diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:35:40 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:35:40 -0700 |
| commit | e678f6aab769d0c9721d77cea06875acf37a68a1 (patch) | |
| tree | 18fdabe2183b3f4f125364fc9a1cf1c8eee1ac03 | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 10955-0.txt | 13360 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/10955-8.txt | 13784 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/10955-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 258880 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/10955.txt | 13784 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/10955.zip | bin | 0 -> 258778 bytes |
8 files changed, 40944 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/10955-0.txt b/10955-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9596aad --- /dev/null +++ b/10955-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,13360 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 10955 *** + +THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY + + +_AN EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PART OF A WORK +ENTITLED 'SUPERNATURAL RELIGION'_ + + +BY + +W. SANDAY, M.A. + + +_Rector of Barton-on-the-Heath, Warwickshire; +and late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. +Author of a Work on the Fourth Gospel._ + + + + +LONDON: +1876. + + + + + +_I had hoped to inscribe in this book the revered and cherished +name of my old head master, DR. PEARS of Repton. His consent had +been very kindly and warmly given, and I was just on the point of +sending the dedication to the printers when I received a telegram +naming the day and hour of his funeral. His health had for some +time since his resignation of Repton been seriously failing, but I +had not anticipated that the end was so near. All who knew him +will deplore his too early loss, and their regret will be shared +by the wider circle of those who can appreciate a life in which +there was nothing ignoble, nothing ungenerous, nothing unreal. I +had long wished that he should receive some tribute of regard from +one whom he had done his best by precept, and still more by +example, to fit and train for his place and duty in the world. +This pleasure and this honour have been denied me. I cannot place +my book, as I had hoped, in his hand, but I may still lay it +reverently upon his tomb._ + + + + + +CONTENTS + +CHAP. + +I. INTRODUCTORY + +II. ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS + +III. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS + +IV. JUSTIN MARTYR + +V. HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS + +VI. THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES + +VII. BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS + +VIII. MARCION + +IX. TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH + +X. MELITO--APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS + +XI. PTOLOMAEUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT + +XII. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL + +XIII. ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY + +XIV. CONCLUSION + +[ENDNOTES] + +APPENDIX. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL + +INDICES + + + + + +PREFACE. + + +It will be well to explain at once that the following work has +been written at the request and is published at the cost of the +Christian Evidence Society, and that it may therefore be classed +under the head of Apologetics. I am aware that this will be a +drawback to it in the eyes of some, and I confess that it is not +altogether a recommendation in my own. + +Ideally speaking, Apologetics ought to have no existence distinct +from the general and unanimous search for truth, and in so far as +they tend to put any other consideration, no matter how high or +pure in itself, in the place of truth, they must needs stand aside +from the path of science. + +But, on the other hand, the question of true belief itself is +immensely wide. It is impossible to approach what is merely a +branch of a vast subject without some general conclusions already +formed as to the whole. The mind cannot, if it would, become a +sheet of blank paper on which the writing is inscribed by an +external process alone. It must needs have its _praejudicia_-- +i.e. judgments formed on grounds extrinsic to the special matter +of enquiry--of one sort or another. Accordingly we find that an +absolutely and strictly impartial temper never has existed and +never will. If it did, its verdict would still be false, because +it would represent an incomplete or half-suppressed humanity. +There is no question that touches, directly or indirectly, on the +moral and spiritual nature of man that can be settled by the bare +reason. A certain amount of sympathy is necessary in order to +estimate the weight of the forces that are to be analysed: yet +that very sympathy itself becomes an extraneous influence, and the +perfect balance and adjustment of the reason is disturbed. + +But though impartiality, in the strict sense, is not to be had, +there is another condition that may be rightly demanded--resolute +honesty. This I hope may be attained as well from one point of +view as from another, at least that there is no very great +antecedent reason to the contrary. In past generations indeed +there was such a reason. Strongly negative views could only be +expressed at considerable personal risk and loss. But now, public +opinion is so tolerant, especially among the reading and thinking +classes, that both parties are practically upon much the same +footing. Indeed for bold and strong and less sensitive minds +negative views will have an attraction and will find support that +will go far to neutralise any counterbalancing disadvantage. + +On either side the remedy for the effects of bias must be found in +a rigorous and searching criticism. If misleading statements and +unsound arguments are allowed to pass unchallenged the fault will +not lie only with their author. + +It will be hardly necessary for me to say that the Christian +Evidence Society is not responsible for the contents of this work, +except in so far as may be involved in the original request that I +should write it. I undertook the task at first with some hesitation, +and I could not have undertaken it at all without stipulating for +entire freedom. The Society very kindly and liberally granted me +this, and I am conscious of having to some extent availed myself +of it. I have not always stayed to consider whether the opinions +expressed were in exact accordance with those of the majority of +Christians. It will be enough if they should find points of contact +in some minds, and the tentative element in them will perhaps be +the more indulgently judged now that the reconciliation of the +different branches of knowledge and belief is being so anxiously +sought for. + +The instrument of the enquiry had to be fashioned as the enquiry +itself went on, and I suspect that the consequences of this will +be apparent in some inequality and incompleteness in the earlier +portions. For instance, I am afraid that the textual analysis of +the quotations in Justin may seem somewhat less satisfactory than +that of those in the Clementine Homilies, though Justin's +quotations are the more important of the two. Still I hope that +the treatment of the first may be, for the scale of the book, +sufficiently adequate. There seemed to be a certain advantage in +presenting the results of the enquiry in the order in which it was +conducted. If time and strength are allowed me, I hope to be able +to carry several of the investigations that are begun in this book +some stages further. + +I ought perhaps to explain that I was prevented by other engagements +from beginning seriously to work upon the subject until the latter +end of December in last year. The first of Dr. Lightfoot's articles +in the Contemporary Review had then appeared. The next two articles +(on the Silence of Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles) were also +in advance of my own treatment of the same topics. From this point +onwards I was usually the first to finish, and I have been compelled +merely to allude to the progress of the controversy in notes. Seeing +the turn that Dr. Lightfoot's review was taking, and knowing how +utterly vain it would be for any one else to go over the same ground, +I felt myself more at liberty to follow a natural bent in confining +myself pretty closely to the internal aspect of the enquiry. My object +has been chiefly to test in detail the alleged quotations from our +Gospels, while Dr. Lightfoot has taken a wider sweep in collecting +and bringing to bear the collateral matter of which his unrivalled +knowledge of the early Christian literature gave him such command. +It will be seen that in some cases, as notably in regard to the +evidence of Papias, the external and the internal methods have +led to an opposite result; and I shall look forward with much +interest to the further discussion of this subject. + +I should be sorry to ignore the debt I am under to the author of +'Supernatural Religion' for the copious materials he has supplied +to criticism. I have also to thank him for his courtesy in sending +me a copy of the sixth edition of his work. My obligations to +other writers I hope will be found duly acknowledged. If I were to +single out the one book to which I owed most, it would probably be +Credner's 'Beitrage zur Einleitung in die Biblischen Schriften,' +of which I have spoken somewhat fully in an early chapter. I have +used a certain amount of discretion and economy in avoiding as a +rule the works of previous apologists (such as Semisch, Riggenbach, +Norton, Hofstede de Groot) and consulting rather those of an opposite +school in such representatives as Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. In this +way, though I may very possibly have omitted some arguments which +may be sound, I hope I shall have put forward few that have been +already tried and found wanting. + +As I have made rather large use of the argument supplied by text- +criticism, I should perhaps say that to the best of my belief my +attention was first drawn to its importance by a note in Dr. Lightfoot's +work on Revision. The evidence adduced under this head will be found, +I believe, to be independent of any particular theory of text-criticism. +The idea of the Analytical Index is taken, with some change of plan, +from Volkmar. It may serve to give a sort of _coup d'oeil_ of the +subject. + +It is a pleasure to be able to mention another form of assistance +from which it is one of the misfortunes of an anonymous writer to +find himself cut off. The proofs of this book have been seen in +their passage through the press by my friend the Rev. A.J. Mason, +Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, whose exact scholarship has +been particularly valuable to me. On another side than that of +scholarship I have derived the greatest benefit from the advice of +my friend James Beddard, M.B., of Nottingham, who was among the +first to help me to realise, and now does not suffer me to forget, +what a book ought to be. The Index of References to the Gospels +has also been made for me. + +The chapter on Marcion has already appeared, substantially in its +present form, as a contribution to the Fortnightly Review. + +BARTON-ON-THE-HEATH, + SHIPSTON-ON-STOUR, + _November_, 1875. + + + + + + [Greek epigraph: Ta de panta elenchoumena hupo tou photos + phaneroutai pan gar to phaneroumenon phos estin.] + + + + + +CHAPTER I. + +INTRODUCTORY. + + +It would be natural in a work of this kind, which is a direct +review of a particular book, to begin with an account of that +book, and with some attempt to characterise it. Such had been my +own intention, but there seems to be sufficient reason for +pursuing a different course. On the one hand, an account of a book +which has so recently appeared, which has been so fully reviewed, +and which has excited so much attention, would appear to be +superfluous; and, on the other hand, as the character of it has +become the subject of somewhat sharp controversy, and as controversy-- +or at least the controversial temper--is the one thing that I wish +to avoid, I have thought it well on the whole to abandon my first +intention, and to confine myself as much as possible to a criticism +of the argument and subject-matter, with a view to ascertain the +real facts as to the formation of the Canon of the four Gospels. + +I shall correct, where I am able to do so, such mistakes as may +happen to come under my notice and have not already been pointed +out by other reviewers, only dilating upon them where what seem to +be false principles of criticism are involved. On the general +subject of these mistakes--misleading references and the like--I +think that enough has been said [Endnote 2:1]. Much is perhaps +charged upon the individual which is rather due to the system of +theological training and the habits of research that are common in +England at the present day. Inaccuracies no doubt have been found, +not a few. But, unfortunately, there is only one of our seats of +learning where--in theology at least--the study of accuracy has +quite the place that it deserves. Our best scholars and ablest +men--with one or two conspicuous exceptions--do not write, and the +work is left to be done by _littérateurs_ and clergymen or +laymen who have never undergone the severe preliminary discipline +which scientific investigation requires. Thus a low standard is +set; there are but few sound examples to follow, and it is a +chance whether the student's attention is directed to these at the +time when his habits of mind are being formed. + +Again, it was claimed for 'Supernatural Religion' on its first +appearance that it was impartial. The claim has been indignantly +denied, and, I am afraid I must say, with justice. Any one +conversant with the subject (I speak of the critical portion of +the book) will see that it is deeply coloured by the author's +prepossessions from beginning to end. Here again he has only imbibed +the temper of the nation. Perhaps it is due to our political +activity and the system of party-government that the spirit of +party seems to have taken such a deep root in the English mind. An +Englishman's political opinions are determined for him mainly +(though sometimes in the way of reaction) by his antecedents and +education, and his opinions on other subjects follow in their +train. He takes them up with more of practical vigour and energy +than breadth of reflection. There is a contagion of party-spirit +in the air. And thus advocacy on one side is simply met by +advocacy on the other. Such has at least been hitherto the history +of English thought upon most great subjects. We may hope that at +last this state of things is coming to an end. But until now, and +even now, it has been difficult to find that quiet atmosphere in +which alone true criticism can flourish. + +Let it not be thought that these few remarks are made in a spirit +of censoriousness. They are made by one who is only too conscious +of being subject to the very same conditions, and who knows not +how far he may need indulgence on the same score himself. How far +his own work is tainted with the spirit of advocacy it is not for +him to say. He knows well that the author whom he has set himself +to criticise is at least a writer of remarkable vigour and +ability, and that he cannot lay claim to these qualities; but he +has confidence in the power of truth--whatever that truth may be-- +to assert itself in the end. An open and fair field and full and +free criticism are all that is needed to eliminate the effects of +individual strength or weakness. 'The opinions of good men are but +knowledge in the making'--especially where they are based upon a +survey of the original facts. Mistakes will be made and have +currency for a time. But little by little truth emerges; it +receives the suffrages of those who are competent to judge; +gradually the controversy narrows; parts of it are closed up +entirely, and a solid and permanent advance is made. + + * * * * * + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' starts from a rigid and +somewhat antiquated view of Revelation--Revelation is 'a direct +and external communication by God to man of truths undiscoverable +by human reason. The divine origin of this communication is proved +by miracles. Miracles are proved by the record of Scripture, +which, in its turn, is attested by the history of the Canon.--This +is certainly the kind of theory which was in favour at the end of +the last century, and found expression in works like Paley's +Evidences. It belongs to a time of vigorous and clear but +mechanical and narrow culture, when the philosophy of religion was +made up of abrupt and violent contrasts; when Christianity +(including under that name the Old Testament as well as the New) +was thought to be simply true and all other religions simply +false; when the revelation of divine truth was thought to be as +sudden and complete as the act of creation; and when the presence +of any local and temporary elements in the Christian documents or +society was ignored. + +The world has undergone a great change since then. A new and far- +reaching philosophy is gradually displacing the old. The Christian +sees that evolution is as much a law of religion as of nature. The +Ethnic, or non-Christian, religions are no longer treated as +outside the pale of the Divine government. Each falls into its +place as part of a vast divinely appointed scheme, of the character +of which we are beginning to have some faint glimmerings. Other +religions are seen to be correlated to Christianity much as the +other tentative efforts of nature are correlated to man. A divine +operation, and what from our limited human point of view we should +call a _special_ divine operation, is not excluded but rather implied +in the physical process by which man has been planted on the earth, +and it is still more evidently implied in the corresponding process +of his spiritual enlightenment. The deeper and more comprehensive +view that we have been led to take as to the dealings of Providence +has not by any means been followed by a depreciation of Christianity. +Rather it appears on a loftier height than ever. The spiritual +movements of recent times have opened men's eyes more and more to +its supreme spiritual excellence. It is no longer possible to +resolve it into a mere 'code of morals.' The Christian ethics grow +organically out of the relations which Christianity assumes between +God and man, and in their fulness are inseparable from those relations. +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' speaks as if they were separable, +as if a man could assume all the Christian graces merely by wishing +to assume them. But he forgets the root of the whole Christian system, +'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall in +no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.' + +The old idea of the _Aufklärung_ that Christianity was nothing +more than a code of morals, has now long ago been given up, and +the self-complacency which characterised that movement has +for the most part, though not entirely, passed away. The +nineteenth century is not in very many quarters regarded as the +goal of things. And it will hardly now be maintained that +Christianity is adequately represented by any of the many sects +and parties embraced under the name. When we turn from even the +best of these, in its best and highest embodiment, to the picture +that is put before us in the Gospels, how small does it seem! We +feel that they all fall short of their ideal, and that there is a +greater promise and potentiality of perfection in the root than +has ever yet appeared in branch or flower. + +No doubt theology follows philosophy. The special conception of +the relation of man to God naturally takes its colour from the +wider conception as to the nature of all knowledge and the +relation of God to the universe. It has been so in every age, and +it must needs be so now. Some readjustment, perhaps a considerable +readjustment, of theological and scientific beliefs may be +necessary. But there is, I think, a strong presumption that the +changes involved in theology will be less radical than often seems +to be supposed. When we look back upon history, the world has gone +through many similar crises before. The discoveries of Darwin and +the philosophies of Mill or Hegel do not mark a greater relative +advance than the discoveries of Newton and the philosophies of +Descartes and Locke. These latter certainly had an effect upon +theology. At one time they seemed to shake it to its base; so much +so that Bishop Butler wrote in the Advertisement to the first +edition of his Analogy that 'it is come to be taken for granted +that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but that +it is now at length discovered to be fictitious.' Yet what do we +see after a lapse of a hundred and forty years? It cannot be said +that there is less religious life and activity now than there was +then, or that there has been so far any serious breach in the +continuity of Christian belief. An eye that has learnt to watch +the larger movements of mankind will not allow itself to be +disturbed by local oscillations. It is natural enough that some of +our thinkers and writers should imagine that the last word has +been spoken, and that they should be tempted to use the word +'Truth' as if it were their own peculiar possession. But Truth is +really a much vaster and more unattainable thing. One man sees a +fragment of it here and another there; but, as a whole, even in +any of its smallest subdivisions, it exists not in the brain of +any one individual, but in the gradual, and ever incomplete but +ever self-completing, onward movement of the whole. 'If any man +think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought +to know.' The forms of Christianity change, but Christianity +itself endures. And it would seem as if we might well be content +to wait until it was realised a little less imperfectly before we +attempt to go farther afield. + +Yet the work of adaptation must be done. The present generation +has a task of its own to perform. It is needful for it to revise +its opinions in view of the advances that have been made both in +general knowledge and in special theological criticism. In so far +as 'Supernatural Religion' has helped to do this, it has served +the cause of true progress; but its main plan and design I cannot +but regard as out of date and aimed in the air. + +The Christian miracles, or what in our ignorance we call miracles, +will not bear to be torn away from their context. If they are +facts we must look at them in strict connection with that Ideal +Life to which they seem to form the almost natural accompaniment. +The Life itself is the great miracle. When we come to see it as it +really is, and to enter, if even in some dim and groping way, into +its inner recesses, we feel ourselves abashed and dumb. Yet this +self-evidential character is found in portions of the narrative +that are quite unmiraculous. These, perhaps, are in reality the +most marvellous, though the miracles themselves will seem in place +when their spiritual significance is understood and they are +ranged in order round their common centre. Doubtless some elements +of superstition may be mixed up in the record as it has come down +to us. There is a manifest gap between the reality and the story +of it. The Evangelists were for the most part 'Jews who sought +after a sign.' Something of this wonder-seeking curiosity may very +well have given a colour to their account of events in which the +really transcendental element was less visible and tangible. We +cannot now distinguish with any degree of accuracy between the +subjective and the objective in the report. But that miracles, or +what we call such, did in some shape take place, is, I believe, +simply a matter of attested fact. When we consider it in its +relation to the rest of the narrative, to tear out the miraculous +bodily from the Gospels seems to me in the first instance a +violation of history and criticism rather than of faith. + +Still the author of 'Supernatural Religion' is, no doubt, justified +in raising the question, Did miracles really happen? I only wish +to protest against the idea that such a question can be adequately +discussed as something isolated and distinct, in which all that +is necessary is to produce and substantiate the documents as in +a forensic process. Such a 'world-historical' event (if I may for +the moment borrow an expressive Germanism) as the founding of +Christianity cannot be thrown into a merely forensic form. +Considerations of this kind may indeed enter in, but to suppose +that they can be justly estimated by themselves alone is an error. +And it is still more an error to suppose that the riddle of the +universe, or rather that part of the riddle which to us is most +important, the religious nature of man and, the objective facts +and relations that correspond to it, can all be reduced to some +four or five simple propositions which admit of being proved or +disproved by a short and easy Q.E.D. + +It would have been a far more profitable enquiry if the author had +asked himself, What is Revelation? The time has come when this +should be asked and an attempt to obtain a more scientific +definition should be made. The comparative study of religions has +gone far enough to admit of a comparison between the Ethnic +religions and that which had its birth in Palestine--the religion +of the Jews and Christians. Obviously, at the first blush, there +is a difference: and that difference constitutes what we mean by +Revelation. Let us have this as yet very imperfectly known +quantity scientifically ascertained, without any attempt either to +minimise or to exaggerate. I mean, let the field which Mr. Matthew +Arnold has lately been traversing with much of his usual insight +but in a light and popular manner, be seriously mapped out and +explored. Pioneers have been at work, such as Dr. Kuenen, but not +perhaps quite without a bias: let the same enquiry be taken up so +widely as that the effects of bias may be eliminated; and instead +of at once accepting the first crude results, let us wait until +they are matured by time. This would be really fruitful and +productive, and a positive addition to knowledge; but reasoning +such as that in 'Supernatural Religion' is vitiated at the outset, +because it starts with the assumption that we know perfectly well +the meaning of a term of which our actual conception is vague and +indeterminate in the extreme--Divine Revelation. [Endnote 10:1] + +With these reservations as to the main drift and bearing of the +argument, we may however meet the author of 'Supernatural Religion' +on his own ground. It is a part of the question--though a more +subordinate part apparently than he seems to suppose--to decide +whether miracles did or did not really happen. Even of this part +too it is but quite a minor subdivision that is included in the +two volumes of his work that have hitherto appeared. In the first +place, merely as a matter of historical attestation, the Gospels +are not the strongest evidence for the Christian miracles. Only +one of the four, in its present shape, is claimed as the work of +an Apostle, and of that the genuineness is disputed. The Acts of +the Apostles stand upon very much the same footing with the Synoptic +Gospels, and of this book we are promised a further examination. +But we possess at least some undoubted writings of one who was +himself a chief actor in the events which followed immediately +upon those recorded in the Gospels; and in these undoubted writings +St. Paul certainly shows by incidental allusions, the good faith +of which cannot be questioned, that he believed himself to be +endowed with the power of working miracles, and that miracles, +or what were thought to be such, were actually wrought both by +him and by his contemporaries. He reminds the Corinthians that +'the signs of an Apostle were wrought among them ... in signs, +and wonders, and mighty deeds' ([Greek: en saemeious kai terasi +kai dunamesi]--the usual words for the higher forms of miracle-- +2 Cor. xii. 12). He tells the Romans that 'he will not dare to +speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought in him, +to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty +signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God' ([Greek: +en dunamei saemeion kai teraton, en dunamei pneumator Theou], +Rom. xv. 18, 19) He asks the Galatians whether 'he that ministereth +to them the Spirit, and worketh miracles [Greek: ho energon dunameis] +among them, doeth it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of +faith?' (Gal. iii. 5). In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, +he goes somewhat elaborately into the exact place in the Christian +economy that is to be assigned to the working of miracles and gifts +of healing (1 Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29). Besides these allusions, St. Paul +repeatedly refers to the cardinal miracles of the Resurrection and +Ascension; he refers to them as notorious and unquestionable facts +at a time when such an assertion might have been easily refuted. +On one occasion he gives a very circumstantial account of the testimony +on which the belief in the Resurrection rested (1 Cor. xv. 4-8). And, +not only does he assert the Resurrection as a fact, but he builds +upon it a whole scheme of doctrine: 'If Christ be not risen,' he says, +'then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.' We do not +stay now to consider the exact philosophical weight of this evidence. +It will be time enough to do this when it has received the critical +discussion that may be presumed to be in store for it. But as external +evidence, in the legal sense, it is probably the best that can be +produced, and it has been entirely untouched so far. + +Again, in considering the evidence for the age of the Synoptic +Gospels, that which is derived from external sources is only a +part, and not perhaps the more important part, of the whole. It +points backwards indeed, and we shall see with what amount of +force and range. But there is still an interval within which only +approximate conclusions are possible. These conclusions need to be +supplemented from the phenomena of the documents themselves. In +the relation of the Gospels to the growth of the Christian society +and the development of Christian doctrine, and especially to the +great turning-point in the history, the taking of Jerusalem, there +is very considerable internal evidence for determining the date +within which they must have been composed. It is well known that +many critics, without any apologetic object, have found a more or +less exact criterion in the eschatological discourses (Matt. xxiv, +Mark xiii, Luke xxi. 5-36), and to this large additions may be +made. As I hope some day to have an opportunity of discussing the +whole question of the origin and composition of the Synoptic +Gospels, I shall not go into this at present: but in the mean time +it should be remembered that all these further questions lie in +the background, and that in tracing the formation of the Canon of +the Gospels the whole of the evidence for miracles--even from this +_ab extra_ point of view--is very far from being exhausted. + +There is yet another remaining reason which makes the present +enquiry of less importance than might be supposed, derived from +the particular way in which the author has dealt with this +external evidence. In order to explain the _prima facie_ +evidence for our canonical Gospels, he has been compelled to +assume the existence of other documents containing, so far as +appears, the same or very similar matter. In other words, instead +of four Gospels he would give us five or six or seven. I do not +know that, merely as a matter of policy, and for apologetic +purposes only, the best way to refute his conclusion would not be +to admit his premisses and to insist upon the multiplication of +the evidence for the facts of the Gospel history which his +argument would seem to involve. I mention this however, not with +any such object, but rather to show that the truth of Christianity +is not intimately affected, and that there are no such great +reasons for partiality on one side or on the other. + +I confess that it was a relief to me when I found that this must +be the case. I do not think the time has come when the central +question can be approached with any safety. Rough and ready +methods (such as I am afraid I must call the first part of +'Supernatural Religion') may indeed cut the Gordian knot, but they +do not untie it. A number of preliminary questions will have to be +determined with a greater degree of accuracy and with more general +consent than has been done hitherto. The Jewish and Christian +literature of the century before and of the two centuries after +the birth of Christ must undergo a more searching examination, by +minds of different nationality and training, both as to the date, +text, and character of the several books. The whole balance of an +argument may frequently be changed by some apparently minute and +unimportant discovery; while, at present, from the mere want of +consent as to the data, the state of many a question is +necessarily chaotic. It is far better that all these points should +be discussed as disinterestedly as possible. No work is so good as +that which is done without sight of the object to which it is +tending and where the workman has only his measure and rule to +trust to. I am glad to think that the investigation which is to +follow may be almost, if not quite, classed in this category; and +I hope I may be able to conduct it with sufficient impartiality. +Unconscious bias no man can escape, but from conscious bias I +trust I shall be free. + + + + + +CHAPTER II. + +ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. + + +The subject then proposed for our investigation is the extent to +which the canonical Gospels are attested by the early Christian +writers, or, in other words, the history of the process by which +they became canonical. This will involve an enquiry into two +things; first, the proof of the existence of the Gospels, and, +secondly, the degree of authority attributed to them. Practically +this second enquiry must be very subordinate to the first, because +the data are much fewer; but it too shall be dealt with, +cursorily, as the occasion arises, and we shall be in a position +to speak upon it definitely before we conclude. + +It will be convenient to follow the example that is set us in +'Supernatural Religion,' and to take the first three, or Synoptic, +Gospels separately from the fourth. + + * * * * * + +At the outset the question will occur to us, On what principle is +the enquiry to be conducted? What sort of rule or standard are we +to assume? In order to prove either the existence or the authority +of the Gospels, it is necessary that we should examine the +quotations from them, or what are alleged to be quotations from +them, in the early writers. Now these quotations are notoriously +lax. It will be necessary then to have some means of judging, what +degree and kind of laxity is admissible; what does, and what does +not, prevent the reference of a quotation to a given source. + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' indeed, has not felt the +necessity for this preliminary step. He has taken up, as it were, +at haphazard, the first standard that came to his hand; and, not +unnaturally, this is found to be very much the standard of the +present literary age, when both the mechanical and psychological +conditions are quite different from those that prevailed at the +beginning of the Christian era. He has thus been led to make a +number of assertions which will require a great deal of +qualification. The only sound and scientific method is to make an +induction (if only a rough one) respecting the habit of early +quotation generally, and then to apply it to the particular cases. + +Here there will be three classes of quotation more or less +directly in point: (1) the quotations from the Old Testament in +the New; (2) the quotations from the Old Testament in the same +early writers whose quotations from the New Testament are the +point in question; (3) quotations from the New Testament, and more +particularly from the Gospels, in the writers subsequent to these, +at a time when the Canon of the Gospels was fixed and we can be +quite sure that our present Gospels are being quoted. + +This method of procedure however is not by any means so plain and +straightforward as it might seem. The whole subject of Old +Testament quotations is highly perplexing. Most of the quotations +that we meet with are taken from the LXX version; and the text of +that version was at this particular time especially uncertain and +fluctuating. There is evidence to show that it must have existed +in several forms which differed more or less from that of the +extant MSS. It would be rash therefore to conclude at once, +because we find a quotation differing from the present text of the +LXX, that it differed from that which was used by the writer +making the quotation. In some cases this can be proved from the +same writer making the same quotation more than once and +differently each time, or from another writer making it in +agreement with our present text. But in other cases it seems +probable that the writer had really a different text before him, +because he quotes it more than once, or another writer quotes it, +with the same variation. This however is again an uncertain +criterion; for the second writer may be copying the first, or he +may be influenced by an unconscious reminiscence of what the first +had written. The early Christian writers copied each other to an +extent that we should hardly be prepared for. Thus, for instance, +there is a string of quotations in the first Epistle of Clement of +Rome (cc. xiv, xv)--Ps. xxxvii. 36-38; Is. xxix. 13; Ps. lxii. 4, +lxxviii. 36, 37, xxxi, 19, xii. 3-6; and these very quotations in +the same order reappear in the Alexandrine Clement (Strom. iv. 6). +Clement of Alexandria is indeed fond of copying his Roman +namesake, and does so without acknowledgment. Tertullian and +Epiphanius in like manner drew largely from the works of Irenaeus. +But this confuses evidence that would otherwise be clear. For +instance, in Eph. iv. 8 St. Paul quotes Ps. lxviii. 19, but with a +marked variation from all the extant texts of the LXX. Thus:-- + + +_Ps._ lxviii. 18 (19). + +[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaloteusas aichmalosian, elabes +domata en anthropon.] + +[Greek: Aechmaloteusen ... en anthropon] [Hebrew: alef], perhaps +from assimilation to N.T. + + +_Eph._ iv. 8. + +[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaltoteusen aichmalosian, kai edoke +domata tois anthropois.] + +[Greek: kai] om. [Hebrew: alef]'1, A C'2 D'1, &c. It. Vulg. Memph. +&c.; ins. B C'3 D'3 [Hebrew: alef]'4, &c. + + +Now we should naturally think that this was a very free +quotation--so free that it substitutes 'giving' for 'receiving.' +A free quotation perhaps it may be, but at any rate the very same +variation is found in Justin (Dial. 39). And, strange to say, in +five other passages which are quoted variantly by St. Paul, Justin +also agrees with him, [Endnote 18:1] though cases on the other +hand occur where Justin differs from St. Paul or holds a position +midway between him and the LXX (e.g. 1 Cor. i. 19 compared with +Just. Dial. cc. 123, 32, 78, where will be found some curious +variations, agreement with LXX, partial agreement with LXX, +partial agreement with St. Paul). Now what are we to say to these +phenomena? Have St. Paul and Justin both a variant text of the +LXX, or is Justin quoting mediately through St. Paul? Probability +indeed seems to be on the side of the latter of these two +alternatives, because in one place (Dial. cc. 95, 96) Justin +quotes the two passages Deut. xxvii. 26 and Deut. xxi. 23 +consecutively, and applies them just as they are applied in Gal. +iii. 10, 13 [Endnote 18:2]. On the other hand, it is somewhat +strange that Justin nowhere refers to the Epistles of St. Paul by +name, and that the allusions to them in the genuine writings, +except for these marked resemblances in the Old Testament +quotations, are few and uncertain. The same relation is observed +between the Pauline Epistles and that of Clement of Rome. In two +places at least Clement agrees, or nearly agrees, with St. Paul, +where both differ from the LXX; in c. xiii ([Greek: ho kanchomenos +en Kurio kanchastho]; compare 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x, 16), and in +c. xxxiv ([Greek: ophthalmhos ouk eiden k.t.l.]; compare 1 Cor. ii. +9). Again, in c. xxxvi Clement has the [Greek: puros phloga] of +Heb. i. 7 for [Greek: pur phlegon] of the LXX. The rest of the +parallelisms in Clement's Epistle are for the most part with +Clement of Alexandria, who had evidently made a careful study of +his predecessor. In one place, c. liii, there is a remarkable +coincidence with Barnabas ([Greek: Mousae Mousae katabaethi to +tachos k.t.l.]; compare Barn. cc. iv and xiv). In the Epistle of +Barnabas itself there is a combined quotation from Gen. xv. 6, +xvii. 5, which has evidently and certainly been affected by Rom. +iv. 11. On the whole we may lean somewhat decidedly to the +hypothesis of a mutual study of each other by the Christian +writers, though the other hypothesis of the existence of different +versions (whether oral and traditional or in any shape written) +cannot be excluded. Probably both will have to be taken into +account to explain all the facts. + +Another disturbing influence, which will affect especially the +quotations in the Gospels, is the possibility, perhaps even +probability, that many of these are made, not directly from either +Hebrew or LXX, but from or through Targums. This would seem to be +the case especially with the remarkable applications of prophecy +in St. Matthew. It must be admitted as possible that the +Evangelist has followed some Jewish interpretation that seemed to +bear a Christian construction. The quotation in Matt. ii. 6, with +its curious insertion of the negative ([Greek: oudamos elachistae] +for [Greek: oligostos]), reappears identically in Justin (Dial. c. +78). We shall probably have to touch upon this quotation when we +come to consider Justin's relations to the canonical Gospels. It +certainly seems upon the face of it the more probable supposition +that he has here been influenced by the form of the text in St. +Matthew, but he may be quoting from a Targum or from a peculiar +text. + +Any induction, then, in regard to the quotations from the LXX +version will have to be used with caution and reserve. And yet I +think it will be well to make such an induction roughly, +especially in regard to the Apostolic Fathers whose writings we +are to examine. + + * * * * * + +The quotations from the Old Testament in the New have, as it is +well known, been made the subject of a volume by Mr. McCalman +Turpie [Endnote 20:1], which, though perhaps not quite reaching a +high level of scholarship, has yet evidently been put together +with much care and pains, and will be sufficient for our purpose. +The summary result of Mr. Turpie's investigation is this. Out of +two hundred and seventy-five in all which may be considered to be +quotations from the Old Testament, fifty-three agree literally +both with the LXX and the Hebrew, ten with the Hebrew and not with +the LXX, and thirty-seven with the LXX and not with the Hebrew, +making in all just a hundred that are in literal (or nearly +literal, for slight variations of order are not taken into +account) agreement with some still extant authority. On the other +hand, seventy-six passages differ both from the Hebrew and LXX +where the two are together, ninety-nine differ from them where +they diverge, and besides these, three, though introduced with +marks of quotation, have no assignable original in the Old +Testament at all. Leaving them for the present out of the +question, we have a hundred instances of agreement against a +hundred and seventy-five of difference; or, in other words, the +proportion of difference to agreement is as seven to four. + +This however must be taken with the caution given above; that is +to say, it must not at once be inferred that because the quotation +differs from extant authority therefore it necessarily differs +from all non-extant authority as well. It should be added that the +standard of agreement adopted by Mr. Turpie is somewhat higher +than would be naturally held to be sufficient to refer a passage +to a given source. His lists must therefore be used with these +limitations. + +Turning to them, we find that most of the possible forms of +variation are exemplified within the bounds of the Canon itself. I +proceed to give a few classified instances of these. + +[Greek: Alpha symbol] _Paraphrase_. Many of the quotations from the +Old Testament in the New are highly paraphrastic. We may take the +following as somewhat marked examples: Matt. ii. 6, xii. 18-21, +xiii. 35, xxvii. 9, 10; John viii. 17, xii. 40, xiii. 18; +1 Cor. xiv. 21; 2 Cor. ix. 7. Matt. xxvii. 9, 10 would perhaps +mark an extreme point in freedom of quotation [Endnote 21:1], as +will be seen when it is compared with the original:-- + + +_Matt_. xxvii. 9. 10. + +[Greek: [tote eplaerothae to phaethen dia tou prophaetou Hieremiou +legontos] Kai elabon ta triakonta arguria, taen timaen tou +tetimaemenou on etimaesanto apo nion Israael, kai edokan auta eis +ton argon tou kerameos, katha sunetaxen moi Kurios.] + + +_Zech_. xi. 13. + +[Greek: Kathes autous eis to choneutaerion, kai schepsomai ei +dokimon estin, de tropon edokiamistheaen huper aotuon. Kai elabon +tous triakonta argurous kai enebalon autous eis oikon Kuriou eis +to choneutaerion.] + + +It can hardly be possible that the Evangelist has here been +influenced by any Targum or version. The form of his text has +apparently been determined by the historical event to which the +prophecy is applied. The sense of the original has been entirely +altered. There the prophet obeys the command to put the thirty +pieces of silver, which he had received as his shepherd's hire, +into the treasury [Greek: choneutaerion]. Here the hierarchical +party refuse to put them into the treasury. The word 'potter' +seems to be introduced from the Hebrew. + +[Greek: Beta symbol] _Quotations from Memory_. Among the numerous +paraphrastic quotations, there are some that have specially the +appearance of having been made from memory, such as Acts vii. 37; +Rom. ix. 9, 17, 25, 33, x. 6-8, xi. 3, xii. 19, xiv. 11; +1 Cor. i. 19, ii. 9; Rev. ii. 27. Of course it must always +be a matter of guess-work what is quoted from memory and what is +not, but in these quotations (and in others which are ranged under +different heads) there is just that general identity of sense along +with variety of expression which usually characterises such +quotations. A simple instance would be-- + + +_Rom_. ix. 25. + +[Greek: [hos kai en to Osaee legei] Kaleso ton out laon mou laon +mou kai taen ouk aegapaemenaen haegapaemenaen.] + + +_Hosea_ ii. 23. + +[Greek: Kai agapaeso taen ouk aegapaemenaen, kai ero to ou lao mou +Daos mou ei se.] + + +[Greek: Gamma symbol] _Paraphrase with Compression._ There are many marked +examples of this; such as Matt. xxii. 24 (par.); Mark iv. 12; John +xii. 14, 15; Rom. iii. 15-17, x. 15; Heb. xii. 20. Take the +first:-- + + +_Matt._ xxii. 24. [Greek: [Mousaes eipen] Ean tis apothanae +mae echon tekna, epigambreusei o adelphos autou taen gunaika autou +kai anastaesei sperma to adelpho autou.] + + +_Deut._ xxv. 5. [Greek: Ean de katoikosin adelphoi epi to +auto, kai apothanae eis ex auton, sperma de mae ae auto, ouk estai +ae gunae tou tethnaekotos exo andri mae engizonti o adelphos tou +andros autaes eiseleusetai pros autaen kai laepsetai autaen eauto +gunaika kai sunoikaesei autae.] + + +It is highly probable that all the examples given under this head +are really quotations from memory. + +[Greek: Delta symbol] _Paraphrase with Combination of Passages._ +This again is common; e.g. Luke iv. 19; John xv. 25, xix. 36; +Acts xiii. 22; Rom. iii. 11-18, ix. 33, xi. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 24. The passage +Rom. iii. 11-18 is highly composite, and reminds us of long strings of +quotations that are found in some of the Fathers; it is made up of +Ps. xiv. 1, 2, v. 9, cxl. 3, x. 7, Is. lix. 7, 8, Ps. xxxvi. 1. A +shorter example is-- + + +_Rom._ ix. 33. [Greek: [Kathos gegraptai] Idou tithaemi en +Sion lithon proskommatos kai petran skandalou, kai o pisteuon ep +auto ou kataischunthaesetai.] + + +_Is._ viii. 14. [Greek: kai ouch hos lithou proskammati +sunantaesesthe, oude os petras ptomati.] + +_Is._ xxviii. 16. [Greek: Idou ego emballo eis ta themelia +Sion lithon..., kai o pisteuon ou mae kataischunthae.] + + +This fusion of passages is generally an act of 'unconscious +celebration.' If we were to apply the standard assumed in +'Supernatural Religion,' it would be pronounced impossible that +this and most of the passages above could have the originals to +which they are certainly to be referred. + +[Greek: Epsilon symbol] _Addition._ A few cases of addition may +be quoted, e.g. [Greek: mae aposteraesaes] inserted in Mark x. 19, +[Greek: kai eis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9. + +[Greek: Zeta symbol] _Change of Sense and Context._ But little +regard--or what according to our modern habits would be considered +little regard--is paid to the sense and original context of the passage +quoted; e.g. in Matt. viii. 17 the idea of healing disease is substituted +for that of vicarious suffering, in Matt. xi. 10 the persons are +altered ([Greek: sou] for [Greek: mou]), in Acts vii. 43 we find +[Greek: Babylonos] for [Greek: Damaskos], in 2 Cor. vi. 17 'I will +receive you' is put for 'I will go before you,' in Heb. i. 7 'He +maketh His angels spirits' for 'He maketh the winds His +messengers.' This constant neglect of the context is a point that +should be borne in mind. + +[Greek: Eta symbol] _Inversion._ Sometimes the sense of the original is so +far departed from that a seemingly opposite sense is substituted +for it. Thus in Matt. ii. 6 [Greek: oudamos elachistae = +oligostos] of Mic. v. 2, in Rom. xi. 26 [Greek: ek Sion = heneken +Sion] LXX= '_to_ Sion' Heb. of Is. lix. 20, in Eph. iv. 8 +[Greek: hedoken domata = helabes domata] of Ps. lxvii. 19. + +[Greek: Theta symbol] _Different Form of Sentence._ The grammatical +form of the sentence is altered in Matt. xxvi. 31 (from aorist to future), +in Luke viii. 10 (from oratio recta to oratio obliqua), and in 1 Pet. +iii. 10-12 (from the second person to the third). This is a kind +of variation that we should naturally look for. + +[Greek: Iota symbol] _Mistaken Ascriptions or Nomenclature._ The +following passages are wrongly assigned:--Mal. iii. 1 to Isaiah +according to the correct reading of Mark i. 2, and Zech. xi. 13 +to Jeremiah in Matt. xxvii. 9, 10; Abiathar is apparently put for +Abimelech in Mark ii. 26; in Acts vii. 16 there seems to be a +confusion between the purchase of Machpelah near Hebron by Abraham +and Jacob's purchase of land from Hamor the father of Shechem. +These are obviously lapses of memory. + +[Greek: Kappa symbol] _Quotations of Doubtful Origin_. There are a +certain number of quotations, introduced as such, which can be assigned +directly to no Old Testament original; Matt. ii. 23 ([Greek: Nazoraios +klaethaesetai]), 1 Tim. v. 18 ('the labourer is worthy of his hire'), +John vii. 38 ('out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water'), +42 (Christ should be born of Bethlehem where David was), Eph. v. 14 +('Awake thou that sleepest'). [Endnote 25:1] + +It will be seen that, in spite of the reservations that we felt +compelled to make at the outset, the greater number of the +deviations noticed above can only be explained on a theory of free +quotation, and remembering the extent to which the Jews relied +upon memory and the mechanical difficulties of exact reference and +verification, this is just what before the fact we should have +expected. + + * * * * * + +The Old Testament quotations in the canonical books afford us a +certain parallel to the object of our enquiry, but one still +nearer will of course be presented by the Old Testament quotations +in those books the New Testament quotations in which we are to +investigate. I have thought it best to draw up tables of these in +order to give an idea of the extent and character of the +variation. In so tentative an enquiry as this, the standard +throughout will hardly be so fixed and accurate as might be +desirable; the tabular statement therefore must be taken to be +approximate, but still I think it will be found sufficient for our +purpose; certain points come out with considerable clearness, and +there is always an advantage in drawing data from a wide enough +area. The quotations are ranged under heads according to the +degree of approximation to the text of the LXX. In cases where the +classification has seemed doubtful an indicatory mark (+) has been +used, showing by the side of the column on which it occurs to +which of the other two classes the instance leans. All cases in +which this sign is used to the left of the middle column may be +considered as for practical purposes literal quotations. It may be +assumed, where the contrary is not stated, that the quotations are +direct and not of the nature of allusions; the marks of quotation +are generally quite unmistakeable ([Greek: gegraptai, legei, +eipen], &c). Brief notes are added in the margin to call attention +to the more remarkable points, especially to the repetition of the +same quotation in different writers and to the apparent bearing of +the passage upon the general habit of quotation. + +Taking the Apostolic Fathers in order, we come first to-- + + _Clement of Rome (1 Ep. ad Cor._) + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | Variant._ | | + | |3 Deut. 32.14,15. |also in Justin, + | | Is. 3.5. al. | differently. + | | Is. 59. 14, al. | +3. Wisd. 2.24. | | | + |+4. Gen. 4.3-8. | |Acts 7.27, + | Ex. 2.14+ | | more exactly. +6. Gen. 2.23. | |8. Ezek. 33.11 |} + | | Ezek. 18.30 |}from Apocryphal + | | Ps. 103.10,11. |} or interpolated + | | Jer. 3.19,22. |} Ezekiel? + | | Is. 1.18. |} + |+8. Is. 1.16-20. | | + |10. Gen. 12.1-3. | | + | +Gen. 13.14-16. | | + | Gen. 15.5,6. | | + | |12. Josh. 2.3-19. |compression and + | | | paraphrase. + | | | + | |13. 1 Sam. 2,10. |}similarly + | | Jer. 9.23,24. |} St. Paul, 1 Cor. + | | | 1.31, 2 Cor. + |13. Is. 46.2. | | 10.17. + | |14. Prov. 2.21, |from memory? + | | 22. v.l. (Ps. 37.| + | | 39.) | + |14. Ps. 37.35-38.| |Matt. 15.8, Mark + | |15. Is. 29.13.* | 7.6, with par- +15.{Ps. 78.36,37.*|15. Ps. 62.4.* | | tial similarity, + {Ps. 31.19.* | | | Clem. Alex., + {Ps. 12.3-6.* | | | following Clem. + | | | Rom. + |+16. Is. 53.1-12.| |quoted in full by +16. Ps. 22.6-8. | | | Justin, also by +17. Gen. 18.27. | | | other writers + | | | with text + | | | slightly + | | | different from + | | | Clement. + | |17. Job 1.1, v.l. | + | | Job 14.4,5, v.l.|Clem. Alex. + | | | similarly. + |17. Num. 12.7. | | + | Ex. 3.11; 4-10.| | + | |[Greek: ego de |_Assumptio Mosis_, + | | eimi atmis apo | Hilg., _Eldad + | | kuthras.] | and Modad_, Lft. + | | | + | |18. Ps. 89.21,v.l.|}Clem. Alex. as + | | 1 Sam. 13.14. |} LXX. +18. Ps. 51.1-17. | | | + | |20. Job 38.11. | + | |21. Prov. 15.27. |Clem. Alex. + | | | similarly; from + | | | memory? [Greek: +22. Ps. 34.11-17. | | | legei gar pou.] + | |23. [Greek: |from an Apo- + | | palaiporoi eisin | cryphal book, + | | oi dipsuchoi | _Ass. Mos._ or + | | k.t.l.] | _Eld. and Mod._ + | | | + | |23. Is. 13.22. |}composition and + | | Mal. 3.1. |} compression. + | | | + | |26. Ps. 28.7. |}composition + | | Ps. 3-5. |} from memory? + | | | [Greek: legei + | | | gar pou.] + | |27. Wisd. 12.12. |}from memory? + | | Wisd. 11.22. |} cp. Eph. 1.19. +P27. Ps. 19.1-3. | | | + | |28. Ps. 139.7-10. |from memory? + | | |[Greek: legei + | | | gar pou.] +29. Deut. 32.8,9. | | | + | |29. Deut. 4.34. |}from memory? + | | Deut. 14.2. |} or from an + | | Num. 18.27. |} Apocryphal + | | 2 Chron. 31. |} Book? + | | 14. |} + | | Ezek. 48.12. |} + |30. Prov. 3.34. | | +30. Job. 11.2,3. | | |LXX, not Heb. + | |32. Gen. 15.5 | + | | (Gen. 22.17. | + | | Gen. 26.4.) | + |33. Gen. 1.26-28.|(omissions.) | + | |34. Is. 40.10. |}composition + | | Is. 62.11. |} from memory? + | | Prov. 24.12. |} Clem. Alex. + | | | after Clem. + | | | Rom. + |34. Dan. 7.10. |} |curiously + | Is. 6.3+. |} | repeated + | | | transposition; + | | | see Lightfoot, + | | | _ad. loc._ + | |24. Is. 64.4. |so in 1 Cor. 2.9. + |35. Ps. 50.16-23.| | + |36. Ps.104.4,v.l.| |Heb. 1.7. +36. Ps. 2.7,8. | | |Heb. 1.5. Acts + Ps. 110.1 | | | 13.33. + |39. Job 4.16-5.5 | | + | (Job 15.15) | | + | |42. Is. 60.17. |from memory? + | | | [Greek: legei + | | | gar pou.] + | |46. [Greek: |from Apocryphal + | | Kollasthe tois | book, or Ecclus. + | | agiois hoti oi | vi. 34? Clem. + | | kollomenoi | Alex. + | | autois | + | | hagiasthaesontai]| +46. Ps. 18.26,27. | | |context ignored. +48. Ps. 118,19,20.| | |Clem. Alex. + | | | loosely. + | |50. Is. 26.20. |} + | | Ezek. 37.12. |}from memory? +50. Ps. 32. 1,2. | | | + | |52. Ps. 69.31,32. | +52. Ps. 50.14,15.+|} | | + Ps. 51.17. |} | | + |53. Deut.9.12-14.|} |Barnabas + | Ex. 32.7,8. |} | similarly. + | 11,31,32. |} | Compression. +54. Ps. 241. | | | +56. Ps. 118.18. | | | + Prov. 3.12. | | | + Ps. 141.5. | | | + |+56. Job 5.17-26,| | + | v.l. | | + |+57. Prov. 1.23- | | + | 31. | | + +[*Footnote: The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are +also found in Clement of Alexandria.] + + +It will be observed that the longest passages are among those +that are quoted with the greatest accuracy (e.g. Gen. xiii. 14-16; +Job v. 17-26; Ps. xix. 1-3, xxii. 6-8, xxxiv. 11-17, li. 1-17; +Prov. i. 23-31; Is. i. 16-20, liii. 1-12). Others, such as Gen. +xii. 1-3, Deut. ix. 12-14, Job iv. 16-v. 5, Ps. xxxvii. 35-38, l. +16-23, have only slight variations. There are only two passages of +more than three consecutive verses in length that present wide +divergences. These are, Ps. cxxxix. 7-10, which is introduced by a +vague reference [Greek: legei gar pou] and is evidently quoted +from memory, and the historical narration Josh. ii. 3-19. This is +perhaps what we should expect: in longer quotations it would be +better worth the writer's while to refer to his cumbrous +manuscript. These purely mechanical conditions are too much lost +sight of. We must remember that the ancient writer had not a small +compact reference Bible at his side, but, when he wished to verify +a reference, would have to take an unwieldy roll out of its case, +and then would not find it divided into chapter and verse like our +modern books but would have only the columns, and those perhaps +not numbered, to guide him. We must remember too that the memory +was much more practised and relied upon in ancient times, +especially among the Jews. + +The composition of two or more passages is frequent, and the +fusion remarkably complete. Of all the cases in which two passages +are compounded, always from different chapters and most commonly +from different books, there is not, I believe, one in which there +is any mark of division or an indication of any kind that a +different source is being quoted from. The same would hold good +(with only a slight and apparent exception) of the longer strings +of quotations in cc. viii, xxix, and (from [Greek: aegapaesan] to +[Greek: en auto]) in c. xv. But here the question is complicated by +the possibility, and in the first place at least perhaps +probability, that the writer is quoting from some apocryphal work +no longer extant. It may be interesting to give one or two short +examples of the completeness with which the process of welding has +been carried out. Thus in c. xvii, the following reply is put into +the mouth of Moses when he receives his commission at the burning +bush, [Greek: tis eimi ego hoti me pempeis; ego de eimi +ischnophonos kai braduglossos.] The text of Exod. iii. 11 is +[Greek: tis eimi ego, oti poreusomai;] the rest of the quotation +is taken from Exod. iv. 10. In c. xxxiv Clement introduces 'the +Scripture' as saying, [Greek: Muriai muriades pareistaekeisan auto +kai chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto kai ekekragon agios, +agios, agios, Kurios Sabaoth, plaeraes pasa hae ktisis taes doxaes +autou.] The first part of this quotation comes from Dan. vii. 10; +the second, from [Greek: kai ekekragon], which is part of the +quotation, from Is. vi. 3. These examples have been taken almost +at random; the others are blended quite as thoroughly. + +Some of the cases of combination and some of the divergences of +text may be accounted for by the assumption of lost apocryphal +books or texts; but it would be wholly impossible, and in fact no +one would think of so attempting to account for all. There can be +little doubt that Clement quotes from memory, and none that he +quotes at times very freely. + +We come next to the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, the quotations +in which I proceed to tabulate in the same way:-- + + _Barnabas._ + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | Variant._ | | + |+2. Is. 1.11-14. | |note for exactness. + | |2. Jer. 7.22,23. |} combination + | | Zec. 8.17. |} from memory? + | | Ps. 51.19. |strange addition. + |3. Is. 58.4, 5. | | + | Is. 58.6-10. | | + | |4. Dan. 7.24 |}very + | | Dan. 7.7, 8. |} divergent. + | | Ex. 34.28. |}combination + | | Ex. 31.18. |} from memory? + |4. Deut. 9.12. | |see below. + | (Ex. 32.7). | | + | +Is. 5.21. | | + |+5. Is. 54.5,7. | |text of Cod. A. + | (omissions.)| | +5. Prov. 1.17. | | | + Gen. 1.26+. | | | + | |5. Zech. 13.7. |text of A. (Hilg.) + | | | Matt. 26.3. + | | Ps. 22.21. |from memory? + |5. Ps. 119.120. | |paraphrastic + | | Ps. 22.17. | combination + | | | from memory? + | Is. 50. 6,7. | | + | (omissions.) | |ditto. + | |6. Is. 50.8,9. |ditto. + |6. Is. 28.16. | |first clause + | | | exact, second + | | | variant; in N.T. + | | | quotations, + | | | first variant, + | | | second exact. + | Is. 50.7. | |note repetition, + | | | nearer to LXX. +6. Ps. 118.22. | | |so Matt. 21.42; + | | | 1 Pet. 11.7. + | | | +6. Ps. 22.17+ | |6. Ps. 118.24. |from memory? + (order). | | |note repetition, + | | | nearer to LXX. +Ps. 118.12. | | | +Ps. 22.19. | | | +Is. 3.9, 10. | | | + | | Ex. 33.1. |from memory? + | Gen. 1.26+. | |note repetition, +Gen. 1.28. | | | further from LXX. + | | Ezek. 11.19; |paraphrastic. + | | 36.26. | + | | Ps. 41.3. | + | | Ps. 22.23. |different version? + | | Gen. 1.26, 28. |paraphrastic + | | | fusion. + | |7. Lev. 23.29. |paraphrastic. + | | Lev. 16.7, sqq.|with apocryphal + | | Lev. 16.7. sqq.| addition; cp. + | | | Just. and Tert. + |9. Ps. 18.44. | | +9. Is. 33.13+. | | | + | |9. Jer. 4.4. | + | | Jer. 7.2. | + | | Ps. 34.13. | +Is. 1.2. | | |but with additions. + | Is. 1.10+. | |from memory? + | | |[Greek: archontes + | | | toutou] for [Gr. + | | | a. Zodomon.] + | | Is. 40.3. |addition. + | | Jer. 4.3 ,4. |}repetition, + | | Jer. 7.26. |} nearer to LXX. + | | Jer. 9.26. | + | | Gen. 17.26, 27;|inferred sense + | | cf. 14.14. | merely, but + | | | with marks of + | | | quotation. + | |10. Lev. 11, |selected examples, + | | Deut. 14. | but with + | | | examples of + | | | quotation. + | | Deut. 4.1. | +10. Ps. 1.1. | | | + | | Lev. 11.3. | + | |11. Jer. 2.12, 13.| + | | +Is. 16.1, 2. |[Greek: Zina] for + | | | [Greek: Zion]. + |11. Is. 45. 2, 3.| |[Greek: gnosae] A. + | | | ([Greek: gnosin] + | | | Barn., but in + | | | other points more + | | | divergent. + |+Is. 33.16-18. | |omissions. +11. Ps. 1.3-6. | | |note for exactness. + | |11. Zeph. 3.19. |markedly diverse. + | | Ezek. 47.12. |ditto. + |12. Is. 65.2. | | + | |12. Num. 21.9, |apparently a + | | sqq. | quotation. + | | Deut. 27.15. |from memory? + | | Ex. 17.14. | +12. Ps. 110.1. | | | + |12. Is. 45.1. | |[Greek: kurio] for + | | | [Greek: kuro]. + |13. Gen.25.21,23.| | + | |13. Gen. 48.11-19.|very paraphrastic. + | | Gen. 15.6; |combination; cf. + | | 17.5. | Rom. 4.11. + | |14. Ex. 24.18. |note addition of + | | |[Greek: naesteuon.] + | | Ex. 31.18. |note also for + | | | additions. + |14. Deut. 9.12- | |repetition with + | 17+. | | similar variation. + | (Ex. 32.7.) | |note reading of A. +14. Is. 42.6,7. | | |[Greek: + | | |pepedaemenous] for + | | |[Greek: dedemenous + | | |(kai] om. A.). + | Is. 49.6,7. | | +Is. 61. 1,2. | | |Luke. 4.18,19 + | | | diverges. + | |15. Ex. 20.8; |paraphrastic, + | | Deut. 5.12. | with addition. + | | Jer. 17.24,25.|very paraphrastic. + | | Gen. 2.2. | + | | Ps. 90.4. |[Greek: saemeron] + | | | for [Greek: + | | | exthes]. +15. Is. 1.13. | | | + |16. Is. 40.12. | |omissions. + | Is. 66.1. | | + | |16. Is. 49.17. |completely + | | | paraphrastic. + | | Dan. 9.24. |ditto. + | | 25, 27. | + + +The same remarks that were made upon Clement will hold also for +Barnabas, except that he permits himself still greater licence. The +marginal notes will have called attention to his eccentricities. He is +carried away by slight resemblances of sound; e.g. he puts [Greek: +himatia] for [Greek: iamata] [Endnote 34:1], [Greek: Zina] for [Greek: +Zion], [Greek: Kurio] for [Greek: Kuro]. He not only omits clauses, but +also adds to the text freely; e.g. in Ps. li. 19 he makes the strange +insertion which is given in brackets, [Greek: Thusia to Theo kardia +suntetrimmenae, [osmae euodias to kurio kardia doxasousa ton peplakota +autaen]]. He has also added words and clauses in several other places. +There can be no question that he quotes largely from memory; several of +his quotations are repeated more than once (Deu. ix. 12; Is. l. 7; Ps. +xxii. 17; Gen. i. 28; Jer. iv. 4); and of these only one, Deut. ix. 12, +reappears in the same form. Often he gives only the sense of a passage; +sometimes he interprets, as in Is. i. 10, where he paraphrases [Greek: +archontes Sodomon] by the simpler [Greek: archontes tou laou toutou]. He +has curiously combined the sense of Gen. xvii. 26, 27 with Gen. xiv. +l4--in the pursuit of the four kings, it is said that Abraham armed his +servants three hundred and eighteen men; Barnabas says that he +circumcised his household, in all three hundred and eighteen men. In +several cases a resemblance may be noticed between Barnabas and the text +of Cod. A, but this does not appear consistently throughout. + +It may be well to give a few examples of the extent to which Barnabas +can carry his freedom of quotation. Instances from the Book of Daniel +should perhaps not be given, as the text of that book is known to have +been in a peculiarly corrupt and unsettled state; so much so that, when +translation of Theodotion was made towards the end of the second +century, it was adopted as the standard text. Barnabas also combines +passages, though not quite to such an extent or so elaborately as +Clement, and he too inserts no mark of division. We will give an example +of this, and at the same time of his paraphrastic method of quotation:-- + + +_Barnabas_ c. ix. + +[Greek: [kai ti legei;] Peritmaethaete to sklaeron taes kardias +humon, kai ton trachaelon humon ou mae sklaerunaete.] + + +_Jer._ iv. 3, 4 _and_ vii. 26. + +[Greek: Peritmaethaete to theo humon, kai peritemesthe taen +sklaerokardian humon ... kai esklaerunan ton trachaelon auton...] + + +A similar case of paraphrase and combination, with nothing to +mark the transition from one passage to the other, would be in c. +xi, Jer. ii. 12, 13 and Is. xvi. 1, 2. For paraphrase we may take +this, from the same chapter:-- + + +_Barnabas_ c. xi. + +[Greek: [kai palin heteros prophaetaes legei] Kai aen hae gae +Iakob epainoumenae para pasan taen gaen.] + +_Zeph_. iii. 19. + +[Greek: kai thaesomai autous eis kauchaema kai onomastous en pasae +tae gae.] + + +_Barnabas_ c. xv. + +[Greek: [autous de moi marturei legon] Idou saemeron haemera estai +hos chilia etae.] + +_Ps_. xc. 4 + +[Greek: hoti chilia etae en ophthalmois sou hos hae haemera hae +echthes haetis diaelthe.] + + +A very curious instance of freedom is the long narrative of Jacob +blessing the two sons of Joseph in c. xiii (compare Gen. xlviii. +11-19). We note here (and elsewhere) a kind of dramatic tendency, a +fondness for throwing statements into the form of dialogue rather +than narrative. As a narrative this passage may be compared with +the history of Rahab and the spies in Clement. + +And yet, in spite of all this licence in quotation, there are some +rather marked instances of exactness; e.g. Is. i. 11-14 in c. ii, +the combined passages from Ps. xxii. 17, cxvii. 12, xxii. 19 in c. +vi, and Ps. i. 3-6 in c. xi. It should also be remembered that in +one case, Deut. ix. 12 in cc. iv and xiv, the same variation is +repeated and is also found in Justin. + +It tallies with what we should expect, supposing the writings +attributed to Ignatius (the seven Epistles) to be genuine, that +the quotations from the Old as well as from the New Testament in +them are few and brief. A prisoner, travelling in custody to the +place of execution, would naturally not fill his letters with long +and elaborate references. The quotations from the Old Testament +are as follows:-- + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | + | | | +_Ad Eph._ |5. Prov. 3.34 | |James. 4.6, 1 Pet. 5.5, + | | | as Ignatius. + | | | +_Ad Magn._ |12. Prov. 18.17. | | + | | | +_Ad Trall._ | |8. Is. 52.5. | + + +The Epistle to the Ephesians is found also in the Syriac version. +The last quotation from Isaiah, which is however not introduced +with any express marks of reference, is very freely given. The +original is, [Greek: tade legei kurios, di' humas dia pantos to +onoma mou blasphaemeitai en tois ethnesi], for which Ignatius has, +[Greek: ouai gar di' ou epi mataiotaeti to onoma mou epi tinon +blasphaemeitai]. + +The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians and the Martyrium S. +Ignatii contain the following quotations:-- + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | + | | | + Polycarp, | 2. Ps. 2.11. | | +_Ad. Phil._ | | | + | | | +10. Tob. 4.11. | | |} +12. Ps. 4.4; | | |}in Latin + but through | | |} version only. + Eph. 4.26. | | |} + | | | +_Mart. S. Ign._ | | | + | |2. Lev. 26.12. | +6. Prov. 10.24. | | | + + +The quotation from Leviticus differs widely from the original, +[Greek: Kai emperipataeso en humin kai esomai humon theos kai +humeis esesthe moi laos], for which we read, [Greek: [gegraptai +gar] Enoikaeso en autois kai emperipataeso]. + +The quotations from the Clementine Homilies may be thus +presented:-- + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | | | +Hom. 3. | |18. Deut. 32.7. | + |39. +Gen. 18.21. | | + | Gen. 3.22. | | +39. Gen 6.6. | | | + | Gen. 8.21. | |omission. + | Gen. 22.1. | | + | |42. Gen. 3.3. | +43. Gen. 6.6. | | | + |43. Gen. 22.1. | |not quite as above. + | +Gen. 18.21. | |as above. +Gen. 15.13-16. | | |v.l. comp. text + | | | of A; note for + | | | exactness. +44. Gen. 18.21. | | |as LXX. + | |45. Num. 11.34 |[Greek: bounoun + | | (al.) | epithumion] for + | | | [Greek: mnaemata + | | | taes epithumas]. + |47. Deut. 34.4,5.| | + |49. Gen. 49.10. | |cf. Credner, + | | | _Beit._ 2.53. +Hom. 11. | | | +22. Gen. 1.1. | | | +Hom. 16. | | | +6. Gen. 3.22. | | |twice with slightly + | | | different order. +Gen. 3.5. | | | + |6. Ex. 22.28. | | + | |6. Deut. 4.34. |?mem. [Greek: + | | | allothi tou + | | | gegraptai]. +Jer. 10.11. | | | + | | Deut. 13.6. |?mem. [Greek: + | | | allae pou]. + | | Josh. 23.7. | + | Deut. 10.17. | | +Ps. 35.10. | | | +Ps. 50.1. | | | +Ps. 82.1. | | | + | Deut. 10.14. | | + | Deut. 4.39. | | + | Deut. 10.17. | |repeated as above. + | | Deut. 10.17. |very paraphrastic. + | | | +Hom. 16. | |6. Deut. 4.39. | +7. Deut. 6.13. | | | + Deut. 6.4. | | | + | |8. Josh. 23.7. |as above. +8. Exod. 22.18 + | | | + Jer. 10.11. | | | + Gen. 1.1. | | | + Ps. 19.2. | | | + |8. Ps. 102.26. | | + Gen. 1.26. | | | + | |13. Deut. 13.1-3, |very free. + | | 9, 5, 3. | +Hom. 17. | |18. Num. 12.6. |}paraphrastic + | | Ex. 33.11. |} combination. +Hom. 18. | |17. Is. 40.26,27. |free quotation. + | | Deut. 30.13. |ditto. +18. Is. 1.3. | | | + Is. 1.4. | | | + + +The example of the Clementine Homilies shows conspicuously the +extremely deceptive character of the argument from silence. All +the quotations from the Old Testament found in them are taken from +five Homilies (iii, xi, xvi, xvii, xviii) out of nineteen, although +the Homilies are lengthy compositions, filling, with the translation +and various readings, four hundred and fourteen large octavo pages +of Dressel's edition [Endnote 38:1]. Of the whole number of quotations +all but seven are taken from two Homilies, iii and xvi. If Hom. xvi +and Hom. xviii had been lost, there would have been no evidence that +the author was acquainted with any book of the Old Testament besides +the Pentateuch; and, if the five Homilies had been lost, there would +have been nothing to show that he was acquainted with the Old Testament +at all. Yet the loss of the two Homilies would have left a volume +of three hundred and seventy-seven pages, and that of the five a +volume of three hundred and fifteen pages. In other words, it is +possible to read three hundred and fifteen pages of the Homilies +with five breaks and come to no quotation from the Old Testament +at all, or three hundred and fifteen pages with only two breaks +and come to none outside the Pentateuch. But the reduced volume +that we have supposed, containing the fourteen Homilies, would +probably exceed in bulk the whole of the extant Christian literature +of the second century up to the time of Irenaeus, with the single +exception of the works of Justin; it will therefore be seen how +precarious must needs be any inference from the silence, not of +all these writings, but merely of a portion of them. + +For the rest, the quotations in the Homilies may be said to +observe a fair standard of exactness, one apparently higher than +that in the genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; at the +same time it should be remembered that the quotations in the +Homilies are much shorter, only two reaching a length of three +verses, while the longest quotations in the Epistle are precisely +those that are most exact. The most striking instance of accuracy +of quotation is perhaps Gen. xv. 13-16 in Hom. iii. 43. On the +other hand, there is marked freedom in the quotations from Deut. +iv. 34, x. 17, xiii. 1-3, xiii. 6. xxx. 15, Is. xl. 26, 27, and +the combined passage, Num. xii. 6 and Ex. xxiii. 11. There are +several repetitions, but these occur too near to each other to +permit of any inference. + +Our examination of the Old Testament quotations in Justin is +greatly facilitated by the collection and discussion of them in +Credner's Beiträge [Endnote 39:1], a noble example of that true +patient work which is indeed the reverse of showy, but forms the +solid and well-laid foundation on which alone genuine knowledge +can be built. Credner has collected and compared in the most +elaborate manner the whole of Justin's quotations with the various +readings in the MSS. of the LXX; so that we may state our results +with a much greater confidence than in any other case (except +perhaps Clement of Rome, where we have the equally accurate and +scholarly guidance of Dr. Lightfoot [Endnote 40:1]) that we are +not led astray by imperfect materials. I have availed myself +freely of Credner's collection of variants, indicating the cases +where the existence of documentary (or, in some places, +inferential) evidence for Justin's readings has led to the +quotation being placed in a different class from that to which it +would at first sight seem to belong. I have also, as hitherto, not +assumed an absolutely strict standard for admission to the first +class of 'exact' quotations. Many of Justin's quotations are very +long, and it seemed only right that in these the standard should +be somewhat, though very slightly, relaxed. The chief point that +we have to determine is the extent to which the writers of the +first century were in the habit of freely paraphrasing or quoting +from memory, and it may as a rule be assumed that all the +instances in the first class and most (not quite all) of those in +the second do not admit of such an explanation. I have been glad +in every case where a truly scientific and most impartial writer +like Credner gives his opinion, to make use of it instead of my +own. I have the satisfaction to think that whatever may be the +value of the other sections of this enquiry, this at least is +thoroughly sound, and based upon a really exhaustive sifting of +the data. + +The quotations given below are from the undoubted works of Justin, +the Dialogue against Tryphon and the First Apology; the Second +Apology does not appear to contain any quotations either from the +Old or New Testament. + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | + | | | + |Apol. 1.59, Gen. | | + | 1.1-3. | | +Dial. 62, Gen. 1. | | | + 26-28. | | | + |Dial. 102, Gen. | |free quotation + | 3.15. | | (Credner). +D.62, Gen. 3.22. | | | + |D.127, Gen. | | + | 7.16. | | + |D.139, Gen. 9. | | + | 24-27. | | + |D.127, Gen. 11.5. | |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) +D.102, Gen. 11.6. | | | + |D.92, Gen. 15.6. | |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) + | |Dial.10, +Gen. | + | | 17.14. | +D.127, Gen. 17.22.| | | + |D.56, +Gen. 18. | |ver. 2 repeated + | 1, 2. | | similarly. + | +Gen. 18. 13, 14. | |repeated, + | | | slightly more + | +Gen. 18. 16-23, | | divergent. + | 33. | | + | +Gen. 19. 1, 10, | | + | 16-28 (om. 26). | |marked exactness + | | | in the whole + | | | passage. +D.56, Gen. 21. | | | + 9-12. | | | +D.120, Gen. 26.4. | | | +D.58, Gen. 28. | | | + 10-12. | | | + |D.58, +(v.l.) Gen. | | + | 28. 13-19. | | + | +(v.l.) Gen. 31. | | + | 10-13. | | + | |D.59, Gen. 35.1. |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) +D.58, Gen. 35. | | | + 6-10 (v.l.) | | | +D. 52, Gen. 49. | | |repeated + 8-12. | | | similarly. +D. 59, Ex. 2. 23. | | | +D. 60, Ex. 3.2-4+.| |A.1. 62, Ex. 3. 5. |from memory + | | | (Cr.) + |D. 59, Ex. 3. 16. | | + | |A. 1.63, Ex. 3.16 |ver.16 freely + | | (ter), 17. | quoted (Cr.) + | | | [Greek: eirae- + | | | tai pou.] + |D. 126, Ex.6.2-4. | | + | |D. 49, Ex. 17.16. |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) + | |D. 94, Ex. 20.4. |ditto (Cr.) + |D. 75, Ex. 23.20, | |from Lectionary + | 21. | | (Cr.) +D.16, Lev. 26.40, | |D. 20, Ex. 32. 6. |free (Cr.) + 41 (v.l.) | | | + |D. 126, Num. 11. | | + | 23. | | + | |A.1.60 (or. obl.), |free (Cr.) + | | D. 94, Num. 21. | + | | 8,9. | + |D. 106, Num. 24. | |through Targum + | 17. | | (Cr.) + | |D. 16, Deut. 10. |from memory + | | 16, 17. | (Cr.) + | |D.96, Deut. 21.23. |both precisely + | | Deut. 27.26. | as St. Paul in + | | | Galatians, and + | | | quoted thence + | | | (Cr.) +D. 126, Deut. 31. | | | + 2, 3 (v.l.) | | | +D. 74, Deut. 31. | | | + 16-18 (v.l.) | | | +D. 131, Deut. 32. | | | + 7-9 (tr.) | | | + |D.20, Deut. 32.15. | | +D. 119, Deut. 32. | | |Targum (Cr.) + 16-23. | | | +D. 130, Deut. 32. | | | +43 (v.l.) | | | + |D. 91, +Deut. 33. | | + | 13-17. | | +A.1. 40, Ps. 1 and| | |parts repeated. + 2 entire. | | | + |D.97, Ps. 3. 5, 6. | |repeated, more + | | | freely. +D.114, Ps. 8.4. | | | +D.27, Ps. 14.3. | | | +D.28, Ps.18.44,45.| | | +D. 64, Ps.19.6 | | |perhaps from +(A.1.40, vv.1-5). | | | different + | | | MSS., see + | | | Credner. +D.97 ff., Ps. 22. | | |quoted as + 1-23. | | | _whole_ Psalm + | | | (bis). +D.133 ff., Ps. 24 | | | + entire. | | | + |D.141, Ps. 32. 2. | | +D.38, Ps. 45.1-17.| | |parts repeated. +D.37, Ps. 47.6-9. | | | +D.22, Ps. 49 | | | + entire. | | | + | |D.34} |{from Eph. 4.8, + | |D.37} Ps. 68.8. |{ Targum. +D.34, Ps. 72 | | | +entire. | | | +D. 124, Ps. 82 | | | + entire. | | | +D.73, Ps. 96 | | |note Christian + entire. | | | interpolation + | | | in ver. 10. +D.37, Ps. 99 | | | + entire. | |D. 83, Ps. 110. |from memory +D.32, Ps. 110 | | 1-4. | (Cr.) +entire. | | | + | |D.110, Ps. 128.3. |from memory +D.85, Ps. 148. | | | (Cr.) + 1, 2. | | | +A.1. 37, Is. 1. | | | + 3, 4. | | | + | |A.1. 47, Is. 1.7 |sense only + | | (Jer. 2.15). | (Cr.) + | |D.140 (A.1. 53), | + | | Is. 1.9. | + | |A.1. 37, Is. 1. |from memory + | | 11-14. | (Cr.) + |A.1. 44 (61), Is. | |omissions. + | 1.16-30. | | + | |D.82, Is. 1. 23. |from memory +A.1. 39, Is. 2. | | | (Cr.) + 3,4. | | | + |D.135, Is. 2. 5,6. | |Targum (Cr.) +D. 133, Is. 3. | | | + 9-15 (v.l.) | | | + | |D.27, Is. 3.16. |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) + |D.133, Is. 5. 18- | |repeated. + | 25 (v.l.) | | + |D.43 (66), Is. 7. | |repeated, with + | 10-17 (v.l.) | | slight + | | | variation. + | | A.1.35, Is. 9.6. |free (Cr.) +D.87, Is. 11.1-3. | |[A.1.32, Is. 11.1; |free combination + | | Num. 24.17. | (Cr.)] + |D.123, Is. 14.1. | | +D.123, Is. 19.24, | | | + 25+. | | | + |D.78, Is. 29.13,14.| |repeated (v.l), + | | | partly from + | | | memory. +D.79, Is. 30.1-5. | | | + |D.70, Is.33.13-19. | | + |D.69, Is. 35.1-7. |A.1.48, Is. 35.5,6.|free; cf. Matt. + | | | 11.5 (var.) +D.50, Is. 39. 8, | | | + 40.1-17. | | | + | |D.125} Is.42.1-4. |{cf. Matt. 12. + | |D.135} |{ 17-21, + | | | Targum (Cr.) +D.65, Is. 42.6-13 | | | + (v.l.) | | | + | |D.122, Is. 42.16. |free (Cr.) + |D.123, Is. 42.19, | | + | 20. | | +D.122, Is. 43.10. | | | + | |A.1.52, Is. 45. |cf. Rom. 14.11. + | | 24 (v.l.) | +D.121, Is. 49.6 | | | + (v.l.) | | | +D.122, Is. 49.8 | | | + (v.l.) | | | + |D.102, Is. 50.4. | | +A.1.38, Is. 50. | | |Barn., Tert., + 6-8. | | | Cypr. +D.11, Is. 51.4, 5.| | | +D.17, Is. 52.5 | | | + (v.l.) | | | +D.12, Is. 5 2, | | | + 10-15, 53.1-12, | | | + 54.1-6. | | | + |A.1. 50, Is. 52. | | + | 13-53.12. | | + | |D.138, Is. 54.9. |very free. +D.14, Is. 55.3-13.| |[D.12, Is. 55. 3-5.|from memory + | | | (Cr.)] +D.16, Is.57.1-4. | | |repeated. +D.15, Is.58.1-11 | | |[Greek: + (v.l.) | | | himatia] for + | | |[Greek: iamata]; + | | |so Barn., Tert, + | | |Cyp., Amb., Aug. +D.27, Is. 58. | | | + 13, 14. | | | + |D.26, +Is. 62.10- | |[Greek: + | 10-63.6. | | susseismon] for + | | |[Greek: + | | | sussaemon]. +D.25, Is. 63.15- | | | + 19, 64.1-12. | | | +D.24, Is. 65. 1-3.| |[A.1.49, Is. 65. |from memory + | | 1-3. | (Cr.)] +D.136, Is. 65.8. | | | +D.135, Is. 65.9-12| | | +D.81, Is. 65.17-25| | | + | |D.22, Is. 66.1. |from memory + | | | (Cr.) +D.85, Is. 66.5-11.| | | + | |D.44, Is. 66. 24 |from memory + | | (ter). | (Cr.) + | |D.114, Jer. 2.13; |as from + | | Is. 16.1; | Jeremiah, + | | Jer. 3.8. | traditional + | | | combination; + | | | cf. Barn. 2. + |D.28, Jer. 4.3, 4 | | + | (v.l.) | | + | |D.23, Jer. 7.21,22.|free quotation + | | | (Cr.) + |D. 28, Jer. 9.25,26|[A.1.53, Jer. 9.26.|quoted freely + | | | as from + | | | Isaiah.] + |D.72, Jer. 11.19. | |omissions. + | |D. 78, Jer. 31.15 |so Matt. 2.18 + | | (38.15, LXX). | through + | | | Targum (Cr.) + | |D.123, Jer. 31.27 |free quotation + | | (38. 27). | (Cr.) + |D.11, Jer. 31.31, | | + |32 (38.31, 32). | | + | |D.72. |a passage quoted + | | | as from + | | | Jeremiah, + | | | which is not + | | | recognisable + | | | in our present + | | | texts. + | |D. 82, Ezek. 3. |free quotation + | | 17-19. | (Cr.) + | |D.45} Ezek. 14. |} repeated + | | 44} 20; cf. 14, |} similarly and + | | 140} 16, 18. |} equally + | | |} divergent from + | | |} LXX. +D.77, Ezek. 16. 3.| | | +D.21, Ezek. 20. | | | + 19-26. | | | +D.123, Ezek. 36. | | | + 12. | | | + | |A.1.52, Ezek. |very free (Cr.) + | | 37. 7. | + +[Footnote: Justin has in Dial. 31 (also in Apol. 1. 51, ver. 13, from +memory) a long quotation from Daniel, Dan. 7. 9-28; his text can only +be compared with a single MS. of the LXX, Codex Chisianus; from this +it differs considerably, but many of the differences reappear in the +version of Theodotion; 7. 10, 13 are also similarly quoted in Rev., +Mark, Clem. Rom.] + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | + | |D.19, Hos. 1.9. | + | |D.102, Hos.10.6. |referred to + | | | trial before + | | | Herod (Cr.) + | |D.87, Joel 2.28. |from memory + | | | (Cr.) + |D. 22, +Amos | | + |5.18-6. 7 (v.l.) | | + |D. 107, Jonah 4. | | + | 10-11 (v.l. Heb.)| | + |D. 109, Micah 4. | |divergent from + | 1-7 (Heb.?) | | LXX. + | |A.1.34} Micah 5.2. |{precisely as + | |D.78 } |{ Matt. 2.6. + | | | + | |A.1.52, Zech. 2.6. |{free quotations + | |D. 137, Zech. 2. 8.|{ (Cr.) + |D. 115, Zach. 2. |[D. 79, Zech. 3. |freely (Cr.)] + | 10-3. 2 (Heb.?) | 1, 2. | +D.106, Zach. 6.12.| | | + | |A.1.52, Zech. 12. |repeated di- + | | 11,12,10. | versely [note + | | | reading of + | | | Christian ori- + | | | gin (Cr.) in + | | | ver. 10: + | | | so John 19.37; + | | | cp. Rev. 1.7]. + | |D.43, Zech. 13. 