Chapter XXVI: Part II: page ii (1)

132 See Chap. IV. p. 37.

133 Scrivener’s _Introduction to Con. Bezae_, p. liv.

134 e.g. in S. John i. 42 (meaning only א, B, L): iv. 42 (א, B, C): v.
12 (א, B, C, L): vi. 22 (A, B, L), &c.

135 e.g. S. Matth. x. 25; xii. 24, 27: S. Luke xi. 15, 18, 19
(βεεζεβουλ).—1 Cor. xiii. 3 (καυχησωμαι).—S. James i. 17
(αποσκιασματος).—Acts i. 5 (εν πν. βαπ. αγ.).—S. Mark vi. 20
(ηπορει).—S. Matth. xiv. 30 (ισχυρον).—S. Luke iii. 32 (ἰωβηλ).—Acts
i. 19 (ἰδίᾳ omitted).—S. Matth. xxv. 27 (τα αργυρια).—S. Matth.
xvii. 22 (συστρεφομενων).—S. Luke vi. 1 (δευτεροπρῶτῳ omitted).—See
more in Tischendorf’s _Prolegomena_ to his 4to. reprint of the _Cod.
Sin._ p. xxxvi. On this head the reader is also referred to
Scrivener’s very interesting _Collation of the Cod. Sinaiticus_,
Introduction, p. xliii. _seq._

136 See Tischendorf’s note in his reprint of the Cod. Sin., _Prolegg._
p. lix.

137 Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος—καταβαίνοντα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. S. Luke xxii. 43, 44.

138 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς—τί ποιοῦσι, (xxiii. 34):—γράμμασιν Ἐλληνικοῖς καὶ
Ῥωμαῖκοῖς καὶ Ἐβραῖκοῖς, (xxiii. 38.)

139 αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και
αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!

_ 140 Coll. of the Cod. Sin._, p. xlvii.

141 So, in the margin of the Hharklensian revision.

142 Note, that it is a mistake for the advocates of this reading to
claim the _Latin_ versions as allies. Ἀπεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος, Ἄνθρωπος
λεγόμενος Ἰησοῦς κ.τ.λ. is not “Respondit, Ille homo qui dicitur
Jesus,” (as both Tischendorf and Tregelles assume;) but “_Respondit
ille_, Homo,” &c.,—as in verses 25 and 36.

143 This reading will be found discussed in a footnote (p) at the end of
Chap. VII.,—p. 110.

144 The following may be added from Cod. א:—μεγάλοι αὐτῶν (in S. Mark x.
42) changed into βασιλεις: ειπεν (in S. Mark xiv. 58) substituted
for ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτου λέγοντος: εβδομηκοντα τεσσαρων (in S. Lu.
ii. 37) for ὀγδοηκ: and εωρακεν σε (in S. Jo. viii. 57) for
ἑώρακας:—in all which four readings Cod. א is without support.
[Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. li.] The epithet μεγαν, introduced
(in the same codex) before λίθον in S. Mark xv. 46; and και πατριας
inserted into the phrase ἐξ οἴκου Δαβίδ in S. Lu. i. 27,—are two
more specimens of mistaken officiousness. In the same infelicitous
spirit, Cod. B and Cod. א concur in omitting ἰσχυρόν (S. Matt. xiv.
30), and in substituting πυκνα for πυγμῇ, and ραντισωνται for
βαπτίσωνται in S. Mark vii. 3 and 4:—while the interpolation of
τασσομενος after ἐξουσίαν in S. Matth. viii. 9, because of the
parallel place in S. Luke’s Gospel; and the substitution of ανθρωπος
αυστηρος ει (from S. Luke xix. 21) for σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος in S.
Matth. xxv. 24, are proofs that yet another kind of corrupting
influence has been here at work besides those which have been
already specified.

145 Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. xlvii.

146 Add to the authorities commonly appealed to for ἐξελθ. Chrys.^834
(twice,) (also quoted in Cramer’s _Cat._ 241). The mistake adverted
to in the text is at least as old as the time of Eusebius, (Mai, iv.
p. 264 = 287), who asks,—Πῶς παρά τῷ Ματθάιῳ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία μετὰ
τῆς ἄλλης Μαρίας ἔξω τοῦ μνήματος ἑώρακεν τὸν ἕνα ἄγγελον
ἐπικαθήμενον τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ μνήματος, κ.τ.λ.

147 Tischendorf accordingly _is forced_, for once, to reject the reading
of his oracle א,—witnessed to though it be by Origen and Eusebius.
His discussion of the text in this place is instructive and even
diverting. How is it that such an instance as the present does not
open the eyes of Prejudice itself to the danger of pinning its faith
to the consentient testimony even of Origen, of Eusebius, and of
Cod. א?... The reader is reminded of what was offered above, in the
lower part of p. 49.

148 A similar perversion of the truth of Scripture is found at S. Luke
iv. 44, (cf. the parallel place, S. Matth. iv. 23: S. Mark i. 89).
It does not mend the matter to find א supported this time by Codd.
B, C, L, Q, R.

149 S. Lu. xxiii. 45:—ὅπερ οὐδέποτε πρότερον συνέβη, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν Αἰγύπτω
μόνον, ὅτε τὸ πάσχα τελεῖσθαι ἔμελλε; καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνα τούτων τύπος
ἦν. (Chrys. vii. 824 c.)

150 ὅπως δὲ μὴ εἰπωσί τινες ἔκλειψιν εἶναι τὸ γεγενημένον, ἐν τῇ
τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτη ἡμέρᾳ τῆς σελήνης γἐγονε τὸ σκότος:—ὅτε ἔκλειψιν
συμβῆναι ἀμήχανον. So Victor of Antioch, in his Catena on S. Mark
(ed. Possin.) He makes the remark twice: first (p. 351) in the midst
of an abridgment of the beginning of Chrysostom’s 88th Homily on S.
Matthew: next (p. 352) more fully, after quoting “the great
Dionysius” of Alexandria. See also an interesting passage on the
same subject in Cramer’s _Catena in Matth._ i. p. 237,—from whom
derived, I know not; but professing to be from Chrysostom. (Note,
that the 10 lines ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου, beginning p. 236, line 33 = Chrys.
vii. 824, D, E.) The very next words in Chrysostom’s published
Homily (p. 825 A.) are as follows:—Ὅτε γὰρ οὐκ ἦν ἔκλειψις, αλλ᾽
ὀργή τε καὶ ἀγανάκτησις, οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ
τοῦ καιροῦ; τρεῖς γἀρ ὥρας παρέμεινεν, ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ γίνεται
καιροῦ ῥοπῇ.—Anyone who would investigate this matter further should
by all means read Matthaei’s long note on S. Luke xxiii. 45.

151 See above, p. 70, and the Appendix (F).

152 Tischendorf’s “_Introduction_” to his (Tauchnitz) edition of the
English N.T., 1869,—p. xiii.

153 “Epistola quam nos ‘ad Ephesios’ præscriptam habemus, hæretici vero
’ad Laodicenos.” _Adv. Marcion._ lib. v. c. xi, p. 309 (ed. Oehler.)

