,critic1 except that the blessed ,evangelist must be presumed to have been unconscious of any desire to introduce the expression under consideration on any other occasion except the present8 7#b47 ,then1 further1 it is worth observing that while the phrase occurs five times in ,s4 ,luke's ,gospel1 it is found only twice in the ,acts2 while ,s4 ,matthew never employs it at all4 ,why1 then1--,i would respectfully inquire--why need ,s4 ,mark introduce the phrase more than once8 ,why1 especially1 is his solitary use of the expression to be represented as a suspicious circumstance2 and even perverted into an article of indictment against the genuineness of the last twelve verses of his ,gospel8 8,would any one argue that ,s4 ,luke was not the author of the ,acts1 because the author of the ,acts has employed this phrase only twice1--#8often as he could have used it8' 7,meyer's phrase here47#bhe770 7,x47 ,another objection awaits us1--8 also is unknown to ,mark10 says ,dr4 ,davidson2--which only means that the word occurs in chap4 xvi4 #ab1 but not elsewhere in his ,gospel4 ,it so happens1 however1 that also occurs once only in the ,gospel of ,s4 ,john4 ,does it therefore throw suspicion on ,s4 ,john xix4 #cg8 7,,xi47 ,the same thing is said of 7in ver4 #ad7 viz4 that it 8occurs nowhere0 in the second ,gospel4 ,but why not state the case thus8--1 a word which is twice employed by ,s4 ,luke1 occurs only once in ,s4 ,mark and once in ,s4 ,john4--,that would be the true way of stating the facts of the case4 ,but it would be attended with this inconvenient result1--that it would make it plain that the word in question has no kind of bearing on the matter in hand4 7,,xii47 ,the same thing he says of 7in ver4 #ah74 ,but what is the fact8 ,the word occurs only twice in the ,gospels1--viz4 in ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ah and ,s4 ,luke iv4 #ce4 ,it is one of the eighty-four words which are peculiar to ,s4 ,mark and ,s4 ,luke4 ,what possible significancy would ,dr4 ,davidson attach to the circumstance8 7,,xiii47 ,once more4--80 7proceeds ,dr4 ,davidson7 8is unknown to ,mark20 which 7as we begin to be aware7 is the learned gentleman's way of stating that it is only found in chap4 xvi4 #bj4 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 and ,alford insist that it also occurs in ,s4 ,mark i4 #bh4 ,i respectfully differ from them in opinion3 but when it has been pointed out that the word is only used besides in ,s4 ,luke ix4 #f1 what can be said of such ,criticism but that it is simply frivolous8 7,,xiv4 and ,,xv47 ,yet again3-- and are also said by the same learned ,critic to be 8unknown to ,mark40 ,s4 ,mark certainly uses these two words only once1--viz4 in the last verse of the present ,chapter3 but what there is suspicious in this circumstance1 ,i am at a loss even to divine4 ,he could not have used them oftener2 and since one hundred and fifty-six words are peculiar to his ,gospel1 why should not and be two of them8 7,,xvi47 8 is ,pauline10 proceeds ,dr4 ,davidson1 7referring to a famous expression which is found in ver4 #ae47 7#a47 ,all very oracular1--to be sure3 but why should be thought 8,pauline0 rather than 8,petrine10 ,i really1 once more1 cannot discover2 seeing that ,s4 ,peter has the expression as well as ,s4 ,paul47#bhf7 7#b47 ,in this place1 however1 the phrase is 4 ,but even this expression is no more to be called 8,pauline0 than 8,marcine20 seeing that as ,s4 ,mark uses it once and once only1 so does ,s4 ,paul use it once and once only1 viz4 in ,rom4 viii4 #bb4 7#c47 ,in the meantime1 how does it come to pass that the learned ,critic has overlooked the significant fact that the word occurs besides in ,s4 ,mark x4 #f and xiii4 #ai2 and that it is a word which ,s4 ,mark alone of the ,evangelists uses8 ,its occurrence1 therefore1 in this place is a circumstance the very reverse of suspicious4 7#d47 ,but lastly1 inasmuch as the opening words of our ,,lord',s ,ministerial ,commission to the ,apostles are these1-- 7ver4 #ae73 inasmuch1 too1 as ,s4 ,paul in his ,epistle to the ,colossians 7i4 #bc7 almost reproduces those very words2 speaking of the ,hope 444 3--,is it not an allowable conjecture that a direct reference to that place in ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is contained in this place of ,s4 ,paul's ,epistle8 that the inspired ,apostle 8beholding the universal tendency of ,christianity already realized10 announces 7and from imperial ,rome67 the fulfilment of his ,,lord',s commands in his ,,lord',s own words as recorded by the ,evangelist ,s4 ,mark8 ,i desire to be understood to deliver this only as a conjecture4 ,but seeing that ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is commonly thought to have been written at ,rome1 and under the eye of ,s4 ,peter2 and that ,s4 ,peter 7and therefore ,s4 ,mark7 must have been at ,rome before ,s4 ,paul visited that city in ,a4,d4 #fa2--seeing1 too1 that it was in ,a4,d4 #fa-b 7as ,wordsworth and ,alford are agreed7 that ,s4 ,paul wrote his ,epistle to the ,colossians1 and wrote it from ,rome2--,i really can discover nothing unreasonable in the speculation4 ,if1 however1 it be well founded1--7and it is impossible to deny that the coincidence of expression may be such as ,i have suggested17--then1 what an august corroboration would this be of 8the last ,twelve ,verses of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark60 444 ,if1 indeed1 the great ,apostle on reaching ,rome inspected ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel for the first time1 with what awe will he have recognised in his own recent experience the fulfilment of his ,,saviour',s great announcement concerning the 8signs which should follow them that believe60 ,had he not himself 8cast out devils80--8spoken with tongues more than they all80--and at ,melita1 not only 8shaken off the serpent into the fire and felt no harm10 but also 8laid hands on the sick0 father of ,publius1 8and he had recovered80 444 ,to return1 however1 to matters of fact2 with an apology 7if it be thought necessary7 for what immediately goes before4 7,,xvii47 ,next1-- 7ver4 #ag7 is noticed as another suspicious peculiarity4 ,the phrase is supposed to occur only in this place of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel2 the ,evangelist elsewhere employing the preposition 3--7viz4 in ix4 #cg3 ix4 #ci3 xiii4 #f47 7#a47 ,now really1 if it were so1 the reasoning would be nugatory4 ,s4 ,luke also once1 and once only1 has 3 his usage elsewhere being1 7like ,s4 ,mark's7 to use 4 ,nay1 in two consecutive verses of ch4 ix1 -- is read3 and yet1 in the very next chapter1 his ,gospel exhibits an unique instance of the usage of 4 ,was it ever thought that suspicion is thereby cast on ,s4 ,luke x4 #ag8 7#b47 ,but1 in fact1 the objection is an oversight of the learned 7and generally accurate7 objector4 ,the phrase recurs in ,s4 ,mark ix4 #ch1--;as the text of that place has been revised by ,tischendorf1 by ,tregelles and by himself4 ,this is therefore a slightly corroborative1 not a suspicious circumstance4 7,,xviii4 and ,,xix47 ,we are further assured that 7in ver4 #ag7 and 7in ver4 #bj7 8are both foreign to the diction of ,mark40 7#a47 ,but what can the learned author of this statement possibly mean8 ,he is not speaking of the uncompounded verb 1 of course2 for ,s4 ,mark employs it at least twenty times4 ,he cannot be speaking of the compounded verb2 for occurs in ,s4 ,mark v4 #cg4 ,he cannot mean that 1 because the ,evangelist uses it only once1 is suspicious2 for that would be to cast a slur on ,s4 ,luke i4 #c4 ,he cannot mean generally that verbs compounded with prepositions are 8foreign to the diction of ,mark20 for there are no less than forty-two such verbs which are even peculiar to ,s4 ,mark's short ,gospel1--against thirty which are peculiar to ,s4 ,matthew1 and seventeen which are peculiar to ,s4 ,john4 ,he cannot mean that verbs compounded with and have a suspicious look2 for at least thirty-three such compounds1 7besides the two before us17 occur in his sixteen chapters47#bhg7 ,what1 then1 ,i must really ask1 can the learned ,critic possibly mean8--,i respectfully pause for an answer4 7#b47 ,in the meantime1 ,i claim that as far as such evidence goes1--7and it certainly goes a very little way1 yet1 as far as it goes17--it is a note of ,s4 ,mark's authorship1 that within the compass of the last twelve verses of his ,gospel these two compounded verbs should be met with4 7,,xx47 ,dr4 ,davidson points out1 as another suspicious circumstance1 that 7in ver4 #ah7 the phrase occurs2 8instead of 40 7#a47 ,but on the contrary1 the phrase 8is in ,mark's manner10 says ,dean ,alford3 the plain fact being that it occurs no less than three times in his ,gospel1--viz4 in chap4 viii4 #be3 x4 #af3 xvi4 #ah4 7,the other idiom1 he has four times47#bhh77 ,behold1 then1 one and the same phrase is appealed to as a note of genuineness and as an indication of spurious origin4 ,what can be the value of such ,criticism as this8 7#b47 ,indeed1 the phrase before us supplies no unapt illustration of the precariousness of the style of remark which is just now engaging our attention4 ,within the space of three verses1 ,s4 ,mark has both expressions1--viz4 7viii4 #bc7 and also 7ver4 #be47 ,s4 ,matthew has the latter phrase once2 the former1 twice47#bhi7 ,who will not admit that all this 7so-called7 ,criticism is the veriest trifling2 and that to pretend to argue about the genuineness of a passage of ,scripture from such evidence as the present is an act of rashness bordering on folly8444 ,the reader is referred to what was offered above on ,art4 ,,vii4 7,,xxi4 and ,,xxii47 ,again3 the words -- 7ver4 #ai and ver4 #bj7 are also declared to be 8foreign to the diction of ,mark40 ,i ask leave to examine these two charges separately4 7#a47 occurs only once in ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 truly3 but then it occurs only once in ,s4 ,luke 7iii4 #ah72--only twice in ,s4 ,john 7xix4 #bd3 xx4 #cj73--;in ,s4 ,matthew1 never at all4 ,what imaginable plea can be made out of such evidence as this1 for or against the genuineness of the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel8--,once more1 ,i pause for an answer4 7#b47 ,as for being 8foreign to the diction of ,mark in speaking of the ,,lord10--,i really do not know what the learned ,critic can possibly mean2 except that he finds our ,,lord nowhere called by ,s4 ,mark1 except in this place4 ,but then1 he is respectfully reminded that neither does he find our ,,lord anywhere called by ,s4 ,mark 8,,jesus ,,christ10 except in chap4 i4 #a4 ,are we1 therefore1 to suspect the beginning of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel as well as the end of it8 ,by no means1 7,i shall perhaps be told37 a reason is assignable for the use of that expression in chap4 i4 #a4 ,and so1 ,i venture to reply1 there is a fully sufficient reason assignable for the use of this expression in chap4 xvi4 #ai47bij7 7#c47 ,by ,s4 ,matthew1 by ,s4 ,mark1 by ,s4 ,john1 our ,,lord is called 1--but only in the first ,chapter of their respective ,gospels4 ,by ,s4 ,luke nowhere4 ,the appellation may1--or may not1--be thought 8foreign to the diction0 of those ,evangelists4 ,but surely it constitutes no reason whatever why we should suspect the genuineness of the beginning of the first1 or the second1 or the fourth ,gospel4 7#d47 ,s4 ,john three times in the first verse of his first ,chapter designates the ,eternal ,,son by the extraordinary title 2 but nowhere else in his ,gospel1 7except once in ver4 #ad17 does that ,name recur4 ,would it be reasonable to represent this as a suspicious circumstance8 ,is not the ,divine fitness of that sublime appellation generally recognised and admitted87#bia7--,surely1 we come to ,scripture to be learners only3 not to teach the blessed ,writers how they ought to have spoken about ,,god6 ,when will men learn that 8the ,scripture-phrase1 or language of the ,holy ,ghost07#bib7 is as much above them as ,heaven is above ,earth8 7,,xxiii47 ,another complaint3--1 which is found in ver4 #ai1 occurs nowhere else in the ,gospels4 7#a47 ,true4 ,s4 ,mark has no fewer than seventy-four verbs which 8occur nowhere else in the ,gospels30 and this happens to be one of them8 ,what possible inconvenience can be supposed to follow from that circumstance8 7#b47 ,but the remark is unreasonable4 and are words proper to the ,ascension of our ,,lord into ,heaven4 ,the two ,evangelists who do not describe that event1 are without these words3 the two ,evangelists who do describe it1 have them47#bic7 ,surely1 these are marks of genuineness1 not grounds for suspicion6 ,it is high time to conclude this discussion4--,much has been said about two other minute points3-- 7,,xxiv47 ,it is declared that 8is nowhere found absolutely used by ,s4 ,mark30 7the same thing may be said of ,s4 ,matthew and of ,s4 ,luke also37 8but always emphatically3 whereas in verses #aj and #aa1 it is absolutely used407#bid7 ,another writer says1--8,the use of in verses #aj1 #aa1 and #ac 7twice7 in a manner synonymous with 1 is peculiar407#bie7 7#a47 ,slightly peculiar it is1 no doubt1 but not very1 that an ,evangelist who employs an ordinary word in the ordinary way about thirty times in all1 should use it 8absolutely0 in two consecutive verses4 7#b47 ,but really1 until the ,critics can agree among themselves as to which are precisely the offending instances1--7for it is evidently a moot point whether be emphatic in ver4 #ac1 or not17--we may be excused from a prolonged discussion of such a question4 ,i shall recur to the subject in the consideration of the next ,article 7,,xxv47 7,,xxv47 ,so again1 it may be freely admitted that 8in the #ajth and #adth verses there are sentences without a copulative3 whereas ,mark always has the copulative in such cases1 particularly 40 ,but then1-- 7#a47 ,unless we can be shewn at least two or three other sections of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel resembling the present1--7,i mean1 passages in which ,s4 ,mark summarizes many disconnected incidents1 as he does here17--is it not plain that such an objection is wholly without point8 7#b47 ,two instances are cited4 ,in the latter1 7ver4 #ad71 ,lachmann and ,tregelles read 3 and the reading is not impossible4 ,so that the complaint is really reduced to this1--,that in ver4 #aj the ,evangelist begins 1 instead of saying 4 ,and 7it is implied7 there is something so abhorrent to probability in this1 as slightly to strengthen the suspicion that the entire context is not the work of the ,evangelist4 7#c47 ,now1 suppose we had ,s4 ,mark back among us3 and suppose that he1 on being shewn this objection1 were to be heard delivering himself somewhat to the following effect3--8,aye4 ,but men may not find fault with that turn of phrase4 ,i derived it from ,simon ,peter's lips4 ,i have always suspected that it was a kind of echo1 so to say1 of what he and #8the other ,disciple' had many a time rehearsed in the hearing of the wondering ,church concerning the ,magdalene on the morning of the ,resurrection40 ,and then we should have remembered the familiar place in the fourth ,gospel3-- 2 2 444 ,after which1 the sentence would not have seemed at all strange1 even though it be 8without a copulative30-- 4 444 7#d47 ,for after all1 the only question to be asked is1--,will any one pretend that such a circumstance as this is suspicious8 ,unless that be asserted1 ,i see not what is gained by raking together1--7as one easily might do in any section of any of the ,gospels17--every minute peculiarity of form or expression which can possibly be found within the space of these twelve verses4 ,it is an evidence of nothing so much as an incorrigible coarseness of critical fibre1 that every slight variety of manner or language should be thus pounced upon and represented as a note of spuriousness1--in the face of 7a7 the unfaltering tradition of the ,church universal that the document has never been hitherto suspected3 and 7b7 the known proclivity of all writers1 as free moral and intellectual agents1 sometimes to deviate from their else invariable practice4--,may ,i not here close the discussion8 ,there will perhaps be some to remark1 that however successfully the foregoing objections may seem to have been severally disposed of1 yet that the combined force of such a multitude of slightly suspicious circumstances must be not only appreciable1 but even remain an inconvenient1 not to say a formidable fact4 ,let me point out that the supposed remark is nothing else but a fallacy2 which is detected the instant it is steadily looked at4 ,for if there really had remained after the discussion of each of the foregoing ,,xxv ,articles1 a slight residuum of suspiciousness1 then of course the aggregate of so many fractions would have amounted to something in the end4 ,but since it has been proved that there is absolutely nothing at all suspicious in any of the alleged circumstances which have been hitherto examined1 the case becomes altogether different4 ,the sum of ten thousand nothings is still nothing47#bif7 ,this may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal to the only charge which remains to be examined4 7,,xxvi4 and ,,xxvii47 ,the absence from these twelve verses of the adverbs and 1--7both of them favourite words with the second ,evangelist17--has been pointed out as one more suspicious circumstance4 ,let us take the words singly3-- 7a7 ,the adverb 7or 7 is indeed of very frequent occurrence in ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,and yet its absence from chap4 xvi is proved to be in no degree a suspicious circumstance1 from the discovery that though it occurs as many as #ab times in chap4 i2 and #f times in chap4 v2 and #e times in chap4 iv1 vi2 and #c times in chap4 ii1 ix1 xiv2 and #b times in chap4 vii1 xi2 it yet occurs only #a times in chap4 iii1 viii1 x1 xv2 while it occurs #j times in chap4 xii1 xiii1 xvi4 7b7 ,in like manner1 1 which occurs as often as #f times in chap4 xiv2 and #e times in chap4 x2 and #c times in chap4 viii1 xv2 and #b times in chap4 ii1 iii1 vii1 xi1 xii2 and #a times in chap4 iv1 v2 occurs #j times in chap4 i1 vi1 ix1 xiii4 xvi47#big7 7#a47 ,now1--,how can it possibly be more suspicious that should be absent from the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark1 than that it should be away from the first forty-five8 7#b47 ,again4 ,since is not found in the xiith or the xiiith chapters of this same ,gospel1--nor in the ist1 vith1 ixth1 or xiiith chapter1--7for the sufficient reason that neither word is wanted in any of those places17--what possible 8suspiciousness0 can be supposed to result from the absence of both words from the xvith chapter also1 where also neither of them is wanted8 ,why is the xvith chapter of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1--or rather1 why are 8the last twelve verses0 of it1--to labour under such special disfavor and discredit8 7#c47 ,dr4 ,tregelles makes answer1--8,i am well aware that arguments on style are often very fallacious1 and that by themselves they prove very little3 but when there does exist external evidence1 and when internal proofs as to style1 manner1 verbal expression1 and connection1 are in accordance with such independent grounds of forming a judgment2 then these internal considerations possess very great weight407#bih7--;,for all rejoinder1 the respected writer is asked1--7a7 ,but when there does not exist any such external evidence3 what then8 ,next1 he is reminded 7b7 ,that whether there does1 or does not1 it is at least certain that not one of those 8proofs as to style10 c41 of which he speaks1 has been able to stand the test of strict examination4 ,not only is the precariousness of all such ,criticism as has been brought to bear against the genuineness of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj excessive1 but the supposed facts adduced in evidence have been found out to be every one of them mistakes2--being either1 7#a7 demonstrably without argumentative cogency of any kind2--or else1 7#b7 distinctly corroborative and confirmatory circumstances3 indications that this part of the ,gospel is indeed by ,s4 ,mark1--not that it is probably the work of another hand4 ,and thus the formidable enumeration of twenty-seven grounds of suspicion vanishes out of sight3 fourteen of them proving to be frivolous and nugatory2 and thirteen1 more or less clearly witnessing in favour of the section47#bii7 ,,iii4 ,of these thirteen expressions1 some are even eloquent in their witness4 ,i am saying that it is impossible not to be exceedingly struck by the discovery that this portion of the ,gospel contains 7as ,i have explained already7 so many indications of ,s4 ,mark's undoubted manner4 ,such is the reference to 7in ver4 #ae73--the mention of 7in ver4 #ad73--the occurrence of the verb 7in ver4 #aj and #ab71--of the phrase 7in ver4 #ag71--;and of the phrase 7in ver4 #ah73--of the ,evangelical term for our ,,lord',s ,ascension1 viz4 7in ver4 #ai73--;and lastly1 of the compounds and 7in verses #ag and #bj47 ,to these ,thirteen1 will have to be added all those other notes of identity of authorship1--such as they are1--which result from recurring identity of phrase1 and of which the assailants of this portion of the ,gospel have prudently said nothing4 ,such are the following3-- 7xiv47 1 for rising from the dead2 which is one of ,s4 ,mark's words4 ,taking into account the shortness of his ,gospel1 he has it thrice as often as ,s4 ,luke2 twelve times as often as ,s4 ,matthew or ,s4 ,john4 7xv47 ,the idiomatic expression 1 of which ,s4 ,matthew does not present a single specimen2 but which occurs three times in the short ,gospel of ,s4 ,mark17#cjj7--of which ver4 #ab is one4 7xvi47 ,the expression 7in ver4 #i17--of which ,s4 ,mark avails himself six times3 i4e4 7if the length of the present ,gospel be taken into account7 almost five times as often as either ,s4 ,matthew or ,s4 ,john1--,s4 ,luke never using the word at all4 ,in his first chapter 7ver4 #ce71 and here in his last 7ver4 #b71 ,s4 ,mark uses in connexion with 4 7xvii47 ,the phrase 7in ver4 #ae7 is another of ,s4 ,mark's phrases4 ,like ,s4 ,matthew1 he employs it four times 7i4 #ad3 xiii4 #aj3 xiv4 #i3 xvi4 #ae73 but it occurs neither in ,s4 ,luke's nor in ,s4 ,john's ,gospel4 7xviii47 ,the same words singly are characteristic of his ,gospel4 ,taking the length of their several narratives into account1 ,s4 ,mark has the word more than twice as often as ,s4 ,matthew3 three times as often as ,s4 ,luke4 7xix47 1--a word which occurs only in the first two ,gospels1--is found twice as often in ,s4 ,mark's as in ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel3 and if the respective length of their ,gospels be considered1 the proportion will be as three to one4 ,it occurs1 as above stated1 in ver4 #ae4 7xx47 ,if such ,critics as ,dr4 ,davidson had been concerned to vindicate the genuineness of this section of the ,gospel1 we should have been assured that is another of ,s4 ,mark's words3 by which they would have meant no more than this1--that though employed neither by ,s4 ,matthew nor by ,s4 ,luke it is used thrice by ,s4 ,mark1--being found twice in this section 7verses #ab1 #ad71 as well as in ch4 iv4 #bb4 7xxi47 ,they would have also pointed out that is another of ,s4 ,mark's words3 being employed neither by ,s4 ,luke nor by ,s4 ,john1--by ,s4 ,matthew only once1--but by ,s4 ,mark on two occasions2 of which ch4 xvi4 #ad is one4 7xxii47 ,in the same spirit1 they would have bade us observe that 7ver4 #bj7--unknown to ,s4 ,matthew and ,s4 ,john1 and employed only once by ,s4 ,luke1--is twice used by ,s4 ,mark2 one instance occurring in the present section4 ,nor would it have been altogether unfair if they had added that the precisely similar word 7or 7 is only found in this same ,gospel1--viz4 in ch4 i4 #de4 7xxiii47 ,they would further have insisted 7and this time with a greater show of reason7 that the adverb 7which is found in ver4 #ah7 is another favorite word with ,s4 ,mark3 occurring as it does1 7when the length of these several narratives is taken into account17 more than twice as often in ,s4 ,mark's as in ,s4 ,john's ,gospel1--just three times as often as in the ,gospel of ,s4 ,matthew and ,s4 ,luke4 7xxiv47 ,a more interesting 7because a more just7 observation would have been that 1 in the sense of 8to be10 7as in the phrase 1 ver4 #ah17 is characteristic of ,s4 ,mark4 ,he has it oftener than any of the ,evangelists1 viz4 six times in all 7ch4 i4 #cb1 #cd3 ii4 #ag3 v4 #bc3 vi4 #ee3 xvi4 #ah47 ,taking the shortness of his ,gospel into account1 he employs this idiom twice as often as ,s4 ,matthew2--three times as often as ,s4 ,john2--four times as often as ,s4 ,luke4 7xxv47 ,they would have told us further that is another of ,s4 ,mark's favorite words3 for that he has it three times1--viz4 in ch4 vi4 #e1 #ac1 and here in ver4 #ah4 ,s4 ,matthew has it only once4 ,s4 ,luke and ,s4 ,john not at all4 7xxvi47 ,and we should have been certainly reminded by them that the conjunction of 7in ver4 #aj7 is characteristic of ,s4 ,mark1--who has in ch4 v4 #ch3 in the very next verse4 ,as for 1 it is one of the #abc words common to ,s4 ,matthew and ,s4 ,mark1 and peculiar to their two ,gospels4 7xxvii47 ,lastly1 8 7in ver4 #af71 instead of 1 is ,mark's word1 7comp4 x4 #cc3 xiv4 #fd740 ,the simple verb which is used four times by ,s4 ,matthew1 five times by ,s4 ,luke1 nineteen times by ,s4 ,john1 is never at all employed by ,s4 ,mark3 whereas the compound verb he has oftener in proportion than ,s4 ,matthew1--more than twice as often as either ,s4 ,luke or ,s4 ,john4 ,strange1--that there should be exactly 8xxvii0 notes of genuineness discoverable in these twelve verses1 instead of 8,,xxvii0 grounds of suspicion6 ,but enough of all this4 ,here1 we may with advantage review the progress hitherto made in this inquiry4 ,i claim to have demonstrated long since that all those imposing assertions respecting the 8,style0 and 8,phraseology0 of this section of the ,gospel which were rehearsed at the outset17#cja7--;are destitute of foundation4 ,but from this discovery alone there results a settled conviction which it will be found difficult henceforth to disturb4 ,a page of ,scripture which has been able to endure so severe an ordeal of hostile inquiry1 has been proved to be above suspicion4 ,that character is rightly accounted blameless which comes out unsullied after ,calumny has done her worst2 done it systematically2 done it with a will2 done it for a hundred years4 ,but this is not an adequate statement of the facts of the case in respect of the conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,something more is certain than that the charges which have been so industriously brought against this portion of the ,gospel are without foundation4 ,it has been also proved that instead of there being discovered twenty-seven suspicious words and phrases scattered up and down these twelve verses of the ,gospel1 there actually exist exactly as many words and phrases which attest with more or less certainty that those verses are nothing else but the work of the ,evangelist4 ,,iv4 ,and now it is high time to explain that though ,i have hitherto condescended to adopt the method of my opponents1 ,i have only done so in order to shew that it proves fatal to themselves4 ,i am1 to say the truth1 ashamed of what has last been written1--so untrustworthy do ,i deem the method which1 7following the example of those who have preceded me in this inquiry17 ,i have hitherto pursued4 ,the 8,concordance test10--7for that is probably as apt and intelligible a designation as can be devised for the purely mechanical process whereby it is proposed by a certain school of ,critics to judge of the authorship of ,scripture17--is about the coarsest as well as about the most delusive that could be devised4 ,by means of this clumsy and vulgar instrument1 especially when applied1 7as in the case before us17 without skill and discrimination1 it would be just as easy to prove that the first twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel are of a suspicious character as the last47#cjb7 ,in truth1 except in very skilful hands1 it is no test at all1 and can only mislead4 ,thus1 7in ver4 #a17 we should be informed 7i47 that 8,mark nowhere uses the appellation ,,jesus ,,christ30 and 7ii47 that 8 0 is 8,pauline0--,we should be reminded 7iii47 that this ,evangelist nowhere introduces any of the ,prophets by name1 and that therefore the mention of 8,isaiah07#cjc7 7in ver4 #b7 is a suspicious circumstance3--7iv47 that a quotation from the ,old ,testament is 8foreign to his manner10--7for writers of this class would not hesitate to assume that ,s4 ,mark xv4 #bh is no part of the ,gospel27--and 7v47 that the fact that here are quotations from two different prophets1 betrays an unskilful hand4--7vi47 ,because ,s4 ,mark three times calls ,juda by its usual name 71 viz4 in iii4 #g3 x4 #a3 xiii4 #ad71 the unique designation1 7in ver4 #e7 would be pronounced decisive against 8the authorship of ,mark40--7vii47 ,the same thing would be said of the unique expression1 1 which is found in ver4 #e1--seeing that this ,evangelist three times designates ,jordan simply as 7i4 #i3 iii4 #h3 x4 #a74--7viii47 ,that entire expression in ver4 #g 7unique1 it must be confessed1 in the ,gospel17 -- 1 would be pronounced 8abhorrent to the style of ,mark40--7ix47 twice1 7viz4 in ver4 #aj and ver4 #ab7 we should be told is never used by the ,evangelist absolutely for the ,,holy ,,ghost3 but always 7as in ch4 iii4 #bi3 xii4 #cf3 xiii4 #aa74--7x47 ,the same would be said of 7in ver4 #e7 for 8the inhabitants of ,jerusalem30 we should be assured that ,s4 ,mark's phrase would rather be 1--as in ch4 iii4 #h and #bb4--;,and 7xi47 the expression 7ver4 #ae71 we should be informed 8cannot be ,mark's20--who either employs and the accusative 7as in ch4 ix4 #ib71 or else makes the verb take a dative 7as in ch4 xi4 #ca3 xvi4 #ac1 #ad47--,we should also probably be told that the ten following words are all 8unknown to ,mark30--7xii47 1--7xiii47 1--7xiv47 1--7xv47 1--7xvi47 1--7xvii47 17six instances in a single verse 7ver4 #f73 a highly suspicious circumstance671--7xviii47 1--7xix47 1--7xx47 1 7all three instances in ver4 #g67--7xxi47 1--7xxii47 444 7ver4 #i71--unique in ,s4 ,mark6--7xxiii47 7ver #i71 another unique phrase6--7xxiv47 twice1 7viz4 in verses #aj1 #aa7 yet elsewhere1 when ,s4 ,mark speaks of ,heaven1 7ch4 vi4 #da3 vii4 #cd3 viii4 #aa3 xvi4 #ai7 he always uses the singular4--,lastly1 7xxv47 the same sorry objection which was brought against the 8last twelve verses10 7that 1 a favourite adverb with ,s4 ,mark1 is not found there17 is here even more conspicuous4 ,turning away from all this1--7not1 however1 without an apology for having lingered over such frivolous details so long17--,i desire to point out that we have reverently to look below the surface1 if we would ascertain how far it is to be presumed from internal considerations whether ,s4 ,mark was indeed the author of this portion of his ,gospel1 or not4 ,v4 ,we must devise1 ,i say1 some more delicate1 more philosophical1 more real test than the coarse1 uncritical expedient which has been hitherto considered of ascertaining by reference to the pages of a ,greek ,concordance whether a certain word which is found in this section of the ,gospel is1 or is not1 used elsewhere by ,s4 ,mark4 ,and ,i suppose it will be generally allowed to be deserving of attention1--in fact1 to be a singularly corroborative circumstance1--that within the narrow compass of these ,twelve ,verses we meet with every principal characteristic of ,s4 ,mark's manner3--,thus1 7i47 ,though he is the ,author of the shortest of the ,gospels1 and though to all appearance he often merely reproduces what ,s4 ,matthew has said before him1 or else anticipates something1 which is afterwards delivered by ,s4 ,luke1--it is surprising how often we are indebted to ,s4 ,mark for precious pieces of information which we look for in vain elsewhere4 ,now1 this is a feature of the ,evangelist's manner which is susceptible of memorable illustration from the section before us4 ,how many and how considerable are the new circumstances which ,s4 ,mark here delivers6--7#a7 ,that ,mary ,magdalene was the first to behold the risen ,,saviour3 7#b7 ,that it was ,he who had cast out from her the 8seven devils30 7#c7 ,how the men were engaged to whom she brought her joyful message1--7#d7 who not only did not believe her story1 but when ,cleopas and his companion declared what had happened to themselves1 8neither believed they them40 7#e7 ,the terms of the ,ministerial ,commission1 as set down in verses #ae and #af1 are unique4 7#f7 ,the announcement of the 8signs which should follow them that believe0 is even extraordinary4 ,lastly1 7#g7 this is the only place in the ,gospel where ,the ,session at the right ,hand of ,,god is recorded4444 ,so many1 and such precious incidents1 showered into the ,gospel ,treasury at the last moment1 and with such a lavish hand1 must needs have proceeded if not from an ,apostle at least from a companion of ,apostles4 ,o1 if we had no other token to go by1 there could not be a reasonable doubt that this entire section is by no other than ,s4 ,mark himself6 7ii47 ,a second striking characteristic of the second ,evangelist is his love of picturesque1 or at least of striking details1--his proneness to introduce exceedingly minute particulars1 often of the profoundest significancy1 and always of considerable interest4 ,not to look beyond the ,twelve ,verses 7chap4 i4 #i-bj7 which were originally proposed for comparison1--,we are reminded 7a7 that in describing our ,,saviour',s ,baptism1 it is only ,s4 ,mark who relates that 8,he came from ,nazareth0 to be baptized4--7b7 ,in his highly elliptical account of our ,,lord',s ,temptation1 it is only he who relates that 8,he was with the wild beasts40--7c7 ,in his description of the ,call of the four ,disciples1 ,s4 ,mark alone it is who1 7notwithstanding the close resemblance of his account to what is found in ,s4 ,matthew17 records that the father of ,s4 ,james and ,s4 ,john was left 8in the ship with the hired servants407#cjd7--,now1 of this characteristic1 we have also within these twelve verses1 at least four illustrations3-- 7a7 ,note in ver4 #aj1 that life-like touch which evidently proceeded from an eye-witness1--8 40 ,s4 ,mark relates that when ,mary conveyed to the ,disciples the joyous tidings of the ,,lord',s ,resurrection1 she found them overwhelmed with sorrow1--8mourning and weeping40 7b7 ,note also that the unbelief recorded in ver4 #ac is recorded only there4 7c7 ,again4 ,s4 ,mark not only says that as the two ,disciples were 8going into the country10 7 17#cje7 ver4 #ab17 ,,jesus also 8went with them0--7-1 as ,s4 ,luke relates27--but that it was as they actually 8walked0 along 77 that this manifestation took place4 7d7 ,among the marvellous predictions made concerning 8them that believe20 what can be imagined more striking than the promise that they should 8take up serpents20 and suffer no harm even if they should 8drink any deadly thing08 7iii7 ,next1--all have been struck1 ,i suppose1 with ,s4 ,mark's proneness to substitute some expression of his own for what he found in the ,gospel of his predecessor ,s4 ,matthew3 or1 when he anticipates something which is afterwards met with in the ,gospel of ,s4 ,luke1 his aptness to deliver it in language entirely independent of the later ,evangelist4 ,i allude1 for instance2 to his substitution of 7xiv4 #gb7 for ,s4 ,matthew's 7xxvi4 #ge72--;and of 7vi4 #c7 for 7,s4 ,matth4 xiii4 #ee74--,the 8woman of ,canaan0 in ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel 7 1 ch4 xv4 #bb71 is called 8a ,greek1 a ,syrophenician by nation0 in ,s4 ,mark's 71 1 ch4 vii4 #bf74--;,at the ,baptism1 instead of the 8opened0 heavens of ,s4 ,matthew 71 ch4 iii4 #af7 and ,s4 ,luke 71 ch4 iii4 #bb71 we are presented by ,s4 ,mark with the striking image of the heavens 8cleaving0 or 8being rent asunder0 717#cjf7 ch4 i4 #aj74--,what ,s4 ,matthew calls 7ch4 xv4 #ci71 ,s4 ,mark designates as 7ch4 viii4 #aj47--;,in place of ,s4 ,matthew's 7ch4 xvi4 #f71 ,s4 ,mark has 7ch4 viii4 #ae47--;,in describing the visit to ,jericho1 for the of ,s4 ,matthew 7ch4 xx4 #bi71 ,s4 ,mark gives 444 7ch4 ch4 #df47--;,for the of ,s4 ,matth4 xxi4 #h1 ,s4 ,mark 7ch4 xi4 #h7 has 2 and for the other's 7xxvi4 #cd71 he has 7xiv4 #cj47--;,it is so throughout4 ,accordingly1--7as we have already more than once had occasion to remark17--whereas the rest say only 1 ,s4 ,mark says 7in ver4 #i74--,whereas ,s4 ,luke 7viii4 #b7 says 1--,s4 ,mark records that from her 4--,very different is the great ministerial ,commission as set down by ,s4 ,mark in ver4 #ae1 #af1 from what is found in ,s4 ,matthew xxviii4 #ai1 #bj4--;,and whereas ,s4 ,luke says 8their eyes were holden that they should not know ,him10 ,s4 ,mark says that 8,he appeared to them in another form40 444 ,is it credible that any one fabricating a conclusion to ,s4 ,mark's narrative after ,s4 ,luke's ,gospel had appeared1 would have ventured so to paraphrase ,s4 ,luke's statement8 ,and yet1 let the consistent truthfulness of either expression be carefully noted4 ,both are historically accurate1 but they proceed from opposite points of view4 ,viewed on the heavenly side1 7,god's side71 the ,disciples' 8eyes0 7of course7 8were holden30--viewed on the earthly side1 7,man's side71 the risen ,,saviour 7no doubt7 8appeared in another form40 7iv47 ,then further1 ,s4 ,mark is observed to introduce many expressions into his ,gospel which confirm the prevalent tradition that it was at ,rome he wrote it2 and that it was with an immediate view to ,latin readers that it was published4 ,twelve such expressions were enumerated above 7at p4 #aej-a72 and such1 it was also there shewn1 most unmistakably is the phrase in ver4 #i4--;,it is simply incredible that any one but an ,evangelist writing under the peculiar conditions traditionally assigned to ,s4 ,mark1 would have hit upon such an expression as this1--the strict equivalent1 to ,latin ears1 for 1 which has occurred just above1 in ver4 #b4 ,now this1 it will be remembered1 is one of the hacknied objections to the genuineness of this entire portion of the ,gospel2--quite proof enough1 if proof were needed1 of the exceeding improbability which attaches to the phrase1 in the judgment of those who have considered this question the most4 7v47 ,the last peculiarity of ,s4 ,mark to which ,i propose to invite attention is supplied by those expressions which connect his ,gospel with ,s4 ,peter1 and remind us of the constant traditional belief of the ancient ,church that ,s4 ,mark was the companion of the chief of the ,apostles4 ,that the second ,gospel contains many such hints has often been pointed out2 never more interestingly or more convincingly than by ,townson7#cjg7 in a work which deserves to be in the hands of every student of ,sacred ,science4 ,instead of reproducing any of the familiar cases in order to illustrate my meaning1 ,i will mention one which has perhaps never been mentioned in this connexion before4 7a7 ,reference is made to our ,,lord',s sayings in ,s4 ,mark vii1 and specially to what is found in ver4 #ai4 ,that expression1 8purging all meats0 77#cjh7 71 does really seem to be no part of the ,divine discourse2 but the ,evangelist's inspired comment on the ,,saviour',s words47#cji7 ,our ,,saviour 7he explains7 by that discourse of ,his--ipso1 facto--8made all meats clean40 ,how doubly striking a statement1 when it is remembered that probably ,simon ,peter himself was the actual author of it2--the same who1 on the house-top at ,joppa1 had been shewn in a vision that 8,,god had made clean0 7 7#caj77 all ,his creatures6 7b7 ,now1 let a few words spoken by the same ,s4 ,peter on a memorable occasion be considered3--8,wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the ,,lord ,,jesus went in and out among us1 beginning from the ,baptism of ,john1 unto that same day that ,he was taken up 77 from us1 must one be ordained to be a witness with us of ,his ,resurrection407#caa7 ,does not ,s4 ,peter thereby define the precise limits of our ,,saviour',s ,ministry1--shewing it to have 8begun0 77 8from the ,baptism of ,john10--and closed with the ,day of our ,,lord',s ,ascension8 ,and what else are those but the exact bounds of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1--of which the 7ch4 i4 #a7 is signally declared to have been the ,baptism of ,john1--and the utmost limit1 the day when 7as ,s4 ,mark says7 8,he was taken up 77 into ,heaven10--7ch4 xvi4 #ai78 7c7 ,i will only further remind the reader1 in connexion with the phrase1 1 in ver4 #ae1--7;concerning which1 the reader is referred back to page #afb-c17--that both ,s4 ,peter and ,s4 ,mark 7but no other of the sacred writers7 conspire to use the expression 47#cab7 ,s4 ,mark has besides 7ch4 xiii4 #ai72 while ,s4 ,peter alone styles the ,,almighty1 from ,his work of ,creation1 7#a ,s4 ,pet4 iv4 #ai74 ,,vi4 ,but besides1 and over and above such considerations as those which precede1--7some of which1 ,i am aware1 might be considerably evacuated of their cogency2 while others1 ,i am just as firmly convinced1 will remain forcible witnesses of ,,god',s ,truth to the end of ,time17--,i hesitate not to avow my personal conviction that abundant and striking evidence is garnered up within the brief compass of these ,twelve ,verses that they are identical in respect of fabric with the rest of the ,gospel2 were clearly manufactured out of the same ,divine materials1--wrought in the same heavenly loom4 ,it was even to have been expected1 from what is found to have been universally the method in other parts of ,scripture1--7for it was of course foreseen by ,,almighty ,,god from the beginning that this portion of ,his ,word would be1 like its ,divine ,author1 in these last days cavilled at1 reviled1 hated1 rejected1 denied17--that the ,,spirit would not leave ,himself without witness in this place4 ,it was to have been anticipated1 ,i say1 that ,eternal ,wisdom would carefully--7,i trust there is no irreverence in so speaking of ,,god and ,his ways67--would carefully make provision3 meet the coming unbelief 7as ,his ,angel met ,balaam7 with a drawn sword3 plant up and down throughout these ,twelve ,verses of the ,gospel1 sure indications of their ,divine ,original1--unmistakable notes of purpose and design1--mysterious traces and tokens of ,himself2 not visible indeed to the scornful and arrogant1 the impatient and irreverent2 yet clear as if written with a sunbeam to the patient and humble student1 the man who 8trembleth at ,,god',s ,word407#cac7 ,or1 7if the ,reader prefers the image17 the indications of a ,divine ,original to be met with in these verses shall be likened rather to those cryptic characters1 invisible so long as they remain unsuspected1 but which shine forth clear and strong when exposed to the ,light or to the ,heat2 7,light and ,heat1 both emblems of ,himself67 so that even he that gropeth in darkness must now see them1 and admit that of a truth 8the ,,lord is in this place0 although he 8knew it not60 7i47 ,i propose then that in the first instance we compare the conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel with the beginning of it4 ,we did this before1 when our object was to ascertain whether the ,style of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj be indeed as utterly discordant from that of the rest of the ,gospel as is commonly represented4 ,we found1 instead1 the most striking resemblance47#cad7 ,we also instituted a brief comparison between the two in order to discover whether the ,diction of the one might not possibly be found as suggestive of verbal doubts as the diction of the other3 and so we found it47#cae7--,let us for the third time draw the two extremities of this precious fabric into close proximity in order again to compare them4 ,nothing ,i presume can be fairer than to elect that1 once more1 our attention be chiefly directed to what is contained within the twelve verses 7ver4 #i-bj7 of ,s4 ,mark's first chapter which exactly correspond with the twelve verses of his last chapter 7ver4 #i-bj7 which are the subject of the present volume4 ,now between these two sections of the ,gospel1 besides 7#a7 the obvious verbal resemblance1 ,i detect 7#b7 a singular parallelism of essential structure4 ,and this does not strike me the less forcibly because nothing of the kind was to have been expected4 7#a47 ,on the verbal coincidences ,i do not propose to lay much stress4 ,yet are they certainly not without argumentative weight and significancy4 ,i allude to the following3-- 7a7 1 7a7 7xvi4 #af7 7i4 #d7-- 7i4 #e7--1 7i4 #h7-- 7i4 #i7 7b7 1 7b7 7xvi4 #bj7 7i4 #g7 7b and c7 7c7 7i4 #ad7-- 7xvi4 #ae7 7i4 #a7 7c and d7 7d7 7xvi4 7i4 #ae7 #aa7-- 7xvi4 #ac7-- 1 7xvi4 #ad7-- 1 7xvi4 #af7-- 7xvi4 #ag47 ,now this1 to say the least1 shews that there exists an unmistakable relation of sympathy between the first page of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel and the last4 ,the same doctrinal phraseology17#caf7--the same indications of ,divine purpose1--the same prevailing cast of thought is observed to occur in both4 7i47 ,a ,gospel to be everywhere preached2--7ii47 ,faith1 to be of all required2--7iii47 ,baptism to be universally administered2 8one ,,lord1 one ,faith1 one ,baptism30--,is not this the theme of the beginning of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel as well as of the end of it8 ,surely it is as if on comparing the two extremities of a chain1 with a view to ascertaining whether the fabric be identical or not1 it were discovered that those extremities are even meant to clasp6 7#b47 ,but the essential parallelism between ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj and ,s4 ,mark i4 #i-bj is a profounder phenomenon and deserves even more attention4 ,i proceed to set down side by side1 as before1 what ought to require neither comment nor explanation of mine4 ,thus we find1-- 7,a7 in ch4 i4 #i to 7,a7 in ch4 xvi4 #i to #aa3--,our ,,lord',s #aa3--,our ,,lord',s appearance ,manifestation to the to ,mary ,magdalene 77 ,world 77 on ,,his after ,,his ,resurrection 8coming up 77 77 from death3 out of the water0 of 8,thou art ,my ,,son1 this ,jordan3 7having been day have ,i begotten 8buried by ,baptism10 as ,thee40 the ,apostle speaks37 when the ,voice from ,heaven proclaimed1--8,thou art ,my beloved ,,son in whom ,i am well pleased40 --#ab to #ad3--,two other ,manifestations 77 to ,disciples4 7,b7 --#ab1 #ac3--;,,christ',s 7,b7 --#ag1 #ah3--;,,christ',s victory over ,satan2 promise that 8they that 7whereby is fulfilled the believe0 8shall cast out promise 8,thou shalt tread devils0 and 8shall take upon the lion and adder3 up serpents30 7as in ,s4 the young lion and the ,luke x4 #ai ,he had given dragon shalt ,thou trample the ,seventy 8power to under feet407 tread on serpents and scorpions1 and over all the power of the ,enemy407 7,c7 --#h3--,the ,pentecostal 7,c7 --#ag3--,the chief ,gift foretold3 8,he shall ,pentecostal ,gift baptize you with the ,,holy specified3 8,they shall ,,ghost40 speak with new tongues40 7,d7 in ch4 i4 #ad1 7,d7 in ch4 xvi4 #ae1 #ae3--;,,christ 8comes into #af3--;,he commands ,his ,galilee1 preaching the ,apostles to 8go into all ,gospel 444 and saying 444 the world and preach the ,repent ye1 and believe ,gospel to every creature4 the ,gospel40 ,he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved40 7,e7 --#ae3 ,his 7,e7 --#ai3--,s4 ,mark's record announcement1 that 8,the concerning ,him1 that 8,he time is fulfilled1 and was received up into the ,kingdom of ,god is at ,heaven1 and sat on the hand40 right hand of ,,god0 7where ,he must reign till ,he hath put all enemies under ,his feet47 7,f7 --#af to #bj3--,the four 7,f7 --#bj3--,the ,apostles' ,apostles' ,call to the ,ministry1 which is ,ministry3 7which ,s4 ,luke everywhere miraculously v4 #h1 #i is miraculously attested1--8,the ,,lord attested47 working with them1 and confirming the word by the signs that followed40 ,it is surely not an unmeaning circumstance1 a mere accident1 that the ,evangelist should at the very outset and at the very conclusion of his ,gospel1 so express himself6 ,if1 however1 it should seem to the ,reader a mere matter of course1 a phenomenon without interest or significancy1--nothing which ,i could add would probably bring him to a different mind4 7#c47 ,then1 further3 when ,i scrutinize attentively the two portions of ,scripture thus proposed for critical survey1 ,i am not a little struck by the discovery that the ,v,ith ,article of the ancient ,creed of ,jerusalem 7,a4,d4 #cdh7 is found in the one3 the ,xth ,article1 in the other47#cag7 ,if it be a purely fortuitous circumstance1 that two cardinal verities like these1--7viz4 8,he ascended into ,heaven1 and sat down at the ,right ,hand of ,,god0--and 8,one ,baptism for the ,remission of sins107 should be found at either extremity of one short ,gospel1--,i will but point out that it is certainly one of a very remarkable series of fortuitous circumstances4--,but in the thing to be mentioned next1 there neither is1 nor can be1 any talk of fortuitousness at all4 7#d47 ,allusion is made to the diversity of ,name whereby the ,son of ,man is indicated in these two several places of the ,gospel2 which constitutes a most ,divine circumstance1 and is profoundly significant4 ,he who in the first verse 7,s4 ,mark i4 #a7 was designated by the joint title 80 and 810--here1 in the last two verses 7,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ai1 #bj7 is styled for the first and for the last time1 8 0--the ,,lord47#cah7 ,and why8 ,because ,he who at ,his ,circumcision was named 8,,jesus10 7a ,name which was given ,him from ,his ,birth1 yea1 and before ,his ,birth72 ,he who at ,his ,baptism became 8the ,,christ10 7a ,title which belonged to ,his ,office1 and which betokens ,his sacred ,unction72--the same1 on the occasion of ,his ,ascension into ,heaven and ,session at the ,right ,hand of ,,god1--when 7as we know7 8all power had been given unto ,him in ,heaven and in ,earth0 7,s4 ,matth4 xxviii4 #ah71--;is designated by ,his ,name of ,dominion2 8the ,,lord0 ,,jehovah 444 8,magnifica et opportuna appellatio60--as ,bengel well remarks4 ,but ,i take leave to point out that all this is what never either would or could have entered into the mind of a fabricator of a conclusion to ,s4 ,mark's unfinished ,gospel4 ,no inventor of a supplement1 ,i say1 could have planted his foot in this way in exactly the right place4 ,the proof of my assertion is twofold3-- 7a7 ,first1 because the present indication that the ,,holy ,,ghost was indeed the ,author of these last ,twelve ,verses is even appealed to by ,dr4 ,davidson and his ,school1 as a proof of a spurious original4 ,verily1 such ,critics do not recognise the token of the ,divine ,finger even when they see it6 7b7 ,next1 as a matter of fact1 we have a spurious ,supplement to the ,gospel1--the same which was exhibited above at p4 #abc-d2 and which may here be with advantage reproduced in its ,latin form3--8,omnia autem quaecumque praecepta erant illis qui cum ,petro erant1 breviter exposuerunt4 ,post haec et ipse ,iesus adparuit1 et ab oriente usque in occidentem misit per illos sanctam et incorruptam praedicationem salutis aeternae4 ,amen407#cai7--;,another apocryphal termination is found in certain copies of the ,thebaic version4 ,it occupies the place of ver4 #bj1 and is as follows3--8,exeuntes terni in quatuor climata caeli praedicarunt ,evangelium in mundo toto1 ,,christo operante cum iis in verbo confirmationem cum signis sequentibus eos et miraculis4 ,atque hoc modo cognitum est regnum ,dei in terra tota et in mundo toto ,israelis in testimonium gentium omnium harum quae exsistunt ab oriente ad occasum40 ,it will be seen that the ,title of ,dominion 7 --the ,,lord7 is found in neither of these fabricated passages2 but the ,names of ,nativity and of ,baptism 7 and --,,jesus and ,,christ7 occur instead4 7ii47 ,then further3--,it is an extraordinary note of genuineness that such a vast number of minute but important facts should be found accumulated within the narrow compass of these twelve verses2 and should be met with nowhere else4 ,the writer1--supposing that he had only ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel before him1--traverses 7except in one single instance7 wholly new ground2 moves forward with unmistakable boldness and a rare sense of security2 and wherever he plants his foot1 it is to enrich the soil with fertility and beauty4 ,but on the supposition that he wrote after ,s4 ,luke's and ,s4 ,john's ,gospel had appeared1--the marvel becomes increased an hundred-fold3 for how then does it come to pass that he evidently draws his information from quite independent sources8 is not bound by any of their statements8 even seems purposely to break away from their guidance1 and to adventure some extraordinary statement of his own1--which nevertheless carries the true ,gospel savour with it2 and is felt to be authentic from the very circumstance that no one would have ever dared to invent such a detail and put it forth on his own responsibility8 7iii47 ,second to no indication that this entire section of the ,gospel has a ,divine original1 ,i hold to be a famous expression which 7like 7 has occasioned general offence3 ,i mean1 the designation of ,mary ,magdalene as one 8out of whom0 the ,,lord 8had cast seven devils20 and that1 in immediate connexion with the record of her august privilege of being the first of the ,human ,race to behold ,his risen form4 ,there is such profound ,gospel significancy2--such sublime improbability1--such exquisite pathos in this record1--that ,i would defy any fabricator1 be he who he might1 to have achieved it4 ,this has been to some extent pointed out already47#cbj7 7iv47 ,it has also been pointed out1 7but the circumstance must be by all means here insisted upon afresh17 that the designation 7found in ver4 #aj7 of the little company of our ,,lord',s followers1--8 10--is another rare note of veracious origin4 ,no one but ,s4 ,mark1--or just such an one as he1--would or could have so accurately designated the little band of ,christian men and women who1 unconscious of their bliss1 were 8mourning and weeping0 till after sunrise on the first ,easter ,day4 ,the reader is reminded of what has been already offered on this subject1 at p4 #aee-f4 7v47 ,i venture further to point out that no writer but ,s4 ,mark1 7or such an one as he7#cba771 would have familiarly designated the ,apostolic body as 8 10 in ver4 #ad4 ,the phrase 1 he uses in proportion far oftener than any other two of the ,evangelists47#cbb7 ,and it is evident that the phrase soon became an equally recognised designation of the ,apostolic body1--8from which ,judas by transgression fell40 ,its familiar introduction into this place by the second ,evangelist is exactly what one might have looked for1 or at least what one is fully prepared to meet with1 in him4 7vi47 ,i will close this enumeration by calling attention to an unobtrusive and unobserved verb in the last of these verses which 7,i venture to say7 it would never have entered into the mind of any ordinary writer to employ in that particular place4 ,i allude to the familiar word 4 ,the precise meaning of the expression1--depending on the known force of the preposition with which the verb is compounded1--can scarcely be missed by any one who1 on the one hand1 is familiar with the ,evangelical method2 on the other1 is sufficiently acquainted with the ,gospel ,history4 ,reference is certainly made to the final departure of the ,apostolic body out of the city of ,jerusalem47#cbc7 ,and tacitly1 beyond a question1 there is herein contained a recollection of our ,,saviour',s command to ,his ,apostles1 twice expressly recorded by ,s4 ,luke1 8that they should not depart from ,jerusalem1 but wait for the promise of the ,,father40 8,behold10 7said ,he17 8,i send the