Chapter XXIV: Appendix: (H) (1)

On the Interpolation of the text of CODEX B and CODEX א at S.
MATTHEW xxvii. 48 or 49.

(Referred to at pp. 202 and 219.)

It is well known that our two oldest Codices, Cod. B and Cod. א, (see above, p. 80,) exhibit S. Matthew xxvii. 49, as follows. After σωσων [_Cod. Sinait._ σωσαι] αυτον, they read:—

(COD. B.) αλλος δε λαβω λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πνευραν και εξηλ θεν υδωρ και αιμα

(COD. א.) αλλος δε λαβων λογχη ενυξεν αυτου ΤΗ πνευραν και εξηλ θεν υδωρ και αι μα

Then comes, ο δε ΙΣ παλιν κραξας κ.τ.λ. The same is also the reading of Codd. C, L, U, Γ: and it is known to recur in the following cursives,—5, 48, 67, 115, 127.(572)

Obvious is it to suspect with Matthaei, (ed. 1803, vol. i. p. 158,) that it was the Lectionary practice of the Oriental Church which occasioned this interpolation. In S. John xix. 34 occurs the well-known record,—ἀλλ᾽ εἶς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξε, καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ: and it was the established practice of the Easterns, in the Ecclesiastical lection for Good Friday, (viz. S. Matth. xxvii. 1-61,) _to interpose S. John_ xix. 31 _to_ 37 between the 54th and the 55th verses of S. Matthew. This will be found alluded to above, at p. 202 and again at pp. 218-9.

After the pages just quoted were in type, while examining Harl. MS. 5647 in the British Museum, (_our_ Evan. 72,) I alighted on the following Scholion, which I have since found that Wetstein duly published; but which has certainly not attracted the attention it deserves, and which is incorrectly represented as referring to the end of S. Matth. xxvii. 49. It is _against ver._ 48 that there is written in the margin,—

(Η(573) Ὅτι εἰς τὸ καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διαδώρου καὶ Τατιανοῦ καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων: τοῦτο πρόσκειται:

(Η Ἄλλος δὲ λαβών: λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πνευρὰν. καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα: τοῦτο λέγει καὶ ὁ Χρυσόστομος.

This writer is perfectly correct in his statement. In Chrysostom’s 88th Homily on S. Matthew’s Gospel, (_Opp._ vii, 825 C: [vol. ii, p. 526, _ed._ Field.]) is read as follows:—Ἐνόμισαν Ἠλίαν εἶναι, φησὶ, τὸν καλούμενον, καὶ εὐθέως ἐπότισαν αὐτὸν ὄξος: (which is clearly meant to be a summary of the contents _of ver._ 48: then follows) ἕτερος δὲ προσελθών λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τῆν πλευρὰν ἔνυξε. (Chrysostom quotes no further, but proceeds,—Τί γένοιτ ἄν τούτων παρανομώτερον, τί δὲ θηριωδέστερον, κ.τ.λ.)

I find it impossible on a review of the evidence to adhere to the opinion I once held, and have partially expressed above, (viz. at p. 202,) that the Lectionary-practice of the Eastern Church was the occasion of this corrupt reading in our two oldest uncials. A corrupt reading it undeniably is; and the discredit of exhibiting it, Codd. B, א, (not to say Codd. C, L, U, Γ,) must continue to sustain. That Chrysostom and Cyril also employed Codices disfigured by this self-same blemish, is certain. It is an interesting and suggestive circumstance. Nor is this all. Severus(574) relates that between A.D. 496 and 511, being at Constantinople, he had known this very reading strenuously discussed: whereupon had been produced a splendid copy of S. Matthew’s Gospel, traditionally said to have been found with the body of the Apostle Barnabas in the Island of Cyprus in the time of the Emperor Zeno (A.D. 474-491); and preserved in the palace with superstitious veneration in consequence. It contained no record of the piercing of the SAVIOUR’S side: nor (adds Severus) does any ancient Interpreter mention the transaction in that place,—except Chrysostom and _Cyril of Alexandria_; into whose Commentaries it has found its way.—Thus, to Codices B, א, C and the copy familiarly employed by Chrysostom, has to be added the copy which Cyril of Alexandria(575) employed; as well as evidently sundry other Codices extant at Constantinople about A.D. 500. That the corruption of the text of S. Matthew’s Gospel under review is ancient therefore, and was once very widely spread, is certain. The question remains,—and this is the only point to be determined,—How did it _originate_?

Now it must be candidly admitted, that if the strange method of the Lectionaries already explained, (viz. of interposing seven verses of S. John’s xixth chapter [ver. 31-7] between the 54th and 55th verses of S. Matth. xxvii,) really were the occasion of this interpolation of S. John xix. 34 after S. Matth. xxvii. 48 or 49,—two points would seem to call for explanation which at present remain unexplained: First, (1) Why does _only that one verse_ find place in the interpolated copies? And next, (2) How does it come to pass that _that_ one verse is exhibited in so very depraved and so peculiar a form?

For, to say nothing of the inverted order of the two principal words, (which is clearly due to 1 S. John v. 6,) let it be carefully noted that the substitution of ἄλλος δὲ λαβών λόγχην, for ἀλλ᾽ εἶς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ of the Evangelist, is a tell-tale circumstance. The turn thus licentiously given to the narrative clearly proceeded from some one who was bent on weaving incidents related by different writers into a connected narrative, and who was sometimes constrained to take liberties with his Text in consequence. (Thus, S. Matthew having supplied the fact that “ONE OF THEM ran, and _took a sponge_, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink,” S. John is made to say, “AND ANOTHER—_took a spear_.”) Now, this is exactly what Tatian is related by Eusebius to have done: viz. “after some fashion of his own, to have composed out of the four Gospels one connected narrative.”(576)

When therefore, (as in the present Scholion,) an ancient Critic who appears to have been familiarly acquainted with the lost “Diatessaron” of Tatian, comes before us with the express declaration that in that famous monument of the primitive age (A.D. 173), S. John’s record of the piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side was thrust into S. Matthew’s History of the Passion in this precise way and in these very terms,—(for, “Note,” he says, “That into the Evangelical History of Diodorus, of Tatian, and of divers other holy Fathers, is introduced [here] the following addition: ‘And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out Water and Blood.’ This, Chrysostom also says”),—it is even unreasonable to seek for any other explanation of the vitiated text of our two oldest Codices. Not only is the testimony to the critical fact abundantly sufficient, but the proposed solution of the difficulty, in itself the reverse of improbable, is in the highest degree suggestive as well as important. For,—May we not venture to opine that the same καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον,—as this Writer aptly designates Tatian’s work,—is responsible for not a few of the _monstra potius quam variae lectiones_(577) which are occasionally met with in the earliest MSS. of all? And,—Am I not right in suggesting that the circumstance before us is _the only thing we know for certain_ about the text of Tatian’s (miscalled) “Harmony?”

