Two shipwrecked gospels: the Logoi of Jesus and Papias's Exposition of logia about the Lord 9781589836907, 9781589836914

Citation preview

TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS

Society of Biblical Literature Early Christianity and Its Literature

Gail R. O'Day, General Editor Editorial Board

Warren Carter Beverly Roberts Gaventa Judith M. Lieu Joseph Verheyden Sze-kar Wan

Number 8 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS The Logoi of Jesus and Papias'’s Exposition of Logia about the Lord

TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS THE LOGOI OF JESUS AND PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION OF LOGIA ABOUT THE LORD

Dennis R. MacDonald

Society of Biblical Literature Atlanta

TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition of Logia about the Lord

Copyright © 2012 by the Society of Biblical Literature

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data MacDonald, Dennis Ronald, 1946— Two shipwrecked gospels : the logoi of Jesus and Papias’s exposition of logia about the Lord / Dennis R. MacDonald. p.cm. — (Early Christianity and its literature ; number 8) ISBN 978-1-58983-690-7 (paper binding : alk. paper) — 978-1-58983-691-4 (electronic format) 1. Apocryphal books (New Testament) 2. Papias, Saint, Bishop of Hierapolis, d. ca. 120. 3. Bible. N.T. Matthew—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 4. Bible. N.T. Mark—Criti-

cism, interpretation, etc. 5. Bible. N.T. Luke—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series: Early Christianity and its literature ; no. 8. BS2970.M33 2012

226 .066—dc23 2012019052 Printed on acid-free, recycled paper conforming to ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) and ISO 9706:1994 standards for paper permanence.

To Katya Louise MacDonald Reno and Henri Julian Reno My favorite book lovers

BLANK PAGE

CONTENTS

Preface...c.cscsccsscssssssesssscescesscssesseescsseesecssessessessessessessecessssessesessesessssssseseeseessesessesseeee EX

Acknowledgments... csesseessessesseececescesceeescesceasecsscesceseeasceaceaseesseeseeeceaseeeeeeeseeeee Xd Abbreviations ........ cee eesccesesseseessecescescesseeesscescesseeeeseesseccececseeseeseeseesessseeseeesteesees NULL

The Q+/Papias Hypothesis... ceccsssssesseccseessesssceseeseecceecsceeseecseeseeeeeeeseeeeeeeeree OV

PART 1: PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION OF LOGIA ABOUT THE LORD

Introduction to Part 1: Salvaging a Textual Shipwreck oe eeseeeeeeteeteeeee 3 1. Textual ReECONStructiON........ cc ceceescssesssssessecescescssccsscsessscsssessssesessesessesseesseeee D

Book 1. Preface and John’s Preaching 9 Book 2. Jesus in Galilee and Judea (?) 18 Book 3. Jesus in Jerusalem (?) 24 Book 4. Jesus Death and Resurrection 25

Book 5. Events after Jesus’ Resurrection (?) 38 2. Papias and Luke-Acts.....c ce eecssessssessessescssessesscsscsecsecsecsesssssessessessessessessesseeees BO

3. Luke's Knowledge of Papias’s Exposition and the Synoptic Problem.........69

Luke’s Knowledge of the Gospel of Mark 71

Luke’s Knowledge of the Gospel of Matthew 73 Did Luke Know Papias’s Second “Translation” of Matthew? 87 PART 2: [THE LOGOI OF JESUS

Introduction to Part 2: Salvaging another Textual Shipwreck... 93 4. Matthew’s Non-Markan Source (Q without Luke) vo ceeeeeeeeeee ID

The Quest for Minimal Matthew's Q (MQ-) 97

The Quest for Expanded Matthew's Q (MQ+) 115

Vill BOOK TITLE

Title 177

5. The Logoi of Jesus (Q+) and Its Antetexts....... cc ccecesseesseeteeteeeteteteeteeree LZ 1

Luke-Acts and the Lost Gospel 171

The Lost Gospel and Its Antetexts 174

Logoi 1: John the Prophet 178 Logoi 2: Jesus Empowerment and Testings 186 Logoi 3: Jesus Acquires Disciples and Alienates Pharisees 192 Logoi 4: The Inaugural Sermon and the Centurion’s Faith 212 Logoi 5: Jesus Praise of John and the Mysteries of the Kingdom 244

Excursus 1: The Location of the Mission Speech 261

Logoi 6: More Controversies 263

Logoi 7: Woes against the Religious Leaders 287 Logoi 8: Discipleship and the Kingdom of God 308

Logoi 9: The Eschatological Sermon 351

Logoi 10: The Mission Speech 359

Ending of Logoi 405 Excursus 3: How the Logoi of Jesus Ended 407 Excursus 2: The Ending of Matthew as a Witness to the

Greek Synopsis of the Logoi of Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels 411 6. The Logoi of Jesus as Literature... eesesseseceeceeceeseececeeceaceeesceeeeeseeeeeeeees DOD

7. The Logoi of Jesus as Papias’s Second “Translation” of Matthew..............521

8. The Logoi of Jesus as a Source for the Gospel of Mark... eee O37 9. The Logoi of Jesus as a Witness to the Historical Jesus... eeeseseeneeee O43 10. Why the Logoi of Jesus and Papias'’s Exposition Shipwrecked................555 Appendix 1: Text and Translation of the Logoi of Jesus .......sessseeeeeteeeeee DOL Appendix 2: Concordance to the Logoi of Jesus....ccesccscssssseeseeteeeeteeeteteeteeees 21

Appendix 3: Overview of the Logoi of Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels........655 Appendix 4: Comparison of The Critical Edition of Q and the LOGO: Of JOSUS...ecssessssesesseseesesseseeseseceseecescesseceseecessecesceseeseseeecseeseeeseeseseeseseeseeees OOD

Appendix 5: Exposition of Logia about the Lord: Text and Translation........675 Bibliography... eesessesceccsssscecceceeeseeseecesceeceecceseeseeseseesseeseesseeseeaeeeesseaseeeeeeseessOO7

Index 1: Jewish Antetexts in the Logoi of Jesus ......esscessssssseeseeseeeseeeeeteeseeeee 099 Index 2: Modern Authors... eesssessessseessesesseeesceessceseeceeseeesceaseeeseesseeesseeeeee 703 Index 3: SUDjeCtS wo... ee eeeeseesseseeeeeeecescescecescesceacecseescesseesscesceaseaseessceaceasecescessenses /OZ

PREFACE

Early Christians produced several books about Jesus in addition to the four Gospels in the New Testament. Some of these documents now survive in whole or in part, some in citations embedded in later writings, and some only as titles. Others are hypothetical reconstructions of lost documents that once may have been sources for later Gospels. This book attempts to reconstruct two lost Gospels, one of which probably was the earliest of all, what scholars conventionally call Q, probably from the German word Quelle, “source.” Tragically, no manuscript of this document exists, and there is no uncontested external witness to it, but, as we shall see, it is highly likely that the Synoptic Evangelists (unknown authors we have come to call Matthew, Mark, and Luke) all relied on a document that no longer exists. Although scholars have published several speculative reconstructions of Q on the basis of Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark, this volume proposes an alternative methodology for recovering the lost Gospel and produces a text nearly twice as long. To distinguish my reconstruction from others, I refer to it as Q+ or as the Logoi of Jesus, its most likely original title.

The second Gospel reconstructed in this volume survives exclusively in citations by later authors. The Exposition of Logia about the Lord, a fivevolume work by Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (in Asia Minor), apparently

was a running commentary on three earlier Gospels: those that we know as Mark and Matthew and a third with affinities with Matthew. I will propose that this third Gospel was none other than the lost Gospel, the Logoi of Jesus. Papias did not restrict himself to information derived from these books; he supplemented them with lore provided by people who had spoken with Jesus followers. Although publications of the Papian fragments are readily available elsewhere, to my knowledge no one has rearranged them into their most likely sequence and speculated systematically concerning content that is missing in the gaps between them. Papiasss first four books apparently followed the narrative sequence of the Gospel of Matthew; the fifth regaled activities of Jesus’ followers up to his own day, circa 110 c.£. One therefore may consider his oeuvre as an extended Gospel with running commentary. -ix-

X TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS One can scarcely exaggerate the tragic consequences of these two textual shipwrecks. The Logoi of Jesus apparently was the earliest of all Gospels, and the Exposition was a trove of oral traditions about Jesus and the earliest known commentary on Mark and Matthew. These alternative reconstructions of the Logoi of Jesus and the Exposition of Logia about the Lord permit a new solution to the Synoptic Problem, the vexing interconnections among

Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I will refer to this solution as the Q+/Papias Hypothesis. The first part of this book discusses the later of these two lost Gospels, because Papias provides precious external evidence that Logoi once existed and is not merely a clever scholarly contrivance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book would have been impossible without the patience and insights of my students at the Iliff School of Theology, Harvard Divinity School, Union Theological Seminary (New York), the Claremont Graduate University, and especially the Claremont School of Theology. I have been working on the Synoptic Problem for more than thirty years, during which I have frequently modified my views, sometimes quite radically. I trust that my students, especially from earlier years, will forgive my evolution and will be receptive to my more mature views. For part 1, on Papiass Exposition of Logia about the Lord, I am indebted to the extensive bibliographic work of Daniel Sharp and the critical encouragement of Enrico Norelli, whose edition informed me profoundly. Among the blessing of my life is my brother, Peter J. MacDonald, whose impressive facility in Italian spared me from many translation infelicities and permitted more confidence in using Norelli.

Part 2, on the Logoi of Jesus (Q+), relies heavily on the insights of David R. Catchpole, Harry T. Fleddermann, Christoph Heil, John S. Kloppenborg, Jan Lambrecht, James M. Robinson, Christopher M. Tuckett, and Jozef Verheyden, even though my reconstruction of the lost Gospel often departs dramatically from theirs. My student Richard C. Miller wrote the computer program for the Logoi concordance, and other Claremont students, J. D. Sellgren, Daniel Sharp, and Michael Kochenash, checked and revised it. Above all, I must thank Bob Buller, SBL Editorial Director, for his skill, diligence, and patience in preparing the book for publication. This volume presented many unusual editorial challenges: extensive use of parallel columns, en face presentations of texts and translations, diagrams, synopses, and the always-pesky Greek diacriticals. Over many months he worked his magic with grace and precision, for which I will always be profoundly grateful.

_xi-

BLANK PAGE

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library

AnBib Analecta Biblica ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972-.

ATD Acta Theologica Danica ATR Anglican Theological Review

BBB Bonner biblische Beitrage BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

Bib Biblica

BTSt Biblical Tools and Studies BZABR Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschicte

BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CSCOSsyr Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium, Syriac

DJD Discoveries in the Judean Desert

DQ Documenta Q

ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses

ETS Erfurter theologische Studien

FB Forschung zur Bibel

FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

GTA Gottinger theologischer Arbeiten HTR Harvard Theological Review HTS Harvard Theological Studies ICC International Critical Commentary JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society - Xill-

X1V TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

JTS Journal of Theological Studies KBANT Kommentare und Beitrage zum Alten und Neuen Testament

LB Linguistica Biblica LCL Loeb Classical Library

LD Lectio Divinia

LNTS Library of New Testament Studies

LS Louvain Studies

MTS Margburger theologische Studien NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum

NTS New Testament Studies

SBFLA Studii biblici Franciscani liber annus

SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLECL Society of Biblical Literature Early Christian Literature

StBL Studies in Biblical Literature

SH Sacred History SJT Scottish Journal of Theology TJT Toronto Journal of Theology TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur

VCSup Vigiliae Christianae Supplements WGRW Writings from the Greco-Roman World WMANT _ Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZKT Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie ZNW Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche

THE Q+/PAPIAS HYPOTHESIS

Deuteronomy Homeric Epic (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel)

Euripides, Plato

Jewish-Oriented Greek-Oriented

; (ca. 60-70) a Jewish a War ] Mark a ’i

Vergil’s

Logoi of Jesus (Q+) . a

Aeneid

(ca. 75-80 i

Matthew j (ca. 85-95)

(ca. 110) i

Papias’s Exposition of Logia : v

Luke-Acts (ca. 115-120)

-XV-

BLANK PAGE

PART 1 PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION OF LOGIA ABOUT THE LORD

BLANK PAGE

INTRODUCTION TO PART 1: SALVAGING A TEXTUAL SHIPWRECK

Early in the second century a bishop in Hierapolis, Phrygia, penned an extensive work about Jesus that he called Aoyiwv kuptaka@v €&iynotc. The word e€nynois can mean either “narrative” or “interpretation,” as in the transliteration “exegesis.” The English word “exposition” allows for the same ambiguity as in Greek. Although Aoyta often meant “oracles” and thus was used by some early Christians to refer to Jewish Scriptures, Papias used the term logia

to refer to the contents of the Gospels as discrete anecdotes, or chreiai, of things that Jesus “said or did [AeyOévta fh mpay0evta]” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). His book thus included Jesus’ logoi, “words, but was not restricted to sayings.! Papias’s use of logia resembles what modern scholars call pericopae, “sections.” As we shall see, the Exposition of Logia about the Lord was an eclectic Gospel of sorts that rearranged logia from at least three earlier books and augmented them with other traditions and commentaries.” Papias’s work has not survived intact; our knowledge of it comes exclu-

sively from fragments embedded in works of authors from the end of the second century until the eighth. In 2005 Enrico Norelli published his magisterial edition under the title Papia di Hierapolis, Esposizione degli oracoli del Signore, a dramatic improvement on its predecessors.’ Norelli qualifies only a handful of fragments as reliable witnesses to the content of the lost work; for 1. See the arguments of Benjamin W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (New York: Henry Holt, 1930), 443-51. 2. See Armin Daniel Baum, “Papias als Kommentator evangelischer Ausspriiche Jesu: Erwagungen zur Art seines Werkes,’ NovT 38 (1996): 257-76. 3. Enrico Norelli, Papia di Hierapolis, Esposizione degli oracoli del Signore: I frammenti (Letture cristiane del primo millennio 36; Milan: Paoline, 2005). This edition begins with 140 pages of introduction followed by a fifteen-page bibliography and more than three hundred pages of commentary on the fragments, which are arranged in the chronological order of their host documents. The discussion of each fragment begins with a presentation of the text in its original language (Greek, Latin, Syriac, or Armenian) with an Italian translation. After a few introductory comments concerning the nature of the host document,

3.

4 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS example, he dismisses Irenaeuss references to traditions of the elders and all of the Armenian witnesses.* He lists the fragments as follows (the page numbers in parentheses refer to his edition of the texts with Italian translations). Prg. 1 (Papia, 174-77). Irenaeus (ca. 180), Adv. haer. 5.33.3-4 Prg. 5 (Papia, 230-38). Eusebius (ca. 325), Hist. eccl. 3.39.1-17 Frg. 6 (Papia, 336-40). Apollinaris of Laodicea (ca. 390), fragment on Matt 27:5

Frg. 10 (Papia, 364-67). Philip of Side (ca. 435), fragment from Codex Baroccianus 142

Frg. 12a (Papia, 392-99). Andrew of Caesarea (ca. 563-614), Commentary on the Apocalypse, discourse 12, chapter 34, on Rev 12:7-9 Frg. 13 (Papia, 412-13). John of Scythopolis (ca. 532), scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite in De Caelesti hierarchia chapter 2 Frg. 15 (Papia, 422-23). Anastasius of Sinai (ca. 700), Anagogical Contemplations on the Six Days of Creation 1 Frg. 16 (Papia, 428-29). Anastasius of Sinai, Anagogical Contemplations on the Six Days of Creation 7

The testimonia consistently refer to the Exposition as spanning five volumes and occasionally indicate from which book particular content derived. Invariably and significantly, the order conforms to the Gospel of Matthew. According to John of Scythopolis, “Those who exercise themselves in not doing harm with respect to God they call ‘children’ [maidac], as Papias in the first book of his Exposition of [Logia about] the Lord makes clear” (Norelli frg. 13). William R. Schoedel proposed Matt 3:8-9 as Papias’s exegetical target, even though the word mais or traidiov is missing there. “Produce fruit worthy of repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, “We have as our foreNorelli presents his commentary as notes indexed to his translation. Five useful appendices appear at the end.

4. The numbering of the fragments follows the presentation in Norelli. Many of these fragments also appear at the end of Josef Kiirzinger’s landmark collection of studies, Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments (Eichstatter Materialien 4; Regensburg: Pustet, 1983), 91-138, and (with English translations) in Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 2:92-119. For alternative English translations, see William R. Schoedel, “The Fragments of Papias,” in The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary (ed. Robert M. Grant; 6 vols.; London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1964-1968), 5:89-130, and Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 722-67.

INTRODUCTION: SALVAGING A TEXTUAL SHIPWRECK 5

father Abraham. For I tell you that God is able from these rocks to raise up children [téxva] to Abraham.”° Here the trope of children implies the performance of righteous deeds, in keeping with Papias: “those who exercise themselves in not doing harm.” ‘The absence of matic or matdiov here is not crucial

insofar as John of Scythopolis clearly inherited maidac from Dionysius the Areopagite and probably from Clement's Paidagogos. Even if Norelli is right in proposing that the intellectual genesis of harmless children refers to the innocence of Adam and Eve in Eden, no other passage in Matthew or Mark is more likely to have prompted Papias’s hermeneia than Matt 3:8-9.° Fortunately, the ascriptions of Gospel echoes to the next three books are clearer.

According to Philip of Side, “In the second book Papias says that John the Theologian and his brother James were killed by Jews” (Norelli frg. 10). If Papias had a particular Gospel text in mind, it likely was Matt 20:22-23 (cf. Mark 10:38-39), where Jesus predicted that the sons of Zebedee would drink his cup and be baptized with his baptism.’ No witness directly links content to book 3, but book 4 presented Jesus’ instructions to his disciples eating in the kingdom of God, the setting of which was the Last Supper, as in Matt 26:29 (cf. Mark 14:25), where Jesus predicted that “I will never drink this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it with you again in the kingdom of my Father.’® According to Irenaeus, Papias wrote about this “in the fourth of his books; he wrote five books in all” (Norelli frgs. 1 and 5). Book 4 also narrated the death of Judas, probably a polemic against Matthew's account in 27:3-10 (Norelli frg. 6). No witness explicitly cites book 5.

From these data one might reasonably speculate that the first book discussed Papiass literary intentions and began his exposition of his sources from Jesus’ birth to his baptism by John (cf. Matt 1:1-4:11) and that the second book discussed his ministry in Galilee and Judea (cf. Matt 4:12-20:34). Insofar as book 4 contained a discussion of Jesus last meal with disciples (cf. Matt 26:29), one might expect that book 3 discussed his ministry in Jerusalem (cf. Matt 21:1-25:46). In addition to interpreting the Last Supper, book 4 narrated

5. William R. Schoedel, “Papias,” ANRW 27.1:240.

6. Matt 18:3 might be another reasonable target: “Unless you turn and become like children [matdia], you will not enter the kingdom of heaven’ Here, however, the Evangelist interprets “like children” to refer not to the avoidance of doing harm but to humility: “so whoever humbles himself like this child [matdiov], this one is great in the kingdom of heaven” (18:4). Norelli presents strong parallels between Papias’s use of dkaxia and Philos use of the same word (Papia di Hierapoli, 416). Insofar as the bishop of Hierapolis seems to have known 1 John, worthy of honorable mention are 1 John 2:14 and 18 and 3:7. 7. See also Norelli frg. 17. 8. So also Schoedel, “Papias,’ 246.

6 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS the death of Judas and probably also the death and resurrection of Jesus (cf. Matt 26:1-28:20). Although no witness to Papias indicates what appeared in book 5, if one extrapolates from the Matthean order, one might reasonably suppose that it was in the last book that Papias discussed events after Jesus’ resurrection to his own time. According to Eusebius, From what was said earlier it was clear that Philip the apostle lived at Hierapolis with his daughters; now it should be indicated that, because Papias lived in their day, he could recall that he had received a marvelous tale from the daughters of Philip, for he narrates the raising of a dead person in his own day, and again another marvelous event about Justus surnamed Barsabbas—how he drank a fatal poison and, by the grace of the Lord, suffered nothing out of the ordinary. (Norelli frg. 5; cf. frg. 10).

Norelli appropriately organized the fragments according to the relative chronology of their host documents, but one also might arrange them into their most likely original sequence. After all, Papias himself was obsessed with putting the logia into correct chronological order. He was aware of criticisms

of Mark’s arrangement of logia “not in proper sequence [ov pévtot taget]”; some had explained the jumble by appealing to the oral preaching of Peter, who never intended to create a sequential account (ovvtaétc; Norelli frg. 5). Mark merely—but faithfully—translated Peter's memoirs as he had heard them. Matthew, on the other hand, wrote in Aramaic and “placed the logia in order [ovvetagato],” but his Greek translators garbled it. For his part, Papias strove to put whatever he had learned about Jesus and the disciples back into proper sequence (ovykatataéat; Norelli frg. 5). The tagétc that Papias desired was the chronological order of events, as is clear from his preference for the sequence in Matthew insofar as he was a firsthand observer; Mark was not. This predilection corresponds with the identical sequences between the Exposition and Matthew whenever the two have similar content. My arrangement of the Papian fragments requires an alterative numbering system to Norellis. Numbers underlined identify passages where the original wording survives; fragments whose numbers are not underlined merely allude to content from the Exposition without quoting it. One must keep in mind that the following outline is heuristic and that, although it likely resembles the order of the fragments in Papiass volumes, certainty is impossible. One also must remember that the bulk of the work has vanished without a trace. 0 (= Norelli frg. 5 [ Hist. eccl. 3.39.1]): The title of the work and its author Book 1: Preface and comments on Jesus’ origins to his baptism by John (Matt 1:1-4:11 and Mark 1:1-13)

INTRODUCTION: SALVAGING A TEXTUAL SHIPWRECK 7

1:1 (= Norelli frg. 5 [Hist. eccl. 3.39.14]): Traditions from the elders John and Aristion 1:2 (=Norelli frg. 5 [Hist. eccl. 3.39.7]): Papias’s incorporation of traditions from the elders 1:3 (= Norelli frg. 5 [ Hist. eccl. 3.39.15]): The elder John on the writing of Mark 1:4 (= Norelli frg. 5 [Hist. eccl. 3.39.16]): The elder John on the writing of Matthew 1:5 (=Norelli frg. 5 [ Hist. eccl. 3.39.3-4]): Papias’s compositional intentions 1:6 (=Norelli frg. 13): God's children are the righteous (assigned to book 1; cf. Matt 3:9-10) Book 2: Jesus’ career in Galilee and Judea (Matt 4:12—20:34 and Mark 1:14-10:52)? 2:1 (= Norelli frg. 5 [Hist. eccl. 3.39.17]): Miracles, parables, and a sinful woman

2:2a and 2b (= Norelli frgs. 15 and 16): Paradise in Genesis referred to “the church of Christ” (cf. Matt 19:28)

2:3 (= Norelli frg. 10): The martyrdoms of James and John (assigned to book 2; cf. Matt 20:20-23 and Mark 10:38-39) Book 3: Jesus’ career in Jerusalem (Matt 21:1-25:46 and Mark 11:113:37)?

3.0 (= Norelli frg. 5 | Hist. eccl. 3.39.11-12]): The earthly reign of Christ for a thousand years (cf. Matt 25:31-36)

Book 4: Jesus’ death and resurrection (Matt 26:1-28:20 and Mark 14:1-16:8) 4:1, 2,3, and 4 (= Norelli frgs. 1 and 5 [ Hist. eccl. 3.39.1]): Bounti-

ful harvests in the kingdom of God (assigned to book 4; cf. Matt 26:29 and Mark 14:25). 4:5 and 6 (= Norelli frg. 6): The death of Judas (assigned to book 4; cf. Matt 27:3-10) 4:7 (= Norelli frg. 12a): The fall of the angels (cf. Matt 28:18) Book 5: Activities of some of Jesus’ followers to Papias’s own day 5:1 (= Norelli frg. 5 [Hist. eccl. 3.39.9]): The daughters of Philip and Justus Barsabbas 5:2 (= Norelli frg. 10): The daughters of Philip, Justus Barsabbas, and the raising of Manaemus’s mother

The commentary that follows focuses on Papias’s use of antecedent literature, what I call “antetexts,” especially the Gospel of Matthew.

BLANK PAGE

1

TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY

BOOK 1: PREFACE AND JOHN ’S PREACHING

The arrangement of the fragments in book 1 requires special attention. Eusebius excerpted three passages from the beginning of the work, but apparently not in their original sequence. The first excerpt begins odk Oxvirjow O€ cot Kai

doa ovykatatagat (“But I will not hesitate to set in order also for you whatever...; Expos. 1:5). The word 6é€, “but,” requires at least one previous sentence, and the word ooi, “for you [singular], implies that the author already had mentioned this individual by name, perhaps his patron.! Norelli takes kai with the following 60a and translates it “anche tutto cid” (“also all that”).? Perhaps it is more likely that kai goes with the preceding ooi, “also for you,’ which suggests that others before Papias had “set in order” written accounts. Further evidence for the rearrangement of the three fragments is the link between Mat-

thew’s setting the logia in order (ovvetd&ato) and Papias’s intent to do the same (ovykatatagat). By rearranging Eusebius’s excerpts and by taking seriously clues about missing content, one gets a clearer picture of the beginning of the work.

Soon after the title, which Eusebius referred to as an inscription (émtyéypantat; Expos. 0), it would appear that Papias identified himself as the author and named his patron. Furthermore, the surviving excerpts suggest that from the outset the first volume discussed earlier writings about Jesus that had presented episodes and sayings (i.e., logia) in incompatible sequences. The earliest of the excerpts preserved by Eusebius seems to have been the discussion of the Gospel of Mark, then the discussion of Matthew, followed by Papias's description of his own literary project. The discussion of Mark, however, implies that earlier Papias had introduced the elder John and

1. Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 244-45. 2. Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 231.

_9-

10 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS perhaps an elder named Aristion as well.? (Darts identify fragments where Papias’s wording survives, even if only in Latin translation.) 0 (Norelli frg. 5 [Hist. eccl. 3.39.1]). Title, Author, and Recipient Eusebius: Tod dé Hania ovyypapypata mévte TOV ApLOLOV MEpeETal, a

Kai émryéypantat Aoyiwv kuptakav éenynoews.?

“Writings by Papias, five in number, are extant, which also bear the title [books] of an Exposition of Logia about the Lord.’ The reader apparently first encountered the following information.

¢ The title of the work: Aoyiwv kuptakav é€nynotc (Expos. 0) e The name of the author: Ilamiac (Expos. 0)

e The name of the primary recipient: unknown (implied by the reference to “you” in Expos. 1:5)

e ‘The identification of writings by Mark and Matthew that presented logia in incompatible sequences (implied by the reference to these books in Expos. 1:3 and 4) e ‘The introduction of the elder John and perhaps Aristion (implied by the reference to “the elder” at the beginning of Expos. 1:3) 1:1 and 2 (Norelli frg. 5 [ Hist. eccl. 3.39.14]). Aristion’s Expositions and the Traditions of the Elders 1:1 Eusebius: Kai GAXac dé TH idia ypagf tapadidwow ’Aptotiwvoc tod mpdoV_ev SednAwuEVOD TMV Tod KuUpiov AOyav SujyroEts Kal

tod mpeoButépov ‘Iwavvov tapadooceic, €M~’ As Ttovs MiropAVeic

dvanéuwavtes, dvayKaiws vdv mpoo0noouev taic mpoekteVeioac aAvTOD Pwvaic TApPAdsoOV ...

“And he [Papias] in his own writing hands down from the previously mentioned Aristion also other Expositions of the Logoi of the Lord and from the elder John other traditions. ° To these [expositions and

3. See also Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 193. 4, On Eusebius’s elliptical use of the genitive e&yynhoews, see Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 59. 5. Ancient traditions about the elder John are notoriously complex, and scholars variously have attributed to him the composition or final redaction of the Gospel of John, one

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 11 traditions] we would direct the studious, but now we are compelled to add to these voices already presented by him a tradition...” The expression “other Expositions [aAXac ... dunynoetc]” seems to pick up the reference two sentences earlier to “apostolic expositions [amootoAtkds ... dujynoetc]” (Hist. eccl. 3.39.12), that is, New Testament writings. It also seems to distinguish Aristion’s “Expositions” from John’s “traditions [mapadooeic],” which were oral: “the elder used to say [é\eyev]” (1:3).” If Eusebius here had

in mind a book by Aristion, the title apparently was Tov tod xupiov Aoywv dujyrjoeic, which resembles Papias’s Aoyiwv kvpiax@v e&jynotc. It impossible to determine if he plural dtnynoetc implies several writings by Aristion or only one entitled Expositions of the Logoi of the Lord, which seems mote likely. It

also is unclear if Aristion commented on oral sayings attributed to Jesus, to sayings that appeared in the Gospels, or to a lost document entitled Oi tot kupiov Aoyou, “The Logoi of the Lord.” If Aristion indeed wrote a book, it would be the earliest known commentary on the sayings of Jesus, yet another textual shipwreck. Even though Papias called Aristion a disciple of Jesus (Expos. 1:5), he placed his Expositions at a later stage, together with the traditions of the elder John, after the compositions of logia by Mark and Matthew. One also should note Papiass distinction between logia (sayings and deeds of Jesus, which he discussed in his Exposition) and logoi (sayings only), which Aristion apparently discussed in his Expositions. 1:2 Eusebius: ’Ovouaoti yobv toAAdkic adtT@v UvnLoveboas ev TOC avTOD OVvYYPaLLAOLV TIONOLV ADTMV TapaAddoEIc.

“Indeed, often recalling them by name [i.e., John and Aristion], he puts their traditions in his writings.”® or more of the Johannine Epistles, or the Apocalypse of John. Fortunately, we need not weigh into this dispute here except to insist that Papias was not aware of the existence of the Fourth Gospel, which was composed later. 6. Eusebius here implies that copies of the Exposition still were widely available in his day.

7. Oujynoetc ... Tapaddoeic. The former seems to mean written stories, the later oral communications” (H. J. Lawlor and J. E. L. Oulton, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History and The Martyrs of Palestine |London: SPCK, 1928], 115). One should note, however, that Eusebius used dujynots for an oral tale in Hist. eccl. 3.39.9; in 3.39.7 he uses nmapadooetc for both elders to refer to all that he received from them. Complicating the picture is the use of mtapaddoetc elsewhere to refer both to oral and written “traditions,” 8. Elsewhere Eusebius wrote that Papias “also used testimonia from the first epistle of

12 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Aristion probably was Papiasss source for the fall of Satan later in the work (see the discussion of Expos. 4:7). 1:3 (Norelli frg. 5 [Hist. eccl. 3.39.15]). Mark as Peter's Translator > Kai tov0’ 6 mpeoButepoc EXeyev: Mapkoc péev Epunvevtiys Ilétpov YEVOLEVOG, doa EUVNUOVEvOEY, AKpIB@s Eypawev, Ob LEVTOL TAEEL

Ta DMO TOD Kupionv f AexVEvTa h TpayVEvta. oUTE yap KovOEV TOD Kupiov ote TapnkoAovONnoev avTa, Dotepov O€, we ~—ny, léetpw: d¢ TIPOS Tac xpEiacs Emtoleito Tac didacKkaAiac, AAA” oby Wortep obvTAElv TMV KVPLAKMV TOLODUEVOS AOYyiwv, WoTe OLdEV Huaptev MapKoc ODTWG EVLA YPAWAG WC ATEUVNHOVEVOEV. EVOG YAP ETOLNOATO TIPO-

VOLAV, TOD ENSEV WV T}KOVOEV TapahiTeEiv f} WevoaoOai TL Ev avtoic.

The elder used to say this, too:? “Mark became Peter’s translator;'° whatever Peter recalled of what was said or done by the Lord, Mark wrote down accurately, though not in proper sequence. For Mark himself neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but as I said, he later followed Peter,'! who used to craft teachings for the needs [of the occasion],!* not as though he were crafting a sequential arrangement of the logia about the Lord; so Mark was not in error by thus writing a few things as he remembered them,!° for he made it his John and similarly from the epistle of Peter” (Norelli frg. 5 [Hist. eccl. 3.39.17]). This Petrine epistle apparently was the book we know as | Peter insofar as 2 Peter was written later than

the Exposition. Norelli (Papia di Hierapoli, 331) suggests that Eusebius saw a connection between Papias and 1 Pet 5:13 (see 1:3). If one were to speculate also about the citation to 1 John, one might note the similarities between Papiass concern for the truth of traditions about Jesus and similar concerns in the Johannine epistle (cf., e.g., 1:5 and 1 John 1:1-10). 9. The extent of the quotation from the elder is uncertain; it might include only the first sentence, but Norelli makes a good case for attributing this entire unit to him (Papia di Hierapoli, 294-99). 10. The word épunvevtijs, translated here as “translator,” can also mean “interpreter,” but Expos. 1:4 uses the cognate verb épunvevw for those who rendered Matthew's original Semitic Gospel into Greek. 11. After an extensive overview of scholarship, Norelli concludes: “Tt seems impossible historically to verify the personal relationship between Peter and Mark attested by Papias's elder, but a contact between this Gospel and ambient links to the memory of Peter appears to be likely” (Papia di Hierapoli, 297). 12. Or perhaps, “in the form of chreiai,’ i.e., anecdotes. On the variety of options, see Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 310-11. 13. The reference to “a few things” probably reflects the brevity of Mark’s Gospel when compared with Matthew (Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 313).

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 13

one purpose to omit nothing that he had heard or falsely to present anything pertaining to them” This is the earliest reference to Mark as the author of a book about Jesus. Scholars remain divided over the actual authorship of this Gospel; some ascribe it

to a historical character named Mark, but most hold that the original work was anonymous and that the name Mark derived from a traditional connection between Mark and Peter, as in 1 Pet 5:13, where the author, Pseudo-Peter, speaks of “my son Mark.’ By not attributing the book directly to an apostle, the tradition may already have made it secondary to the Gospel attributed to Matthew, which likewise was originally anonymous.

Papias here gives Mark high marks for fidelity to the Jesus tradition without holding him responsible for getting the logia out of sequence, for he recorded Peter’s random memoirs. The bishop apparently suspected that these events in Mark were out of order because they differed from similar events in other books about Jesus. In the following excerpt, Papias again seems to be quoting the elder John. 1:4 (Norelli frg. 5 [Hist. eccl. 3.39.16]). Matthew and His Translators

> MatOaiocg uév obdv “EBpaidét Stadextw ta AOyLa ovvetagato, Npunvevoev 6° adta we tv Svvatoc Ekaotos. “Matthew, for his part, set in order the logia in the Hebrew language, but each translated them as he was able.” Whereas Mark did not compose “a sequential arrangement [ovvtaétv],” this is precisely what Matthew, writing in “Hebrew” or Aramaic, did (ovvetagato). His original sequence, however, was compromised by a few—perhaps only two—Greek translators. Papias seems not to have been concerned with the relative dating of Mark and Matthew because he assumed that neither served the other as a source. Both collections of logia derived independently from

Jesus disciples, through Peter’s preaching or Matthew’s composing. What bothered him and his informant John were the incompatible sequences in the two books, and they gave the nod for accuracy to Matthew, at least to his putative Aramaic original.“ 14. This is the case even if Papias’s statement about Mark’s deficient order pertains to rhetorical composition instead of historical chronology, for his point is that Matthew, as a participant, got the order right. See the discussions in F. H. Colson, “Taget in Papias (The Gospels and the Rhetorical Schools),” JTS 14 (1912): 62-69, Arthur Wright, “Taéet in

14 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Papias tried to make sense of at least three books about Jesus with differing content and sequences. In other words, he had a Synoptic Problem. As we shall see, Papias did not know the Gospels of Luke and John, but in addition to Mark and Matthew, he did know at least one other text, now lost, that apparently was more similar to Matthew than to Mark. According to Richard Bauckham, with respect to the composition of both Matthew and Mark there are two stages, one the activity of an eyewitness, the other the activity of one or more non-eyewitnesses. ... Mark's Gospel is “not in order” because Peter did not relate the material in order, while Mark, not being an eyewitness, rightly did not attempt to put it “in order.’ Matthew, on the other hand, was an eyewitness who was able and did put the Jogia in order in his original Gospel, but this order was spoiled by those who translated his work into Greek. Thus Papias is concerned throughout with two aspects of each Gospel: its origin from eyewitness testimony and the question of “order: In both cases he wants to explain why a Gospel with eyewitness origins lacks proper “order.” Apparently Papias thought there had been more than one translation of Matthew's original work into Greek. ... He referred to these various Greek Matthews ... in order to show that none of them could be presumed to preserve accurately the “order” (syntaxis) of the original Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew.!°

Bauckham surely is right in noting that Papiass statement about Matthew requires three or more compositional moments: the apostle’s composition of the Semitic original and at least two differing Greek translations of it. He suggests that the elder John and Papias knew three such translations—the canonical Matthew, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and the Gospel of the Ebionites—but this would require the dating of the last two books earlier than many experts would grant.!© Bauckham also is wrong in thinking that the elder John and Papias faulted the sequences of logia in Mark and Matthew’ translations

Papias,” JTS 14 (1913): 298-300, and Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 220-21. 15. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 223-24. 16. The author of the Gospel of the Nazorenes (if such a document ever existed) apparently knew the Gospel of John, and the author of the Gospel of the Ebionites knew Luke. See Philip Vielhauer and Georg Strecker, “Jewish Christian Gospels, in New Testament Apocrypha (2nd ed.; ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. R. McL. Wilson; 2 vols.; Cambridge: James Clark, 1991), 1:159 and 176; and Daniel A. Bertrand, “CEvangile des Ebionites: Une harmonie évangelique antérieure au Diatessaron,’ NTS 26 (1980): 548-63. Although the primary model for these so-called apocryphal Gospels clearly is the Gospel of Matthew, this apostolic name never appears in the surviving fragments.

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 15 because they preferred the sequence in the Gospel of John; the Fourth Gospel was written much later.!” Norelli agrees with other scholars that there never was a primitive Semitic

Matthew; it was invented to explain similarities and differences in two or more texts or books in circulation that differed from each other and that were attributed (at least by some) to Matthew.!* It is more likely that the elder and Papias had in mind a Greek Gospel that resembled our Matthew but whose sequential differences required a creative solution.!? I would paraphrase the elder John’s enigmatic sentence as follows: “Matthew, for his part, set in order the logia in the Hebrew language, but [those responsible for the Greek Matthew and another Greek book] each translated as he was able.”

Matthew's composition Peter's proclamation

(in proper order) (not in proper order)

At least one other A flawed translation Mark’s faithful Greek flawed translation of of Matthew's compo- translation (the GosMatthew's composi- sition into Greek (the pel of Mark) tion into Greek (a lost Gospel of Matthew) Gospel)

The Solution to the Synoptic Problem according to the Elder John and Papias

17. See the discussion at n. 26. 18. Papia di Hierapoli, 322-23 and 329. Particularly insightful is the detailed discussion by Poul Nepper-Christensen (Das Matthadusevangelium: Ein judenchristliches Evangelium? [ATD 1; Aarhus: Universitetforlaget, 1958]), who places Papias’s assessment of Mat-

thew in the context of later authors and leaves little doubt that our Gospel and probably its sources were composed in Greek. See especially 49-50 on why the tradition contrived a Hebrew Matthew. See also Ron Cameron, Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James (HTS 34; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 100-121. 19. Had Papias in mind only differing manuscripts of Matthew, he might well have said the same about differing manuscripts of Mark.

16 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS 1:5 (Norelli frg. 5 [Hist. eccl. 3.39.3-4]). Papiass Compositional Intentions > OVK OKvijow SE COL Kai doa TOTE Tapa TMV TPEOBUTEPWV KAAwC

EuaBov Kai KAAwS EuvNMovevoa, ovyKkataTtagat’? taic Epunveiaic, StaBeBatovpevos bmép avT@V dANVELav. OV yap Toig TA TOAAA AEyovotv Exatpov WoTtep oi TOAAOL, AAAA Toic TAANOH SiddoKovovty, ovdE Toic Tas dAAOTPIAs EvtoAds ELVNLOVEvOVOLY, GAA Toic Tac

Tapa tod Kupiov TH Miotet dedouEevas Kal am’ AvTIS TapaytvoLEevac Tis dAnVeiac: ei SE TOV Kal TMapNnKOAOVONKWes Tic Toic MpeoBUTEPOtG

EMVOL, TODS TOV TpeoBuTEpwV avEeKptvov AOYous, TL ’ Avdpéac F Ti

Ilétpoc einev ft ti Dikintosg f Ti Owns fH “TlaxwBos fh ti Iwdavvngs 4 MatOaioc f ti Etepocg TMV ToD KUpiov HABNnTwMV a te “Aptotiwv kal

6 MpeoBuTEpos ‘Iwavvne, tod kupiov LaOntai, AEyovotv. ov yap Ta ek TOV BiBAiwv TooodTOV LE Ogedetv DTEhAaUBavov SooV Ta Tapa CMOS Pwvijc Kal LEvovONS.

But I will not hesitate to set in order also for you whatever?! I learned

well and remembered well from the elders with interpretations to confirm their reliability;?* for I would not take joy, as many would,”

in those who had much to say, but in those who taught the truth; not in those who remembered the commandments of others, but in those who remembered the commandments given by the Lord for faith and derived from the truth itself.*+ If ever someone who had followed the elders should come by, I would investigate the sayings of the elders, *? what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, Thomas, James,

20. Some texts read ovvtdEat. 21. Or “to set in order for you in addition whatever” 22. It would appear that Papias wanted to put the logia back into Matthew’s original

sequence, to augment the Greek translations of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark with other traditions, both written and oral, and to comment on them. 23. Proposals for identifying those whom Papias referred to as “many” have not produced a consensus. Rhetorically its primary function is to confirm the author's own reliability.

24. Bauckham takes Papias’s reference to “the truth itself” to refer to Jesus and then links it to Jesus as the truth in John 14:6 Vesus and the Eyewitnesses, 20-21). But in Papias the expression more likely refers to God. He refers to the commandments that “were given by [mapa] the Lord [i.e., Jesus] and that came from [d70] the truth itself.’ Papias’s near contemporary used a similar expression clearly without a connection to the Fourth Gospel. According to Lucian, historical writing has one task: “namely, what is beneficial, what issues only from the true [&k tod aAn9ob]” (How to Write History 9). 25. Papias here acknowledges that he himself had not heard the elders, but certainty

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 17

John, Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples had said,*° or what Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, say.’ For I did not consider things derived from books to benefit me as much as things derived from a living and surviving voice.”

Papias here describes his literary task with the verb ovyxatatdgat: he was eager “to set in order” what he had learned. The strategic selection of this verb echoes his concern for the correct tdétc, or “order,” of events in the life of Jesus and suggests that he emulated Matthew, who in his Semitic original correctly “set in order [ovvetageto] the logia” (1:4).

on this issue is elusive. Norelli concludes that Papias once met some of the elders himself and later some of their disciples (Papia di Hierapoli, 42 and 252-53; see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.3).

26. Bauckham, developing an observation first made by Joseph Barber Lightfoot, argues that similarities between this list of seven disciples and their order of appearance in the Fourth Gospel suggest that Papias knew John (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 20-21), but the parallels amount to a house of cards. To be sure, the first three names are in the same order (though Peter in John initially is called Simon), but then the Fourth Gospel mentions Nathaniel (1:45), Nicodemus (3:1), and Thomas (11:16). The names James and John never appear in the Gospel, and in chapter 21, generally considered an epilogue, they are called simply “the sons of Zebedee” (21:2). Matthew’s name, too, is absent. In other words, there is no list of the Twelve in John, and to make Papias’s list conform to John’s order, one must omit two names from John’s account (Nathaniel and Nicodemus), add three (James, John, and Matthew), and monitor the introduction of characters from the first chapter to the epilogue. Surely it is more likely that Papias linked the brothers Andrew and Peter and James and John, as in Matthew (and also in Mark and Luke). Matthew’s list also reads “Philip, and Bartholomew, and Thomas, and Matthew” (10:3). The name Bartholomew may have dropped out in Papias because of his relative insignificance. These data render the statistical calculations of Jake H. O'Connell entirely useless (“A Note on Papias’s Knowledge of the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 129 [2010]: 793-94). In any case, I see no reason why the bishop of Hierapolis needed to consult a text to compose his list of seven disciples. See especially Ulrich H. J. Kortner, Papias von Hierapolis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des friiher Christentums (FRLANT 133; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 173-76. 27. Eusebius seems to have taken the present A€yovovv applied here to Aristion and

John to imply that the bishop had been a “firsthand auditor [adthKoov]” of these elders (Hist. eccl. 3.39.7), whereas Papias himself claimed only to have heard of their teachings from others. Notice that when speaking of Jesus’ other disciples, Papias uses the past tense einev, but when speaking of John and Aristion he uses the present \¢ yovovwy, thus implying that at least when he gathered his information they were still alive. 28. Bauckham surely is correct in insisting that here Papias refers not to an oral tradition as an abstraction of nameless lore, as some form critics have assumed, but to a chain of tradents (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 30-38; Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 101-5).

18 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS 1:6 (Norelli frg. 13). God's Children Are the Righteous (cf. Matt 3:8-10)

John of Scythopolis: Tots kata Gedv dkakiav doxodvtac ttaidac exddovv, wo Kai Ilamiacg dnAoi BiBAiw mpwtwW T@V KvPLAK@vV

etnynoewvy, kat KAnuns 6 ’AAgEavdpeve év th Taidaywya.

Those who exercise themselves in not doing harm with respect to God they call “children,” as Papias in the first book of his Expositions [of Logia] about the Lord makes clear, as well as Clement of Alexandria in the Paidagogos.”?

Papias here may have had in mind the following saying: “So bear fruit worthy of repentance, and do not presume to tell yourselves: “We have as forefather Abraham!’ For I tell you: God can produce children for Abraham right out of these rocks” (Matt 3:8-10). BOOK 2: JESUS IN GALILEE AND JUDEA (?)

Book 2 apparently contained interpretations of Jesus career in Galilee and Judea, approximately equivalent to Matt 4:12—20:34 (cf. Mark 1:14-10:52). It is possible that Eusebius found in book 2 what he describes as “other content

as though they came to him from an unwritten tradition, as well as some of the savior’s strange parables, his teachings, and some other things even more fictional” (Expos. 3:1). Only Norelli frg. 10, from Philip of Side, can be placed here with confidence (see discussion of Expos. 2:3). 2:1 (Norelli frg. 5 [ Hist. eccl. 3.39.17]). The Sinful Woman

Eusebius: ’ExtéQettat d€ kai GAAnv totopiav mepi yuvatkos émtl TOAAaic Auaptiaic dStaBAnVeions éni tod Kvpiov, hv TO Ka0’ "EBpatious evayyeAlov TtEpleyel.

And he [Papias] also presented another tale about a woman who had

29. John of Scythopolis apparently saw similar interpretations of the metaphor of the righteous as children in the Exposition and Clements Paidagogos and summarized them with the phrase “those who exercise themselves in not doing harm with respect to God.” Unfortunately, “it is impossible .. . to find any one passage [in the Paidagogos] on which he [John] hangs the discussion” (Schoedel, “Fragments,” 116; see also Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 414-17).

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 19 been accused before the Lord of many sins, a tale that the Gospel of the Hebrews contains. The relevant section of the Gospel of the Hebrews no longer survives; even so,

Papias did not know the story from this book, which was written later than the Exposition.°° After Papias, the first undisputed version of the tale appears in a truncated version in the Didascalia apostolorum (early third century), whose author urged his readers to receive those who repent as Jesus “did with her who had sinned, whom the elders placed before him, leaving the judgment in his hands, and departed. But he, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her: ‘Have the elders condemned you, my daughter?’ She says to him: ‘No, Lord? And he said to her: ‘Go, I do not condemn you either? ”°! Modern readers familiar with the Gospel of John will recognize here affinities with the famous interpolation between John 7:52 and 8:12, but the author of the Didascalia could not have known the tale from that Gospel insofar as the interpolation first appears in manuscripts much later.” The verbal similarities with the Johannine interpolation, however, suggest that the two accounts somehow are connected. Nearly two centuries later, Didymus of Alexandria (“the Blind”; d. 398) reported that he had seen several versions of the tale. In the following excerpt Didymus twice repeats himself. In both cases, the first doublet likely is a quotation—identified as such by quotation marks—and the second is his paraphrase. We report that in some Gospels [a story] says that a woman was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was taken to be stoned at the place where this customarily happened. It says that when the Savior saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her, he said to those who were about to throw stones at her: “Whoever has not sinned, let him lift a stone and throw it? If someone is certain that he has not sinned, let him take a stone and strike her. “And

30. On the dating of the Exposition, see the discussion in chapter 2. 31. Did. apost. 8.2.24; translation altered from Arthur Vodbus, The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac (CSCOSyr 177; Leuven: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1979). 32. Rufinus’s Latin translation of Eusebius here reads “de muliere adultera quae accusata est a Judaeis apud dominum’ and thus links the story in Papias to the women caught in adultery in John 8:3-11. Rufinus associated the two because his Latin Bible already contained the Johannine interpolation (see Dieter Luhrmann, “Die Geschichte von einer Siinderin und andere apokryphe Jesustiberlieferungen bei Didymos von Alexandrien, NovT 32 (1990): 304-5.

20 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS no one dared to do so.’ When they knew in themselves and recognized that they were guilty in some respects, they did not dare [to strike] her.*°

Bart D. Ehrman has argued that among the Gospels that contained this story were Alexandrian copies of the Gospel of John, a claim rejected by Dieter Luhrmann.** Be that as it may, Didymus’s use of the plural “Gospels” implies that he knew the story in at least one book other than John, including the Gospel of the Hebrews, which he cited elsewhere.°° Hans-Josef Klauck

contends that the summary “is probably not an abbreviated version of John 8:3-11, but an independent variant tradition, found by Didymus in a noncanonical gospel which was available in Alexandria.”°°

The next most ancient version of the story appears as the interpolation into the Gospel of John. Many scholars have noted that the first two sentences most likely were added by the interpolator to provide a narrative transition. “And each one went to his or her home, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Again, early in the morning he was in the temple, and all the people came to him; he sat and taught them” (John 7:53-8:2). The columns that follow present in the left witnesses to the story in Papias, the Didascalia, and Didymus and in right the Johannine interpolation.

Papias, Didascalia, and Didymus John 8:3-11 [Papias narrated a story] “about ‘The scribes and the Pharisees a woman who had been accused — brought a woman who had been before the Lord of many sins” — caught in adultery,

33. For the Greek text of this fragment, see Bart D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress, NTS 34 (1988): 25; Luhrmann, “Die Geschichte von einer Siinderin,’ 290; and Dieter Luhrmann, ed., Fragmente apokryph gewordener Evangelien in griechischer und lateinischer Sprache (MTS 59; Marburg: Elwert, 2000), 51. 34. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” 26-28; Luhrmann, “Die Geschichte von einer Siinderin,” 293-96. 35. See Luhrmann, “Die Geschichte von einer Siinderin, 304-7, and his “Das Bruckstick aus dem Hebraerevangelium bei Didymus von Alexandrien,’ NovT 29 (1987): 26579. Luhrmann dismissed the possibility that Didymus could have known Papias’s Exposition because it was not a Gospel (308). His suggestion that Didymus found the story in the Gospel of Thomas is unjustified speculation. 36. Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction (trans. Brian McNeil; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 41. Here Klauck follows Luhrmann, “Die Geschichte von einer Stinderin,’ 306-7 and 312.

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 21 (Expos. 2:1). A woman “was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was taken to be stoned at the place —_ and standing her in the center, where this customarily happened”

(Didymus). “The elders” brought they spoke to him, - saying, before Jesus a woman “who had ~~ “Teacher, this woman was caught

sinned. ... Leaving the judg- inthe very act of adultery. ment in his hands, they departed”

(Didascalia). “When the Savior | Moses commanded us in the law saw her and observed that they — to stone such women. So what do

were ready to stone her, you say? They were saying this to test him, in order to have an accusation against him. But Jesus stooped down and was writing in

the ground with his finger. And as they continued interrogating he said to those who were about to him, he straightened up and said throw stones at her: “Whoever has _ to them, “Let the one among you not sinned, let him lifta stone and — without sin be the first to cast a

throw it. stone at her:

And he stooped down again and was writing on the ground. But when they heard his reply, one by one, beginning with the And no one dared to do so” (Did- ___ elders, they left, and only he and

ymus). ... the woman who had been in the middle remained.

“But he ... asked her and said to And Jesus straightened up and her: ‘Have the elders condemned _ said to her, “Woman, where are

you, my daughter?’ they? No one is condemning you, are they?”

She says to him: ‘No, Lord: She said, “No one, Lord? And he said to her: “Go, Ido not —_And Jesus said, “I do not condemn

condemn you either” (Didasca- you either. Go, and from now on

lia). sin no longer.’

From these parallels it would appear that the traditional elements of the story that now appears in John 8:3-11 included at least the following:

e Jewish religious authorities had accused a woman of many sins and brought her to Jesus just before they were to stone her. Only

22 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS the Johannine account states that her sin was adultery, which probably is a redactional innovation.°” e Jesus said something like, “Whoever has not sinned, let him lift a stone and throw it.”

e None of the authorities dared to do so.

e Jesus then turned to the woman and asked something like, “Have the elders condemned you?”

e She said, “No, Lord? e He told her something like, “I do not condemn you either. Go?’ No such story appears in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, which leaves three options for its genesis: (1) Papias heard the tale from “a living voice” such as that of the daughters of Philip (cf. Expos. 5:1 and 2); (2) he read it in Aristion’s Expositions of the Logoi of the Lord; or (3) he read it in the lost putative translation of Matthew. As we shall see in a comparison of Papias's Exposition with the Gospel of Luke, the third option is the most compelling.*®

2:2a and 2b (Norelli frgs. 15 and 16). Paradise in Genesis Refers to the Church (cf. Matt 19:28)

2:2a. Anastasius of Sinai lists Papias among others who held that gic Xptotov kai thv éxkAnolav mdoav eFanepov. ... all of the hexameron [referred] to Christ and the church.°?

2:2b. Anastasius makes a similar claim later in the same work. Papias and others mvevuatika@s Ta Tepl Tapadeioov eVewpnoay eis tiv Xptotod éxkAnoiav avapepopevol. ... viewed things about paradise spiritually as referring to the church of Christ. Norelli suggests that Papias’s interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis was central to his eschatology; that is, the bliss of paradise pertains to the eternal bliss of the righteous.*? It would be risky to speculate how Papias might

37. See Lithrmann, “Die Geschichte von einer Siinderin’; and Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 334-45. 38. See the discussion in part 2, chapter 5, to Logoi 5:17-23 (7:36-41, 49-50). 39. The word “hexameron’” refers to the account of the six days of creation in Gen 1. 40. Papia di Hierapoli, 424-25.

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 23 have read Genesis “spiritually,” especially in light of his material interpretation in other fragments of the pleasures of the eschaton.*! If one were to identify a passage in Mark or Matthew that prompted this

discussion in Papias, it might be Matt 19:28: “Truly I tell you that you who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory, you, too, will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” The Greek word here translated “regeneration” is taXtyyeveoia, literally, “re-creation.” Matthew, like Papias (according to Anastasius of Sinai), apparently viewed the future of the church as a restoration of God’s creation before the fall of Adam and Eve.*”

2:3 (Norelli frg. 10; cf. 17). The Deaths of James and John (cf. Matt 20:20-23 and Mark 10:38-39) Philip of Side: IIamiag év t@ devtépw AOyw A€yet OTL "IwWavvnc O Qeohoyos kal ‘laxwBhoc 6 adeAgodc avtod bd *lovdaiwv avnpEeOnoavy.

In the second book Papias says that John [the Theologian] and his brother James were killed by the Jews.*°

This fragment need not mean that both brothers were killed at the same time, and many ancient witnesses suggest that John outlived James by decades (e.g., John 21:20-23; Irenaeus, Haer. 2.22.5).*4 If Papias had a particular Gospel text in mind, it likely was Matt 20:20-23 (cf. Mark 10:38-39), where Jesus predicts violent deaths for the brothers: Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached him with her sons to worship and request something from him. He said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Speak so that these two sons of mine may sit in your kingdom, one on your right side and one on your left? In reply, Jesus said: “You [plural] do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that Iam about to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.’ He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and my left, [this]

41. See Norelli’s sensitive treatment in Papia di Hierapoli, 424-26. 42. Justin Martyr similarly reads the description of paradise in Genesis to anticipate conditions after Jesus’ return (Dial. Tryph. 86.1). 43. I have placed “the Theologian” in brackets insofar as Papias, writing around 110 c.E. could not have so designated John the son of Zebedee.

44. Mark already may have been aware of this tradition (see Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000], 28-29).

24 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’

If Papias indeed had this text in mind, he probably notified his reader that Jesus prediction had been fulfilled.

BOOK 3: JESUS IN JERUSALEM (?)

Several Papian fragments suggest that the fate of the righteous after Jesus return was a prominent concern of the Exposition, and his chiliasm won him Eusebius’s smear that he was “a man of puny intellect” (Norelli frg. 5 [ Hist. eccl. 3.39.12]). Irenaeus located one of Papias’s discussions of the eschaton in book 4 as part an elaboration of Jesus’ statement at the Last Supper about eating and drinking in the kingdom of God (Expos. 4:1, 2, and 3; cf. Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25). Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine in what other

books, if any, Papias might have discussed similar eschatological topics. I would propose that, consistent with his obsession with chronological order and preference for Matthew's arrangement, he did so in book 3, where he may

have commented on content in Matt 21:1-25:46 (and its parallels in Mark 11:1-13:37). In these chapters Jesus is in Jerusalem and, among other things, predicts future events for his disciples.

3:0 (Norelli frg. 5 [ Hist. eccl. 3.39.11-12]). Christ's Thousand- Year Earthly Kingdom (cf. Matt 25:31-36) Eusebius: Kai dAAa dé 6 abdtoc wo Ek TapaddooEews Aypagov eic avTOV HKOVTa TapaTEeDeEttat E€vac TE Tivac TapaBodds tod owtipoc kal didaoxaXias avtod Kai tiva dAAa WvOiKw@TEpa: Ev oi Kal yiALada TLVA ONOLV ETHV EGEOVAL LETA TV EK VEKPWV AVAOTAOLV, OWLATIKMC

Tis Xptotod BaotXeiacs emi tavtnol tic yii¢ DIOoTHOOUEVNS: 4 Kal Hyobuat tac dtootokikds TapexdeEauevov Sinjyroets broAaBetv, Ta EV DIIODELYHAOL TIPO ALVTMV LUOTIKMs eipNLEVA LT) OVVEOPAKOTA.

He [Papias] also added other content as though they came to him from an unwritten tradition, as well as some of the Savior's strange parables,*? his teachings, and some other things even more fic45. The word translated as “strange” is Févac, by which Eusebius seems to mean that these parables do not appear in the Gospels that he considered canonical (Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 290).

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 25

tional, among which he said that there will be a thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, when the kingdom of Christ will be established physically on this earth. I imagine that he assumed

these things by misconstruing the apostolic accounts without noting that they were spoken from them [the apostles] symbolically in figures. The “apostolic accounts” that, according to Eusebius, Papias misinterpreted surely included the reference to a millennial kingdom in Rev 20:1-17. Norelli, however, argues that Papias derived his chiliasm independent of John’s Apocalypse.*°

It is impossible to know what, if any, Gospel logion may have sparked Papiass discussion of an earthly “kingdom of Christ,” but Matt 25:31-36 would be a smart bet. Here Jesus depicts a tribunal at which the Son of Man rewards the righteous with an inheritance in his kingdom. When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all his angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory, and all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them from one another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and puts the sheep on his right and the goats on the left. Then the king will say to those on his right hand, “Come, you who

are blessed by my father; inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world,*’ for I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink; I was a foreigner, and you took me in; naked, and you clothed me; sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.”

Papias may have suggested to his readers that the inheritance of the kingdom by those who gave Jesus food and drink would involve physical pleasures for a thousand years. Once again, however, certainty is a chimera. Book 4: JESuSs’ DEATH AND RESURRECTION

The Papian fragments explicitly locate Papias’s treatment of the Last Supper and Judas’s death in book 4. In light of his preference for the sequence in Matthew, it is reasonable to think that this book generally corresponded to Matt 26:1-28:20 (cf. Mark 14:1-16:8).

46. Papia di Hierapoli, 178-203. 47. Papias surely could have read this verse to refer to paradise; cf. 2:2b.

26 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS 4:1 and 4:2, 3, and 4 (Norelli frgs. 1 and 5 [Hist. eccl. 3.39.1]). Agricultural Bounty in the Kingdom of God (cf. Matt 26:29 and Mark 14:25)

4:1 Irenaeus: [...] Praedicta itaque benedictio ad tempora regni sine contradictione pertinet, quando regnabunt iusti surgentes a mortuis, quando et creatura renovata et liberata multitudinem fructificabit universae escae ex rore caeli et ex fertilitate terrae. Quemadmodum presbyteri meminerunt, qui Johannem discipulum domini viderunt, audisse se ab eo quemadmodum de temporibus illis docebat dominus et dicebat ...

Thus the blessing foretold [in Gen 27:28] undoubtedly pertains to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous, rising from the dead, will reign and when the creation, renewed and liberated, will bear an abundance of every kind of food “from the dew of heaven and the

fertility of the earth’; thus the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord recalled having heard from him how the Lord used to teach concerning those times and say: ...

>» 4:2 Venient dies in quibus vineae nascentur singulae decem millia palmitum habentes, et in unoquoque palmite dena millia brachiorum, et in unoquoque brachio dena millia flagellorum et in unoquoque flagello dena millia botruorum, et in unoquoque botro dena millia acinorum, et unumquodque acinum expressum dabit vigintiquinque metretas vini. Et cum [eorum] apprehenderit aliquis sanctorum botruum alius clamabit botrus: “Ego melior sum, me sume, per me dominum benedic.’ Similiter et granum tritici decem millia spicarum generaturum, et unamquamque spicam habituram decem millia granorum, et unumquodque granum quinque bilibres similae clarae mundae, et reliqua autem poma et semina et herbam secundum congruentiam his consequentem, et omnia animalia his cibis utentia qui a terra accipiuntur pacifica et consentanea invicem fieri, subiecta hominibus cum omni subiectione. The days will come when vineyards shall grow each with ten thou-

sand vines, and on one vine ten thousand branches, and on one branch ten thousand shoots, and on every shoot ten thousand clusters, and in every cluster ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give twenty-five measures of wine; and when one of the saints grasps a cluster, another cluster will cry out: “I am better, take me, bless the Lord on my account.’ Similarly a grain of wheat will

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 27 bring forth ten thousand ears, and every ear will have ten thousand grains, and every grain ten pounds of clean white flour. And all the other fruits and seeds and grass will bring forth in like proportion. And all the animals using foods that are produced by the earth will live beautifully and harmoniously together, fully subject to humans. (Schoedel’s translation, altered)

4:3 The continuation of Irenaeus’s account according to Eusebius: Tadta dé kai Hattiag 6 “Iwavvov pév dkovotis, HNoAvKdprtov

dé Etaipocg yeyovwe, dpyaiosg dvip, éyypagwc emipaptupet ev Tf) Tetaptyn tov Eavtod BPiBAiwv. ~ottv yap avt@ mévte Bibra OVVTETAYHEVA.

Papias, who was John’s hearer and Polycarp’s companion, a man of old, gives written witness in the fourth of his books; he wrote five books in all.

> 4:4 Haec autem credibilia sunt credentibus et Juda, inquit, proditore non credente et interrogante: Quomodo ergo tales geniturae a domino perficientur?, dixisse dominum: Videbunt qui venient in illa.

[Jesus speaks:] “These things are credible to those who believe. And,” he [Papias] says, “when Judas the traitor did not believe and asked, ‘How then will such extraordinary growths be brought about by the Lord?’ the Lord declared, “Those who come into those times will see them.” (Schoedel’s translation, altered)

The setting for these fragments almost certainly is Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples and his announcement in Matt 26:29 (cf. Mark 14:25) that “From

now on I will never drink this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it with you again in the kingdom of my Father.’ Irenaeus cites Papias to bolster his chiliastic view of the kingdom of God and his interpretation of Isaac's blessing of Jacob: “May God give you some of the dew of heaven and some of the fatness of the earth, an abundance of grain and wine” (Gen 27:28, LXX).

The Greek word lying behind “abundance” is mAf9oc, a translation of the Hebrew 27, cognate to the Palestinian Aramaic word for “myriad” or “ten thousand,’ X12. These lexical similarities apparently prompted speculations among Jews before Papias about extraordinary bounty in the eschaton, as in 2 Bar. 29:5: “the earth will also yield fruits ten thousand fold. And on one vine will be a thousand branches, and one branch will produce a thousand clusters,

28 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS and one cluster will produce a thousand grapes, and one grape will produce a cor of wine.”*®

Many scholars have speculated concerning the relationship of this Papian fragment to 2 Baruch and other Jewish texts; I agree with Norelli’s caution at this point. In sum, it is preferable to think that ancient Christian circles originally from the land of Israel had transmitted as a word of Jesus a Christianized form of a Jewish tradition on the extraordinary fertility of the land in the messianic age, based exegetically on Gen 27:28: the repetition of 10,000 in our saying seems in effect to issue from the rov [21] of that verse, which is alluded to in the immediate context by Irenaeus.*?

If this link between Palestinian Jewish traditions and Papias is correct, it would shed light on the identity of some of Papias’s informants. The work 2 Baruch originally was written in a Semitic language in Palestine as a response to the

destruction of Jerusalem in 70 c.£. Perhaps not long after its composition, someone translated it into Greek, which was the text that lies behind our Syriac translation, our only extant witness to it. Papias's informants thus seem to have placed Palestinian Jewish fantasies about the abundance of food in the eschaton onto the lips of Jesus and used them to interpret Jesus’ statements about drinking the fruit of the vine in the kingdom of God as one finds them in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.°° 4:5 and 6 (Norelli frg. 6). The Death of Judas (cf. Matt 27:3-10) 4:5 Apollinaris of Laodicea: ODK évaméVave TH ayyovn 6 ’lovdac, AX’ érteBiw KaValpEeVeic MPO Tod amonviyfvat. kal Tobto SnAOdDOtv ai THV dntootohwv TIpa€etc, STL TPNVIIS YEVOLEVOS EAAKNOE LEGOS,

Kal €€exvOn mavta ta onAAyxva avdtod. todto dS& GageotEpov iotopet Ilariac 6 “Iwavvov padntis AEywv obtws év TO TEeTAPTW TIS eEnynoews TMV KUpLaK@v AOYov.

