^{page 438 note 1} Matt. xxvi. 14–16, 20–5, 47–50, etc.; Mark xiv. 10–11, 17–21, 43–6, etc.; Luke xxii. 3–6, 21–3, 47–8; etc.; John xiii. 18–30, xviii. 1–3.

^{page 438 note 2} Fragment III, 1–3 (in Funk, F. X.–Bihlmeyer, K., Die apostolischen Väter, Tübingen, 1924, pp. 136–7).Google Scholar For a detailed discussion of the traditions in question see also Lake, K., ‘The Death of Judas’, in The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. Lake, and Jackson, F. J. Foakes (London, 1920–1933), part I, 5, pp. 22–30.Google Scholar

^{page 438 note 3} The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew (Oxford, 1946), pp. 44–6Google Scholar (esp. p. 45); cf. also pp. 104, 128.

^{page 438 note 4} ‘Zu Apg. I, 16–22’, T.Z. XIV (1958), 46.Google Scholar

^{page 438 note 5} Among the more recent literature we may mention the following: Benoit, P., ‘Le mort de Judas’, in Synoptische Studien, Alfred Wikenhauser zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht (München, 1953), pp. 1–19;Google ScholarJacques, Dupont, ‘La destinée de Judas prophetisée par David (Actes I, 16–20)’, C.B.Q. XXIII (1961), 41–51Google Scholar (=Études sur les Actes des Apôtres, Paris, 1967, pp. 309–20);Google ScholarGaechter, P., ‘Die Wahl des Matthias (Apg. I, 15–26), Z.k.Th. LXXI (1949), 318–46;Google ScholarMasson, Ch., ‘La reconstitution du collège des Douze d'après Actes I: 15–26’, R.Th.Ph. 3me sér. v (1955), 193–201;Google ScholarMenoud, Ph.-H., ‘Les additions au groupe des douze apôtres, d'après le livre des Actes’, R.H.P.R. XXXVII (1957), 71–80;Google ScholarRengstorf, K. H., ‘Die Zuwahl des Matthias (Apg. I, 15 ff.)’, St.Th. XV (1961), 35–67;Google ScholarRenié, J., ‘L'élection de Mathias (Act. I, 15–26)–Authenticitécit du récit’, R.B. LV (1948), 43–53;Google Scholar E. Schweizer, loc. cit. In addition see Barrett, C. K., ‘The Acts—of the Apostles’, being chapter 5 of New Testament Essays (London, 1972, pp. 70–85)Google Scholar; Gärtner, B., Die rätselhaften Termini Nazoräer und Iskariot (Horae Soederblomianae, 4) (Uppsala, 1957), esp. pp. 43 ff.Google Scholar, 45–8; Haenchen, E., ‘Judentum undChristentum in der Apostelgeschichte’, Z.N.W. LIV (1963), 155–87,Google Scholar esp. pp. 161 ff.; and the commentaries of Bruce, F. F., The Acts of the Apostles (London, 1951), pp. 75–80;Google ScholarHans Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte (H.N.T. 7) (Tübingen, 1963), pp. 22–5;Google ScholarHaenchen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte⁵ (KEK) (Göttingen, 1965), pp. 122–30Google Scholar (=ET, The Acts of the Apostles – A Commentary, Oxford, 1971, pp. 157–65)Google Scholar, and Kirsopp, Lake and Cadbury, H. J., in Beginnings, IV, 12 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 1} Cf. Lake and Cadbury, op. cit. pp. 12 ff.

^{page 439 note 2} Dupont, , C.B.Q. XXIII (1961), 45Google Scholar (=Études, pp. 313–14); cf. also Conzelmann, H., Apg. p. 24,Google Scholar etc.

^{page 439 note 3} So Lake, and Cadbury, , Beginnings, IV 12Google Scholar; Dupont, loc. cit. pp. 41 ff. (=Études, p. 309).

