1892, pp. 498–525, and—for the textual criticism of the doxology—ibid. pp. 526-605. The hypothesis which seems to meet most fairly the textual phenomena, the inner evidence, and the general probabilities of the chapter, is to regard vers. 1-20 as containing the letter to Ephesus, 21-23 as the original conclusion to the Roman letter or as a paragraph belonging to it, and 25-27 ("it seems artificial rather than inspired" Denney), as a much later doxology added-after the Roman epistle and the Ephesian note had been put together-by some scribe or editor, who not unnaturally considered the epistle had an unfinished look when it ended with 1623, and that it ought to be rounded off by a doxology couched in the Pauline phraseology. As Romans often closed the Pauline letters in the canon, the doxology may have been put as a finale to the whole collection as well. At the same time, no satisfactory theory has yet been offered to account for the disordered text and internal variations of Romans. That adopted in the present edition involves what may be called the reasonable minimum of conjecture and editorial change. But it is possible that still more radical treatment will have to be applied, particularly along the lines suggested by Renan, before a coherent set of results can be attained. At any rate, the starting-point of all sound criticism of the canonical "Romans" is that, wholly genuine or not, it lies before the modern reader in a different condition from that in which it left the apostle at Kenchreae. Col 118-20-Following, in part, criticisms by Weisse, H. J. Holtzmann, and von Soden (JpTh, 1885, pp. 333 f., 497 f.), Clemen (op. cit. pp. 127-129) unconvincingly regards this passage as the work of a later redactor, modelled upon the preceding argument in vers. 14-17. The close connection between Ephesians and Colossians in argument and structure has also led to conjectures, at one point after another, that the text of either has been conformed to the other (cp. above, p. 217); and it is not without reason that at one or two other passages interpolation has been suspected (e.g. 214a. 18. 23). But the extant text, especially of chap. 2, is not in a good state, and corruption from this source may exist in these verses. "This epistle, and more especially its second chapter, appears to have been ill-preserved in ancient times " (WH, ii. p. 127). In 214, for example, I should conjecture that the words ô v iπevavτíov iv are simply a gloss upon ka' μov. They read like the marginal "explanation of a copyist, which has become incorporated in the original text, and probably they are not the only phrase which would come under a similar estimate. Such alterations by copyists were easily introduced, as we know from very early times. Unless it refers to pseudonymous authorship (in which case it forms a parallel to 2 Th 22), there is a reference to this habit of scribes אָכֵן הִנֵּה לַשֶׁקֶר עָשָׂה עַט 886 as far back as the difficult passage Jer DD (εἰς μάτην ἐγενήθη σχοῖνος ψευδὴς γραμματεῦσιν, LXX). On the latter phrase Prof. G. A. Smith has kindly furnished me with the following note:-"The charge is made against those who boast that the law of Yahveh is with them; therefore probably against the custodians of the written law, i.e. Deuteronomy. The charge implies that they have written some things that are not the Torah of Yahveh, but lies. These things cannot be the original Deuteronomy promulgated by Josiah, for Jeremiah quotes from this as the word of God, though he afterwards supersedes it by the new covenant. The question remains, are they (1) any of the later additions to Deuteronomy which are now found incorporated, or (2) parts of the Levitical legislation concerning ceremonies and rites which may already have been in existence, and which Jeremiah appears to condemn as not from Yahveh (722), or (3) other written fragments inculcating heathenish practices? I do not think one can possibly decide among these alternatives. All that the passage proves is that after the publication of Deuteronomy the pens of scribes were busy with additions which Jeremiah condemned as not from Yahveh, though of course their writers, as the keepers of Yahveh's Torah, must have given them forth as from him. Whether any of these pieces have found their way into our Deuteronomy and Leviticus, is an interesting question. It is very probable, from Jer 722, that they did." This throws light upon the extent of a scribe's power, the sinister as well as the unconscious and simple nature of his possible motives, and the rapidity with which such alterations grew up in the original. The principle applies to ColEphesians, and generally to the whole of the NT documents. Philem 5. 