Chapter XXV: Appendix: (H) (2)

35 First published as his by Fabricius (vol. i. 245.) Its authorship
has never been disputed. In the enumeration of the works of
Hippolytus (inscribed on the chair of his marble effigy in the
Lateran Museum at Rome) is read,—ΠΕΡΙ ΧΑΡΙΣΜΑΤΩΝ; and by that name
the fragment in question is actually designated in the third chapter
of the (so called) “Apostolical Constitutions,” (τὰ μὲν σῦν πρῶτα
τοῦ λόγου ἐξεθέμεθα περὶ τῶν Χαρισμάτων, κ.τ.λ.),—in which singular
monument of Antiquity the fragment itself is also found. It is in
fact nothing else but the first two chapters of the “Apostolical
Constitutions;” of which the ivth chapter is also claimed for
Hippolytus, (though with evidently far less reason,) and as such
appears in the last edition of the Father’s collected works,
(_Hippolyti Romani quæ feruntur omnia Græce_, ed. Lagarde, 1858,)—p.
74.

The work thus assigned to Hippolytus, (evidently on the strength of
the heading,—Διατάξεις τῶν ἀυτῶν ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων περὶ χειροτονιῶν,
διὰ Ἱππολύτου,) is part of the “Octateuchus Clementinus,” concerning
which Lagarde has several remarks in the preface to his _Reliquiæ
Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquissimæ_, 1856. The composition in question
extends from p. 5 to p. 18 of the last-named publication. The exact
correspondence between the “Octateuchus Clementinus” and the
Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions will be found to extend no further
than the single chapter (the ivth) specified in the text. In the
meantime the fragment περὶ χαρισμάτων (containing S. Mark xvi. 17,
18,) is identical throughout. It forms the first article in
Lagarde’s _Reliquiæ_, extending from p. 1 to p. 4, and is there
headed Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγίων Ἁποστόλων περὶ χαρισμάτων.

_ 36 Ad fin._ See Routh’s _Opuscula_, i. p. 80.

37 For which reason I cordially subscribe to Tischendorf’s remark (ed.
8va. p. 407), “Quod idem [Justinus] Christum ἀνεληλυθόντα εἰς τοὺς
οὐράνους dicit, [_Apol._ I. c. 50?] minus valet.”

38 “In nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellite,” (Cyprian Opp. p.
237 [_Reliqq. Sacr._ iii. p. 124,] quoting S. Mark xvi. 17,
18,)—“_In nomine meo daemonia ejicient ... super egrotos manus
imponent_ et bene habebunt.”

_ 39 Responsa ad Episcopos_, c. 44, (_Reliqq._ v. 248.)

_ 40 Evangelia Apocrypha_, ed. Tischendorf, 1853, pp. 243 and 351: also
_Proleg._ p. lvi.

41 In _l._ vii. _c._ 7 (_ad fin._),—λαβόντες ἐντολὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ κηρύξαι
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον: and in _l._ viii. _c._ 1,—ἡμῖν
τοῖς ἀποστόλοις μέλλουσι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει.
Observe, this immediately follows the quotation of verses 17, 18.

_ 42 Lib._ vi. _c._ 15.—The quotation (at the beginning of _lib._ viii.)
of the 17th and 18th verses, has been already noticed in its proper
place. _Supra_, p. 24.

43 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 421.

_ 44 Apud_ Hieron. _Opp. ed._ Vallars., ii. 951-4.

45 See Dr. Wright’s ed. of “Aphraates,” (4to. 1869.) i. p. 21. I am
entirely indebted to the learned Editor’s _Preface_ for the
information in the text.

46 From Dr. Wright, and my brother Archdeacon Rose.

47 Vol. i. 796 E and vol. ii. 461 D quote ver. 15: 1429 B quotes ver.
15 and 16: vol. ii. 663 B, C quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 127 A
quotes ver. 16 to 18. Vol. i. 639 E and vol. ii. 400 A quote ver.
17, 18. Vol. i. 716 A quotes ver. 20.

_ 48 Opp._ iii. 765 A, B.

49 Καὶ μὴν τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον τοὐναντίον λέγει, ὅτι τῇ Μαρία πρώτῃ [ὤφθη].
Chrys. _Opp._ ch. 355 B.

50 “Cogis” (he says to Pope Damasus) “ut post exemplaria Scripturarum
toto orbe dispersa quasi quidam arbiter sedeam; et quia inter se
variant, quae sint illa quae cum Graecâ consentiant veritate
decernam.—Haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evangelia
... codicum Graecorum emendata conlatione, sed et veterum.”