To conclude.—That the “Diatessaron” of Tatian, (for so, according to Eusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled it,) has long since disappeared, no one now doubts.(578) That Eusebius himself, (who lived 150 years after the probable date of its composition,) had never seen it, may I suppose be inferred from the terms in which he speaks of it. Jerome does not so much as mention its existence. Epiphanius, who is very full and particular concerning the heresy of Tatian, affords no indication that he was acquainted with his work. On the contrary. “The Diatessaron Gospel,” (he remarks in passing,) “which some call the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is said to have been the production of this writer.”(579) The most interesting notice we have of Tatian’s work is from the pen of Theodoret. After explaining that Tatian the Syrian, originally a Sophist, and next a disciple of Justin Martyr [A.D. 150], after Justin’s death aspired to being a heretical leader,—(statements which are first found in Irenæus,)—Theodoret enumerates his special tenets. “This man” (he proceeds) “put together the so-called _Diatessaron Gospel_,—from which he cut away the genealogies, and whatever else shews that the LORD was born of the seed of David. The book was used not only by those who favoured Tatian’s opinions, but by the orthodox as well; who, unaware of the mischievous spirit in which the work had been executed, in their simplicity used the book as an epitome. _I myself found upwards of two hundred such copies honourably preserved in the Churches of this place_,” (Cyrus in Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made Bishop, A.D. 423,)—“all of which I collected together, and put aside; substituting the Gospels of the Four Evangelists in their room.”(580)

The diocese of Theodoret (he says) contained eight hundred Parishes.(581) It cannot be thought surprising that a work of which copies had been multiplied to such an extraordinary extent, and which was evidently once held in high esteem, should have had _some_ influence on the text of the earliest Codices; and here, side by side with a categorical statement as to one of its licentious interpolations, we are furnished with documentary proof that many an early MS. also was infected with the same taint. To assume that the two phenomena stand related to one another in the way of cause and effect, seems to be even an inevitable proceeding.

I will not prolong this note by inquiring concerning the “Diodorus” of whom the unknown author of this scholion speaks: but I suppose it was _that_ Diodorus who was made Bishop of Tarsus in A.D. 378. He is related to have been the preceptor of Chrysostom; was a very voluminous writer; and, among the rest, according to Suidas, wrote a work “on the Four Gospels.”

Lastly,—How about the singular introduction _into the Lection for Good-Friday_ of this incident of the piercing of the REDEEMER’S side? Is it allowable to conjecture that, indirectly, the Diatessaron of Tatian may have been the occasion of that circumstance also; as well as of certain other similar phenomena in the Evangeliaria?

POSTSCRIPT.

(PROMISED AT p. 51.)

I proceed to fulfil the promise made at p. 51.—C.F. Matthaei (_Nov. Test._, 1788, vol. iii. p. 269) states that in one of the MSS. at Moscow occurs the following “Scholion of EUSEBIUS:—κατὰ Μάρκον μετὰ τῆν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς.” On this, Griesbach remarks (_Comm. Crit._ ii. 200),—“quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset:” the record in S. Mark xvi. 14, being express,—Ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη. The epigrammatic smartness of Griesbach’s dictum has recommended it to Dr. Tregelles and others who look unfavourably on the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel; and to this hour the Scholion of Matthaei remains unchallenged.

But to accept the proposed inference from it, is impossible. It ought to be obvious to every thoughtful person that problems of this class will not bear to be so handled. It is as if one were to apply the rigid mathematical method to the ordinary transactions of daily life, for which it is clearly unsuitable. Before we move a single step, however, we desire a few more particulars concerning this supposed evidence of Eusebius.

Accordingly, I invoked the good offices of my friend, the Rev. W. G. Penny, English Chaplain at Moscow, to obtain for me _the entire context_ in which this “Scholion of Eusebius” occurs: little anticipating the trouble I was about to give him. His task would have been comparatively easy had I been able to furnish him (which I was not) with the exact designation of the Codex required. At last by sheer determination and the display of no small ability, he discovered the place, and sent me a tracing of the whole page: viz. fol. 286 (the last ten words being overleaf) of Matthaei’s “12,” (“Synod. 139,”) our EVAN. 255.

It proves to be the concluding portion of Victor’s Commentary, and to correspond with what is found at p. 365 of Possinus, and p. 446-7 of Cramer: except that after the words “ἀποκυλίσειε τὸν λίθον,” and before the words “ἄλλος δέ φησιν” [Possinus, _line_ 12 _from bottom_: Cramer, _line_ 3 _from the top_], is read as follows:—

οχολ εὐσεβίου

κατὰ Μάρκον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὦφθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς: κατὰ Ματθαῖον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.

κατὰ Ἰωάννην: ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὁ Ἰησοῦς μέσος τῶν μαθητῶν μὴ παρόντος τοῦ Θωμᾶ ἔστη; καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας πάλιν ὀκτὼ συμπαρόντος καὶ τοῦ Θωμᾶ. μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς θαλασσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος.

κατὰ Λουκᾶν: ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως: καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ὤφθη τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ συνηγμένων τῶν λοιπῶν μαθητῶν: καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι: καὶ πάλιν ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν καὶ διέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν.

But surely no one who considers the matter attentively, will conceive that he is warranted in drawing from this so serious an inference as that Eusebius disallowed the last Section of S. Mark’s Gospel.

(1.) In the first place, we have already [_suprà_, p. 44] heard Eusebius elaborately discuss the Section in question. That he allowed it, is therefore _certain_.

(2.) But next, this σχόλιον εὐσεβίου at the utmost can only be regarded as a general summary of what Eusebius has somewhere delivered concerning our LORD’S appearances after His Resurrection. _As it stands_, it clearly is not the work of Eusebius.

(3.) And because I shall be reminded that such a statement cannot be accepted on my own mere “ipse dixit,” I proceed to subjoin the original Scholion of which the preceding is evidently only an epitome. It is found in three of the Moscow MSS., (our Evan. 239, 259, 237,) but without any Author’s name:—

Δεικνὺς δὲ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐκέτι συνεχῶς αὐτοῖς συνῆν, λέγει, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον _τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη_ ὁ Κύριος _μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν;_ οὐ τοῦτο λέγων, ὅτι μόνον τρίτον, ἀλλὰ τὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις παραλελειμμένα λέγων, τοῦτο ἤδη πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις τρίτον ἐφανερώθη τοῖς μαθηταῖς. _κατὰ_ μὲν γὰρ τὸν _Ματθαῖον,_ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς _ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαιᾳ_ μόνον; _κατὰ_ δὲ τὸν _Ἰωάννην, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων, μέσος_ αὐτῶν _ἔστη_ ὄντων ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, _μὴ παρόντος_ ἐκει Θωμᾶ. καὶ πάλιν μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, παρόντος καὶ _τοῦ Θωμᾶ,_ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς, ἤδη κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν. _μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς,_ ού τοῖς ΙΑ ἀλλὰ μόνοις ζ. _κατὰ_ δὲ _Λουκᾶν ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ, αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν, ὤφθη Σίμωνι. καὶ πάλιν ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν,_ ὅτε _καὶ διέστη_ ἀναληφθεὶς _ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν;_ ὡς ἐκ τοῦτου παρίστασθαι ζ. εἶναι τοὺς μαθητὰς μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν γεγονυίας ὀπτασίας τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. μίαν μὲν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, τρεῖς δὲ παρὰ τῷ Ἰώαννῃ, καὶ τρεῖς τῷ Λουκᾷ ὁμοίως.(582)

(4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here,—the _only_ thing in fact which I am concerned to point out,—is the notable circumstance that the supposed dictum of Eusebius,—(“quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset,”)—_is no longer discoverable_. To say that “it has disappeared,” would be incorrect. In the original document _it has no existence_. In plain terms, the famous “σχόλιον εὐσεβίου” proves to be every way a figment. It is a worthless interpolation, thrust by some nameless scribe into his abridgement of a Scholion, of which Eusebius (as I shall presently shew) _cannot_ have been the Author.

