Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library


- i ἀμ. ‘> we fe Sart

oS nyse Patn€ ΜΕ to ον τῆλε: ge a Y x γι cor pal “argulecasTe ve Na τιμῶ ΟΣ ὀποι» δ axe) fr: es 3

‘EN re >> ate

aa Woy Bat aioe : 3 ἐν waa οὐδε δ τί μετ sprog marisa ax SDs ae Lighten Daaaone bars ae 8h ade Kai yaitongs Ἴω

Lyne erie ake δὲς ex iohes4 - «δ᾽ χα ὑποίνδ αὐ τὶ ἐν γολλϊασό on miT A

: κα ἐρέουσϑ ferent αἰοιυξὴ ape web Rad οὐ fers λφνμέοσ, πον» δ΄ βοῶ Ba arpecop hg «Καὶ ἐλλουταμίοισ ἀϑο δ΄ πτο een αὐ » ocx «Te Cea oda ss δ τὶ mabr le pnp Fad BSn 8) Seite

= Kabny ore xubmlopadcsl i ᾿ς meee ay dlndng 17429555 ‘poaiorhh Ἂς Ram Hy ap sXe dacen δὲ ὅν Tn T Ini yesons aAaGie πὸ "

ΩΝ ν

elroy f ere cats id ἀκοῦν 7 ἐουδεῖ. eee <yaiitoi-t age Dr aber Sino waa δ' αὐ γλυκὰ Fay msde aN Ge HY Done ral, qyauTae: Pant αὐταὶ «ευοιζ sic Neley co “opr κα τη οὐκ δῦ ah

Prone x ξονϑν δ' Pd DL papahar 253 sn "ἢ 5 Saks PST δι

appato ἀπῆν" Fad RS ὀρειξῥηϑ. LORS εἰν» ἀθούσξ κα πάν.

6 γοσεν 95 εὐ one Τ᾿ εν των ξυραῖ 3 δὲ δωδίς οὐ spas abel Co > » ᾿ς

χα πθ τς μῶν μοϊροῤ δι fener Sa On ee bai,

re ὩΣ na alma peamlalepaor cape ob Gi pu Saenod

τ 4 > enue = jouhee punt τῷ πεῖς Gad aterm yy paper SP + a eee ook fs ;

O97 SN wan

oe ῴταυ TP vi PA Svel ndore pad tou 5. Sere HU ESF γῶν πὶ poe 9a k . Ν hg / > \ 7. oH, ee oop FSi 45. 5 μϑὼ τ Ge OY pam pas sone a een PS

Yen wie 2 a κι ἂν δὰ FS ws Koh εὖ tatu nied ony sr Be dae τοῦδ οὶ


precy aso Nana ata ried Fai ti bare ξέϊον' εἰ ποι, Rae >?!

Are Ἔν στ ἄρνα Feed deh ποιῶ. ρον ἘΔ ΑΝ ahi Nanas δ᾽ ene ΘΔ: eee ay 0 Sema : alg g HAM Ei ee ox he oped y 09 0 2h reife’ ere 4 206? ἔπι:

ries οὐ 45 “ποτε Pres δ aouc ROVE νεῖν μὲ ἀοὼ φῷ Pe eins z “Sree VF ποϑεύμοε pus degra ἐξ $y PA big ioe

nigra gees? eros: “miners wy νεῖ το νὰν σὐδωνμεκξ :


Anecdoty Oxoniensin




















Exencuus Locorum £ SS. Script. LaupatoruM



DiaLocue or ΤΙΜΟΤΗΥ anp AQuiLa


PAGE ix-lvii

Iviii-lix 1-64 65-104



THE two anti-Jewish dialogues entitled Athanasius and Zacchaeus, and Timothy and Aquila are here edited for the first time. The former of them, to which for the sake of brevity I shall allude to as AZ, is taken from a MS. belonging to the Royal library of Vienna, thus described by Petrus Lambecius in his Commentaria de Bibliotheca Caesarea Vindobonensi, lib. v. p. 283:

‘Codex Theolog. Gr. 248 est membranaceus antiquus et eleganter quidem, sed minutissime et valde abbreviate exaratus in quarto, con- statque nunc foliis 373, et ab Augerio Busbeckio, ut ipse solita propriae manus inscriptione testatur, olim fuit comparatus Constantinopoli. Continetur in eo Syxtagmatis opusculorum miscellaneorum de variis Haeresibus et contra varias Haereses tomus secundus.’