7. |diversely in + | | | Matt. 26.31, + | | | proof that + | | | Justin is + | | | not dependent + | | | on Matthew + | | | (Cr.) + |D.28, 41, Mal. 1. |D. 117, Mal. 1. | + | 10-12 (v.l.) | 10-12. | + |D.62, +Joshua 5. | |omissions. + | 13-15; 6.1, 2 | | + | (v.l.) | | + | |D.118, 2 Sam. 7. |from memory + | | 14-16. | (Cr.) + | |D.39, 1 Kings 19. |freely (Cr.); + | | 14, 15, 18. | cf. Rom. 11.3. +A.1.55, Lam. 4. | | | + 20 (v.l.) | | | + | |D.79, Job 1.6. |sense only + | | | (Cr.) + |D.61, +Prov. 8. | |coincidence + | 21-36. | | with Ire- + | | | naeus. + +[Footnote: D. 72 a passage ostensibly from Ezra, but probably an +apocryphal addition, perhaps from Preaching of Peter; same quotation +in Lactantius.] + + +It is impossible not to be struck with the amount of matter that +Justin has transferred to his pages bodily. He has quoted nine +Psalms entire, and a tenth with the statement (twice repeated) +that it is given entire, though really he has only quoted twenty- +three verses. The later chapters of Isaiah are also given with +extraordinary fulness. These longer passages are generally quoted +accurately. If Justin's text differs from the received text of the +LXX, it is frequently found that he has some extant authority for +his reading. The way in which Credner has drawn out these +varieties of reading, and the results which he obtained as to the +relations and comparative value of the different MSS., form +perhaps the most interesting feature of his work. The more marked +divergences in Justin may be referred to two causes; (1) quotation +from memory, in which he indulges freely, especially in the +shorter passages, and more in the Apology than in the Dialogue +with Tryphon; (2) in Messianic passages the use of a Targum, not +immediately by Justin himself but in some previous document from +which he quotes, in order to introduce a more distinctly Christian +interpretation; the coincidences between Justin and other +Christian writers show that the text of the LXX had been thus +modified in a Christian sense, generally through a closer +comparison with and nearer return to the Hebrew, before his time. +The instances of free quotation are not perhaps quite fully given +in the above list, but it will be seen that though they form a +marked phenomenon, still more marked is the amount of exactness. +Any long, not Messianic, passage, it appears to be the rule with +Justin to quote exactly. Among the passages quoted freely there +seem to be none of greater length than four verses. + +The exactness is especially remarkable in the plain historical +narratives of the Pentateuch and the Psalms, though it is also +evident that Justin had the MS. before him, and referred to it +frequently throughout the quotations from the latter part of +Isaiah. Through following the arrangement of Credner we have +failed to notice the cases of combination; these however are +collected by Dr. Westcott (On the Canon, p. 156). The most +remarkable instance is in Apol. i. 52, where six different +passages from three separate writers are interwoven together and +assigned bodily to Zechariah. There are several more examples of +mistaken ascription. + + * * * * * + +The great advantage of collecting the quotations from the Old +Testament is that we are enabled to do so in regard to the very +same writers among whom our enquiry is to lie. We can thus form a +general idea of their idiosyncracies, and we know what to expect +when we come to examine a different class of quotations. There is, +however, the element of uncertainty of which I have spoken above. +We cannot be quite clear what text the writer had before him. This +difficulty also exists, though to a less degree, when we come to +consider quotations from the New Testament in writers of an early +date whom we know to have used our present Gospels as canonical. +The text of these Gospels is so comparatively fixed, and we have +such abundant materials for its reconstruction, that we can +generally say at once whether the writer is quoting from it freely +or not. We have thus a certain gain, though at the cost of the +drawback that we can no longer draw an inference as to the +practice of individuals, but merely attain to a general conclusion +as to the habits of mind current in the age. This too will be +subject to a deduction for the individual bent and peculiarities +of the writer. We must therefore, on the whole, attach less +importance to the examples under this section than under that +preceding. + +I chose two writers to be the subject of this examination almost, +I may say, at random, and chiefly because I had more convenient +access to their works at the time. The first of these is Irenaeus, +that is to say the portions still extant in the Greek of his +Treatise against Heresies, [Endnote 49:1] and the second +Epiphanius. + +Irenaeus is described by Dr. Tregelles 'as a close and careful +quoter in general from the New Testament' [Endnote 49:2]. He may +therefore be taken to represent a comparatively high standard of +accuracy. In the following table the quotations which are merely +allusive are included in brackets:-- + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | +I. Praef. Matt. 10.26.| | | +I.3.2,Matt. 5.18. | | |quoted from + | | | Gnostics +I.3, 3, Mark 5.31. | | |Gnostics. + | |I.3.5, Luke 14.27. |Valentinians. + |I.3.5, Mark 10. | |the same. +I.3.5, Matt. 10.34. | 21 (v.l.) | |the same. +I.3.5, Luke 3.17. | | |the same. +I.4.3, Matt. 10.8. | | | +[I.6.1, Matt. 5. | | | + 13, 14, al.] | |I.7.4, Matt. 8.9.} |}the same. + | | Luke 7.8. } |} + | |I.8.2, Matt. 27.46.|Valentinians. +I.8.2. Matt. 26.38. | | |the same. + |I.8.2, Matt. | |the same. + | 26.39. | | + | |I.8.2, John 12.27. |the same. + | |I.8.3, Luke |the same. + | | 9.57,58. | + | |I.8.3, Luke |the same. + | | 9.61,62. | + |I.8.3, Luke | |the same. + | 9.60. | | + |I.8.3, Luke 19.5.| |the same. + | |I.8.4, Luke 15,4. |the same. + |[I.8.4, Luke | |the same. + | 15.8, al.]| | + |I.8.4, Luke 2.28.| |the same. +[I.8.4., Luke | | |the same. + 6.36, al.] | | | +I.8.4, Luke 7.35 | | |the same. + (v.l.) | | | +I.8.5, John 1.1,2. | | |the same. +I.8.5, John 1.3 | | |the same. + (v.l.) | | | +I.8.5, John 1.4. | | |the same. + (v.l.) | | | + | |I.8.5, John 1.5. |the same. +I.8.5, John 1.14. | |I.8.5, John 1.14. |[the same + | | | verse rep- + | | | eated dif- + | | | ferently.] + | |[I.14.1. Matt. |Marcus. + | | 18.10,al.] | + |[I.16.1, Luke | |Marcosians. + | 15.8,al.]| | + | |[I.16.3, Matt. |the same. + | | 12,43,al.] | + |I.20.2, Luke | |the same. + | 2.49. | | + | |I.20.2, Mark 10.18.|['memoriter'- + | | | Stieren; but + | | | comp. Clem. + | | | Hom. and + | | | and Justin.] + |I.20.2, Matt. | |Marcosians. + | 21.23.| | + | |I.20.2, Luke 19.42.|the same. +I.20.2, Matt. | | |the same. + 11.28 (? om.).| | | + | |I.20.3, Luke 10.21.|the same; + | | (Matt. 11.25 | [v.l., comp. + | | 25.) | Marcion, + | | | Clem. Hom., + | | | Justin, &c.] + | |I.21.2, Luke 12.50.|Marcosians. + |I.21.2, Mark | |Marcosians. + | 10.36. | | +III.11.8, John | | | + 1.1-3 (?). | | | +III.11.8, Matt. | | | + 1.1,18 (v.l.)| | | + |III.11.8, Mark | |omissions. + | 1.1,2. | | +III.22.2, John 4.6. | | | +III.22.2, Matt. 26.38.| | | + |IV.26.1, } Matt. | | + |IV.40.3, } 13.38.| | + |IV.40.3, Matt. | | + | 13.25. | | +V.17.4, Matt. 3.10. | | | + | |V.36.2, John 14.2 | + | | (or obl.) | + | |Fragm. 14, Matt. | + | | 15.17. | + +On the whole these quotations of Irenaeus seem fairly to deserve +the praise given to them by Dr. Tregelles. Most of the free +quotations, it will be seen, belong not so much to Irenaeus +himself, as to the writers he is criticising. In some places (e.g. +iv. 6. 1, which is found in the Latin only) he expressly notes a +difference of text. In this very place, however, he shows that he +is quoting from memory, as he speaks of a parallel passage in St. +Mark which does not exist. Elsewhere there can be little doubt +that either he or the writer before him quoted loosely from +memory. Thus Luke xii. 50 is given as [Greek: allo baptisma echo +baptisthaenai kai panu epeigomai eis auto] for [Greek: baptisma de +echo baptisthaenai kai pos sunechomai heos hotou telesthae]. The +quotation from Matt. viii. 9 is represented as [Greek: kai gar ego +hupo taen emautou exousian echo stratiotas kai doulous kai ho ean +prostaxo poiousi], which is evidently free; those from Matt. +xviii. 10, xxvii. 46, Luke ix. 57, 58, 61, 62, xiv. 27, xix. 42, +John i. 5, 14 (where however there appears to be some confusion in +the text of Irenaeus), xiv. 2, also seem to be best explained as +made from memory. + +The list given below, of quotations from the Gospels in the +Panarium or 'Treatise against Heresies' of Epiphanius [Endnote +52:1], is not intended to be exhaustive. It has been made from the +shorter index of Petavius, and being confined to the 'praecipui +loci' consists chiefly of passages of substantial length and +entirely (I believe) of express quotations. It has been again +necessary to distinguish between the quotations made directly by +Epiphanius himself and those made by the heretical writers whose +works he is reviewing. + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | Variant._ | | +426A, Matt. 1.1; | | | + Matt. 1.18, | | | + (v.l.) | | | + |426BC, Matt. | |abridged, diver- + | 1.18-25+.| | gent in middle. + | |430B, Matt. 2.13. |Porphyry & Celsus. + | |44C, Matt. 5.34,37| + |59C, Matt. | | + | 5.17,18.| | +180B, Matt. 5.18+.| | |Valentinians. + | |226A, Matt. 5.45. | + |72A, Matt. 7.6. | |Basilidians. +404C, Matt. 7.15. | | | + | |67C. Matt. 8.11. | + | |650B. Matt. | + | | 8.28-34 (par.)| + |303A, Matt. | |Marcion. + | 9.17,16.| | + |71B, Matt. 10.33.| |Basilidians. + |274B, Matt. | | + | 10.16.| | +88A, Matt. 11.7. |143B, Matt. | |Gnostics. + | 11.18.| | + |254B, Matt. | |Marcosians. + | 11.28.| | + | |139AB, Matt. |Ebionites. + | | 12.48 sqq. (v.l.)| +174C, Matt. 10.26.| | | + | |464B, Matt. |Theodotus. + | | 12.31,32.| + |33A, Matt. 23.5. | | + | |218D, Matt. 15.4-6|Ptolemaeus. + | | (or. obl.)| + | |490C, Matt. 15.20.| + | | Mark 7.21,22.| + | |490A, Matt. 18.8. |}compression + | | Mark 9.43. |} + | |679BC, Matt. |Manes. + | | 13.24-30,37-39.| + | |152B, Matt. 5.27. | + |59CD, Matt. | | + | 19.10-12.| | + |59D, Matt. 19.6. | | + | |81A, Matt. 19.12. | + | |97D, Matt. 22.30. | + | |36BC, Matt. 23. |remarkable compo- + | | 23,25; 23.18-20.| sition, probably + | | | from memory. + | | (5.35); Mark | + | | 7.11-13; Matt. | + | | 23.15. | + | |226A, Matt. 23.29;|composition. + | | Luke 11.47.| + | |281A, Matt. 23.35.| + | |508C, Matt. 25.34.| + | |146AB, Matt. 26. |narrative. + | | 17,18; Mark 14. | + | | 12-14; Luke 22. | + | | 9-11. | + | |279D, Matt. 26.24.| + | |390B, Matt. 21.33,| + | | par. | + |50A, Matt. 28.19.| | + |427B, Mark 1.1,2.| | + | (v.1.)| | + |428C, Mark 1.4. | | + | |457D, Mark 3.29; |singular + | | Matt. 12.31; |composition. + | | Luke 12.10. | + |400D, Matt. 19.6;| | + | Mark 10.9. | | + | |650C, Matt. 8. |narrative. + | | 28-34; Mark 5. | + | | 1-20; Luke 8. | + | | 26-39. | + +[These last five quotations have already been given under Irenaeus, whom +Epiphanius is transcribing.] + + |464D, Luke 12.9; | |composition. + | Matt. 10.33.| | + |181B, Luke 14.27.| |Valentians. + |401A, Luke 21.34.| | + |143C, Luke 24.42.| | + | (v. 1.)| | + |349C, Luke 24. | |Marcion. + | 38,39| | +384B, John 1.1-3. | | | +148A, John 1.23. | | | + |148B, John | | + | 2.16,17.| | + |89C, John 3.12. | |Gnostics. + |274A, John 3.14 | | +59C, John 5.46. | | | + | |162B, John 5.8. | +66C, John 5.17. | | | + |919A, John 5.18. | | + | |117D, John 6.15. | + |89D, John 6.53. | |the same. + |279D, John 6.70. | | + | |279B, John 8.44. | + |463D, John 8.40. | |Theodotus. + | |148B, John 12.41. | + | |153A, John 12.22. | + |75C, John 14.6. | | +919C, John 14.10. | | | +921D, John 17.3. | | | + | |279D, John | + | | 17.11,12.| + |119D, John 18.36.| | + +It is impossible here not to notice the very large amount of +freedom in the quotations. The exact quotations number only +fifteen, the slightly variant thirty-seven, and the markedly +variant forty. By far the larger portion of this last class and +several instances in the second it seems most reasonable to refer +to the habit of quoting from memory. This is strikingly +illustrated by the passage 117 D, Where the retreat of Jesus and +His disciples to Ephraim is treated as a consequence of the +attempt 'to make Him king' (John vi. 15), though in reality it did +not take place till after the raising of Lazarus and just before +the Last Passover (see John xi. 54). A very remarkable case of +combination is found in 36 BC, where a single quotation is made up +of a cento of no less than six separate passages taken from all +three Synoptic Gospels and in the most broken order. Fusions so +complete as this are usually the result of unconscious acts of the +mind, i.e. of memory. A curious instance of the way in which the +Synoptic parallels are blended together in a compound which +differs from each and all of them is presented in 437 D ([Greek: +to blasphaemounti eis to pneuma to hagion ouk aphethaesetai auto +oute en to nun aioni oute en to mellonti]). Another example of +Epiphanius' manner in skipping backwards and forwards from one +Synoptic to another may be seen in 218 D, which is made up of +Matt. xv. 4-9 and Mark vii. 6-13. A strange mistake is made in 428 +D, where [Greek: paraekolouthaekoti] is taken with [Greek: tois +autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou]. Many kinds of variation find +examples in these quotations of Epiphanius, to some of which we +may have occasion to allude more particularly later on. + +It should be remembered that these are not by any means selected +examples. Neither Irenaeus nor Epiphanius are notorious for free +quotation--Irenaeus indeed is rather the reverse. Probably a much +more plentiful harvest of variations would have been obtained e.g. +from Clement of Alexandria, from whose writings numerous instances +of quotation following the sense only, of false ascription, of the +blending of passages, of quotations from memory, are given in the +treatise of Bp. Kaye [Endnote 56:1]. Dr. Westcott has recently +collected [Endnote 56:2] the quotations from Chrysostom _On the +Priesthood,_ with the result that about one half present +variations from the Apostolic texts, and some of these variations, +which he gives at length, are certainly very much to the point. + +I fear we shall have seemed to delay too long upon this first +preliminary stage of the enquiry, but it is highly desirable that +we should start with a good broad inductive basis to go upon. We +have now an instrument in our hands by which to test the alleged +quotations in the early writers; and, rough and approximate as +that instrument must still be admitted to be, it is at least much +better than none at all. + + + + + +CHAPTER III. + +THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. + + +To go at all thoroughly into all the questions that may be raised +as to the date and character of the Christian writings in the +early part of the second century would need a series of somewhat +elaborate monographs, and, important as it is that the data should +be fixed with the utmost attainable precision, the scaffolding +thus raised would, in a work like the present, be out of +proportion to the superstructure erected upon it. These are +matters that must be decided by the authority of those who have +made the provinces to which they belong a subject of special +study: all we can do will be to test the value of the several +authorities in passing. + +In regard to Clement of Rome, whose First (genuine) Epistle to the +Corinthians is the first writing that meets us, the author of +'Supernatural Religion' is quite right in saying that 'the great mass +of critics ... assign the composition of the Epistle to the end of the +first century (A.D. 95-100)' [Endnote 58:1]. There is as usual a right +and a left wing in the array of critics. The right includes several of +the older writers; among the moderns the most conspicuous figure is the +Roman Catholic Bishop Hefele. Tischendorf also, though as it is pointed +out somewhat inconsistently, leans to this side. According to their +opinion the Epistle would be written shortly before A.D. 70. On the +left, the names quoted are Volkmar, Baur, Scholten, Stap, and Schwegler +[Endnote 59:1]. Baur contents himself with the remark that the Epistle +to the Corinthians, 'as one of the oldest documents of Christian +antiquity, might have passed without question as a writing of the Roman +Clement,' had not this Clement become a legendary person and had so +many spurious works palmed off upon him [Endnote 59:2]. But it is +surely no argument to say that because a certain number of extravagant +and spurious writings are attributed to Clement, therefore one so sober +and consistent with his position, and one so well attested as this, is +not likely to have been written by him. The contrary inference would be +the more reasonable, for if Clement had not been an important person, +and if he had left no known and acknowledged writings, divergent +parties in the Church would have had no reason for making use of his +name. But arguments of this kind cannot have much weight. Probably not +one half of the writings attributed to Justin Martyr are genuine; but +no one on that account doubts the Apologies and the Dialogue with +Tryphon. + +Schwegler [Endnote 59:3], as is his wont, has developed the opinion of +Baur, adding some reasons of his own. Such as, that the letter shows +Pauline tendencies, while 'according to the most certain traditions' +Clement was a follower of St. Peter; but the evidence for the Epistle +(Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, A.D. 165-175, Hegesippus, and +Irenaeus in the most express terms) is much older and better than +these 'most certain traditions' (Tertullian and Origen), even if they +proved anything: 'in the Epistle of Clement use is made of the Epistle +to the Hebrews;' but surely, according to any sober canons of +criticism, the only light in which this argument can be regarded is as +so much evidence for the Epistle to the Hebrews: the Epistle implies a +development of the episcopate which 'demonstrably' (nachweislich) did +not take place until during the course of the second century; what the +'demonstration' is does not appear, and indeed it is only part of the +great fabric of hypothesis that makes up the Tübingen theory. + +Volkmar strikes into a new vein [Endnote 60:1]. The Epistle of Clement +presupposes the Book of Judith; but the Book of Judith must be dated +A.D. 117-118; and therefore the Epistle of Clement will fall about +A.D. 125. What is the ground for this reasoning? It consists in a +theory, which Volkmar adopted and developed from Hitzig, as to the +origin of the Book of Judith. That book is an allegorical or symbolical +representation of events in the early part of the rising of the Jews +under Barcochba; Judith is Judaea, Nebuchadnezzar Trajan; Assyria +stands for Syria, Nineveh for Antioch, Arphaxad for a Parthian king +Arsaces, Ecbatana for Nisibis or perhaps Batnae; Bagoas is the eunuch- +service in general; Holofernes is the Moor Lucius Quietus. Out of +these elements an elaborate historical theory is constructed, which +Ewald and Fritzsche have taken the trouble to refute on historical +grounds. To us it is very much as if Ivanhoe were made out to be +an allegory of incidents in the French Revolution; or as if the +'tale of Troy divine' were, not a nature-myth or Euemeristic legend +of long past ages, but a symbolical representation of events under +the Pisistratidae. + +Examples such as this are apt to draw from the English reader a +sweeping condemnation of German criticism, and yet they are really +only the sports or freaks of an exuberant activity. The long list +given in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 61:1] of those who +maintain the middle date of Clement's Epistle (A.D. 95-100) +includes apparently all the English writers, and among a number of +Germans the weighty names of Bleek, Ewald, Gieseler, Hilgenfeld, +Köstlin, Lipsius, Laurent, Reuss, and Ritschl. From the point of +view either of authority or of argument there can be little doubt +which is the soundest and most judicious decision. + +Now what is the bearing of the Epistle of Clement upon the +question of the currency and authority of the Synoptic Gospels? +There are two passages of some length which are without doubt +evangelical quotations, though whether they are derived from the +Canonical Gospels or not may be doubted. + +The first passage occurs in c. xiii. It will be necessary to give +it in full with the Synoptic parallels, in order to appreciate the +exact amount of difference and resemblance which it presents. + + +_Matt._ v. 7, vi. 14, |_Clem. ad Cor._ c. xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31, + vii. 12,2. | | vi. 38, 37, 38. + | [Especially re- | + | membering the word | + | of the Lord Jesus | + | which he spake ... | + | For thus he said:] | +v. 7. Blessed are | Pity ye, that ye may | vi. 36. Be ye mer- +the pitiful, for they | be pitied: forgive, | ciful, etc. vi. 37. Ac- +shall be pitied. vi. | that it may be for- | quit, and ye shall be +14. For if ye for | given unto you. As | acquitted. vi. 3 1. +give men their tres- | ye do, so shall it | And as ye would +passes, etc. vii. 12. | be done unto you: | that they should do +All things therefore | as ye give, so shall | unto you, do ye +whatsoever ye would | it be given. unto you: | also unto them like +that men should do | as ye judge, so shall | wise. vi. 38. Give, +unto you, even so do | it be judged unto | and it shall be given +ye unto them. vii. 2. | you: as ye are kind, | unto you. vi. 3 7. +For with what judg- | so shall kindness be | And judge not, and +ment ye judge, ye | shown unto you: | ye shall not be +shall be judged: and | | judged. +with what measure | with what measure | For with what +ye mete, it shall be | ye mete, with it shall | measure ye mete, it +measured unto you. | it be measured unto | shall be measured + | you. | unto you again. + + + [GREEK TABLE] +_Matt._ v. 7, vi. 14, |_Clem. ad Cor._ c. xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31, + vii. 12,2. | | vi. 38, 37, 38. + | | + v.7. makarioi hoi |eleeite hina eleaethaete.| vi. 36. ginesthe +eleaemones hoti autoi | |oiktirmones, k.t.l. +eleaethaesontai. | | + vi. 14. ean gar | aphiete hina aphethae | vi. 37. apoluete kai +aphaete tois anth. ta |humin. |apoluthaesesthe. +paraptomata auton. | | + vii. 12. panta oun | hos poieite houto | vi. 31. kai kathos +hosa ean thelaete hina |poiaethaesetai humin. |thelete hina poiosin +poiosin humin hoi anth.| |humin hoi anthropoi kai +houtos kai humeis | |humeis poieite autois + | |homoios poieite autois. + | hos didote houtos | vi. 38. didote, kai + |dothaesetai humin. |dothaesetai humin. +vii. 2. en ho gar | hos krinete houtos | vi. 37. kai mae +krimati krinete |krithaesetai humin. |krinete kai ou mae +krithaesesthe. | |krithaete. + | hos chraesteuesthe | + |houtos chraesteuthaesetai| + |humin. | +kai en ho metro | ho metro metreite en | vi. 38. to gar auto +metreite |auto metraethaesetai |metro ho metreite +metraethaesetai humin. |humin. |antimetraethaesetai + | |humin. + + +We are to determine whether this quotation was taken from the +Canonical Gospels. Let us try to balance the arguments on both +sides as fairly as possible. Dr. Lightfoot writes in his note upon +the passage as follows: 'As Clement's quotations are often very +loose, we need not go beyond the Canonical Gospels for the source +of this passage. The resemblance to the original is much closer +here, than it is for instance in his account of Rahab above, § 12. +The hypothesis therefore that Clement derived the saying from oral +tradition, or from some lost Gospel, is not needed.' (1) No doubt +it is true that Clement does often quote loosely. The difference +of language, taking the parallel clauses one by one, is not +greater than would be found in many of his quotations from the Old +Testament. (2) Supposing that the order of St. Luke is followed, +there will be no greater dislocation than e.g. in the quotation +from Deut. ix. 12-14 and Exod. xxxii. (7, 8), 11, 31, 32 in c. +liii, and the backward order of the quotation would have a +parallel in Clem. Hom. xvi. 13, where the verses Deut. xiii. 1-3, +5, 9 are quoted in the order Deut. xiii. 1-3, 9, 5, 3,--and +elsewhere. The composition of a passage from different places in +the same book, or more often from places in different books, such +as would be the case if Clement was following Matthew, frequently +occurs in his quotations from the Old Testament. (3) We have no +positive evidence of the presence of this passage in any non- +extant Gospel. (4) Arguments from the manner of quoting the Old +Testament to the manner of quoting the New must always be to a +certain extent _a fortiori_, for it is undeniable that the +New Testament did not as yet stand upon the same footing of +respect and authority as the Old, and the scarcity of MSS. must +have made it less accessible. In the case of converts from +Judaism, the Old Testament would have been largely committed to +memory in youth, while the knowledge of the New would be only +recently acquired. These considerations seem to favour the +hypothesis that Clement is quoting from our Gospels. + +But on the other hand it may be urged, (1) that the parallel +adduced by Dr. Lightfoot, the story of Rahab, is not quite in +point, because it is narrative, and narrative both in Clement and +the other writers of his time is dealt with more freely than +discourse. (2) The passage before us is also of greater length +than is usual in Clement's free quotations. I doubt whether as +long a piece of discourse can be found treated with equal freedom, +unless it is the two doubtful cases in c. viii and c. xxix. (3) It +will not fail to be noticed that the passage as it stands in +Clement has a roundness, a compactness, a balance of style, which +give it an individual and independent appearance. Fusions effected +by an unconscious process of thought are, it is true, sometimes +marked by this completeness; still there is a difficulty in +supposing the terse antitheses of the Clementine version to be +derived from the fuller, but more lax and disconnected, sayings in +our Gospels. (4) It is noticed in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote +65:1] that the particular phrase [Greek: chraesteusthe] has at +least a partial parallel in Justin [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kai +oiktirmones], though it has none in the Canonical Gospels. This +may seem to point to a documentary source no longer extant. + +Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we only knew +what was the common original of the two Synoptic texts. How do +they come to be so like and yet so different as they are? How do +they come to be so strangely broken up? The triple synopsis, which +has to do more with narrative, presents less difficulty, but the +problem raised by these fragmentary parallelisms in discourse is +dark and complex in the extreme; yet if it were only solved it +would in all probability give us the key to a wide class of +phenomena. The differences in these extra-canonical quotations do +not exceed the differences between the Synoptic Gospels +themselves; yet by far the larger proportion of critics regard the +resemblances in the Synoptics as due to a common written source +used either by all three or by two of them. The critics have not +however, I believe, given any satisfactory explanation of the +state of dispersion in which the fragments of this latter class +are found. All that can be at present done is to point out that +the solution of this problem and that of such quotations as the +one discussed in Clement hang together, and that while the one +remains open the other must also. + +Looking at the arguments on both sides, so far as we can give +them, I incline on the whole to the opinion that Clement is not +quoting directly from our Gospels, but I am quite aware of the +insecure ground on which this opinion rests. It is a nice balance +of probabilities, and the element of ignorance is so large that +the conclusion, whatever it is, must be purely provisional. +Anything like confident dogmatism on the subject seems to me +entirely out of place. + +Very much the same is to be said of the second passage in c. xlvi +compared with Matt. xxvi. 24, xviii. 6, or Luke xvii. 1, 2. It hardly +seems necessary to give the passage in full, as this is already done +in 'Supernatural Religion,' and it does not differ materially from +that first quoted, except that it is less complicated and the +supposition of a quotation from memory somewhat easier. The critic +indeed dismisses the question summarily enough. He says that 'the +slightest comparison of the passage with our Gospels is sufficient to +convince any unprejudiced mind that it is neither a combination of +texts nor a quotation from memory' [Endnote 66:1]. But this very +confident assertion is only the result of the hasty and superficial +examination that the author has given to the facts. He has set down +the impression that a modern might receive, at the first blush, +without having given any more extended study to the method of the +patristic quotations. I do not wish to impute blame to him for this, +because we are all sure to take up some points superficially; but the +misfortune is that he has spent his labour in the wrong place. He +has, in a manner, revived the old ecclesiastical argument from +authority by heaping together references, not always quite digested +and sifted, upon points that often do not need them, and he has +neglected that consecutive study of the originals which alone could +imbue his mind with their spirit and place him at the proper point of +view for his enquiry. + +The hypothesis that Clement's quotation is made _memoriter_ from our +Gospel is very far from being inadmissible. Were it not that the +other passage seems to lean the other way, I should be inclined to +regard it as quite the most probable solution. Such a fusion is +precisely what _would_ and frequently _does_ take place in quoting +from memory. It is important to notice the key phrases in the +quotation. The opening phrases [Greek: ouai to anthropo ekeino; kalon +aen auto ei ouk egennaethae] are found _exactly_ (though with +omissions) in Matt. xxvi. 24. Clement has in common with the +Synoptists all the more marked expressions but two, [Greek: +skandalisai] ([Greek: -sae] Synoptics), the unusual word [Greek: +mulos] (Matt., Mark), [Greek: katapontisthaenai] ([Greek: -thae] +Matt.), [Greek: eis taen thalassan] (Mark, Luke), [Greek: hena ton +mikron] ([Greek: mou] Clement, [Greek: touton] Synoptics). He differs +from them, so far as phraseology is concerned, only in writing _once_ +(the second time he agrees with the Synoptics) [Greek: ton eklekton +mou] for [Greek: ton mikron touton], by an easy paraphrase, and +[Greek: peritethaenai] where Mark and Luke have [Greek: perikeitai] +and Matthew [Greek: kremasthae]. But on the other hand, it should be +noticed that Matthew has, besides this variation, [Greek: en to +pelagei taes thalassaes], where the two companion Gospels have +[Greek: eis taen thalassan]; where he has [Greek: katapontisthae], +Mark has [Greek: beblaetai] and Luke [Greek: erriptai]; and in the +important phrase for 'it were better' all the three Gospels differ, +Matthew having [Greek: sumpherei], Mark [Greek: kalon estin], and +Luke [Greek: lusitelei]; so that it seems not at all too much to say +that Clement does not differ from the Synoptics more than they differ +from each other. The remarks that the author makes, in a general way, +upon these differences lead us to ask whether he has ever definitely +put to himself the question, How did they arise? He must be aware +that the mass of German authorities he is so fond of quoting admit of +only two alternatives, that the Synoptic writers copied either from +the same original or from each other, and that the idea of a merely +oral tradition is scouted in Germany. But if this is the case, if so +great a freedom has been exercised in transcription, is it strange +that Clement (or any other writer) should be equally free in +quotation? + +The author rightly notices--though he does not seem quite to +appreciate its bearing--the fact that Marcion and some codices (of +the Old Latin translation) insert, as Clement does, the phrase +[Greek: ei ouk egennaethae ae] in the text of St. Luke. Supposing +that this were the text of St. Luke's Gospel which Clement had before +him, it would surely be so much easier to regard his quotation as +directly taken from the Gospel; but the truer view perhaps would be +that we have here an instance (and the number of such instances in +the older MSS. is legion) of the tendency to interpolate by the +insertion of parallel passages from the same or from the other +Synoptic Gospels. Clement and Marcion (with the Old Latin) will then +confirm each other, as showing that even at this early date the two +passages, Matt. xxvi. 24 and Matt. xviii. 6 (Luke xvii. 2), had +already begun to be combined. + +There is one point more to be noticed before we leave the Epistle +of Clement. There is a quotation from Isaiah in this Epistle which +is common to it with the first two Synoptics. Of this Volkmar +writes as follows, giving the words of Clement, c. xv, 'The +Scripture says somewhere, This people honoureth me with their +lips, but their heart is far from me,' ([Greek: houtos ho laos +tois cheilesin me tima hae de kardia auton porro apestin ap' +emou]). 'This "Scripture" the writer found in Mark vii. 6 +(followed in Matt. xv. 8), and in that shape he could not at once +remember where it stood in the Old Testament. It is indeed Mark's +peculiar reproduction of Is. xxix. 13, in opposition to the +original and the LXX. A further proof that the Roman Christian has +here our Synoptic text in his mind, may be taken from c. xiii, +where he quotes Jer. ix. 24 with equal divergence from the LXX, +after the precedent of the Apostle (1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 17) +whose letters he expressly refers to (c. xlvii) [Endnote 69:1]. +It is difficult here to avoid the conclusion that Clement is +quoting the Old Testament through the medium of our Gospels. The +text of the LXX is this, [Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos en to +stomati autou kai en tois cheilesin auton timosin me]. Clement has +the passage exactly as it is given in Mark ([Greek: ho laos +houtos] Matt.), except that he writes [Greek: apestin] where both +of the Gospels have [Greek: apechei] with the LXX. The passage is +not Messianic, so that the variation cannot be referred to a +Targum; and though A. and six other MSS. in Holmes and Parsons +omit [Greek: en to stomati autou] (through wrong punctuation-- +Credner), still there is no MS. authority whatever, and naturally +could not be, for the omission of [Greek: engizei moi ... kai] and +for the change of [Greek: timosin] to [Greek: tima]. There can be +little doubt that this was a free quotation in the original of the +Synoptic Gospels, and it is in a high degree probable that it has +passed through them into Clement of Rome. It might perhaps be +suggested that Clement was possibly quoting the earlier document, +the original of our Synoptics, but this suggestion seems to be +excluded both by his further deviation from the LXX in [Greek: +apestin], and also by the phenomena of the last quotation we have +been discussing, which are certainly of a secondary character. +Altogether I cannot but regard this passage as the strongest +evidence we possess for the use of the Synoptic Gospels by +Clement; it seems to carry the presumption that he did use them up +to a considerable degree of probability. + +It is rather singular that Volkmar, whose speculations about the +Book of Judith we have seen above, should be so emphatic as he is +in asserting the use of all three Synoptics by Clement. We might +almost, though not quite, apply with a single change to this +critic a sentence originally levelled at Tischendorf, to the +intent that 'he systematically adopts the latest (earliest) +possible or impossible dates for all the writings of the first two +centuries,' but he is able to admit the use of the first and third +Synoptics (the publication of which he places respectively in 100 +and 110 A.D.) by throwing forward the date of Clement's Epistle, +through the Judith-hypothesis, to A.D. 125. We may however accept +the assertion for what it is worth, as coming from a mind +something less than impartial, while we reject the concomitant +theories. For my own part I do not feel able to speak with quite +the same confidence, and yet upon the whole the evidence, which on +a single instance might seem to incline the other way, does appear +to favour the conclusion that Clement used our present Canonical +Gospels. + + 2. + +There is not, so far as I am aware, any reason to complain of the +statement of opinion in 'Supernatural Religion' as to the date of +the so-called Epistle of Barnabas. Arguing then entirely from +authority, we may put the _terminus ad quem_ at about 130 +A.D. The only writer who is quoted as placing it later is Dr. +Donaldson, who has perhaps altered his mind in the later edition +of his work, as he now writes: 'Most (critics) have been inclined +to place it not later than the first quarter of the second +century, and all the indications of a date, though very slight, +point to this period' [Endnote 71:1]. + +The most important issue is raised on a quotation in c. iv, 'Many +are called but few chosen,' in the Greek of the Codex Sinaiticus +[Greek: [prosechomen, maepote, hos gegraptai], polloi klaetoi, +oligoi de eklektoi eurethomen.] This corresponds exactly with +Matt. xxii. 14, [Greek: polloi gar eisin klaetoi, oligoi de +eklektoi]. The passage occurs twice in our present received text +of St. Matthew, but in xx. 16 it is probably an interpolation. +There also occurs in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) viii. 3 the sentence, 'Many +were created but few shall be saved' [Endnote 71:2]. Our author +spends several pages in the attempt to prove that this is the +original of the quotation in Barnabas and not the saying in St. +Matthew. We have the usual positiveness of statement: 'There can +be no doubt that the sense of the reading in 4 Ezra is exactly +that of the Epistle.' 'It is impossible to imagine a saying more +irrelevant to its context than "Many are called but few chosen" in +Matt. xx. 16,' where it is indeed spurious, though the relevancy +of it might very well be maintained. In Matt. xxii. 14, where the +saying is genuine, 'it is clear that the facts distinctly +contradict the moral that "few are chosen."' When we come to a +passage with a fixed idea it is always easy to get out of it what +we wish to find. As to the relevancy or irrelevancy of the clause +in Matt. xxii. 14 I shall say nothing, because it is in either +case undoubtedly genuine. But it is surely a strange paradox to +maintain that the words 'Many were created but few shall be saved' +are nearer in meaning to 'Many are called but few chosen' than the +repetition of those very words themselves. Our author has +forgotten to notice that Barnabas has used the precise word +[Greek: klaetoi] just before; indeed it is the very point on which +his argument turns, 'because we are called do not let us therefore +rest idly upon our oars; Israel was called to great privileges, +yet they were abandoned by God as we see them; let us therefore +also take heed, for, as it is written, many are called but few +chosen.' I confess I find it difficult to conceive anything more +relevant, and equally so to see any special relevancy, in the +vague general statement 'Many were created but few shall be +saved.' + +But even if it were not so, if it were really a question between +similarity of context on the one hand and identity of language on +the other, there ought to be no hesitation in declaring that to be +the original of the quotation in which the language was identical +though the context might be somewhat different. Any one who has +studied patristic quotations will know that context counts for +very little indeed. What could be more to all appearance remote +from the context than the quotation in Heb. i. 7, 'Who maketh his +angels spirits and his ministers a flaming fire'? where the +original is certainly referring to the powers of nature, and means +'who maketh the winds his messengers and a flame of fire his +minister;' with the very same sounds we have a complete inversion +of the sense. This is one of the most frequent phenomena, as our +author cannot but know [Endnote 73:1]. + +Hilgenfeld, in his edition of the Epistle of Barnabas, repels +somewhat testily the imputation of Tischendorf, who criticises him +as if he supposed that the saying in St. Matthew was not directly +referred to [Endnote 73:2]. This Hilgenfeld denies to be the case. +In regard to the use of the word [Greek: gegraptai] introducing +the quotation, the same writer urges reasonably enough that it +cannot surprise us at a time when we learn from Justin Martyr that +the Gospels were read regularly at public worship; it ought not +however to be pressed too far as involving a claim to special +divine inspiration, as the same word is used in the Epistle in +regard to the apocryphal book of Enoch, and it is clear also from +Justin that the Canon of the Gospels was not yet formed but only +forming. + +The clause, 'Give to every one that asketh of thee' [Greek: panti +to aitounti se didou], though admitted into the text of c. xix by +Hilgenfeld and Weizsäcker, is wanting in the Sinaitic MS., and the +comparison with Luke vi. 30 or Matt. v. 42 therefore cannot be +insisted upon. + +The passage '[in order that He might show that] He came not to +call the righteous but sinners' ([Greek: hina deixae hoti ouk +aelthen kalesai dikaious alla amartolous] [Endnote 74:1]) is +removed by the hypothesis of an interpolation which is supported +by a precarious argument from Origen, and also by the fact that +[Greek: eis metanoian] has been added (clearly from Luke v. 32) by +later hands both to the text of Barnabas and in Matt. ix. 13 +[Endnote 74:2]. This theory of an interpolation is easily +advanced, and it is drawn so entirely from our ignorance that it +can seldom be positively disproved, but it ought surely to be +alleged with more convincing reasons than any that are put forward +here. We now possess six MSS. of the Epistle of Barnabas, +including the famous Codex Sinaiticus, the accuracy of which in +the Biblical portions can be amply tested, and all of these six +MSS., without exception, contain the passage. The addition of the +words [Greek: eis metanoian] represents much more the kind of +interpolations that were at all habitual. The interpolation +hypothesis, as I said, is easily advanced, but the _onus +probandi_ must needs lie heavily against it. In accepting the +text as it stands we simply obey the Baconian maxim _hypotheses +non fingimus_, but it is strange, and must be surprising to a +philosophic mind, to what an extent the more extreme representatives +of the negative criticism have gone back to the most condemned +parts of the scholastic method; inconvenient facts are explained +away by hypotheses as imaginary and unverifiable as the 'cycles +and epicycles' by which the schoolmen used to explain the motions +of the heavenly bodies. + +'If however,' the author continues, 'the passage 'originally +formed part of the text, it is absurd to affirm that it is any +proof of the use or existence of the first Gospel.' 'Absurd' is +under the circumstances a rather strong word to use; but, granting +that it would have been even 'absurd' to allege this passage, if +it had stood alone, as a sufficient proof of the use of the +Gospel, it does not follow that there can be any objection to the +more guarded statement that it invests the use of the Gospel with +a certain antecedent probability. No doubt the quotation +_may_ have been made from a lost Gospel, but here again +[Greek: eis aphanes ton muthon anenenkas ouk echei elenchon]-- +there is no verifying that about which we know nothing. The critic +may multiply Gospels as much as he pleases and an apologist at +least will not quarrel with him, but it would be more to the point +if he could prove the existence in these lost writings of matter +_conflicting_ with that contained in the extant Gospels. As +it is, the only result of these unverifiable hypotheses is to +raise up confirmatory documents in a quarter where apologists have +not hitherto claimed them. + +We are delaying, however, too long upon points of quite secondary +importance. Two more passages are adduced; one, an application of +Ps. cx (The Lord said unto my Lord) precisely as in Matt. xxii. +44, and the other a saying assigned to our Lord, 'They who wish to +see me and lay hold on my kingdom must receive me through +affliction and suffering.' Of neither of these can we speak +positively. There is perhaps a slight probability that the first +was suggested by our Gospel, and considering the character of the +verifiable quotations in Barnabas, which often follow the sense +only and not the words, the second may be 'a free reminiscence of +Matt. xvi. 24 compared with Acts xiv. 22,' but it is also possible +that it may be a saying quoted from an apocryphal Gospel. + +It should perhaps be added that Lardner and Dr. Westcott both +refer to a quotation of Zech. xiii. 7 which appears in the common +text of the Epistle in a form closely resembling that in which the +quotation is given in Matt. xxvi. 31 and diverging from the LXX, +but here again the Sinaitic Codex varies, and the text is too +uncertain to lay stress upon, though perhaps the addition [Greek: +taes poimnaes] may incline the balance to the view that the text +of the Gospel has influenced the form of the quotation [Endnote +76:1]. + +The general result of our examination of the Epistle of Barnabas +may perhaps be stated thus, that while not supplying by itself +certain and conclusive proof of the use of our Gospels, still the +phenomena accord better with the hypothesis of such a use. This +Epistle stands in the second line of the evidence, and as a +witness is rather confirmatory than principal. + + + 3. + +After Dr. Lightfoot's masterly exposition there is probably +nothing more to be said about the genuineness, date, and origin of +the Ignatian Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot has done in the most lucid +and admirable manner just that which is so difficult to do, and +which 'Supernatural Religion' has so signally failed in doing; he +has succeeded in conveying to the reader a true and just sense of +the exact weight and proportion of the different parts of the +evidence. He has avoided such phrases as 'absurd,' 'impossible,' +'preposterous,' that his opponent has dealt in so freely, but he +has weighed and balanced the evidence piece by piece; he has +carefully guarded his language so as never to let the positiveness +of his conclusion exceed what the premises will warrant; he has +dealt with the subject judicially and with a full consciousness of +the responsibility of his position [Endnote 77:1]. + +We cannot therefore, I think, do better than adopt Dr. Lightfoot's +conclusion as the basis of our investigation, and treat the +Curetonian (i.e. the three short Syriac) letters as (probably) +'the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the Vossian letters +(i.e. the shorter Greek recension of seven Epistles) are accepted +as valid testimony at all events for the middle of the second +century--the question of the genuineness of the letters being +waived.' + +The Curetonian Epistles will then be dated either in 107 or in 115 +A.D., the two alternative years assigned to the martyrdom of +Ignatius. In the Epistle to Polycarp which is given in this +version there is a parallel to Matt. x. 16, 'Be ye therefore wise +as serpents and harmless as doves.' The two passages may be +compared thus:-- + + _Ign. ad Pol._ ii. + +[Greek: Psronimos ginou hos ophis en apasin kai akeaios osei +perisetera.] + + _Matt._ x. 16. + +[Greek: Ginesthe oun psronimoi hos oi opheis kai akeaioi hos ai +peristerai.] + +We should naturally place this quotation in the second column of +our classified arrangement, as presenting a slight variation. At +the same time we should have little hesitation in referring it to +the passage in our Canonical Gospel. All the marked expressions +are identical, especially the precise and selected words [Greek: +phronimos] and [Greek: akeraios]. It is however possible that +Ignatius may be quoting, not directly from our Gospel, but from +one of the original documents (such as Ewald's hypothetical +'Spruch-sammlung') out of which our Gospel was composed--though it +is somewhat remarkable that this particular sentence is wanting in +the parallel passage in St. Luke (cf. Luke x. 3). This may be so +or not; we have no means of judging. But it should at any rate be +remembered that this original document, supposing it to have had a +substantive existence, most probably contained repeated references +to miracles. The critics who refer Matt. x. 16 to the document in +question, also agree in referring to it Matt. vii. 22, x. 8, xi. +5, xii. 24 foll., &c., which speak distinctly of miracles, and +precisely in that indirect manner which is the best kind of +evidence. Therefore if we accept the hypothesis suggested in +'Supernatural Religion'--and it is a mere hypothesis, quite +unverifiable--the evidence for miracles would not be materially +weakened. The author would, I suppose, admit that it is at least +equally probable that the saying was quoted from our present +Gospel. + +This probability would be considerably heightened if the allusion +to 'the star' in the Syriac of Eph. xix has, as it appears to +have, reference to the narrative of Matt. ii. In the Greek or +Vossian version of the Epistle it is expanded, 'How then was He +manifested to the ages? A star shone in heaven above all the +stars, and the light thereof was unspeakable, and the strangeness +thereof caused astonishment' ([Greek: Pos oun ephanerothae tois +aoisin; Astaer en ourano elampsen huper pantas tous asteras, kai +to phos autou aneklalaeton aen, kai xenismon pareichen hae +kainotaes autou]). This is precisely, one would suppose, the kind +of passage that might be taken as internal evidence of the +genuineness of the Curetonian and later character of the Vossian +version. The Syriac ([Greek: hatina en haesouchia Theou to asteri] +[or [Greek: apo tou asteros]] [Greek: eprachthae]), abrupt and +difficult as it is, does not look like an epitome of the Greek, +and the Greek has exactly that exaggerated and apocryphal +character which would seem to point to a later date. It +corresponds indeed somewhat nearly to the language of the +Protevangelium of James, §21, [Greek: eidomen astera pammegethae +lampsanta en tois astrois tou ouranou kai amblunonta tous allous +asteras hoste mae phainesthai autous]. Both in the Protevangelium +and in the Vossian Ignatius we see what is clearly a developement +of the narrative in St. Matthew. If the Vossian Epistles are +genuine, then by showing the existence of such a developement at +so early a date they will tend to throw back still further the +composition of the Canonical Gospel. If the Syriac version, on the +other hand, is the genuine one, it will be probable that Ignatius +is directly alluding to the narrative which is peculiar to the +first Evangelist. + +These are (so far as I am aware) the only coincidences that are +found in the Curetonian version. Their paucity cannot surprise us, +as in the same Curetonian text there is not a single quotation +from the Old Testament. One Old Testament quotation and two +Evangelical allusions occur in the Epistle to the Ephesians, which +is one of the three contained in Cureton's MS.; the fifth and +sixth chapters, however, in which they are found, are wanting in +the Syriac. The allusions are, in Eph. v, 'For if the prayer of +one or two have such power, how much more that of the bishop and +of the whole Church,' which appears to have some relation to Matt. +xviii. 19 ('If two of you shall agree' &c.), and in Eph. vi, 'For +all whom the master of the house sends to be over his own +household we ought to receive as we should him that sent him,' +which may be compared with Matt. x. 40 ('He that receiveth you' +&c.). Both these allusions have some probability, though neither +can be regarded as at all certain. The Epistle to the Trallians +has one coincidence in c. xi, 'These are not plants of the Father' +([Greek: phyteia Patros]), which recalls the striking expression +of Matt. xv. 13, 'Every plant ([Greek: pasa phyteia]) that my +heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.' This is a +marked metaphor, and it is not found in the other Synoptics; it is +therefore at least more probable that it is taken from St. +Matthew. The same must be said of another remarkable phrase in the +Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, c. vi, [Greek: ho choron choreito] +([Greek: ho dynamenos chorein choreito], Matt. xix. 12), and also +of the statement in c. i. of the same Epistle that Jesus was +baptized by John 'that He might fulfil all righteousness' ([Greek: +hina plaerothae pasa dikaiosynae hup' autou]). This corresponds +with the language of Matt. iii. 15 ([Greek: houtos gar prepon +estin haemin plaerosai pasan dikaiosynaen]), which also has no +parallel in the other Gospels. The use of the phrase [Greek: +plaerosai pasan dikaiosynaen] is so peculiar, and falls in so +entirely with the characteristic Christian Judaizing of our first +Evangelist, that it seems especially unreasonable to refer it to +any one else. There is not the smallest particle of evidence to +connect it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews to which our +author seems to hint that it may belong; indeed all that we know +of that Gospel may be said almost positively to exclude it. In +this Gospel our Lord is represented as saying, when His mother and +His brethren urge that He should accept baptism from John, 'What +have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him?' and it is +almost by compulsion that He is at last induced to accompany them. +It will be seen that this is really an _opposite_ version of +the event to that of Ignatius and the first Gospel, where the +objection comes from _John_ and is overruled by our Lord +Himself [Endnote 81:1]. + +There is however one quotation, introduced as such, in this same +Epistle, the source of which Eusebius did not know, but which +Origen refers to the 'Preaching of Peter' and Jerome seems to have +found in the Nazarene version of the 'Gospel according to the +Hebrews.' This phrase is attributed to our Lord when He appeared +'to those about Peter and said to them, Handle Me and see that I +am not an incorporeal spirit' ([Greek: psaelaphaesate me, kai +idete, hoti ouk eimi daimonion asomaton]). But for the statement +of Origen that these words occurred in the 'Preaching of Peter' +they might have been referred without much difficulty to Luke +xxiv. 39. The Preaching of Peter seems to have begun with the +Resurrection, and to have been an offshoot rather in the direction +of the Acts than the Gospels [Endnote 81:2]. It would not +therefore follow from the use of it by Ignatius here, that the +other quotations could also be referred to it. And, supposing it +to be taken from the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' this would +not annul what has been said above as to the reason for thinking +that Ignatius (or the writer who bears his name) cannot have used +that Gospel systematically and alone. + + + 4. + +Is the Epistle which purports to have been written by Polycarp to the +Philippians to be accepted as genuine? It is mentioned in the most +express terms by Irenaeus, who declares himself to have been a +disciple of Polycarp in his early youth, and speaks enthusiastically +of the teaching which he then received. Irenaeus was writing between +the years 180-190 A.D., and Polycarp is generally allowed to have +suffered martyrdom about 167 or 168 [Endnote 82:1]. But the way in +which Irenaeus speaks of the Epistle is such as to imply, not only +that it had been for some time in existence, but also that it had +been copied and disseminated and had attained a somewhat wide +circulation. He is appealing to the Catholic tradition in opposition +to heretical teaching such as that of Valentinus and Marcion, and he +says, 'There is an Epistle written by Polycarp to the Philippians of +great excellence [Greek: hikanotatae], from which those who wish to +do so and who care for their own salvation may learn both the +character of his faith and the preaching of the truth' [Endnote +82:2]. He would hardly have used such language if he had not had +reason to think that the Epistle was at least fairly accessible to +the Christians for whom he is writing. But allowing for the somewhat +slow (not too slow) multiplication and dissemination of writings +among the Christians, this will throw back the composition of the +letter well into the lifetime of Polycarp himself. In any case it +must have been current in circles immediately connected with +Polycarp's person. + +Against external evidence such as this the objections that are +brought are really of very slight weight. That which is reproduced +in 'Supernatural Religion' from an apparent contradiction between +c. ix and c. xiii, is dismissed even by writers such as Ritschl +who believe that one or both chapters are interpolated. In c. ix +the martyrdom of Ignatius is upheld as an example, in c. xiii +Polycarp asks for information about Ignatius 'et de his qui cum eo +sunt,' apparently as if he were still living. But, apart from the +easy and obvious solution which is accepted by Ritschl, following +Hefele and others, [Endnote 83:1] that the sentence is extant only +in the Latin translation and that the phrase 'qui cum eo sunt' is +merely a paraphrase for [Greek: ton met' autou]; apart from this, +even supposing the objection were valid, it would prove nothing +against the genuineness of the Epistle. It might be taken to prove +that the second passage is an interpolation; but a contradiction +between two passages in the same writing in no way tends to show +that that writing is not by its ostensible author. But surely +either interpolator or forger must have had more sense than to +place two such gross and absurd contradictions within about sixty +lines of each other. + +An argument brought by Dr. Hilgenfeld against the date dissolves +away entirely on examination. He thinks that the exhortation Orate +pro regibus (et potestatibus et principibus) in c. xii must needs +refer to the double rule of Antoninus Pius (147 A.D.) or Marcus +Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161 A.D.). But the writer of the +Epistle is only reproducing the words of St. Paul in 1 Tim. ii. 2 +([Greek: parakalo ... poieisthai deaeseis ... hyper basileon kai +panton ton en hyperochae onton]). The passage is wrongly referred +in 'Supernatural Religion' to 1 Pet. ii. 17 [Endnote 84:1]. It is +very clear that the language of Polycarp, like that of St. Paul, +is quite general. In order to limit it to the two Caesars we +should have had to read [Greek: hyper ton basileon]. + +The allusions which Schwegler finds to the Gnostic heresies are +explained when that critic at the end of his argument objects to +the Epistle that it makes use of a number of writings 'the origin +of which must be placed in the second century, such as the Acts, 1 +Peter, the Epistles to the Philippians and to the Ephesians, and 1 +Timothy.' The objection belongs to the gigantic confusion of fact +and hypothesis which makes up the so-called Tübingen theory, and +falls to the ground with it. + +It should be noticed that those who regard the Epistle as +interpolated yet maintain the genuineness of those portions which +are thought to contain allusions to the Gospels. Ritschl states +this [Endnote 84:2]; Dr. Donaldson confines the interpolation to +c. xiii [Endnote 84:3]; and Volkmar not only affirms with his +usual energy the genuineness of these portions of the Epistle, but +he also asserts that the allusions are really to our Gospels +[Endnote 84:4]. + +The first that meets us is in c. ii, 'Remembering what the Lord said +teaching, judge not that ye be not judged; forgive and it shall be +forgiven unto you; pity that ye may be pitied; with what measure ye +mete it shall be measured unto you again; and that blessed are the +poor and those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs +is the kingdom of God' [Endnote 85:1]. This passage (if taken from our +Gospels) is not a continuous quotation, but is made up from Luke vi. +36-38, 20, Matt. v. 10, or of still more _disjecta membra_ of St. +Matthew. It will be seen that it covers very similar ground with the +quotation in Clement, and there is also a somewhat striking point of +similarity with that writer in the phrase [Greek: eleeite hina +eleaetheate]. There is moreover a closer resemblance than to our +Gospels in the clause [Greek: aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin]. But +the order of the clauses is entirely different from that in Clement, +and the first clause [Greek: mae krinete hina mae krithaete] is +identical with St. Matthew and more nearly resembles the parallel in +St. Luke than in Clement. These are perplexing phenomena, and seem to +forbid a positive judgment. It would be natural to suppose, and all +that we know of the type of doctrine in the early Church would lead us +to believe, that the Sermon on the Mount would be one of the most +familiar parts of Christian teaching, that it would be largely +committed to memory and quoted from memory. There would be no +difficulty in employing that hypothesis here if the passage stood +alone. The breaking up of the order too would not surprise us when we +compare the way in which the same discourse appears in St. Luke and in +St. Matthew. But then comes in the strange coincidence in the single +clause with Clement; and there is also another curious phenomenon, the +phrase [Greek: aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin] compared with Luke's +[Greek: apoluete kai apoluthaesesthe] has very much the appearance of +a parallel translation from the same Aramaic original, which may +perhaps be the famous 'Spruch-sammlung.' This might however be +explained as the substitution of synonymous terms by the memory. There +is I believe nothing in the shape of direct evidence to show the +presence of a different version of the Sermon on the Mount in any of +the lost Gospels, and, on the other hand, there are considerable +traces of disturbance in the Canonical text (compare e.g. the various +readings on Matt. v. 44). It seems on the whole difficult to construct +a theory that shall meet all the facts. Perhaps a mixed hypothesis +would be best. It is probable that memory has been to some extent at +work (the form of the quotation naturally suggests this) and is to +account for some of Polycarp's variations; at the same time I cannot +but think that there has been somewhere a written version different +from our Gospels to which he and Clement have had access. + +There are several other sayings which seem to belong to the Sermon +on the Mount; thus in c. vi, 'If we pray the Lord to forgive us we +also ought to forgive' (cf. Matt. vi. 14 sq.); in c. viii, 'And if +we suffer for His name let us glorify Him' (cf. Matt. v. 11 sq.); +in c. xii, 'Pray for them that persecute you and hate you, and for +the enemies of the cross; that your fruit may be manifest in all +things, that ye may be therein perfect' (cf. Matt. v. 44, 48). All +these passages give the sense, but only the sense, of the first +(and partly also of the third) Gospel. There is however one +quotation which coincides verbally with two of the Synoptics +[Praying the all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation, as the +Lord said], The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak +([Greek: to men pneuma prothumon, hae de sarx asthenaes], Matt., +Mark, Polycarp; with the introductory clause compare, not Matt. +vi. 13, but xxvi. 41). In the cases where the sense alone is given +there is no reason to think that the writer intends to give more. +At the same time it will be observed that all the quotations refer +either to the double or triple synopsis where we have already +proof of the existence of the saying in question in more than a +single form, and not to those portions that are peculiar to the +individual Evangelists. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' is +therefore not without reason when he says that they may be derived +from other collections than our actual Gospels. The possibility +cannot be excluded. It ought however to be borne in mind that if +such collections did exist, and if Polycarp's allusions or +quotations are to be referred to them, they are to the same extent +evidence that these hypothetical collections did not materially +differ from our present Gospels, but rather bore to them very much +the same relation that they bear to each other. And I do not know +that we can better sum up the case in regard to the Apostolic +Fathers than thus; we have two alternatives to choose between, +either they made use of our present Gospels, or else of writings +so closely resembling our Gospels and so nearly akin to them that +their existence only proves the essential unity and homogeneity of +the evangelical tradition. + + + + + +CHAPTER IV. + +JUSTIN MARTYR. + + +Hitherto the extant remains of Christian literature have been +scanty and the stream of evangelical quotation has been equally +so, but as we approach the middle of the second century it becomes +much more abundant. We have copious quotations from a Gospel used +about the year 140 by Marcion; the Clementine Homilies, the date +of which however is more uncertain, also contain numerous +quotations; and there are still more in the undoubted works of +Justin Martyr. When I speak of quotations, I do not wish to beg +the question by implying that they are necessarily taken from our +present Gospels, I merely mean quotations from an evangelical +document of some sort. This reservation has to be made especially +in regard to Justin. + +Strictly according to the chronological order we should not have +to deal with Justin until somewhat later, but it will perhaps be +best to follow the order of 'Supernatural Religion,' the principle +of which appears to be to discuss the orthodox writers first and +heretical writings afterwards. Modern critics seem pretty +generally to place the two Apologies in the years 147-150 A.D. and +the Dialogue against Tryphon a little later. Dr. Keim indeed would +throw forward the date of Justin's writings as far as from 155-160 +on account of the mention of Marcion [Endnote 89:1], but this is +decided by both Hilgenfeld [Endnote 89:2] and Lipsius to be too +late. I see that Mr. Hort, whose opinion on such matters deserves +high respect, comes to the conclusion 'that we may without fear of +considerable error set down Justin's First Apology to 145, or +better still to 146, and his death to 148. The Second Apology, if +really separate from the First, will then fall in 146 or 147, and +the Dialogue with Tryphon about the same time' [Endnote 89:3] + +No definite conclusion can be drawn from the title given by Justin to +the work or works he used, that of the 'Memoirs' or 'Recollections' of +the Apostles, and it will be best to leave our further enquiry quite +unfettered by any assumption in respect to them. The title certainly +does not of necessity imply a single work composed by the Apostles +collectively [Endnote 89:4], any more than the parallel phrase 'the +writings of the Prophets' [Endnote 89:5] ([Greek: ta sungrammata ton +prophaeton]), which Justin couples with the 'Memoirs' as read together +in the public services of the Church, implies a single and joint +production on the part of the Prophets. This hypothesis too is open to +the very great objection that so authoritative a work, if it existed, +should have left absolutely no other trace behind it. So far as the +title is concerned, the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' may be either a +single work or an almost indefinite number. In one place Justin says +that the Memoirs were composed 'by His Apostles and their followers' +[Endnote 90:1], which seems to agree remarkably, though not exactly, +with the statement in the prologue to St. Luke. In another he says +expressly that the Memoirs are called Gospels ([Greek: ha kaleitai +euangelia]) [Endnote 90:2]. This clause has met with the usual fate of +parenthetic statements which do not quite fall in with preconceived +opinions, and is dismissed as a 'manifest interpolation,' a gloss +having crept into the text from the margin. It would be difficult to +estimate the exact amount of probability for or against this theory, +but possible at any rate it must be allowed to be; and though the +_primâ facie_ view of the genuineness of the words is supported by +another place in which a quotation is referred directly 'to the +Gospel,' still too much ought not perhaps to be built on this clause +alone. + + * * * * * + +A convenient distinction may be drawn between the material and +formal use of the Gospels; and the most satisfactory method +perhaps will be, to run rapidly through Justin's quotations, first +with a view to ascertain their relation to the Canonical Gospels +in respect to their general historical tenor, and secondly to +examine the amount of verbal agreement. I will try to bring out as +clearly as possible the double phenomena both of agreement and +difference; the former (in regard to which condensation will be +necessary) will be indicated both by touching in the briefest +manner the salient points and by the references in the margin; the +latter, which I have endeavoured to give as exhaustively as +possible, are brought out by italics in the text. The thread of +the narrative then, so far as it can be extracted from the genuine +writings of Justin, will be much as follows [Endnote 91:1]. + + According to Justin the Messiah + was born, without sin, of a +[SIDENOTES] virgin _who_ was descended from [SIDENOTES] +[Matt. 1.2-6.] David, Jesse, Phares, Judah, [Luke 3.31-34.] + Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, if + not (the reading here is doubtful) + from Adam himself. [Justin + therefore, it may be inferred, had + before him a genealogy, though + not apparently, as the Canonical + Gospels, that of Joseph but of + Mary.] To Mary it was announced + by the angel Gabriel [Luke 1.26.] + that, while yet a virgin, the + power of God, or of the Highest, [Luke 1.35.] + should overshadow her and she + should conceive and bear a Son [Luke 1.31.] +[Matt. 1.21.] whose name she should call Jesus, + because He should save His + people from their sins. Joseph + observing that Mary, his espoused, + was with child was +[Matt. 1.18-25.] warned in a dream not to put + her away, because that which + was in her womb was of the + Holy Ghost. Thus the prophecy, +[Matt. 1.23.] Is. vii. 14 (Behold the + virgin &c.), was fulfilled. The + mother of John the Baptist was [Luke 1.57.] + Elizabeth. The birth-place of + the Messiah had been indicated +[Matt. 2.5, 6.] by the prophecy of Micah (v. 2, + Bethlehem not the least among + the princes of Judah). There + He was born, as the Romans + might learn from the census + taken by Cyrenius the first + _procurator_ [Greek: [Luke 2.1, 2.] + epitropou] _of Judaea_. + His life extended from Cyrenius + to Pontius Pilate. So, in + consequence of this the first census + in Judaea, Joseph went up from + Nazareth where he dwelt to [Luke 2.4.] + Bethlehem _whence he was_, as a + member of the tribe of Judah. + The parents of Jesus could find + no lodging in Bethlehem, so it [Luke 2.7.] + came to pass that He was born + _in a cave near the village_ and + laid in a manger. At His birth [_ibid._] +[Matt. 2.1.] there came Magi _from Arabia_, + who knew by a star that had + appeared in the _heaven_ that a +[Matt. 2.2.] king had been born in Judaea. + Having paid Him their homage +[Matt. 2.11.] and offered gifts of gold, frankincense + and myrrh, they were +[Matt. 2.12.] warned not to return to Herod +[Matt. 2. 1-7.] whom they had consulted on + the way. He however not willing + that the Child should escape, +[Matt. 2.16.] ordered a massacre of _all_ the + children in Bethlehem, fulfilling +[Matt. 2.17, 18.] the prophecy of Jer. xxxi. 15 + (Rachel weeping for her children &c.). + Joseph and his wife meanwhile +[Matt. 2.13-15.] with the Babe had fled + to Egypt, for the Father resolved + that He to whom He had + given birth should not die before + He had preached His word + as a man. There they stayed +[Matt. 2.22] until Archelaus succeeded Herod, + and then returned. + + By process of nature He grew + to the age of thirty years or [Luke 3.23.] + more, _not comely of aspect_ (_as + had been prophesied_), practising +[Mark 6.3.] the trade of a carpenter, _making + ploughs and yokes, emblems of + righteousness_. He remained + hidden till John, the herald of + his coming, came forward, the +[Matt 17.12, 13.] spirit of Elias being in him, and +[Matt. 3.2.] as he _sat_ by the river Jordan [Luke 3.3.] + cried to men to repent. As he +[Matt. 3.4.] preached in his wild garb he + declared that he was not the [John 1.19 ff.] + Christ, but that One stronger +[Matt. 3.11, 12.] than he was coming after him [Luke 3. 16, 17.] + whose shoes he was not worthy + to bear, &c. The later history + of John Justin also mentions, +[Matt. 14.3.] how, having been put in prison, [Luke 3.20.] + at a feast on Herod's birthday +[Matt. 14.6 ff.] he was beheaded at the instance + of his sister's daughter. This +[Matt. 17.11-13.] John was Elias who was to come + before the Christ. + + At the baptism of Jesus _a fire + was kindled on the Jordan_, and, + as He went up out of the water, +[Matt. 3.16.] the Holy Ghost alighted upon [Luke 3.21, 22.] + Him, and a voice was heard from + heaven _saying in the words of + David_, 'Thou art My Son, _this + day have I begotten Thee_.' After +[Matt. 4.1, 9.] His baptism He was tempted by + the devil, who ended by claiming + homage from Him. To this + Christ replied, 'Get thee behind +[Matt 4.11.] Me, Satan,' &c. So the devil [Luke 4.13.] + departed from Him at that time + worsted and convicted. + + Justin knew that the words + of Jesus were short and concise, + not like those of a Sophist. That + He wrought miracles _might be + learnt from the Acts of Pontius + Pilate, fulfilling Is. xxxv. 4-6._ +[Matt. 9.29-31, Those who from their _birth_ were [Luke 18.35-43.] +32, 33. 1-8.] blind, dumb, lame, He healed-- [Luke 11.14 ff.] +[Matt. 4.23.] indeed He healed all sickness and [Luke 5.17-26.] +[Matt 9.18 ff.] disease--and He raised the dead. [Luke 8.41 ff.] + _The Jews ascribed these miracles [Luke 7. 11-18.] + to magic_. + + Jesus, too (like John, _whose + mission ceased when He appeared + in public_), began His ministry +[Matt 4.17.] by proclaiming that the kingdom + of heaven was at hand. + Many precepts of the Sermon + on the Mount Justin has preserved, +[Matt 5.20.] the righteousness of the +[Matt 5.28.] Scribes and Pharisees, the +[Matt 5.29-32.] adultery of the heart, the offending +[Matt 5.34, 37, eye, divorce, oaths, returning + 39] +[Matt 5.44.] good for evil, loving and praying +[Matt 5.42.] for enemies, giving to those that [Luke 6.30.] +[Matt 6.19, 20.] need, placing the treasure in +[Matt 6.25-27.] heaven, not caring for bodily [Luke 12.22-24.] +[Matt 5.45.] wants, but copying the mercy +[Matt 6.21, &c.] and goodness of God, not acting + from worldly motives--above all, +[Matt 7.22, 23.] deeds not words. [Luke 13.26, 27.] + + Justin quotes sayings from +[Matt. 8.11, 12.] the narrative of the centurion [Luke 13.28, 29.] +[Matt. 9.13.] of Capernaum and of the feast [Luke 5.32.] + in the house of Matthew. He +[Matt. 10.1 ff.] has, the choosing of the twelve [Luke 6.13.] + Apostles, with the name given +[Mark 3.17.] to the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges + or 'sons of thunder,' the com- + mission of the Apostles, the [Luke 10.19.] +[Matt. 11.12-15.] discourse after the departure of [Luke 16.16.] + the messengers of John, the +[Matt. 16.4.] sign of the prophet Jonas, the +[Matt. 13.3 ff.] parable of the sower, Peter's [Luke 8.5 ff.] +[Matt. 16.15-18.] confession, the announcement of [Luke 9.22.] +[Matt. 16.21.] the Passion. + + From the account of the last + journey and the closing scenes + of our Lord's life, Justin has, +[Matt. 19.16,17.] the history of the rich young [Luke 18.18,19.] +[Matt. 21.1 ff.] man, the entry into Jerusalem, [Luke 19.29 ff.] + the cleansing of the Temple, the [Luke 19.46.] +[Matt. 22.11.] wedding garment, the controversial + discourses about the [Luke 20.22-25.] +[Matt. 22.21.] tribute money, the resurrection, [Luke 20.35,36.] +[Matt. 22.37,38.] and the greatest commandment, +[Matt. 23.2 ff.] those directed against the Pha- [Luke 11.42,52.] +[Matt. 25.34,41.] risees and the eschatological +[Matt. 25.14-30.] discourse, the parable of the + talents. Justin's account of the + institution of the Lord's Supper [Luke 22.19,20.] + agrees with that of Luke. After +[Matt. 26.30.] it Jesus sang a hymn, and taking +[Matt. 26.36,37.] with Him three of His disciples + to the Mount of Olives He was + in an agony, His sweat falling in [Luke 22.42-44.] + _drops_ (not necessarily of blood) + to the ground. His captors + surrounded Him _like the 'horned + bulls' of Ps. xxii._ 11-14; there +[Matt. 26.56.] was none to help, for His followers + _to a man_ forsook Him. +[Matt. 26.57 ff.] He was led both before the [Luke 22.66 ff.] + Scribes and Pharisees and before +[Matt. 27.11 ff.] Pilate. In the trial before Pilate [Luke 23.1 ff.] +[Matt. 27.14] He kept silence, _as Ps. xxii._ 15. + Pilate sent Him bound to Herod. [Luke 23.7.] + + Justin relates most of the incidents + of the Crucifixion in detail, + for confirmation of which he refers + to the _Acts of Pilate_. He marks + especially the fulfilment in various + places of Ps. xxii. He has the + piercing with nails, the casting of [Luke 24.40.] +[Matt. 27.35.] lots and dividing of the garments, [Luke 23.34.] +[Matt. 27.39 ff.] the _sneers_ of the crowd [Luke 23.35.] + (somewhat expanded from the +[Matt. 27.42.] Synoptics), and their taunt, _He + who raised the dead_ let Him save +[Matt. 27.46.] Himself; also the cry of despair, + 'My God, My God, why hast + Thou forsaken Me?' and the last + words, 'Father, into Thy hands [Luke 23.46.] + I commend My Spirit.' + +[Matt. 27.57-60.] The burial took place in the + evening, the disciples being all +[Matt. 26.31,56.] scattered in accordance with + Zech. xiii. 7. On the third day, [Luke 24.21.] +[Matt. 28.1 ff.] the day of the sun or the first [Luke 24.1 ff.] + (or eighth) day of the week, + Jesus rose from the dead. He + then convinced His disciples that + His sufferings had been prophe- [Luke 24.26, 46.] + tically foretold and they repented [Luke 24.32.] + of having deserted Him. Having + given them His last commission + they saw Him ascend up into [Luke 24.50.] + heaven. Thus believing and + having first waited to receive + power from Him they went forth + into all the world and preached + the word of God. To this day +[Matt. 28.19] Christians baptize in the name + of the Father of all, and of our + Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the + Holy Ghost. + +[Matt. 28.12-15.] The Jews spread a story that + the disciples stole the body of + Jesus from the grave and so + deceived men by asserting that + He was risen from the dead and + ascended into heaven. + + There is nothing in Justin (as + in Luke xxiv, but cp. Acts i. 3) + to show that the Ascension did + not take place _on the same day_ + as the Resurrection. + +I have taken especial pains in the above summary to bring out the +points in which Justin way seem to differ from or add to the +canonical narratives. But, without stopping at present to consider +the bearing of these upon Justin's relation to the Gospels, I will +at once proceed to make some general remarks which the summary +seems to suggest. + +(1) If such is the outline of Justin's Gospel, it appears to be +really a question of comparatively small importance whether or not +he made use of our present Gospels in their present form. If he +did not use these Gospels he used other documents which contained +substantially the same matter. The question of the reality of +miracles clearly is not affected. Justin's documents, whatever +they were, not only contained repeated notices of the miracles in +general, the healing of the lame and the paralytic, of the maimed +and the dumb, and the raising of the dead--not only did they +include several discourses, such as the reply to the messengers of +John and the saying to the Centurion whose servant was healed, +which have direct reference to miracles, but they also give marked +prominence to the chief and cardinal miracles of the Gospel +history, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. It is antecedently +quite possible that the narrative of these events may have been +derived from a document other than our Gospels; but, if so, that +is only proof of the existence of further and independent evidence +to the truth of the history. This document, supposing it to exist, +is a surprising instance of the homogeneity of the evangelical +tradition; it differs from the three Synoptic Gospels, nay, we may +say even from the four Gospels, _less_ than they differ from +each other. + +(2) But we may go further than this. If Justin really used a +separate substantive document now lost, that document, to judge +from its contents, must have represented a secondary, or rather a +tertiary, stage of the evangelical literature; it must have +implied the previous existence of our present Gospels. I do not +now allude to the presence in it of added traits, such as the cave +of the Nativity and the fire on Jordan, which are of the nature of +those mythical details that we find more fully developed in the +Apocryphal Gospels. I do not so much refer to these--though, for +instance, in the case of the fire on Jordan it is highly probable +that Justin's statement is a translation into literal fact of the +canonical (and Justinian) saying, 'He shall baptize with the Holy +Ghost and with fire'--but, on general grounds, the relation which +this supposed document bears to the extant Gospels shows that it +must have been in point of time posterior to them. + +The earlier stages of evangelical composition present a nucleus, +with a more or less defined circumference, of unity, and outside +of this a margin of variety. There was a certain body of +narrative, which, in whatever form it was handed down--whether as +oral or written--at a very early date obtained a sort of general +recognition, and seems to have been as a matter of course +incorporated in the evangelical works as they appeared. + +Besides this there was also other matter which, without such +general recognition, had yet a considerable circulation, and, +though not found in all, was embodied in more than one of the +current compilations. But, as we should naturally expect, these +two classes did not exhaust the whole of the evangelical matter. +Each successive historian found himself able by special researches +to add something new and as yet unpublished to the common stock. +Thus, the first of our present Evangelists has thirty-five +sections or incidents besides the whole of the first two chapters +peculiar to himself. The third Evangelist has also two long +chapters of preliminary history, and as many as fifty-six sections +or incidents which have no parallel in the other Gospels. Much of +this peculiar matter in each case bears an individual and +characteristic stamp. The opening chapters of the first and third +Synoptics evidently contain two distinct and independent +traditions. So independent indeed are they, that the negative +school of critics maintain them to be irreconcilable, and the +attempts to harmonise them have certainly not been completely +successful [Endnote 101:1]. These differences, however, show what +rich quarries of tradition were open to the enquirer in the first +age of Christianity, and how readily he might add to the stores +already accumulated by his predecessors. But this state of things +did not last long. As in most cases of the kind, the productive +period soon ceased, and the later writers had a choice of two +things, either to harmonise the conflicting records of previous +historians, or to develope their details in the manner that we +find in the Apocryphal Gospels. + +But if Justin used a single and separate document or any set of +documents independent of the canonical, then we may say with +confidence that that document or set of documents belonged entirely to +this secondary stage. It possesses both the marks of secondary +formation. Such details as are added to the previous evangelical +tradition are just of that character which we find in the Apocryphal +Gospels. But these details are comparatively slight and insignificant; +the main tendency of Justin's Gospel (supposing it to be a separate +composition) was harmonistic. The writer can hardly have been ignorant +of our Canonical Gospels; he certainly had access, if not to them, yet +to the sources, both general and special, from which they are taken. +He not only drew from the main body of the evangelical tradition, but +also from those particular and individual strains which appear in the +first and third Synoptics. He has done this in the spirit of a true +_desultor_, passing backwards and forwards first to one and then to +the other, inventing no middle links, but merely piecing together the +two accounts as best he could. Indeed the preliminary portions of +Justin's Gospel read very much like the sort of rough _primâ facie_ +harmony which, without any more profound study, most people make for +themselves. But the harmonising process necessarily implies matter to +harmonise, and that matter must have had the closest possible +resemblance to the contents of our Gospels. + +If, then, Justin made use either of a single document or set of +documents distinct from those which have become canonical, we +conclude that it or they belonged to a later and more advanced +stage of formation. But it should be remembered that the case is a +hypothetical one. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems +inclined to maintain that Justin did use such a document or +documents, and not our Gospels. If he did, then the consequence +above stated seems to follow. But I do not at all care to press +this inference; it is no more secure than the premiss upon which +it is founded. Only it seems to me that the choice lies between +two alternatives and no more; either Justin used our Gospels, or +else he used a document later than our Gospels and presupposing +them. The reader may take which side of the alternative he +pleases. + +The question is, which hypothesis best covers and explains the +facts. It is not impossible that Justin may have had a special +Gospel such as has just been described. There is a tendency among +those critics who assign Justin's quotations to an uncanonical +source to find that source in the so-called Gospel according to +the Hebrews or some of its allied forms. But a large majority of +critics regard the Gospel according to the Hebrews as holding +precisely this secondary relation to the canonical Matthew. +Justin's document can hardly have been the Gospel according to the +Hebrews, at least alone, as that Gospel omitted the section Matt. +i. 18-ii. 23 [Endnote 103:1], which Justin certainly retained. But +it is within the bounds of possibility--it would be hazardous to +say more--that he may have had another Gospel so modified and +compiled as to meet all the conditions of the case. For my own +part, I think it decidedly the more probable hypothesis that he +used our present Gospels with some peculiar document, such as this +Gospel according to the Hebrews, or perhaps, as Dr. Hilgenfeld +thinks, the ground document of the Gospel according to Peter (a +work of which we know next to nothing except that it favoured +Docetism and was not very unlike the Canonical Gospels) and the +Protevangelium of James (or some older document on which that work +was founded) in addition. + +It will be well to try to establish this position a little more in +detail; and therefore I will proceed to collect first, the +evidence for the use, either mediate or direct, of the Synoptic +Gospels, and secondly, that for the use of one or more Apocryphal +Gospels. We still keep to the substance of Justin's Gospel, and +reserve the question of its form. + +Of those portions of the first Synoptic which appear to be derived +from a peculiar source, and for the presence of which we have no +evidence in any other Gospel of the same degree of originality, +Justin has the following: Joseph's suspicions of his wife, the +special statement of the significance of the name Jesus ('for He +shall save His people from their sins,' Matt. i. 21, verbally +identical), the note upon the fulfilment of the prophecy Is. vii. +14 ('Behold a virgin,' &c.), the visit of the Magi guided by a +star, their peculiar gifts, their consultation of Herod and the +warning given them not to return to him, the massacre of the +children at Bethlehem, fulfilling Jer. xxxi. 15, the descent into +Egypt, the return of the Holy Family at the succession of +Archelaus. The Temptations Justin gives in the order of Matthew. +From the Sermon on the Mount he has the verses v. 14, 20, 28, vi. +1, vii. 15, 21, and from the controversial discourse against the +Pharisees, xxiii. 15, 24, which are without parallels. The +prophecy, Is. xlii. 1-4, is applied as by Matthew alone. There is +an apparent allusion to the parable of the wedding garment. The +comment of the disciples upon the identification of the Baptist +with Elias (Matt. xvii. 13), the sign of the prophet Jonas +(Matt. xvi. 1, 4), and the triumphal entry (the ass _with the +colt_), show a special affinity to St. Matthew. And, lastly, in +concert with the same Evangelist, Justin has the calumnious report +of the Jews (Matt. xxviii. 12 15) and the baptismal formula (Matt. +xxviii. 19). + +Of the very few details that are peculiar to St. Mark, Justin has +the somewhat remarkable one of the bestowing of the surname +Boanerges on the sons of Zebedee. Mark also appears to approach +most nearly to Justin in the statements that Jesus practised the +trade of a carpenter (cf. Mark vi. 3) and that He healed those who +were diseased _from their birth_ (cf. Mark ix. 21), and +perhaps in the emphasis upon the oneness of God in the reply +respecting the greatest commandment. + +In common with St. Luke, Justin has the mission of the angel +Gabriel to Mary, the statement that Elizabeth was the mother of +John, that the census was taken under Cyrenius, that Joseph went +up from Nazareth to Bethlehem [Greek: hothen aen], that no room +was found in the inn, that Jesus was thirty years old when He +began His ministry, that He was sent from Pilate to Herod, with +the account of His last words. There are also special affinities +in the phrase quoted from the charge to the Seventy (Luke x. 19), +in the verse Luke xi. 52, in the account of the answer to the rich +young man, of the institution of the Lord's Supper, of the Agony +in the Garden, and of the Resurrection and Ascension. + +These coincidences are of various force. Some of the single verses +quoted, though possessing salient features in common, have also, +as we shall see, more or less marked differences. Too much stress +should not be laid on the allegation of the same prophecies, +because there may have been a certain understanding among the +Christians as to the prophecies to be quoted as well as the +versions in which they were to be quoted. But there are other +points of high importance. Just in proportion as an event is from +a historical point of view suspicious, it is significant as a +proof of the use of the Gospel in which it is contained; such +would be the adoration of the Magi, the slaughter of the +innocents, the flight into Egypt, the conjunction of the foal with +the ass in the entry into Jerusalem. All these are strong evidence +for the use of the first Gospel, which is confirmed in the highest +degree by the occurrence of a reflection peculiar to the +Evangelist, 'Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them +of John the Baptist' (Matt. xvii. 13, compare Dial. 49). Of the +same nature are the allusions to the census of Cyrenius (there is +no material discrepancy between Luke and Justin), and the +statement of the age at which the ministry of Jesus began. These +are almost certainly remarks by the third Evangelist himself, and +not found in any previously existing source. The remand to Herod +in all probability belonged to a source that was quite peculiar to +him. The same may be said with only a little less confidence of +the sections of the preliminary history. + +Taking these salient points together with the mass of the +coincidences each in its place, and with the due weight assigned +to it, the conviction seems forced upon us that Justin did either +mediately or immediately, and most probably immediately and +directly, make use of our Canonical Gospels. + +On the other hand, the argument that he used, whether in addition +to these or exclusively, a Gospel now lost, rests upon the +following data. Justin apparently differs from the Synoptics in +giving the genealogy of Mary, not of Joseph. In Apol. i. 34 he +says that Cyrenius was the first governor (procurator) of Judaea, +instead of saying that the census first took place under Cyrenius. +[It should be remarked, however, that in another place, Dial. 78, +he speaks of 'the census which then took place for the first time +([Greek: ousaes tote protaes]) under Cyrenius.'] He states that +Mary brought forth her Son in a cave near the village of +Bethlehem. He ten times over speaks of the Magi as coming from +Arabia, and not merely from the East. He says emphatically that +all the children ([Greek: pantas haplos tous paidas]) in Bethlehem +were slain without mentioning the limitation of age given in St. +Matthew. He alludes to details in the humble occupation of Jesus +who practised the trade of a carpenter. Speaking of the ministry +of John, he three times repeats the phrase _'as he sat'_ by +the river Jordan. At the baptism of Jesus he says that 'fire was +kindled on' or rather 'in the Jordan,' and that a voice was heard +saying, 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.' He adds +to the notice of the miracles that the Jews thought they were the +effect of magic. Twice he refers, as evidence for what he is +saying, to the Acts of Pontius Pilate. In two places Justin sees a +fulfilment of Ps. xxii, where none is pointed out by the +Synoptics. He says that _all_ the disciples forsook their +Master, which seems to overlook Peter's attack on the high +priest's servant. In the account of the Crucifixion he somewhat +amplifies the Synoptic version of the mocking gestures of the +crowd. And besides these matters of fact he has two sayings, 'In +whatsoever I find you, therein will I also judge you,' and 'There +shall be schisms and heresies,' which are without parallel, or +have no exact parallel, in our Gospels. + +Some of these points are not of any great importance. The +reference to the Acts of Pilate should in all probability be taken +along with the parallel reference to the census of Cyrenius, in +which Justin asserts that the birth of Jesus would be found +registered. Both appear to be based, not upon any actual document +that Justin had seen, but upon the bold assumption that the +official documents must contain a record of facts which he knew +from other sources [Endnote 107:1]. In regard to Cyrenius he +evidently has the Lucan version in his mind, though he seems to +have confused this with his knowledge that Cyrenius was the first +to exercise the Roman sovereignty in Judaea, which was matter of +history. Justin seems to be mistaken in regarding Cyrenius as +'procurator' [Greek: epitropou] of Judaea. He instituted the +census not in this capacity, but as proconsul of Syria. The first +procurator of Judaea was Coponius. Some of Justin's peculiarities +may quite fairly be explained as unintentional. General statements +without the due qualifications, such as those in regard to the +massacre of the children and the conduct of the disciples in +Gethsemane, are met with frequently enough to this day, and in +works of a more professedly critical character than Justin's. The +description of the carpenter's trade and of the crowd at the +Crucifixion may be merely rhetorical amplifications in the one +case of the general Synoptic statement, in the other of the +special statement in St. Mark. A certain fulness of style is +characteristic of Justin. That he attributes the genealogy to Mary +may be a natural instance of reflection; the inconsistency in the +Synoptic Gospels would not be at first perceived, and the simplest +way of removing it would be that which Justin has adopted. It +should be noticed however that he too distinctly says that Joseph +was of the tribe of Judah (Dial. 78) and that his family came from +Bethlehem, which looks very much like an unobliterated trace of +the same inconsistency. It is also noticeable that in the +narrative of the Baptism one of the best MSS. of the Old Latin (a, +Codex Vercellensis) has, in the form of an addition to Matt. iii. +15, 'et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut +timerent omnes qui advenerant,' and there is a very similar +addition in g1 (Codex San-Germanensis). Again, in Luke iii. 22 the +reading [Greek: ego saemeron gegennaeka se] for [Greek: en soi +eudokaesa] is shared with Justin by the most important Graeco- +Latin MS. D (Codex Bezae), and a, b, c, ff, l of the Old Version; +Augustine expressly states that the reading was found 'in several +respectable copies (aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus), though +not in the older Greek Codices.' + +There will then remain the specifying of Arabia as the home of the +Magi, the phrase [Greek: kathezomenos] used of John on the banks +of the Jordan, the two unparallelled sentences, and the cave of +the Nativity. Of these the phrase [Greek: kathezomenos], which +occurs in three places, Dial. 49, 51, 88, but always in Justin's +own narrative and not in quotation, _may_ be an accidental +recurrence; and it is not impossible that the other items may be +derived from an unwritten tradition. + +Still, on the whole, I incline to think that though there is not +conclusive proof that Justin used a lost Gospel besides the +present Canonical Gospels, it is the more probable hypothesis of +the two that he did. The explanations given above seem to me +reasonable and possible; they are enough, I think, to remove the +_necessity_ for assuming a lost document, but perhaps not +quite enough to destroy the greater probability. This conclusion, +we shall find, will be confirmed when we pass from considering the +substance of Justin's Gospel to its form. + +But now if we ask ourselves _what_ was this hypothetical lost +document, all we can say is, I believe, that the suggestions +hitherto offered are insufficient. The Gospels according to the +Hebrews or according to Peter and the Protevangelium of James have +been most in favour. The Gospel according to the Hebrews in the +form in which it was used by the Nazarenes contained the fire upon +Jordan, and as used by the Ebionites it had also the voice, 'This +day have I begotten Thee.' Credner [Endnote 110:1], and after him +Hilgenfeld [Endnote 110:2], thought that the Gospel according to +Peter was used. But we know next to nothing about this Gospel, +except that it was nearly related to the Gospel according to the +Hebrews, that it made the 'brethren of the Lord' sons of Joseph by +a former wife, that it was found by Serapion in the churches of +his diocese, Rhossus in Cilicia, that its use was at first +permitted but afterwards forbidden, as it was found to favour +Docetism, and that its contents were in the main orthodox though +in some respects perverted [Endnote 110:3]. Obviously these facts +and the name (which falls in with the theory--itself also somewhat +unsubstantial--that Justin's Gospel must have a 'Petrine' +character) are quite insufficient to build upon. The Protevangelium +of James, which it is thought might have been used in an earlier +form than that which has come down to us, contains the legend of +the cave, and has apparently a similar view to the Gospel last +mentioned as to the perpetual virginity of Mary. The kindred +Evangelium Thomae has the 'ploughs and yokes.' And there are some +similarities of language between the Protevangelium and Justin's +Gospel, which will come under review later [Endnote 110:4]. + +It does not, however, appear to have been noticed that these +Gospels satisfy most imperfectly the conditions of the problem. We +know that the Gospel according to the Hebrews in its Nazarene form +omitted the whole section Matt. i. 18--ii. 23, containing the +conception, the nativity, the visit of the Magi, and the flight +into Egypt, all of which were found in Justin's Gospel; while in +its Ebionite form it left out the first two chapters altogether. +There is not a tittle of evidence to show that the Gospel +according to Peter was any more complete; in proportion as it +resembled the Gospel according to the Hebrews the presumption is +that it was not. And the Protevangelium of James makes no mention +of Arabia, while it expressly says that the star appeared 'in the +East' (instead of 'in the heaven' as Justin); it also omits, and +rather seems to exclude, the flight into Egypt. + +It is therefore clear that whether Justin used these Gospels or +not, he cannot in any case have confined himself to them; unless +indeed this is possible in regard to the Gospel that bears the +name of Peter, though the possibility is drawn so entirely from +our ignorance that it can hardly be taken account of. We thus seem +to be reduced to the conclusion that Justin's Gospel or Gospels +was an unknown entity of which no historical evidence survives, +and this would almost be enough, according to the logical Law of +Parsimony, to drive us back upon the assumption that our present +Gospels only had been used. This assumption however still does not +appear to me wholly satisfactory, for reasons which will come out +more clearly when from considering the matter of the documents +which Justin used we pass to their form. + + * * * * * + +The reader already has before him a collection of Justin's +quotations from the Old Testament, the results of which may be +stated thus. From the Pentateuch eighteen passages are quoted +exactly, nineteen with slight variations, and eleven with marked +divergence. From the Psalms sixteen exactly, including nine (or +ten) whole Psalms, two with slight and three with decided +variation. From Isaiah twenty-five exactly, twelve slightly +variant, and sixteen decidedly. From the other Major Prophets +Justin has only three exact quotations, four slightly divergent, +and eleven diverging more widely. From the Minor Prophets and +other books he has two exact quotations, seven in which the +variation is slight, and thirteen in which it is marked. Of the +distinctly free quotations in the Pentateuch (eleven in all), +three may be thought to have a Messianic character (the burning +bush, the brazen serpent, the curse of the cross), but in none of +these does the variation appear to be due to this. Of the three +free quotations from the Psalms two are Messianic, and one of +these has probably been influenced by the Messianic application. +In the free quotations from Isaiah it is not quite easy to say +what are Messianic and what are not; but the only clear case in +which the Messianic application seems to have caused a marked +divergence is xlii. 1-4. Other passages, such as ii. 5, 6, vii. +10-17, lii. l3-liii. 12 (as quoted in A. i. 50), appear under the +head of slight variation. The long quotation lii. 10-liv. 6, in +Dial. 12, is given with substantial exactness. Turning to the +other Major Prophets, one passage, Jer. xxxi. 15, has probably +derived its shape from the Messianic application. And in the Minor +Prophets three passages (Hos. x. 6, Zech. xii. 10-12, and Micah v. +2) appear to have been thus affected. The rest of the free +quotations and some of the variations in those which are less free +may be set down to defect of memory or similar accidental causes. + +Let us now draw up a table of Justin's quotations from the Gospels +arranged as nearly as may be on the same standard and scale as +that of the quotations from the Old Testament. Such a table will +stand thus. [Those only which appear to be direct quotations are +given.] + + + _Exact._ |_Slightly variant._ | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | | | + |+D.49, Matt. 3.11, | |repeated in part + | 12 (v.l.) | | similarly. + |D. 51, Matt. 11. | |compounded with + | 12-15; Luke 16. | | omissions but + | 16+. | | striking resem- + | | | blances. +D. 49, Matt. 17. | | | + 11-13. | | | + |A.1.15, Matt. 5.28. | | + | |A.1.15, Matt. 5. |from memory? + | | 29; Mark 9.47. | + |A.1.15, Matt. 5.32. | |confusion of read- + | | | ings. + | |+A.1.15, Matt. |from memory? + | | 19.12. | + | |A.1.15, Matt. 5. |compounded. + | | 42; Luke 6.30, | + | | 34. | +Continuous.{ |A.1.15, Matt. 6. | | + { |19, 20; 16.26; 6.20.| | + | | | + |Continuous.{ |A.1.15 (D.96), |from memory(Cr.), + | { | Luke 6.36; | but prob. diff- + | { | Matt. 5.45; 6. | erent document; + | { | 25-27; Luke 12.| rather marked + | { | 22-24; Matt. 6.| identity in + | { | 32, 33; 6.21. | phrase. + |A.1.15, Matt. 6.1. | | +A.1.15, Matt. 9. | | | do the last + 13(?). | | | words belong + | | | to the + | |C | quotation? + | |o { A.1.15, Luke| + | |n { 6.32; Matt.| + | |t { 5.46. | + | |i { A.1.15, (D. |repeated in part + | |n { 128), Luke | similarly, in + | |u { 6.27, 28; | part diversely; + | |o { Matt. 5.44. | confusion in + | |u | MSS. + | |s | + | |s | +Continuous. { |A.1.16, Luke 6.29 | | + { | (Matt. 5.39, 40.) | | + { | |A.1.16, Matt. 5. | + { | | 22 (v.l.) | + { | |A.1.16, Matt. 5 |[Greek: + { | | 41. | angaeusei.] + { |A.1.16, Matt. 5.16. | | + | |D.93, A,1.16, | + | | Matt. 22.40,37,| + | | 38. | + | |A.1.16, D.101, |repeated + | | Matt. 19.16, | diversely. + | | 17 (v.l.); Luke| + | | 18.18,19 (v.l.)| + |A.1.16, Matt. 5. | | + | 34,37. | | + {A.1.16, Matt. | | | + { 7.21. | | | +C { |A.1.16 (A.1.62), | |repeated in part +o { | Luke 10.16 (v.l.) | | similarly, in +n { | | | part diversely. +t { | |+A.1.16 (D.76), | +i { | | Matt. 7.22, 23 | +n { | | (v.l.); Luke | +u { | | 13.26,27 (v.l.)| +o { |A.1.16, Matt. 13. | |addition. +u { | 42, 43 (v.l.) | | +s { | |A.1.16 (D.35), | + { | | Matt. 7.15. | + { |A.1.16, Matt. 7. | | + { | 16, 19. | | +D.76, Matt. 8.11.| | | + 12+. | | | + | |D.35, [Greek: | + | | esontai schi- | + | | smata kai hai- | + | | reseis.] | + |D.76, Matt. 25.41 | | + | (v.l.) | | + |D.35, Matt. 7.15. | |repeated with + | | | nearer + | | | approach to + | | | Matthew, perh. + | | | v.l. + | |D.35, 82, Matt. |repeated with + | |24.24 (Mark 13. | similarity and + | | 22). | divergence. + | |D.82, Matt. 10. |freely. + | | 22, par. | +A.1.19, Luke 18. | | | + 27+. | | | + | |A.1.19, Luke 12. |compounded. + | | 4, 5; Matt. | + | | 10.28. | + | |A.1.17, Luke 12. | + | | 48 (v.l.) | + |D.76, Luke 10.19+ | |ins. [Greek: + | | | skolopendron.] +D.105, Matt. 5. | | | + 20. | | | + | |D.125, Matt. 13. |condensed narra- + | | 3 sqq. | tive. + | |+D.17, Luke 11. | + | | 52. | + |D.17, Matt. 23.23; | |compounded. + | Luke 11.42. | | + |D.17, 112, Matt. | |repeated simi- + | 23.27; 23.24. | | larly. + | |D.47, [Greek: en | + | | ois an humas | + | | katalabo en | + | | toutois kai | + | | krino.] | + |D.81, Luke 20. | |marked resem- + | 35, 36. | | blance with + | | | difference. +D.107, Matt.16.4.| | | + |D. 122, Matt. 23. | | + | 15. | | + |+D.17, Matt. 21. | | + | 13, 12. | | + | |+A.1.17, Luke 20.|narrative portion + | | 22-25 (v.l.) | free. + |D.100, A.1.63, | |repeated not + | Matt. 11.27 (v.l.)| | identically. + |D.76, 100, Luke | |repeated diverse- + | 9.22. | | diversely; + | | | free (Credner). +A.1.36, Matt. 21.| |D.53, Matt. 21.5.|(Zech. 9.9). + 5 (addition). | | | + | |A.1.66, Luke 22. | + | | 19, 20. | + |D.99, Matt. 26. | | + | 39 (v.l.) | | + | |D.103, Luke 22. | + | | 42-44. | + | |D.101, Matt. 27. | + | | 43. | + | |A.1.38, [Greek: | + | | ho nekrous | + | | anegeiras rhu- | + | | sastho eauton.]| +D.99, Matt. 27. | | |compounded. + 46; Mark 15.34.| | | +D.105, Luke 23. | | | + 46. + + +The total result may be taken to be that ten passages are +substantially exact, while twenty-five present slight and thirty- +two marked variations [Endnote 116:1]. This is only rough and +approximate, because of the passages that are put down as exact +two, or possibly three, can only be said to be so with a +qualification; though, on the other hand, there are passages +entered under the second class as 'slightly variant' which have a +leaning towards the first, and passages entered under the third +which have a perceptible leaning towards the second. We can +therefore afford to disregard these doubtful cases and accept the +classification very much as it stands. Comparing it then with the +parallel classification that has been made of the quotations from +the Old Testament, we find that in the latter sixty-four were +ranked as exact, forty-four as slightly variant, and fifty-four as +decidedly variant. If we reduce these roughly to a common standard +of comparison the proportion of variation may be represented +thus:-- + | Exact. | Slightly | Variant. + | | variant. | + | | | +Quotations from the Old Testament | 10 | 7 | 9 +Quotations from the Synoptic Gospels | 10 | 25 | 32 + +It will be seen from this at once how largely the proportion of +variation rises; it is indeed more than three times as high for +the quotations from the Gospels as for those from the Old Testament. +The amount of combination too is decidedly in excess of that which +is found in the Old Testament quotations. + +There is, it is true, something to be said on the other side. +Justin quotes the Old Testament rather as Scripture, the New +Testament rather as history. I think it will be felt that he has +permitted his own style a freer play in regard to the latter than +the former. The New Testament record had not yet acquired the same +degree of fixity as the Old. The 'many' compositions of which +St. Luke speaks in his preface were still in circulation, and were +only gradually dying out. One important step had been taken in the +regular reading of the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' at the Christian +assemblies. We have not indeed proof that these were confined to +the Canonical Gospels. Probably as yet they were not. But it +should be remembered that Irenaeus was now a boy, and that by the +time he had reached manhood the Canon of the Gospels had received +its definite form. + +Taking all these points into consideration I think we shall find +the various indications converge upon very much the same conclusion +as that at which we have already arrived. The _a priori_ probabilities +of the case, as well as the actual phenomena of Justin's Gospel, +alike tend to show that he did make use either mediately or immediately +of our Gospels, but that he did not assign to them an exclusive +authority, and that he probably made use along with them of other +documents no longer extant. + +The proof that Justin made use of each of our three Synoptics +individually is perhaps more striking from the point of view of +substance than of form, because his direct quotations are mostly +taken from the discourses rather than from the narrative, and +these discourses are usually found in more than a single Gospel, +while in proportion as they bear the stamp of originality and +authenticity it is difficult to assign them to any particular +reporter. There is however some strong and remarkable evidence of +this kind. + +At least one case of parallelism seems to prove almost decisively +the use of the first Gospel. It is necessary to give the quotation +and the original with the parallel from St. Mark side by side. + +_Justin, Dial._ c.49. + +[Greek: Aelias men eleusetai kai apokatastaesei panta, lego de +humin, hoti Aelias aedae aelthe kai ouk epegnosan auton all' +epoiaesan auto hosa aethelaesan. Kai gegraptai hoti tote sunaekan +oi mathaetai, hoti peri Ioannon tou Baptistou eipen autois.] + +_Matt._ xvii. 11-13. + +[Greek: Aelias men erchetai apokatastaesei panta, lego de humin +hoti Aelias aedae aelthen kai ouk epegnosan auton, alla epoiaesan +auto hosa aethelaesan, [outos kai ho uios tou anthropou mellei +paschein hup' auton.] Tote sunaekan oi mathaetai hoti peri Ioannou +tou Baptistou eipen autois.] The clause in brackets is placed at +the end of ver. 13 by D. and the Old Latin. + +_Mark._ ix. 12, 13. + +[Greek: Ho de ephae autois, Aelias [men] elthon proton +apokathistanei panta, kai pos gegraptai epi ton uion tou +anthropou, hina polla pathae kai exoudenaethae. Alla lego humin +hoti kai Aelias elaeluthen kai epoiaesan auto hosa aethelon, +kathos gegraptai ep' auton.] + + +We notice here, first, an important point, that Justin reproduces at +the end of his quotation what appears to be not so much a part of the +object-matter of the narrative as a _comment or reflection of the +Evangelist_ ('Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of +John the Baptist'). This was thought by Credner, who as a rule is +inclined to press the use of an apocryphal Gospel by Justin, to be +sufficient proof that the quotation is taken from our present Matthew +[Endnote 119:1]. On this point, however, there is an able and on the +whole a sound argument in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 119:2]. +There are certainly cases in which a similar comment or reflection is +found either in all three Synoptic Gospels or in two of them (e.g. +Matt. vii. 28, 29 = Mark i. 22 = Luke iv. 32; Matt. xiii. 34 = Mark +iv. 33, 34; Matt. xxvi. 43 = Mark xiv. 40; Matt. xix. 22 = Mark x. +22). The author consequently maintains that these were found in the +original document from which all three, or two Synoptics at least, +borrowed; and he notes that this very passage is assigned by Ewald to +the 'oldest Gospel.' + +The observation in itself is a fine and true one, and has an +important bearing upon the question as to the way in which our +Synoptic Gospels were composed. We may indeed remark in passing +that the author seems to have overlooked the fact that, when once +this principle of a common written basis or bases for the Synoptic +Gospels is accepted, nine-tenths of his own argument is overthrown; +for there are no divergences in the text of the patristic quotations +from the Gospels that may not be amply paralleled by the differences +which exist in the text of the several Gospels themselves, showing +that the Evangelists took liberties with their ground documents +to an extent that is really greater than that of any subsequent +misquotation. But putting aside for the present this _argumentum +ad hominem_ which seems to follow from the admission here made, +there is, I think, the strongest reason to conclude that in the +present case the first Evangelist is not merely reproducing his +ground document. There is one element in the question which the +author has omitted to notice; that is, the _parallel passage in +St. Mark._ This differs so widely from the text of St. Matthew as +to show that that text cannot accurately represent the original; +it also wants the reflective comment altogether. Accordingly, if +the author will turn to p. 275 of Ewald's book [Endnote 120:1] he +will find that that writer, though roughly assigning the passage +as it appears in both Synoptics to the 'oldest Gospel,' yet in +reconstructing the text of this Gospel does so, not by taking that +of either of the Synoptics pure and simple, but by mixing the two. +All the other critics who have dealt with this point, so far as I +am aware, have done the same. Holtzmann [Endnote 120:2] follows +Ewald, and Weiss [Endnote 120:3] accepts Mark's as more nearly the +original text. + +The very extent of the divergence in St. Mark throws out into striking +relief the close agreement of Justin's quotation with St. Matthew. +Here we have three verses word for word the same, even to the finest +shades of expression. To the single exception [Greek: eleusetai] +for [Greek: erchetai] I cannot, as Credner does [Endnote 120:4], +attach any importance. The present tense in the Gospel has undoubtedly +a future signification [Endnote 120:5], and Justin was very naturally +led to give it also a future form by [Greek: apokatastaesei] which +follows. For the rest, the order, particles, tenses are so absolutely +identical, where the text of St. Mark shows how inevitably they must +have differed in another Gospel or even in the original, that I can +see no alternative but to refer the quotation directly to our present +St. Matthew. + +If this passage had stood alone, taken in connection with the +coincidence of matter between Justin and the first Gospel, great +weight must have attached to it. But it does not by any means stand +alone. There is an exact verbal agreement in the verses Matt. v. 20 +('Except your righteousness' &c.) and Matt. vii. 21 ('Not every one +that saith unto me,' &c.) which are peculiar to the first Gospel. +There is a close agreement, if not always with the best, yet with some +very old, text of St. Matthew in v. 22 (note especially the striking +phrase and construction [Greek: enochos eis]), v. 28 (note [Greek: +blep. pros to epithum].), v. 41 (note the remarkable word [Greek: +angareusei]), xxv. 41, and not too great a divergence in v. 16, vi. 1 +([Greek: pros to theathaenai, ei de mae ge misthon ouk echete]), and +xix. 12, all of which passages are without parallel in any extant +Gospel. There are also marked resemblances to the Matthaean text in +synoptic passages such as Matt. iii. 11, 12 ([Greek: eis metanoian, ta +hupodaemata bastasai]), Matt. vi. 19, 20 ([Greek: hopou saes kai +brosis aphanizei], where Luke has simply [Greek: saes diaphtheirei], +and [Greek: diorussousi] where Luke has [Greek: engizei]), Matt. vii. +22, 23 ([Greek: ekeinae tae haemera Kurie, Kurie, k.t.l.]), Matt. xvi. +26 ([Greek: dosei] Matt. only, [Greek: antallagma] Matt., Mark), Matt. +xvi. 1, 4 (the last verse exactly). As these passages are all from the +discourses I do not wish to say that they may not be taken from other +Gospels than the canonical, but we have absolutely no evidence that +they were so taken, and every additional instance increases the +probability that they were taken directly from St. Matthew, which by +this time, I think, has reached a very high degree of presumption. + +I have reserved for a separate discussion a single instance which +I shall venture to add to those already quoted, although I am +aware that it is alleged on the opposite side. Justin has the +saying 'Let your yea be yea and your nay nay, for whatsoever is +more than these cometh of the Evil One' ([Greek: Mae omosaete +holos. Esto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou; to de perisson +touton ek tou ponaerou]), which is set against the first +Evangelist's 'Let your conversation be Yea yea, Nay nay, for +whatsoever is more than these cometh of the Evil One' ([Greek: ego +de lego humin mae omosai holos... Esto de ho logos humon nai nai, +ou ou; to de perisson, k.t.l.]). Now it is perfectly true that as +early as the Canonical Epistle of James (v. 12) we find the +reading [Greek: aeto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou], and that +in the Clementine Homilies twice over we read [Greek: esto humon +to nai nai, (kai) to ou ou], [Greek: kai] being inserted in one +instance and not in the other. Justin's reading is found also +exactly in Clement of Alexandria, and a similar reading (though +with the [Greek: aeto] of James) in Epiphanius. These last two +examples show that the misquotation was an easy one to fall into, +because there can be little doubt that Clement and Epiphanius +supposed themselves to be quoting the canonical text. There +remains however the fact that the Justinian form is supported by +the pseudo-Clementines; and at the first blush it might seem that +'Let your yea be yea' (stand to your word) made better, at least a +complete and more obvious, sense than 'Let your conversation be' +(let it not go beyond) 'Yea yea' &c [Endnote 122:1]. There is, +however, what seems to be a decisive proof that the original form +both of Justin's and the Clementine quotation is that which is +given in the first Gospel. Both Justin and the writer who passes +under the name of Clement add the clause 'Whatsoever is more than +these cometh of evil' (or 'of the Evil One'). But this, while it +tallies perfectly with the canonical reading, evidently excludes +any other. It is consequent and good sense to say, 'Do not go +beyond a plain yes or no, because whatever is in excess of this +must have an evil motive,' but the connection is entirely lost +when we substitute 'Keep your word, for whatever is more than this +has an evil motive'--more than what? + +The most important points that can be taken to imply a use of +St. Mark's Gospel have been already discussed as falling under +the head of matter rather than of form. + +The coincidences with Luke are striking but complicated. In his +earlier work, the 'Beiträge' [Endnote 123:1], Credner regarded as +a decided reference to the Prologue of this Gospel the statement +of Justin that his Memoirs were composed [Greek: hupo ton +apostolon autou kai ton ekeinois parakolouthaesanton]: but, in the +posthumous History of the Canon [Endnote 123:2], he retracts this +view, having come to recognise a greater frequency in the use of +the word [Greek: parakolouthein] in this sense. It will also of +course be noticed that Justin has [Greek: par. tois ap.] and not +[Greek: par. tois pragmasin], as Luke. It is doubtless true that +the use of the word can be paralleled to such an extent as to make +it not a matter of certainty that the Gospel is being quoted: +still I think there will be a certain probability that it has been +suggested by a reminiscence of this passage, and, strangely +enough, there is a parallel for the substitution of the historians +for the subject-matter of their history in Epiphanius, who reads +[Greek: par. tois autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou] [Endnote +124:1], where he is explicitly and unquestionably quoting St. +Luke. + +There are some marked coincidences of phrase in the account of the +Annunciation--[Greek: eperchesthai, episkaizein, dunamis +hupsistou] (a specially Lucan phrase), [Greek: to gennomenon] +(also a form characteristic of St. Luke), [Greek idou, sullaepsae +en gastri kai texae huion]. Of the other peculiarities of St. Luke +Justin has in exact accordance the last words upon the cross +([Greek: Pater, eis cheiras sou paratithemai to pneuma mou]). In +the Agony in the Garden Justin has the feature of the Bloody +Sweat; but it is right to notice-- + +(1) That he has [Greek: thromboi] alone, without [Greek: +haimatos]. Luke, [Greek: egeneto ho hidros autou hosei thromboi +haimatos katabainontes]. Justin, [Greek: hidros hosei thromboi +katecheito]. + +(2) That this is regarded as a fulfilment of Ps. xxii. 14 ('All my +tears are poured out' &c.). + +(3) That in continuing the quotation Justin follows Matthew rather +than Luke. These considerations may be held to qualify, though I +do not think that they suffice to remove, the conclusion that St. +Luke's Gospel is being quoted. It seems to be sufficiently clear +that [Greek: thromboi] might be used in this signification without +[Greek: aimatos] [Endnote 124:2], and it appears from the whole +manner of Justin's narrative that he intends to give merely the +sense and not the words, with the exception of the single saying +'Let this cup pass from Me,' which is taken from St. Matthew. We +cannot say positively that this feature did not occur in any other +Gospel, but there is absolutely no reason apart from this passage +to suppose that it did. The construction with [Greek: hosei] is in +some degree characteristic of St. Luke, as it occurs more often in +the works of that writer than in all the rest of the New Testament +put together. + +In narrating the institution of the Lord's Supper Justin has the +clause which is found only in St. Luke and St. Paul, 'This do in +remembrance of Me' ([Greek: mou] for [Greek: emaen]). The giving +of the cup he quotes rather after the first two Synoptics, and +adds 'that He gave it to them (the Apostles) alone.' This last +does not seem to be more than an inference of Justin's own. + +Two other sayings Justin has which are without parallel except in +St. Luke. One is from the mission of the seventy. + +_Justin, Dial._ 76 + +[Greek: Didomi humin exousian katapatein epano opheon, kai +skorpion, kai skolopendron, kai epano parsaes dunameos tou +echthrou.] + +_Luke_ x. 19. + +[Greek: Idou, didomi humin taen exousian tou patein epano epheon, +kai skorpion, kai epi pasan taen dunamin tou echthrou.] + +The insertion of [Greek: skolopendron] here is curious. It may be +perhaps to some extent paralleled by the insertion of [Greek: kai +eis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9: we have also seen a strange addition +in the quotation of Ps. li. 19 in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. ii). +Otherwise the resemblance of Justin to the Gospel is striking. The +second saying, 'To whom God has given more, of him shall more be +required' (Apol. i. 17), if quoted from the Gospel at all, is only +a paraphrase of Luke xii. 48. + +Besides these there are other passages, which are perhaps stronger +as separate items of evidence, where, in quoting synoptic matter, +Justin makes use of phrases which are found only in St. Luke and +are discountenanced by the other Evangelists. Thus in the account +of the rich young man, the three synoptical versions of the saying +that impossibilities with men are possible with God, run thus:-- + +_Luke_ xviii. 27. + +[Greek: Ta adunata para anthropois dunata para to Theo estin.] + +_Mark_ x. 27. + +[Greek: Para anthropois adunaton, all' ou para Theo; punta gar +dunata para to Theo]. + +_Matt_. xix. 26. + +[Greek: Para anthropois touto adunaton estin, para de Theo dunata +panta]. + +Here it will be observed that Matthew and Mark (as frequently +happens) are nearer to each other than either of them is to Luke. +This would lead us to infer that, as they are two to one, they +more nearly represent the common original, which has been somewhat +modified in the hands of St. Luke. But now Justin has the words +precisely as they stand in St. Luke, with the omission of [Greek: +estin], the order of which varies in the MSS. of the Gospel. This +must be taken as a strong proof that Justin has used the peculiar +text of the third Gospel. Again, it is to be noticed that in +another section of the triple synopsis (Mark xii. 20=Matt. xxii. +30=Luke xx. 35, 36) he has, in common with Luke and diverging from +the other Gospels which are in near agreement, the remarkable +compound [Greek: isangeloi] and the equally remarkable phrase +[Greek: huioi taes anastaseos] ([Greek: tekna tou Theou taes +anastaseos] Justin). This also I must regard as supplying a strong +argument for the direct use of the Gospel. Many similar instances +may be adduced; [Greek: erchetai] ([Greek: aexei] Justin) [Greek: +ho ischuroteros] (Luke iii. 16), [Greek: ho nomos kai hoi +prophaetai heos] ([Greek: mechri] Justin) [Greek: Ioannon] (Luke +xvi. 16), [Greek: panti to aitounti] (Luke vi. 30), [Greek: to +tuptonti se epi] ([Greek: sou] Justin) [Greek: taen siagona +pareche kai taen allaen k.t.l.] (Luke vi. 29; compare Matt. v. 39, +40), [Greek: ti me legeis agathon] and [Greek: oudeis agathos ei +mae] (Luke xviii. 19; compare Matt. xix. 17), [Greek: meta tauta +mae echonton] ([Greek: dunamenous] Justin) [Greek: perissoteron] +(om. Justin) [Greek: ti poiaesae k.t.l.] (Luke xii. 4, 5; compare +Matt. X. 28), [Greek: paeganon] and [Greek: agapaen tou Theou] +(Luke xi. 42). In the parallel passage to Luke ix. 22 (=Matt xvi. +21= Mark viii. 31) Justin has the striking word [Greek: +apodokimasthaenai], with Mark and Luke against Matthew, and +[Greek: hupo] with Mark against the [Greek: apo] of the two other +Synoptics. This last coincidence can perhaps hardly be pressed, as +[Greek: hupo] would be the more natural word to use. + +In the cases where we have only the double synopsis to compare +with Justin, we have no certain test to distinguish between the +primary and secondary features in the text of the Gospels. We +cannot say with confidence what belonged to the original document +and what to the later editor who reduced it to its present form. +In these cases therefore it is possible that when Justin has a +detail that is found in St. Matthew and wanting in St. Luke, or +found in St. Luke and wanting in St. Matthew, he is still not +quoting directly from either of those Gospels, but from the common +document on which they are based. The triple synopsis however +furnishes such a criterion. It enables us to see what was the +original text and how any single Evangelist has diverged from it. +Thus in the two instances quoted at the beginning of the last +paragraph it is evident that the Lucan text represents a deviation +from the original, and _that deviation Justin has reproduced_. The +word [Greek: isangeloi] may be taken as a crucial case. Both the +other Synoptics have simply [Greek hos angeloi], and this may be +set down as undoubtedly the reading of the original; the form +[Greek: isangeloi], which occurs nowhere else in the New +Testament, and I believe, so far as we know, nowhere else in Greek +before this passage [Endnote 128:1], has clearly been coined by +the third Evangelist and has been adopted from him by Justin. So +that in a quotation which otherwise presents considerable +variation we have what I think must be called the strongest +evidence that Justin really had St. Luke's narrative, either in +itself or in some secondary shape, before him. + +We are thus brought once more to the old result. If Justin did not +use our Gospels in their present shape as they have come down to +us, he used them in a later shape, not in an earlier. His +resemblances to them cannot be accounted for by the supposition +that he had access to the materials out of which they were +composed, because he reproduces features which by the nature of +the case cannot have been present in those originals, but of which +we are still able to trace the authorship and the exact point of +their insertion. Our Gospels form a secondary stage in the history +of the text, Justin's quotations a tertiary. In order to reach the +state in which it is found in Justin, the road lies _through_ our +Gospels, and not outside them. + +This however does not exclude the possibility that Justin may at +times quote from uncanonical Gospels as well. We have already seen +reason to think that he did so from the substance of the +Evangelical narrative, as it appears in his works, and this +conclusion too is not otherwise than confirmed by its form. The +degree and extent of the variations incline us to introduce such +an additional factor to account for them. Either Justin has used a +lost Gospel or Gospels, besides those that are still extant, or +else he has used a recension of these Gospels with some slight +changes of language and with some apocryphal additions. We have +seen that he has two short sayings and several minute details that +are not found in our present Gospels. A remarkable coincidence is +noticed in 'Supernatural Religion' with the Protevangelium of +James [Endnote 129:1]. As in that work so also in Justin, the +explanation of the name Jesus occurs in the address of the angel +to Mary, not to Joseph, 'Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy +Ghost and bear a Son and He shall be called the Son of the +Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His +people from their sins.' Again the Protevangelium has the phrase +'Thou shalt conceive of His Word,' which, though not directly +quoted, appears to receive countenance from Justin. The author +adds that 'Justin's divergences from the Protevangelium prevent +our supposing that in its present form it could have been the +actual source of his quotations,' though he thinks that he had +before him a still earlier work to which both the Protevangelium +and the third Gospel were indebted. So far as the Protevangelium +is concerned this may very probably have been the case; but what +reason there is for assuming that the same document was also +anterior to the third Gospel I am not aware. On the contrary, this +very passage seems to suggest an opposite conclusion. The +quotation in Justin and the address in the Protevangelium both +present a combination of narratives that are kept separate in the +first and third Gospels. But this very fact supplies a strong +presumption that the version of those Gospels is the earliest. It +is unlikely that the first Evangelist, if he had found his text +already existing as part of the speech of the angel to Mary, would +have transferred it to an address to Joseph; and it is little less +unlikely that the third Evangelist, finding the fuller version of +Justin and the Protevangelium, should have omitted from it one of +its most important features. If a further link is necessary to +connect Justin with the Protevangelium, that link comes into the +chain after our Gospels and not before. Dr. Hilgenfeld has also +noticed the phrase [Greek: charan de labousa Mariam] as common to +Justin and the Protevangelium [Endnote 130:1]. This, too, may +belong to the older original of the latter work. The other verbal +coincidences with the Gospel according to the Hebrews in the +account of the Baptism, and with that of Thomas in the 'ploughs +and yokes,' have been already mentioned, and are, I believe, along +with those just discussed, all that can be directly referred to an +apocryphal source. + +Besides these there are some coincidences in form between quotations +as they appear in Justin and in other writers, such as especially the +Clementine Homilies. These are thought to point to the existence of a +common Gospel (now lost) from which they may have been extracted. It +is unnecessary to repeat what has been said about one of these +passages ('Let your yea be yea,' &c.). Another corresponds roughly to +the verse Matt. xxv. 41, where both Justin and the Clementine Homilies +read [Greek: hupagete eis to skotos to exoteron o haetoimasen ho +pataer to satana (to diabolo] Clem. Hom.) [Greek: kai tois angelois +autou] for the canonical [Greek: poreuesthe ap' emou eis to pur to +aionion to haetoimasmenon k.t.l.] It is true that there is a +considerable approximation to the reading of Justin and the +Clementines, found especially in MSS. and authorities of a Western +character (D. Latt. Iren. Cypr. Hil.), but there still remains the +coincidence in regard to [Greek: exoteron](?) for [Greek: aionion] and +[Greek: skotos] for [Greek: pyr], which seems to be due to something +more than merely a variant text of the Gospel. A third meeting-point +between Justin and the Clementines is afforded by a text which we +shall have to touch upon when we come to speak of the fourth Gospel. +Of the other quotations common to the Clementines and Justin there is +a partial but not complete coincidence in regard to Matt. vii. 15, xi. +27, xix. 16, and Luke vi. 36. In Matt. vii. 15 the Clementines have +[Greek: polloi eleusontai] where Justin has once [Greek: polloi +eleusontai], once [Greek: polloi aexousin], and once the Matthaean +version [Greek: prosechete apo ton pseudoprophaeton oitines erchontai +k.t.l.] There is however a difference in regard to the reading [Greek: +en endumasi], where the Clementines have [Greek: en endumatie], and +Justin twice over [Greek: endedumenoi]. In Matt. xi. 27, Justin and +the Clementines agree as to the order of the clauses, and twice in the +use of the aorist [Greek: egno] (Justin has once [Greek: ginosko]), +but in the concluding clause ([Greek: ho [ois] Clem.] [Greek: ean +boulaetai ho nios apokalupsai]) Justin has uniformly in the three +places where the verse is quoted [Greek: ois an ho uhios apokalupsae]. +In Matt. xix. 16, 17 (Luke xviii. 18, 19) the Clementines and Justin +alternately adhere to the Canonical text while differing from each +other, but in the concluding phrase Justin has on one occasion the +Clementine reading, [Greek: ho pataer mou ho en tois ouranois]. In +Luke vi. 36 the Clementines have [Greek: ginesthe agathoi kai +ioktirmones], where Justin has [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kai +oiktirmones] against the Canonical [Greek: ginesthe oiktirmones]. On +the other hand, it should be said that the remaining quotations common +to the Clementines and Justin have to all appearance no relation to +each other. This applies to Matt. iv. 10, v. 39, 40, vi. 8, viii. 11, +x. 28; Luke xi. 52. Speaking generally we seem to observe in comparing +Justin and the Clementines phenomena not dissimilar to those which +appear on a comparison with the Canonical Gospels. There is perhaps +about the same degree at once of resemblance and divergence. + +The principal textual coincidence with other writers is that with +the Gospel used by the Marcosians as quoted by Irenaeus (Adv. +Haer. i. 20. 3). Here the reading of Matt. xi. 27 is given in a +form very similar to that of Justin, [Greek: oudeis hegno ton +patera ei mae ho uhios, kai (oude Justin) ton uhion, ei mae ho +pataer kai ho (ois] Justin) [Greek: an ho uhios apokalupsae]. +This verse however is quoted by the early writers, orthodox as well +as heretical, in almost every possible way, and it is not clear from +the account in Irenaeus whether the Marcosians used an extra- +canonical Gospel or merely a different text of the Canonical. +Irenaeus himself seems to hold the latter view, and in favour of +it may be urged the fact that they quote passages peculiar both to +the first and the third Gospel; on the other hand, one of their +quotations, [Greek: pollakis epethuaesa akousai hena ton logon +touton], does not appear to have a canonical original. + +On reviewing these results we find them present a chequered +appearance. There are no traces of coincidence so definite and +consistent as to justify us in laying the finger upon any +particular extra-canonical Gospel as that used by Justin. But upon +the whole it seems best to assume that some such Gospel was used, +certainly not to the exclusion of the Canonical Gospels, but +probably in addition to them. + +A confusing element in the whole question is that to which we have +just alluded in regard to the Gospel of the Marcosians. It is +often difficult to decide whether a writer has really before him +an unknown document or merely a variant text of one with which we +are familiar. In the case of Justin it is to be noticed that there +is often a very considerable approximation to his readings, not in +the best text, but in some very early attested text, of the +Canonical Gospels. It will be well to collect some of the most +prominent instances of this. + +Matt. iii. 15 ad fin. [Greek: kai pur anaephthae en to Iordanae] +Justin. So a. (Codex Vercellensis of the Old Latin translation) +adds 'et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut +timerent onmes qui advenerant;' g[1]. (Codex Sangermanensis of the +same) 'lumen magnum fulgebat de aqua,' &c. See above. + +Luke iii. 22. Justin reads [Greek: uhios mon ei su, ego saemeron +gegennaeka se]. So D, a, b, c, ff, l, Latin Fathers ('nonnulli +codices' Augustine). See above. + +Matt. v. 28. [Greek: hos un emblepsae] for [Greek: pas ho blepon]. +Origen five times as Justin, only once the accepted text. + +Matt. v. 29. Justin and Clement of Alexandria read here [Greek: +ekkopson] for [Greek: exele], probably from the next verse or from +Matt. xviii. 8. + +Matt. vi. 20. [Greek: ouranois] Clem. Alex. with Justin; [Greek: +ourano] the accepted reading. + +Matt. xvi. 26. [Greek: opheleitai] Justin with most MSS. both of +the Old Latin and of the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac +(Crowfoot), Clement, Hilary, and Lucifer, against [Greek: +ophelaethaesetai] of the best Alexandrine authorities. + +Matt. vi. 21. There is a striking coincidence here with Clement of +Alexandria, who reads, like Justin, [Greek: nous] for [Greek: +cardia]; it would seem that Clement had probably derived his +reading from Justin. + +Matt. v. 22. [Greek: hostis an orgisthae] Syr. Crt. (Crowfoot); so +Justin ([Greek: hos]). + +Matt. v. 16. Clement of Alexandria (with Tertullian and several +Latin Fathers) has [Greek: lampsato ta erga] and [Greek: ta agatha +erga], where Justin has [Greek: lampsato ta kala erga], for +[Greek: lampsato to phos]. Both readings would seem to be a gloss +on the original. + +Matt. v. 37. [Greek: kai] is inserted, as in Justin, by a, b, g, +h, Syr. Crt. and Pst. + +Luke x. 16. Justin has the reading [Greek: ho emou akouon akouei +ton aposteilantos me]: so D, i, l (of the Old Latin) in place of +[Greek: ho eme atheton k.t.l.]; in addition to it, E, a, b, Syr. +Crt. and Hel. &c. + +Matt. vii. 22. [Greek: ou to so anomati ephagomen kai epiomen] +Justin; similarly Origen, four times, and Syr. Crt. + +Luke xiii. 27. [Greek: anomias] for [Greek: adikias], D and +Justin. + +Matt. xiii. 43. [Greek: lampsosin] for [Greek: eklampsosin] with +Justin, D, and Origen (twice). + +Matt. xxv. 41. Of Justin's readings in this verse [Greek: +hupagete] for [Greek: poreuesthe] is found also in [Hebrew: ?] and +Hippolytus, [Greek: exoteron] for [Greek: aionion] in the cursive +manuscript numbered 40 (Credner; I am unable to verify this), +[Greek: ho haetoimasen ho pater mou] for [Greek: to haetoimasmenon] +D. 1, most Codd. of the Old Latin, Iren. Tert. Cypr. Hil. Hipp. +and Origen in the Latin translation. + +Luke xii. 48. D, like Justin, has here [Greek: pleon] for [Greek: +perissoteron] and also the compound form [Greek: apaitaesousin]. + +Luke xx. 24. Though in the main following (but loosely) the text +of Luke, Justin has here [Greek: to nomisma], as Matt., instead of +[Greek: daenarion]; so D. + +Though it will be seen that Justin has thus much in common with D +and the Old Latin version, it should be noticed that he has the +verse, Luke xxii. 19, and especially the clause [Greek: touto +poieite eis taen emaen anamnaesin] which is wanting in these +authorities. On the other hand, he appears to have with them and +other authorities, including Syr. Crt., the Agony in the Garden as +given in Luke xxii, 43,44, which verses are omitted in MSS. of the +best Alexandrine type. Luke xxiii. 34, Justin also has, with the +divided support of the majority of Greek MSS. Vulgate, c, e, f, ff +of the Old Latin, Syr. Crt. and Pst. &c. against B, D (prima +manu), a, b, Memph. (MSS.) Theb. + +These readings represent in the main a text which was undoubtedly +current and widely diffused in the second century. 'Though no +surviving manuscript of the Old Latin version dates before the +fourth century and most of them belong to a still later age, yet +the general correspondence of their text with that of the first +Latin Fathers is a sufficient voucher for its high antiquity. The +connexion subsisting between this Latin, version, the Curetonian +Syriac and Codex Bezae, proves that the text of these documents is +considerably older than the vellum on which they are written.' +Such is Dr. Scrivener's verdict upon the class of authorities with +which Justin shows the strongest affinity, and he goes on to add; +'Now it may be said without extravagance that no set of Scriptural +records affords a text less probable in itself, less sustained by +any rational principles of external evidence, than that of Cod. D, +of the Latin codices, and (so far as it accords with them) of +Cureton's Syriac. Interpolations as insipid in themselves as +unsupported by other evidence abound in them all.... It is no less +true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions +to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated +within a hundred years after it was composed' [Endnote 135:1]. +This is a point on which text critics of all schools are +substantially agreed. However much they may differ in other +respects, no one of them has ever thought of taking the text of +the Old Syriac and Old Latin translations as the basis of an +edition. There can be no question that this text belongs to an +advanced, though early, stage of corruption. + +At the same stage of corruption, then, Justin's quotations from +the Gospels are found, and this very fact is a proof of the +antiquity of originals so corrupted. The coincidences are too many +and too great all to be the result of accident or to be accounted +for by the parallel influence of the lost Gospels. The presence, +for instance, of the reading [Greek: o haetoimasen ho pataer] for +[Greek: to haetoimasmenon] in Irenaeus and Tertullian (who has +both 'quem praeparavit deus' and 'praeparatum') is a proof that it +was found in the canonical text at a date little later than +Justin's. And facts such as this, taken together with the +arguments which make it little less than certain that Justin had +either mediately or immediately access to our Gospels, render it +highly probable that he had a form of the canonical text before +him. + +And yet large as is the approximation to Justin's text that may be +made without stirring beyond the bounds of attested readings +within the Canon, I still retain the opinion previously expressed +that he did also make use of some extra-canonical book or books, +though what the precise document was the data are far too +insufficient to enable us to determine. So far as the history of +our present Gospels is concerned, I have only to insist upon the +alternative that Justin either used those Gospels themselves or +else a later work, of the nature of a harmony based upon them +[Endnote 136:1]. The theory (if it is really held) that he was +ignorant of our Gospels in any shape, seems to me, in view of the +facts, wholly untenable. + + + + + +CHAPTER V. + +HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS. + + +Dr. Lightfoot has rendered a great service to criticism by his +masterly exposure of the fallacies in the argument which has been +drawn from the silence of Eusebius in respect to the use of the +Canonical Gospels by the early writers [Endnote 138:1]. The author +of 'Supernatural Religion' is not to be blamed for using this +argument. In doing so he has only followed in the wake of the +Germans who have handed it on from one to the other without +putting it to a test so thorough and conclusive as that which has +now been applied [Endnote 138:2]. For the future, I imagine, the +question has been set at rest and will not need to be reopened +[Endnote 138:3]. + +Dr. Lightfoot has shown, with admirable fulness and precision, +that the object of Eusebius was only to note quotations in the +case of books the admission of which into the Canon had been or +was disputed. In the case of works, such as the four Gospels, that +were universally acknowledged, he only records what seem to him +interesting anecdotes or traditions respecting their authors or +the circumstances under which they were composed. This distinction +Dr. Lightfoot has established, not only by a careful examination +of the language of Eusebius, but also by comparing his statements +with the actual facts in regard to writings that are still extant, +and where we are able to verify his procedure. After thus testing +the references in Eusebius to Clement of Rome, the Ignatian +Epistles, Polycarp, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus, +Dr. Lightfoot arrives, by a strict and ample induction, at the +conclusion that the silence of Eusebius in respect to quotations +from any canonical book is so far an argument _in its favour_ +that it shows the book in question to have been generally +acknowledged by the early Church. Instead of being a proof that +the writer did not know the work in reference to which Eusebius is +silent, the presumption is rather that he did, like the rest of +the Church, receive it. Eusebius only records what seems to him +specially memorable, except where the place of the work in or out +of the Canon has itself to be vindicated. + +But if this holds good, then most of what is said against the use +of the Gospels by Hegesippus falls to the ground. Eusebius +expressly says [Endnote 140:1] that Hegesippus made occasional use +of the Gospel according to the Hebrews ([Greek: ek te tou kath' +Hebraious euangeliou ... tina tithaesin]). But apart from the +conclusion referred to above, the very language of Eusebius +([Greek: tithaesin tina ek]) is enough to suggest that the use of +the Gospel according to the Hebrews was subordinate and +subsidiary. Eusebius can hardly have spoken in this way of +'_the_ Gospel of which Hegesippus made use' in all the five +books of his 'Memoirs.' The expression tallies exactly with what +we should expect of a work used _in addition to_ but not +_to the exclusion_ of our Gospels. The fact that Eusebius +says nothing about these shows that his readers would take it for +granted that Hegesippus, as an orthodox Christian, received them. + +With this conclusion the fragments of the work of Hegesippus that +have come down to us agree. The quotations made in them are +explained most simply and naturally, on the assumption that our +Gospels have been used. The first to which we come is merely an +allusion to the narrative of Matt. ii; 'For Domitian feared the +coming of the Christ as much as Herod.' Those therefore who take +the statement of Eusebius to mean that Hegesippus used only the +Gospel according to the Hebrews are compelled to seek for the +account of the Massacre of the Innocents in that Gospel. It +appears however from Epiphanius that precisely this very portion +of the first Gospel was wanting in the Gospel according to the +Hebrews as used both by the Ebionites and by the Nazarenes. 'But +if it be doubtful whether some forms of that Gospel contained the +two opening chapters of Matthew, it is certain that Jerome found +them in the version which he translated' [Endnote 141:1]. I am +afraid that here, as in so many other cases, the words 'doubtful' +and 'certain' are used with very little regard to their meanings. +In support of the inference from Jerome, the author refers to De +Wette, Schwegler, and an article in a periodical publication by +Ewald. De Wette expressly says that the inference does _not_ +follow ('Aus Comm. ad Matt. ii. 6 ... lässt sich _nicht_ +schliessen dass er hierbei das Evang. der Hebr. verglichen +habe.... Nicht viel besser beweisen die St. ad Jes. xi. 1; ad +Abac. iii. 3') [Endnote 141:2]. He thinks that the presence of +these chapters in Jerome's copy cannot be satisfactorily proved, +but is probable just from this allusion in Hegesippus--in regard +to which De Wette simply follows the traditional, but, as we have +seen, erroneous assumption that Hegesippus used only the Gospel +according to the Hebrews. Schwegler [Endnote 141:3] gives no +reasons, but refers to the passages quoted from Jerome in Credner. +Credner, after examining these passages, comes to the conclusion +that 'the Gospel of the Nazarenes did _not_ contain the +chapters' [Endnote 141:4]. Ewald's periodical I cannot refer to, +but Hilgenfeld, after an elaborate review of the question, decides +that the chapters were omitted [Endnote 141:5]. This is the only +authority I can find for the 'certainty that Jerome found them' in +his version. + +On the whole, then, it seems decidedly more probable (certainties +we cannot deal in) that the incident referred to by Hegesippus was +missing from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That Gospel +therefore was not quoted by him, but, on the contrary, there is a +presumption that he is quoting from the Canonical Gospel. The +narrative of the parallel Gospel of St. Luke seems, if not to +exclude the Massacre of the Innocents, yet to imply an ignorance +of it. + +The next passage that appears to be quotation occurs in the +account of the death of James the Just; 'Why do ye ask me +concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He too sits in heaven on the +right hand of the great Power and will come on the clouds of +heaven' ([Greek: Ti me eperotate peri Iaesou tou huiou tou +anthropou? kai autos kathaetai en to ourano ek dexion taes +megalaes dunameos, kai mellei erchesthai epi ton nephelon tou +ouranou]). It seems natural to suppose that this is an allusion to +Matt. xxvi. 64, [Greek: ap' arti opsesthe ton huion tou anthropou +kathaemenon ek dexion taes dunameos, kai erchomenon epi ton +vephelon tou ouranou]. The passage is one that belongs to the +triple synopsis, and the form in which it appears in Hegesippus +shows a preponderating resemblance to the version of St. Matthew. +Mark inserts [Greek: kathaemenon] between [Greek: ek dexion] and +[Greek: taes dunameos], while Luke thinks it necessary to add +[Greek: tou theou]. The third Evangelist omits the phrase [Greek: +epi ton nephelon tou ouranou], altogether, and the second +substitutes [Greek: meta] for [Greek: epi]. In fact the phrase +[Greek: epi ton vephelon] occurs in the New Testament only in St. +Matthew; the Apocalypse, like St. Mark, has [Greek: meta] and +[Greek: epi] only with the singular. + +In like manner, when we find Hegesippus using the phrase [Greek: +prosopon ou lambaneis], this seems to be a reminiscence of Luke +xx. 21, where the synoptic parallels have [Greek: blepeis]. + +A more decided reference to the third Gospel occurs in the dying +prayer of St. James; [Greek: parakalo, kurie thee pater, aphes +autois; ou gar oidasiti poiousin], which corresponds to Luke +xxiii. 34, [Greek: pater, aphes autois; ou gar oidasin ti +poiousin]. There is the more reason to believe that Hegesippus' +quotation is derived from this source that it reproduces the +peculiar use of [Greek: aphienai] in the sense of 'forgive' +without an expressed object. Though the word is of very frequent +occurrence, I find no other instance of this in the New Testament +[Endnote 143:1], and the Clementine Homilies, in making the same +quotation, insert [Greek: tas hamartias auton]. The saying is well +known to be peculiar to St. Luke. There is perhaps a balance of +evidence against its genuineness, but this is of little +importance, as it undoubtedly formed part of the Gospel as early +as Irenaeus, who wrote much about the same time as Hegesippus. + +The remaining passage occurs in a fragment preserved from +Stephanus Gobarus, a writer of the sixth century, by Photius, +writing in the ninth. Referring to the saying 'Eye hath not seen,' +&c., Gobarus says 'that Hegesippus, an ancient and apostolical +man, asserts--he knows not why--that these words are vainly +spoken, and that those who use them give the lie to the sacred +writings and to our Lord Himself who said, "Blessed are your eyes +that see and your ears that hear,"' &c. 'Those who use these +words' are, we can hardly doubt, as Dr. Lightfoot after Routh has +shown [Endnote 144:1], the Gnostics, though Hegesippus would seem +to have forgotten I Cor. ii. 9. The anti-Pauline position assigned +to Hegesippus on the strength of this is, we must say, untenable. +But for the present we are concerned rather with the second +quotation, which agrees closely with Matt. xiii. 26 ([Greek: humon +de makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoti blepousin, kai ta ota humon hoti +akouousin]). The form of the quotation has a slightly nearer +resemblance to Luke x. 23 ([Greek: makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoi +blepontes ha blepete k.t.l.]), but the marked difference in the +remainder of the Lucan passage increases the presumption that +Hegesippus is quoting from the first Gospel [Endnote 144:2]. + +The use of the phrase [Greek: ton theion graphon] is important and +remarkable. There is not, so far as I am aware, any instance of so +definite an expression being applied to an apocryphal Gospel. It +would tend to prepare us for the strong assertion of the Canon of +the Gospels in Irenaeus; it would in fact mark the gradually +culminating process which went on in the interval which separated +Irenaeus from Justin. To this interval the evidence of Hegesippus +must be taken to apply, because though writing like Irenaeus under +Eleutherus (from 177 A.D.) he was his elder contemporary, and had +been received with high respect in Rome as early as the episcopate +of Anicetus (157-168 A.D.). + +The relations in which Hegesippus describes himself as standing to +the Churches and bishops of Corinth and Rome seem to be decisive +as to his substantial orthodoxy. This would give reason to think +that he made use of our present Gospels, and the few quotations +that have come down to us confirm that view not inconsiderably, +though by themselves they might not be quite sufficient to prove +it. + +There is one passage that may be thought to point to an apocryphal +Gospel, 'From these arose false Christs, false prophets, false +apostles;' which recalls a sentence in the Clementines, 'For there +shall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, +heresies, ambitions.' It is not, however, nearer to this than to +the canonical parallel, Matt. xxiv. 24 ('There shall arise false +Christs and false prophets'). + + + 2. + +In turning from Hegesippus to Papias we come at last to what seems +to be a definite and satisfactory statement as to the origin of +two at least of the Synoptic Gospels, and to what is really the +most enigmatic and tantalizing of all the patristic utterances. + +Like Hegesippus, Papias may be described as 'an ancient and +apostolic man,' and appears to have better deserved the title. He +is said to have suffered martyrdom under M. Aurelius about the +same time as Polycarp, 165-167 A.D. [Endnote 145:1] He wrote a +commentary on the Discourses or more properly Oracles of the Lord, +from which Eusebius extracted what seemed to him 'memorable' +statements respecting the origin of the first and second Gospels. +'Matthew,' Papias said [Endnote 146:1], 'wrote the oracles +([Greek: ta logia]) in the Hebrew tongue, and every one +interpreted them as he was able.' 'Mark, as the interpreter of +Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that he +remembered that was said or done by Christ. For he neither heard +the Lord nor attended upon Him, but later, as I said, upon Peter, +who taught according to the occasion and not as composing a +connected narrative of the Lord's discourses; so that Mark made no +mistake in writing down some things as he remembered them. For he +took care of one thing, not to omit any of the particulars that he +heard or to falsify any part of them.' + + * * * * * + +Let us take the second of these statements first. According to it +the Gospel of St. Mark consisted of notes taken down, or rather +recollected, from the teaching of Peter. It was not written 'in +order,' but it was an original work in the sense that it was first +put in writing by Mark himself, having previously existed only in +an oral form. + +Does this agree with the facts of the Gospel as it appears to us +now? There is a certain ambiguity as to the phrase 'in order.' We +cannot be quite sure what Papias meant by it, but the most natural +conclusion seems to be that it meant chronological order. If so, +the statement of Papias seems to be so far borne out that none of +the Synoptic Gospels is really in exact chronological order; but, +strange to say, if there is any in which an approach to such an +order is made, it is precisely this of St. Mark. This appears from +a comparison of the three Synoptics. From the point at which the +second Gospel begins, or, in other words, from the Baptism to the +Crucifixion, it seems to give the outline that the other two +Gospels follow [Endnote 147:1]. If either of them diverges from it +for a time it is only to return. The early part of St. Matthew is +broken up by the intrusion of the so-called Sermon on the Mount, +but all this time St. Mark is in approximate agreement with St. +Luke. For a short space the three Gospels go together. Then comes +a second break, where Luke introduces his version of the Sermon on +the Mount. Then the three rejoin and proceed together, Matthew +being thrown out by the way in which he has collected the parables +into a single chapter, and Luke later by the place which he has +assigned to the incident at Nazareth. After this Matthew and Mark +proceed side by side, Luke dropping out of the ranks. At the +confession of Peter he takes his place again, and there is a close +agreement in the order of the three narratives. The incident of +the miracle-worker is omitted by Matthew, and then comes the +insertion of a mass of extraneous matter by Luke. When he resumes +the thread of the common narrative again all three are together. +The insertion of a single parable on the part of Matthew, and +omissions on the part of Luke, are the only interruptions. There +is an approximate agreement of all three, we may say, for the rest +of the narrative. We observe throughout that, in by far the +preponderating number of instances, where Matthew differs from the +order of Mark, Luke and Mark agree, and where Luke differs from +the order of Mark, Matthew and Mark agree. Thus, for instance, in +the account of the healings in Peter's house and of the paralytic, +in the relation of the parables of Mark iv. 1-34 to the storm at +sea which follows, of the healing of Jairus' daughter to that of +the Gadarene demoniac and to the mission of the Twelve in the +place of Herod's reflections (Mark vi. 14-16), in the warning +against the Scribes and the widow's mite (Mark xii. 38-44), the +second and third Synoptics are allied against the first. On the +other hand, in the call of the four chief Apostles, the death of +the Baptist, the walking on the sea, the miracles in the land of +Gennesareth, the washing of hands, the Canaanitish woman, the +feeding of the four thousand and the discourses which follow, the +ambition of the sons of Zebedee, the anointing at Bethany, and +several insertions of the third Evangelist in regard to the last +events, the first two are allied against him. While Mark thus +receives such alternating support from one or other of his fellow +Evangelists, I am not aware of any clear case in which, as to the +order of the narratives, they are, united and he is alone, unless +we are to reckon as such his insertion of the incident of the +fugitive between Matt. xxvi. 56, 57, Luke xxii. 53, 54. + +It appears then that, so far as there is an order in the Synoptic +Gospels, the normal type of that order is to be found precisely in +St. Mark, whom Papias alleges to have written not in order. + +But again there seems to be evidence that the Gospel, in the form +in which it has come down to us, is not original but based upon +another document previously existing. When we come to examine +closely its verbal relations to the other two Synoptics, its +normal character is in the main borne out, but still not quite +completely. The number of particulars in which Matthew and Mark +agree together against Luke, or Mark and Luke agree together +against Matthew, is far in excess of that in which Matthew and +Luke are agreed against Mark. Mark is in most cases the middle +term which unites the other two. But still there remains a not +inconsiderable residuum of cases in which Matthew and Luke are in +combination and Mark at variance. The figures obtained by a not +quite exact and yet somewhat elaborate computation [Endnote 149:1] +are these; Matthew and Mark agree together against Luke in 1684 +particulars, Luke and Mark against Matthew in 944, but Matthew and +Luke against Mark in only 334. These 334 instances are distributed +pretty evenly over the whole of the narrative. Thus (to take a +case at random) in the parallel narratives Matt. xii. 1-8, Mark +ii. 23-28, Luke vi. 1-5 (the plucking of the ears on the Sabbath +day), there are fifty-one points (words or parts of words) common +to all three Evangelists, twenty-three are common only to Mark and +Luke, ten to Mark and Matthew, and eight to Matthew and Luke. In +the next section, the healing of the withered hand, twenty points +are found alike in all three Gospels, twenty-seven in Mark and +Luke, twenty-one in Mark and Matthew, and five in Matthew and +Luke. Many of these coincidences between the first and third +Synoptics are insignificant in the extreme. Thus, in the last +section referred to (Mark iii. 1-6=Matt. xii. 9-14=Luke vi. 6-11), +one is the insertion of the article [Greek: taen] ([Greek: +sunagogaen]), one the insertion of [Greek: sou] ([Greek: taen +cheira sou]), two the use of [Greek: de] for [Greek: kai], and one +that of [Greek: eipen] for [Greek: legei]. In the paragraph +before, the eight points of coincidence between Matthew and Luke +are made up thus, two [Greek: kai aesthion] (=[Greek kai +esthiein]), [Greek: eipon] (=[Greek: eipan]), [Greek: poiein, +eipen, met' autou] (=[Greek: sun auto]), [Greek: monous] (=[Greek: +monois]). But though such points as these, if they had been few in +number, might have been passed without notice, still, on the +whole, they reach a considerable aggregate and all are not equally +unimportant. Thus, in the account of the healing of the paralytic, +such phrases is [Greek epi klinaes, apaelthen eis ton oikon +autou], can hardly have come into the first and third Gospels and +be absent from the second by accident; so again the clause [Greek: +alla ballousin (blaeteon) oinon neon eis askous kainous]. In the +account of the healing of the bloody flux the important word +[Greek: tou kraspedou] is inserted in Matthew and Luke but not in +Mark; in that of the mission of the twelve Apostles, the two +Evangelists have, and the single one has not, the phrase [Greek: +kai therapeuein noson (nosous]), and the still more important +clause [Greek: lego humin anektoteron estai (gae) Sodomon ... en +haemera ... ae tae polei ekeinae]: in Luke ix. 7 (= Matt. xiv. 1) +Herod's title is [Greek: tetrarchaes], in Mark vi. 14 [Greek: +basileus]; in the succeeding paragraph [Greek: hoi ochloi +aekolouthaesan] and the important [Greek: to perisseuon (-san)] +are wanting in the intermediate Gospel; in the first prophecy of +the Passion it has [Greek: apo] where the other two have [Greek: +hupo], and [Greek: meta treis haemeras] where they have [Greek: +tae tritae haemera]: in the healing of the lunatic boy it omits +the noticeable [Greek: kai diestrammenae]: in the second prophecy +of the Passion it omits [Greek: mellei], in the paragraph about +offences, [Greek: elthein ta skandala ...ouai...di hou erchetai]. +These points might be easily multiplied as we go on; suffice it to +say that in the aggregate they seem to prove that the second +Gospel, in spite of its superior originality and adhesion to the +normal type, still does not entirely adhere to it or maintain its +primary character throughout. The theory that we have in the +second Gospel one of the primitive Synoptic documents is not +tenable. + +No doubt this is an embarrassing result. The question is easy to +ask and difficult to answer--If our St. Mark does not represent +the original form of the document, what does represent it? The +original document, if not quite like our Mark, must have been very +nearly like it; but how did any writer come to reproduce a +previous work with so little variation? If he had simply copied or +reproduced it without change, that would have been intelligible; +if he had added freely to it, that also would have been +intelligible: but, as it is, he seems to have put in a touch here +and made an erasure there on principles that it is difficult for +us now to follow. We are indeed here at the very _crux_ of +Synoptic criticism. + +For our present purpose however it is not necessary that the +question should be solved. We have already obtained an answer on +the two points raised by Papias. The second Gospel _is_ +written in order; it is _not_ an original document. These two +characteristics make it improbable that it is in its present shape +the document to which Papias alludes. + +Does his statement accord any better with the phenomena of the +first Gospel? He asserts that it was originally written in Hebrew, +and that the large majority of modern critics deny to have been +the case with our present Gospel. Many of the quotations in it +from the Old Testament are made directly from the Septuagint and +not from the Hebrew. There are turns of language which have the +stamp of an original Greek idiom and could not have come in +through translation. But, without going into this question as to +the original language of the first Gospel, a shorter method will +be to ask whether it can have been an original document at all? +The work to which Papias referred clearly was such, but the very +same investigation which shows that our present St. Mark was not +original, tells with increased force against St. Matthew. When a +document exists dealing with the same subject-matter as two other +documents, and those two other documents agree together and differ +from it on as many as 944 separate points, there can be little +doubt that in the great majority of those points it has deviated +from the original, and that it is therefore secondary in +character. It is both secondary and secondary on a lower stage +than St. Mark: it has preserved the features of the original with +a less amount of accuracy. The points of the triple synopsis on +which Matthew fails to receive verification are in all 944; those +on which Mark fails to receive verification 334; or, in other +words, the inaccuracies of Matthew are to those of Mark nearly as +three to one. In the case of Luke the proportion is still greater-- +as much as five to one. + +This is but a tithe of the arguments which show that the first +Gospel is a secondary composition. An original composition would +be homogeneous; it is markedly heterogeneous. The first two +chapters clearly belong to a different stock of materials from the +rest of the Gospel. A broad division is seen in regard to the Old +Testament quotations. Those which are common to the other two +Synoptists are almost if not quite uniformly taken from the +Septuagint; those, on the other hand, which seem to belong to the +reflection of the Evangelist betray more or less distinctly the +influence of the Hebrew [Endnote 153:1]. Our Gospel is thus seen +to be a recension of another original document or documents and +not an original document itself. + +Again, if our St. Matthew had been an original composition and had +appeared from the first in its present full and complete form, it +would be highly difficult to account for the omissions and +variations in Mark and Luke. We should be driven back, indeed, +upon all the impossibilities of the 'Benutzungs-hypothese.' On the +one hand, the close resemblance between the three compels us to +assume that the authors have either used each other's works or +common documents; but the differences practically preclude the +supposition that the later writer had before him the whole work of +his predecessor. If Luke had had before him the first two chapters +of Matthew he could not have written his own first two chapters as +he has done. + +Again, the character of the narrative is such as to be inconsistent +with the view that it proceeds from an eye-witness of the events. +Those graphic touches, which are so conspicuous in the fourth Gospel, +and come out from time to time in the second, are entirely wanting +in the first. If parallel narratives, such as the healing of the +paralytic, the cleansing of the Temple, or the feeding of the five +thousand, are compared, this will be very clearly seen. More; there +are features in the first Gospel that are to all appearance unhistorical +and due to the peculiar method of the writer. He has a way of +reduplicating, so to speak, the personages of one narrative in +order to make up for the omission of another [Endnote 154:1]. For +instance, he is silent as to the healing of the demoniac at Capernaum, +but, instead of this, he gives us two Gadarene demoniacs, at the same +time modifying the language in which he describes this latter incident +after the pattern of the former; in like manner he speaks of the +healing of two blind men at Jericho, but only because he had passed +over the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. Of a somewhat similar +nature is the adding of the ass's colt to the ass in the account +of the Triumphal Entry. There are also fragmentary sayings +repeated in the Gospel in a way that would be natural in a later +editor piecing together different documents and finding the same +saying in each, but unnatural in an eye- and ear-witness drawing +upon his own recollections. Some clear cases of this kind would be +Matt. v. 29, 30 (= Matt. xviii. 