promise of ,my ,,father upon you3 but tarry ye in the city of ,jerusalem1 until ye be endued with power from on high407#cbd7444 ,after many days 8they went forth0 or 8out40 ,s4 ,mark1 7or perhaps it is rather ,s4 ,peter17 expressly says so1--4 ,aye1 and that was a memorable 8outgoing10 truly6 ,what else was its purpose but the evangelization of the ,world8 ,,vii4 ,let this suffice1 then1 concerning the evidence derived from ,internal considerations4 ,but lest it should hereafter be reckoned as an omission1 and imputed to me as a fault1 that ,i have said nothing about the alleged ,inconsistency of certain statements contained in these 8,twelve ,verses0 with the larger notices contained in the parallel narratives of ,s4 ,luke and ,s4 ,john1--,i proceed briefly to explain why ,i am silent on this head4 #a4 ,i cannot see for whom ,i should be writing2 in other words1--what ,i should propose to myself as the end to be attained by what ,i wrote4 ,for1 #b4 ,what would be gained by demonstrating1--7as ,i am of course prepared to do17--that there is really no inconsistency whatever between anything which ,s4 ,mark here says1 and what the other ,evangelists deliver8 ,i should have proved that1--7assuming the other ,evangelical narratives to be authentic1 i4e4 historically true17--the narrative before us cannot be objected to on the score of its not being authentic also4 ,but by whom is such proof required8 7a7 ,not by the men who insist that errors are occasionally to be met with in the ,evangelical narratives4 ,in their estimation1 the genuineness of an inspired writing is a thing not in the least degree rendered suspicious by the erroneousness of its statements4 ,according to them1 the narrative may exhibit inaccuracies and inconsistencies1 and may yet be the work of ,s4 ,mark4 ,if the inconsistencies be but 8trifling10 and the inaccuracies 8minute10--these 8sound ,theologians10 7for so they style themselves17#cbe77 8have no dread whatever of acknowledging0 their existence4 ,be it so4 ,then would it be a gratuitous task to set about convincing them that no inconsistency1 no inaccuracy is discoverable within the compass of these ,twelve concluding ,verses4 7b7 ,but neither is such proof required by faithful ,readers2 who1 for want of the requisite ,scientific knowledge1 are unable to discern the perfect ,harmony of the ,evangelical narratives in this place4 ,it is only one of many places where a prim facie discrepancy1 though it does not fail to strike1--yet 7happily7 altogether fails to distress them4 ,consciously or unconsciously1 such readers reason with themselves somewhat as follows3--,,god',s ,word1 like all ,,god',s other ,works1 7and ,i am taught to regard ,,god',s ,word as a very masterpiece of creative skill27--the blessed ,gospel1 ,i say1 is full of difficulties4 ,and yet those difficulties are observed invariably to disappear under competent investigation4 ,can ,i seriously doubt that if sufficient critical skill were brought to bear on the highly elliptical portion of narrative contained in these ,twelve ,verses1 it would present no exception to a rule which is observed to be else universal2 and that any apparent inconsistency between ,s4 ,mark's statements in this place1 and those of ,s4 ,luke and ,s4 ,john1 would also be found to be imaginary only8 ,this then is the reason why ,i abstain from entering upon a prolonged ,inquiry1 which would in fact necessitate a discussion of the ,principles of ,gospel ,harmony1--for which the present would clearly not be the proper place4 ,,viii4 ,let it suffice that1 in the foregoing pages1-- #a4 ,i have shewn that the supposed argument from 8,style10 7in itself a highly fallacious test17 disappears under investigation4 ,it has been proved 7pp4 #adb-e7 that1 on the contrary1 the style of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj is exceedingly like the style of ,s4 ,mark i4 #i-bj2 and therefore1 that it is rendered probable by the ,style that the ,author of the beginning of this ,gospel was also the ,author of the end of it4 #b4 ,i have further shewn that the supposed argument from 8,phraseology10--7in itself1 a most unsatisfactory test2 and as it has been applied to the matter in hand1 a very coarse and clumsy one27--breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis4 ,instead of there being twenty-seven suspicious circumstances in the ,phraseology of these ,twelve ,verses1 it has been proved 7pp4 #agj-c7 that in twenty-seven particulars there emerge corroborative considerations4 #c4 ,lastly1 ,i have shewn that a loftier method of ,criticism is at hand2 and that1 tested by this truer1 more judicious1 and more philosophical standard2 a presumption of the highest order is created that these ,verses must needs be the work of ,s4 ,mark4 ,,chapter ,x4 ,,the ,,testimony ,,of ,,the ,,lectionaries ,,shewn ,,to ,,be ,,absolutely ,,decisive ,,as ,,to ,,the ,,genuineness ,,of ,,these ,,verses4 ,the ,lectionary of the ,east shewn to be a work of extraordinary antiquity 7p4 #aie74--,proved to be older than any extant ,,ms4 of the ,gospels1 by an appeal to the ,fathers 7p4 #aih74--;,in this ,lectionary1 7and also in the ,lectionary of the ,west17 the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel have1 from the first1 occupied a most conspicuous1 as well as most honourable place1 7p4 #bjd47--,now1 this becomes the testimony of ante-,nicene ,christendom in their favour 7p4 #bji47 ,i have reserved for the last the testimony of ,,the ,,lectionaries1 which has been hitherto all but entirely overlooked27#cbf7--passed by without so much as a word of comment1 by those who have preceded me in this inquiry4 ,yet is it1 when rightly understood1 altogether decisive of the question at issue4 ,and why8 ,because it is not the testimony rendered by a solitary father or by a solitary ,,ms42 no1 nor even the testimony yielded by a single ,church1 or by a single family of ,,mss4 ,but it is the united testimony of all the ,churches4 ,it is therefore the evidence borne by a 8goodly fellowship of ,prophets10 a 8noble array of ,martyrs0 indeed2 as well as by ,,mss4 innumerable which have long since perished1 but which must of necessity once have been4 ,and so1 it comes to us like the voice of many waters3 dates1 7as ,i shall shew by-and-by17 from a period of altogether immemorial antiquity3 is endorsed by the sanction of all the succeeding ages3 admits of neither doubt nor evasion4 ,this subject1 in order that it may be intelligibly handled1 will be most conveniently approached by some remarks which shall rehearse the matter from the beginning4 ,the ,christian ,church succeeded to the ,jewish4 ,the younger society inherited the traditions of the elder1 not less as a measure of necessity than as a matter of right2 and by a kind of sacred instinct conformed itself from the very beginning in countless particulars to its divinely-appointed model4 ,the same general ,order of ,service went on unbroken1--conducted by a ,priesthood whose spiritual succession was at least as jealously guarded as had been the natural descent from ,aaron in the ,church of the ,circumcision47#cbg7 ,it was found that 8the ,sacraments of the ,jews are but types of ours407#cbh7 ,still were ,david's ,psalms antiphonally recited1 and the voices of 8,moses and the ,prophets0 were heard in the sacred assemblies of ,god's people 8every ,sabbath day40 ,canticle succeeded to ,canticle2 while many a ,versicle simply held its ground4 ,the congenial utterances of the chosen race passed readily into the service of the family of the redeemed4 ,unconsciously perhaps1 the very method of the one became adopted by the other3 as1 for example1 the method of beginning a festival from the 8,eve0 of the preceding ,day4 ,the ,synagogue-worship became transfigured2 but it did not part with one of its characteristic features4 ,above all1 the same three great ,festivals were still retained which declare 8the rock whence we are hewn and the hole of the pit whence we are digged30 only was it made a question1 a controversy rather1 whether ,easter should or should not be celebrated with the ,jews47#cbi7 ,but it is the faithful handing on to the ,christian community of the ,lectionary practice of the ,synagogue to which the reader's attention is now exclusively invited4 ,that the ,christian ,church inherited from the ,jewish the practice of reading a first and a second ,lesson in its public assemblies1 is demonstrable4 ,what the ,synagogue practice was in the time of the ,apostles is known from ,acts xiii4 #ae1 #bg4 ,justin ,martyr1 7,a4,d4 #aej7 describes the ,christian practice in his time as precisely similar37#ccj7 only that for 8the ,law10 there is found to have been at once substituted 8the ,gospel40 ,he speaks of the writings of 8the ,apostles0 and of 8the ,prophets40 ,chrysostom has the same expression 7for the two ,lessons7 in one of his ,homilies47#cca7 ,cassian 7,a4,d4 #djj7 says that in ,egypt1 after the ,twelve ,prayers at ,vespers and at ,matins1 two ,lessons were read1 one out of the ,old ,testament and the other out of the ,new4 ,but on ,saturdays and ,sundays1 and the fifty days of ,pentecost1 both ,lessons were from the ,new ,testament1--one from the ,epistles or the ,acts of the ,apostles2 the other1 from the ,gospels47#ccb7 ,our own actual practice seems to bear a striking resemblance to that of the ,christian ,church at the earliest period3 for we hear of 7#a7 8,moses and the ,prophets10 7which will have been the carrying on of the old synagogue-method1 represented by our first and second ,lesson17--7#b7 a lesson out of the 8,epistles or ,acts10 together with a lesson out of the 8,gospels407#ccc7 ,it is1 in fact1 universally received that the ,eastern ,church has1 from a period of even ,apostolic antiquity1 enjoyed a ,lectionary1--or established system of ,scripture lessons1--of her own4 ,in its conception1 this ,lectionary is discovered to have been fashioned 7as was natural7 upon the model of the ,lectionary of ,god's ancient people1 the ,jews3 for it commences1 as theirs did1 in the autumn1 7in ,september7#ccd772 and prescribes two immovable 8,lections0 for every ,saturday 7as well as for every ,sunday7 in the year3 differing chiefly in this1--that the prominent place which had been hitherto assigned to 8the ,law and the ,prophets107#cce7 was henceforth enjoyed by the ,gospels and the ,apostolic writings4 8,saturday-,sunday0 lections--71 for so these ,lections were called17--retain their place in the 8,synaxarium0 of the ,east to the present hour4 ,it seems also a singular note of antiquity that the ,sabbath and the ,sunday succeeding it do as it were cohere1 and bear one appellation2 so that the week takes its name--not from the ,sunday with which it commences17#ccf7 but--from the ,sabbath-and-,sunday with which it concludes4 ,to mention only one out of a hundred minute traits of identity which the public ,service of the sanctuary retained3--,easter ,eve1 which from the earliest period to this day has been called 8 107#ccg7 is discovered to have borne the self-same appellation in the ,church of the ,circumcision47#cch7--;,if ,i do not enter more minutely into the structure of the ,oriental ,lectionary1--7some will perhaps think ,i have said too much1 but the interest of the subject ought to be a sufficient apology17--it is because further details would be irrelevant to my present purpose2 which is only to call attention to the three following facts3 7,i47 ,that the practice in the ,christian ,church of reading publicly before the congregation certain fixed portions of ,holy ,writ1 according to an established and generally received rule1 must have existed from a period long anterior to the date of any known ,greek copy of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures4 7,,ii47 ,that although there happens to be extant neither 8,synaxarium10 7i4e4 ,table of ,proper ,lessons of the ,greek ,church71 nor 8,evangelistarium10 7i4e4 ,book containing the ,ecclesiastical ,lections in extenso71 of higher antiquity than the viiith century1--yet that the scheme itself1 as exhibited by those monuments1--certainly in every essential particular1--is older than any known ,greek ,,ms4 which contains it1 by at least four1 in fact by full five hundred years4 7,,iii47 ,lastly1--,that in the said ,lectionaries of the ,greek and of the ,syrian ,churches1 the twelve concluding verses of ,s4 ,mark which are the subject of discussion throughout the present pages are observed invariably to occupy the same singularly conspicuous1 as well as most honourable place4 ,i4 ,the first of the foregoing propositions is an established fact4 ,it is at least quite certain that in the ivth century 7if not long before7 there existed a known ,lectionary system1 alike in the ,church of the ,east and of the ,west4 ,cyril of ,jerusalem 7,a4,d4 #cdh17 having to speak about our ,,lord's ,ascension1 remarks that by a providential coincidence1 on the previous day1 which was ,sunday1 the event had formed the subject of the appointed lessons27#cci7 and that he had availed himself of the occasion to discourse largely on the subject4--,chrysostom1 preaching at ,antioch1 makes it plain that1 in the latter part of the ivth century1 the order of the lessons which were publicly read in the ,church on ,saturdays and ,sundays7#cdj7 was familiarly known to the congregation3 for he invites them to sit down1 and study attentively beforehand1 at home1 the ,sections 77 of the ,gospel which they were about to hear in ,church47#cda7--;,augustine is express in recording that in his time proper lessons were appointed for ,festival days27#cdb7 and that an innovation which he had attempted on ,good ,friday had given general offence47#cdc7--,now by these few notices1 to look no further1 it is rendered certain that a ,lectionary system of some sort must have been in existence at a period long anterior to the date of any copy of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures extant4 ,i shall shew by-and-by that the fact is established by the ,codices 7,b1 1 ,a1 ,c1 ,d7 themselves4 ,but we may go back further yet2 for not only ,eusebius1 but ,origen and ,clemens ,alexandrinus1 by their habitual use of the technical term for an ,ecclesiastical ,lection 71 1 17 remind us that the ,lectionary practice of the ,east was already established in their days47#cdd7 ,,ii4 ,the ,oriental ,lectionary consists of 8,synaxarion0 and 8,eclogadion10 7or ,tables of ,proper ,lessons from the ,gospels and ,apostolic writings daily throughout the year27 together with 8,menologion10 7or ,calendar of immovable ,festivals and ,saints' ,days47 ,that we are thoroughly acquainted with all of these1 as exhibited in ,codices of the viiith1 ixth and xth centuries1--is a familiar fact2 in illustration of which it is enough to refer the reader to the works cited at the foot of the page47#cde7 ,but it is no less certain that the scheme of ,proper ,lessons itself is of much higher antiquity4 #a4 ,the proof of this1 if it could only be established by an induction of particular instances1 would not only be very tedious1 but also very difficult indeed4 ,it will be perceived1 on reflection1 that even when the occasion of a ,homily 7suppose7 is actually recorded1 the ,scripture references which it contains1 apart from the ,author's statement that what he quotes had formed part of that day's ,service1 creates scarcely so much as a presumption of the fact3 while the correspondence1 however striking1 between such references to ,scripture and the ,lectionary as we have it1 is of course no proof whatever that we are so far in possession of the ,lectionary of the ,patristic age4 ,nay1 on famous ,festivals1 the employment of certain passages of ,scripture is1 in a manner1 inevitable17#cdf7 and may on no account be pressed4 #b4 ,thus1 when ,chrysostom7#cdg7 and when ,epiphanius17#cdh7 preaching on ,ascension ,day1 refer to ,acts i4 #aj1 #aa1--we do not feel ourselves warranted to press the coincidence of such a quotation with the ,liturgical section of the day4--,so1 again1 when ,chrysostom preaches on ,christmas ,day1 and quotes from ,s4 ,matthew ii4 #a1 #b27cdi7 or on ,whitsunday1 and quotes from ,s4 ,john vii4 #ch and ,acts ii4 #c and #ac2--though both places form part of the ,liturgical sections for the day1 no proof results therefrom that either chapter was actually used4 #c4 ,but we are not reduced to this method4 ,it is discovered that nearly three-fourths of ,chrysostom's ,homilies on ,s4 ,matthew either begin at the first verse of a known ,ecclesiastical ,lection2 or else at the first ensuing verse after the close of one4 ,thirteen of those ,homilies in succession 7the #fcrd to the #geth inclusive7 begin with the first words of as many known ,lections4 8,let us attend to this delightful section 77 which we never cease turning to10--are the opening words of ,chrysostom's #gith ,homily1 of which 8the text0 is ,s4 ,matth4 xxv4 #ca1 i4e4 the beginning of the ,gospel for ,sexagesima ,sunday4--,cyril of ,alexandria's 7so called7 8,commentary on ,s4 ,luke0 is nothing else but a series of short ,sermons1 for the most part delivered on known ,ecclesiastical ,lections2 which does not seem to have been as yet observed4--,augustine 7,a4,d4 #daf7 says expressly that he had handled ,s4 ,john's ,gospel in precisely the same way47#cej7--;,all this is significant in a high degree4 #d4 ,i proceed1 however1 to adduce a few distinct proofs that the existing ,lectionary of the great ,eastern ,church1--as it is exhibited by ,matthaei1 by ,scholz1 and by ,scrivener from ,,mss4 of the viiith century1--and which is contained in ,syriac ,,mss4 of the vith and viith--must needs be in the main a work of extraordinary antiquity4 ,and if ,i do not begin by insisting that at least one century more may be claimed for it by a mere appeal to the ,hierosolymitan ,version1 it is only because ,i will never knowingly admit what may prove to be untrustworthy materials7#cea7 into my foundations4 7a7 8,every one is aware10 7says ,chrysostom in a sermon on our ,,saviour',s ,baptism1 preached at ,antioch1 ,a4,d4 #chg17 8that this is called the ,festival of the ,epiphany4 ,two manifestations are thereby intended3 concerning both of which you have heard this day ,s4 ,paul discourse in his ,epistle to ,titus407#ceb7 ,then follows a quotation from ch4 ii4 #aa to #ac1--which proves to be the beginning of the lection for the day in the ,greek ,menology4 ,in the time of ,chrysostom1 therefore1 ,titus ii4 #aa1 #ab1 #ac formed part of one of the ,epiphany lessons1--as it does to this hour in the ,eastern ,church4 ,what is scarcely less interesting1 it is also found to have been part of the ,epistle for the ,epiphany in the old ,gallican ,liturgy17#cec7 the affinities of which with the ,east are well known4 7b7 ,epiphanius 7speaking of the ,feasts of the ,church7 says1 that at the ,nativity1 a ,star shewed that the ,,word had become incarnate3 at the 8,theophania0 7our 8,epiphany07 ,john cried1 8,behold the ,lamb of ,,god10 c41 and a ,voice from ,heaven proclaimed ,him at ,his ,baptism4 ,accordingly1 ,s4 ,matth4 ii4 #a-ab is found to be the ancient lection for ,christmas ,day3 ,s4 ,mark i4 #i-aa and ,s4 ,matth4 iii4 #ac-ag the lections for ,epiphany4 ,on the morrow1 was read ,s4 ,john i4 #bi-cd4 7c7 ,in another of his ,homilies1 ,chrysostom explains with considerable emphasis the reason why the ,book of the ,acts was read publicly in ,church during the interval between ,easter and ,pentecost2 remarking1 that it had been the liturgical arrangement of a yet earlier age47#ced7--;,after such an announcement1 it becomes a very striking circumstance that ,augustine also 7,a4,d4 #dab7 should be found to bear witness to the prevalence of the same liturgical arrangement in the ,african ,church47#cee7 ,in the old ,gallican ,lectionary1 as might have been expected1 the same rule is recognisable4 ,it ought to be needless to add that the same arrangement is observed universally to prevail in the ,lectionaries both of the ,east and of the ,west to the present hour2 although the fact must have been lost sight of by the individuals who recently1 under pretence of 8making some advantageous alterations0 in our ,lectionary1 have constructed an entirely new one1--vicious in principle and liable to the gravest objections throughout1--whereby this link also which bound the ,church of ,england to the practice of ,primitive ,christendom1 has been unhappily broken2 this note of ,catholicity also has been effaced47#cef7 7d7 ,the purely arbitrary arrangement1 7as ,mr4 ,scrivener phrases it71 by which the ,book of ,genesis1 instead of the ,gospel1 is appointed to be read7#ceg7 on the week days of ,lent1 is discovered to have been fully recognised in the time of ,chrysostom4 ,accordingly1 the two series of ,homilies on the ,book of ,genesis which that ,father preached1 he preached in ,lent47#ceh7 7e7 ,it will be seen in the next chapter that it was from a very remote period the practice of the ,eastern ,church to introduce into the lesson for ,thursday in ,holy-week1 ,s4 ,luke's account 7ch4 xxii4 #dc1 #dd7 of our ,,lord',s 8,agony and bloody ,sweat10 immediately after ,s4 ,matth4 xxvi4 #ci4 ,that is1 no doubt1 the reason why ,chrysostom1--who has been suspected1 7,i think unreasonably17 of employing an ,evangelistarium instead of a copy of the ,gospels in the preparation of his ,homilies1 is observed to quote those same two verses in that very place in his ,homily on ,s4 ,matthew27#cei7 which shews that the ,lectionary system of the ,eastern ,church in this respect is at least as old as the ivth century4 7f7 ,the same two verses used to be left out on the ,tuesday after ,sexagesima 7 7 for which day ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #ci-xxiii4 #a1 is the appointed lection4 ,and this explains why ,cyril 7,a4,d4 #dbe7 in his ,homilies on ,s4 ,luke1 passes them by in silence47#cfj7 ,but we can carry back the witness to the ,lectionary practice of omitting these verses1 at least a hundred years2 for ,cod4 ,b1 7evidently for that same reason17 also omits them1 as was stated above1 in p4 #gi4 ,they are wanting also in the ,thebaic version1 which is of the iiird century4 7g7 ,it will be found suggested in the next chapter 7page #bah7 that the piercing of our ,,lord',s side1 7,s4 ,john xix4 #cd71--thrust into ,codd4 ,b and immediately after ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #di1--;is probably indebted for its place in those two ,,mss4 to the ,eastern ,lectionary practice4 ,if this suggestion be well founded1 a fresh proof is obtained that the ,lectionary of the ,east was fully established in the beginning of the ivth century4 ,but see ,appendix 7,h74 7h7 ,it is a remarkable note of the antiquity of that ,oriental ,lectionary system with which we are acquainted1 that ,s4 ,matthew's account of the ,passion 7ch4 xxvii4 #a-fa17 should be there appointed to be read alone on the evening of ,good ,friday4 ,chrysostom clearly alludes to this practice27#cfa7 which ,augustine expressly states was also the practice in his own day47#cfb7 ,traces of the same method are discoverable in the old ,gallican ,lectionary47#cfc7 7i7 ,epiphanius1 7or the namesake of his who was the author of a well-known ,homily on ,palm ,sunday17 remarks that 8yesterday0 had been read the history of the rising of ,lazarus47#cfd7 ,now ,s4 ,john xi4 #a-de is the lection for the antecedent ,sabbath1 in all the ,lectionaries4 7k7 ,in conclusion1 ,i may be allowed so far to anticipate what will be found fully established in the next chapter1 as to point out here that since in countless places the text of our oldest ,evangelia as well as the readings of the primitive ,fathers exhibit unmistakable traces of the corrupting influence of the ,lectionary practice1 that very fact becomes irrefragable evidence of the antiquity of the ,lectionary which is the occasion of it4 ,not only must it be more ancient than ,cod4 ,b or ,cod4 1 7which are referred to the beginning of the ivth century71 but it must be older than ,origen in the iiird century1 or the ,vetus ,itala and the ,syriac in the iind4 ,and thus it is demonstrated1 7#ast7 ,that fixed ,lessons were read in the ,churches of the ,east in the immediately post-,apostolic age2 and 7#bndly7 ,that1 wherever we are able to test it1 the ,lectionary of that remote period corresponded with the ,lectionary which has come down to us in documents of the vith and viith century1 and was in fact constructed in precisely the same way4 ,i am content in fact to dismiss the preceding instances with this general remark3--that a ,system which is found to have been fully recognised throughout the ,east and throughout the ,west in the beginning of the fourth century1 must of necessity have been established very long before4 ,it is as when we read of three ,british ,bishops attending the ,council at ,arles1 ,a4,d4 #cad4 ,the ,church 7we say7 which could send out those three ,bishops must have been fully organized at a greatly antecedent period4 #d4 ,let us attend1 however1 to the great ,festivals of the ,church4 ,these are declared by ,chrysostom 7in a ,homily delivered at ,antioch #bj ,dec4 ,a4,d4 #chf7 to be the five following3--7#a7 ,nativity3 7#b7 the ,theophania3 7#c7 ,pascha3 7#d7 ,ascension3 7#e7 ,pentecost47#cfe7 ,epiphanius1 his contemporary1 7,bishop of ,constantia in the island of ,cyprus17 makes the same enumeration17#cff7 in a ,homily on the ,ascension47#cfg7 ,in the ,apostolical ,constitutions1 the same five ,festivals are enumerated47#cfh7 ,let me state a few ,liturgical facts in connexion with each of these4 ,it is plain that the preceding enumeration could not have been made at any earlier period3 for the ,epiphany of our ,,saviour and ,his ,nativity were originally but one ,festival47#cfi7 ,moreover1 the circumstances are well known under which ,chrysostom 7,a4,d4 #chf7 announced to his ,eastern auditory that in conformity with what had been correctly ascertained at ,rome1 the ancient ,festival was henceforth to be disintegrated47#cgj7 ,but this is not material to the present inquiry4 ,we know that1 as a matter of fact1 8the ,epiphanies0 7for is the name of the ,festival7 became in consequence distributed over ,dec4 #be and ,jan4 #e3 our ,,lord',s ,baptism being the event chiefly commemorated on the latter anniversary17#cga7--which used to be chiefly observed in honour of ,his ,birth7#cgb7--;,concerning the ,lessons for ,passion-tide and ,easter1 as well as concerning those for the ,nativity and ,epiphany1 something has been offered already2 to which may be added that ,hesychius1 in the opening sentences of that 8,homily0 which has already engaged so much of our attention17#cgc7 testifies that the conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel was in his days1 as it has been ever since1 one of the lections for ,easter4 ,he begins by saying that the ,evangelical narratives of the ,resurrection were read on the ,sunday night2 and proceeds to reconcile ,s4 ,mark's with the rest4--,chrysostom once and again adverts to the practice of discontinuing the reading of the ,acts after ,pentecost17#cgd7--which is observed to be also the method of the ,lectionaries4 ,,iii4 ,i speak separately of the ,festival of the ,ascension1 for an obvious reason4 ,it ranked1 as we have seen1 in the estimation of ,primitive ,christendom1 with the greatest ,festivals of the ,church4 ,augustine1 in a well-known passage1 hints that it may have been of ,apostolical origin27#cge7 so exceedingly remote was its institution accounted in the days of the great ,african ,father1 as well as so entirely forgotten by that time was its first beginning4 ,i have to shew that in the ,great ,oriental ,lectionary 7whether of the ,greek or of the ,syrian ,church7 the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel occupy a conspicuous as well as a most honourable place4 ,and this is easily done3 for1 7a7 ,the ,lesson for ,matins on ,ascension-,day in the ,east1 in the oldest documents to which we have access1 consisted 7as now it does7 of the last ,twelve ,verses1--neither more nor less1--of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,at the ,liturgy on ,ascension was read ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #cf-ec3 but at ,matins1 ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj4 ,the witness of the 8,synaxaria0 is constant to this effect4 7b7 ,the same lection precisely was adopted among the ,syrians by the ,melchite ,churches17#cgf7--7the party1 viz4 which maintained the decrees of the ,council of ,chalcedon73 and it is found appointed also in the 8,evangeliarium ,hierosolymitanum407#cgg7 ,in the ,evangelistarium used in the ,jacobite1 7i4e4 the ,monophysite7 ,churches of ,syria1 a striking difference of arrangement is discoverable4 ,while ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #cf-ec was read at ,vespers and at ,matins on ,ascension ,day1 the last seven verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel 7ch4 xvi4 #ad-bj7 were read at the ,liturgy47#cgh7 ,strange1 that the self-same ,gospel should have been adopted at a remote age by some of the ,churches of the ,west17#cgi7 and should survive in our own ,book of ,common ,prayer to this hour6 7c7 ,but ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj was not only appointed by the ,greek ,church to be read upon ,ascension ,day4 ,those same twelve verses constitute the third of the xi 8,matin ,gospels of the ,resurrection0 which were universally held in high esteem by the ,eastern ,churches 7,greek and ,syrian7#chj771 and were read successively on ,sundays at ,matins throughout the year2 as well as daily throughout ,easter week4 7d7 ,a rubricated copy of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel in ,syriac17#cha7 certainly older than ,a4,d4 #ehc1 attests that ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj was the 8,lection for the great ,first ,day of the week10 7 1 i4e4 ,easter ,day74 ,other copies almost as ancient7#chb7 add that it was used 8at the end of the ,service at the dawn40 7e7 ,further1 these same 8,twelve ,verses0 constituted the ,lesson at ,matins for the #bnd ,sunday after ,easter1--a ,sunday which by the ,greeks is called 1 but with the ,syrians bore the names of 8,joseph and ,nicodemus407#chc7 ,so also in the 8,evangeliarium ,hierosolymitanum40 7f7 ,next1 in the ,monophysite ,churches of ,syria1 ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-ah 7or #i-bj7chd77 was also read at ,matins on ,easter-,tuesday47#che7 ,in the ,gallican ,church1 the third lection for ,easter-,monday extended from ,s4 ,mark xv4 #dg to xvi4 #aa3 for ,easter-,tuesday1 from xvi4 #ab to the end of the ,gospel47#chf7 ,augustine says that in ,africa also these concluding verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel used to be publicly read at ,easter tide47#chg7 ,the same verses 7beginning with ver4 #i7 are indicated in the oldest extant ,lectionary of the ,roman ,church47#chh7 7g7 ,lastly1 it may be stated that ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj was with the ,greeks the ,gospel for the ,festival of ,s4 ,mary ,magdalene 7 71 ,july #bb47chi7 ,he knows wondrous little about this department of ,sacred ,science who can require to be informed that such a weight of public testimony as this to the last ,twelve ,verses of a ,gospel is simply overwhelming4 ,the single discovery that in the age of ,augustine #che-dcj this portion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel was unquestionably read at ,easter in the ,churches of ,africa1 added to the express testimony of the ,author of the #bnd ,homily on the ,resurrection1 and of the oldest ,syriac ,,mss41 that they were also read by the ,orientals at ,easter in the public services of the ,church1 must be held to be in a manner decisive of the question4 ,let the evidence1 then1 which is borne by ,ecclesiastical usage to the genuineness of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 be summed up1 and the entire case caused again to pass under review4 7#a47 ,that ,lessons from the ,new ,testament were publicly read in the assemblies of the faithful according to a definite scheme1 and on an established system1 at least as early as the fourth century1--has been shewn to be a plain historical fact4 ,cyril1 at ,jerusalem1--7and by implication1 his namesake at ,alexandria17--,chrysostom1 at ,antioch and at ,constantinople1--,augustine1 in ,africa1--all four expressly witness to the circumstance4 ,in other words1 there is found to have been at least at that time fully established throughout the ,churches of ,christendom a ,lectionary1 which seems to have been essentially one and the same in the ,west7#cij7 and in the ,east4 ,that it must have been of even ,apostolic antiquity may be inferred from several considerations4 ,but that it dates its beginning from a period anterior to the age of ,eusebius1--which is the age of ,codices ,b and 1--at least admits of no controversy4 7#b47 ,next1--,documents of the vith century put us in possession of the great ,oriental ,lectionary as it is found at that time to have universally prevailed throughout the vast unchanging ,east4 ,in other words1 several of the actual ,service ,books1 in ,greek and in ,syriac17#cia7 have survived the accidents of full a thousand years3 and rubricated copies of the ,gospels carry us back three centuries further4 ,the entire agreement which is observed to prevail among these several documents1--added to the fact that when tested by the allusions incidentally made by ,greek ,fathers of the ivth century to what was the ,ecclesiastical practice of their own time1 there are found to emerge countless as well as highly significant notes of correspondence1--warrants us in believing1 7in the absence of testimony of any sort to the contrary17 that the ,lectionary we speak of differs in no essential respect from that system of ,lections with which the ,church of the ivth century was universally acquainted4 ,nothing scarcely is more forcibly impressed upon us in the course of the present inquiry than the fact1 that documents alone are wanting to make that altogether demonstrable which1 in default of such evidence1 must remain a matter of inevitable inference only4 ,the forms we are pursuing at last disappear from our sight3 but it is only the mist of the early morning which shrouds them4 ,we still hear their voices3 still track their footsteps3 know that others still see them1 although we ourselves see them no longer4 ,we are sure that there they still are4 ,moreover they may yet reappear at any moment4 ,thus1 there exist ,syriac ,,mss4 of the ,gospels of the viith and even of the vith century1 in which the ,lessons are rubricated in the text or on the margin4 ,a ,syriac ,,ms4 7of part of the ,old ,t47 is actually dated ,a4,d4 #dfd47cib7 ,should an ,evangelium of similar date ever come to light of which the rubrication was evidently by the original ,scribe1 the evidence of the ,lectionaries would at once be carried back full three hundred years4 ,but in fact we stand in need of no such testimony4 ,acceptable as it would be1 it is plain that it would add no strength to the argument whatever4 ,we are already able to plant our footsteps securely in the ivth and even in the iiird century4 ,it is not enough to insist that inasmuch as the ,liturgical method of ,christendom was at least fully established in the ,east and in the ,west at the close of the ivth century1 it therefore must have had its beginning at a far remoter period4 ,our two oldest ,codices 7,b and 7 bear witness throughout to the corrupting influence of a system which was evidently in full operation before the time of ,eusebius4 ,and even this is not all4 ,the readings in ,origen1 and of the earliest versions of the ,gospel1 7the old ,latin1 the ,syriac1 the ,egyptian versions17 carry back our evidence on this subject unmistakably to the age immediately succeeding that of the ,apostles4 ,this will be found established in the course of the ensuing ,chapter4 ,beginning our survey of the problem at the opposite end1 we arrive at the same result2 with even a deepened conviction that in its essential structure1 the ,lectionary of the ,eastern ,church must be of truly primitive antiquity3 indeed that many of its leading provisions must date back almost1--nay quite1--to the ,apostolic age4 ,from whichever side we approach this question1--whatever test we are able to apply to our premisses1--our conclusion remains still the very same4 7#c47 ,into this ,lectionary then1--so universal in its extent1 so consistent in its witness1 so ,apostolic in its antiquity1--8the ,,last ,,twelve ,,verses of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark0 from the very first are found to have won for themselves not only an entrance1 a lodgment1 an established place2 but1 the place of highest honour1--an audience on two of the ,church's chiefest ,festivals4 ,the circumstance is far too important1 far too significant to be passed by without a few words of comment4 ,for it is not here1 7be it carefully observed17 as when we appeal to some ,patristic citation1 that the recognition of a phrase1 or a verse1 or a couple of verses1 must be accepted as a proof that the same ancient ,father recognised the context also in which those words are found4 ,not so4 ,all the ,twelve ,verses in dispute are found in every known copy of the venerable ,lectionary of the ,east4 ,those same ,twelve ,verses1--neither more nor less1--are observed to constitute one integral ,lection4 ,but even this is not all4 ,the most important fact seems to be that to these ,verses has been assigned a place of the highest possible distinction4 ,it is found that1 from the very first1 ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj has been everywhere1 and by all branches of the ,church ,catholic1 claimed for two of the ,church's greatest ,festivals1--,easter and ,ascension4 ,a more weighty or a more significant circumstance can scarcely be imagined4 ,to suppose that a portion of ,scripture singled out for such extraordinary honour by the ,church universal is a spurious addition to the ,gospel1 is purely irrational2 is simply monstrous4 ,no unauthorized 8fragment10 however 8remarkable10 could by possibility have so established itself in the regards of the ,east and of the ,west1 from the very first4 ,no suspected 8addition1 placed here in very early times10 would have been tolerated in the ,church's solemn public ,service six or seven times a-year4 ,no4 ,it is impossible4 ,had it been one short clause which we were invited to surrender3 a verse3 two verses3 even three or four3--the plea being that 7as in the case of the celebrated pericopa de adulter7 the ,lectionaries knew nothing of them3--the case would have been entirely different4 ,but for any one to seek to persuade us that these ,twelve ,verses1 which exactly constitute one of the ,church's most famous ,lections1 are every one of them spurious3--that the fatal taint begins with the first verse1 and only ends with the last3--this is a demand on our simplicity which1 in a less solemn subject1 would only provoke a smile4 ,we are constrained to testify astonishment and even some measure of concern4 ,have the ,critics then1 7supposing them to be familiar with the evidence which has now been set forth so much in detail27--,have the ,critics then1 7we ask7 utterly taken leave of their senses8 or do they really suppose that we have taken leave of ours8 ,it is time to close this discussion4 ,it was declared at the outset that the witness of the ,lectionaries to the genuineness of these ,verses1 though it has been generally overlooked1 is the most important of any3 admitting1 as it does1 of no evasion3 being simply1 as it is1 decisive4 ,i have now fully explained the grounds of that assertion4 ,i have set the ,verses1 which ,i undertook to vindicate and establish1 on a basis from which it will be found impossible any more to dislodge them4 ,whatever ,griesbach1 and ,tischendorf1 and ,tregelles1 and the rest1 may think about the matter1--the ,holy ,eastern ,church in her corporate capacity1 has never been of their opinion4 ,they may doubt4 ,the ante-,nicene ,fathers at least never doubted4 ,if 8the last ,twelve ,verses0 of ,s4 ,mark were deservedly omitted from certain ,copies of his ,gospel in the ivth century1 utterly incredible is it that these same ,,twelve ,,verses should have been disseminated1 by their authority1 throughout ,christendom2--read1 by their command1 in all the ,churches2--selected1 by their collective judgment1 from the whole body of ,scripture for the special honour of being listened to once and again at ,,easter time1 as well as on ,,ascension-,,day4 ,,chapter ,,xi4 ,,the ,,omission ,,of ,,these ,,twelve ,,verses ,,in ,,certain ,,ancient ,,copies ,,of ,,the ,,gospels1 ,,explained ,,and ,,accounted ,,for4 ,the ,text of our five oldest ,uncials proved1 by an induction of instances1 to have suffered depravation throughout by the operation of the ancient ,lectionary system of the ,church 7p4 #bag74--,the omission of ,s4 ,mark's 8last ,twelve ,verses10 7constituting an integral ,ecclesiastical ,lection17 shewn to be probably only one more example of the same depraving influence 7p4 #bbd74 ,this solution of the problem corroborated by the language of ,eusebius and of ,hesychius 7p4 #bcb72 as well as favoured by the 8,western0 order of the ,gospels 7p4 #bci74 ,i am much mistaken if the suggestion which ,i am about to offer has not already presented itself to every reader of ordinary intelligence who has taken the trouble to follow the course of my argument thus far with attention4 ,it requires no acuteness whatever1--it is1 as it seems to me1 the merest instinct of mother-wit1--on reaching the present stage of the discussion1 to debate with oneself somewhat as follows3-- #a4 ,so then1 the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel were anciently often observed to be missing from the copies4 ,eusebius expressly says so4 ,i observe that he nowhere says that their genuineness was anciently suspected4 ,as for himself1 his elaborate discussion of their contents convinces me that individually1 he regarded them with favour4 ,the mere fact1--7it is best to keep to his actual statement17--that 8the entire passage07#cic7 was 8not met with in all the copies10 is the sum of his evidence3 and two ,greek manuscripts1 yet extant1 supposed to be of the ivth century 7,codd4 ,b and 71 mutilated in this precise way1 testify to the truth of his statement4 #b4 ,but then it is found that these self-same ,twelve ,verses1--neither more nor less1--anciently constituted an integral ,ecclesiastical ,lection2 which lection1--inasmuch as it is found to have established itself in every part of ,christendom at the earliest period to which liturgical evidence reaches back1 and to have been assigned from the very first to two of the chiefest ,church ,festivals1--must needs be a lection of almost ,apostolic antiquity4 ,eusebius1 ,i observe1 7see p4 #de71 designates the portion of ,scripture in dispute by its technical name1-- or 2 7for so an ,ecclesiastical lection was anciently called74 ,here then is a rare coincidence indeed4 ,it is in fact simply unique4 ,surely1 ,i may add that it is in the highest degree suggestive also4 ,it inevitably provokes the inquiry1--,must not these two facts be not only connected1 but even interdependent8 ,will not the omission of the ,twelve concluding ,verses of ,s4 ,mark from certain ancient copies of his ,gospel1 have been in some way occasioned by the fact that those same twelve verses constituted an integral ,church ,lection8 ,how is it possible to avoid suspecting that the phenomenon to which ,eusebius invites attention1 7viz4 that certain copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel in very ancient times had been mutilated from the end of the #hth verse onwards17 ought to be capable of illustration1--will have in fact to be explained1 and in a word accounted for1--by the circumstance that at the #hth verse of ,s4 ,mark's xvith chapter1 one ancient ,lection came to an end1 and another ancient ,lection began8 ,somewhat thus1 7,i venture to think17 must every unprejudiced ,reader of intelligence hold parley with himself on reaching the close of the preceding chapter4 ,i need hardly add that ,i am thoroughly convinced he would be reasoning rightly4 ,i am going to shew that the ,lectionary practice of the ancient ,church does indeed furnish a sufficient clue for the unravelment of this now famous problem3 in other words1 enables us satisfactorily to account for the omission of these ,twelve ,verses from ancient copies of the collected ,gospels4 ,but ,i mean to do more4 ,i propose to make my appeal to documents which shall be observed to bear no faltering witness in my favour4 ,more yet4 ,i propose that ,eusebius himself1 the chief author of all this trouble1 shall be brought back into ,court and invited to resyllable his ,evidence2 and ,i am much mistaken if even he will not be observed to let fall a hint that we have at last got on the right scent2--have accurately divined how this mistake took its first beginning2--and1 7what is not least to the purpose17 have correctly apprehended what was his own real meaning in what he himself has said4 ,the proposed solution of the difficulty1--if not the evidence on which it immediately rests1--might no doubt be exhibited within exceedingly narrow limits4 ,set down abruptly1 however1 its weight and value would inevitably fail to be recognised1 even by those who already enjoy some familiarity with these studies4 ,very few of the considerations which ,i shall have to rehearse are in fact unknown to ,critics3 yet is it evident that their bearing on the problem before us has hitherto altogether escaped their notice4 ,on the other hand1 by one entirely a novice to this department of sacred ,science1 ,i could scarcely hope to be so much as understood4 ,let me be allowed1 therefore1 to preface what ,i have to say with a few explanatory details which ,i promise shall not be tedious1 and which ,i trust will not be found altogether without interest either4 ,if they are anywhere else to be met with1 it is my misfortune1 not my fault1 that ,i have been hitherto unsuccessful in discovering the place4 ,i4 ,from the earliest ages of the ,church1 7as ,i shewed at page #aib-e17 it has been customary to read certain definite portions of ,holy ,scripture1 determined by ,ecclesiastical authority1 publicly before the ,congregation4 ,in process of time1 as was natural1 the sections so required for public use were collected into separate volumes3 ,lections from the ,gospels being written out in a ,book which was called 8,evangelistarium10 717--from the ,acts and ,epistles1 in a book called 8,praxapostolus10 774 ,these ,lectionary-books1 both ,greek and ,syriac1 are yet extant in great numbers17#cid7 and 7,i may remark in passing7 deserve a far greater amount of attention than has hitherto been bestowed upon them47#cie7 ,when the ,lectionary first took the form of a separate book1 has not been ascertained4 ,that no copy is known to exist 7whether in ,greek or in ,syriac7 older than the viiith century1 proves nothing4 ,codices in daily use1 7like the ,bibles used in our ,churches17 must of necessity have been of exceptionally brief duration2 and ,lectionaries1 more even than ,biblical ,,mss4 were liable to injury and decay4 ,,ii4 ,but it is to be observed1--7and to explain this1 is much more to my present purpose17--that besides transcribing the ,ecclesiastical lections into separate books1 it became the practice at a very early period to adapt copies of the ,gospel to lectionary purposes4 ,i suspect that this practice began in the ,churches of ,syria2 for ,syriac copies of the ,gospels 7at least of the viith century7 abound1 which have the ,lections more or less systematically rubricated in the ,text47#cif7 ,there is in the ,british ,museum a copy of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel according to the ,peshito version1 certainly written previous to ,a4,d4 #ehc1 which has at least five or six rubrics so inserted by the original scribe47#cig7 ,as a rule1 in all later cursive ,greek ,,mss41 7,i mean those of the xiith to the xvth century17 the ,ecclesiastical lections are indicated throughout3 while either at the summit1 or else at the foot of the page1 the formula with which the ,lection was to be introduced is elaborately inserted2 prefaced probably by a rubricated statement 7not always very easy to decipher7 of the occasion when the ensuing portion of ,scripture was to be read4 ,the ancients1 to a far greater extent than ourselves17#cih7 were accustomed1--7in fact1 they made it a rule17--to prefix unauthorized formul to their public ,lections2 and these are sometimes found to have established themselves so firmly1 that at last they became as it were ineradicable2 and later copyists of the fourfold ,gospel are observed to introduce them unsuspiciously into the inspired text47#cii7 ,all that belongs to this subject deserves particular attention2 because it is this which explains not a few of the perturbations 7so to express oneself7 which the text of the ,new ,testament has experienced4 ,we are made to understand how1 what was originally intended only as a liturgical note1 became mistaken1 through the inadvertence or the stupidity of copyists1 for a critical suggestion2 and thus1 besides transpositions without number1 there has arisen1 at one time1 the insertion of something unauthorized into the text of ,scripture1--at another1 the omission of certain inspired words1 to the manifest detriment of the sacred deposit4 ,for although the systematic rubrication of the ,gospels for liturgical purposes is a comparatively recent invention1--7,i question if it be older in ,greek ,,mss4 than the xth century17--yet will persons engaged in the public ,services of ,,god',s ,house have been prone1 from the very earliest age1 to insert memoranda of the kind referred to1 into the margin of their copies4 ,in this way1 in fact1 it may be regarded as certain that in countless minute particulars the text of ,scripture has been depraved4 ,let me not fail to add1 that by a judicious1 and above all by an unprejudiced use of the materials at our disposal1 it may1 even at this distance of time1 in every such particular1 be successfully restored47#djj7 ,,iii4 ,i now proceed to shew1 by an induction of instances1 that even in the oldest copies in existence1 ,i mean in ,codd4 ,b1 1 ,a1 ,c1 and ,d1 the ,lectionary system of the early ,church has left abiding traces of its operation4 ,when a few such undeniable cases have been adduced1 all objections grounded on prim facie improbability will have been satisfactorily disposed of4 ,the activity1 as well as the existence of such a disturbing force and depraving influence1 at least as far back as the beginning of the ivth century1 7but it is in fact more ancient by full two hundred years17 will have been established3 of which ,i shall only have to shew1 in conclusion1 that the omission of 8the last ,twelve ,verses0 of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is probably but one more instance1--though confessedly by far the most extraordinary of any4 7#a47 ,from ,codex ,b then1 as well as from ,cod4 ,a1 the two grand verses which describe our ,,lord',s 8,agony and ,bloody ,sweat10 7,s4 ,luke xxii4 #dc1 #dd17 are missing4 ,the same two verses are absent also from a few other important ,,mss41 as well as from both the ,egyptian versions2 but ,i desire to fasten attention on the confessedly erring testimony in this place of ,codex ,b4 8,confessedly erring10 ,i say2 for the genuineness of those two verses is no longer disputed4 ,now1 in every known ,evangelistarium1 the two verses here omitted by ,cod4 ,b follow1 7the ,church so willed it17 ,s4 ,matth4 xxvi4 #ci1 and are read as a regular part of the lesson for the ,thursday in ,holy ,week47#dja7 ,of course they are also omitted in the same ,evangelistaria from the lesson for the ,tuesday after ,sexagesima1 7 1 as the ,easterns call that day17 when ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #ci-xxiii4 #a used to be read4 ,moreover1 in all ancient copies of the ,gospels which have been accommodated to ecclesiastical use1 the reader of ,s4 ,luke xxii4 is invariably directed by a marginal note to leave out those two verses1 and to proceed per saltum from ver4 #db to ver4 #de47djb7 ,what more obvious therefore than that the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in ,s4 ,luke's ,gospel is to be attributed to nothing else but the ,lectionary practice of the primitive ,church8 ,quite unreasonable is it to impute heretical motives1 or to invent any other unsupported theory1 while this plain solution of the difficulty is at hand4 7#b47 ,the same ,cod4 ,b41 7with which ,codd4 1 ,c1 ,l1 ,u and are observed here to conspire17 introduces the piercing of the ,,saviour',s side 7,s4 ,john xix4 #cd7 at the end of ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #di4 ,now1 ,i only do not insist that this must needs be the result of the singular ,lectionary practice already described at p4 #bjb1 because a scholion in ,cod4 #gb records the singular fact that in the ,diatessaron of ,tatian1 after ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #dh1 was read 3 4 7,chrysostom's codex was evidently vitiated in precisely the same way47 ,this interpolation therefore may have resulted from the corrupting influence of ,tatian's 7so-called7 8,harmony40 ,see ,appendix 7,h74 7#c47 ,to keep on safe ground4 ,codd4 ,b and ,d concur in what ,alford justly calls the 8grave error0 of simply omitting from ,s4 ,luke xxiii4 #cd1 our ,,lord',s supplication on behalf of ,his murderers1 7 1 1 3 74 ,they are not quite singular in so doing2 being1 as usual1 kept in countenance by certain copies of the old ,latin1 as well as by both the ,egyptian versions4 ,how is this 8grave error0 in so many ancient ,,mss4 to be accounted for8 7for a 8grave error0 or rather 8a fatal omission0 it certainly is74 ,simply by the fact that in the ,eastern ,church the ,lection for the ,thursday after ,sexagesima breaks off abruptly1 immediately before these very words1--to recommence at ver4 #dd47djc7 7#d47 ,note1 that at ver4 #cb1 the eighth 8,gospel of the ,passion0 begins1--which is the reason why ,codd4 ,b and 7with the ,egyptian versions7 exhibit a singular irregularity in that place2 and why the ,jerusalem ,syriac introduces the established formula of the ,lectionaries 7 7 at the same juncture4 7,if ,i do not here insist that the absence of the famous pericopa de adulter 7,s4 ,john vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa17 from so many ,,mss41 is to be explained in precisely the same way1 it is only because the genuineness of that portion of the ,gospel is generally denied2 and ,i propose1 in this enumeration of instances1 not to set foot on disputed ground4 ,i am convinced1 nevertheless1 that the first occasion of the omission of those memorable verses was the lectionary practice of the primitive ,church1 which1 on ,whitsunday1 read from ,s4 ,john vii4 #cg to viii4 #ab1 leaving out the twelve verses in question4 ,those verses1 from the nature of their contents1 7as ,augustine declares17 easily came to be viewed with dislike or suspicion4 ,the passage1 however1 is as old as the second century1 for it is found in certain copies of the old ,latin4 ,moreover ,jerome deliberately gave it a place in the ,vulgate4 ,i pass on47 7#e47 ,the two oldest ,codices in existence1--,b and 1--stand all but alone in omitting from ,s4 ,luke vi4 #a the unique and indubitably genuine word 2 which is also omitted by the ,peshito1 ,italic and ,coptic versions4 ,and yet1 when it is observed that an ,ecclesiastical lection begins here1 and that the ,evangelistaria 7which invariably leave out such notes of time7 simply drop the word1--only substituting for the more familiar 1--every one will be ready to admit that if the omission of this word be not due to the inattention of the copyist1 7which1 however1 seems to me not at all unlikely17#djd77 it is sufficiently explained by the ,lectionary