154 “ ‘Titulum’ enim ‘_ad Laodicenos_’ ut addidisse accusatur a
Tertulliano, ita in salutatione verba ἐν Ἐφέσῳ omnino non legisse
censendus est.” (N. T. _in loc._)

155 “Ecclesiæ quidem veritate Epistolam istam ‘ad Ephesios’ habemus
emissam, non ‘ad Laodicenos;’ sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando
interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.”
_Adv. Marcion._ lib. v. c. xvii, pp. 322-3 (ed. Oehler.)

156 ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ἰκανῶν. (Epiphan. _Opp._ i. 310 c.)

157 He describes its structure minutely at vol. i. pp. 309-310, and from
pp. 312-7; 318-321. [Note, by the way, the gross blunder which has
crept into the printed text of Epiphanius at p. 321 D: pointed out
long since by Jones, _On the Canon_, ii. 38.] His plan is excellent.
Marcion had rejected every Gospel except S. Luke’s, and of S. Paul’s
Epistles had retained only ten,—viz. (1st) Galatians, (2nd and 3rd)
I and II Corinthians, (4th) Romans, (5th and 6th) I and II
Thessalonians, (7th) _Ephesians_, (8th) Colossians, (9th) Philemon,
(10th) Philippians. Even these he had mutilated and depraved. And
yet out of that one mutilated Gospel, Epiphanius selects 78
passages, (pp. 312-7), and out of those ten mutilated Epistles, 40
passages more (pp. 318-21); by means of which 118 texts he
undertakes to refute the heresy of Marcion. (pp. 322-50: 350-74.)
[It will be perceived that Tertullian goes over Marcion’s work in
much the same way.] Very beautiful, and well worthy of the student’s
attention, (though it comes before us in a somewhat incorrect form,)
is the remark of Epiphanius concerning the living energy of GOD’S
Word, even when dismembered and exhibited in a fragmentary shape.
“Ὅλου γὰρ τοῦ σώματος ζῶντος, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τῆς θείας γραφῆς, ποῖον
ηὕρισκε (sc. Marcion) μέλος νεκρὸν κατὰ τῆν αὐτοῦ γνώμην, ἵνα
παρεισαγάγη ψεῦδος κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας; ... παρέκοψε πολλὰ τῶν μελῶν,
κατέσχε δὲ ἔνιά τινα παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ; καὶ αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ κατασχεθέντα ἔτι
ζῶντα οὐ δύναται νεκροῦσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ μὲν τὸ ζωτικὸν τῆς ἐμφάσεως,
κᾴν τε μυρίως παρ᾽ αὐτῷ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἀποτμηθείν.” (p. 375 B.) He
seems to say of Marcion,—

Fool! to suppose thy shallow wits
Could quench a fire like that. Go, learn
That cut into ten thousand bits
Yet every bit would breathe and burn!

158 He quotes Ephes. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14: v. 14: v. 31. (See Epiphanius,
_Opp._ i. p. 318 and 371-2.)

_ 159 Ibid._ p. 318 C ( = 371 B), and 319 A ( = 374 A.)

_ 160 Ibid._ p. 319 and 374. But note, that through error in the copies,
or else through inadvertence in the Editor, the depravation
commented on at p. 374 B, C, is lost sight of at p. 319 B.

161 See below, at the end of the next note.

162 Προσέθετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ Ἀποστολικῷ καλουμένῳ καὶ τῆς καλουμένης πρὸς
Λαοδικέας:—“Εῖς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν βάπτισμα, εἶς Χριστὸς, εἶς
Θεὸς, καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.”
(Epiphan. _Opp._ vol i. p. 374.) Here is obviously a hint of τριῶν
ἀνάρχων ἀρχῶν διαφορὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλας ἐξουσῶν: [Μαρκίωνος γὰρ τοῦ
ματαιόφρονος δίδαγμα, εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχὰς τῆς μοναρχίας τομὴν καὶ
διαίρεσιν. Athanas. i. 231 E.] but, (says Epiphanius), οὐχ οὕτως
ἔχει ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀποστόλου ὑπόθεσις καὶ ἠσφαλισμένον κήρυγμα. ἀλλὰ
ἄλλως παρὰ τὸ σὸν ποιήτευμα. Then he contrasts with the
“fabrication” of Marcion, the inspired verity,—Eph. iv. 5: declaring
ἕνα Θεὸν, τὸν αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων,—τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πάντων, καὶ ἐν
πᾶσι, κ.τ.λ.—p. 374 C.

Epiphanius reproaches Marcion with having obtained materials ἐκτὸς
τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου; οὐ γὰρ ἔδοξε τῷ ἐλεεινοτάτῳ
Μαρκίωνι ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν λέγειν, (sc. the
words quoted above,) ἀλλὰ τῆς πρὸς Λαοδικέας, τῆς μὴ οὔσης ἐν τῷ
Ἀποστόλῳ (p. 375 A.) (Epiphanius here uses Ἀπόστολος in its
technical sense,—viz. as synonymous with S. Paul’s Epistles.)

163 “Ὠριγένης δέ φησι,—”Ἐπὶ μόνων Ἐφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ “τοῖς
ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι;” καὶ ζητοῦμεν, εἰ μὴ παρέλκει προσκείμενον τὸ
“τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι,” τί δύναται σημαίνειν; ὅρα οὖν εἰ μὴ ὥσπερ
ἐν τῇ Ἐξόδω ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ χρηματίζων Μωσεί τὸ ὬΝ οὕτως οἱ
μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος γίνονται “ὄντες.” καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ
εἶς αι εἰς τὸ εἶναι. “ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα,” φησὶν ὁ
αὐτὸς Παῦλος, “ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήση.”—Cramer’s _Catena in Ephes._
i. 1,—vol. vi. p. 102.

164 Consider S. John i. 42, 44, 46: v. 14: ix. 35: xii. 14, &c.

165 Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ Ὄντι δι᾽
ἐπιγνώσεως, “ὄντας” αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών: “τοῖς ἀγίοις
τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.” οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν
παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν.
Note also what immediately follows. (Basil _Opp._ i. p. 254 E, 255
A.)

166 See the places quoted by Scrivener, _Introd._ pp. 381-91;
particularly p. 385.

167 Hieron. _Opp._ vol. vii. p. 543:—“Illud quoque in Præfatione
commoneo, ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistolam
conscripsisse, quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus.”

168 “Quidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum
est ‘Haec dices filiis Israel, QUI EST misit me,’ etiam eos qui
Ephesi sunt [Note this. Cf. ‘qui sunt Ephesi,’ _Vulg._] sancti et
fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos: ut ... ab EO ‘qui est,’ hi
‘qui sunt’ appellentur.... Alii veto simpliciter, non ad eos ‘qui
sint,’ sed ‘qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint’ scriptum
arbitrantur.” Hieron. _Opp._ vii. p. 545 A, B.

169 The cursive “Cod. No. 67” (or “672”) is improperly quoted as
“omitting” (Tisch.) these words. The reference is to a MS. in the
Imperial Library at Vienna, (Nessel 302: Lambec. 34, which = our
Paul 67), collated by Alter (N.T. 1786, vol. ii. pp. 415-558), who
says of it (p. 496),—“_cod. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ punctis notat_.” ... The MS.
must have a curious history. H. Treschow describes it in his
_Tentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece_, &c. Havn. 1773, pp.
62-73.—Also, A. C. Hwiid in his _Libellus Criticus de indole Cod.
MS. Graeci N. T. Lambec. xxxiv._ &c. Havn. 1785.—It appears to have
been corrected by some Critic,—perhaps from Cod. B itself.

