chapter I

have cited a number of Marcion’s readings from Zahn’s work, with the hope that these will now earn a fuller recognition in our theological commentaries. See _e.g._ on Luke xviii. 20; xxiii. 2; xxiv. 37; 1 Cor. vi. 20; xiv. 19.

Footnote 218:

See Literature on p. 105 f., to which add Westcott, _Canon_, Part I. c. iv. § 10.

Footnote 219:

Defending the plurality of the canonical Gospels against the Marcionites, he says: τὸ ἀληθῶς διὰ τεσσάρων ἕν ἐστιν εὐαγγέλιον (_Philocalia_, ed. Robinson, 47; Zahn, _GK._ i. 412; PRE^3, v. 654). From what Origen says, _Contra Celsum_, vi. 51, it would seem that he himself heard Tatian.

Footnote 220:

Euseb., _Hist. Eccl._, iv. 29, with reference to the Encratites: Χρῶνται μὲν οὖν οὗτοι Νόμῳ καὶ Προφήταις καὶ Εὐαγγελίοις (Syriac has אונגליון), ἰδίως ἑρμηνεύοντες τῶν ἱερῶν τὰ νοήματα γραφῶν ... βλασφημοῦντες δὲ Παῦλον τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀθετοῦσιν αὐτοῦ τὰς Ἐπιστολὰς, μηδὲ τὰς Πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων καταδεχόμενοι. ὁ μέντοι γε πρότερος αὐτῶν ἀρχηγὸς ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως τῶν Εὐαγγελίων συνθεὶς Τὸ Διὰ Τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν· ὃ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι φέρεται. Τοῦ δὲ Ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνὰς ὡς ἐπιδιορθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν. Καταλέλοιπε δὲ οὗτος πολύ τι πλῆθος γραμμάτων κ.τ.λ. In the Syriac version it runs: But this Tatian, their first head, collected and combined and framed a (_or_, the) אונגליון and called it דיטסרון, that is “the combined,” which is in the possession of many till this day. And it is said of him that he ventured to alter certain phrases of the Apostle (the plural points in the Syriac are to be omitted) as with the object of amending the composition of the phrases. And he has left many writings, etc.

Footnote 221:

Epiphan., _Haeret._, 46, 1 (Pet. 391): λέγουσι δὲ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων Εὐαγγέλιον ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ὅπερ κατὰ Ἑβραίους τινὲς καλοῦσι.

Footnote 222:

Minuscule Evan. 72 (Harleianus 5647 of the eleventh century) on Matt. xxvii. 48: ση[μείωσαι] ὅτι εἰς τὸ καθ’ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διοδώρου καὶ Τατιανοῦ καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων τοῦτο προσκεῖται. Instead of Διοδώρου, Harnack-Preuschen (i. 493), read Διαδώρου, whether rightly or not I do not know. Nothing being known of the historical Gospel of one Diodorus, it is natural enough to conjecture (Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 28) that the reading should be διὰ δ’, but what becomes then of ωρου καὶ? Harnack suggests διὰ δ’ Σύρου Τατιανοῦ, but see Zahn, _Forsch._, ii. 298. The omission of the article before διὰ δ’ is a difficulty.

Footnote 223:

In his Ἐπιτομὴ αἱρετικῆς κακομυθίας (i. 20; vol. iv. 312), written in the year 453, he says at the end of the chapter on Tatian:—οὗτος καὶ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων καλούμενον συντέθεικεν εὐαγγέλιον, τάς τε γενεαλογίας περικόψας καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα γεγεννημένον τὸν κύριον δείκνυσιν, ἐχρήσαντο δὲ τούτῳ οὐ μόνοι οἱ τῆς ἐκείνου συμμορίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ τοῖς ἀποστολικοῖς ἑπόμενοι δόγμασι, τὴν τῆς συνθήκης κακουργίαν οὐκ ἐγνωκότες, ἀλλ’ ἁπλούστερον ὡς συντόμῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ χρησάμενοι. Εὗρον δὲ κἀγὼ πλείους ἢ διακοσίας βίβλους τοιαύτας ἐν ταῖς παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐκκλησίαις τετιμημένας, καὶ πάσας συναγαγὼν ἀπεθέμην καὶ τὰ τῶν τεττάρων εὐαγγελιστῶν ἀντεισήγαγον.

Footnote 224:

See Hamlyn Hill, _Earliest Life of Christ_, etc., p. 324; Hope W. Hogg, Ante-Nicene Library, Additional Volume.

Footnote 225:

See _Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten_, 1882, pp. 196-218, and, on the other side, Zahn, _Forschungen_, ii. 292 ff.

Footnote 226:

_The Diatessaron of Tatian: a Preliminary Study_, 1890.

Footnote 227:

See _ThLz._, 1891, col. 356.

Footnote 228:

It is not clear whether Harnack gives this as his own opinion or not. For a reading of cod. W^d, akin to that of Tatian, see below on Mark vii. 33, p. 264.

Footnote 229:

Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Additional Volume, p. 38.

Footnote 230:

See _Forschungen_, i. 130, 140, 216, 228 f., 237, 248, 263.

Footnote 231:

London, Macmillan, 1895.

Footnote 232:

_Forschungen_, i. 179.

Footnote 233:

This will be found most conveniently in Hogg’s translation—Ante-Nicene Library, Additional Volume.

Footnote 234:

_Cf._ p. 393: “To judge from Ephraem’s Commentary, the Diatessaron contains scarcely as much apocryphal matter as Codex Cantabrigiensis of the Gospels and Acts.”

Footnote 235:

In his _N. T. um 200_, p. 108, Harnack treats Zahn’s interpretation of the words of Eusebius as a bad blunder. The latter defends himself by saying among other things that it is not quite clear whether Eusebius himself was aware of the double meaning of the word _μεταφράσαι_ which was employed in the tradition (he says _φασι_) reported to him. He thinks that Rufinus might be said to have “paraphrased” certain commentaries of Origen, correcting his thought and phraseology in many places. True, but in Eusebius it is _φωνάς τινας τοῦ ἀποστόλου_, not whole epistles, that Tatian is said to have “metaphrased.”

Footnote 236:

On the words of Jerome (_ad Tit. praef._, vii. 686), “Sed Tatianus Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam credidit, parvipendens Marcionis et aliorum qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt assertionem,” compare Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 6, _GK._ i. 426.

Footnote 237:

_Introd._, ii. § 170, p. 120. On all accounts the Western text claims our attention first. The earliest readings which can be fixed chronologically belong to it. As far as we can judge from extant evidence, it was the most widely-spread text of Ante-Nicene times; and sooner or later every version directly or indirectly felt its influence. But any prepossessions in its favour that might be created by this imposing early ascendancy are for the most part soon dissipated by continuous study of its internal character. The eccentric Whiston’s translation of the Gospels and Acts from the Codex Bezae, and of the Pauline Epistles from the Codex Claromontanus, and Bornemann’s edition of the Acts, in which the Codex Bezae was taken as the standard authority, are probably the only attempts which have ever been made in modern times to set up an exclusively, or even predominantly, Western Greek text as the purest reproduction of what the Apostles wrote. This all but universal rejection is doubtless

## partly owing to the persistent influence of a whimsical theory of the

last century, which, ignoring all non-Latin Western documentary evidence except the handful of extant bilingual uncials, maintained that the Western Greek text owed its peculiarities to translation from the Latin; partly to an imperfect apprehension of the antiquity and extension of the Western text as revealed by Patristic quotations and by versions. Yet even with the aid of a true perception of the facts of Ante-Nicene textual history, it would have been strange if this text, as a whole, had found much favour. A few scattered Western readings have long been approved by good textual critics on transcriptional and to a great extent insufficient grounds; and in Tischendorf’s last edition their number has been augmented, owing to the misinterpreted accession of the Sinai MS. to the attesting documents. To one small and peculiar class of Western readings, exclusively omissions, we shall ourselves have to call attention as having exceptional claims to adoption.

