Philology of The Gospels, F.blass

PHILOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS
BY
FEIEDKICH BLASS,
DR.PHIL.,
D.TH., HON. LL.D., DUBLIN,

PROFESSOR OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF IIALLE-WITTENBERO.
MACMILLAN AND
NEW YOKK
:
CO., LIMITED. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

1898.
All rights reserved.
Ot.ASOOW
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO.
liV
4-5
3101310
MY DEAR FRIEND THE REV.

J.
P.
IS
MAHAFFY,
IS
D.D., HON. U.C.L.,
WHO
THE FIRST AUTHOR OF THIS

AFFECTIONATELY
BOOK, IT
DEDICATED.
PREFACE.
THE
present
book
P.
is
due to
the
initiative
of
my
it.
friend Prof. J.
Mahaffy, who proposed
to
Messrs.
Maemillan
Prof.
that
they
should
ask
me
to
write
Mahaffy and
Mr.
or
George
Maemillan
revised
either the MS.
manuscript
the proof-sheets,
and
the
had been
previously
submitted
to
four
young
American friends
of mine, namely, Dr. J. Carter, of
New- York, Mr.

Prentice, of
Charles Downing, of Clinton, Mr.

Sill,
W.
New-York, and Mr. H.
of
New- York.
HALLK, March,
1898.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER
ST.
I.
LUKE S GOSPEL DISTINCTLY A LITERARY WORK,
CHAPTER
THE PROEM
OF ST. LUKE,
II.
CHAPTER
WHEN
DID ST.
III.
LUKE WRITK?
21
CHAPTER
IV.
ST.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE EARLY DATE OF LUKE S GOSPEL,
35
CHAPTER
NF/W TESTAMENT,
-
V.
IN
IMPORTANCE AND METHOD OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM

-
THE
53
CHAPTER
TEXTUAL CONDITION OF THE GOSPELS
VI.
:
MATTHEW, LUKE,
74
viii
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER
THE QUESTION
AND
IN
VII.
PAOB
OF THE DOUBLE TEXT IN ST.
LUKE
GOSPEL
96
THE ACTS,
CHAPTER
VIII.
IN
THE PROOFS FOR Two DISTINCT TEXTS
THE ACTS,
113
CHAPTER
THE DOUBLE TEXT
IN ST.
IX.
-
LUKE
GOSPEL,
138
CHAPTER
SOME OTHER TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES
X.
IN ST.
LUKE S GOSPEL,
165
CHAPTER XL
TEXTUAL CONDITION AND ORIGINAL SEPARATE FORMS OF
MARK S
GOSPEL,
190
CHAPTER
TEXTUAL CONDITION OF
ST.
XII.
JOHN
GOSPEL,
219
INDICES.
To PERSONS, SUBJECTS, AND GREEK WORDS,
244
-
II.
To PASSAGES OF THE N.T. DISCUSSED,
248 250
ADDENDUM,
CHAPTER
ST.
I.
LUKE S GOSPEL DISTINCTLY A LITEEAEY

WORK.
disquisition concerning the origin
ANY
and connection
of the four Gospels containing the
life and teaching of our Lord ought to start from the Gospel of St. Luke, although it confessedly is not the first written Gospel,
perhaps not even the earliest of the extant Gospels. The reason is, that only this one is a literary pro
duction
word, opening with an elaborate dedication like other literary pro ductions of that age, as also of our own. shorter
in
the stricter
sense
of
the
form
of dedication appears in the continuation or second part of Luke s work, viz., in the Acts, the
preface or
to
the person
proem being replaced by a simple address to whom both the first and second
parts are inscribed.

of
Now, we may
in
easily find plenty
similar
instances
Greek and Roman
authors,
not indeed in the very largest works, which, whilst they usually have a long proem, are addressed to
general readers, but in those on a smaller scale, or in
PHILOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS.
those divided into separate parts, like the Biographies

of
Plutarch.
This
celebrated
and well-known work
has neither a proper beginning nor a definite close, but seems to have been an unconnected series of pairs
of biographies dedicated to a certain of the
Eoman
grandee
of
name
of
Sossius Senecio.
The Biography
Theseus, which is the first one in our editions, although by no means the first written, begins with a long
proem justifying the undertaking of this biography and of the comparison between these two men (Theseus
and Eomulus)
immediately
cases
;
the address
Sossius
Senecio,
it is
is
put
after the first words,
and so
in other
where the original beginning has been preserved In other works of literature or science we intact.
have prefatory epistles, an even more developed form of dedication than in the case of St. Luke s Gospel.
The two
first
books of the celebrated Conica of Apol-
lonius are inscribed in this
way
to a certain
Eudemus,
the fourth to a certain Attalus.
with
But the most noteworthy instance to be compared St. Luke s Gospel seems to be a medical work.
of our best
Orientalists,
One
the late Professor Paul
de Lagarde, has written a short note on the proem of Dioscorides in comparison with that of Luke, in
order
to
show nothing
less
than
that
Luke
has
own proem on author on medical plants. 1 As

modelled his
1
that of the well-known

a philologist, Professor de
p.
Paul de Lagarde in Psalterium juxta hebr. Hieronymi,
165
i.
ST.
LUKE
GOSPEL A LITERARY WORK.
Lagarde does not entertain so

as others on St.
tical
many
theological doubts
with
"
authorship, nor on his being iden Lucas the Physician," mentioned by St. Paul
s
Luke
14); he suggests, therefore, in support of this identity, that Luke was in possession of some medical works, especially of the Materia Medica by Dioscorides,
(Col. iv.
who was
a native of Cilicia (whilst
Luke himself was

moreover, was at
of the neighbouring Antioch), and,
that time a quite recent author.

to
proceeds next the two proems, and finds that Dioscorides compare
is
He
proem
the model, and
a good copy.
At
this point our doubts begin.

:
Luke s the copy, and not even The

"
main sentence in Dioscorides proem is this others have written on the same matter badly,
try to write on
"
Since
I shall
"
it
better
whilst
Luke
says
I,
Since
others have written on the
same matter,
too,
is
may
quite
do
it."
The
train
of
thought
:
therefore
different in the
two proems
why, then, should there
You will say, because be imitation on the one part ? the words agree, and that agreement cannot be ex
plained otherwise.
But
in reality not even the

first
words
are the same, except the
in Dioscorides (woXXwv),
which
in
is
(in a different inflexion,

;
however) the second

further
on,
Luke
and,
in
if
we
look a
little
we
may
find
the
medical
author (on
page 2) such
aKpij3e<TTpov,
striking
test-words as irapaSiSovai and
which are employed similarly, although not identi So I again ask Why should there be cally, by Luke.
:
4
imitation on
Luke
part
Because, says de Lagarde,
the argumentation goes the wrong
way
if
many had
already done it, then there was no need for a fresh author, but Luke might refer Theophilus to the books
of the
eye-witnesses
(avroTrrai),
which
were
much
trustworthy than his own could possibly be. Here is, indeed, a strange mistake on the part of
more
the learned writer
the eye-witnesses of
whom Luke
speaks had not written any books at all, and it merely marks the modesty of our author that he
does not choose to disparage his predecessors, but only
asserts of himself that
he has got very

a quite
still
:
full information,
which
is,
should
think,
is
sufficient
reason
for writing.
There
another
Theophilus,
whom
he addresses, is evidently supposed not to possess any of the books formerly written. Now, Luke might
send him these
;
but possibly they
were not even
written in Greek, but in

did not contain so
much
and, besides, they information as Luke himself

;
Aramaic
could give
result
is
he prefers to write a new book. The that we must, with regret perhaps, dismiss
;
so
the
ingeniously
"
identity with
Lucas the
contrived argument for the author s on the Physician," and rely
old ones, which are indeed, in
my
to
opinion, quite worth
relying on.
We
might at once go on
examine the
are
of.
rest
of
this interesting
the address
proem, but we we were speaking
still
detained by
literary
work
ST.
LUKE S GOSPEL A LITERARY WORK.

this,
person cannot come from an indefinite author, but must have

is,
which
like
inscribed
to
definite
borne from the

are
first
a distinct author
name.
rule
We
holds
since
not bound
for all
to
inquire
whether
this
good
it
modern works without exception,

ancient ones as far as
does for
all
we know.
But
?
in
what way would the name of the author come in

author might indeed begin with his
An
the
or,
own name,
either like
first
Herodotus and Thucydides, in whose works sentences are very like an enlarged title,
in
more modern way, by prefacing
his
work
with a dedicatory epistle, the inscription of which, according to the Greek and Roman style, must run
thus
"
N. N.
in
to
N.
N.
greeting."
As we
nor in
find
neither
Luke, nor in
Dioscorides,
epistle, the
many
writings, such an for recording the author
other
name
for
only place left was the title of the
book.
Long ago the
title
independent existence, and

liable to get lost, as
title
it is
had got a separate and this same reason was

in
lost
Luke s
:
case.
The
of the Gospel
TTjOo?
êW
A.
was approximately AOVKU AvrioQe6cj)i\ov \6yo? Trpwros, and of the Acts

G.
A.
A.
TTjOo?
Sevrepos.
No
Luke
of
extant manuscript
s
gives these
titles,
because
St.
works had been

books of the
merged into
the collection
sacred
Christian Church, and especially his Gospel into the

collection of canonical Gospels,
all in
whose inscriptions run
the same strain
"
According to Matthew, Mark,
PHILOLOGY OP THE GOSPELS.

John."
Luke,
If
there
had been selected but one
canonical Gospel, even these distinctions would have

disappeared, as they have in the case of the Marcionite
Because Marcion recognized but one Gospel, that of Luke, and but one apostle, namely, St. Paul:
canon.
one
of his canon was simply superscribed It has been and the other simply Apostle. Gospel that Gospel wrongly inferred from this inscription Luke s name was not known to Marcion we might
part
"
"
just as well infer from the other inscription that he
did not
know
the
name
of Paul.
But the case being

is
that the Church recognized four separate Gospels, the
names
to
say,
of the authors
have been preserved, that

part
of
the
most
valuable
Luke
original
superscription.
We may
well ask in what

;
case
Church got at the three other names it was most easy to pick it up.
loss of the title, as is the case
way the but in Luke s

There
are
classical writings
whose authors have become unknown

with the well"
by the
known
rhetorical treatise on the

to
"
Sublime
(wrongly
works,
is
ascribed
Longinus), which, like
Luke
addressed to a single person (Postumius Terentianus), and must of course originally have had an author s
name
in the title
the Acts also would have become
anonymous, and are really so (the inscription being simply ILoae*9 rwv cnroa-ToXw), but that, with cer
tainty, the first part of the
whole \vork preserved the
author
name.
CHAPTER
THE PROEM OF
THE proem
of
II.
ST.
-LUKE.
Luke s Gospel gives so much valuable both on the author s work and on the information,
preceding work of others, that
careful examination, the
it
well deserves a most

it
more
so as
has been from
very ancient times seriously misunderstood in more than one point. We shall examine it, in the first
instance,
from the literary point of view, and next

its
with regard to
contents.
of this Gospel
is
The opening sentence
a very re
markable specimen of fine and well-balanced structure, It and at the same time of well-chosen vocabulary.
has no parallel, in these respects taken together, either it is unnecessary in the Gospel itself or in the Acts to add that the other three Gospels are far from
;
exhibiting anything similar.

to his
work
(after the
TJ/Aafyf ?,
is
and has
Luke has tried to give Pindaric phrase) a Trpoa-cowov succeeded very well. This, too,
an additional proof of the literary character of the
work, in contrast to the writings of the other three.
He
employs, in this proem, grander words and better Greek than he generally does, or than others do for he was here free to give a sentence wholly his
own, which did not form a part of the sacred narra

tive,
and would not
lose its becoming, simple, dignity
by touches of literary refinement.
Of course
cannot
explain this without entering into details which may seem to us minute and trivial, though they were not
The very first regarded in that light by the ancients. word is e-TreiSijTrep, never occurring again in the New
employed instead of Then 7rettj length and grandeur. comes TreTrXtipocfiopqimevuiv, instead of which he might
;
Testament
it
was
evidently
on account of
its
have written
(on which
TrXiipcoOevrwv,
which gives the same sense

;
we
shall speak below)
but again the former
was grander and more sonorous.

verse 2
is
The
/caOco9,
first
word
in
in the
common
will
text
but the
Cam
occupy us more hereafter, and two quotations in Eusebius 1 give, instead of this
bridge codex, which
Ka9u>$,
the apparently identical KaOd. difference ? Simply this, that icaOw

is
What
is
is
the
vulgar,
and
KaOd
Attic.
As
a native of Antioch, and of Greek
(or Hellenized) extraction,
Luke had
necessarily under
gone discipline from a grammarian, and that gram Do not write Ka9w?, for marian had taught him
:
that
1
word has no
classic authority;
iii.
but write KaOo,

p. 120.
Euseb. Hint. Eccl.
4.
6; Demonstr. Evany.,
THE PROEM OF
ST.
LUKE.
which has the authority of Thucydides, or KaOd which 1 is equally good. Luke s days were those of reigning
Atticism, the general tendency of the literary world
being to look backwards to the classic period of the
language and literature, when both language and taste
were pure and not infected by barbarous influences, which had, from Alexander s time, substituted in
literature the taste
for
and
style of
Caria and
too,
Phrygia
that
to
of
Athens.
St.
Paul,
when he was
called
speak
before
King Agrippa, and Queen

of
(if
Berenice, and the Praeses (or Procurator) Festus, and
the most the
distinguished
society
Caesarea and
of
whole province, took

to
do,
care
we
trust,
as
we
not
ought
to
Luke
account
in
Acts
xxvi.)
employ vulgar
Traj/re?
inflections of the verbs, but to say
iera<Tiv
lovSaiot,
not
oia<Ttv.
In his epistles,
-aviv
;
he
constantly
has
o lSa/uev,
-are,
but
his
schoolmaster at Tarsus had warned him against such

"
vulgarisms
"
/er/xei/,
la-re,
ivaariv"
he must have
if
said,
are the true forms
which you must employ
you
care to be considered a cultivated speaker or
writer."
Likewise in Luke the next word

colloquial
is
TrapeSoa-av.
The
reason
forms
all
of
the
time,
and
for
that
those of
New
Testament writers, were

but
to
eSutKa/nev,
eSwKare,
eSwicav,
schoolmasters
(then
as
now)
drilled their pupils

1
make
The
use of the correct Attic

P/trynichus, p. 495.
Cf. Rutherford,
New
10
forms (although, in this case, the incorrect ones are not altogether alien to Attic poetry, or to Attic
prose of the fourth century).
Moreover,
it
is
easy to
is
show that the structure

extremely well balanced.
of this opening sentence

It consists, as
we
say, of a protasis
and an apodosis,
ancients
which are pretty nearly equal in length; but according

to
the
rhetorical
it
doctrine
of
the
or
we may
way
:
divide
into
six
members,
eTre-êipâ-av
cav
cola,
in
this
ep TroXXoi
avaTaâa-Oai
Siiiyrjcriv
TreTrXtjpodtoprj/uLei
ev
yiJ.lv
7rpay/ui.aT(*)v
KaOu
TrapeSoarav
yevo/mevoi
^/JLIV
01
O.TT
ap^s
e
auTOTrrai KOI
Ka/u.ol
VTnjpeTai
TOV
\6yov
a.Kpi(3co$
||
Soê
7rap^KO\ovO>]KOTi
avwQev
Tra/riv
f
KaOe^rj?
irepl
uoi
ypd^s
Qe6(pi\e
iva
eTnyvas
&v KaTtjîOt]?
the sense of each of
a<r(pa\eiav.
Three of these members belong to the

;
protasis, three to the apodosis
the former
members stands
in corresponding relation
as TTO\\O} stands
to the sense of the latter,
inasmuch
in
opposition
to
to
/ca/xo),
avaTafcacrOai
Suiytja-iv
is
parallel
ypd\âi
/c.r.X.;
and, lastly, the tradition

is
of the eye-witnesses,
which
treated
in
in
the
third
its
member,
is
again
referred
is
to
the sixth
with
avfyaXeiav.
TrapeSocrav
There
(3),
even
an
opposition
;
between
and
KaT^
fir]?
(6)
but of this we
must speak
tation
of
hereafter, as
it
belongs to the interpre
the
proem.
Our
author
abandons
this
ME
elaborate
style
PROEM OF
ST.
LUKE.
the
11
very
first
suddenly,
abruptly,
words of the following narrative being not original Greek, but transparent Hebrew, and he never returns
to his first style, not
Acts,
which
was
the
even in the beginning of the modelled, as it seems, on the

part
of one
beginning of
of
corresponding second
Luke
I
authorities.
may add
to to
that there has been preserved a
much
more
shorter form of the
same proem, probably, or

edition,
or,
possibly,
belonging
correctly,
second second
the
to
speak
of
authentic
to
copy
Luke
Gospel,
where
dedication
Theophilus
of
had
been
Chrysostom, contemporary Gabala in Syria, some of bishop whose sermons have been preserved among those of
suppressed.
Severianus,
of
Chrysostom, gives a comparison between the begin

nings of the four
in
this
Gospels, and states that

TroXXol
TOI$
01
. . .
of
Luke
form
afJLol
îrei^Trep
irpa
air
7raptjKO\ov9t]Kori
rj/J-lv
TTUUIV
i,
/ca0w9 TrapeSoirav
CLTT
1
yevoêvoi
TOU
\6yov.
to four,
/o^ Here
the
six
members have been reduced

the
1
by leaving out
nothing
sixth,
and retaining
xii.
of
the
fifth
but
Chrysost. opp. Vol.
567
The
editions give not
Trap-r)Ko\ov-
6r)KoTi
but
irapaKoXovdrjKOTi,
and the editors record
Tra.pa.Ko\ovdrjffai
as a various reading in the MSS. If we adopt this reading, we must of course strike out ypa.\j/an, which might indeed be dispensed
with.
12
ypa^rai (which cannot form a member by itself) but in order not to destroy the balance between the
;
protasis
and
the
apodosis,
the
third
member has
been (quite neatly) transposed from the former into

the latter.
Now, what
what
is
is
the
meaning
?
of the
proem
have
and
is
the
true
translation
The
as
latter
question
by
no
means
superfluous,
there
been
times.
many
There
misinterpretations,
is
from
very
ancient
no doubt that Hieronymus (Jerome),
the
author of the Latin Vulgate, well understood both the colloquial and the literary Greek of his own time
the
;
but in the course of more than three centuries

language
literary
had undergone some
change,
and
as
the
proem contains not vulgar but choice
Greek, misunderstandings on the part of a writer so
much
later
may
well be expected.
Still
Jerome has
understood the proem

great
much more correctly than the Eusebius himself, and we must confess that
had
not
sufficiently
the
author
provided
against
seen,
to
misunderstandings,
purposing,
as
we have
means
make
of the
a Trpoa-unrov TÂcwye?, by
of words not
vulgar, but grand

first
and sonorous.
:
Jerome s translation
verse runs thus
Quoniam quidem multi

quae in nobis com-
conati sunt ordinare pletae sunt rerum.

right;
narrationetn
He7r\t]po(pop)iiii.evcov
is
= completae
is
avaTda&6ai=ordinare
wrong; we shall speak
THE PROEM OF
of the former
first.
ST.
LUKE.
13
Eusebius in his History of the
Church
of
(iii.
Luke s
24. 15) makes the following paraphrase Sn/ytja-iv Trouia-aa-Oai wv avTO$ words
:
TT7r\r]po(p6pt]TO
\6j<av,
which
shows
that
ev
he
took
of
TTTr\r]po(popr)/ui.ev(ii)v
of
conviction
and
rjij.lv
Luke alone
"
the things which have been

me."
brought
but
to conviction in
rS>v
This
is
strange English,
TreTrXqpocpopyiuievutv,
if it is
to have this meaning,

ILun>
is
even
more strange Greek.

in
used
of
the
single
common
ment
of the speaker, is by no means un Greek authors, although it is somewhat doubtful whether this idiom extends to New Testa
person
writers
"
"
7r\r]po(popeiv,
is
to
convince,"
TreTrXrjpo-
(f)opti/ut.ei>os,
convinced,"
Pauline
(e.g.
Eom.
xiv.
Col.
iv.
12);
of or
but here
we have
in
"things
convinced,"
instead
person,"
vinced."
"things
"
existing
the conviction
of a
of
which
that
person has
"
been
con
Would anybody understand
a narrative of
the things convinced in

reject this interpretation,
me
"
We
must therefore
who
takes
7r\t]po(popeii>
and adopt that of Jerome, like Tr\rjpovv, as we have in
Paul (2 Tim. iv. 5, 17), Tr\)]po<popeiv rtjv SiciKOviav, Tr\. TO in quite the same sense as Luke says Kr/pvy/ma
(Acts
editor
xii.
25),
TrXypuxravTes
s
rtjv
diaKoviav.
The
of
Wilke
C.
L.
Clavis
Novi Testamenti, the Jena

has
written
a
professor
careful
W. Grimm,
on
very
the
paper
Luke
proem,
explaining
14
single
he
words and phrases by parallel passages, and S compares the 7reTr\}jpo(pop}]/ui.evu>v with
&>?
fTT\t]pu>6t]
Tavra
in
Acts
xix. 2 1.
"
It follows, then,
us,"
that ev
*iiJ.iv
in nobis must be
to
among
"
and the
refer.
question
arises
whom
to
this
us
"
may
of
confidently
existing
in of
answer,
the
Christian
community
which
our
fact
is
Judaea,
that
most members
were
part
population among which

died.
Lord
that
had lived and
Luke includes
discussed
later
himself
on.
The very important in that number

proceed
to
to
be
We
which
avardâcrOai
ordinare
(Jerome),
Eusebius
Latin
renders
simply
by
TToirja-aa-Oai.
Both
the
and
the
Greek
the
writer
confound
being
as
avaraâuQai and
crvvrdâo-Oai,
to
former
it
apparently
unknown
only
them.
twice
in
Now,
the
occurs,
Grimm
Greek
shows,
whole
range of
literature,
once in
Plutarch
and once
Plutarch,
in Irenaeus, besides the passage in question.
in
his
treatise
De
a
dull
Sollcrtia
Animalium
of
(Moral, 968 CD), elephant, who was
gives
curious
narrative
nature,
an
at
rather
by
but
the same
time very eager to learn.
This
elephant
was being taught some tricks, in which he succeeded much more poorly than his comrades; but his
ambition
himself
1
made him
those
rise
at
night
and
to
repeat
by
movements he
was
learn.
p.
Now,
ff.
See Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1871,
38
THE PROEM OF
this
is
ST.
LUKE.
15
runs
:
dvardTTeirOai.
The
Trpos
passage
Tr\v
"
(Z(p6rj
VVKTOS
avTOS ad)
CO.VTOV
(re\i]vriv
avaTar-
To/mevos TO,
/u.a9i i/maTa
KOI jmeXeTwv,
bringing together,
repeating from
in
this
memory,"
and we see therefore that

ava
compound the
lost its
p.
preposition
had
by no
means
(Hi.
sense of repetition.
Again, Irenaeus
21. 2,
Jewish tradition of Ezra

of the
534, ed. Stieren) gives the well-known s restoring the sacred books
Jerusalem.
Old Testament, which had perished by the

in
flames
the
capture
T0)i>
of
This
is
ex
pressed by:
row
dvardâaOai difference between
TrpoyeyovoTcov TrpoiprjTwv TrdvTas Here we clearly see the wide Xoyovs.

trvvrdûa-Oai
and
dvardâa-Oat
what those ancient writers had composed
(a-vveTa-
Now, âvro) Ezra restored from memory, averdâro. is it not indeed strange that Grimm, who gives
these two passages as the only instances where this
verb occurs, does not come to the conclusion

it
that
must have the same meaning

fact,
in
Luke
As
matter of
he
identifies,
like
his
predecessors,
dvardâa-Oai and aruvrdâa-Oai, giving, in this way, one instance among thousands of the enormous power
of traditional
teaching.
"
In
reality,
Luke
meaning
must be
to
this
restore
many from memory a

:
since
writers have undertaken
narrative
(or
of the
things
pass)
which
have been
us."
fulfilled
have
come
any
to
among
Perhaps you
will say that
historical
1 6

writes,
writer
in
a
at
.
certain
sense,
from
:
memory.
to
But we must look

Socrav
rj/jilv
the next clause

K.T.\.
KaQa Trape-
01 is
avTOTrrai
The thing
this liable
be
achieved
the
restoration
oral,
of
TrapdSoa-is,
which of course had been

into
oblivion,
if
it
and
to
pass
were not in time restored from

is
living
memory.
like
So the use of the verb in Luke

in
much
that
Irenaeus,
and the attitude and

is
problem
of the
earliest
Gospel-writers
somewhat
akin to those of Ezra in the legend.
In the second verse

apxfjs
itaOa.
TrapeSoarav
yei/o/aevoi
tjfjuv
01
O.-JT
avroTTTai
ical
virrjperai
rov \6yov,
in
the
fjiuv recurs,
and must of course be taken
the
same sense
of Judaea,
as
before,
denoting the Christian Church
which had received the instruction of the

first
eye-witnesses and
is,
preachers of the
is
"
Word,"
that
of the gospel.
There
a distinction
drawn be
tween the writers (verse

implying
(as
1) and the eye-witnesses, have already observed) that none of
the written Gospels
known
to
the
author bore the
name
Luke
The
to
is
of
an apostle
he cannot have
Gospel, or the first in

s
any form,
known our fourth and we must suppose

both of these.
own work
to be earlier than
air
His
/o^? cannot refer to the birth of Christ, but the passage in Acts i. 21 f. baptism only
;
decisive in this respect (apd/u.evo$
CLTTO
TOV
ficnrTi-
oyxaro? Iwdvov verse 22), and the beginning of
St.
Mark
THE PROEM OF
ST.
LUKE.
17
shows that the ordinary narrative of the Gospel started from this point. So far as the apostles were called to
be witnesses of the things they had seen and heard,
they could not possibly begin their narrative at an

earlier
period in
the
life
of Christ
and the oldest
written Gospels, which were mere reproductions and

collections of their oral teaching, of course covered the
same
space
of
time.
From
yevo/mevoi
s
it
has been
wrongly inferred that in the author

witnesses
reality
time those eye

whilst in
already
belonged
to a
past age,
the past tense refers only to their quality as

first
eye-witnesses and as
teachers.
is still
In verse
3,
which contains the apodosis, there

"
another word liable to be misunderstood, -jrap^KoXovJerome renders this clause by assecuto omnia OIJKOTI.
diligenter,"
iii.
but Eusebius
(iii.
24. 15, and more clearly

"
4.
6) understands the verb in the sense of
having
Like
followed,"
and consequently takes
Tracriv
as
a mascu
line, referring it
to the auroTrrat KOI uTr^perai.

;
wise Epiphanius (Against Heresies, 51, 7

in a free quotation,
ii.
458
ff.),
makes Luke
.
say, TraptjKoXovOrjKOTi
rot? avTOTrrais
-yej/o/ueW?.
quite possible that

or
Luke had
it
at
Now, although it is some time seen one
more of the Twelve,

if
tion
would be a gross exaggera he asserted of himself that he had been from
the beginning (avtaQev) a constant follower of all the

apostles
;
and besides
it
does
not
make very good
18 Greek
to
combine
this
7rapaKO\ov6eiv
with
a/C|Ot/3a>9.
But Polybius and other Hellenistic authors employ the verb in the sense of studying, and there can be
no doubt that Luke
s
use
is
the same.
>
"A.vwQev
means
much
the same as air
apxw
but here
it
seems to
imply something more than CLTT ap^ in the preceding verse, since the relation between this avwQev and the
following narrative, which starts at the earliest possible
point,
cannot well be denied.
7joa\J/-at,
might seem
;
to contain a criticism
Ka0e^?, belonging to on Luke s

is
predecessors
but I do not think there
any
trace
of criticism in the whole proem.
We
iii.
know from
passage of Papias (Euseb. Hist. EccL
39. 15), that
Mark s Gospel had been

times
order
;
criticised
from very ancient

in
as
not
giving
the
events
their
historical
but Luke could not possibly introduce a better order, nor is there anything like orderly chronological
narrative in the middle and largest part of his
own
do
Gospel; so
it
would be absurd
if
he promised
to
what he neither could do nor has done.

does not employ the adverb KaOefj$
:
But Papias
he says ov nevroi
Taet, and KaOefi$ seems to me to have quite a different meaning, referring to the uninterrupted series of a
complex
narrative.
Thus,
in
Acts
xi.
4,
we
are
told that Peter
eer/$ero avrols
(to his fellow-apostles)
KaOeffi, or,
(as
we
western text, Travra KaOeffi have in the proem Traanv side by side with
according to the
THE PROEM OF
KaOeZfjs),
ST.
LUKE.
19
that
"
is
completely,"
not breaking the series

was,
in
;
by any
omission.
The
series
Peter
case,
given by the historical order of events
might be given also by a mere manner of narration, and it

s
but
it
cannot be Luke
meaning that Peter did not invert
the order of facts, but only that he did not omit any
important
fact.
On
Kparicrre
it
will
suffice
to
say
that this epithet
and
in
oratorical
was the ordinary one in epistolary style, when the person addressed was
position.
somewhat exalted
So, in
the
Acts,
;
Paul says, Kpariarre &j\i^, KpaTivre Qrjcne (xxiv. 3 xxvi. 25), and in the dedication of books KpartarTe
occurs
when the person addressed

<pl\Tare
is
something like
a patron, whilst
denotes familiarity. 1
Who
any was
Theophilus
was
nobody knows,
nor
is
there
reliance to be placed
upon the tradition that he
the
self
first
bishop of Antioch, although, as Luke
him
was a native of that town, we may conjecture,
as ancient writers might, that he addresses a fellowcitizen.
At any
author,
rate
we may
safely
suppose
that
Theophilus did not live in Judaea, and that he was,

like
the
of
Greek extraction.
He had
been
previously instructed in Christianity, but not by any

authoritative person, so that he
must
desire a fuller
and more trustworthy knowledge than he had hitherto

1
See Otto in his edition of the Epistle to Dioynetus, p. 79

ff.).
ff.
(p.
53
20
received.
"
you
have
For /car^/ft/? does not denote more than been informed," not characterizing the
as
is
information
Karrf^Qricrav
trustworthy
so,
in
Acts
xxi.
21
directly used of wrong information.
have to acknowledge therefore a certain opposition between /car^/^? and dcr(pa\iav, and again between this verb and TrapeSoarav in verse 2 Trapa8i6vai is
:
We
always used of communicating one

to
own knowledge
The Christian
1, 2,
others as
it
is,
without alteration.
community
cause
of Judaea, the
wets of verses
already
possessed that full and unadulterated knowledge, be
they had
;
been
taught
by the eye-witnesses
the
circle
themselves
but Theophilus lived outside
which the apostles had up

their preaching.
to that time served

is
with
Now
he
to
obtain,
by means of
particulars
Luke s Gospel, the same
certainty on
all
which was enjoyed by the inhabitants of Judaea; the time had come when oral teaching was to be sup
planted
by
written
teaching,
and
few
the
perishable
impression
produced
upon
hearers
by
the
preaching of the apostles was converted, by means

of letters, into an
imperishable and
widely diffused
treasure for mankind.
CHAPTER
WHEN
IT
did
is
III.
DID
ST.
LUKE WRITE?
at
this point:
a most natural question
When
last
:
the
change
described
?
at
is
the
close
to
of
the
chapter take
place
It
;
easy
answer
some
time before Luke wrote

festly
declares
that
proem itself mani Gospel-writing had begun in

for the
Judaea,
limit.
and
was
it
extended
by Luke beyond
:
that did
for
But then
?
will be asked again

:
When
;
Luke write
there
answer
As soon
for
as
he could
was no reason whatever
postponing a work,
the usefulness of which was self-evident, and which
must be required in any Greek or Roman town, where the preachers of the gospel went and found
some
willing
:
hearers.
People
?
would
ask
the
preachers
teaching
so
?
Who How
was that Jesus

did
it
come
to
pass that
What was His He was
countrymen ? and a countless number of similar questions, which could

cruelly
murdered
by His
22
not be answered so easily by everybody as they
may
be nowadays.
Let us try to represent to ourselves the reality of Paul and Barnabas things, as it must have been.
went
began
together, for instance, to Antioch in Pisidia,

to
and
preach
there
to
both Jews and Gentiles.
They had been
orally instructed by the eye-witnesses, and were now instructing others in the same way, The adherents they gathered successfully, as we see.
were eager to spread the gospel to others, and so it rapidly went throughout the whole district (Acts xiii. Of course Paul and Barnabas knew much fewer 49).
of the
particulars
than Peter
did,
and
again
their
disciples
knew
less
than Paul and Barnabas, and so the
store of
That from
time
this
knowledge went on diminishing by expansion. was a very imperfect state of things, even
first,
the
it
is
self-evident,
and
in
progress
of
must have become more and more
intolerable,
even
if
we
assume
in
that
writing,
as
an
aid
for
memory, was
any
far
at
rate,
some measure employed. But, at those writings were very scanty, and very
from meeting the necessities which must arise There were, in Antioch or every moment.
Iconium, or in any of those towns where Christian
communities had been founded, plenty of books of We see from the excavations recently every kind.
made
in
Oxyrhynchos in Egypt what a number of
WHEN
books
existed
of in
DID
a
ST.
LUKE WRITE
23
town,
to
small
are
provincial
the
light.
fragments
which
now
coming
Among
as
the books in Antioch were the sacred books
of the Jews,
and any Christian might read
as
often
that
he would the predictions of the prophets about to be his only Jesus, whom he believed on the fulfilment of those predictions, Saviour. But
life
on the
of his
Saviour, on His teaching, on His
death and resurrection, not one of the

his
many books
of
town gave him a

that
syllable of information.
?
Was
not this quite intolerable

of
The
neighbour or friend
to
Christian
was
anxious
learn
;
something
about the Jewish
man whom
he adored
what could
?
he answer
"
to
the manifold
questions of his friend

;
Go
to
our preachers, or elders, or prophets
they
will
there,
teach
you more than

they
can."
The man went

;
and
taught
that
him something more

been
it
?
but
how much can
have
things,
In
the
natural
and ordinary course of

of
may seem
separated
itself,
impossible
that a religious sect so scantily provided with

instruction,
means
its
and
so
widely
from
or
original
increase,
birthplace,
for
would maintain
;
even
assume that
one,
this particular case
and if we must any length of time was not an ordinary

exceptional,
instruction
but
quite
the
necessity,
never
felt,
theless,
of fuller
would
be eagerly
and there would be in every town many more than
24

"
the certainty one Theophilus, who wanted to know of those things in which they had been instructed."
So
again
say,
Luke wrote
write
?
as
soon as he could.
When
could he
full
himself with
After the
When he had provided information. When was that time ?

into
first
Gospels had been written, and after

contact
Luke had come

the
after
with that remnant of

after
primitive Christianity which existed in Judaea
departure
of
the
apostles
in
other
of
words,
"
he
had
himself
become
one
the the
we,"
among whom the

was preserved.
the time
;
original
teaching of
apostles
let
These are two means of determining us try to make as much as we can

the
out of each of them.
We
have
seen,
in
preceding
chapter,
that
Gospel-writing was in the beginning a restoring, from memory, of what the apostles had told in their
sermons, and what
now
could no longer be heard from

finally
left
them,
because
they
had
their
native
place,
country.
As soon
as that departure
had taken
the necessity of restoring and preserving their teach ing would be

felt,
and within one
year, or
two years
So all might be provided for. on fixing the time of that final departure. depends We read in the Acts (i. 8) that the apostles had
at most, that necessity
received commission from their Lord
to
preach the
Gospel in Jerusalem, and in Judaea, and in Samaria,
WHEN
DID
ST.
LUKE WRITE
earth.
25
and in every country of the
cordingly, beginning in Jerusalem,
and
after
They acted ac some time

viii.-x.)
;
proceeding into Judaea and Samaria (Acts

as
I
regards the rest of their doings Luke leaves us
without information, and from Paul

this, that Peter
we
learn
only
went
as far as Antioch in Syria (Gal.

at the
xxi.)
|ii.
11).
But indirectly the Acts inform us that

s
time
all
of Paul
last
visit
to
Jerusalem
(Acts
the apostles had
departed, because
"
they are not

day,"
even mentioned in the narrative.

says Luke
(xxi.
all
The next
18),
"Paul
went in with us unto

there."
James, and
the elders were
words in xv.
4,
about Paul
former
visit
Compare the And when

"
they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of

the Church, and of the apostles and
elders"
There
is,
moreover, an ancient tradition preserved by Clemens
and by Eusebius, that Jesus had instructed His dis ciples to stay in Jerusalem twelve years, and after
that time to go out into the world. 1
Now,
s
it
is
well
known
that the chronology of our Lord

lives is
life
and of
His disciples
1
very
far
from being
satisfactorily
Clem. Al. Strom, vi. 5. 43 dia TOVTO (frycnv 6 nVrpoj (an apo cryphal writing bearing the name of Peter) etprjictvai TOV /cvpiov rots diroffT&Xois fJLera duideKa err; eeX0ere ei s rbv K6fffJ.ov, /a?) rts (of the
: . . .
Jews)
eiTr-r)
owe ^Kot cra/xec.
Euseb. Hist. Eccl.
v.
18.
14,
speaking
:
of Apollonius (a writer in Phrygia against Montanism) says Irt 5k fK TrapctSocrews rbv crwr^pd tpâi. 7rpo<TTcra;î cu rots avrou diroffToXois irl
26
established,
and
do not purpose to
solve, or
even to
little
discuss, these intricate questions in the present
book.
But, at any rate, the doubts do not extend to

or five years,
more than four
more or
less
and
if
simply adopt, upon the whole, the chronology of the ancients, the error, if there is any, cannot be said
to
be important.
The Chronicon Paschale places the

of Paul,
of
former of
the two visits
which we are
speaking, under the consulship of Asiaticus and Silanus, that

visit
is
to say, in the year
46
A.D.
for the later
which
we have Eusebius computation, according to it falls in 54 A.D. The twelve years mentioned
but the
in the tradition do not agree with those dates,
difference will not be very great if
parture of Peter and his
we place the de fellow-apostles in 47 or 48.
For the
visit of
Peter to Antioch, mentioned by Paul
apparently in connection with his
own
visit to
Jerusa
lem
first
(Gal.
ii.),
seems
to
me
to be nothing less than the
stage
in
a long journey,
which conducted him
finally to
Babylon.
Everybody knows that passage in
the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul relates that
he and the apostles at Jerusalem parted amicably, under the agreement that he himself should go to the Gentiles, and Peter and the others to the Jews. Every
body knows the absurd interpretation given by some modern theologians, who add to the positive clauses of
the agreement the corresponding negative ones: accord-
WHEN
DID
ST.
LUKE WRITE
2*7
ing to these expositors, Peter was under obligation not

to convert
vert any Jew.
any Gentile, and likewise Paul not to con As the Acts contain numerous instances
of Paul s trying to convert Jews, in every place where
he went, they conclude that the narrative of the Acts is utterly untrustworthy. Paul went to Corinth, and found there a Jew, say Aquila, who showed some
inclination to adopt the religion
of Christ, but first
if
wanted better information.

theologians in question,
Now,
we
believe the
Paul was obliged to say to the

to convert
Jew
to
"
have no right
"
Peter."
Where
try to
is
Peter
"
"I
you you must go don t know, very

;
likely in
ties,
Babylon."
.
But, putting aside these absurdi
we must
understand the real meaning of

it
this
agreement.
As
draw
a line of separation
was evidently impossible to between the -le\v.s and dendistrict,
tiles of
one town, or of one
and
as Peter
"to
was
not to remain in Judaea, but obliged to go

of the
world,"
the end
:
there
is
but one partition possible
Paul
had
to go to the
correctly,
more
West, where the Gentiles or, to speak the the Greek Gentiles formed
majority and the Jews the minority, and Peter to the
East where there was a small minority of Greeks, and a

very large number of Jews mixed up with Gentiles who spoke the same language with the Jews, viz., Aramaic.
There Peter was in his proper place, as Paul would not
have been
conversely, in Corinth or Ephesus or
Kome,
28
Paul was in his proper place, and Peter not. Now, Babylon appears as the town from which Peter sent
out his
(first)
epistle,
from Jerusalem to
only
and Antioch lay on the route I shall answer But Babylon.