170 So indeed does Cod. א occasionally. See Scrivener’s _Collation_, p.
xlix.

171 Scrivener’s _Introduction to Codex Bezae_, p. liv.

172 Scrivener, _Coll. of Cod. Sin._ p. xlv.

173 Eph. vi. 21, 22.

174 Coloss. iv. 7, 16.

_ 175 Ubi suprà_.

_ 176 Gnomon_, in Ephes. i. 1, _ad init._

177 See above, pp. 93-6. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius (_ad
Ephes._ c. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also Lardner,
vol. ii.

178 Let it be clearly understood by the advocates of this expedient for
accounting for the state of the text of Codd. B. and א, that nothing
whatever is gained for the credit of those two MSS. by their
ingenuity. Even if we grant them all they ask, the Codices in
question remain, by their own admission, _defective_.

Quite plain is it, by the very hypothesis, that one of two courses
alone remains open to them in editing the text: either (1) _To leave
a blank space_ after τοῖς οὔσιν: or else, (2) _To let the words_ ἐν
Ἐφέσῳ _stand_,—which I respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they
can do. [For with Conybeare and Howson (_Life and Letters of S.
Paul_, ii. 491), to eject the words “at Ephesus” from the text of
Ephes. i. 1, and actually to substitute in their room the words “in
Laodicea,”—is plainly abhorrent to every principle of rational
criticism. The remarks of C. and H. on this subject (pp. 486 ff)
have been faithfully met and sufficiently disposed of by Dean Alford
(vol. iii. _Prolegg._ pp. 13-8); who infers, “in accordance with the
prevalent belief of the Church in all ages, that this Epistle was
_veritably addressed to the Saints in Ephesus_, and _to no other
Church_.”] In the former case, they will be exhibiting a curiosity;
viz. they will be shewing us how (they think) a duplicate (“carta
bianca”) copy of the Epistle looked with “the space after τοῖς οὔσι
left utterly void:” in the latter, they will be representing the
archetypal copy which was sent to the Metropolitan see of Ephesus.
But by printing the text thus,—τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσω] καὶ
πιστοῖς κ.τ.λ., they are acting on an entirely different theory.
They are merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every MS.
in the world except Codd. B and א. This is clearly to forsake the
“Encyclical” hypothesis altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the
same footing as any other disputed text of Scripture which can be
named.

179 Ἐγκύκλιον ἐπιστολήν, vel ἐγκύκλια γράμματα Christophorsonus et alii
interpretantur _literas circulares_: ego cum viris doctis malim
_Epistolas_ vel _literas publicas_, ad omnes fideles pertinentes,
quas Græci aliàs vocant ἐπιστολὰς καθολικάς.—Suicer _in voce_.

180 Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὕται, οἰονεὶ ἐγκύκλιοι—See Suicer _in voce_,
Ἐγκύκλιος.

181 Routh’s _Reliquiæ_, vol. iii. p. 266.—“Tum ex Conciliis, tum ex
aliis Patrum scriptis notum est, consuevisse primos Ecclesiao Patres
acta et decreta Conciliorum passim ad omnes Dei Ecclesias mittere
per epistolas, quas non uni privatim dicârunt, sed publice describi
ab omnibus, dividi passim et pervulgari, atque cum omnibus populis
communicari voluerunt. Hac igitur epistolae ἐγκύκλιοι vocatae sunt,
quia κυκλόσε, quoquò versum et in omnem partem mittebantur.”—Suicer
_in voc._

182 “On the whole,” says Bishop Middleton, (_Doctrine of the Greek Art._
p. 355) “I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (on
Col. iv. 16,)—‘that the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by Tychicus,
who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans;
with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians.’ ”—This
suggestion is intended to meet _another_ difficulty, and leaves the
question of the reading of Ephes. i. 1 untouched. It proposes only
to explain what S. Paul means by the enigmatical expression which is
found in Col. iv. 16.

Macknight’s suggestion, though it has found favour with many
subsequent Divines, appears to me improbable in a high degree. S.
Paul is found not to have sent _the Colossians_ “word by Tychicus,
who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans.”
He charged them, himself, to do so. Why, at the same instant, is the
Apostle to be thought to have adopted two such different methods of
achieving one and the same important end? And why, instead of this
roundabout method of communication, were not _the Ephesians_
ordered,—if not by S. Paul himself, at least by Tychicus,—to send a
copy of their Epistle to Colosse direct? And why do we find the
Colossians charged to read publicly τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, which (by the
hypothesis) would have been only a copy,—instead of τὴν ἐξ Ἐφέσου,
which, (by the same hypothesis,) would have been the original? Nay,
why is it not designated by S. Paul, τὴν πρὸς Ἐφεσίους,—(if indeed
it was his Epistle to the Ephesians which is alluded to,) instead of
τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας; which would hardly be an intelligible way of
indicating the document? Lastly, why are not the Colossians ordered
to communicate a copy of their Epistle to the illustrious Church of
the _Ephesians_ also, which had been originally addressed by S.
Paul? If the Colossians must needs read the Epistle (so like their
own) which the Apostle had just written to the Ephesians, surely the
Ephesians must also be supposed to have required a sight of the
Epistle which S. Paul had at the same time written to the
Colossians!

183 Epiphan. _Opp._ i. 311 D.

184 “Marcion exerte et palam machæra non stilo usus est, quoniam ad
materiam suam cædem Scripturarum confecit.” (Tertullian _Præscript.
Hær._ c. 38, p. 50.) “Non miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas
totas plerumque subducat.” (_Adv. Marcion._ lib. v, c. xvii, p.
455.)

185 See above p. 95, and see note (f) p. 94.

186 See, by all means, Alford on this subject, vol. iii. _Prolegg._ pp.
13-15.

187 p. xiv.—See above, pp. 8, 9, note (f).

188 One is rather surprised to find the facts of the case so unfairly
represented in addressing unlearned readers; who are entitled to the
largest amount of ingenuousness, and to entire sincerity of
statement. The facts are these:—

(1) Valentt. (_apud_ Irenæum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus
(_apud_ Clem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenæus himself, (2) Clemens
Alex., and (3) Theodotus (_apud_ Clem.) _also_ read ἦν. These
testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also
has _both_ readings.—Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads ἔστι; but
Origen, (though he remarks that ἔστι is “perhaps not an improbable
reading,”) reads ἦν _ten or eleven times_. Ἦν is also the reading of
Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Theodoret,—of the
Vulgate, of the Memphitic, of the Peshito, and of the Philoxenian
Versions; as well as of B, A, C,—in fact of _all the MSS. in the
world_, except of א and D.

All that remains to be set on the other side are the Thebaic and
Cureton’s Syriac, together with most copies of the early Latin.

