to adapt it to A. This view has certainly the merit of simplicity. The difficulty is that he does not allow the final revision to be ascribed to Luke. To this companion of Paul's he refers A inclusive of the "We-passages"; R, the final Redactor, really the composer of the book, is brought down to the period between 110 and 125 A.D. He was certainly a bold Redactor who, at that date, should not only definitely link his book to the Gospel by referring to it as "the former treatise, but should address it to a dead and unknown Theophilus. The proofs of this late date advanced by Jüngst must be pronounced entirely insufficient. They consist mainly of those passages in the book which refer to the wide extension of the proclamation of the Gospel-as in xiii. 49, xix. 10. But these references are no stronger than similar allusions which occur in the epistles of Paul, and certainly cannot be accepted as evidence of late date.

It may be taken for granted that the author of the Book of Acts made use of documentary sources, and was not particularly anxious to conceal this by skilful editing. Dislocations of the narrative, repetitions in the same or very slightly altered form, and other “infallible proofs," put this beyond question. It is enough to refer to c. v. 12b-14, c. ii. 41-47, cp. c. v. 32-35. Let any one consider how ii. 41, in which it is said that 3000 souls had been added to the Church, is related to v. 43, in which it is said that they were all in one place; or let him consider the relation between the statement of ii. 43, that many wonders and signs were done by the Apostles, and the account given in c. iii. of the first miracle, and he will conclude that this book was not written freely from information held in the mind of the writer, but that he was endeavouring to embody as much as he could of the information which lay before him in documentary sources. A very simple proof of this may be drawn from the 16th chapter, where in the first verse Avστpa is treated as a feminine singular, while in the second verse it is considered to be a neuter plural. The natural inference certainly is that here Luke was not writing directly from his own knowledge, but was using other sources. And if in Acts Luke followed the same method as he tells us he used in the Gospel, then the probability is that he used all the sources he could lay hands on.

But, accepting this use of sources, the difficulty is to ascribe each portion of the book to its original source. Plainly the hinge of Jüngst's contention is his proof that R differs from A. In other words, the point he must make good is that Luke is accountable for the narrative used especially in the latter half of the book (A), but not for the revision of the whole. Now it is significant that Jüngst himself points out that the revision of the second half of Acts is not so careful as that which has been bestowed upon the first part: that is to say, he admits that it is more difficult to discriminate between

the hand of the Reviser and the hand of A than between R and B. ["Im ganzen lässt sich wohl behaupten, dass die Sorgfalt der Bearbeitung im zweiten Teil von Acta bedeutend nachgelassen hat."] It is in this discrimination of R as distinct from A that he differs from Blass, and we should therefore expect to find him especially strong in this part of his treatment of the subject. But it cannot be said that he has made out this part of his case.

The analysis of the first part of the book is considerably marred by the characteristic vice of German scholarship-pedantry, the inability to imagine that any writer should not adhere rigidly to the rules of grammar and the laws of logic. Thus Herr Jüngst damages his case by insisting upon contradictions which exist only in appearance and when judged by an absolutely inflexible rule, as when he finds that Bethany and Olivet could not, by one and the same person, be alluded to as the scene of the Ascension. It is difficult to understand why he should so confidently affirm that xvi. 6 is an addition, and that "Asia" in this verse is not the Roman province, and therefore contradicts the usage and also xviii. 23. This is the reasoning of a counsel who has a case to make out, not of a judicial critic. And frequent instances of this impart a feeling of uncertainty regarding his conclusions. No doubt he does make out that the narrative of the second portion of Acts is not entirely homogeneous, has not been written at first hand by the Author of the "We-passages." But this does not determine his point. It is quite possible that Luke himself may have interpolated his own original narrative or journal by accounts which he received from oral or written sources before he wrote, or while he was writing, the Book of Acts.

Jüngst characterises the style of R as distinguished from that of A and B. It is a good Greek style, not picturesque or graphic, yet embellishing and harmonizing the original sources. He also remarks that the Redactor, when he finds a happy or striking phrase in one of his sources, is apt to use it in the revision of the other: a trait of R which has a suspicious appearance of having been made to order. In the substance of what R contributes, the presentation of Paul is especially worthy of note; for this, he thinks, is due to the need of the time at which R flourished for a conciliatory view of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

Herr Jüngst's volume is small, but it is full of matter, and can only be disposed of by carefully following him in all his analysis and criticism. No future investigator of the problem of the composition of Acts can afford to neglect his treatment of the book; and whether we agree or not with his conclusions, we are grateful for the material and the method which his compact volume furnishes.

MARCUS DODS.

Die Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Briefe an der Hand der bisher mit Bezug auf die aufgestellten Interpolations-und-Compilationshypothesen geprüft.

Von Lic. Dr Carl Clemen, Privatdocent an der Universität HalleWittenberg (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate.) 8vo, pp. 184. Price, M.4.80.

THE possibility that the Pauline epistles may have admitted interpolations from the hand of revisers, or may have received additions at the instance of the original writer, or may have been made up into their present form by combining letters or fragments originally separate, cannot well be denied. And yet, when admitted, this possibility opens an alarmingly wide door to conjectural emendations and unbridled criticism. We know so little of the first fortunes of the letters which churches or individuals received, and so little understand the feelings with which they would originally be regarded, or the use which might be made of them either by friends or enemies, that it is impossible, à priori, to deny that they may have been tampered with, and may not now exist in the form in which they came from their writer's hand. They were not at once put into wide circulation, nor were they regularly read even by the churches to which they were addressed. They were written on frail papyrus, and in the course of years would be reproduced. Copyists might not be absolutely infallible: words, sentences, possibly loose pages, might be misplaced. In profane literature there are many instances of the revisal of books either by their authors or by others. Eschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides revised and retouched their own plays; the great orators issued differing editions of their speeches, and it is a small part of extant classical literature which can claim to have been exempt from the emendations" and reconstructions of ancient editors. It is also known that in those times as now the writer sometimes added a sentence on the margin or interlined it.