"
"
one
"
But,"
and must
refrain
from
entering
into the interminable field of controversy
which sur
"
rounds Peter
real
epistle
and Peter s person

of
but the
Babylon was
;
at
that time a deserted town, as
Strabo attests
therefore the Babylon
the epistle
is
must be the
Rome."
apocalyptic
Babylon, that
to
say,
answer, that Strabo attests nothing of the
kind, but only that, of the
immense space contained
within the ancient walls of Babylon, which extended

for the length of about forty-five miles, far the larger
part lay waste, and that therefore one might well apply
to
Babylon the
:
line of a
comic poet on Megalopolis in

OTTIV
*]
Arcadia
p.
ep^/mia /meyaXt]
jueyaXij TroXi? (Strabo,
738).
But
still
the large town had a great

the neighbouring
many
had
inhabitants, although
Seleucia
more.
We
Rome, when we
might as well say the same of modern stroll from the Capitolium to the
to
Colosseum and beyond, or
Mount
is
Palatinus, or to
other parts which are enclosed by the ancient fortifica

tions.
As
for the epistle,
it
sent
(see
i.
1) first to
JPontus,
I
Galatia, Cappadocia, lastly Proper and Bithynia, which agrees admirably with Babylon as the starting-point but, if that starting-point had been
;
to
Asia
WHEN
Eome, we may would come first
Pontus.
DID
say
in
ST.
LUKE WRITE
29
that
with
certainty
Asia
the
address,
and
not
remote
But
it
is
time to turn back to our
own
starting-
point. away from Jerusalem in or after the year 46, and with him, or before shortly him, or shortly after him, the rest of the Twelve
Peter then went
and
the
necessity
of
written
Gospel,
containing
and conserving the matter of Peter s past sermons, immediately arose in Jerusalem itself, where that
necessity hitherto
if
had
least
been
felt.
I say again
anybody prefers the year

or
48
to
46, or
the year
in
I
it
50,
even
51-2
as
Theodor
Zahn does
,
his
recent introduction to the
New
Testament
have
will
no mind
to
dispute that point at present, as

relative
to
not affect the

is
more important
Paul
s visit
me
chronology than the
of
events, which
absolute
dates.
If
to
Jerusalem and
(Acts
to
the meeting of the
apostles
of 46-7,
and
Paul
of
elders
s
xv.)
was
in
the
winter
visit
Corinth
his
first
may have been in

visit
the
spring
49,
and
to
Ephesus,
East,
in
from
the
which
he
of
immediately
left
for
the
autumn
50
if
we
follow
Zahn, the
dates
are respectively 51-2, 52 (November, December), 54 Now, after Paul had left Epbesus, (Whitsuntide).
Apollos went there, a

"
Jew born
in
at Alexandria, of
who
(in
had been instructed
the
way
the
Lord
30
his

native
town, as the Western text inserts), and

in
being
fervent
the
spirit,
he
spoke
and
taught
diligently the doings of the Lord, knowing only the
baptism
of
John"
(Acts
xviii.
24
at
f.).
Here
we
meet with a Christian, who was
the
same time
uncommonly
and
utterly
well informed about the doings of Jesus,
ignorant
about
the
rite
of
Christian
baptism, which the apostles had practised from the

beginning.
same
the
Evidently he had had a teacher of the kind, who had not even baptized him after
rite,
Christian
but,
on
the
other
hand,
had
instructed
him
to
is
in a great
unknown
a person person
Christians.
little
many particulars generally You see at once that such
less
who
learned
did
to
had
been
than an impossibility. in contact with the
Any
eye
witnesses,
and
learned
the
from
them,
rite
could
not
but
have
Christian
of
baptizing,
rite.
and
there
solve.
"
Apollos
not
here
even
know
that
So
to
"
seems
be
an
enigma very hard
But what right have we to bring in the person Are there not impersonal teachers, viz., books
Apollos
Gospel,
had and
come
had
into
possession
instructed
of
a
that,
written
been
by
which
could neither baptize him, nor teach him anything about that rite, if it did not mention it. Now,
this
is
not
only
possible,
is
but
is
actually
the
case
in
St.
Mark, that
to
say, in
the genuine Mark,
WHEN
which
had
closes
DID
8.
ST.
LUKE WRITE
31
at xvi.
s
do not infer that Apollos
got
Mark
Gospel,
but
only
say,
if
Apollos
of
possessed
or of
a copy of a
Gospel, either that
Mark
any other with a similar conclusion, the whole 1 difficulty is quite easily and satisfactorily explained.
We
find
therefore
in the year
50
(or,
according to
in
this
Zahn,
54) a
written
Gospel not
only
Is
existence,
possible,
?
but already rather widely spread.
and
is
it
consistent
with
our
former
statements
Let us
see,
and
let
us not take the dates, but the
It has been argued against this solution, that the word /cdTT/xwôs, used of Apollos (Acts xviii. 25), implies oral and not written instruction. I do not think that KaTyxovfjievos eic rov VO/J.QV
1
(Rom.
the
ii.
18) is to
be understood of a
it
Jew who
did not read in

;
Law
himself, but heard
read and explained by others
and
the interpretation of "having been catechized in his youth," given by Mr. A. Wright, in the Expository Times (Oct. 1897, p. 9 f.), is in direct opposition with the pre.se.nt tense. But if Kan?xe"0cu
must stand always for oral instruction, much more must aKoveiv do so. Now we find in Plato (Phaedr. 268 C) e/c ,8t/3Xfoi; iroOtv CLKOVVO.? ofcrcu larpbs yeyovtvai, having been inf ormed by some book he thinks he has become a physician." Here again, Mr. Wright seems to me to misinterpret the words, by making them imply that the man in question could not even read a book himself, that is, that he was more ignorant than the sausage-dealer of
:
Aristophanes
of the
(see
Knights
in Plato
:
v.
189).
But there are more passages

(.see
same kind,
oi
and
in later writers
the Thesaurus
Gr. linguae s.v. aKoveiv)

i.
48, has
for instance, Dionysius, Antiquit. Rom. aKovovres in the sense of "my readers." Well, you
will say, it was a general to oneself by a slave or
custom in antiquity to have a book read some other person. And is not Apollos
:
included in that same antiquity ? Let KUT77x<r0cu be employed of hearing even in the passage of the Acts the book will still be there.
32
events
only. to

Peter,
went
still
Antioch,
This
having finally and found Paul
left
Jerusalem,
and
Barnabas
that
s
there.
seems to indicate that

shortly
after
visit
of
Peter
;
happened
for
it is
Paul
visit
to
Jerusalem
not
to
be supposed
that
the
latter long delayed the
communication
of the apostles
decree to the congregations of Cilicia and Lycaonia
(Acts xv. 40
visit,
ff.
xvi. 4).
short time after Peter s
Paul started on his own journey, which must

it
have taken him some time, even while
was
still
confined to the different countries of Asia (Acts xv.
Gospel in question Paul went over to might be written in Jerusalem. Macedonia a copy of the Gospel (for such copies
xvi.
8).
40
Meantime,
the
at once) was brought to Alexandria. Paul went to Corinth and made there a stay of one year and six months, during which time he con
would be made
verted a great
many
Corinthians
for
that
same
time
the
was more than
sufficient
Apollos to study
its
Gospel and to be converted by

to
means.
Syria,
Paul went
Ephesus, and
from there
Ephesus.
?
to
and so
on
Apollos
came
to
Why
are, at
this really
happen
There
to
least,
might not all no chrono
logical
objections
our
suppositions.
As
for
only add that those of Zahn, years as given above, seem to me not to grant sufficient space for Paul s journey from Antioch to Corinth,
and
dates,
WHEN
and
especially
to
for
;
DID
ST.
LUKE WRITE?
former
if
33
of
it,
the
part
from
start
Antioch
early
in
Troas
whilst,
to
we make Paul
47, and come
Corinth early in 49,
we
may
assign about six
months
to the journey through
Macedonia, and eighteen to that through Asia. But, as I said before, I do not lay much stress at present
on these differences of chronology. We have sought and apparently found an answer

to
the
first
of
our problems,
viz.,
when
the
first
written Gospels came into existence,

try
to
and must now
find
an
answer
of
to
"
the
second.
"
When
did
Luke become one

with
the
we
Here
himself
we meet
(making
of
no
difficulty.
first
Luke
testifies
use of the
person of the plural) that he went
with
Paul
to
Jerusalem
in
the
spring
54
and
as
(according to
left
the
chronology of the ancients),

as
Palestine, as
again
companion
of
Paul,
late
56
(about August).
years,
more than two

Christian
it
he
During this period of was a member of the
community
in
Judaea, and at the end of

to
he was fully competent to write

us say to Antioch
"
Theophilus,
let
the things which have
come
to pass
among
us"
the more so as he could not be
aware
for
in Judaea.
what length of time he was still to remain That these two years afforded very ample
time for collecting and studying written Gospels and

gathering oral information, and for writing a Gospel
34
of his own,

it
is
almost unnecessary to
state.
So I
think that Luke finished his Gospel in the year 56,

if
we
follow Eusebius, or,
if
any one prefers Zahn
chronology, in the year 60.
CHAPTER
IV.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE EARLY DATE OF ST. LUKE S GOSPEL.
I
AM
well
is
aware,
in
that
this
early
dating
to
of
Luke s
most
Gospel
direct
opposition
day,
opinions
current at
the present
according to
which not
one of our Gospels was composed much earlier than the destruction of Jerusalem (71), and Luke s Gospel
later
than
that
event.
Professor
Harnack,
in
his
most recent publication, even while stating that now the tide has turned, and that theology, after having
strayed
ness
in
the
darkness and led others into dark
(see
Matt. xv.
14)
for
about
fifty
years,
has
now
to
got a better insight into things, and has
come
a truer appreciation of the real trustworthiness of

still
tradition,
puts
Mark s Gospel between 65 and
70
A.D.,
much
later,
Matthew s between 70 and 75, but Luke s about 78-93. Has that confessedly un
trustworthy guide of laymen, scientific theology, after
36
so
many
errors
committed during
as
fifty
?
years,
now
of
a sudden
become a trustworthy one

it,
Or have we
good reason to mistrust than we had before ?
In
much, or even more, ordinary life no sane
person would follow a guide who confessed to having grossly misled him during the whole former part of
a journey.
ignorant
of
Evidently that guide was either utterly

the
way,
or
he had some views
and
aims of his own, of which the traveller was unaware,
and he cannot be assumed now

full
knowledge, or to have laid

aside.
have acquired a those views and aims

to
wholly
reasons
writings,
Nevertheless,
let
us
examine
what
there
after
may
viz.,
be for a later dating of Luke s having first glanced at the second

at the Acts.
part of them,
As
first,
the
an
second part of a work is later than the early date of the Acts implies an even
one for the Gospel, and we might have started from the Acts and arrived at the same conclusions
earlier
for the Gospel, if
we had not chosen
to
go the opposite
For that the Acts were composed in Eome, during the two years of Paul s first captivity which the Acts attest (xxviii. 30), is an assumption made
way.
as early as Jerome,
Jllustribus,
who
says of that book (de

compositus
ultra
est,
Viris
7)
ex
in urbe
eo,
Roma
id
quod
intellegitur
quod non
quartum annum
vertexuit.
Neronis
rerum gestarum memoriam Lucas
DATE OF
ST.
LUKE
GOSPEL.
37
The fourth year of Nero is the year 5 8 more correctly we should take the year 59, since Paul, if he started
;
for
Rome
in 56, did not arrive there before
57, and
the two years of the captivity extend from 5 7 (spring)

to 5 9
(spring).
But the argument of Jerome

if
;
is
quite
clear:
Luke would have continued

it
his narrative
and
not
left
abruptly at this point,
he had
known
anything more
at the time he wrote
so the actual
end of the narrative must coincide with the time of

finishing the book.
explicitly
1
The same argument

his
is
given more
to
Epistles,
by Euthalius, in and the scholars
preface
lived
Paul
who
after
the
Eenaissance and the Reformation of the Church have
adhered to
time
it,
not imagining that there would come a
when
this
candid
way
ones,
of reasoning of
would be
abandoned
for artificial
which our ancients
could have no idea.

is
One
of these artificial reasonings of writing a third

to
this
Luke had the intention

(TÔ/TO?
treatise
Ao yo?),
which
was
first
contain the
narrative from the end of Paul s

to his
captivity
down
second and to his death, and therefore he ter
minated his second part at the point where he actually

does,
reserving
the
rest
(which was
of
course,
as
far as the
main events were concerned, already known

the
third
part.
to
his
readers) for
quite
agree,
that under this supposition the facts find a sufficient

1
See Zacagni,
Monum.
vet., p.
531.
38
explanation
;

but the supposition
itself
seems to
me
If I
not only unnecessary,
but totally
unfounded.
make
I
a supposition not warranted by any testimony

is
(as there
no shadow of a trace of such a third

for it
;
part),
must have and give good reasons
otherwise
the supposition will be discarded as arbitrary. there is one reason which may impose on those
are not thoroughly acquainted with
this:
Now
who
New
Testament
i. 1, that grammar, namely the Gospel has been his TrpwTos Xoyo?, and Trpwro? So it implies more than two, like primus in Latin.
Luke says
in Acts
does in old Greek

distinction
lative,
but in
New
Testament Greek the
between the comparative and the super of which this is one instance, has been altogether
/u-eifyv
abandoned, and as
stands for /xeyio-ro?, where
three things are compared, so TTÔWTO? regularly occu pies the place of Trporepos, where there are but
two
be
"
"
(like
said,
if
English
moreover,
first
and
the
"
second").
It
must
Acts,
that
close
of
is
the
even
there was nothing to follow,
by no means
of the
abrupt, since
Luke has followed the course
Gospel from Jerusalem to Eome, from the Jews to the Gentiles, and might well end his work with its
successful preaching in the centre of the world.
But,
on the other hand,

final
if
he had
known
at that time the
release
of
Paul, of whose former trials he has
told us so minutely, he
would not have omitted
to
DATE OF
indicate that
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
39
much
will
desired result, even if he chose not
to enter into details,
which he reserved
for another
volume.
You
in
for
say,
why
did he
?
not await the

(I
result, before
closing his book
Because
should
answer)
the case of a speedy release of Paul the
Eomans,
it
whom
he
partially
wrote,
would
learn
and the Christians in other parts of the world, especially Theophilus, could not remain
as soon as himself,
fact,
ignorant of so important a
before
but must hear of

;
it
Luke
book would reach them
so there
was
no necessity to await further events, the exact time of which was quite uncertain. Besides, we must always
bear in
mind
that the course of the Gospel was for the
author (as for any Christian) the primary thing, and

the fortunes of persons the secondary thing, even those
of the principal persons, not to speak of subordinate
agents like himself, whose doings he does not stoop to

tell
at
all.
But
as I said before, if he
had possessed
further knowledge of the events, he would not have
withheld a few words about them, as the main person

of his narrative
If therefore
was therein so eminently concerned.

it
the Acts were finished in the year 59,
clearly follows that the Gospel must have been written at the time we have already stated.
And now
Luke
s
for
the
theologians,
who
assert
that
Gospel must be later than the destruction of
Jerusalem.
The reason
is,
of course, that the cata-
40

is
strophe of the holy city

is
told in
the Gospel
foretell
it,
that
to
say, that
Luke makes Jesus

for
which
is
quite
sufficient,
coarse
and vulgar reasoning,

eventum.
to lead to the conclusion that the author wrote after
the
event.
Omne
vaticinium
post
My
since
readers
into
must not be
theological
afraid that I
am
this
going to enter
discussion
of
axiom,
to
philology and history are
quite
sufficient
deal
with
it,
as far
as
is
needed here.
may
perhaps cry out, that I
am
But theologians treating them unfairly,
ascribing to
them that coarse and vulgar reasoning
which they will pathetically disclaim. And yet you will find in Professor Weiss s Introduction that St.
Matthew s Gospel
of the
verse,
is
to be
put later than 71, because
xxii.
thereof, he
was wroth
But when the king heard and he sent forth his armies,
"
and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their But Professor Harnack is not shocked by this city."
prediction, nor
by any other in Matthew or in Mark

:
so
his
argument cannot be that vulgar one
Omne
vaticinium post eventum.

to
treat
Very well. I do not intend anybody unfairly, and the question is not
one of persons, except as they exemplify the general
tendency of a school or of an age.

deniable that the
Now,
has, as
it
is
un
the
axiom
Omne,
etc.,
underlies
work
of that theological school,
which
Harnack
says, misled the world for
fifty years,
and so we must
DATE OF
deal
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
41
:
and prove the antithesis Non omne vaticinium post eventum, which will be proved, if I
with
it,
adduce
eventum.
one
I
s
certain
instance
to
of
vaticinium
ante
might go
prophecy
is
the
Old
Testament, and
take Micah
of
the destruction of
;
Jeru
salem, which
quoted in Jeremy
but as I need
give only one instance, I prefer modern history to
the Old Testament, and Jerome Savonarola to Micah.
That prophet
in
for
such he claimed to be
was burnt
sermons were printed partly in his lifetime, partly shortly after his death, and prove that there have been and may be prophecies not only
;
1497
his
spoken or even written before the event, but actually

printed
before
it.
Accidentally,
to
you
will
say,
the
is
event corresponded
not
the
it
prophecy.
But that
my
point,
whether
was accidental, or the pro

;
phet had really foreseen the event for in the case of the prophecies recorded by Luke you may raise
the
same
controversy
if
you
like.
Most probably
you
will not like to do so, but will try to substitute
the author for the prophet in order to get rid of the
prophecy.
But whether
:
of
Luke
xix.
or
f
. :
of
"
Christ, the
prophecies are these

shall
Luke
come upon
thee,
For the days that thine enemies shall cast

round,"
43
a trench
so
about thee, and compass thee

is
and
on (which prophecy
found in Luke alone)

shall
and
xxi.
20
ff.
"And
when ye
see
Jerusalem
42
PHILOLOGY OP THE GOSPELS.
compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh," and so on (which prophecy is re
lated in a
somewhat
different
form by Matthew and
Mark).
do not think that either the former or

very distinct, since nor peculiar circum given,
is
the latter of these foretellings

there are neither
names
;
stances indicated
is
only the
the
common
order of events
described
before
destruction
the
capture,
;
before the capture the siege and the circumvallation
together
with
the
destruction,
the
killing
of
the
into
inhabitants,
captivity,
and
the
leading
the
away
of
others
and
then
;
Gentiles
taking
possession
is
of the vacant soil
in
all
these particulars there
nothing but the idea of destruction of the holy city

prepared and developed.
There
is
still
another pro
phecy
so
that the temple would be utterly destroyed,
that no
stone
should be
left
upon another
but
as this one is
common
falsified
to the three synoptic Gospels,
and our
the
critics
have absolved Matthew and Mark of

foretellings,
crime of
it
we
shall
leave
it,
although
present
foretold,
is
indeed
much more
peculiar, out of the
discussion.
On
the
other hand,
Savonarola
as early as 1496, the capture of Rome, which happened in 1527, and those sermons of 1496 were printed in 1497. I must not weary my readers, 1
1
have treated this subject more copiously in a paper printed

Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1896, 964
ff.
in
Neue
See Villari, la Storia di
G. Sav.,
2nd
ed.
in 2 vols., Florence,
1887-8.
.DATE OF ST.
else
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
43
agree
as
might
of
give
many
passages
which
tonishingly well with the account given by contem

poraries
that
memorable
event,
for
Savonarola
entered into particulars, and such particulars as were
indeed very hard

is this,
to
foresee.
Especially remarkable
that he extends the devastation to the churches
Rome, which, in any ordinary capture by a Catholic army, would have been spared, but in this case were
of
not at
all
respected, because a great part of the con
quering
army
the
consisted
of
German Lutherans,
churches
for
whom
Roman
Catholic
were
rather
objects of hatred
Now
and contempt than of veneration. Lutheran ism did not exist in 1496. Among
s
Savonarola
prophecies
will
we
find
this
one
"
Rome,
horses,
thy churches
be made stables for

therein."
the
which they
ance with
will
place
In striking accord
this, Guicciardini,
one of the eye-witnesses

narrative
"
of the capture, says in
his
You might
sumptuous palaces of the cardinals, the sacred churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the other holy
see the
places,
which were formerly

relics,
full of
plenary indulgences
to
and of venerable
horses,
now reduced
stables
of
and instead of hypocritical ceremonies and of wanton music, you might hear in them the pawing
of
horses."
and neighing
l
think
del
it
quite unnecessary
(Flor.
See G. Milanesi,
II
Sacco di
Roma
MDXXVII
1867),
where the original documents, and among them the narrative Luigi Guicciardini, have been reproduced.
of
44
to dwell
of
any more on this topic, the general possibility vaticinia ante eventum having now been fully
also
established.
But there have

eventum,
been written vaticinia post
and
is
course this
many more than ante eventum. Of quite true, and on the score of general
Luke might seem more
class
probability the prophecies in

likely
latter.
to
belong
to
the
former
is
than
to
the
My
but
be
object,
to
however,
not to prove a
universal
into
par
;
ticular,
it
disprove
to
an
enter
proposition
would
s
foolish
any proof
ante
is
that
Luke
prophecies were really written

itself,
eventum.
But the objection

presented
:
you
will
for
say,
wrongly
Professor
Harnack,
"
put
in
it
in this
earlier
form.
We
in
is
the
Gospels
might have the same prophecy a somewhat veiled and

instance,
obscure
shape
of
exception
the
on the
other
important prophecy concerning the temple) hand, Luke gives it in an explicit

form.
(which
true
with
the
and
were
developed
The
like
real
words
in
of
Christ
most
probably
those
Matthew
and
Mark,
but after the event

order
I
to
fit
the words were
shaped
differently in
them
to the
event."
By
Luke
;
Luke
That
deny,
and
very
decidedly.
has given what he found, without adulteration
we,
can easily distinguish a compiler of given materials
from one who moulds them
artificially,
and we clearly
DATE OF
see
in
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
45
whilst
Luke everywhere the raw

is
material,
Matthew, that
bearing
to
s
say the composer of the Gospel

is
Matthew
whose
himself,
name,
much more
liable to the
charge of artificial shaping.
author
writing
the
Then, you will say, the Luke used, or if not that

tradition
author
source,
oral
which
this
was
his
brought
the
prophecies
into
developed
form, whilst
original
Matthew and Mark must

Christ.
represent the
words of
Why
But
Because
if
Mark
is
certainly earlier
than Luke.
there was, as you

for
supposed,
another written
will
source
Luke, besides
Mark, how
later
you prove that that source too was Because the developed form is than Mark ?
than the undeveloped one.
into
always later
And
thus
we
are
gliding
an
interminable
and
hopeless
discussion of general probabilities.
But
hope
it
will be
granted on
all
sides,
that
Luke
really had, for his 21st chapter

it,
and those which
precede and follow
a different source from

to to
Matthew
and
and Mark.
Now, according
Matthew
(xxiv. 15)
His disciples: "When Mark (xiii. 14), Christ says ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy
place (whoso
readeth, let
him understand), then

flee to
let
them who
so
(ix.
be in
Judaea
of
the
mountains,"
and
this
on.
The passage
"
Daniel referred
to
is
26
f.)
And
the people of the prince that shall
46
come

shall destroy the city
the end
thereof shall
be with a flood
and the sanctuary and and he

;
. . .
shall confirm the covenant with
many
and
for
one week,
and in the midst of the week he shall cause the

sacrifice
and the oblation
to cease,
for the over

it
spreading of abominations
he shall make
desolate,
is
even until
the consummation," etc.
Surely this
more
and
explicit and developed than anything in Luke, the whole difference between him and the
others amounts to this, that they
make
Christ refer
His hearers
to
Luke makes Him

same
(xxi.
an Old Testament prophecy, whilst give Himself the contents of that
prophecy.
For
instance,
e crrcu
in
Luke
He
VTTO
says
eQvwv,
24)
lepovcraXyfJ.
7ra.TOVfj.evti
;
a\pi ou TrXtjpMOSxnv Katpol eOvwv
and in Matthew and
Mark He
words are
So6>
refers
:
them
to a
passage where the Greek

icaipov
KOI
eW
rrj?
cruvreXe/a?
crvvTeXeia
is
/<TTai
CTTI Tt]v eprj/moxTiv.
So the real difference
not between undeveloped and developed, but between

veiled
and open, which
is
quite another thing.
We
may
first
it
suppose that Christ really did speak in both ways,

referring to Daniel
s
prophecy, and then declaring
Himself;
for it is self-evident, that the real speech
it
must have been much longer than we read now in any Gospel. Of these two parts, Matthew and Mark give the first, leaving out the second, and
of Christ
Luke
gives the second, leaving out the
first.
DATE OF
There
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
47
have
second
other
left
?
remain these questions, why Luke should out the first, and why the others the
Luke writing for Theophilus and who were not very well acquainted Greeks,
Now,
with the Old Testament, had good reason for leav ing out the text of Daniel conversely, Matthew
;
and Mark being Jews and writing

declaration
for
Jews, had a
very good reason to leave out the declaration.
That
was
for
extremely
their
painful
for
them,
and
would be so
readers.
We
had
see
from the
Acts, that the apostles and their disciples were daily
frequenting
ceased
to
the
temple,
which
be
learn that that place

laid
most holy place for and the whole city was

fain
by no means them, and to

to be
waste could not but pain them to the utmost.
Who
aspect
as
in
would
of
not
cast
a
?
veil
over
if
things
the
which gives pain

opinion
And
must
we
do,
suppose,
that
my
we
really
the
Gospels were destined from the beginning to be read
weekly assemblies of the congregations, as we have testimony to their having been read as early as Justin s time (see Apolog. i. 67), and that
in
the
they were intended to be a substitute for the former sermons of the apostles, the contents of which they
reproduced, then
it
might
also
be for safety
sake,
and in order not
to give unnecessary offence to the
Jews, that the open prophecy of the destruction of
48
the

holy
city
was
left
out.
Stephen
had
said
openly that the temple would
be destroyed, and he
had become the

There
Luke,
is
first
martyr.
still
another objection commonly made to
viz.,
that he puts a distance of time between
the end of Jerusalem and that of the world, whilst

in
Matthew and Mark

closely
these
two events appear

has
(xxiv.
to
be
connected.
Matthew
and
"
29):
"Immediately after
the tribulation of those days shall

so on,
the sun be
darkened,"
:
and Mark
(xiii.
24),
little less explicitly

sun,"
But
in those days, after that in
tribulation, the
etc.
But
Luke
(xxi.
24
f.),
the transition from the one prophecy to the

is
other
made
in this
"
way
Jerusalem shall be trodden
down
be
etc.
of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles
fulfilled.
And
it
there shall argued,

shortly
be signs in the
sun,"
Now,
is
that
Matthew and Mark,

the
destruction
of
writing
before
still
or
after
Jerusalem,
expected
;
the
end of the world to

later,
be quite near at hand

lived to see
but Luke, writing
had
care not to connect closely the
some interval of time, and therefore took two catastrophes. I
is
might answer, that this explanation of the difference one out of many which are equally possible, the more as Matthew and Mark themselves do not agree
here
in
the words, and

that
it
is
therefore
said
"
impossible to
immediately,"
assert
either
Christ
really
DATE OF
or
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
49
that
He
said
"
in
those
days."
But the most

"
important
thing
the
is,
that
Luke
be
insertion,
is
until
the times of
Gentiles
fulfilled,"
nothing
more
than
an
explanatory
eW
crvvTeXeias iccupou,
paraphrase of Daniel s and the passage of Daniel is
referred to in the other two.
So there
is
in reality
much more agreement than be. As for the rest, we

trust
at first there
seemed
liberty
to
are
fully
at
to
Luke s account more than
that
of
the other
two,
their
who may have been

being Jews.
of the
partially
influenced
of
by
The destruction
the temple
and
holy city was, in a

(see
Jew s
;
eyes,
next to the
xxi.
end of the world
Matt. xxiv. 3
to
Luke
(3)
and
as
they were
make
transition
from the
one prophecy to the other, they made that transition in conformance with their own ideas, but each of
them
their
"
in
different
common
"
source
(a
way, so that we may suppose to have contained neither
immediately
first
"
very
less
common word
so in
in
the
two
Gospels,
much
"
Luke and John), nor
in
those
days
(also
very
for
common
the
in
the
three
first
Gospels).
But
as
Luke, he can hardly be

in
said not to
have partaken
of
Christians,
common
the
at
belief of
the
first
age
that
return
of our
Lord and the

long
as
final
judgment was near

the
others,
1
hand, as
second
he
says
like
"
after
the
prophecy
(xxi.
32)
Verily
say unto you, This
50

not pass away
there
are
till
generation shall
It
is
all
be
fulfilled."
true
that
here
in
Luke
shall
various
readings, which deserve The Latin codex tion.
at least a serious considera

i
has
"
it
"
not
pass
away from this generation until but no great change of sense

;
etc.,
which makes
Latin
istiid,
e
"
the
has
this
instead
heaven,"
of
"
this this
generation,"
caelum
and
reading leads
s
directly
"
on
to
the
form found in Marcion

shall
Gospel
all
Heaven and earth

fulfilled.
not pass away, unless
be
Earth
words)
pass
and
"
heaven
pass
"
(note
the
inverted
order
shall
of
shall
away,
but
my
;
words
not
does
away."
The
heretic
Marcion,
indeed,
not
e
deserve implicit confidence

is
but the Latin witness
above the suspicion of heretical tendencies, and am much inclined to regard Marcion s form as
the true one in Luke, whilst the other might very

easily
come
in
other Gospels, which has, as

hereafter,
by the way of assimilation to the we shall see more fully

affected
"
much
which
I
Luke s
text.
The
sense
then will be this

signs
of
You may
be quite sure that the
have told
you
will
come before
the end of things, and that the end will not

abruptly,
rightly
;
come
instructed
without those foregoing signs so I have to give heed to them, in you
order that you

catastrophe."
may
be well prepared for the
final
The
verses
immediately preceding
in
DATE OF
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
51
to
Luke
(29-31)
are
common
;
in
substance
the
three synoptic Gospels

before them.
but not quite so what comes

verse
to
28:"
Luke alone has

begin
to
And when
these
things
come
pass,
then look up,
and
lift
nigh,"
up your heads, for your redemption draweth which is very well illustrated by the subsequent
(29
ff.),
parable
and
stands
in
close
relation
w ith
r
the verse in question (32).

as
for
So for internal as well

of
external
reasons
since
two readings
with
in
Luke,
one
of
which
exactly
is
agrees
another
Gospel, whilst the other

is
a peculiar one, the former
always liable to suspicion of assimilation I do prefer Marcion s reading of this verse and of the
next one, where the inversion
after
"Heaven
"
Earth and heaven

cannot
easily
"
and
earth"
(32)
be
deemed
But
of
accidental.
if
the
you will say, that argument which I am combating will re theologians

this
is
true,
ceive
will
additional
strength.
Be
too
it
so,
the
strength
epistles
not
Paul,
even
then
be
great.
Those
to
of
which are nearly contemporary

Colossians,
Luke s
Gospel,
Ephesians,
are
as
Philippians,
full
Timothy,
to
and
Titus,
while they
of
references
the day of the Lord as those preceding in time, do not contain like them any clear expression of Paul s
He seems to have hope to live to see that day. abandoned that hope which he formerly cherished,
52
and
why might
if
not
Luke be
of
the
same mind,
the more so
he did not find in the authors,
whom
he follows in his Gospel, any distinct warrant for these exaggerated hopes ? I do not think, indeed, that
Mark and Matthew

in
deserve such exclusive confidence
inclined
comparison with Luke, as many theologians are to give them. Just because Luke is the
later writer
compared with Mark,
he
may
well be
the more correct one.

this subject,
order.
And
to
here
we may abandon
and pass
considerations of a different
CHAPTER
V.
IMPORTANCE AND METHOD OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

No work
of early literature
which has been spared
by time and has survived to this day with a few subsists exceptions not worth being mentioned here,
in the original writing of the author, but in the writing
of others, derived through a long series of successive
copies from that original writing.
Moreover,
we do
not
ordinarily read
in
it
a printed book which

or
even in those written copies, but has been made from the
copies, either directly
more often
indirectly, being
the last in another long series of successive printed

editions.
Nevertheless,
we
book
are
used to regard that

in
printed
book,
say
printed
1897,
as
substantially identical with the writing of the author.
Generally
we may
but
if
safely
do
so,
for
that
identity
exists in the
whole of the book and
in most of its
particulars
we come
to care for
any
definite
54
particulars,
and are
to
draw inferences from them,
the
apparent identity
deception,
may
many
be,
in a special
will
case,
gross
and the inferences

and
a
time,
be utterly
cases
wrong.
Many
cases,
in
con
cerning the
in
Old or the
that
New
book,
Testament, as well as
has
other
deception
been
practised
upon
misled
readers
by
into
their
and
they have
conclusions
been
by
it
drawing wrong
and
adopting
wrong
which
to
opinions.
We may
in
indeed
partly
provide against such deceptions, either by consulting

editions
come
earlier
the
series,
or as
by
far
going back back in the
the written
of those
manuscripts, and
series
manuscripts as
we
can.
But
are
to
speak in exact terms,

identical,
no two
are
different editions
absolutely
is
nor
any two written
copies, nor
any
edition or copy identical with the
original writing.
I
was speaking just now of a well-known passage

"
in
Luke
Verily
say unto you,

all
this
generation
that
is
shall
to
not pass away before

before
be
fulfilled,"
say,
the
final
catastrophe
of
the
world
come
of
to pass.
We
know
is
that in fact the generation
which the Lord
speaking has passed away to
the last man, and many generations more, and still So it appears the final catastrophe has not come.
as if our
Lord had given us a

this conclusion
false
prediction.
In
order to avoid
which must seriously
TEXTUAL CRITICISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

shock
us,
55
we may have recourse

wrong
this
to various alternatives.
We
have
may, on the one hand, suspect

a
interpretation
in will
it
that
we have
(which
given
to
the
words
been
preserved
Greek).
But
upon con
sideration,
way
appear
in
this
case,
although
individual
of a
may
hardly practicable be so in others, the

traditional
instances
of
or
even
misun
Or passage being very numerous. derstandings the accuracy of the account given we may question by the Gospel-writer. This way seems to be open in
every case
;
but the more

that
we
get used to
it,
the more
we
shall lose
confidence
in the sacred writers,
which
is still
is so important for our Christian faith.
There
one way more
that of suspecting the accuracy
of the textual tradition,
which has intervened between

This
s
the
author and ourselves.
way proved
passage,
to
be
practical in this case of
Luke
at least for
rid
me, and
of
(or
we) have by
as
far
its
it
the
difficulty,
as
means quite got regards Luke

;
for
Matthew and Mark are still there, attesting the But the whole case has now false prediction.
become
somewhat more
the
It
different;
for
the
now
other.
no
universally
attested,
prophecy is and we may
correct
by means of the must be noted, however, that in this very

one
extant
tradition
case even
to
the
theologian does not have
easy access
the sources of information.
lu ordinary editions
56
of the
New
Testament, he will find nothing at
all,
and even in Tischendorfs large edition he

only
the
will find
reading
of
Marcion,
but
e.
not
its
partial
confirmation by the Latin codex
He must
say,
needs
consult the separate edition of that codex
the
same
Tischendorf,
that
is
to
made by he must
consult
or
editions of all the different
Greek or Latin
for
Syriac
manuscripts,
if
and
seek
different
it.
reading, and be lucky how few can do this ?
at last
he finds
But
We
the
pass to another consideration which leads in

direction.
same
The
life
of
our Lord has
of
course been the object of so-called scientific investi

gation,
although,
of
it
in
reality,
there
are
only
some
of
far
particulars
which
come within the range

it lies
such investigation, while the real import of

beyond.
ticulars,
But now
am
speaking just of these par

that
one of which
is,
our Lord, after
He
was taken, was conducted either

or
directly to the palace
of Caiaphas the high priest (so the synoptic Gospels),

first to
Annas the
father-in-law of the high priest,
(so the
Gospel of John).
The
latter
testimony seems
;
to
be more accurate and trustworthy
but then, the
accuracy of the other narrative is rather seriously affected, not because it omits an intermediate station
on the way, but because
it
refers the very
important
s
transaction, the trial of our Lord and Peter
denial,

to a
57
all
it
wrong
locality
for John, as it seems,
makes
"as
this take place in the

seems,"
house of Annas.
I say,
for there is in reality
no contradiction what
ever between the Gospels, but only a slight and quite

justifiable
omission
on the part of the
three.
it
Our
will
John
is
not identical with the real John, and
be quite clear even from a careful examination of the

text as
it
stands,
that
John can neither have meant
nor
have
written
the
commonly accepted
trial.
account
"
with Annas house as the scene of the

led
They
Him away
to
Annas
first,
for
he was father-in-law
which was the high priest that same year. Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die And Simon Peter for the people (see xi. 49 ff.).
to Caiaphas,
followed
disciple
Jesus,
and
so
did
another
disciple
that
was known unto the high

Jesus into the palace
priest,
and went
"
in with
of the
high
priest
(John
told
xviii.
13
ff.).
After
having
been
distinctly
that Caiaphas was the high priest year, and not Annas, we read that the other disciple went
that
in
with
Jesus into the palace of the

?
high
priest.
Whose
palace, therefore
Of course that
?
of Caiaphas.
How
that
has
Jesus
come there
The
writer,
leaving
serious
goes on to
unexplained and uncorrected, speak not of Annas but of the high priest,
omission
and
to tell of Peter s being introduced into his palace
58
(ver. 18),
and then of Peter
s first denial,
and next not

After
sent
of the second one, but of the trial of Christ.

that,
he suddenly says
to
(ver.
24):
"Now
Annas
Him bound
nials,
"
Caiaphas the high
priest."
Then he
2 8)
returns to Peter, telling of his second and third de
and
from
Peter
again
to
Christ
(ver.
Then
led they Jesus

(to
from Caiaphas into the

This narrative
is
hall of
judgment"
Pilate).
it
so utterly
confused, that
lators tried
ver.
is
no wonder
it
King James
trans
to
correct
by
interpretation, giving in
sent."
24 not
"sent"
but,
"had
But the Greek
words give no warrant for this interpretation, and even if it were possible, we could not withhold our
censure of the writer, as he would then have told a
simple story in the most

the blame
is
awkward way.
we may
learn
In
reality,
to be cast upon the textual tradition and
not upon the
author, and
from this
quite evident case, that those written copies (not to
speak of editions), which we are accustomed to rely Which upon, by no means deserve implicit trust.
copies,
then, do deserve
it
No
single copy at
all,
as if whole, anything the tradition with entire liberty to select in each individual casethat branch of the tradition for our guide which shall
but
taken
seem
if
it
to us to be in this case
is
most trustworthy, even

I deliber
a heretical witness like Marcion.

"
ately say,
if
anything,"
for there
may
be cases in
59
the true reading.
which no branch of the extant tradition has preserved In this very case of John s ch. xviii.
until a few years ago there

its
was no witness
for it in
totality,
although there were a very few for a

truth.
part
of
the
But
since
Mrs. Agnes
the
in
Smith-
Lewis discovered
script of
and
Sinai,
:
published
Syriac
manu
to
Mount
we read
"
this
one witness
the
following
first,
account
They
led
Him away
Annas
the sent
the father-in-law to
Caiaphas,
who was
high priest that same year (13).
Now, Annas
Caiaphas was
Him bound
to
Caiaphas (24);
he who gave counsel," etc. (14). Then comes the mention of Simon Peter and of the other disciple,
and
the
statement
the
that
the
latter
went
in
with
Jesus into
palace
trial,
(15).
Next comes (19-23)

(16 ff.), "But and then the
coherently,
of
:
the story of the
and
after that
without,"
Peter
stood
story
at
the
the
door
three
whole
of
denials
course without the repetition standing in our texts
(18)
"And
Peter
stood
"and
with
them,
and warmed
himself," himself."
and (25):
This
is
Peter stood and

of
warmed
author
;
is
the
narrative
a real
the other one

1
that of blundering scribes. 1
note that Prof. F. Spitta (Zur Geschichte und Litteratitr pp. 158 ff.) got at a part of the truth He combines the two separated parts in a purely conjectural way.
1
may
des Urchristenthnms, 1893,

of the story of
Peter
denial,
and establishes
this order: vers. 12, 13,
19-23, 24, 14, 15-18, 256-28.
60
We
John
s
shall speak later
on of the condition in which
Gospel has come
down
to us
for
such gross
in
misplacements are far from being a general feature New Testament tradition. What I am now insisting
is
upon
for
It
is
the
absolute
necessity
of
textual
criticism
all
studies
connected with the

certain
New
textual
Testament.
criticism,
not
is
amount
of
required, but thorough and sound textual criticism, as even with that we shall often remain
which
very far from the goal
we want
fact
to
attain.
Now
of
it
is
well-known
collected
that
the
number
various
readings
of the
New
is
manuscripts Testament by successive generations of
from
the
scholars
1
great.
and has long been, astonishingly Nevertheless many men in Germany, and in
already,
still
England and elsewhere, are

worthy
sources.
zeal
in
increasing
it
engaged with praise the number from fresh

is
Nor can
be said that this zeal

it
altogether
misplaced, although
I do
may
be so in some cases.
For
to
not think that every manuscript
ought
of
be
thoroughly examined, because a great
many
them
very soon show themselves to be quite worthless, and

it
is
even more strongly
my
just
opinion that not every
collation of manuscripts
ought to be put into print.
On
the other hand,
we saw
now
that there
may
still
be hidden in some corner of Europe, or Asia, or Africa,

1
There are estimated now to be about 130,000.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
a veritable
IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

manuscript, as
years.
61
Sinai
treasure of a
that
will
manuscript was until recent
Nor
a
those
treasures always present themselves in a very ancient
and musty shape.

that
is
There
is
in
London
Greek manu
script of the Gospels, -written in the eleventh century
to
say comparatively very late
which was
;
bought at some auction in the year 1882 it was examined by Dean Burgon first, then by W. H. Simcox,
who published
his
collation
in
a journal, and lastly

;
by H. C. Hoskier, who published his in a special book and the pains they took have been requited by 270
no manuscript. In the passage of John s Gospel, of which we treated above, one Greek manuscript, dating from the end
readings, hitherto found in
new
of the twelfth century, has preserved a part of the
true reading.
to age,
but to
must therefore not look simply intrinsic value, which is to some extent
For
it
We
independent of age.
is
quite possible that an
ancient and valuable manuscript was carefully copied,
say in 1500, and afterwards perished

in this case
will possess
the recent copy
of the lost archetype, side
by inheritance all the merits by side with which it would

first
of course be worthless.
This therefore
is
the
task,
to
collect all the
attainable materials for the restitution of the primitive

text.
A
the
second will be to
largest
sift
the materials, for by

is
far
part
of
them
utterly
worthless.
62

for instance, is
What,
etVey
the value of knowing, that in

ef-rre
a given passage a given manuscript has

?
and not
instead
value,
or that Qapio-aioi
is
spelt therein with
et
of
For a philologist
manuscript
is
this
may have some

;
in case the
very ancient
in this
the spelling
is
will teach him, that the
word
long.
But
the apparatus criticus even of the largest edition ought

to
be disencumbered
treated
in
of such
minutiae,
in
which may
;
be
for the editor
Prolegomena way himself must know more than he gives

Moreover, as
is
a general
the
his readers.
nowadays the practice

writers, there
in editions of
Greek and Roman profane
must be a
sifting of the manuscripts,
and
all
those
carded.
which have nothing good of their own must be dis Those endless lists of witnesses are not only
very cumbersome, but quite worthless, since the deci

sion on the correctness of a reading never depends on
numbers.
In this way,
we
shall get a comparatively
short apparatus for most parts of the
New
Testament,
although there are some books where no sifting will

appreciably diminish the heap.
The
condition,
indeed,
of
the
different
is
writings
combined into the
New
Testament
far
is,
from being
in the first
equally good, or equally bad.
There
place, a wide difference between them as regards the
number
large
for
of
extant
witnesses,
which
is
exceedingly
for
the Gospels,
but
much
smaller
the
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
other
parts,
IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
63
the Acts
are usually contained in the
and Catholic Epistles (which same manuscripts), the

Apocalypse
all).
Pauline
Epistles,
is
the
(for
which
the
number
smallest of
Then the discrepancies
between the manuscripts are comparatively small in number and importance in the case of all the
epistles,
which
appear
to
have been handed down
in
good and trustworthy form as any classical author. Here therefore the third task of a critic,
as
that
of
discriminating
readings,
classical
is
and
deciding
difficult
between
than
say
in
the
various
case
of
no more
I
the
it
authors.
do not
of the
that
is
easy, either
for
these
;
parts
New
Testament
or for
great
the classics
deal
of
the
patristic
it
term easy may apply to a literature, which has come
down
But
to us nearly as
was written by the

contained
in
authors.
for
the
other
the
are
writings
the
New
as
Testament,
the
a
viz.,
Gospels, Acts, and Apocalypse,
difficulties
much
greater
than they
are,
rule, in the classics,
and more
especially in
some
of the
Gospels, where they reach an

is
amount which
perhaps
It is
nowhere attained
in
any other literature.
not only the great number of witnesses which

the
for
difficulty,
makes
great
textual
for
that
number
and
is
equally
Matthew
in
and
Luke,
is
nevertheless
criticism
Matthew
comparatively easy,
at least to one
who
has been occupied with the text
64
of
Luke
but
it
is
chiefly the
wide divergencies be
feel
tween the witnesses which make one sometimes

burdened by a weight too great to be borne. There is, indeed, a way to get rid of most
those
difficulties,
of
that
of
discarding
beforehand
the
the
majority
of the
witnesses,
not on
(in
ground that
case
they
are
is
not
independent
which
the
dis
carding
quite justified), but as untrustworthy.
brief survey of the witnesses
shows
that, besides those
giving the
common
text as
it
was current
:
in Byzantine
Alexandrian,"
times, there are
two main
classes
one
"
represented
Sinaiticus
N
;
by the oldest uncials, Vaticanus B, and Alexandrinus A, and by other and one
"
MSS. besides
Western,"
represented by the
old
Latin
versions
and
in
the
Graeco-Latin
close
if
Canta-
brigiensis
D,
Syriac
etc.,
very
agreement
with
deal
the old
versions.
Now,
class
we had
task
to
only
with
the
former
;
our
would
be
extremely simplified
because, although N and
B and
their
are
far
from
are
giving
an
identical
text,
divergencies
small
in
comparison
with
those
of
given
the
to
by
the
Western
witnesses.
The
editors
Testament in our century, from Lachmann Westcott and Hort, have indeed thought them
in
New
upon Alexandrian authority, and in neglecting more or less the Western The result would have been generally testimonies.
selves justified
relying
chiefly
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
speaking worse
basing
if
IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
65
their text
they had chosen the opposite way, chiefly on Western authority and
neglecting Alexandrian.
There
is
among
the former
nothing to be
compared with the latter for carefulness
and for beauty of writing, for instance, with the Vaticanus B, which is thought to have been written as
early as the fourth century, that
earlier
is
to say,
two centuries
than the Cantabrigiensis D. So if a general option must be made between the two classes,
nobody
will
hesitate
to^
give his
suffrage to
and
to the Alexandrians.
being
option
the
in
case
we
are
But such necessity is far from only bound to individual

and
if
individual
cases,
that
option
may
given
be
to
to
justly influenced by
general
preference
the
let
one
class,
we must always how
take
heed
not
that influence prevail over the individual con
siderations.
In order to see
to
unjust
it
would
let
be
take
wholly
the
is
neglect
Western
authority,
us
example of the Epistle to the Romans. no doubt that the Roman Christians always held in great honour that precious treasure, which
There
belonged
in
one
sense
for
to
themselves
exclusively
and
yet
are
we
to
that
same
of
epistle
wholly
to
disregard
witnesses,
the
testimony
Roman
or
Western
and
of
rely only
epistle
the original
that
upon Alexandria, where certainly never came ?

position
of a judge
Moreover,
let
us
compare
the
66

has
to
who
case,
decide
there
an intricate and
are
other.
very complex
frequently
the parti
of
where
many
For
evident
lie,
witnesses
contradicting
culars,
let
it
each
many
that
of
be
quite
told
some
the
witnesses truth
;
have
and
the
let
it
others
the
but in some few particulars

is
be equally
evident that the truth
on the side of the former
Now, witnesses, and the lie on that of the latter. it not be quite absurd for the judge, as would
regards
still
the
in
great
bulk
of
particulars
to
that
might
been
be
dispute, simply
adhere to the state
ments
given
by
other
those
witnesses
lies,
?
who
the
liars,
have
to
convicted only of a few

eyes
to
all
:
and wholly
shut his
evidence
On
contrary,
he
it
would say
matter
lie,
All these witnesses are
nor does
how
often a witness has been convicted of a
since everyone of
them has been convicted
of not
always telling the truth; so I must rely on the evi

dence given by the facts themselves, and not on the witnesses. But, if the critic acts on these principles,
how
will he be able to decide in everyone of the Is there always innumerable cases put before him ? an evidence given by the facts themselves? Certainly
not,
and in these cases he will necessarily recur to the evidence of those witnesses who seem to him
to
to
be least untrustworthy, taking care, however, not
admit such cases more than
is
necessary.
If his
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
general
appreciation
of
IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

witnesses
is
67
he
the
right,
may
nevertheless decide wrongly in some cases, but
rightly in
fulfilled
the
majority of them, and

as
he will have
It
is
his
task
for
well as
a
is
possible.
far
an
ideal task
critic, lying reach in the clouds, to restore the original form of
task
above his
the writing throughout
as things are, he will deserve
commendation,
if
he has approached that form even
by
small degree nearer than his predecessors.

is still
There
one more important question: Whether

is
conjectural emendation
justified for the
New
Now,
Tes
there
tament as well as
can
that
for classical
critic
all
authors.
will
hardly be any
in
who
absolutely deny
versions
readings,
given
a
case
manuscripts and
or
may
and
present
that
wrong reading,
true
one,
wrong
far
the
lying
not
behind
the
corruption,
may
be found by conjecture.
But
as
the
witnesses are for this book so very numerous, so early,
and
so independent of each other, such cases will be
quite
exceptional.
a
critic,
Even
if
right
is,
conjecture
that
be
made by
the probability
on closer
examination of the vast amount of existing external evidence, that true reading will be detected among
that
mass
of
testimonies,
and the emendation
will
prove to
I
be an attested variant.
give
may
few instances from the Acts.

is
In
xvi.
12 Philippi
described as being either
68
/u.epi$os
TJy?
/u.ep.

rrjs
M.aKovia?
TroAt?
7ro At9
TroAt?
(Sin.
(Vatic.
B),
or
7rpu>Ttj
fjLep.
Mar.
Max:.
etc.),
or
TrpcoTt]
rrjs
Tt)$
(majority
of manuscripts).
gloss
:
D
r/9
in
this
case
TToAi?,
gives
an
is
evident
Kf(f)aXtj
Ma/ce<5.
which
not
even
good
Greek,
but
coined after
reading,
viz.,
the Latin caput Macedoniae.

