iii. 23 ff. May not the peculiar form of the genealogy in D be explained

by the Diatessaron, which originally had no genealogy? The index of the

Latin edition shows that there was none originally, but we find in the

text one compiled from Matt. i. 1-16, Luke iii. 34-37, Matt. i. 17. The

first-known manuscript of the Arabic Diatessaron had Matt. i. 1-17 in §

2, and Luke iii. 24-38 in § 9. The better manuscript, discovered later,

has no genealogy in the text, but it contains one compiled from Matt.

and Luke, inserted between the close of the work and the subscription by

way of appendix. See Zahn, _GK._, ii. 539; J. H. Hill, _Earliest Life of

Christ_ etc., p. 3 f.

iii. 27. The correct explanation of Ῥησά is that given by Plummer in his

_Commentary_ on Luke, and quoted by Bacon in Hastings’ _Dictionary of

the Bible_, ii. 140. “Rhesa, who appears in Luke, but neither in Matt.

nor in 1 Chron., is probably not a name at all, but a title which some

Jewish copyist mistook for a name. Zerubbabel Rhesa or Zerubbabel the

Prince (רֵאשָׁא) has been made into ‘Zerubbabel (begat) Rhesa.’” The

interpretation of Rhesa as “prince” is, however, not new. See Pole’s

_Synopsis_: it was not safe to use the proper name Zerubbabel in

Babylon, seeing that it meant “ventilatio Babelis,” and the name

Sheshbazzar was therefore substituted for it. Sic filii eius Meshullam

et Hanania, quia vix ibi tuto aut proprie dici potuerunt Abiud, _i.e._

patris mei est gloria, et Rhesa princeps (Lightfoot, _Horae Hebraicae_).

Reuchlin (_Rudimenta_, p. 18) gives the explanation רֶשָׁע (_sic_) qui

cognominatur Mesollam. This interpretation, however, lends no real

support to Sellin’s theory.

iv. 34. The exclamation ἔα, which Zahn (_GK._, i. 682) says is unknown

in the New Testament, is omitted by D, eleven Old Latin manuscripts, and

also by Marcion. It is supported by a considerable number of witnesses

in Mark i. 24. According to Zahn, these witnesses took it from Luke, but

of this I am by no means certain. Syr^{sin} omits it in both places. In

Luke it is also omitted by four manuscripts of the Vulgate mentioned by

Wordsworth and White.

iv. 34. Marcion invariably omits Ναζαρηνέ. There is, however, no other

authority for its omission. See Zahn, _GK._, i. 685; ii. 456.

iv. 44. Ἰουδαίας is the better attested reading, and on account of the

improbability of its being invented, should be regarded as the original.

See Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 373.

v. 5. Ἐπιστάτα in the New Testament is peculiar to Luke. In place of it

D has διδάσκαλε here, and κύριε in viii. 24. It retains ἐπιστάτα,

however, in viii. 45, ix. 33, ix. 49, and xvii. 13.

v. 14. The long interpolation at the end of the verse found in D d is

derived from Mark i. 45 and ii. 1, though there are slight differences.

It is introduced here for harmonistic reasons. Was it taken from Tatian?

v. 27. After the name of Levi, D inserts τὸν τοῦ Ἀλφαίου, which,

according to Zahn, is not original. See _Einl._, ii. 263.

v. 39. Marcion agrees with D in the omission of this verse. Syr^{sin}

and Syr^{cu} are, unfortunately, both defective here. To the authorities

for its omission should be added r, which Weiss does not mention. On the

reasons for the omission of the verse, see Zahn, _GK._, i. 681.

vi. 5. Zahn is of opinion that the narrative of the man working on the

Sabbath is taken from the same source as Mark xvi. 9 ff., and the

pericope adulteræ, John vii. 53-viii. 11—viz. from Papias, and that it

may be historically true. See his _Einleitung_, ii. 355. Westcott and

Hort insert it among their “Noteworthy Rejected Readings,” and Resch

puts it among the “Logia Jesu.” The Sinai-Syriac is defective here. For

a long time it was thought that D and Stephen’s β were different

manuscripts, and they are here cited by Mill as “duo codices

vetustissimi.” This was shown to be a mistake by Bengel. Grotius also

speaks of “nonnulli codices,” and, according to Mill, thought the words

were “adjecta ab aliquo Marcionita.” The narrative seems to have

remained quite unknown during the thousand years that elapsed between

its relation by D and its publication by Stephen in 1550. According to

Scrivener’s edition of Codex Bezae, p. 435, none of the ten or twelve

later hands that worked upon the manuscript down to the twelfth century

and even later, seem to have touched the page on which this narrative

stands (205_b_). It would seem, therefore, that no copy was ever made of

this manuscript either. How much would have been lost had it also

disappeared entirely?

vi. 10. Whether ὡς καὶ ἡ ἄλλη is genuine or not is of no material

consequence so far as the exposition of the passage is concerned, but it

is important in connection with the question of the relationship of Luke

to the other Synoptics. The words are wanting in Mark iii. 5, but occur

in Matt. xii. 13. See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 420.

vi. 31. Zahn is not sure if Marcion’s text contained the Golden Rule in

this passage in the negative form. _GK._, i. 680; ii. 462.

vii. 27. Zahn thinks that ἔμπροσθέν σου should perhaps be omitted here

(_Einl._, ii. 316).

viii. 43. The words ἰατροῖς προσαναλώσασα ὅλον τὸν βίον are omitted in B

D. Zahn holds it to be an “unworthy insinuation” to suppose that Luke,

being himself a physician, toned down the expressions used by Mark as

reflecting on the credit of his profession. The words are more likely to

be a gloss from Mark. See _Einleitung_, ii. 437.

ix. 1. This verse is written three times over in codex Ξ. This cannot be

a mistake. It might have been written twice by inadvertence, but not

three times. The reason lies in the fact related—viz., the conferring of

the power over evil spirits.

ix. 16. The reading εὐλόγησεν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς crept into the Vulgate

manuscript called G by Wordsworth and White from the Old Latin. It is

now attested also by Syr^{sin}. See Lewis, _Some Pages_, _in loco_. Zahn

thinks it is deserving of special attention (_GK._, i. 682). In this he

is quite right.

ix. 18. Marcion here had τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. See Zahn, _GK._, i. 686.

ix. 52-56. “It is impossible to suppose that the shorter form of the

text is the original, and the longer due to a later interpolation, as

this would imply what is incredible—viz., that one of Marcion’s most

antinomian readings found its way into a large number of Catholic

manuscripts (D, the Peshitto, Harklean Syriac, most Latin witnesses,

Chrysostom, etc.). The only probable explanation is that the Catholic

writers objected to 54_b_ and 55_b_ on account of the use made of them

by the Marcionites, and the apparently Marcionitic character of their

contents. They were particularly offensive when taken together.

Accordingly, some manuscripts like e and Syr^{cu} omitted only 54_b_,

others, like A C, only 55_b_, while others again, like B L Syr^{sin},

boldly omitted both.... The words were written by Luke and not invented

by Marcion.” Zahn, _GK._, i. 681, ii. 468; _Einl._, ii. 357.

x. 1. Instead of 70, B D, Tatian, the Syriac, and the Latin give 72.

According to Zahn, the number has nothing to do with the Jewish

enumeration of 70 Gentile nations, languages, or angels, nor the 70

members of the Sanhedrim, the 70 translators of the Old Testament, or

with any other number 70. These 70 were not sent to the Gentiles, and

Luke gives no hint of the allegorical significance of their number. Any

such allegorizing was foreign both to himself and Theophilus, neither of

whom was a Jew. See _Einl._, ii. 392.

xi. 2. On βαττολογεῖν ὡς οἱ λοιποί in D, see my _Philologica Sacra_, pp.

27-36.

xi. 3. There is a certain amount of probability in Zahn’s view that

Marcion was led to insert σοῦ after ἄρτος ἐπιούσιος by thinking of John

vi. 33 f., a passage which suggested itself to Origen also in this

connection. See Zahn (_GK._, i. 677, ii. 471), who thinks it probable

that Marcion interpreted the words in a spiritual sense (=

_supersubstantialis_).

xi. 53. The text of D here displays several marked variations, which,

however, do not affect the sense of the passage. Zahn sees in them the

arbitrary alterations of a later time; but Weiss thinks that in some

particulars they may preserve the original.

xii. 1. Marcion, seemingly, and Jerome omit πρῶτον, which is attested by

most of the Old Latin witnesses, with the exception of b. See Zahn,

_GK._, i. 692, ii. 474.

xii. 14. The words ἢ μεριστὴν were omitted by Marcion (Zahn, _GK._, i.

682). They are also wanting in the Sinai-Syriac (see Lewis, _Some

Pages_).

xii. 38. The mention of the ἑσπερινὴ φυλακὴ by Marcion and other

authorities is due, according to Zahn (_GK._, ii. 683; _Einl._, ii.

356), to the “magisterial consideration” that an orderly householder

would not come home from the festivities after midnight or in the early

hours of the morning, but at the latest in the first watch of the night,

which was still called the evening. The reading is also found in

Irenæus, but not in the Sinai-Syriac.

xii. 51. βαλεῖν (אַרְמֵא) is found here in Syr^{sin} in place of ποιῆσαι

(D e Syr^{cu}), mittere (b l), δοῦναι (usual text). This is interesting

in view of Marcion. See Zahn, _GK._, i. 604, ii. 476. Tertullian seems

to have been mistaken in thinking that μάχαιραν was read in place of

διαμερισμόν in this connection (machaeram quidem scriptum est. Sed

Marcion emendat, quasi non et separatio opus sit machaerae).

xiii. 8. See above, p. 193 ff. Chase cites this passage as an indication

of the laxity of transcription of which D was guilty in introducing what

appears to be a common agricultural phrase. In Columella (_De Re

Rustica_, xi. 3) we find “confecta bruma stercoratam terram inditam

cophinis obserat.” Chase also cites from the manuscript notes of Hort

the reference to Plutarch, _Vita Pompeii_, 48, αὐτοῦ δέ τις κοπρίων

κόφινον κατὰ κεφαλῆς τοῦ Βύβλου κατεσκέδασε. Better than any words of

mine are those of Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 346:—No one with any

perception of the difference between naïve originality and a regularity

due to liturgical, dogmatic, and stylistic considerations can fail to

assent to the following propositions—viz., (1) as regards contents and

form of expression β (_i.e._ the text of D and its associates) has

preserved much original matter, which from the very first was peculiarly

liable to alteration, and which was set aside by the learned revisers

from the end of the third century onwards (Lucian, Hesychius,

Pamphilus), etc.

xvi. 12. While the common text with Syr^{sin} reads ὑμέτερον, for which

B L have ἡμέτερον, Marcion alone supports 157 e i l in reading ἐμόν. How

is this to be explained? Compare above, p. 211, and Zahn, _GK._, i. 682.

xvi. 19. Zahn denominates the introductory words found in D, εἶπεν δὲ

καὶ ἑτέραν παραβολήν, “a liturgical gloss at the beginning of a

pericope.” Blass, too, omits them from the β text.

xvi. 22, 23. א*, most Old Latin witnesses, and the Vulgate omit καί at

the beginning of verse 23, and read ἐτάφη ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ. This conjunction of

the words is attested by Tatian and Marcion. The Sinai-Syriac

presupposes the form “was buried. And being in Hades he lifted up his

eyes.” Attention may be drawn to the detailed notice of the different

readings by Wordsworth and White. They say: Asyndeton in Johanne

tolerabile, in Luca vix ferendum videtur.... Vix dubium est quin Lucas

ipse scripserit καὶ ἐτάφη· καὶ ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ, sed καί secundum in

antiquissimis codicibus ut nunc in א* casu omissum, ex conjectura tribus

modis restitutum videtur, _sc._ καὶ ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ, et ἐν δὲ τῷ ᾅδῃ et ἐν τῷ

ᾅδῃ καὶ; quae lectiones omnes in codicibus Latinis referuntur, et

tertiam ab Hieronymo ex traditione codicum suorum servatam magis quam ex

ratione praelatam credimus. See Zahn, _GK._, i. 682, ii. 480.

xvii. 11. “In all likelihood μέσον, without the preposition, as given by

D, is the original form. This was variously replaced by ἀναμέσον (Ferrar

Group), which is not amiss, by διὰ μέσου (A X, etc.), which is not so

good, and by διὰ μέσον (א B L), which is very bad.” Zahn, _Einleitung_,

ii. 391. Compare, also (for μέσον), Jülicher, _Gleichnisreden Jesu_, ii.

516.

xvii. 21. Marcion inserts ἰδοὺ before ἐκεῖ, which Zahn holds to be

original. Syr^{sin} reads “here it is, or there it is,” and therefore

apparently omits the first ἰδοὺ as well. See Lewis, _Some Pages_.

Wordsworth and White omit Tischendorf’s g^{1. 2} from the authorities

given by him in support of the omission of the second _ecce_.

xviii. 20. On the alterations made on the text here by the followers of

Marcion, see Zahn, _GK._, i. 616, ii. 484.

xviii. 25. The evidence in support of the readings τρήματος and βελόνης

is very strong (א B D L). The choice of the terms τρῆμα for τρύπημα or

τρυμαλιά, and βελόνη for ῥαφίς, betrays the language of the physician.

See _The Expositor’s Greek Testament_, _Acts of the Apostles_,

Introduction, pp. 9-11; Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 427 f., 435 f.

xx. 35. With reference to this verse, Tertullian makes the following

charge against the Marcionites: Nacti enim scripturae textum ita in

legendo decurrerunt: “quos autem dignatus est deus illius aevi”; “illius

aevi” “deo” adjungunt ... cum sic legi oporteat, “quos autem dignatus

est,” ut facta hic distinctione post “deum” ad sequentia pertineat

“illius aevi,” etc. Zahn insists, as against Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, and

Volkmar, that this requires not only the insertion of ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ after

καταξιωθέντες, but also the active voice instead of the passive, as

though the Marcionites had read οὓς δὲ κατηξίωσεν ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος

ἐκείνου, τυχεῖν καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. A similar change of construction

occurs in Matt. xxv. 41, where it is quite certain that τὸ ἡτοιμασμένον

is a correction of the stronger expression ὃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ πατήρ μου,

found in D, 1, 22, ten Old Latin manuscripts, and the earliest Fathers.

xxi. 30. The insertion of τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῶν may be but a trifling

addition, intended to facilitate the sense (Zahn, _GK._, i. 682), at the

same time it is an interesting question how it comes to be in D, 157,

572 (see above, p. 211). Wordsworth and White say that D here is “ex

Latinis forsan correctus.” Syr^{sin} agrees with Syr^{cu} in inserting

the words.

xxii. 16. For πληρωθῇ D reads καινὸν βρωθῇ. On this see my _Philologica

Sacra_, p. 38, where it is suggested that these two readings are due to

the confusion of כלה and אכל. This occurs several times in the Old

Testament—_e.g._ 2 Chron. xxx. 22, where ויאבלו is represented in the

LXX by συνετέλεσαν. But even apart from the question of a Hebrew

foundation for the variant, I am inclined to regard καινὸν βρωθῇ as the

original, and πληρωθῇ as the correction.

xxii. 16-21. The narrative of the Last Supper is extant in three forms.

There is (1) the common text, (2) that exhibited by the two most

important of the Old Latin witnesses (b, e), in which verse 16 is

followed by 19_a_, after which come 17, 18, 21, so that 19_b_ and 20 are

wanting altogether. The text of Syr^{sin} and Syr^{cu} resembles this.

