The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 25

APPENDIX (F).

On the Relative antiquity of the CODEX VATICa.n.u.s (B), and the CODEX SINAITICUS (?).

(Referred to at p. 70.)

I. "Vix differt aetate a Codice Sinaitico," says Tischendorf, (_ed. 8va_, 1869, p. ix,) speaking of the Codex Vatica.n.u.s (B). Yet does he perpetually designate his own Sinaitic Codex (?) as "omnium antiquissimus." Now,

(1) The (all but unique) sectional division of the Text of Codex B,-confessedly the oldest scheme of chapters extant, is in itself a striking note of primitiveness. The author of the Codex knew nothing, apparently, of the Eusebian method. But I venture further to suggest that the following peculiarities in Codex ? unmistakably indicate for it a later date than Codex B.

(2) Cod. ?, (like C, and other later MSS.,) is broken up into short paragraphs throughout. The Vatican Codex, on the contrary, has very few breaks indeed: e.g. it is without break of any sort from S. Matth. xvii.

24 to xx. 17: whereas, within the same limits, there are in Cod. ? as many as _thirty_ interruptions of the context. From S. Mark xiii. 1 to the end of the Gospel the text is absolutely continuous in Cod. B, except in _one_ place: but in Cod. ? it is interrupted upwards of _fifty_ times. Again: from S. Luke xvii. 11, to the end of the Gospel there is but _one_ break in Cod. B. But it is broken into well nigh _an hundred and fifty_ short paragraphs in Cod. ?.

There can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex B, (resembling the style of the papyrus of _Hyperides_ published by Mr. Babington,) is the more ancient. The only places where it approximates to the method of Cod.

?, is where the Commandments are briefly recited (S. Matth. xix. 18, &c.), and where our LORD proclaims the eight Beat.i.tudes (S. Matth. v.)

(3) Again; Cod. ? is p.r.o.ne to exhibit, on extraordinary occasions, _a single word_ in a line, as at-

S. MATTH. XV. 30.

?O???S ??F???S ??????S ?OF??S

S. MARK X. 29.

? ????F?S ? ??????

? ?G???S

S. LUKE XIV. 13 ??O???S ????????S ?O???S ??F???S

This became a prevailing fas.h.i.+on in the vith century; e.g. when the Cod.

Laudia.n.u.s of the Acts (E) was written. The only trace of anything of the kind in Cod. B is at the Genealogy of our LORD.

(4) At the commencement of every fresh paragraph, the initial letter in Cod. ? _slightly projects into the margin_,-beyond the left hand edge of the column; as usual in all later MSS. This characteristic is only not undiscoverable in Cod. B. Instances of it there are in the earlier Codex; but they are of exceedingly rare occurrence.

(5) Further; Cod. ? abounds in such contractions as ???S, ????S (with all their cases), for ??T?O??S, ??????S, &c. Not only ???, ???, ???, ???, ???

(for ??????, ?????-???-????, ??????), but also S??T?, ???, ?????, for S????OT?, ?S????, ?????S????.

But Cod. B, though familiar with ?S, and a few other of the most ordinary abbreviations, knows nothing of these compendia: which certainly _cannot_ have existed in the earliest copies of all. Once more, it seems reasonable to suppose that their constant occurrence in Cod ? indicates for that Codex a date subsequent to Cod. B.

(6) The very discrepancy observable between these two Codices in their method of dealing with "the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel,"

(already adverted to at p. 88,) is a further indication, and as it seems to the present writer a very striking one, that Cod. B is the older of the two. Cod. ? is evidently _familiar_ with the phenomenon which _astonishes_ Cod. B by its novelty and strangeness.

(7) But the most striking feature of difference, after all, is only to be recognised by one who surveys the Codices themselves with attention. It is _that_ general air of primitiveness in Cod. B which makes itself at once _felt_. The even symmetry of the unbroken columns;-the work of the _prima ma.n.u.s_ everywhere vanis.h.i.+ng through sheer antiquity;-the small, even, _square_ writing, which partly recalls the style of the Herculanean rolls; partly, the papyrus fragments of the _Oration against Demosthenes_ (published by Harris in 1848):-all these notes of superior antiquity infallibly set Cod. B before Cod. ?; though it may be impossible to determine whether by 50, by 75, or by 100 years.

II. It has been conjectured by one whose words are always ent.i.tled to most respectful attention, that Codex Sinaiticus may have been "one of the fifty Codices of Holy Scripture which Eusebius prepared A.D. 331, by Constantine's direction, for the use of the new Capital." (Scrivener's _Collation of the Cod. Sin._, Introd. p. x.x.xvii-viii.)

1. But this, which is rendered improbable by the many instances of grave discrepancy between its readings and those with which Eusebius proves to have been most familiar, is made impossible by the discovery that it is without S. Mark xv. 28, which const.i.tutes the Eusebian Section numbered "216" in S. Mark's Gospel. [Quite in vain has Tischendorf perversely laboured to throw doubt on this circ.u.mstance. It remains altogether undeniable,-as a far less accomplished critic than Tischendorf may see at a glance. Tischendorf's only plea is the fact that in Cod. M, (he might have added and in the Codex Sinaiticus, _which explains the phenomenon_ in Cod. M), _against ver._ 29 is set the number, "216," instead of against ver. 28. But what then? Has not the number _demonstrably_ lost its place?

And is there not _still_ one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And _which_ can it _possibly_ have been, if it was not S. Mark xv. 28?] Again. Cod. ?, (like B, C, L, U, G, and some others), gives the piercing of the SAVIOUR'S side at S. Matth. xxvii. 49: but if Eusebius had read that incident in the same place, he would have infallibly included S. John xix. 34, 35, with S.