(5.) I may as well point out _why_ the person who wrote the longer Scholion says nothing about S. Mark’s Gospel. It is because there was nothing for him to say. He is enumerating our LORD’S _appearances to His Disciples_ after His Resurrection; and he discovers that these were exactly seven in number: _one_ being peculiar to S. Matthew,—_three_, to S. John,—_three_, to S. Luke. But because, (as every one is aware), there exists _no_ record of an appearance to the Disciples _peculiar_ to S. Mark’s Gospel, the Author of the Scholion is silent concerning S. Mark _perforce_.... How so acute and accomplished a Critic as Matthaei can have overlooked all this: how he can have failed to recognise the identity of his longer and his shorter Scholion: how he came to say of the latter, “conjicias ergo Eusebium hunc totum locum repudiasse;” and, of the former, “ultimam partem Evangelii Marci videtur tollere:”(583) lastly, how Tischendorf (1869) can write,—“est enim ejusmodi ut ultimam partem evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, excludat:”(584)—I profess myself unable to understand.

(6.) The epitomizer however, missing the point of his Author,—besides enumerating _all_ the appearances of our SAVIOUR which S. Luke anywhere records,—is further convicted of having injudiciously _invented_ the negative statement about S. Mark’s Gospel which is occasioning us all this trouble.

(7.) And yet, by that unlucky sentence of his, he certainly did not mean what is commonly imagined. I am not concerned to defend him: but it is only fair to point out that, to suppose he intended _to disallow the end of S. Mark’s Gospel_, is altogether to misapprehend the gist of his remarks, and to impute to him a purpose of which he clearly knew nothing. Note, how he throws his first two statements into a separate paragraph; contrasts, and evidently _balances_ one against the other: thus,—

κατὰ Μάρκον, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι,—κατὰ Ματθαῖον μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ὤφθη,—τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.

Perfectly evident is it that the “plena locutio” so to speak, of the Writer would have been somewhat as follows:—

“[The first two Evangelists are engaged with our SAVIOUR’S appearance to His Disciples _in Galilee_: but] by S. Mark, He is _not_—by S. Matthew, He _is_—related to have been actually _seen_ by them there.

“[The other two Evangelists relate the appearances _in Jerusalem_: and] according to S. John, &c. &c.

“According to S. Luke,” &c. &c.

(8.) And on passing the “Quaestiones ad Marinum” of Eusebius under review, I am constrained to admit that the Scholion before us is just such a clumsy bit of writing as an unskilful person might easily be betrayed into, who should attempt to exhibit in a few short sentences the substance of more than one tedious disquisition of this ancient Father.(585) Its remote parentage would fully account for its being designated “σχόλιον εὐσεβίου” all the same.

(9.) Least of all am I concerned to say anything more about the longer Scholion; seeing that S. Mark is not so much as mentioned in it. But I may as well point out that, _as it stands_, Eusebius cannot have been its Author: the proof being, that whereas the Scholion in question is a note on S. John xxi. 12, (as Matthaei is careful to inform us,)—its opening sentence is derived _from Chrysostom’s Commentary on that same verse_ in his 87th Homily on S. John.(586)

(10.) And thus, one by one, every imposing statement of the Critics is observed hopelessly to collapse as soon as it is questioned, and to vanish into thin air.

So much has been offered, only because of the deliberate pledge I gave in p. 51.—Never again, I undertake to say, will the “Scholion of Eusebius” which has cost my friend at Moscow, his Archimandrites, and me, so much trouble, be introduced into any discussion of the genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark. As the oversight of one (C. F. Matthaei) who was singularly accurate, and towards whom we must all feel as towards a Benefactor, let it be freely forgiven as well as loyally forgotten!

L’ENVOY

As one, escaped the bustling trafficking town, Worn out and weary, climbs his favourite hill And thinks it Heaven to see the calm green fields Mapped out in beautiful sunlight at his feet: Or walks enraptured where the fitful south Comes past the beans in blossom; and no sight Or scent or sound but fills his soul with glee:— So I,—rejoicing once again to stand Where Siloa’s brook flows softly, and the meads Are all enamell’d o’er with deathless flowers, And Angel voices fill the dewy air. Strife is so hateful to me! most of all A strife of words about the things of GOD. Better by far the peasant’s uncouth speech Meant for the heart’s confession of its hope. Sweeter by far in village-school the words But half remembered from the Book of Life, Or scarce articulate lispings of the Creed.

And yet, three times that miracle of Spring The grand old tree that darkens Exeter wall Hath decked itself with blossoms as with stars, Since I, like one that striveth unto death, Find myself early and late and oft all day Engaged in eager conflict for GOD’S Truth; GOD’S Truth, to be maintained against Man’s lie. And lo, my brook which widened out long since Into a river, threatens now at length To burst its channel and become a sea.

O Sister, who ere yet my task is done Art lying (my loved Sister!) in thy shroud With a calm placid smile upon thy lips As thou wert only “taking of rest in sleep,” Soon to wake up to ministries of love,— Open those lips, kind Sister, for my sake In the mysterious place of thy sojourn, (For thou must needs be with the bless’d,—yea, where The pure in heart draw wondrous nigh to GOD,) And tell the Evangelist of thy brother’s toil; Adding (be sure!) “He found it his reward, Yet supplicates thy blessing and thy prayers, The blessing, saintly Stranger, of thy prayers, Sure at the least unceasingly of mine!”

One other landed on the eternal shore! One other garnered into perfect peace! One other hid from hearing and from sight!... O but the days go heavily, and the toil Which used to seem so pleasant yields scant joy. There come no tokens to us from the dead: Save—it may be—that now and then we reap Where not we sowed, and _that_ may be from _them_, Fruit of their prayers when we forgot to pray! Meantime there comes no message, comes no word: Day after day no message and no sign: And the heart droops, and finds that it was Love Not Fame it longed for, lived for: only Love.

CANTERBURY.

GENERAL INDEX.

_Under_ “Codices” _will be found all the Evangelia described or quoted: under_ “Texts” _all the places of Scripture illustrated or referred to._

“Acta Pilati,” p. 25.

ACTS, p. 199-200. _See_ Texts.

Addit. _See_ Codices.

Adler, J. G. C, p. 33-4.

Alford, Dean, p. 8, 13, 38, 77, 103, 164, 227, 244-5, 259.

Algasia, p. 52.

Ambrose, p. 27.

“Ammonian” Sections, p. 126-32, 295-311;
in the four Gospels, p. 309;
in S. Mark’s Gospel, p. 311.

Ammonius, p. 125-32.

ἀνάγνωσις, p. 196.

ἀνάγνωσμα, p. 45, 196.

ἀναληφθῆναι, p. 166.

Andreas of Crete, p. 258.

Angelic Hymn, p. 257-63.

ἀντεβλήθη, p. 119.

ἀπέχει, p. 225, 6.

ἀφορμή, p. 127, 137.

Aphraates the Persian, p. 26-7, 258.

ἀπιστεῖν, p. 158-9.

Apocrypha, p. 301.

Apolinarius, p. 275, 277.

“Apostolical Constitutions,” p. 25, 258.

ἀρχή, p. 224-5.

Armenian Version, p. 36, 239.

Ascension, The, p. 195.
Lessons, p. 204-5, 238-9.

Assemani, p. 309-10, 315.

Asterisks, p. 116-8, 218.

Athanasian Creed, p. 3, 254.

Athanasius, p. 30, 275;
how he read S. Jo. xvii. 15, 16, p. 74.

Augustine, p. 28, 198, 200.

Babington, Rev. C, p. 291.

Basil, p. 93-9, 275.

βαςιλίς, p. 275.

Basle, p. 283. _See_ Codices.

Bede, Ven., p. 30.

Bengel, J. A., p. 17, 101-2, 185.

Benson, Rev. Dr., p. 101.

Βηθαβαρά and Βηθανία, p. 236.

_Bibliothèque_ at Paris, p. 228-31, 278-83.

Birch’s N. T., Andr., p. 5, 116-8, 311.

Βλάπτειν, p. 160.

Bobbiensis, Codex, p. 35, 124, 186.

Bodleian. _See_ Codices.