The first tome of the Syztagma is codex 247 of the same collection. It is similar in form. The dialogue here edited begins on fol. 38 (81 of an older numeration crossed out) and ends on fol. 48 of codex 248. It begins in the middle of the page, leaving no interval after the end of the preceding piece; but it ends abruptly with the fifth line of fol. 48 r°, of which the rest is left blank. The writer was aware that the end of the piece was missing, and left room for it to be filled in. In the top right hand corner of fol. 47 is written in the first hand a A over anu, thus 4; and this is the old numeration of the quaternion. For the other contents of the codex I refer my readers to Lambecius’ Commentaria. I edit the text from a photographic facsimile made in Vienna ; one plate of which is given as a specimen of the writing, which cannot be later than the twelfth century.


x Prolegomena

In preparing the Greek text I have collated the old Armenian version in the edition of the Armenian Paralipomena of Athanasius, which is now being printed, partly at my expense, at the press of the Mekhitarists in Venice. It is one of the seventeen tracts, genuine or spurious of Athanasius, which—as the colophon of the Armenian MSS. assures us—were rendered from Greek into Armenian by the ‘first translators.’ The seventeen treatises comprised in this early version were the following :—

1. On the Holy Spirit, I and IT. 2. Against the Arians. 3. On the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of the Word. 4. To Epiktemon, Bishop of Corinth. 5. To Philadelphus the bishop. ; 6. To Libéos (? Liberius), Bishop of Rome. 4. About the Holy Trinity. 8. Against all heresies. g. About the blasphemers of the Holy Ghost. 10. Controversy with Arius, about the Divinity of the Word. 11. Second Treatise to the same, about the Holy Spirit. 12. Against Zacchaeus the Jew, about the Divinity of the Son. 13. Concerning the Mystery (i.e: Sacrament) of Baptism. / 14. Concerning Virginity. “75. On the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord. 16. Prayers. At the end of this list is the notice already referred to. In the same MS. follows a second list of contents, as follows :— 1. About the Incarnation of God the Word. 2. To Jovianus the Emperor about the Faith. 3. Against Paul of Samosata, that God is One. 4. On the text My soul is troubled.’ 5. Concerning the Epiphany of the Word. And then this notice :—

“Conclusion of the five discourses of 5. Athanasius, translated in a later age by Stephanos, Bishop of Siuniq.’ This Stephanos flourished in the first half of the eighth century. The ‘first translators,’ who composed the version of the seventeen treatises, were the band of

The Textual Sources xi

workers whom Sahak and Mesrop gathered round themselves in the closing years of the fourth and first half of the fifth century. Already therefore in that age the dialogue with Zacchaeus had found its way into the MSS. of Athanasius. The beginning of the dialogue is missing in the best San Lazzaro codex of Athanasius, and is printed from another copy in a Djarruntir (= Sylva), N°. 19 of the Mekhitarist collection. From the same Sj/va other missing pages of the continuous MS. are supplied. The title in the Armenian runs thus :

‘Of 5. Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria and of Zacchaeus a Jew, Questions and Answers and the give-and-take of discussion.’

Then the dialogue itself is preceded by a row of dots, indicating that something is left out. Probably these dots are reproduced from the Greek codex which the translator used. They do not appear in the Greek MS. Where the Djarruntir has a serious variant, I have given it in English at the foot of the page. One important reading, however, in § 121, I have only noticed and discussed in § vi of these prolegomena.

The Armenian supplies more than one lacuna in the Greek, and in particular the very interesting conclusion of the dialogue. Otherwise it does not notably differ from it, except that the influence of the Armenian vulgate on the translator has led him to conceal in his version some of the peculiarities of the LXX citations which characterize the Greek text. In one passage also in § 9 the adaptation of the text to later dogmatic positions was carried a step further in the Greek text used by the translator, than it has gone in the corresponding passage of our Greek text.

The dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, to which I shall refer as TA, is taken from a codex in the Vatican, No. 47 of the codices Graeci Pii PP. II, described on p. 164 of Signor Enrico Stevenson’s catalogue, Rome, 1888, as ‘membr. in 16, saec. XII, fol. 153. The greater part of the volume, apart from the dialogue, consists of grammatical matter taken from Dionysius Thrax and Theodosius of Alexandria. This fills foll. 2-66.

Angelo Mai, p. ix of tom. ix of his Spicilegium Romanum, Romae, 1843, gives an account of this dialogue, which he read, but did not publish. Profs A. C. M°Giffert, on p. 17 of his edition (New York, 1889) of a Greek Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew,’ recapitu-

xii Prolegomena

lates Mai’s notice. He errs, however, in supposing that the codex is in Patmos. Mai, indeed, in his Nova Bibliotheca, vi. ii. p. 537, pub- lishes a thirteenth century catalogue of the codices of Patmos, which mentions a codex of it as being then in that monastery. But it is no longer there to-day, nor can I trace the Patmos copy in any European library.

The Vatican copy is well written and so legible that I have been able to transcribe it from photographs. There are few compendia, and those of an archaic kind. In the lower margin of two folios, 87 and go v°, is written in a much later hand this: eyo διάκονος βαρθολομεος, and under that the word μερεδι, followed by what seems to be date, but it is not decipherable. On fol. 88 the word μερεδι, with the same symbol, recurs in the lower margin.

The dialogue was copied by an ignorant scribe, who confuses o with ω, With εἰ ἀπ ει, ε with a, with ov. The accents are constantly wrong, and the text is full of corruptions. The iota subscript is wholly absent. I have only corrected obvious errors, without trying to restore broken grammar, which no doubt characterized the work in its original form. Of the style of writing the reader can judge from the facsimile appended. Unfortunately a late hand has drawn a pen through all the numerals making them hard to read. The same hand has tried to efface the title of the Dialogue.

