So that, exhibited in familiar language, these Syriac _Marginal References_ are intended to guide a Reader,
(- 281) From S. Mark xvi. 8,-to S. Matth. xxviii. 8: S. Luke From S. Mark xxiv. 8-10: S. John xx. 17 (p??e??? _to the end of the verse_).
(- 283) From S. Mark xvi. 10,-to the same three places.
(- 284) From S. Mark xvi. 11,-to S. Luke xxiv. 11.
(- 285) From S. Mark xvi. 12,-to S. Luke xxiv. 13-17.
(- 286) From S. Mark xvi. 13,-to S. Luke xxiv. 11.
(- 288) From S. Mark xvi. 15,-to S. Matth. xxiv. 19, 20.
Here then, although the Ten Eusebian Canons are faithfully retained, it is much to be noted that we are presented with _a different set of Sectional subdivisions_. This will be best understood by attentively comparing all the details which precede with the Eusebian references in the inner margin of a copy of Lloyd"s Greek Testament.
But the convincing _proof_ that these Syriac Sections are not those with which we have been hitherto acquainted from Greek MSS., is supplied by the fact that they are so many more _in number_. The sum of the Sections in each of the Gospels follows; for which, (the Bodleian Codex being mutilated,) I am indebted to the learning and obligingness of Dr.
Wright.(561) He quotes from "the beautiful MS. Addit. 7,157, written A.D.
768."(562) From this, it appears that the Sections in the Gospel according to,-
S. MATTHEW, (instead of being from 359 to 355,) are 426: (the last Section, - 426/6, consisting of ver. 19, 20.)
S. MARK, (instead of being from 241 to 233,) are 290: (the last Section, - 290/8, consisting of ver. 19, 20.)
S. LUKE, (instead of being from 349 to 342,) are 402: (the last Section, - 402/10, consisting of ver. 52, 53.)
S. JOHN, (instead of being 232,) is 271: (the last Section, - 271/10, consisting of ver. 18-25.)
The sum of the Sections therefore, in _Syriac_ MSS. instead of being between 1181 and 1162,(563) is found to be invariably 1389.
But here, the question arises,-Did the Syrian Christians then retain the Ten Tables, dressing their contents afresh, so as to adapt them to their own ampler system of sectional subdivision? or did they merely retain the elementary principle of referring each Section to one of Ten Canons, but subst.i.tute for the Eusebian Tables a species of harmony, or apparatus of reference, at the foot of every page?
The foregoing doubt is triumphantly resolved by a reference to a.s.semani"s engraved representation, on xxii Copper Plates, of the X Eusebian Tables from a superb Syriac Codex (A.D. 586) in the Medicean Library.(564) The student who inquires for a.s.semani"s work will find that the numbers in the last line of each of the X Tables is as follows:-
_Matthew_ _Mark_ _Luke_ _John_ Canon i 421 283 390 247 Canon ii 416 276 383 ...
Canon iii 134 ... 145 178 Canon iv 394 212 ... 223 Canon v 319 ... 262 ...
Canon vi 426 288 ... ...
Canon vii 425 ... ... 249 Canon vii ... 290 401 ...
Canon ix ... ... 399 262 Canon x 424 289 402 271
The Syrian Church, therefore, from a period of the remotest antiquity, not only subdivided the Gospels into a far greater number of Sections than were in use among the Greeks, but also habitually employed Eusebian Tables which-identical as they are in _appearance_ and in _the principle_ of their arrangement with those with which Greek MSS. have made us familiar,-yet differ materially from these as to _the numerical details_ of their contents.
Let abler men follow up this inquiry to its lawful results. When the extreme antiquity of the Syriac doc.u.ments is considered, may it not almost be made a question whether Eusebius himself put forth the larger or the smaller number of Sections? But however _that_ may be, more palpably precarious than ever, I venture to submit, becomes the confident a.s.sertion of the Critics that, "just as EUSEBIUS found these Verses [S. Mark xvi.
9-20] absent in his day from the best and most numerous [_sic_] copies, _so was also the case with _AMMONIUS when he formed his Harmony in the preceding century."(565)To speak plainly, the statement is purely mythical.
VI. Birch [_Varr. Lectt._ p. 226], a.s.serts that in the best Codices, the Sections of S. Mark"s Gospel are not numbered beyond ch. xvi. 8.
Tischendorf prudently adds, "_or_ ver. 9:" but to introduce _that_ alternative is to surrender everything. I subjoin the result of an appeal to 151 Greek Evangelia. There is written opposite to,
ver. 6, ... - 232, in 3 Codices, (viz. A, U, 286) ver. 8, ... - 233, in 34 Codices, (including L, S)(566) ver. 9, (?) - 234, in 41 Codices, (including G, ?, ?)(567) ver. 10, (?) - 235, in 4 Codices, (viz. 67, 282, 331, 406) ver. 12, (?) - 236, in 7 Codices, (the number a.s.signed by Suidas)(568) ver. 14, (?) - 237, in 12 Codices, (including ?)(569) ver. 15, ... - 238, in 3 Codices, (viz. Add. 19,387: 27,861, Ti) ver. 17, ... - 239, in 1 Codex, (viz. G) ver. 19, ... - 240, in 10 Codices, (including H, M, and the Codices from which the Hharklensian Revision, A.D. 616, was made)(570) ver. 20, ... - 241, in 36 Codices, (including C, E, K, V)(571)
Thus, it is found that 114 Codices sectionize the last Twelve Verses, against 37 which close the account at ver. 8, or sooner. I infer-(_a_) That the reckoning which would limit the sections to precisely 233, is altogether precarious; and-(_b_) That the sum of the Sections a.s.signed to S. Mark"s Gospel by Suidas and by Stephens (viz. 236) is arbitrary.
