Chapter XXVII: Part II: page ii (2)

335 English readers may be referred to Horne’s _Introduction_, &c.
(_ed._ 1856.) vol. iii. p. 281-2. The learned reader is perhaps
aware of the importance of the preface to Van der Hooght’s _Hebrew
Bible_, (_ed._ 1705) § 35: in connexion with which, see vol. ii. p.
352 _b._

336 Thus, the κυριακή τῆς τυροφάγου is “Quinquagesima Sunday;” but _the
week_ of “the cheese-eater” is the week _previous_.

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

338 “Apud Rabbinos, לודגח תבש _Sabbathum Magnum_. Sic vocatur Sabbathum
proximum ante Pascha.”—Buxtorf, _Lexicon Talmud._ p. 2323.

339 Καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀκολουθία τῆς διδασκαλίας [cf. Cyril, p. 4, lines 16-7]
τῆς πίστεως προέτρεπεν εἰπεῖν καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς Ἀναλήψεως: ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ
Θεοῦ χάρις ᾠκονόμησε πληρέστατά σε ἀκοῦσαι, κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν
ἀσθένειαν, τῇ χθὲς ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τῆν Κυριακήν: κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν τῆς
θείας χάριτος, ἐν τῇ Συνάξει τῆς τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων ἀκολουθίας τὰ περὶ
τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνόδου τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν περιεχούσης: ἐλέγετο δὲ τὰ
λεγόμενα, μάλιστα μὲν διὰ πάντας, καὶ διὰ τὸ τῶν πιστῶν ὁμοῦ πλῆθος:
ἐξαιρέτως δὲ διά σε: ζητεῖται δὲ εἰ προσέσχες τοῖς λεγομένοις. Οἶδας
γὰρ ὅτι ἡ ἀκολουθία τῆς Πίστεως διδάσκει σε πιστεύειν εἰς ΤΟΝ
ἈΝΑΣΤΑΝΤΑ ΤΗ ΤΡΙΤΗ ΗΜΕΡΑ: ΚΑΙ ἈΝΕΛΘΟΝΤΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥΣ, ΚΑΙ
ΚΑΘΙΣΑΝΤΑ ἘΚ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ—μάλιστα μὲν οὖν μνημονεύειν σε νομίζω
τῆς ἐξηγήσεως. πλὴν ἐν παραδρομῇ καὶ νῦν ὑπομιμνήσκω σε τῶν
εἰρημένων. (Cyril. Hier. _Cat._ xiv. c. 24. _Opp._ p. 217 C, D.)—Of
that Sermon of his, Cyril again and again reminds his auditory.
Μέμνησο δὲ καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων μοι πολλάκις περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ
πατρος καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν,—he says, _ibid._ p. 219 B. A little
lower down, Νῦν δὲ ὑμᾶς ὑπομνηστέον ὀλίγων, τῶν ἐκ πολλῶν εἰρημένων
περὶ τοῦ, ἐκ δειξῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς καθέζεσθαι τὸν Υἱόν.—_Ibid._ D.

From this it becomes plain _why Cyril nowhere quotes S. Mark_ xvi.
19,—_or S. Luke_ xxiv. 51,—_or Acts_ i. 9. He must needs have
enlarged upon those three _inevitable_ places of Scripture, the day
before.

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

341 Ὥστε δὲ εὐμαθέστερον γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον, δεόμεθα καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν,
ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων γραφῶν πεποιήκαμεν, προλαμβάνειν, τὴν
περικοπὴν τῆς γραφῆς ἦν ἆν μέλλωμεν ἐξηνεῖσθαι.—In Matth. _Hom._ i.
(_Opp._ vii. 13 B.)—Κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων, ἥ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον, τὴν
μέλλουσαν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀναγνωσθήσεσθαι τῶν εὐαγγελίων περικοπὴν, ταύτην
πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν μετὰ χεῖρας λαμβάνων ἕκαστος οἴκοι καθήμενος
ἀναγινωσκέτω.—In Joann. _Hom._ ix, (_Opp._ viii. 62 B.)

342 It caused him (he says) to interrupt his teaching. “Sed quia nunc
interposita est sollemnitas sanctorum dierum, quibus certas ex
Evangelio lectiones oportet in Ecclesiâ recitari, quae ita sunt
annuae ut aliae esse non possint; ordo ille quem susceperamus
necessitate pauliulum intermissus est, non amissus.”—(_Opp._ vol.
iii. P. ii. p. 825, _Prol._)

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

344 See Suicer, (i. 247 and 9: ii. 673). He is much more full and
satisfactory than Scholz, whose remarks, nevertheless, deserve
attention, (_Nov. Test._ vol. i, Prolegg. p. xxxi.) See also above,
p. 45, notes (r) and (s).

345 At the beginning of every volume of the first ed. of his _Nov.
Test._ (Riga, 1788) Matthaei has laboriously _edited_ the “Lectiones
Ecclesiasticæ” of the Greek Church. See also his Appendices,—viz.
vol. ii. pp. 272-318 and 322-363. His 2nd ed. (Wittenberg, 1803,) is
distinguished by the valuable peculiarity of indicating the
Ecclesiastical sections throughout, in the manner of an ancient MS.;
and that, with extraordinary fulness and accuracy. His Συναχάρια (i.
723-68 and iii. 1-24) though not intelligible perhaps to ordinary
readers, are very important. He derived them from MSS. which he
designates “B” and “H,” but which are _our_ “Evstt. 47 and
50,”—uncial Evangelistaria of the viiith century (See Scrivener’s
_Introd._ p. 214.)

Scholz, at the end of vol. i. of his N. T. p. 453-93, gives in full
the “Synaxarium” and “Menologium” of Codd. K and M, (viiith or ixth
century.) See also his vol. ii. pp. 456-69. Unfortunately, (as
Scrivener recognises, p. 110,) all here is carelessly done,—as usual
with this Editor; and therefore to a great extent useless. His
slovenliness is extraordinary. The “Gospels of the Passion” (τῶν
ἁγίων πάθων), he entitles τῶν ἁγίων πάντων (p. 472); and so
throughout.

Mr. Scrivener (_Introduction_, pp. 68-75,) has given by far the most
intelligible account of this matter, by exhibiting _in English_ the
Lectionary of the Eastern Church, (“gathered chiefly from
Evangelist. Arund. 547, Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22, and
Christ’s Coll. Camb.”); and supplying the references to Scripture in
the ordinary way. See, by all means, his _Introduction_, pp. 62-65:
also, pp. 211-225.

346 Consider the following:—Ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ
πάντα ἀναγινώσκομεν. ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ πάλιν, ὅτι παρεδόθη
ἡμῶν ὁ Κύριος, ὅτι ἐσταυρώθη, ὅτι ἀπέθανε τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὅτι ἐτάφη:
τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν καὶ τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐ μετὰ τὴν
πεντηκοστὴν ἀναγινώσκομεν, ὅτε καὶ ἐγένοντο, καὶ ἀρχὴν
ἔλαβον;—Chrys. _Opp._ iii. 88.

Again:—εἰ γὰρ τότε ἥρξαντο ποιεῖν τὰ σημεῖα οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἤγουν μετὰ
τὴν κυρίου ἀνάστασιν, τότε ἔδει καὶ τὸ βιβλίον ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τοῦτο.
ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σταυροῦ ἀναγινώσκομεν, καὶ
τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει ὁμοίως, καὶ τὰ ἐν ἐκάστῃ ἑορτῇ γεγονότα τῇ αὐτῇ
πάλιν ἀναγινώσκομεν, οὕτως ἔδει καὶ τὰ θαύματα τὰ ἀποστολικὰ ἐν ταῖς
ἡμέραις τῶν ἀποστολικῶν σημείων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι.—_Ibid._ p. 89 D.

