^* Lecture delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Atlanta, 24 November 1986, and at the Divinity School, Harvard University, 5 February 1987. I wish to thank Ken McKinney for translating my French text into English.

¹ The John Mill edition of Novum Testamentum cum lectionibus variantibus (Oxford, 1707), by setting out numerous variants, troubled many minds in Europe, including Johann Albrecht Bengel. Cf. Kümmel, Werner Georg, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems (London: SCM, 1973) 47–48Google Scholar; ET of Das Neue Testament: Geschichte der Erforschung seiner Probleme (2d ed.; Freiburg/Munich: Alber, 1970).Google Scholar

² Tischendorf, Konstantin von, Acta apostolorum apocrypha (Leipzig, 1851)Google Scholar; idem, Apocalypses apocryphae (Leipzig, 1866; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1966).Google Scholar

³ I am referring to the monk Joasaph of the S. Sabba monastery, who ended his days on Mount Athos. His work, calligraphed in a large folder is dated 2 May 1879. It bears the figure Z 59 in the Library of the Megali Lavra in Athos.

⁴ Concerning the Tischendorf editions, cf. n. 2. The nineteenth-century investigations culminated in the Lipsius, R. A. and Bonnet, M. edition, Acta apocrypha (3 vols.; Leipzig, 1891–1903; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1959).Google Scholar

⁵ To take one example, the codex of the papyrus P⁷⁵ contained but two of our four Gospels. Cf. the Victor Martin and Rodolphe Kasser edition, Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV, vol. 1: Évangile de Luc, chap. 3–24; vol. 2: Évangile de Jean, chap. 1–15 (2 vols.; Bibliotheca Bodmeriana; Cologny-Geneva: Bibliothèque Bodmer, 1961).Google Scholar

⁶ The bilingual (Greek and Latin) Codex Bezae (D = 05), as well as several of the most ancient witnesses of the Latin versions, the Palatinus (2 = e), Vercellensis (3 = a), Veronensis (4 = b) codices contain the Gospels in what is called the Western order: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. Cf. Vaganay, L. and Amphoux, Ch.-B., Initiation à la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament (Études annexes de la Bible de Jérusalem; Paris: Cerf, 1986) 37–39, 51–52.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Overbeck, F., Zur Geschichte des Kanons, Zwei Abhandlungen (Chemnitz; 1880; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965) 1.Google Scholar

⁸ Irenaeus Adv. haer. 3.1.1. Cf. Merkel, H., La pluralité des Évangiles comme problème théologique et exégétique dans l'Église ancienne (trans. J.-L. Maier; Traditio Christiana 3; Bern: Lang, 1978) 4–5.Google Scholar

⁹ Outside the canon histories, I know of no studies concerning the formation of the first collections of the Gospels like Kurt Aland's study, “Die Entstehung des Corpus Paulinum,” in idem, Neutestamentliche Entwürfe (ThB 63; Munich: Kaiser, 1979) 302–50Google Scholar. I did not gain access to Preuschen's, E.Zur Vorgeschichte des Evangelienkanons (Darmstadt: Jahresbericht des Ludwig-Georgs-Gymnasium, 1925).Google Scholar

¹⁰ While in the United States there had been long-term interest in the lectionaries, European scholars only began to pay attention to them after J. Duplacy. Cf. Duplacy, J., “Les lectionnaires et l'édition du Nouveau Testament grec,” in A. Descamps and A. de Halleux, eds., Mélanges Bibliques en hommage au R. P. Béda Rigaux (Gembloux: Duculot, 1970) 509–45.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. Roberts, C. H. and Skeat, T. C., The Birth of the Codex (London, 1983; reprinted London: Oxford University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

¹² Vaganay and Amphoux, Initiation, 35.

¹³ Cf. Testuz, M., Papyrus Bodmer VII-IX. VII: L'Épître de Jude; VIII: Les deux Épîtres de Pierre: IX: Les Psaumes 33 et 34 (Cologny-Geneva: Bibliothèque Bodmer, 1959).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. Nestle-Aland, , Novum Testamentum Graece (25th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979) 246Google Scholar, 408; Aland, Kurt, Black, Matthew, Metzger, Bruce M., and Wikgren, Allen, eds., The Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1966) 319, 528.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. M. Bonnet, “Acta Philippi” in Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta Apocrypha 2. 1–90; and Bovon, F., “Les Actes de Philippe” in idem, ed., Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres. Christianisme et monde paīen (Publications de la Faculté de théologie de l'Université de Genève 4; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 301–05.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf. Hengel, M., Die Evangelienüberschriften (SHAW.PH 1984, 3; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1984).Google Scholar

¹⁷ This concerns the conclusion of the Greek Acts of Andrew (AAGr 65, according to the numbering of J.-M. Prieur). While waiting for the critical edition of J.-M. Prieur, cf. Th. Detorakis, “Tò νέκδοτο μαρτύριο το ποστόλου Ἀνδρέα,” in Acts of the Second International Congress of Peloponnesian Studies, published in Peloponnesiaca Journal of the Society of Peloponnesian Studies, Supplement 8; Athens, 1981–82) 352 (concerning lines 728–33).