And now, with the evidence thus all before us, will any one say that
it is lawfully a question for discussion which of these two readings
must exhibit the genuine text of S. John i. 4? (For I treat it as a
question of authority, and reason from _the evidence_,—declining to
import into the argument what may be called _logical_
considerations; though I conceive them to be all on my side.) I
suspect, in fact, that the inveterate practice of the primitive age
of reading the place after the following strange fashion,—ὁ γέγονεν
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, was what led to this depravation of the text. Cyril
in his Commentary [heading of lib. i, c. vi.] so reads S. John i. 3,
4. And to substitute ἐστί (for ἦν) in such a sentence as _that_, was
obvious.... Chrysostom’s opinion is well known, “Let us beware of
putting the full stop” (he says) “at the words οὐδὲ ἐν,—as do the
heretics.” [He alludes to Valentinus, Heracleon (Orig. _Opp._ i.
130), and to Theodotus (_apud_ Clem. Alex.). But it must be
confessed that Irenæus, Hippolytus (_Routh, Opusc._ i. 68), Clemens
Alex., Origen, Concil. Antioch. (A.D. 269, _Routh_ iii. 293),
Theophilus Antioch., Athanasius, Cyril of Jer.,—besides of the
Latins, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus (_Routh_ iii. 459), and
Augustine,—point the place in the same way. “It is worth our
observation,” (says Pearson,) “that Eusebius citing the place of S.
John to prove that the HOLY GHOST was made by the SON, leaves out
those words twice together by which the Catholics used to refute
that heresy of the Arians, viz. ὁ γέγονεν.”]

Chrysostom proceeds,—“In order to make out that THE SPIRIT is a
creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the
Evangelist’s language is made unintelligible.” (_Opp._ viii.
40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not
by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson’s note,
referred to _infrà_), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the
sentence as we do.—See by all means on this subject Pearson’s _note_
(_z_), ART. viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh’s _Opusc._ i.
88-9.

189 It may not be altogether useless that I should follow this famous
Critic of the text of the N. T. over the ground which he has himself
chosen. He challenges attention for the four following readings of
the Codex Sinaiticus:—

(1.) S. JOHN i. 4: εν αυτω ζωη εστιν.—(2.) S. MATTH. xiii. 35: το
ρηθεν δια ησαιου του προφετου.—(3.) S. JOHN xiii. 10: ο λελουμενος
ουχ εχι χρειαν νιψασθαι.—(4.) S. JOHN vi. 51: αν τις φαγη εκ του
εμου αρυου, ζησει εις τον αιωνα;—ο αρτος ον εγω δωσω υπερ της του
κοσμου ζωης η σαρξ μου εστιν. (And this, Dr. Teschendorf asserts to
be “indubitably correct.”)

On inspection, these four readings prove to be exactly what might
have been anticipated from the announcement that they are almost the
private property of the single Codex א. The last three are
absolutely worthless. They stand self-condemned. To examine is to
reject them: the second (of which Jerome says something _very_
different from what Tisch. pretends) and fourth being only two more
of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired
Text, of which this Codex contains so many sorry specimens: the
third being clearly nothing else but the result of the carelessness
of the transcriber. Misled by the like ending (ὁμοιοτέλευτον) he has
_dropped a line_: thus:—

ΟΥΧ ΕΧΙ ΧΡΕΙΑΝ [ΕΙ
ΜΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ] ΝΙ
ΨΑΣΘΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΣΤΙΝ

The first, I have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p.
110.

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

191 Deut. xvi. 19.

_ 192 Printed Text_, p. 254.

193 Viz. Codd. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137,
138, 143, 181, 186, 196, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222.

194 Wetstein quoted 14 Codices in all: but Griesbach makes no use of his
reference to Reg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242?) which = Evan.
15, 19, 299 (?) respectively.

_ 195 Variae Lectiones_, &c. (1801, p. 225-6.)—He cites Codd. Vatt. 358,
756, 757, 1229 (= our 129, 137, 138, 143): Cod. Zelada (= 181):
Laur. vi. 18, 34 (= 186, 195): Ven. 27 (= 210): Vind. Lamb. 38, 89,
Kol. 4 (= 221, 222, 108): Cod. iv. (_leg._ 5 ?) S. Mariæ Bened.
Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6, 10 (= 206, 209.)

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

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

198 Quo signo tamquam censoria virgula usi sunt librarii, qua
Evangelistarum narrationes, in omnibus Codicibus non obvias, tamquam
dubias notarent.—_Variae Lectiones_, &c. p. 225.

199 In Cod. 264 (= Paris 65) for instance, besides at S. Mk. xvi. 9, +
occurs at xi. 12, xii. 38, and xiv. 12. On the other hand, no such
sign occurs at the _pericope de adulterá_.

200 Further obligations to the same friend are acknowledged in the
Appendix (D).

201 Similarly, in Cod. Coisl. 20, in the Paris Library, (which = our
36,) against S. Mark xvi. 9, is this sign [symbol: inverse or open
x]. It is intended (like an asterisk in a modern book) to refer the
reader to the self-same annotation which is spoken of in the text as
occurring in Cod. Vat. 756, and which is observed to occur in the
margin of the Paris MS. also.

202 ἐντεῦθεν ἔως τοῦ τέλους ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται: ἐν δε τοῖς
ἀρχαίοις, πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται.—(Codd. 20 and 300 = Paris 188,
186.)

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

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

εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμοις
παλαιὼν ἀντιγράφων, ἐν στίχοις βφιδ

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

εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν
ἐσπουδασμένων στίχοις αφς κεφαλαίοις σλξ

This second colophon (though not the first) is found in Cod. 20.
_Both_ reappear in Cod. 262 ( = Paris 53), and (with an interesting
variety in the former of the two) in [what I suppose is the first
half of] the uncial Codex Λ. See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 125.

205 = Paris 72, _fol._ 107 _b_. He might have added, (for Wetstein had
pointed it out 79 years before,) that _the same note precisely_ is
found between verses 8 and 9 in Cod. 15 ( = Paris 64,) _fol._ 98
_b_.

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

207 Cod. 1. (at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (which = Venet. 6 and 10)
contain as follows:—

ἔν τισι μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ Εὐαγγελιστὴς, ἕως οἱ
καὶ Ἐυσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν; ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ ταῦτα φέρεται;
ἀναστὰς, κ.τ.λ.

But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV. [_lege_
5],) according to Birch (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has
only this:—

ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖνται [?] ταῦτα.

208 It originated in this way. At the end of S. Matthew’s Gospel, in
both Codices, are found those large extracts from the “2nd Hom. on
the Resurrection” which Montfaucon published in the _Bibl. Coisl._
(pp. 68-75), and which Cramer has since reprinted at the end of his
_Catena in S. Matth._ (i. 243-251.) In Codd. 34 and 39 they are
ascribed to “Severus of Antioch.” See above (p. 40.) See also pp. 39
and 57.

209 See above, pp. 64, 65.

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

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

212 Cod. Λ, 20, 262, 300.

213 Evan. 374.

214 viz. Evan. 24, 36, 37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137,
138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222. (Birch _Varr. Lectt_. p.
225.) Add Evan. 374 (Scholz.) Add Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the
Moscow Codex (qu. Evan. 253?) employed by Matthaei.

215 2 (viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 (enumerated in the preceding
note) = 24.