Judas did not die by hanging, but he survived for a while because he was taken down before he choked. And the Acts of the Apostles 48. The translation comes from A. F. J. Klijn, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 1:630. See also 1 En. 10:19 and Sib. Or. 3.619-623 and 743-749. 49. Papia di Hierapoli, 188,

50. See Benjamin W. Bacon, “Date and Habitat of the Elders of Papias,” ZNW 12 (1911): 176-87. On peace among animals in the eschaton, see 2 Bar. 73:6.

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 29

makes this clear: “falling face down, he burst in the middle, and all his guts poured out.’ Papias, John’s disciple, records this even more clearly when he speaks as follows in his fourth volume of Exposition of the Logoi of the Lord. > 4:6 Méya dé doeBeiacg Drddelyua EV TOUTW TH KOOLLW TEPLETATNOEV

‘Tovdac, mpnoveic éml tooodtov tiv odapka, Mote uNndé OT00EV Guaga padiws dSiepyetat, éxetvov SvvaoG8at dtedPeiv, dAAG uNdé AVTOV LOVOV TOV OYKOV Tis KEegaAfs avTod: Ta LEV yap BAEPapa TOV OGVaAAUaV adtod gaol TooodTOV EFoLdfjoal, WG aAvTOV LEV KaQdAov TO OWs EN BAETELV, TOV 6PVaALOds SE adTOD ENdE DO

iatpod dtontpacs O@POfvat SdvaoVal- tocodtov Bavos eiyov aNd Tic gEwOev Enipaveiac. TO dé aidoiov abtod nNaons LEV doynpoobvne dandeotepov kai weiCov gaiveoBal, pépeoVat dé St’ avtod Todcs €& Amavtos Tod OWUATOS OVPpEOVTAG ix@pac Te Kal oKWANKaGC cic BBpiv SL’ AVTOV LOVWV TOV dvayKaiwv.

Meta todd d5& Baodvous kal Tiubwpiac év idiw gaciv ywpiw teAevtnoavtos Kai TODTO AO Tis SvOWdiAG EPNLOV Kal doiknTOV TO Ywpiov EXPL Tis vdv yevéoVal, AAA’ ODSE LEYPL THs ONEpOV dvvac0ai tiva éxeivov TOV TOTOV TapEADEtv, EAV LT] TAS pivac Taic XEpolv EMLPPAEN. TOOAVTH Sta Tis GapKOds adTOD Kail Emi yc Expvotc EXWPT|OEV.

Judas conducted himself in this world as a great paradigm of impiety. His flesh became so bloated that he was unable to pass through an opening large enough for a chariot easily to pass. Not even the massiveness of his head could get through! They say that his eyelids were so swollen that he was entirely unable to see the light, and even physicians with magnifying glasses could not see his eyes, so deeply had they sunk beyond sight. His penis appeared to be more repulsive and larger that any such disgraceful member, and bloody discharge and maggots poured from all over his body, which caused injury whenever he attended to his bodily needs. They say that after many tortures and punishments, he died in

his own plot, which became deserted and uninhabited even to this day due to its stench. Still today no one can pass by that place without pinching his nostrils, such was the efflux that seeped from his flesh to the ground.?!

51. Christopher B. Zeichmann argues that, whatever the origin of Papias’s account,

30 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS The New Testament contains two incompatible accounts of the death of Judas; Papias surely knew the account in Matt 27:3-10 but not the one in Acts 1:1620.°* Most studies of these variant tales assume that at least two of the three—

Matthew's, Papias’s, and Lukes—originated in oral tradition before being written in their host documents, but it is more likely that Matthew created the account of Judas suicide from biblical texts to solve a problem presented by his sources. If so, Papias was not objecting to an oral tradition about Judas but citing a tradition that opposed Matthew’s literary depiction of him.°» The Matthean Evangelist redacted Mark's treatment of Judasss betrayal of Jesus, but he also incorporated a traditional saying in 19:28 that promised all of the Twelve, including Judas, high status in his kingdom: “Truly I tell you that you who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory, you, too, will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” By retaining this saying as well as Mark’s depiction of Judas as the betrayer, Matthew created a problem that needed a solution: How could Judas be both a traitor and a judge? Here is Matthew's innovative answer. Then, when Judas, the one who delivered him up, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he changed his mind, returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned by delivering up innocent blood.’ But they said, “What do we care? You see to it.” He threw the silver into the sanctuary, left, went off, and hanged himself. The chief priests took the silver and said, “It is not permitted to put these into the sacred treasury, since they are a blood price.” After holding council, they used some of the money to buy the potter's field for the burial of foreigners. Thus that field was called a Field of Blood even to this day. Then what was said by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the purchase price set by some of the people of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord had commanded me.’ (Matt 27:3-10)

The Field of Blood surely was a real place somewhere near Jerusalem, for Luke independently knew its Aramaic name, Hakeldamach (Acts 1:19), but this seems to be the only traditional element of the logion; Matthew appar-

he shaped it according to the conventions of rhetorical ekphrasis, especially portrayals of skolekosis, or “death by worm-consumption” (“Papias as Rhetorician: Ekphrasis in the Bishops Account of Judas’ Death,’ NTS 56 [2010]: 427-29). 52. On the relative dating of the Exposition and Luke-Acts, see pages 46-48. 53. For a fuller treatment of this subject, see Dennis R. MacDonald, “Luke's Use of Papias for Narrating the Death of Judas,” in Reading Acts Today (ed. Steve Walton et al.; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 43-62.

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 31 ently was the first person to link the location to Judas. For this Evangelist, the betrayer’s remorse was sufficient vindication to reinstate him as an eschatological judge.>4

Papiass account of Judas's death refutes Matthews, as the following comparison demonstrates:

Matt 27 Expos. 4:5 and 6 e Judas “hung [dmrjyéato] himself” Judas “did not die by hanging [tf ayyovn].”°°

e The chief priests “used some of Judas died “in his own plot [ywpiw]-’ the money to buy the potter's field [aypov].”

e “That field was called the Field of Judas’ plot “became deserted and

Blood even to uninhabited even to this day [yéxpt Tis viv] due to its stench.

this day [Ewe tis onpepov]-” Still today [péypt th¢ onpepov] no one can pass by that place without pinching his nostrils.”

Papias explicitly attributed his version to oral informants, most likely auditors of the elders John and Aristion. One must chose between two assessments of the genesis of this vivid tale: (1) it originally was independent of the Gospel of Matthew, or (2) it was a polemical response to it prior to Papias. Although scholars recognize Matthew's obvious reliance on texts from the Septuagint/Old Greek, they seldom note that the same biblical parallels seeped through Matthew into Papias. For example, the Evangelist’s model for Judas’s suicide came from 2 Samuel.

54. Arie W. Zwiep concludes his book on Acts 1 (Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Story on the Context and Concern of Acts 1:15-26 [WUNT 2/187; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004], 181-82) by making the harmonization of the promise of thrones in Q and the depiction of Judas the betrayer in Mark the motivation for the selection of Matthias in Acts 1, yet he fails to see that Matthew’s presentation of Judas suicide was a different answer to the same problem. 55. Even if one takes this statement as Apollinaris’ss commentary, which seems likely, the quotation from Papias that follows leaves little doubt that Apollinaris took the passage as an alternative to Matthew (see Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 344).

32 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS

2 Sam 17:23 Matt 27:3, 5, and 7b And when Ahithophel saw that ‘Then, when Judas ... saw that [id@v [cide Sti] his advice did not come... 6tt| Jesus had been condemned, about, he saddled his ass, and went he changed his mind. ... He threw off [amAASev] to his house, ... and the silver into the sanctuary, left, hanged himself [dmnyéato], and went off [dmeA\O@v], and hanged

died, and was buried in the tomb himself [dannyéato]. ... for the [eta~n év TH Taga] of his father. burial [tagnv] of foreigners.>° The tradition cited by Papias knew Judasss attempt to hang himself, though the noose failed to do the job.°® Also from 2 Samuel came Matthew's model for his etiology for the Field

of Blood (aypoc aiatoc), namely, that it was purchased with blood money (tut) aluatoc).°”

2 Sam 6:8 (cf. Gen 26:33) Matt 27:8 And that place was called [€xAnOn 6 ‘Thus that field was called [€xAnOn TOTtOG Ekelvoc] Uzzas Breachevento 6 daypodc éxeivoc] a Field of Blood this day [Ewe tio onuepov nuepac]. even to this day [Ewe tic onuepov].

Such etiological formulae are common in ancient literature, but in addition to the verbal similarities are contextual ones, including the use of 2 Samuel in Matt 27:3-7 that immediately precedes Judas’s death. Uzza angered God by touching the ark of the covenant, and his death created fear among David and others. Uzza and Judas thus both were sinners whose violations stigmatized a plot of land. One may detect in Papias’s version a trace of 2 Sam 6 in the phrase “still today [péxpt ths onpepov]-”

56. In a private conversation, Norelli proposed that Matthew inherited a version of Judas’s suicide because echoes of 2 Samuel appeared already in traditions related to Jesus’ passion (compare 2 Sam 15:30-32 and 20:9-10 with Mark 14:32-36 and 45). It is more likely that these echoes are Mark’s redactional imitations and not reflections of tradition. If so, Matthew would have detected biblical echoes in Mark and added his own imitations of the David narrative in 2 Sam 6:8 and 17:23 for his account of Judas’s death. 57. For prohibitions of tainted money in the temple, see Deut 23:18.

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 33 The Matthean Evangelist then found in Jer 39:6-15 (MT 32:6-15) a text that might show that mutatis mutandis the death of Judas was according to Scripture: Jeremiah’s narration of purchasing a field (Gypdc) as “the Lord” had directed him (39:6, 8, 14, 15). But Jer 39 (MT 32) could not implicate the Jewish authorities, so Matthew awkwardly conflated it with Zech 11:13.°° It thus would appear that the Evangelist created the entire logion to harmonize the traditional promise of thrones with Mark’s depiction of Judas as a betrayer.’ All that is traditional in Matthew’s account is a location near Jerusalem called the Field of Blood.

58. Maarten J. J. Menken presents a compelling reconstruction of the Greek text that the Evangelist most likely used (Matthew's Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist [BETL 173; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004], 179-92). a Kal eimte KpLOG TIPOG LUE

b = KaOec abtovc [i-e., totakovta aypupotc (11:12)] eig TOV kepapea. c 86. Kat OKEWouat ei SOKLLOV EOTLV, OV THOTIOV ESOKLUAOONV DEP AVTAV.

d ai AaBov tovs TptaKkovta aypyvpods, e kai gdwka avtode sic TOV KEepauea.

a And the Lord said to me, b = “Deposit them [the thirty pieces of silver] with the potter, c andI will find out if it is assayed the way I assayed for them?”

d And I took the thirty pieces of silver e and gave them to the potter. The verb €\aBov in line d must be a first-person singular, but Matthew required it to be the third-person plural to make it refer to the Jewish authorities, even though doing so created an absurd change of subject to the first-person singular in line e: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, and I gave them to the potter.’ Matthew thus rearranged the sequence of the last three lines to d, c, and e and offered his alternative version of c: he replaced oxéwouat with the third-person-plural étiunoavto and altered the reference to the assessed value of the prophet’s wages to create a wordplay: “the price of the precious one on whom a price had been set.’ At the end of the same line he also clarified the antecedent of the att@v by adding ano vi@v ‘Iopand. He then changed the first-person é5wka in line e to the thirdperson €5wkav to make the Jewish authorities the buyers of the field. Matthew gave Jeremiah full credit for the citation because, of the two texts, it was more relevant to the Field of Blood. 59. I suspect that the Evangelist composed his account of Judas’s death as a separate unit and awkwardly inserted it between his redaction of Mark 15:1 and 2 as a conclusion to his earlier presentation of Peter’s denial in Matt 26:69-27:2. Two considerations favor his writing of the pericope independently and earlier: first, it places the chief priests and elders at the temple, whereas the contexts before and after Judas’s suicide place the authorities in Pilates court (27:1-2 and 11-12; cf. Mark 15:1 and 2-3). Second and more decisively, in his redaction of Mark 14:10-11, he indicated that the sum was thirty pieces of silver

34 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Confirmation of Matthew's innovation comes from similarities between this passage and Matt 28:11-15, a redactional account of bribing the guards at Jesus’ tomb. In both the chief priests convene a council (27:7: ovpBovAtov dé AaBovtec; 28:12: ovuBovAtov te AaBovtes), and in both they offer money to someone to resolve a problem (27:6 and 10: AaBovtecs ta dpyvptia ... Kai Edwkav avTa; 28:12 and 15: dpyvpta ikava ~dwKav ... AaBOvtes apyvpta). The Evangelist states that “that field was called a Field of Blood even to this day [Ewe tis onuepov]” (27:8) and that the legend that the disciples had stolen Jesus body persisted “until today [yéypt tis onpepov]” (28:15). If Matthew created the suicide of Judas, odds are good for taking Papias’s version of Judas’ death as a polemical response to it: Judas never committed suicide and therefore remained forever disqualified from serving as an eschatological judge.°° In this connection it is worth noting that Papias wrote “about Justus surnamed Barsabbas, how he drank a fatal poison and, by the grace of the Lord, suffered nothing out of the ordinary” (Expos. 5:1; cf. 5:2]). Eusebius here explicitly linked Justus Barsabbas in Papias with Joseph Barsabbas Justus in Acts 1, who, with Matthias, was a candidate to be Judasss replacement. One thus might suspect that Papias also spoke of Judas’s replacement among the Twelve. According to Papias, Judas “did not die by hanging [tf ayyovn]”; Matthew had created his suicide from 2 Sam 17:23, where Ahithophel “hanged himself [amrjyEato].” Papias insisted that Judas “died in his own plot,’ apparently not in a field purchased by the chief priests after he repented. The notion of the authorities purchasing a field Matthew had crafted from Zech 11:13, which he quoted as “they gave them for the potter's field” (Matt 27:10a). Jewish opposition is entirely missing in Papias’s version. Papias’s account agrees with Matthew that the field where Judas fell was notorious “to this very day, but not because Papias knew an independent tradition. Instead, he apparently was aware of objections to Matthew's account and its etiology for the Field of Blood from 2 Sam 6:8: “And that place was called Uzza's Breach even to this day.’ Papias’s indebtedness to Matthew is cru-

cial for understanding the alternative account in the Acts of the Apostles, as we shall see.

(26:14-15), which seems to anticipate Judas’s suicide later. In other words, the Evangelist knew when writing 25:14-15 what he would say in 27:3. 60. Similarly, Kortner, Papias von Hierapolis, 143-44.

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 35 4:7 (Norelli frg. 12a). The Fall of Satan's Angels > Andrew of Caesarea: Kai IHartiac 5& odtwe émi AcEewe: Eviotc dé avtTodv—SnAadn tov mahat Veiwv dayyéhwv—kal Tig Tept Tiv yiv SLaAKOOUNOEWs EOwWKEV ApyEtlv Kal KAADS Apyetv Tapnyyvnoev. Kal etic Protv: cic ovdEV SE OvVEBN TeAEVTHOAL TIV TAELV ADTOV.

Papias wrote verbatim as follows: “To some of them”—apparently angels who once had been divine—“he gave [authority] to rule over the arrangement of the earth and gave them orders to rule well? And next he says, “It turned out that their arrangement came to no good end? At this point Andrew quotes not from the Exposition but from Rev 12:9: “He was cast down—the great dragon, the serpent [dtc], the ancient one, the one called Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole inhabited world—he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him? Although Andrew quotes from the Apocalypse of John to describe the fall of Satan, the two earlier sentences from Papias seem to imply that it was the angels who had been given authority to rule the world who were punished, which probably included Satan. Johns Apocalypse locates the fall of Satan after Jesus’ parousia, but Andrew, just after citing Papias, referred to “the fall of the devil” as what “happened after the cross” and appealed to Athanasius’ Vita Antonii, where the hermit cited Ps 9:7 and its verb in the aorist tense: “The enemy’s swords have failed entirely” (Vit. Ant. 41.3).°

In light of these parallels, I would propose that the most likely location of the reference to the fall of the wicked angels in Papias was here in book 4, after Jesus’ resurrection and as an interpretation of Matt 28:18. “And Jesus approached them [his eleven disciples] and spoke with them, saying, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me:” For Papias the “authority in heaven and on earth [tij\c¢ yijc]” that had “been given [€d00n]” to the risen Jesus was the authority that God originally had “given [Ewxev]” the angels “to rule over the arrangement of the earth [tHv yh], This location of Andrew's excerpt is congruent with the authority that the risen Jesus gives to his disciples in the so-called Longer Ending of Mark, which clearly is an interpretation of Matt 28. 61. This notion that God had crushed the powers of Satan at Jesus’ death and resurrection has its roots deep in the soil of the early church. Paul seems to appeal to it in 1 Cor 2:6-8 (cf. Col 2:14-15). For a later elaboration on the notion, see Ascen. Isa. 10-11 and the entire Descensus Christi (originally part of recension M of the Gospel of Nicodemus).

36 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS

Matt 28:18-20 Mark 16:15-16 And Jesus approached them [his And he said to them [the eleven], eleven disciples} and spoke with

them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. So as you go [mopev8Evtec], “As you go [mopev0Eevtec] into all

make disciples of all [mavta] the the world, preach the gospel to Gentiles, baptizing [BantiGovtecs] every [mao] creature.

them in the name of the Father, The one who believes and is bapand of the Son, and of the Holy _ tized [BamtioVeic] will be saved, but

Spirit, teaching them to observe the one not believing will be coneverything that I have commanded demned.’ you. Look, I am with you every day

until the completion of the age.’ The Longer Ending continues with Jesus making promises to his disciples that seem to have been inspired by Luke 10.

Luke 10:17-19 Mark 16:17-18 The seventy returned with joy and said, “Lord, in your name the “In my name they will cast out

demons [ta dalovia ... €v TH demons [€v TH OvouaTti pov Ovouati cov] submit to us.” He said datyovial, to them, “I saw Satan falling from the sky like lightning.

they will speak in new tongues, in Look, I give you authority to tread their hands they will hold serpents on serpents [6gewv] and scorpions [dq@eic], and whatever harmful and on every power of the enemy, potion they drink, it will do them and nothing will harm you [budcg od no harm [od uh avtotcs BAdawn].

un) aducnon].” They will place their hands on the [cf. Luke 10:9: “heal the infirm.” ] sick, and they will become well.”

A manuscript of an Armenian translation of the Longer Ending attributes it to “Ariston the elder,’ almost certainly Aristion the elder who appears in ancient texts only in the Exposition and Eusebiuss excerpts from it. Insofar as

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 37 Papiass work seems to have survived longer among Armenian Christians than

elsewhere, it is reasonable to conjecture that this thirteenth- or fourteenthcentury gloss came from a scribe who saw something in Papias that prompted him—wrongly—to attribute the Longer Ending to Aristion. Of the surviving fragments, none has more affinities with the longer ending than 4:7, which speaks of the fall of demonic powers. As we shall see in Expos. 5:1 and 2, one of Jesus’ followers drank poison and suffered no harm. One therefore might conclude that Papias cited Aristion to the effect that the risen Jesus promised his followers invulnerability from demons who had fallen from power at Jesus death and resurrection. More than a millennium later, an Armenian scribe recognized the similarities between Papias and the Longer Ending of Mark and wrongly attributed it to Aristion. It also is worth noting that Justin Martyr records a saying similar to Luke 10:19, but it differs somewhat in wording. (Underlining identifies identical wording.)

Justin Martyr, Dial. 76.6 Luke 10:19a didwut vuiv eEovoiav Kkatanateiv idov dSédwka buiv e€Eovoiav tod ETAVW OMEWV Kal OKOPTIWV Kal MaTEiv EMAVW OMEWV KAl OKOPTIWV

okoAoTtevOp@v Kal éMdavw TMaons Kal él madoav Svvautv Tod éyVpod. Svvapews Tod éyPpod.

I am giving you authority to tread Look, I gave you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions and cen- on serpents and scorpions and on tipedes and on every power of the every power of the enemy. enemy.

Although it is possible that the variations in Justin issue from his retrieval of the passage from memory without consulting a text—after all, in the context he is citing several verses—he may well have known a different written version. Two deviations are particularly worthy of comment. Justin uses the present didmt, “I am giving, whereas Luke reads the perfect dedwxa, “I have given you.’ There is no contextual reason for Justin to have changed the verb to a present tense, but Luke needed a past tense to explain how the seventy already had been able to subdue demons. Note also that Justin’s version reads Katamateiv, using the same verb that appears in Ps 90:13 (MT 91:13), which probably informed the original saying: “You will walk on the asp and the basilisk, and you will tread on [katamatroetc] the lion and the dragon.” One

38 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS therefore may suspect that Justin knew the saying from a text in a form more

primitive than Luke's. Book 5: EVENTS AFTER JESUS RESURRECTION

5:1 and 2 (Norelli frgs. 5 [ Hist. eccl. 3.39.8-10] and 10). The Daughters of Philip, Justus Barsabbas, and the Raising of Manaemus’s Mother None of the Papian sources explicitly locates content in the fifth and last book of the Exposition, but insofar as the fragments that can be identified by book

follow the narrative order of Matthew, it is reasonable to think that stories about events after Jesus’ resurrection would have appeared in the final book. These fragments make clear that Papias derived some of this information from the daughters of Philip who lived in Hierapolis.

5:1 Eusebius: “Ag€iov d€ taig dnodoVeioats tod Hania pwvaic Mpooawat Ages EtEpac adtod, dt’ wv Mapadogsa tiva iotopei Kai dAAa wo av ek Tapadooewe eic abtOv EADOVTA. TO LEV OVV KATA

thv “lepanoAw Mikinnov tov andotoAov dua Taig Qvyatpdotv dtatpiwat dia TOV TpdOVEV SedHAwtTal we SE KATA TOVSG AVTODG

6 Ilaniag yevouevos, dujynot mapetAngéevat Bavuaciav bd TMV tod OiXrintov Ovyatépwv Uvnpovevel, TA vdV ONnELwtéov: veKpod yap AVAOTAGLV KAT’ AVTOV yeyovviav ioTopEl Kai ad TAAL ETEPOV

Tapado€gov tepi “lodotov tov émtkAnPevta BapoaBbdav yeyovoc, we ONANTHPLov PapLakov EMLOVTOS Kal UNdev Andes Sia THV TOD KUpiov XAPLV VITOLELVAVTOG.

Tottov oé tov ‘Iobotov Leta Thy Tod owtipos avalnytv tovc lepovc dmtootoAovus Leta Maria othoat te kai emevfaoat dvti tod tpodotov ‘lovda émi Tov KApov tic dvantAnpwoews Tod advta@v apiOpod 1) tov Hpdgewv wdé we iotopet ypagr): Kal Eotnoav Svo, ‘Iwong tov kadhovuevov BapoaBdv, dc émeKANOn “lodotosc, Kai MatOiav: kai mpocevEduevot eimay.

But it is appropriate to add to the utterances of Papias already presented some of his other statements, in which he tells of other wonders as though they came to him from tradition. From what was Said earlier it was clear that Philip the apostle lived at Hierapolis with his daughters. Now it should be indicated that, because Papias

62. For a fuller treatment of this passage, see 367-71.

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 39

lived in their day, he could recall that he had received a marvelous tale from the daughters of Philip, for he narrates the rising of a dead person in his own day and again another marvelous event about Justus surnamed Barsabbas, how he drank a fatal poison and, by the grace of the Lord, suffered nothing out of the ordinary. The writing of the Acts narrates as here that, after the ascension of the Savior, the holy apostles put forward this Justus along with

Matthias and prayed over the lottery for the completion of their number in place of Judas: “They presented two men: Joseph, the one called Barsabbas, surnamed Justus, and Matthias. They prayed and said....°°°

Philip of Side knew this passage from Eusebius but added information that almost certainly issued from an independent reading of the Exposition.

5:2 Philip of Side: Hlamiac 6 eipnuévoc totdpnoev wo tapadaBav

amo TOv Dvyatépwv Dirinmov Sti Bapoabds 6 Kai ‘lodotoc SokipaCopuevos U1 TOV AnloTwv lov ExidvNncs TMV Ev OvoLLATL TOD

Xptotod analns dtegvAdayOn. iotopei dé kai GAAa Davuata Kal UdAloTa TO KATA THY UNntEpa Mavaipov tiv ék veKpO@v davaothoay. Tept TOV DTO TOD Xptotod EK VEKPHV AVAOTAVTWV, OTL EWG “Adptavod ECwv.

The previously mentioned Papias narrated, as though having received from the daughters of Philip, that Barsabbas, also Justus, having been put to the test by unbelievers, drank snake venom in the name of Christ and was protected without harm. And he also regales other marvelous events and especially an episode about the raising

of Manaemuss mother from the dead. Concerning those who had been raised from the dead by Christ, [he said] that they lived until the time of Hadrian.”

Neither Eusebius nor Philip of Side states whether the Philip in Papias was one of the Twelve or one of the seven deacons mentioned in Acts 6, 8, and 21. Insofar as the other Papian fragments are silent about deacons, one must assume that the Philip whom the historian had in mind was one of the Twelve; Eusebius explicitly states that this was the case: “Philip the apostle lived at Hierapolis with his daughters” (Hist. eccl. 3.39.9). Furthermore, nei-

63. Cf. Acts 1:23-24.

40 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS ther church historian tells how many daughters Philip had or what status they enjoyed in the Christian community. All one knows is that Papias appealed

to them as his source for the story of Justus Barsabbas and a resuscitation, presumably of the mother of Manaemus. Earlier in his history Eusebius cited two passages that mentioned these sisters. In the first he quoted a letter by Polycrates of Ephesus to Victor of Rome, “in which he mentions both him [John the apostle], Philip the apostle, and his daughters” (Hist. eccl. 3.31.2). “For in Asia great luminaries sleep...: Philip, from the twelve apostles, who sleeps at Hierapolis with his two daughters, who grew old as virgins, and his other daughter, who conducted her life in the Holy Spirit and rests in Ephesus” (3.31.2). Eusebius immediately then quoted from a work by Gaius of Rome against the Montanist Proclus. “The four prophesying daughters of Philip had been living in Hierapolis in Asia. Their grave is there, as is that of their father” (3.31.2). Of the two witnesses, that of Polycrates of Ephesus, familiar with Asian traditions, is more reliable than that of Gaius of Rome. Polycrates’ distinction between the two daughters who died as virgins and their sister, who died in Ephesus, implies that the third daughter married; Clement of Alexandria appealed to a tradition that held that at least two of the daughters had married: “Philip even gave his daughters to husbands” (Strom. 3.6; cf. Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.30.1). Although these witnesses to Philip's daughters vary with respect to their number, they agree that the women emigrated from Judea to western Asia Minor, Hierapolis and Ephesus in particular, and that at least two of them died as virgins. These witnesses also imply or explicitly state that their father was one of the Twelve. Eusebius account seems to suggest that unbelievers forced Justus to drink “a fatal poison” in order to kill him and that, “by the grace of the Lord, he suffered nothing out of the ordinary” (Expos. 5:1). Philip's version, however, may be the more original: “Justus, having been put to the test by unbelievers, drank snake venom in the name of Christ and was protected without harm” (Expos. 5:2) Ancients were aware that snake venom was harmless when ingested; in fact, people were known to have drunk venom for medicinal purposes.™ It would appear that Eusebius, aware of the fact, altered Papiasss account to read instead “a fatal poison.” Note also the parallels between Philip's version and the so-called Longer Ending of Mark: “In my name they will cast out demons, they will speak in

new tongues, in their hands they will hold serpents, and whatever harmful

64. James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (WUNT 2/112; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 433-42.

1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION AND COMMENTARY 41 potion they drink, it will do them no harm” (Mark 16:17b-18a). The discussion of Expos. 4:7 proposed that Papias earlier had spoken of the fall of Satan’s angels and Jesus’ authority over heaven and earth. A promise of invulnerability to serpents and potions also may have appeared in this context. If such a promise did indeed appear in Papias, one might interpret the Justus Barsabbas episode as his demonstration of Jesus authority by drinking poison. In other words, in his preaching to “unbelievers [damiotwv],’ Justus repeated Jesus’ promise of divine protection from snakes and deadly drugs. They thus put him to the test (SoxtaCouevoc). To prove the promise trustworthy, he voluntarily “drank snake venom in the name of Christ and was protected without harm” (Expos. 5:2). The martyrdom of Paul in the Acts of Paul suggests a somewhat different scenario. The author seems to have been familiar with the canonical Acts, even if he did not bother to square his narrative with it. Barsabbas Justus reappears in this text in a shocking context. Paul raised back to life Nero's cupbearer named Patroclus, who told the emperor that he had become a soldier under orders of “Christ Jesus, the king of the ages” (Acts Paul 11:2). Then, Barsabbas Justus of the flat feet, Orion the Cappadocian, and Festus the Galatian, Neros first-ranked officers, said, “We, too, serve as soldiers to that

king of the ages” After severely torturing men whom he dearly loved, he locked them up and gave orders that the soldiers of the great king be sought out; he also issued the following: that all those who were found to be Christians and soldiers of Christ be killed. (11:2)

Among those rounded up was Paul, who threatened that, unless Nero repented, he would perish when Christ destroys “‘the world with fire’ On hearing this, the emperor commanded that all the prisoners be burned with fire but that Paul be decapitated according to the law of the Romans” (11:3). The readers must assume that Barsabbas Justus and his two colleagues were similarly doomed. Nero successfully killed many, including the apostle, who after his death appeared to him. Terrified, the emperor “ordered that the prisoners be released, including Patroclus and those men with Barsabbas” (11:6). The author fails to say how Barsabbas Justus and his comrades survived when

many were executed, but Eusebius paraphrase of Papias would fit beautifully here: “Justus surnamed Barsabbas ... drank a fatal poison [Philip of Side: “snake venom”] and, by the grace of the Lord, suffered nothing out of the ordinary” (Expos. 5:1; cf. 5:2). It would be reasonable to conjecture that, whereas Paul was beheaded “according to the law of the Romans” for 65. For a discussion of Philip’s error in dating Papias to the age of Hadrian, see 46-47.

42 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS a citizen, and whereas hoi polloi believers died at pyres, Barsabbas and his companions survived the drinking of poison, a form of death common for Roman elites accused of treason. In an earlier study I proposed that one best accounts for the curious agreement between Papias and the Acts of Paul with respect to Barsabbas Justus by appealing to independent awareness of oral legends.®° Papias gathered his information from the daughters of Philip who resided in Hierapolis, and the author of the Acts of Paul arguably relied on legends about Paul told by women. On the other hand, one might speculate that the author of the Acts read something about Justus Barsabbas’s ordeal in Papias and provided it an alternative narrative, but there is nothing else in the survival of the Acts of Paul to suggest awareness of the Exposition. From this assessment of Papias's use of earlier Gospels, one may draw the following conclusions. Although Papias apparently gave credibility to Mark as well as to the two Greek translations of Matthew, his proclivity, at least as represented in the surviving fragments was for Matthew. In fact, the excerpts never have him interpreting a passage in Mark that does not appear also in Matthew!

e Expos. 1:6 (God's children are the righteous) seems to interpret Matt 3:9-10 (no Markan parallel). e Expos. 2:2a and 2b (paradise in Genesis refers to the church) seem to interpret Matt 19:28 (no Markan parallel).

e Expos. 2:3 (the deaths of James and John) seems to interpret Matt 20:20-—23 (cf. Mark 10:38-39).

e Expos. 3:0 (Christ's thousand-year earthly kingdom) may interpret Matt 25:31-36 (no Markan parallel). e Expos. 4:2 and 4 (agricultural bounty in the kingdom of God) seem to expand on Matt 26:29 (cf. Mark 14:25).

e Expos. 4:5 and 6 (the death of Judas) seem to oppose Matt 27:310 (no Marcan parallel). e Expos. 4:7 (the fall of Satan’s angels) seems to interpret Jesus authority after his resurrection in Matt 28:18 (no Markan parallel).

Papias does, however, refer to a few episodes without antecedents in Mark or Matthew (e.g., the sinful woman and the fall of Satan) episodes that may have been in the lost Gospel that resembled Matthew, as we shall see.

66. The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 34-37.

2

PapIaAs S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS

Even in antiquity readers recognized distinctive connections between Papiass

Exposition and Luke-Acts.! Both present Jesus forgiving a sinful woman (Expos. 2:1; Luke 7:36-50); both refer to the martyrdom of James, the brother

of John (Expos. 2:3; Acts 12:1-2); both narrate the death of Judas not as a suicide, as in Matthew, but as divine punishment in his own field (Expos. 4:6; Acts 1:18-19); both mention Satan’s fall from heaven (Expos. 4:7; Luke 10:19); both name Barsabbas Justus (Expos. 5:1 and 2; Acts 1:23); and both refer to the daughters of Philip (Expos. 5:1 and 2; Acts 21:8-9). Particularly impressive are similarities between their prefaces (Expos. 1:5; Luke 1:1—4). It also is worth noting that both were multivolume works whose authors intended to arrange the life of Jesus in chronological order; the last volume of each narrated events after Jesus death. Insofar as we have precious few fragments of Papiass Exposition, this density of overlapping content with Luke-Acts begs for a solution, and scholars who have engaged the question muster into three camps: (1) Papias’s Exposition and Luke-Acts were independent works; (2) Papias knew the Gospel of Luke; and (3) the author of Luke-Acts knew Papias'’s Exposition.

Option 1. Papiass Exposition and Luke-Acts were independent works. Ulrich H. J. Kortner and Norelli, for example, attribute the overlapping names and episodes to shared oral traditions.” The similarities in the prefaces, on the other hand, reflect literary practices of the time; after all, Papias and the author of Luke-Acts were near contemporaries living in western Asia Minor. Hierapolis lay on a major road running from the east directly to Ephesus, Luke's likely region, about 150 kilometers to the west.

1. See the comments by Apollinaris of Laodicea to Expos. 4:5 and by Eusebius to Expos. 5:1.

2. Kortner, Papias von Hierapolis, 173-76; Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 105-12, 294.

-43-

44 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Several scholars have insisted, however, that the parallels between the two works are far too extensive to attribute merely to common conventions. These parallels are most apparent in their introductions.

Luke 1:1: “Since many have attempted to set in order an exposition of the matters that have come to fruition among us” As we have seen, Papias knew of at least four earlier books about Jesus: one attributed to Mark, two suspected translations of a Hebrew Matthew, and probably Aristion’s Expositions. Luke's dvatagao8at (“to set in order”) appears only here in the New Testament and suggests that the Evangelist viewed his sources as arrangements of traditional content. Papias, too, was preoccupied with the taéic of his sources. Mark did not compose a obvtaéic, whereas Matthew did (ovvetagato), an order corrupted by his translators, but which the bishop intended to restore (ovvKatatagai; Expos. 1:3, 4, and 5). Luke's dujynotw (Cexposition”) is another New Testament hapax. Aristions work apparently was called dinynoetc, and Papias entitled his work an e€nynotic, in which he sought to record, as Mark had, “what was said or done [mpay0evta] by the Lord” (Expos. 1:3). Luke's goal was to record “the matters [mpaypwatwv]” that had occurred.

Luke 1:2: “as those who became from the beginning firsthand observers and assistants of the message handed on [mapédooav] to us [their expositions]”

Papias, too, attempted to preserve information about Jesus that was “handed down” from those who had known him. Mark translated the memories of Peter; Matthew, an eyewitness, wrote a Hebrew composition, which others handed on in Greek. The bishop himself sought to preserve the teachings of Jesus associates: “what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples had said, or what Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, say” (Expos. 1:5). According to Eusebius, Papias “handed down [napadidwotv] ... traditions [mapaddoeic]” (Expos. 1:1 and 2).

Luke 1:3a: “it seemed good to me, too,” to compose an account.

Similarly, after Papias discussed Mark and Matthew’s translations, he wrote of his own compositional intentions: “I will not hesitate to set in order ... whatever I learned well and remembered well from the elders” (Expos. 1:5).

2. PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS 45 Luke 1:3b: “having followed [mapnkoAovOnxott] them all thoroughly” This is the only occurrence of the verb mapaxoAov0éw in Luke-Acts, but it appears also in Papias’s claim to have plied information from anyone who “followed [mapnkoAov0nkwe] the elders” (Expos. 1:5). Both authors not only use

the same word, but they use it in the same tense, voice, mood, and number— only the case is different because of the grammatical context. Luke 1:3c: “to write [an exposition] precisely in sequence [dxpiB@c Kabegic ... ypayat]”

According to Papias, even though Mark’s composition did not present the logia in chronological order, he did “write precisely [axpiB@c éypawev].... For he made it his one purpose to omit nothing that he had heard or falsely to present anything pertaining to them’ (Expos. 1:3). Luke 1:3d: “for you [oot], most excellent Theophilus”

Although many ancient prefaces refer to individual addressees, such addressees are rare in ancient Christian literature; thus, Papias is exceptional: “T will not hesitate to set in order also for you [oot]” (Expos. 1:5). It is likely that the text earlier had named the recipient, as Luke does. Luke 1:4: “so that you may recognize the certainty of sayings [Ao0ywv]

about which you have been instructed” Similarly, Papias sought to present his reader with a more reliable account about what had happened, to confirm their reliability; for I would not take joy, as many would, in those who had much to say, but in those who taught the truth; not in those who remembered the commandments of others, but in those who remembered the commandments given by the Lord for faith and derived from the truth itself. If ever someone who had followed the elders should come by, I would investigate the sayings [Adyous] of the elders. (Expos. 1:5)

The impressive similarities between Luke’s preface and Papias’s suggests that they are not merely independent examples of a rhetorical commonplace: one author seems to have borrowed from the other. Proponents of options 2 and 3 for explaining the overlapping content in Papias and Luke-Acts agree

46 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS on a literary connection between them but disagree on the direction of dependence.

Option 2. Papias knew the Gospel of Luke. Erhardt Giittgemanns, for example, proposed that Papias knew Luke 1:1-4 and that his treatment of Mark answered Luke's critique of disagreements in the order of events in his sources.* Two arguments tell against this direction of dependence. First, Euse-

bius made a point of listing the books known to Papias, which included the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, | John, and 1 Peter. Had he seen evidence that Papias also knew Luke-Acts, he surely would have said so.* Second, Luke probably wrote later than Papias. Some scholars have dated

the Exposition to 130-140 because of a comment from the historian Philip of Side: “Concerning those who had been raised from the dead by Christ, [Papias said] that they lived until the time of Hadrian,’ who reigned from 117-138 c.g. (Expos. 5:2). There can be little doubt that the passage in Philip redacts Eusebiuss account of Papiass recording of a resuscitation of a corpse “in his own day.’ Eusebius does not indicate under which Roman emperor it occurred, and Philip may merely have guessed that it was under Hadrian. It served Philips purpose to stretch Papias’s lifetime into Hadrian's reign, for he wanted to show that Jesus’ power prolonged the lives of those whom he raised from the dead. Furthermore, apart from this passage in Philip of Side, one likely would date Papias’s oeuvre at least a decade before Hadrian’ rule. Eusebius discusses him as a contemporary of Ignatius and Polycarp. Immediately after discussing

3. “In welchen Sinne ist Lukas Historiker? Die Beziehung von Luk 1:1-4 und Papias zur antiken Rhetorik,” LB 54 (1983): 9-26, esp. 23. See the similar arguments in Theo K. Heckel, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium (WUNT 120; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 262-63. Other scholars who hold that Papias knew Luke include Joseph Barber Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1889), 150 and 178-86; Robert M. Grant, “Papias and the Gospels,’ ATR 25 (1943): 218-20, Charles E. Hill, “What Papias Said about John [and Luke]: A “New Papian Fragment, JTS 49 (1998): 582-629, and Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, esp. 412-37. 4, See especially the treatment of this issue by Johannes Munck, “Die Tradition tiber das Matthausevangelium bei Papias,’ in Neotestamentica et Patristica: Eine Freundesgabe Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag tiberreicht (ed. Willem C. van Unnik; NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962), 250-51. 5. Compare the linking of Quadratus to the reign of Hadrian in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.3.2. It may be worth noting here that Eusebius cited Irenaeus, who wrongly considered Papias an auditor of the apostle John, but perhaps correctly called him “a man of old” (apyatoc avip), that is, from the generation connected with Christian beginnings (Expos. 4:3).

2. PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS 47 Papias, Eusebius began book 4 with a reference to the twelfth year of Trajan’s reign (i.e., 109 c.E.; Hist. eccl. 4.1), which implies that the events treated in book 4 took place earlier. If the elders John and Aristion were twenty years old when Jesus died around 30 c.£., even if they lived to the age of eighty, admirable longevity for the time, they would have died around the year 90. Papias does not indicate the interval between his collecting information from their followers while they were alive and his composing the Exposition, but it is unlikely to have been more than ten years. This same reasoning would apply to Eusebius'’s statement that Philip the apostle (!) and his daughters lived in Hierapolis in Papias’s day (Expos. 5:1). Norelli provides a superb discussion of the dating of Papias and concludes that the bishop was born between 60 and 70 c.£. and died sometime after 120.° The composition of the Exposition he dates to 110-120.’ Around 110 is more realistic insofar as it shortens the interval between Papias’s collection of traditions when the elders were still alive and his recording of them (so K6rtner).° With respect to Luke-Acts, Norelli and others date it to the 80s or 90s, decades before the composition of the Exposition. This dating is far too early, as Richard I. Pervo has argued at length. Intertextual evidence from datable sources establishes a terminus a quo of circa 100. Further strong evidence comes from the extrinsic probability that Luke had access to letters of Paul, supported by the intrinsic evidence for his use of a collection of these epistles. There is no sufficient indicator of the existence of such a collection before 100. Other evidence derives from the good probability that Luke made use of the last volume of the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus, which can be dated to 93/94. ... The number of possible hints and allusions [to Acts by later authors] indicate that Acts was known by 150, if not a full decade, or perhaps even two decades, earlier.”

6. Papia di Hierapoli, 47. 7. Papia di Hierapoli, 54. 8. Eusebius seems to place Papiass career during the reign of Trajan (98-117), contemporaneous to Ignatius (d. ca. 115) and Polycarp of Smyrna, who lived to an extraordinary old age (d. 156). For advocates of the earlier dating of the Exposition, see J. Vernon Bartlet, “Papias’s ‘Exposition’: Its Date and Contents,’ in Amicitiae Corolla (ed. H. G. Wood; London: University of London Press, 1933), 15-44; E. Gutwenger, “Papias: Eine chronologische Studie,’ ZKT 69 (1947): 385-416; Kortner, Papias von Hierapolis, 88-94; Robert W. Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias: A Reassessment,’ JETS 26 (1983): 181-91; and Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 13-14 and 17-20. Schoedel also holds to an earlier dating: “The later date depends in part on taking the De Boor fragment [= Norelli frg. 10] ... more seriously than it deserves” (Schoedel, “Papias,” 236; see also 261-62). 9. Richard I. Pervo, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa

48 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Within these poles of 100 and 150, Pervo suggests that 115-120 would be a safe bet for Lukes second volume. Although Luke wrote his Gospel before writing Acts, the interval between the two compositions probably was short insofar as he almost certainly anticipated the writing of his second volume when writing the first.!° If one dates the Exposition of Logia about the Lord to about 110 and Luke-Acts to 115 or later, Papias could not have known Luke's writings or, for that matter, the Gospel of John.!! By no means have all scholars accepted Pervos later dating of Acts, but we shall see that invariably, when Papias and Luke parallel each other, Luke is secondary, further evidence that Pervo is right.

Option 3. The author of Luke-Acts knew Papiass Exposition. To my knowledge, only two scholars have proposed this option, and neither did so systematically. In 1956, Rupert Annand argued that Papias wrote around 80-90 and that Luke modeled his preface after the Exposition.'* A few years later, Johannes Munck intimated that this indeed might have been the case.!° I will argue that this third option, though the least popular, best explains the

Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 2006), 343. See also Pervo’s Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 5. 10. For example, Luke may have rejected the Markan controversy about unwashed hands and Jesus’ pronouncing all things clean (Mark 7:1-23) because he wished to delay such a pronouncement until the episode concerning Cornelius in Acts 10. Similarly, Luke omitted the malicious accusation that Jesus would destroy and rebuild the temple (Mark 14:57-61) but redacted it in Acts 6:12-14 to create the charges against Stephen. Compare also Mark 13:32 and Acts 1:7 and Mark 6:54-56 and Acts 5:12-16. Furthermore, the ending of the Gospel creates expectations of a sequel (esp. Luke 24:49-52). 11. On redactions of the Gospel of Luke in the Gospel of John, see especially Manfred Lang, Johannes und die Synoptiker: Eine redactionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Joh 18-20 vor dem markanischen und lukanischen Hintergrund (FRLANT 182; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999); and Gilbert Van Belle, “Lukan Style in the Fourth Gospel,” in Luke and His Readers (ed. R. Bieringer, Gilbert Van Belle, and Joseph Verheyden; BETL 182; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), 351-72, who summarized his research as follows: “From our analysis of the Johannine characteristics and the synoptic parallels, we argue that the diptych of the appearance of Jesus to his disciples ... can be explained as a Johannine creation based on the Synoptic Gospels. We thus ... question the authors who maintain that

Luke, in one form or another, used or knew the Gospel of John. ... [T]he writing of the Gospel of John was influenced by the Gospel of Luke” (367-69). Kortner denies that Papias knew the Fourth Gospel and provides a compelling alternative explanation of the bishops connection with Johannine tradition (Papias von Hierapolis, 197-202). See Norelli, Papia di Hierapoli, 114-23, who shares Kortner’s skepticism. 12. Rupert Annand, “Papias and the Four Gospels,’ SJT 9 (1956): 46-62. 13. Munck, “Die Tradition tiber das Matthausevangelium,’ 249-60.

2. PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS 49 data.!+ Papias wrote the Exposition at a crucial midpoint in the Synoptic tradition. He interpreted books that had been assigned to Mark and Matthew, and his work later informed the author of Luke-Acts. The title of Luke's original, unified work no longer survives, due, no doubt,

to its later division into two distinct books.’ Although the original title is unrecoverable, the opening verse in Luke reveals how the author understood his literary enterprise. Like his many predecessors, he set out to compose a Sujynow epi TOV TeTANPOPOPNLEVov Ev Nuiv Tpayyatov, “an exposition of

the matters that have come to fruition among us.’ Like Papias, the author of Luke-Acts wrote in the first-person singular in the prefaces to both volumes: “it seemed good to me” (Luke 1:3), and “I composed my first account” (Acts 1:1). Furthermore, beginning with Acts 16:10 and several times thereafter, the author employed the first-person plural voice for narrating the voyages of Paul that took him ultimately to Rome.!® The reader was to assume that the author accompanied Paul at these points, but the dating of Luke-Acts to 115-120 makes this claim historically impossible. Most scholars view the two-volume work as originally anonymous and seek alternative explanations of the we-voyages.!”

14. Norelli discusses the parallels between the preface of Papias and Luke in depth (Papia di Hierapoli, 105-12), but for him the issue is whether Papias knew Luke or if the two were independent. Although he cites the work of Rupert Annand, he dismisses the notion that Luke knew Papias on the grounds that, according to his chronology, Luke wrote twenty or thirty years earlier than the bishop of Hierapolis (111). In his view, one best explains the similarities by attributing them to the topoi of historical introductions (109), but the parallels between the two are more extensive, sequential, and dense than those with any other historical introductions. 15. The first volume circulated independently, usually under the title evVayyéAtov kata Aovkav. For example, P’>, the earliest textual witness (late second century), contains this title at the end of the Gospel. Other manuscripts read simply kata AovKav. The second volume was known by several variations of IIpagets attootéAwv, sometimes with the addition of AovKa evayyeAiotov. The earliest external attribution of the Gospel to Luke appears in Irenaeus, around 180 c.z. (Adv. haer. 3.1.1; cf. 3.14.1-3 and the Muratorian Canon). 16. Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; and 27:1-28:16. 17. William Sanger Campbell provides a useful treatment of these proposals (The “We” Passages in the Acts of the Apostles: The Narrator as Narrative Character [SBLSBL 14; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007], 1-13) and “The Narrator as “He, “Me, and “We: Grammatical Person in Ancient Histories and in the Acts of the Apostles,’ JBL 129 (2010): 385-407. See also Dennis R. MacDonald, “The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul, NTS 45 (1999): 88-89. Here is Campbell’s sage conclusion concerning the function of “I” and “we” in Luke-Acts: “The first-person narrator character in Acts reflects the ancient grammatical practice and effects noted in the histories of Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus. ‘The first-

person singular and plural passages in the Acts narrative defend and project the narrator's

50 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS It is more likely, however, that the author wrote under the pseudonym Luke. As the Papian fragments show, by Luke's day originally anonymous Gos-

pels had been attributed to Mark and Matthew. Furthermore, most Gospels written in the second century bore the name of an associate of Jesus, such as the Gospels of John, Thomas, Peter, Judas, Mary, and the Protogospel of James.!®

Even without the name “Luke” in the title, readers of the two volumes surely would have speculated concerning the identity of the author among characters known to have been in the Pauline circle who were not mentioned in Acts. Luke would have been the most likely suspect. Post-Pauline tradition gave prominence to Luke as Paul’s associate, but the name Luke is conspicuously and suspiciously missing in the Acts of the Apostles. In Phlm 23-24, Paul himself lists people who were with him when he composed the letter; they include Mark and Luke. This list seems to have informed the author of the Deutero-Pauline epistle Colossians.

Phlm 23-25 Col 4:10-12a, 14, 18b Epaphras my fellow-prisoner greets Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner you in Christ Jesus [as do] Mark, greets you [as do] Mark, the cousin

Aristarchus, of Barnabas, ... and Jesus called Justus, who are of the circumcision, who alone were fellow-workers for

personal knowledge as eyewitness or researcher, and therefore, his credentials for telling the story accurately so that, as Luke 1:4 claims, Theophilus and by extension all readers can be assured of the truth of the information’ (90). However, Campbell's application of this observation to the authorship of Luke-Acts is problematic: he assumes that Luke wrote anonymously, even though his analogies from ancient literature come from books that bore the names of authors. Thucydides begins his work as follows: “Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote about the war of Peloponnesians and Athenians” (1.1.1). Polybius identifies himself at several points in his work, and his name probably appeared in its inscription. Josephus’s preface to the Bellum includes the following identification: “I, Josephus, son of Matthias, [by race a Hebrew], a priest from Jerusalem, who at first myself fought the Romans” (B./. 1.2-3). Although the Jewish historian does not name himself at the beginning of the Antiquitates biblicae, he immediately makes it clear that he is the same author who had composed the Bellum. In other words, none of the texts that Campbell uses to illustrate Luke's use of the first-person plural narrative is anonymous. I would propose that his analogies and analysis work far better if Luke-Acts was pseudonymous and not anonymous. 18. Exceptions would include the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Egyptians, but it is by no means certain that these titles were original to these works.

2. PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS 51 Demas, and Luke, my fellow-work- the kingdom of God, who became

ers. my comfort. Epaphras, one of your May the grace of our Lord Jesus own, greets you, a servant of Christ

Christ be with your spirit. Jesus. ... Luke, the beloved physician, greets you, as does Demas. ...

May grace be with you.

Insofar as Luke wrote later than the composition of Philemon and Colossians and knew a collection of Paul's letters, he may well have known of Luke’s connections with both Paul and Mark. Evidence that Luke may have known the passage in Colossians appears in Acts 20 and in the correspondence of names in Col 4 and Acts.!?

Col 4:17 Acts 20:24 And tell Archippus: See to the task Ido not count my life of any value of serving that you received in the to myself so that I may complete my Lord [tiv dtakoviav fv mapéAaBes race and the task of serving that I

Ev kupiw]. received from the Lord Jesus [trv Stakoviav fv ékaBov mapa tod kupiov Inood].

The name Aristarchus appears in Phlm 24 and Col 4:10; in Acts it appears in 19:29; 20:4; and 27:2. Mark appears in Phlm 24 and Col 4:10; it appears four times in Acts (were he is also called John). Barnabas appears in 1 Cor 9:16; Gal 2:1, 9, 13; and Col 4:10; in Acts it appears twenty-two times. The names Mark and Barnabas are not particularly telling, but the only occasions outside of Acts that Aristarchus appears in the New Testament are in the same verse as Luke, Paul's fellow-worker (Philemon) or physician (Colossians). In both cases he is with Paul and Luke in prison; in Acts, Aristarchus invariably is with Paul—once when Paul is in chains on his way to Rome!—and twice with the narrator, as indicated by the first-person plural. The salutations at the end of 2 Timothy imitate those at the end of Colossians, and here again one finds Mark and Luke, now in Rome.

19. See Pervo, Dating Acts, 120-21. “The data lead to the conclusion that Luke had access to a collection of Pauline epistles rather than a few independent items” (144). For tables listing the parallels between Acts and Colossians, see Dating Acts, 141.

52 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Col 4:10, 12a, 14, 18b 2 Tim 4:10-11 and 22b Aristarchus my _ fellow-prisoner greets you [as do] Mark, the cousin

of Barnabas. ... Epaphras, one of your own, greets you, a servant of For, in love with this present world, Christ Jesus. ... Luke, the beloved Demas has abandoned me. ... Luke physician, greets you, as does alone is with me. Bring Mark along

Demas. ... with you, for he is useful to me for the ministry. ...

May grace be with you. May grace be with you. The tradition increasingly intensified the intimacy between Luke and Paul: whereas Paul called Luke merely his “fellow-worker, the author of Colossians called him his “beloved physician,’ and the author of 2 Timothy stated that Luke was Paul's sole companion in prison before he died. Ancient subscriptions to these books—Philemon, Colossians, and 2 Timothy—state that each was written from Rome." Just as this tradition located Paul and Luke in Rome, Acts sends Paul to Rome in the company of the pseudo-Lukan authorial voice: “When we entered Rome’ (27:16). One might argue, of course, that the absence of Luke in Acts and his associations with Paul in Rome prompted later readers such as Irenaeus to foist the book on him. I think it more likely, however, that the title of the two-volume work contained the pseudonym Luke as a strategic literary ploy; the selection of Paul’s intimate companion late in life as the fictive author was a brilliant choice, for it announced from the outset that this story about Christian origins would have a Pauline slant. The name Theophilus, “One-who-loves-God,° probably is fictive as well, a symbol for Luke's readers (Luke 1:3). It is difficult to imagine that a historical Theophilus around 115 would have been duped by the anachronistic pseudonym. Luke-Acts thus is a case of double pseudonymity: the work of a fictive author to an imaginary recipient for the benefit of actual Jed@tAol.

It therefore is reasonable to assume that the title, though precisely unrecoverable, was something like “An Exposition [dujynotc] of ... according to

20. In this regard, one also might cite the martyrdom section of the Acts of Paul (11:1), which begins with two of Paul’s associates awaiting his arrival in Rome, Titus and Luke, characters entirely missing in action in Acts!

2. PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS 53 Luke.’*! One thus might cautiously compare the beginning of the books by Papias and (pseudo-)Luke as follows:

Papias’s Exposition Luke Title: Aoyiwv kuptakav é€nynotc Title: dujynots of ... (2) (Expos. 0)

Name of the author: Hartiac Name of the author: Luke (?) (Expos. 0)

1:5) (1:3)

Name of the recipient (see Expos. Name of the recipient: Oedgthoc

Papias next seems to have introduced three or more books that presented the logia about Jesus in differing order: one of these had been attributed to Mark, and at least two were considered translations of a Semitic Matthew. The preface also seems to have introduced the elder John and perhaps Aristion, both of whom, according to Eusebius, provided information that Papias incorporated throughout the Exposition. Three times in fragments 1:1 and 2 Eusebius refers to Papias'ss preservation of traditions (mapadidwotv and twice TLAPASOCELC).

As we have seen, Luke 1:1-2, like Papias’s preface, begins with an acknowledgement of previous attempts to compose expositions about the life of Jesus. These famous verses require careful exegesis.

Since many (1:la). Loveday C. A. Alexander, author of a brilliant book devoted to Luke's two prefaces, rightly refers to “the tendency of critics to think exclusively in terms of the documents we know: Mark and Matthew/Q are two, not ‘many. ”** Again she says, “If this causes problems for our views

on Gospel sources or chronology, perhaps we need to look more closely at those views and their assumptions.’*° (Chapter 3 of the present book will do precisely that.) Papias knew of at least four antecedent documents about Jesus, and the elder John informed him about speculations of a fifth. As we have 21. The elder Aristion, one of Papias’s informants, called his book tv tod Kkupiov LOywv Sunyhoets, Expositions of the Logoi of the Lord (Expos. 1:1). Francois Bovon similarly

suspects that the word dujynots appeared in the original title (Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 [trans. Christine M. Thomas; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2002], 24). 22. Loveday C. A. Alexander, The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 115. Unfortunately, Alexander mentions Papias’s preface only en passant. 23. Alexander, The Preface to Luke's Gospel, 115.

54 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS seen, the four were the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, at least one other text with affinities to Matthew, and Aristions Expositions; the hypothetical text was the Hebrew original of the Gospel of Matthew.”4

have attempted to set in order an exposition [dvatagao8a dSujynotv] of the matters that have come to fruition among us (1:1b). Here Luke uses a synonym to Papias'’s ovyxatataéat, “to set in order’? As Alexander notes, “compounds of -tdaooetv [stress] the ordering of pre-existent material rather than creation de novo-’° Although the verb éneyeipnoav, translated here as “attempted,” need not be derogatory, verse 3 indicates that Luke considered the earlier attempts to have been deficient: “it seemed good to me, too, having followed them all thoroughly, to write [an exposition] precisely in sequence.’

as those who became from the beginning firsthand observers and assistants of the message handed on to us [their expositions] (1:2). Alexander translates this verse differently: “just as the tradition was handed down to us by the original eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.’ Her translation and interpretation are inadmissible. The subject of the verb in Greek is not “the tradition” but the tradents. In fact, the word “tradition” does not appear at all; she understands the verb napédooav to imply that what was “handed down” was “anonymous oral tradition.’*® Luke uses this verb thirty times else-

where, and in every case the context clarifies what was “handed on’; there is no analogy to the verb meaning “to hand on tradition” without a clearly identified object. Surely it is wiser to take the implied object to be the multiple expositions ventured by Lukes predecessors, which would be consistent with Acts 16:4, where Luke wrote that Paul and Silas “handed on [mapedidooav] to the residents the need to observe the dictates that had been established by the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem,’ as articulated in the letter from the council in 15:23-29 (cf. 6:14 on Moses handing on customs in the Torah).

Alexander admits that “eyewitnesses” may wrongly imply that Luke is appealing to the avtomtat in a legal sense; I prefer “firsthand observers.’ Similarly, modern readers are likely to take her translation of bmnpétat as “ministers of the word” to imply that they were ecclesiastical officers, but the noun,

24. Curiously, Norelli does not discuss Aristion’s Expositions as a written text (Papia di Hierapoli, 110).

25. Alexander: “dvatagao8at is not so much a choice or a recondite word as a newly coined variant on the standard ovvtdgao8at” (The Preface to Luke’s Gospel, 110). 26. Alexander, The Preface to Lukes Gospel, 110. 27. Alexander, The Preface to Lukes Gospel, 116. 28. Alexander, The Preface to Luke’ Gospel, 120. Bovon (Luke 1, 20-21) and Norelli (Papia di Hierapoli, 110) make the same mistake.

2. PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS ore) as she notes, refers merely to “assistants” —etymologically “oarsmen’—in the transmission of some kind of message (tod Adyov). Alexander insists that adtomtat and brnpétat form a hendiadys and refer to a single category of people; the individuals in this group were both “original eyewitnesses” and “ministers.’”? But the phrase “from the beginning” seems

to modify the observers (dm’ dpyijs abtontat), and “of the message” probably modifies only their assistants (bmnpétat tod Adyov).°? Luke thus forged a chain of tradents. The first link, the “firsthand observers” who handed down their expositions of the life of Jesus, resembles Papias’s appeals to Peter, Matthew, and probably Aristion and the elder John, whom he called “disciples of the Lord.” The second link, the “assistants of the message,’ resembles Papias’s statements about Mark, the putative translators of the Hebrew Matthew, and the bishop’s informants who had personally heard Aristion and John.°! After discussing Mark and Matthew’s two translations, Papias stated this goal to put the logia again into proper order, “with interpretations to confirm their reliability” (Expos. 1:5). Similarly, after discussing the shortcomings of his predecessors, Luke states his goal: “it seemed good to me, too, having followed them all thoroughly, to write [an exposition] precisely in sequence also

for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may recognize the certainty of sayings about which you have been instructed” (1:3-4). These verses, too, demand a careful reading. it seemed good to me, too, having followed [mapnkoAovOnkott] them all [ma&otv] thoroughly (1:3a). Alexander provides compelling parallels where cognates of dkoov0etv were used to describe investigations into various matters.°” Luke thus seems to be saying that he carefully consulted all the writings of the eyewitnesses and the assistants before composing his own. Papias gained his information from those “who had followed [mtapnkoAovOnkwe] the

elders.” Although one might argue that Luke, like Papias, used the verb for consulting people with personal connections with the past, it would appear that “them all” refers instead to the written expositions of the “firsthand observers” and their subsequent “assistants.” to write [an exposition] precisely in sequence for you [coi], most excellent Theophilus (1:3b). The infinitive ypawat, “to write,’ has no expressed object, but the meaning is clear: the first clause in the sentence spoke of many who “attempted to set in order an exposition,’ a task that Luke, too (kdpoi), 29. Alexander, The Preface to Lukes Gospel, 119. 30. See Acts 26:16, where Paul is called a banpéetns and wdptus. 31. Luke may have avoided using Papias's term mpeoBvtepot insofar as he would use it repeatedly in Acts to refer to those with ecclesiastical authority: presbyters. 32. Alexander, The Preface to Lukes Gospel, 128-30.

56 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS now will attempt. Similarly, Papias spoke of his task as setting in order (ovyKkatatagat) things that he had learned from the elders apparently by rearranging them into the same sequence that Matthew set forth (ovvetagéato) in his Hebrew Gospel, a sequence that the translators skewed. One may take the adverb axpiBa@c, “precisely,” either with the participial phrase that precedes it (“having followed all thoroughly”) or with what follows it, which is how I understand it.

so that you may recognize the certainty of sayings about which you have been instructed (1:4). Although Alexander legitimately translates the word Aoywv as “things,” I think that “sayings” comes closer to what Luke had in mind. Similarly, Papias wanted “to confirm the reliability” of the traditions

he received from those “who taught the truth, ... who remembered the commandments given by the Lord for faith and derived from the truth itself. ... I would investigate the sayings [tovc ... A\oyous] of the elders’” The parallels between the prefaces of Papias’s Exposition and Luke-Acts are striking.

Beginning of the Exposition Luke 1:1-4 ¢ Title: Aoyiwv kuptakav é€nynois Title: duyynote of ... (2)

e Name of author: Papias Name of author: Luke (?) e Name of recipient: unknown Name of recipient: Theophilus (1:3) e Papias knew a book about Jesus “Since many have attempted

ascribed to Mark and had heard from the elder John that Matthew wrote his arrangement of logia in Hebrew, which “each translated” the best he could.

e “I will not hesitate to set in order to set in order [dvatdéao@8at] an [ovyxatatagat] whatever I learned exposition of the matters that have well” Matthew “set in order [ovve- come to fruition among us, tagato] the logia.”

e Mark translated the teachings as those who became from the of Peter; Matthew wrote his own beginning firsthand observers and arrangement in Hebrew, and atleast assistants of the message two others translated it into Greek. Peter and Matthew were firsthand

observers, while Mark and Mat-

2. PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS 57 thew's translators were assistants. For Papias the value of the elders was their transmission to posterity handed on [mapedooav] to us [their

of traditions (mapaddoetc) about expositions], Jesus and the disciples.

e Papias learned about the teach- it seemed good to me, too, having

ings of the disciples by inquiring of anyone who had “followed followed [mapnkodov0nkott] them

[tapnkoAovenkwe] the elders.” all thoroughly e Mark “wrote accurately [dxpiB@cs to write [an exposition] precisely éypawev]” but not in sequence. “I in sequence [daxpiB@c> Kaegijc ool

[Papias] will not hesitate to set in ypawat] for you, most excellent

order also for you [oot]? Theophilus, e Papias wanted “to confirm the — so that you may recognize the cerreliability” of the information that tainty he had gathered from those “who taught the truth, ... who remembered the commandments given by the Lord for faith and derived from

the truth itself. ... I would investigate the sayings [Aoyouc] of the of sayings [AOywv] about which you

elders.” have been instructed”

A comparison of the content of the prefaces confirms that Luke-Acts is secondary. Surely it is more reasonable to think that Luke created his fictive authorial name and imaginary recipient in imitation of the names of Papias and his actual recipient than to think that Papias replaced Luke’s pseudonyms with the real names. Papias, who gathered information from those who had “followed the elders,’ surely represents an earlier stage of tradition than pseudo-Luke, who “followed” only written documents. Whereas Papias, writing near the beginning of the second century, rejoiced in learning from “a living and surviving voice, Luke, writing somewhat later, could appeal only to the written expositions of the “firsthand observers” and “assistants of the message.’°> Luke thus seems to be placing his bookish “having followed them

33. Alexander provides compelling evidence that Papias’s reference to “a living ... voice’ was proverbial among craftsmen and educators to express a preference for learning from an expert in person to learning merely from a book (“The Living Voice: Scepticism towards the Written Word in Early Christian and in Greco-Roman Texts,’ in The Bible in

58 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS all thoroughly” on the level of Papiass oral informants about what the elders transmitted of the teachings of the disciples. Furthermore, the Lukan Evangelist seems to contrast his exposition with Papias’s description of Mark: “whatever Peter recalled of what was said or done by the Lord Mark wrote down accurately [dxpib@c éypawev], though not in proper sequence [ov LEévTOL taéet]” (Expos. 1:3). Luke, on the other hand, intended “to write [an exposition] precisely in sequence” [axpiB@c xaetijc ... ypawatl. The two works also agree at several points apart from the preface to suggest a literary connection. For example, it would appear that in Expos. 1:6

Papias provided an interpretation of the reference to making children for Abraham out of rocks (Matt 3:9-10). Luke records the same saying and seems to agree with Papias’s clarification of John’s metaphor, for he supplies a similar explanation precisely at this point. Luke 3:10 begins with the crowds asking John, “So what should we do [moujowpev]?” They seem to be asking: What did he have in mind when insisting that they “produce [noujoate] fruit worthy of repentance, fruit that would allow them to become “children of Abraham’? According to Luke, John told them, “Let the one who has two tunics share with the one who does not have one, and let the one who has food do likewise” (3:11b). “Tax collectors, too, came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what should we do [moujowpev]?’” to become “children for Abraham” (3:12). He told them, “Take nothing more than is allotted you” (3:13). “And even soldiers asked him, ‘And what should we do [moujowpev]?’ He said to them, “Do not extort money by force or by false accusations, and be content with your wages > (3:14).