¹⁸ Photius, Bibliothèque, Codex 114. Cf. Henry, R., Photius Bibliothèque, vol. 2 (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1960) 84–86Google Scholar; E. Junod, “Actes apocryphes et héré'sie: le jugement de Photius,” in Bovon, ed., Actes apocryphes, 11–24. Another text, the Acts of John by Ps-Prochorus, survived the centuries unmenaced. A recent study, as yet unpublished, of the Greek MS tradition this text has allowed the indexing of about 150 MSS. Cf. Junod, E. and Kaestli, J.-D., Acta lohannis (CCSA 1; Turnhout: Brepols, 1983) 3–8.Google Scholar

¹⁹ New York, Morgan Library, Coptic MS 576 and Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coptic MS 129¹⁷.

²⁰ E.g., the Acts of John, 18–55; 58–86; 106–15, inserted in the Acts of John by Ps-Prochorus, according to several MSS edited by Junod and Kaestli, Acta lohannis, 1:4–7.

²¹ Cf. Junod and Kaestli, Acta lohannis, 1:5: “The compiler who took the initiative of adding large extracts of the primitive AJ [= Acts of John] to the text of AJPr [= Acts of John by Ps- Prochorus] was constrained to rework the outline of the latter.”

²² This naturally rests on a hypothesis, but a very likely hypothesis, which is defended by Merkel, Pluralité des Évangiles, viii.

²³ Cf. Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, and Dates (London: Macmillan, 1924) 199–200, who notes this alternance and supposes the existence of a “Proto-Luke.”Google Scholar

²⁴ See the MS of Athos, Xenophontos, 32, fol. 29^v.

²⁵ Cf. H. Gunkel, “Literaturgeschichte, 2. “RGG² III 1678. Citations of J. G. Herder in Kümmel, Das Neue Testament, 97–98.

²⁶ This concerns §§ 107–8 in the Bonnet edition “Acta Philippi,” 41.

²⁷ Silbermann, L., “‘Habent Sua Fata Libelli’: The Role of Wandering Themes in Some Hellenistic Jewish and Rabbinic Literature,” in W. O. Walker, ed., The Relationship among the Gospels: an Interdisciplinary Dialogue (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978) 195–218.Google Scholar

²⁸ Vidal-Naquet, P., “Du bon usage de la trahison,” in Flavius Josephus, La Guerre des Juifs (trans. P. Savinel; Paris: Minuit, 1977) 7–115.Google Scholar

²⁹ Acts Ph. 2 §§ 6–29 and Acts Ph. Martyrdom collections 6 and A §142; cf. Bonnet, “Acta Philippi,” 81.

³⁰ Acts Ph. 6 §§ 64–86; cf. Bonnet, “Acta Philippi,” 26–34; Acts of Peter 23–28 (Acta Vercelli).

³¹ Several have gone so far as according the priority to the Western text; cf. Boismard, M.-E. and Lamouille, A., Le texte occidental des Actes des apôtres. Reconstitution et réhabilitation (2 vols.; Synthèse 17; Paris: Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1984). Cf. Vaganay and Amphoux, Initiation, 41, concerning the 0171 MS which is close to D (= 05).Google Scholar

³² The ties between the three forms of the Martyrdom of Philip have been examined by Flamion, J., “Les trois recensions grecques du Martyre de l'apôtre Philippe,” in Mélanges d'histoire offerts à Charles Mœller à l'occasion de son jubilé de 50 années de professorat (1863–1913) (Université de Louvain, Recueil de travaux publiés par les membres des conférences d'histoire et de philologie 40; Louvain-Paris, 1914) 1. 215–25. In the case of the Acts of John 106–15, cf. Junod and Kaestli, Acta lohannis, 317–43.Google Scholar

³³ Cf. Benoit, P. and Boismard, M.-E., Synopse des quatre Évangiles enfrançais (Paris: Cerf, 1972) 2. 15–59.Google Scholar

³⁴ I translate from a MS of Athos, Xenophontos, 32, fol. 100^v–101^r, from Acts Ph. Martyrdom collection Θ § 135; cf. Bonnet, “Acta Philippi,” 66–67.

³⁵ Resch, A., Agrapha. Aussercanonische Schriftfragmente gesammelt und untersucht in zweiter völlig neu bearbeiteter durch alttestamentliche Agrapha vermehrter Auflage herausgegeben (TU n.s. 15.3–4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906) 279–81. These quotations from the Acts Ph. come from the editions which were aware of only a part of the Acts Ph. and are older than Bonnet, “Acta Phlippi.”Google Scholar

³⁶ Athos, Xenophontos 32, fol. 58^r. The equivalent, but very different passage in.the Vaticanus gr. 824 is Acts Ph. 5 § 63. It is edited by Bonnet, “Acta Philippi,” 26.