216 Paris 62, _olim,_ 2861 and 1558.

217 See the facsimile.—The original, (which knows nothing of
Tischendorf’s crosses,) reads as follows:—

ΦΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΥ
ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ

ΠΑΝΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΗ
ΓΓΕΛΜΕΝΑ ΤΟΙΣ
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΕΤΡΟΝ

ΣΥΝΤΟΜΩΣ ΕΞΗ
ΓΓΙΛΑΝ - ΜΕΤΑ
ΔΕ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΡ
Ο ΙΣ, ΑΠΟ ἈΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ
ΚΑΙ ἈΧΡΙ ΔΥΣΕΩΣ
ἘΞΑΠΕΣΤΙΛΕΝ ΔΙ
ΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝ
ΚΑΙ ἉΦΘΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΗ
ΡΥΓΜΑ - ΤΗΣ ΑΙΩ
ΝΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑΣ

ΕΣΤΗΝ ΔΕ ΚΑΙ
ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΟ
ΜΕΝΑ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟ
ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ

ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ ΠΡΩΙ
ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩ

_i.e._—φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦτα

Πάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τον Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήλλειλαν:
μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως
ἐξαπέστειλεν δι᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου
σωτηρίας.

Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου.

218 As, the Codex Bobbiensis (k) of the old Latin, and the margin of two
Æthiopic MSS.—I am unable to understand what Scholz and his copyists
have said concerning Cod. 274. I was assured again and again at
Paris that they knew of no such codex as “Reg, 79a,” which is
Scholz’ designation (_Prolegg._ p. lxxx.) of the Cod. Evan. which,
after him, we number “274.”

219 Nec AMMONII Sectionibus, nec EUSEBII Canonibus, agnoscuntur ultimi
versus.—Tisch. _Nov. Test._ (_ed. 8va_), p. 406.

_ 220 Printed Text_, p. 248.

221 The reader is invited to test the accuracy of what precedes for
himself:—Ἀμμώνιος μὲν ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς, πολλὴν, ὡς εἰκὸς, φιλοπονίαν
καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγηοχὼς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν
εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν
περικοπὰς παραθεὶς, ὥς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν
τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὅφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως.

222 Ἵνα δὲ σωζομένου καὶ τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν δι᾽ ὅλου σώματός τε καὶ εἱρμοῦ,
εἰδέναι ἔχοις τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τό πους, ἐν οἷς
κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν φιλαληθῶς εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ
προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς εἰληφὼς ἀφορμὰς, καθ᾽ ἑτέραν μέθοδον κανόνας
δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους.

223 This seems to represent _exactly_ what Eusebius means in this place.
The nearest English equivalent to ἀφορμή is “a hint.” Consider
Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ v. 27. Also the following:—πολλὰς λαβόντες
ἀφορμάς. (Andreas, _Proleg. in Apocalyps._).—λαβόντες τὰς ἀφρμάς.
(Anastasius Sin., _Routh’s Rell._ i. 15.)

224 κανόνας ... διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. This at least is
decisive as to the authorship of the Canons. When therefore Jerome
says of Ammonius,—“_Evangelicos canones excogitavit_ quos postea
secutus est Eusebius Cæsariensis,” (_De Viris Illust._ c. lv. vol.
ii. p. 881,) we learn the amount of attention to which such off-hand
gain statements of this Father are entitled.

What else can be inferred from the account which Eusebius gives of
the present sectional division of the Gospels but that it was also
his own?—Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ τὼν ὑποτεταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις: ἡ δὲ
σαφὴς αὐτῶν διήγησις, ἔστιν ἤδε. Ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων
ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, εἶτα
δευτέρου, καὶ τρίτου, καὶ καθεξῆς προιὼν δι᾽ ὅλου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους
τοῦ βιβλίου. He proceeds to explain how the sections thus numbered
are to be referred to his X Canons:—καθ᾽ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν
ὑποσημείωσις διὰ κινναβάρεως πρόκειται, δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τῶν δέκα
κανόνων κείμενος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει.

225 “Frustra ad Ammonium aut Tatianum in Harmoniis provocant. Quæ
supersunt vix quicquam cum Ammonio aut Tatiano commune habent.”
(Tischendorf _on S. Mark_ xvi. 8).—Dr. Mill (1707),—because he
assumed that the anonymous work which Victor of Capua brought to
light in the vith century, and conjecturally assigned to Tatian, was
the lost work of Ammonius, (_Proleg._ p. 63, § 660,)—was of course
warranted in appealing to the authority of Ammonius _in support_ of
the last twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. But in truth Mill’s
assumption cannot be maintained for a moment, as Wetstein has
convincingly shewn. (_Proleg._ p. 68.) Any one may easily satisfy
himself of the fact who will be at the pains to examine a few of the
chapters with attention, bearing in mind what Eusebius has said
concerning the work of Ammonius. Cap. lxxiv, for instance, contains
as follows:—Mtt. xiii. 33, 34. Mk. iv. 33. Mtt. xiii. 34, 35: 10,
11. Mk. iv. 34. Mtt. xiii. 13 to 17. But here it is _S. Matthew’s
Gospel_ which is dislocated,—for verses 10, 11, and 13 to 17 of ch.
xiii. come _after_ verses 33-35; while ver. 12 has altogether
disappeared.

The most convenient edition for reference is Schmeller’s,—_Ammonii
Alexandrini quæ et Tatiani dicitur Harmonia Evangeliorum_. (Vienna,
1841.)

226 Only by the merest license of interpretation can εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς be
assumed to mean that Eusebius had found the four Gospels ready
divided to his hand by Ammonius into exactly 1165 sections,—every
one of which he had simply adopted for his own. Mill, (who
nevertheless held this strange opinion,) was obliged to invent the
wild hypothesis that Eusebius, _besides_ the work of Ammonius which
he describes, must have found in the library at Cæsarea the private
copy of the Gospels which belonged to Ammonius,—an unique volume, in
which the last-named Father (as he assumes) will have numbered the
Sections and made them exactly 1165. It is not necessary to discuss
such a notion. We are dealing with facts,—not with fictions.

227 For proofs of what is stated above, as well as for several remarks
on the (so-called) “Ammonian” Sections, the reader is referred to
the Appendix (G).

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

229 See above, p. 125.

230 As a matter of fact, Codices abound in which the Sections are noted
_without_ the Canons, throughout. See more on this subject in the
Appendix (G).

231 τέσσαρα εἰσιν εὐαγγέλια κεφαλαίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν ἑξηκονταδύο. The
words are most unexpectedly, (may I not say _suspiciously_?), found
in Epiphanius, _Ancor._ 50, (_Opp._ ii. 54 B.)

232 By Tischendorf, copying Mill’s _Proleg._ p. 63, § 662:—the fontal
source, by the way, of the twin references to “Epiphanius and
Cæsarius.”

233 Comp. Epiph. (_Ancor._ 50,) _Opp._ ii. 53 C to 55 A, with Galland.
_Bibl._ vi. 26 C to 27 A.

234 Galland. _Bibl._ vi. 147 A.

235 Vol. i. 165 (ii. 112).—It it only fair to add that Davidson is not
alone in this statement. In substance, it has become one of the
common-places of those who undertake to prove that the end of S.
Mark’s Gospel is spurious.