§ 202 (p. 149). In spite of the prodigious amount of error which D contains, these readings, in which it sustains and is sustained by other documents derived from very ancient texts of other types, render it often invaluable for the secure recovery of the true text; and, apart from this direct applicability, no other single source of evidence, except the quotations of Origen, surpasses it in value on the equally important ground of historical or indirect instructiveness. To what extent its unique readings are due to licence on the part of the scribe rather than to faithful reproduction of an antecedent text now otherwise lost, it is impossible to say; but it is remarkable how frequently the discovery of fresh evidence, especially Old-Latin evidence, supplies a second authority for readings in which D had hitherto stood alone.

§ 240 (p. 175). On the other hand there remain, as has been before intimated (§ 170), a few other Western readings of similar form, which we cannot doubt to be genuine in spite of the exclusively Western character of their attestation. They are all omissions, or, to speak more correctly, non-interpolations of various length, that is to say, the original record has here, to the best of our belief, suffered interpolation in all the extant non-Western texts.... With a single peculiar exception (Matt. xxvii. 49), in which the extraneous words are omitted by the Syrian as well as by the Western text, the Western non-interpolations are confined to the last three chapters of St. Luke.

§ 241. These exceptional instances of the preservation of the original text in exclusively Western readings are likely to have had an exceptional origin.

In the edition of 1896, the surviving editor (Westcott) appends an Additional Note which contains a further exceedingly valuable admission in the same direction. It is as follows:—

Note to p. 121, § 170 (p. 328): “The Essays of Dr. Chase on _The Syriac Element in Codex Bezae_, Cambridge, 1893, and _The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels_, Cambridge, 1895, are a most important contribution to the solution of a fundamental problem in the history of the text of the N.T. The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. of the Old Syriac raises the question whether the combination of the oldest types of the Syriac and Latin texts can outweigh the combination of the primary Greek texts. A careful examination of the passages in which Syr^{sin} and k are arrayed against א B, would point to the conclusion.” [The proper title of Chase’s Essays is The Old Syriac, under which shorter (outside) title Zahn also quotes them (_Einl._, ii. 348).] This statement by Westcott sounds strange after the remark made in the Preface. “For the rest,” he says there, “I may perhaps be allowed to say that no arguments have been advanced against the general principles maintained in the Introduction and illustrated in the Notes since the publication of the First Edition, which were not fully considered by Dr. Hort and myself in the long course of our work, and in our judgment dealt with accurately.—Auckland Castle, March 27, 1896. B. F. D.”

Footnote 238:

See my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 3, where I have cited this passage of Lagarde. His book may not be very accessible to textual critics.

Footnote 239:

“Thou shalt worship no manuscripts” was one of the ten commandments that Lehrs gave philologists.

Footnote 240:

This passage was the subject of a heated discussion between Severus and Macedonius at Constantinople in the year 510. On this occasion the superb copy of Matthew’s Gospel, which had been discovered in the grave of Barnabas in the reign of the Emperor Zeno, was brought upon the scene.

Footnote 241:

Compare what Westcott and Hort say of Whiston and Bornemann, cited above, p. 222, and particularly the section on the twofold recension of the Acts in Zahn’s _Einleitung_, ii. § 59, pp. 338-359. See also Burkitt’s Introduction to Barnard’s _Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria_ (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5), especially p. xviii: “Let us come out of the land of Egypt, which speaks, as Clement’s quotations show, with such doubtful authority, and let us see whether the agreement of East and West, of Edessa and Carthage, will not give us a surer basis upon which to establish our text of the Gospels.”

Footnote 242:

Attention may be directed in passing to the interesting way in which the witnesses are distributed. Thus we have in verse 51, for the omission of καὶ ἀνεφερ. εἰς τ. οὐρ. א* D Syr^{sin} a b d e ff l*, Aug. ½; verse 52, omit προσκυν· αὐτόν, D Syr^{sin} a b d e ff l, Aug. 1/1; verse 53, αἰνοῦντες for εὐλογοῦντες D a b d e ff l r (Aug.); (Syr^{sin} here has מברכין, not משבחין which represents αἰνοῦντες in Luke ii. 13, 20, xix. 37, and, therefore, must have read εὐλογοῦντες in this passage). Now I ask, is it right to accept the testimony of D and its associates in verse 52, only to reject it in verse 53? And what amount of weight is added to the testimony of D by the addition of that of א*? Schiller says in _Tell_: “The strong is mightiest alone: united e’en the weak are strong”—how far are both these notions true in textual criticism?

Footnote 243:

So Graefe, but it is not apparent whether the καὶ that belongs to this reading is to be supplied before it or after. Evidently he intends to read αἰν. καὶ εὐλογ. with the great majority of witnesses, and not εὐλογ. καὶ αἰν. with the Ethiopic version. See _Th. St. Kr._, 1898, i. 136 f. The passage is regarded by Westcott and Hort as a good example of “conflation,” § 146.

Footnote 244:

See now _Textkritik der vier Evangelien_, pp. 48, 181.

Footnote 245:

Αἰνεῖν is not given in Cremer’s _Dictionary_ among the synonyms of εὐλογεῖν, and is only cited on p. 610 with the reading αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες from this passage.

Footnote 246:

See Hilgenfeld, _Das Apostel-Concil nach seinem ursprünglichen Wortlaute_ in the _ZfwTh._, 42 (1899), 1, 138-149.

Footnote 247:

Harnack, _Das Aposteldecret_ (Acta xv. 29) _und die Blass’sche Hypothese_, Berlin, 1899. From the _Sitzungsberichte der preuss. Akad. der Wiss._ Noticed in the _Expository Times_ for June 1899, p. 395 f. See also the _Berliner philologische Wochenschrift_ of the 13th May 1899.

Footnote 248:

See critical note in the _Expositor’s Greek Testament_ (Knowling), _in loco_.

Footnote 249:

_Cf._ the passage of Hermas cited above, p. 47.

Footnote 250:

A good example is seen in Ezek. xvi. 3. In the Sixtine edition of 1586 a new page (692) occurs in the middle of the sentence διαμαρτυρον τη Ιερουσαλημ τας ανομιας αυτης ταδε λεγει κυριος τη Ιερουσαλημ, with the result that the eight words from the first Ιερουσαλημ to the second are printed twice by a recessive homoioteleuton, while in Codex 62 they have dropped out altogether owing to a forward error of the same sort. The former mistake is tacitly corrected in all reprints, but the latter could not be detected from the context alone without other testimony. Compare also Mark ix. 10 in codex T of the Vulgate and ff of the Old Latin. In the former the passage from _resurrexit_ to _resurrexit_ is repeated, in the latter it is omitted.

Footnote 251:

I had a teacher once who invariably tried to get over any difficulty in the Greek classics by saying that the text was corrupted by homoioteleuton. We did not always agree with him; he was perhaps a little too ready with this way out of a difficulty, but any one with experience knows how very apt this mistake is to occur.

Footnote 252:

This applies to printed editions as well as to manuscripts. Van Ess’s reprint of the Sixtine Septuagint (1824) is very carefully done, yet five words have dropped out in Joel iii. 9. These are omitted in all the later editions of 1835, 1855 (novis curis correcta), 1868, and 1879, and were only supplied by myself in 1887 on the occasion of the third centenary of the Sixtine edition. They are omitted in Tischendorf’s first edition of 1850, and also in the second of 1856.

Footnote 253:

In ancient times people always read aloud, even when reading by themselves.