6.—Working out his theory of Col-Ephesians, Holtzmann finds in vers. 4-6 traces of the post-Pauline atmosphere (= Eph 115-17, Col 13. 4. 9) which link the letter to these epistles (ZwTh, 1873, pp. 428-441; Einl. pp. 246, 247). W. Brückner (Chron. p. 200 f.), however, accepts the letter as genuinely Pauline; only, vers. 5, 6 are a later interpolation due to the author of the Ephesian epistle in the time of Hadrian. But it is hard to see any purpose in such a procedure. These passages, along with others which Hausrath detected, are quite intelligible upon the hypothesis that the note is Pauline and a unity, especially when Colossians and Philippians (19) are held to be genuine. Deissmann, upon literary grounds especially (Bibel-Studien, 1895, pp. 236, 237), pronounces the theories of its unauthenticity insipid and unnatural: he very properly compares the note to the letters of Epicurus and Moltke, as a bit of charming naïveté and humanity. Its authenticity in fact is no longer to be seriously questioned. On these two verses in particular and their exegetical difficulties, cp. especially the treatment in Haupt's edition (-Meyer). Philipp 32 ff. "Das aufrauschen aller Wasser der Kritik an dieser Stelle lässt vermuthen, dass hier eine Klippe verborgen ist" (Holtzmann). Arguing from the apparent hiatus and sharp change of tone, Hausrath (iv. p. 162) and a few others (cp. Pfleiderer, Urc. p. 149) have found a different epistle in chaps. 3, 4, which may have been written previously to that preserved in chaps. 1, 2, and addressed to a narrower circle, or composed at some later period. But the transition of thought admits of explanation from the simpler level of exegesis. Polykarp has indeed a vague reference to Paul's "letters" addressed to Philippi (Polyk. ad Phil. iii. ôs kaì ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολάς), but the plural (which is elsewhere used of a single letter) may well be rhetorical, and in any case the allusion is too indistinct to be decisive for the present question.1 A letter or letters of Paul to Philippi may very conceivably have been lost, but it does not follow that in chap. 31-end of our extant epistle, such a letter, otherwise unknown, has been incorporated. Clemen takes 219-24 32-43 48. 9 as fragments of an earlier letter to Philippi, written about the same time as Galatians (54-58 A.D.) [Einheit. pp. 140, 141; Chron. pp. 37 f., 197, 280], probably during Paul's imprisonment in Palestine. The rest of our 1 Zahn (followed by Haupt) suggests that Polykarp's "letters" refer to a collection which included those addressed to the neighbouring church of Thessalonika; McGiffert inclines to believe in a previous letter addressed by Paul to Philippi and referred to in 31, while Hofmann and Zahn had already conjectured that the canonical epistle is a reply to one from that church to the apostle, alluded to in 13 (ἐγὼ μὲν εὐχαριστῶ). "Philippians," his "second letter to Philippi," is dated 64 (63) from Rome, upon his scheme (i.e. 11-218, 25-30 31 44-7. 10-23). Brückner (Chron. pp. 218-222) also analyses the letter, thus :— 11.-σVV ÉTIKÓTOLS Kai diakóνois interpolation of later age (= pastoral epistles), in the interests of the church (so Völter). 118. Superfluous, contradictory to 32 128: to be omitted as an interpolation due to the irenical consciousness of the later church in Hadrian's reign or later. The Touro (vers. 19) refers back to ver. 14; after the parenthetical limitation (vers. 15-17), Paul overlooks this obstacle and resumes the weightier consideration of vers. 12–14. 26. 7. ἐν μορφῇ. . . . ὡς ἄνθρώπος: an interpolation interrupting the course of thought between vers. 2-5 and 8-11, inserted by later dogmatic prepossessions and incompatible with the Pauline Christology (Brückner of course rejects Col-Ephes), which knows neither this pre-existent divinity nor semi-doketism in the humanity of Christ. 320.-... σwτýρ as applied to Christ, suspiciously un-Pauline. Later unauthentic interpolations. 321. Similar to 26-7 and opposed to 1 Co 1527. 28 By such sacrifices Brückner considers he can save the epistle as genuinely Pauline; but it is to be feared that there will always be some critics who reckon this a very dubious salvation. 