8, 9) the offending member, Matt. +v. 32 (= Matt. xix. 9) divorce, Matt. x. 38, 39 (= Matt. xvi. 24, +25) bearing the cross, loss and gain; and there are various others. + +These characteristics of the first Gospel forbid us to suppose +that it came fresh from the hands of the Apostle in the shape in +which we now have it; they also forbid us to identify it with the +work alluded to by Papias. Neither of the two first Gospels, as we +have them, complies with the conditions of Papias' description to +such an extent that we can claim Papias as a witness to them. + + * * * * * + +But now a further enquiry opens out upon us. The language of +Papias does not apply to our present Gospels; will it apply to +some earlier and more primary state of those Gospels, to documents +_incorporated in_ the works that have come down to us but not +co-extensive with them? German critics, it is well known, +distinguish between 'Matthäus'--the present Gospel that bears the +name of St. Matthew--and 'Ur-Matthäus,' or the original work of +that Apostle, 'Marcus'--our present St. Mark--and 'Ur-Marcus,' an +older and more original document, the real production of the +companion of St. Peter. Is it to these that Papias alludes? + +Here we have a much more tenable and probable hypothesis. Papias +says that Matthew composed 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia]) in +the Hebrew tongue. The meaning of the word [Greek: logia] has been +much debated. Perhaps the strictest translation of it is that +which has been given, 'oracles'--short but weighty and solemn or +sacred sayings. I should be sorry to say that the word would not +bear the sense assigned to it by Dr. Westcott, who paraphrases it +felicitously (from his point of view) by our word 'Gospel' +[Endnote 155:1]. It is, however, difficult to help feeling that +the _natural_ sense of the word has to be somewhat strained +in order to make it cover the whole of our present Gospel, and to +bring under it the record of facts to as great an extent as +discourse. It seems at least the simplest and most obvious +interpretation to confine the word strictly or mainly to +discourse. 'Matthew composed the discourses (those brief yet +authoritative discourses) in Hebrew.' + +At this point we are met by a further coincidence. The common +matter in the first three Gospels is divided into a triple +synopsis and a double synopsis--the first of course running +through all three Gospels, the second found only in St. Matthew +and St. Luke. But this double synopsis is nearly, though not +quite, confined to discourse; where it contains narration proper, +as in the account of John the Baptist and the Centurion of +Capernaum, discourse is largely mingled with it. But, if the +matter common to Matthew and Luke consists of discourse, may it +not be these very [Greek: logia] that Papias speaks of? Is it not +possible that the two Evangelists had access to the original work +of St. Matthew and incorporated its material into their own +Gospels in different ways? It would thus be easy to understand how +the name that belonged to a special and important part of the +first Gospel gradually came to be extended over the whole. Bulk +would not unnaturally be a great consideration with the early +Christians. The larger work would quickly displace the smaller; it +would contain all that the smaller contained with additions no +less valuable, and would therefore be eagerly sought by the +converts, whose object would be rather fulness of information than +the best historical attestation. The original work would be simply +lost, absorbed, in the larger works that grew out of it. + +This is the kind of presumption that we have for identifying the +Logia of Papias with the second ground document of the first +Gospel--the document, that is, which forms the basis of the double +synopsis between the first Gospel and the third. As a hypothesis +the identification of these two documents seems to clear up +several points. It gives a 'local habitation and a name' to a +document, the separate and independent existence of which there is +strong reason to suspect, and it explains how the name of St. +Matthew came to be placed at the head of the Gospel without +involving too great a breach in the continuity of the tradition. +It should be remembered that Papias is not giving his own +statement but that of the Presbyter John, which dates back to a +time contemporary with the composition of the Gospel. On the other +hand, by the time of Irenaeus, whose early life ran parallel with +the closing years of Papias, the title was undoubtedly given to +the Gospel in its present form. It is therefore as difficult to +think that the Gospel had no connection with the Apostle whose +name it bears, as it is impossible to regard it as entirely his +work. The Logia hypothesis seems to suggest precisely such an +intermediate relation as will satisfy both sides of the problem. + +There are, however, still difficulties in the way. When we attempt +to reconstruct the 'collection of discourses' the task is very far +from being an easy one. We do indeed find certain groups of +discourse in the first Gospel--such as the Sermon on the Mount ch. +v-vii, the commission of the Apostles ch. x, a series of parables +ch. xiii, of instructions in ch. xviii, invectives against the +Pharisees in ch. xxvi, and long eschatological discourses in ch. +xxiv and xxv, which seem at once to give a handle to the theory +that the Evangelist has incorporated a work consisting specially +of discourses into the main body of the Synoptic narrative. But +the appearance of roundness and completeness which these +discourses present is deceptive. If we are to suppose that the +form in which the discourses appear in St. Matthew at all nearly +represents their original structure, then how is it that the same +discourses are found in the third Gospel in such a state of +dispersion? How is it, for instance, that the parallel passages to +the Sermon on the Mount are found in St. Luke scattered over +chapters vi, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, with almost every possible +inversion and variety of order? Again, if the Matthaean sections +represent a substantive work, how are we to account for the +strange intrusion of the triple synopsis into the double? What are +we to say to the elaborately broken structure of ch. x? On the +other hand, if we are to take the Lucan form as nearer to the +original, that original must have been a singular agglomeration of +fragments which it is difficult to piece together. It is easy to +state a theory that shall look plausible so long as it is confined +to general terms, but when it comes to be worked out in detail it +will seem to be more and more difficult and involved at every +step. The Logia hypothesis in fact carries us at once into the +very nodus of Synoptic criticism, and, in the present state of the +question, must be regarded as still some way from being +established. + +The problem in regard to St. Mark and the triple synopsis is +considerably simpler. Here the difficulty arises from the +necessity of assuming a distinction between our present second +Gospel and the original document on which that Gospel is based. I +have already touched upon this point. The synoptical analysis +seems to conduct us to a ground document greatly resembling our +present St. Mark, which cannot however be quite identical with it, +as the Canonical Gospel is found to contain secondary features. +But apart from the fact that these secondary features are so +comparatively few that it is difficult to realise the existence of +a work in which they, and they only, should be absent, there is +this further obstacle to the identification even of the ground +document with the Mark of Papias, that even in that original shape +the Gospel still presented the normal type of the Synoptic order, +though 'order' is precisely the characteristic that Papias says +was, in this Gospel, wanting. + +Everywhere we meet with difficulties and complexities. The +testimony of Papias remains an enigma that can only be solved--if +ever it is solved--by close and detailed investigations. I am +bound in candour to say that, so far as I can see myself at +present, I am inclined to agree with the author of 'Supernatural +Religion' against his critics [Endnote 159:1], that the works to +which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in their +present form. + +What amount of significance this may have for the enquiry before +us is a further question. Papias is repeating what he had heard +from the Presbyter John, which would seem to take us up to the +very fountainhead of evangelical composition. But such a statement +does not preclude the possibility of subsequent changes in the +documents to which it refers. The difficulties and restrictions of +local communication must have made it hard for an individual to +trace all the phases of literary activity in a society so widely +spread as the Christian, even if it had come within the purpose of +the writer or his informant to state the whole, and not merely the +essential part, of what he knew. + + + + + +CHAPTER VI. + +THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. + + +It is unfortunate that there are not sufficient materials for +determining the date of the Clementine Homilies. Once given the +date and a conclusion of considerable certainty could be drawn +from them; but the date is uncertain, and with it the extent to +which they can be used as evidence either on one side or on the +other. + +Some time in the second century there sprang up a crop of +heretical writings in the Ebionite sect which were falsely +attributed to Clement of Rome. The two principal forms in which +these have come down to us are the so-called Homilies and +Recognitions. The Recognitions however are only extant in a Latin +translation by Rufinus, in which the quotations from the Gospels +have evidently been assimilated to the Canonical text which +Rufinus himself used. They are not, therefore, in any case +available for our purpose. Whether the Recognitions or the +Homilies came first in order of time is a question much debated +among critics, and the even way in which the best opinions seem to +be divided is a proof of the uncertainty of the data. On the one +side are ranged Credner, Ewald, Reuss, Schwegler, Schliemann, +Uhlhorn, Dorner, and Lücke, who assign the priority to the +Homilies: on the other, Hilgenfeld, Köstlin, Ritschl (doubtfully), +and Volkmar, who give the first place to the Recognitions [Endnote +162:1]. On the ground of authority perhaps the preference should +be given to the first of these, as representing more varied +parties and as carrying with them the greater weight of sound +judgment, but it is impossible to say that the evidence on either +side is decisive. + +The majority of critics assign the Clementines, in one form or the +other, to the middle of the second century. Credner, Schliemann, +Scholten, and Renan give this date to the Homilies; Volkmar and +Hilgenfeld to the Recognitions; Ritschl to both recensions alike +[Endnote 162:2]. We shall assume hypothetically that the Homilies +are rightly thus dated. I incline myself to think that this is +more probable, but, speaking objectively, the probability could +not have a higher value put upon it than, say, two in three. + +One reason for assigning the Homilies to the middle of the second +century is presented by the phenomena of the quotations from the +Gospels which correspond generally to those that are found in +writings of this date, and especially, as has been frequently +noticed, to those which we meet with in Justin. I proceed to give +a tabulated list of the quotations. In order to bring out a point +of importance I have indicated by a letter in the left margin the +presence in the Clementine quotations of some of the _peculiarities_ +of our present Gospels. When this letter is unbracketed, it denotes +that the passage is _only_ found in the Gospel so indicated; when +the letter is enclosed in brackets, it is implied that the passage +is synoptical, but that the Clementines reproduce expressions peculiar +to that particular Gospel. The direct quotations are marked by the +letter Q. Many of the references are merely allusive, and in more +it is sufficiently evident that the writer has allowed himself +considerable freedom [Endnote 163:1]. + + + _Exact._ |_Slightly variant._ | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | | | +(M.) | |8.21, Luke 4.6-8 |narrative. + | | (=Matt. 4.8-10), | + | | Q. | + | |3.55, [Greek: ho | + | | ponaeros estin | + | | ho peirazon.], | + | | Q. | + | |15.10, Matt. 5.3; | + | | Luke 6.20. | +M. |17.7, Matt. 5.8. | | +(M.) |3.51 } Matt. 5. | |repeated + |Ep. Pet. 2} 17,18. | | identically. + | |11.32, Matt. 5. |highly condensed + | | 21-48. | paraphrase, + | | | [Greek: oi + | | | en planae.] + | { Matt.5.44,| |allusive merely. + |12.32 { 45(=Luke | | + |3.19 {6.27, 28, | | + | {35). | | +M. |3.56, Matt. 5.34, | | + | 35, Q. | | +M. |3.55} Matt. 5.37. | |repeated identi- + |19.2} Q. | | cally; so + | | | Justin. +(M.) | |3.57. Matt. 5.45. | + | | Q. | + | | {|oblique and allu- + | |12.26 {| sive, repeated + | |18.2. {| in part simi- + | |11.12 {| larly; [Greek: + | | {| pherei ton + | | {| hueton]. +M. |3.55, Matt. 6,6, Q. | | +19.2, Matt.6.13 | | | + Q. | | | +(M.) |3.55, Matt. 6.32; | |combination. + | 6.8 (=Luke 12.30.)| | + | |18.16, Matt. 7.2 |oblique and allu- + | | (12). | sive. + |3.52, Matt. 7.7 | |[Greek: euris- + | (=Luke 11.9). | | kete] for + | | | [euraeskete] + | | | in both. +(L.M.) |3.56, Matt. 7.9-11 | |striking divi- + | (=Luke 11.11-13) | | sion of pecu- + | | | liarities of + | | | both Gospels. + | |12.32} Matt. 7.12 |repeated di- + | |7.4 } (=Luke | versely, + | |11.4 } 6.31. | allusive. +(M.) |18.17, Matt. 7. |(omissions), Q. | + | 13,14. | | + | |7.7. Matt. 7.13, |allusive para- + | | 14. | phrase. +(L.) |8.7, Luke 6.46. | | + |11.35, Matt. 7.15. | |Justin, in part + | | | similarly, in + | | | part diversely. +(M.) |8.4, Matt. 8.11, |(addition), Q. |Justin diversely. + | 12 (Luke 13.29). | | + |9.21, Matt. 8.9 | |allusive merely. + | (Luke 7.8). | | +(M.) |3.56, Matt. 9.13 |(addition), Q. |from LXX. + | (12.7). | | +(L.M.) | | {Matt. 10. |{ + | | { 13, 15= |{ + | | { Luke 10. |{ + | |13.30, { 5,6,10- |{mixed pecu- + | | 31. { 12 (9.5) |{ liarities, + | | { =Mark |{ oblique and + | | { 6.11. |{ allusive. +(L.M.) |17.5, Matt. 10.28 | |mixed peculia- + | (=Luke 12,4, 5), Q.| | rities; Justin + | | | diversely. + | |12.31, Matt. 10. |allusive merely. + | | 29, 30 (=Luke | + | | 12.6, 7). | + |3.17 {Matt. 11.11. | |allusive. + | {Luke 7.28. | | + |8.6, Matt. 11.25 |(addition)+. |perhaps from + | (=Luke x.21). | | Matt. 21.16. +(M.) | |17.4 } |{ + | |18.4 }Matt. 11.27 |{repeated simi- + | |18.7 } (=Luke |{ larly; cp. + | |18.13} 10.22), Q.|{ Justin, &c. + | |18.20} | +M. 3.52, Matt. | | | +(M.) |+19.2. Matt. 12. | |[Greek: allae + | 26, Q. | | pou.] +(M.L.) |+19.7, Matt. 12. | | + | 34 (=Luke 6. | | + | 45), Q. | | +M.11.33, Matt. |(addition), Q. | | + 12.42. | | | + |11.33, Matt. 12. | | + | 41 (=Luke 11. | | + | 32), Q. | | +(M.L.) |M.53, Matt. 13. | | + | 16 (=Luke 10. | | + | 24), +Q. | | +M.18.15, Matt. | | | + 13.35+. | | | +Mk. |19.20, Mark 4.34. | | +M. |19.2, Matt. 13. | | + |39, Q. | | +M.3.52, Matt. 15.| | | + 15 (om. [Greek:| | | + mou]), Q. | | | + | | {Matt. 15. |narrative. + | |11.19 {21-28 | + | | {(=Mark |[Greek: Iousta + | | {7.24-30). | Surophoini- + | | | kissa.] +(M.) |17.18, Matt. 16. | | + | 16 (par.) | | +M. | |Ep. Clem. 2, |allusive merely. + | | Matt. 16.19. | +M. |Ep. Clem. 6, Matt. | |ditto. + | 16.19. | | +(M.) |3.53, Matt. 17.5 | | + | (par.), Q. | | +M. | |12.29, Matt. 18. |addition [Greek: + | | 7, Q. | ta agatha + | | | elthein.] +M. |17.7, Matt. 18.10 | | + | (v.l.) | | +(L.) 3.71, Luke | | | + 10.7. (order) | | | + (=Matt.10.10). | | | +L. |+19.2, Luke 10.18. | | +L. | |9.22, Luke 10.20. |allusive merely. +L. | |17.5, Luke 18.6- | + | | 8, Q. (?) | + | |19.2, [Greek: mae |Cp. Eph. 4.27. + | | dote prophasin | + | | to ponaero], Q. | + | |3.53, Prophet like|Cp. Acts 3.22. + | | Moses, Q. | +(M.) |3.54, Matt. 19.8, | |sense more diver- + | 4 (=Mark 10.5, | | gent than + | 6), Q. | | words. + | | {Matt. 19. |} + | |17.4 { 16,17. |} + | |18.1 {Mark 10. |}repeated simi- + | |18.3 { 17,18. |} larly; cp. + | |18.17 {Luke 18. |} Justin. + | | 3.57 { 18,19. |} +L. | |3.63, Luke 19. |not quotation. + | | 5.9. | +M.8.4, Matt. 22. | | | + 14, Q. | | | +(M.) | |8.22, Matt. 22.9. |allusive merely. + | | 11. | + | | 3.50 {Matt. 22. |} + | | 2.51 {29 (=Mark |}repeated simi- + | |18.20 {12.24), Q. |} larly. + | | 3.50, [Greek: | + | | dia ti ou | + | | eulogon ton | + | | graphon;] | +(Mk.) 3.55, Mark | | | + 12.27 (par.), | | | +Mk. 3.57, Mark | | | + 12.29 [Greek: | | | + haemon], Q. | | | + | |17.7, Mark 12.30 |allusive. + | | (=Matt. 22.37). | + {|3.18, Matt. 23.2, | | +M. {| 3, Q. | | + {| |3.18, Matt. 23.13 |repeated simi- + {| | (=Luke 11.52). | larly. + | |18.15. | +(M.) |11.29, Matt. 23. | | + | 25, 26, Q. | | +(Mk.) {|3.15, Mark 13.2 | | + {|(par.), Q. | | + {| |3.15, Matt. 24.3 | + {| | (par.), Q. | +L. {| |Luke 19.43, Q. | + | |16.21, [Greek: | + | | esontai pseud- | + | | apostoloi]. | +(M.) |3.60 (3.64), Matt. | |part repeated + | 24.45-51 (= | | larly. + | Luke 12.42-46). | | +(M.) 3.65, Matt. | | | + 25.21 (= Luke | | | + 19.17). | | | +(M. L.) | |3.61, Matt. 25.26,|? mixed peculi- + | | 26,27 (=Luke 19.| arities. + | | 22,23). | + | | 2.51}[Greek: | + | | 3.50} ginesthe | + | |18.20} trapezitai | + | | } dokimoi.] | +M. | |19.2. Matt. 25. |[Greek: allae + | | 41, Q. | pou.] Justin + | | | +L. |11.20, Luke 23.34 | | + | (v.l.), Q. | | + | |17.7, Matt. 28.19.|allusive. + +By far the greater part of the quotations in the Clementine +Homilies are taken from the discourses, but some few have +reference to the narrative. There can hardly be said to be any +material difference from our Gospels, though several apocryphal +sayings and some apocryphal details are added. Thus the Clementine +writer calls John a 'Hemerobaptist,' i.e. member of a sect which +practised daily baptism [Endnote 167:1]. He talks about a rumour +which became current in the reign of Tiberius about the 'vernal +equinox,' that at the same season a king should arise in Judaea +who should work miracles, making the blind to see, the lame to +walk, healing every disease, including leprosy, and raising the +dead; in the incident of the Canaanite woman (whom, with Mark, he +calls a Syrophoenician) he adds her name, 'Justa,' and that of her +daughter 'Bernice;' he also limits the ministry of our Lord to one +year [Endnote 168:1]. Otherwise, with the exception of the sayings +marked as without parallel, all of the Clementine quotations have +a more or less close resemblance to our Gospels. + +We are struck at once by the small amount of exact coincidence, +which is considerably less than that which is found in the +quotations from the Old Testament. The proportion seems lower than +it is, because many of the passages that have been entered in the +above list do not profess to be quotations. Another phenomenon +equally remarkable is the extent to which the writer of the +Homilies has reproduced the peculiarities of particular extant +Gospels. So far front being it a colourless text, as it is in some +few places which present a parallel to our Synoptic Gospels, the +Clementine version both frequently includes passages that are +found only in some one of the canonical Gospels, and also, we may +say usually, repeats the characteristic phrases by which one +Gospel is distinguished from another. Thus we find that as many as +eighteen passages reappear in the Homilies that are found only in +St. Matthew; one of the extremely few that are found only in St. +Mark; and six of those that are peculiar to St. Luke. Taking the +first Gospel, we find that the Clementine Homilies contain (in an +allusive form) the promises to the pure in heart; as a quotation, +with close resemblance, the peculiar precepts in regard to oaths; +the special admonition to moderation of language which, as we have +seen, seems proved to be Matthaean by the clause [Greek: to gar +perisson touton k.t.l.]; with close resemblance, again, the +directions for secret prayer; identically, the somewhat remarkable +phrase, [Greek: deute pros me pantes hoi kopiontes]; all but +identically another phrase, also noteworthy, [Greek: pasa phuteia +haen ouk ephuteusen ho pataer [mou] ho ouranios ekrizothaesetai]; +with a resemblance that is closer in the text of B ([Greek: en to +ourano] for [Greek: en ouranois]), the saying respecting the +angels who behold the face of the Father; identically again, the +text [Greek: polloi klaetoi, oligoi de eklektoi]: in the shape of +an allusion only, the wedding garment; with near agreement, 'the +Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.' All these are passages +found only in the first Gospel, and in regard to which there is +just so much presumption that they had no large circulation among +non-extant Gospels, as they did not find their way into the two +other Gospels that have come down to us. + +There is, however, a passage that I have not mentioned here which +contains (if the canonical reading is correct) a strong indication +of the use of our actual St. Matthew. The whole history of this +passage is highly curious. In the chapter which contains so many +parables the Evangelist adds, by way of comment, that this form of +address was adopted in order 'that it might be fulfilled which was +spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I +will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation +of the world.' This is according to the received text, which +attributes the quotation to 'the prophet' ([Greek: dia tou +prophaetou]). It is really taken from Ps. lxxvii. 2, which is +ascribed in the heading to Asaph, who, according to the usage of +writers at this date, might be called a prophet, as he is in the +Septuagint version of 2 Chron. xxix. 30. The phrase [Greek: ho +prophaetaes legei] in quotations from the Psalms is not uncommon. +The received reading is that of by far the majority of the MSS. +and versions: the first hand of the Sinaitic, however, and the +valuable cursives 1 and 33 with the Aethiopic (a version on which +not much reliance can be placed) and m. of the Old Latin (Mai's +'Speculum,' presenting a mixed African text) [Endnote 170:1], +insert [Greek: Haesaiou] before [Greek: tou prophaetou]. It also +appears that Porphyry alleged this as an instance of false +ascription. Eusebius admits that it was found in some, though not +in the most accurate MSS., and Jerome says that in his day it was +still the reading of 'many.' + +All this is very fully and fairly stated in 'Supernatural +Religion' [Endnote 170:2], where it is maintained that [Greek: +Haesaiou] is the original reading. The critical question is one of +great difficulty; because, though the evidence of the Fathers is +naturally suspected on account of their desire to explain away the +mistake, and though we can easily imagine that the correction +would be made very early and would rapidly gain ground, still the +very great preponderance of critical authority is hard to get +over, and as a rule Eusebius seems to be trustworthy in his +estimate of MSS. Tischendorf (in his texts of 1864 and 1869) is, I +believe, the only critic of late who has admitted [Greek: +Haesaiou] into the text. + +The false ascription may be easily paralleled; as in Mark i. 2, +Matt. xxvii. 9, Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 28 (where a passage of +Jeremiah is quoted as Isaiah), &c. + +The relation of the Clementine and of the canonical quotations to +each other and to the Septuagint will be represented thus:- + +_Clem. Hom._ xviii. 15. + +[Greek: Kai ton Haesaian eipein; Anoixo to stoma mou en parabolais +kai exereuxomai kekrummena apo katabolaes kosmou.] + +_Matt._ xiii. 35. + +[Greek: Hopos plaerothe to rhaethen dia [Haesaiou?] tou prophaetou +legontos; Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, ereuxomai kekrummena +apo katabolaes kosmou] [om. [Greek: kosmou] a few of the best +MSS.] + +LXX. _Ps._ lxxvii. 2. + +[Greek: Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, phthegxomai problaemata +ap' archaes.] + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' contends for the reading +[Greek: Haesaiou], and yet does not see in the Clementine passage +a quotation from St. Matthew. He argues, with a strange domination +by modern ideas, that the quotation cannot be from St. Matthew +because of the difference of context, and declares it to be 'very +probable that the passage with its erroneous reference was derived +by both from another and common source.' Surely it is not +necessary to go back to the second century to find parallels for +the use of 'proof texts' without reference to the context; but, as +we have seen, context counts for little or nothing in these early +quotations,--verbal resemblance is much more important. The +supposition of a common earlier source for both the Canonical and +the Clementine text seems to me quite out of the question. There +can be little doubt that the reference to the Psalm is due to the +first Evangelist himself. Precisely up to this point he goes hand +in hand with St. Mark, and the quotation is introduced in his own +peculiar style and with his own peculiar formula, [Greek: hopos +plaerothae to rhaethen]. + +I must, however, again repeat that the surest criterion of the use +of a Gospel is to be sought in the presence of phrases or turns of +expression which are shown to be characteristic and distinctive of +that Gospel by a comparison with the synopsis of the other +Gospels. This criterion can be abundantly applied in the case of +the Clementine Homilies and St. Matthew. I will notice a little +more at length some of the instances that have been marked in the +above table. Let us first take the passage which has a parallel in +Matt. v. 18 and in Luke xvi. 17. The three versions will stand +thus:-- + +_Matt._ v. 18. + +[Greek: Amaen gar lego humin; heos an parelthae ho ouranos kai hae +gae iota en ae mia keraia ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou, heos an +panta genaetai.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 51. +_Ep. Pet._ c. 2. + +[Greek: Ho ouranos kai hae gae pareleusontai, iota en ae mia keraia +ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou] [Ep. Pet. adds [Greek: touto de +eiraeken, hina ta panta genaetai]]. + +_Luke_ xvi. 17. + +[Greek: Eukopoteron de esti, ton ouranon kai taen gaen parelthein, +ae tou nomou mian keraian pesein.] + +It will be seen that in the Clementines the passage is quoted +twice over, and each time with the variation [Greek pareleusontai] +for [Greek: heos an parelthae]. The author of 'Supernatural +Religion' argues from this that he is quoting from another Gospel +[Endnote 172:1]. No doubt the fact does tell, so far as it goes, +in that direction, but it is easy to attach too much weight to it. +The phenomenon of repeated variation may be even said to be a +common one in some writers. Dr. Westcott [Endnote 172:2] has +adduced examples from Chrysostom, and they would be as easy to +find in Epiphanius or Clement of Alexandria, where we can have no +doubt that the canonical Gospels are being quoted. A slight and +natural turn of expression such as this easily fixes itself in the +memory. The author also insists that the passage in the Gospel +quoted in the Clementines ended with the word [Green: nomou]; but +I think it may be left to any impartial person to say whether the +addition in the Epistle of Peter does not naturally point to a +termination such as is found in the first canonical Gospel. Our +critic seems unable to free himself from the standpoint (which he +represents ably enough) of the modern Englishman, or else is +little familiar with the fantastic trains and connections of +reasoning which are characteristic of the Clementines. + +Turning from these objections and comparing the Clementine +quotation first with the text of St. Matthew and then with that of +St. Luke, we cannot but be struck with its very close resemblance +to the former and with the wide divergence of the latter. The +passage is one where almost every word and syllable might easily +and naturally be altered--as the third Gospel shows that they have +been altered--and yet in the Clementines almost every peculiarity +of the Matthaean version has been retained. + +Another quotation which shows the delicacy of these verbal +relations is that which corresponds to Matt. vi. 32 (= Luke xii. +30):-- + +_Matt._ vi. 32. + +[Greek: Oide gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios, hoti chraezete +touton hapanton.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 55. + +[Greek: [ephae] Oiden gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios hoti +chraezete touton hapanton, prin auton axiosaete] (cp. Matt. vi. +8). + +_Luke_ xii. 30. + +[Greek: Humon de ho pataer oiden hoti chraezete touton.] + +The natural inference from the exactness of this coincidence with +the language of Matthew as compared with Luke, is not neutralised +by the paraphrastic addition from Matt. vi. 8, because such +additions and combinations, as will have been seen from our table +of quotations from the Old Testament, are of frequent occurrence. + +The quotation of Matt. v. 45 (= Luke vi. 35) is a good example of +the way in which the pseudo-Clement deals with quotations. The +passage is quoted as often as four times, with wide difference and +indeed complete confusion of text. It is impossible to determine +what text he really had before him; but through all this confusion +there is traceable a leaning to the Matthaean type rather than the +Lucan, ([Greek: [ho] pat[aer ho] en [tois] ouranois ... ton aelion +autou anatellei epi agathous kai ponaerous]). It does, however, +appear that he had some such phrase as [Greek: hueton pherei] or +[Greek: parechei] for [Greek: brechei], and in one of his quotations +he has the [Greek: ginesthe agathoi] (for [Greek: chraestoi]) +[Greek: kai oiktirmones] of Justin. Justin, on the other hand, +certainly had [Greek: brechei]. + +The, in any case, paraphrastic quotation or quotations which find +a parallel in Matt. vii. 13, 14 and Luke xiii. 24 are important as +seeming to indicate that, if not taken from our Gospel, they are +taken from another in a later stage of formation. The characteristic +Matthaean expressions [Greek: stenae] and [Greek: tethlimmenae] are +retained, but the distinction between [Greek: pulae] and [Greek: hodos] +has been lost, and both the epithets are applied indiscriminately to +[Greek: hodos]. + +In the narrative of the confession of Peter, which belongs to the +triple synopsis, and is assigned by Ewald to the 'Collection of +Discourses,' [Endnote 174:1] by Weiss [Endnote 174:2] and +Holtzmann [Endnote 175:1] to the original Gospel of St. Mark, the +Clementine writer follows Matthew alone in the phrase [Greek: Su +ei ho huios tou zontos Theou]. The synoptic parallels are-- + +_Matt._ xvi. 16. + +[Greek: Su ei ho Christos, ho huios tou Theou tou zontos.] + +_Mark_ viii. 29. + +[Greek: Su ei ho Christos.] + +_Luke_ ix. 20. + +[Greek: ton Christon tou Theou.] + +Holtzmann and Weiss seem to agree (the one explicitly, the other +implicitly) in taking the words [Greek: ho huios tou Theou tou +zontos] as an addition by the first Evangelist and as not a part +of the text of the original document. In that case there would be +the strongest reason to think that the pseudo-Clement had made use +of the canonical Gospel. Ewald, however, we may infer, from his +assigning the passage to the 'Collection of Discourses,' regards +it as presented by St. Matthew most nearly in its original form, +of which the other two synoptic versions would be abbreviations. +If this were so, it would then be _possible_ that the Clementine +quotation was made directly from the original document or from a +secondary document parallel to our first Gospel. The question that +is opened out as to the composition of the Synoptics is one of great +difficulty and complexity. In any case there is a balance of probability, +more or less decided, in favour of the reference to our present Gospel. + +Another very similar instance occurs in the next section of the +synoptic narrative, the Transfiguration. Here again the Clementine +Homilies insert a phrase which is only found in St. Matthew, +[Greek: [Houtos estin mou ho huios ho agapaetos], eis hon] +([Greek: en ho] Matt.) [Greek: aeudokaesa]. Ewald and Holtzmann +say nothing about the origin of this phrase; Weiss [Endnote 176:1] +thinks it is probably due to the first Evangelist. In that case +there would be an all but conclusive proof--in any case there will +be a presumption--that our first Gospel has been followed. + +But one of the most interesting, as well as the clearest, +indications of the use of the first Synoptic is derived from the +discourse directed against the Pharisees. It will be well to give +the parallel passages in full:-- + +_Matt._ xxiii. 25, 26. + +[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti +katharizete to exothen tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, esothen +de gemousin ex harpagaes kai adikias. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison +proton to entos tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, hina genaetai +kai to ektos auton katharon.] + +_Clem. Hom._ xi. 29. + +[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti +katharizete tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to exothen, esothen +de gemei rhupous. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison proton tou +potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to esothen, hina genaetai kai ta exo +auton kathara.] + +_Luke_ xi. 39. + +[Greek: Nun humeis hoi Pharisaioi to exothen tou potaerion kai tou +pinakos katharizete, to de esothen humon gemei harpagaes kai +ponaerias. Aphrones ouch ho poiaesas to exothen kai to esothen +epoiaese?] + +Here there is a very remarkable transition in the first Gospel +from the plural to the singular in the sudden turn of the address, +[Greek: Pharisaie tuphle]. This derives no countenance from the +third Gospel, but is exactly reproduced in the Clementine +Homilies, which follow closely the Matthaean version throughout. + +We may defer for the present the notice of a few passages which +with a more or less close resemblance to St. Matthew also contain +some of the peculiarities of St. Luke. + +Taking into account the whole extent to which the special +peculiarities of the first Gospel reappear in the Clementines, I +think we shall be left in little doubt that that Gospel has been +actually used by the writer. + +The peculiar features of our present St. Mark are known to be +extremely few, yet several of these are also found in the +Clementine Homilies. In the quotation Mark x. 5, 6 (= Matt. xix. +8, 4) the order of Mark is followed, though the words are more +nearly those of Matthew. In the divergent quotation Mark xii. 24 +(= Matt. xxii. 29) the Clementines, with Mark, introduce [Greek: +dia touto]. The concluding clause of the discussion about the +Levirate marriage stands (according to the best readings) thus:-- + +_Matt._ xxii. 32. + +[Greek: Ouk estin ho Theos nekron, alla zonton.] + +_Mark_ xii. 27. + +[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton.] + +_Luke_ xx. 38. + +[Greek: Theos de ouk estin nekron, alla zonton.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 55. + +[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton.] + +Here [Greek: Theos] is in Mark and the Clementines a predicate, +in Matthew the subject. In the introduction to the Eschatological +discourse the Clementines approach more nearly to St. Mark than to +any other Gospel: [Greek: Horate] ([Greek: blepeis], Mark) [Greek: +tas] ([Greek: megalas], Mark) [Greek: oikodomas tautas; amaen +humin lego] (as Matt.) [Greek: lithos epi lithon ou mae aphethae +ode, hos ou mae] (as Mark) [Greek: kathairethae] ([Greek: +kataluthae], Mark; other Gospels, future). Instead of [Greek: tas +oikodomas toutas] the other Gospels have [Greek: tauta--tauta +panta]. + +But there are two stronger cases than these. The Clementines and +Mark alone have the opening clause of the quotation from Deut. vi. +4, [Greek: Akoue, Israael, Kurios ho Theos haemon kurios eis +estin]. In the synopsis of the first Gospel this is omitted (Matt. +xxii. 37). There is a variation in the Clementine text, which for +[Greek: haemon] has, according to Dressel, [Greek: sou], and, +according to Cotelier, [Greek: humon]. Both these readings however +are represented among the authorities for the canonical text: +[Greek: sou] is found in c (Codex Colbertinus, one of the best +copies of the Old Latin), in the Memphitic and Aethiopic versions, +and in the Latin Fathers Cyprian and Hilary; [Greek: humon] +(vester) has the authority of the Viennese fragment i, another +representative of the primitive African form of the Old Latin +[Endnote 178:1]. + +The objection to the inference that the quotation is made from St. +Mark, derived from the context in which it appears in the +Clementines, is really quite nugatory. It is true that the +quotation is addressed to those 'who were beguiled to imagine many +gods,' and that 'there is no hint of the assertion of many gods in +the Gospel' [Endnote 178:2]; but just as little hint is there of +the assertion 'that God is evil' in the quotation [Greek: mae me +legete agathon] just before. There is not the slightest reason to +suppose that the Gospel from which the Clementines quote would +contain any such assertion. In this particular case the mode of +quotation cannot be said to be very unscrupulous; but even if it +were more so we need not go back to antiquity for parallels: they +are to be found in abundance in any ordinary collection of proof +texts of the Church Catechism or of the Thirty-nine Articles, or +in most works of popular controversy. I must confess to my +surprise that such an objection could be made by an experienced +critic. + +Credner [Endnote 179:1] gives the last as the one decided +approximation to our second Gospel, apparently overlooking the +minor points mentioned above; but, at the time when he wrote, the +concluding portion of the Homilies, which contains the other most +striking instance, had not yet been published. With regard to this +second instance, I must express my agreement with Canon Westcott +[Endnote 179:2] against the author of 'Supernatural Religion.' The +passage stands thus in the Clementines and the Gospel:-- + +_Clem. Hom._ xix. 20. + +[Greek: Dio kai tois autou mathaetais kat' idian epelue taes ton +ouranon basileias ta mustaeria.] + +_Mark_ iv. 34. + +... [Greek: kat' idian de tois mathaetais autou epeluen panta] +(compare iv. 11, [Greek: humin to mustaerion dedotai taes +basileias tou Theou]). + + The canonical reading, [Greek: tois mathaetais autou], rests +chiefly upon Western authority (D, b, c, e, f, Vulg.) with A, 1, +33, &c. and is adopted by Tregelles--it should be noted before the +discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus. The true reading is probably +that which appears in this MS. along with B, C, L, [Greek: Delta +symbol], [Greek: tois idiois mathaetais]. We have however already +seen the leaning of the Clementines for Western readings. + +When we compare the synopsis of St. Mark and St. Matthew together +we should be inclined to set this down as a very decided instance +of quotation from the former. The only circumstance that detracts +from the certainty of this conclusion is that a quotation had been +made just before which is certainly not from our canonical +Gospels, [Greek: ta mustaeria emoi kai tois huiois tou oikou mou +phulaxate]. This is rightly noted in 'Supernatural Religion.' All +that we can say is that it is a drawback--it is just a makeweight +in the opposite scale, as suggesting that the second quotation may +be also from an apocryphal Gospel; but it does not by any means +serve to counterbalance the presumption that the quotation is +canonical. The coincidence of language is very marked. The +peculiar compound [Greek: epiluo] occurs only once besides +([Greek: epilusis] also once) in the whole of the New Testament, +and not at all in the Gospels. + +With the third Gospel also there are coincidences. Of the passages +peculiar to this Gospel the Clementine writer has the fall of +Satan ([Greek: ton ponaeron], Clem.) like lightning from heaven, +'rejoice that your names are written in the book of life' +(expanded with evident freedom), the unjust judge, Zacchaeus, the +circumvallation of Jerusalem, and the prayer, for the forgiveness +of the Jews, upon the cross. It is unlikely that these passages, +which are wanting in all our extant Gospels, should have had any +other source than our third Synoptic. The 'circumvallation' +([Greek: pericharakosousin] Clem., [Greek: peribalousin charaka] +Luke) is especially important, as it is probable, and believed by +many critics, that this particular detail was added by the +Evangelist after the event. The parable of the unjust judge, +though reproduced with something of the freedom to which we are +accustomed in patristic narrative quotations both from the Old and +New Testament, has yet remarkable similarities of style and +diction ([Greek: ho kritaes taes adikias, poiaesei taen ekdikaesin +ton boonton pros auton haemeras kai nuktos, Lego humin, poaesei... +en tachei).] + +We have to add to these another class of peculiarities which occur +in places where the synoptic parallel has been preserved. Thus in +the Sermon on the Mount we find the following:-- + +_Matt._ vii. 21. + +[Greek: Ou pas ho legon moi, Kurie, Kurie, eiseleusetai eis taen +basileian ton ouranon, all' ho poion to thelaema tou patros mou +tou en ouranois] + +_Clem. Hom._ viii. 7. + +[Greek: Ti me legeis Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poieis a lego;] + +_Luke,_ vi. 46. + +[Greek: Ti de me kaleite Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poeite a lego;] + +This is one of a class of passages which form the _cruces_ +of Synoptic criticism. It is almost equally difficult to think and +not to think that both the canonical parallels are drawn from the +same original. The great majority of German critics maintain that +they are, and most of these would seek that original in the +'Spruchsammlung' or 'Collection of Discourses' by the Apostle St. +Matthew. This is usually (though not quite unanimously) held to +have been preserved most intact in the first Gospel. But if so, +the Lucan version represents a wide deviation from the original, +and precisely in proportion to the extent of that deviation is the +probability that the Clementine quotation is based upon it. The +more the individuality of the Evangelist has entered into the form +given to the saying the stronger is the presumption that his work +lay before the writer of the Clementines. In any case the +difference between the Matthaean and Lucan versions shows what +various shapes the synoptic tradition naturally assumed, and makes +it so much the less likely that the coincidence between St. Luke +and the Clementines is merely accidental. + +Another similar case, in which the issue is presented very +clearly, is afforded by the quotation, 'The labourer is worthy of +his hire.' + +_Matt._ x. 11. + +[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes taes trophaes autou estin.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 71. + +[Greek: [lagisamenoi hoti] axios estin ho ergataes tou misthou +autou;] + +_Luke_ x. 7. + +[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes tou misthou autou esti.] + +Here, if the Clementine writer had been following the first +Gospel, he would have had [Greek: trophaes] and not [Greek: +misthou]; and the assumption that there was here a non-extant +Gospel coincident with St. Luke is entirely gratuitous and, to an +extent, improbable. + +Besides these, it will be seen, by the tables given above, that +there are as many as eight passages in which the peculiarities not +only of one but of both Gospels (the first and third) appear +simultaneously. Perhaps it may be well to give examples of these +before we make any comment upon them. We may thus take-- + +_Matt._ vii. 9-11. + +[Greek: Ae tis estin ex humon anthropos, hon ean aitaesae ho huios +autou arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; kai ean ichthun aitaesae +mae ophin epidosei auto; ei oun humeis ponaeroi ontes oidate +domata agatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer +humon ho en tois ouranois dosei agatha tois aitousin auton;] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 56. + +[Greek: Tina aitaesei huios arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; ae +kai ichthun aitaesei, mae ophin epidosei auto; ei oun humeis, +ponaeroi ontes, oidate domata agatha didonai tois teknois humon, +poso mallon ho pataer humon ho ouranios dosei agatha tois +aitoumenois auton kai tois poiousin to thelema autou;] + +_Luke_ xi. 11-13. + +[Greek: Tina de ex humon ton matera aitaesei ho huios arton, mae +lithon epidosei auto; ae kai ichthun, mae anti ichthuos ophin +epidosei auto, ae kai ean aitaeoae oon, mae epidosei auto +skorpion; ei oun humeis, ponaeroi humarchontes, oidate domata +agatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer ho ex +ouranou dosei pneuma hagion tois aitousin auton;] + +In the earlier part of this quotation the Clementine writer seems +to follow the third Gospel ([Greek: tina aitaesei, hae kai]); in +the later part the first (omission of the antithesis between the +egg and the scorpion, [Greek: ontes, dosei agatha]). The two +Gospels are combined against the Clementines in [Greek: hex humon] +and the simpler [Greek: tois aitousin auton]. The second example +shall be-- + +_Matt._ x. 28. + +[Greek: Kai mae thobeisthe hapo ton aposteinonton to soma, taen de +psuchaen mae dunamenon aposteinan thobeisthe de mallon ton +dunamaenon kai psuchaen kai soma apolesai en geennae.] + +_Clem. Hom._ xviii. 5. + +[Greek: Mae phobaethaete apo tou aposteinontos to soma tae de +psuchae mae dunamenou ti poiaesai phobaethaete tou dunamenon kai +soma kai psuchaen eis taen geennan tou puros balein. Nai, lego +humin, touton phobaethaete.] + +_Luke xii._ 4, 5. [Greek: Mae phobaethaete apo ton +aposteinonton to soma kai meta tauta mae echonton perissoteron ti +poiaesai. Hupodeixo de humin tina phobaethaete phobaethaete ton +meta to aposteinai echonta exousian embalein eis ton geennan nai, +lego humin, touton phobaethaete.] + +In common with Matthew the Clementines have [Greek: tae de +psuchae] (acc. Matt.) ... [Greek: dunamenon]([Greek: -on] Matt.), +and [Greek: dunamenon kai soma kai psuchaen] (in inverted order, +Matt.); in common with Luke [Greek: mae phobaethaete, ti poiaesai, +[em]balein eis], and the clause [Greek: nai k.t.l.] The two +Gospels agree against the Clementines in the plural [Greek: ton +aposteinonton.] + +One more longer quotation:-- + +_Matt._ xxiv. 45-51. + +[Greek: Tis ara estin ho pistos doulos kai phronimos, hon +katestaesen ho kurios autou epi taes therapeias autou tou dounai +autois taen trophaen en kairo? makarios ho doulos ekeinos hon +elthon ho kurios autou heuraesei houto poiounta ... Ean de eipae +ho kakos doulos ekeinos en tae kardia autou; chronizei mou ho +kurios, kai arxaetai tuptein tous sundoulous autou esthiae de kai +pinae meta ton methuonton, haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou en +haemera hae ou prosdoka kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kai +dichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton hupokriton +thaesei.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 60. + +[Greek: Theou gar boulae anadeiknutai makarios ho anthropos +ekeinos hon katastaesei ho kurios autou epi taes therapeias ton +sundoulon hautou, tou didonai autois tas trophas en kairo auton, +mae ennooumenon kai legonta en tae kardia autou; chronizei ho +kurios mou elthein; kai arxaetai tuptein tous sundoulous autou, +esthion kai pinon meta te pornon kai methuonton; kai haexei ho +kurios tou doulou ekeinou en hora hae ou prosdoka kai en haemera +hae ou ginoskei, kai dichotomaesei auton, kai to apistoun autou +meros meta ton hupokriton thaesei.] + +_Luke_ xii. 42-45. + +[Greek: Tis ara estin ho pistos oikonomos kai phronimos, hon +katastaesei ho kurios epi taes therapeias autou, tou didonai en +kairo to sitometrion? makarios ho doulos ekeinos, hon elthon ho +kurios autou heuraesei poiounta hautos ... Ean de eipae ho doulos +ekeinos en tae kardia autou; chronizei ho kurios mou erchesthai; +kai arxaetai tuptein tous paidas kai tas paidiskas, esthiein te +kai pinein kai methuskesthai; haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou +en haemera hae ou prosdoka, kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kai +dichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton apiston thaesei.] + +I have given this passage in full, in spite of its length, +because it is interesting and characteristic; it might indeed +almost be said to be typical of the passages, not only in the +Clementine Homilies, but also in other writers like Justin, which +present this relation of double similarity to two of the +Synoptics. It should be noticed that the passage in the Homilies +is not introduced strictly as a quotation but is interwoven with +the text. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that the +opening clause, [Greek: Makarios ... sundolous autou], recurs +identically about thirty lines lower down. We observe that of the +peculiarities of the first Synoptic the Clementines have [Greek: +doulos] ([Greek: oikonomos], Luke), [Greek: [ho kurios] autou, +taen trophaen] ([Greek: tas trophas], Clem.; Luke, characteristically, +[Greek: to sitometrion]), the order of [Greek: en kairo, tous +sundolous autou] ([Greek: tous paidas kai tas paidiskas], Luke), +[Greek: meta ... methuonton], and [Greek: hupokriton] for +[Greek: apiston]. Of the peculiarities of the third Synoptic +the Clementines reproduce the future [Greek: katastaesei], the +present [Greek: didonai], the insertion of [Greek: elthein] +([Greek: erchesthai], Luke) after [Greek: chronizei], the order +of the words in this clause, and a trace of the word [Greek: apiston] +in [Greek: to apistoun autou meros]. The two Gospels support each +other in most of the places where the Clementines depart from them, +and especially in the two verses, one of which is paraphrased and +the other omitted. + +Now the question arises, What is the origin of this phenomenon of +double resemblance? It may be caused in three ways: either it may +proceed from alternate quoting of our two present Gospels; or it +may proceed from the quoting of a later harmony of those Gospels; +or, lastly, it may proceed from the quotation of a document +earlier than our two Synoptics, and containing both classes of +peculiarities, those which have been dropped in the first Gospel +as well as those which have been dropped in the third, as we find +to be frequently the case with St. Mark. + +Either of the first two of these hypotheses will clearly suit the +phenomena; but they will hardly admit of the third. It does indeed +derive a very slight countenance from the repetition of the +language of the last quotation: this repetition, however, occurs +at too short an interval to be of importance. But the theory that +the Clementine writer is quoting from a document older than the +two Synoptics, and indeed their common original, is excluded by +the amount of matter that is common to the two Synoptics and +either not found at all or found variantly in the Clementines. The +coincidence between the Synoptics, we may assume, is derived from +the fact that they both drew from a common original. The +phraseology in which they agree is in all probability that of the +original document itself. If therefore this phraseology is wanting +in the Clementine quotations they are not likely to have been +drawn directly from the document which underlies the Synoptics. +This conclusion too is confirmed by particulars. In the first +quotation we cannot set down quite positively the Clementine +expansion of [Greek: tois aitousin auton] as a later form, though +it most probably is so. But the strange and fantastic phrase in +the last quotation, [Greek: to apistoun auton meros meta ton +hupokriton thaesei], is almost certainly a combination of the +[Greek: hupokriton] of Matthew with a distorted reminiscence of the +[Greek: apiston] of Luke. + +We have then the same kind of choice set before us as in the case +of Justin. Either the Clementine writer quotes our present +Gospels, or else he quotes some other composition later than them, +and which implies them. In other words, if he does not bear +witness to our Gospels at first hand, he does so at second hand, +and by the interposition of a further intermediate stage. It is +quite possible that he may have had access to such a tertiary +document, and that it may be the same which is the source of his +apocryphal quotations: that he did draw from apocryphal sources, +partly perhaps oral, but probably in the main written, there can, +I think, be little doubt. Neither is it easy to draw the line and +say exactly what quotations shall be referred to such sources and +what shall not. The facts do not permit us to claim the exclusive +use of the canonical Gospels. But that they were used, mediately +or immediately and to a greater or less degree, is, I believe, +beyond question. + + + + + +CHAPTER VII + +BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS. + + +Still following the order of 'Supernatural Religion,' we pass +with the critic to another group of heretical writers in the +earlier part of the second century. In Basilides the Gnostic we +have the first of a chain of writers who, though not holding the +orthodox tradition of doctrine, yet called themselves Christians +(except under the stress of persecution) and used the Christian +books--whether or to what extent the extant documents of +Christianity we must now endeavour to determine. + +Basilides carries us back to an early date in point of time. He +taught at Alexandria in the reign of Hadrian (117-137 A.D.). +Hippolytus expounds at some length, and very much in their own +words, the doctrines of Basilides and his school. There is a +somewhat similar account by Epiphanius, and more incidental +allusions in Clement of Alexandria and Origen. + +The notices that have come down to us of the writings of Basilides +are confusing. Origen says that 'he had the effrontery to compose +a Gospel and call it by his own name' [Endnote 188:1]. Eusebius +quotes from Agrippa Castor, a contemporary and opponent from the +orthodox side, a statement that 'he wrote four and twenty books +(presumably of commentary) upon the Gospel' [Endnote 189:1]. +Clement of Alexandria gives rather copious extracts from the +twenty-third of these books, to which he gave the name of +'Exegetics' [Endnote 189:2]. + +Tischendorf assumes, in a manner that is not quite so 'arbitrary +and erroneous' [Endnote 189:3] as his critic seems to suppose, that +this Commentary was upon our four Gospels. It is not altogether clear +how far Eusebius is using the words of Agrippa Castor and how far +his own. If the latter, there can be no doubt that he understood +the statement of Agrippa Castor as Tischendorf understands his, +i.e. as referring to our present Gospels; but supposing his words +to be those of the earlier writer, it is possible that, coming +from the orthodox side, they may have been used in the sense which +Tischendorf attributes to them. There can be no question that +Irenaeus used [Greek: to euangelion] for the canonical Gospels +collectively, and Justin Martyr may _perhaps_ have done so. +Tischendorf himself does not maintain that it refers to our Gospels +_exclusively_. Practically the statements in regard to the +Commentary of Basilides lead to nothing. + +Neither does it appear any more clearly what was the nature of the +Gospel that Basilides wrote. The term [Greek: euangelion] had a +technical metaphysical sense in the Basilidian sect and was used +to designate a part of the transcendental Gnostic revelations. The +Gospel of Basilides may therefore, as Dr. Westcott suggests, +reasonably enough, have had a philosophical rather than a historical +character. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' censures Dr. Westcott +for this suggestion [Endnote 189:4], but a few pages further on +he seems to adopt it himself, though he applies it strangely to +the language of Eusebius or Agrippa Castor and not to Basilides' +own work. + +In any case Hippolytus expressly says that, after the generation +of Jesus, the Basilidians held 'the other events in the life of +the Saviour followed as they are written in the Gospels' [Endnote +190:1]. There is no reason at all to suppose that there was a +breach of continuity in this respect between Basilides and his +school. And if his Gospel really contained substantially the same +events as ours, it is a question of comparatively secondary +importance whether he actually made use of those Gospels or no. + +It is rather remarkable that Hippolytus and Epiphanius, who +furnish the fullest accounts of the tenets of Basilides (and his +followers), say nothing about his Gospel: neither does Irenaeus or +Clement of Alexandria; the first mention of it is in Origen's +Homily on St. Luke. This shows how unwarranted is the assumption +made in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 190:2] that because +Hippolytus says that Basilides appealed to a secret tradition he +professed to have received from Matthias, and Eusebius that he set +up certain imaginary prophets, 'Barcabbas and Barcoph,' he +therefore had no other authorities. The statement that he +'absolutely ignores the canonical Gospels altogether' and does not +'recognise any such works as of authority,' is much in excess of +the evidence. All that this really amounts to is that neither +Hippolytus nor Eusebius say in so many words that Basilides did +use our Gospels. It would be a fairer inference to argue from +their silence, and still more from that of the 'malleus +haereticorum' Epiphanius, that he did not in this depart from the +orthodox custom; otherwise the Fathers would have been sure to +charge him with it, as they did Marcion. It is really I believe a +not very unsafe conclusion, for heretical as well as orthodox +writers, that where the Fathers do not say to the contrary, they +accepted the same documents as themselves. + +The main questions that arise in regard to Basilides are two: +(1) Are the quotations supposed to be made by him really his? +(2) Are they quotations from our Gospels? + +The doubt as to the authorship of the quotations applies chiefly +to those which occur in the 'Refutation of the Heresies' by +Hippolytus. This writer begins his account of the Basilidian +tenets by saying, 'Let us see here how Basilides along with +Isidore and his crew belie Matthias,' [Endnote 191:1] &c. He goes +on using for the most part the singular [Greek: phaesin], but +sometimes inserting the plural [Greek: kat' autous]. Accordingly, +it has been urged that quotations which are referred to the head +of the school really belong to his later followers, and the +attempt has further been made to prove that the doctrines +described in this section of the work of Hippolytus are later in +their general character than those attributed to Basilides +himself. This latter argument is very fine drawn, and will not +bear any substantial weight. It is, however, probably true that a +confusion is sometimes found between the 'eponymus,' as it were, +of a school and his followers. Whether that has been the case here +is a question that we have not sufficient data for deciding +positively. The presumption is against it, but it must be admitted +to be possible. It seems a forced and unnatural position to +suppose that the disciples would go to one set of authorities and +the master to another, and equally unnatural to think that a later +critic, like Hippolytus, would confine himself to the works of +these disciples and that in none of the passages in which +quotations are introduced he has gone to the fountain head. We may +decline to dogmatise; but probability is in favour of the +supposition that some at least of the quotations given by +Hippolytus come directly from Basilides. + +Some of the quotations discussed in 'Supernatural Religion' are +expressly assigned to the school of Basilides. Thus Clement of +Alexandria, in stating the opinion which this school held on the +subject of marriage, says that they referred to our Lord's saying, +'All men cannot receive this,' &c. + +_Strom._ iii. I. 1. + +[Greek: Ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton, eisi gar eunouchoi oi +men ek genetaes oi de ex anankaes.] + +_Matt._ xix. 11, 12. + +[Greek: Ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton, all' ois dedotai, +eisin gar eunouchoi oitines ek kiolias maetros egennaethaesan +outos, kai eisin eunouchoi oitines eunouchisthaesan hupo ton +anthropon, k.t.l.] + +The reference of this to St. Matthew is far from being so +'preposterous' [Endnote 192:1] as the critic imagines. The use of +the word [Greek: chorein] in this sense is striking and peculiar: +it has no parallel in the New Testament, and but slight and few +parallels, as it appears from the lexicons and commentators, in +previous literature. The whole phrase is a remarkable one and the +verbal coincidence exact, the words that follow are an easy and +natural abridgment. On the same principles on which it is denied +that this is a quotation from St. Matthew it would be easy to +prove _a priori_ that many of the quotations in Clement of +Alexandria could not be taken from the canonical Gospels which, we +know, _are_ so taken. + +The fact that this passage is found among the Synoptics only in +St. Matthew must not count for nothing. The very small number of +additional facts and sayings that we are able to glean from the +writers who, according to 'Supernatural Religion,' have used +apocryphal Gospels so freely, seems to be proof that our present +Gospels were (as we should expect) the fullest and most +comprehensive of their kind. If, then, a passage is found only in +one of them, it is fair to conclude, not positively, but probably, +that it is drawn from some special source of information that was +not widely diffused. + +The same remarks hold good respecting another quotation found in +Epiphanius, which also comes under the general head of [Greek: +Basileidianoi], though it is introduced not only by the singular +[Greek: phaesin] but by the definite [Greek: phaesin ho agurtaes]. +Here the Basilidian quotation has a parallel also peculiar to St. +Matthew, from the Sermon on the Mount. + +_Epiph. Haer_. 72 A. + +[Greek: Mae bagaete tous margaritas emprosthen ton choiron, maede +dote to hagion tois kusi.] + +_Matt_ vii. 6. + +[Greek: Mae dote to hagion tois kusin, maede bagaete tous +margaritas humon emprosthen ton choiron.] The excellent +Alexandrine cursive I, with some others, has [Greek: dóte] for +[Greek: dôte] + +The transposition of clauses, such as we see here, is by no means +an infrequent phenomenon. There is a remarkable instance of it--to +go no further--in the text of the benedictions with which the +Sermon on the Mount begins. In respect to the order of the two +clauses, 'Blessed are they that mourn' and 'Blessed are the meek,' +there is a broad division in the MSS. and other authorities. For +the received order we find [Hebrew: aleph;], B, C, 1, the mass of +uncials and cursives, b, f, Syrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm., +Aeth.; for the reversed order, 'Blessed are the meek' and 'Blessed +are they that mourn,' are ranged D, 33, Vulg., a, c, f'1, g'1, h, +k, l, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus., Bas. (?), Hil. The balance is +probably on the side of the received reading, as the opposing +authorities are mostly Western, but they too make a formidable +array. The confusion in the text of St. Luke as to the early +clauses of the Lord's Prayer is well known. But if such things are +done in the green tree, if we find these variations in MSS. which +profess to be exact transcripts of the same original copy, how +much more may we expect to find them enter into mere quotations +that are often evidently made from memory, and for the sake of the +sense, not the words. In this instance however the verbal +resemblance is very close. As I have frequently said, to speak of +certainties in regard to any isolated passage that does not +present exceptional phenomena is inadmissible, but I have little +moral doubt that the quotation was really derived from St. +Matthew, and there is quite a fair probability that it was made by +Basilides himself. + +The Hippolytean quotations, the ascription of which to Basilides +or to his school we have left an open question, will assume a +considerable importance when we come to treat of the external +evidence for the fourth Gospel. Bearing upon the Synoptic Gospels, +we find an allusion to the star of the Magi and an exact verbal +quotation (introduced with [Greek: to eiraemenon]) of Luke i. 35, +[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamis hupsistou +episkiasei soi]. Both these have been already discussed with +reference to Justin. All the other Gospels in which the star of +the Magi is mentioned belong to a later stage of formation than +St. Matthew. The very parallelism between St. Matthew and St. Luke +shows that both Gospels were composed at a date when various +traditions as to the early portions of the history were current. +No doubt secondary, or rather tertiary, works, like the +Protevangelium of James, came to be composed later; but it is not +begging the question to say that if the allusion is made by +Basilides, it is not likely that at that date he should quote any +other Gospel than St. Matthew, simply because that is the earliest +form in which the story of the Magi has come down to us. + +The case is stronger in regard to the quotation from St. Luke. In +Justin's account of the Annunciation to Mary there was a +coincidence with the Protevangelium and a variation from the +canonical text in the phrase [Greek: pneuma kuriou] for [Greek: +pneuma hagion]; but in the Basilidian quotation the canonical text +is reproduced syllable for syllable and letter for letter, which, +when we consider how sensitive and delicate these verbal relations +are, must be taken as a strong proof of identity. The reader may +be reminded that the word [Greek: episkiazein], the phrase [Greek: +dunamism hupsistou], and the construction [Greek: eperchesthai +epi], are all characteristic of St. Luke: [Greek; episkiazein] +occurs once in the triple synopsis and besides only here and in +Acts v. 15: [Greek: hupsistos] occurs nine times in St. Luke's +writings and only four times besides; it is used by the Evangelist +especially in phrases like [Greek: uios, dunamis, prophaetaes, +doulos hupsistou], to which the only parallel is [Greek: hiereus +tou Theou tou hupsistou] in Heb. vii. 1. The construction of +[Greek: eperchesthai] with [Greek: epi] and the accusative is +found five times in the third Gospel and the Acts and not at all +besides in the New Testament; indeed the participial form, [Greek: +eperchomenos] (in the sense of 'future'), is the only shape in +which the word appears (twice) outside the eight times that it +occurs in St. Luke's writings. This is a body of evidence that +makes it extremely difficult to deny that the Basilidian quotation +has its original in the third Synoptic. + + + 2. + +The case in regard to Valentinus, the next great Gnostic leader, +who came forward about the year 140 A.D., is very similar to that +of Basilides, though the balance of the argument is slightly +altered. It is, on the one hand, still clearer that the greater +part of the evangelical references usually quoted are really from +our present actual Gospels, but, on the other hand, there is a +more distinct probability that these are to be assigned rather to +the School of Valentinus than to Valentinus himself. + +The supposed allusion to St. John we shall pass over for the +present. + +There is a string of allusions in the first book of Irenaeus, +'Adv. Haereses,' to the visit of Jesus as a child to the Passover +(Luke ii. 42), the jot or tittle of Matt. v. 18, the healing of +the issue of blood, the bearing of the cross (Luke xiv. 27 par.), +the sending of a sword and not peace, 'his fan is in his hand,' +the salt and light of the world, the healing of the centurion's +servant, of Jairus' daughter, the exclamations upon the cross, the +call of the unwilling disciples, Zacchaeus, Simon, &c. We may take +it, I believe, as admitted, and it is indeed quite indisputable, +that these are references to our present Gospels; but there is the +further question whether they are to be attributed directly to +Valentinus or to his followers, and I am quite prepared to admit +that there are no sufficient grounds for direct attribution to the +founder of the system. Irenaeus begins by saying that his +authorities are certain 'commentaries of the disciples of +Valentinus' and his own intercourse with some of them [Endnote +197:1]. He proceeds to announce his intention to give a 'brief and +clear account of the opinions of those who were then teaching +their false doctrines [Greek: nun paradidaskonton], that is, of +Ptolemaeus and his followers, a branch of the school of +Valentinus.' It is fair to infer that the description of the +Valentinian system which follows is drawn chiefly from these +sources. This need not, however, quite necessarily exclude works +by Valentinus himself. It is at any rate clear that Irenaeus had +some means of referring to the opinions of Valentinus as distinct +from his school; because, after giving a sketch of the system, he +proceeds to point out certain contradictions within the school +itself, quoting first Valentinus expressly, then a disciple called +Secundus, then 'another of their more distinguished and ambitious +teachers,' then 'others,' then a further subdivision, finally +returning to Ptolemaeus and his party again. On the whole, +Irenaeus seems to have had a pretty complete knowledge of the +writings and teaching of the Valentinians. We conclude therefore, +that, while it cannot be alleged positively that any of the +quotations or allusions were really made by Valentinus, it would +be rash to assert that none of them were made by him, or that he +did not use our present Gospels. + +However this may be, we cannot do otherwise than demur to the +statement implied in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 198:1], that +the references in Irenaeus can only be employed as evidence for +the Gnostic usage between the years 185-195 A.D. This is a +specimen of a kind of position that is frequently taken up by +critics upon that side, and that I cannot but think quite +unreasonable and uncritical. Without going into the question of +the date at which Irenaeus wrote at present, and assuming with the +author of 'Supernatural Religion' that his first three books were +published before the death of Eleutherus in A.D. 190--the latest +date possible for them,--it will be seen that the Gnostic teaching +to which Irenaeus refers is supposed to begin at a time when his +first book may very well have been concluded, and to end actually +five years later than the latest date at which this portion of the +work can have been published! Not only does the author allow no +time at all for Irenaeus to compose his own work, not only does he +allow none for him to become acquainted with the Gnostic +doctrines, and for those doctrines themselves to become +consolidated and expressed in writing, but he goes so far as to +make Irenaeus testify to a state of things five years at least, +and very probably ten, in advance of the time at which he was +himself writing! No doubt there is an oversight somewhere, but +this is the kind of oversight that ought not to be made. + +This, however, is an extreme instance of the fault to which I was +alluding--the tendency in the negative school to allow no time or +very little for processes that in the natural course of things +must certainly have required a more or less considerable interval. +On a moderate computation, the indirect testimony of Irenaeus may +be taken to refer--not to the period 185-195 A.D., which is out of +the question--but to that from 160-180 A.D. This is not pressing +the possibility, real as it is, that Valentinus himself, who +flourished from 140-160 A.D., may have been included. We may agree +with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that Irenaeus probably +made the personal acquaintance of the Valentinian leaders, and +obtained copies of their books, during his well-known visit to +Rome in 178 A.D. [Endnote 199:1] The applications of Scripture +would be taken chiefly from the books of which some would be +recent but others of an earlier date, and it can surely be no +exaggeration to place the formation of the body of doctrine which +they contained in the period 160-175 A.D. above mentioned. I doubt +whether a critic could be blamed who should go back ten years +further, but we shall be keeping on the safe side if we take our +_terminus a quo_ as to which these Gnostic writings can be +alleged in evidence at about the year 160. + +A genuine fragment of a letter of Valentinus has been preserved by +Clement of Alexandria in the second book of the Stromateis +[Endnote 200:1]. This is thought to contain references to St. +Matthew's Gospel by Dr. Westcott, and, strange to say, both to St. +Matthew and St. Luke by Volkmar. These references, however, are +not sufficiently clear to be pressed. + +A much less equivocal case is supplied by Hippolytus--less +equivocal at least so far as the reference goes. Among the +passages which received a specially Gnostic interpretation is Luke +i. 35, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the +Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing +which is born (of thee) shall be called the Son of God.' This is +quoted thus, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power +of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore that which is +born of thee shall be called holy.' + +_Luke_ i. 35. + +[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamis hupsistou +episkiasei soi, dio kai to gennomenon [ek sou] hagion klaethaesetai +huios Theon.] + +_Ref. Omn. Haes._ vi. 35. + +[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se... kai dunamis hupsistou +episkiasei soi... dio to gennomenon ek sou hagion klaethaesetai.] + +That St. Luke has been the original here seems to be beyond a +doubt. The omission of [Greek: huios Theou] is of very little +importance, because from its position [Greek: hagion] would more +naturally stand as a predicate, and the sentence would be quite as +complete without the [Greek: huios Theou] as with it. On the other +hand, it would be difficult to compress into so small a space so +many words and expressions that are peculiarly characteristic of +St. Luke. In addition to those which have just been noticed in +connection with Basilides, there is the very remarkable [Greek: to +gennomenon], which alone would be almost enough to stamp the whole +passage. + +We are still however pursued by the same ambiguity as in the case +of Basilides. It is not certain that the quotation is made from +the master and not from his scholars. There is no reason, indeed, +why it should be made from the latter rather than the former; the +point must in any case be left open: but it cannot be referred to +the master with so much certainty as to be directly producible +under his name. + +And yet, from whomsoever the quotation may have been made, if only +it has been given rightly by Hippolytus, it is a strong proof of +the antiquity of the Gospel. The words [Greek: ek sou], will be +noticed, are enclosed in brackets in the text of St. Luke as given +above. They are a corruption, though an early and well-supported +corruption, of the original. The authorities in their favour are C +(first hand), the good cursives 1 and 33, one form of the Vulgate, +a, c, e, m of the Old Latin, the Peshito Syriac, the Armenian and +Aethiopic versions, Irenaeus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Tertullian, +Cyprian, and Epiphanius. On the other hand, for the omission are +A. B, C (third hand), D, [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], and the rest of +the uncials and cursives, another form of the Vulgate, b, f, ff, +g'2, l of the Old Latin, the Harclean and Jerusalem Syriac, the +Memphitic, Gothic, and some MSS. of the Armenian versions, Origen, +Dionysius and Peter of Alexandria, and Eusebius. A text critic +will see at once on which side the balance lies. It is impossible +that [Greek: ek sou] could have been the reading of the autograph +copy, and it is not, I believe, admitted into the text by any +recent editor. But if it was present in the copy made use of by +the Gnostic writer, whoever he was, that copy must have been +already far enough removed from the original to admit of this +corruption; in other words, it has lineage enough to throw the +original some way behind it. We shall come to more of such +phenomena in the next chapter. + +I said just now that the quotation could not with certainty be +referred to Valentinus, but it is at least considerably earlier +than the contemporaries of Hippolytus. It appears that there was a +division in the Valentinian School upon the interpretation of this +very passage. Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, representing the Western +branch, took one side, while Axionicus and Bardesanes, representing +the Eastern, took the other. Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were both, +we know, contemporaries of Irenaeus, so that the quotation was used +among the Valentinians at least in the time of Irenaeus, and very +possibly earlier, for it usually takes a certain time for a subject +to be brought into controversy. We must thus take the _terminus ad quem_ +for the quotation not later than 180 A.D. How much further back it +goes we cannot say, but even then (if the Valentinian text is correctly +preserved by Hippolytus) it presents features of corruption. + +That the Valentinians made use of unwritten sources as well as of +written, and that they possessed a Gospel of their own which they +called the Gospel of Truth, does not affect the question of their +use of the Synoptics. For these very same Valentinians undoubtedly +did use the Synoptics, and not only them but also the fourth +Gospel. It is immediately after he has spoken of the 'unwritten' +tradition of the Valentinians that Irenaeus proceeds to give the +numerous quotations from the Synoptics referred to above, while in +the very same chapter, and within two sections of the place in +which he alludes to the Gospel of Truth, he expressly says that +these same Valentinians used the Gospel according to St. John +freely (plenissime) [Endnote 203:1]. It should also be remembered +that the alleged acceptance of the four Gospels by the Valentinians +rests upon the statement of Irenaeus [Endnote 203:2] as well as upon +that of the less scrupulous and accurate Tertullian. There is no +good reason for doubting it. + + + + + +CHAPTER VIII. + +MARCION. [Endnote 204:1] + + +Of the various chapters in the controversy with which we are +dealing, that which relates to the heretic Marcion is one of the +most interesting and important; important, because of the +comparative fixity of the data on which the question turns; +interesting, because of the peculiar nature of the problem to be +dealt with. + +We may cut down the preliminary disquisitions as to the life and +doctrines of Marcion, which have, indeed, a certain bearing upon +the point at issue, but will be found given with sufficient +fulness in 'Supernatural Religion,' or in any of the authorities. +As in most other points relating to this period, there is some +confusion in the chronological data, but these range within a +comparatively limited area. The most important evidence is that of +Justin, who, writing as a contemporary (about 147 A.D.) [Endnote +205:1], says that at that time Marcion had 'in every nation of men +caused many to blaspheme' [Endnote 205:2]; and again speaks of the +wide spread of his doctrines ([Greek: ho polloi peisthentes, +k.t.l.]) [Endnote 205:3]. Taking these statements along with +others in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, modern critics +seem to be agreed that Marcion settled in Rome and began to teach +his peculiar doctrines about 139-142 A.D. This is the date +assigned in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 205:4]. Volkmar gives +138 A.D. [Endnote 205:5] Tischendorf, on the apologetic side, +would throw back the date as far as 130, but this depends upon the +date assigned by him to Justin's 'Apology,' and conflicts too much +with the other testimony. + +It is also agreed that Marcion himself did actually use a certain +Gospel that is attributed to him. The exact contents and character +of that Gospel are not quite so clear, and its relation to the +Synoptic Gospels, and especially to our third Synoptic, which +bears the name of St. Luke, is the point that we have to +determine. + +The Church writers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, without +exception, describe Marcion's Gospel as a mutilated or amputated +version of St. Luke. They contrast his treatment of the +evangelical tradition with that pursued by his fellow-Gnostic, +Valentinus [Endnote 205:6]. Valentinus sought to prove his tenets +by wresting the interpretation of the Apostolic writings; Marcion +went more boldly to work, and, having first selected his Gospel, +our third Synoptic, cut out the passages both in it and in ten +Epistles of St. Paul, admitted by him to be genuine, which seemed +to conflict with his own system. He is also said to have made +additions, but these were in any case exceedingly slight. + +The statement of the Church writers should hardly, perhaps, be put +aside quite so summarily as is sometimes done. The life of +Irenaeus overlapped that of Marcion considerably, and there seems +to have been somewhat frequent communication between the Church at +Lyons, where he was first presbyter and afterwards bishop, and +that of Rome, where Marcion was settled; but Irenaeus [Endnote +206:1], as well as Tertullian and Epiphanius, alludes to the +mutilation of St. Luke's Gospel by Marcion as a notorious fact. +Too much stress, however, must not be laid upon this, because the +Catholic writers were certainly apt to assume that their own view +was the only one tenable. + +The modern controversy is more important, though it has to go back +to the ancient for its data. The question in debate may be stated +thus. Did Marcion, as the Church writers say, really mutilate our +so-called St. Luke (the name is not of importance, but we may use +it as standing for our third Synoptic in its present shape)? Or, +is it not possible that the converse may be true, and that +Marcion's Gospel was the original and ours an interpolated +version? The importance of this may, indeed, be exaggerated, +because Marcion's Gospel is at any rate evidence for the existence +at his date in a collected form of so much of the third Gospel +(rather more than two-thirds) as he received. Still the issue is +not inconsiderable: for, upon the second hypothesis, if the editor +of our present Gospel made use of that which was in the possession +of Marcion, his date may be--though it does not follow that it +certainly would be--thrown into the middle of the second century, +or even beyond, if the other external evidence would permit; +whereas, upon the first hypothesis, the Synoptic Gospel would be +proved to be current as early as 140 A.D.; and there will be room +for considerations which may tend to date it much earlier. There +will still be the third possibility that Marcion's Gospel may be +altogether independent of our present Synoptic, and that it may +represent a parallel recension of the evangelical tradition. This +would leave the date of the canonical Gospel undetermined. + +It is a fact worth noting that the controversy, at least in its +later and more important stages, had been fought, and, to all +appearance, fought out, within the Tübingen school itself. +Olshausen and Hahn, the two orthodox critics who were most +prominently engaged in it, after a time retired and left the field +entirely to the Tübingen writers. + +The earlier critics who impugned the traditional view appear to +have leaned rather to the theory that Marcion's Gospel and the +canonical Luke are, more or less, independent offshoots from the +common ground-stock of the evangelical narratives. Ritschl, and +after him Baur and Schwegler, adopted more decidedly the view that +the canonical Gospel was constructed out of Marcion's by +interpolations directed against that heretic's teaching. The +reaction came from a quarter whence it would not quite naturally +have been expected--from one whose name we have already seen +associated with some daring theories, Volkmar, Professor of +Theology at Zürich. With him was allied the more sober-minded, +laborious investigator, Hilgenfeld. Both these writers returned to +the charge once and again. Volkmar's original paper was +supplemented by an elaborate volume in 1852, and Hilgenfeld, in +like manner, has reasserted his conclusions. Baur and Ritschl +professed themselves convinced by the arguments brought forward, +and retracted or greatly modified their views. So far as I am +aware, Schwegler is the only writer whose opinion still stands as +it was at first expressed; but for some years before his death, +which occurred in 1857, he had left the theological field. + +Without at all prejudging the question on this score, it is +difficult not to feel a certain presumption in favour of a +conclusion which has been reached after such elaborate argument, +especially where, as here, there could be no suspicion of a merely +apologetic tendency on either side. Are we, then, to think that +our English critic has shown cause for reopening the discussion? +There is room to doubt whether he would quite maintain as much as +this himself. He has gone over the old ground, and reproduced the +old arguments; but these arguments already lay before Hilgenfeld +and Volkmar in their elaborate researches, and simply as a matter +of scale the chapter in 'Supernatural Religion' can hardly profess +to compete with these. + +Supposing, for the moment, that the author has proved the points +that he sets himself to prove, to what will this amount? He will +have shown (a) that the patristic statement that Marcion mutilated +St. Luke is not to be accepted at once without further question; +(b) that we cannot depend with perfect accuracy upon the details +of his Gospel, as reconstructed from the statements of Tertullian +and Epiphanius; (c) that it is difficult to explain the whole of +Marcion's alleged omissions, on purely, dogmatic grounds--assuming +the consistency of his method. + +With the exception of the first, I do not think these points are +proved to any important extent; but, even if they were, it would +still, I believe, be possible to show that Marcion's Gospel was +based upon our third Synoptic by arguments which hardly cross or +touch them at all. + +But, before we proceed further, it is well that we should have +some idea as to the contents of the Marcionitic Gospel. And here +we are brought into collision with the second of the propositions +just enunciated. Are we able to reconstruct that Gospel from the +materials available to us with any tolerable or sufficient +approach to accuracy? I believe no one who has gone into the +question carefully would deny that we can. Here it is necessary to +define and guard our statements, so that they may cover exactly as +much ground as they ought and no more. + +Our author quotes largely, especially from Volkmar, to show that +the evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius is not to be relied +upon. When we refer to the chapter in which Volkmar deals with +this subject [Endnote 209:1]--a chapter which is an admirable +specimen of the closeness and thoroughness of German research--we +do indeed find some such expressions, but to quote them alone +would give an entirely erroneous impression of the conclusion to +which the writer comes. He does not say that the statements of +Tertullian and Epiphanius are untrustworthy, simply and +absolutely, but only that they need to be applied with caution +_on certain points_. Such a point is especially the silence +of these writers as proving, or being supposed to prove, the +absence of the corresponding passage in Marcion's Gospel. It is +argued, very justly, that such an inference is sometimes +precarious. Again, in quoting longer passages, Epiphanius is in +the habit of abridging or putting an &c. ([Greek: kai ta hexaes-- +kai ta loipa]), instead of quoting the whole. This does not give a +complete guarantee for the intermediate portions, and leaves some +uncertainty as to where the passage ends. Generally it is true +that the object of the Fathers is not critical but dogmatic, to +refute Marcion's system out of his own Gospel. But when all +deductions have been made on these grounds, there are still ample +materials for reconstructing that Gospel with such an amount of +accuracy at least as can leave no doubt as to its character. The +wonder is that we are able to do so, and that the statements of +the Fathers should stand the test so well as they do. Epiphanius +especially often shows the most painstaking care and minuteness of +detail. He has reproduced the manuscript of Marcion's Gospel that +he had before him, even to its clerical errors [Endnote 210:1]. He +and Tertullian are writing quite independently, and yet they +confirm each other in a remarkable manner. 