the mention of τὸν µόνον δεσπότην καὶ Κύριον Ἰ. X. in the preceding verse would naturally lead a later copyist to prefer iC, a supposition which is confirmed by Cramer’s Catena, p. 158, εἴρηται γὰρ πρὸ τούτων περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὡς εἴη ἀληθινὸς θεὸς οὗτος ὁ µόνος δεσπότης 6 κύριος ο ὁ ἀναγαγὼν τὸν λαὸν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωσέως Spitta himself however holds that 6€ is the true reading, as it agrees with the corresponding passage in 2 Peter ii. 4, 6 Θεὺς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, and with Clement’s paraphrase (A4dumbr. Dind. iii. p. 482) : “ Quoniam Dominus Deus semel populum de terra Aegypti liberans deinceps eos qui non crediderunt perdidit”. There is no instance in the New Testament of the personal name “Jesus” being used of the pre- existent Messiah, though the official name “Christ” is found in 1 Cor. x. 4, 9, in reference to the wandering in the wilderness. But in the second and later centuries this distinction was less carefully observed. Thus Justin M. (Dial. 120), speaking of the prophecy in Genesis xlix. 10, says that it does not refer to Judah, but to Jesus, τὸν καὶ τοὺς πατέρας ὑμῶν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐξαγαγόντα, and this use of the name was confirmed by the idea that the son of Nun was a per- sonification of Christ (see Justin, Dial. 75; Clem. Al. 183; Didymus, De Trin. 1. 19, Ἰούδας καθολικῶς γράφει, ἅπαξ γὰρ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς λαὸν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου σώσας κ.τ.λ.; Jérome, C. ου. 1. 12; Lact. Inst. 4. 17, “Christi figuram gerebat ille Jesus, qui cum primum Auses vocaretur, Moyses futura praesentiens jussit eum Jesum vocari’’). In the ex- planatory note I have stated my reasons for considering that the article before µή did not belong to the original text.
Ver. 12. οὗτοί εἶσιν [ot] ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούµενοι ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιµαίνοντε.. The article here is omitted by NK and many inferior MSS. with vg. (but not syrr. or sah. or boh.), and some of the patristic quotations. I agree with Dr. Chase in thinking that it is out of place here, as in ver. 5 above. There is not only the difficulty of construction (ot . . . σπιλάδες), but the very bold assump- tion that the signification of σπιλάδες will be at once apparent. If we omit the article, ἀφόβως should be attached to συνευωχ. as by Ti. In syrr. it is joined with ποιµαίνοντες.
Ver. 19. οὗτοί εἶσιν ot ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοὶ πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.
ἀποδιορίζοντες add. ἑαντούς C vulg. syrr. Om. SABKL 13, ete.
Schott, B. Weiss, and Huther-Kiihl suppose the words ψυχικοὶ πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες to be spoken by, or at least to express the feeling of οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες: “welche Unterscheidungen machen, sc. zwischen Psychikern und Pneumatikern, wobei dann der Verfasser diese Un- terscheidungen in seiner drastischen Weise sofort zu ihren Ungunsten