(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. 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. (6.) The epitomizer however, missing the point of his Author,—besides enumerating _all_ the appearances of our SAVIOUR which S. Luke anywhere records,—is further convicted of having injudiciously _invented_ the negative statement about S. Mark’s Gospel which is occasioning us all this trouble. (7.) And yet, by that unlucky sentence of his, he certainly did not mean what is commonly imagined. I am not concerned to defend him: but it is only fair to point out that, to suppose he intended _to disallow the end of S. Mark’s Gospel_, is altogether to misapprehend the gist of his remarks, and to impute to him a purpose of which he clearly knew nothing. Note, how he throws his first two statements into a separate paragraph; contrasts, and evidently _balances_ one against the other: thus,— κατὰ Μάρκον, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐ λέγεται ὤφθαι,—κατὰ Ματθαῖον μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ὤφθη,—τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ. Perfectly evident is it that the “plena locutio” so to speak, of the Writer would have been somewhat as follows:— “[The first two Evangelists are engaged with our SAVIOUR’S appearance to His Disciples _in Galilee_: but] by S. Mark, He is _not_—by S. Matthew, He _is_—related to have been actually _seen_ by them there. “[The other two Evangelists relate the appearances _in Jerusalem_: and] according to S. John, &c. &c. “According to S. Luke,” &c. &c. (8.) And on passing the “Quaestiones ad Marinum” of Eusebius under review, I am constrained to admit that the Scholion before us is just such a clumsy bit of writing as an unskilful person might easily be betrayed into, who should attempt to exhibit in a few short sentences the substance of more than one tedious disquisition of this ancient Father.(585) Its remote parentage would fully account for its being designated “σχόλιον εὐσεβίου” all the same.