The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 22

4. Lastly, (in 1840,) Dr. J. A. Cramer, in the first volume of his _Catenae_ on the N. T., reproduced Victor's work from independent MS.

sources. He took for his basis two Codices in the Paris Library, (No. 186 and No. 188), which, however, prove to have been anciently so exactly a.s.similated the one to the other [_infra_, p. 279] as to be, in fact, but duplicates of one and the same original. Cramer supplemented their contents from Laud. Gr. 33, (in the Bodleian:) Coisl. 23: and Reg. 178 at Paris. The result has been by far the fullest and most satisfactory exhibition of the Commentary of Victor of Antioch which has. .h.i.therto appeared. Only is it to be regretted that the work should have been suffered to come abroad disfigured in every page with errors so gross as to be even scandalous, and with traces of slovenly editors.h.i.+p which are simply unintelligible. I cannot bring myself to believe that Dr. Cramer ever inspected the MSS. in the Paris Library in person. Else would the slender advantage which those abundant materials have proved to so learned and accomplished a scholar, be altogether unaccountable. Moreover, he is incorrect in what he says about them:(512) while his reasons for proposing to a.s.sign the work of Victor of Antioch to Cyril of Alexandria are undeserving of serious attention.

On a comparison of these four Editions of the same work, it is discovered that the Latin version of Pelta.n.u.s (1580), _represents the same Greek text_ which Possinus gave to the world in 1673. Pelta.n.u.s translates very loosely; in fact he paraphrases rather than translates his author, and confesses that he has taken great liberties with Victor's text. But I believe it will be found that there can have been no considerable discrepancy between the MS. which Pelta.n.u.s employed, and that which Possinus afterwards published.-Not so the text which Matthaei edited, which is in fact for the most part, (though not invariably,) rather an Epitome of Victor's Commentary. On the other hand, Cramer's text is more full than that of Possinus. There seem to be only a few lines in Possinus, here and there, which are not to be met with in Cramer; whereas no less than twenty-eight of Cramer's pages are not found in the work of Possinus.

Cramer's edition, therefore, is by far the most complete which has. .h.i.therto appeared. And though it cries aloud for revision throughout; though many important corrections might easily be introduced into it, and the whole brought back in countless particulars more nearly to the state in which it is plain that Victor originally left it;-I question whether more than a few pages of _additional matter_ could easily be anywhere recovered. I collated several pages of Cramer (Oct. 1869) with every MS.

of Victor in the Paris Library; and all but invariably found that Cramer's text was fuller than that of the MS. which lay before me. Seldom indeed did I meet with a few lines in any MS. which had not already seen the light in Cramer's edition. One or other of the four Codices which he employed seems to fill up almost every hiatus which is met with in any of the MSS. of this Father.

For it must be stated, once for all, that an immense, and I must add, a most unaccountable discrepancy is observable between the several extant copies of Victor: yet not so much in respect of various readings, or serious modifications of his text; (though the transpositions are very frequent, and often very mischievous;(513)) as resulting from the boundless license which every fresh copyist seems to have allowed himself chiefly in _abridging_ his author.-To skip a few lines: to omit an explanatory paragraph, quotation, or digression: to pa.s.s _per saltum_ from the beginning to the end of a pa.s.sage: sometimes to leave out a whole page: to transpose: to paraphrase: to begin or to end with quite a different form of words;-proves to have been the rule. Two copyists engaged on the same portion of Commentary are observed to abridge it in two quite different ways. I question whether there exist in Europe three ma.n.u.scripts of Victor which correspond entirely throughout. The result is perplexing in a high degree. Not unfrequently (as might be expected) we are presented with two or even three different exhibitions of one and the same annotation.(514) Meanwhile, as if to render the work of collation (in a manner) impossible,-(1) Pelta.n.u.s pleads guilty to having transposed and otherwise taken liberties with the text he translated: (2) Possinus confessedly welded three codices into one: (3) Matthaei pieced and patched his edition out of four MSS.; and (4) Cramer, out of five.