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

_ 348 Opp._ ii. 290 B.

_ 349 Opp._ ii. 357 E.

350 “Meminit sanctitas vestra Evangelium secundum Joannnem ex ordine
lectionum nos solere tractare.” (_Opp._ iii. P. ii. 825 _Prol._)

351 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 246.

352 Chrysostom _Opp._ ii. 369 b, c.—Compare Scrivener, _ubi supra_, p.
75.

_ 353 Ed._ Mabillon, p. 116.

_ 354 Opp._ vol. iii. p. 85 B: 88 A:—τίνος ἕνεκεν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ
πεντηκοστῇ τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἐνομοθέτησαν.—τίνος
ἕνεκεν τὸ βιβλίον τῶν πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς
πεντηκοστῆς ἀναγινώσκεται.

355 “Anniversariâ sollemnitate post passionem Domini nostis illum librum
recitari.” _Opp._ iii. (P. ii.) p. 337 G.

356 I desire to leave in this place the permanent record of my
deliberate conviction that the Lectionary which, last year, was
hurried with such indecent haste through Convocation,—passed in a
half-empty House by the casting vote of the Prolocutor,—and rudely
pressed upon the Church’s acceptance by the Legislature in the
course of its present session,—is the gravest calamity which has
befallen the Church of England for a long time past.

Let the history of this Lectionary be remembered.

Appointed (in 1867) for an _entirely_ different purpose, (viz. the
Ornaments and Vestments question,) 29 Commissioners (14 Clerical and
15 Lay) found themselves further instructed “to suggest and report
_whether any and what alterations and amendments may be
advantageously made_ in the selection of Lessons to be read at the
time of Divine Service.”

Thereupon, these individuals,—(the Liturgical attainments of
nine-tenths of whom it would be unbecoming in such an one as myself
to characterise truthfully,)—at once imposed upon themselves the
duty of inventing _an entirely new Lectionary for the Church of
England_.

So to mutilate the Word of GOD that it shall henceforth be quite
impossible to understand a single Bible story, or discover the
sequence of a single connected portion of narrative,—seems to have
been the guiding principle of their deliberations. With reckless
eclecticism,—entire forgetfulness of the requirements of the poor
brother,—strange disregard for Catholic Tradition and the claims of
immemorial antiquity;—these Commissioners, (evidently unconscious of
their own unfitness for their self-imposed task,) have given us a
Lectionary which will recommend itself to none but the lovers of
novelty,—the impatient,—and the enemies of Divine Truth.

That the blame, _the guilt_ lies at the door of _our Bishops_, is
certain; but the Church has no one but herself to thank for the
injury which has been thus deliberately inflicted upon her. She has
suffered herself to be robbed of her ancient birthright without
resistance; without remonstrance; without (in her corporate
capacity) so much as a word of audible dissatisfaction. _Can_ it be
right in this way to defraud those who are to come after us of their
lawful inheritance?... I am amazed and grieved beyond measure at
what is taking place. At least, (as on other occasions,) _liberavi
animam meam_.

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

358 Bingham, xiv. iii. 3.

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

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

361 κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην τοῦ Πάσχα ἑσπέραν ταῦτα πάντα ἀναγινώσκεται.—Chrys.
_Opp._ vii. 818 C.

362 “Passio autem, quia uno die legitur, non solet legi nisi secundum
Matthæum. Voluerain aliquando ut per singulos annos secundum omnes
Evangelistas etiam Passio legeretur. Factum est. Non audierunt
homines quod consueverant, et perturbati sunt.”—_Opp._ vol. v. p.
980 E.

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

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

365 Chrys. _Opp._ i. 497 C.

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

367 The learned reader will be delighted and instructed too by the
perusal of both passages. Chrysostom declares that Christmas-Day is
the greatest of Festivals; since all the others are but consequences
of the Incarnation.

Epiphanius remarks with truth that Ascension-Day is the crowning
solemnity of all: being to the others what a beautiful head is to
the human body.

_ 368 Constt. Apostt._ lib. viii. c. 33. After the week of the Passion
and the week of (1) the Resurrection,—(2) Ascension-Day is
mentioned;—(3) Pentecost;—(4) Nativity;—(5) Epiphany. [Note this
clear indication that this viiith Book of the Constitutions was
written or interpolated at a subsequent date to that commonly
assigned to the work.]

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

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

371 Chrys. _Opp._ ii. 369 D.

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

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

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

375 “Illa quae non scriptu, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto
terrarum orbe observantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis,
vel plenariis Conciliis quorum in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas,
commendata atque statuta retineri. Sicut quod Domini Passio, et
Resurrectio, et Ascensio in cœlis, ut Adventus de cœlo Spiritus
Sancti anniversaria sollemnitate celebrantur.”—_Ep._ ad Januarium,
(_Opp._ ii. 124 B, C).

376 “Lect. fer. quint., quae etiam Festum Adscensionis Domini in caelos,
ad mat. eadem ac lect. tert. Resurrect.; in Euchar. lect. sext.
Resurrect.”—But “Lect. γ Resurrectionis” is “Marc. xvi. 9-20:”
“Lect. σ,” “Luc. xxiv. 36-53.”—See Dean Payne Smith’s _Catalogus
Codd. Syrr._ (1864) pp. 116, 127.

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

378 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 148.

_ 379 Hieronymi Comes_, (_ed_. Pamel. ii. 31.)—But it is not the
Gallican. (ed. Mabillon, p. 155.) ... It strikes me as just possible
that a clue may be in this way supplied to the singular phenomenon
noted above at p. 118, line 22-8.

380 Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ ἑωθινά. See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 72,
and R. P. Smith’s Catal. p. 127. See by all means, Suicer’s _Thes.
Eccl._ i. 1229.

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

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

383 “Quae titulo Josephi et Nicodemi insignitur.” (R. Payne Smith’s
_Catal._ p. 116.)—In the “Synaxarium” of Matthaei (_Nov. Test._
1803, i. p. 731) it is styled Κ. τῶν μ. καὶ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ δικαίου.

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

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

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

387 “Resurrectio Domini nostri I. C. ex more legitur bis diebus
[Paschalibus] ex omnibus libris sancti Evangelii.” (_Opp._ v. 977
C)—“Quoniam hoc moris est ... _Marci Evangelium_ est quod modo, cum
legeretur, audivimus.” “Quid ergo audivimus Marcum dicentem?” And he
subjoins a quotation from S. Mark xvi. 12.—_Ibid._ 997 F, 998 B.

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

389 So Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 75.—Little stress, however, is to
be laid on Saint’s Day lessons. In Matthaei’s “Menologium” (_Nov.
Test._ 1803, i. p. 765), I find that S. Luke viii. 1-4, or else S.
John xx. 11-18 was the appointed Lection. See his note (5) at p.
750.

390 Note, (in addition to all that has gone before,) that the Festivals
are actually designated by their _Greek_ names in the earliest Latin
Service Books: not only “Theophania,” “Epiphania,” “Pascha,”
“Pentecostes,” (the second, third and fourth of which appellations
survive in the Church of the West, _in memoriam_, to the present
hour;) but “Hypapante,” which was the title bestowed by the
Orientals in the time of Justinian, on Candlemas Day, (our Feast of
the Purification, or Presentation of CHRIST in the Temple,) from the
“Meeting” of Symeon on that occasion. Friday, or παρασκευή, was
called “_Parasceve_” in the West. (Mab. _Lit. Gall._ p. 129.) So
entire was the sympathy of the East with the West in such matters in
very early times, that when Rome decided to celebrate the Nativity
on the 25th December, Chrysostom (as we have been reminded) publicly
announced the fact at Constantinople; and it was determined that in
this matter East and West would walk by the same rule.