Footnote 254:

Scrivener would explain the “remarkable confusion” of the two prepositions προ and προσ, when compounded with verbs, which we meet _e.g._ in Matt. xxvi. 39; Mark xiv. 35; Acts xii. 6; xvii. 5, 26; xx. 5, 13; xxii. 25, by saying that the symbol [Symbol: an abbreviation made of a rho character written on top of a block with three lines.] is used indifferently for προ and προσ in the Herculanean rolls, and here and there in Codex Sinaiticus. Seeing that it has become a bad habit in Hebrew Grammars to speak of Aleph _prostheticum_ instead of _protheticum_, and that the practice is still defended (Gesenius-Kautzsch^{26}, p. 64, n. 3, “rightly so”) after my notice of it (_Marginalien_, p. 67), I have given some little attention to this confusion, and could cite dozens of examples. Others, of course, have noticed it as well as myself. In his _N.T._, i. 20, B. Weiss says: “The compounds with προ and προσ are interchanged quite heedlessly,” and he cites in proof of this eight passages from the Acts. He writes similarly in ii. 34. I shall instance only one or two cases in connection with this same word πρόθεσις. Pitra on _Apost. Const._, 5, 17 (p. 325): πρόθεσιν restituimus cum Vatican. 2, 3, 4, 5, vulgo πρόσθεσιν; Excerpta Περὶ Παθῶν, ed. R. Schneider (_Programme of Duisburg_, 1895), where the manuscripts deviate in five passages, pp. 5, 14. 20; 6, 5; 13, 7. 13, and we read in § 10, ἀντίκειται δὲ πρόσθεσις μὲν ἀφαιρέσει, etc., and in § 11, πρόσθεσις μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ προσθήκη στοιχείου κατ’ ἀρχήν, οἷον σταφίς, ἀσταφίς καὶ ὀσταφίς. Both times, of course, it should be πρόθεσις, as the better manuscripts have it. Wherever mention is made of the “shewbread,” D invariably turns it into “extra bread,” by reading προσθέσεως instead of προθέσεως. Tischendorf first called attention to this in Luke vi. 4, but it occurs also in Matt. xii. 4. I have no doubt myself that in the case of verbal forms, the σ was inserted in order to avoid the hiatus before the augment. Compare προσέθηκεν for προέθηκεν, Ex. xxiv. 23; προσέθηκας, Ps. lxxxix. 8, Symmachus; προανεθέμην or προσανεθέμην, Gal. i. 16. In Wisdom, vii. 27, the first hand of Sinaiticus even writes προσφήτας for prophets. It is disputed whether the title of one of Philo’s books is προπαιδεύματα or πρὸς [τὰ] παιδεύματα. Etc. etc. _Sapienti sat._

Footnote 255:

We find all the possible permutations of the words αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς in John viii. 12. See my note on Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus (N) in Hilgenfeld’s _Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie_, 42 (1899), p. 623.

Footnote 256:

See Harnack, _Das Magnificat der Elisabeth_ (Lukas i. 46-55) in the _Berliner Sitzungsberichte_ of the 17th May 1900, p. 538 ff. A good example of how glosses may creep into the text is afforded by Philo “Quod det.” 11 (Cohn, 1, 266).

Footnote 257:

On the influence of a system of pericopæ on the text of Codex D, see Scrivener’s Introduction to his edition of the manuscript, p. li, and Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 355.

Footnote 258:

See Semler’s edition of _J. J. Wetsteinii libelli ad crisin atque interpretationem N.T._, Halae, 1766.

Footnote 259:

(1) Lectio quae in veteribus latinis non apparet probabilior est. (2) Codices qui cum graecis א B L concordant plerumque textum Hieronymianum ostendunt.

Footnote 260:

In view of the frequency with which the witnesses fluctuate between ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν, ἡμῖν and ὑμῖν, etc., it is impossible to adjust their claims on any mere arithmetical principle. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 61) calls attention to an important consideration in support of the reading ὑμῖν in 2 Peter i. 4, which applies to other passages as well—viz., “that when the New Testament epistles were read at divine service, ἡμεῖς would very readily and very frequently be substituted for ὑμεῖς, which excluded the reader or preacher.” Compare Acts iv. 12: ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι—, ἡμᾶς or ὑμᾶς?

It might be laid down as a second rule in this connection, that

## particular importance attaches to those versions in which the

distinction of the persons does not depend simply on a single letter but on a separate word (_nobis_: _vobis_, etc.). In versions of this sort the original reading is preserved from the first; in the case of the others, the change could be made at any point of the transmission, especially when it was helped by the nature of the writing, which must also, of course, be taken into account.

A glance over the verse enumeration in the margin of one of the modern editions of the text will reveal, perhaps, most clearly how strong is the tendency to interpolation. Of the verses into which Stephen divided the Greek N.T. (1551), the Stuttgart edition omits entirely the following from the Synoptic Gospels—viz., Matt. xviii. 11 (xxi. 44, Tischen.), xxiii. 14; Mark vii. 16; ix. 44, 46; xi. 26; xv. 28; Luke xvii. 36 (xxi. 18, W-H margin); xxiii. 17 (xxiv. 12, 40, Tisch.). Compare also Matt. xx. 28; xxvii. 35, 38, 49; Mark vi. 11; xiii. 2; Luke vi. 5; ix. 55; xii. 21; xix. 45; xxi. 38; xxii. 19 f., 43 f., 47; xxiii. 2, 5, 34, 48, 53; xxiv. 5, 36, 51, 52. In the case of several verses this or that part had to be omitted. Luke xx. 30, _e.g._, is reduced to the three words, καὶ ὁ δεύτερος, with the result that it becomes the shortest verse in the N.T.

Footnote 261:

The best discussion of the form Ἀπελλῆς will again be found in Zahn, _Einl._, i. 193.

Footnote 262:

See my note in the _Expository Times_ for July 1900, p. 478, where I have brought forward a new witness for the reading Jonatha—viz., Jerome’s _Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum_. He explains the word as “_columba dans_ vel _columba veniens_.”

Footnote 263:

Volck has an article of four and a half pages on Balaam in the PRE^3, iii. 227 ff., but he says not a syllable about the form βοσόρ, which is too bad. In Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_ it is at least mentioned though not explained.

Footnote 264:

בער is explained as the Hebrew form of the Aramaic בעור by C. B. Michaelis (_De Paronomasia_, § 30); Hiller, _Onomasticum_, 1706, p. 536; and Bernardus (in Marck, _In praecipuas quasdam partes Pentateuchi Commentarius_, Leyden, 1713, 366). Marck himself makes it the equivalent of פתור. M. M. Kalish, _Bible Studies_, i. _The prophecies of Bileam_, London, 1877, contributes nothing to the solution of the question.

CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

THE GOSPEL.

Matthew.

With regard to the title, Westcott and Hort say (_Introduction_, § 423, p. 321): “In prefixing the name ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ in the singular to the quaternion of ‘the Gospels,’ we have wished to supply the antecedent which alone gives an adequate sense to the preposition ΚΑΤΑ in the several titles. The idea, if not the name, of a collective ‘Gospel’ is implied throughout the well-known passage in the third book of Irenæus, who doubtless received it from earlier generations. It evidently preceded and produced the commoner usage by which the term Gospel denotes a single written representation of the one fundamental Gospel.” Compare Zahn, _GK._, i. 106 ff.; _Einleitung_, ii. 172 ff., 178 f.: “Of recent editors, Westcott and Hort have most faithfully interpreted the original idea by setting Εὐαγγέλιον on the fly-leaf, and κατὰ Μαθθαῖον, etc., over the separate books.” I have followed the same principle in the Table of Contents prefixed to the Stuttgart edition of the New Testament. Compare above, pp. 164, 165. On the spelling Μαθθαῖος, instead of Ματθαῖος, compare on the one hand the LXX. manuscripts, which exhibit the forms Μαθανιά, Μαθθανιά, Ματθανιά; Ματταθίας, Ματθαθίας, Μαθθαθίας (see Supplement I. to Hatch and Redpath’s _Concordance to the Septuagint_), and on the other, Blass’s _Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch_, § 3, 11 (English Trans. by Thackeray, 1898, p. 11).

i. 16. There are three forms of the text here—

(1) Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός: all our Greek uncials and almost all the minuscules.

(2) Ἰωσήφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαρία ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν (τὸν λεγόμενον) Χριστόν: most of the Old Latin (a d g_{1} k q, with b c similarly), Curetonian Syriac, Armenian, and four minuscules—viz., 346, 556, 624, 626, with slight divergencies.

(3) Ἰωσήφ· Ἰωσὴφ δὲ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα (or μεμνηστευμένη?) ἦν παρθένος Μαρία, ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν: the form underlying the newly-discovered Sinai-Syriac.[265]

These readings are discussed in the “Additional Note” to _Notes on Select Readings_, Westcott and Hort, _Introduction_ (1896), p. 140 ff. Reading (2) is dismissed on external grounds as displaying the characteristic features of the “Western” type of text. Reading (3) is regarded as independent of (2), neither confirming it nor confirmed by it. Taken therefore on its own merits, it must yield to the received text (1), as it is easier to suppose that (3) is derived from (1) than _vice versa_.