The only excuse I can invent for this strange licentiousness on the part of Victor's ancient transcribers is this:-They must have known perfectly well, (in fact it is obvious,) that the work before them was really little else but a compilation; and that Victor had already abridged in the same merciless way the writings of the Fathers (Chrysostom chiefly) from whom he obtained his materials. We are to remember also, I suppose, the labour which transcription involved, and the costliness of the skins out of which ancient books were manufactured. But when all has been said, I must candidly admit that the extent of license which the ancients evidently allowed themselves quite perplexes me.(515) _Why_, for example, remodel the structure of a sentence and needlessly vary its phraseology? Never I think in my life have I been more hopelessly confused than in the _Bibliotheque_, while attempting to collate certain copies of Victor of Antioch.

I dismiss this feature of the case by saying that if any person desires a sample of the process I have been describing, he cannot do better than bestow a little attention on the "Preface" (?p??es??) at the beginning of Victor's Commentary. It consists of thirty-eight lines in Cramer's edition: of which Possinus omits eleven; and Matthaei also, eleven;-_but not the same eleven_. On the other hand, Matthaei(516) _prolongs_ the Preface by eight lines. Strange to relate, the MS. from which Cramer professes to publish, goes on differently. If I may depend on my hasty pencilling, after ?????s?a?? [_Cramer_, i. p. 264, line 16,] Evan. 300, [ = Reg. 186, _fol._ 93, line 16 from bottom] proceeds,-????? ?? ??t? t??

?p?t?p?se??, (thirty-one lines, ending) ?a?a?t?? ????et?.

On referring to the work of Possinus, "Anonymus Vatica.n.u.s" is found to exhibit so admirable a condensation (?) of the ?p??es?? in question, that it is difficult to divest oneself of the suspicion that it must needs be an original and independent composition; the germ out of which the longer Preface has grown.... We inspect the first few pages of the Commentary, and nothing but perplexity awaits us at every step. It is not till we have turned over a few pages that we begin to find something like exact correspondence.

As for the Work,-(for I must now divest myself of the perplexing recollections which the hurried collation of so many MSS. left behind; and plainly state that, in spite of all, I yet distinctly ascertained, and am fully persuaded that the original work was _one_,-the production, no doubt, of "Victor, Presbyter of Antioch," as 19 out of the 52 MSS.

declare):-For the Commentary itself, I say, Victor explains at the outset what his method had been. Having failed to discover any separate exposition of S. Mark's Gospel, he had determined to construct one, by collecting the occasional notices scattered up and down the writings of Fathers of the Church.(517) Accordingly, he presents us in the first few lines of his Commentary (p. 266) with a brief quotation from the work of Eusebius "to Marinus, on the seeming inconsistency of the Evangelical accounts of the Resurrection;" following it up with a pa.s.sage from "the vith [viith?] tome of Origen's Exegetics on S. John's Gospel." We are thus presented at the outset with _two_ of Victor's favorite authorities. The work of Eusebius just named he was evidently thoroughly familiar with.(518) I suspect that he has many an unsuspected quotation from its pages. Towards the end of his Commentary, (as already elsewhere explained,) he quotes it once and again.

Of Origen also Victor was evidently very fond(519): and his words on two or three occasions seem to shew that he had recourse besides habitually to the exegetical labours of Apolinarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and t.i.tus of Bostra.(520) Pa.s.sages from Cyril of Alexandria are occasionally met with;(521) and once at least (p. 370) he has an extract from Basil. The historian Josephus he sometimes refers to by name.(522)

But the Father to whom Victor is chiefly indebted is Chrysostom,-whom he styles "the blessed John, Bishop of the Royal City;" (meaning Constantinople(523)). Not that Victor, strictly speaking, _transcribes_ from Chrysostom; at least, to any extent. His general practice is slightly to adapt his Author's language to his own purpose; sometimes, to leave out a few words; a paragraph; half a page.(524) Then, he proceeds to quote another Father probably; or, it may be, to offer something of his own. But he seldom gives any intimation of what it is he does: and if it were not for the occasional introduction of the phrase ? ?? f?s? or ????? d?

f?s?,(525) a reader of Victor's Commentary might almost mistake it for an original composition. So little pains does this Author take to let his reader know when he is speaking in his own person, when not, that he has not scrupled to retain Chrysostom's phrases ??? d? ??a?,(526) &c. The result is that it is often impossible to know to _whose_ sentiments we are listening. It cannot be too clearly borne in mind that ancient ideas concerning authors.h.i.+p differed entirely from those of modern times; especially when Holy Scripture was to be commented on.