Book of Common Prayer, p. 215.

Bostra, _see_ Titus.

Bosworth, Rev. Prof., p. 262.

Broadus, Prof., p. 139, 155, 168, 174.

Cæsarius, p. 133.

Canons, p. 127-31, 295-312. _See_ Sections.

Carpian, Letter to, p. 126-8, 311-2.

Carthage. _See_ Council.

Cassian, p. 193.

Catenaæ, p. 133-5. _See_ Corderius, Cramer, Matthaei, Peltanus, Possinus,
Victor.

Chrysostom, p. 27, 85, 110, 179, 193, 198-9, 201-4, 223, 258-9, 275-7,
278, 314-6, 323.

Church, the Christian, p. 192.
Festivals, p. 203.

Churton, Rev. W. R., p. 236.

“Circular,” A, p. 101-5.

Citations, _see_ Patristic.

Clemens Alex., p. 30.

Codices, depraved, p. 80-6, 217-24.
_See_ Corrupt readings, Dated, Syriac.
151, referred to p. 311.

CODICES.
Codex א, p. 70-90, 77, 109-13, 218-22, 252, 257, 313;
how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 88-90;
omissions, 73-5, 79, 80;
Ephes. i. 1, 91-109;
interpolations and depravations, p. 80-6;
affected by the Lectionary practice, p. 217-24;
sympathy with B, 78;
not so old as B, 291-4;
_facsimile_, p. ii.
A, p. 220-1, 222, 257-9, 311.
B, p. 70-90, 257, 202, 217-20, 222-3, 313;
how it exhibits the end of S. Mark, 86-90;
omissions, 74-5, 79, 80;
Ephes. i. 1, 91-109;
interpolations and depravations, p. 80-6;
affected by the Lectionary practice, p. 217-24;
sympathy with א, 78;
older than א 291-4.
C, p. 218, 221-2, 302, 311;
depraved by the Lectionary practice, p. 220.
D, p. 100, 219-25, 257, 262, 302.
E, p. 305, 311.
F, p. 302.
G, p. 306, 311.
H, p. 302, 306, 311.
K, p. 197, 302, 311.
L, p. 123-5, 218, 225, 311;
_facsimile_, p. 124.
M, p. 197, 305, 306, 311.
P, Q, R, Y, Z, p. 302.
S, V, Δ, Π, p. 311.
Tb, p. 305.
U, p. 218, 311.
Wb, p. 302.
Wd, p. 305.
Γ, p. 218, 224, 311.
Λ, p. 119, 122, 311.
Codex 1, p. 120, 123, 125.
Codex 7, p. 239.
Codex 10, p. 224, 231.
Codex 12, p. 122, 278, 288-9.
Codex 13, p. 226.
Codex 15, p. 119.
Codex 19, p. 240, 278.
Codex 20, p. 118-9 22, 271, 9, 280, 1, 2.
Codex 22, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242.
Codex 23, p. 120.
Codex 24, p. 121-3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 288-9.
Codex 25, p. 225, 280.
Codex 27, p. 239.
Codex 30, p. 231.
Codex 33, p. 123.
Codex 34, p. 66, 120, 121-3, 280.
Codex 36, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9.
Codex 37, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9.
Codex 38, p. 121-3.
Codex 39, p. 120, 121-3, 271, 281.
Codex 40, p. 121-3, 281, 288-9.
Codex 41, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9.
Codex 47, p. 226.
Codex 50, p. 271, 281.
Codex 54, 56 _and_ 61, p. 226.
Codex 63, p. 240-1.
Codex 69, p. 123, 226.
Codex 72, p. 23, 218, 314.
Codex 77, p. 283.
Codex 90, p. 240.
Codex 92 _and_ 94, p. 283.
Codex 108, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.
Codex 113, p. 218.
Codex 117, p. 302.
Codex 124, p. 226.
Codex 129, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.
Codex 137, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Codex 138, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Codex 143, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Codex 146, p. 286.
Codex 181 _and_ 186, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.
Codex 194, p. 284.
Codex 195, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Codex 197, p. 284.
Codex 199, 206 _and_ 209, p. 120, 1-3, 5.
Codex 210, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Codex 215, p. 285.
Codex 221 _and_ 222, p. 121-3, 285, 8-9.
Codex 233, p. 286.
Codex 237 _and_ 238, p. 285, 8-9, 321.
Codex 239, p. 321.
Codex 253, p. 285.
Codex 255, p. 285, 288-9, 319-23.
Codex 256, p. 239, 286.
Codex 259, p. 286, 288-9, 321.
Codex 262, p. 119, 122, 305.
Codex 263, p. 302, 304.
Codex 264, p. 117, 305-6.
Codex 265, p. 225.
Codex 266, p. 238.
Codex 267, p. 216.
Codex 268, p. 231.
Codex 270, p. 224.
Codex 274, p. 124.
Codex 282 _and_ 293, p. 231.
Codex 299, p. 122, 281, 288-9.
Codex 300, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 280, 1, 2.
Codex 301, p. 282.
Codex 304, p. 283.
Codex 309, p. 239, 282.
Codex 312, p. 282.
Codex 329, p. 122, 282, 288-9.
Codex 332 _and_ 353, p. 286.
Codex 373, p. 287.
Codex 374, p. 122, 121, 2, 286, 288-9.
Codex 379 _and_ 427, p. 287.
Codex 428 _and_ 432, p. 286.
Codex 436, p. 218.
Codex 439, p. 226.
Addit. 7, 157, p. 309.
Addit. 12,141, p. 215.
Addit. 14,449, p. 215, 306, 309.
Addit. 14,450, p. 215, 306, 310.
Addit. 14,451, p. 306.
Addit. 14,452-4-5, p. 215, 306.
Addit. 14,456, p. 215.
Addit. 14,457-8, p. 215, 306, 309.
Addit. 14,461, p. 215.
Addit. 14,463, p. 215, 306.
Addit. 14,464, p. 215.
Addit. 14,469, p. 306.
Addit. 14,485-8, p. 208.
Addit. 14,492, p. 208.
Addit. 17,113, p. 215, 306.
Addit. 17,114-5-6, p. 215.
Addit. 17,213, p. 310.
Ambros. M. 93, p. 286.
Basil., p. 283, (three Codd.)
Bobbiensis, p. 35, 124, 186.
Bodleian, _see_ Codd. Γ, Λ, 47, 50, 54, Dawkins.
Coisl. 19, p. 122, 282, 8-9.
Coisl. 20, p. 118, 121-3, 229, 280, 8, 9.
Coisl. 21, p. 121-3, 281, 8-9.
Coisl. 22, p. 281, 288.
Coisl. 23, p. 271, 281, 288.
Coisl. 24, p. 120, 121-3, 281, 288-9.
Coisl. 195, p. 66, 120, 1-3, 280.
Dawkins 3, p. 306-9.
Escurial Υ, ii. 8, p. 286.
Florence, S. Mar. Ben. Cod. iv. p. 120, 1-3, 5.
Harl. 1, 810, p. 218.
Harl. 5,107, p. 226.
Harl. 5,647, p. 23, 218, 314.
Laur. vi. 18, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.
Laur. vi. 33, p. 284.
Laur. vi. 34, p. 284, 288.
Laur. viii. 14, p. 284.
Matthaei’s a, 286, 288-9, 321.
Matthaei’s d, p. 285, 288-9.
Matthaei’s e, p. 285, 288-9.
Matthaei’s 10, p. 285.
Matthaei’s 12, p. 285, 288, 319-23.
Matthaei’s 14, p. 239, 286.
Meerman 117, p. 218.
Middle Hill 13, 975, p. 287.
Monacen. 99 _and_ 381, p. 286.
Monacen 465, p. 287.
Moscow, _see_ Matthaei.
Reg. 14, p. 123.
Reg. 50, p. 226.
Reg. 53, p. 119, 122, 305.
Reg. 61 p. 302, 304.
Reg. 62, _see_ Codex L.
Reg. 64, p. 119.
Reg. 65, p. 117, 305-6.
Reg. 66, p. 225.
Reg. 67, p. 238.
Reg. 69, p. 216.
Reg. 71, p. 239.
Reg. 72, p. 66, 119, 230, 1, 242.
Reg. 73, p. 231.
Reg. 75, p. 224.
Reg. 77, p. 120.
Reg. 79, p. 124.
Reg. 90, p. 231.
Reg. 91, p. 224, 231.
Reg. 100, p. 231.
Reg. 115, p. 239.
Reg. 117, p. 231.
Reg. 177, p. 121, 281, 8-9.
Reg. 178, p. 121, 3, 228-9, 271, 3, 280, 8, 9.
Reg. 186, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 4, 9, 280, 1, 2.
Reg. 187, p. 282.
Reg. 188, p. 118-9, 122, 271, 9, 280, 1, 2.
Reg. 189, p. 240, 278.
Reg. 191, p. 225, 280.
Reg. 194, p. 283.
Reg. 201, p. 239, 282.
Reg. 206, p. 282.
Reg. 230, p. 122, 278, 288-9.
Reg. 703, p. 282.
2pe, p. 226.
7pe, p. 286.
cscr, p. 226.
iscr _and_ sscr, p. 302.
Tb, p. 305.
Taurin. xx b. iv. 20, p. 286.
Toledo, p. 286.
Vat. 358, p. 121-3, 283, 288-9.
Vat. 756-7, p. 116-8, 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Vat. 1,229 p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Vat. 1,423, p. 287.
Vat. 1,445, p. 122, 286, 288-9.
Vat. 1,769, p. 287.
Vat. Palat. 5, p. 286.
Venet. 6, 10, p. 120, 121-3, 5.
Venet. 27, p. 121-3, 284, 288-9.
Venet. 495, p. 285.
Venet. 544, p. 285.
Vind. Kell. 4, Forlos. 5, p. 121, 3, 283, 288-9.
Vind. Kell. Nep. 114, Lambec. 29, p. 283.
Vind. Kell. 117, Vind. Kell. 38, p. 121-3, 285, 288-9.
Vind. Kill. 118, 31, p. 226.
Vind. Kill. 180, 39, p. 121-3, 285, 288-9.
Wake, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, p. 311.
Xavier de Zelada, p. 121-3, 284, 8-9.

