The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 26

2. Let me call attention to another, and, as I think, a more convincing instance. I am content in fact to narrow the whole question to the following single issue:-Let me be shewn how it is rationally conceivable that AMMONIUS can have split up S. John xxi. 12, 13, into _three distinct Sections_; and S. John xxi. 15, 16, 17, into _six?_ and yet, after so many injudicious disintegrations of the sacred Text, how it is credible that he can have made but _one_ Section of S. John xxi. 18 to 25,-which nevertheless, from its very varied contents, confessedly requires even _repeated_ subdivision?... Why EUSEBIUS did all this, is abundantly plain.

His peculiar plan constrained him to refer the _former_ half of ver.

12,-the _latter_ half of verses 15, 16, 17-to his IXth Canon, where S.

Luke and S. John are brought together; (?? ? ?? d?? t? pa?a???s?a e????as?):-and to consign the _latter_ half of ver. 12,-the _former_ half of verses 15, 16, 17,-together with the whole of the _last eight verses_ of S. John's Gospel, to his Xth (or last) Canon, where what is peculiar to each of the four Evangelists is set down, (?? ? pe?? t???? ??ast?? a?t??

?d??? ?????a?e?.) But AMMONIUS, because he confessedly _recognised no such Canons_, was under no such constraint. He had in fact _no such opportunity_. He therefore simply _cannot_ have adopted the same extraordinary sectional subdivision.

3. To state the matter somewhat differently, and perhaps to exhibit the argument in a more convincing form:-The Canons of EUSEBIUS, and the so-called "AMMONIAN _SECTIONS_,"-(by which, confessedly, nothing else whatever is _meant_ but the Sections of EUSEBIUS,)-are discovered mutually to imply one another. Those Canons are without meaning or use apart from the Sections,-for the sake of which they were clearly invented. Those Sections, whatever convenience they may possess apart from the Canons, nevertheless are discovered to presuppose the Canons throughout: to be manifestly subsequent to them in order of time: to depend upon them for their very existence: in some places to be even unaccountable in the eccentricity of their arrangement, except when explained by the requirements of the EUSEBIAN Canons. I say-_That_ particular sectional subdivision, in other words, to which the epithet "AMMONIAN" is popularly applied,-(applied however without authority, and in fact by the merest license,)-proves on careful inspection to have been only capable of being devised by one _who was already in possession of the Canons of _EUSEBIUS.

In plain terms, they are demonstrably _the work of _EUSEBIUS_ himself_,-who expressly claims _The Canons_ for his own (?a???a? d??a t??

?????? d?e???a?? s??), and leaves it to be inferred that he is the Author of the Sections also. Wetstein (_Proleg._ p. 70,) and Bishop Lloyd (in the "Monitum" prefixed to his ed. of the Greek Test. p. x,) so understand the matter; and Mr. Scrivener (_Introduction_, p. 51) evidently inclines to the same opinion.

II. I desire, in the next place, to point out that a careful inspection of the Eusebian "Sections," (for Eusebius himself calls them pe????pa?, not ?ef??a?a,) leads inevitably to the inference that they are only rightly understood when regarded in the light of "MARGINAL REFERENCES." This has been hitherto overlooked. Bp. Lloyd, in the interesting "Monitum" already quoted, remarks of the Eusebian Canons,-"quorum haec est utilitas, ut eorum scilicet ope quivis, nullo labore, Harmoniam sibi quatuor Evangeliorum possit conficere." The learned Prelate can never have made the attempt in this way "Harmoniam sibi conficere," or he would not have so written. He evidently did not advert to the fact that Eusebius refers his readers (in his IIIrd Canon) from S. John's account of the _Healing of the n.o.bleman's son_ to the account given by S. Matthew and S. Luke of the _Healing of the Centurion's servant_. It is perfectly plain in fact that to enable a reader "to construct for himself _a Harmony of the Gospels_,"

was no part of Eusebius' intention; and quite certain that any one who shall ever attempt to avail himself of the system of Sections and Canons before us with that object, will speedily find himself landed in hopeless confusion.(543)

But in fact there is no danger of his making much progress in his task.

His first discovery would probably be that S. John's weighty doctrinal statements concerning our LORD'S _Eternal _G.o.d_head_ in chap. i. 1-5: 9, 10: 14, are represented as parallel with the _Human Genealogy_ of our SAVIOUR as recorded by S. Matthew i. 1-16, and by S. Luke iii. 23-38:-the next, that the first half of the Visit of the Magi (S. Matthew ii. 1-6) is exhibited as corresponding with S. John vii. 41, 42.-Two such facts ought to open the eyes of a reader of ordinary acuteness quite wide to the true nature of the Canons of Eusebius. They are _Tables of Reference only_.