There is further (3) the form exhibited by D and four Old Latins, which

has the same order as (1), but omits verses 19_b_, 20. Zahn decides in

favour of (2). See his _Einleitung_, ii. 357 ff. It is to be observed

that the last discovered Syriac omits the nominatival clause τὸ ὑπὲρ

ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον after τῷ αἵματί μου, which is the only member that

seems to be derived, not from 1 Cor. xi. 24 f., but from Matthew and

Mark, and that does not agree in construction with the rest. This

confirms the supposition that these two verses are not part of the

original text. See Westcott and Hort, _Notes on Select Readings_, p. 63

f.; Plummer, _Commentary on St. Luke_ in the International Series (T. &

T. Clark). Compare also the article by the latter in Hastings’

_Dictionary of the Bible_ (Lord’s Supper).

xxii. 36. On ἀράτω Basil the Great (d. 379) remarks: ἀράτω ἤτοι ἀρεῖ·

οὕτω γὰρ καὶ _τὰ πολλὰ_ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἔχει ... ὡς μὴ εἶναι πρόσταγμα

ἀλλὰ προφητείαν προλέγοντος τοῦ Κυρίου. At present D is quite alone in

exhibiting the reading ἀρεῖ, which is worth noting in view of τὰ πολλὰ

above.

xxii. 43, 44. These verses, with their mention of the Bloody Sweat and

the Strengthening Angel, are omitted in A B R T, one Old Latin (f), the

Bohairic, Sahidic, and Armenian versions, and the Sinai-Syriac. On the

other hand, they are read by the Curetonian Syriac and the Peshitto, by

the first and third hands of א (the second hand enclosed them in

brackets and cancelled them by means of dots), by D, as also by most of

the Old Latin witnesses and the Vulgate. In the Greek Lectionaries they

are omitted at the place where one would naturally expect them, but are

found in the text of Matthew xxvi., together with portions of John

xiii., in the Liturgy for Holy Thursday. This explains their insertion

after Matt. xxvi. 39 in the Ferrar Group, at least in 13, 69, 124. The

first of these, moreover, repeats the first two words of verse 43 (ὤφθη

δὲ) in Luke, but no more. The necessary inference is that these verses

are no part of the original text of Luke. They go back, however, to a

time when extra-canonical traditions from the Life and Passion of Jesus

were in circulation either orally or in writing. Zahn holds that D here

has preserved what Luke wrote.

xxiii. 2. Zahn (_GK._, i. 668) expressly points out that Marcion did not

invent the additional words καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας,

but found them in his exemplar. They occur in eight Old Latin and at

least five Vulgate manuscripts, among which are four of the early

codices collated by Wordsworth and White. One of them omits _et

prophetas_, while some others have _nostram_ after _legem_. Weiss takes

no notice of this addition, nor of the further addition in verse 5 of

the words ἀποστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα, supported by at least

two Old Latin manuscripts, both of which add _non enim baptizantur sicut

et nos_, while one of them exhibits the still further extension _nec se

mundant_. If the addition were really made by Marcion, it would be all

the more deserving of attention. The omission of the additional words in

verse 2 is conceivably due to homoioteleuton, the eye of the scribe

passing from καταλύοντα to κωλύοντα, In the case of verse 5, the mention

of the women and children is quite consistent with what is said

elsewhere in the narrative of the Passion, but the reference to baptism

and purification is not so clear. Codex c has the singular _baptizatur_,

but this is merely a clerical error.

xxiii. 34. The case of the First Word from the Cross is remarkable. This

verse, containing the words, “Father, forgive them, for they know not

what they do,” is bracketed in א by an early corrector, and then

restored; it is omitted by B without being replaced; it is inserted in D

by a hand not earlier than the ninth century, and omitted by two Old

Latin manuscripts, by two Bohairic codices, by the Sahidic version, and

by the newly-discovered Sinai-Syriac. Is it possible to suppose that a

Christian would have cancelled these words in a Bible manuscript like א,

unless he had valid reasons for doing so in the tradition of the Gospel

text? Zahn thinks they were omitted from D by mistake. On the Order of

the Seven Words see my note in the _Expository Times_ for June 1900, p.

423 f.

xxiii. 38. The notice of the three languages in which the Inscription on

the Cross was written is taken from the text of John, and is read by all

the Latin authorities with the single exception of codex Vercellensis

(a). Syr^{sin} is now to be added to the witnesses supporting the

omission of the clause. Its use of the word בטקא reveals the ultimate

affinity of this version with the Curetonian Syriac. The interpolation,

as Zahn rightly asserts (_GK._, i. 675), points to the estimation in

which John’s Gospel was held at an early date. Its insertion in Luke is

undoubtedly erroneous.

xxiii. 43. The insertion of τῷ ἐπιπλήσσοντι in D, as well as the other

variants found in this manuscript, viz. ἔλευσις, which is also read by D

in Luke xxi. 7, and θάρσει, which is inserted by others in Luke viii.

48, is attributed by Zahn (_Einleitung_, ii. 356) to some preacher who

sought in this way to contrast the penitent thief with his comrade. With

the substantival expression ἔλευσις, compare δειπνοκλήτωρ exhibited by D

in Matt. xx. 28. On the somewhat rare verb ἐπιπλήσσειν, compare the new

edition of Origen, i. 5,8; also Clement Alex, (ed. Dindorf), i. 186,

188.

xxiii. 53. After κείμενος U, with a few minuscules, reads καὶ

προσεκύλισεν λίθον μέγαν ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου, while three Vulgate

manuscripts have a similar addition _et inposito eo inposuit monumento

lapidem magnum_. On the other hand D, with its Latin, reads καὶ θέντος

(_leg._ τεθέντος) αὐτοῦ ἐπέθηκεν τῷ μνημείῳ λίθον ὃν μόγις εἴκοσι

ἐκύλιον. The same thing is found in the Old Latin manuscript c, _et cum

positus esset in monumento, posuerunt lapidem quem vix viginti

volvebant_. The Sahidic and T^i exhibit a similar expansion of the text.

In this addition, which Scrivener thought was “conceived somewhat in the

Homeric spirit,” Harris detects a Latin hexameter which the scribe of

Codex Bezae “deliberately incorporated into his text and then turned

into Greek.” See his _Study of Codex Bezae_ in _Texts and Studies_, ii.

1, 47-52. Chase, on the other hand, adduces Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, vi.

5, 3 (_Syro-Latin Text_, p. 62 ff.). Compare my _Philologica Sacra_, pp.

39, 58.

xxiv. 6. The reading ὅσα (D, c, Marcion, etc.) in place of ὡς is now

attested also by the Sinai-Syriac.

xxiv. 32. In place of καιομένη (α text) and κεκαλυμμένη (D), Blass

inserts βεβαρημένη in the β text on the authority of the old Syriac

versions, the Armenian, and the Sahidic. But in the Syriac this last

reading is due to a transcriptional error of יקיר for יקיד (see Blass

himself, p. 120, and compare the variants מוקר and מוקד in Rahmani’s

_Testamentum D. N. Jesu Christi_, p. 112, 6); and as the Armenian is

derived from the Syriac, the only question becomes whether the Sahidic

reading is due to the same error. Κεκαλυμμένη in D, which has hitherto

baffled explanation, is shown to be a purely clerical error by

comparison with Heb. xii. 18, where also κεκαυμένῳ becomes κεκαλυμμένῳ

in the Greek of D and in Pseudo-Athan. 57.

xxiv. 34. For λέγοντας D reads λέγοντες, which is simply a clerical

error arising easily from the influence of the Latin, which would be the

same in either case. For the conclusions drawn from this reading by

Resch, see his _Aussercanonische Paralleltexte_, iii. 779 f. Other

examples of the same mistake (—ες for —ας) occur in Matt. xxii. 16; Acts

vi. 11, xvi. 35; Rom. vi. 13. It is interesting to observe that Origen

had Σίμωνος καὶ Κλεόπα (i. 184, ed. Koetschau).

xxiv. 37. Zahn (_GK._, i. 681) rejects the supposition that the reading

φάντασμα for πνεῦμα was coined by Marcion and taken from a Marcionite

Bible into D. That he is right in doing so appears from Chase, who shows

that φάντασμα here is the same as δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον in Ignatius (_Ad

Smyrnaeos_, iii. 2). See my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 25. The Semitic

equivalent of φάντασμα as well as of δαιμόνιον is שֵׁאד, שִׁאדָא,[273]

which is used in both the earlier Syriac versions, the Curetonian and

the Lewis, to represent φάντασμα in Matt. xiv. 26 and Mark vi. 49. I

find that שאדא is used for πνεῦμα in the translation of Eusebius

(_Eccles. Hist._, v. 16, ed. Wright-Maclean, p. 289).

xxiv. 39. All the authorities agree in saying that Marcion omitted the

words ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε, while Tertullian and Epiphanius state

that he also omitted σάρκας καὶ. See Zahn, _GK._, ii. 495, who adds that

“the longer clause—_i.e._ ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε—is also omitted by D,

it (with the exception of Colbertinus), vg, but not Syr^{cu}, as

Tischendorf wrongly states.” This however is a misapprehension. The _om_

in Tischendorf refers only to με after ψηλαφήσατε. This is omitted by

Syr^{cu} as well as by D and also by Syr^{sin}. It would be more exact

to say, however, that the καὶ before ἴδετε is also omitted by Syr^{cu}.

Moreover, Syr^{sin} agrees with Syr^{cu} in reading ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτός

after ἴδετε.

The subscription of certain minuscules states that Luke’s Gospel was

written fifteen years after the Ascension. Some say εἰς Ἀλεξανδρείαν τὴν

μεγάλην, others ἐv Ῥώμῃ, while one says very strangely, ἐv τῇ Ἀττικῇ τῆς

Βοιωταίας, “for Theophilus, who became bishop after divine baptism.” Λ,

262, 300 also contain here the notice of careful collation. The chapter

enumeration in these manuscripts is not the same, being 342, 349, and

345 respectively.

John.

In this Gospel the attention of textual critics was long confined to the

passage vii. 53-viii. 11. They failed to observe that in other places

there are clauses and whole verses whose omission or interpolation has

to be investigated in connection with vii. 53 ff., as, for example, iv.

9, v. 3, 4, and that interesting questions of textual criticism are

raised in other parts of the book as well.

Chapter xxi., which the last two verses of the preceding chapter clearly

show to be an Appendix, is equally well attested by all the authorities,

while the omission of xx. 31 by the first hand of G is just one of those

unaccountable phenomena which make their appearance so frequently in the

domain of textual criticism. The same thing is probably to be said of

the omission in א of the last verse of chapter xxi. Tischendorf was of

opinion that this last verse in א, together with the concluding ornament

and subscription, was not by the same hand (A) as had written the Gospel

of John, but by another (D) who had acted as corrector, and had written

part of the Apocrypha and six leaves of the New Testament. Tregelles, on

the other hand, who examined the passage in Tischendorf’s presence,

thought the difference was due simply to the scribe having taken a fresh

dip of the ink: that at all events the scribe who wrote the Gospel (A)

did not intend it to conclude with verse 24, otherwise he would have

added a concluding ornament and subscription as in the case of Matthew

and Luke. The verse is found in all the other manuscripts and versions

with which we are acquainted, and the question with regard to א is

interesting only from the fact that a few manuscripts do contain a

scholium to the effect that the verse is an addition (προσθήκη) inserted

in the margin (ἔξωθεν) by one of the scholars (τινὸς τῶν

φιλοπόνων),[274] and afterwards incorporated in the text by another

without the knowledge of the former (καταγέντος (?) δὲ ἔσωθεν ἀγνοίᾳ

τυχὸν τοῦ πρώτου γραφέως ὑπό τινος τῶν παλαιῶν μέν, οὐκ ἀκριβῶν δέ, καὶ

μέρος τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου γραφῆς γενόμενον). This entire note, however,

is evidently no more than an inference drawn from the contents of the

verse, as the Syriac Commentary of Theodore shows. See further, Zahn,

_Einleitung_, ii. 495, and the reference to the Commentary of Ishodad in

Sachau’s _Verzeichnis der syrischen Handschriften in Berlin_, p. 307.

With respect to the pericope adulteræ, on the other hand, we may be

quite certain that it did not originally stand in the position it now

occupies (vii. 53-viii. 11), nor indeed in John’s Gospel at all,

although the decision of the Holy Office of the 13th February 1897,

which was confirmed by the Pope two days later, obliges Catholic

exegetes to hold it as genuine. It is omitted in a great many

manuscripts and versions—_e.g._ in א B L T. A and C are defective here,

but the amount of space shows that they could not have contained it. It

is omitted in the Syriac and Egyptian versions, in the Armenian and the

Gothic, in some Old Latin codices, and in the earliest of the Greek and

Latin Fathers. On the other hand it is found in all the manuscripts of

Jerome and in Codex D, which is the only one of the earlier Greek

manuscripts to contain it. In some minuscules and later Armenian

manuscripts it stands at the end of the fourth Gospel, where now

Westcott and Hort put it. In minuscule 225, written in the year 1192, it

follows vii. 36; in the Georgian version it comes after vii. 44; while

in the Ferrar Group—_i.e._ in minuscules 13, 69, 124, 346, 556—it is

inserted after Luke xxi. 38. Its insertion after vii. 36 is probably the

result of an accidental error. In the Greek Lectionaries the liturgy for

Whitsunday begins at verse 37 and extends to verse 52, followed by viii.

12, so that the pericope was, by mistake, inserted before instead of

after this lection. Its position in the Georgian version is the more

remarkable, seeing that in the Old Latin Codex b, which contained the

pericope by the first hand, the entire passage from vii. 44-viii. 12 has

been _erased_. As a probable explanation of its position in the Ferrar

Group after Luke xxi. 38, it has been suggested that the scribe inserted

it there owing to the resemblance between Luke xxi. 37 and John viii. 1,

and also between Luke xxi. 38 (ὤρθριζε) and John viii. 2 (ὄρθρου).

Harris thinks that its proper place is in John between chapters v. and

vi., because reference is made in v. 45, 46 to the Mosaic Law, which is

also mentioned in viii. 5.

But the remarkable thing is that here again the text of D differs in a

conspicuous manner from that of the other witnesses. In viii. 2 the

words καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς are wanting: in verse 4 we meet the

sentence ἐκπειράζοντες αὐτὸν οἱ ἱερεῖς ἵνα ἔχωσιν κατηγορίαν αὐτοῦ,

which does not come till after verse 5 in the other text: for μοιχείᾳ D

has ἁμαρτίᾳ: in verse 5 it reads, Μωυσῆς δὲ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ _ἐκέλευσεν_ τὰς

τοιαύτας _λιθάζειν_, for which the other text has ἐν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ Μωσῆς

_ἐνετείλατο_ τὰς τοιαύτας _λιθοβολεῖσθαι_: in verse 11, D has ὕπαγε

where the other text has πορεύου. Now, if two persons got such an easy

sentence as “Moses in the Law commanded to stone such” to translate from

Latin, Hebrew, or any other language into Greek, one of them might quite

well use κελεύειν and λιθάζειν, and the other ἐντέλλεσθαι and

λιθοβολεῖν. And so the question is suggested whether the two forms in

which the text exists were not derived from different sources, that of

D, _e.g._, from its Latin. But on closer examination the latter

supposition is seen to be impossible. For the Latin corresponding to

ἔχωσιν κατηγορίαν αὐτοῦ is “haberent accusare eum,” showing that the

Latin translator read κατηγορεῖν in his original,[275] and for ὥστε

πάντας ἐξελθεῖν he has “uti omnes exire,” where again the infinitive

speaks for the priority of the Greek. On the other hand, it is to be

observed that, according to Eusebius (_Eccles. Hist._, iii. c. 39, _sub

fin._), Papias knew and recorded an incident περὶ γυναικὸς ἐπὶ πολλαῖς

ἁμαρτίαις διαβληθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἣν τὸ καθ’ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον

περιέχει. So that the Gospel according to the Hebrews (_i.e._ the

Palestinian Jewish Christians) contained a narrative similar to this, we

may say quite confidently, contained this narrative. From that Gospel it

was taken and inserted in some manuscripts after Luke xxi., in others

after John vii. By the time of Augustine it was so widely propagated in

the Latin that he thought it had been removed from certain manuscripts

by people of weak faith, or rather by enemies of the true faith, “credo

metuentes peccandi immunitatem dari mulieribus suis.” The pericope is no

part of John’s Gospel, though it belongs to the oldest stock of

evangelic tradition. On the question whether it may not originally have

stood between Mark xii. 17 and xii. 18, and so between Luke xx. 26 and

xx. 27, see Holtzmann in the _ThLz._, 1898, col. 536 f. _Vide supra_, p.