Because of its extreme prolixity, which deterred Angelo Mai from printing it, I have relegated TA to the obscurity of an Appendix. Yet it is more interesting than AZ in respect of its citations of the New Testament, of the new information it contains about Aquila, and of the light it throws on the sources of Epiphanius’ treatise De Mensuris et Ponderibus. I therefore begin my examination of the contents of the two dialogues with a study of these points.


The longest of the gospel citations in TA is contained in fol. 121 and 122r°(p.g3), and covers the same ground as Mat. 21} 10 and: 213°! ; the narrative of these first sixteen verses being merely glanced at.

In the immediate context which precedes, the predictions of the

The New Testament Citations in TA xiii

loss of Jerusalem to the Jews and of its inheritance by Gentiles have been mooted by the Christian interlocutor, who in fol. 120° declares that the Lord had stood in judgement with his people, with its rulers and elders; that he had investigated and judged; and had passed a sentence of condemnation which events had verified (Is. 3). The Jew then asks the question, What did he say when he was in the judgement ', what sentence of condemnation did he pass, what was the upshot of the judgement? For we see him whom you regard as Jesus con- demning, condemned to the cross. How then could he condemn?’ The Christian then repeats a number of prophecies from Isaiah as things which ‘he said to them in the judgement, and which had all been fulfilled.

The Jew replies that Jesus had not recited any of these prophecies when he was being judged before Pilate, but had kept silence. And the Christian disregarding the objection or tacitly admitting it, proceeds to declare that Isaiah himself had borne witness to the parable which Jesus spake, and forthwith he cites Is. 5'~.

Once more the Jew retorts: ‘But neither was this parable spoken by Jesus when he was being tried.’ And the retort forces on the Christian a more exact retrospect of the gospel history. I reprint it in such a way as to show its relation to the canonical texts. The triple tradition is printed in capitals, matter peculiar to Matthew’s Gospel in thick type, other matter in ordinary type. An overline indicates matter coinmon with Mark, an underline what is common with Luke. The matter common with John’s Gospel or with other sources is indicated in the notes.

0 XploTLavos ELTEV" OT αἱ ἀπαντῆσαι! αὐτῶ οἱ παιδες των εβραιων KpalovTes

Seay: 2 TO woavva ev Tw εἰισελθει» auToy εἰς ΤΟΙ vaov, ToTEe EkUKAWoaY~ avrov ΟἹ

APXIEPEIS καὶ οἱ πρεσβυτεροι tov Aaov λέγοντες οὐκ ἀκούεις τι OUTOL σου καταμαρτυρουσιν ; ο δε ιήσους etme: ναι: γεγραπται yap εκ στοματος νηπιὼν καὶ θηλαζοντων κατηρτισω awov. τοτε εἰπε} αὐτοῖς την LLAPABOAnp tavrqy, ἡνπερ τοτε ἡσαιας προεῖπεν λεγων. ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΟ τις E®YTEYCEN AMITEAQNA

κρίσις equally means ‘trial’ in this passage. 2 John το",

xiv Prolegomena

και ὠκοδομησεν AUTH TELXOS καὶ πυργον καὶ ἐποιήσεν εν αὐτώ λήνον καὶ υποληνιον KAI EZEAOTO AYTON ΓΕΩΡΓΟΙΟ KAI ΑΠΕΔΗΜΗΟΘΕΝ. καὶ eyevero εν to KAIP@ των καρπων, ATIECTEIAEN κυριος τοῦ ἀμπελωνος τοὺς AOYAous αὐτοῦ λαβειν ἀπὸ τῶν ΚΑΡΙΠΩΡ' οἱ δε yewpyor λαβοντες τοὺς Souhous ekelvous ον μὲν υβρισαν ον Se ΕΔΕΙΡαν και απεστειλαν κενοὺς" o δε κυριος του αμπελωνος ἐκεινοῦ απεστειλεν addous AOYAous’ ομοιως δεῖ κακεινοὺς ον μεν αἀπεκτειναν ov ὃε ετραυματισαν καὶ απεστειλαν καὶ αὐτοὺς κενοὺς. ὑστερον δε παντων ἀπεστειλεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτου Tov povoyern λέγων ENTPAITHCONTAI TON YION MOY: ΟἹ AE ΓΕΩΡΓΟΙ ιδοντες αὐτὸν epxouevor εἰπαν, OYTOC ECTIN αληθωὼς O KAHPONOMOC. Seine ATIOKTEINQMEN AYTON Kau ἐσται nov H KAHPONOMIa KAI EZeBAAo AYTON EZQ TOY AMIIEAQNOC καὶ ATTEKTEINON. οταν οὖν ελθη O KYPIOC TOY AMITIEAQNOC TI TIOIHCEL tors ΓΕΏΡΓΟοις εκεινοις ; Kakous κακως ΑΠΟ- AECEI αὐτοὺς KAI ANCE TON AMITEAQNA AAAOIC γεωργοις.

apa ἐγένετο TavTa οὐ; ισταμενος γὰρ εν TH κρίσει τοῦτο καὶ μόνον

εἰπεν. ιδου αφιεται ο OLKOS υμων ερημος.

