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