Ferdinand Kattenbusch has said: “I am more convinced than most that in the investigation of the beginnings of Christianity a great many problems are likely to prove insoluble. But we have no right to acquiesce in that conclusion before all means have been exhausted, all possible combinations tried.” Following this suggestion I would here present some observations on Peter's Denial, and would propose an hypothesis.

These words in criticism of Fra Lippo's vivid and realistic painting of sacred subjects admirably typify the attitude of theology to art. In the ages when the masses were still unable to read, the church took advantage of the work of the painter to impart instruction in the Bible stories. But after all, mere enlightenment is comparatively useless, sometimes even dangerous. It is always inferior to devotion. As long as the masses could be inspired by art to perform more fully their religious duties, so long was art rendering to the church the services that were its due. If the actual facts, even as recorded in the Scriptures, stood in the way of the theological object, they had to be neglected, obscured, or denied. If by a false depiction religious feeling were aroused, there could be no doubt as to the value of such depiction.

The Armenian Vita here translated, of Marutha, a Syrian bishop of the fifth century, has an interest because of Marutha's activity as mediator between the Byzantine emperors, Arcadius and Theodosius II, and the Sassanian king Yezdegerd I.

The ancient sources for the life of Marutha are scanty nor does the biography here translated add greatly to our knowledge of him. From the Greek and Nestorian sources it is known that he was present at the important councils of the church in the last decades of the fourth century; was sent to the court of Persia, probably at least twice, once on the accession of Yezdegerd in 399 A.D. and again about 408 A.D., when Theodosius II became emperor of the eastern Romans; and that he was present at the Council of Seleucia in 410 A.D.

Do the majority of the Greek lectionaries of the gospels agree with one another so consistently that it is possible to speak of their text as “the lectionary text”? It has generally been assumed that the text of lectionaries does not merit serious attention, and that even if they should agree in text, the quality of that text would not justify its study. But the discussion of the quality and significance of this text may reasonably be postponed until its existence has been established.

In the excursus on the ‘Ecclesiastical Text,’ appended to the study of the Caesarean Text of Mark, it was pointed out that four MSS., 1169, 1173, 1204, and 1385, form a closely related group. A visit to Sinai and Patmos this year has made it possible to collate the gospel of Mark in all four codices and to photograph the three at Patmos. The relation between the three Patmos MSS. now reveals itself as much closer than was supposed, but the Sinai MS. has evidently been copied from two archetypes.

[The following note by Dr. H. St. John Thackeray was found among the papers of Professor George F. Moore. It relates to a sentence from Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 1, 3, discussed by Moore in his Judaism, I, pp. 457 f.; III, pp. 139 f., and in an article in this Review for October 1929, and it is here published by the kind permission of Mrs. Thackeray.