(c) Jewish Christian narratives originating in the Palestinian communities, including 1 the birth narratives, chaps. 1-2. (On the family registers (d) A collection of parables (i.e. those peculiar to Luke). (g) Matthew's gospel (?) These, with the matter contributed by (Zahn, Einl. ii. pp. 397-424) oral tradition or the writer's originality, constitute the materials of the gospel as it lies before us. But their precise form and original colouring cannot always be recognised, since the author of the gospel has treated his sources quite freely, without any attempt at slavish reproduction (K. Stockmeyer, ZSchz (1884), pp. 117–149, on the varied sources of the Lucan gospel). 2219-20, τὸ ὑπὲρ •.. Éкxvvvóμevov.-Most complete textual and critical discussion in Resch, TU, x. 3, pp. 624-656. The textual problem resolves itself into a question of the relative originality of the primitive abbreviated Western text (D) or the fuller text represented in most MSS. The former is decisively and, upon the whole, rightly upheld by WH (ii. pp. 63, 64, "no moral doubt that the words in question were absent from the original text of Luke"), although textual evidence to the contrary is very formidable. The scale is turned by considerations of internal probability, however, which seem to weigh rather in favour of the omission. At least the difficulties upon that theory are not greater than those offered by the ordinary text. To contract an existing text was not so obvious a practice as that of expanding one which appeared, in comparison with other narratives, to be disordered and incomplete. (It is noticeable that Luke's order of the temptations (45-12) also varies from that of Matthew.) The question is, whether is it more likely that an early account of the supper (transposing as in Did 11, the order of the bread and the cup) was expanded and altered (by the addition of vers. 19b-20) 2 in order to bring it into line with the Pauline tradition (1 Co 11 241), or that an originally ampler statement was contracted, owing to the difficulty felt in a double mention of the cup which contradicted NT tradition and liturgical practice alike? It is a nice point of criticism, and opinion is divided. Dr. P. Gardner (Origin of the Lord's Supper, 1894), who attributes the supper to Paul's initiative, moulded by the Eleusinian mysteries, follows WH; similarly Brandt, Schürer, Gräfe, Wendt (LJ, i. p. 172 f.), Haupt (Ueber d. ursprüngliche Form u. Bedeutung d. Abendmahlsworte, p. 5 f.), J. Weiss 1 The pedigree-source used by Luke is on the whole more trustworthy, though less original, than that of Matthew; but both are discrepant, mnemonically arranged, compiled with considerable freedom, and due to the characteristic feeling of the Palestinian Jewish Christians that the Davidic descent of Jesus was essential to his legitimacy as Messiah-a notion, of course, foreign to the primitive tradition. 2 This derivation would be all the more natural, since Luke's gospel was in some circles taken as the gospel of Paul. Blass (SK, 1896, p. 733 f.; PG, pp. 179-182) goes even further, and omits ver. 19a as well. Vers. 19b-20 were added from Paul by a scribe to give apparent completeness to Luke's record, while (as he conjectures) ver. 19a was put in from Mark by a still later hand. This removes the institution of the supper altogether, but it rests upon the very dubious hypothesis that Luke deliberately omitted the incident because it was already familiar to his readers. 8 (-Meyer, ad loc.), Sanday (DB, ii. p. 836), Bartlet (AA, pp. 324, 325), Plummer (DB, iii. p. 146), and Zahn (Einl. ii. p. 357 f., reading—after b, e,—16, 19a, 17, 18, 21); cp. Nestle, Einf. p. 229. In any case, as Sanday points out, "both these types of texts existed early in the second century." Upon the other hand, the passage is retained by the majority of editors, followed by Schmiedel (HC, ii. pp. 163–164), Jülicher (ThA, p. 235 f.), Spitta (Urc. i. p. 295 f.), and many others; see particularly Holtzmann (HC, i. pp. 279, 280) and Bruce (ExGT, i. ad loc.). The latter discusses the point (With Open Face, p. 271) without finding any evidence for a certain conclusion.1 2248. 