! 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 :" lastly, how Tischendorf (1869) can write,—" est enim ejusmodi ut ultimam partem evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, excludat "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, κατά Μάρκον, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὠφθαι, κατὰ Ματθαῖον μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ὤφθη,— τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαία. 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 b Nov. Test. (1869), p. 404. Ibid., ii. 69, and ix. 228. S. Mark, He is not-by S. Matthew, He is-related to have been actually seen by them there. 6 [The other two Evangelists relate the appearances in Jerusalem and] according to S. John, &c. &c. 'According to S. Luke,' &c. &c. (8.) And on passing the "Quaestiones ad Marinum" of Eusebius under review, I am constrained to admit that the Scholion before us is just such a clumsy bit of writing as an unskilful person might easily be betrayed into, who should attempt to exhibit in a few short sentences the substance of more than one tedious disquisition of this ancient Father. Its remote parentage would fully account for its being designated "oxólov evoeßiov," all the same. σχόλιον εὐσεβίου,” (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 . (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! Let the reader examine his "Quaestio ix," (Mai, vol. iv. p. 293-5): his "Quaestio x," (p. 295, last seven lines). See also p. 296, line 29-32. d See Chrys. Opp. vol. viii. p. 522 0:—ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ συνεχῶς ἐπεχωρίαζεν, οὐδὲ ὁμοίως, λέγει ὅτι τρίτον τοῦτο ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ὅτε ἐγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν. No pro t of this. L'ENVOY As one, escaped the bustling trafficking town, Where Siloa's brook flows softly, and the meads Strife is so hateful to me! most of all And yet, three times that miracle of Spring To burst its channel and become a sea. O Sister, who ere yet my task is done In the mysterious place of thy sojourn, (For thou must needs be with the bless'd,-yea, where One other landed on the eternal shore! And the heart droops, and finds that it was Love CANTERBURY. GENERAL INDEX. Under "Codices" will be found all the Evangelia described or quoted: "Acta Pilati," p. 25. ACTS, p. 199-200. See Texts. Adler, J. G. C., p. 33-4. Alford, Dean, p. 8, 13, 38, 77, 103, 164, 227, 244-5, 259. Ambrose, p. 27. "Ammonian" Sections, p. 126-32, ἀνάγνωσμα, p. 45, 196. ἀναληφθῆναι, p. 166. Andreas of Crete, p. 258. Angelic Hymn, p. 257-63. ἀντεβλήθη, p. 119. ἀπέχει, p. 225, 6. ἀφορμή, p. 127, 137. Aphraates the Persian, p. 26-7, 258. Apocrypha, p. 301. Apolinarius, p. 275, 277. "Apostolical Constitutions," p. 25, ἀρχή, p. 224-5. Armenian Version, p. 36, 239. Ascension, The, p. 195. Lessons, p. 204-5, 238-9. Assemani, p. 309-10, 315. Babington, Rev. C., Basil, p. 93-9, 275. βασιλίς, p. 275. Basle, p. 283. See Codices. Bengel, J. A., p. 17, 101-2, 185. Benson, Rev. Dr., p. 101. Birch's N. T., Andr., p. 5, 116-8, 311. Bobbiensis, Codex, p. 35, 124, 186. Book of Common Prayer, p. 215. Bosworth, Rev. Prof., p. 262. |