Jesus predicts the violent deaths of the sons of Zebedee in Mark and Matthew, but not in the Gospel of Luke, although the Acts of the Apostles mentions the death of James using language similar to Papias.

Expos. 2:3 Acts 12:1-3a Herod the king used force against

some from the church and

John ... and his brother James killed James the brother of John [’Iwavyvng ... Kail ‘IaxkwBoc oO [dvetAev dé ldxkwBov tov adeAgov ddekpoc avdtod] were killed by Jews “Iwavvov] with the sword. When he

[v6 “lovdaiwv avnpEeOnoav]. saw that this act pleased the Jews [toic “Iovdaioic] ...

Three Dimensions [ed. David J. A Clines, Stephen E. Fowl, and Stanley E. Porter; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990], 221-47).

2. PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS 59 Despite the similarities in wording, only Papias mentions the death of John. It reasonable to propose that Papias did not write that the brothers died at the same time but that both eventually were killed by Jews, thus fulfilling Jesus’ prediction. James died first, perhaps as Acts says, at that hands of Agrippa II, and John died sometime after the Jewish War, which would have fallen outside Luke's narrative tether, which ends around 64 c.£.** That is, the Lukan author wrote later than Papias, but his fictive author came from the first Christian generation. The commentary on Papias argued that he knew an alternative account of the death of Judas not as a suicide, as in Matthew, but as a divine punishment in his own field (Expos. 4:5 and 6). Luke’s account of the death of Judas resembles Papiass. This one then purchased a plot from the reward of his injustice and, falling face down, burst in the middle, and all his guts poured out. And it became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that plot was called in their own dialect Hakeldamach, that is, “Plot of Blood.’ For it was written in the book of Psalms, “Let his farm become deserted, let there be no inhabitant in it, and let another receive his responsibility.’ (Acts 1:18-20)

As Apollinaris recognized, this version of Judas’s death shares much with Papias’s: “Judas did not die by hanging, but he survived for a while and was taken down before he choked. And the Acts of the Apostles makes this clear: ‘falling face down, he burst in the middle, and all his guts poured out: Papias, John’s disciple, records this even more clearly” (Expos. 4:5). Four similarities stand out:

e Unlike Matthew's account, Papias and Luke concur that Judas never repented.

e According to the bishop of Hierapolis, Judas “died in his own

34. This position largely agrees with the conclusion of R. H. Charles (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920], I). John H. Bernard cast doubt on the reliability of this Papian fragment primarily for two reasons: (1) the reference to John as “the Theologian” clearly could not have derived from Papias, and (2) Philip may not be quoting Papias directly but summarizing Eusebius (cf. Hist. eccl. 2.23). He thus concluded: “No historical inference can be drawn from a corrupt sentence in a late epitome of the work ofa careless and blundering historian” (Commentary on John [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928], xlii). Bernard thought that John died at a ripe old age from natural causes.

60 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS plot [év t@ idiw ... ywpiw]; according to Luke, “This one then purchased a plot [ywpiov].”°°

e According to Papias, God punished Judas with an “efflux” of bloody discharge and maggots “that seeped to the ground.” Similarly in Luke: he “burst in the middle, and all his guts poured out.”°®

e Papias stated that Judas’s plot “became deserted and uninhabited [Eonuov Kai doikntov ... yeveoBat].’°” According to Luke, “For it was written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his farm become deserted [yevnOntw nh énavAtc avtod gpnpos], let there be no inhabitant [ut gotw 6 Katom@v] in it?” Scholars have proposed three solutions to account for these similarities. (1) Papias and Luke knew a shared tradition or source different from Matthew’s account; (2) Papias knew Acts; or (3) Luke knew Papias’s Exposition. By far the first solution has been the most popular, and it informs virtually all discussions of Judas's fate: both authors knew a tradition or a source that they used independently. For example, Hans-Josef Klauck argued that Luke inherited from this tradition his less vivid version of Judas’ death, which Papias, or more likely his informants’ tradition, graphically embellished.°* This assessment is problematic. Apparently it was Luke himself, not a source, who created the lapidary and enigmatic sentence “falling face down, [he] burst in the middle, and all his guts poured out.’ Because the adjective mpnvijs, “face down,’ was rare in Luke's day, readers ancient and modern have been unsure how to take it. The word is common in Homeric epic. When combatants in the Iliad died bravely, they received their wounds facing their enemies and thus fell backward (Umttoc), but Homeric cowards, who turned from their enemies, were struck from behind and fell mpnvijc. The weapon, usually a spear, struck the warrior in the back, drove him face down to the earth, and spilled his bowels. For example, Patroclus'’s spear slew a Trojan as he turned to flee, “and he fell mprvijs on the ground” (16.310-311).*?

35. In Acts 1:25 Peter refers to Judas as the one who forsook his place among the Twelve “to go to his own place [gic tov tomov {dtov].”

36. It was this similarity that prompted Apollinaris to link Papias with Acts. 37. For an example of these near synonyms used together, see Herodotus 2.34. 38. Hans-Josef Klauck, Judas, un disciple de Jésus: Exégése et répercussions historiques (trans. Joseph Hoffmann; LD; Paris: Cerf, 2006), 127-28. 39. The word mpnvij is used of warriors falling to their deaths also in II. 5.58; 12.396; 15.543; 16.413 and 579; and 21.118.

2. PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS 61 Luke then states that Judas “burst [é\axnoev] in the middle,” using a verb that appears nowhere else in the New Testament or the Septuagint. The Iliad uses it for the cracking of bones in warfare, as when Menelaus struck Peisander in the head with a spear, “the bones cracked [Adke], and his bloody eyeballs / fell at his feet in the dust. / He doubled over when he fell” (13.616618).

Luke ends his depiction of Judas’s death by saying, “all his guts poured out.” This revolting expression, too, finds parallels in Homer, who described the death of Polydorus as follows: Swift-footed noble Achilles struck him square on the back with a cast of his spear as he darted past; ...

clean through went the spear point beside the navel, and he fell to his knees with a groan, and a cloud of darkness enfolded him, and as he slumped, he clasped his intestines to him with his hands. (20.413414, 416-418)

Two passages in the epic use an identical formula for disgorging that is similar to Acts 1:18: “and then all / his guts poured to the ground [&x 6’ dpa naoat / xvvto xapai yvAddec]:4° The word mdaoat with the tmesis éx ... yUvTo clearly resembles Luke's éxeyvOn ttavta. Readers familiar with Homer thus would have taken Judas’s falling mpnvijs to suggest that he was killed in flight like a coward. His bursting in the middle with his insides spilling to the earth implies impaling by an invisible shaft from behind. In Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? I argued that Luke modeled the entire apostolic lottery after the lottery in the Iliad that selected Ajax to stand up to Hector. *! For example, compare the following:

Il. 7.175-183 Acts 1:24-26 And each man marked his lot [Peter's statement in 1:17 anticipates

[xAfpov] / and cast it into the the casting of lots: Judas won his helmet of Atreides Agamemnon,/ ministry with the Twelve in a lottery of sorts (EAaxev tov KANpov).]

and the people prayed and lifted They prayed their hands to the gods, / looking up

AQ. Il. 4.525-526 and 21.180-181. 41. See Dennis R. MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 105-19.

62 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS to broad heaven, one would speak and said [einav]: “Lord, knower of [eiteoKev] like this: / “Father Zeus, hearts, indicate which of these two [I pray that] Ajax may win the lot men you select to take [AaBeiv] the [Aayeiv], or the son of Tydeus, / or place of this service and apostlethe king of gold-rich Mycenae him- _ ship that Judas forsook to go to his self” / So they spoke, and the horse- own place.’ And they gave them lots

man, Nestor of Gerenia, shook [kAnpovc], them, / and out from the helmet popped the lot [kAfipoc] that they and the lot [kAfpoc] fell for Mat-

had wanted: / that of Ajax. thias. And he was enlisted with the eleven apostles.

The second option, that Papias knew Acts, clearly is excluded if LukeActs had not yet been written.** Furthermore, if Papias’s version of the death of Judas were a response to Matthew, to say that it also borrowed from Acts would mean that for some reason this tradition omitted from both sources the reference to the Field of Blood, preferred death by dropsy to hanging or bursting of bowels, and omitted all biblical citations. Furthermore, Papias seems to appeal to his oral informants and not to a text: “They say [@aoi]....” Therefore, one most elegantly accounts for the connections between the two stories by thinking that Luke knew Papias, solution 3. He saw the grotesquerie in the Exposition and replaced it with a stereotypical punishment of a Homeric coward and an imitation of the selection of a hero by lot. This direction of dependence might explain Luke's subtle alteration of Ps 68 (MT 69), where Acts agrees with Papias in using the adjective Epnos, in agreement with Papias (épnuov kai doikntov), instead of the participle nNpnuwpEevn, as in the Septuagint.

Ps 68:26 (MT 69:26; cit. [A]) Acts 1:20 Let their farm be deserted “Let his farm become deserted

[Npnuwpevn |; [Epos];

let there be no inhabitant [un gotw _let there be no inhabitant [un gotw O KATOLK@V] in their tents. O KATOLKMV] in it.”

Eusebius claimed that the daughters of Philip told a “marvelous event about Justus surnamed Barsabbas, how he drank a fatal poison and, by the

42. Kortner argues on other grounds that Papias’s account was independent of Luke (Papias von Hierapolis, 143). See also Klauck, Judas, un disciple de Jésus, 123.

2. PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS 63 grace of the Lord, suffered nothing out of the ordinary. The writing of the Acts [of the Apostles] narrates as here that, after the ascension of the Savior, the holy apostles put forward this Justus along with Matthias and prayed over the lottery for the completion of their number in place of Judas: “They presented two men: Joseph, the one called [tov kaAovuEvov] Barsabbas, dubbed [émeKkAnOn] Justus, and Matthias ” (Expos. 5:1; cf. 5:2). This citation from Acts

1:23 gives the first character three names: the first is Hebrew, the second Aramaic, and the third Latin. Eusebius’ reference to Papias, however, speaks of “Justus surnamed [tov émtkAnOévta] Barsabbas” and explicitly identifies him with Joseph Barsabbas Justus in Acts. Philip of Side gives his name as “Barsabbas, also [6 kat] Justus,’ probably from the influence of Acts. But which version of the name—Luke’s Joseph Barsabbas Justus or Papiass Justus Barsabbas—is more primitive? Papias implies that the man was known primarily as Justus, a perfectly acceptable Latin name, but also was known as son of Sabbas in Aramaic. He says nothing about the Hebrew name Joseph. Luke, on the other hand, probably created the name Joseph to give the man purer Jewish pedigree. “Justus” in Acts appears to be less a name than a sobriquet indicating that Joseph was righteous, perhaps torah-observant. This pattern of giving characters bearing Latin names Hebrew ones appears elsewhere in Acts, most famously in Luke's providing Paul [IIadAoc] with a Hebrew approximation: Saul (ZadAoc). To Mark he gave the Hebrew birth name John. In light of Lukes preference for Jewish to Latin names, it is likely that Papias’s Justus Barsabbas was the earlier version.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine if Papias knew a tradition about a replacement of Judas among the Twelve, but this much is certain: for Papias, Judas’s betrayal forever disqualified him from being an eschatological judge, as promised in Matt 19:28, which Papias surely had read: “Truly I tell you that you who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory, you, too, will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’*° Either this promise would be unfulfilled, or someone had to replace Judas, which is more theologically acceptable. Here is what Luke had to say about the daughters of Philip: Paul and his retinue sailed from Ptolemais and moored “at Caesarea, went into the home of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven, and stayed with him. He had four virgin daughters who prophesied” (21:8-9). Here the author identifies Philip as one of the deacons. This character, entirely unattested apart from Acts and later texts dependent on it, first appears in Jerusalem (6:5), conducts a mission

43. See the discussion of Expos. 2:2a and 2b on pages 22-23 above.

64 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS to Samaria (8:5), encounters the Ethiopian eunuch in transit from Jerusalem to Gaza (8:26-27), after which he relocated in Caesarea, apparently with his four daughters (8:40). Papias personally knew the daughters of Philip; at least two of them lived in Hierapolis. It is possible, of course, that Luke knew an independent tradition about these women, but it also is conceivable that all he knew about them he derived from the Exposition. Our fragments do not reveal how these women got to Phrygia from Judea, but they most likely would have sailed from Caesarea Maritima, the most important port serving Judea (see Acts 21:8) to Attalia, in southern Anatolia, or to Ephesus in the west. From either city they would have found a major road to Hierapolis. In other words, Luke placed the women at the port city that most likely would have been their point of departure for their new home. At this point, all four of them were virgin prophetesses. Notice also that Papias considered them important informants and recorded at least two of their stories, one of which concerned the raising to life of a woman. Luke, on the other hand, even though admitting that they prophesied, kept them silent. He seems to have preferred giving voice to a male “prophet named Agabus” (Acts 21:10). Papias linked the women with Palestinian Jewish Christianity. The name Barsabbas is Aramaic for “son of Sabbas,’ and Manaemus is Greek for the Hebrew name Menachem. In other words, these women were Jewish and transmitters of Levantine traditions. In Luke, however, they are daughters of a Hellenistic Jew from Jerusalem; later they took up residence in cosmopolitan Caesarea and became associated with Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.“ Other contacts between Papias and Luke-Acts are possible. For example, Eusebius complained that Papias believed “that there will be a thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, when the kingdom of Christ will be established physically on this earth” (Expos. 3.0); Irenaeus cited favorably a passage about eating and drinking sumptuously in the eschaton (4:2). Had Luke read these passages in the Exposition, he would have agreed with Eusebius's objection. Luke's portrayal of God's kingdom precludes an earthly millennium. When he [Jesus] was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God is coming, he answered them and said: “The kingdom of God is not coming

44. Nothing else is known about Manaemus, although several scholars have linked him with a character with a similar name in Acts 13:1: “Manean, the intimate friend of Herod the tetrarch.” Manaemus in Philip seems to be the same person whose mother was raised from the death in Papias’s own day according to Eusebius (Expos. 5:1). Although it may be tempting to see this as another connection between the Exposition and Acts, the similarities between the names Manaemus and Manean may be accidental.

2. PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS 65 visibly, nor will they say, “Look, here!’ or, “There!’ For look, the kingdom of God is within you.” He said to his disciples, “Days will come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man and will not see it?’ (Luke 17:20-22)

According to Expos. 2:2, Papias and others “viewed things about paradise spiritually by referring to the church of Christ.” The notion of paradise had a venerable and variegated history in Judaism, a history that left a faint footprint in early Christian texts. Paul refers to paradise in 2 Cor 12:4, where he states that in a vision he was caught up into it as an astral realm, clearly not a renewed earth. The word appears once in the Apocalypse of John: “To the one who conquers I will allow to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God” (2:7b). The only other explicit reference to paradise in the New Testament appears in Luke and in a most fascinating location. The righteous thief asks the dying Jesus: “remember me when you enter your kingdom.” Jesus does not consent to the request but transforms it: “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (23:42—43). Clearly paradise is not identified with a thousand-year period of Jesus earthly reign, as in Papias, but with a state of bliss available immediately upon ones death, which Jesus and the thief will enjoy together. It is by no means certain that Luke had Papias in mind when composing his passion narrative, but what is clear is that his view of paradise differed from the apocalyptic materiality of the bishop of Hierapolis. Papias and Luke both extended their stories of Jesus and his followers by composing multivolume works. One should note, however, the striking differences between Papias's view of the early years of the church and Luke's. The Exposition spoke of events up to the end of the first century, whereas Acts

ends decades earlier, around 63, with Paul's Roman imprisonment. Papias gathered information about “what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples had said, or what Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, say” (1:5). Although Luke, too, lists the names of eleven disciples at the beginning of Acts, he gives distinctive roles to only two of the nine whom he lists. James appears when the author refers to his death (12:1-2), and Peter figures prominently in chapters 1-6, 10-12, and 15. Luke shows no interest in the careers of Philip, Thomas, the two Johns, Matthew, or Aristion. Whereas Papias credited Matthew with having written the most sequentially correct and expansive Gospel, Luke gives him no text time whatsoever. In addition to Peter, Luke gives important roles to several characters missing in the Exposition: the seven deacons—especially Stephen and Philip—

Barnabas, and especially Paul, about whom Papias is entirely silent, even

66 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS though he must have known of Paul’s missionizing in the vicinity of Hierapolis. It would appear that Papias and Luke held different views of Christian origins, a fact that makes all the more striking the times that Papias and Acts share similar content. Whereas the bishop of Hierapolis admitted that he himself was not a participant in the origins of the church in the Levant, pseudo-Luke locates the voice of his narrator in the Pauline circle and thus trumps Papias by assuming a voice earlier than that of the Exposition by half a century. In this way he also occults his literary dependence on it.

Papias’s chain of tradition Luke’s chain of tradition

ee theJesus e Jesus disciples e the disciples e books about Jesus written by e “many” earlier books about Jesus Mark and Matthew

e the elders John and Aristion, e Paul, who did not know Jesus but who had known Jesus and his had known some of his disciples disciples (not a whisper in Papias (not a whisper in Luke-Acts

about Paul) about the elders John or Aristion)

e those who had heard the elders e the daughters of Philip (Acts

and the daughters of Philip, 21:8-9, a we-passage, which whom Papias knew personally implies the author's presence) e Papias, whose actual date of e Luke, whose fictive date of comcomposing the Exposition was posing the Acts of the Apostles

around 110 c.E. was sometime after Paul arrived in Rome (ca. 63 C.E.)

The diagram on the opposite page portrays what Luke would have learned from Papias about earlier books about Jesus. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine precisely to what extent he might have agreed with this view, but

in the next chapter will argue that this intertextual model to a large extent explains Luke's use of his sources.

2. PAPIAS’S EXPOSITION AND LUKE-ACTS 67

Matthew's Aramaic Peter's Aramaic

arrangement of logia preaching A lost Greek Gospel Greek Matthew = Mark’s Greek arrange-

akin to Matthew ment of logia

Aristions Expositions [Sijynoetc] of the Logoi of the Lord + ———~> Papias’s Exposition [eéEenynoic] of Logia

about the Lord “Many” before Luke “attempted to set in order an exposition [dujyynotc].”

BLANK PAGE

3

LUKE’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXPOSITION AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

Because of its antiquity, Papias’s assessment of Mark and Matthew has exerted

extraordinary influence on the history of Gospel interpretation.! Modern scholarship, however, has shown that he was misguided in nearly everything he said about these two books. For example, originally the Gospel of Mark probably was anonymous, and Peter’s dismal presentation in it suggests that the author, whoever she was, did not merely translate the disciples preaching. Many interpreters have read Papias in light of 1 Pet 5:13 to imply that Mark wrote from Rome, but the Evangelist’s extensive use of Aramaic, including Aramaic-Greek puns and significant names, requires that his first readers lived in the bilingual eastern provinces of the empire.” Furthermore, there never was a Semitic original of the Gospel of Matthew, as Papias opined. The tradition handed on by the elder John had contrived it to account for different sequences of logia in two Greek works that otherwise resembled each other. More significantly, the authors of Mark and Matthew did not compose independently; one of them used the other as a source.° 1. The priority of Matthew was assumed, for example, by Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine, and it may account for the location of this Gospel at the beginning of the New Testament. 2. For a fuller discussion, see my forthcoming commentary on the Gospel of Mark, tentatively titled Marks Redaction of the Lost Gospel. 3. The most important tools for assessing interconnections among the Synoptic Gospels are synopses that present similar units of text, or pericopae, in parallel columns to enable comparison. The most authoritative such work is the fifteenth edition of Kurt Aland’s Synopsis quattuor evangeliorum: Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis edidit (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996). It contains the Greek text of all four canonical Gospels and provides detailed cross-references to Jewish Scriptures, extensive apparatus for textual variants, and hundreds of parallel texts from early Christian authors. Its first appendix contains the Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas with translations into German and English and notes that provide readings from surviv-

-69-

70 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Advocates of the Augustinian Hypothesis and the Two-Gospel Hypothesis (2GH) argue that Mark redacted Matthew (see the diagram on the opposite page),* but if this were the case, Mark would be guilty of introducing inferior style, creating theological embarrassments, and omitting large sections of text, including the infancy narrative, the Sermon on the Mount, and Jesus resurrection appearances.’ It is far easier to explain the growth of the tradition from Mark to Matthew than in the other direction. Most scholars thus hold to Markan Priority.’ ing Greek fragments and retrotranslations into Greek for pericopae with parallels in the canonical Gospels. ‘The second appendix provides Greek and Latin texts of witnesses to the Gospels by authors from the second to the fourth centuries. The Gospels are an intertextual amusement park, and this reference work guides its readers to its attractions. For English-only readers, a useful equivalent is Synopsis of the Four Gospels: English Edition, also edited by Aland (New York: United Bible Societies, 1982). The most useful synopsis devoted exclusively to the Synoptics is Albert Huck and Heinrich Greeven, Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (13th ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981). 4. The Two-Gospel Hypothesis holds that Mark redacted Matthew and Luke (hence “two Gospels”). Its advocates include William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (2nd ed.; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1976); and David L. Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition and the Interpretation of the Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1999). See also Basil C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis (London: Cambridge University Press, 1951). 5. See John S. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 41-43. 6. For example, Matthew and Mark narrate Jesus’ walking on water. In Matthew, the disciples take this as a sign that Jesus was “a son of a god,’ but in Mark they are perplexed. Mark 6:51b-52: “They were exceedingly perplexed among themselves, for they

did not understand about the loaves of bread, but their hearts had been hardened.”

Matt 14:33: Those who were in the boat worshiped him and said, “Truly, you are a son of a god!’” Surely it is more likely that Matthew replaced perplexity with theological perspicuity than the other way around. The next parallels compare accounts of the women at Jesus’ tomb. Mark 16:8: “They left and fled from the tomb, for trembling and confusion seized them. They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” Matt 28:8-9: “They left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to tell his disciples. And Jesus met them and said, ‘Greetings!’ They went to him, grabbed his feet, and worshiped him? Again, it is more likely that Matthew replaced the women’s mute confusion with their joyous pronouncement than that Mark replaced their witness with their silence. 7. Obviously, if Luke knew Papias’s work, it would destroy the case for the 2GH insofar as it holds that Mark redacted Luke. Matthew C. Williams provides a clever contribution to the case for Markan Priority by demonstrating that “Matthew made the same types of

3. THE EXPOSITION AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 71

The Augustinian The Two-Gospel

Hypothesis Hypothesis

Matthew Matthew

|Luke Mark | Luke / Mark Solutions to the Synoptic Problem That Favor Matthean Priority

LUKE’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK

Like Matthew and Papias, Luke apparently had physical access to the Gospel of Mark, and because of Papias, he also would have known that the book already had been attributed to Mark's translation of Peter’s preaching. The portrayal of Peter and Mark in Acts is congenial to what he would have learned from the bishop of Hierapolis. When Peter escaped from Agrippa prison, he “went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who is called Mark, where quite a number of people were gathered and at prayer” (Acts 12:12). Thus here, as in Papias, Mark is linked with Peter (as also in 1 Pet 5:13). Once again Luke has given a character with a Latin name one in Hebrew. According to Acts 12:25, Saul and Barnabas returned to Jerusalem and “took along John who was called Mark’; he thus becomes afhiliated also with Saul/Paul, as in the Pauline epistles (see Phlm 24 and the pseudo-Pauline Col 4:10 and 2 Tim 4:11, cited earlier in connection with the name Luke). Particularly fascinating is Acts 13:5, where one reads that Barnabas and Saul arrived in Salamis, Cyprus, and “proclaimed the word of God [tov Aoyov tod Qeod] in the synagogues of the Jews; and they had John as their assistant’ The word here translated “assistant” has attracted much scholarly attention. B. T. Holmes argued that in contemporary papyri Dmnpétns designated a subordinate public official responsible for “presenting or serving a copy of some

changes that Marcan scribes made to Mark's Gospel. ... Text-critical criteria clearly and consistently support Marcan priority and Matthean posteriority. Nevertheless, sporadic instances of primary readings in Matthew are found” (Two Gospels from One: A Comprehensive Text-Critical Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels |Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006], 214-25).

72 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS document: Holmes used such parallels to argue that the author of Acts witnesses to Mark's composition of his Gospel before or during Paul's mission in Cyprus and provides evidence of Luke's attitude to one of his sources. The word bmnpétnc, however, generally refers to someone other than a slave who attends to the demands of a superior, a task that often did involve writing or the handling of writings. Unfortunately, the author of Acts leaves to the reader's imagination how Mark served as “an assistant” to Barnabas and Saul/Paul. Two considerations may suggest that he was not merely a gofer. First, the reader might well recall Luke 1:2 and the reference to “those who became assistants of the word [bmnpétat ... tob Adyov]”; earlier I proposed that these assistants were Gospel authors or putative translators. The reader of Luke-Acts thus may see Marks role to be that of a transmitter of information about Jesus from Peter, who was an eyewitness. Second and more importantly, according to Luke's narrative, (John) Mark could have provided for Barnabas and Saul/Paul additional information about Jesus insofar as Peter was a friend of the family in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). In other words, Holmes was wrong to think that the word bmnpétns implied that Mark composed a Petrine Gospel before Paul's mission in Cyprus, but Luke may well have used the loaded term to imply that the preaching of “ the word of God” by Barnabas and Saul/Paul had roots, via Mark, in Petrine memory.

Acts John Mark returns to Jerusalem in 13:13, and the reader next encounters him there after the council on the Gentile mission, where Peter had played a decisive role (15:7-11). The following passage is his final appearance. Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return [from Antioch] and visit the brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, to see how they are faring.’ Barnabas wanted to take with them John as well, also called Mark, but Paul did not think it appropriate to bring him along, for he had deserted

them in Pamphylia and did not accompany them to the work. There was a pointed disagreement, with the result that they parted from each other: Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus.

For the last dozen chapters of Acts, the narrator says nothing concerning the fates of Peter or John Mark, thus leaving ajar the door for the tradition known to Papias that Mark later accompanied Peter and took dictation from him.’

8. “Luke’s Description of John Mark,’ JBL 54 (1935): 65.

9. It also may be worth noting that the reader last reads of Mark (not John or John Mark) in Acts 15:39, and only a few verses later, in 16:10, one encounters the first reference

3. THE EXPOSITION AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 73 Unlike Papias, Luke generally preferred the sequence of events in Mark to whatever he might have found in Matthew, although he, like Papias, apparently thought that all of his sources got the chronology wrong. He also would have

agreed with Papias that Mark wrote “a few things as he remembered them” (Expos. 1:3), although there was much more to say, as the fuller accounts in Matthew, Papias, and Luke-Acts amply illustrate.

Luke also would have known that at least two other Gospels had been ascribed to Matthew, but this apostle appears in Acts only once, merely in a list of the eleven in 1:13. The prominence of Peter and John Mark in Acts and the virtual silence about Matthew may be symbolic of the relative weight that Luke gave to the Gospels attributed to them. LUKE’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

The dominant solution to the Synoptic Problem, the Two-Document Hypothesis (2DH), largely dismisses Papias'’s testimony and insists that overlaps between Matthew and Luke, when they are not redacting Mark, issue from their independent use of a lost Greek source: Q. If Luke knew and redacted Matthew, one would expect him to follow Matthew's sequence, as he does so faithfully with Marks, but this is by no means the case.!° Furthermore and more significantly, as often as not Luke preserves wording or sequencing from a demonstrably earlier stratum of tradition when it parallels Matthew, what Harry T. Fleddermann calls the “priority disparity, when a later document preserves content anterior to its source.'! Proponents of the 2DH disagree among themselves, however, insofar as some hold that Mark, too, redacted this lost source, a view that one might call the Modified Two-Document Hypothesis (M2DH).!?

to a we-voyage. John Mark and the voice of the narrator thus never overlap, implying that the two never met. 10. See Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 39-41. 11. Harry T. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary (BTSt 1; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 60-65. 12. On the complex matter of Q-Mark overlaps, see the excellent, though now dated, discussions by E. P. Sanders, “The Overlaps of Mark and Q and the Synoptic Problem,’ NTS 19 (1972-1973): 453-65; and M. Devisch, “La Relation entre lévangile de Marc et le document Q? in LEvangile selon Marc: Tradition et redaction (ed. M. Sabbe; BETL 34; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974), 59-91. Proponents of the M2DH include John Pairman Brown, “Mark as Witness to an Edited Form of Q,’ JBL 80 (1961): 29-44; Jan Lambrecht, “Die Logia-Quellen von Markus 13, Bib 47 (1966): 321-60; idem, Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse: Literarische Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung (AnBib 28; Rome: Papstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967); idem, “Q-Influence on Mark 8,34-9,1, in Logia: Les Paroles des Jésus (ed. Joel Delobel; BETL 59; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982),

74 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Advocates of the 2DH and the M2DH reconstruct Q by sifting synopses for evidence of Matthew-Luke parallels and by sorting out potential Markan influence. In cases where Matthew and Luke differ, “the version which appears to be less likely the product of redaction is more likely to be the wording of Q. The results of reconstruction can only be stated as probabilities—more and less likely—never as absolutes, and there are instances where both versions betray the editorial interest of the evangelists and hence, the original wording of Q may be irrecoverable.”!’ This quotation comes from John S. Kloppenborg, with whom James M. Robinson and Paul Hoffmann edited The Critical Edition of Q.'* One might caricature this methodology with the formula “Q = (Matthew // Luke) - Mark” (the symbol // indicates overlaps between Matthew and Luke).

277-304; idem, “John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark 1.1-15: Markan Redaction of Q?” NTS 38 (1992): 357-84; and idem, “A Note on Mark 8:38 and Q 12.8-9 JSNT 24.3 (2002): 11725; Wolfgang Schenk, “Der Einfluss der Logienquelle auf das Markusevangelium,” ZNW 70 (1979): 141-65; Walter Schmithals, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985), which argues that Mark and Matthew redacted a later, edited version of Q; Burton Mack, “Q and the Gospel of Mark: Revisiting Christian Origins, Semeia 55 (1992): 15-39; and David R. Catchpole, The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993). The most comprehensive articulations of the M2DH are those by Harry T. Fleddermann, Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts, with an Assessment by E. Neirynck (BETL 122; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995), and idem, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary. For arguments against this position, one might consult Rudolf Laufen, Die Doppelliberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (BBB 54; Bonn: Hanstein, 1980); Joachim Schuling, Studien zum Verhaltnis von Logienquelle und Markusevangelium (FB 65; Wurzburg: Echter, 1991); Jens Schroter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logientiberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas (WMANT 76; Neukirchen-

Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997); Frans Neirynck, “Assessment, published as a response to Fleddermann in Mark and Q (261-305); idem, “The Sayings Source Q and the Gospel of Mark,’ in Friihes Christentum (vol. 3 of Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion; ed. Herbert Cancik,

Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schafer; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 125-45; Christopher M. Tuckett, “Mark and Q. in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism (ed. Camille Focant; BETL 110; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 154; and Joseph Verheyden, “Mark and Q, ETL 72 (1996): 408-17. 13. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 101. See also his examples on 101-4 and in Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, 200-203. 14. The Critical Edition of Q: A Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and

Thomas with English, German and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000). For a brief but useful history of Q scholarship, see Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, 3-39. Especially helpful is his presentation of reference works for the study of Q (39). See the excellent discussion by James M. Robinson of appeals to Papias in discussions of Q (The Critical Edition of Q, xx-xxiii). On Q's original composition in Greek, see Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 72-80.

Q BO | Mark | Mark

3. THE EXPOSITION AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 79

Matthew | Matthew |

Luke Luke

The Two-Document The Modified Two-

Hypothesis Document Hypothesis

Luke’s knowledge of Papias'’s Exposition subverts this explanation of Synoptic intertextuality insofar as it asserts that Luke knew Matthew. It therefore

would seem to support the Farrer Hypothesis (FH), according to which Matthew-Luke

overlaps simply show that Luke redacted

Mark

Matthew.!>

On the other hand, Luke’s access to the

Exposition allows that he might have known Matthew

another Gospel, nowthe lost, withinaffinities to ae Matthew but with logia a different Luke sequence. At least theoretically, this second Greek Matthew could be Q. Ironically, the . The Farrer Hypothesis 15. For the Farrer Hypothesis, see Austin Marsden Farrer, “On Dispensing with Q? in Studies in the Gospel: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (ed. D. E. Nineham; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), 55-58; Michael D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989); Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (London: T&T Clark, 2001); and idem, The Case against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2001). Both the FH and the 2GH dispense with a conjectural Q but disagree about where to

locate Mark: the FH places Mark first (agreeing with the 2DH/M2DH), whereas the 2GH places Mark last as a truncating redaction of the other two. For a defense of Luke's putative redaction of Matthew from the 2GH camp, see Allen J. McNicol, ed., Beyond the Q Impasse: Lukes Use of Matthew (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1996). Despite many helpful exegetical observations, this study systematically overlooks counter-indications of its hypothesis, especially evidence where Luke contains content that is more primitive than its equivalent in Matthew. Such alternating primitivity in the same logia is a lethal flaw, as is the intentional and systematic ignoring of Mark.

76 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS best evidence for Luke's use of Matthew appears not in his Gospel but in his second volume. THE DEATH OF JUDAS

As we have seen, Papias’s account seems to have been a polemical alternative to the account of Judas suicide in Matthew; Luke's account generally agrees with Papias, but it also agrees to some extent with Matthew! The Matthean Evangelist fabricated from Zech 11:13 and Jer 39 (MT 32) the purchase of the potter's field with the money given Judas for his betrayal; therefore, the parallels in Acts to his buying the plot with “the reward of his injustice” should not be attributed to independent tradition. It would appear that Luke agreed with the account in Papias that Judas died in his own field but used Matthew's reference to the blood money to explain how Judas came to be a property owner. Although Matthew and Acts both cite Scripture to interpret the connection of Judas to his field, the citation in Acts seems to have been informed by the account in Papias about the field being “deserted and uninhabited.”!° Matthew seems to have created the etiology for the field of blood from

2 Samuel, elements of which suspiciously appear also in Acts, but not in Papias.

2 Sam 6:8 Matt 27:8 Acts 1:19b That place was called That field was called That plot was called [exANON 6 TOTtOSG [eKANON 6 aypdc [KAN OFVvat TO Ywplov

EKELVOC| EKELVOC| EKEivo]

in their own dialect Hakeldamach,

Uzza's Breach. a Field of Blood that is, “Plot of Blood [aypdc aiuatoc] Lywptov aipatoc].” even to this day. even to this day. Whereas the blood at issue in Matthew was that of Jesus, in Luke it is the blood of Judas. Papias presumably read Matthew's account Judas’s suicide but also knew

from his informants that some considered this treatment of Judas too soft. Nothing the betrayer could do, not even self-destruction, could reinstate 16. One may wonder if Luke objected to Matthew’s mutilated quotation from Jeremiah.

3. THE EXPOSITION AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 77 him among the Twelve to be an eschatological judge. Not only did this tradition supply an alternative cause of death, one more befitting one who fought the divine; it may have narrated the selection of someone to replace him, as Papias’ss reference to Judas Barsabbas suggests (Expos. 5:1 and 2).

Luke seems to have known these incompatible accounts and borrowed elements from each. From Matthew came the etiology for the Field of Blood, which Luke also knew by its Aramaic name ‘AxeAdapdy. Instead of Matthew's hybrid quotation from Zech 11:13 and Jer 39 (MT 32), Luke created a hybrid quotation of his own from Pss 68:26 and 108:8 (MT 69:26 and 109:8). From Papias he derived the tradition that Judas had not committed suicide but was

punished miserably by God in a death that included the discharge of bodily fluids in his own field and that this plot became deserted. Peter replaced Judas by casting lots between Matthias and Joseph Barsabbas Justus, who also appeared in the Exposition.’ In the following columns, underlining isolates Luke's agreements with his two sources for Judass death.

Matt 27:3-10 Expos. 4:5 and 6, and Acts 1:15-26 5:1 and 2

Judas repented. Judas never repented. § Judas never repented. Chief priests bought Judas owned his own Judas bought a field

afield with the blood _field. with the blood money

money after his death. before his death.

Judas died by hanging —_ Judas did not die by [Judas did not die by

himself. hanging. hanging.

Judas died by an efflux Judas “burst in the

“that seeped to the middle, and guts

ground.” poured out.”

His death fulfilled His death fulfilled

Scripture. Scripture, but not by those cited in Matthew.

17. Luke’s own account also shows the influence of Homeric depictions of the deaths of cowards and the lottery for the selection of Ajax in I]. 7. See chapter 2, pages 60-62.

78 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS His “plot became “Let his farm become deserted and unin- deserted [yevnOntw habited [gonuov ... Epnwoc]; let there Kal GOiKNTOV ... be no inhabitant [un yeveoVat].” gOTW O KATOLK@V].”

Plot “called Field of “That plot was called

Blood.” in their own dialect

Hakeldamach, that is, ‘Plot of Blood.”

Justus Barsabbas had “Joseph, the one called a ministry after Judass Barsabbas, dubbed

death. Justus” was one of two candidates to replace Judas.

These parallels suggest that Luke knew not only Papias’s account but Matthew’s as well. Further evidence of Luke's use of Matthew appears at the beginning and ending of his Gospel. INFANCY NARRATIVE

Michael D. Goulder (a proponent of the FH) presents a detailed and largely compelling case for Luke’s rewriting of Matthew’s infancy narrative.!® On the

other hand, adherents of the 2DH seek alternative explanations for Luke's overlaps with Matthew's account of the birth. From the following discussion, however, one thing in clear: the Matthean and Lukan infancy narratives are literarily linked.

e Many of the names of the two genealogies are the same or similar.

18. Goulder, Luke, 205-69. See also P. J. Thompson, “The Infancy Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke Compared,” in Studia evangelica I: Papers Presented to the International Congress on “The Four Gospels in 1957” Held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1957 (ed. Kurt Aland et al; TUGAL 73; Berlin: Akademie, 1959), 217-22; John Drury, Tradition and Design in Lukes Gospel: A Study in Early Christian Historiography (Atlanta: John Knox, 1976), 12227; and Barbara Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 70-81.

3. THE EXPOSITION AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 79

Matt 1:2-16 Luke 3:23-34 (cf. 1 Chr 1:34 and 2:1-15) (in reverse order)

Abraham Abraham Abraham sired Isaac, Isaac and Isaac sired Jacob, Jacob

and Jacob sired Judah and his brothers, Judah and Judah sired Phares and Zara from Phares Tamar,

and Phares sired Esron Esron

and Esron sired Aram, Arni, Admin and Aram sired Aminadab, Aminadab and Aminadab sired Naason, Naason

and Naason sired Salmon, Sala

and Salmon sired Boaz from Rahab, Boaz

and Boaz sired Obed from Ruth, Obed

and Obed sired Jesse, Jesse

and Jesse sired King David... David and Josaphat sired Joram, ... = Jonam?

Jechoniah sired Salathiel, Salathiel

and Salathiel sired Zerubbabel, ... Zerubbabel

and Eleazar sired Matthan, ... = Matthat?

and Jacob sired Joseph. Joseph e Mary became pregnant before she married Joseph.

Matt 1:18 Luke 1:27 and 2:5 uynotevdetons tis untpoG ... TIpOG TapVEVOV ELWVNOTED-.

avtod Mapiag tm “Iwong, mpiv pwéevny avdpi... Maprau th f) ovveAGeiv avtovs evpe0n év EUVIOTEVUEV] ALTH, ODOT yaotpt Exovoa EK TVEDLATOG EYKDW. CYLOV.

After his mother Mary had ... toa virgin engaged to a man been engaged to Joseph, before __... Mary, who was engaged to

they came together, she was him and was pregnant. found to be pregnant by a holy Spirit.

80 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS e Joseph and the parents of John were righteous.

Matt 1:19 Luke 1:6 Towi¢ dé 6 avip antic, noay Sé Sticatol. OUCALOS. OY...

And Joseph, her husband-to- They were righteous. be, because he was righteous ...

e An angel announced the birth of Jesus; according to Luke, an angel similarly announced the birth of John. Joseph had Davidic lineage.

Matt 1:20 Luke 1:11, 13, 15, 26, 30, 35 tabdta dé avtod evOvunvevtoc Mn é AVTM aAyyehoc iSob dyyehoc kupiov kat’ d6vap kupiov ... gimey SE TPO ADTOY

Epavy av1M Agywy: _Iwong O dyyeoc ... Ut PoBod, vidg Aavid, un POBNOAs Tapa- Zayapia, ... kal -yvvn cov, haBeiv Mapiay thy. yevatica ‘EMoaBet yevyngEl ViOv OOL.... oov: TO yap év avTH yevvnVev. Ivevuatoc ayiov MANOUNCETAaL EK TLVEVUATOS EOTLV AYLOV. ETL EK KOLALASG ENTPOS avTOD....

6 dyyedoc Tabpijr ... Iwong e& olkov Aavi6.... cimtey 6 dyyeAoc avTT: LW PoBod, Mapiay, ... AVEdila. ayloy eve EVoETal El O& .. . SLO KL TO YEVVOUEVOY, AYloV

KANONoetat vidg Veod.

After he had intended these An angel of the Lord appeared things, an angel of the Lord to him. ... The angel said to appeared to him in a dream, him, ... “Zechariah, do not saying, “Joseph, son of David, fear, ...your wife Elisabeth will

do not fear to take Mary as bear you a son. ... He will be your wife, for the child con- filled with a holy Spirit right ceived in her is from a holy from his mother’s womb....”

Spirit.” The angel Gabriel ... Joseph

3. THE EXPOSITION AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 81 from the house of David.... The angel said to her, “Mary, do not fear. ... A holy Spirit will come upon you, ... and so your holy offspring will be called a son of a god.’

e An angel instructed the parents of Jesus (and John in Luke) what to name their son. Jesus would be a savior.

Matt 1:21 Luke 1:13, 31, 77; 2:11 TeEetat dé vidv kai kadgoEtc TO ~=—_ KL KaAEGEIC TO GVOUA AVTOD

OVOLLA AUTOD Inoodby, avTOSG Twavvny.... TEEN viov Kal yap owoet TOV AaoV adTod amd = KaAGlg TO SVOLLA ADTOD

TOV ALAPTLOV AVTOMV. ‘Tnoodv. ... tod dobvat yv@otv GwTnplas TH. Aaw abtov év AQDEOEL ALAPTLOV AVTOV....

eTEXON Duv ONLEPOV OwTp.

“She will birth a son, and you “And you will call his name will call his name Jesus, for he John....” “You will birth a son will save his people from their = and call his name Jesus....” “To

sins.” give knowledge of salvation to his people for the forgiveness of their sins....” “Today a savior is born to you.’

e Jesus mother was a virgin.

Matt 1:23 Luke 1:27 iSov 1) MapYEvos év yaotpi er 10 Gvoua Tic MaPVEVOD Kai Te€eTat vidv, Kal KaAgoovotv Mapa. TO Ovourd “Euuavouny.

“Behold, a virgin will conceive The name of the virgin was and give birth toason, and they Mary. will call his name Immanuel.”

82 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS e After Jesus birth he received his name.

Matt 1:25 Luke 1:34; 2:7, 21 Kal OK. EVIVWOKEY AVTIY EWS AvOpA OV. YLVMOKW ... Kal ETEKEV

ob étexev vidv- kal xaAggey 10 TOV vidv aTII¢ ... EKANON TO OVOLLA ALTOD | Ingody. OVOLA AVTOD | Ingodvs.

And he did not know her [sexu- “I am not [sexually] experially] until she birthed ason. He enced with a man....” And she

called his name Jesus. gave birth to her son.... His name was called Jesus.

e Jesus birth took place in “Bethlehem of Judea” during “the days of King Herod”

Matt 2:1 Luke 1:5; 2:4 tod dé ‘Inood yevvnVEvtos EVEVETO EV TAC HUEpAlc

év BnOAéeu tic Tlovdaiac ‘Howdov Baothéwe Tic ev Nuepatc ‘Howdov tod Tovdaiac ... cig thy. Iovdatay,

Baothéwe ... cic MOALV Aavid fits KaAeitat BnOA€éeu.

After Jesus had been born in It happened in the days of Bethlehem of Judea inthe days Herod, king of Judah ... into

of Herod the king ... Judea to the city of David that is called Bethlehem. Matthew’s story of the visit of the magi (Matt 2:1b-12) is missing in Luke, but note the following:

e Both Matthew and Luke speak of a heavenly light at the birth of Jesus and use the word dvatoAn, “dawn.”

Matt 2:2 (cf. 29) Luke 1:78 eiSouev yap avTod TOV dOTEpa EMMLOKEWeETAL UA AvaToAn e

Ev TH AvatoAn. BYOvS.

“For we saw his star in the “The dawn from on high will

east. look upon us?’

3. THE EXPOSITION AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 83 e The infant will be the Messiah.

Matt 2:4 Luke 2:11 Tod 6 YPLOTOS YEVVATOL. ETEXON ... OWTIP Oc EoTIV YPLOTOC.

born. siah.”

where the Messiah would be “A savior is born who is Mes-

e Visitors went to Bethlehem to see the baby and were astonished.

Matt 2:8, 10 Luke 2:15, 17, 18 Kai TEUWas avTOUS cic BNOAEEU = StEAD LEV OF Ews BnOAEEw Kai

eiTleV: TOPEVOEVTES ... (Owpev ... iOOvtec O& TOV dOTEpa yapnoav iddvtTEec dé EyvwPLOaV Tepi TOD

xapav peyadnv opodpa. pTjwatos tod AaAnVEvtoO..... Kal TIAVTES OL AKOVOAVTEC

eNavuacay.

He then sent them to Bethle- “Let's travel to Bethlehem and

hem and said, “When you go see...

ee When they saw him, they rec-

And when they saw the star, ognized the statement that had

they rejoiced greatly. been told.... Everyone who heard about it was amazed.

e ‘The family returned to Nazareth in Galilee.

Matt 2:22-23 Luke 2:39 AVEXWPTOEV Ec TA HEPN THs éenéotpewav cic thy TaAvalay

Tadtvatas, kat ehOwv Kato- eic TOALY EavTov Nacaped. Knoev sic MOA Aeyouevnv

Natapér.

84 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS He departed for the regions of | They returned to Galilee, to Galilee. After arriving there, Nazareth, their hometown. he took up residence in a city called Nazareth.

e One passage in Luke seems to be a strategic improvement on Matt 2:23: “After arriving there, he took up residence in a city called Nazareth: thus what was said by the prophets was fulfilled: ‘That he will be called a Nazorean:” Luke seems to have recog-

nized that Matthew was alluding to the birth of Samson, who, according to Judg 13, was to be “a narizite,’ not “a Nazorean.’ Judges says explicitly that Samson thus must “not drink wine or strong drink and not eat anything unclean” (13:7). Lukes Gabriel tells Zechariah that the son to be born to him should not drink “wine and strong drink” in accord with prohibitions not only of nazirites but of Levites according to Leviticus (compare Lev 10:9 and Luke 1:15). So when readers get to Luke 7:33 and complaints about John’s not eating or drinking, they will understand that he acted this way because of his observance of priestly and nazirite holiness, not because he was a socially marginal ascetic, like Elijah. Two passages in Luke's infancy narrative redact logia outside of Matthew's

account of Jesus birth and thus point to Luke's use of that Gospel and not merely an antecedent oral tradition. Here is the first: Matthew surely knew Marks account of Jesus’ baptism, to which he added the following deference of John to Jesus: “I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me [épxn m1pdc

ue]?” (3:14b). In Luke, John’s mother Elisabeth says much the same to Mary: “How is it that the mother of my Lord comes to me [€A9n f utp Tod Kupiov lov mpdc Le]?” (Luke 1:43). The second example appears in the Benedictus, an apparent echo of Isa 9:1, but it is more likely that Luke actually redacted a passage in Matthew.

Matt 4:16 Luke 1:78-79 The people who sit in darkness [6 “Through the bowels of the mercy KaOnLEvos Ev OKOTEL (or OKOTIa) | of our God, the dawn [davatoAn]

have seen a great light; for those from on high will look upon us to who sit in the region and shadow of _ shine on those who sit in darkness

death a light has risen [toic and the shadow of death

3. THE EXPOSITION AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 85 KAONMEVOLS EV WPA Kal OKLA [tOIs EV OKOTEL Kal OKLA Davatov

Davatov pads davétetrev avtoic]. KANN LEvoIc].” Notice distinctive uses of toig kaOnuevotc and the resonance between Matthews davétetXev and Lukes avatokn, neither of which appears in Isa 9. As Barbara Shellard observes, “There are so many shared points connecting the two accounts [of Jesus infancy] that if we deny that Luke used Matthew we must postulate yet another missing common source which both [Evangelists] felt free to interpret creatively,”!? PASSION NARRATIVE

Traces of Luke’s redaction of Matthew appear also in Luke's passion narrative, even though his primary source clearly was Mark. Notice the striking agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark at Jesus’ beating at his Jewish

trial. (Mark appears in the left column, not in the center, as in most Gospel synopses.)

Mark 14:65 Matt 26:67-68 Luke 22:63-64 And they began to spit And they spat in his And the men who on him, cover his face, face, pummeled him, held him mocked him pummel him, and and they slapped him, — with blows, and cover-

say to him, “Proph- saying, “Christ, ing him asked him, esy [A€yetv avta@- prophesy for us: Who _ saying, “Prophesy:

TpoPNtevoov]!” is it who is strik- Who is it who is striking you [A€yovtec: ing you [AgyovtecMPOPNTEVOOV NLIv TMPOPNTEVOOV, TIC XPLOTE, Tic EOTLV O EOTLV O TIALOac OE]?”

Tlaloac oe|?”

Agreements also appear in details provided by Matthew and Luke concerning the centurion at the cross.

¢ Both Matthew and Luke omit the following from Mark's comment concerning the centurion at the cross: “who stood facing him saw that in this way he breathed his last”; both later Evangelists change Mark's Latin loanword kevtupiwv to €katovapyns. 19. Shellard, New Light on Luke, 79.

86 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS e Whereas Mark contains only the response of the centurion, Mat-

thew has the response of the centurion and his soldiers, and Luke speaks of the responses of the centurion and the Jewish crowds.

e Matthew transformed the gloat of Mark's centurion into a genuine confession of faith; Luke transformed it into a declaration of innocence. What prompted the responses of the centurion and the soldiers in Matthew was not watching how Jesus died but the observation of attending portents. What prompted the responses of the crowds in Luke was the nobility of Jesus’ death and hearing the centurion’s statement of Jesus’ innocence.

Although Mark seems to have been Luke's primary source for Joseph of Arimatheas rescue of Jesus’ corpse, several agreements between Luke and Matthew merit attention.

e Against Mark, Matthew and Luke both read ovtoc mpooeA 8 av t® IltAatw (Matt 27:58; Luke 23:52).

e Like Matthew, Luke omits Pilate’s astonishment at Jesus’ early death. e Whereas Mark's verb for wrapping the linen is éveiAnoev, Matthew and Luke both read évetbAtEev avto.

e Matthew added to Mark’s account that the tomb was new; Luke states that “no one ever yet had been laid down’ in it.

Parallels between Matthew and Luke also appear in their resurrection stories.

e Matthew transformed Mark’s young man into an angel, and Luke transformed him into two angels.

¢ In Matt 28:8 we read: “They left the tomb [d70 tod uvnueiov] quickly with fear and great joy and ran to tell his disciples [anayyeiret toig wantaic].” Luke 24:9b offers the parallel: “When they returned from the tomb [a0 tod uvnueiov], they announced all these things to the eleven [annyyethkav tatta TMaAVTAa ToIc EvdSeka].”

e Whereas Matthew next has the risen Jesus himself appear to the women to tell them to tell the eleven to go to Galilee, Luke has the women tell “the apostles” that Jesus had been raised. e ‘The young man in Mark instructs the disciples via the women to go to Galilee, but they stay in Jerusalem because of the women’s

3. THE EXPOSITION AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 87 failure; the angel in Matthew and Jesus himself instruct the disciples via the women to go to Galilee, and they actually do; in Luke, Jesus tells the disciples to stay in Jerusalem, and they actually do so (24:49).

e Mark’s risen Jesus makes no commands to the disciples about a future mission, but Matthew's Jesus, in Galilee, gives them their great commission (28:16—20). Luke's Jesus does the same in the first chapter of Acts (1:8-11).

Advocates of the 2DH/M2DH, of course, would account for these Matthew-Luke overlaps apart from Luke's redaction of Matthew, but the most economical solution is to assume that Luke knew the passion narratives of both Mark and Matthew, generally preferred the former, but found occasional inspiration also from the latter. Dip LukE Know PapIas’s SECOND “TRANSLATION” OF MATTHEW?

On one issue most contemporary Gospel scholars seem to agree: if Luke knew Matthew, one should abort the quest for Q. For this reason, 2DH and M2DH

proponents dogmatically defend Luke's ignorance of Matthew against the arguments of Goulder and others. But a few scholars from an earlier generation argued that Luke probably knew, in addition to Mark, both Q and Matthew. According to R. T. Simpson, “the fact that St Luke may have read Matthew does not exclude the possibility of his having access to other traditions” such as Q. “[T]he study of the major agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark greatly strengthens the probability that Matthew was one of the sources employed by St Luke in the composition of his Gospel???° Similarly, Wilhelm Wilkens argued that Luke redacted Mark as one of his literary Grundlagen (“foundations”) and “merely supplemented” Mark with material from Matthew.*! “Luke reproduced Marcan content and at the same time had Matthew’s version [ringing] in his ear.’*? Although Luke's use of Matthew thus

does not eliminate his reliance on Q, “the Q-problem turns out to be more complicated than is generally recognized.??> How might one reconstruct Q if Luke knew Matthew?

20. R. T. Simpson, “The Major Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark,” NTS 12 (1965-1966): 283-84, emphasis original. 21. Wilhelm Wilkens, “Zur Frage der literarischen Beziehung zwischen Matthaus und Lukas,’ NovT 8 (1966): 57. 22. Wilkens, “Zur Frage der literarischen Beziehung,’ 56. 23. Wilkens, “Zur Frage der literarischen Beziehung,’ 57.

88 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Part 2 of this book attempts to reconstruct this second textual shipwreck on the basis of an alternative model for solving the Synoptic Problem: the Q+/ Papias Hypothesis (Q+/PapH), which holds to the following assessments.

1. Markan priority. Of the Synoptic Gospels, Mark was the earliest and served as a source to Matthew and Luke (with the 2DH/M2DH and the FH).

2. The existence of a lost Gospel. In addition to Mark, Matthew redacted at least one other Gospel, now lost, namely, Matthew’s Q (with the 2DH/M2DH). 3. Mark’s knowledge of the lost Gospel. The Markan Evangelist knew the same document that informed Matthew (with the M2DH). 4. Papiass knowledge of Mark, Matthew, and the lost Gospel. Papias's

running commentary compared the content of Mark, Matthew, and a lost Gospel that sufficiently resembled Matthew that he took it to be a second Greek translation of Matthew's original. 5. Luke's knowledge of Papias's Exposition and thus also of Mark, Matthew, and the lost Gospel. It would appear that Luke redacted

these earlier books about Jesus sequentially, generally preferring Mark to Q and Q to Matthew. Robert A. Derrenbacker Jr. has shown that ancient authors, who wrote on their laps, usually maintained visual contact with only one text at a time and had to rely on memory when incorporating others.** Luke consulted Papias for his preface, Matthew for the infancy narrative, Mark for Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, the lost Gospel for Jesus’ teachings (especially on his jour-

ney to Jerusalem), Mark again for the passion narrative, Matthew again for Jesus’ postresurrection appearances, and Papias for a few episodes in the Acts of the Apostles. Although the following diagram is deceptively simple, it nonetheless suggests that Luke's serial use of his sources was, at least to some extent, chiastic.

A Papias for the preface (Luke 1:1-4) B- Matthew for the infancy narrative (Luke 1:5-2:52) 24. Robert A. Derrenbacker Jr., Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem (BETL 186; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005).

3. THE EXPOSITION AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 89 C Mark (and Q) for the empowerment and ministry in Galilee (Luke 3:1-9:50)

DQ for the travel section (Luke 9:51-18:14) C’ Mark (and Q) for Jesus in Jerusalem, including the passion (Luke 18:15-24:8)

B' Matthew for the appearances of the risen Jesus and his commission (Luke 24:9-Acts 1:11)

A’ Papias for the death of Judas and events after Jesus resurrection (at least Acts 1:12—26)

The following diagram provides an intertextual map to the Q+/Papias Hypothesis. I prefer to call my textual reconstruction by its most likely original title, the Logoi of Jesus.

Logoi (Q+)

ca. 60-70 So

Mark ca. 75-80 Matthew ca. 85-95

Papiass Exposition ca. 110

NS Luke- Acts ca. 115-120 The Q+/Papias Hypothesis

Blank Page

PART 2 THE LOGOI OF JESUS

Blank Page

INTRODUCTION TO PART 2 SALVAGING ANOTHER TEXTUAL SHIPWRECK

Typically, reconstructions of Q involve the comparison of overlapping content in Matthew and Luke, the removal of potential Markan influence, and, when Matthew and Luke differ, the selection of wording and sequencing that displays less redactional manipulation. This procedure has yielded impressive results, but according to the Q+/Papias Hypothesis, this procedure is too simple. In the first place, Mark, too, seems to have known the lost source, and because Luke apparently knew Matthew, one might account for the overlapping content usually attributed to Q merely to Luke's redaction of the Gospel.

Although the Q+/PapH makes the recovery of Q more difficult, it is not impossible, and I hope to show that the results of an alternative methodology are more reliable. The following chapter compares Mark and Matthew and scrupulously avoids Luke-Acts to show that both authors knew and redacted the same lost Gospel. In other words, one does not need Luke to establish the existence of Q! Chapter 5 is the heart of the reconstruction insofar as it integrates logia in Luke-Acts and attempts to reconstruct the order and even the wording of the lost Gospel. At the end of chapter 5 one will find a synopsis of the reconstructed Greek text with its parallels in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. In order fully to understand the arguments for the textual reconstruction, one must consult this synopsis. Chapters 6-10 explore related topics, such as the literary characteristics of the reconstruction (ch. 6), Logoi as Papiass second putative translation of Matthew (ch. 7), the lost Gospel as a source for the Gospel of Mark (ch. 8), the extraordinary importance of this reconstruction for understanding the historical Jesus (ch. 9), and the reasons why Logoi and Papiass Exposition shipwrecked (ch. 10). Appendix 1 presents the textual reconstruction and an English translation on facing pages; appendix 2 is a concordance of Greek words; appendix 3 lays out the chapter-verse numbers in the textual reconstruction with its equivalents in the three Synoptics; appendix 4 compares the

_93-

94 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS content and sequence of my reconstruction with that in The Critical Edition of Q.

4 MATTHEW S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE)

Matthew contains doublets apparently caused by his redaction of Mark and another text with similar content. With few exceptions, Matthew’s redactions of Mark appear in the same sequence, whereas the corresponding nonMarkan doublets witness to a radically different arrangement. Although the Matthean Evangelist occasionally created doublets without the benefit of a source in addition to Mark (e.g., his duplication of the healing of Bartimaeus [Mark 10:46-52] in 9:27-30 and again in 20:29-34), the majority of the nonMarkan doublets issue from a stratum of tradition not only more primitive than Mark but one that may well have served the Markan Evangelist as a source! In addition to Matthew's doublets are so-called nondoublets, places where the Evangelist seems to have eschewed redacting Mark because he preferred a non-Markan version of the logion. The end of this chapter assesses whether this content issues from oral tradition, from a combination of traditions and sources, or from a single lost Gospel. Central to this analysis is the concept of inverted priority. For shorthand I use the symbol < to mean “earlier than.” One would expect that, because Matthew redacted Mark, most of the content would be Mark < Matthew (Mark is earlier than Matthew), but often it is the case that Matthew preserves content in a form anterior to its Markan equivalent. Thus, when the lost Gospel presents content in a more original form, one might express it somewhat ironically as Matthew < Mark. This phenomenon of inverted priority has contributed to the intractability of the Synoptic Problem. Matthean non-Markan doublets and nondoublets provide the surest evidence for the existence of the lost Gospel. The examples treated in this chapter by no means exhaust the content of Matthew's second source. Only when one

integrates parallels from Luke-Acts (ch. 5) does one get a fuller view of the extent of the lost book.

_95-

96 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Matthew's Q

Lo Mark Matthew's Matthew's non-Markan Markan

doublets doublets

An intertextual model for Matthean doublets

Determining which version of a logion is more primitive often is a tricky

matter; the following general principles inform the analysis in this chapter and the next.

e Independence < narrative contextualization. When one version seems to stand on its own, it more likely is prior to one that has been assimilated into a narrative context or secondarily linked with another saying.

e Integrity < division. In general, when one version is unified and parallel content in another Gospel appears in two or more different contexts, the unified version is primary.

e Intertextual fidelity < obfuscation. When the origin of a logion relies on a biblical antecedent text (an antetext), the version closer to the biblical text likely is prior to the one where the connections are obscure.

e Awkwardness < improvement. When one version contains a difficulty, it is likely prior to the one without it. Similarly, when one version presents Jesus more modestly than the other, it likely is prior. Later texts tend to solve problems rather than create them, to enhance Jesus’ stature rather than diminish it.

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 97

e Ambiguity < explication. Although the Evangelists occasionally abbreviate their sources, more often they augment them with explanations, including interpretive glosses and moralizing taglines. Thus, when one logion is terse and balanced, it likely is prior to one that shows embellishment at the expense of aesthetics.

e Atypicalities < redactional flags. When a logion displays characteristics typical of an author's style or theology, it probably is secondary to a version that shows fewer traits characteristic of its host Gospel.

I will discuss selected logia in the order that the non-Markan doublets appear in Matthew insofar as doing so suggests the likely order of this content in his second source.! To assist the English reader, I present the parallels in translation and make no attempt to reconstruct the wording of the lost Gospel; that task best awaits the integration of variants in Luke-Acts in chapter 5. Appendix | provides my reconstruction of the Greek text with an English translation. THE QUEST FOR MINIMAL MATTHEW'S Q (MQ-)

MatT 5:13 < MarK 9:49-50; MATTHEAN NONDOUBLET AFTER 18:9 (INSIPID SALT)

Mark 9:49-50 barely makes sense: “For everyone with fire will be salted. Salt is good, but if salt has lost its saltiness, with what can you season it? Have salt among yourselves and be at peace with each other.’ The first verse about being salted “with fire” artificially links salt to the preceding reference to eternal fire in Isa 66:24 in 9:48. The Evangelist apparently attached the salt saying to the end of the biblical citation and applied it to making peace. When Matthew redacted Mark in chapter 18, he wisely omitted these two verses, but he has his own saying about insipid salt in the Sermon on the Mount. Here, then, is an example of a Matthean nondoublet: the Evangelist saw in his sources two

examples of the saying; he used one in the Sermon on the Mount and later omitted the awkward Markan version.

1. This chapter relies heavily on Fleddermann’s Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, the most detailed comparison of overlapping sayings in Mark and Matthew of which I am aware. Also important are the Matthew commentaries of Ulrich Luz (Hermeneia), who provides for each Matthean logion a discussion of its sources.

_97-

98 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS

Matt 5:13 < Mark 9:49-50 (Matthean nondoublet after 18:9) “For everyone with fire will be salted.

“You are the salt of the earth, but ifthe Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its salt becomes insipid [uwpav0f], with saltiness [Avahov yevntat], with what what will it be salted? It has no endur- can you season it? ing function except to be cast outside to be trampled on by people.’ Have salt among yourselves and be at peace with each other.’

Mark here “clarifies an ambiguous term uwpav0f [in his source]. The verb usually means ‘to make foolish’ ... or ‘to become foolish, ... so Mark secondarily altered the expression to Gvahov yévntat to remove the ambiguity.’ Notice also Mark’s secondary and awkward application: “have salt among yourselves and be at peace with each other’ MatT 5:15 < MARK 4:21; MATTHEAN NONDOUBLET AFTER 13:23 (LIGHT ON THE LAMPSTAND)

Mark 4:1-34 presents Jesus teaching by means of parables and aphorisms. Matthew conservatively redacted this sermon from Mark (13:1-23, 31-35), but when he came to Mark 4:21-24 he ignored it because earlier he had presented three similar sayings in different contexts. This omission thus involves three examples of nondoublets. Here is the first:

Matt 5:15 < Mark 4:21 (Matthean nondoublet after 13:23)

“They do not light a lamp and put it “The lamp does not come to be placed under the bushel basket but on the under the bushel basket or under the lampstand, and it gives light forevery- _ bed, does it? To be placed on the lamp-

one in the house.” stand, right?”

