233 Comp. Epiph. (_Ancor._ 50,) _Opp._ ii. 53 C to 55 A, with Galland. _Bibl._ vi. 26 C to 27 A. 234 Galland. _Bibl._ vi. 147 A. 235 Vol. i. 165 (ii. 112).—It it only fair to add that Davidson is not alone in this statement. In substance, it has become one of the common-places of those who undertake to prove that the end of S. Mark’s Gospel is spurious. 236 See Possini _Cat._ p. 363. 237 Ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ. [= ver. 9] ταύτην Εὐσέβιος ἐν τοῖς πρὸς Μαρῖνον ἑτέραν λέγει Μαρίαν παρὰ τὴν θεασαμένην τὸν νεανίσκον. ἥ καὶ ἀμφότεραι ἐκ τῆς Μαγδαληνῆς ἢσαν. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσι. καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς [= ver. 12.] τοὺς ἀμφὶ τὸν Κλέοπαν, καθὼς ὁ Λουκᾶς ἱστορεῖ, (Possini sini _Cat._ p. 364):—Where it will be seen that _Text_ (κείμενον) and _Interpretation_ (ἑρμηνεία) are confusedly thrown together. “Anonymus [Vaticanus]” also quotes S. Mark xvi. 9 at p. 109, _ad fin._—Matthaei (N.T. ii. 269),—overlooking the fact that “_Anonymus Vaticanus_” (or simply “_Anonymus_”) and “_Anonymus Tolosanus_” (or simply “_Tolosanus_”) denote two distinct Codices,—falls into a mistake himself while contradicting our learned countryman Mill, who says,—“Certe Victor Antioch. ac Anonymus Tolosanues huc usque [sc. ver. 8] nec ultra commentantur.”—Scholz’ dictum is,—“Commentatorum qui in catenis SS. Petrum ad Marcum laudantur, nulla explicatio hujus pericopæ exhibetur.” 238 See above pp. 62-3. The Latin of Peltanus may be seen in such Collections as the _Magna Bibliotheca Vett. PP._ (1618,) vol. iv. p. 330, col. 2 E, F.—For the Greek, see Possini _Catena_, pp. 359-61. 239 See above, pp. 64-5, and Appendix (E). 240 Alford on S. Mark xvi. 9-20. _ 241 Introduction_, &c. ii. p. 113. _ 242 Nov. Test._ Ed. 8va i. p. 406. _ 243 Developed Crit._ pp. 51-2. 244 ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντων φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—Arist. _Eth. Nic._ I. iii. 245 To the honour of the Rev. F. H. Scrivener be it said, that _he_ at least absolutely refuses to pay any attention at all “to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel.” See by all means his remarks on this subject. (_Introduction_, pp. 431-2.)—One would have thought that a recent controversy concerning a short English Poem,—which some able men were confident _might_ have been written by Milton, while others were just as confident that it could not possibly be his,—ought to have opened the eyes of all to the precarious nature of such Criticism.