practice of the ,church1--which may well date back even to the immediately post-,apostolic age4 7#f47 ,in ,s4 ,luke xvi4 #ai1 ,cod4 ,d introduces the ,parable of ,lazarus with the formula1-- 2 which is nothing else but a marginal note which has found its way into the text from the margin2 being the liturgical introduction of a ,church-lesson7#dje7 which afterwards began 47#djf7 7#g47 ,in like manner1 the same ,codex makes ,s4 ,john xiv4 begin with the liturgical formula1--7it survives in our ,book of ,common ,prayer7#djg7 to this very hour67-- 3 in which it is countenanced by certain ,,mss4 of the ,vulgate and of the old ,latin ,version4 ,indeed1 it may be stated generally concerning the text of ,cod4 ,d1 that it bears marks throughout of the depraving influence of the ancient ,lectionary practice4 ,instances of this1 7in addition to those elsewhere cited in these pages17 will be discovered in ,s4 ,luke iii4 #bc3 iv4 #af 7and xix4 #de73 v4 #a and #ag3 vi4 #cg 7and xviii4 #ae73 vii4 #a3 x4 #a and #be3 xx4 #a3 in all but three of which1 ,cod4 ,d is kept in countenance by the old ,latin1 often by the ,syriac1 and by other versions of the greatest antiquity4 ,but to proceed4 7#h47 ,cod4 ,a1 7supported by ,athanasius1 the ,vulgate1 ,gothic1 and ,philoxenian versions17 for 1 in ,s4 ,luke ix4 #eg1 reads 1--which is the reading of the ,textus ,receptus4 ,cod4 ,d1 7with some copies of the old ,latin17 exhibits 4 ,all the diversity which is observable in this place1 7and it is considerable17 is owing to the fact that an ,ecclesiastical lection begins here47#djh7 ,in different ,churches1 the formula with which the lection was introduced slightly differed4 7#i47 ,cod4 ,c is supported by ,chrysostom and ,jerome1 as well as by the ,peshito1 ,cureton's and the ,philoxenian ,syriac1 and some ,,mss4 of the old ,latin1 in reading at the beginning of ,s4 ,matth4 xi4 #bj4 ,that the words have no business there1 is universally admitted4 ,so also is the cause of their interpolation generally recognized4 ,the ,ecclesiastical lection for ,wednesday in the ivth week after ,pentecost begins at that place2 and begins with the formula1-- 1 4 7#aj47 ,similarly1 in ,s4 ,matth4 xii4 #i1 xiii4 #cf1 and xiv4 #ad1 ,cod4 ,c inserts 2 a reading which on all three occasions is countenanced by the ,syriac and some copies of the old ,latin1 and on the last of the three1 by ,origen also4 ,and yet there can be no doubt that it is only because ,ecclesiastical lections begin at those places17#dji7 that the ,holy ,name is introduced there4 7#aa47 ,let me add that the ,sacred ,name is confessedly an interpolation in the six places indicated at foot1--its presence being accounted for by the fact that1 in each1 an ,ecclesiastical lection begins47#daj7 ,cod4 ,d in one of these places1 ,cod4 ,a in four1 is kept in countenance by the old ,latin1 the ,syriac1 the ,coptic and other early versions2--convincing indications of the extent to which the ,lectionary practice of the ,church had established itself so early as the second century of our ra4 ,cod4 ,d1 and copies of the old ,latin and ,egyptian versions also read 1 7instead of 17 in ,s4 ,mark xiv4 #c2 which is only because a ,church lesson begins there4 7#ab47 ,the same ,cod4 ,d is all but unique in leaving out that memorable verse in ,s4 ,luke's ,gospel 7xxiv4 #ab71 in which ,s4 ,peter's visit to the ,sepulchre of our risen ,,lord finds particular mention4 ,it is only because that verse was claimed both as the conclusion of the ivth and also as the beginning of the vth ,gospel of the ,resurrection3 so that the liturgical note stands at the beginning1-- at the end of it4 ,accordingly1 ,d is kept in countenance here only by the ,jerusalem ,lectionary and some copies of the old ,latin4 ,but what is to be thought of the editorial judgment which 7with ,tregelles7 encloses this verse within brackets2 and 7with ,tischendorf7 rejects it from the text altogether8 7#ac47 ,codices ,b1 1 and ,d are alone among ,,mss4 in omitting the clause 3 1 at the end of the #eith verse of ,s4 ,john viii4 ,the omission is to be accounted for by the fact that just there the ,church-lesson for ,tuesday in the vth week after ,easter came to an end4 7#ad47 ,again4 ,it is not at all an unusual thing to find in cursive ,,mss41 at the end of ,s4 ,matth4 viii4 #ac1 7with several varieties71 the spurious and tasteless appendix1-- 3 a clause which owes its existence solely to the practice of ending the lection for the ivth ,sunday after ,pentecost in that unauthorized manner47#daa7 ,but it is not only in cursive ,,mss4 that these words are found4 ,they are met with also in the ,codex ,sinaiticus 773 a witness at once to the inveteracy of ,liturgical usage in the ivth century of our ra1 and to the corruptions which the 8,codex omnium antiquissimus0 will no doubt have inherited from a yet older copy than itself4 7#ae47 ,in conclusion1 ,i may remark generally that there occur instances1 again and again1 of perturbations of the ,text in our oldest ,,mss41 7corresponding sometimes with readings vouched for by the most ancient of the ,fathers17 which admit of no more intelligible or inoffensive solution than by referring them to the ,lectionary practice of the primitive ,church47#dab7 ,thus when instead of 7,s4 ,matth4 xx4 #ag71 ,cod4 ,b reads1 7and1 is almost unique in reading17 2 and when ,origen sometimes quotes the place in the same way1 but sometimes is observed to transpose the position of the ,holy ,name in the sentence2 when again six of ,matthaei's ,,mss41 7and ,origen once17 are observed to put the same ,name after 3 when1 lastly1 two of ,field's ,,mss417#dac7 and one of ,matthaei's1 7and ,i dare say a great many more1 if the truth were known17 omit the words entirely3--who sees not that the true disturbing force in this place1 from the iind century of our ra downwards1 has been the ,lectionary practice of the primitive ,church8--the fact that there the lection for the ,thursday after the viiith ,sunday after ,pentecost began8--,and this may suffice4 ,,iv4 ,it has been proved then1 in what goes before1 more effectually even than in a preceding page17#dad7 not only that ,ecclesiastical ,lections corresponding with those indicated in the 8,synaxaria0 were fully established in the immediately post-,apostolic age1 but also that at that early period the ,lectionary system of primitive ,christendom had already exercised a depraving influence of a peculiar kind on the text of ,scripture4 ,further yet1 7and this is the only point ,i am now concerned to establish71 that our five oldest ,copies of the ,gospels1--,b and as well as ,a1 ,c and ,d1--exhibit not a few traces of the mischievous agency alluded to2 errors1 and especially omissions1 which sometimes seriously affect the character of those ,codices as witnesses to the ,truth of ,scripture4--,i proceed now to consider the case of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj2 only prefacing my remarks with a few necessary words of explanation4 ,v4 ,he who takes into his hands an ordinary cursive ,,ms4 of the ,gospels1 is prepared to find the ,church-lessons regularly indicated throughout1 in the text or in the margin4 ,a familiar contraction1 executed probably in vermillion over 1 1 indicates the 8beginning0 77 of each lection3 a corresponding contraction 7 over 1 1 71 indicates its 8end0 747 ,generally1 these rubrical directions1 7for they are nothing else17 are inserted for convenience into the body of the text1--from which the red pigment with which they are almost invariably executed1 effectually distinguishes them4 ,but all these particulars gradually disappear as recourse is had to older and yet older ,,mss4 ,the studious in such matters have noticed that even the memorandums as to the 8beginning0 and the 8end0 of a lection are rare1 almost in proportion to the antiquity of a ,codex4 ,when they do occur in the later uncials1 they do not by any means always seem to have been the work of the original scribe2 neither has care been always taken to indicate them in ink of a different colour4 ,it will further be observed in such ,,mss4 that whereas the sign where the reader is to begin is generally--7in order the better to attract his attention17--inserted in the margin of the ,codex1 the note where he is to leave off1 7in order the more effectually to arrest his progress17 is as a rule introduced into the body of the text47#dae7 ,in uncial ,,mss41 however1 all such symbols are not only rare1 but 7what is much to be noted7 they are exceedingly irregular in their occurrence4 ,thus in ,codex 1 in the ,bodleian ,library1 7a recently acquired uncial ,,ms4 of the ,gospels1 written ,a4,d4 #hdd71 there occurs no indication of the 8end0 of a single lection in ,s4 ,luke's ,gospel1 until chap4 xvi4 #ca is reached2 after which1 the sign abounds4 ,in ,codex ,l1 the original notes of ,ecclesiastical ,lections occur at the following rare and irregular intervals3--,s4 ,mark ix4 #b3 x4 #df3 xii4 #dj 7where the sign has lost its way2 it should have stood against ver4 #dd73 xv4 #db and xvi4 #a47daf7 ,in the oldest uncials1 nothing of the kind is discoverable4 ,even in the ,codex ,bez1 7vith century17 not a single liturgical direction coeval with the ,,ms4 is anywhere to be found4 ,,vi4 ,and yet1 although the practice of thus indicating the beginning and the end of a liturgical section1 does not seem to have come into general use until about the xiith century2 and although1 previous to the ixth century1 systematic liturgical directions are probably unknown27#dag7 the need of them must have been experienced by one standing up to read before the congregation1 long before4 ,the want of some reminder where he was to begin1--above all1 of some hint where he was to leave off1--will have infallibly made itself felt from the first4 ,accordingly1 there are not wanting indications that1 occasionally1 7or 7 was written in the margin of ,copies of the ,gospels at an exceedingly remote epoch4 ,one memorable example of this practice is supplied by the ,codex ,bez 7,d73 where in ,s4 ,mark xiv4 #da1 instead of 1--we meet with the unintelligible 4 ,now1 nothing else has here happened but that a marginal note1 designed originally to indicate the end 7 7 of the lesson for the third day of the iind week of the ,carnival1 has lost its way from the end of ver4 #db1 and got thrust into the text of ver4 #da1--to the manifest destruction of the sense47#dah7 ,i find ,d's error here is shared 7a7 by the ,peshito ,syriac1 7b7 by the old ,latin1 and 7c7 by the ,philoxenian3 venerable partners in error1 truly6 for the first two probably carry back this false reading to the second century of our ra2 and so1 furnish one more remarkable proof1 to be added to the fifteen 7or rather the forty7 already enumerated 7pp4 #bag-bc71 that the lessons of the ,eastern ,church were settled at a period long anterior to the date of the oldest ,,ms4 of the ,gospels extant4 ,,vii4 ,returning then to the problem before us1 ,i venture to suggest as follows3--,what if1 at a very remote period1 this same isolated liturgical note 7 7 occurring at ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h1 7which is 8the end0 of the ,church-lection for the iind ,sunday after ,easter17 should have unhappily suggested to some copyist1-- quam vel ,critic ,sacr vel rerum ,liturgicarum peritior1--the notion that the entire 8,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark10 came to an end at verse #h8444 ,i see no more probable account of the matter1 ,i say1 than this3--,that the mutilation of the last chapter of ,s4 ,mark has resulted from the fact1 that some very ancient scribe misapprehended the import of the solitary liturgical note 7or 7 which he found at the close of verse #h4 ,true1 that he will have probably beheld1 further on1 several additional 4 ,but if he did1 how could he acknowledge the fact more loyally than by leaving 7as the author of ,cod4 ,b is observed to have done7 one entire column blank1 before proceeding with ,s4 ,luke8 ,he hesitated1 all the same1 to transcribe any further1 having before him1 7as he thought17 an assurance that 8,,the ,,end0 had been reached at ver4 #h4 ,,viii4 ,that some were found in very early times eagerly to acquiesce in this omission3 to sanction it3 even to multiply copies of the ,gospel so mutilated2 7critics or commentators intent on nothing so much as reconciling the apparent discrepancies in the ,evangelical narratives37--appears to me not at all unlikely47#dai7 ,eusebius almost says as much1 when he puts into the mouth of one who is for getting rid of these verses altogether1 the remark that 8they would be in a manner superfluous if it should appear that their testimony is at variance with that of the other ,evangelists407#dbj7 7,the ancients were giants in ,divinity but children in ,criticism47 ,on the other hand1 ,i altogether agree with ,dean ,alford in thinking it highly improbable that the difficulty of harmonizing one ,gospel with another in this place1 7such as it is17 was the cause why these ,twelve ,verses were originally suppressed47#dba7 7#a7 ,first1 because there really was no need to withhold more than three1--at the utmost1 five of them1--if this had been the reason of the omission4 7#b7 ,next1 because it would have been easier far to introduce some critical correction of any supposed discrepancy1 than to sweep away the whole of the unoffending context4 7#c7 ,lastly1 because nothing clearly was gained by causing the ,gospel to end so abruptly that every one must see at a glance that it had been mutilated4 ,no4 ,the omission having originated in a mistake1 was perpetuated for a brief period 7let us suppose7 only through infirmity of judgment3 or1 7as ,i prefer to believe71 only in consequence of the religious fidelity of copyists1 who were evidently always instructed to transcribe exactly what they found in the copy set before them4 ,the ,church meanwhile in her corporate capacity1 has never known anything at all of the matter1--as was fully shewn above in ,chap4 ,x4 ,,ix4 ,when this solution of the problem first occurred to me1 7and it occurred to me long before ,i was aware of the memorable reading in the ,codex ,bez1 already adverted to17 ,i reasoned with myself as follows3--,but if the mutilation of the second ,gospel came about in this particular way1 the ,,mss4 are bound to remember something of the circumstance2 and in ancient ,,mss41 if ,i am right1 ,i ought certainly to meet with some confirmation of my opinion4 ,according to my view1 at the root of this whole matter lies the fact that at ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h a well-known ,ecclesiastical lesson comes to an end4 ,is there not perhaps something exceptional in the way that the close of that liturgical section was anciently signified8 ,x4 ,in order to ascertain this1 ,i proceeded to inspect every copy of the ,gospels in the ,imperial ,library at ,paris27#dbb7 and devoted seventy hours exactly1 with unflagging delight1 to the task4 ,the success of the experiment astonished me4 #a4 ,i began with our ,cod4 #bd 7 ,reg4 #agh7 of the ,gospels3 turned to the last page of ,s4 ,mark3 and beheld1 in a ,codex of the xith ,century wholly devoid of the ,lectionary apparatus which is sometimes found in ,,mss4 of a similar date17#dbc7 at fol4 #ajd1 the word conspicuously written by the original scribe immediately after ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h1 as well as at the close of the ,gospel4 ,it occurred besides only at ch4 ix4 #i1 7the end of the lesson for the ,transfiguration47 ,and yet there are at least seventy occasions in the course of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel where1 in ,,mss4 which have been accommodated to ,church use1 it is usual to indicate the close of a ,lection4 ,this discovery1 which surprised me not a little1 convinced me that ,i was on the right scent2 and every hour ,i met with some fresh confirmation of the fact4 #b4 ,for the intelligent reader will readily understand that three such deliberate liturgical memoranda1 occurring solitary in a ,,ms4 of this date1 are to be accounted for only in one way4 ,they infallibly represent a corresponding peculiarity in some far more ancient document4 ,the fact that the word is here 7a7 set down unabbreviated1 7b7 in black ink1 and 7c7 as part of the text1--points unmistakably in the same direction4 ,but that ,cod4 #bd is derived from a ,codex of much older date is rendered certain by a circumstance which shall be specified at foot47#dbd7 #c4 ,the very same phenomena reappear in ,cod4 #cf47dbe7 ,the sign 1 7which occurs punctually at ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h and again at v4 #bj17 is found besides in ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel only at chap4 i4 #h27dbf7 at chap4 xiv4 #ca2 and 7 7 at chap4 xv4 #bd2--;being on every occasion incorporated with the ,text4 ,now1 when it is perceived that in the second and third of these places1 has clearly lost its way1--appearing where no ,ecclesiastical lection came to an end1--it will be felt that the ,,ms4 before us 7of the xith century7 if it was not actually transcribed from1--must at least exhibit at second hand1--a far more ancient ,codex47#dbg7 #d4 ,only once more4--,codex #bb 7 ,reg4 #gb7 was never prepared for ,church purposes4 ,a rough hand has indeed scrawled indications of the beginnings and endings of a few of the ,lessons1 here and there2 but these liturgical notes are no part of the original ,,ms4 ,at ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h1 however1 we are presented 7as before7 with the solitary note --1 incorporated with the text4 ,immediately after which1 7in writing of the same size17 comes a memorable statement7#dbh7 in red letters4 ,the whole stands thus3-- -- cross 4 3 4 -- 4 4 ,and then follows the rest of the ,gospel2 at the end of which1 the sign is again repeated1--which sign1 however1 occurs nowhere else in the ,,ms4 nor at the end of any of the other three ,gospels4 ,a more opportune piece of evidence could hardly have been invented4 ,a statement so apt and so significant was surely a thing rather to be wished than to be hoped for4 ,for here is the liturgical sign not only occurring in the wholly exceptional way of which we have already seen examples1 but actually followed by the admission that 8,in certain copies1 the ,evangelist proceeds no further40 ,the two circumstances so brought together seem exactly to bridge over the chasm between ,codd4 ,b and on the one hand1--and ,codd4 #bd and #cf on the other2 and to supply us with precisely the link of evidence which we require4 ,for observe3--,during the first six centuries of our ra1 no single instance is known of a codex in which is written at the end of a ,gospel4 ,the subscription of ,s4 ,mark for instance is invariably either 1--7as in ,b and 73 or else 1--7as in ,a and ,c1 and the other older uncials73 never 4 ,but here is a ,scribe who first copies the liturgical note 1--and then volunteers the critical observation that 8in some copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel the ,evangelist proceeds no further60 ,a more extraordinary corroboration of the view which ,i am endeavouring to recommend to the reader's acceptance1 ,i really cannot imagine4 ,why1 the ancient ,copyist actually comes back1 in order to assure me that the suggestion which ,i have been already offering in explanation of the difficulty1 is the true one6 #e4 ,i am not about to abuse the reader's patience with a prolonged enumeration of the many additional conspiring circumstances1--insignificant in themselves and confessedly unimportant when considered singly1 but of which the cumulative force is unquestionably great1--which an examination of #ii ,,mss4 of the ,gospels brought to light47#dbi7 ,enough has been said already to shew1 7#ast47 ,that it must have been a customary thing1 at a very remote age1 to write the word against ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h1 even when the same note was withheld from the close of almost every other ecclesiastical lection in the ,gospel4 7#bndly47 ,that this word1 or rather note1 which no doubt was originally written as a liturgical memorandum in the margin1 became at a very early period incorporated with the text2 where1 retaining neither its use nor its significancy1 it was liable to misconception1 and may have easily come to be fatally misunderstood4 ,and although these two facts certainly prove nothing in and by themselves1 yet1 when brought close alongside of the problem which has to be solved1 their significancy becomes immediately apparent3 for1 7#crdly47 ,as a matter of fact1 there are found to have existed before the time of ,eusebius1 copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel which did come to an end at this very place4 ,now1 that the ,evangelist left off there1 no one can believe47#dcj7 ,why1 then1 did the ,scribe leave off8 ,but the ,reader is already in possession of the reason why4 ,a sufficient explanation of the difficulty has been elicited from the very ,,mss4 themselves4 ,and surely when1 suspended to an old chest which has been locked up for ages1 a key is still hanging which fits the lock exactly and enables men to open the chest with ease1 they are at liberty to assume that the key belongs to the lock2 is1 in fact1 the only instrument by which the chest may lawfully be opened4 ,,xi4 ,and now1 in conclusion1 ,i propose that we summon back our original ,witness1 and invite him to syllable his evidence afresh1 in order that we may ascertain if perchance it affords any countenance whatever to the view which ,i have been advocating4 ,possible at least it is that in the ,patristic record that copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel were anciently defective from the #hth verse onwards some vestige may be discoverable of the forgotten truth4 ,now1 it has been already fully shewn that it is a mistake to introduce into this discussion any other name but that of ,eusebius47#dca7 ,do1 then1 the terms in which ,eusebius alludes to this matter lend us any assistance8 ,let us have the original indictment read over to us once more3 and this time we are bound to listen to every word of it with the utmost possible attention4 #a4 ,a problem is proposed for solution4 8,there are two ways of solving it10 7,eusebius begins73-- 1 3 444 1 8 1 40 7#dcb7 444 ,let us halt here for one moment4 #b4 ,surely1 a new and unexpected light already begins to dawn upon this subject6 ,how is it that we paid so little attention before to the terms in which this ancient ,father delivers his evidence1 that we overlooked the import of an expression of his which from the first must have struck us as peculiar1 but which now we perceive to be of paramount significancy8 ,eusebius is pointing out that one way for a man 7so minded7 to get rid of the apparent inconsistency between ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i and ,s4 ,matth4 xxviii4 #a1 would be for him to reject the entire 8,ecclesiastical ,lection07#dcc7 in which ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i occurs4 ,any one adopting this course1 7he proceeds2 and it is much to be noted that ,eusebius is throughout delivering the imaginary sentiments of another1--not his own37 ,such an one 7he says7 8will say that it is not met with in all the copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,the accurate copies1 at all events10--and then follows an expression in which this ancient ,critic is observed ingeniously to accommodate his language to the phenomenon which he has to describe1 so as covertly to insinuate something else4 ,eusebius employs an idiom 7it is found elsewhere in his writings7 sufficiently colourless to have hitherto failed to arouse attention2 but of which it is impossible to overlook the actual design and import1 after all that has gone before4 ,he clearly recognises the very phenomenon to which ,i have been calling attention within the last two pages1 and which ,i need not further insist upon or explain3 viz4 that the words were in some very ancient 78the accurate07 copies found written after 3 although to an unsuspicious reader the expression which he uses may well seem to denote nothing more than that the second ,gospel generally came to an end there4 #c4 ,and now it is time to direct attention to the important bearing of the foregoing remark on the main point at issue4 ,the true import of what ,eusebius has delivered1 and which has at last been ascertained1 will be observed really to set his evidence in a novel and unsuspected light4 ,from the days of ,jerome1 it has been customary to assume that ,eusebius roundly states that1 in his time almost all the ,greek copies were without our 8last ,twelve ,verses0 of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel37#dcd7 whereas ,eusebius really does nowhere say so4 ,he expresses himself enigmatically1 resorting to a somewhat unusual phrase7#dce7 which perhaps admits of no exact ,english counterpart3 but what he says clearly amounts to no more than this1--that 8the accurate copies1 at the words 1 circumscribe ,,the ,,end 7 7 of ,mark's narrative30 that there1 8in almost all the ,copies of the ,gospel according to ,mark1 is circumscribed ,,the ,,end40 ,he says no more4 ,he does not say that there 8is circumscribed the ,gospel40 ,as for the twelve verses which follow1 he merely declares that they were 8not met with in all the copies20 i4e4 that some copies did not contain them4 ,but this1 so far from being a startling statement1 is no more than what ,codd4 ,b and in themselves are sufficient to establish4 ,in other words1 ,eusebius1 7whose testimony on this subject as it is commonly understood is so extravagant see above1 p4 #dh-i1 as to carry with it its own sufficient refutation17 is found to bear consistent testimony to the two following modest propositions2 which1 however1 are not adduced by him as reasons for rejecting ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 but only as samples of what might be urged by one desirous of shelving a difficulty suggested by their contents2-- 7#ast47 ,that from some ancient copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel these last ,twelve ,verses were away4 7#bnd47 ,that in almost all the copies1--7whether mutilated or not1 he does not state17--the words were found immediately after ver4 #h2 which1 7he seems to hint17 let those who please accept as evidence that there also is the end of the ,gospel4 #d4 ,but ,i cannot dismiss the testimony of ,eusebius until ,i have recorded my own entire conviction that this ,father is no more an original authority here than ,jerome1 or ,hesychius1 or ,victor47#dcf7 ,he is evidently adopting the language of some more ancient writer than himself4 ,i observe that he introduces the problem with the remark that what follows is one of tho questions 8for ever mooted by every body407#dcg7 ,i suspect 7with ,matthaei1 supr1 p4 #ff17 that ,origen is the true author of all this confusion4 ,he certainly relates of himself that among his voluminous exegetical writings was a treatise on ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel47#dch7 ,to ,origen's works1 ,eusebius1 7his apologist and admirer17 is known to have habitually resorted2 and1 like many others1 to have derived not a few of his notions from that fervid and acute1 but most erratic intellect4 ,origen's writings in short1 seem to have been the source of much1 if not most of the mistaken ,criticism of ,antiquity4 7,the reader is reminded of what has been offered above at p4 #if-g74 ,and this would not be the first occasion on which it would appear that when an ancient ,writer speaks of 8the accurate copies01 what he actually means is the text of ,scripture which was employed or approved by ,origen47#dci7 ,the more attentively the language of ,eusebius in this place is considered1 the more firmly 7it is thought7 will the suspicion be entertained that he is here only reproducing the sentiments of another person4 ,but1 however this may be1 it is at least certain that the precise meaning of what he says1 has been hitherto generally overlooked4 ,he certainly does not say1 as ,jerome1 from his loose translation of the passage17#ddj7 evidently imagined1--8omnibus ,graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus30 but only1--8non in omnibus ,evangelii exemplaribus hoc capitulum inveniri20 which is an entirely different thing4 ,eusebius adds1--8,accuratiora saltem exemplaria ,,finem narrationis secundum ,marcum circumscribunt in verbis 20--and1 8,in hoc1 fere in omnibus exemplaribus ,evangelii secundum ,marcum1 ,,finem circumscribi40--,the point1 however1 of greatest interest is1 that ,eusebius here calls attention to the prevalence in ,,mss4 of his time of the very liturgical peculiarity which plainly supplies the one true solution of the problem under discussion4 ,his testimony is a marvellous corroboration of what we learn from ,cod4 #bb1 7see above1 p4 #bcj17 and1 rightly understood1 does not go a whit beyond it4 #e4 ,what wonder that ,hesychius1 because he adopted blindly what he found in ,eusebius1 should at once betray his author and exactly miss the point of what his author says8 7so he writes7 8 10 47#dda7 #f4 ,this may suffice concerning the testimony of ,eusebius4--,it will be understood that ,i suppose ,origen to have fallen in with one or more copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel which exhibited the ,liturgical hint1 7 17 conspicuously written against ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i4 ,such a copy may1 or may not1 have there terminated abruptly4 ,i suspect however that it did4 ,origen at all events1 7more suo17 will have remarked on the phenomenon before him2 and ,eusebius will have adopted his remarks1--as the heralds say1 8with a difference0--simply because they suited his purpose1 and seemed to him ingenious and interesting4 #g4 ,for the copy in question1--7like that other copy of ,s4 ,mark from which the ,peshito translation was made1 and in which most inopportunely occurs at chap4 xiv4 #da17ddb77--will have become the progenitor of several other copies 7as ,codd4 ,b and 72 and some of these1 it is pretty evident1 were familiarly known to ,eusebius4 #h4 ,let it however be clearly borne in mind that nothing of all this is in the least degree essential to my argument4 ,eusebius1 7for aught that ,i know or care17 may be solely responsible for every word that he has delivered concerning ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj4 ,every link in my argument will remain undisturbed1 and the conclusion will be still precisely the same1 whether the mistaken ,criticism before us originated with another or with himself4 ,,xii4 ,but why1 7it may reasonably be asked17--,why should there have been anything exceptional in the way of indicating the end of this particular ,lection8 ,why should be so constantly found written after ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h8 ,i answer1--,i suppose it was because the ,lections which respectively ended and began at that place were so many1 and were ,lections of such unusual importance4 ,thus1--7#a7 ,on the #bnd ,sunday after ,easter1 7 1 as it was called17 at the ,liturgy1 was read ,s4 ,mark xv4 #dc to xvi4 #h2 and 7#b7 on the same day at ,matins1 7by the ,melchite ,syrian ,christians as well as by the ,greeks17#ddc77 ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj4 ,the severance1 therefore1 was at ver4 #h4 7#c7 ,in certain of the ,syrian ,churches the liturgical section for ,easter ,day was ,s4 ,mark xvi #b-h37ddd7 in the ,churches of the ,jacobite1 or ,monophysite ,christians1 the ,eucharistic lesson for ,easter-,day was ver4 #a-h47dde7 7#d7 ,the second matin lesson of the ,resurrection 7xvi4 #a-h7 also ends1--and 7#e7 the third 7xvi4 #i-bj7 begins1 at the same place3 and these two ,gospels 7both in the ,greek and in the ,syrian ,churches7 were in constant use not only at ,easter1 but throughout the year47#ddf7 7#f7 ,that same third matin lesson of the ,resurrection was also the ,lesson at ,matins on ,ascension-,day2 as well in the ,syrian7#ddg7 as in the ,greek7#ddh7 ,churches4 7#g7 ,with the ,monophysite ,christians1 the lection 8feriae tertiae in albis1 ad primam vesperam10 7i4e4 for the ,tuesday in ,easter-,week7 was ,s4 ,mark xv4 #cg-xvi4 #h3 and 7#h7 on the same day1 at ,matins1 ch4 xvi4 #i-ah47ddi7--;,during eighteen weeks after ,easter therefore1 the only parts of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel publicly read were 7a7 the last thirteen ch4 xv4 #dc-xvi4 #h1 and 7b7 8the last twelve0 ch4 xvi4 #i-bj verses4 ,can it be deemed a strange thing that it should have been found indispensable to mark1 with altogether exceptional emphasis1--to make it unmistakably plain1--where the former ,lection came to an end1 and where the latter ,lection began87#dej7 ,,xiii4 ,one more circumstance1 and but one1 remains to be adverted to in the way of evidence2 and one more suggestion to be offered4 ,the circumstance is familiar indeed to all1 but its bearing on the present discussion has never been pointed out4 ,i allude to the fact that anciently1 in copies of the fourfold ,gospel1 the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark frequently stood last4 ,this is memorably the case in respect of the ,codex ,bezae vi3 more memorably yet1 in respect of the ,gothic version of ,ulphilas 7,a4,d4 #cfj73 in both of which ,,mss41 the order of the ,gospels is 7#a7 ,s4 ,matthew1 7#b7 ,s4 ,john1 7#c7 ,s4 ,luke1 7#d7 ,s4 ,mark4 ,this is in fact the usual ,western order4 ,accordingly it is thus that the ,gospels stand in the ,codd4 ,vercellensis 7a71 ,veronensis 7b71 ,palatinus 7e71 ,brixianus 7f7 of the old ,latin version4 ,but this order is not exclusively ,western4 ,it is found in ,cod4 #cji4 ,it is also observed in ,matthaei's ,codd4 #ac1 #ad1 7which last is our ,evan4 #bef71 at ,moscow4 ,and in the same order ,eusebius and others of the ancients7#dea7 are occasionally observed to refer to the four ,gospels1--which induces a suspicion that they were not unfamiliar with it4 ,nor is this all4 ,in ,codd4 #ai and #ij the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark stands last2 though in the former of these the order of the three antecedent ,gospels is 7#a7 ,s4 ,john1 7#b7 ,s4 ,matthew1 7#c7 ,s4 ,luke27#deb7 in the latter1 7#a7 ,s4 ,john1 7#b7 ,s4 ,luke1 7#c7 ,s4 ,matthew4 ,what need of many words to explain the bearing of these facts on the present discussion8 ,of course it will have sometimes happened that ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h came to be written at the bottom of the left hand page of a ,,ms47#dec7 ,and we have but to suppose that in the case of one such ,codex the next leaf1 which would have been the last1 was missing1--7the very thing which has happened in respect of one of the ,codices at ,moscow7#ded77--;and what else could result when a copyist reached the words1 4 but the very phenomenon which has exercised critics so sorely and which gives rise to the whole of the present discussion8 ,the copyist will have brought ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel to an end there1 of course4 ,what else could he possibly do8444 ,somewhat less excusably was our learned countryman ,mill betrayed into the statement1 7inadvertently adopted by ,wetstein1 ,griesbach1 and ,tischendorf17 that 8the last verse of ,s4 ,john's ,gospel is omitted in ,cod4 #fc30 the truth of the matter being 7as ,mr4 ,scrivener has lately proved7 that the last leaf of ,cod4 #fc1--on which the last verse of ,s4 ,john's ,gospel was demonstrably once written1--has been lost47#dee7 ,,xiv4 ,to sum up4 #a4 ,it will be perceived that ,i suppose the omission of 8the last ,twelve ,verses0 of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel to have originated in a sheer error and misconception on the part of some very ancient ,copyist4 ,he saw written after ver4 #h3 he assumed that it was the ,subscription1 or at least that it denoted 8the ,end10 of the ,gospel4 #b4 ,whether certain ancient ,critics1 because it was acceptable to them1 were not found to promote this mistake1--it is useless to inquire4 ,that there may have arisen some old harmonizer of the ,gospels1 who1 7in the words of ,eusebius17 was disposed to 8regard what followed as superfluous from its seeming inconsistency with the testimony of the other ,evangelists207#def7--;and that in this way the error became propagated2--is likely enough4 ,but an error it most certainly was3 and to that error1 the accident described in the last preceding paragraph would have very materially conduced1 and it may have very easily done so4 #c4 ,i request however that it may be observed that the 8accident0 is not needed in order to account for the 8error40 ,the mere presence of at ver4 #h1 so near the end of the ,gospel1 would be quite enough to occasion it4 ,and we have seen that in very ancient times the word frequently did occur in an altogether exceptional manner in that very place4 ,moreover1 we have ascertained that its meaning was not understood by the transcribers of ancient ,,mss4 #d4 ,and will any one venture to maintain that it is to him a thing incredible that an intelligent copyist of the iiird century1 because he read the words at ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h1 can have been beguiled thereby into the supposition that those words indicated 8the ,end0 of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel8--,shall ,i be told that1 even if one can have so entirely overlooked the meaning of the liturgical sign as to suffer it to insinuate itself into his text17#deg7 it is nevertheless so improbable as to pass all credence that another can have supposed that it designated the termination of the ,gospel of the second ,evangelist8--,for all reply1 ,i take leave to point out that ,scholz1 and ,tischendorf1 and ,tregelles1 and ,mai and the rest of the ,critics have1 one and all1 without exception1 misunderstood the same word occurring in the same place1 and in precisely the same way4 ,yes4 ,the forgotten inadvertence of a solitary ,scribe in the second or third century has been1 in the nineteenth1 deliberately reproduced1 adopted1 and stereotyped by every ,critic and every ,editor of the ,new ,testament in turn4 ,what wonder1--7,i propose the question deliberately17--,what wonder that an ancient ,copyist should have been misled by a phenomenon which in our own days is observed to have imposed upon two generations of professed ,biblical ,critics discussing this very textual problem1 and therefore fully on their guard against delusion87#deh7 ,to this hour1 the illustrious ,editors of the text of the ,gospels are clearly1 one and all1 labouring under the grave error of supposing that 8 10--7for which they are so careful to refer us to 8,cod4 #bb107--;is an indication that there1 by rights1 comes the 8,,end0 of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark4 ,they have failed to perceive that in that place is only a liturgical sign1--the same with which 7in its contracted form7 they are sufficiently familiar2 and that it serves no other purpose whatever1 but to mark that there a famous ,ecclesiastical ,lection comes to an end4 ,with a few pages of summary1 we may now bring this long disquisition to an end4 ,,chapter ,,xii4 ,,general ,,review ,,of ,,the ,,question3 ,,summary ,,of ,,the ,,evidence2 ,,and ,,conclusion ,,of ,,the ,,whole ,,subject4 ,this discussion narrowed to a single issue 7p4 #bdd74--,that ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel was imperfect from the very first1 a thing altogether incredible 7p4 #bdf73--;,but that at some very remote period ,copies have suffered mutilation1 a supposition probable in the highest degree 7p4 #bdh74--;,consequences of this admission 7p4 #beb74--,parting words 7p4 #bed47 ,this ,inquiry has at last reached its close4 ,the problem was fully explained at the outset47#dei7 ,all the known evidence has since been produced17#dfj7 every ,witness examined47#dfa7 ,counsel has been heard on both sides4 ,a just ,sentence will assuredly follow4 ,but it may not be improper that ,i should in conclusion ask leave to direct attention to the single issue which has to be decided1 and which has been strangely thrust into the background and practically kept out of sight1 by those who have preceded me in this ,investigation4 ,the case stands simply thus3-- ,it being freely admitted that1 in the beginning of the ivth century1 there must have existed ,copies of the ,gospels in which the last chapter of ,s4 ,mark extended no further than ver4 #h1 the ,question arises1--,how is this phenomenon to be accounted for8444 ,the problem is not only highly interesting and strictly legitimate1 but it is even inevitable4 ,in the immediately preceding chapter1 ,i have endeavoured to solve it1 and ,i believe in a wholly unsuspected way4 ,but the most recent ,editors of the text of the ,new ,testament1 declining to entertain so much as the possibility that certain copies of the second ,gospel had experienced mutilation in very early times in respect of these ,twelve concluding ,verses1 have chosen to occupy themselves rather with conjectures as to how it may have happened that ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel was without a conclusion from the very first4 ,persuaded that no more probable account is to be given of the phenomenon than that the ,evangelist himself put forth a ,gospel which 7for some unexplained reason7 terminated abruptly at the words 7chap4 xvi4 #h71--they have unhappily seen fit to illustrate the liveliness of this conviction of theirs1 by presenting the world with his ,gospel mutilated in this particular way4 ,practically1 therefore1 the question has been reduced to the following single issue3--,whether of the two suppositions which follow is the more reasonable3 ,first1--,that the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark1 as it left the hands of its inspired ,author1 was in this imperfect or unfinished state2 ending abruptly at 7what we call now7 the #hth verse of the last chapter3--of which solemn circumstance1 at the end of eighteen centuries1 ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 are the alone surviving ,manuscript witnesses8444 or1 ,secondly1--,that certain copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel having suffered mutilation in respect of their ,twelve concluding ,verses in the post-,apostolic age1 ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 are the only examples of ,,mss4 so mutilated which are known to exist at the present day8 ,i4 ,editors who adopt the former hypothesis1 are observed 7a7 to sever the ,verses in question from their context37#dfb7--7;b7 to introduce after ver4 #h1 the subscription 8 307#dfc7--7;c7 to shut up verses #i-bj within brackets47#dfd7 ,regarding them as 8no integral part of the ,gospel07#dfe7--8;as an authentic anonymous addition to what ,mark himself wrote down107#dff7--;a 8remarkable ,fragment10 8placed as a completion of the ,gospel in very early times207#dfg7--they consider themselves at liberty to go on to suggest that 8the ,evangelist may have been interrupted in his work30 at any rate1 that 8something may have occurred1 7as the death of ,s4 ,peter17 to cause him to leave it unfinished407#dfh7 ,but 8the most probable supposition0 7we are assured7 8is1 that the last leaf of the original ,gospel was torn away407#dfi7 ,we listen with astonishment2 contenting ourselves with modestly suggesting that surely it will be time to conjecture why ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel was left by its ,divinely inspired ,author in an unfinished state1 when the fact has been established that it probably was so left4 ,in the meantime1 we request to be furnished with some evidence of that fact4 ,but not a particle of ,evidence is forthcoming4 ,it is not even pretended that any such evidence exists4 ,instead1 we are magisterially informed by 8the first ,biblical ,critic in ,europe10--7,i desire to speak of him with gratitude and respect1 but ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is a vast deal more precious to me than ,dr4 ,tischendorf's reputation17--that 8a healthy piety reclaims against the endeavours of those who are for palming off as ,mark's what the ,evangelist is so plainly shewn where8 to have known nothing at all about407#dgj7 ,in the meanwhile1 it is assumed to be a more reasonable supposition1--77 ,that ,s4 ,mark published an imperfect ,gospel2 and that the ,twelve ,verses with which his ,gospel concludes were the fabrication of a subsequent age2 than1--77 ,that some ancient ,scribe having with design or by accident left out these ,twelve concluding ,verses1 copies of the second ,gospel so mutilated become multiplied1 and in the beginning of the ivth century existed in considerable numbers4 ,and yet it is notorious that very soon after the ,apostolic age1 liberties precisely of this kind were freely taken with the text of the ,new ,testament4 ,origen 7,a4,d4 #ahe-bed7 complains of the licentious tampering with the ,scriptures which prevailed in his day4 8,men add to them10 7he says7 8or leave out1--as seems good to themselves407#dga7 ,dionysius of ,corinth1 yet earlier1 7,a4,d4 #afh-agf7 remarks that it was no wonder his own writings were added to and taken from1 seeing that men presumed to deprave the ,word of ,,god in the same manner47#dgb7 ,irenus1 his contemporary1 7living within seventy years of ,s4 ,john's death17 complains of a corrupted ,text47#dgc7 ,we are able to go back yet half a century1 and the depravations of ,holy ,writ become avowed and flagrant47#dgd7 ,a competent authority has declared it 8no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound1 that the worst corruptions to which the ,new ,testament has been ever subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed407#dge7 ,above all1 it is demonstrable that ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 abound in unwarrantable omissions very like the present27#dgf7 omissions which only do not provoke the same amount of attention because they are of less moment4 ,one such extraordinary depravation of the ,text1 in which they also stand alone among ,,mss4 and to which their patrons are observed to appeal with triumphant complacency1 has been already made the subject of distinct investigation4 ,i am much mistaken if it has not been shewn in my ,v,i,ith chapter1 that the omission of the words from ,ephes4 i4 #a1 is just as unauthorized1--quite as serious a blemish1--as the suppression of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj4 ,now1 in the face of facts like these1 and in the absence of any ,evidence whatever to prove that ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel was imperfect from the first1--,i submit that an hypothesis so violent and improbable1 as well as so wholly uncalled for1 is simply undeserving of serious attention4 ,for1 7#ast47 ,it is plain from internal considerations that the improbability of the hypothesis is excessive2 8the contents of these ,verses being such as to preclude the supposition that they were the work of a post-,apostolic period4 ,the very difficulties which they present afford the strongest presumption of their genuineness40 ,no fabricator of a supplement to ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel would have ventured on introducing so many minute seeming discrepancies3 and certainly 8his contemporaries would not have accepted and transmitted such an addition10 if he had4 ,it has also been shewn at great length that the ,internal ,evidence for the genuineness of these ,verses is overwhelmingly strong47#dgg7 ,but1 7#bnd47 ,even external ,evidence is not wanting4 ,it has been acutely pointed out long since1 that the absence of a vast assemblage of various ,readings in this place1 is1 in itself1 a convincing argument that we have here to do with no spurious appendage to the ,gospel47#dgh7 ,were this a deservedly suspected passage1 it must have shared the fate of all other deservedly 7or undeservedly7 suspected passages4 ,it never could have come to pass that the various ,readings which these ,twelve ,verses exhibit would be considerably fewer than those which attach to the last twelve verses of any of the other three ,gospels4 7#crd47 ,and then surely1 if the original ,gospel of ,s4 ,mark had been such an incomplete work as is feigned1 the fact would have been notorious from the first1 and must needs have become the subject of general comment47#dgi7 ,it may be regarded as certain that so extraordinary a circumstance would have been largely remarked upon by the ,ancients1 and that evidence of the fact would have survived in a hundred quarters4 ,it is1 ,i repeat1 simply incredible that ,tradition would have proved so utterly neglectful of her office as to remain quite silent on such a subject1 if the facts had been such as are imagined4 ,either ,papias1 or else ,john the ,presbyter1--,justin ,martyr1 or ,hegesippus1 or one of the 8,seniores apud ,irenum10--,clemens ,alexandrinus1 or ,tertullian1 or ,hippolytus1--if not ,origen1 yet at least ,eusebius1--if not ,eusebius1 yet certainly ,jerome1--some early ,writer1 ,i say1 must certainly have recorded the tradition that ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 as it came from the hands of its inspired author1 was an incomplete or unfinished work4 ,the silence of the ,ancients1 joined to the inherent improbability of the conjecture1--7that silence so profound1 this improbability so gross67--is enough1 ,i submit1 in the entire absence of ,evidence on the other side1 to establish the very contradictory of the alternative which recent ,critics are so strenuous in recommending to our acceptance4 7#dth47 ,but on the contrary4 ,we have indirect yet convincing testimony that the oldest copies of all did contain the ,verses in question37#dhj7 while so far are any of the ,writers just now enumerated from recording that these verses were absent from the early copies1 that five out of those ten ,fathers actually quote1 or else refer to the verses in question in a way which shews that in their day they were the recognised termination of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel47#dha7 ,we consider ourselves at liberty1 therefore1 to turn our attention to the rival alternative4 ,our astonishment is even excessive that it should have been seriously expected of us that we could accept without ,proof of any sort1--without a particle of ,evidence1 external1 internal1 or even traditional1--the extravagant hypothesis that ,s4 ,mark put forth an unfinished ,gospel2 when the obvious and easy alternative solicits us1 of supposing1 ,,ii4 ,that1 at some period subsequent to the time of the ,evangelist1 certain copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel suffered that mutilation in respect of their last ,twelve ,verses of which we meet with no trace whatever1 no record of any sort1 until the beginning of the fourth century4 7i47 ,and the facts which now meet us on the very threshold1 are in a manner conclusive3 for if ,papias and ,justin ,martyr ,a4,d4 #aej do not refer to1 yet certainly ,irenus ,a4,d4 #ahe and ,hippolytus ,a4,d4 #aij-bbg distinctly quote ,six out of the ,twelve suspected ,verses1--which are also met with in the two oldest ,syriac ,versions1 as well as in the old ,latin ,translation4 ,now the latest of these authorities is earlier by full a hundred years than the earliest record that the verses in question were ever absent from ancient ,,mss4 ,at the eighth ,council of ,carthage1 7as ,cyprian relates17 ,a4,d4 #bef ,vincentius a ,thiberi1 one of the eighty-seven ,african ,bishops there assembled1 quoted the #agth verse in the presence of the ,council4 7ii47 ,nor is this all47#dhb7 ,besides the ,gothic and ,egyptian versions in the ivth century2 besides ,ambrose1 ,cyril of ,alexandria1 ,jerome1 and ,augustine in the vth1 to say nothing of ,codices ,a and ,c2--the ,lectionary of the ,church universal1 probably from the second century of our ra1 is found to bestow its solemn and emphatic sanction on every one of these ,twelve ,verses4 ,they are met with in every ,,ms4 of the ,gospels in existence1 uncial and cursive1--except two27#dhc7 they are found in every ,version2 and are contained besides in every known ,lectionary1 where they are appointed to be read at ,easter and on ,ascension ,day47#dhd7 7iii47 ,early in the ivth century1 however1 we are encountered by a famous place in the writings of ,eusebius ,a4,d4 #cjj-cdj1 who1 7as ,i have elsewhere explained17#dhe77 is the only ,father who delivers any independent testimony on this subject at all4 ,what he says has been strangely misrepresented4 ,it is simply as follows3-- 7a7 ,one1 8,marinus10 is introduced quoting this part of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel without suspicion1 and enquiring1 ,how its opening statement is to be reconciled with ,s4 ,matth4 xxviii4 #a8 ,eusebius1 in reply1 points out that a man whose only object was to get rid of the difficulty1 might adopt the expedient of saying that this last section of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel 8is not found in all the copies30 7 47 ,declining1 however1 to act thus presumptuously in respect of anything claiming to be a part of ,evangelical ,scripture1 7 17--he adopts the hypothesis that the text is genuine4 1 he begins3 and he enters at once without hesitation on an elaborate discussion to shew how the two places may be reconciled47#dhf7 ,what there is in this to countenance the notion that in the opinion of ,eusebius 8the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark originally terminated at the #hth verse of the last chapter10--,i profess myself unable to discover4 ,i draw from his words the precisely opposite inference4 ,it is not even clear to me that the ,verses in dispute were absent from the copy which ,eusebius habitually employed4 ,he certainly quotes one of those verses once and again47#dhg7 ,on the other hand1 the express statement of ,victor of ,antioch ,a4,d4 #dej8 that he knew of the mutilation1 but had ascertained by ,critical research the genuineness of this ,section of ,scripture1 and had adopted the ,text of the authentic 8,palestinian0 ,copy17#dhh7--;is more than enough to outweigh the faint presumption created 7as some might think7 by the words of ,eusebius1 that his own copy was without it4 ,and yet1 as already stated1 there is nothing whatever to shew that ,eusebius himself deliberately rejected the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,still less does that ,father anywhere say1 or even hint1 that in his judgment the original ,text of ,s4 ,mark was without them4 ,if he may be judged by his words1 he accepted them as genuine3 for 7what is at least certain7 he argues upon their contents at great length1 and apparently without misgiving4 7b7 ,it is high time however to point out that1 after all1 the question to be decided is1 not what ,eusebius thought on this subject1 but what is historically probable4 ,as a plain matter of fact1 the sum of the ,patristic ,evidence against these ,verses is the hypothetical suggestion of ,eusebius already quoted2 which1 7after a fashion well understood by those who have given any attention to these studies71 is observed to have rapidly propagated itself in the congenial soil of the vth century4 ,and even if it could be shewn that ,eusebius deliberately rejected this portion of ,scripture1 7which has never been done17--yet1 inasmuch as it may be regarded as certain that those famous codices in the library of his friend ,pamphilus at ,csarea1 to which the ancients habitually referred1 recognised it as genuine17#dhi7--the only sufferer from such a conflict of evidence would surely be ,eusebius himself3 7not ,s4 ,mark1 ,i say1 but ,eusebius37 who is observed to employ an incorrect text of ,scripture on many other occasions2 and must 7in such case7 be held to have been unduly partial to copies of ,s4 ,mark in the mutilated condition of ,cod4 ,b or ,cod4 4 ,his words were translated by ,jerome27#dij7 adopted by ,hesychius27#dia7 referred to by ,victor27#dib7 reproduced 8with a difference0 in more than one ancient scholion47#dic7 ,but they are found to have died away into a very faint echo when ,euthymius ,zigabenus7#did7 rehearsed them for the last time in his ,commentary on the ,gospels1 ,a4,d4 #aaaf4 ,exaggerated and misunderstood1 behold them resuscitated after an interval of seven centuries by ,griesbach1 and ,tischendorf1 and ,tregelles and the rest3 again destined to fall into a congenial1 though very differently prepared soil2 and again destined 7,i venture to predict7 to die out and soon to be forgotten for ever4 7iv47 ,after all that has gone before1 our two oldest ,codices 7,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 7 which alone witness to the truth of ,eusebius' testimony as to the state of certain copies of the ,gospels in his own day1 need not detain us long4 ,they are thought to be as old as the ivth century3 they are certainly without the concluding section of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,but it may not be forgotten that both ,codices alike are disfigured throughout by errors1 interpolations and omissions without number2 that their testimony is continually divergent2 and that it often happens that where they both agree they are both demonstrably in error47#die7 ,moreover1 it is a highly significant circumstance that the ,vatican ,codex 7,b71 which is the more ancient of the two1 exhibits a vacant column at the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1--the only vacant column in the whole codex3 whereby it is shewn that the ,copyist was aware of the existence of the ,twelve concluding ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 even though he left them out37#dif7 while the original ,scribe of the ,codex ,sinaiticus 77 is declared by ,tischendorf to have actually omitted the concluding verse of ,s4 ,john's ,gospel1--in which unenviable peculiarity it stands alone among ,,mss47#dig7 7,i47 ,and thus we are brought back to the point from which we started4 ,we are reminded that the one thing to be accounted for is the mutilated condition of certain copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel in the beginning of the fourth century2 of which1 ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 are the two solitary surviving specimens1--,eusebius1 the one historical witness4 ,we have to decide1 ,i mean1 between the evidence for this fact1--7namely1 that within the first two centuries and a-half of our ra1 the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark suffered mutilation27--and the reasonableness of the other opinion1 namely1 that ,s4 ,mark's original autograph extended no farther than ch4 xvi4 #h4 ,all is reduced to this one issue2 and unless any are prepared to prove that the ,twelve familiar ,verses 7ver4 #i to ver4 #bj7 with which ,s4 ,mark ends his ,gospel cannot be his1--7,i have proved on the contrary that he must needs be thought to have written them17#dih77--;,i submit that it is simply irrational to persist in asseverating that the reason why those verses are not found in our two ,codexes of the ivth century must be because they did not exist in the original autograph of the ,evangelist4 ,what else is this but to set unsupported opinion1 or rather unreasoning prejudice1 before the historical evidence of a fact8 ,the assumption is not only gratuitous1 arbitrary1 groundless2 but it is discountenanced by the evidence of ,,mss41 of ,versions1 of ,fathers1 7,versions and ,fathers much older than the ivth century37 is rendered in the highest degree improbable by every internal1 every external consideration3 is condemned by the deliberate judgment of the universal ,church1--which1 in its corporate capacity1 for eighteen hundred years1 in all places1 has not only solemnly accepted the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel as genuine1 but has even singled them out for special honour47#dii7 7,,ii47 ,let it be asked in conclusion1--7for this prolonged discussion is now happily at an end17--,are any inconveniences likely to result from a frank and loyal admission1 7in the absence of any ,evidence whatever to the contrary17 that doubtless the last ,twelve ,verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel are just as worthy of acceptation as the rest8 ,it might reasonably be supposed1 from the strenuous earnestness with which the rejection of these ,verses is generally advocated1 that some considerations must surely be assignable why the opinion of their genuineness ought on no account to be entertained4 ,do any such reasons exist8 ,are any inconveniences whatever likely to supervene8 ,no reasons whatever are assignable1 ,i reply2 neither are there any inconvenient consequences of any sort to be anticipated1--except indeed to the ,critics3 to whom1 it must be confessed1 the result proves damaging enough4 ,it will only follow1 7#ast7 ,that ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 must be henceforth allowed to be in one more serious particular untrustworthy and erring witnesses4 ,they have been convicted1 in fact1 of bearing false witness in respect of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 where their evidence had been hitherto reckoned upon with the most undoubting confidence4 7#bndly7 ,that the critical statements of recent ,editors1 and indeed the remarks of ,critics generally1 in respect of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 will have to undergo serious revision3 in every important particular1 will have to be unconditionally withdrawn4 7#crdly7 ,that1 in all future critical editions of the ,new ,testament1 these 8,twelve ,verses0 will have to be restored to their rightful honours3 never more appearing disfigured with brackets1 encumbered with doubts1 banished from their context1 or molested with notes of suspicion4 ,on the contrary4 ,a few words of caution against the resuscitation of what has been proved to be a 8vulgar error10 will have henceforth to be introduced in memoriam rei4 7#dthly7 ,lastly1 men must be no longer taught to look with distrust on this precious part of the ,deposit2 and encouraged to dispute the ,divine sayings which it contains on the plea that perhaps they may not be ,divine1 after all2 for that probably the entire section is not genuine4 ,they must be assured1 on the contrary1 that these ,twelve ,verses are wholly undistinguishable in respect of genuineness from the rest of the ,gospel of ,s4 ,mark2 and it may not be amiss to remind them the ,creed called the 8,athanasian0 speaks no other language than that employed by the ,divine ,author of our ,religion and ,object of our ,faith4 ,the ,church warns her children against the peril incurred by as many as wilfully reject the ,truth1 in no other language but that of the ,great ,head of the ,church4 ,no person may presume to speak disparagingly of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #af1 any more4 7,,iii47 ,whether1--after the foregoing exposure of a very prevalent and highly popular1 but at the same time most calamitous misapprehension1--it will not become necessary for ,editors of the ,text of the ,new ,testament to reconsider their conclusions in countless other places3--whether they must not be required to review their method1 and to remodel their text throughout1 now that they have been shewn the insecurity of the foundation on which they have so confidently builded1 and been forced to reverse their verdict in respect of a place of ,scripture where at least they supposed themselves impregnable2--,i forbear at this time to inquire4 ,enough to have demonstrated1 as ,i claim to have now done1 that not a particle of doubt1 that not an atom of suspicion1 attaches to 8,,the ,,last ,,twelve ,,verses ,,of ,,the ,,gospel ,,according ,,to ,s4 ,,mark40 4 ,,appendix 7,a74 ,on the importance of attending to ,patristic ,citations of ,scripture4--,the correct ,text of ,s4 ,,luke ii4 #ad1 established4 7,referred to at p4 #bb47 ,in ,chapter ,,iii4 the importance of attending to ,patristic citations of ,scripture has been largely insisted upon4 ,the controverted reading of ,s4 ,luke ii4 #ad supplies an apt illustration of the position there maintained1 viz4 that this subject has not hitherto engaged nearly as much attention as it deserves4 ,i4 ,instead of 1 7which is the reading of the 8,textus ,receptus107 ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles and ,alford present us with 4 ,their authority for this reading is the consentient testimony of ,,the ,,four ,,oldest ,,mss4 ,,which ,,contain ,s4 ,luke ii4 #ad 7viz4 ,b1 1 ,a1 ,d73 ,,the ,,latin ,,versions generally 78in hominibus bonae voluntatis072 and ,,the ,,gothic4 ,against these are to be set1 ,,cod4 ,a 7in the ,hymn at the end of the ,psalms72 ,,all ,,the ,,other ,,uncials2 together ,,with ,,every ,,known ,,cursive ,,ms42 and ,,every ,,other ,,ancient ,,version in existence4 ,so far1 the evidence of mere ,antiquity may be supposed to preponderate in favour of 3 though no judicious ,critic1 it is thought1 should hesitate in deciding in favour of 1 even upon the evidence already adduced4 ,the advocates of the popular ,theory ask1--,but why should the four oldest ,,mss41 together with the ,latin and the ,gothic ,versions1 conspire in reading 1 if be right8 ,that question shall be resolved by-and-by4 ,let them in the mean time tell us1 if they can1--,how is it credible that1 in such a matter as this1 every other ,,ms4 and every other ,version in the world should read 1 if be wrong8 ,but the evidence of ,antiquity has not yet been nearly cited4 ,i proceed to set it forth in detail4 ,it is found then1 that whereas is read by none1 is read by all the following ,fathers3-- 7#a7 ,,origen1 in three places of his writings1 i4 #cgd ,d3 ii4 #gad ,b3 iv4 #ae ,b1--,a4,d4 #bdj4 7#b7 ,the ,,apostolical ,,constitutions1 twice1 vii4 #dg3 viii4 #ab ad fin41--,i,ird cent4 7#c7 ,,methodius1 ,galland4 iii4 #hji ,b1--,a4,d4 #bij4 7#d7 ,,eusebius1 twice1 ,dem4 ,ev4 #afc ,c3 #cdb ,b1--,a4,d4 #cbj4 7#e7 ,,aphraates ,,the ,,persian1 7for whose name supr1 pp4 #bf-g that of 8,jacobus of ,nisibis0 has been erroneously substituted71 twice1 i4 #ahj and #che1--;,a4,d4 #ccg4 7#f7 ,,titus ,,of ,,bostra1 twice1 in loc41 but especially in ,s4 ,luc4 xix4 #bi 7,cramer1 ii4 #ada1 line #bj71--;,a4,d4 #cej4 7#g7 ,,gregory ,,of ,,nazianzus1 i4 #hde ,c1--,a4,d4 #cfj4 7#h7 ,,cyril ,,of ,,jerusalem1 ,a4,d4 #cgj1 as will be found explained below4 7#i7 ,,epiphanius1 i4 #aed ,d1--,a4,d4 #cge4 7#aj7 ,,chrysostom1 four times1 vii4 #caa ,b3 #fgd ,c3 viii4 #he ,c3 xi4 #cgd ,b expressly1--,a4,d4 #djj4 7#aa7 ,,cyril ,,of ,,alexandria1 in three places1 ,comm4 on ,s4 ,luke1 pp4 #ab and #af4 ,also ,opp4 ii4 #eic ,a3 vi4 #cih ,c1--,a4,d4 #dbj4 7#ab7 ,,theodoret1 in ,coloss4 i4 #bj1-;,a4,d4 #dcj4 7#ac7 ,,theodotus ,,of ,,ancyra1 ,galland4 x4 #ddf ,b1--,a4,d4 #dcj4 7#ad7 ,,proclus1 ,abp4 of ,constantinople1 ,gall4 x4 #fbi ,a1--,a4,d4 #dcd4 ,to which may be added the evidence of 7#ae7 ,,cosmas ,,indicopleustes1 four times repeated1 ,coll4 ,nov4 ,,pp41 7,montfaucon17 ii4 #aeb ,a1 #afj ,d1 #bdg ,e1 #bfi ,c1--,a4,d4 #ece4 7#af7 ,,eulogius1 ,abp4 of ,alexandria1 ,gall4 xii4 #cjh ,e1--,a4,d4 #eha4 7#ag7 ,,andreas ,,of ,,crete1 twice1 ,gall4 xiii4 #ajj ,d1 #abc ,c1--,a4,d4 #fce4 ,now1 when it is considered that these seventeen ,fathers of the ,church7#ejj7 all concur in exhibiting the ,angelic ,hymn as our own ,textus ,receptus exhibits it1--7viz4 17--who does not see that the four oldest uncial authorities for are hopelessly outvoted by authorities yet older than themselves8 ,here is1 to all intents and purposes1 a record of what was once found in two ,codices of the iiird century2 in nine of the ivth2 in three of the vth2--added to the testimony of the two ,syriac1 the ,egyptian1 the ,ethiopic1 and the ,armenian versions4 ,in this instance therefore the evidence of ,antiquity is even overwhelming4 ,most decisive of all1 perhaps1 is the fact this was the form in which the ,churches of the ,east preserved the ,angelic ,hymn in their private1 as well as their solemn public ,devotions4 ,take it1 from a document of the vth century3-- 47#eja7 ,but the text of this ,hymn1 as a ,liturgical document1 at a yet earlier period is unequivocally established by the combined testimony of the ,apostolical ,constitutions 7already quoted17 and of ,chrysostom1 who says expressly3-- 1 1 1 4 ,opp4 xi4 #cdg ,b4 ,now this incontestably proves that the ,church's established way of reciting the ,angelic ,hymn in the ivth century was in conformity with the reading of the ,textus ,receptus4 ,and this fact infinitely outweighs the evidence of any extant ,,mss4 which can be named3 for it is the consentient evidence of hundreds1--or rather of thousands of copies of the ,gospels of a date anterior to ,a4,d4 #djj1 which have long since perished4 ,to insist upon this1 however1 is not at all my present purpose4 ,about the true reading of ,s4 ,luke ii4 #ad1 7which is not the reading of ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford17 there is clearly no longer any room for doubt4 ,it is perhaps one of the best established readings in the whole compass of the ,new ,testament4 ,my sole object is to call attention to the two following facts3-- 7#a7 ,that the four oldest ,codices which contain ,s4 ,luke ii4 #ad 7,b1 1 ,a1 ,d1 ,a4,d4 #cbj-ebj71 and two of the oldest ,versions1 conspire in exhibiting the ,angelic ,hymn incorrectly4 7#b7 ,that we are indebted to fourteen of the ,fathers 7,a4,d4 #bdj-dcd71 and to the rest of the ancient ,versions1 for the true reading of that memorable place of ,scripture4 ,,ii4 ,against all this1 it is urged 7by ,tischendorf7 that1-- #a4 ,,iren,,us sides with the oldest uncials4--,now1 the ,greek of the place referred to is lost4 ,a ,latin translation is all that survives4 ,according to that evidence1 ,irenus1 having quoted the place in conformity with the ,vulgate reading 7iii4 c4 x4 #da1--8;,gloria in excelsis ,deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis107 presently adds1--8,in eo quod dicunt1 ,gloria in altissimis ,,deo et in terra pax1 eum qui sit altissimorum1 hoc est1 supercaelestium factor et eorum1 quae super terram omnium conditor1 his sermonibus glorificaverunt2 qui suo plasmati1 hoc est hominibus suam benignitatem salutis de caelo misit40 7ed4 ,stieren1 i4 #dei74--;,but it must suffice to point out 7#a7 that these words really prove nothing3 and 7#b7 that it would be very unsafe to build upon them1 even if they did2 since 7#c7 it is plain that the ,latin translator exhibits the place in the ,latin form most familiar to himself3 7consider his substitution of 8excelsis0 for 8altissimis407 #b4 ,next1 ,,origen is claimed on the same side1 on the strength of the following passage in 7,jerome's version of7 his lost ,homilies on ,s4 ,luke3--8,si scriptum esset1 ,super terram pax1 et hucusque esset finita sententia1 recte quaestio nasceretur4 ,nunc vero in eo quod additum est1 hoc est1 quod post pacem dicitur1 ,in hominibus bonae voluntatis1 solvit quaestionem4 ,pax enim quam non dat ,dominus super terram1 non est pax bonae voluntatis40 7,opp4 iii4 p4 #idf47 8,from this10 7says ,tischendorf1 who is followed by ,tregelles17 8it is plain that ,origen regarded as the true reading2 not --which is now thrice found in his ,greek writings40--,but1 ,is one here more struck with the unfairness of the ,critic1 or with the feebleness of his reasoning8 ,for1--7to say nothing of the insecurity of building on a ,latin ,translation17#ejb7 especially in such a matter as the present17--,how can testimony like this be considered to outweigh the three distinct places in the original writings of this ,father1 where he reads not but 8 ,again4 ,why is a doubt insinuated concerning the trustworthiness of those three places1 78ut nunc reperitur107 where there really is no doubt8 ,how is ,truth ever to be attained if investigations like the present are to be conducted in the spirit of an eager partisan1 instead of with the calm gravity of an impartial judge8 ,but ,i may as well state plainly that the context of the passage above quoted shews that ,tischendorf's proposed inference is inadmissible4 ,origen is supposing some one to ask the following question3--8,since ,angels on the night when ,,christ was born proclaimed #8on earth ,peace1'--why does our ,,saviour say1 #8,i am not come to send ,peace upon earth1 but a sword8'444 ,consider10 7he proceeds7 8whether the answer may not be this30--and then comes the extract given above4 ,origen1 7to express oneself with colloquial truthfulness17 is at his old tricks4 ,he is evidently acquainted with the reading 3 and because it enables him to offer 7what appears to him7 an ingenious solution of a certain problem1 he adopts it for the nonce3 his proposal to take the words together1 being simply preposterous1--as no one ever knew better than ,origen himself47#ejc7 #c4 ,lastly1 ,,cyril ,,of ,,jerusalem is invariably cited by the latest ,critics as favouring the reading 4 ,those learned persons have evidently overlooked the candid acknowledgment of ,de ,toutte1 ,cyril's editor1 7p4 #ahj1 cf4 bottom of p4 #ajb17 that though the ,,mss4 of ,cyril exhibit 1 yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured to print 4 ,this therefore is one more ,patristic attestation to the trustworthiness of the ,textus ,receptus in respect of ,s4 ,luke ii4 #ad1 which has been hitherto unaccountably lost sight of by ,critics4 7,may ,i1 without offence1 remind ,editors of ,scripture that instead of copying1 they ought in every instance to verify their references87 ,,iii4 ,the history of this corruption of the ,text is not hard to discover4 ,it is interesting and instructive also4 7#a47 ,in the immediately post-,apostolic age1--if not earlier still1--some ,copyist will have omitted the before 4 ,the resemblance of the letters and the similarity of the sound 71 17 misled him3-- ,every one must see at a glance how easily the thing may have happened4 7,it is in fact precisely what has happened in ,acts iv4 #ab2 where1 for 1 ,d and a few cursive ,,mss4 read 1--being countenanced therein by the ,latin ,versions generally1 and by them only47 7#b47 ,the result however--7 7--was obviously an impossible sentence4 ,it could not be allowed to stand4 ,and yet it was not by any means clear what had happened to it4 ,in order1 as it seems1 to force a meaning into the words1 some one with the best intentions will have put the sign of the genitive 77 at the end of 4 ,the copy so depraved was destined to play an important part2 for it became the fontal source of the ,latin ,version1 which exhibits the place thus3--,gloria in altissimis ,,deo1 et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis4444 ,it is evident1 by the way1 7if the quotation from ,irenus1 given above1 is to be depended upon17 that ,irenus must have so read the place3 7viz4 47 7#c47 ,to restore the preposition 77 which had been accidentally thrust out1 and to obliterate the sign of the genitive 77 which had been without authority thrust in1 was an obvious proceeding4 ,accordingly1 every ,greek ,evangelium extant exhibits 3 while all but four 7,b1 1 ,a1 ,d7 read 4 ,in like manner1 into some ,,mss4 of the ,vulgate 7e4g4 the ,cod4 ,amiatinus17 the preposition 78in07 has found its way back2 but the genitive 78bonae voluntatis07 has never been rectified in a single copy of the ,latin version4--,the ,gothic represents a copy which exhibited 47#ejd7 ,the consequence is that a well-nigh untranslatable expression retains its place in the ,vulgate to the present hour4 ,whether 7with ,origen7 we connect with 1--or 7with the moderns7 we propose to understand 8men of good pleasure10--the result is still the same4 ,the harmony of the three-part ,anthem which the ,angels sang on the night of the ,nativity is hopelessly marred1 and an unintelligible discord substituted in its place4 ,logic1 ,divinity1 ,documents are here all at one4 ,the reading of ,stephens is unquestionably correct4 ,the reading of the latest ,editors is as certainly corrupt4 ,this is a case therefore where the value of ,patristic testimony becomes strikingly apparent4 ,it affords also one more crucial proof of the essential hollowness of the theory on which it has been recently proposed by ,lachmann1 ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles and the rest to reconstruct the text of the ,new ,testament4 ,to some1 it may perhaps seem unreasonable that so many words should be devoted to the establishment of the text of a single place of ,scripture1--depending1 as that text does1 on the insertion or the omission of a single letter4 ,i am content to ask in reply1--,what is important1 if not the utterance of ,heaven1 when1 at the laying of the corner-stone of the ,new ,creation1 8the ,morning ,stars sang together1 and all the ,sons of ,,god shouted for joy80 ,,iv4 ,only one word in conclusion4 ,whenever the time comes for the ,church of ,england to revise her ,authorized ,version 7#afaa71 it will become necessary that she should in the first instance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons carefully to revise the ,greek ,text of ,stephens 7#aeej74 ,men require to know precisely what it is they have to translate before they can pretend to translate it4 ,as for supposing that ,scholars who have been appointed to revise a ,translation are competent at a moment's notice1 as every fresh difficulty presents itself1 to develop the skill requisite for revising the original ,text1--it is clearly nothing else but supposing that experts in one ,science can at pleasure shew themselves proficients in another4 ,but it so happens that1 on the present occasion1 that other ,science is one of exceeding difficulty4 ,revisionists here will find it necessary altogether to disabuse their minds of the ,theory of ,textual ,criticism which is at present the dominant and the popular one1--and of which ,i have made it my business to expose the fallaciousness1 in respect of several crucial texts1 in the course of the present work4 ,i cannot so far forget the unhappy circumstances of the times as to close this note without the further suggestion1 7sure therein of the approval of our trans-,atlantic brethren17 that1 for a ,revision of the ,authorized ,version to enjoy the confidence of the ,nation1 and to procure for itself acceptance at the hands of the ,church1--it will be found necessary that the work should be confided to ,churchmen4 ,the ,church may never abdicate her function of being 8a ,witness and a ,keeper of ,holy ,writ40 ,neither can she1 without flagrant inconsistency and scandalous consequence1 ally herself in the work of ,revision with the ,sects4 ,least of all may she associate with herself in the sacred undertaking an ,unitarian ,teacher1--one who avowedly see the letter of 8,one of the ,revisionists1 ,g4 ,v4 ,s410 in the 8,times0 of ,july #aa1 #ahgj denies the eternal ,g,o,dhead of her ,,lord4 ,that the individual alluded to has shewn any peculiar aptitude for the work of a ,revisionist2 or that he is a famous ,scholar2 or that he can boast of acquaintance with any of the less familiar departments of ,sacred ,learning2 is not even pretended4 7,it would matter nothing if the reverse were the case47 ,what else1 then1 is this but to offer a deliberate insult to the ,majesty of ,heaven in the ,divine ,person of ,him who is alike the ,object of the ,everlasting ,gospel1 and its ,author8 ,,appendix 7,b74 ,,eusebius 8ad ,marinum0 concerning the reconcilement of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i with ,s4 ,matthew xxviii4 #a4 7,referred to at pp4 #df1 #dg1 #ed1 and #bcc47 ,,subjoined is the original text of ,,eusebius1 taken from the 8,qustiones ad ,marinum0 published by ,card4 ,mai1 in his 8,nova ,patrum ,bibliotheca0 7,romae1 #ahdg17 vol4 iv4 pp4 #bee-g4 ,i4 1 4 2 del487#eje7 1 2 8 1 40 1 3 8 1 1 40 2 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 8 0 1 2 1 27#ejf7 4 1 4 2 1 2 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4 1 1 1 7 7 2 1 1 1 4 ,,ii4 1 4 1 1 1 1 444 ,,appendix 7,c74 ,proof that ,,hesychius is a copyist only in what he says concerning the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 7,referred to at pp4 #eg-eh47 #a4 ,it was confidently stated above 7at p4 #eh7 that ,,hesychius1 discussing the consistency of ,s4 ,matthew's 7chap4 xxviii4 #a71 with the of ,s4 ,mark 7chap4 xvi4 #i71 is a copyist only2 and that he copies from the 8,quaestiones ad ,marinum0 of ,,eusebius4 ,the proof of that statement is subjoined4 ,it should perhaps be explained that the extracts in the right-hand column have been dislocated in order to shew their close resemblance to what is set down in the left-hand column from ,eusebius3-- 7,,eusebius47 7,,hesychius1 or ,,severus47 444 444 4 444 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 444 4 444 1 1 4 4 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 4 1 4 7,,eusebius ad ,marinum1 7,,greg4 ,,nyss4 vid4 apud ,mai1 vol4 iv4 p4 supr1 p4 #ci bto #da4 #beg-h47 ,opp4 vol4 iii4 p4 #djb47 #b4 ,subjoined1 in the right-hand column1 is the original text of the passage of ,,hesychius exhibited in ,english at p4 #eg4 ,the intention of setting down the parallel passages from ,,eusebius1 and from ,,victor of ,antioch1 is in order to shew the sources from which ,hesychius obtained his materials1--as explained at p4 #eh3-- 7,,eusebius47 7,,hesychius1 or ,,severus47 8 444 10 4 2 444 8 1 1 40 7,,eusebius ad ,marinum1 apud ,mai1 iv4 p4 #bee47 7,,victor ,,of ,,antioch47 444 444 80 4 80 444 444 4444 2 1 80 2 1 2 8 10 2 1 2 8 8 10 1 8 20 80-- 40 80 7,,victor ,,antioch1 ed4 ,cramer1 vol4 i4 p4 #ddd1 line #ai to line #bg47 1 1 80 4 7,,greg4 ,,nyss4 ,opp4 vol4 iii4 p4 #daa1 ,b1 ,c1 ,d3 which may be also seen in ,cramer's ,catenae1 vol4 i4 p4 #bej1 line #ba to line #cc1 ascribed to 8,,severus1 ,archbishop of ,antioch10 ,ibid41 p4 #bdc47 ,,appendix 7,d74 ,some account of ,,victor ,,of ,,antioch',s ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel2 together with an enumeration of ,,mss4 which contain ,victor's ,work4 7,referred to at p4 #fj47 8,aprs avoir examin avec soin les ,,mss4 de la ,bibliothque du ,roi10 7says the ,pre ,simon in his ,hist4 ,crit4 du ,n4 ,t4 p4 #gi17 8j'ai rconnu que cet ouvrage0 7he is speaking of the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel popularly ascribed to ,victor of ,antioch17 8n'est ni d',origne1 ni de ,victor d',antioche1 ni de ,cyrille1 ni d'aucun autre auteur en particulier4 ,c'est un recueil de plusieurs ,pres1 dont on a marqu les noms dans quelques exemplaires2 et si ces noms ne se trouvent point dans d'autres1 cela est assez ordinaire ces recueils1 qu'on appelle chanes407#ejg7 ,it will be seen from the notices of the work in question already offered1 7supr1 p4 #ei to p4 #fe17 that ,i am able to yield only a limited acquiescence in this learned writer's verdict4 ,that the materials out of which ,,victor ,,of ,,antioch constructed his ,commentary are scarcely ever original1--is what no one will deny who examines the work with attention4 ,but the ,author of a compilation is an ,author still2 and to put ,victor's claim to the work before us on a level with that of ,origen or of ,cyril1 is entirely to misrepresent the case and hopelessly to perplex the question4 ,concerning ,,victor himself1 nothing whatever is known except that he was 8a presbyter of ,antioch40 ,concerning his ,work1 ,i will not here repeat what ,i have already stated elsewhere2 but1 requesting the ,reader to refer to what was remarked at pp4 #ei to #fe1 ,i propose to offer a few observations with which ,i was unwilling before to encumber the text2 holding it to be a species of duty for those who have given any time and attention to a subject like the present to contribute the result1 7however slender and unsatisfactory it may prove17 to the common store4 ,let abler men enlarge the ensuing scanty notices1 and correct me if in any respect ,i shall have inadvertently fallen into error4 #a4 ,there exists a ,commentary1 then1 on ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 which generally claims on its front 8,,victor1 ,,presbyter ,,of ,,antioch10 for its ,author47#ejh7 ,a ,latin translation of this work1 7not the original ,greek17 was1 in the first instance1 published at ,ingolstadt in #aehj17eji7 by ,theodore ,peltanus4 ,his ,latin version found its way at once into 8,bibliothec10 7or ,collections of ,writings of the ,fathers17 and has been again and again reprinted4 #b4 ,the ,greek text of ,victor was first published at ,rome by ,peter ,possinus in #afgc1 from a ,,ms4 existing somewhere in ,germany2 which ,bathazar ,corderius had transcribed and presented to ,possinus about thirty years before4 ,corderius gave ,possinus at the same time his transcript of an anonymous ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark preserved in the ,vatican2 and ,possinus had already in his possession the transcript of a third ,commentary on the same ,evangelist 7also anonymous7 which he had obtained from the ,library of ,charles de ,montchal1 ,abp4 of ,toulouse4 ,these three transcripts ,possinus published in a well-known volume4 ,it is to be wished that he had kept them distinct1 instead of to some extent blending their contents confusedly into one47#eaj7 ,still1 the dislocated paragraphs of ,victor of ,antioch are recognisable by the name of their author 78,victor ,antiochenus07 prefixed to each3 while 8,tolosanus0 designates the ,toulouse ,,ms43 8,vaticanus0 7or simply 8,anonymus07 the ,vatican4 #c4 ,at the end of another century1 7#agge7 ,c4 ,f4 ,matthaei put forth at ,moscow1 with his usual skill and accuracy1 a new and independent ,edition of ,victor's ,commentary37#eaa7 the text of which is based on four of the ,moscow ,,mss4 ,this work1 which appeared in two parts1 has become of extraordinary rarity4 ,i have only just ascertained 7,june1 #ahga17 that one entire ,copy is preserved in this country4 #d4 ,lastly1 7in #ahdj17 ,dr4 ,j4 ,a4 ,cramer1 in the first volume of his ,catenae on the ,n4 ,t41 reproduced ,victor's work from independent ,,ms4 sources4 ,he took for his basis two ,codices in the ,paris ,library1 7,no4 #ahf and ,no4 #ahh71 which1 however1 prove to have been anciently so exactly assimilated the one to the other infr1 p4 #bgi as to be1 in fact1 but duplicates of one and the same original4 ,cramer supplemented their contents from ,laud4 ,gr4 #cc1 7in the ,bodleian37 ,coisl4 #bc3 and ,reg4 #agh at ,paris4 ,the result has been by far the fullest and most satisfactory exhibition of the ,commentary of ,victor of ,antioch which has hitherto appeared4 ,only is it to be regretted that the work should have been suffered to come abroad disfigured in every page with errors so gross as to be even scandalous1 and with traces of slovenly editorship which are simply unintelligible4 ,i cannot bring myself to believe that ,dr4 ,cramer ever inspected the ,,mss4 in the ,paris ,library in person4 ,else would the slender advantage which those abundant materials have proved to so learned and accomplished a scholar1 be altogether unaccountable4 ,moreover1 he is incorrect in what he says about them37#eab7 while his reasons for proposing to assign the work of ,victor of ,antioch to ,cyril of ,alexandria are undeserving of serious attention4 ,on a comparison of these four ,editions of the same work1 it is discovered that the ,latin version of ,peltanus 7#aehj71 represents the same ,greek text which ,possinus gave to the world in #afgc4 ,peltanus translates very loosely2 in fact he paraphrases rather than translates his author1 and confesses that he has taken great liberties with ,victor's text4 ,but ,i believe it will be found that there can have been no considerable discrepancy between the ,,ms4 which ,peltanus employed1 and that which ,possinus afterwards published4--,not so the text which ,matthaei edited1 which is in fact for the most part1 7though not invariably17 rather an ,epitome of ,victor's ,commentary4 ,on the other hand1 ,cramer's text is more full than that of ,possinus4 ,there seem to be only a few lines in ,possinus1 here and there1 which are not to be met with in ,cramer2 whereas no less than twenty-eight of ,cramer's pages are not found in the work of ,possinus4 ,cramer's edition1 therefore1 is by far the most complete which has hitherto appeared4 ,and though it cries aloud for revision throughout2 though many important corrections might easily be introduced into it1 and the whole brought back in countless particulars more nearly to the state in which it is plain that ,victor originally left it2--,i question whether more than a few pages of additional matter could easily be anywhere recovered4 ,i collated several pages of ,cramer 7,oct4 #ahfi7 with every ,,ms4 of ,victor in the ,paris ,library2 and all but invariably found that ,cramer's text was fuller than that of the ,,ms4 which lay before me4 ,seldom indeed did ,i meet with a few lines in any ,,ms4 which had not already seen the light in ,cramer's edition4 ,one or other of the four ,codices which he employed seems to fill up almost every hiatus which is met with in any of the ,,mss4 of this ,father4 ,for it must be stated1 once for all1 that an immense1 and ,i must add1 a most unaccountable discrepancy is observable between the several extant copies of ,victor3 yet not so much in respect of various readings1 or serious modifications of his text2 7though the transpositions are very frequent1 and often very mischievous27#eac77 as resulting from the boundless license which every fresh copyist seems to have allowed himself chiefly in abridging his author4--,to skip a few lines3 to omit an explanatory paragraph1 quotation1 or digression3 to pass per saltum from the beginning to the end of a passage3 sometimes to leave out a whole page3 to transpose3 to paraphrase3 to begin or to end with quite a different form of words2--proves to have been the rule4 ,two copyists engaged on the same portion of ,commentary are observed to abridge it in two quite different ways4 ,i question whether there exist in ,europe three manuscripts of ,victor which correspond entirely throughout4 ,the result is perplexing in a high degree4 ,not unfrequently 7as might be expected7 we are presented with two or even three different exhibitions of one and the same annotation47#ead7 ,meanwhile1 as if to render the work of collation 7in a manner7 impossible1--7#a7 ,peltanus pleads guilty to having transposed and otherwise taken liberties with the text he translated3 7#b7 ,possinus confessedly welded three codices into one3 7#c7 ,matthaei pieced and patched his edition out of four ,,mss42 and 7#d7 ,cramer1 out of five4 ,the only excuse ,i can invent for this strange licentiousness on the part of ,victor's ancient transcribers is this3--,they must have known perfectly well1 7in fact it is obvious17 that the work before them was really little else but a compilation2 and that ,victor had already abridged in the same merciless way the writings of the ,fathers 7,chrysostom chiefly7 from whom he obtained his materials4 ,we are to remember also1 ,i suppose1 the labour which transcription involved1 and the costliness of the skins out of which ancient books were manufactured4 ,but when all has been said1 ,i must candidly admit that the extent of license which the ancients evidently allowed themselves quite perplexes me47#eae7 ,why1 for example1 remodel the structure of a sentence and needlessly vary its phraseology8 ,never ,i think in my life have ,i been more hopelessly confused than in the ,bibliothque1 while attempting to collate certain copies of ,victor of ,antioch4 ,i dismiss this feature of the case by saying that if any person desires a sample of the process ,i have been describing1 he cannot do better than bestow a little attention on the 8,preface0 77 at the beginning of ,victor's ,commentary4 ,it consists of thirty-eight lines in ,cramer's edition3 of which ,possinus omits eleven2 and ,matthaei also1 eleven2--but not the same eleven4 ,on the other hand1 ,matthaei7#eaf7 prolongs the ,preface by eight lines4 ,strange to relate1 the ,,ms4 from which ,cramer professes to publish1 goes on differently4 ,if ,i may depend on my hasty pencilling1 after ,cramer1 i4 p4 #bfd1 line #af1 ,evan4 #cjj1 ,reg4 #ahf1 fol4 #ic1 line #af from bottom proceeds1-- 1 7thirty-one lines1 ending7 4 ,on referring to the work of ,possinus1 8,anonymus ,vaticanus0 is found to exhibit so admirable a condensation 787 of the in question1 that it is difficult to divest oneself of the suspicion that it must needs be an original and independent composition2 the germ out of which the longer ,preface has grown4444 ,we inspect the first few pages of the ,commentary1 and nothing but perplexity awaits us at every step4 ,it is not till we have turned over a few pages that we begin to find something like exact correspondence4 ,as for the ,work1--7for ,i must now divest myself of the perplexing recollections which the hurried collation of so many ,,mss4 left behind2 and plainly state that1 in spite of all1 ,i yet distinctly ascertained1 and am fully persuaded that the original work was one1--the production1 no doubt1 of 8,victor1 ,presbyter of ,antioch10 as #ai out of the #eb ,,mss4 declare73--,for the ,commentary itself1 ,i say1 ,victor explains at the outset what his method had been4 ,having failed to discover any separate exposition of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 he had determined to construct one1 by collecting the occasional notices scattered up and down the writings of ,fathers of the ,church47#eag7 ,accordingly1 he presents us in the first few lines of his ,commentary 7p4 #bff7 with a brief quotation from the work of ,eusebius 8to ,marinus1 on the seeming inconsistency of the ,evangelical accounts of the ,resurrection20 following it up with a passage from 8the vith viith8 tome of ,origen's ,exegetics on ,s4 ,john's ,gospel40 ,we are thus presented at the outset with two of ,victor's favorite authorities4 ,the work of ,eusebius just named he was evidently thoroughly familiar with47#eah7 ,i suspect that he has many an unsuspected quotation from its pages4 ,towards the end of his ,commentary1 7as already elsewhere explained17 he quotes it once and again4 ,of ,origen also ,victor was evidently very fond7#eai73 and his words on two or three occasions seem to shew that he had recourse besides habitually to the exegetical labours of ,apolinarius1 ,theodore of ,mopsuestia1 and ,titus of ,bostra47#ebj7 ,passages from ,cyril of ,alexandria are occasionally met with27#eba7 and once at least 7p4 #cgj7 he has an extract from ,basil4 ,the historian ,josephus he sometimes refers to by name47#ebb7 ,but the ,father to whom ,victor is chiefly indebted is ,chrysostom1--whom he styles 8the blessed ,john1 ,bishop of the ,royal ,city20 7meaning ,constantinople7#ebc774 ,not that ,victor1 strictly speaking1 transcribes from ,chrysostom2 at least1 to any extent4 ,his general practice is slightly to adapt his ,author's language to his own purpose2 sometimes1 to leave out a few words2 a paragraph2 half a page47#ebd7 ,then1 he proceeds to quote another ,father probably2 or1 it may be1 to offer something of his own4 ,but he seldom gives any intimation of what it is he does3 and if it were not for the occasional introduction of the phrase or 17#ebe7 a reader of ,victor's ,commentary might almost mistake it for an original composition4 ,so little pains does this ,author take to let his reader know when he is speaking in his own person1 when not1 that he has not scrupled to retain ,chrysostom's phrases 17#ebf7 c4 ,the result is that it is often impossible to know to whose sentiments we are listening4 ,it cannot be too clearly borne in mind that ancient ideas concerning authorship differed entirely from those of modern times2 especially when ,holy ,scripture was to be commented on4 ,i suspect that1 occasionally1 copyists of ,victor's work1 as they recognised a fragment here and there1 prefixed to it the name of its author4 ,this would account for the extremely partial and irregular occurrence of such notes of authorship2 as well as explain why a name duly prefixed in one copy is often missing in another47#ebg7 ,whether ,victor's ,commentary can in strictness be called a 8,catena10 or not1 must remain uncertain until some one is found willing to undertake the labour of re-editing his pages2 from which1 by the way1 ,i cannot but think that some highly interesting 7if not some important7 results would follow4 ,yet1 inasmuch as ,victor never1 or certainly very seldom1 prefixes to a passage from a ,father the name of its ,author2--above all1 seeing that sometimes1 at all events1 he is original1 or at least speaks in his own person2--,i think the title of 8,catena0 inappropriate to his ,commentary4 ,as favourable and as interesting a specimen of this work as could be found1 is supplied by his annotation on ,s4 ,mark xiv4 #c4 ,he begins as follows1 7quoting ,chrysostom1 p4 #dcf73--8,one and the same woman seems to be spoken of by all the ,evangelists4 ,yet is this not the case4 ,by three of them one and the same seems to be spoken of2 not however by ,s4 ,john1 but another famous person1--the sister of ,lazarus4 ,this is what is said by ,john1 the ,bishop of the ,royal ,city4--,origen on the other hand says that she who1 in ,s4 ,matthew and ,s4 ,mark1 poured the ointment in the house of ,simon the leper was a different person from the sinner whom ,s4 ,luke writes about who poured the ointment on ,his feet in the house of the ,pharisee4--,apolinarius7#ebh7 and ,theodorus say that all the ,evangelists mention one and the same person2 but that ,john rehearses the story more accurately than the others4 ,it is plain1 however1 that ,matthew1 ,mark1 and ,john speak of the same individual2 for they relate that ,bethany was the scene of the transaction2 and this is a village2 whereas ,luke viii4 #cg speaks of some one else2 for1 #8,behold1' 7saith he7 #8a woman in the city which was a sinner1' 0 c41 c4 ,but the most important instance by far of independent and sound judgment is supplied by that concluding paragraph1 already quoted and largely remarked upon1 at pp4 #fd-e2 in which1 after rehearsing all that had been said against the concluding verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 ,victor vindicates their genuineness by appealing in his own person to the best and the most authentic copies4 ,the ,reader is referred to ,victor's ,text1 which is given below1 at p4 #bhh4 ,it only remains to point out1 that since ,chrysostom1 7whom ,victor speaks of as 1p4 #djh1 and 1 p4 #ddb17 died in ,a4,d4 #djg1 it cannot be right to quote 8#dja0 as the date of ,victor's work4 ,rather would ,a4,d4 #dej be a more reasonable suggestion3 seeing that extracts from ,cyril1 who lived on till ,a4,d4 #ddd1 are found here and there in ,victor's pages4 ,we shall not perhaps materially err if we assign ,a4,d4 #dcj-dej as ,victor of ,antioch's approximate date4 ,i conclude these notices of an unjustly neglected ,father1 by specifying the ,,mss4 which contain his ,work4 ,dry enough to ordinary readers1 these pages will not prove uninteresting to the critical student4 ,an enumeration of all the extant ,codices with which ,i am acquainted which contain ,,victor ,,of ,,antioch',s ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 follows3-- 7i47 ,,evan4 #ab 7 ,reg4 #bcj7 a most beautiful ,,ms4 ,the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark is here assigned to ,,victor by name2 being a recension very like that which ,matthaei has published4 ,s4 ,mark's text is given in extenso4 7ii47 ,,evan4 #ai 7 ,reg4 #ahi3 anciently numbered #dcg and #ahhj4 ,also #acd and #ace4 ,at back1 #afjc47 ,a grand folio1 well-bound and splendidly written4 ,pictures of the ,evangelists in such marvellous condition that the very tools employed by a scribe might be reproduced4 ,the ground gilded4 ,headings1 c4 and words from ,scripture all in gold4 ,here also the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is assigned to ,,victor4 ,the differences between this text and that of ,cramer 7e4g4 at fol4 #cbj-c1 #cgj17 are hopelessly numerous and complicated4 ,there seem to have been extraordinary liberties taken with the text of this copy throughout4 7iii47 ,,evan4 #bj 7 ,reg4 #ahh3 anciently numbered #ahhc47 ,a splendid folio1--the work of several hands and beautifully written4 ,victor's ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is generally considered to be claimed for ,,cyril ,,of ,,alexandria by the following words3 4 ,the correspondence between ,evan4 #bj and ,evan4 #cjj infr1 ,no4 xiv1 7 ,reg4 #ahh and #ahf71 is extraordinary47#ebi7 ,in ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 7which alone ,i examined17 every page begins with the same syllable1 both of ,text and ,commentary3 7i4e4 ,reg4 #ahf1 fol4 #id to #aig ,reg4 #ahh1 fol4 #hg to #adj74 ,not that the number of words and letters in every line corresponds3 but the discrepancy is compensated for by a blank at the end of each column1 and at the foot of each page4 ,evan4 #bj and ,evan4 #cjj seem1 therefore1 in some mysterious way referable to a common original4 ,the sacred ,text of these two ,,mss41 originally very dissimilar1 has been made identical throughout2 some very ancient 7the original87 possessor of ,reg4 #ahh having carefully assimilated the readings of his ,,ms4 to those of ,reg4 #ahf1 the more roughly written copy2 which therefore1 in the judgment of the possessor of ,reg4 #ahh1 exhibits the purer text4 ,but how then does it happen that in both ,codices alike1 each of the ,gospels 7except ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel in ,reg4 #ahh17 ends with the attestation that it has been collated with approved copies8 ,are we to suppose that the colophon in question was added after the one text had been assimilated to the other8 ,this is a subject which well deserves attention4 ,the reader is reminded that these two ,codices have already come before us at pp4 #aah-i1--where see the notes4 ,i proceed to set down some of the discrepancies between the texts of these two ,,mss43 in every one of which1 ,reg4 #ahh has been made conformable to ,reg4 #ahf3-- 7,,cod4 ,,reg4 #ahf47 7,,cod4 ,,reg4 #ahh47 7#a7 ,matth4 xxvi4 #gj4 7#b7 ,mk4 i4 #b4 7#c7 ,mk4 i4 #aa4 7#d7 ,mk4 i4 #af4 7#e7 ,mk4 ii4 #ba4 3 3 1 7#f7 ,mk4 iii4 #aj4 7#g7 ,mk4 iii4 #ag4 7#h7 ,mk4 iii4 #ah4 4 4 4 7#i7 ,mk4 vi4 #i4 7#aj7 ,mk4 vi4 #aj4 ,in the #bnd1 #crd1 and #fth of these instances1 ,tischendorf is found 7#ahfi7 to adopt the readings of ,reg4 #ahh3 in the last four1 those of ,reg4 #ahf4 ,in the #ast1 #dth1 and #eth1 he follows neither4 7iv47 ,,evan4 #bd 7 ,reg4 #agh47 ,a most beautifully written fol4 ,note1 that this ,codex has been mutilated at p4 #gj-a2 from ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #bj to ,s4 ,mark iv4 #bb being away4 ,it cannot therefore be ascertained whether the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark was here attributed to ,victor or not4 ,cramer employed it largely in his edition of ,victor 7,catenae1 vol4 i4 p4 xxix171 as ,i have explained already at p4 #bga4 ,some notices of the present ,codex are given above at p4 #bbh-i4 7v47 ,,evan4 #be 7 ,reg4 #aia3 anciently numbered ,colb4 #bbei73 #ahhj4 ,folio3 grandly written4 ,no ,author's name to the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark4 ,the text of the ,evangelist is given in extenso4 7vi47 ,,evan4 #cd 7 ,coisl4 #aie47 ,a grand folio1 splendidly written1 and in splendid condition3 the paintings as they came from the hand of the artist4 ,at fol4 #agb1 the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark is claimed for ,,victor4 ,it will be found that ,coisl4 #bc 7infr1 ,no4 ix47 and ,coisl4 #aie are derived from a common original2 but ,cod4 #aie is the more perfect copy1 and should have been employed by ,cramer in preference to the other 7supr1 p4 #bga47 ,there has been an older and a more recent hand employed on the ,commentary4 7vii47 ,,evan4 #cf 7 ,coisl4 #bj47 ,a truly sumptuous ,codex4 ,some notices of this ,codex have been given already1 at p4 #bbi4 ,the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark is ,victor's1 but is without any ,author's name4 7viii47 ,,evan4 #cg 7 ,coisl4 #ba47 ,fol4 ,the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark is claimed for ,,victor at fol4 #aag4 ,it seems to be very much the same recension which is exhibited by ,coisl4 #ai 7infr1 ,no4 xviii47 and ,coisl4 #bd 7infr1 ,no4 xi47 ,the ,text is given in extenso3 the ,commentary1 in the margin4 7ix47 ,,evan4 #ci 7 ,coisl4 #bc47 ,a grand large fol4 ,the writing singularly abbreviated4 ,the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark is claimed for ,,victor3 but is very dissimilar in its text from that which forms the basis of ,cramer's editions4 7,see above1 on ,no4 vi47 ,it is ,cramer's 8,p40 7,see his ,catenae1 vol4 i4 p4 xxviii2 and vide supra1 p4 #bga47 7x47 ,,evan4 #dj 7 ,coisl4 #bb47 ,no ,author's name is prefixed to the ,commentary 7fol4 #ajc72 which is a recension resembling ,matthaei's4 ,the ,text is in extenso3 the ,commentary1 in the margin4 7xi47 ,,evan4 #da 7 ,coisl4 #bd47 ,fol4 ,this is a ,commentary1 not a ,text4 ,it is expressly claimed for ,,victor4 ,the recension seems to approximate to that published by ,matthaei4 7,see on ,no4 viii47 ,one leaf is missing4 7,see fol4 #acf b47 7xii47 ,,evan4 #ej 7 ,bodl4 ,laud4 ,gracc4 #cc47 #dto4 ,the ,commentary here seems to be claimed for ,,cyril ,,of ,,alexandria1 but in the same unsatisfactory way as ,no4 iii and xiv4 7,see ,coxe's ,cat4 i4 #eaf47 7xiii47 ,,evan4 #bii 7 ,reg4 #agg3 anciently numbered #bbdbc74 ,the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark is ,victor's1 but is without any ,author's name4 ,the ,text of ,s4 ,mark is given in extenso3 ,victor's ,commentary1 in the margin4 7xiv47 ,,evan4 #cjj 7 ,reg4 #ahf3 anciently numbered #fib1 #gej1 and #ahhb47 ,a noble ,codex3 but the work of different scribes4 ,it is most beautifully written4 ,at fol4 #id1 the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark is claimed for ,,cyril ,,of ,,alexandria1 in the same equivocal manner as above in ,no4 iii and xii4 ,the writer states in the colophon that he had diversely found it ascribed to ,cyril and to ,victor4 7 1 1 47 ,see above1 the note on ,evan4 #bj 7,no4 iii71--a ,,ms4 which1 as already explained1 has been elaborately assimilated to the present4 7xv47 ,,evan4 #cja 7 ,reg4 #ahg3 anciently numbered #ejd1 #ecg and #ahgi47 ,a splendid fol4 beautifully written throughout4 ,the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark is here claimed for ,,victor4 7xvi47 ,,evan4 #cji 7 ,reg4 #bja3 anciently numbered #agf and #bdbc47 ,a very interesting little fol43 very peculiar in its style4 ,drawings old and curious4 ,beautifully written4 ,the ,commentary is here claimed for ,,victor4 ,this is not properly a text of the ,gospel2 but parts of the text interwoven with the ,commentary4 ,take a specimen7#ecj73 7,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h-bj47 4 4 4 ,over the text is written 7 i4e4 ,text7 and over the ,commentary 71 i4e4 ,interpretation47 ,see the next4 7xvii47 ,,evan4 #cab 7 ,reg4 #bjf3 anciently numbered #ifh1 #ajeh1 #bbhc2 and behind1 #afjd4 ,also ,a4 #fg47 ,a beautiful little fol4 ,contains only the ,commentary1 which is expressly assigned to ,,victor4 ,this ,copy of ,victor's ,commentary is very nearly indeed a duplicate of ,cod4 #cji1 7,no4 xvi47 both in its contents and in its method2 but it is less beautifully written4 7xviii47 ,,evan4 #cbi 7 ,coisl4 #ai47 ,a very grand fol4 ,the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark is ,victor's1 but is without any ,author's name4 7,see above1 on ,no4 viii47 7xix47 ,,reg4 #gjc1 7anciently numbered #ieh3 #ajdh1 and ,reg4 #bccj3 also ,no4 #ah47 ,a grand large #dto4 ,the ,commentary is here claimed for ,,origen4 ,such at least is probably the intention of the heading 7in gold capital letters7 of the ,prologue3-- 4 ,see on this subject the note at foot of p4 #bce4 7xx47 ,,evan4 #cjd 7 ,reg4 #aid4 ,teller #ahib47 ,the text of ,s4 ,mark is hero interwoven with a ,commentary which ,i do not recognise4 ,but from the correspondence of a note at the end with what is found in ,possinus1 pp4 #cfa-c1 ,i am led to suspect that the contents of this ,,ms4 will be found to correspond with what ,possinus published and designated as 8,tolosanus40 7xxi47 ,,evan4 #gg 7,vind4 ,ness4 #aad1 ,lambec4 #bi47 ,victor's ,commentary is here anonymous4 7xxii47 ,,evan4 #ib 7which belonged to ,faesch of ,basle see ,wetstein's ,proleg41 and which ,haenel p4 #feh b says is now in ,basle ,library74 ,wetstein's account of this ,codex shows that the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark is here distinctly ascribed to ,victor4 ,he says1--8,continet ,marcum et in eum ,victoris ,antiocheni ,commentarios1 foliis #e mutilos4 ,item ,scholia in ,epistolas ,catholicas10 c4 ,and so ,haenel4 7xxiii47 ,,evan4 #id 7,as before1 precisely2 except that ,haenel's inaccurate notice is at p4 #feg b47 ,this ,codex contains ,,victor of ,antioch's ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark1 7which is evidently hero also assigned to him by name27 and ,titus of ,bostra on ,s4 ,luke4 ,also several ,scholia3 among the rest1 ,i suspect1 7from what ,haenel says71 the ,scholia spoken of supr1 p4 #dg1 note 7x74 7xxiv47 ,in addition to the preceding1 and before mentioning them1 ,haenel says there also exists in the ,library at ,basle1--8,,victoris ,antiocheni ,scholia in ,evang4 ,marci3 chart407#eca7 7xxv47 ,,evan4 #ajh 7,vind4 ,forlos4 d4 ,koll4 #d47 ,birch 7p4 #bbe7 refers to it for the ,scholion given in the next article4 7,append4 ,e47 7xxvi47 ,,evan4 #abi 7,vat4 #ceh47 4 4 ,the ,commentary is written along the top and bottom and down the side of each page2 and there are references 71 1 7 inserted in the text to the paragraphs in the margin1--as in some of the ,,mss4 at ,paris4 ,prefixed is an exegetical apparatus by ,eusebius1 c4 ,note1 that of these five ,,mss4 in the ,vatican1 7#ceh1 #gef1 #geg1 #abbi1 #adde71 the #crd and #dth are without the prefatory section 7beginning 47--,all #e begin1 4 ,in all but the #dth1 the second paragraph begins 4 ,the third passage begins in all #e1 4 ,any one seeking to understand this by a reference to the editions of ,cramer or of ,possinus will recognise the truth of what was stated above1 p4 #bgd1 line #bd to #bg4 7xxvii47 ,,evan4 #acg 7,vat4 #gef47 ,the ,commentary is written as in ,vat4 #ceh 7,no4 xxvi73 but no ,author's name is given4 7xxviii47 ,,evan4 #ach 7,vat4 #geg47 ,on a blank page or fly-leaf at the beginning are these words3-- 7sic7 4 7,comp4 ,no4 xlvii47 ,the ,commentary and ,text are not kept distinct1 as in the preceding ,codex4 ,both are written in an ill-looking1 slovenly hand4 7xxix47 ,,evan4 #adc 7,vat4 #a1bbi47 ,the ,commentary is written as in ,vat4 #ceh 7,no4 xxvi71 but without the references2 and no ,author's name is given4 7xxx47 ,,evan4 #aha 7,xavier1 ,cod4 ,zelada47 ,birch was shewn this ,codex of the ,four ,gospels in the ,library of ,cardinal ,xavier of ,zelada 7,prolegomena1 p4 lviii73 8,cujus forma est in folio1 pp4 #eif4 ,in margine passim occurrunt scholia ex ,patrum ,commentariis exscripta40 7xxxi47 ,,evan4 #ahf 7,laur4 vi4 #ah47 ,this ,codex is minutely described by ,bandini 7,cat4 i4 #acj71 who gives the ,scholion 7infra1 p4 #chh-i71 and says that the ,commentary is without any ,author's name4 7xxxii47 ,,evan4 #aid 7,laur4 vi4 #cc47 4 7,see the description of this ,codex in ,bandini's ,cat4 i4 #aeh47 7xxxiii47 ,,evan4 #aie 7,laur4 vi4 #cd47 ,this ,codex seems to correspond in its contents with ,no4 xxxi4 supr3 the ,commentary containing the ,scholion1 and being anonymous4 7,see ,bandini1 p4 #afa47 7xxxiv47 ,,evan4 #aig 7,laur4 viii4 #ad47 ,the ,commentary1 7which is ,victor's1 but has no ,author's name prefixed17 is defective at the end4 7,see ,bandini1 p4 #cee47 7xxxv47 ,,evan4 #baj 7,venet4 #bg47 8,conveniunt initio ,commentarii eum iis qui ,victori ,antiocheno tribuuntur1 progressu autem discrepant40 7,theupoli ,graeca ,d4 ,marci ,bibl4 ,codd4 ,,mss4 ,venet4 #agdj47 ,i infer that the work is anonymous4 