In Matthew, “a lamp” that someone lights becomes “the lamp” and the active subject of the verb. There is no human agency in Mark's saying; the author seems to have personified the lamp as Jesus, the light that comes into the world.’ Notice also that the balanced saying in Matthew has become skewed in 2. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 758. 3. Similarly Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 78. See also Jacques Dupont, “La transmission

4, MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 99

Mark’s redaction, which consists of two questions: one question anticipates a negative answer and adds the phrase (“or under the bed”), and the other anticipates a positive answer without an expressed verb before the result clause.* MatTT 5:18 < MARK 13:31 < MATT 24:35 (NO SERIF OF THE LAW)

Matthew redacts Mark 13:31 in 24:35 (Jesus words will never pass away), but in the Sermon on the Mount he uses the same expression concerning Jewish law, thereby creating a doublet.

Matt 5:18 < Mark 13:31 ( < Matt 24:35) “For truly I tell you,

until heaven and earth pass away, not “Heaven and earth will pass away, one iota or serif will pass from the law —_ but my words will not pass away-’ until all is fulfilled.’

Matthew's doublets make permanent both Jewish law (5:18) and Jesus’ words (24:35). It would appear that in the Sermon on the Mount the Evangelist relied on a tradition that Mark radically altered by stating that it was not Torah that was permanent but also Jesus’ teachings.° Matt 5:23-24 < MARK 11:25 < MaTT 6:14—-15 (RECONCILING BEFORE SACRIFICING)

In Mark 11:25 Jesus instructs the Twelve to forgive others before asking for divine forgiveness. Matthew included Mark's instructions in 6:14-15, but a similar saying appears earlier in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus commands the Twelve concerning offering sacrifices at the Jerusalem temple. Here, then, is another Matthean doublet.

Matt 5:23-24 < Mark 11:25 ( < Matt 6:14-15) “So if you bring your gift to “And when you stand praying,

des paroles de Jésus sur la lampe et la mesure dans Marc 4,21-25 et dans la tradition Q, in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus—'The Sayings of Jesus (ed. Joél Delobel; BETL 59; Leuven: Leuven

University of Press, 1982), 201-36, esp. 209-14. 4, Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 521. 5. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 787-88. “It is easy to imagine a Christian reformulation of a statement on the permanence of the law into a saying on the permanence of Jesus’ words.” See also Brown, “Mark as Witness,” 41.

100 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS the altar and there remember that your _ forgive if you hold something against

brother holds something against you, someone, leave your gift there before the altar,

go, and first be reconciled with your so that your Father who is in the skies brother, and then come and offer your —=s may forgive your trespasses-’ gift?

The non-Markan doublet is more primitive insofar as it presupposes that the Jerusalem temple and its sacrificial system are still viable. Mark rescues the saying for his time and community by relating it to prayer. Ulrich Luz opines that the Matthean version of the saying actually came from Jesus.° MatT 5:29-30 < MARK 9:43, 45, 47 < MATT 18:8—-9 (CUTTING OFF OFFENDING LIMBS)

Matthew redacts Mark 9:42, 45, and 47 in 18:8-9, but a non-Markan doublet appears in the Sermon on the Mount.

Matt 5:29-30 < Mark 9:43, 45, and 47-48 ( < Matt 18:8-9) “And if your hand entices you, chop it off, for it is better for you to enter into life deformed than that you enter into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire, with two hands. And if your foot entices you, chop it off, for it is better for you to enter into life lame than that you be cast into Gehenna with two feet. “Tf your right eye entices you, pluck it And if your eye entices you, gouge it

out and cast it from you, for itis better out, for it is better for you to enter into for to lose one of your body partsthan — the kingdom of God with one eye than

that your whole body be cast into to be cast into Gehenna with two eyes,

Gehenna. where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.”

And if your right hand entices you, chop it off and cast it from you, for it is better for you to lose one of your body

6. Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. James E. Crouch; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 240.

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 101 parts than that your whole body go off to Gehenna.’

On the one hand, Mark's version, with three offending members, may reflect an earlier version than what appears in the Sermon on the Mount; the same judgment may apply to the sequence hand-foot-eye. Matthew has artificially linked the saying with the prohibition of adultery (5:31-32): the eye of lust leads to the offense of the hand, possibly a metaphor for the penis.’ The preceding verse speaks about looking at a woman lustfully as committing adultery in one’s (male) heart.® Apart from issues of sequence, however, Matthew's version likely is more primitive. Only Mark's version speaks of entering “into life” or “into the kingdom of God.’ These positive elements are secondary, for when Matthew saw them when redacting Mark 9, he was content to include them (18:8-9). Mark’s

reference to the undying worm and eternal flame (9:48) is a secondary tag from Isa 66:24, after which came the saying about the insipid salt (MQ- 5:13). Had Matthew been redacting Mark here, it is not apparent why he would have omitted the biblical reference to the worm and fire. Notice also the elegant symmetry of the two sayings in Matthew but not in Mark.?

It therefore would appear that in this example, as in others, one finds alternating primitivity: in some respects Mark is prior, in other respects Matthew. This is what one should expect if both Evangelists redacted the same source. If the logion displayed only Markan priority, one might simply say that Matthew redacted Mark twice (both in 5:29-30 and 18:8-9). Whenever a Matthean non-Markan doublet is more primitive than Mark, one should suspect the influence of another text. MatT 5:32 < MARK 10:11-12 < MaTT 19:9 (DIVORCE LEADING TO ADULTERY)

Matthew contains doublets that prohibit divorce: Matt 19:9 clearly redacts Mark 10:11-12, while the other instance apparently derives from elsewhere. 7. Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 238-39. 8. “Matthew cannot ... have found it [9:43-48] in Mark, stripped it of its interpretation, and given it a new one—while turning it into Semitic poetry. Rather, each found it in [a] disciplinary context uninterpreted ... and interpreted it for his own needs” (Brown, “Mark as Witness,’ 37-38). 9. Luz, Matthew 1-7, 242: the Matthean “evangelist presumably took over our version of the saying not from Mark but from elsewhere. ... Its Semitic background, the double tradition [i.e., Mark and another source], and the fact that Jesus often exaggerates in a similar way all speak for the conclusion that the logion originated from Jesus.’

102 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Here again one finds the pattern of Matthew’ non-Markan doublet being prior to the Markan one.

Matt 5:32 < Mark 10:11-12 ( < Matt 19:9) “And I tell you: Everyone who divorces _ He says to them, “Whoever divorces his wife except for a charge of fornica- his wife and marries another commits

tion commits adultery against her,and adultery against her. whoever marries a divorcee commits adultery.’

And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery:

The Matthean Evangelist clearly was responsible for the insertion of the phrase “except for a charge of fornication,’ because a similar insertion appears in his redaction of Mark 10:11 (19:9). Otherwise, Matthew's non-Markan doublet represents an earlier stage of the tradition than Mark insofar as it says nothing about a woman divorcing her husband, which seems to be a concession to laws concerning divorce in the Greco-Roman world.!? Mark seems to have taken a saying against divorce and expanded it into a full-blown controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees, a secondary contextualization.!! MatTT 6:19-204 < MarRK 10:21 < MaTT 19:21 (STORING UP TREASURES IN HEAVEN)

Matthew redacted Mark 10:21 in 19:21, but a similar passage appears in a non-Markan doublet in 6:19-21.

Matt 6:19-20a < Mark 10:21 ( < Matt 19:21) “You lack one thing.

“Do not treasure for yourselves trea- Go, sell whatever you have and give to sures on earth, where moth and gnaw- __ the poor, ing deface and where robbers dig

10. One should note, however, that 1 Cor 7:10-16, written earlier than Mark and Matthew, orders both genders to avoid divorce. See also Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 788-89. For exceptions of Jewish women divorcing their husbands, see Tal Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine: An Inquiry into Image and Status (TSAJ 44; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 146-47. 11. Luz, Matthew 1-7, 253: “By adding ‘and marries another, Mark 10:11 indicates when the divorce becomes final.”

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 103 through and rob, but treasure for your- and _you will have treasure in heaven’ selves treasures in heaven.”

The elegantly chiastic saying in Matthew appears in Mark as the punch line for a story in which Jesus challenges a rich man. This is but one example of Mark's narrative contextualizing of a traditional saying, of expanding a logos into an extended logion. Matt 7:1—2 < MARK 4:24; MATTHEAN NONDOUBLET AFTER 13:23 (NOT JUDGING)

Matthew avoided redacting Mark 4:24 because he already had used a similar saying earlier. This example is important insofar as the version in Matthew appears to be a rewriting of Lev 19:35, but the one in Mark is oblivious to the biblical antetext.

Lev 19:35 Matt 7:1-2 < Mark 4:24 (Matthean nondoublet after 13:23) And was saying to them,

“You will not commit “Do not pass judgment “Observe what you hear. injustice in judgment, so you are not judged. For with what judgment you pass judgment, you will be judged.

in measures, And with the measure- With the measurement in weights, or in scales’ ment you use to measure you use to measure out out, it will be measured it will be measured out

out to you.” to you and will be added to you.’

The elegant balance of the saying in Matthew is lost in Mark by the removal of the reference to judgment and the addition of “and will be added to you?!” MatTT 7:8 < MARK 11:24 < MATT 21:22 (CERTAINTY OF ANSWER TO PRAYER)

Matthew redacts Mark 11:24 in 21:22, but in the Sermon of the Mount he presents a similar saying with a claim to being more primitive than its equivalent in Mark.

12. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 312.

104 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Matt 7:8 < Mark 11:24 ( < Matt 21:22) “Therefore, I tell you,

“For everyone who asks receives, everything that you pray and ask for, believe that you received it, and the one who searches finds,

and to the one who knocks will it be and it will be to you.” opened?’

These balanced three lines in Matthew appear in Mark a part of a logion in which Jesus instructs his disciples in prayer and faith. The saying in Matt 7:8, however, is independent. Notice also that Mark compromised the aesthetic balance by his emphasis on faith.!° MatT 10:233B < MARK 13:30 < MATT 24:34 (SCHEDULING JESUS’ RETURN)

In Mark 13:30 Jesus tells four of his disciples that their generation will not perish before his predictions of the return of the Son of Man are fulfilled (see also 9:1); Matthew redacts this saying in 24:34, which creates a tension with the prediction of the timing of the coming of the Son of Man in 10:23.

Matt 10:23b < Mark 13:30 ( < Matt 24:34)

“For truly I tell you, “Truly I tell you, you will not complete the cities of Israel _ this generation will not pass away until

until the Son of Man comes.” all these things happen” [including a mission to Gentiles (13:10)].

Mark seems to have reset the apocalyptic clock to account for the delay of Jesus return and to permit a mission to Gentiles. In other words, in this non-Markan Matthean doublet we find another example of inverted priority.!4

13. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 464-65. 14. Luz suggests that the saying in Matt 10:23 may have come from Jesus (Matthew 8-20: A Commentary [trans. James E. Crouch; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001], 87). So also Volker Hampel, “‘Thr werdet mit den Stadten Israels nicht zu Ende kommen: Eine exegetische Studie tiber Matthaus 10,23” ThZ 45 (1989): 1-13.

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 105 Matt 10:26-27 < MARK 4:22—23; MATTHEAN NONDOUBLET AFTER 13:23 (WHAT IS HIDDEN WILL BE REVEALED)

This is the third and final instance of Matthew's omission of content from Mark's parable speech because he earlier had used similar material. Surely Matt 10:26-27 preserves this saying in a more primitive version.

Matt 10:26-27 < Mark 4:22-23 (Matthean nondoublet after 13:23) “Nothing is covered up that will not be

exposed, and hidden that will not be “For it [the lamp] is not hidden except known. What I tell you in the dark, say __to be disclosed, nor was it secret, but to in the light; and what you hear in the come into public view. Let anyone with

ear proclaim on the housetops.” ears to hear listen.’ Mark personified what was hidden to be Jesus himself, not his message, as in Matthew. Mark's tag about “ears to hear” invites the reader to recognize the allegory. In Matthew’s second saying, Jesus is the speaker of secret things, but in Mark Jesus himself is the secret; just as the lamp “comes” to be placed on a lampstand, it also is hidden so that it would “come” into public view.!° MatTT 10:32-33 < MARK 8:38 < MATT 16:27 (CONFESSING OR DENYING)

Matthew redacted Mark 8:38 in 16:27, but a similar passage appears earlier.

Matt 10:32-33 < Mark 8:38 ( < Matt 16:27) “So everyone who speaks out for me in public, I also will speak out for him before my Father who is in heaven.

But whoever denies me in public, “For whoever is ashamed of me and my words mong this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be I also will deny him before my Father ashamed of him when he comes in the

who is in heaven? glory of his Father and with the holy angels.”

15. So also Dupont, “La transmission des paroles, 214-19; Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 579.

106 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS In some respects Mark's version seems to be the more primitive. Its reference to the Son of Man surely is more original than Matthew’s “I,” and “Father in heaven” is typically Matthean. In other respects, however, Matthew's version takes priority over Mark’s, for it contrasts in balanced phrases those who speak for Jesus and those who deny him. Mark, on the other hand, speaks only of negative consequences for those who fail. Matthew’s “in public” becomes in Mark “this adulterous and sinful generation.’ The tag “with the holy angels”

resonates with Mark 13:26-27, where Jesus predicts that when “the Son of Man” comes on the clouds “he will send his angels” to collect the elect.'® MatTT 10:34-35 < MARK 13:12 < MaTT 10:21 (CHILDREN AGAINST PARENTS)

Matthew redacts Mark 13:12 in 10:21, but a few verses later he seems to present an even earlier version of the same saying. Matthew's non-Markan doublet clearly is closer to the biblical antecedent than its equivalent in Mark. !” Notice also that Mark's version does not make Jesus directly responsible for violence or family divisions. Informing the original saying was Mic 7:6.!®

Mic 7:6 Matt 10:34-36 < Mark 13:12 ( < Matt 10:21)

“Do not suppose that I have come to hurl peace

onearth.I didnotcome “Brother will betray to hurl peace, but a sword! brother to death,

Therefore,asondishon- For I have come to ors his father, a daugh- divide a person against and a father his child, and ter will rebel against his father, and daughter children will rebel against [émavaotnoetat] her against her mother, and [émavacotnoovtat] parmother, a daughter-in- daughter-in-law against ents, and have them put law against her mother- — her mother-in-law, And _ to death. And you will be

in law, and the men of a persons enemies are hated by all people for my

his house are allamans __ those at home.’ name.’ enemies.

16. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 580; Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 409. 17. One should note, however, that Mark seems to be aware of the biblical antecedent: notice the agreement against Matthew in the use of the word énaviotnu, “will rebel? 18. So also Brown, “Mark as Witness,” 34.

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 107

Mark would have had reason to omit the potentially objectionable opening lines of this saying, which depict Jesus as a bringer of carnage. In Marks version the combating family members are themselves responsible for the hostility, not Jesus.!? MatT 10:38-39 < MARK 8:34—-35 < MATT 16:24—25 (TAKING ONE'S CROSS)

Matthew contains a doublet of this logion insofar as it redacted Mark 8:34-35 in 16:24—25 but presents another version of it in Matt 10. Matthew's nonMarkan doublet is more primitive: Mark apparently added the motif of wishing (twice), added the phrase “let him deny himself; intensified finding and losing to saving and destroying, and added the reference to “and the gospel’s.’”

Matt 10:38-39 < Mark 8:34-35 ( < Matt 16:24-25) “If anyone wishes to follow me, let

“And the one who does not take one’s him deny himself, and let him take up cross and follow after me is not worthy his cross, and let him follow me. For of me. The one who finds one’s life will | whoever wishes to save his life will lose lose it, and the one who loses ones life —_— it, and whoever destroys his life for my

for my sake will find it.” sake and the gospel's will save it?

MatT 10:40 < MARK 9:37 < MATT 18:5 (WHOEVER TAKES YOU IN TAKES ME IN)

Matthew redacted Mark 9:37 in 18:5, but a similar version of the saying appears earlier in chapter 10.

Matt 10:40 < Mark 9:37 ( < Matt 18:5) “Whoever takes you in takes me in, “Whoever takes in one of these and whoever takes me in takes in the children in my name takes me in, and

one who sent me.” whoever takes me in does not take me in but the one who sent me.”

19. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 645: “Mark clearly lies downstream of Q”; and, “It is easier to imagine a writer like Mark taking a metaphor and inter-

preting it literally than to image the opposite movement from a situation of violence to the metaphor of Q” Luz suggests that Matt 10:34-36 may ultimately derive from Jesus (Matthew 8-20, 111-12). 20. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 251-52: “Mark took over the saying from Q.”’ So also Brown, “Mark as Witness,” 31-33.

108 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS The Matthean version grants to the Twelve status similar to Jesus himself

as worthy of financial support. Mark has transformed it to require that the Twelve support children as they would him. This redaction is consistent with Mark’s dim view of the disciples.*! Notice also Mark’s secondary addition of “in my name” and the linkage to the preceding narrative in the reference to “one of these children.’ The saying in Matt 10:40, however, can stand alone. MatT 11:10 < MarK 1:2; MATTHEAN NONDOUBLET AT 3:3 (PROMISED MESSENGER)

Mark's Gospel begins with an error: he attributes to Isaiah two citations, even

though only the second came from that biblical book (Isa 40:3). The first seems to be a hybrid from Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1. “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepared your way, a voice of one crying in the wilderness, “Prepare the way of

the Lord; make straight his footpaths,’’ it happened that John the Baptizer was in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ (1:2-4). Matthew does not contain this problem because in 3:3 he does not attribute the first citation to Isaiah and does not present the second until chapter 11, where it is correctly credited to Isaiah.

Mark's misattribution likely was due to careless use of a source that included both the citation from Isa 40:3 at the beginning of the Gospel and the amalgam from Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1 later, as in Matt 11:10. “This peculiar translation of Mal 3:1 ‘who shall prepare thy way is appropriate at Matt 11:10 (as if God were talking to Jesus about John), but not at Mark 1:2. Mark and Matthew appear to have a common testimony source.””?

Notice also that Matthew's version of Marks first citation is modestly closer to the biblical texts.

Exod 23:20 Mal 3:1 (cf. 3:22) Matt 11:10 < Mark 1:2 (Matthean nondoublet at 3:3)

“And look, Iam “Look, I am “Look, I am “Look, I am sendsending my mes- sendingmymes- sendingmymes- ing my messenger senger [kai idov senger [idov ym __ senger [idov éyw [iSov dmtootéhAw ey@ amootehAw efamtootehAw TOV = amtoo TEAAW TOV TOV dyyehOov Lov]

21. Brown, “Mark as Witness,” 34-35; Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 423-24. 22. Brown, “Mark as Witness,’ 43.

4, MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 109

TOV dyyehov pov] ayyeAov pov], dyyeXov Lov] ahead of you

ahead of you [mpo ahead of you [po TpoCw@mov

TIpOOCWTOV ov], [mp0 Tpocw@mov cov], who will

to keep you on and he will scout cov], who will prepare your way the way [év th a way ahead of prepare your way ___ [KaTaoKevdoet

660]? me [émiBAewetat in front of you TH Odov]? OdOV TIPO [KaTtaoKevacel Tpoowmov Lov].” = Tv Od0v OOU EuTIpOOVEV Cov].”

Surely these agreements are not accidental; either Matthew copied from Mark, unhinged the two biblical citations, and used them separately in 3:3 and 11:10, or he relied on a lost text known also to Mark where the citations appeared in different contexts. It seems to have been the Markan Evangelist who combined them at the beginning of his Gospel, due perhaps to the shared word 060c, “way, and the references to John the Baptist. Mark thus was not quoting Jewish Scriptures directly but redacting the same source known to Matthew (inverted priority).*° MatT 12:30 < MARK 9:40; MATTHEAN NONDOUBLET BEFORE 10:42 (ONE NOT WITH ME IS AGAINST ME)

Matthew omits Mark's account of Jesus commanding the Twelve not to silence

a man outside their circle who was exorcising in his name (9:38-41), even though he must have been aware of it (compare Mark 9:41 and Matt 10:42). In 12:30, however, one finds a saying that stands the saying in Mark on its head.

Matt 12:30 < Mark 9:40 “The one not with me is against me, “For whoever is not against us is for

and the one not gathering with me us.” scatters.”

Mark’s more inclusive version probably is secondary insofar as he used it to conclude an episode in which Jesus permits someone other than his closest companions to exorcise in his name. According to Fleddermann, “It is more probable that an intolerant saying has been softened than that a tolerant one has been sharpened. ... It is easier to imagine a statement about Jesus being broadened to a statement about the community than to imagine the opposite

23. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 370.

110 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS development.’** Mark’s transformation from the negative to the positive prevented his using the second line about not scattering, unless he transformed it to “and the one not scattering with me gathers,” which is risible. MatT 12:32 < MARK 3:28-31 < MaTT 12:31 (SPEAKING AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT)

Matthew redacted what he saw in Mark 8:29 in 12:31 but knew an earlier version from another source, which he inserted immediately following.

Matt 12:32 < Mark 3:28-29 ( < Matt 12:31) “And whoever says a word against the “Truly I tell you that everything will be Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; forgiven the sons of men—their sins and whatever blasphemies they might but whoever speaks against the Holy utter—but whoever blasphemes against Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, nei- the Holy Spirit will never have forgive-

ther in this age nor in that to come? ness but is guilty of an eternal sin.’

Mark apparently recognized in a traditional and beautifully balanced saying a theological problem with forgiving blasphemy against Jesus, so instead

of “whoever says a word against the Son of Man [tov vidv tod avOpwrov]” he substituted “everything will be forgiven the sons of men [toic vioic tTdv avOpwnwv].? This is but one example of several where Matthew seems to have seen similar sayings in his two sources and yoked them together (Matt 12:31 from Mark and 12:32 from elsewhere). MatTT 12:38-39 < MARK 8:11-12 < MaTT 16:1 (NO SIGN FOR THIS GENERATION)

Matthew redacted Mark 8:11-12 in chapter 16, but earlier he included a similar saying.

Matt 12:38-40 < Mark 8:10-13 ( < Matt 16:1 and 4) [In the context of the Beelzebul con- Immediately, he boarded the boat with

troversy] his disciples and went into the region of Dalmanoutha.

Some of the scribes and Pharisees The Pharisees came out and began to

24. Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 158; see also idem, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 498-99. 25. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 581.

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 111

responded said, “Teacher, we want to question him, testing him, seeking

see a sign from you.’ from him a sign from heaven. °? But in reply he said to them, “Anevil | Groaning in his spirit, he says, “Why and adulterous generation seeks a sign, does this generation seek a sign? Truly

except the sign of Jonah the prophet. I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation: 40 For just as Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

He left them, again boarded the boat, and went off to the other side with his disciples.

Here is another example of alternating primitivity. In several respects, Matthew’s version is secondary: note the apparent addition of “the scribes,’ “evil,” and especially the reference to Jonah'’s three-day ordeal in the belly of the beast. In other respects, however, Mark seems to be secondary, such as the apparent addition of the opponents’ sinister intentions (“testing him’), the angel's point of departure (“from heaven”), and Jesus’ exasperation (“groaning in his spirit”). What is more telling is the refusal of Mark’s Jesus to provide his opponents a sign of any kind, in keeping with Mark’s theme of secrecy.*® Finally, Mark seems to have created from this logos a narrative logion by the addition of nautical narrative veneer. MatT 17:20 < MARK 11:22B-23 < MATT 21:21 (FAITH TO MOVE MOUNTAINS)

Matthew redacted Mark 11:22—23 in 21:21, but earlier in the Gospel he provided a saying that seems to reflect a stratum of tradition earlier than Mark.

Matt 17:20b < Mark 11:22b-23 ( < Matt 21:21) “For I tell you truly, if you have faith “Have faith in God. Truly I tell you, like a mustard seed, you will say to this | whoever says to this mountain, “Be mountain ‘Move from here to there!’ taken up and be thrown into the sea, and does not waver in one’s heart but

and it will move, and nothing will be believes that what one says will come to

impossible for you.” pass, it will happen for that person? 26. Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 132; idem, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 49798; Luz, Matthew 8-20, 215.

112 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS The version in Matthew is beautifully balanced and contains the simile of the mustard seed in contrast to the mountain. The one in Mark is clumsy, wordy, and prosaic because of his secondary elaboration on faith: “and does not waver in one’s heart but believes that what one says will come to pass.” MatT 18:6—7 < MARK 14:21 < MATT 26:24 (WOE TO THAT MAN)

In Mark 14:21 Jesus pronounces a woe on Judas that resembles Matt 18:7. Earlier Mark seems to have redacted a traditional saying about enticing “little

ones.

Matt 18:6-7 < Mark 9:42 < Mark 14:21 ( < Matt 26:24)

“Whoever entices one “Whoever entices one of these little ones who of these little ones who believe in me, it would believe in me, it would be more profitable for be better for him [kaAov him [ovygépet adto] éottv avta@] if a millthat a millstone were stone were put around hung around his neck his neck, and he were and he be plunged into cast into the sea’ the depths of the sea.

Woe to the world “The Son of Man goes because of enticements; as it has been written for enticements must concerning him, but come, but woe [mAnv woe [oval de] to that ovai] to that person man through whom [dv through whom [6v ob] ob] the Son of Man is the enticement comes.” betrayed! It would be better for him [kaAov avt@| if that man had never been born!”

It would appear that Mark divided a unified saying similar to what appears in Matthew and applied the second saying to Judas.7* Because Matthew redacted Mark 14:21 in 26:24, 18:7 should be considered a non-Markan secondary doublet. It is difficult to imagine literary dependence in the oppo27. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 807: “Mark’s ‘and does not doubt in heart but believes that what he says happens’ is an obvious interpretive addition to the saying.” 28. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 796-97.

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 113

site direction: Matthew saw the two sayings in Mark and not only redacted 14:21 but modeled 18:7 after it and attached it to his version of Mark 9:42. MatTT 20:16 < MARK 10:31 < MaTT 19:30 (REVERSAL OF THE LAST AND THE FIRST)

Matthew redacted Mark 10:31 in 19:30, but in chapter 20 he provided yet another instance of it.

Matt 20:16 < Mark 10:31 ( < Matt 19:30)

last.’ will be first.’

“So the last will be first and the first “And many first will be last, and the last

Because of the brevity of these two sayings, demonstrating the priority of one over the other is difficult, but it would appear that the perfect symmetry in Matthew is prior to Mark, who seems to have added “many?” MatTT 21:32 < MARK 11:30-32 < MATT 21:25-26 (REJECTION OF JOHN THE BAPTIST)

Matt 21:25-26 redacts Mark 11:31-32, but just a few verses later one finds a similar passage that may have inspired the Markan account.

Matt 21:32 < Mark 11:30-32 ( < Matt 21:25-26) “For John came to youina wayarigh- “Was the baptism of John from heaven

teousness, or from mortals? Answer me,” *! And they deliberated among themselves: “If we say, ‘From heaven, he will say,

and you did not believe him [ov« ‘So why did you believe him [ov«

émiotevoate avt@], but émotevoate avt@]?’ ° But if we say, ‘From mortals ...” They feared the

the tax collectors and prostitutes crowd, for everyone took John truly to believed him [éniotevoav avt@]; but be a prophet. when you observed it, you did not bother afterward to believe in him [tod TUOTEDOAL ADTA].”

29. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 692-93.

114 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS The version in Matthew can stand alone, but Mark embedded his in a dispute with “chief priests, scribes, and elders” (11:27). Matthew likely saw similar sayings in the lost Gospel and Mark and linked them with the intervening parable of the two sons (21:28-31). Luke 7:29-30 parallels Matt 21:32 and links it to John as a prophet, as in Mark 11. MatTT 24:26 < MARK 13:21 < MaTT 24:23 (“Lo HERE! LO THERE!)

Matthew redacts Mark 13:21 in 24:23 and just a few verses later presents the same saying with minor alterations. This seems to be another instance of the Evangelists yoking similar sayings from his two sources.

Matt 24:26 < Mark 13:21 ( < Matt 24:23) “So if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in “And then if someone should say to the desert!’ do not go out; “Look, he is you, ‘Look, the Messiah is here! Look, in the private chambers!’ do not believe _ there!’ do not believe it.’ it.”

Whereas Matthew's version says only that “he” is in the desert (but see 24:23), Mark speaks explicitly about “the Messiah.” Apart from this, determining which of the two is more primitive is difficult; even so, Matthew’s repetition of the saying just a few verses after his redaction of Mark’s version points to a combination of two sources.*° MatT 24:43-44 < MarK 13:35 < MATT 24:42 (COMING OF THE SON OF MAN)

This is another example of Matthew's yoking similar sayings from his two sources. In 24:42 the Evangelist clearly redacts Mark 13:35 about not knowing the hour of “the master’s” return, and the next two verses repeat the same saying, apparently from a non-Markan source.

Matt 24:43-44 < Mark 13:35 ( < Matt 24:42) “But know this: If the householder had known [ei det] in which watch the robber was coming [épxetat], he would have been on his guard and would not have let his house be dug into.

30. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 811.

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 115 Therefore, you also must be ready, for “Keep watch, because you do not know the Son of Man is coming [&pyetat] [ovK otdate] when the lord of the at an hour you do not expect [ov house is coming [épxetat]—in the eve-

doxkeite].” ning, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning.”

Mark apparently has transformed the trope of Jesus coming like a robber into his coming like the lord of a household, clearly a secondary improvement. MatT 25:29 < MARK 4:25 < MaTT 13:12 (ONE WHO HAS WILL BE GIVEN)

Matthew redacted Mark 4:25 in 13:12 but repeated the same saying in chapter 25 as the conclusion to the parable of the entrusted money.

Matt 25:29 Mark 4:25 ( < Matt 13:12) “For everyone who has will be given “For whoever has, it will be given to

and will be augmented; but from the him; one who does not have, even what he whoever has nothing, even what he has

has will be taken from him.’ will be taken from him.’

Matthew seems to have added the phrase “and will be augmented.” On the other hand, Mark's version seems to be secondary insofar as the saying no longer pertains to faithful stewardship of a bequest but to perception that Jesus is the light that has come.*! Those with ears to hear will be rewarded with additional insights. If Mark had seen the parable of the entrusted money in the lost Gospel, he would have had a solid ethical reason for omitting it: the master of Matthew's story presumably is Jesus, who has returned in judgment but admits to being a tyrant: “I reap where I have not sown and gather up from where I have not winnowed” (25:26). THE QUEST FOR EXPANDED MATTHEW Q (MQ+)

There is no reason to think that Matthew relied on a second source only in these cases of doublets and nondoublets. Three additional types of logia also seem to have derived from the lost Gospel: (1) logia in Matthew that seem to be anterior to similar content in Mark; (2) logia in Matthew that Mark may

31. See Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 855-56.

116 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS have radically transformed (secondary redactions); and (3) logia in Matthew that are entirely absent in Mark. The criterion of inverted priority applies to categories 1 and 2 but is irrelevant to 3 insofar as there is no second version available for comparison. The expansion of minimal MQ requires criteria in addition to inverted priority, which I now will refer to as criterion A.

Criterion B: Evidence of Tradition. Does the logion display evidence that Matthew inherited it and did not simply create it? For example, insofar as Matthew wrote after the Jewish War, logia that presuppose the existence of the Jerusalem temple are likely to be traditional.°?

Criterion C: Congruence with Minimal MQ. Does the logion conform to logia established on the basis of criterion A? This congruence might be in the form of distinctive vocabulary or theology, literary form, location with other logia from MQ-, or even information implied by it. Criterion D: Explanation for Mark’s Omission or Transformation. Can one explain why, if Mark saw a logion in the lost Gospel, he would have avoided including it or radically transformed it?

I will argue that several Matthean logia meet these criteria and should be added to minimal MQ to create MQ+. Because this assessment continues to exclude any consideration of Luke-Acts, MQ+ is not identical to the final reconstruction of the lost Gospel. MatT 3:1-6 < MARK 1:2-6 (INTRODUCTION OF JOHN)

It is one thing for Matthew to present Jesus reiterating his teachings more than once, but it is quite another for him to introduce new characters twice or to duplicate the same dispute. On a few occasions it would appear that, even though Matthew followed Mark's narrative sequence for a logion, he preferred another version of it, or at least included more primitive content to supplement Mark. For example, it would be unnecessary to introduce John the Baptist twice, so even if Matthew saw another introduction in addition to Mark 1:2-6, he

32. Matt 17:24-27 (the temple tax) is an exception to this rule.

4, MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 117

would have had three choices: (1) to ignore the second account, (2) to prefer the second account, or (3) to merge the two accounts into a hybrid. In this case, the Matthean Evangelist likely created a hybrid.

Matt 3:1-6 < Mark 1:2-6 [cf. -11:10] As it was written in Isaiah the prophet, “Look, Iam sending my messenger

[cf. 3:3] ahead of you, who will prepare your way. A voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘prepare the way of the Lord; make straight his footpaths.”

In those days it happened that John It happened that John the Baptizer was the Baptist and was preaching in the in the wilderness preaching a baptism wilderness of Judea, 7 saying, “Repent, of repentance for the forgiveness of for the kingdom of heaven has arrived.” _ sins. > For this is the one spoken of by Isaiah _[cf. 1:2] the prophet, “A voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make straight his footpaths.”

And John made his clothing from [cf. 1:6] camel hair, wore a leather belt around his waist; his diet was locusts and wild honey.

Then Jerusalem and all the region of And all the region of the Jordan and all the Jordan went out to him and were the residents of Jerusalem went out to baptized by him in the Jordan River, him and were baptized in the Jordan

confessing their sins. River, confessing their sins.

(cf. 3:4] John was clothed in camel hair, wore a leather belt around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey.

Insofar as MQ- 21:32 presupposes the activity of John and polarized responses to his preaching, Matt 3:1-6 would be congruent with the lost Gospel elsewhere (criterion C). Mark surely did not invent his depiction of John’s activities, for they generally agree with Josephus’s depiction of the Baptist. “He was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God” (A.J. 18.118 [LCL]). Of course, Mark’s indebtedness to traditions about John the Baptist (criterion B) need not mean that the source

of that information was a lost Gospel that independently informed Matt 3:1-6; to demonstrate this one must provide evidence for Matthean inverted priority (criterion A).

118 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Earlier this chapter discussed Matthew's citation of Exod 23:20/Mal 3:1 in 11:10 and argued that it was more primitive than Mark's use of the same conflated quotation in 1:2. Matthew likely omitted it in chapter 3 to avoid a doublet with chapter 11. Mark's use of Isa 40:3 in 1:3 is another case of an indirect citation. Both Evangelists quote the verse identically but deviate from the LXX. Although one might attribute these agreements to Matthew’s use of Mark, one could also attribute them to their use of a common source and not of the LXX/OG directly, as was the case with the quotation of Exod 23:20/Mal 3:1. In favor of attributing the quotation of Isa 40:3 to the lost Gospel is Mark's mistaken attribution of the quotation of Mal 3:1. It would appear that Mark saw the shared use of “the way” in two biblical citations in the lost Gospel and attributed them both to Isaiah (underlining in the following columns highlights agreements between the two Gospels agaist Isaiah).

Isa 40:3 Mark 1:2a and 3 Matt 3:3 Kad0we yéypantat év tT Ovtos yap éottv 6 Hoaia to mpepnty:.-. — pnVeic ota “Hoatov Tod. @wvl) BoWvtos év TH @wvl) BoWvtos év TH TpOONtov AEyovtos: EpNUw: ETOLUAOATE THV EpNUw: ETOLUAOATE THV @wvi) Bo@vtos év TH

OdOv Kupion, EvDELAG OdOv Kupion, EvDELAG EprUw: ETOLLAOATE THV

Toteite Tas TpiBoUS Tod Toteite TAG TPIBOUG OdOv Kupion, EvDEias

Deod NUD. avtod. Toteite TAs TpiBous QUTOV,

Furthermore, one should note that this passage “is the most complete and explicit citation of scripture in the Gospel of Mark. Other passages cite written scripture but name neither the book cited nor its author.”°’ Mark apparently

departed from the pattern because of his redaction of the same source that informed Matthew. The importance of these parallels for assessing the relationship of Mark to the lost Gospel can hardly be overestimated, as John S. Kloppenborg observed. [I]f the quotation of Isaiah in Luke 3:4 / Matt 3:3 and especially the Baptism of Jesus with its heavenly voice were included [in Q], it would be virtually impossible to avoid the conclusion that Mark was literarily dependent upon Q, since it would be almost incredible that two completely independent documents could both begin with the sequence of a quotation of Isa 40:3, John’s message of the Coming One, the Baptism of Jesus, and the Temptation.*4

33. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 135. 34. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 99.

4, MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 119

For this reason Kloppenborg thinks that the citation of Isa 40:3 and the baptism of Jesus did not appear in Q! It would appear, however, that immediately after composing his infancy

narrative, the Matthean Evangelist began conflating his two sources.°° Although Matt 3:1-6 redacts Mark 1:2-6, its presentation in some respects is more primitive than Mark. Thus, it also would appear that the Markan author saw in the lost Gospel two biblical texts applied to John, combined them, and put them at the beginning of his Gospel without recognizing that only the second of the citations came from Isaiah.*° This relocation of the citations created a notoriously awkward opening sentence: “as it is written,’ which is followed by an extensive quotation, and the completion of the sentence with “it happened that...”. The version in Matthew displays no such solecism. Furthermore, the Markan Evangelist not only relocated the citation of Isaiah to the beginning of his Gospel but delayed the description of John’s attire and diet in order to juxtapose his “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ and the residents of Judea flocking to him at the Jordan to be baptized, “confessing their sins.” John’s leathers and locusts appear more as a Markan afterthought. MatTT 3:11 < MARK 1:7—-8 (JOHN AND THE ONE TO COME)

Matt 3:11 < Mark 1:7-8 He responded by saying, “I baptize He preached, saying, you [BantiGw] in water for repentance,

but the one to come after me is more “One more powerful than I is coming powerful than I, whose sandals I am after me, the thong of whose sandals

not worthy to carry. Iam not worthy to bend down and untie.

35. See Catchpole, The Quest for Q, 70-76; Lambrecht, “John the Baptist and Jesus,” 357-84; and Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 25-31. Frans Neirynck argues that the parallels between Q and Mark pertain not to Q’s redaction but to its traditions (these objections appear in Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 268-70; see also Neirynck, “The First Synoptic Pericope: The Appearance of John the Baptist in Q?” ETL 72 [1996]: 41-74; and Ismo Dunderberg, “Q and the Beginning of Mark,’ NTS 41 [1995]: 501-11). Neirynck’s criticisms are built atop a wobbly foundation of a perceived but highly subjective distinction between tradition and redaction in Q. Unfortunately, he is not alone in minimizing the scope of Q's literary originality. 36. Matthew’s “sources are Mark 1:2-8 and part of the Sayings Source that presumably included a brief report of the Baptists appearance along with a scripture quotation from Isa 40:3. ... Matthew has woven together these two reports” (Luz, Matthew 1-7, 133-34).

120 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS He will baptize you in holy Spirit and I baptized [éBantioa] you in water, but

fire.” he will baptize you in a holy Spirit?

Matthew uses the present tense BantiGw for John’s baptizing, whereas Mark uses the past tense €Bantioa apparently to refer back to John’s activities in 1:4-5.°” Matthew states that the one to come would baptize “in holy Spirit and fire,’ whereas Mark lacks “and fire.’ Notice also that Mark places John in a more subordinate position. Matthew's John says he is “not worthy to carry” Jesus’ sandals, but Mark's Jesus says he is “not worthy to bend down and untie” them. Finally, it is worth noting that Mark seems to have scrambled the elegant chiastic structure of the saying found in Matthew.

A éy@ pév Duds PantiCw év Boatt cig WETAVOLAV: B 6 o& Omtlow Lov épxoplevos ioxUpOTEpds LOD EOTIY,

B' ob ovk eitl ixavoc Ta DrodHUata Baotdoat

A’ avdtoc Bamtioet Dud EV TIVEDLATL Ayiw Kal TPL. Mark restructured the saying to emphasize the contrast in the last two lines: “T baptized you in water, but he will baptize you in a holy Spirit.” MatTT 3:13, 16-17 < MARK 1:9-11 (BAPTISM)

Both Gospels narrate Jesus’ baptism.

Matt 3:13-17 < Mark 1:9-11 Then from Galilee Jesus arrived to John And it so happened in those days that at the Jordan to be baptized by him. Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee But John rebuffed him and said, “I need and was baptized in the Jordan by John. to be baptized by you, and you come to me?” In reply, Jesus said to him, “Let it be for now; for this is fitting to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then John allowed it.

After Jesus had been baptized, immedi- And immediately, when he emerged ately he emerged from the water, and from the water, he saw the skies ripped

37. According to Fleddermann, this change of tenses “signals a turning point” in Mark. “The baptist belongs to the past” (Mark and Q, 37; cf. Q: A Reconstruction and Translation, 222).

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 121 behold, the skies were opened for him, and the Spirit like a dove descending and he saw the Spirit of God descend- into him. ing upon him like a dove.

And behold a voice came from the And a voice came from the skies, “You skies, saying, “This is my beloved Son are my beloved Son; in you I take

in whom I take delight.” delight.’

Matt 3:14-15 clearly is a secondary explanation of why Jesus submitted himself to John’s baptism of repentance. Secondary, too, is the shift from Mark’s “You are my beloved Son” to “this is my beloved Son’; the private notification

has become a public declaration. In other respects Matthew seems to follow Mark quite conservatively, but two details in 3:16 suggest that he redacted a more primitive account. First, whereas Mark speaks of “the heavens ripped [oxiGouévouc], Matthew says the heavens “were opened [nvewy8noav]’ Either image is legitimate, but Mark's is suspicious insofar as his only other use of this verb appears just after Jesus’ death with the rending of the temple veil.

Mark 1:10-11 Mark 15:37-39 And immediately, when he emerged Then Jesus gave a loud cry and expired from the water, he saw the skies ripped [g&émvevoev]. The curtain of the sanc[oxiGouevouc] and the Spirit [tO mvedua] tuary was ripped [éoyioOn] in two, from

like a dove descending into him. top to bottom. Now when the centurion who stood

And a voice came from the skies, facing him saw that in this way he breathed his last [é&émvevoev], he said,

“You are my beloved Son [ov ei 6 vidcg “Oh sure, this mortal was a son of a god

ov]; in you I take delight.” [AAn9@>s odTOS 6 AvOpwros vidG Beod fy]!”?8

This congruence between the initiation and termination of Jesus career as the Son of God surely is intentional Markan redaction, and the verb “ripped” at Jesus baptism was necessary to alert the reader to the similarities. Matthew repeated Mark's reference to the ripping of the veil (27:51), but used a different verb for the opening of the skies at the baptism, perhaps because here he used another source in addition to Mark (criterion A; Matt 3:16 < Mark 1:10).

38. This translation takes the centurion’s statement to be a gloat, not an ironic statement of faith. See my Homeric Epics, 141-43.

122 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS Another indication of Matthean inverted priority is his statement that the Spirit descended “upon [émi]” Jesus, not “into [eic]” him, as in Mark. If one prefers Matthew's reading, Jesus’ visitation by the Spirit conforms with the biblical pattern of divine empowerment of prophets, such as Elisha in 2 Kgs 2:9b and 15: “Let there be double of your spirit upon me [mvebuati cov én’ éue].... And the spirit [tO mvedua] of Elijah came to rest on [ti] Elisha.”°? See also Isa 42:1 (God speaks): “Jacob is my child, I will help him; Israel is my elect, my chosen; my soul received him. I have given my spirit on him [to TveduUd “ov ett’ avdTOV]. He will bring justice to the Gentiles.” One might also consider Isa 61:1—2: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me [mvebdua Kupiov én’

éué], for he has anointed me. He sent me to preach good news to the poor, to heal those crushed in their hearts, to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, to call for the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of retribution, to console all who mourn.’ It would appear that Matthew retained the original preposition and that Mark changed it to “into,” perhaps to create the contrast with the spirit exiting Jesus (€fmvevoev) at his death. Finally, and perhaps most decisively, Matt 3:16-17 seems to preserve an allusion to the opening verses of Ezekiel in the lost Gospel.

Ezek 1:1, 3b, 28b, 2:1-3b Matt 3:13, 16-4:la < Mark 1:9-12 And it so happened in Then from Galilee Jesus And it so happened in the [kal éyéveto év TQ] arrived [mapayivetat] to those [kai éyéveto év

thirtieth year, in the John at the éxeivaic taic] days that

fourth month, on the Jesus came from Naza-

fifth of the month, and reth of Galilee and was I was in the midst of

the captivity at the river Jordan to be baptized by __ baptized in the Jordan

Chorab, him. ... by John. After Jesus had been

baptized, immediately he And immediately, when emerged from the water, he emerged from the water,

and the skies were and behold, the he saw [eidev] the skies opened [Nvoiy8noav oi skies were opened ripped [oxiCopévouc ovpavoi],andI saw [kai _ [TjwewyOnoav oi Tovs ovpavouc], cidov] visions of God ovpavoi], and he saw

39. Furthermore, “Jesus’ sojourn in the wilderness for forty days, during which time he is served by angels, recalls Elijah’s flight into the wilderness, where an angel appears to him and gives him food and drink, which enables him to make a journey of forty days and forty nights to Mount Horeb” (Yarbro Collins, Mark, 47).

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 123

[(Oeod]. ... [kai eidev] the Spirit of and the Spirit like a dove The hand of the Lord God [tod 8eod] came upon me [ém’ éue].

[Ezekiel seesanempow- —__ descending upon him descending into him [eis ering vision that results [ém’ avdtov] like a dove. avToOvV]. in his designation as a prophet.| And I saw, fell on

my face, and heard a And behold a voice And a voice [gwvn] voice speaking [pwvnv [pwvn] came from the came from the skies, AaXdodvtoc]. Anditsaid skies, saying [Aéyovoa],

to me, “Son of Man “This is my belovedSon “You are my beloved Son [vié dvOpwrov], stand [vids wou], in whom I [vids wou]; in you I take

on your feet, and I will take delight.” delight.” speak to you?’ And Then Jesus was led up And [kai] immediately the Spirit came upon [avnxOn] into the wilder- the Spirit [mvebua] cast me [kai nAQev én” éué ness by the Spirit [tod him into the wilderness. mvedua], lifted me up MVvEvLATOS]. [avéAaBev pe], raised

me, and stood me on my feet, and I heard him speaking to me. And he said to me, “Son of Man

[vié dvOpwrov], Iam [Jesus preaches repen- [Jesus preaches repensending you tothe house tanceandthecomingof tance and the coming of

of Israel” God's kingdom. ] God's kingdom. ]

The parallels with the opening chapters of Ezekiel are striking, more so in Matthew than in Mark. Notice the wording used for the opening of the heavens, for the reference to God's hand or Spirit coming “upon” the chosen one, and for the Spirit’s leading Ezekiel or Jesus.*? Because in some respects Mark seems closer to the biblical antetext (as in the opening verse), we have here evidence of alternating primitivity. It is likely that MQ imitated the empowerment of Ezekiel as a prophet for its model for the empowerment of Jesus as God's Son.

Even without Matthean inverted priority, other considerations make it likely that the lost Gospel included Jesus’ baptism by John. Mark is unlikely to have created Jesus’ baptism by John insofar as it might seem to make him subordinate and imply that he needed “a baptism for the forgiveness of sins” (1:4; criterion B). The ascription of the unit to the lost Gospel also satisfies cri-

40. See also Ezek 3:24: “the Spirit came upon me [én’ éué mvedua]-”

124 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS terion C, for without Jesus’ baptism it would be difficult to explain how he and John met, which is assumed later in MQ- 11:10 (see also —21:32). Yet another reason for ascribing Jesus baptism to the lost Gospel appears in the next unit in MQ+, which refers to Jesus as God’s Son. MatTT 4:1-2, 6, 11 < MarRK 1:12-13 (TEMPTATIONS IN THE WILDERNESS [)

Both Gospels contain similar accounts of Jesus temptations, but only Matthew provides the content of the dispute with the devil.

Matt 4:1-2, 6, and 11 < Mark 1:12-13 And immediately the Spirit cast him Then Jesus was led into the wilderness out into the wilderness. And he was in by the Spirit to be tested by the devil. the wilderness forty days, being tested

And he fasted for forty days and forty by Satan, nights and finally became hungry. ...

And he [the devil] says to him, “If you _[cf. 3:11, where “the unclean spirits”

are God's Son, throw yourself down, cry out, “You are God’s Son!” for it is written, ‘He will command his angels about you, and on their hands they will bear you, so that you do not

strike your foot against a stone.” ... and he was with the wild animals. Then the devil left him, and angels And the angels served him. came and served him.

Although Mark does not retain the content of the temptations, his reference to wild beasts in the wilderness apparently alludes to the two verses that follow the citation of Ps 90 (MT 91) in the second temptation: “And you will walk on an asp and a basilisk, and you will tread on a lion and a serpent. Because he hoped in me, I will rescue him” (90:13-14a [MT 91:13-14b]). Jeffery B. Gibson cites four passages from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs that evoke this psalm.*! For example: If you achieve good, my children, men and angels will bless you; and God will be glorified through you among the Gentiles. The devil will flee from you; wild animals will be afraid of you, and the angels will stand by you. (IT. Naph. 8:4)

41. “Jesus’ Wilderness Temptation According to Mark,’ JSNT 53 (1994): 3-34.

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 125

Gibson: In Psalm 91 the angels protect, and the beasts (and demons) are subject to those who, despite the danger and distress brought on by trusting God, still cling to him in love. In the Testament of Naphtali it is promised ... that the angels will bless and cleave to, and the beasts (and demons) fear, those who imitate the example of the patriarch’s devotion and “work that which is good.’ ... [I]n describing Jesus as being “with” beasts and angels consequent to his wilderness temptation, Mark is saying ... that it involved establishing whether or not Jesus would be faithful to God and his commands. ... Jesus’ being “with” the beasts most certainly meant that Jesus had somehow subdued them and that he stood over them as their master and lord.’

It is likely that Mark saw in a source that it shared with Matthew an allusion to Ps 90 (MT 91). He did not let the devil cite verses 11-12, but he did allude to verse 13 by placing wild beasts and angels at the scene. MatT 4:1-11 < MarK 14:32-42 [B] < MatT 26:36—46 [b] (TEMPTATIONS IN THE WILDERNESS IT)

Objections to M2DH's contention that Mark knew Q usually include this challenge: Why would Mark have omitted so much of Q? Two problems deflect the thrust of this objection. In the first place, it assumes that one knows what Q contained on the basis of Matthew-Luke overlaps against Mark, but we have seen that this position is debatable if not wrong. Second, this challenge often applies an anachronistic understanding of redaction. If one allows for a more plastic rewriting of sources, one that includes mimesis (rhetorical imitation), one sees that more of Q reappears in Mark than one might otherwise expect. When an author reproduces a source conservatively, it is a primary redaction [A]; when an author radically transforms an antetext, it is a secondary redaction [B] or an imitation. To say that a redaction is secondary is not to say that it is trivial; indeed, the opposite usually is the case insofar as the author meaningfully altered the target. At several points Matthew clearly took liberties in his redaction of Mark: the parable of the seed growing secretly becomes the parable of the weeds (cf. Mark 4:26-29 and Matt 13:24—30); the healing of Bartimaeus morphs into the healing of two blind men (cf. Mark 10:46-52 and Matt 20:29-34). Similarly, Mark contains radical rewritings of passages found in Mathew that provide additional examples of Matthean inverted priority. Insofar as Matthew, in turn, redacted Mark's

42. Gibson, “Jesus’ Wilderness Temptation, 22-23 and 31.

126 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS secondary redactions, it contains secondary doublets. This technical jargon describes a rather simple phenomenon: source < secondary redaction [B] < secondary doublet [b]. Mark contains a likely secondary redaction of the temptations, which further indicates his knowledge of the entire logion. His account of Gethsemane contains several tantalizing parallels with Matt 4.

Matt 4:1-3, 5-8 < Mark 14:26, 32-33, 36, 38 [B] ( < Matt 26:36-46 [b])*°

Then Jesus was led into [eic] the They went out to the Mount [eis t6 wilderness by the Spirit to be tested dpoc] of Olives. ... And they came to [neipaoOfvat] by the devil. And he [eic] the area called Gethsemane. ... °° fasted for forty days and forty And he took with him [mapadaupavet] nights, and later became hungry. ... . Peter, James, and John, began to break down and be troubled. ...

[The devil tempted Jesus three times. ] [Jesus prayed his prayer three times. And the tempter came and saidtohim, And going a little ahead of them, he fell “Tf [ei] you are God's son, order that on the ground and prayed that if [ei]

these stones become loaves? ... possible the hour might pass from him, saying,

And the devil took him along

[napakauBavet] to the holy city, put [The Mount of Olives was opposite the him on the tip of the temple and said to _ temple. | him, “If [ei] you are God’s Son, throw “Abba, Father, ...”

yourself down. ...” [He told the disciples:] “Watch and Jesus said to him: “Again it is writ- pray that you do not enter into temptaten: ‘Do not put to the test [ovK tion [un gAOnte eic Melpacudv]:” exttetpaoetc] the Lord your God.’ Again the devil took him along [napadkauBdavet] to an exceedingly high mountain [gic dpos].

In both columns one finds references to mountains, the Jerusalem temple, taking someone along (mapadauBavet), Jesus filial relationship to this Father,

and temptations. In Matthew, Jesus is tempted three times and resists; in Mark, he finds that his disciples had succumbed to temptation three times. If there is a literary connection between these two accounts—which is debatable—it is more likely that Mark omitted the temptations at the beginning of the Gospel because he planned freely to redact them later in his narrative. If 43. Matthew redacted Mark’s Gethsemane episode in 26:36-36, thereby creating a secondary doublet.

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 127

so, Matthew's presentation of the temptations in chapter 4 is anterior to Mark 14 (criterion A). MatT 4:12-13, 17 < MARK 1:14-15 (NAZARA)

Matthew and Mark both record Jesus return to Galilee, although Marks Jesus does not return to his hometown Nazareth until chapter 6. Matt 4:12-13 and 17 are tantalizing insofar as here again the Evangelist seems to have combined his redaction of Mark with another account of Jesus’ travels.

Matt 4:12-13 and 17 < Mark 1:14-15 On hearing that John was arrested, After John was arrested, Jesus went into he went off to Galilee. After leaving Galilee, Nazara, he went to Capernaum. ...

And Jesus began to preach and say, preaching the good news of God and saying, “The time has been completed, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has and the kingdom of God has arrived!

arrived!” Repent and believe in the good news!” The reference in Matthew to Nazara seems entirely gratuitous: Jesus goes

to his hometown and then leaves, with no indication about what happened there (Hi, gang! See ya later!). Furthermore, when Matthew refers to this village elsewhere, he spells it NaGapét (2:23; as in Mark) or NaCapeéO (21:11). Matt 4:14-16 consists of an extended quotation of Isa 8:23b-—9:1 and clearly is secondary. Its reference to “route by the sea” required Jesus to arrive as quickly as possible at “Capernaum by the sea.’ The reference to Nazara thus seems to have been traditional, satisfying criterion B, Matthew's debt to tradition.

Furthermore it seems to be congruent with MQ- insofar Jesus presumably returned to Galilee at some point in the lost Gospel (criterion C).** MatT 5:19 (OBSERVING THE COMMANDMENTS)

Matthew contains dozens of logia that are entirely missing in Mark that might be considered for inclusion in the lost Gospel, but only a few satisfy our criteria. Some of these logia presuppose that the Jerusalem temple and its activities are still intact, others depict Jesus in less than flattering terms, and others

44. It also is unclear why Matthew twice would have avoided references to “the good news, if Mark were his only source. Such references appear five times elsewhere in the Gospel.

128 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS present him making statements inconsistent with Matthew's own views. In such cases, Matthew likely relies on tradition (criterion B), and Mark seems to have omitted them (criterion D). The case for inclusion strengthens when the content is congruent with MQ- (criterion C). Only Matthew contains the following two verses, which directly follow the verse on the permanence of the law (MQ- 5:18). So whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches the same to others will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, and whoever does and teaches them, this one will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Truly I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:19-20)

The last sentence clearly is a Matthean creation. Note the intrusive new introduction “Truly I tell you that ...” and Matthew’s characteristic use of “righteousness” and the “kingdom of heaven.’ Furthermore, this sentence introduces the redactional antitheses that follow in which the Evangelist illustrates how Jesus followers should “exceed” the righteousness of the “scribes and Pharisees.*? But Heinz Schiirmann makes a compelling case that the first sentence followed the statement about the permanence of the law already in Q (MQ- 5:18).4° Note, for instance, the discrepancy between 5:19, which speaks of those who are least in God’s kingdom, and 5:20, which excludes people from the kingdom altogether.*’ The first verse thus may be traditional (criterion B); furthermore, it clearly appears in a context with other content that Matthew derived from the lost Gospel (criterion C).*° Notice also that the rhetorical pattern in this verse resembles that in MQ10:32-33.”

45. It is worth noting similarities between Matt 5:20 and Luke 16:15 on the righteousness of the Pharisees, which might point to the influence of a common source. 46. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur der synoptischen Evangelien (KBANT; Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1968), 132-34. Schiirmann’s claim, however, that Luke 16:14-18 formed a traditional unit that Matthew redacted and relocated fails to account for Luke's clumsy redactional bridge at 16:14-15, which links the theme of love of money in 16:1-13 with Jesus’ argument with Pharisees about the law. 47. Luz would call my reading of Matt 5:19 “a ‘half-radical’ attitude” to Torah observance insofar as those who fail to keep the lesser commandments will nevertheless be in God's kingdom (Matthew 1-7, 220). 48. “We may have here QM (Luz, Matthew 1-7, 213). 49. See also MQ- 10:38-39 and 12:32.

4, MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 129

MQ- 10:32-33 MQ+ 5:19 “Everyone speaks out for me before “So whoever relaxes one of the least

people, of these commandments ... will be

the Son of Man will also speak out for called least in the kingdom of heaven, him before my Father.

But whoever may deny me before and whoever does them, ... this one people, the Son of Man will deny him will be called great in the kingdom of

before my Father.’ heaven.’

Several scholars have suggested that the author of the Epistle of James knew Q. Compare the following.

MQ+ 5:19 Jas 2:10

“So whoever relaxes one of the least of | Whoever keeps the entire law but these commandments ... will be called stumbles in one [of the command-

least in the kingdom of heaven.” ments] becomes liable for them all. Mark may have omitted this verse because of its demand for Torah observance (criterion D). MatTT 5:22 (AGAINST ANGER)

Six times Matthew's Sermon on the Mount creates antitheses between Jewish customs and traditional teachings of Jesus. In at least five of the six Matthean antitheses the Evangelist used sayings from the lost Gospel. Antithesis 1: MQ- 5:23-24 (reconciling before sacrificing) Antithesis 2: MQ- 5:29-30 (cutting off offending limbs) Antithesis 3: MQ- 5:32 (divorce leading to adultery) Antithesis 4: MQ+ 5:34-35, 37 (not swearing oaths) Antithesis 5: MQ+ 5:39b-41 (going the second mile)

Earlier this chapter argued for the inclusion of Matt 5:23-24 (reconciling before sacrificing) in MQ on the basis of the priority of a non-Markan doublet. The verse immediately preceding it in Matthew has no equivalent in Mark but most likely appeared already in the lost Gospel. This is the first instance of an antithesis in Matthew, and it immediately follows Matthew's redactional setting: “Truly I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (5:20). “You have heard it said by the ancients, “You will not kill [Deut 5:18]; who-

130 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS ever kills is liable for the judgment [Exod 21:12 and Lev 24:17]? But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother is answerable to the judgment; and whoever says to his brother, “Raka; is answerable to the Sanhedrin; and whoever says, ‘Fool; is answerable for the Gehenna of fire.’ (Matt 5:21-22)

Matt 5:22 (“But I tell you...”) meets our criteria for inclusion in the lost Gospel. The untranslated Aramaic words paxd, “knucklehead,’ and yéevva, “Gehenna, suggest that it was traditional (criterion B). The verse nests among content from MQ- (criterion C, congruence), including the next logion, with which it seems to be intimately and organically related. Gehenna as a place of punishment appears three times in MQ- 10:29-30, and a similar command to forgive “a brother” appears in MQ- 5:23-24. The rhetorical pattern here is similar to that in MQ- 10:8-10 and MQ+ 5:19. Mark may have omitted the verse because here Jesus recognizes the binding authority of the Sanhedrin (criterion D).°° Matt 5:34-35, 37 (AGAINST SWEARING OATHS)

Mark has no equivalent to this logion, but it meets our criteria for expanding MQ.-. The author of the Epistle of James knew a remarkably similar saying.

Matt 5:34-37 Jas 5:12 “T tell you: Above all, my brothers and sisters, Do not ever swear an oath [uN Oudoat], do not swear an oath [un ouvvete]— neither by heaven [unte €v T@ ovpav@], not by heaven [unte tov ovpavov], for it is God's throne,

nor by the earth [pte év th yf], not by the earth [ute trv yfv] for it is his footstool,

nor [unte] by Jerusalem, nor [unte] by any other oath— for it is the city of the great king, Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. But let your word be ‘yes, yes, or ‘no, but let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ no [Eotw dé 6 Adyos DUA vai vai, od be no [ftw dé DUM®v TO vai vai Kal TO ov]: Anything more than this is of evil? ov od], so that you do not fall under judgment.

50. Luz attributes Matt 5:22 to Jesus himself (Matthew 1-7, 220).

4, MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 131

Unless one thinks that the author of James knew Matthew, which is possible, the overlapping content issues from knowledge of a shared tradition, either oral or written (criterion B).°! I would side with interpreters who suspect that the author of James knew Q.°’ The original saying likely evoked Isa 66:1: ““Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me?’ says the Lord.”

This logion also satisfies criterion C (congruence with minimal MQ) insofar as MQ- similarly presents Jesus intensifying some aspects of Jewish law, such as in 5:32 with respect to divorce. According to Lev 19:12, Moses commanded that if someone makes an oath in God’s name he or she make good on it, lest the holiness of the Name be defiled. Matt 5:34-37 prohibits the making of all oaths. Mark may have omitted this saying about oaths because of its reference to Jerusalem as “the city of the great king,’ which also is missing in James. By their time, the city lay in ruins (criterion D, explanation of omission).°° MatT 5:39B-41 < MARK 15:21 [B] < Matt 27:32 [b] (GOING THE SECOND MILE)

Matthew redacts Mark's setting for the crucifixion, but the Sermon on the Mount contains a passage that may well have informed Mark 15, another secondary redaction.

Matt 5:39-41 < Mark 14:65 and 15:20-21 [B] and 24 ( < Matt 27:32 [b])

“But I say to you not to oppose evil. And they began to spit on him, to cover his face, to beat him, and to say Instead, whoever slaps [pamiCet] youon to him, “Prophesy!” And the attendants the right cheek, offer to him the other received him with blows [fariopaotv]. as well; and to the person wanting to take you to court and get your shirt, turn over to him the coat [T0 iuattov] as well.

51. Luz, Matthew 1-7, 262: “Since the categorical prohibition of swearing is unique in Judaism, it probably comes from Jesus.” 52. For a helpful discussion, see P. J. Hartin, James and the “Q” Sayings of Jesus JSNTSup 47; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 188-91, who does not attribute Matt 5:34-37

to Q but to “the Matthean community” (148 n. 1). Luz attributes the logion to a source other than Q (Matthew 1-7, 260). 53. Similarly, Luke has no equivalent to this logion.

132 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS And they brought him out to crucify

And the one who conscripts you him and conscript [ayyapevovotv] to [ayyapevoet] for one mile, go with him carry his cross a passer-by, Simon of

a second.” Cyrene. ...

(cf. Ps 21:19 [MT 22:18]) And they crucified him, and divided his garments [td iuatia] by casting lots for them, to determine what each should take.

Mark here seems to have narrativized a saying similar to Jesus’ instructions in Matthew's sermon, where one finds references to slapping, sacrifice of garments, and conscription.’ Particularly telling is the presence in both columns of the relatively rare Persian loanword dyyapevu, translated here as “conscript.” The only other use of this verb in the New Testament appears in Matthew’s redaction of this passage in Mark (Matt 27:32 [b]). It also is missing in the LXX. Simon of Cyrene does what Jesus tells the disciples to do in Matthew’s saying. Mark’s reader might expect that, if anyone would carry Jesus cross, it would have been Simon Peter in obedience to the statement, “If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross [Apatw tov otavpov avtod], and follow me” (8:34). Peter had promised that he was willing to die with Jesus, but he failed to stay awake while Jesus prayed, fled at his arrest, and three times denied even knowing him (14:29-50, 66-72). It was not Simon Peter but Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross (dpn tov OTAVPOV aAvTOD).

MatTT 6:9-13 < MARK 14:35-38 [B] < Matt 26:38-41 [b] (DISCIPLES’ [LoRD’s] PRAYER)

The so-called Lord’s Prayer in the Sermon on the Mount shares several details with Jesus prayer in Gethsemane in Mark 14.

Matt 6:9-13 < Mark 14:35-38a [B] ( < Matt 26:38-41 [b])

“Therefore pray [mpooevynove] like He fell on the ground and prayed

this: [mpoonvyeto], ... saying [gAeyev], 54. For the concept of narrativizing, see William Arnal, who likewise observed this phenomenon in Mark’s creative redeployment of Jesus’ sayings, though not necessarily from Q (“Major Episodes in the Biography of Jesus: An Assessment of the Historicity of the Narrative Tradition, TJT 13 [1997]: 201-26).

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 133

‘Our Father [mdatep], who is in the “Abba, Father [6 matrp], you are able skies, —may your name be kept holy— __ to do anything. Take this cup from me,

let your kingdom come, let your will but not what I want [0éAw] but what [OéAnud cov] be done, as in heaven so you [ov] want.’ also on earth. Our day's bread give us today; And he comes and finds them sleeping. And he says to Peter, “Simon, are you sleeping? Could you not stay awake for a single hour? Watch and pray [mpooevyecVe] that and forgive our debts for us, as we, too, have forgiven those in debt to us;

and do not lead us into temptation [un you do not enter into temptation [un cideveykns DUG eis TelpacLOvV].” ciogAOnte eic Telpaopov].”

