424 Clarence Russell Williams, 



name Timothy itself in the MS is evidently written over an erasure 

 and therefore cannot be original. 



Against the White Monastery Prof. Sanders argues : first that the 

 dealer who sold the MSS said they came from Akhmim, and as Orien- 

 tals are usually liars, this would naturally incline one to look in the 

 opposite direction for the source. But even men who usually lie some- 

 times tell the truth. In the second place the MSS bought by Schmidt 

 were papyri, while the Freer MSS are on parchment. But if the find 

 was divided, it would be natural, as Goodspeed suggests, to make the 

 division of them on the basis of material. We conclude then that the 

 immediate resting place of the MSS before they were sold was the 

 White Monastery near Akhmim. 



As to the original home we are told there are indications which 

 would connect them with some Nitrian convent. Now Jerome does 

 not tell us where he saw the Greek MS or MSS of which he writes, 

 but we know that in 386 A.D. he journeyed to Egypt and visited 

 certain Nitrian monasteries. Jerome, as a textual critic, would be 

 interested in seeing MSS of the Bible wherever he went. In this home 

 of the Freer MS, or in a neighboring convent, a parent or sister MS, or 

 possibly this very MS itself, may have been shown him as curious and 

 interesting. He may have at this time copied the insertion, and later 

 translated it into Latin, using such portion of it as was needed for 

 his argument in his work against Pelagius. Or, since it was not a 

 long journey from Egypt to Bethlehem, one which could be made on 

 foot in a week, it is quite possible to think of some traveler or messenger 

 bringing such a MS from Egypt to Caesarea, where we know there 

 were many Egyptian MSS, where Jerome could easil}' have seen it. 



Either of these theories would not only account for the connection 

 between Jerome and the Freer MS but would at the same time help 

 to explain the lack of other testimony concerning this section. 



But questions concerning this logion more closely related to our 

 investigation must now be discussed. We will consider them in the 

 following order : 



1. Its authenticity,- — is it a true saying of Jesus ? 



2. Its integrity, — do the two parts, the apology of the apostles 

 and the reply of Jesus belong together ? 



3. Its coherence or relation to the passage in which it is here 

 found, — is it an integral part of the Longer Conclusion or an inter- 

 polation ? If the latter, was it composed originally for insertion into 

 this context, or is it an extract from another work inserted here ? 



■\. What indications of its source and authorship can be found ? 

 ">. \\'hat is its textual significance? 