7xxxvi47 ,venet4 #die4 8,,victoris ,,antiocheni ,presbyteri expositio in ,evangelium ,marci1 collecta ex diversis ,patribus40 7,i obtain this reference from the ,catalogue of ,theupolus47 7xxxvii47 ,,evan4 #bae 7,venet4 #edd47 ,i presume1 from the description in the ,catalogue of ,theupolus1 that this ,codex also contains a copy of ,victor's ,commentary4 7xxxviii47 ,,evan4 #bba 7,vind4 ,ness4 #aag1 ,lambec4 #ch74 ,kollar has a long note 7,b7 iii4 #aeg on the ,commentary1 which has no ,author's name prefixed4 ,birch 7p4 #bbe7 refers to it for the purpose recorded under ,no4 xxv4 7xxxix47 ,,evan4 #bbb 7,vind4 ,ness4 #ahj1 ,lambec4 #ci47 ,the ,commentary is anonymous4 ,birch refers to it1 as before4 ,add the following six ,,mss4 at ,moscow1 concerning which1 see ,matthaei's ,nov4 ,test4 7#aghh7 vol4 ii4 p4 xii43-- 7xl47 ,,evan4 #bcg 7,this is ,matthaei's d or ,d described in his ,n4 ,t4 ix4 #bdb4 ,also ,vict4 ,ant4 ii4 #acg4 8,,ss4 ,synod4 #db307 and is one of the ,,mss4 employed by ,matthaei in his ed4 of ,victor4--,the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark has no ,author's name prefixed4 7xli47 ,,evan4 #bch 7,matthaei's e or ,e described in his ,n4 ,t4 ix4 #bjj4 ,also ,vict4 ,ant4 ii4 #ada4 8,,ss4 ,synod4 #dh407 ,this ,codex formed the basis of ,matthaei's ed4 of ,victor1 ,see the ,not4 ,codd4 ,,mss4 at the end of vol4 ii4 p4 #abc4 ,also ,n4 ,t4 ix4 #bjb4 ,the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark is anonymous4 7xlii47 ,,evan4 #bec 7,matthaei's #aj described in his ,n4 ,t4 ix4 #bcd4 ,it was lent him by ,archbishop ,nicephorus47 ,matthaei says 7p4 #bcf7 that it corresponds with a 7our ,evan4 #bei74 ,no ,author's name is prefixed to the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark4 7xliii47 ,,evan4 #bee 7,matthaei's #ab described in his ,n4 ,t4 ix4 #bbb4 ,also ,vict4 ,ant4 ii4 #acc47 8,,ss4 ,synod4 #aci40 ,the ,scholia on ,s4 ,mark are here entitled 1 and 7as in #ad7 are few in number4 ,for some unexplained reason1 in his edition of ,victor of ,antioch1 ,matthaei saw fit to designate this ,,ms4 as 8,b40 ,n4,t4 ix4 #bbd note4 444 ,see by all means1 infr1 the 8,postscript40 7xliv47 ,,evan4 #bef 7,matthaei's #ad described in his ,n4 ,t4 ix4 #bbj4 8,bibl4 ,typ4 ,synod4 #c407 ,the ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark is here assigned to ,,victor1 presbyter of ,antioch2 but the ,scholia are said to be 7as in 8#ab0 ,no4 xxxix7 few in number4 7xlv47 ,,evan4 #bei 7,matthaei's a or ,a described in his ,n4 ,t4 ix4 #bcg4 ,also ,vict4 ,ant4 ii4 #abh4 8,,ss4 ,synod4 #de407 ,this is one of the ,,mss4 employed by ,matthaei in his ed4 of ,victor4 ,no ,author's name is prefixed to the ,commentary4 7xlvi47 ,,evan4 #ccb 7,taurin4 xx b iv4 #bj47 ,victor's ,commentary is here given anonymously4 7,see the ,catalogue of ,pasinus1 ,p4 i4 p4 #ia47 7xlvii47 ,,evan4 #cec 7,ambros4 ,m4 #ic73 with the same ,commentary as ,evan4 #aha1 7i4e4 ,no4 xxx47 7xlviii47 ,,evan4 #cgd 7,vat4 #adde47 ,written continuously in a very minute character4 ,the ,commentary is headed 7in a later ,greek hand7 4 ,this is simply a mistake4 ,no such work exists3 and the ,commentary on the second ,evangelist is that of ,victor4 7,see ,no4 xxviii47 7xlix47 ,,evan4 #dbh 7,monacensis #cha4 ,augsburg #aa73 said to be duplicate of ,evan4 #cjj 7i4e4 of ,no4 xiv47 7#a47 ,,evan4 #dcb 7,monacensis #ii47 ,the ,commentary contained in this ,codex is evidently assigned to ,,victor4 7li47 ,,evan4 #gpe 7ix4 #c4 #dga47 ,a valuable copy of the ,four ,gospels1 dated #ajfb2 which ,edw4 de ,muralto 7in his ,catalogue of the ,greek ,,mss4 in the ,imperial ,library at ,s4 ,petersburg7 says contains the ,commentary of ,,victor ,,ant4 7,see ,scrivener's ,introduction1 p4 #agh474 7lii47 ,at ,toledo1 in the 8,biblioteca de la ,iglesia ,mayor10 ,haenel p4 #hhe mentions3--8,,victor ,,antiochenus ,comm4 ,graec4 in iv4 8 ,evangelia saec4 xiv4 membr4 fol40 ,to this enumeration1 7which could certainly be very extensively increased17 will probably have to be added the following3-- ,,evan4 #adf 7,palatino ,vat4 #e47 ,,evan4 #bcc 7,escurial ,upsilon4 ii4 #h47 ,,evan4 #cgc 7,vat4 #adbc47 ,,evan4 #cgi 7,vat4 #agfi47 ,,evan4 #dbg 7,monacensis #dfe1 ,augsburg #aj47 ,middle ,hill1 ,no4 #ac1ige1--;a ,,ms4 in the collection of ,sir ,thomas ,phillipps4 ,in conclusion1 it can scarcely require to be pointed out that ,,victor',s ,commentary1--of which the ,church in her palmiest days shewed herself so careful to multiply copies1 and of which there survive to this hour such a vast number of specimens1--must needs anciently have enjoyed very peculiar favour4 ,it is evident1 in fact1 that an ,epitome of ,chrysostom's ,homilies on ,s4 ,matthew1 together with ,,victor',s compilation on ,s4 ,mark1--,titus of ,bostra on ,s4 ,luke1--and a work in the main derived from ,chrysostom's ,homilies on ,s4 ,john2--that these four constituted the established ,commentary of ancient ,christendom on the fourfold ,gospel4 ,individual copyists1 no doubt1 will have been found occasionally to abridge certain of the ,annotations1 and to omit others3 or else1 out of the multitude of ,scholia by various ancient ,fathers which were evidently once in circulation1 and must have been held in very high esteem1--7,irenus1 ,origen1 ,ammonius1 ,eusebius1 ,apolinarius1 ,cyril1 ,chrysostom1 the ,gregorys1 ,basil1 ,theodore of ,mopsuestia1 and ,theodore of ,heraclea17 they will have introduced extracts according to their individual caprice4 ,in this way1 the general sameness of the several copies is probably to be accounted for1 while their endless discrepancy in matters of detail is perhaps satisfactorily explained4 ,these last remarks are offered in the way of partial elucidation of the difficulty pointed out above1 at pp4 #bgb-d4 ,,appendix 7,e74 ,text of the concluding ,scholion of ,,victor ,,of ,,antioch',s ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel2 in which ,victor bears emphatic testimony to the genuineness of 8the last ,twelve ,verses40 7,referred to at p4 #fe47 ,i have thought this very remarkable specimen of the method of an ancient and 7as ,i think7 unjustly neglected ,commentator1 deserving of extraordinary attention4 ,besides presenting the reader1 therefore1 with what seems to be a fair approximation to the original text of the passage1 ,i have subjoined as many various readings as have come to my knowledge4 ,it is hoped that they are given with tolerable exactness2 but ,i have been too often obliged to depend on printed books and the testimony of others4 ,i can at least rely on the readings furnished me from the ,vatican4 ,the text chiefly followed is that of ,coisl4 #bj1 7in the ,paris ,library1--our ,,evan4 #cf27 supplemented by several other ,,mss41 which1 for convenience1 ,i have arbitrarily designated by the letters of the alphabet47#ecb7 87#ecc7 10 1 7#ecd7 17#ece7 7 7#ecf77 1 17#ecg7 1 1 7#ech7 1 8 07#eci7 8 10 8 4 407#edj7 ,more pains than enough 7it will perhaps be thought7 have been taken to exhibit accurately this short ,scholion4 ,and yet1 it has not been without design 7the reader may be sure7 that so many various readings have been laboriously accumulated4 ,the result1 it is thought1 is eminently instructive1 and 7to the student of ,ecclesiastical ,antiquity7 important also4 ,for it will be perceived by the attentive reader that not more than two or three of the multitude of various readings afforded by this short ,scholion can have possibly resulted from careless transcription47#eda7 ,the rest have been unmistakably occasioned by the merest licentiousness3 every fresh ,copyist evidently considering himself at liberty to take just whatever liberties he pleased with the words before him4 ,to amputate1 or otherwise to mutilated2 to abridge2 to amplify2 to transpose2 to remodel2--this has been the rule with all4 ,the types 7so to speak7 are reducible to two1 or at most to three2 but the varieties are almost as numerous as the ,,mss4 of ,victor's work4 ,and yet it is impossible to doubt that this ,scholion was originally one1 and one only4 ,irrecoverable perhaps1 in some of its minuter details1 as the actual text of ,victor may be1 it is nevertheless self-evident that in the main we are in possession of what he actually wrote on this occasion4 ,in spite of all the needless variations observable in the manner of stating a certain fact1 it is still unmistakably one and the same fact which is every time stated4 ,it is invariably declared1-- 7#a47 ,that from certain copies of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel the last ,twelve ,verses had been ,,left ,,out2 and 7#b7 ,that this had been done because their genuineness had been by certain persons suspected3 but1 7#c7 ,that the ,writer1 convinced of their genuineness1 had restored them to their rightful place2 7#d7 ,because he had found them in accurate copies1 and in the authentic ,palestinian copy1 which had supplied him with his exemplar4 ,it is obvious to suggest that after familiarizing ourselves with this specimen of what proves to have been the licentious method of the ancient copyists in respect of the text of an early ,father1 we are in a position to approach more intelligently the ,commentary of ,victor itself2 and1 to some extent1 to understand how it comes to pass that so many liberties have been taken with it throughout4 ,the ,reader is reminded of what has been already offered on this subject at pp4 #bgb-c4 ,,appendix 7,f74 ,on the ,relative antiquity of the ,,codex ,,vaticanus 7,b71 and the ,,codex ,,sinaiticus 774 7,referred to at p4 #gj47 ,i4 8,vix differt aetate a ,codice ,sinaitico10 says ,tischendorf1 7ed4 #hva1 #ahfi1 p4 ix17 speaking of the ,codex ,vaticanus 7,b74 ,yet does he perpetually designate his own ,sinaitic ,codex 77 as 8omnium antiquissimus40 ,now1 7#a7 ,the 7all but unique7 sectional division of the ,text of ,codex ,b1--confessedly the oldest scheme of chapters extant1 is in itself a striking note of primitiveness4 ,the author of the ,codex knew nothing1 apparently1 of the ,eusebian method4 ,but ,i venture further to suggest that the following peculiarities in ,codex unmistakably indicate for it a later date than ,codex ,b4 7#b7 ,cod4 1 7like ,c1 and other later ,,mss417 is broken up into short paragraphs throughout4 ,the ,vatican ,codex1 on the contrary1 has very few breaks indeed3 e4g4 it is without break of any sort from ,s4 ,matth4 xvii4 #bd to xx4 #ag3 whereas1 within the same limits1 there are in ,cod4 as many as thirty interruptions of the context4 ,from ,s4 ,mark xiii4 #a to the end of the ,gospel the text is absolutely continuous in ,cod4 ,b1 except in one place3 but in ,cod4 it is interrupted upwards of fifty times4 ,again3 from ,s4 ,luke xvii4 #aa1 to the end of the ,gospel there is but one break in ,cod4 ,b4 ,but it is broken into well nigh an hundred and fifty short paragraphs in ,cod4 4 ,there can be no doubt that the unbroken text of ,codex ,b1 7resembling the style of the papyrus of ,hyperides published by ,mr4 ,babington17 is the more ancient4 ,the only places where it approximates to the method of ,cod4 1 is where the ,commandments are briefly recited 7,s4 ,matth4 xix4 #ah1 c471 and where our ,,lord proclaims the eight ,beatitudes 7,s4 ,matth4 v47 7#c7 ,again2 ,cod4 is prone to exhibit1 on extraordinary occasions1 a single word in a line1 as at-- ,s4 ,,matth4 ,,xv4 #cj4 ,s4 ,,mark ,x4 #bi4 ,s4 ,,luke ,,xiv4 #ac ,this became a prevailing fashion in the vith century2 e4g4 when the ,cod4 ,laudianus of the ,acts 7,e7 was written4 ,the only trace of anything of the kind in ,cod4 ,b is at the ,genealogy of our ,,lord4 7#d7 ,at the commencement of every fresh paragraph1 the initial letter in ,cod4 slightly projects into the margin1--beyond the left hand edge of the column2 as usual in all later ,,mss4 ,this characteristic is only not undiscoverable in ,cod4 ,b4 ,instances of it there are in the earlier ,codex2 but they are of exceedingly rare occurrence4 7#e7 ,further2 ,cod4 abounds in such contractions as 1 7with all their cases71 for 1 1 c4 ,not only 1 1 1 1 7for 1 --1 71 but also 1 1 1 for 1 1 4 ,but ,cod4 ,b1 though familiar with 1 and a few other of the most ordinary abbreviations1 knows nothing of these compendia3 which certainly cannot have existed in the earliest copies of all4 ,once more1 it seems reasonable to suppose that their constant occurrence in ,cod indicates for that ,codex a date subsequent to ,cod4 ,b4 7#f7 ,the very discrepancy observable between these two ,codices in their method of dealing with 8the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel10 7already adverted to at p4 #hh17 is a further indication1 and as it seems to the present writer a very striking one1 that ,cod4 ,b is the older of the two4 ,cod4 is evidently familiar with the phenomenon which astonishes ,cod4 ,b by its novelty and strangeness4 7#g7 ,but the most striking feature of difference1 after all1 is only to be recognised by one who surveys the ,codices themselves with attention4 ,it is that general air of primitiveness in ,cod4 ,b which makes itself at once felt4 ,the even symmetry of the unbroken columns2--the work of the prima manus everywhere vanishing through sheer antiquity2--the small1 even1 square writing1 which partly recalls the style of the ,herculanean rolls2 partly1 the papyrus fragments of the ,oration against ,demosthenes 7published by ,harris in #ahdh73--;all these notes of superior antiquity infallibly set ,cod4 ,b before ,cod4 2 though it may be impossible to determine whether by #ej1 by #ge1 or by #ajj years4 ,,ii4 ,it has been conjectured by one whose words are always entitled to most respectful attention1 that ,codex ,sinaiticus may have been 8one of the fifty ,codices of ,holy ,scripture which ,eusebius prepared ,a4,d4 #cca1 by ,constantine's direction1 for the use of the new ,capital40 7,scrivener's ,collation of the ,cod4 ,sin41 ,introd4 p4 xxxvii-viii47 #a4 ,but this1 which is rendered improbable by the many instances of grave discrepancy between its readings and those with which ,eusebius proves to have been most familiar1 is made impossible by the discovery that it is without ,s4 ,mark xv4 #bh1 which constitutes the ,eusebian ,section numbered 8#baf0 in ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,quite in vain has ,tischendorf perversely laboured to throw doubt on this circumstance4 ,it remains altogether undeniable1--as a far less accomplished critic than ,tischendorf may see at a glance4 ,tischendorf's only plea is the fact that in ,cod4 ,m1 7he might have added and in the ,codex ,sinaiticus1 which explains the phenomenon in ,cod4 ,m71 against ver4 #bi is set the number1 8#baf10 instead of against ver4 #bh4 ,but what then8 ,has not the number demonstrably lost its place8 ,and is there not still one of the ,eusebian ,sections missing8 ,and which can it possibly have been1 if it was not ,s4 ,mark xv4 #bh8 ,again4 ,cod4 1 7like ,b1 ,c1 ,l1 ,u1 1 and some others71 gives the piercing of the ,,saviour',s side at ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #di3 but if ,eusebius had read that incident in the same place1 he would have infallibly included ,s4 ,john xix4 #cd1 #ce1 with ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #di1 in his viith ,canon1 where matters are contained which are common to ,s4 ,matthew and ,s4 ,john1--instead of referring ,s4 ,john xix4 #ca-cg to his xth ,canon1 which specifies things peculiar to each of the four ,evangelists4 ,eusebius1 moreover1 in a certain place 7,dem4 ,evan4 x4 #h quoted by ,tisch47 has an allusion to the same transaction1 and expressly says that it is recorded by ,s4 ,john4 #b4 ,no inference as to the antiquity of this ,codex can be drawn from the ,eusebian notation of ,sections in the margin3 that notation having been confessedly added at a subsequent date4 #c4 ,on the other hand1 the subdivision of ,cod4 into paragraphs1 proves to have been made without any reference to the sectional distribution of ,eusebius4 ,thus1 there are in the ,codex thirty distinct paragraphs from ,s4 ,matthew xi4 #bj to xii4 #cd1 inclusive2 but there are comprised within the same limits only seventeen ,eusebian sections4 ,and yet1 of those seventeen sections only nine correspond with as many paragraphs of the ,codex ,sinaiticus4 ,this1 in itself1 is enough to prove that ,eusebius knew nothing of the present ,codex4 ,his record is express3-- 444 ,,iii4 ,the supposed resemblance of the opened volume to an ,egyptian papyrus1--when eight columns 77 are exhibited to the eye at once1 side by side1--seems to be a fallacious note of high antiquity4 ,if ,cod4 has four columns in a page1--,cod4 ,b three1--,cod4 ,a two1--,cod4 ,c has only one4 ,but ,cod4 ,c is certainly as old as ,cod4 ,a4 ,again1 ,cod4 ,d1 which is of the vith century1 is written 7like ,cod4 ,c7 across the page3 yet was it 8copied from an older model similarly divided in respect to the lines or verses10--and therefore similarly written across the page4 ,it is almost obvious that the size of the skins on which a ,codex was written will have decided whether the columns should be four or only three in a page4 ,,iv4 ,in fine1 nothing doubting the high antiquity of both ,codices1 7,b and 17 ,i am nevertheless fully persuaded that an interval of at least half a century1--if not of a far greater span of years1--is absolutely required to account for the marked dissimilarity between them4 ,,appendix 7,g74 ,on the so-called 8,,ammonian ,,sections0 and 8,,eusebian ,,canons40 7,referred to at p4 #acj47 ,i4 ,that the ,sections 7popularly miscalled 8,ammonian07 with which ,,eusebius ,a4,d4 #cbj has made the world thoroughly familiar1 and of which some account was given above 7pp4 #abg-h71 cannot be the same which ,,ammonius of ,alexandria ,a4,d4 #bbj employed1--but must needs be the invention of ,,eusebius himself1--admits of demonstration4 ,on this subject1 external testimony is altogether insecure47#edb7 ,the only safe appeal is to the ,sections themselves4 #a4 ,the ,call of the ,four ,apostles is described by the first three ,evangelists1 within the following limits of their respective ,gospels3--,s4 ,matthew iv4 #ah-bb3 ,s4 ,mark i4 #af-bj3 ,s4 ,luke 7with the attendant miraculous draught of fishes17 v4 #a-aa4 ,now1 these three portions of narrative are observed to be dealt with in the sectional system of ,,eusebius after the following extraordinary fashion3 7the fourth column represents the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,john73-- 7#a47 #bi1 7v4 #a-c7 7#b47 #bj1 7iv4 #i1 7i4 #ag1 #ah7 #ad-a_/b-af7 7#c47 #cj1 7v4 #d-g7 #bai1 7xxi4 #a-f7 7#d47 #cj 7v4 #d-g7 #bbb1 7xxi4 #aa7 7#e47 #ca1 7v4 #h-aj-a_/b7 7#f47 #ba1 7iv4 #aj1 7i4 #ag1 #cb1 7v4 #ai1 #bj7 #ah7 #aj-a_/b1 #aa7 7#g47 #bb1 7iv4 #aa1 7i4 #ai1 #ba1 #bb7 #bj7 ,it will be perceived from this1 that ,,eusebius subdivides these three portions of the sacred ,narrative into ten ,sections 78207--of which three belong to ,s4 ,matthew1 viz4 #bj1 #ba1 #bb3--three to ,s4 ,mark1 viz4 #i1 #aj1 #aa3--;four to ,s4 ,luke1 viz4 #bi1 #cj1 #ca1 #cb3 which ten ,sections1 ,,eusebius distributed over four of his ,canons3 referring three of there to his ,i,ind ,canon1 7which exhibits what ,s4 ,matthew1 ,s4 ,mark1 and ,s4 ,luke have in common72 four of them to his ,v,ith ,canon1 7which shews what ,s4 ,matthew and ,s4 ,mark have in common72 one1 to his ,i,xth1 7which contains what is common to ,s4 ,luke and ,s4 ,john72 two1 to his ,xth1 7in which is found what is peculiar to each ,evangelist47 ,now1 the design which ,,eusebius had in breaking up this portion of the sacred ,text1 7,s4 ,matth4 iv4 #ah-bb1 ,s4 ,mark i4 #af-bj1 ,s4 ,luke v4 #a-aa17 after so arbitrary a fashion1 into ten portions2 divorcing three of those ,sections from ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 7viz4 ,s4 ,luke's #bi1 #cj1 #ca72 and connecting one of these last three 7 #cj7 with two ,sections 7 #bai1 #bbb7 of ,s4 ,john2--is perfectly plain4 ,his object was1 7as he himself explains17 to shew--not only 7a7 what ,s4 ,matthew has in common with ,s4 ,mark and ,s4 ,luke2 but also 7b7 what ,s4 ,luke has in common with ,s4 ,john2--as well as 7c7 what ,s4 ,luke has peculiar to himself4 ,but1 in the work of ,,ammonius1 as far as we know anything about that work1 all this would have been simply impossible4 7,i have already described his 8,diatessaron10 at pp4 #abf-g47 ,intent on exhibiting the ,sections of the other ,gospels which correspond with the ,sections of ,s4 ,matthew1 ,,ammonius would not if he could1--7and he could not if he would17--have dissociated from its context ,s4 ,luke's account of the first miraculous draught of fishes in the beginning of our ,,lord',s ,ministry1 for the purpose of establishing its resemblance to ,s4 ,john's account of the second miraculous draught of fishes which took place after the ,resurrection1 and is only found in ,s4 ,john's ,gospel4 ,these ,sections therefore are 8,,eusebian10 not ,ammonian4 ,they are necessary1 according to the scheme of ,,eusebius4 ,they are not only unnecessary and even meaningless1 but actually impossible1 in the ,,ammonian scheme4 #b4 ,let me call attention to another1 and1 as ,i think1 a more convincing instance4 ,i am content in fact to narrow the whole question to the following single issue3--,let me be shewn how it is rationally conceivable that ,,ammonius can have split up ,s4 ,john xxi4 #ab1 #ac1 into three distinct ,sections2 and ,s4 ,john xxi4 #ae1 #af1 #ag1 into six8 and yet1 after so many injudicious disintegrations of the sacred ,text1 how it is credible that he can have made but one ,section of ,s4 ,john xxi4 #ah to #be1--which nevertheless1 from its very varied contents1 confessedly requires even repeated subdivision8444 ,why ,,eusebius did all this1 is abundantly plain4 ,his peculiar plan constrained him to refer the former half of ver4 #ab1--the latter half of verses #ae1 #af1 #ag--to his ,i,xth ,canon1 where ,s4 ,luke and ,s4 ,john are brought together2 7 73--and to consign the latter half of ver4 #ab1--the former half of verses #ae1 #af1 #ag1--together with the whole of the last eight verses of ,s4 ,john's ,gospel1 to his ,xth 7or last7 ,canon1 where what is peculiar to each of the four ,evangelists is set down1 7 47 ,but ,,ammonius1 because he confessedly recognised no such ,canons1 was under no such constraint4 ,he had in fact no such opportunity4 ,he therefore simply cannot have adopted the same extraordinary sectional subdivision4 #c4 ,to state the matter somewhat differently1 and perhaps to exhibit the argument in a more convincing form3--,the ,canons of ,,eusebius1 and the so-called 8,,ammonian ,,sections10--7by which1 confessedly1 nothing else whatever is meant but the ,sections of ,,eusebius17--are discovered mutually to imply one another4 ,those ,canons are without meaning or use apart from the ,sections1--for the sake of which they were clearly invented4 ,those ,sections1 whatever convenience they may possess apart from the ,canons1 nevertheless are discovered to presuppose the ,canons throughout3 to be manifestly subsequent to them in order of time3 to depend upon them for their very existence3 in some places to be even unaccountable in the eccentricity of their arrangement1 except when explained by the requirements of the ,,eusebian ,canons4 ,i say--,that particular sectional subdivision1 in other words1 to which the epithet 8,,ammonian0 is popularly applied1--7applied however without authority1 and in fact by the merest license17--proves on careful inspection to have been only capable of being devised by one who was already in possession of the ,canons of ,,eusebius4 ,in plain terms1 they are demonstrably the work of ,,eusebius himself1--who expressly claims ,the ,canons for his own 7 71 and leaves it to be inferred that he is the ,author of the ,sections also4 ,wetstein 7,proleg4 p4 #gj17 and ,bishop ,lloyd 7in the 8,monitum0 prefixed to his ed4 of the ,greek ,test4 p4 x17 so understand the matter2 and ,mr4 ,scrivener 7,introduction1 p4 #ea7 evidently inclines to the same opinion4 ,,ii4 ,i desire1 in the next place1 to point out that a careful inspection of the ,eusebian 8,sections10 7for ,eusebius himself calls them 1 not 17 leads inevitably to the inference that they are only rightly understood when regarded in the light of 8,,marginal ,,references40 ,this has been hitherto overlooked4 ,bp4 ,lloyd1 in the interesting 8,monitum0 already quoted1 remarks of the ,eusebian ,canons1--8quorum haec est utilitas1 ut eorum scilicet ope quivis1 nullo labore1 ,harmoniam sibi quatuor ,evangeliorum possit conficere40 ,the learned ,prelate can never have made the attempt in this way 8,harmoniam sibi conficere10 or he would not have so written4 ,he evidently did not advert to the fact that ,eusebius refers his readers 7in his ,i,i,ird ,canon7 from ,s4 ,john's account of the ,healing of the ,nobleman's son to the account given by ,s4 ,matthew and ,s4 ,luke of the ,healing of the ,centurion's servant4 ,it is perfectly plain in fact that to enable a reader 8to construct for himself a ,harmony of the ,gospels10 was no part of ,eusebius' intention2 and quite certain that any one who shall ever attempt to avail himself of the system of ,sections and ,canons before us with that object1 will speedily find himself landed in hopeless confusion47#edc7 ,but in fact there is no danger of his making much progress in his task4 ,his first discovery would probably be that ,s4 ,john's weighty doctrinal statements concerning our ,,lord',s ,eternal ,,godhead in chap4 i4 #a-e3 #i1 #aj3 #ad1 are represented as parallel with the ,human ,genealogy of our ,,saviour as recorded by ,s4 ,matthew i4 #a-af1 and by ,s4 ,luke iii4 #bc-ch3--the next1 that the first half of the ,visit of the ,magi 7,s4 ,matthew ii4 #a-f7 is exhibited as corresponding with ,s4 ,john vii4 #da1 #db4--,two such facts ought to open the eyes of a reader of ordinary acuteness quite wide to the true nature of the ,canons of ,eusebius4 ,they are ,tables of ,reference only4 ,eusebius has in fact himself explained his object in constructing them2 which 7he says7 was twofold3 7#ast7 ,to enable a reader to see at a glance1 8which of the ,evangelists have said things of the same kind10 7 3 the phrase occurs four times in the course of his short ,epistle73 and 7#bndly71 ,to enable him to find out where they have severally done so3 7 1 2 ,eusebius uses the phrase twice47 ,but this1 7as all are aware7 is precisely the office of 7what are called7 8,marginal ,references40 ,accordingly1 7a47 ,whether referring from ,s4 ,matth4 x4 #dj 7 #ih72 ,s4 ,mark ix4 #cg 7 #if72 or ,s4 ,luke x4 #af 7 #aaf72--we find ourselves referred to the following six places of ,s4 ,john1--v4 #bc3 xii4 #dd1 #de3 xiii4 #bj3 xiv4 #ba3 xiv4 #bd1 #be3 xv4 #bc7edd7 7 #dj1 #aaa1 #abj1 #abi1 #aca1 #add47 ,again1 7b47 ,whether we refer from ,s4 ,matth4 xi4 #bg 7 #aaa1 #aab17 or ,s4 ,luke x4 #bb 7 #aai71--we find ourselves referred to the following eleven places of ,s4 ,john1--i4 #ah3 iii4 #ce3 v4 #cg3 vi4 #df3 vii4 #bh1 #bi3 viii4 #ai3 x4 #ae3 xiii4 #c3 xv4 #ba3 xvi4 #ae3 xvii4 #be 7 #h1 #cj1 #dd1 #fa1 #gf1 #hg1 #ij1 #aad1 #adb1 #adh1 #aed47 7c47 ,so also1 from ,s4 ,matthew's 7xvi4 #ac-af71 ,s4 ,mark's 7viii4 #bg-bi71 and ,s4 ,luke's 7ix4 #ah-bj7 account of ,s4 ,peters ,confession at ,csarea ,philippi1--we are referred to ,s4 ,john i4 #db1 #dc1--;a singular reference2 and to ,s4 ,john vi4 #fh1 #fi4 7d47 ,from the mention of the last ,passover by the three earlier ,evangelists1 7,s4 ,matth4 xxvi4 #a1 #b3 ,s4 ,mark xiv4 #a3 ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #a17 we are referred to ,s4 ,john's mention of the first ,passover 7ii4 #ac #bj72 and of the second 7vi4 #d #dh72 as well as of the fourth 7xi4 #ee #if47 7e47 ,from the words of ,consecration at the ,last ,supper1 as recorded by ,s4 ,matth4 7xxvi4 #af71 ,s4 ,mark 7xiv4 #bb71 and ,s4 ,luke 7xxii4 #ai71--we are referred to the four following ,sections of our ,,lord',s ,discourse in the ,synagogue at ,capernaum recorded by ,s4 ,john1 which took place a year before1--,s4 ,john vi4 #ce1 #cf3 #dh3 #ea3 #ee3 7 #ee1 #fc1 #fe1 #fg74 7f47 ,nothing but the spirit in which 8,marginal ,references0 are made would warrant a critic in linking together three incidents like the following1--similar1 indeed1 yet entirely distinct3 viz4 ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #cd3 ,s4 ,mark xv4 #bd3 and ,s4 ,john xix4 #bh1 #bi4 7g47 ,i was about to say that scarcely could such an excuse be invented for referring a ,reader from ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #cb1 to ,s4 ,john xxi4 #ae1 and #af1 and #ag 7 #bbg1 #bbh1 #bbi17--;but ,i perceive that the same three ,references stand in the margin of our own ,bibles4 ,not even the margin of the ,english ,bible1 however1 sends a ,reader 7as the ,i,xth ,canon of ,eusebius does7 from our ,,lord',s eating 8broiled fish and honeycomb10 in the presence of the ten ,apostles at ,jerusalem on the evening of the first ,easter-,day1 7,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #da-dc 7 #cda177 to ,his feeding the seven ,apostles with bread and fish at the ,sea of ,galilee many days after4 7,s4 ,john xxi4 #i1 #aj3 #ab3 #ac #bba1 #bbc1 #bbd47--;,and this may suffice4 ,it is at all events certain that the correctest notion of the use and the value of the ,eusebian ,sections will be obtained by one who will be at the pains to substitute for the ,eusebian ,numbers in the margin of a copy of the ,greek ,gospels the ,references which these numbers severally indicate4 ,it will then become plain that the system of ,sections and ,canons which ,eusebius invented1--ingenious1 interesting1 and useful as it certainly is2 highly important also1 as being the known work of an illustrious ,father of the ,church1 as well as most precious occasionally for critical purposes17#ede7--;is nothing else but a clumsy substitute for what is achieved by an ordinary 8,reference ,bible03--participating in every inconvenience incidental to the unskilfully contrived apparatus with which ,english readers are familiar17#edf7 and yet inferior in the following four respects3-- 7#ast47 ,the references of ,eusebius1 7except those found in ,canon ,x471 require in every instance to be deciphered1 before they can be verified2 and they can only be deciphered by making search1 7and sometimes laborious search17 in another part of the volume4 ,they are not1 in fact1 7nor do they pretend to be17 references to the inspired ,text at all2 but only references to the ,eusebian ,canons4 7#bndly47 ,in their scope1 they are of course strictly confined to the ,gospels1--which most inconveniently limits their use1 as well as diminishes their value4 7,thus1 by no possibility is ,eusebius able to refer a reader from ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #ai1 #bj to #a ,cor4 xi4 #bc-be47 7#crdly47 ,by the very nature of their constitution1 reference even to another part of the same ,gospel is impossible4 7,eusebius is unable1 for example1 to refer a reader from ,s4 ,john xix4 #ci1 to iii4 #a and vii4 #ej47 ,but besides the preceding1 which are disadvantages inherent in the scheme and inseparable from it1 it will be found 7#dthly71 ,that ,eusebius1 while he introduces not a few wholly undesirable references1 7of which some specimens are supplied above71 is observed occasionally to withhold references which cannot by any means be dispensed with4 ,thus1 he omits to refer his reader from ,s4 ,luke's account of the visit to the ,sepulchre 7chap4 xxiv4 #ab7 to ,s4 ,john's memorable account of the same transaction 7chap4 xx4 #c-aj73 not because he disallowed the verse in ,s4 ,luke's ,gospel1--for in a certain place he discusses its statements47#edg7 ,,iii4 ,it is abundantly plain from all that has gone before that the work of ,,eusebius was entirely different in its structure and intention from the work of ,,ammonius4 ,enough1 in fact1 has been said to make it fully apparent that it is nothing short of impossible that there can have been any extensive correspondence between the two4 ,according to ,,eusebius1 ,s4 ,mark has #ba ,sections7#edh7 peculiar to his ,gospel3 ,s4 ,luke1 #gb3 ,s4 ,john1 #ig47edi7 ,according to the same ,,eusebius1 #ad ,sections7#eej7 are common to ,s4 ,luke and ,s4 ,mark only3 #ba1 to ,s4 ,luke and ,s4 ,john only4 ,but those #bbe ,sections can have found no place in the work of ,,ammonius4 ,and if1 7in some unexplained way17 room was found for those parts of the ,gospels1 with what possible motive can ,,ammonius have subdivided them into exactly #bbe portions8 ,it is nothing else but irrational to assume that he did so4 ,not unaware am ,i that it has been pointed out by a most judicious living ,critic as a 8ground for hesitation before we ascribe the ,sections as well as the ,canons to ,eusebius1 that not a few ancient ,,mss4 contain the former while they omit the latter407#eea7 ,he considers it to be certainly indicated thereby 8that in the judgment of critics and transcribers1 7whatever that judgment may be deemed worth17 the ,ammonian ,sections had a previous existence to the ,eusebian ,canons1 as well as served for an independent purpose40 ,but ,i respectfully demur to the former of the two proposed inferences4 ,i also learn with surprise that 8those who have studied them most1 can the least tell what use the ,ammonian ,sections can serve1 unless in connection with ,canons of ,harmony407#eeb7 ,however irregular and arbitrary these subdivisions of the ,evangelical text are observed to be in their construction1 their usefulness is paramount4 ,they are observed to fulfil exactly the same office as our own actual division of the ,text into #hi ,chapters and #cghj ,verses4 ,of course1 #aafe subdivisions are 7for certain purposes7 somewhat less convenient than #cghj2--;but on the other hand1 a place in the ,gospels would be more easily discovered1 ,i suspect1 for the most part1 by the employment of such a single set of consecutive numbers1 than by requiring a ,reader first to find the ,chapter by its ,roman numeral1 and then the ,verse by its ,arabic figure4 ,be this as it may1 there can be at least only one opinion as to the supreme convenience to a ,reader1 whether ancient or modern1 of knowing that the copy of the ,gospels which he holds in his hands is subdivided into exactly the same #aafe ,sections as every other ,greek copy which is likely to come in his way2 and that1 in every such copy1 he may depend on finding every one of those sections invariably distinguished by the self-same number4 ,a ,greek copy of the ,gospels1 therefore1 having its margin furnished with the ,eusebian ,sectional notation1 may be considered to correspond generally with an ,english copy merely divided into ,chapters and ,verses4 ,the addition of the ,eusebian ,canons at the beginning1 with numerical references thereto inserted in the margin throughout1 does but superadd something analogous to the convenience of our ,marginal ,references1--and may just as reasonably 7or just as unreasonably7 be dispensed with4 ,i think it not improbable1 in fact1 that in the preparation of a ,codex1 it will have been sometimes judged commercially expedient to leave its purchaser to decide whether he would or would not submit to the additional expense 7which in the case of illuminated ,,mss4 must have been very considerable7 of having the ,eusebian ,tables inserted at the commencement of his ,book17#eec7--without which the ,references thereto would confessedly have been of no manner of avail4 ,in this way it will have come to pass1 7as ,mr4 ,scrivener points out17 that 8not a few ancient ,,mss4 contain the ,sections but omit the ,canons40 ,whether1 however1 the omission of ,references to the ,canons in ,copies which retain in the margin the sectional numbers1 is to be explained in this way1 or not1--,,ammonius1 at all events1 will have had no more to do with either the one or the other1 than with our modern division into ,chapters and ,verses4 ,it is1 in short1 nothing else but a 8vulgar error0 to designate the ,eusebian ,sections as the 8,sections of ,,ammonius40 ,the expression cannot be too soon banished from our critical terminology4 ,whether banished or retained1 to reason about the lost work of ,,ammonius from the ,sections of ,,eusebius 7as ,tischendorf and the rest habitually do7 is an offence against historical ,truth which no one who values his critical reputation will probably hereafter venture to commit4 ,,iv4 ,this subject may not be dismissed until a circumstance of considerable interest has been explained which has already attracted some notice1 but which evidently is not yet understood by ,biblical ,critics47#eed7 ,as already remarked1 the necessity of resorting to the ,eusebian ,tables of ,canons in order to make any use of a marginal reference1 is a tedious and a cumbersome process2 for which1 men must have early sought to devise a remedy4 ,they were not slow in perceiving that a far simpler expedient would be to note at the foot of every page of a ,gospel the numbers of the ,sections of that ,gospel contained in extenso on the same page2 and1 parallel with those numbers1 to exhibit the numbers of the corresponding ,sections in the other ,gospels4 ,many ,codices1 furnished with such an apparatus at the foot of the page1 are known to exist47#eee7 ,for instance1 in ,cod4 #bfb 7 ,reg4 #ec1 at ,paris71 which is written in double columns1 at foot of the first page 7fol4 #aaa7 of ,s4 ,mark1 is found as follows3-- ,illustration3 ,apparatus ,table ,from ,cod4 #bfb4 ,the meaning of this1 every one will see who1--7remembering what is signified by the monograms 1 1 1 17#eef77--will turn successively to the ,i,ind1 the ,ist1 the ,v,ith1 and the ,ist of the ,eusebian ,canons4 ,translated into expressions more familiar to ,english readers1 it evidently amounts to this3 that we are referred1 7 #a7 ,from ,s4 ,mark i4 #a1 #b1--to ,s4 ,matth4 xi4 #aj3 ,s4 ,luke vii4 #bg4 7 #b7 ,from ,s4 ,mark i4 #c1--to ,s4 ,matth4 iii4 #c3 ,s4 ,luke iii4 #c-f4 7 #c7 ,from ,s4 ,mark i4 #d1 #e1 #f1--to ,s4 ,matth4 iii4 #d-f4 7 #d7 ,from ,s4 ,mark i4 #g1 #h1--to ,s4 ,matth4 iii4 #aa3 ,s4 ,luke iii4 #af3 ,s4 ,john i4 #ae1 #bf-bg1 #cj-a3 iii4 #bh4 7,i venture to add that any one who will compare the above with the margin of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel in a common ,english 8reference ,bible10 will obtain a very fair notion of the convenience1 and of the inconveniences of the ,eusebian system4 ,but to proceed with our remarks on the apparatus at the foot of ,cod4 #bfb47 ,the owner of such a ,,ms4 was able to refer to parallel passages1 7as above17 by merely turning over the pages of his book4 ,e4g4 ,the parallel places to ,s4 ,mark's #a 77 being #gj of ,s4 ,luke 77 and #ajc of ,s4 ,matthew 771--it was just as easy for him to find those two places as it is for us to turn to ,s4 ,luke vii4 #bg and ,s4 ,matth4 xi4 #aj3 perhaps easier4 ,v4 ,i suspect that this peculiar method of exhibiting the ,eusebian references 7,canons as well as ,sections7 at a glance1 was derived to the ,greek ,church from the ,syrian ,christians4 ,what is certain1 a precisely similar expedient for enabling readers to discover ,parallel ,passages prevails extensively in the oldest ,syriac ,evangelia extant4 ,there are in the ,british ,museum about twelve ,syriac ,evangelia furnished with such an apparatus of reference27#eeg7 of which a specimen is subjoined1--derived however 7because it was near at hand7 from a ,,ms4 in the ,bodleian17#eeh7 of the viith or viiith century4 ,from this ,,ms41 ,i select for obvious reasons the last page but one 7fol4 #hb7 of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 which contains ch4 xvi4 #h-ah4 ,the ,reader will learn with interest and surprise that in the margin of this page against ver4 #h1 is written in vermilion1 by the original scribe1 #bha_/a3 against ver4 #i1--bhb_/aj3 against ver4 #aj1--bhc_/a3 against ver4 #aa1--bhd_/h3 against ver4 #ab3--bhe_/h3 against ver4 #ac1--bhf_/h3 against ver4 #ad1--bhg_/aj3 against ver4 #ae1--bhh_/f3 against ver4 #af1--bhi_/aj3 against ver4 #ai1--bij_/h4 ,that these sectional numbers17#eei7 with references to the ,eusebian ,canons subscribed1 are no part of the 7so-called7 8,ammonian0 system1 will be recognised at a glance4 ,according to that scheme1 ,s4 ,mark xiv4 #h is numbered #bcc_/b4 ,but to proceed4 ,at the foot of the same page1 7which is written in two columns71 is found the following set of rubricated references to parallel places in the other three ,gospels3-- ,illustration3 ,syriac ,reference ,table4 ,the exact ,english counterpart of which1--7,i owe it to the kind help of ,m4 ,neubauer1 of the ,bodleian71--is subjoined4 ,the ,reader will scarcely require to be reminded that the reason why #bhb1 #bhg1 #bhi do not appear in this ,table is because those ,sections1 7belonging to the tenth ,canon17 have nothing parallel to them in the other ,gospels4 ,luke ,matthew ,mark ,john ,luke ,matthew ,mark #cia 444 #bhf #bdg #cij #dba #bha 444 #dbf #bhh #bdg #cij #dba #bhc 444 #cia 444 #bhd 444 #cic 444 #bhe ,the general intention of this is sufficiently obvious3 but the ,reader must be told that on making reference to ,s4 ,,matthew',s ,gospel1 in this ,syriac ,codex1 it is found that #dba chap1 xxviii4 #h2 and #dbf chap4 xxviii4 #ai1 #bj3 ,that1 in ,s4 ,,luke',s ,gospel1-- #cij chap4 xxiv4 #h-aj3 #cia chap4 xxiv4 #aa2 and #cic chap4 xxiv4 #ac-ag37efj7 ,that1 in ,s4 ,,john',s ,gospel1-- #bdg chap4 xx4 #ag 7 down to 47 ,so that1 exhibited in familiar language1 these ,syriac ,marginal ,references are intended to guide a ,reader1 7 #bha7 ,from ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h1--to ,s4 ,matth4 xxviii4 #h3 ,s4 ,luke ,from ,s4 ,mark xxiv4 #h-aj3 ,s4 ,john xx4 #ag 7 to the end of the verse74 7 #bhc7 ,from ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #aj1--to the same three places4 7 #bhd7 ,from ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #aa1--to ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #aa4 7 #bhe7 ,from ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ab1--to ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #ac-ag4 7 #bhf7 ,from ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ac1--to ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #aa4 7 #bhh7 ,from ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ae1--to ,s4 ,matth4 xxiv4 #ai1 #bj4 ,here then1 although the ,ten ,eusebian ,canons are faithfully retained1 it is much to be noted that we are presented with a different set of ,sectional subdivisions4 ,this will be best understood by attentively comparing all the details which precede with the ,eusebian references in the inner margin of a copy of ,lloyd's ,greek ,testament4 ,but the convincing proof that these ,syriac ,sections are not those with which we have been hitherto acquainted from ,greek ,,mss41 is supplied by the fact that they are so many more in number4 ,the sum of the ,sections in each of the ,gospels follows2 for which1 7the ,bodleian ,codex being mutilated17 ,i am indebted to the learning and obligingness of ,dr4 ,wright47#efa7 ,he quotes from 8the beautiful ,,ms4 ,addit4 #g1aeg1 written ,a4,d4 #gfh407efb7 ,from this1 it appears that the ,sections in the ,gospel according to1-- ,s4 ,,matthew1 7instead of being from #cei to #cee17 are #dbf3 7the last ,section1 #dbf_/f1 consisting of ver4 #ai1 #bj47 ,s4 ,,mark1 7instead of being from #bda to #bcc17 are #bij3 7the last ,section1 #bij_/h1 consisting of ver4 #ai1 #bj47 ,s4 ,,luke1 7instead of being from #cdi to #cdb17 are #djb3 7the last ,section1 #djb_/aj1 consisting of ver4 #eb1 #ec47 ,s4 ,,john1 7instead of being #bcb17 is #bga3 7the last ,section1 #bga_/aj1 consisting of ver4 #ah-be47 ,the sum of the ,sections therefore1 in ,syriac ,,mss4 instead of being between #aaha and #aafb17efc7 is found to be invariably #achi4 ,but here1 the question arises1--,did the ,syrian ,christians then retain the ,ten ,tables1 dressing their contents afresh1 so as to adapt them to their own ampler system of sectional subdivision8 or did they merely retain the elementary principle of referring each ,section to one of ,ten ,canons1 but substitute for the ,eusebian ,tables a species of harmony1 or apparatus of reference1 at the foot of every page8 ,the foregoing doubt is triumphantly resolved by a reference to ,assemani's engraved representation1 on xxii ,copper ,plates1 of the ,x ,eusebian ,tables from a superb ,syriac ,codex 7,a4,d4 #ehf7 in the ,medicean ,library47#efd7 ,the student who inquires for ,assemani's work will find that the numbers in the last line of each of the ,x ,tables is as follows3-- ,matthew ,mark ,luke ,john ,canon i #dba #bhc #cij #bdg ,canon ii #daf #bgf #chc 444 ,canon iii #acd 444 #ade #agh ,canon iv #cid #bab 444 #bbc ,canon v #cai 444 #bfb 444 ,canon vi #dbf #bhh 444 444 ,canon vii #dbe 444 444 #bdi ,canon vii 444 #bij #dja 444 ,canon ix 444 444 #cii #bfb ,canon x #dbd #bhi #djb #bga ,the ,syrian ,church1 therefore1 from a period of the remotest antiquity1 not only subdivided the ,gospels into a far greater number of ,sections than were in use among the ,greeks1 but also habitually employed ,eusebian ,tables which--identical as they are in appearance and in the principle of their arrangement with those with which ,greek ,,mss4 have made us familiar1--yet differ materially from these as to the numerical details of their contents4 ,let abler men follow up this inquiry to its lawful results4 ,when the extreme antiquity of the ,syriac documents is considered1 may it not almost be made a question whether ,eusebius himself put forth the larger or the smaller number of ,sections8 ,but however that may be1 more palpably precarious than ever1 ,i venture to submit1 becomes the confident assertion of the ,critics that1 8just as ,,eusebius found these ,verses ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj absent in his day from the best and most numerous sic copies1 so was also the case with ,,ammonius when he formed his ,harmony in the preceding century407#efe7,to speak plainly1 the statement is purely mythical4 ,,vi4 ,birch ,varr4 ,lectt4 p4 #bbf1 asserts that in the best ,codices1 the ,sections of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel are not numbered beyond ch4 xvi4 #h4 ,tischendorf prudently adds1 8or ver4 #i30 but to introduce that alternative is to surrender everything4 ,i subjoin the result of an appeal to #aea ,greek ,evangelia4 ,there is written opposite to1 ver4 #f1 444 #bcb1 in #c ,codices1 7viz4 ,a1 ,u1 #bhf7 ver4 #h1 444 #bcc1 in #cd ,codices1 7including ,l1 ,s77#eff7 ver4 #i1 787 #bcd1 in #da ,codices1 7including 1 1 77#efg7 ver4 #aj1 787 #bce1 in #d ,codices1 7viz4 #fg1 #bhb1 #cca1 #djf7 ver4 #ab1 787 #bcf1 in #g ,codices1 7the number assigned by ,suidas77#efh7 ver4 #ad1 787 #bcg1 in #ab ,codices1 7including 77#efi7 ver4 #ae1 444 #bch1 in #c ,codices1 7viz4 ,add4 #ai1chg3 #bg1hfa1 ,ti7 ver4 #ag1 444 #bci1 in #a ,codex1 7viz4 ,g7 ver4 #ai1 444 #bdj1 in #aj ,codices1 7including ,h1 ,m1 and the ,codices from which the ,hharklensian ,revision1 ,a4,d4 #faf1 was made77#egj7 ver4 #bj1 444 #bda1 in #cf ,codices1 7including ,c1 ,e1 ,k1 ,v77#ega7 ,thus1 it is found that #aad ,codices sectionize the last ,twelve ,verses1 against #cg which close the account at ver4 #h1 or sooner4 ,i infer--7a7 ,that the reckoning which would limit the sections to precisely #bcc1 is altogether precarious2 and--7b7 ,that the sum of the ,sections assigned to ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel by ,suidas and by ,stephens 7viz4 #bcf7 is arbitrary4 ,,vii4 ,to some1 it may not be unacceptable1 in conclusion1 to be presented with the very words in which ,eusebius explains how he would have his ,sections and ,canons used4 ,his language requires attention4 ,he says3-- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 ,jerome1--who is observed sometimes to exhibit the sense of his author very loosely1--renders this as follows3-- 8,cum igitur aperto ,codice1 verbi gratia1 illud sive illud ,capitulum scire volueris cujus ,canonis sit1 statim ex subjecto numero doceberis2 et recurrens ad principia1 in quibus ,canonum est distincta congeries1 eodemque statim ,canone ex titulo frontis invento1 illum quem qurebas numerum1 ejusdem ,evangelist1 qui et ipse ex inscriptione signatur1 invenies2 atque e vicino ceterorum tramitibus inspectis1 quos numeros e regione habeant1 annotabis4 ,et cum scieris1 recurres ad volumina singulorum1 et sine mora repertis numeris quos ante signaveras1 reperies et loca in quibus vel eadem1 vel vicina dixerunt40 ,this may be a very masterly way of explaining the use of the ,eusebian ,canons4 ,but the points of the original are missed4 ,what ,eusebius actually says is this3-- 8,if therefore1 on opening any one soever of the four ,gospels1 thou desirest to study any given ,section1 and to ascertain which of the ,evangelists have said things of the same kind2 as well as to discover the particular place where each has been led to speak of the same things2--note the number of the ,section thou art studying1 and seek that number in the ,canon indicated by the numeral subscribed in vermilion4 ,thou wilt be made aware1 at once1 from the heading of each ,canon1 how many of the ,evangelists1 and which of them1 have said things of the same kind4 ,then1 by attending to the parallel numbers relating to the other ,gospels in the same ,canon1 and by turning to each in its proper place1 thou wilt discover the ,evangelists saying things of the same kind40 ,,appendix 7,h74 ,on the ,interpolation of the text of ,,codex ,b and ,,codex at ,s4 ,,matthew xxvii4 #dh or #di4 7,referred to at pp4 #bjb and #bai47 ,it is well known that our two oldest ,codices1 ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 1 7see above1 p4 #hj17 exhibit ,s4 ,matthew xxvii4 #di1 as follows4 ,after ,cod4 ,sinait4 1 they read3-- 7,,cod4 ,b47 7,,cod4 47 ,then comes1 444 ,the same is also the reading of ,codd4 ,c1 ,l1 ,u1 3 and it is known to recur in the following cursives1--#e1 #dh1 #fg1 #aae1 #abg47egb7 ,obvious is it to suspect with ,matthaei1 7ed4 #ahjc1 vol4 i4 p4 #aeh17 that it was the ,lectionary practice of the ,oriental ,church which occasioned this interpolation4 ,in ,s4 ,john xix4 #cd occurs the well-known record1-- 1 3 and it was the established practice of the ,easterns1 in the ,ecclesiastical lection for ,good ,friday1 7viz4 ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #a-fa17 to interpose ,s4 ,john xix4 #ca to #cg between the #edth and the #eeth verses of ,s4 ,matthew4 ,this will be found alluded to above1 at p4 #bjb and again at pp4 #bah-i4 ,after the pages just quoted were in type1 while examining ,harl4 ,,ms4 #efdg in the ,british ,museum1 7our ,evan4 #gb17 ,i alighted on the following ,scholion1 which ,i have since found that ,wetstein duly published2 but which has certainly not attracted the attention it deserves1 and which is incorrectly represented as referring to the end of ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #di4 ,it is against ver4 #dh that there is written in the margin1-- 77#egc7 3 3 7 3 4 3 4 ,this writer is perfectly correct in his statement4 ,in ,chrysostom's #hhth ,homily on ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 7,opp4 vii1 #hbe ,c3 vol4 ii1 p4 #ebf1 ed4 ,field47 is read as follows3-- 1 1 1 3 7which is clearly meant to be a summary of the contents of ver4 #dh3 then follows7 4 7,chrysostom quotes no further1 but proceeds1-- 1 1 4447 ,i find it impossible on a review of the evidence to adhere to the opinion ,i once held1 and have partially expressed above1 7viz4 at p4 #bjb17 that the ,lectionary-practice of the ,eastern ,church was the occasion of this corrupt reading in our two oldest uncials4 ,a corrupt reading it undeniably is2 and the discredit of exhibiting it1 ,codd4 ,b1 1 7not to say ,codd4 ,c1 ,l1 ,u1 17 must continue to sustain4 ,that ,chrysostom and ,cyril also employed ,codices disfigured by this self-same blemish1 is certain4 ,it is an interesting and suggestive circumstance4 ,nor is this all4 ,severus7#egd7 relates that between ,a4,d4 #dif and #eaa1 being at ,constantinople1 he had known this very reading strenuously discussed3 whereupon had been produced a splendid copy of ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 traditionally said to have been found with the body of the ,apostle ,barnabas in the ,island of ,cyprus in the time of the ,emperor ,zeno 7,a4,d4 #dgd-dia72 and preserved in the palace with superstitious veneration in consequence4 ,it contained no record of the piercing of the ,,saviour',s side3 nor 7adds ,severus7 does any ancient ,interpreter mention the transaction in that place1--except ,chrysostom and ,cyril of ,alexandria2 into whose ,commentaries it has found its way4--,thus1 to ,codices ,b1 1 ,c and the copy familiarly employed by ,chrysostom1 has to be added the copy which ,cyril of ,alexandria7#ege7 employed2 as well as evidently sundry other ,codices extant at ,constantinople about ,a4,d4 #ejj4 ,that the corruption of the text of ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel under review is ancient therefore1 and was once very widely spread1 is certain4 ,the question remains1--and this is the only point to be determined1--,how did it originate8 ,now it must be candidly admitted1 that if the strange method of the ,lectionaries already explained1 7viz4 of interposing seven verses of ,s4 ,john's xixth chapter ver4 #ca-g between the #edth and #eeth verses of ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii17 really were the occasion of this interpolation of ,s4 ,john xix4 #cd after ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #dh or #di1--two points would seem to call for explanation which at present remain unexplained3 ,first1 7#a7 ,why does only that one verse find place in the interpolated copies8 ,and next1 7#b7 ,how does it come to pass that that one verse is exhibited in so very depraved and so peculiar a form8 ,for1 to say nothing of the inverted order of the two principal words1 7which is clearly due to #a ,s4 ,john v4 #f17 let it be carefully noted that the substitution of 1 for of the ,evangelist1 is a tell-tale circumstance4 ,the turn thus licentiously given to the narrative clearly proceeded from some one who was bent on weaving incidents related by different writers into a connected narrative1 and who was sometimes constrained to take liberties with his ,text in consequence4 7,thus1 ,s4 ,matthew having supplied the fact that 8,,one ,,of ,,them ran1 and took a sponge1 and filled it with vinegar1 and put it on a reed1 and gave ,him to drink10 ,s4 ,john is made to say1 8,,and ,,another--took a spear407 ,now1 this is exactly what ,tatian is related by ,eusebius to have done3 viz4 8after some fashion of his own1 to have composed out of the four ,gospels one connected narrative407#egf7 ,when therefore1 7as in the present ,scholion17 an ancient ,critic who appears to have been familiarly acquainted with the lost 8,diatessaron0 of ,tatian1 comes before us with the express declaration that in that famous monument of the primitive age 7,a4,d4 #agc71 ,s4 ,john's record of the piercing of our ,,saviour',s side was thrust into ,s4 ,matthew's ,history of the ,passion in this precise way and in these very terms1--7for1 8,note10 he says1 8,that into the ,evangelical ,history of ,diodorus1 of ,tatian1 and of divers other holy ,fathers1 is introduced here the following addition3 #8,and another took a spear and pierced ,his side1 and there came out ,water and ,blood4' ,this1 ,chrysostom also says071--it is even unreasonable to seek for any other explanation of the vitiated text of our two oldest ,codices4 ,not only is the testimony to the critical fact abundantly sufficient1 but the proposed solution of the difficulty1 in itself the reverse of improbable1 is in the highest degree suggestive as well as important4 ,for1--,may we not venture to opine that the same 1--as this ,writer aptly designates ,tatian's work1--is responsible for not a few of the monstra potius quam variae lectiones7#egg7 which are occasionally met with in the earliest ,,mss4 of all8 ,and1--,am ,i not right in suggesting that the circumstance before us is the only thing we know for certain about the text of ,tatian's 