236 See Possini _Cat._ p. 363.

237 Ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. [= ver. 9] ταύτην Εὐσέβιος ἐν τοῖς
πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἑτέραν λέγει Μαρίαν παρὰ τὴν θεασαμένην τὸν νεανίσκον.
ἥ καὶ ἀμφότεραι ἐκ τῆς Μαγδαληνῆς ἢσαν. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν
περιπατοῦσι. καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς [= ver. 12.] τοὺς ἀμφὶ τὸν Κλέοπαν, καθὼς ὁ
Λουκᾶς ἱστορεῖ, (Possini sini _Cat._ p. 364):—Where it will be seen
that _Text_ (κείμενον) and _Interpretation_ (ἑρμηνεία) are
confusedly thrown together. “Anonymus [Vaticanus]” also quotes S.
Mark xvi. 9 at p. 109, _ad fin._—Matthaei (N.T. ii.
269),—overlooking the fact that “_Anonymus Vaticanus_” (or simply
“_Anonymus_”) and “_Anonymus Tolosanus_” (or simply “_Tolosanus_”)
denote two distinct Codices,—falls into a mistake himself while
contradicting our learned countryman Mill, who says,—“Certe Victor
Antioch. ac Anonymus Tolosanues huc usque [sc. ver. 8] nec ultra
commentantur.”—Scholz’ dictum is,—“Commentatorum qui in catenis SS.
Petrum ad Marcum laudantur, nulla explicatio hujus pericopæ
exhibetur.”

238 See above pp. 62-3. The Latin of Peltanus may be seen in such
Collections as the _Magna Bibliotheca Vett. PP._ (1618,) vol. iv. p.
330, col. 2 E, F.—For the Greek, see Possini _Catena_, pp. 359-61.

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

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

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

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

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

244 ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντων φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—Arist. _Eth.
Nic._ I. iii.

245 To the honour of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener be it said, that _he_ at
least absolutely refuses to pay any attention at all “to the
argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged
difference in style from the rest of the Gospel.” See by all means
his remarks on this subject. (_Introduction_, pp. 431-2.)—One would
have thought that a recent controversy concerning a short English
Poem,—which some able men were confident _might_ have been written
by Milton, while others were just as confident that it could not
possibly be his,—ought to have opened the eyes of all to the
precarious nature of such Criticism.

246 Allusion is made to the Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.,—“Professor of
Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Greenville, S.C.,”—the author of an able and
convincing paper entitled “Exegetical Studies” in “_The Baptist
Quarterly_” for July, 1869 (Philadelphia), pp. 355-62: in which “the
words and phrases” contained in S. Mark xvi. 9-20 are exclusively
examined.

If the present volume should ever reach the learned Professor’s
hands, he will perceive that I must have written the present Chapter
_before_ I knew of his labours: (an advantage which I owe to Mr.
Scrivener’s kindness:) my treatment of the subject and his own being
so entirely different. But it is only due to Professor Broadus to
acknowledge the interest and advantage with which I have compared my
lucubrations with his, and the sincere satisfaction with which I
have discovered that we have everywhere independently arrived at
precisely the same result.

247 Dr. Kay’s _Crisis Hupfeldiana_, p. 34,—the most masterly and
instructive exposure of Bp. Colenso’s incompetence and presumption
which has ever appeared. Intended specially of _his_ handling of the
writings of Moses, the remarks in the text are equally applicable to
much which has been put forth concerning the authorship of the end
of S. Mark’s Gospel.

248 S. Matth. viii. 1 (καταβάντι αὐτῷ):—5 (εἰσελθόντι τω Ἰ.):—23
(ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ):—28 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ):—ix. 27 (παράγοντι τῷ Ἰ.):—28
(ἐλθόντι):—xxi. 23 (ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ).

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

250 τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθεῖ πάντα συνᾴδει τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ ψευδεῖ ταχὺ
διαφωνεῖ τὰληθές. Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ I. c. vi.

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

252 And yet, if it were ever so “sententious,” ever so “abrupt;” and if
his “brief notices” were over so “loosely linked together;”—these,
_according to Dr. Davidson_, would only be indications that S. Mark
actually _was_ their Author. Hear him discussing S. Mark’s
“characteristics,” at p. 151:—“In the consecution of his narrations,
Mark _puts them together very loosely_.” “Mark is also characterised
by a _conciseness_ and apparent incompleteness of delineation which
are allied to the obscure.” “The _abrupt_ introduction” of many of
his details is again and again appealed to by Dr. Davidson, and
illustrated by references to the Gospel. What, in the name of common
sense, is the value of such criticism as this? What is to be thought
of a gentleman who blows hot and cold in the same breath: denying at
p. 170 the genuineness of a certain portion of Scripture _because_
it exhibits the very peculiarities which at p. 151 he had
volunteered the information are _characteristic_ of its reputed
Author?

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

254 It may be convenient, in this place, to enumerate the several words
and expressions about to be considered:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(x.) ἕτερος (_ver._ 12.)—See p. 160.

(xi) ὅστερον (_ver._ 14.)—_Ibid._

(xii.) βλάπτειν (_ver._ 18.)—_Ibid._

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

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

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

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

(xviii. and xix.) παρακολουθεῖν—ἐπακολουθεῖν (_ver._ 17 and 19.)—See
p. 163.

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

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

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

(xxiv.) ἐκεῖνος used in a peculiar way (_verses_ 10, 11 [and
13?].)—_Ibid._

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

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

255 S. Luke vi. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9: xiii. 10, 14, 15, 16. S. Luke has, in
fact, all the four different designations for the Sabbath which are
found in the Septuagint version of the O. T. Scriptures: for, in the
Acts (xiii. 14: xvi. 13), he twice calls it ἡ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων.

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

257 It occurs in S. Matth. xxviii. 1. S. Mark xvi. 2. S. Luke xxiv. 1.
S. John xx. i. 19. Besides, only in Acts xx. 7.

_ 258 Introduction_, &c. i. 169.

259 See the foregoing note.

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

261 Lightfoot (on 1 Cor. xvi. 2) remarks concerning S. Paul’s phrase
κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων,—“תבשב דהב [_b’had b’shabbath_,] ‘_In the first_
[lit. _one_] _of the Sabbath_,’ would the Talmudists say.”—Professor
Gandell writes,—“in Syriac, the days of the week are similarly
named. See Bernstein [lit. _one in the Sabbath_, _two in the
Sabbath_, _three in the Sabbath._]”

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

263 The Sabbath-day, in the Old Testament, is invariably תבש
(_shabbath_): a word which the Greeks could not exhibit more nearly
than by the word σάββατον. The Chaldee form of this word is אתבש
(_shabbatha:_) the final א (_a_) being added for emphasis, as in
Abb_a_, Aceldam_a_, Bethesd_a_, Ceph_a_, Pasch_a_, _&c_.: and this
form,—(I owe the information to my friend Professor
Gandell,)—because it was so familiar to the people of Palestine,
(who spoke Aramaic,) _gave rise to another form of the Greek name
for the Sabbath_,—viz. σάββατα: which, naturally enough, attracted
the article (τό) into agreement with its own (apparently) plural
form. By the Greek-speaking population of Judæa, the Sabbath day was
therefore indifferently called το σαββατον and τα σαββατα: sometimes
again, η ημερα του σαββατου, and sometimes η ημερα των σαββατων.

