from this argumentum ex silentio we would have to conclude that all three MSS. of Bedjan have, and the three copies of Schulthess. This cannot be true, as one identical MS. was used by both; but it is perhaps the best proof how easily and are confounded. The possibility at least seems, therefore, settled, that Xaos and Kóσμos may go back to an identical Semitic text, in which at one time by, and at another Dy, was believed to stand.

We have, by the bye, in the New Testament, perhaps, a further example of this confusion: Luke ii. 10, where we hear of the great joy which shall be to all the people (R.V.) TaνTI TO λa, the Syriac version, at least in the printed editions at my disposal, has: to all the world, ; and it is a new example of the insufficient representation of this Queen of the Versions in our critical editions that Tischendorf does not mention this at all. The newly discovered Lewis-Codex has also, world, likewise the Arabic Tatian, while Philoxenus and the Hierosolymitan render λa. I should not wonder if a Syriac MS. of the Peshito be found reading

s.

But I must haste to another passage, which, to my understanding at least, makes the supposition of a Semitic original not only possible or likely, but even necessary.

Acts iii. 14 we read: ὑμεῖς δὲ τὸν ἅγιον καὶ δίκαιον ἠρνήσασθε; Tischendorf notes: D, εβαρύνατε, item Iint aggravistis (d. grabastis), Aug., pecc. mer. 28, inhonorastis et negastis. Beside the remark that the palimpsest of Fleury, which in other places agrees with D, has here negastis, Prof. Blass has added nothing to the critical apparatus. In the commentary he merely says: D plane mire eẞapuvaтe. I am not aware that any one has tried to explain this apparently strange eßapuvaтe. To me it seems pretty clear apveidai is (D); compare the Syriac, and Bapus, Bapuvew—a look into Hatch-Redpath will suffice—is =

=

(Job xv. 10, xxxv. 16). Can we escape the conclusion, that he who wrote eßapuvare, translated a Semitic text, in which he believed he read on, while another, or the same afterwards in revising his translation, read = npvnoaσ0e?

Prof. Blass has asked for the first eight chapters of Acts: "num ex ore narrantium omnia exceperit Lucas, an etiam commentarios quosdam adhibuerit ab hoc vell illo-he thinks of Mark and Barnabas-perscriptos." On internal grounds he has quite decided for the latter supposition, not only as to the speeches of Peter and Stephen, but also as to the narrative parts, in which these speeches are imbedded: "putandumque erit, satis amplos eos commentarios fuisse, pertinentes fortasse a primis originibus ecclesiæ Hierosolymitanæ usque ad mortem Herodis Antipa.

I believe it to be proved, by this observation on the text of Codex Bezæ, that Luke used for the first chapter of Acts a written source, and that this account was a Semitic one; whether Hebrew or Aramaic, I cannot discuss at present; eBaρuvate favours the supposition of a Hebrew one.

2. My second observation touches the origin and home of Codex Beza. The plane mira lectio eßapuvate is to be found already with Irenæus. There is another passage where a mere clerical error of D is also already attested to by that father.

Acts v. 31: the first hand of D has T dón, instead of Tŷ değiâ. A corrector, whom Scrivener calls B, changed it into deela. By a strange coincidence, also, the Latin text of D has here a clerical error, caritatem, instead of claritatem. That Són is nothing but a misspelling may be proved by the fact that the same kind of error occurs elsewhere. 2 Chron. xxx. 8 all our Greek MSS. read: SóTe Sótav kupiw, the Hebrew showing that it must be değiáv. Isaiah lxii. 8, we read ωμοσεν κυριος κατα της δοξης αυτου; but not only have Ximenes, Aldus, Grabe printed değiâs, but the corrector of the Codex Vaticanus Ba changed this

Now this

Indeed, a

δόξης into δεξιας, just like the corrector of D. very dóns is again testified by Irenæus: gloria. respectable age of this misspelling, but we wonder less at it, if the supposition of Blass be true, that D goes back on a rough copy, a first draught, which probably was written not very calligraphically. Be this as it may, the point that I am now concerned with is this: Beza himself testifies, in the letter by which he presented his treasure to the University of Cambridge, that he got it "ex Irenæi cœnobio Lugdunensi." I do not see that those who lately discussed the origin of the Codex took any notice of this very curious coincidence. I have not time or means of

taking up the question at length, but I may express my belief that Codex D was written in the very place from whence it got into the possession of Beza, in the town of Irenæus, perhaps from his own copy, and that in Acts at least it preserved us a text of the utmost importance, a text which leads us back not only to the Greek of Luke, but to the Semitic originals which Luke made use of.