44. For the textual evidence, cp. WH (ii. pp.64-67), who 2 bracket the passage as an early addition, made by a scribe of the second century, from some traditional source (vide Resch, TU, x. 3, pp. 690, 691). Dogmatic reasons would explain alike the omission, or, as is more probable, the insertion of the passage. Keim, e.g., retains the verses (vi. 17 n.) as the result of Luke's dependence upon a "confused Ebionitic source" which led him to exaggerate and intensify the human conflict of Jesus; but they are struck out for very similar reasons by other scholars (cp. Carpenter, First Three Gospels, pp. 71, 352). Prof. Bruce, again, omits them as "out of harmony with the subdued nature of Luke's narrative in general" (ExGT, i. pp. 629, 630); and they are deleted by J. Weiss as a product of the same legendary nature as Jn 54. The passage may have come from some line of oral or written tradition, or may be simply the invention of a later editor. It is at any rate non-Lucan. Dr. G. L. Cary (IH, i. p. 301) hesitates to pronounce ver. 44 unauthentic, though he accepts ver. 43 as apparently a legendary accretion. But authenticity or non-authenticity is not the point, and the MS evidence for both verses is uniform. 2334a, o de 'Inσoûs TOLOVσw.-Like vers. 43, 44, probably a nonLucan fragment of genuine 3 tradition which vindicates itself upon internal evidence, as does the fragment Jn 753-811, although for textual reasons (cp. WH, ii. pp. 67, 68; Resch, TỤ, x. 3, pp. 721-723) it is to be regarded as having been added from an early and extraneous source to the original text of the gospel. Still, it is quite possible that later ages may have found a stumbling-block in such gentleness shown to the enormous sin of the crucifixion, and that this feeling of reprobation may have caused its omission from some MSS (BD) and versions (Boh. Sah. Syr-Sin). Hence some editors hesitate to expunge it (e.g. J. Weiss, Bruce, and Dr. Cary). Blass (PG, pp. 92-94) supposes that it was felt by some to be in contradiction to ver. 28, which clearly implied punishment for the sin; it certainly would not be a natural expression of the mood in which the majority of the early Christians viewed their Master's murder and his murderers. 1 Attempts to solve the difficulties of the extant text by omission and transposition in Cod. Copt. (omitting vers. 16-18), Pesh. (omitting vers. 17, 18), and in Syr-Cur, 16, 19a [b], 17, 18 Syr-Sin, 16, 19, 20a, 17, 20b, 18) 21, 22 f. The point is constantly discussed in the recent investigations upon the nature of the 2 So Nestle, Einf. pp. 229-230. Conybeare (DB, i. pp. 153, 154) regards it as certain that the Armenians possessed an early version of the NT containing the passage. Syr-Sin omit. 3 Others find less basis for the passage, however; e.g. Carpenter (First Three Gospels, pp. 71, 352, "The early utterance of the Church, in the Master's Spirit "), Keim (vi. pp. 155-156), and Martineau (Seat of Authority, pp. 645, 646). 2412-See note on Mt 289. 10. Probably an interpolation, founded on and condensed from Jn 20 3-10. It breaks the flow of the narrative, explains nothing, and is textually suspect (om. D). The purpose of the insertion is to partially conform the stories of the resurrection, and to assign Peter what in the Johannine tradition belonged to "the other disciple." Blair (Apostolic Gospel, pp. 385-387) retains the verse, supposing that John and Luke drew upon a common original, although the former supplemented it from oral tradition, while Blass (PG, pp. 188, 189) fears that ver. 24 must go also. Chase, who passes over the more difficult question of the authenticity of Mt 1618, admits that Lk 2412 may be a sign of cross-currents in the apostolic tradition. Its "linguistic similarity to John is curious, and cannot be accidental” (DB, iii. p. 761). Acts. It has not been found feasible to mark, by means of print, the editorial insertions and notes which occur throughout this book. These are frequently as obvious as erratic boulders, and in many less glaring instances can be separated without much trouble from the written sources incorporated in the narrative. At the same time, to discuss them seriatim would swell this appendix too seriously. I have therefore contented myself with printing the we-journal in dark type, and some other sources in slightly inset type, indicating also, by means of single brackets, one or two minor and (as it seems) fairly certain glosses interpolated in the text, such as 826 (avтη Éσтi ëρημos-Schmiedel, ZSchz, 1898, p. 50, and Hilgenfeld), 931 (kai Taλiλaías-Blass), 1037 (åpέáμevos àñò T. г. -Clemen, Blass), 148 (xwλòs ek к. μ.