'If we compare the two +witnesses,' says Volkmar, 'we find the most satisfactory (sicher- +stellendste) coincidence in their statements, entirely independent +as they are, as well in regard to that which Marcion has in common +with Luke, as in regard to very many of the points in which his +text differed from the canonical. And this applies not only to +simple omissions which Epiphanius expressly notes and Tertullian +confirms by passing over what would otherwise have told against +Marcion, but also to the minor variations of the text which +Tertullian either happens to name or indicate by his translation, +while they are confirmed by the direct statement of [the other] +opponent who is equally bent on finding such differences' [Endnote +211:1]. Out of all the points on which they can be compared, there +is a real divergence only in two. Of these, one Volkmar attributes +to an oversight on the part of Epiphanius, and the other to a +clerical omission in his manuscript [Endnote 211:2]. When we +consider the cumbrousness of ancient MSS., the absence of +divisions in the text, and the consequent difficulty of making +exact references, this must needs be taken for a remarkable +result. And the very fact that we have two--or, including +Irenaeus, even three--independent authorities, makes the text of +Marcion's Gospel, so far as those authorities are available, or, +in other words, for the greater part of it, instead of being +uncertain among quite the most certain of all the achievements of +modern criticism [Endnote 211:3]. + +This is seen practically--to apply a simple test--in the large +amount of agreement between critics of the most various schools as +to the real contents of the Gospel. Our author indeed speaks much +of the 'disagreement.' But by what standard does he judge? Or, has +he ever estimated its extent? Putting aside merely verbal +differences, the total number of whole verses affected will be +represented in the following table:-- + +iv. 16-30: doubt as to exact extent of omissions affecting about + half the verses. + + 38, 39: omitted according to Hahn; retained according to + Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. + +vii. 29-35: omitted, Hahn and Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. + +x. 12-15: ditto ditto. + +xiii. 6-10: omitted, Volkmar; retained, Hilgenfeld and Rettig. + +xvii. 5-10: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. + + 14-19: doubt as to exact omissions. + +xix. 47, 48: omitted, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; retained, Hahn and + Anger. + +xxii. 17, 18: doubtful. + + 23-27: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. + + 43, 44: ditto ditto. + +xxiii. 39-42: ditto ditto. + + 47-49: omitted, Hahn; retained, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar. + +xxiv. 47-53: uncertain [Endnote 212:1]. + +This would give, as a maximum estimate of variation, some 55 +verses out of about 804, or, in other words, about seven per cent. +But such an estimate would be in fact much too high, as there can +be no doubt that the earlier researches of Hahn and Ritschl ought +to be corrected by those of Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; and the +difference between these two critics is quite insignificant. +Taking the severest view that it is possible to take, no one will +maintain that the differences between the critics are such as to +affect the main issue, so that upon one hypothesis one theory +would hold good, and upon another hypothesis another. It is a mere +question of detail. + +We may, then, reconstruct the Gospel used by Marcion with very +considerable confidence that we have its real contents before us. +In order to avoid any suspicion I will take the outline given in +'Supernatural Religion' (ii. p. 127), adding only the passage +St. Luke vii. 29-35, which, according to the author's statement (a +mistaken one, however) [Endnote 213:1], is 'generally agreed' to +have been wanting in Marcion's Gospel. In that Gospel, then, the +following portions of our present St. Luke were omitted:-- + +Chaps. i. and ii, including the prologue, the Nativity, and the +birth of John the Baptist. + +Chap. iii (with the exception of ver. 1), containing the baptism +of our Lord, the preaching of St. John, and the genealogy. + +iv. 1-13, 17-20, 24: the Temptation, the reading from Isaiah. + +vii. 29-35: the gluttonous man. + +xi. 29-32, 49-51: the sign of Jonas, and the blood of the +prophets. + +xiii. 1-9, 29-35: the slain Galileans, the fig-tree, Herod, +Jerusalem. + +xv. 11-32: the prodigal son. + +xvii. 5-10: the servant at meat. + +xviii. 31-34: announcement of the Passion. + +xix. 29-48: the Triumphal Entry, woes of Jerusalem, cleansing of +the Temple. + +xx. 9-18, 37, 38: the wicked husbandmen; the God of Abraham. + +xxi. 1-4, 18, 21, 22: the widow's mite; 'a hair of your head;' +flight of the Church. + +xxii. 16-18, 28-30, 35-38, 49-51: the fruit of the vine, 'eat at +my table,' 'buy a sword,' the high-priest's servant. + +xxiv. 47-53: the last commission, the Ascension. + +Here we have another remarkable phenomenon. The Gospel stands to +our Synoptic entirely in the relation of _defect_. We may say +entirely, for the additions are so insignificant--some thirty +words in all, and those for the most part supported by other +authority--that for practical purposes they need not be reckoned. +With the exception of these thirty words inserted, and some, also +slight, alterations of phrase, Marcion's Gospel presents simply an +_abridgment_ of our St. Luke. + +Does not this almost at once exclude the idea that they can be +independent works? If it does not, then let us compare the two in +detail. There is some disturbance and re-arrangement in the first +chapter of Marcion's Gospel, though the substance is that of the +third Synoptic; but from this point onwards the two move step by +step together but for the omissions and a single transposition +(iv. 27 to xvii. 18). Out of fifty-three sections peculiar to St. +Luke--from iv. 16 onwards--all but eight were found also in +Marcion's Gospel. They are found, too, in precisely the same +order. Curious and intricate as is the mosaic work of the third +Gospel, all the intricacies of its pattern are reproduced in the +Gospel of Marcion. Where Luke makes an insertion in the +groundstock of the narrative, there Marcion makes an insertion +also; where Luke omits part of the narrative, Marcion does the +same. Among the documents peculiar to St. Luke are some of a very +marked and individual character, which seem to have come from some +private source of information. Such, for instance, would be the +document viii. 1-3, which introduces names so entirely unknown to +the rest of the evangelical tradition as Joanna and Susanna +[Endnote 215:1]. A trace of the same, or an allied document, +appears in chap. xxiv, where we have again the name Joanna, and +afterwards that of the obscure disciple Cleopas. Again, the +mention of Martha and Mary is common only to St. Luke and the +fourth Gospel. Zacchaeus is peculiar to St. Luke. Yet, not only +does each of the sections relating to these personages re-appear +in Marcion's Gospel, but it re-appears precisely at the same +place. A marked peculiarity in St. Luke's Gospel is the 'great +intercalation' of discourses, ix. 51 to xviii. 14, evidently +inserted without regard to chronological order. Yet this +peculiarity, too, is faithfully reproduced in the Gospel of +Marcion with the same disregard of chronology--the only change +being the omission of about forty-one verses from a total of three +hundred and eighty. When Luke has the other two Synoptics against +him, as in the insertions Matt. xiv. 3-12, Mark vi. 17-29, and +again Matt. xx. 20-28, Mark x. 35-45, and Matt. xxi. 20-22, Mark +xi. 20-26, Marcion has them against him too. Where the third +Synoptist breaks off from his companions (Luke ix. 17, 18) and +leaves a gap, Marcion leaves one too. It has been noticed as +characteristic of St. Luke that, where he has recorded a similar +incident before, he omits what might seem to be a repetition of +it: this characteristic is exactly reflected in Marcion, and that +in regard to the very same incidents. Then, wherever the patristic +statements give us the opportunity of comparing Marcion's text +with the Synoptic--and this they do very largely indeed--the two +are found to coincide with no greater variation than would be +found between any two not directly related manuscripts of the same +text. It would be easy to multiply these points, and to carry them +to any degree of detail; if more precise and particular evidence +is needed it shall be forthcoming, but in the meantime I think it +may be asserted with confidence that two alternatives only are +possible. Either Marcion's Gospel is an abridgment of our present +St. Luke, or else our present St. Luke is an expansion by +interpolation of Marcion's Gospel, or of a document co-extensive +with it. No third hypothesis is tenable. + +It remains, then, to enquire which of these two Gospels had the +priority--Marcion's or Luke's; which is to stand first, both in +order of time and of authenticity. This, too, is a point that +there are ample data for determining. + +(1.) And, first, let us consider what presumption is raised by any +other part of Marcion's procedure. Is it likely that he would have +cut down a document previously existing? or, have we reason for +thinking that he would be scrupulous in keeping such a document +intact? + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' himself makes use of this +very argument; but I cannot help suspecting that his application +of it has slipped in through an oversight or misapprehension. When +first I came across the argument as employed by him, I was struck +by it at once as important if only it was sound. But, upon +examination, not only does it vanish into thin air as an argument +in support of the thesis he is maintaining, but there remains in +its place a positive argument that tells directly and strongly +against that thesis. A passage is quoted from Canon Westcott, in +which it is stated that while Tertullian and Epiphanius accuse +Marcion of altering the text of the books which he received, so +far as his treatment of the Epistles is concerned this is not +borne out by the facts, out of seven readings noticed by +Epiphanius two only being unsupported by other authority. It is +argued from this that Marcion 'equally preserved without +alteration the text which he found in his manuscript of the +Gospel.' 'We have no reason to believe the accusation of the +Fathers in regard to the Gospel--which we cannot fully test-- +better founded than that in regard to the Epistles, which we can +test, and find unfounded' [Endnote 217:1]. No doubt the premisses +of this argument are true, and so also is the conclusion, strictly +as it stands. It is true that the Fathers accuse Marcion of +tampering with the text in various places, both in the Epistles +and in the Gospels where the allegation can be tested, and where +it is found that the supposed perversion is simply a difference of +reading, proved to be such by its presence in other authorities +[Endnote 217:2]. But what is this to the point? It is not +contended that Marcion altered to any considerable extent (though +he did slightly even in the Epistles [Endnote 217:3]) the text +_which he retained_, but that he mutilated and cut out whole +passages from that text. He can be proved to have done this in +regard to the Epistles, and therefore it is fair to infer that he +dealt in the same way with the Gospel. This is the amended form in +which the argument ought to stand. It is certain that Marcion made +a large excision before Rom. xi. 33, and another after Rom. viii. +11; he also cut out the 'mentiones Abrahae' from Gal. iii. 7, 14, +16-18 [Endnote 218:1]. I say nothing about his excision of the +last two chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, because on that +point a controversy might be raised. But the genuineness of these +other passages is undisputed and indisputable. It cannot be argued +here that our text of the Epistle has suffered from later +interpolation, and therefore, I repeat, it is so much the more +probable that Marcion took from the text of the Gospel than that a +later editor added to it. + +(2.) In examining the internal evidence from the nature and +structure of Marcion's Gospel, it has hitherto been the custom to +lay most stress upon its dogmatic character. The controversy in +Germany has turned chiefly on this. The critics have set +themselves to show that the variations in Marcion's Gospel either +could or could not be explained as omissions dictated by the +exigencies of his dogmatic system. This was a task which suited +well the subtlety and inventiveness of the German mind, and it has +been handled with all the usual minuteness and elaboration. The +result has been that not only have Volkmar and Hilgenfeld proved +their point to their own satisfaction, but they also convinced +Ritschl and partially Baur; and generally we may say that in +Germany it seems to be agreed at the present time that the +hypothesis of a mutilated Luke suits the dogmatic argument better +than that of later Judaising interpolations. + +I have no wish to disparage the results of these labours, which +are carried out with the splendid thoroughness that one so much +admires. Looking at the subject as impartially as I can, I am +inclined to think that the case is made out in the main. The +single instance of the perverted sense assigned to [Greek: +kataelthen] in iv. 31 must needs go a long way. Marcion evidently +intends the word to be taken in a transcendental sense of the +emanation and descent to earth of the Aeon Christus [Endnote +219:1]. It is impossible to think that this sense is more original +than the plain historical use of the word by St. Luke, or to +mistake the dogmatic motive in the heretical recension. There is +also an evident reason for the omission of the first chapters +which relate the human birth of Christ, which Marcion denied, and +one somewhat less evident, though highly probable, for the +omission of the account of the Baptist's ministry, John being +regarded as the finisher of the Old Testament dispensation--the +work of the Demiurge. This omission is not quite consistently +carried out, as the passage vii. 24-28 is retained--probably +because ver. 28 itself seemed to contain a sufficient qualification. +The genealogy, as well as viii. 19, was naturally omitted for the +same reason as the Nativity. The narrative of the Baptism Marcion +could not admit, because it supplied the foundation for that very +Ebionism to which his own system was diametrically opposed. The +Temptation, x. 21 ('Lord ... of earth'), xxii. 18 ('the fruit of +the vine'), xxii. 30 ('eat and drink at my table'), and the Ascension, +may have been omitted because they contained matter that seemed too +anthropomorphic or derogatory to the Divine Nature. On the other hand, +xi. 29-32 (Jonah and Solomon), xi. 49-51 (prophets and apostles), +xiii. 1 sqq. (the fig-tree, as the Jewish people?), xiii. 31-35 (the +prophet in Jerusalem), the prodigal son (perhaps?), the wicked +husbandmen (more probably), the triumphal entry (as the fulfilment +of prophecy), the announcement of the Passion (also as such), xxi. +21, 22 (the same), and the frequent allusions to the Old Testament +Scriptures, seem to have been expunged as recognising or belonging +to the kingdom of the Demiurge [Endnote 220:1]. Again, the changes +in xiii. 28, xvi. 17, xx. 35, are fully in accordance with +Marcion's system [Endnote 220:2]. The reading which Marcion had in +xi. 22 is expressly stated to have been common to the Gnostic +heretics generally. In some of these instances the dogmatic motive +is gross and palpable, in most it seems to have been made out, but +some (such as especially xiii. 1-9) are still doubtful, and the +method of excision does not appear to have been carried out with +complete consistency. + +This, indeed, was only to be expected. We are constantly reminded +that Tertullian, a man, with all his faults, of enormous literary +and general power, did not possess the critical faculty, and no +more was that faculty likely to be found in Marcion. It is an +anachronism to suppose that he would sit down to his work with +that regularity of method and with that subtle appreciation of the +affinities of dogma which characterise the modern critic. The +Septuagint translators betray an evident desire to soften down the +anthropomorphism of the Hebrew; but how easy would it be to +convict them of inconsistency, and to show that they left standing +expressions as strong as any that they changed! If we judge +Marcion's procedure by a standard suited to the age in which he +lived, our wonder will be, not that he has shown so little, but so +much, consistency and insight. + +I think, therefore, that the dogmatic argument, so far as it goes, +tells distinctly in favour of the 'mutilation' hypothesis. But at +the same time it should not be pressed too far. I should be +tempted to say that the almost exclusive and certainly excessive +use of arguments derived from the history of dogma was the prime +fallacy which lies at the root of the Tübingen criticism. How can +it be thought that an Englishman, or a German, trained under and +surrounded by the circumstances of the nineteenth century, should +be able to thread all the mazes in the mind of a Gnostic or an +Ebionite in the second? It is difficult enough for us to lay down +a law for the actions of our own immediate neighbours and friends; +how much more difficult to 'cast the shell of habit,' and place +ourselves at the point of view of a civilisation and world of +thought wholly different from our own, so as not only to explain +its apparent aberrations, but to be able to say, positively, 'this +must have been so,' 'that must have been otherwise.' Yet such is +the strange and extravagant supposition that we are assumed to +make. No doubt the argument from dogma has its place in criticism; +but, on the whole, the literary argument is safer, more removed +from the influence of subjective impressions, more capable of +being cast into a really scientific form. + +(3.) I pass over other literary arguments which hardly admit of +this form of expression--such as the improbability that the +Preface or Prologue was not part of the original Gospel, but a +later accretion; or, again, from Marcion's treatment of the +Synoptic matter in the third Gospel, both points which might be +otherwise worth dilating upon. I pass over these, and come at +once, without further delay, to the one point which seems to me +really to decide the character of Marcion's Gospel and its +relation to the Synoptic. The argument to which I allude is that +from style and diction. True the English mind is apt to receive +literary arguments of that kind with suspicion, and very justly so +long as they rest upon a mere vague subjective _ipse dixit_; +but here the question can be reduced to one of definite figures +and of weighing and measuring. Bruder's Concordance is a dismal- +looking volume--a mere index of words, and nothing more. But it +has an eloquence of its own for the scientific investigator. It is +strange how clearly many points stand out when this test comes to +be applied, which before had been vague and obscure. This is +especially the case in regard to the Synoptic Gospels; for, in the +first place, the vocabulary of the writers is very limited and +similar phrases have constant tendency to recur, and, in the +second place, the critic has the immense advantage of being +enabled to compare their treatment of the same common matter, so +that he can readily ascertain what are the characteristic +modifications introduced by each. Dr. Holtzmann, following Zeller +and Lekebusch, has made a full and careful analysis of the style +and vocabulary of St. Luke [Endnote 223:1], but of course without +reference to the particular omissions of Marcion. Let us then, +with the help of Bruder, apply Holtzmann's results to these +omissions, with a view to see whether there is evidence that they +are by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel. + +It would be beyond the proportions of the present enquiry to +exhibit all the evidence in full. I shall, therefore, not +transcribe the whole of my notes, but merely give a few samples of +the sort of evidence producible, along with a brief summary of the +general results. + +Taking first certain points by which the style of the third +Evangelist is distinguished from that of the first in their +treatment of common matter, Dr. Holtzmann observes, that where +Matthew has [Greek: grammateus], Luke has in six places the word +[Greek: nomikos], which is only found three times besides in the +New Testament (once in St. Mark, and twice in the Epistle to +Titus). Of the places where it is used by St. Luke, one is the +omitted passage, vii. 30. In citations where Matthew has [Greek: +to rhaethen] (14 times; not at all in Luke), Luke prefers the +perfect form [Greek: to eiraemenon], so in ii. 24 (Acts twice); +compare [Greek: eiraetai], iv. 21. Where Matthew has [Greek: arti] +(7 times), Luke has always [Greek: nun], never [Greek: arti]: +[Greek: nun] is used in the following passages, omitted by +Marcion: i. 48, ii. 29, xix. 42, xxii. 18, 36. With Matthew the +word [Greek: eleos] is masculine, with Luke neuter, so five times +in ch. i. and in x. 37, which was retained by Marcion. + +Among the peculiarities of style noted by Dr. Holtzmann which +recur in the omitted portions the following are perhaps some of +the more striking. Peculiar use of [Greek: to] covering a whole +phrase, i. 62 [Greek: to ti an theloi kaleisthai], xix. 48, xxii. +37, and five other places. Peculiar attraction of the relative +with preceding case of [Greek: pas], iii. 19, xix. 37, and +elsewhere. The formula [Greek: elege (eipe) de parabolaen] (not +found in the other Synoptics), xiii. 6, xx. 9, 19, and ten times +besides. [Greek: Tou] pleonastic with the infinitive, once in +Mark, six times in Matthew, twenty-five times in Luke, of which +three times in chap. i, twice in chap. ii, iv. 10, xxi. 22. +Peculiar combinations with [Greek: kata, kata to ethos, eiothos, +eithismenon], i. 9, ii. 27, 42, and twice. [Greek: Kath' +haemeran], once in the other Gospels, thirteen times in Luke and +Acts xix. 47; [Greek: kat' etos], ii. 41; [Greek: kata] with +peculiar genitive of place, iv. 14 (xxiii. 5) [Endnote 224:1]. +Protasis introduced by [Greek: kai hote], ii. 21, 22, 42, [Greek: +kai hos], ii. 39, xv. 25, xix. 41. Uses of [Greek: egeneto], +especially with [Greek: en to] and infinitive, twice in Mark, in +Luke twenty-two times, i. 8, ii. 6, iii. 21, xxiv. 51; [Greek: en +to] with the infinitive, three times in St. Matthew, once in St. +Mark, thirty-seven times in St. Luke, including i. 8, 21, ii. 6, +27, 43, iii. 21. Adverbs: [Greek: exaes] and [Greek: kathexaes], +ten times in the third Gospel and the Acts alone in the New +Testament, i. 3; [Greek: achri], twenty times in the third Gospel +and Acts, only once in the other Gospels, i. 20, iv. 13; [Greek: +exaiphnaes], four times in the Gospel and Acts, once besides in +the New Testament, ii. 13; [Greek: parachraema], seventeen times +in the Gospel and Acts, twice in the rest of the New Testament, i. +64; [Greek: en meso], thirteen times in the Gospel and Acts, five +times in the other Synoptics, ii. 46, xxi. 21. Fondness for +optative in indirect constructions, i. 29, 62, iii. 15, xv. 26. +Peculiar combination of participles, ii. 36 ([Greek: probebaekuia +zaesasa]), iii. 23 ([Greek: archomenos on]), iv. 20 ([Greek: +ptuxas apodous]), very frequent. [Greek: Einai], with participle +for finite verb (forty-eight times in all), i. 7, 10, 20, 21, 22, +ii. 8, 26, 33, 51, iii. 23, iv. 16 ([Greek: aen tethrammenos], +omitted by Marcion), iv. 17, 20, xv. 24, 32, xviii. 34, xix. 47, +xx. 17, xxiv. 53. Construction of [Greek: pros] with accusative +after [Greek: eipein, lalein, apokrinesthai], frequent in Luke, +rare in the rest of the New Testament, i. 13, 18, 19, 28, 34, 55, +61, 73, ii. 15, 18, 34, 48, 49, iii. 12, 13, 14, iv. 4, xiii. 7, +34, xv. 22, xviii. 31, xix. 33, 39, xx. 9, 14, 19. This is thrown +into marked relief by the contrast with the other Synoptics; the +only two places where Matthew appears to have the construction are +both ambiguous, iii. 15 (doubtful reading, probably [Greek: +auto]), and xxvii. 14 ([Greek: apekrithae auto pros oude hen +rhaema]). No other evangelist speaks so much of [Greek: Pneuma +hagion], i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 25, 66, iii. 16, 22, iv. 1 (found +also in Marcion's reading of xi. 2). Peculiar use of pronouns: +Luke has the combination [Greek: kai autos] twenty-eight times, +Matthew only twice (one false reading), Mark four or perhaps five +times, i. 17, 22, ii. 28, iii. 23, xv. 14; [Greek: kai autoi] Mark +has not at all, Matthew twice, Luke thirteen times, including ii. +50, xviii. 34, xxiv. 52. + +We now come to the test supplied by the vocabulary. The following +are some of the words peculiar to St. Luke, or found in his +writings with marked and characteristic frequency, which occur in +those parts of our present Gospel that were wanting in Marcion's +recension: [Greek: anestaen, anastas] occur three times in St. +Matthew, twice in St. John, four times in the writings of St. +Paul, twenty-six times in the third Gospel and thirty-five times +in the Acts, and are found in i. 39, xv. 18, 20; [Greek: +antilegein] appears in ii. 34, five times in the rest of the +Gospel and the Acts, and only four times together in the rest of +the New Testament; [Greek: hapas] occurs twenty times in the +Gospel, sixteen times in the Acts, only ten times in the rest of +the New Testament, but in ii. 39, iii. 16, 21, iv. 6, xv. 13, xix. +37, 48, xxi. 4 (bis); three of these are, however, doubtful +readings. [Greek: aphesis ton amartion], ten times in the Gospel +and Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament, i. 77, +iii. 3. [Greek: dei], Dr. Holtzmann says, 'is found more often in +St. Luke than in all the other writers of the New Testament put +together.' This does not appear to be strictly true; it is, +however, found nineteen times in the Gospel and twenty-five times +in the Acts to twenty-four times in the three other Gospels; it +occurs in ii. 49, xiii. 33, xv. 32, xxii. 37. [Greek: dechesthai], +twenty-four times in the Gospel and Acts, twenty-six times in the +rest of the New Testament, six times in St. Matthew, three in St. +Mark, ii. 28, xxii. 17. [Greek: diatassein], nine times in the +Gospel and Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament +(Matthew once), iii. 13, xvii. 9, 10. [Greek: dierchesthai] occurs +thirty-two times in the Gospel and Acts, twice in each of the +other Synoptics, and eight times in the rest of the New Testament, +and is found in ii. 15, 35. [Greek: dioti], i. 13, ii. 7 (xxi. 28, +and Acts, not besides in the Gospels). [Greek: ean], xxii. 51 +(once besides in the Gospel, eight times in the Acts, and three +times in the rest of the New Testament). [Greek: ethos], i. 9, ii. +42, eight times besides in St. Luke's writings and only twice in +the rest of the New Testament. [Greek: enantion], five times in +St. Luke's writings, once besides, i. 8. [Greek: enopion], +correcting the readings, twenty times in the Gospel, fourteen +times in the Acts, not at all in the other Synoptists, once in St. +John, four times in chap. i, iv. 7, xv. 18, 21 (this will be +noticed as a very remarkable instance of the extent to which the +diction of the third Evangelist impressed itself upon his +writings). [Greek: epibibazein], xix. 35 (and twice, only by St. +Luke). [Greek: epipiptein], i. 12, xv. 20 (eight times in the Acts +and three times in the rest of the New Testament). [Greek: ai +eraemoi], only in St. Luke, i. 80, and twice. [Greek: etos] +(fifteen times in the Gospel, eleven times in the Acts, three +times in the other Synoptics and three times in St. John), four +times in chap. ii, iii. 1, 23, xiii, 7, 8, xv. 29. [Greek: +thaumazein epi tini], Gospel and Acts five times (only besides in +Mark xii. 17), ii. 33. [Greek: ikanos] in the sense of 'much,' +'many,' seven times in the Gospel, eighteen times in the Acts, and +only three times besides in the New Testament, iii. 16, xx. 9 +(compare xxii. 38). [Greek: kathoti] (like [Greek: kathexaes] +above), is only found in St. Luke's writings, i. 7, and five times +in the rest of the Gospel and the Acts. [Greek: latreuein], 'in +Luke, much oftener than in other parts of the New Testament,' i. +74, ii. 37, iv. 8, and five times in the Acts. [Greek: limos], six +times in the Gospel and Acts, six times in the rest of the New +Testament, xv. 14, 17. [Greek: maen] (month), i. 24, 26, 36, 56 +(iv. 25), alone in the Gospels, in the Acts five times. [Greek: +oikos] for 'family,' i. 27, 33, 69, ii. 4, and three times besides +in the Gospel, nine times in the Acts. [Greek: plaethos] +(especially in the form [Greek: pan to plaethos]), twenty-five +times in St. Luke's writings, seven times in the rest of the New +Testament, 1. 19, ii. 13, xix. 37. [Greek: plaesai, plaesthaenai], +twenty-two times in St. Luke's writings, only three times besides +in the New Testament, i. 15, 23, 41, 57, 67, ii. 6, 21, 22, xxi. +22. [Greek: prosdokan], eleven times in the Gospel and Acts, five +times in the rest of the New Testament (Matthew twice and 2 +Peter), i. 21, iii. 15. [Greek: skaptein], only in Luke three +times, xiii. 8. [Greek: speudein], except in 2 Peter iii. 12, only +in St. Luke's writings, ii. 16. [Greek: sullambanein], ten times +in the Gospel and Acts, five times in the rest of the New +Testament, i. 24, 31, 36, ii. 21. [Greek: sumballein], only in +Lucan writings, six times, ii. 19. [Greek: sunechein], nine times +in the Gospel and Acts, three times besides in the New Testament, +xix. 43. [Greek: sotaeria], in chap. i. three times, in the rest +of the Gospel and Acts seven times, not in the other Synoptic +Gospels. [Greek: hupostrephein], twenty-two times in the Gospel, +eleven times in the Acts, and only five times in the rest of the +New Testament (three of which are doubtful readings), i. 56, ii. +20, 39, 43, 45, iv. 1, (14), xxiv. 52. [Greek: hupsistos] occurs +nine times in the Gospel and Acts, four times in the rest of the +New Testament, i. 32, 35, 76, ii. 14, xix. 38. [Greek: hupsos] is +also found in i. 78, xxiv. 49. [Greek: charis] is found, among the +Synoptics, only in St. Luke, eight times in the Gospel, seventeen +times in the Acts, i. 30, ii. 40, 52, xvii. 9. [Greek: hosei] +occurs nineteen times in the Gospel and Acts (four doubtful +readings, of which two are probably false), seventeen times in the +rest of the New Testament (ten doubtful readings, of which in the +Synoptic Gospels three are probably false), i. 56, iii. 23. + +It should be remembered that the above are only samples from the +whole body of evidence, which would take up a much larger space if +exhibited in full. The total result may be summarised thus. +Accepting the scheme of Marcion's Gospel given some pages back, +which is substantially that of 'Supernatural Religion,' Marcion +will have omitted a total of 309 verses. In those verses there are +found 111 distinct peculiarities of St. Luke's style, numbering in +all 185 separate instances; there are also found 138 words +peculiar to or specially characteristic of the third Evangelist, +with 224 instances. In other words, the verified peculiarities of +St. Luke's style and diction (and how marked many of these are +will have been seen from the examples above) are found in the +portions of the Gospel omitted by Marcion in a proportion +averaging considerably more than one to each verse! [Endnote +229:1] Coming to detail, we find that in the principal omission-- +that of the first two chapters, containing 132 verses--there are +47 distinct peculiarities of style, with 105 instances; and 82 +characteristic words, with 144 instances. In the 23 verses of +chap. iii. omitted by Marcion (for the genealogy need not be +reckoned), the instances are 18 and 14, making a total of 32. In +18 verses omitted from chap. iv. the instances are 13 and 8 = 21. +In another longer passage--the parable of the prodigal son--the +instances are 8 of the first class and 20 of the second. In 20 +verses omitted from chap. xix. the instances are 11 and 6; and in +11 verses omitted from chap. xx, 9 and 8. Of all the isolated +fragments that Marcion had ejected from his Gospel, there are only +four--iv. 24, xi. 49-51, xx. 37, 38, xxii. 28-30, nine verses in +all--in which no peculiarities have been noticed. And yet even +here the traces of authorship are not wanting. It happens +strangely enough that in a list of parallel passages given by Dr. +Holtzmann to illustrate the affinities of thought between St. Luke +and St. Paul, two of these very passages--xi. 49 and xx. 38-- +occur. I had intended to pursue the investigation through these +resemblances, but it seems superfluous to carry it further. + +It is difficult to see what appeal can be made against evidence +such as this. A certain allowance should indeed be made for +possible errors of computation, and some of the points may have +been wrongly entered, though care has been taken to put down +nothing that was not verified by its preponderating presence in +the Lucan writings, and especially by its presence in that portion +of the Gospel which Marcion undoubtedly received. But as a rule +the method applies itself mechanically, and when every deduction +has been made, there will still remain a mass of evidence that it +does not seem too much to describe as overwhelming. + +(4.) We may assume, then, that there is definite proof that the +Gospel used by Marcion presupposes our present St. Luke, in its +complete form, as it has been handed down to us. But when once +this assumption has been made, another set of considerations comes +in, which also carry with them an important inference. If +Marcion's Gospel was an extract from a manuscript containing our +present St. Luke, then not only is it certain that that Gospel was +already in existence, but there is further evidence to show that +it must have been in existence for some time. The argument in this +case is drawn from another branch of Biblical science to which we +have already had occasion to appeal--text-criticism. Marcion's +Gospel, it is known, presents certain readings which differ both +from the received and other texts. Some of these are thought by +Volkmar and Hilgenfeld to be more original and to have a better +right to stand in the text than those which are at present found +there. These critics, however, base their opinion for the most +part on internal grounds, and the readings defended by them are +not as a rule those which are supported by other manuscript +authority. It is to this second class rather that I refer as +bearing upon the age of the canonical Gospel. The most important +various readings of the existence of which we have proof in +Marcion's Gospel are as follows [Endnote 231:1]:-- + +v. 14. The received (and best) text is [Greek: eis marturion +autois]. Marcion, according to the express statement of Epiphanius +(312 B), read [Greek: hina ae morturion touto humin], which is +confirmed by Tertullian, who gives (_Marc._ iv. 8) 'Ut sit +vobis in testimonium.' The same or a similar reading is found in +D, [Greek: hina eis marturion ae humin touto], 'ut sit in +testimonium vobis hoc,' d; 'ut sit in testimonium (--monia, ff) +hoc vobis,' a (Codex Vercellensis), b (Codex Veronensis), c (Codex +Colbertinus), ff (Codex Corbeiensis), l (Codex Rhedigerianus), of +the Old Latin [Endnote 231:2]. + +v. 39 was _probably_ omitted by Marcion (this is inferred +from the silence of Tertullian by Hilgenfeld, p. 403, and Rönsch, +p. 634). The verse is also omitted in D, a, b, c, d, e, ff. + +x. 22. Marcion's reading of this verse corresponded with that of +other Gnostics, but has no extant manuscript authority. We have +touched upon it elsewhere. + +x. 25. [Greek: zoaen aionion], Marcion omitted [Greek: aionion] +(Tert. _Adv. Marc._ iv. 25); so also the Old Latin Codex g'2 +(San Germanensis). + +xi. 2. Marcion read [Greek: eltheto to hagion pneuma sou eph' +haemas] (or an equivalent; see Rönsch, p. 640) either for the +clause [Greek: hagiasthaeto to onoma sou] or for [Greek: +genaethaeto to thelaema sou], which is omitted in B, L, 1, Vulg., +ff, Syr. Crt. There is a curious stray [Greek: eph' haemas] in D +which may conceivably be a trace of Marcion's reading. + +xii. 14. Marcion (and probably Tertullian) read [Greek: kritaen] +(or [Greek: dikastaen]) only for [Greek: kritaen ae meristaen]; so +D, a ('ut videtur,' Tregelles), c, Syr. Crt. + +xii. 38. Marcion had [Greek: tae hesperinae phulakae] for [Greek: +en tae deutera phulakae kai en tae tritae phulakae]. So b: D, c, +e, ff, i, Iren. 334, Syr. Crt., combine the two readings in +various ways. + +xvi. 12. Marcion read [Greek: emon] for [Greek: humeteron]. So e +(Palatinus), i (Vindobonensis), l (Rhedigerianus). [Greek: +haemeteron] B. L, Origen. + +xvii. 2. Marcion inserted the words [Greek: ouk egennaethae ae] +(Tert. iv. 35), 'ne nasceretur aut,' a, b, c, ff, i, l. + +xviii. 19. Here again Marcion had a variation which is unsupported +by manuscript authority, but has to some extent a parallel in the +Clementine Homilies, Justin, &c. + +xxi. 18. was omitted by Marcion (Epiph. 316 B), and is also +omitted in the Curetonian Syriac. + +xxi. 27. Tertullian (iv. 39) gives the reading of Marcion as 'cum +plurima virtute' = [Greek: meta dunameos pollaes [kai doxaes]], +for [Greek: meta dun. k. dox. pollaes]; so D ([Greek: en dun. +pol.]), and approximately Vulg., a, c, e, f, ff, Syr. Crt., Syr. +Pst. + +xxiii. 2. Marcion read [Greek: diastrephonta to ethnos kai +katalionta ton nomon kai tous prophaetas kai keleuonta phorous mae +dounai kai anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna] (Epiph., 316 +D), where [Greek: kataluonta ton nomon kai tous prophaetas] and +[Greek: anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna] are additions to +the text, and [Greek: keleuonta phorous mae dounai] is a +variation. Of the two additions the first finds support in b, (c), +e, (ff), i, l; the second is inserted, with some variation, by c +and e in verse 5. + + We may thus tabulate the relation of Marcion to these various +authorities. The brackets indicate that the agreement is only +approximate. Marcion agrees with-- + +D, d, v. 14, v. 39; xii. 14, (xii. 28), (xxi. 27). + +a (Verc.), v. 14, v. 39, xii. 14 (apparently), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27). + +b (Ver.), v. 14, v. 39. xii. 38, xvii. 2, (xxiii. 2). + +c (Colb.), v. 14, v. 39, xii. 14, (xii. 38), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27), +(xxiii. 2), (xxiii. 2). + +e (Pal.), v. 39, (xii. 38), xvi. 12, (xxi. 27), xxiii. 2, (xxiii. +2). + +ff (Corb.), v. 14, v. 39, (xii. 38), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27), (xxiii. +2). + +g'2 (Germ.), x. 25. + +i (Vind.), (xii. 38), xvi. 12, xvii. 2, xxiii. 2. + +l (Rhed.), v. 14, xvi. 12, xvii. 2, xiii. 2. + +Syr. Crt., xii. 14, (xii. 38), xxi. 18, (xxi. 27). + +It is worth noticing that xxii. 19 b, 20 (which is omitted in D, +a, b, c, ff, i, l) appears to have been found in Marcion's Gospel, +as in the Vulgate, c, and f (see Rönsch, p. 239). [Greek: apo tou +mnaemeiou] in xxiv. 9 is also found (Rönsch, p. 246), though +omitted by D, a, b, c, e, ff, l. There is no evidence to show +whether the additions in ix. 55, xxiii. 34, and xxii. 43, 44 were +present in Marcion's Gospel or not. + +It will be observed that the readings given above have all what is +called a 'Western' character. The Curetonian Syriac is well known +to have Western affinities [Endnote 233:1]. Codd. a, b, c, and the +fragment of i which extends from Luke x. 6 to xxiii. 10, represent +the most primitive type of the Old Latin version; e, ff, and I +give a more mixed text. As we should expect, the revised Latin +text of Cod. f has no representation in Marcion's Gospel [Endnote +233:2]. + +These textual phenomena are highly interesting, but at the same +time an exact analysis of them is difficult. No simple hypothesis +will account for them. There can be no doubt that Marcion's +readings are, in the technical sense, false; they are a deviation +from the type of the pure and unadulterated text. At a certain +point, evidently of the remotest antiquity, in the history of +transcription, there was a branching off which gave rise to those +varieties of reading which, though they are not confined to +Western manuscripts, still, from their preponderance in these, are +called by the general name of 'Western.' But when we come to +consider the relations among those Western documents themselves, +no regular descent or filiation seems traceable. Certain broad +lines indeed we can mark off as between the earlier and later +forms of the Old Latin, though even here the outline is in places +confused; but at what point are we to insert that most remarkable +document of antiquity, the Curetonian Syriac? For instance, there +are cases (e.g. xvii. 2, xxiii. 2) where Marcion and the Old Latin +are opposed to the Old Syriac, where the latter has undoubtedly +preserved the correct reading. To judge from these alone, we +should naturally conclude that the Syriac was simply an older and +purer type than Marcion's Gospel and the Latin. But then again, on +the other hand, there are cases (such as the omission of xxi. 18) +where Marcion and the Syriac are combined, and the Old Latin +adheres to the truer type. This will tend to show that, even at +that early period, there must have been some comparison and +correction--a _con_vergence as well as a _di_vergence-- +of manuscripts, and not always a mere reproduction of the +particular copy which the scribe had before him; at the same time +it will also show that Marcion's Gospel, so far from being an +original document, has behind it a deep historical background, and +stands at the head of a series of copies which have already passed +through a number of hands, and been exposed to a proportionate +amount of corruption. Our author is inclined to lay stress upon +the 'slow multiplication and dissemination of MSS.' Perhaps he may +somewhat exaggerate this, as antiquarians give us a surprising +account of the case and rapidity with which books were produced by +the aid of slave-labour [Endnote 235:1]. But even at Rome the +publishing trade upon this large scale was a novelty dating back +no further than to Atticus, the friend of Cicero, and we should +naturally expect that among the Christians--a poor and widely +scattered body, whose tenets would cut them off from the use of +such public machinery--the multiplication of MSS. would be slower +and more attended with difficulty. But the slower it was the more +certainly do such phenomena as these of Marcion's text throw back +the origin of the prototype from which that text was derived. In +the year 140 A.D. Marcion possesses a Gospel which is already in +an advanced stage of transcription--which has not only undergone +those changes which in some regions the text underwent before it +was translated into Latin, but has undergone other changes +besides. Some of its peculiarities are not those of the earliest +form of the Latin version, but of that version in what may be +called its second stage (e.g. xvi. 12). It has also affinities to +another version kindred to the Latin and occupying a similar place +to the Old Latin among the Churches of Syria. These circumstances +together point to an antiquity fully as great as any that an +orthodox critic would claim. + +It should not be thought that because such indications are +indirect they are therefore any the less certain. There is perhaps +hardly a single uncanonical Christian document that is admittedly +and indubitably older than Marcion; so that direct evidence there +is naturally none. But neither is there any direct evidence for +the antiquity of man or of the earth. The geologist judges by the +fossils which he finds embedded in the strata as relics of an +extinct age; so here, in the Gospel of Marcion, do we find relics +which to the initiated eye carry with them their own story. + +Nor, on the other hand, can it rightly be argued that because the +history of these remains is not wholly to be recovered, therefore +no inference from them is possible. In the earlier stages of a +science like palaeontology it might have been argued in just the +same way that the difficulties and confusion in the classification +invalidated the science along with its one main inference +altogether. Yet we can see that such an argument would have been +mistaken. There will probably be some points in every science +which will never be cleared up to the end of time. The affirmation +of the antiquity of Marcion's Gospel rests upon the simple axiom +that every event must have a cause, and that in order to produce +complicated phenomena the interaction of complicated causes is +necessary. Such an assumption involves time, and I think it is a +safe proposition to assert that, in order to bring the text of +Marcion's Gospel into the state in which we find it, there must +have been a long previous history, and the manuscripts through +which it was conveyed must have parted far from the parent stem. + +The only way in which the inference drawn from the text of +Marcion's Gospel can be really met would be by showing that the +text of the Latin and Syriac translations is older and more +original than that which is universally adopted by text-critics. I +should hardly suppose that the author of 'Supernatural Religion' +will be prepared to maintain this. If he does, the subject can +then be argued. In the meantime, these two arguments, the literary +and the textual--for the others are but subsidiary--must, I think, +be held to prove the high antiquity of our present Gospel. + + + + + +CHAPTER IX. + +TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. + + +Tatian was a teacher of rhetoric, an Assyrian by birth, who was +converted to Christianity by Justin Martyr, but after his death +fell into heresy, leaning towards the Valentinian Gnosticism, and +combining with this an extreme asceticism. + +The death of Justin is clearly the pivot on which his date will +hinge. If we are to accept the conclusions of Mr. Hort this will +have occurred in the year 148 A.D.; according to Volkmar it would +fall not before 155 A.D., and in the ordinary view as late as 163- +165 A.D. [Endnote 238:1] The beginning of Tatian's literary +activity will follow accordingly. + +Tatian's first work of importance, an 'Address to Greeks,' which +is still extant, was written soon after the death of Justin. It +contains no references to the Synoptic Gospels upon which stress +can be laid. + +An allusion to Matth. vi. 19 in the Stromateis of Clement [Endnote +238:2] has been attributed to Tatian, but I hardly know for what +reason. It is introduced simply by [Greek: tis (biazetai tis +legon)], but there were other Encratites besides Tatian, and the +very fact that he has been mentioned by name twice before in the +chapter makes it the less likely that he should be introduced so +vaguely. + +The chief interest however in regard to Tatian centres in his so- +called 'Diatessaron,' which is usually supposed to have been a +harmony of the four Gospels. + +Eusebius mentions this in the following terms: 'Tatian however, +their former leader, put together, I know not how, a sort of +patchwork or combination of the Gospels and called it the +"Diatessaron," which is still current with some.' [Endnote 239:1] + +I am rather surprised to see that Credner, who is followed by the +author of 'Supernatural Religion,' argues from this that Eusebius +had not seen the work in question [Endnote 239:2]. This inference +is not by any means conveyed by the Greek. [Greek: Ouk oid' hopos] +(thus introduced) is an idiomatic phrase referring to the +principle on which the harmony was constructed, and might well be +paraphrased 'a curious sort of patchwork or dovetailing,' 'a not +very intelligible dovetailing,' &c. Standing in the position it +does, the phrase can hardly mean anything else. Besides it is not +likely that Eusebius, an eager collector and reader of books, with +the run of Pamphilus' library, should not have been acquainted +with a work that he says himself was current in more quarters than +one. Eusebius, it will be observed, is quite explicit in his +statement. He says that the Diatessaron was a harmony of the +Gospels, i.e. (in his sense) of our present Gospels, and that +Tatian gave the name of Diatessaron to his work himself. We do not +know upon what these statements rest, but there ought to be some +valid reason before we dismiss them entirely. + +Epiphanius writes that 'Tatian is said to have composed the +Diatessaron Gospel which some call the "Gospel according to the +Hebrews"' [Endnote 240:1]. And Theodoret tells us that 'Tatian +also composed the Gospel which is called the Diatessaron, cutting +out the genealogies and all that shows the Lord to have been born +of the seed of David according to the flesh.' 'This,' he adds, +'was used not only by his own party, but also by those who +followed the teaching of the Apostles, as they had not perceived +the mischievous design of the composition, but in their simplicity +made use of the book on account of its conciseness.' Theodoret +found more than two hundred copies in the churches of his diocese +(Cyrrhus in Syria), which he removed and replaced with the works +of the four Evangelists [Endnote 240:2]. + +Victor of Capua in the sixth century speaks of Tatian's work as a +'Diapente' rather than a 'Diatessaron' [Endnote 240:3]. If we are +to believe the Syrian writer Bar-Salibi in the twelfth century, +Ephrem Syrus commented on Tatian's Diatessaron, and it began with +the opening words of St. John. This statement however is referred +by Gregory Bar-Hebraeus not to the Harmony of Tatian, but to one +by Ammonius made in the third century [Endnote 241:1]. + +Here there is clearly a good deal of confusion. + +But now we come to the question, was Tatian's work really a +Harmony of our four Gospels? The strongest presumption that it was +is derived from Irenaeus. Irenaeus, it is well known, speaks of +the four Gospels with absolute decision, as if it were a law of +nature that their number must be four, neither more nor less +[Endnote 241:2], and his four Gospels were certainly the same as +our own. But Tatian wrote within a comparatively short interval of +Irenaeus. It is sufficiently clear that Irenaeus held his opinion +at the very time that Tatian wrote, though it was not published +until later. Here then we have a coincidence which makes it +difficult to think that Tatian's four Gospels were different from +ours. + +The theory that finds favour with Credner [Endnote 241:3] and his +followers, including the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' is +that Tatian's Gospel was the same as that used by Justin. I am +myself not inclined to think this theory improbable; it would have +been still less so, if Tatian had been the master and Justin the +pupil [Endnote 241:4]. We have seen that the phenomena of Justin's +evangelical quotations are as well met by the hypothesis that he +made use of a Harmony as by any other. But that Harmony, as we +have also seen, included at least our three Synoptics. The +evidence (which we shall consider presently) for the use of the +fourth Gospel by Tatian is so strong as to make it improbable that +that work was not included in the Diatessaron. The fifth work, +alluded to by Victor of Capua, may possibly have been the Gospel +according to the Hebrews. + + + 2. + +Just as the interest of Tatian turns upon the interpretation to be +put upon a single term 'Diatessaron,' so the interest of Dionysius +of Corinth depends upon what we are to understand by his phrase +'the Scriptures of the Lord.' + +In a fragment, preserved by Eusebius, of an epistle addressed to +Soter Bishop of Rome (168-176 A.D.) and the Roman Church, +Dionysius complains that his letters had been tampered with. 'As +brethren pressed me to write letters I wrote them. And these the +apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some +things and adding others, for whom the woe is prepared. It is not +wonderful, then, if some have ventured to tamper with the +Scriptures of the Lord when they have laid their plots against +writings that have no such claims as they' [Endnote 242:1]. It +must needs be a straining of language to make the Scriptures here +refer, as the author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to do, to +the Old Testament. It is true that Justin lays great stress upon +type and prophecy as pointing to Christ, but there is a +considerable step between this and calling the whole of the Old +Testament 'Scriptures of the Lord.' On the other hand, we can +hardly think that Dionysius refers to a complete collection of +writings like the New Testament. It seems most natural to suppose +that he is speaking of Gospels--possibly not the canonical alone, +and yet, with Irenaeus in our mind's eye, we shall say probably to +them. There is the further reason for this application of the +words that Dionysius is known to have written against Marcion--'he +defended the canon of the truth' [Endnote 243:1], Eusebius says-- +and such 'tampering' as he describes was precisely what Marcion +had been guilty of. + + * * * * * + +The reader will judge for himself what is the weight of the kind +of evidence produced in this chapter. I give a chapter to it +because the author of 'Supernatural Religion' has done the same. +Doubtless it is not the sort of evidence that would bear pressing +in a court of English law, but in a question of balanced +probabilities it has I think a decided leaning to one side, and +that the side opposed to the conclusions of 'Supernatural +Religion.' + + + + + +CHAPTER X. + +MELITO--APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS. + + +We pass on, still in a region of fragments--'waifs and strays' of +the literature of the second century--and of partial and indirect +(though on that account not necessarily less important) +indications. + +In Melito of Sardis (c. 176 A.D) it is interesting to notice the +first appearance of a phrase that was destined later to occupy a +conspicuous position. Writing to his friend Onesimus, who had +frequently asked for selections from the Law and the Prophets +bearing upon the Saviour, and generally for information respecting +the number and order of 'the Old Books,' Melito says 'that he had +gone to the East and reached the spot where the preaching had been +delivered and the acts done, and that having learnt accurately the +books of the Old Covenant (or Testament) he had sent a list of +them'--which is subjoined [Endnote 244:1]. Melito uses the word +which became established as the title used to distinguish the +elder Scriptures from the younger--the Old Covenant or Testament +([Greek: hae palaia diathaekae]); and it is argued from this that +he implies the existence of a 'definite New Testament, a written +antitype to 'the Old' [Endnote 245:1] The inference however seems +to be somewhat in excess of what can be legitimately drawn. By +[Greek: palaia diathaekae] is meant rather the subject or contents +of the books than the books themselves. It is the system of +things, the dispensation accomplished 'in heavenly places,' to +which the books belong, not the actual collected volume. The +parallel of 2 Cor. iii. 14 ([Greek: epi tae anagnosei taes palaias +diathaekaes]), which is ably pointed to in 'Supernatural Religion' +[Endnote 245:2], is too close to allow the inference of a written +New Testament. And yet, though the word has not actually acquired +this meaning, it was in process of acquiring it, and had already +gone some way to acquire it. The books were already there, and, as +we see from Irenaeus, critical collections of them had already +begun to be made. Within thirty years of the time when Melito is +writing Tertullian uses the phrase Novum Testamentum precisely in +our modern sense, intimating that it had then become the current +designation [Endnote 245:3]. This being the case we cannot wonder +that there should be a certain reflex hint of such a sense in the +words of Melito. + +The tract 'On Faith,' published in Syriac by Dr. Cureton and +attributed to Melito, is not sufficiently authenticated to have +value as evidence. + +It should be noted that Melito's fragments contain nothing +especially on the Gospels. + + + 2. + +Some time between 176-180 A.D. Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of +Hierapolis, addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius an apology of +which rather more than three lines have come down to us. A more +important fragment however is assigned to this writer in the +Paschal Chronicle, a work of the seventh century. Here it is said +that 'Apollinaris, the most holy bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, who +lived near the times of the Apostles, in his book about Easter, +taught much the same, saying thus: "There are some who through +ignorance wrangle about these matters, in a pardonable manner; for +ignorance does not admit of blame but rather needs instruction. +And they say that on the 14th the Lord ate the lamb with His +disciples, and that on the great day of unleavened bread He +himself suffered; and they relate that this is in their view the +statement of Matthew. Whence their opinion is in conflict with the +law, and according to them the Gospels are made to be at +variance"' [Endnote 246:1]. This variance or disagreement in the +Gospels evidently has reference to the apparent discrepancy +between the Synoptics, especially St. Matthew and St. John, the +former treating the Last Supper as the Paschal meal, the latter +placing it before the Feast of the Passover and making the +Crucifixion coincide with the slaughter of the Paschal lamb. +Apollinaris would thus seem to recognise both the first and the +fourth Gospels as authoritative. + +Is this fragment of Apollinaris genuine? It is alleged against it +[Endnote 247:1] (1) that Eusebius was ignorant of any such work on +Easter, and that there is no mention of it in such notices of +Apollinaris and his writings as have come down to us from +Theodoret, Jerome, and Photius. There are some good remarks on +this point by Routh (who is quoted in 'Supernatural Religion' +_apparently_ as adverse to the genuineness of the fragments). +He says: 'There seems to me to be nothing in these extracts to +compel us to deny the authorship of Apollinaris. Nor must we +refuse credit to the author of the Preface [to the Paschal +Chronicle] any more than to other writers of the same times on +whose testimony many books of the ancients have been received, +although not mentioned by Eusebius or any other of his contemporaries; +especially as Eusebius declares below that it was only some select +books that had come to his hands out of many that Apollinaris had +written' [Endnote 247:2]. It is objected (2) that Apollinaris is +not likely to have spoken of a controversy in which the whole Asiatic +Church was engaged as the opinion of a 'few ignorant wranglers' A +fair objection, if he was really speaking of such a controversy. +But the great issue between the Churches of Asia and that of Rome +was whether the Paschal festival should be kept, according to the +Jewish custom, always on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, or +whether it should be kept on the Friday after the Paschal full moon, +on whatever day of the month it might fall. The fragment appears +rather to allude to some local dispute as to the day on which the +Lord suffered. To go thoroughly into this question would involve +us in all the mazes of the so-called Paschal controversy, and in +the end a precise and certain conclusion would probably be impossible. +So far as I am aware, all the writers who have entered into the +discussion start with assuming the genuineness of the Apollinarian +fragment. + +There remains however the fact that it rests only upon the attestation +of a writer of the seventh century, who may possibly be wrong, but, +if so, has been led into his error not wilfully but by accident. +No reason can be alleged for the forging or purposely false ascription +of a fragment like this, and it bears the stamp of good faith in that +it asks indulgence for opponents instead of censure. We may perhaps +safely accept the fragment with some, not large, deduction from its +weight. + + 3. + +An instance of the precariousness of the argument from silence +would be supplied by the writer who comes next under review-- +Athenagoras. No mention whatever is made of Athenagoras either by +Eusebius or Jerome, though he appears to have been an author of a +certain importance, two of whose works, an Apology addressed to +Marcus Aurelius and Commodus and a treatise on the Resurrection, +are still extant. The genuineness of neither of these works is +doubted. + +The Apology, which may be dated about 177 A.D., contains a few +references to our Lord's discourses, but not such as can have any +great weight as evidence. The first that is usually given, a +parallel to Matt. v. 39, 40 (good for evil), is introduced in such +a way as to show that the author intends only to give the sense +and not the words. The same may be said of another sentence that +is compared with Mark x. 6 [Endnote 249:1]:-- + +_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 33._ + +[Greek: Hoti en archae ho Theos hena andra eplase kai mian +gunaika.] + +_Mark x. 6_ + +[Greek: Apo de archaes ktiseos arsen kai thaelu epoiaesen autous +ho Theos.] + +All that can be said is that the thought here appears to have been +suggested by the Gospel--and that not quite immediately. + +A much closer--and indeed, we can hardly doubt, a real--parallel +is presented by a longer passage:-- + +_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 11._ + +What then are the precepts in which we are instructed? I say unto +you: Love your enemies, bless them that curse, pray for them that +persecute you; that ye may become the sons of your Father which is +in heaven: who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, +and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. + +[Greek: Tines oun haemon hoi logoi, hois entrephometha; lego +humin, agapate tous echthrous humon, eulogeite tous kataromenous, +proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas, hopos genaesthe huioi tou +patros humon tou en ouranois, hos ton haelion autou anatellei epi +ponaerous kai agathous kai brechei epi dikaious kai adikous.] + +_Matt_. v. 44, 45. + +I say unto you: Love your enemies [bless them that curse you, do +good to them that hate you], and pray for them that persecute you; +that ye may become the sons of your Father which is in heaven: for +he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth +rain on the just and the unjust. + +[Greek: ego de lego humin, agapate tous echthrous humon +[eulogeite tous kataromenous humas, kalos poiete tous misountas +humas], proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas hopos genaesthe +huioi tou patros humon tou en ouranois, hoti ton haelion autou +anatellei epi ponaerous kai agathous kai brechei epi dikaious kai +adikous.] + +The bracketed clauses in the text of St. Matthew are both omitted +and inserted by a large body of authorities, but, as it is rightly +remarked in 'Supernatural Religion,' they are always either both +omitted or both inserted; we must therefore believe that the +omission and insertion of one only by Athenagoras is without +manuscript precedent. Otherwise the exactness of the parallel is +great; and it is thrown the more into relief when we compare the +corresponding passage in St. Luke. + +The quotation is completed in the next chapter of Athenagoras' +work:-- + +_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ._ 12. + +For if ye love, he says, them which love and lend to them which +lend to you, what reward shall ye have? + +[Greek: Ean gar agapate, phaesin, tous agapontas, kai daineizete +tois daneizousin humin, tina misthon hexete;] + + _Matt._ v. 46. + +For if ye shall love them which love you, what reward have ye? + +[Greek: Ean gar agapaesaete tous agapontas humas tina misthon +echete;] + +Here the middle clause in the quotation appears to be a +reminiscence of St. Luke vi. 34 ([Greek: ean danisaete par' hon +elpizete labein]). Justin also, it should be noted, has [Greek: +agapate] (but [Greek: ei agapate]) for [Greek: agapaesaete]. If +this passage had stood alone, taking into account the variations +and the even run and balance of the language we might have thought +perhaps that Athenagoras had had before him a different version. +Yet the [Greek: tina misthon], compared with the [Greek: poia +charis] of St. Luke and [Greek: ti kainon poieite] of Justin, +would cause misgivings, and greater run and balance is precisely +what would result from 'unconscious cerebration.' + +Two more references are pointed out to Matt. v. 28 and Matt. v. +32, one with slight, the other with medium, variation, which leave +the question very much in the same position. + +We ought not to omit to notice that Athenagoras quotes one +uncanonical saying, introducing it with the phrase [Greek: palin +haemin legontos tou logou]. I am not at all clear that this is not +merely one of the 'precepts' [Greek: oi logoi] alluded to above. +At any rate it is exceedingly doubtful that the Logos is here +personified. It seems rather parallel to the [Greek: ho logos +edaelou] of Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. 129). + +Considering the date at which he wrote I have little doubt that +Athenagoras is actually quoting from the Synoptics, but he cannot, +on the whole, be regarded as a very powerful witness for them. + + + 4. + +After the cruel persecution from which the Churches of Vienne and +Lyons had suffered in the year 177 A.D., a letter was written in +their name, containing an account of what had happened, which +Lardner describes as 'the finest thing of the kind in all +antiquity' [Endnote 251:1]. This letter, which was addressed to +the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, contained several quotations +from the New Testament, and among them one that is evidently from +St. Luke's Gospel. + +It is said of one of the martyrs, Vettius Epagathus, that his +manner of life was so strict that, young as he was, he could claim +a share in the testimony borne to the more aged Zacharias. Indeed +he had _walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the +Lord blameless_, and in the service of his neighbour untiring, +&c. [Endnote 252:1] The italicised words are a verbatim +reproduction of Luke i. 6. + +There is an ambiguity in the words [Greek: sunexisousthai tae tou +presbuterou Zachariou marturia]. The genitive after [Greek: marturia] +may be either subjective or objective--'the testimony borne _by_' +or 'the testimony borne _to_ or _of_' the aged Zacharias. I have +little doubt that the translation given above is the right one. +It has the authority of Lardner ('equalled the character of') and +Routh ('Zachariae senioris elogio aequaretur'), and seems to be +imperatively required by the context. The eulogy passed upon +Vettius Epagathus is justified by the uniform strictness of his +daily life (he has walked in _all_ the commandments &c.), not by +the single act of his constancy in death. + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' apparently following +Hilgenfeld [Endnote 252:2], adopts the other translation, and +bases on it an argument that the allusion is to the _martyrdom_ +of Zacharias, and therefore not to our third Gospel in which no +mention of that martyrdom is contained. On the other hand, we are +reminded that the narrative of the martyrdom of Zacharias enters +into the Protevangelium of James. That apocryphal Gospel however +contains nothing approaching to the words which coincide exactly +with the text of St. Luke. + +Even if there had been a greater doubt than there is as to the +application of [Greek: marturia], it would be difficult to resist +the conclusion that the Synoptic Gospel is being quoted. The words +occur in the most peculiar and distinctive portion of the Gospel; +and the correspondence is so exact and the phrase itself so +striking as not to admit of any other source. The order, the +choice of words, the construction, even to the use of the nominative +[Greek: ámemptos] where we might very well have had the adverb +[Greek: amémptôs], all point the same way. These fine edges of the +quotation, so to speak, must needs have been rubbed off in the +course of transmission through several documents. But there is +not a trace of any other document that contained such a remark +upon the character of Zacharias. + +This instance of a Synoptic quotation may, I think, safely be +depended upon. + +Another allusion, a little lower down in the Epistle, which speaks +of the same Vettius Epagathus as 'having in himself the Paraclete +[there is a play on the use of the word [Greek: paraklaetos] just +before], the Spirit, more abundantly than Zacharias,' though in +exaggerated and bad taste, probably has reference to Luke i. 67, +'And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Ghost,' &c. + +[Footnote: Mr. Mason calls my attention to [Greek: enduma +numphikon] in § 13, and also to the misleading statement in +_S.R._ ii. p. 201 that 'no writing of the New Testament is +directly referred to.' I should perhaps have more fault to find +with the sentence on p. 204, 'It follows clearly and few venture +to doubt,' &c. I have assumed however for some time that the +reader will be on his guard against expressions such as these.] + + + + + +CHAPTER XI. + +PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. + + +We are now very near emerging into open daylight; but there are +three items in the evidence which lie upon the border of the +debateable ground, and as questions have been raised about these +it may be well for us to discuss them. + +We have already had occasion to speak of the two Gnostics +Ptolemaeus and Heracleon. It is necessary, in the first place, to +define the date of their evidence with greater precision, and, in +the second, to consider its bearing. + +Let us then, in attempting to do this, dismiss all secondary and +precarious matter; such as (1) the argument drawn by Tischendorf +[Endnote 254:1] from the order in which the names of the disciples +of Valentinus are mentioned and from an impossible statement of +Epiphanius which seems to make Heracleon older than Cerdon, and +(2) the argument that we find in Volkmar and 'Supernatural +Religion' [Endnote 254:2] from the use of the present tense by +Hippolytus, as if the two writers, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, were +contemporaries of his own in 225-235 A.D. Hippolytus does indeed +say, speaking of a division in the school of Valentinus, 'Those +who are of Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say' &c. +But there is no reason why there should not be a kind of historic +present, just as we might say, 'The Atomists, of whom are +Leucippus and Democritus, hold' &c., or 'St. Peter says this, St. +Paul says that.' The account of such presents would seem to be +that the writer speaks as if quoting from a book that he has +actually before him. It is not impossible that Heracleon and +Ptolemaeus may have been still living at the time when Hippolytus +wrote, but this cannot be inferred simply from the tense of the +verb. Surer data are supplied by Irenaeus. + +Irenaeus mentions Ptolemaeus several times in his first and second +books, and on one occasion he couples with his the name of +Heracleon. But to what date does this evidence of Irenaeus refer? +At what time was Irenaeus himself writing. We have seen that the +_terminus ad quem_, at least for the first three books, is +supplied by the death of Eleutherus (c. A.D. 190). On the other +hand, the third book at least was written after the publication of +the Greek version of the Old Testament by Theodotion, which +Epiphanius tells us appeared in the reign of Commodus (180-190 +A.D.). A still more precise date is given to Theodotion's work in +the Paschal Chronicle, which places it under the Consuls Marcellus +(Massuet would read 'Marullus') and Aelian in the year 184 A.D. +[Endnote 255:1] This last statement is worth very little, and it +is indeed disputed whether Theodotion's version can have appeared +so late as this. At any rate we must assume that it was in the +hands of Irenaeus about 185 A.D., and it will be not before this +that the third book of the work 'Against Heresies' was written. It +will perhaps sufficiently satisfy all parties if we suppose that +Irenaeus was engaged in writing his first three books between the +years 182-188 A.D. But the name of Ptolemaeus is mentioned very +near the beginning of the Preface; so that Irenaeus would be +committing to paper the statement of his acquaintance with +Ptolemaeus as early as 182 A.D. + +This is however the last link in the chain. Let us trace it a +little further backwards. Irenaeus' acquaintance with Ptolemaeus +can hardly have been a fact of yesterday at the time when he +wrote. Ptolemaeus represented the 'Italian' branch of the +Valentinian school, and therefore it seems a fair supposition that +Irenaeus would come in contact with him during his visit to Rome +in 178 A.D.; and the four years from that date to 182 A.D. can +hardly be otherwise than a short period to allow for the necessary +intimacy with his teaching to have been formed. + +But we are carried back one step further still. It is not only +Ptolemaeus but Ptolemaeus _and his party_ ([Greek: hoi peri +Ptolemaion]) [Endnote 256:1]. There has been time for Ptolemaeus +to found a school within a school of his own; and his school has +already begun to express its opinions, either collectively or +through its individual members. + +In this way the real date of Ptolemaeus seems still to recede, but +I will not endeavour any further to put a numerical value upon it +which might be thought to be prejudiced. It will be best for the +reader to fill up the blank according to his own judgment. + +Heracleon will to a certain extent go with Ptolemaeus, with whom +he is persistently coupled, though, as he is only mentioned once +by Irenaeus, the data concerning him are less precise. They are +however supplemented by an allusion in the fourth book of the +Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria (which appears to have been +written in the last decade of the century) to Heracleon as one of +the chief of the school of Valentinus [Endnote 257:1], and perhaps +also by a statement of Origen to the effect that Heracleon was said +to be a [Greek: gnorimos] of Valentinus himself [Endnote 257:2]. +The meaning of the latter term is questioned, and it is certainly +true that it may stand for pupil or scholar, as Elisha was to Elijah +or as the Apostles were to their Master; but that it could possibly +be applied to two persons who never came into personal contact must +be, I cannot but think, very doubtful. This then, if true, would +throw back Heracleon some little way even beyond 160 A.D. + +From the passage in the Stromateis we gather that Heracleon, if he +did not (as is usually inferred) write a commentary, yet wrote an +isolated exposition of a portion of St. Luke's Gospel. In the same +way we learn from Origen that he wrote a commentary upon St. John. + +We shall probably not be wrong in referring many of the +Valentinian quotations given by Irenaeus to Ptolemaeus and +Heracleon. By the first writer we also have extant an Epistle to a +disciple called Flora, which has been preserved by Epiphanius. +This Epistle, which there is no reason to doubt, contains +unequivocal references to our first Gospel. + + +_Epistle to Flora. Epiph. Haer._ 217 A. + +[Greek: oikia gar ae polis meristheisa eph' heautaen hoti mae +dunatai staenai [ho sotaer haemon apephaenato].] + +_Ibid._ 217 D. + +[Greek: [ephae autois hoti] Mousaes pros taen sklaerokardian humon +epetrepse to apoluein taen gunaika autou. Ap' archaes gar ou +gegonen houtos. Theos gar (phaesi) sunezeuxe tautaen taen suzugian +kai ho sunezeuxen ho kurios, anthropos (ephae) mae chorizeto.] + +_Ibid. 218 D. + +[Greek: ho gar Theos (phaesin) eipe tima ton patera sou kai taen +maetera sou, hina eu soi genaetai; humeis de (phaesin) eiraekate +(tois presbuterois legon), doron to Theo ho ean ophelaethaes ex +emou, kai aekurosate ton nomon tou Theou, dia taen paradosin humon +ton presbuteron. Touto de Haesaias exephonaesen eipon; ho laos +houtos tois cheilesi me tima hae de kardia auton porro apechei ap' +emou. Mataen de sebontai me, didaskontes didaskalias, entalmata +anthropon.] + +_Ibid._ 220 D, 221 A. + +[Greek: to gar, Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai odonta anti odontos ... +ego gar lego humin mae antistaenai holos to ponaero alla ean tis +se rhapisae strepson auto kai taen allaen siagona.] + + +_Matt._ xii. 25 (_Mark_ iii. 25, _Luke_ xi. 17). + +[Greek: pasa polis ae oikia meristheisa kath' heautaes ou +stathaesetai.] + +_Matt._ xix. 8, 6 (_Mark_ x. 5, 6, 9). + +[Greek: legei autois; Hoti Mousaes pros taen sklaerokardian humon +epetrepsen humin apolusai tas gunaikas humon' ap' archaes de ou +gegonen houtos. ... ho oun ho theos sunezeuxen anthropos mae +chorizeto.] + +_Matt._ xv. 4-8 (_Mark_ vii. 10, 11, 6, 9). + +[Greek: ho gar theos eneteilato legon, Tima ton patera kai taen +maetera ... humeis de legete; hos an eipae to patri ae tae maetri; +Doron ho ean ex emou ophelaethaes,... kai aekurosate ton nomon tou +Theou dia taen paradosin humon. Hupokritai, kalos eprophaeteusen +peri humon Haesaias legon; Ho laos houtos tois cheilesin me tima, +hae de kardia auton porro apechei ap' emou; mataen de sebontai me +didaskontes didaskalias entalmata anthropon.] + +_Matt_. v. 38, 39 (_Luke_ vi. 29). + +[Greek: aekousate oti erraethae, Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai +odonta anti odontos ego de lego hymin mae antistaenai to ponaero +all hostis se rapizei eis taen dexian siagona sou, strephon auto +kai taen allaen.] + + +Some doubt indeed appears to be entertained by the author of +'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 259:1] as to whether these +quotations are really taken from the first Synoptic; but it would +hardly have arisen if he had made a more special study of the +phenomena of patristic quotation. If he had done this, I do not +think there would have been any question on the subject. A +comparison of the other Synoptic parallels, and of the Septuagint +in the case of the quotation from Isaiah, will make the agreement +with the Matthaean text still more conspicuous. It is instructive +to notice the reproduction of the most characteristic features of +this text--[Greek: polis, meristheisa] ([Greek: ean meristhae] +Mark, [Greek: diameristheisa] Luke), [Greek: hoti Mousaes, +epetrepsen apolu[sai] t[as] gunaik[as], ou gegonen oitos, +aekurosate .. dia taen p., ophthalmon ... odontos, antistaenai to +ponaero, strepson], and the order and cast of sentence in all the +quotations. The first quotation, with [Greek: eph eautaen] and +[Greek: dunatai staenai], which may be compared (though, from the +context, somewhat doubtfully) with Mark, presents, I believe, the +only trace of the influence of any other text. + +To what period in the life of Ptolemaeus this Epistle to Flora may +have belonged we have no means of knowing; but it is unlikely that +the writer should have used one set of documents at one part of +his life and another set at another. Viewed along with so much +confirmatory matter in the account of the Valentinians by +Irenaeus, the evidence may be taken as that of Ptolemaeus himself +rather than of this single letter. + + + 2. + +The question in regard to Celsus, whose attacks upon Christianity +called forth such an elaborate reply from Origen, is chiefly one +of date. To go into this at once adequately and independently +would need a much longer investigation than can be admitted into +the present work. The subject has quite recently been treated in a +monograph by the well-known writer Dr. Keim [Endnote 260:1], and, +as there will be in this case no suspicion of partiality, I shall +content myself with stating Dr. Keim's conclusions. + +Origen himself, Dr. Keim thinks, was writing under the Emperor +Philip about A.D. 248. But he regards his opponent Celsus, not as +a contemporary, but as belonging to a past age (Contra Celsum, i. +8, vii. 11), and his work as nothing recent, but rather as having +obtained a certain celebrity in heathen literature (v. 3). For all +this it had to be disinterred, as it were, and that not without +difficulty, by a Christian (viii. 76). + +Exact and certain knowledge however about Celsus Origen did not +possess. He leans to the opinion that his opponent was an +Epicurean of that name who lived 'under Hadrian and later' (i. 8). +This Epicurean had also written several books against Magic (i. +68). Now it is known that there was a Celsus, a friend of Lucian, +who had also written against Magic, and to whom Lucian dedicated +his 'Pseudomantis, or Alexander of Abonoteichos.' + +It was clearly obvious to identify the two persons, and there was +much to be said in favour of the identification. But there was +this difficulty. Origen indeed speaks of the Celsus to whom he is +replying as an Epicurean, and here and there Epicurean opinions +are expressed in the fragments of the original work that Origen +has preserved. But Origen himself was somewhat puzzled to find +that the main principles of the author were rather Platonic or +Neo-platonic than Epicurean, and this observation has been +confirmed by modern enquiry. The Celsus of Origen is in reality a +Platonist. + +It still being acknowledged that the friend of Lucian was an +Epicurean, this discovery seemed fatal to the supposition that he +was the author of the work against the Christians. Accordingly +there was a tendency among critics, though not quite a unanimous +tendency, to separate again the two personalities which had been +united. At this point Dr. Keim comes upon the scene, and he asks +the question, Was Lucian's friend really an Epicurean? Lucian +nowhere says so in plain words, but it was taken as a _primâ +facie_ inference from some of the language used by him. For +instance, he describes the Platonists as being on good terms with +this very Alexander of Abonoteichos whom he is ridiculing and +exposing. He appeals to Celsus to say whether a certain work of +Epicurus is not his finest. He says that his friend will be +pleased to know that one of his objects in writing is to see +justice done to Epicurus. All these expressions Dr. Keim thinks +may be explained as the quiet playful irony that was natural to +Lucian, and from other indications in the work he concludes that +Lucian's Celsus may well have been a Platonist, though not a +bigoted one, just as Lucian himself was not in any strict and +narrow sense an Epicurean. + +When once the possibility of the identification is conceded, there +are, as Dr. Keim urges, strong reasons for its adoption. The +characters of the two owners of the name Celsus, so far as they +can be judged from the work of Origen on the one hand and Lucian +on the other, are the same. Both are distinguished for their +opposition to magical arts. The Celsus of the Pseudomantis is a +friend of Lucian, and it is precisely from a friend of Lucian that +the 'Word of Truth' replied to by Origen might be supposed to have +come. Lastly, time and place both support the identification. The +Celsus of Lucian lived under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, and +Dr. Keim decides, after an elaborate examination of the internal +evidence, that the Celsus of Origen wrote his work in the year 178 +A.D., towards the close of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. + +Such is Dr. Keim's view. In the date assigned to the [Greek: Logos +alaethaes] it does not differ materially from that of the large +majority of critics. Grätz alone goes as far back as to the time +of Hadrian. Hagenbach, Hasse, Tischendorf, and Friedländer fix +upon the middle, Mosheim, Gieseler, Baur, and Engelhardt upon the +second half, of the second century; while the following writers +assume either generally the reign of Marcus Aurelius, or specially +with Dr. Keim one of the two great persecutions--Spencer, +Tillemont, Neander, Tzschirner, Jachmann, Bindemann, Lommatzsch, +Hase, Redepenning, Zeller. The only two writers mentioned by Dr. +Keim as contending for a later date are Ueberweg and Volkmar, 'who +strangely misunderstands both Origen and Baur' [Endnote 263:1]. +Volkmar is followed by the author of 'Supernatural Religion.' + +At whatever date Celsus wrote, it appears to be sufficiently clear +that he knew and used all the four canonical Gospels [Endnote 263:2]. + + + 3. + +The last document that need be discussed by us at present is the +remarkable fragment which, from its discoverer and from its +contents, bears the name of the Canon of Muratori [Endnote 263:3]. + +Whatever was the original title and whatever may have been the +extent of the work from which it is taken, the portion of it that +has come down to us is by far the most important of all the direct +evidence for the Canon both of the Gospels and of the New +Testament in general with which we have yet had to deal. It is +indeed the first in which the conception of a Canon is quite +unequivocally put forward. We have for the first time a definite +list of the books received by the Church and a distinct separation +made between these and those that are rejected. + +The fragment begins abruptly with the end of a sentence apparently +relating to the composition of the Gospel according to St. Mark. +Then follows 'in the third place the Gospel according to St. +Luke,' of which some account is given. 'The fourth of the Gospels' +is that of John, 'one of the disciples of the Lord.' A legend is +related as to the origin of this Gospel. Then mention is made of +the Acts, which are attributed to Luke. Then follow thirteen +Epistles of St. Paul by name. Two Epistles professing to be +addressed to the Laodiceans and Alexandrines are dismissed as +forged in the interests of the heresy of Marcion. The Epistle of +Jude and two that bear the superscription of John are admitted. +Likewise the two Apocalypses of John and Peter. [No mention is +made, it will be seen, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of that of +James, of I and II Peter, and of III John.] [Endnote 264:1] + +The Pastor of Hermas, a work of recent date, may be read but not +published in the Church before the people, and cannot be included +either in the number of the prophets or apostles. + +On the other hand nothing at all can be received of Arsinous, +Valentinus, or Miltiades; neither the new Marcionite book of +Psalms, which with Basilides and the Asian founder of the +Cataphryges (or the founder of the Asian Cataphryges, i.e. +Montanus) is rejected. + +The importance of this will be seen at a glance. The chief +question is here again in regard to the date, which must be +determined from the document itself. A sufficiently clear +indication seems to be given in the language used respecting the +Pastor of Hermas. This work is said to have been composed 'very +lately in our times, Pius the brother of the writer occupying the +episcopal chair of the Roman Church.' The episcopate of Pius is +dated from 142-157 A.D., so that 157 A.D. may be taken as the +starting-point from which we have to reckon the interval implied +by the words 'very recently in our times' (nuperrime temporibus +nostris). Taking these words in their natural sense, I should +think that the furthest limit they would fairly admit of would be +a generation, or say thirty years, after the death of Pius (for +even in taking a date such as this we are obliged to assume that +the Pastor was published only just before the death of that +bishop). The most probable construction seems to be that the +unknown author meant that the Pastor of Hermas was composed within +his own memory. Volkmar is doubtless right in saying [Endnote +265:1] that he meant to distinguish the work in question from the +writings of the Prophets and Apostles, but still the double use of +the words 'nuperrime' and 'temporibus nostris' plainly indicate +something more definite than merely 'our post-apostolic time.' If +this had been the sense we should have had some such word as +'recentius' instead of 'nuperrime.' The argument of 'Supernatural +Religion' [Endnote 265:2], that 'in supposing that the writer may +have appropriately used the phrase thirty or forty years after the +time of Pius so much licence is taken that there is absolutely no +reason why a still greater interval may not be allowed,' is +clearly playing fast and loose with language, and doing so for no +good reason; for the only ground for assigning a later date is +that the earlier one is inconvenient for the critic's theory. The +other indications tally quite sufficiently with the date 170-190 +A.D. Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, the Marcionites, we know were +active long before this period. The Montanists (who appear under +the name by which they were generally known in the earlier +writings, 'Cataphryges') were beginning to be notorious, and are +mentioned in the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons. +Miltiades was a contemporary of Claudius Apollinaris who wrote +against him [Endnote 266:1]. All the circumstances point to such a +date as that of Irenaeus, and the conception of the Canon is very +similar to that which we should gather from the great work +'Against Heresies.' If this does not agree with preconceived +opinions as to what the state of the Canon ought to have been, it +is the opinion that ought to be rectified accordingly, and not +plain words explained away. + +I can see no sound objection to the date 170-180 A.D., but by +adding ten years to this we shall reach the extreme limit +admissible. + +I do not know whether it is necessary to refer to the objection +from the absence of any mention of the first two Synoptic Gospels, +through the mutilated state of the document. It is true that the +inference that they were originally mentioned rests only 'upon +conjecture' [Endnote 266:2], but it is the kind of conjecture +that, taking all things into consideration--the extent to which +the evidence of the fragment in other respects corresponds with +the Catholic tradition, the state of the Canon in Irenaeus, the +relation of the evidence for the first Gospel in particular to +that for the others--can be reckoned at very little less than +ninety-nine chances out of a hundred. + +To the same class belongs Dr. Donaldson's suggestion [Endnote 267:1] +that the passage which contains the indication of date may be an +interpolation. It is always possible that the particular passage +that happens to be important in any document of this date may be +an interpolation, but the chances that it really is so must be in +any case very slight, and here there is no valid reason for suspecting +interpolation. It does not at all follow, as Dr. Donaldson seems +to think, that because a document is mutilated therefore it is more +likely to be interpolated; for interpolation is the result of quite +a different series of accidents. The interpolation, if it were such, +could not well be accidental because it has no appearance of being +a gloss; on the other hand, only far-fetched and improbable motives +can be alleged for it as intentional. + +The full statement of the fragment in regard to St. Luke's Gospel +is as follows. 'Luke the physician after the Ascension of Christ, +having been taken into his company by Paul, wrote in his own name +to the best of his judgment (ex opinione), and, though he had not +himself seen the Lord in the flesh, so far as he could ascertain; +accordingly he begins his narrative with the birth of John.' The +greater part of this account appears to be taken simply from the +Preface to the Gospel, which is supplemented by the tradition that +St. Luke was a physician and also the author of the Acts. As +evidence to those facts a document dating some hundred years after +the composition of the Gospel is not of course very weighty; its +real importance is as showing the authority which the Gospel at +this date possessed in the Church. That authority cannot have been +acquired in a day, but represents the culmination of a long and +gradual movement. What we have to note is that the movement, some +of the stages of which we have been tracing, has now definitely +reached its culmination. + +In regard to the fourth Gospel the Muratorian fragment has a +longer story to tell, but before we touch upon this, and before we +proceed to draw together the threads of the previous enquiry, it +will be well for us first to bring up the evidence for the fourth +Gospel to the same date and position as that for the other three. +This then will be the subject of the next chapter. + + + + + +CHAPTER XII. + +THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. + + +The fourth Gospel was, upon any theory, written later than the +others, and it is not clear that it was published as soon as it +was written. Both tradition and the internal evidence of the +concluding chapter seem to point to the existence of somewhat +peculiar relations between the Evangelist and the presbyters of +the Asian Church, which would make it not improbable that the +Gospel was retained for some time by the latter within their own +private circle before it was given to the Church at large. + +We have the express statement of Irenaeus [Endnote 269:1], who, if +he was born as is commonly supposed at Smyrna about 140 A.D., must +be a good authority, that the Apostle St. John lived on till the +times of Trajan (98-117 A.D.). If so, it is very possible that the +Gospel was not yet published, or barely published, when Clement of +Rome wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians. Neither, considering +its almost esoteric character and the slow rate at which such a +work would travel at first, should we be very much surprised if it +was not in the hands of Barnabas (probably in Alexandria) and +Hermas (at Rome). In no case indeed could the silence of these two +writers be of much moment, as in the Epistle of Barnabas the +allusions to the New Testament literature are extremely few and +slight, while in the Shepherd of Hermas there are no clear and +certain references either to the Old Testament or the New +Testament at all. + +And yet there is a lively controversy round these two names as to +whether or not they contain evidence for the fourth Gospel, and +that they do is maintained not only by apologists, but also by +writers of quite unquestionable impartiality like Dr. Keim. Dr. +Keim, it will be remembered, argues against the Johannean +authorship of the Gospel, and yet on this particular point he +seems to be almost an advocate for the side to which he is +opposed. + +'Volkmar,' he says [Endnote 270:1], 'has recently spoken of Barnabas +as undeniably ignorant of the Logos-Gospel, and explained the early +date assigned to his Epistle by Ewald and Weizsäcker and now also +by Riggenbach as due to their perplexity at finding in it no trace +of St. John. There is room for another opinion. However much it +may be shown that Barnabas gives neither an incident nor a single +sentence from the Gospel, that he is unacquainted with the conception +of the Logos, that expressions like 'water and blood,' or the +Old Testament types of Christ, and especially the serpent reared +in the wilderness as an object of faith, are employed by him +independently--for all this the deeper order of conceptions in +the Epistle coincides in the gross or in detail so repeatedly with +the Gospel that science must either assume a connection between +them, or, if it leaves the problem unsolved, renounces its own +calling. "The Son of God" was to be manifested in the flesh, +manifested through suffering, to go to his glory through death and +the Cross, to bring life and the immanent presence of the Godhead, +such is here and there the leading idea. Existing before the +foundation of the world, the Lord of the world, the sender of the +prophets, the object of their prophecies, beheld even by Abraham, +in the person of Moses himself typified as the only centre of +Israel's hopes, and in so far already revealed and glorified in +type before his incarnation, he was at last to appear, to dwell +among us, to be seen, not as son of David but as Son of God, in +the garment of the flesh, by those who could not even endure the +light of this world's sun. So did he come; nay, so did he die to +fulfil the promise, in the very act of his apparent defeat to +dispense purification, pardon, life, to destroy death, to overcome +the devil, to show forth the Resurrection, and with the Resurrection +his right to future judgment; at the same time, it is true, to fill +up the measure of the sins of Israel, whom he had loved exceedingly +and for whom he had done such great wonders and signs, and to prepare +for himself again a new people who should keep his commandments, +his new law. The mission that his Father gave him he has accomplished, +of his own free will and for our sake--the true explanation of his +death--did he suffer. "The Jews" have not hoped upon him, clearly +as the typical design of the Old Testament and Moses himself pointed +to him, and, in opposition to the spiritual teaching of Moses, they +have been seduced into the carnal and sensual by the devil; they +have set their trust and their hopes, not upon God, but upon the +fleshly circumcision and upon the visible house of God, worshipping +the Lord in the temple almost like the heathen. But the Christian +raises himself above the flesh and its lusts, which disturb the +faculties of knowledge as well as those of will, to the Spirit +and the spiritual service of God, above the ways of darkness to +the ways of light; he presses on to faith, and with faith to +perfect knowledge, as one born again, who is full of the Spirit +of God, in whom God dwells and prophesies, interpreting past and +future without being seen or heard; as taught of God and fulfilling +the commandments of the new law of the Lord, a lover of the brethren, +and in himself the child of peace, of joy, and of love. For this +class of ideas there is no analogy in St. Paul, or even in the +Epistle to the Hebrews, but only in this Gospel, much as the +connection has hitherto been overlooked. Indeed, though it may +still in places be questioned on which side the relation of dependence +lies (it might be thought that Barnabas supplied the ideas, John +the application of them, and the conception of the Logos crowning all), +in any case the Gospel appeared at a date near to that of the +Epistle of Barnabas. With more reason may it be said that it is +not until we come to the Epistle of Barnabas that we find stiff +scholastic theory a more predominant typology, an artificialised +view of Judaism; besides the points of view always appear as +something received and not originated--water and blood, new law, +new people--and in the solemn manifestation of the Son of God +immediately after the selection of the Apostles, in the great +but fruitless exhibition of miracle and love for Israel, there +is evidently allusion to history, that is, to John ii and xii.' + +'The Epistle of Barnabas,' Dr. Keim adds, 'after the lucid +demonstration of Volkmar--in spite of Hilgenfeld and Weizäcker, +and now also of Riggenbach--was undoubtedly written at the time of +the rebuilding of the temple under the Emperor Hadrian, about the +year 120 A.D. (according to Volkmar, at the earliest, 118-119), at +latest 130.' + +It is not to be expected that this full and able statement should +carry conviction to every reader. And yet I believe that it has +some solid foundation. The single instances are not perhaps such +as could be pressed very far, but they derive a certain weight +when taken together and as parts of a wider circle of ideas. The +application of the type of the brazen serpent to Jesus in c. xii. +may have been suggested by John iii. 14 sqq., but we cannot say +that it was so with certainty. The same application is made by +Justin in a place where there is perhaps less reason to assume a +connection with the fourth Gospel; and we know that types and +prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and +were soon collected in a kind of common stock from which every one +drew at his pleasure. A stronger case, and one that I incline to +think of some importance, is supplied by the peculiar combination +of 'the water and the cross' in Barn. c. xi; not that here there +is a direct and immediate, but more probably a mediate, connection +with the fourth Gospel. The phrase [Greek: ho uios tou theou] is +not peculiar to, though it is more frequent in, and to some degree +characteristic of, the Gospel and First Epistle of St. John. +[Greek: Phanerousthai] may be claimed more decidedly, especially +by comparison with the other Gospels, though it occurs with +similar reference to the Incarnation in the later Pauline +Epistles. [Greek: 'Elthein en sarki] is again rightly classed as a +Johannean phrase, though the exact counterpart is found rather in +the Epistles than the Gospel. The doctrine of pre-existence is +certainly taught in such passages as the application of the text, +'Let us make man in our image,' which is said to have been +addressed to the Son 'from the foundation of the world' (c. v). +Generally I think it may be said that the doctrine of the +Incarnation, the typology, and the use of the Old Testament +prophecies, approximate, most distinctly to the Johannean type, +though under the latter heads there is of course much debased +exaggeration. The soteriology we might be perhaps tempted to +connect rather on the one hand with the Epistle to the Hebrews, +and on the other with those of St. Paul. There may be something of +an echo of the fourth Gospel in the allusion--to the unbelief and +carnalised religion of the Jews. But the whole question of the +speculative affinities of a writing like this requires subtle and +delicate handling, and should be rather a subject for special +treatment than an episode in an enquiry like the present. The +opinion of Dr. Keim must be of weight, but on the whole I think it +will be safest and fairest to say that, while the round assertion +that the author of the Epistle was ignorant of our Gospel is not +justified, the positive evidence that he made use of it is not +sufficiently clear to be pressed controversially. + + * * * * * + +A similar condition of things may be predicated of the Shepherd of +Hermas, though with a more decided leaning to the negative side. +Here again Dr. Keim [Endnote 273:1], as well as Canon Westcott +[Endnote 273:2], thinks that we can trace an acquaintance with the +Gospel, but the indications are too general and uncertain to be relied +upon. The imagery of the shepherd and the flock, as perhaps of the +tower and the gate, may, be as well taken from the scenes of the +Roman Campagna as from any previous writing. The keeping of the +commandments is a commonplace of Christianity, not to say of +religion. And the Divine immanence in the soul is conceived rather +in the spirit of the elder Gospels than of the fourth. + +There is a nearer approach perhaps in the identification of 'the +gate' with the 'Son of God,' and in the explanation with which it +is accompanied. 'The rock is old because the Son of God is older +than the whole of His creation; so that He was assessor to His +Father in the creation of the world; the gate is new, because He +was made manifest at the consummation of the last days, and they +who are to be saved enter by it into the kingdom of God' (Sim. ix. +12). Here too we have the doctrine of pre-existence; and +considering the juxtaposition of these three points, the pre- +existence, the gate (which is the only access to the Lord), the +identification of the gate with the incarnation of Jesus, we may +say perhaps a _possible_ reference to the fourth Gospel; +_probable_ it might be somewhat too much to call it. We must +leave the reader to form his own estimate. + + * * * * * + +A somewhat greater force, but not as yet complete cogency, +attaches to the evidence of the Ignatian letters. A parallel is +alleged to a passage in the Epistle to the Romans which is found +both in the Syriac and in the shorter Greek or Vossian version. 'I +take no relish in corruptible food or in the pleasures of this +life. I desire bread of God, heavenly bread, bread of life, which +is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born in the +latter days of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire drink +of God, His blood, which is love imperishable and ever-abiding +life' [Endnote 275:1] (Ep. ad Rom. c. vii). This is compared with +the discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum in the sixth chapter +of St. John. It should be said that there is a difference of +reading, though not one that materially influences the question, +in the Syriac. If the parallel holds good, the peculiar diction of +the author must be seen in the substitution of [Greek: poma] for +[Greek: posis] of John vi. 55, and [Greek: aennaos zoae] for +[Greek zoae aionios], of John vi. 54. [The Ignatian phrase is +perhaps more than doubtful, as it does not appear either in the +Syriac, the Armenian, or the Latin version.] Still this need not +stand in the way of referring the original of the passage +ultimately to the Gospel. The ideas are so remarkable that it +seems difficult to suppose either are accidental coincidence or +quotation from another writer. I suspect that Ignatius or the +author of the Epistle really had the fourth Gospel in his mind, +though not quite vividly, and by a train of comparatively remote +suggestions. + +The next supposed allusion is from the Epistle to the +Philadelphians: 'The Spirit, coming from God, is not to be +deceived; for it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth, +and it searcheth that which is hidden' [Endnote 275:2]. This is +obviously the converse of John iii. 5, where it is said that we do +not know the way of the Spirit, which is like the wind, &c. And +yet the exact verbal similarity of the phrase [Greek: oiden pothen +erchetai kai pou hupagei], and its appearance in the same +connection, spoken of the Spirit, leads us to think that there +was--as there may very well have been--an association of ideas. +This particular phrase [Greek: pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei] is +very characteristically Johannean. It occurs three times over in +the fourth Gospel, and not at all in the rest of the New +Testament. The combination of [Greek: erchesthai] and [Greek +hupagein] also occurs twice, and [Greek: pou [opou] hupago [-gei, +-geis]] in all twelve times in the Gospel and once in the Epistle +([Greek: ouk oide pou hupagei]); this too, it is striking to +observe, not at all elsewhere. The very word [Greek: hupago] is +not found at all in St. Paul, St. Peter, or the Epistle to the +Hebrews. Taken together with the special application to the +Spirit, this must be regarded as a strong case. + +Neither do the arguments of 'Supernatural Religion' succeed in +proving that there is no connection with St. John in such +sentences as, 'There is one God who manifested Himself through +Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word' (Ad Magn. c. viii), +or who is Himself the door of the Father (Ad Philad. c. ix). In +regard to the first of these especially, it is doubtless true that +Philo also has 'the eternal Word,' which is even the 'Son' of God; +but the idea is much more consciously metaphorical, and not only +did the incarnation of the Logos in a historical person never +enter into Philo's mind, but 'there is no room for it in his +system' [Endnote 276:1]. + +It should be said that these latter passages are all found only in +the Vossian recension of the Epistles, and therefore, as we saw +above, are in any case evidence for the first half of the second +century, while they _may_ be the genuine works of Ignatius. + + * * * * * + +The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which goes very much +with the Ignatian Epistles and the external evidence for which it +is so hard to resist, testifies to the fourth Gospel through the +so-called first Epistle. That this Epistle is really by the same +author as the Gospel is not indeed absolutely undoubted, but I +imagine that it is as certain as any fact of literature can be. +The evidence of style and diction is overwhelming [Endnote 277:1]. +We may set side by side the two passages which are thought to be +parallel. + +_Ep. ad Phil_. c. vii. + +[Greek: Pas gar hos an mae homologae Iaesoun Christon en sarki +elaeluthenai antichristos esti; kai hos an mae homologae to +marturion tou staurou ek tou diabolou esti; kai hos an methodeuae +ta logia tou Kuriou pros tas idias epithumias, kai legae maete +anastasin maete krisin einai, outos prototokos esti tou Satana.] + +1 _John_ vi. 2, 3. + +[Greek: Pan pneuma ho homologei Iaesoun Christon en sarki +elaeluthota ek tou Theou estin. Kai pan pneuma ho mae homologei +tou Iaesoun ek tou Theou ouk estin, kai touto estin to tou +antichristou, k.t.l.] + +This is precisely one of those passages where at a superficial +glance we are inclined to think that there is no parallel, but +where a deeper consideration tends to convince us of the opposite. +The suggestion of Dr. Scholten cannot indeed be quite excluded, +that both writers I have adopted a formula in use in the early +Church against various heretics' [Endnote 277:2]. But if such a +formula existed it is highly probable that it took its rise from +St. John's Epistle. This passage of the Epistle of Polycarp is the +earliest instance of the use of the word 'Antichrist' outside the +Johannean writings in which, alone of the New Testament, it occurs +five times. Here too it occurs in conjunction with other +characteristic phrases, [Greek: homologein, en sarki elaeluthenai, +ek tou diabolou]. The phraseology and turns of expression in these +two verses accord so entirely with those of the rest of the +Epistle and of the Gospel that we must needs take them to be the +original work of the writer and not a quotation, and we can hardly +do otherwise than see an echo of them in the words of Polycarp. + +There is naturally a certain hesitation in using evidence for the +Epistle as available also for the Gospel, but I have little doubt +that it may justly so be used and with no real diminution of its +force. The chance that the Epistle had a separate author is too +small to be practically worth considering. + +This then will apply to the case of Papias, of whose relations to +the fourth Gospel we have no record, but of whom Eusebius expressly +says, that 'he made use of testimonies from the first Epistle of John.' +There is the less reason to doubt this statement, as in _every_ +instance in which a similar assertion of Eusebius can be verified +it is found to hold good. It is much more probable that he would +overlook real analogies than be led astray by merely imaginary +ones--which is rather a modern form of error. In textual matters +the ancients were not apt to go wrong through over-subtlety, and +Eusebius himself does not, I believe, deserve the charge of +'inaccuracy and haste' that is made against him [Endnote 278:1]. + + * * * * * + +In regard to the much disputed question of the use of the fourth +Gospel by Justin, those who maintain the affirmative have again +emphatic support from Dr. Keim [Endnote 278:2]. We will examine +some of the instances which are adduced on this side. + +And first, in his account of John the Baptist, Justin has two +particulars which are found in the fourth Gospel and in no other. +That Gospel alone makes the Baptist himself declare, 'I am not the +Christ;' and it alone puts into his mouth the application of the +prophecy of Isaiah, 'I am the voice of one crying in the +wilderness.' Justin combines these two sayings, treating them as +an answer made by John to some who supposed that he was the +Christ. + +_Justin, Dial_. c. 88. + +To whom he himself also cried: 'I am not the Christ, but the voice +of one crying [Greek: ouk eimi o Christos, alla phonae boontos]; +for there shall come one stronger than I,' &c. + +_John_ i. 19, 20, 23. + +And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and +Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, +and denied not: but confessed, I am not the Christ [Greek: oti ouk +eimi ego o Christos]... I am the voice of one crying [Greek: ego +phonae boontos] in the wilderness,' &c. + +The passage in Justin does not profess to be a direct quotation; +it is merely a historical reproduction, and, as such, it has quite +as much accuracy as we should expect to find. The circumstantial +coincidences are too close to be the result of accident. And Dr. +Keim is doubtless right in ridiculing Volkmar's notion that Justin +has merely developed Acts xiii. 25, which contains neither of the +two phrases ([Greek: ho Christos, phonae boontos]) in question. To +refer the passage to an unknown source such as the Gospel +according to the Hebrews--all we know of which shows its +affinities to have been rather on the side of the Synoptics--when +we have a known source in the fourth Gospel ready to hand, is +quite unreasonable [Endnote 280:1]. + +No great weight, though perhaps some fractional quantity, can be +ascribed to the statement that Jesus healed those who were maimed +from their birth ([Greek: tous ek genetaes paerous] [Endnote +280:2]). The word [Greek: paeros] is used specially for the blind, +and the fourth Evangelist is the only one who mentions the healing +of congenital infirmity, which he does under this same phrase +[Greek: ek genetaes], and that of a case of blindness (John ix. +1). The possibility urged in 'Supernatural Religion,' that Justin +may be merely drawing from tradition, may detract from the force +of this but cannot altogether remove it, especially as we have no +other trace of a tradition containing this particular. + +Tischendorf [Endnote 280:3] lays stress on a somewhat remarkable +phenomenon in connection with the quotation of Zech. xvi. 10, +'They shall look on him whom they pierced.' Justin gives the text +of this in precisely the same form as St. John, and with the same +variation from the Septuagint, [Greek: opsontai eis hon +exekentaesan] for [Greek: epiblepsontai pros me anth hon +katorchaesanto]--a variation which is also found in Rev. i. 7. +Those who believe that the Apocalypse had the same author as the +Gospel, naturally see in this a confirmation of their view, and it +would seem to follow that Justin had had either one or both +writings before him. But the assumption of an identity of +authorship between the Apocalypse and the Gospel, though I believe +less unreasonable than is generally supposed, still is too much +disputed to build anything upon in argument. We must not ignore +the other theory, that all three writers had before them and may +have used independently a divergent text of the Septuagint. Some +countenance is given to this by the fact that ten MSS. of the +Septuagint present the same reading [Endnote 281:1]. There can be +little doubt however that it was in its origin a Christian +correction, which had the double advantage of at once bringing the +Greek into closer conformity to the Hebrew, and of also furnishing +support to the Christian application of the prophecy. Whether this +correction was made before either the Apocalypse or the Gospel +were written, or whether it appeared in these works for the first +time and from them was copied into other Christian writings, must +remain an open question. + +The saying in Apol. i. 63, 'so that they are rightly convicted +both by the prophetic Spirit and by Christ Himself, that they knew +neither the Father nor the Son' ([Greek: oute ton patera oute ton +uion egnosan]), certainly presents a close resemblance to John +xvi. 3, [Greek: ouk egnosan ton patera oude eme]. But a study of +the context seems to make it clear that the only passage +consciously present to Justin's mind was Matt. xi. 27. Dr. Keim +thinks that St. John supplied him with a commentary oh the +Matthaean text; but the coincidence may be after all accidental. + +But the most important isolated case of literary parallelism is +the well-known passage in Apol. i. 61 [Endnote 281:2]. + +_Apol_. i. 61. + +For Christ said: Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into +the kingdom of heaven. Now that it is impossible for those who +have once been born to return into the wombs of those who bare +them is evident to all. + +[Greek: Kai gar ho Christos eipen, An mae anagennaethaete, ou mae +eiselthaete eis taen Basileian ton ouranon. Hoti de kai adunaton +eis tas maetras ton tekouson tous hapax gennomenous embaenai, +phaneron pasin esti.] + +_John_ iii. 3-5. + +Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, +Except any one be born over again (or possibly 'from above'), he +cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a +man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his +mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say +unto thee, Except any one be born of Water and Spirit, he cannot +enter into the kingdom of God. + +[Greek: Apekrithae Iaesous kai eipen auto Amaen amaen lego soi, +ean mae tis gennaethae anothen ou dunatai idein taen Basilaian tou +Theou. Legei pros aouton ho Nikodaemos, Pos dunatai anthropos +gennaethaenai geron on; mae dunatai eis taen koilian taes maertros +autou deuteron eiselthein kai gennaethaenai; k.t.l.] + + +Here we have first to determine the meaning of the word [Greek: anothen] +in the phrase [Greek: gennaethae anothen] of John iii. 3 on which +the extent of the parallelism to some degree turns. Does it mean +'be born _over again_,' like Justin's [Greek: anagennaethaete]? +Or does it mean 'be born _from above_,' i.e. by a heavenly, divine, +regeneration? To express an opinion in favour of the first of these +views would naturally be to incur the charge of taking it up merely to +suit the occasion. It is not however necessary; for it is sufficient to +know that whether or not this meaning was originally intended by the +Evangelist, it is a meaning that Justin might certainly put upon the +words. That this is the case is sufficiently proved by the fact that +the Syriac version (which is quoted in 'Supernatural Religion,' by a +pardonable mistake, on the other side [Endnote 283:1]) actually +translates the words thus. So also does the Vulgate; with Tertullian +('renatus'), Augustine, Chrysostom (partly), Luther, Calvin, +Maldonatus, &c. For the sense 'from above' are the Gothic version, +Origen, Cyril, Theophylact, Bengel, &c.; on the whole a fairly equal +division of opinion. The question has been of late elaborately +re-argued by Mr. McClellan [Endnote 283:2], who decides in favour of +'again.' But, without taking sides either way, it is clear that Justin +would have had abundant support, in particular that of his own national +version, if he intended [Greek: anagennaethaete] to be a paraphrase of +[Greek: gennaethae anothen]. + +It is obvious that if he is quoting St. John the quotation is +throughout paraphrastic. And yet it is equally noticeable that he +does not use the exact Johannean phrase, he uses others that are +in each case almost precisely equivalent. He does not say [Greek: +our dunatai idein--taen basileian ton ouranon], but he says +[Greek: ou mae eiselthaete eis--taen basileian ton ouranon], the +latter pair phrases which the Synoptics have already taught us to +regard as convertible. He does not say [Greek: mae dunatai eis +taen koilian taes maetros autou deuteron eiselthein kai +gennaethaenai], but he says [Greek: adunaton eis tas maetras ton +tekouson tous hapax gennomenous embaebai]. And the scale seems +decisively turned by the very remarkable combination in Justin and +St. John of the saying respecting spiritual regeneration with the +same strangely gross physical misconception. It is all but +impossible that two minds without concert or connection should +have thought of introducing anything of the kind. Nicodemus makes +an objection, and Justin by repeating the same objection, and in a +form that savours so strongly of platitude, has shown, I think we +must say, conclusively, that he was aware that the objection had +been made. + +Such are some of the chief literary coincidences between Justin +and the fourth Gospel; but there are others more profound. Justin +undoubtedly has the one cardinal doctrine of the fourth Gospel-- +the doctrine of the Logos. + +Thus he writes. 'Jesus Christ is in the proper sense [Greek: +idios] the only Son begotten of God, being His Word [Greek: logos] +and Firstborn Power' [Endnote 284:1]. Again, 'But His Son who +alone is rightly [Greek: kurios] called Son, who before all +created things was with Him and begotten of Him as His Word, when +in the beginning He created and ordered all things through Him,' +&c. Again, 'Now the next Power to God the Father and Lord of all, +and Son [Endnote 284:2], is the Word, of whom we shall relate in +what follows how He was made flesh and became Man.' Again, +'The Word of God is His Son.' Again, speaking of the Gentile +philosophers and lawgivers, 'Since they did not know all things +respecting the Word, who is Christ, they have also frequently +contradicted each other.' These passages are given by Tischendorf, +and they might be added to without difficulty; but it is not +questioned that the term Logos is found frequently in Justin's +writings, and in the same sense in which it is used in the +Prologue of the fourth Gospel of the eternal Son of God, who is at +the same time the historical person Jesus Christ. + +The natural inference that Justin was acquainted with the fourth +Gospel is met by suggesting other sources for the doctrine. These +sources are of two kinds, Jewish or Alexandrine. + +It is no doubt true that a vivid personification of the Wisdom of +God is found both in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha. Thus +in the book of Proverbs we have an elaborate ode upon Wisdom as +the eternal assessor in the counsels of God: 'The Lord possessed +me in' the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was +set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth +was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there +were no fountains of water ... When He prepared the heavens, I was +there: when He set a compass upon the face of the deep ... Then I +was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His +delight, rejoicing always before Him' [Endnote 285:1]. The ideas +of which this is perhaps the clearest expression are found more +vaguely in other parts of the same book, in the Psalms, and in the +book of Job, but they are further expanded and developed in the +two Apocryphal books of Wisdom. There [Endnote 285:2] Wisdom is +represented as the 'breath of the power of God, and a pure +influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty,' as 'the +brightness [Greek: apaugasma] of the everlasting light, the +unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His +goodness.' Wisdom 'sitteth by the throne' of God. She reacheth +from one end to another mightily: and sweetly doth she order all +things.' 'She is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of God +and a lover of His works.' God 'created her before the world' +[Endnote 286:1]. We also get by the side of this, but in quite a +subordinate place and in a much less advanced stage of personification, +the idea of the Word or Logos: 'O God of my fathers ... who hast +made all things with thy word, and ordained man through thy wisdom' +[Endnote 286:2]. 'It was neither herb nor mollifying plaister that +restored them to health: but thy word, O Lord, which healeth all things.' +It was 'the Almighty word' ([Greek: ho pantodunamos logos]) 'that +leaped down from heaven' to slay the Egyptians. + +But still it will be seen that there is a distinct gap between +these conceptions and that which we find in Justin. The leading +idea is that of Wisdom, not of the Word. The Word is not even +personified separately; it is merely the emitted power or energy +of God. And the personification of Wisdom is still to a large +extent poetical, it does not attain to separate metaphysical +hypostasis; it is not thought of as being really personal. + +The Philonian conception, on the other hand, is metaphysical, but +it contains many elements that are quite discordant and +inconsistent with that which we find in Justin. That it must have +been so will be seen at once when we think of the sources from +which Philo's doctrine was derived. It included in itself the +Platonic theory of Ideas, the diffused Logos or _anima mundi_ +of the Stoics, and the Oriental angelology or doctrine of +intermediate beings between God and man. On its Platonic side the +Logos is the Idea of Ideas summing up the world of high +abstractions which themselves are also regarded as possessing a +separate individuality; they are Logoi by the side of the Logos. +On its Stoic side it becomes a Pantheistic Essence pervading the +life of things; it is 'the law,' 'the bond' which holds the world +together; the world is its 'garment.' On its Eastern side, the +Logos is the 'Archangel,' the 'Captain of the hosts of heaven,' +the 'Mother-city' from which they issue as colonists, the 'Vice- +gerent' of the Great King [Endnote 287:1]. + +It needed a more powerful mind than Justin's to reduce all this to +its simple Christian expression, to take the poetry of Judaea and +the philosophy of Alexandria and to interpret and realise both in +the light of the historical events of the birth and life of +Christ. 'The Word became flesh' is the key by which Justin is made +intelligible, and that key is supplied by the fourth Gospel. No +other Christian writer had combined these two ideas before--the +divine Logos, with the historical personality of Jesus. When +therefore we find the ideas combined as in Justin, we are +necessarily referred to the fourth Gospel for them; for the +strangely inverted suggestion of Volkmar, that the author of the +fourth Gospel borrowed from Justin, is on chronological, if not on +other grounds, certainly untenable. We shall see that the fourth +Gospel was without doubt in existence at the date which Volkmar +assigns to Justin's Apology, 150 A. D. + + * * * * * + +The history of the discussion as to the relation of the Clementine +Homilies to the fourth Gospel is highly instructive, not only in +itself, but also for the light which it throws upon the general +character of our enquiry and the documents with which it is +concerned. It has been already mentioned that up to the year 1853 +the Clementine Homilies were only extant in a mutilated form, +ending abruptly in the middle of Hom. xix. 14. In that year a +complete edition was at last published by Dressel from a +manuscript in the Vatican containing the rest of the nineteenth +and the twentieth Homily. The older portion occupies in all, with +the translation and critical apparatus, 381 large octavo pages in +Dressel's edition; the portion added by Dressel occupies 34. And +yet up to 1853, though the Clementine Homilies had been carefully +studied with reference to the use of the fourth Gospel, only a few +indications had been found, and those were disputed. In fact, the +controversy was very much at such a point as others with which we +have been dealing; there was a certain probability in favour of +the conclusion that the Gospel had been used, but still +considerably short of the highest. Since the publication of the +conclusion of the Homilies the question has been set at rest. +Hilgenfeld, who had hitherto been a determined advocate of the +negative theory, at once gave up his ground [Endnote 288:1]; and +Volkmar, who had somewhat less to retract, admitted and admits +[Endnote 288:2] that the fact of the use of the Gospel must be +considered as proved. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' stands +alone in still resisting this conviction [Endnote 288:3], but the +result I suspect will be only to show in stronger relief the one- +sidedness of his critical method. + +We will follow the example that is set us in presenting the whole +of the passages alleged to contain allusions to the fourth Gospel; +and it is the more interesting to do so with the key that the +recent discovery has put into Our hands. The first runs thus:-- + +_Hom._ iii. 52. + +Therefore he, being a true prophet, said: I am the gate of life; +he that entereth in through me entereth into life: for the +teaching that can save is none other [than mine]. + +[Greek: Dia touto autos alaethaes on prophaetaes elegen; Ego eimi +hae pulae taes zoaes; ho di' emou eiserchomenos eiserchetai eis +taen zoaen; hos ouk ousaes heteras taes sozein dunamenaes +didaskalias.] + +_John_ x. 9. + +I am the door: by me if any one enter in, he shall be saved, and +shall come in and go out, and shall find pasture. + +[Greek: Ego eimi hae thura; di' emou ean tis eiselthae sothaesetai +kai eiseleusetai kai exeleusetai kai nomaen heuraesei.] + + +Apart from other evidence it would have been somewhat precarious +to allege this as proof of the use of the fourth Gospel, and yet I +believe there would have been a distinct probability that it was +taken from that work. The parallel is much closer--in spite of +[Greek: thura] for [Greek: pulae]--than is Matt. vii. 13, 14 (the +'narrow gate') which is adduced in 'Supernatural Religion,' and +the interval is very insufficiently bridged over by Ps. cxviii. +19, 20 ('This is the gate of the Lord'). The key-note of the +passage is given in the identification of the gate with the person +of the Saviour ('_I_ am the door') and in the remarkable +expression 'he that entereth in _through me_,' which is +retained in the Homily. It is curious to notice the way in which +the [Greek: sothaesetai] of the Gospel has been expanded +exegetically. + +Less doubtful--and indeed we should have thought almost beyond a +doubt--is the next reference; 'My sheep hear my voice.' + +_Hom._ iii. 52. + +[Greek: ta ema probata akouei taes emaes phonaes.] + +_John_ x. 27. [Greek: ta probata ta ema taes phonaes mou +akouei.] + +'There was no more common representation amongst the Jews of the +relation of God and his people than that of Shepherd and his +sheep' [Endnote 290:1]. That is to say, it occurs of Jehovah or of +the Messiah some twelve or fifteen times in the Old and New +Testament together, but never with anything at all closely +approaching to the precise and particular feature given here. Let +the reader try to estimate the chances that another source than +the fourth Gospel is being quoted. Criticism is made null and void +when such seemingly plain indications as this are discarded in +favour of entirely unknown quantities like the 'Gospel according +to the Hebrews.' If the author of 'Supernatural Religion' were to +turn his own powers of derisive statement against his own +hypotheses they would present a very strange appearance. + +The reference that follows has in some respects a rather marked +resemblance to that which we were discussing in Justin, and for +the relation between them to be fully appreciated should be given +along with it:-- + +_Justin, Apol._ i. 61. + +Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom of +heaven. + +[Greek: An mae anagennaethaete ou mae eiselthaete eis taen +basileian ton ouranon.] + +_Clem. Hom._ xi. 26. + +Verily I say unto you, Except ye be born again with living water, +in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ye shall not enter +into the kingdom of heaven. + +[Greek: Amaen humin lego, ean mae anagennaethaete hudati zonti eis +onoma patros, uhiou, hagiou pneumatos, ou mae eiselthaete eis taen +basileian ton ouranon.] + +_John_ iii. 3, 5. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except +any one be born over again (or 'from above') he cannot see the +kingdom of God ... Except any one be born of water and Spirit, he +cannot enter into the kingdom of God. + +[Greek: Amaen amaen lego soi, ean mae tis gennaethae anothen, ou +dunatai idein taen basileian tou Theou ... ean mae tis gennaethae +ex hudatos kai pneumatos, ou dunatai eiselthein eis taen basileian +tou Theou.] + +[Greek: pneum]. add. [Greek: hagiou] Vulg. (Clementine edition), +a, ff, m, Aeth., Orig. (Latin translator). + + +Here it will be noticed that Justin and the Clementines have four +points in common, [Greek: anagennaethaete] for [Greek: gennaethae +anothen], the second person plural (twice over) for [Greek: tis] +and the singular, [Greek: ou mae] and the subjunctive for [Greek: +ou dunatai] and infinitive, and [Greek: taen basileian ton +ouranon], for [Greek: taen basileian tou Theou]. To the last of +these points much importance could not be attached in itself, as +it represents a persistent difference between the first and the +other Synoptists even where they had the same original. As both +the Clementines and Justin used the first Gospel more than the +others, it is only natural that they should fall into the habit of +using its characteristic phrase. Neither would the other points +have had very much importance taken separately, but their +importance increases considerably when they come to be taken +together. + +On the other hand, we observe in the Clementines (where it is +however connected with Matt. xxviii. 19) the sufficiently near +equivalent for the striking Johannean phrase [Greek: ex hudatos +kai pneumatos] which is omitted entirely by Justin. + +The most probable view of the case seems to be that both the +Clementines and Justin are quoting from memory. Both have in their +memory the passage of St. John, but both have also distinctly +before them (so much the more distinctly as it is the Gospel which +they habitually used) the parallel passage in Matt. xviii. 3-- +where _all the last three_ out of the four common variations +are found, besides, along with the Clementines, the omission of +the second [Greek: amaen],--'Verily I say unto you, Except ye be +converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into +the kingdom of heaven' ([Greek: on mae eiseathaete eis taen +basileian ton ouranon]). It is out of the question that this +_only_ should have been present to the mind of the writers; +and, in view of the repetition of Nicodemus' misunderstanding by +Justin and of the baptism by water and Spirit in the Clementine +Homilies, it seems equally difficult to exclude the reference to +St. John. It is in fact a Johannean saying in a Matthaean +framework. + +There is the more reason to accept this solution, that neither +Justin nor the Clementines can in any case represent the original +form of the passages quoted. If Justin's version were correct, +whence did the Clementines get the [Greek: hudati zonti k.t.l.]? if +the Clementine, then whence did Justin get the misconception of +Nicodemus? But the Clementine version is in any case too eccentric +to stand. + +The last passage is the one that is usually considered to be +decisive as to the use of the fourth Gospel. + + +_Hom_. xix. 22. + +Hence too our Teacher, when explaining to those who asked of him +respecting the man who was blind from his birth and recovered his +sight, whether this man sinned or his parents that he should be +born blind, replied: Neither this man sinned, nor his parents; but +that through him the power of God might be manifested healing the +sins of ignorance. + +[Greek: Hothen kai didaskalos haemon peri tou [Endnote 293:1] ek +genetaes paerou kai anablepsantos par' autou exetazon erotaesasin, +ei ohutos haemarten ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae +[Endnote 293:1] apekrinato oute ohutos ti haemarten, oute oi +goneis autou, all' hina di autou phanerothae hae dunamis tou Theou +taes agnoias iomenae ta hamartaemata.] + + +_John_ ix. 1-3. + +And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his +disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his +parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither +hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God +should be manifested in him. + +[Greek: Kai paragon eiden anthropon tuphlon ek genetaes. Kai +aerotaesan auton oi mathaetai autou legontes, Rhabbei, tis +haemarten, ohutos ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae; +apekrithae Iaesous, Oute ohutos haemarten oute oi goneis autou, +all' hina phanerothae ta erga tou Theou en auto.] + + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' undertakes to show 'that +the context of this passage in the Homily bears positive +characteristics which render it impossible that it can have been +taken from the fourth Gospel' [Endnote 293:2]. I think we may +venture to say that he does indeed show somewhat conspicuously the +way in which he uses the word 'impossible' and the kind of grounds +on which that and such like terms are employed throughout his +work. + +It is a notorious fact, abundantly established by certain +quotations from the Old Testament and elsewhere, that the last +thing regarded by the early patristic writers was context. But in +this case the context is perfectly in keeping, and to a clear and +unprejudiced eye it presents no difficulty. The Clementine writer +is speaking of the origin of physical infirmities, and he says +that these are frequently due, not to moral error, but to mere +ignorance on the part of parents. As an instance of this he gives +the case of the man who was born blind, of whom our Lord expressly +said that neither he nor his parents had sinned--morally or in +such a way as to deserve punishment. On the contrary they had +erred simply through ignorance, and the object of the miracle was +to make a display of the Divine mercy removing the consequences of +such error. 'And in reality,' he proceeds, 'things of this kind +are the result of ignorance. The misfortunes of which you spoke, +proceed from ignorance and not from any wicked action.' This is +perfectly compatible with every word of the Johannean narrative. +The concluding clause of the quotation is merely a paraphrase of +the original (no part of the quotation professes to be exact), +bringing out a little more prominently the special point of the +argument. There is ample room for this. The predetermined object +of the miracle, says St. John, was to display the works of God, +and the Clementine writer specifies the particular work of God +displayed--the mercy which heals the evil consequences of +ignorance. If there is anything here at all inconsistent with the +Gospel it would be interesting to know (and we are not told) what +was the kind of original that the author of the Homily really had +before him. + +A further discussion of this passage I should hardly suppose to be +necessary. Nothing could be more wanton than to assign this +passage to an imaginary Gospel merely on the ground alleged. The +hypothesis was less violent in regard to the Synoptic Gospels, +which clearly contain a large amount of common matter that might +also have found its way into other hands. We have evidence of the +existence of other Gospels presenting a certain amount of affinity +to the first Gospel, but the fourth is stamped with an idiosyncracy +which makes it unique in its kind. If there is to be this freedom +in inventing unknown documents, reproducing almost verbatim the +features of known ones, sober criticism is at an end. + +That the Clementine Homilies imply the use of the fourth Gospel +may be considered to be, not indeed certain in a strict sense of +the word, but as probable as most human affairs can be. The real +element or doubt is in regard to their date, and their evidence +must be taken subject to this uncertainty. + + * * * * * + +It is perhaps hardly worth while to delay over the Epistle to +Diognetus: not that I do not believe the instances alleged by +Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott [Endnote 295:1] to be in themselves +sound, but because there exists too little evidence to determine +the date of the Epistle, and because it may be doubted whether the +argument for the use of the fourth Gospel in the Epistle can be +expressed strongly in an objective form. The allusions in question +are not direct quotations, but are rather reminiscences of +language. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' has treated them +as if they were the former [Endnote 296:1]; he has enquired into +the context &c., not very successfully. But such enquiry is really +out of place. When the writer of the Epistle says, 'Christians +dwell in the world but are not of the world' [Greek: ouk xisi de +ek tou kosmou] = exactly John xvii. 14; note peculiar use of the +preposition); 'For God loved men for whose sakes He made the world +... unto whom He sent His only begotten Son' (= John iii. 16, 'God +so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son'); 'How will +you love Him who so beforehand loved you' [Greek: proagapaesanta]; +cf. i John iv. 19, [Greek: protos aegapaesen] 'He sent His Son as +wishing to save ... and not to condemn' ([Greek: sozon ... krinon] +of. John iii. 16),--the probability is about as great that he had +in his mind St. John's language as it would be if the same phrases +were to occur in a modern sermon. It is a real probability; but +not one that can be urged very strongly. + + * * * * * + +Of more importance--indeed of high importance--is the evidence +drawn from the remains of earlier writers preserved by Irenaeus +and Hippolytus. There is a clear reference to the fourth Gospel in +a passage for which Irenaeus alleges the authority of certain +'Presbyters,' who at the least belonged to an elder generation +than his own. There can be little doubt indeed that they are the +same as those whom he describes three sentences later and with +only a momentary break in the oblique narration into which the +passage is thrown, as 'the Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles.' +It may be well to give the language of Irenaeus in full as it has +been the subject of some controversy. Speaking of the rewards of +the just in the next world, he says [Endnote 297:1]:-- + +'For Esaias says, "Like as the new heaven and new earth which I +create remain before me, saith the Lord, so your seed and your +name shall stand." And as the Presbyters say, then too those who +are thought worthy to have their abode in Heaven shall go thither, +and some shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, while others shall +possess the splendour of the City; for everywhere the Saviour +shall be seen according as they shall be worthy who look upon Him. +[So far the sentence has been in oratio recta, but here it becomes +oblique.] And [they say] that there is this distinction in +dwelling between those who bear fruit an hundred fold and those +who bear sixty and those who bear thirty, some of whom shall be +carried off into the Heavens, some shall stay in Paradise, and +some shall dwell in the City. And for this reason, [they say that] +the Lord declared ([Greek: eipaekenai]) that _in my Father's_ +[realm] _are many mansions;_ for all things [are] of God, who +gives to all the fitting habitation: even as His Word saith +(_ait_), that to all is allotted by the Father as each is or +shall be worthy. And this is (_est_) the couch upon which +they shall recline who are bidden to His marriage supper. That +this is (_esse_) the order and disposition of the saved, the +Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles, say,' etc. + +That Irenaeus is here merely giving the 'exegesis of his own day,' +as the author of 'Supernatural Religion' suggests [Endnote 297:2], +is not for a moment tenable. Irenaeus does indeed interpose for +two sentences (Omnia enim... ad nuptias) to give his own comment +on the saying of the Presbyters; but these are sharply cut off +from the rest by the use of the present indicative instead of the +infinitive. There can be no question at all that the quotation 'in +My Father's realm are many mansions' [Greek: en tois ton Patros +mon monas einai pollas] belongs to the Presbyters, and there can +be but little doubt that these Presbyters are the same as those +spoken of as 'disciples of the Apostles.' + +Whether they were also 'the Presbyters' referred to as his +authority by Papias is quite a secondary and subordinate question. +Considering the Chiliastic character of the passage, the +conjecture [Endnote 298:1] that they were does not seem to me +unreasonable. This however we cannot determine positively. It is +quite enough that Irenaeus evidently attributes to them an +antiquity considerably beyond his own; that, in fact, he looks +upon them as supplying the intermediate link between his age and +that of the Apostles. + + * * * * * + +Two quotations from the fourth Gospel are attributed to Basilides, +both of them quite indisputable as quotations. The first is found +in the twenty-second chapter of the seventh book of the +'Refutation,' 'That was the true light which lighteth every man +that cometh into the world [Endnote 298:2] ([Greek: aen to phos to +alaethinon, o photizei panta anthropon erchomenon eis ton kosmon] += John i. 9), and the second in the twenty-seventh chapter, 'My +hour is not yet come' ([Greek: oupo aekei aeora mon] = John ii. +4). Both of these passages are instances of the exegesis by which +the Basilidian doctrines were defended. + +The real question is here, as in regard to the Synoptics, whether +the quotations were made by Basilides himself or by his disciples, +'Isidore and his crew.' The second instance I am disposed to think +may possibly be due to the later representatives of this school, +because, though the quotation is introduced by [Greek: phaesi] in +the singular, and though Basilides himself can in no case be +excluded, still there is nothing in the chapter to identify the +subject of [Greek: phaesi] specially with him, and in the next +sentence Hippolytus writes, 'This is that which they understand +([Greek: ho kat' autous nenoaemenos]) by the inner spiritual man,' +&c. But the earlier instance is different. There Basilides himself +does seem to be specially singled out. + +He is mentioned by name only two sentences above that in which the +quotation occurs. Hippolytus is referring to the Basilidian +doctrine of the origin of things. He says, 'Now since it was not +allowable to say that something non-existent had come into being +as a projection from a non-existent Deity--for Basilides avoids +and shuns the existences of things brought into being by +projection [Endnote 299:1]--for what need is there of projection, +or why should matter be presupposed in order that God should make +a world, just as a spider its web or as mortal man in making +things takes brass or wood or any other portion of matter? But He +spake--so he says--and it was done, and this is, as these men say, +that which is said by Moses: "Let there be light, and there was +light." Whence, he says, came the light? Out of nothing; for we +are not told--he says--whence it came, but only that it was at the +voice of Him that spake. Now He that spake--he says--was not, and +that which was made, was not. Out of that which was not--he says-- +was made the seed of the world, the word which was spoken, "Let +there be light;" and this--he says--is that which is spoken in +the Gospels; "That was the true light which lighteth every man +that cometh into the world.'" We must not indeed overlook the fact +that the plural occurs once in the middle of this passage as +introducing the words of Moses; 'as these men say.' And yet, +though this decidedly modifies, I do not think that it removes the +probability that Basilides himself is being quoted. It seems a +fair inference that at the beginning of the passage Hippolytus had +the work of Basilides actually before him; and the single +digression in [Greek: legousin houtoi] does not seem enough to +show that it was laid aside. This is confirmed when we look back +two chapters at the terms in which the whole account of the +Basilidian system is introduced. 'Let us see,' Hippolytus says, +'how flagrantly Basilides as well as (B. [Greek: homou kai]) +Isidore and all their crew contradict not only Matthias but the +Saviour himself.' Stress is laid upon the name of Basilides, as if +to say, 'It is not merely a new-fangled heresy, but dates back to +the head and founder of the school.' When in the very next +sentence Hippolytus begins with [Greek: phaesi], the natural +construction certainly seems to be that he is quoting some work of +Basilides which he takes as typical of the doctrine of the whole +school. A later work would not suit his purpose or prove his +point. Basilides includes Isidore, but Isidore does not include +Basilides. + +We conclude then that there is a probability--not an overwhelming, +but quite a substantial, probability--that Basilides himself used +the fourth Gospel, and used it as an authoritative record of the +life of Christ. But Basilides began to teach in 125 A.D., so that +his evidence, supposing it to be valid, dates from a very early +period indeed: and it should be remembered that this is the only +uncertainty to which it is subject. That the quotation is really +from St. John cannot be doubted. + +The account which Hippolytus gives of the Valentinians also +contains an allusion to the fourth Gospel; 'All who came before Me +are thieves and robbers' (cf. John x. 8). But here the master and +the disciples are more confused. Less equivocal evidence is +afforded by the statements of Irenaeus respecting the Valentinians. +He says that the Valentinians used the fourth Gospel very freely +(plenissime) [Endnote 301:1]. This applies to a date that cannot +be in any case later than 180 A.D., and that may extend almost +indefinitely backwards. There is no reason to say that it does not +include Valentinus himself. Positive evidence is wanting, but negative +evidence still more. Apart from evidence to the contrary, there must +be a presumption against the introduction of a new work which becomes +at once a frequently quoted authority midway in the history of a school. + +But to keep to facts apart from presumptions. Irenaeus represents +Ptolemaeus as quoting largely from the Prologue to the Gospel. But +Ptolemaeus, as we have seen, had already gathered a school about +him when Irenaeus became acquainted with him. His evidence +therefore may fairly be said to cover the period from 165-175 A.D. +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to be somewhat beside +the mark when he says that 'in regard to Ptolemaeus all that is +affirmed is that in the Epistle to Flora ascribed to him +expressions found in John i. 3 are used.' True it is that such +expressions are found, and before we accept the theory in +'Supernatural Religion' that the parenthesis in which they occur +is due to Epiphanius who quotes the letter in full himself +[Endnote 302:1], it is only right that some other instance should +be given of such parenthetic interruption. The form in which the +letter is quoted, not in fragments interspersed with comments but +complete and at full length, with a formal heading and close, +really excludes such a hypothesis. But, a century and a half +before Epiphanius, Irenaeus had given a string of Valentinian +comments on the Prologue, ending with the words, 'Et Ptolemaeus +quidem ita' [Endnote 302:2]. Heracleon, too, is coupled with +Ptolemaeus by Irenaeus [Endnote 302:3], and according to the view +of the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' had a school around him +at the time of Irenaeus' visit to Rome in 178 A.D. But this +Heracleon was the author of a Commentary on St. John's Gospel to +which Origen in his own parallel work frequently alludes. These +are indeed dismissed in 'Supernatural Religion' as 'unsupported +references.' But we may well ask, what support they need. The +references are made in evident good faith. He says, for instance +[Endnote 302:4], that Heracleon's exegesis of John i. 3, 'All +things were made by Him,' excluding from this the world and its +contents, is very forced and without authority. Again, he has +misinterpreted John i. 4, making 'in Him was life' mean not 'in +Him' but 'in spiritual men.' Again, he wrongly attributes John i. +18 not to the Evangelist, but to the Baptist. And so on. The +allusions are all made in this incidental manner; and the life of +Origen, if he was born, as is supposed, about 185 A.D., would +overlap that of Heracleon. What evidence could be more sufficient? +or if such evidence is to be discarded, what evidence are we to +accept? Is it to be of the kind that is relied upon for referring +quotations to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the Gospel +according to Peter, or the [Greek: Genna Marias]? There are +sometimes no doubt reasonable grounds for scepticism as to the +patristic statements, but none such are visible here. On the +contrary, that Heracleon should have written a commentary on the +fourth Gospel falls in entirely with what Irenaeus says as to the +large use that was made of that Gospel by the Valentinians. + + * * * * * + +As we approach the end of the third and beginning of the fourth +quarter of the second century the evidence for the fourth Gospel +becomes widespread and abundant. At this date we have attention +called to the discrepancy between the Gospels as to the date of +the Crucifixion by Claudius Apollinaris. We have also Tatian, the +Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, the heathen Celsus +and the Muratorian Canon, and then a very few years later +Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus. + +I imagine that there can be really no doubt about Tatian. Whatever +may have been the nature of the Diatessaron, the 'Address to the +Greeks' contains references which it is mere paradox to dispute. I +will not press the first of these which is given by Dr. Westcott, +not because I do not believe that it is ultimately based upon the +fourth Gospel, still less that there is the slightest contradiction +to St. John's doctrine, but because Tatian's is a philosophical comment +perhaps a degree too far removed from the original to be quite +producible as evidence. It is one of the earliest speculations as to +the ontological relation between the Father and the Son. In the +beginning God was alone--though all things were with Him potentially. +By the mere act of volition He gave birth to the Logos, who was the +real originative cause of things. Yet the existence of the Logos was +not such as to involve a separation of identity in the Godhead; it +involved no diminution in Him from whom the Logos issued. Having been +thus first begotten, the Logos in turn begat our creation, &c. The +Logos is thus represented as being at once prior to creation (the +Johannean [Greek: en archae]) and the efficient cause of it--which is +precisely the doctrine of the Prologue. + +The other two passages are however quite unequivocal. + + +_Orat. ad Graecos_, c. xiii. + +And this is therefore that saying: The darkness comprehends not +the light. + +[Greek: Kai touto estin ara to eiraemenon Hae skotia to phos ou +katalambanei.] + + +_John_ i. 5. + +And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness +comprehended it not. + +[Greek: Kai to phos en tae skotia phainei, kai hae skotia auto ou +katelaben.] + + +On this there is the following comment in 'Supernatural Religion' +[Endnote 305:1]: '"The saying" is distinctly different in language +from the parallel in the Gospel, and it may be from a different +Gospel. We have already remarked that Philo called the Logos "the +Light," and quoting in a peculiar form, Ps. xxvi. 1: 'For the Lord +is my light ([Greek: phos]) and my Saviour,' he goes on to say +that as the sun divides day and night, so Moses says, 'God divides +light and darkness' ([Greek: Theon phos kai skotos diateichisai]), +when we turn away to things of sense we use 'another light' which +is in no way different from 'darkness.' The constant use of the +same similitude of light and darkness in the Canonical Epistles +shows how current it was in the Church; and nothing is more +certain than the fact that it was neither originated by, nor +confined to, the fourth Gospel.' Such criticism refutes itself, +and it is far too characteristic of the whole book. Nothing is +adduced that even remotely corresponds to the very remarkable +phrase [Greek: hae skotia to phos katalambanei], and yet for these +imaginary parallels one that is perfectly plain and direct is +rejected. + +The use of the phrase [Greek: to eiraemenon] should be noticed. It +is the formula used, especially by St. Luke, in quotation from the +Old Testament Scriptures. + +The other passage is:-- + + +_Orat. ad Graecos_, c. xix. + +All things were by him, and without him hath been made nothing. + +[Greek: Panta hup' autou kai choris autou gegonen oude hen.] + + +_John_ i. 3. + +All things were made through him; and without him was nothing made +[that hath been made]. + +[Greek: Panta di' autou egeneto, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen +[ho gegonen]]. 'The early Fathers, no less than the early +heretics,' placed the full stop at [Greek: oude hen], connecting +the words that follow with the next sentence. See M'Clellan and +Tregelles _ad loc_. + + +'Tatian here speaks of God and not of the Logos, and in this +respect, as well as language and context, the passage differs from +the fourth Gospel' [Endnote 306:1], &c. Nevertheless it may safely +be left to the reader to say whether or not it was taken from it. + +The Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons contains the +following:-- + + +_Ep. Vienne. et Lugd_. § iv. + +Thus too was fulfilled that which was spoken by our Lord; that a +time shall come in which every one that killeth you shall think +that he offereth God service. + +[Greek: Eleusetai kairos en o pas ho apokteinas humas doxei +latreian prospherein to Theo.] + + +_John_ xvi. 2. + +Yea, the hour cometh, that every one that killeth you will think +he offereth God service. + +[Greek: All' erchetai hora hina pas ho apokteinas humas, doxae +latreian prospherein to Theo.] + + +It is true that there are 'indications of similar discourses' in +the Synoptics, but of none containing a trait at all closely +resembling this. The chances that precisely the same combination +of words ([Greek: ho apokteinas humas doxei latreian prospherein +to Theo]) occurred in a lost Gospel must be necessarily very small +indeed, especially when we remember that the original saying was +probably spoken in Aramaic and not in Greek [Endnote 307:1]. + +Dr. Keim, in the elaborate monograph mentioned above, decides that +Celsus made use of the fourth Gospel. He remarks upon it as +curious, that more traces should indeed be found 'both in Celsus +and his contemporary Tatian of John than of his two nearest +predecessors' [Endnote 307:2]. Of the instances given by Dr. Keim, +the first (i. 41, the sign seen by the Baptist) depends on a +somewhat doubtful reading ([Greek: para to Ioannae], which should +be perhaps [Greek: para to Iordanae]); the second, the demand for +a sign localised specially in the temple (i. 67; of. John x. 23, +24), seems fairly to hold good. 