391 From Professor Wright’s _Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British
Museum_ (1870) it appears that the oldest Jacobite Lectionary is
dated A.D. 824; the oldest Nestorian, A.D. 862; the oldest Malkite,
A.D. 1023. The respective numbers of the MSS. are 14,485; 14,492;
and 14,488.—See his _Catalogue_, Part I. pp. 146, 178, 194.

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

393 The reader is requested to refer back to p. 45, and the note
there.—The actual words of Eusebius are given in Appendix (B).

394 See the enumeration of Greek Service-Books in Scrivener’s
_Introduction_, &c. pp. 211-25. For the Syriac Lectionaries, see
Dean Payne Smith’s _Catalogue_, (1864) pp. 114-29-31-4-5-8: also
Professor Wright’s _Catalogue_, (1870) pp. 146 to 203.—I avail
myself of this opportunity to thank both those learned Scholars for
their valuable assistance, always most obligingly rendered.

395 “Evangelistariorum codices literis uncialibus scripti nondum sic ut
decet in usum criticum conversi sunt.” Tischendorf, quoted by
Scrivener, [_Introduction to Cod. Augiensis_,—80 pages which have
been separately published and are _well_ deserving of study,—p. 48,]
who adds,—“I cannot even conjecture why an Evangelistarium should be
thought of less value than another MS. of the same age.”—See also
Scrivener’s _Introduction_, &c. p. 211.

396 e.g. _Addit. MSS._ 12,141: 14,449: 14,450-2-4-5-6-7-8: 14,461-3:
17,113-4-5-6:--(= 15 Codd. in all:) from p. 45 to p. 66 of Professor
Wright’s _Catalogue_.

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

398 Add to the eight examples adduced by Mr. Scrivener from our Book of
C. P., (_Introduction_, p. 11), the following:—Gospels for
Quinquagesima, 2nd S. after Easter, 9th, 12th, 22nd after Trinity,
Whitsunday, Ascension Day, SS. Philip and James (see below, p. 220),
All Saints.

399 Thus the words εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος (S. Luke vii. 31) _which introduce
an Ecclesiastical Lection_ (Friday in the iiird week of S. Luke,)
inasmuch as the words are found in _no_ uncial MS., and are omitted
besides by the Syriac, Vulgate, Gothic and Coptic Versions, must
needs be regarded as a liturgical interpolation.—The same is to be
said of ὁ Ἰησοῦς in S. Matth. xiv. 22,—words which Origen and
Chrysostom, as well as the Syriac versions, omit; and which clearly
owe their place in twelve of the uncials, in the Textus Receptus, in
the Vulgate and some copies of the old Latin, to the fact that the
Gospel for the ixth Sunday after Pentecost _begins at that
place_.—It will be kindred to the present inquiry that I should
point out that in S. Mark xvi. 9, Ἀναστάς ὁ Ἰησοῦς is constantly met
with in Greek MSS., and even in some copies of the Vulgate; and yet
there can be _no_ doubt that here also the Holy Name is an
interpolation which has originated from the same cause as the
preceding. The fact is singularly illustrated by the insertion of “Ο
ΙΣ” in Cod. 267 ( = Reg. 69,) _rubro_ above _the same contraction_
(for ὁ Ἰησους) in the text.

400 Not, of course, so long as the present senseless fashion prevails of
regarding Codex B, (to which, if Cod. L. and Codd. 1, 33 and 69 are
added, it is _only because they agree with B_), as an all but
infallible guide in settling the text of Scripture; and quietly
taking it for granted that _all the other MSS. in existence_ have
entered into a grand conspiracy to deceive mankind. Until this most
uncritical method, this most unphilosophical theory, is
unconditionally abandoned, progress in this department of sacred
Science is simply impossible.

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

402 This will be best understood by actual reference to a manuscript. In
Cod. Evan. 436 (Meerman 117) which lies before me, these directions
are given as follows. After τὸ σὸν γενέσθω (i.e. the last words of
ver. 42), is written ὑπέρβα εἰς τὸ τῆς γ᾽. Then, at the end of ver.
44, is written—ἄρχου τῆς γ᾽, after which follows the text καὶ
ἀναστὰς, &c.

In S. Matthew’s Gospel, at chap, xxvi, which contains the Liturgical
section for Thursday in Holy Week (τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλη έ), my Codex
has been only imperfectly rubricated. Let me therefore be allowed to
quote from Harl. MS. 1810, (our Cod. Evan. 113) which, at fol. 84,
at the end of S. Matth. xxvi. 39, reads as follows, immediately
after the words,—αλλ᾽ ὡς συ:—Π/Υ, [Cross] (i.e. ὑπάντα.) But in
order to explain what is meant, the above rubricated word and sign
are repeated at foot, as follows:—[Cross] ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκὰν
ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ΡΘ. ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῳ ἄγγελος: εἶτα στραφεὶς ἐνταῦθα πάλιν,
λέγε: καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς—which are the first words of S.
Matth. xxvi. 40.

Accordingly, my Codex (No. 436, above referred to) immediately after
S. Luke xxii. 42, _besides_ the rubric already quoted, has the
following: ἄρξου τῆς μεγάλης έ. Then come the two famous verses
(ver. 43, 44); and, after the words ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς, the
following rubric occurs: ὑπάντα εἰς τὸ τῆς μεγάλης έ Ματθ. ἔρχεται
πρὸς τοῦς μαθητάς.

[With the help of my nephew, (Rev. W. F. Rose, Curate of Holy
Trinity, Windsor,) I have collated every syllable of Cod. 436. Its
text most nearly resembles the Rev. F. H. Scrivener’s l, m, n.]

403 See by all means Matthaei’s _Nov. Test._ (ed. 1803,) i. p.491, and
492.

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

405 For the 5th Sunday of S. Luke.

406 Such variations are quite common. Matthaei, with his usual accuracy,
points out several: e.g. _Nov. Test._ (1788) vol. i. p. 19 (_note_
26), p. 23: vol. ii. p. 10 (_note_ 12), p. 14 (_notes_ 14 and 15),
&c.

407 SS. Philip and James.

408 viz. σαββάτῳ θ: i.e. the ixth Saturday in S. Luke.—Note that Cod. A
also reads ἐγένετο δέ in S. Lu. xi. 1.

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

410 viz. S. Luke xiii. 2: xxiv. 36. S. John i. 29 (ὁ Ἰωάννης): 44: vi.
14: xiii. 3,—to which should perhaps be added xxi. 1, where B, א, A,
C (not D) read Ἰησοῦς.

411 See by all means Matthaei’s interesting note on the place,—_Nov.
Test._ (1788) vol. i. p. 113-4. It should be mentioned that Cod. C
(and four other uncials), together with the Philoxenian and
Hierosolymitan versions, concur in exhibiting the same spurious
clause. Matthaei remarks,—“Origenes (iv. 171 D) hanc pericopam haud
adeo diligenter recensens terminat eum in γενηθήτω σοι.” Will not
the disturbing _Lectionary-practice_ of his day sufficiently explain
Origen’s omission?

412 I recall S. John x. 29: xix. 13: xxi. 1;—but the attentive student
will be able to multiply such references almost indefinitely. In
these and similar places, while the phraseology is exceedingly
simple, the variations which the text exhibits are so exceeding
numerous,—that when it is discovered that _a Church Lesson begins in
those places_, we may be sure that we have been put in possession of
the name of the disturbing force.

413 Viz. K and M. (Field’s _Chrys._ p. 251.)—How is it that the readings
of Chrysostom are made so little account of? By Tregelles, for
example, why are they overlooked entirely?

414 See above, p. 197 to 204.

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

416 In some cursive MSS. also, (which have been probably transcribed
from ancient originals), the same phenomenon is observed. Thus, in
Evan. 265 ( = Reg. 66), ΤΕΛ only occurs, in S. Mark, at ix. 9 and
41: xv. 32 and 41: xvi. 8. ΑΡΧ at xvi. 1. It is striking to observe
that so little were these ecclesiastical notes (embedded in the
text) understood by the possessor of the MS., that in the margin,
over against ch. xv. 41, (where “ΤΕΛ:” stands _in the text_,) a
somewhat later hand has written,—ΤΕ[λος] Τ[ης] ΩΡ[ας]. A similar
liturgical note may be seen over against ch. ix. 9, and elsewhere.
Cod. 25 (= Reg. 191), at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, has _only two_
notes of liturgical endings: viz. at ch. xv. 1 and 42.

417 Among the _Syriac_ Evangelia, as explained above (p. 215), instances
occur of far more ancient MSS. which exhibit a text rubricated by
the original scribe. Even here, however, (as may be learned from Dr.
Wright’s _Catalogue_, pp. 46-66,) such Rubrics have been only
_irregularly_ inserted in the oldest copies.

418 Note, that the Codex from which Cod. D was copied will have
exhibited the text thus,—ΑΠΕΧΕΙ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΗΛΘΕΝ Η ΩΡΑ.—which is the
reading of Cod. 13 ( = Reg. 50.) But the scribe of Cod. D, in order
to improve the sense, substituted for ἦλθεν the word καί. Note the
scholion [_Anon. Vat._] in Possinus, p. 321:—ἀπέχει, τουτέστι,
πεπλήρωται, τέλος ἔχει τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ.

Besides the said Cod. 13, the same reading is found in 47 and 54 (in
the Bodl.): 56 (at Linc. Coll.): 61 (i.e. Cod. Montfort.): 69 (i.e.
Cod. Leicestr.): 124 (i.e. Cod. Vind. Lamb. 31): csecr (i.e.
Lambeth, 1177): 2pe (i.e. the 2nd of Muralt’s S. Petersburg Codd.);
and Cod. 439 (i.e. Addit. Brit. Mus. 5107). All these eleven MSS.
read ἀπέχει τὸ τέλος at S. Mark xiv. 41.

419 So Scholz (i. 200):—“Pericopa hæc _casu quodam_ forsan exciderat a
codice quodam Alexandrino; unde defectus iste in alios libros
transiit. Nec mirum hunc defectum multis, immo in certis regionibus
plerisque scribis arrisisse: confitentur enim ex ipsorum opinione
Marcum Matthæo repugnare. Cf. maxima Eusebium ad Marinum,” &c.

420 περιττὰ ὰν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν
εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. (Mai, _Bibl. P.P. Nova_, vol. iv. p. 256.)

421 Alford’s N.T. vol. i. p. 433, (_ed_. 1868.)—And so Tischendorf, (ed.
8va. pp. 406-7.) “Talem dissentionem ad Marci librum tam misere
mutilandum adduxisse quempiam, et quidem tanto cum successu, prorsus
incredibile est, nec ullo probari potest exemplo.”—Tregelles is of
the same opinion. (_Printed Text_, pp. 255-6.)—Matthaei, a competent
judge, seems to have thought differently. “Una autem causa cur hic
locus omitteretur fuit quod Marcus in his repugnare ceteris videtur
Evangelistis.” The general observation which follows is true
enough:—“Quæ ergo vel obscura, vel repugnantia, vel parum decora
quorundam opinione habebantur, ca olim ab Criticis et interpretibus
nonnullis vel sublata, vel in dubium vocata esse, ex aliis locis
sanctorum Evangeliorum intelligitur.” (_Nov. Test._ 1788, vol. ii.
p. 266.) Presently, (at p. 270,)—“In summâ. Videtur unus et item
alter ex interpretibus, qui hæc cæteris evangeliis repugnare
opinebatur, in dubium vocasse. Hunc deinde plures temere secuti
sunt, ut plerumque factum esse animadvertimus.” Dr. Davidson says
the same thing (ii. 116.) and, (what is of vastly more importance,)
Mr. Scrivener also. (_Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. xliv.)

422 I have to acknowledge very gratefully the obliging attentions of M.
de Wailly, the chief of the Manuscript department.

423 See above, p. 224.

424 Whereas in the course of S. Matthew’s Gospel, only two examples of +
ΤΕΛΟΣ + occur, (viz. at ch. xxvi. 35 and xxvii. 2,)—in the former
case the note has entirely lost its way in the process of
transcription; standing where it has no business to appear. _No_
Liturgical section ends thereabouts. I suspect that the transition
(ὑπέρβασις) anciently made at ver. 39, was the thing to which the
scribe desired to call attention.

425 = Coisl. 20. This sumptuous MS., which has not been adapted for
Church purposes, appears to me to be the work of the same scribe who
produced Reg. 178, (the codex described above); but it exhibits a
different text. Bound up with it are some leaves of the LXX of about
the viiith century.

426 End of the Lection for the Sunday before Epiphany.

427 In S. Matthew’s Gospel, I could find ΤΕΛΟΣ so written only
twice,—viz. at ch. ii. 23 and xxvi. 75: in S. Luke only once,—viz.
at ch. viii. 39. These, in all three instances, are the concluding
verses of famous Lessons,—viz. the Sunday after Christmas Day, the
iiird Gospel of the Passion, the vith Sunday of S. Luke.

428 This has already come before us in a different connection: (see p.
119): but it must needs be reproduced here; and _this_ time, it
shall be exhibited as faithfully as my notes permit.

429 (1) In Evan. 282 (written A.D. 1176),—a codex which _has been
adapted_ to Lectionary purposes,—the sign τελ and ετ, strange to
say, _is inserted into the body of the Text, only at S. Mark_ xv. 47
_and_ xvi. 8.

(2) Evan. 268, (a truly superb MS., evidently left unfinished, the
pictures of the Evangelists only sketched in ink,) was never
prepared for Lectionary purposes; which makes it the more remarkable
that, between ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and ἀναστάς, should be found inserted
into the body of the text, τὲ. in gold.

(3) I have often met with copies of S. Matthew’s, or of S. Luke’s,
or of S. John’s Gospel, unfurnished with a subscription in which
ΤΕΛΟΣ occurs: but scarcely ever have I seen an instance of a Codex
where the Gospel _according to S. Mark_ was one of two, or of three
from which it was wanting; much less where it stood alone in that
respect. On the other hand, in the following Codices,—Evan. 10: 22:
30: 293,—S. Mark’s is _the only Gospel of the Four_ which is
furnished with the subscription, + τέλος τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου
[cross] or simply + τέλος + .... In Evan. 282, S. Matthew’s Gospel
shares this peculiarity with S. Mark’s.

430 “Nemini in mentem venire potest Marcum narrationis suae filum
ineptissime abrupisse verbis—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”—Griesbach _Comment.
Crit._ (ii. 197.) So, in fact, _uno ore_ all the Critics.