That the above is something more than a composite text interwoven of canonical material is certain for several reasons. Firstly, original matter is present which is not found in canonical sources. Secondly, certain sayings of Jesus also found in the Gospels are here found in a different context to that in which the Gospels present them. Thirdly, many peculiarities of TA are inexplicable by the theory of its being any sort of harmony of the Gospels. These reasons I will illustrate in order.

Firstly, our excerpt begins with a mention of ‘the children of the Jews.’ They met Jesus, so we read, crying Hosanna as he went into the temple. Now in the Acts of Pilate, form A, ch. 1, 3 we have this:

' For ἱστάμενος cp, Mat. 27} and Acts 265,

The New Testament Citations in TA XV

οἱ παῖδες τῶν ἑβραίων κλάδους κατεῖχον καὶ ἔκραζον, and in ch. 1, 4: οἱ μὲν παῖδες τῶν ἑβραίων ἑβραϊστὶ ἔκραζον. It is certain therefore that the A. P. and the citations of our dialogue go back to some form of Gospel other than canonical Matthew. For he has not kept the full expression οἱ παῖδες τῶν ἑβραίων, but only preserves the detritus of it in his ch. 21 15,16: ‘But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things which he did, and ¢he children (τοὺς παῖδας) that were crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, they were moved with indignation, and said unto him, Hearest thou what these are saying? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea: did ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise (Ps. 8?) ?’

Why is this mention of ‘babes and sucklings’ put into the mouth of Jesus? Obviously because the Aramaic phrase ‘the children of the Hebrews, which simply means ‘the Hebrews’ or ‘the Hebrew race,’ occurring in a version of an Aramaic original, was misunderstood by some Greek editor of that version, and taken to mean little Jewish children, ‘babes and sucklings.’ Thus we can detect three stages of text: first, that in which the Aramaism occurred by itself and was rightly understood to mean the Jewish people or crowd; second, that in which it was misunderstood, and by consequence the reference to babes and sucklings introduced by way of an apposite rejoinder to the high priests and e/ders: third, that in which, through blending with an alternative text and perhaps to avoid a solecism, τῶν ἑβραίων was dropped out and τοὺς παῖδας in the objective case alone retained. Of these three stages of text the A. P. perhaps reflects the first, our dialogue the second, canonical Matthew the third.

The form of Gospel from which the dialogue originally drew its description of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem is further exampled in fol. 84.v°, p. 71, where we read: ὅτι δὲ τὰ νήπια, λέγω δὴ οἱ παῖδες τῶν ἑβραίων ἀπάντησιν αὐτῷ ἐποιήσαντο μετὰ κλάδων ἐλαιῶν λέγοντες τὸ ὧσαννά, δαυὶδ λέγει ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ ψαλμῷ Κύριε κύριος ἡμῶν... ἐκ στόματος νηπίων καὶ θηλαζόντων κατηρτίσω αἷνον. ἐκαθέσθη δὲ ἐπὶ πώλουυι The phrases ἀπάντησαν αὐτῷ and ἀπάντησιν αὐτῷ ἐποιήσαντο recall John 1215: ἔλαβον τὰ βάϊα τῶν φοινίκων, καὶ ἐξῆλθον εἰς ὑπάντησιν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐκραύγαζον' ὥσαννά. So ἐπὶ πώλου recalls Mark 117 and Luke 19%°; and κλάδων recalls Mat. 21° ἄλλοι δὲ ἔκοπτον κλάδους. But the words ἐλαιῶν and οἱ παῖδες

xvi Prolegomena

τῶν ἑβραίων by their presence negate the hypothesis of the dialogist having used a harmony of the canonical gospels. A somewhat similar text is found in the B recension of A. P. ch. i. 3, 4; and must there also be regarded as derived from some extra-canonical source.

Another example of original, but non-canonical, material is supplied in the Aramaism: καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῶν καρπῶν, ἀπέστειλεν κύριος... This cannot be derived from Mark’s text, which is καὶ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς τοὺς γεωργοὺς τῷ καιρῷ... .. nor from Matthew: ὅτε δὲ ἤγγισεν καιρὸς τῶν καρπῶν, ἀπέστειλεν . .., nor from Luke’s: καὶ καιρῷ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς τοὺς γεωργούς... .. Yet it has an original air, in so far as it is an Aramaism, frequent in Luke, and not unknown in the other two Synoptics. That a Greek writer, so purblind as the author of this dialogue, should have woven together out of the three evangelists so respectable a literary whole as this parable, and in so doing have aptly introduced an Aramaism only found in versions of Aramaic originals is extremely improbable.

Secondly a document woven out of the canonical Gospels would not change the context of famous sayings of or about the Lord in the way in which the Gospel used by the author of our dialogue must have done.

Thus (i) the words οὐκ ἀκούεις τί οὗτοί σου καταμαρτυροῦσιν remind us equally of Mat. 26° (=Mark 14°"), ‘The High-priest arose ... and said, Dost thou answer nothing? What are these witnessing against thee?’ and of Mat. 27!°, where Pilate after hearing the accusations of the High-priests and elders, says to Jesus: ‘Dost thou not hear how many things they bear witness to against thee?’ Lastly the words ἀκούεις τί οὗτοι, instead of ἀκούεις πόσα, are found in the same context in Mat. 21%. Would a mere harmonizer of Mat. οι and of the corresponding sections of Mark and Luke have gone out of his way to bring in καταμαρτυροῦσιν from a different context ?