51 Vol. i. p. 327 C (_ed._ Vallars.)

_ 52 Contra Pelagianos_, II. 15, (Opp. ii. 744-5):—“In quibusdam
exemplaribus et maxima in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum in fine
Evangelii scribitur: _Postea quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis
Jesus, et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia
his qui viderant eum resurgentem, non crediderunt. Et illi
satisfaciebant dicentes: Sæculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis
substantia est, quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei
apprehendi virtutem: idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam._”

53 E.g. ver. 12 in vol. ii. 515 C (Ep. 149); Vol. v. 988 C.—Verses 15,
16, in vol. v. 391 E, 985 A: vol. x. 22 F.

54 Vol. v. 997 F, 998 B, C.

55 ἐξελθόντες γάρ, φησι, διεκήρυσσον τὸν λόγον πανταχοῦ. τοῦ Κυρίοῦ
συνεργοῦντος, καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος, διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθησάντων
σημειων. Nestorius _c. Orthodoxos_: (Cyril. Alexand. _adv.
Nestorian._ Opp. vol. vi. 46 B.) To which, Cyril replies,—τῇ παρ᾽
αὐτοῦ δυναστείᾳ χρώμενοι, διεκηρύσσοντο καὶ εἰργάζοντο τὰς
θεοσημείας οἱ θεοπέσιοι μαθηταὶ. (_Ibid._ D.) This quotation was
first noticed by Matthaei (_Enthym. Zig._ i. 161.)

56 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένον; Ὁ μὲν οὄν Κύριος—ἐκ
δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii. 415.

57 Athanasii _Opp._ vol. ii. p. 181 F, 182 A. See the _Præfat._, pp.
vii., viii.

58 In dismissing this enumeration, let me be allowed to point out that
there must exist many more Patristic citations which I have
overlooked. The necessity one is under, on occasions like the
present, of depending to a great extent on “Indices,” is fatal; so
scandalously inaccurate is almost every Index of Texts that can be
named. To judge from the Index in Oehler’s edition of Tertullian,
that Father quotes these twelve verses not less than eight times.
According to the Benedictine Index, Ambrose does not quote them so
much as once. Ambrose, nevertheless, quotes five of these verses no
less than fourteen times; while Tertullian, as far as I am able to
discover, does not quote S. Mark xvi. 9-20 at all.

Again. One hoped that the Index of Texts in Dindorf’s new Oxford ed.
of Clemens Alex. was going to remedy the sadly defective Index in
Potter’s ed. But we are still exactly where we were. S. John i. 3
(or 4), so remarkably quoted in vol. iii. 433, l. 8: S. John i. 18,
50, memorably represented in vol. iii. 412, l. 26: S. Mark i. 13,
interestingly referred to in vol. iii. 455, lines 5, 6, 7:—are
nowhere noticed in the Index. The Voice from Heaven at our SAVIOUR’S
Baptism,—a famous misquotation (vol. i. 145, l. 14),—does not appear
in the Index of quotations from S. Matthew (iii. 17), S. Mark (i.
11), or S. Luke (iii. 22.)]

59 Gregentius _apud_ Galland. xi. 653 E.—Greg. Mag. (Hom. xxix. in
Evang.)—Modestus _apud_ Photium cod. 275.—Johannis Damasceni _Opp._
(ed. 1712) vol. i. 608 E.—Bede, and Theophylact (who quotes _all_
the verses) and Euthymius _in loc._

60 Dr. Wright informs me (1871) that some more leaves of this Version
have just been recovered.

61 By a happy providence, one of the fragments contains the last four
verses.

62 In the margin, against S. Matth. xxviii. 5, Thomas writes,—“_In
tribus codicibus Græcis_, et in uno Syriaco antiquæ versionis, non
inventum est nomen, ‘Nazarenus.’ ”—Cf. ad xxvii. 35.—Adler’s _N. T.
Verss. Syrr._, p. 97.

63 That among the 437 various readings and marginal notes on the
Gospels relegated to the Philoxenian margin, should occur the
worthless supplement which is only found besides in Cod. L. (see ch.
viii.)—is not at all surprising. Of these 437 readings and notes, 91
are not found in White’s Edition; while 105 (the supplement in
question being one of them) are found in White only. This creates a
suspicion that in part at least the Philoxenian margin must exhibit
traces of the assiduity of subsequent critics of the Syriac text.
(So Adler on S. Matth. xxvi. 40.) To understand the character of
some of those marginal notes and annotations, the reader has but to
refer to Adler’s learned work, (pp. 79-134) and examine the notes on
the following places:—S. Matth. xv. 21: xx. 28 ( = D): xxvi. 7. S.
Mk. i. 16: xii. 42. S. Lu. x. 17 ( = B D): 42 ( = B א L): xi. 1: 53.
S. Jo. ii. 1 [3] ( = א): iii. 26: vii. 39 (partly = B): x. 8, &c.
&c.