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

432 The English reader will follow the text with sufficient exactness if
he will refer back, and read from the last line of p. 44 to the
ninth line of p. 45; taking care to see, in two places, for “the
end,”—“THE END”.... The entire context of the Greek is given in the
Appendix (B).

433 τὴν τοῦτο φάσκουσαν περικοπήν. The antecedent phrase, (τὸ κεφάλαιον
αὐτό,) I suspect must be an explanatory gloss.

434 “This then is clear,” (is Dr. Tregelles’ comment,) “that the greater
part of the Greek copies had not the verses in question.”—_Printed
Text_, p. 247.

435 Observe, the peculiarity of the expression in this place of Eusebius
consists entirely in his introduction of the words τὸ τέλος. Had he
merely said τὰ ἀκριβὴ τῶν ἀντιγράφων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον
περιγράφει ἐν τοῖς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. ... Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι
τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις περιγέγραπται τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον,—there
would have been nothing extraordinary in the mode of expression. We
should have been reminded of such places as the following in the
writings of Eusebius himself:—Ὁ Κλήμης ... εἰς τὴν Κομόδου τελευτὴν
περιγράφει τοὺς χρόνους, (_Hist. Eccl._ lib. vi. c. 6.)—Ἱππόλυτος
ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος αὐτοκράτοπος Ἀλεξάνδρου τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει,
(_Ibid._ c. 22. See the note of Valesius on the place.)—Or this,
referred to by Stephanus (_in voce_),—Ἑνὸς δ᾽ ἔτι μνησθεὶς περιγράψω
τὸν λόγον, (_Praep. Evang._ lib. vi. c. 10, [p. 280 c, _ed._ 1628].)
But the substitution of τὸ τέλος for τὸ εὐαγγέλιον wants explaining;
and can be only satisfactorily explained in one way.

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

437 Πάρειμι νῦν ... πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῶν αὐτῶν πάντοτε τοῖς πᾶσι ζητούμενα
[_sic_].—Mai, vol. iv. p. 255.

438 “Consentit autem nobis ad _tractatum quem fecimus de scripturâ_
Marci.”—Origen. (_Opp._ iii. 929 B.) _Tractat._ xxxv. in _Matth._ [I
owe the reference to Cave (i. 118.) It seems to have escaped the
vigilance of Huet.]—This serves to explain why Victor of Antioch’s
Catena on S. Mark was sometimes anciently attributed to Origen: as
in Paris Cod. 703, [_olim_ 2330, 958, and 1048: also 18.] where is
read (at fol. 247), Ὠριγένους πρόλογος εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ κατὰ
Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου. Note, that Reg. 937 is but a (xvith cent.)
counterpart of the preceding; which has been transcribed [xviiith
cent.] in Par. Suppl. Grace. 40.

Possevinus [_Apparat. Sac._ ii. 542,] (quoted by Huet, _Origeniana_,
p. 274) states that there is in the Library of C.C.C., Oxford, a
Commentary on S. Mark’s Gospel by Origen. The source of this
misstatement has been acutely pointed out to me by the Rev. W. R.
Churton. James, in his “Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrig.,” (1600, lib. i. p.
49,) mentions “_Homiliae Origenis super Evangelio Marcae_, Stabat ad
monumentum.”—Read instead, (with Rev. H. O. Coxe, “Cat. Codd. MSS.
C.C.C.;” [No. 142, 4,]) as follows:—“Origenis presb. Hom. in istud
Johannis, _Maria stabat ad monumentum_,” &c. But what actually led
Possevinus astray, I perceive, was James’s consummation of his own
blunder in lib. ii. p. 49,—which Possevinus has simply appropriated.

439 So Chrysostom, speaking of the reading Βηθαβαρά.

Origen (iv. 140) says that not only σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις,
but also that _apud Heracleonem_, (who wrote within 50 years of S.
John’s death,) he found Βηθανία written in S. John i. 28. Moved by
_geographical_ considerations, however, (as he explains,) for
Βηθανία, Origen proposes to read Βηθαβαρά.—Chrysostom (viii. 96 d),
after noticing the former reading, declares,—ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων
ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει ἐν Βηθαβαρά φησιν: but he goes on _to reproduce
Origen’s reasoning_;—thereby betraying himself.—The author of the
_Catena in Matth._ (Cramer, i. 190-1) simply reproduces
Chrysostom:—χρὴ δὲ γινώσκειν ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν
Βηθαβαρὰ περιέχει. And so, other Scholia; until at last what was
only due to the mistaken assiduity of Origen, became generally
received as the reading of the “more accurate copies.”

A scholium on S. Luke xxiv. 13, in like manner, declares that the
true reading of that place is not “60” but “160,”—οὕτως γὰρ τὰ
ἀκριβῆ περιέχει, καὶ ἡ Ὠριγένους τῆς ἀληθείας βεβαίωσις.
Accordingly, _Eusebius_ also reads the place in the same erroneous
way.

440 Jerome says of himself (_Opp._ vii. 537,)—“Non digne Græca in
Latinum transfero: aut Græcos lege (si ejusdem linguae habes
scientiam) aut si tantum Latinus es, noli de gratuito munere
judicare, et, ut vulgare proverbium est: _equi dentes inspicere
donati_.”

441 See above, pp. 57-9: also Appendix (C), § 2.

442 See above, pp. 225-6.

443 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 116.

444 See Adler’s N. T. _Verss. Syrr._, p. 70.

445 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 146.

446 See p. 206, also note (k).

447 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 117.

448 Accordingly, in Cod. Evan. 266 (= Paris Reg. 67) is read, at S. Mark
xvi. 8 (_fol_. 125), as follows:—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. [then, _rubro_,]
τέλος τοῦ Β᾽ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τῆς κυριακῆς τῶν μυροφόρων. ἀρχή. [then
the text:] Ἀναστάς κ.τ.λ. ... After ver. 20, (at _fol_. 126 of the
same Codex) is found the following concluding rubric:—τέλος τοῦ Γ᾽
ἑωθίνου εὐαγγελίου.

In the same place, (viz. at the end of S. Mark’s Gospel,) is found
in another Codex (Evan. 7 = Paris Reg. 71,) the following
rubric:—τέλος τοῦ τρίτου τοῦ ἑωθίνου, καὶ τοῦ ὄρθρου τῆς ἀναλήψεως.

449 R. Payne Smith’s _Catal._ p. 146.

450 Cod. 27 (xi) is not provided with any lectionary apparatus, and is
written continuously throughout: and yet at S. Mark xvi. 9 a fresh
paragraph is observed to commence.

Not dissimilar is the phenomenon recorded in respect of some copies
of the Armenian version. “The Armenian, in the edition of Zohrab,
separates the concluding 12 verses from the rest of the Gospel....
Many of the oldest MSS., after the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, put the
final Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον, and then give the additional verses
with a new superscription.” (Tregelles, _Printed Text_, p. 253)....
We are now in a position to _understand_ the Armenian evidence,
which has been described above, at p. 36, as well as to estimate its
exact value.

451 Euseb. apud Mai, iv. p. 264 = p. 287. Again at p. 289-90.—So also
the author of the 2nd Homily on the Resurr. (Greg. Nyss. _Opp._ iii.
411-2.)—And see the third of the fragments ascribed to Polycarp.
_Patres Apostol._, (ed. Jacobson) ii. p. 515.