(ii) The words of the dialogue (fol. 121 v°), τότε εἶπεν αὐτοῖς τὴν Tapa- βολήν, indicate that in the form of Gospel used by the author, Jesus uttered this parable immediately after citing against the Jews Ps. 8%. In canonical Matthew however 21!"~** intervene, and the manner in which the parable is at last introduced in verse 33, ἄλλην παραβολὴν ἀκούσατε, is very abrupt. Thus it is impossible that TA should have used canonical Matthew. That Mr. F. P. Badham has detected a docu- mentary suture in Matthew, extending from verse 17 to 32 of this chapter,

The New Testament Citations in TA xvii

gives some colour to-the supposition that one of the documents here used up in canonical Matthew passed without break from verse 16 to verse 33, and that this was the sort of document which was in the hands of the original author of TA.

(iii) But the most conclusive objection to the view that the dialogue is based on the canonical gospels lies in the terse declaration that the only words uttered by Jesus as he stood in his trial in the presence of Pilate were these (addressed of course to his accusers): ‘Behold your house is left desolate.’ As in the gospel of Peter', the trials before the Sanhedrim and before Pilate must have been run into one in the gospel used by the dialogist ; but in the canonical gospels neither before Pilate nor before the Sanhedrim does Jesus make use of these famous words. He uses them only in Mat. 23** (= Luke 1538), as part of the eloquent apostrophe to Jerusalem. Here then the dialogue is in flat contradiction both of the synoptics and of the fourth gospel. How can it possibly be based on them ?

Thirdly the parable of the husbandmen in the dialogue can with difficulty be regarded as a harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke. If we compare it with Dr. Abbot’s Synopticon, p. 82, in which the common tradition of Matthew, Mark and Luke is picked out in red type, we observe that, with the insignificant exception of the words πρὸς τοὺς γεωργούς in Mat. 215, the dialogist’s form of the parable includes every syllable and letter of the triple tradition. I attempt no explanation of this. But it is a result difficult to achieve ina harmony ; and I question whether any one, on whom was imposed the task of rapidly compiling a harmony of the three Synoptic forms of this parable, would arrive at the same result by his conscious effort.

The way in which the parable in TA blends words and features disjoined in the Synoptic forms is also remarkable. At first sight it would seem as if the phrase λῆνον καὶ ὑπολήνιον were a mere combination of Matthew with Mark. Not so when we turn to the early Greek lexicographers, like Pollux 10, 130, and observe that the combination was normal, so that, if you had a wine-fabric to sell, you advertised it as a Anvos καὶ ὑπολήνιον, and not as one or the other separately. It

1 See below, Ὁ. xxv.

[IV. 12] b

xviii Prolegomena

would seem as if Matthew and Mark had picked out separate halves of a composite phrase which stood in their common original. Similarly Mat. 21°° uses the balanced phrase ὃν μὲν... ὃν δέ of the first set of servants sent by the master, Mark uses it after the second servant has been sent and beheaded. The dialogist’s form uses it in reference both to the first and second set of emissaries. The use of ἐκείνους after δούλους and of ἐκείνου after ἀμπελῶνος must also be primary. No mere harmonizer would have inserted a word so often and so characteristically used in parables by canonical Matthew!. Still less would a harmonizer have substituted ὕβρισαν for ἀτιμάζω of Mark 124 and Luke 20!'. If he diverged from Matthew—whom on the whole he followed—in order to import into his harmony something of theirs, why did he not keep to ἀτιμάζων Then again with what singular literary skill has the har- monizer, if he be such, added ἀληθῶς in: Mat. 21°°? What harmonizer too, merely working on Mat. 211°,'° and the allied verses of Mark and Luke, would have imported into his narrative the picturesque word ἐκύκλωσαν, only once so used in the N. T., in John τοῦ Why in Mark 12! (= Mat. 21°) should a harmonizer go back to Isaiah 5᾽ 1 for τεῖχος, where Matthew and Mark have used φραγμόν, equally taken from Isaiah? Why should he adopt the formula γέγραπται, where his source Mat. 211° had οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε

There are readings too in the dialogist’s form of the parable which are so archaic as to have vanished from all the Greek MSS. of Matthew. Such is πάντων in Mat. 2157, preserved only in the old Syriac (Syr*™). Such is the addition τὸν μονογενῆ in the same verse. The old Latin codices and the Latin Irenaeus alone add wzcum or unigenitum in this passage. And the addition ἐρχόμενον in Mark τοῦ, though only found in minuscules, in Syr? c.* vel™S and Arm, is a very old reading, if, as is likely, Tatian had it. For the Diatessaron-commentary of Ephrem (p. 176) is as follows :—‘So then he sent (the son) to silence them. But whew they saw the son that he was (Arm. Vulg. zs) comzng, they say. The words italicized represent matter common to the Armenian vulgate and the Armenian version of the Commentary. It would seem that Ephrem at least read ἐρχόμενον, if the Diatessaron on which he was commenting did

1 Cp. Mat, 12*", 1355. 145455, 18%, 1877, 25, 214° (in this very parable), 227, 22", &c.

The New Testament Citations 1n TA xix

not; but on this point there is no certainty, for the addition may be due to the influence of the Armenian vulgate.