—Blass), etc. For a note on Blass's general textual theory, cp. above, pp. 610-612. Upon the whole, it may be said that the phenomenon of the double text in Acts resembles at several points that in Jeremiah. There, also, the twin texts (Massoretic and LXX) in all likelihood represent, as Kuenen suggested, not divergent recensions, but two stages in the history of what was really one and the same recension. The passages which now fall to be noticed, simply contain obvious additions, made by the editor to his sources; i.e. the context as a rule preserves sources from a date more or less prior to the date of these additions or of the whole book's composition.] The use of earlier literature in the third gospel (Lk 11-4) makes it a highly probable conjecture that the author practised a similar method in the composition of his second volume, employing not merely oral tradition and such reminiscences as were available, but also written notes and older narratives, by means of which his sketch of the primitive church was largely constructed. This hypothesis is amply corroborated by the internal evidence of the book. Particularly in 1-169 one or more primitive documents have been drawn upon. Jewish-Christian in 1 For this and the other variations, major and minor, in Lk 22-24, see Gräfe's articles in SK (1896), pp. 245-281, especially his textual materials, and his exploitation (ibid. 1898, p. 136 f.) of what may be called the "material" hypothesis to solve the well-known textual and theological problems of Lk 24 and Ac 11-8. This hypothesis (vide Birt, Das antike Buchwesen; and Ruegg, SK, 1896, pp. 94-101) views the brevity of the narrative in the gospel as a result of accident; the writer had come to the end of his manuscript. He supplemented this sketch in his later volume, or else added some further details (vide the interpolation in 2451-53) in the second edition of his gospel. Zeller bluntly puts the discrepancies down to the characteristic indifference of the author to contradictions. 2 On the linguistic phenomena of the book as evidence for unity of authorship, cp. Overbeck - Zeller, ii. pp. 184-212. Recent investigations, however, have rather modified this line of argument, as well as the attempt (ibid.) to minimise the internal inequalities and uneven elements in the book, in the exclusive interests of tendency. A note of the main points is given in EBi, i. pp. 44, 45. 8 character, like some of the sources of the third gospel, and of varying trustworthiness, they have been revised and amplified by the editor of the whole volume, until the latter assumed its present comparative unity of style and spirit. It has been conjectured that these sources include some record of Peter's acts and preaching, a Stephen-source, a Philipsource, a Barnabas-source, and so on. In fact, the distance of the author from the period makes some such general theory imperative. Otherwise, his writing becomes a free composition, founded to some extent upon oral tradition gained either at second-hand or from an informant upon the spot (218). But if Acts is "no mere aggregate of unrevised fragments," it is still less an imaginative picture, uncontrolled by any steady reference to historical reality. The truth is, this book will never yield its secrets except to those who combine both methods, tendency-criticism and source-analysis. Here it is with the latter that we are chiefly concerned. But although the legitimacy of this method is now a postulate of criticism, the extent, date, and characteristics of the literary sources, together with the precise method of their treatment by the redactor (or redactors), remain, in some measure, insoluble-at any rate, unsolved-problems. The verbal dissection of the book is often dominated by a priori conceptions of such rigidity that it passes off the ground of criticism altogether, and occasionally becomes quite an otiose problem. Several lines are scarcely worth following out, and others have little in their favour beyond ingenuity and a certain skill in literary filigree work. With some of the other phases the trouble is, as Aristotle once remarked of the Hellenic dream-oracles, that it is hard either to believe or to despise them. Yet, extravagances apart, there is little doubt that the structure of Acts contains phenomena which, at more points than one, practically justify the general principles of this source-criticism; indeed, at the present day, the legitimacy of these is denied for the most part only by amateurs and obscurantists. It is absolutely essential for many reasons that a serious and frank attention 2 be paid to these structural facts and to their bearing upon the historical contents of the volume. On the general question see Overbeck-Zeller (Overbeck, i. pp. 54–64; Zeller, ii. pp. 291-328), Wendt (-Meyer), Einl. §§ 4, 5; Holtzmann, Einl. pp. 394-397; HC, i. pp. 310, 311; Ramsay, SPT, pp. 367-372; Weizsäcker, AA, i. pp. 24 f., 208 f., 236-248; Jülicher, Einl. pp. 268-271; Feine, Eine vorkanonische Uberlieferung (1891), pp. 124-212; Zöckler, Greifswalder Studien (1895), p. 109f.; McGiffert, AA, pp. 82 f., 214; Blass, Acta Apost. prolegomena, § 5; Hilgenfeld's invaluable articles in ZwTh (1895-1896), together with his recent edition of Acts; Clemen, SK (1895), pp. 297–360, an elaborate survey; and Heitmüller, TR (1899, Feb.