Zahn goes fully into these various forms (_Einleitung_, ii. 291-293). He begins by saying that it is impossible, except on a very loose view of the facts, to conclude that the Sinai-Syriac here preserves the original text, which was gradually displaced for dogmatic reasons by the modified form presented in (2), and ultimately by that given in (1). On the contrary, the Curetonian-Syriac preserves an early form of text, and one that had a pretty wide circulation, so that it cannot be due to an orthodox alteration of the Sinai-Syriac. “If it be the case that the latter, like the former, is derived from a Greek original, and that these two earliest versions of the ‘Distinct’ Gospel are not independent of each other but are two recensions of a single version, then it follows that the recension which agrees exactly with a demonstrably old Greek text (in this case the Curetonian Syriac) preserves the original form of the Syriac version; while, on the other hand, the one which deviates from all the Greek, Latin, and other forms of the transmitted text (in this case the Sinai-Syriac) is derived from the other by a process of intentional alteration.” There would be nothing to object to this reasoning were it not that, as it seems to me, there is a flaw in the second of the premises stated above, which of course vitiates the conclusion. In the main, it is true that the Sinai-Syriac and the Curetonian are not independent, but two recensions of a single version, but their common original was, as Zahn himself was the first to suggest, Tatian’s Diatessaron, which did not contain the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. So that the Sinai-Syriac may also go back to a Greek text (such as has been discovered in the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_, see above, p. 99), and be earlier than the Curetonian.

Zahn concludes his examination of this passage by saying: “We may give up all hope of finding in early manuscripts and versions any indication that Joseph was regarded as the natural father of Jesus by the writers of lost Gospels which may have been employed in the composition of the canonical Matthew and Luke. A writer like Matthew, whose purpose was to silence the calumnies raised against the miraculous birth of the Messiah, and who knew how to utilise the smallest details of an intractable genealogy to this end, cannot at the same time have accepted in his narrative statements directly contradicting his view of that occurrence. Any text of Matthew’s Gospel containing such features would be pre-condemned as one that had been tampered with in a manner contrary to the conception of the author.”

i. 18. The reading γένεσις is now supported by the newly-discovered Oxyrhynchus Papyrus. It was adopted in the text by Vignon (Geneva, 1574). Origen knew no other reading than γέννησις, which is also attested by L (Codex D is defective here). Westcott and Hort have accordingly given it a place in their Appendix. Weiss explains it as an alteration made in conformity with the verbal forms ἐγέννησε, ἐγεννήθη, occurring in the previous part of the chapter. Zahn (_Einleitung_, ii. 270, 289) thinks it is probably original. The two oldest and the latest Syriac have a different word here from that in i. 1. These agree with Irenæus in the omission of Ἰησοῦ. Zahn thinks this is probably correct.

i. 25. On πρωτότοκον, see above, p. 166, and the _Oxford Debate_, p. 4 ff.

v. 25. On ἀντίδικος = בעלדינא, see Lagarde, _De Novo_, 20 (_Ges. Abhdl._, 188); quem Matthaei locum quum imitaretur et rideret Lucianus in Navigio 35, ἀντίδικος non ferebat: ἕως ἔτι καθ’ ὁδόν εἰσιν οἱ πολέμιοι, ἐπιχειρῶμεν αὐτοῖς.

vi. 1. δικαιοσύνην, א* B D Syr^{sin}: ἐλεημοσύνην, most authorities: δόσιν א^a: “your gifts,” Syr^{cu}. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 311) asks whether these variants may not go back to a time when the Aramaic Gospel was interpreted orally in these different ways? The agreement exhibited between א^a and Syr^{cu} is particularly strange.

vi. 13. There is a considerable amount of unanimity now with regard to the doxology which used to be so much discussed. Among the witnesses supporting its insertion are Syr^{cu}, which, however, omits καὶ ἡ δύναμις, and the Sahidic, which omits καὶ ἡ δόξα. Syr^{sin} is unfortunately lost here. In addition to the testimony previously known for the insertion of the Doxology, there is now that of the _Teaching of the Apostles_, one of the earliest Church writings. But the very fact that the _Teaching_ is a Church work reveals the source of the Doxology—viz. liturgical use. The Conclusion was early added in Church worship from Old Testament analogies; in the First Gospel it is out of place. The Greek manuscripts from which Jerome made his version knew nothing of it, and accordingly the Catholic Church omits it to this day. Luther also passed it over in his Catechism, in which the exposition of the Conclusion is limited to the word “Amen,” and says, “it is added that I may have the assurance that my prayer will be heard.” In the Greek Church the Amen was explained as equivalent to γένοιτο, “so may it be.”

viii. 7. Fritzsche (1826) took this verse as a question of surprise. This view has been renewed by Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 307).

viii. 24. The words “erat enim ventus contrarius eis,” which are found in one manuscript of the Vulgate in W-W after “mari,” and in four after “fluctibus,” are an interpolation from Mark vi. 48. Tischendorf cites two Greek minuscules in support of it. Lagarde’s Vienna Arabic manuscript (see p. 143) mentions it as an addition of the “Roman” version.

xi. 19. Schlottman and Lagarde explain the variation between ἔργα and τέκνα as a confusion of the Aramaic עַבְדָּא (_servant_: παῖς) and עְַבָדָא (_work_). See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 311 f., and compare also Salmon, _Some Thoughts etc._, p. 121 f. It is still to be shown, however, that τέκνα is ever used as the equivalent of עַבְדָּא. Hilgenfeld (_ZfwTh._, 42. 4, p. 629) refers to 4 Esdras vii. 64 (134), where the Latin and the first Arabic version read “quasi suis _operibus_,” the Ethiopic “quasi _filiis_ suis,” and the Syriac “quia _servi_ eius sumus.”

xii. 36. See on xviii. 7.

xiii. 35. διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου is now attested only by א*, two members of the Ferrar group, and some other minuscules, but Eusebius and Jerome found it in several manuscripts, and it was used still earlier by Porphyrius as a proof of Matthew’s ignorance. It is certainly, therefore, genuine, although it is omitted by Syr^{sin}, Syr^{cu}, by the “accurate” manuscripts according to Eusebius,[266] and by the “vulgata editio” according to Jerome. The conjecture of the latter, that Ἀσάφ was the original reading, which was changed to Ἠσαΐου by some unintelligent copyist and then dropped as incorrect, only serves to show what sort of ideas he had with regard to textual criticism. The assertion of the _Breviarium in Psalmos_, p. 59 f., that all the old manuscripts read “in Asaph propheta” is pure fiction. Compare Ἰερεμίου in Matt. xxvii. 9, where one would expect Ζαχαρίου, and where we find that Ἰερεμίου is omitted by some witnesses and replaced in others by Ζαχαρίου or “Esaiam.” “Esaiam” has also crept into the Vulgate manuscript rus (W-W’s R). On the insertion, omission, and interchange of such names, see W-H’s discussion of this passage, and the “Supplementary Note” by Burkitt on Syr^{sin} in the edition of 1896, p. 143. For an interesting exchange of names (Jonah and Nahum), see Tobit, xiv. 8. Asaph is called ὁ προφήτης in 2 Chron. xxix. 30. Compare Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 313 f. Weiss^9 would omit the word on the ground of insufficient testimony as being simply introduced from iii. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, and xii. 17.

xiv. 3. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 309) thinks it extremely improbable that D and certain important Latin witnesses should have removed the (wrong) name, Philip, from this passage on the ground of their better knowledge, while allowing it to stand without exception in Mark vi. 17. He believes rather that they have preserved the original text, and that Φιλίππου is here an interpolation from the passage in Mark. Weiss^9, on the other hand, sees no reason why it should be either bracketed or omitted. The possibility of its being inserted is shown by the fact that it also crept into six or seven manuscripts of Jerome, collated by W-W. This is one of the passages where Tischendorf in his seventh edition frankly preferred Codex D to all the other Greek witnesses.

