notes 34, 35, 36).-H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar zum N. T., I, Die Synoptiker, 1907, p. 88, writes: "This section concerning riches early aroused doubts on the score of the repudiation of the predicate 'good' (Mk. verse 17 = Lk. verse 19). Instead of recognizing the distinction between deity and humanity (see on Mat. vi. 12), which is obliterated by Matthew (verse 18) in a tendential manner, but is otherwise manifoldly witnessed in the early ecclesiastical literature (Bousset, Justin, 105 f.), the patristic exegesis found here instruction on the deity of Christ, as if Jesus' reply presented the major and the address to Him the minor premises of a syllogism, of which the reader is expected to draw the conclusion." At the place referred to in this cautious allusion (Die Evangeliencitate Justins, &c., 1891, pp. 105-6) Bousset seeks to show from certain early citations of our passage that there existed an early form of the text-from which Matthew's text was derived "by dogmatic adjustment"-in which the latter part of our Lord's response stood something like what we find in Justin, Dial. ror: εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγαθὸς ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. How the first part of our Lord's reply ran, he seems to be less sure. He supposes, however, that there lay behind Justin a form of text in which were combined a repudiation of the address of "Good Master" and a response to the demand "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"— much as we find them combined in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. This text, though an earlier source than our Synoptic Gospels, he does not consider the original text (p. 106, note 3). The form preserved in Justin, or something like it, he judges to be more likely to be that. In Dial. 101° this stands merely rì μe déyes åyaðóv;

50

In this discussion Bousset makes no advance upon what Hilgenfeld had argued a half-century before (Kritische Untersuchungen über die Evangelien Justins, der Clementinischen Homilien und Marcians, 1850, pp. 220 f., 362, 426; Theologische Jahrbücher, 1853, pp. 207, 235 f.; 1857, pp. 414 ff.; cf ZWT, 1863, pp. 361-2, note 3). That the reading attributed to Marcion by Epiphanius, H, 42, p. 339: μń μe λdéyeis (p. 315 λέγετε) ἀγαθὸν, εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγαθὸς ὁ θεὸς ὁ πατήρ is a divergent textform and not an interpretation, Hilgenfeld is sure; and that this text-form was in circulation beyond Marcionite, or even Gnostic, circles he thinks is shown by its occurrence four times in the Clementine Homilies (Th. Jhbb., 1857, p. 415). Our present Matthew-text preserves from this earlier form the positive clause εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. This positive clause is not to be supposed, therefore, to have been made out of the negative form found in our Mark and Luke: ovdeîs ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός. The contrary is the fact: the negative clause (first found in Justin, Apol., I, 16) is rather a correction of the positive clause in an anti-Gnostic interest. For the Gnostics interpreted the εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθὸς ὁ πατήρ (in which the ὁ πατήρ is the essential thing) as a distinguishing declaration that the only good God was the Father of Jesus Christ. The difference between the positive and the negative forms is, then, far from unimportant; it was of deep polemical significance. "If this difference seems small, it is nevertheless by means

of the negative turn that the contrast between the perfect God and the imperfection of all men is made the sole possible interpretation. And if, now, in our present Matthew-text there is apparent a purpose to exclude the distinction of Jesus from the perfect goodness of God, we recognize in this just a second alteration of this expression, at the basis of which lies already the doctrine of the deity of Christ" (Theol. Jhbb., 1857, p. 416). It is an illusion to suppose therefore, that Matthew is made out of Mark: Matthew preserves a reading earlier than Mark's which Mark has set aside in an anti-Gnostic interest. But our present Matthew is a product of a still later revision,-in the interests of the deity of Christ.

A further attempt is made by F. C. Conybeare (Hibbert Journal, I, i, Oct., 1902, pp. 109-112) to validate the Marcionic text as underlying all three of the Synoptics, with the interest shifted now, however, to the opening (instead of the closing) words of our Lord's reply. The contention in which Conybeare is particularly interested is that, in the original text, we have not a question but a categorical injunction: "Call me not good!" And he endeavors to show that this reading held its ground into the fourth century, not in heretical circles only, but also, as at least an alternative reading, among the orthodox (Origen, Athanasius, Didymus, Ephrem). Conybeare does not write with judicial balance or in the spirit of scientific objectivity. He has a thesis to sustain, and pushes matters to such an extreme as to be selfrefuting. There would be no reason for entering upon any examination of his contentions except for the fact that some tendency has shown itself of late to accept these speculations whether of Hilgenfeld or of Conybeare as findings of fact, and even to build critical conclusions upon them.