66.

i. 5. Zahn raises the question what word Ephraem found in his copy of

the Diatessaron corresponding to κατέλαβε, seeing he gives _vicit_. In

this connection I might (with the proviso that the reading may be more

easily explained from the Armenian) point out that the Syriac word תשתלט

corresponds to καταλαβέτωσαν in Sirach xxiii. 6. This stands elsewhere

for ἄρχω, δεσπόζω, ἐξουσιάζω, κατακυριεύω, κυριεύω, κρατῶ. כבשׁ also

frequently represents the Greek καταλαμβάνειν. The Sinai-Syriac for John

i. 5 is unfortunately lost.

i. 13. The reading ὃς ... ἐγεννήθη is, so far as is known at present,

attested by Latin witnesses only, “qui natus est.” But as Zahn is

careful to point out (_Einl._, ii. 518), it did not originate on Latin

soil, for Justin presupposes it, and, moreover, Irenæus constantly

applies the passage to the Incarnation, while the Valentinians, who had

the usual text, were accused by Tertullian of falsification. And it is

not proved that the two last-mentioned used anything but a Greek Bible.

i. 17. According to early testimony, this verse, so frequently quoted

since the time of Ritschl, once ran: “The Law was given by Moses, but

_its_ truth came by Jesus.” See Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 121, 248.

i. 18. Zahn agrees with Hort in holding that the originality of the

reading μονογενὴς θεὸς (without the article) is established. See

Westcott and Hort, _Notes on Select Readings_; Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii.

544, 557; Westcott, _Commentary on John_, _in loco_. It may be mentioned

here that Codex Monacensis of Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John

has ὁ/μονογενὴς υἱός/θεός with ὁ and υἱός both written above the line in

a later hand. This gave rise in the Codex Regius to the reading ὁ

μονογενὴς υἱὸς θεός.

i. 28. Is it βηθαβαρά or βηθανίᾳ? The former is exhibited by the

Sinai-Syriac, the Curetonian, and the margin of the Harklean, and the

latter by the other three Syriac, and the Arabic Diatessaron. With

regard to the former, is it the case, as is supposed by many, that it is

due simply to a conjecture of Origen, and that Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin}

took it from him? According to Zahn (_GK._, i. 406), Hilgenfeld pointed

in this direction in the _ZfwTh._, 1883, 119. See also Lagrange,

_Origène, la critique textuelle et la tradition topographique_ (_Revue

Biblique_, iv., 1895, pp. 501-524). Origen explains βηθανία as οἶκος

ὑπακοῆς, and the Syriac as “place of praise.” Compare on this the

much-discussed passage in the Gospel of Peter (ὑπακοὴ ἠκούετο, c. xi.).

Βηθαβαρά, on the other hand, he interprets as οἶκος κατασκευῆς, so that

he must either have spelt it Bethbara, בית ברא, as in Jud. vii. 24, or

taken it as Beth-ha-bara. It is spelt βηθααβαρά in Lagarde’s _Onomastica

Sacra_, 240, 12, and Bethabara in 108, 6 (Bethbaara, Codex B). Jerome

(see _Onomastica Sacra_) interpreted the name as “domus humilis (= ?)

vel vesperae” in Joshua xv. 6, as “domus multa vel gravis” in xv. 59,

and as ἀοίκητος in xv. 61, following Symmachus. Luther had Betharaba,

but in three impressions of the New Testament and in three of the

Postils he had Bethabara (according to Bindseil-Niemeyer), and in the

margin Bethbara, with a note in which reference is rightly made to Jud.

vii. 24, “ut mysterium consonet.” See my German or Greek-German New

Testament. It may be asked if “Ainon” in John iii. 23 has any connection

with Bethania. Compare בֵית עְַנות in Jos. xv. 59. For ἐν Αἰνών e has

_in eremo_ and f has _in deserto_. How is this to be explained? Compare

Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 561.

i. 34. For υἱὸς א*, Syr^{cu}, Syr^{sin}, and e read ἐκλεκτός. D is here

defective. Zahn thinks the latter reading is original, and the former an

example of an early and widely current alteration. Westcott and Hort

insert ἐκλεκτός among their _Noteworthy Rejected Readings_. The two

readings are combined in some manuscripts “electus filius Dei.” See

Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 515, 544, 557.

i. 41. Zahn here decides for the nominative πρῶτος. Both the disciples

of John who attached themselves to Jesus found their brother, but Andrew

was the first to do so. See _Einleitung_, ii. 477 f.

ii. 2. In his Commentary on the Gospels, extant in the Armenian only, we

find Ephraem saying, “Graecus scribit _recubuit et defecit vinum_” (§

53), which shows that he had a Greek exemplar before him containing the

itacism ἐκλίθη for ἐκλήθη. See Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 62, 127, and compare

Luke xiv. 8, where Antiochus, _Homil._, iii., has κατακλιθῇς for κληθῇς.

ii. 3. Zahn is perhaps right when he says that no critic need doubt for

a moment that the original reading is the longer, genuinely Semitic text

exhibited by א*, the Harklean Syriac, and the best Latin manuscripts. D

is defective, as also Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin}.

iii. 5. βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν is attested only by א*, a few minuscules,

by c m, and certain early Fathers, in place of βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, which

has now the support of the Sinai-Syriac. Zahn thinks the former reading

to be correct (_Einleitung_, ii. 294). If that is so, this will be the

only place where the expression is found in the New Testament outside

the Gospel according to Matthew, where it occurs some thirty-three or

thirty-four times. See note on “The Kingdom of Heaven” in the

_Expository Times_ for February 1896, p. 236 ff.

iii. 24. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 515) thinks that the omission of the article

before φυλακὴν shows that there was some uncertainty regarding the fact

mentioned by John. This, however, is open to question. That the

insertion or omission of the article may be of importance is shown by

such examples as John v. 1; Matthew xxii. 23; Acts xvi. 6; James ii. 2.

iii. 34. Our knowledge of the text of the Sinai-Syriac here rests solely

on the last reading of Mrs. Lewis: “Not according to his measure gave

(or, gives) God the Father.” This rendering, as well as the insertion of

ὁ Θεός in many Greek texts, is due to the fact that πνεῦμα was not taken

as the subject of the sentence.

iv. 1. For ὁ κύριος Tischendorf reads ὁ Ἰησοῦς, which is probably

correct. Ὁ κύριος is elsewhere found only three times in John—viz., vi.

23, xi. 2, xx. 20. According to Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 391) the first two

passages are explanations outside the Gospel narrative interjected by

the evangelist, while the words in the last passage are spoken from the

point of view of the disciples.

iv. 9. The words οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρείταις were retained by

Lachmann and by Tischendorf in his seventh edition, because the only

authorities known at that time for their omission were D a b e. But when

the first hand of א appeared in confirmation of the testimony of these

witnesses, the words were dropped by Tischendorf and bracketed by

Westcott and Hort. Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin} insert them, and perhaps

Tatian. Zahn is inclined to admit them. “The classic brevity of the

interjected explanation speaks for its genuineness.” See his

_Einleitung_, ii. 549.

v. 1. ἡ ἑορτή is supported by א C etc., and ἑορτή by A B D etc. On the

chronology, see Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 516.

v. 3b, 4. After ξηρῶν D alone inserts παραλυτικῶν, and then adds, with

A^2 C^3 I Γ Δ Λ Π (this last, however, with asterisks), the clause

ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν. The shorter text is given by א A* B

C* L. The whole of the fourth verse is omitted by א B C* D, 33, 157,

314. In this case D and A change sides. Within the limits of the verse

there are a great many variations, which show that it is a very early

addition. Some of the words are hapax legomena, like δήποτε, ταραχή,

νόσημα. Zahn thinks the gloss may have been one of the “expositions” of

Papias. According to the Commentary of Ishodad, Theodore of Mopsuestia

did not consider this verse as part of the Gospel of John (Sachau,

_Verzeichnis der syrischen Handschriften_, p. 308). See Zahn,

_Einleitung_, ii. 557. Cyril says the incident occurred at Pentecost.

v. 36. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 557) calls μείζων a difficult reading, and one

that could not have been invented: “I, as a Greater than John, have the

witness of God.”

vii. 8. οὔπω has taken the place of οὐκ in all the uncials except א D K

M P, a fact which reveals its antiquity. Οὐκ is retained also by

Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin}. The change was introduced to obviate the

inconsistency between vii. 8 and vii. 10. Porphyry (apud Jerome, _Contra

Pelagium_, ii. 17) on the ground of οὐκ, accused Jesus of “inconstantia

et mutatio,” and Schopenhauer (_Grundprobleme der Ethik_, 2nd edition,

p. 225) cited this passage as justifying an occasional falsehood, saying

that “Jesus Christ himself on one occasion uttered an intentional

untruth.” See Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 547.

vii. 15. See _Addenda_, p. xvi.

viii. 57. According to the authority cited in the _ThLz._, 1899, p. 176,

the first hand of Codex B is supposed to have written εορακεσε: “the

final ε has been erased, and the ε preceding it changed into α.” I have

examined the photograph of B in the Stuttgart Library, and can find no

trace of an ε ever having stood after σ. The blank space of the size of

two letters is meant to divide the sentences. It is the case, however,

though neither Tischendorf, Fabiani, nor the pamphlet of 1881 mentions

it, that the first hand wrote εορακες, which was then made into εωρακας

by means of a stroke drawn through the ο. The matter is not

insignificant in view of what is said in Westcott and Hort’s _Notes on

Orthography_, Appendix, p. 168. Burkitt supposes that εορακεσε was the

reading of the ancestor of א B (_Texts and Studies_, vol. v. 5. p.

ix).[276]

xii. 7. τετήρηκεν, without ἵνα, has the support of a comparatively large

number of manuscripts. Peerlkamp and De Koe read ἵνα τί ... τετήρηκεν;

Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 518) has no doubt that the correct reading is ἵνα ...

τηρήσῃ, and that it was replaced by τετήρηκεv (without ἵνα) on the

ground that this Mary was not among the women who came to the sepulchre

to anoint the body of Jesus. He says that the true text presupposes that

Mary would like to use the remainder of the ointment to anoint the body

of Jesus after his death, and that the words of Jesus were intended to

prevent Mary and the disciples afterwards following the suggestion of

Judas.

xiii. 2. The change of a single letter here is important from a

harmonistic point of view. א* B L read δείπνου γινομένου, _i.e._,

“during supper,” but א^c A D have δείπνου γενομένου, which means “after

supper.” Compare Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 520.

xiii. 34. On the form in which this saying was cited by the Marcionites,

see Zahn, _GK._ i. 678.

xviii. 12 ff. The Sinai-Syriac, probably following Tatian, gives the

following arrangement of the verses—viz., 12, 13, 24, 14, 15, 19-23,

16-18, 25-28. On this see Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 521. Spitta would arrange

the verses, 12, 13, 19-23, 24, 14, 15-18, 25_b_, 27, 28. See Zahn,

_Einl._, ii. 558. It does sometimes happen that a leaf of a manuscript

is misplaced, but it is hard to account for such transpositions as

these. Compare the _Journal of Theological Studies_, October 1900, p.

141 f.

xix. 5. Though not properly connected with the criticism of the text,

the question may be asked here, by way of a contribution to a subject

much discussed of late, whether the expression ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος may not

be connected with בר נשא. Compare ὁ ἄνθρωπος and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in

Mark ii. 27, 28. In this passage of John, B omits the article before

ἄνθρωπος, reading ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος simply. See the _Expository Times_,

November 1899, p. 62 ff., “The Name Son of Man and the Messianic

Consciousness of Jesus,” where Schmiedel’s article with the same title

in the _Protestantische Monatshefte_ is noticed.

xix. 37. The quotation, according to Zahn, is made from the Hebrew. The

LXX has ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς μὲ ἀνθ’ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο. The later Greek

versions all seem to have kept the first three words as in the LXX but

to have variously corrected the second clause, for which Aquila gives

σὺν ᾧ ἐξεκέντησαν, Theodotion εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν, Symmachus ἔμπροσθεν

ἐπεξεκέντησαν. Compare with this Apoc. i. 7, οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν;

Barnabas vii. 9, ὄψονται αὐτὸν ... κατακεντήσαντες; Justin, Dial. 32,

ἐπιγνώσεσθε εἰς ὃν ἐξεκεντήσατε. It has accordingly been supposed that

John in the Gospel and Apocalypse followed some unknown Greek version

which exhibited the characteristic forms ὄψονται (found only in John and

Barnabas) and εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν (given by John, Justin, Theodotion, and

partly by Aquila). But this supposition is simply a proof of

unwillingness to admit a palpable fact—viz., that in the Gospel and

Apocalypse John gives an independent rendering of the original text of

Zechariah xii. 10, and that Barnabas and Justin follow John. See Zahn,

_Einleitung_, ii. 563.

The subscriptions state that the fourth Gospel was written thirty or

thirty-two years after the Ascension, at Ephesus, in the reign of Nero,

or, as some say, of Domitian. It is also said to have been published by

Gaius, the host of the Apostles (διὰ Γάϊον τὸν ξενοδόχον τῶν ἀποστόλων).

Others say that it was dictated to Papias of Hierapolis the disciple of

the Apostle. On the alleged autograph (ἰδιόχειρον) preserved at Ephesus,

see above, p. 30.

ACTS.

It would unduly enlarge the extent of this work were I to go on

mentioning all the passages in the Acts that are more or less striking

from the textual point of view. This book has already been more

frequently referred to than the others. I would again refer the student

to Zahn’s _Introduction_. I agree with that writer in thinking it

impossible in many cases to suppose that a scholiast manufactured the

text we now find in Codex D with no other material before him save the

usual text and his inkhorn. At the same time there is undoubtedly room

for much diversity of opinion with respect to many matters of detail. Ι

would instance such a simple narrative as that of Acts iii. 1-5, and ask

what reasonable ground a copyist could have had for altering ὃς into

οὗτος, ἀτενίσας into ἐμβλέψας, βλέψον into ἀτένισον, ἐπεῖχεν into

ἀτενίσας or _vice versa_, or for omitting or inserting ὑπάρχων or

λαβεῖν.[277] Such changes might, however, be introduced by an author who

writes a passage twice over. Without himself being fully conscious of

his reasons for doing so, he might substitute a final construction for a

participle, introduce or remove an asyndeton, replace one word by its

synonym, and make all the striking linguistic changes which a comparison

of the two texts reveals.

Time will show whether I am right in my conjecture that ἐβαρύνατε in

iii. 14 is due to an error in translation. In illustration of the

interchange of λαοῦ and κόσμου in ii. 47, I have cited in _Philologica

Sacra_, p. 39, a number of instances of the confusion of עם or עמא with

עלם or עלמא, to which I would now add Daniel viii. 19, Sirach xlv. 7;

xlvii. 4; Matt. i. 21 (in the Curetonian Syriac). Compare also Eusebius,

_Eccles. Hist._, iv. 15, 26; _History of Mary_, ix. 17; xiv. 11 (ed.

Budge). Whether the change in the passage in question is really to be

explained in this way, or by the supposition of an “anti-Judaic

tendency,” as Corssen prefers (_Göttinger gelehrte Anzeigen_, 1896, vi.

444), may be left an open question for the present. I would just point

to one thing in favour of my view, and in answer to what Zahn says in

his _Einleitung_, ii. 423. He says there: “Linguistic considerations are

against the supposition that a pure Greek like Luke, the physician of

Antioch, was able to read a Hebrew book. For a thousand Jews (Syrians

and Copts) who were able at that time to read, write, and speak Greek,

there would be at most a single Greek possessed of a corresponding

knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. And I confess that I have hitherto

sought in vain for this rara avis.” Quite true, but how do we know that

the physician of Antioch was a pure Greek? All the Prologues to the

Gospels unanimously call him “natione Syrus.” I have pointed out in my

_Philologica Sacra_, p. 13, what is very generally admitted, that in the

New Testament Ἕλληνες denotes simply the “heathen,” whether they speak

Greek or not.[278] The woman mentioned in Mark vii. 26 was a Ἑλληνὶς

Συρο-Φοινίκισσα τὸ γένος, and in the same way Luke was a Ἕλλην of

Antioch (Acts xi. 20), but Σύρος τὸ γένος. He is one of the thousand who

could read, write, and speak Greek, though he was not above making such

a mistake in translation when using a Hebrew or Aramaic book as I think

he certainly does in Luke xi. 41, and as I am inclined to think he does

in Acts iii. 14, till I find a better explanation of the reading

ἐβαρύνατε than has yet been given.[279] I am glad to see from Zahn that

more than seventy years ago, in his dissertation entitled _De Codice

Cantabrigiensi_ (1827), p. 16, Schultz suggested that the text of D may

perhaps be derived from a Syriac version. According to what I have said

above on Tatian, this view must certainly be admitted as possible, and I

see that it has been revived by Chase.

A new solution of the textual problem in Acts has been suggested by Aug.