xv. 4_b_. For θανάτῳ τελευτάτω, Syr^{cu} has נתקטל, evidently in accordance with Exod. xxi. 17. In the Arabic Diatessaron (§ 20, 23) the second half of this verse seems to be replaced by Mark vii. 10_b_. After “morte moriatur” in this passage, Ephraem adds “et qui blasphemat Deum _crucifigatur_,” which Zahn (_Forsch._, i. 157) thinks he must have found in his original. This apocryphal addition, which has no other testimony than that of Ephraem, does not seem to Zahn like a passage that had been afterwards removed from the text of the New Testament with complete success (_Forsch._, i. 241). The correct explanation of the words is given by Harris: they are the Peshitto rendering of Deut. xxi. 23. Compare Driver’s _Deuteronomy_ on the passage, and the reference there made to Lightfoot’s _Galatians_ (Extended Note on iii. 13, ninth edition, p. 152 f.). Symmachus also renders the words: “propter blasphemiam Dei suspensus est,” while Onkelos says על דחב קרם יי אצטליב, and Siphre מביגי שקלל את השם. This should be noted in connection with Matt. xxvi. 65, and still more so with John xix. 7. The only passage usually cited there is Levit. xxiv. 16, according to which Jesus should have been _stoned_. Our commentators pass too hastily over the question why the Jews insisted on crucifixion instead of stoning.

xvi. 18_b_, 19. So far as the criticism of the text is concerned, there is no occasion for entering on the discussion whether this passage, like the one resembling it in xviii. 15-18, is original or not. There may, however, be cases in which one cannot overlook the fact that where the “lower” criticism ends the “higher” begins. Compare, on the one side, Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 244 ff., and on the other, Resch, _Logia_, p. 55; _Paralleltexte_, ii. 187-196, 441.

xvi. 22. The peculiar reading, “compatiens,” which is found in the Arabic Tatian (J. H. Hill, p. 137, § 23. 42: Zahn, _GK._, ii. 546), and which Sellin has also traced in Ephraem, is now explained by the Syr^{sin} of Mark viii. 32: see my note in Lewis, _Some Pages_, p. xiii. The very same play upon the words חוס, “to pity,” and חס, “to be far from,” is found as late as in the _Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches_, ed. Bedjan, 1895, p. 407, line 14; p. 408, line 4. For a moment I thought of ὀργισθεὶς and σπλαγχνισθείς in Mark i. 41.

xviii. 7. The Dictum Agraphum τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐλθεῖν δεῖ, μακάριος δὲ δι’ οὗ ἔρχεται, which, according to the _Clementine Homilies_ (xii. 29), ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας προφήτης ἔφη, was known also to Ephraem (_cf._ Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 241 f. on § 50. 4). An exact parallel to this “harmless expansion of the canonical text” is seen in the form which Matt. xii. 36 assumed in Codex C of the Palestinian Syriac Evangeliarium: that “for every _good_ word that men do _not_ speak they shall give account” (see Lewis, _In the Shadow of Sinai_ (1898), pp. 256-261; and thereon, _ThLz._, 1899, col. 177).

xviii. 20. On the form in which this saying is found in the Oxyrhynchus Logia, compare Ephraem (Moesinger 165), “ubi unus est ibi et ego sum.” Zahn believes that Ephraem found this in his text, but that Aphraates, who also has it, arrived at it by way of a “spiritual interpretation” of the canonical words. After quoting the comments of Aphraates on these words, Zahn says: “It appears certain, therefore, that Aphraates did not find in his text the apocryphal sentence given in Ephraem, but by way of interpretation reached the same thought that Ephraem found in his text as a word of comfort spoken by Jesus to the lonely. (Ephraem introduces the saying with the words: ‘He comforted them in His saying.’) The interpretation, which may not have been original in Aphraates, became first a gloss and then part of the text of Tatian’s Harmony.” This should be noticed in connection with the Oxyrhynchus Logion. See Burkitt in the Introduction to Barnard’s _Biblical Text of Clement_ (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5, p. xiv).

xx. 13. The peculiar form of the householder’s reply given in Syr^{cu}, μὴ ἀδίκει με (Baethgen, μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε) is ignored by Tischendorf. Our commentators also err in not taking note of the variant συνεφώνησά σοι for συνεφώνησάς μοι. Compare the similar variation in John viii. 57; also Luke xviii. 20, τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα, read by the Marcionites instead of οἶδας; and Ephes. v. 14, ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ, derived through a presupposed reading, ἐπιψαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός. Συνεφώνησά σοι in Matt. xx. 13 is also attested by Syr^{sin}, which agrees with the common text in the first member of the verse. It is also found in the newly-discovered purple manuscript in Paris. The Arabic Tatian agrees with the usual text in both members. On the strange mixture of this verse and Luke xvi. 25 in Petrus Siculus (ἑταῖρε, οὐκ ἀδικῶ σε· ἀπέλαβες τὰ σὰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ σου· νῦν ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε) see Zahn, _GK._, ii. 445.

xx. 16. The concluding member of this verse is now rightly omitted with א B L Z and the Egyptian versions. All the Syriac versions have it, including the newly-discovered Syr^{sin}. It is worth observing that the verse with this addition forms the close of a lection in Syr^{hier}.

xx. 28. Westcott and Hort devote one of their “Notes on Select Readings” to the addition to this verse, and in the edition of 1896 Burkitt adds that it cannot have stood in Syr^{sin}, because there was not room for it on the leaf that is missing between Matt. xx. 24 and xxi. 20. According to W-H the passage is Western, being attested by D Φ among the Greek manuscripts and by the Latin and Syriac versions. “The first part only, ὑμεῖς—εἶναι, is preserved in m, ger, and apparently Leo, who quotes no more; the second part only, εἰσερχόμενοι—χρήσιμον, in ger_{2} and apparently Hilary. The first part must come from an independent source, written or oral; the second probably comes from the same, but it is in substance identical with Luke xiv. 8-10.” Tischendorf states that of the Old Latin, four (f g_{2} l q) omit the section, which, however, is found in c d e ff_{1, 2} g_{1} h (m) n, two manuscripts of the Vulgate (and. emm.), the Old German, and the Saxon. To these W-W add also the Old Latin r, two manuscripts of the Vulgate not usually employed by them, and, of those forming the basis of their edition, H^{mg} Θ O—_i.e._ the Theodulfian Recension. A hand of the tenth century has written on the margin of O, “mirum unde istud additum: cum Lucas parabolam de invitatis ad nuptias et primos accubitus eligentibus decimo canone, ubi M(atthaeu)s sua non communia dicit referat.” This resembles the marginal note attached to the passage by Thomas of Heraclea (not given by Jos. White, but by Adler, from _Cod. Assem._, 1): Haec quidem in exemplis antiquis in Luca tantum leguntur capite 53: inveniuntur autem in exemplis graecis[267] hoc loco: quapropter hic etiam a nobis adiecta sunt.

The word δειπνοκλήτωρ, which Resch took from this passage into the text of his _Logia Jesu_, for ὁ σὲ καὶ αὐτὸν καλέσας, found in Luke xiv. 9, should itself have provoked investigation. The only Latin witnesses which render it in a substantive form are d, which has _coenae invitator_ both times, and m, which has _invitator_ the first time. The others give it as a relative clause (_qui vocavit, invitavit_), so that they may have read it in the form in which it stands in our present text of Luke.[268] It is impossible not to believe that some connection exists between these substantive expressions and the Syriac מרא אהשמיתא, “master of the feast,” which is found in Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin}, and is also given by Aphraates, for τῷ κεκληκότι αὐτόν in Luke xiv. 12 (Aphr. 388, 12-19; Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 85, note). Syr^{cu} has it both times in this passage of Matthew.[269]

Bengel, like our modern expositors, says nothing of the interpolation in his _Gnomon_, and his view with respect to it has, therefore, to be gathered from his apparatus. “Interjicit cod. Lat. vetustissimus Vos autem, etc. ... Vid. Rich. Simon, _Obs. Nouv._, p. 31. Et sic fere Cant. (_i.e._, D) cuius lectio passim exstat. Idem vero Codex Graeca sua ad Latina haec, quae modo exscripsimus, confecit: Latina autem sua, sub manu, vehementius interpolavit, magno argumento licentiae suae. Eandem periocham legit Juvencus, Hilarius: habentque praeterea codd. Lat. aliquot, et inde Sax. Ex. Luc. xiv. 8 f., interveniente forsan Evangelio Nazaraeorum ... Priorem duntaxat partem, ‘Vos autem ... minui’ habet alius cod. Lat. antiquiss. ut si Librarius, cum describere coepisset, non scribendum agnosceret: eandemque Leo M. sic exhibet. Et tamen ... porro ab hoc loco ad Luc. xxii. 28, verbum _crescendi_ protulit Cant. _coenaeque invitator_ ei dicitur δειπνοκλήτωρ.”