Thus, for example, F. Barth, Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu, 1907, p. 251, describing Jesus' testimony to His person, writes as follows: "That Jesus saw Himself compelled to make clear His position with reference to God by a self designation, we see better in proportion as we closely contemplate this position in detail and convince ourselves that it is a thoroughly peculiar, almost an enigmatical one. On the one hand, Jesus takes His place wholly on the side of man, over against God, and confesses Himself to possess the imperfections of human existence. He lays claim to no omniscience, but declares that He does not know the time of the parousia (Mk. xiii. 32); nor to any omnipotence, for it is not His to make determination as to the places of honor in the Kingdom of heaven (Mk. x. 40). We may be most struck, however, that He also seems to repudiate absolute moral perfection in the answer to the rich young man who asked Him, 'Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' (Mk. x, 17 f.; Lk. xviii, 18 f.). Jesus responded: 'Why callest thou me good? No one is good but one, God.' The reading: 'Why callest thou me good?' (or 'Call me not good!') 'No one is good but one, my Father in heaven'* is no doubt a Gnostic heightening. It would originally emphasize the contrast with the world-maker, the Jewish

God, who is not the Father of Jesus and not good (gracious), but righteous and wrathful. The Catholic counterpart to this is formed by the rare reading: "No one is good except God only who has made all things"; here the sole good one is identified precisely with the worldmaker. Still more decisively in contrast with it is the change which the Gospel of Matthew contains. . . ." At the point marked by an asterisk he gives a list of vouchers which certainly show that a reading in which "the Father" or "my Father who is in heaven" took the place of "God" in our Lord's response was in early circulation: but it is not so clear that this reading was manufactured by the Gnostics, though no doubt it was utilized by them; and neither is it clear that the alternative reading in the first clause "Call me not good" is a genuine "various reading". And it is certainly not clear that the readings which Barth enumerates, Justin's and Matthew's, illustrate how readily "uncomfortable readings are pushed out of existence". An even better example of the unjustified use of these textual speculations is supplied by Paul Feine, Theologie des NTs, 1910, p. 28, note, who, in explaining the meaning of our Lord in His response to the young ruler, incorporates quite simply, these words: "When Jesus says to the rich young man: 'Why callest thou me good.' or 'Call me not good' (μý μe λéye åyabóv, as Conybeare, Hibbert Journal, 1902, I, 96-113, represents the oldest form, after Marcion, the Clementine Homilies, Tatian, Origen, in Mk. and Lk. xviii. 19). . . .” A phenomenon like this seems to require that we should subject Conybeare's argument to a sufficiently close scrutiny to bring out its real character.

Conybeare is engaged in seeking out doctrinal modifications of the original text occurring in the text of our Gospels. In the present state of critical opinion it is not unnatural that he fixes at once upon Mt. xix. 17 as an instance. This "bit of botching", as he calls it, however, contrary to the common critical opinion, he attributes not to the author of the Gospel, but, in accordance with his present quest, to an ancient corrector, working on the original text of Matthew "before Matthew was joined in one book with the other two gospels". He is not content however to find "doctrinal modifications" in Matthew's text; he discovers them in the text of Mark and Luke as well. The evidence on which he relies for this discovery, he gives as follows. Marcion, according to Epiphanius, read at Lk. xviii. 19: μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν· εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγαθὸς ὁ θεὸς ὁ πατήρ. “And Marcion's evidence goes back far behind any other." It is a priori unlikely, from Marcion's philosophical views, that he himself made the reading, “Call me not good". And that he did not make it is put beyond doubt by its appearance in the Clementine Homilies also, where, although it appears rather as a citation from Matthew than from Mark-Luke, it a fortiori argues the presence of the imperative reading in Mark-Luke. All this is borne out by the persistence of the imperative reading in later writings. In the Old Armenian version of a tract of Athanasius', it appears four times, and though in the present Greek text it is found in only one of these places, the editor tells us it occurs in the best manuscripts

in another of them; and we may believe that if the best manuscripts were scrupulously followed it would occur in all four of them. It seems to be presupposed in certain passages in the Armenian version of Ephrem's commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron "though the actual citations have been conformed to the ordinary text". It seems likewise to be presupposed in some passages in Origen's commentaries "though the text has been conformed either by the scribes or editors of his MSS”.