Pott (_Der abendländische Text der Apostelgeschichte und die

Wir-Quelle_, Leipzig, 1900). He thinks that the original narrative drawn

up by Luke existed as a separate work for some time after it had been

worked up into our canonical Acts, and that notes were taken from the

former and inserted in the margin of the latter, and in this way came

into the text of Codex D and its associates. Against this, however,

there is the fact that similar problems emerge in the Gospel of Luke

where this distinction cannot be made.

For the sake of brevity I append notes to a few passages only of Acts.

But at the outset I must express my surprise that Wendt, even in his

eighth edition of 1899, repeats the statement that the title of the book

in D is πρᾶξις ἀποστόλων. Even without the assurance given by Blass in

his _Grammatik_, § iii. 1, 2, it should be borne in mind that “δωσιν

stands equally for both δῶσιν and δώσειν,” and that accordingly πραξις

may be either πράξεις or πρᾶξις. In the case before us it is the former.

As illustrations take the following from D in Acts:—δυναμι, iii. 12, iv.

7; πιστι, vi. 7; ις, iv. 30; μηνας τρις, vii. 20; and conversely

θλειψεις μεγαλη, vii. 11; μερεις, viii. 21; δυναμεσει and σημιοις side

by side in ii. 22. Compare also Mark vi. 2; vi. 14; xiii. 25; Luke xxi.

26; Acts viii. 13; (δυναμις τοιαυται; αι δυναμις; δυναμις μεγαλας). It

is true that in every case in which the title is written out, which

occurs only five times altogether, it is πραξις, but this is to be

understood as plural, like _actus_ in the Latin. It came afterwards to

be used as singular in the Syriac (Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 370, 383, 388),

but that is nothing strange. We say “the Times _says_”; and we have an

analogy in the use of the word _biblia_ in the Middle Ages when the

neuter plural _biblia bibliorum_ became _biblia bibliae_ (singular

feminine).

i. 23. It is a matter of commentary rather than of textual criticism,

but Wendt, in his eighth edition, asserts that nothing further is known

of this Joseph surnamed Justus. Eusebius, on the authority of Papias,

mentions παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονός, ὡς

δηλητήριον φάρμακον ἐμπίοντος καὶ μηδὲν ἀηδὲς διὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου χάριν

ὑπομείναντος (_Eccles. Hist._, iii. 39). The name of Aristion is

inserted in the margin of this passage in Rufinus’s Latin translation of

Eusebius. This marginal gloss acquires a peculiar importance from the

fact that the name Ariston is inserted in the Etschmiadzin manuscript of

the Gospels over Mark xvi. 9-20, apparently ascribing these verses or

their main contents to him. Compare Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 231, and see

Plate IX.

iv. 6. On the reading Ἰωνάθας in D for Ἰωάννης, see above, p. 243.

iv. 24, and v. 39. See Harris, _Two Important Glosses in the Codex

Bezae_, _Expositor_, November 1900, pp. 394-400.

xi. 27, 28. In his treatise, “On the Original Text of Acts xi. 27, 28”

(_Berliner Sitz.-Berichte_, Heft 17), Harnack comes to the conclusion

that the Western text here cannot be the original.

xv. 20, 21. On Harnack’s examination of the Apostolic Decree, see Selbie

in the _Expository Times_ for June 1899, p. 395. Harnack comes to the

same results as Zahn, but draws the opposite conclusion from them. See

above, p. 232 f.

xvi. 6. The article is omitted before Γαλατικὴν χώραν by א A B C D

minuscules. For this Blass, on the authority of p, which reads “Galatie

regiones,” substitutes τὰς Γαλατικὰς χώρας = “vicos Galatiae.” On this

see Zahn, _Einleitung_, i. 133. The omission of the article does not

necessitate taking τὴν Φρυγίαν as an adjective (so Wendt^8); it might

still be rendered “through Phrygia and Galatian territory.”

xvii. 27. In my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 42, I say that it was easier to

change τὸ θεῖον (β) into τὸν θεόν (α) than _vice versa_. To this Wendt

replies in his eighth edition, p. 294, by saying, “In all probability

offence was taken at the representation of God himself as an object of

τὸ ψηλαφᾶν.” Yes, there is a considerable difference between Hector

alive and Hector dead, and of the latter it could be truly said

(_Iliad_, xxii. 372 f.):

Ὧδε δέ τις εἴπεσκεν ἰδὼν ἐς πλησίον ἄλλον·

Ὢ πόποι ἦ μάλα δὴ μαλακώτερος ἀμφαφάασθαι.

But the θεῖον of which Paul speaks on the Areopagus is most assuredly no

more and no less a _noli me tangere_ than the θεός. Among the witnesses

in support of τὸ θεῖον is Clement of Alexandria. I can only repeat what

Zahn says: “Whoever is careful to bear in mind that our earliest

manuscripts are some two hundred years later than Marcion, Tatian, and

Irenæus, and has any sense of the difference between naïve originality

and a regularity due to liturgical, dogmatic, and stylistic

considerations,” cannot but judge differently with respect to β.

xviii. 3. See my article, “The Handicraft of St. Paul,” in the _American

Journal of Biblical Literature_, xi. 2, 1892, on _lorarius_ as the

Syriac rendering of σκηνοποιός = ἱμαντοτόμος, σκυτοτόμος,

leather-cutter, and the notes in the _Expository Times_ for December

1896, and January and March 1897. Chrysostom calls Paul σκυτοτόμος, and

in the _Inventio Sanctae Crucis_, it is said, “exercebat artem

scaenographiam.” This last word I have explained as a confusion with

σκηνορραφίαν, as Professor Ramsay also does. In the _Compendious Syriac

Dictionary_ of J. Payne Smith (which must not be confounded with the

_Thesaurus_ of her father), _lorarius_ is explained as “a maker of rough

cloth for tents or horse-cloths.” But there is nothing said about tents

even by the Syriac scholiasts. The correct meaning will be found in

Brockelmann. Celsus (Origen, _Contra Celsum_, vi. 33) speaks of ἐκεῖνος

ἀπὸ κρημνοῦ ἐρριμμένος, ἢ εἰς βάραθρον ἐωσμένος, ἢ ἀγχόνῃ πεπνιγμένος, ἢ

_σκυτοτόμος_, ἢ λιθοξόος, ἢ σιδηρεύς. Paul is evidently referred to

after Judas Iscariot, but who are meant by λιθοξόος and σιδηρεύς?

xix. 6. I fail to understand how anyone can dismiss D here with the

remark, “On account of Paul’s express declaration as to the desirability

of the gift of tongues being supplemented by that of interpretation (1

Cor. xiv. 5, 13, 27), this addition seemed to be required in this case

where Paul communicated the gifts of the Spirit” (Meyer-Wendt, eighth

edition, p. 312).

xx. 4. For Δερβαῖος D* has Δουβεριος or Δουβριος, and g _doverius_.

Moreover, D* has Βερυιαιος, not Βερυαιος, as Tischendorf has it.

Valckenaer and Blass insert a comma after Γάϊος, and substitute δὲ for

καὶ after Δερβαῖος, with the result that Gaius becomes a Thessalonian,

and Timothy a Derbean. For this Zahn sees no necessity. See his

_Einleitung_, i. 149.

xxviii. 16. On στρατοπεδάρχης (β) which Gigas renders _princeps

peregrinorum_, see note on xxvii. 1, in Knowling’s _Acts of the

Apostles_, _Expositor’s Greek Testament_, vol. ii. p. 516; article

“Julius” in Hastings’ _Bible Dictionary_, Ramsay in the _Expositor_,

November 1900; Zahn, _Einleitung_, i. 389 f. Wendt (eighth edition, p.

420) omits the words in xxviii. 16, on the ground that their omission

either by mistake or design is very unlikely, but their insertion, on

the other hand, quite intelligible. This only shows how little reliance

can be placed on subjective criticism.

We are not yet sufficiently well acquainted with the subscriptions of

the minuscules, but it may be cited here that in one of them Luke is

called συνέκδημος Παύλου, and in another θεηγόρος ὁ συγγράψας αὐτὰς

ἐμπνεύσει θείᾳ.

PAULINE EPISTLES.

In the arrangement of the books of the New Testament, it has become

customary to follow the order adopted by Tischendorf and Westcott and

Hort, who place the Catholic Epistles before the Pauline. In the

Stuttgart edition of the New Testament, however, I have, in accordance

with earlier usage, put the Pauline Epistles after the Gospels and Acts.

Considering what is said by Hort himself in § 422 of his _Introduction_,

and also what we find in No. 6 of Berger’s List of the various

arrangements of the books of the New Testament (_Histoire de la

Vulgate_, p. 339 f.), it might have been more correct to have put Paul

immediately after the Gospels, as in Codex Sinaiticus. But seeing that

the Latin and German Bibles at present exhibit the order, Gospels, Acts,

Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and that Meyer’s Commentary is also

arranged on this principle, I have retained this arrangement for the

sake of uniformity.

Here again I must refer the student for matters of detail to larger

works, especially to Zahn’s _Einleitung_. A few of the more important

passages will be considered in the sequel, but previously something may

be said here of the origin and circulation of the collective writings of

Paul.

1. Paul, accompanied by Silvanus and Timothy, came from Philippi to

Thessalonica on his second missionary journey, somewhere about the year

54, though Harnack puts it as early as 49-50. There he gathered together

a church in the short space of three or four weeks, if we may credit the

account given in Acts xvii. 2 in this particular. At all events he was

not long there. Disturbances similar to those in Philippi arose, which

compelled him to leave the city. He came to Athens. In his anxiety over

the internal and external circumstances of the newly-founded church at

Thessalonica, he sent back Timothy from Athens to confirm those he had

left behind. When his messenger returned he wrote to the Thessalonian

Church, in all probability not from Athens but from Corinth, where he

had gone in the interval of Timothy’s absence. This letter we know as

the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. It is uncertain whether the

apostle, as in most other cases, dictated the epistle, writing only the

salutation and concluding benediction with his own hand (compare 2

Thess. iii. 17: ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου, ὅ ἐστιν σημεῖον ἐν πάσῃ

ἐπιστολῇ· οὕτως γράφω),[280] or whether he wrote it all himself in large

letters, as he did in the case of the Epistle to the Galatians which he

wrote πηλίκοις γράμμασι (Gal. vi. 11), either on account of some

affection of the eyes or because he was a craftsman and had little

practice in writing. The epistle was intended for the entire church at

Thessalonica, of which Aristarchus, Secundus, and perhaps also Gaius

(see above, on Acts xx. 4), are known to us by name. It was probably

addressed to the oldest, or most prominent, or most active member of the

Christian community. At the close of the epistle, the writer expressly

adjures them to see that it is read by all the brethren. It would,

therefore, be read aloud at the next meeting of the congregation. There

and then, some poor slave or aged woman would ask to have the letter for

the purpose of copying it. What became of the original we do not know.

In the very first copy that was made, mistakes and alterations would

make their appearance, and these would be multiplied with every fresh

copy.

2. At the close of the Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 16), Paul asks

that when they have read it, they will see that it is also read in the

Church of Laodicæans, and that they themselves read the epistle from

Laodicæa (τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας). From this it has generally been supposed

that an epistle of Paul to Laodicæa has been lost. An epistle with this

title was restored at a very early date, in the second century. It is no

longer extant in Greek, but many Latin manuscripts and editions of the

Bible contain it, and it is also found in the pre-Lutheran German

Bibles. But the epistle from Laodicæa referred to by the Apostle may

perhaps have been the circular letter which we now know as the Epistle

to the Ephesians, and which may have been intended to go, among other

places, to Laodicæa, and from there to Colossae. However that may be, we

see that at a very early date there were epistles of Paul to various

places, and that copies of these might be made at each place, and still

further distributed. A parallel case is that of the Koran, the different

recensions of which are distinguished according to the cities whence

they originated. Even at that time, therefore, the beginnings of a

collection of the Pauline Epistles might be made. By the time that the

Second Epistle of Peter was written, it was known that “brother Paul,

according to the wisdom given to him, had written many epistles, in

which were some things hard to be understood” (2 Peter iii. 15).

3. When a great man dies, we have usually a collection of the letters he

received in his lifetime, but not of those he himself wrote, and to

collect these last is frequently a matter of considerable difficulty. We

have therefore reason to congratulate ourselves that we have, within the

covers of the New Testament, epistles of Paul addressed to the most

diverse regions—to Macedonia (1 and 2 Thess., Philippians), to Achaia (1

and 2 Corinthians), to Asia Minor (Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians),

and to Italy (Romans), not to speak of the so-called Pastoral or private

Epistles—epistles, moreover, the dates of which extend over a period of

at least eight years.[281] It is, of course, evident that the appearance

of an epistle in this collection is not in itself a guarantee of Pauline

authorship. But on the other hand, the collection must have been made at

a very early date, because we find, almost without exception, not only

the same number of Pauline epistles, but also the same order of their

arrangement. There is scarcely any evidence of the circulation of a

particular epistle by itself. True, the order now usually adopted, which

has been the prevailing order from the fourth century onwards and which

seems, for the most part, to arrange the epistles according to their

length (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, and so on),

is not the original. In the Muratorian Canon (so called from its

discoverer), which is a very old catalogue of the books of the Bible,

the Epistles to the Corinthians stand at the head of the collection and

that to the Romans at the end. Tertullian had the same arrangement,

while Marcion, for dogmatic reasons apparently, put Galatians first,

then 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. The present condition of our Epistle

to the Romans is also supposed to point to its former position at the

end of Paul’s epistles to the churches. In that epistle the concluding

doxology is found at different places, while many look upon chap. xvi.

1-23 as a separate document, originally intended for Ephesus, which was

attached to the entire collection at the end. Among other varieties of

arrangement it may be mentioned that Colossians frequently followed 2

Thessalonians. When and where the first collection took its rise, and by

whom the second arrangement was introduced, can no longer be determined

with certainty. Zahn thinks the first originated at Corinth about the

year 85, his reason being that it seems to be presupposed in the Epistle

to the Corinthians written by Clement of Rome about the year 95. The

second he would date from Alexandria, between 220 and 260. If we might

suppose that all our extant manuscripts are derived, not from separate

copies of the Epistles, but from a copy of the earliest collection, it

would serve to explain how it comes that certain corruptions have found

their way into the text of all our manuscripts—_e.g._ in Colossians ii.

18. On the other hand, the variations at the end of Romans, _e.g._, are

of such a sort that their origin seems to be anterior to the formation

of the collection.

It is not so difficult to understand how it is that the Epistle to the

Hebrews, which, it is certain, was not written by Paul, varies so much

with regard to its position in the collection. In the Syriac Bible, and

in the majority of later Greek manuscripts, it comes after all the

Pauline epistles, the reason being that the Syrian Church did not

consider it to be really of the number of these. (See Westcott, _Bible

in the Church_, p. 233 f.). In the earlier Greek manuscripts, however,

it occupies the tenth place, standing between the epistles of Paul to

the churches and the Pastoral Epistles. In the early Sahidic version,

and in the Commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia, it is found between 2

Corinthians and Galatians; in the parent manuscript of Codex B it stood

between Galatians and Ephesians. In his _Histoire de la Vulgate_, p. 539

f., Berger gives seventeen different ways in which the Pauline epistles

are arranged in Latin Bibles—viz., Col., Thess., 1 Tim.; Thess., Col., 1

Tim.; Phil., Laod., Col.; Col., Laod., Thess.; Col., Thess., Laod.;

Thess., Col., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Laod.; Thess., Col., Laod.; Phil., Laod.,

Heb.; Heb., Laod.; Heb., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Phil.; Apoc., Laod.; Ephes.,

Col.; Gal., Laod., Ephes.; Ephes., 1, 2, 3 Cor., Laod.; Phil., Thess., 1

Tim.; Apoc., 3 Cor.; Col., Phil.

Romans.