If there is a literary connection between these two accounts (the evidence is far from clear-cut), priority surely should go to Matthew.>? Mark might well have read the prayer to imply that Jesus had debts to be forgiven and was susceptible to temptation. In his transformation of the prayer into Jesus’ prayer

at Gethsemane, Jesus is obedient to the divine will, and it is the disciples who must resist temptation. This then would be a case of Mark’s secondary redaction [B] that created a secondary doublet in Matthew. The non-Markan Matthean doublet again is anterior to Mark. MatT 7:6 < Mark 7:24—-30 [B] < Matt 15:21-28 [b] (PEARLS BEFORE SWINE)

“The saying in [Matt] 7:6 has always been known for its obscurity.’>° “Do not

give what is holy to the dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, spin around, and tear you to pieces. The saying appears without a meaningful connection to the logion before it in 7:1-5 (the speck and the beam) or to the one after it in 6-11 (certainty of answer to prayer). According to the saying per se, Jesus audience likely is the Twelve, who apparently have been entrusted with knowledge of the holly,

metaphorically pearls, and is it likely that the reference to dogs and swine refers to people considered unclean to observant Jews. Two verses later one finds evidence of MQ- (7:8), so it is reasonable to suggest, as several scholars

55. “It is generally felt that Mark [14:36-38] echoes the Lord’s Prayer” (Brown, “Mark as Witness,’ 42). 56. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 493.

134 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS have, that the Evangelist also saw this saying in his non-Markan source. Ulrich Luz: “Matthew was a conservative author; out of faithfulness to his tradition

he included the saying simply because it appeared in his copy of Q?°’ The saying almost certainly was traditional (criterion B): “theologically it is not at all in keeping with Matthew” elsewhere.°® On the other hand, it agrees with MQ.- 10:23 (criterion C), which similarly implies a mission only to Jews: “You will not complete the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.” Finally, had the Markan Evangelist known of this saying, he would have omitted it insofar as he, like Matthew, promoted a mission to Gentiles (e.g., 13:10; criterion D). In fact, it is likely that he composed an episode to contradict it. According to

Mark 7:27-28, a Gentile woman compelled Jesus to exorcise her daughter, even though at first he demurred: “ ‘Tt is not good to take the bread of children and throw it to the dogs. She responded and said, “Lord, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s scraps.” As we shall see in the discussion of Matt 10:5-6, the parallels between Matt 7:6 and Mark 7:24—30 are far more extensive and support a literary connection. MatTT 8:5-10 < MARK 2:1-12 [B] < Matt 9:1-8 [b] (HEALING OF A PARALYTIC AT CAPERNAUM)

Matt 9:1-8 redacts Mark's story of the healing of a cripple in 2:1-12, but just one chapter earlier he presented another story with striking parallels to the same tale. If the parallels suffice to establish a literary relationship—and I would not insist that they do—it would be another example of a Markan secondary redaction [B], potentially another instance of Matthean inverted priority.

Matt 8:5-10 < Mark 2:1-7 and 10-12 [B] ( < Matt 9:1-3 and 6-8 [b]) After Jesus entered Capernaum [eiceA- After he again had entered Capernaum Odvtos dé adTOD cic Ka~apvaovy], [eioeAOov ... cig Kagapvaovu] for a few days, word got out that he was in a house. So many people came together that there was no longer any room except at the door, and he was speaking the word to them.

57. Matthew 1-7, 356. So also Georg Strecker, The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary (trans. O. C. Dean Jr.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), 146-48. 58. Luz, Matthew 1-7, 355.

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 135

a centurion approached him Some came [épyovtat] who were [mpoofAVev], exhorted him, and said, bringing him “Lord, my boy is laid up in my house,

a paralytic [mapadvtikdc] who suffers a paralytic [mapadvtikov] who was car-

greatly.’ And he said to him, I will ried by four people. come and cure him.” And in reply the

centurion said: Unable to bring him to Jesus because “Lord, Iam not worthy for youto come of the crowd, they removed the roof

under my roof [tv otéynv], but only [tv otéynv] where he was and dug say a word, and let my boy be healed. through to lower the pallet on which For Itoo am a person under authority __ the paralytic lay. [gEovoiav] with soldiers under me, and I say to one: ‘Go, and he goes, and to another “Come, and he comes, and to my slave: ‘Do this, and he does so.”

When Jesus saw their faith [miottv], he said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are forgiven.’ Some of the scribes were sitting there and deliberating in their hearts: “Who is this fellow who speaks like this? He blasphemes! Who is able to forgive sins but God alone?” ... “But so that you may know that the Son of Man possesses authority [e&ovoiav] to forgive sins on the earth, he said to the

[cf. v. 13] paralytic, “T tell you, arise, take your

pallet, and go home.” He got up, immediately lifted the pallet, and left

But Jesus, on hearing, was amazed, before them all, so that everyone was and said to those who followed: “Truly astonished and glorified God, saying,

I tell you, not even in Israel have I “We have never seen such a thing found such faith [aunv Aéyo duiv, tap’ _— before [A€yovtac dt obtws OVdETIOTE ovdevi Tooavtny tiotiv Ev TM “IopandA __ eidopev]!” evipov].

The similarities are spotty but substantial. Both stories take place in Capernaum; both involve a paralytic who remains passive throughout. In each case someone intervenes on behalf of a loved one and by doing so demonstrates faith greater than that to be found in Israel (Matthew) or among the scribes (Mark). The centurion in Matthew recognizes in Jesus someone with authority capable of curing his son with a word. Jesus in Mark demonstrates his authority to forgive sins by curing the paralytic. The other similarities may be coincidental or trivial (such as the references in both to a roof), but others are striking. If one story generated the other, the priority surely goes to the one in Matt

136 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS 8. Mark apparently transformed a miracle story into a controversy to introduce the controversies with Jewish authorities in the logia that follow. In his passion

narrative the Markan Evangelist would have a different role for a centurion (15:39). Whereas Matthew's Jesus expresses amazement at the centurion’ss faith (“not even in Israel have I found such faith”), Mark’s crowd expressed amazement at Jesus’ powers to heal (“We have never seen such a thing before’). MatTT 8:19-22 < MARK 1:16-20 [B] < Matt 4:18-22 [b] (CONFRONTING POTENTIAL FOLLOWERS)

Matthew redacted Mark for Jesus’ calling of disciples (cf. Mark 1:16-20 and Matt 4:18-22), but one finds Matthew’s Jesus later inviting more people to follow him. This second calling of disciples contains sufficient similarities for one to suspect that Mark generated his account by freely redacting a story similar to it.

Matt 8:19-22 < Mark 1:16-20 [B] ( < Matt 4:18-22 [b]) As he passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting nets into the sea; they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishermen for people.’

One of the scribes approached and Immediately they left their nets and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow followed [}KoAovONnoav] him. [4xoAov0now] you wherever you go.’ And Jesus says to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the sky have nests; but the Son of Man does not have anywhere he can lay his head”

But another of [his] disciples said to And going on a bit further, he saw

him, Jacob [James], the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; they were in a boat repairing the nets. “Master, permit me first to go and bury Immediately he called them; and they my father [tov matépa pov].’ But Jesus _ left [a@évtec] their father Zebedee says to him, “Follow me [dakoAovdet], [TOV Matépa avTw@v] in the boat with and leave [agec] the dead to bury their — the hired men and went off after him. own dead.’

In both episodes Jesus calls people to follow him, and in both cases they must leave their fathers. Curiously—and perhaps not accidentally—both epi-

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 137

sodes contrast or compare people to animals: in Matthew, Jesus contrasts his homelessness with the shelters of foxes and birds; in Mark, he likens people to fish whom Simon and Andrew one day will ensnare. Mark’s preoccupation with things nautical may issue from his indebtedness to the Odyssey, especially Athena's acquisition of a boat and a crew for Telemachus at the end of book 2 (2.383-387).°? MatT 9:9-13 < MARK 2:13-17 (EATING WITH TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS)

Matthew and Mark both contain sequences of four controversies: eating with tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:13-17; Matt 9:9-13), not fasting (Mark 2:18-22; Matt 9:14-17), gleaning grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28; Matt 12:1-8), and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6; Matt 12:9-14). Most scholars hold that the versions in Matthew and Luke merely derive from Mark, although Mark may well have inherited the four episodes from a lost source (criterion B).°° The four controversies seem to comprise a literary unity.

Matt 9:9-13 < Mark 2:13-17 And again he went out by the sea and the entire crowd came to him, and he And while Jesus was passing by from was teaching them. And while passing there, he saw a person called Matthew by, he saw Levi, son of Alphaeus, sitting

sitting at the tax booth, and he said to at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” He rose up and fol- him, “Follow me.” He rose up and fol-

lowed him. lowed him.

And it so happened that as Jesus was And it so happened that while Jesus reclining to eat at the house, behold, reclined to eat at Levis house, many tax many tax collectors and sinners came collectors and sinners too were reclinand were reclining with Jesus and his ing with Jesus and his disciples, for

disciples. many of them were following him.

When the Pharisees saw it, When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with tax collectors and sinners, they said to his disciples,

they said to his disciples, “Is he eating “Why is your teacher eating with tax with tax collectors and sinners?” On collectors and sinners?” On hearing

59. See MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 55-57. 60. “The fact that the rhetorical richness and elegance of this section exceeds that of most of the literary structures elsewhere in the Gospel [of Mark] makes it somewhat more likely that the Evangelist made use of a source consisting roughly of 2:3-28” (Yarbro Collins, Mark, 183). See also Joanna Dewey, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1-3:6 (SBLDS 48; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980), 41-55.

138 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS hearing this, he said, “Those who are this, Jesus said, “Those who are strong strong have no need of a physician; have no need of a physician; those who those who are sick do. But go andlearn are sick do. what this is: ‘I desire mercy and not

sacrifice. For I did not come to callthe I did not come to call the righteous but

righteous but sinners.” sinners.”

In several respects Matthew's version is secondary to Mark's, as one would expect. The Matthean Evangelist added “your teacher” in verse 11 and a citation of Hos 6:6 (“I desire mercy and not sacrifice”) in verse 13. On the other

hand, the Evangelist omits Mark’s statements that Jesus again “went out by the sea’ (2:13), “many of them were following him” (2:15), and “he was eating with tax collectors and sinners” (2:16). One might account for each of these omissions simply by appealing to Matthean redaction. Notice, however, that the logion also satisfies the criteria for expanding

MQ. Mark apparently did not create Jesus eating with sinners (criterion B), and this episode agrees with minimal MQ, where Jesus states why he “came.” The following passage (MQ- 10:34-35) uses the verb nA8ov with the infinitive twice: “I did not come [fAPov] to hurl peace on earth but a sword! For I have come [nA8ov] to divide son against his father.’ As we shall see, another passage in MQ+ (11:19) uses this language in connection with “tax collectors and sinners’: “The Son of Man came [nAQev], eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look! A person who is a glutton and drunkard, a chum of tax collectors and sinners [teAwv@v @iroc kai auaptwA@v]:” Here in Mark 2:17 and Matt 9:13b one reads: “Those who are strong have no need of a physician; those who are sick do. I did not come [NAVov] to call the righteous but sinners [4uaptwAovc].” If this passage did appear in the lost source, it would prepare for the flashback to Jesus “open commensality” in MQ+ 11:19. MatTT 9:14-17 < MARK 2:18-22 (NOT FASTING)

The second controversy in this sequence pits Jesus against “the disciples of John and the Pharisees,’ at least in Mark's version.

Matt 9:14-17 < Mark 2:18-22 Then the disciples of John came tohim The disciples of John and the Pharisees and said, “Why do we and the Phari- used to fast. They came and said to sees fast so much, but your disciples do him, “Why do the disciples of John and

not fast?” the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 139

And Jesus said to them, “The sons of And Jesus said to them, “The sons the wedding chamber are not able to of the wedding chamber are not able mourn as long as the bridegroom is to fast while the bridegroom is with

with them, are they? them, are they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they are not able to fast. Days will come when the bridegroom Days will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will — will be taken from them; then they will fast. And no one patches a patch from fast on that day. No one sews a patch an unwashed cloth on an old garment; — from an unwashed cloth on an old garfor its fullness tears from the garment, = ment; otherwise, the cloth that had not

and a worse tear results. shrunk tears from the other, the new from the old, and a worse tear results.

Nor do they cast new wine into old And no one casts new wine into old skins; otherwise, the skins burst, and skins; otherwise, the wine bursts the the wine is spilled, and the skins are skins, and both wine and skins are destroyed. But they cast new wine into — destroyed, but new wine into new

new skins, and both are preserved.’ skins.”

Matthew's redactional hand appears at the end with the tag “and both are preserved,’ but other elements in Matthew are more primitive than Mark. For example, Matthew indicates that Jesus’ interlocutors were John’s disciples; only in Mark are they joined by Pharisees. It is more likely that Mark added

the Pharisees than that Matthew omitted them insofar as Matthew is prone to add Pharisees to controversies elsewhere. Matthew lacks an equivalent to Mark 2:19b, in which Jesus answers his own rhetorical question, which seems to be a secondary feature: “As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they are not able to fast?! The all-important criterion C, congruence, also applies. Several aphorisms in the lost Gospel, like the two at the end of this logion, begin with a negative statement and end with a positive one, either expressed or implied. In our logion one finds “no one [ovdeic émtBardAet] patches a patch” and “no one casts [ovdeic BadAet] new wine.” Compare these with MQ- 5:15: “no one lights [obdeic kaiet] a lamp and puts it in a hidden place?

Most significantly, this passage anticipates the contrast between John’s asceticism and Jesus’ partying in MQ+ 11:18-19: “John came neither eating 61. Mark’s wordier version of the trope of the patch may be an explanation of “for its fullness tears from the garment, as in Matthew's version. He could have modeled his expansion after the structure of the trope of the wine skins: “otherwise, the wine bursts the skins.” However, one could also argue that Matthew simply tightened up Mark's saying about the patch and that the shared source was balanced, as in Mark.

140 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS nor drinking, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking [go0iwv kai mtivwv], and you say, ‘Look! A person who is a glutton and drunkard, a chum of tax collectors and sinners!’ ” MatT 10:1-4 < MARK 3:13-19 (LIST OF THE TWELVE)

Matthew and Mark both list the names of Jesus’ disciples but in different locations. Whereas Mark's list appears relatively early in his narrative, before the parable speech, Matthew's appears later in the narrative, after the Sermon on

the Mount and just before the Mission Speech. Chances are good that both Evangelists saw similar lists insofar as Matthew's bears signs of inverted priority (criterion A).

Matt 10:1-4 < Mark 3:13-19 He ascends into the mountain and

And after summoning his twelve summons those whom he wished, and disciples, he gave them authority over they went away to him. unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal every disease and every ailment.

The names of the twelve apostles He made them twelve, [whom he called

were as follows: apostles], so that they might be with

him and that he might send them to preach and to have authority to cast out demons. [And he made them twelve. ] first was Simon, the one called Peter, He gave the name Peter to Simon, and Andrew his brother,

and James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Zebedee

and John his brother, and John his brother,

and he gave them the name Boanerges, which is Sons of Thunder, and Andrew,

Philip, and Bartholomew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthew the tax collector, and Matthew, and Thomas,

and James the son of Alphaeus, and and James the son of Alphaeus, and

Thaddeus, Thaddeus, Simon the Cananaean, and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas the Iscariot, who also and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed betrayed him. him. The primary difference between the two lists pertains to the order and significance of the names Simon Peter, Andrew, James, and John. The first two

men appear together in Matthew, but in Mark they are separated by James

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 141

and John, presumably because Mark assigned Simon, James, and John more prominent roles later in the narrative. Also, Mark's Jesus gives sobriquets to all three of these men: Simon becomes Peter, and the sons of Zebedee become Sons of Thunder, “Boanerges.”

Mark’s depiction of James and John throughout the Gospel resembles Castor and Polydeuces, the twin sons of Tyndareus and Leda, also known as the Dioscuri, “Sons-of-Zeus.’® Zeus, of course, was the god of thunder and lightning. Mark earlier depicted the sons of Zebedee as fishermen who abandoned their father’s boat; the Dioscuri, too, were sailors. In fact, they were among the famous Argonauts who accompanied Jason to retrieve the golden fleece. A Homeric Hymn to the Dioscuri calls them saviors ... of mortals and swift-sailing ships when stormy gales rage over the ruthless sea. From their ships men pray to the sons of Zeus.

++* Immediately, they [the Dioscuri] bring to an end the gales of cruel winds, and spread smooth the waves on the expanse of the white sea. (Hom. Hymn 33.6-9 and 14-15)

It therefore would appear that it was Mark who added Jesus’ renaming the sons of Zebedee to an earlier list and in so doing placed Andrew in the fourth position. It is worth noting that, when the Evangelist first introduced these four disciples, he yoked Simon with Andrew and James with John (1:16-20), the same order that seems to have been in Matthew's non-Markan source. In addition to satisfying criterion A, Mark's list satisfies criterion B, evidence of tradition. Paul knew that Jesus had called twelve disciples, and it is likely that their names were widely known.® Insofar as only five of the named disciples play roles later in Mark, it is unlikely that he concocted the names of the other seven to compose 3:13-19.

The satisfaction of criterion C, however, is dicier. Apart from the name Matthew/Levi in MQ+ 9:9, the lost Gospel elsewhere never names Jesus’ followers, so any list of named disciples would seem be incongruent (no disciples

have names in the reconstructions in The Critical Edition of Q or Fleddermann). Even so, the author apparently knew that Jesus had twelve disciples,

62. For a more systematic treatment of this comparison, see MacDonald, Homeric Epics, 24-32. See also James Rendel Harris, “Sons of Thunder,’ Exp 3 (1907): 149-52. 63. See 1 Cor 15:5.

142 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS for he wrote that their master promised them that they would sit on “thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (see the discussion of MQ+ 19:28). Matt 10:5-6 < MARK 7:24—30 [B] < Matt 15:21-28 [b] (DO NOT GO TO THE GENTILES)

Only Matthew contains the following: “Do not go on the way to the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:5-6). Scholars long have debated if these verses were traditional or Matthew's creation. In favor of attributing them to tradition is the obvious disagreement between the command in 10:5 and 28:19, which explicitly sends the disciples “to all the Gentiles.” To be sure, both passages could

be Matthean: at first Jesus commanded the exclusion of Gentiles, but after his resurrection he made them the target of apostolic evangelism. It is more likely, however, that the Evangelist inherited 10:5-6 (criterion B, evidence of

tradition). The logion also is congruent with minimal MQ (criterion C). Here is MQ- 10:23b: "T tell you truly, you will by no means complete the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.’ Several details suggest that Matt 10:23 followed on the heels of 10:5—-6 in the lost Gospel. In the first place, in both logia Jesus addresses his followers concerning their mission to cities (moAtv / €v TH TOA et tavtn) and implies a mission exclusively to wayward Israel (11pdc Ta TpOBata Ta attoAWAOTAa ofkov “IopanA / tas tOAEts Tod *IopanyA).

Further evidence that Matthew found these two logia together in his source comes from the ending of the Gospel, where Jesus, after his resurrection, comes to his disciples, before they had completed their mission to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel? and sends them to the Gentiles.©

Matt 10:4-6 and 23 Matt 28:18-20 Jesus sent these twelve, commanding And Jesus approached them and spoke

them saying [Agyov], with them, saying [A¢ywv], “All authority

64. Of Matt 10:5b-6, Luz states, “The logion, which is not redactional, has come to Matthew either from his special material or from Q, but Matthew is probably responsible for the placement” (Matthew 8-20, 71). See also Wolfgang Trilling, who makes a strong case that the Matthean author must have inherited 10:5b-6 as a unit from a source, whose restriction of a mission to Israel he reversed in 15:24 and 28:19 (Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthadusevangeliums [ETS 7; 3rd ed.; Leipzig: St. Bruno, 1975], 100-105). 65. Luz provides a helpful overview of the options for connecting these texts in Matthew 8-20, 73-74.

4, MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 143 in heaven and on earth has been given to me. “Do not go into Gentile [€8v@v] routes, and do not enter a city of the Samari-

tans. So as you go [mopev0Evtec], make Go [mopeveo0e] rather to the lost sheep _ disciples of all the Gentiles [ta €0vn],

of the house of Israel. ... baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son [tod viobd], and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you. Look, Iam with you every day until the

And whenever they persecute you in this city, flee into another. ForI tell you completion [ovvteAeiac] of the age’ truly, you will by no means complete [tedk€onte] the cities of Israel until the Son [6 vidc] of Man comes.’

In Matt 28, “the Twelve” have become “the eleven” to account for the death

of Judas. Whereas in chapter 10 Jesus prohibited the disciples from going to the Gentiles, in chapter 28 he insists on it. In chapter 10 he promised that the Son of Man would return before the completion of the mission to “the cities of Israel”; Matthew's Jesus promises in chapter 28 that he already is with them and will be with them “until the completion of the age.’ Matthew conflated the endings of his two sources. From Mark he redacted the empty tomb story; from the lost Gospel he redacted sections of the mission speech, which he earlier had used in chapter 10. Criterion D here would require a plausible explanation for the absence of the logion in Mark. The explanation is transparent: the Markan Evangelist portrayed Jesus and the Twelve on missions that included Gentiles; indeed,

“the good news must first be announced to all the Gentiles” before Jesus would return (13:10).%

My student Ekaputra Tupamahu argued that the saying about casting pearls to swine in Matt 7:6, if it appeared in Matthew's second source, most likely appeared between 10:5-6. 5b “To not go on the way of the Gentiles [ut améA8nt¢], and do not enter [1 eiceAOnte] a city of the Samaritans.

66. These verses also are missing in Luke.

144 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS “© To not give [t1) d@te] what is holy to the dogs, and do not throw [undé BaAnte] your pearls before swine,

lest [mote] they trample them under their feet, spin around, and tear you to pieces. 10:6 Go rather [nopeveo8e 5é wGAAOv] to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

The first four lines all are negative aorist subjunctives in the secondperson plural. Notice also the sequence of three kinds of animals from the unclean to the clean—dogs, swine, sheep—which relate metaphorically to three peoples. When read together, these passages from Matthew suggest that Jesus referred to Gentiles and Samarians as dogs and swine and Israel as sheep. Matthew apparently relocated the saying about pearls before swine to the Sermon on the Mount where the canine and porcine allusions no longer need refer to non-Jews. Even though the logic of Matthew's new location is obscure, it allows for Greek wordplay. Matt 7:4—-5 three times uses the verb exBardAety, “to cast, picked up in 7:6 with undé BaAnte. The command not to give (un O@te) in 7:6 anticipates the heavy use of the same verb in the verses that follow: SoOrjoett, émdacet (twice), Sova, Swoet (7:7-11).” Mark seems to have opposed a tradition similar to what now appears at the beginning of Matt 10 and likely appeared in their shared source.

Matt 10:1b and 5b, 7:6, and 10:6 < Mark 7:24-28 He gave them authority over unclean spirits to cast them out [mvevudtwv dxatdptwv wote ékBarAetv avta] and to heal every disease. ...

“Do not go on the way to the Gentiles Jesus got up from there and went into [eig OOOv €OV@vV uN anéAONTE], and do [anhAVev eic] the region of Tyre and

not enter [gic ... un eiogAONTe] acityof Sidon. When he entered [eiceA Dav sic]

the Samaritans.... a house, he did not want it to become

known, but he was unable to escape detection. Immediately a woman heard about him; her daughter had an

67. So also Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 495. If Matthew were indeed responsible for the relocation of this saying, the juxtaposition of sayings similar to Matt 7:6 and 7:7 in Gos. Thom. 93 and 94 would demonstrate a literary connection between the two Gospels and not merely independent knowledge of similar traditions.

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 145 unclean spirit [mvedua dxadaptov]. She came and fell at his feet. The woman was Greek, Syrophoenician by birth, and she asked him to cast the demon [TO datpoviov ékBaAn] from her daughter. He said to her, “Let the children first be fed, for it is not good

Do not give what is holy to the to take the bread of children and throw dogs [totic kvoiv], and do not throw it to the dogs [tois kvvapiotcs BaAgiv].” [BaAnte] your pearls before swine, lest | She responded and said, “Lord, even

they trample them under their feet, the dogs [ta kuvdpta] under the table spin around, and tear you to pieces.... eat the children’s scraps.’ [Jesus then Go rather to the lost sheep of the house _ exorcises the demon. of Israel?

Here Mark's Jesus, by going into the region of the Gentiles, does precisely what he prohibited the Twelve from doing in Matthew. Initially he refuses to exorcise the “unclean spirit” on grounds similar to those expressed in Matt 7:6 about giving “what is holy to the dogs.’ Without directly contradicting Jesus, the woman expresses contentment with table scraps. As impressive as these parallels are on their own, they become all the more so when one considers Matthew's redaction of Mark's Syrophoenician episode, where Jesus states that he was reluctant to help the Canaanite woman because he “was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” a veritable quotation of his sending of the Twelve exclusively “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” in 10:6! In other words, Matthew apparently saw in Mark 7:24-30 a refutation of Jesus prohibitions in Matthew's non-Markan source. Here, then, is a case of Mark's secondary redaction of the saying about not going to Gentiles; Matthew adroitly merged the two contradictory texts into a satisfactory hybrid. He apparently knew of instructions to the Twelve that were more primitive than what he found in Mark (Matthew's inverted priority; criterion A). MatTT 10:9-10 < MARK 6:8-9 (INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE MISSION)

Matthew and Mark both contain instructions to the Twelve concerning what provisions to forego on their journeys. Although Mark's account seems to have informed Matthew in some respects, in the following parallels, Mark seems to be secondary.

146 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS

Matt 10:9-10 < Mark 6:8-9 “You should not own gold, silver, or He told them to take nothing for the copper in your belt [undé yadkov gic road [undév aipwouv eic 650v] except Tas Gwvacs]—no knapsack for the road for a stick [6a6dov]—no bread, no [ur mNpav eic OSOv], nor two garments _—_ knapsack [ut mhpav], no copper in

[undé dvo yit@vac], nor shoes [undé their belts [pn eis thy Govnv yaAKov]— brodrnuata], nor stick [undé paBdov]. to wear shoes [bDmodedeuevovus cavddAta] and, “Do not wear two garments [LN évdvoacVe Sv0 xit@vac]-”

For the worker is worthy of his food.’

Matthew's version is entirely in direct discourse, whereas Mark‘s begins in indirect discourse and awkwardly switches to direct discourse at the end. The

most telling difference, however, has to do with what Mark allows the missionaries to take with them. Like Matthew, he prohibits a knapsack, cash, and two garments, but he explicitly allows a stick and shoes. “A staff and sandals belonged so essentially to the provisions of wandering preachers that we can explain their mention as exceptions [in Mark] only as a deliberate modification of a previous ban on them.,”® MatTT 10:14-15 < MARK 6:11-13 (RESPONSE TO A TOWN’S REJECTION)

As we have seen, Matthew and Mark both contain speeches in which Jesus gives instructions to the Twelve for a mission, and, for the most part, Matthew’s version is secondary and displays no clear signs of inverted priority. The following parallels, however, suggest that Matthew here is prior.

Matt 10:14-15 < Mark 6:11 “Whoever does not receive you or hear “Whatever place does not take you in

your words, on going out from that or hear you, leave there and shake off house or that city, shake off the dust the dirt [yodv] that is on your feet as a

[xovioptov] from your feet. witness against them.” Truly I tell you: For the land of Sodom and Gomorrah it shall be more bearable on the day of judgment than for that city.’

68. Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 118. See also Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew, 102-5.

4, MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 147

The phrase eic uaptvptov avtoic, translated here “as a witness against them, is typically Markan (see also 1:44 and 13:9), and Matthew had no objection to using it when redacting Mark (Matt 8:4 and 10:18; cf. 24:14). In MQ- 10:6 Jesus instructed the Twelve to go only to “the lost sheep of the house

of Israel,’ and MQ- 10:23b stated that they would not have completed their mission to “the cities of Israel” before the coming of the Son of Man. If the first half of the verse appeared also in the lost Gospel, which is likely, the parallels with this passage are striking (criterion C).

Matt 10:14-15 Matt 10:23a “Whoever does not receive you [budc] | “When they persecute you [bude] or hear your words, on going out from that house or that city [ti\s mOAEws in this city [tf mOAet tavty], flee into

éxeivys], shake off the dust from your another.

ee Duiv] ...”

feet. Truly I tell you [Gunv Aéyw dutiv] For I tell you truly [aunv yap A€yw

As we shall see, MQ elsewhere contrasts Jewish rejection with acceptance among Gentiles. MatTT 11:16-19 (THIS GENERATION AND WISDOM'S CHILDREN)

Mark has no equivalent to these verses. To what am I to compare this generation? It is like children seated in the marketplaces, who, addressing the others, say: “We fluted for you, but you would not dance; we wailed, but you would not beat your breasts.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, “He has a demon!” The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, “Look! A person who is a glutton and drunkard, a chum of tax collectors and sinners!” But Wisdom was vindicated by her works. (Matt 11:16-19)

In favor of attributing this passage to pre-Matthean tradition is its unseemly portrayal of Jesus as a party animal (criterion B), and it is not difficult to speculate why Mark would have omitted it had he seen it in Q (criterion D). Most telling, however, is the compatibility of this logion with minimal MQ (criterion C). In MQ- Jesus is called the Son of Man (e.g., MQ- 10:23; 12:32; 24:44) and criticisms of “this generation” appear also in MQ- 12:39, where “an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign.” In MQ- 11:10, just six verses earlier in Matthew, Jesus praised John as the promised messenger. Finally, because Matt 9:14—17 likely appeared in its non-Markan source (MQ+

148 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS 9:14-17), the reader of the lost Gospel already would have known that John's disciples fasted. Jesus’ disciples, however, are like revelers at a wedding. MatTT 12:1-4, 8 < MARK 2:23-28 (GLEANING ON THE SABBATH)

So little distinguishes the two Gospels in the following columns that one might easily conclude that Matthew merely redacted Mark, but two details in Matthew seem more primitive than Mark.*

Matt 12:1-8 < Mark 2:23-28 At that time, Jesus went through grain It so happened that he was traveling fields on a Sabbath, and his disciples through grain fields on a Sabbath, and were hungry and began to glean the his disciples began to glean the heads

heads of grain and eat them. of grain as they made their way. When the Pharisees saw this, they said | And the Pharisees began saying to him, to him, “Look, your disciples are doing “Look; why are they doing what is not

what is not permitted to do on the permitted on the Sabbath?” Sabbath.”

He said to them, “Have you not read He says to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and those what David did when he and those with him were hungry, when he went with him were in need and hungry,

into the house of God, how he went into the house of God to

Abiathar the high priest and ate the and they ate the bread of the presence, __ bread of the presence, which was not which was not permitted him or those —_ permitted to eat except for the priests,

who were with him to eat, except for and he gave it also to those who were

the priests alone? with him?” Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are innocent? And I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. You would not have condemned the innocent if you had understood this: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice. [Hos 6:6]’

And he said to them, “The Sabbath came into existence for the human, not

For the Son of Man is lord of the Sab- the human for the Sabbath; so that the

bath.” Son of Man is lord also of the Sabbath.” 69. So also Pierre Benoit, “Les épis arrachés (Mt 12:1-8 et par.),” SBFLA 13 (1962/1963):

76-92.

4. MATTHEW’S NON-MARKAN SOURCE (Q WITHOUT LUKE) 149

Matt 12:5-7 obviously is secondary, including the use of Hos 6:6 (cf. 9:13), but Mark also contains a secondary expansion. In Jesus’ defense he cites the example of David and his soldiers eating the so-called bread of the presence. In the biblical account, it was a priest named Abimelech who accommodated David, but Mark called him “Abiathar the high priest.” This mistake is missing in Matthew, so either the Matthean Evangelist avoided the error in his redaction of Mark, which surely is possible, or he had access to a version without the error, in which case Mark would have created it. This seems to have been the case, for whoever first composed the logion seems to have consulted the text of 1 Sam 21. (Jesus even refers to reading the story rather than merely hearing it.) It is more likely that Mark created the mistake by not reading the text directly but by redacting a version similar to Matthew.”” The following columns dem-

onstrate the point: it is difficult to explain Mark's error if he had a copy of 1 Sam 21 before him, which the dense lexical parallels otherwise suggest.

1 Sam 21:2-6 Mark 2:25-26 He says to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and those with him were in need and hungry, And David goes into Nob to Abimelech how he went into the house of God

the priest [Epyetar Aavid eig Nouba to Abiathar the high priest [eiohAGev mpds ’ABiéAey TOv tepéa]. ... gic TOV oikov Tod Deod emi “ABiadap dpxlepéws] and [David speaks:] “If you now have five loaves of bread on hand, give to my hand whatever is found.’ The priest answered David and said, “I have no profane bread on hand; there are only

holy loaves. The young men may eat ate [Egayev] the bread of the presence [payetat], provided that they have [tTovs dptous Tis MpoVEGEews], which guarded themselves from a woman. ... | was not permitted to eat except for the [David gave them assurances that none priests, of his men had had sex for three days. ] And Abimelech the priest gave him the bread of the presence [kai €Swkev adt@ and gave it [kai £5wxev] also to those

"ABtteAex 6 tepeds tovs dptous TH*

3:19 The disciples of John came to him, and said, 5:33 “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”

3:20 And Jesus said to them, 5:34 “The sons of the wedding chamber are not able to fast while the bridegroom is with them, are they?

3:21 Days will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; 5:35 then they will fast in that day.

3:22 No one patches a patch from an unwashed cloth on an old 5:36 garment; otherwise, the cloth not shrunk tears from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results.

3:23 And no one casts new wine into old skins; 5:37 otherwise, the wine bursts the skins;

54. Compare Gos. Thom. 47 and 104.

5. THE LOGOI OF JESUS (Q+) AND ITS ANTETEXTS 209 it is spilled, and the skins are destroyed.

3:24 One should cast new wine into new skins.” 5:38 Logois Jesus here distinguishes the conduct of his disciples by comparing them to male celebrants at a wedding who cannot fast until the bridegroom “is taken from them,’ Clearly, John was not the bridegroom; Jesus was.°°

3:25-29 (6:1-5; MQ+ 12:1-4, 8). Gleaning on the Sabbath

3:25 It so happened that 6:1 he was traveling through grain fields on a Sabbath, and his disciples were gleaning the heads of grain and eating them.°°

3:26 And the Pharisees said to him, 6:2 “Look: why are they doing what is not permitted on the Sabbathe”

3:27 He said to them, 6:3 “Have you not read what David did when he and those with him were hungry,

3:28 how he went into the house of God, 6:4 took the bread of the presence, ate it, and gave it to those who were with him— bread that it is not permitted to eat except for the priests alone?”

3:29 And he said to them, 6:5 “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

Here the author of Logoi explicitly refers to David’s eating the bread of the presence in 1 Sam 21:2-6. Prohibitions about working on the Sabbath appear

in Deut 5:12-15; according to Exod 21:12-15, the penalty for violation was death (all. [B]).°”

3:30-33 (6:6-7, 9-10; MQ+ 12:9-14). Healing on the Sabbath

3:30 And he entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, 6:6 55. Luke uses this pericope as a model also in 19:1-10, his story of Zacchaeus (a secondary redaction). 56. On gleaning in general, see, for example, Deut 23:25: “If you should enter the crop of your neighbor and gather the heads of grain [otayvuc] with your hands, you should never carry a pruning knife to the crop of your neighbor.” 57. One also might observe that Deuteronomy encourages the gleaning of crops by the needy, but says nothing about doing so on the Sabbath (23:25-29). It also speaks of food reserved for Levites (18:1-5 and 26:13-14).

210 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS and behold a man was there with a withered hand.

3:31 And they were observing him closely, saying, 6:7

3:32 And he said to them, 6:9 “Is it permitted to heal on the Sabbath?”

“Who of you who will have an ox and it falls into a ditch on the Sabbath will not grab it and bring it out?”>° And they were unable to respond to these things.

3:33 He said to the man, 6:10 “Stretch out your hand? And his hand stretched out and was restored like the other one.?®

The author of Logoi repeatedly alluded to the LXX/OG to portray Jesus in continuity with and superior to characters in Israel's past, including the prophets presented in 1 and 2 Kings. As we have seen, the call to follow Jesus in Logoi 3:7-12 (9:57-62) imitated the call of Elisha in 1 Kgs 19:19-21.°? Similarly, the healing of the man with a withered hand seems to allude to 1 Kgs 13:4-6. King Jeroboam of Israel built an altar at Bethel that “a man

of God” denounced. The king stretched out his hand to order the prophet arrested, “and behold, his hand withered, the one that he extended against him” (13:4). Taking this as a sign of divine disapproval, Jeroboam ordered the altar destroyed and asked the prophet to heal him. The man of God “returned the hand of the king to him, and it was as it had been before” (13:6). Logoi presents Jesus performing a similar miracle on the Sabbath.

1 Kgs 13:4-6 (imit. [A]) Logoi 3:30-33 (6:6-7, 9-10) ¢ King Jeroboam builds an altar at Jesus is in a synagogue. Bethel.

¢ The king stretches out his hand to A man is there with a withered hand order the prophet arrested, and it with- — (yeipa éywv Enpav). ers (€&npavOn r yelp avtod).

¢ The king destroys the altar and asks Jesus orders the man to stretch out his the man of God to heal his hand. “He hand. “And his hand stretched out and returned the hand of the king to him, was restored like the other one. and it was as it had been before.’

Both stories involve conflicts with authorities; both involve a man with a withered hand; and in both the divine agent heals the extended hand. Jesus

58. Cf. Deut 22:4. 59. The command not to greet anyone on the road in Logoi 10:10 (10:4) may allude to a similar command to Gehezi in 2 Kgs 4:29.

5. THE LOGOI OF JESUS (Q+) AND ITS ANTETEXTS 211 here plays the role of “the man of God,’ while Jeroboam’s role is split between the man with the withered hand and Jesus’ opponents who object to his heal-

ing on the Sabbath. After a useful discussion of Jewish legislation against healing on the Sabbath, Yarbro Collins concludes, “In light of these various traditions, the portrayal of the opponents of Jesus in this account implies that they intended to accuse Jesus of deliberately profaning the Sabbath or working on the Sabbath. In principle the penalty for this offense was death. In practice, a scourging was the more likely outcome.”®? 3:34-38 (6:12—-16; MQ+ 10:1—4). The List of the Twelve

3:34 Jesus ascended into the mountain 6:12

3:35 and called his twelve disciples. 6:13

3:36 Simon, the one called Peter, 6:14 and Andrew his brother, and Jacob, and John his brother, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Thomas,

3:37 and Matthew, and Jacob the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus, 6:15 and Simon the Cananaean,

3:38 and Judas the son of Jacob.®! 6:16 The reference here to Jesus and the Twelve ascending the mountain imitates Moses’ reception of the torah for the twelve tribes of Israel on Horeb (Sinai); what follows in Logoi is his Inaugural Sermon.

Deut 10:3b (cf. Deut 9:9; imit. [A]) Logoi 3:34-35 (6:12-13) “And I [Moses] ascended into the And Jesus ascended into the mountain mountain [kal dvéBnv eis TO Opos].” [aveBbn dé cig TO Spos]. Deut 1:23b-24 (imit. [A]) “And I took from you twelve [Swdexa] and called his twelve [Swdexa] dis-

men, one man per tribe, and they ciples.® turned and ascended the mountain [avéBnoav eic TO Spoc]-?

In this second passage from Deuteronomy, Moses speaks proudly of having selected from each of the twelve tribes “men who were wise, knowl-

edgeable, and understanding, and I set them to rule over you” as judges

60. Mark, 208.

61. For the three instances here of IaxwBoc I prefer the transliteration Jacob to the translation James. 62. See also Deut 5:1: “And Moses called all Israel and said...”

212 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS (1:15-16). Jesus’ selection of the Twelve, however, has nothing to do with their wisdom and everything to do with their ability to plow for the kingdom of God without looking back, not even back at their families. Later Jesus gives thanks to his Father for having revealed mysteries not “to the wise and understanding [cog@v Kai ovvet@v]” but “to children,” apparently a reference to the Twelve (10:26 [10:21]). The contrast with “the wise ... and under-

standing [cogovc ... Kai ovvetovc]” men from each of the twelve tribes chosen to be judges (kpttaic) early in Deuteronomy probably is no accident. It also is worth noting that at the very end of the lost Gospel Jesus promises these same twelve less than brilliant men that they would be judges of Israel: “Truly I tell you that you are the ones who followed me; my Father will give you the kingdom, and when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory, you too will sit on twelve thrones judging [kpivovtec] the twelve tribes of Israel” (10:61—63 [22:28-30]). 4. THE INAUGURAL SERMON AND THE CENTURION’ 'S FAITH

Chapter 4 attributed twenty-seven verses in the Sermon on the Mount to Matthew's second source, which strongly suggests that a similar discourse appeared in the Logoi of Jesus. On the basis of similar criteria, I will attribute to the lost Gospel the following logia from the Gospel of Luke's Sermon on the Plain.

Luke Description

6:20-23 Beatitudes

6:24-26 Woes

6:27-28 Love your enemies

6:31 The Golden Rule

6:36-38 Being full of compassion like your Father

6:39 The blind Leading the blind 6:43-45 The tree is known by its fruit

6:46 Not just saying Lord, Lord Except for the woes, all of these logia have parallels in Matthew, but in a dif-

ferent sequence. CEQ and Fleddermann reconstruct the Inaugural Sermon on the basis of Matthew-Luke overlaps and generally favor Luke’s order; my reconstruction, too, prefers Luke’s sequence, but not consistently because of my use of alternative sequential criteria. Sequential criterion 1 (identical order in all three Gospels) is useless insofar Mark contains no extensive equivalent to this discourse; his alternative discourse is the Parable Sermon in chapter 4. Mark was less interested than Matthew and Luke in Jesus’ sayings and more interested in his deeds as evi-

5. THE LOGOI OF JESUS (Q+) AND ITS ANTETEXTS 213 dence of his identity as the Son of God.® Criterion 2 locates units attributable to Logoi that appear only in one Gospel relative to other traditional content in that Gospel. Accordingly, the woes that appear in Luke should follow the

Beatitudes, and the following logia unique to Matthew should appear in Matthean sequence.

Matthew Description

+5:19 Observing the commandments

+5:22 Not speaking in anger

+5:34-35, 37 Against swearing oaths Criterion 3 (agreements in order between Matthew and Lukes independent uses of the lost Gospel) is indispensible for rearranging the Inaugural Sermon. Four logia satisfy this criterion. (The symbol “>” means that the Lukan version reflects a textual stratum more primitive than Matthew.)

Matthew Luke Description

5:3-12 >6:20-23 Beatitudes 5:44 >6:27-28 Love your enemies 7:1-2 >6:37-38 Not judging 7:21 >6:46 Not just saying Lord, Lord Criterion 4 compares logia to biblical antetexts that may have informed them. After Matthew's Sermon on the Mount one reads of Jesus healing the son of a Roman centurion; similarly, after Luke's Sermon on the Plain one finds a version of the same story. Although it is possible that Luke merely parroted Matthew's sequence, a parallel sequence in Deuteronomy suggests that the units appeared together already in Matthew’s second source, viz. Logoi. On the basis of these four sequential criteria, one can establish the following literary structure, which criteria 5 and 6 will augment.

Matthew Luke Description Criterion satisfied

5:3-12 >6:20-23 Beatitudes 3 6:24—26 Woes 2 +5:19 Observing the commandments 2 +5:22 Not speaking in anger 2 +5:34—35, 37 Against swearing oaths 2

63. On this issue see Léon Vaganay, “L’Absence du sermon sur la montagne chez Marc,’ RB 58 (1951): 5-46, and “Existe-t-il chez Marc quelques traces du sermon sur la montagne?” NTS 1 (1954-1955): 192-200.

214 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS

5:44 >6:27-28 Love your enemies 3

7:1-2 >6:37-38 Not judging 3 7:21 >6:46 Not just saying Lord, Lord 3

7:24-27 6:47-49 Houses built on rock or sand 4

+8:5-12 7:1-10 The centurion’s faith 4

Criterion 5 evaluates divergent sequences by preferring the one that displays less redactional manipulation. Matthew's editorial activities in the Sermon on the Mount are more radical than Luke's, including its secondary relocation of the entire sermon to the beginning of Jesus’ career in Galilee. Furthermore, to expand the discourse the Matthean Evangelist wandered through the lost Gospel foraging for additional material. Luke's location of the sermon later in Jesus career and his shorter version thus display inverted priority to the Sermon on the Mount as a whole. For the most part, Luke’s sermon also satisfies sequential criterion 6 insofar as it is more internally meaningful with other content from the lost Gospel than the Sermon on the Mount.

The order of logia in the Synopsis (see end of this chapter, 411-504) reflects the application of these criteria and anticipates the discussion of the sequencing in the discussion of the textual reconstruction. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION

4:1-4 (6:20-23). Beatitudes

Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Lukes Sermon on the Plain both begin with beatitudes, but Luke surely preferred a version that he saw independent of Matthew.

Luke 6:20-23 ca QO oS) oe . : 5 = = = on FE Ao N | Y

o

© ) 0 P e v v br —

> . ot c3S 1B ~O > 3 S O b Al

S&S

S

ce] 2 a} S| >| Of © = g Blea & e a1 S| Ss es 5 6 = 3 Hg al we ae Sl. E | G@ 3 Ee? &] 3) 8 Ese 3 of ES} So 7 2 So] OF: So} OF “4 a > 3 Setadtas ax 5) 3 3 we Sse a eo se oF So a S 2) Sel 8 iS

‘: re S S Bf S 3 6

eM Eo 7 ae aa ec qo Sb ~D

os wool ec} olS|&-2-—gervgay aSout arte 5s el ale 3

je)

”

S

re

S SrtA =| ~D 4 °—04:— El. 5= .hn]0in = aS 5 3 3 be «> © wT Ss > a = OYbo a4 $

=< -

O Go Ywv PB =v8 Q .pS “Ooao oS & 3 Qs ZB ©

“aK 8 S| a SS 6 SE

= =oSWw c pr} S Sfta«mw ex S Sy 2= i«#&& [== > aw Toi Yeo J Bo8"rm 2oNPg 8

Q. “we CO] wl 3 = Ln 5 ~ ~ FO = P2eS} -al Sls ee] 22° oS _so cD KR] 0) ro) ke “> Ae =2 ao*2 eliSa} bio) z©*O ° Pp 2%Ss} (oe) cD “D OO =©

3 8 Ss S=“al 3ol 2] a”75S 3Oo] 3S BWwo & ae. & —" co} of & oO 3) 8) a ae a9 Yo oe a5) an 3 D> _=— < =235 e foo) 2) >| Oo 5 S| S 2S s & in

wo S27a9dsSs Sees a

> © > > < oO ;CO] aw~wOQ. ofro2|wae : ey) E> © ro) © ReDO

8 yr a a S e 5 © } ‘3 e3 m © Q| 3 5 Z] wy 3S ay pF org at se Ae g| S 3 ‘Ba “OD 5 >| oo 8 oO . Ut ~S “ 3 2

br

< Oo ol — om 2} DY: ‘o} * & boda F&3go ga &Gos S|> wD ‘EeD| & -©|oJbS|baO° E =2 6a0) Oo S| A 3 5 a db = re 3 Se} wD XS OD 3 3 2 @| 12D A} © 7) 2a] .. S| of = ce) ce} oO =| c& ke O oon= e < E 2 © R io) oo . =T°esas eo) a25spARZt “> 3 a) ° © FR ro} ro ie)8 Tes S25 ne 3 oF an - 3 - Yr - O | ro “< ro} B

s ea yy 2 lsd © ~ > o> 7] O Oo} oO Oo & S- wl OS a Ss

2°S of“= ra pC Hepes x=—— : r= .sgMyagqe «inSeago © Sm -oe 2E> St°ZB s@eaSaL 'aS us) a—_ < Rl OP = fe .-ro Plo HF al S)

= eee 5 = SEs $= | < 2a ‘am sage io)3B ° =: J0) Fey. yrs3

SoS .>

.QO. eS) 3| S) 3 < rS Ze) = 5 aS 3 ‘pe ‘SS 3 S 4 Ss 5 gt Tt] s E 2 sEqrvaggass > — 6) sey ey oe ec Ro} > ent—£ a~D 5S >

S. NeH 5 Sso) 2 4ES 3 Oo 24 SF 33 a wf 8 E . 4 ls se) o a

>| w 3 S 5 3 rv ne Pp EF eS _oy 2© 4 8e>| -=SF -5|© 5x57 > io} a)[=od oEay< : =co = Y can -O5>‘53S .= ce ie El es 5 oO} 2D an) 8) ro 2 re ld a2 PlwD >

EF ET els °2 soso 3 at©: a5oO of El a| 2‘S} S| =5} 2a} .S|| J53d ) os oOo Sf S| a} OS & 3 q| s

48 Z|fo) Oo “al 5 ~Q) o, 3. A . ~O) >io) ae) < °se) lend RD) “Ol=al-sO an 5 5 oe 5 R “& =3=

3mn“| od«© . 5&on =“eT S| ‘ _eS) —gSf 32 a) am oS) is S| gf3a ~ SS 7SOa 5S "3 “ol SZ} RI 40) , oOo BF 33 0

22 3. NS3 a) . :

S: £ = Ss wo a SC] Sl -< in fe) oS} | -O = = PD Oa er =S 422 s| ea 5 3sas | 2) ROE =3 yeaa a Jey eSAo Sg og gRE6“|) -d Sr xf Bl CO) Ea}Ss. J 242593935 >S5ns5 aY oF Yo 2| 5) eg tal F395 §& © & be 3 ~ g tao fFaS FQZGO4 S— ee. 6 et oa Se >|HE >| & =b2

fF Fk S aon 4SC} 5]OAs 3} 2]cr - 2D S LO “D 8 x S| “a 5 es 5>= °°ot “2S| 3 ron oF as Sl. & ol “0 4 = | 5 Sslan EB © & “© 2 < > o) cc > _. a: > 3 ~“O9 if ~O) rR v eC

rQ or 5 — “| 22) pe} aew eS°%3 S= =>4\o — 33bs Ss _ Oowf 5) 1 -S Fy 3 ~O| ~O bh b | e. o< oe ro) 5} 5 —© Ppa ro) > 3= 2Od)

pa] at "3 —P Oy " > -vv aD) ceeMF a} ~OO 7p TS] for

> oa ° ° 3 > ael«S|]= |g 3 yan) aa |ot ‘e| = “4 < -S a) m od “S Ss ie be 3S © ~O >| = Fe & “>| = 3 OS 3 3Oo} < NS 2 © ; . Cc oe

eeeRgyeesagasas Ol w Oo L ‘OD > a ~© SEggs ast gae 42 gq = 3 el or Sl 34493 3S Fl s| a Ss85§33 2453 sca

rb SoS < Wl of -9 clD)P|”BIS 2D E QDeg SS > FIA & < €'S 2 < RS; . 3B . | 2| = E v LS

2a)SS py wwoe) E 6D Ps O (o) = . —_ wo 3 s 5 -o tb 2 < > So al N > 3 ea

Oo 358®aa3 sl} a oo 2 AY 5a zs pz SAW Ssb eu ®9

+ i os B > Y| - qo 5 DD ROU!

ao) 3 “So Ww: “CO ° > < © IN ed : om | OQ.

2 o| al Be sya Z Sl as oe 4s s aes oyBbFE x >>ao2m = 2 n> be sf > ro) -O rD co Oos

sO} of Uy} © @OU >| aCY eo SS & x= 5~ So) a | & = 6) is g

Qt To) 2 S — 3 © 3 wD o—_| ~_ S a VvVW¥w— “OO ‘~ *o

Ys. 45 oGata fe 5Oo 2sSY -fog)

Ss x >| sf&El 3 a+FOogagaéd +S5 ol Dl weoO iS) >|Ja 4 P| 2 ooo Oe CO can re)

wen © ~O| ~2 ‘co ce) ie xB) > ep] 22 yg oH

= is ec oe SO

$6 ey S| 5} 2

a oO > Ol

© Ps io) >yBe ve ” =) So

° X we oom hl on aS o)

‘2 °> P =>© > “D ‘5 2g aof5) oo s5 s} © 5 *O 6 2 S 2b Bo ~0)Pog De wD] —| | Os Ee BS) ‘| > S| oO] Cc] osZs Ra > gS Bae sha 2 © «e 3 Jsp3HE FF Bap SH 2&3bl°S3 |at5‘S| OP > oTeb RAR &ow S&S&a & 5)DD = > 6 oc oO, ol “2 Y ro} 5 | 3 bl oD: 2: ~~ 3 mM 6 3ae =H (a)oO] an) fon ‘oo ¥1D«58— oo “D =>| Oo ~DI © Y o jo) xSs*wg a) ©-O| ~~ 2-:Oo O 2 Gs

o) Oo] we -O oa) Ra > ~m™ 3 R oe) eeOo o) -O eI oa) sd So &: S|= OD Y es=}im PF1s) —

acS 2) F 555 Sy ~ e| 2 wD >

a33>Z0e a

Sl] 2 2OwD a° S56 8e8 Dd .~e EE 3B ro) © Cc e Q. O5S —Fa — oS] FD 5 oo F > . —_ 3 ra) > | coe °O ro a pnd D> Cc — xO > 5 oo >| 3-a & io)SS] © oP 3 °2 FB 3 ex «E uw& o jee) 3 Je as see 3325.8 cl “| at act a 8 SET. Rw SoS SS bo ro} Be:&6— o >Fe sl x3 & OO iSCo) poe F>RS MOB oY ~O Ss r— >: “© «© > ©Seyeoee . - Ae) a} -Oo| eo em) RO Sgr savy o22 S| fb43a BE sles Say FS fo 3JBOR SD qea SssetSez sR Ee

: S a) oe} 3 > yas 7DB]S a = wr ?es ERs OD BUrRsaSe FaD

a Ss mo) OT) ey Ud Ss a] a1 aa — FS © O23 3S BS} A eye as©eSzwHe SaPe i PSsveegeys

©Ss 13 ages ~ S258 Se5T ES dw’ : ba N&oe © “Q) w58aoeo S~O |+a) “Sl! A Ze} Fol ) Sand rraeasador & le)

os 3 =] > -O P 3 OE Ss ~ ro} e ro} 3g © i Z Co ay Ss Z| xDa& hm]

E = > Ss + eee . fo) . 3) SE OS

om 2 b nO) b = ss or O & a a3 < 25 we ro) B QO Fea asada WZ JOo] 2 55 a8SZ El Slo8a PQ FE Zuo

ke > = é yas | & bk "a S b 3 o~ 3 te) e| 62B] “00 S| ss © ~0) | Oo oO io ‘5 ‘5 bl -D

v>. — OB e — 3 awd [INDD > 5 3D >| =| & oO} -al ro © rb rt SS)

Na ~ ms 0

ol | -©t— xe} ©-O>>>bh ro} “QQ be a) fa) ee) E > DD > © 5 oe oe) S}lod 23 “> oto~2a 309be83eB om b> S us — + s aD ~O| S zw OB c-o cD is) > 8 ~D CY ~O) rs; P}v-OS > 3wc]FOsas -O|&-Dmp wDa «4 bo @Dcc] 3 i)o Ww oo, C=] b4 ~on bf 2] eroRm noOl a4F&F o0™ =a Ol-O] FI 2Ssa ao SY S&F OS m] N+2 b

y5=

=: be ~CO| t= 6 oe io) io} a Oo oD: = ; so Fr | Us b ©: ea) BD od 2 2 8

s ~O0: >. oO ft 3> Ow 5R = be coed > > © “Q) a ae Oo 2 oes ut Ss a3s o'S:S2) a 5©Qc CO: =:= S S3 gS 3e O: =Oo =) “Oo Ee = eoO] Ss o: A e Se wi = a >: & = SW FOF AF 3 8 ~Q): =) — D R ° [aa >we scr©b:i):_© Ut io) >> aa 5oS: =>YY BS @a&: bo 3MW Q -— oo28 S&S 6: 13. “2: © 4 3B 78 3 rE 6 een ¢2 fy ee & e Ss 8 E: =s . er Ss cd] WW “O x OC 5 as SS 0D 5) " ©. Se co. bk ~O) OE Oo —; Yy ans S: Ss00: s°>©e 2|>gs «© g =~O: S Y~SDBs 2;2 8 & ggsee Hoge S eogs \. bl ° . = — “ SB sSSes oe & gHseez © e329 o ce S de 6 & “al cS} 6 Boa eS & N ae = Feo 2d6 2 9 >| >| 5 SxS & st Sea = § 3 Gl -ol -& = J eeca ses 23

> DOD > 0. Pe S gees & So s S af ee Fas . St ‘S| 5 eS =: 8 gf £ERae, 4 4 é |g ee eee ee, io)ge g27 435 : .2 a ny z 99 _~ ee) ro}5. eo) . — ~ ¢88 OD “OD es a2 | 22ag Eas : 2 e 2 = i< = S 3 2. Oo 6 — -E s) o 6 nod 2

SB 6>ec— °>w QW OO fFOQ) ° c7)> ona == ee — — a) = an) om 2 Ss = O P iy : ~O) oS aw 3 “> = ~O lod — 2: co g © S 28 2aq8 ees} J 2 § 5} 2 o R: O 22 olal 5 As = aSO S 7alZW A wr PF & SoogatSS RISe3 N + < ce: an &EY "2 so] 3sf = ‘© Bo. 24“ol y= re

ae Saga oy 3-3 3 2,48 ¢ | 2 5 aS

3 > gs . > P > no} oS a8 — ead ea . .¢ ro}

>

So :

4 © b wD > . Oo — ; ® y > v G a 3: 3 Pp} 5 2 8 3 238 5 > b = . J £3 s ° e RE i= 3S ee > 2 5 FB =} ma — 0. “OD oe . a 2 > .o = p a) rR . pe _ ® 2 Css ) 3 > Ss; ° 3 Tear oe} u“ ‘2 y-O3a Ste SB“O a~OeaZ io) re3 “—: °OBO - om) — CO. ¥. =:

DE =| © . “—=3 2iw; > & ° »y Sa]5 Sg:S|a 6> 3= 32 a1 33=Vaan SoS BS 86 5| SG 3S353 CS osb 8Ee:aS ro} OB = ‘o)32: >“DD © 3 Ys|— 3un re “> foe) bEuwMeRR >| 5© sk gees zae eioreod©Ss 33s = foCe) aD ox eo} Zr SS SE

Ho pO S go Ss =] Sw ss

S : > 2 => ra o 3 . O pb k agS| OS eoea] sa T38dg g3 i> moSG 1 DD S| ., “| OF 5 = aera os gS 6 3 a] oO s S| © BS 3 > — lo) is8) > ~O i — > : ea b3 ‘3«> — Pp >>oS 2-O ow O --ol > |g:~0 OO [ad r—| >| S| S > bY Sl 3, rR D es) oS a} 80 2 E Ra) oa So] el. ‘S| ar Ss N “ol Rl al 2 2 Fa as “2 cn e 4+ OF as BS oO

2

S :| al=Ee

wD] 5 a 5 . Oo Ly io) ©: > > = e OQ a ~© —s os 3 © sD +O 2 > 2 S == 2 S ; =~ ©

2 SO: & x Ze Ho 8 Bl wy SF SS 0. 2 Ss] oO SS © | aj OO 0) 2 -OcsBvo rs}S5 3ie)oO is 3 o S| = “D S = ol b = s] Oo 33 | “= 7) 5 a = a a 3 o > ee no i) S > | a oO E N Se SF oo Ss 5 Bo §& Siadaeea soe ery os a ae Q Sp Fy SB & es gHgegag et Sa dS J BMst Tl gePtXt Boe sg me TO! st 0of5)*S Zwwi omSw © oarFo Lyaz GF

Jad 2 » € BES 258 Se b = el eo Bs oF ea: ES

e 2 8:&>, OD = Z 3 S$ Jz Be , ge O rm 5 . “2 re) 3

4 im so: Fl mw oO oO YI FR

2 ie

oevv 3]0—) PR 5) S|SF 3 5o3 x=©=3OD] ~2 >a) ° © = io) iS) Bb S| “1 5 o| 2 ol 2 © Q 2 | coe

. ~O Q - cea “ Od

we s: =k-O| xOS OlI > 6n bio) Ss>FE El -6 o|=“al 5s} S So zs Bl Dl

“O] -6 3S 3os 3 v&bl. oO oO © “S a} -O -OHS] Bb}gl a] 22 Fo ‘g| 8 al oS 9) = gears OS RO BBEF a)- g25 a‘B

4 Bl “oO > Jee zs Sg F2nH 2 t F) ay 'S S| 8 = D °° aa) — ~D os Oo ~ & “2 3 BF 3 332

ao DP S sxofl YB o |oO]6 SSOo += ] oe ros 6say wlCD: o @ fF 8 se a} Sl os > “Fae agaee ezdlgstseyz sas ’s as Fo FOS R a eS ts! | FeCH Pata Elavi Sy} ~ So) =] «& 6SS 3S ee CO EE a OoBat 3} 2]alRX 3S O cS} >| ro}a©s

se qegytygegeyggage (NOD) 7 — S~s|©=

i~

AI -o ODO Bs] S| ol“OS wt Ol“0 1 “sl‘el “1 \O S| os S< ~O «Dd = 3UC 3 Y| 22:

i>ON U4

co

“\o

YX,

2 e ‘5 oO) e = 4 > sSag¢egag g = 3 O < zal e| © Oo co] as 33 io =

ra _ 2 3 = gga 55 JSs, &£ 3S a] 22 a] 3 east a x So Z| a] BF < ce} Ol > 2 =| © Wo = > + aah ae =| 8} S >| Fl 3 oc} oO} gf 6 2 ed

oO : 2} | 3). o|a]©b&b ‘2 B| *oY S 6wD] a 5 2P|‘=So s| a~o=e&b > sa w| 3| iq -O] + 3 lo) Q ca oO wD © > > a) ww 2> wt Ol “WH Q@ eS 3 FS Co] & 5 oc] O 5233324 | “2 2) rs) be a) s0) 3 ‘5 c lo ro) cD WG — 5} “©432 be 3 . 329 G32455 3323 + SB a ° 2} . 8 S Ad S| ot Sl Oe =| cd a id — 3 Ol -OD © o = a cs br 32 + Fa oOo = & : al < © cb al B Ol 6 a w| e;5YO of bk cO < ao \snd san) 0 4 io) < 2 P| xD 7 —| © al 6 =| -D 5 3 land c= ~, 3 “< o ao S| =

wm o)3a O ro} a5) o EL P BF a >=|Bl 5a} o= 33D>Bl a> |3CQ] “oO so & EF Eeee 3 a3=Oo pl5 >| wtHE 2)a al . S| -a} og a SM oS 3s PD = of ol 5 a of “SS EI SB Sg g S| 2 %QO i, aAlSo =| Ao gOS 2 e489 8d dead a as ays “=| 3] cs) v7 | = 2 3 2 ot Oo 3 SA “Sp 4H So 2s ats TZ Gs id wl ol 1 “wl co Sl DA El ol a e VY @ &

oy Bb — a= ~O O R R to «

5 | = 5 ~ 5 =e Pp © 6 bl bk © rd Oo > oS©=o.

wD: = > 42O Zl O: "R o} 3 eoO} O©on0)4So} = : S “Bl Oo )RO Roy nC} 6.a3=OaSb reO 2re) co :ES o}52> Py) ao El S| ct O: > Heel So ad a a] © ost iS . | 2 =| al a] ol & ae Ol “B E > a of 2) LS 6 2 5 x 2 og OF fd oY Ug 8 yy > > we ~ Oo} EP] ‘wo =| GO . 3 0 R or Fl Dd BS) cel 3 6 & > eas oy A s EB) | & im am) © ) Jeelaew seh des S = 8 o. 2 .5Q© 7) YZ = >| 20] 7 oD O° Pros — e 5 0 a) a ~O “0 r= rR & iS) sg 5 S w “< am) =o ss >4-aeel 3FT S| ~O OO Res) 3y oe) . 3« = e) Oo] -o 3 Dl v D> oD od B® a i dS) o ne >| oo S Dl oy ke sa oO b&b Y eq. Y Nome ol . ~O| ©>e -| “Sl ofVR = o 6UMCUY = ae s) & =3 = a>b a“2> 6Fe5g

bk rw> >

62 Ze)

x °D aw D&D

3 2 Sc = © QO “< 5S Ss 2 =e Oo -O =e > to nm4m+

“OO >| < Wo) oH 0 5 a) -O] 3 = 8 Y = >) > = “+ > © 7 P|) + 42& & S] s| 5-oS ec 3 oO = a)

eo) Y es)

OD Sx .