Matth. xxvii. 49, in his viith Canon, where matters are contained which are common to S. Matthew and S. John,-instead of referring S. John xix.

31-37 to his xth Canon, which specifies things peculiar to each of the four Evangelists. Eusebius, moreover, in a certain place (_Dem. Evan._ x.

8 [quoted by Tisch.]) has an allusion to the same transaction, and expressly says that it is recorded _by S. John_.

2. No inference as to the antiquity of this Codex can be drawn from the Eusebian notation of Sections in the margin: _that_ notation having been confessedly added at a subsequent date.

3. On the other hand, the subdivision of Cod. ? into paragraphs, proves to have been made without any reference to the sectional distribution of Eusebius. Thus, there are in the Codex thirty distinct paragraphs from S.

Matthew xi. 20 to xii. 34, inclusive; but there are comprised within the same limits only seventeen Eusebian sections. And yet, of those seventeen sections only nine correspond with as many paragraphs of the Codex Sinaiticus. This, in itself, is enough to prove that Eusebius knew nothing of the present Codex. His record is express:-?f? ???st? t?? tess????

e?a??e???? ?????? t?? p???e?ta? ?at? ???? ?.t.?.

III. The supposed resemblance of the opened volume to an Egyptian papyrus,-when eight columns (se??de?) are exhibited to the eye at once, side by side,-seems to be a fallacious note of high antiquity. If Cod. ?

has four columns in a page,-Cod. B three,-Cod. A two,-Cod. C has only one.

But Cod. C is certainly as old as Cod. A. Again, Cod. D, which is of the vith century, is written (like Cod. C) across the page: yet was it "copied from an older model similarly divided in respect to the lines or verses,"-and therefore similarly written across the page. It is almost obvious that the size of the skins on which a Codex was written will have decided whether the columns should be four or only three in a page.

IV. In fine, nothing doubting the high antiquity of both Codices, (B and ?,) I am nevertheless fully persuaded that an interval of at least half a century,-if not of a far greater span of years,-is absolutely required to account for the marked dissimilarity between them.

APPENDIX (G).

On the so-called "AMMONIAN SECTIONS" and "EUSEBIAN CANONS."

(Referred to at p. 130.)

I. That the Sections (popularly miscalled "_Ammonian_") with which EUSEBIUS [A.D. 320] has made the world thoroughly familiar, and of which some account was given above (pp. 127-8), cannot be the same which AMMONIUS of Alexandria [A.D. 220] employed,-but must needs be the invention of EUSEBIUS himself,-admits of demonstration. On this subject, external testimony is altogether insecure.(542) The only safe appeal is to the Sections themselves.

1. The Call of the Four Apostles is described by the first three Evangelists, within the following limits of their respective Gospels:-S.

Matthew iv. 18-22: S. Mark i. 16-20: S. Luke (with the attendant miraculous draught of fishes,) v. 1-11. Now, these three portions of narrative are observed to be dealt with in the sectional system of EUSEBIUS after the following extraordinary fas.h.i.+on: (the fourth column represents the Gospel according to S. John):-

(1.) - 29, (v. 1-3) (2.) - 20, (iv. - 9, (i.

17, 18) 14-1/2-16) (3.) - 30, (v. 4-7) - 219, (xxi.

1-6) (4.) - 30 (v. 4-7) - 222, (xxi.

11) (5.) - 31, (v.

8-10-1/2) (6.) - 21, (iv. - 10, (i. 17, - 32, (v.

19, 20) 18) 10-1/2, 11) (7.) - 22, (iv. - 11, (i. 19, 21, 22) 20)

It will be perceived from this, that EUSEBIUS subdivides these three portions of the sacred Narrative into ten Sections ("--;")-of which three belong to S. Matthew, viz. -- 20, 21, 22:-three to S. Mark, viz. -- 9, 10, 11:-four to S. Luke, viz. -- 29, 30, 31, 32: which ten Sections, EUSEBIUS distributed over four of his Canons: referring three of there to his IInd Canon, (which exhibits what S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke have in common); four of them to his VIth Canon, (which shews what S. Matthew and S. Mark have in common); one, to his IXth, (which contains what is common to S. Luke and S. John); two, to his Xth, (in which is found what is peculiar to each Evangelist.)

Now, the design which EUSEBIUS had in breaking up this portion of the sacred Text, (S. Matth. iv. 18-22, S. Mark i. 16-20, S. Luke v. 1-11,) after so arbitrary a fas.h.i.+on, into ten portions; divorcing three of those Sections from S. Matthew's Gospel, (viz. S. Luke's -- 29, 30, 31); and connecting one of these last three (- 30) _with two Sections_ (-- 219, 222) _of S. John;_-is perfectly plain. His object was, (as he himself explains,) to shew-not only (_a_) what S. Matthew has in common with S.

Mark and S. Luke; but also (_b_) _what S. Luke has in common with S.

John_;-as well as (_c_) what S. Luke has _peculiar to himself_. But, in the work of AMMONIUS, _as far as we know anything about that work_, all this would have been simply impossible. (I have already described his "Diatessaron," at pp. 126-7.) Intent on exhibiting the Sections of the other Gospels which correspond with the Sections of _S. Matthew_, AMMONIUS would not if he could,-(and he could not if he would,)-have dissociated from its context S. Luke's account of the first miraculous draught of fishes in the beginning of our LORD'S Ministry, for the purpose of establis.h.i.+ng its resemblance to S. John's account of the _second_ miraculous draught of fishes which took place after the Resurrection, and is only found in S. John's Gospel. These Sections therefore are "EUSEBIAN," not _Ammonian_. They are _necessary_, according to the scheme of EUSEBIUS. They are not only unnecessary and even meaningless, but actually impossible, in the AMMONIAN scheme.