3. On Luke xi. 2 Tischendorf remarks:

Praeterea D add (:: e Mt.) un BaTToλoyeîte os (d sicut et) οἱ λοιποί· δοκοῦσιν γάρ τινες, etc.

If D takes from our Greek Matthew, why does he not write ὡς οἱ ἐθνικοί, as we read Mt. vi. 7, or οἱ ὑποκριταί as given by B syrcur. Neither is Tues found in any MS. of the first Gospel.

The natural supposition is, that évi koi and XoiToi go back to a common Semitic, Hebrew or Aramaic, original. If I consult the new Oxford Concordance of Hatch-Redpath under Moroí, it is true that I find there nothing to help me; but, strange to say, the old Thesaurus of Biel-Trommius is not at my disposal-is here better.

Dan. 7, 20 we read, with Theodotion, ǹ öpaσis avтoû μeičwv τῶν λοιπῶν; with the Chisianus: ἡ πρόσοψις αὐτοῦ ὑπερεφέρε τὰ ἄλλα, exactly corresponding to the Aramaic

being the commonest חַבְרָא .fem חֲבַר וחזוה רב מן חברתה

Aramaic word for alius, socius, ἕτερος, ἑταῖρος, λοιπός, and I cannot understand why Hatch-Redpath marked the passage with the Obelus, which implies that the identification between Greek and Hebrew (Aramaic) "is doubtful, or at least that a student should examine the passage for himself." Sub axxos, col. 56, is duly given at the head of the article (better, however N, with N to recognise it at once as Aramaic).

Now, if we resort to the root 27 in a Hebrew Concordance, for instance that of Kircher, to look there for its Greek equivalents, what do we find? Just beside the passage quoted from Daniel for Xoirós another Greek rendering

ΕΘΝΟΣ

Job xl. 25 (30) ἐνσιτοῦνται δὲ αὐτόν ἔθνη: Δεν 1929. Is this coincidence accidental? Or does λoiToi of D and Ovikoί of our Matthew go back to a common '? There can be no doubt: Jesus speaks, Mt. vi. 5ff., of the Pharisees and their practice of prayer: Dan denotes, as is well known, the communities of the Pharisees (Schürer, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2, 319, 333). In the connexion there is nothing to make us think of heathen praxis in prayer: Jesus used on in this Jewish sense here as well as in Mt. v. 47, xviii. 17.

EBERHARD NESTLE.

ON THE GOD-MAN.

III. THE INCARNATION AND THE UNITY OF CHRIST'S

PERSON.

WE have considered the incarnation in relation, first, to the Trinity; and, second, to human nature. We must, lastly, enquire what relation the different states of the Logos will sustain to one another. He is the second person in the Godhead, and, as such, he is the Archetype of man. The Archetype of man becomes actual Man,

the God-Man. What is the relation between the Trinitarian Logos and the Logos incarnate? What relation does the Logos incarnate bear to the humanity which He assumed? Has His mode of existence as a divine Person been affected or not? In other words, did He suffer kenosis or empty Himself in any way of a Divine attribute? Lastly, is His humanity in any sense personal, or altogether impersonal? If it is personal, does the personality consist in the Divine or the human hypostasis?

1. While we must maintain that the Logos came out from God," we are compelled to believe also that the Logos ever retains His eternal position within the Godhead. He fills two distinct spheres of action, the one as second Person in the Trinity, without beginning and without end, without humiliation and without subsequent exaltation; the other as Logos incarnate or God-Man, which mode of existence He assumed at the incarnation, but will continue to have for ever; and it is the same divine Person that occupies both positions. The whole personality of the Son became incarnate, and, at the same

VOL. II.

241

16