7miscalled7 8,harmony80 ,to conclude4--,that the 8,diatessaron0 of ,tatian1 7for so1 according to ,eusebius and ,theodoret1 ,tatian himself styled it17 has long since disappeared1 no one now doubts47#egh7 ,that ,eusebius himself1 7who lived #aej years after the probable date of its composition17 had never seen it1 may ,i suppose be inferred from the terms in which he speaks of it4 ,jerome does not so much as mention its existence4 ,epiphanius1 who is very full and particular concerning the heresy of ,tatian1 affords no indication that he was acquainted with his work4 ,on the contrary4 8,the ,diatessaron ,gospel10 7he remarks in passing17 8which some call the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 is said to have been the production of this writer407#egi7 ,the most interesting notice we have of ,tatian's work is from the pen of ,theodoret4 ,after explaining that ,tatian the ,syrian1 originally a ,sophist1 and next a disciple of ,justin ,martyr ,a4,d4 #aej1 after ,justin's death aspired to being a heretical leader1--7statements which are first found in ,irenus17--,theodoret enumerates his special tenets4 8,this man0 7he proceeds7 8put together the so-called ,diatessaron ,gospel1--from which he cut away the genealogies1 and whatever else shews that the ,,lord was born of the seed of ,david4 ,the book was used not only by those who favoured ,tatian's opinions1 but by the orthodox as well2 who1 unaware of the mischievous spirit in which the work had been executed1 in their simplicity used the book as an epitome4 ,i myself found upwards of two hundred such copies honourably preserved in the ,churches of this place10 7,cyrus in ,syria namely1 of which ,theodoret was made ,bishop1 ,a4,d4 #dbc17--8;all of which ,i collected together1 and put aside2 substituting the ,gospels of the ,four ,evangelists in their room407#ehj7 ,the diocese of ,theodoret 7he says7 contained eight hundred ,parishes47#eha7 ,it cannot be thought surprising that a work of which copies had been multiplied to such an extraordinary extent1 and which was evidently once held in high esteem1 should have had some influence on the text of the earliest ,codices2 and here1 side by side with a categorical statement as to one of its licentious interpolations1 we are furnished with documentary proof that many an early ,,ms4 also was infected with the same taint4 ,to assume that the two phenomena stand related to one another in the way of cause and effect1 seems to be even an inevitable proceeding4 ,i will not prolong this note by inquiring concerning the 8,diodorus0 of whom the unknown author of this scholion speaks3 but ,i suppose it was that ,diodorus who was made ,bishop of ,tarsus in ,a4,d4 #cgh4 ,he is related to have been the preceptor of ,chrysostom2 was a very voluminous writer2 and1 among the rest1 according to ,suidas1 wrote a work 8on the ,four ,gospels40 ,lastly1--,how about the singular introduction into the ,lection for ,good-,friday of this incident of the piercing of the ,,redeemer',s side8 ,is it allowable to conjecture that1 indirectly1 the ,diatessaron of ,tatian may have been the occasion of that circumstance also2 as well as of certain other similar phenomena in the ,evangeliaria8 ,,postscript4 7,,promised ,,at p4 #ea47 ,i proceed to fulfil the promise made at p4 #ea4--;,c4,f4 ,matthaei 7,nov4 ,test41 #aghh1 vol4 iii4 p4 #bfi7 states that in one of the ,,mss4 at ,moscow occurs the following 8,scholion of ,,eusebius3-- 40 ,on this1 ,griesbach remarks 7,comm4 ,crit4 ii4 #bjj71--8quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset30 the record in ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ad1 being express1-- 4 ,the epigrammatic smartness of ,griesbach's dictum has recommended it to ,dr4 ,tregelles and others who look unfavourably on the conclusion of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel2 and to this hour the ,scholion of ,matthaei remains unchallenged4 ,but to accept the proposed inference from it1 is impossible4 ,it ought to be obvious to every thoughtful person that problems of this class will not bear to be so handled4 ,it is as if one were to apply the rigid mathematical method to the ordinary transactions of daily life1 for which it is clearly unsuitable4 ,before we move a single step1 however1 we desire a few more particulars concerning this supposed evidence of ,eusebius4 ,accordingly1 ,i invoked the good offices of my friend1 the ,rev4 ,w4 ,g4 ,penny1 ,english ,chaplain at ,moscow1 to obtain for me the entire context in which this 8,scholion of ,eusebius0 occurs3 little anticipating the trouble ,i was about to give him4 ,his task would have been comparatively easy had ,i been able to furnish him 7which ,i was not7 with the exact designation of the ,codex required4 ,at last by sheer determination and the display of no small ability1 he discovered the place1 and sent me a tracing of the whole page3 viz4 fol4 #bhf 7the last ten words being overleaf7 of ,matthaei's 8#ab10 78,synod4 #aci107 our ,,evan4 #bee4 ,it proves to be the concluding portion of ,victor's ,commentary1 and to correspond with what is found at p4 #cfe of ,possinus1 and p4 #ddf-g of ,cramer3 except that after the words 8 10 and before the words 8 0 ,possinus1 line #ab from bottom3 ,cramer1 line #c from the top1 is read as follows3-- 3 3 3 4 3 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 ,but surely no one who considers the matter attentively1 will conceive that he is warranted in drawing from this so serious an inference as that ,eusebius disallowed the last ,section of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 7#a47 ,in the first place1 we have already supr1 p4 #dd heard ,eusebius elaborately discuss the ,section in question4 ,that he allowed it1 is therefore certain4 7#b47 ,but next1 this at the utmost can only be regarded as a general summary of what ,eusebius has somewhere delivered concerning our ,,lord',s appearances after ,his ,resurrection4 ,as it stands1 it clearly is not the work of ,eusebius4 7#c47 ,and because ,i shall be reminded that such a statement cannot be accepted on my own mere 8ipse dixit10 ,i proceed to subjoin the original ,scholion of which the preceding is evidently only an epitome4 ,it is found in three of the ,moscow ,,mss41 7our ,evan4 #bci1 #bei1 #bcg17 but without any ,author's name3-- 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 1 4 1 2 4 4 1 1 47#ehb7 7#d47 ,now1 the chief thing deserving of attention here1--the only thing in fact which ,i am concerned to point out1--is the notable circumstance that the supposed dictum of ,eusebius1--78quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset107--is no longer discoverable4 ,to say that 8it has disappeared10 would be incorrect4 ,in the original document it has no existence4 ,in plain terms1 the famous 8 0 proves to be every way a figment4 ,it is a worthless interpolation1 thrust by some nameless scribe into his abridgement of a ,scholion1 of which ,eusebius 7as ,i shall presently shew7 cannot have been the ,author4 7#e47 ,i may as well point out why the person who wrote the longer ,scholion says nothing about ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,it is because there was nothing for him to say4 ,he is enumerating our ,,lord',s appearances to ,his ,disciples after ,his ,resurrection2 and he discovers that these were exactly seven in number3 one being peculiar to ,s4 ,matthew1--three1 to ,s4 ,john1--three1 to ,s4 ,luke4 ,but because1 7as every one is aware71 there exists no record of an appearance to the ,disciples peculiar to ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 the ,author of the ,scholion is silent concerning ,s4 ,mark perforce4444 ,how so acute and accomplished a ,critic as ,matthaei can have overlooked all this3 how he can have failed to recognise the identity of his longer and his shorter ,scholion3 how he came to say of the latter1 8conjicias ergo ,eusebium hunc totum locum repudiasse20 and1 of the former1 8ultimam partem ,evangelii ,marci videtur tollere307#ehc7 lastly1 how ,tischendorf 7#ahfi7 can write1--8est enim ejusmodi ut ultimam partem evangelii ,marci1 de quo quaeritur1 excludat307#ehd7--;,i profess myself unable to understand4 7#f47 ,the epitomizer however1 missing the point of his ,author1--besides enumerating all the appearances of our ,,saviour which ,s4 ,luke anywhere records1--is further convicted of having injudiciously invented the negative statement about ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel which is occasioning us all this trouble4 7#g47 ,and yet1 by that unlucky sentence of his1 he certainly did not mean what is commonly imagined4 ,i am not concerned to defend him3 but it is only fair to point out that1 to suppose he intended to disallow the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 is altogether to misapprehend the gist of his remarks1 and to impute to him a purpose of which he clearly knew nothing4 ,note1 how he throws his first two statements into a separate paragraph2 contrasts1 and evidently balances one against the other3 thus1-- 1 1-- 1-- 4 ,perfectly evident is it that the 8plena locutio0 so to speak1 of the ,writer would have been somewhat as follows3-- 8,the first two ,evangelists are engaged with our ,,saviour',s appearance to ,his ,disciples in ,galilee3 but by ,s4 ,mark1 ,he is not--by ,s4 ,matthew1 ,he is--related to have been actually seen by them there4 8,the other two ,evangelists relate the appearances in ,jerusalem3 and according to ,s4 ,john1 c4 c4 8,according to ,s4 ,luke10 c4 c4 7#h47 ,and on passing the 8,quaestiones ad ,marinum0 of ,eusebius under review1 ,i am constrained to admit that the ,scholion before us is just such a clumsy bit of writing as an unskilful person might easily be betrayed into1 who should attempt to exhibit in a few short sentences the substance of more than one tedious disquisition of this ancient ,father47#ehe7 ,its remote parentage would fully account for its being designated 8 0 all the same4 7#i47 ,least of all am ,i concerned to say anything more about the longer ,scholion2 seeing that ,s4 ,mark is not so much as mentioned in it4 ,but ,i may as well point out that1 as it stands1 ,eusebius cannot have been its ,author3 the proof being1 that whereas the ,scholion in question is a note on ,s4 ,john xxi4 #ab1 7as ,matthaei is careful to inform us17--its opening sentence is derived from ,chrysostom's ,commentary on that same verse in his #hgth ,homily on ,s4 ,john47#ehf7 7#aj47 ,and thus1 one by one1 every imposing statement of the ,critics is observed hopelessly to collapse as soon as it is questioned1 and to vanish into thin air4 ,so much has been offered1 only because of the deliberate pledge ,i gave in p4 #ea4--,never again1 ,i undertake to say1 will the 8,scholion of ,eusebius0 which has cost my friend at ,moscow1 his ,archimandrites1 and me1 so much trouble1 be introduced into any discussion of the genuineness of the last ,twelve ,verses of the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark4 ,as the oversight of one 7,c4 ,f4 ,matthaei7 who was singularly accurate1 and towards whom we must all feel as towards a ,benefactor1 let it be freely forgiven as well as loyally forgotten6 ,l',,envoy ,as one1 escaped the bustling trafficking town1 ,worn out and weary1 climbs his favourite hill ,and thinks it ,heaven to see the calm green fields ,mapped out in beautiful sunlight at his feet3 ,or walks enraptured where the fitful south ,comes past the beans in blossom2 and no sight ,or scent or sound but fills his soul with glee3-- ,so ,i1--rejoicing once again to stand ,where ,siloa's brook flows softly1 and the meads ,are all enamell'd o'er with deathless flowers1 ,and ,angel voices fill the dewy air4 ,strife is so hateful to me6 most of all ,a strife of words about the things of ,,god4 ,better by far the peasant's uncouth speech ,meant for the heart's confession of its hope4 ,sweeter by far in village-school the words ,but half remembered from the ,book of ,life1 ,or scarce articulate lispings of the ,creed4 ,and yet1 three times that miracle of ,spring ,the grand old tree that darkens ,exeter wall ,hath decked itself with blossoms as with stars1 ,since ,i1 like one that striveth unto death1 ,find myself early and late and oft all day ,engaged in eager conflict for ,,god',s ,truth2 ,,god',s ,truth1 to be maintained against ,man's lie4 ,and lo1 my brook which widened out long since ,into a river1 threatens now at length ,to burst its channel and become a sea4 ,o ,sister1 who ere yet my task is done ,art lying 7my loved ,sister67 in thy shroud ,with a calm placid smile upon thy lips ,as thou wert only 8taking of rest in sleep10 ,soon to wake up to ministries of love1-- ,open those lips1 kind ,sister1 for my sake ,in the mysterious place of thy sojourn1 7,for thou must needs be with the bless'd1--yea1 where ,the pure in heart draw wondrous nigh to ,,god17 ,and tell the ,evangelist of thy brother's toil2 ,adding 7be sure67 8,he found it his reward1 ,yet supplicates thy blessing and thy prayers1 ,the blessing1 saintly ,stranger1 of thy prayers1 ,sure at the least unceasingly of mine60 ,one other landed on the eternal shore6 ,one other garnered into perfect peace6 ,one other hid from hearing and from sight6444 ,o but the days go heavily1 and the toil ,which used to seem so pleasant yields scant joy4 ,there come no tokens to us from the dead3 ,save--it may be--that now and then we reap ,where not we sowed1 and that may be from them1 ,fruit of their prayers when we forgot to pray6 ,meantime there comes no message1 comes no word3 ,day after day no message and no sign3 ,and the heart droops1 and finds that it was ,love ,not ,fame it longed for1 lived for3 only ,love4 ,,canterbury4 ,,general ,,index4 ,under 8,codices0 will be found all the ,evangelia described or quoted3 under 8,texts0 all the places of ,scripture illustrated or referred to4 8,acta ,pilati10 p4 #be4 ,,acts1 p4 #aii-bjj4 ,see ,texts4 ,addit4 ,see ,codices4 ,adler1 ,j4 ,g4 ,c1 p4 #cc-d4 ,alford1 ,dean1 p4 #h1 #ac1 #ch1 #gg1 #ajc1 #afd1 #bbg1 #bdd-e1 #bei4 ,algasia1 p4 #eb4 ,ambrose1 p4 #bg4 8,ammonian0 ,sections1 p4 #abf-cb1 #bie-caa2 in the four ,gospels1 p4 #cji2 in ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 p4 #caa4 ,ammonius1 p4 #abe-cb4 1 p4 #aif4 1 p4 #de1 #aif4 1 p4 #aff4 ,andreas of ,crete1 p4 #beh4 ,angelic ,hymn1 p4 #beg-fc4 1 p4 #aai4 1 p4 #bbe1 #f4 1 p4 #abg1 #acg4 ,aphraates the ,persian1 p4 #bf-g1 #beh4 1 p4 #aeh-i4 ,apocrypha1 p4 #cja4 ,apolinarius1 p4 #bge1 #bgg4 8,apostolical ,constitutions10 p4 #be1 #beh4 1 p4 #bbd-e4 ,armenian ,version1 p4 #cf1 #bci4 ,ascension1 ,the1 p4 #aie4 ,lessons1 p4 #bjd-e1 #bch-i4 ,assemani1 p4 #cji-aj1 #cae4 ,asterisks1 p4 #aaf-h1 #bah4 ,athanasian ,creed1 p4 #c1 #bed4 ,athanasius1 p4 #cj1 #bge2 how he read ,s4 ,jo4 xvii4 #ae1 #af1 p4 #gd4 ,augustine1 p4 #bh1 #aih1 #bjj4 ,babington1 ,rev4 ,c1 p4 #bia4 ,basil1 p4 #ic-i1 #bge4 1 p4 #bge4 ,basle1 p4 #bhc4 ,see ,codices4 ,bede1 ,ven41 p4 #cj4 ,bengel1 ,j4 ,a41 p4 #ag1 #aja-b1 #ahe4 ,benson1 ,rev4 ,dr41 p4 #aja4 and 1 p4 #bcf4 ,bibliothque at ,paris1 p4 #bbh-ca1 #bgh-hc4 ,birch's ,n4 ,t41 ,andr41 p4 #e1 #aaf-h1 #caa4 1 p4 #afj4 ,bobbiensis1 ,codex1 p4 #ce1 #abd1 #ahf4 ,bodleian4 ,see ,codices4 ,book of ,common ,prayer1 p4 #bae4 ,bostra1 see ,titus4 ,bosworth1 ,rev4 ,prof41 p4 #bfb4 ,broadus1 ,prof41 p4 #aci1 #aee1 #afh1 #agd4 ,csarius1 p4 #acc4 ,canons1 p4 #abg-ca1 #bie-cab4 ,see ,sections4 ,carpian1 ,letter to1 p4 #abf-h1 #caa-b4 ,carthage4 ,see ,council4 ,cassian1 p4 #aic4 ,catena1 p4 #acc-e4 ,see ,corderius1 ,cramer1 ,matthaei1 ,peltanus1 ,possinus1 ,victor4 ,chrysostom1 p4 #bg1 #he1 #aaj1 #agi1 #aic1 #aih-i1 #bja-d1 #bbc1 #beh-i1 #bge-g1 #bgh1 #cad-f1 #cbc4 ,church1 the ,christian1 p4 #aib4 ,festivals1 p4 #bjc4 ,churton1 ,rev4 ,w4 ,r41 p4 #bcf4 8,circular10 ,a1 p4 #aja-e4 ,citations1 see ,patristic4 ,clemens ,alex41 p4 #cj4 ,codices1 depraved1 p4 #hj-f1 #bag-bd4 ,see ,corrupt readings1 ,dated1 ,syriac4 #aea1 referred to p4 #caa4 ,,codices4 ,codex 1 p4 #gj-ij1 #gg1 #aji-ac1 #bah-bb1 #beb1 #beg1 #cac2 how it exhibits the end of ,s4 ,mark1 #hh-ij2 omissions1 #gc-e1 #gi1 #hj2 ,ephes4 i4 #a1 #ia-aji2 interpolations and depravations1 p4 #hj-f2 affected by the ,lectionary practice1 p4 #bag-bd2 sympathy with ,b1 #gh2 not so old as ,b1 #bia-d2 facsimile1 p4 ii4 ,a1 p4 #bbj-a1 #bbb1 #beg-i1 #caa4 ,b1 p4 #gj-ij1 #beg1 #bjb1 #bag-bj1 #bbb-c1 #cac2 how it exhibits the end of ,s4 ,mark1 #hf-ij2 omissions1 #gd-e1 #gi1 #hj2 ,ephes4 i4 #a1 #ia-aji2 interpolations and depravations1 p4 #hj-f2 affected by the ,lectionary practice1 p4 #bag-bd2 sympathy with 1 #gh2 older than #bia-d4 ,c1 p4 #bah1 #bba-b1 #cjb1 #caa2 depraved by the ,lectionary practice1 p4 #bbj4 ,d1 p4 #ajj1 #bai-be1 #beg1 #bfb1 #cjb4 ,e1 p4 #cje1 #caa4 ,f1 p4 #cjb4 ,g1 p4 #cjf1 #caa4 ,h1 p4 #cjb1 #cjf1 #caa4 ,k1 p4 #aig1 #cjb1 #caa4 ,l1 p4 #abc-e1 #bah1 #bbe1 #caa2 facsimile1 p4 #abd4 ,m1 p4 #aig1 #cje1 #cjf1 #caa4 ,p1 ,q1 ,r1 ,y1 ,z1 p4 #cjb4 ,s1 ,v1 1 1 p4 #caa4 ,tb1 p4 #cje4 ,u1 p4 #bah1 #caa4 ,wb1 p4 #cjb4 ,wd1 p4 #cje4 1 p4 #bah1 #bbd1 #caa4 1 p4 #aai1 #abb1 #caa4 ,codex #a1 p4 #abj1 #abc1 #abe4 ,codex #g1 p4 #bci4 ,codex #aj1 p4 #bbd1 #bca4 ,codex #ab1 p4 #abb1 #bgh1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #ac1 p4 #bbf4 ,codex #ae1 p4 #aai4 ,codex #ai1 p4 #bdj1 #bgh4 ,codex #bj1 p4 #aah-i #bb1 #bga1 #i1 #bhj1 #a1 #b4 ,codex #bb1 p4 #ff1 #aai1 #bcj1 #a1 #bdb4 ,codex #bc1 p4 #abj4 ,codex #bd1 p4 #aba-c1 #bbh-i1 #bga1 #c1 #bhj1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #be1 p4 #bbe1 #bhj4 ,codex #bg1 p4 #bci4 ,codex #cj1 p4 #bca4 ,codex #cc1 p4 #abc4 ,codex #cd1 p4 #ff1 #abj1 #aba-c1 #bhj4 ,codex #cf1 p4 #aah1 #aba-c1 #bbi1 #bhj1 #h1 #i4 ,codex #cg1 p4 #aba-c1 #bha1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #ch1 p4 #aba-c4 ,codex #ci1 p4 #abj1 #aba-c1 #bga1 #bha4 ,codex #dj1 p4 #aba-c1 #bha1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #da1 p4 #abj1 #aba-c1 #bha1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #dg1 p4 #bbf4 ,codex #ej1 p4 #bga1 #bha4 ,codex #ed1 #ef and #fa1 p4 #bbf4 ,codex #fc1 p4 #bdj-a4 ,codex #fi1 p4 #abc1 #bbf4 ,codex #gb1 p4 #bc1 #bah1 #cad4 ,codex #gg1 p4 #bhc4 ,codex #ij1 p4 #bdj4 ,codex #ib and #id1 p4 #bhc4 ,codex #ajh1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhc1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #aac1 p4 #bah4 ,codex #aag1 p4 #cjb4 ,codex #abd1 p4 #bbf4 ,codex #abi1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhc1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #acg1 p4 #aaf-h1 #aba-c1 #bhd1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #ach1 p4 #aaf-h1 #aba-c1 #bhd1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #adc1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhd1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #adf1 p4 #bhf4 ,codex #aha and #ahf1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhd1 #h-i4 ,codex #aid1 p4 #bhd4 ,codex #aie1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhd1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #aig1 p4 #bhd4 ,codex #aii1 #bjf and #bji1 p4 #abj1 #a-c1 #e4 ,codex #baj1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhd1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #bae1 p4 #bhe4 ,codex #bba and #bbb1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhe1 #h-i4 ,codex #bcc1 p4 #bhf4 ,codex #bcg and #bch1 p4 #bhe1 #h-i1 #cba4 ,codex #bci1 p4 #cba4 ,codex #bec1 p4 #bhe4 ,codex #bee1 p4 #bhe1 #bhh-i1 #cai-bc4 ,codex #bef1 p4 #bci1 #bhf4 ,codex #bei1 p4 #bhf1 #bhh-i1 #cba4 ,codex #bfb1 p4 #aai1 #abb1 #cje4 ,codex #bfc1 p4 #cjb1 #cjd4 ,codex #bfd1 p4 #aag1 #cje-f4 ,codex #bfe1 p4 #bbe4 ,codex #bff1 p4 #bch4 ,codex #bfg1 p4 #baf4 ,codex #bfh1 p4 #bca4 ,codex #bgj1 p4 #bbd4 ,codex #bgd1 p4 #abd4 ,codex #bhb and #bic1 p4 #bca4 ,codex #bii1 p4 #abb1 #bha1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #cjj1 p4 #aah-i1 #abb1 #bga1 #d1 #i1 #bhj1 #a1 #b4 ,codex #cja1 p4 #bhb4 ,codex #cjd1 p4 #bhc4 ,codex #cji1 p4 #bci1 #bhb4 ,codex #cab1 p4 #bhb4 ,codex #cbi1 p4 #abb1 #bhb1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #ccb and #cec1 p4 #bhf4 ,codex #cgc1 p4 #bhg4 ,codex #cgd1 p4 #abb1 #aba1 #b1 #bhf1 #bhh-i4 ,codex #cgi and #dbg1 p4 #bhg4 ,codex #dbh and #dcb1 p4 #bhf4 ,codex #dcf1 p4 #bah4 ,codex #dci1 p4 #bbf4 ,addit4 #g1 #aeg1 p4 #cji4 ,addit4 #ab1ada1 p4 #bae4 ,addit4 #ad1ddi1 p4 #bae1 #cjf1 #cji4 ,addit4 #ad1dej1 p4 #bae1 #cjf1 #caj4 ,addit4 #ad1dea1 p4 #cjf4 ,addit4 #ad1deb-d-e1 p4 #bae1 #cjf4 ,addit4 #ad1def1 p4 #bae4 ,addit4 #ad1deg-h1 p4 #bae1 #cjf1 #cji4 ,addit4 #ad1dfa1 p4 #bae4 ,addit4 #ad1dfc1 p4 #bae1 #cjf4 ,addit4 #ad1dfd1 p4 #bae4 ,addit4 #ad1dfi1 p4 #cjf4 ,addit4 #ad1dhe-h1 p4 #bjh4 ,addit4 #ad1dib1 p4 #bjh4 ,addit4 #ag1aac1 p4 #bae1 #cjf4 ,addit4 #ag1aad-e-f1 p4 #bae4 ,addit4 #ag1bac1 p4 #caj4 ,ambros4 ,m4 #ic1 p4 #bhf4 ,basil41 p4 #bhc1 7three ,codd47 ,bobbiensis1 p4 #ce1 #abd1 #ahf4 ,bodleian1 see ,codd4 1 1 #dg1 #ej1 #ed1 ,dawkins4 ,coisl4 #ai1 p4 #abb1 #bhb1 #h-i4 ,coisl4 #bj1 p4 #aah1 #aba-c1 #bbi1 #bhj1 #h1 #i4 ,coisl4 #ba1 p4 #aba-c1 #bha1 #h-i4 ,coisl4 #bb1 p4 #bha1 #bhh4 ,coisl4 #bc1 p4 #bga1 #bha1 #bhh4 ,coisl4 #bd1 p4 #abj1 #aba-c1 #bha1 #bhh-i4 ,coisl4 #aie1 p4 #ff1 #abj1 #a-c1 #bhj4 ,dawkins #c1 p4 #cjf-i4 ,escurial 1 ii4 #h1 p4 #bhf4 ,florence1 ,s4 ,mar4 ,ben4 ,cod4 iv4 p4 #abj1 #a-c1 #e4 ,harl4 #a1 #haj1 p4 #bah4 ,harl4 #e1ajg1 p4 #bbf4 ,harl4 #e1fdg1 p4 #bc1 #bah1 #cad4 ,laur4 vi4 #ah1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhd1 #h-i4 ,laur4 vi4 #cc1 p4 #bhd4 ,laur4 vi4 #cd1 p4 #bhd1 #bhh4 ,laur4 viii4 #ad1 p4 #bhd4 ,matthaei's a1 #bhf1 #bhh-i1 #cba4 ,matthaei's d1 p4 #bhe1 #bhh-i4 ,matthaei's e1 p4 #bhe1 #bhh-i4 ,matthaei's #aj1 p4 #bhe4 ,matthaei's #ab1 p4 #bhe1 #bhh1 #cai-bc4 ,matthaei's #ad1 p4 #bci1 #bhf4 ,meerman #aag1 p4 #bah4 ,middle ,hill #ac1 #ige1 p4 #bhg4 ,monacen4 #ii and #cha1 p4 #bhf4 ,monacen #dfe1 p4 #bhg4 ,moscow1 see ,matthaei4 ,reg4 #ad1 p4 #abc4 ,reg4 #ej1 p4 #bbf4 ,reg4 #ec1 p4 #aai1 #abb1 #cje4 ,reg4 #fa p4 #cjb1 #cjd4 ,reg4 #fb1 see ,codex ,l4 ,reg4 #fd1 p4 #aai4 ,reg4 #fe1 p4 #aag1 #cje-f4 ,reg4 #ff1 p4 #bbe4 ,reg4 #fg1 p4 #bch4 ,reg4 #fi1 p4 #baf4 ,reg4 #ga1 p4 #bci4 ,reg4 #gb1 p4 #ff1 #aai1 #bcj1 #a1 #bdb4 ,reg4 #gc1 p4 #bca4 ,reg4 #ge1 p4 #bbd4 ,reg4 #gg1 p4 #abj4 ,reg4 #gi1 p4 #abd4 ,reg4 #ij1 p4 #bca4 ,reg4 #ia1 p4 #bbd1 #bca4 ,reg4 #ajj1 p4 #bca4 ,reg4 #aae1 p4 #bci4 ,reg4 #aag1 p4 #bca4 ,reg4 #agg1 p4 #aba1 #bha1 #h-i4 ,reg4 #agh1 p4 #aba1 #c1 #bbh-i1 #bga1 #c1 #bhj1 #h1 #i4 ,reg4 #ahf1 p4 #aah-i1 #abb1 #bga1 #d1 #i1 #bhj1 #a1 #b4 ,reg4 #ahg1 p4 #bhb4 ,reg4 #ahh1 p4 #aah-i1 #abb1 #bga1 #i1 #bhj1 #a1 #b4 ,reg4 #ahi1 p4 #bdj1 #bgh4 ,reg4 #aia1 p4 #bbe1 #bhj4 ,reg4 #aid1 p4 #bhc4 ,reg4 #bja1 p4 #bci1 #bhb4 ,reg4 #bjf1 p4 #bhb4 ,reg4 #bcj1 p4 #abb1 #bgh1 #bhh-i4 ,reg4 #gjc1 p4 #bhb4 #bpe1 p4 #bbf4 #gpe1 p4 #bhf4 cscr1 p4 #bbf4 iscr and sscr1 p4 #cjb4 ,tb1 p4 #cje4 ,taurin4 xx b4 iv4 #bj1 p4 #bhf4 ,toledo1 p4 #bhf4 ,vat4 #ceh1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhc1 #bhh-i4 ,vat4 #gef-g1 p4 #aaf-h1 #aba-c1 #bhd1 #bhh-i4 ,vat4 #a1bbi p4 #aba-c1 #bhd1 #bhh-i4 ,vat4 #a1dbc1 p4 #bhg4 ,vat4 #a1dde1 p4 #abb1 #bhf1 #bhh-i4 ,vat4 #a1gfi1 p4 #bhg4 ,vat4 ,palat4 #e1 p4 #bhf4 ,venet4 #f1 #aj1 p4 #abj1 #aba-c1 #e4 ,venet4 #bg1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhd1 #bhh-i4 ,venet4 #die1 p4 #bhe4 ,venet4 #edd1 p4 #bhe4 ,vind4 ,kell4 #d1 ,forlos4 #e1 p4 #aba1 #c1 #bhc1 #bhh-i4 ,vind4 ,kell4 ,nep4 #aad1 ,lambec4 #bi1 p4 #bhc4 ,vind4 ,kell4 #aag1 ,vind4 ,kell4 #ch1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhe1 #bhh-i4 ,vind4 ,kill4 #aah1 #ca1 p4 #bbf4 ,vind4 ,kill4 #ahj1 #ci1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhe1 #bhh-i4 ,wake1 #bb1 #bd1 #bf1 #bi1 #cj1 #ca1 p4 #caa4 ,xavier de ,zelada1 p4 #aba-c1 #bhd1 #h-i4 ,cod4 ,evstt4 #dg and #ej1 p4 #aig4 ,paul1 #fg1 p4 #ii4 ,collation of ,,mss4 p4 vii4-viii41 #bah4 ,colossians1 ,ep4 to1 p4 #aja1 #afb4 ,see ,texts4 ,commentaries1 ,ancient1 p4 #bhg4 ,common ,prayer1 see ,book4 ,concordance test1 p4 #agc4 ,constantinople1 p4 #bge4 ,conybeare and ,howson1 p4 #ajc4 ,coptic ,version1 p4 #ce4 ,copyists of ,,mss41 p4 #bfb1 #bgc-d1 #cbj-c4 ,corderius1 ,b41 p4 #dd1 #acd1 #bgj1 #d1 #g4 ,corrupt readings in ,,mss41 p4 #ajj-a1 #aab1 #bfb-c4 ,cosmas ,indicopleustes1 p4 #beh4 ,council of ,carthage1 p4 #be1 #bdi4 ,cramer1 ,dr4 ,j4 ,a41 p4 #dd1 #fj1 #bga-c4 ,creed of ,jerusalem1 p4 #ahd-e4 see ,athanasian4 ,curetonian ,syriac ,version1 p4 #cc4 ,cyprian1 #be1 #bdi4 ,cyprus1 p4 #cae4 ,cyril of ,alex41 p4 #bi1 #fj1 #aaj1 #aih1 #bja1 #beh1 #bga1 #e1 #g1 #i1 #bha1 #cae4 ,cyril of ,jer41 p4 #ahd-e1 #aie1 #beh1 #bfa4 ,cyrus in ,syria1 p4 #cag1 #h4 ,damascene1 ,john1 p4 #cj4 ,dated ,,mss41 p4 #bjh1 #bbd1 #cji4 ,davidson4 ,dr41 p4 #ab1 #ch1 #aad1 #acc-e1 #f2 #adb1 #h2 #aec1 #afj1 #a1 #d2 #ahe4 ,de ,toutte1 p4 #ahd1 #bfa4 1 p4 #ge1 #bbj4 ,diatessaron1 p4 #abf1 #cad-h4 ,diodorus1 p4 #cad-h4 ,dionysius of ,corinth1 p4 #bde4 ,dionysius ,syrus1 p4 #da4 1 p4 #beg-fc4 ,easter ,lessons1 p4 #bjd-f1 #bch-i4 ,eden1 ,rev4 ,c4 ,p41 p4 #c4 1 p4 #ajd-e4 and 1 p4 #aec4 1 p4 #aff-g4 1 p4 #hf4 ,ellicott1 ,bishop1 p4 #i4 ,encyclical1 p4 #aja-e4 ,ephesians1 ,ep4 to1 p4 #ia-aji4 ,see ,texts4 1 verbs compounded with1 p4 #afc-d4 1 1 p4 #bjd4 ,epiphanius1 p4 #ie1 #acb-c1 #aii1 #bjb-c1 #beh4 ,epiphany1 ,festival of1 p4 #bjd1 #g2 lessons1 #aii4 ,erizzo1 ,f4 ,m4 p4 #cd4 ,ethiopic ,version1 p4 #cf4 1 p4 #beg-fc4 ,eulogius1 p4 #beh4 ,eusebius1 p4 #bf1 #da-ea1 #dc1 #fa-d1 #ff1 #hd1 #abf-cc1 #ccb-h1 #bdj1 #bdi-eb1 #bfe-f1 #bfg-h1 #bge1 #cad1 #caf1 #cbc2 knew nothing of ,cod4 1 p4 #bic-d2 was the ,author of the 8,ammonian0 ,sections1 p4 #bie2 ,eusebian ,tables in ,syriac ,,mss41 p4 #cji-aj2 ,scholion wrongly ascribed to1 p4 #cai-bc4 1 p4 #afh-i4 ,euthymius ,zig41 p4 #cj1 #fh-i4 ,evangelia1 see ,codices4 ,evangeliaria1 p4 #aie1 #aig1 #bad-e4 ,evangelists vary their expressions1 p4 #adg4 ,evidence1 ,law of1 p4 #ae4 1 p4 #ahh4 ,facsimile of ,cod4 1 p4 ii42 of ,cod4 ,l1 p4 #abd4 ,fathers badly indexed1 p4 vii1 #ba1 #cj1 #cae3 see ,patristic4 ,festivals of the ,church1 p4 #bjc4 ,field's ed4 of ,chrysostom1 p4 #ahj4 ,florence4 ,see ,codices4 ,formul of the ,lectionaries1 p4 #bae-bbd1 #e4 ,gandell1 ,rev4 ,prof41 p4 #adh4 ,garnier1 ,j41 p4 #aja4 ,genesis1 when read1 p4 #bja4 ,gennadius1 p4 #bf4 ,georgian ,version1 p4 #cf4 ,gloria in ,excelsis1 p4 #beg-fc4 ,gothic ,version1 p4 #ce1 #bfb4 ,green1 ,rev4 ,t4 ,s41 p4 #ac1 #acg1 #aec4 ,gregentius1 p4 #cj4 ,gregory of ,nazianzus1 p4 #beh4 ,gregory of ,nyssa1 p4 #bi1 #ci-da1 #ff1 #bfg-h4 ,gregory ,thaumaturgus1 p4 #ahj4 ,gregory the ,great1 p4 #cj4 ,griesbach1 ,d4 ,j4 ,j41 p4 #d-g1 #aae-f1 #bcb1 #bea1 #cai4 ,harleian4 ,see ,codices4 ,harmonia1 c41 ,oxon4 #ahje1 p4 #bih4 ,harmony of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj with the other ,gospels1 p4 #ahh-ij1 ,tables of1 in ,greek ,,mss41 p4 #cjd-f2 in ,syriac ,,mss41 p4 #cjf-aa4 ,harris1 ,a4 ,c1 p4 #bic4 ,hedibia1 p4 #ea-f4 ,hesychius of ,jerusalem1 p4 #bi1 #dj-a1 #eg-i1 #fg1 #bjd1 #bcg1 #bfg-h4 ,heurtley1 ,rev4 ,prof41 p4 #ahd4 ,hharklensian ,revision1 p4 #cc1 #abd1 #cae4 ,hierosolymitan ,version1 p4 #cd1 #aii4 ,hippolytus1 p4 #bd-e1 #bdh4 ,hort1 ,rev4 ,f4 ,j4 ,a41 p4 #ac4 ,huet1 ,p4 ,d41 p4 #bfi1 #bge1 #cad4 ,hypapante1 p4 #bjg4 1 p4 #afe4 ,indices1 p4 vii-viii1 #ba1 #cj1 #cae4 ,interpolations in ,b and p4 #hj-f2 from the ,lectionary practice1 p4 #bag-bad4 ,irenus1 p4 #bc1 #bdf1 #h1 #bfj4 ,itala1 ,vetus1 p4 #ce4 ,jacobus ,bar-,salibi1 p4 #da4 8,jacobus ,nisibenus10 p4 #bf1 #beh4 ,james' ,ecloga1 p4 #bcf4 ,jerome1 p4 #bf1 #bg-h1 #cd1 #db1 #di1 #ea-g1 #fg1 #ih1 #ajf1 #abh1 #aec1 #bcf1 #bfj1 #bie1 #cab1 #cad4 ,jerusalem1 ,version1 p4 #cd1 #aii4 ,copies at1 p4 #aai4 ,see ,creed4 ,jewish ,church1 p4 #aib4 ,jewish ,lectionary1 p4 #aid4 ,,john1 ,s4 ,see ,texts4 ,john ,damascene1 p4 #cj4 ,josephus1 p4 #bge4 ,justin ,martyr1 p4 #bc1 #aic4 1 p4 #agi-hj4 1 p4 #abj-a1 #abe4 ,kay1 ,rev4 ,dr4 ,w41 p4 #adj1 #ahc4 1 p4 #aca1 #bhb4 1 p4 #de1 #bbi1 #bih4 ,kollar1 p4 #bfi4 1 p4 #afa-b1 #ahj4 1 p4 #afe1 #ahe4 ,lachmann1 ,c41 p4 #h1 #bei1 #bfc-d ,laodiceans1 ,ep4 to1 p4 #ic-ajg4 ,latinus ,latinius1 p4 #db-dd4 ,lectionary ,system1 p4 #aia-baa1 #bad-e1 #bag-bd1 #bdj1 #cac-e1 #cah4 ,eastern p4 #aif-baa4 ,jewish1 p4 #aib-d4 ,syrian1 p4 #bje-h4 the ,new1 p4 #bjj4 ,lections1 p4 #bch-i4 ,see ,lectionary ,system1 ,syrian ,lessons4 ,lessons4 ,see ,lections4 ,licentious4 ,see ,copyists4 ,liturgical ,formul1 p4 #baf-be4 ,lloyd1 ,bishop ,c1 p4 #bih4 1 p4 #afe4 ,,luke1 ,s4 ,see ,texts4 ,macknight1 p4 #aje4 ,mai1 ,card4 ,a41 p4 #db-d1 #bdb1 #bfe4 ,manuscripts4 ,see ,,codices4 ,marcion1 p4 #ic-f1 #ajc1 #ajf-h4 ,marginal references1 p4 #bih-cjd4 ,marinus1 p4 #bf1 #ec-f1 #bdi-ej4 ,mark1 ,s41 p4 #afa-b4 ,,mark1 ,s4 7,see ,texts71 p4 #afg1 #agf1 #g1 #i2 ,latinisms1 #adi-ea2 style of ch4 i4 #i-bj1 p4 #adc-d2 phraseology of ch4 i4 #a-ab1 p4 #agd-e2 ch4 xvi4 #i-bj1 p4 #cf-gc2 structure of ch4 xvi4 #i-bj1 p4 #aha-d4 xvi4 #i-bj1 a ,lection in the ,ancient ,church1 p4 #bjd-aa4 ,matthaei1 ,c4 ,f41 p4 #e1 #ff1 #aia1 #aig1 #bbg1 #bdg1 #bga-c1 #cai-bc4 ,see ,codices4 ,,matthew1 ,s4 ,see ,texts4 1 p4 #aid4 ,meerman #aag1 ,cod41 p4 #bah4 ,memphitic ,version1 p4 #ce4 ,menologium1 p4 #aig4 ,methodius1 p4 #beh4 ,meyer1 p4 #ac1 #acf1 #afj4 1 p4 #adf-ea4 ,michaelis1 ,j4 ,d41 p4 #aja4 ,middle ,hill1 see ,codices4 ,middleton1 ,bp41 p4 #aje4 ,mill1 ,dr4 ,john1 p4 #abi1 #acj1 #b4 ,modestus1 p4 #cj4 ,montfaucon1 ,b4 de1 p4 #aba4 ,moscow1 see ,codices1 ,rev4 ,w4 ,g4 ,penny4 ,munich1 see ,codices4 ,muratorian fragment1 p4 #ajc4 ,nativity1 ,festival of1 p4 #aii1 #bjd4 ,nazianzus1 see ,gregory4 ,nestorius1 p4 #bi4 ,neubauer1 ,m41 p4 #cjg4 ,nisibenus1 see ,aphraates4 ,norton1 ,prof41 p4 #ac1 #acg1 #bde4 ,nyssa1 see ,gregory4 ,omissions in ,b and 1 p4 #gc-e1 #gi1 #hj1 #ia1 c4 1 p4 #gc1 #d4 ,order of the ,gospels1 p4 #bci-bdj4 ,oriel ,college1 p4 ix1 x4 ,origen1 p4 #dg1 #ff1 #he1 #ic-i1 #ajg1 #agi1 #bbb1 #bcf1 #bde1 #beh1 #bfj-a1 #bge1 #bgg1 #bhb2 on ,s4 ,mark1 #bce4 ,palestinian exemplar1 p4 #fd-e1 #aba1 #bhi4 1 p4 #afh-i4 ,palmer1 ,sir ,roundell1 p4 v1 vi4 ,palmer1 ,rev4 ,w4 ,j41 p4 v4 ,papias1 p4 #bc4 1 verbs compounded with1 p4 #afc-d4 ,parallel passages4 ,see ,tables of ,reference4 1 p4 #aej4 ,paris1 ,,mss4 at1 p4 #bbh-ca1 #bgh-hc3 see ,codices1 ,coisl4 and ,reg4 ,passion-tide ,lessons1 p4 #bjb1 #bjd4 8,patres ,app410 p4 #bdj4 ,patristic ,citations of ,,ss41 p4 #bj-c1 #cg1 #beg-fc4 ,paul1 ,s41 p4 #afa-b4 ,peltanus1 p4 #acd1 #bgj-c4 ,penny1 ,rev4 ,w4 ,g41 p4 #cai-bc4 1 p4 #bcc-d4 1 p4 #de1 #aif1 #h1 #bih4 ,peshito ,version1 p4 #cb4 ,peter1 ,s41 p4 #afa-b1 #agi1 #ahj-a4 ,see ,texts4 ,peter of ,laodicea1 p4 #bhd1 #bhf4 ,petersburg4 ,see ,rev4 ,a4 ,s4 ,thompson4 ,petrus junior1 p4 #cae4 ,phillipps1 ,sir ,t4 ,see ,codices 7,middle ,hill74 ,philoxenian ,version1 p4 #cc1 #d4 ,phraseology of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 p4 #acf-agc1 #adf4 ,pius ,,ix41 p4 ii4 ,polycarp1 p4 #bdj4 1 p4 #aec4 ,possevinus1 p4 #bce4 ,possinus1 p4 #dd1 #acd1 #bbf1 #bgj-d1 #bgg1 #bij-b4 ,prayer-,book1 see ,book4 ,proclus1 p4 #beh4 ,proper1 see ,lessons4 1 p4 #adf-ea4 ,reference ,bibles1 p4 #cjj-a4 ancient ,tables of1 p4 #cjd-aa4 ,revision of ,auth4 ,version1 p4 #bfc-d4 ,greek ,text1 p4 #bfc4 ,lectionary1 p4 #bjj-a4 ,rose1 ,ven4 ,archd41 p4 #bg4 ,rev4 ,w4 ,f41 p4 #bah4 ,routh1 ,rev4 ,president1 p4 ix4 ,rufinus1 p4 #cad4 ,s4 7,g4 ,v47 p4 #bfd4 1 p4 #aid4 --1 p4 #adf-ea4 ,sahidic ,version1 p4 #cf4 ,saturday ,lessons1 p4 #aic1 #d4 ,scholia1 p4 #abb1 #bcf1 #bhh-i1 #cad1 #cai-bc4 ,scholz1 ,j4 ,m4 ,a41 p4 #g1 #aaf-bbb1 #aig1 #bbg1 #bdb4 ,scrivener1 ,rev4 ,f4 ,h41 p4 vii1 viii1 #i1 #gg1 #aci1 #aig1 #bae1 #bbg1 #bdf1 #cjb-d4 ,sections without ,canons in ,,mss41 p4 #cjb2 their use1 #cjc-aj4 see ,ammonian4 1 p4 #bid4 ,severus of ,antioch1 p4 #dj-a1 #eg-i1 #fg1 #aba1 #bfg-h1 #cae4 1 p4 #cad4 ,simon1 ,pre1 p4 #dh1 #bfi4 ,sinaiticus1 see ,codex4 ,sirletus1 ,card41 p4 #dd4 ,smith1 ,dean ,payne1 p4 #da1 #bje-f1 #bad1 #cjf4 ,stanley1 ,dean ,a4 ,p41 p4 #c4 ,style of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 p4 #acf-de4 ,subscription of ,gospels1 p4 #bcj-a4 ,suidas1 p4 #cji1 #caa4 ,synagogue worship1 p4 #aib-c4 ,synaxarium1 p4 #aig4 8,synopsis ,script4 ,s410 p4 #bi4 ,syriac ,,mss41 p4 #bjh1 #bad-e1 #bbe1 #cjf-aa4 ,syrian ,lessons1 p4 #bje1 #bbf1 #bch-i4 ,tables of ,reference in ,,mss1 p4 #cjd-aa4 ,tait1 ,abp41 p4 #b1 #c1 #ahi1 #cad-h4 ,tatian1 p4 #abi1 #cad-h4 1 p4 #aai-bj1 #bbd-db4 ,tertullian1 p4 #cj1 #ic-d1 #ajf4 ,textual ,criticism1 p4 vii-ix1 #aac4 ,,texts4 ,s4 ,,matthew i4 #aj1 p4 #agh2 i4 #be1 p4 #hj4 iii4 #af1 p4 #agh2 iii4 #ag1 p4 #cj4 iv4 #ah-bb1 p4 #bie-f4 viii4 #i1 p4 #hb2 viii4 #ac1 p4 #hj1 #bbb4 xi4 #ai1 p4 #hc2 xi4 #bj1 p4 #bba4 xii4 #i1 p4 #bba4 xiii4 #ce1 p4 #ha1 #aaj-a2 xiii4 #cf1 p4 #bba2 xiii4 #ci1 #ee1 p4 #agh4 xiv4 #ad1 p4 #bba2 xiv4 #bb1 p4 #baf2 xiv4 #cj1 p4 #hb4 xv4 #bb1 p4 #agh4 xvi4 #aj1 p4 #agg2 xvi4 #ab1 p4 #agh-i2 xvi4 #ae1 p4 #afb4 xx4 #ag1 p4 #bbc2 xx4 #bi1 p4 #agh4 xxi4 #h1 p4 #agh2 xxi4 #ca1 p4 #hc4 xxv4 #bd1 p4 #hb4 xxvi4 #cd1 #ge1 p4 #agh2 xxvi4 #ci1 p4 #bag-h4 xxvii4 #cb1 p4 #ahh2 xxvii4 #cd1 p4 #hd2 xxvii4 #ce1 p4 #ge2 xxvii4 #dh1 #di1 p4 #hj1 #bah1 #cac-h2 xxvii4 #ed1 #ee1 p4 #cae4 xxviii4 #b1 #c1 p4 #gc2 xxviii4 #h1 p4 #hd2 xxviii4 #ai1 #bj1 p4 #agh4 ,s4 ,,mark i4 #a1 p4 #ahj1 #ahe2 i4 #i-bj1 p4 #ahb2 i4 #aj1 p4 #agh2 i4 #aa1 #ac1 p4 #cj2 i4 #af-bj1 p4 #bie-f2 i4 #bh1 p4 #he4 vi4 #c1 p4 #agh4 vii4 #c1 #d1 p4 #hb2 vii4 #ai1 p4 #agi2 vii4 #bf1 p4 #agh4 viii4 #aj1 #ae1 p4 #agh4 x4 #f1 p4 #ahj2 x4 #db1 p4 #hb2 x4 #df1 p4 #agh4 xi4 #h1 p4 #agh4 xiii4 #ai1 p4 #ahj4 xiv4 #c1 p4 #bba2 xiv4 #cj1 p4 #agh2 xiv4 #cj1 #fh1 #gb1 p4 #hd2 xiv4 #da1 p4 #bbe2 xiv4 #eh1 p4 #hb2 xiv4 #gb1 p4 #agg4 xv4 #bh1 p4 #cja2 xv4 #df1 p4 #hb4 xvi4 #h and #i1 p4 #bci2 xvi4 #h-bj1 p4 #cjf2 xvi4 #i1 p4 #aeb-c1 #agh-i1 #ahg1 #baf2 xvi4 #i-bj1 p4 #ahb1 #bbd2 xvi4 #aj1 #ad1 p4 #ahg1 #cai2 xvi4 #ae1 p4 #ahj2 xvi4 #ae1 #af1 p4 #agh2 xvi4 #ai1 p4 #ahj1 #aie4 ,s4 ,,luke i4 #bf1 p4 #he2 i4 #bg1 p4 #hb4 ii4 #ad1 p4 #beg-fc2 ii4 #cg1 p4 #hb4 iii4 #bb1 p4 #cj1 #agh2 iii4 #bc1 p4 #bbj4 iv4 #e1 p4 #gd2 iv4 #af1 p4 #bbj2 iv4 #dd1 p4 #he4 7,s4 ,,luke7 v4 #a1 p4 #hb1 #bbj2 i4 #a-aa1 p4 #bie-f2 i4 #ag1 p4 #bbj4 vi4 #a1 p4 #ge1 #bbj2 vi4 #cg1 p4 #bbj2 vi4 #dh1 p4 #ha4 vii4 #a1 p4 #bbj2 vii4 #ca1 p4 #baf4 viii4 #b1 p4 #aeb1 #agh4 ix4 #eg1 p4 #bbj4 x4 #a1 p4 #ha1 #bbj2 x4 #be1 p4 #bbj4 xiii4 #b1 p4 #bba4 xv4 #ac1 p4 #hb4 xvi4 #f1 p4 #agh2 xvi4 #af1 p4 #gd2 xvi4 #ai1 p4 #bbj4 xviii4 #ae1 p4 #bbj4 xix4 #de1 p4 #bbj4 xx4 #a1 p4 #bbj4 xxii4 #be1 p4 #hb2 xxii4 #dc1 #dd1 p4 #gi1 #bja1 #bag-h1 #cja2 xxii4 #fd1 p4 #gd4 xxiii4 #ae1 p4 #hc2 xxiii4 #cd1 p4 #gi1 #bai2 xxiii4 #ch1 p4 #gi2 xxiii4 #de1 p4 #he-f4 xxiv4 #ab1 p4 #bbb2 xxiv4 #ac1 p4 #he1 #bcf2 xxiv4 #af1 p4 #agh-i2 xxiv4 #ca1 p4 #gc2 xxiv4 #cf1 p4 #bba2 xxiv4 #db1 #eb1 #ec1 p4 #gd2 xxiv4 #ea1 p4 #aie4 ,s4 ,,john i4 #c1 #d1 p4 #cj1 #aaj2 i4 #c1 #ah1 #ej1 p4 #cj2 i4 #d1 p4 #ha1 #aji-aa2 i4 #ah1 p4 #cj1 #ha2 i4 #bh1 p4 #bcf2 i4 #bi1 #dd1 p4 #bba2 i4 #cd1 p4 #ha2 i4 #ej1 p4 #cj4 ii4 #c1 p4 #hj4 iii4 #ac1 p4 #hj4 vi4 #ad1 p4 #bba2 vi4 #ag1 #fd1 p4 #hb2 vi4 #ea1 p4 #aaa4 vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa1 p4 #bai4 viii4 #eg1 p4 #hb2 viii4 #ei1 p4 #hj1 #bbb4 ix4 #d1 #aa1 p4 #ha2 ix4 #ce1 p4 #hb2 ix4 #ch1 p4 #gi4 x4 #ad1 p4 #hb2 x4 #bi1 p4 #bbc4 xiii4 #c1 p4 #bba2 xiii4 #aj1 p4 #aaa4 xiv4 #a1 p4 #bbj2 xiv4 #ca1 p4 #ahh4 xvii4 #aj1 p4 #hb2 xvii4 #ae1 #af1 p4 #gf4 xviii4 #a1 p4 #ahh4 xix4 #ac1 p4 #bbc2 xix4 #ag1 p4 #ahh2 xix4 #cd1 p4 #bah1 #cac-e4 xxi4 #a1 p4 #bba1 #c2 xxi4 #a-f1 #aa1 p4 #bie-f2 xxi4 #ab1 #ac1 #ae-ag1 p4 #big2 xxi4 #ah1 p4 #hc2 xxi4 #be1 p4 #gi4 ,,acts i4 #b1 #bb1 #bc1 p4 #ahj2 i4 #i1 p4 #aie4 iv4 #ab1 p4 #bfb4 viii4 #e1 p4 #he4 x4 #ae1 p4 #ahj4 xiii4 #ae1 #bg1 p4 #aib4 ,,ephes4 i4 #a1 p4 #ia-aji4 vi4 #ba1 #b1 p4 #aja4 ,,coloss4 i4 #bc1 p4 #afb4 iv4 #g1 #af1 p4 #aja1 #aje4 #a ,s4 ,,pet4 ii4 #ac1 p4 #ahj4 iv4 #ai1 p4 #ahj4 #b ,s4 ,,pet4 iii4 #d1 p4 #ahj4 ,,ecclus4 xliii4 #aa1 #ab1 p4 #cja4 #a ,,macc4 iv4 #ei1 p4 #cja4 1 p4 #aef-h4 ,thebaic ,version1 p4 #ce4 ,theodore of ,mopsuestia1 p4 #bge1 #g4 ,theodoret1 p4 #beh1 #cag-h4 ,theodotus of ,ancyra1 p4 #beh4 ,theophania1 p4 #bjg4 ,theophylact1 p4 #cj1 #bff4 1 p4 #aeg4 ,thompson1 ,rev4 ,a4 ,s41 p4 ii1 #beb4 ,thomson1 ,abp41 p4 #ac4 ,tischendorf1 ,dr41 p4 #h1 #i1 #aj1 #ch1 #gg-i1 #he-f1 #ic1 #aji-ad1 #abc1 #abe-cc1 #acg1 #aec1 #bbb1 #g1 #bdb1 #d1 #bea-b1 #i1 #bfj-a1 #bhj1 #bic1 #caa1 #cbb1 viii-ix4 ,titus of ,bostra1 p4 #beh1 #bge1 #bhc4 ,toledo1 see ,codices4 ,townson1 ,rev4 ,dr41 p4 #aea1 #agi4 ,tregelles1 ,dr41 p4 #i1 #aj-ab1 #ch1 #i1 #fj1 #gf1 #aad1 #abf-i1 #acf1 #ade1 #afi1 #bbb-c1 #bbg1 #bcd1 #bdb1 #d1 #e1 #g1 #bea1 #i1 #bfj1 #cai1 viii-ix4 ,turin1 see ,codices4 ,ulphilas1 p4 #ce1 #bfb4 ,uncial ,,mss4 p4 #bj1 #ga4 ,see ,codices4 1 p4 #bgd-e4 1 p4 #afj4 ,vatican1 p4 #aag1 #bhc-d1 #bhh-i3 see ,codices4 ,vaticanus1 see ,codex4 ,venice1 see ,codices4 ,vercellone1 ,c41 p4 #gc4 ,versions1 see ,armenian1 c4 ,vetus ,itala1 p4 #ce4 ,victor of ,antioch1 p4 #bi1 #ei-fe1 #fg1 #abb1 #acd1 #agh1 #ahj1 #bce1 #bej1 #bfh1 #bfi-hg2 ,codices1 #bgh-hg2 ,scholion1 #bhh-ij4 ,victor of ,capua1 p4 #abi4 ,vienna1 see ,codices4 ,vincentius a ,thibari1 p4 #be4 ,vulgate1 p4 #cd4 ,westcott1 ,rev4 ,prof41 p4 #ac1 #bc4 ,wetstein1 ,j4 ,j41 p4 #aba1 #abe1 #abi4 ,wordsworth1 ,bishop1 p4 ix1 #i4 ,wordsworth1 ,rev4 ,john1 p4 ix4 ,wright1 ,prof41 p4 #bg1 #cc1 #bjf1 #h1 #bad-e1 #bbe1 #cjf1 #g1 #h1 #i1 #aj4 ,xavier de ,zelada1 see ,codices4 ,xiphilinus1 ,john1 p4 #dd4 4 ,,footnotes #a ,abp4 ,tait's ,harmony of ,revelation and the ,sciences1 7#ahfd17 p4 #ba4 #b ,see by all means ,hooker1 ,e4 ,p41 v4 xlii4 #aa-ac4 #c ,abp4 ,tait is of opinion that it 8should not retain its place in the public ,service of the ,church30 and ,dean ,stanley gives sixteen reasons for the same opinion1--the fifteenth of which is that 8many excellent laymen1 including ,king ,george ,,iii41 have declined to take part in the recitation40 7,final7 ,report of the ,ritual ,commission1 #ahgj1 p4 viii4 and p4 xvii4 #d ,in the words of a thoughtful friend1 7,rev4 ,c4 ,p4 ,eden71--8,condemnatory is just what these clauses are not4 ,i understand myself1 in uttering these words1 not to condemn a fellow creature1 but to acknowledge a truth of ,scripture1 ,,god',s judgment namely on the sin of unbelief4 ,the further question1--,in whom the sin of unbelief is found2 that awful question ,i leave entirely in ,his hands who is the alone ,judge of hearts2 who made us1 and knows our infirmities1 and whose tender mercies are over all ,his works40 #e 8,the ,athanasian ,creed10 by the ,dean of ,westminster 7,contemporary ,review1 ,aug41 #ahgj1 pp4 #aeh1 #aei74 #f ,commentarius ,criticus1 ii4 #aig4 #g ,quatuor ,evangelia ,graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus ,codd4 ,,mss4 ,bibliothecae ,vaticanae1 etc4 ,jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit ,andreas ,birch1 ,havniae1 #aghh4 ,a copy of this very rare and sumptuous folio may be seen in the ,king's ,library 7,brit4 ,mus47 #h ,account of the ,printed ,text1 p4 #hc4 #i ,see above1 p4 #c4 #aj 8,eam esse authenticam rationes internae et externae probant gravissimae40 #aa ,i find it difficult to say what distress the sudden removal of this amiable and accomplished ,scholar occasions me1 just as ,i am finishing my task4 ,i consign these pages to the press with a sense of downright reluctance1--7constrained however by the importance of the subject17--seeing that he is no longer among us either to accept or to dispute a single proposition4 ,all ,i can do is to erase every word which might have occasioned him the least annoyance2 and indeed1 as seldom as possible to introduce his respected name4 ,an open grave reminds one of the nothingness of earthly controversy2 as nothing else does1 or indeed can do4 #ab ,tischendorf1 besides eight editions of his laborious critical revision of the ,greek ,text1 has edited our ,english 8,authorized ,version0 7,tauchnitz1 #ahfi17 with an 8,introduction0 addressed to unlearned readers1 and the various readings of ,codd4 1 ,b and ,a1 set down in ,english at the foot of every page4--,tregelles1 besides his edition of the ,text of the ,n4 ,t41 is very full on the subject of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 in his 8,account of the ,printed ,text10 and in his 8,introduction to the ,textual ,criticism of the ,n4 ,t40 7vol4 iv4 of ,horne's ,introd47--,dean ,alford1 besides six editions of his ,greek ,testament1 and an abridgment 8for the upper forms of ,schools and for passmen at the ,universities10 put forth two editions of a 8,n4 ,t4 for ,english ,readers10 and three editions of 8the ,authorized ,version newly compared with the original ,greek and revised20--in every one of which it is stated that these twelve verses are 8probably an addition1 placed here in very early times40 #ac ,the ,rev4 ,f4 ,h4 ,scrivener1 ,bp4 ,ellicott1 and ,bp4 ,wordsworth1 are honourable exceptions to this remark4 ,the last-named excellent ,divine reluctantly admitting that 8this portion may not have been penned by ,s4 ,mark himself20 and ,bishop ,ellicott 7,historical ,lectures1 pp4 #bf-g7 asking 8,why may not this portion have been written by ,s4 ,mark at a later period820--both alike resolutely insist on its genuineness and canonicity4 ,to the honour of the best living master of ,textual ,criticism1 the ,rev4 ,f4 ,h4 ,scrivener1 7of whom ,i desire to be understood to speak as a disciple of his master17 be it stated that he has never at any time given the least sanction to the popular outcry against this portion of the ,gospel4 8,without the slightest misgiving0 he has uniformly maintained the genuineness of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj4 7,introduction1 pp4 #g and #dbi-cb47 #ad 8,hc non a ,marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis10 7p4 #cbj47 8,qu testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis1 ut quod conlatis prioribus versu #i4 parum apte adduntur verba item quod singula multifariam a ,marci ratione abhorrent40 7p4 #cbb47--;,i quote from the #gth ,leipsic ed42 but in ,tischendorf's #hth ed4 7#ahff1 pp4 #djc1 #djf17 the same verdict is repeated1 with the following addition3--8,qu quum ita sint1 san erga sacrum textum pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare pergunt qua a ,marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur40 7p4 #djg47 #ae ,evangelia ,apocrypha1 #ahec1 ,proleg4 p4 lvi4 #af ,pp4 #bec1 #g-i4 #ag ,in his first edition 7#ahdh1 vol4 i4 p4 #afc7 ,dr4 ,davidson pronounced it 8manifestly untenable0 that ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel was the last written2 and assigned ,a4,d4 #fd as 8its most probable0 date4 ,in his second 7#ahfh1 vol4 ii4 p4 #aag71 he says3--8,when we consider that the ,gospel was not written till the second century1 internal evidence loses much of its force against the authenticity of these verses40--,introduction to ,n4,t4 #ah ,vol4 ii4 p4 #bci4 #ai ,developed ,criticism1 #aheg1 p4 #ec4 #bj ,ed4 #ahdg4 i4 p4 #ag4 ,he recommends this view to his reader's acceptance in five pages1--pp4 #baf to #bba4 #ba ,introduction to the ,study of the ,gospels1 p4 #caa4 #bb ,critical and ,exegetical ,commentary1 #ahee1 #hvo4 pp4 #ahb1 #ahf-ib4 #bc ,in the ,roman law this principle is thus expressed1--8,ei incumbit probatio qui dicit1 non qui negat40 ,taylor on the ,law of ,evidence1 #ahfh1 i4 p4 #cfi4 #bd ,this is freely allowed by all4 8,certiores facti sumus hanc pericopam jam in secundo sculo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem40 ,tregelles ,n4,t4 p4 #bad4 #be ,this in fact is how ,bengel 7,n4 ,t4 p4 #fbf7 accounts for the phenomenon3--8,fieri potuit ut librarius1 scripto versu #h1 reliquam partem scribere differret1 et id exemplar1 casu non perfectum1 alii quasi perfectum sequerentur1 praesertim quum ea pars cum reliqu histori evangelic minus congruere videretur40 #bf ,it is thus that ,tischendorf treats ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #ab1 and 7in his latest edition7 ,s4 ,john xxi4 #be4 #bg ,chap4 ,,iii4-,,viii41 also ,chap4 ,x4 #bh ,chap4 ,,ix4 #bi ,viz4 ,e1 ,l1 viii3 ,k1 ,m1 ,v1 1 1 7qure71 7,tisch4 ed4 #hva47 ix3 ,g1 ,x1 ,s1 ,u ix1 x4 ,the following uncials are defective here1--,f 7ver4 #i-ai71 ,h 7ver4 #i-ad71 ,i1 ,n1 ,o1 ,p1 ,q1 ,r1 ,t1 ,w1 ,y1 ,z4 #cj ,see ,appendix 7,a71 on the true reading of ,s4 ,luke ii4 #ad4 #ca ,consider how ,ignatius 7ad ,smyrn41 c4 #c7 quotes ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #ci2 and how he refers to ,s4 ,john xii4 #c in his ,ep4 ad ,ephes4 c4 #ag4 #cb sc4 1--evidently a slip of the pen for 7see ,acts i4 #bc1 quoted by ,eusebius immediately afterwards17-- 4 ,euseb4 ,hist4 ,eccl4 iii4 #ci4 #cc ,apol4 ,i4 c4 #de4--,the supposed quotations in c4 #i from the ,fragment ,de ,resurrectione 7,westcott and others7 are clearly references to ,s4 ,luke xxiv41--not to ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #cd lib4 iii4 c4 x4 ad fin4 7ed4 ,stieren1 i4 p4 #dfb74 8,in fine autem ,evangelii ait ,marcus1 et quidem ,dominus ,jesus1 postquam locutus est sis1 receptus est in caelos1 et sedet ad dexteram ,dei40 ,accordingly1 against ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ai in ,harl4 ,,ms4 #efdg 7 ,evan4 #gb7 occurs the following marginal scholium1 which ,cramer has already published3-- 1 4 #ce ,first published as his by ,fabricius 7vol4 i4 #bde47 ,its authorship has never been disputed4 ,in the enumeration of the works of ,hippolytus 7inscribed on the chair of his marble effigy in the ,lateran ,museum at ,rome7 is read1-- 2 and by that name the fragment in question is actually designated in the third chapter of the 7so called7 8,apostolical ,constitutions10 7 1 44471--in which singular monument of ,antiquity the fragment itself is also found4 ,it is in fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the 8,apostolical ,constitutions20 of which the ivth chapter is also claimed for ,hippolytus1 7though with evidently far less reason17 and as such appears in the last edition of the ,father's collected works1 7,hippolyti ,romani qu feruntur omnia ,grce1 ed4 ,lagarde1 #aheh17--p4 #gd4 ,the work thus assigned to ,hippolytus1 7evidently on the strength of the heading1-- 1 17 is part of the 8,octateuchus ,clementinus10 concerning which ,lagarde has several remarks in the preface to his ,reliqui ,juris ,ecclesiastici ,antiquissim1 #ahef4 ,the composition in question extends from p4 #e to p4 #ah of the last-named publication4 ,the exact correspondence between the 8,octateuchus ,clementinus0 and the ,pseudo-,apostolical ,constitutions will be found to extend no further than the single chapter 7the ivth7 specified in the text4 ,in the meantime the fragment 7containing ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ag1 #ah17 is identical throughout4 ,it forms the first article in ,lagarde's ,reliqui1 extending from p4 #a to p4 #d1 and is there headed 4 #cf ,ad fin4 ,see ,routh's ,opuscula1 i4 p4 #hj4 #cg ,for which reason ,i cordially subscribe to ,tischendorf's remark 7ed4 #hva4 p4 #djg71 8,quod idem ,justinus ,christum dicit1 ,apol4 ,i4 c4 #ej8 minus valet40 #ch 8,in nomine meo manum imponite1 daemonia expellite10 7,cyprian ,opp4 p4 #bcg ,reliqq4 ,sacr4 iii4 p4 #abd1 quoting ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ag1 #ah17--8;,in nomine meo daemonia ejicient 444 super egrotos manus imponent et bene habebunt40 #ci ,responsa ad ,episcopos1 c4 #dd1 7,reliqq4 v4 #bdh47 #dj ,evangelia ,apocrypha1 ed4 ,tischendorf1 #ahec1 pp4 #bdc and #cea3 also ,proleg4 p4 lvi4 #da ,in l4 vii4 c4 #g 7ad fin471-- 3 and in l4 viii4 c4 #a1-- 4 ,observe1 this immediately follows the quotation of verses #ag1 #ah4 #db ,lib4 vi4 c4 #ae4--,the quotation 7at the beginning of lib4 viii47 of the #agth and #ahth verses1 has been already noticed in its proper place4 ,supra1 p4 #bd4 #dc ,scrivener's ,introduction1 p4 #dba4 #dd ,apud ,hieron4 ,opp4 ed4 ,vallars41 ii4 #iea-d4 #de ,see ,dr4 ,wright's ed4 of 8,aphraates10 7#dto4 #ahfi47 i4 p4 #ba4 ,i am entirely indebted to the learned ,editor's ,preface for the information in the text4 #df ,from ,dr4 ,wright1 and my brother ,archdeacon ,rose4 #dg ,vol4 i4 #gif ,e and vol4 ii4 #dfa ,d quote ver4 #ae3 #adbi ,b quotes ver4 #ae and #af3 vol4 ii4 #ffc ,b1 ,c quotes ver4 #af to #ah4 ,vol4 i4 #abg ,a quotes ver4 #af to #ah4 ,vol4 i4 #fci ,e and vol4 ii4 #djj ,a quote ver4 #ag1 #ah4 ,vol4 i4 #gaf ,a quotes ver4 #bj4 #dh ,opp4 iii4 #gfe ,a1 ,b4 #di 1 4 ,chrys4 ,opp4 ch4 #cee ,b4 #ej 8,cogis0 7he says to ,pope ,damasus7 8ut post exemplaria ,scripturarum toto orbe dispersa quasi quidam arbiter sedeam2 et quia inter se variant1 quae sint illa quae cum ,graec consentiant veritate decernam4--,haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor ,evangelia 444 codicum ,graecorum emendata conlatione1 sed et veterum40 #ea ,vol4 i4 p4 #cbg ,c 7ed4 ,vallars47 #eb ,contra ,pelagianos1 ,,ii4 #ae1 7,opp4 ii4 #gdd-e73--8;,in quibusdam exemplaribus et maxima in ,graecis codicibus1 juxta ,marcum in fine ,evangelii scribitur3 ,postea quum accubuissent undecim1 apparuit eis ,jesus1 et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum1 quia his qui viderant eum resurgentem1 non crediderunt4 ,et illi satisfaciebant dicentes3 ,sculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis substantia est1 quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram ,dei apprehendi virtutem3 idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam40 #ec ,e4g4 ver4 #ab in vol4 ii4 #eae ,c 7,ep4 #adi72 ,vol4 v4 #ihh ,c4--,verses #ae1 #af1 in vol4 v4 #cia ,e1 #ihe ,a3 vol4 x4 #bb ,f4 #ed ,vol4 v4 #iig ,f1 #iih ,b1 ,c4 #ee 1 1 4 1 1 4 ,nestorius c4 ,orthodoxos3 7,cyril4 ,alexand4 adv4 ,nestorian4 ,opp4 vol4 vi4 #df ,b47 ,to which1 ,cyril replies1-- 1 4 7,ibid4 ,d47 ,this quotation was first noticed by ,matthaei 7,enthym4 ,zig4 i4 #afa47 #ef 2 -- 4 ,greg4 ,nyss4 ,opp4 iii4 #dae4 #eg ,athanasii ,opp4 vol4 ii4 p4 #aha ,f1 #ahb ,a4 ,see the ,prfat41 pp4 vii41 viii4 #eh ,in dismissing this enumeration1 let me be allowed to point out that there must exist many more ,patristic citations which ,i have overlooked4 ,the necessity one is under1 on occasions like the present1 of depending to a great extent on 8,indices10 is fatal2 so scandalously inaccurate is almost every ,index of ,texts that can be named4 ,to judge from the ,index in ,oehler's edition of ,tertullian1 that ,father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times4 ,according to the ,benedictine ,index1 ,ambrose does not quote them so much as once4 ,ambrose1 nevertheless1 quotes five of these verses no less than fourteen times2 while ,tertullian1 as far as ,i am able to discover1 does not quote ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj at all4 ,again4 ,one hoped that the ,index of ,texts in ,dindorf's new ,oxford ed4 of ,clemens ,alex4 was going to remedy the sadly defective ,index in ,potter's ed4 ,but we are still exactly where we were4 ,s4 ,john i4 #c 7or #d71 so remarkably quoted in vol4 iii4 #dcc1 l4 #h3 ,s4 ,john i4 #ah1 #ej1 memorably represented in vol4 iii4 #dab1 l4 #bf3 ,s4 ,mark i4 #ac1 interestingly referred to in vol4 iii4 #dee1 lines #e1 #f1 #g3--;are nowhere noticed in the ,index4 ,the ,voice from ,heaven at our ,,saviour',s ,baptism1--a famous misquotation 7vol4 i4 #ade1 l4 #ad71--;does not appear in the ,index of quotations from ,s4 ,matthew 7iii4 #ag71 ,s4 ,mark 7i4 #aa71 or ,s4 ,luke 7iii4 #bb47 #ei ,gregentius apud ,galland4 xi4 #fec ,e4--,greg4 ,mag4 7,hom4 xxix4 in ,evang47--,modestus apud ,photium cod4 #bge4--;,johannis ,damasceni ,opp4 7ed4 #agab7 vol4 i4 #fjh ,e4--,bede1 and ,theophylact 7who quotes all the verses7 and ,euthymius in loc4 #fj ,dr4 ,wright informs me 7#ahga7 that some more leaves of this ,version have just been recovered4 #fa ,by a happy providence1 one of the fragments contains the last four verses4 #fb ,in the margin1 against ,s4 ,matth4 xxviii4 #e1 ,thomas writes1--8,in tribus codicibus ,grcis1 et in uno ,syriaco antiqu versionis1 non inventum est nomen1 #8,nazarenus4' 0--,cf4 ad xxvii4 #ce4--;,adler's ,n4 ,t4 ,verss4 ,syrr41 p4 #ig4 #fc ,that among the #dcg various readings and marginal notes on the ,gospels relegated to the ,philoxenian margin1 should occur the worthless supplement which is only found besides in ,cod4 ,l4 7see ch4 viii47--is not at all surprising4 ,of these #dcg readings and notes1 #ia are not found in ,white's ,edition2 while #aje 7the supplement in question being one of them7 are found in ,white only4 ,this creates a suspicion that in part at least the ,philoxenian margin must exhibit traces of the assiduity of subsequent critics of the ,syriac text4 7,so ,adler on ,s4 ,matth4 xxvi4 #dj47 ,to understand the character of some of those marginal notes and annotations1 the reader has but to refer to ,adler's learned work1 7pp4 #gi-acd7 and examine the notes on the following places3--,s4 ,matth4 xv4 #ba3 xx4 #bh 7 ,d73 xxvi4 #g4 ,s4 ,mk4 i4 #af3 xii4 #db4 ,s4 ,lu4 x4 #ag 7 ,b ,d73 #db 7 ,b ,l73 xi4 #a3 #ec4 ,s4 ,jo4 ii4 #a #c 7 73 iii4 #bf3 vii4 #ci 7partly ,b73 x4 #h1 c4 c4 #fd ,this work has at last been published in #b vols4 #dto41 ,verona1 #ahfa-d1 under the following title3--,evangeliarium ,hierosolymitanum ex ,codice ,vaticano ,palaestino demprompsit1 edidit1 ,latine vertit1 ,prolegomenis et ,glossario adornavit1 ,comes ,,franciscus ,,miniscalchi ,,erizzo4 #fe ,it does not sensibly detract from the value of this evidence that one ancient codex1 the 8,codex ,bobbiensis0 7k71 which ,tregelles describes as 8a revised text1 in which the influence of ancient ,,mss4 is discernible10 ,printed text1 c4 p4 #agj4 and which therefore may not be cited in the present controversy1--exhibits after ver4 #h a ,latin translation of the spurious words which are also found in ,cod4 ,l4 #ff 8,quod ,gothicum testimonium haud scio an critici satis agnoverint1 vel pro dignitate aestimaverint40 ,mai1 ,nova ,patt4 ,bibl4 iv4 #bef4 #fg ,account of the ,printed ,text1 p4 #bdg4 #fh ,gr4 ,test4 p4 #cbb4 #fi 1 4 7sic7 4 ,opp4 7ed4 #afch7 iii1 #daa ,b4 #gj ,tregelles1 ,printed ,text1 p4 #bdh1 also in ,horne's ,introd4 iv4 #dcd-f4 ,so ,norton1 ,alford1 ,davidson1 and the rest1 following ,wetstein1 ,griesbach1 ,scholz1 c4 #ga ,nov4 ,auct4 i4 #gdc-gd4--;,bibl4 ,vett4 ,,pp4 xi4 #bba-f4 #gb ,bibl4 ,coisl4 pp4 #fh-ge4--;,catena1 i4 #bdc-ea4 #gc ,dionysius ,syrus 7i4e4 the ,monophysite ,jacobus ,bar-,salibi see ,dean ,payne ,smith's ,cat4 of ,syrr4 ,,mss4 p4 #daa who died ,a4,d4 #aaga7 in his ,exposition of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel 7published at ,dublin by ,dudley ,loftus1 #afgb1 #dto47 seems 7at p4 #ei7 to give this homily to ,severus4--,i have really no independent opinion on the subject4 #gd ,alford1 ,greek ,test4 i4 p4 #dcc4 #ge ,scriptorum ,vett4 ,nova ,collectio1 #dto4 vol4 i4 pp4 #a-aja4 #gf ,at p4 #bag1 7ed4 #ahdg71 ,mai designates it as 8,codex ,vat4 ,palat4 cxx pulcherrimus1 sculi ferme x40 ,at p4 #bfh1 he numbers it rightly1--ccxx4 ,we are there informed that the work of ,eusebius extends from fol4 #fa to #if of the ,codex4 #gg ,vol4 iv4 pp4 #bai-cji4 #gh ,see ,nova ,p4 ,p4 ,bibliotheca1 iv4 #bee4--,that it was styled 8,inquiries with their ,resolutions0 7 71 ,eusebius leads us to suppose by himself twice referring to it under that name1 7,demonstr4 ,evang4 lib4 vii4 #c3 also in the ,preface to ,marinus1 ,mai1 iv4 #bee37 which his abbreviator is also observed to employ 7,mai1 iv4 #bai1 #bee47 ,but ,i suspect that he and others so designate the work only from the nature of its contents2 and that its actual title is correctly indicated by ,jerome1--,de ,evangeliorum ,diaphoni3 8,edidit0 7he says7 8de ,evangeliorum ,diaphoni10 7,de ,scriptt4 ,illustt4 c4 #ha47 ,again1 1 7,hieron4 in ,matth4 i4 #af47 ,consider also the testimony of ,latinus ,latinius1 given below1 p4 #dd1 note 7q74 8,indicated0 by ,jerome1 ,i say3 for the entire title was probably1 444 4 ,the ,author of the ,catena on ,s4 ,mark edited by ,cramer 7i4 p4 #bff71 quotes an opinion of ,eusebius 3 words which are extracted from the same ,,ms4 by ,simon1 ,hist4 ,crit4 ,n4 ,t4 p4 #hi4 #gi and 4 ,ibid4 pp4 #bai1 #bee4--7,see the plate of fac-similes facing the title of vol4 i4 ed4 #ahbe47 #hj 444 1 444 ,i quote the place from the less known ,catena