64 This work has at last been published in 2 vols. 4to., Verona,
1861-4, under the following title:—_Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum
ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino demprompsit, edidit, Latine vertit,
Prolegomenis et Glossario adornavit, Comes_ FRANCISCUS MINISCALCHI
ERIZZO.

65 It does not sensibly detract from the value of this evidence that
one ancient codex, the “Codex Bobbiensis” (k), which Tregelles
describes as “a revised text, in which the influence of ancient MSS.
is discernible,” [_Printed text_, &c. p. 170.] and which therefore
may not be cited in the present controversy,—exhibits after ver. 8 a
Latin translation of the spurious words which are also found in Cod.
L.

66 “Quod Gothicum testimonium haud scio an critici satis agnoverint,
vel pro dignitate aestimaverint.” Mai, _Nova Patt. Bibl._ iv. 256.

_ 67 Account of the Printed Text_, p. 247.

_ 68 Gr. Test._ p. 322.

69 Ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὺαγγέλιον
μέχρι τοῦ ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, ἔχει τὸ τέλος. ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ
ταῦτα ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτῃ σαββάτων (sic) ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ
Μαγδαληνῇ ἀφ᾽ ἦς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. _Opp._ (ed. 1638) iii,
411 B.

70 Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 248, also in Horne’s _Introd._ iv.
434-6. So Norton, Alford, Davidson, and the rest, following
Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, &c.

_ 71 Nov. Auct._ i. 743-74.—_Bibl. Vett. PP._ xi. 221-6.

_ 72 Bibl. Coisl._ pp. 68-75.—_Catena_, i. 243-51.

73 Dionysius Syrus (i.e. the Monophysite Jacobus Bar-Salibi [see Dean
Payne Smith’s _Cat. of Syrr. MSS._ p. 411] who died A.D. 1171) in
his _Exposition of S. Mark’s Gospel_ (published at Dublin by Dudley
Loftus, 1672, 4to.) seems (at p. 59) to give this homily to
Severus.—I have really no independent opinion on the subject.

74 Alford, _Greek Test._ i. p. 433.

_ 75 Scriptorum Vett. Nova Collectio_, 4to. vol. i. pp. 1-101.

76 At p. 217, (_ed._ 1847), Mai designates it as “Codex Vat. Palat. cxx
pulcherrimus, sæculi ferme x.” At p. 268, he numbers it
rightly,—ccxx. We are there informed that the work of Eusebius
extends from fol. 61 to 96 of the Codex.

77 Vol. iv. pp. 219-309.

78 See _Nova P. P. Bibliotheca_, iv. 255.—That it was styled “Inquiries
with their Resolutions” (Ζητήματα καὶ Λύσεις), Eusebius leads us to
suppose by himself twice referring to it under that name,
(_Demonstr. Evang. lib._ vii. 3: also in the Preface to Marinus,
_Mai_, iv. 255:) which his abbreviator is also observed to employ
(_Mai_, iv. 219, 255.) But I suspect that he and others so designate
the work only from the nature of its contents; and that its actual
title is correctly indicated by Jerome,—_De Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ_:
“Edidit” (he says) “de Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ,” (_De Scriptt.
Illustt._ c. 81.) Again, Διαφωνία Εὐαγγελίων, (_Hieron._ in Matth.
i. 16.) Consider also the testimony of Latinus Latinius, given
below, p. 44, note (q). “Indicated” by Jerome, I say: for the entire
title was probably, Περὶ τῆς δοκούσης ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ.
διαφωνίας. The Author of the Catena on S. Mark edited by Cramer (i.
p. 266), quotes an opinion of Eusebius ἐν τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον περὶ τῆς
δοκούσης ἐν εὐαγγελίοις περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας: words which
are extracted from the same MS. by Simon, _Hist. Crit. N. T._ p. 89.

79 Ἐκλογὴ ἐν συντόμῳ ἐκ τῶν συντεθέντων ὑπὸ Εὐσεβίου πρὸς Στέφανον [and
πρὸς Μαρῖνον] περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων.
_Ibid._ pp. 219, 255.—(See the plate of fac-similes facing the title
of vol. i. ed. 1825.)