³⁷ Cf. Janzen, J. G., “Double Readings in the Text of Jeremiah,” HTR 60 (1967) 433–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. the summary of his dissertation, “Studies in the Text of Jeremiah,” HTR 59 (1966) 447Google Scholar; and the second part of Wolff's, C.Jeremia im Früjudentum und Urchristentum (TU 118; Berlin: Akademie, 1976).Google Scholar

³⁸ Cf. Simon, M., Verus Israel. Élude sur les relations entre Chrétiens et Juifs dans l'empire romain (135–425) (Paris: Boccard, 1964) 185. Simon stresses Christian interpolations rather than Jewish excisions.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cf. the Letter to Flora, 4.1–2. Cf. Ptolémée, Lettre à Flora, analyse, texte critique, traduction, commentaire et index grec (ed. G. Quispel; SC 24 bis; Paris: Cerf, 1966) 20–33.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Hom. Luke 1:1–2. Cf. Origène, , Homélies sur S. Luc: Texte latin et fragments grecs: Introduction, traduction et notes (eds. H. Crouzel, F. Foumier and P. Périchon; SC 87; Paris: Cerf, 1962) 99–106; Merkel, Pluralité des Évangiles, 7–8.Google Scholar

⁴¹ C. Cel. 2.27: “After this he says that ‘some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of crticism,’” Translation from Chadwick, H., Origen, Contra Celsum translated with an Introduction and Notes (3d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980) 90.Google Scholar

⁴² Irenaeus Adv. haer. 3.11.7. Irenaeus attacks those who concentrate on one gospel alone and understand it badly. But he adds, “So great is the authority attached to these Gospels [the canonical Gospels] that the heretics themselves give witness to them and each of them tear away a bit to attempt to strenthen his argument.” Cf. Adv. haer. 3.2.1. According to the letter of Clement of Alexandria fol. 1^v lines 2–10. Carpocrates would have falsified the secret gospel written by the Evangelist Mark. Cf. Smith, Morton, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) 446–52. Furthermore, we know that Tatian modified the synoptic sayings in an encratite sense. Cf. L. Leloir, Ephrem de Nisibie. Commentaire de l'Évangile concordant ou Diatessaron traduit du syriaque et de l'arménien. Introduction, traduction et notes (SC 121; Paris: Cerf, 1966) 12. According to Eusebius of Caesarea Hist. eccl. 4.19.6, he would have modified several expressions of the apostle Paul. Tertullian Adv. Marc. 4.5 rebukes Marcion for constantly changing his text of the Gospel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ Cf. Cullmann, O., “Die Pluralität der Evangelien als theologisches Problem im Altertum. Eine dogmengeschichtliche Studie,” ThZ 1 (1945) 23–42Google Scholar, taken up in Cullmann, , Vorträge und Aufsätze 1925–1962 (ed. K. Fröhlich; Tübingen: Mohr, 1966) 548–65Google Scholar; Merkel, H., Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien. Ihre polemische und apologetische Behandlung in der Alten Kirche bis zu Augustinus (WUNT 13; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1971).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ To mention only three examples, the Epistula apostolorum, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Protevangelium of James know several or all of our canonical gospels, but they use them so liberally that they must not have yet recognized canonical normativity. Note also the hesitations of Serapion of Antioch regarding the value and the authority of the Gospel of Peter. Cf. Eusebius of Caesarea Hist. eccl. 6.12.2–6.

⁴⁵ Cf. Bertrand, D. A., “L'Évangile des Ébionites: une harmonie évangélique antérieure au Diatessaron,” NTS 26 (1979–1980) 548–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Concerning the prehistory of Luke 1–2, see my commentary on the Gospel of Luke, which will appear in the EKKNT collection and in the Hermeneia series.

⁴⁷ Adv. Marc. 4.4. I am citing Holmes', Peter translation of The Five Books of Quintus Sept. Flor. Tertullianus against Marcion (Ante-Nicene Christian Library 7; Edinburgh: Clark, 1868) 183–84.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Hoffmann, R. J., “Marcion: on the Restitution of Christianity: An Essay on the Development of Radical Paulinist Theology in the Second Century” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 1982) 127–64Google Scholar. I am using a photocopy of this dissertation “supplied by the British Library Document Supply Centre.” The work was published in 1983 by Scholars Press in the United States.

⁴⁹ Cf. Irenaeus Adv. haer. 3.1.1–2.1 (a short note on the identity of the four Evangelists and the circumstances of the redaction of their Gospel); 3.11.8–9 (the justification of the four Gospels by the four regions of the world, and placing the four Gospels in relation with the four living beings in Rev 4:7); Epiphanius Pan. 51.6.6–7.8. These texts are cited, translated and commented upon by Merkel, Pluralité des Évangiles, 110–15.

⁵⁰ This is the case with the testimony of Epiphanius noted in the preceding note.

⁵¹ Schmitals, W., Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (De Gruyter Lehrbuch; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1985)Google Scholar hardly integrates Christian apocryphal literature into his research concerning the origin of the canonical Gospels. But the scholar to whom these pages are dedicated rightly gives these writings great attention. Cf. Koester, H., “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” HTR 73 (1980) 105–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar