Imágenes de páginas


Page 259.—This slowness and comparative reluctance to adopt writing for religions purposes may be illustrated by the remarkable legend of Noma's burial (Plutarch, Yit. Num. 22). Two coffins were interred on the JaniciUum Hill. One contained the Emperor's corpse; the other his sacred books, which had been composed by him and were thus buried at his own request, in order that their holy contents might duly be preserved, not in books without a soul, but in their proper receptacle, the minds of living men. He had already taught the sacred mysteries to the priests as an oral tradition.

Page 266.—Simon's theory is rejected by Bacon {INT, p. 180), and, in detail, by Schmiedel (EBi, ii. 1860-1861).

Page 416, n. 1.—It is not improbable, as Mr. Cross suggests, that similarities such as those referred to on p. 272 are due to the fact that these writers all followed a conventional literary form in composing prefaces and dedications. For some recent opinions on Lk lw, which formed a model for the preface of Papias, see Hilgenfeld (ZwTh, 1901,1-10), A. Beck's meritorious essay, der Prolog d. Lukasevanglms, besides Blass (PQ, 7-20) and Abbott (EBi, ii. 1789-1790).

Page 551, n. 1.—On the Papias-conjecture, see further Bacon (INT, p. 42) and Abbott ("very likely," EBi, ii. 1815, n. 8), as against Schmiedel (EBi, ii. 2508f.).

Page 606 f.—This position is generally corroborated by Schmiedel (EBi, ii. 1870 f.), who admits, however, that an Aramaic (not Hebrew) source may have existed prior to the Logia and the Ur-Marcus. The other side is plausibly advocated by Dr. E. A Abbott (recently in Clue and The Corrections of Mark), who posits a Hebrew original behind portions of the synoptic gospels, and apparently by Halevy (" L'e'vangile de Marc est la traduction d'un archetype redigi en langue arameene, abstraction faite des citations bibliques qui semblent avoir &t& conformes an texte hebreu "), reviewing Chajes (below, p. 263, n. 1). Zimmermann (SK, 1901, 415-458) throws out the suggestion that Mark represents the earliest Greek gospel for the Gentiles, being a Greek edition and translation of the original Hebrew gospel written for Palestinian Jews. The latter was accompanied by another Semitic source (=Matthew's Logia) unknown to Mark. Matthew (66-70 A. D.) was known to but not used by Luke, who wrote after 70. In Lk 1-2 we have yet a third primitive Semitic gospel of the Infancy (Resch) preserved in a Greek version, while in Lk-Acts after Lk 24ls '• the author has freely edited but preserved a fourth Semitic source emanating from the church of Jerusalem.

Page 612.—To the literature on Blass' hypothesis add Jiilicher (EM. 857-360), Gregory (Textkritik des NT, I. pp. 44 f.), and especially an elaborate textual study (Der abendldndische Text des Apgeschichie u. die Wir-Qutlle, 1900), in which A. Pott attributes Acts to an editor who worked up, with other materials, a Lucan account of Paul which included the We-journal. Much of the Western text he explains as due to glosses, the " Acta Pauli" having survived in independent form its


incorporation Into the larger work, and having thereby affected its text. Cp. Bousset (ThLz, 1900, 606-609) and Valentine-Eichards {JTS, 1901, 439-447).

Page623, n. 3.—Cp. Julicher, Einl. pp. 188-189("bei Jud, Jac, I Petistdie Fiction etwas Accidentelles, bei II Pet ist sie das Prius im schriftstellerischen Plan.—Jac, Jud, I Pet sind eben noch frei gewachsene Blumen, deren Duft nichts dnrch den Naraen verliert, II Pet ist ein in der Studirstube ausgekliigeltes Knnstproduct," etc.).

Page 636.—W. C. Allen (Exp Ti, xii. 189), taking Mark as the translation of an Aramaic original, regards tfxi in l1 &s a mistranslation of the Aramaic " before," and the reference to prophecy as intensive additions made by the translator. Whether linyy. is equivalent to the substance of the gospel story or a written gospel, the phrase is probably one of those later editorial additions which were always apt to encroach upon the introductory matter of a writing.

Page 637.—Fries (ZNW, 1900, pp. 291-2) rather needlessly denies Mk 14'-16s to the Ur-Marcus as inconsistent with the description of it given by Papias (t* in reS Xfimi S kixtitn 5 *fxxfliVri*, also nicht ntura), referring the passage probably to the Egyptian gospel, along with some other sections in our canonical Mark which (l9-11- v-u, 413-aoj may have come from the canonical Matthew, or {e.g. 631-56) from the Egyptian gospel itself, or (8lm2e) from the gospel of Peter, or finally from some other lost evangelic stories. Add (not seen) Vollgraff, "de tribus locis interpolatis in evangelio secundum Marcum" {Mnemosyne XXIX. pp. 148-161).