^{page 439 note 4} Well stated by Dupont, loc. cit. p. 41 (=Études, p. 309).

^{page 439 note 5} Cf. Menoud, Ph.-H., R.H.P.R. XXXVII (1957), 72, 78;Google ScholarBarrett, C. K., New Testament Essays (hereafter cited as Essays), pp. 77 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 6} See below, pp. 441–2, and also Renié, J., R.B. LV (1948), 43–53,Google Scholar who concludes from a study of the passage that although the vocabulary alone betrays the hand of Luke, the style does so even more (p. 53). Cf. É., Trocmé, Le ‘Livre des Actes’ et l'histoire (Paris, 1957), p. 199.Google Scholar

^{page 440 note 1} Cf. Cadbury, H. J., ‘The Summaries in Acts’, in Beginnings, v, 392–402,Google Scholar esp. pp. 397–8.

^{page 440 note 2} So Hawkins, J. C., Horae Synopticae² (Oxford, 1909), pp. 18, 40.Google Scholar The phrase is, in fact, confined in the NT to Luke–Acts, as Hawkins (op. cit. p. 18) shows.

^{page 440 note 3} Cf. Acts vi. 1, where it seems to introduce a new section; likewise the vague use of it in Acts xi. 27. The other cases are Luke i. 39, vi. 12, xxiii. 7 and xxiv. 18. In all of these – with the possible exception of Luke vi. 12, where it appears in the Lukan introduction to the account of the Call of the Twelve (Luke vi. (12) 13–16, par. Mark iii. 13–19, cf. Matt. x. 1–4)– it is embedded in material peculiar to Luke. Even in Luke vi. 12, however, there is evidence of substantial Lukan editorial activity; cf. also Luke vi. 13b, which has close verbal affinities to Acts i. 2, etc.

^{page 440 note 4} Le ‘Livre des Actes’ et l'histoire, p. 199.Google Scholar

^{page 440 note 5} Beginnings, IV, 12. The parallel passage in b. Sanh. 17a lists some 114 possible members of such a community, but does not include any women or minors. The principle of 10 persons of full status to each leader (or tribe) is also mentioned in the form of the material in j. Sanh. i. 4 (6).

^{page 440 note 6} Cf. Ropes, J. H., Beginnings, III, 6–7;Google ScholarHaenchen, E., Apg. pp. 123–4Google Scholar (esp. p. 123 n. 2) (=ET, p. 159 n. 2).

^{page 441 note 1} See the useful discussion by J. Renié, loc. cit. pp. 49–50.

^{page 441 note 2} The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, 1965), pp. 93–100Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Semitisms).

^{page 441 note 3} Hawkins, op. cit. pp. 16–29, 44–5. μάρτυς, which is not listed by Hawkins, nevertheless appears to fulfil the criteria he set for his ‘Supplementary List B’ (Ibid. pp. 28–9).

^{page 441 note 4} There is, however, some evidence that the first two of these expressions, although outwardly Semitic in form, should be regarded rather as ‘liturgicalisms’, i.e. as phrases which have entered Luke's style from their use by the Church in worship, rather than directly from either the LXX or their presence in some kind of originally Semitic source–material. Cf. Semitisms, pp. 74–6. The case of άρξάμενος άπό is more difficult. Haenchen, , Apg. p. 126Google Scholar n. 7 (=ET, p. 161 n. 8), thinks it due to Luke. Certainly it appears elsewhere in Luke-Acts, viz. Luke xxiii. 5, xxiv. 27, Acts i. 22, viii. 35, x. 37. Torrey, C. C., The Composition and Date of Acts (Cambridge, Mass., 1916), pp. 25–8,Google Scholar argued for an Aramaic origin for the phrase. But see Semitisms, pp. 148–50, and the discussion below, p. 442.

^{page 441 note 5} Apg. p. 125Google Scholar n. 6 (=ET, p. 160 n. 6).