Trpwrt]?
/u.epio$
all,
The true
7ro Af9
TW
Ma/r.
(to
<r),
which
comes nearest of
omitting but one
was found
by conjecture long ago by Pearce and who remembered that the liomans, after the Clericus,
divided
four
conquest of Macedonia, had
the
country, as
of which
Livy (45. 29)

the eastern
relates, into
districts,
part with
Philippi and
city
I
Amphipolis was
former
number
one, the
latter
not
the capital of that district.
being admitted irpwr^ into
the
my
too
first
edition of the Acts as a conjecture (which I

;
had made independently)
in
my
second edition,
which appeared a year

reading.
later, it
stands as an attested
attestation
Whence
first
did
that
come
found
it
of all in a Provencal mediaeval version,

la
which gives en
a codex
primeira part dc Macedonia
next
atten
the Paris Professor,

tion to
Samuel Berger,
called
my
of the
parte Mac.;
lastly,
Latin Vulgate, with in prima Professor E. Nestle pointed out

versions also give that
that the oldest
German
same
reading (zu
dem
ersten teyl zu M., or
des ersten teyls

is
zu M.).
But what kind
of authority
all this

;
69
very slender one, you will say but when a corruption has spread widely, as in this case, you must go to
the
very remotest comer,
if
you wish
to
find
the
true reading preserved.
Another case which
I shall propose is different, in as
far that the conjecture has not really been
made
so far
as I
know
nevertheless,
it
might have been made by a

9 the opponents of Stephen
e/c
r>??
reflecting critic.
In Acts
vi.
are said to have been rive? TCOV

\eyojuievrjs
a-vvayuiyr]? r^9
A_if$epTLV(v
/ecu
~K.vp?ivaitt)v
tea.}
AXefcavopecov
KUI
TU>V
a-n-o
KiAi/c/a9 KOI
Aer/a?.
Now, we
are utterly
ignorant
of
synagogue
or
in
Jerusalem bearing
the
is
name
Ka\
of
A-tfiepTiwav,
the Freedmen, and there
this additional difficulty, that the
AXeâvSpewv seem
although
appellation,
Kvpvvaiwv form a part of the same Cyrenians and Alexandrians

to
words
KOI
belong to definite towns, and freedmen existed every

where.
I
have tried in
my commentary
K<A</a?
to disjoin
those words from A.i(3epTivuiv, and to bring
them
;
into
connection with KOI

the
right
C.
TWI>
cnro
/ecu
Acr/a9
but
way
lay quite
in
an
opposite
direction.
Mr. F.
my
Conybeare and Mr. J. Eendel Harris directed attention, some time afterwards, to Armenian
found the reading
a
versions of the Acts and of the Syriac commentaries
on that book, and in those sources
Libyorum
instead
of
KifiepTivwv,
reading
given
already by Tischendorf, but at
the
first
disregarded
70
by me.
Atfivwv
as
PHILOLOGY OF THE GOSfELS.
Now,
would
saw
at
once that something

context
like
suit
the
very
well
indeed,
Greek towns lying westwards from Gyrene would come quite appropriately under that designation.
the
But can
course
A.ij3eprlv(av
be a corruption of At/3tW
A.i(3vaov
Of
not,
nor does
for
seem
as
to
be the right
appellation
those
Jews,
the
Libyans
A.i(3va-Tivu>v
were
will
nothing but barbarous tribes. both suit the sense, designing

of
But
them
to
as
inhabitants
Libya,
and
come
very
near
the
corrupted
different.
Ai(3epTiv(*)v,
there
to
being
but
that
two
this
letters
It
is
easy
establish
form of the
ad
jective from Ai/Sf? was a current one, from Catullus (60. 1) montibus Libystinis, and from the geographical
lexicon of
therefore
is
Stephanus Byzantinus, and so on.

the true reading, and
This
the synagogue in
KOI
question bore the

KOI
name
that
of
A.if3v<TTiva)v
Kvpijvaiwv
A\eav
In
pewv
is to
say,
of the African
Jews
been
in
the geographical order of their

this
original dwelling-
places.
case
the
true
reading
has
preserved
it
in
the remote East, whilst in the
former
was from the remote West that the help came. Of course, the fact that Trpconj in one of these
and
Atfteprlvatv
is
passages,
in
the
to
other,
is
almost
as
viz.,
universally
attested,
not
be
understood
being the result of one great deliberate action,

of
revision
of the
text
made
at
definite
time

by
definite
71
Christian
men, and then imposed upon the whole If such a revision had taken Church.
ancient
place
in
the
Church,
for
like
those
at
revisions
different
which
times
have
in of
been
made
from
instance
the
that
English Church, we should

fact
certainly
hear
some
of
the
numerous
ecclesiastical to
us.
writers whose works

then,
is
have come down

in
How,
to
that
?
universal agreement the

separate
blunders
be
explained
of
continuous
consisted
in
agency
By common
and
practice,
which
collating copies with each
other,
and
when
recent
discrepancies were found,
correcting the
more
by
copy
this
by
the
older
one.
The
Jews,
following
absolute
practice,
have
attained
of
very
nearly
identity in
their
copies
the
Old Testa
ment
far
and the
that
Christians,
although they remained

degree
of
behind
extreme
accuracy
and
scrupulosity,
careful,
lest
became
their
nevertheless
more
books
and
more
own
sacred
adulterated
care
is
by corrupt readings.
be seen
might be In the East this
to
much
but
book,
earlier
than in the West,
where culture rapidly declined with the downfall of

the
Roman Empire
originally
as
we
are
dealing
with
an
Greek
into
the
Greek
East
comes
much
care
more
taken
our
present
consideration.
collating
The
by no
in
revising
to
and
sacred
was
means confined
the
books,
but extended
72
to

classical
writings
as well.
There can hardly be
a more serious mistake than

are
when Byzantine
scribes
made
responsible for the corruptions in classical
Of course they committed blunders, partly but through ignorance and partly by inadvertence in most cases those blunders were removed by
texts.
;
correction,
and we see from the remnants of ante-
Byzantine copies, which are coming to light in everincreasing
number,
that
there
is
in
most
cases
rather small difference between a copy, say of Plato,

of
the
fifteenth
century
and another of the

first
fifth.
On
the other hand, in the
centuries of our era
(and in those before, which do not come here within

our view), the work of revising and correcting was
in a great
measure
left
if
to
book,
who
might,
the buyer and owner of he liked, procure himself
another copy, and correct his
own by means
of that.
It is therefore not at all astonishing, that in the case
of the
earliest
New
Testament, as in other cases,
the very
copies
may
have
been
the
most carelessly
made.
Of course there was always
a difference in the
matter of care or negligence between different contem

porary copies, and in a later age, when men had be come more careful and \vhen they saw the damage
already done,
copies
still
extant,
careful
they recurred to those of the ancient which seemed to them to be
the
most
and
trustworthy,
and
used those

copies
as
73
the
their
standard
for
the
their
correction
of
recent
copies.
Very
likely
action
was
upon
;
the whole quite justified and extremely meritorious
but whilst a number of blunders were abolished in

that
way,
some few were
at
the
same time per
petuated and became universal. For at the time of which we speak, that from Constantino onwards, the
intercourse between the distant parts of the Church,
which
no
had
of
course
that
always
being
existed,
increased
in
small
degree,
the
time
when
the
Oecumenical Council became an
institution,
to
and the
dogmatic controversies, which were
be decided by
the letter of the inspired books, required careful and

universally acknowledged copies of those books.
So
we must
suppose, that from that time on not
many
to
fresh corruptions of the sacred text
were allowed
exist or to spread, and that the differences remaining between the individual copies date from an earlier time, and might be supported by the authority of
ancient
manuscripts.
But
it
is
now time
to
to
close
these general considerations,

cially
and
treat
more espe
of the textual condition
of the Gospels.
CHAPTER
MATTHEW
THE union
one
of
VI.
TEXTUAL CONDITION OF THE GOSPELS.

LUKE.
the
Euangdium
and
Irenaeus,
for
acknowledged Gospels into at quadripertitum was effected,

four
least ideally
theoretically, in
the second century,

give
before
who
them
tries
to
It
even
dogmatic
grounds
Irenaeus
the size
that number.
does
in
not follow that

a
single
read
actually
volume,
usually
of papyrus
volumes or
rolls
being
not so large as to include more
and
papyrus
the
rolls
still
prevailed
than one Gospel, in that age over
parchment books.
Of course there had been a time

Gospels
when
single
had their
s
quite
separate
existence,
first
and when Luke
Gospel,
that
its
is,
Luke
book
to Theophilus, still
is
maintained
connection
to
with the Acts, that
Luke s second book

very
at
the
this
same
Theophilus.
curious
in
trace
of
connection, as
existing
least
the
West
for
75
certain length of time, has been recently discovered.
The name
with one
of
John has
in
Greek two
I
spellings,
one
N and
from
the
another with two.

is
do not doubt
that the former
the right one, and that from the

laidv^s
Hebrew Joohanan
way
as
sprang
IwvdOtjs
up
or
in
the
same by
Jonathan
IcovdOas,
converting
an
into
an
accusative
termination,
and replacing the A7 by an 2 for the nominative. As there was another A7 before the vowel, and not
a
or
an 1 or E, the termination in
HZ
must
have seemed more regular than that in AZ, just as we have IcomO/?? in Josephus. But in a later age
there crept in
much
for
irregularity in
Iwctj
i
the doubling of
for instance,
the liquid consonants;

to
jy?
is parallel,
Aof/c/XXto?
Lucilius.
is
Now
the
Vaticanus B,
than which there

all
no more trustworthy witness in

Iwa^?,
matters of spelling, nearly always gives
whilst the Cantabrigiensis
D
is
has both spellings, but
more frequently that with double N.

the
The order
of
books contained in
Acts.
this
Matthew, John,
Luke, Mark,
double
In the
first
two, the spelling with

:
N has
;
a very large predominance
twenty-four
instances to two in Matthew, and seventeen to seven

in
John
but in
the
third
Gospel,
that
of
Luke,
the writer of a sudden adopts the opposite principle,
writing
once.
Iwctf^?
twenty-seven times and

itself
lutavvys
but
very
This
of
would
perhaps
not
be
76
astonishing;

but when he comes to
first
Mark, he
being
in
falls
back
to
his
spelling,
there
Mark
two
of
twenty-four
ItDai^?.
instances
of
Iwavvti?,
and
but
Last comes the second part of Luke, and

Iwdvrjs
again he changes and spells

Icoai/v>?9
twenty-one times,
but twice. 1
That
this definite inconsistency,
and
at the
effected
is
but
same time consistency, cannot have been by mere chance is quite evident, and there one explanation for it. we must First,
acknowledge in the writer of D a degree of care which hitherto seemed to be wholly alien from him,
the
number
of his blunders,
more especially
in
;
the
spelling
of the
refer
words, being
at
least
exceedingly great
greater
we
must now
blunders
copied.
to
the
part
of these
the
if
archetype
from
which
the
writer
Again,
in
the archetype of
order,
contained the
same books
apply
there
like
the
same remark must

But perhaps
with
too
to the writer of that
archetype.
in of
was a
s
different
order
last
the
archetype,
four.
Luke
is
Gospel
order
coming
are
of
the
or
This
an
attested
elsewhere,
different
all.
2
to
speak
orders
in
this
more
with
case
accurately,
there
last
attested
Luke
On
as
the
But even
the transition from one spelling to another requires

important discovery (made by E. Lippelt), see my edition s Gospel, p. vi ff. Three of the number have been cor rected by my friend Prof. J. Rendel Harris. 2 See E. Xestle s Introduction to the New Testament, p. 83 f.
this
1
of St.
Luke

a
77
the the
better
explanation
than that of chance, and

be
supposition
must
(or
necessarily
of
made,
of
that
archetype
in
itself
one
the
archetypes)
different
united
parts
coining
from
sources,
one
part of which
consisted of the
two books of Luke

this
written by one scribe.

there
And from
when
s first
we
see that
had
been
time
there
was
closer
parts,
;
connection
between
s
Luke
and
second
than between Luke

a fact, besides,
Gospel and the other Gospels which must be credible independently
of all actual traces or testimonies.
In the
first
stage of its existence, therefore, every
Gospel was separate from

self-evident
other
Gospels,
it
and
it
is
that
during that
unaltered
stage
cannot
have
remained quite
very
least
first
and
as
unadulterated.
seen,
That
that
of
age
in
was
also,
we have
and
there
of
care
transcribing,
for
was
special
besides
kind.
another
reason
corruptions
Let us take the case of an individual Christian, or

of a single
Christian community, possessing but one
copy of one Gospel.

contact
Now
he or
it
might come into
with
another
individual
or
community
in
possession of a different Gospel.
more
natural
than
the
wish
to
Nothing would be compare the two
Gospels, and to supplement, or even to correct, one from the other. Let Luke s Gospel be the one, and Matthew s the other the former bore the name
:
78
whose master himself, viz., Paul, had not belonged to the eye-witnesses, and the other bore the name of an apostle, one of the eye-witnesses.
of a later disciple,
Naturally Matthew must
appear to be more trust than Luke, and accordingly the copy of Luke worthy underwent corrections from Matthew, in many of
the numerous
other
;
cases
where they
differed
from each
s
for instance, in the case of the
Lord
Prayer.
On comparison
less
with Mark,
trustworthy witness,
too, Luke might seem the because Mark s Gospel was
supposed to go back in substance to Peter himself,

that
is
to
the chief eye-witness.

of
But
of course the
also
possessors
Matthew and Mark might

copies
note
or
this
down
wording
in
their
the
different
final
account
of
given
by
Luke.
The
result
practice of comparing and correcting or supplementing
the Gospels (including even that of John, although

that of course had fewest points of similarity)
is
stated
by Jerome
(in
the
preface
to
his
Latin translation
:
of the Gospels) in the following
way
"A
great mass
copies,
of error has crept into our copies
(the Latin
but the case was of course quite
the same in the
Greek
originals
of those
copies),
because the scribes
have supplied in one evangelist what another one had more than he, deeming that to be wrongly wanting in the former. Or, where the same sense was ren
dered
in
the
different
Gospels
by
different
words,

the
four,
79
of the
man who had

thought
that
read
one evangelist
first
he
must
to
correct
the
others
by
are
that model.
So
it
came
pass that in our copies
everything was mixed
together,
and that there
found in
or
Mark many
things which belong to
Matthew
Luke, and again in Matthew many belonging to John or Mark, and likewise in the rest many belonging
to
some other of the
four."
Now,
to
that this mixture
exists in
the manuscripts (either Greek or Latin or
Syriac) which have come down
us
may
be
seen
by a look into the apparatus of any large

It
edition.
would, moreover, be rather incautious to suppose,

the cases of mixture are to be found in
those
that
editions only under the text
and never
in
the text.
Such implicit trust
is
not to be placed in any editor?

;
much
Luke
less
in
any scribe
for the
idea of the scribes
having possessed the faculty of discerning the genuine

or
Mark from
the corruptions coming from other
Gospels, would remind us of the

bird,
legendary
Indian
which, out of a pot of milk and water, has the

gift
miraculous
water.
of drinking the milk
and leaving the
The case might be different if these inter polations had sprung up about the date of our most
ancient manuscripts
centuries,
scripts
it is
;
but since their origin
is
older
by
next to impossible that any of our
manu
most
entirely escaped their influence.

of
Besides this
is
kind
corruption
of the text,
which
the
80
general, there
must
of course have corne in, during the
same
first
period, a great
many
of the ordinary blunders,
and although many of these offered themselves to the eye of an attentive reader, who might correct them at
once, others of these too remained unobserved.
reflection,
Upon
we must
at
once
feel
the absurdity of the
(which is nevertheless frequently and even generally made), that ancient readers and the scribes perused the manuscript which they were read ing or copying with the careful eye of a thoroughly
supposition
trained
modern
critic,
attending not only to cases of
sheer nonsense, but also to those of gular expression,

their
awkward
or sin
text
as
and trying by correction to make smooth and pleasing as possible.
Coming now more closely to the object of our examination, we may take first into our hands the
Gospel according to
sideration,
St.
Matthew.
A
few
the
general con
exceptions,
text
is
which
that
neglects
some
of
shows
us
the
it
condition
is
not
much worse than

to
in
the epistles.
Editors have
give
generally
Paul,
is
for
Matthew no
the
larger apparatus
of
different
than
for
although
number
latter.
witnesses
far greater
than for the
But even
those witnesses, which elsewhere exhibit a most peculiar

character,
seem
is
to
forego
I
that
character as
far
as
Matthew
concerned.
may
take for illustration

first
the Latin fragments of the two
Gospels, which

hail
81
k.
from
Bobbio and
is
are
designed
by
Mark
according to k
to
very different from

to
k,
Mark
One
in
according
but Matthew according

to
and Matthew
exception,
according
B, are
very
similar.
however, must be made
for the Syriac palimpsest
from
Mount
also
Sinai a
there indeed
cases
of
we
find
this
Gospel
not
few
unwarranted
shortening,
which we may explain by the special condition and origin of this codex, but must disregard here, as
leading far
witnesses,
away from our theme.

including
But
as the other
and
Latin
versions,
exhibit
nearly the same Matthew,

that
we may
quite safely infer
Western
scribes also,
and that too in the Gospels,
were by no means so utterly careless and lax as they are deemed to be by some eminent modern critics. Scribes who preserved Itodvt]? wherever they found
it
(with a very few exceptions), and wherever they
found
Iwavvq ? also preserved

lax,
it,
cannot possibly be
like,
termed
but rather,
;
if
you
unreflecting
or
even thoughtless
generally
were.
and
so, as a matter of fact, scribes
Western
scribes
deserve
therefore
some degree of confidence, as having rendered in sin cerity of mind whatever they found or by distraction
of
mind
imagined that they found.
Nevertheless there are in

lations in
in
Matthew some
either
interpo
the
the
manuscripts
printed
(and consequently some

of
fewer
texts),
the
kind
82

kind.
described above or of another
In
viii.
we
read
"
And when
MS.
<5e)
Jesus was entered into Capernaum,

a
centurion,"
there
Sinai
came unto Him

Syriac
etc.
"
But the
After
that
and
give
only
(/xera TO.VTO.
there
came unto
Him,"
etc.,
omitting
(vii.
the locality.
Now, when we compare Luke

is
1),
where the same story

way, we
find
"
told
in
a partly different
Capernaum,"
He
entered
that
this
into
is
and
may
justly suppose
one of those cases
described
by Jerome, where
less
something
supplied
than
the
one evangelist having another, the former has been

Moreover,
instead
of
from
latter.
eKaTovrdpxr]?, centurio, the
same Syriac witness alone

letters),
"
has xiXtapxps (the very Greek word in Syriac that is, tribunus (something like colonel
"),
and I
am much
is
inclined to regard centurio too as a
wrong
There
assimilation,
which has extended even

discrepancy
to k.
corresponding
is
between
Matthew
(that
the pure text of
further course of this

(ver.
Matthew) and Luke in the narrative. According to Luke

himself
(avQpwn-os
that he
VTTO
"
8) the centurio says of

set
is
man
under
as
"
"
authority
efcova- iav
Tctorcroyuei/of),
befitted a subordinate officer;

"
but in
Matthew
not
that
in
is
set
(racro-oVeô?)
is
found
"
the
to
majority
of
MSS.,
an interpolation and under

"
authority
be
combined
under
with
"
the
VT
following
words
"
having
soldiers
me
(e
xw

),
83
if
as befits
an
officer in
command
indeed
we
are not to go
"
even further, and to read with the

"
Syr. Sin.,
(eôva-iav
is
having authority and soldiers under me Kai e~)(0)v a-TpaTiwras VTT e/xauToV), which
better
Greek and quite unambiguous. 1

will say that
if
But you
we proceed
in this
always from the narrative of another Gospel, we are augmenting difficulties for the establishment of harmony between
the four Gospels.
giving preference to that reading
way, which varies
There was a time when theologians

infallibility
defended
writers,
the
absolute
of
the
inspired
not
only
;
in
matters of faith, but also in
matters of fact
but afterwards there came a time
when
tried
at to
least
a large part of those of
my
country
establish the absolute fallibility of the

If
same
writers.
time too has
we may credit Professor Harnack, that passed away but it cannot be a question
;
of returning to the former

for such
dogma, nor
as
am
I writing to take
over-sensitive
readers
are
apt
offence at
any shade of alleged discrepancy between
two Gospels.
reader
Wherever there
seem
are discrepancies, the
may
choose for himself that

will
to
variant
just
of the
story which
expressive.
him most
and most
Another kind of apparent interpolation, but from

1
An
MSS.
(among which the
additional interpolation from Luke vii. 10 is found in some first hand of the Sinaitic X) in ver. 13.
84 Matthew
instance.

himself,
may
2
"
be
read
seen
that
:
in
the
following
In
iii.
we
John the Baptist
was
preaching
is
heaven
exactly
at
for the kingdom of Eepent ye and in iv. 17 that Jesus preached hand";
:
in
"
the
same words.
xiii.
But the
xix.
"
baptism of
repentance (Acts 4) more properly (I do not say exclusively) belongs to John, and the case being that not only k and the Syriac MSS. of
;
24
Cureton and of Mrs. Lewis, but

Eusebius (Demonstr. Evang.,
" "
also,
as
it
seems,
p.
438,
cod. P),
omit the
I
repent ye
(/xeravoerre) in
the words of Christ,
think
only
at
:
we must
"
read with these witnesses in
Matthew
is
to
say that (OTL) the kingdom of heaven
hand."
The actual
words
of
Christ
(i.
may
;
still
be questioned, because
"
Mark
too
15) makes
"
Him
but that say Eepent ye, and believe the gospel 1 problem is clearly one of another order. While we had, in these two instances, cases of
:
what Dr. Hort

that
free
is
calls
"
Western
non-interpolation,"
where some Western witnesses have remained

an
:
from
interpolation
found
in
the
Eastern
authorities
1
there are, of course, other instances where
chosen,"
Similarly in xx. 16 the words, "For many be called, but few are inserted in the majority of MSS., words which are
in their place in xxii. 14.

2
from John
p. 109.
See also xxvii. 49, where our best MSS. insert a sentence borrowed xix. 34. Nestle, Einfuhrung in das Gr. Neue Testament,

the
interpolation
85
(and
has
infected
only
Western
Syriac) texts.
is
after
xx.
The most conspicuous case in Matthew 28. There 1) and Latin and Syriac
a
in
witnesses
part of
insert
is
rather
long passage,
the
greater
xiv.
which
sense very similar to

the words;
Luke
ff.,
but wholly different in
moreover,
many
of the words, or combinations of the words, are
such as are never elsewhere met with in the whole

Testament,
viz.,
<$ei7rvoK\i
New
in
or ert avw, ert /Toop,
/carco,
the sense of the comparatives avwrepov (or -w), KaTwrepu*
Unquestionably this passage
is
alien to
in
Matthew, and
must have been interpolated

from an
cases
a very early period
unknown
source.
There are in Matthew two

In
iii.
15 (baptism of d Christ) two old Latin witnesses insert the words cum baptizaretur lumen ingens fulsit de aqua, ita ut
:
more of the same kind.
timerent omnes qui advenerant.
Now,
this is
an apo
cryphal tradition,
which
is
known and acknowledged

to Epiphanius,
by Justin, and which, according

found
in
was
the
Gospel
its
of the
Ebionites.
The other
receptus,
passage has found
way
it
:
into
the
textus
but the best Alexandrian witnesses and the testimony

of
Jerome are against

say, It will
xvi.
fair
"
ff.,
When
for the
it
is
evening, ye
is red.
be
weather
sky
And
:
in the morning, It will be foul weather
to-day
for
the
sky
is
red and
;
lowering.
Ye can
discern the face of the sky
but can ye not discern
86

times?"
the signs of the
The
tradition in itself
may
Luke
right
well be authentic, and

xii.
it
finds a close parallel in
54
ff.
but
it
does not
stand
here in
its
place, since the
demand of the Pharisees, would show them a sign from heaven (ver.
ver.
that Christ
1), finds its
answer only in
"
wicked and adulterous

etc.,
generation seeketh for a
sign,"
as in the corre
sponding narrative of
Mark
is
(viii.
11
ff.),
whilst in
Luke the introduction
quite different.
A
the
of
peculiar
first
interest
attaches to
some passages
readings
close
of
chapter,
where
the
various
are
great dogmatic importance. genealogy of Christ (in ver. 16):
The
of
the
"And
Joseph
Jesus,
the
husband
is
of
Mary,
of
whom was
is
Jacob begat born
who
called
the
Christ,"
minuscules, and
by
Latin witnesses
by two Greek (among which

being
lost),
k and the Latin part of D, the Greek

given
in
this
"
way
And
Jacob begat Joseph, to

desponsata)
whom
Virgin
wilful
being
espoused
bore,"
(fjanjtTTevOeitra,
the
Mary
etc.
This,
indeed, must be a
alteration
"
from
dogmatic
reasons
evidently
"
the expression
had been
the husband (TOV avSpa) of Mary shocking for those readers who believed
to
Mary s
reading
this
"
virginity
of
have
been
perpetual.
The
the
Sinaitic
And
Joseph,
Syriac comes very near to to whom was espoused the

etc.
Virgin Mary, begat
Jesus,"
We
must bear
in
87
"
mind
the
to
that for
"
begat,"
and
"
was
born,"
or
bore,"
used by Matthew (also according two minuscules) is the same, and Syriac too makes use of the same verb for both meanings,
Greek verb
those
only in different voices; so the difference in the reading

of the Syriac witness, especially
into Greek,
when we
"
retranslate
it
amounts only
to the repetition of Joseph,

espoused,"
and
"
to the
changing of the participle

but
into
was
espoused."
;
Materially this makes a thorough

the
Syriac
scribe
is
alteration
not
1
to
be
supposed
to
have
known what he
"
did,
Virgin,"
ff.
since
he
contradicts himself by adding
the
and by
quite in
ver.
giving the detailed narrative in ver. 18

the
ordinary way, with one exception in where again Latin testimony is concurrent.
of OVK eyivaxTKev avTyv
25,
Instead
aur>/9
ew
and
a
ou
Je
eTe/cej
TOV viov
"
TOV TrptoTOTOKov, the Latin

brought forth a son
"
has only
the
And
she
:
"
so
Sinaitic
"
Syriac
And
she bore to
him
son,"
the word
"
first-born
being omitted also by the two best Greek MSS. (B
and
N),
"
and
to
noun,
codex,
The pro by other witnesses besides. which is not found in the Latin him,"
to
may seem
I
point in the same direction

1 6
;
as
the Syriac reading in ver.

1
but the addition of a
quite agree with Professor Zahn and with F. Graefe, who treated this critical question very carefully in Theolog. Studien u. The Curetonian Syriac MS. has "was Kritiken, 1898, p. 124 f. who (bore) after Mary." but inserts espoused,"
Here
"
"
"
88
pronoun to a verb is a very slight thing, and the main importance of the various reading lies in the
omission of the OVK eyivuxTKev avrr)v
it
eco?
ov,
that
is,
lies
quite
eft)?,
in
It
another
direction.
OUK eyiv
de
avT^v
avrriv,
etc.
follows that
of
"
afterwards eyiv
is
and
for
the
boast
perpetual virginity
"
stroyed
offensive
Mary.
readers
in
The
first-born
to
too
was very
tenets,
to
who adhered
his
such
although
Jerome
commentary
on
Matthew,
while acknowledging the reading, strongly denies that

the consequence of brothers to Christ having existed
is
"
to
be drawn from
it
it
it.
But
not
as
to
the expression
first-born,"
has
been
without
good
reason
ii.
argued that
may have
crept in
I
from Luke
7,
where
that
it
is
universally
attested.
etc.,
am
well
to
aware
have
the
OVK eyiv&Hricev,
as
too,
may seem
been
inserted,
there
was
possibly
some reader
who was anxiously contending for the superhuman As a matter of fact there generation of Christ.
are manifest.
some passages in Luke where that tendency is Luke was not allowed by some Western
to
readers
to
say
(ii.
41):
"And
His
"
parents
went
Jerusalem,"
but they wrote
And Joseph and
Mary,"
sought Thee
"
48): "Thy father and I have where they left nothing but sorrowing," we sought Thee sorrowing." But in Matthew, as the variants in vers. 16 and 25 appear to stand
etc.;
or (ver.

in close relation to each other,
89
and as the tendency

ou/c
of that
in
ver.
/c.r.A.,
16
are
rate
is
unmistakable, the words
ey ivoxTKev
there.
in
my
opinion
to
be
retained
At any
we
clearly see
that there have
been very ancient readers who did not shrink from wilful alterations of the sacred text, if it did not
suit their
support
to
dogmatic convictions, or if it might give Their reasoning was opposite tenets.

:
either simply this
It
is
impossible that an inspired

is
writer should have written this which
incompatible
with truth
or else
It is unsafe
to allow people to
read these words as they stand, since somebody
may
understand them in a wrong sense, which will lead him to destruction. We shall find more of this kind
of alteration or mutilation in
other Gospels.
to
We may
evangelists,
different,
pass
now from Matthew

textual
the
other
whose
condition
to
is
both in relation
aside
for
Matthew and
present
state
all
indeed very to each

cases of
other.
Setting
the
mutual
condition
assimilation,
we
as
follows.
In
may Mark
the
their
textual
the
liable
;
words
to
and
expressions
are
very
frequently
doubt,
are
because of discord
besides
are
among
of
witnesses
or
there
some cases
to
addition
in
omission,
which
way.
in
to
not
be
explained
evident
any
ordinary
e.g.
John has some

v.
interpolations,
that
f.
(not to speak of the section from
vii.
53
90
viii.

11, which
case
is
quite peculiar);
but besides
are
these
great
many
;
words
and
and
clauses
clauses,
not
universally
attested
words
however,
which generally are without any importance for the sense. There remains Luke, and in his writings,
including Acts, the discrepancies
among the
all.
witnesses
true that
if
become by far the greatest of we were allowed wholly

witnesses, the
over-great,
It
is
to
neglect
Western
remaining discrepancies would not be
and
we may allow
ourselves
to
neglect
that part of the discrepant evidence for the present,

in order to consider first
I
what remains.
speak
to
do
not
intend
to
of
minute
matters,
but shall come at
once
some very conspicuous

ix.
and
well-known
cases.
In
54
ff.
we read
that
in
ordinary texts:
"And
when His
said,
disciples
James and
John saw
this,
fire
they
to
Lord, wilt
Thou
But
we
and
command
corne
down from
?
heaven,
consume them, even and rebuked them,
as Elias did
He
turned,
and
said,
Ye know not what
manner of
know,
as the
the
etc.
;
spirit ye are
the second
is
pronoun
Do you not an emphasis, you there in the Greek text). For

of"
"
(or rather:
"
bears
"
Son of
to
man
a
is
not
come
the
to
destroy
in
men s
italics
lives,
hut
save
them"
Now
words
of
are
omitted
by
great
number
witnesses,
varying
however
for the separate parts.

Again,
in
91
the
narrative
ff.),
of
is
the
prayer in
Geth-
semane
(xxii.
39
there
in
the same discrepancy

or
among
verses
the
witnesses
"
giving
omitting
these
Him
And there appeared an angel unto (43 f.) from heaven, strengthening Him. And being in
:
an agony
He
was as
the
it
prayed more earnestly were great drops of blood
and His sweat

falling
down
to
ground."
Lastly, the
words in
xxiii.
34:
"Then
said Jesus,
Father, forgive
do,"
them
for they
know
not what they

attested,
are
far
from being unanimously

the witnesses
there
being
Vatic.
among
omitting them both the
B
in
and the Cantabrig. D.

these
this
So
three
cases,
:
as
it
seems
the
at
first,
we have
genuine,
their
alternative
either
for
clauses
are
and we must
or
seek
are
omission,
for
they
an explanation of spurious, and we must

insertion.
seek
less
the
reason
of
their
But
no
this
person
than
1
alternative.
He
says:
Bishop Lightfoot seems impossible to believe

"It
denies
that
these
incidents
will
are
other than
itself
authentic,
and
the
solution
suggest
that
the
evangelist
editions.
himself
may
have
issued
two
separate
This
1
conjecture will be confirmed by observing
that
See Lightfoot, Fresh Revision of English

I
New
Testament, p. 32
(3rd edition).
it in
knew
his excellent
s quoting Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New first
this
book
from Dr. Salmon
Testament, p. 135.
92
in

the
second
traces
treatise
of
St.
Luke
are
(the
e.g.
Acts)
similar
xxviii.
of
two
editions
seen,
Acts
16,
29."
Now
the question suddenly gets a

interest.
fresh
and quite unexpected

either
Can
it
be that
separate
we
possess,
editions of
Luke
wholly works ?
or
partly,
two
That would indeed be a
very important enrichment of our store of authentic
knowledge.
material
unless
for
But three
(or five) passages are a scanty
establishing
are
a fact
of this
importance,
in
there
actually
than Lightfoot expressly

fact,
many more As mentions.

in
the
Acts
a matter of
I
there are
many more
the Acts, and

;
myself
are
have written a great deal on them

dealing with three passages
of
but
now we
Luke, for which the

s
theory of
two separate editions of Luke

ratio,
is
works may
perhaps be the ultima

see that
as
soon as
we
clearly
any other solution
impossible.
But that
has not yet been proved.
Moreover, the instances to
be taken from the Acts are dissimilar in this point,

that the Cantabrigiensis D, in the case of the Acts,
enables us to propound such a theory, by constantly
presenting
regards the Gospel,

as
while as an enlarged form of the book D seems to support the omissions

;
much as witness against them, agreeing with Alexandrian authority in the third passage and in
one-third of the
first.
There
is
yet another marked
point
of difference.
93
Lightfoot very justly says that those passages of the
Acts
"
are
entirely
free
from
suspicion
on
the
ground they were inserted to serve any pur pose, doctrinal or devotional," and he might have added, that there cannot be any more suspicion that
that
He they have been omitted for any such purpose. could not have said as much regarding the passages
of
the Gospel.
;
very well
Not inserted for dogmatic purposes, but not omitted for such purposes ? On
first
the contrary, the

port
passage might seem

the
to
sup
to
Marcionite
heresy,
second
to
ascribe
Christ something unworthy of His divine Majesty, and the third to involve a contradiction with other
verses.
Let
will
me
not
explain
the
last
case
first
the
second
Christ
even
require
elucidation.
is
When
fulfilled.
prays,
of course
what He prays
Now He
the
has prayed for those

their
sin
who brought Him

;
to
Cross, that
this
sin
sequently
pardoned,
has
con might be pardoned been pardoned, and if

avenged.
has
not
been
Yet
the
same
Christ has said (ver. 28):
"Daughters of Jerusalem,
weep
for
yourselves,
and
for
your children.
etc.
For,
this
behold,
the
days
are
coming,"
Whether
argument holds good, I need not discuss, the less so as I deny the minor premiss Christ has not prayed
:
for
the
to
Sanhedrin, but for the soldiers

the
who
nailed
Him
Cross
for
it
is
of
these
that
the
94
evangelist
is

speaking both in the foregoing and in following words, and not of the high priests.
I
the
But
stood
used.
say thus
in
this
much
the passage might be under

so this
way, and
argument might be
Again, in the
the
first
passage the disciples appeal to
example given by Elias, and Christ rebukes them by indicating that they are of another spirit than that of the prophet, and consequently must not
act
in
the
same way.
Then there
is
difference
of spirit
between the Old and the
New
Testament,
and Marcionite heresy, maintaining a different God for the former, might be justified from these verses.
In order to prevent such dangers, it seemed to some orthodox man better to strike out that part of the
narrative which might give offence.
If
we accept
questioned
this explanation,
retaining of course
the
verses
in
our text, then, you
may
this
say, Lightfoot s theory falls to the ground.
But
conclusion I deny
for
it.
there
may
well be other support

is
If the question of the Acts

s
to be decided
in
Lightfoot
sense, that
decision
will
contain
for
the Gospel too a kind of

to search
presumption, compelling us
there very thoroughly
the state of things
and
carefully.
Then we
associates,
shall see that there is still
with
its
presenting
an
innumerable
of additions,
host
of various
readings, of omissions,

and
that
95
denied),
or
s
claiming
these
(which
cannot
be
either
in
equity
be
variants
simply
accepted,
explained in a satisfactory way, including Lightfoot

theory.
to
As
a matter of fact, that theory ought not

s
bear
Lightfoot
it
name, although
in
;
it
was he who
or mine own, England have written perhaps an hundred times although as much in support of it as Lightfoot has but that
propounded
I
first
of Joannes
Clericus,
who was by
theory,
far
the
first
pro-
pounder.
the
But
in
order to get a better insight into
genesis of this
we may go
and
Bezae)
still
further
back, and consider the
origin
fate of the
Codex
(or
Cantabrigiensis,
or
more
accurately
than we have hitherto done.
CHAPTER
VII.
THE QUESTION OF THE DOUBLE TEXT IN ST. LUKE S GOSPEL AND IN THE ACTS.
THE
Graeco-Latiri Codex I) of the Gospels and Acts
may
came
be justly termed
the
the greatest
literary
treasure
It
which
University of
Cambridge
possesses.
into its possession as early as the year
1581,
being presented to the University by the celebrated
French reformer, Theodore de Beze, or Beza, who had Until then it had lain neglected acquired it in 1562.
and
the
ill-treated in a
name
it
of
off
St.
monastery in Lyons, which bore Irenaeus at last somebody had

;
carried
from
there
and given or sold
it
to
Beza, in about the same mutilated condition

it
which
tells
exhibits at present.
;
So much Beza himself

is
us
about the former fate of the MS. there

1
much
uncertainty,
there being a trace of
its
having been
brought as early as
1
1
1546 by
a Bishop of Clermont
ff.
Se/ Scrivener s Introd. p. viii
DOUBLE TEXT
(which
is
IN ST.
LUKE AND
IN
THE ACTS.
97
not far from Lyons) to the council of Trent
(Tridentum),
when he proved by
St.
it
that
certain
itself
Latin reading in
John s Gospel had

;
for
very old
D
the
as
is
Greek authority now, as a matter of fact, the only Greek MS. we know of which gives the
1 passage in the form quoted by the Bishop.