Cod. Evstt. 47 _and_ 50, p. 197.
Paul, 67, p. 99.

Collation of MSS. p. vii.-viii., 218.

Colossians, Ep. to, p. 101, 162. _See_ Texts.

Commentaries, Ancient, p. 287.

Common Prayer, _see_ Book.

Concordance test, p. 173.

Constantinople, p. 275.

Conybeare and Howson, p. 103.

Coptic Version, p. 35.

Copyists of MSS., p. 262, 273-4, 320-3.

Corderius, B., p. 44, 134, 270, 4, 7.

Corrupt readings in MSS., p. 100-1, 112, 262-3.

Cosmas Indicopleustes, p. 258.

Council of Carthage, p. 25, 249.

Cramer, Dr. J. A., p. 44, 60, 271-3.

Creed of Jerusalem, p. 184-5.
_see_ Athanasian.

Curetonian Syriac Version, p. 33.

Cyprian, 25, 249.

Cyprus, p. 315.

Cyril of Alex., p. 29, 60, 110, 198, 201, 258, 271, 5, 7, 9, 281, 315.
Cyril of Jer., p. 184-5, 195, 258, 261.

Cyrus in Syria, p. 317, 8.

Damascene, John, p. 30.

Dated MSS., p. 208, 224, 309.

Davidson. Dr., p. 12, 38, 114, 133-5, 6; 142, 8; 153, 160, 1, 4; 185.

De Touttée, p. 184, 261.

δευτεροπρώτῳ, p. 75, 220.

Diatessaron, p. 126, 314-8.

Diodorus, p. 314-8.

Dionysius of Corinth, p. 245.

Dionysius Syrus, p. 41.

δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, p. 257-63.

Easter Lessons, p. 204-6, 238-9.

Eden, Rev. C. P., p. 3.

ἐγκύκλιον, p. 104-5.

ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ and ἀπό, p. 153.

ἐκεῖνος, p. 166-7.

ἔκλειψις, p. 86.

Ellicott, Bishop, p. 9.

Encyclical, p. 101-5.

Ephesians, Ep. to, p. 91-109. _See_ Texts.

ἐπί, verbs compounded with, p. 163-4.

ἐπιφανία, τὰ, p. 204.

Epiphanius, p. 95, 132-3, 199, 202-3, 258.

Epiphany, Festival of, p. 204, 7;
lessons, 199.

Erizzo, F. M. p. 34.

Ethiopic Version, p. 36.

εὐδοκία, p. 257-63.

Eulogius, p. 258.

Eusebius, p. 26, 41-51, 43, 61-4, 66, 84, 126-33, 332-8, 240, 249-52,
265-6, 267-8, 275, 314, 316, 323;
knew nothing of Cod. א, p. 293-4;
was the Author of the “Ammonian” Sections, p. 295;
Eusebian Tables in Syriac MSS., p. 309-10;
Scholion wrongly ascribed to, p. 319-23.

εὐθέως, p. 168-9.

Euthymius Zig., p. 30, 68-9.

Evangelia, _see_ Codices.

Evangeliaria, p. 195, 197, 214-5.

Evangelists vary their expressions, p. 147.

Evidence, Law of, p. 15.

ἐξελθόντες, p. 188.

Facsimile of Cod. א, p. ii.;
of Cod. L, p. 124.

Fathers badly indexed, p. vii, 21, 30, 315: _see_ Patristic.

Festivals of the Church, p. 203.

Field’s ed. of Chrysostom, p. 180.

Florence. _See_ Codices.

Formulæ of the Lectionaries, p. 215-224, 5.

Gandell, Rev. Prof., p. 148.

Garnier, J., p. 101.

Genesis, when read, p. 201.

Gennadius, p. 26.

Georgian Version, p. 36.

_Gloria in Excelsis_, p. 257-63.

Gothic Version, p. 35, 262.

Green, Rev. T. S., p. 13, 137, 153.

Gregentius, p. 30.

Gregory of Nazianzus, p. 258.
Gregory of Nyssa, p. 29, 39-41, 66, 267-8.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, p. 180.
Gregory the Great, p. 30.

Griesbach, D. J. J., p. 4-7, 115-6, 232, 251, 319.

Harleian. _See_ Codices.

_Harmonia, &c._, Oxon. 1805, p. 298.

Harmony of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 with the other Gospels, p. 188-90,
Tables of, in Greek MSS., p. 304-6;
in Syriac MSS., p. 306-11.

Harris, A. C, p. 293.

Hedibia, p. 51-6.

Hesychius of Jerusalem, p. 29, 40-1, 57-9, 67, 204, 237, 267-8.

Heurtley, Rev. Prof., p. 184.

Hharklensian Revision, p. 33, 124, 315.

Hierosolymitan Version, p. 34, 199.

Hippolytus, p. 24-5, 248.

Hort, Rev. F. J. A., p. 13.

Huet, P. D., p. 269, 275, 314.

Hypapante, p. 207.

Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, p. 165.

Indices, p. vii-viii, 21, 30, 315.

Interpolations in B and א p. 80-6;
from the Lectionary practice, p. 217-214.

Irenæus, p. 23, 246, 8, 260.

Itala, Vetus, p. 35.