of ,cramer1 7ii4 #chi17 where it is assigned to ,severus of ,antioch3 but it occurs also in ,corderii ,cat4 in ,joan4 p4 #dcf4 7,see ,mai1 iv4 #bii47 #ha ,this passage is too grand to be withheld3-- 1 7 17 2 1 4 7,possini ,cat4 in ,marcum1 p4 #cdc47 #hb ,mai1 iv4 p4 #bii4--,the ,caten1 inasmuch as their compilers are observed to have been very curious in such questions1 are evidently full of disjecta membra of the work4 ,these are recognisable for the most part by their form2 but sometimes they actually retain the name of their author4 ,accordingly1 ,caten have furnished ,mai with a considerable body of additional materials2 which 7as far as a ,,ms4 ,catena of ,nicetas on ,s4 ,luke1 ,cod4 ,a4 seu ,vat4 #afaa1 enabled him17 he has edited with considerable industry2 throwing them into a kind of ,supplement4 7,vol4 iv4 pp4 #bfh-bhb1 and pp4 #bhc-bih47 ,it is only surprising that with the stores at his command1 ,mai has not contrived to enlighten us a little more on this curious subject4 ,it would not be difficult to indicate sundry passages which he has overlooked4 ,neither indeed can it be denied that the learned ,cardinal has executed his task in a somewhat slovenly manner4 ,he does not seem to have noticed that what he quotes at pp4 #ceg-h--bfb--bhc--bie1 is to be found in the ,catena of ,corderius at pp4 #ddh-i--ddi--dej--deg4--;,he quotes 7p4 #cjj7 from an unedited ,homily of ,john ,xiphilinus1 7,cod4 ,vat4 p4 #afj17 what he might have found in ,possinus2 and in ,cramer too1 7p4 #ddf47 ,he was evidently unacquainted with ,cramer's work1 though it had been published #c 7if not #g7 years before his own1--else1 at p4 #bii1 instead of quoting ,simon1 he would have quoted ,cramer's ,caten1 i4 #bff4--;,it was in his power to solve his own shrewd doubt1 7at p4 #bii1--;concerning the text of a passage in ,possinus1 p4 #cdc17 seeing that the ,catena which ,possinus published was transcribed by ,corderius from a ,,ms4 in the ,vatican4 7,possini ,prfat4 p4 ii47 ,in the ,vatican1 too1 he might have found the fragment he quotes 7p4 #cjj7 from p4 #cfd of the ,catena of ,possinus4 ,in countless places he might1 by such references1 have improved his often manifestly faulty text4 #hc ,mai quotes the following from ,latinus ,latinius 7,opp4 ii4 #aaf47 to ,andreas ,masius4 ,sirletus 7,cardinalis7 8scire te vult in ,sicili inventos esse 444 libros tres ,eusebii ,csariensis de ,evangeliorum ,diaphoni1 qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt40 ,the letter is dated #aefc4 ,i suspect that when the original of this work is recovered1 it will be found that ,eusebius digested his 8,questions0 under heads3 e4g4 1 7p4 #bfd73 4 7p4 #bii47 #hd ,i translate according to the sense1--the text being manifestly corrupt4 is probably a gloss1 explanatory of 4 ,in strictness1 the begins at ch4 xv4 #db1 and extends to the end of the ,gospel4 ,there are #dh such in ,s4 ,mark4 ,but this term was often loosely employed by the ,greek ,fathers1 7as 8capitulum0 by the ,latins17 to denote a passage of ,scripture1 and it is evidently so used here4 1 on the contrary1 in this place seems to have its true technical meaning1 and to denote the liturgical section1 or 8lesson40 #he 7like 1 spoken of in the foregoing note17 seems to be here used in its technical sense1 and to designate the liturgical section1 or 8lectio40 ,see ,suicer1 in voce4 #hf ,the text of ,eusebius seems to have experienced some disarrangement and depravation here4 #hg ,mai1 ,bibl4 ,p4,p4 ,nova1 iv4 #bee-g4 ,for purposes of reference1 the original of this passage is given in the ,appendix 7,b74 #hh ,mai1 iv4 #beg4 ,so far1 ,i have given the substance only of what ,eusebius delivers with wearisome prolixity4 ,it follows1-- 1 1 4 8--0 xxviii4 #a4 8 -- 40 xx4 #a4 4 xxviii4 #a4--;,for the principal words in the text1 see the ,appendix 7,b7 ad fin4 #hi ,i allude to the following places3--,combefis1 ,novum ,auctarium1 col4 #ghj4--;,cod4 ,mosq4 #ach1 7printed by ,matthaei1 ,anectt4 ,grc4 ii4 #fb47--;also ,cod4 ,mosq4 #aci1 7see ,n4 ,t4 ix4 #bbc-d47--;,cod4 ,coislin4 #aie fol4 #afe4--;,cod4 ,coislin4 #bc1 7published by ,cramer1 ,catt4 i4 #bea47--;,cod4 ,bodl4 ol4 ,meerman ,auct4 ,t4 i4 #d1 fol4 #afi4--;,cod4 ,bodl4 ,laud4 ,gr4 #cc1 fol4 #gi4--;,any one desirous of knowing more on this subject will do well to begin by reading ,simon ,hist4 ,crit4 du ,n4 ,t4 p4 #hi4 ,see ,mai's foot-note1 iv4 p4 #beg4 #ij ,ep4 cxx4 ,opera1 7ed4 ,vallars47 vol4 i4 pp4 #haa-dc4 #ia ,ibid4 p4 #hdd4 #ib ,ibid4 p4 #gic-haj4 ,see especially pp4 #gid1 #hji1 #haj4 #ic 8,hujus qustionis duplex solutio est4 4 ,aut enim non recipimus ,marci testimonium1 quod in raris fertur ,evangeliis1 omnibus ,grci libris pene hec capitulum in fine non habentibus2 2 prsertim cum diversa atque contraria ,evangelistis ceteris narrare videntur 4 ,aut hoc respondendum1 quod uterque verum dixerit 444 4 ,matthus1 quando ,dominus surrexerit vespere sabbati3 ,marcus autem1 quando tum viderit ,maria ,magdalena1 id est1 mane prima sabbati4 ,ita enim distinguendum est1 ,cum autem resurrexisset3 3 et1 parumper1 spiritu coarctato inferendum1 ,prima sabbati mane apparuit ,mari ,magdalen3 1 4 ,ut qui vespere sabbati1 juxta ,matthum surrexerat1 1 1 4 ipse mane prima sabbati1 juxta ,marcum1 apparuerit ,mari ,magdalen4 4 ,quod quidem et ,joannes ,evangelista significat1 mane ,eum alterius diei visum esse demonstrans40 4 ,for the ,latin of the above1 see ,hieronymi ,opera1 7ed4 ,vallars47 vol4 i4 p4 #hai3 for the ,greek1 with its context1 see ,appendix 7,b74 #id 1-- 1 2 ,eusebius ad ,marinum17,mai1 iv4 #bee47 ,primum quris1--,cur ,matthus dixerit1 vespere autem ,sabbati illucescente in una ,sabbate ,dominum resurrexisse2 et ,marcus mane resurrectionem ejus factam esse commemorat4 ,hieronymus ad ,hedibiam1 7,opp4 i4 #hah-i47 1 1 4 ,ut supr1 p4 #beg4 ,quomodo1 juxta ,matthum1 vespere ,sabbati1 ,maria ,magdalene vidit ,dominum resurgentem2 et ,joannes ,evangelista refert eam mane una sabbati juxta sepulcrum fiere8 ,ut supr1 p4 #hai4 1 1 1 1 4 ,ut supr1 p4 #bfb4 ,quomodo1 juxta ,matthum1 ,maria ,magdalene vespere ,sabbati cum alter ,mari advoluta sit pedibus ,salvatoris2 cum1 secundum ,joannem1 audierit ,domino1 ,noli me tangere4 ,ut supr1 p4 #hba4 #ie ,tregelles1 ,printed ,text1 p4 #bdg4 #if ,see above1 p4 #bh4 #ig ,see above1 p4 #dj-a4 #ih ,see the ,appendix 7,c7 #b4 #ii ,see the ,appendix 7,c7 #a4--;,for the statement in line #e1 see #b4 #ajj ,in the ,eccl4 ,grac4 ,monumenta of ,cotelerius1 7iii4 #a-ec17 may be seen the discussion of #fj problems1 headed1-- 1 4 ,from this it appears that ,hesychius1 following the example of ,eusebius1 wrote a work on 8,gospel ,harmony10--of which nothing but an abridgment has come down to us4 #aja ,he says that he writes1-- 1 1 444 ,greg4 ,nyss4 ,opp4 iii4 #djj c4 #ajb 2 1 444 ,greg4 ,nyss4 ,opp4 iii4 #dae ,d4--,see above1 p4 #bi1 note 7g74 #ajc ,see below1 chap4 ,x4 #ajd ,fasti ,romani1 vol4 ii4 ,appendix viii4 pp4 #cie-die4 #aje ,vol4 i4 ,prfat4 p4 xxviii4 ,see below1 note 7p74 #ajf 8,victor ,antiochenus0 7writes ,dr4 ,tregelles in his ,n4 ,t4 vol4 i4 p4 #bad17 8dicit 40 #ajg ,for additional details concerning ,victor of ,antioch1 and his work1 the studious in such matters are referred to the ,appendix 7,d74 #ajh ,opp4 vol4 vii4 p4 #hbe ,e-#hbf ,b3 or1 in ,field's edition1 p4 #ebg1 line #c to #bj4 #aji ,cramer1 i4 p4 #bff1 lines #aj1 #aa1-- 444 ,and at p4 #ddf1 line #ai1-- 444 #aaj ,compare ,cramer's ,vict4 ,ant4 i4 p4 #ddd1 line #f-i1 with ,field's ,chrys4 iii4 p4 #eci1 line #g-ba4 #aaa ,mai1 iv4 p4 #beg-h4 #aab ,cramer1 vol4 i4 p4 #ddd1 line #ai to p4 #dde1 line #d4 #aac ,the following is the original of what is given above3-- 1 8 1 7see below7 10 1 4 1 2 8 10 1 8 40 ,the extract from ,,victor is continued below in the right hand column3 the left exhibiting the text of ,,eusebius 8ad ,marinum40 ,transcriber's ,note3 ,the extracts will be on alternating paragraphs4 7,eusebius47 810 8 8 40 7 47 1 1 4 7,victor47 810 8 40 7 47 1 1 2 7,eusebius47 780 8 407 7,victor47 7 8 0 80 47 7,eusebius47 80 8 0 4 7,victor47 1 80 8 0 4 #ca words here omitted4 7,eusebius47 2 8 40 1 840 7,victor47 2 1 8 20 1 840 ,,eusebius1 apud ,mai1 iv4 p4 #bef4 ,,victor ,,antioch1 ed4 ,cramer1 i4 p4 #ddd-e3 7with a few slight emendations of the text from ,evan4 ,cod4 ,reg4 #agh47 ,note1 that ,victor twice omits the word 1 and twice reads 1 7instead of 71 only because ,eusebius had inadvertently 7three times7 done the same thing in the place from which ,victor is copying4 ,see ,mai4 ,nova ,p4 ,p4 ,bibl4 iv4 p4 #bef1 line #ai and #bf3 p4 #beg line #d and #e4 #aad 4 ,vict4 ,ant4 ed4 ,cramer1 vol4 i4 p4 #dde1 l4 #bc-e3 referring to what ,eusebius says apud ,mai1 iv4 #bfd and #bfe 7 iiii73 #bhg-bij 7 v1 vi1 vii47 #aae e4g4 in the passage last quoted4 #aaf ,for the original of this remarkable passage the reader is referred to the ,appendix 7,e74 #aag ,how shrewdly was it remarked by ,matthaei1 eighty years ago1--8,scholia certe1 in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur1 omnia ex uno fonte promanarunt4 ,ex eodem fonte ,hieronymum etiam hausisse intelligitur ex ejus loco quem laudavit ,wetst4 ad ver4 #i4--,similiter ,scholiast omnes in principio hujus ,evangelii in disputatione de lectione ex uno pendent4 ,fortasse ,origenes auctor est hujus dubitationis40 7,n4,t4 vol4 ii4 p4 #bgj47--,the reader is invited to remember what was offered above in p4 #dg 7line #bc47 #aah ,it is not often1 ,i think1 that one finds in ,,mss4 a point actually inserted after 4 ,such a point is found1 however1 in ,cod4 #cd 7 ,coisl4 #aie17 and ,cod4 #bb 7 ,reg4 #gb17 and doubtless in many other copies4 #aai ,scrivener's ,introduction1 pp4 #dg1 #abe1 #dca4 #abj 2 4 4--,euthym4 ,zig4 7ed4 ,matthaei1 #agib71 in loc4 #aba ,for some remarks on this subject the reader is referred to the ,appendix 7,f74 #abb ,viz4 ,a1 ,c v2 ,d vi2 ,e1 ,l viii2 ,f1 ,k1 ,m1 ,v1 1 1 7qure71 ix2 ,g1 ,h1 ,x1 ,s1 ,u ix1 x4 #abc ,vercellone1--,del antichissimo ,codice ,vaticano della ,bibbia ,greca1 ,roma1 #ahfj4 7pp4 #ba47 #abd ,dublin ,univ4 ,mag4 7,nov4 #ahei17 p4 #fbj1 quoted by ,scrivener1 p4 #ic4 #abe 4 #abf ,see ,scrivener's ,introduction to his ed4 of the ,codex ,bez1 p4 xxiii4 ,the passage referred to reappears at the end of his ,preface to the #bnd ed4 of his ,collation of the ,cod4 ,sinaiticus4--,add to his instances1 this from ,s4 ,matth4 xxviii4 #b1 #c3-- ,it is plain why the scribe of wrote 4--,the next is from ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #ca3-- ,hence the omission of in 4--,the following explains the omission from 7and ,d7 of the ,ascension at ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #eb3-- ,the next explains why reads in ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #fd3-- ,the next explains why the words are absent in 7and ,g7 at ,s4 ,luke xvi4 #af3-- #abg ,in this way1 7at ,s4 ,john xvii4 #ae1 #af71 the obviously corrupt reading of ,cod4 ,b 7 7--which1 however1 was the reading of the copy used by ,athanasius 7,opp4 p4 #ajce3 al4 ed4 p4 #hbe7--;is explained3-- 4 ,thus also is explained why ,b 7with 1 ,a1 ,d1 ,l7 omits a precious clause in ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #db3-- ,and why the same ,,mss4 7all but ,a7 omit an important clause in ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #ec3-- ,and why ,b 7with 1 ,l7 omits an important clause in the history of the ,temptation 7,s4 ,luke iv4 #e7 3-- #abh ,in this way the famous omission 71 ,b1 ,l7 of the word 1 in ,s4 ,luke vi4 #a1 is 7to say the least7 capable of being explained3-- and of 77 in ,s4 ,matth4 xxvii4 #ce3-- #abi ,he has reached the #dhjth page of vol4 ii4 7#a ,cor4 v4 #g47 #acj ,in this way #ad words have been omitted from ,cod4 in ,s4 ,mark xv4 #dg--xvi4 #a3--ai words in ,s4 ,mark i4 #cb-d3--bj words in ,s4 ,john xx4 #e1 #f3--ci words in ,s4 ,john xix4 #bj1 #ba4 #aca ,scrivener's ,full ,collation1 c41 p4 xv42 quoting ,tregelles' ,n4 ,t4 ,part ,,ii4 page ii4 #acb ,see ,chap4 ,,iv4 p4 #cg4 #acc ,scrivener's ,introduction to ,con4 ,bezae1 p4 liv4 #acd e4g4 in ,s4 ,john i4 #db 7meaning only 1 ,b1 ,l73 iv4 #db 71 ,b1 ,c73 v4 #ab 71 ,b1 ,c1 ,l73 vi4 #bb 7,a1 ,b1 ,l71 c4 #ace e4g4 ,s4 ,matth4 x4 #be2 xii4 #bd1 #bg3 ,s4 ,luke xi4 #ae1 #ah1 #ai 774--#a ,cor4 xiii4 #c 774--,s4 ,james i4 #ag 774--,acts i4 #e 7 4 4 474--,s4 ,mark vi4 #bj 774--,s4 ,matth4 xiv4 #cj 774--,s4 ,luke iii4 #cb 774--,acts i4 #ai 7 omitted74--,s4 ,matth4 xxv4 #bg 7 74--,s4 ,matth4 xvii4 #bb 774--,s4 ,luke vi4 #a 7 omitted74--,see more in ,tischendorf's ,prolegomena to his #dto4 reprint of the ,cod4 ,sin4 p4 xxxvi4 ,on this head the reader is also referred to ,scrivener's very interesting ,collation of the ,cod4 ,sinaiticus1 ,introduction1 p4 xliii4 seq4 #acf ,see ,tischendorf's note in his reprint of the ,cod4 ,sin41 ,prolegg4 p4 lix4 #acg -- 4 ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #dc1 #dd4 #ach -- 1 7xxiii4 #cd73-- 1 7xxiii4 #ch47 #aci 1 4 ,yet ,b1 ,c1 ,l and contain this6 #adj ,coll4 of the ,cod4 ,sin41 p4 xlvii4 #ada ,so1 in the margin of the ,hharklensian revision4 #adb ,note1 that it is a mistake for the advocates of this reading to claim the ,latin versions as allies4 1 444 is not 8,respondit1 ,ille homo qui dicitur ,jesus10 7as both ,tischendorf and ,tregelles assume27 but 8,respondit ille1 ,homo10 c41--as in verses #be and #cf4 #adc ,this reading will be found discussed in a footnote 7p7 at the end of ,chap4 ,,vii41--p4 #aaj4 #add ,the following may be added from ,cod4 3-- 7in ,s4 ,mark x4 #db7 changed into 3 7in ,s4 ,mark xiv4 #eh7 substituted for 3 7in ,s4 ,lu4 ii4 #cg7 for 3 and 7in ,s4 ,jo4 viii4 #eg7 for 3--in all which four readings ,cod4 is without support4 ,scrivener1 ,coll4 ,cod4 ,sin4 p4 li4 ,the epithet 1 introduced 7in the same codex7 before in ,s4 ,mark xv4 #df2 and inserted into the phrase in ,s4 ,lu4 i4 #bg1--;are two more specimens of mistaken officiousness4 ,in the same infelicitous spirit1 ,cod4 ,b and ,cod4 concur in omitting 7,s4 ,matt4 xiv4 #cj71 and in substituting for 1 and for in ,s4 ,mark vii4 #c and #d3--while the interpolation of after in ,s4 ,matth4 viii4 #i1 because of the parallel place in ,s4 ,luke's ,gospel2 and the substitution of 7from ,s4 ,luke xix4 #ba7 for in ,s4 ,matth4 xxv4 #bd1 are proofs that yet another kind of corrupting influence has been here at work besides those which have been already specified4 #ade ,scrivener1 ,coll4 ,cod4 ,sin4 p4 xlvii4 #adf ,add to the authorities commonly appealed to for 4 ,chrys4#hcd 7twice17 7also quoted in ,cramer's ,cat4 #bda74 ,the mistake adverted to in the text is at least as old as the time of ,eusebius1 7,mai1 iv4 p4 #bfd #bhg71 who asks1-- 1 444 #adg ,tischendorf accordingly is forced1 for once1 to reject the reading of his oracle 1--witnessed to though it be by ,origen and ,eusebius4 ,his discussion of the text in this place is instructive and even diverting4 ,how is it that such an instance as the present does not open the eyes of ,prejudice itself to the danger of pinning its faith to the consentient testimony even of ,origen1 of ,eusebius1 and of ,cod4 8444 ,the reader is reminded of what was offered above1 in the lower part of p4 #di4 #adh ,a similar perversion of the truth of ,scripture is found at ,s4 ,luke iv4 #dd1 7cf4 the parallel place1 ,s4 ,matth4 iv4 #bc3 ,s4 ,mark i4 #hi74 ,it does not mend the matter to find supported this time by ,codd4 ,b1 ,c1 ,l1 ,q1 ,r4 #adi ,s4 ,lu4 xxiii4 #de3-- 1 1 2 4 7,chrys4 vii4 #hbd c47 #aej 1 3-- 4 ,so ,victor of ,antioch1 in his ,catena on ,s4 ,mark 7ed4 ,possin47 ,he makes the remark twice3 first 7p4 #cea7 in the midst of an abridgment of the beginning of ,chrysostom's #hhth ,homily on ,s4 ,matthew3 next 7p4 #ceb7 more fully1 after quoting 8the great ,dionysius0 of ,alexandria4 ,see also an interesting passage on the same subject in ,cramer's ,catena in ,matth4 i4 p4 #bcg1--;from whom derived1 ,i know not2 but professing to be from ,chrysostom4 7,note1 that the #aj lines 1 beginning p4 #bcf1 line #cc ,chrys4 vii4 #hbd1 ,d1 ,e47 ,the very next words in ,chrysostom's published ,homily 7p4 #hbe ,a47 are as follows3-- 1 1 1 2 1 4--,anyone who would investigate this matter further should by all means read ,matthaei's long note on ,s4 ,luke xxiii4 #de4 #aea ,see above1 p4 #gj1 and the ,appendix 7,f74 #aeb ,tischendorf's 8,introduction0 to his 7,tauchnitz7 edition of the ,english ,n4,t41 #ahfi1--p4 xiii4 #aec 8,epistola quam nos #8ad ,ephesios' prscriptam habemus1 hretici vero 'ad ,laodicenos40 ,adv4 ,marcion4 lib4 v4 c4 xi1 p4 #cji 7ed4 ,oehler47 #aed 8 #8,titulum' enim #8ad ,laodicenos' ut addidisse accusatur a ,tertulliano1 ita in salutatione verba omnino non legisse censendus est40 7,n4 ,t4 in loc47 #aee 8,ecclesi quidem veritate ,epistolam istam #8ad ,ephesios' habemus emissam1 non #8ad ,laodicenos2' sed ,marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit1 quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator40 ,adv4 ,marcion4 lib4 v4 c4 xvii1 pp4 #cbb-c 7ed4 ,oehler47 #aef 4 7,epiphan4 ,opp4 i4 #caj c47 #aeg ,he describes its structure minutely at vol4 i4 pp4 #cji-caj1 and from pp4 #cab-g2 #cah-cba4 ,note1 by the way1 the gross blunder which has crept into the printed text of ,epiphanius at p4 #cba ,d3 pointed out long since by ,jones1 ,on the ,canon1 ii4 #ch4 ,his plan is excellent4 ,marcion had rejected every ,gospel except ,s4 ,luke's1 and of ,s4 ,paul's ,epistles had retained only ten1--viz4 7#ast7 ,galatians1 7#bnd and #crd7 ,i and ,,ii ,corinthians1 7#dth7 ,romans1 7#eth and #fth7 ,i and ,,ii ,thessalonians1 7#gth7 ,ephesians1 7#hth7 ,colossians1 7#ith7 ,philemon1 7#ajth7 ,philippians4 ,even these he had mutilated and depraved4 ,and yet out of that one mutilated ,gospel1 ,epiphanius selects #gh passages1 7pp4 #cab-g71 and out of those ten mutilated ,epistles1 #dj passages more 7pp4 #cah-ba72 by means of which #aah texts he undertakes to refute the heresy of ,marcion4 7pp4 #cbb-ej3 #cej-gd47 ,it will be perceived that ,tertullian goes over ,marcion's work in much the same way4 ,very beautiful1 and well worthy of the student's attention1 7though it comes before us in a somewhat incorrect form17 is the remark of ,epiphanius concerning the living energy of ,,god',s ,word1 even when dismembered and exhibited in a fragmentary shape4 8 1 1 1 7sc4 ,marcion7 1 2 444 1 2 1 1 40 7p4 #cge ,b47 ,he seems to say of ,marcion1-- ,fool6 to suppose thy shallow wits ,could quench a fire like that4 ,go1 learn ,that cut into ten thousand bits ,yet every bit would breathe and burn6 #aeh ,he quotes ,ephes4 ii4 #aa1 #ab1 #ac1 #ad3 v4 #ad3 v4 #ca4 7,see ,epiphanius1 ,opp4 i4 p4 #cah and #cga-b47 #aei ,ibid4 p4 #cah ,c 7 #cga ,b71 and #cai ,a 7 #cgd ,a47 #afj ,ibid4 p4 #cai and #cgd4 ,but note1 that through error in the copies1 or else through inadvertence in the ,editor1 the depravation commented on at p4 #cgd ,b1 ,c1 is lost sight of at p4 #cai ,b4 #afa ,see below1 at the end of the next note4 #afb 3--8 1 1 1 1 1 1 40 7,epiphan4 ,opp4 vol i4 p4 #cgd47 ,here is obviously a hint of 3 1 4 ,athanas4 i4 #bca ,e4 but1 7says ,epiphanius71 4 4 ,then he contrasts with the 8fabrication0 of ,marcion1 the inspired verity1--,eph4 iv4 #e3 declaring 1 1-- 1 1 444--p4 #cgd ,c4 ,epiphanius reproaches ,marcion with having obtained materials 2 1 7sc4 the words quoted above17 1 7p4 #cge ,a47 7,epiphanius here uses in its technical sense1--viz4 as synonymous with ,s4 ,paul's ,epistles47 #afc 8 1--0 8 20 1 8 10 2 840 4 8 10 1 8 40--,cramer's ,catena in ,ephes4 i4 #a1--vol4 vi4 p4 #ajb4 #afd ,consider ,s4 ,john i4 #db1 #dd1 #df3 v4 #ad3 ix4 #ce3 xii4 #ad1 c4 #afe 1 80 1 3 8 1 40 1 4 ,note also what immediately follows4 7,basil ,opp4 i4 p4 #bed ,e1 #bee ,a47 #aff ,see the places quoted by ,scrivener1 ,introd4 pp4 #cha-ia2 particularly p4 #che4 #afg ,hieron4 ,opp4 vol4 vii4 p4 #edc3--8;,illud quoque in ,prfatione commoneo1 ut sciatis ,origenem tria volumina in hanc ,epistolam conscripsisse1 quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus40 #afh 8,quidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod ,moysi dictum est #8,haec dices filiis ,israel1 ,,qui ,,est misit me1' etiam eos qui ,ephesi sunt ,note this4 ,cf4 #8qui sunt ,ephesi1' ,vulg4 sancti et fideles1 essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos3 ut 444 ab ,,eo #8qui est1' hi #8qui sunt' appellentur4444 ,alii veto simpliciter1 non ad eos #8qui sint1' sed #8qui ,ephesi sancti et fideles sint' scriptum arbitrantur40 ,hieron4 ,opp4 vii4 p4 #ede ,a1 ,b4 #afi ,the cursive 8,cod4 ,no4 #fg0 7or 8#fgb07 is improperly quoted as 8omitting0 7,tisch47 these words4 ,the reference is to a ,,ms4 in the ,imperial ,library at ,vienna1 7,nessel #cjb3 ,lambec4 #cd1 which our ,paul #fg71 collated by ,alter 7,n4,t4 #aghf1 vol4 ii4 pp4 #dae-eeh71 who says of it 7p4 #dif71--8;cod4 punctis notat40 444 ,the ,,ms4 must have a curious history4 ,h4 ,treschow describes it in his ,tentamen ,descriptionis ,codd4 aliquot ,graece1 c4 ,havn4 #aggc1 pp4 #fb-gc4--;,also1 ,a4 ,c4 ,hwiid in his ,libellus ,criticus de indole ,cod4 ,,ms4 ,graeci ,n4 ,t4 ,lambec4 xxxiv4 c4 ,havn4 #aghe4--;,it appears to have been corrected by some ,critic1--perhaps from ,cod4 ,b itself4 #agj ,so indeed does ,cod4 occasionally4 ,see ,scrivener's ,collation1 p4 xlix4 #aga ,scrivener's ,introduction to ,codex ,bezae1 p4 liv4 #agb ,scrivener1 ,coll4 of ,cod4 ,sin4 p4 xlv4 #agc ,eph4 vi4 #ba1 #bb4 #agd ,coloss4 iv4 #g1 #af4 #age ,ubi supr4 #agf ,gnomon1 in ,ephes4 i4 #a1 ad init4 #agg ,see above1 pp4 #ic-f4 ,as for the supposed testimony of ,ignatius 7ad ,ephes4 c4 xii471 see the notes1 ed4 ,jacobson4 ,see also ,lardner1 vol4 ii4 #agh ,let it be clearly understood by the advocates of this expedient for accounting for the state of the text of ,codd4 ,b4 and 1 that nothing whatever is gained for the credit of those two ,,mss4 by their ingenuity4 ,even if we grant them all they ask1 the ,codices in question remain1 by their own admission1 defective4 ,quite plain is it1 by the very hypothesis1 that one of two courses alone remains open to them in editing the text3 either 7#a7 ,to leave a blank space after 3 or else1 7#b7 ,to let the words stand1--which ,i respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they can do4 ,for with ,conybeare and ,howson 7,life and ,letters of ,s4 ,paul1 ii4 #dia71 to eject the words 8at ,ephesus0 from the text of ,ephes4 i4 #a1 and actually to substitute in their room the words 8in ,laodicea10--is plainly abhorrent to every principle of rational criticism4 ,the remarks of ,c4 and ,h4 on this subject 7pp4 #dhf ff7 have been faithfully met and sufficiently disposed of by ,dean ,alford 7vol4 iii4 ,prolegg4 pp4 #ac-h72 who infers1 8in accordance with the prevalent belief of the ,church in all ages1 that this ,epistle was veritably addressed to the ,saints in ,ephesus1 and to no other ,church40 ,in the former case1 they will be exhibiting a curiosity2 viz4 they will be shewing us how 7they think7 a duplicate 78carta bianca07 copy of the ,epistle looked with 8the space after left utterly void30 in the latter1 they will be representing the archetypal copy which was sent to the ,metropolitan see of ,ephesus4 ,but by printing the text thus1-- 4441 they are acting on an entirely different theory4 ,they are merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every ,,ms4 in the world except ,codd4 ,b and 4 ,this is clearly to forsake the 8,encyclical0 hypothesis altogether1 and to put ,ephes4 i4 #a on the same footing as any other disputed text of ,scripture which can be named4 #agi 1 vel ,christophorsonus et alii interpretantur literas circulares3 ego cum viris doctis malim ,epistolas vel literas publicas1 ad omnes fideles pertinentes1 quas ,grci alis vocant 4--,suicer in voce4 #ahj 1 --,see ,suicer in voce1 4 #aha ,routh's ,reliqui1 vol4 iii4 p4 #bff4--8,tum ex ,conciliis1 tum ex aliis ,patrum scriptis notum est1 consuevisse primos ,ecclesiao ,patres acta et decreta ,conciliorum passim ad omnes ,dei ,ecclesias mittere per epistolas1 quas non uni privatim dicrunt1 sed publice describi ab omnibus1 dividi passim et pervulgari1 atque cum omnibus populis communicari voluerunt4 ,hac igitur epistolae vocatae sunt1 quia 1 quoqu versum et in omnem partem mittebantur40--,suicer in voc4 #ahb 8,on the whole10 says ,bishop ,middleton1 7,doctrine of the ,greek ,art4 p4 #cee7 8,i see nothing so probable as the opinion of ,macknight 7on ,col4 iv4 #af17--#8that the ,apostle sent the ,ephesians word by ,tychicus1 who carried their letter1 to send a copy of it to the ,laodiceans2 with an order to them to communicate it to the ,colossians4' 0--,this suggestion is intended to meet another difficulty1 and leaves the question of the reading of ,ephes4 i4 #a untouched4 ,it proposes only to explain what ,s4 ,paul means by the enigmatical expression which is found in ,col4 iv4 #af4 ,macknight's suggestion1 though it has found favour with many subsequent ,divines1 appears to me improbable in a high degree4 ,s4 ,paul is found not to have sent the ,colossians 8word by ,tychicus1 who carried their letter1 to send a copy of it to the ,laodiceans40 ,he charged them1 himself1 to do so4 ,why1 at the same instant1 is the ,apostle to be thought to have adopted two such different methods of achieving one and the same important end8 ,and why1 instead of this roundabout method of communication1 were not the ,ephesians ordered1--if not by ,s4 ,paul himself1 at least by ,tychicus1--to send a copy of their ,epistle to ,colosse direct8 ,and why do we find the ,colossians charged to read publicly 1 which 7by the hypothesis7 would have been only a copy1--instead of 1 which1 7by the same hypothesis17 would have been the original8 ,nay1 why is it not designated by ,s4 ,paul1 1--7if indeed it was his ,epistle to the ,ephesians which is alluded to17 instead of 2 which would hardly be an intelligible way of indicating the document8 ,lastly1 why are not the ,colossians ordered to communicate a copy of their ,epistle to the illustrious ,church of the ,ephesians also1 which had been originally addressed by ,s4 ,paul8 ,if the ,colossians must needs read the ,epistle 7so like their own7 which the ,apostle had just written to the ,ephesians1 surely the ,ephesians must also be supposed to have required a sight of the ,epistle which ,s4 ,paul had at the same time written to the ,colossians6 #ahc ,epiphan4 ,opp4 i4 #caa ,d4 #ahd 8,marcion exerte et palam machra non stilo usus est1 quoniam ad materiam suam cdem ,scripturarum confecit40 7,tertullian ,prscript4 ,hr4 c4 #ch1 p4 #ej47 8,non miror si syllabas subtrahit1 cum paginas totas plerumque subducat40 7,adv4 ,marcion4 lib4 v1 c4 xvii1 p4 #dee47 #ahe ,see above p4 #ie1 and see note 7f7 p4 #id4 #ahf ,see1 by all means1 ,alford on this subject1 vol4 iii4 ,prolegg4 pp4 #ac-ae4 #ahg p4 xiv4--,see above1 pp4 #h1 #i1 note 7f74 #ahh ,one is rather surprised to find the facts of the case so unfairly represented in addressing unlearned readers2 who are entitled to the largest amount of ingenuousness1 and to entire sincerity of statement4 ,the facts are these3-- 7#a7 ,valentt4 7apud ,irenum71 7#b7 ,clemens ,alex41 and 7#c7 ,theodotus 7apud ,clem47 read 3 but then 7#a7 ,irenus himself1 7#b7 ,clemens ,alex41 and 7#c7 ,theodotus 7apud ,clem47 also read 4 ,these testimonies1 therefore1 clearly neutralize each other4 ,cyprian also has both readings4--,hippolytus1 on the other hand1 reads 2 but ,origen1 7though he remarks that is 8perhaps not an improbable reading107 reads ten or eleven times4 is also the reading of ,eusebius1 of ,chrysostom1 of ,cyril1 of ,nonnus1 of ,theodoret1--of the ,vulgate1 of the ,memphitic1 of the ,peshito1 and of the ,philoxenian ,versions2 as well as of ,b1 ,a1 ,c1--in fact of all the ,,mss4 in the world1 except of and ,d4 ,all that remains to be set on the other side are the ,thebaic and ,cureton's ,syriac1 together with most copies of the early ,latin4 ,and now1 with the evidence thus all before us1 will any one say that it is lawfully a question for discussion which of these two readings must exhibit the genuine text of ,s4 ,john i4 #d8 7,for ,i treat it as a question of authority1 and reason from the evidence1--declining to import into the argument what may be called logical considerations2 though ,i conceive them to be all on my side47 ,i suspect1 in fact1 that the inveterate practice of the primitive age of reading the place after the following strange fashion1-- 1 was what led to this depravation of the text4 ,cyril in his ,commentary heading of lib4 i1 c4 vi4 so reads ,s4 ,john i4 #c1 #d4 ,and to substitute 7for 7 in such a sentence as that1 was obvious4444 ,chrysostom's opinion is well known1 8,let us beware of putting the full stop0 7he says7 8at the words 1--as do the heretics40 ,he alludes to ,valentinus1 ,heracleon 7,orig4 ,opp4 i4 #acj71 and to ,theodotus 7apud ,clem4 ,alex474 ,but it must be confessed that ,irenus1 ,hippolytus 7,routh1 ,opusc4 i4 #fh71 ,clemens ,alex41 ,origen1 ,concil4 ,antioch4 7,a4,d4 #bfi1 ,routh iii4 #bic71 ,theophilus ,antioch41 ,athanasius1 ,cyril of ,jer41--besides of the ,latins1 ,tertullian1 ,lactantius1 ,victorinus 7,routh iii4 #dei71 and ,augustine1--point the place in the same way4 8,it is worth our observation10 7says ,pearson17 8that ,eusebius citing the place of ,s4 ,john to prove that the ,,holy ,,ghost was made by the ,,son1 leaves out those words twice together by which the ,catholics used to refute that heresy of the ,arians1 viz4 40 ,chrysostom proceeds1--8,in order to make out that ,,the ,,spirit is a creature1 they read 1 2 by which means1 the ,evangelist's language is made unintelligible40 7,opp4 viii4 #dj47--,this punctuation is nevertheless adopted by ,tregelles1--but not by ,tischendorf4 ,the ,peshito1 ,epiphanius 7quoted in ,pearson's note1 referred to infr71 ,cyprian1 ,jerome and the ,vulgate divide the sentence as we do4--,see by all means on this subject ,pearson's note 7z71 ,,art4 viii1 7ii4 p4 #bfb ed4 ,burton74 ,also ,routh's ,opusc4 i4 #hh-i4 #ahi ,it may not be altogether useless that ,i should follow this famous ,critic of the text of the ,n4 ,t4 over the ground which he has himself chosen4 ,he challenges attention for the four following readings of the ,codex ,sinaiticus3-- 7#a47 ,s4 ,,john i4 #d3 4--7#b47 ,s4 ,,matth4 xiii4 #ce3 4--7#c47 ,s4 ,,john xiii4 #aj3 4--7#d47 ,s4 ,,john vi4 #ea3 1 2-- 4 7,and this1 ,dr4 ,teschendorf asserts to be 8indubitably correct407 ,on inspection1 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 4 ,the last three are absolutely worthless4 ,they stand self-condemned4 ,to examine is to reject them3 the second 7of which ,jerome says something very different from what ,tisch4 pretends7 and fourth being only two more of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired ,text1 of which this ,codex contains so many sorry specimens3 the third being clearly nothing else but the result of the carelessness of the transcriber4 ,misled by the like ending 77 he has dropped a line3 thus3-- ,the first1 ,i have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote 7p7 p4 #aaj4 #aij ,scrivener's ,introduction1 p4 #chf4 ,the whole ,chapter deserves careful study4 #aia ,deut4 xvi4 #ai4 #aib ,printed ,text1 p4 #bed4 #aic ,viz4 ,codd4 ,l1 #a1 #bb1 #bd1 #cd1 #cf1 #cg1 #ch1 #ci1 #dj1 #da1 #ajh1 #abi1 #acg1 #ach1 #adc1 #aha1 #ahf1 #aif1 #aii1 #bjf1 #bji1 #baj1 #bba1 #bbb4 #aid ,wetstein quoted #ad ,codices in all3 but ,griesbach makes no use of his reference to ,reg4 #bhfh1 #ahhj1 and #bbhb 7leg4 #bbdb87 which ,evan4 #ae1 #ai1 #bii 787 respectively4 #aie ,variae ,lectiones1 c4 7#ahja1 p4 #bbe-f47--;,he cites ,codd4 ,vatt4 #ceh1 #gef1 #geg1 #abbi 7 our #abi1 #acg1 #ach1 #adc73 ,cod4 ,zelada 7 #aha73 ,laur4 vi4 #ah1 #cd 7 #ahf1 #aie73 ,ven4 #bg 7 #baj73 ,vind4 ,lamb4 #ch1 #hi1 ,kol4 #d 7 #bba1 #bbb1 #ajh73 ,cod4 iv4 7leg4 #e 87 ,s4 ,mari ,bened4 ,flor4 7 #aii73 ,codd4 ,ven4 #f1 #aj 7 #bjf1 #bji47 #aif ,nov4 ,test4 vol4 i4 p4 #aii4 #aig ,vat4 #gef1 #geg our ,evan4 #acg1 #ach4 #aih ,quo signo tamquam censoria virgula usi sunt librarii1 qua ,evangelistarum narrationes1 in omnibus ,codicibus non obvias1 tamquam dubias notarent4--,variae ,lectiones1 c4 p4 #bbe4 #aii ,in ,cod4 #bfd 7 ,paris #fe7 for instance1 besides at ,s4 ,mk4 xvi4 #i1 occurs at xi4 #ab1 xii4 #ch1 and xiv4 #ab4 ,on the other hand1 no such sign occurs at the pericope de adulter4 #bjj ,further obligations to the same friend are acknowledged in the ,appendix 7,d74 #bja ,similarly1 in ,cod4 ,coisl4 #bj1 in the ,paris ,library1 7which our #cf17 against ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i1 is this sign symbol3 inverse or open x4 ,it is intended 7like an asterisk in a modern book7 to refer the reader to the self-same annotation which is spoken of in the text as occurring in ,cod4 ,vat4 #gef1 and which is observed to occur in the margin of the ,paris ,,ms4 also4 #bjb 3 1 4--7,codd4 #bj and #cjj ,paris #ahh1 #ahf47 #bjc ,see more concerning this matter in the ,appendix 7,d71 ad fin4 #bjd ,at the end of ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel in ,cod4 #cjj 7at fol4 #hi7 is found1-- 1 and at the end of ,s4 ,mark's1 7at fol4 #adg b7-- ,this second colophon 7though not the first7 is found in ,cod4 #bj4 ,both reappear in ,cod4 #bfb 7 ,paris #ec71 and 7with an interesting variety in the former of the two7 in what ,i suppose is the first half of the uncial ,codex 4 ,see ,scrivener's ,introduction1 p4 #abe4 #bje ,paris #gb1 fol4 #ajg b4 ,he might have added1 7for ,wetstein had pointed it out #gi years before17 that the same note precisely is found between verses #h and #i in ,cod4 #ae 7 ,paris #fd17 fol4 #ih b4 #bjf ,see more at the very end of ,chap4 ,,xi4 #bjg ,cod4 #a4 7at ,basle71 and ,codd4 #bjf1 #bji 7which ,venet4 #f and #aj7 contain as follows3-- 1 2 2 1 444 ,but ,cod4 #aii 7which ,s4 ,mariae ,benedict4 ,flor4 ,cod4 ,,iv4 lege #e17 according to ,birch 7p4 #bbf7 who supplies the quotation1 has only this3-- 8 4 #bjh ,it originated in this way4 ,at the end of ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 in both ,codices1 are found those large extracts from the 8#bnd ,hom4 on the ,resurrection0 which ,montfaucon published in the ,bibl4 ,coisl4 7pp4 #fh-ge71 and which ,cramer has since reprinted at the end of his ,catena in ,s4 ,matth4 7i4 #bdc-bea47 ,in ,codd4 #cd and #ci they are ascribed to 8,severus of ,antioch40 ,see above 7p4 #dj47 ,see also pp4 #ci and #eg4 #bji ,see above1 pp4 #fd1 #fe4 #baj #bb-c 7#aii1 #bjf1 #bji7 #ai #a 7#cgd7 #bj4 #baa viz4 ,codd4 ,l1 #a1 #aii1 #bjh1 #bji3--bj1 #cjj3--ae1 #bb4 #bab ,cod4 1 #bj1 #bfb1 #cjj4 #bac ,evan4 #cgd4 #bad viz4 ,evan4 #bd1 #cf1 #cg1 #dj1 #da 7,wetstein47 ,add ,evan4 #ajh1 #abi1 #acg1 #ach1 #adc1 #aha1 #ahf1 #aie1 #baj1 #bba1 #bbb4 7,birch ,varr4 ,lectt4 p4 #bbe47 ,add ,evan4 #cgd 7,scholz47 ,add ,evan4 #ab1 #abi1 #bii1 #cbi1 and the ,moscow ,codex 7qu4 ,evan4 #bec87 employed by ,matthaei4 #bae #b 7viz4 ,evan4 #bj1 #bjj7 #af #a #e 7enumerated in the preceding note7 #bd4 #baf ,paris #fb1 olim1 #bhfa and #aeeh4 #bag ,see the facsimile4--,the original1 7which knows nothing of ,tischendorf's crosses17 reads as follows3-- - 1 - i4e4-- 3 4 4 4 #bah ,as1 the ,codex ,bobbiensis 7k7 of the old ,latin1 and the margin of two thiopic ,,mss4--,i am unable to understand what ,scholz and his copyists have said concerning ,cod4 #bgd4 ,i was assured again and again at ,paris that they knew of no such codex as 8,reg1 #gi;a10 which is ,scholz' designation 7,prolegg4 p4 lxxx47 of the ,cod4 ,evan4 which1 after him1 we number 8#bgd40 #bai ,nec ,,ammonii ,sectionibus1 nec ,,eusebii ,canonibus1 agnoscuntur ultimi versus4--,tisch4 ,nov4 ,test4 7ed4 #hva71 p4 #djf4 #bbj ,printed ,text1 p4 #bdh4 #bba ,the reader is invited to test the accuracy of what precedes for himself3-- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 #bbb 1 1 1 1 4 #bbc ,this seems to represent exactly what ,eusebius means in this place4 ,the nearest ,english equivalent to is 8a hint40 ,consider ,euseb4 ,hist4 ,eccl4 v4 #bg4 ,also the following3-- 4 7,andreas1 ,proleg4 in ,apocalyps474-- 4 7,anastasius ,sin41 ,routh's ,rell4 i4 #ae47 #bbd 444 4 ,this at least is decisive as to the authorship of the ,canons4 ,when therefore ,jerome says of ,ammonius1--8,evangelicos canones excogitavit quos postea secutus est ,eusebius ,csariensis10 7,de ,viris ,illust4 c4 lv4 vol4 ii4 p4 #hha17 we learn the amount of attention to which such off-hand gain statements of this ,father are entitled4 ,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 own8-- 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 ,he proceeds to explain how the sections thus numbered are to be referred to his ,x ,canons3-- 1 4 #bbe 8,frustra ad ,ammonium aut ,tatianum in ,harmoniis provocant4 ,qu supersunt vix quicquam cum ,ammonio aut ,tatiano commune habent40 7,tischendorf on ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h74--;,dr4 ,mill 7#agjg71--;because he assumed that the anonymous work which ,victor of ,capua brought to light in the vith century1 and conjecturally assigned to ,tatian1 was the lost work of ,ammonius1 7,proleg4 p4 #fc1 #ffj17--was of course warranted in appealing to the authority of ,ammonius in support of the last twelve verses of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,but in truth ,mill's assumption cannot be maintained for a moment1 as ,wetstein has convincingly shewn4 7,proleg4 p4 #fh47 ,any one may easily satisfy himself of the fact who will be at the pains to examine a few of the chapters with attention1 bearing in mind what ,eusebius has said concerning the work of ,ammonius4 ,cap4 lxxiv1 for instance1 contains as follows3--,mtt4 xiii4 #cc1 #cd4 ,mk4 iv4 #cc4 ,mtt4 xiii4 #cd1 #ce3 #aj1 #aa4 ,mk4 iv4 #cd4 ,mtt4 xiii4 #ac to #ag4 ,but here it is ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel which is dislocated1--for verses #aj1 #aa1 and #ac to #ag of ch4 xiii4 come after verses #cc-ce2 while ver4 #ab has altogether disappeared4 ,the most convenient edition for reference is ,schmeller's1--,ammonii ,alexandrini qu et ,tatiani dicitur ,harmonia ,evangeliorum4 7,vienna1 #ahda47 #bbf ,only by the merest license of interpretation can be assumed to mean that ,eusebius had found the four ,gospels ready divided to his hand by ,ammonius into exactly #aafe sections1--every one of which he had simply adopted for his own4 ,mill1 7who nevertheless held this strange opinion17 was obliged to invent the wild hypothesis that ,eusebius1 besides the work of ,ammonius which he describes1 must have found in the library at ,csarea the private copy of the ,gospels which belonged to ,ammonius1--an unique volume1 in which the last-named ,father 7as he assumes7 will have numbered the ,sections and made them exactly #aafe4 ,it is not necessary to discuss such a notion4 ,we are dealing with facts1--not with fictions4 #bbg ,for proofs of what is stated above1 as well as for several remarks on the 7so-called7 8,ammonian0 ,sections1 the reader is referred to the ,appendix 7,g74 #bbh ,see above1 p4 #abh1 note 7f74 #bbi ,see above1 p4 #abe4 #bcj ,as a matter of fact1 ,codices abound in which the ,sections are noted without the ,canons1 throughout4 ,see more on this subject in the ,appendix 7,g74 #bca 4 ,the words are most unexpectedly1 7may ,i not say suspiciously871 found in ,epiphanius1 ,ancor4 #ej1 7,opp4 ii4 #ed ,b47 #bcb ,by ,tischendorf1 copying ,mill's ,proleg4 p4 #fc1 #ffb3--the fontal source1 by the way1 of the twin references to 8,epiphanius and ,csarius40 #bcc ,comp4 ,epiph4 7,ancor4 #ej17 ,opp4 ii4 #ec ,c to #ee ,a1 with ,galland4 ,bibl4 vi4 #bf ,c to #bg ,a4 #bcd ,galland4 ,bibl4 vi4 #adg ,a4 #bce ,vol4 i4 #afe 7ii4 #aab74--;,it it only fair to add that ,davidson is not alone in this statement4 ,in substance1 it has become one of the common-places of those who undertake to prove that the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel is spurious4 #bcf ,see ,possini ,cat4 p4 #cfc4 #bcg 4 ver4 #i 4 4 4 ver4 #ab4 1 1 7,possini sini ,cat4 p4 #cfd73--,where it will be seen that ,text 77 and ,interpretation 77 are confusedly thrown together4 8,anonymus ,vaticanus0 also quotes ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i at p4 #aji1 ad fin4--,matthaei 7,n4,t4 ii4 #bfi71--overlooking the fact that 8,anonymus ,vaticanus0 7or simply 8,anonymus07 and 8,anonymus ,tolosanus0 7or simply 8,tolosanus07 denote two distinct ,codices1--falls into a mistake himself while contradicting our learned countryman ,mill1 who says1--8,certe ,victor ,antioch4 ac ,anonymus ,tolosanues huc usque sc4 ver4 #h nec ultra commentantur40--,scholz' dictum is1--8,commentatorum qui in catenis ,,ss4 ,petrum ad ,marcum laudantur1 nulla explicatio hujus pericop exhibetur40 #bch ,see above pp4 #fb-c4 ,the ,latin of ,peltanus may be seen in such ,collections as the ,magna ,bibliotheca ,vett4 ,,pp4 7#afah17 vol4 iv4 p4 #ccj1 col4 #b ,e1 ,f4--,for the ,greek1 see ,possini ,catena1 pp4 #cei-fa4 #bci ,see above1 pp4 #fd-e1 and ,appendix 7,e74 #bdj ,alford on ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj4 #bda ,introduction1 c4 ii4 p4 #aac4 #bdb ,nov4 ,test4 ,ed4 #hva i4 p4 #djf4 #bdc ,developed ,crit4 pp4 #ea-b4 #bdd 1 4--,arist4 ,eth4 ,nic4 ,i4 iii4 #bde ,to the honour of the ,rev4 ,f4 ,h4 ,scrivener be it said1 that he at least absolutely refuses to pay any attention at all 8to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged difference in style from the rest of the ,gospel40 ,see by all means his remarks on this subject4 7,introduction1 pp4 #dca-b47--,one would have thought that a recent controversy concerning a short ,english ,poem1--which some able men were confident might have been written by ,milton1 while others were just as confident that it could not possibly be his1--ought to have opened the eyes of all to the precarious nature of such ,criticism4 #bdf ,allusion is made to the ,rev4 ,john ,a4 ,broadus1 ,d4,d41--8,professor of ,interpretation of the ,new ,testament in the ,southern ,baptist ,theological ,seminary1 ,greenville1 ,s4,c410--the author of an able and convincing paper entitled 8,exegetical ,studies0 in 8,the ,baptist ,quarterly0 for ,july1 #ahfi 7,philadelphia71 pp4 #cee-fb3 in which 8the words and phrases0 contained in ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i-bj are exclusively examined4 ,if the present volume should ever reach the learned ,professor's hands1 he will perceive that ,i must have written the present ,chapter before ,i knew of his labours3 7an advantage which ,i owe to ,mr4 ,scrivener's kindness37 my treatment of the subject and his own being so entirely different4 ,but it is only due to ,professor ,broadus to acknowledge the interest and advantage with which ,i have compared my lucubrations with his1 and the sincere satisfaction with which ,i have discovered that we have everywhere independently arrived at precisely the same result4 #bdg ,dr4 ,kay's ,crisis ,hupfeldiana1 p4 #cd1--the most masterly and instructive exposure of ,bp4 ,colenso's incompetence and presumption which has ever appeared4 ,intended specially of his handling of the writings of ,moses1 the remarks in the text are equally applicable to much which has been put forth concerning the authorship of the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel4 #bdh ,s4 ,matth4 viii4 #a 7 73--#e 7 473--#bc 7 73--#bh 7 73--ix4 #bg 7 473--#bh 773--xxi4 #bc 7 74 #bdi ,on the ,creed1 ,art4 ii4 7vol4 i4 p4 #aee47 #bej 1 4 ,aristot4 ,eth4 ,nic4 ,i4 c4 vi4 #bea ,davidson's ,introduction1 c4 i4 #agj4 #beb ,and yet1 if it were ever so 8sententious10 ever so 8abrupt20 and if his 8brief notices0 were over so 8loosely linked together20--these1 according to ,dr4 ,davidson1 would only be indications that ,s4 ,mark actually was their ,author4 ,hear him discussing ,s4 ,mark's 8characteristics10 at p4 #aea3--8;,in the consecution of his narrations1 ,mark puts them together very loosely40 8,mark is also characterised by a conciseness and apparent incompleteness of delineation which are allied to the obscure40 8,the abrupt introduction0 of many of his details is again and again appealed to by ,dr4 ,davidson1 and illustrated by references to the ,gospel4 ,what1 in the name of common sense1 is the value of such criticism as this8 ,what is to be thought of a gentleman who blows hot and cold in the same breath3 denying at p4 #agj the genuineness of a certain portion of ,scripture because it exhibits the very peculiarities which at p4 #aea he had volunteered the information are characteristic of its reputed ,author8 #bec ,n4,t4 vol4 i4 ,prolegg4 p4 #ch4 #bed ,it may be convenient1 in this place1 to enumerate the several words and expressions about to be considered3-- 7i47 7ver4 #i47--,see above4 7ii47 7ver4 #i47--,see p4 #aeb4 7iii47 7ver4 #i47--,see p4 #aec4 7iv47 7vers4 #aj1 #ab1 #ae47--;,ibid4 7v47 7ver4 #aj47--,see p4 #aee4 7vi47 7ver4 #aa and #ad47--,see p4 #aef4 7vii47 7ver4 #aa47--,see p4 #aeh4 7viii47 7ver4 #aa and #af47--;,ibid4 7ix47 7ver4 #ab47--,see p4 #aei4 7x47 7ver4 #ab47--,see p4 #afj4 7xi7 7ver4 #ad47--;,ibid4 7xii47 7ver4 #ah47--;,ibid4 7xiii47 7ver4 #bj47--,see p4 #afa4 7xiv4 and xv47 -- 7ver4 #bj47--;,ibid4 7xvi47 7ver4 #ae47--;,ibid4 7xvii47 7ver4 #ag47--,see p4 #afb4 7xviii4 and xix47 -- 7ver4 #ag and #ai47--,see p4 #afc4 7xx47 7ver4 #ah47--,see p4 #afd4 7xxi4 and xxii47 -- 7ver4 #ai and #bj47--;,ibid4 7xxiii47 7ver4 #ai47--,see p4 #aff4 7xxiv47 used in a peculiar way 7verses #aj1 #aa and #ac847--;,ibid4 7xxv47 8,verses without a copulative10 7verses #aj and #ad47--;,ibid4 7xxvi4 and xxvii47 ,absence of and 4--,see p4 #afh4 #bee ,s4 ,luke vi4 #a1 #b1 #e1 #f1 #g1 #i3 xiii4 #aj1 #ad1 #ae1 #af4 ,s4 ,luke has1 in fact1 all the four different designations for the ,sabbath which are found in the ,septuagint version of the ,o4 ,t4 ,scriptures3 for1 in the ,acts 7xiii4 #ad3 xvi4 #ac71 he twice calls it 4 #bef ,s4 ,matth4 xii4 #a1 #b1 #e1 #h1 #aj1 #aa1 #ab4 #beg ,it occurs in ,s4 ,matth4 xxviii4 #a4 ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #b4 ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #a4 ,s4 ,john xx4 i4 #ai4 ,besides1 only in ,acts xx4 #g4 #beh ,introduction1 c4 i4 #afi4 #bei ,see the foregoing note4 #bfj ,see ,buxtorf's ,lexicon ,talmudicum1 p4 #bcbc4 #bfa ,lightfoot 7on #a ,cor4 xvi4 #b7 remarks concerning ,s4 ,paul's phrase 1--8 b'had b'shabbath1 #8,in the first lit4 one of the ,sabbath1' would the ,talmudists say40--,professor ,gandell writes1--8in ,syriac1 the days of the week are similarly named4 ,see ,bernstein lit4 one in the ,sabbath1 two in the ,sabbath1 three in the ,sabbath40 #bfb ,s4 ,mark xii4 #a1 #b1 #e1 #h1 #aj1 #aa1 #ab4 #bfc ,the ,sabbath-day1 in the ,old ,testament1 is invariably 7shabbath73 a word which the ,greeks could not exhibit more nearly than by the word 4 ,the ,chaldee form of this word is 7shabbatha37 the final 7a7 being added for emphasis1 as in ,abba1 ,aceldama1 ,bethesda1 ,cepha1 ,pascha1 c43 and this form1--7,i owe the information to my friend ,professor ,gandell17--because it was so familiar to the people of ,palestine1 7who spoke ,aramaic17 gave rise to another form of the ,greek name for the ,sabbath1--viz4 3 which1 naturally enough1 attracted the article 77 into agreement with its own 7apparently7 plural form4 ,by the ,greek-speaking population of ,juda1 the ,sabbath day was therefore indifferently called and 3 sometimes again1 1 and sometimes 4 1 although plural in sound1 was strictly singular in sense4 7,accordingly1 it is invariably rendered 8,sabbatum0 in the ,vulgate47 ,thus1 in ,exod4 xvi4 #bc1-- 3 and #be1-- 4 ,again1-- 4 7,exod4 xvi4 #bf3 xxxi4 #ad4 ,levit4 xxiii4 #c47 ,and in the ,gospel1 what took place on one definite ,sabbath-day1 is said to have occurred 7,s4 ,luke xiii4 #aj4 ,s4 ,mark xii4 #a47 ,it will1 ,i believe1 be invariably found that the form is strictly equivalent to 2 and was adopted for convenience in contradistinction to 7#a ,chron4 xxiii4 #ca and #b ,chron4 ii4 #d7 where ,sabbath days are spoken of4 ,it is not correct to say that in ,levit4 xxiii4 #ae is put for 8weeks20 though the ,septuagint translators have 7reasonably enough7 there rendered the word 4 ,in ,levit4 xxv4 #h1 7where the same word occurs twice17 it is once rendered 2 once1 4 ,quite distinct is 7shavooa7 i4e4 2 nor is there any substitution of the one word for the other4 ,but inasmuch as the recurrence of the ,sabbath-day was what constituted a week2 in other words1 since the essential feature of a week1 as a ,jewish division of time1 was the recurrence of the ,jewish day of rest2-- or 1 the ,hebrew name for the day of rest1 became transferred to the week4 ,the former designation1 7as explained in the text17 is used once by ,s4 ,mark1 once by ,s4 ,luke2 while the phrase occurs in the ,n4,t41 in all1 six times4 #bfd ,so ,eusebius 7,eccl4 ,hist4 ii4 #ae71 and ,jerome 7,de ,viris ,illust4 ii4 #hbg71 on the authority of ,clemens ,alex4 and of ,papias4 ,see also ,euseb4 ,hist4 ,eccl4 vi4 #ad4--,the colophon in the ,syriac ,version shews that the same traditional belief prevailed in the ,eastern ,church4 ,it also finds record in the ,synopsis ,scriptur 7wrongly7 ascribed to ,athanasius4 #bfe 1 4--,our ,e4 ,v4 8preparation0 is from ,augustine1--8,parasceue ,latine prparatio est40--,see ,pearson's interesting note on the word4 #bff ,consider ,rom4 xvi4 #ac4 #bfg ,townson's ,discourses1 i4 #agb4 #bfh ,ibid4 #bfi ,see the ,vulgate transl4 of ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #b and of ,s4 ,john xx4 #ai4 ,in the same version1 ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #a and ,s4 ,john xx4 #a are rendered 8una sabbati40 #bgj ,davidson's ,introduction1 c4 i4 #afi1 ed4 #ahdh3 7ii4 #aac1 ed4 #ahfh47 #bga 8,maria ,magdalene ipsa est #8a qu septem dmonia expulerat'3 ut ubi abundaverat peccatum1 superabundant grati40 7,hieron4 ,opp4 i4 #cbg47 #bgb ,so ,tischendorf1--8,collatis prioribus1 parum apte adduntur verba 4 40 7p4 #cbb47 ,i am astonished to find the same remark reiterated by most of the ,critics3 e4g4 ,rev4 ,t4 ,s4 ,green1 p4 #eb4 #bgc ,introduction1 c4 vol4 i4 p4 #afi4 #bgd viz4 in chap4 vii4 #bf4 #bge ,professor ,broadus has some very good remarks on this subject4 #bgf ,consider the little society which was assembled on the occasion alluded to1 in ,acts i4 #ac1 #ad4 ,note also what is clearly implied by ver4 #ba-f1 as to the persons who were habitually present at such gatherings4 #bgg ,s4 ,luke 7v4 #bg7 has 4 ,s4 ,matthew 7ix4 #i7 and ,s4 ,mark 7ii4 #ad7 have preferred 7 7 4 #bgh ,see ,s4 ,matth4 ix4 #i4 #bgi ,one is reminded that ,s4 ,matthew1 in like manner1 carefully reserves the verb 7xxvii4 #ee3 xxviii4 #a7 for the contemplation of the ,,saviour',s ,cross and of the ,,saviour',s ,sepulchre4 #bhj ,s4 ,matth4 vi4 #a3 xxiii4 #e4 ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #aa4 #bha 1 7vi4 #a72 and 1 7xxiii4 #e74 #bhb ,s4 ,luke xii4 #d4 #bhc ,s4 ,matth4 x4 #bh4 #bhd ,s4 ,mark iv4 #da4 ,s4 ,luke ii4 #i4 #bhe ,professor ,broadus1 ubi supr4 #bhf ,col i4 #ae1 #bc4 #a ,s4 ,pet4 ii4 #ac4 #bhg ,i quote from the ,textus ,receptus of ,s4 ,mark iv4 #cj1--;confirmed as it is by the ,peshito and the ,philoxenian1 the ,vetus and the ,vulgate1 the ,gothic and the ,armenian versions1--besides ,codd4 ,a and ,d1 and all the other uncials 7except ,b1 ,l1 1 17 and almost every cursive ,codex4 ,the evidence of ,cod4 ,c and of ,origen is doubtful4 ,who would subscribe to the different reading adopted on countless similar occasions by the most recent ,editors of the ,n4,t483 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4--3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 #bhh ,s4 ,mark v4 #bc3 vi4 #e3 vii4 #cb3 viii4 #bc4 #bhi ,s4 ,matth4 ix4 #ah3--xix4 #ac1 #ae4 #bij ,see below1 pp4 #ahd-f4 #bia ,see ,pearson on the ,creed1 7ed4 ,burton71 vol4 i4 p4 #aea4 #bib ,ibid4 p4 #ahc1--;at the beginning of the exposition of 8,our ,,lord40 #bic ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ai4 ,s4 ,luke ix4 #ea4 ,acts i4 #b4 #bid ,alford4 #bie ,davidson4 #bif ,exactly so ,professor ,broadus3--8,now it will not do to say that while no one of these peculiarities would itself prove the style to be foreign to ,mark1 the whole of them combined will do so4 ,it is very true that the multiplication of littles may amount to much2 but not so the multiplication of nothings4 ,and how many of the expressions which are cited1 appear1 in the light of our examination1 to retain the slightest real force as proving difference of authorship8 ,is it not true that most of them1 and those the most important1 are reduced to absolutely nothing1 while the remainder possess scarcely any appreciable significance80--p4 #cfj1 7see above1 p4 #aci1 note g47 #big ,s4 ,john has 7#dg times7 much oftener than ,s4 ,mark 7#bi times74 ,and yet1 is not met with in the iind1 or the iiird1 or the vth1 or the viith1 or the xvth1 or the xviith chapter of ,s4 ,john's ,gospel4 #bih ,printed ,text1 p4 #bef4 #bii ,it will be found that of the former class 7#a7 are the following3--,article iii3 vii3 ix3 x3 xi3 xii3 xiii3 xiv3 xv3 xxi3 xxiv3 xxv3 xxvi3 xxvii4 ,of the latter 7#b73--;,art4 i3 ii3 iv3 v3 vi3 viii3 xvi3 xvii3 xviii3 xix3 xx3 xxii3 xxiii4 #cjj ,ch4 xiii4 #af1-- 3 and ch4 xv4 #ba1-- 1--an expression which ,s4 ,luke religiously reproduces in the corresponding place of his ,gospel1 viz4 in ch4 xxiii4 #bf4 #cja ,see above1 p4 #adf4 #cjb ,the reader will be perhaps interested with the following passage in the pages of ,professor ,broadus already 7p4 #aci note g7 alluded to3--8,it occurred to me to examine the twelve just preceding verses1 7xv4 #dd to xvi4 #h17 and by a curious coincidence1 the words and expressions not elsewhere employed by ,mark1 footed up precisely the same number1 seventeen4 ,those noticed are the following 7text of ,tregelles73--ver4 #dd1 7elsewhere 73--ver4 #de1 1 a construction found nowhere else in the ,new ,testament3 also and 3 ver4 #df1 1 1 1 3--chap4 xvi4 ver4 #a1 1 and 3 ver4 #b1 3--ver4 #c1 3--ver4 #d1 4 ,also1 1 7,mark's word is 47 ,ver4 #e1 is a construction not found in ,mark1 or the other ,gospels1 though the word occurs frequently3--ver4 #h1 1 in this particular sense1 not elsewhere in the ,new ,testament3 4 8,this list is perhaps not complete1 for it was prepared in a few hours--about as much time1 it may be said1 without disrespect1 as ,fritsche and ,meyer appear to have given to their collections of examples from the other passage4 ,it is not proposed to discuss the list1 though some of the instances are curious4 ,it is not claimed that they are all important1 but that they are all real4 ,and as regards the single question of the number of peculiarities1 they certainly form quite an offset to the number upon which ,dean ,alford has laid stress40--p4 #cfa4 #cjc ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford4 #cjd ,s4 ,mark i4 #i3 #ad3 #bj4 #cje ,the same word is found also in ,s4 ,luke's narrative of the same event1 ch4 xxiv4 #ac4 #cjf ,on which1 ,victor of ,antioch 7if indeed it be he7 finely remarks1-- 1 1 1 4--7,cramer i4 p4 #bga47 #cjg ,disc4 v4 ,sect4 ii4 #cjh ,this appears to be the true reading4 #cji ,so ,chrysostom3-- 1 8 10 4 vii4 #ebf a4--,he seems to have derived that remark from ,origen in ,matth4 ed4 ,huet4 i4 #bdi ,d3-- 8 40--,from the same source1 ,i suspect1 ,gregory ,thaumaturgus 7,origen's disciple71 ,bp4 of ,neocsarea in ,pontus1 ,a4,d4 #bfa1 ,routh1 iii4 #beg derived the following3-- 8 0 1 1 1 4--,see1 by all means1 ,field's most interesting ,adnotationes in ,chrys41 vol4 iii4 p4 #aab4444 7finely says ,victor of ,antioch7 4 7,cramer i4 #cce47 #caj ,acts x4 #ae4 #caa ,acts i4 #bb1 #bc4 ,cf4 ver4 #b1-- 444 4 #cab ,s4 ,mark x4 #f3 xiii4 #ai4--b ,s4 ,pet4 iii4 #d 7,cf4 #a ,s4 ,pet4 ii4 #ac47 #cac ,is4 lxvi4 #b4 #cad ,see above1 p4 #adc-e4 #cae ,see above1 p4 #agd-e4 #caf ,my attention was first drawn to this by my friend1 the ,rev4 ,w4 ,kay1 ,d4,d4 #cag ,the ,creed itself1 78ex variis ,cyrillianarum ,catacheseon locis collectum107 may be seen at p4 #hd of ,de ,toutte's ed4 of ,cyril4 ,let the following be compared3-- 1 7ch4 xvi4 #ai47 1 7,,art4 ,,vi47 ,this may be seen in situ at p4 #bbd ,c of ,cyril4 7ch4 i4 #d47 7,,art4 ,x47 ,this may be seen at p4 #bie ,c of ,cyril4 ,the point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in ,professor ,heurtley's little work ,de ,fide et ,symbolo1 #ahfi1 p4 #i4 #cah ,see above1--p4 #afe-f4 #cai ,cod4 ,bobbiensis 7k73 which however for 8illis0 has 8et30 for 8,petro10 8puero30 and for 8occidentem10 8orientem40 ,it also repeats 8usque40 ,i have ventured to alter 8ab orientem0 into 8ab oriente40--,compare what is found in the ,philoxenian margin1 as given by ,white and ,adler4 #cbj ,see above 7,art4 ,,ii47 p4 #aeb-c4 #cba ,consider ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #i3 #cc4 ,acts ii4 #ad4 #cbb ,s4 ,matth4 xxvi4 #ad1 #bi1 #dg4--,s4 ,mark iv4 #aj3 vi4 #g3 ix4 #ce3 x4 #cb3 xi4 #aa3 xiv4 #aj1 #ag1 #bj1 #dc4--,s4 ,luke viii4 #a3 ix4 #a1 #ab3 xviii4 #ca3 xxii4 #h1 #dg4--,s4 ,john vi4 #cg1 #gj1 #ga3 xx4 #bd4 #cbc ,compare ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #ci2 and especially ,s4 ,john xviii4 #a1--where the moment of departure from the city is marked3 7for observe1 they had left the house and the upper chamber at ch4 xiv4 #ca74 ,see also ch4 xix4 #ag1--where the going without the gate is indicated3 7for ,heb4 xiii4 #ab47 ,so ,matth4 xxvii4 #cb4 ,consider ,s4 ,luke xxi4 #cg4 #cbd ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #di4 ,acts i4 #d4 #cbe ,see above1 p4 #b4 #cbf ,the one memorable exception1 which ,i have only lately met with1 is supplied by the following remark of the thoughtful and accurate ,matthaei1 made in a place where it was almost safe to escape attention2 viz4 in a footnote at the very end of his ,nov4 ,test4 7ed4 #ahjc71 vol4 i4 p4 #gdh4--8;,haec lectio in ,evangeliariis et ,synaxariis omnibus ter notatur tribus maxime notabilibus temporibus4 ,secundum ordinem temporum ,ecclesiae ,graecae primo legitur 1 4 ,secundo1 4 ,tertio1 ut 4 ,de hoc loco ergo vetustissimis temporibus nullo modo dubitavit ,ecclesia40--,matthaei had slightly anticipated this in his ed4 of #aghh1 vol4 ii4 #bfg4 #cbg 1--are the first words of the ,ecclesiatical ,history of ,eusebius4 #cbh ,see the heading of #a ,cor4 x4 in our ,authorised ,version4 #cbi ,see ,bingham's ,origines1 ,book xx4 ch4 v4 #b1 #c1 #d4 #ccj 1 1 1 1 4 ,then came the ,sermon1--then1 all stood and prayed1--then followed ,holy ,communion4--,apol4 i4 c4 #fg1 7ed4 ,otto1 i4 #aeh47 #cca 1 1 1 1 2--7,opp4 ix4 p4 #fig ,e4 ,field's text47 #ccb ,cassian writes1--8,venerabilis ,patrum senatus 444 decrevit hunc numerum sc4 duodecim ,orationum tam in ,vespertinis quam in ,nocturnis conventiculis custodiri2 quibus lectiones geminas adjungentes1 id est1 unam ,veteris et aliam ,novi ,testamenti4444 ,in die vero ,sabbati vel ,dominico utrasque de ,novo recitant ,testamento2 id est1 unam de ,apostolo vel ,actibus ,apostolorum1 et aliam de ,evangeliis4 ,quod etiam totis ,quinquagesimae diebus faciunt hi1 quibus lectio curae est1 seu memoria ,scripturarum40--,instit4 lib4 ii4 c4 #f4 7ed4#agcc1 p4 #ah47 #ccc ,constitutiones ,apostolicae1 lib4 ii4 c4 #eg1 #ei3 v4 #ai3 viii4 #e4 #ccd ,see ,scrivener's ,introduction1 p4 #gd1 and the reff4 in note 7k7 overleaf4 #cce ,english readers may be referred to ,horne's ,introduction1 c4 7ed4 #ahef47 vol4 iii4 p4 #bha-b4 ,the learned reader is perhaps aware of the importance of the preface to ,van der ,hooght's ,hebrew ,bible1 7ed4 #agje7 #ce3 in connexion with which1 see vol4 ii4 p4 #ceb b4 #ccf ,thus1 the is 8,quinquagesima ,sunday20 but the week of 8the cheese-eater0 is the week previous4 #ccg ,see ,suicer's ,thesaurus1 vol4 ii4 #ibj4 #cch 8,apud ,rabbinos1 ,sabbathum ,magnum4 ,sic vocatur ,sabbathum proximum ante ,pascha40--,buxtorf1 ,lexicon ,talmud4 p4 #bcbc4 #cci cf4 ,cyril1 p4 #d1 lines #af-g 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 4 3 1 -- 4 4 7,cyril4 ,hier4 ,cat4 xiv4 c4 #bd4 ,opp4 p4 #bag ,c1 ,d47--,of that ,sermon of his1 ,cyril again and again reminds his auditory4 1 1--he says1 ibid4 p4 #bai ,b4 ,a little lower down1 1 1 4--,ibid4 ,d4 ,from this it becomes plain why ,cyril nowhere quotes ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ai1--or ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #ea1--or ,acts i4 #i4 ,he must needs have enlarged upon those three inevitable places of ,scripture1 the day before4 #cdj ,see above1 p4 #aic and p4 #aid4 #cda 1 1 1 1 4--,in ,matth4 ,hom4 i4 7,opp4 vii4 #ac ,b47-- 1 1 1 4--,in ,joann4 ,hom4 ix1 7,opp4 viii4 #fb ,b47 #cdb ,it caused him 7he says7 to interrupt his teaching4 8,sed quia nunc interposita est sollemnitas sanctorum dierum1 quibus certas ex ,evangelio lectiones oportet in ,ecclesi recitari1 quae ita sunt annuae ut aliae esse non possint2 ordo ille quem susceperamus necessitate pauliulum intermissus est1 non amissus40--7,opp4 vol4 iii4 ,p4 ii4 p4 #hbe1 ,prol47 #cdc ,the place will be found quoted below1 p4 #bjb1 note 7o74 #cdd ,see ,suicer1 7i4 #bdg and #i3 ii4 #fgc74 ,he is much more full and satisfactory than ,scholz1 whose remarks1 nevertheless1 deserve attention1 7,nov4 ,test4 vol4 i1 ,prolegg4 p4 xxxi47 ,see also above1 p4 #de1 notes 7r7 and 7s74 #cde ,at the beginning of every volume of the first ed4 of his ,nov4 ,test4 7,riga1 #aghh7 ,matthaei has laboriously edited the 8,lectiones ,ecclesiastic0 of the ,greek ,church4 ,see also his ,appendices1--viz4 vol4 ii4 pp4 #bgb-cah and #cbb-cfc4 ,his #bnd ed4 7,wittenberg1 #ahjc17 is distinguished by the valuable peculiarity of indicating the ,ecclesiastical sections throughout1 in the manner of an ancient ,,ms42 and that1 with extraordinary fulness and accuracy4 ,his 7i4 #gbc-fh and iii4 #a-bd7 though not intelligible perhaps to ordinary readers1 are very important4 ,he derived them from ,,mss4 which he designates 8,b0 and 8,h10 but which are our 8,evstt4 #dg and #ej10--uncial ,evangelistaria of the viiith century 7,see ,scrivener's ,introd4 p4 #bad47 ,scholz1 at the end of vol4 i4 of his ,n4 ,t4 p4 #dec-ic1 gives in full the 8,synaxarium0 and 8,menologium0 of ,codd4 ,k and ,m1 7viiith or ixth century47 ,see also his vol4 ii4 pp4 #def-fi4 ,unfortunately1 7as ,scrivener recognises1 p4 #aaj17 all here is carelessly done1--as usual with this ,editor2 and therefore to a great extent useless4 ,his slovenliness is extraordinary4 ,the 8,gospels of the ,passion0 7 71 he entitles 7p4 #dgb72 and so throughout4 ,mr4 ,scrivener 7,introduction1 pp4 #fh-ge17 has given by far the most intelligible account of this matter1 by exhibiting in ,english the ,lectionary of the ,eastern ,church1 78gathered chiefly from ,evangelist4 ,arund4 #edg1 ,parham #ah1 ,harl4 #eeih1 ,burney #bb1 and ,christ's ,coll4 ,camb4072 and supplying the references to ,scripture in the ordinary way4 ,see1 by all means1 his ,introduction1 pp4 #fb-fe3 also1 pp4 #baa-bbe4 #cdf ,consider the following3-- 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2--,chrys4 ,opp4 iii4 #hh4 ,again3-- 1 1 4 1 1 1 4--,ibid4 p4 #hi ,d4 #cdg ,opp4 ii4 #ded ,b1 ,d4 #cdh ,opp4 ii4 #bij ,b4 #cdi ,opp4 ii4 #ceg ,e4 #cej 8,meminit sanctitas vestra ,evangelium secundum ,joannnem ex ordine lectionum nos solere tractare40 7,opp4 iii4 ,p4 ii4 #hbe ,prol47 #cea ,see ,scrivener's ,introduction1 p4 #bdf4 #ceb ,chrysostom ,opp4 ii4 #cfi b1 c4--,compare ,scrivener1 ubi supra1 p4 #ge4 #cec ,ed4 ,mabillon1 p4 #aaf4 #ced ,opp4 vol4 iii4 p4 #he ,b3 #hh ,a3-- 4-- 4 #cee 8,anniversari sollemnitate post passionem ,domini nostis illum librum recitari40 ,opp4 iii4 7,p4 ii47 p4 #ccg ,g4 #cef ,i desire to leave in this place the permanent record of my deliberate conviction that the ,lectionary which1 last year1 was hurried with such indecent haste through ,convocation1--passed in a half-empty ,house by the casting vote of the ,prolocutor1--and rudely pressed upon the ,church's acceptance by the ,legislature in the course of its present session1--is the gravest calamity which has befallen the ,church of ,england for a long time past4 ,let the history of this ,lectionary be remembered4 ,appointed 7in #ahfg7 for an entirely different purpose1 7viz4 the ,ornaments and ,vestments question17 #bi ,commissioners 7#ad ,clerical and #ae ,lay7 found themselves further instructed 8to 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 ,service40 ,thereupon1 these individuals1--7the ,liturgical attainments of nine-tenths of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself to characterise truthfully17--at once imposed upon themselves the duty of inventing an entirely new ,lectionary for the ,church of ,england4 ,so to mutilate the ,word of ,,god that it shall henceforth be quite impossible to understand a single ,bible story1 or discover the sequence of a single connected portion of narrative1--seems to have been the guiding principle of their deliberations4 ,with reckless eclecticism1--entire forgetfulness of the requirements of the poor brother1--strange disregard for ,catholic ,tradition and the claims of immemorial antiquity2--these ,commissioners1 7evidently unconscious of their own unfitness for their self-imposed task17 have given us a ,lectionary which will recommend itself to none but the lovers of novelty1--the impatient1--and the enemies of ,divine ,truth4 ,that the blame1 the guilt lies at the door of our ,bishops1 is certain2 but the ,church has no one but herself to thank for the injury which has been thus deliberately inflicted upon her4 ,she has suffered herself to be robbed of her ancient birthright without resistance2 without remonstrance2 without 7in her corporate capacity7 so much as a word of audible dissatisfaction4 ,can it be right in this way to defraud those who are to come after us of their lawful inheritance8444 ,i am amazed and grieved beyond measure at what is taking place4 ,at least1 7as on other occasions17 liberavi animam meam4 #ceg ,a trace of this remains in the old ,gallican ,liturgy1--pp4 #acg-h4 #ceh ,bingham1 xiv4 iii4 #c4 #cei ,opp4 vol4 vii4 p4 #gia ,b4 #cfj ,see ,dean ,payne ,smith's ,translation1 p4 #hfc4 #cfa 4--,chrys4 ,opp4 vii4 #hah ,c4 #cfb 8,passio autem1 quia uno die legitur1 non solet legi nisi secundum ,matthum4 ,voluerain aliquando ut per singulos annos secundum omnes ,evangelistas etiam ,passio legeretur4 ,factum est4 ,non audierunt homines quod consueverant1 et perturbati sunt40--,opp4 vol4 v4 p4 #ihj ,e4 #cfc ,ed4 ,mabillon1 pp4 #acj-e4 #cfd ,epiph4 ,opp4 ii4 #aeb-c4 #cfe ,chrys4 ,opp4 i4 #dig ,c4 #cff ,epiph4 ,opp4 ii4 #bhe-f4 #cfg ,the learned reader will be delighted and instructed too by the perusal of both passages4 ,chrysostom declares that ,christmas-,day is the greatest of ,festivals2 since all the others are but consequences of the ,incarnation4 ,epiphanius remarks with truth that ,ascension-,day is the crowning solemnity of all3 being to the others what a beautiful head is to the human body4 #cfh ,constt4 ,apostt4 lib4 viii4 c4 #cc4 ,after the week of the ,passion and the week of 7#a7 the ,resurrection1--7#b7 ,ascension-,day is mentioned2--7#c7 ,pentecost2--7#d7 ,nativity2--7#e7 ,epiphany4 ,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 work4 #cfi ,bingham's ,origines1 ,b4 xx4 c4 iv4 #b4 #cgj ,chrys4 ,opp4 ii4 #cee4 7,see the ,monitum1 p4 #ceb47 #cga ,chrys4 ,opp4 ii4 #cfi ,d4 #cgb ,epiphanius1 ,adv4 ,haer4 ,,li1 c4 xvi4 7,opp4 i4 #dci ,a47 #cgc ,see above1 pp4 #eh-i and #fg4 #cgd ,opp4 iii4 #ajb ,b4 ,see ,bingham on this entire subject1--,b4 xiv1 c4 iii4 #cge 8,illa quae non scriptu1 sed tradita custodimus1 quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur1 datur intelligi vel ab ipsis ,apostolis1 vel plenariis ,conciliis quorum in ,ecclesia saluberrima authoritas1 commendata atque statuta retineri4 ,sicut quod ,domini ,passio1 et ,resurrectio1 et ,ascensio in clis1 ut ,adventus de clo ,spiritus ,sancti anniversaria sollemnitate celebrantur40--,ep4 ad ,januarium1 7,opp4 ii4 #abd ,b1 ,c74 #cgf 8,lect4 fer4 quint41 quae etiam ,festum ,adscensionis ,domini in caelos1 ad mat4 eadem ac lect4 tert4 ,resurrect42 in ,euchar4 lect4 sext4 ,resurrect40--,but 8,lect4 ,resurrectionis0 is 8,marc4 xvi4 #i-bj30 8,lect4 10 8,luc4 xxiv4 #cf-ec40--,see ,dean ,payne ,smith's ,catalogus ,codd4 ,syrr4 7#ahfd7 pp4 #aaf1 #abg4 #cgg ,see above1 p4 #cd1 note 7e74 #cgh ,r4 ,payne ,smith's ,catal4 p4 #adh4 #cgi ,hieronymi ,comes1 7ed4 ,pamel4 ii4 #ca47--;,but it is not the ,gallican4 7ed4 ,mabillon1 p4 #aee47 444 ,it strikes me as just possible that a clue may be in this way supplied to the singular phenomenon noted above at p4 #aah1 line #bb-h4 #chj 4 ,see ,scrivener's ,introduction1 p4 #gb1 and ,r4 ,p4 ,smith's ,catal4 p4 #abg4 ,see by all means1 ,suicer's ,thes4 ,eccl4 i4 #abbi4 #cha ,dr4 ,wright's ,catal4 p4 #gj1 ,no4 cx4 7,addit4 #ad1dfd3 fol4 #fa b47 #chb ,ibid4 ,no4 lxx 7fol4 #ib b71 and lxxii 7fol4 #hg b74 #chc 8,quae titulo ,josephi et ,nicodemi insignitur40 7,r4 ,payne ,smith's ,catal4 p4 #aaf47--;,in the 8,synaxarium0 of ,matthaei 7,nov4 ,test4 #ahjc1 i4 p4 #gca7 it is styled 4 4 4 #chd ,adler's ,n4 ,t4 ,verss4 ,syrr4 p4 #ga4 #che ,dean ,payne ,smith's ,catal4 p4 #adf4 #chf ,ed4 ,mabillon1 pp4 #add-e4 #chg 8,resurrectio ,domini nostri ,i4 ,c4 ex more legitur bis diebus ,paschalibus ex omnibus libris sancti ,evangelii40 7,opp4 v4 #igg ,c7--8,quoniam hoc moris est 444 ,marci ,evangelium est quod modo1 cum legeretur1 audivimus40 8,quid ergo audivimus ,marcum dicentem80 ,and he subjoins a quotation from ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #ab4--;,ibid4 #iig ,f1 #iih ,b4 #chh ,hieron4 ,comes 7ed4 ,pamel4 ii4 #bg47 #chi ,so ,scrivener's ,introduction1 p4 #ge4--,little stress1 however1 is to be laid on ,saint's ,day lessons4 ,in ,matthaei's 8,menologium0 7,nov4 ,test4 #ahjc1 i4 p4 #gfe71 ,i find that ,s4 ,luke viii4 #a-d1 or else ,s4 ,john xx4 #aa-ah was the appointed ,lection4 ,see his note 7#e7 at p4 #gej4 #cij ,note1 7in addition to all that has gone before17 that the ,festivals are actually designated by their ,greek names in the earliest ,latin ,service ,books3 not only 8,theophania10 8,epiphania10 8,pascha10 8,pentecostes10 7the second1 third and fourth of which appellations survive in the ,church of the ,west1 in memoriam1 to the present hour27 but 8,hypapante10 which was the title bestowed by the ,orientals in the time of ,justinian1 on ,candlemas ,day1 7our ,feast of the ,purification1 or ,presentation of ,,christ in the ,temple17 from the 8,meeting0 of ,symeon on that occasion4 ,friday1 or 1 was called 8,parasceve0 in the ,west4 7,mab4 ,lit4 ,gall4 p4 #abi47 ,so entire was the sympathy of the ,east with the ,west in such matters in very early times1 that when ,rome decided to celebrate the ,nativity on the #beth ,december1 ,chrysostom 7as we have been reminded7 publicly announced the fact at ,constantinople2 and it was determined that in this matter ,east and ,west would walk by the same rule4 #cia ,from ,professor ,wright's ,catalogue of ,syriac ,,mss4 in the ,british ,museum 7#ahgj7 it appears that the oldest ,jacobite ,lectionary is dated ,a4,d4 #hbd2 the oldest ,nestorian1 ,a4,d4 #hfb2 the oldest ,malkite1 ,a4,d4 #ajbc4 ,the respective numbers of the ,,mss4 are #ad1dhe2 #ad1dib2 and #ad1dhh4--,see his ,catalogue1 ,part ,i4 pp4 #adf1 #agh1 #aid4 #cib ,it is exhibited in the same glass-case with the ,cod4 ,alexandrinus 7,a47 #cic ,the reader is requested to refer back to p4 #de1 and the note there4--,the actual words of ,eusebius are given in ,appendix 7,b74 #cid ,see the enumeration of ,greek ,service-,books in ,scrivener's ,introduction1 c4 pp4 #baa-be4 ,for the ,syriac ,lectionaries1 see ,dean ,payne ,smith's ,catalogue1 7#ahfd7 pp4 #aad-bi-ca-d-e-h3 also ,professor ,wright's ,catalogue1 7#ahgj7 pp4 #adf to #bjc4--;,i avail myself of this opportunity to thank both those learned ,scholars for their valuable assistance1 always most obligingly rendered4 #cie 8,evangelistariorum codices literis uncialibus scripti nondum sic ut decet in usum criticum conversi sunt40 ,tischendorf1 quoted by ,scrivener1 ,introduction to ,cod4 ,augiensis1--#hj pages which have been separately published and are well deserving of study1--p4 #dh1 who adds1--8,i cannot even conjecture why an ,evangelistarium should be thought of less value than another ,,ms4 of the same age40--,see also ,scrivener's ,introduction1 c4 p4 #baa4 #cif e4g4 ,addit4 ,,mss4 #ab1ada3 #ad1ddi3 #ad1dej-b-d-e-f-g-h3 #ad1dfa-c3 #ag1aac-d-e-f3--7 #ae ,codd4 in all37 from p4 #de to p4 #ff of ,professor ,wright's ,catalogue4 #cig ,addit4 ,,ms4 #ad1dfd4 7,see ,dr4 ,wright's ,catalogue1 p4 #gj47 #cih ,add to the eight examples adduced by ,mr4 ,scrivener from our ,book of ,c4 ,p41 7,introduction1 p4 #aa71 the following3--,gospels for ,quinquagesima1 #bnd ,s4 after ,easter1 #ith1 #abth1 #bbnd after ,trinity1 ,whitsunday1 ,ascension ,day1 ,,ss4 ,philip and ,james 7see below1 p4 #bbj71 ,all ,saints4 #cii ,thus the words 7,s4 ,luke vii4 #ca7 which introduce an ,ecclesiastical ,lection 7,friday in the iiird week of ,s4 ,luke17 inasmuch as the words are found in no uncial ,,ms41 and are omitted besides by the ,syriac1 ,vulgate1 ,gothic and ,coptic ,versions1 must needs be regarded as a liturgical interpolation4--,the same is to be said of in ,s4 ,matth4 xiv4 #bb1--words which ,origen and ,chrysostom1 as well as the ,syriac versions1 omit2 and which clearly owe their place in twelve of the uncials1 in the ,textus ,receptus1 in the ,vulgate and some copies of the old ,latin1 to the fact that the ,gospel for the ixth ,sunday after ,pentecost begins at that place4--,it will be kindred to the present inquiry that ,i should point out that in ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i1 is constantly met with in ,greek ,,mss41 and even in some copies of the ,vulgate2 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 preceding4 ,the fact is singularly illustrated by the insertion of 8 0 in ,cod4 #bfg 7 ,reg4 #fi17 rubro above the same contraction 7for 7 in the text4 #djj ,not1 of course1 so long as the present senseless fashion prevails of regarding ,codex ,b1 7to which1 if ,cod4 ,l4 and ,codd4 #a1 #cc and #fi are added1 it is only because they agree with ,b71 as an all but infallible guide in settling the text of ,scripture2 and quietly taking it for granted that all the other ,,mss4 in existence have entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive mankind4 ,until this most uncritical method1 this most unphilosophical theory1 is unconditionally abandoned1 progress in this department of sacred ,science is simply impossible4 #dja ,see ,matthaei's note on ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #dc1 7,nov4 ,test4 ed4 #ahjc47 #djb ,this will be best understood by actual reference to a manuscript4 ,in ,cod4 ,evan4 #dcf 7,meerman #aag7 which lies before me1 these directions are given as follows4 ,after 7i4e4 the last words of ver4 #db71 is written 4 ,then1 at the end of ver4 #dd1 is written-- 1 after which follows the text 1 c4 ,in ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 at chap1 xxvi1 which contains the ,liturgical section for ,thursday in ,holy ,week 7 71 my ,codex has been only imperfectly rubricated4 ,let me therefore be allowed to quote from ,harl4 ,,ms4 #ahaj1 7our ,cod4 ,evan4 #aac7 which1 at fol4 #hd1 at the end of ,s4 ,matth4 xxvi4 #ci1 reads as follows1 immediately after the words1-- 3--_/1 ,cross 7i4e4 47 ,but in order to explain what is meant1 the above rubricated word and sign are repeated at foot1 as follows3--,cross 4 3 1 3 --which are the first words of ,s4 ,matth4 xxvi4 #dj4 ,accordingly1 my ,codex 7,no4 #dcf1 above referred to7 immediately after ,s4 ,luke xxii4 #db1 besides the rubric already quoted1 has the following3 4 ,then come the two famous verses 7ver4 #dc1 #dd72 and1 after the words 1 the following rubric occurs3 4 4 ,with the help of my nephew1 7,rev4 ,w4 ,f4 ,rose1 ,curate of ,holy ,trinity1 ,windsor17 ,i have collated every syllable of ,cod4 #dcf4 ,its text most nearly resembles the ,rev4 ,f4 ,h4 ,scrivener's l1 m1 n4 #djc ,see by all means ,matthaei's ,nov4 ,test4 7ed4 #ahjc17 i4 p4#dia1 and #dib4 #djd ,see above1 p4 #ge1 note 7h74 #dje ,for the #eth ,sunday of ,s4 ,luke4 #djf ,such variations are quite common4 ,matthaei1 with his usual accuracy1 points out several3 e4g4 ,nov4 ,test4 7#aghh7 vol4 i4 p4 #ai 7note #bf71 p4 #bc3 vol4 ii4 p4 #aj 7note #ab71 p4 #ad 7notes #ad and #ae71 c4 #djg ,,ss4 ,philip and ,james4 #djh viz4 3 i4e4 the ixth ,saturday in ,s4 ,luke4--,note that ,cod4 ,a also reads in ,s4 ,lu4 xi4 #a4 #dji viz4 ,monday in the vth1 ,thursday in the vith week after ,pentecost1 and the viiith ,sunday after ,pentecost4 #daj viz4 ,s4 ,luke xiii4 #b3 xxiv4 #cf4 ,s4 ,john i4 #bi 7 73 #dd3 vi4 #ad3 xiii4 #c1--to which should perhaps be added xxi4 #a1 where ,b1 1 ,a1 ,c 7not ,d7 read 4 #daa ,see by all means ,matthaei's interesting note on the place1--,nov4 ,test4 7#aghh7 vol4 i4 p4 #aac-d4 ,it should be mentioned that ,cod4 ,c 7and four other uncials71 together with the ,philoxenian and ,hierosolymitan versions1 concur in exhibiting the same spurious clause4 ,matthaei remarks1--8,origenes 7iv4 #aga ,d7 hanc pericopam haud adeo diligenter recensens terminat eum in 40 ,will not the disturbing ,lectionary-practice of his day sufficiently explain ,origen's omission8 #dab ,i recall ,s4 ,john x4 #bi3 xix4 #ac3 xxi4 #a2--;but the attentive student will be able to multiply such references almost indefinitely4 ,in these and similar places1 while the phraseology is exceedingly simple1 the variations which the text exhibits are so exceeding numerous1--that when it is discovered that a ,church ,lesson begins in those places1 we may be sure that we have been put in possession of the name of the disturbing force4 #dac ,viz4 ,k and ,m4 7,field's ,chrys4 p4 #bea47--;,how is it that the readings of ,chrysostom are made so little account of8 ,by ,tregelles1 for example1 why are they overlooked entirely8 #dad ,see above1 p4 #aig to #bjd4 #dae e4g4 in ,cod4 ,evan4 #aj and #bgj4 #daf ,in some cursive ,,mss4 also1 7which have been probably transcribed from ancient originals71 the same phenomenon is observed4 ,thus1 in ,evan4 #bfe 7 ,reg4 #ff71 only occurs1 in ,s4 ,mark1 at ix4 #i and #da3 xv4 #cb and #da3 xvi4 #h4 at xvi4 #a4 ,it is striking to observe that so little were these ecclesiastical notes 7embedded in the text7 understood by the possessor of the ,,ms41 that in the margin1 over against ch4 xv4 #da1 7where 830 stands in the text17 a somewhat later hand has written1-- 4 ,a similar liturgical note may be seen over against ch4 ix4 #i1 and elsewhere4 ,cod4 #be 7 ,reg4 #aia71 at the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel1 has only two notes of liturgical endings3 viz4 at ch4 xv4 #a and #db4 #dag ,among the ,syriac ,evangelia1 as explained above 7p4 #bae71 instances occur of far more ancient ,,mss4 which exhibit a text rubricated by the original scribe4 ,even here1 however1 7as may be learned from ,dr4 ,wright's ,catalogue1 pp4 #df-ff17 such ,rubrics have been only irregularly inserted in the oldest copies4 #dah ,note1 that the ,codex from which ,cod4 ,d was copied will have exhibited the text thus1-- 4--which is the reading of ,cod4 #ac 7 ,reg4 #ej47 ,but the scribe of ,cod4 ,d1 in order to improve the sense1 substituted for the word 4 ,note the scholion ,anon4 ,vat4 in ,possinus1 p4 #cba3--1 1 1 4 ,besides the said ,cod4 #ac1 the same reading is found in #dg and #ed 7in the ,bodl473 #ef 7at ,linc4 ,coll473 #fa 7i4e4 ,cod4 ,montfort473 #fi 7i4e4 ,cod4 ,leicestr473 #abd 7i4e4 ,cod4 ,vind4 ,lamb4 #ca73 csecr 7i4e4 ,lambeth1 #aagg73 #bpe 7i4e4 the #bnd of ,muralt's ,s4 ,petersburg ,codd472 and ,cod4 #dci 7i4e4 ,addit4 ,brit4 ,mus4 #eajg74 ,all these eleven ,,mss4 read at ,s4 ,mark xiv4 #da4 #dai ,so ,scholz 7i4 #bjj73--8,pericopa hc casu quodam forsan exciderat a codice quodam ,alexandrino2 unde defectus iste in alios libros transiit4 ,nec mirum hunc defectum multis1 immo in certis regionibus plerisque scribis arrisisse3 confitentur enim ex ipsorum opinione ,marcum ,mattho repugnare4 ,cf4 maxima ,eusebium ad ,marinum10 c4 #dbj 1 4 7,mai1 ,bibl4 ,p4,p4 ,nova1 vol4 iv4 p4 #bef47 #dba ,alford's ,n4,t4 vol4 i4 p4 #dcc1 7ed4 #ahfh47--;,and so ,tischendorf1 7ed4 #hva4 pp4 #djf-g47 8,talem dissentionem ad ,marci librum tam misere mutilandum adduxisse quempiam1 et quidem tanto cum successu1 prorsus incredibile est1 nec ullo probari potest exemplo40--,tregelles is of the same opinion4 7,printed ,text1 pp4 #bee-f47--,matthaei1 a competent judge1 seems to have thought differently4 8,una autem causa cur hic locus omitteretur fuit quod ,marcus in his repugnare ceteris videtur ,evangelistis40 ,the general observation which follows is true enough3--8,qu ergo vel obscura1 vel repugnantia1 vel parum decora quorundam opinione habebantur1 ca olim ab ,criticis et interpretibus nonnullis vel sublata1 vel in dubium vocata esse1 ex aliis locis sanctorum ,evangeliorum intelligitur40 7,nov4 ,test4 #aghh1 vol4 ii4 p4 #bff47 ,presently1 7at p4 #bgj17--8;,in summ4 ,videtur unus et item alter ex interpretibus1 qui hc cteris evangeliis repugnare opinebatur1 in dubium vocasse4 ,hunc deinde plures temere secuti sunt1 ut plerumque factum esse animadvertimus40 ,dr4 ,davidson says the same thing 7ii4 #aaf47 and1 7what is of vastly more importance17 ,mr4 ,scrivener also4 7,coll4 ,cod4 ,sin4 p4 xliv47 #dbb ,i have to acknowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of ,m4 de ,wailly1 the chief of the ,manuscript department4 #dbc ,see above1 p4 #bbd4 #dbd ,whereas in the course of ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 only two examples of occur1 7viz4 at ch4 xxvi4 #ce and xxvii4 #b17--;in the former case the note has entirely lost its way in the process of transcription2 standing where it has no business to appear4 ,no ,liturgical section ends thereabouts4 ,i suspect that the transition 77 anciently made at ver4 #ci1 was the thing to which the scribe desired to call attention4 #dbe ,coisl4 #bj4 ,this sumptuous ,,ms41 which has not been adapted for ,church purposes1 appears to me to be the work of the same scribe who produced ,reg4 #agh1 7the codex described above72 but it exhibits a different text4 ,bound up with it are some leaves of the ,,lxx of about the viiith century4 #dbf ,end of the ,lection for the ,sunday before ,epiphany4 #dbg ,in ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 ,i could find so written only twice1--viz4 at ch4 ii4 #bc and xxvi4 #ge3 in ,s4 ,luke only once1--viz4 at ch4 viii4 #ci4 ,these1 in all three instances1 are the concluding verses of famous ,lessons1--viz4 the ,sunday after ,christmas ,day1 the iiird ,gospel of the ,passion1 the vith ,sunday of ,s4 ,luke4 #dbh ,this has already come before us in a different connection3 7see p4 #aai73 but it must needs be reproduced here2 and this time1 it shall be exhibited as faithfully as my notes permit4 #dbi 7#a7 ,in ,evan4 #bhb 7written ,a4,d4 #aagf71--;a codex which has been adapted to ,lectionary purposes1--the sign and 1 strange to say1 is inserted into the body of the ,text1 only at ,s4 ,mark xv4 #dg and xvi4 #h4 7#b7 ,evan4 #bfh1 7a truly superb ,,ms41 evidently left unfinished1 the pictures of the ,evangelists only sketched in ink17 was never prepared for ,lectionary purposes2 which makes it the more remarkable that1 between and 1 should be found inserted into the body of the text1 4 in gold4 7#c7 ,i have often met with copies of ,s4 ,matthew's1 or of ,s4 ,luke's1 or of ,s4 ,john's ,gospel1 unfurnished with a subscription in which occurs3 but scarcely ever have ,i seen an instance of a ,codex where the ,gospel according to ,s4 ,mark was one of two1 or of three from which it was wanting2 much less where it stood alone in that respect4 ,on the other hand1 in the following ,codices1--,evan4 #aj3 #bb3 #cj3 #bic1--,s4 ,mark's is the only ,gospel of the ,four which is furnished with the subscription1 cross or simply 4444 ,in ,evan4 #bhb1 ,s4 ,matthew's ,gospel shares this peculiarity with ,s4 ,mark's4 #dcj 8,nemini in mentem venire potest ,marcum narrationis suae filum ineptissime abrupisse verbis-- 40--,griesbach ,comment4 ,crit4 7ii4 #aig47 ,so1 in fact1 uno ore all the ,critics4 #dca ,chap4 ,v4 ,see above1 pp4 #ff-g4 #dcb ,the ,english reader will follow the text with sufficient exactness if he will refer back1 and read from the last line of p4 #dd to the ninth line of p4 #de2 taking care to see1 in two places1 for 8the end10--8,,the ,,end04444 ,the entire context of the ,greek is given in the ,appendix 7,b74 #dcc 4 ,the antecedent phrase1 7 17 ,i suspect must be an explanatory gloss4 #dcd 8,this then is clear10 7is ,dr4 ,tregelles' comment17 8that the greater part of the ,greek copies had not the verses in question40--,printed ,text1 p4 #bdg4 #dce ,observe1 the peculiarity of the expression in this place of ,eusebius consists entirely in his introduction of the words 4 ,had he merely said 444 444 1--there would have been nothing extraordinary in the mode of expression4 ,we should have been reminded of such places as the following in the writings of ,eusebius himself3-- 444 1 7,hist4 ,eccl4 lib4 vi4 c4 #f47-- 1 7,ibid4 c4 #bb4 ,see the note of ,valesius on the place47--,or this1 referred to by ,stephanus 7in voce71-- 1 7,praep4 ,evang4 lib4 vi4 c4 #aj1 p4 #bhj c1 ed4 #afbh47 ,but the substitution of for wants explaining2 and can be only satisfactorily explained in one way4 #dcf ,see above1 p4 #ff and p4 #fg4 #dcg 444 sic4--,mai1 vol4 iv4 p4 #bee4 #dch 8,consentit autem nobis ad tractatum quem fecimus de scriptur ,marci40--,origen4 7,opp4 iii4 #ibi ,b47 ,tractat4 xxxv4 in ,matth4 ,i owe the reference to ,cave 7i4 #aah47 ,it seems to have escaped the vigilance of ,huet4--,this serves to explain why ,victor of ,antioch's ,catena on ,s4 ,mark was sometimes anciently attributed to ,origen3 as in ,paris ,cod4 #gjc1 olim #bccj1 #ieh1 and #ajdh3 also #ah4 where is read 7at fol4 #bdg71 4 ,note1 that ,reg4 #icg is but a 7xvith cent47 counterpart of the preceding2 which has been transcribed xviiith cent4 in ,par4 ,suppl4 ,grace4 #dj4 ,possevinus ,apparat4 ,sac4 ii4 #edb1 7quoted by ,huet1 ,origeniana1 p4 #bgd7 states that there is in the ,library of ,c4,c4,c41 ,oxford1 a ,commentary on ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel by ,origen4 ,the source of this misstatement has been acutely pointed out to me by the ,rev4 ,w4 ,r4 ,churton4 ,james1 in his 8,ecloga ,oxonio-,cantabrig410 7#afjj1 lib4 i4 p4 #di17 mentions 8,homiliae ,origenis super ,evangelio ,marcae1 ,stabat ad monumentum40--,read instead1 7with ,rev4 ,h4 ,o4 ,coxe1 8,cat4 ,codd4 ,,mss4 ,c4,c4,c420 ,no4 #adb1 #d17 as follows3--8,origenis presb4 ,hom4 in istud ,johannis1 ,maria stabat ad monumentum10 c4 ,but what actually led ,possevinus astray1 ,i perceive1 was ,james's consummation of his own blunder in lib4 ii4 p4 #di1--which ,possevinus has simply appropriated4 #dci ,so ,chrysostom1 speaking of the reading 4 ,origen 7iv4 #adj7 says that not only 1 but also that apud ,heracleonem1 7who wrote within #ej years of ,s4 ,john's death17 he found written in ,s4 ,john i4 #bh4 ,moved by geographical considerations1 however1 7as he explains17 for 1 ,origen proposes to read 4--,chrysostom 7viii4 #if d71 after noticing the former reading1 declares1-- 3 but he goes on to reproduce ,origen's reasoning2--thereby betraying himself4--,the author of the ,catena in ,matth4 7,cramer1 i4 #aij-a7 simply reproduces ,chrysostom3-- 4 ,and so1 other ,scholia2 until at last what was only due to the mistaken assiduity of ,origen1 became generally received as the reading of the 8more accurate copies40 ,a scholium on ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #ac1 in like manner1 declares that the true reading of that place is not 8#fj0 but 8#afj10-- 1 4 ,accordingly1 ,eusebius also reads the place in the same erroneous way4 #ddj ,jerome says of himself 7,opp4 vii4 #ecg17--8,non digne ,grca in ,latinum transfero3 aut ,grcos lege 7si ejusdem linguae habes scientiam7 aut si tantum ,latinus es1 noli de gratuito munere judicare1 et1 ut vulgare proverbium est3 equi dentes inspicere donati40 #dda ,see above1 pp4 #eg-i3 also ,appendix 7,c71 #b4 #ddb ,see above1 pp4 #bbe-f4 #ddc ,r4 ,payne ,smith's ,catal4 p4 #aaf4 #ddd ,see ,adler's ,n4 ,t4 ,verss4 ,syrr41 p4 #gj4 #dde ,r4 ,payne ,smith's ,catal4 p4 #adf4 #ddf ,see p4 #bjf1 also note 7k74 #ddg ,r4 ,payne ,smith's ,catal4 p4 #aag4 #ddh ,accordingly1 in ,cod4 ,evan4 #bff 7 ,paris ,reg4 #fg7 is read1 at ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #h 7fol4 #abe71 as follows3-- 4 then1 rubro1 1 4 4 then the text3 444 444 ,after ver4 #bj1 7at fol4 #abf of the same ,codex7 is found the following concluding rubric3-- 4 ,in the same place1 7viz4 at the end of ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel17 is found in another ,codex 7,evan4 #g ,paris ,reg4 #ga17 the following rubric3-- 1 4 #ddi ,r4 ,payne ,smith's ,catal4 p4 #adf4 #dej ,cod4 #bg 7xi7 is not provided with any lectionary apparatus1 and is written continuously throughout3 and yet at ,s4 ,mark xvi4 #i a fresh paragraph is observed to commence4 ,not dissimilar is the phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies of the ,armenian version4 8,the ,armenian1 in the edition of ,zohrab1 separates the concluding #ab verses from the rest of the ,gospel4444 ,many of the oldest ,,mss41 after the words 1 put the final 1 and then give the additional verses with a new superscription40 7,tregelles1 ,printed ,text1 p4 #bec74444 ,we are now in a position to understand the ,armenian evidence1 which has been described above1 at p4 #cf1 as well as to estimate its exact value4 #dea ,euseb4 apud ,mai1 iv4 p4 #bfd p4 #bhg4 ,again at p4 #bhi-ij4--,so also the author of the #bnd ,homily on the ,resurr4 7,greg4 ,nyss4 ,opp4 iii4 #daa-b47--;,and see the third of the fragments ascribed to ,polycarp4 ,patres ,apostol41 7ed4 ,jacobson7 ii4 p4 #eae4 #deb ,i believe this will be found to be the invariable order of the ,gospels in the ,lectionaries4 #dec ,this is the case for instance in ,evan4 #ae 7 ,reg4 #fd74 ,see fol4 #ih b4 #ded ,i allude of course to ,matthaei's ,cod4 g4 7,see the note in his ,n4 ,t4 vol4 ix4 p4 #bbh47 ,whether or no the learned critic was right in his conjecture 8aliquot folia excidisse10 matters nothing4 ,the left hand page ends at the words 4 ,now1 if had followed1 how obvious would have been the inference that the ,gospel itself of ,s4 ,mark had come to an end there6 ,note1 that in the ,codex ,bez 7,d71 ,s4 ,mark's ,gospel ends at ver4 #ae3 in the ,gothic ,codex ,argenteus1 at ver4 #aa4 ,the ,codex ,vercell4 7a7 proves to be imperfect from ch4 xv4 #ae2 ,cod4 ,veron4 7b7 from xiii4 #bd2 ,cod4 ,brix4 7f7 from xiv4 #gj4 #dee ,scrivener1 ,coll4 ,cod4 ,sin4 p4 lix4 #def ,see p4 #bbg4 #deg ,see above1 p4 #bbf4 #deh ,so ,scholz3--8hic sc4 #bb post 2 dein atramento rubro10 c4--,tischendorf1--8,testantur scholia 444 ,marci ,evangelium 444 versu #i finem habuisse4 ,ita1 ut de #cj fere ,codd4 certe tres videamus1 #bb habet3 4 10 c4--,tregelles appeals to copies1 8sometimes with interposed after ver4 #h10 7p4 #bed47--,mai 7iv4 #bef7 in the same spirit remarks1--8,codex ,vaticano-palatinus #bbj1 ex quo ,eusebium producimus1 post octavum versum habet quidem vocem 1 ut alibi interdum observatum fuit2 sed tamen ibidem eadem manu subscribitur incrementum cum progredientibus sectionum notis40 #dei ,chap4 ,i4 and ,,ii4 #dfj ,chap4 ,,iv1 ,,vi-,x4 #dfa ,chap4 ,,iii1 ,v1 and ,,viii4 #dfb ,tischendorf1 ,tregelles1 ,alford4 #dfc ,tregelles1 ,alford4 #dfd ,alford4 #dfe 8,hc non a ,marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis40--,see the rest of ,tischendorf's verdict1 supr1 p4 #aj2 and opposite1 p4 #bde4 #dff ,tregelles' ,account of the ,printed ,text1 p4 #bei4 #dfg ,alford's ,new ,test4 vol4 i4 ,proleg4 p4 #ch and p4 #dcg4 #dfh ,so ,norton1 ,tregelles1 and others4 #dfi ,this suggestion1 which was originally ,griesbach's1 is found in ,alford's ,new ,test4 vol4 i4 p4 #dcc1 7ed4 #ahfh47--,see above1 p4 #ab4 ,the italics are not mine4 #dgj ,vide supr1 p4 #aj4 #dga ,opp4 vol4 iii4 p4 #fga4 #dgb ,eusebius ,eccl4 ,hist4 iv4 #bh4 ,consider ,rev4 xxii4 #ah1 #ai4 #dgc ,note the remarkable adjuration of ,irenus1 ,opp4 i4 #hba1 preserved by ,eusebius1 lib4 v4 #bj4--,see ,scrivener's ,introduction1 p4 #chc-d4 ,consider the attestations at the end of the account of ,polycarp's martyrdom1 ,,pp4 ,app4 ii4 #fad-f4 #dgd ,allusion is made to the ,gnostics ,basilides and ,valentinus2 especially to the work of ,marcion4 #dge ,scrivener's ,introduction1 pp4 #cha-cia4 #dgf ,see ,chap4 ,,vi4 #dgg ,chap4 ,,ix4 #dgh 8,ad defendendum hunc locum in primis etiam valet mirus ,codicum consensus in vocabulis et loquendi formulis singulis4 ,nam in locis 1 etiam multo brevioribus1 quo plures sunt ,codices1 eo plures quoque sunt varietates4 ,comparetur modo ,act4 xv4 #ah1 ,matth4 viii4 #ac1 et loca similia40--,c4 ,f4 ,matthaei's ,nov4 ,test4 7#aghh7 vol4 ii4 p4 #bga4 #dgi ,speaking of the abrupt termination of the second ,gospel at ver4 #h1 ,dr4 ,tregelles asks1--8,would this have been transmitted as a fact by good witnesses1 if there had not been real grounds for regarding it to be true80--7,printed ,text1 p4 #beg47 ,certainly not1 we answer4 ,but where are the 8good witnesses0 of the 8transmitted fact80 ,there is not so much as one4 #dhj ,see above1 pp4 #hf-ij4 #dha ,see ,chap4 ,,iii4 #dhb ,see above1 ,chap4 ,,iii4 and ,,iv4 #dhc 8,habent periocham hanc ,codices ,grci1 si unum b excipias1 omnes40 7,scholz1 adopting the statement of ,griesbach47--,see above1 p4 #gj4 #dhd ,see above1 ,chap4 ,x4 #dhe ,see above1 pp4 #ff-fh4 #dhf ,see above1 pp4 #da to #ea3 also ,appendix 7,b74 #dhg ,the reader is referred to ,mai's ,nov4 ,,pp4 ,bibl4 vol4 iv4 p4 #bfb1 line #ab3 p4 #bfd line #bh3 p4 #cja1 line #c-d1 and #f-h4 #dhh ,see above1 p4 #fd-e3 also ,appendix 7,e74 #dhi ,p4 #fh and note 7d72 p4 #aai and note 7m74 #dij ,p4 #ea-g4 #dia ,p4 #eg-i4 #dib ,p4 #ei-ff4 #dic ,p4 #aad-abe4 #did ,p4 #fh-i4 #die ,chap4 ,,vi4 #dif ,see above1 pp4 #hf to #hh4 #dig ,will it be believed that ,tischendorf accordingly rejects that verse also as spurious2 and brings the fourth ,gospel to an end at ver4 #bd1 as he brings the second ,gospel to an end at ver4 #h8 ,for my own part1--having 7through the kindness and liberality of the ,keeper of the ,imperial ,,mss4 at ,s4 ,petersburg1 aided by the good offices of my friend1 the ,rev4 ,a4 ,s4 ,thompson1 ,chaplain at ,s4 ,petersburg17 obtained a photograph of the last page of ,s4 ,john's ,gospel1--,i must be allowed altogether to call in question the accuracy of ,dr4 ,tischendorf's judgment in this particular4 ,the utmost which can be allowed is that the ,scribe may have possibly changed his pen1 or been called away from his task1 just before bringing the fourth ,gospel to a close4 #dih ,see ,chap4 ,,ix4 #dii ,chapter ,x4 #ejj ,pseudo-,gregory ,thaumaturgus1 ,pseudo-,basil1 ,patricius1 and ,marius ,mercator1 are designedly omitted in this enumeration4 #eja ,codex ,a1-- at the end of the ,psalms4 #ejb ,the old ,latin ,interpreter of ,origen's ,commentary on ,s4 ,matthew seems to have found in ,origen's text a quotation from ,s4 ,luke ii4 #ad which is not represented in the extant ,greek text of ,origen4 ,here also we are presented with 8hominibus bonae voluntatis40 7,opp4 iii4 #ecg ,c74 ,we can say nothing to such second-hand evidence4 #ejc ,consider his exactly similar method concerning ,eph4 i4 #a4 7,supr1 pp4 #if-ii47 #ejd ,from the ,rev4 ,professor ,bosworth4 #eje ,vid4 supr1 p4 #bcc4 #ejf ,p4,s4 ,i avail myself of this blank space to introduce a passage from ,,theophylact 7,a4,d4 #ajgg7 which should have obtained notice in a much earlier page3-- 2 1 2 4 7 27 7 1 1 17 2 ,opp4 vol4 i4 p4 #bfc ,c4 ,it must be superfluous to point out that ,theophylact also1--like ,victor1 ,jerome1 and ,hesychius1--is here only reproducing ,eusebius4 ,see above1 p4 #ff1 note 7c74 #ejg ,kollar1 7editing ,lambecius1--iii4 #aei1 #aad17 expresses the same opinion4--,huet 7,origeniana1 lib4 iii4 c4 #d1 pp4 #bgd-e17 has a brief and unsatisfactory dissertation on the same subject2 but he arrives at a far shrewder conclusion4 #ejh ,the copies which ,i have seen1 are headed1-- 7sometimes 7 2 or with words precisely to that effect4 ,very often no ,author's name is given4 ,rarely is the ,commentary assigned to ,cyril1 ,origen1 c4--,vide infr1 ,no4 iii1 xii1 xiv1 xix1 xlviii4 ,also1 ,no4 xlvii 7comp1 xxviii47 #eji ,victoris ,antiocheni in ,marcum1 et ,titi ,bostrorum ,episcopi in ,evangelium ,lucae commentarii2 ante hac quidem nunquam in lucem editi1 nunc vero studio et oper ,theodori ,peltani luce simul et ,latinitate donati4 ,ingolstadt4 #aehj1 #hvo4 pp4 #eaj4 #eaj 8,ex hoc ego1 quasi metallo triplici1 una conflata massa1 inde annulos formavi1 quos singulos ,evangelici contextus articulis aptatos1 inter seque morsu ac nexu mutuo commissos1 in torquem producerem1 quo1 si possem consequi1 sancto ,evangelistae ,marco decus et ornamentum adderetur40--,prfatio3 from which the particulars in the text are obtained4 #eaa 3 ex ,codd4 ,mosqq4 edidit ,c4 ,f4 ,matthi1 ,mosquae1 #agge4 #eab ,p4 xxvii-xxviii4 #eac ,to understand what is alluded to1 the reader should compare the upper and the lower half of p4 #ddb in ,cramer3 noting that he has one and the same annotation before him2 but diversely exhibited4 7,the lower part of the page is taken from ,cod4 #agh47 ,besides transposing the sentences1 the author of ,cod4 #agh has suppressed the reference to ,chrysostom1 and omitted the name of ,apolinarius in line #aj4 7,compare ,field's ed4 of ,chrys4 iii4 #ebi1 top of the page47 #ead ,thus the two notes on p4 #ddj are found substantially to agree with the note on p4 #dda1 which ,chrys4 p4 #ebg4 ,see also infr1 p4 #bhi4 #eae ,let any one1 with ,mai's edition of the 8,quaestiones ad ,marinum0 of ,eusebius before him1 note how mercilessly they are abridged1 mutilated1 amputated by subsequent writers4 ,compare for instance p4 #beg with ,cramer's 8,catenae10 i4 p4 #bea-b2 and this again with the 8,catena in ,joannem0 of ,corderius1 p4 #ddh-i4 #eaf ,with whom1 ,reg4 #agg and #gjc agree4 #eag p4 #bfc1 line #c to #ac1 and in ,possinus1 p4 #d4 #eah ,eusebius is again quoted at p4 #ddd1 and referred to at p4 #dde 7line #bc-e74 ,see especially p4 #ddf4 #eai ,what is found at p4 #cad 7on ,s4 ,mark v4 #a17 is a famous place4 7,cf4 ,huet's ed4 ii4 #aca47 ,compare also ,victor's first note on i4 #g with the same edit4 of ,origen1 ii4 #abe ,c1 ,d1--which ,victor is found to have abridged4 ,compare the last note on p4 #cdf with ,orig4 i4 #bhd ,a4 ,note1 that 1 7foot of p4 #dbg7 is also ,origen4 ,cf4 ,possinus1 p4 #cbd4 #ebj ,see pp4 #djh1 #dah1 #ddb4 #eba e4g4 the first note on p4 #caa2 7comp4 ,possinus1 p4 #ie73 and the last note on p4 #cbc2 7comp4 ,poss4 p4 #abc47 ,compare also ,cramer1 p4 #cie 7line #af-bb7 with ,poss4 p4 #bdi4--;,i observe that part of a note on p4 #cae is ascribed by ,possinus 7p4 #ajb7 to ,athanasius3 while a scholium at p4 #cba and p4 #cei1 has no owner4 #ebb e4g4 p4 #djh1 #daa 7twice74 #ebc ,in p4 #dah1-- 4 ,for instances of quotation from ,chrysostom1 comp4 ,v4 ,a4 p4 #cae with ,chrys4 pp4 #cih-i3 p4 #cgf with ,chrys4 pp4 #bbg-h3 p4 #dbj with ,chrys4 p4 #ddg1 c4 #ebd ,take for example ,victor's ,commentary on the stilling of the storm 7pp4 #cab-c71 which is merely an abridged version of the first part of ,chrysostom's #bhth ,homily on ,s4 ,matthew 7pp4 #cie-h72 about #de lines being left out4 ,observe ,victor's method however4 ,chrysostom begins as follows3-- 1 1 4 7,then follows ,s4 ,luke viii4 #bb47 4 2 4 ,victor1 because he had ,s4 ,mark 7not ,s4 ,matthew7 to comment upon1 begins thus3-- 1 1 2 2 4 #ebe e4g4 ,v4 ,a4 p4 #dbb 7from to 7 ,chrys4 p4 #dfj4 ,observe the next paragraph also1 7p4 #dbc17 begins1 4--,so again1 ,v4 ,a4 pp4 #dbf-g ,chrys4 pp4 #dgc-f3 where 1 at the foot of p4 #dbg introduces a quotation from ,origen1 as appears from ,possinus1 p4 #cbd--,see also p4 #bji1 line #a1--which is from ,chrys4 p4 #acj1-- being the next words4--,the first three lines in p4 #caf ,chrys4 p4 #cii4 ,then follows1 4 ,see also pp4 #cib3 #djg 7 -- 73 pp4 #dae and #dcc4 ,after quoting ,eusebius by name 7p4 #ddf-g71 ,victor says 7line #c7 4 #ebf e4g4 ,v4 ,a4 p4 #dbj line #ae1 which ,chrys4 p4 #ddg4 #ebg e4g4 ,theod4 ,mops41 7p4 #dad17 which name is absent from ,cod4 ,reg4 #bja3--;,basil1 7p4 #cgj7 whose name ,possinus does not seem to have read3--,cyril's name1 which ,possinus found in a certain place 7p4 #caa71 is not mentioned in ,laud4 ,gr4 #cc fol4 #ajj b1 at top1 c4 #ebh ,so in the ,catena of ,corderius1 in ,s4 ,joannem1 p4 #cjb4 #ebi ,i believe it will be found that ,cod4 ,reg4 #ahf corresponds exactly with ,cod4 ,reg4 #ahh3 also that the contents of ,cod4 ,reg4 #bja correspond with those of ,cod4 ,reg4 #bjf2 to which last two1 ,i believe is to be added ,cod4 ,reg4 #ahg4 #ecj ,note1 that this recurs at fol4 #ade of a ,codex at ,moscow numbered #chd in the ,syr4 ,cat4 #eca ,catalogue ,librorum ,,mss4 ,lips4 #ahcj1 #dto4 p4 #fef b4 #ecb ,reg4 #agg ,a3 #agh ,b3 #bcj ,c4--,coisl4 #ai ,d3 #bj ,e3 #ba ,f3 #bb ,g3 #bd ,h4--,matthaei's d or ,d ,i3 his e or ,e ,j3 his #ab ,k3 his a or ,a ,l4--,vat4 #ceh ,m3 #gef ,n3 #geg ,o3 #abbi ,p3 #addf ,q4--,vind4 ,koll4 #d ,forlos4 #e ,r4--,xav4 de ,zelada ,s4--,laur4 #ah ,t3 #cd ,u4--,venet4 #bg ,v4--,vind4 ,lamb4 #ch ,w 3 #ci ,x4 #ecc ,so ,b-,e 7which ,i chiefly follow7 begins1-- 4 #ecd ,b begins thus1-- 4 ,it is at this word 77 that most copies of the present scholion 7,a1 ,c1 ,d1 ,f1 ,g1 ,h1 ,i1 ,j1 ,k1 ,l1 ,m1 ,n1 ,o1 ,p1 ,q1 ,r1 ,s1 ,t1 ,u1 ,v1 ,w1 ,x7 begin4 #ece ,so far 7except in its opening phrase7 ,e4 ,but ,c1 ,d1 ,f1 ,h1 ,i1 ,j1 ,k1 ,l1 ,m1 ,n1 ,o1 ,p1 ,t1 begin1-- ,i1 3 ,j1 ,m1 ,o1 ,t om4 ,d1 ,f1 ,h om4 ,b1 4 #ecf ,so ,i1 ,j1 ,k1 ,l1 and ,h4 ,p proceeds1-- 4 ,but ,b1 ,c1 ,d1 ,e1 ,f1 ,g1 ,m1 ,n1 ,o1 ,t exhibit1-- ,b om4 4 ,on the other hand1 ,a and ,q begin and proceed as follows1-- ,q om4 ,a om4 ,q1 7a clerical error73 ,a om4 4 #ecg ,so ,b1 except that it omits 4 ,so also1 ,a1 ,d1 ,e1 ,f1 ,g1 ,h1 ,j1 ,m1 ,n1 ,o1 ,p1 ,q1 ,t1 except that they begin the sentence1 4 #ech ,so ,d1 ,e1 ,f1 ,g1 ,h1 ,j1 ,m1 ,n1 ,o1 ,p1 ,t3 also ,b and ,q1 except that they prefix to 4 ,b is peculiar in reading1-- 7transposing 73 while ,c and ,p read1-- 4 #eci ,so all1 apparently3 except that ,p reads for 2 and ,m1 after inserts 1 with a point 747 before 3 while ,c and ,p 7after 17 proceed1-- ,c1 4 4 ,but ,j and ,i think1 ,h 7after 7 proceeds1-- 4 4 #edj ,so ,b4 ,all1 except ,b1 ,c1 ,h1 ,j1 ,p seem to end at 4 #eda e4g4 for 4 #edb ,jerome evidently supposed that ,ammonius was the author of the ,canons as well3--8,canones quos ,eusebius ,caesariensis ,episcopus ,alexandrinum secutus ,ammonium in decem numeros ordinavit1 sicut in ,graeco habentur expressimus40 7,ad ,papam ,damasum4 ,epist47 ,and again3 8,ammonius 444 ,evangelicos ,canones excogitavit quos postea secutus est ,eusebius ,caesariensis40 7,de ,viris ,illustr4 c4 #ee ,opp4 ii4 #hha47--,see above1 p4 #abh4 #edc ,there was published at the ,university ,press in #ahje1 a handsome quarto volume 7pp4 #baf7 entitled ,harmonia quatuor ,evangeliorum juxta ,sectiones ,ammonianas et ,eusebii ,canones4 ,it is merely the contents of the ,x ,canons of ,eusebius printed in extenso1--and of course is no 8,harmony0 at all4 ,it would have been a really useful book1 notwithstanding2 but that the editor1 strange to say1 has omitted to number the sections4 #edd ,this last according to ,tischendorf's ed4 of the ,eusebian ,canons4 #ede ,thus1 certain disputed passages of importance are proved to have been recognised at least by ,eusebius4 ,our ,,lord',s ,agony in the ,garden for instance1 7,s4 ,luke xxii4 #dc1 #dd--wanting in ,cod4 ,b17 is by him numbered #bhc3 and that often rejected verse1 ,s4 ,mark xv4 #bh1 he certainly numbered #baf1--whatever ,tischendorf may say to the contrary4 7,see p4 #bjc47 #edf ,it is obvious to suggest that1 7#a7 whereas our ,marginal ,references follow the order of the ,sacred ,books1 they ought rather to stand in the order of their importance1 or at least of their relevancy to the matter in hand3--and that1 7#b7 actual ,quotations1 and even ,allusions to other parts of ,scripture when they are undeniable1 should be referred to in some distinguishing way4 ,it is also certain that1 7#c7 to a far greater extent than at present1 sets of ,references might be kept together2 not scattered about in small parcels over the whole ,book4--,above all1 7as the point most pertinent to the present occasion17 7#d7 it is to be wished that strictly parallel places in the ,gospels might be distinguished from those which are illustrative only1 or are merely recalled by their similarity of subject or expression4 ,all this would admit of interesting and useful illustration4 ,while on this subject1 let me ask1--,why is it no longer possible to purchase a ,bible with ,references to the ,apocrypha8 ,who does not miss the reference to 8,ecclus4 xliii4 #aa1 #ab0 at ,gen4 ix4 #ad8 ,who can afford to do without the reference to 8#a ,macc4 iv4 #ei0 at ,s4 ,john x4 #bb8 #edg ,mai1 vol4 iv4 p4 #bhg4 ,see also p4 #bic4 #edh ,tischendorf says #ai only4 #edi ,tischendorf says #if only4 #eej ,tischendorf says #ac only4 #eea ,scrivener specifics the following ,codd4 ,c1 ,f1 ,h1 ,i1 ,p1 ,q1 ,r1 ,w#f1 ,y1 ,z1 #ed1 #ei1 #fj1 #fh1 #ddj1 iscr1 sscr4 ,also ,d and ,k4 7,cod4 ,bez1 p4 xx1 and ,introd4 pp4 #ea1 #b47 ,add ,evan4 #aag3 7but ,i think not #bfc47 #eeb ,scrivener's ,introduction1 pp4 #ea and #eb3 ,cod4 ,bez1 p4 xx4 note #b4 #eec ,evan4 #bfc1 for instance1 has certainly blank ,eusebian ,tables at the beginning3 the frame only4 #eed ,see ,scrivener's ,introduction1 p4 #ea 7note #b71--where ,tregelles 7in ,horne's ,introd4 iv4 #bjj7 is quoted4 #eee e4g4 ,codd4 ,m1 #bfb and #bfd4 7,i saw at least one other at ,paris1 but ,i have not preserved a record of the number47 ,to these1 ,tregelles adds ,e2 7,scrivener's ,introduction1 p4 #ea1 note #b47 ,scrivener adds ,w1 and ,tischendorf ,t1 7,scrivener's ,cod4 ,bezae1 p4 xx47 #eef ,the order of these monograms requires explanation4 #eeg ,addit4 ,,mss4 #ad1ddi3 #ad1dej1 and #a1 and #b1 and #d1 and #f1 and #g1 and #h3 #ad1dfc1 and #i3 #ag1aac4 7,dr4 ,wright's ,catalogue1 #dto4 #ahgj47 ,also ,rich4 #g1aeg4 ,the reader is referred to ,assemani2 and to ,adler1 p4 #eb-c3 also p4 #fc4 #eeh 8,dawkins #c40 ,see ,dean ,payne ,smith's ,catalogue1 p4 #gb4 #eei ,it will be observed that1 according to the ,syrian scheme1 every verse of ,s4 ,mark xvi1 from ver4 #h to ver4 #ae inclusive1 constitutes an independent section 7 #bha-bhh73 ver4 #af-ah another 7 #bhi72 and verr4 #ai-bj1 another 7 #bij71 which is the last4 ,the ,greek scheme1 as a rule1 makes independent sections of verr4 #h1 #i1 #ad1 #ai1 #bj2 but throws together ver4 #aj-aa3 #ab-ac3 #ae-af3 #ag-ah4 7,vide infr1 p4 #caa47 #efj ,note that #cib_/i ,s4 ,luke xxiv4 #ab3 #cid_/aj ver4 #ah-cd3 #cie_/h ver4 #ce3 #cif_/i is incomplete4 ,dr4 ,wright supplies the lacune for me1 thus3 #cif_/i ver4 #cf-da 7down to 73 #cig_/i down to the end of ver4 #da3 #cih_/i ver4 #db3 #cii_/i ver4 #dc3 #djj_/aj ver4 #dd-ej3 #dja_/h #ea3 #djb_/aj ver4 #eb1 #c4 ,critical readers will be interested in comparing1 or rather contrasting1 the ,sectional system of a ,syriac ,,ms4 with that which prevails in all ,greek ,codices4 ,s4 ,john's #bdh_/a xx4 #ah3 his #bdi_/i ver4 #ai to in ver4 #ba3 his #bej_/g ver4 #ba 7 to the end of the verse73 his #bea_/aj ver4 #bb3 his #beb_/g ver4 #bc3 his #bec_/aj ver4 #bd-e3 his #bed_/i ver4 #bf-g3 his #bee_/aj ver4 #bh to the end of xxi4 #d3 his #bef_/i xxi4 #e3 his #beg_/i xxi4 #f 7to 73 his #beh_/i ver4 #f1 7 to the end73 his #bei_/aj ver4 #g1 #h3 his #bfj_/i ver4 #i3 his #bfa_/aj ver4 #aj3 his #bfb_/i ver4 #aa3 his #bfc_/i first half of ver4 #ab3 his #bfd_/aj is incomplete4 ,but ,dr4 ,wright1 7remarking that in his ,,mss41 which are evidently the correcter ones1 #bfc_/aj stands opposite the middle of ver4 #ab 1 and #bfd_/i opposite ver4 #ac 17 proceeds to supply the lacune for me1 thus3 #bfd_/i ver4 #ac3 #bfe_/aj ver4 #ad-e 7down to 2 73 #bff_/i 1 7end of ver4 #ae73 #bfg_/aj ver4 #af 7down to 73 #bfh_/i 1 7end of ver4 #af73 #bfi_/aj ver4 #ag 7down to 73 #bgj_/i 41 4 4 7end of ver4 #ag73 #bga_/aj ver4 #ah to #be4 #efa 8,i have examined for your purposes1 ,add4 #ad1ddi2 #ad1deg2 #ad1deh2 and #g1aeg4 ,the first three are ,nos4 lxix1 lxx1 and lxxi1 in my own ,catalogue3 the last1 a ,nestorian ,,ms41 is ,no4 xiii in the old ,catalogue of ,forshall and ,rosen 7,london1 #ahch74 ,all four agree in their numeration40 #efb ,see the preceding note4--,availing myself of the reference given me by my learned correspondent1 ,i read as follows in the ,catalogue3--8,inter ipsa textus verba1 numeris viridi colore pictis1 notatur ,canon harmoniae ,eusebianae1 ad quem quaevis sectio referenda est4 ,sic1 glyph i4e4 #a indicat canonem in quo omnes ,evangelistae concurrunt10 c4 c4 #efc ,suidas ,a4,d4 #ihj1 by giving #bcf to ,s4 ,mark and #cdh to ,s4 ,luke1 makes the sum of the ,sections in ,greek ,evangelia #a1aga4 #efd ,this sheet was all but out of the printer's hands when the place in vol4 i4 of ,assemani's ,bibliotheca ,medicea1 7fol4 #agdb17 was shewn me by my learned friend1 ,p4 ,e4 ,pusey1 ,esq41 of ,ch4 ,ch4--,dr4 ,wright had already most obligingly and satisfactorily resolved my inquiry from the mutilated fragments of the ,canons1 as well as of the ,epistle to ,carpianus in ,add4 #ag1bac and #ad1dej4 #efe ,dr4 ,tregelles4 7,vide supr1 pp4 #abe-f47 ,and so1 ,tischendorf4 #eff ,the others are #aa1 #ad1 #bb1 #bc1 #bh1 #cb1 #cg1 #dj1 #de1 #eb1 #ih1 #aac1 #aae1 #abg1 #abi1 #acb1 #acc1 #acd1 #acg1 #afi1 #ahf1 #ahh1 #aic1 #aie1 #bfe1 #bfi1 #bgf1 #cga4 ,add4 #ah1baa1 ,cromwell #ae1 ,wake #ab and #bg4 #efg ,the others are #e1 #f1 #i1 #ab1 #ac1 #ae1 #bd1 #bi1 #ed more 81 #fe1 #fh1 #aaa1 #aab1 #aad1 #aah1 #aeg1 #ahc1 #aij1 #bjb1 #bfc1 #bfh1 #bgj1 #bgc1 #bgg1 #bgh1 #bhd1 #bhg1 #bid1 #dad1 #dch1 #dci4 ,rich #g1ada4 ,add4 #ag1gda and #ag1ihb4 ,cromw4 #af4 ,canonici #cf and #aab4 ,wake #ba4 #efh ,viz4 #ahd1 #aib1 #bfd1 hscr1 ,add4 #aa1hcf4 ,ti4 ,wake #bi4 #efi ,the others are #aj1 #bj1 #ba1 #cf1 #di1 #ahg1 #bfb1 #bff1 #cjj1 #cfd4 ,rawl4 #ada4 #egj ,vide supr1 p4 #cc4 ,assemani1 vol4 i4 p4 #bh4 7,comp4 ,adler1 p4 #ec47 ,the others are #h1 #bf1 #gb1 #bii1 #ddg4 ,bodl4 ,miscell4 #ag4 ,wake #cf4 #ega ,the others are #g1 #bg1 #cd1 #ch1 #ci1 #df1 #gd1 #hi1 #aje1 #aaf1 #aag1 #ace1 #agi1 #ahe1 #aid1 #aih1 #bjg1 #bab1 #bfj1 #bfa1 #bfg1 #bge1 #bgi1 #bic1 #cja1 #dde1 kscr4 ,add4 #bb1gdj4 ,wake #bb1 #bd1 #cj2 and #ca in which1 ver4 #bj is numbered ,,cmb4 #egb ,but ,cod4 ,u inserts before 2 and 7at least two of the other ,codices1 viz47 #dh1 #fg read 4 #egc is what we call an 8,annotation40 ,on the sign in the text1 see the ,catalogue of ,,mss4 in the ,turin ,library1 ,p4 i4 p4 #ic4 ,on the word1 and on 1 7consider #b ,thess4 iii4 #ad17 see the interesting remarks of ,huet1 ,origeniana1 iii4 i4 #d4 7at the end of vol4 iv4 of ,origen's ,opp4 p4 #bib-c47--;,eusebius 7,hist4 ,eccl4 v4 #bj7 uses in this sense4 7,see the note of ,valesius47 ,but it is plain from the rendering of ,jerome and ,rufinus 7subscriptio71 that it often denoted a 8signature10 or signing of the name4 ,eusebius so employs the word in lib4 v4 #ai ad fin4 #egd ,he was ,patriarch of ,antioch1 ,a4,d4 #eab-i4--,the extract 7made by ,petrus junior1 ,monophysite ,patriarch of ,antioch1 ,a4,d4 #egh17 purports to be derived from the #bfth ,epistle1 7,book #i17 which ,severus addressed to ,thomas ,bp4 of ,germanicia after his exile4 ,see ,assemani1 ,bibl4 ,orient4 vol4 ii4 pp4 #ha-b4 #ege ,i cannot find the place in ,cyril4 ,i suppose it occurs in a lost ,commentary of this ,father1--whose ,works by the way are miserably indexed4 #egf viz4 the sect of the ,severiani 1 4 4 ,the next words are every way suggestive4 1 4--,eusebius1 ,hist4 ,eccl4 iv4 #bi1 #d4 #egg ,see1 for example1 the readings of ,b or 1 or both1 specified from p4 #hj to p4 #hf4 #egh ,vid4 supr1 p4 #abi1 note 7g47 #egi ,opp4 vol4 i4 p4 #cia ,d4 #ehj ,haeret4 ,fab4 lib4 i4 c4 xx4 7,opp4 iv4 #bjh47 #eha ,clinton1 ,f4 ,r4 ii4 ,appendix1 p4 #dgc1 quoting ,theodoret's 8,ep4 #aac1 p4 #aaij4 al4 vol4 iii4 p4 #ihf-g40 #ehb ,quoted by ,matthaei1 ,n4 ,t4 7#aghh7 vol4 ix4 p4 #bbh1 from g1 a1 d4 #ehc ,ibid41 ii4 #fi1 and ix4 #bbh4 #ehd ,nov4 ,test4 7#ahfi71 p4 #djd4 #ehe ,let the reader examine his 8,quaestio ix10 7,mai1 vol4 iv4 p4 #bic-e73 his 8,quaestio x10 7p4 #bie1 last seven lines74 ,see also p4 #bif1 line #bi-cb4 #ehf ,see ,chrys4 ,opp4 vol4 viii4 p4 #ebb c3-- 1 1 1 4