Eusebius has in fact himself explained his object in constructing them; which (he says) was twofold: (1st) To enable a reader to see at a glance, "_which_ of the Evangelists have said _things of the same kind_," (t??e?

t? pa?ap??s?a e????a??: the phrase occurs _four times_ in the course of his short Epistle): and (2ndly), To enable him to find out _where_ they have severally done so: (t??? ???e???? ???st?? e?a??e??st?? t?p???, ?? ???

?at? t?? a?t?? ??????sa? e?pe??; Eusebius uses the phrase _twice_.) But this, (as all are aware) is precisely the office of (what are called) "Marginal References." Accordingly,

(_a._) Whether referring _from_ S. Matth. x. 40 (- 98); S. Mark ix. 37 (- 96); or S. Luke x. 16 (- 116);-we find ourselves referred _to_ the following _six_ places of S. John,-v. 23: xii. 44, 45: xiii. 20: xiv. 21: xiv. 24, 25: xv. 23(544) (= -- 40, 111, 120, 129, 131, 144.) Again,

(_b._) Whether we refer _from_ S. Matth. xi. 27 (-- 111, 112,) or S. Luke x. 22 (- 119),-we find ourselves referred _to_ the following _eleven_ places of S. John,-i. 18: iii. 35: v. 37: vi. 46: vii. 28, 29: viii. 19: x. 15: xiii. 3: xv. 21: xvi. 15: xvii. 25 (-- 8, 30, 44, 61, 76, 87, 90, 114, 142, 148, 154.)

(_c._) So also, from S. Matthew's (xvi. 13-16), S. Mark's (viii. 27-29), and S. Luke's (ix. 18-20) account of S. Peters Confession at Caesarea Philippi,-we are referred to S. John i. 42, 43,-a singular reference; and to S. John vi. 68, 69.

(_d._) From the mention of the last Pa.s.sover by the three earlier Evangelists, (S. Matth. xxvi. 1, 2: S. Mark xiv. 1: S. Luke xxii. 1,) we are referred to S. John's mention of the _first_ Pa.s.sover (ii. 13 = - 20); and of the _second_ (vi. 4 = - 48); as well as of the fourth (xi. 55 = - 96.)

(_e._) From the words of Consecration at the Last Supper, as recorded by S. Matth. (xxvi. 16), S. Mark (xiv. 22), and S. Luke (xxii. 19),-we are referred to the four following Sections of our LORD'S Discourse in the Synagogue at Capernaum recorded by S. John, which took place a year before,-S. John vi. 35, 36: 48: 51: 55: (-- 55, 63, 65, 67).

(_f._) Nothing but the spirit in which "Marginal References" are made would warrant a critic in linking together three incidents like the following,-similar, indeed, yet entirely distinct: viz. S. Matth. xxvii.

34: S. Mark xv. 24: and S. John xix. 28, 29.

(_g._) I was about to say that scarcely could such an excuse be invented for referring a Reader from S. Luke xxii. 32, to S. John xxi. 15, and 16, and 17 (= -- 227, 228, 229,)-but I perceive that the same three References stand in the margin of our own Bibles. Not even the margin of the English Bible, however, sends a Reader (as the IXth Canon of Eusebius does) from our LORD'S eating "broiled fish and honeycomb," in the presence of the ten Apostles at Jerusalem on the evening of the first Easter-Day, (S. Luke xxiv. 41-43 (= - 341,)) to His feeding the seven Apostles with bread and fish at the Sea of Galilee many days after. (S. John xxi. 9, 10: 12: 13 = -- 221, 223, 224.)-And this may suffice.

It is at all events certain that the correctest notion of the use and the value of the Eusebian Sections will be obtained by one who will be at the pains to subst.i.tute for _the Eusebian Numbers_ in the margin of a copy of the Greek Gospels _the References_ which these numbers severally indicate.

It will then become plain that the system of Sections and Canons which Eusebius invented,-ingenious, interesting, and useful as it certainly is; highly important also, as being the known work of an ill.u.s.trious Father of the Church, as well as most precious occasionally for critical purposes,(545)-is nothing else but a clumsy subst.i.tute for what is achieved by an ordinary "Reference Bible":-partic.i.p.ating in every inconvenience incidental to the unskilfully contrived apparatus with which English readers are familiar,(546) and yet inferior in the following four respects:-

(1st.) The references of Eusebius, (except those found in Canon X.), require in every instance to be _deciphered_, before they can be verified; and they can only be deciphered by making search, (and sometimes laborious search,) in another part of the volume. They are not, in fact, (nor do they pretend to be,) references to the inspired Text at all; but only _references to the Eusebian Canons_.

(2ndly.) In their scope, they are of course strictly _confined to the Gospels_,-which most inconveniently limits their use, as well as diminishes their value. (Thus, by no possibility is Eusebius able to refer a reader from S. Luke xxii. 19, 20 to 1 Cor. xi. 23-25.)