As marshalled by Conybeare there seems to be presented here a considerable body of evidence. This is, however, illusory. The whole of the later evidence, from Origen to Didymus and Ephrem, may be at once dismissed. No question of reading is raised by it but only of interpretation. To suggest that Tatian must have read the imperative in his text because Ephrem, in commenting on this passage, speaks of Christ as "renouncing the appellation of 'good'" is nothing less than monstrous (cf. Zahn's Tatians Diatessaron, p. 173). To intimate that Origen must have read the imperative in his text, because he understands the Lord to reject the epithet "good", is so absurd that it reaches almost the level of the sublime. Not only does Origen repeatedly quote the passage and always with the interrogative, not the imperative (e.g. in the first two volumes of the Prussian Academy's edition, I, 9, 5; II, 12, 19; II, 355, 16; in the Commentary on John in the same series, 45, 10; 261, 28); but he explicitly tells us that the interrogative stood in his text of Mark and Luke,—that while Matthew reads, "Why askest thou me concerning the good”, “Mark and Luke on the contrary say that the Savior said: 'Why callest thou me good? No one is good except one, God'" (Com. in Mat., Tomus xv, 10; Lommatzsch iii, p. 346). Conybeare's dealing with Athanasius and Didymus, however, is so characteristic and therefore so instructive as regards his methods, that it deserves to be quoted at large and examined in some detail. “Among the writings of Athanasius," he writes, “is one called 'About the Epiphany of the Flesh of the God word and against the Arians', printed in Migne, Patr. Gr., vol. xxvi, col. 984 foll. The text is cited from Mark or Luke four times, viz., col. 985 C, col. 993 A and B, col. 1012 B. In only one of these passages, 993 B, has the imperative, μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν survived the efforts both of editor and copyist to keep it out, and won its way into the printed text. But in 985 C the editor, Montfaucon, in his note states that it was so read in the three best MSS. In all four passages the old Armenian version renders, 'Call thou me not good' so testifying that the Greek MSS had it. Perhaps a more accurate editing of these would show that they have it still. In his treatise on the Trinity (c. 377) Didymus also cites the text in the form 'Call thou me not good', but with condemnation." Possibly it is Conybeare's predilection for things Armenian which has led him astray with reference to Athanasius' reading. The fact is that Athanasius cites the text of Mark and Luke in the form in which it now finds a place in these Gospels, and never otherwise. It stands in this form, therefore in 993 A and 1012 B where he is directly citing the text: in 993 B he is not making a citation; and in

985 C, he is citing the text not directly but from the lips of his Arian opponents. There is no evidence to be derived from these passages, therefore, that the text was read by Athanasius in the form "Call me not good". It will repay us to look at the passages.

In 1012 B, Athanasius is directly citing Scripture to support a proposition. He argues: "For unless the Holy Spirit were of the essence (τῆς οὐσίας) of the Only Good (τοῦ μόνου ἀγαθοῦ) He would not be called good, since the Lord prohibits Himself to be called good, in so far as He had become man, saying, 'Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, God.' The Holy Spirit, however, is not forbidden by the Scriptures to be called good, as David says, 'Thy good Spirit shall lead me into the right land'." What we read in the continuous passage embracing both the references, 993 A and B, is this: "And when He says: 'Why callest thou me good? No one is good but one, God', God, reckoning Himself among men, spoke this according to His flesh, and with respect to the opinion of him who came to Him. For that one thought Him man only and not God, and the response keeps this opinion in view. For, if you think me a man, He says, and not God, call me not good, for no one is good. For the good does not belong to human nature but to God." Obviously the "Call me not good" here is not a citation but a free rendering of the sense of the "Why callest thou me good?' which is immediately before formally cited. The final passage, 985 C, is more complicated. Athanasius is talking of his Arian opponents. "And now, these people," he says, "if they knew the Holy Scriptures, would not dare to blaspheme the Creator of all things as a creature and a piece of handiwork. For they distort them to us, saying How can [the Son] be like [the Father], or of the Father's essence, when it is written, As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given also to the Son to have life in Himself. There is, they say, a superiority in the giver above the receiver. And, Why callest thou me good? they say, No one is good but one, God. And again, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And once more, Of the last day no one knoweth, not even the Son, except the Father. And again, Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world. And again, Whom the Father raised from the dead. How then, they say, can He that is raised from the dead be like or of the same nature (oμooúσios) with Him that raised Him?" Here is a series of Scriptural texts in use by the Arians and cited from their lipsJno. v. 26; Mk. x. 18; Mt. xxvii. 47; Mk. xiii. 32; Jno. x. 26; Gal. i. I. Some of them are quoted with accuracy (Jno. v. 26; Mt. xxvii. 47; Jno. x. 36). But some of them merely reproduce the sense (Gal. i. 1). Mk. x. 18 is printed as an accurate quotation. But the editor tells us in a note that in some of the MSS. it is read rather: μń μe λéye, onoìv, ȧyalóv, that is to say, "Call me not, they say, good". It may well be, as Conybeare contends, that this reading should be put into the text. In this context this would not mean that Athanasius so read it in his Mark, but only at the most that the Arians so read it in their Mark. We say "at the most", for there would be little more reason for