(Referred to at pp. 202 and 219.)

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

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

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

Then comes, ο δε ΙΣ παλιν κραξας κ.τ.λ. The same is also the reading of Codd. C, L, U, Γ: and it is known to recur in the following cursives,—5, 48, 67, 115, 127.572

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

(Η573 Ὅτι εἰς τὸ καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διαδώρου καὶ Τατιανοῦ καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων: τοῦτο πρόσκειται:

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

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

I find it impossible on a review of the evidence to adhere to the opinion I once held, and have partially expressed above, (viz. at p. 202,) that the Lectionary-practice of the Eastern Church was the occasion of this corrupt reading in our two oldest uncials. A corrupt reading it undeniably is; and the discredit of exhibiting it, Codd. B, א, (not to say Codd. [pg 315] C, L, U, Γ,) must continue to sustain. That Chrysostom and Cyril also employed Codices disfigured by this self-same blemish, is certain. It is an interesting and suggestive circumstance. Nor is this all. Severus574 relates that between A.D. 496 and 511, being at Constantinople, he had known this very reading strenuously discussed: whereupon had been produced a splendid copy of S. Matthew's Gospel, traditionally said to have been found with the body of the Apostle Barnabas in the Island of Cyprus in the time of the Emperor Zeno (A.D. 474-491); and preserved in the palace with superstitious veneration in consequence. It contained no record of the piercing of the Saviour's side: nor (adds Severus) does any ancient Interpreter mention the transaction in that place,—except Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria; into whose Commentaries it has found its way.—Thus, to Codices B, א, C and the copy familiarly employed by Chrysostom, has to be added the copy which Cyril of Alexandria575 employed; as well as evidently sundry other Codices extant at Constantinople about A.D. 500. That the corruption of the text of S. Matthew's Gospel under review is ancient therefore, and was once very widely spread, is certain. The question remains,—and this is the only point to be determined,—How did it originate?

Now it must be candidly admitted, that if the strange method of the Lectionaries already explained, (viz. of interposing seven verses of S. John's xixth chapter [ver. 31-7] between the 54th and 55th verses of S. Matth. xxvii,) really were the occasion of this interpolation of S. John xix. 34 after S. Matth. xxvii. 48 or 49,—two points would seem to call for explanation which at present remain unexplained: First, (1) Why does only that one verse find place in the interpolated copies? And next, (2) How does it come to pass [pg 316] that that one verse is exhibited in so very depraved and so peculiar a form?

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

When therefore, (as in the present Scholion,) an ancient Critic who appears to have been familiarly acquainted with the lost “Diatessaron” of Tatian, comes before us with the express declaration that in that famous monument of the primitive age (A.D. 173), S. John's record of the piercing of our Saviour's side was thrust into S. Matthew's History of the Passion in this precise way and in these very terms,—(for, “Note,” he says, “That into the Evangelical History of Diodorus, of Tatian, and of divers other holy Fathers, is introduced [here] the following addition: ‘And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out Water and Blood.’ This, Chrysostom also says”),—it is even unreasonable to seek for any other explanation of the vitiated text of our two oldest Codices. Not only is the testimony to the critical fact abundantly sufficient, but the proposed solution of the difficulty, in itself the reverse of improbable, [pg 317] is in the highest degree suggestive as well as important. For,—May we not venture to opine that the same καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον,—as this Writer aptly designates Tatian's work,—is responsible for not a few of the monstra potius quam variae lectiones577 which are occasionally met with in the earliest MSS. of all? And,—Am I not right in suggesting that the circumstance before us is the only thing we know for certain about the text of Tatian's (miscalled) “Harmony?”

To conclude.—That the “Diatessaron” of Tatian, (for so, according to Eusebius and Theodoret, Tatian himself styled it,) has long since disappeared, no one now doubts.578 That Eusebius himself, (who lived 150 years after the probable date of its composition,) had never seen it, may I suppose be inferred from the terms in which he speaks of it. Jerome does not so much as mention its existence. Epiphanius, who is very full and particular concerning the heresy of Tatian, affords no indication that he was acquainted with his work. On the contrary. “The Diatessaron Gospel,” (he remarks in passing,) “which some call the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is said to have been the production of this writer.”579 The most interesting notice we have of Tatian's work is from the pen of Theodoret. After explaining that Tatian the Syrian, originally a Sophist, and next a disciple of Justin Martyr [A.D. 150], after Justin's death aspired to being a heretical leader,—(statements which are first found in Irenæus,)—Theodoret enumerates his special tenets. “This man” (he proceeds) “put together the so-called Diatessaron Gospel,—from which he cut away the genealogies, and whatever else shews that the Lord was born of the seed of David. The book was used not only by those who favoured Tatian's opinions, but by the orthodox as well; who, unaware of the mischievous spirit in which the work had been executed, in their simplicity used the book as an epitome. I myself found upwards of two hundred such copies honourably preserved in the Churches of this place,” (Cyrus in Syria namely, of which Theodoret was made [pg 318] Bishop, A.D. 423,)—“all of which I collected together, and put aside; substituting the Gospels of the Four Evangelists in their room.”580