219-24-Following Völter, Clemen regards this as a misplaced insertion; since ver. 19 does not satisfactorily connect with ver. 18, ver. 21 is incredible in view of 114 and 421, and the sending of Epaphroditus (ver. 25) is the occasion of joy (vers. 18 and 28) (Einheitlichkeit, pp. 138, 139). Still more rigorously, Völter (Theol. Tijdschrift, 1892, pp. 10-44, 117-146), laying stress, like Brückner, on the "ecclesiastical" propensities of the letter, analyses it into two different epistles, one genuine and the other spurious, which have been combined at a later period by a redactor:— To the redactor are assigned the interpolations 11 115-18a 221 31a. On the whole subject of the partition-theories, as applied to Philippians, all that needs to be said is stated by Zahn (Einl. i. pp. 377-378, 397-398), and Haupt (-Meyer, pp. 97). Harnack, however, has quite recently attempted to prove from Polyk. ad Phil. 11 (Latin text), that a collection of Pauline epistles was known to the writer, that he had a correct understanding of the Thessalonian church and its epistles, and that the latter in his judgment referred to Philippi (TU, 1900, neue Folge, v. 3, pp. 86–93). Mark 1. The abrupt opening of the gospel has often suggested a primitive corruption or disturbance of the text (Weiffenbach, JpTh, 1882, pp. 668-680), though MSS evidence is awanting. Weiffenbach was content with deleting 12b (idoû eyw. . . σoû) as an ancient gloss and interpolation, thereby "opening a beautiful and grand portal" to the gospel. Reuss, however, went further, and conjectured that vers. 1-20 (1-15?) were a subsequent addition, compiled from or parallel to Mt and Lk, prefixed to the original gospel which opened with Jesus in Kapharnahum. Along with 169-20 this prelude was added to round off the narrative (§§ 189, 240). Dr. Paul Ewald, while refusing to go so far, has recently suspected at least vers. 1-3 as a later addition (Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Lösung, 1890, pp. 178-180), since the quotation, if that in 1528 be put aside as non-authentic, would be the solitary reference to OT prophecy made by the author. "Wir haben denn eine Schrift, welche nach Anfang und Ende durchaus zusammenstimmend dem Bilde entspricht, welches wir uns, wie sich zeigen wird, von jenen Aufzeichungen des Hermeneuten Petri machen dürfen." Holtzmann, too, ingeniously conjectures that in the original Mark only the Isaiah quotation existed, the Malachi passage being an insertion from Mt 1110, Lk 727. The correct solution is probably given by Professor Nestle, who (Exp. x. pp. 458–460 ; Einf. pp. 130, 131, 219; Phil. Sacra, pp. 45, 46) regards evayyédiov 'I. X., afterwards expanded into ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, as the original title of the gospel-a heading which was subsequently taken as the opening of the text. Similarly Bruce (ExGT, ad loc.), Swete (ad loc.), and Zahn (Einl. ii. p. 220f.). In early Christian literature (cp. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litt. bis Eusebius, i. pp. 988–1020), apyn never occurs thus as the opening of a book, while κaws1 (1 Ti 13) is used in such a position four times, kabáπep four times, os twenty-eight times. This natural explanation of ver. 1 as the superscription might cover Mtl1 also. The other explanations of vers. 1-3 are best given by Schanz (Commentar über das Evglm. d. heiligen Marcus, 1881, pp. 59-62). 724-826-Suspected also by Paul Ewald (op. cit. pp. 181-189) partly on the grounds of style and language, which he finds inconsistent with the rest of the gospel, partly as the episode seems to be interpolated for the first time at a later stage of the evangelic tradition. By omitting 11-3 724-826 169-20 from the extant Mark, he reaches what appears to him to represent the Ur-Marcus. As the first of these passages is crucial, it may be added that the main alternatives in regard to Mk 11 are (a) the canonical, and (b) the textual hypotheses. When the former is adopted, the book opens with ver. 2; the preceding words were added when it occupied the first place among the canonical gospels, thus forming an introductory title to all four. In process of time this general heading naturally became absorbed in the text of the gospel which stood closest to it. The improbabilities of this theory suggest, (b) that the words in question form the author's own title to his book. It is clumsy and contrary to Mark's direct style to take them with ver. 4, and to regard the intervening quotation as a parenthesis. They probably form a heading and description not for the opening (14-8 