The parable of the dialogue does not owe its peculiar form to the use of Tatian’s Diatessaron in a Greek form by the author of the dialogue. Such a view is decisively rebutted by the joint evidence of the com- mentary of Ephrem and of the Arabic text. They prove that Tatian introduced the parable in quite a different context and used another perspective of events than that which the dialogue has. Thus the parable comes in § 33 of Mr. Hope Hogg’s translation of the Arabic (=p. 176 of Armenian edition of Ephrem’s commentary); the story of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem comes in § 39 of the same Arabic (=p. 190 of the Armenian Ephrem). These two sources also prove that Tatian followed Matthew’s text in using ἄλλην παραβολήν : for the Arabic begins thus: ‘Hear another parable’; the Armenian Ephrem: ‘yet another parable.’ Tatian also followed Luke, who sends three successive missions to the husbandmen, instead of the two of Matthew.

The next gospel citation which merits attention is the famous text Mat. τ The dialogue presents no less than three forms of it :—

(i) fol. 93 1°, p. 76: ἰακὼβ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰωσήφ, τὸν ἄνδρα μαρίας" ἴον »] , >) ny ε , , ye Ν. 5 / μι ΄" Ν ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ἰησοῦς λεγόμενος χριστός, καὶ ἰωσὴφ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον χριστόν.

(ii) fol. 93 v°, p. 76: Ἰακὼβ δὲ τὸν ἰωσήφ, © μνηστευθεῖσα papia’ ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ἰησοῦς λεγόμενος χριστός. (iii) fol. 115. r°, p. 88: ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰωσὴφ τὸν μνηστευσά- ε ε


μενον μαριάμ, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη 6 χριστὸς vids τοῦ θεοῦ.

Of these three the first (i) must be regarded as that which the original author of the dialogue read in his form of Matthew's gospel on the following grounds. A. The context proves it. The Christian has declared that Jesus ἐκ τοῦ ἀβραὰμ κατάγεται κατὰ σάρκα, and the Jew has asked to be told ras γενέσεις αὐτοῦ. Forthwith the Christian rallies him thus: ‘Your own lips have reported that you have read both old and new testament, and yet you do not know this, i.e. Jesus’ pedigree.

With a slight tincture of malice the Jew answers: ‘I own indeed that there is a pedigree in the old; yes, and for that matter in the new

b 2

Xx Prolegomena

as well; it is in the gospel according to Matthew, and this is what it contains, namely: Facob begat Foseph, the husband of Mary; out of whom was begotten Fesus, he that was called Christ. And Foseph begat Fesus that was called Christ; [him] about whom is now our discussion, it says, he begat out of Mary.

The Jew has already, fol. 77 v°, p. 66, asked the Christian for a list of the books handed down to him, in what he calls his new testament, for says he to his opponent: ‘Just as you pretend to confute me out of the inspired book. so I intend to confute you out of your own testament.’ His appeal to Matthew 17°, is clearly in part-fulfilment of this intention. Unless copies of Matthew had actually contained this form of text, no Christian writer would have introduced the Jewish interlocutor in his dialogue appealing to it.

Nor in the original form of the dialogue does the Christian inter- locutor seem to have found fault with the Jew for his citation. His answer merely implies that, if the Jew continued his citation of Matthew, he would state the full truth, ὀρθῶς καὶ κατὰ τάξιν μέλλεις λέγειν : and he adds, after the citation of Ps. 74°, these significant words: For although you may choose to conceal a thing sometimes, we are well aware of it!’ Then he runs over the whole pedigree (but giving Matt. 11° in the second form), and after that adds that at which the Jew had stopped short, that which he chose to conceal. It is this verse, Matt. 11°: Now the birth of Jesus was in this wise. For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the holy spirit.’ This, says the Christian, is the statement which Matthew, after he has recited all the steps of the pedigree, is careful to add to them, ἐπάγει λέγων. And subsequently in fol. 95 1°, p. 77, the Christian

1 Tt is near to hand to suppose that in the text of Matthew, with which the writer was familiar, the verses 18-25 of ch. i were not yet included or that their presence was still challenged. Such a form of Matthew Cerinthus had according to Epiphanius. 1 add the temperate judgement of Dr. Swete on this point (The Apostles’ Creed, 1894, p. 51): ‘It is precarious to place faith in Epiphanius’ statements, especially when they concern the wrong-doings of heretics, but if we may trust him here, the Cerinthian Gospel must have differed from our own by the absence not only of c. i, 18-25, but of a part of c. i. 16. Now it is remarkable that this verse exists in a variety of forms which suggests some early disturbance of the text. . . . These facts involve the ending of verse 16 in some uncertainty, and lend plausibility to the idea that the verse did not originally contain the words which assert the virginity of the Lord’s mother.’ The above was written before the publication of Syrsin,

The New Testament Citations in TA xxi

sums up his philosophy of the matter, for which he finds support in the miracle of the bush which burned, but was not consumed. It is this. Both Joseph and Mary were virgins in respect of the birth of their child. It was a case καὶ τοῦ καὶ τῆς παρθενίας.