VII. To some, it may not be unacceptable, in conclusion, to be presented with the very words in which Eusebius explains how he would have his Sections and Canons used. His language requires attention. He says:-
?? ??? ??apt??a? ?? t? t?? tess???? e?a??e???? ?p????d?p?te, ?????e???
?p?st??a? t??? ? ???e? ?efa?a??, ?a? ????a? t??e? t? pa?ap??s?a e????as?, ?a? t??? ???e???? ?? ???st? t?p??? e??e?? ?? ??? ?at? t?? a?t?? ??????sa?, ?? ?p??e?? pe????p?? ??a?a?? t?? p???e?e??? ??????, ?p???t?sa? t? a?t??
??d?? ?? t? ?a???? ?? ? d?? t?? ????a??e?? ?p?s?e??s?? ?p?????e?, e?s?
?? e???? ?? t?? ?p? et?p?? t?? ?a????? p????af??, ?p?s?? ?a? t??e? t?
pa?ap??s?a e????as??; ?p?st?sa? d? ?a? t??? t?? ???p?? e?a??e???? ???????
t??? ?? t? ?a???? ? ?p??e?? ????? pa?a?e??????, ?p???t?sa? t? a?t???
??d?? ?? t??? ???e???? ???st?? e?a??e???? t?p???, t? pa?ap??s?a ?????ta?
e???se??.
Jerome,-who is observed sometimes to exhibit the sense of his author very loosely,-renders this as follows:-
"c.u.m igitur aperto Codice, verbi gratia, illud sive illud Capitulum scire volueris cujus Canonis sit, statim ex subjecto numero doceberis; et recurrens ad principia, in quibus Canonum est distincta congeries, eodemque statim Canone ex t.i.tulo frontis invento, illum quem quaerebas numerum, ejusdem Evangelistae, qui et ipse ex inscriptione signatur, invenies; atque e vicino ceterorum tramitibus inspectis, quos numeros e regione habeant, annotabis. Et c.u.m scieris, recurres ad volumina singulorum, et sine mora repertis numeris quos ante signaveras, reperies et loca in quibus vel eadem, vel vicina dixerunt."
This may be a very masterly way of explaining the use of the Eusebian Canons. But the points of the original are missed. What Eusebius actually says is this:-
"If therefore, on opening any one soever of the four Gospels, thou desirest to study any given Section, and to ascertain which of the Evangelists have said things of the same kind; as well as to discover the particular place where each has been led [to speak] of the same things;-note the number of the Section thou art studying, and seek that number in the Canon indicated by the numeral subscribed in vermilion. Thou wilt be made aware, at once, from the heading of each Canon, how many of the Evangelists, and which of them, have said things of the same kind.
Then, by attending to the parallel numbers relating to the other Gospels in the same Canon, and by turning to each in its proper place, thou wilt discover the Evangelists saying things of the same kind."
APPENDIX (H).
On the Interpolation of the text of CODEX B and CODEX ? at S.
MATTHEW xxvii. 48 or 49.
(Referred to at pp. 202 and 219.)
It is well known that our two oldest Codices, Cod. B and Cod. ?, (see above, p. 80,) exhibit S. Matthew xxvii. 49, as follows. After s?s??
[_Cod. Sinait._ s?sa?] a?t??, they read:-
(COD. B.) a???? de ?a?
?????? e???e? a?t??
t?? p?e??a? ?a? e???
?e? ?d?? ?a? a?a
(COD. ?.) a????
de ?a?? ?????
e???e? a?t?? ??
p?e??a? ?a? e???
?e? ?d?? ?a? a?
a
Then comes, ? de ?S pa??? ??a?a? ?.t.?. The same is also the reading of Codd. C, L, U, G: and it is known to recur in the following cursives,-5, 48, 67, 115, 127.(572)
Obvious is it to suspect with Matthaei, (ed. 1803, vol. i. p. 158,) that it was the Lectionary practice of the Oriental Church which occasioned this interpolation. In S. John xix. 34 occurs the well-known record,-????
e?? t?? st?at??t?? ????? a?t?? t?? p?e???? ????e, ?a? e???? ?????e? a?a ?a? ?d??: and it was the established practice of the Easterns, in the Ecclesiastical lection for Good Friday, (viz. S. Matth. xxvii. 1-61,) _to interpose S. John_ xix. 31 _to_ 37 between the 54th and the 55th verses of S. Matthew. This will be found alluded to above, at p. 202 and again at pp. 218-9.