^{page 441 note 6} Cf. e.g. Col. i. 22, …Éν τοὅ σώματι της σαρκός αύτοũ….

^{page 441 note 7} Semitisms, pp. 87–9.

^{page 441 note 8} Cf. n. 4 above.

^{page 441 note 9} It is interesting to note that Haenchen, , Apg.. p. 126Google Scholar n. 7 (=ET, p. 141 n. 8), feels the difficulty of the verse, although he ascribes the words άρξάμενος…ήμῶν to Luke, in spite of their awkwardness.

^{page 441 note 10} Cf.Matthew, Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts³ (Oxford, 1967), pp. 130–2;Google ScholarMax, Wilcox, Semitisms, pp. 123–4.Google Scholar

^{page 441 note 11} The problem is seen by Dupont, for one, C.B.Q. XXIII (1961), 47 (=Études, p. 317)Google Scholar. In the second edition of An Aramaic Approach (Oxford, 1954)Google Scholar, Black drew attention to the v. 1. in d at this point, qui for the quia of the usual text and argued in favour of the possibility of an underlying Aramaic ⌝ (p. 56). To the suggestion of Haenchen, (‘Zum Text der Apostelgeschichte’, Z.Th.K. LVI (1957), 46 ff.)Google Scholar and the writer, Semitisms, pp. 115–16, that this variant in the Bezan Latin may reflect no more than haplography in the Latin – qui adnumeratus for quia adnumeratus – he acutely replied in the 3rd edition of An Aramaic Approach (Oxford, 1967) (p. 74)Google Scholar that this solution overlooked the point that ‘the context of this clause is overwhelmingly in favour of a relative’: the absence of a relative in the Greek MS tradition ‘is not a convincing argument for its non-existence’. This is an important point and we shall have cause to come back to it later.

^{page 442 note 1} Wilcox, , Semitisms, pp. 90–1,Google Scholar referring also to A. J. Wensinck, unpublished notes on Acts ii. 14 and iv. 10.

^{page 442 note 2} Viz. Luke i. 9; John xix. 24; Acts i. 17; 2 Peter i. 1.

^{page 442 note 3} This seems to be an underlying thought throughout Dupont's article in C.B.Q. cited above. For him the major puzzle is not whether v. 16 finds its explanation in v. 20, but in which part of v. 20.

^{page 442 note 4} Cf. above, p. 441 n. 11, and also Dupont, , C.B.Q. XXIII (1961), 48Google Scholar (=Études, p. 317), where it is conceded that in theory at least the difficult őτι of v. 17 could be translated in a causal sense, as ‘because’, thus seeing in the fact noted in v. 17 that in which the scripture is said to be fulfilled: but the problem would dissolve altogether if v. 17 itself were the quotation.

^{page 442 note 5} Thus, Lake, and Cadbury, , Beginnings, IV, 12,Google Scholar among others. Conzelmann, H. (Apg. p. 24)Google Scholar on the other hand argues that vv. 19–20 must not be struck out as a later insertion; the verses are linguistically Lukan, and are designed for the hearers and readers of Acts, rather than for Peter's original audience.

^{page 443 note 1} See also below, p. 452.

^{page 443 note 2} So Hawkins, op. cit. p. 28 (γνωστός). κατοικεīν also seems to fill the requirements of Hawkins’ ‘Subsidiary List B’ (Ibid. pp. 28–9): it occurs 24 times in Luke–Acts, against a total of 4 times in Matthew and Mark together (in point of fact it does not occur in Mark at all, a feature which it shares with the other words and idioms on that list).

^{page 443 note 3} Viz. Acts ii. 14, iv. 10, xiii. 38, xxviii. 28.

^{page 443 note 4} I.e. Acts xix. 17–20. That v. 20 is part of a summary is supported by reference to near-parallels in Acts vi. 7, xii. 24.

^{page 444 note 1} E.g. the name ‘Barnabas’ is interpreted as ‘Son of consolation’ (Acts iv. 36).

