64. John xvi. 20.
65. Mark ix. 13. Luke xxi. 12.
66. See the note to the next paragraph. Demonst. Evang. Lib. iii. p. 119. D. seq. with certain variations.
67. Matt. ix. 9-11. As before, differing considerably from the Peschito.
68. Matt. x. 2, 3.
69. An extract from the original Greek of this place, having been preserved in the Imperial Library at Vienna, and kindly communicated to me, (see Book iv. sect. 6, above,) I shall now give it as before (1. c.) " Fol. 375. v. Euse. eu0aggel-qeof : (haec rubrica excipit locum Lucae de vocatione Levi:) 1Acion qanma&sai to_ a1plaston kai\ fila&lhqej h]qoj .. kai\ th_n filosofi/an tou~ eu0aggelistou~ matqai/ou. ou[toj ga_r to_n pro&teron bi/on, ou0k a0po_ semnh~j diatribh~j w9rma~to, e0k de\ tw~n a0mfi\ ta_j telwni/aj kai\ pleoneci/aj sxolazo&ntwn. kai\ tou~to tw~n loipw~n eu0aggelistw~n ou0dei\j dh~lon h9mi~n e0poi/hsen. ou0k o9 snnapo&stoloj au0tou~ 'Iwa&nnhj. a0lla0 o9 me\n louka~j sugkallu&ptwn to_ o1noma th~ a0rxaiote/ra proshgori/a katexrh&sato. au0to_j d' o9 matqai~oj. to_n e9autou~ sthliteu/wn u9ion " (lego bi/on .) " kai\ kath&goroj e9autou~ gino&menoj, o0nomasti\, au0to_j e9autou~ memnhme/noj. e0n tw~ oi0kei~w suggra&mmati to&nd' i9storei~ to_u tro&pon. kai\ para&gwn e0kei~qen o9 i0 c . ei]den a1non'' ( a1vqrwpon) kaqh&menon e0pi\ to_ telw&nion matqai~on o0no&mati, e0le/gxwn e9autou~ to_ trau~ma i3na qauma&shj th_n te/xnhn tou~ i0atreu/santoj. kai\ pa&lin prow_n e9ch~j, to&n te kata&logon tw~n loipw~n maqhtw~n e0cariqmou&menoj, au0to_j e9autw~ to_ tou~ telw&nou prosti/qhsin o1noma. di0 u9perbolh_n e0pieikei/aj. mh_ e0pikru&ptwn to_n pro&teron au0tou~ bi/on. (Fol. 376 r.) kai\ a9martwloi~j e9auto_u sunariqmei~. kai\ tou~ sunaposto&lou, deu&teron e9auto_n katale/gei. sunezeugme/noj gou~n tw~ qwma~, w9j petroj a0ndre/a. kai\ i0a&kwboj i0wa&nnh, fi/lippo&j te kai\ barqolomai~oj. prota&ttei e9autou~ to_n qwma~n. protimw~n w9j krei/ttona to_n sunapo&stolon. tw~n loipw~n eu0aggelistw~n tounanti/on pepoihko&twn :-- Sequitur et hoc loco rubrica: grhgori/ou qeolo&g ." Dr Kopitar adds, "Nota quid si sub Corderii Eusebio et Theophane, quem ille e Bessarionis codice citat, nec definit, lateat Eusebii qeofa&neia ? E nostro nil amplius apparet. Sed video a Kollarii nota ad Lambecii recensionem, Rich. Simonem laudare similem catenam Bibliothecae Parisinae." -- The Parisian Catena I have no means of examining. The query respecting the Codex of Cardinal Bessarion, I must leave to those who have access to that Codex. On other extracts, found by Signor Mai, see p. 225, above, note. The learned reader will perceive, that in this, as well as the former extract, the " Iota subscriptum" is everywhere omitted : and that, in this extract, a few words have been added by the compiler of the Catena in which it is found. The whole passage is also found, with some variations, in the Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iii. v. p. 119. D. seq.
70. Luke vi. 13. seq.
71. Luke i. 2.
72. Wanting in the Greek.
73. Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 120. D.
74. Our author speaks here of the First Epistle of John only: the second and third,--in each of which the Apostle is indeed styled "Elder," --being suspected as spurious for some time in the Church. See Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. vi. cap. xxv.--" In the fourth century, when Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History, the Second and Third Epistles of St John were not reckoned among the o9mologoumena , but were in the number of the antilegomena , or books received by some, and rejected by others." Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. vi. sect. i. chap, xxxii,
75. Ib. "The author neither calls himself John, nor assumes the title of Apostle; but names himself simply 'the Elder,' ( o9 presbuteroj )... St John might with the same propriety call himself presbuteroj , as St Peter called himself sumpresbuteroj; and after the death of St Peter, the title o9 presbuteroj might have been applied exclusively to St John, who was the only Apostle then living." See the whole of this: it. Proleg. Mill, in N.T. Edit. Kuster, sect. 151, 222: also Hammond's and Whitby's Prefaces to the Second Epistle of St John. [...].
76. Mark viii. 29.
77. Matt. xvi. 15-20. Disagreeing in many respects with the Peschito, as before. Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 121. A. B.