80 Σὐσέβιος ... ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἐπὶ ταῖς περὶ τοῦ θείου πάθους καὶ
τῆς ἀναστάσεως ζητήσεσι καὶ ἐκλύσεσι, κ.τ.λ. I quote the place from
the less known Catena of Cramer, (ii. 389,) where it is assigned to
Severus of Antioch: but it occurs also in _Corderii Cat. in Joan._
p. 436. (See Mai, iv. 299.)

81 This passage is too grand to be withheld:—Οὐ γὰρ ἤν ἀξιός τις ἐν τῇ
πόλει Ἰουδαίων, (ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος κεφαλαίωιγ πρὸς Μαρνον,) τὸ κατὰ
τοῦ διαβόλου τρόπαιον τὸν σταυρὸν βαστάσαι; ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐξ ἀγροῦ, ὅς
μηδὲν ἐπικεκοινώνηκε τῇ κατὰ χριστο μιαιφονίᾳ. (_Possini Cat. in
Marcum_, p. 343.)

82 Mai, iv. p. 299.—The Catenæ, inasmuch as their compilers are
observed to have been very curious in such questions, are evidently
full of _disjecta membra_ of the work. These are recognisable for
the most part by their form; but sometimes they actually retain the
name of their author. Accordingly, Catenæ have furnished Mai with a
considerable body of additional materials; which (as far as a MS.
Catena of Nicetas on S. Luke, [Cod. A. _seu_ Vat. 1611,] enabled
him,) he has edited with considerable industry; throwing them into a
kind of Supplement. (Vol. iv. pp. 268-282, and pp. 283-298.) It is
only surprising that with the stores at his command, Mai has not
contrived to enlighten us a little more on this curious subject. It
would not be difficult to indicate sundry passages which he has
overlooked. Neither indeed can it be denied that the learned
Cardinal has executed his task in a somewhat slovenly manner. He
does not seem to have noticed that what he quotes at pp.
357-8—262—283—295, is to be found in the _Catena_ of _Corderius_ at
pp. 448-9—449—450—457.—He quotes (p. 300) from an unedited Homily of
John Xiphilinus, (_Cod. Vat._ p. 160,) what he might have found in
Possinus; and in Cramer too, (p. 446.) He was evidently unacquainted
with Cramer’s work, though it had been published 3 (if not 7) years
before his own,—else, at p. 299, instead of quoting Simon, he would
have quoted Cramer’s _Catenæ_, i. 266.—It was in his power to solve
his own shrewd doubt, (at p. 299,—concerning the text of a passage
in Possinus, p. 343,) seeing that the Catena which Possinus
published was transcribed by Corderius from a MS. in the Vatican.
(Possini _Præfat._ p. ii.) In the Vatican, too, he might have found
the fragment he quotes (p. 300) from p. 364 of the _Catena_ of
Possinus. In countless places he might, by such references, have
improved his often manifestly faulty text.

83 Mai quotes the following from Latinus Latinius (_Opp._ ii. 116.) to
Andreas Masius. Sirletus (Cardinalis) “scire te vult in Siciliâ
inventos esse ... libros tres Eusebii Cæsariensis _de Evangeliorum
Diaphoniâ_, qui ut ipse sperat brevi in lucem prodibunt.” The letter
is dated 1563.

I suspect that when the original of this work is recovered, it will
be found that Eusebius digested his “Questions” _under heads_: e.g.
περὶ το τάφου, καὶ τῆς δοκούσης διαφωνίας (p. 264): περὶ τῆς
δοκούσης περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως διαφωνίας. (p. 299.)

84 I translate according to the sense,—the text being manifestly
corrupt. Τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν is probably a gloss,
explanatory of τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτό. In strictness, the κεφάλαιον
begins at ch. xv. 42, and extends to the end of the Gospel. There
are 48 such κεφάλαια in S. Mark. But this term was often loosely
employed by the Greek Fathers, (as “capitulum” by the Latins,) to
denote _a passage_ of Scripture, and it is evidently so used here.
Περικοπή, on the contrary, in this place seems to have its true
technical meaning, and to denote the liturgical _section_, or
“lesson.”

85 Ἀνάγνωσμα (like περικοπή, spoken of in the foregoing note,) seems to
be here used in its technical sense, and to designate the liturgical
_section_, or “lectio.” See Suicer, _in voce_.