(3rdly.) By the very nature of their const.i.tution, reference even to _another part of the same Gospel_ is impossible. (Eusebius is unable, for example, to refer a reader from S. John xix. 39, to iii. 1 and vii. 50.)

But besides the preceding, which are disadvantages inherent in the scheme and inseparable from it, it will be found (4thly), That Eusebius, while he introduces not a few wholly undesirable references, (of which some specimens are supplied above), is observed occasionally to withhold references which cannot by any means be dispensed with. Thus, he omits to refer his reader from S. Luke's account of the visit to the Sepulchre (chap. xxiv. 12) to S. John's memorable account of the same transaction (chap. xx. 3-10): _not_ because he disallowed the verse in S. Luke's Gospel,-for in a certain place _he discusses its statements_.(547)

III. It is abundantly plain from all that has gone before that the work of EUSEBIUS was entirely different in its structure and intention from the work of AMMONIUS. Enough, in fact, has been said to make it fully apparent that it is nothing short of impossible that there can have been any extensive correspondence between the two. According to EUSEBIUS, S. Mark has 21 Sections(548) _peculiar to his Gospel_: S. Luke, 72: S. John, 97.(549) According to the same EUSEBIUS, 14 Sections(550) are common to S.

Luke and S. Mark _only_: 21, to S. Luke and S. John _only_. But those 225 Sections can have found _no place_ in the work of AMMONIUS. And if, (in some unexplained way,) room _was_ found for those parts of the Gospels, _with what possible motive can _AMMONIUS_ have subdivided them into exactly 225 portions_? It is nothing else but irrational to a.s.sume that he did so.

Not unaware am I that it has been pointed out by a most judicious living Critic as a "ground for hesitation before we ascribe the Sections as well as the Canons to Eusebius, that not a few ancient MSS. contain the former while they omit the latter."(551) He considers it to be certainly indicated thereby "that in the judgment of critics and transcribers, (whatever that judgment may be deemed worth,) the Ammonian Sections had a previous existence to the Eusebian Canons, as well as served for an independent purpose." But I respectfully demur to the former of the two proposed inferences. I also learn with surprise that "those who have studied them most, can the least tell what use the Ammonian Sections can serve, unless in connection with Canons of Harmony."(552)

However irregular and arbitrary these subdivisions of the Evangelical text are observed to be in their construction, their usefulness is paramount.

They are observed to fulfil _exactly the same office_ as our own actual division of the Text into 89 Chapters and 3780 Verses. Of course, 1165 subdivisions are (for certain purposes) somewhat less convenient than 3780;-but on the other hand, a place in the Gospels would be more easily discovered, I suspect, for the most part, by the employment of such a single set of consecutive numbers, than by requiring a Reader first to find the Chapter by its Roman numeral, and then the Verse by its Arabic figure. Be this as it may, there can be at least only one opinion as to the _supreme convenience to a Reader_, whether ancient or modern, of knowing that the copy of the Gospels which he holds in his hands is subdivided into exactly the same 1165 Sections as every other Greek copy which is likely to come in his way; and that, in every such copy, he may depend on finding every one of those sections invariably distinguished by the self-same number.

A Greek copy of the Gospels, therefore, having its margin furnished with the Eusebian _Sectional_ notation, may be considered to correspond generally with an English copy merely divided into Chapters and Verses.

The addition of the Eusebian _Canons_ at the beginning, with numerical references thereto inserted in the margin throughout, does but superadd something a.n.a.logous to the convenience of our _Marginal References_,-and may just as reasonably (or just as unreasonably) be dispensed with.

I think it not improbable, in fact, that in the preparation of a Codex, it will have been sometimes judged commercially expedient to leave its purchaser to decide whether he would or would not submit to the additional expense (which in the case of illuminated MSS. must have been very considerable) of having the Eusebian Tables inserted at the commencement of his Book,(553)-without which _the References_ thereto would confessedly have been of no manner of avail. In this way it will have come to pa.s.s, (as Mr. Scrivener points out,) that "not a few ancient MSS. contain the _Sections_ but omit the _Canons_." Whether, however, the omission of References to the Canons in Copies which retain in the margin the sectional numbers, is to be explained in this way, or not,-AMMONIUS, at all events, will have had no more to do with either the one or the other, than with our modern division into Chapters and Verses. It is, in short, nothing else but a "vulgar error" to designate the Eusebian Sections as the "Sections of AMMONIUS." The expression cannot be too soon banished from our critical terminology. Whether banished or retained, to _reason about_ the lost work of AMMONIUS from the Sections of EUSEBIUS (as Tischendorf and the rest habitually do) is an offence against historical Truth which no one who values his critical reputation will probably hereafter venture to commit.