452 I believe this will be found to be the _invariable_ order of the
Gospels _in the Lectionaries_.

453 This is the case for instance in Evan. 15 (= Reg. 64). See _fol._ 98
_b_.

454 I allude of course to Matthaei’s Cod. g. (See the note in his _N.
T._ vol. ix. p. 228.) Whether or no the learned critic was right in
his conjecture “aliquot folia excidisse,” matters nothing. _The left
hand page ends at the words_ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Now, if τελος had
followed, how obvious would have been the inference that the Gospel
itself of S. Mark had come to an end there!

Note, that in the Codex Bezæ (D), S. Mark’s Gospel ends at ver. 15:
in the Gothic Codex Argenteus, at ver. 11. The Codex Vercell. (_a_)
proves to be imperfect from ch. xv. 15; Cod. Veron. (_b_) from xiii.
24; Cod. Brix. (_f_) from xiv. 70.

455 Scrivener, _Coll. Cod. Sin._ p. lix.

456 See p. 227.

457 See above, p. 226.

458 So Scholz:—“hic [sc. 22] post γὰρ + τέλος; dein atramento rubro,”
&c.—Tischendorf,—“Testantur scholia ... _Marci Evangelium_ ... versu
9 _finem habuisse_. Ita, ut de 30 fere Codd. certe tres videamus, 22
habet: ἐφοβουντο γαρ + τελος. εν τισι,” &c.—Tregelles appeals to
copies, “sometimes with τέλος interposed after ver. 8,” (p.
254.)—Mai (iv. 256) in the same spirit remarks,—“Codex
Vaticano-palatinus [220], ex quo Eusebium producimus, post octavum
versum _habet quidem_ vocem τέλος, ut alibi interdum observatum
fuit; _sed tamen_ ibidem eadem manu subscribitur incrementum cum
progredientibus sectionum notis.”

459 Chap. I. and II.

460 Chap. IV, VI-X.

461 Chap. III, V, and VIII.

462 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford.

463 Tregelles, Alford.

464 Alford.

465 “Hæc non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis.”—See the
rest of Tischendorf’s verdict, _suprà_, p. 10; and opposite, p. 245.

466 Tregelles’ _Account of the Printed Text_, p. 259.

467 Alford’s _New Test._ vol. i. _Proleg._ [p. 38] and p. 437.

468 So Norton, Tregelles, and others.

469 This suggestion, which was originally Griesbach’s, is found in
Alford’s _New Test._ vol. i. p. 433, (_ed._ 1868.)—See above, p. 12.
The italics are not mine.

470 Vide _suprà_, p. 10.

_ 471 Opp._ vol. iii. p. 671.

472 Eusebius _Eccl. Hist._ iv. 28. Consider Rev. xxii. 18, 19.

473 Note the remarkable adjuration of Irenæus, _Opp._ i. 821, preserved
by Eusebius, _lib._ v. 20.—See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 383-4.
Consider the attestations at the end of the account of Polycarp’s
martyrdom, _PP. App._ ii. 614-6.

474 Allusion is made to the Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus;
especially to the work of Marcion.

475 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 381-391.

476 See Chap. VI.

477 Chap. IX.

478 “Ad defendendum hunc locum in primis etiam valet mirus Codicum
consensus in vocabulis et loquendi formulis singulis. Nam in locis
παρεγγράπτοις, etiam multo brevioribus, quo plures sunt Codices, eo
plures quoque sunt varietates. Comparetur modo Act. xv. 18, Matth.
viii. 13, et loca similia.”—C. F. Matthaei’s _Nov. Test._ (1788)
vol. ii. p. 271.

479 Speaking of the abrupt termination of the second Gospel at ver. 8,
Dr. Tregelles asks,—“Would this have been transmitted as a fact by
good witnesses, if there had not been real grounds for regarding it
to be true?”—(_Printed Text_, p. 257.) Certainly not, we answer. But
_where_ are the “good witnesses” of the “transmitted fact?” _There
is not so much as one._

480 See above, pp. 86-90.

481 See Chap. III.

482 See above, Chap. III. and IV.

483 “Habent periocham hanc Codices Græci, si unum b excipias, omnes.”
(Scholz, adopting the statement of Griesbach.)—See above, p. 70.

484 See above, Chap. X.

485 See above, pp. 66-68.

486 See above, pp. 41 to 51: also Appendix (B).

487 The reader is referred to Mai’s _Nov. PP. Bibl._ vol. iv. p. 262,
line 12: p. 264 line 28: p. 301, line 3-4, and 6-8.

488 See above, p. 64-5: also Appendix (E).

489 P. 68 and note (d); p. 119 and note (m).

490 P. 51-7.

491 P. 57-9.

492 P. 59-66.

493 P. 114-125.

494 P. 68-9.

495 Chap. VI.

496 See above, pp. 86 to 88.

497 Will it be believed that Tischendorf accordingly rejects _that_
verse also as spurious; and brings the fourth Gospel to an end at
ver. 24, as he brings the second Gospel to an end at ver. 8? For my
own part,—having (through the kindness and liberality of the Keeper
of the Imperial MSS. at S. Petersburg, aided by the good offices of
my friend, the Rev. A. S. Thompson, Chaplain at S. Petersburg,)
obtained a photograph of the last page of S. John’s Gospel,—I must
be allowed altogether to call in question the accuracy of Dr.
Tischendorf’s judgment in this particular. The utmost which can be
allowed is that the Scribe may have possibly changed his pen, or
been called away from his task, just before bringing the fourth
Gospel to a close.

498 See Chap. IX.

499 Chapter X.

500 Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pseudo-Basil, Patricius, and Marius
Mercator, are designedly omitted in this enumeration.

501 Codex A,—ὕμνος ἑωθινός at the end of the Psalms.

502 The old Latin Interpreter of Origen’s Commentary on S. Matthew seems
to have found in Origen’s text a quotation from S. Luke ii. 14 which
is _not represented in the extant Greek text of Origen_. Here also
we are presented with “hominibus _bonae voluntatis_.” (_Opp._ iii.
537 C). We can say nothing to such second-hand evidence.

503 Consider his exactly similar method concerning Eph. i. 1. (_Suprà_,
pp. 96-99.)

504 From the Rev. Professor Bosworth.

_ 505 Vid. suprà_, p. 233.

506 P.S. I avail myself of this blank space to introduce a passage from
THEOPHYLACT (A.D. 1077) which should have obtained notice in a much
earlier page:—Ἀναστὰς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς; ἐνταῦθα στίξον, εἶτα εἱπέ; πρωί
πρώτῇ σαββάτου ἐφάνη Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. οὐ γὰρ ἀνέστη πρωί (τίς γὰρ
οἴδε πότε ἀνέστη;) ἀλλ᾽ ἐφάνη πρωί κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (αὔτη γὰρ ἡ πρώτη
τοῦ σαββάτου, τουτέστι, τῆς ἑβδομάδος,) ἥν ἄνω ἐκάλεσε μίαν
σαββάτων; [_Opp._ vol. i. p. 263 C.

It must be superfluous to point out that Theophylact also,—like
Victor, Jerome, and Hesychius,—is here only reproducing Eusebius.
See above, p. 66, note (c).

507 Kollar, (editing Lambecius,—iii. 159, 114,) expresses the same
opinion.—Huet (_Origeniana_, lib. iii. c. 4, pp. 274-5,) has a brief
and unsatisfactory dissertation on the same subject; but he arrives
at a far shrewder conclusion.

508 The copies which I have seen, are headed,—ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ (sometimes
ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ) ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΙΑΣ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ
ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ; or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no
Author’s name is given. Rarely is the Commentary assigned to Cyril,
Origen, &c.—_Vide infrà_, No. iii, xii, xiv, xix, xlviii. Also, No.
xlvii (comp, xxviii.)