"
About
same time Robert Stephanus got from Italy," he says (it might seem from Trent), a collation of a MS. which he in his edition designs by ft, and
which proves from the various readings given by him to be identical with D. Between the sixteenth
century and the sixth, when the
codex appears
;
to
have been written, there
is
a great gap
nevertheless
we may suppose
it
to
belong
originally to
some place
in southern France, where, at
any
rate, the tradition
of a text of the Acts similar to that in
D
?
has con
tinued
give
it
down
to
to a very late age.
Now, why did Beza

This
the
University of
in
Cambridge
he
himself
declared
the the
present, stating
that
there,
best
"
preserved
published."
accompanying his precious codex would be but as he says, preserved,"

epistle
"
not
Why
the
not published too
Because
he was afraid that the very numerous and important

variants,
which
codex
"
presented
ourws
;
especially
in
John
xxi. 22, (av avrbv
#Aw
sic
/xeveiv
e ws
Hpxoiw.i.
The
oiircos
is
given by
alone
among Greek
MSS.
it
might seem to confirm the

si)
more general Latin rendering
(instead of
rolo
eum manere,
etc.
98

St.
Luke,"
the Gospel according to

to persons
might give offence

text
of the
who
so
required for their faith a quite estab

to
lished
and,
say,
infallible
Holy
Nevertheless, Beza himself has published Scriptures. in his editions of the New Testament at least some
of the variants,
and others came into general notice

as
late
by-and-by,
of
until
as
1793
the
in
first
edition
was made by Thorn. Kipling,

for
a careful
and
later
sumptuous way
edition by F.
is
G-.
those times,
although
if less
the
Scrivener (1864),
sumptuous,
to
more accurate and trustworthy, and now we are have an edition which is accurate in the utmost
"lucis
degree, the codex being
auxilio in lucem
emissus."
But
before
s
Luke
editions, any works which had become known from
of these
those
variants
in
sug
gested
twice.
the
idea
that
Luke must have
edited
them
in
Joannes Clericus (Jean Leclerc), born in Geneva 1657, but living in Holland and belonging to
the
Dutch school
have
of philologists
is
contemporary with
the great Bentley,
said
by the
German
theologian
Semler
to
published, but
under the assumed

the opinion
1
name
of Critobulus Hierapolitanus,
that
Luke had made two

1
editions of the Acts.

libelli
It seerns
See Semler, /. J. Wetstenii

:
ad
crisin atque interpret.
N.
T,
(Halle, 1766), p. 8 usus, fere fuit in
Clericus
iam
olim,
nomine Critobuli Hierapolitani

bis
hac sententia,
Lucam
edidiase Actus.
bis
Nee
Hemtterhusius alienus fuit ab hac sententia, forte
Apoxtolos
quaedam
scripsisse.
DOUBLE TEXT IN
ST.
LUKE AND
IN TflE ACTS.
99
give
that the opinion, which he
did not
venture
,to
under his own name, would have been
liable in those
is
times to the charge of gross heresy, and this
indeed
very likely, since the Holy Ghost, who was believed to be the real author of Holy Scripture, could not
possibly be supposed to have corrected Himself.
for this overstrained
But
more
scholars
than
relates
Clericus
to
dogma, and
I should think that
Hemsterhusius
(whom
Sender
viz.,
have
been of a
similar opinion,
that
the
apostles
had
written
hit
some parts of
their
work twice) must have

cases
of
on that very simple
solution.
In
wide
discordance
among
witnesses,
who seem
it
to be
upon the whole equally trustworthy,

itself
may
very easily be supposed that the thing

relates
to
is
which their evidence

same, and
criticism,
if
actually not
in
the
this rule is followed
New
Testament
we come
at once to
the hypothesis of more
In than one original text. on account of such heresy

threatens us, though there
against the acceptance of
cordingly, old
our day the charge of
an opinion
no
longer
may
be other impediments
a two-edition theory.
like
Ac many
of
Luke appears
and
time
if
one of ourselves,
as
who
times
are
as
used to publish the

possible,
it
same book
are
we
more
diligent, to intro
duce
style
into
each
or less a
correction
is
and
matter.
But what
distance
there
100
between
us
and
Luke
Of
course
there a
is
world-wide
distance
between
theology
;
Luke
yet
and
in
modern
respect
book
the
of
scientific
this
distance
so
between
great,
"
Luke
since
"
time and
there
our
own
in
is
not
very
exists
e/ccWt?),
both
the notion of
possibility
edition
(in
Greek
and the
of
more
than
one edition
of
one book,
that
possibility
having become actual in not a few
known and
comes into
for
attested cases in antiquity.
But
if
Luke
question,
we must indeed acknowledge

distance.
him a somewhat wider
He
is
not to
be supposed to have given his book to a publisher,

as Cicero did to Atticus, in order that the publisher
might make, by means of his copyists, the required number of copies, and send them to different
parts
of
the
world.
to
;
Nor
be
is
the
term
to
"
edition,"
properly speaking, forms of Luke s work

copies,
applied
the
different
which
we ought to speak were privately made and
rather of
privately
given to friends, and from which other copies would
be made for the use of friends of those friends, and

so on.
So there
is
nothing too modern attributed to
the evangelist, but only a thing

in
common
in all ages
literary
which
writing
has been
practised,
and
works produced.
sent to
to
One copy of the Gospel was that but when Luke afterwards came Theophilus
;
Eome, he would of course be requested by the
DOUBLE TEXT IN
ST.
LUKE AND IN THE
ACTS.
101
Roman
a
Christians,
who heard
of his having
written
Gospel, to give them, too, a copy of it, and he would write out that copy in the course of perhaps That fresh copy would a month and give it them.
not
exactly
agree
with
the
to
former,
for
the
writer
liked,
or
was entirely at liberty to insert what he

readers, or
else
to
shorten
where he
for
thought
suitable
in
these
or
new
what
make improvements
;
style,
he chose to do
and he would naturally
do something of that kind, as we usually when we write the same essay a second time. do,
desire to
Likewise
the
Acts,
which
were
written
first
in
Koine,
would be given to the Romans and afterwards sent or brought

another
different
in
one copy,
in
to
Theophilus
in
copy.
copied,
That
the
copies
every
case were again
and
in
in
that
way
the work
forms,
that
is
became generally known

obvious.
It
two
be
different
cannot,
therefore,
denied
this
hypothesis
sufficiently
of
two
editions
or
two
the
original
fact
copies
there and amply explains are even now existing two different forms of each
that
of
Luke
books.
at
I
There
is
another
fact
which
is
explained
case,
the
same
stated
time,
it,
namely,
that
Luke
as
have
writers.
is
unique
among New
was written
of
Testament
Each
of the epistles
once and not twice, and
the
Gospels
Matthew,
Mark, and John, however obscure their origin may
102
be,

are not
to
be supposed
written in
more than one

circle
have been originally place, nor for more than

to
one definite
of readers.
Or,
if
this
assertion
seems
to
be unwarranted, at least I
may
say
that
only in
for
Luke s
writing
case
we can
clearly see the reasons

since
his
different
copies,
he had
first
been a member of the Church of Antioch, with which

he
of
course
continued
to
maintain
relations,
and
at a later time
became a member of that of Rome.

these
a.
Of course
conclusive
:
all
priori considerations are not
been
different
we may admit that possibly there have copies of Luke s work, which were
and
;
equally
authentic,
with equal authority
consequently different texts but that the possibility has
come
to
actual
texts
existence, of
and
that
there
are
to
still
different
that
description,
remains
be
proved.
dition
of
Now,
have already intimated that the con

that of the Acts, similar
point.
to
the Gospel, and
as they are, are still different in one essential
The
similarity,
to
speak
of
that
first,
extends
this, that of
the two different copies of each one has

(as
been written
we supposed)
for
the liornans, and
was consequently propagated chiefly in the West, and the other was written for Theophilus, whom we
suppose to have lived in the East, and propagated
there.
But here
at once
this
difference
comes in (which
DOUBLE TEXT IN
was
found
out,
ST.
LUKE AND IN THE

think,
ACTS.
103
as
by
Professor
Nestle,
earlier
than by myself), that the Eomans got the
later
copy of the Gospel and the earlier copy of the Acts, according to the dates of the two books, which
we have
established
in
s
former chapters, and to the

life.
course of the author

copies
style
?
Now, which
of the
two
in
is
differing
in
date
would
be more correct
prolix (which
The
from
latter.
Which more
?
akin to a lack of correctness)

least,
The former.
I at
my own books and

I
writings, should infer
this
much, and
think
it
is
in
accordance with
extent
is
general
experience.
As
for
the
absolute
of
the work, the later edition of a
modern work
usually
is
the more extensive one, for which one reason

that the subject-matter has
this,
become better known
to
the author, or has been in a larger measure treated
by
or
others,
to
whose statements he has either
to
embody
circle
it
combat.
is
But
in
modern works the

;
of
readers
the same for both editions
and
would
be quite absurd to present to them the same book
shape not only not enriched, but on the con In this respect Luke s trary materially reduced. is of an opposite it, case, as we have supposed
in a
description
readers,
the did
second copy was

not
written for
first.
new
who
be
know
the
should
think that in this case the second copy would not

at
all
enlarged,
but
rather
abridged,
the
work
104

for the author, or at least for
becoming somewhat tedious

losing
something
of its
freshness
to
him,
so
that
he was naturally disposed circumstances and details,

given.
omit
many
he
suppose
unessential
which
formerly
that
had
the
Consequently,
in
we
or
may
in
Acts
a
the
Eoman,
or
is
Western
form,
?
exhibits
comparative been removed,

Theophilus,
that
prolixness
narration,
in
w hich
sent
has
to
lessened,
in
the
copy
the
form
commonly known,
and that in the Gospel conversely we shall find in the Eoman form many abridgments in comparison
with
the
other,
which
in
this
case
too
is
the
form
commonly
known.
As
for
correctness
and
refinement of style (apart from succinctness, which
comes under the head already spoken

that
of), it is clear
it
Eoman
Christians did not require
in a higher
degree than Theophilus, or Theophilus and his fellowChristians in the East in a higher degree than those
in
the
West
but the author might give
heed
to
that, while writing the later copy, for his
own
sake,
in
and certainly he would correct errors committed

the
first
copy.
So in the Western
the
Acts,
form of the
additions
in
Gospel
to
and of
we may expect
the
case
the
known
and
text in the Acts,

this
is
and omissions
in
the
Gospel,
actually
and
its
associates.
Now,
additions
may
be tested, whether they are in
DOUBLE TEXT IN
ST.
LUKE AND
of
IN
THE ACTS.
or
105
not,
harmony with the tenor

and whether their
of the
the
narrative
style is congruent with the

;
bulk
text
are
or
shows differences
capable
of
but omissions of such

testing.
is
course
follows
to
not
any
It
that the theory I

for
am
propounding
for
easier
establish
I will
the
Acts than
the Gospel,
and
so
start
from the Acts.
into
my
proofs, I
must
briefly
But before entering discuss some prelim

it
inary topics.
Not only might

asserted,
it
be asserted, but
text
of
has been
that
the
enlarged
the
in
the
Acts
as
presented
all
by
is
only original one, and

the
that
omissions
the
found
of
common
This
text
are
due
to
negligence
copyists.
strong
charge
against the
as early as
common
text
was produced in Germany,
who published an
based
1 upon D.
1848, by Pastor Fred. Aug. Bornemann, edition of the Acts exclusively

His
courage and independence of
judgment
first
are
very
praiseworthy,
and he
was the
to
acknowledge the actual superiority of many

in
readings
to
those
of
the
Eastern
has
witnesses
been,
but
his
be,
charge
against
the
latter
and
must
universally
rejected
as
wholly
incredible.
There are some individual cases where the omission

in B,
etc.,
of words given
;
by
13
may
be quite easily
explained by chance
1
but this principle of explaining
Published in Grossenhain (Kingdom of Saxony) and London.
106
is

nearly
or
sufficient
not
for
the
great
majority
of
cases,
for the
enormous number of them taken

the
solution
as
whole.
is it
Therefore
given
I
by
not
Bornemann
think that
scholar.
wholly
will
inadequate,
and
do
ever again be taken
up by any
On
the other hand, to impute the divergencies to

its
it
the license taken by the scribe of D, or to that of

archetype,
is
not only equally impracticable, but

quite
impossible.
has
become
but
is
D
other
does
not
stand
alone,
supported
by
witnesses,
and
among
third
these there are fathers of the Church of the
number
proved
and even of the second century, so that a large of variants and additions has been strictly
to
go back
to
that time.
of
This
is
chiefly
due
to
the
researches
Corssen,
very
careful
German
scholar, Peter
s
who has
written a paper on
Cyprian which Cyprian read the book was much like D; or, to speak even more exactly, that the Latin version
text of the Acts, 1 showing that the text in
Cyprian made use of was the same of which large fragments have come down to us in some palimpsest
leaves from a French codex, called Floriacensis because
it
came from the monastery of Fleury. These frag ments have been published with great accuracy by1
Program
See P. Corssen, "Der cyprianische Text der Acta Ap. of the Gymnasium of Schoneberg-Berlin W., 1892.
,"
in the
DOUBLE TEXT IN
ST.
LUKE AND IN THE
ACTS.
107
Professor Samuel Berger, 1
and exhibit in their text

Corssen has also proved
the nearest affinity to D.
that St. Augustin, at a certain period of his life (when he wrote those of his treatises which are directed
against
of the
Manichaeism), used the same Latin version

Acts, which
is
the more
valuable for us, as
he gives in those treatises the whole first chapter of the Acts and a part of the second according to that
version, parts
which are not contained in the Fleury
fragments.
to
Irenaeus too had a text somewhat similar
D, and he enables us to trace back this form of the Acts (which I have denoted by (3 or by E(omana), in opposition to a, or to A(ntiochena), as far as the end
of the
second century.
It
is
well
known
that
we
have very little of Irenaeus in the original Greek, but

read the greatest part of his extant work in an old
and careful Latin version.
Tertullian
quotations of
the Acts are extremely few, but nevertheless he too

is
proved by them to have used a text of the same
condition as that of Irenaeus.

Thirdly,
principally
it is
now an acknowledged
in
fact (established
by Corssen), that
"
we have not
the
form (3 (or R) in its purity, but in a state of frequent As I have with a (A). mixture and conflation
"
The first S. Berger, Le palimpseste de Fleury, Paris, 1889. editor of these fragments had been J. Belsheim (Appendix Epistolaruni Paidinarum, etc., 1887).
J
108

at
already spoken
length
of the
general practice of
comparing
manuscripts
it
and
correcting
the
one
by
means
of the other,
cannot be astonishing that in
the case of the Acts this same practice has given as

a result a conflation of the
two texts a and

in
/3
not
a
only in
distinct
D, but also
(of course
each
MS.
in
way) in other Greek and Latin MSS., and them that used by Irenaeus, and those used among
by Augustine at other periods and for other writings.
The thing
state of D.
is
quite clearly to be seen in the actual
That MS. has undergone corrections by many persons and at different times, but never (as it seems) systematically, only sporadically, by which
the
ft
text
has
text
in
many
places
been
are
abolished,
in
and
the
introduced.
supposing that the archetype
We of D
justified
was in the same

*
condition, there having been introduced,
by
/
correction,
many
the
readings of the a text,
which were of course

In
transcribed by the copyist of D.

actual
in
many
instances
an impossible mixture reading of two texts, the correction having been but partly
is
made,
the
/3
or
partly
its
transcribed.
In
order
to
restore
text to
integrity, as far as possible,
we must
more
so
therefore have recourse to other witnesses, the

as
no
small part of
the book, especially
that
from
xxii.
29
to the end, is not extant at all in
D, because
of the mutilations of that MS.
Now, the fragments
DOUBLE TEXT IN
of Fleury, together
ST.
LUKE AND IN THE
ACTS.
109
with the quotations in Cyprian and Augustin, help us a good deal, and that Latin text seems to be nearly (not altogether) free from
conflation.
third witness for

or
/3 is
a Syriac version,
called
the
to
Philoxeniana,
the
older
Syrus posterior, in op
the
Peshitta.
position
version,
This
version was collated in the year 616, by one
Thomas
(who had been bishop of Hierapolis or Mabbogh, in Syria, but having been exiled lived near Alexandria),
with some Greek Alexandrian MSS., and the variants
found in those MSS. have been added to the Syriac The Greek MS. used by him for the Acts text.
was very similar to D, and we see by this fact that the /3 text had not been strictly confined to the West,
but had found
is
its
way
also to the East, a fact
which
confirmed
in
s
the case of the Acts as well as in
that of
itself
Luke
Gospel by other evidence, and has in

if
nothing astonishing,
we regard the constant
commercial intercourse
dria.
between
Rome and Alexan

may
since
This Greek MS. of the Acts, which has been

us in this indirect way,
preserved to
be
sup
the
posed
to
have
course
been
very
for
ancient,
his
Thomas
would
of
select
work among
the
many
as
copies extant in Alexandria

to
it
very oldest,
seeming
him
for
that reason
the most trust
worthy.
But
would be an unwarranted supposition

(3
that this MS. exhibited the pure
text without
any
110
conflation, as it is evident that Alexandria
was
least
of all the place
where
this
form of the text would
remain
I
free
from contact with the other.

brief
give
account
of
other
witnesses
in
the
Graeco-Latin
Laudianus
(E),
preserved
Oxford,
written towards the end of the sixth century, and very

likely used
I) in purity
by Beda Venerabilis, but much inferior to the minuscule codex 137 in Milan, useful
especially for the last chapters
where
is
deficient
the Latin Gigas in Stockholm, giving a version which
was previously used by
Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari in
Sardinia (t371); another Latin MS. recently published
by Professor Berger, and partly by myself;

Sahidica.
lastly,
one of the old Egyptian versions, commonly called
The
/3
text
is
in all these witnesses

is
much
our
more mixed with

Eloriacensis
;
than
the case in
or in the
but
we
are
compelled to
gather
evidence from
all sides, since
even our best witnesses
are not wholly
free
from mixture, besides being so
sadly incomplete.
When we now
come, after
all
these preliminaries,
find
to the testing of the /3 readings,
we
the state of
things considerably changed.

1
Instead of one single
retronv^ dans
See Sam. Berger, Un ancien texte Latin des Actes des Apotres, un MS. provenanl de Perpignan, Notices et extraits den MS. t. xxxv. 1 partie, Paris, 1895, and my second edition of the
p.
Acts (Leipzig, 1896),
xxv.
DOUBLE TEXT IN
ST.
LUKE AND
IN
THE ACTS. Ill
witness of the sixth century, originating probably from Gaul, we have before us a coherent mass of
evidence, produced not only by the whole
also
to
West but
the
the
by a part of the East, and going back as far as

the
end
of
texts
the
second
century.
for
Of
two
large
;
contending
the
one
has
itself
still
bulk of witnesses, while the other has

but
well
there
in
very few
are
point
of
authority
is
the
parties
;
pretty
matched.
is
There
a.
/3,
Origen for
well, but Cyprian for /3 Irenaeus and Tertullian are
more
favourable to
but
Clement
of
Alexandria
stands on the other side.
But, you will say,
we must
wanted
not revoke the final decision given by the Church,
which has voted

to
for a.
That was because

texts,
it
have one text and not two

that accredited
of course
Christianity
by had sprung up we
;
those
countries
in
and preferred where

fact
have
just
now
mis-stated the question, speaking simply of two
contending parties.
of the
to
The
real question
?
is
not,
which
two
is
the original text

?
but,
has a a claim
are not in
be the only original text
We
:
the
situation of the ancient

of us,
Church
we, or at least
many
would prefer to possess, if possible, two original So the texts completing and explaining each other. for nothing, decision of the ancient Church counts We and we are called to decide on a causa integra.
must
put
aside
all
prejudices,
and
examine
the
112
question as

if
neither of the parties was beforehand
known
only
decision.
to
us.
This
may
to
be
difficult,
but
it
is
the
way
of
coming
an equitable and unbiassed
CHAPTER
VIII.
THE PROOFS FOR TWO DISTINCT TEXTS IN THE ACTS.

THE
in
facts
first
test
of
/3
will be that of language, because
this
part of the question

in
we have
to
deal with
of
which are
some degree incapable
being
If the
differently apprehended, or differently stated.
claim of
/3
is just,
the language in the additions and

/3
generally in the variants of
must be proved
claims of
to be
Lucan.
hopeless;
If
this proof fails, the
{3 will
be
if it
succeeds, they will have advanced a good

to being satisfactorily established.
deal on the
way
will in
But
you
perhaps
way.
object
Is
to
the
question
style
being put
this
there
a
St.
definite
which
is
may
be recognized as that of
Luke
There
most certainly such a style, pervading both the Gospel and the Acts, and recognizable everywhere.
Luke
has,
indeed, a
of words,
and
in almost every chapter
very wide range in his choice he uses words
114
and expressions to which he does not recur again but on the other hand, he has also his familiar words and ways of speaking, and if anybody questions his authorship of the whole Acts, that doubt will be
utterly
test
removed
(and
has
been
removed)
the
case
by
of
the
of the language.
in
/?.
So we
may
in
safely place entire
confidence
additions in
I shall
that
same
test
the
be as brief
as
possible
(3,
in
the
following
analysis of the style of Acts
referring those readers
who want more

the
information
to
to
my
of
two editions of
book
are
and
my
edition
Luke s
Gospel.
Here
some simple facts. (1) Number of words occurring in Acts /3 and nowhere else in the New
30.
(2)
3.
Testament,
Words
(3)
restricted
to
Acts
j3
/5
and Luke
ring in
in
Gospel,
Words
in
Acts
recur
other parts
of the
New
a),
Testament, but not

(4)
Luke (Gospel and Acts

/3
20.
Words occur
parts
in of
ring in Acts
as
well
at
as in
other
the
s
New
Testament, and
All the
the same
time
Luke
this
Gospel, 10.
four
in
categories
have
are
in
to
common,
Acts
a
;
that
the
it
words
is
question
that
for
alien
but
of
evident
proving
use,
the
be-
spuriousness
1
/3
(2) and
(4)
are
of no
of
my
See the index of the words occurring in the Acts at the close larger edition, and the summary statistics in my edition of
s
Luke
Gospel on
p.
xxvii
f.
PROOFS FOR TWO DISTINCT TEXTS IN THE ACTS.

cause
those
115
words are
(3),
warranted
by the
Gospel.
In (1) and
to
taken together, the number amounts
50,
ments
e/3oo/uo9
among which are these astonishing enrich of Luke s vocabulary W^TI-TO? the fifth,
:
the
seventh,
SICIKOVOS
the
minister
(while
Luke has elsewhere SiaKovw and

exorcise
SiaKovia),
ej-opKify,
(while
there
all
is
eôpKia-rw
elsewhere
\ey6/u.va
in
Luke). not
so
Of course
ridiculous.
for each
the fifty
I
dira^
shall
first
are
But now
of
compare
categories
to
the
as
instances
the
three
they
are found in
the whole Acts,
The (1) 410, (2) 53, (3) 394. which would contain the words used alike in Acts, and Gospel, and elsewhere, cannot be taken into
consideration.
a. according fourth category,
So
the
relative
proportions
in
are
410/30,
cases.
53/3,
Now,
394/20, much what proportion

belongs
is
alike
the
three
of
(3
sentences
as
and
particles
exclusively
to
the rest of the Acts (which
common
to a
compared to and /3) 1
As
have stated by a simple counting of the words on three pages of my edition, about that of 86 to
I
530.
Then we should expect much more than 50

(3.
in a-Tra^ \eyo/u.eva
As
a matter of fact I
am
sure
(3
that there were more, but the peculiar readings of
are partly preserved to us not in Greek, but in Latin

or
Syriac,
and the words contained in these

excluded from
latter
portions are of course
my
statistics.
116
This
is

not the only
or
way
of testing
the language,
the best either.

separate
it,
by means of The best would

or
be
to
take
{3,
every
addition
peculiar
reading in
the
that
and compare
of
word
for word,
with
I
other writings
Luke.
But how can makes

ei$
do
here
may
x.
give one instance as an
illus
:
tration.
Acts
25
TOV
this
Trjv
insertion
Trpoa-eyyiôvTO?
7rpopafji.u>v
Se
Tierpov
Kaierdpeiav,
el?
TWV SovXwv
<$iecrd(pri(Tev
Trapayeyovevai
6 $e
in
a).
avrov, and then goes on in this

?
way
as of
cf. x.
KGU
(<TvvavTt]<Ta^
/c.r.X.,
is
new
Ty
in
Luke (one
the
9,
fifty
words),
but he frequently uses eyytêiv,

eiceivwv
oSonropovvTtov
xxii.
KOI
TroXei
xviii.
eyyLôvrwv,
35,
ev
ix.
3,
see
e/?
further
lepi-^w
TTjOo ?,
;
Gospel,
rw
Still
eyyiêiv
avrov
xix. 29,
xxiv. 28.
you
insist
on the
give
of
as
making a
for
difference.
Well,
the point
rnay
you
the
reason
that
too
to
of view
narrator,
is
according
Cornelius
the
;
words
immediately
the
Trpos
preceding,
house
is
therefore
here comes
in,
is
while
it
omitted where the place

foregoing
narrative,
to.
approached
not that of the
which
is
the case in the other passages referred
UpoSpa/u-wv, see Gospel, xix. 4.
Et? TWV SovXwv, like

etc.
1
Gospel, xv.
26, eva
TU>V
TTU I^WV,
1 Weiss (see, below) goes as far as to question the Lucan correct ness of Sov\uv, because in ver. 7 okerow is used of the same persons.
PROOFS FOR
another of the
TWO
fifty
DISTINCT TEXTS IN THE ACTS.
117
words, occurring besides once or

:
twice in Matthew.
Tlapayeyovevai irapayivecrOai is found in Luke more than three times as often as

in
the
other
see
New
xiv.
Testament
14.
writers
altogether.
E/f7r/(5)/a-a?,
Are
you
?
content
now?
aVa^
Not
yet,
because of the
8ia<ra<peiv
Well, I have
of all the
taken out a sentence containing

;
might have chosen \ey6fjLeva other sentences without any aVa^ many
of course I
many and
\eyoiu.evov.
Then
an index of the compounds with Std occurring but once in Luke, and most of them but once in the New Testament. *A*a/3aAAe<i/
I
shall
give you
(the
asterisk
denotes
air.
\ey.
in
(1.
the
d.
New
Testa
ii.
"
*
ment),
~
ia{3\7reiv,
Siayvwpiêiv?
~~
Gospel,
~
17),
oiad.
*oiaypt]yopeiv,
oia.Se vea Oai,
oiaipeivîatcaOapifeiv,
{
KaTeXeyvetrOai,
oiaKOveiv,
f
viaXenreiv,
oiaXueiv
(1.
Acts
v.
*
Sia/mdêa-Oai,
Siavejueiv,
~f
36),
^Siaveveiv,
Sia7rpayju.a~f
SiavvKTepeveiv,
Teve/rOai,
*Siavveiv,
v,
*oicnr\eiv,
w Siacreiei
oiaanrav,
f
("
cia(TTeX\<TOai,
oia,Te\eiv,
*
Siafbeuyeiv,
$ia<pOeipeiv
rr
in
Sia<pv\dTTeii>
"
an
Old
Testament
Sieyelpeiv,
passage),
""
d feiv, ia"x\ev v
(
Sia^copiêaOai,
1.
SievOv/êiarOai,
Sieêp-ê<r6ai,
d.
Acts
And
yet
Luke
uses OIK^T^ only twice (see Gospel, xvi. 13), but
Likewise Weiss questions SoCXos (in the proper sense) 26 times. the word immediately preceding (in ver. 24) ire pit pew, because it
stands without an object. Now, the rule of Luke s using this verb with an object is based upon one instance, i. 4, which is the only other instance of this verb in the New Testament.
118
xxviii.
3),

SiepooTav,
Siacracpeiv
$topv<T(reiv.
Does the
to
\eyofjievov
now seem
you
sufficiently
warranted for Luke by these 28 other dVa^ \ey6/j.eva of the same kind (verbal compounds with Sia) occurring
in his writings
?
I stated above as one of the features in
Luke
s style,
that he frequently introduces
new
;
words, very often
feature
if that distinctive without ever recurring to them failed to be found in (3, this would be a
strong argument for

of course in his
my
it
opponents, since the imitator
would not use any words but those found
model.
for
;
As
is
is,
I,
for
my
part,
give
my
/3
verdict
absolute
identity
still
of
style
between
and a
whoever
of a different
opinion must
/3 one by one, and then take his concordance and compare, and he will come to
take the additions in
the
same
results
of
;
course,
only
if
he
case,
inquires
without
prejudice
in
the
opposite
he
may
come
and
that
to
any
result
he
likes,
it
and persuade himself

is
perhaps
others
that
next to
impossible
this
Luke should have written

he should
Trpocreyyiêiv in
one case, or that
have
used
ia<ra(peiv
and never
cra<f>?7?,
a-a(peiv
(which indeed does not exist), nor

nor
acra(pi i?,
is
nor
us
facts.
a-a(pi)veia,
etc.
Let
these
of
/3
now
be
see
what
first
to
be
the
inferred
from
In
the
place,
this
spuriousness
cannot
shown
in
way.
Next,
its
PilOOFS FOE
TWO

at
least
119
for
genuineness
identity
of or
becomes
language
a model
or
it
highly
probable,
presupposes
either
skilful
common
care
author,
ful
and
very
and
the
imitator,
two
is
such
imitators
of
same
model.
in
extremely unlikely that there was any age a man who took Luke for his model
But
in
say,
order
that
to
interpolate
Luke.
Perhaps
you
will
with
somebody who was thoroughly familiarized Luke s style would quite naturally and not
s
designedly give his explanations of the author

in
text
the author
in
;
own
language.
It cannot be denied,
that
individual
cases
something like this

find in the section
happen
for instance,
we
might on the
adulteress,
part
of
which certainly did not originally form a John, a few peculiarities of John s style
introduced
viii.
by
copyists
01
eKaa-ros
<5e
rwv
lovSalwv,
9, instead of
$e a/coJcrai/re?,
and
ver. 6,
rovro
stands
$e
eXeyov
TreipafyvTes
6.
in
most
MSS.,
as
it
But what might happen in a few cases, cannot therefore be supposed to have happened throughout a book the interpolator, if familiar with
in
vi.
;
John
Luke
language,
his
did
not
cease
T
to
be
still
more
familiar with
own, and w ould give many more samples of that than of the author s language. And now for the second test, that of the matter
and
it
of
the
facts
contained
in
the
additions.
Can
be rationally supposed that an interpolator rightly
120
understood
not in
the
all

the text, without exception
of the Acts,
?
Certainly
so
case
to
which
offer
many
seen
difficulties
our
a
understanding.
We
Gospel.
have
that
no
less
man
that
than
Eusebius
thoroughly
Secondly,
misunderstood the proem in the can

it
be supposed
the
interpolator
had any
knowledge of the story told, independent of the Acts ? I do not say of the main points, but of the minute detail, that which we have to deal
with
here
?
Evidently this
is
next to
impossible,
and barely possible only if the interpolator was a Now contemporary and a witness of the facts. any ordinary interpolator would
a
number
of misunderstandings
by book being of (the
betray himself
such
extent),
and
by
great
many wrong
other
state
ments, which
passages might by I may safely and by our independent knowledge. say that both Professor Ramsay and Peter Corssen,
be
refuted
who have used

order to
in
their
all
their
cases, I
detect
such
knowledge and skill in have completely failed

elsewhere
1
attempt.
As
have
answered
not repeat
these
highly
esteemed scholars,
said,
shall
things formerly
but prefer to speak at once of
the most recent attempt,

1
made by
Professor Bernhard
second edition of the Acts, on p. viii, and my edition ff. (against Corssen, who has given a very careful review of my former edition of the Acts in Gottincj. Gelehrte
See in
my
p.
of
Luke on
xxiv
Anzeigen, 1896, p. 425-448).
PROOFS FOR TWO DISTINCT TEXTS IN THE ACTS. 121

Weiss, a veteran scholar in the whole province of
New
for
Testament inquiry.
he
It is not
from the
historical point
of view that Professor

is still
Weiss contends against
disposed to confine himself to that one wit
waiving the rest of the host as much as possible but from that of textual criticism he imagines a blundering interpolator, who perverted what he did
ness,
;
not
understand.
s
Let
of
us
the
take,
as
an
instance
of
Weiss
xiv.,
handling
matter,
for
is
the
beginning
into
1
ff.
of
and
patiently
enter
once
in
ver.
all
"
the
minutiae.
it
The English text

to
And
and
came
pass
in
. .
Iconium, that
.
they (Paul
into the synagogue of the Barnabas) went Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude, both of
the
Jews and
also of the
Greeks believed.
(2)
But
and
the
unbelieving
their
Jews
stirred
up the
Gentiles,
made
Then
they
minds
evil affected
against the
brethren."
follows in ver.
"
Long time
the
Lord,"
therefore abode
etc.
;
speaking
boldly
in
Now,
the
at
say that this

of
narrative wants coherence

2
is
result
all.
the action stated in ver.
not
that
given
there
Turning to the Greek, we

ver.
find
are
in
the
aorists
einfyeipav
and
e/ca/cwo-aj/,
which
oppose the idea of an unsuccessful attempt (imperf.). On the other hand, D and Syr. post, give a quite
clear
1
and
coherent
Der Codex
narrative
"
(ver.
2)
But
the
B. Weiss,
D in der Apostelyeschichte,
Leipzig, 1897.
122
chiefs

of
the
synagogue
a
of
the
Jews
against
and
their
magistrates
directed
persecution
the just,
affected
and made the minds of the

against the brethren
(3)
;
Gentiles
evil
but the Lord soon gave peace.

etc.
Long time
therefore,"
Hilgenfeld,
Provost
Salmon
I myself and Professor and others, are quite

/3
convinced of the superiority of
in
this
instance
and the only

if
difficulty
first
remaining
a,
is
this, that Luke,
he wrote
not
to
/3
and then
must be
first
said
not
only
have corrected
worse.
his
form,
but to
have made
it
We
jection
;
shall
have, of
let
course,
to
revert
"
to
this
ob
but
us
first
hear Weiss
The things
which came
the the
Iconium were entangled by pass he did not understand interpolator, because

to
in
ciTreiOtja-avTes
louSaioi in ver.
2."
What
in
Was
ver.
"
there ever a
man
Jews
"
who, after the statement in

ot
<5e
1,
did not
understand
"
aTreiOi io-avTe?
"
the
of
unbelieving
after
great
multitude
like
this
Jews believed
Are suppositions considered justifiable ? Nor did

?
"
to
be
he
understand
object,
eTnyyeipav,
which he
supposed
to
want an
not seeing that that verb had an object in
common
with the following eKaKuxrav, namely ra? \|/-i;â9 TUIV Here the words in a are really not easy to eQvwv."
understand.
Even
if
e-Trriyeipav
TCIS
v.
\|/uâ?
may
be
6
compared with LXX. (1
Chron.
28),
e-Tnjyetpev
PROOFS FOR
Geo9 TO
is
TWO

/SacnXeo)? Aa-crovp,
still
123
there
TTveu/u-a
$aXw^
:
the important difference that in that passage there
comes
continuation
"),
KOC
jueraKKrev
rov
Pov(3i]v
= (
is
"
to
do this
while in the Acts that continuation

it is
wholly wanting, and there

"
said as
it
were only
necessary
that
they
made
"
them,"
without
the
do something." But as Weiss does complement not seem to see any difficulty, we may pass on with him. So he makes the chiefs of the synagogue as
"
early
as
that
time direct a persecution
/caret
besides
iwv,
he
is
adds
quite
superfluously,
of the
lovSaioi in
which
but an
echo
as
ver.
1."
By no means:
between
the Greeks
had come in
the addition get
his
?
lovSatoi
and a
was very necessary.

chiefs
But whence did

1
he
of
the
apxovres
accurate
Not
word
synagogue on that.
whence
his
And
yet
the
distinction
between
ap-îa-vvaycayoi
and
apôvTes, which has been

to
be quite correct for
shown by Professor Ramsay that time, while it would not

same person
"
have been so for a later one, 1 seems to demand some

explanation.
Are we
to suppose that the
was
1
at
once so stupid as not to understand

in
un-
See
Ramsay
Church
ff.
in
I
Expositor, 1895, p. 212
the Roman Empire, p. 46, and in may notice that L) inserts TTJS crvvayuyTjs
after &pxovres (which has led Prof.
R. into some error), but the Syrus post, rightly omits the words. (See also F. H. Fisher, of Pretoria, South Africa, in Expository Times, August, 1897, p. 524.)
124
believing

Jews,"
and
yet
to
so
fully
supplied
details
?
with
"
intimate knowledge as
this
give
these
In
way
the
evil
clause,
and made the minds of the

becomes discordant with
the
Gentiles
affected/ etc.,
the preceding
one
for
if
Jews themselves had
been able to direct a persecution against the Christians, they did not want the assistance of the Gentiles."
I
think
my
readers
will answer, that as the
power
of the Jewish magistrates did not extend to Gentile

Christians, or
of the
to
Paul and Barnabas, the assistance
Pagan populace and of the magistrates of the town was on the contrary much wanted. Besides,
who
"
are the
Sticaioi
in
/5
The
SiKaioi are those
who the a$e\(f)oi in (3 and a ? Jews who had become believers,"

?
;
says Weiss.
Quite right
then
ru>v
which
a\<pu>v,
word must be of a
have
/car
different
avruiv), will
meaning (else we should embrace the whole congregation

as
of Christians (and of course the foreign apostles too),
and
quite
pertinently,
the
hostility
of
Gentiles
would be
directed
at once
more excited and more spontaneously

their
countrymen than against the Christian Jews, who were to some extent under the He makes this per control of Jewish magistrates.
against
"
secution rapidly pass
one does not, however, see
away by the Divine assistance But I do not see how."

