^{page 155 note 1} The Earliest Christian Confessions, E.T. (London, 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 2} Foerster in Kind's TWzNT Band III (1938) states a position with which we agree, but devotes little attention to Acts. His conclusion is: ‘Drückte κύριος dies aus, dann konnten die LXX-Stellen, die vom κύριος sprachen, auf Jesus bezogen werden: in ihm handelt Gott so, wie es das AT vom κύριος aussagt’ (p. 1094).

^{page 155 note 3} Waddell, W. G., Note in J.T.S., Vol. XLV, No. 179–80, pp. 158–161: ‘The Tetragrammaton in the LXX.’.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 4} Dalman, G., The Words of Jesus, E.T. (Edinburgh, 1902)Google Scholar; cf. Rawlinson, A. E. J., The NT Doctrine of the Christ (London, 1926), pp. 231–237Google Scholar and Bultmann, R., Theology of the NT, I (1948, E.T., London, 1952) p. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 1} Harford, J. B., Studies in the Book of Ezekiel (Cambridge, 1935), Excursus II, The divine names in Ezekiel, pp. 102–160.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 1} This list is compiled from A B C D 8I, plus the readings at the places where J. H. Ropes (The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, Vol. III) goes outside these limits in search of a Western text where D fails. Only additional, not different, appearances of κύριος are recorded—i.e. appearances not noted in Moulton and Geden. Each verse is listed only once, opposite its best authority.

The appended information about Codex Bezae may contribute to the discussion on the reliability of that text. Throughout the paper each case is decided on its own merits. In general we agree that D is more ‘pietistic’, though whether the ‘straight’ or the ‘pietistic’ text was the original or not, is another question. (Williams, C.S.C., Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1951) pp. 36 ff et passim.)Google Scholar D tends to be more careless in copying individual words, though B is not free from blame (cf. their readings at 6.7 and 12.24, a nd see Column IV in the final table of this paper), but such a judgment about the carelessness of the copyist can be distinguished from a judgment about the quality of the original text.

^{page 150 note 1} 16.16, 19, 30 and 25.26. It is interesting that Paul in chapters 24 and 25, when defending himself before Romans, never mentions the word. Thus it is unlikely that the confession ‘Jesus is Lord’ originated as a direct answer to the claim that Caesar was Lord, for, if that were so, Paul could hardly have excused himself from using it then. On the other hand, his silence shows that he was aware of the danger of using the word before loyal servants of the Emperor.

^{page 150 note 2} Usage in direct speech may also be due to the editor, but the ruling presumption is against that, especially in the kerygmata. On the other hand, some of the narrative may not be the editor's work, but we shall assume that he would have been more likely to have written narrative freely, than to have changed men's speeches. All these assumptions are open to grave doubt, but the best way to test them is to assume they are true.

Accepting the evidence assembled and adduced by W. L. Knox in The Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge, 1948), we shall further assume (1) that Luke wrote the book, (2) that he came from Antioch (Eusebius, H.E., III.4, Jerome, de vir. illus.), and (3) that he used various local traditions, whether written or oral, especially in writing the first part of the book. Further supporting evidence is supplied by the fact that the phrase ‘the word of God’, a phrase almost peculiar to the narrative sections (otherwise only found at 6.2 and 13.46), is particularly frequent in chapter 13, which may well be an Antiochine saga. (Frequency of the occurrence of ‘the word of God’ in the editorial-narrative sections of the whole of Acts: chapters 4 to 11, 5 times (4.31, 6.7, 8.14, 11.1, 12.24); chapter 13, 4 times (13.5, 7, 43 (D), 48); chapters 16 to 18, 3 times (16.32, 17.13, 18.11, rejecting 16.6 (D)).

^{page 160 note 1} Disputed anarthrous readings referring to Jesus are found in B (18.25, ) and D (19.5, 13.17, ). Taylor, V. in The Names of Jesus (London, 1953), p. 44, n. 5, gives a simple grammatical explanation for the anarthrous readings at 2.36 and 10.36.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 2} To the listeners the second ‘Lord’ might or might not have been the divine title: there would not necessarily be an audible distinction between the words used for either ‘Lord’. See Dalman, op, cit., p. 329.

^{page 160 note 3} So Bruce, F. F., The Acts of the Apostles, 2nd Ed. (London, 1952), loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 4} Numbers Rabba 15.25, qu. Abrahams, , Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, 2nd Series, p. 127Google Scholar, cit. Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1948), p. 216 in chapter 8, q.v.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 5} Taking D's reading of the present as the original; B with LXX reads the future. This change in the Testimonium may have occurred by reference to the darkness at the Crucifixion, Mark 15.33, Luke 44.45, Matt. 27.45.

^{page 161 note 1} Knox, W. L., The Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge, 1948), p. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 1} Beginnings, Vol. IV, p. 120 and Vol. V, p. 361.

^{page 163 note 1} Beginnings, Vol. III, pp. 197 ff.

^{page 163 note 2} We shall use the notation 'a, b' after a reference to refer to the first and second occurrences of κύριος, not necessarily to the first and second parts of the verse.

^{page 163 note 3} W. D. Davies, op. cit., pp. 183–5.

^{page 163 note 4} Pedersen, Johs., Israel: its Life and Culture, I–II (London, 1926), pp. 245 ffGoogle Scholar. In common English we can ask this question of strangers, but we do not think it appropriate to ask in this form when the person is known to us. Naomi's question was ‘Who are you, my daughter?’