_ 509 Victoris Antiocheni in Marcum, et Titi Bostrorum Episcopi in
Evangelium Lucae commentarii; ante hac quidem nunquam in lucem
editi, nunc vero studio et operâ Theodori Peltani luce simul et
Latinitate donati._ Ingolstadt. 1580, 8vo. pp. 510.

510 “Ex hoc ego, quasi metallo triplici, una conflata massa, inde
annulos formavi, quos singulos Evangelici contextus articulis
aptatos, inter seque morsu ac nexu mutuo commissos, in torquem
producerem, quo, si possem consequi, sancto Evangelistae Marco decus
et ornamentum adderetur.”—_Præfatio_: from which the particulars in
the text are obtained.

511 ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἁγίων πατέρων
ἐξήσησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον: ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit
C. F. Matthæi, Mosquae, 1775.

512 P. xxvii-xxviii.

513 To understand what is alluded to, the reader should compare the
upper and the lower half of p. 442 in Cramer: noting that he has one
and the same annotation before him; but diversely exhibited. (The
lower part of the page is taken from Cod. 178.) Besides transposing
the sentences, the author of Cod. 178 has suppressed the reference
to Chrysostom, and omitted the name of Apolinarius in line 10.
(Compare Field’s ed. of _Chrys._ iii. 529, top of the page.)

514 Thus the two notes on p. 440 are found substantially to agree with
the note on p. 441, which = Chrys. p. 527. See also _infrà_, p. 289.

515 Let any one, with Mai’s edition of the “Quaestiones ad Marinum” of
Eusebius before him, note how mercilessly they are abridged,
mutilated, amputated by subsequent writers. Compare for instance p.
257 with Cramer’s “Catenae,” i. p. 251-2; and this again with the
“Catena in Joannem” of Corderius, p. 448-9.

516 With whom, Reg. 177 and 703 agree.

517 p. 263, line 3 to 13, and in Possinus, p. 4.

518 Eusebius is again quoted at p. 444, and referred to at p. 445 (line
23-5). See especially p. 446.

519 What is found at p. 314 (on S. Mark v. 1,) is a famous place. (Cf.
Huet’s ed. ii. 131.) Compare also Victor’s first note on i. 7 with
the same edit. of Origen, ii. 125 C, D,—which Victor is found to
have abridged. Compare the last note on p. 346 with Orig. i. 284 A.
Note, that ἄλλος δέ φησι, (foot of p. 427) is also Origen. Cf.
Possinus, p. 324.

520 See pp. 408, 418, 442.

521 e.g. the first note on p. 311; (comp. Possinus, p. 95): and the last
note on p. 323; (comp. Poss. p. 123.) Compare also Cramer, p. 395
(line 16-22) with Poss. p. 249.—I observe that part of a note on p.
315 is ascribed by Possinus (p. 102) to Athanasius: while a scholium
at p. 321 and p. 359, has no owner.

522 e.g. p. 408, 411 (twice).

523 In p. 418,—ὁ τῆς βασιλίδος πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος Ἰωάννης. For instances
of quotation from Chrysostom, comp. V. A. p. 315 with Chrys. pp.
398-9: p. 376 with Chrys. pp. 227-8: p. 420 with Chrys. p. 447, &c.

524 Take for example Victor’s Commentary on the stilling of the storm
(pp. 312-3), which is merely an abridged version of the first part
of Chrysostom’s 28th Homily on S. Matthew (pp. 395-8); about 45
lines being left out. Observe Victor’s method however. Chrysostom
begins as follows:—Ὁ μὲν οὖν Λουκᾶς, ἀπαλλάττων ἑαυτὸν τοῦ
ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν. (Then follows S. Luke
viii. 22.) καὶ ὁ Μάρκος ὁμοίως. Οὗτος δὲ οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα διατηρεῖ. Victor, because he had S. Mark (not S.
Matthew) to comment upon, begins thus:—Ὁ μὲν Μάρκος ἀπαλλάττων
ἑαυτὸν τοῦ ἀπαιτηθῆναι τῶν χρόνων τὴν τάξιν, οὕτως εἶπεν, ὁμοίως δὲ
καὶ ὁ Λοῦκας; ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος οὐχ οὕτως; ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκολουθίαν ἐνταῦθα
διατηρεῖ.

525 e.g. V. A. p. 422 (from ὁ μέν φησιν to ἄλλος δέ φησιν) = Chrys. p.
460. Observe the next paragraph also, (p. 423,) begins, ἄλλος
φησιν.—So again, V. A. pp. 426-7 = Chrys. pp. 473-6: where ἄλλος δέ
φησι, at the foot of p. 427 introduces a quotation from Origen, as
appears from Possinus, p. 324—See also p. 209, line 1,—which is from
Chrys. p. 130,—ἤ ὡς ὁ ἄλλος being the next words.—The first three
lines in p. 316 = Chrys. p. 399. Then follows, ἄλλος δέ φησιν. See
also pp. 392: 407 (φασί τινες—ἕτερος δέ φησιν): pp. 415 and 433.
After quoting Eusebius by name (p. 446-7), Victor says (line 3)
ἅλλος δέ φησιν.

526 e.g. V. A. p. 420 line 15, which = Chrys. p. 447.

527 e.g. Theod. Mops., (p. 414,) which name is absent from Cod. Reg.
201:—Basil, (p. 370) whose name Possinus does not seem to have
read:—Cyril’s name, which Possinus found in a certain place (p.
311), is not mentioned in _Laud._ Gr. 33 _fol._ 100 _b_, at top, &c.

528 So in the _Catena_ of Corderius, in _S. Joannem_, p. 302.

529 I believe it will be found that Cod. Reg. 186 corresponds _exactly_
with Cod. Reg. 188: also that the contents of Cod. Reg. 201
correspond with those of Cod. Reg. 206; to which last two, I believe
is to be added Cod. Reg. 187.

530 Note, that this recurs at fol. 145 of a Codex at Moscow numbered 384
in the _Syr. Cat._

_ 531 Catalogue Librorum MSS._ Lips. 1830, 4to. p. 656 _b_.

_ 532 Reg._ 177 = A: 178 = B: 230 = C.—_Coisl._ 19 = D: 20 = E: 21 = F:
22 = G: 24 = H.—_Matthaei’s_ d _or_ D = I: _his_ e _or_ E = J: _his_
12 = K: _his_ a _or_ A = L.—_Vat._ 358 = M: 756 = N: 757 = O: 1229 =
P: 1446 = Q.—_Vind. Koll._ 4 _Forlos._ 5 = R.—_Xav. de Zelada_ =
S.—_Laur._ 18 = T: 34 = U.—_Venet._ 27 = V.—_Vind. Lamb._ 38 = W :
39 = X.

533 So B-E (which I chiefly follow) begins,—Το δε αναστας.

534 B begins thus,—Ει δε και το αναστας δε πρωι μετα τα επιφερομενα
παρα. It is at this word (παρα) that most copies of the present
scholion (A, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U,
V, W, X) begin.

535 So far (except in its opening phrase) E. But C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L,
M, N, O, P, T, begin,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ου κεινται [I, ου
κειται: J, ουκ ην δε] ταυτα τα [M, O, T om. τα] επιφερομενα εν [D,
F, H om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον [B, εν τω παροντι] ευαγγελιῳ.

536 So I, J, K, L, and H. P proceeds,—ως νοθα νομισθεντα τισιν ειναι.
But B, C, D, E, F, G, M, N, O, T exhibit,—ως νοθα νομισαντες αυτα
τινες [B om. τινες] ειναι. On the other hand, A and Q begin and
proceed as follows,—Παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ταυτα τα [Q om. τα]
επιφερομενα εν [A om. εν] τῳ κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιῳ ως νοθα
νομισαντες τινες [Q, τινας (a clerical error): A om. τινες] ουκ
εθηκαν.