Jacobus Bar-Salibi, p. 41.

“Jacobus Nisibenus,” p. 26, 258.

James’ _Ecloga_, p. 236.

Jerome, p. 26, 27-8, 34, 42, 49, 51-7, 67, 98, 106, 128, 153, 236, 260,
295, 312, 314.

Jerusalem, Version, p. 34, 199.
Copies at, p. 119.
_See_ Creed.

Jewish Church, p. 192.

Jewish Lectionary, p. 194.

JOHN, S. _See_ Texts.

John Damascene, p. 30.

Josephus, p. 275.

Justin Martyr, p. 23, 193.

καθαρίζων, p. 179-80.

κανονίζειν, p. 120-1, 125.

Kay, Rev. Dr. W., p. 140, 183.

κείμενον, p. 131, 282.

κεφάλαιον, p. 45, 229, 298.

Kollar, p. 269.

κτίσις, p. 161-2, 180.

Κύριος, p. 165, 185.

Lachmann, C., p. 8, 259, 263-4

Laodiceans, Ep. to, p. 93-107.

Latinus Latinius, p. 42-44.

Lectionary System, p. 191-211, 214-5, 217-24, 240, 313-5, 318.
Eastern p. 196-211.
Jewish, p. 192-4.
Syrian, p. 205-8.
the New, p. 200.

Lections, p. 238-9. _See_ Lectionary System, Syrian Lessons.

Lessons. _See_ Lections.

Licentious. _See_ Copyists.

Liturgical Formulæ, p. 216-25.

Lloyd, Bishop C, p. 298.

λόγος, p. 165.

LUKE, S. _See_ Texts.

Macknight, p. 105.

Mai, Card. A., p. 42-4, 242, 265.

Manuscripts. _See_ CODICES.

Marcion, p. 93-6, 103, 106-8.

Marginal references, p. 298-304.

Marinus, p. 26, 53-6, 249-50.

Mark, S., p. 161-2.

MARK, S. (_See_ Texts), p. 167, 176, 7, 9;
Latinisms, 149-51;
style of ch. i. 9-20, p. 143-4;
phraseology of ch. i. 1-12, p. 174-5;
ch. xvi. 9-20, p. 36-73;
structure of ch. xvi. 9-20, p. 181-4.
xvi. 9-20, a Lection in the Ancient Church, p. 204-11.

Matthaei, C. F., p. 5, 66, 191, 197, 227, 247, 271-3, 319-23. _See_
Codices.

MATTHEW, S. _See_ Texts.

μέγα σάββατον, p. 194.

Meerman 117, Cod., p. 218.

Memphitic Version, p. 35.

Menologium, p. 197.

Methodius, p. 258.

Meyer, p. 13, 136, 160.
τῶν σαββάτων, p. 146-51.

Michaelis, J. D., p. 101.

Middle Hill, _see_ Codices.

Middleton, Bp., p. 105.

Mill, Dr. John, p. 129, 130, 2.

Modestus, p. 30.

Montfaucon, B. de, p. 121.

Moscow, _see_ Codices, Rev. W. G. Penny.

Munich, _see_ Codices.

Muratorian fragment, p. 103.

Nativity, Festival of, p. 199, 204.

Nazianzus, _see_ Gregory.

Nestorius, p. 29.

Neubauer, M., p. 307.

Nisibenus, _see_ Aphraates.

Norton, Prof., p. 13, 137, 245.

Nyssa, _see_ Gregory.

Omissions in B and א, p. 73-5, 79, 80, 91, &c.

ὁμοιοτέλευτον, p. 73, 4.

Order of the Gospels, p. 239-240.

Oriel College, p. ix, x.

Origen, p. 47, 66, 85, 93-9, 107, 179, 222, 236, 245, 258, 260-1, 275,
277, 282;
on S. Mark, 235.

Palestinian exemplar, p. 64-5, 121, 289.

πάλιν, p. 168-9.

Palmer, Sir Roundell, p. v, vi.
Palmer, Rev. W. J., p. v.

Papias, p. 23.

παρά, verbs compounded with, p. 163-4.

Parallel passages. _See_ Tables of Reference.

παρασκευή, p. 150.

Paris, MSS. at, p. 228-31, 278-83:
_see_ Codices, Coisl. _and_ Reg.

Passion-tide Lessons, p. 202, 204.

“Patres App.,” p. 240.

Patristic Citations of SS., p. 20-3, 37, 257-63.

Paul, S., p. 161-2.

Peltanus, p. 134, 270-3.

Penny, Rev. W. G., p. 319-23.

περιγράφειν τὸ τέλος, p. 233-4.

περικοπή, p. 45, 196, 8, 298.

Peshito Version, p. 32.

Peter, S., p. 161-2, 179, 180-1. _See_ Texts.
Peter of Laodicea, p. 284, 286.

Petersburg. _See_ Rev. A. S. Thompson.

Petrus junior, p. 315.

Phillipps, Sir T. _See_ Codices (Middle Hill).

Philoxenian Version, p. 33, 4.

Phraseology of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. 136-173, 146.

Pius IX., p. ii.

Polycarp, p. 240.

πορεύεσθαι, p. 153.

Possevinus, p. 235.

Possinus, p. 44, 134, 226, 270-4, 277, 290-2.

Prayer-Book, _see_ Book.

Proclus, p. 258.

Proper, see Lessons.

πρώτη σαββάτου, p. 146-51.

Reference Bibles, p. 300-1.
ancient Tables of, p. 304-11.

Revision of Auth. Version, p. 263-4.
Greek Text, p. 263.
Lectionary, p. 200-1.

Rose, Ven. Archd., p. 27.
Rev. W. F., p. 218.

Routh, Rev. President, p. ix.

Rufinus, p. 314.

S. (G. V.) p. 264.

σαββατοκυριακαί, p. 194.

σάββατον—τα, p. 146-51.

Sahidic Version, p. 36.

Saturday Lessons, p. 193, 4.

Scholia, p. 122, 236, 288-9, 314, 319-23.

Scholz, J. M. A., p. 7, 116-222, 197, 227, 242.

Scrivener, Rev. F. H., p. vii, viii, 9, 77, 139, 197, 215, 227, 246,
302-4.

Sections without Canons in MSS., p. 302;
their use, 303-10.
_see_ Ammonian.

σελίδες, p. 294.

Severus of Antioch, p. 40-1, 57-9, 67, 121, 267-8, 315.

σημείωσις, p. 314.

Simon, Père, p. 48, 269.

Sinaiticus, _see_ Codex.

Sirletus, Card., p. 44.

Smith, Dean Payne, p. 41, 205-6, 214, 306.

Stanley, Dean A. P., p. 3.

Style of S. Mark xvi. 9-20, p. 136-45.

Subscription of Gospels, p. 230-1.

Suidas, p. 309, 311.

Synagogue worship, p. 192-3.

Synaxarium, p. 197.

“Synopsis Script. S.,” p. 29.

Syriac MSS., p. 208, 214-5, 225, 306-11.

Syrian Lessons, p. 205, 226, 238-9.

Tables of Reference in MSS, p. 304-11.

Tait, Abp., p. 2, 3, 189, 314-8.

Tatian, p. 129, 314-8.

τέλος, p. 119-20, 224-42.

Tertullian, p. 30, 93-4, 106.

Textual Criticism, p. vii-ix, 113.

