The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 24

(x.x.xii.) EVAN. 194 (Laur. vi. 33.) ???t???? p?es?t???? ??t???e?a?

????e?a e?? t? ?at? ?????? e?a???????. (See the description of this Codex in Bandini's _Cat._ i. 158.)

(x.x.xiii.) EVAN. 195 (Laur. vi. 34.) This Codex seems to correspond in its contents with No. x.x.xi. _supra_: the Commentary containing the Scholion, and being anonymous. (See Bandini, p. 161.)

(x.x.xiv.) EVAN. 197 (Laur. viii. 14.) The Commentary, (which is Victor's, but has no Author's name prefixed,) is defective at the end. (See Bandini, p. 355.)

(x.x.xv.) EVAN. 210 (Venet. 27.) "Conveniunt initio Commentarii eum iis qui Victori Antiocheno tribuuntur, progressu autem discrepant." (Theupoli _Graeca D. Marci Bibl. Codd. MSS._ Venet. 1740.) I infer that the work is anonymous.

(x.x.xvi.) Venet. 495. "VICTORIS ANTIOCHENI Presbyteri expositio in Evangelium Marci, collecta ex diversis Patribus." (I obtain this reference from the Catalogue of Theupolus.)

(x.x.xvii.) EVAN. 215 (Venet. 544.) I presume, from the description in the Catalogue of Theupolus, that this Codex also contains a copy of Victor's Commentary.

(x.x.xviii.) EVAN. 221 (Vind. Ness. 117, Lambec. 38). Kollar has a long note (B) [iii. 157] on the Commentary, which has no Author's name prefixed.

Birch (p. 225) refers to it for the purpose recorded under No. xxv.

(x.x.xix.) EVAN. 222 (Vind. Ness. 180, Lambec. 39.) The Commentary is anonymous. Birch refers to it, as before.

Add the following six MSS. at Moscow, concerning which, see Matthaei's Nov. Test. (1788) vol. ii. p. xii.:-

(xl.) EVAN. 237 (This is Matthaei's d or D [described in his _N. T._ ix.

242. Also _Vict. Ant._ ii. 137.] "SS. Synod. 42:") and is one of the MSS.

employed by Matthaei in his ed. of Victor.-The Commentary on S. Mark has no Author's name prefixed.

(xli.) EVAN. 238 (Matthaei's e or E [described in his _N. T._ ix. 200.

Also _Vict. Ant._ ii. 141.] "SS. Synod. 48.") This Codex formed the basis of Matthaei's ed. of Victor, [See the _Not. Codd. MSS._ at the end of vol.

ii. p. 123. Also _N. T._ ix. 202.] The Commentary on S. Mark is anonymous.

(xlii.) EVAN. 253 (Matthaei's 10 [described in his _N. T._ ix. 234.] It was lent him by Archbishop Nicephorus.) Matthaei says (p. 236) that it corresponds with a (_our_ Evan. 259). No Author's name is prefixed to the Commentary on S. Mark.

(xliii.) EVAN. 255 (Matthaei's 12 [described in his _N. T._ ix. 222. Also _Vict. Ant._ ii. 133.]) "SS. Synod. 139." The Scholia on S. Mark are here ent.i.tled ?????t??a? ?????a?, and (as in 14) are few in number. For some unexplained reason, in his edition of Victor of Antioch, Matthaei saw fit to designate this MS. as "B." [N.T. ix. 224 _note_.] ... See by all means, _infra_, the "Postscript."

(xliv.) EVAN. 256 (Matthaei's 14 [described in his _N. T._ ix. 220.]

"Bibl. Typ. Synod. 3.") The Commentary on S. Mark is here a.s.signed to VICTOR, presbyter of Antioch; but the Scholia are said to be (as in "12"

[No. x.x.xix]) few in number.

(xlv.) EVAN. 259 (Matthaei's a or A [described in his _N. T._ ix. 237.

Also _Vict. Ant._ ii. 128.] "SS. Synod. 45.") This is one of the MSS.

employed by Matthaei in his ed. of Victor. No Author's name is prefixed to the Commentary.

(xlvi.) EVAN. 332 (Taurin. xx _b_ iv. 20.) Victor's Commentary is here given anonymously. (See the Catalogue of Pasinus, P. i. p. 91.)

(xlvii.) EVAN. 353 (Ambros. M. 93): with the same Commentary as Evan. 181, (i.e. No. x.x.x.)

(xlviii.) EVAN. 374 (Vat. 1445.) Written continuously in a very minute character. The Commentary is headed (in a later Greek hand) + ????e?a ??t??? ?a?d??e?a? e?? t??? d? a? [????] e?a??e??st?? +. This is simply a mistake. No such work exists: and the Commentary on the second Evangelist is that of Victor. (See No. xxviii.)

(xlix.) EVAN. 428 (Monacensis 381. Augsburg 11): said to be duplicate of Evan. 300 (i.e. of No. xiv.)

(1.) EVAN. 432 (Monacensis 99.) The Commentary contained in this Codex is evidently a.s.signed to VICTOR.

(li.) EVAN. 7pe (ix. 3. 471.) A valuable copy of the Four Gospels, dated 1062; which Edw. de Muralto (in his Catalogue of the Greek MSS. in the Imperial Library at S. Petersburg) says contains the Commentary of VICTOR ANT. (See Scrivener's _Introduction_, p. 178.).

(lii.) At Toledo, in the "Biblioteca de la Iglesia Mayor," Haenel [p. 885]

mentions:-"VICTOR ANTIOCHENUS Comm. Graec. in iv. [?] Evangelia saec. xiv.

membr. fol."