^{page 444 note 2} The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), p. 272.Google Scholar

^{page 444 note 3} See above, p. 439 n. 3.

^{page 445 note 1} See above p. 438 n.5.

^{page 445 note 2} C.B.Q. XXIII (1961), 49 (=Études, p. 318).

^{page 445 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 445 note 4} Ibid. p. 50 (=Études, p. 319). Much the same approach is found in Haenchen, Apg. p. 124 n. 5 (=ET, p. 159 n. 8).

^{page 445 note 5} Beginnings, IV, 13–14.

^{page 445 note 6} Ibid.

^{page 445 note 7} Loc. cit. p. 46 (=Études, p. 314).

^{page 445 note 8} Ibid. p. 46 (=Études, pp. 314–15).

^{page 446 note 1} Ibid. (=Études, p. 315).

^{page 446 note 2} Die rätselhaften Termini…, p. 46.

^{page 447 note 1} See above, p. esp. note II.

^{page 447 note 2} The material was kindly made available to the writer by Profs. T. Jansma and P. A. H. de Boer, of Leinden, on behalf of Mrs Wensinck.

^{page 447 note 3} Cited from Kahle, P., Masoretens des Westens (Stuttgart, 1927–1930) (repr. Hildesheim, 1967), part 2, pp. 21–2.Google Scholar Cf. also Ginsburger, M., Das Fragmententhargum (Berlin, 1899), p. 23,Google Scholar and (citing Cod. Ox. 2305), p. 73. Two forms (one akin to Pal. Tg. D[Kahle] and the other to Cod. Ox. 2305) appear in Codex Neofiti. See Macho, A. Diez, Neophyti 1: Targum palestinense. MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Tomo I: Genesis (Madrid–Barcelona, 1968), pp. 293–5.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 1} The formula appears at least twice in each source, once of Dinah, in a negative from and once of Benjamin; in Codex Neofiti it appears twice on each account.

^{page 448 note 2} Cf. Levy, J., Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim (3. Aufl. Leipzig, 1881), I, 263.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 3} For a detailed discussion of the term Ακελδαμαχ see Wilcox, , Semitisms, p. 87–9.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 4} Viz. Matt. xxvii. 14, xxvii. 47; Mark xiv. 10, 20, 43; Luke xx. 24 (Cf. xxii. 3), John vi. 71, xx. 24. The formularistic nature of the expression is most striking in John, as is also its rather more blatantly Semitic form there (εīς έκ τῶν δώδεκα=). Haenchen's comment (Apg. p. 125=ET, p. 160) that the words of v. 17 resemble Luke xxii. 3 ‘to the very wording’ recognizes this, but rather overstates the position, as careful comparison shows.

^{page 448 note 5} Gaechter, P., ‘Die Wahl des Matthias’, Z.k. Th. LXXI (1949), 321, 332,Google Scholar argues that this consists not so much in their being representatives of Israel as figures parallel to those of the twelve sons of Jacob, the Twelev Patriarchs. For Ch. Masson, they are inseparable from Israel right up to the eschaton, but they are also more than mere representatives of it: they are a kind of bridgehead for the salvation of Israel (‘La reconstitution du collège des Douze d'après Actes I: 15–26’, R.Th.Ph. 3me sér. v (1955), 198).Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 6} The references to ‘work’, ‘service’ (διακονία) may be Lukan and secondary, cf. above, p. 442. The original form of the material may have related to ‘territory’, but this is at most an informed guess; it would, however, fit in well with the ‘Q’ passage, Luke xxii. 40=Matt. xix. 28b, see below, p. 451.

^{page 449 note 1} Can it possibly be that the choice of the somewhat uncommon έλαχεν here was affected originally by the similarity of its consonants in sound to those of hlk?