With regard to the very name and introduction of the Epistle to the

Romans, it is worth observing, that while the words ἐν Ῥώμῃ are read in

verses 7 and 15 by all our manuscripts, with the sole exception of G,

their omission by Origen is attested by the critical work discovered by

von der Goltz on Mount Athos (_vide supra_, pp. 90, 190), which says

that Origen takes no notice of the words: οὔτε ἐν τῇ ἐξηγήσει οὔτε ἐν τῷ

ῥητῷ μνημονεύει. The Latin commentary has them, and presupposes them in

the exposition. Our editions of Origen have hitherto given them once in

the Greek as well (iv. 287), but we must wait for the new edition before

we can say with certainty that this is correct. The matter is not devoid

of importance. If the omission is original, then it is possible to think

that Romans, like Hebrews, was originally a circular letter; while on

the other hand, if the words are an integral part of the epistle, we may

suppose with von der Goltz that they were afterwards dropped when the

epistle began to be read in church, so as to make it applicable to all

Christians. See Jacques Simon, _Revue d’Histoire et de Littérature

religieuses_, iv. 2 (1899), 177; Zahn, _Einleitung_, i. 278; _ThLbl._,

1899, 179.

i. 3. On the Syriac reading “of the house of David,” see Vetter, _Der

apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief_, 1894, p. 25, and my Note in the

Lectionary published in _Studia Sinaitica_, vi. (see above, p. 106).

i. 13. For οὐ θέλω D* G Ambrosiaster read οὐκ οἴομαι, which Zahn thinks

sounds more natural, and quite likely to be replaced by the other

expression so common in Paul’s epistles. _Einleitung_, i. 262.

i. 15. For ὑμῖν D* reads ἐν ὑμῖν, G ἐπ’ ὑμῖν, g _in vobis_.

i. 16. Marcion was accused of having removed πρῶτον or τε πρῶτον from

his text. This, however, is not so (see Zahn, _GK._, i. 639; ii. 515).

It is also omitted in B G, showing, as Zahn thinks, that it was regarded

as obnoxious at an early date (_Einleitung_, i. 263). Marcion did,

however, drop the quotation from Habakkuk in the next verse.

ii. 16. Marcion in all probability wrote τὸ εὐαγγέλιον without μου,

which is now omitted only by 37 d*. In the time of Origen and in the

centuries following, Marcion’s disciples laid emphasis not on μου, but

on the fact that εὐαγγέλιον is in the singular number. They charged the

Church with having not one Gospel, but several. See Zahn, _Einleitung_,

ii. 171.

v. 1. Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth all follow the mass

of the uncials in reading ἔχωμεν, and I was therefore obliged to give

this as the text of my Stuttgart edition of the New Testament. For

myself, however, I hold with Scrivener and Weiss that ἔχομεν is

certainly the correct reading. The same mis-spelling occurs in several

manuscripts in John xix. 7, ἡμεῖς νόμον ἔχωμεν. For the reason of it,

see Schmiedel’s _Winer_, § 19. According to Zahn, ἔχωμεν must be

considered the right reading, and καυχώμεθα (verse 2) taken also as

subjunctive. See his _Einleitung_, i. 264.

v. 21. The words τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν were omitted by Erasmus, and,

therefore, also by Luther. This is not noticed by Tischendorf, nor by

Baljon, who follows him.

xi. 13. ὑμῖν δὲ is read by א A B P, for which D G L have ὑμῖν γὰρ. Zahn

thinks it difficult to say which is right, but that the sense is much

the same in either case. _Einleitung_, i. 265 f.

xiii. 3. The conjecture ἀγαθοεργῷ is thought by Hort to have a certain

amount of probability (_Notes on Select Readings_, _in loco_). Schmiedel

also thinks it deserving of consideration (_Winer_, § 19).

xiv. 5. On the omission of γὰρ (B D G), see Zahn, _Einleitung_, i. 266.

xiv. 23. =Conclusion of the Epistle.= The best discussion of the

Conclusion of the epistle will now be found in Zahn’s _Einleitung_, vol.

i. § 22, pp. 267-298, _Die Integrität des Römerbriefs_. Compare also

Riggenbach, _Kritische Studien über den Schluss des Römerbriefs_: two

treatises published in the _Neue Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie_,

Erster Band, 1892. Bonn, 1892; _Die Adresse des 16. Kapitels des

Römerbriefs_, pp. 498-525; _Die Textgeschichte der Doxologie, Röm. xvi.

25-27 im Zusammenhang mit den übrigen den Schluss des Römerbriefs

betreffenden textkritischen Fragen erörtert_. Also, F. J. A. Hort,

_Prolegomena to the Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians_, 1895;

Sanday and Headlam, _Commentary on Romans_.

In certain manuscripts prior to the time of Origen, the =Doxology= was

found between xiv. 23 and xv. 1. It now stands after xiv. 23 in A L P

and about 200 minuscules, while at the same time the epistle is

certainly continued to xv. 13. Bengel alone has suggested a reason for

this. He supposes that the solemn words in xiv. 23, πᾶν δὲ ὃ οὐκ ἐκ

πίστεως ἁμαρτία ἐστίν, were felt to form an unsatisfactory close to a

church lection, and that the doxology was accordingly inserted here.

Moreover, seeing that no part of xvi. 1-25 was included in any lection,

this would be an additional reason for attaching the doxology to the end

of chapter xiv., as otherwise this grand passage might not be read at

all. It must be confessed, however, that this explanation is not

altogether satisfactory.

It is further to be observed that the =Benediction= is found sometimes

after xvi. 20, sometimes after xvi. 23, and sometimes in both places. In

the last case it is found under three conditions: (1) before the

doxology, (2) without it, (3) after it. With regard to the single

Benediction, it is inserted after verse 20 in א A B C, and after verse

23 in D G. An explanation of these variations has frequently been sought

in the supposition that chapter xvi. is part of an epistle addressed to

Ephesus, which has in some way been incorporated in the Epistle to the

Romans. On this supposition the only question is whether the whole of

chapter xvi. belongs to this Ephesian epistle or only the first twenty

verses, while verses 21-23 belong to the original Epistle to the Romans.

Improbable as this may appear at the first glance, it admits of an easy

explanation. It may be due to the fact that Romans once stood at the end

of the collection of Pauline epistles. Or we may suppose that the

commendatory epistle for Phœbe addressed to Ephesus and the Epistle to

the Romans were written at the same time, and that in sending them off,

the sheet containing the former by some mistake slipped in before the

last sheet of the Roman epistle. On this view, the first benediction in

verse 20, ἡ χάρις ... μεθ’ ὑμῶν, would belong to the Ephesian epistle,

while the second, ἡ χάρις ... μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν to the Roman. The uncial

L would then be right in retaining both, while D E F G will have omitted

the benediction the first time it occurred, and א A B C the second time.

At the same time it cannot be disguised that there are difficulties in

connection with the close of chapter xv. Minuscule 48 omits the last

verse (33). In verse 32, B reads simply ἵνα ἐν χαρᾷ ἔλθω, while the

other witnesses have ἐλθὼν, and vary between συναναπαύσωμαι ὑμῖν and

ἀναψύξω μεθ’ ὑμῶν.[282] Zahn thinks that the original position of the

Doxology is after xiv. 23 and nowhere else. Now the authority for

inserting the Doxology there only is L and many minuscules, A P and a

few minuscules having it in both places. If Zahn is right, should not

the testimony of L be accepted in other places as well as this, or at

least have more deference paid to it than seems now to be the case. The

testimony for the omission of the Doxology there has recently been

endorsed by that of the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, published in

_Studia Sinaitica_, vi.

xv., xvi. Zahn points out that we cannot consistently lay stress on the

supposed entire absence of these chapters in Marcion, unless we are

prepared to maintain at the same time that the other passages which he

fails to mention, such as Gal. iii. 6-9, 15-25, iv. 27-30; Romans i.

19-ii. 1, iii. 31-iv. 25, ix. 1-33, x. 5-xi. 32; Coloss. i. 15_b_, 16,

were unknown to him, and only smuggled into the text afterwards by

falsifiers on the Catholic side. Zahn thinks it probable that Marcion

struck out the numerous personal references in chapter xvi. as being

useless and unedifying for the Church of his day.

xv. 23, 24. Zahn holds that the later Antiochean reading ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς

ὑμᾶς (א^c Euthal., etc.) is undoubtedly spurious, and the γὰρ as

certainly genuine (_Einleitung_, i. 267).

xvi. 27. Zahn (_Einleitung_, i. 286) is inclined to regard ᾧ as the

correct reading here for two reasons: (1) because the incompleteness of

the sentence made it liable to correction, and (2) because the

correction is effected in very different ways. In some manuscripts ᾧ is

changed into αὐτῷ (P, Copt., 31, 54), in others it is omitted altogether

(B F-lat. Syr.), while in others again εἴη takes the place of ᾧ ἡ (55,

43-scholion).

Subscription: πρὸς Ῥωμαίους simply, א A B C D; others, ἐγράφη ἀπὸ

Κορίνθου διὰ Φοίβης τῆς διακόνου, to which some add τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς

ἐκκλησίας; others, ἐγράφη διὰ Τερτίου ἐπέμφθη δὲ διὰ Φοίβης ἀπὸ

Κορινθίων.

1 Corinthians.

All the manuscripts in which the number of the epistle is indicated by a

word and not by a numeral (α’) call it πρώτη, never προτέρα. Origen,

however, says ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ πρὸς Κορινθίους ὁ Παῦλος (ii. 347).

i. 2. The words ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ are read immediately after

θεοῦ by B D* G. This arrangement is adopted by Weiss, and supported by

Zahn as undoubtedly genuine (_Einleitung_, i. 210). Heinrici is inclined

to regard it as a transcriptional error which was very apt to occur in

copying stichometric manuscripts. But were there stichometric

manuscripts antecedent to the time of Codex B?

iii. 22. Marcion seems to have dropped the name of Apollos here. Indeed,

there is no trace in Marcion of any of the passages where Paul mentions

his name. “What was Apollos to the Church of the second century?” (Zahn,

_GK._ i. 649.)

v. 2. For ἐπενθήσατε Naber suggests ἐπενοήσατε. This is not noticed by

Baljon, who is elsewhere careful to mention the conjectural emendations

proposed by his countrymen.

vi. 20. It was doubtless owing to a transcriptional error that Marcion

read ἄρατε between δοξάσατε and τὸν θεόν. But how it originated, whether

from ἄρα δὲ = ἄρα δὴ or by dittography, it is hard to say.

x. 9. In place of τὸν κύριον we find τὸν Χριστὸν read by D G K L,

Marcion, Irenæus (iv. 27, 3), Clement (_Ecl. Proph._, 49), and the early

versions. See above, p. 152, and compare Zahn on the reading Ἰησοῦς for

κύριος in Jude 5 (_Einleitung_, ii. 88 f.).

xiv. 19. For νοΐ μου Marcion read “per legem” διὰ τὸν νόμον, which was

arrived at partly by a transcriptional error and partly by conscious

alteration. This could not have occurred, however, unless the original

reading was διὰ τοῦ νοός μου, which is still found in a good many

manuscripts, and not τῷ νοΐ μου, the reading preferred by most of our

editors. The latter is perhaps the result of an assimilation to the

construction of γλώσσῃ.

xiv. 31-34. These verses are variously punctuated by recent editors, the

main difference being with regard to the arrangement of the clause ὡς ἐν

πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων. This clause is referred to verse 31 by

Westcott and Hort, who place a comma after παρακαλῶνται and bracket the

intervening words (32, 33_a_) as a parenthesis. Tischendorf and Weiss

place a period after εἰρήνης, and link the ὡς clause to what follows.

This arrangement Westcott and Hort indicate in their margin. For details

and reasoning, see the Commentaries.

xiv. 34, 35. These two verses follow verse 40 in D E F G 93,

Ambrosiaster, and Sedulius. In Codex Fuldensis, verses 36-40 are found

in the margin after verse 33, where they were inserted by Victor of

Capua (see p. 122), who did not, however, remove them from their place

further down. He must therefore have had before him a manuscript

exhibiting this arrangement. We must suppose either that all these

manuscripts are ultimately derived from one and the same exemplar, in

which this arrangement of the verses occurred, or, as Heinrici suggests,

that the original document itself gave occasion to this variety by

having these verses written in its margin. Our modern editors are

unanimous in following the usual order.

xv. 38. Zahn has shown that in all likelihood the substitution of πνεῦμα

for the first σῶμα was due to certain followers of Marcion. See his

_GK._ i. 615; also _Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte_, ix. 198 ff.

xv. 47. On Marcion’s reading, ὁ δεύτερος κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, see Zahn,

_GK._ i. 638, who suggests that this may have been an early gloss that

Marcion made use of, seeing that it is in the highest degree improbable

that the heretic and some of his most violent opponents should alter the

original text in exactly the same way.

xv. 55. Tertullian found νεῖκος in Marcion, and he therefore leaves it

an open question whether the word signifies _victoria tua_ or _contentio

tua_ (v. 10, p. 306). See Zahn, _GK._ i. 51.

xvi. 22. On “Maranatha,” see Zahn (_Einleitung_, i. 215 ff.), who, while

admitting that no objection on the ground of language or grammar can be

made to reading the word as מרן אתא = ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἦλθεν (not ἔρχεται

or ἐλεύσεται), prefers with Halévy, Bickell, and Nöldeke, to take it as

מרנא תא = κύριε ἔρχου, which corresponds to the Peshitto rendering of

Apoc. xxii. 20, תא מריא ישוע (ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ). See note by Schmiedel

in the _Hand-Commentar_ on 1 Cor. xvi. 22, and the article by Thayer in

Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, _sub voce_. Luther has “Maharam

Motha,” but whence he derived this I do not know.

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Φιλίππων (τῆς Μακεδονίας) διὰ Στεφανᾶ καὶ

Φορτουνάτου καὶ Ἀχαϊκοῦ (Κουάρτου) καὶ Τιμοθέου; _al._ ὑπὸ Παύλου καὶ

Σωσθένους; _al._ ἀπὸ Ἐφέσου τῆς Ἀσίας.

2 Corinthians.

i. 12. Recent editors adopt the reading ἁγιότητι on the authority of א*

A B C K M P etc. Zahn, however (_Einleitung_, i. 243), prefers ἁπλότητι

as given by א^c D E G etc. Meyer thinks that ἁπλότητι was substituted

for ἁγιότητι as being the more usual expression. Tischendorf is wrong in

saying: de suo add. syr^{sch} _et cum puritate_. The Syriac has בפשיטותא

ובדכיותא ובטיבותא דאלהא—_i.e._ ἐν ἁπλότητι καὶ ἐν εἰλικρινείᾳ[283] καὶ

ἐν χάριτι [τοῦ] θεοῦ ἀνεστράφημεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ οὐκ ἐν.... vii. 2.

Zahn (_GK._ i. 650; ii. 515) thinks perhaps the whole section vii. 2-xi.

1 was omitted by Marcion: “Let us cleanse ourselves from defilement of

the flesh and blood ... for I espoused you as a pure virgin to one

husband, (even) Christ.”

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Φιλίππων (+ τῆς Μακεδονίας) + διὰ Τίτου (+

Βαρνάβα) καὶ Λουκᾶ.

Galatians.

i. 8. As illustrating how far the sharpest critic may be led astray by

his fondness for conjectural emendation, it may be mentioned here that

Hitzig (_Das Buch Hiob_, 1874, p. 199), suggested that Η Α̅Χ̅Σ̅ formerly

occupied the place of ἡμεῖς in this verse, and that this means ἢ

ἀρχιερεὺς!

i. 18. For Κηφᾶν, as given in our critical editions, Zahn (_Einleitung_,

ii. 14) would read Πέτρον. He accounts for the remarkable transition

from the name Πέτρος in ii. 7, 8 to Κηφᾶς in ii. 9, 11, 14 very well by

saying that Paul in the latter verses is echoing the language used by

the Judaizers from Palestine, just as he does in speaking of the Three

as στῦλοι. Seeing that Paul persistently employs the name Κηφᾶς in 1

Corinthians, a scribe might have introduced this name, with which he had

become familiar, into Galatians i. 18 also, just as Ἰσκαριώτης was

carried over from the Synoptics into most manuscripts of John’s Gospel,

displacing the title ἀπὸ Καρυώτου. The following table will show the

distribution of the Greek manuscripts in support of the readings Κηφᾶς

and Πέτρος in Galatians:—

Κηφᾶς. Πέτρος.

i. 18, א* A B 17, 67**, 71. א^c D E F G K L P.

ii. 7, —— omnes.

ii. 8, —— omnes.

ii. 9, א B C K L P etc. D E F G (A omits).

ii. 11, א A B C H P. D E F G K L.

ii. 14, א A B C 10, 17, D E F G K L P.

67**, 137.

