192 ST. LUKE


τοῦ θεοῦ may be read and the doctrinal difficulty
disappears. But, on the other hand, the unusual
κυρίου would be more easily altered into θεοῦ than
the reverse. Tischendorf’s argument seems also
conclusive that with κυρίου as original, it is easier
to understand the addition of θεοῦ, and thus account
for the mixed readings, than to understand the
addition of κυρίου, had θεοῦ stood originally in the
text. The ‘‘ Western ”’ text, all things considered,
seems to be primitive. The peculiarly Pauline
view of the work of Christ here presented stands
out the more prominently in Acts by reason of the
reticence of Luke with regard to the Atonement in
both his writings.
It is hardly credible that at Miletus only did the
apostle discourse on the sacrifice of Christ, but the
speeches in 1 Acts which came to Luke in a written
Aramaic source were less authoritative for him than
the address to the elders of Ephesus to which he
himself had listened.
If the Epistle to the Ephesians were indeed a
letter sent by Paul to the Church at Ephesus, then
it might reasonably be expected to resemble in tone
and content the speech of Paul at Miletus to the
Elders of Ephesus. But the Epistle, as scholars
generally agree, was not sent to Ephesus. The
crucial words in the address are wanting in the two
oldest MSS., and Marcion sets the epistle down as
“one to the Laodiceans.” Again, in the letter,
writer and readers are not personally acquainted.