The truth is, of course, the very opposite of this, as is shown by the indicative _quaeritis_ and the imperative of the Syriac, which are both derived from the ambiguous ζητεῖτε. There cannot be the slightest doubt of this, seeing that the discovery of Codex Beratinus (Φ) has added a second Greek witness in support of the interpolation. It reads ἐλάττων (_cf._ _minor_, c), omits the καὶ before ἐπέλθῃ just as m does with _et_, has ἄγε in place of σύναγε (_accede_: d, _collige_), and the comparative χρησιμώτερον (_utilius_) for the positive read by D d. The word δειπνοκλήτωρ also occurs in Φ.[270] It is not found in Bekker’s _Pollux_ or in Schmid’s _Hesychius_, and the only instance that ancient lexicons are able to cite for its usage is that of Athenæus, who observes (4. 171 B) that Artemidorus calls the ἐλέατρος by that name. The note appended in Hase-Dindorf’s _Stephanus_ was not correct at the time of its publication: Quidam codices Matt. xx. 27, Hesych., Wakef. Eust. _Od._, p. 1413, 3; nor the quotation from Ducange: Δ. in Lex. MS. Cyrilli exp. ἑστιάτωρ. In the same work δειπνοκλητόριον is cited from Eust., _Il._, 766, 58, and as an explanation of ἑστιατόριον from the Lex. MS. Cyrilli. The word therefore belongs to the later popular language. The question is whether it may not also belong to the vocabulary of Tatian. Moreover, it reminds us of the equally rare word κτήτωρ in Acts iv. 34.

On the occurrence of the passage in Tatian, see Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 85, 179. On the questions connected with its interpolation see Chase and p. 216 above.

xxii. 23. We have in this verse an illustration of the difference caused by the insertion or omission of the article. If we read οἱ λέγοντες with א^c E F G etc., then the words introduce the creed of the Sadducees (“who say,” Weizsäcker: “members of that sect who deny the resurrection,” Stage); if we omit οἱ with א* B D and Syr^{sin}, we have then what they actually said to Jesus. But as this would be the only place where Matthew gave an explanation of this sort regarding Jewish affairs, the article should be omitted. See note _in loco_, _Expositor’s Greek Testament_, and compare the margin of the Revised English Version.

xxiii. 35. א^1 omits υἱοῦ βαραχίου, which is replaced in the Gospels of the Hebrews by “filium Joiadae.” Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 308) refers to the view of Hug, adopted by Eichhorn and many others, that the author, or redactor, or translator of Matthew made this Zechariah, who is rightly called the son of Jehoiada in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the son of Barachiah in order to identify him with the Zechariah, son of Baruch, who was murdered by the Zealots (Josephus, _Bell._, iv. 5. 4). He points out that this would involve a prediction on the part of Jesus, and that, moreover, the scene of the murder is different in the two cases: that the locality in Matt. points to 2 Chron. xxiv. 21, and that Matthew’s mistake in calling him the son of Barachiah is due to a confusion with the Zechariah mentioned in Isa. viii. 2, or that in Zech. i. 1. It should be observed, however, that Lucian alone calls the murdered person in Chronicles by the name of Zechariah; the LXX calls him Azariah.

xxv. 41. See on Luke xx. 35.

xxvi. 73. Ὁμοιάζει was formerly attested by D alone, but has now the further support of Syr^{sin}. The clause καὶ ἡ λαλιά σου ὁμοιάζει has crept into a great number of manuscripts, including even A, in Mark xiv. 70. There Tischendorf remarks, “Omnino e Mt. fluxit,” in which he is quite right. But he is wrong when he says “ipsum ὁμοιάζει glossatoris est.” Because the glossator must then have been earlier than Tatian (Ciasca, p. 87), and the parent of all those manuscripts. The converse is the truth—viz., that D alone preserves the original reading, and that δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ is the voice of the διορθωτής.

xxvii. 9. The name of the prophet, which was omitted in some manuscripts, according to Augustine, is now omitted only by a b and the two minuscules 33 and 157. Augustine also observes that Matthew himself would have noticed his mistake or had his attention called to it by others. On this compare my notes on ἐβαρύνατε in Acts iii. 14, which I have explained by supposing that the author read כברתם or כבדתם instead of כפרתם (_Philologica Sacra_, p. 40; above, p. 170). Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome evidently still found Ἰερεμίου in all the manuscripts. Ζαχαρίου is supplied only by 22 and _Esaiam_ by 1. See on Matt. xiii. 35, and compare _Expository Times_, November 1900, p. 62.

xxvii. 16. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 294) points out that Origen also found _Jesus_ given as the prenomen of Barabbas “in very ancient manuscripts,” but that in all probability Tatian did not have it, seeing that Bar-Bahlul cites it expressly as the reading of the “Distinct” (_i.e._, not harmonised) Gospel. Jerome says that in the Gospel of the Hebrews he was called by a name meaning “filius magistri eorum,” so that he must have been thinking not of _Bar-’abbam_ but of _Bar-rabbam_.

xxvii. 49. See above, p. 227, and compare Burkitt, _Texts and Studies_, v. 5, p. xix.

xxviii. 18. Compare Dan. vii. 14_b_ (LXX), καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία, and also Dan. vii. 13 (= Matt. xxvi. 64), vii. 14 f. (= Matt. xxviii. 18). See the _English Revised Version with marginal References_ (Oxford, 1899).

According to the subscriptions found in various minuscules, the Hebrew Matthew was translated into Greek “by John,” or “by James,” to which some add “the Brother of the Lord,” or “by Bartholomew, the celebrated Apostle (πανευφήμου), but as others say by John the Theologian, οἳ καὶ ἀληθῶς εἰρήκασιν.” See Tischendorf, and Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 267.

Mark.

As if to enforce the desire to which I have given expression above (p. 246), there has come into my hands Blass’s _Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Markus_. If the statements contained in the introductory remarks are correct, and scarcely any other view is possible in the circumstances described, then the textual criticism of the first and second Gospels is a hopeless matter. “An evangelist or teacher who obtained possession of the originally anonymous Commentarius could not feel bound to respect the external form, but considered himself justified in correcting it if it seemed to him to be defective, and even felt called to correct or complete its subject matter.” Blass reminds us that we have whole classes of documents, legends of saints _e.g._, which were treated with the utmost possible freedom by the copyists, who in fact were in this case editors and revisers. But he says that no one has treated Mark quite so drastically as all this. His summing up of the matter is, that the critic can often do no more than recognise and admit the early multiplicity, and that in such a case it were best to print the text in parallel columns. At the same time he is able to distinguish some of the variants as later falsifications or corruptions. Universally trustworthy authorities there are none; here one group is right, there another, and we no sooner give them credence than they mislead us with some fresh error.

We are far removed, truly, from the confidence displayed by Tischendorf in the treatise he published shortly before his death in 1873 in answer to the question, “Have we the genuine text of the Evangelical and Apostolical writings?” All the more urgently, therefore, do we need fresh studies in textual criticism, and their appearance in Germany is the more gratifying on that account. The _Markus-Studien_ of Dr. H. P. Chajes (Berlin, 1899), however, are quite beside the point. They are purely imaginary, having neither substance nor method.

i. 1. On the title, see above; Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 220 ff., 235; Swete, _in loco_; and on this last, S. D. F. Salmond, in the _Critical Review_, April 1899, 206 f.: “We do not see, however, why Professor Swete should regard the opening verses as probably not a part of the original work. One might say the same of the whole paragraph with which the Gospel opens, or, for that matter, the whole chapter. The documentary evidence is substantially the same in each case, and the internal considerations are much too indeterminate.” It may be pointed out, as remotely analogous to this, that before Matt. i. 18 the margin of harl (Z in W-W) contains a note in a hand of the ninth or tenth century to the effect, “genealogia hucusque: incipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum,” while Y has the words “incipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum” in the text, and eight manuscripts begin verse 18 with capital or red letters. Compare Scrivener, I. c. iii., on the divisions of the text in B and other manuscripts.