;
how without some such thing the apostles have as much as remained in Iconium, not
could
to
say

"have
they
would
been speaking boldly in the Lord" (ver. 3); have been expelled by the combined
force of
Jews and
before.
Gentiles, as they
had been from
Antioch
For, according to ver. 2, the hostility
had been actually excited (aor.), and of course against the foreigners and their Greek ad
of the Gentiles
herents, while the belief of
any
of the
Jews was
for
them, as for Gallic (Acts

unimportance.
Professor
after
xviii.
15), a matter of utter
Weiss
;
continues
in
this
way chapter
were I to follow him, I should only chapter Besides, I am not writing on weary my readers.
So I
the Acts, but on the Gospels.

to study this matter for
may
leave readers
themselves, giving them for

professor,
assistance a little
book by another German
Job. Belser, who, although a

theless,
Eoman
Catholic, never
"
free
is
is Englishman writes to me, from prejudice, and full of good points." 1
as
an
very
He
free also
from the dust of minute textual

s
criticism,
which in Weiss
book
is
found from the very beginning,

else,
overspreading everything
and overclouding the
main problems, which, if they are to be rightly decided, must be kept clear from minute encumbrances, like
the blunders of the copyists of D, or of those of
predecessors.
1
its
Let these blunders be stated in any
Job. Belser, Beitriiye zur Erklaruny der Apostelgeschichte, Frei

iin
burg
Breisgau (Herder), 1897.
126
number, you will by that means not even touch or approach the problem and Weiss, by using that
;
method, has got nearly as far as to the middle of his book before approaching it. But the evident superiority of /3 which I have
stated
in
this
passage,
and which may equally be

see
found in
many
others
Belser, or
Hilgenfeld, or
H. Holtzmann, or Nestle, or Zockler, or Conybeare, or Eendel Harris, or Provost Salmon 1

sponding inferiority of a urges one point, which
but which
in
I
and the corre

myself on
me
to correct
the
never regarded as of importance, general discussion has come into
much prominence.
In the beginning,- the form
tion
for
I
had given
my
solu
of the
Luke
problem, was that I took j3 as it were rough draught, and a for the corrected
It is evident that
and
final copy.
this is
not at
all
theory which requires merely one older copy and one more recent, and besides it can not be applied to the Gospel, where Theophilus copy
essential for
the
is
the older one, and the
Eoman copy
the later
and
Holtzmann
"
See Hilgenfeld in Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift, 1896, No. 43 ; H. in Tkeol. Literaturzeitung, 1896, No. 3 ; 0. Zockler in
Die Apostelg. als Gegenstand hoherer u. niederer Kritik," in Greifswalder Studien (1895), p. 195 ff. ; F. Conybeare in American Journal of Philology, xvii. 135 ff. ; R. Harris in Four Lectures on the
to
Western Text of the New Testament, 1894 ; G. Salmon, Introduction tlie Study of the Books of the New Testament, 7th edition, p. 592 ff.

consequently neither of them is a rough draught, for such would never be sent to Theophilus. There
fore a better
form of the solution
is
this,
that
Luke
that
rough draught was kept by him for himself, and he made from this two successive copies of
each book, the older one following more closely the first sketch, while the later departed from it with
more freedom and gave (which is the most prominent It is feature) very frequently an abridged text.
by way
of
abridgment
that
this
deterioration
has
of.
arisen, as in the passage I
was
just
now
/ecu
speaking
01
Instead of ap-îa vva.yu> yoi
T>V
lovSaioov
apôvres
was put
form
he
aTreiOijo-avres
lovSaioi,
which
is
materially
the same, but in fewer words and in a less definite

;
instead of eTr^jajov Simy/mov Kara
ru>v
Sacai<av
simply wrote eTn /yeipav, using the same word which he had used a little before, xiii. 50 then he
;
left
out the whole clause 6
e
f.
Kupios
/c.r.X.,
and be
cause of the omissions in 2

ver.
altered
the words in
4 and those in
(as
they are given by the

ear-^la-Otj
Syrian witness), writing in 4

e(T-î(r/uivov,
instead of yv
x.
and
so
on.
Likewise
in
25
(the
which we analyzed the words) the text passage in a sprang out of that in /3 by mere abridgment.
of
Whether Luke
of
is
to
be blamed, as a writer, because
these
I
omissions
and
abridgments,
;
is
question
is,
which
need not discuss here
perhaps he
from
128

:
our point of view

pides
:
but he might answer with Euri

qv
fj.rj
TI
aia"x_pov,
rotcri
^jOWyUeVoi?
(to
Theo-
philus) SOKJ]
At
the same time, by changing the form
of our hypothesis in this way,
we
get a full explana

if
tion of the converse cases, which,
much
rarer, are
nevertheless not wholly absent even from the Acts,

viz.,
those,
these,
where a gives something more than
/3.
rough draught, has been preserved in the later copy, as would of course happen now and then, from respect to the peculiar
s
In
Luke
archetype,
or
circle
of readers
addressed, or by mere chance, just
as in our
own
I
writing and copying.

is
What
in
have just said
also
fitted
to
meet,
some measure, the objections raised to my theory by Mr. T. E. Page (see Classical Review, July, 1897). On the whole, he treats it somewhat contemptuously,
saying that the question of the origin of the
/3
variants
may occupy
leisure"
the
attention
of scholars
"
with ample
I in
am
himself
that
very much afraid he does not include If he had given some number.
leisure hours to the individual
he would,
of
e.g.
problems he touched, have found in Provost Salmon s review

(see
my
edition
Hermathena,
vol.
ix.
p.
235)
very judicious appreciation of the passage in xxi. 16.
Headers of the
led
to
common
text are almost of necessity
the erroneous
1
opinion
that
f.,
Mnason, who
f.
is
See
my
edition of Luke, pp. v
xxvi, xxxiv
mentioned
from the
/3
there,
was
there
living
in
Jerusalem,
clear
while
text
comes
the
statement
that he lived in a village
mid-way between Jerusalem

says Mr.
"
and Caesarea.
"
Anybody,"
Page,
could
make
these
corrections."
Certainly,
reflected
anybody,
who
good deal, and compared other passages, and had no small amount
was very
attentive,
and
of ingenuity
that
is
to
say,
not
"
anybody."
"
The
"
most striking piece of reflection of that somebody has been put into due light by Provost Salmon. As Mnason is said to have been an old disciple, the
result
is
that,
by giving
where Peter
him
this
dwelling-place,
a connection is established between this passage
and
that in
xi.
2,
is
said to have preached
the G-ospel in the villages through which he passed

in
going
up from
of his
Caesarea
says
to
Jerusalem.
"
"
It
is
a natural
combination,"
Salmon,
that
Mnason
com
was one
bination
converts."
And
for
that fine
we
are under
obligation to somebody,
who
must have been anybody except Luke. Why not Luke ? Because Luke, if he had written first the
sentence as
it
into
never would have brought Then I answer, that obscure form in a ?

it
stands in
/3,
abridgment s sake for the unknown village where Paul slept for a single night is a matter of infinite unimportance, as Mr. Page says. No, I
that he did
it
for
do not say that, Mr. Page will answer
at
whose
130
house

he
slept
tell
in
village
is
unimportant
the
but
Luke does
us that he received kindly hospitality
from Muason in
quite
I
Jerusalem,
the real
"
and
corrector
has
misunderstood
it
meaning.
Impossible,
reply, for
must
Paul
should
have
seem very strange to us that been dependent on a stranger

Jerusalem, a
place
for entertainment at
where
we
should have supposed

hospitality
of private
he
could have relied on the

"
friends
(Salmon),
and that
in order to introduce Paul to
Mnason, whose house

disciples
he
might
find
himself,
the
of
Caesarea
should have accompanied him on that long journey.
The accompanying, on the other

natural,
if
hand,
was quite
to those
aorist
Mnason
but
too,
lived in a village
known
1
disciples,
êvurOwfj-ev
not
known
to
Paul.
The
denoting an action of some definite

this interpretation
time,
of
makes very strongly against

a
text
:
the
if
the
sojourn
in
Jerusalem
was
But Luke, spoken of, we ought to have êvi^to/meOa. Mr. Page might reply, makes a wrong use of the
1
Here B. Weiss
(p.
101)
comes to the assistance
of
Mr.
P.,
saying that it was not for Paul s sake, but for his large company of uncircumcised men, that the accommodation in Jerusalem was
procured in this cumbrous way. But on Paul s former visit (Acts xv.) there had also been at least one uncircunicised man (Titus)
in his
company, who had of course found accommodation, and on that same occasion the equal rights of uncircumcised Christians had been formally recognized by the whole congregation of
Jerusalem.

aorist
also
in
xxviii.
14,
j/AOa/zey
refers).
(a
passage
to
which
in
so
my
far
reviewer actually
as
Wrong
beforehand,
only
the
result
is
given
the
and
nevertheless
to
the
author,
in
next verse, returns

during the journey.
of this kind,
as
things
xxi.
which
18
had
is
occurred
In
there
nothing
:
the
author correctly says in 15

\v/u.a,
aveâivo/uiev eis
lepoa-o-
and 17:
v,
which
that
is
used of the disciples in 16, seems

the
village
to
imply
from
they
returned
to
Caesarea.
There are two passages particular notice, because
in
/3
which deserve our

bearing
either
xi.
of
their
upon the author or on his former book.

after
In
27,
mention of the prophets who came from and there was Jerusalem to Antioch, /3 inserts
the
"
a great joy.
And we
etc.
is
being assembled, one of them,
named
Se
Agabus,"
Now,
also
this
ive
(a-vveo-Tpa/mjuieiHDv
j/yuwv),
which
attested
clearly
shows
of
so
that
the
the
author
by was
St.
Augustin,
that
as
at
time
the
that
member
is
Church of Antioch, and
period
very early,
we can hardly doubt

is
Luke
and
really
was a native of Antioch, which
the
tradition
given by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 4, 6), lioman Christians cannot have been others.
of this
fact,
ignorant
and the
this,
"
we
get
"
was
to
them
perfectly clear.
Besides
we
by these three
132

we-section,
words a fresh
importance
first
etc.,
which
that
is
of
the
greatest
showing which is found again in person, can by no means be employed

frequently
for
for
the
occurrence of the
xvi.,
and
in xx.,
(as
theologians
employed it) purpose of dissecting the Acts into parts originally independent from each other. 1
that which opens the whole with the Gospel. There D is (as F. Graefe and P. Corssen have shown before me)
is
have
the
The other passage
book, and connects
it
corrupt by
in
way
of conflation,
to
"Latin"
and we are
witnesses;
restricted,
Weiss
words,
in
other
words,
in
we have the testimony

places,
of St.
Augustin given
two
and
in
the
most
trustworthy form,
This
in die
the whole chapter having been copied by him.
witness gives
the text of ver.

clegit
2 as follows
et
qua Apostolos
praedicare
bination
(a
per spiritimi sanctum

But, says
"
praecepit
euangelium.
"
Weiss, this com

)
of
to
preach
is
(toipva-o-eii
and
" "
Gospel
combination which
is
here attested also by

s
and
other witnesses)
viii.
not Luke
KOI
habit
he says (Gospel,
1),
Ktjpvcrcrcov
many
1
times
does
evayyeXi to/uLevo?. Luke make use of
Now, how
evayyeXiov
?
About this passage Weiss, who has reserved it for the end of his book (p. Ill ff. ), does not speak with any confidence, while he, at the same time, judiciously rejects all theories of dissection by means of
the
"we."
PROOFS FOR
TWO
DISTINCT TEXTS IN THE ACTS. 133

s
Just twice, Acts xv. 7 (in Peter

(in that of Paul)
;
speech), and, xx.
24
besides
him
the combination exists
in
Matthew, and in Mark, and in Paul, and Luke might enrich his language by use of it, if need be,
his
from
teacher
"
instead of
until
The main point is, that there has the day He was taken
Paul.
up,"
been put in this text in die qua, the mention of the

ascension of Christ having been wholly suppressed.
As
it
this is the
proem of the work, we must consider
very carefully, as
we
did in a former chapter in the
case of the
proem
of the Gospel.
;
Luke
in
is
giving here
summary
its
of his former book
the a text, he out

/3
lines
contents by giving the close, while in this
text he does so
by giving the beginning, going

to
on, in
the
next
verses,
sum up
"how"
the
(et
further
contents,
and inserting in
in the Gospel, as
ver. 4,
in order to indicate that this

it
Kcu quomodo too was already related
o>?),
actually stands (Gospel, xxiv.

is
49).
At the same time he

details,
giving
here
in
some fresh
ver.
3,
especially
this
the
forty
to the
is
days
and
leads on, in
way,
more
detailed
relation
of the ascension
which
to follow.
This text therefore

itself,
seems
to
be
quite
consistent
with
but
yet
by Professor Weiss, that it is impossible, because Jesus is stated to have begun His working and teaching on the day (in die qua) He chose
the
we
are told
Twelve,
fact
which
is
related
by Luke
as
134
late

as in
vi.
13
ff.
As
this
objection
"
is
rather
"
serious,
we must
I
try to re-translate the
in die qua
into
Greek with more care than

gave
it
I did in
my
;
edition,
:
where
rjfj^pa.
in
this
Greek
expression
die
ey
But Augustin has not in qua

not
ev
fifJxpq
therefore
will say,
why
Very
any
in
well,
you
but in this I do
theless,
tjfjjepqi
not see
a
real
change.
Never
there
is
change
as
ev
the
meaning.
Ev $
y,
is
the
same
(eiceivg)
ry
;
vifjuepa
and
distinctly
y,
denotes some definite day

article,
but
as
ev
y/uepa
like
without the
sense
for
to
presents
itself
being
in
it,
the identical
in
Jer.
LXX.
vii.
phrase, as
we have
I
instance,
22:
"For
spake
in
of
not
the
unto
your
(ev
fathers,
^/m.epa
nor
y)
I
commanded
burnt
is
them
day
land
that
brought them out

offerings
the
of
Egypt,
concerning
the
or
sacrifices."
Evidently
single
not
to
to
definite
day,
applied vêpa but in a looser way
there
a definite
time extending over

dictionaries teach
many
days,
and
so our
Hebrew
us that the corre

expresses
sponding
Hebrew
word
very
frequently
the general notion of time.

of
Likewise, our dictionaries

tell
New
Testament Greek
notion
of
" "
us
that
the
looser in
Hebrew
day
only
has
in
introduced
plural
;
itself
many
passages,
not
the
form,
but
also in the singular, see
John
viii.
56
;
xiv.
20;
iii.
xvi. 23,
26; Eph.
vi.
13;
2 Cor.
vi.
Pet.
18.
So
PROOFS FOR
TWO
DISTINCT TEXTS IN THE ACTS. 135
Luke
says, quite in accordance
with the facts
All that
chose
Jesus began to do
the
twelve,
and
the
"
teach in that time

"
when he
and
impossible
easy.
ev
reading proves
is
jj
to
be
quite
possible
and
It
true that
a
Luke
single
a/?
elsewhere
has
either
^/nepa
xii.
i.
only of
but iwt definite day (Ev.

of a
definite
46), or ev
y/u.epai$
time (ibid.
25);
but these passages

;
also are both
without parallel in Luke
and
it is
very
clear
that in that of the Acts he could not

:
employ
because
the plural
that event
cv
q/nepais
ots
eeAearo
/c.r.X.,
come
to
had been told in the Gospel as having pass on a definite and very memorable
day, that of the great

It
Sermon on the Mount.

that I
"
may
here
of
be objected
am
gliding
back into
the ordinary notion of

that
y/u.epa
day,"
"
after
having established
means
time."
But the
be
original
notion
the
word
could
never
wholly absent
that
from the mind of the writer, and

a
is
for
reason
distinction
between
the
:
plural
ev
and the singular

?i
maintained throughout
(words
ê â
i.
e-rretSev
cupeXeiv
/c.r.X.
of Elizabeth, Ev.
:
25), would have been

eavrrjv
1
quite unnatural after
Trepiei<:pv(3ev
and
so then
the plural comes
in.
Let us consider now the reading in

J
^
a,
avrov does In Gosp. ix. 51 (see below), raj T^pas TT)J comprehend the time of the passion, the resurrection, and up to the day of Ascension, which day, however, has no special importance
di>a\rifj.\j/fws
for this passage.
136
6
I/;<7o/9

Troieiv
combination
in
is
re KOI (Watr/cay, u^pi jy? rj/j.epu^. The of qpaTO with be justified, &y Xj
rather harsh
some measure, by other passages, but nevertheless and Weiss thinks that readers who
;
did not understand

to
"
it
have therefore altered

out,
" "
until
in."
And have
;
left
he ought to continue,
the Ascension
but he prefers, as
we
saw, to
deal
alone, where (by means of conflation) the Ascension is mentioned, and the rest of the evidence
with
is
nothing
to
him.
say
readers
of
the
to
New
digest
Testament
must
have
been
accustomed
harder things than this fjpâro C%CM, and if they did not understand it, the most simple way was to leave
out
rots
ave\i
//uL<p6)].
the
"
began."
There comes next

iu
evre
oy?
e
aTTOcrroAcu?
TTvevjmaTOS
is
ayiov
a very
The
clause
in
awkward way
;
complicated by the
insertion of oi)$ eêXeûro I do not think that this can be the original hand of But if we suppose the words as they are Luke.
in
(3
to
represent
Luke s
:
first
writing,
the
thing
becomes quite transparent

clause in
he has encumbered the

the
the
order
the
to
bring in
of
Ascension, without
leaving
out
choice
apostles.
And why
Because
or
did he want the Ascension to be mentioned? the corresponding form of the Gospel
(a,
A)
closes
with the Ascension
a of the Gospel and a of the
Acts must be made to a^ree.

Is
there then
in
(3
of the Gospel
on
this
point
Assuredly
there
s
is,
any difference and now we
are at last returning to
Luke
Gospel, on behalf of
which we have taken

Acts.
this
long circuit
through the
CHAPTER
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN
IT
is
IX.
ST.
LUKE S GOSPEL.
a fact
which has been the subject of much and
serious discussion, that at the close of
Luke
Gospel
the Ascension of Christ

all
is
by no means attested by
the
manuscripts.
Besides
known
text
there
is
another one, having very good attestation, and therefore

received by Tischendorf, as well as by Westcott and
Hort
them,
(51)
"And
it
came
to
pass, while
He
"
blessed
"
He was
up
into
parted
from
them
"
"
(without
and
carried
"
heaven").
And
is
they
(without
worshipped Him, and

joy,"
")
returned to Jerusalem with

text
to
great
etc.
If
this
be
accepted
as
the
to
only be
original
as
one,
and
the
omitted words are

the
fact
rejected
of
interpolations,
of
the
Ascension
our
Lord,
which
we
confess
every
Sunday, testimony of the Acts, that of

together with
this
will in
the main rest exclusively upon the
Mark
being rejected
the
:
by the way
But whole close of his Gospel. I am not writing on dogmatics.
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN

It
ST.
LUKE S GOSPEL.
139
has been argued, on the
other
hand, that Luke

fact,
gives another testimony for the same

as early as in ix.
by saying
51:
"
When
the time was approach

"
ing that
He
should be received up
1
(ev
ru>
(rv/uL7r\rj-
poucrOai ra?
r/fjLepa
Trjs
ai/aXj/yW\|/eft)?
UVTOU), and that
by mentioning the Ascension

his
here, at
ver.
he clearly indicates
its
intention
of
relating
it
proper
"
place.
Moreover, as the reading

to
in
52:
they returned
Jerusalem
with
great joy,
and were
God,"
continually
is
in the temple, praising (and blessing)

sally attested, the
univer
of our
words
left
out
by
a part
to
witnesses
can
hardly
be
supposed
have
been
originally absent from the narrative.
If the apostles
had seen their Lord carried up

continually in the temple, that
to heaven, there
was
a reason both for their rejoicing and for their being

is
to say, not expecting
any more appearances of Him but if the appearance related had ended in like manner as the others, this
;
sequel becomes quite incomprehensible.
Why,
are
then, are
?
the
words omitted by a part of

to
the witnesses
the
You ought
upon
ask
first
Who,
?
then,
witnesses
whose
evidence
Tischen-
dorf and Westcott-Hort

in the first place, D, versions,
1
omit the words
There
is,
and
St.
and together with D some Latin 1 Augustin, and the Syriac version
gives,
The Syriac witness

SifffT-rj
however, a word like
fTrripOrj
instead
of
or
aTr&TTT/.
40

Sinai,
of
Mount
and
lastly,
but
only
as
regards
the words
MS.
in
ver.
51, the
(N).
first
hand of the Greek

solution
is /3
from Mount Sinai

is
Xow, the
:
of
the enigma
quite near at hand
it
of
the
Gospel which omits these words, while a had them, and a, in this case, is the earlier copy and represents more truly Luke s original writing. The other question,
too,
wliy the words

its
are
left
it
out
in
(3,
has already
fit
almost found
answer:
was
in
order to
the
close of the Gospel /3 to the beginning of the Acts

/3,
and
this
was recognized ten years ago

Ferdinand Graefe.
of the
latter
1
by the
German
original
pastor,
Likewise as the
beginning way, altered by the author, when writing for Theophilus, in order that
it
book was, in some
form of
so
might suit the close of that the Gospel which had been sent to him
:
Luke, when he
the
again copied
its
his
Gospel with
It
/3
for
the
use of
to
Eomans, altered
of
close
respect
is
the
beginning
last
the
of
Eoman
the
Acts.
true
that
first
the
of
chapter
(3
Gospel
and
the
the Acts
:
do not give a really continuous
narrative
but the discordance, which consists in the

is
double relation of the Ascension,
at
least
veiled,
and does not
strike
the eye of an ordinary reader.

s first
We
must suppose therefore that during Luke

Eome,
at a time
stay in
when he already contemplated

iii.
êe
Theologische Studien u. Kritiken, 1888,
p. 522
ff.
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
141
the writing of the Acts, or had even fixed the begin
ning of
that
book,
the Gospel.
Why,
copy {3 of then, did he not submit its last
he
wrote
out
the
chapter to a
think,
ity,
more thorough reconstruction ? I should because he was depending on a written author

did
and
not
venture
to
alter
overmuch the
Like
chapter
felt
account
given
by him
on
that
authority.
first
wise he had a written authority for the

(or
the
first
twelve chapters) of his Acts, and
himself bound to follow that authority very closely.
even inclined to think, that the rather rough form, which the beginning of that book exhibits
I
am
even in
refined
(3,
if
we compare
of the
text,
it
with
the
extremely
proem some written
Gospel,
is
due
to his following
which
part
furnished
him with the
materials for the

I
first
of the Acts.
And
here
that
may venture Mark was

to his
s
to
the author
propound a conjecture. Suppose who had written a con

that this
tinuation
fell
Gospel, and
continuation
after
into
Luke
his
hands
at
some time
I
he
had
finished
for
own
not
Gospel.
s
find
that
conjecture,
instance, in
Weiss
as
book on Mark, of course as

;
conjecture,
a certainty
he thinks
his
it
pro
at
bable that
xvi.
8,
Mark
really
had
closed
Gospel
and afterwards wrote a continuation begin

is
ning with the appearances, that

actions
of
to
say,
the
to
first
the
risen
Christ,
and going
on
tell
142
what the same Christ had done afterwards by means

of His apostles.
all
Supposing
beginning of
this,
we may
well
conceive
the
Mark s
second book to have been nearly

Acts, with this exception,
identical with that of the
that the appearances did not
come
into the
summary
of the earlier book, but were given in detail as a part of the second.
tested
Of course
except
seen,
this
conjecture cannot be
or
as
verified,
perhaps
refers
on
one
point.
to
Luke,
we have
his
readers
the
memorable
and
13
to
ff.
day when
description
Jesus
elected
in
His
his
apostles,
vi.
his
thereof
Gospel,
that
Comparing that passage, we

of apostles
is
"
find
the
name
really there, but that the com

messengers,"
mission given to those

the gospel,
is
viz.,
to
preach
not
expressly
stated.
But when we
turn to the corresponding passage in

there
Mark
"
(iii.
13
ff.),
we
actually find that
commission
to
(ver. 14),
"
"that
He
the
might send them forth

gospel,"
preach
(or
to
preach
after the text in D),
and so the curious

suits
fact is
noticeable that
Luke
summary
Mark
narrative even better than his own.

to that passage in
We
shall return
x.).
Mark
in a later chapter (see
Leaving aside these conjectures for the present, and returning to the last words of Luke s Gospel, I must
state
that
be,
the
omission
of
"
and was
degree
carried,"
etc.
might
not
without some
of probability,
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
143
offended
ascribed to some reader of Luke,
who was
by the repetition in Acts must be sought Gospel and Acts

for for
still
i.
Of course
first
it
that reader
in
the very
period,
when
;
formed as
were one whole
in
after- times,
when Luke s Gospel had been

three,
combined with the other
and the Acts with
the Catholic epistles, no such offence could be taken.
But we have seen that there actually was a time when Luke s works were not yet read separately.
So, if the omission of the
were
an isolated
fact,
words in Gospel, xxiv. 51 f. we should require no other

beginning of the Acts ex
of double-reading,
explanation.
But
as the
hibits a corresponding
phenomenon
and indeed in a very complex way, which far exceeds the abilities and the possible fancies of ordinary
readers, both of these
phenomena are to be explained on the same ground, which is sufficient for both and
;
who formerly had applied to both the hypothesis of an interpolation, now quite agrees with me in referring the facts to Luke s own treatment of
Graefe himself,
his work.
1
But
"What
my
readers will
still
ask
of
?
me
a
this
question
does your supposition

of the
double authentic
This one passage
basis,
form
in
Gospel
f.
rest
xxiv.
51
is
upon very narrow
and
you
s
have
expressly declined to
1
adopt Bishop Lightfoot

137
f.
Theolofj. Stiulicn u.
Kritiken, 1898, p.
144
analogous

solution
for
?
three
other
I
passages
what
others have you then others

to
to
Of course
which
apply this
have plenty of solution but I am

;
bound
point out passages to which this solution
alone applies.
As
the difference between

text,
and the
Gospel,
for
commonly adopted
consists
in
the case of the the
mainly
in
omission,
proof
difficult
two
authentic texts must be
much more
of
than in
the Acts.
the
But
to counterbalance this, the proofs for
very early existence
the
Western text are

in
more numerous, and go much further back

Gospel.
I
the
entreat
first
my
all.
readers
to
allow
me
to give
these proofs
of
Now,
Martyr,
it
may who lived
be sufficiently established that Justin

in
Eome
the
(3
about the middle of the
second century, used
form of Luke
in
Gospel.
free
But
as
his
quotations are
as
few
number and
either
in form,
and
he always speaks of the Gospel in

quoting
general,
never
1
by
name
Luke
the
T
or
Matthew,
another
I of
shall
waive this witness, since I have
the
same
time,
Marcion,
w ellfor
known founder
a
of a heretical sect
which lasted
native
of
This very long time. on the Black Sea, went
man,
to
Eome
about
Sinope 138, and
1 E. Lippelt, an important discovery by whom I have mentioned before, has directed his and my attention to this point also, and will
publish his results in due time.
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
145
144.
became there the chief
of a separate sect about
His notion of Christianity was that of an extreme Paulinist, who decidedly rejected all that seemed to
retain a flavour
of Judaism,
not only therefore
the
whole Old Testament, but also three Gospels out of four, acknowledging only that written by Paul s dis
ciple Luke,
in
and rejecting
in those books
also the rest of the writings
the
New
Testament, besides the Pauline epistles.
But even
which he kept very many
sections or verses were struck out
by Judaism, and
distinctive
his
by him, as tainted Gospel, which of course bore no
name, being his only one, began in a very abrupt way with Christ s coming down to Capernaum The New Testament of the Marcion(see Luke iv. 31).
ites
has perished, but not without leaving considerable

directed
traces in writings
against
this
sect,
among
which Tertullian
the
first
four books against Marcion occupy

It
place.
has
been
s
attempted,
therefore,
Testament by means of Tertullian and other writers, the most recent

partly
to
reconstruct
Marcion
New
and most complete and accurate reconstruction having been made by Professor Theodor Zahn. 1 Now it can
not be doubted that Marcion
did not exhibit the form
attested
*
text of
Luke
Gospel
commonly known, but that

as
by other Western evidence, such

N.T. Kanons,
ii.
and
411
ff.
See Th. Zahn, Geschichte des

a
2,
1, p.
(Marcion
Neves Testament).
146
Latin versions, and in this

text of the Gospel
as in the first
I
is
way
to
different
Western
have existed as early proved half of the second century.
might well be content, as regards antiquity of evidence, with this one witness, the rest being of
course of a somewhat
later
age
but
shall
name
two more,
of
in order to
text spread
show by them how the Western more and more widely to the different
ancient
world.
parts
birth,
the
Tatian,
Syrian
by
became u
disciple of Justin, probably in Koine,

to his
his
and afterwards went back

as
it
own
country, where
seems
he
that
Gospel in their is one Gospel made out of
countrymen the first native tongue, the famous Diatessaron,

gave
to
four.
I
am
not
going to enter into the very intricate questions about Tatian s Diatessaron, but shall content myself with
saying
this
much,
that
in
the
few
unadulterated
remnants of that work there appear clear traces of 1 the Western text of Luke, and that the quadripartite
Syriac Gospel, as contained in the MSS. discovered by
William Cureton and by Mrs. Lewis, counts as regards

a
number
of passages
among
the witnesses for
the
Western
text.
third witness for the
same
is
Clement of Alex
perhaps Marcion, seems to have possessed the Western text

1
andria, although neither he, nor Tatian, nor
Se.e
on the Diatessaron, Zahn,
ibid., p.
530
ff.
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN

while
still
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
147
in
its
pure form.
tions with other Gospels,
Apart from the confla which as we have seen began

with
the Oriental
in so
at a very
early date, conflations
text
must have been even more inevitable than

of
the case
the
Acts,
because
the
Gospel was
much more
copied and collated than the A general survey shows me that the /8 text Acts. of the Gospel, while more widely spread than that
read and
of the Acts,
was
in the
same measure more conflated
with
text,
the
other.
Clement read the Acts in the a

a
but the
Gospel in
mixed
one,
and so our
chief MSS.
of the
New
X,
Testament,
the Vaticanus
and the Sinaiticus
which are either of Alexandrian
origin or intimately connected with Alexandrian texts,
follow
a
in
in
the
Acts,
and exhibit a mixture of a

especially N in its
first
and
/3
the
Gospel, more
uncorrected state, while in

passages showing Western
there
are
but a few
influence.
We
the
/3
saw how
text
ever before, that even of the Acts
had
spread
as
late
also
to
Egypt, and that a MS. existing there

the beginning of the seventh century
of the
later
as at
became, by means
of our
I
all
Syriac
/3.
version,
one
best witnesses for Acts

to test the
first
"
may now go on
43 we have
combined evidence of
these witnesses, and

viii.
as regards the omissions.
In
in a
And
woman having an
all
issue of blood twelve years,
which had spent
her
148
living
upon physicians, neither could be healed of D, which is supported any, came behind Him," etc. by an old Egyptian
clause
in
five
version, exhibits the

"
whole relative
heal,"
words
the
whom
is
no one could
version,
while
B and
the
Sinaitic
Syriac
together
with
Armenian (which
simply omits
"
dependent on Syriac
.
.
authority),
cians,"
had spent
not"
physi
"neither
so that
we have
there
"could
instead of
could."
Can
?
be here any suspicion of inter

think
so
polation
do
not
(although
Westcott
and Hort follow
here as elsewhere), for
Mark
(v.
26), while giving the

entirely in
same thing in substance, differs the words, which is the ordinary relation
two
Gospel-writers
in
between
the
matters
which
So there can be no doubt they have in common. that Luke originally wrote what we read in the bulk
of MSS.
Whence, then, the omission the even more abridged form in D ?

Let us take another instance.
Chap.
and whence
x.
41
f.,
in the
well-known words of our Lord

strong Western
to
Martha, there
omitting
"
is
a very
evidence
for
the
whole
bulk of them, leaving nothing but
Mary
has
chosen
the
good
part,
Martha, Martha, which shall not

this
be taken away from
her."
Now, can
in
any
possibility be a case of
it)
(as Westcott and Hort express Western non-interpolation ? Those editors them
is
it,
selves do not think so, nor
on the other hand,
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN

in
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
149
any way easy

if
to
account for the omission of the

genuine,
words,
of
they
are
except
by the theory
two original
Again, in
texts,
one longer and another more
abridged.
xii.
according
to
"
19 the rich man of the parable, the Western evidence, says nothing
I
but this
And
be
;
will
say to
my
is
soul
thou hast
sufficient
much
for
goods,
merry."
This
quite
the sense
but everybody, I should think, would
prefer
"
the
longer
form
given
in
the
for
other
text
Soul, thou hast

ease,
much goods
eat,
laid
up
be
many
years
take thine
drink,
and
merry."
Why
should
we suppose
passage
?
ancient copyists or readers to have

as arbitrarily
to
had such a
this
fine
it
different taste,
mutilate
There was no dogmatic reason
for
whatever, nor any other save mere idleness,
which cannot rationally be thought to have formed an essential factor in New Testament tradition.
Luke
case,
of
course,
so
was
different
he
did
not
cherish his
to
do.
own work
of the
much
as others were
bound
The account
disciples
is if
colt
which Jesus
the
village
made His
29
ff.),
bring
Him
from
(xix.
by
given in this abridged form:

.
.
(31)
"And
any man ask you him: The Lord has need
thus shall
ye say unto
of him.
(32)
And
they
went
their
way
(34) and answered, The Lord
150

colt,
(35) And they brought the and cast their garments upon him," etc. In this verse we must consider the Greek words too
hath need of him.
last
Kcu t jyayov avrov TT/JOS TOV I^crouv, KCU eTripn/ avTfs O.VTWV TO. i/mTia CTTI TUV TrwAov TOV Trt/3i./3a(ra.v
Kcu ayayovre? TOV

eirepuif/av
CTT
TralAov
iguana O.VTMV avruv Kal tirefliflacrav

TO,
TOV
You
to
see
is,
that
lyo-ovv
stands
twice
in
it
a,
and
the
reason
that after
in
TTÔO?
TOV lya-ovv
because
bring
TOV
7rui\ov,
evr
was necessary UVTOV would

it
have been ambiguous, and after that

necessary
in
left
/3
was
other
again
to
repeat
Irjarovv.
On
TOV
the
hand,
the
unnecessary
first
Trôo?
lyo-ovv
has
been
out and the

this
clause given
by the
participle,
and in
way
the whole sentence has been brought
into a smoother
and more elegant form.

are
to
Now,
to
if
such
or
transformations
readers, I
be
ascribed
copyists
am
afraid
we
or
shall get a
kind of copyists
or readers
who
are but the creation of our
own
fancy,
without
having had
I,
having
now any
existence
in reality.
for
my
part,
am
not able to recognize

author,
of a
here anything but the license of an
who
is
handling
his
own
work, and the

is
skill
writer.
Speaking generally, the case
the converse of what

ff.).
we
find in a passage of the
Acts (xxv. 24
There
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN
ST.
LUKE S GOSPEL.
is
151
Festus, according to the a text,
made
to say thus
ranch
"
But when
found that he had committed
nothing worthy
appealed
him."
of death,
I
and that he himself hath

have determined to send
to
Augustus,
in
Of course
reality he said
to
much more than

audience in
this,
its
stating the case length,
his
illustrious
full
/3
and
in
accordance with this
we have
which
in
much more
are
told.
detailed speech, but one in
things
repeated which
the author well

to
himself had
avoid
these
So,
already
He
did
quite
a
repetitions
when he wrote
second copy.
in to
the account of the a Gospel, the things which

pass
are
first
came
predicted
and
a
prescribed
by
in
Jesus,
their
and
next
represented
for
;
second
time
fulfilment
and
execution
that
repetition
has
been
avoided in
the words
"
/3, and yet not wholly, inasmuch as even and answered, The Lord hath need of him,"
cannot be deemed to be strictly necessary.

I
might
give
series
of
cases
in
of
similar
character, the
finite,
number
of omissions
being in
in
but do not think
that this
would be
any
way
I
profitable.
So I refer
edition
my
readers for further

j3
instances
to
my
this
of the
text,
with which
think
ask
they
will
to
me
content, and will be likely Are there then no con question
be
verse cases of
addition
in
There
are
indeed
such cases, just as in a of the Acts, but comparatively
152

there
are
few in number, and some others

neither
of
where
the
texts
has
either
an addition or an
Let
omission, but the words are different.

of
me
speak
these
first.
There
is
a personage mentioned by
readers,
Luke,
a
who may be unknown to some of my man by name Chuzas, steward to Herod the
to Joanna,
tetrarch
and husband
who was one

Luke
viii.
of the
women
accompanying Christ (see

of course an
else.
3).
The name,
anywhere
Aramaic
if
one, does not occur
carefully,
Now, we
we
find
scrutinize our Latin witnesses very

in
I
(an old Latin version of the

in
seventh
century,
existing
Breslau
and published
is
by Professor Haase) instead of Chuzae, Cydiae. This there was one a very ancient Greek name
:
Cydias
lyric
poet,
and another
an Attic
orator,
mentioned by Aristotle, and another a painter from How does the the island of Cythnus, and so on.
Latin
copyist
come
by
that
?
name
Still
By
chance
Impossible.
I
By
came
correction
more impossible.
simplest
say
he
by
it
in
the
the
world,
himself.
by That
tradition,
which goes
similar
way in back to Luke

Aramaic
which
man had two

somewhat
names, one
and one Greek, of
sound,
he had adopted as more convenient for the cultivated and elevated circle in which he lived just as other
:
Jews, as early as in the time of the Maccabees, trans
formed
their
name
of
Jesus
into
Jason,
and
as
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
153
to
call
modern German Jews

themselves
written:
but,
called
Aaron
must
also
prefer
Arthur.
Luke
originally
called
have
"of
Chuza, who was

first
Cydias";
when copying
left
for
readers
in
Syria
and
Palestine, he
out
the
Greek name, and

readers,
when
copying again
for
Roman
he
left
out the
Aramaic
tion
of a
one.
There cannot be a more simple solu

if
puzzling problem, which,
you attempt
in
any other way, you will find insoluble.
Now
it
as regards the additions
found in D,
I think
best to follow the
same method
of solution
it
which
has proved practicable here, as far as

best
"
will go.
The
vi.
known
of the additions in
is
that in
He saw a man working on the and said unto him Man, if thou knowest Sabbath, what thou art doing, blessed art thou but if thou
the same day
: ;
On
dost not
of the
to
know
Lord
it,
thou art cursed, and a transgressor
law."
I
;
do not see here anything unsuitable

these
to
our
but
words were likely to give

Christian
great
spirit
offence
even
Jews, because
the
the
of the saying is quite that of Paul who, on one hand, gives us to understand that it is a
faith
to
weakness in (Rom.
theless
xiv.
5 f),
and on the other

so
esteem one day above another asserts that never

is
the
man
own
esteeming
not allowed to act

It
is,
against his
conscience
(ibid. 23).
therefore,
quite credible that
Luke preferred
to
leave out this
154
saying in the form of his Gospel destined for Oriental

congregations,
consisted
of
a,
very
considerable
in
it.
1
part
of
which
Jews,
whilst
Home
It is
there
was
no
cogent reason for omitting

that for this addition
is
very remarkable
;
is
the only witness

s
there
even no trace of Marcion

it
having known
it,
and
so
seems that
copies,
it
Roman
ones,
to
and
had very early disappeared from was preserved only in Gallic

(if I
which may have been derived

a
am
allowed
laying
carried
make
stress
rather
bold
conjecture,
without
any
upon it) copy For that by Crescens (2 Tim. iv. 10) to Gaul. there were written Gospels at that time within the
from
an
ancient
reach of an evangelist like Crescens, and that every

evangelist
undertaking a mission in a new country took care to provide himself with a written Gospel,
for
is
me
thing
for the
beyond question.
:
But why did
The words are

TCUS
e.g. ev 8
ffdfj-evos
r^pcus
(Gospel, v.
most part Luke s words TTJ avrfi r//^pp (cp. in the same position, Acts vi. 1). 9ea27; Acts xxi. 27, etc.). Tiva (?pya6/j.evot> (Gospel,
TO.VTO.IS,
;
;
T aappdrai (xiii. 14). WTrev curry "AvdpuTre (these three words as in xii. 14 cf. v. 20 xxii. 58, 60 avOpuTre is nowhere found beside in Luke, Paul, and James ii. 20). Ei pev (Acts xviii. 14 xix. 38 xxv. 11; never in Matthew, Mark, John). OI5a; TL iroifis
xiii.
14).
(Gospel, xxiii. 34).

firiKa.Tdpa.Tos
vii.
49).
Ma/cdpios el (Gospel, xiv. 14, etc.). Et 5e /; oldas, (only in Paul, Gal.atians iii. 10, 13, and perhaps John Kat Trapa/Sd-njs (only in Paul and James). Hapa/3. TOV
ii.
VO/JLOV
(Romans
,.
25,
27; James
(ye)
ii.
11).
el
There
is,
difficulty, viz.
that
we should expect
/j.r]
8t OVK olSas in
cf. x.
however, one New Testa

;
ment Greek, or
else el 5e
without verb,
xiii. 9.
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN

the
ST.
LUKE S GOSPEL.
in
their
155
copies
?
Eomans
strike
out the
verse
Because they found it was absent from the Oriental MSS., which must have appeared to them, as early
as in
the
second
or
at
century,
least
more
trustworthy
to
than
their
own,
sufficient
render dubious
not
exist
at
the
authority
;
of
anything which did

the
in
them
and
of
course
time as in later times, cared
Roman much
Church,
that
for being reputed
thoroughly orthodox and untainted by untrustworthy

doctrines or writings.
Neither
are
we
quite
devoid
to
of
this
;
instances
of
I
additions which are

shall
much akin
but here
it
speak only of one addition, which
is,
is
true,
not preserved in D, nor in any Latin versions, but
only in some Greek minuscule
MSS. derived from a
common
These
original, which probably was very ancient, and existed somewhere in Southern Italy or Sicily.
MSS.
have
been
carefully
studied
by
my
learned and
much esteemed
are
friend
called
of
Professor llendel
the
Ferrariani,
Harris
they
the
commonly
of
because
affinity
some
them
was
first
observed by a Dublin professor, the late
W. H.
Ferrar.
The passage
in
question
is
very long
one,
and
s
extremely well known, only not as a part of

Gospel,
Luke
but as a part of John.
am
speaking of
vii.
the
11,
section
about the adulteress, John

is
53-viii.
which
now
generally recognized not to have
156

s
belonged originally to John

for this decision
Gospel.
The reasons
Horfc:
you may
find in
Westcott and
that
it
does not exist in the whole mass of ancient

MSS.,
and trustworthy Greek Oriental

that
it
including the
;
metrical paraphrase of the Gospel

is
made by Nonnus
and
Cyril,
;
wholly unknown
the
to
all
the Greek fathers,

nay,
it
down
to
to
time
of
Chrysostom
down
is
the tenth or even twelfth century
that
not unanimously assigned to this particular place

is
in John, but of this

lastly,
placed by some witnesses at the close

vii.
Gospel, by others after
36
or
vii.
44
1
j
that
it
neither has the well-known and very

it
definite style of John, nor does
suit the tenor of
the narrative into which

as there are
it
has been thrown.

to
it
But
two places assigned
in
documental
said, in
tradition, one in John, and another, as I have
Luke,
it
by no means follows that

if
it
it
is
altogether
to
spurious,
is
proved
not
to
belong
one
of
these places.
may
Eccl.
state at once that, according to

3.
Eusebius
(Hist.
39,
17),
either
this
or
similar story
was
told
to
by Papias, and found in the
Gospel
according
it
the
Hebrews (/c0
that
it
E(3palov$),
and that
has been
conjectured
it
came
into
first
John from there; but

its
is
only just to
s
examine
claim to a place in Luke
Gospel, and in the case

it
of this also being

l
proved unfounded, then to refer
See Nestle, Einfiihrung in das Gr. N.T., p. 102.
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN

back
to
ST.
LUKE S GOSPEL.
157
in in
an apocryphal source.
is
Luke s Gospel
of the
Now, which place The place is claimed by it ?

in
chap, xxi., after the great sermon on the destruction
temple
it
and the end of the world

the
is
the
Ferrariani
follows
last
verse of that chapter,
and the connection

people came early
this:
(ver.
38)
to
"And
all
the
in
the
(
morning
temple, for to hear Him.
= John
Olives.
vii.
(
Him in the 53) And every

1
f.)
man went
into
went unto the
own Mount of
his
etc.
house.
= viii.
And
all
Jesus
early in the
morning He came
into the temple,
and
the people
;
came unto
Him,"
Impossible, you will say

friend,
and
very justly.
the
first
My
young
to
E. Lippelt,
who was
place for
to call
my
and
it
attention to the
Lucan character
fit
of this section,
it,
this chapter as a
did not regard
as wholly impossible
but never
against
theless I feel compelled to
make two changes

:
the authority of
the
Ferrariani
in the
first
"And
place
wholly to
cancel the introductory words,

his
every
absent
man went unto
own
house,"
which
are
from the Latin Corbeiensis (/ 2 ), and are, in my opinion nothing but the link of connection added to the section
in order to adjust
to
it
to the place in
earlier.
"
place
it
two verses
:
John, and secondly Now, the connection
And (after the great sermon) becomes the following And early in Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. the morning He came again into the temple, and all
158
the

people
came unto
Him,"
etc.
(the
to
rest
of the
section,
"
ending with Jesus

xxi.
words
the
the
And (Luke
("Hi/
37
f.)
in
day time
woman). He was
teaching
$e
rap
;
r]/u.epas
SiSda-Kow,
imperfect of
custom) in the temple and at night He went out, and abode (eêp-ô/uevos rjvXiêro, imperf.) in the mount
that
is
called the
Mount
of Olives.
And
all
the people
for
came
hear
early in
Him."
the morning (wp6pi(ev, imperf.)
to
I venture to say that this connection is

it
so perfect that
cannot be the result of chance, but
must
really go back to the author.
There
is
first
an
pass on the next day, and after that a general summary of what came to pass on all of these days, given partly in the same words as
account of
what came
to
the beginning of the special account, but a
little
more more
circumstantially, since a general custom deserved
words than the occurrence of a single day. There is an account somewhat akin to this in the /3 text of the
Acts, xv.
41
xvi.
4:
"And
he went through Syria
and
Cilicia,
confirming the brethren, and delivering the
decrees of the apostles and elders.
After having gone
through these nations, he came to Derbe and to Lystra Then (xviii. 1-3) about Timothy; and, (in Lycaonia)."
And going through the cities, unto them with all confidence the Lord they preached Jesus Christ, delivering at the same time the decrees
in conclusion (v. 4)
"
of the apostles
and elders who were
in
Jerusalem."
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN

Since,
ST.
LUKE
S GOSPEL.
159
then,
the
place in
Luke
Gospel claimed
by the section in question (according to the Ferrariani)

really
seems
to
have been
its original place,
the second
question
to
will be,
s
whether
not.
its style
may
be pronounced
safely
be
Luke
it
or
Now, we may
it
pro
nounce
so
but I prefer not to give here the dis

elsewhere,
1
cussion in detail, having already given
and the case being that everybody, who

of
is
in possession
concordance,
may
inquire
into
the
matter for
is
himself.
That in
this long passage,
which
besides
of a peculiar kind, there are
elsewhere in Luke,
find in
is
in
accordance
s
some words not occurring with what we

writing
(sec
any other piece of Luke
above
on
p.
113
f.
118).
there
is
To sum
up,
external
evidence
s
2
for
it
the
section s place
fits
having been in Luke

into
is
xxi.,
its
really
is
perfectly well
that place, and
style
quite
that
which
Is
to
be expected in the case of

all
:
Lucan
for
origin.
this
we may demand
it
No
everybody
will
ask
How, then, was
possible
original
?
that the
section
lost
almost completely
it
its
place
and how did
pass from Luke into John
Unless we see at least the possibility of these things, we cannot restore it to its place in Luke. Has there
1
See
my
edition of
Luke on
p.
xlviii.
There is besides the evidence of a Greek evangelistary TOU Kara which gives this section as a part of Luke
(<?K
(nr. 435),
A.).
160
perhaps been offence taken at
and highly authoritative

this
by some very ancient Christian teachers ? But

it viz.,
although offence might be taken, this result,

long
piece
that
was
omitted
from
all
the
ancient
Oriental MSS., nay, as regards Luke, from almost all