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

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

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

(Promised at p. 51.)

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

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

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

It proves to be the concluding portion of Victor's Commentary, and to correspond with what is found at p. 365 of [pg 320] Possinus, and p. 446-7 of Cramer: except that after the words “ἀποκυλίσειε τὸν λίθον,” and before the words “ἄλλος δέ φησιν” [Possinus, line 12 from bottom: Cramer, line 3 from the top], is read as follows:—

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

(2.) But next, this σχόλιον εὐσεβίου at the utmost can only be regarded as a general summary of what Eusebius has somewhere delivered concerning our Lord's appearances after His Resurrection. As it stands, it clearly is not the work of Eusebius.

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

Δεικνὺς δὲ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐκέτι συνεχῶς αὐτοῖς συνῆν, λέγει, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη ὁ Κύριος μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν; οὐ τοῦτο λέγων, ὅτι μόνον τρίτον, ἀλλὰ τὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις παραλελειμμένα λέγων, τοῦτο ἤδη πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις τρίτον ἐφανερώθη τοῖς μαθηταῖς. κατὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὤφθη αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαιᾳ μόνον; κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ἰωάννην, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων, μέσος αὐτῶν ἔστη ὄντων ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, μὴ παρόντος ἐκει Θωμᾶ. καὶ πάλιν μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, παρόντος καὶ τοῦ Θωμᾶ, ὤφθη αὐτοῖς, ἤδη κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν. μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ού τοῖς ΙΑ ἀλλὰ μόνοις ζ. κατὰ δὲ Λουκᾶν ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ, αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν, ὤφθη Σίμωνι. καὶ πάλιν ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν, ὅτε καὶ διέστη ἀναληφθεὶς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν; ὡς ἐκ τοῦτου παρίστασθαι ζ. εἶναι τοὺς μαθητὰς μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν γεγονυίας ὀπτασίας τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. μίαν μὲν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, τρεῖς δὲ παρὰ τῷ Ἰώαννῃ, καὶ τρεῖς τῷ Λουκᾷ ὁμοίως.582

(4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here,—the only thing in fact which I am concerned to point out,—is the notable circumstance that the supposed dictum of Eusebius,—(“quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset,”)—is no longer discoverable. To say that “it has disappeared,” would be incorrect. In the original document it has no existence. In plain terms, the famous “σχόλιον εὐσεβίου” proves to be every way a figment. It is a worthless interpolation, thrust by some nameless scribe into his abridgement of a Scholion, of which Eusebius (as I shall presently shew) cannot have been the Author.

(5.) I may as well point out why the person who wrote the longer Scholion says nothing about S. Mark's Gospel. It is because there was nothing for him to say. [pg 322] He is enumerating our Lord's appearances to His Disciples after His Resurrection; and he discovers that these were exactly seven in number: one being peculiar to S. Matthew,—three, to S. John,—three, to S. Luke. But because, (as every one is aware), there exists no record of an appearance to the Disciples peculiar to S. Mark's Gospel, the Author of the Scholion is silent concerning S. Mark perforce.... How so acute and accomplished a Critic as Matthaei can have overlooked all this: how he can have failed to recognise the identity of his longer and his shorter Scholion: how he came to say of the latter, “conjicias ergo Eusebium hunc totum locum repudiasse;” and, of the former, “ultimam partem Evangelii Marci videtur tollere:”583 lastly, how Tischendorf (1869) can write,—“est enim ejusmodi ut ultimam partem evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, excludat:”584—I profess myself unable to understand.

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

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

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

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

“[The first two Evangelists are engaged with our Saviour's appearance to His Disciples in Galilee: but] by [pg 323] S. Mark, He is not—by S. Matthew, He is—related to have been actually seen by them there.

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

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

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

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