Σάββατα, although plural in sound, was strictly singular in sense.
(Accordingly, it is _invariably_ rendered “_Sabbatum_” in the
Vulgate.) Thus, in Exod. xvi. 23,—σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις ἁγία τῷ Κυρίῳ:
and 25,—ἔστι γὰρ σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις τῷ Κυρίῳ. Again,—τῇ δὲ ἡμέρα τῇ
ἑβδόμη σάββατα. (Exod. xvi. 26: xxxi. 14. Levit. xxiii. 3.) And in
the Gospel, what took place on _one definite Sabbath-day_, is said
to have occurred ἐν τοῖς σάββασι (S. Luke xiii. 10. S. Mark xii. 1.)

It will, I believe, be invariably found that the form ἐν τοῖς
σάββασι is strictly equivalent to ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ; and was adopted for
convenience in contradistinction to ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις (1 Chron.
xxiii. 31 and 2 Chron. ii. 4) where Sabbath _days_ are spoken of.

It is not correct to say that in Levit. xxiii. 15 תותבש is put for
“weeks;” though the Septuagint translators have (reasonably enough)
there rendered the word ἑβδομάδας. In Levit. xxv. 8, (where the same
word occurs twice,) it is once rendered ἀναπαύσεις; once, ἑβδομάδες.
Quite distinct is עובש (_shavooa_) i.e. ἑβδομάς; nor is there any
substitution of the one word for the other. But inasmuch as the
recurrence of the _Sabbath-day_ was what constituted _a week_; in
other words, since the essential feature of a week, as a Jewish
division of time, was the recurrence of the Jewish day of rest;—τὸ
σάββατον or τὰ σάββατα, the Hebrew name for _the day of rest_,
became transferred to _the week_. The former designation, (as
explained in the text,) is used once by S. Mark, once by S. Luke;
while the phrase μία τῶν σαββάτων occurs in the N.T., in all, six
times.

264 So Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._ ii. 15), and Jerome (_De Viris Illust._
ii. 827), on the authority of Clemens Alex. and of Papias. See also
Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ vi. 14.—The colophon in the Syriac Version
shews that the same traditional belief prevailed in the Eastern
Church. It also finds record in the _Synopsis Scripturæ_ (wrongly)
ascribed to Athanasius.

265 παρασκευὴ, ὅ ἐστι προσάββατον.—Our E. V. “preparation” is from
Augustine,—“Parasceue Latine præparatio est.”—See Pearson’s
interesting note on the word.

266 Consider Rom. xvi. 13.

267 Townson’s _Discourses_, i. 172.

_ 268 Ibid._

269 See the Vulgate transl. of S. Mark xvi. 2 and of S. John xx. 19. In
the same version, S. Luke xxiv. 1 and S. John xx. 1 are rendered
“_una sabbati_.”

270 Davidson’s _Introduction_, &c. i. 169, _ed._ 1848: (ii. 113, _ed._
1868.)

271 “Maria Magdalene ipsa est ‘a quâ septem dæmonia expulerat’: _ut ubi
abundaverat peccatum, superabundant gratiæ_.” (Hieron. _Opp._ i.
327.)

272 So Tischendorf,—“Collatis prioribus, parum apte adduntur verba ἀφ᾽
ἦσ ἐκβεβλήκει ε. δ.” (p. 322.) I am astonished to find the same
remark reiterated by most of the Critics: e.g. Rev. T. S. Green, p.
52.

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

274 viz. in chap. vii. 26.

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

276 Consider the little society which was assembled on the occasion
alluded to, in Acts i. 13, 14. Note also what is clearly implied by
ver. 21-6, as to the persons who were _habitually_ present at such
gatherings.

277 S. Luke (v. 27) has ἐθεασατο τελώνην. S. Matthew (ix. 9) and S. Mark
(ii. 14) have preferred εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον (Λευίν τὸν τοῦ Ἀλφαίου)
καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον.

278 See S. Matth. ix. 9.

279 One is reminded that S. Matthew, in like manner, carefully
_reserves_ the verb θεωρεῖν (xxvii. 55: xxviii. 1) for the
contemplation of the SAVIOUR’S Cross and of the SAVIOUR’S Sepulchre.

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

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

282 S. Luke xii. 4.

283 S. Matth. x. 28.

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

285 Professor Broadus, _ubi suprà_.

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

287 παραβάλλειν [I quote from the Textus Receptus of S. Mark iv.
30,—confirmed as it is by the Peshito and the Philoxenian, the Vetus
and the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Armenian versions,—besides Codd.
A and D, and all the other uncials (except B, L, Δ, א,) and almost
every cursive Codex. The evidence of Cod. C and of Origen is
doubtful. _Who_ would subscribe to the different reading adopted on
countless similar occasions by the most recent Editors of the
N.T.?]: παραγγέλλειν: παράγειν: παραγίνεσθαι: παραδιδόναι:
παραλαμβάνειν: παρατηρεῖν: παρατιθέναι: παραφέρειν: παρέρχεσθαι:
παρέχειν: παριστάνει.—ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι: ἐπαισχύνεσθαι: ἐπανίστασθαι:
ἐπερωτᾷν: ἐπιβάλλειν: ἐπιγινώσκειν: ἐπιγράφειν: ἐπιζητεῖν:
ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι: ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι: ἐπιλύειν: ἐπιπίπτειν: ἐπιρράπτειν:
ἐπισκιάζειν: ἐπιστρέφειν: ἐπισυνάγειν: ἐπισυντρέχειν: ἐπιτάσσειν:
ἐπιτιθέναι: ἐπιτιμᾷν: ἐπιτρέπειν.

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

289 S. Matth. ix. 18:—xix. 13, 15.

290 See below, pp. 184-6.

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

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

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

294 Alford.

295 Davidson.

296 Exactly so Professor Broadus:—“Now it will not do to say that while
no one of these peculiarities would itself prove the style to be
foreign to Mark, the whole of them combined will do so. It is very
true that the multiplication of _littles_ may amount to much; but
not so the multiplication of _nothings_. And how many of the
expressions which are cited, appear, in the light of our
examination, to retain the slightest real force as proving
difference of authorship? Is it not true that most of them, and
those the most important, are reduced to absolutely nothing, while
the remainder possess scarcely any appreciable significance?”—p.
360, (see above, p. 139, note g.)

297 S. John has πάλιν (47 times) much oftener than S. Mark (29 times).
And yet, πάλιν is not met with in the iind, or the iiird, or the
vth, or the viith, or the xvth, or the xviith chapter of S. John’s
Gospel.

_ 298 Printed Text_, p. 256.

299 It will be found that of the former class (1) are the
following:—Article iii: vii: ix: x: xi: xii: xiii: xiv: xv: xxi:
xxiv: xxv: xxvi: xxvii. Of the latter (2):—Art. i: ii: iv: v: vi:
viii: xvi: xvii: xviii: xix: xx: xxii: xxiii.

300 Ch. xiii. 16,—ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν ὤν: and ch. xv. 21,—ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽
ἀγροῦ,—an expression which S. Luke religiously reproduces in the
corresponding place of his Gospel, viz. in ch. xxiii. 26.