B. This form (i) best accounts for the variants which we find in existing sources. The reading of the great mass of Greek MSS. was derived from it by the simple omission of the words καὶ ἰωσὴφ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον xpiotdv 1. These words may have dropped out through homoioteleuton, or because they seemed superfluous after the words ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ἰησοῦς 6 λεγόμενος χριστός : which were added in the original pedigree, as the Jew is careful to explain, in order to make it clear that it was out of Mary and not out of any previous wife, that Joseph begat Jesus. It also supplied the last five words to the modified reading found in codd. 13, 69, 346, and in some of the old Latin codices which is as follows: μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον χριστόν. Lastly, the memory of this form (1) survives in the Sinaitic Syriac text: ‘Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph, to whom was espoused Mary the virgin, begat Jesus, who is called Messiah.’ And this latter seems to be the parent text of the Greek codd. 13, 69, and 346 above mentioned and of the old Latin readings.

C. The second form (ii) is a mere conflation of the reading of codd. 13, 69, 346 with the common reading. As such, it cannot ever have stood in any copy of the N. T., but is a mere bit of botching due to a reviser of our dialogue, who did not object to form (i) from the lips of the Jew, yet could not suffer it from the lips of the Christian. It is a crude bit of botching, for it lacks grammar and has no finite verb. If the reviser had given more thought to it, he might have written ἐμνηστεύϑη instead of μνηστευθεῖσα, and then he would have very nearly blundered into the Curetonian recension of the text, which is this: Jacob begat Joseph, him to whom was espoused Mary the virgin (ov a virgin), she who bare Jesus the Messiah.’

D. The third form (iii) caps the pedigree of Jesus, once more repeated

1 Prof. Sanday (in the Academy, Jan. 19, 1895) writes thus: ‘I distinguished between the genealogy as a document with an independent existence anterior to our Gospel, and the same as incorporated in his text by the Evangelist. In its first state I can well believe it probable that the list ended ἰωσὴφ δὲ ἐγέννησεν ἰησοῦν τὸν [λεγόμενον xpiordy.’

xxii Prolegomena

in full by the Christian in order to prove that Jesus is ἐκ σπέρματος aBpadp καὶ davld τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. After finishing the pedigree, the Christian remarks, αὕτη κατὰ σάρκα αὐτοῦ yeveadoyia’ τὴν δὲ κατὰ πνεῦμα τίς διηγή- σεται; Here the dialogue, before it was tampered with, must have contained the Jew’s form of Mat. 11°. If not, why should a form (iii) have been foisted in, which can never have existed at all except in the imagination of some scribe? At the same time it must be an early correction, for it is unlikely that a scribe who already read in his New Testament one or the other of the current forms of the text, would not have effected his meiosis by simply transcribing one or the other of them. These newer readings of the text had not widely established themselves or he would have availed himself of one of them as his substitute. Perhaps the Church had already rejected (i), without having as yet fixed upon a substitute for it. Perhaps there is a reminiscence of the form (i) of Mat. 11° in Ignatius, ad Magn. xiii: ὑποτάγητε τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ ἀλλήλοις, ὡς ἰησοῦς χριστὸς τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ odpxa’. And even in the fourth-century Fathers we still meet with occasional references to the σαρκικὸς πατήρ of Jesus.

The reading followed by the dialogue in Mat. 11%, ἰησοῦ instead of ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ or χριστοῦ ἰησοῦ or χριστοῦ, is only found in codex 74 and Max; yet as opposed to the main drift of later Christian thought (which was to believe that Jesus received the Christhood in the Virgin’s conception of him and not at the baptism in the Jordan) it is probably very old, like other Adoptionist readings.

In fol. 80 r°, p. 68, we read: περὶ yap τοῦ υἱοῦ τούτου, καθὼς τὰ ὑπομνή- ματα αὐτοῦ περιέχουσιν, (ἐν λαὐτοῖς λέγεται εὐαγγελίοις, εὑρίσκομεν * πόθεν ἐστίν, καὶ τοὺς γονεῖς αὐτοῦ σὺν αὐτῷ, καὶ πῶς θεός ἐστιν οὗτος; This reminds us of Mat. 13. 5 (= Mark 6°), Jo. 7"; but it seems to be an extra-canonical citation. Like Justin Martyr the writer calls the gospels ὑπομνήματα.

In fol. 87 τὸ, p. 72, the dialogue cites Ps. 68°° under the /emma: περὶ τοῦ ποτισθῆναι αὐτὸν ὄξος καὶ χολήν. In fol. 136 τὸ the same 1 581} is again

1 Bishop Lightfoot brackets the words κατὰ σάρκα, because the Armenian version omits them. Had he been a little more familiar with Armenian versions he would have known what value to attach to their unsupported omissions.