86 The text of Eusebius seems to have experienced some disarrangement
and depravation here.

87 Mai, _Bibl. P.P. Nova_, iv. 255-7. For purposes of reference, the
original of this passage is given in the Appendix (B).

88 Mai, iv. 257. So far, I have given the substance only of what
Eusebius delivers with wearisome prolixity. It follows,—ὥστε τὸν
αὐτὸν σχεδὸν νοεῖσθαι καιρὸν, ἡ τὸν σφόδρα ἐγγὺς, παρὰ τοῖς
εὐαγγελισταῖς διαφόροις ὀνόμασι τετηρημένον. μηδέν τε διαφέρειν
Ματθαῖον ἰρηκότα “ὀψὲ—τάφον” [xxviii. 1.] Ἰωάννου φήσαντος “τῇ δὲ
μιᾷ—ἔτι οὔσης σκοτίας.” [xx. 1.] πλατυκῶς γὰρ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν
δηλοῦσι χρόνον διαφόροις ῥήμασι. [xxviii. 1.]—For the principal
words in the text, see the Appendix (B) _ad fin._

89 I allude to the following places:—Combefis, _Novum Auctarium_, col.
780.—Cod. Mosq. 138, (printed by Matthaei, _Anectt. Græc._ ii.
62.)—also Cod. Mosq. 139, (see N. T. ix. 223-4.)—Cod. Coislin. 195
_fol._ 165.—Cod. Coislin. 23, (published by Cramer, _Catt._ i.
251.)—Cod. Bodl. ol. Meerman Auct. T. i. 4, _fol._ 169.—Cod. Bodl.
Laud. Gr. 33, _fol._ 79.—Any one desirous of knowing more on this
subject will do well to begin by reading Simon _Hist. Crit. du N.
T._ p. 89. See Mai’s foot-note, iv. p. 257.

90 Ep. cxx. _Opera_, (ed. Vallars.) vol. i. pp. 811-43.

_ 91 Ibid._ p. 844.

_ 92 Ibid._ p. 793-810. See especially pp. 794, 809, 810.

93 “Hujus quæstionis duplex solutio est. [Τοῦτου διττὴ ἂν εἴν ἡ
λύσεις.] Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris
fertur [σπανίωσ ἔν τισι φερόμενα] Evangeliis, omnibus Græciæ libris
pene hec capitulum [τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτὸ] in fine non habentibus; [ἐν
τουτῷ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον
εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος]; præsertim cum diversa atque
contraria Evangelistis ceteris narrare videntur [μάλιστα εἴπερ
ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ.] Aut hoc
respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit [ἐκατέραν παραδεκτέαν
ὑπάρϗειν ... συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς.] Matthæus, quando Dominus
surrexerit vespere sabbati: Marcus autem, quando tum viderit Maria
Magdalena, id est, mane prima sabbati. Ita enim distinguendum est,
Cum autem resurrexisset: [μετὰ διαστολῆς ἀναγνωστέον Ἀναστὰς δέ:]
et, parumper, spiritu coarctato inferendum, Prima sabbati mane
apparuit Mariæ Magdalenæ: [εἶτα ὑποστίξαντες ῥητέον, Πρωι τῇ μιᾷ τῶν
σαββάτων ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.] Ut qui vespere sabbati, juxta
Matthæum surrexerat, [παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, ὀψὲ σαββάτων, τοτε γὰρ
ἐγήγερατο.] ipse mane prima sabbati, juxta Marcum, apparuerit Mariæ
Magdalenæ. [προί γὰρ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.]
Quod quidem et Joannes Evangelista significat, mane Eum alterius
diei visum esse demonstrans.” [τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης προί
καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ὦφθαι αὐτὸν μαρτυρήσας.]

For the Latin of the above, see _Hieronymi Opera_, (ed. Vallars.)
vol. i. p. 819: for the Greek, with its context, see Appendix (B).

94 ἠρώτας τὸ πρῶτον,—Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψὲ σαββάτων φαίνεται
ἐγεγερμένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων;
[Eusebius _ad Marinum_,(Mai, iv. 255.)]

Primum quæris,—Cur Matthæus dixerit, vespere autem Sabbati
illucescente in una Sabbate Dominum resurrexisse; et Marcus mane
resurrectionem ejus factam esse commemorat. [Hieronymus _ad
Hedibiam_, (Opp. i. 818-9.)]

Πῶς κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ τεθεαμένη τὴν
ἀνάστασιν, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἡ αὐτὴ ἑστῶσα κλαίει παρὰ τῷ μνημείῳ τῇ
μίᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου. [_Ut suprà_, p. 257.]

Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, vespere Sabbati, Maria Magdalene vidit
Dominum resurgentem; et Joannes Evangelista refert eam mane una
sabbati juxta sepulcrum fiere? [_Ut suprà_, p. 819.]

Πῶς, κατὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὀψὲ σαββἁτων ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης
Μαρίας ἁψαμένη τῶν ποσῶν τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ἡ αὐτὴ πρωί τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ
σαββάτου ἀκούει μή μου ἅπτου, κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην. [_Ut suprà_, p.
262.]

Quomodo, juxta Matthæum, Maria Magdalene vespere Sabbati cum alterâ
Mariâ advoluta sit pedibus Salvatoris; cum, secundum Joannem,
audierit à Domino, Noli me tangere. [_Ut suprà_, p. 821.]

95 Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 247.

96 See above, p. 28.

97 See above, p. 40-1.

98 See the Appendix (C) § 2.

99 See the Appendix (C) § 1.—For the statement in line 5, see § 2.

100 In the _Eccl. Grac. Monumenta_ of Cotelerius, (iii. 1-53,) may be
seen the discussion of 60 problems, headed,—Συναγωγή ἀποριῶν καὶ
ἐπιλύσεων, ἐκλεγεῖσα ἐν ἐπιτομῇ ἐκ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς συμφωνίας τοῦ
ἁγίου Ἡσυχίου πρεσβυτέρου Ἱεροσολύμων. From this it appears that
Hesychius, following the example of Eusebius, wrote a work on
“Gospel Harmony,”—of which nothing but an abridgment has come down
to us.

101 He says that he writes,—Πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὑποκειμένου προβλήματος λύσιν,
καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐξέτασιν τῶν ῥητῶν ἀναφουμένων ζητήσεων,
κ.τ.λ. Greg. Nyss._ Opp._ iii. 400 c.

102 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ γεγραμμένομ;Ὁ μὲν οῦν Κύριος, κ.τ.λ.
Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii. 415 D.—See above, p. 29, note (g).

103 See below, chap. X.

_ 104 Fasti Romani_, vol. ii. Appendix viii. pp. 395-495.

105 Vol. i. _Præfat._ p. xxviii. See below, note (p).

106 “Victor Antiochenus” (writes Dr. Tregelles in his N. T. vol. i. p.
214,) “dicit ὅτι νενόθενται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι
φερόμενον.”

107 For additional details concerning Victor of Antioch, and his work,
the studious in such matters are referred to the Appendix (D).

_ 108 Opp._ vol. vii. p. 825 E-826 B: or, in Field’s edition, p. 527,
line 3 to 20.

109 Cramer, i. p. 266, lines 10, 11,—ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος ὁ Καισαρείας ἐν
τῷ πρὸς Μαρῖνον κ.τ.λ. And at p. 446, line 19,—Εὐσεβιός φησιν ὁ
Καισαρείας κ.τ.λ.

110 Compare Cramer’s _Vict. Ant._ i. p. 444, line 6-9, with Field’s
_Chrys._ iii. p. 539, line 7-21.

111 Mai, iv. p. 257-8.

112 Cramer, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to p. 445, line 4.

113 The following is the original of what is given above:—Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν
τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων πρόσκειται τῷ παρόντι εὐαγγελίῳ, “ἀναστὰς δὲ τῇ
μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου πρωί, ἐφάνη (see below) Μαρίᾳ τῆ Μαγδαληνῇ,” δοκεῖ
δὲ τοῦτο διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου εὶρημένῳ, ὲροῦμεν ὡς δυνατὸν μὲν
εἰπεῖν ὅτι νενόθευται τὸ παρὰ Μάρκῳ τελευταῖον ἔν τισι φερόμενον.
πλὴν ἵνα μὴ δόξωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἕτοιμον καταφεύγειν, οὔτως ἀναγνωσόμεθα;
“ἀναστὰς δὲ,” καὶ ὑποστίξαντες ἐπάγωμεν, “πρωί τῇ μιᾶ τοῦ σαββάτου
ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.” ἵνα [_The extract from_ VICTOR _is
continued below in the right hand column: the left exhibiting the
text of_ EUSEBIUS “_ad Marinum_.”] [Transcriber’s Note: The extracts
will be on alternating paragraphs.]

(Eusebius.) τὸ μὲν “ἀναστὰς,” ἀν[απέμψωμεν?] ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ
“ὀψὲ σαββάτων.” (τότε γὰρ ἐγήγερτο.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας ὄν διανοίας
ὑποστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις.