301 See above, p. 146.

302 The reader will be perhaps interested with the following passage in
the pages of Professor Broadus already (p. 139 note g) alluded
to:—“It occurred to me to examine the twelve just preceding verses,
(xv. 44 to xvi. 8,) and by a curious coincidence, the words and
expressions not elsewhere employed by Mark, footed up precisely the
same number, seventeen. Those noticed are the following (text of
Tregelles):—ver. 44, τέθηκεν (elsewhere ἀποθνήσκο):—ver. 45, γνοὺς
ἀπό, a construction found nowhere else in the New Testament: also
ἐδωρήσατο and πτῶμα: ver. 46, ἐνείλησεν, λελατομημένον, πέτρας,
προσεκύλισεν:—chap. xvi. ver. 1, διαγενομένου, and ἀρώματα: ver. 2,
μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων:—ver. 3, ἀποκυλίσει:—ver. 4, ἀνεκεκύλισται. Also,
σφόδρα, (Mark’s word is λίαν.) Ver. 5, ἀν τοῖς δεξιοῖς is a
construction not found in Mark, or the other Gospels, though the
word δεξιός occurs frequently:—ver. 8, εἶχεν, in this particular
sense, not elsewhere in the New Testament: τρόμος.

“This list is perhaps not complete, for it was prepared in a few
hours—about as much time, it may be said, without disrespect, as
Fritsche and Meyer appear to have given to their collections of
examples from the other passage. It is not proposed to discuss the
list, though some of the instances are curious. It is not claimed
that they are all important, but that they are all real. And as
regards the single question of the _number_ of peculiarities, they
certainly form quite an offset to the number upon which Dean Alford
has laid stress.”—p. 361.

303 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.

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

305 The same word is found also in S. Luke’s narrative of the same
event, ch. xxiv. 13.

306 On which, Victor of Antioch (if indeed it be he) finely
remarks,—Σχίζονται δὲ οἱ οὐρονοὶ, ἢ κατὰ Ματθαον ἀνοίγονται, ἵνα
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀποδοθῇ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἁγιασμὸς, καὶ συναφθῇ τος
ἐπιγείοις τὰ οὐράνια.—(Cramer i. p. 271.)

307 Disc. v. Sect. ii.

308 This appears to be the true reading.

309 So Chrysostom:—ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησὶν, ὅτι “καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα,” ταῦτα
ἔλεγεν. [vii. 526 a].—He seems to have derived that remark from
Origen [_in Matth._ ed. Huet. i. 249 D]:—κατὰ τὸν Μάρκον ἔλεγε ταῦτα
ὁ Σωτὴρ “καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.”—From the same source, I
suspect, Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen’s disciple), Bp. of Neocæsarea
in Pontus, A.D. 261, [_Routh_, iii. 257] derived the following:—καὶ
ὁ Σωτὴρ ὁ “πάντα καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα” οὐ τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον, φησὶ,
κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον.—See, by all means,
Field’s most interesting _Adnotationes in Chrys._, vol. iii. p.
112.... Εντευθεν (finely says Victor of Antioch) ὁ καινὸς ἄρχεται
νόμος ὁ κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα. (_Cramer_ i. 335.)

310 Acts x. 15.

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

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

313 Is. lxvi. 2.

314 See above, p. 143-5.

315 See above, p. 174-5.

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

317 The Creed itself, (“ex variis Cyrillianarum Catacheseon locis
collectum,”) may be seen at p. 84 of De Touttée’s ed. of Cyril. Let
the following be compared:—

ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (ch. xvi.
19.)

ἈΝΕΛΘΌΝΤΑ ΕἸΣ ΤΟῪΣ ΟῪΡΑΝΟῪΣ, ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΊΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ
(ART. VI.) This may be seen _in situ_ at p. 224 C of Cyril.

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

ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝ (ART. X.) This may be seen at
p. 295 C of Cyril.

The point will be most intelligently and instructively studied in
Professor Heurtley’s little work _De Fide et Symbolo_, 1869, p. 9.

318 See above,—p. 165-6.

_ 319 Cod. Bobbiensis_ (k): which however for “illis” has “et:” for
“Petro,” “puero:” and for “occidentem,” “orientem.” It also repeats
“usque.” I have ventured to alter “ab orientem” into “ab
oriente.”—Compare what is found in the Philoxenian margin, as given
by White and Adler.

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

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

322 S. Matth. xxvi. 14, 29, 47.—S. Mark iv. 10: vi. 7: ix. 35: x. 32:
xi. 11: xiv. 10, 17, 20, 43.—S. Luke viii. 1: ix. 1, 12: xviii. 31:
xxii. 8, 47.—S. John vi. 37, 70, 71: xx. 24.

323 Compare S. Luke xxii. 39; and especially S. John xviii. 1,—where the
moment of departure _from the city_ is marked: (for observe, they
had left the house and the upper chamber at ch. xiv. 31). See also
ch. xix. 17,—where the going _without the gate_ is indicated: (for
ἔξω τῆς πύλης ἔπαθε [Heb. xiii. 12.]) So Matth. xxvii. 32. Consider
S. Luke xxi. 37.

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

325 See above, p. 2.

326 The one memorable exception, which I have only lately met with, is
supplied by the following remark of the thoughtful and accurate
Matthaei, made in a place where it was almost safe to escape
attention; viz. in a footnote at the very end of his _Nov. Test._
(ed. 1803), vol. i. p. 748.—“Haec lectio in Evangeliariis et
Synaxariis omnibus ter notatur tribus maxime notabilibus temporibus.
Secundum ordinem temporum Ecclesiae Graecae primo legitur κυριακῇ
τῶν μυροφόρων, εἰς τὸν ὄρθρον. Secundo, τῷ ὄρθρῳ τῆς ἀναλήψεως.
Tertio, ut ἑωθινὸν ἀναστάσιμον γ᾽. De hoc loco ergo vetustissimis
temporibus nullo modo dubitavit Ecclesia.”—Matthaei had slightly
anticipated this in his ed. of 1788, vol. ii. 267.

327 Τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποστόλων διαδοχάς,—are _the first words_ of the
Ecclesiatical History of Eusebius.

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

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

330 Τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ, πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἥ ἀγροὺς μενόντων
ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν
ἀποστόλων, ἤ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται, μέχρις
ἐγχωρεῖ. Then came the Sermon,—then, all stood and prayed,—then
followed Holy Communion.—_Apol._ i. c. 67, (_ed_. Otto, i. 158.)

331 ὁ μάτην ἐνταῦθα εἰσελθὼν, εἰπὲ, τίς προφήτης, ποῖος ἀπόστολος ἡμῖν
σήμερον διέλχθη, καὶ περὶ τίνων;—(_Opp._ ix. p. 697 E. Field’s
text.)

332 Cassian writes,—“Venerabilis Patrum senatus ... decrevit hunc
numerum [sc. duodecim Orationum] tam in Vespertinis quam in
Nocturnis conventiculis custodiri; quibus lectiones geminas
adjungentes, id est, unam Veteris et aliam Novi Testamenti.... In
die vero Sabbati vel Dominico utrasque de Novo recitant Testamento;
id est, unam de Apostolo vel Actibus Apostolorum, et aliam de
Evangeliis. Quod etiam totis Quinquagesimae diebus faciunt hi,
quibus lectio curae est, seu memoria Scripturarum.”—_Instit._ lib.
ii. c. 6. (_ed_.1733, p. 18.)

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

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