GS 5 § 8am = S gs > = Ea Sa < ~~ 3 r ro} an) oe = ww Oo = Cc io} 3 3 Goan S 7 S) i, 70) ian . 8 WN 2S 8 a cn) “olmDO conmy SF eft a a s+ vp8)el-ofeS AN Y

2D OQ . : = Oo [ad : = ao Ss Ds = Ss < 8 Y S 3 > cc _ (sr © 3 be 3 NS S_ SB > 9 o > ‘eo ge 2s < a coc 5 > > S S2eR¢8 2-2 § 8 39) n= ~ cc = = 2 2 > wf cae b Ns ay 3 > © raat ~ Ww eo ~O) 55 |.e 3B © ao0)53© ro} °. QO no = S— al OC om3° 3e| or 3em Ss oe |— a5"3 GREEK SYNOPSIS OF LOGOI AND THE SYNOPTICS A419

oa 3 °IN , =o=cc* ’ Bb

ajeou Gg & as) |oO YP83oad *> Ss Fr oO oO q Z., o Sur oy o 2S 5 oS oc = ~ ~ 23 = < 3 2 q g rr eezA . & a0 = = 3 ~ Malo. aS 0 Oo & Y S) i i o> be we o) wz \0 QoOD Pk LA 52,RSats voPD 3s 2 5CSBD 3 w& S aS246

&3

xT ~O Pp 2) b “D = 5 38) o} b — A) > 2 « > br

— 2>S3aoseq 6: Oo io) - roSn ©3 “b- 3BS = s+ 3oZ|a3} gS mM Sa>°>: =Y>Ce

s 3B. e boo 3 BS} p 4 — ss Ooo = co Siqgz & a5 FB

‘ee abst3°acoO aS:“oo =© 2 a5) as nes Ww MY =o Sw [o) Q. a) oy Z GB 7< lo) Md domed eas > R 3 Sy o a) So| fo’

a F sa eS -S 2 > S30 Fs] SC OS aoe 3 52 So > 4 ‘oO -D vb > 32 > > 3 slo W o -~ oO 3 > & x So PD QO > oD WOW Ss; oo ~

(an 3 ag DD wD& cP) =B oS=2s J)3ww OO > ol ol al Aga a 2 |Ss3= -wd Ss 242 2 oy > al P C] Shao no Ges 80 DB —

cc > . . >

oO 8S 6 > oO 3s Eb oa ® © Bf QO. 3 “00 a = S&S 0 =< = wr o) xy -O 3~O) = ©olend ~w

5o)>-5=~ Y 5 os rs 5s p re wD oO 2 « Naf 5 sO p wr O&O ke [ed hd — > 6 FP “> fe 3 3S °S O° Oo Gr &°ro) >_~ oo. 2 .: oS = & Yb FCaowry oO 00 > -2D 0 lo) ~O ~> a vw. 2 fo} S 3 bk au 8 Ss) »fio} -< £302 8e 5 e« oe oa 2 be aay) 3 > 3 — ro cd “> ” oO ot50): - Q. © oO) Cc7 Re —we Ss 5 2 = eeG6r FHS ke OO lo) > Vy 4 “\ S 5 Qo a a) S > Oo WwW P ~O ol Ss

S8©a

~O ws XR DB 0 be =RSE 3 & 2 5a > peo AF eH S 3| > 0) 5 3c rE 38 2 U: rR 4S oy 6 2 Z Ps -O Xe} a AB fs i SSS 84 Ss

S w, > _ -O OQ. © is} Ne) " Pp be R sr Y OO wD _~ 5 | ee 8 2 & sf 68 U s e “< 2 =— 6 5 o< wD Ss OS re} oO . © oe) 3 oO? TF SF Be © 0 = [= vy 5 ros * ow ° o -

2 b \o B 2 = | x Y 5 OD FSH Se a} *O > Oo © 2 *2 > 5 SP + FS FS ye © S =~ => 3=Go:=8re) rao 3 3 2 eB = >| 6 3 S«& o ek wa if > we cD 3 rR ~O [8] = oO D> ~O «> aed CO Gc Rbtal =S| S -S gBS GoeFR oO2> re owtb Oogso WM, s2 wz — cs: gs & ee) & 5 S ss weeps Jeg Oo 5 ax = ¥ 8 = 8 6 Sale cS E OS 3. Sr = oO — ra DQ 1.235 6 oS | 8 > So cEs Eig ocog JES 23 c & nO)! Yoie —=i N —— oa INSe 35 xwo ze iM 2D Fo95 FF.¥ro’ olloO a“>2 SE

3Es .38°32>5®&oOio .Po~24.S 5. 2 ;2.GH ot oe ©= rFdass Ss DB YW Q ipPF ea S> ‘3 | oe = > = Ss sr "Ss > is8) c 2c 3 =a YY

363 FP oS >«© aa Sa“0==‘A ©»SsOd. -FBUE fs eso 5 2 2 5 2 ogee MeO OD FO2 = a of ye 2 See YOR > om FS EB OO Oro F 2 fo) ~ OD 3B 2 2. © Age S22 s & 6 e Y Do Fs oe ~D >& eCPras °olels Fb OOo ~H aaF&F WY s Oo S > 3 c 5 be g eS S fs ae S|. ae) = OD Ysa)a~OSa3B=a =2=‘slg c 3° wD 6SBoe ze Oo © o [ad “& O 3 «)

© > ro) ° BS} a2OD 3 ee) a lw iN 5 © “S| 38 2 Ss} 8 © P oy ie E 3 5 5 2 S go S| 5 bd — WB = © ‘= SO] cb = > < io) a) ef} & 5 ve) 2D = ocb adiotays egesess 3 Jy Ss 88 °ZOoe + moreso. Oo 262Poss 2kLS Zool >~o:Qlie}- ww) y 3od>Oo Dl=Ol — io) oC B ne 2 3 =2 i)©WS *S 2 ~2 (se)“Oo > ow>

Sade y4a Gb FS BB Stoaa8aoOogas 5 ML aag.s 2 'E]dia 2 st OfBE “SoGaga ¥ oSI o)saEot oDFSOw Mo ET w& Hq soo eZsfow DAasBE a SCH 4 BUN

2 D> —8 © ~ OO! > 3 : Faas : 32 g3 ate 2age de Z, ao sagygh gah 90 . 3} © 2 6 ceo & wa oS

oe me DN “WD eS cc SB SM SD YN OD FBT YH SF] QAO as ol w o

ro) ~ . S wD So > Pp < 4 > > | 3 OL sor SF] cS) wo e al -s © ol 2 b>|— “2 rQ) R@ R "rR “w- ~5-sea) S ol a OF a Sf Sa a. =ogP z

Pa ra)OC4dio) 2 S22 4 ara)(se)

bksad aw -=< OD oOOpOU@#rR 3 oe) o< Bo e ioe) 523 Bo >|a)& -: oa=3=< Fb Ss S| ro) =< 2 o od > SwarKc FER FT e- “ol > oa} fl .

a) | =aemMF-EueaaAaAgaeaTAOAaA FT Fs

3 8 =sg Qnea78 0 3s 5 N | eS 3 | ee) /5eo]> Od Qe a Q 6 a, ee © OF 3 wy OCU I< Sy rsre “>© > 2D © & we

, , FJ 2 Fe Oo 3 5 S im Os a] © / 7) El D > be is) > co}§ Sf 6 sor ST} Sl Bw4“Bl 2 6Bo) g0> Z| = ot 5 at | 9S HPO & 4S - N a E . oe) oQ| - a0) YH CO Bs P “D

eo} =| : we we |5}Moyo+=p| 5a. o| 8 =|alo|aqjsee7et S| 4 as! ol 8 ao 439 aa &

~ SoOo] S| >) “E] ol -& El al a}E= 0 e O| ast..-3de b>>|N|3sO WW 2D Q Oo ON 3 _ 7 Oo “Oo 0) > alae _ bk — R> _oe O 23—_ P a as34 is8) a ad a?)3Pr°-O fo)

a 2 Y BeAGagzgseyagzagagsgdqs a a2 2

B| & > o| Dd Ee}SO QoYool Ol > 5)ro}2b yg =| DI) S|>cl“ol s > ~O2 E id > ro) O) > oO sb) Oo) >. cD “ iS ;

3 a E ., 2 cf a y = =2 @ § if Be ess e Ss soars S Q w 3 olf 3H eS Be 8 RO Da, YY) 28 Ge32ug cag +o < 3 3 SN .é25] Zz ¥ a > WO SF 3 oN E : & S Bn TS S| 53 : 2 2 =|rcSQ kbe3 Oo 3B] Eos ees S| i 2S oF 2 g25 Bes 4g) & 5 FO CG HO kL a

35 2 geo6 ESA

oO] -O w— @ 2 Qo P eT SB | 2 47In3=< 5 Os © 6bUS oo

BQ 2} Safi 22 4Zes 5D>6_—Ss 2YLfra 3 je 8SE] 2 2gs 6 wo fF W

e — 3 > > se} 5 :26 3 OY : 2 g > & 8 8 8 S x E — & on ob ws 2be & ‘S eC. ee sg 3 «> xO o) Pe SES Ss) 3 > 5 3 § ® Sy taas = 3 H Cc oO R & =: £35286 5 we, ~ b 2 © “© on nCmaos E i. PSE : F< 3oe aSo Fa >5oY© 5. Ss eats b*e ~~ _>& be .&_>ese 223% eb >

SSN SED efeBR 8882558 §6 335 SH 32288 i2 EY eset eS SH 5 og ek Bs 88 Bess 8» 8 2E23 ps2 Se F Fe 2 OO re PO 5 aS . SoU ee BUVE 3 Es $28 < 2-3 38 SSBENE o 3 S&S B aD § 5 —_ 2 3 Be $3 B 2 8 < 5a Oo =< on > Q S$PSG §2oe 3 2S ape ePeseesc se8 se 8 &23 gS y = ES RES 3 Ze2222¢ 53522: 8 FES SSS Sea es Sete e es

> 2 yi = 52 ge) 66 SZ EERE 2 2 8 Sy ose -Y Gssgbee szSzi€8=sE >3 qo FS-SES Ee SES EN 3 S62 eset eyes ee 23 a _ ¢ Lo a Eg Se Es 9258888 22 faye ge yp SZ2RGE SEE SE: 5 € Es

“38a fF=ee S756 SSBEL ESS =— 3GE SC td eke eeSS Ss ‘= mM. yk S : S g a: ck< 3B B22 26 3¢e eo3 2 o}s =~SSESE EN BS aS | -c} BA)

g . a0 24 < w ote oO > 23 bb: «= wo P e: > > “D ©: on ie) >

— > . © < a rb so. : 3

OD gyaF :3CB SF ay bb = ~& SS3 > 3> sl cl-soO E at 3=S=% | 8fF SoS 2 2) ey) = ~ A 2g io) © iS) Ss a| O: -D oO Sf ol. < 24 FEI aA af & Seas yy >aS= g¢gkhde EM ae S

S 3S sje eee Go S3ses 3 @ 2 FEB Loe = § = a2 ° 2 —_ a ia . . v ad p ee eee & = a et s=isa gdee25e8 = 8 e4xgqs¢ eeis le & sa38ree ye i=e

on Pe 33| eR: CO] 32 aTl7 Rk ro Oo eH 5 o)33S on

= D: 5 S 2oo wv. io) ~—_ 4a a)| e“Sl > >! = ro) a“a . wo og x ¥ “QQ=| +O 0 © 00% a. SC > a rk > a 3 =) Ce)O

y5s2s “|a3oe)8ag y wD >us

: = ic) = S FE RAIS TST A | 8 a 5 8

QoBr Oo3S| 5St= “8S°Psy SlSsog co} al-s-S2 -— OD S 2D = a) 5 PD) ,3oJeg9 FD sg Be S| -o 2958 % 748 3 2ro} = 3 A 9 B35 S=5“| qeas3s 2 > +2 a2gqgsgedzqa om — bv ea oO a—_| ro)Jaga - re on3e

3 ae a 16 a

2 Ss |ON Sf2goggsg 4 = Z ie S 3}=&S

= 4Fos 5S ves 3ala-D bY 3odsl SS -r=oO OG row wD -O as ©3-= Bl | : | = So 73 o) oS & 5 6 Si J g s 3 gl Ee r=5&oSCestEeasg 8 | =| & 22-2 - oot et 0) “> >) 5 SOS] ee1S ° 3s s Pow “OSE EIU PEELEE EEE EL ET ETEEELL 2 “O wT > Qa) > 3>7=>o< 3=_ oiSCED .o==.“QW. ©: OO: — 168) ro} ld OO . ELLER 3_i]ob 3 OQ. > cD io) be2 wD °OEs 32ro} or = a3 os EPCEEC ED Ce Fs Pe ZbZUrBaaagas Faeecaeye;: 2B o< Sumi foe) om o< — DO 0 3 ro) . 2 Bl) +3 br an Sots =~ Stead” s 8 Zac

2S 5 _ e = 3 : a| 3-3 ‘as 2 S =|©=—)=ro}b> a)

re “ ° > . ro) ~ B ro} oOo] Pp a] 233

cD iad RoSs cD ro33 > ~D Na) >|eo) Fy) ~& ~ a) e an io) S

aan2 ~S] 2— 4,5 S 7438 = 3°Obe . SO] -o} Fe = oO Pal 7S 3“R >949% oD ‘@) 5 3 br I~ ro 3 Y EF gs} a ER we e| = co ns

ON a S| aD Oo © 6b]a33s _ roLs CO] oOqs bwso 3 oe) ‘5 SO CY Fo S| = Oo) Ss : 2a = 3 b=|bwOO ow©: -O5 O rQ) A: dD oO Ua_— Oo 8~=a:Zw © >

yu C “5Oy= 22a Sio3s aes FuaAoQS © SA] 2}Ol eS ef oH] Sf S| 2: a & ee | & a a K= S&S 38 “: > x 5 6 “ol uF +O > of eS bl *w

SS cP=Ol51@& “Bot b wr

‘3 eos Bv v— — 3b-. crFF © 6KH -O)SYS oO: >a 57< a)A] 2 ow © A] Og 2 3s 2} Sl oS. > a io) xa oe) — rQ) oO | : roe) Oo < < ~ = oon ss Oe b oo so Ef oY:

— 2 2 2 , 7 2D ess e Dd 2 Y 2 2 ow D Y 2 S) o 3 = JgS | Fe oO}ss-e=By a _3 —_ My. by 2 «© = O bp} 3 Y b = S 6 S S 2 Oo] ZS > Do] +O S

~ a= « — o

Ny@“ oO F 7Q) 2‘or “CO 394 2. >S) ~S|~O 3)>635 SJ ys & = — - 3S > —_— a

agSsag gasst 835 3Al5act 5 > UT as >sort & so a = O|FGTAIezu 3} So} So Ss

S&

S ° >R. al > o< =ne) i Ls ~—| 5 ideas 3 fo} >© = =5 (o) ladx © ke 7Q)2 ke o} © BscD a >5S ld

2

— Q) — | ea 52bv > ee) iSco} .._ ol roy FP ce 2 “St a,e Ss aDlal© oe Sa 2e O _| 5-ol8> © 2

io) {o) >o|wae =: eo) Yo A©=~2 5©ro >a;IG} . >| 5 iS ie) ~2 — _ ke = " © = © > © 0) ~Q! oO 2s S Pe}? Pp} x b -3 DS 5 =| 2) ® —| ors. oa s&s & vw-££ a >SF al Oe .= 2 ek ©wd o3B 3s>— ‘. ste 5]Ol k— B35 eB SF 3 act °£ro je) © o o3

el “s &OS soeoegces = ro ee it cs so a) S53 Left ket se aereg7gss =| - oT2F eH ODS FOFIGs of E Se | 2. PR =

° oe — . — ’ oO 2 ‘5 iS 3 5 = a SS Nee) e“=! BS 3 2 o} 5 = ro} ° ~ ke rH) wa Ss Od >5 3 —™~ * OWY b2)_RS nasOD I~ & “D oO]"2 P S) of2-| ©

5 21 9 5 © v, .

Oo,Xe)SO|$5 geezeagagdse Aso Ba. ob) +d SH = N ¢€ ¢€¥ SY KC! SM S> Ol flgeztsespes > Oo Bare N OD Yb >

e>>OlbaS|ae 8 4 7 3 oe) = 5 > > -2 t+ EE 8 _ 2 ‘S| S| of & | 3] & xo) O x4 > > 5 © Pl 2 ai oe 5s < ON oO > — © “D> So “3B 5 =_ a) ice)

33Y>| 23io) .OO) ao ST ke aw ©3 |CY ~O) 3 io) ~~ >.“=| im is) —o) > C3 rNee) ke a6 — cD — I~ © re 5 a R Of a s Ss Oo lL = goa Faget Bo cl o| — cs: ne oO S 5 2 o So = a) >| 2 & ce] ° | °O = ee 5 =| “8 ‘al sl 2] S| 3 a} al 6} S| 2 = & ol s ww > > O ©: O we S38 8FeSE sdaA Todas 3 3S|ASg >|3 S| -o a a] 6&S Syste .agadeaeS £2 Bg =Fag easese 25sa)eugde OFsygg S EB ys sax Bs ag 7 FF _ 82

3 2 >: o . -o aS > S = ga ae:

GS=slis0) i. BP o oS -w OO [s0) S2=— Oo- ~——_ re © > & +> — = Se 6FD i"azaet «EF OO - exz ise) eee gQstee y. 3FF of3.2) 2| -2 Go Oo 6 Be om 5 HS: ss BO YW sto ES = SS. 9 fo) a0 fg co. VY = o a 3 —= OO “> — ‘2 o 1X) oO = ° © = Sw sal of FT FF a we 3) Oo] SI} OS ~ Bs oe) Ss 7Q) >> Qa «© } | 6 JO: x CO] ««— o —-—| -— 3 —_—> =e= 57 B ss |— YZ3— o “>CO o rR < -=OD R-o —IN an gH ro} YM ro) CO ON “OD oe b RF YS«—_ we OD OO “OO BM SF DW BD 6nO < m— O00}—©Srw SEeoRON

= : . > Or . nO) = 2 S >| S =S3A; >== ‘S S| ow 3x = , & = A G 5 = s| 2 a oa

an

“< fo) can "S 3S o: ~~ je) — So 8 So S . ~O

S34 SF 5: gsa:RRaBr eSos ee@SfRS) % =! S| Se & wD O38 eS& G FG © Pe5SO

= = 5 Ss Yoda .e 2 &=-a| =23Oo] Sao & 3 woos b s 2FJaao. geZee rrSg] MTS 3Dg|S.EsS-gbooae e a2 g

ve) > COD FQ ’ 2go: 3 Oo :3= rT 2a = a — 6eeea 4Ff>ys 5“a ea = a QE Baa Ssegsags SH e242 Sanatesratsas Sqgrasasspmdeaets o|2

E oO » 2 e >| 3 Co: bP =| oO] . 0] CD] s =2 = S| S| 2 < sEH caastad , & 33 2 8 ro} = 2]ro) ¢ >| 3 =

me ol DB Flo Sa A Ol oO eo DO] cD CO CN = mam O «© > © N

ut

OB 2D gs a om °oO 3 oA] 8 o3=& OO o | SS og S oO o| £ | = OQ) cO Ss Ol w S
7 G rod . = Pe Ss P 38 2D =D+ P >‘2 «2 70) 70) is 5bvS2D 5 © CR wh < 3 Oo iS x © 3 5 A OS > .8 . > WO Ww Y . ws Oo Go ©: Pet ae

2 &: > E br a $2 © 53 2 S © : ‘e) r 1D» : io) O° al oO =— b © 7Co. S0)b = 1S 8) a > on o> 3 (oe) (oe) 0) a > > Qa Ss Q.

oF } . 3 P 3 Rro) aQ) = oom O © e} Q. R v— P 3 = oD 3 > is OO > > Q. O> }6 ran S (o) 3 3 1B lo) a) rQ) © aa)Bo ~ > ~—_ 2 —

3e—SY

> ld : o©) Oo Og S| “OD So So A! aa Cy " °§cD .2—_— coERS — —ERR . EByeFug > Fo & ZS ‘Oo a we ©:E S bsees . - © WwW saeoe) YQ 38> “bE85ZB es sz 2g 2:. oO! sO] >O2a|a:WWr > :s)2G = 25sio} “>O»-o> CO 3&Q b oO

Ss6B 5crya=©a) aes) Aso823]eSFS 7o|y= 3co=B2e2 ©

2 3 ~O) . > — n— ~O) cD 3 > . | coed md > oon oO «> Ra] Oa 6 °— i} e > a ROD on e b -O > ee) 4x “OD « ad o< = > 0 OD br 7" at > 3 Ss FEE 26 Ge EY 3g

I= > cD = a Os . aS 3 wz

iS; 7 MY wa & ‘OQ IE "S49. a eS So 85 S SS) Sl as >| 3 > ‘O) c 22 B32 E g b ay BA So 5 w es) eFad a] Ss} 5] GD] OS o © | «5 Sop] COL c 5 © 2 ~O) = 2 3 < x iy. o) 3 S OO ec :3 _ = 2D te) om) > Bb . an“S| ?S [|3B 3 8 O° om &=ic ~O: an) aa) “DD Pe or oO] x& a: 6b x]b&b oO |C3 coed OO ey0“2 R .slo < NplEwl “> Or saa} 20 ROral— ON

“OO . 5 = Da y, S cS SL x 2 i) ‘O 5 S| + e a) cO O RE nd . o) > b x0 S < 3 e ° _ : "R ° ¢ > — 1‘O 4 yNo) 4 43d 8 . | > ; to 5 |S orag bh eS

jo) =) “2 cs) “00

es) “aIS|by-a| «© “2 2 5 @O e3 ed© > sw) 6 3 < g “= “S = 5 3

>| -o >| © Oo] ws 23 wD) Fk b c aS c is o 0 “2 > 3 Ran ON ¥ >OD . ie) eS0O5FS fo) =-o3CO a) +lSs 4a SS Aa S| © 3 oO 3 . OL N 2o0) IN g> N~O) OD | NI 5OlFE) ealOE Bb R aQ)

3 > 2 3 Us 5 “wy -~ Se “2: :5 33So 265 ., &- in; 3=ic . Oo eS sce 5 “2: 1B a

..=yLy 5 3aE sy = S>

2RS st Se Bas& s2F FRHEEF BF=5FE = CSC Cy on >mS 38aOS = >o23 36>6beo co Qa ev FEES 5ion Yee O -Q) oO Bee RE: 3 a) rQ) Q. cD o — cD g: SS 3Oo“egos sEzE sO SrPeM A YS 2 35 4Gs Oo -D Zeca § & me BPG Ses 1 Ew 238 C > aS oe se Be RE o =m & 8s Pe 5 Fc ego awe GE w > 2. 3 D: 6 3 1A 2© >..~O) OQ. “OD >: © Erw .6arow :5&oY >“| stSwo >te>S|xB > 0=N. oa €& VY o) > ke o < 3 y9m as esas Fey Fase EBSH MB yrs & -o@Ce Beno Fess QOetyFaroegeExy J BEAoeZASRESSsteEeSsegdgssgsesees S 2eoseawgttnS&eo SwHSeHSesan 5b 6eF ets Ss

3 ° © 3 io = os S wD oJ Dm L Ss ut ec 5 oe SL eS 658? SS3Ss4s8 2) S a 2 a. S b cee KS Bag eB Ba Ss . L re S B 3 © oO 4s> >BUS 3 - > lo) io8)2 8 be DS os) 386 « e,

O 3Soe238 SD ao & “D| 23 opOW sly SFS 2, g.°Soca Ff Su Fy S Boo J 2O 5 pl —oO 5. >| “O ao & 5 2 3:~C«* FO SD©OS wDOC ~~D&5 2 = . qoata 3°3sfyg 2}D6 = 5}OQa S mw e aC ee ene © 3 gq a61FR & &5 ao) =a wM> =a Esals=uf 3 ca. re) agEo 5Sam Soe ~ Sl sl FD SO © x sada 4astaae vO] 70 7 S Aa_qcas se 4 Y Yaln as

23$;

lo) = mH Cl a Ss Zo : —>cD e>Cc" 5 .— ©©a- Oo o< Pp ad3= 3a © 6B 8a)&>= 2

_ al< pl xfQn 2 3cc6b ra Oo > ss} > >! 2 =q.= 2 > eo. p> 23> a) : © 30 b> =F FP wo:F=f Oo os © Foose > oan tal Ss ew = —w

“3~ = —, oO 3 = s} o & 4 “& Ww 2 5. 6 Oo Fb

ran ws 2 O SF a — 3 & —- > yr 3 8

5 n © i ao) > 2) > S| aS O an 3 “> ie, >2 = 5 (o)

‘2 NUSS] o ao SB] 3‘aSclY> >| ©= iy oa =) 2) al “Al qos =|-o| 8a}i= | Soy) 8itegg>|OD S| Sot Sf238 > + >| “D = FTO -O . >] > oS YW > C Pl -3an33 > .Y cD3aWs nO) & 5: 5Pl O ag a5) o = a zo)S mm MC “=| >|Zo -3 ve) OM ob -
> >= a & > = Sr «© ZO Oo O: = se . 2 oe Ge & S: ae Rs gos S23 S > 3 2 Eo so 3: BS So & SE #93 Ses¢tzre 3°'2¢8 ze mr Sa yort Ar g

. YoY e ~~ aoLn —_ ro pe 5=vaowow 3ro3|= 3| 3 3r= io“OO a wD: CO: _ 3 Ee S

© > -O-. Q) Ss O oma ~ 6 EB < oa © > 3 3 OB oO G3 4 -O On &> 3 + er | GB & 2: ss a

D> >& «> CO -O: lo eo} — 72© cal © = oe) i) wD a. ro} D ww *S -. | ey “oO 4, Ly s: y fe) oF 4 Ss OS > z 2 © 3 SS: © J c< ‘Sl +O 3S mM OD DC a Ww Dl a af S Oo] O as “| oO DB] o) «

Ss tf bP 3 @® 4

wo Ppro} 2 3 oOo oF SK I 8 JS ot Ssoor S| 3 * Oo|= os oO = ee “ — jaa) ng OQ © CN ~O 3 bk = =— = CO = 3 = x = W = = Sezpzusoez s vw a] xo] 3szt| x3S 38DRo4 Oo FA oH YZ aTes eg on @ wri oe

— . 3 =) wv, 3: Fa F&F 'o b>: SS

SL

3 5: mS 2 yy = >: S&S

«& — 3 N > OD «YQ Cy Pd : a

eo .m«© YS Ss % &ax:& $s 8 y> & @rag gs Se “© ~ io) ~O of ao 35 & 3xIM: > e°mH =©: 25-P 6 |} &GO ~Pw — : ..-O: © = w O: >: 8 5 > oS oO RF = @ = xO oO] SG o: bp: >: > S) co -— Oo . _2Seo 2a a&Soy >fo op Oo! > &> = > Tr 23 So Sy — a) ro; 3 — jaa) ©: . ©: a . we: ©, .©YSF xolFr= os>:°es2B °ge|ewra or=F ~&ae2:~O) 3© 2Desa >e=~ Bway ao) Z| g asa g g gae g gge ON43B Co) aa ~Ws Ze: 3B vinNK 2s3BMo ©

5] an n ‘5 5 s ne 8 s 3jf oO“ :s: |

'S) a= >Eo AS 2) Ms < O° agFl.8 «© © ~O) oSs ~D > a] Ss] Ss6oF J rs ? > 3Ss =

ro) > _, 33 oS > ww ° 3 5 Boa F cD wD a] 2 S 4 ss o} 2 *2 oO W e a 3} 6 ec ws) 3 > & 3 wD

©

© ROD “< © — 5 Pp — > on 7 wD © p > o. 63 gF 43, ¢ 1S Q-D 5 Sou OB PL ee CS 3 Oo FT Ao 2 >| = YZ R >| oO o) DB 0) ow mn i = oob} “2 p °O e LU yegyhads 3 2s a SF oa 8 9 = Be Ss ztaaagas a5 8 = oO . ~ ~ SZ da3 445 35 8 3 gotgagagés $3 & BN Yy Feo FS | N = a Y e. > m— s > ) 6 3 PS a} 3 fo) a ur & = 5) = «> o = > o *D © [= OQ. on ke © QO. —_ rae ie) > 2 > ) " w > | oe} ra) CS >s: > D ~~ 3 6>© 2 )& 3S CL © Pg =e 2% . Eos o 6 |S 2 3 a _~& €8 4 23g .6 8 3 Svan

> at

-O at [ad “Q) ‘@) ‘ Y : 0) =
[== >56“OD . soOO 2, ~2PrP 6ge >| ©: 2S 23

be = aSs¥sQ >= R Wwe OOo MP KR BS FS YW 2S OY 6 > Pb wl DS

S Ke © FEF SeSseC es URN ER SB? © Ys wt Bs} aes SESS oS FF SPS eSELT 5| 5

~ > =>&ae< nC} Fe qe oes ota ot ae &SO} So Qaot 0SC 04 5eESTES a 9on Qa 9G OO 23 5e nC} 33 3 >9 5 oJ kEsoE ESE Ye SEE SY Swe Sf 2 Z 2 9 2 2 2 oS 3 wl OF eM GoSec es EG ee eset = ND!Ege | PES SE TEST ECEEigs >| 2s = MN OM © St col WN 7 WO OO KR TO CO TO DW TO FH HO “Ol EF

wi

=

S

‘5 > be © 3 3 = “> ie) 8 ca ~~ Bl a) “ol 23 DD

© oD cD

ol Gi “ iS) =| 2 CT E} os: > a 5 ~—) + %3B) WO 2 : S Y eo) Do & be 0 =| Sl So S| & 2O an) 3 “Pp 69) oO) > ©: ro) wD oe) St Rl O} eo} oT | & 3 3 2 oO) oo OF Oo & mos) >| -O ke oO =~ ol os ~2 = 3 ol] Plo & S| 5 — — — an ows fs > 2% 3D rs) on oe} & oO SM Stogad a S de of creme x a -& Yo ee Nw S sol NI 20 5 cn g Oo] RF

GOI A 23 PSIS OF LO > an q 3 = OM ey . n “OO ae} JS eS 8 oS S 5 = SB] eSOoSal—A5oOe's e-—>Sca)we b‘ =cD S5 & 0S o— S|“a \o) °sxe)c

GRE oa ~O EK SYNO

a 2 > E — ”S. 1«5 6 Ssri& ~Fe} BS rs Ee m 38 on “S

iy23 3 =nn 5 ralva oDro 3 3 “OO hak Se)| bed @ R=) S ‘5 © vo Sel 6 cc 3 e Ne es a} O =| 2 < Oo 3 =) >| 3 = 3S ; S £ esa 2g asi | a 3yZ “Oo A] esoP) ayez ele ~ 6o}2-O = E} 8“3Sot gs aSS|‘ol >|&az ~0 -e os => Op i)a Ys 6 a oS iS = S| :3) 5] oy 3] oO & >: 5 IS ol g = oS a| 5 ae a=* == 2: E cs5 ls io} a)l ro} Y& 3 ic) o3 -ol. 3-E ¥ Oo: 7“O| be — ld~O > 3re ° ce) bd 2 7) a) io) N > oc > = ‘S| ol OG >| < ie q 2) *2 SI} xPe .i) e UW oo > ; * 3 Sl cE BS © E Fo & ~ a A 5 O rs Ol 6 gf 3 & >| gE ye ge 2 238 3 5 > . ¥>- [s0) aa R a=)5 st e 7Q)) 7Ge rO — Ss— ‘o) cD FES EEECEPPLEEL in©3Y— bCc“>cD baaOO—| b >=

J> 33 2 6 Ass ‘= CO wo Oo al 3] 5 EF ot St oy yrra©c“> 2D 2cle:=OQ. roy ~O)So} id E ol a) Rk 3S —_ —_— iS Oo 8 Pees & 5S Soa f a:; ae Se secu Sel bl SS L = Ss OS Cc EF a ol a Dl — S S| 2

eB Sa: © g ~ 3] 3S 3S S| oc 2 a9 3: Sg as32 342 55 geue oy 3 88 8 25 € 2 5 > SS em OD SO 2 3 G35 S- YS 8o 3mg SCE — 9—. bP Se3]csE|85Ql. . “O| 3 = ee hl 2D 3 Ss

©o:o: l Ko} ©OS — ZFos: Qu wo —— lee y q = ? SB fol & in 2 >] SS = Qo S 6 5 cs O: > = | ©: Wr 8 4 2B PB = OQ. Soa3 aN>5 NT | 60) b S00

S 5 VST =| = 4 oa 3S a) 8 n ce 3 zona 5; g Ps : = s} . BS Dl 3 S = St ao © > 3a Fb © = i) o) “O) > lo) “OO co BY g = Ea ayee 2 So le) D> “2: oe “Ol — XH = to 3s C: = " 5 & © S| & > a5 Nb < Ss ee — — FR z

al Sls e| -o SS > oS ro) =| 5] & 6 5 2 | 3 5) be E = e Ss S rs; > ~N < e w = ° > ~>: FW =

.3 —— aS PS OO

- om! OS “9D >

J FS > coe S Bn =Zaann HK a 2 eB 3 RS ~Sts A Hos Bl ax S| SB] xb2 =3 OQ -O < -O ro} OO

zs. wD | > OE 0) e}-OS ™ roio) a)LA > ON 2 rap) 3. -Se0) o) ‘5

3 = a a © Ol ~D © Oo =< zB > =io) >— FRZ| > —_ ~O= on4ro) re& ss . 3 —| >8© —5a)(se) “> ow —sc ro} on oo 2 ke CO o eB 3] Yel 2 ‘3 05)4sa) Sswe Ss c| ] 6. S) fog) 4 . al “Ow Sl al 's 3 >| = af Ss} Pl 25 ayze iS < fs 5 is gggae 8 = aT -B] 2S Ee) e ge rH 4g 3 g | | sa} 2 25 = Of a al & soda gdad: g ice % 22

° ° aired > ‘= a +s ae Fo 8— =-— a||cPEEECEE ols bs co ES =rN2) on >| A o 93 S Yt a] -s| =°O OO S|a R8Ol. 5] 3—3:3° =— Vis eH ~ a3 of 5ro} 3ew] a|>al 35 -O “2 > CO] ss} >“D> Sw) ONISS => ns cD oe) ~O9 =_=| OD xO© Pp 5 “D 5 be oO ls as co Els Flea & a i) hl 3 a] =| 2 S| “el 2S] x OQ} .s -O a Fle ro) bd eo} —) sO] \O 5) B} Re wn

DD 5 Q ran re se“2wt 3 D as a) — 4 > oO as) Ss > S = 2 Re ag ro} > x < 3 = es) E> = = eof nt a oO wa) 5 | < < ae z2. zo § o x Oo os -= = S a Fs ay 3 E oS S >| > es al HS Ss nN op OP 2 = s}

~)

~——_ Oo on a. °RwD

OO re | o« _— > fo & : 8 oc 6 = x = ae 2 : Dp S ~ > 3.3 3B] 23S 5 ss > Y © ‘> 2 *O eo} © ke led > > a -— 3 a].~ xD 3 =FR a= Ko, 5 =eesig reH:a) aS O «> > oO Pe an nd | as a o be Swm — > . rome o 3 a b < qo S88 ¥£-O: SEBS TPSez; SEEE > : Pe ; = =D S~SCSSSEC SEES ek sees § 2S ES eaSFSePEARSZzZZS2S Estayot gees g osFZmg

=g>3 6Pva a) = OO ~O) ro) a) =. =) mo) rot =FE wD 3 3 Oo 6 a2 6S yu v & = S&S & a O uF D gj of = > ye3 S E = eo} & ° x a. on © . va S 5 - ~ 6 S Ss —S S o =

gSSS do > oS Q 2 3: =Be < 2 ce = e = 6 SsSESS > 3B 0 >ses Ss dm « Be ERLE SeELT FS.% o Ss Pa > BO bk ra) 7O o Cc “> a R a) 3 > Be br = 5 a S Gy ‘2 >

AYE2gb SESsas SELess S2S SATs se ‘SSs HAs 8 es on ‘e a ~—_ a =~ 2 Bes st AT sages sg 28 — RY~ODp = ©>— - ~~fF} Bb 3&OQ. x 5gs > > ,3a Sa— aSEe&~bb>oe

. _— . ~O Cc | ; 5 ro) .
TW Oo 3YM BwGF 32-93 Feon oOol&oe5CC. oF xO] a BeSF 3 oS BS Bt ae6S>yw S W3

is .— S eo} RS ae) = > 3 =sx | 4H PP al — oe)

3 => > . ee as iN wD 8x. o35 “=aeg25zbaa~‘= ae)

re

ai

Y,

>

E

S

=| 3OF a© OO bk>Rea ae} ee P “>| a

aao9 F. 8 9A se ee a7FSs ro B S 2 5 K wD: 5 ogina So < oo ao FSfgBO S}2al8gy 382 9gg Y

|a mg. = “0 5 °O) = = Ff a a ol Z ~

R 0>a]bk bl oO 2©OD > 3 © =< So a — 69 aod. S S, wlA) | -3& OlJS 5) of LY |©& s 30

g 4 > ” ce) S| 5 e 8 -“< « od 2: > 5 CO: > s ca = -3g . QO =: bE a E 7 bv: “D o 3D> is) > ) D: =~ > wD: N al 2 : e2 68 3>

aS \o a

S S es ir 23 c: “O OQ. al“Od 3 a)BmM rs OO .< =S wee) S> re)

(a)3 a) = 28%

lS) > | 2 $s co 2 CO O 3 O oO 3 ~O = | 2 g Y = \O o fo}we © on aa)re) a) oHa); 3S EOOOOOOOO—e —rQ) on, Q °O “ In 3 3 7, = 4 Q £ x = io oH © WH — cr -O @ = 6 Ss & 7 © 3 | OS o ~ 3s ¥e 1 El 2] PS 2oo 3 i? iS) 2) s a ~O sO5s ce;22io8) DD eaio) ~D P es B&O aC ve o< > Sct 4 7 O2owmw Bb i) FO v6 5 O] P 2

ms Y

2O > o) = A oe o< > — © re - © OD “) « 23 oO

Soe a 25ke ®“Mw 5so Oo 2. . axo} eg&ee SSbP |) fe) 26 = Zz oY3& 32i)b72 dD Oo] -O] = po} ae 2 © Oo] B=} w 6 8wwe a)>|ro)333 >ae > 3S ~O) elo 2D ? & = 5S osoSP aS Oo O DI N > =

= 23 FF= Ss < “|,ga Bo]guaegeyss co] ect oy < 3 eo afet eeseg qaafm = 3BS CO “2Or >sg} OF ba 3dno F oO 3 LN SE St3Bl S| @ OR r zw) 3 a FS 8 -2 oykb a Bo SYD OO el on td aaes< ae) 5ow fe Ol zO ws “A -B “OW “a rb6a1al 2 NC} mt=re. to| rFwoN Ga FfQO} Yo2aSo “oof 83

= b EE

REN wd dD)ST O sl Oo: ow oo = Blot O23 3 O| -a xv o| & Om RF F le EB el Sel os 2io)ol Ry. 5 2 95 tal Sl tal eo! Y &* wo ROD a) S| > add) ©sof b >S| —©iaa = —- ol oO.DB o| . Gaadaodad& =.© ~~ S&S COSF “ol -=aaeoS 4 Eroou56 8 & SLO Sen

vemers BS GB D & , Feo

“D> we — bP. ssf & ne 3 b Oo > 3 o: > wo ©. a °° 2 2 Ss} om ~D: = Pp O ar. “OQ < < e< = | Oo RK 3>< 2D JefaS 8 5&Oo ©O = OF 2 2“| 25) 2ct > =OF_ = & ay 5 5 ©

“ N rc) N

2 cg ot > sos 2 5 8 | clo eo a0 8

©Yz< “Ol G3-OSs “| --Oofa as} 0) = oar3>~0) “< ro; fo’ YO ‘o) Q Ss IN. AS3mM &

© Oo

s) ee ou so) Son & ee Se eS Ww b o} -o| “a = S52 Fo 4 a w sO R 3 3S \O E| = oy * LAN~ = 3

cee

. >, 3 xD] 2D a a3 3] 3 S e rl Ss os — rsa) = = io) ‘S) Sos 35&S| -vv i= st OP} OS e© |o 3D :7 o3s © -> .> 34 3 >61 oe >S -O 2 A3Sesero a}-Ol a -S b ‘El ‘Ss "Ss foe) 8 SsS ©S oO > aSSe >

x |=o) D] -s>=3bte El af < cc ia53‘OE ro) Ss Bc io) © ~| -S zy 8 34 ‘5 a) “OQ nm >: 5 a) — 9 — 2 a on) = =| “Oo CO Oo v: bv — ed 3 “CO: we ° 73 “D> |bf coed a)«aFJ oc sOgL OQ} lad >SS 5 a}gagag 82 Ln) a st tO] BR) 2 S| ‘O| gy &wD 8>: =e bP O +‘S|x} & “Oo >~

wbl Co 3s + 3 oD Y ae b rE o} b ol > b = | > a b 3 aol

OOwe] 3 E«+ » 5bl> Oo oa) Wn Rat 23 ‘5 5«03 os le &3© a>>fs2D be] oO = 3 22 Sa be 3 3 2 ~0) BS: S 2S ~O) RS $H Sob ©

FE as n 70) ro} can wo] oS sf =~ s S = Rad

Ss ral a ¢ > ur > jw! =— n o< — © = io) > eo} i} “2 5 > © > te} > ~O b rR io) ° R — ~2~D >)aS|S|XZ tDwh eRie) > < & 3>>30btSC

| YZ _,6©:Oo Ye a3 Oo> ‘SS RF eB Y be >. ro} 3 0 3 — a oa =~ -= =>: oo wD R bh “~ eo) © -O a oO oG2 =3ac YL Al oF8clQo 6¥©6 53FB a oo co: S) oe} = Pa avs 8s 8 a ros of o| eG os o| 3Lh z] mS % o~> = EF Hos 5 —_ > = r= Oy > 8 . 1s) = 2 = & ‘o} sl 2 bp} eX S ys — os S| & ~ of oS & Ol a 8 Bs ek Sy SS igy >Sowf © Pl BSgl8eeESDSERGSS e380 §Sa3 ek a 6=oO 335 So] : aa & eo 2 oF 3 22584 o 3 a] Ol = FF a tol 8 Osasesl ge %a r5 >-2SOs YB Sl £ . slo FO Se OBS O s bk Oo} -ay : SF avwTEsSM 3B SB 5~0soaeHad dy 23] FgLSPSCBIZS an = re} a el OW! OS c “3 = 05 *¥ 3|5 nm oEFc5 a. G] CN gVy Dn StKe)FR Oian5& Ys £N VN00 FeOD no4Ft som soem

>°2

5 2 oo

; 5 © >| -O = x b . Ur r© > 3 =) > 3 > > cas) e be 36) es uy -O a e| -D “2 hah 5 > aa = se Jgag 5 BF 5 4 5 S} S: o = 2s. & S S ‘5 = Zot~— Ss 5R o bk 23 >:a| R‘8 2JS | 2Ff oO ra io) -O >} «>BP cS|~— S=> 3« wv. wD

”

ao] a)wD: o: S&F >| Oo So“D sla oO 2Fb w“2 O rat 8© | a -|be e “2 O: - 0_“23XS be *O Tow 8Oo P€YD

goa gezge 269=HESATESY Q. — ¥ bs «6 BE = _c

4 ce) ° Conus a bo: .CD io)cD>) a o} ra)Cc=o0) bh:@)brCDa)©— —~ oOio) . ~O) a “OD 4© (oe)3 — RatBO wD oO oO)le) BOro} -Q)°=— = CD - 5Q. io}eo) > >© RE: ro} al So. 5io) oS¥ b oO = OJ ron> -O

Oo < 3 B| al e6sgfa cS a tO5 CUM >. 3 OyRFS 6 LL ie ccSs os Ek © > al Sel YY os a on ga. telaesteupgoK SF RG Ol & c cy on oa thy Os ©a5 ED S=}6 Oo w oO POo G3] so -o 2a cs > OF F& =i or SB oO] SF © wo 5=O a) Rm Ss 3B Pp =| 30 . oO Ss wo os x oO 3) 7 2 6 6 Og ' Asn Fe A S Hs ont Oo] “R}| -O ==%S>| n “o} a aS 1. 2So se ~ 2 -xs 3] = 3 to o po: bs BPS "Sscom wroS Of=I S|EN ee ~FDO -=v© Oo .stoa) >s WDd] \O a) IN em) st Ss 3d SZ Dd] ©)r +

J;S

= Bb a 2 24 > oa > so 5 -O “2 5 5 >o rO oy > n > P © roan) ~~ Ss © eS 3 3 = 5 = ra Ra is)

Z| 23 “=ld ©Ss Bal Fl48 -O} 20 oO] S|o| °O r= | S| 5 = 3 2] 2 =} gl 3 2 o) io) o 3 b So] -S rR Pp o 6 . Sa em i et D “ be 2>| 5 = | *3 “| 2 a oj 3 3 Dd o a. . & Sf Fea a aaa e 3 s . — . ~O): —_— CB 3 0) oO © 1s) ec R -O Ve! tes = D 4a uo s ao = es a P S| ‘ “O! SO} Of 5S: See cocd ag wl Oo 8 o 5 &

eS S}S|sla]El & aoloo FG aeahae EL} =] Sf & >| < 2 Fe SS 2a BS SE) SO 32 a=aax du aaa a7 HSFsayag as 12% g} ef of bE ee ggqstear Ft aR og FS se cD = sO “S -O 3 R [== oO cs) SN No) s 20) : < 3 eves) eS v 3° 2b Sol al ow E S ne “oO! ot” 2 = a > ro} 3SsRe} = 3- OF ea)a Bl ©wo Pa>-AF fa) an ~ |Pb | sr ¥l Tl] WO BO of - “1 ° ao} El of colEZ) mam Rt SO InN COAlrd “>olN &35Dd we PLN IN & N wN Fa a NX a oO XN FP O

:Sz bk wa -_ — om) . > w QO > 3S © 4~ & > . = ,36) °.88 Gy = z .5 : ee “oe

oo"

=> © cD =e.SB > “Oo => wt iS| KF ‘B ‘Pp c an) © a) O° c = © © nO) 4 oe r © 2 o oe) . 3 D> _ ro) rc Ss oo e< —_— Oo @m Ss § 5 a3 &ie} wo dD *S © oO ne |53>4H Siew 628 BS R a els go oY $EF Ce Fes 3o) >o) Sas: cs eloo §& & 2s bl ob oa > So OB © rO Ql oO 5cD :. > b © br . oe fo) Ce b 3 3 Oy . 0 x on ~O Oo >4£ oO” S[se 2) 2= © cee Z es Fs gs ay rs a se Fa 6

2afrzO 86 °BD adaabea oaag aqayre oS85 =suo-< = | SO43Oo QaOf&te | xO} & od D> 5K sN ogo:ay BOFOF 46 53r“Zl =o} co) os

OB N 6 Oo: as 4Stoun ElRw cocN O oO2&3 ~—=%w2oN PKR ®D) |~K oo BP6={nre HN Of FP& SO—| od v4

we ra

S

,= a] Y SI _yi iS Oo] -§ 3

-Q) F yo _ SC > eaS|brO|wD = FS —

“OO=©ro! a >“Y ro ol“>Oo}

S|oo] | S|BS) El ap S&S 5© oS} D Vv sof — 2 Tl —_ eC zO:e|CD rRapoe) . ro} SGS es) =) a

22% ==|203>afo) sa GF aay HS s > y0)CB a] OF wo F ao ER S sé 5 S .>|=aWw Oo Bl . Oo yz eb 3 my Ss 6 20 Oo] Oo& )

3 uC} ~O) ->-oe} Oo > >© =o|| ws 2b iw >| Oo Dea F 0 Rv a Ol o| ~W we ~O) er S| Oo] a] Sat] CO] © —) . < 3co oO23 EP >| ao of Ss Od -2)FOa)Ss==eJa>|2OJ 3 a& g 8 J3 agtasgqzZesyge dz 4io)8=34 eRa} ggFS gH 2 Ol FSFFdsS 6 oO © = Oo Bl aodatdadat Re S| -o & E o| -D — 5 ae)

0) l= . = Rl F nl .

=| 3om) iS ol Sg oe Bo” S 2oe)ae SY)ee qSl “2 SA > v= o R— © SB) 2 ©so xO r= : ro) ao (o)=O foe) rR x=roocD > —_— —damaed o tH ¥ St bP SoS Ee Ye Of KI sol SS Sl Ol OO o vw &

O SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS

LyQ 5wT . © >: > e . o 5 -ie3 S+S) 3: F3 2 © 2 ES 3 S °sj> cy 5> “< Q.85 3 > oo oS ‘3 > 23©a> 3] ro} 5 a Y“0 sad -O

< aw SoS2aw Q < SS 309 3 Se) 3 | °D D aeob ose s® cowszeb gb az BES Se eke ESFSfBeate EFoda os © 7 ws a) & ro’ > > 2 Ww “7 Ly S is) “D> -O) -Q)) 6 jo) = 3 2D!

S32£=R ane5 © 2'338®EfS| gy E So) ga}CD: ©: rco Oo3 reat 3 >&° 6ls-cOo 8OQ.8a)nN S25 25~SBrkoc FRSas) Cc . Q.3 © of.-)>keSs

La re a 0! a be Pp. — Q. “ . : — awe oO) ~ . (@) > Boe Ge see Be cEse2 ye cs affsasegdsss FAHe AS SS As 5BaM & GB w 2 < & Beers C Asgqeve FAs Ah s =

= : © * —_ ~: " a P68) D 3S . —_— S — oO “0D © © “CO ro} Nome io) 6 ° -O 3 > 3 = is) > MIS 4p 2p = S83 4 a & 0) Oo Ww oO, dD ~OO) oa -< S O “= 33 2 5 2 ‘a Ot < 4g ~3} 23 838 8 3] & A454 Zea: 95 8: 2S S| = os S| an fy. Fag 3 Ge & 3S A > ‘e] = ee “D = S &3 No} Oy2.3 eo} 3 o| ©Fas 5 >| wD o) TH O| ss CL MLS 5Jy 43] -D sar O| o| @ 20P|sol 52U 5 WY Py =“3SD oS Oo Oo

“D S} g -O 3 S 2 oh 5 2 e~r> 3 uu 8 i " os 3 os e El -

. tf? r a334° 6s “CO CD Pod 3 -O oogs 259¢5 % J2Sgqaeag2 oC Ss > 8 3 A “a ca] 6] .B] -o aah a Fo qe -& 2 FO D o S| = Ss | Oo 3 oa > Oo So s SS] -O a es ce Co] “3 A) 3 ) © C. & 3} SS ne) a s| 2 & a >| = Oo] A] x o 3SS! wo:4.|

~ — 3 2 we 3 23 3 © > oO _ a © . a . 3 2S ra) 3 > EB = ot g 6 > S oS 5 S| bo s

“oo

Ss 4 za

S © -O a 21 3 a| 6 3 © 2 e 3 3 S65 | Ol TS “| ol -d

eo) ran fo) Al Ss ea © 2a 8 S| xD a

aa ©°os SS 4 El —~ n elo ro} rr —e >. oy - =4 SFb ro! OOOS re wD ’ ~fo)so Bl 3BeoOk wz Oo] >| a) &8

| oOOl P o22 > QU!

ES 8

Fb O ro} e . a| = 6 ol 6 Yy 3s e D Ol -3 5 os] & oO] = >| *2 © S Hy Ss © >} RP) w QQ Ww 6 > o—_| ¥ io) re ‘2 br ol = a, an) —~ 7 va Ee] oi to; TZ O°

Pre)

aa] &-Q) &‘3S 3reoO “Ol F“al>| =8OR aOo] Eo oF SZ —ol>3=|P|5 oO N roam) a> (0) g6rR > “QJ: cl bP wD] == coo wD oO) > (o) io) 2] el Fk p: ! 3 > eb = So 3 = ro 3 ob: > CY 3 re) . 60) E ~O 4 ©J 3 S| “> a) = re > . |e wo D = 3] E> Ga 1S Z| . ies: wy 3 es) BeOo 5: - & > >O| ra Z|-s-d3RP5BI| OO & Ss Co] = QL bo. N ay 000) QO —_ oo) > ne xz eH Us 7: Oo! mee oO onOo PR: cos so os Z BS: Ree NAN Ss+Saag “lon DN BO

e BS > = > O 7 < 5 3 Sq 5 3 5 } s ‘S > ie > © a S BS ss 2S Ss oO) ~} Sl 5] 2 oF a wD > 2 @D < 2 o, 2 Fr 8 . eS io) = Fe Fo ey)Ppoof qa fptone) Oo e Ss

3 5o Fb 5S88 oS eocsye =a a) 2 > oOo Ss 'o & A's © Batis Co ~O 26G re 55s} 3SF 3S 2S 5.S>>>& S&S S— SoS SF 3= Oo 2 Oo) > OB cc re Oo 2= a x Ko) = =) = oO Pp = me ES a SS = Qe 8 3 SoM EBS 5S > S$ 56 2 y . $5 FS gs ee > 32 > 2e eg & > & & oO 8 (8 2S fo 3S sO — => b oO .3 ro) ~ = * Oo 6 2 |. oo P BP So 3e 3 3 a PZ e (Ss « 3 es CO Va 3 oOo® BL 3 FbvboY ad oxxSS i) fa+YB) Dare 3 Cs + FD SBE R

~ is)

© s: © a > 3

S 3: u > S o yd & => 5 = a f YY oS

“OO Oo) io) be bk = sr b PrP w& © D> uw ooO 5 2 — 6on =5 —“69 o} ©

~~ & > PB -O > 2ez SS: > ,o: 9SSso ¥Y 3 Sg “YogiiaYvVY?®aik es Fe ‘FY RES 5© © 5SFEP RZ S® 325 3 3o 5 oO YS cr 5 o OS : =

._ = bs > PD = ag ~W < a= cS ©: Ho SSB me208 ¢ 54 < o — — Spee SCH Law vey SN oS 3 Gow 29 2S se 33 SF 3 So 4 s~ore. 3 NHo x Wr ek SPECS soEZ 63 2 myn Ss CO Dw: —6O rw5SOD aes FEQA

z 8 3 5 3 ; on —) . Se OQ) SOE eY ve eSa gE .Cee a— _—_ .

fo) oy < S = > ¥ea5 -° -Swe =a S 4oS S 32 OW Ss 3 3~e2e2reee CO 5S3oaRreEoeO = 2,oO &= > > se Fes 8 >Si3 —p2s 5B 2 3sSs 8 Sy §

0 0 3BP+: p eeS 2EF sd PB 5d Bp 3 Eee YA ke22 -> .fu = y ~O)

Go ¢¥o< |W~2SS 5 wD “wyro} oe)a 2 bk OB : ow 2 6b = omay ©UR BF oO oO rv aes 2omeso Fe -~-FP® FES 3

Sb EF SO 5S SOE CSB ZS GS Se et S2BO eZ f+ a SF ~ 2QesSo oSs vk BeK< “CO OD Re) °O ~O no D> > fo}>a8 oo be Bb Ww > © ao PS o< 3o o3 LS 6 Yy 5 Bo ko ™ 56 232 3 4 ec & — 25a =F10085 2 o) 2m 6 >Oo E> > 3o neo 8) © 7a — — cD 2 5 . > DwsseseeoNE - Ssam 23 e?Sees O23 Sepsu i + & a) > > co . & > Ww 5 be — oe QQ 6 > > ‘2 oO * o = S 5 rNoe) a) lad Bo lo) od —s+ oOo. © “Q) => -O b .>ie °> “< 3 aeoKF 8) we, oe) = OO aa) “OO > a) ad er — .- x< & > 2 x EF Fwo & 2 3 F&F & € & nn

5 aR BP Fxioe) 3a ~3~O) =z 3ise) Y [ad 3BbY OB DD 0BF wD = ZS a Rat wy io Pan © — ro = — ° 2 os 8 YW gy Q r gh BeyQSis 7a3 >} SF yoet ge ZS = 3 SF w 2~O2 o-24SOs BP 5% . 2p 2 Pp ro) ox > Oo2-oei< PF © OES bd GF 42 Q2P 5 w GS — os ®~ OC OQ oOoeoers 2X >oO o-©sdFE©EeSI S=9gSERRE Oo ke >B+ =aFJ > cD 3 oe2f8 SF qa CY

oSBSREZSE sag5EE oP ZR Be QS see -o as 5

S> L s 3b 5)

—

- id Oo) 3 4—CB = a]

ls S64} “0Oo > Oo_ww « ro > 2am © 3 le oO Ss Fy ee e 5S um BS

“2 2 al ~ F a a > od io) o wD c ~ 6©YY & =70 OS< PR < 3a Q. 6 >3 © Oo “OD > (oe) oS wo & ol 2

rPrPY fF @Ps yt3 5on S SB. 6 £a = Oo FP ~» oy 3 6. SRY ro So iS} ol > q|}-nw iy — “OD >*GB OoQ| ==F233 >| -O > Seog $ 2 o = 3 oO O — e — Y © > 2 Q. «© &< S> P Bho G6 BRS o 2 FS 6 > ars) 2 2 o} o} ic) we W < e Q) z — “OD xo Dl Oo > 4 5S 6 =} + Se E “al es

~aoy 5 of — co ES mcs) im oo

-S:33 :sO ob:co 3 > e:“a53S32 NE22 aeyge i ns: 3

wr & ~~ =e)


~) }oeoO P'S “0 3£2 ro’bo © — >> o- —_— a - 33d 3Lay OO Qa 6s & = 2 OO O “D QO.~YF. =XR Rs.w C5) sec Ss = i “Tr oto a Sw Oo OD iG EB ©

came oDee 5 ~30 >eS 5S 8 3s03: ©ie 3 Pus ££ © 56 F325 5 3 SOR S| ws o x «~O © wz -O WO QD Qs 128)

Sums asR Poo. SF a ec a s =— — OD a a o< QO a R br aor ro) < RS "R

ao. 8 3S S53 3 EF ¥ 8EePaCwEos« =aZawuw~3oF SE 3B 22 Hm

S & iS Ta iN33S

e) GY < ot ca SX Ses B22 3 BO os 2vy3 82 ® “ao >© R

- F-O os SFe2ones og 8>‘e) = =DY Le SS S -D Sse oS > 6 Sd waz GOK & 3‘3 be o Of © > Bf o)Oey “© Lo a cS on io) oO) oO+k — ca) ~—_ “QQ > PRE S&L EOS S 63 vr™ 56 vo oSB b5

=6oyPome 6 x© TSE we O SC om YL 1) Bl

3 wr Q > W Pout Sas Ss D 5

~ ~, 3 ae) ~O BS) OO cc O = "= ro} ‘DS © o = dear)

7 Qoaoa5je = ~ Oo 5 DdoO El += =j~~terr 6 SZOo EOBS A ww FE Sm WwW

FF WB > 2D Sa . #8 on ° STS Gy ~ —~ be Qn 6% ~2 ~0) . . cr > > o> a) a © ss @ 3 4 3 ce Ye Se & qj 3 8 r Cy) +2S = 6 *% g & = > “O 3 © ca 2Sse ow y Yo s Se) S S30 ef oO 6 an = Pp 2 PY « aD = we ” a) S 5S 3 3-8 OF | + @ R N o > 5 = . © CY ~ > al OO -O) 3 2 > e © 23 => &=oy)>Ss.

wa _ is) ze “OD a) (oe) 3 rat O

< al . o© aq oOo Nae — be oo fe 8 wer | & . py 3 o> WS > e oO OO > 2 “= a > R “Od Ret z -0) 0% 7) io) jon) =H — 8) =3¥ FEN - =BN ke wD «> “« 84 N OO =3 =o AD OC ~] -D 8 8 N RE FD F L&W CO F ed im ol &

> a rd si > = > bP = iS} 8°° oS #£ 3 § 8 , S 2 > rs) — OB , 2>>S-3 ek io)rR>(o) ¥ io) be © rNS@) 5 168) “OO . 5 ©= a)> — >|00) -o

. aay re) > o — bk ~O led bl 3 ise) > ro} @ > °c: ge 595 $ 493 92 & G43 48=

wo > os) 3 > g as: ‘| §

> ‘3 S| a)e&} 5 2> x5 co Eos 5— 5 e168) TS DD rs a)aio =x a25 .aQ) 7&E © Noe) Y — oF og 5 2 < 2 . xO) ss 3 oD >] a . 2 Ss oD & o} o& 3.9 Nearg >| 2=< _ >FAS as dh> =Bo S br > er LS “QQ a} 2 2S WF > PY < 3°OS S

FvoS Sos 3aSsda s3>a83ya SO 8Fe&Qa cO S oo] “CB 3g 33 ga GS csad ee Ye Se wo o} D OloD IKR2oe °PeS Cc 42wx @ roOo Nn ks

>] — > ro} > 6~O 5S SB ro , ° > > io o}° eo) +O: > do c ie) Y x — be-— -5 © - a)= ¥7aoos 3 eS “2 22 Sl al s RO Plo

a) — ~— a— ~O) -— rQ) 32o: ° 3P°“2D a i= v0 = «& = deme in ro} ro} b a0) cD = = |OD °-22Oo OO Pp oO 3 Oo] al o“ > WINaas 6g} ~6) 0) tS R °O bP: = we >ro) =3Be} be g 2 .za6DF ro} OD 00) ie) «) >4 “| a-Y ro) iGQ os “°fo}©ce: |ea — ro we°~ws OB > bm aty)® .>oLo -o-m4bo=_be+3s}© ace) QQ: -O < Qn ==3 w oO OO =|a-03: | 2 3] 3s “© oO. Ff oO, b g| 3 He > Seo ws > o| & ates y 5 3 . = ar cA — ze) g Bb 5 bv g > S4g 6B Pp

as} aga} ev 2oS tek co. 2Fyas & ~~ JE af SRO Do al > >ye3SSwe Ba oFaoe @s =| J28 as 3 og Bf 6 8 ES SS Fs + = YF eaegs d 8 se Oo gl Qe wa Ss & Ao FS ¥ods bo] «00 an ~-ZS O° 5o| —< Ss S ros PsoS ° sO = > ‘© “© = r xO)= _— ©ea 5 Bl Y ceo ne 3 sg >8. OB] “OQ S&S Y ey 5 aust 22s -qg JF ae aoo EF oo fe Oo & o: 'O

gro> a“oo dae e52 eed ges ssgzei geet Ss *O bey 5 aeJoSs Bsos soos osO Bg» ayyesd 3elo:- 5> Be a > 2! 2 == & “O} DB OOAFo Bl co ww&oe . Oo ro)3s OB ¥ >Zo WS lod =g_cw ro) ssa* Mw “©: oy " 2see aa Fad nrot Fs 2p yo. Fa =3 oS SS

> 3 ‘= ji 24 = PS) > 3 o) . “CO b . 3 . e > Pp 2 22 > x00 6 © ° ~ g © °Bbe|Sis eCl =°ne) bY2a) ke fo) 33 -O— agAx BS5 >3Ww =; ie} | -a| B b | . >| 2 Y

3> EI bal §-F 2B a| & Ol a]Ol© >| 3> S3< E =| = oO] ol > « 5) © al 2 < E} Q} , | a] 00 be °B3“Of S >| 3~)=} © ‘o) cD od ax sO be Pe Y Q > < < ro) ol = | > re) rn & 9) 0 xB < DCD &

us oO ew] Wl LS xO) wml FF * = Ss > 7 we Bx 3a}7“ oP Pl3>|re) ST=we“a es= 2 Q) vOn ro} . —Ol an) < _— — a “a S|ro} Se so}

+ zygeez aaJadSe: nes Za < zln FR Yo aiain eSNa= sO) & N bb 8D ‘Dp g . sO] re vi RW E

TW 2% 448 5 5 2 oO BS sou 8 Pl} 3 95 3 2 5]

iF 9)

S28

e— 1B wo 2 .DS wD sS> >& 6 Gs 2“C wo>— oF YO RP 6 Yn 23bl” mM} Oo WY LOe So] 3 < «ol == 2 3 ke 6B b iN ere pgs BAY eEPSESs_ayye g 8 e223 F2ecycegiasasy Fs ey al-3 SSwo 8ame 8 SE Ee aboS Fass So Fe oO a PB o# oe 3 BY YO Sw O >~ be yy 2 OS FPynmMesaacxst ag aos b SO > =H &— Ho e So} me w > OQ. . ~— oo — O Bb = SOoocon se eeeo) j cD —br 3 > o. n < ro} re = OO 7QQ ‘ © > a= bl oes oO] xz oO ke 3 3 3 > as in . 3} oot wD

> >— 8 =Ff~Ofo }©oF oF“R wy § cD « ‘@) tO a| oa 3>= = -) OO —_— o ke ~ o E sc} AY > R 8Ao)3 oY 2A? Al w a; P} a}“3 Pa00 LE25re 00) 3S Re “SY 3 A > oO Zo) os + 5c © cS ol OB OY al eo S

ra x= 5 > & > Bowe RF ‘ e S =) ‘5 S b Ss

3 onoo@ © &=3 2Oo] S “> o) >6— 4 co = =% CD < em) PL oF zl ro} D> a) Ta oe. Rl Oo) a 2 Bl] CR!

m4 3 a > io) —) “= = | +oOWr -o“Ol S|Solco]Ss &wad BD 4 3 oso YY saovrRre 6 WD CO HHow xo}ac «opel WD cst ol YZnK WD el a4 HM 23

S$ fst ee lasses 2sasagee gs 2

is} < 4 © B ec a > 3 Y 3 sO 4 we S © Pe © > — . 2 > > D] © ae) &3 a 6 Z y © 5] 8 3 © ie e - = iS} ° 2 &

2) wD Y—_ > co “QQ -~ ie} wa eo (@) b e Lm 2 © © QO) Ps e °%3 © = is8) cD S ° rQQ ‘D re b 5 eo C “< > wD P e — “& bv g 2 o > lod os: zl rQ) ola}Oo >—_) S S| = 4 ~— 3 2|21 (@) ro} PL © ‘Yo o)>a] wl Oo

g aad segs as es 4g =

© o— —_tars

\S ool Pl AN . o BG} S > . Pr 2 3 ve ie = sY a| & ZI= in e ==zBSa) g © deur > xO x?)