It will be observed that in ii. 9 K L P take the side of א (A) B, while

in verse 11 P alone does so, and that D E F G are the only witnesses

that are consistent.

ii. 5. οἷς οὐδὲ is omitted by D*, by Tertullian, who ascribes the

negative to Marcion (_Adv. Marcionem_, v. 3), by certain manuscripts

known to Victorinus Afer, who says “in plurimis codicibus et latinis et

graecis ista sententia est _Ad horam cessimus subjectioni_,” and by the

Latin translator of Irenæus (_Adv. Haereses_, iii. 13, 3). Ambrosiaster

calls attention to the discrepancy between the Greek and Latin

manuscripts: “Graeci e contra dicunt _Nec ad horam cessimus_,” and

similarly Sedulius. Bengel remarked on the proneness of scribes to

insert or omit a negative: “Omnino apud Latinos lubrica sub calamo est

_non_ particula.... Saepe etiam in graecis aliisque οὐκ omissum.” See

Haussleiter, _Forschungen_, iv. 31 ff., who says that the subject is one

deserving of special treatment. Bengel refers to the exhaustive

discussion “de negationibus quae Pandectis Florentinis recte male

additae vel detractae sunt,” but there might be a good deal said on

these theological _Sic et Non_ also.

A single letter or little word more or less, and the sense of a passage

is completely changed. Did Paul say that in his contention with the

Apostles he gave place “for an hour,” or “_not_ for an hour,” οἷς πρὸς

ὥραν, or οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν, or πρὸς ὥραν simply? In Gal. v. 8 is it ἡ

πεισμονὴ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς, or οὐκ ἐκ? In 1 Cor. v. 6 is it “your

glorying is good” or “_not_ good,” καλὸν or οὐ καλὸν? In Rom. iv. 19,

κατενόησεν or οὐ κατενόησεν. In 2 Peter iii. 10, εὑρεθήσεται or οὐχ

εὑρεθήσεται, or are both these wrong? Compare, for example, the reading

μακράν in Matt. viii. 30, where almost all the Latin witnesses, and

Jerome too, read “_non_ longe”; and John vi. 64, where we have οἱ μὴ

πιστεύοντες, and also οἱ πιστεύοντες (א G). In this latter passage the

reading “credentes” was adopted in the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate,

but “_non_ credentes” in the Clementine; Wordsworth and White decide for

the latter against the Sixtine text. In John vii. 8, א D R etc., read

οὐκ, for which B and the majority of the witnesses have οὔπω, but this

is manifestly a correction. In John ix. 27 we have οὐκ ἠκούσατε, where a

solitary Greek manuscript (22), which, however, has the support of the

Vulgate and half the Old Latin witnesses, reads ἠκούσατε: audistis. In

Romans v. 14 we find both τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτάνοντας and τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας. In

1 Cor. iii. 7 A reads ὥστε ὁ φυτεύων ἐστίν τι, omitting the negative; in

ix. 8 we have both ταῦτα λέγει and ταῦτα οὐ λέγει; while in xiii. 5 B

and Clement of Alexandria actually assert that “love seeketh what is

_not_ her own, τὸ μὴ ἑαυτῆς”! Again, in 1 Cor. xv. 51 the position of

the negative fluctuates between the first and second member of the

sentence, so that we have πάντες μὲν οὐ and οὐ πάντες. Similarly, in

Col. ii. 18 we find ἃ ἑόρακεν and ἃ μὴ ἑόρακεν; and in Apoc. iv. 11 ἦσαν

καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν and οὐκ ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν—_i.e._ “they were called out

of nothingness into existence.”

In Codex D seven cases of this variation occur in Acts alone—viz. iv.

20, v. 26, 28, vii. 25, xix. 40, xx. 20, 27. Compare, further, Matt.

xii. 32, where in place of ἀφεθήσεται B* reads οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. In Matt.

xvii. 25 one Latin manuscript makes Peter say “utique non” in answer to

the question, “Doth not your master pay tribute?” We have in Matt. xxi.

16, ἀκούεις and οὐκ ἀκούεις; xxi. 32, μετεμελήθητε and οὐ μετεμελήθητε;

xxiv. 2, οὐ βλέπετε and βλέπετε. In Mark viii. 14, οὐκ εἶχον and εἶχον;

xiii. 19, καὶ οὐ μὴ, οὐδὲ μὴ and οὐδ’ οὐ. Luke xi. 48, συνευδοκεῖτε: μὴ

συνευδοκεῖτε; xxi. 21, ἐκχωρείτωσαν: μὴ ἐκχωρείτωσαν. John ii. 12, οὐ

πολλὰς: πολλὰς; xv. 19, οὐκ ἐστὲ: ἦτε; xx. 8, ἐπίστευσεν: οὐκ

ἐπίστευσεν. Acts xxv. 6, πλείους: οὐ πλείους. Rom. iv. 5, μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ:

ἐργαζομένῳ (_Studia Sinaitica_, vi. p. lxvi); x. 3, οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν:

ὑπετάγησαν (_ibid._). 1 Cor i. 19, συνετῶν: ἀσυνέτων; iv. 6, ἵνα μὴ:

ἵνα; iv. 19, οὐ τὸν λόγον: τὸν λόγον; vi. 5, οὐδεὶς σοφὸς: σοφὸς; vi. 9,

οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν: κληρονομήσουσιν (B* 93) and _vice versa_ in verse

10. 2 Cor. v. 1, ἀχειροποίητος: οὐκ ἀχειροποίητος (_non manufactam_).

Gal. iv. 14, οὐκ ἐξουθενήσατε: ἐξουθενήσατε (א*). Heb. x. 2, οὐκ ἂν: ἂν:

κἂν. 2 Pet. i. 12, μελλήσω: οὐκ ἀμελήσω: οὐ μελλήσω. 1 John v. 17, οὐ

πρὸς θάνατον: πρὸς θάνατον. Apoc. iii. 8, μικρὰν: οὐ μικρὰν.[284]

ii. 20. Tischendorf fails to mention that Marcion read ἀγοράσαντος

(redemit) in place of ἀγαπήσαντος. The variant is of sufficient

importance to justify a reference to Zahn, _GK._ ii. 499. I cannot at

this moment recall any instance of a confusion between ἀγοράσας and

ἀγαπήσας, though it is not an unlikely mistake to make. In Leviticus

xxvii. 19, the first hand of B by mistake wrote ἀγοράσας for ἁγιάσας.

v. 9. Epiphanius accused Marcion of having altered ζυμοῖ to δολοῖ. See

Zahn, _GK._ i. 639; ii. 503. _Cf._ above, p. 76.

Ephesians.

Tertullian says (_Adv. Marcionem_, v. 17): Ecclesiae quidem veritate

epistulam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed

Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto

diligentissimus explorator. Nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad

omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam.

iv. 19. For ἀπηλγηκότες D here reads ἀπηλπικότες. A glance at

ΑΠΗΛΓΗΚΟΤΕϹ and ΑΠΗΛΠΙΚΟΤΕϹ will show how easy it was to make such a

mistake in the days of uncial script.

v. 14. The reading ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ is attested by D*, some Latin

manuscripts, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. See above, p. 254.

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ῥώμης: + διὰ Τυχίκου.

Philippians.

i. 3. εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου is read by א A B D^c E^2 K L P; and ἐγὼ μὲν

εὐχαριστῶ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν by D* E* F G. Zahn defends the latter in the

_Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft_, 1885, p. 184, and in his

_Einleitung_, i. 376 calls it the “genuine text.” Haupt says (Meyer^7,

1897, p. 3): The reading ἐγὼ μὲν εὐχαριστῶ, which is commonly ignored,

is, it appears to me, rightly recommended by Zahn and Wohlenberg. But

Haupt himself ignores the second half of the reading τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν (for

τῷ θεῷ μου), which is far more important from a theological point of

view, and is content merely to explain at length why Paul should thank

_his_ God. Weiss, in his _Text-kritik der paulinischen Briefe_ (pp. 6,

7), mentions ἐγὼ, but says nothing about μὲν, or the change from κυρίῳ

ἡμῶν to θεῷ μου. But you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the

hounds. If you accept ἐγὼ μὲν εὐχαριστῶ you cannot reject τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν.

Haupt, moreover, thinks it is far-fetched to suppose with Zahn that ἐγὼ

μὲν contains an allusion to something the Philippians had said. But that

is by no means the case, as we may learn from what Deissmann and Harris

tell us of the epistolary style of those days (see _A Study in Letter

Writing_, Expositor, September 1898, p. 161 ff.). But if the Western

group preserves the correct text at the very outset of the epistle, what

about it further down?

i. 7. For χάριτος Ambrosiaster has “gaudii,” so that he must have read

χαρᾶς. J. Weiss proposes to read χρείας (_ThLz._, 1899, col. 263). χάρις

and χαρά are frequently interchanged—_e.g._ in Tobit vii. 18; Sirach

xxx. 16. Χόρον is found for χαράν in Ps. xxix. (xxx.) 11. The scribes

felt a difficulty with χρεία in Rom. xii. 13, and still more so in

Ephes. iv. 29. Ephraem found χρεία in place of χεῖρον in John v. 14 (see

above, p. 293, note 2).

i. 14. Zahn and Haupt omit τοῦ θεοῦ with D K etc. So does J. Weiss, who

takes occasion to make certain important observations on the attempts

hitherto made to restore the text. See _ThLz._, 1899, col. 263.

iii. 14. Till lately Tertullian was our only authority for the reading

“palmam incriminationis” in place of τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως (_De

resurrectione carnis_, 23). It was accordingly supposed that he had read

ἀνεγκλήσεως instead of ἄνω κλήσεως. We learn now from the Athos

manuscript, discovered by von der Goltz, that Origen also cited the

reading ἀνεγκλησίας in his commentary as being ἀνεγνωσμένον ἔν τισιν

ἀντιγράφοις. Even supposing that τινὰ ἀντίγραφα turned out to be no more

than a single copy, or even Tertullian’s quotation which Origen had

become acquainted with in some way, his mention of this reading is in

the highest degree interesting.

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ῥώμης: + δι’ Ἐπαφροδίτου: + διὰ Τιμοθέου καὶ

Ἐπαφροδίτου.

Colossians.

ii. 16. On the reading κιρνάτω suggested by the rendering of the

Peshitto, and the Latin version of Ephraem’s Commentary on the Pauline

Epistles, see above, p. 168 f. It was advocated by Lagarde in his

_Prophetae Chaldaice_, p. li. Zahn rejects it on the ground that it

would require περὶ βρώσεως in place of ἐν βρώσει, and also that κρίνειν

agrees better with καταβραβεύειν in verse 18.

ii. 18. On this difficult passage see above, p. 168. Zahn thinks it

quite certain that μὴ is a later insertion even in the Syriac, seeing

that Ephraem knows nothing of it. Of the various conjectural

emendations, he regards that of C. Taylor as the most probable—viz. ἀέρα

κενεμβατεύων. This is also the view of Westcott and Hort. See their

_Introduction_, “Notes on Select Readings,” _in loco_; Zahn,

_Einleitung_, i. 339.

iv. 14. The words ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς were omitted by Marcion. See Zahn,

_GK._ i. 647; ii. 528. Two minuscules omit the words ὁ ἀγαπητὸς.

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ῥώμης διὰ Τυχίκου (+ καὶ Τιμοθέου) καὶ

Ὀνησίμου.

1 Thessalonians.

ii. 7. One can easily see how doubt should arise as to the correct

reading here when we observe the form of the words in the uncial script,

ΕΓΕΝΗΘΗΜΕΝΝΗΠΙΟΙ. Moreover, we must remember that Ν at the end of a line

was very frequently indicated merely by a stroke above the preceding

letter, thus: ΕΓΕΝΗΘΗΜΕ. The same alternative readings are presented in

Hebrews v. 13, and in Clement of Alexandria, i. 140, 7, where Codex F

exhibits ἤπιοι, and M, which is the most important manuscript, has

νήπιοι in the text and ἤπιοι in the margin.

ii. 15. Zahn (_GK._ ii. 521; _cf._ also i. 644) restores Marcion’s text

here in the form τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον [Ἰησοῦν] ἀποκτεινάντων καὶ τοὺς

προφήτας αὐτῶν. Marcion founds throughout upon a Western text, and the

fact of his agreement in this instance with the Antiochean Recension

(D_{2} E_{2} K_{2} L_{2}) is declared by Zahn to be a mere coincidence,

more especially as the latter here reads τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας. “Had

Marcion,” he says, “really written ἰδίους, Tertullian would have

translated the passage differently, and would scarcely have applied the

term _adjectio_ to a qualifying expression inserted _before_ προφήτας.”

What Tertullian says is, “dicendo _et prophetas suos_ licet _suos_

adjectio sit haeretici.” The term ἴδιος is employed so frequently to

represent the pronoun when no particular emphasis is intended to be

conveyed, that there seems to me no necessity for Tertullian translating

τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας _suos prophetas_, or rendering the words in any

other way than _prophetas suos_. Compare above, p. 211.

iii. 3. Lachmann here reads μηδὲν ἀσαίνεσθαι with Reiske and Venema.

Beza and Bentley suggested σαλεύεσθαι, Holwerda ἀναίνεσθαι, Peerlkamp

σινιάζεσθαι. Zahn has no hesitation in adopting μηδένα σαίνεσθαι, which

he understands in the original (metaphorical) sense of to flatter, to

talk over or cajole. See _Einleitung_, i. 158.

1 Timothy.

i. 4. Οἰκοδομίαν, or οἰκοδομὴν, which is attested by Irenæus and a good

many Latin witnesses, and received into his text by Erasmus, is nothing

but an early transcriptional error for οἰκονομίαν.

iii. 1. “The reading ἀνθρώπινος ὁ λόγος is attested in Greek only by D*,

but it was the prevailing reading in the West till the time of Jerome.

When I consider the improbability of its being invented, and its

liability to alteration in conformity with 1 Tim. i. 15, iv. 9; 2 Tim.

ii. 11; Tit. iii. 8, I am compelled, in spite of the one-sided nature of

the testimony, to conclude that it is original. It is a proverbial

expression of general application and profane origin” (Zahn,

_Einleitung_, i. 482). This reading is usually ignored by our editors

and commentators, and yet the passage is one that plays an important

part in the ordination of the clergy, and therefore one on the correct

interpretation of which a good deal might depend. Westcott and Hort

merely mention it in their _Notes on Select Readings_ and insert it in

their _Appendix_. It is not cited by von Gebhardt in his edition. For my

own part I am not quite convinced of its originality. At the same time

it is hard to understand how ΠΙΣΤΟΣ by any clerical error could be

transformed into Α̅Ν̅Ι̅ΝΟΣ, and so become ΑΝΘΡΩΠΙΝΟΣ.

iii. 16. In his _Forschungen_, vol. iii., Beilage iv. p. 277, “Zum Text

von 1 Tim. iii. 16,” Zahn published two or three lines from some

parchment fragments in the Egyptian Museum of the Louvre, which, he

thinks, belong to the IV-VI century. The last three lines run—ευσεβειας

μυστηρ ... | ω εφανερωθη ε ... | και εδ.... He says, “The ω in the

second last line is undoubtedly meant for ὃ. This adds another to the

Greek witnesses supporting this reading, which has till now been

attested only by the Latin manuscripts, by other ambiguous or doubtful

witnesses, and probably by the first Greek hand of Codex Claromontanus.

The και in the last line is, so far as I am aware, supported by no other

evidence.” The reading θεος, which was formerly so much discussed, seems

to be simply an early transcriptional error, ΟϹ being read as

Θ̅Ϲ̅—_i.e._ θεος with the usual mark of abbreviation. The old dispute

over the reading of the earliest manuscripts (most of them exhibit a

correction at the place), whether the middle stroke of the Θ in the

oldest codices A C is by the first or second hand, or whether in the

case of A it may not be simply the tongue of an E shining through from

the other side of the parchment, cannot seemingly be decided now in the

present state of the manuscripts.[285] Codex A was examined by Scrivener

both with and without the aid of a magnifying glass perhaps twenty times

in as many years. Dean Burgon devotes seventy-seven pages of his

_Revision Revised_ to a discussion of the reading. The facility with

which a variant of this sort may arise is shown by the perfectly

analogous passage, Joshua ii. 11. Here B and F read κυριος ο θεος υμων

ΟϹ εν ουρανω ανω, while on the other hand A in place of ΟϹ has Θ̅Ϲ̅,

which in this instance is correct. In 1 Tim. iii. 16 the other

witnesses—viz. the versions and the Fathers—throw their weight into the

opposite scale.

iv. 3. Isidore asks whether κωλυόντων ... ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων may not be

a σφάλμα of the scribes for ἀντέχεσθαι, to which Oecumenius replies that

it is no σφάλμα καλλιγραφικόν but good Attic Greek for κωλύειν ἀπὸ τῆς

βρώσεως. The explanation of Theophylact, however, is nearer the mark,

that συμβουλεύειν is to be supplied from κωλύειν. Bentley, Toup,

Bakhuyzen, and Bois would supply κελευόντων before ἀπέχεσθαι, while Hort

suggests the substitution of ἢ ἅπτεσθαι or καὶ γεύεσθαι in place of

ἀπέχεσθαι. There seems to be no need of such expedients.