It is the task of criticism to discover how far these normal hazards of ancient literature attach to the Pauline letters, and to what extent these most precious relics of antiquity have been affected by them. The possibility of referring a letter to two hands or to two different occasions presents so easy a means of accounting for all apparent contradictions and inconsistencies, and so ready an instrument for getting rid of all that does not approve itself to the often very limited apprehension of the critic, that its enthusiastic adoption by a certain school is not surprising. When the Verisimilia of Pierson and Naber appeared in 1886, few who read the

book took it seriously, and still fewer thought it worth while to reply. The analysis of the epistles into their supposed original parts and the allotment of paragraphs, verses, and clauses to their respective authors were there carried out with an astonishing self-confidence, and with an extravagance which nullified the effect. But, in Holland especially, the work begun by Marcion and revived by these modern critics has been diligently pursued by Baljon, Bruins, Cramer, Van Manen, Michelsen, Rovers, Van de Sande Bakhuyzen, and Straatman. In Germany, Steck and Völter represent the same tendency. Clemen, while he recognises that much of this criticism has been arbitrary and futile, and while he does not scruple to condemn many of the findings of the Verisimilia as "not merely nonsensical, but even insane," is yet of opinion that there is room for investigation, and that the whole truth about the relation of our received form of the Pauline letters to the original is not yet ascertained. While, therefore, he has on the one hand aimed at collecting all the opinions which have been published regarding the integrity of the Epistles, so that his volume may furnish a book of reference for friend and foe alike, he has, on the other hand, aimed at an independent sifting of the entire material already accumulated, and at a positive ascertainment of what is to be believed on this subject.

Clemen is himself entirely unfettered in his criticism, and, while as compared with the Dutch school he may be termed conservative, he reaches some conclusions which need revisal. First and Second Thessalonians and Philemon, he believes, have come down to us intact [durchaus einheitlich]. Galatians and Colossians are practically as they came from the hand of Paul. In Col. i. 18-20 we have, indeed, an addition by a redactor; and in Gal. iii. 18 we have the gloss of a stupid copyist. Also in Gal. vi. 3-5 and 6, we have two separate marginal notes by Paul himself. This view, which has its merits, he buttresses by the assertion that in the 11th v. Paul refers to these marginal notes in the words: "See with how large letters I have written unto you with mine own hand." A similar marginal

note from the hand of Paul himself he finds in Rom. ii. 14. On the usual grounds he considers Rom. xvi. 1-20 to have been originally addressed to Ephesus. In our two Epistles to the Corinthians he finds five epistles, either in whole or in part, and so pieced together or woven into one, that the critic who disintegrates the present form and confidently allots the disjecta membra to their various original bodies must feel that he has done a great day's work, and thrown Cuvier, Owen, and Huxley completely into the shade.

The Epistle to the Philippians was the first to have its integrity called in question. Two hundred years ago Le Moyne suggested

that it was a combination of two letters, and this opinion is still held; and, among others, by our present author. He is of opinion that the passages ii. 19-24 and iii. 2-4 are in their present connection irrelevant, and that they dislocate the sequence of the Epistle. They must therefore, he says, be disengaged from their present connection and be referred to an earlier Pauline letter to the Philippians. Ephesians is bodily dismissed; and the Pastoral Epistles are referred to several hands not exclusive of Paul's.

On the whole, the small volume is stimulating and instructive; and its author deserves the thanks of students of the New Testament for dealing with an important and difficult department of criticism with industry, scholarship, and patience, and in a serious spirit. MARCUS DODS.

Grammaire grecque du Nouveau Testament.

Par Ernest Combe. Lausanne. Svo, pp. 189.

I

THE Protestant Professor of Exegesis at Lausanne gives us in this handy and beautifully printed little book an introduction to Greek Testament study, which will no doubt be largely used in France. It is exceedingly clear and accurate, and in its small compass contrives to include a great deal. The accidence is given as far as the New Testament student requires it, and short syntax notes are supplied pari passu, that alone appearing which is really wanted for translation. A concluding chapter contains a well-written description of the New Testament Greek, and a plea for its scientific study. Hebrew and Aramaic are rather liberally quoted, but the beginner can ignore the superfluity without loss. Tables of passages referred to and of Greek words complete the volume. have not detected any errors beyond a few obvious and unimportant misprints, and the infinitives Tuav and onλouv, which should not be given alone in the paradigm when the book is likely to be used mainly by possessors of modern texts. The force of prepositions in composition with verbs might with advantage have been added in chap. viii. My only other objection is to some occasional scraps of philology, which, if given at all, should be up to date. Thus the genitive in -ou from -a nouns is not from -ao; év is not for λεοντς, which would give λεους ; -τρα- in πατράσι is not "for -Tep- by metathesis"; and apiow does not owe its to the digamma-for in this root there is no trace of aspiration in connexion with the F-but simply to the analogy of its present apopa.

JAMES HOPE MOULTON.