MSS.,
and that
it
was unknown
to
all
the
ancient
fathers of the
all
Greek Church, nay as a part of Luke, to the fathers of the Greek and Latin Church never
this
can be explained in
solution possible
to
:
way.
There
is
but
all
one
the section must give up
claim
itself
the
Oriental
a
form
place
of
Luke,
in
and
the
content
with
claiming
only
Roman
of
Luke.
Under
ties
this supposition
a large
part
the difficul
above stated vanish at once, and the rest cease

insurmountable.
the
to be
Suppose that
early
in
the
it
second century
Roman Church found
that
had
in its
Gospel a very remarkable narrative, which
was disclaimed by all Eastern copies and authorities. To allege that this form of the Gospel had been given to the Roman Church by St. Luke himself, at a time
anterior to the Neronian persecution, by which the then
existing
of
community
Christians
had
been
almost
entirely destroyed, would be not so very easy, those On the ancient facts being no longer upon record.
other hand, the charge of having an unauthenticated
So the Church Gospel must be avoided at any price. not finding in itself that strength of resistance of Rome,
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN

which
its
it
ST.
LUKE S GOSPEL.
time,
161
from
possessed
at
later
banished
copies of Luke s Gospel all the seemingly un warranted parts, and for that reason the section in
is
question
not known, as far as

before
we can
see, to
any
Latin
father
even Marcion ignored

existing in Marcion
s
century. Perhaps although the fact of its not Gospel does not go far enough to
it,
the
fourth
prove that
he might have his individual reasons for

section as well as a great
omitting this
passages.
many
other
Nevertheless, the section did not wholly but was permitted to exist in some copies perish, as a kind .of appendix to Luke s Gospel, or (as now
in
Westcott and Hort

;
edition)
its
to
the Gospels
place
in
general
even the record of
original
must
have been preserved somewhere, by some adscript, for instance, made to the end of the twenty-first chapter
:
Here comes in
the passage
on the adulteress.
For
if
there existed in an archetype of the Ferrariani a remark

of this tenor, a copyist might be induced to take out
the section from
St.
John and put
it
in here in such a
way, that
it
is
not quite at the right place, and yet

it
does not drop the additional link to John which

received at
its
had
So far we do not find any beginning. serious difficulty but the other question still remains
;
unanswered
there,
How
did
it
come
into
John
It existed
fourth
though only in the West, as early as in the century, as we gather from the attestations
162
by Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome we even see that it was held in much esteem, and that its omission in a
;
part
of
of
the copies
was ascribed
to
the supposition
it
some jealous husbands having struck did Jerome venture to banish it from
Latin
version,
out.
Nor
have
his
corrected
to
which
principle
he
of
certainly
ought
the
done
on
his
going
So,
by
standard
of the Oriental
Greek
its
copies.
having got a very
strong hold on
new
is
seat in John, it finally gained
the East too, and
nowadays even
better
known
than a great
many
other stories in the
New
Testament.
remains quite unknown and undecided, who even brought the section into this place in John
But
it
the reasons for such an act can be

guessed.
If
it
but imperfectly
in
formed, at
some time
to
the third
century,
a
to
kind of
appendix
the
Gospels,
in
and
seemed
West, whoever he was, to be both authentic and of a special value, he would seek out for it a fit place in one of the
four Gospels, and
some authoritative person
the
might
imagine that Christ
not
judging the
viii.
15,
woman where He
stood in a close relation to
John
says:
"Ye
judge after the flesh;
judge no man," wherefore he put in the section at And so the next fitting place before that verse.
we may
leave
this
interesting
as
question, of
stating
so
much, that as long
the
chain
external
and
it
internal evidence remains
unbroken, by which
is
THE DOUBLE TEXT IN
ST.
LUKE
GOSPEL.
is
163
both
in
proved that the section about the adulteress
Lucan and absent from the Oriental Luke, we have

it
the firm proof for the existence of a different early lioman Luke, that is, for the existence of two authentic
forms of Luke.
There
is
still
one question which

left
may
be asked:
in
Has Luke
or did
it
intentionally
out
this
piece
come
to
him from some

If I
fresh source, after
he had written a?
a
as
am
to
pronounce on such
second alternative
prefer
question,
should
regard
the
rather
improbable, and
should
the
first,
there
evidently being
section
as
the same
reasons
for leaving
vi.
out
this
for
not giving the verse,
5.
Christian
position
Jews might have

of Jesus
taken
the
offence
at
this
regarding
Mosaic law, which
might seem to be practically abolished by Him.
We
;
must bear
in mind, that
the
woman s
being stoned,
according to the law, was actually out of the question
by answering
to
in
the
affirmative, Jesus would have
given the Jews an opportunity for denouncing

the
Him
the
Roman
authority, which
had
deprived
Jews
of the right of putting

xviii.
John
31).
But
anybody to death (see whoever did not bear that

still
in mind, and
for
was, although a Christian,

(sec
zealous
the
law
Acts
xxi.
20),
might
be
offended,
and Luke did not care

by publishing
to
give
unnecessary offence
this narrative in a country
where there
164
were many thousands of Christians of that description In Home, on the other hand, he might (Acts I.e.}. feel himself quite at liberty and not bound to any
reticence.
CHAPTER
X.
SOME OTHER TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES IN
LUKE S GOSPEL.
I
SHALL not give other proofs
for
the double form
of
Luke s Gospel
it
but nevertheless we cannot leave
this in
Gospel yet, since there are

of high
many
other passages
importance, of which some elucidation
may
In
be given from textual criticism.

itself.
We
shall follow
the order of the book

ii.
7 there
is
a reading attested
;
by Epiphanius
in his
book against heresies (51. 9

relates,
ii.
460
f.,
Ddf.).
Luke
says
he,
that
the
Child
had
been
wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lay in a manger and in a cave (ev fyaTvy KOI [ev] a-TrtfXalw) because
,
there
is
was
no room
in
the
inn.
Now
not
this
cave
even
now
other
;
generally
known,
from
but
Luke
from
or
any
cave
part
is
of
Holy
Scripture,
in
tradition
the
nowadays existing and a splendid basilica, which has been
there
Bethlehem
166
built

over
it.
The
tradition
is
attested
as
early
as Origen (against Celsus, 1. 51),
and Justin (Dialogue

"
with Tryphon, Ixxviii.), unless the latter is directly Since Joseph quoting from Luke his words are had not in that village a house where he might
;
:
lodge,
he
found
accommodation
village."
in
certain
to
cave
this
belonging to the
evidence,
hesitate
reject
especially
that
given
by Epiphanius,
and
do believe that there were copies of Luke containing that reading. It differs from the ordinary one in
two points more, viz., that Epiphanius gives He where the corresponding word in the common Greek
"
lay,"
text
is
not
"laid"
(e $>?/ce),
but
"laid
Him
down"
"
(ave"
K\ivev\ and that in the next clause he omits

(UVTOIS).
to
them
Now
these two readings are likewise found
in Latin witnesses
and partly
in Justin,
and so we
may
be
easily be induced to ascribe the whole of Epi
phanius
reading to the form

in
/3,
although
it
cannot
what way the writer came by that form, or by this part of it, whether directly or in for it may well be that he is borrowing from directly
;
shown
another writer.
sage
is
At any
rate,
this
quite in
harmony with
in a
form of the pas itself, and may seem

It could not
preferable to the ordinary one.

"
be said,
they laid
Him down
"
manger and
in a
cave,"
but
"laid
(the general and indefinite word)

in a cave
Him
in a
"
man
inn,"
ger and
might be said
moreover, to
TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES IN LUKE

or generally, a
"place
GOSPEL.
find
167
where one could
lodgings"
(for the Greek word KaraXv/na by no
means excludes
gives
(if
private
accommodation),
the
cave
much
better contrast than the manger,

is
which
the cave
may be supposed to have belonged to the inn or to the private house. I scarcely need
left
out)
to
mention
are
the
well-known
in
fact,
that
caves
were
in
and
much used
the
Orient
for
stalls,
which case they must of course contain a manger.

So I should say that Luke
here
s
archetype
is
rendered
the
"
by
"
/3
and
not
to
by
the
a,
and
that
possibly
preference
lean
given
more
expressive word
to
(ava.K\iveLv)
had induced the author to leave

"
out
the
"
cave in
laid,"
a.
Instead of
is
"
she wrapped up
and
she
there
in
the Latin
codex
. .
.
the
very commendable reading,

"
"they
laid
the
other
one
may
be
"
wrapped they mere corruption

"
occasioned
(ere/rev).
by
the
preceding,
she
brought
tells
forth
Neither Epiphanius nor Justin
against
this
correction.
We
of
proceed to the third chapter, where the baptism

is
is
Christ
told,
and
in
connection
with
?
it
His
genealogy given. not the proper place for the genealogy be either in the first or in the second chapter ? Editors are
Whence
this connection
Would
accustomed
to
begin
fresh
paragraph
with
the
genealogy, or to leave a blank space, signifying that
168
they find here a break and not a connection.

if
But
we want
only
to
to
understand
look
into D.
this
strange
that
sequel,
we
have
Not
is
here again
;
a difference of the
I
two forms
to
this
all
be recognized
solution
doors. to
am
it
as
from pretending very were a key which unlocks

far
be
the
On
contrary, there are very

of
is
where the reading many a mere corruption, and other cases where
cases
is
the reading of the a-witnesses
nothing but corrupt.

kinds
in
Now,
if
there are manifold
other causes and
of alteration,
the
one which
most predominates
the Gospels
is
their being
jumbled with each

at the
other.
We
of
must
therefore
be on our guard, whenever one

is
two contending readings
same time uni
versally attested in another Gospel or other Gospels,
that
we may not be deceived by
the
authority of
conflation.
MSS. which are by no
means exempt from
In the passage in question (iii. 22), the words from heaven are according to the great bulk of MSS.
"
Thou
art
my
But,
beloved
according
Son
to
in
Thee
and
am
well
pleased."
some
Latin
witnesses
(this
evidence
fathers),
being supported
the
I
by Justin
"
and
by
Son,
other
words
are,
Thee."
Thou
If
art
my
(iii.
to-day
have
begotten
we
look into
Matthew and Mark, we find in Matthew 17) very nearly, and in Mark (i. 11) exactly
as in
the
same reading
the
common
text
of Luke.
TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES
IN
LUKE
GOSPEL.
169
This must render us suspicious, and
make
Luke
us attend
s
very carefully to other individualities of

in
passage,
is
order to
see
which of the
two
the
readings
in
accordance with those.

in
Now,
words
following
Luke
are
these
"
And
Jesus Himself began to
be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed,

the son of Joseph, which was the son of
so
on.
Heli,"
and
no
We
have
seen
this
already
sequel
that
there
is
connection
between
and
;
the
preceding
is
words as they are commonly read

very clear
connection
"
but there
the
if
we
I
take
words given
" "
by D.
in
art
The
opposition
my
son
Son,"
stands begotten Thee to the thirty years, and the Thou likewise to as was supposed being
to-day have
"
the
of
Joseph."
This
therefore
is
the genuine
reading, and the other one a product of assimilation

to the other Gospels
;
for I
cannot believe that there
was
ever
material
discrepancy
there would
between
the
two
if
authentic
forms, as
to
be in this case
that of a
we chose
verse offer
regard
one reading as
(3.
and
the other as that of
The words
in the following
which
very great additional difficulties cannot expound here I will only point out
;
many and
to
that the
"began
be"
(23), ap-ô/mevo?, appears to

"
be a corruption
scil.
from fpxo/uevos,
(ep-ô/uLevos
see
when He came
given
"
to the baptism minuscule codex 700,
is
by
e
the
above on
p.
61
170
e?ri
PHILOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. TO
/3a7T-n<r,ua,
by
Clement of Alexandria, and
together with the corruption ap-ô/u-evo? by Irenaeus), and that the rest of the verse must, in my opinion,
be restored in this way, that the qualifying clause,

"
as
was
to
supposed,"
refers
both to the thirty years

of
1
and
the
of
fatherhood
Joseph.
the
Certainly
eternal
disciple
Paul
could
not ignore
pre-
existence
(ii.
of Christ,
is
7),
which
and the passage of the Psalm likewise referred to Christ by Paul

xiii.
in the speech related in Acts
33, and by the

(i.
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
v.
5),
might the whole

theological
in
be interpreted
of
not of a definite day, but of
eternity.
I
But
shall
as
these
are
purely
questions,
not
venture to enter
them
further.
As
for
the
genealogy immediately following, the

reference
to
difficulties
with
that
in
Matthew
are
them.
enormously great, It seems to
and
far surpass
my
ability to solve
me
an unwarranted supposition that

is
the genealogy given by Luke

of Joseph, although, of
ii.
that of
Mary and
not
by the way, the Davidic descent by the

"
Mary
4, 5,
is
also attested
:
"Western
reading in
which runs thus
And Joseph
is
is
also
went up
unto the city of David,

1
which
by me
called Bethlehem, to
:
The
text finally adopted
this
rjv
dt
Irjaovs
ir&v rpiaKovra, ws tvofiifero, vioj Iwff-rj^ K.T.\., "Jesus was, when He came (to the baptism), about thirty years old, as was supposed,
u)5
and the son
of
Joseph,"
etc,

be taxed with
S GOSPEL.
171
Mary
for
his wife, 1
David."
because they were of

This reading gives
the house and lineage of

also a
good reason
Mary
this journey, instead of
accompanying Joseph on remaining in Nazareth, which

s
would otherwise have been more convenient

condition.
to
her
But
as
Luke expressly
"
"
says,
the son of
Joseph,
who was
the son
etc., it is
clear that at least
opinion, he did not give here the forefathers of Mary. What I have to discuss in this is the remarkable fact that, if we are to place very
according to his
own
credit
is
I),
the discrepancy between
Matthew and Luke
altogether non-existent, because
(but
alone in
as
this case) gives the
same names of the forefathers

of course
call
is
it,
Matthew
does.
The order
is
the inverse,
being the ascending, as

the descending order.
we
But
while
Matthew has
After having
treating just
not this a clear case of

?
assimilation of one Gospel to another
decided
the
critical
question
we were
now, by giving the preference to the non-assimilated

reading,
we
are
bound
to abide
by the same
principle,
the more so as
cases of assimilation
are even
more
stands
frequent in
1
"
than in other MSS., and as

"
The espoused wife
of the
ordinary text
is
a very clear
corruption, due to an assimilation to i. 27 (where the case is quite different), and to dogmatic prejudices like those which have
influenced the text of
of
Matthew
(see
above on
"taken
p. 86).
At
the time
him"
chap.
i.
ii.
Joseph had already
his
wife
unto
(Matt.
24).
172

It is true that there is a special
quite unsupported.
reason which
the
list
may
be alleged in favour of D,
is
viz.,
that
of
names
The
David
not quite identical with that in

is
Matthew.
latter
incomplete,
the carrying
to
the
number
to
of
names
after
until
away
Baby
lon having
sion
been reduced
;
thirteen, by the omis
of four kings
now
in
Luke has
these four
kings,
and the supposition may
be made, that
Luke
list,
himself has given in his later edition this full
which he found not in Matthew but

authority, and which seemed
to
1
in
Matthew
than his
own formerly
as
given.
him more trustworthy But if Luke used the

full
same author
list,
he ought to which must be deemed
Matthew, and had access to the give more names in another part
to
too,
be even more incomplete
than that from David to the Babylonian captivity. Matthew divides his list into three parts, each of
fourteen
names
as
he expressly states
(ver.
17);
the
second part, that from David downwards, contains
now
but thirteen, very likely because of the omission of one name (that of Joiakim or Eliakim) in the MSS. 2 A similar supposition has been made by Ferd. Graefe (see
1
above on
p.
140) in
Theolocj.
Studien und Kritiken, 1898, 123
ff.
on the different spelling of the and in Matthew, e.g. Abia M., Abiud D in Luke. names and words in the New Testament are hardly variations, and what is to be compared with D of
relies especially
He
names in D But Semitic

ever without
Luke
is
the
Western Matthew (D Western Matthew (c, k,

2
itself
etc.)
Now the wanting in this part). gives Abiuth, Abiud, or Abiu,
See Graefe, p. 124.
TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES IN LUKE S GOSPEL.
173
That part comprehends a space of about four hundred years, and ought to contain, as we have seen, seventeen names the three others must have been left out by
;
Matthew
himself.
Now
the
third
part
(which
in
first), comprehending about six hundred years, ought to have about twenty-six names, and yet it has but fourteen in D of Luke as in Matthew.
"We
Luke comes
are
bound
to
conclude therefore that the four
names come from the

insertion
Book of Kings,
even
in
and
their
may
;
be due to any reader acquainted with

there
are
that
book
Matthew
various
readings giving this supplement.

fore
In this case there

rejected
;
the evidence of
must be
but there
is
is still
another one in the same genealogy which
of
a different nature.
The common text
of
Luke has
between Sala and Arphaxad (ver. 35 f.) one Cainari, in accordance with the Greek Old Testament, but at
variance with
the
Hebrew, where
this
personage
is
altogether wanting.
this a correction
Now D
omits this Cainan.

of the
Is
made by means
Hebrew
text?
That seems to be very unlikely, since the readers of Luke, with a very few exceptions (as Jerome), were But the insertion of unacquainted with Hebrew. Cainan into the common text
may have been made

So here we shall con
as
by means of the Greek Old Testament, just as in

the case of the four kings.
versely
the text of D,
in
ver.
adopt
22,
but
174
as

there did without any reference to the special
form.
we
Roman
In the beginning of the eleventh chapter, where the prayer of our Lord is given, there are again very
serious variations in the reading, both in
the intro
duction to the prayer and in the prayer

introduction as far
"
itself.
The
:
as
regards the
as
disciples
words
Lord, teach
is
us
the
to
pray,
John
also
taught
in
his
disciples,"
same
everywhere.
But
this
the
following words of our Lord

text
"
gives
amplified
"When
ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the

shall be heard for
rest do
for
some think that they

speaking."
their
much
will
Why,
this is again
Matthew,
you
"the
say at once.
Only that Matthew has not

1
rest,"
but
"the
heathen,"
nor
"some
think,"
do"
but
(o>?
"they
think."
The
expression,
"as
the rest
01 XotTTo/), is
besides well in accordance with

xviii.
Luke
we may compare
not as the rest of
11,
"
"I
thank Thee that I
am
men
(co9
ol \onrol
TWV
it
avOpuiTrwv),
while there
is
not any close parallel to

XotTro?).
in the other
Gospels (John never uses
It
is
even more
important that both the general tenor of this intro

duction, and in particular the words
are
"
as the rest
do,"
extremely
well
suited
is
to
all
that
;
precedes
or
s
follows.
Shortness
recommended
is
now, our Lord
prayer, according to Luke,

1
even shorter than accordvTroKpirai,
The
Vatic.
gives not
(2, 5).
tOvixol
but
by assimilation
to the
preceding verses
TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES IN LUKE S GOSPEL.

ing to Matthew.
It is
175
John the Baptist whose example is alleged by the disciple John, then, and his disciples must be included by the expression, and the
;
"the
rest,"
fact of
John s
disciples
is
the Pharisees
(v.
making no fewer prayers than attested by Luke, and by Luke alone

do the disciples of John fast often,
"
33):
"Why
and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the where the Pharisees but Thine eat and drink ?
;
addition
and make prayers is absent from Mark I do not think that a reading may and Matthew.
"
"
be safely discarded as worthless,

to
when
come
there
is
so
much
be said in favour of
it.
But
it
if it
?
does not come
from Matthew, whence does
All the words,
with these few exceptions, are the same as in Matthew.
How
source
shall
we
explain
assumption, that
in
Of course by the Luke and Matthew had some Greek

that
?
;
opinion, be
common that assumption must, in my made at any rate, because verbal agreement
rare upon the whole, some measure, and because that
if
between Luke and Matthew,

exists nevertheless in
Luke borrowed from Matthew

reasons,
is excluded by cogent he did not know any Gospel bearing the name of an apostle (see above on p. 16). But
since
Matthew may have borrowed from Luke.

apply this to the passage
granted that
if
in question,
is
Ds
this
reading
you you have already genuine Luke, and even

thesis
If
you except
one
case,
you are sustaining a
176
which you

will find very
hard to prove. 1 Well, you will say, I grant the common source, but how is it to For there be explained that D alone has the words ?
is
really no other witness for

vi.
them but D,
as in the
case of
5, or in that of
the genealogy.
Since
in
it
would
be untenable to assume an
text,
omission
the
common
difference
nothing remains but to recognize here a
between the two forms.

a.
But
/3
is
the
shorter one, not
True,
if
you except some cases where

case
here.
Luke
left
out in a what might give offence to Oriental
readers.
But
this
is
not the be
On. the
still
contrary, might there not
Oriental
readers
adhering to John the Baptist?

of course
In Borne there was

but for Palestine the
no one of that kind
persistence of
John
for
s sect is
well attested, and Luke,
when
writing
those
countries,
might
have
his
reasons for considering the feelings of that sect.
indeed a strange mixture of good and bad in this codex Bezae (as there is, by the way, in
is
"
But there
"
every
alone
good
and
ancient
manuscript).
Here
it
has preserved something valuable, and in the

it
next verses
untrustworthy
1
agreement with the mass of witnesses, which exhibit the Lord s

is
in
The
thesis
has been sustained (in a very clever way) by G.
edition Schliiger in Theol. Studien und Krit., 1896, 83 ff. See also of Luke s Gospel, xix. f. Schlager, too, does not ahvays attend to
my
various readings.
Matt.
xxii. 35, vo/MKbs is
an interpolation coming
from Luke.
TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES
Prayer not in
the
shorter
IN
LUKE S GOSPEL.
of
177
form
but in the enlarged one of Matthew.

dwell
genuine Luke, I need not
on
question decided long
ago.
Our
best
:
witnesses
"
give the prayer in Luke in this form hallowed be Thy name. Father, Thy kingdom come. And forgive us Give us day by day our daily bread.
sins, for
our
we
also forgive everyone that

temptation."
it
is
indebted
is
to us.
And
less a
lead us not into

?
Or,
is
not
even this genuine Luke
That
is
not
asserted
by no
of
personage than the well-known Gregory

expressly states that
"
of Nyssa,
"Thy
who
Luke has
instead
kingdom
us
:
come,"
us and
make
clean."
Thy Holy Ghost come upon Nor does he stand alone and
the
first
unsupported
ecclesiastic
there
is,
in
place,
another
writer,
Maximus
least
(see
Confessor,
attesting the
MSS.,
same
secondly,
at
one of our
own
is
the
minuscule codex 700
above on
p.
61 and 169),
Marcion,
1 actually has this reading;
thirdly, there
in
whose Gospel, according

"
to Tertullian, these
come,"
words
first
stood side by side with

pait of the prayer,
Thy kingdom
be
the
"Hallowed
Thy
name,"
having
been suppressed.
Lastly,
"
itself
has preserved the
two words,
before
"
upon us
(e(
^/xf),
which stand
to
in
eX0ero>.
As
this
appears
be the result of
a conflation
so also
is
(sec
Professor Sanday in Westcott-Hort)

s rb
Marcion
Trvevfj.0.
text
ayt.oi>
in
i<fi
the
copy
used
by
W rb
crov
TJ/J.O.S
xal KaOapiffdru ûa?.
178 him the

name,"

original
Lucan words,
to
"
Hallowed be
Thy
had given way

"
the
adscript coming from
Matthew,
in
Thy kingdom
come."
For
it is
not likely
any way that there were in Luke s original form two adjacent clauses beginning with the same word
eXOerco.
I believe therefore
that Gregory and codex
700
give the true Lucan text, and that
Luke
s s
form of
than
is
the prayer differed even more from
Matthew
a
commonly thought, of course as well in copy as in the Eoman, so important
the Oriental
difference
between the two being wholly incredible. But which form, or which author, is more deserving of our trust ?
Luke
or
Matthew
Theologians
perhaps will
not
hesitate to give an
answer
but I deny the right of

is settled.
?
putting the alternative, until another question
Are both
Certainly,
is
of our authors speaking of the

it
same thing
is to
will be answered,
if
for
the
introduction
the same in both,
Ds
reading there
be con
sidered genuine.
Matthew cut
in I
off the question
asked
by the
disciple
order to insert the prayer into the
great sermon.
was indeed just now supposing a Greek authority common to Matthew and Luke, and it may be argued that Luke has preserved the true form by
that
authority.
given
And Matthew,
shall
answer, has combined and welded that authority with
another authority, or else Luke has done the same.
What means
are there to decide such questions
As
S GOSPEL.
179
long as scholars dream of one definite primitive Gospel,

in
raise
open contradiction to Luke s proem, they will both but as soon as that un and answer them
;
warranted supposition
is
removed we get
rid of a host
of inextricable questions. of either account,

of the prayer in
is it is
As
for the welded character
to be noticed that the
words
Luke and Matthew, even when there

agreement between
them,
are
substantial
but
partly the same, and that more comes into the ques
tion than
abridgment or enlargement. In the account of the Supper of our Lord

text are
(xxii.
ff.)
the divergencies between the different witnesses for

s
Luke
form
uncommonly
radical
great,
and
I
its
ordinary
is
indeed far from satisfactory.

1
have proposed
out not
elsewhere
a very
solution, striking
only
these
vers.
19& and 20, but

but
also ver.
19, and by
clear
means establishing a narrative both

in
itself,
and
consistent
not containing any longer

s
the institution of the Lord
Supper.
Now,
I hardly
need say,
that I
theological reasons.
of
have not been determined by any The audacity and presumption

speak
chiefly
theologians
is
:
of
some
German
theologians
nowhere exhibited more scandalously
than
here
they mount by the sole force of their
1 See Theolog. Studien und Kritiken, 1896, p. 733 ff. The subject has been very carefully expounded in that same journal by F. Graefe, 1896, p. 250 ff. ; 1898, p. 134 ff.
180

St.
genius higher than
Paul, into the very
mind
of
to
our Lord, and bring
back revelations
according
which the Christian Church, nay even its founders, the apostles, have been strangely deceived about
the real sense of this institution, or about
its
being
an institution at
to
all.
As
for myself, I
have no desire
mount
their Pegasus,
who
will
very soon throw

to
his rider, a
new Bellerophon, and am content

"
walk
on earth and to scrutinize the evidence of

order to get a sublime recognition of
MSS., not in
things,"
spiritual
which
man"
are
(1
far
ii.
above
14),
the
that
reach
is
of
the
"
natural
Cor.
both of philology and
of scientific theology, but to find out, if possible,
what
Luke
or another of our authorities has really written.
Now
the vers. 19& and 20, which closely agree with

xi.
Paul (1 Cor.
witnesses;
left
24
f.),
ver. 19a,
are left out by D and other which agrees with Mark, is not
its
out by any witness; but

in
all
position not being the
same
the
witnesses,
that
verse
too
becomes
suspicious.
Moreover,
we must
it
find a reason for the

is
whole mass of variations, that

text,
to say
an original
which
invited, as
;
were, readers to alterations
and additions
at
the same time the
required text
must be irreproachable from another point of view, which we may suppose to have been that of the
author.
The
out vers.
and Hort, who leave 19&, 20, but retain 19a, does not answer to
text of Westcott
GOSPEL.
181
the latter condition, since the institution of the cup

is
Luke is not to be supposed to wholly wanting have given a mutilated account, but either no account
;
at
all,
or
complete
one.
if
The
latter
alternative
being apparently excluded,

variants
for
we
are to explain the

at
the
complete,
and
the
same time,
there
orderly text would not have given any offence

is
but the former remaining, that
is
the supposition
that
Luke chose
to
is
to
leave
out
what was commonly

matter
of
fact,
known
point
relate
his
readers.
his
As
this
not
only
omission,
since he
does not
anywhere how the betrayer was disclosed by

is
Jesus, nor
he the only evangelist who omits the institution of the Lord s Supper, since the case is the
same
in John.
But
later readers did not
understand
his intention,
and either inserted both bread and cup

(vers.
from
St.
Paul
195, 20), or, wrongly imagining

(in ver.
that the cup
was already there
17
f.),
they
inserted the bread from Mark.
I entreat
my
is
readers
to read the narrative for themselves, leaving out ver.
19
f.,
and
to ask themselves if this
form
not quite
it
satisfactory
under the single supposition, that

to
was
not
Luke s intention
s
relate the institution

"
of the
you,"
Lord
etc.
Supper.
The sequence,
"But
For
I say unto
(ver.
18), and
(ir\riv)
behold, the
21),
.
.
hand
of
him
that betrayeth
xviii.
me,"
etc.
(ver.
is
.
much
like
that in
"I
tell
you
that
Nevertheless
182
when
"
the Son of
Man,"
etc.,
or in xix.
(Tr\*]v)
26
For
I say unto you, that

etc.
But
those mine
s Leaving consideration, I add only this, that the insertion from Paul must have been made in the very oldest times
enemies,"
the
matter to the reader
by some man who possessed Paul s writings, but did

not possess either
that there
Matthew
or
Mark
it is
self-evident
actually was a time when many persons and Christian communities were in that condition.
an expanded text in D and other witnesses (among which for once Origen comes in) in ver. 24 ff. of the same chapter as there is no material difference,
There
is
I recognize here the original
form of the
Eoman
text.
The same text has something more on the healing of the servant whose ear had been cut off by Peter (ver.
51).
Then, in
ver.
53
gives a very remarkable

is
reading, by which the text
considerably improved.
Instead of:
"But
this is
your hour and the power of
darkness
"
(TOU O-KOTOVS),
D
"
"
gives
"
But
this is
your
hour and your power, darkness words before these are When
:
(TO cncoro?).
I
The
temple, ye stretched forth no hands against

it
was daily in the and me,"

between
strikes one at once
how much
the text gains by
the clear and strong opposition coming out
The ordinary reading must be due day and darkness. to a copyist who had in mind Paul s words (Col. i. 13):
"
Who
hath delivered us from the power of darkness.

In chap,
xxiii.
S GOSPEL.
183
I notice
5,
first
is
of all the apocryphal
addition to ver.
nesses
"
And He
given by two Latin wit alienates from us our sons and our
which
wives
(cf.
for they
do not baptize (or
wash
themselves
Similarly
xi.
38), nor
s
make themselves
clean."
Gospel had in ver. 2: "We found this fellow perverting the nation, and destroying the law and the
prophets (for these words there are Latin witnesses too;
cf.
Marcion
Matt.
v.
17),
and forbidding
are
to give tribute,
saying,"
and
etc.
alienating the wives and the children, and
The
verses
10,
11,
12,
skipped in
the
Syriac
palimpsest from Mount
Sinai,
and Professor Wellhausen 1
thinks this omission to be well-founded, since in ver. 1 5

Pilate
says
to
the
Jews
"
Herod
etc.,
(for
sent
Him
[Jesus] to him) has not
found,"
telling
them what
they were evidently still ignorant of; so the statement in ver. 10 ("And the chief priests accused
. . .
Him,"
before Herod)
is
is
excluded.
But that reading

is
"
in
ver.
15
not the only one, nor

;
it,
in
I
my
opinion,
the right one

him,"
"
there
is
another
for
sent you to
and a
third,
which
I prefer
us."
to the other
two
for
he has sent
Him
back unto
Was
it
possible,
that Pilate, declining to be judge in this case, sent the
accused to another tribunal, and did not send at the
same time His accusers

is
The double
text
of
Luke
out of question here

1
for
gives a special reading

p.
9.
See Gottinger Nachrichten, 1895,
184
for ver. 12, materially unimportant, but very
remark
able because of the words.
So the omission of those

acci
verses
dental.
by the Syriac witness must be considered

pass on to ver.
We
44
f.
"And
it
was about the

all
sixth hour, and there

until the ninth hour.
was a darkness over

(45)
the earth
And
the sun was darkened,

midst."
and the
veil
of the temple
was rent in the
is one form of the text among many, and no means an irreproachable one why and the sun by was darkened there was a darkness ? On after
This again
"
"
"
"
the other hand, the Alexandrian reading in 45a,
"the
sun having been eclipsed (e/cAtTroWo?), even more serious objection How was
:
"
is
open to the
possible in
it
the very midst
of
the
?
lunar month, which was the

I
time of the passover

adscript
(see
think this
is
an erroneous
Origen in Westcott-Hort), and go back to

is also,
the wider attested reading (which
in the main,
that of D), the case being that a very slight emendation,
Strike out the and an attested one, puts things right. and before the sun," according to the attestation
" " "
of five Latin witnesses,

after ea-Korla-Ot],
and of
I),
which however has
ê
and insert the same
particle with one

"
of these witnesses (the Vercellensis a) before

l
*Q>
until,"
rfj
v ai Ty a very good instance of the occasional refinement of style found in /3. A?;5ta is new in Luke, but we have seen that he is constantly introducing words not again used by him.
TfS 5e
drjdiq.
6 IltXaros
/cat
Hpy Sijs
eyevovro 0t\ot
r)fj.{pg..
This
is

and you have a text was a darkness over
as
all
S GOSPEL.
185
"
good as
the
need
be
there
earth,
and until the
ninth hour the sun was

of
darkened."
The
latter part
is
45
is
put by
alone after 46, which
the order
of events given
A
with
by Matthew and Mark. very interesting addition is made by D, together

the
Latin
and the
Sahidic version,
to
ver.
53
there begins besides with that verse a series of
variants
chapter.
extending over the
beginning of the next

is:
it
"and
Ds
. .
text
.
in
53
after
laid
it
in
sepulchre
and
had been
stone,
laid
there,
he
put
unto
the
sepulchre
roll."
which
twenty
men
stone
could scarce
is
Let
me
first
say that the
there in Luke, as in the other Gospels, in

2);
it
the beginning of the next chapter (ver.

therefore
must
seem
strange
that
it
was
not
mentioned
before, as in
Matthew and Mark. 1

neither can
it
In the text of
be
said
we miss
nothing,
that
that
text has received a supplement from another Gospel,

since the words,
and not only
these, are quite peculiar.

say.
Even
too
peculiar,
at
you
first
will
The addition
in
has
indeed,
;
sight,
somewhat strange
Professor
appearance
Harris,
1
my
learned
friend,
it
Eendel
Virgil,
was reminded by
of a
passage
in
It is true that John too says nothing of the stone being put on the sepulchre, and nevertheless mentions it afterwards (see xix. 42; xx. 1).
186
and
in

there
lies
even
nearer at hand
a similar
one
Homer, on the stone which

"a
the Cyclops put into
his door:
stone which not even twenty- two carts

(\i0ov
eTreO^Ke Ovpqtfiiv o(3piju.ov
a/uafcai ecrOXai
ix.
might carry
air
away"
OVK av TOV ye ouco
/cat eucocr
oueo$
d^X/(rcre<ai/,
Odyss.
240).
TeTpaKVK\oi There we
have the twenty or twenty-two (carts in this case), and we have the verb eTreOtjxev as in Luke /3, while
Matthew and Mark use

come
from
?
Trpoa-KvXio).
is
But
against
for
let
this
s
Homer
what
that
it
Luke
authorship
Must we not accept
a certainty
that Luke, the physician of Antioch, had gone through

his
this
Homer
Nor
fact:
are
in
we devoid
Acts
of other proofs for
obvious
xxvii.
41, he says
of
a sudden, cTreKeiXav T^V vavv, although neither he nor
any other
New
the obsolete word
Testament writer elsewhere employs f] vav?, instead of which TO irXoiov

this
was the common expression (occurring in no less than thirteen times), chapter
/ceXXo>,
same
CTTI-
and
instead
of in
eTro/ceXXw,
is
altogether
of
poetical.
But
he
in
Homer,
read
that
vrjas
same book
. .
the
Odyssey,
had
thus,
evn/ceXcrcu
(148),
and
again
will
(546)
ask
:
vfja
e/ceXcraêi
But nevertheless
you
embellish this
you really mean to make Luke narrative by a touch borrowed from a
Do
I do not say that the touch is from heathen poet ? but that the stone seems to have reminded Homer,
S GOSPEL.
187
him
the
of that door-stone in
Homer, and that therefore

but
nevertheless
in
description
is
similar,
neither
unreal nor exaggerated.

salem, he
As he had been
there
Jeru
seen
stone
may
be supposed to have gone and
the
sacred
places,
and
the
size
of the
must have impressed him. Joseph, who was a rich man, had as many workmen at his disposal as he
liked
large
or
thought
in
necessary,
and
he
chose
very
stone
order
that
the
sepulchre might not
be broken open and profaned by the hostile Jews. Let us now see the continuation of the narrative in
D,
ver.
54:
"
And
that day was the preparation (or

),
that of preparation
(the
and the Sabbath drew

:
on."
same thing
the
in other
was
cf.
"
day
before
and fewer words) And it the Sabbath (irpoa-afifiaTov,

"
"
Mark
xv. 42).
Ver. 55, instead of

is
"the
women,"
Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, see Mark xv. 47 (Matt.
women,"
two
that
xxvii. 61).
I think
vo,
"two,"
instead of at
;
is
right,
since
it
xxiv. 1,
by Eusebius also consequently in the text of D, but also the common text (con
is
attested
tradicted
it
is
true by the Vaticanus B, etc.) has an

"
and certain others with enlargement of the subject This enlargement would be cancelled as them." useless as soon as $vo had vanished from the text.
:
The end
"
of
55
is
again abridged in D, and in
56,
according to the
commandment
"
is
left
out by the
188
same MS.
"
But
in xxiv. 1
first
it
has an enlarged form

the
week, very early upon day in the morning, they went (npxpvro, not $\9ov, came) unto the sepulchre, bringing what they had pre
Now
the
of
pared
with
with
certain
others
:
with
them.
shall
roll
And
away
e)
they
the
reasoned
"
themselves
Who
stone
"And
when
they arrived (eXQova-ai
they
xvi.
found,"
etc.
That
addition
comes
from Mark
not
is
"
3,
you
"
will say.
"
And
and
if
yet
Mark has
reasoned,"
but
said
(eXe-yo^), nor T/P a pa, which

T/P
"
quite Lucan,
"
but simply
in
shall roll
away the stone
is
you must notice that the common form of Luke has the same verb in the next verse. This, then,
both,
is
the special text of

himself,
/3,
while in
to
a,
Luke, consistent
the
stone
with
had
omitted
mention
as well here as in xxiii. 53.