78. See above, Book iv. sect. 2, where we have a good explanation of this passage. It is also cited Prep. Evang. Lib. i. cap. iii. p. mihi. 8. C., also Demonstr. Evang. Lib. iii. cap. v. p. 121. B.
79. I would remark here, that by "binding and loosing," can only be meant, the office,--committed primarily to the Apostles, and secondarily to all duly authorized Ministers of Christ--of preaching, ministerially, the remission of sins through faith in Him: the fact being, that no one of the Apostles ever did, in his own person, proceed to pronounce pardon of sin on any man, nor, on the other hand, to denounce damnation : this mode of speaking of any thing as done, when the enunciation of it only is intended, being very frequently had recourse to in the Scriptures. See my Heb. Gram. Art. 154, 8; 157, 6, second or third edit.
80. Both Estius (in difficil. Script. loc. in Marc. viii. 29.) and Dr Hammond (Annot. on the title of Matt.) have also noticed this, as Eusebius has. (Prep. Evang. Lib. iii. cap. vii.) "St Peter's humility," says the former, "would not suffer him to tell these" (honourable) "things to St Mark, when he was writing his Gospel"..."which evidences the great modesty of the Apostle." Dr Hammond:..."He (Peter, and after Him Mark) doth it, (mentions his denial, &c.) more coldly than Matthew had done, only e1klaie ... Matthew, e1klaie pikrw~j ." Jones (on the Canon, Vol. in. p. 65.) well remarks,..."There is not any one single instance in all his Gospel (i.e. Mark's) which tends to advance the honour...of Peter above the rest of the Apostles;...which cannot be accounted for by any way more probable, than supposing that the Apostle did not publish those circumstances which were so much in his favour." He also remarks, that, Peter's working a miracle, in order to pay the tribute, is omitted by Mark. See Matt. xvii. 24. Mark ix. 30-33. Our Lord's saying he would pray for Peter, Luke xxii. 31--32, is also omitted. Peter's humility in not allowing Christ to wash his feet, is also omitted. (John xiii. 6.). Peter's zeal in cutting off the High Priest's servant's ear, John xviii. 10, is also omitted, as is his faith in leaping into the sea, John xxi. 7: also the particular charge to feed His sheep, John xxi. 15: as also the prediction of his martyrdom, John xxi. 18. It is worthy of remark too, that all these omissions were made in the city of Rome, where Peter taught, and where Mark, most likely, wrote his Gospel! Surely the Apostle never could have intended to be elevated there as superior to all the Apostles, and head of the whole Christian Church ! Is it not probable that his intention was, to guard against the assumption, which he foresaw would be had recourse to ?
81. Mark xiv. 66, to the end: differing from the Peschito, as before.
82. Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 122. A.
83. Ib. A. seq.
84. Ib. p. 122. C., with some variations.
85. Demonstr. Evang. ib. D.
86. Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 123. B. C. with some variations.
87. Antiq. Jud. Lib. xviu. cap. iv. sect. 3. Edit. Hudson, p. 798. where the passage is thus given, [Greek]. Hudson has given (ib.) a good list of various readings. It will be sufficient for me to notice those observed by our Syrian translator. This passage is cited by Eusebius both in his Ecclesiastical History (Lib. i. cap. xi.), and in his Demonstratio Evangelica (Lib. in. v. p. 124. B.) as may be seen in Hudson, a. So the Syr.[Syriac] b. So the Syr. c. Syr. kai\ dida&skaloj . d. Syr. th~| a0lhqei/a| dexome/nwn . e. So the Syr. not "pellexit," as in the Latin of Hudson's Edit. f. Syr. kai\ o9 xristo&j . g. Syr. [Syriac], insimulatione ? This word I have never met with before in this sense, h. the Syr. adds [Syriac], oi9 pa&lai, palai~oi , or a0rxai~oi , if we have not two translations here of the Greek, tw~n prw&twn , which I suspect is the case. i. The Syr. seems to have had tw~n par' h9mi~n . j. Syr. seems to have had, oi9 to_ prw~ton . k. Probably not in the Greek of our translator. 1. Not in the copy of our Syrian, m. The Syr. seems to have read, o3qen ei0j e1ti . n. Did not exist in the Greek of our translator.--See also Fabricii Salutaris Lux Evangelii, cap. ii. p. 16. seq.--It has been very common to suspect this passage as spurious, or as partly so; and some have gone so far as to charge Eusebius with the fraud. See the notes of Valesius to the Eccl. Hist. l. c. above. The chief ground for this suspicion appears to be, Josephus's saying, This was the Christ, when, in fact, he was no Christian. But, Is it necessary to suppose this ? The Rulers of the Jews must have known that Jesus was the Christ; and yet, they resisted Him, even to the uttermost! They were acquainted with His miracles, and His resurrection. Did they act accordingly? Quite the contrary! Much the same might be said of thousands among ourselves, who willingly give their testimony to the historical fact of Jesus being the Christ, but who are still as little friends to His cause as Josephus was. Whatever may, therefore, be the fact of the case, as to this reading, I do not see how it can be impugned on grounds so fallacious as these. My own impression is, that it is not spurious.
88. Demonstr. Evang. ib. p. 124. C. D.