United States or Marshall Islands ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
S.R. ii. p. 211 sq. Sac. i. p. 161. Haer. iii. 11. 8. Haer. iii. 1. 1. Marc. iv. 2. H.E. vi. 25. On the general position of Origen in regard to the Canon, compare Hilgenfeld, Kanon, p. 49. Sac. i. pp. 124 and 152. Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 805. It hardly seems clear that Origen had no MS. authority for his reading.
Hilgenfeld, in his edition of the Epistle of Barnabas, repels somewhat testily the imputation of Tischendorf, who criticises him as if he supposed that the saying in St. We now possess six MSS. of the Epistle of Barnabas, including the famous Codex Sinaiticus, the accuracy of which in the Biblical portions can be amply tested, and all of these six MSS., without exception, contain the passage.
Haer. i. Praef. 2. Matthew apologists exhibit their usual arbitrary haste, &c. S.R. ii. p. 224. For what follows, see especially p. 261 sqq. Sac. i. pp. 394-396; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 487 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon und die Kritik des N.T. ad p. 40, n.; Credner, Geschichte des Noutestamentlichen Kanon, ed. Volkmar, p. 153 sqq., &c. Lightfoot in Cont. Rev., Oct. 1875, p. 837.
On the one side are certain improbabilities I admit, improbabilities, though not of the weightiest kind which are met about half way by the parallel cases quoted. On the other hand, there is the express testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp quoted in its turn by Irenaeus. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec., Fasc. iv. p. 15.
The reaction came from a quarter whence it would not quite naturally have been expected from one whose name we have already seen associated with some daring theories, Volkmar, Professor of Theology at Zürich. With him was allied the more sober-minded, laborious investigator, Hilgenfeld. Both these writers returned to the charge once and again.
Compare Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 72, where reference is made to an essay by Lipsius, Der Märtyrertod Polycarp's in Z. f. w. T. 1874, ii. p. 180 f. Haer. iii. 3, 4. S. R. i. p. 278. K. pp. 593, 599. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 88, n. 4. Tryph. 103. S.R. i. p. 294. S.R. i. The section appears in none of the forms reproduced by Dr. Recept.
Volkmar's original paper was supplemented by an elaborate volume in 1852, and Hilgenfeld, in like manner, has reasserted his conclusions. Baur and Ritschl professed themselves convinced by the arguments brought forward, and retracted or greatly modified their views.
The result has been that not only have Volkmar and Hilgenfeld proved their point to their own satisfaction, but they also convinced Ritschl and partially Baur; and generally we may say that in Germany it seems to be agreed at the present time that the hypothesis of a mutilated Luke suits the dogmatic argument better than that of later Judaising interpolations.
38, 39: omitted according to Hahn; retained according to Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. vii. 29-35: omitted, Hahn and Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. x. 12-15: ditto ditto. xiii. 6-10: omitted, Volkmar; retained, Hilgenfeld and Rettig. xvii. 5-10: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. 14-19: doubt as to exact omissions.
xix. 47, 48: omitted, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; retained, Hahn and Anger. xxii. 17, 18: doubtful. 23-27: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. 43, 44: ditto ditto. xxiii. 39-42: ditto ditto. 47-49: omitted, Hahn; retained, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar. This would give, as a maximum estimate of variation, some 55 verses out of about 804, or, in other words, about seven per cent.
Word Of The Day