I
shall
state,
but
not
solve,
one
"
difficulty
more.
Peter,
Ver. 12
of
the
common
text
Then arose
and ran unto the

editors
is left sepulchre," etc.,
out by recent
on the evidence of
and
its
Latin associates,
with which, as Tischendorf thinks, Eusebius agrees. Comparing John (xx. 3 ff.) we find an agreement
strongly
arguing the interpolation
of
the
verse
in
Luke. The verse does not leave an apparent gap two of them," at its place; on the contrary ver. 13, joins with 11 and not at all with 12, which refers to
"
Peter and John exclusively.
So
far all is
very well

but when we come to ver. 24,
fact
S GOSPEL.
189
same
we
find there the
mentioned
"
And
certain of
them which were

etc.
with us went to the

text, that of
sepulchre,"
Now,
is
this
D, and of Westcott-Hort and Tischendorf,

one
?
consistent
Why
its right
;
has not Luke given

place
?
this
important detail in
is
Then, ver. 24 too
an interpolation
its
any more than 12.

for that omission, nor I
removal does not leave a gap But neither have we evidence

the verse found in John.
is
As
diffi
have stated,
;
do not feel able to solve this

I
culty
like
as
an
editor,
was bound
;
to
omit
ver.
12
still
Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort
but doubts
remain.
CHAPTER XL
TEXTUAL CONDITION AND ORIGINAL SEPARATE FORMS OF MARK S GOSPEL.
AFTER having
said so
much on Luke,
I shall be
com
is
paratively brief on the other two Gospels, that
on
Mark and
John, for we saw already that on Matthew, as regards the condition of his text, there is not much to be said. This is indeed not true either of Mark or
of
John
but with regard to them there

that
I
is
so
much
about
obscurity
either.
have
not
much
to
say
To begin with the personality of Mark, it does not lie more in the shadow than that of Luke, but even
His original name was John, and the Roman Mark a surname given in order to distinguish him
less.
(which was indeed

his
much
required) from other Johns

(as
mother was called Mary
perhaps were one half

1
of the
1
women
existing then in Judaea),

five
and possessed a
In the Gospels we meet with
Marys, and besides them one
Elizabeth, one Anne, one Joanna, one Susanna, and one Martha,
TEXTUAL CONDITION OF MARK
S GOSPEL.
191
12).
It
rather large house in Jerusalem (Acts
xii.
has been quite plausibly surmised that the young
man
having a linen cloth,
who was
in the
company
is
of Jesus
on the night
in
Gethsemane, and who

f.),
mentioned
but the
by Mark
alone (xiv. 51
was nobody
the
else
author of that
mother,
Gospel himself.
a
He, as well as his

early
was
member
of
Church
in
Jerusalem, and afterwards accompanied Barnabas and
Paul as an assistant on their
first
journey, but only
Barnabas supported him notwithstanding, but not Paul, for which reason, when they were to undertake their second journey, they
separated (ibid. xv.
Paul,
tells
Pamphylia, from Jerusalem (Acts xiii. 5, 13).

as far as
whence
he
returned
to
36
ff.).
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Colossians
(iv.
10),
us that
Mark was Barnabas
cousin; he himself
at
(see
had at length forgiven him, and had him time in his company, together with Luke
Philemon,
ver.
that
also
Caesarea or in
Where that was, whether in 24). Eome, is a much discussed question.

dates
Again, Paul says in his Second Epistle to Timothy

(iv.
11),
"
which
from
his
later
captivity
in
Rome
Take Mark, and Only Luke is with me. for he is profitable to me bring him with thee for the ministry." But Mark seems to have been
: :
most of
v.
all
with Peter,
this
who
calls
him
his son (1 Peter
13), and
agrees with the well-known words
192
of Papias,
"

on the authority of his presby (apparently John, see the next chapter), that had been a follower and interpreter of Peter,
"
who
relates,
ter
Mark
and that
above on
to
this
p.
enabled
78).
him
to
write his Gospel
(see
We
has, in
are not
warranted in giving
the word interpreter (ep^vevr^} any other sense

it
than
the
commonly
spoken
this case the
that
of one
who
into
translates
words
one
language
another,
and in
one language must be Aramaic,

It is therefore to
and the other Greek.

that
Peter,
be supposed
when
travelling in
country of mixed
population,
translate
his
preached in Aramaic, words into Greek.

s
and
made Mark
at
;
That sojourn
Babylon and Peter

Papias
of
epistle
fall
into
to
a late period
author very
may
earliest
be
supposed
period
to
speak
chiefly
the
of
Gospel-preaching,
which was then confined

regions,
Judaea and the adjacent
down
from
xii.
to
the
s
time
prison,
when
went
Peter,
into
having
another
escaped
Herod
1
place (Acts
in Barnabas
17).
After that time
we
find
Mark
company, and then again in Jerusalem (whither Peter had meanwhile returned), and again, after Peter s departure to Antioch (and Babylon,
1
(before
1 briefly state that ep/jL-qvevrys yev^fievos means, writing his Gospel), and nothing more.
"he
had
been"
Whether the
function of interpreter had come to a close by Peter s death (as Harnack asserts), or by Peter s going away into another country
where an interpreter was not needed,
is
not stated.
TEXTUAL CONDITION OF MARK S GOSPEL.

see
193
above,
to
p.
26),
he joins
his
cousin.
Tradition
assigns
in
him the
and
the
role of being
first
ii.
the
of
first
preacher
(see
Egypt,
bishop
1),
Alexandria
is
Eusebius, Hist. Ecd.

to
14,
which see he
year
of
said
have
is
occupied
until
ii.
the
24).
eighth
It
Nero,
that
that
62
A.D.
(ibid.
appears, therefore,
apart
from
the -apostles
able
to
themselves
write a
no
man was
better
perhaps Gospel than
to
Mark, and that he was also a very fit personage write the history of the earliest Church in Jeru
hit
In a former chapter (see p. 141) upon conjecture, that he actually did write that history, and that Luke used his work for the first part of his own Acts. So much is quite evident,
salem and Judaea.
we
the
that
of
for
the
is
story
told
as
in
it
Acts
were,
"He
xii.
the the
authority
narrator,
Mark when he
was
claimed,
(ver.
by
says
12):
(Peter)
came
to
the house of
Mark";
Mary
the mother of John, whose surname

to
is
and proceeds
say
in
(ver.
all
17):
"He
declared unto
them (Mark
I
likelihood
in
cluded)
prison."
how
the Lord had brought
him out
this
of the
is
right,
Now, Mark must have given the
say that
in
case
conjecture
of
story
the
For primitive Church in Aramaic, and not in Greek. Luke s authority was an Aramaic one, and if that
authority
was a book by Mark, you see the con But of course you will require proof sequence.
194
for

the
major
premiss.
say,
that
the
language
in the first twelve chapters of the Acts is

different
markedly
:
from
that
in
the
later
chapters
in
the
former Aramaicisms abound, in the latter they are comparatively very scarce from these facts I argue
;
independent work by Luke, but the former depends on an Aramaic source.

that
the
second
part
is
an
I think in
may
as
dispense with giving the proofs here
detail,
the
Acts are not the

book,
proper
I
subject
of
the
present
1
-,
little
and
as
have
given
s
them elsewhere
the Acts
but at any
rate, Professor
Nestle
discovery must be spoken

in
(iii.
:
of even
here.
There
is
text
runs
thus
"
14) a passage where the ordinary But ye denied the Holy One," with
Irenaeus)
whilst
"
D
"
(together
(t^pvyja-aa-Oe)
has
instead
of
denied
the quite unintelligible reading

like
"
e(3apvvaTe
(something
doubt
but
is
"denied"
as
the
you troubled"). No and eâpvvare utterly wrong; supposition of an ordinary corruption

is right,
manifestly excluded, Professor Nestle
right in
source,
supposing that
Luke
undoubtedly Aramaic, or Hebrew
is
might be easily read and understood both ways, and that this word
here
a
had
word
which
was ErhSS, or
writing)
Em-5,
1
(which is much alike in Semitic the former meaning ypvycraa-Oe, and
the latter ej3apvvaTe. z

See
There was a misunderstanding

Luke
s
my
edition of
Gospel, p. xxi
ff.
ff.
Theolog. Studien u. Kritiken, 1896, p. 102

of
S GOSPEL.
195
the Aramaic
s
or
Hebrew
but has
text,
which crept into

corrected
in
Luke
first
text,
been
the
second.
But here comes a rather
serious objection in
the
shape of the question: Did Luke understand Aramaic?
As
his
for
but Hebrew, that is quite out of question native town Antioch was situated in an Aramaic
;
country.
Nevertheless the town

it
itself
was
of
Greek
by no means follows that any Greek origin, native of that town must understand the language
and
spoken by the country-people around it, and perhaps by a part of the lower classes in the town itself.
Even
it
he understood and spoke a little Aramaic, does not follow that he could read Aramaic books.
if
Well,
then
say
that
Luke,
having
got
Mark s
book, which was written in Aramaic, got for himself
an interpreter of is due to that

ripvi}(TucrQe
is
it,
and that the blunder efiapvvare and the correction interpreter,
Mark Rome or
to
due to a person better informed, perhaps himself, if he met with Luke either in
elsewhere.
in
It
s is
even
easier
to
explain
he was using an authority translated from the Aramaic into bad Greek copying from that authority, he corrected
the
first
Aramaisms
Luke
part, if
the Greek, but

traces of the
not
so
thoroughly as to abolish
origin.
all
Aramaic
see
Let
us
now
what
will
follow
from
the
196
premisses
part
that
in
we have
hitherto stated.
If
Mark s second
his
first
was written in
is
Aramaic, then
part,
the Gospel, must have been originally written
same language. Perhaps you will oppose and Papias authority, the presbyter. by Papias, Papias tells us, probably on the same authority,
the
this
that
Matthew s Gospel was

that
it is
originally
in
Hebrew,
and
had
again
been
the
translated
or
interpreted
(rjpfiujvevcre
word) differently according

of
is
to
the
different
e/caa-TOf).
abilities
the
to
interpreters
(<w
fjv
Swaro?
That
say,
Papias
presbyter
knew
the
of
of different
(or
Greek forms of Matthew, besides

original,
Hebrew
Aramaic)
but in the case
Mark, the interpreter of Peter, he knew only one Greek form of that Gospel, and nothing at all of an Aramaic original. Then, I say, he did not
know
known.
adays
all
that
might
be known, or even
is
Of course there
of
may be nothing remaining now

but
of
still
an
Aramaic
are
Mark,
the
left
different
translations
there
some
traces
in
the
various
nesses.
readings
given
by our MSS. and other wit

a
clear
shall
take
first
very
case
of
triple
tradition.
Mark
xi.
13, in the story of the fig-tree

"
according to the Authorized Version, has

if
He
came,
haply
He
renders this
might find Greek text

:
anything
tf\6ev ei
thereon,"
which
apa
TI evpi/a-ei ev
TEXTUAL CONDITION OF MAKK
s GOSPEL.
197
exhibits
But
the
D
ei>
(with
in
the
Latin
b,
c,
etc.)
:
same text
very different words

"
rjXQev
iecv
eav ri evriv
avrtj,
in order to see
"
whether there
and lastly, the valuable anything thereon minuscule codex 700, in accord with a quotation in
;
was
Origen and with three Latin witnesses, has at least

a different construction
"
t}\0ev
o>?
evprfa-cw
TL ev avry,
thereon."
thinking
I shall
that
He would
of
MSS.,
find
something
not allow you to decide this critical question
upon authority
hearing
favour
for
but
demand an
impartial
the
reasons
of
is
which
three
is
may
be
given
in
of
each
the
readings.
Material
difference there
none, nor
xxi.
there dependence on
:
Matthew
nothing
language.
style, see
(see
Matthew
;
19
yXQev
to
CTT
avrr/v,
else)
so
we
et
have
a pa.
viii.
only
examine
this
is
the
s
(A)
?]\6ei>
Why,
22;
this
xvii.
Luke
Acts
vii.
(D);
27.
In Mark
(although
in
there
there
iv.
is
no
el
apa
el
besides
passage
is
iSeiv
xv.
36), nor
any apa except

with
41,
T/f
apa,
and
there
iSeiv,
too
see
an important
v.
variant.
toeiv TL
(B)
<TTIV
tj\9ev
Mark
. . .
14,
t]\6oi>
TO yeyovos.
not
Kay
CITTIV is grossly
incorrect,
but
altogether
unparalleled
:
in
New
Attic,
Testament Greek.
but hardly
the
17).
(C)
to
o>?
evpi /a-wv
very good
writers,
known
of
New
Testament
to
with
(xiii.
exception
the
Epistle
the
Hebrews
to
So
we
may
give the
preference
B,
as
198
being

most
in
accordance with
Mark
but
indeed
the whole of the case looks

"
much
like that described
by Papias
do
"
everyone interpreted as he was able to

009
*jv
(tlp/mtiveva-ev
Svvaros
e/cacrro?), in
bad Greek
(B), or in better
Greek
(A), or in good
Greek
(C).
We may
speak briefly passage we were just now citing instead of T/? apa ovros OTI KOI 6 ave/mos KO.I OdXacrcra UVTW vTTUKOvei, two Latin
of
iv.
41,
the
e<rriv,
rj
witnesses simply give
l$e
THW
/c.r.X.
("the
wind,"
etc.),
and
xiii.
this
is
the ordinary style of Mark,

4,
see
is
ii.
24
xv.
is
while
the
other
reading
not
Lucau.
is
But there
reading
a
in
difference
here
only
this
(see
Lucan
character, but
in
actually
Lucan
so
25) decision will be that
Luke
viii.
the
very
same
text
story;
the
Mark s
here has suffered

in
by
assimilation
to
the parallel passage
Luke, as
there are of course
many
cases of this character in
Mark
as
well as in other Gospels.

is:
"And
Again, in xv. 15, the ordinary text
so
Pilate, willing to content the people, released
Barabbas
TO
are
unto
inavov
them."
But the words,

or
|6.
{3ov\6/mevo9
IK.
Troirja-ai
Troitjcrai,
T(f
o^Xo)
TW
o^Xco TO
omitted by
and two Latin versions, which have

e
nothing but 6
II.
cnre\vcrev UVTOIS TOV J$apa(3f3av.
There
is
here
no assimilation, except in so far as
Matthew
for
it
;
too gives the bare fact without
any reason
explain
the
nevertheless
you
might
try
to
S GOSPEL.
199
omission as occasioned by Matthew, and argue that,

in
D, the next words are evidently assimilated to rov Se Irja-ovv (ppaye\\(t)aras TrapeSwKev, that Gospel
:
etc.,
instead of
/ecu
Trap.
it
(-rrap.
On
to
the
other
hand,
is
B) rov Iyer, fypay. a well-known fact that

Se,
verbal
a
agreement between these two Gospels exists

Then, the curious thing
is
very large extent.
that only here
Mark
uses (3ov\eo-6ai instead of OeXetv

"
(which was the ordinary word for

(3ov\eo-6ai bears a
to
will,"
while
somewhat learned
IKO.VOV
;
character),
and
in
to
that
not
even TO
Troieiv
occurs
elsewhere
the
New
use
Testament
at
nevertheless,
in
when we turn
makes
a
Luke (who
large
of
least
the
Acts
tind
xvii.
rather
similar
(3ov\e<r6ai),
we
there the
9).
phrase TO
recognize
(in
IKO.VOV
\afielv (Acts
here
again
the
forms
So we may (in D) and B
text), but in a different way, A an expanded character, and B an abridged one. bearing In ver. 1 9 of this chapter the same thing recurs
the
ordinary
"
And
they smote
spit
Him upon
the head with a reed,
and
did
upon
worshipped
leaves out,
Him."
Him, and bowing their knees The Latin ~k (see above, p. 80 f.)
Him";
"and
did spit upon

last
both
and
So
itself
leave
out
says
the
of
the
three
clauses.
Matthew,
is
Tischendorf.
But
the
it
matter
is
in
Matthew, with a different word
true,
and
in a different place (yowTreTwravres, Matt, xxvii. 29,
200
in
the place corresponding to

if
Mark s
ver.
18);
why
?
then,
there
is
in
D
of
assimilation
to
Matthew, do
we
not find in that MS, the corresponding addition

the
place
Moreover,
altogether
the
clause
in
ver.
19
is
mockery in 19, and

riOevai
TO.
wrong, the worshipping belonging to the told of in 18 and not to the cruelties
lastly,
the
is
phraseology
is
again
Lucan
yova-ra
five
a phrase
used by Luke alone,
and by him
times,
while
Mark and Matthew
say yovuTrereiv (not occurring elsewhere in the
New
Then
well,
Testament), and
the
clause
it is
Paul
Ka/j-irreiv
TO.
yovara.
must be spurious
in
Mark.
Very
it
but
not borrowed from Luke, although
bears
his character.
There are more

ver. 24,
passages
soldiers
of
the
same kind
in
where the
are casting lots
upon the
garments of Christ, the words r/? TI apy, which are good Greek and may find a parallel in Luke (xix. 15,
AR,
a
etc.,
Tischend.), are omitted

little
by
and other West

ver. 21,
ern witnesses, and a

reading,
before, in
offers
:
agreeing
closely
with
Mark s
manner
("they compel Simon,") fuit autem nomen (a gross blunder for pater) Alcxandri et Rufi, et faciunt eum
crucem
came,")
baiularc;
yv
e
rj
cf.
vii.
25
yvvq
is
f.
("a
certain
woman
I,
ywi]
(tj
is
omitted by
etc.;
the reading of
.
BD,
etc.,
Se
ywrj %v)
EXX^ws
whole
.,
KOI
riwra
avrov
/c.r.X.
Then
the
TEXTUAL CONDITION OF MAEK

ver.
saith,
S GOSPEL.
201
which
28:
"And
the
scripture
was
fulfilled,
And He was numbered

is
with the
transgressors,"
which
omitted
by N and B, and
witnesses,
is
D
see
and
k,
and
many
other
good
in
:
accordance with
for
Luke even more than with John
the
Old
Testament passage, Luke xxii. 37, and for the form of introduction, Acts i. 16: This scripture must
"
needs have been (or

in
this
be
fulfilled."
You
the
see that
case
the
is
evidence
confined
against
to
apparently
if
Lucan form
you
look
not
the
West, and
yau find that the forms A and B (apparently original Mark) (apparently Lucan) are by no means connected in a definite way with
further
on,
definite
witnesses.
"
In chapter xiv. 4 the common reading is And there were some that had indignation within them
:
selves."
in
Mark
The words and constructions used are quite But D and Latin witnesses give style.
:
the reading
SicnroveicrOai
oi Se
(to
fj-aOr/Tfu
avrou SieTrovovvTo.
or
This
rare
feel
pain
anger)
the
is
a very
word, occurring
but
iv.
twice in
2
;
New
Testament,
namely
is
in
Acts
xvi.
18.
Ds
text therefore
xiv.
here
and not B, and likewise in

instead of (OVKCTI) ov
25, ov
M
this
Trpoa-Qo) Trietv,
fit)
TT/CO.
For
Hebraizing use of the

of
"
sense
xx.
"
again
f
.
is
xii.
verb -rpoa-TiOevat in the found in Luke similarly
11
Acts
(where
the
middle
voice
202
Trpo(TTi9e<rOai

is
employed).
Lastly,
in
fails
xvi.
1,
even
the
this
facts,
distinction
between
as
and
to
suit
inasmuch
both
readings
there
bear
the
character of A.
(/cat
"And
when
the Sabbath was
past"
iayevo/u.evov
see
TOU
<ra(3(3drov\
a phrase exclusively
9.
Lucan,
of this
Acts xxv.
13
xxvii.
has instead
but KOI
as
and the following names of women nothing the subject remaining the same 7ropev6ei(rai,
before.
But
7ropevea-6ai
too,
although seemingly used

in
quite
common
three
(xvi.
verb,
in
is
never
Mark,
of
his
it
except
times
10,
12,
the
15),
spurious
close
Gospel
like
while
It
this
is,
Luke employs
besides,
Matthew
the
:
and
of
John.
evident
suffered
that
text
"
Mark
in
place
has
seriously
mother of
And Mary Magdalene and Mary Joses beheld where He was laid (xv.
the
the
47).
And when
Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had Is Mary the mother of bought sweet spices," etc.
Joses
of
it
different
person
from
Mary
the
mother
James?
was
said
:
By no means: a little before (xv. 40) And Mary the mother of James the
"
less
and of
"
Joses."
bought
of
the had second difficulty the English version is an attempt to

"
establish a
tells
harmony between Mark and Luke, who

Friday 56); but the Greek text (nyopaa-av)
us that they had bought the spices on

(xxiii.
evening

gives no warrant at all for this translation,
pels us to translate
"
203
and com
is
they
bought,"
which
to
indeed
very
strange,
for
then mention
the
seems
be
made
So the
of a neutral
(ver. 1)
time between
first
end of the Sabbath
and the
day
of the
week
(ver. 2).
repeated catalogue of
names
in xvi. 1 seems spurious,

"
and the
"
when
the Sabbath was past
also.
In
fact,
when
clear
these additions are removed,

narrative.
we have
quite a
are
But
even
at
if
these
additions
rejected,
is
they must be
?
least
explained, and how
that to be done
To use a
given
to
simile
reading
Mark
the
(with due attention
the
variants) reminds one of walking on

is
quicksand, while a
that
where
surface
is
quicksand
little
below there
may
be gravel or even
rock
for
the difference of readings mainly rests in
the expressions, and does not affect the sense.
But
nevertheless
we
feel
unsafe,
such a condition of the text

It is true
and wonder in what way may have been produced.

is
that the condition
nowhere
else so
bad
16th chapter, where there is again in ver. 4 a wide difference between the witnesses, and the words
as in this
"
for it (the stone)
was very
great,"
which in the com
mon
text stand rather awkwardly,
and which are besides

(see
again of a strongly
23, %v
Lucan character
Luke
xviii.
yap
TrAoJcao?
<r(j)68pa;
Mark never
uses a-(po$pa\
are placed by D,
and Eusebius, and others much more
204

3rd verse.
suitably at the end of the
The Latin
it
k,
in this respect, goes with the
majority, but
"
has a
long apocryphal addition in this place
And
suddenly,
about the third hour (that
is
at nine o clock), there
was a darkness over
all
the earth, and angels descended
from the heavens, and rising in the glory of the living God they mounted together with Him, and immediately
there was light again.
And
the
women approached
we must
"
the
that
"
sepulchre,"
etc.
As
for the hour,
notice
before
in
"
k (and D,
in ver.
"
etc.),
there
is
no
"
"
very
early
2,
and instead of
rjXtov,
at the rising of
the sun
(ayareAAoj/ro? rov
or even ert ai/ar.)

"
there
is
another well-attested reading,
after the rising
sun." Here therefore the quick sand seems to reach further below the surface. As
(avareiXavTos) of the
we
are speaking of
at
k, it
is
version
another place
giving
worth noticing that this (xi. 4 ff.) exhibits a very

"
strong contraction,
went
their
way
them"
(4),
nothing but and said even as

:
And
Jesus
they
had
commanded
(6),
much
in the
(see
the corresponding place of
Luke
same way as D in above on p. 149 f.).

It
You
are
looking, no doubt, for some clue which
may show you
the
way
out of this wilderness.
is
:
of course impossible to hold the copyists responsible
we should have
gross liberties,
to charge
them
all alike
with taking
reflection,
and yet should

so
find,
upon
no
warrant
for
unlikely
charge.
Again,
the

theory of two texts
at least in the sense
is
it
S GOSPEL.
205
inapplicable to this problem,

in
had
Luke: there the evidence
was
for
two
texts,
but one author, while here there
appear more
authors
than one.
But
one
of
?
the
authors seems to be Luke.
Well, and then
Did
Luke perhaps
translated
or had
it
it,
interpolate or revise
as the original
Mark?
No, but he
in
Mark was
use,
Aramaic,
translated for his
own
and then revised
the translation.
circulation
Luke s copy got into and was again copied, and those copies
a later time
side with copies containing a translation
else,
At
went
side
by
made by somebody
of conflate
and our text contains a number

which arose by the
constant
readings,
This comparing and collating of the different copies. seems to be, at least, a possible solution; but before
adopting
relations
it,
we must
try to look
more
closely into the
which may have existed between Luke and

and they
of Paul,
Mark.
That they knew each other
lived together at
is
certain,
some time
in the
company
it
and what one of them had written, could not remain
unknown
and that
even
to
the other.
Moreover,
can hardly be
questioned that
this
Mark wrote
his Gospel before Luke,

s
Gospel could not escape Luke

they came
that
into
is
notice
;
before
personal
of
contact
s
it
follows, then,
ities.
Mark
be
one
it
Luke
author
Now,
if
this
so,
must become evident
206
on

the
comparing
to
is
two
Gospels.
ago,
They have been

and the
result
is,
brought
that
that
test
long
Luke
the
rather generally regarded as depending,
in a large measure,
place,
on Mark
the
in
authority.
as
In the
far
first
order
of
narratives,
is
as
both
authors have them
common,
is
almost invariably
the same, and this argument

as that order
is
so
much
the stronger,
either artificial or accidental, certainly
not historical.
There
:
is
"
of Papias presbyter
on Mark Mark has
the express testimony
not related things in
their order, because he
had not heard or followed the

at
Lord, but
delivered
had
his
heard,
later
time,
to
Peter,
who
teachings
according
circumstances,
and by no means as one who was making an orderly collection (ctyvrafciv) of the Lord s sayings. So Mark
is
not to be blamed for writing some things as they

into his mind, his sole intention being to leave
heard."
came
out nothing of what he had
If this
was the
Mark, it must be termed and as the same order is found in Luke, accidental, the reason cannot be that the same accidents happened It has twice, but that Luke borrowed from Mark.
origin of the order of events in
been suggested,
it is
true, that the order goes
back
to
the relations of Peter and other evangelists,
who by
frequently relating
established for
the
same things
;
them a
fixed order
length but I do not think
had
at
that this goes far enough to explain the constancy in
TEXTUAL CONDITION OF MAEK

the sequence of so
s GOSPEL.
207
many
narratives,
which would not
be given in one sermon, but in a long series of sermons. In the second place, the matter in Luke, as regards a
large
number
readers
!>1
of narratives,
is
the same as in Mark,

detail
;
only that
again
the latter gives

of
more
again
"
and
Mark
are
struck
by
autoptic
touches
for
which are given by
this narrator alone,

it
and
this reason
one very soon finds
impossible to
derive
Mark from Matthew
or Luke, while the reverse
course lies wide open.
Also, the exclusively Galilaean
character of the history of our Lord, as given by the

three synoptic Gospels, seems to
source,
indicate a
common
when
which may be found in Peter s sermons related

for
it is
by Mark,
very natural that
Peter,
preaching in Jerusalem, did not generally tell what had come to pass in the holy city itself, but what had
come
to
pass far
hypothesis that
there
test
is
away in Galilee. Luke used Mark
But
as
to prove the
his
authority,
yet
a third test, that of language, and that

fails to
completely
give the expected result.
Ver
bal coincidences of
Mark are very rare even in common text is, as we have
any importance between Luke and the common text, and that
seen, not very trustworthy
in particulars in the case of Luke,
and very untrust
I may give one instance: worthy in the case of Mark. on the calling of Levi the publican we read in Luke
1
Salmon, Introduction (7th
ed.), p.
138.
208
(v.

"
27
ff.):
He saw
left
a publican,
:
named
Levi, sitting at
the receipt of custom
and
He
said unto him, Follow
me.
And he
the
"
all,
rose up, and
followed
Him."
Quite
"
same
words,
"
publican
(ii.
and of
left
with the exception of the are found in Mark

all,"
14).
But the words

custom,"
in
Luke:
"sitting
at the
receipt of
are left out
by the codex 700, and

likewise
"
"
upon
reflection,
we
find that they are indeed rendered

s
superfluous by Luke
publican
";
rose
up,"
which stands in
left
close correspondence to
is
sitting,"
is
out by the Sinaitic Syriac, and

after
likewise super
fluous
Luke
"
left
all."
In
this
way Luke s
text having been purified, the verbal coincidence with
Mark
has vanished.
On
reading on in this story,
we
find the substantial
agreement
of both evangelists to be
complete, but the verbal agreement to be almost totally
wanting.
Even
in
the concluding
sentence
"
They
etc.,
that are whole have no need of the
physician,"
Luke
replaces
Mark s (and Matthew s)

even
if
ivxyovres by
vyiaivovres.
You may
say, of course, that
Luke followed
the authority of our
theless change la-^yovres,

sense, into vyLaivovres
Greek Mark, he might never which he never uses in this

which he uses elsewhere, and
Besides,
side,
he
alone of the evangelists.
the
difference
between Luke on the one
and Matthew and

in
Mark (whose
accounts have
much
common) on the

other, does not
GOSPEL.
209
merely consist in the choice of words, but also in the whole arrangement of the narrative
so Luke, even if he
had another translation of Mark

liberty
before him,
in
its
must have allowed himself much

But
the
force
of
rendering.
the
consists in this, that while material agreement
argument between
verbal
the
two extends
is
over a
rather
large
space,
agreement
never found in any considerable measure.

is
And
yet there
a great deal of such agreement not
only between
Luke and Matthew.

chapter
(see
Mark and Matthew, but also between Now we have seen in a former on p. 175) that Matthew is not likely to
have borrowed from Luke, but that more likely both If this is of them used a common Greek authority.
proved that Luke did not shun verbal copying from a Greek source and why then should he have declined to do so when Mark was this
true,
it is
;
source?
as
for
Was
rrj?
<$ia
it
because
it
was not quite good Greek,

(x.
example where Mark has

pacpiSo?
?
25):
Sia
Tfjs
Tpv/u.aXia$
Why
then did Luke
(xviii.
25) write
did
rp?//aT09 /SeAoV?;??
(xix.
Why, you may
say,
?
Matthew
24, Tischend.) write TpviriijuaTOs
It is perhaps difficult to answer, since
which of these words was the common

or elsewhere
;
nobody can tell one in Palestine
but, as I
have
said,
the strength of the
argument
lies
in
the
in
constant
occurrence
of
the
of
observation, and not
any particular
o
instance
210
disagreement.
I
That the observation

1
is
generally true,
have
established
readers to
and may refer elsewhere, that place, if they do not choose to
my
test
let
the thing themselves, taking care, however, not to
themselves be deceived by assimilated readings.

I
may now sum up my
various arguments.
Luke,
in the first part of his Acts, followed
an author who
had written in Aramaic.

the author
Mark
is
very likely to be
;
who
first
published these stories

authority.
he seems
If
therefore to be
Luke s Aramaic
Mark s
Acts were written in Aramaic, his Gospel originally
was written in Aramaic

condition
there
of
also.
Secondly, the textual

suggests
the
of a
Mark
a
Gospel
idea
that
existed
plurality
of versions
to
common
properly,
Aramaic
original.
But
speak
more
we should perhaps say not versions but redactions. The discrepancies we found, e.g. in the beginning of Mark s 16th chapter, do not fall under the
description of various Greek renderings for the
same
Aramaic words, and there are more cases
like this.
Among
some
style,
the various readings in
Mark we
character
recognized
of
as
bearing
distinctly the
Lucan
without being borrowed from Luke. Lastly, it to us that the scarcity of verbal agreement appeared between Luke and our Mark strongly dissuades us
from the hypothesis of Luke

1
using this
Mark
ff.
while,
See
my
edition of Luke, p. xiv
211
on the other hand, the material agreement is such as to render a dependence of Luke on Mark even more
than probable. The conclusion to be drawn is And now we that Luke used another Mark.
go
his
this,
may
further
and suggest
that
Luke, before
writing
own
Gospel,
made
a Greek redaction of that of
Mark, not
of
for his
own
use only,
but also for that

translation
Christians
speaking Greek.
Another
translations, were made by other and one version among these was that which persons, eventually predominated, but the others have at least
of
Mark, or other
left their traces.
Or
not a
is
all this
rather wild conjecturing
Is there
common and
widely-spread opinion, that
Mark
?
wrote for Eomans, therefore, of course in Greek

ask,
what are the proofs
Because he bears a
Eoman
name ? No, but because
there are Latin words in Mark,
such as Kevrvpiwv, instead of which the others employ the Greek eKarovrap-ô?. I say this is a vulgarism,
Lucan character, besides those already mentioned, iv. 19, KCU al irepl TO, \onra tTriOvftlai, words by D etc. (eiriOv^La. and ^widvfj.e ii trepi with accusative, \our6s, never in Mark, but all of them in Luke, cf.
Readings
of
1
are the following which are omitted

:
Acts
see
xix.
25,
etc.);
9,
iii.
;
21,
oi
7pa/u/uare2s
KO.I
ol
\onroi,
D,
etc.,
Luke
21
xxiv.
etc.
ibid.
22,
ol
aTrb
lepocroAtViaw
KarapavTes
(instead of these
in
24, TOVS
words the Latin e has et ceteri, and D s reading seems originally to belong to 22), cf. Acts xxv. 7 x. ireirouOoTas tiri xP ??M a(r (ACD etc.), see Luke xviii. 9; xiv.
;
"
58,
gives OTI elvev, c, k, hie dixit, instead of iêts with the latter cf. Acts vi. 11, 14. ;
rjKotcrafiev
avrov
212
not a Latinism.
The Greek
as
well as the Aramaic
language of daily intercourse

words, and
version.
had received many such
centurio
is
actually found in the Syriac
Any
writer
who
cared for good Greek would
take the equivalent Greek word,
but this
so-called
Mark
did not care for style, and this you

first
is
may
see
from the
But there
1 page of the little book to the last. the two mites still another argument
:
(AeTTTct) of the
widow
are explained to be of the

;
same
value as a
Roman quadrans
to
The supposition seems

not
(KoSpavTn? Mark xii. 42). be, that Roman coins were
known
denarius in
Rome, and yet there is the the four Gospels and in the Apocalypse,
outside
of
(aara-apiov)
and the as
at
all
in
Matthew and Luke.
But
events
Mark was
not writing for Palestinian
readers,
who
did not need an explanation of XeTrra.
He was
lator.
not translated for the use of such, I should
say, for of course this addition
comes from the trans

larger addition of
There
is
in
Mark
3
much
f., on the washings of the Jews, violently interrupting the construction, and of course not in the Aramaic original, and perhaps not even in
the same kind,
vii.
the original translation, since

1
it
looks
much
like
An
is
ings
auroi)s
found in vi. 7, e D: /ecu ava duo (instead of duo

TUV
Trvev/j-druv rGiv
. . .
instance of stylistic refinement introduced by various read Trpoa-KaXco-dfievos TOL/S 5u8eKa dirtcrmXtv
duo,
which
is
an Aramaism),
5oi)s CLVTOIS
Qovffia.v
aKaddpTuv, irapayyciXas afrois

eis rrjc 656v.
nr)5ei>
aipeiv
(instead of
IW
aipuaiv)

scholion.
as I If the condition of the actual I
213
is
Mark
such
have proved it to be, no individual passages can be brought forward which will have any Another feature in weight against my hypothesis.
think
the actual
v.
Mark
are the
vii.
Aramaic words
talitlia
kumi,
41, ephphatha,
34, which I take for relics of
the original, preserved by the translator.
On
the other hand,
if
Luke
which must seem the
most hazardous part of the whole hypothesis had made something like a Greek translation of Mark
before
writing
in
Mark
easily
own Gospel, and had set that we understand much more circulation,
his
why
there are so
many
omissions in Luke.
He
might presuppose many

or most, of his readers,
things to be
many, and as he was himself com

larger scale, introducing
known
to
posing a Gospel on a
much
a great deal of fresh matter, he
was well
entitled to
lest
leave out
some part
of that already
known,
his
book should grow to an immoderate size. Much stress has been laid recently on the size of Luke s books, as
having been somehow prescribed to him by a literary
custom, or by the customary length of the papyrusrolls
he
used,
and
it
is
fact
that
size.
1
both
I
of
his
books are very nearly of the same

there
is
think that
size
some truth
in
this
of course the
of
Luke s
1
roll
could not prevent

Kuegg
him from giving
in the
ff.
See Arnold
in Theol. Stvdien u. Kritiken, 1896, p. 94
214

the seven words which are left out there
Eoman copy
(see
above, p. 138), but that reason
among
others might
influence
him
in
abridgments of greater importance.
Comparing the last chapters of

find
Mark and
179
of Luke,
we
the following important omissions in the latter.
He
does not
tell
of (see above on
s
p.
ff.)
the in
stitution of
our Lord
xiv.
Supper, nor the anointing in

ff.),
Bethany (Mark
in a general
to
nor the discourses on the

ff.),
betrayer of Jesus
(ibid.
18
except very briefly and

23), deflecting at once
way (Luke
xxii.
another discourse
which
is
not given by Mark.
Next he omits
hedrin
decisive
etc.
all details of
the trial before the San-
(Mark
xv.
55
question.
34),
ff.), giving only the final and Also he omits the Eloi, Eloi,"
"
(Mark
and the discourses made on
it.
He
must, of course,
make
all
his
own Gospel independent

by
side with
it,
of the use of another Gospel side
and
must
give, therefore,
that was necessary or desir
able for the understanding of the story,

;
whether
it
was already extant in Mark or not but he was not bound to give everything he knew. The same reasons
may
account for the largest omission
we
find
when
comparing the two Gospels, viz., that of the whole series of stories beginning with Mark vi. 45, and ex
tending to
viii.
13.
There
is
in that part of
Mark
the story of the second feeding of the multitude, and
Luke might
easily dispense with giving that.
But he

actually leaps from the
first
S GOSPEL.
215
end of the story about the

the
second,
feeding
to
the
end of that about
leaving out all that comes between.
This looks like
a piece of carelessness in using his authorities, which,
however,
may
be excused by the reflection that he

all,
did not feel bound to give

his
nor would he deprive

give,
readers
of those
stories
which he did not
there
being a
find
book within their reach where they

"
might
them, the
/caret
Gospel according to
Mark
"
(evayje\iov
Mapcoi/), as the title would be.
I think that if in its integrity,
we still we should
the
possessed this form of

find there verbal
:
Mark
agreement
with Luke to a very large extent

find
i.
e.g.
iii.
we should
14
(
there
"
to preach
gospel,"
in
= Acts
2), as
D
ff.
gives (see above, p. 142),
and the identical
stories told in similar words.

iii.
That passage in Mark
14
to
being of some importance,
we
shall
allow
it
detain us a little more.
The form
(Lucan)
is
there preserved for
some
for
length, differing greatly from A are, besides D, some old
B
e,
the
witnesses
versions
:
Latin
the
the
c,
Vercellensis
a,
the
Palatinus
Colbertinus
of
and
flated
others.
Of course there
is
no want
;
con
readings in
and elsewhere
but the purified
text
appears to be this: (14)
"And
that twelve should be with Him,

apostles
(
whom
also
He ordained He named
= Luke
vi.
13), (15)
and gave them power
216
that they might heal sicknesses, and cast out devils,
and going about preach the gospel. (16) And Simon (see i. 16) He surnamed Peter; (17) but collectively He called them Baneregez, which is, The sons of
They were James and John (sec

thunder.
these
i.
Simon
and
Andrew,
19), (18) and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Judas and Matthew, and Thomas and James, the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the
Cananite
trayed
(?),
(19) and Judas Iscariot,

1
who
also
be
Him."
The names are
identical with those in Luke, with

;
one exception in the order the most important thing is that the name of Sons of Thunder is transferred to
the whole body of the apostles, the thunder evidently
being compared to their voice of preaching.
For that
same reason the preaching

1
is
mentioned after the healin
give the
two
:
texts
and
Greek (many
peculiarities re
maining doubtful)
A.
(14)
B.
(14) [Kai 5w5e/ca] (to be cancelled, see ver. 16) iva
^7rotr?<ri>
Kal
Sena
fjier
eirotrjtrev tva Hocriv Swavrov, ovs /cat a7ro<TT6Xoiis
uv6/jui(rev ( 13), (15) i-dunev CLVTOLS iôvaiav Oepaweveiv ras v6crovs /cat tKJ3d\\eu> TO. Sat/j.6via (cp.
= L.
vi.
/ecu
Sitnv /oer O.ITOU, /cat iva aTrocn-^XX?;

ai<roi)s
K^piifftreiv,
(15)
/cat
^ \fiv
ta,
t!;ovcriai>[()epa.TreufivTasv6ffovsKa.i]
L. ix. 1), Kalwepiepxofxvovs KrjpvacreLv rb evayye\iov.

(16)
6vofj.a
/cat
(om.nBal.)^/c/3aXApTa5a( u6i
/
(16)
...5.
/cat
KO.I eirolrffffv
rovs 5w5e/ca
twtdriKev
(rif)
~2.ipwvi
om.
AD al.), Trpwroc St/uwva,

/cat
(/coi
HfTpov, (17) KOivHis d e/cciXecre v avrovs TSavrjpey^ (700), o

4<?Tiv
fTrfdTjKevovofjLaT^
1,ifj.i>}viU.T-
pov, (17)
/cat
Ia/cw/3oi rbv
rou Z.
/cat
viol /BpovTTJs.
v /cat
f/ffav
82 OVTOI
ludvyv TOV d5eX06i avrov,
AvSpfas,
Id/cw/3os /cat
vrjs
K.T.\.
^Tr^drjKev avrois 6vo/j.a Boavijpyts, 6 tffTLV viol ppovrrjs (18) /cai /c.r.X.

ing, that
S GOSPEL.
21*7
there might be a
near connection between
the preaching and the

I
think I have
is
common name. now said enough on

nor
this subject,
it
as
it
not
my
intention,
ought
to
be,
to
solve
the
so-called
synoptic
its
problem,
but
only
to
give such contributions for

to
solution as are afforded
me by
textual criticism.
Upon
is
the whole I
to
am
afraid
that
textual
criticism
apt
render the
problem even more complex, since it tends to split a seeming unit, such as Mark s book, into a plurality
of books
;
but this
is,
in
my
opinion, quite in accord
ance with the facts themselves.
There was a time in
the Latin Church, when, as Jerome states, there existed
almost as
many
its
Latin versions of the Greek

1
New
Tes
tament as there were

not only
version.
each congregation having but in that copy a separate copy, Afterwards that plurality was gradually
copies,
own
more and more reduced, and now the Roman Catholic I think there Church has one authorized Vulgate.
was
also
a time in
the old
Christian Church
when
there existed almost as
many Greek Gospels as there
were Christian communities, not differing widely, per haps, from each other in any individual case, but
still
not wholly identical.
duction was effected, and

1
now we
Afterwards a gradual re are accustomed to
Preface to the Gospels (Tot enim sunt exemplaria paene quot
codices).
218
read only four Gospels, and each of them in one fixed
form and
But Papias presbyter still knew more Matthews than one, and is it then astonishing that I
text.
try to establish that there were, and in some measure

still
are,
is
two separate Lukes, and that in Mark the

?
case
even more complicated

"predecessors
And,
besides,
all
those
of Luke" of whom he speaks with the single exception of Mark, existed, although, we are not even able to guess who they may have
many
been.
CHAPTER
XII.
TEXTUAL CONDITION OF JOHN S GOSPEL.

THEKE
is
but one Gospel
now
left for
it
us to consider,
are suffi
that of John.
cient to
fill
The problems
;
presents
up many books
textual
but I shall speak in the

after
main
of
its
discussed,
points.
or
having briefly touched upon, some important general
condition,
There
of
is
a tradition recorded by a Latin manuscript
the
ninth century, according to
which Papias of
Hierapolis, whom we mentioned just now, was the original copyist to whom John dictated his Gospel.
Of course
this
cannot be true, but there seems to
lie
behind the corrupt tradition some fact which was really

related
like
by Papias. Now there is other testimony much this, coming from a Greek compilation of commen
(catena)
taries
on
St.
John, where the words are
John
dictated his Gospel to his disciple, Papias Eubio-
tus of Hierapolis, in order to give a necessary supple-
220
ment
those

(jrpos avawXiipwa-iv) to the information given
by
who
before
him had preached
the gospel to all
the nations upon earth.
This last clause reminds one

iii.
of a passage in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.

is
24,
7),
which
of this tenor
It is told
(<paa-iv)
that after the three
other Gospels had already come into general notice,
John, while approving their contents as authentic, said that he still missed in them the account of Christ s
first
doings,
and that
this
was
his reason for writing
his
own.
Afterwards there comes in Eusebius the long
passage on Papias, and the excerpts from him refer

ring to
Matthew and Mark
as there are
given regarding John,
we may
no excerpts infer that Eusebius did
not find anything noteworthy in Papias that he had not already related.
But the name
of
John s copyist
unless this
would not seem
to
him very noteworthy,
copyist were Papias himself, so that this form of the tradition is disproved also by Eusebius silence.
On
names
the other hand the Catena, by presenting two

for that copyist, offers the easy explanation that
in reality Papias
had given the name of
his
citizen Eubiotus as that of the copyist, a
own fellowname which
was blended by
of the notice.
later ignorance with that of the author
For Eubiotus
is
(Eu/3/oro?,
-KOTO? in the MS.)
a well-attested
wrongly spelt Greek name, and
on the other hand it is as impossible to take it for a second name, or surname, of Papias, as to regard it as
TEXTUAL CONDITION OF JOHN

an adjective.
in
S GOSPEL.
221
The
use,
adjective, of course, exists, but not
common
it
;
and
it
would
require
the
article
before
a second
name
o
of Papias
Kacrcrto?,
would
or
also
have
the article, like

Ilai/Xo?.
1
AiW
ScwXo? 6 KOI
earnestly
hope that
will
the day
will
come when
test,
this conjecture
be brought to the
by the
or
recovery
of
Papias
work,
either
in
Syrian
Armenian
form,
translation, or
even in the original Greek
although
of that,
more hope for fragments from Oxyrhynchus or some other ruins of

there
is
an
ancient
town,
scientific
than
for
an
entire
manuscript.
Meanwhile
theologians do well to retrench
themselves in new positions, since the old ones, by

that
I
discovery,
might
of
become hopelessly untenable.

find
am
sure
that
we should
worthless
in
Papias,
among
deal
much
of
rubbish
tradition,
a
I
is
good
trustworthy
information
the
in
on
John,
It
mean the
true that
apostle
and not
found
presbyter.
Eusebius
as in
Papias
two
Johns
mentioned,
Papias
the
catalogue
of authorities
given by
and preserved by Eusebius the name of John comes

twice, first
among
those presbyters, that

before
his
is
apostles,
whose
*It
death
occurred
own
time,
and
disscripsit vero
would not be impossible that the words in the Latin MS., evangelium dictante Johanne recte, are a blundering
Hypatf/e de
translation of
rb evayy. vwayopevovTos ludvov Ev/3/OTOj.
222
secondly, together with one Aristion, as one of those

disciples
still
of
;
alive
the Lord who in Papias youth were Eusebius even affirms that he laid claim
having heard these himself, although in the quoted words of Papias, as they stand, this is not stated. He calls the second John by the same title
to
which
other
he
had previously used

viz.,
for
Peter
and the
and
gives
:
apostles,
presbyter
or
elder,
him
"
that
epithet
in
contradistinction
to
Aristion
of the Lord, relate
what Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples evidently then this John must
"
be
the
apostle
or
an
apostle,
if
there
were
two.
But there were not two, and

to
so
the passage appears

the
be utterly confused, unless we accept
con
jecture recently proposed by the Greifswald Professor,
Joh. Haussleiter,
of
who
it
strikes
out
the
first
mention
John, taking
for
crept
into the text,

of
an interpolation which had before Eusebius time, after the

his
name
list is
John
brother James, with which

1
was
so frequently combined.
Haussleiter urges that the

Peter, Philip
is
given by pairs:
Andrew
John
what
"
"
Thomas,
James
Papias
these
Matthew
introduces
(if
left
out),
and
that
of
"),
the
"
second,
third,
"
and
fourth
related
"
names by
or
(scil.
have
while he drops the

1
what,"
leaving only the
or,"
Theolog. Literaturblatt, xvii. Jahrgang, 1896, nr. 39.

s
See also
Provost Salmon
Introduction (7th ed.),
p.
268
f.

before
S GOSPEL.
223
natural
James
the
in
and
end
of
towards
Matthew, as it an enumeration
was
;
now John s
"
name comes
which
is
1
between these two with
or
what,"
incongruous,
If
and
clear
trace
of
the
I
interpolation.
we adopt
to
do),
this
it
emendation
not
the
(as
am much
course
that
inclined
does
follow
of
the
John
who wrote
apostle.
to
Apocalypse
although
was
identical
is
with
the
For
that
Eusebius
the
"
not unwilling
"
ascribe
book to
that that
presbyter
John,
we
must
be
aware
2
Papias did not mention the Apocalypse,

its
and
author
never
styles
"
himself
"
presbyter,"
nor
apostle, but
simply
John,"
which indeed does not
go very far as a proof of identity.

of
But the author

epistles
the
second
and third
this
3
Johannine
styles
himself
"presbyter";
then must be the apostle,
and why not

1
Moreover, the traditions introduced

are:
The Greek words

elirev
ij
rj
Ei 5^
iron
KO.I
ira.p-r}Ko\ovO-r]K^
rt
i)
rts
TO?S
irpecrfivTtpoiS
?}
A0ot, TOVS r(av TrpecrfivTepwv avexpivov \6yovs

TL
<f?i\iiriros
Avdptas
rl
fl
Herpes MaT0cuos
fj
rl
QU/J.O.S
T)
I<zKW/3us
rl
ludvys
Kal
TIS
Zrepos TUV rov KVptov

oi
/j.ad rjT&i
r\
ri
Apiffriuv
6 TrpecTjSi/repos
Iw.,
TOV Kvpiov
fjLadijrai,
\tyovffiv (this
is
present tense
refers, of course, to
the time of which Papias

wrote). to credit
narrating,
and
not to the time

2
when he
bound
fifth
do not
feel
the end of the
century),
Andrew of who adduces
Caesarea
Papias
(a
writer of
among many
other witnesses for the authenticity of the Apocalypse. If there had been in Papias a mention of that book, we should read it in
Eusebius,
18, 8),
who
expressly states that Justin cited the Apocal.