450 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS

oS S

cal io) Bes n> .os ke +O rans be4 S P | 3 x || “l oO o "2 Oo SH iS} ~0) < a 8 a oF > So 3 FE Ca) 3: Sanes bE}Oo sc Re us Nco eSxhl-O] CUZK CCb [ad RW 5 00: Sj axerS) oO a] 5 goS on. g3 OD Ss o) sgcstaeags hoe sy ges 5 4 Feat eoe Ss

Ss 4 8 3] = wa a .q S 0 od a oc Fae ae

Perea sasset as FF a "S Oo FE ef 4a 57 atgooF Ved as o oO a Y Ow st & s} Fags Oo g2QAU¢EGr 8 agqtgek&sgaage x Be elSom Se +DO] So Sb Dy olSFto)=5 > a oO oOeR 4 BN om ae © N AW: «| +* ro) “S OloO SS}CS Ol rOT oa) nm Ol Sc} oO ro)-d

5 : Ste 6 = oO om — be be 2g J 2 e o Ff os 3 io) oO So FE >| < 3 3Q. e|8-afaw S -$2 ~O) ioe) © Wo)oD = a)

~O) Sol wD

= Oo Oo ss A 2 ? ao BP} | = 2D 5 5 a PL RO b=fcl=| Oo] © = eto of B® ) Co) + of © 2 97 5 8 SAEs Se aE 6 Bl Sf 3] St can) el ol S éu saagees a , » 23 Fs s G5 gas Sec gacdeg%s 8 | CATE XE 2 =| So am SC FOU Be ' o| & a Ooae bs © O; 6© na ee == 3Te 3S|ise) 3WO — oe a Pp “QD ©> BO > 3a >= N ae) 5 XX 3 by wl ie >oAwewt ae s >| 23 RD > = oe: of si ? us} "Fe PRFa 4A vs ae RB 5 2 8 oT 23 © x=2 N|)>Oo Ss -3Dl.6s Oo = SoS a)oO wloY Dm " 3DlSS}=|~BE bb sed O| r= Oo oOo] .> .= S >)beoO} PW RK So >=EO a y el -oy} & Wl©OF SN fd RCOL —|E = ntsudo o) Cc 3 I™ E oe) - am) NQ FF~¢. K “ol ed]i 2-O©Oo eteam) Ye \O FP o} BaN Z| 20) NA2 BN 3

iS 3 i 3 > | Re S < = 3 . 2 Ss % 3 . 2 Dt 3 e ~O =| > Joga dis

>SlB] eSa «SO >>S&< >RS} os of of 2-3 Fes d eS& 5 3 Qs oy & S is 5 SS = C 3° EB ¥ o To) —E 3 -F853 ~O R ro) ° < asgg3 OQ) 3 ~ “D 6 - 3493993059 cS 33) g SF Fo OS Ez448 “= —) ° >8x338 ©3

SEPERATE ea2s]age F252 EARS So a& ea AY He DUSS So St Pe} > ~O 3sogy OO BOE geg ea ais sera tah as 5S 390 RGB] AS sO,OO lS - OF & b&b WwW A> 2s = SFwsf ve 2SwoSbbJd-a}aOo] SF2& osFeaatlXYN g “o|swate, 2m ES S>

e =: 3

io)5xwe. oeS 65 Oo} 3: 6b&b — 3ro=|°3>Soro Sl 2 *O cD2eo}oma Ol=© —2 we 3 Se -Oo. a5ro) eed kegs eaqgqggssgs selec dg ge m= oH oe]Ea . O\o)3D ceFR D|nmw 3 NeefF b5ro} crFS. a= ro3 a] recl O):&3 soyoO=3«o ‘3 cDis) bo

i: —| “2 2| 3aie -s3sSfo) 3BS 8:ee5SwD > >52 -D: 3B] of© eo od oD: cal & RSs) “7 st} oegs acGy 2 J a 3 2 & 1 gx ee a eg 5 ° Fa —_ ob “> w O I oO ° B x vl Z 3 e328 FFG So FB J agelgs gags = 7 PG] OL S| Ho} S| Ol -g a 7) Pe 2| 7 5 Oo] S

6 . © > R 8) ST 3D =

oe | 7 — r ° © N °

sy Ol a ado SSaeztagdgs 3 Z| ~w matagg 8 “oeagaa Di . we ee > dAsgadgAdares xo! — S - Ss >| > ‘ 2

Yo Asi dgqgGdgaagasd ss 2 Se A aa eas

m (© WI oO 5 ce) - ae) Ol Sl Dl & SS o) ON as “Sl «ol bl e aH Fb ro}

Pe 2ie8

led a Ut ; 5 go 2 5 Ss BS 3 5 => > > Oxo] S a9 S ts) 3 ©: © oy © on oS Pp as Sf = —R38Q 3 z : OoSs6BS : al >

oa ° 2 oa

.=

oe Ss co} p oO:©2 Qn b 3 3 ao oO) = ~ wD ©: 6 R aw > 3 (o) o: wD ise)3eo) wg OB =—_rePpSF ise) Rk © ao Pb SSvy gSogo QO O8 2@ x3SS “ew an Meal —! a = WO 33 ;“O | Of 2 4b ¥ =F ~~ Vv 3: iS - eo csY8 >= Oo eo =~) = & > PrP BM bo FP wow @B ao Fb B = 3 Fs Cosa sd a8°aS2oO >¥ ..x.300 iS oO ©13Sada 3s zoo =be > 31, Sy Ss~b = 3 © oO =y a: Pos vu) °S wr > a © @D oS 32 FE SS 3 ~ — 3 — ira O — Oo ro} ww “D> > Bb > < OQ

2 o 2 ‘ Od © 3

e sl ao 8 H 6b > 45“al x3 2 4oD 325 28.oO)2$C:>] 9D 3re}-

a) ke bf33ie)a OO aw 7sra)0)—_* io) out Oo:>!a>!a0ie)70 ke rO =ae)— WS © }Bo be>wo va‘3 oo QO lo 5) Pl wo 5s =| =} ~bw or os: os: ZSsLo 6 3D ~0) — a} wD] AI oO (o) b © 3 = > rO: -O: O Ye ° 3 = ss- oSS 3 DP S| -2 oS SS OW Fe 2. “OD SF - = o~ -O =_ < Qu dammed ro @o < > se) 5 © «

S GF FS DM & 5 _ °° Soe Oo] ob 8)

=H Jotun Sec Ft 54-3BON syegdgedza on a) ° om BQ Oo ~aoam Ye 4 Mm so REM “WDdS st OO

ea) 0) Oo es © y 3 S 3 & = 3 5 + 8 8 zB soy ex =SF Z&70 = 322D © 5Sm =© c: ySo S} ow 3 S) 8o:Et2:

aB>& Lyco 2s 3 9 £5 24¥yag ER —& >| ° Ss 3 x ~y “a SS} 8 3B Re} > oa vw. a) ox: CD eo ~~} CD . zB556 fo) 2 S) WS oe OS 2D oOo oS eS

50oO PS

e pad Co) > SR Oo oO Ss s

° 5io) Yu rH Of S as Ss o) O° af 2 3 © > b — re) 5 G 5] & S| s oD 3 © a Oo] b} wa] < So] 8 aa y 2| mn >| 3} O < eSDS 6 OS 2 eB} 8 5 3B} S| FP 8 27 P wf | Fl ol e| 3 oSRY Pr 5 qa3 . 8 S|3 sl Sl ° e|

“|s >|=5e YQ] cs)oO Oo]22 rO a B . = OD OD be br

co G 5S —Go > 23 OS —-| >©= 3Elnes @D DP} 53 = 1.23 Dm EP oO A aSsfo} Ol-O +O2=Oo S—_ — 7 ke b~— od oO mW | xD =| Bl Ly P S| 3 vy} Oo > O38 “> ] > 3 >| ef S} 3 al Ue

o) ro ‘S| _ =— le SO 6©~Q) PS 3} 8 “Te}] o 3>

2 D> 3]fF oO sl;Slqe} a}- tSso} sl -O] 6aayBS mo oOo =Ol =aVY P —| S| SI} “ol Ol | 3s zy) el of ow of Sa] 8s =5? ro ra) «© ro) © < ” © 3 ad cD cD < J>ots Ft ao be VS ro) o O2EW “Ol col -olo*2] © OB a) a 3 | ~o 8>©© =) aI > QO e| 3

a|-F a> vl oO b| =|

of|2eB DP S| aIOo2 3 55 5e EBa} s}“© 2 od SFOF gz -b 3: Sb 5 S 02

iS}R “Oo Ho] D 5& co: Se 3 ‘e) 6 = of T6S Sed genes 3 © iy oF 3 eB M3 so Se eo eo = Y > ) tS 4g4 Gr B > 3S | sa od 3— Sata >Co] R kh ~~decd 2csOom ©> Mm 6 So oF ~O 7 >| cm wo 3 > i) ¥ —ES — io @)d OgS «) Qe ‘ cr > -He Bo =Y BE} yy 8 gS a Ter aed s 3

2>obo©-fe’ :3 S>O3 )

6o od ke

R be oO 2 S re a . gant > J v-@e@5y © aSo ws MH ©wl] 3 ~O > 5 -O nw fs} BO 3] a) 5 a = es > >©Ooa zw 6 =Yoo 6 Ss oO 68 3 OD “~) & oO

y

=S22 BA]3 ol24 =©61ia3 xe) oO DF PP Sue B ee SFe 6YM 3e29S O& 3

a 7 ae tae G FSEG Ys SP 5 6 5} & 5 al © es) =< bk & PS oO = > 3 b S ~D > S Sou a ao 1 2} of ‘or oar = Ss o Ss 3 — bob Poets o voto g StS] | FL 2] 20 .gases ee z= ay> 168) Se =eeS >Y~O“5) . .< — “© eR - - obro) -Old cc > Ol& —| — Sea uw S| Snm so33 secgee >8a} oO N> 20 lio 0aOm Fl3 El a« Bl OQ} I3 2 65 fo) 0) ra) 7a lo) = — Lay e -— “a & ba ~O =| © ox =e Ye vb co. - Rv) O © - O ke

2 3 . “0 Dols | § S

oD od . rb Oo ¥ b&b 2 “wo > =

uysksO &b 3‘38 OY os >©:§SD© uea- oS ¥ efo-a 3>& eo} Oww rO 2Se “wv aS328 RF 6 mp 4 Oo . eS) 2 & oH SF Ss x o|

a a) ~> wa ree cr cr v2 = 3 a fo} < 3 .°°2 ol £ 8 & gor Pom ob se a 2 &

S te - ae = oS. So Ne) 4a8oe oe ~O

oe) ss b cb] 2 © S “| Sl -o ~0) ‘a el 3 = 6 O oO Ee a 77 os

> 5 a) © bl sol 36 > S > 8&==3B “YY = >| > OD SL oS} A oSoo‘aa3gfs3] so5 -©“al

ca — >

o wg 3 es

aS . 3 8=> © 3 3 : 26 665 ool = or 2a| =| 3 > 1 oF * 322tTsuf &K QB} >| -e| 2 Coe 5S 2 e ers wa}3 %3 > 5)| a2 7S RE N -ol © NA "wD 900 a)

Ores ePR2 —~ oO 2 &E928rb Da

3320 Oo -> B73 ,.2% = => om D¥

Ses» Wgs< sg > 4 BH Dd

SP eS Sse

weed 59SOo 2 § 5S Ko We wo

wow > FP Sag ez 3Ses50FS 5 w6 3B ess > FOO & 97m FsDdths Oo ]Yece ©Ww fae ~

f 6 A 2 a) a2 2 gZESS §

vY “R srB32 —Po 2D 35 8 Rs) 3© 5a=oS 3 4g ef .5‘o) ro) sr cD tnY3“< om Oo OR Fo euRO ~O rod ur YY 3D > 3B 3 road P

oo> | sce oo € > Sep Ss one Mane 5 o 3.5 2 5 ~O) es ceSERrS ZS&PZ sewekRuuULe & asaes OC F 838

Se -Ss FF FeOoPF& Brus. 8 Om «rFRe vr Ke S SCBECEOBZSISS 'E

YO oYee we Surw ogeee §r= Seek se fo~} 3 B =e: 28256 ees 5252s ee Re wo 3232 OEeK< 3B BBY DKB +teS’ 0-79A3 SSOP SS = Se>wW es Fes o—"

‘= ON

ON

N re +

3 y + N fo) -Oli)|

_ © os |3 Ss z 7 “a ES S a} “S| F S El eal oO ‘S Am is) “al ol 5 Sw) =

rt wl w

3 > < > gq ‘3 = fe 3g = ==OD gb as : :>: = © .OO Ly

©

iN

3 5: s| P a DD

= 2] -2 6

Oc be 3 > GIs = (o) “23wtHs &a)=| & © =} = 3S bo o< a) . ©:

EE S|i oy :— a©& 20)sa raGo >AL « bv bd — —O «rQQ > so}2«) OO coSs o Lo mM] -D 4Ss)6a)3dOl]ro) sS > >alec + 3 o &b =>o| OlSs 2D OO oo..Sl=tSa on Go ol 4mHgees LneHFay ys-wa cal sl SS WD al algaan ©] ) a g 6 Fl

5S 2 © 3: < 3 r >« S- -O o

xO) 22 we ‘@)> — D ise) ss}rom) © ° 3B O °O —

YY = > . 3 Y 33 ° ro) >-O “OD S-Fd 2 coh O° wf wo) *D re CD ° >) .— oO ao 2 UL ef >) Ps > wf 0) © Ww eOo 5 rb s 8 P = 4 aI 2) ow e .

3 Feo 8©eEeEB. ov ¥ = < | = ~ ~3~O 41 oF SES =< © F203 » | 2 S| EB PSEszeceSoreE Seen segs : ~O = QO ° + — : #8) DD |=

>°

Se ®a§= Sts AS S2Ss SS 3 >Oo al 2SE AS 3.3: "rR 5 C FO ©: . ke =< S 3 2s F o fs 2 RS} n xO wn 3 © on 5) on [o) 3 a) & a eo YBa x EF 2 & > go 5 FE— S
oa Y & © a B © be = = > wD BO Tory 7 FO D 2 8 aD >| SF Sw =< O ww Oo SO aus rPeEewWT OoANs © - Oe D sz s

> ¢ » 3 «OS < os £ Sse 8 325 3 me) Sze 3S z WM 5 2 = S 42) Pid So 2 & SS > YW 33 Go OY GB Oa QO —_ ss;*¥ © Be sO OO) ?a3Yied , Soard = QJ.= cD ro o< E cD So 3 mM on =~ Qn co} Sez SF Qs be Bei pt we ao SE om 3 mH 2D p > 60 PS ek r ON ws =mTVA K€ 0 | aad awdSSS & a Oeso tA geese 5 cS F RE

“™ Qs S a) 2SF 0N3L# &°°SFdo osoFesses See SE Zag rags ye: Se ES5 . Oo &— am ~D

6 68638 S Qes sd gQsts TES

S 2 > > ‘ w wD ¥ 3 —_ © e iS Oo: . fo. > = be e “g 3: S| og 3 2:3 i .S i=

oS: © nd3Ss|os 4Y 3 < be Lé) A 23 3 S “00 < 5 FS el oD S ce> ae

we, Do >= rw) Ss 3 4 Oo 700: > 3 Ce) oa S| . “| & co] Oo 3 = 6 S| 3 ws = eo) a. x eB | = oO S} tay ib

| 4, oOSS 3 “00 S|ssS|FFG S| 3 > pl 2 AS: Mos Jt gsoge N arn be goa > JS w ol ~ NX 3 g oS on est ad d« 5 2B] OD6fs} oO St SI wel wo N a ol CG! CIN GB = cot &

> oS Oo 3 o . FoR =< = 0) > > 3 of ° 3S 3 S| 3 > 5 5 = ©Fr. a8 a Ze g ee €8 § a“Od D is) * wD\—.~ — oS ro} > ge Ba Zia ges)SS9F2E OsSa, 3 as wo “SJ St als 0: sea et ee i =| 8 Mm = Be} a a Y¥Yyw FSF b a >

3

wD

Oo] «0 YZe3] 2 sloS) 5 Ao; S2Sse cs PF KesO FB a6 3 SB] S| BA SS SELER SES i= .2 LO > ol al ol Sse 2S >| Ff aed SF Sagagdsds °eSSEB858"3 AZOo 38

es} Fw 3 a ee a oC SS o rs) ,gz 45

&olZ2 wo DrBfppwo=> > > Be < S&S Q >2D ox &

io) . re} — © 55 S7)as} S| lgclA | -o] © 20 5 2 oO fH EO9BO on5“Ol 3+ 5Oa io) ‘5-~ S =WS|FN S ~ oo 3 loo)wl By) 2].D5oS25 Pw aOloo .3S} ocD PHN NN + =5 “sl 2 3Ppoe) = MN FN

3 S 2 S| =) 2] Elo = oo} Oo >| 5 a} > :ro} 5> 3 ro) 5 5 Cs 6 S 5 ~O P 0S| Ss=| =} S| x} RS S| + pl | 2D Oo a 2 cS} ca} ob 5 a] O . 3 wf PFra) ~O©~G| weo o) “ ke -s e=D “QD wD> SaS) OC >Dl bl «=| scBl R >|oO -—=BSo b© oO Dd £2 eB} Li -3 2ai)3S SoseA 6 arNY 8‘ fo) axaA ie ae eas aot AA 2 aS ge cred]

_ . “> n°~z~ir

— aa) >=dD rl is)OD o wz < ro) Ooise) « ca eare©ro}CD EOo fda8) Pp>3OB=)6 O —R wD

S ‘st Yy ro) a) -O > S So 7 2 as al 8 S = S S —3 a) - 5 o wt wD

4

=| 3

5S| 53 3eoSS Sc‘Sogs =|5a© © rr ds 2 xO) 3 5 > Si og 6 5) “@ ie ~, & Da < > Fl x al w Jar ORS) Oo >}uga|HL © Ob Dec & ae a! Sl be} -O oS S ae) 2 yw a8g a255 wa) cD4s coms~s2aq3g43 © o—_ > 3 3 OD J reejq"(1

ee, ns aeaeg- 5 ox

co -=FS b—is) >S OS 6©3, >— oeY &: “|b3 “2 5 Ol = © 3DOoO S|So O Sl xs S 0Oo 72 en! Cc N “QO < ©:

rd — 2 zw 3 3 > “al -2 col ob ) a] oOo 2 2| 2D : aS“Fy Oo Of oD 8S “wD oo ro) Oo -s = . —_ ree) 3 “Ol we 6a} aa) E}2x3} A} SA os) o)A. S|355| SEo S5 S=Pe ‘| oe) 8ba2) S448 co} OD} o 5 s922gd3s 233 488 - Ag i=8

sy reeraareer 5 3 =248s oy | 22 >| S| 2 | oo,

eo} S Wo) p ro 3 a 3} a 2 KO oO CL 6 g le - vA

S oO] «— od_ “OD “| SO] Ba ew} =|3 |=OOE - TH] >fF] OD2D© a) 6]al“O >oeLo Ss mol 1e} 8 alFH oO E Cs ao oS el SF a Sl 3 6 “al Gf g Ol BOa S| Sb6 \Oo 3 3 ver “ "wD 2 7,sch S ‘B] 0 3OO Fast Hal Pp wv © coo} oe ON ON] . = 5ES} QQ Sl2 at Nw PIN

bf ion

ro ie 3oS :— >2 S| 2| gj 5=|8_~ &ao) 23 pag Le |2iz 5= \o Sl S| ® eas > >| -| 2 ~O) 1 6 bl 6 5 2 §

>| “2 5srol st ©osBa“|OS CO | | &.3) a >eS ys bP 3SPr >|)

S| #3 algJe aoa el"0 5oS & o -O 3cal Ln © .2>yyy 00) (e) hah

oO] N |ge x}Fe 2]— S 5S S enajqggadasas Hob > 5B)-aj &2] 8jo) S&os Sl dD OSow Zzco ol>oO Kon 3 blYS s| 3so ro >} nNS~22

gsggezdegggqeae aa BRAS St 6 ee 3 re “OO > = = 2 io (se) & ==4

= © — (o)

a tol So] OS oO cal3 BoSs el Ff solaZe

ea

“_ 3 (se) wD > ro} VY oO= wa oO lod - >S||e & im© y sg > 3 v a] OO] [== © io)

~ 25) CD © > cD = > D5 b e} Sl -s o 8 5 4S

cD R > “OO & © > ree) > 5 yi 3 3: BO 3 > o< la © — 5 c 2 3 Co] Ol 2 So B == ) = Foss id > ~O a (o) 3 ~ = owl ml 2 SM oO Dl os = | f = jAgasseseggg s&s Boe eS S| -o| GE} g eS ol g S is es] .. = Teo ze 3

Pa 3 ~ > _ = = sé Z O} S| 2 -A“o Ss 3a of B a ESE = e| “2 : 8 i ee Q > _e Beser ee:

py ee J = osos BS Sy48anon 3 ebes

S. S|DiStcl=ae|©af Bb & sa6 o8 5 =3 m cD W oD TS < . | ea 3 = . — a] “5 < BD] ol “af of F

— 3 SF = 5 iS 2 Z

e GO EF es

o< (oe)rm wD©ioe) Q. os wW Ee

ro} © xD-

3) © 2S cm

D>— - oF ¥ 4Um ©co” oO .= e} - @D

3 rH oOo *¥ Bl Ww S > cry co} ot of Q iBSwo TB) 5 io) ==OF MM 2d Re; ro)=e |} -m ry Of R 2» of b Rk al = rH sD OS a] «= oa oa bd 2 mn Bo eS

io)= . cD o)=o S 0) 2 om = > ext ~a 5 a} ©} 5 YW re3 eS > Bl og B ~S 3 6b ~} a) “Ol 2s 3 — oge a1 S| -S ra = ‘a >| 2] ob 6 Se Oo oO . CY 23 |) J+ 38 3 yg US

Ww > ce)~f| od ©© ©— a} CS ro} 5> S io)5 wt 33oO] bolie)=> = elOo2 ~O) 2 oy3 S|

ostSO] SVes eo fsaaPp Seé = at T] &c8 2 Sal|S 3 2 Aa ‘3 a oged < 14 io) WS \j id eB al-—Sl Oo} AS ofow aolaFD ge> S0) P|ao 3 a 36S re 3 isl oO| +ryRF & a ywD> x4YS @ >| a J-a8) 5| =5

OY 2:HE | Ae a} SJFOO o|4s3~Q! BE} *2 RPsor ~s| al =Oo se} sawe] Oo] ss a] ol S|*S|SB = Pl «cal =| oS ro} 2 aS 3} *S -a| “a ze 3 St 3gaa} Ss

ae 3 Bl 23 % mH Sl 2 oS st a of G aH eS 2 S 2 Ne. © OD ==SSR ‘Ss q >ol2 0) — Z eAe >P mo vol>sl“DOl2Soe oot Eaaio)la2Ro) 3ee Sot Cl mj st LO 8 col 6SE LntS] 51 oS ~O
F e ° bP . So ro) S. |= md oO > ) — = ae) 3 as = > oO < oeits 5, © Ss 3 5 = 3 OO S2 3s "3 g§ £2 @ y BSA “> — * . e @§ sows e| or &>= °- So265 8 So2Y>a)vhe Oo

~2

-Q) ro i168) © 69) «oO >0)e) oD 3 56 > "A = S| jaas} aSs 3 eo se) O F 5 at < ° ~ ca ex4 Q. _ r lO «> 3 o~< “| = “5 O>¢ & 3 ~ 3B © = es sO ts py cD] CO © 5 © ~ Oo ”n O a) o: oe) So] ts

-—aps—©bb o& Pp Pean] .- >< w oOo 'd o Epo? . eg Asa SSA SE oF62 04BN = er So -D a ES oO oO be Oo =av4=o Oo CN SW OO A 4SBP 8 54a asPro oO. 3 3 S oc = 2 < Ke OS me2FP 69.0 a2eseHe Su >) Bb wsOo Go ww Oo cosas = [= ol 2Fa Y ey) =2

= 3. 7Q) Pe fs: Nr WH ao =~ => > = 2s 5S a838zoaES '’O aq o2 Boe sStEsSQ eoTeEELES Jax oS! 2S 6th se gE Rk ES son 8 a. a SSS 28352 - SteESSE S325 DEL SHO S- oN eeeys7 s 2) an 5dq 3s 3hgs

g ;

3w ‘5 ss Fe = 8 Dad So 5 4 > PrP Cy 272 2S]a ‘8 Oa > ®a6« w= yw =wo ro=33.0 > ep oy2ra2>Oo Pp oyres 0)|—| ol3“a 4a 2eo Ss Fos Coe b 3© ~ zee 15 2 * & Fs > a 2 *2 22 on onCDarkr2d. FTF FSF 8 WwW p asrx& Oo~|aD B6yw} 6wo Bb S&S Oo £§ > rr & oo] = Oo ¥ = § a £5 0 8 3 3d So 8 g | | S Sa Fs €x So 3525 fF ofS a4 2- hee ese ZE: a}3, ~ aay bo oa «fem Ds3YM Fg ez: a} oo 2 Ds 36 £3OT 8 DO BE 3 OS .we>Sd} =Bl]“|>2] ‘S| =“H] wS|2 s| ol ~~ =e & Oo 3s 2 Ol Q rp} & = 3 Ol & rs} oOo Fb F& GO id 38 CE Om Yr a Fe — —) 4 Pp “25s“0“Nosu SDo Sa 5 3) Bl| og ° 5S >2= tH © aoesge Y¥ wD ¥ BD > “ST 5 xy ey & 5Tl J x} coZ|4a beofgsesaagg 0) 'DSl:séji -Ss Ger aS oto Tey 4S & al 5} 3

ee eee sg S 4 E

yTFTavvt seotaxzotcsataaaqayaeaaages 5 a B 3 s Yo oT Me o S| SS 2295" & 6S8 enreeeweeaeeoueseeee SS 8asesgy4a3999 a8 se¢4ey ZF a5 Fy Se 3°38 a

3s >'3 5 US F E > 3 3 YY 3 8 3 ¢ g 4 8 > > 0) wa 3 te) oO sf 2 = rHS wD J S] ae me \ ol-.,aof ©a isl a = St 6 EF g a) . “So Se~O a} Ol. bl ga 3S au 3 a, a] S| -| at Bog & 3 Hs . td | 2 | eon oe J4adas ‘a MZ re Jao 8 Se y BS 38 q3 Se Fa 2 >a Fs2

Oo 4x73 BG EP a F 2s

Pb

2

-O=aaf“=1 2wl ‘Oo a} 23d | *3

3s a § 2 Oo Sea uo —

° o tA A

On

‘aS 9 oO) B} mot. mi

— © i WO >|

‘ bk 1o8) v Oo bk] -2 3 b a ro ned © ODO Ww + oO. ~O| o— eB S$ O| 3 3] 2 3 3B =| = >e © a 2 go o sl 3 = ‘5 B ca 3 A bE} St -o} 2S © i ree, Oo sec S| " 3 3 = 7 bo 3 QB Ol -yp oe < BO] %2 Po EU -o BS =z 8 a} 2] & aE a 3s 2 S \e) oO co Soada. > & OF 3u re

3B] -=©= ° br o ~O

Qa 0 oo]
-6) &

Sl SO SF =< g ee Ba S} -o S 3 6 a, os e Van eye Bes 8 ao a3 u 6 SEE 6RS 2 oF FH so 8 Q. 3 > | ed — “ dee % 5a OO Ne ag bl8«& 5Q > so 8 &S 2 gs SS & a . Sson 10 fi

b o _ ea) © a un P= be 2 > J} Sl 4 a 8 47 gf ao 8 Fe

FH S| olOS & => 8,4 6éat4c) ~tS us BS bo 2 w~ ao as 3 OAs ~O |2pons S| a ST . 3 be “o| Feec 3F=ma~O | 3>rae wr ~ ~ FT | ams SY) “ = =) 3 3 @ OD : ’ as Rod EY os Be© ‘3 YuAr & 6) ef 6 > 3s Es a)

>| S| 3 a) i S©S|+0of| =o}5El =0)2= a8= Sa a232os SS >| a} =< a o | ss5 Bo] iF Gy) 2 © a 2 Os 3 5 3 3 yt oO = = = w an ° é) 3 = a) ‘3 ges Sl 3, Sb -o Bs] 8 ex 3 =

SS 3a}3] OF .sapys 2ze) 3 o5=©= Fl 3¢]2os a Bl Pb oOo] F3} Oo = 2 FL a ge xD 2 > = Zs © Sr -—~ -© 5 «QQ : cx 3 a=| Y © © S Ales : 5 3 e 2 Oo uy > _ = oo S oy > 3 5 6 =o FB S asda fH a ae Ae

Bs, 2ae=Qa © ) LeS wD © —| = na 0S|.2 el DY GFE SA FEafAeS Bs sg >= > a & 2 2 2. Suh aryss kg ES 5 co] os Sw Fy fa EF SogdiaDA & = >| 2} “o) Sl. = aw@ = ee o SS] 8)S| zl co} DSos 6SFaw 3 & a]Set OO eS =| & i AS 3a 8g = = & «S oO ee3} ro) 53io)Jatin O “Tt S ee Oo an=oa3 6 38«)of ro) 5© “oO? QDee “S ~O BS 3 Ee} Be 5 & >| 48 : 2 F960 FS >| i SI -O Fo & 6 &¢23acd Aas ag SSAP LES iOo] R cae 6) =3 pl QL > ~ayFeaeFIeSe oa ~OS|CO: E: S&S oD:stas 2OQ ro)| il] sl©*== oO)3 Ss el me .o aeoa= © 2S=OF xB} 3 Sez1S) es @ Ho of 8 a So 8 PEoai FS FHS OP FF Ca B ese &! .ST Db3 bcal : -bro >ateas ol -< 43 OD : oO 6a) Oo eg. 2EG => EF oat oa oy | BS = 2 2s € BoB Ls >: ao} -Q) iS) PWT : >: =~ 5pioet Po 40) YO HB aaooet een3 wg36:2

23 ta]FOYT 8 a S SFAs aoakbagds 6POs 4 3 +S EFS wok ES SoG SETS se 44 > BS ss es = -~= 85 Fos csoDp Se See ae 4 G6 3 w ow BG S E& or Oo] os oa FL ao FF O. © Aa9nqa Fest ses AP as Oo Sf

2S2 casa searsAaosAagn | ©Cae oaOSeo nF eyo bcaddg atgdwn Hore PF RFweo FE coSS Ba

ac>|.© Sj > ro eo) < "3 o _ 100 3S i 5 Je as 3 > iS = e-< D

a a ie >| 6 6 HS) 2 8 ~— a 2 e “2 oO] 6 5 wo Od og ER |Se 7 Pl oD fF © ‘3 “© go by 2 5 0 -O = 2] | 3S e 2 At 82 8s J7Es sz 3 cy} & Plog 2 , 7 & S } 2 ao 3 Sg 2] Soo

Aad. FS sgt se ey =| © 9 5] Oo} &

Re oSs) Sb F °a>-oo} D[@) 3 =FP 5© > OD 3 QQ ~“Os b =S's IJR=! s}§~2© oe) Fro es- 2oS -|ol ac© aoa oC] =| =

Pea FsOb FF=|FQ IS8s3FS) 6 3=|is3}>4}0 3 2SaAf Fl = al al SI 3 2 a] QE Ss ol w= e sc) ~O) 5 ~O) ‘3 ie < i ~ 3 2 8 & 3 em) S 2 S m4

Sex gaed ti Faggs 3 gas Za4aa gs

a] “Sl ol 3 Z oe 5 . ,

O} S|b S| Ss =otas),S, E - «)dt 5 Elco 2 9So] cl * oy “e: -w 2 = 6SS © roPS < = SS] ROD ~O rQ) S 8 5 5 4 3 DD] UO] ow = 5 5 . e jo} bh S = 2 pe od a & A Ad Fol= & Sl2 -ala)aol Se S “Cc El a] =< -o}¥3ioe) >| >YQ)S ]} FO -O wD ro}adwn E OD > 3xp} Oo]BWo -w fo} >of on Sa Aoio) 5 IN 2=oO +odtFat Had y+ Fol +BtoeK +&AS ot +ota ol mH “OEH OBaod FH oF A OB 2

S

RAL Pty bh aoS> 238.56 & 5 £ BS) S= 22223 SES. a) we Ss 2 Bs sabae e. D eZ Es g a3522 S& > 2D ro} pS a553$2 > OS Y ag Fs 23 yi 833 So oS s ‘= oS 5 se E2323 = ¢ 3

SF

aq

S

YG fo 5 S Zosyfs eeu 235 3: ZEEE eye 3S. § 5 eh e S = 3

oO} --} =: © > 00) : x3S|&a) oe} aS 3QD: 3a}OBSO SSys . CO} ~o:

e| 4] 2 S a} 3 8 (o) a 3 2 3G e CB eI E = zy 3} E a ° ise) oO“ 3 -3¥ a)ro} — QO: © >2} BO b od! Aue e| wi . ~2 wo s |El -Y SS F235 82 8 BF aM sy | > S : 441 #4 _ 4 ° ie) NEFERSODWSEAATARCe loo) ° © — Ww —_— >a 62 8 SRT EF 2s

=e

=

s

+ xO © «

= “CO ~—— ro) = a: 4 >] «Oo a © & E 33 ‘So GEplSl, Z| be Ss2 >

ao

8

Q: “O| Ss

E b: ow ss O . 3 oO sr es oO o) a wD. “Q) bk ‘S © S 3 oO: cD «> 1s) Y “CO ne} — — Pp: > — S )>ol 5 Q 2S ol a a©5oz} Os N oF Oo sc ‘OG — 23 Q | > > 3 be] -O \e) SE 2 oO uy wa a & 35 > ss © ™ > BY a Ol 6 > a) bind (oe) > = oo} - © © ld es R ws OO 2 > = “Oo > “2 OO 3 & >) — 3 OC ae) & “0 = Pp} sw ao} = 2 < os CO] se © N a) Yor) O DD 2D io) 8 roTt st co © eo ~.a)rb .beNG >—b>|~O

oe) mM Ol SI Dl sl eR ml IN Ol eo} LN Ol -O

. > = abe JS> —, R

0) rO o y = Fo > = iS e

— wD 3 |PF od @D -8B io8)>2 cc ;— =(oe) 3 > ao; YW Oo . (eo) eS Y oO © > - '*D Q 4 MS Oo

> - —: 5 2DoO A ©SoO SI} *w S&S a So] = as Ss 4c — ° Zz oR se os ® 5 = 3 Yoo -S 2D y 3 mu © or3 DS Da | Ss 3 "S] -O} FE EY o; -~ o &F apy ON O° 3 8 ea ro) ir ZI eo) 3S é: a we “Oo S & SS S| *s

-O Td

~~ tT Oo es-34 eBO>td=ao 4= ‘oS -o xX >an CD © o) ab) oO ro} ©: o> . oO — > Pv ” ro

3 >Poet " a=Ssoy °%Q .— oO) a 3°O o 3 2SRESAAE Ss gs J ty Ss 3w yg © > So0 EKDl A 3 SR234aa

“00 r= * > a © — —

c © 5 5) 2 5 — ea 3 E - = © Z, xo SB xO SB RF CO] OY x3 “I! a}S'S -S “Ol ‘S] -O § a cal co elrnElolsol J dc 5| -o| 2d eool FE Sal Te on sOOo 3 ~ bs R > ©ofwoEL eo)A] co}XD 2D o: yo:=©Fo ro}OF . > -Q) oO} ZB — Ol>=.

> e a>vrr o23=|me) S>j 5a . OB c& o: 3G} o yearn Oo 8 | Pos PS 1

Rs a. sl=AN SB a3 -O 2br!aeade FisEl a 8ol yea ey n 3 2 re O bo: ioe) cD . cD o: —ay 3«> al zl = ao) S| = os = Oo > © 5 zg) “° ~O Oe = 5 Fe] 4 Uy 2 oO 3 3 xe} a] 2 o —< 3 3p SB CO a 3B Oo yw Oo ig ao & > x00 8 OQ} rw OC: 3S > aNC} a3eS af +aaye Hw i ES «| -D SF “Oo coSs 3 Oo 3S YS oOg = ~O RQg - Oo obbo 3B OD 5 Y 5 Ss ra cD |0)>aN68) og a 5 Sages eggs e328 38 . > . be O = r Bl > wr Pca so > y 3 wf O O° ee) 3 3 i © | oe 1D Oo bad oO oo] LD = GO 3 5 aj sa2g Ss} 5s a 3 3SHqs2gsse¢agHy, 5 - P 3 S wD < ‘@ SS, Oo} = Fee O c ie S2? 4 Gays Y a4 8 R aS UH 2 vy YS xz Soa FF oqo 2 a &

~ — - a . ~O) > P

of Fl Sl ol NS Of -& ~Fae 5 Sate 5] on 2 o rQ) Ba geSEeoS a}of ro es ionS4*S na

—_—_—__§#_ ‘SoD>aeboSO na C| 3 GB.Ais A 3 —~ eS >] oo 2Olof 3 0& A ~~ oT Ran -O > ‘= — “Ol PE cD &domed be © be = 6 =a 3~wd NSS) ‘3S2D S S ‘J Q . > > io) SSF EG He Aa ECE SSI BD eRe|SYSEBDES ev OC] = so sl OC =| 3 @ 23 as

—_ ‘ecgdtdassn ¥ oO: kezase SanedAadaAWta Fae N ZgE5 ano sa 5B

rs ws oy ° Z S No) © 3 2 vw: o 6 3S —- 5 s S

|>© 3g Ss 3 ol eat 93 id © > sl 2 = O| 2) “sl 2) oS) 2 2] © g O| < 5 be 1 6 “>| 23 3 Z -) Ss : wD YH SF) FJ 2B BSaPl 3 “© oT aia 2 bk < b} -O>Sc “©

E

=| 6

“le3 — ENe®) e —3 “OO

rO > . io) . (o) rR san) ed | wb 3 CD El so S O| «x FE} oe 6S ~ = > 3} 3 wD © o) ws Sal | O a S| aS Oo 6 3 F “> >© 6SO} 2X ~O Y 7 > be =_ a) ro) © we n oT] -o) ] 2 =| 9 Gow e Z = > “O] © = o co} = -) wD =. © 3| x .3afU2 of S8 =| 2D ef oO e Oo: o| oO OF S = Js 4 2sg ye 86s BS: -O| xD Z Sp Bl & = Bs 5 P Bb: & es} OL 8 ©: a oo} PF] O] PL OF & 2 al o . S qa Lo # O Qa 3

Long — br “ 3 e E (o) ne ro) > BMS 168) Ro) wD} S|oy72“> a is) a o)-= o 76 =“ - alBb KO tNG®) Oo«>xO »= _2 ’RCL] o: 6be: bvem ol323533 S| =) 70)3es o>ro}rs >| Oo 5} O «© soSadas FRRAE FEATS © ea ed . . 0) | & “—s = > Oo -S oS g is a BS: 26 - ro at “Ol ew N Be oO a on gS s| Tt 5 =

S| ed Mn) a Pp OoOT Ol -O = esEB] on 3 x 3 Pe eS20 o: YW Dp PLE} co OS PLP Oe = o S Cj‘oO ane)2)>oeGC | > S 0) 3S “O] -3 yp Oo 3 6 sO) Y =F “O}D-S>| Hb'SSs>a >| x eR RB Og a] oO} 'Ocs o) 8PlaS. “21 3ee)est BBE Oe «3 3 ao & 3 5 a= Oo] > 6 3 ess R ss} Ra < pe “Hl © 3 & = ‘3 o D Z pl Bes Seer er, Od b: > 3 P “© gS b | 8 Ml alo 5 a} a| & FJ a 5 S “O t~™ O “O ON v “O “QQ | tM le) < ro) ~ « Lo oe) E

Se 3 < Q 34 ro) ara) = wD = a © So 32 ySY 2s ce : 72 8 Er : Ge ee aae Y SW Qe

—~ AS

OO —

> 2 ‘® e 5 = Ca

°%3.C«*S a) Pp oe} iP Oo 7O .Ys . a= S 23Sh val -). 2win rS5B © e@ie e a S| Bo 6 5o) wD a) Bt > Pe ra ie R VY Oo tt b >] © o) YZ SO < eon Sag &oS w:Rk: SS: oe 3s Slo = ~O 3 > 2 33 = S| -= ~ 3 a iz Dd “=| OF &: P > © mp SF b&b Ome : bs 2 2 Gy 6 5 8 3a S$ oO a bl 3 =~ . Ww oa ry PP 3) : 6] 3; SG 00) Qa528g 3,a bd 9 xO) .bk = =eoe) =Sass ©b 4— . is) *8 rie)5ea) La}aoe ee (o)8oO « 6 Ss — fs: > © 2 “00 °S 2 AS > >| | YZ > ack : a> a co] °3 2) 3s 3 8 a oS m= b aso & «=Ol 3DI al S| Oxbs repf OoSB O |— > os > VY SaaS S| S$38 3 5— 2 jo 3 Al yp S 3 2328 a 6] 3 al J 3.3) 2 & = 4 > Ss >= (o)e) —See © brOF —tagae 3 es) rs} OO >sBS: el ro} oe) Do 3 be 3 Z wr = BERR Ee 5 3° PES es 2 85 8 al > FS eS, ¥agek Sew Egrkcee, 28EE: 3B35>HE ’ 3 . Go 5S ©qaa,8 &§ “ ob 2 =r2> 2S -O

= a ea ox8iS} So

EF: wD PBg 5 8‘e) SO «Db ZSl‘a&nO) oe 322g 5 3P38 23209 a ol FS} E S oY we 3235 PSAZAsSATE BS ageees 3> 82 32 =~2s 3 00‘3 TePS aS HS a} 2eSO ob =3BAaEEYS Sey an P = = =P se 0 ston 32°23 rg} NF 3 ° = 0 =Sep ow >>oy OO 3B bk So oS 38 2] bl YW 22SO ® 2 ooo = 3H &Ne a| > s as] oe 5 S = Soa i's9Sx8Oo azo aS ~~} & ~ Fs Ge BOS oN FP 2 eS am S| = ~ Yy = 3 =z 3 eo PB Ql O cc Y < . 2 br 33 —| © oS b . -

3 0BO. >:=wD! aoR2 co) teRo} wS] - b. od mS i © 6D ° > ==| >“0 > a“wv 2alC OD. OQ: 3© := 6 S “2 5 = Ke} 3 3 Sl 3 eS SS Zs) oP DI RF 3 Ee: > ° ‘O 6) ® WY > =| > Or 3 6] >*2 se eee A] O sot 8 . +ae .S a Sl ce Cc} rO] Ole 02 = Es fo) .| = oH "R ww DB} a =| 46B FS am « rm aa] p= O| -= 3 a) ao] 3Sg| &2) ld&

ran |oO oO & “D Q a oS 8aD =OF “S| ‘Z} OS ‘3 ‘D “al : E 3} 2a]°S Rof ~OO BL -2 im b O Ri 6 ° si < = Ss a] st 2 OS m 23 3} Ss mn bs a2 3 s 2 2 4 a < 2 = . od a b |=SbsO- =Ss“O -O 4 a el b 2. Ww 8 >_— @ Y_. ;2 ~2 YY Qq@

O ~ & PS > >RF @D ‘ — ~O) A)By we > S>) ld b4 = YW >FqgazyH o) O ~O: 3 O35 SS F Do FECES Ss Sa

5el°>| 5uOo S500: YD OD +3 as ¥y We sS ra&5 ES5a = St BS B o}

Gs Bs Oo Ht: Oo ol 2 o> -— a 5 ‘2 o -2 eo 6: FS O b2 SF = Y00O= cr 2 © = > 4 load < 2 J] ~— 2 BH SS a 5 E col ET blxr O

ee OC OO oe & fo = < LS

oO RS + 32 5POD Xs . =%: =—SaHA mw |S) ae

ls > 5 we =I 3 > zg ro 2 5 8 © S| 2 “2 S 2 S X wz 3S. io) ry ome S-a SO8a o) rs) ° b > 3 6 @ S S soy © 2 = s a bt = 5 @ a3 2% Be uy 8 a Fos ol > oc > 6b w = QO. - p = s: 3:

-Gg o| > => O =oO PF S2.S2: SOS 2S SHAS Ee 248 ao = sD 38 QS oo al o Os Fs Fr 5E 4S g ~FOS Ze) C: bp}BS: we eA} 4 GO

> =< oO 5—al< Ad LN >a)Ss orOo a 3 o| & >| I 5 ‘cz fo) 6 wo OF a 6 iS} Pe . = —~ >| PI. o| > “QO ~m™ oe) eS) ae) o) fo) ea] © N © S oO 3: be w a} Oo | . ot es) =

> o) \O a cdi 3 Sl be aS Y wl N as > El} 6] 3 = “| >= S g} 38 ‘of ser > © fo) Fa 3 — s

RS oe, < &©—So “© 5 to} \) BS 33s 3 Si —aEL ro=oEl ~~" >5vs “oloO =| S ‘=

fmro} 72 El te] Oo84 omcD S eo) >|S§ENhb} 3az “© -Oo ”P Ne a os oSS i)S ~wo OFbol E33

3 s So 3 o< Ss bk ee”) a =" ayos © >Oo = © S«& 2 ra 5 z = bh D 3 Sc y amrpraspy FS 'S S 22D= >3 3E D 3= © co)

: 5 Seg er gs er Ss 2 = a

S SF 2 ns 2 nn © C css 22> 2 6 os S) = ~£ 3 } 3 S) S 5 fe So Oo eS C: < ne) von S Ro} —) | P > Q > Di 2 ke 2 Bb] par etoyvr3s sg 6EF 9HM ey ceAEl . Ww S|ofEla} sar %2 =} 2> =Ss} 5& 38 PoyOo eSOo S| ple GE a8} BZ] RA o = | Su 3} Sot © im ©= B Sb r>sts Berea fF3s Fe gaa axe 3 el aD}.o:-S = OW 6ise)se : SSE > wz : R coras ladco load — = (se) rm 3Pos ©: “0 — < ee) beaaa > Dl 2 wD ior SUB BABS PBS THO Ar eg &

3 NIN Oma. 3 HE oio0) >S3Foes > Ase Tz eo} CO ie) RF «JSae eBszFRaqetaa e cD - “Q) or 8= is 22eB o eae tyesste yo oe of 4gta a G& OD nD ct gs He SE JSseod saga Fe © . 6 Sagas we w = 5S dF F SBP Oo Bs os =SsBS . wy aT ree eee BRR 6 a Js Fawaewa 3 PD Ys aw OY eroH £& Swf so fF 2 a6) = oO fF EK oasof HS BW 6BVWPeo|s w Yl x Os >a Oo Oo oD] 8 Ss a eS cO| *A Lo} iS} Oo]

“4Od=“O >Swe oe Fass aagiadss SOlaiqatse ) Bel: SeNn EsRI fs) Ss oS&w eeoft S RPee YowAg Nn & So -of SI Bo BLSs WD ww

q >| © 3 g a| 3

SRlod 3 ra g eS 3 ‘al 3 > oO) 3 is) — 3 iS .b>3 ~~; 533“— v b 3 — > . Ot R = is) o| Fl & © Joes FO yy Ss oY ell (oe) r= leg | cod > om DD co rR — ~—_ GB = >| 3 ‘Sl LS “Oe or D .£ 8

BS} w} 6 222SD -O|3= a] 5 oO So =Ss ws is be 3 «aon CD me Efgoay 2coed Fo o 31 > v-O °— . R>oo} CD °BY = > ;. oe ay © ne) IN oe el os aw > > CN ras bk 5 < 2 S 2 o: = 2 — S O: "3 “3 oe) © Ne) No} ol > ss | OS} ob as tas ay Elo..>

od rm 3 3 ww ro OO P Ot = re ro = oJ re ae BS ) i= o > = 20 sf S| 5rat a QO} 3fo) EF2| EaoD) 4eS|WW oO oe Fe>I OO we rw -oO 6&;E ae) wa ~O| © Ss &FS>SF > *2 oF >Ps¢Ol>| Oo! 2 # “sl S| wf Of = Be a 3 oO] 3] say a5 Ss &§¥ Fs eqagateyaetesgceego xGe

wer o 295 3SsSe OO! 2 °%3 : ia8. Bese OQ.23£2 N oO of FO &eqs I} a egg Els ooGesu OB 2 elb @& cS EF Se 2 oa AH ssl sol] OmdD> : © ss mHoO CO aAN VY Fa HM & VMdoo OM ol Or olUN Ba MM =I

2cTmc = wD eSe. br© = CLF eR

3b SO 3 7) 1

.53S|ro) = = > io) . ad “ 2 |wl § 3 es AS) S is -o‘sR & Ro} -ty} °S a = & © .. 3] D S f 3 O° = 2ob > on) oO} Wad e)

vy os J ao F 3 CO SCS SF Dd

8>| Ze aaa E> of>|23OS2cHW S'SOD a= a3 S| SF x a} & SFo Ey | ) EB) 3 >| S|oaqFfFagafaosa == N 4 be st al calwo 2}P&a agagqggaokrH@e fo)S| w=fs“2 2 3elCO] ce ~0 < b > -O| 2D 6

s} of Fe be = Dl | -& e| 33

sod or Be ast Aae a 4a J a>|a FOO. > 3 =\SS>| 3 Wal |2Sie)3ofed Be aa)Fo AsCS & FP Pp wa > e 5 a) a] 6 “O io © = b woP| 6 &!«> EF2— =} a} 4 eo+oD > ey .OD > Soe,- 6O|>©Bl 3 2-O} “OJ 23aB3 A 3

cD aom -—| 0re os>Me) Fl-— Sj al3 ro} S|} DlWo) 22

470 TWO SHIPWRECKED GOSPELS

7) b re > on jo) S S g . B — 2 . Sos =. J oY ~ sam < O . 2 cc oe) E io) DD: =< S “OO 3— ont oF © S 5 a 8 gaa 2 . 3 9 8 = 2 zal =| 5 ao 3 a} Dl 0 ae Sao 8B Sg 2 :cD: z 2 — Pe ed O: 3oFFsSa> og oO & So] olls«= OP ps =Ol lsa be baoO ab) ke r= WM Y SS Col =< co} 4o: nd MI “al F : Rk “OS >) —— Ol P| 3 a4 Cy

‘3 1 3 ) sf

S: 2z “2 > Fo DBe 3PCO & —)~al-NEI “O! bNI alio-O os DO roon al cD ro)‘S —F oS > co wr © — E D ° Swd ‘3 = S 6O LC = B > “ -O > > 2 3&3 Oo 2 . 5 Ee 2 “00 > = < ° ww a Oo © 5) 3°34. co. sc Oo fo , oc Oo a) a) oo; a oF a ea 3 B o: ke ‘Ss | QQ 38s¥

© \e) 3 om a =: eo) ro}©= 0)Ybe > O)

co}e>o) D> o) ~3FS BO "=.Fa 2 >FS QD8 633 = 2fay 5 | 35 3 © x S 2 x 58s gag Be o: ~O S oO ~~ PR 3S == S bh BC}Fu oS: aS 2 ‘3os © 35 6b x o

Sfo}©r Do AY S > © o > 5>=wD E > Si ~O . 3 xD — 2 opSaad S© cD ye oF FO OS ses

seS} FS €Cryr‘Pp 42388 ESE 6: Smr ==

= = 3 Bl | = 3 cc ro} Qa Db 0) Zreo >

. oO SSASeg esis tsi. zr see&.E538 z& 2SBeeseeeRS Or. s S$~&8 exyanwteeoak 1 Fe 5:2 ho Hey gS > eyes e_Zs ‘8©|2D ; BAMP ESDeuek Suas & 3 ; ; mao 7 3 5 coed ke = |sean) < 3 “2 3 © oO

O ro) rR ~ OO ° > be ise) 3 7 Dn ~O . — < © © p > o [ad —= 5 — 5 — 0 (160) e x ro} Pp tr > > 4a)=|Ss= N = oO “@ wD oo < ro) = bkae —febkwb or AD: > = oYo omofA3s ©S >= ~ Bo =oH O-rtl VY3 bao

— sa VPN ee Es of = oS S_ —| . ro be cD Oo e > S o) 25 ° —_ 3 > 2 A we Ss 3 4O & “~ © 2 ow Re > Oo D PP ? ~O © 2 FE om ke oO —>can ~D. &we -D 2E Se io) ce) >brobb a eo) io) “Oo

on —= “< “© re>| ODOo ld b wD .—=eSaero) o bk vo w£8 B< Ee > . > 3 BS 3 OS ras} z e7vag9 3 € | F | 24 GB

Y > > ol “OS Sc 3 xe} “Oo Ss S i a.x3=a 3S oO Se © >xsse oD Z ag 2 Oo

SH 5 3Oo LA 3 5 el g 5| co .o Ss 5 F “2° fo)S4Awl cr)> SD Zeaa—a£oO oe) ena > sz oO ) 2 3 3 20 &bkeyroSs _ . fo

oO 2. ~&8 b S 2 = ade an €>5555o02 2 0————_ 8F> “wo 3.0 5S 8 Sg} 5

a oS 2ea 38 rn 3 ¢ 5 S 5 39 = E Ro} ev © 3 o od eee OD js) oS eS r wow sd

= SG soe ez 7 = 6 5 ~ Qa< ¥ > Ow 0 o we ~OO oO oD FP =>

34 Oo we&=6 5= WwW = 6 «> >

wg an fF ,828 & Go OY Sa 3 : S32 f HE

2 nw : 2 ? “2 > > x b 5 3 © R rd 7a ea) 3 “CO z aS o 2 5 e 2 > -O wo rR OD on > . © e cD “OO is) .

> nO Ss g e 5 San HSH ODO SS SCO3znPS; F; —_———— ws Ry) >.

-w] CD oS = wo) i. 3 S| oO ay on 3} 52DD >>3xe) 5 3s“© E6EBS S|a| “S$ |S aS|cy} 5«“]S| FS S S © “S = 2 oO) ro} oe) < — bk 5 > w at a “© a Saae) 6 las yo‘SLRl2 EFS = ® 5 Pl oe no} 3 fo) © | “SO oO e 3 ol El > FE wr = a é wo oS S 3 Sasa 72 2 F F BE O 3 = ol os wf elf 3 BS 3 oO > rol “SO gs FlS3

5=a3.3SS

om i,wt —=Oo a»~— oY) “© wd o: = r= Z oY) S N oO 3 in. NS 5 Oo KAS hen] £ N-D] “ol -S ON a ¥o:od5|el5>}5 N bn]ScoN| nA o} ~ ¥ he 53 =|© 4os 5°e} Pp| > rR2aaBl ERS 3 rw of as os 3 335 o s ed o &BR Oo“ 2 S: a | of 2 = > S| bo wl Oo Ol = xa] el vs! ‘6 D Oo & ce} 6 oO td “« © : 5 2 = © bk be — N O| x= px: md o} eo) 5) | = 3] 5. oH Oo 6 |

el SS >= rQ) ° is) © > . “OO bef © ‘@) 6as= ) olco 72yg DO w SowD] 6S| . =z2

& ° Ss eo) E Qa0)&Ww xe) © Ssor =

> -Fo | 24&Ss&)

~ ©

3 S| -5 qo 6 EI A = 9 “@ o : o © S 3 A ao 2B = “|: ane 3| “2 FR, 3 » 3 ct o O} 25: ef = =|> ©> st >3.ao]a Dl5> oO cD: wo > 2D]aCO: as)2 «) — R > “OO . > 3: -3 = Co co 2 23 s a ~D] rd] 7 sO 3 > HY & < P < Se Ss > 3 OE “D: Soo 5 Z: | =°3 OO QO = < QU: 6 oe) —_ > > 3 ow or 68) ro oO: x 3 esc 7o FSISE EL gee as zt a 8

> x=“Ss@& oHOo ~ouoio 3 =;“QD 2 6 Q3.8 > CS ie -=wD : Ye *.= = . < Re > (o) < : Sw a) se)

3 x. oO LL : " Dp s 3Mab) > 83‘ee 8*.8ie)5 7Ss oo: Qo 83rpED oo Q © > od 38 an 2D =< < o = ~ 3 3 ro} > ? o = >: < p me}

SC=°:wd O ah o) ~©O ~~ a=SX | xoWD —> 7D ° a© 2 > 3 500a3S OW PF 4— ae Moa eu Ss? 34Fe 8 5 e se: 35

o 5 3 C > ao & < ° > ap RX 2 =| ie ~> 3} S Y Da) r= bl 6b o~O e o—~ “0S >|eo 5e nQ) at | 4” cn) fo} © = S©°o og)3=| “‘O©]©o©-27. 5|

=| 3 o © R 3 =

5 3r= om 25a) DO 5© oe al 3b6a) O 63 5S|«© =S|=3:Oo 0] oO} 3S >O) 5 e] +asaes Oo] Oo “00 a] 3 a] OS al 2 's) by oS OY FR E io) o 7y)oO ©ol(oe) ~~ 3xD° ~O) > s0) .—> A= ©~ ©I O ‘3 ws @D B 2 p ° sm 3% 6é6HA ss"=ae BAe iPe oeS—_ r= 7 ro 8F4 be fag) —Fb ABA : J sds

CS & os : b o&) 4 3 5 > vB 5 P = @ 8 22 5 VY c =2 SS5 >3~a) Rx Oo FP

Sr >S Fos PF 5 b Oo > oD

ob a) QO = i} —_— > —| 3 a) S| | Oo eS x & 83. 6 & eS -s a A FR ® fo} > > S|5log) io) ek Ss =6Ae} BS oa id 5So ~2| =© ~Q) 6] oO & N = 2 D a S|} so 2 wD Q >; Oo Fb = 3 “< a) -| O| -D 70 03 FS lt yy ® =. 2 HS a Al e 5 ~ e225 6 Bw © “O we BT ol SG Bl e< Oo YW 6 = > ae = 5 so} 5 = 2re; — 3SSoya —_— © oe) wD © PON &

z cE E ook a. >,=_srJ3az853I° CG BOON DS = oO Ss TT] oO 4 “OO

J

Se a“ ©

©E6

oe om BS wa] 3 2 O| oy) - > mM 3 OS S ar) >| FS > rot — br oO o ~O o © °O ~—_ ‘ — ro) SG 3 >33s} 8 oY Rl ««© = a} °S>(@) 3~ = S x0)

|=— 4 ag ast = > i a > g= 3B wy © s | 2] -O = . Go S| sl Ele a) ©

5>|. oRat re 5-oOD Sacoc™ io) b xe} br 5 3] io 8 3 | “So BE SS oO oO] “OD > E=2 wz} oO; = 6aS

= b rO an) 0) b 6 © >| > = eo} ‘an) (60) — | ea iS}

=| EBo oO = | “a bo] -O ef a} 3 5 6 a ol eb>-> 53 3

ace | x} 3 = 2 8 |5= 3Dd E2D » Hagagggas gy 2 | g23g gaa ge > © Ee} > = | [== > © “0 sr 3 < 3 3 S a a ce Towns BD} O EY eS “Wl > 2 = & a] «© 2 a] a J = 3B 53s -O BE br oFa5 : oBa 5 ~is) sj Sl ob) -alo a 8 “oO >| ‘B] - " S| > * ©

“O} Q) EL El oO} = So F ayaBs} EBOo -o Ol >ow = ol EL °oO « Oo & |aa] oo) on “a Pl-2A5 =ze)Sli?ra} SO} xal=oo)bk3 Fl ® oO QO} Sl oo} OF ab 5Pw O oO 3S S° Z st OG a}3 Of ZO o — —“ 3 r°Q¥osoO Y ro7a 23 mo} - a) 3 3eb 0)re3oh) 3S © “O —4 “Q) oO) ke «o

ol >

. . ~ oO cD —_— — — a E ota | mH74 £ ml sss rr 8 sO]FAB S| © sO) as Ol SYatogaces of GM Fw N & 3 >&mD Lr Bb = S ss cw = 5) 2 a Ll. > c > yw \o) se) © md

Dl Ss &) 5 & y © es; be b sS 33=32G22=S

= al 3 G > S — > R O 2 = ae) oar E Q. ._ = = > io) = Fo} >eg . 3>|o| 3]-O °° Yo. 2 & So Sheer = D Pl eS Pe Fo SS -Ss FS 5. © S r & :05 3 ER vr FS E& FS SB SD . yr & So yF Boe a Fw 0 &

co] 2 H— H) 3 oo. omy. = —e) 3 rR °Q 3 rou bP =| ~O) + Qe. 0 =< a!a! wroY 0 >Me FP 32 Oo) FF. 5 alobGo =e sero uv a5) 8Oo Su Yo D +O)3] “DO sO ~O) oo °O . ro}gS 2 on3. — —& re

>3:a‘g:©: tpeSelS2PECETes 3rs) ©Gu 3BES 2SRB 2

Dl OF oO a} Oo} Oo -“23..3 a: S| 32b =|>| Els“2A mlan) “S“2oO} . «t+ 2! ot

a) N E&Oo BR] «>Ran 3 ie) = ROO *® el =osSs} =S|a>ao] Of oSF BO Dd BE] a}Eoal. & oTOS a FR

3] 3 “| x 5 | ->| ~& O) oS) be ao =H 5 «O) o} > Z ‘S 3 S| 2 oS so Tos gaa© ds: el Se Ee 36oO} os = ao 2 o}

0) 5© PS . 20) Seat OF &=oo FR AOo & S|Ne} ;EF E S a Y 5 “> Y WE “2 eS] o> |= EF] Hl Oo co o| a} & a] >|=a) 2= rx s3 exO) ioe) sO -2RD) * os) a5)©Ss5

=SD DY YM ©= a]ae Ssao 22 05 st3 oa © aA tsCG Fo be aS,Eea2]ve : zy} Oo 5 3 3 3 ow 3 3 S mn AS 09 2 oy Ba f sas

) tS ) St Gl O'S in Fs io ~& K 3

hn] co ] co se «we! PR 0) Ss Oo! SM of S Fl of Ss &

iS = “< 0) a< y30) © a 5 & c ao | 1B > 6S & 3 e ; Do - ;

— >Ss= ra)os >Nowa N= emvy oO — 2yo>2rao Oo 42 & 5>2oOo

io > . > wo © te) o ON | Go — rot wD | ad 3 Q WwW o . 4 3 Oo mM «> S"OD oO=oO “OD oo o> > “©oy PmBPpyao & aeal ee 3_3 © } ow FPN ' O ey) E 23 3D ww Oo “GD 0 au 20 ¢ yg © : YL 3 Go = Q. = -_ & | Do &® 29 = Y S cH S2 52© ey ~~ Pse soy7Fwws} soO YD 8oH 3S 83 8=O > wl wl ib 3oYy sck oO qaFS

3 oo y § 3b = HS 3 2 or) 3a 5K Of 5 = ol s < 2 & 5 < 4» 6 'D

& 3 ZS 653 6S oS ofS 2s 8 © aSg 5]O @ S yO Rm eo M 7 P'S 8 Se 5b SCQF Pe 2 Sa Poetst g 4 OD SON FE 8 S

230 B 2eeeE tees 23 F292 2:

3 BS} Su “2gub ¥ ro} EBODZS Sspm] Mae KS =FS oO oO)gs oDO rHDRE xO3D an On 3 g“Og bWD 6ra)Ose Ys Bw 37 ©>. =°) wv

ae-O 5 oe FC ZB ST BGs a+ => 3 0 ee 5 a S| 3 2 za) -£ 4 St E 03 = FS bezeRK Ss 2 N FP ast xO s S 2 N EON Yo J 8 5

do Ss 5 = o~ Soy 52s “B: | Ss ° a SO2R 6 BPs es ys a a 5 Oo 4! =a Pp 2s GB ° > Les ro} “OD be > = Cc 0) bk or 3 N CO RF = ee =

| ay ~D F686 = os @ 8 om 5 tO b DD . ¥ Ww: Ty

SO 8B a YS eS»Oo SO ycD =F XN os 3 og QO) p ? — = oe rR fry P op BW ST > . 2g 4 > cD: 3Sso)8s 2D ts-3 cr 3< 12 PEs g&=— © oO oO«e6a) = Rx PrP 5S=)S SsGs4 Ya
oY 25 2: Rx be Ww u < > eo) eo YO ©. 2 ¥RK 8 FES “S: Bas Dm > so SF Ss 3 a5Dg sf ‘oO! oSFS : O° 66 Se 8 = U rm e Oo +s — se v oy

oa6on 65Ss5 «) ro} P a& © >WY ~O S&:

“ Fen "SF Feeee 2% ss baetse 4gSF @x Ol Oo e 3a Oo MS < P< ‘2 Cm «0

re

Sr) be

ro}

223

eee 56 et WO= ZaS3 De® CO oxsO 5(oe)RF “CO

us .jo)|eSiaro} oO Q: aS 3B] © : 2D: . 0 — S “~~ eo} O 5 OB a ON E ica) ra) ee) a) 3oe) 3 Oo as >c bk

re} oO 2 Oo!

2| BS) so 5 ©: : ©o z

“< i ox) ca ~ 5 => oe) = >] 2] OD D 6 O° x 9 oF 6 2 “a 20 aa iS) «Ol 3 — «) w =— z l -= OD 3B aa)>3Oo: >: am (o; ‘2 3t~ “© b

a = ans oO =: = eo) RIP-O D awad 2 3: 2 3 So 8 4CO

a > < s ‘= ~ 3sed. SeJj> 2SEs 3« S|+) >5433re oS

“~< 2°4-O :& =an ur “S 3wbrOj yy ro} [s) ~~ OD a a4 a ES BE EE tS te Ze z

—o Zug a Ege —> = P E bl 3s 2 e@&8&as& Se Fee >> ® Bub oe a

Ses 2~— } b be a) . . ; WOW S| 3 s 8 yy oy & 2 c= # Sal al ~¥ Ss e wD} S|

E Pa 3 3 >| 6 = > S

Too 2 OoS| SOw . 2oO] t= _Vw ote. =EO“© ~42|io oS S$ # gsogyssa. |daaqa “0 : NA o. a 5 F ae s > ® QQ io) > io) Y oS be ~O) oO >” N= uyoO xO ld23 Pa = > os | 23 >| | “2 IG , Oo x Ss Oo S| a eS — oO x2 3 a =z of & ya 2 Eo Ss Sf 2 wr > b: > 5 be: Ol S| ob: 2D re) 5 SW) Y O ~O “OO O:LO O: ay ro ©:Fy 0) wD “ wD 'e) =of .— e 202yoo rwwD DG] RM: oO] -O} +PE ==>: *¥ ao & = \o ps 3 gro 3 co 3 DW a} BSOB -D}w3 — Ss ow = = alw an-D tam Ba YY FPR

Pa cD Pa 3 ee o 2 o > E & co el = 3 [ CO “oOS aa wD =

— O: sft ob dD ar 53 S ro’ = | 2 Oo ° > = wo) QO. — &d22 2 : ro} Pr S& . rot eo) > 3: > — — bd o} be ¥ R e< > b: YW elo & wD OR nd Y —a -O 3 bl oO} ) -2 JF 1:4 FP we ws . x oO 8 IS 5 3. p >| & a] ob s} re = . o| 2 2o)“O| “5: a©— wa©xi)ys Bwa oO: ~o) OO: -OREY¥Y¥ ~O) 3 3 a)Fy © 4BF b Lo E JE CHAS Bo €83452 392 abl:owS.-Q)3S°S2G ~BR:“ay > iw— eo Be> oC > 3anOO) as 2 Wve 6 om) o) o} BO 3 Nee] BPS >3 ON -O=DP ro;eows3FSF —ef Pp re)ye oO > ao N w © MY) : 38 ot E ow > oO 3.290 Oo SO SM FB Q oS re oO O oO a oO > oe Si me o © — -O r© om br

OD | > = Q. en oO) (@) ro) xy wD ke Y cO 23 ek

>.