TEXTS.
S. MATTHEW i. 10, p. 178;
i. 25, p. 80.
iii. 16, p. 178;
iii. 17, p. 30.
iv. 18-22, p. 295-6.
viii. 9, p. 82;
viii. 13, p. 80, 222.
xi. 19, p. 83;
xi. 20, p. 221.
xii. 9, p. 221.
xiii. 35, p. 81, 110-1;
xiii. 36, p. 221;
xiii. 39, 55, p. 178.
xiv. 14, p. 221;
xiv. 22, p. 216;
xiv. 30, p. 82.
xv. 22, p. 178.
xvi. 10, p. 177;
xvi. 12, p. 178-9;
xvi. 15, p. 162.
xx. 17, p. 223;
xx. 29, p. 178.
xxi. 8, p. 178;
xxi. 31, p. 83.
xxv. 24, p. 82.
xxvi. 34, 75, p. 178;
xxvi. 39, p. 217-8.
xxvii. 32, p. 188;
xxvii. 34, p. 84;
xxvii. 35, p. 75;
xxvii. 48, 49, p. 80, 218, 313-8;
xxvii. 54, 55, p. 315.
xxviii. 2, 3, p. 73;
xxviii. 8, p. 84;
xxviii. 19, 20, p. 178.
S. MARK i. 1, p. 180, 185;
i. 9-20, p. 182;
i. 10, p. 178;
i. 11, 13, p. 30;
i. 16-20, p. 295-6;
i. 28, p. 85.
vi. 3, p. 178.
vii. 3, 4, p. 82;
vii. 19, p. 179;
vii. 26, p. 178.
viii. 10, 15, p. 178.
x. 6, p. 180;
x. 42, p. 82;
x. 46, p. 178.
xi. 8, p. 178.
xiii. 19, p. 180.
xiv. 3, p. 221;
xiv. 30, p. 178;
xiv. 30, 68, 72, p. 84;
xiv. 41, p. 225;
xiv. 58, p. 82;
xiv. 72, p. 177.
xv. 28, p. 301;
xv. 46, p. 82.
xvi. 8 and 9, p. 239;
xvi. 8-20, p. 306;
xvi. 9, p. 152-3, 178-9, 187, 216;
xvi. 9-20, p. 182, 224;
xvi. 10, 14, p. 187, 319;
xvi. 15, p. 180;
xvi. 15, 16, p. 178;
xvi. 19, p. 180, 195.
S. LUKE i. 26, p. 85;
i. 27, p. 82.
ii. 14, p. 257-63;
ii. 37, p. 82.
iii. 22, p. 30, 178;
iii. 23, p. 220.
iv. 5, p. 74;
iv. 16, p. 220;
iv. 44, p. 85.
(S. LUKE) v. 1, p. 82, 220;
i. 1-11, p. 295-6;
i. 17, p. 220.
vi. 1, p. 75, 220;
vi. 37, p. 220;
vi. 48, p. 81.
vii. 1, p. 220;
vii. 31, p. 216.
viii. 2, p. 152, 178.
ix. 57, p. 220.
x. 1, p. 81, 220;
x. 25, p. 220.
xiii. 2, p. 221.
xv. 13, p. 82.
xvi. 6, p. 178;
xvi. 16, p. 74;
xvi. 19, p. 220.
xviii. 15, p. 220.
xix. 45, p. 220.
xx. 1, p. 220.
xxii. 25, p. 82;
xxii. 43, 44, p. 79, 201, 217-8, 301;
xxii. 64, p. 74.
xxiii. 15, p. 83;
xxiii. 34, p. 79, 219;
xxiii. 38, p. 79;
xxiii. 45, p. 85-6.
xxiv. 12, p. 222;
xxiv. 13, p. 85, 236;
xxiv. 16, p. 178-9;
xxiv. 31, p. 73;
xxiv. 36, p. 221;
xxiv. 42, 52, 53, p. 74;
xxiv. 51, p. 195.
S. JOHN i. 3, 4, p. 30, 110;
i. 3, 18, 50, p. 30;
i. 4, p. 81, 109-11;
i. 18, p. 30, 81;
i. 28, p. 236;
i. 29, 44, p. 221;
i. 34, p. 81;
i. 50, p. 30.
ii. 3, p. 80.
iii. 13, p. 80.
vi. 14, p. 221;
vi. 17, 64, p. 82;
vi. 51, p. 111.
vii. 53-viii. 11, p. 219.
viii. 57, p. 82;
viii. 59, p. 80, 222.
ix. 4, 11, p. 81;
ix. 35, p. 82;
ix. 38, p. 79.
x. 14, p. 82;
x. 29, p. 223.
xiii. 3, p. 221;
xiii. 10, p. 111.
xiv. 1, p. 220;
xiv. 31, p. 188.
xvii. 10, p. 82;
xvii. 15, 16, p. 76.
xviii. 1, p. 188.
xix. 13, p. 223;
xix. 17, p. 188;
xix. 34, p. 218, 313-5.
xxi. 1, p. 221, 3;
xxi. 1-6, 11, p. 295-6;
xxi. 12, 13, 15-17, p. 297;
xxi. 18, p. 83;
xxi. 25, p. 79.
ACTS i. 2, 22, 23, p. 180;
i. 9, p. 195.
iv. 12, p. 262.
viii. 5, p. 85.
x. 15, p. 180.
xiii. 15, 27, p. 192.
EPHES. i. 1, p. 91-109.
vi. 21, 2, p. 101.
COLOSS. i. 23, p. 162.
iv. 7, 16, p. 101, 105.
1 S. PET. ii. 13, p. 180.
iv. 19, p. 180.
2 S. PET. iii. 4, p. 180.

ECCLUS. xliii. 11, 12, p. 301.
1 MACC. iv. 59, p. 301.

θεᾶσθαι, p. 156-8.

Thebaic Version, p. 35.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, p. 275, 7.

Theodoret, p. 258, 317-8.

Theodotus of Ancyra, p. 258.

Theophania, p. 207.

Theophylact, p. 30, 266.

θεωρεῖν, p. 157.

Thompson, Rev. A. S., p. ii, 252.

Thomson, Abp., p. 13.

Tischendorf, Dr., p. 8, 9, 10, 38, 77-9, 85-6, 93, 109-14, 123, 125-33,
137, 153, 222, 7, 242, 4, 251-2, 9, 260-1, 280, 293, 311, 322,
viii-ix.

Titus of Bostra, p. 258, 275, 283.

Toledo, _see_ Codices.

Townson, Rev. Dr., p. 151, 179.

Tregelles, Dr., p. 9, 10-12, 38, 9, 60, 76, 114, 126-9, 136, 145, 169,
222-3, 227, 234, 242, 4, 5, 7, 251, 9, 260, 319, viii-ix.

Turin, _see_ Codices.

Ulphilas, p. 35, 262.

Uncial MSS. p. 20, 71. _See_ Codices.

ὑπόθεσις, p. 274-5.

ὕστερον, p. 160.

Vatican, p. 117, 283-4, 288-9: _see_ Codices.

Vaticanus, _see_ Codex.

Venice, _see_ Codices.

Vercellone, C., p. 73.

Versions, _see_ Armenian, &c.

Vetus Itala, p. 35.

Victor of Antioch, p. 29, 59-65, 67, 122, 134, 178, 180, 235, 250, 268,
269-87;
Codices, 278-87;
Scholion, 288-90.

Victor of Capua, p. 129.

Vienna, _see_ Codices.

Vincentius a Thibari, p. 25.

Vulgate, p. 34.

Westcott, Rev. Prof., p. 13, 23.

Wetstein, J. J., p. 121, 125, 129.

Wordsworth, Bishop, p. ix, 9.
Wordsworth, Rev. John, p. ix.

Wright, Prof., p. 27, 33, 206, 8, 214-5, 225, 306, 7, 8, 9, 10.

Xavier de Zelada, _see_ Codices.

Xiphilinus, John, p. 44.

ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ.