^{page 163 note 5} Similar queries about the name were made by Moses (Exod. 313), Manoah (Judges 13.17) , Jesus (Luke 8.30—see Black, M., Aramaic Approach, p. 219)Google Scholar and, in reverse, by Jesus when He asked the Disciples at Caesarea Philippi ‘But who do you say that I am?’ (Mark 8.29). Some of these may be just requests for further titles, but even this for a Jew would be a request for greater knowledge of the soul and its workings. These points were drawn to my attention by the Rev. A. L. Burns, Lecturer in Church History, Ormond College Theological Hall, Melbourne, to whom this paper owes much else.

^{page 164 note 1} So Beginnings, Vol. IV, p. 104.

^{page 164 note 2} See Grant, F. C., An Introduction to NT Thought (N.Y., 1950), pp. 134–136.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 1} See further p. 164 and p. 167, n. 1, on the Suffering Servant in Acts. The use of the Isaianic Servant in this way in a passage concerned with Ananias, the man from Damascus, may help solve the problem of his antecedents (see Beginnings, Vol. IV, p. 102). He may have belonged to that Sect described in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which identified their Council with the Isaianic Servant. See Black, M., Servant of the Lord and Son of Man, in S.J.T., Vol. 6, No. 1, March 1953, pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 2} Paul's own account of what Ananias said to him (22.12–16) does not make specific use of the word κύριος, but it might be argued that the mention of the Righteous One in v. 14, and of the Name in v. 16, in the context of the prior vision and the words about knowing the will and hearing the voice, amount to what is said in Chap. 9. This parallels the difficulty noticed before, that Peter does not use the word κύριος in Chs. 3 and 4.

^{page 165 note 3} Here an angel is called ‘Lord’, (cf. 12.7, 17). For OT parallels see Knight, G. A. F., From Moses to Paul (London, 1949), pp. 56 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 1} There is an interesting use of the word κύριος in 8.12 according to the Codex Sinaiticus, which reads …, replacing the θɛoν read by BAC'8ID with κυριoυ. As the ‘kingdom of the Lord’ is a rare phrase, found elsewhere in the NT only at 2 Pet. I.II and Rev. II.I5, the Sinaiticus reading is harder, and probably should be accepted. The connexion between the two things Philip preached to the Samaritans now becomes clearer: it is the Name of Jesus Christ, which, as He is κύριος, has become the key to the LORD'S kingdom. The Peshitta and the Egyptian Sahidic versions also make some explicit connexion between the two phrases. The former says that Philip preached about the kingdom of God in Jesus' name, and the latter, that he preached about the kingdom and the name of Jesus, omitting any θ⋯oς.

^{page 166 note 2} Apart from 4.33 A against BD.

^{page 167 note 1} Paul's position is similar, and corresponds with what the Lord revealed to Ananias concerning him. He identifies not only Jesus (Rom. 4.25, 10.16, 15.21), but also the Church (Rom. 8.33 f; 2 Cor. 6.2; 2 Thess. I.10 and Acts 13.47) with the Isaianic Servant. He may have gone further still, and seen himself alone as the Servant (Gal. 1.15; (?) Phil. 2.16, and see Acts 13.47), which would be another example of how the Apostles in particular were charged with Jesus' mission. But it is certain that he believed the Church was the Servant with Christ. (Manson, T. W., The Church's Ministry (London, 1948), espec. ch. 2Google Scholar, Cullmann, O., Scripture and Tradition, S.J.T., Vol. 6, No. 2, June 1953, pp. 113 ffGoogle Scholar, and Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London, 1952), p. 96et passim.)Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 1} See Beginnings, Vol. IV on 1.24.

^{page 169 note 1} In S.J.T., Vol. 3, No. 2, June 1950, p. 180.

^{page 169 note 2} The lateProfessorMacnicol, J. D. A., Word and Deed in the NT, S.J. T., Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1952, p. 237Google Scholar, reprinted from the Australian Biblical Review (Melbourne), Vol. 1–2.

^{page 170 note 1} Beginnings, Vol. III, pp. 128 ff.

^{page 170 note 2} ibid., Vol. IV, p. 201.

^{page 170 note 3} ibid., Vol. IV, p. 129.

^{page 170 note 4} Paul uses this phrase at 13.11, and so ‘the Lord’ here might also be taken to mean the God of Israel.

^{page 173 note 1} W. D. Davies, op. cit., p. 185 and note.

^{page 173 note 2} Theology of the NT, I (1948, E.T., London, 1952), pp. 51 and 121 ff, especially p. 124.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 3} Perhaps less than the Supreme Deity. Loisy, , Birth of the Christian Religion (E.T., London, 1948), p. 222Google Scholar, and Brandon, S. G. F., Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (London, 1951), p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 1} Burkitt, F. C., Christian Beginnings (London, 1924), pp. 49 ffGoogle Scholar; Rawlinson, A. E. J., NT Doctrines of Christ (London, 1926), pp. 78 and 231 ffGoogle Scholar; Dodd, C. H., Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London, 2nd edition, 1944), p. 15Google Scholar; Taylor, V., The Names of Jesus (London, 1953), pp. 38 ff.Google Scholar Dr Taylor goes no further than Rawlinson in holding that a recognition of His Deity is only implicit in the ascription of the title ‘Lord’ to Jesus.

^{page 174 note 2} Campbell, J. Y., article on ‘Lord’ in Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. Richardson, A. (London, 1950), p. 131Google Scholar; also F. C. Grant, op. cit., p. 133 f. G. A. F. Knight, op. cit., challenges this supposition, see especially Ch. 12.