IV. This subject may not be dismissed until a circ.u.mstance of considerable interest has been explained which has already attracted some notice, but which evidently is not yet understood by Biblical Critics.(554)

As already remarked, the necessity of resorting to the Eusebian Tables of Canons in order to make any use of a marginal reference, is a tedious and a c.u.mbersome process; for which, men must have early sought to devise a remedy. They were not slow in perceiving that a far simpler expedient would be to note at the foot of every page of a Gospel _the numbers_ of the Sections of that Gospel contained _in extenso_ on the same page; and, parallel with those numbers, to exhibit the numbers of the corresponding Sections in the other Gospels. Many Codices, furnished with such an apparatus at the foot of the page, are known to exist.(555) For instance, in Cod. 262 (= Reg. 53, at Paris), which is written in double columns, at foot of the first page (_fol._ 111) of S. Mark, is found as follows:-

[[Ill.u.s.tration: Apparatus Table From Cod. 262.]]

The meaning of this, every one will see who,-(remembering what is signified by the monograms ??, ??, ?O, ?T,(556))-will turn successively to the IInd, the Ist, the VIth, and the Ist of the Eusebian Canons.

Translated into expressions more familiar to English readers, it evidently amounts to this: that we are referred,

(- 1) From S. Mark i. 1, 2,-to S. Matth. xi. 10: S. Luke vii. 27.

(- 2) From S. Mark i. 3,-to S. Matth. iii. 3: S. Luke iii. 3-6.

(- 3) From S. Mark i. 4, 5, 6,-to S. Matth. iii. 4-6.

(- 4) From S. Mark i. 7, 8,-to S. Matth. iii. 11: S. Luke iii. 16: S. John i. 15, 26-27, 30-1: iii. 28.

(I venture to add that any one who will compare the above with the margin of S. Mark's Gospel in a common English "reference Bible," will obtain a very fair notion of the convenience, and of the inconveniences of the Eusebian system. But to proceed with our remarks on the apparatus at the foot of Cod. 262.)

The owner of such a MS. was able to refer to parallel pa.s.sages, (as above,) _by merely turning over the pages of his book_. E.g. The parallel places to S. Mark's - 1 (?) being - 70 of S. Luke (?) and - 103 of S.

Matthew (?G),-it was just as easy for him to find those two places as it is for us to turn to S. Luke vii. 27 and S. Matth. xi. 10: perhaps easier.

V. I suspect that this peculiar method of exhibiting the Eusebian references (Canons as well as Sections) at a glance, was derived to the Greek Church from the Syrian Christians. What is certain, a precisely similar expedient for enabling readers to discover _Parallel Pa.s.sages_ prevails extensively in the oldest Syriac Evangelia extant. There are in the British Museum about twelve Syriac Evangelia furnished with such an apparatus of reference;(557) of which a specimen is subjoined,-derived however (because it was near at hand) from a MS. in the Bodleian,(558) of the viith or viiith century.

From this MS., I select for obvious reasons the last page but one (_fol._ 82) of S. Mark's Gospel, which contains ch. xvi. 8-18. The Reader will learn with interest and surprise that in the margin of this page against ver. 8, is written in vermilion, _by the original scribe_, 281/1: against ver. 9,-282/10: against ver. 10,-283/1: against ver. 11,-284/8: against ver. 12:-285/8: against ver. 13,-286/8: against ver. 14,-287/10: against ver. 15,-288/6: against ver. 16,-289/10: against ver. 19,-290/8. That these sectional numbers,(559) with references to the Eusebian Canons subscribed, are no part of the (so-called) "_Ammonian_" system, will be recognised at a glance. According to _that_ scheme, S. Mark xiv. 8 is numbered 233/2. But to proceed.

At the foot of the same page, (which is written in two columns), is found the following set of rubricated references to parallel places in the other three Gospels:-

[[Ill.u.s.tration: Syriac Reference Table.]]

The exact English counterpart of which,-(I owe it to the kind help of M.

Neubauer, of the Bodleian),-is subjoined. The Reader will scarcely require to be reminded that the reason why -- 282, 287, 289 do not appear in this Table is because those Sections, (belonging to the tenth Canon,) have nothing parallel to them in the other Gospels.

_Luke_ _Matthew_ _Mark_ _John_ _Luke_ _Matthew_ _Mark_ 391 ... 286 247 390 421 281 ... 426 288 247 390 421 283 ... 391 ... 284 ... 393 ... 285

The general intention of this is sufficiently obvious: but the Reader must be told that on making reference to S. MATTHEW'S Gospel, in this Syriac Codex, it is found that - 421 = chap, xxviii. 8; and - 426 = chap. xxviii.

19, 20:

That, in S. LUKE'S Gospel,-- 390 = chap. xxiv. 8-10: - 391 = chap. xxiv.

11; and - 393 = chap. xxiv. 13-17:(560)

That, in S. JOHN'S Gospel,-- 247 = chap. xx. 17 (p??e??? down to Te??