(iv. 24),
(iv.
and Theophilus of Antioch 3 See Salmon, 1. c., p. 270 ff.
and Apollonius
(v. 18, 14).
224

"
by Papias with the formula, This said the presbyter," must be referred to John the apostle, as e.g. that
about
Mark
Gospel.
I say again
Why
not
And
which
just so that about those vines of the Millennium,

will
ten
have each ten thousand branches, and each branch thousand twigs, and each twig ten thousand
thousand grapes, and each grape will produce twenty-five barrels of wine ;
for Irenaeus,
bunches, and each
bunch ten
who
gives this quotation, expressly intro

"
duces
it
by the words,
as those Elders (Papias, etc.),
who had
seen John the disciple of the Lord, relate,
that they heard from him,
how
the Lord taught about
those times, and said

after
"
then follow the words, and

authority
is
them
this
is
Papias
written
adduced.
Why,
mere rubbish, and cannot have been
I taught by our Lord, or related by His disciple. let us hope, then, fully agree with this criticism
;
that
said
when Papias comes

the
presbyter,"
to light, the formula,
"
This
will
not
be found at
the
the head
of this
apocryphal teaching, although Irenaeus rather point to the opposite conclusion.
words of
We
see therefore that this
is
doubtful ground, and
hence the great divergencies between different scholars.
Whilst in Professor Haussleiter
eyes the
"
"
presbyter
John
he
is
dead and buried, in those of Professor Harnack

;
Harnack is, on the contrary, full of vigorous life does not shrink from assigning to him, and not to

the apostle (who
S GOSPEL.
225
may have
been, however, his teacher
and authority), the authorship of the Johannine writ 1 He insists chiefly ings and especially of the Gospel.
upon one passage
of the Gospel,
which
gives, in his
opinion, the clear proof that the narrator and
com
poser cannot be the eye-witness, but must be a different

person.
There are in
it
:
xix.
35
f.
the
words:
"And
he that saw
record
is
bare record (imejuiaprvp^Kev), and his
true
and he
(ere<i/o?)
knoweth that he
saith
true, that
ye might believe.
the
it is
For these things were

be
fulfilled,"
done,
that
are,
scripture
true,
should
etc.
There
different
interpretations
given
of these words,
and there are

that.
different readings also,
and more than
Professor
Harnack says
"
It
would be quite unwarranted to regard the ver. 35 as an interpolation." Indeed ? He ought to be aware that a very good warrant, the Latin c, and
besides an ancient MS. of the Latin Vulgate, omit the
ver.
35,
giving in ver. 36
instead of
yap
for
$e
there are even
more witnesses, and among these
Nonnus
bare
in his metrical paraphrase of the Gospel,

"
who
that
renders besides in ver. 3 5 the text

it
He
that saw
record, and of him
(eiceivov)
we know
659
the
1 Harnack, Chronologic der does even more than this.
altcJiristl.
Litteratur,
his
i.
ff.
Harnack
and
He makes
"John
Presbyter"
establish the canon of our four Gospels, including his own,
impose that canon on the whole Church.
226
the record
is

1
true."
This
Nonnus was
a gifted poet,
an Egyptian by
of the
fifth
birth,
who
lived about the beginning
century, and wrote besides and before this
paraphrase a voluminous epic
poem
called Aiowa-iaica.
In his paraphrase he is, of course, continually amplify ing, but he takes great care not to omit any word of the sacred text. Now, the passage in question reminds
one of the
"
first
epilogue to the Gospel in xx. 30
(signs) are written, that ye might believe," and of the second epilogue too, xxi. 24: "This is the disciple which testifies (/mapTvpwv) of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that
etc.,
But these
his
etc.,
is
is
testimony
being
is
true,"
the
last
clause
"
and
we,"
omitted
v.
by
Nonnus.
Moreover,
"
there
to be
compared
3 2 (in Christ s words)

(/j.apTvpu>v)
There
another
I
that beareth witness
of
me;
and
of
know
is
that the witness which
He
witnesseth
me
true,"
and
in
the
Third Epistle of John
(of the authenticity of which I have no doubt), ver.
Demetrius hath good report (&t]MTplu> /xe/xcôTvprjTai) of all men, and of the truth itself: yea,
12:"
and we
also bear record (/u.apTvpov/mev)
and ye know
There is therefore (of(W) that our record is true." not the least doubt of the Johannine character of
1
Nonnus words
TO.VTO. 5e
are
avr^p 5
Sorts cnrwvev
eif
Trtoruxraro
fMijOiji yua/3-
rvpirjv
(>wvf)
arivaKTOV apiaTovboio 5 KtLvov l 8(XV

TTOLVTO.
w{\f<rKev
6Yt fadei) /ecu (T7jTVfj.os e?7rXero
K.T.\.

the
S GOSPEL.
227
words
in
xix.
35,
genuineness of the last

as
it
we may question the clause, on Nonnus authority,

but
the
may have
crept in from the passage in xx. 31,
and likewise question, on

genuineness of
that
"and
same
etc.,
authority,
in xxi.
the
for
we
know,"
24;
xix.
too
is
may
be an amplification
due to
35.
There
a difficulty removed in this way, for
how
can a distinction be made between the author and
ypd-â^ of the narrative and the person or persons narrating (jy/xef?) ? But the same difficulty on the same authority, translated into xix. 35, is,
writer (6
where
knows."
Nonnus
"
gives
we know
is,
"
instead
of
"
he
The case there
that an endless discussion

e/ceiVo?,
has been carried on about the
the question
being, whether that pronoun may be employed of It is the author himself. rather hard to affirm
this,
and Zahn
whilst
view,
who
refers
the
pronoun
to
seems to be recommended by the grammar, appears very strange from another point
Jesus,
it
of view.
as
far
;
On
as
this
the
other
hand, Nonnus reading

goes,
is,
sentence
is
quite
unexception
able
only there
again
"
the distinction
between
the
author and the
we."
Well, then, the

e
whole
verse on
the authority of
the text to
of
the margin, the

<5e.
must be relegated from yap in ver. 36 being

If
course replaced by have to state that John
we
accept
this,
we
text has
been commented
228
upon
at

a
very ancient time by some disciples of

;
for the Johannine style, his, who copied his style as we have seen, is evidently there. may now leave this special question, in order to
"We
take a general view of the condition of
St.
John s
text.
Are there more instances

menting upon a
text, or
of interpolation, or of
call it
com
?
whatever we may
If
we
are to regard as spurious, or at least dubious, all
those particles which have not an universal and unani
mous
attestation, there is indeed a very great deal of
dubious
matter
in
John.
This
is
even
in
some
measure a recognized fact, certain passages having been cancelled by recent editors upon the evidence of
the Alexandrian MSS. which omit
them.
The most
on
conspicuous instance
in ver. 3
is
in chap,
ver.
v.,
where some words

left out,
and the whole of
4 are now
the authority of the best D).
MSS.
(among which
B and
ver.
There can indeed be no doubt that the
is wholly from all considerations with re different, quite apart For an angel went down (but gard to the contents
1
"
does not come from John, since the style
according to the Alexandrinus
bathed,
eXovero), at
a certain season into (in) the pool, and troubled the
water
1
whosoever then
is
first after
the troubling of the

or
ol
There
nowhere
in
the N.T.
<J5
drjTrorf
drjiroTovv,
nor
Karfxecrdai vacr/nart, except in D,

vocrri/jia.
Luke
iv.
38, KCLT^X-
TvpeT, nor
itself.
S GOSPEL.
229
water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease

he
7
:
had."
"
Sir, I
But the impotent man says to Jesus in ver. have no man, when the water is troubled, to
:
put
me
into the pool
but while I
me."
am
coming, another
the
"
steppe th
down
before
This
is
universal
reading there, except that one MS. adds

healing,"
firmity."
and receives
and another,
has
"
and
walk away in iny in

it
After the removal of ver. 4,

7
is
evident
that
ver.
become
unintelligible.
Nonnus, we
find in
him no
trace of ver.
Turning to 3 or 4, but
instead of these he
this
"
where a sick
must have read something like man, as soon as he saw the water
and was made
a text like this,
being troubled spontaneously, bathed

whole."
am
sure that
if
:
we had
if
no offence could be taken

(KoXv/u.{3i ]9pa) to
we suppose
the pool
have been rather narrow, there would
be no room for more than one
man
at a
time,
and
Nonnus indeed
"
uses throughout
and, as
the word aa-aiJuvQos,
bathing-tub,"
we have
seen, the singular of the
man.
only,
There is then in this passage not interpolation but the genuine text has been replaced by a
spurious comment, of course at a very ancient time. For even those witnesses who omit the comment, in directly show that it had existed in one of their
archetypes, where
had been cancelled upon better authority, but without giving the genuine words ex
it
hibited
by that
authority.
Or
else the narrative given
230
by John had been from the beginning incomplete in this respect, and was afterwards supplemented by others in
different ways.
in Mark.
of
it
:
bath";
see there is the same quicksand as on in this narrative we find more Going ver. 9, and on that same day was the Sab but D and e (Nonnus) simply: "And it was
"
You
the
"
Sabbath";
ver. 10,
cured,"
The Jews therefore

but
e
said
.
unto
.
him
that
was
without
for
"
unto
cured,"
and the verb employed here
"cured"
does not
exist elsewhere in
this is not in
John;
"It
is
the Sabbath
day";
"
but
not lawful for thee to carry thy

"
it is Nonnus, or in the Sinaitic Syriac but Xonnus : bed";

;
who had
bid
him,"
etc.,
in close agreement with ver. 1 1

"
where he renders
this text
And
he answered them
He
that has
made me
the
whole, the same told
me
to take
up and
is
walk."
Conversely in ver.
12
:"
Then asked
they him
that
"
(e,
which said unto
Jews asked him, saying ): What man thee, Take up thy bed, and
preserves the direct form
is
walk
Nonnus not only
of speech (which
replaced by the indirect in N both

"
here and in 11), but also the words,

are left out
thy
bed,"
which he
by KB and
iv.
others.
Ver. 13
it
was."
"And
that
o o
was healed wist not who

cf.
Instead of
:
taflel?,
<5e
47, there are these various readings
a<r0V(t)v,
6 $e TeOeponrev/mevos, KOI 6 avOputTros (Syr,

"
For Jesus Sinait., and apparently Xonnus), o Se (q). had conveyed Himself away, a multitude being in that

place."
S GOSPEL.
231
The whole sentence
is
left
out by Nonnus,
and the verb employed here

to the
(etcveifetv) is
wholly foreign
New
Testament.
And was
this a reason for the
man s
Him.
not knowing Jesus ? Perhaps not, but if Jesus had remained there the Jews would have recognized
On
the other hand,
we do not even
not, if
question
is left
whether Jesus was there or

out
;
the sentence
for the place
where the Jews met with the man

bed was, of course, not Bethesda,
left Jesus.
who was
carrying his
where the narrator has
Take another narrative, you will find the same uncertainty of readings, and now and then a manifest
In chap. iv. 6 ff., the two Syriac MSS., those of Cureton and of Mrs. Lewis, make a transposition of ver. 8 into ver. 6 Jesus therefore,
gloss,
or
interpolation.
"
being wearied, sat thus on the well
(ver.
8) for His
disciples were gone away into the city to buy meat. (6) And as Jesus sat (there) it was about the sixth
hour,
(7)
and
woman
cometh,"
etc.
ff.)
We
;
have
seen on a former occasion
(p.
56
a very good
in the pre
transposition given by the Sinaitic Syriac
sent case both collocations of the sentences
seem
"
to
be equally possible.
saith the
woman
In the next verse (9) of Samaria unto Him, How is

:
Then
that
it
Thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which
am
woman
with
of Samaria
for the
"
Jews have no dealings

lovSaiot
the Samaritans
(ov
yap crvyxpwvrai
232
*2aju.apiTat$),

the last clause
is
left
is
out by tfD,
evident, as
etc.,
<rvy-
and here again the interpolation

Xjjtja-Oai
TIVI
is
foreign
to
New
Testament
Greek.
But
is
also yvvaiicns Zafj.apiTiSo^ ovcrw is superfluous,
and
left
out by the
Sinaitic
Syraic.
It
is,
however,
worth noticing that in the following discourse, as in other discourses and speeches of Jesus, omissions are
much
rarer.
:
In
ver.
shorter form
"And
and Nonnus present a whosoever drinketh of the water
14
that I shall give

shall be in
him
shall never thirst
but there
etc.
him a well
of water springing
up,"
do not think that the sentence loses anything by this the water that I omission, as the words omitted
("
shall give
him
")
are already there in the former part.
Now, how John s text 1

condition
that in
are
we
to
explain this condition of
St.
In the
first place,
we must
define that
to
more
exactly,
and in contradistinction

in Luke.
;
Mark
as well as to that
Is there
something like a double text ? By no means for the witnesses for the longer and for the shorter form are
continually
changing
places
for
instance
c,
which
is
often bore testimony to an omission of words,
in
other places a witness for some enlargement.

over, there are passages where
all
More
our witnesses give
a more or less prolix text, but in quite different ways.
In
ii.
2 there are these readings

"
"
wanted wine
"
or,
And
they they had no wine, because

:
And when
S GOSPEL.
"
233
;
the wine of the marriage festival had been spent

"
or
(e)
And
it
came
to pass, that because of the great

spent."
multitude of guests the wine was

these readings
None
of
commends itself by particular Johannine on the contrary, we may object to each of them from this point of view, and what if we leave to
words
;
John nothing of all this ? The narrative will be some what short, it is true, but will not cease to be in
telligible
to
everybody.
So,
the thing
we
find does
not look like a double form of text, but, as I stated

before, like
an uncommented text on the one side (not
always preserved), and a text accompanied with dif ferent comments on the other. This is not the case,
as
we have
seen,
in
clauses omitted
by and always in accordance with Luke s style, while in John there is now and then a striking difference
between comments and
anything in
text.
Mark, or in Luke, where the are sometimes very characteristic
Again, we did not find
John which reminded us by its style of another individual writer, as was the case in Mark.
Well, then,
if this is
the condition
we
actually have
before us, let us seek for an hypothetical explanation
which may
suit
it.
their archetypes are either to be
The copyists of our MSS. and of condemned all alike,

;
or to be absolved all alike
as the former is impossible
we
shall do the latter.
hypothesis.
Then there remains only this The archetype of St. John s Gospel,
234

else,
first
written by Eubiotus, or by some one
whoever
place for
for
he
may have
s
been, and destined in the
John
disciples
who
lived
in
with him
lived,
and
the
Christian
community
which he
was very soon

;
copied for the use of distant disciples
and communities
and the copyists being themselves

liberty of enlarging the text here
disciples,
took the
and
there, of course
each in
of
different
way, and
this
was the origin

in the
most
(v.
;
variants.
Whether the angel bathing

is
pool
4) was added by a disciple of John, I
am
"
not
certain
little
but so much
evident, that a
man
is
of
very
understanding," like Papias
(who
so charac
terized
in
by Eusebius), was quite capable of commenting this way. On the other hand, xix. 35, which
seem
to us to be a part of the original
also did not

text,
John
shows both understanding and familiarity with there must have been disciples of all style
;
kinds,
and
so there are
comments
passages
of all kinds.
Among
there
is
individual
of
contested
reading
none more deserving our attention than the thirteenth verse of the first chapter Which were
"
born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of
the will of man, but of
God."
And
But
yet very few of

is
my
any
"
readers, as I should think, are

difference of reading here.
aware that there

if
we
slight the
(e.g.
variants
found
"
in
our
MSS.
and versions
that
which
is left
out in
and
others, being replaced in

English, of course, by
"
S GOSPEL.
235
we cannot slight the they evidence given by a witness of such antiquity and such
"),
high standing as Tertullian, whose copy of John nob only did not contain the relative pronoun, but also had
"
he was born
so far
"
"
instead of
to
"
(they)
were
born."
"
He
they
goes
as
ascribe
the other reading,
were born
(ejevv^Qr](rav\
which he found with his
adversaries the Valentinians (but without the pronoun

"
which
"),
to their wilfully changing the text.

is
If Ter
tullian is not sufficient, there
Irenaeus also attesting

it
the
same
reading
obscurely,
is
true,
as
to
the
omission of the pronoun, but very distinctly as to the

singular and to the reference to Christ
of authors so late as
not to speak
Is this
Ambrose and Augustine.
not enough ? There is Justin, too (Dialog, ch. 63), with a rather unmistakable allusion. You find the
whole case stated in the large work of Dr. Eesch, who

has the great merit of calling attention to this highly 1 But important variant," and decides in favour of it.
"
let
us judge, with
consideration,
all
impartiality and fairness, on care

of the
ful
both
external
and of the
"
internal reasons.
"
born,"
There are four readings He was who was born (qui natus est, the Latin b, a
:
"
Verona MS. of the fourth or

were
born,"
fifth
"
century),
they
and
"
who were
born."
The two
readings-
with the pronoun are suspicious, even for the reason

1
A. Resch, Aussercanonisclte Paralldtexte,
iv.
57
ff.
236

it
that there are others without
for
copyists
were
very apt to add pronouns and conjunctions, as they have done a thousand times in John and elsewhere
;
on the other hand, there
no apparent reason why the pronoun should have been left out. That John s
is
style
is
asyndetic
you
will
;
recognize
at
once,
in this same proem wherever you open his book you have the conjunction only before vers. 5, 12
(where
it
and
e,
and Tertullian and Cyprian leave

17,
out),
14,
if
16,
while
it
is
missing in
2,
3, 4,
etc.
But
we
;
leave out the pronoun here the case

for
"
will be decided
.
.
.,
they were born not of blood but of God, and the Word was made flesh, and
us,"
dwelt among
if
etc.,
is
manifestly impossible.
So,
you
will maintain the ordinary reading,

"
you must
left
needs return to the
who,"
which
still
might be
out accidentally. have the "and
"in.
But even with the pronoun you 14 much against you: why are
connected,
s
these two sentences

refers to the
although the former

appearance, and the
itself
?
time after Christ

to the
latter goes
back
to the
appearance
and
at
the
is
same time
"Word"
of vers. 1-3
There
manifest break in the series of ideas in ver. 14, and
here the author, after having spoken mostly in dis and." connected sentences, puts in the he was born" must refer to the But, you may say
"
"
Word,
or to the Light,
and with one of these subjects

the sentence becomes absurd.
I
S GOSPEL.
237
:
deny the necessity

"But
look at the words immediately preceding:

as received
as
many
sons of
Him, to them gave He power to become the On God, to them that believe on His name."
?
whose name
On
that of the
Word, or
of the Light
Of course
more
of
not, but
on the name of Jesus Christ.
Well,
then you have there the subject for ver. 13.

still
There
is
to
be said against the ordinary reading.

"in
"Sons
God
12 evidently bears a
spiritual
;
mean
then
ing,
and cannot be understood otherwise
why
this
strong assertion that these spiritual sons are not
born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God ? Of course, the reader must Give back to the say for this is indeed self-evident.
;
sentence
its
reference to Christ, and the strong asser
tion is justified.
"
But why has

"
this
reference been
?
destroyed by
were born
(eyevw/Otia-av)
Not by
malice, as Tertullian suggests, but
tence
"
was born
"
of
God
"
by mere inadver was assimilated to the

God."
preceding
to
become the sons of
Afterwards
the pronoun
plural,
came
in, either in the singular or in the

"
because a sentence like this

flesh,
Not of
blood,
nor of the will of the but of
nor of the will of man,

its
God He was
born,"
with
subject not indi
cated until as
late as
in
the fifteenth
Greek word,
was somewhat harsh and seemed
to require the eluci
dation which was given by the pronoun.
238
There
is

a very well-known passage in
"
ii.
(ver. 4),
where Jesus says to His mother Woman, what have I to do with thee ? mine hour is not yet come." OUTTM ?/Vet The Greek words are n eju.cn KUI yvvai
:
<TOI,
r]
oopa
IULOV.
"
This
"
what have
I to
do with thee
to
"
or
"
literally,
what
is
does not cease to
me and you common) vex readers, whatever may be said

there (in
(see e.g.
in
explanation of
it,
for the phrase used is the
same which
Matt.
viii.
the demons use in speaking to Jesus
29), and which is frequent both in the Old Testament and in colloquial Greek of the time, quite in the mean
ing of our
"
Let
of
me
the
alone."
paraphrasing
words,
But Nonnus, makes a very

:
in
his
slight
instead of alteration, which wholly changes the sense 1 and (KOI) he has or (5?), and now this sense comes
" " "
"
out
v.
What
is
that to me, or to you
(cf.
Paul, 1 Cor.
12).
concern you at for mine hour

readers
will
Namely, that they have no wine does not all, and it does not concern me yet
:
is
not yet
come.
am
sure
5y
most
to KOI,
be of
is
my
;
opinion and prefer
although there
1
but one witness for the former, and

aiTy
In case anybody should conjecture i?5 words given in Scheindler s edition of Nonnus does not contain 7?5e at all ; besides the CUTT? is
Tt
ffioi,
ytvai,
rje crol
instead of
-fjt,
I notice that the index of
state
evidently incompatible with that alteration. By the way, I can by means of the same index, that N. renders r) instead of KCLI
(f)
also in viii. 14
irov
so
BD,
etc.), x.
10
(f)
f.
(?)
Ovo-rj
r)
a.7ro\ea-ri
TTfpiffffbv)
xii.
38
(?)
6 Ppaxiwv),
49
ri
\a\rjffw,
as
d and the
Coptic version), whether rightly or not, I do not decide.

that quite an obscure one.
that in this chapter
It is
S GOSPEL.
239
much
to be regretted
we
are destitute of the aid of the
Sinaitic Syrian, which, as
my
readers -will remember,
afforded us excellent help for xviii., where
we found
above
very clear instance of inverted order page 5 6

ff.).
(see
on
This too seems to be a special feature in

;
the textual condition of John
carelessness in copying,
and the leaving out of sentences, which were afterwards supplied in the margin, and from thence came again
into the text, but at a
wrong
place,
It
may have been

to
:
the
early causes of this damage.
seems
have taken
now and then even on a larger scale Prof. H. Wendt has proposed a highly probable conjecture on
place
1
vii.
15-24, which he removes from their present place,
putting
them
I
at the
end of
v.
But as
I
am
dealing strictly with MSS. evidence,
prefer
to
give another
instance which
great
is
no
less
clear,
although
xxi.
it
not
7
of
f
. :
so
"
importance.
Eead
Peter
attentively
Now when Simon

cast
heard that
unto him
into
little
it
(for
sea.
was the Lord, he girt his he was naked), and did
fisher s coat
himself
in
a
the
And
the
other
disciples
far
came
ship, for they
were not
cubits."
from land, but as
were
1
two hundred
Why,
.
if
they
had
H. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu,

351
ff.
u. Kritiken, 1880,
(before
i. 228 ff. cf also Bertling, in Studien Wendt), and F. Spitta, Zur Geschichte
:
und
Litter,
des Urchristenthums, 199
ff.
(after
W.).
240
been very far from land they would much more naturally have come in the ship, and not swimming.
our Syriac witness from Sinai, which "... he gives this quite clear and coherent text him (the words for he girt his fisher s coat unto
to
:
Turn now
was naked
the sea,
this
. .
.
are left out)
and did
cast himself
into
and came
swimming
out).
(ISTonnus
far
too
renders
(
clause), for
they were not

left
from land
the
other,"
but
etc.
cubits
is
But
is
There can be no doubt that this

but you
the right order, 2
may
is
be
and what
naked,"
wondering why it was inverted, to become of the words "for he was

still
"
and of
but
cubits,"
and of the
"
and
came
swimming."
Of course
:
it
is
impossible here to
original
know anything
text having
(as is
certainly
we may imagine an
in the
some authentic supplements

shall be able to explain
margin
very frequently the case with our
own manu
scripts),
and
by that hypothesis
and the wrong
the omissions (the supplements having been overlooked
by a
in a
copyist), either wholly or in part,
order (the copyist having corrected his mistake, but
wrong way), and

"
all
it
we want
"
to
explain.
At
"
"
any rate, the
but as
were two hundred cubits

for
looks rather authentic, and the

1
"E@a\fv
he was naked
and
so
eavrbv
common
text,
but
1) TJ\aro,
Nonnus.
crvpovres
. .
In Nonnus the clause "for t xtftW, at the end of ver. 8.
they,"
etc.,
stands after

(i.e.
S GOSPEL.
241
he had no undergarment on) seems to be indis came swimming may be a comment pensable, while
"
"
made on
a
ship."
the model of
"
the other disciples came in

will
Thus you leave much uncertainty, you

I
say.
Of course
do
am
that Indian Bird (see
above on page 79) possessing the miraculous gift of discerning, in any given case, between spurious and
genuine particles
?
We may
easily
;
be able to
do so
in
some
cases,
is
and more
of
when
the object of our
doubts
some extent
but there are
only too
many
at
things about which

still
we cannot
less
ourselves arrive
a firm conviction,
convince others.
Having spoken quite enough of variants and of minute matters, I shall conclude with some remarks on the words in v. 2 Now there is at Jerusalem
"
by the sheep market (rather gate

has only
in the
e-Tn
the
Greek
is
text
called
777
TrpofiartKi])
a pool,
which
Hebrew tongue Bethesda, 1 having five porches." There is ? Then Jerusalem was still existing at the time when this was written and even John s
"
"
Gospel, the latest of

71.
I
all,
am
it is
not at
all
was written before the year afraid of this inference which

before
has
actually
been drawn, and

of
our
century
but as
cautious.
great importance, we must be very There is a German pastor, 0. "Wuttig,
who has
1
"
recently
published a
.
book
on
this
Gos-
Which
Bethesda"
is
missing in Nonnus.
242
1

trying to establish that
it
pel,
was written in Judaea,

in spite
and before any other Gospel,
not
only of
common
bius,
opinion, but
also
of
tradition,
since
EusePapias
it
and
perhaps
is
even
Papias,
nay
even
presbyter, that
John the
apostle, regarded
as
being destined to give supplements to other Gospels.
Of
course I cannot enter into this subject here

s
but
the objections to Wuttig

serious.
thesis
seem
to
be very
the
"
He
2,
too
relies
it
very
much
does
on
"
is
in
v.
although
evidently
least
not
go
far
enough
that
in
for
him
at
am
of
quite
convinced
both
the
year
68,
that
in
Nero s
" "
death,
Mark and Luke were

known.
is
existence
and
is
generally
But what he says on the

he attaches
as
to
in question
very judicious:
that
present the
the im
more importance,
perfect
"
John
ordinarily
uses
Now
Jacob
even when speaking of localities (see iv. 6, s well was there and as this was and
"),
is
quite a
common
all
assimilation to
the tense of the
narrative, not at
implying that the thing in question
has
now
ceased to exist.
But
if
we
use the present
tense amid the imperfects of our narrative,
we
certainly
is
imply that this
is
even
now
so.
Moreover, there
no passage in this Gospel where the destruction of Jerusalem is alluded to, and the latest event mentioned,
1
Licent. O. Wuttig,
Das Johanneische Evang. und
seine Abfax-
sunyszeit, Leipzig (G.
Bohme), 1897.

the martyrdom of Peter,
time.
is
S GOSPEL.
243
Nero
s
universally placed in
to suspend a
Nevertheless,
if
you are
hundred
If
weight, you must take a rope and not a thread.
the
"
"
is
(ecrnv) is universally attested, there are so

;
many
mind
which
"
threads joining that they will form a rope
if
not, I shall call the thing still a thread,

to
is
and have no
Now, suspend the hundred-weight by it. the case ? Greek MSS. are concordant for
"
is,"
but Nonnus has

versions,
qv,
was,"
and so have
all
the
Syriac
and the Armenian, and the two old

Still
Egyptian versions.
stronger, as
the evidence for
"
"
is
is
far
Nonnus does not count much
here, his
stand-point being rather that of his

"
own
time,
and the
"
was
"
might be due to assimilation
to
the
was
"
of the preceding verse; as an editor, I should certainly

"
give
earriv"
and
not
rjv.
But
that
is
not
the
rope,
question here.
The threads do not make up the

question like
and
so I leave this
many
others to
my
readers.
INDICES.
I.
TO PERSONS, SUBJECTS, AND GREEK WORDS.

A
(A).
a-KOvfiv, 31.
I.
B(B). Baneregez (Boanerges), surname

of the Apostles, or of and James only, 216.
Belser, J., 125
f.
Alexandrian text of the N.T., 64 ff., 147, etc. Alexandrinus A (N.T. MS.), 64,
228, etc.
John
Berger, S., 68, 106

Bertling, 239.
I.
f.,
110.
Ambrose,
162, 235.
ff.
dvardTTecrBai, 14
Andrew
of Caesarea, 223. 2.
&VO}0V, 17 f. Aorist, contradistinction to present-imperf., 121, 125, 130 f.,

188.
Bethlehem, cave in, 165 f. Beza (Th. de Beze), 96 ff. Bobbio, Latin MS. of (k), 80 ff., 84, 86 f., 199,201,204,211. i.
Bornemann, F. A., 105

/3ot/\e<r#cu
f.
Apollonius (author of Conica), Apollos, 29 ff.

&pa, 188, 197
f.
2.
instead of OtXfw, 199. Breslau Latin MS. (I), 152.
Burgon, Dean,
61.
Byzantine
in
scribes,
carefulness
Aramaic words
Mark,
213.
of, 72.
Aristion, disciple of the Lord, 222.
C.
Armenian versions
69, 148, 243.
of the N.T.,
9.
Cantabrigiensis D, 64, 75 86, 96 ff., etc.

Centurio, the
f.,
81,
in
word received
f
.
Atticism
(in
Greek literature),
vulgar Greek, 211
ditto in
Atticus (T. Pomponius), 100. Augustin, 107 ff., 131 f., 134,
139, 162, 235.
Aramaic, 212.
Chronicon Paschale,
26.
f.
Chuzas - Cydias, 152
INDICES.
Cicero, 100.
Clement
146
f.,
of Alexandria, 25, 111, 170.
Eubiotus of Hierapolis, 219 ff. Eusebius, 8, 12 f., 14, 17, 25 f.,

34, 84, 120, 131, 156, 187 193, 203, 220 ff., 234.
f.,
Clericus, J. (Jean Leclerc), 68, 95, 98 f.
Euthalius, 37.
Coins,
Roman,
212.
(c),
Evangelium quadripartitum, 74
185, 146.
Colbertinus, Latin MS. 197, 211. i, 215.
Ezra, 15
f.
Conybeare, F. C., 69, 126. 2 Corbeiensis, Latin MS. (f ), 157.

Corssen, P., 106
f.,
F. Ferrariani, MSS. of the Gospels,
120, 132.
155
ff.
Crescens, 154.
Fisher, F. H., 123.

87.
i,
I.
Curetonian Syriac MS.,

231.
146,
Floriacensis, Latin MS. of Acts, 106 f., 110.
Cyprian, 106, 109, 111, 236.

Galilaean character of Synoptic Gospels, 207. German versions of the N. T. 68.
,
Daniel
(ix.
26
f.),
45
ff.
f.,
49.
de Lagarde,
Sid,
Sicnrovfiffdai,
diacrcKfifiv,
P., 2
compounds
116
with, 117
f.
201.
ff.
Gigas, Latin MS. of theN.T.,110. v. d. Goltz, E., 250.

yovvirereLv, riGevai TO, ydvara, 200.
Diatessaron, 146.
Graefe, Ferd., 87.

143, 172.
i, 2,
I,
132, 140,
i.
179.
Dioscorides (author of Materia Medica), 3, 5.

5oOXos, OLK^TTJS in
Gregory
of Nyssa, 177.
Luke,
H).
116.
Grimm,
C. Z.
W., 13
H.
ff.
I.
E(E,
TJ
and
Kai
confounded in MSS.,238.
Harnack, A., i, 224 f.
35, 40, 44, 83, 192.
HSuKav - Idoaav, 9 f. Egyptian versions of the N.T., 110, 148, 243 (see also Sahidic
version).
&c5ocns
r/jueis
"edition,"
Harris, J. Rendel, 69, 76. 155, 185 f.
I,
126,
Haussleiter, 222, 224.
Hebrews, Gospel according to

100.
the, 156.
instead of tyw, 13. = time, 134 f. Tf/zfya

lireiS-qirep, 8.
Hemsterhusius, Tib., 99.

Hilgenfeld, A., 122, 126.
Holtzmann, H.
TTOK.,
ff.
126.
f.
eTTi/cAXw instead of
186.
Homer known
Hort
(see
to Luke, 186
Epiphanins, 17, 85, 165

T-f}^,
192.
Westcott-Hort). Hoskier, H. C., 61.
246

1(1).
Maximus
199.
Confessor, 177.
of
TO iKavbv
TToiftv. \aj3elv,
Minuscule codex
110.
Acts
(137),
contradistinction Imperfect to aorist, 130 f., 158, 188. Irenaeus, 15 f., 96, 107 f., Ill,
in
170, 235.
IwdcTjs
Minuscule codex of Gospels (700),

61, 169, 177, 197, 208.
Iwdvvrjs,
75
f.,
81.
N(N).
paCs instead of ir\oiov, 186.
J.
Nestle, E., 68, 76.
2,
103, 126,
s
Jerome,
12,
14, 17,
36
f.,
78
ff.
194.
f.,
85, 162, 217.
Nonnus, paraphrase of St. John

Gospel, 156, 225 ff., 229 238, 240. i, 2, 241. i, 243.
John the Presbyter ?, 222
ff.,
Justin, 47, 85, 144, 146, 166 223. 2, 235.
f.,
0(0).
K(K).
Kadd, /ca#ws,
KaOetfs, 18
f.
oida/meif
fo/j.ev,
etc. , 9.
8.
Origen, 111, 166, 182, 184, 197. Oxyrhynchus, excavations of, 22,
221.
I.
KCLTyxe iffOai, 20, 31.
Kipling, Th., 98.

19.
L
86, 139, etc.
(A).
Page, J. E., 123 ff. Palatinus (e), Latin MS. of Gos

pels, 50, 56, 167, 211.
i, i,
Latin MSS. of Gospels, 50, 56, 85,
215, 225, 230, 232
f.,
212. 236.
Laudianus
of Acts, 110.
Papias, 18, 156, 192, 196, 198, 206, 218 ff., 234.
TrapayivecrOai., 117.
A.i/3epTivoi
Lewis, Agnes Smith, 59, 146. AifSvffTivoi., 69 f

.
Trapa.KO\ovde1v, 17
f.
Lightfoot, Bishop, 91
Lippelt, E., 76.
i,
ff.,
143. 157.
Participle of future with ws, 197.
144.
i,
Pearce, 68.
Tr\T]po<f>op
Livy, 68.
Xour6s, 174, 211.
I.
tv, 8,
12
ff.
Plutarch, 2, 14.
TropeveaOaL, 202.
[Longinus] wepl vôvs, 6. Lucifer of Cagliari, 110.
Present (conj., etc.) in contra distinction to aorist, 130 f.

Trpoffeyyiei.v, 116.
M.
Marcion,
6, 50, 56,
f.,
93
f.,
144
ff.,
irpoffTidfvai, -tcrdai,
201
f.
154, 161, 177
183.
Mary, very common name

Judaea, 190.
in
Trpwros instead of Trporepos, 38. Provencal version of the N.T.,

68.
INDICES.
R.
T.
120, 123.
247
Eamsay,
Prof.
W.,
Tatian, 146.
Tertullian,
107, 111, 145, 177,
199.
Resch, A., 235.
Roman Church,
Ruegg, A., 213.
155, 160
i.
f.
235
ff.
Tischendorf, 138f., 188
f.,
S.
V. N. Test.
i,
,
Sahiclic version of the 110, 185.
Vaticanus (B) of the N.T., 64

68, 75, 81, 87, 91, 147
f.,
f.,
etc.
Salmon, Provost G.,

126, 123
ff.,
91.
122,
222.
i.
Sanday, Prof., 177. Savonarola, Jerome, 41

Schliiger, G., 176.
i.
Vercellensis (a), Latin MS. of Gospels, 184, 215. Veronensis (b), Latin MS. of Gos
pels, 197, 235.
ff.
Virgil, 185.
Scrivener, F., 98. Semitic words in the N.T., 172.
W.
i.
Semler, 98 f. Severianus of Gabala,
Weiss, Bernh., 40, 116. i, 120 130. i, 132 f., 136, 141.
11.
ff. T
Simcox,
H., 61. Sinaiticus (K) of the N.T., 64,

68, 83.
i, 87, etc.
f.
W.
Wellhausen, 183.
Wendt, H.,
239.
f.,
Westcott-Hort, 64, 84, 138

148, 156, 161, 177, 180 189.
f.,
Size of papyrus rolls, 213 Spitta, F., 59. i, 239. i.
184,
Western text
Acts, 64
ff.,
of
Gospels and
f.,
Stephanus, R., 97.

Strabo, 28. Syriac versions of the N.T. (Curetonianus, Sinaiticus, Peshitta), 59,64, 82 f., 84 ff., 139f., 146f., 148, 183f., 208, 230, 239 f.
84
etc.
Wright, A., 31. i. Wuttig, Lie. O., 241

Z.
f.
Syrus posterior (Philoxenian ver

sion) in Acts, 109, 121, 123. 147.
i,
Zahn, Th.,
227.
29, 31 ff, 87.
I,
145,
Zockler, 0., 126.
II.
TO PASSAGES OF THE
N.T.
DISCUSSED.
i.
INDICES.
249
ADDENDUM
TO
PP.
70
F.
AND 106
r.
LICENT. E. VON DEB GOLTZ, of Berlin, recently discovered, in a monastery at Mount Athos, a manuscript of the Acts and Epistles, not very ancient, it is true, but, at all events, derived from an ancient and very valuable original. The margin contains
numerous
Pauline
scholia,
in
which
traced
many
;
variants,
especially
in
the
back to quotations by Eusebius, there is exhibited a degree of Origen, Irenaeus, and Clement carefulness even about small things, which we were by no means prepared to meet with. But, at the same time, it is quite evident that there existed no authoritative text of the sacred books. In the
Epistles,
are
Acts there is one important addition of D, which is acknowledged both in the text and in a scholium ch. XV., 20 and 29, the words KOI
:
offa.
&v
fj.r]
6f\uffiv CLVTOIS ytvecrOai, ere pots

tropveias in v. 29)
/ur)
Troiflv
(after TOU cu/aaros
in v. 20
and after
(*),
asterisks
much
stand in the text included by in the same way as in the Syrus posterior of
Acts (see p. 109), or in the remnants of Origen s Htxapla. The scholium attests that this was the reading given by Irenaeus in his third book, and by Eusebius in his sixth and seventh book Another scholium (to v. 29) gives the close of against Porphyrius.
the Epistle of the Apostles according to Irenaeus
eauToi)j eC irpdêrf,
<p{p&/j.fvoi
:
&v diarripovvTes
ev ayltfi Trvft/jLari
at the
same time, that
KO.I
(without Zppuaffe), stating, rov TTVIKTOU in v. 20 and /cot in v.

TTVI.KTU>I>
29 was omitted by the same authority. We actually find this very text ( = D) in the extant Latin version of Irenaeus. Now it becomes
more and more impossible to ignore Western variations, since it is proved that they go back to such very early times, and that attention was bestowed upon them by the ancient Greek Church itself. My
own
larger edition of the Acts
is
nothing but an expansion of the
method followed by the Athous
in those passages of ch.
XV., and
should think that there were Greek manuscripts where the same method was thoroughly followed, as it is in the Syrus posterior. meanwhile Lie. v. d. G. is preparing a publication of the scholia
;
he has kindly allowed
me
to state so
much
here.
GLASGOW
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY
RHSS
I!V
ROBERT MACLEIIOSE AND
CO.
/t
mmm
m.
mm
VTOWX>K>
mm
BKHBB&i
m
& :&&&&?&

Philology of The Gospels, F.blass

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Philology of The Gospels, F.blass

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PHILOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS

D.TH., HON. LL.D., DUBLIN,

CO., LIMITED. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

All rights reserved.

PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO.

MY DEAR FRIEND THE REV.

D.D., HON. U.C.L.,

THE FIRST AUTHOR OF THIS

Mahaffy, who proposed

either the MS.

of mine, namely, Dr. J. Carter, of

New- York, Mr.

Charles Downing, of Clinton, Mr.

New-York, and Mr. H.

LUKE S GOSPEL DISTINCTLY A LITERARY WORK,

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE EARLY DATE OF LUKE S GOSPEL,

IMPORTANCE AND METHOD OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM

OF THE DOUBLE TEXT IN ST.

THE PROOFS FOR Two DISTINCT TEXTS

To PASSAGES OF THE N.T. DISCUSSED,

LUKE S GOSPEL DISTINCTLY A LITEEAEY

of the four Gospels containing the

parts are inscribed.

easily find plenty

Greek and Roman

PHILOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS.

those divided into separate parts, like the Biographies

and well-known work

after the first words,

books of the celebrated Conica of Apol-

lonius are inscribed in this

the fourth to a certain Attalus.

the late Professor Paul

own proem on author on medical plants. 1 As

that of the well-known

Paul de Lagarde in Psalterium juxta hebr. Hieronymi,

GOSPEL A LITERARY WORK.

Lagarde does not entertain so

a native of Cilicia (whilst

Luke himself was

of the neighbouring Antioch), and,

that time a quite recent author.

the model, and

this point our doubts begin.

Luke s the copy, and not even The

others have written on the

why, then, should there

in reality not even the

are the same, except the

(in a different inflexion,

however) the second

test-words as irapaSiSovai and

PHILOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS.

Because, says de Lagarde,

the argumentation goes the wrong

the learned writer

he has got very

but possibly they

were not even

written in Greek, but in

and, besides, they information as Luke himself

contrived argument for the author s on the Physician,&quot; and rely

old ones, which are indeed, in

contrived argument for the author s on the Physician," and rely