κατὰ Μάρκον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὦφθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς: κατὰ Ματθαῖον: μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.
κατὰ Ἰωάννην: ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὁ Ἰησοῦς μέσος τῶν μαθητῶν μὴ παρόντος τοῦ Θωμᾶ ἔστη; καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας πάλιν ὀκτὼ συμπαρόντος καὶ τοῦ Θωμᾶ. μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς θαλασσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος.
κατὰ Λουκᾶν: ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως: καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ὤφθη τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ συνηγμένων τῶν λοιπῶν μαθητῶν: καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι: καὶ πάλιν ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν καὶ διέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν.
But surely no one who considers the matter attentively, will conceive that he is warranted in drawing from this so serious an inference as that Eusebius disallowed the last Section of S. Mark's Gospel.
(1.) In the first place, we have already [suprà, p. [44]] heard Eusebius elaborately discuss the Section in question. That he allowed it, is therefore certain.
(2.) But next, this σχόλιον εὐσεβίου at the utmost can only be regarded as a general summary of what Eusebius has somewhere delivered concerning our Lord's appearances after His Resurrection. As it stands, it clearly is not the work of Eusebius.
(3.) And because I shall be reminded that such a statement cannot be accepted on my own mere “ipse dixit,” I proceed to subjoin the original Scholion of which the preceding is evidently only an epitome. It is found in three of the Moscow MSS., (our Evan. 239, 259, 237,) but without any Author's name:—
Δεικνὺς δὲ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐκέτι συνεχῶς αὐτοῖς συνῆν, λέγει, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον τοῖς μαθηταῖς ὤφθη ὁ Κύριος μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν; οὐ τοῦτο λέγων, ὅτι μόνον τρίτον, ἀλλὰ τὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις παραλελειμμένα λέγων, τοῦτο ἤδη πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις τρίτον ἐφανερώθη τοῖς μαθηταῖς. κατὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸν Ματθαῖον, ὤφθη αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαιᾳ μόνον; κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ἰωάννην, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων, μέσος αὐτῶν ἔστη ὄντων ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, μὴ παρόντος ἐκει Θωμᾶ. καὶ πάλιν μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, παρόντος καὶ τοῦ Θωμᾶ, ὤφθη αὐτοῖς, ἤδη κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν. μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Τιβεριάδος ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς, ού τοῖς ΙΑ ἀλλὰ μόνοις ζ. κατὰ δὲ Λουκᾶν ὤφθη Κλεόπᾳ σὺν τῷ ἑταίρῳ αὐτοῦ, αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. καὶ πάλιν ὑποστρέψασιν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν, ὤφθη Σίμωνι. καὶ πάλιν ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθανίαν, ὅτε καὶ διέστη ἀναληφθεὶς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν; ὡς ἐκ τοῦτου παρίστασθαι ζ. εἶναι τοὺς μαθητὰς μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν γεγονυίας ὀπτασίας τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. μίαν μὲν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ, τρεῖς δὲ παρὰ τῷ Ἰώαννῃ, καὶ τρεῖς τῷ Λουκᾷ ὁμοίως.[582]
(4.) Now, the chief thing deserving of attention here,—the only thing in fact which I am concerned to point out,—is the notable circumstance that the supposed dictum of Eusebius,—(“quod scribere non potuisset si pericopam dubiam agnovisset,”)—is no longer discoverable. To say that “it has disappeared,” would be incorrect. In the original document it has no existence. In plain terms, the famous “σχόλιον εὐσεβίου” proves to be every way a figment. It is a worthless interpolation, thrust by some nameless scribe into his abridgement of a Scholion, of which Eusebius (as I shall presently shew) cannot have been the Author.
(5.) I may as well point out why the person who wrote the longer Scholion says nothing about S. Mark's Gospel. It is because there was nothing for him to say. [pg 322] He is enumerating our Lord's appearances to His Disciples after His Resurrection; and he discovers that these were exactly seven in number: one being peculiar to S. Matthew,—three, to S. John,—three, to S. Luke. But because, (as every one is aware), there exists no record of an appearance to the Disciples peculiar to S. Mark's Gospel, the Author of the Scholion is silent concerning S. Mark perforce.... How so acute and accomplished a Critic as Matthaei can have overlooked all this: how he can have failed to recognise the identity of his longer and his shorter Scholion: how he came to say of the latter, “conjicias ergo Eusebium hunc totum locum repudiasse;” and, of the former, “ultimam partem Evangelii Marci videtur tollere:”[583] lastly, how Tischendorf (1869) can write,—“est enim ejusmodi ut ultimam partem evangelii Marci, de quo quaeritur, excludat:”[584]—I profess myself unable to understand.