—_— c —_—_ sj oe ° ° . ra ° * oe z —_ ‘ CS GgalAa}Fg 5as} 3 b & a) S PH Ss = 2
=oKS UO . 3 aa & >| -Oes ©~O > >O “5 > DD > >| ” a _| oo oOo""| 3Mr a] 2*_3] Glee “ c|.ro © ~~ ~— b \OPiri"o). re > © Sy o) oes~— RCo 4 RO) Bs OS) aS) 3 al on YP oe oO] el - b alco5wD

~o0 “oooZ|

© a ee = a) Bl o> wi © w 5 > 3S < a) O| -= — 3 ° o) a < < -O —| < 2 2 & ol g 5 soy BLS SS CS ro ES 2

N < Fl vol BI « SO] 20 Oo On ao Fr 2 "2 © 5 Te oYiS) ggg : G28 3 = 2o‘co 4Sovpa) 6Qa EO s= Oo] 6 “0 a} oy “AL as on: et rs) e 3B] fF es 2 >| —| “|= Na 6 ac— ‘Sa aa)Aes as 3S] O|ot&aaod oO] x wr Oo om mlo5oD oO 0) oS R Pr -o Sso a} LY — 2 3 = CO} 2D e Si ~ Sun J TS on Ae 5 3

3 5 ds a P sg. 3 > .‘StS| 2: wl = SCE 2D> &3-OK ‘® jot ep & 5 8 > > D |~Q) cD 5S SH ~ 8 « —6&fF 8 = 6 =ro Os F -o Pr Oo LL bp tS « OD Bo -0 > SC zs © aD rw 8B wD SH BoSsSSe Des id 43 6ex 8SBes g3 Ek S29 EAs psgsZ2a BSeGe 5 oz eesFS En b& DWGS Fw .D> Oxo Se] YY S mo ewe OD ao ef SO sc : o) 5S BOYe -O& SD6-o| > >| |}© a co2e eK& ~O TTT 0 Sprpreaere “2 > © B own o © -d

_ >o¥yeacse mw FOS E.Hadsce wo De Eno 9 = Fee 3 < bos a] -O >CO “2E aRk » > on

£& Za S *D oF es FT eS =e ea For BaF 8 b©ae) 2]Blsa od Bs ig 5b SYes S|w¥

3S oo “00 sr Sr Bl OS: MD =? 5 NC} GO I, Zl oO] > = a 3 O° = S 3 S| > © PS 2

As &£ fo) S Bl as oS S BM m BY Se FY cs 8 Yo-D > So} sf 5 ON OW SS XRF Ot SH BD Or SH CO LY HO LH al O

Ss J ts 8 = < aa = -O ¥F FO Pb $$ OD ro) ise) OJ ~O) rd csbv © > WwW Oo] P -s

Oo « P SS cD

g ‘ | > oO @= Ss >

3 — bo < > B ~D a ey) 6 >o—~ \o) a roa S|. ¢~o a]¢seoOf “ol &ARK 3 al = BS >| ON | «dD b E 2 Seg5 Foe gsgag 4s .a2 bid so] -— > z —_— S fa : S = P Ln J aco as 5S FU -o Fs a Fe —| -O] -3 > Fo = oOo 3 wee CO 33 =3br6 aoe ~ ro) cot > =aswo «> om ~, = a| 3. ~“O} BO 3-O 3>o} «3-=.> — E Ca = : i) ro} ol Sl < > = 8 3 54 uy < -—| + 2 ¥ >| =

S| 9 La b ol * =a P b

sr Oo} W Oo O wD . >| > SA > og & 3 OOS = a iS oaHS|. a| >= o} 6< >+> ne >& .aa BS} B lo)ae 3 al 1G >= “DS& Ss—. Ran >

O >25a) bea. “O) =0) oO 23 0)Pl Oo e3. > J = Q 5 Bl we: ae) d lo) © OB a a) > 3 b =— > 5s anes: 2 = 2] 2 13 as .5 3 S 3 oO fo) on > es) c oo vs Qa & rQ) 5 > © © co > ra) N o: i 4

a - rE “OD — “OD “QO > ~—: | oe 3S Ga e

a = 5 oat oewn mm 3 a] ol So Sc)

= 33 TT tH, 3 br «SC (33D = st cof ¥ w2 b pl 4 FS & 3 53

> ~~ 2 8 é a) ~ x 2 = © 2 J Ji & a F a Y} © ‘ o > I= be _=— a) 3 YG. a1 3 a 3 2} 2 3] 5} =~| >> 5) on Q WwW i) Ln) “D> cy “~

a) nC > DB] «& “OD a 5 > 3 3

>0 — br 3 if|]Q.YS — _— © be | w aadSn~O ro} 0) DBD 3H:o ol = 3B C “D> 3

cee Fg Ye — of La“OO S —© S| -&ro Ol 5) CD a&6b )wo >: ise) >OD 3 oe _Ee.Bl > .me =|Z? 23

FS a 2 = 4 on YY o: S ve “—cT * o re} — Y QL 3 > y

« 3 ine « - > WO O: . .

© PF “OO .R; Q. 4.7< ral 3DD =Pp > «QQ Ps-O QD>_w“a D>: io)o| ‘@) -:©“® >cce~ ™: > =Y.6©Pe Od: < ~O P-— &) io) —! ag) ~Q)

a cen J fF 2ae
>2BDOD KE6“OD S ol Oo Pr S& Ya5D =|® 5& = SN YD &— OS wD = : x Ss — Os 3 “ Y Ss R ra) oH G&G kb | el. © . — NI as Bl .3 3 © 2) 2 ra = Soe | : = xO vv val ss© — > © “) ws .5: “Oo id J -vo . ©ScD > CO —e oa) °O am) re} ° 2 alg < =~ = Fou ss jf S

uw of S > oO > *2 >. SF Dm oO Yy ~— 3B B 3 . & TTT => © a Oo oy DY 0) 2 5 a JaCS Bee J 2

= 8 Hag < S30 €f =EES a| S Y Sagas ezesgeun o& e|Sw © ao 'S om 5 o O oo] *} < Pp fo) A -s3 8 5 se & asa 2 oO >| 2 eo} oy YQ O| 3a 72S ns =| es BFHacocste ese ay A gl & a!SZ —a aFS 0 DO Oo=> > 3} UT. 2 a & ur OO Zobk& Jdewuryve esv4 S2 2] © —|Ha HI ol > w= 2fe) ro} 8) an so = mom 5 oats fo ses S| ES a0 > Sool CFRF oO Sb Wa sl8=in oF Y- . sco 3SC ost &&wo m48Blof FN Oo TK Oe N ol ole >“© ~O

eero}ro} Je ise)gq 3 O2 3> ->

2 3) 5) 3 a & & Rat >| & SS RR «QQ > S > o— ioe) 3 a) 0 om- ©| =os 6 Psa) “00— 3 La © oS > o o— 3 d . Bl so . 8) cu be > ~—_| zm >=aDd iN ~~ oO ro) 5S : St CO] < bk cal So 5oO Pesol 30) N =| >b.Pr} 2 RF, &| dD

| obo) oOle) b “0D e .4+ © =OO} S| “al PP Hl-O 2 fae) ro) o> o)iS ;2] a)7} —|el*wz Pp RHS OO oO

n > -o| =| & a] 3 > < + S| 5] 6 = al 3S ga tTaasde Ss 3Sdai oO) .a g By o—_ S 3242 adasaae

> OONG ro) RO° led — oD ‘ Ywo] ro> *>BO \S) . be — © — ro} r SW) ice) © wD °O o< SY) La — i) - ° co “Ss a - ° - pf cD oO ww OO ow i, 1S) 3 ws tHsbro} S KR oS alis8) “| -Sbeiy2DW ~O] rol =S|id -sloO Fe

ben] co xf ln «© b bend ore) Oo] Pl wo wo b

~ o) S fs 5 2 a S > y, © 5 5 o . ° be o| oO QQ 23 2r—| =P|cress © aOo°¢ 5 ro>| Qua’ =.Zo '5o ff -=| {Dr ,2 3© e.ri2ome?)

P eS Jos of A GS Fe e 3s CG 2 5

SF> _“0 2ee)aloo iaf>| |w> Fggt &% z‘op oQeE Ss 3 2 S| tatrD> oO ~> 3 3°%BOo So< 2 33 52364 ae = ©ere |S) = ss : P S = 5 YFesauy see s2 =z g88828 5gst YeS|HEE 5OoS32 oeS|S|-ST st g Ee} 2) Bf 25 PS2 23

O° L a) 3B 26 6 FIvgdacas SSZSaESE

QO - oO, p wey

. =sD —3)s® ioe) © ;re‘ol. led© ©>24& ~O o@ —=b 2523 52 Ais ol 825 22> 5 oO on BOK Bl Q. SER FSR SAH ag 8 S 25 GES E ad y r= a) oX — Od = ers g FES FR e gga E Se 'S CEE ys osS O rb Pp > wD >| ° > b > > oS -0Q)wsr= Oo © ro} ~~ ° © OO ° a SZEE RS Bo eg stag. 4g § E -S Hoe EY Se < — “DO “D2 © sr ~—_ -D fo} > ro} in lad OD « DD fo) ~— oa Ou. -O © © = © — © sv) \o) " a — jaa) — a — y Q oO

ss 3 6 S| 383 cD vv

~ 2cS|=> * 8a oS 3.O 3s ado sos SrSs8SFM 235. 6560907 sacsasoes FR n rr = O. S) D Pe Sé& 3 o £2 5 oO ~SSC2 FSaescsa se srzgscersee g ST Be bs Ss Go eCeBaBax LS HEBsH OS - s PSWwWH GER SO oa 8 Oo Qg Ss Ss

bw Bs F BD ess ¥Yre~ © 9 seb 5 Bc,sssk rb EF.eae > wr52 2 So. ES esb2s BeES eS

5 3 YY Ss. oo opraprsa vyQA ©¥&08B EF -Leo lSlUlUMDGUlUC ok GO vw DO ~OOo —~ nWPS DYa Se a ~ 6CG SELES HeBeCsecsesseseEbseees SBE SH

ss) OD

a io)

3

|e OO

> > ey)
Re

5)

D

a io)

3 | io)

> > ey)
Re

GREEK SYNO g “w) a > _ aed = am) 0 > 5 oo) S S ~ a) af 3D 5 6S-oO 'S 3D. cr Ps = 20 > Oo w

5= Pas Ug a) Ae eQ) o O © S i LC®) -O] -D wa es 3 g ~ 15 § e=) io) = 5 = 4 a2) jo) 3 “oF = = 4 © D6 S . El -3 0) a o a = 8 aS a} 6 q 3=aane Mé~geo Ff ob “O 2 SPoe zop & 228

ew qa 5rrser RY 6 Ss SF} a=By 4 Ss 023 3S o>woSEER rer Fe SoYoS ELE Tae Ss: oD 2 oO SG WW 2s 3 = 3 ob AN ¢§2 o \O "rR - : == “O © & . Qa v ° oO _ . (se)

ws a22¢ SES AES ES EZR ES S eo dS 2 Sf > N 3 Si NA 2 E ow > Ooo 2 5 xpa 6 o33Se == :e232 ) > < - FOS © = ~O)Bao a) wD - 2 - “0 —YM 5 “oe,Bl. ‘- 6 eo eee: ro) on wr Oo “BQ 2 bk > r FR3D>°FS5 5= 2 FS6~O: 5s OSOo © Pr 3 — “© => 2; oS Fg PtR xe 5 5 ol 2 Oo > ap) BD D6 — > oO & DO 5 ox be . Oo>

PB 23“OD ©YY &O& 5 eS om Sa —3 Q. : ke _ 70) S -O re BE Oo oO > SSB so Bw al < , 2 a3 5 3 SOE 3 fo 3s oy Ee =M = 7 5 © 32ro eg esos x 3s GSoes 2 6 6H 6 +O oOBe Ss a 7 rt gs BD ~< HY o By SEB 6 6b 5 Ess &aya

S226 =. = ~ 2 = ~

esQ.Fwef xe) se SseS RR Ses°2OD 2&8 E FE + a ~ S| 72 5

Bo ;&3 70)

3>|4od oO]P|ek23alBI y wD OL -D > 2s Oo . oS “oO! & Ol©Lo . “>| FlOG) 2 S«03 3 3 S| > at © © TH] Bl Af 5 S e) ro} om 2 oO Ss ‘o) SL P mdS YO ee2 5 Oo) | 8 5 223 | = Spe Of : > . S id = HE & “| 2 -o “7 gs 4 He 2D rQ) e) ae) > o~ wv 3 — o) a WN > © «© Y < 3 o) o = = oa PE aDd gy Flos “a Ln en 2]a) Sl os 3)fo) 03 47— Pp — ¥am wo sa soc< -fdb% = S|o“>5 0-< 8>|ae) ©cD o)== Lal TO] DB w> P= a) — ao— si Pl

El ~

om +O

oa)

=

D> ¥ io)

y ~O 3 © } 3 g = & Sg ke eo) QO. O ya) Ss _ o 7 © 3D So] Oo o a) 3 Ss s “OD “00 Rk re) o 3 > Pp 53< -= “00 Ps 3 “OD OD © OO . < ro) < > > ~D = Ol § > b wis i) Le) and Rl bo rm < Bo} rQ] “OO a be) on -| 3 « RO AOD > 3 ow “ly < 3} 3S 5 D5 3 3| 2 is: 5 < 3° oc bo 2 S ie E — ° — om cD aQ) 3 > ao) br hued © OB~ 3 co e Fl oO < oe) elas Ol DT W R

DS

‘Oo +O

\O

Se 3 23S

5°33 YX 4) *2 &§> Q &OC -— be

3 5S

= WwW 3 pO E © Go Z|-Ol33wyOPOo6 “Ae| . Re Q 65 Ql SO = RF oO

et | ne CUO _3s oa wd os g &Yo gf = > Yv e OW 2} CO = « ey 3 >oO x REYY wo eS

d8) 2 a > ~O 5s a gq wl EY Oo r& 3

= CO ~ ~ >

a= aQa=— &D oOo >

s+ sl RF | ce)

-S355 6Ss es3=gS“0 op ~ con ‘O ‘S 3 B cw 2 = Q Sc x 5 . be q S338 3 oF S B04 3 v 3 SS 2 se 2 Y~ Ss ud 8 > 5 “3 >

ee58 3a ESE 2S&é "9 5D TY 5S=bo 3S *cL yeFESES2 ©& = 55 ro =FS es}§js) Se 2 FS & 5 Ge TO : = z— > 3 _852 3 « 3 CBL8S3 > — b 2 R “OD > S Ltyy b “O 5 oe. 6 egegeb F288 =£ BZ > . a ESD) we a) ~~) e rv — ~o) BY . 38k€3 SeeFees 4s 3 2D e » s.2922@2™" 2 ao “roe F302 eoFes. 8

FF 2 WSye 3 *D FM 6 Qe eS Pewerepeorowese < See T Se aearrPcseat PS ERS YL LVS S ec 6S S3e 7S Re ReEZSeeSESCZS ESSE ASS be> o. SFRve¥FEFUvEK HB s €£FSD FE 5 FS ss Oy so D: StserPe ne Ft xyevyrrtastegayva 5 ow Fo F 2S 2d v3 Sonam SaeE co SE 8S 3k OO 8 > bose & FH So Ze 2mn 5 FP Se3.Dd WwW YY e&K w YL 3 ;a >Oo Aa30d Ww so F3e 2 Fagus NN~FS ag = 30 So ‘oD : °2OD eo Od. FD BSB ¥YDe Le sweR nan > eaSBH OO APHFF DH SDK seo 2Cf

> 2 Snes 303 3 a ea od 3 3

rF F Ob F DB WD We PRP YY RF OF FF PrP DN FY DW OC BD a © +2:

== =

3P Ec > 0)

Wn oD

©

mo =| 35 oe Y

az

S| & P pL Rk OC. ~O 68) 3 R >| “af & 3 “0 ro) ap) —| © > ZF]N S Ss &2 ‘3 =rd ~< 2

BS ~D

CO +l +O han] CO

ras 3's; 3 2 [= Z / 5 ry ~ n 5 . 5) or>i 5a‘)> Sa alg SB5| P 3 .A= a) er | Fk = za} Plo> > oO © R pe

a “O O rQ) © as) S rs) a 2 of FS “ot Se} el > 5 | J 2 6S s4¥45 4a a9 eqge oO R rO r= n © -O — a) ° > ‘o) ~O) Ls B> e+ se) >3 e bay ob eS) = ws "3 Oo 3 3 on el 2 . S| a) “2 © oO > ap) ra) ~O) 0) be © = S Fo ® pb} “O 5 > . > Go > EF rd e oe © 2 Oo = Cc oe} < 2se) ) 2 @D > . —©< e “>>2 |SS 3S S

Z tO 16

= oO oO; R 5@& 3 Bo 3 DM WY B S5Bo WwW rb d > ao > E cD > | BO sr D> 2S Oo FR SoH 2m Oo 8 2S Ss 5 3 PF 20 2 3 = & *o) s=5 Poe ¥ g F 2, >2-*s* ¥& >” > (oe) Be a o © cc tNG®) — 3% Bozeewe Ps eegecy waa) fo)Ly Seo F2By Ss fo) a‘5Ss ane, SECs 5>2PP Zz3©8 Ps o) 12 GB © 3 bo > ° = Pp ~— “QO oO > Pe f= F&F Oo Y «© a) -O >S8BSSSEx_tDPeVP ASS S23B 4>5 ¥= 5s 23 > 3 Q se br © ~ > . > xe} © PO Ss 562 *e 6 €& BSE Cw 2 ose one) 6¢0©wb =3 FZ: 28 ep &=e L >SsveE2o& PrES>oeSOY . SO SFR ESR CESAR PEP SX > wo> WY 5SOo 5¢es 5 0) ¥WS & >see 5ro) 26s € a8 aw 2ww oQA 903 wm 5oS ais)8: se > ~O ’ 3 a . . 3 < BP} -O 3 Ss 3 3 2 3 rs So} Oo as 3 > a -S a & es ae 6 Oo co < fo) Ol

— . , oy a 5 S c c= >

, ° “OD Pl — SF] 23 O (a) Yv 3 CB > — ro; S|=) ©5"3 SsOO FRof nw)oO Zoos o) -ol2 xl - e|=3 oOo o} 3 5b ep 3] PE = Pp-

agaa US ~O| S Ss sy gas 57eee -O StS . ro} . a) oD} > Pp a =| =] © -OS 8 es CEC EEerEr ay fa} 2 4 os ag oy 3 | ai aes

alE|5b72 ©oO >a Oo] 8 aD> Kw a2col el 2= a1si.> &a} Pr a 2 1 S = . © 2 Sg 5 e] 2] 3 a 3 cl Oo wD =} cobe ~O]sl “2a el [nd a}aS| & osoy FR oO|“OD °°=ab} 2a-D 7a bk se 6as25ne Ee} a} [o) aes} OS r= 3 ld EO e ioe) ; ~O) = oO 328 FFU soa BZ aQ) 4S|“< eae "OD bv P 70) 2]3el‘ © 5 39h S| of we 2A> atO7]oL sfioe) oF aO ®&sea ‘Z| “8 “oy~O) col .| 3 4 8 SOf 5& “© 3a|3 O 3S se — agedgdaet 2 == “© 5 co)assay D -O “3 * Oo} = eS SZ s| “O|of 3Sse} e| “St ‘o}3SS} OE“op CoOo to Bo g 6S|S- ‘21 © ral && 5 S| > IN OSFY2 8o oe © — N ~—_ a) 0So R Sco ro}sof ro} SE 3 x >S| ise) e168) ioe)gS ol— col N elzel eyras)wo 3B~a5 2“OD aon 0 ama © IN b OO) “SO ? ~t™ “O
us) re. SFg©os aS S|

S 5 “oS > | of = al rm S| & 5) 2 = 3 SS S goS ‘) re 2! *S S 3 R aca} A SY a iS > -E ‘o)ST ? =e) Ro) 3 ol -O to} < 5S fe)

ec360) O8 3 “Q) - 5 ES > So55} 8 Ss—E x SS

S}>oO bewD a>oO 8css \o)anoO 3>) et=3 © wg ie) nS a) On fo} ~O se aay38ots 5}=bl =-O] | aOf > oO} =O > Zw — = “O el 3 ao >| p | 2D] 22 OO 5) © be © =SOB ~Q) © ~O (NOD) cS} ar a 5 ss “= Es«— 2

© O| -= . ol > w—.—.>

sr = > is oO Naf a5) > 3 © ©ye >SB ° ° ad ~ ke 2B ° o2 Ss 3 JS. 358 8 = Oo 9 —~ 2 YM wy S Se Sy rpsaseoE ZS SS $ FCS vB Zee wD

SBo ese SskE ~FZ 38S€@seuv Ze© a0 5 D2 Fe 3° o) YeGA0rSDR8 MS OO ss _— Qo at > ov © —3 af& “2 -& v2ro) 3 (Zz 0D Of OD GS 6 3 PY 2 ~ 3 > Oo W ©

Z2r,reaescBee FCyktVoOus Ss xe g © >oe 3>OFS own ~FSezndBLESR Dm YY. °%Q . > o) ~> +O QS esgsgSs2es FS co DF 55 oj ST FH 5 & a k 3S} oO \es cro eRe 2 BS Om @eFrg SZERESSSA SE sgt ses FZ=

T 30S P2Oos EP Oo 262~ Ss BS BT 3 16 O 3) >Pow -D wr°O sry?P Y _ges ~2D © in r= io) . ~ b Begaseszessztzsst non =~ < WwW Y OFS 5 Cm 2 B = Fewd ete PSY BEFHSZAETR SEE&ono) 2

es GPE XOX SSRs EB 2SEs 3 v= 2S ese SS SSSsSESCZITELSESS

FS _ SBSz2sSEREESE SEEBS SEB AeEo een tO En SPEED EE nes E= wd

=

S

2gal 2S 3S 3 5 a} a 3 a a < ° > =| a $ AS P oO & -2D 3yg >| © ws ©4a ‘D S| Rat “QO xOS) = S| Oo 5 rs Ol F © 3 vv S 3 aS} 3 Co} g yaya se = 8 > > ss > 2 3 ~| © s| ‘2 2 S| 8 =] | -d| — -O ¥= 2Of 3ayaodsba= YZ 3 os S FO! 22 fe)

>

— B . 3 ee} -=) el © “OO =

bv ee) Es ro) o) &E&2 SlaPe} 3 >3 eo168) Bs | ~| 5 3S

S} 203S B.S} a} OL ss] Qe} El— sd gtS| F > — aH a a J gs a] &>is aE gg ga Oy 5S OB -3 5S _' oO 8} < ot-3 5Oo} wzS| %m® oO FS — CO o ,wma

CO 2 OtbeobBR - Oo oamjACO©) a IN ob sO] wool HI FI SI iCO

|>

ee ee : «> _ > ‘> >

0) 3 O° ro . Wo . rl sz} S| 8 3 > = 7 ob 3 3 Ss) a) ‘ > bd —_ 3 . ‘2 be Zz, 3} >|oO S °=|el @S|& &. 3gad:©Oo = od o|Y=&- s 3 2EF Sf— oo ey)

6 = | =) S . RP - RE | 2 ‘Oo ~O)

= ~=o Pr asro} ERwD. oo} = 5. a) 3 bd “— OB oO s wu aos 3 o) ra)

adasasg9s o 2 eyes g yr & 5 S O 3 . |~O) OD‘3 ng o a s3—a3BS = rl 5° QO S . Szbe3oasSsFEL eFATs = 8sae “& 4 See

3ss702 35nyaao atsS 2. &‘Ba =y FESYALRE EFBS Rs 2Sco} 2 cP . Bs S 5 : r< "oO 2 EG 4 3] © oD or soa dteeqcass gs e

— mM _csaeemseev: e Z > 22 wD i ON -O ante, be zw Rat & aQ)5345 > fo

Bal 8S&S | eS eo) ro oof«& “0 © =2IN o) bad .32 becol ld8ol 3 Hs eo} 3 ao} olSa 2} & >|ho'2Z| zl > Bo OF “i SS see aa Q} G BlR-D2]e ~ 5)SeNLC) on aOR Asb“©

= g— 3= a) ga =>©ag— _| 3> yeas S S 4 o © 2A p> FE 3} 2 3 as; st EF ae =ONI sapoet 2rt} - Ee} &3 ss2 Ss} al So © ‘OD Jfeap eo) a -o 2) 8 A >. O| “al 2} '5 gS ~ om aS «loF As « E sb 5: ol] -2 . z iS 5s ~ OO: = > eo |=N = 2D YY Oo

= a)bo =5 33XY N_— —_ a aa E3 2oo) 3Yy Ke} a61o8) o| be = a] | © OW 2 a oO} So rl VA |© wOQ 1S SsaLY DW Oo] a} F Oo wD

> Oo =F s+ 2 s; eS >| sl -D wi @ PrP Pb . . ra— ce) S @ oy al fe 0] rl © e° —| =| &

= °O r) rn 2) as O he ro} R > . on PrP} eH * rl oO Qo A rr & — og £ ‘3 Bo SF On =| al.is) 2a)4 3ON so OU OY 6 °3 E© 5 32] x0] ~2 hey 3A 2Rl=| 3S > CD a 2-eB— ca= «> a) oe 5 a) ros © ro SG) N © « id IN is) 3S bk wD ZO e Ss] oO Ss

~O reie =s oS ao~B © & ro oSS PF a< alSs -s| -OS ot ElFS Su |oo 2S Bao FS set -ol OH Oe z=] O|oat ©eSs 3B sa 822 3]Sa4 as ex N el] } Ba] +3

-

=
| Y _.. o a SsSs n Ls xD OD Oo a Aa L < a] 2 S| Sol es ~ cof 5 S es ~a) 5_cry =5 ie o°a8) 5——= ; fo’ 5S|«> x‘SOD we Sy ise) ind .— >=an= ~' “0 — ow -

= a . S| Oo os oO.

o a|Gg) & a8 Pl eS ne -S 3B"o|oS-oEl gta N+ 5= SY ~O xe 5 Bo. 2 3 S 3 o e. 5 or S — Go S| 5] g asd dys 3 oY os S| sc to nO) e| -of mt So -3 Cc w5wy oSG ree) ©OF ro} o=wy©©«6 b: ao =AW ee> |=QoC ea o &a>|s|~Y .oo | RFOs S| S Cl 2oolon Te)PP ROoo Ss “w ot 3g} “C] S|eb Oloa]4S uy ao Ft a Oo aD AS oS]S| R 5 FY 3 9as8ASB = } oS LoSS2 inS|3SE} b 2 ROD e DB] 23 = 2G) MG Ms 5 5 Bs = < 3 5 ' 3 >| o Se Cs

S| &J.5sesoZtagsygagsaggas 74agg ag =ji+eeeeo== |S*pl =|Ss28 3 ‘3 3 4 3 a 8 afi a 2 3 ayaa J 3 PrP] st oO © Ph A Ss = FAK > EPs gas o F YhSL os = 46 x ~B 3S « 72 5g ggegaegadags . iy a] “OL eT LO RET oD @ } aN “ol st El “ OO CO rlDloO} ON amd a> 3nN ee eS BlMY -] xUY Fs .3

_o2, ,c oe

ks o; a4 = o)| S228 £5 =3 = ro)oSa i)~OQ~D 8 oO ec QOas 2‘aS RS=: (oe)

om Sg Bd x ed . e< < S Oo 5 3 as] 5S 2>5533s Bw Qo = Oo] =

— — ot ke ‘So (oe) 3 oy «, © = e ~“O) 2 -O 6 Es cy © o eS] C3 a 2 a oe >

3 E< 8 “2 = oe 4 oO F Pe 39 & SSS oO Of F 5 2S 3 e) 9 > Pu a = Oo od c >3> 5SFO Y > PK cP oO o a) oC ey = coe eB 8 SFeS seis oS558 3 8 5 om 5 §$ sb 5 3 S & 3 ie S ~a) im >

S FG 5 Ue 3 O35 > “© &: O) =2032 xo) &: = 5Bs “o BS: S$ea5F Be SSR § DE ESE Pease Cesare Jee © , oO ~ wo - ie} OS: b Ww y 2 mm OD an

eS eBWA SSEEBS24ER 2280 0.5 FD CD YS SKwe g Oo -w es 5 YX SSO= ~ =H io) BO2st0 ee —4 OC OF eK

. = re R

eo} iS B 2o > 3— >)eo) “2 oo pee wD Sw re) | -S & *: S| -S 6 dw | Qo > b “Ol = oJ oe “a 5 > r =“© aO5

P2954 33 So is ja 8928 OD ~D) (oO & =a2 °6an iew) = ol —>Re S 3..alOY Q ¥ale 3 °al >xol S|oa «Q wz > >| SF x2 ss So wD Y 3: & ae gs rO. oea Seog s&s Fp ao 8YSFg SO] io)bye ] Of XO 2G~Q) - ola. O Ro PrP OH a 5 5 8 Ol 6 wo 2 Db oo we 35< Q.oop ce 3 STF « SAS “© = 6 OB 3S ec . ° =s sa oD0 >! oF+ 2|l o Qa ele Fs ¥am

iS S235 54s gees s5e sete gue :je} Ags sagas a22es52eesl gasses ofKJ ElFea < Ye VOss K BS Po Dp Beos]“33 *S ° =Fy¥ ~ 3 sa OWN CGGo LsGS > op sobs > = ~] 9, Oo Oo F = >: rw PG ~ AY ef Ol 5 3ss6 Ss. e >ae >o]2aacts YH w 8B 1B 2EE PeeAs 3 OD Oaesas qJdsa 3 ‘© BAP og = 3 ASS ee eee aa sage edesas re 3Aal] ag« OSS wT Fo So So el oo - gt fe) .esa |oea=FFdda BS on :A Sage 3a sssaden a°d: vae5c 2— -O ol=Fi of

ro} nw >

“3

< SS Oy s: SG ¥ ~D— e a2xO: srwR) «> O2 rQ) Ssr ny 3 >«x2: ap) co PD ww eo = iS, x Bg 5 se deaos 21ERs be Oows A>3Yae “D S 42> Elwa Son > O| 3 ao3B a“© Wl ©LP S|sYsa 3s “25| &5. ~O) : . w [ad 3} do > 2 > ‘Ql 3 wo Ss $,353 dg2cm954 ZEIIY §wet s id : fo} a) 39 —— SL a= a0) oD: br2ob , >¥e © a3 — .f9 Fo Bl y 2 J 4 —| 5} Oo as ag ge ;JTay =4)1-29 5ras 2 OO) 5] ol SO >5 lo) < oO) 2SsDSoO . aoagaa “—e Pa “ (KL n ise) o or & Me BeSF > 4Ho 23sSe, 5 CD on & &aa SS sSB3osgdisgqas S as 2S 3 > a -t BE 79S geass «.8 : a = | S$. Y Bl S| S Se a wo e age aayIesee se yges cH ERAS segeeacgstegagcsy eg26q% E 229 S895 3 BG

5eo 3= S3! 5>

Q. nw oy 6 > 5° S

> = Pr 2 ?FA © @ 8 = 3 5 | 3 y & io) Q. re — >oo $s = OR bl 5 ‘3S om ~ WwW Y Bo bl oO > ~Od oO 8 05

> |N “Sol =OO eS > tee) b5. .ex ‘o)5 ad 5a0) a 5 ¢ & B a ¥ 2 sor mo F 6 2 ae) = ‘2 ° Ee =) So a ~O ° al aew = x0) 3 wo wz a2D o}o5a) QO — &— ra) rF 4+Ss oOo-0 o) YY 2 Sl ur WW b O3

-Ss bs of SEER sedada S =. 8 oteas w sO wD ° — : c QO F . . oO) 5 :2 oO By OWE FFt Z 3eof aS 3 Fae 2 g ie ©,Jas Se = as Ba = © So * ton . fe) 5USove© ws zoe > oe) “SL QR) 8 ro} rane ¥ OD e io) 2 ek > _ 6 aw . El oo "3 s if< Y SS 2 >3SQ. O osO =- rf. Se Q> 3 cD: © o © > 5 Pp > >| cD o =F ea eas So 5—

8 3 > => Dp -— BO b b x ce 8> os 2 6 £2: SSseeh saxGseo_ds 2 is—

— ae) > z i= ~ b 3 § 3494 4s =f oO > — = “OD > o & 5 = ‘3 set -S = ee g fe) ie - (o) e —§ 8St) >: Be agi os°JF- Boast Js 2.38

4 5FEOE 5 23 3SHuosSse om dl go .

ab >ZISas >S|cW; 2oSi -Oa33¢Ss = me rb rb >38 5© >|fs8= aoa ¢’ &sf

eeo usa$42 e3 ae 5S 4a] 23% zgau BHP BFA spats S] so a] OO “Ss: ~ S| oO 6 ‘o] x} “Bl Al > 3© | 42“oO -S ao OA 2| & = >| Elo fec2Ate eb = J FF vy ao OF OF a as sb SS b o| =] eS] SO rw ao 23sac cD iq QO) < E r= a © usr Ll OD < ES wl a Sf S) Ow 2 | 23 of Geo

3» ©|3©Y: 20] o} “> aDB] Eo aPh |alolD >abr Oy ©>a “3 x0) SO] cof23¥} ©osOo PP -O . e| | 4 [as -3 2 S 3 Dm oa og & Sc Ol 6 8 Pov BS zOoOG FF =o EF 4 we oy = 2 PCM 32 6 D F FS *O} > 5 | *' cS "3 ~=>| cs=~ 3 ‘3 =| ¢3 35 3 a] 5 e | 2 > , JF a o = q © 5 =| = OD a) wD gage S 20] “3 Ro) ie a © > “4s f 2 Pl a 2 a 5 oD “~D = ER Sd a) a = a) ° ne o 3 SS al 2| 3 b} ~o 2 o: ms N | a. «> o| © wD) Ae) . &: ad] cDFF R i,==SD> & oO Ss pe - O 3Dp- 3 R =~ a o = >| 1 -S -_—) xo} oO] & 0 «0.Bl =P eo: ~O YE:Re OQ S|— 5}.oO 8=|Fee . >| 2 Oo} 8 = rol *0 3 sD) | EFsa]a}| io) | SL> = =|a)&O° ©3w, > a) = te CD lad oe) nO) P1o0) ca mS wm} « > “OQ xO) WB io)©RE ~OheOO -_ | «dDSO} ce} mo: Ee 3 7w 3 7a “2: 3 ne) a «> load = ~O eee eee et Sasa eg Ss Hl 3) : . Od OOstngadAIaa ab) 2 — a) RD) “D ren]ag rs) ro = Sze aaa aes a zeg >

Ss

D

er el =© =e) >n ro=< ro}

GREEK SYNOPSIS OF LOGOI AND THE SYNOPTICS 493

uv b = ma S “-O ‘2 on Q. ° > 6 = K R D 3 GH Dp 3 —_— a © © © Pw \o) “O ° oO . Ss WS (se) >—r= Sam) = ~O: uy CO: 4 O° 5a Se Qo =a A ° wo ee > 3 wT < — io) 2© ean) WS OO DD Qd) fo) be cD s) 2 =f S) 3 eo § 2 S "3 o 3 3 GS i 3 2 eB 2 S :Ss s ef 8 & +e See FB be o 12 bf >. ¥ > 2) 3 oe eo ° 3 - Pr > o> 3 53 28 OOS Pee:>|%D 3 oO > Ww Bo2D Oo © > 2} oO

rOS © ee -Ss > - = st aan 2KR “>> 8 SoOs ¥< BE @D 2D W w S| So zs iS) an Pr & a 3 Yo a wo 2-3 5 A wo 3 «6 oj 5 © 0 8yee =wo eS 5s} 22 HSH CP >:D> > >Co] ro}-= a)>: ro} > >| r8oO oe) -8Re > =Y Web & 33 6:tCUw oe 9 Ya a s =} > 3 = © = 5} | “O we = = iv g 2 3 © 2 - > & HQ] -3 -O - 5 pH 3 3
5)

a4 w ~O| i as QoN Oo HEF = 5 w re oa © -3 Y > > ro} 23 5B ro} UM Rl, «< 53> | ° o)

OQ eeow — DP > ° 3wl >&> ~3 oy eo 6 DI > 3B] -D EB 3S Oo -D =| El 2 3s ce) Oo 2 3 ol on < ~~ Fp) >Quay © Sa>Da} is) =ke ro) — 00) ©2. owr “ cP) bl =FH ‘3S 36Y 40) Bl] oO —_ = 6 22 wd ek “2 oO °O 3 Ol “SO 2 = S| “ol “2 2 5 RSs c be ~[ed o&==-_8 3el°>&o >°°:Lo: Pp 5a a) =Bt S3a-oF 3B awo on > or 3 > 3] 3 — io) Ho Ss B V,o 7 MAS Oa ~¥ a so >| of 2 7 8 oS © =2ssamy 56 Oo ese eOBJ *od 0) |noSS} 4a ig=RK S*38rOF pe Oo 8‘e] Oo}&oY omOS & aawe = HS of SO} Ss Jo 3 a ves O =>caac Hee & Sw S| ES EF Ss In 3

3 aS — x © JeE. sg OB ” ~ © q sg OS & —* Oo “D> io) > >

‘S nl=B°° S 23 2 & so 3sSo5 2kb

cs WO 3 & 2S 5 ” Q < 3 ise) ro} QO ro} “OU: -_ M4 3 BR yz eo = 2 We = oO) o:> oO: FR = 2 OS os: eS Ob

a 2 a 3| aaa > 3 = < ‘Ss 3 _ XD + e > P g © Oo © =v 3ae3 xs = 3 ox 2)

CaFl3sb “1 ER: 33co < = io IN]OloO owcoOb

on ld 3wD ~W e OO ©>be“2 e ek Oo 2 N oO 3-O as eS) o2mo CD—_ as< > S S| aR} & 2 So] & 0 4\ ry) 2D cs Yo Zp .=3d 3 ro; Pp © Z © ro} oN) og) ro) 3B © OD OC} -3 OD

CY “© > P 6 5 > 5

o ° 3 OO > — >| & 3) 3 © oe) a eo ~O) — o} 0 oa © “OD >| -3 aS inMW, | 2 FE) x & {eo} ~D — dow oO < >> ©°53

SY ae3 3s) 3} a}=©oe) S S$ S ma of “1© 53 “|©=|sol -O Fl hn] FR Noo

E5 :— 5 < y ye > ES eS 2 on Al S Ss Ss cS . va ad > oo ob & 3sl ©6 3 & +dPrrw w= ) co) «& Sw ss SY > a© 3 3> oS"O Ss E fore -2>wo) er 2ao 23asHs 2Bb] Bl}

x==ee 4-\O 2B 3 oD As =F 3 > ro CO, “A RD 3S _ “< O Dy et v , v . 3 eS R =: = ON rm tO BR 3

3 S S| °O < “wo > S23 >] -O oO 3 “Z| -O a) re S “Or OS in oD Ss = Cy) wl Ss > |. ee 3 > 7B — ioe) + 3 ey 33 “| . *O] Co ro} i) 8 > . 5] o< 7Ss S| 32 6 ee) at > .hn] o © on ao) = ‘ R © i) — ~O a— ke So a an RA YX 23 oo) (or) v wv wv ro)aal lo) re S| -S— RF ) “ > > cD «) “OD

a 2aD $$ Ff > 38 = . < ‘3 > S cD 3 ae) wD > 3 “< oO” | coe * O So > > 8“OO SsS¥ >—s o= 3 sr eA 8 © 2eE . be S| “O) co} OF 3), > = P 3S w o}

wr 00 5) 5

>

3 OO | me Q o—| +0) . “oO @ 5 5 od 2OO 3 asZSro) © 5 ro} 3. 6¥5OS ra) =° Do >.~5) Sa] 0 e~O iad “|sl5=bbe} -a} [==z-O us3 >eoO 3 Sb ®

ot — SS} ot +O a so © 4Bl o3 beyoO gfe OH © ew} ®=“| gq oO} a ol of FL &eZ oO xO —|

=| S A -| & J €a — = °O x ae) ws al © « > “w S nwo Pees s& 1 Ol °O )Pp‘oe SD Ut: -& Ss4 3 4agg vf)be3 J wz ~otd a) QsoS = io)SP .> 3 oo: >|S38 om bk 8 — 83B 8 gya & 8 © va YF Yaoaao. | 6} 7 4 Pp SS oe co} 2SD So s3Sa5! R:

‘Ss alINco} Al-]‘Oo oO xsOG atgTT SSS 3Oo} 5oD 2Oo} 3B ap) Rk 5 5 3'é535 5 wt3> 4a ao op Fr “2 =a) Ol wz] Oljoy SlAsOS 2‘olRS ScL“BS Pl

Sa

2 a a o. rr a cf o: < co 5 5 ro} 5 & b Pp 3 ~— ro) oy > WS — WH “2 3 o ro! WS “OQ. Oo © o OQ. a B xe) CE RP Ww > > eo) “D Ral — > uC ww ‘El cl >) a) © > = © aS 3 td © x 3 o a) © 2 os 4 5 cs a a & 8 ‘uy © al 5 3 3 | 2 vy § 3 FP b ~O) = FS o a 78 Psi Bro SY : ns) kes an cy) &. 3: o> 3 Zo ats ~=

BO Ty

y&

“al OSI = < We S35 2 & ie) ot Y M = . xe} rR = oO = is hd Nem D> = = va al > . 5 so O} 3} S e928 6 3 oS gogi DI5] -2s = SS 5 = = AS we rho _. = > o. 2 e at > S) a NS oo RE ~D ~O: oc D = we: >ro} QO .qT x oO) Oo 8 e = ¢ 8 § 5 EF 3 Ww jo) 3 ~O 6 =Sso< PrP +S > Ss

a| Sro} i) OO “Oob >2 xO oOOQ. tom al 3= 2a5bPl

| b a) > dauodtaga.,

A] > O] w 3, > & 6 w 2 BcS} 2 | ©-x} Ba SD~O) re>ce S > So Da] 23 ey FS “a ~OF SI US) @ . os}

sos)2 a EH BS 2 gS Pl ow < 'S in age° 8—

« 2 can 3 Y 7 cz! & Ol SI wo i | => oo) 2] %: | 2D + > 5 5 S al aD

OB} col ST = a—© Jd ay|OD: age sOY jo) 23 3B — «) aw waes ss} b “00 QQ) «0 —| —| «cant OS 3 YZ cD>.3 ie) 2YI =oO .as = Pp 2Do) a) (e8) @: > ro} > =| 6} ce O

Or 5 ° ; 3 ‘ oe OY 2 2 aa) > aHeagsasgggysegs Segeges 9= 3 a 8 Ss © abo pl tb S oe) > D | 5 2 o) 3 S a as) cS) Mo . : kb — z Ss — e b 5 i ‘al SS SS! Slo S| At Ars

ren] 3 e: 5 a 2m] 6 3 ° 8 LA & +1 "OD = jaa . . ~O © G R ~ c “® eQ) is) le8) re 0

|2)3o>E.5: E::497 :

¥ =— : : : 3 : : : cD — ~O ~

:a4 5 : 6 BS: ld Lt o~ < ‘o) S 2 &8 P 6 co = . S00 Na ro} : 5 S| = oy - 2 8) .& Q ro) = Z “Sl NK

aoe wo SS 3A Ss C S2 -: ae as S 5} “8 -B) = a3 z — . z= _ > / 8 2233 5 «6g Fae aga s 2a] S| Y) 3 nf 3 a] 3] = ‘S Kr 8 rt re yoo 22 8 5 isaagq ge 5] “d) 2 = ° sa) sl = we WwW) pe 32% : — St= . wT of & e} 2 > os} fo} Cl 3s io} : 23 “| 3 oO +) «= Ee} > v s) 2“Ol ‘Sc e oOo bl 3=xO| 5a1 Mw) 3aa: E-: 37: g:: W « oO ‘© oS SA ro)a33 3B aw] ~D An PQD ey) 3&D23 rs Yy 3op §@ rs «3 2 2 3 2 ateE wo S| -d . of 12 Oo a 2s > e y33 5&:F:13 3 3 Y3 35S al 5Pp3Kq| Sl ©ms : ; Ol : 4 oO & a 5 = : Oo ol = eo &: FE + 3 3 a at E : se ° 3 oY > Q. 4 : E E s| “2 a S ro} =e oo = 21 3 .& an eg 9s e- 72 Fs 2 Ssbe

= WY — : 3 oO: & _ | = oO < — = 7 Wr so — i a: yg Ss |

::S|3FF8rsa} =w=el~iala¥eg ° > — Gay w aPO > oo > 3 25 RS Oo E 0 Q. ~2 o) © ° —_— SNonw 32FADS BE & as! :-o: 0) Oe 3B} 5] 2 aA8o 2 26 fe J i) Cc 2 Ss 32 b al 5 S See 3is) o| 2S +8 :cas GGeduw oC ZSae: := : : jJ 2 oi ce) ; Bl S «x ao WI -o ot | & | 2 ; © 3 ‘3 — 3 > Ss > es} 3 a DoS > 5 © rf 2 3 5

S|| obo 0 ‘5 2 : E 3=©a=)o>->am ? xe) = ;S E 3g 2Ea=|>3~ e| S|al &Wo Ss ¥ CO is S|© b = z 2 3 Sus : c gC 33, 2>xo 2D 23 iOE Ge of E : 3 EB S a S © > = > © ° ~O oe. 2_ON —|a 2a

; . S| «& fSa: “3m a—

> | «< v Re 3 : : 334 33 =3=oe o RF ¥N. Bl wa > o:==38 Ss a >; O -O wr 3 >| a) 3g 2 EE 5S BlLo -Ol Q =3< WO Bl WN +D i aSOo —ES =©} S23: 2S$32Es =-_ 24 2:: 3d —__—______— 3b

5S 8g “Q) y= ~— =A=: ~ : cD > 5 : . mgS ejqq=_ S88 8 Sce = Ss 2k oO < &

nay | oe > ©~=3 Bo & ws 5 x 2 QQ, S

o3

“Q)QD is} 3 3 al 3 Ss ::

— : : ROD a2 | | 2 gig 32s : °q So} Ol] 68 ‘$ 3 3 : oO3 a ee Gl 3 E 2 3 e:no a fl al SG : | Ps > “Blob a) 3 a t eee GAS A SS 2 3 '| ~ B is oO rr 3 3 ps iN | = Eg 6 : jaa S| at 3 Bo} | 8 & cE 5 2 : =) Co s o|2 N S 2 rs N 88 woOW wRFoRan) o)

e2=5°3:

© cm a) Bl -x= 3 RO} ~ a) z 5 E Pe 23>So Ee} Oo Sqa} ey} | 5OS 5CY &at gg6:is) : o)ree):bs . CO] 2] 3} Fy a g 5 oS © Ws, & rE W GH = S| ~ol a: DI D2 Bl : =a :°S| :“I53S > OEB rQQ) S| : 3-O E 4 YO jen) ON: o— 8 AIS esBIia8 S = ol -& S| «&

3Q D OQ. L wr S b> =.§ .& [se) & osJ. 3 oy 5(| ‘'s}e 8 Z| >w

= . - > 2D . 6 :

BoP is a aS £2, b = S = oO] og

a>oe—~ F& D> @ b yyol oy be >ee (@) “> >Ee} res) °Ss — — Oo &ad atOo tawD Oo ES“of g ro} xo} 2 ce} P3 2S 5 ws Oo > U Ss 6 al “Ss Segryzg 25 8 eeeegags gf F 32

— > ) Lf Oo S: ° wD >6 =H wo -—— o Ol ise) OD Wd CD.©ws PEAS EES Seager ey.dgG de SEEG TERS 2 G09 FA ys “D> Be

? “2:sata a) >ea : S&S oo}3 7; rR br ~O R “CO aS cy & st 2 Fagaagadyae = > OQ) © o ta : 5 oo ) > ro) 0) ise)Bs © =n — Sy| esogqg rgSs 6 ‘ofS 8 Oo aadd oO a“Q) te eC = Sada otags e YnA cS re eo} eO io) Pp _=| a) -© ~>o S ~ E3| ie) wiee) o: =“OOco; beeo} =|>ea4gf >pws .WO CQ} ws SL 2: 2 -t Co Sl OR -o} -& 5S 5 Oo Al S el Sl 3 Bo Al YH >on = qa 3SJoys ‘e] adaad Ol ooleaac 5oH a> © 4 Fo oe A] S Sf 2 sa > os ~ BF eS oo: "g sHgaaga esg|er edtsy a Eos rf wo O EF zs: fo} 4a & a}od OoFs Fo -F ‘ ne! ag SSuyyeeng5 Sseetaryasa Fegan e 5 is . 2! 5 S ml ry PP wl CO] Ol Bl OO :

7 ZZ) eee

——— ~Ss ~2}>5-Dl 3CO] S:«||RrQ) >Bl ~O .. E > eC: > . : md oo ms oO] °C Ss oe: > = OoFaq Fa yxo‘| ke 5S&L 3 eh .owgdg =} “D: 3 So3

= ee 2 S35— AareCrsFPO oY —~ 2 “| 4 Se S| Et x eg | = oo a ea 2 eS a a Oo ek YsSs2]5 20] 23 S| A gt os-oZO soS|OO fF Oo8 2 = B| | =| Oo SaaS =|3SS S2B | a}=|F=|aS aac 3 Oo rR ~ of fo) 0 a Fr Pp Fo. ur ~s oO = elaEK ‘a aN SH4)OR -o} ol3S Sb se Oo OCW = =| Of Le -YQ > o» = G = el we} 5 > 5 See) 2s 8 — SW CO & BI} ~-S]= .H~~ 3 Ee Sbe} Qa > seats a = ol 3 md < 6 & | 21agd sos ‘J el oS «& -O — —wei Flco} -o|«© &NS >| oO -O6cD oe } cl ee*-O — o) lw Ee OS6 =~ a) \O -o| El -3) 5 tY~ F ¥ 2 S rs —_—————

> E SB} sj S ——_—_—__ xO} CD oO} ©

S| Ol us a 3] SB} AH

wl es 2D

RE cl 3 S i) Y 3 >! wD io) Os: wD o o 2m oO wr = wD fo} a) 3 = Oo] -3 < D> ; S| a fo’ el«:=oy Cc} 3s Sro) = “-: @) >:DB] b5 Fl ¥©a2cS °2>0Ss] YS = b rer ow LO Y Pe 2A Ss OF al oS >a| O& Zas ;© ° 5cNa 5b re}Z —|3oie) OQ} -D: -R wi S| CQ Oo ro Cr a} xe) eD> af FS so x09 a o| S| o 3 uo} ES a | S| 4S a * 2 Z| cS} 5 EF, eb

= S nw = 3: S 3 5 5 "3 = © cD g “a 2

oY SS ., So} Rslo a FeSao oS a og gc =| es Ss -ro} .“=awes} Cc] 30: © ) Pp o 2. ro) 2&— a) St b ie) io) -r=at Rk =es © = x wz an wD ro} rv ro} . 2 _ - > D — o: bP aD oS © ce e an 2 = S e g Oo -O rR o
| a) |SOS E] ol “| = S| Fl al 5=a)a 8o> Sa) eH] 2D] oti 6=38re e ekeggs 7| } S; S| 30) 33 5) 8 3] at E|2 Sf oe | so] & ao. S wt El 8 2DB 2~& 3_=>:Ol 6°a1 5o) a > ‘ ‘ [@) © D

|= 5&=| gre} ss 8 E a S| 3 r=g° 5_ © —_— in a w ot ‘a} Zo Ob < 2

as ©= rEeo Oua Rk ggCo] 2S} D|oO >Ol5}-S ob D> we bl “aL alOo = S| © o) WS cD >0)a cl dB] a1 2| > Dy wz a2 5ofplEK A “3 md be . a-“Oo wy &oF) “| -Oio} xB} b Oo b|°3«© we

© (s0) — > - oO — ca > Bb 3 wi On a) DD as) 3 a - 3 i> eo 3 8) wa pm] — —_— >) we =| — vA a’)

agHf S| 5 %O S os q . |raf O °S 3 Sonat s 5 ; Rat “< < ek co = oS 7 D . [3S «3D cD) 2 > Rat co ca) s O fF Ss x 3 < BD ae) ~ am) Pp —_—3s se a)=D 3D=8.0) a ab Bs— 2S aSwo a2A 3>‘zS --Oo >| Rat a5 wD td ‘o) >

b Da} ere B°2Cc o—_ 3 6 O=

~ Ns- 62oc! 5 a.5ie) ay oOo bogosBE ne 3 aa 2c df. 982 Vw oc = Or P ra) . ow 3S > a) OYteSY ON a]~S SOwy S. Oo | b2 oz aN ~~ OG YS % “aly-o

a= 4io) oo“ FJ 2°03 BD z«>wo alg >|3 -2 —_ ao onDR ie)a“> ©: io) WY —~< © = Oo : = v

TO lo) ~ & SY 5 a ee > ROD. Rk b: = Sm Pb re “4 oO oS Qg ¥CySean 0! o 2) “0D ~mh™=br>[o)DD ww 3=) “EO =)3 Yl co 3al wg

Ss of z Qi; 4 oQO o:" eo) o b&b hat g. < =: ay Bary) > 7 Cc: cl tO CD “.

cD ke oy c a) ie) -Q) — © = +O ona “co rNS@) QQdD be “OO o< wo) o =] CD b: kr e< 2D x > Fl 3 6. ui 0 8 oO ao a) CY) 2B OO Cee s to bo A ° bl< moe QD 3©2D ro) fomaa 3 =o Ce Fb(8 brC8 Ss Fe zo S 3s e=6b YS

: Eg Fes S¢ 3 85

. > : r OW

3B = ~WO ~D: BD 3oys Rs?3 5 xxNS OF Pos SS —zke > © — O

: e SS See SE © S : sie2By 5 #e s , 44 es n ‘3 = Ale ‘3 < ra B = — CS cal GS 3 ad S “S © A 9 EP a} 4) B “e sj 6 _ 3: zl}. @ IN “E} & “+ > 2 es al & S 2© q8N2yr BJ 5S535 & & a3CB Fades = tO A eG 8= BD> =.>#€ 5— RW _ ¥= ¥cm Af ro} ca Ce Pv: RE: @& &

o}

>

~2

io) reO 0)~eSo) o~2 >ET a2beaSbf®&>= :cS> 3 ! oo | > S| ST Ar | 8 Hal SF Ee i343 § goege 8 5 Feaaqg 45

a7 “al 36L& = “00 3ea) St 22]5 a} S| Ss aeS YS a}iO~Y} “m= pr sa Uo Snz Q 5 54 en -3 ro} E ‘ea < al, wa “< C wat cA 8 2S}= OS es Sct Ee >— 3& 82cod -Rl o| ol S~o°“ol xs io)akobon] © 2= ef 2ItBS .YX wD >oO] 3 -FH 3WO D & 3aloes

.3.

5s _~ 2 « hot i 5 z 8 4 3 uy s) sO © 2 > >oF S2ro) “D: eo} D =>©: bP SS aOo 3DP©N SH9ro 2) ax00 a

© ose i= —_ on ro} be sr «xe: rO — ox a! © Oo -: fs ayxr Q>< - 3be > |~O —_LO x< 'S) “Q) lS)©~O) ©rt ro} av)oC QO R =a} — Rogxg2eS io 52 &E s so S|. eS 2 as SBS — iI= v

ee ee PAF Fe Fs el sl©-Salo S2 oN&2fo:S s=< ) Oo] 2| S! 1Lhao of 2 ze © ~W ° Oo} 3 3 o RF 3s = 6 tw St =s LY El> .S “2 = D} oObl ~z > BS~os— > “to

Ol. an “D TS 2D) x me 2 a 3 es “0 =ay -O = i no © vtOh SQ =DOE 632OoSsl 5‘acsOS ‘El x~1cs ee xtoS © o.ar) &C5) S|Yy al6 be “Q) e ~O A e Zoe Z a °° 3 3 S| & a 2 Oo] 3 3S 28 = e| Ss | = S| 6 yy > : 3 “So : \e) El o bY S| o s& s | 20 © bo So fe ro} 3} b a1r=2 >oom >=~Elwe Dl“& = 3 sO] -a: ©: © adew Ze) cD) * - °© « wz rong an) r= a)«“O so) © ‘Stbe. AS a S|38) *S}©SO) “Ss =|we xO a) > Ha @a) 5PpyoDro©3I~='oAu Ss&4“=| , °-Q) oO vv aj ually =} mt3

a2e7hqg78 ge> x2 ON $498 oO 3 er} | Oo Ol a - y asad & i eesFea = fs)

ee a

Sa 3 SB} EPp & Bl 4S| O} S ~. .5“Ol | one) ro} wo'o >7es 6 2BS =o “5 > 3ASD >:=7O na3oo>| °c2>— 23 © 2P5— © 52 E Co“2 3 3~O) S L>WZ cD 3"2«0S & =©= =xo) ~2 a) 5 = > 7 © © © 20) a) Cd AS) > w 2D Re} Y > > o i le D lo) = s — S|.Ol al — cs ‘) 2) +2ro) ~ aOo S+ ooON 4 HR Se OB] © SS ©S|ae S 6om~O] “D“Ol reee) wd — a5}te > an o3=S— “< x-OD N FL& S|xO-et _~B Osa o »cD Oo 4 aS (oe) 25

ro) Qe n sj3 oa = aw S 23 wr OS

=> 8 ww = 3 sa &F&O Pr 2 gS 2 eS

Ly :

= ara} . Ss S&S —

0Q) _— oS S ee) a

wD S b&S oO ~D fo) SFY

PS 5po Sf sez

=“2- DD S, oS ©‘3.3 2

~ 5Oo) ek seg ya

< an

a©n fo)c§foxe) 3.99 4) —54 >S| : at besp} 5 © ~O =R-3 QO] SS] of 4 5 | 6. > as“ ow F &

=35

El S|o|sesio} ol6 D FTy) gwl, = SoEB) gt A 5o)o= 3 ©abY Oo, S&S Oe SO Sl> = = -w4xme) ae Te} 3So~‘ 5S Ooaae) kefomry Oo S 5 S 2io) Ss b S _ b na on “OO e ~~ oO 3 . 3 _ e ran was R

y a) 2 a] “xl SS eS =

e> o9) DB13S|©363 olOO = ow) co- B ~ =' ro Be5} ae)>| i io) cD =)| 5olcD:

= 2oO]3FRax ©234902 2 44,945 aad a= 5TETLEEEEL r FEEEEC 13 § R 2 2] b&b ys = « oo} Oo a ow | “©4a 7) wo : ao, 2 Q | >So 2 0) 6] 72

5 2 aSo oO > =je)>2rlio)2eOQ 3S 2 >| «- «&) Z| - as~D . «oO > 2 oj ro} e e Ee in = Do} 0 3 plDD do OQ] os P|~ a= PE =| > eo) A] -DBG} > a]©3«0= aS

s ) > wl & 2 aEEEEEEEE as EEE LEEEL figiqiidadal E ° apis ae > 00 6 wD N 5 \O [== x -2 5 © xi > 3: Ss >) . > ~O: —_ = ke OO 2 ro} ee 3 Ps) 7 cD Q. “2: = R S) jo) 3 20 aoe SO > S ov)o: ReS

rQ)>| “O2 0) b OD eo)> 4> ©> -E ao 3 Ee} _3< alee) eo) oO e)> beoO eR a = “= © : oS 2 >| 3 xo} OP Zo) pf Sf . b b 2S 2 > b gq S| Ss a} St a ~ Ss ul & Q =| '@ aes oS S S—_ mR .a(oe) 8 oS oe) QS) — El eS + a 5 r| 2 bs2-a) z33 ae 128344 =< \© 3S 5] 33 “wy > “a ~eae = N mSEERE ZS oO = 2 5 e 5 Ke) 0) 2 B ME EEEEEEEEE Bag SLLEELEEIE El ¥ acs , SSco] 2=3N o| yg “o cs} 3: YU 2 2o 3 8& > xSes FE Fos

w S| ° ‘ AQ id io oo ae)on 2Ld |© ea ) ~ PrP 23-> bv3SRk Ran Pp 2D O5b 2 | te o) Dd03] bP 00 > mu =©)a DO . S 3B -3D S

3 =| 5 a BR SD al > wy 2

- Sf>| 3} S 2 ae va) S e 5S Y >|g> 2 = < ras 4's) bp =| = i . al ° a} 8 = b @ PEELE b 4SamSJoO -A{ 3S S| “>(o)“2 S|EEE bk —_— — “09 eR waEL (oe) Y-s ——

= ¢a ot St 8 >0© ) afa 3* 53oS3 &=|©2° ©

=6EF amdbSl LA) >. oo BO ie)=|e S i) -©a9324

ie sl So 5) = ° a ~ RB xf ~S 3 : a} & = | re cg} e S16 2 S} = 6 g Bo: Ss 2 | > y Ag F JF | .23ee 3 bS|5Ss ro)5|>3|a Sa — aReeww 13 = 3B=)wD 8 Al bh]©©Bsal 5 cey S

cD rmeo} aol) oOcD. he ~D« e3 s) > < °3 ia)oO — o| ° 3& =3 >> ~ObcD >

S ay >2:3 31CS) 22°w © Bay) “eb =| & es) a} 3-saan 5) So In S S| > o| al < > a| 2 eo) S| S =H 5] < |? elo Ee “0 o| Ol e 4 bn] re SO=F edo] >© bh br “D> =c= Zz \O42 Oo) cD 2gc] +O °r= wDra) 3~~; °ot o) ioe) ra ro} «as OD v©5~O ,. xO

_» ad Yo . > io) =a Ss ceta eS o| Ee] & St 4 B = Pe Oot gs Ss sl ol 8B 25 =| > So SS 3 | Fl | 2 fo) a} 6 eS FS : . 5 > =| -d P p} 3 = = ©: = tow ~

A] x6] 7S 6FI xD} =© .=pea Os oy SSsues aay < =5 BI x]Sw -OS =2S on =>¥RF > 3So 22 2das P Bp MS RF 2 bl =| "Sl oD b ~ wl 2 . a) ° i) re o—~ a)2Oe PpSF= 8FF Fy Faga038. 0 J Bb Qo>-O os@& OD

4S tay Gs bese 2 ao ee

S| ow =| S SSO Bey OBS as cP. : Bw - 23 2 ada es 63S ae oS 252 3 Pl sp gesgeaekesé CO] SsSs 22& Bes FE oC 2TSH 6 3&SCs eo BLet2 P Be Fea gq tag s 30% Sas Ee § Fos S S35 7cere F 8 E5 2ESERod OQ os a 5Re FoecES 8 7 eP EEE ree ae ee ee ee § gas4un4223 82 S sl ol ool al oO g8@eat 42 b 2g eae ees 8 S Wl © | x2 Of 5 om 3 2 1 reo io) 3S es NN 3 PNA Ce gS 3 oO a sc} Sa g oar Kr ol -Ol 2 SU dea sz

N d 5: | & : Oz no “5 be 5 : -O} Al o Ee} ® gone 5 a oC.

Se} oa S a tS Oo] wo Ss} 5 = wD Wl 23 D Y Ri @d S SF -&|sSOfb}Dbe>‘oat © 3EFa s} : 3} 8 JE ©

5S Ol ee Taf ToS 8 s) al D 2 wy S 3 ‘B = S ‘ 5 a > > Ss = a) = 3 Ss 2s n 2 s cl al Go ok 2S 5 & °g Soa gszgagsyegse 5 8 a . os >CeSs} > Oaao el Of] -S )5o|co] | “S} rs! o 8— y TT] O°o6Roy GS OByeeze: a -|=am ~S D> > 20 wb So8c5 -s} 5 St 8 3N 3} O A fer ages gde 228 82 y6|85} ‘ . >| @pm ~a Eo FTSs Sl -c| 3 ‘S|Hs 0 8cS 28C~«~S Se otje&oe) S ZS BF eS < +H 8 os SO “| 2) 2 Jaq a. iC |S nS oo. sage PIs, sagsdysas gH g ogg see -JSF al © = 3 > = A a = 3 > “QS Fw wy 3: | S) af at ee ee exag a3 E75 Sg 3 3 Jae 2 4g 833 §s

: ° © = " " oe e

geagag ga! s 4S} ol BF 7 S46 2a ae 9 Pb3gaggeqgra 4 2Eel < Sos € sz==233 bl WY: S| OoOS nm “ON bct OoFes Bl DI ON Cc xO] -O

= 3 .2 = Y

a

cn

1 5 w So 8 5 S a 5 3g} 3] © ep} 2 P ‘3 “ S fe39 9 3 » 3 jf Bag SP sg8BC ro) &) io)°ce X EF}oO | EF E} b ® le 3 we a| os 2! & SF So Ws a| “Ee

> =| -O | § a 2 0) ° e ae ee | Sc 3 lS 5 $ sy Se oy) 5 < ‘ a) O) aD o aeayggqgdas a | 2) 3 8 be gs s Zs |2] wl & ob S| ol f o a Oo 3 (@) Jas «© cas go— Fl o)N ~1g..oO] — faqs ys gd aesOo} S FS S43

Ja toes geesSgas | fo} fon “ob S| & 33ST sess essay 5 34 dé PEE ESCEC ESC ECE 3 4 © 4 El 6 “|

. > a) 2 Y OQ sd AT iS} © e TFA Fatdys J 8 3 eS OS |S ce el 8 EPEC eC err cece a os eq d22 -OO .DI].-oSe awe2oO ssgf=|S >| 3] e)

can

|S 83

5S iS cD ‘2

ge

gz 3S oO

Gs ws v3 D

B | cod

S . S|