Luke 1:3

Luke 1:3 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]186
Ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ, παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς, καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε·

MSS: R?, X (f59rc1)

Luke 1:3 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q77f5rc3
Εδοξε καμοι παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν πασιν α>κρειβως καθεξης σοι γραψαι κρατιστε θεοφιλε

Luke 1:3 [Codex Alexandrinus (A02) (5th century)]20rc1
Εδοξεν καμοι παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν πασιν ακριβως καθεξης σοι γραψαι κρατιστε θεοφιλε·

MSS: A, E (f155r), F (f128rc2), S (f118r), Λ (f4rc1), 1, 1582,

Luke 1:3 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]37bc1
εδοξε καμοι παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν πασιν ακρειβως καθεξης σοι γραψαι κρατιστε θεοφιλε

Luke 1:3 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C04) (5th century)]91
εδοξε καμοι παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν πασιν ακριβως καθεξης σοι γραψαι κρατιστε θεοφιλε

Luke 1:3 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]182v|345
εδοξε καμοι παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν πασιν ακριβως καθεξης σοι γραψαι κρατιστε θεοφιλε

Luke 1:3 [Codex Zacynthius (Ξ040) (6th century)]4v
Εδοξε καμοι παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν πασιν ακριβως ….θεξης σοι γραψαι κρατιστε θεοφιλε·

Critical Apparatus :

(1) εδοξε : א, B, C, D, L, M?, R, W, X, Y, Δ, Ξ, Ψ,
(2) εδοξεν : A, E, F, K, S, Λ, Ω, 1, 1582, ℓ1086 (ii)

(3) ανωθεν : א, A, B, C, D, E, F, K, L, M?, R, S, X, Y, Δ, Λ, Ξ, Ω, 1, 1582, ℓ1086 (ii)
(4) ανωθε : W
(5) OMIT ανωθεν : Ψ

(6) ακριβως : A, C, D, E, F, K, L, M?, R, S, X, Y, Λ, Ξ, Ψ, Ω, 1, 1582, ℓ1086 (ii)
(7) ακρειβως : א, B
(8) κριβως : Δ

(9) κρατιστε : א, A, B, C, D, E, F, K, M, R?, S, W, X, Y, Δ, Λ, Ξ, Ψ, Ω, 1, 1582, ℓ1086 (ii)
(10) κρατηστε : L



A Textual Commentary On Luke 1:3

(a) Chrysost. opp. Vol. xii. 567  The editions give not παρηκολουθηκότι, but παρακολουθηκότι, and the editors record παρακολουθῆσαι as a various reading in the mss. If we adopt this reading, we must of course strike out γράψαι, which might indeed be dispensed with.
(Friedrich Wilhelm Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 11)

(b) It seems worth while to point out how early ihe question whether πᾶσιν, in the sentence, παρηκολουθηκότι πᾶσιν ἄνωθεν ἀκριβῶς, was masculine or neuter, was answered in the opposite direction.
The first who took it as masculine seems to have been Justin the Martyr (about 150), when he speaks of υπομνηματα written by apostles of Christ and those who followed them, και των εκεινοις παρακολουθησαντων (Dial. 103). For he alludes here, apparently, to the Gospels of Matthew and John as written by apostles, and those of Mark and Luke as coming from followers of the apostles.
The same construction is maintained by Eusebius, when he writes on Luke (H.E. iii. 4, 7) : τα πλειστα συγγεγονως τω Παυλω και τοις λοιποις δε ου παρεργως των αποστολων ωμιληκως, ‘He lived mostly with Paul, but conversed also more than occasionally with the other apostles, receiving from them the art of medical treatment of souls (ψυχων θεραπευτικης), traces of which he left in two divinely inspired books (εν δυσιν . . . θεοπνευστοις . . . βιβλιοις) in the Gospel, which he testifies to have written, as delivered unto us by those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, with whom all, he says, he followed from the beginning, (οις και, φησιν, επανωθεν απασι παρηκολουθηκεναι), and in the Acts,’ etc.
A third ancient authority for this view is Epiphanius, Haeres. 51. 7. Like Eusebius, who expressly calls the books of Luke divinely inspired, he emphasizes that the Holy Ghost induced Luke to write his Gospel (αναγκαζει το αγιον πνευμα και επινυττει τον αγιον Λουκαν), ‘who introduces in proof of truth as witnesses the ministers of the Word . . , and says: It seemed good to me, after I followed in order from the first them who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, to write unto thee (εδοξε καμοι παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν τοις αυτοπταις και υπηρεταις του λογου γενομενοις).’
The same view is taken by Euthalius (ed. Zacagni, 421), and, perhaps, also by Papias and Clement of Alexandria, when they used the same word, while speaking of the Gospel of Mark : Papias, that he did not follow Christ, but later Peter, ουτε παρηκολουθησεν αυτω υστερον δε  . . . Πετρω ; Clement, that the Roman Christians asked him as follower of Peter to write his Gospel, παρακαλεσαι τον Μαρκον ωσαν ακολουθησαντα αυτω πορρωθεν και μεμνημενον των λεχθεντων αναγραψαι τα ειρημενα.
It seems, further, to be found in the Latin Prologus to the Third Gospel, where Luke is designated as discipulus apostolorum, postea (veroPaulum secutus. The Latin version of the text, ‘adsecuto a principio omnibus,’ is ambiguous; but the verb {assequi) favours the neuter, and some MSS of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate, and the printed editions of the latter, put omnia.
Grammatically it is possible to take πᾶσιν as masculine; but the connexion excludes this view, and it is strange that it found so much favour in the oldest times, and even later, after the explanation as neuter had been put forward. The first certain trace of the latter explanation I find in the Syriac palimpsest from Sinai, ‘When I had examined all these things from the beginning,’ דבחרת אנין כלהין מן ריש. The same sense is given as that of the Peshito in the Literal Translation from the Syriac Peshitto Version, by James Murdock (sixth edition, Boston and London, 1S93),
‘as they delivered them to us … as I had examined them all accurately.’ But when we turn to the Peshito text itself, we find that it runs quite differently :  מטול דקריב הוית יציפאית לכלהון , i.e. ‘because I was near carefully to all of them.’ It is curious to ask how Murdock came to anticipate in his translation the reading of the Sinai Codex by more than forty years. With the Peshito seems to agree, again, the later Syriac version, the so-called Philoxeniana, as edited by White. It is true White translated: ‘Qui assecutus sum alte omnia ditigenter,’ but the text has  דאתנקפת מן לעל לכלהון חתיתאית , and must be translated, ‘ having followed from above all carefully’;  כלהון is masculine, the neuter πᾶσιν is rendered in this translation by כלהין ; see, for instance, Lk 2.20 3.19-20. It is not necessary to quote other witnesses;
only one word about the Gothic version, in which ‘allaim’ is again ambiguous ; it may be neuter or masculine. This version agrees with a few Latin MSS (b g of the Old Latin, and B G O of the Vulgate) in the gloss : ‘ visum est mihi et spiritui sancto.’  Did this gloss enter from the Latin into the Gothic, or from the Gothic into the Latin, or is there any trace of it already in Greek sources? See above on Eusebius and Epiphanius.
(Eb. Nestle, THE EXPOSITORY TIMES, Vol. 13, October 1901-September 1902, pp. 139-140)



This entry was posted in 03. Κατὰ Λουκᾶν. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.