FOOTNOTES

1 Abp. Tait’s _Harmony of Revelation and the Sciences_, (1864,) p. 21.

2 See by all means Hooker, E. P., v. xlii. 11-13.

3 Abp. Tait is of opinion that it “should not retain its place in the
public Service of the Church:” and Dean Stanley gives sixteen
reasons for the same opinion,—the fifteenth of which is that “many
excellent laymen, including King George III., have declined to take
part in the recitation.” (_Final_) _Report of the Ritual
Commission_, 1870, p. viii. and p. xvii.

4 In the words of a thoughtful friend, (Rev. C. P.
Eden),—“_Condemnatory_ is just what these clauses are not. I
understand myself, in uttering these words, not to condemn a fellow
creature, but to acknowledge a truth of Scripture, GOD’S judgment
namely on the sin of unbelief. The further question,—In whom the sin
of unbelief is found; _that_ awful question I leave entirely in His
hands who is the alone Judge of hearts; who made us, and knows our
infirmities, and whose tender mercies are over all His works.”

5 “The Athanasian Creed,” by the Dean of Westminster (_Contemporary
Review_, Aug., 1870, pp. 158, 159).

_ 6 Commentarius Criticus_, ii. 197.

_ 7 Quatuor Evangelia Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus Codd.
MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, etc. Jussu et sumtibus regiis edidit
Andreas Birch, Havniae_, 1788. A copy of this very rare and
sumptuous folio may be seen in the King’s Library (Brit. Mus.)

_ 8 Account of the Printed Text_, p. 83.

9 See above, p. 3.

10 “Eam esse authenticam rationes internae et externae probant
gravissimae.”

11 I find it difficult to say what distress the sudden removal of this
amiable and accomplished Scholar occasions me, just as I am
finishing my task. I consign these pages to the press with a sense
of downright reluctance,—(constrained however by the importance of
the subject,)—seeing that _he_ is no longer among us either to
accept or to dispute a single proposition. All I can do is to erase
every word which might have occasioned him the least annoyance; and
indeed, as seldom as possible to introduce his respected name. An
open grave reminds one of the nothingness of earthly controversy; as
nothing else does, or indeed can do.

12 Tischendorf, besides eight editions of his laborious critical
revision of the Greek Text, has edited our English “Authorized
Version” (Tauchnitz, 1869,) with an “Introduction” addressed to
unlearned readers, and the various readings of Codd. א, B and A, set
down in English at the foot of every page.—Tregelles, besides his
edition of the Text of the N. T., is very full on the subject of S.
Mark xvi. 9-20, in his “Account of the Printed Text,” and in his
“Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.” (vol. iv. of
Horne’s _Introd._)—Dean Alford, besides six editions of his Greek
Testament, and an abridgment “for the upper forms of Schools and for
passmen at the Universities,” put forth two editions of a “N. T. for
English Readers,” and three editions of “the Authorized Version
newly compared with the original Greek and revised;”—in every one of
which it is stated that these twelve verses are “probably an
addition, placed here in very early times.”

13 The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, Bp. Ellicott, and Bp. Wordsworth, are
honourable exceptions to this remark. The last-named excellent
Divine reluctantly admitting that “this portion may not have been
penned by S. Mark himself;” and Bishop Ellicott (_Historical
Lectures_, pp. 26-7) asking “Why may not this portion have been
written by S. Mark at a later period?;”—both alike resolutely insist
on its genuineness and canonicity. To the honour of the best living
master of Textual Criticism, the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, (of whom I
desire to be understood to speak as a disciple of his master,) be it
stated that he has never at any time given the least sanction to the
popular outcry against this portion of the Gospel. “Without the
slightest misgiving” he has uniformly maintained the genuineness of
S. Mark xvi. 9-20. (_Introduction_, pp. 7 and 429-32.)

14 “Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis,” (p.
320.) “Quæ testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis, ut quod
conlatis prioribus versu 9. parum apte adduntur verba αφ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβ
item quod singula multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent.” (p.
322.)—I quote from the 7th Leipsic ed.; but in Tischendorf’s 8th ed.
(1866, pp. 403, 406,) the same verdict is repeated, with the
following addition:—“Quæ quum ita sint, sanæ erga sacrum textum
pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare pergunt qua
a Marco aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.” (p. 407.)

_ 15 Evangelia Apocrypha_, 1853, Proleg. p. lvi.

16 Pp. 253, 7-9.

17 In his first edition (1848, vol. i. p. 163) Dr. Davidson pronounced
it “manifestly untenable” that S. Mark’s Gospel was the last
written; and assigned A.D. 64 as “its most probable” date. In his
second (1868, vol. ii. p. 117), he says:—“When we consider that _the
Gospel was not written till the second century_, internal evidence
loses much of its force against the authenticity of these
verses.”—_Introduction to N.T._

18 Vol. ii. p. 239.

_ 19 Developed Criticism_, [1857], p. 53.

20 Ed. 1847. i. p. 17. He recommends this view to his reader’s
acceptance in five pages,—pp. 216 to 221.

_ 21 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels_, p. 311.

_ 22 Critical and Exegetical Commentary_, 1855, 8vo. pp. 182, 186-92.

23 In the Roman law this principle is thus expressed,—“Ei incumbit
probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.” Taylor _on the Law of Evidence_,
1868, i. p. 369.

24 This is freely allowed by all. “Certiores facti sumus hanc pericopam
jam in secundo sæculo lectam fuisse tanquam hujus evangelii partem.”
Tregelles _N.T._ p. 214.

25 This in fact is how Bengel (N. T. p. 626) accounts for the
phenomenon:—“Fieri potuit ut librarius, scripto versu 8, reliquam
partem scribere differret, et id exemplar, casu non perfectum, alii
quasi perfectum sequerentur, praesertim quum ea pars cum reliquâ
historiâ evangelicâ minus congruere videretur.”

26 It is thus that Tischendorf treats S. Luke xxiv. 12, and (in his
latest edition) S. John xxi. 25.

27 Chap. III.-VIII., also Chap. X.

28 Chap. IX.

29 Viz. E, L, [viii]: K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π (Tisch. _ed._ 8va.)
[ix]: G, X, S, U [ix, x]. The following uncials are defective
here,—F (ver. 9-19), H (ver. 9-14), I, N, O, P, Q, R, T, W, Y, Z.

30 See Appendix (A), on the true reading of S. Luke ii. 14.

31 Consider how Ignatius (_ad Smyrn._, c. 3) quotes S. Luke xxiv. 39;
and how he refers to S. John xii. 3 in his Ep. _ad Ephes._ c. 17.

32 Ἱστορεῖ [sc. Παπίας] ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα
Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονὸς,—evidently a slip of the pen for Βαρσαβᾶν τὸν
ἐπικληθέντα Ἰοῦστον (see Acts i. 23, quoted by Eusebius immediately
afterwards,)—ὡς δηλητήριον φάρμακον ἐμπιόντος καὶ μηδὲν ἀηδὲς διὰ
τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου χάριν ὑπομείναντος. Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ iii. 39.

_ 33 Apol._ I. c. 45.—The supposed quotations in c. 9 from the Fragment
_De Resurrectione_ (Westcott and others) are clearly references to
S. Luke xxiv.,—_not_ to S. Mark xvi.

34 lib. iii. c. x. _ad fin._ (ed. Stieren, i. p. 462). “In fine autem
Evangelii ait Marcus, _et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est
sis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei._”
Accordingly, against S. Mark xvi. 19 in Harl. MS. 5647 ( = Evan. 72)
occurs the following marginal scholium, which Cramer has already
published:—Εἰρηναῖος ὁ τῶν Ἀποστόλων πλησίον, ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὰς
αἱρέσεις γ᾽ λόγῳ τοῦτο ἀνήνεγκεν τὸ ῥητον ὡς Μάρκῳ ειρημένον.