For the way in which the opening sentences are to be construed, reference must be made to the commentaries. It may be said here, however, that parallels may be cited from the New Testament for each of the three possible constructions. These are (1) Ἀρχὴ ..., καθὼς ... αὐτοῦ, ἐγένετο; (2) Ἀρχὴ ... Καθὼς ... αὐτοῦ. Ἐγένετο; (3) Ἀρχὴ ... Καθὼς ... αὐτοῦ, ἐγένετο. For (1) and (2) compare Luke iii. 1 ff., and for (3) 1 Tim. i. 1 ff. Origen favours the first construction (_Contra Celsum_, ii. 4; vol. i. p. 131). As regards the text it need only be said that καὶ is read before ἐγένετο (v. 4) by א^1, and that δὲ is found after it, not only in the Coptic, but also in Syr^{hier}.

i. 2. Origen here read ἐγὼ and ἔμπροσθέν σου (i. 131). But the former should be omitted with B D etc., and the latter with all the good authorities. It follows that Matt. xi. 10 is not taken from Mark i. 2 (Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 316, 332). One can see how important the so-called “lower” criticism may be for the “higher.”

i. 11; ix. 7. See on “Punctuation” above, p. 52.

i. 29. “B here has ἐξελθὼν ἦλθεν, and D b c e q Pesh. have substantially the same. This is not an improvement, because it excludes Peter and Andrew. The reading of Syr^{sin} is peculiar, ‘and He went out of the synagogue and came into the house of Simon Cephas (Andrew and James and John were with him), and the mother-in-law etc.’” See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 252, and below on ix. 14.

i. 41. The remarkable “Western reading” ὀργισθείς is dismissed by Swete with a reference to W-H, who call it “a singular reading, perhaps suggested by v. 43 (ἐμβριμησάμενος), perhaps derived from an extraneous source.” In my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 26, I have expressed the opinion that it is impossible to suppose a copyist altered σπλαγχνισθείς to ὀργισθείς, even though ἐμβριμησάμενος does follow two verses further down.[271] Either ὀργή, ὀργίζεσθαι has another meaning in Biblical Greek, which is quite possible, or we have here an instance of a difference in translation. The confusion of the gutturals, _e.g._, is very common. Compare Ps. xii. 6, יפיח, Gr. יפיע; Ps. xiv. 6, עני = liii. 6, חנך; וישמח in Isa. xxxix. 2 for וישמע in 2 Kings xx. 13; Ps. xxii. 25, ענות, where Gr. has δέησις = תחנות; Ps. xcvii. 11, זרע, Gr. ἀνέτειλεν = זרח; and especially Mark ix. 19 in the recently-published Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum of Lewis-Gibson, where Cod. B has מרחית for מרעת found in A B. Compare also חד, Matt. vii. 11 (p. 68), and עד (p. 135). A glance at the _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 3953 shows that רעם is used, not only for βροντᾶν, but also for σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, στέργειν, and συμπαθεῖν, while אתרעם stands for χαλεπαίνειν, ἀγανακτεῖν, and γογγύζειν. Payne-Smith gives no instance of ὀργίζεσθαι. The usual Syriac word for it even in Syr^{sin} and Syr^{hier} is רנז or אתחמת; both verbs are found together in 1 Macc. vi. 59 for the simple ὠργίσθησαν (אתחמתו ורגזו). It is worth noting that in Col. iii. 13, ὀργήν is read by F G, where D* has μέμψιν, and the other authorities μομφήν.

On the reading in Mark i. 41, see Harris, _Fragments etc._ (1895), p. 6. He shows that Ephraem had ὀργισθείς in his text alongside of σπλαγχνισθείς. The Arabic Diatessaron, in which the pericope does not come till § 22, follows the usual text, and so, too, does Syr^{sin}.

ii. 14. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 263) holds that “Levi son of Alphaeus” is the original reading here and not “James,” and that it was taken from Mark into the Gospel of Peter. The reading “Jacobum” was also taken into the first hand of the Vulgate manuscript G from D 13, 69, 124, a b c d e ff_{2} r. In Koetschau’s new edition of Origen, the name is no longer spelt Λεβής but Λευής (i. 113, 19; Cod. P: Λευίς).

iii. 17. Our expositors might tell us where Luther got his “Bnehargem,” which is retained in the German Revised Version. On Daniel ii. 7 Jerome has “Benereem.” I have looked in vain in Lyra, Pole’s _Synopsis_, Calov, and Wolf.

iii. 31. We have here to choose between καλοῦντες (א B C L etc.), φωνοῦντες (D etc.), and ζητοῦντες (A): Δ leaves a space. I am inclined to think that φωνοῦντες is the original reading, which was improved by the substitution of the more usual word καλοῦντες, just as οὐ φωνεῦντος ἀκούω was altered to λαλέοντος in the Delphic Oracle in Herodotus i. 47. Compare a similar variation in Heb. xi. 13, where the original reading κομισάμενοι (א* P) was thought to be improved by the substitution of λαβόντες (א^c D E K) or προσδεξάμενοι (A). Here, too, A stands alone. Was it never copied?

vi. 16. There is a discrepancy in the Eusebian Canons in this verse which has not been explained. Both Tischendorf and Wordsworth and White number this verse 58/2. But according to the table in _TiGr._, p. 152, W-W, p. 10, pericope 58 belongs to the _tenth_ Canon as being one that is peculiar to Mark. As a matter of fact it is not so, unless Eusebius meant ἀκούσας δέ at the beginning of the verse. It is remarkable that Eusebius did not make the whole of verses 14-20 one pericope of the second canon, but numbered 14, 15 as 57/2 and 17-20 as 59/2. He must therefore have found something peculiar in verse 16 to make it 58.

vi. 20. This passage is very instructive from a textual point of view. Most authorities read that “Herod had put John in prison, heard him and did much,” or “heard much of what he did,” ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ (ἃ) ἐποίει. But in place of this last word א B L and the Bohairic version alone read ἠπόρει, “was much perplexed when he heard him.” The great majority of expositors decide at once in favour of the latter reading, setting aside ἐποίει as the _scriptio proclivior_. But in that case should it not have been ἠπορεῖτο? In classical Greek it should undoubtedly, but in Biblical Greek we find ἠπόρει in _Wisd._ xi. 5, 17, for example, and what is specially worth noting, διηπόρει in the parallel passage Luke ix. 7, for which D, it is true, has ἠπορεῖτο. The passage may therefore be taken as showing that the correct reading has been preserved in a very few witnesses. Strict logic, moreover, would lead us to infer that not one of our 1300 manuscripts is derived from any one of these three, but that א B L continued childless. Is that likely? Field, it may be added, decides in favour of ἐποίει (_Otium Norvicense_; see _Expository Times_, August 1899, p. 483), and so, too, does Burkitt (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5, p. xix). In Philo, i. 264, line 8 (ed. Cohn), the manuscripts vary between μετεωροπολειν, —πορειν, —ποιειν, and —λογειν.

vii. 33. Codex W^d, published by Harris in facsimile (1896), here exhibits a very peculiar reading which Harnack (_ThLz._, 1891, p. 356) thinks has affinity with Tatian. It reads: ἔπτυσεν εἰς τοὺς δακτύλους αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς τὰ ὦτα τοῦ κωφοῦ καὶ ἥψατο τῆς γλώσσης τοῦ μογιλάλου. This gives us quite another view of the occurrence than most of the authorities do. It seems much more natural certainly to moisten the fingers before putting them in the ears than before touching the tongue. It reads somewhat similarly in Syr^{sin}, which says that “he put his fingers and spat in his ears, and touched his tongue.”[272] This manuscript exhibits other noteworthy readings, which will be found most conveniently in Swete.