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας + ἥτις ἐστὶν μητρόπολις Φρυγίας τῆς

Καπατιάνης (Πακατιάνης): _al._ ἀπὸ Νικοπόλεως: _al._ ἀπὸ Ἀθηνῶν: _al._

ἀπὸ Ῥώμης + διὰ Τίτου.

2 Timothy.

iv. 19. After Ἀκύλαν two minuscules (46 and 109) insert Λέκτραν τὴν

γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ Σιμαίαν (Σημαιαν 109) καὶ Ζήνωνα τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ. The

interpolation is derived from the _Acta Pauli_, and is to be connected

not with Aquila, but with the “house of Onesiphorus.” See Zahn,

_Einleitung_, i. 411.

Subscription: ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας: _al._ ἀπὸ Ῥώμης + ὅτε ἐκ δευτέρου

παρέστη Παῦλος τῷ καίσαρι Νέρωνι.

Titus.

i. 9, 11. Considerable additions are made to the text after both these

verses by Codex 109. This manuscript is numbered 11 in the Library of

St. Mark at Venice, and described by Gregory as “haud malae notae.” It

contains both a Latin and an Arabic version, and dates from the

thirteenth or fourteenth, or, as some suppose, the eleventh, century.

After verse 9 we read: μὴ χειροτονεῖν διγάμους μηδὲ διακόνους αὐτοὺς

ποιεῖν, μηδὲ γυναῖκας ἔχειν ἐκ διγαμίας· μηδὲ προσερχέσθωσαν ἐν τῷ

θυσιαστηρίῳ λειτουργεῖν τὸ θεῖον· τοὺς ἄρχοντας τοὺς ἀδικοκριτὰς καὶ

ἅρπαγας καὶ ψεύστας καὶ ἀνελεήμονας ἔλεγχε ὡς θεοῦ διάκονος. After verse

11 we find τὰ τέκνα τοὺς ἰδίους γονεῖς ὑβρίζοντας ἢ τύπτοντας ἐπιστόμιζε

καὶ ἔλεγχε καὶ νουθέτει ὡς πατὴρ τέκνα.

Subscription: πρὸς Τίτον (+ τῆς Κρητῶν ἐκκλησίας πρῶτον ἐπίσκοπον

χειροτονηθέντα) ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Νικοπόλεως τῆς Μακεδονίας (missa per Arteman:

_al._ per Zenam et Apollo).

Hebrews.

i. 3. Instead of φέρων, the first hand of B wrote φανερῶν, which a

second hand altered to φέρων, while a third restored φανερῶν, and wrote

in the margin ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν [? τὸ] παλαιόν, μὴ

μεταποίει. A great deal of material might be collected from the margin

of old manuscripts, not only for the history of Prayer, as von Dobschütz

recently observed, but for other interesting departments of the history

of civilisation.

ii. 9. The reading χωρὶς θεοῦ instead of χάριτι θεοῦ is now found only

in M and in the second hand of 67. Origen, however, was aware of the

various reading: χωρὶς θεοῦ ἢ ὅπερ ἔν τισι ἀντιγράφοις χάριτι θεοῦ. It

seems to be a primitive transcriptional error.

x. 34. We have here to choose between δεσμοῖς and δεσμίοις. The latter

is manifestly the correct reading. It is attested by A D* and certain

minuscules, among which are 37**, 67**. This last is a Vienna manuscript

(Vindob. gr. theol. 302), whose marginal readings exhibit a text closely

resembling that of the uncials B M, which are defective in Hebrews x.

Δεσμοῖς μου is supported by א D^c H K L P, Clem. Alex., Origen (i. 41,

where, however, μου is omitted by M* P, according to Koetschau’s new

edition), and by d e (_vinculis eorum_). Zahn (_Einleitung_, ii. 122)

thinks that the connection of the reading δεσμοῖς μου with the tradition

of the Pauline authorship of the epistle is suspicious. We find the

reading adopted in those regions where the tradition was accepted. It

may, however, have been the means of confirming and spreading the

tradition, seeing that Clement of Alexandria is actually aware of it.

Pseudo-Euthalius, _e.g._, employs the reading in support of the Pauline

authorship (Zacagni 670).

In this same verse א A H have preserved the proper reading ἑαυτοὺς.

Ἑαυτοῖς, as given by D E K L, is a would-be correction.

xi. 23. In certain manuscripts (D and three Vulgate codices) an entire

verse is inserted after verse 23: Πίστει μέγας γενόμενος Μωϋσῆς ἀνεῖλεν

τὸν Αἰγύπτιον κατανοῶν τὴν ταπείνωσιν τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ. Its position

shows it to be an interpolation.

xiii. 9. The present tense περιπατοῦντες is exhibited only by א* A D*,

all the other witnesses having περιπατήσαντες. The minority are in the

right here. A correction is not always an improvement.

xiii. 18. Zahn accepts the καὶ before περὶ ἡμῶν. It is found only in D d

and Chrysostom. This combination of witnesses is very rare.

Subscription: ἐγράφη (+ ἑβραϊστὶ 31) ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας διὰ Τιμοθέου: _al._

ἀπὸ Ἀθηνῶν: _al._ ἀπὸ Ῥώμης.

CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

The variety in the order of the Catholic Epistles is even more

significant than that of the Pauline. When the Syrian Church of Edessa

obtained the New Testament, it consisted only of the Gospels, the

Pauline Epistles, and the Acts. It contained neither the Apocalypse nor

the Catholic Epistles. This is proved among other things by the fact

that not a single quotation from these writings is found in the Homilies

of Aphraates, the date of which falls between 336 and 345. At a later

date the Syrian Church accepted the Epistle of James, 1 Peter, and 1

John, but the four so-called Antilegomena—viz. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John,

and Jude—are to this day excluded from their Canon of the New Testament.

Even in the West, James was not reckoned among the books of the New

Testament previous to the fourth century. There is no mention made of it

in Africa about the year 300, although it was cited at Rome and Carthage

at an earlier date. At Alexandria, however, all the seven Catholic

Epistles were counted in the New Testament as early as the time of

Clement,[286] and their place in the Canon becomes more and more firmly

assured from the time of Eusebius onwards.[287] At the same time, the

order of their arrangement varies very considerably. Indeed, every

possible variety occurs, except that Jude seems never to have been

placed first, nor 2 Peter last. Thus we find James, 2 Peter, 3 John,

Jude; James, Jude, 2 Peter, 3 John; 2 Peter, James, Jude, 3 John; 2

Peter, 3 John, James, Jude; 2 Peter, 3 John, Jude, James, etc.[288] It

follows that in the case of this group of New Testament writings, as

well as in that of the preceding, it is necessary and possible to

distinguish the three longer from the four shorter epistles in tracing

the history of the text. And we see at the same time what justification

Luther had in drawing a line between these epistles and the principal

books of the New Testament as having been held in quite a different

estimation in early times.

1 Peter.

iii. 22. After θεοῦ the Vulgate inserts _deglutiens mortem ut vitae

aeternae haeredes efficeremur_, “apparently from a Greek original which

had the aorist participle καταπιών; _cf._ 1 Cor. xv. 54” (W-H, _Notes_,

_in loco_). See Vetter, _Der dritte Korintherbrief_.

2 Peter.

i. 1. Zahn considers ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ the original reading, and εἰς

δικαιοσύνην a later correction due to taking πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ

together as “faith in righteousness.” The last two words are to be taken

with λαχοῦσιν. _Einleitung_, ii. 59.

i. 2. Zahn agrees with Lachmann and Spitta in holding that ἐν ἐπιγνώσει

τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν is the correct text here—that is to say, he omits τοῦ

θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ. Tischendorf’s Apparatus is very diffuse on this verse,

and Baljon’s note, which is extracted from it, is accordingly not quite

satisfactory.[289] Like all the other editors, he gives ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ

θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν in the text, but the only variants he

mentions are the insertion of Χριστοῦ after Ἰησοῦ, and the omission of

ἡμῶν. There is no notice of the omission of the words τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ

by any of the witnesses. They are not found in P, the best manuscripts

of the Vulgate (am fu dem harl), Philoxenian and Harklean Syriac, nor in

minuscules 69, 137, 163. These last, however, the Syriac and the

minuscules with m, insert Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ after ἡμῶν. Kühl believes that

the shorter form is probably due to the fact that in the epistle Christ

is everywhere regarded as the object of ἐπίγνωσις. But this is really

very improbable. For the scribe could not have been aware of this when

he began to write the epistle, so that he must have turned back and

deleted the words καὶ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ afterwards. At the same time it is

a fundamental principle of textual criticism that the _lectio brevior_

is to be preferred. Reference may be made to the _Epilogus_ of

Wordsworth and White, ch. vi., _De regulis a nobis in textu constituendo

adhibitis_, where the very title of section 4 implies this principle:

“Cum brevior lectio probabilior sit, codices A F H* M Y plerumque

praeferendi sunt,” and where the most conspicuous examples of this rule

are said to be “Additamenta nominum propriorum, et praecipue

sanctorum—_e.g._ Jesus, Christus, Dominus, Deus.” It is true that in the

passage before us we have not simply a case of the insertion of a word

or words understood; at the same time, here if anywhere the text is more

likely to have been extended than abbreviated. It remains to be seen

whether P exhibits a good text in other passages of the Catholic

Epistles as well as this, but so far as the minuscules 69 and 137 are

concerned, they justly bear a good reputation. Hort calls 69 one of the

better cursives, and 137 has a text so closely resembling that of

Codices D E as to be of material assistance when these are defective.

The minuscules are too often regarded as mere ciphers; as if a cipher

more or less behind a number did not make a vast difference. In the very

next verse we find 137 supporting א A in reading τὰ πάντα, which is

accepted by Tischendorf and Weiss, and preferred also by Kühl. In this

instance it contradicts P, which omits τὰ with B C K L.

i. 12. Here μελλήσω is given by א A B C P, οὐ μελλήσω by 8 f tol (_non

differam_), and οὐκ ἀμελήσω by K L etc. (“the Antiochean recension and

the Syriac versions,” Zahn). “Μελλήσω, with the present infinitive, can

hardly be simply a periphrastic future. The idea is rather that the

writer will be prepared in the future, as well as in the past and in the

present, to remind them of the truths they know, whenever the necessity

arises. As they had no evidence of the fulfilment of this promise, the

copyists and translators found a difficulty with this expression, and

hence the variants.” Zahn, _Einleitung_, ii. 53 f.

i. 15. The reading σπουδάζω, found in א 31, and the Armenian, is also

attested by the Philoxenian Syriac, a fact which Zahn regards as

important. “On transcriptional grounds the reading σπουδάσω, preferred

by our editors, would appear to be confirmed by the reading σπουδάσατε,

exhibited by the Harklean Syriac and a few minuscules. But in reality

both these latter readings merely serve to show that a difficulty was

felt again in admitting a promise on the part of Peter which he seemed

never to have fulfilled.” _Einleitung_, ii. 54. Compare on μελλήσω

above.

i. 21. It is probable that Theophilus of Antioch (_Ad Autolycum_, ii. 9)

read (οἱ) ἅγιοι (τοῦ) θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, the form exhibited by א and A (“the

chief representatives of the Antiochean family”), and also by several

Latin witnesses. See Zahn, _GK._ i. 313; Chase on 2 Peter in Hastings’

_Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. iii. p. 801.

ii. 13. On this passage Zahn remarks (_Einleitung_, ii. 53): “The

similarity of 2 Peter to the Epistle of Jude was doubtless a source of

textual corruption. But it may also aid us in correcting the text.

Because, whichever of the two we regard as the original, in any case the

one is our earliest witness to the text of the other. If we accept the

reading ἀγάπαις in Jude 12, it follows either (1) that Jude read ἀγάπαις

in 2 Peter, and that this is the original reading there, or (2) that

Peter, supposing he wrote second, altered Jude’s ἀγάπαις to ἀπάταις,

which it is hard to conceive, the former being so unmistakable, and the

latter much less suitable to the context. In either case, therefore,

ἀγάπαις would seem to be the correct reading in 2 Peter ii. 13.” No

doubt the alteration of ἀγάπαις to ἀπάταις is “hard to conceive,” but it

is not inconceivable. As illustrating how a piece of writing may be

misread, it is sufficient to point to Justin’s mistake with regard to

“Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio.”[290] As regards the particular words before

us, I may be allowed to cite my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 47, where I have

referred to the frequent confusion of ἀγαπάω and ἀπατάω, ἀγάπη and ἀπάτη

in manuscripts of the Old Testament. In Ps. lxxviii. 36, for example,

out of more than one hundred manuscripts that have been collated, not

one has preserved the correct reading ἠπάτησαν; all have ἠγάπησαν. In 2

Chron. xviii. 2 again only one has the correct text ἠπάτα. From a

psychological point of view, therefore, it would seem more natural to

suppose that ἀπάταις is the original reading in the passage under

consideration, and ἀγάπαις the transcriptional error. The authorities

for each are distributed as follows:—

ἀγάπαις. ἀπάταις.

2 Peter ii. 13, A^c B m vg, Syr^{phil}, א A* C K L P ...

Syr^{hark. mg}, Sahid. Syr^{hark}, Copt., Arm.

Jude 12, א B K L vg, Sahid., A C 44, 56.

Copt.,

Syr^{phil}, Syr^{hark},

Arm.

In the first edition of this work I said it was strange, considering the

frequent confusion of ἀγάπη and ἀπάτη, that Tischendorf goes by the

majority of his witnesses in the case of 2 Peter ii. 13 (Westcott and

Hort in their text, Weiss, Weymouth, and Baljon all do the same),

“whereas the same word should be read in both cases, and that ἀγάπαις.

Otherwise it would be necessary to suppose that the text was already

corrupt when the one writer used the epistle of the other, no matter

whether Peter or Jude: quod variat, verum esse non potest.” I cannot

understand an argument like that of Kühl (Meyer^6, on 2 Peter ii. 13, p.

428): “ἀπάταις is presumably original in one of the passages, most

likely in 2 Peter, as ἀγάπαις goes better with ὑμῶν in Jude 12 than with

αὐτῶν here. B has ἀγάπαις in both places, and C in the same way ἀπάταις,

which is explainable on the supposition that originally the one word

stood in the one passage and the other in the other. Nearly all recent

expositors favour the reading ἀπάταις in 2 Peter.” I am glad now to have

the powerful support of Zahn in my dissent from that view. Reference may

be made to the excellent article on Jude by F. H. Chase in Hastings’

_Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 799-805. His first paragraph is on the

“Transmission of the Text,” and the article is a model of what such

things should be.[291] On the Philoxenian Syriac see the work of Merx

mentioned above, p. 106 (5). On the rest of the verse, see Zahn,

_Einleitung_, ii. 71. He points out that Tischendorf’s apparatus is

misleading here, as it fails to notice the omission of ὑμῖν by the

Philoxenian Syriac, the Sahidic version, the Speculum of

Pseudo-Augustine (m), and by Pseudo-Cyprian. In his opinion it is an

interpolation due to the συν— of συνευωχούμενοι. These pronouns are very

liable to be interpolated, as is pointed out by Wordsworth and White in

their _Epilogus_, p. 729, where these “additamenta” come next after

“Proper Names”; see above, p. 238.

ii. 15. On Βοσόρ, see p. 243 f.

ii. 22_b_. In Hippolytus, _Refutatio_, ix. 7, we find: μετ’ οὐ πολὺ δὲ

ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν βόρβορον ἀνεκυλίοντο. On the connection of this with 2

Peter ii. 22, see Zahn, _GK._ i. 316. Wendland tried to make out that it

is a saying of Heraclitus. Compare also Clement, Λόγος Προτρεπτικός, x.

96; ὕες γάρ, φασίν, ἥδονται βορβόρῳ μᾶλλον ἢ καθαρῷ ὕδατι, καὶ ἐπὶ

φορυτῷ μαργαίνουσιν κατὰ Δημόκριτον.

iii. 6. The conjectural reading δι’ ὃν for δι’ ὧν Schmiedel thinks well

worthy of consideration. See his _Winer_, § 19.

iii. 10. None of the variants here appears to be the correct reading

(κατακαήσεται in various forms: ἀφανισθήσονται: εὑρεθήσεται). What is

required is a passive form of ῥέω, or one of its compounds (?