This should be read and not εὑρίσκωμεν, The MS. regularly confuses and o,

5 Perhaps the last five words ought not to be reckoned to the citation,

The New Testament Citations tn TA xxiii

cited, and then the Gospel narrative supplied in which it was verified. The following is the passage :

καὶ ἔδωκαν εἰς TO βρῶμα pov χολήν, kal εἰς τὴν δίψαν μου ἐπότισάν με ὄξος. καὶ βλέπομεν αὐτὰ πληρωθέντα ἐπὶ τὸν ἰησοῦν" pH yap δαυὶδ ὑπέμεινέν τι τούτων ; ἀλλὰ οὐδὲ ἄλλος τις, εἰ μὴ ἰησοῦς μόνος. κρεμάμενος γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ εἶπεν" διψῶ. καὶ πλήσαντες σπόγγον ὄξους μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον περιθέντες καλάμῳ ἐπότισαν αὐτόν.

Here the words σπόγγον... μεμιγμένον seem to underlie the old Latin codex C at John το": ‘hysopo admiscentes spongiam ergo plenam aceto cum felle permixtum (526) componentes obtulerunt.’ However, corre- sponding words come in Mat. 27°4. It is impossible to decide whether the dialogue here harmonizes Matthew and Mark with John, or whether it gives us a glimpse of an early text independent of them. The Georgian version of John rg*° involves the following :

kal πλήσαντες σπόγγον ὄξους μετὰ ὑσσώπου καὶ περιθέντες καλάμῳ προσήνεγκαν κιτιλ. So also Nonnus 1150,

In fol. 133 r°, p. 100, we have a passage answering to Mat. 27 as follows:

αὐτοῦ δὲ σταυρωθέντος ἥλιος ἐσκοτίσθη, καὶ ἐγένετο σκότος ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, ἀπὸ ὥρας ἕκτης ἕως ὥρας ἐνάτης" καὶ πάλιν ἐγένετο φῶς καθὰ γέγραπται ἐν τῷ ἡσαίᾳ. ...

πάλι» τε τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη μέσον" τὰ ὄρη ἐσαλεύθησαν καὶ αἱ πέτραι ἐρράγησων καὶ τὰ μνήματα ἠνεῴχθησαν, καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἀνέστησαν καὶ εἰσῆλθαν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν, καὶ ἐνεφανίσθησαν πολλοῖς. :

The author here cites a form of gospel in which the words καὶ πάλιν ἐγένετο φῶς occurred in the passage corresponding to Mat. 27%”. The language is almost the same as in the Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus, § 36, and recalls the Peter Gospel there quoted. The old Latin cod. Bobb. & actually preserves this form of text, only in Mark 164: ‘Subito autem ad horam tertiam tenebrae diei factae sunt per totum orbem terrae et descenderunt de coelis angeli et surgente in claritate uiuo deo simul ascenderunt cum eo et continuo lux facta est.’ Where we should perhaps read ‘surgentes ... uiui def! The Armenian Tatian also witnesses to them. Nor are the words τὰ ὄρη ἐσαλεύθησαν instead of γῆ ἐσείσθη of Mat. 27°! fortuitous, for Tatian must have had them in his


* But cp. fol. 87 v°: ἀνέστη μετὰ ἰσχύος καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης. Contrast the drooping figure supported by angels of the Peter Gospel.

xxiv Prolegomena

harmony, and they probably belonged to the ancient text of Matthew which he used. This is evidenced by a passage in Ephrem’s Commen- tary on the Diatessaron (Arm. edition, p. 234), which runs thus :—

The sun was darkened ... the spirit rent the vail.... At the cruci- fixion of him creation suffered. The sun covered his face, that it might not behold him as long as he remained on the cross, it shut up its light in itself, in order to die with all else. And so for the three hours it was darkened and then again it was light, by way of proclaiming about its Lord that on the third day he will rise from hell. And the mountains were shaken, the graves opened and the vail was rent; and there was

gricf and lamentation as if for the destruction of the temple which was (#9) 1S τ τ

‘And in order to show that he was departed, he called his witnesses to his departure, the just who came forth from their tombs.’

The variants éppaynoay and μέσον are not found in codices of Matthew, but μέσον comes in the Acta Pilati, c. xi.

The lengthy account (fol. 133 v°) of the risen saints visiting the holy city must be taken from some ancient apocryph. The writer evidently regarded this narrative as equally important with the parts of Matthew which it follows ; for he appeals to prophecy in order to establish the visit to hell with its imagery of brazen gates and iron bars. The answer of the risen saints, ἡμᾶς δὲ ἐλυτρώσατο καὶ ἀνέστησεν σὺν αὐτῷ, recalls the reading of the cod. Bobb. in Mark 16!: ‘in claritate uiui dei simad ascenderunt cum eo.

Just below in my notes (p. 101) I signalize more than one coincidence with the Peter Gospel. The most striking of them is contained in the Jew’s question, fol. 134 r°: καὶ ris ἐν λύπῃ γενόμενος τότε ; to which the Christian replies: πρὸς ἡμέραν μίαν πιστὸς λαός, ἅμα τοῖς αὐτοῦ μαθηταῖς. So in the P. E. 26, 27, we read: ἐγὼ δὲ μετὰ