-April). Rose (Revue Biblique, vii. pp. 325-342) lays stress, again, upon the inherent unity of the writing, and conservative defences of the historicity are offered by K. Schmidt, Die Apgeschichte unter dem Hauptgeschichtspunkte ihrer Glaubwürdigkeit (1882), Belser (TQ, 1895 and 1897), and Knowling (ExGT. ii. p. 22 f.). The dominant motives of the book are brilliantly 1 Blass (PG, pp. 141, 193 f.) exploits a conjecture of Weiss's, and holds that Luke's source for the early part of Acts was an Aramaic history of the primitive church, written by Mark as a continuation to his gospel. See above, p. 606. 2 Shortly before his death, Professor Bruce once remarked that English criticism upon Acts, the fourth gospel, and the epistle of James, still remained practically stagnant. He predicted that these three books would make a storm-centre during the next period of advance in NT criticism. One would be strongly inclined to substitute for James, however, the pastoral epistles. analysed by J. Weiss in a recent essay, Ueber die Absicht und den liter. Charakter der Apgeschichte (1897). There Among most schools and shades of opinion, chaps. 1-5 at least are held to derive from more or less primitive notes or reminiscences which have been recast by an editor writing at some distance from the events in question, and viewing them from the standpoint of subsequent reflection. His dominant interest is to exhibit the progress and popularity of the early Christian community within the stronghold of Judaism. Hence, it is argued, these records as they now survive are like the narrative of the origins in Genesis, more valuable occasionally for their religious and ethical significance than for the precise historical facts through which that significance is mediated. This point of view often fails to get justice done to it, simply because there is a widespread tendency to forget that to be realistic, circumstantial, ethically appropriate, spiritually bracing, is not to be "historical"—in the strict and modern sense of the term. These early narratives in Acts both tell a story and point a moral. It need not be hastily assumed that either here or elsewhere in the historical part of the NT a circumstantial and straightforward tone is absolutely incompatible with any ulterior motives such as those grouped under the name of "tendency." is nothing improbable in the suggestion that these tales were composed in archaic style upon some kind of traditional basis, forty or fifty years subsequent to the period of which they treat; composed, too, in order to satisfy some contemporary need in Christian thought or action. Such primary or collateral aims in the mind of a writer do not necessarily conflict with the telling of a plain tale, any more than, e.g., the story of Ruth loses its archaic beauty when fixed in its correct historical setting as a protest against the post-exilic crusade for the suppression of foreign marriages in the community. In the same way, while it is correct to emphasise the indifference of the synoptic gospels (for example) to dogmatic and theological conceptions, and to find in this rudimentary amount of doctrinal interest a guarantee for their worth as biographies, the inference must not be carried too far. Even under the form of narrative or dialogue, elements could exist which lacked absolute historicity and bore rather upon interpretation, so that one may justly apply to Acts a judgment like that passed by Ewald upon Hebrew tradition-very moderate and sober as compared with that of Indian or Egyptian religion, and destitute, upon the whole, of fantasy and of frivolity, yet preserved in a literary record where "not a few of the sublimest thoughts were transformed into stories of a lofty kind, through the endeavour to retain these thoughts by giving them a lively historical form." 1 Without attempting to verbally analyse the text, several critics have detected in these earlier chapters a Petrine source, either a history of Peter (Sorof) or a кýрvyμа Пéтрου, or, as is most probable, πpáģeis Hérpov (so Hilgenfeld, Hausrath, van Manen, and Holtzmann). Holsten (Die 3 ursprüng. Evgln. 1883, pp. 20 f., 32 f.) inclines rather to a JewishChristian source underlying the speeches of the earlier half of Acts; 2 1 Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Eng. tr.), i. pp. 13-45. See also his admirable statement upon the creative function of memory and imagination as factors of all tradition, and upon the auxiliary conditions for its growth in a community or nation. 2 If these speeches are not abridged and revised reports of material taken from sources which go back to the vicinity of the pericd in question, it is impossible, in |