I suspect that, occasionally, copyists of Victor's work, as they recognised a fragment here and there, prefixed to it the name of its author. This would account for the extremely partial and irregular occurrence of such notes of authors.h.i.+p; as well as explain why a name duly prefixed in one copy is often missing in another.(527) Whether Victor's Commentary can in strictness be called a "Catena," or not, must remain uncertain until some one is found willing to undertake the labour of re-editing his pages; from which, by the way, I cannot but think that some highly interesting (if not some important) results would follow.

Yet, inasmuch as Victor never, or certainly very seldom, prefixes to a pa.s.sage from a Father _the name of its Author_;-above all, seeing that sometimes, at all events, he is original, or at least speaks in his own person;-I think the t.i.tle of "Catena" inappropriate to his Commentary.

As favourable and as interesting a specimen of this work as could be found, is supplied by his annotation on S. Mark xiv. 3. He begins as follows, (quoting Chrysostom, p. 436):-"One and the same woman seems to be spoken of by all the Evangelists. Yet is this not the case. By three of them one and the same seems to be spoken of; not however by S. John, but another famous person,-the sister of Lazarus. This is what is said by John, the Bishop of the Royal City.-Origen on the other hand says that she who, in S. Matthew and S. Mark, poured the ointment in the house of Simon the leper was a different person from the sinner whom S. Luke writes about who poured the ointment on His feet in the house of the Pharisee.-Apolinarius(528) and Theodorus say that all the Evangelists mention one and the same person; but that John rehea.r.s.es the story more accurately than the others. It is plain, however, that Matthew, Mark, and John speak of the same individual; for they relate that Bethany was the scene of the transaction; and this is a _village_; whereas Luke [viii. 37]

speaks of some one else; for, 'Behold,' (saith he) 'a woman _in the city_ which was _a sinner_,' " &c., &c.

But the most important instance by far of independent and sound judgment is supplied by that concluding paragraph, already quoted and largely remarked upon, at pp. 64-5; in which, after rehearsing all that had been said against the concluding verses of S. Mark's Gospel, Victor vindicates their genuineness by appealing in his own person to the best and the most authentic copies. The Reader is referred to Victor's Text, which is given below, at p. 288.

It only remains to point out, that since Chrysostom, (whom Victor speaks of as ? ?? ??????,[p. 408,] and ? a?a????, [p. 442,]) died in A.D. 407, it _cannot_ be right to quote "401" as the date of Victor's work. Rather would A.D. 450 be a more reasonable suggestion: seeing that extracts from Cyril, who lived on till A.D. 444, are found here and there in Victor's pages. We shall not perhaps materially err if we a.s.sign A.D. 430-450 as Victor of Antioch's approximate date.

I conclude these notices of an unjustly neglected Father, by specifying the MSS. which contain his Work. Dry enough to ordinary readers, these pages will not prove uninteresting to the critical student. An enumeration of all the extant Codices with which I am acquainted which contain VICTOR OF ANTIOCH'S Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel, follows:-

(i.) EVAN. 12 ( = Reg. 230) _a most beautiful MS._

The Commentary on S. Mark is here a.s.signed to VICTOR by name; being a recension very like that which Matthaei has published. S. Mark's text is given _in extenso_.

(ii.) EVAN. 19 ( = Reg. 189: anciently numbered 437 and 1880. Also 134 and 135. At back, 1603.) _A grand folio, well-bound and splendidly written.

Pictures of the Evangelists in such marvellous condition that the very tools employed by a scribe might be reproduced. The ground gilded.

Headings, &c. and words from Scripture all in gold._

Here also the Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel is a.s.signed to VICTOR. The differences between this text and that of Cramer (e.g. at fol. 320-3, 370,) are hopelessly numerous and complicated. There seem to have been extraordinary liberties taken with the text of this copy throughout.

