Saint-cultus is an element which mingles in the subject-matter proper to historians, liturgiologists and archaeologists. Sometimes they are tempted to draw conclusions with regard to questions belonging to their own fields of study in dependence upon the estimate which they have formed of some hagiological situation. Only too often the hagiological situation differs in some way from their idea of it, and the conclusion which they have reached is accordingly unsound.

Sir Frederick Kenyon, in the introduction to his edition of the Chester Beatty Papyrus, points out the strong affinity of the text of this papyrus with ‘that segregated by Canon Streeter and others…and identified by them with the text of Caesarea.’ The object of this article is to raise the question whether or no the same thing applies in the case of the Gospel of Luke. The difficulty of answering the question is caused by the relative scantiness of the MSS. authority for the Caesarean text in Luke as compared with Mark. Among the best authorities for the Caesarean text of Mark are W, 28, 565, and the Old Georgian version. In Luke, however, the Caesarean readings in these Greek MSS. are very scanty, and the text of the Adysh MS. of the Old Georgian is not yet available. Again, in the case of θ and 700, the Byzantine reviser has left fewer Caesarean readings in Luke (especially towards the latter part of the Gospel) than even in Matthew, and far fewer than in Mark.