(Victor.) τὸ μὲν “ἀναστὰς,” ὰναπέμψωμεν ἐπὶ τὴν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ “ὀψὲ
σαββάτων.” (τότε γὰρ ἐγηγέρθαι αὐτὸν πιστεύομεν.) τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, ἑτέρας
ὄν διανοίας παραστατικὸν, συνάψωμεν τοῖς ἐπιλεγομένοις;

(Eusebius.) (“πρωί” γὰρ “τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ
Μαγδαληνῇ.”)

(Victor.) (τὸν γὰρ “ὀψὲ σαββάτων” κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγαγερμένον ἱστορεῖ
“πρωί” ἑωρακέναι Μαρίαν τὴν Μαγδαληνήν.)

(Eusebius.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης “πρωί” καί αὐτὸς “τῇ
μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου” ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.

(Victor.) τοῦτο γοῦν ἐδήλωσε καὶ Ἰωάννες, “πρωί” καὶ αὐτὸς “τῇ μιᾷ
τῶν σαββάτων” ὤφθαι αὐτὸν τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ μαρτυρήσας.

[31 words here omitted.]

(Eusebius.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν γὰρ τῆς
αναστάσεως τὸν “ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου.” τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος
ἐπιφανείας, τὸν “πρωί.”

(Victor.) ὡς παρίστασθαι ἐν τούτοις καιροὺς δύο; τὸν μὲν τῆς
ἀναστάσεως, τὸν “ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου;” τὸν δὲ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος
ἐπιφανείας, τὸ “προί.”

[EUSEBIUS, _apud Mai_, iv. p. 256.]

[VICTOR ANTIOCH, _ed. Cramer_, i. p. 444-5: (_with a few slight
emendations of the text from_ Evan. Cod. Reg. 178.)]

Note, that Victor _twice_ omits the word πρῶτον, and _twice_ reads
τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου, (instead of πρῶτῃ σαββάτου), _only because
Eusebius had inadvertently_ (three times) _done the same thing_ in
the place from which Victor is copying. See Mai. _Nova P. P. Bibl._
iv. p. 256, line 19 and 26: p. 257 line 4 and 5.

114 οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δἐ ὡς διαφόρους ὀπτασίας γεγενῆσθαί φασιν οἱ τὴν δοκοῦσαν
διαφωνίαν διαλῦσαι σπουδάζοντες. Vict. Ant. _ed. Cramer_, vol. i. p.
445, l. 23-5: referring to what Eusebius says _apud Mai_, iv. 264
and 265 (§ iiii): 287-290 (§§ v, vi, vii.)

115 e.g. in the passage last quoted.

116 For the original of this remarkable passage the reader is referred
to the Appendix (E).

117 How shrewdly was it remarked by Matthaei, eighty years ago,—“Scholia
certe, in quibus de integritate hujus loci dubitatur, omnia _ex uno
fonte promanarunt_. Ex eodem fonte Hieronymum etiam hausisse
intelligitur ex ejus loco quem laudavit Wetst. ad ver. 9.—Similiter
Scholiastæ omnes in principio hujus Evangelii in disputatione de
lectione ἐν ἡσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτη ex uno pendent. _Fortasse Origenes
auctor est hujus dubitationis._” (N.T. vol. ii. p. 270.)—The reader
is invited to remember what was offered above in p. 47 (line 23.)

118 It is not often, I think, that one finds in MSS. a point actually
inserted after Ἀναστάς δέ. Such a point is found, however, in Cod.
34 ( = Coisl. 195,) and Cod. 22 ( = Reg. 72,) and doubtless in many
other copies.

119 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 47, 125, 431.

120 Φασὶ δέ τινες τῶν ἐξηγητῶν ἐνταῦθα συμπληροῦσθαι τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον
εὐαγγέλιον; τὰ δὲ ἐφεξῆς προσθήκην εἶναι μεταγενεστέραν. Χρὴ δὲ καὶ
ταύτην ἑρμηνεῦσαι μηδὲν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ λυμαινομένην.—Euthym. Zig. (_ed._
Matthaei, 1792), _in loc._

121 For some remarks on this subject the reader is referred to the
Appendix (F).

122 Viz. A, C [v]; D [vi]; E, L [viii]; F, K, M, V, Γ, Δ, Λ (quære), Π
[ix]; G, H, X, S, U [ix, x].

123 Vercellone,—_Del antichissimo Codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca_,
Roma, 1860. (pp. 21.)

_ 124 Dublin Univ. Mag._ (Nov. 1859,) p. 620, quoted by Scrivener, p. 93.

125 ὁμοιοτέλευτον.

126 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_ to his ed. of the Codex Bezæ, p.
xxiii. The passage referred to reappears at the end of his Preface
to the 2nd ed. of his _Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus_.—Add to his
instances, this from S. Matth. xxviii. 2, 3:—

ΚΑΙ ΕΚΑΘΗΤΟ Ε
ΠΑΝΩ ΑΥΤΟΥ [ΗΝ ΔΕ
Η ΕΙΔΕΑ ΑΥΤΟΥ] ΩΣ
ΑΣΤΡΑΠΗ

It is plain why the scribe of א wrote επανω αυτου ως αστραπη.—The
next is from S. Luke xxiv. 31:—

ΔΙΗΝΥΓΗ
ΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙ
ΚΑΙ [ΕΠΕΓΝΩΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟ
ΚΑΙ] ΑΥΤΟΣ ΑΦΑΝ
ΤΟΣ ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ

Hence the omission of και επεγνωσαν αυτον in א.—The following
explains the omission from א (and D) of the Ascension at S. Luke
xxiv. 52:—

ΑΠ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ [ΑΝ
ΕΦΕΡΕΤΟ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ
ΟΥΡΑΝΟΝ ΚΑΙ] ΑΥ
ΤΟΙ ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΣΙ

The next explains why א reads περικαλυψαντες επηρωτων in S. Luke
xxii. 64:—

ΔΕΡΟΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕ
ΠΙΚΑΛΥΨΑΝΤΕΣ Ε
[ΤΥΠΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΤΟ
ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΝ ΚΑΙ Σ]
ΠΗΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΥΤΟ

The next explains why the words και πας εις αυτην βιαζεται are
absent in א (and G) at S. Luke xvi. 16:—

ΕΥΑΓΓΕ
ΛΙΖΕΤΑΙ [ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣ
ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΒΙ
ΑΖΕΤΑΙ] ΕΥΚΟΠΩ
ΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΤΟ

127 In this way, (at S. John xvii. 15, 16), the obviously corrupt
reading of Cod. B (ινα τηρησης αυτους εκ του κοσμου)—which, however,
was the reading of the copy used by Athanasius (_Opp._ p. 1035: _al.
ed._ p. 825)—is explained:—

ΕΚ ΤΟΥ [ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ.
ΕΚ ΤΟΥ] ΚΟΣΜΟΥ
ΟΥΚ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΚΑΘΩΣ

Thus also is explained why B (with א, A, D, L) omits a precious
clause in S. Luke xxiv. 42:—

ΟΠΤΟΥ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ
[ΑΠΟ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΙ
ΟΥ ΚΗΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ]
ΛΑΒΩΝ ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝ

And why the same MSS. (all but A) omit an important clause in S.
Luke xxiv. 53:—

ΕΝ ΤΩ ΙΕΡΩ [ΑΙΝ
ΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΙ] ΕΥΛΟ
ΓΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΗΟΝ

And why B (with א, L) omits an important clause in the history of
the Temptation (S. Luke iv. 5) :—

ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΑΓΩΝ ΑΥ
ΤΟΝ [ΕΙΣ ΟΡΟΣ ΥΨΗ
ΛΟΝ] ΕΔΙΞΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ

128 In this way the famous omission (א, B, L) of the word δευτεροπρώτῳ,
in S. Luke vi. 1, is (to say the least) capable of being explained:—

ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ Δ Ε ΕΝ ΣΑΘ
ΒΑΤΩ Δ[ΕΥΤΕΡΟ
ΠΡΩΤΩ Δ]ΙΑΠΟΡΕΥΕ

and of υιου Βαραχιου (א) in S. Matth. xxvii. 35:—

ΑΙΜΑΤΟΣ ΖΑΧΑΡΙΟΥ
[ΥΙΟΥ ΒΑΡΑΧΙΟΥ]
ΟΝ ΕΦΟΝΕΥΣΑΤΕ

129 He has reached the 480th page of vol. ii. (1 Cor. v. 7.)

130 In this way 14 words have been omitted from Cod. א in S. Mark xv.
47—xvi. 1:—19 words in S. Mark i. 32-4:—20 words in S. John xx. 5,
6:—39 words in S. John xix. 20, 21.

131 Scrivener’s _Full Collation_, &c., p. xv.; quoting Tregelles’ N. T.