Page 647.—On Mt 28»i°, cp. Soltau (ZNW, 1900, p. 235) and Schmiedel (" almost universally given up," EBi, ii. 1878). It is partly owing to its early popularity, that "the traces of a chequered career of editorial amplification, recasting, modification are more marked in Matthew than in any other gospel" (Bacon).

Page 648.—Some account has recently been given {Exp Ti, xii. pp. 356-359) of an article by Prof. Odland in the Norsk Theol. Tidsskrift, where the writer seems to have partly accepted the critical results upon Mt 2819'-, i.e. that in its extant form the saying on baptism is only indirectly due to Christ, being the expression of a conviction arrived at by the church under the spirit of its Master. On the other hand, he cannot explain the apostolic practice of baptism except as sanctioned by an injunction of Christ (taking Eph 5M in this sense, not unlike Klopper); and as there is no situation available for this injunction previous to his death, the historic credibility of Mt 2819 and inferentially of Mk 16" is rendered somewhat valid.

Page 649, n. 1.—It may be pointed out that a partial analogy for the phenomena underlying passages like Mt 2818?0 might be found in the OT, where divine commands are sometimes (e.g. Jer 328) recognised after the event, the fact or experience in question preceding the significance afterwards attached to it by the devout observer.

Page 651.—Hamack (ZNW, 1901, 53-57) strongly supports Hillmann's deletion of Lk l34-3', contending that 36-37 are parallel to and intelligible immediately after 31-33, while in 34-35 the doubt of Mary is psychologically incredible, and the angel's answer illogical after 31 f. Weinel (ibid. 37-39) favours an independent conjecture of Kattenbusch (Apost. Symbol. II. 621 f.), who simply omits ti yirin* (1M)

as a gloss (with, of course, it in/*., S23), the point of Mary's doubt being not the birth of a son to her, but the restoration, after so many centuries, of the Messianic rule to one who, as the son of Joseph and herself, would be a scion of the Davidic dynasty. On either hypothesis the idea of the virgin-birth is denied to the original gospel, the gloss being introduced probably for harmonistic reasons (based on Mt lis-* anij Lk l31'32), not later than the editing of the gospel canon.

Page 652.—On the birth-narratives, see Barth (die Hauptprdbleme des Lebens Jem, pp. 250 f.) and L. Conrady (die Quelle der kanon. Kindheitsgeschichte Jesus', 1900). The latter, though partly following Itesch, bases them on haggadic tales such as those in the "Protevangelium Jacobi," the synoptic narratives being the poetical expression of more prosaic facts, Mt l117, 218-i5, and Lk 241-52 being editorial additions, and mmWflii in Mt lu, Lk l27 being equivalent to "married." W. C. Allen (Exp Ti, xL 135 f.) refers the pedigree in Mt partly to 1 Chron 1-3 ; the importance of such genealogies is discussed by Dalman (Worte Jesu, 262-266), Mrs. Lewis (Exp Ti, xii. 58-59), and von Soden (EBi, ii. 1666-1668); and the growth of tradition is suitably traced by Abbott (EBi, ii. 1778-1781). Bacon (INT, 224) puts Lk 1-2 subsequent to the Adoptionist heresy; such narratives as Lk 711-17, 23*-*1, 2438-43 "can scarcely be regarded as untouched by legendary influence," though this took place previous to the final editing by E, the compiler of Lk-Acts. [Add ZwTh, 1901, p. 177 f.]

Page 653 f.—Add generally Harnack: "Probleme im Texte d. Leidensgeschichte" (SB/1A, 1901), and specially for the literature and contents of 221,s0 a good discussion in AJT (1901), pp. 102-116. Canon Robinson also would omit 22>»>>-a> (EBi, ii. 1418-1419).

Page 655.—On the insertion of Lk 241*, see further Dr. Abbott (EBi, 1783, n. 4) and Professor Bacon (INT, p. 221 n.).

Ibid.—On the probable gloss, Ac 8M, cp. Cheyne (EBi, ii. 1650), whose alternative conjecture of a lacuna, however, is not convincing.

Page 672.—Add Nestle, Phildogus, 1900, i., "AnklSnge an Euripides in d. Apgeschichte."

Page 674.—The narrative of Paul's activity as an exorcist (Ac 1913-20, cp. 5"), which corroborates other evidence upon the popularity of magic in Asia Minor (Gal 5*, qnpfuuni*., 2 Ti 5>3, ynm) among the people reached by Christianity, is described by Cheyne (EBi, ii. 1452) in Browning's phrase as "accidental fancy's guardian sheath" of some belief in Paul's thaumaturgic powers (cp. Plutarch, Symp. vn. 5. 4, on the well-known 'E$iVi« >?*uit«T«). Cp. Weinel, Wirkungen des Geislcs, p. 218. The whole passage might have been included among those of which Jttlicher (Einl. 350) remarks that in such sections of the NT (Ac 5, 9,12,16SM') more than elsewhere "treten die sagenhaften Elemente kraftiger hervor."