ix. 14. The singular, ἐλθὼν ... εἶδεν, has the support of D, while Syr^{sin} takes the side of the plural, ἐλθόντες ... εἶδον. Zahn decides for the latter. He explains the plural by saying that the original narrator was evidently one of the three disciples who were with Jesus on the Mount, in all probability Peter, as tradition has it. Peter, of course, in telling the story, used the first person and the plural number, “When we came down from the mountain we saw, etc.” Mark, reporting the words of Peter, turned the first person into the third, retaining the plural number. Zahn explains in the same way the somewhat peculiar expressions in Mark i. 29. Here Peter said, “_we_ (_i.e._ Jesus, Andrew, and himself) came into _our_ house with James and John.” In reporting Peter’s words Mark paraphrases “we” and “our,” and says, “they came into the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John.” See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 245 f.

x. 30. Neither Tischendorf nor Swete observes that in addition to the readings διωγμῶν and διωγμόν the singular διωγμοῦ is exhibited by D. Has the mysterious reading εἰς που in Clem. Alex. (_Quis Dives_) anything to do with this? It is worth remarking that the Vienna Arabic manuscript (Lagarde: Storr) has a note after “post persecutionem” to the effect that this is the “Roman” reading.

xiv. 51. καὶ νεανίσκος τις, א B C L; νεανίσκος δέ τις, D; καὶ εἷς τις νεανίσκος, A E etc. This last is rejected by Zahn on the ground that the text has evidently been accommodated to verse 47, under the false impression that another of the disciples is referred to. It is adopted, however, by Tischendorf^8, and supported by Brandt, _Die Evangelische Geschichte_ etc., Leipzig, 1893, p. 23 ff.

xiv. 65. ἔλαβον, א A B and most authorities: ἐλάμβανον, D G, 1, 13, 69, 2^{pe}, al^{10}: ἔβαλλον, H....: ἔβαλον, E M U etc. The simplest explanation of this variety of readings is that ἐλάμβανον was first, and that it was changed into the more common aorist ἔλαβον, which then became ἔβαλον or ἔβαλλον. The converse is not so likely, viz. that ἔβαλλον or ἔβαλον became first ἔλαβον and then ἐλάμβανον, or that ἔλαβον gave rise directly both to ἐλάμβανον and ἔβαλον or ἔβαλλον. On these and also on internal grounds the reading of D G is to be preferred: “they began to spit upon him, and continued to buffet him.”

xv. 28. Syr^{sin} is now to be added to the authorities that omit the interpolation. On the interesting names, Zoatham and Chammatha, Dysmas and Gestas, Titus and Dumachus (_i.e._ Θεομάχος), see Berger in the notice of Wordsworth, and White’s _Epilogus_ mentioned above, and also J. R. Harris in the _Expositor_, March 1900, p. 162 ff., April, p. 304.

xv. 34. It is extraordinary that no reference is made in Swete’s edition to the very singular reading of Codex D, ὠνίδισας instead of ἐγκατέλιπες. In addition to the testimony of the Old Latin manuscripts c (exprobrasti me), i (me in opprobrium dedisti), k* (maledixisti: see Burkitt in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. p. 278), this reading is attested in Greek by Macarius Magnes. No explanation of it has yet been given that is in all respects satisfactory. See _Expository Times_, August 1898, and February, March, and April 1900.

xvi. 9-20. The English Revisers had not the courage to omit the conclusion. They print it quite like the rest of the text, only they separate it from the foregoing by a somewhat wider space than usual, and give a note in the margin to the following effect—viz. “The two oldest Greek manuscripts and some other authorities omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.” The German Revised Version has no remark to offer, which is easily accounted for on the principles on which that version is made. The most careful discussion of the passage is now that of Swete, pp. xcvi-cv. See also Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 227-235, 237, 240, and compare the Appendix in Chase’s _Old Syriac Element_, pp. 150-157, “Note on Mark xvi. 9-20,” and Arthur Wright, _The Gospel according to St. Luke_, p. xv.

The subscription of several minuscules bears that Mark’s Gospel was written at Rome ten years after the Ascension, and delivered to the brethren there by Peter, the πρωτοκορυφαῖος of the Apostles. Others give Egypt as the place of origin. It is of more importance to observe that Λ 20, 262, 300 contain the note: ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων. This refers to the subscription to Matthew found in these manuscripts: ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιῶν ἀντιγράφων τῶν ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ ὄρει ἀποκειμένων. A similar subscription occurs in 2^{pe}, a minuscule of considerable importance for Mark (473 in Scrivener; see above, p. 151, n.).

Luke.

Apart altogether from the question how the numerous and decided peculiarities of Codex D are to be explained, we find a great many problems connected with the text of Luke’s Gospel.

On the supposed title see Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 383.

i. 26. In place of the definite indication of time, Blass follows certain Latin authorities, especially the Latin Irenæus, in giving: in ipso (or, eodem) autem tempore, ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ καιρῷ. Zahn points out (_Einl._, ii. 354) that this is the customary formula for the beginning of a pericope in the Lectionaries, and that while no doubt in the later Greek system the pericope of the Annunciation began with verse 24, 26 is the more appropriate beginning. He adds that in any case the origin of this formula is evident, and that Cod. D, which here parts company with the Latin witnesses, gives other indications besides this of the influence of a pericope-system. See the Introduction to Scrivener’s edition of the Codex, p. li.

i. 46. On the reading _Elisabeth_, see above, p. 238.

i. 63. The β text inserted the words ἐλύθη ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ before καὶ ἐθαύμασαν πάντες, by way of explaining the astonishment of the people. Zahn thinks this an absurd misplacement, seeing that the mention of Zechariah’s speaking does not come till the following verse, and the people could not know that his tongue was loosed till they heard him speak. Syr^{sin} accordingly corrects this by putting the mention of the astonishment after that of the speaking, in which it is followed by Blass.

ii. 4, 5. In the β text Blass adopts the reading αὐτοὺς, and transposes the clause διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυείδ to the end of verse 5. This arrangement is also exhibited by D. Syr^{sin} reads “both.” One Old Latin manuscript has _essent_, but as it exhibits the clause in the usual place, Zahn thinks that _essent_ is manifestly a clerical error for _esset_. The Syriac, he points out, is derived from Tatian. See _Einl._, ii. 355; _Forsch._, i. 118; _GK._, ii. 561; Vetter, _Der dritte Korintherbrief_ (1894), 25.

ii. 7. One Latin manuscript (e) has _obvolverunt_ and _collocaverunt_, which may be compared with _essent_ in verse 4. Zahn thinks that the plural here is due to the reflection that the mother does not usually herself attend to a new-born infant.

ii. 14. How does the Christmas song of the angels run exactly? Is it ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας, or ἐν ἀνθ. εὐδοκία? The question belongs more to exegesis than textual criticism. The whole matter turns upon a single letter, but it divides Western Christendom in two parts. The Latin Church reads it as in _hominibus bonae voluntatis_, “among men of goodwill,” or, as modern critics understand it, “among men of God’s good pleasure.” The second reading makes it “goodwill to men.” Which should it be? The former reading, the genitive, is supported by א* A B* D, the Latin, and the Gothic, whereas nearly all the other witnesses, including the Bohairic, the three Syriac, and A itself in the Hymns at the end of the Old Testament Psalter, have the nominative. One thing seems to me decisive in favour of the nominative. Scarcely any part of the New Testament is so steeped in the Hebrew spirit as the first two chapters of Luke’s Gospel. As Field points out in the third part of his _Otium Norvicense_, the Greek ἄνθρωποι corresponds to the Hebrew expression “son of Adam,” which cannot take another genitive after it—“sons of Adam of goodwill.” On the other hand, the word _goodwill_ in Hebrew is always followed by the preposition corresponding to the Greek ἐν. So that, till we have further testimony, I would retain the nominative and the tripartite division, notwithstanding the authority of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Weizsäcker, Stage, and Blass, who, by the way, mentions no variants in the β text.

ii. 40. D here reads ἐν αὐτῷ in place of ἐπ’ αὐτό. The difference is slight, but not unimportant from a theological point of view. It is not accidental, as is shown by the corresponding change of ἐπ’ into εἰς in ch. iii. 22.

iii. 22. Zahn regards this as one of the passages wherein D and its associates have preserved the original reading. They exhibit here ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε in place of ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα. He says, moreover, that “those who hold the former as original need not lament its disappearance from tradition subsequent to the year 300” (_Einl._, ii. 240, 356). See Burkitt in Barnard’s _Biblical Text of Clement_, pp. xiii. 38.

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.

##