or 14-15), but for the whole book. It is intended to portray the start and origin (cp. Ac 11, Heb 23, Jn 1527) of the gospel of Jesus in his lifetime, and particularly-in accordance (Ac 1036 £.) with early tradition-from the mission of the Baptizer ("The Christian church sprang from a movement which was not begun by Christ. When he appeared upon the scene, the first wave of this movement had already passed over the surface of the Jewish nation," Ecce Homo, chap. i.). Such, on this hypothesis, is the programme of Mark. The unique quotation 1 Yet in Mk-Mt it consistently refers to a preceding sentence. from the OT is only another proof of the exactness with which the author strove to reproduce the primitive tradition of Jesus upon this point. Soltau, however (Eine Lücke d. Synopt. Forschung, pp. 1-7), has recently adhered to those who delete 12b, adding also 1125.26 (from Mt 614. 15). Mk 11-11 is unfortunately amissing in Syr-Sin. Mark 938-40 (41).-Perhaps one of the few interpolations inserted (from Lk 949-50?) by another hand: note especially the interruption of the argument between vers. 37 and 41, and the reference to the Name (?). For this and other instances vide Pfleiderer, Urc. pp. 391, 392, 416, and Carpenter, First Three Gospels, p. 280 n. Keim, however, attributes the paragraph to the writer of the gospel (iv. 334), who has misplaced it, and this "episodical" view is quite sufficient for the data; similarly Schanz (pp. 304, 305) and Weiss (-Meyer, pp. 162-164). In common with many who reject the Ur-Marcus hypothesis (recently defended by Réville, I. pp. 472-477), Sir John Hawkins (Horae Synopticae, p. 122) takes the extant gospel as practically representing the Petrine source used afterwards by Matthew and Luke. He finds, nevertheless, the hand of a later editor or scribe or owner of a gospel, in passages like 1 (Inσoû XpiσTOû), 941 (ÖTI X. éσTé) [“ a marginal gloss," Schmiedel, EB, i. p. 752], 835 and 1029. 30 (mention of gospel and of persecutions), 637 and 145 (the numerals, 200 and 300), 513 (the 2000) and 1456-59 (the disagreement of the false witnesses). The list might be extended, however. For Zahn's admission, see above, pp. 28-29. He remarks, à propos of oтi Xpioтoû ÉσTé (941), "it is not the words of Jesus but of his church (Ro 89, 1 Co 323, 2 Co 107) that we hear." Which is undeniable, and points either to the insertion of these words in a genuine logion, or more probably to the apostolic origin of the whole passage in its present form. Blair (Apostolic Gospel, p. 81 f.) traces a series of such secondary features and references throughout Mark with considerable skill. Mark 13.-An analysis of the eschatological section in the synoptists (Mk 13=Mt 24=Lk 21) yields the interesting result,1 that along with the sayings of Jesus the evangelists have incorporated a "small apocalypse," which lay before them already in written form. This apocalypse, printed above in darker type, consists of matter set in the usual triple division common to apocalyptic literature (e.g. Apoc 912 1114). ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων—Mk 137. 8 1314-20 1324-27 Mt 246-8 = Lk 219-11 2415-22 2429-31 = ", (2120-24). وو θλίψις παρουσία The intervening passages (e.g. Mk 139-13. 21-23) are Christian 2 exhortations conceived in a different spirit of comfort, and interpolated between the apocalyptic phases to emphasise the Christian atmosphere, while the saying Mk 1330. 31 – Mt 2434. 33 = Lk 2132. 33 may quite well be a genuine logion of Jesus. Although details of reconstruction differ, the 3 1 "Es gibt wenig Hypothesen, die sich in den Grundzügen ihres Bestandes so unausweichbar erwiesen und so einleuchtende Begründung erfahren haben, wie diese" (Holtzmann). The distinction between genuine and later sayings cannot be carried out as precisely, however, throughout the rest of the discourse. The general hypothesis that outside passages have passed into the evangelic tradition is an inference from the literary situation of the evangelists, and rests on evidence both within (e.g. Lk 1149-51) and without the NT. 2 The feud between kinsfolk is a standard trait of apocalyptic (4 Esdras 59, etc.); so is the international quarrel of Mk 138 (4 Esdras 55, Apoc Bar 4932 etc). 624 3 Wendt, e.g. (LJ, i. p. 10 f.; Teaching of Jesus (Eng. tr.), ii. p. 366 n.), finds the oracle in the words preserved by Mk 137-9a. 14-20. 24-27. 30., which represent a JewishChristian apocalypse, absorbed for the most part in external and political circumstances. |