(iii.) EVAN. 20 (= Reg. 188: anciently numbered 1883.) _A splendid folio,-the work of several hands and beautifully written._

Victor's Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel is generally considered to be claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA by the following words:

???T?S?S ??S ?? ???? ?????? ?G??? ???GG?????

?? ??S ??S ????? ????????S ??? ?? ?G???S ???????? ???????????S.

The correspondence between Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 [_infra_, No. xiv], (= Reg. 188 and 186), is extraordinary.(529) In S. Mark's Gospel, (which alone I examined,) _every page begins with the same syllable, both of Text and Commentary_: (i.e. Reg. 186, fol. 94 to 197 = Reg. 188, fol. 87 to 140). Not that the number of words and letters in every line corresponds: but the discrepancy is compensated for by a blank at the end of each column, and at the foot of each page. Evan. 20 and Evan. 300 seem, therefore, in some mysterious way referable to a common original. The sacred Text of these two MSS., originally very dissimilar, has been made identical throughout; some very ancient (the original?) possessor of Reg.

188 having carefully a.s.similated the readings of his MS. to those of Reg.

186, the more roughly written copy; which therefore, in the judgment of the possessor of Reg. 188, exhibits the purer text. But how then does it happen that in both Codices alike, each of the Gospels (except S.

Matthew's Gospel in Reg. 188,) ends with the attestation that it has been collated with approved copies? Are we to suppose that the colophon in question was added _after_ the one text had been a.s.similated to the other?

This is a subject which well deserves attention. The reader is reminded that these two Codices have already come before us at pp. 118-9,-where see the notes.

I proceed to set down some of the discrepancies between the texts of these two MSS.: in every one of which, Reg. 188 has been made conformable to Reg. 186:-

(COD. REG. 186.) (COD. REG. 188.) (1) Matth. xxvi. 70. a?t?? pa?t?? ?e???

a?t?? ?????

(2) Mk. i. 2. ?? ?????

(3) Mk. i. 11. ? s??

(4) Mk. i. 16. ?????ta? ?f??????ta?

?f???st??? ?f???st???

(5) Mk. ii. 21. pa?a??: pa?a??: e? d? ?, a??e?

e? d? ? ?e a??e? ap? t? p????a a?t??

a?t?? t? p????a (6) Mk. iii. 10. ??e??pe?se?

??e??pe?e?

(7) Mk. iii. 17. t?? ?a????

?a????

(8) Mk. iii. 18. ?a? ?a? ?. t?? te????? ?a? T.

?at?a??? ?a? T.

(9) Mk. vi. 9. ? ??d?d?s?a?

??d?s?s?e (10) Mk. vi. 10. ??ete e??ate

In the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th of these instances, Tischendorf is found (1869) to adopt the readings of Reg. 188: in the last four, those of Reg. 186. In the 1st, 4th, and 5th, he follows neither.

(iv.) EVAN. 24 (= Reg. 178.) _A most beautifully written fol._

Note, that this Codex has been mutilated at p. 70-1; from S. Matth. xxvii.

20 to S. Mark iv. 22 being away. It cannot therefore be ascertained whether the Commentary on S. Mark was here attributed to Victor or not.

Cramer employed it largely in his edition of Victor (_Catenae_, vol. i. p.

xxix,), as I have explained already at p. 271. Some notices of the present Codex are given above at p. 228-9.

(v.) EVAN. 25 (= Reg. 191: anciently numbered Colb. 2259): 1880. _Folio: grandly written._

No Author's name to the Commentary on S. Mark. The text of the Evangelist is given _in extenso_.

(vi.) EVAN. 34 (= Coisl. 195.) _A grand folio, splendidly written, and in splendid condition: the paintings as they came from the hand of the artist._

At fol. 172, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR. It will be found that Coisl. 23 (_infra_, No. ix.) and Coisl. 195 are derived from a common original; but Cod. 195 is the more perfect copy, and should have been employed by Cramer in preference to the other (_supra_, p. 271.) There has been an older and a more recent hand employed on the Commentary.

(vii.) EVAN. 36 (= Coisl. 20.) _A truly sumptuous Codex._

Some notices of this Codex have been given already, at p. 229. The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor's, but is without any Author's name.