537 So B, except that it omits ως. So also, A, D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N,
O, P, Q, T, except that they begin the sentence, ημεις δε.

538 So D, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, O, P, T: also B and Q, except that they
prefix και to κατα το Π. B is peculiar in reading,—ως εχει η αληθεια
Μαρκου (transposing Μαρκου): while C and P read,—ομως ημεις εξ
ακριβων αντιγραφων και πλειστων ου μην αλλα και εν τῳ Παλαιστιναιῳ
ευαγγελιῳ Μαρκου ευροντες αυτα ως εχει η αληθεια συντεθεικαμεν.

539 So all, apparently: except that P reads εμφερομενην for
επιφερομενην; and M, after αναστασιν inserts εδηλωσαμεν, with a
point (.) before μετα: while C and P (after ανασταςιν,) proceed,—και
την [C, ειτα] αναληψιν και καθεδραν εκ δεξιων του Πατρος ῳ πρεπει η
δοξα και η τιμη νυν και εις τους αιωνας. αμην. But J [and I think,
H] (after γαρ) proceeds,—διο δοξαν αναπεμψωμεν τῳ ανασταντι εκ
νεκρων Χριστῳ τῳ Θεῳ ημων αμα τῳ αναρχῳ Πατρι και ζωοποιῳ Πνευματι
νυν και αει και εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων. αμην.

540 So B. All, except B, C, H, J, P seem to end at εφοβουντο γαρ.

541 e.g. οὐκ ἦν δέ for οὐ κεῖνται.

542 Jerome evidently supposed that Ammonius was the author of _the
Canons_ as well:—“Canones quos _Eusebius_ Caesariensis Episcopus
_Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium_ in decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in
Graeco habentur expressimus.” (_Ad Papam Damasum. Epist._) And
again: “_Ammonius ... Evangelicos Canones excogitavit_ quos postea
secutus est Eusebius Caesariensis.” (_De Viris Illustr._ c. 55
[_Opp._ ii. 881.])—See above, p. 128.

543 There was published at the University Press in 1805, a handsome
quarto volume (pp. 216) entitled _Harmonia quatuor Evangeliorum
juxta Sectiones Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones_. It is merely the
contents of the X Canons of Eusebius printed _in extenso_,—and of
course is no “Harmony” at all. It would have been a really useful
book, notwithstanding; but that the editor, strange to say, has
omitted to number the sections.

544 This last § according to _Tischendorf’s_ ed. of the Eusebian Canons.

545 Thus, certain disputed passages of importance are proved to have
been recognised at least _by Eusebius_. Our LORD’S Agony in the
Garden for instance, (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44—wanting in Cod. B,) is by
him numbered § 283: and that often rejected verse, S. Mark xv. 28,
he certainly numbered § 216,—whatever Tischendorf may say to the
contrary. (See p. 203.)

546 It is obvious to suggest that, (1) whereas our Marginal References
follow the order of the Sacred Books, they ought rather to stand in
the order of their importance, or at least of their relevancy to the
matter in hand:—and that, (2) actual Quotations, and even Allusions
to other parts of Scripture when they are undeniable, should be
referred to in some distinguishing way. It is also certain that, (3)
to a far greater extent than at present, _sets_ of References might
be kept _together_; not scattered about in small parcels over the
whole Book.—Above all, (as the point most pertinent to the present
occasion,) (4) it is to be wished that _strictly parallel places_ in
the Gospels might be distinguished from those which are illustrative
only, or are merely recalled by their similarity of subject or
expression. All this would admit of interesting and useful
illustration. While on this subject, let me ask,—Why is it no longer
possible to purchase a Bible with References to the Apocrypha? _Who_
does not miss the reference to “Ecclus. xliii. 11, 12” at Gen. ix.
14? _Who_ can afford to do without the reference to “1 Macc. iv. 59”
at S. John x. 22?

547 Mai, vol. iv. p. 287. See also p. 293.

548 Tischendorf says 19 only.

549 Tischendorf says 96 only.

550 Tischendorf says 13 only.

551 Scrivener specifics the following Codd. C, F, H, I, P, Q, R, W6, Y,
Z, 54, 59, 60, 68, 440, iscr, sscr. Also D and K. (_Cod. Bezæ_, p.
xx, and _Introd._ pp. 51, 2.) Add Evan. 117: (but I think _not_
263.)

552 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 51 and 52: _Cod. Bezæ_, p. xx. note
[2.]

553 Evan. 263, for instance, has certainly _blank_ Eusebian Tables at
the beginning: the _frame_ only.

554 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 51 (note 2),—where Tregelles (in
Horne’s _Introd._ iv. 200) is quoted.

555 e.g. Codd. M, 262 and 264. (I saw at least one other at Paris, but I
have not preserved a record of the number.) To these, Tregelles adds
E; (Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 51, note 2.) Scrivener adds W,
and Tischendorf T, (Scrivener’s _Cod. Bezae_, p. xx.)

556 The _order_ of these monograms requires explanation.

557 Addit. MSS. 14,449: 14,450, and 1, and 2, and 4, and 6, and 7, and
8: 14,463, and 9: 17,113. (Dr. Wright’s _Catalogue,_ 4to. 1870.)
Also Rich. 7,157. The reader is referred to Assemani; and to Adler,
p. 52-3: also p. 63.

558 “Dawkins 3.” See Dean Payne Smith’s _Catalogue_, p. 72.

559 It will be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme, _every
verse_ of S. Mark xvi, from ver. 8 to ver. 15 inclusive, constitutes
an independent section (§§ 281-288): ver. 16-18 another (§ 289); and
verr. 19-20, another (§ 290), which is the last. The Greek scheme,
as a rule, makes independent sections of verr. 8, 9, 14, 19, 20; but
throws together ver. 10-11: 12-13: 15-16: 17-18. (_Vide infrà_, p.
311.)

560 Note that § 392/9 = S. Luke xxiv. 12: § 394/10 = ver. 18-34: § 395/8
= ver. 35: § 396/9 is incomplete. [Dr. Wright supplies the lacune
for me, thus: § 396/9 = ver. 36-41 (down to θαυμαζόντων): § 397/9 =
εἶπεν αὐτοῖς down to the end of ver. 41: § 398/9 = ver. 42: § 399/9
= ver. 43: § 400/10 = ver. 44-50: § 401/8 = 51: § 402/10 = ver. 52,
3.

Critical readers will be interested in comparing, or rather
contrasting, the Sectional system of a Syriac MS. with that which
prevails in all Greek Codices. S. John’s § 248/1 = xx. 18: his §
249/9 = ver. 19 to εἰρήνη ὑμῖν in ver. 21: his $ 250/7 = ver. 21
(καθώς to the end of the verse): his § 251/10 = ver. 22: his § 252/7
= ver. 23: his § 253/[10] = ver. 24-5: his § 254/[9] = ver. 26-7:
his § 255/10 = ver. 28 to the end of xxi. 4: his § 256/9 = xxi. 5:
his § 257/9 = xxi. 6 (to εὑρήσετε): his § 258/9 = ver. 6, (ἔβαλον to
the end): his § 259/[10] = ver. 7, 8: his § 260/[9] = ver. 9: his §
261/[10] = ver. 10: his § 262/9 = ver. 11: his § 263/9 = first half
of ver. 12: his § 264/10 is incomplete.