διαρρυήσεται).

iii. 16. The article is inserted before ἐπιστολαῖς by א and K L P (“the

Antiochean recension”), but omitted by A B C. Zahn, who would omit it,

points out that ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς would imply a complete

collection of Paul’s Epistles, and would include all the constituents

without exception, whereas without the article the phrase contrasts one

epistle known to the readers with those of all kinds that he had

written. See _Einleitung_, ii. 108. Tischendorf admitted the reading now

favoured by critics in his seventh edition, but rejected it in the

eighth. This same thing occurs not infrequently. See the article on 2

Peter by Chase in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. iii. p. 810.

1 John.

iv. 3. Von der Goltz has shown conclusively what was long a matter of

conjecture, that Origen not only knew the reading ὁ λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν, but

seemingly preferred it; and that Clement also cites the text in this

form in his work on the Passover, which is all but entirely lost. He has

also established anew the reliable nature of the Latin version of

Irenæus in the matter of Biblical quotations. See Zahn in the _ThLbl._,

1899, col. 180; _Einleitung_, ii. 574.

v. 7. The “comma Johanneum” needs no further discussion in an

Introduction to the _Greek_ Testament, but its history on Latin soil is

all the more interesting. The fact that it is still defended even from

the Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of

view. On the decision of the Holy Office, confirmed by the Pope on the

15th January 1897, see Hetzenauer’s edition of the New Testament, and

the notice of it by Dobschütz in the _ThLz._, 1899, No. 10. On the

literature, compare also Kölling (Breslau, 1893); W. Orme’s _Memoir of

the Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7_

(London, 1830), New Edition, with Notes and Appendix by Ezra Abbot (New

York, 1866); C. Forster, _A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of

the Three Heavenly Witnesses_ (Cambridge, 1867); H. T. Armfield, _The

Three Witnesses: The disputed Text in St. John_ (London, 1893).

James.

An Arabic scholion, attributed to Hippolytus, cites this epistle under

the name of Jude. See Zahn, _GK._ i. 320, 2; 323, 3. In two minuscules

cited by Tischendorf, Ἰακώβου is followed by τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ θεοῦ or

ἀδελφοθεοῦ, and in one of the subscriptions by τοῦ ἀδελφοθεοῦ. The

subscription in ff reads “explicit epistola Jacobi filii Zaebedei

(_sic_).” See Zahn’s _Einleitung_, i. 75.

ii. 2. συναγωγὴν appears without the article in א* B C and one of

Scrivener’s minuscules. This reading is accepted by Zahn, who sees in it

an indication that those to whom the epistle is addressed were in

possession of several synagogues, that is supposing the word to mean

_meeting-place_, and not simply assembly, as he himself is inclined to

believe. See _Einleitung_, i. 60, 66.

Jude.

5. This verse exhibits an uncommonly large number of variants. Thus

εἰδότας occurs with or without ὑμᾶς after it; for πάντα we find both

πάντας and τοῦτο; while the position of ἅπαξ varies, the word being

found before πάντα, ὅτι, and λαὸν. But even that is not all. Most recent

editors read ὅτι Κύριος, but we find also ὅτι Ἰησοῦς: ὅτι ὁ θεὸς: and

ὅτι ὁ Κύριος (_textus receptus_). Tischendorf’s apparatus might lead one

to suppose that the witnesses for Ἰησοῦς and ὁ θεὸς omit ὅτι altogether,

but that is not so. The ambiguity is due to the loose way in which the

note is given. Westcott and Hort think it probable that the original

text was ΟΤΙΟ, and that this was read as ΟΤΙΙ̅Ϲ̅, and perhaps as

ΟΤΙΚ̅Ϲ̅. Kühl thinks that the easiest explanation of the variants is to

suppose that κύριος was the original reading, and that Ἰησοῦς and θεὸς

were derived from it. But it seems to me that Zahn has better reason on

his side when he argues for ὅτι Ἰησοῦς as the original reading. He first

of all eliminates ὁ θεὸς as having no great attestation, and as being

found alongside of κύριος in Clement (_dominus deus_). The choice,

therefore, lies between κύριος and Ἰησοῦς. The latter has by far the

stronger external attestation, it is the _lectio ardua_, and is, on

internal grounds, also to be preferred. See _Einleitung_, ii. 88.

22, 23. Zahn has a strong impression that this passage lies at the

foundation of _Didache_, ii. 7: οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ οὓς μὲν

ἐλέγξεις, περὶ δὲ ὧν προσεύξῃ, οὓς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου. If

this is really so, we have here a piece of very early testimony, not

certainly to the actual words, but to the thought conveyed. See

_Einleitung_, ii. 86.

Subscription: At the end of the Armenian Bible of 1698 we find a note to

the effect that “this epistle was written in the year 64 by Judas

Jacobi, who is also called Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus, and who preached the

Gospel to the Armenians and the Persians.”

APOCALYPSE.

Apart from particular passages, the last book of the Bible cannot be

unreservedly recommended to the devout laity for special study, but it

is peculiarly well adapted as an introduction to the method of textual

criticism, and that for two reasons. First of all, because the number of

available witnesses to the text is comparatively small, and, secondly,

because these are more easily grouped here than in the other divisions

of the New Testament. Reference may be made in this connection to the

first part of Bousset’s critical studies on the text of the Apocalypse,

where the distinction drawn by Bengel between the Andreas and Arethas

groups of manuscripts is correctly emphasized. At the same time Bousset

himself comes to the rather unsatisfactory conclusion that an eclectic

mode of procedure is all that is possible at present. An attempt has

been made above (p. 157) with the conclusion of the Apocalypse. We shall

now try a few further examples.

In order to ascertain the relationship of the manuscripts we must

select passages that exhibit a considerable divergence of meaning with

a small variation of form. Such a passage occurs in the last chapter.

In Apoc. xxii. 14, after the words “blessed are they,” we read, in the

one class of witnesses, “that wash their robes,” in the other, “that

do his commandments.” That is to say, we have in the one case

ΟΙΠΛΥΝΟΝΤΕϹΤΑϹϹΤΟΛΑϹΑΥΤΩΝ and in the other ΟΙΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕϹΤΑϹΕ̅ΤΟΛΑϹΑΥΤΟΥ.

The difference is exceedingly small, especially when we consider that

in early times ΟΙ was frequently written Υ, and ΕΝ at the end of a

line Ε̅. I have no doubt that “wash their robes” is the original

reading here and that “do his commandments” is the later alteration,

though, of course, others will hold the opposite view. For the former

we have the authority of א A, for the latter that of Q (_i.e._,

B^{apoc}; see above, p. 80) with its associates. The question now

becomes: Are there any passages where א and A part company, and which

are decisive in favour of א? It is impossible to say offhand whether א

or A has preserved the correct text. א contains corrections that A

does not, and _vice versa_. Take another example.

The author of the Apocalypse follows the Hebrew idiom, according to

which the word or phrase in apposition to an oblique case is put in the

nominative.[292] Thus we have:

ii. 20. τὴν γυναῖκα Ἰεζαβὲλ ἡ λέγουσα. Q makes this ἣ λέγει, and the

corrector of א τὴν λέγουσαν. Similarly, iii. 12, τῆς καινῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἡ

καταβαίνουσα, where again Q has ἣ καταβαίνει, and א^c τῆς καταβαινούσης.

But it is not only the later corrector of א that does this: the first

scribe of that manuscript does it himself. For example:

xiv. 12. א has τῶν τηρούντων instead of οἱ τηροῦντες; in verse 14 ἔχοντα

instead of ἔχων; in xx. 2, τὸν ὄφιν instead of ὁ ὄφις, etc. In other

places A, in this last A _alone_, it appears, has preserved the correct

text.

There are other places, again, where the correct reading is preserved,

perhaps, only in a later manuscript, or in none at all. We may compare

with the idiom in the Apocalypse what we find at the beginning of the

book in the passage about the seven spirits before the throne of God.

i. 4. ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ... ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ. In the space

indicated by the dots Erasmus has ἅ ἐστιν, Codex 36 has ἅ εἰσιν, Q and C

have ἃ, which is adopted by Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, א and A

have τῶν, which is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, and by Westcott and

Hort in their margin, while Codex 80 has nothing at all. All these

variants are explainable on the supposition that the original reading

was τὰ. Exception being taken to this construction, one copyist made it

τῶν, the other ἃ, the third supplied the copula, and the fourth dropped

the offending word altogether. Similarly, in chap. v. 13, א alone has

preserved the correct reading τὸ, for which the others have ὃ or ὅ

ἐστιν. Another case is ii. 13, where the writer wished to say, “in the

days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was slain.” According to the

idiom mentioned above, while Ἀντίπα was in the genitive, ὁ μάρτυς would

be in the nominative of apposition. But owing to the influence of this

nominative, Ἀντίπα was made nominative so as to agree with it, and the

sentence then ran, ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἀντίπας ὁ μάρτυς μου ... ὃς ... which

could not be construed. The consequence was corrections of all sorts.

The boldest expedient was simply to drop the ὃς, but other means were

adopted to relieve the construction. After ἡμέραις some inserted αἷς or

ἐν αἷς, Erasmus read ἐμαῖς, א has ἐν ταῖς, and some Latin witnesses

_illis_. But read Ἀντίπα in the genitive and all is in order.[293]

The Apocalypse presents quite a number of passages enabling us to

distinguish the manuscripts. There is very little difference in form

between λύσαντι and λούσαντι (i. 5), ἀετοῦ and ἀγγέλου (viii. 13), λίθον

and λίνον (xv. 6), but it makes a great difference whether we read “who

redeemed us” or “who washed us,” an “eagle flying” or “an angel flying,”

“wearing pure linen” or “wearing pure stone.” These variations are the

result of _accidental_ errors in transcription. But we meet an instance

of _intentional_ alteration in xiii. 18, where the number of the beast

is variously given as 666 and 616.

Grouping the witnesses for the former variants we have—

i. 5. λύσαντι, א A C, Syriac,[294] Armenian.

λούσαντι, Q P, Vulgate, Coptic,

Ethiopic.

viii. 13. ἀετοῦ, א A Q, Vulgate, Syriac,

Coptic, Ethiopic.

ἀγγέλου, P, Armenian.

The two readings are combined not only by certain commentators, but in

some manuscripts, ἀγγέλου ὡς ἀετοῦ.

xv. 6. λίθον καθαρόν, A C, am fu demid

tol.

λίνον καθαρόν, P, Syriac, Armenian,

Clementine-Vulgate.

λινοῦν καθαρόν is read by Q, and

καθαροὺς λίνους by

א.

Tregelles and Westcott alone accept the reading λίθον; all the other

editors regard it as an early transcriptional error. Holtzmann refers to

the parallel passages i. 13, iv. 4, vii. 9, 13, xvii. 4, xviii. 16, xix.

8, 14, in support of λίνον, but they point rather the other way. For

“fine linen” Apocalypse has βύσσινος five times, but never once λίνος,

which means only the material, and not the garment made of it. Moreover,

we find a parallel in the Old Testament, though in another connection,

in Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where we read πάντα λίθον χρηστὸν ἐνδέδεσαι, so

that λίθον here must not be so confidently rejected. Λίθον was more

liable to be changed to λίνον than _vice versa_, as the Vulgate shows,

in which the authorised printed edition has _linteo_ where the

manuscripts read _lapidem_. At the same time one cannot but admit that

primitive transcriptional errors do occur. The reading ἀγγέλου in viii.

13, to which certain manuscripts prefix ἑνὸς, seems to me to be

corroborated by _ἄλλον_ ἄγγελον πετόμενον in xiv. 6. Or are we to read

ἀετόν there in the face of all the witnesses?

v. 1. The correct text here is that adopted by Zahn: γεγραμμένον ἔσωθεν

καὶ ὄπισθεν κατεσφραγισμένον. Grotius, though mistaken as to the true

text, was the first to give the right interpretation of the words by

taking ἔσω (ἔσωθεν) with γεγραμμένον, and ἔξωθεν (ὄπισθεν) with

κατεσφραγισμένον. “Locus sic distinguendus γεγραμμένον ἔσω, καὶ ἔξωθεν

κατεσφραγισμένον.” This combination of the words (“haec nova

distinctio”) was combated for the reason among others that it deprived

them of all their force and rendered them superfluous, for who ever saw

a roll that was written on the outside and sealed on the inside. See

Pole’s _Synopsis_, where it is said of Grotius, “tam infelix interpres

Apocalypseos est magnus ille Hugo in rebus minusculis.” Zahn

(_Einleitung_, ii. 596) improves the text of Grotius, but retains his

connection of the words. He holds that ἔσωθεν and ὄπισθεν are not

correlative terms, and that the idea of a papyrus roll written on both

sides (ὀπισθόγραφον) must be abandoned; compare above, p. 43, n. 2. The

book was, in fact, not a roll but a codex. Two things point to this.

There is, first, the fact that is said to be ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιὰν. Had it been

a roll it would have been ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ. Moreover, the word used for

opening the book is ἀνοῖξαι, and not, as in the case of rolls,

ἀνελίσσειν, ἀνειλεῖν, or ἀναπτύσσειν. That it was not written on the

outside is also shown by the fact that it was sealed with seven seals,

the purpose of which was to make the reading of the book impossible. Not

till the seventh seal is broken is the book open and its contents

displayed. This βιβλίον is quite different from the βιβλαρίδιον

mentioned in chapter x. 2, 9. See also E. Huschke, _Das Buch mit 7

Siegeln_ (1860), to which Zahn refers (_lib. cit._ 597).

ix. 17. For ὑακινθίνους Primasius has _spineas_ (= ἀκανθίνους), a

reading which neither Bousset nor Baljon, strange to say, think worth

recording. Bousset rightly observes that in the following verse πῦρ

corresponds to πύρινος, and θεῖον to θειώδης, so that καπνός lets us see

what the writer understood as the colour of hyacinth—viz. the colour of

smoke. But the ideas of “thorns” (_spineae_) and “smoke” are even more

closely related.

xiii. 18. Irenæus found 616 given as the number of the beast in some

manuscripts, which he could only explain as a transcriptional error:

“hoc autem arbitror scriptorum peccatum fuisse ut solet fieri quoniam et

per literas numeri ponuntur, facile literam Graecam quae sexaginta

enuntiat numerum in _iota_ Graecorum literam expansam.” In reality,

however, the change from ξ to ι would be a contraction rather than an

expansion, and the alteration would seem to be intentional, seeing that

666 in Hebrew characters gives the Greek form Neron Kesar, and 616 the

Latin Nero Kesar. Irenæus himself, however, appeals to the fact that the

number 666 was found ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις,

μαρτυρούντων αὐτῶν ἐκείνων τῶν κατ’ ὄψιν τὸν Ἰωάννην ἑωρακότων (v. 30,

1-3). The opening words in the Latin translation run, “in omnibus

antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis.” The subscription

which he himself appended to his own principal work (see above, p. 149)

shows how scrupulously exact he was with respect to ἀντίγραφα, so that

we may give him credit for having consulted old and reliable manuscripts

of the Apocalypse. The erroneous reading (616) is now found only in C

and two minuscules (5 and 11).

xxii. 11. The only authorities cited by Tischendorf in support of the

reading δικαιωθήτω (in place of δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω) are the two

minuscules 38 and 79 and the Clementine Vulgate. But we find the passage

alluded to in the epistle which the Church of Lyons wrote giving an

account of the Martyrdom of the year 177: ἵνα πληρωθῇ ἡ γραφή· ὁ ἄνομος

ἀνομησάτω ἔτι, καὶ ὁ δίκαιος δικαιωθήτω ἔτι (apud Euseb., _Eccles.

Hist._, v. 1, 58). This lends such support to the reading δικαιωθήτω in

Apoc. xxii. 11, that Zahn not unnaturally speaks of it as “certainly the

original text” (_GK._ i. 201). E. A. Abbott places the date of the

Epistle of the Church of Lyons as early as 155 (see _Expositor_, 1896,

i. 111-126). Another aspect would be given to the question if the Greek

form of the Epistle were derived from a Latin, or if, as Resch supposed,

the words were a quotation of a saying of Jesus (_Agrapha_, § 133, p.

263 ff.).