^{page 449 note 2} The idea of the apostles dividing up ‘the land’ (or ‘the earth’) appears in several places, e.g. Gal. ii. 7–9, where Peter is entrusted with the mission to ‘the circumcision’, Paul with that to ‘the uncircumcision’; Acts of Judas, Thomas i (=ET Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, II, 442–3)Google Scholar, where the Twelve cast lots for the various parts of the world to which they are to go as missionaries.

^{page 449 note 3} A somewhat similar case where a quotation is no longer recognizable to the author/redactor of Acts is Acts xiii. 22, where the words of I Sam. xiii. 14 appear, cited first in the form preserved by MT and LXX, then followed by the (totally different) from found in the Targum. See the author's Semitisms, pp. 21–4.

^{page 450 note 1} The thought of replacing a member of the apparently sacrosanct ‘Twelve’ is not without precedent, as comparison of the OT lists of the Twelve Tribes will show. We may also compare the way in which the lists in the Book of Revelation seem to assume the defection (and thus exclusion) of the tribe of Dan.

^{page 450 note 2} So, e.g., Haenchen, E., Apg. p. 125Google Scholar n. 7 (=ET, p. 160 n. 7). But cf. Moulton, J. H.–Milligan, G., The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1930), p. 696a.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 3} Conzelmann, however, argues that the Psalm-quotation as a whole, i.e. Ps. lxviii (lxix). 26+ Ps. cviii (cix). 8, clearly related to Judas already at the pre-Lukan stage, as witness its presence in the Papias version, which is independent of Luke. We may reply, nevertheless, that the forms of the citations employed, related as they seem to be to the LXX, point to a Greek stage of the tradition, not an Aramaic one. It may thus be that the order is as follows: (1) Aramaic stage; (2) Greek stage (with addition of these citations); (3) Lukan stage.

^{page 451 note 1} Against Klein, G., Die zwölf Apostel, Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee, F.R.L.A.N.T., N.F. LIX (Göttingen, 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 2} A useful discussion of the matter is to be found in Barrett, C. K., Essays, pp. 77 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 3} Barrett (op. cit. pp. 80–1) inclines to the view that in these verses–Acts xiv. 4, 14–we have material not completely revised by Luke, and reflecting not his views but those of others to whom Paul was not so much an apostle as ‘the apostle’.

^{page 451 note 4} Perhaps the absence of δώδεκα before θρόνων in Luke xxii. 30 (as against Matt. xix. 28b) may be an attempt to take account of the fact that these words are represented as being spoken to the whole Twelve prior to Judas' defection, whereas the traitor himself could hardly have been deemed worthy of this honour. The connection of Luke xxii. 29 ff. with the present passage as a Saying of Jesus relating the ‘Twelve’ to the Twelve Tribes of Israel is noted by Rengstorf, K. H., ‘Die Zuwahl des Matthias (Apg. I, 15 ff.)’, St.Th. xv (1961), 49;Google Scholar he also points to the way in which this view of the apostolate as limited to a Jewish setting stands ‘in einer ausgesprochenen Spannung’ with the outlook of Acts as a whole’ (loc. cit. p. 52).

^{page 451 note 5} In Matthew it appears as part of the close of the story of the Rich Young Man (Matt. xix. 16–30), giving the appearance of an ‘insertion’ into the Markan version (thus Matt. xix. 27, 28a, par. Mark x, 28, 29a and Luke xviii. 28, 29a; Matt. xix. 29 par. Mark x. 29b, Luke xviii. 29b). In Luke, on the other hand, it appears in the discussion of ‘precedence’ in the Kingdom of God (Luke xxii. 24–30), as a Lukan addition to the form found in Mark (Mark x. 42–5) and Matthew (Matt. xx. 25–8). The saying thus appears to have had an existence of its own quite apart from its two contexts (in Matthew and in Luke); the fact that Matthew and Luke both use it as a kind of ‘call–line’, albeit in two rather different passages, suggests a high degree of authority accorded to it–perhaps a quasi–canonical one, even at this early stage in the development of the tradition.