To this enumeration, (which could certainly be very extensively increased,) will probably have to be added the following:-

EVAN. 146 (Palatino Vat. 5.) EVAN. 233 (Escurial [Upsilon]. ii. 8.) EVAN. 373 (Vat. 1423.) EVAN. 379 (Vat. 1769.) EVAN. 427 (Monacensis 465, Augsburg 10.)

Middle Hill, No. 13,975,-a MS. in the collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps.

In conclusion, it can scarcely require to be pointed out that VICTOR'S Commentary,-of which the Church in her palmiest days shewed herself so careful to multiply copies, and of which there survive to this hour such a vast number of specimens,-must needs anciently have enjoyed very peculiar favour. It is evident, in fact, that an Epitome of Chrysostom's Homilies on S. Matthew, together with VICTOR'S_ compilation on S. Mark_,-t.i.tus of Bostra on S. Luke,-and a work in the main derived from Chrysostom's Homilies on S. John;-that these four const.i.tuted the established Commentary of ancient Christendom on the fourfold Gospel. Individual copyists, no doubt, will have been found occasionally to abridge certain of the Annotations, and to omit others: or else, out of the mult.i.tude of Scholia by various ancient Fathers which were evidently once in circulation, and must have been held in very high esteem,-(Irenaeus, Origen, Ammonius, Eusebius, Apolinarius, Cyril, Chrysostom, the Gregorys, Basil, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodore of Heraclea,) they will have introduced extracts according to their individual caprice. In this way, the general sameness of the several copies is probably to be accounted for, while their endless discrepancy in matters of detail is perhaps satisfactorily explained.

These last remarks are offered in the way of partial elucidation of the difficulty pointed out above, at pp. 272-4.

APPENDIX (E).

Text of the concluding Scholion of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH'S Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic testimony to the genuineness of "the last Twelve Verses."

(Referred to at p. 65.)

I have thought this very remarkable specimen of the method of an ancient and (as I think) unjustly neglected Commentator, deserving of extraordinary attention. Besides presenting the reader, therefore, with what seems to be a fair approximation to the original text of the pa.s.sage, I have subjoined as many various readings as have come to my knowledge. It is hoped that they are given with tolerable exactness; but I have been too often obliged to depend on printed books and the testimony of others. I can at least rely on the readings furnished me from the Vatican.

The text chiefly followed is that of Coisl. 20, (in the Paris Library,-our EVAN. 36;) supplemented by several other MSS., which, for convenience, I have arbitrarily designated by the letters of the alphabet.(532)

?? d? ?a? t? "??ast??(533) d? p??? p??t? sa?t?? ?f??? p??t?? ?a??? t?

?a?da????," ?a? t? ???? ?p?fe??e?a, ?? t? ?at? ?????? e?a??e??? pa??(534) p?e?st??? ??t????f??? ?? ?e?ta?,(535) (?? ???a ??? ????sa? a?t? t??e?

e??a?(536)) ???? ?e?? ?? ?????? ??t????f??, ?? ?? p?e?st??? e????te?

a?t?,(537) ?at? t? ?a?a?st??a??? e?a??????? ??????, ?? ??e? ? ????e?a, s??te?e??ae?(538) ?a? t?? ?? a?t? ?p?fe?????? desp?t???? ???stas??, et?

t? "?f????t? ???"(539) t??test?? ?p? t?? "??ast?? d? p??? p??t?

sa?t??," ?a? ?a?? ???? ???? t?? "d?? t?? ?pa?????????t?? s?e???.

???."(540)

More pains than enough (it will perhaps be thought) have been taken to exhibit accurately this short Scholion. And yet, it has not been without design (the reader may be sure) that so many various readings have been laboriously acc.u.mulated. The result, it is thought, is eminently instructive, and (to the student of Ecclesiastical Antiquity) important also.

For it will be perceived by the attentive reader that not more than two or three of the mult.i.tude of various readings afforded by this short Scholion can have possibly resulted from careless transcription.(541) The rest have been unmistakably occasioned by the merest licentiousness: every fresh Copyist evidently considering himself at liberty to take just whatever liberties he pleased with the words before him. To amputate, or otherwise to mutilated; to abridge; to amplify; to transpose; to remodel;-this has been the rule with all. The _types_ (so to speak) are reducible to two, or at most to three; but the varieties are almost as numerous as the MSS. of Victor's work.

And yet it is impossible to doubt that this Scholion was originally one, and one only. Irrecoverable perhaps, in some of its minuter details, as the actual text of Victor may be, it is nevertheless self-evident that _in the main_ we are in possession of what he actually wrote on this occasion.

In spite of all the needless variations observable in the manner of stating a certain fact, it is still unmistakably one and the same fact which is every time stated. It is invariably declared,-

(1.) That from certain copies of S. Mark's Gospel the last Twelve Verses had been LEFT OUT; and (2) That this had been done because their genuineness had been by certain persons suspected: but, (3) That the Writer, convinced of their genuineness, had restored them to their rightful place; (4) Because he had found them in accurate copies, and in the authentic Palestinian copy, which had supplied him with his exemplar.

It is obvious to suggest that after familiarizing ourselves with this specimen of what proves to have been the licentious method of the ancient copyists in respect of the text of an early Father, we are in a position to approach more intelligently the Commentary of Victor itself; and, to some extent, to understand how it comes to pa.s.s that so many liberties have been taken with it throughout. The Reader is reminded of what has been already offered on this subject at pp. 272-3.