Page 676.—On 26s. Other instances of textual transposition are found in Ps. Sol. 9»-", 127-», Syr-Sin (Mk 101'13, 163, Lk l8"*), the Wisdom of Solomon passim (according to H. Bois), possibly OT instances such as Zech 46 i°, Jer 3M8, g3336, 10"*, Proverbs (LXX) passim, etc. etc. From internal evidence alone it is generally conjectured that Ecclesiastes, especially towards the close, has undergone either dislocation, interpolation, or successive redaction on a larger scale, at a period which, as in the case of the fourth gospel, precedes that of the archetype from which all existing MSS are derived. Another curious instance of textual derangement through some accidental displacement in a MS. is furnished by most of the Greek MSS of Ecclesiastical (xxx-xxxvi), which preserve a false order of contents, differing materially from that in the Hebrew and Latin. The disarrangement can be traced back to the exemplar of these Greek MSS, in which some pairs of leaves must have got transposed. Similarly with the pseudo-Philonic Be incorrupt. Mundi, according to Bernays.

Page 689.—19a*> a gloss. So also Schmiedel (EBi, ii. 2517), adding 0«r».ifr . . . «»/>;•» (19") as probably incompatible with 1913.

Page 690.—It is true that the sabbath-question is passed from at 517 (Schmiedel, EBi, ii. 2529), but it leads naturally to the question of Moses, and by as natural a transition round (72a) to the original topic in dispute. To preserve the homogeneity of chap. 10, as well as to group chpp. 8-10 round the feast of dedication in December, to which he considers that their contents most naturally apply, P. M. Strayer (JTS, n. 137-140) ingeniously proposes to regard 10a as a verse displaced from its original position preceding 8U, conjecturing further that between 7K and (10w) 81J Christ had retired from Galilee at the close of the feast, and thereafter (Lk g'MO*2) returned finally to the capital. Fries (ZNW, 1900, p. 300 n.) suggests the transference of 12Jr-wto lla, between tint and T«ti/>, while Bacon more boldly still (AJT, 1900, 770-795; INT, 21\~1!Ji) reconstructs the whole gospel afresh on the conjectural basis of Tatian's arrangement, attributing all these displacements to editorial composition, not to textual transmission.

Page 693.—The transposition in chap. 18 suggested by Syr-Sin is supported by the evidence of Codex e, the best extant Old Latin witness, in which a leaf seems to have been cut out between 18la and 1825—the strong presumption being (as Mr. C. H. Turner observes, JTS, n. 141-142) that the leaf was excised because it contained the unfamiliar sequence which happens to be preserved in Syr-Sin.

Page 695.—This conclusion in regard to chap. 21 seems generally favoured by Mr. F. C. Burkitt (Two Lectt., pp. 54-72), who also, I am glad to notice, enters a much needed protest against the crude depreciation, too common in this country, of Matthew Arnold's essays on NT criticism.

Page 697.—The subject referred to in note 1 is fully discussed in EBi, ii. 2509-2514. Soltau (ZNW, 1901, pp. 140-149), partially on the lines of Wendt, elaborates the hypothesis of the fourth gospel's composite origin. Just as the Matthean Logia were combined with the narrative of the Ur-Marcus to form our canonical Matthew (or a first edition of it), so, he conjectures, the editor of the fourth gospel must have reset a narrative-source (not including, however, 201418' which are legendary developments of the synoptic tradition) which lay before him, furnishing it with edifying and congruous discourses, and adding certain passages of his own here and there (e.g. 7a8-3°- 33 36, ll1-46, 12'b) for the sake of completeness. This narrative-source represented a collection of sayings of our Lord, introduced by historical notices; though unequal in value (l44'-, 9s"-, 1931"37, e.g. "ruachen einen durchaus legendhaften Elndruck"), its contents often included many genuine reminiscences, geographical, doctrinal (e.g. 2i», 6M=Mt ll28"30, 1013, 15";

also 3> « 4 substantially, 5"-, 19»w. 3i-37) 20"), and otherwise (cp. Unsere

Evangelien, pp. 113 f.), all due to the oral tradition of John the apostle. Possessing some canonical authority even by the time of John's death, it was very slightly modified by the synoptic tradition (e.g. 213'-, 449"54). But, in the hands of John the presbyter, certain of its Logia were developed into Christian discourses written in the mystic style of current philosophy, which were finally incorporated by him more or less aptly into the source which had originated them (e.g. I118, 9s5'-, 10>18, 14-17 part).

« AnteriorContinuar »