'The destination of Jesus alike +for good and evil' (iv. 7, 'that those who received it, having +been good, should be saved; while those who received it not, +having been shown to be bad, should be punished') is indeed an +idea peculiarly Johannean and creates a _presumption_ of the +use of the Gospel; we ought not perhaps to say more. I can hardly +consider the simple allusions to 'flight' ([Greek: pheugein], ii. +9; [Greek: taede kakeise apodedrakenai], i. 62) as necessarily +references to the retreat to Ephraim in John xi. 54. So too the +expression 'bound' in ii. 9, and the 'conflict with Satan' in vi. +42, ii. 47, seem too vague to be used as proof. Still Volkmar too +declares it to be 'notorious' that Celsus was acquainted with the +fourth Gospel, alleging i. 67 (as above), ii. 31 (an allusion to +the Logos), ii. 36 (a satirical allusion to the issue of blood and +water), which passages really seem on the whole to justify the +assertion, though not in a quite unqualified form. + +We ought not to omit to mention that there is a second fragment +by Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, besides that to which we +have already alluded, and preserved like it in the Paschal +Chronicle, which confirms unequivocally the conclusion that he +knew and used the fourth Gospel. Amongst other titles that are +applied to the crucified Saviour, he is spoken of as 'having been +pierced in His sacred side,' as 'having poured out of His side +those two cleansing streams, water and blood, word and spirit' +[Endnote 308:1]. This incident is recorded only in the fourth +Gospel. + +In like manner when Athenagoras says 'The Father and the Son being +one' ([Greek: henos ontos tou Patros kai tou Uiou]), it is +probable that he is alluding to John x. 30, 'I and my Father are +one,' not to mention an alleged, but perhaps somewhat more +doubtful, reference to John xvii. 3 [Endnote 308:2]. + +But the most decisive witness before we come to Irenaeus is the +Muratorian Canon. Here we have the fourth Gospel definitely +assigned to its author, and finally established in its place +amongst the canonical or authoritative books. It is true that the +account of the way in which the Gospel came to be composed is +mixed up with legendary matter. According to it the Gospel was +written in obedience to a dream sent to Andrew the Apostle, after +he and his fellow disciples and bishops had fasted for three days +at the request of John. In this dream it was revealed that John +should write the narrative subject to the revision of the rest. So +the Gospel is the work of an eyewitness, and, though it and the +other Gospels differ in the objects of their teaching, all are +inspired by the same Spirit. + +There may perhaps in this be some kernel of historical fact, as +the sort of joint authorship or revision to which it points seems +to find some support in the concluding verses of the Gospel ('we +know that his witness is true'). However this may be, the evidence +of the fragment is of more real importance and value, as showing +the estimation in which at this date the Gospel was held. It +corresponds very much to what is now implied in the word +'canonical,' and indeed the Muratorian fragment presents us with a +tentative or provisional Canon, which was later to be amended, +completed, and ratified. So far as the Gospels were concerned, it +had already reached its final shape. It included the same four +which now stand in our Bibles, and the opposition that they met +with was so slight, and so little serious, that Eusebius could +class them all among the Homologoumena or books that were +universally acknowledged. + + + + + +CHAPTER XIII. + +ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY. + + +I should not be very much surprised if the general reader who may +have followed our enquiry so far should experience at this point a +certain feeling of disappointment. If he did not know beforehand +something of the subject-matter that was to be enquired into, he +might not unnaturally be led to expect round assertions, and +plain, pointblank, decisive evidence. Such evidence has not been +offered to him for the simple reason that it does not exist. In +its stead we have collected a great number of inferences of very +various degrees of cogency, from the possible and hypothetical, up +to strong and very strong probability. Most of our time has been +taken up in weighing and testing these details, and in the +endeavour to assign to each as nearly as possible its just value. +It could not be thought strange if some minds were impatient of +such minutiae; and where this objection was not felt, it would +still be very pardonable to complain that the evidence was at best +inferential and probable. + +An inference in which there are two or three steps may be often +quite as strong as that in which there is only one, and +probabilities may mount up to a high degree of what is called +moral or practical certainty. I cannot but think that many of +those which have been already obtained are of this character. I +cannot but regard it as morally or practically certain that +Marcion used our third Gospel; as morally or practically certain +that all four Gospels were used in the Clementine Homilies; as +morally or practically certain that the existence of three at +least out of our four Gospels is implied in the writings of +Justin; as probable in a lower degree that the four were used by +Basilides; as not really disputable (apart from the presumption +afforded by earlier writers) that they were widely used in the +interval which separates the writings of Justin from those of +Irenaeus. + +All of these seem to me to be tolerably clear propositions. But +outside these there seems to be a considerable amount of +convergent evidence, the separate items of which are less +convincing, but which yet derive a certain force from the mere +fact that they are convergent. In the Apostolic Fathers, for +example, there are instances of various kinds, some stronger and +some weaker; but the important point to notice is that they +confirm each other. Every new case adds to the total weight of the +evidence, and helps to determine the bearing of those which seem +ambiguous. + +It cannot be too much borne in mind that the evidence with which +we have been dealing is cumulative; and as in all other cases of +cumulative evidence the subtraction of any single item is of less +importance than the addition of a new one. Supposing it to be +shown that some of the allusions which are thought to be taken +from our Gospels were merely accidental coincidences of language, +this would not materially affect the part of the evidence which +could not be so explained. Supposing even that some of these +allusions could be definitely referred to an apocryphal source, +the possibility would be somewhat, but not so very much, increased +that other instances which bear resemblance to our Gospels were +also in their origin apocryphal. But on the other hand, if a +single instance of the use of a canonical Gospel really holds +good, it is proof of the existence of that Gospel, and every new +instance renders the conclusion more probable, and makes it more +and more difficult to account for the phenomena in any other way. + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to have overlooked +this. He does not seem to have considered the mutual support which +the different instances taken together lend to each other. He +summons them up one by one, and if any sort of possibility can be +shown of accounting for them in any other way than by the use of +our Gospels he dismisses them altogether. He makes no allowance +for any residual weight they may have. He does not ask which is +the more probable hypothesis. If the authentication of a document +is incomplete, if the reference of a passage is not certain, he +treats it as if it did not exist. He forgets the old story of the +faggots, which, weak singly, become strong when combined. His +scales will not admit of any evidence short of the highest. +Fractional quantities find no place in his reckoning. If there is +any flaw, if there is any possible loophole for escape, he does +not make the due deduction and accept the evidence with that +deduction, but he ignores it entirely, and goes on to the next +item just as if he were leaving nothing behind him. + +This is really part and parcel of what was pointed out at the +outset as the fundamental mistake of his method. It is much too +forensic. It takes as its model, not the proper canons of +historical enquiry, but the procedure of English law. Yet the +inappropriateness of such a method is seen as soon as we consider +its object and origin. The rules of evidence current in our law +courts were constructed specially with a view to the protection of +the accused, and upon the assumption that it is better nine guilty +persons should escape, than that one innocent person should be +condemned. Clearly such rules will be inapplicable to the +historical question which of two hypotheses is most likely to be +true. The author forgets that the negative hypothesis is just as +much a hypothesis as the positive, and needs to be defended in +precisely the same manner. Either the Gospels were used, or they +were not used. In order to prove the second side of this +alternative, it is necessary to show not merely that it is +_possible_ that they were not used, but that the theory is +the _more probable_ of the two, and accounts better for the +facts. But the author of 'Supernatural Religion' hardly professes +or attempts to do this. If he comes across a quotation apparently +taken from our Gospels he is at once ready with his reply, 'But it +may be taken from a lost Gospel.' Granted; it may. But the extant +Gospel is there, and the quotation referable to it; the lost +Gospel is an unknown entity which may contain anything or nothing. +If we admit that the possibility of quotation from a lost Gospel +impairs the certainty of the reference to an extant Gospel, it is +still quite another thing to argue that it is the more probable +explanation and an explanation that the critic ought to accept. In +very few cases, I believe, has the author so much as attempted to +do this. + +We might then take a stand here, and on the strength of what can +be satisfactorily proved, as well as of what can be probably +inferred, claim to have sufficiently established the use and +antiquity of the Gospels. This is, I think, quite a necessary +conclusion from the data hitherto collected. + +But there is a further objection to be made to the procedure in +'Supernatural Religion.' If the object were to obtain clear and +simple and universally appreciable evidence, I do not hesitate to +say that the enquiry ends just where it ought to have begun. +Through the faulty method that he has employed the author forgets +that he has a hypothesis to make good and to carry through. He +forgets that he has to account on the negative theory, just as we +account on the positive, for a definite state of things. It may +sound paradoxical, but there is really no great boldness in the +paradox, when we affirm that at least the high antiquity of the +Gospels could be proved, even if not one jot or tittle of the +evidence that we have been discussing had existed. Supposing that +all those fragmentary remains of the primitive Christian +literature that we have been ransacking so minutely had been swept +away, supposing that the causes that have handed it down to us in +such a mutilated and impaired condition had done their work still +more effectually, and that for the first eighty years of the +second century there was no Christian literature extant at all; +still I maintain that, in order to explain the phenomena that we +find after that date, we should have to recur to the same +assumptions that our previous enquiry would seem to have +established for us. + +Hitherto we have had to grope our way with difficulty and care; +but from this date onwards all ambiguity and uncertainty +disappears. It is like emerging out of twilight into the broad +blaze of day. There is really a greater disproportion than we +might expect between the evidence of the end of the century and +that which leads up to it. From Justin to Irenaeus the Christian +writings are fragmentary and few, but with Irenaeus a whole body +of literature seems suddenly to start into being. Irenaeus is +succeeded closely by Clement of Alexandria, Clement by Tertullian, +Tertullian by Hippolytus and Origen, and the testimony which these +writers bear to the Gospel is marvellously abundant and unanimous. +I calculate roughly that Irenaeus quotes directly 193 verses of +the first Gospel and 73 of the fourth. Clement of Alexandria and +Tertullian must have quoted considerably more, while in the extant +writings of Origen the greater part of the New Testament is +actually quoted [Endnote 315:1]. + +But more than this; by the time of Irenaeus the canon of the four +Gospels, as we understand the word now, was practically formed. We +have already seen that this was the case in the fragment of +Muratori. Irenaeus is still more explicit. In the famous passage +[Endnote 315:2] which is so often quoted as an instance of the +weak-mindedness of the Fathers, he lays it down as a necessity of +things that the Gospels should be four in number, neither less nor +more:-- + +'For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, as +there are also four universal winds, and as the Church is +scattered over all the earth, and the Gospel is the pillar and +base of the Church and the breath (or spirit) of life, it is +likely that it should have four pillars breathing immortality on +every side and kindling afresh the life of men. Whence it is +evident that the Word, the architect of all things, who sitteth +upon the cherubim and holdeth all things together, having been +made manifest unto men, gave to us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, +but held together by one Spirit. As David, entreating for His +presence, saith: Thou that sittest upon the Cherubim show thyself. +For the Cherubim are of fourfold visage, and their visages are +symbols of the economy of the Son of man.... And the Gospels +therefore agree with them over which presideth Jesus Christ. That +which is according to John declares His generation from the Father +sovereign and glorious, saying thus: In the beginning was the +Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And, All +things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.... +But the Gospel according to Luke, as having a sacerdotal +character, begins with Zacharias the priest offering incense unto +God.... But Matthew records His human generation, saying, The book +of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of +Abraham.... Mark took his beginning from the prophetic Spirit +coming down as it were from on high among men. The beginning, he +says, of the Gospel according as it is written in Esaias the +prophet, &c.' + +Irenaeus also makes mention of the origin of the Gospels, claiming +for their authors the gift of Divine inspiration [Endnote 316:1]:-- + +'For after that our Lord rose from the dead and they were endowed +with the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon them from on high, +they were fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect +knowledge: they went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the +Gospel of those good things that God hath given to us and +proclaiming heavenly peace to men, having indeed both all in equal +measure and each one singly the Gospel of God. So then Matthew +among the Jews put forth a written Gospel in their own tongue +while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and +founding the Church. After their decease (or 'departure'), Mark, +the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself too has handed down +to us in writing the subjects of Peter's preaching. And Luke, the +companion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him. +Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon +His breast, likewise published his Gospel while he dwelt at +Ephesus in Asia.' + +We have not now to determine the exact value of these traditions; +what we have rather to notice is the fact that the Gospels are at +this time definitely assigned to their reputed authors, and that +they are already regarded as containing a special knowledge +divinely imparted. It is evident that Irenaeus would not for a +moment think of classing any other Gospel by the side of the now +strictly canonical four. + +Clement of Alexandria, who, Eusebius says, 'was illustrious for +his writings,' in the year 194 gives a somewhat similar, but not +quite identical, account of the composition of the second Gospel +[Endnote 317:1]. He differs from Irenaeus in making St. Peter +cognisant of the work of his follower. Neither is he quite +consistent with himself; in one place he makes St. Peter +'authorise the Gospel to be read in the churches;' in another he +says that the Apostle 'neither forbade nor encouraged it' [Endnote +317:2]. These statements have both of them been preserved for us +by Eusebius, who also alleges, upon the authority of Clement, that +the 'Gospels containing the genealogies were written first.' +'John,' he says, 'who came last, observing that the natural +details had been set forth clearly in the Gospels, at the instance +of his friends and with the inspiration of the Spirit ([Greek: +pneumati theophoraethenta]), wrote a spiritual Gospel' [Endnote +317:3]. + +Clement draws a distinct line between the canonical and +uncanonical Gospels. In quoting an apocryphal saying supposed to +have been given in answer to Salome, he says, expressly: 'We do +not find this saying in the four Gospels that have been handed +down to us, but in that according to the Egyptians' [Endnote +317:4]. + +Tertullian is still more exclusive. He not only regards the four +Gospels as inspired and authoritative, but he makes no use of any +extra-canonical Gospel. The Gospels indeed held for him precisely +the same position that they do with orthodox Christians now. He +says respecting the Gospels: 'In the first place we lay it down +that the evangelical document (evangelicum instrumentum [Endnote +318:1]) has for its authors the Apostles, to whom this office of +preaching the Gospel was committed by the Lord Himself. If it has +also Apostolic men, yet not these alone but in company with +Apostles and after Apostles. For the preaching of disciples might +have been suspected of a desire for notoriety if it were not +supported by the authority of Masters, nay of Christ, who made the +Apostles Masters. In fine, of the Apostles, John and Matthew first +implant in us faith, Luke and Mark renew it, starting from the +same principles, so far as relates to the one God the Creator and +His Christ born of the virgin, to fulfil the law and the prophets' +[Endnote 318:2]. He grounds the authority of the Gospels upon the +fact that they proceed either from Apostles or from those who held +close relation to Apostles, like Mark, 'the interpreter of Peter,' +and Luke, the companion of Paul [Endnote 318:3]. In another +passage he expressly asserts their authenticity [Endnote 318:4], +and he claimed to use them and them alone as his weapons in the +conflict with heresy [Endnote 318:5]. + +No less decided is the assertion of Origen, who writes: 'As I have +learnt from tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are +undisputed in the Church of God under heaven, that the first in +order of the scripture is that according to Matthew, who was once +a publican but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... The +second is that according to Mark, who wrote as Peter suggested to +him ... The third is that according to Luke, the Gospel commended +by Paul ... Last of all that according to John' [Endnote 319:1]. +And again in his commentary upon the Preface to St. Luke's Gospel +he expressly guards against the possibility that it might be +thought to have reference to the other (Canonical) Gospels: 'In +this word of Luke's "_have taken in hand_" there is a latent +accusation of those who without the grace of the Holy Spirit have +rushed to the composing of Gospels. Matthew, indeed, and Mark, and +John, and Luke, have not "_taken in hand_" to write, but +_have written_ Gospels, being full of the Holy Spirit ... The +Church has four Gospels; the Heresies have many' [Endnote 319:2]. + +But besides the Fathers, and without going beyond the bounds of +the second century, there is other evidence of the most distinct +and important kind for the existence of a canon of the Gospels. +Among the various translations of the New Testament one certainly, +two very probably, and three perhaps probably, were made in the +course of the second century. + +The old Latin (as distinct from Jerome's revised) version of the +Gospels and with them of a considerable portion of the New Testament +was, I think it may be said, undoubtedly used by Tertullian and by +the Latin translator of Irenaeus, who appears to be quoted by +Tertullian, and in that case could not be placed later than 200 A.D. +[Endnote 320:1] On this point I shall quote authorities that will +hardly be questioned. And first that of a writer who is accustomed to +weigh, with the accuracy of true science, every word that he puts +down, and who upon this subject is giving the result of a most minute +and careful investigation. Speaking of the Latin translation of the +New Testament as found in Tertullian he says: 'Although single +portions of this, especially passages which are translated in several +different ways, may be due to Tertullian himself, still it cannot be +doubted that in by far the majority of cases he has followed the text +of a version received in his time by the Africans and specially the +Carthaginian Christians, and made perhaps long before his time, and +that consequently his quotations represent the form of the earliest +Latinized Scriptures accepted in those regions' [Endnote 320:2]. +Again: 'In the first place we may conclude from the writings of +Tertullian, that remarkable Carthaginian presbyter at the close of +the second century, that in his time there existed several, perhaps +many, Latin translations of the Bible ... Tertullian himself +frequently quotes in his writings one and the same passage of +Scripture in entirely different forms, which indeed in many cases +may be explained by his quoting freely from memory, but certainly +not seldom has its ground in the diversity of the translations used +at the time' [Endnote 321:1]. On this last point, the unity of the +Old Latin version, there is a difference of opinion among scholars, +but none as to its date. Thus Dr. Tregelles writes: 'The expressions +of Tertullian have been rightly rested on as showing that he knew +and recognised _one translation_, and that this version was in several +places (in his opinion) opposed to what was found "in Graeco authentico." +This version must have been made a sufficiently long time before the +age when Tertullian wrote, and before the Latin translator of Irenaeus, +for it to have got into general circulation. This leads us back _towards_ +the middle of the second century at the latest: how much _earlier_ +the version may have been we have no proof; for we are already led +back into the time when no records tell us anything respecting the +North African Church' [Endnote 321:2]. Dr. Tregelles, it should be +remembered, is speaking as a text critic, of which branch of science +his works are one of the noblest monuments, and not directly of the +history of the Canon. His usual opponent in text critical matters, +but an equally exact and trustworthy writer, Dr. Scrivener, agrees +with him here both as to the unity of the version and as to its date +from the middle of the century [Endnote 321:3]. Dr. Westcott too +writes in his well-known and valuable article on the Vulgate in +Smith's Dictionary [Endnote 321:4]: 'Tertullian distinctly recognises +the general currency of a Latin Version of the New Testament, though +not necessarily of every book at present included in the Canon, which +even in his time had been able to mould the popular language. This +was characterised by a "rudeness" and "simplicity," which seems to +point to the nature of its origin.' I do not suppose that the currency +at the end of the second century of a Latin version, containing the +four Gospels and no others, will be questioned [Endnote 322:1]. + +With regard to the Syriac version there is perhaps a somewhat +greater room to doubt, though Dr. Tregelles begins his account of +this version by saying: 'It may stand as an admitted fact that a +version of the New Testament in Syriac existed in the second +century' [Endnote 322:2]. Dr. Scrivener also says [Endnote 322:3]: +'The universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the +case, seem to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was +possessed of a translation both of the Old and New Testament, +which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively, from +the second century of our era downwards: as early as A.D. 170 +[Greek: ho Syros] is cited by Melito on Genesis xxii. 13.' The +external evidence, however, does not seem to be quite strong +enough to bear out any very positive assertion. The appeal to the +Syriac by Melito [Endnote 322:4] is pretty conclusive as to the +existence of a Syriac Old Testament, which, being of Christian +origin, would probably be accompanied by a translation of the New. +But on the other hand, the language of Eusebius respecting +Hegesippus ([Greek: ek te tou kath' Hebraious euangeliou kai tou +Syriakou ... tina tithaesin]) seems to be rightly interpreted by +Routh as having reference not to any '_version_ of the Gospel, +but to a separate Syro-Hebraic (?) Gospel' like that according to +the Hebrews. In any case the Syriac Scriptures 'were familiarly +used and claimed as his national version by Ephraem of Edessa' +(299-378 A.D.) as well as by Aphraates in writings dating A.D. 337 +and 344 [Endnote 323:1]. + +A nearer approximation of date would be obtained by determining the +age of the version represented by the celebrated Curetonian +fragments. There is a strong tendency among critics, which seems +rapidly approaching to a consensus, to regard this as bearing the +same relation to the Peshito that the Old Latin does to Jerome's +Vulgate, that of an older unrevised to a later revised version. The +strength of the tendency in this direction may be seen by the very +cautious and qualified opinion expressed in the second edition of his +Introduction by Dr. Scrivener, who had previously taken a decidedly +antagonistic view, and also by the fact that Mr. M'Clellan, who is +usually an ally of Dr. Scrivener, here appears on the side of his +opponents [Endnote 323:2]. All the writers who have hitherto been +mentioned place either the Curetonian Syriac or the Peshito in the +second century, and the majority, as we have seen, the Curetonian. +Dr. Tregelles, on a comparative examination of the text, affirms that +'the Curetonian Syriac presents such a text as we might have +concluded would be current in the second century' [Endnote 323:3]. +English text criticism is probably on the whole in advance of +Continental; but it may be noted that Bleek (who however was +imperfectly acquainted with the Curetonian form of the text) yet +asserts that the Syriac version 'belongs without doubt to the second +century A.D.' [Endnote 324:1] Reuss [Endnote 324:2] places it at the +beginning, Hilgenfeld towards the end [Endnote 324:3], of the third +century. + +The question as to the age of the version is not necessarily +identical with that as to the age of the particular form of it +preserved in Cureton's fragments. This would hold the same sort of +relation to the original text of the version that (e.g.) a, or b, +or c--any primitive codex of the version--holds to the original +text of the Old Latin. It also appears that the translation into +Syriac of the different Gospels, conspicuously of St. Matthew's, +was made by different hands and at different times [Endnote +324:4]. Bearing these considerations in mind, we should still be +glad to know what answer those who assign the Curetonian text to +the second century make to the observation that it contains the +reading [Greek: Baethabara] in John i. 28 which is generally +assumed to be not older than Origen [Endnote 324:5]. On the other +hand, the Curetonian, like the Old Latin, still has in John vii. 8 +[Greek: ouk] for [Greek: oupo]--a change which, according to Dr. +Scrivener [Endnote 324:6], 'from the end of the third century +downwards was very generally and widely diffused.' This whole set +of questions needs perhaps a more exhaustive discussion than it +has obtained hitherto [Endnote 324:7]. + +The third version that may be mentioned is the Egyptian. In regard +to this Dr. Lightfoot says [Endnote 325:1], that 'we should +probably not be exaggerating if we placed one or both of the +principal Egyptian versions, the Memphitic and the Thebaic, or at +least parts of them, before the close of the second century.' In +support of this statement he quotes Schwartz, the principal +authority on the subject, 'who will not be suspected of any +theological bias.' The historical notices on which the conclusion +is founded are given in Scrivener's 'Introduction.' If we are to +put a separate estimate upon these, it would be perhaps that the +version was made in the second century somewhat more probably than +not; it was certainly not made later than the first half of the +third [Endnote 325:2]. + +Putting this version however on one side, the facts that have to +be explained are these. Towards the end of the second century we +find the four Gospels in general circulation and invested with +full canonical authority, in Gaul, at Rome, in the province of +Africa, at Alexandria, and in Syria. Now if we think merely of the +time that would be taken in the transcription and dissemination of +MSS., and of the struggle that works such as the Gospels would +have to go through before they could obtain recognition, and still +more an exclusive recognition, this alone would tend to overthrow +any such theory as that one of the Gospels, the fourth, was not +composed before 150 A.D., or indeed anywhere near that date. + +But this is not by any means all. It is merely the first step in a +process that, quite independently of the other external evidence, +thrusts the composition of the Gospels backwards and backwards to +a date certainly as early as that which is claimed for them. + +Let us define a little more closely the chronological bearings of +the subject. There is a decidedly preponderant probability that +the Muratorian fragment was not written much later than 170 A.D. +Irenaeus, as we have seen, was writing in the decade 180-190 A.D. +But his evidence is surely valid for an earlier date than this. He +is usually supposed to have been born about the year 140 A.D. +[Endnote 326:1], and the way in which he describes his relations +to Polycarp will not admit of a date many years later. But his +strong sense of the continuity of Church doctrine and the +exceptional veneration that he accords to the Gospels seem alone +to exclude the supposition that any of them should have been +composed in his own lifetime. He is fond of quoting the +'Presbyters,' who connected his own age with that, if not of the +Apostles, yet of Apostolic men. Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, whom he +succeeded, was more than ninety years old at the time of his +martyrdom in the persecution of A.D. 177 [Endnote 326:2], and +would thus in his boyhood be contemporary with the closing years +of the last Evangelist. Irenaeus also had before him a number of +writings--some, e.g. the works of the Marcosians, in addition to +those that have been discussed in the course of this work--in +which our Gospels are largely quoted, and which, to say the least, +were earlier than his own time of writing. + +Clement of Alexandria began to flourish, ([Greek: egnorizeto]) +[Endnote 327:1], in the reign of Commodus (180-190 A.D.), and had +obtained a still wider celebrity as head of the Catechetical +School of Alexandria in the time of Severus [Endnote 327:2] (193- +211). The opinions therefore to which he gives expression in his +works of this date were no doubt formed at a earlier period. He +too appeals to the tradition of which he had been himself a +recipient. He speaks of his teachers, 'those blessed and truly +memorable men,' one in Greece, another in Magna Graecia, a third +in Coele-Syria, a fourth in Egypt, a fifth in Assyria, a sixth in +Palestine, to whom the doctrine of the Apostles had been handed +down from father to son [Endnote 327:3]. + +Tertullian is still bolder. In his controversy with Marcion he +confidently claims as on his side the tradition of the Apostolic +Churches. By it is guaranteed the Gospel of St. Luke which he is +defending, and not only that, but the other Gospels [Endnote +327:4]. In one passage Tertullian even goes so far as to send his +readers to the Churches of Corinth, Philippi, &c. for the very +autographs ('authenticae literae') of St. Paul's Epistles [Endnote +327:5]. But this is merely a characteristic flourish of rhetoric. +All for which the statements of Tertullian may safely be said to +vouch is, that the Gospels had held their 'prerogative' position +within his memory and that of most members of the Church to which +he belonged. + +But the evidence of the Fathers is most decisive when it is +unconscious. That the Gospels as used by the Christian writers at +the end of the first century, so far from being of recent +composition, had already a long history behind them, is nothing +less than certain. At this date they exhibit a text which bears +the marks of frequent transcription and advanced corruption. +'Origen's,' says Dr. Scrivener [Endnote 328:1], 'is the highest +name among the critics and expositors of the early Church; he is +perpetually engaged in the discussion of various readings of the +New Testament, and employs language in describing the then state +of the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even to its +present condition with the changes which sixteen more centuries +must needs have produced ... Respecting the sacred autographs, +their fate or their continued existence, he seems to have had no +information, and to have entertained no curiosity: they had simply +passed by and were out of his reach. Had it not been for the +diversities of copies in all the Gospels on other points (he +writes) he should not have ventured to object to the authenticity +of a certain passage (Matt. xix. 19) on internal grounds: "But +now," saith he, "great in truth has become the diversity of +copies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from the +evil daring of some who correct what is written, or from those who +in correcting add or take away what they think fit."' This is +respecting the MSS. of one region only, and now for another +[Endnote 328:2]: 'It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in +sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has +ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it +was composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole +Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior +manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens +thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.' +Possibly this is an exaggeration, but no one will maintain that it +is a very large exaggeration of the facts. + +I proceed to give a few examples which serve to bring out the +antiquity of the text. And first from Irenaeus. + +There is a very remarkable passage in the work Against Heresies +[Endnote 329:1], bearing not indeed directly upon the Gospels, but +upon another book of the New Testament, and yet throwing so much +light upon the condition of the text in Irenaeus' time that it may +be well to refer to it here. In discussing the signification of +the number of the beast in Rev. xiii. 18, Irenaeus already found +himself confronted by a variety of reading: some MSS. with which +he was acquainted read 616 ([Greek: chis']) for 666 ([Greek: chxs']). +Irenaeus himself was not in doubt that the latter was the +true reading. He says that it was found in all the 'good and +ancient copies,' and that it was further attested by 'those who +had seen John face to face.' He thinks that the error was due to +the copyists, who had substituted by mistake the letter [Greek: i] +for [Greek: x]. He adds his belief that God would pardon those who +had done this without any evil motive. + +Here we have opened out a kind of vista extending back almost to +the person of St. John himself. There is already a multiplicity of +MSS., and of these some are set apart 'as good and ancient' +([Greek: en pasi tois spoudaiois kai archaiois antigraphois]). The +method by which the correct reading had to be determined was as +much historical as it is with us at the present day. + +A not dissimilar state of things is indicated somewhat less explicitly +in regard to the first Gospel. In the text of Matt. i. 18 all the Greek +MSS., with one exception, read, [Greek: tou de Iaesou Christou hae +genesis outos aen], B alone has [Greek: tou de Christou Iaesou]. The +Greek of D is wanting at this point, but the Latin, d, reads with the +best codices of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Curetonian Syriac, +'Christi autem generatio sic erat' (or an equivalent). Now Irenaeus +quotes this passage three times. In the first passage [Endnote 330:1] +the original Greek text of Irenaeus has been preserved in a quotation of +Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (the context also by Anastasius +Sinaita, but these words appear to be omitted); and the reading of +Germanus corresponds to that of the great mass of MSS. This however is +almost certainly false, as the ancient Latin translation of Irenaeus has +'Christi autem generatio,' and it was extremely natural for a copyist to +substitute the generally received text, especially in a combination of +words that was so familiar. Irenaeus leaves no doubt as to his own +reading on the next occasion when he quotes the passage, as he does +twice over. Here he says expressly: 'Ceterum, potuerat dicere Matthaeus: +_Jesu vero generatio sic erat_; sed praevidens Spiritus sanctus +depravatores, et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum +ait: _Christi autem generatio sic erat_' [Endnote 330:2]. Irenaeus +founds an argument upon this directed against the heretics who supposed +that the Christus and Jesus were not identical, but that Jesus was the +son of Mary, upon whom the aeon Christus afterwards descended. In +opposition to these Irenaeus maintains that the Christus and Jesus are +one and the same person. + +There is a division of opinion among modern critics as to which of +the two readings is to be admitted into the text; Griesbach, +Lachmann, Tischendorf (eighth edition), and Scrivener support the +reading of the MSS.; Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and M'Clellan +prefer that of Irenaeus. The presence of this reading in the Old +Latin and Curetonian Syriac proves its wide diffusion. At the same +time it is clear that Irenaeus himself was aware of the presence +of the other reading in some copies which he regarded as bearing +the marks of heretical depravation. + +It is unfortunate that fuller illustration cannot be given from +Irenaeus, but the number of the quotations from the Gospels of +which the Greek text still remains is not large, and where we have +only the Latin interpretation we cannot be sure that the actual +text of Irenaeus is before us. Much uncertainty is thus raised. +For instance, a doubt is expressed by the editors of Irenaeus +whether the words 'without a cause' ([Greek: eikae]--sine caussa) +in the quotation of Matt. v. 22 [Endnote 331:1] belong to the +original text or not. Probably they did so, as they are found in +the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac and in Western authorities +generally. They are wanting however in B, in Origen, and 'in the +true copies' according to Jerome, &c. The words are expunged from +the sacred text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and +M'Clellan. There is a less weight of authority for their +retention. In any case the double reading was certainly current at +the end of the second century, as the words are found in Irenaeus +and omitted by Tertullian. + +The elaborately varied readings of Matt. xi. 25-27 and Matt. xix. +16, 17 there can be little doubt are taken from the canonical +text. They are both indeed found in a passage (Adv. Haer. i. 20. +2, 3) where Irenaeus is quoting the heretical Marcosians; and +various approximations are met with, as we have seen, under +ambiguous circumstances in Justin, the Clementine Homilies, and +Marcion. But similar approximations are also found in Irenaeus +himself (speaking in his own person), in Clement of Alexandria, +Origen, and Epiphanius, who are undoubtedly quoting from our +Gospels; so that the presence of the variations at that early date +is proved, though in the first case they receive none, and in the +second very limited, support from the extant MSS. [Endnote 332:1] +A variety of reading that was in the first instance accidental +seemed to afford a handle either to the orthodox or to heretical +parties, and each for a time maintained its own; but with the +victory of the orthodox cause the heretical reading gave way, and +was finally suppressed before the time at which the extant MSS. +were written. + +These are really conspicuous instances of the confusion of text +already existing, but I forbear to press them because, though I do +not doubt myself the correctness of the account that has been +given of them, still there is just the ambiguity alluded to, and I +do not wish to seem to assume the truth of any particular view. + +For minor variations the text of Irenaeus cannot be used +satisfactorily, because it is always doubtful whether the Latin +version has correctly reproduced the original. And even in those +comparatively small portions where the Greek is still preserved, +it has come down to us through the medium of other writers, and we +have just had an instance how easily the distinctive features of +the text might be obliterated. + +Neither of these elements of uncertainty exists in the case of +Tertullian; and therefore, as the text of his New Testament +quotations has been edited in a very exact and careful form, I +shall illustrate what has been said respecting the corruptions +introduced in the second century chiefly from him. The following +may be taken as a few of the instances in which the existence of a +variety of reading can be verified by a comparison of Tertullian's +text with that of the MSS. The brackets (as before) indicate +partial support. + +Matt. iii. 8. Dignos poenitentiae fructus (_Pudic_. 10). +[Greek: Karpous axious taes metanoias] Textus Receptus, L, U, 33, +a, g'2, m, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., etc. [Greek: Karpon axion t. met]. +B, C (D), [Greek: D], 1, etc.; Vulg., b, c, d, f, ff'1, Syr. Hcl., +Memph., Theb., Iren., Orig., etc. [Tertullian himself has the +singular in _Hermog._ 12, so that he seems to have had both +readings in his copies.] + +Matt. v. 4, 5. The received order 'beati lugentes' and 'beati +mites' is followed in _Pat_. 11 [Rönsch p. 589 and Tisch., +correcting Treg.], So [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, rel., b, f, +Syrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm., Aeth. Order inverted in D, 33, +Vulg., a, c, ff'1, g'1.2, h, k, l, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus., +Hil. + +Matt. v. 16. 'Luceant opera vestra' for 'luceat lux vestra,' Tert. +(bis). So Hil., Ambr., Aug., Celest. [see above, p. 134] against +all MSS. and versions. + +Matt. v. 28. Qui viderit ad concupiscentiam, etc. This verse is +cited six times by Tertullian, and Rönsch says (p. 590) that 'in +these six citations almost every variant of the Greek text is +represented.' + +Matt. v. 48. Qui est in caelis: [Greek: ho en tois ouranois], +Textus Receptus, with [Greek: Delta symbol], E'2, rel., b, c, d, +g'1, h, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., Clem., [Greek: ho ouranios], [Hebrew: +Aleph symbol], B, D'2, Z, and i, 33, Vulg., a, f, etc. + +Matt. vi. 10. Fiat voluntas tua in caelis et in terra, omitting +'sicut.' So D, a, b, c, Aug. (expressly, 'some codices'). + +Matt. xi. ii. Nemo major inter natos feminarum Joanne baptizatore. + +'The form of this citation, which neither corresponds with Matt. +xi. 11 nor with Luke vii. 28, coincides almost exactly with the +words which in both the Greek and Latin text of the Codex Bezae +form the conclusion of Luke vii. 26, [Greek: [hoti] oudeis meizon +en gennaetois gunaikon [prophaetaes] Ioannou tou baptistou]' +(Rönsch, p. 608). + +Matt. xiii. 15. Sanem: [Greek: iasômai], K, U, X, [Greek: Delta], +I; Latt. (exc. d), Syr. Crt.; [Greek: iasomai], B, C, D, [Hebrew: +Aleph symbol], rel. + +Matt. xv. 26. Non est (only), so Eus. in Ps. 83; [Greek: exestin], +D, a, b, c, ff, g'1, 1, Syr. Crt., Orig., Hil.; [Greek: ouk estin +kalon], B, C, [Hebrew aleph], rel., Vulg., c, f, g'2, k, Orig. + +There are of course few quotations that can be distinctly +identified as taken from St. Mark, but among these may be +noticed:-- + +Mark i. 24. Scimus: [Greek: oidamen se], [Hebrew aleph], L, +[Greek: Delta], Memph., Iren., Orig., Eus.; [Greek: oida se tis +ei], A, B, C, D, rel., Latt., Syrr. + +Mark ix. 7. Hunc audite: [Greek: autou akouete], A, X, rel., b, f, +Syrr.; [Greek: akouete autou], [Hebrew: aleph] B, C, D, L, a, c, +ff'1, etc. [This may be however from Matt. xvii. 5, where +Tertullian's reading has somewhat stronger support.] + +The variations in quotations from St. Luke have been perhaps +sufficiently illustrated in the chapter on Marcion. We may +therefore omit this Gospel and pass to St. John. A very remarkable +reading meets us at the outset. + +John i. 13. Non ex sanguine nec ex voluntate carnis nec ex +voluntate viri, sed ex deo natus est. The Greek of all the MSS. +and Versions, with the single exception of b of the Old Latin, is +[Greek: oi egennaethaesan]. A sentence is thus applied to Christ +that was originally intended to be applied to the Christian. +Tertullian (_De Carne Christ._ 19, 24), though he also had the +right reading before him, boldly accuses the Valentinians of a +falsification, and lays stress upon the reading which he adopts as +proof of the veritable birth of Christ from a virgin. The same +text is found in b (Codex Veronensis) of the Old Latin, Pseudo- +Athanasius, the Latin translator of Origen's commentary on St. +Matthew, in Augustine, and three times in Irenaeus. The same codex +has, like Tertullian, the singular ex sanguine for the plural +[Greek: ex ahimaton]: so Eusebius and Hilary. + +John iii. 36. Manebit (=[Greek: meneî], for [Greek: ménei]). So b, +e, g, Syr. Pst., Memph., Aeth., Iren., Cypr.; against a, c, d, f, +ff, Syrr. Crt. and Hcl., etc. + +John v. 3, 4. The famous paragraph which describes the moving of +the waters of the pool of Bethesda was found in Tertullian's MS. +It is also found in the mass of MSS., in the Old Latin and +Vulgate, in Syrr. Pst. and Jer., and in some MSS. of Memph. It is +omitted in [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, D (v. 4), f, l, Syr. +Crt., Theb., Memph. (most MSS.). Tertullian gives the name of the +pool as Bethsaida with B, Vulg., c, Syr. Hcl., Memph. Most of the +authorities read [Greek: baethesda]. [Greek: baethzatha, +baezatha], Berzeta, Belzatha, and Betzeta are also found. + +John v. 43. Recepistis, perf. for pres. ([Greek: lambanete]). So +a, b, Iren., Vigil., Ambr., Jer. + +John vi. 39. Non perdam ex eo quicquam. Here 'quicquam' is an +addition (=[Greek: maeden]), found in D, a, b, ff, Syr. Crt. + +John vi. 51. Et panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi, caro mea +est. This almost exactly corresponds with the reading of [Hebrew: +Aleph], [Greek: ho artos hon ego doso huper taes tou kosmou zoaes, +hae sarx mou estin]. Similarly, but with inversion of the last two +clauses ([Greek: hae sarx mou estin huper taes tou kosmou zoaes]), +B, C, D and T, 33, Vulg., a, b, c, e, m, Syr. Crt., Theb., Aeth., +Orig., Cypr. The received text is [Greek: kai ho artos [de] dae +ego doso, hae sarx mou estin aen ego doso huper taes tou kosmou +zoaes], after E, G, H, K, M, S, etc. + +John xii. 30. Venit (= [Greek: aelthen] for [Greek: gegonen]), +with D (Tregelles), [also a, b, l, n (?), Vulg. (_fuld_.), +Hil., Victorin.; Rönsch]. + +The instances that have been here given are all, or nearly all, +false readings on the part of Tertullian. It is, of course, only +as such that they are in point for the present enquiry. Some few +of those mentioned have been admitted into the text by certain +modern editors. Thus, on Matt. v. 4, 5 Tertullian's reading finds +support in Westcott and Hort: and M'Clellan, against Tischendorf +and Tregelles. [This instance perhaps should not be pressed. I +leave it standing, because it shows interesting relations between +Tertullian and the various forms of the Old Latin.] The passage +omitted in John v. 3, 4 is argued for strenuously by Mr. M'Clellan, +with more hesitation by Dr. Scrivener, and in 'Supernatural Religion' +(sixth edition), against Tregelles, Tischendorf, Milligan, Lightfoot, +Westcott and Hort. In the same passage Bethsaida is read by Lachmann +(margin) and by Westcott and Hort. In John vi. 51 the reading of +Tertullian and the Sinaitic Codex is defended by Tischendorf; the +approximate reading of B, C, D, &c. is admitted by Lachmann, Tregelles, +Milligan, Westcott and Hort, and the received text has an apologist +in Mr. M'Clellan (with Tholuck and Wordsworth). On these points then +it should be borne in mind that Tertullian _may_ present the true +reading; on all the others he is pretty certainly wrong. + +Let us now proceed to analyse roughly these erroneous (in three +cases _doubtfully_ erroneous) readings. We shall find [Endnote 336:1] +that Tertullian-- + + _Agrees with_ _Differs from_ +x (Codex Sinaiticus) in Mark | in Matt. iii. 18, v. 16, v. 48, +i. 2 4, John vi. 51. | vi. 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. + | 26, Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, + | v. 3, 43, v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. +A (Codex Alexandrinus) in |A in Mark i. 24, John i. 13, + Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4. | v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. +B (Codex Vaticanus) in John |B in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, vi. + v. 2, (vi. 51). | 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. 26, + | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + | v. 3,4, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. +C (Codex Ephraemi--somewhat |C in Matt. iii. 8, xi. 11, xiii. + fragmentary) in John | 15, xv. 26, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, + (vi. 51). | John i. 13, v. 3, 4, vi. 39. +D (Codex Bezae--in some |D in Matt. (iii. 8), v. 16, v. 48, +places wanting) in Matt. vi. | xiii. 15, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, +10, Xi. 11, (xv. 26), John (vi. | John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 4, v. 43. +51), xii. 30. | + | + GREEK FATHERS. | +Clement of Alexandria, in Matt. | +v. 16, v. 48. | +Origen, in Matt. (xv. 26), Mark |Origen, in Matt. iii. 8, (xv. 26), + i. 24, John i. 13 (Latin trans- | + lator), (vi. 51). | +Eusebius, in Matt. xv. 26, Mark | +i. 24, John i. 13 (partially). | + | + LATIN FATHERS. | +Irenaeus, in Mark i. 24, John |Irenaeus in Matt. iii. 8. + i. 13 (ter), iii. 36, v. 43. | +Cyprian, in John iii. 36, (vi. 51). | +Augustine, in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10. | +Ambrose, in Matt. v. 16, John v. 43. | +Hilary, in Matt. v. 16, (xv. 26), | + John xii. 30. | +Others, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, | + John i. 13, v. 43, xii. 30. | + | + VERSIONS. | +Old Latin-- | +a (Codex Vercellensis), in Matt. |a, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, xi. 11, + (iii. 8), vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + 26), John v. 3, 4, v. 43, (vi. | iii. 36. + 51), xii. 30. | +b (Codex Veronensis), in Matt. |b, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11, + v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 36), | Mark i. 24. + Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, | + iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, | + (vi. 51), xii. 30. | +c (Codex Colbertinus), in Matt. |c, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11, + v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 26), | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + John v. 3, 4, (vi. 51). | iii. 36, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. +f (Codex Brixianus), in Matt. |f, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, + xiii. 15, Mark ix. 7. | vi. 10, xi. 10, xv. 26, Mark + | i. 24, John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 3, + | 4, v. 43, vi. 39, vi. 51, xii. 30. +Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8, |Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8, + vi. 10, Xiii. 5, (xv. 26), John | v. 16, v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, + iii. 36, v. 3, 4, vi. 39, (vi. 51),| Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + xii. 30. | iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, vi. 39, + | vi. 51, xii. 30. +Vulgate, in Matt. xiii. 15, John |Vulgate, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, + v. 3, 4, (vi. 51), xii. 30 | v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, xv. 26, + (_fuld._). | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + | iii. 36, v. 43, vi. 39. +Syriac-- | +Syr. Crt. (fragmentary), in |Syr. Crt., in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10, + Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, xiii. 15, | xi. 11, John (i. 13, ? Tregelles) + (xv. 26), John (i. 13, ? Crowfoot),| iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43. + vi. 39, (vi. 51.). | +Syr. Pst., in Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, |Syr. Pst., in Matt. vi. 10, Mark + Mark ix. 7, John iii. 36, v. 3, 4. | i. 24, John i. 13, (vi. 51), + | xii. 30 + +[The evidence of this and the following versions is only given where it +is either expressly stated or left to be clearly inferred by the editors.] + +Egyptian-- +Thebaic, in John (vi. 51). |Thebaic, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, + | Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4. +Memphitic, in Mark i. 24, John |Memphitic, in Matt. iii. 8, v. + iii. 36. | 16, (v. 48), Mark ix. 7, John + | v. 3, 4, vi. 51. + +Summing up the results numerically they would be something of this +kind:-- + + UNCIAL MSS. + + [Hebrew: A B C D + Alef] + +Agreement 2 2 2 1 5 +Difference 13 5 14 9 10 + + + GREEK FATHERS. + + Clement + of + Alexandria. Origen. Eusebius. +Agreement 1 4 3 +Difference 0 2 0 + + + LATIN FATHERS. + + Irenaeus. Cyprian. Augustine. Ambrose. Hilary. Others. +Agreement 4 2 2 2 3 5 +Difference 1 0 0 0 0 0 + + + VERSIONS. + + OLD LATIN. VULGATE. + a b c f rel. +Agreement 8 11 6 2 9 4 +Difference 7 4 10 14 14 12 + + + SYRIAC. EGYPTIAN. + Crt. Pst. Theb. Memph. +Agreement 7 5 1 2 +Difference 7 5 4 6 + + +Now the phenomena here, as on other occasions when we have had to +touch upon text criticism, are not quite simple and straightforward. +It must be remembered too that our observations extend only over +a very narrow area. Within that area they are confined to the cases +where Tertullian has _gone wrong_; whereas, in order to anything +like a complete induction, all the cases of various reading ought +to be considered. Some results, however, of a rough and approximate +kind may be said to be reached; and I think that these will be +perhaps best exhibited if, premising that they are thus rough +and approximate, we throw them into the shape of a genealogical tree. + + Tert. b + \ / + \/ O.L. (a.c. &c.) + \ / + \/ Syr. Crt. + \ / + Tert. O.L.\ / + \/ + Greek Fathers. / + \ Tert. O.L./ + \ Syr. Crt./ + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / +Best Alexandrine Authorities. \ / + \ \ / Western. + \ / + \ Greek Fathers / + \ Memph. Theb. / + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / + || + Alexandrine. || Western. + || + /\ + The Sacred Autographs. + + +In accordance with the sketch here given we may present the +history of the text, up to the time when it reached Tertullian, +thus. First we have the sacred autographs, which are copied for +some time, we need not say immaculately, but without change on the +points included in the above analysis. Gradually a few errors slip +in, which are found especially in the Egyptian, versions and in +the works of some Alexandrine and Palestinian Fathers. But in time +a wider breach is made. The process of corruption becomes more +rapid. We reach at last that strange document which, through more +or less remote descent, became the parent of the Curetonian Syriac +on the one hand and of the Old Latin on the other. These two lines +severally branch off. The Old Latin itself divides. One of its +copies in particular (b) seems to represent a text that has a +close affinity to that of Tertullian, and among the group of +manuscripts to which it belongs is that which Tertullian himself +most frequently and habitually used. + +Strictly speaking indeed there can be no true genealogical tree. +The course of descent is not clear and direct all the way. There +is some confusion and some crossing and recrossing of the lines. +Thus, for instance, there is the curious coincidence of Tertullian +with [Hebrew: Aleph], a member of a group that had long seemed to +be left behind, in John vi. 51. This however, as it is only on a +point of order and that in a translation, may very possibly be +accidental; I should incline to think that the reading of the +Greek Codex from which Tertullian's Latin was derived agreed +rather with that of B, C, D, &c., and these phenomena would +increase the probability that these manuscripts and Tertullian had +really preserved the original text. If that were the case--and it +is the conclusion arrived at by a decided majority of the best +editors--there would then be no considerable difficulty in regard +to the relation between Tertullian and the five great Uncials, for +the reading of Mark ix. 7 is of much less importance. Somewhat +more difficult to adjust would be Tertullian's relations to the +different forms of the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac. In one +instance, Matt. xi. 11 (or Luke vii. 26), Tertullian seems to +derive his text from the Dd branch rather than the b branch of the +Old Latin. In another (Matt. iii. 8) he seems to overleap b and +most copies of the Old Latin altogether and go to the Curetonian +Syriac. How, too, did he come to have the paraphrastic reading of +Matt. v. 16 which is found in no MSS. or versions but in Justin +(approximately), Clement of Alexandria, and several Latin Fathers? +The paraphrase might naturally enough occur to a single writer +here or there, but the extent of the coincidence is remarkable. +Perhaps we are to see here another sign of the study bestowed by +the Fathers upon the writings of their predecessors leading to an +unconscious or semi-conscious reproduction of their deviations. It +is a noticeable fact that in regard to the order of the clauses in +Matt. v. 4, 5, Tertullian has preserved what is probably the right +reading along with b alone, the other copies of the Old Latin (all +except the revised f) with the Curetonian Syriac having gone +wrong. On the whole the complexities and cross relations are less, +and the genealogical tree holds good to a greater extent, than we +might have been prepared for. The hypothesis that Tertullian used +a manuscript in the main resembling b of the Old Latin satisfies +most elements of the problem. + +But the merest glance at these phenomena must be enough to show +that the Tübingen theory, or any theory which attributes a late +origin to our Gospels, is out of the question. To bring the text +into the state in which it is found in the writings of Tertullian, +a century is not at all too long a period to allow. In fact I +doubt whether any subsequent century saw changes so great, though +we should naturally suppose that corruption would proceed at an +advancing rate for every fresh copy that was made. The phenomena +that have to be accounted for are not, be it remembered, such as +might be caused by the carelessness of a single scribe. They are +spread over whole groups of MSS. together. We can trace the +gradual accessions of corruption at each step as we advance in the +history of the text. A certain false reading comes in at such a +point and spreads over all the manuscripts that start from that; +another comes in at a further stage and vitiates succeeding copies +there; until at last a process of correction and revision sets in; +recourse is had to the best standard manuscripts, and a purer text +is recovered by comparison with these. It is precisely such a text +that is presented by the Old Latin Codex f, which, we find +accordingly, shows a maximum of difference from Tertullian. A +still more systematic revision, though executed--if we are to +judge from the instances brought to our notice--with somewhat +more reserve, is seen in Jerome's Vulgate. + +It seems unnecessary to dilate upon this point. I will only +venture to repeat the statement which I made at starting; that if +the whole of the Christian literature for the first three quarters +of the second century could be blotted out, and Irenaeus and +Tertullian alone remained, as well as the later manuscripts with +which to compare them, there would still be ample proof that the +latest of our Gospels cannot overstep the bounds of the first +century. The abundant indications of internal evidence are thus +confirmed, and the age and date of the Synoptic Gospels, I think +we may say, within approximate limits, established. + +But we must not forget that there is a double challenge to be met. +The first part of it--that which relates to the evidence for the +existence of the Gospels--has been answered. It remains to +consider how far the external evidence for the Gospels goes to +prove their authenticity. It may indeed well be asked how the +external evidence can be expected to prove the authenticity of +these records. It does so, to a considerable extent, indirectly by +throwing them back into closer contact with the facts. It also +tends to establish the authority in which they were held, +certainly in the last quarter of the second century, and very +probably before. By this time the Gospels were acknowledged to be +all that is now understood by the word 'canonical.' They were +placed upon the same footing as the Old Testament Scriptures. They +were looked up to with the same reverence and regarded as +possessing the same Divine inspiration. We may trace indeed some +of the steps by which this position was attained. The [Greek: +gegraptai] of the Epistle of Barnabas, the public reading of the +Gospels in the churches mentioned by Justin, the [Greek: to +eiraemenon] of Tatian, the [Greek: guriakai graphai] of Dionysius +of Corinth, all prepare the way for the final culmination in the +Muratorian Canon and Irenaeus. So complete had the process been +that Irenaeus does not seem to know of a time when the authority +of the Gospels had been less than it was to him. Yet the process +had been, of course, gradual. The canonical Gospels had to compete +with several others before they became canonical. They had to make +good their own claims and to displace rival documents; and they +succeeded. It is a striking instance of the 'survival of the +fittest.' That they were really the fittest is confirmed by nearly +every fragment of the lost Gospels that remains, but it would be +almost sufficiently proved by the very fact that they survived. + +In this indirect manner I think that the external evidence bears +out the position assigned to the canonical Gospels. It has +preserved to us the judgment of the men of that time, and there is +a certain relative sense in which the maxim, 'Securus judicat +orbis terrarum,' is true. The decisions of an age, especially +decisions such as this where quite as much depended upon pious +feeling as upon logical reasoning, are usually sounder than the +arguments that are put forward to defend them. We should hardly +endorse the arguments by which Irenaeus proves _a priori_ the +necessity of a 'four-fold Gospel,' but there is real weight in the +fact that four Gospels and no more were accepted by him and others +like him. It is difficult to read without impatience the rough +words that are applied to the early Christian writers and to +contrast the self-complacency in which our own superior knowledge +is surveyed. If there is something in which they are behind us, +there is much also in which we are behind them. Among the many +things for which Mr. Arnold deserves our gratitude he deserves it +not least for the way in which he has singled out two sentences, +one from St. Augustine and the other from the Imitation, 'Domine +fecisti nos ad te et irrequietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat +in te,' and, 'Esto humilis et pacificus et erit tecum, Jesus.' The +men who could write thus are not to be despised. + +But beyond their more general testimony it is not clear what else +the early Fathers could be expected to do. They could not prove-- +at least their written remains that have come down to us could not +prove--that the Gospels were really written by the authors +traditionally assigned to them. When we say that the very names of +the first two Evangelists are not mentioned before a date that may +be from 120-166 (or 155) A.D. and the third and fourth not before +170-175 A.D., this alone is enough, without introducing other +elements of doubt, to show that the evidence must needs be +inconclusive. If the author of 'Supernatural Religion' undertook +to show this, he undertook a superfluous task. So much at least, +Mr. Arnold was right in saying, 'might be stated in a sentence and +proved in a page.' There is a presumption in favour of the +tradition, and perhaps, considering the relation of Irenaeus to +Polycarp and of Polycarp to St. John, we may say, a fairly strong +one; but we need now-a-days, to authenticate a document, closer +evidence than this. The cases are not quite parallel, and the +difference between them is decidedly in favour of Irenaeus, but if +Clement of Alexandria could speak of an Epistle written about 125 +A.D. is the work of the apostolic Barnabas the companion of St. +Paul [Endnote 346:1], we must not lay too much stress upon the +direct testimony of Irenaeus when he attributes the fourth Gospel +to the Apostle St. John. + +These are points for a different set of arguments to determine. +The Gospel itself affords sufficient indications as to the +position of its author. For the conclusion that he was a +Palestinian Jew, who had lived in Palestine before the destruction +of Jerusalem, familiar with the hopes and expectations of his +people, and himself mixed up with the events which he describes, +there is evidence of such volume and variety as seems exceedingly +difficult to resist. As I have gone into this subject at length +elsewhere [Endnote 347:1], and as, so far as I can see, no new +element has been introduced into the question by 'Supernatural +Religion,' I shall not break the unity of the present work by +considering the objections brought in detail. I am very ready to +recognise the ability with which many of these are stated, but it +is the ability of the advocate rather than of the impartial +critic. There is a constant tendency to draw conclusions much in +excess of the premisses. An observation, true in itself with a +certain qualification and restriction, is made in an unqualified +form, and the truth that it contains is exaggerated. Above all, +wherever there is a margin of ignorance, wherever a statement of +the Evangelist is not capable of direct and exact verification, +the doubt is invariably given against him and he is brought in +guilty either of ignorance or deception. I have no hesitation in +saying that if the principles of criticism applied to the fourth +Gospel--not only by the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' but by +some other writers of repute, such as Dr. Scholten--were applied +to ordinary history or to the affairs of every-day life, much that +is known actually to have happened could be shown on _a priori_ +grounds to be impossible. It is time that the extreme negative +school should justify more completely their canons of criticism. +As it is, the laxity of these repels many a thoughtful mind quite +as firmly convinced as they can be of the necessity of free +enquiry and quite as anxious to reconcile the different sides +of knowledge. The question is not one merely of freedom or +tradition, but of reason and logic; and until there is more +agreement as to what is reasonable and what the laws of logic +demand, the arguments are apt to run in parallel lines that never +meet [Endnote 348:1]. + +But, it is said, 'Miracles require exceptional evidence.' True: +exceptional evidence they both require and possess; but that evidence is +not external. Incomparably the strongest attestation to the Gospel +narratives is that which they bear to themselves. Miracles have +exceptional evidence because the non-miraculous portions of the +narrative with which they are bound up are exceptional. These carry +their truth stamped upon their face, and that truth is reflected back +upon the miracles. It is on the internal investigation of the Gospels +that the real issue lies. And this is one main reason why the belief of +mankind so little depends upon formal apologetics. We can all feel the +self- evidential force of the Gospel story; but who shall present it +adequately in words? We are reminded of the fate of him who thought the +ark of God was falling and put out his hand to steady it--and, for his +profanity, died. It can hardly be said that good intentions would be a +sufficient justification, because that a man should think himself fit +for the task would be in itself almost a sufficient sign that he was +mistaken. It is not indeed quite incredible that the qualifications +should one day be found. We seem almost to see that, with a slight +alteration of circumstances, a little different training in early life, +such an one has almost been among us. There are passages that make us +think that the author of 'Parochial and Plain Sermons' might have +touched even the Gospels with cogency that yet was not profane. But the +combination of qualities required is such as would hardly be found for +centuries together. The most fine and sensitive tact of piety would be +essential. With it must go absolute sincerity and singleness of purpose. +Any dash of mere conventionalism or self-seeking would spoil the whole. +There must be that clear illuminated insight that is only given to those +who are in a more than ordinary sense 'pure in heart.' And on the other +hand, along with these unique spiritual qualities must go a sound and +exact scientific training, a just perception of logical force and +method, and a wide range of knowledge. One of the great dangers and +drawbacks to the exercise of the critical faculty is that it tends to +destroy the spiritual intuition. And just in like manner the too great +reliance upon this intuition benumbs and impoverishes the critical +faculty. Yet, in a mind that should present at all adequately the +internal evidence of the Gospels, both should co-exist in equal balance +and proportion. We cannot say that there will never be such a mind, +but the asceticism of a life would be a necessary discipline for it +to go through, and that such a life as the world has seldom seen. + +In the meantime the private Christian may well be content with what he +has. 'If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether +it be of God.' + + + + + +CHAPTER XIV. + +CONCLUSION. + + +And now that we have come to the end of the purely critical +portion of this enquiry, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few +words on its general tendency and bearing. As critics we have only +the critical question to deal with. Certain evidence is presented +to us which it is our duty to weigh and test by reference to +logical and critical laws. It must stand or fall on its own +merits, and any considerations brought in from without will be +irrelevant to the question at issue. But after this is done we may +fairly look round and consider how our conclusion affects other +conclusions and in what direction it is leading us. If we look at +'Supernatural Religion' in this way we shall see that its tendency +is distinctly marked. Its attack will fall chiefly upon the middle +party in opinion. And it will play into the hands of the two +extreme parties on either side. There can be little doubt that +indirectly it will help the movement that is carrying so many into +Ultramontanism, and directly it is of course intended to win +converts to what may perhaps be called comprehensively Secularism. + +Now it is certainly true that the argument from consequences is +one that ought to be applied with great caution. Yet I am not at +all sure that it has not a real basis in philosophy as well as in +nature. The very existence of these two great parties, the +Ultramontane and the Secularist, over against each other, seems to +be it kind of standing protest against either of them. If +Ultramontanism is true, how is it that so many wise and good men +openly avow Secularism? If 'Secularism is true, how is it that so +many of the finest and highest minds take refuge from it--a +treacherous refuge, I allow--in Ultramontanism? There is +something in this more than a mere defective syllogism--more than +an insufficient presentation of the evidence. Truth, in the widest +sense, is that which is in accordance with the laws and conditions +of human nature. But where beliefs are so directly antithetical as +they are here, the repugnance and resistance which each is found +to cause in so large a number of minds is in itself a proof that +those laws and conditions are insufficiently complied with. To the +spectator, standing outside of both, this will seem to be easily +explained: the one sacrifices reason to faith; the other +sacrifices faith to reason. But there is abundant evidence to show +that both faith (meaning thereby the religious emotions) and +reason are ineradicable elements in the human mind. That which +seriously and permanently offends against either cannot be true. +For creatures differently constituted from man--either all reason +or all pure disembodied emotion--it might be otherwise; but, for +man, as he is, the epithet 'true' seems to be excluded from any +set of propositions that has such results. + +Even in the more limited sense, and confining the term to +propositions purely intellectual, there is, I think we must say, a +presumption against the truth of that which involves so deep and +wide a chasm in human nature. Without importing teleology, we +should naturally expect that the intellect and the emotions should +be capable of working harmoniously together. They do so in most +things: why should they not in the highest matters of all? If the +one set of opinions is anti-rational and the other anti-emotional, +as we see practically that they are, is not this in itself an +antecedent presumption against either of them? It may not be +enough to prove at once that the syllogism is defective: still +less is it a sufficient warrant for establishing an opposite +syllogism. But it does seem to be enough to give the scientific +reasoner pause, and to make him go over the line of his argument +again and again and yet again, with the suspicion that there is +(as how well there may be!) a flaw somewhere. + +It would not, I think, be difficult to point out such flaws +[Endnote 352:1]--some of them, as it appears, of considerable +magnitude. But the subject is one that would take us far away out +of our present course, and for its proper development would +require a technical knowledge of the processes of physical science +which I do not possess. Leaving this on one side, and regarding +them only in the abstract, the considerations stated above seem to +point to the necessity of something of the nature of a compromise. +And yet there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as compromise +in opinions. Compromise belongs to the world of practice; it is +only admitted by an illicit process into the world of thought. The +author of 'Supernatural Religion' is doubtless right in +deprecating that 'illogical zeal which flings to the pursuing +wolves of doubt and unbelief, scrap by scrap,' all the distinctive +doctrines of Christianity. Belief, it is true, must be ultimately +logical to stand. It must have an inner cohesion and inter- +dependence. It must start from a fixed principle. This has been, +and still is, the besetting weakness of the theology of mediation. +It is apt to form itself merely by stripping off what seem to be +excrescences from the outside, and not by radically reconstructing +itself, on a firmly established basis, from within. The difficulty +in such a process is to draw the line. There is a delusive +appearance of roundness and completeness in the creeds of those +who either accept everything or deny everything: though, even +here, there is, I think we may say, always, some little loophole +left of belief or of denial, which will inevitably expand until it +splits and destroys the whole structure. But the moment we begin +to meet both parties half way, there comes in that crucial +question: Why do you accept just so much and no more? Why do you +deny just so much and no more? [Endnote 354:1] + +It must, in candour, be confessed that the synthetic formula for the +middle party in opinion has not yet been found. Other parties have +their formulae, but none that will really bear examination. _Quod +semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus_, would do excellently if there +was any belief that had been held 'always, everywhere, and by all,' if +no discoveries had been made as to the facts, and if there had been no +advance in the methods of knowledge. The ultimate universality and the +absolute uniformity of physical antecedents has a plausible appearance +until it is seen that logically carried out it reduces men to machines, +annihilates responsibility, and involves conclusions on the assumption +of the truth of which society could not hold together for a single day. +If we abandon these Macedonian methods for unloosing the Gordian knot +of things and keep to the slow and laborious way of gradual induction, +then I think it will be clear that all opinions must be held on the +most provisional tenure. A vast number of problems will need to be +worked out before any can be said to be established with a pretence to +finality. And the course which the inductive process is taking supplies +one of the chief 'grounds of hope' to those who wish to hold that +middle position of which I have been speaking. The extreme theories +which from time to time have been advanced have not been able to hold +their ground. No doubt they may have done the good that extreme +theories usually do, in bringing out either positively or negatively +one side or another of the truth; but in themselves they have been +rejected as at once inadequate and unreal solutions of the facts. First +we had the Rationalism (properly so called) of Paulus, then the +Mythical hypothesis of Strauss, and after that the 'Tendenz-kritik' of +Baur. But what candid person does not feel that each and all of these +contained exaggerations more incredible than the difficulties which +they sought to remove? There has been on each of the points raised a +more or less definite ebb in the tide. The moderate conclusion is seen +to be also the reasonable conclusion. And not least is this the case +with the enquiry on which we have been just engaged. The author of +'Supernatural Religion' has overshot the mark very much indeed. There +is, as we have seen, a certain truth in some things that he has said, +but the whole sum of truth is very far from bearing out his conclusions. + +When we look up from these detailed enquiries and lift up our eyes +to a wider horizon we shall be able to relegate them to their true +place. The really imposing witness to the truth of Christianity is +that which is supplied by history on the one hand, and its own +internal attractiveness and conformity to human nature on the +other. Strictly speaking, perhaps, these are but two sides of the +same thing. It is in history that the laws of human nature assume +a concrete shape and expression. The fact that Christianity has +held its ground in the face of such long-continued and hostile +criticism is a proof that it must have some deeply-seated fitness +and appropriateness for man. And this goes a long way towards +saying that it is true. It is a theory of things that is being +constantly tested by experience. But the results of experience are +often expressed unconsciously. They include many a subtle +indication that the mind has followed but cannot reproduce to +itself in set terms. All the reasons that go to form a judge's +decision do not appear in his charge. Yet there we have a select +and highly-trained mind working upon matter that presents no very +great degree of complexity. When we come to a question so wide, so +subtle and complex as Christianity, the individual mind ceases to +be competent to sit in judgment upon it. It becomes necessary to +appeal to a much more extended tribunal, and the verdict of that +tribunal will be given rather by acts than in words. Thus there +seems to have always been a sort of half-conscious feeling in +men's minds that there was more in Christianity than the arguments +for it were able to bring out. In looking back over the course +that apologetics have taken, we cannot help being struck by a +disproportion between the controversial aspect and the practical. +It will probably on the whole be admitted that the balance of +argument has in the past been usually somewhat on the side of the +apologists; but the argumentative victory has seldom if ever been +so decisive as quite to account for the comparatively undisturbed +continuity of the religious life. It was in the height of the +Deist controversy that Wesley and Whitfield began to preach, and +they made more converts by appealing to the emotions than probably +Butler did by appealing to the reason. + +A true philosophy must take account of these phenomena. Beliefs +which issue in that peculiarly fine and chastened and tender +spirit which is the proper note of Christianity, cannot, under any +circumstances, be dismissed as 'delusion.' Surely if any product +of humanity is true and genuine, it is to be found here. There are +indeed truths which find a response in our hearts without +apparently going through any logical process, not because they are +illogical, but because the scales of logic are not delicate and +sensitive enough to weigh them. + +'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall +not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' 'I will arise and go to my +father, and will say unto him: Father, I have sinned against +heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy +son.' 'Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I +will give you rest.' The plummet of science--physical or +metaphysical, moral or critical--has never sounded so deep as +sayings such as these. We may pass them over unnoticed in our +Bibles, or let them slip glibly and thoughtlessly from the tongue; +but when they once really come home, there is nothing to do but to +bow the head and cover the face and exclaim with the Apostle, +'Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.' + +And yet there is that other side of the question which is represented +in 'Supernatural Religion,' and this too must have justice done to it. +There is an intellectual, as well as a moral and spiritual, synthesis +of things. Only it should be remembered that this synthesis has to +cover an immense number of facts of the most varied and intricate kind, +and that at present the nature of the facts themselves is in many cases +very far from being accurately ascertained. We are constantly reminded +in reading 'Supernatural Religion,' able and vigorous as it is, how +much of its force depends rather upon our ignorance than our knowledge. +It supplies us with many opportunities of seeing how easily the whole +course and tenour of an argument may be changed by the introduction of +a new element. For instance, I imagine that if the author had given a +little deeper study to the seemingly minute and secondary subject of +text-criticism, it would have aroused in him very considerable +misgivings as to the results at which he seemed to have arrived. There +is a solidarity in all the different departments of human knowledge and +research, especially among those that are allied in subject. These are +continually sending out offshoots and projections into the neighbouring +regions, and the conclusions of one science very often have to depend +upon those of another. The course of enquiry that has been taken in +'Supernatural Religion' is peculiarly unfortunate. It starts from the +wrong end. It begins with propositions into which _a priori_ +considerations largely enter, and, from the standpoint given by these, +it proceeds to dictate terms in a field that can only be trodden by +patient and unprejudiced study. A far more hopeful and scientific +process would have been to begin upon ground where dogmatic questions +do not enter, or enter only in a remote degree, and where there is a +sufficient number of solid ascertainable facts to go upon, and then to +work the way steadily and cautiously upwards to higher generalisations. + +It will have been seen in the course of the present enquiry how +many side questions need to be determined. It would be well if +monographs were written upon all the quotations from the Old +Testament in the Christian literature of the first two centuries, +modelled upon Credner's investigations into the quotations in +Justin. Before this is done there should be a new and revised +edition of Holmes' and Parsons' Septuagint [Endnote 359:1]. +Everything short of this would be inadequate, because we need to +know not only the best text, but every text that has definite +historical attestation. In this way it would be possible to arrive +at a tolerably exact, instead of a merely approximate, deduction +as to the habit of quotation generally, which would supply a +firmer basis for inference in regard to the New Testament than +that which has been assumed here. At the same time monographs +should be written in English, besides those already existing in +German, upon the date or position of the writers whose works come +under review. Without any attempt to prove a particular thesis, +the reader should be allowed to see precisely what the evidence is +and how far it goes. Then if he could not arrive at a positive +conclusion, he could at least attain to the most probable. And, +lastly, it is highly important that the whole question of the +composition and structure of the Synoptic Gospels should be +investigated to the very bottom. Much valuable labour has already +been expended upon this subject, but the result, though progress +has been made, is rather to show its extreme complexity and +difficulty than to produce any final settlement. Yet, as the +author of 'Supernatural Religion' has rather dimly and inadequately +seen, we are constantly thrown back upon assumptions borrowed from +this quarter. + +Pending such more mature and thorough enquiries, I quite feel that +my own present contribution belongs to a transition stage, and +cannot profess to be more than provisional. But it will have +served its purpose sufficiently if it has helped to mark out more +distinctly certain lines of the enquiry and to carry the +investigation along these a little way; suggesting at the same +time--what the facts themselves really suggest--counsels of +sobriety and moderation. + +What the end will be, it would be presumptuous to attempt to +foretell. It will probably be a long time before even these minor +questions--much more the major questions into which they run up-- +will be solved. Whether they will ever be solved--all of them at +least--in such a way as to compel entire assent is very doubtful. +Error and imperfection seem to be permanently, if we may hope +diminishingly, a condition of human thought and action. It does +not appear to be the will of God that Truth should ever be so +presented as to crush out all variety of opinion. The conflict of +opinions is like that of Hercules with the Hydra. As fast as one +is cut down another arises in its place; and there is no searing- +iron to scorch and cicatrize the wound. However much we may +labour, we can only arrive at an inner conviction, not at +objective certainty. All the glosses and asseverations in the +world cannot carry us an inch beyond the due weight of the +evidence vouchsafed to us. An honest and brave mind will accept +manfully this condition of things, and not seek for infallibility +where it can find none. It will adopt as its motto that noble +saying of Bishop Butler--noble, because so unflinchingly true, +though opposed to a sentimental optimism--'Probability is the very +guide of life.' + +With probabilities we have to deal, in the intellectual sphere. +But, when once this is thoroughly and honestly recognised, even a +comparatively small balance of probability comes to have as much +moral weight as the most loudly vaunted certainty. And meantime, +apart from and beneath the strife of tongues, there is the still +small voice which whispers to a man and bids him, in no +superstitious sense but with the gravity and humility which befits +a Christian, to 'work out his own salvation with fear and +trembling.' + + + + + +[ENDNOTES] + + +[2:1] With regard to the references in vol. i. p. 259, n. 1, I +had already observed, before the appearance of the preface to the +sixth edition, that they were really intended to apply to the +first part of the sentence annotated rather than the second. +Still, as there is only one reference out of nine that really +supports the proposition in immediate connection with which the +references are made, the reader would be very apt to carry away a +mistaken impression. The same must be said of the set of +references defended on p. xl. sqq. of the new preface. The +expressions used do not accurately represent the state of the +facts. It is not careful writing, and I am afraid it must be said +that the prejudice of the author has determined the side which the +expression leans. But how difficult is it to make words express +all the due shades and qualifications of meaning--how difficult +especially for a mind that seems to be naturally distinguished by +force rather than by exactness and delicacy of observation! We +have all 'les défauts de nos qualités.' + +[10:1] Much harm has been done by rashly pressing human metaphors and +analogies; such as, that Revelation is a _message_ from God and +therefore must be infallible, &c. This is just the sort of argument +that the Deists used in the last century, insisting that a revelation, +properly so called, _must_ be presented with conclusive proofs, _must_ +be universal, _must_ be complete, and drawing the conclusion that +Christianity is not such a revelation. This kind of reasoning has +received its sentence once for all from Bishop Butler. We have nothing +to do with what _must_ be (of which we are, by the nature of the case, +incompetent judges), but simply with what _is_. + +[18:1] Cf. Westcott, _Canon_, p. 152, n. 2 (3rd ed. 1870). + +[18:2] See Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 60; also Credner, +_Beiträge_, ii. 66 ('certainly' from St. Paul). + +[20:1] _The Old Testament in the New_ (London and Edinburgh, +1868). + +[21:1] Mr. M'Clellan (_The New Testament_, &c., vol. i. p. +606, n. c) makes the suggestion, which from his point of view is +necessary, that 'S. Matthew has cited a prophecy spoken by +Jeremiah, but nowhere written in the Old Testament, and of which +the passage in Zechariah is only a partial reproduction.' Cf. +Credner, _Beiträge_, ii. 152. + +[25:1] We do not stay to discuss the real origin of these +quotations: the last is probably not from the Old Testament at +all. + +[27:1] The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are also +found in Clement of Alexandria. + +[34:1] It should be noticed, however, that the same reading is +found in Justin and other writers. + +[38:1] _Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti_ +(Gottingae, 1853). + +[39:1] _Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften_ +(Halle, 1832). + +[40:1] _The Epistles of S. Clement of Rome_ (London and +Cambridge, 1869). + +[49:1] The Latin translation is not in most cases a sufficient +guarantee for the original text. The Greek has been preserved in +the shape of long extracts by Epiphanius and others. The edition +used is that of Stieren, Lipsiae, 1853. + +[49:2] Horne's _Introduction_ (ed. 1856), p. 333. + +[52:1] Ed. Dindorf, Lipsiae, 1859. [The index given in vol. iii. +p. 893 sqq. contains many inaccuracies, and is, indeed, of little +use for identifying the passages of Scripture.] + +[56:1] _Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of +Alexandria,_ p. 407 sqq. + +[56:2] In the new Preface to his work on the Canon (4th edition, +1875), p. xxxii. + +[58:1] _S.R._ i. p. 221, and note. + +[59:1] _S.R._ i. p. 222, n. 3. + +[59:2] _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ p. 74 (p. 82 _S.R._?). + +[59:3] _Das nachapost. Zeitalter_, p. 126 sq. + +[60:1] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 64; compare +Fritzche, art. 'Judith' in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_. + +[61:1] Vol. i. p. 221, n. I feel it due to the author to say that +I have found his long lists of references, though not seldom +faulty, very useful. I willingly acknowledge the justice of his +claim to have 'fully laid before readers the actual means of +judging of the accuracy of every statement which has been made' +(Preface to sixth edition, p. lxxx). + +[65:1] i. p. 226. + +[66:1] i. p. 228. + +[69:1] _Der Ursprung_, p. 138. + +[71:1] _The Apostolical Fathers_ (London, 1874), p. 273. + +[71:2] The original Greek of this work is lost, but in the text as +reconstructed by Hilgenfeld from five still extant versions +(Latin, Syriac, Aethiopic, Arabic, Armenian) the verse runs thus, +[Greek: polloi men ektisthaesan, oligoi de sothaesontai] +(_Messias Judaeorum_, p. 69). + +[73:1] A curious instance of disregard of context is to be seen in +Tertullian's reading of John i. 13, which he referred to +_Christ_, accusing the Valentinians of falsification because +they had the ordinary reading (cf. Rönsch, _Das Neue Testament +Tertullian's_, pp. 252, 654). Compare also p. 24 above. + +[73:2] _Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum_, Fasc. ii. +p. 69. + +[74:1] c. v. + +[74:2] _S. R._ i. p. 250 sqq. + +[76:1] Lardner, _Credibility, &c_., ii. p .23; Westcott, +_On the Canon_, p. 50, n. 5. + +[77:1] Since this was written the author of 'Supernatural +Religion' has replied in the preface to his sixth edition. He has +stated his case in the ablest possible manner: still I do not +think that there is anything to retract in what has been written +above. There _would_ have been something to retract if Dr. +Lightfoot had maintained positively the genuineness of the Vossian +Epistles. As to the Syriac, the question seems to me to stand +thus. On the one side are certain improbabilities--I admit, +improbabilities, though not of the weightiest kind--which are met +about half way by the parallel cases quoted. On the other hand, +there is the express testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp quoted +in its turn by Irenaeus. Now I cannot think that there is any +improbability so great (considering our ignorance) as not to be +outweighed by this external evidence. + +[81:1] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec._, Fasc. iv. +p. 15. + +[81:2] Cf. _ibid._, pp. 56, 62, also p. 29. + +[82:1] But see _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 838, from +which it appears that M. Waddington has recently proved the date +to be rather 155 or 156. Compare Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. +72, where reference is made to an essay by Lipsius, _Der +Märtyrertod Polycarp's_ in _Z. f. w. T._ 1874, ii. p. 180 +f. + +[82:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 3, 4. + +[83:1] _Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche_, p. 586; +Hefele, _Patrum Apostolicorum Opera_, p. lxxx. + +[84:1] Cf. _S. R._ i. p. 278. + +[84:2] _Ent. d. a. K._ pp. 593, 599. + +[84:3] _Apostolical Fathers_, p. 227 sq. + +[84:4] _Ursprung_, pp. 43, 131. + +[85:1] [Greek: mnaemoneuontes de hon eipen ho kurios didaskon; mae +krinete hina mae krithaete; aphiete kai aphethaesetai hymin; eleeite +hina eleaethaete; en ho metro metreite, antimetraethaesetai hymin; kai +hoti makarioi hoi ptochoi kai hoi diokomenoi heneken dikaiosynaes, hoti +auton estin hae basileia tou Theou.] + +[89:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, 1. p. 138, n. 2. + +[89:2] _Einleilung in das N. T._ p. 66, where Lipsius' view +is also quoted. + +[89:3] Cf. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 88, n. 4. + +[89:4] As appears to be suggested in _S. R._ i. p. 292. The +reference in the note to Bleek, _Einl._ p. 637 (and Ewald?), +does not seem to be exactly to the point. + +[89:5] _Apol._ i. 67. + +[90:1] _Dial. c. Tryph._ 103. + +[90:2] _Apol._ i. 66; cf. _S.R._ i. p. 294. + +[91:1] The evangelical references and allusions in Justin have +been carefully collected by Credner and Hilgenfeld, and are here +thrown together in a sort of running narrative. + +[101:1] This was written before the appearance of Mr. M'Clellan's +important work on the Four Gospels (_The New Testament_, vol. i, +London, 1875), to which I have not yet had time to give the +study that it deserves. + +[103:1] Unless indeed it was found in one of the many forms of the +Gospel (cf. _S.R._ i. P. 436, and p. 141 below). The section +appears in none of the forms reproduced by Dr. Hilgenfeld (_N.T. +extra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv). + +[107:1] In like manner Tertullian refers his readers to the +'autograph copies' of St. Paul's Epistles, and the very 'chairs of +the Apostles,' preserved at Corinth and elsewhere. (_De +Praescript. Haeret._ c. 36). Tertullian also refers to the +census of Augustus, 'quem testem fidelissimum dominicae +nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt' (_Adv. Marc._ iv. 7). + +[110:1] _Beiträge_, i. p. 261 sqq. + +[110:2] _Evangelien Justin's u.s.w._, p. 270 sqq. + +[110:3] The chief authority is Eus. _H. E._ vi. 12. + +[110:4] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157. + +[116:1] A somewhat similar classification has been made by De +Wette, _Einleitung in das N. T._, pp. 104-110, in which +however the standard seems to be somewhat lower than that which I +have assumed; several instances of variation which I had classed +as decided, De Wette considers to be only slight. I hope I may +consider this a proof that the classification above given has not +been influenced by bias. + +[119:1] _Beiträge_, i. p. 237. + +[119:2] _S.R._ i. p. 396 sqq. + +[120:1] _Die drei ersten Evangelien_, Göttingen, 1850. [A +second, revised, edition of this work has recently appeared.] + +[120:2] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, Leipzig, 1863, p. 88. + +[120:3] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, Berlin, 1872, p. 299. + +[120:4] _Beiträge_, i. p. 219. + +[120:5] Dr. Westcott well calls this 'the _prophetic_ sense +of the present' (_On the Canon_, p. 128). + +[122:1] 'This is meaningless,' writes Mr. Baring-Gould of the +canonical text, rather hastily, and forgetting, as it would +appear, the concluding cause (_Lost and Hostile Gospels_, p. +166); cp. _S.R._ i. p. 354, ii. p. 28. + +[123:1] i. pp. 196, 227, 258. + +[123:2] _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon_ (ed. +Volkmar, Berlin, 1860), p. 16. + +[124:1] _Adv. Haer._ 428 D. + +[124:2] I am not quite clear that more is meant (as Meyer, +Ellicott _Huls. Lect._ p. 339, n. 2, and others maintain) in +the evangelical language than that the drops of sweat 'resembled +blood;' [Greek: hosei] seems to qualify [Greek: haimatos] as much +as [Greek: thromboi]. Compare especially the interesting parallels +from medical writers quoted by McClellan _ad loc._ + +[128:1] The only parallel that I can find quoted is a reference by +Mr. McClellan to Philo i.164 (ed. Mangey), where the phrase is +however [Greek: isos angeloi (gegonos)]. + +[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 304 sqq. + +[130:1] _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157. + +[135:1] Scrivener, _Introduction to the Criticism of the N. +T_. p. 452 (2nd edition, 1874). + +[136:1] On reviewing this chapter I am inclined to lean more than +I did to the hypothesis that Justin used a Harmony. The phenomena +of variation seem to be too persistent and too evenly distributed +to allow of the supposition of alternate quoting from different +Gospels. But the data will need a closer weighing before this can +be determined. + +[138:1] _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 169 sqq. + +[138:2] Tischendorf, however, devotes several pages to an argument +which follows in the same line as Dr. Lightfoot's, and is, I +believe, in the main sound (_Wann wurden unsere Evangelien +verfasst?_ p. 113 sqq., 4th edition, 1866). + +[138:3] I gather from the sixth edition of _S. R._ that the +argument from silence is practically waived. If the silence of +Eusebius is not pressed as proving that the authors about whom he +is silent were ignorant of or did not acknowledge particular +Gospels, we on our side may be content not to press it as proving +that the Gospels in question _were_ acknowledged. The matter +may well be allowed to rest thus: that, so far as the silence of +Eusebius is concerned, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of +Corinth are not alleged either for the Gospels or against them. I +agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that the point is +not one of paramount importance, though it has been made more of +by other writers, e.g. Strauss and Renan. [The author has missed +Dr. Lightfoot's point on p. xxiii. What Eusebius bears testimony +to is, _not_ his own belief in the canonicity of the fourth +Gospel, but its _undisputed_ canonicity, i.e. a historical +fact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c. If I +say that _Hamlet_ is an undisputed play of Shakspeare's, I +mean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare's myself, but that +all the critics from Shakspeare's time downwards have believed it +to be his.] + +[140:1] _H. E._ iv. 22. + +[141:1] _S. R._ i. p. 436. + +[141:2] _Einleitung_, p. 103. + +[141:3] _Das Nachapost. Zeit._ i. p. 238. + +[141:4] _Beiträge_, i. p. 401. + +[141:5] _Nov. Test. extra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv. pp. 19, 20. + +[143:1] We have, however, had occasion to note a somewhat +parallel, though not quite parallel, instance in the quotation of +Clement of Rome and Polycarp, [Greek: aphiete, hina aphethae humin +(kai aphethaesetai humin)]. + +[144:1] _Contemporary Review_, Dec. 1874, p. 8; cf. Routh, +_Reliquiae Sacrae_, i. p. 281 _ad fin._ + +[144:2] Tregelles, writing on the 'Ancient Syriac Versions' in +Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1635 a, says that 'these words might +be a Greek rendering of Matt. xiii. 16 as they stand' in the +Curetonian text. + +[145:1] Or rather perhaps 155, 156; see p. 82 above. + +[146:1] _H.E._ iii. 39. + +[147:1] In Mr. M'Clellan's recent _Harmony_ I notice only two deviations +from the order in St. Mark, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-29. In Mr. Fuller's +_Harmony_ (the Harmony itself and not the Table of Contents, in which +there are several oversights) there seem to be two, Mark vi. 17-20, +xiv. 3-9; in Dr. Robinson's English _Harmony_ three, ii. 15-22, +vi. 17-20, xiv. 22-72 (considerable variation). Of these passages +vi. 17-20 (the imprisonment of the Baptist) is the only one the place +of which all three writers agree in changing. [Dr. Lightfoot, in +_Cont. Rev._, Aug. 1875, p. 394, appeals to Anger and Tischendorf +in proof of the contrary proposition, that the order of Mark cannot +be maintained. But Tischendorf's Harmony is based on the assumption +that St. Luke's use of [Greek: kathexaes] pledges him to a chronological +order, and Anger adopts Griesbach's hypothesis that Mark is a compilation +from Matthew and Luke. The remarks in the text turn, not upon precarious +harmonistic results, but upon a simple comparison of the three Gospels.] + +[149:1] Perhaps I should explain that this was made by underlining +the points of resemblance between the Gospels in different +coloured pencil and reckoning up the results at the end of each +section. + +[153:1] This subject has been carefully worked out since Credner +by Bleek and De Wette. The results will be found in Holtzmann, +_Synopt. Ev._ p. 259 sqq. + +[154:1] Cf. Holtzmann, _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, p. 255 +sq.; Ebrard, _The Gospel History_ (Engl. trans.), p. 247; +Bleek, _Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien_, i. +p. 367. The theory rests upon an acute observation, and has much +plausibility. + +[155:1] _On the Canon_, p. 181, n. 2. [That the word will +bear this sense appears still more decidedly from Dr. Lightfoot's +recent investigations, in view of which the two sentences that +follow should perhaps be cancelled; see _Cont. Rev._, Aug. +1875, p. 399 sqq.] + +[159:1] [It will be seen that the arguments above hardly touch +those of Dr. Lightfoot in the _Contemporary Review_ for +August and October: neither do Dr. Lightfoot's arguments seem very +much to affect them. The method of the one is chiefly external, +that of the other almost entirely internal. I can only for the +present leave what I had written; but I do not for a moment +suppose that the subject is fathomed even from the particular +standpoint that I have taken.] + +[162:1] The lists given in _Supernatural Religion_ (ii. p. 2) +seem to be correct so far as I am able to check them. In the +second edition of his work on the Origin of the Old Catholic +Church, Ritschl modified his previous opinion so far as to admit +that the indications were divided, sometimes on the one side, +sometimes on the other (p. 451, n. 1). There is a seasonable +warning in Reuss (_Gesch. h. S. N. T._ p. 254) that the +Tübingen critics here, as elsewhere, are apt to exaggerate the +polemical aspect of the writing. + +[162:2] It should be noticed that Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, though +assigning the second place to the Homilies, both take the +_terminus ad quem_ for this work no later than 180 A.D. It +seems that a Syriac version, partly of the Homilies, partly of the +Recognitions, exists in a MS. which itself was written in the year +411, and bears at that date marks of transcription from a still +earlier copy (cf. Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 341, n. 1). + +[163:1] This table is made, as in the case of Justin, with the +help of the collection of passages in the works of Credner and +Hilgenfeld. + +[167:1] Or rather perhaps 'morning baptism.' (Cf. Lightfoot, +_Colossians,_ p. 162 sqq., where the meaning of the name and +the character and relations of the sect are fully discussed). + +[168:1] _Hom._ i. 6; ii. 19, 23; iii. 73; iv. 1; xiii. 7; +xvii. 19. + +[170:1] So Tregelles expressly (_Introduction_, p. 240), after Wiseman; +Scrivener (_Introd._, p. 308) adds (?); M'Clellan classes with +'Italic Family' (p. lxxiii). [On returning to this passage I incline +rather more definitely to regard the reading [Greek: Haesaiou], from +the group in which it is found, as an early Alexandrine corruption. +Still the Clementine writer may have had it before him.] + +[170:2] ii. p. 10 sqq. + +[172:1] ii. p. 21. + +[172:2] Preface to the fourth edition of _Canon_, p. xxxii. + +[174:1] _Evangelien_, p. 31. + +[174:2] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 282. + +[175:1] _Synopt. Ev._ p. 193. + +[176:1] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 295. + +[178:1] A friend has kindly extracted for me, from Holmes and +Parsons, the authorities for the Septuagint text of Deut. vi. 4. +For [Greek: sou] there are 'Const. App. 219, 354, 355; Ignat. Epp. +104, 112; Clem. Al. 68, 718; Chrys. i. 482 et saepe, al.' For +_tuus_, 'Iren. (int.), Tert., Cypr., Ambr., Anonym. ap. Aug., +Gaud., Brix., Alii Latini.' No authorities for [Greek: humon]. Was +the change first introduced into the text of the New Testament? + +[178:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 25. + +[179:1] _Beiträge_, i. p. 326. + +[179:2] _On the Canon_, p. 261, n. 2. + +[188:1] _Hom._ 1. _in Lucam_. + +[189:1] _H.E._ iv. 7. + +[189:2] _Strom._ iv. 12. + +[189:3] _S.R._ ii. p. 42. + +[189:4] _Ibid._ n. 2; cp. p. 47. + +[190:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii, 27. + +[190:2] ii. p. 45. + +[191:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii. 20. + +[192:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 49. + +[197:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Pref. 2. + +[198:1] ii. p. 59. + +[199:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq. + +[200:1] _Strom._ ii. 20; see Westcott, _Canon_, p. 269; +Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 152. + +[203:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 7, 9. + +[203:2] _Ibid._ iii. 12. 12. + +[204:1] The corresponding chapter to this in 'Supernatural Religion' +has been considerably altered, and indeed in part rewritten, in the +sixth edition. The author very kindly sent me a copy of this after +the appearance of my article in the _Fortnightly Review_, and I at +once made use of it for the part of the work on which I was engaged; +but I regret that my attention was not directed, as it should have +been, to the changes in this chapter until it was too late to take +quite sufficient account of them. The argument, however, I think I +may say, is not materially affected. Several criticisms which I had +been led to make in the _Fortnightly_ I now find had been anticipated, +and these have been cancelled or a note added in the present work; +I have also appended to the volume a supplemental note of greater +length on the reconstruction of Marcion's text, the only point on +which I believe there is really very much room for doubt. + +[205:1] See above, p. 89. + +[205:2] _Apol._ i. 26. + +[205:3] _Ibid._ i. 58. + +[205:4] ii. p. 80. + +[205:5] _Der Ursprung_, p. 89. + +[205:6] Cf. Tertullian, _De Praescript. Haeret._ c. 38. + +[206:1] _Adv. Haer._ iv. 27. 2; 12. 12. + +[209:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, pp. 28-54. [Volkmar's view is +stated less inadequately in the sixth edition of _S. R._, but +still not quite adequately. Perhaps it could hardly be otherwise +where arguments that were originally adduced in favour of one +conclusion are employed to support its opposite.] + +[210:1] [Greek: oida] for [Greek: oidas] in Luke xiv. 20. Cf. +Volkmar, p. 46. + +[211:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, p. 45. + +[211:2] _Ibid._ pp. 46-48. + +[211:3] 'We have, in fact, no guarantee of the accuracy or +trustworthiness of any of their statements' (_S.R._ ii. p. +100). We have just the remarkable coincidence spoken of above. It +does not prove that Tertullian did not faithfully reproduce the +text of Marcion to show, which is the real drift of the argument +on the preceding page (_S.R._ ii. p. 99), that he had not the +canonical Gospel before him; rather it removes the suspicion that +he might have confused the text of Marcion's Gospel with the +canonical. + +[212:1] This table has been constructed from that of De Wette, +_Einleitung_, pp. 123-132, compared with the works of Volkmar +and Hilgenfeld. + +[213:1]: _S.R._ ii. p. 110, n. 3. The statement is mistaken +in regard to Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. Both these writers would make +Marcion retain this passage. It happens rather oddly that this is +one of the sections on which the philological evidence for St. +Luke's authorship is least abundant (see below). + +[215:1] There is direct evidence for the presence in Marcion's +Gospel of the passages relating to the personages here named, +except Martha and Mary; see _Tert. Adv. Marc._ iv. 19, 37, 43. + +[217:1] _S. R._ ii. 142 sq. + +[217:2] This admission does not damage the credit of Tertullian +and Epiphanius as witnesses; because what we want from them is a +statement of the facts; the construction which they put upon the +facts is a matter of no importance. + +[217:3] The omission in 2 Cor. iv. 13 must be due to Marcion +(_Epiph._ 321 c.); so probably an insertion in 1 Cor. ix. 8. + +[218:1] Tert. _Adv. Marc._ v. 16: 'Haec si Marcion de +industria erasit,' &c. V. 14: 'Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum +intercisae scripturae.' V. 3: 'Ostenditur quid supra haeretica +industria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae,' &c. Cf. Bleek, +_Einleitung_, p. 136; Hilgenfeld, _Evv. Justin's_, &c., p. 473. + +[219:1] 'Anno xv. Tiberii Christus Jesus de coelo manare dignatus +est' (Tert. _Adv. Marc._ i. 19). + +[220:1] I give mainly the explanations of Volkmar, who, it should +be remembered, is the very reverse of an apologist, indicating the +points where they seem least satisfactory. + +[220:2] It is highly probable that many of the points mentioned by +Tertullian and Epiphanius as 'adulterations' were simply various +readings in Marcion's Codex; such would be v. 14, x. 25, xvii. 2, +and xxiii. 2, which are directly supported by other authority: xi. +2 and xii. 28 would probably belong to this class. So perhaps the +insertion of iv. 27 in the history of the Samaritan leper. The +phenomenon of a transposition of verses from one part of a Gospel +to another is not an infrequent one in early MSS. + +[223:1] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, 1863, pp. 302 sqq. + +[224:1] Where a reference is given thus in brackets, it is +confirmatory, from the part of the Gospel retained by Marcion. + +[229:1] An analysis of the words which are only found in St. Luke, +or very rarely found elsewhere, gives the following results.--The +number of words found only in the portion of the Gospel retained +by Marcion and in the Acts is 231; that of words found in these +retained portions and not besides in the Gospels or the two other +Synoptics is 58; and both these classes together for the portions +omitted in Marcion's Gospel reach a total of 62, which is +decidedly under the proportion that might have been expected. The +list is diminished by a number of words which are found only in +the omitted and retained portions, furnishing evidence, as above, +that both proceed from the same hand. + +[231:1] This list has been made from the valuable work of Rönsch, +_Das Neue Testament Tertullian's_, 1871, and the critical +editions, compared with the text of Marcion's Gospel as given by +Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. + +[231:2] It might be thought that Tertullian was giving his own +text and not that of Marcion's Gospel, but this supposition is +excluded both by the confirmation which he receives from +Epiphanius, and also by the fact, which is generally admitted (see +_S.R._ ii. p. 100), that he had not the canonical Luke, but +only Marcion's Gospel before him. + +[233:1] See Crowfoot, _Observations on the Collation in Greek of +Cureton's Syriac Fragments of the Gospels_, 1872, p. 5; Scrivener, +_Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, 2nd edition, +1874, p. 452. + +[233:2] See Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 307 sq.; and Dr. Westcott's +article on the 'Vulgate' in Smith's Dictionary. It should be noticed +that Dr. Westcott's literation differs from that of Dr. Scrivener +and Tregelles, which has been adopted here. + +[235:1] Cf. Friedländer, _Sittengeschichte Roms_, iii. p. 315. + +[238:1] See p. 89, above. + +[238:2] _Strom._ iii. 12; compare _S.R._ ii. p. 151. + +[239:1] [Greek: Ho mentoi ge proteros auton archaegos ho Tatianos +sunapheian tina kai sunagogaen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion +suntheis to dia tessaron touto prosonomasin, ho kai para tisin +eiseti nun pheretai.] _H. E._ iv. 29. + +[239:2] _Beiträge_, i. p. 441. + +[240:1] _Haer._ 391 D (xlvi. 1). + +[240:2] [Greek: Outos kai to dia tessaron kaloumenon suntetheiken +euangelion, tas te genealogias perikopsas, kai ta alla, hosa ek +spermatos Dabid kata sorka genennaemenon ton Kurion deiknusin. +Echraesanto de touto ou monon oi taes ekeinou summorias, alla kai +oi tous apostolikois epomenoi dogmasi, taen taes sunthaekaes +kakourgian ouk egnokotes, all' aplousteron hos suntomo to biblio +chraesamenoi. Euron de kago pleious ae diakosias biblous toiautas +en tais par' haemin ekklaesiois tetimaemenas, kai pasas sunagagan +apethemaen, kai ta ton tettaron euangeliston anteisaegagon +euangelia] (_Haeret. Fab._ i. 20, quoted by Credner, _Beiträge_, +i. p. 442). + +[240:3] See _S.R._ ii. p. 15. + +[241:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 162; compare Credner, _Beiträge_, +i. p. 446 sqq. + +[241:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8. + +[241:3] _Beit_. i. p. 443. + +[241:4] May not Tatian have given his name to a collection of +materials begun, used, and left in a more or less advanced stage +of compilation, by Justin? However, we can really do little more +than note the resemblance: any theory we may form must be purely +conjectural. + +[242:1] [Greek: Epistolas gar adelphon axiosanton me grapsai +egarapsa. Kai tautas oi tou diabolon apostoloi zizanion gegemikan, +ha men exairountes, ha de prostithentes. Ois to ouai keitai. Ou +thaumaston ara, ei kai ton kuriakon rhadiourgaesai tines +epibeblaentai graphon, hopote tais ou toiautais epibebouleukasi.] +_H.E._ iv. 23 (Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 181). + +[243:1] [Greek: Allae d' epistolae tis autou pros Nikomaedeas +pheretai en hae taen Markionos airesin polemon to taes alaetheias +paristatai kanoni]. _H.E._ iv. 23_. + +[244:1] [Greek: Akribos mathon ta taes palaias diathaekaes Biblia, +hipotaxas epempsa soi.] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26 (Routh, _Rel. +Sac._ i. p. 119). + +[245:1] Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 201. + +[245:2] ii. p. 177. + +[245:3] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 1 (cf. Rönsch, _Das neue Testament +Tertullian's_, p. 48), 'duo deos dividens, proinde diversos, +alterum alterius instrumenti--vel, _quod magis usui est dicere, +testamenti_.' + +[246:1] [Greek: Eisi toinun hoi di' hagnoian philoneikousi peri +touton, sungnoston pragma peponthotes agnoia gar ou kataegorian +anadechetai, alla didachaes prosdeitai. Kai legousin hoti tae id' +to probaton meta ton mathaeton ephagen ho Kurios tae de mealier +haemera ton azumon autos epathen; kai diaegountai Matthaion outo +legein hos nenoaekasin; hothen asumphonos te nomo hae noaesis +auton, kai stasiazein dokei kat' autous ta euangelia.] _Chron. +Pasch._ in Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 160. + +[247:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 188 sqq. The reference to Routh is +given on p. 188, n. 1; that to Lardner in the same note should, I +believe, be ii. p. 316, not p. 296. + +[247:2] _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 167. + +[249:1] The quotations from Athenagoras are transcribed from +'Supernatural Religion' and Lardner (_Credibility &c._, ii. +p. 195 sq.). I have not access to the original work. + +[251:1] _Credibility &c._, ii. p. 161. + +[252:1] _Ep. Vien. et Lugd._ § 3 (in Routh, _Rel. Sac._ +i. p. 297). + +[252:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 203; _Evv. Justin's u.s.w._ p. +155. + +[254:1] _Wann wurden u.s.w._ p. 48 sq. + +[254:2] _Ursprung_, p. 130; _S.R._ ii. p. 222. + +[255:1] Cf. Credner, _Beiträge_, ii. p. 254. + +[256:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Praef. 2. + +[257:1] _Strom._ iv. 9. + +[257:2] [Greek: Ton Oualentinou legomenon einai gnorimon +Haerakleouna] ... Origen, _Comm. in Joh._ ii. p. 60 (quoted +by Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 127). + +[259:1] 'In affirming that [these quotations] are taken from the +Gospel according to St. Matthew apologists exhibit their usual +arbitrary haste,' &c. _S.R._ ii. p. 224. + +[260:1] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, Zurich, 1873. For what +follows, see especially p. 261 sqq. + +[263:1] Keim, _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 262. + +[263:2] _Ibid_. p. 228 sq.; Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 80. + +[263:3] The text of this document is printed in full by Routh, +_Rel. Sac_. i. pp. 394-396; Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 487 sqq.; +Hilgenfeld, _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N.T._ ad p. 40, n.; +Credner, _Geschichte des Noutestamentlichen Kanon_, ed. Volkmar, +p. 153 sqq., &c. + +[264:1] See however Dr. Lightfoot in _Cont. Rev_., Oct. 1875, p. 837. + +[265:1] _Ursprung_, p. 28. + +[265:2] ii. p. 245. + +[266:1] Cf. Credner, _Gesch. des Kanon_, p. 167. + +[266:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 241. + +[267:1] Quoted in _S.R._ ii. p. 247. + +[269:1] _Adv. Haer_. ii, 22. 5, iii. 3.4. + +[270:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. pp. 141-143. + +[273:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_. i. pp. 143, 144. + +[273:2] _On the Canon_, p. 182 sqq. + +[275:1] [Greek: Ouch haedomai trophae phthoras, oude haedonais tou +biou toutou. Arton Theou thelo, arton ouranion, arton zoaes, hos +estin sarx Iaesou Christou tou Huiou tou Theou tou genomenou en +hustero ek spermatos Dabid kai Abraam; kai poma Theou thelo to +haima aoutou, ho estin agapae aphthartos kai aennaos zoae.] _Ep. +ad Rom_. c. vii. + +[275:2] [Greek: Alla to Pneuma ou planatai, apo Theou on; oiden +gar pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei, kai ta drupta elenche]. +_Ep. ad Philad_. c. vii. + +[276:1] Cf. Lipsius in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_, i. p. 98. + +[277:1] The second and third Epistles stand upon a somewhat +different footing. + +[277:2] Cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 269. + +[278:1] _S.R._ ii p. 323. + +[278:2] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. p. 138 sq. + +[280:1] Cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 302. + +[280:2] So _Dial. c. Tryph_. 69; in _Apol._ i. 22 the +MSS. of Justin read [Greek: ponaerous], which might stand, though +some editors substitute or prefer [Greek: paerous]. In both +quotations [Greek: ek genetaes] is added. The nearest parallel in +the Synoptics is Mark ix. 21, [Greek: ek paidiothen] (of the +paralytic boy). + +[280:3] _Wann wurden u. s. w_. p. 34. + +[283:1] ii. p. 308. [Has the author perhaps misunderstood Credner +(_Beit_. i. p. 253), whose argument on this head is not indeed +quite clear?] + +[283:2] _The New Testament &c_., i. p. 709. + +[284:1] See _Apol_. i. 23, 32, 63; ii. 10. + +[284:2] [Greek: Hae de protae dunamis meta ton patera panton kai +despotaen Theon kai uios ho logos estin.] This is not quite +rightly translated by Tischendorf and in 'Supernatural Religion:' +[Greek: uios], like [Greek: dunamis], is a predicate; 'the next +Power who also stands in the relation of Son.' + +[285:1] Prov. viii. 22-24, 27, 30. + +[285:2] Wisd. vii. 25, 26; viii. 1, 4. + +[286:1] Ecclus. xxiv. 9. + +[286:2] Wisd. ix. 1, 2; xvi. 12; xviii. 15. + +[287:1] Cf. Lipsius in _S. B. L._ i. p. 95 sqq. + +[288:1] _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T_. (Halle, 1863), +p. 29; _Einleitung_, P. 43, n. + +[288:2] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 63. + +[288:3] ii. p. 346. + +[290:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 340. + +[293:1] The force of the article ([Greek: tou paerou]) should be +noticed, as showing that the incident (and therefore the Gospel) +is assumed to be well known. + +[293:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 341. + +[295:1] Tischendorf, _Wann wurden_, p. 40; Westcott, _Canon_, p. 80. + +[296:1] ii. p. 357 sqq. + +[297:1] _Adv. Haer._ V. 36. 1, 2. + +[297:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 329. + +[298:1] Advanced by Routh (or rather Feuardentius in his notes on +Irenaeus; cf. _Rel. Sac_. i. p. 31), and adopted by Tischendorf +and Dr. Westcott. [The identification has since been ably and +elaborately maintained by Dr. Lightfoot; see _Cont. Rev_. Oct. 1875, +p. 841 sqq.] + +[298:2] It is not necessary here to determine the sense in which +these words are to be taken. I had elsewhere given my reasons for +taking [Greek: erchomenon] with [Greek: anthropon], as A. V. +(_Fourth Gospel_, p. 6, n.). Mr. M'Clellan is now to be added +to the number of those who prefer to take it with [Greek: phos], +and argues ably in favour of his opinion. + +[299:1] The translation of this difficult passage has been left +on purpose somewhat baldly literal. The idea seems to be that +Basilides refused to accept projection or emanation as a +hypothesis to account for the existence of created things. Compare +Mansel, _Gnost. Her._ p. 148. + +[301:1] _Adv. Haer._. iii. 11. 7. + +[302:1] _Haer_. 216-222. + +[302:2] It should however be noticed that these words are given +only in the old Latin translation of Irenaeus and are wanting in +the Greek as preserved by Epiphanius. Whether the words were +accidentally omitted, or whether they were inserted inferentially, +for greater clearness, by the translator, it is hard to say. In +any case the bearing of the quotations must be very much the same. +If not made by Ptolemaeus himself, they were made by a contemporary +of Ptolemaeus, i.e. at least by a writer anterior to Irenaeus. + +[302:3] _Adv. Haer_. ii. 4. 1; cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq. + +[302:4] The somewhat copious fragments of Heracleon's Commentary +are given in Stieren's edition of Irenaeus, p. 938 sqq. Origen +says that Heracleon read 'Bethany' in John i. 28 (M'Clellan, +i. p. 708). + +[305:1] ii. p. 378. + +[306:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 379. + +[307:1] There is also perhaps a probable reference to St. John in +Section 6, [Greek: taes aionioi paegaes tou hudatos taes zoaes tou +exiontos ek taes naeduos tou Christou.] + +[307:2] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 229. + +[308:1] [Greek: ho taen hagian pleuran ekkentaetheis, ho ekcheas +ek taes pleuras autou ta duo palin katharsia, hudor kai aima, +logon kai pneuma]. See Routh, _Rel. Sac_. i. p. 161. + +[308:2] Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., ii. p. 196. + +[315:1] Tregelles in Horne's _Introduction_, p. 334. + +[315:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8. + +[316:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1. 1. + +[317:1] See Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., ii. pp. 223, 224, +and Eus. _H.E._ ii. 15 (14 Lardner). + +[317:2] Compare _H.E._ ii. 15 and vi. 14. + +[317:3] _H.E._ vi. 14. + +[317:4] _Strom._ iii. 13. + +[318:1] For the meaning of this word ('schriftliche +Beweisurkunde') see Rönsch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 48. + +[318:2] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 2. + +[318:2] _Ibid_. iv. 5. + +[318:4] _Ibid_. v. 9. + +[318:5] _Ibid_. iv. 2-5; compare v. 9, and Rönsch, pp. 53, 54. + +[319:1] Eus. _H.E._ vi. 25. + +[319:2] See M'Clellan on Luke i. 1-4. On the general position of +Origen in regard to the Canon, compare Hilgenfeld, _Kanon_, p. 49. + +[320:1] So Westcott in _S.D._ iii. 1692, n. Tregelles, in +Horne's _Introduction_, p. 333, speaks of this translation as +'coeval, apparently, with Irenaeus himself.' We must not, however, +omit to notice that Rönsch (p. 43, n.) is more reserved in his +verdict on the ground that the translation of Irenaeus 'in its +peculiarities and in its relation to Tertullian has not yet +received a thorough investigation;' compare Hilgenfeld, +_Einleitung_, p. 797. + +[320:2] Rönsch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 43. + +[321:1] Rönsch, _Itala und Vulgata_, pp. 2, 3. + +[321:2] Horne's _Introduction_, p. 233. + +[321:3] _Introduction_ (2nd ed.), pp. 300, 302, 450, 452. + +[321:4] iii. p. 1690 b. + +[322:1] Hilgenfeld, in his recent _Einleitung_, says expressly +(p. 797) that 'the New Testament had already in the second +century been translated into Latin.' This admission is not +affected by the argument which follows, which goes to prove that +the version used by Tertullian was not the 'Itala' properly so +called. + +[322:2] See Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1630 b. + +[322:3] _Introduction_, p. 274. + +[322:4] See Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. pp. 124 and 152. + +[323:1] See Scrivener, _loc. cit_. + +[323:2] See _New Testament_, &c., i. p. 635. + +[323:3] _S.D._ iii. p. 1634 b. + +[324:1] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 724. + +[324:2] _Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments_, +p. 302. + +[324:3] _Einleitung_, p. 804. + +[324:4] See Tregelles, _loc. cit_. + +[324:5] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. 805. It hardly seems +clear that Origen had _no_ MS. authority for his reading. + +[324:6] _Introduction_, p. 530. But [Greek: oupo] is admitted +into the text by Westcott and Hort. + +[324:7] 'The text of the Curetonian Gospels is in itself a +sufficient proof of the extreme antiquity of the Syriac Version. +This, as has been already remarked, offers a striking resemblance +to that of the Old Latin, and cannot be later than the middle or +close of the second century. It would be difficult to point out a +more interesting subject for criticism than the respective +relations of the Old Latin and Syriac Versions to the Latin and +Syriac Vulgates. But at present it is almost untouched.' Westcott, +_On the Canon_ (3rd ed.), p. 218, n. 3. + +[325:1] See Scrivener's _Introduction_, p. 324. + +[325:2] Cf. Bleek, _Einleitung_, p. 735; Reuss, _Gesch. +N.T._ p. 447. + +[326:1] This is the date commonly accepted since Massuet, _Diss. +in Irenaeum_, ii. 1. 2. Grabe had previously placed the date in +A.D. 108, Dodwell as early as A.D. 97 (of. Stieren, _Irenaeus_, +ii. pp. 32, 34, 182). + +[326:2] Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 306. + +[327:1] Eus. _H.E._ v. 11, vi. 6. Eusebius, in his, +'Chronicle,' speaks of Clement as eminent for his writings ([Greek +suntatton dielampen]) in A.D. 194. + +[327:2] The books called 'Stromateis' or 'Miscellanies' date from +this reign. _H.E._ vi. 6. + +[327:3] _Stromateis_, i. 1. + +[327:4] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 5. + +[327:5] _De Praescript. Haeret_. c. 36; see Scrivener, +_Introduction_, p. 446. + +[328:1] pp. 450, 451. + +[328:2] p. 452. These facts may be held to show that the books +were not regarded with the same veneration as now. + +[329:1] v. 30. 1. + +[330:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8. + +[330:2] _Ib_. iii. 14. 2. + +[331:1] Cf. _Adv. Haer._ iv. 13. 1. + +[332:1] The varieties of reading in this verse are exhibited in +full by Dr. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 120, notes 4 and 5. + +[336:1] Matt. v. 28 is omitted as too ambiguous and confusing, +though it is especially important for the point in question as +showing that Tertullian himself had a variety of MSS. before him. + +[336:2] St. Matthew's Gospel is wanting in this MS. to xxv. 6; two +leaves are also lost, from John vi. 50 to viii. 52. + +[346:1] _Strom_. ii. 20. + +[347:1] In a volume entitled _The Authorship and Historical +Character of the Fourth Gospel_, Macmillan, 1872. I may say +with reference to this book--a 'firstling' of theological study-- +that I am inclined now to think that I exaggerated somewhat the +importance of minute details as an evidence of the work of an +eye-witness. The whole of the arguments, however, summarised on +pp. 287-293 seem to me to be still perfectly valid and sound, and the +greater part of them--notably that which relates to the Messianic +expectations--is quite untouched by 'Supernatural Religion.' + +[348:1] It is instructive to compare the canons elaborately drawn +up by Mr. M'Clellan (_N.T._ i. 375-389) with those tacitly +assumed in 'Supernatural Religion.' The inference in the one case +seems to be 'possible, therefore true,' in the other, 'not +probable, or not confirmed, therefore false.' Surely neither of +these tallies with experience. + +[352:1] This, perhaps, is one that is apt to be overlooked. In +order to be quite sure that the process of analysis is complete it +must be supplemented and verified by the reversed process of +synthesis. If a compound has been resolved into its elements, we +cannot be sure that it has been resolved into _all_ its +elements until the original compound has been produced by their +recombination. Where this second reverse process fails, the +inference is that some unknown element which was originally +present has escaped in the analysis. The analysis may be true as +far as it goes, but it is incomplete. The causes are 'verae +causae,' but they are not all the causes in operation. So it seems +to be with the analysis of the vital organism. We may be said to +know entirely what air and water are because the chemist can +produce them, but we only know very imperfectly the nature of life +and will and conscience, because when the physiological analysis +has been carried as far as it will go there still remains a large +unknown element. Within this element may very well reside those +distinctive properties which make man (as the moralist is +_obliged_ to assume that he is) a responsible and religious +being. The hypotheses which lie at the root of morals and religion +are derived from another source than physiology, but physiology +does not exclude them, and will not do so until it gives a far +more verifiably complete account of human nature than it does at +present. + +[354:1] Mr. Browning has expressed this with his usual +incisiveness and penetration:-- + + 'I hear you recommend, I might at least + Eliminate, decrassify my faith ... + Still, when you bid me purify the same, + To such a process I discern no end, + Clearing off one excrescence to see two; + There's ever a next in size, now grown as big, + That meets the knife: I cut and cut again! + First cut the liquefaction, what comes last + But Fichte's clever cut at God himself?' + +But also, on the other hand:-- + + 'Where's + The gain? how can we guard our unbelief? + Just when we are safest, there's a sunset-touch, + A fancy from a flower-bell, some one's death, + A chorus ending from Euripides,-- + And that's enough for fifty hopes and fears, + As old and new at once as Nature's self, + To rap and knock and enter in our soul ... + All we have gained then by our unbelief + Is a life of doubt diversified by faith, + For one of faith diversified by doubt: + We called the chess-board white,--we call it black.' + + _Bishop Blongram's Apology_. + +[359:1] As to the defects of the present edition, see Tischendorf, +Prolegomena to _Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes_, +p. liii: 'Eae vero (collationes) quemadmodum in editis habentur +non modo universae graviter differunt inter se fide atque accuratione, +sed ad ipsos principales testes tam negligenter tamque male factae +sunt ut etiam atque etiam dolendum sit tantos numos rara liberalitate +per Angliam suppeditatos criticae sacrae parum profuisse.' Similarly +Credner, in regard to the use of the Codex Alexandrinus, _Beiträge_, +ii. 16: 'Wahrhaft unbegreiflich und unverzeihlich ist es, dass die +Herausgeber der kostbaren Kritischen Ausgabe der LXX, welcher zu Oxford +vor wenigen Jahren vollendet und von Holmes und Parsons besorgt worden +ist, statt cine sorgfältige Vergleichung des in London aufbewahrten +Cod. Alex. zu veranstalten, sich lediglich auf die Ausgabe von Grabe +beschränkt haben, dessen Kritik vielfach nicht einmal verstanden worden +ist.' + + + + + +APPENDIX. + +SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL. + + +If the reader should happen to possess the work of Rönsch, Das +Neue Testament Tertullian's, to which allusion has frequently been +made above, and will simply glance over the pages, noting the +references, from Luke iv. 16 to the end of the Gospel, I do not +think he will need any other proof of the sufficiency of the +grounds for the reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel, so as at least +to admit of a decision as to whether it was our present St. Luke +or not. + +Failing this, it may be well to give a brief example of the kind +of data available, going back straight to the original authorities +themselves. + +For this purpose we will take the first chapter that Marcion +preserved entire, Luke v, and set forth in full such fragments of +it as have come down to us. + +We take up the argument of Tertullian at the point where he begins +to treat of this chapter. + +In the fourth book of the treatise against Marcion Tertullian +begins by dealing with the Antitheses (a sort of criticism by +Marcion on what he regarded as the Judaising portions of the +Canonical Gospel), and then, in general terms, with the actual +Gospel which Marcion used. From the general he descends to the +particular, and in c.6 Tertullian pledges himself to show in +detail, that even in those parts of the Gospel which Marcion +retained there was enough to refute his own system. + +Marcion's Gospel began with the descent of Jesus upon Capernaum in +the fifteenth year of Tiberias. Tertullian makes points out of +this, also from the account of His preaching in the synagogue and +of the expulsion of the devil. After this incident Marcion's +Gospel represented our Lord as retiring into solitude. It did this +as it would appear in words very similar to those of the Canonical +Gospel. I place side by side the language of Tertullian with that +of the Vulgate (Codex Fuldensis, as given by Tregelles). I have +also compared the translation in the two codd., Vercellensis and +Veronensis, of the Old Latin in Bianchini's edition. It will be +remembered however that Tertullian is admitted to have Marcion's +(and _not_ the Canonical) Gospel before him, and he probably +translates directly from that. + +In solitudinem procedit.... Detentus a turbis: _Oportet me,_ +inquit, _el aliis civitatibus_ _annuntiare regnum dei._ + +Luke v. 42, 43: Ibat in desertum sertum locum ... et detinebant +illum ne discederet ab eis. Quibus ille ait quia, Et aliis +civitatibus oportet me evangelizare regnum dei. + +His discussion of the fifth chapter Tertullian begins by asking why, +out of all possible occupations, Christ should have fixed upon that +of fishing, to take from thence His apostles, Simon and the sons of +Zebedee. There was a meaning in the act which appears in the reply +to Peter, 'Thou shalt catch men,' where there is a reference to a +prophecy of Jeremiah (ch. xvi. 16). By this allusion Jesus sanctioned +those very prophecies which Marcion rejected. In the end the fishermen +left their boats and followed Him. + +De tot generibus operum quid utique ad piscaturam respexit ut, ab illa +in apostolos sumeret _Simonem et filios Zebedaei ... _dicens Petro +_trepidanti de copiosa indagine piscium: ne time abhinc enum homines +eris capiens...._ Denique _relictis naviculis secuti sunt ipsum..._ + +Luke v. 1-11:[1] Factum est autem cum turbae irruereut in eum et +ipse stabat secus stagnum Gennesareth:[2] et vidit duas +naves....[3] Ascendens in unam navem quae erat Simonis...[4] dixit +ad Simonem, Duc in altum, et laxate retia vestra in capturam. +[6]Et cum hoc fecissent concluserunt piscium multitudinem +copiosam.... [7]Et impleverunt ambas naviculas ita ut mergerentur. +[8]Quod cum videret Simon Petrus, procidit ad genua Jesu.... +[9]Stupor enim circumdederat eum ... [10]similiter autem Jacobum +et Johannem filios Zebedaei.... Et ait ad Simonem Jesus, Noli +timere, ex hoc jam homines eris capiens. [11]Et subductis ad +terram navibus relictis omnibus secuti sunt illum. + +For Noli timere &c., cod. a has, Noli timere, jam amodo eris +vivificans homines; cod. b, Nol. tim., ex hoc jam eris homines +vivificans. + +In passing to the incident of the leper, Tertullian argues that +the prohibition of contact with a leper was figurative, applying +really to the contact with sin. But the Godhead is incapable of +pollution, and therefore Jesus touched the leper. It would be in +vain for Marcion to suggest that this was done in contempt of the +law. For, upon his own (Docetic) theory, the body of Jesus was +phantasmal, and therefore could not receive pollution: so that +there would be no real contact or contempt of the law. Neither, as +Marcion maintained, did a comparison with the miracle of Elisha +tend to the disparagement of that prophet. True, Christ healed +with a word. So also with a word had the Creator made the world. +And, after all, the word of Christ produced no greater result than +a river which came from the Creator's hands. Further, the command +of Jesus to the leper when healed, showed His desire that the law +should be fulfilled. Nay, He added an explanation which conveyed +that He was not come to destroy the law, but Himself to fulfil it. +This He did deliberately, and not from mere indulgence to the man, +who, He knew, would wish to do as the law required. + +Argumentatur ... _in leprosi purgationem ... Tetigit leprosum_ ... +Et hoc opponit Marcion ... Christum ... verbo solo, et hoc semel functo, +curationem statim repraesentasse. Quantam ad gloriae humanae aversionem +pertinebat, _vetuit eum divulgare_. Quantum autem ad tutelam legis +jussit ordinem impleri. _Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer munus +quod praecepit Moyses_.... Itaque adjecit: _ut sit vobis in +testimonium_. + +Luke v. 12-14: [12] Ecce vir plenus lepra: et videns Jesum ... +rogavit eum dicens, Domine, si vis, potes me mundare. [13] Et +extendens manum tetigit illum dicens, Volo, mundare. Et confestim +lepra discessit ab illo. [14] Et ipse praecepit illi ut nemini +diceret, sed Vade ostende te sacerdoti, et offer pro emundatione +tua sicut praecepit Moses, in testimonium illis. + +For emundatione in ver. 14, a has purgatione; b as Vulg. Both a +and b have the form offers (see Rönsch, It. u. Vulg. p. 294), b +the plural sacerdotibus. Both codd. have a variation similar to +that of Marcion, ut sit etc.; a inserts hoc. + +Next follows the healing of the paralytic, which was done in +fulfilment of Is. xxxv. 2. The miracle also itself in its details +was a special and exact fulfilment of the prophecy contained in +the next verse, Is. xxxv. 3. That the Messiah should forgive sins +had been repeatedly prophesied, e.g. in Is. liii. 12, i. 18, Micah +vii. 18. Not only were these prophecies thus actually sanctioned +by Christ, but, in forgiving the sins of the paralytic, He was +only doing what the Creator or Demiurge had done before Him. In +proof of this Tertullian appeals to the examples of the Ninevites, +of David and Nathan, of Ahab, of Jonathan the son of Saul, and of +the chosen people themselves. Thus Marcion was doubly refuted, +because the prerogative of forgiveness was asserted of the Messiah +in the prophecies which he rejected and attributed to the Creator +whom he denied. In like manner, when Jesus called Himself the 'Son +of Man,' He did so in a real sense, signifying that He was really +born of a virgin. This appellation too had been applied to Him by +the prophet Daniel. (Dan. vii. 13, iii. 25). But if Jesus claimed +to be the Son of Man, if, standing before the Jews as a man, He +claimed as man the power of forgiving sins, He thereby showed that +He possessed a real human body and not the mere phantasm of which +Marcion spoke. + +_Curatur_ et _paralyticus_, et quidem in coetu, spectante populo... +Cum redintegratione membrorum virium quoque repraesentationem +pollicebatur: _Exsurge et tolle grabatum tuum;_--simul et animi +vigorem ad non timendos qui dicturi erant: _Qui dimittet peccata +nisi solus deus?_... Cum Judaei merito retractarent non posse hominem +_delicta dimittere_ sed _deum solum_, cur... _respondit, habere eum +potestatem dimittendi delicta_, quando et _filium hominis_ nominans +hominem nominaret? + +Luke v. 17-26: [17] Et factum est in una dierum et ipse sedebat +docens.... [18] Et ecce viri portantes in lecto hominem, qui erat +paralyticus, et quaerebant eum inferre... [19] et non invenientes +qua parte illum inferrent prae turba,... per tegulas... +summiserunt illum cum lecto in medium ante Jesum. [20] Quorum +fidem ut vidit, dixit, Homo, remittuntur tibi peccata tua. [21] Et +coeperunt cogitare Scribae et Pharisaei, dicentes, Quis est hic +qui loquitur blasphemias? quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus +deus? [22] Ut cognovit autem Jesus cogitationes eorum, respondens +dixit ad illos. ... [23] Quid est facilius dicere, Dimittuntur +tibi peccata, an dicere, Surge et ambula? [24] Ut autem sciatis +quia filius hominis potestatem habet in terra dimittere peccata, +ait paralytico, Tibi dico, surge, tolle lectum tuum et vade in +domum tuam. [25] Et confestim surgens ... abiit in domum suam. + +Grabatum is the reading of a in ver. 25. + +Marcion drew an argument from the calling of the publican (Levi)-- +one under ban of the law--as if it were done in disparagement of +the law. Tertullian reminds him in reply of the calling and +confession of Peter, who was a representative of the law. Further, +when he said that 'the whole need not a physician' Jesus declared +that the Jews were whole, the publicans sick. + +_Publicanum_ adlectum a domino ... dicendo, _medicum sanis +non esse necessarium sed male habentibus_... + +Luke v. 27-32: [27] Et post hoc exiit et vidit publicanum ... et +ait illi, Sequere me.... [30] Et murmurabant Pharisaei et Scribae +eorum... [31] et respondens Jesus dixit ad illos, Non egent qui +sani sunt medico sed qui male habent. + +The question respecting the disciples of John is turned against +Marcion, as a recognition of the Baptist's mission. If John had +not prepared the way for Christ, if he had not actually baptized +Him, if, in fact, there was that diversity between the two which +Marcion assumed, no one would ever have thought of instituting a +comparison between them or the conduct of their disciples. In His +reply, 'that the children of the bridegroom could not fast,' Jesus +virtually allowed the practice of the disciples of John, and +excused, as only for a time, that of His own disciples. The very +name, 'bridegroom,' was taken from the Old Testament (Ps. xix. 6 +sq., Is. lxi. 10, xlix. 18, Cant. iv. 8); and its assumption by +Christ was a sanction of marriage, and showed that Marcion did +wrong to condemn the married state. + +Unde autem et Joannes venit in medium?... Si nihil omnino +administrasset Joannes ... nemo _discipulos Christi manducantes et +bibentes_ ad formam _discipulorum Joannis assidue jejunantium et +orantium_ provocasset.... Nunc humiliter reddens rationem, quod _non +possent jejunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea +vero jejunaturos_ promittens, _cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset_. + +Luke v. 33-35: [33] At illi dixerunt ad eum, Quare discipuli +Johannis jejunant frequenter et obsecrationes faciunt, ... tui +autem edunt et bibunt? [34] Quibus ipse ait, Numquid potestis +filios sponsi dum cum illis est sponsus facere jejunare? [35] +Venient autem dies cum ablatus fuerit ab illis sponsus, tune +jejunabunt in illis diebus. + +In ver. 33, for obsecrationes a has orationes, and for edunt +manducant: a and b also have quamdiu (Vulg. cum) in ver. 35. + +Equally erroneous was Marcion's interpretation of the concluding +verses of the chapter which dealt with the distinction between old +and new. He indeed was intoxicated with 'new wine'--though the +real 'new wine' had been prophesied as far back as Jer. iv. 4 and +Is. xliii. 19--but He to whom belonged the new wine and the new +bottles also belonged the old. The difference between the old and +new dispensations was of developement and progression, not of +diversity or contrariety. Both had one and the same Author. + +Errasti in illa etiam domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova et +vetera discernere. Inflatus es _utribus veteribus_ et excerebratus es +_novo vino_: atque ita _veteri_, i.e. priori evangelio _pannum_ +haereticae _novitatis adsuisli ... Venum novum_ is _non committit in +veteres utres_ qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et _novum +additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento_ nisi cui non defuerit +vetus vestimentum. + +Luke v. 36-38: [36] Dicebat autem et similitudinem ad illos quia +nemo commissuram a vestimento novo inmittit in vestimentum +vetus.... [37] Et nemo mittit vinum novum in utres veteres.... +[38] Sed vinum novum in utres novos mittendum est. + +Of the phrases peculiar to Tertullian's version of Marcion's text, +a has pannum (-no) and adsuisti (-it). + +It is observed that Tertullian does not quote verse 39, which is +omitted by D, a, b, c, c, ff, l, and perhaps, also by Eusebius. + +Two of the Scholia of Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 322 D sqq.), nos. 1 +and 2, have reference to this chapter. + +[Greek: Echul. a. Apelthon deixon seauton to hierei kai +prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxe Mousaes, +hina ae marturion touto humin.] + +Luke v. 14. [Greek: Apeltheon deixon seauton to hierei, kai +prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxen Mousaes, +eis marturion autois.] + +v.l. [Greek: hina eis marturion] (D'1, [Greek: ae] D'2) [Greek: +humin touto] D, (a, b), c, ff, l. + +The comment of Epiphanius on this is similar to that of +Tertullian. To bid the leper 'do as Moses commanded,' was +practically to sanction the law of Moses. Epiphanius expressly +accuses Marcion of falsifying the phrase 'for a testimony unto +them.' He says that he changed 'them' to 'you,' without however, +even in this perverted form, preventing the text from recoiling +upon his own head [Greek: diestrepsas de to rhaeton, o Markion, +anti tou eipein 'eis marturion autois' marturion legon 'humin.' +kai touto saphos epseuso kata taes sautou kephalaes]. + +[Greek: Echol. B'. Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios +tou anthropou aphienai hamartias epi taes gaes.] + +Luke v. 24. [Greek: Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios +tou anthropou epi taes gaes aphienai hamartias.] + +In this order, [Hebrew aleph], A, C, D, rel., a, c, e, Syrr. Pst. +and Hcl., (Memph.), Goth., Arm., Aeth.; [Greek: ex. ech.] after +[Greek: ho, hu. t. a.], B, L, [Greek: Xi symbol], K, Vulg., b, f, +g'1, ff, l. + +By calling Himself 'Son of Man,' Epiphanius says, our Lord +asserts His proper manhood and repels Docetism, and, by claiming +'power upon earth,' He declares that earth not to belong to an +alien creation. + +Reverting to Tertullian, we observe, (1) that the narrative of the +draught of fishes, with the fear of Peter, and the promise _in +this form_, 'Thou shalt catch men,' ([Greek: Mae phobou apo tou +nun anthropous esae zogron]; the other Synoptists have, [Greek: +Deute opiso mou, kai poiaeso humas halieis anthropon]), are found +only in St. Luke; (2) that the second section of the chapter, the +healing of the leper, is placed by the other Synoptists in a +different order, by Mark immediately after our Lord's retirement +into solitude (= Luke iv. 42-44), and by Matthew after the Sermon +on the Mount; the phrase [Greek: eis marturion autois] is common +to all three Gospels, but in the text of St. Luke alone is there +the variant Ut sit vobis &c.; (3) that, while the remaining +sections follow in the same order in all the Synoptics, still +there is much to identify the text from which Tertullian is +quoting with that of Luke. Thus, in the account of the case of +Levi, the third Evangelist alone has the word [Greek: telonaen] +(=publicanum) and [Greek: hugiainontes] (=sani; the other Gospels +[Greek: ischontes] =valentes); in the question as to the practice +of the disciples of John, he alone has the allusion to prayers +([Greek: deaeseis poiountai]) and the combination 'eat and drink' +(the other Gospels, [Greek: ou naesteyousin]): he too has the +simple [Greek: epiblaema], for [Greek: epiblaema rhakous +agnaphou]. It seems quite incredible that these accumulated +coincidences should be merely the result of accident. + +But this is only the beginning. The same kind of coincidences run +uniformly all through the Gospel. From the next chapter, Luke vi, +Marcion had, in due order, the plucking of the ears of corn on the +sabbath day ('rubbing them with their hands,' Luke and Marcion +alone), the precedent of David and his companions and the +shewbread, the watching _of the Pharisees_ (so Luke only) to +see if He would heal on the sabbath day, the healing of the +withered hand--with an exact resemblance to the text of Luke and +divergence from the other Gospels (licetne animam liberare an +perdere? [Greek: psuchaen apolesai] Luke, [Greek: apokteinai] +Mark), in the order and words of Luke alone, the retreat into the +mountain for prayer, the selection of the twelve Apostles, and +then, in a strictly Lucan form and introduced precisely at the +same point, the Sermon on the Mount, the blessing on 'the poor' +(not the 'poor in spirit'), on those 'who hunger' (not on those +'who hunger and thirst after righteousness'), on those 'who weep, +for they shall laugh' (not on those 'who mourn, for they shall be +comforted'), with an exact translation of St. Luke and difference +from St. Matthew, the clause relating to those who are persecuted +and reviled: then follow the 'woes;' to the rich, 'for ye have +received your consolation;' to 'those who are full, for they shall +hunger;' to 'those who laugh now, for they shall mourn:' and so on +almost verse by verse. + +It is surely needless to go further. There are indeed very rarely +what seem to be reminiscences of the other Gospels (e.g. +'esurierunt discipuli' in the parallel to Luke vi. 1), but the +total amount of resemblance to St. Luke and divergence from St. +Matthew and St. Mark is overwhelming. Of course the remainder of +the evidence can easily be produced if necessary, but I do not +think it will long remain in doubt that our present St. Luke was +really the foundation of the Gospel that Marcion used. + + + + + +INDEX I. + +References to the Four Gospels. + + +The asterisk indicates that the passage in question is discussed +in some detail. + +_St. Matthew._ + +I. 1 2-6 18* 18 ff 18-25 21 23 +II. 1 1-7 1-23 2 5,6 6 11 12 13 13-15 16 17,18 18 22. +III. 2 4 8 10 11,12 15* 16 18 +IV. 1 8-10 9 10 11 17 18 23 +V. 1-48 3 4,5* 7* 8 10* 11 13,14 14 16* 17 17,18 18* 20 21-48 + 22 28 29 29,30 29,32 32 34* 37* 38,39 39,40 41 42 44,45 + 45* 46* 48 +VI. 1 1-34 6 8 10 13 14 19 19,20 20 21 25-27 25-37 32* 32,33 +VII. 1-29 2 6 7 9-11* 12 13,14* 15* 16 19 21* 22 22,23 28,29 +VIII. 9 11 11,12 17 26 28-34 +IX. 1-8 13* 16 17 22 29-31 33 +X. 1 8 10 11* 13 15 16* 22 26 28* 29,30 33 38,39 40 +XI. 5 7 10 11 12-15 18 26 25-27 27* 28 +XII. 1-8* 7 9-14* 17-21 18-21 24 25* 26 31,32 34 41 42 43 48 +XIII. 1-58 3 3ff 5 11 15 16 24-30 25 26* 34 35 37-39 38 39 42,43 +XIV. 1 3 3-12 6 +XV. 4-6 4-8* 4-9 8* 13 15 17 20 21-28 26 36 +XVI. 1 1-4 4 15-18 16* 19 21 24 24,25 26 +XVII. 3 5 11 11-13* 12,13 13 +XVIII. 1-35 3* 6 7 8 8,9 10 19 +XIX. 4 6* 8* 9 10-12 11,12* 12* 13 16,17* 17 19 22 26* +XX. 8 16 19 20-28 +XXI. 1 5 12,13 16 20-22 23 33 42 +XXII. 9 11 14* 21 24 29 30 32 37 38 39 40 44* +XXIII. 2 2,3 5 10 13 15 18 20 23 24 25 25,26* 27 29 35 +XXIV. 1-51 3 14 45-51* +XXV. 1-46 14-30 21 26,27 34 41* +XXVI. 1-75 17,18 24* 30 31* 36,37 38 39 41 43 56 56,57 57 64* +XXVII. 9 9,10* 11f. 14 35 39ff 42 43 46 57-60 +XXVIII. 1 12-15 19. + + +_St. Mark._ + +I. 1 2 4 17 22 24 26 +II. 23-28* 28 +III. 1-6* 17 23 25 29 +IV. 1-34 11 12 33,34 34* +V. 1-20 31 +VI. 3 11 14 17-29 +VII. 6* 6-13 7 10,11 11-13 13 21,22 24-30 +VIII. 29 31 34 +IX. 7 21 43 47 +X. 5 5,6 6 8 9 17 18 19 21 22 27* 37-45 +XI. 20-26 +XII. 17 20 24 27* 29* 30 38-44 +XIII. 2* 22 +XIV. 12,13 12-14 40 51,52 +XV. 14 34 +XVI. 14-16 + + +_St. Luke._ + +I. 1-4 1-80 3 6 7 7-10 8 9 12 13 15 17 18,19 19 20 20-22 21 23 24 + 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 34,35 35* 36 39 41 48 55 56 57 61 62 + 64 67 69 73 74 76 77 78 80 +II. 1,2 1-52 4 6 7 8 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 21,22 22 24 25 26 + 27 28 29 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 48,49 49 50 51 + 52 66 +III. 1 1-38 3 12-14 13 15 16 16,17 17 19 20 21 21,22 22 23 31-34 +IV. 1 1-13 4 6 6-8 7 8 10 13 14 16 17 17-20 18,19 19 20 24 25 32 + 42,43 42-44 +V. 1 1-11 1-39 12-14 14 17-26 24 27-32 32 33-35 36-38 39 +VI. 1 1-5* 1-49 6-11* 13 14* 20* 27,28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 36,37 + 36-38* 37,38 45 46* +VII. 2* 8 11-18 12* 24-28 26 27 28 29-35 30 35 36-38 +VIII. 1-3 5 10 19 23 26-39 41 +IX. 5 7 17,18 20 22 55 57,58 60 61 61,62 62 +X. 3 5,6 7* 10-12 16 18 19* 20 21 21,22 22 23 24 25 37 +XI. 2 9 11-13* 14 17 22 29-32 32 39 42 47 49-51 52 +XII. 4,5* 6,7 9 10 14 22-24 30 38 42-46* 48 50 +XIII. 1 sqq. 1-9 6 7 7-8 24* 26,27 27 28 28,29 29 29-35 31-35 33 34 +XIV. 27 +XV. 4 8 11-32 13 14 17 18 20 22 24 25 26 29 +XVI. 12 16 17* +XVII. 1,2* 2 5-10 9 9,10 +XVIII. 6-8 18,18 19 27* 31 31-34 34 35-43 +XIX. 5 9 17 22,23 29 29-48 33-39 35 37 37-48 38 41 42 43 46 47 +XX. 9 9-l8 14 17 19 21 22 22-25 24 25 35,36 35 37,38 38 +XXI. 1-4 4 18 21 21,22 22 27 28 34 +XXII. 9-11 16-18 17 18 18-36 19 19,20 28-30 30 35-38 37 38 42-44 + 43,44* 53,54 66 +XXIII. 1 ff. 2 5 7 34 35 46 +XXIV. 1 ff. 21 26 32 38,39 39* 40 42 46 47-53 49 50 5l 52 53 + + +_St. John._ + +I. 1,2 1-3 3* 4 5* 9 13 14 18 19 19,20* 23* 28 +II. 4 16,17 +III. 3-5* 5* 6 8 12 14 16 36 +IV. 6 +V. 2 3,4 4 8 17 18 43 46 +VI. 15 39 51 53 54* 55* 70 +VII. 8 38 42 +VIII. 17 40 44 +IX. 1-3* +X. 8 9* 23,24 27* 30 +XI. 54 +XII. 14,15 22 27 30 40 41 +XIII. 18 +XIV. 2 6 10 +XV. 25 +XVI. 2* 3 +XVII. 3 11,12 14* +XVIII. 36 +XIX. 36 37* + + + + + +INDEX II. + +Chronological and Analytical. + + + _Writer_. | _Works Extant_. | _Date_ | _Evangelical Documents + | | A.D. | used_. + | | | +Clement of |One genuine Epistle | c.95- |Traces, perhaps + Rome. | addressed to the | 100. | probable of the three + | Philippians. | | Synoptics. + | | | +Barnabas. |Pseud-egraphical | c.100- |Probably St. Matthew, + | Epistle | 125. | perhaps St. Luke, + | | | possibly the fourth Gospel. + | | | +Ignatius. |Three short Epistles,| 107 or |Probably St. Matthew, + | probably genuine. | 115. | and perhaps St. John. + | [Spurious, S.R.] | | + | | | + |Seven short Epistles,| |Probably St. Matthew, + | perhaps genuine. | | perhaps also St. John. + | [Spurious, S.R.] | | + | | | +Hermas. |Allegorical work, | c.135- |No distinct traces of + | entitled the | 140. | any writing of Old or + | 'Shepherd.' | | New Testament. + | | | +Polycarp. |Short Epistle to | c.140- |Doubtful traces of + | Philippians, | 155. | St. Matthew, probable + | probably genuine. | | of 1 John. + | [Spurious, S.R.] | | + | | | +Presbyters. |Quoted by Irenaeus. | c.140? |Probably St. John. + | | | +Papias. |Short fragments in | +155. |Some account of + | Eusebius. |[see pp.| works written by + | |145, 82;| St. Matthew and + | |164-167,| St. Mark, but + | |S.R.] | probably not our + | | | present Gospels in + | | | their present form. + | | | +Basilides. }|Allusions, not | c.125. |Certain use of + }| certain, in | | St. Luke and St. John, + }| Hippolytus, Clem. | | perhaps probably by +Basilidians.}| Alex., Epiphanius, | | Basilides himself. + | | | +Marcion. |Copious references | c.140. |Certainly the third + | in Tertullian and | | Gospel, with text + | Epiphanius. | | already corrupt. + | | | +Justin |Two Apologies and | +148. |Three Synoptic + Martyr. | Dialogue against | [166- | Gospels either + | Tryphon. | 167, | separately or in + | | S.R.] | Harmony, probably the + | | | fourth Gospel, and also + | | | an Apocryphal Gospel or + | | | Gospels; text showing + | | | marks of corruption. + | | | + |Old Latin translation| c.150. |Four Canonical + | of N.T. | | Gospels, with + | | | corrupt text. + | | | +Valentinus. }|Allusions, not | c.140. |References to all four + }| certain in | | Gospels, but not clear +Valentinians}| Hippolytus, &c. | before | by whom made. + | | 178. | + | | | +Clement. |Nineteen pseudo- | c.160? |Four Canonical Gospels + | epigraphical | | (possibly in a + | | | Harmony), with other + | | | Apocryphal sources + | | | to some extent. + | | | +Hegesippus. |Few fragments |fl.157- |Apparent traces of + | chiefly preserved | 180. | St. Matthew and + | by Eusebius. | | St. Luke. + | | | +Tatian. |Few allusions, |fl.150- |Diatessaron, + |'Address to Greeks.' | 170. | probably consisting + | | | of our four Gospels, + | | | quotations from + | | | St. John in Orat. + | | | ad Graec. + | | | + |Old Syriac | c.160? |Four Canonical Gospels, + | Translation of N.T. | | with corrupt text. + | | | + |Muratorian Fragment | c.170. |Four Gospels as + | | | Canonical. + | | | +Ptolomaeus. |Allusions in | before |Clear references + | Irenaeus, &c., | 178. | to St. Matthew and + | fragments in | | St. John. + | Epiphanius. | | + | | | +Heracleon. |Allusions in | before |Third and fourth + | Irenaeus, &c., | 178. | gospels. + | fragments in Origen.| | + | | | +Melito. |Few slight fragments.| c.176. |Doubtful indirect + | | | allusions to Canon + | | | of N.T. + | | | +Apollinaris. |Two slight fragments.| 176- |Allusion to + | | 180. | discrepancy + | | | between Gospels, + | | | fourth Gospel. + | | | +Athenagoras. |An Apology and tract | c.177. |One fairly clear + | on the Resurrection.| | quotation from + | | | St. Matthew, + | | | perhaps from + | | | St. Mark and + | | | St. John. + | | | +Churches of |An Epistle. | 177. |Clear allusions to + Vienne and | | | St. Luke and St. John, + Lyons. | | | perhaps also to + | | | St. Matthew. + | | | +Celsus. |Fragments in Origen. | c.178. |Somewhat vague traces + | | | of all four Gospels. + | | | +Irenaeus. |Treatise 'Against | c.140- |Four Gospels as + | Heresies.' | 202. | Canonical, with + | | | corrupt text. + | | | +Clement of |Several considerable |fl.185- |Four Gospels as + Alexandria | works. | 211. | Canonical, with + | | | corrupt text. + | | | +Tertullian. |Voluminous works. |fl.198- |Four Gospels as + | | 210. | Canonical, with + | | | corrupt text. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Gospels in the Second Century +by William Sanday + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 10955 *** diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..84d7738 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #10955 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10955) diff --git a/old/10955-8.txt b/old/10955-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c49374d --- /dev/null +++ b/old/10955-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,13784 @@ +Project Gutenberg's The Gospels in the Second Century, by William Sanday + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Gospels in the Second Century + An Examination of the Critical Part of a Work + Entitled 'Supernatural Religion' + +Author: William Sanday + +Release Date: February 6, 2004 [EBook #10955] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY *** + + + + +Produced by PG Distributed Proofreaders + + + + + + + + +THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY + + +_AN EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PART OF A WORK +ENTITLED 'SUPERNATURAL RELIGION'_ + + +BY + +W. SANDAY, M.A. + + +_Rector of Barton-on-the-Heath, Warwickshire; +and late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. +Author of a Work on the Fourth Gospel._ + + + + +LONDON: +1876. + + + + + +_I had hoped to inscribe in this book the revered and cherished +name of my old head master, DR. PEARS of Repton. His consent had +been very kindly and warmly given, and I was just on the point of +sending the dedication to the printers when I received a telegram +naming the day and hour of his funeral. His health had for some +time since his resignation of Repton been seriously failing, but I +had not anticipated that the end was so near. All who knew him +will deplore his too early loss, and their regret will be shared +by the wider circle of those who can appreciate a life in which +there was nothing ignoble, nothing ungenerous, nothing unreal. I +had long wished that he should receive some tribute of regard from +one whom he had done his best by precept, and still more by +example, to fit and train for his place and duty in the world. +This pleasure and this honour have been denied me. I cannot place +my book, as I had hoped, in his hand, but I may still lay it +reverently upon his tomb._ + + + + + +CONTENTS + +CHAP. + +I. INTRODUCTORY + +II. ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS + +III. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS + +IV. JUSTIN MARTYR + +V. HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS + +VI. THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES + +VII. BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS + +VIII. MARCION + +IX. TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH + +X. MELITO--APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS + +XI. PTOLOMAEUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT + +XII. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL + +XIII. ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY + +XIV. CONCLUSION + +[ENDNOTES] + +APPENDIX. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL + +INDICES + + + + + +PREFACE. + + +It will be well to explain at once that the following work has +been written at the request and is published at the cost of the +Christian Evidence Society, and that it may therefore be classed +under the head of Apologetics. I am aware that this will be a +drawback to it in the eyes of some, and I confess that it is not +altogether a recommendation in my own. + +Ideally speaking, Apologetics ought to have no existence distinct +from the general and unanimous search for truth, and in so far as +they tend to put any other consideration, no matter how high or +pure in itself, in the place of truth, they must needs stand aside +from the path of science. + +But, on the other hand, the question of true belief itself is +immensely wide. It is impossible to approach what is merely a +branch of a vast subject without some general conclusions already +formed as to the whole. The mind cannot, if it would, become a +sheet of blank paper on which the writing is inscribed by an +external process alone. It must needs have its _praejudicia_-- +i.e. judgments formed on grounds extrinsic to the special matter +of enquiry--of one sort or another. Accordingly we find that an +absolutely and strictly impartial temper never has existed and +never will. If it did, its verdict would still be false, because +it would represent an incomplete or half-suppressed humanity. +There is no question that touches, directly or indirectly, on the +moral and spiritual nature of man that can be settled by the bare +reason. A certain amount of sympathy is necessary in order to +estimate the weight of the forces that are to be analysed: yet +that very sympathy itself becomes an extraneous influence, and the +perfect balance and adjustment of the reason is disturbed. + +But though impartiality, in the strict sense, is not to be had, +there is another condition that may be rightly demanded--resolute +honesty. This I hope may be attained as well from one point of +view as from another, at least that there is no very great +antecedent reason to the contrary. In past generations indeed +there was such a reason. Strongly negative views could only be +expressed at considerable personal risk and loss. But now, public +opinion is so tolerant, especially among the reading and thinking +classes, that both parties are practically upon much the same +footing. Indeed for bold and strong and less sensitive minds +negative views will have an attraction and will find support that +will go far to neutralise any counterbalancing disadvantage. + +On either side the remedy for the effects of bias must be found in +a rigorous and searching criticism. If misleading statements and +unsound arguments are allowed to pass unchallenged the fault will +not lie only with their author. + +It will be hardly necessary for me to say that the Christian +Evidence Society is not responsible for the contents of this work, +except in so far as may be involved in the original request that I +should write it. I undertook the task at first with some hesitation, +and I could not have undertaken it at all without stipulating for +entire freedom. The Society very kindly and liberally granted me +this, and I am conscious of having to some extent availed myself +of it. I have not always stayed to consider whether the opinions +expressed were in exact accordance with those of the majority of +Christians. It will be enough if they should find points of contact +in some minds, and the tentative element in them will perhaps be +the more indulgently judged now that the reconciliation of the +different branches of knowledge and belief is being so anxiously +sought for. + +The instrument of the enquiry had to be fashioned as the enquiry +itself went on, and I suspect that the consequences of this will +be apparent in some inequality and incompleteness in the earlier +portions. For instance, I am afraid that the textual analysis of +the quotations in Justin may seem somewhat less satisfactory than +that of those in the Clementine Homilies, though Justin's +quotations are the more important of the two. Still I hope that +the treatment of the first may be, for the scale of the book, +sufficiently adequate. There seemed to be a certain advantage in +presenting the results of the enquiry in the order in which it was +conducted. If time and strength are allowed me, I hope to be able +to carry several of the investigations that are begun in this book +some stages further. + +I ought perhaps to explain that I was prevented by other engagements +from beginning seriously to work upon the subject until the latter +end of December in last year. The first of Dr. Lightfoot's articles +in the Contemporary Review had then appeared. The next two articles +(on the Silence of Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles) were also +in advance of my own treatment of the same topics. From this point +onwards I was usually the first to finish, and I have been compelled +merely to allude to the progress of the controversy in notes. Seeing +the turn that Dr. Lightfoot's review was taking, and knowing how +utterly vain it would be for any one else to go over the same ground, +I felt myself more at liberty to follow a natural bent in confining +myself pretty closely to the internal aspect of the enquiry. My object +has been chiefly to test in detail the alleged quotations from our +Gospels, while Dr. Lightfoot has taken a wider sweep in collecting +and bringing to bear the collateral matter of which his unrivalled +knowledge of the early Christian literature gave him such command. +It will be seen that in some cases, as notably in regard to the +evidence of Papias, the external and the internal methods have +led to an opposite result; and I shall look forward with much +interest to the further discussion of this subject. + +I should be sorry to ignore the debt I am under to the author of +'Supernatural Religion' for the copious materials he has supplied +to criticism. I have also to thank him for his courtesy in sending +me a copy of the sixth edition of his work. My obligations to +other writers I hope will be found duly acknowledged. If I were to +single out the one book to which I owed most, it would probably be +Credner's 'Beitrage zur Einleitung in die Biblischen Schriften,' +of which I have spoken somewhat fully in an early chapter. I have +used a certain amount of discretion and economy in avoiding as a +rule the works of previous apologists (such as Semisch, Riggenbach, +Norton, Hofstede de Groot) and consulting rather those of an opposite +school in such representatives as Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. In this +way, though I may very possibly have omitted some arguments which +may be sound, I hope I shall have put forward few that have been +already tried and found wanting. + +As I have made rather large use of the argument supplied by text- +criticism, I should perhaps say that to the best of my belief my +attention was first drawn to its importance by a note in Dr. Lightfoot's +work on Revision. The evidence adduced under this head will be found, +I believe, to be independent of any particular theory of text-criticism. +The idea of the Analytical Index is taken, with some change of plan, +from Volkmar. It may serve to give a sort of _coup d'oeil_ of the +subject. + +It is a pleasure to be able to mention another form of assistance +from which it is one of the misfortunes of an anonymous writer to +find himself cut off. The proofs of this book have been seen in +their passage through the press by my friend the Rev. A.J. Mason, +Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, whose exact scholarship has +been particularly valuable to me. On another side than that of +scholarship I have derived the greatest benefit from the advice of +my friend James Beddard, M.B., of Nottingham, who was among the +first to help me to realise, and now does not suffer me to forget, +what a book ought to be. The Index of References to the Gospels +has also been made for me. + +The chapter on Marcion has already appeared, substantially in its +present form, as a contribution to the Fortnightly Review. + +BARTON-ON-THE-HEATH, + SHIPSTON-ON-STOUR, + _November_, 1875. + + + + + + [Greek epigraph: Ta de panta elenchoumena hupo tou photos + phaneroutai pan gar to phaneroumenon phos estin.] + + + + + +CHAPTER I. + +INTRODUCTORY. + + +It would be natural in a work of this kind, which is a direct +review of a particular book, to begin with an account of that +book, and with some attempt to characterise it. Such had been my +own intention, but there seems to be sufficient reason for +pursuing a different course. On the one hand, an account of a book +which has so recently appeared, which has been so fully reviewed, +and which has excited so much attention, would appear to be +superfluous; and, on the other hand, as the character of it has +become the subject of somewhat sharp controversy, and as controversy-- +or at least the controversial temper--is the one thing that I wish +to avoid, I have thought it well on the whole to abandon my first +intention, and to confine myself as much as possible to a criticism +of the argument and subject-matter, with a view to ascertain the +real facts as to the formation of the Canon of the four Gospels. + +I shall correct, where I am able to do so, such mistakes as may +happen to come under my notice and have not already been pointed +out by other reviewers, only dilating upon them where what seem to +be false principles of criticism are involved. On the general +subject of these mistakes--misleading references and the like--I +think that enough has been said [Endnote 2:1]. Much is perhaps +charged upon the individual which is rather due to the system of +theological training and the habits of research that are common in +England at the present day. Inaccuracies no doubt have been found, +not a few. But, unfortunately, there is only one of our seats of +learning where--in theology at least--the study of accuracy has +quite the place that it deserves. Our best scholars and ablest +men--with one or two conspicuous exceptions--do not write, and the +work is left to be done by _littérateurs_ and clergymen or +laymen who have never undergone the severe preliminary discipline +which scientific investigation requires. Thus a low standard is +set; there are but few sound examples to follow, and it is a +chance whether the student's attention is directed to these at the +time when his habits of mind are being formed. + +Again, it was claimed for 'Supernatural Religion' on its first +appearance that it was impartial. The claim has been indignantly +denied, and, I am afraid I must say, with justice. Any one +conversant with the subject (I speak of the critical portion of +the book) will see that it is deeply coloured by the author's +prepossessions from beginning to end. Here again he has only imbibed +the temper of the nation. Perhaps it is due to our political +activity and the system of party-government that the spirit of +party seems to have taken such a deep root in the English mind. An +Englishman's political opinions are determined for him mainly +(though sometimes in the way of reaction) by his antecedents and +education, and his opinions on other subjects follow in their +train. He takes them up with more of practical vigour and energy +than breadth of reflection. There is a contagion of party-spirit +in the air. And thus advocacy on one side is simply met by +advocacy on the other. Such has at least been hitherto the history +of English thought upon most great subjects. We may hope that at +last this state of things is coming to an end. But until now, and +even now, it has been difficult to find that quiet atmosphere in +which alone true criticism can flourish. + +Let it not be thought that these few remarks are made in a spirit +of censoriousness. They are made by one who is only too conscious +of being subject to the very same conditions, and who knows not +how far he may need indulgence on the same score himself. How far +his own work is tainted with the spirit of advocacy it is not for +him to say. He knows well that the author whom he has set himself +to criticise is at least a writer of remarkable vigour and +ability, and that he cannot lay claim to these qualities; but he +has confidence in the power of truth--whatever that truth may be-- +to assert itself in the end. An open and fair field and full and +free criticism are all that is needed to eliminate the effects of +individual strength or weakness. 'The opinions of good men are but +knowledge in the making'--especially where they are based upon a +survey of the original facts. Mistakes will be made and have +currency for a time. But little by little truth emerges; it +receives the suffrages of those who are competent to judge; +gradually the controversy narrows; parts of it are closed up +entirely, and a solid and permanent advance is made. + + * * * * * + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' starts from a rigid and +somewhat antiquated view of Revelation--Revelation is 'a direct +and external communication by God to man of truths undiscoverable +by human reason. The divine origin of this communication is proved +by miracles. Miracles are proved by the record of Scripture, +which, in its turn, is attested by the history of the Canon.--This +is certainly the kind of theory which was in favour at the end of +the last century, and found expression in works like Paley's +Evidences. It belongs to a time of vigorous and clear but +mechanical and narrow culture, when the philosophy of religion was +made up of abrupt and violent contrasts; when Christianity +(including under that name the Old Testament as well as the New) +was thought to be simply true and all other religions simply +false; when the revelation of divine truth was thought to be as +sudden and complete as the act of creation; and when the presence +of any local and temporary elements in the Christian documents or +society was ignored. + +The world has undergone a great change since then. A new and far- +reaching philosophy is gradually displacing the old. The Christian +sees that evolution is as much a law of religion as of nature. The +Ethnic, or non-Christian, religions are no longer treated as +outside the pale of the Divine government. Each falls into its +place as part of a vast divinely appointed scheme, of the character +of which we are beginning to have some faint glimmerings. Other +religions are seen to be correlated to Christianity much as the +other tentative efforts of nature are correlated to man. A divine +operation, and what from our limited human point of view we should +call a _special_ divine operation, is not excluded but rather implied +in the physical process by which man has been planted on the earth, +and it is still more evidently implied in the corresponding process +of his spiritual enlightenment. The deeper and more comprehensive +view that we have been led to take as to the dealings of Providence +has not by any means been followed by a depreciation of Christianity. +Rather it appears on a loftier height than ever. The spiritual +movements of recent times have opened men's eyes more and more to +its supreme spiritual excellence. It is no longer possible to +resolve it into a mere 'code of morals.' The Christian ethics grow +organically out of the relations which Christianity assumes between +God and man, and in their fulness are inseparable from those relations. +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' speaks as if they were separable, +as if a man could assume all the Christian graces merely by wishing +to assume them. But he forgets the root of the whole Christian system, +'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall in +no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.' + +The old idea of the _Aufklärung_ that Christianity was nothing +more than a code of morals, has now long ago been given up, and +the self-complacency which characterised that movement has +for the most part, though not entirely, passed away. The +nineteenth century is not in very many quarters regarded as the +goal of things. And it will hardly now be maintained that +Christianity is adequately represented by any of the many sects +and parties embraced under the name. When we turn from even the +best of these, in its best and highest embodiment, to the picture +that is put before us in the Gospels, how small does it seem! We +feel that they all fall short of their ideal, and that there is a +greater promise and potentiality of perfection in the root than +has ever yet appeared in branch or flower. + +No doubt theology follows philosophy. The special conception of +the relation of man to God naturally takes its colour from the +wider conception as to the nature of all knowledge and the +relation of God to the universe. It has been so in every age, and +it must needs be so now. Some readjustment, perhaps a considerable +readjustment, of theological and scientific beliefs may be +necessary. But there is, I think, a strong presumption that the +changes involved in theology will be less radical than often seems +to be supposed. When we look back upon history, the world has gone +through many similar crises before. The discoveries of Darwin and +the philosophies of Mill or Hegel do not mark a greater relative +advance than the discoveries of Newton and the philosophies of +Descartes and Locke. These latter certainly had an effect upon +theology. At one time they seemed to shake it to its base; so much +so that Bishop Butler wrote in the Advertisement to the first +edition of his Analogy that 'it is come to be taken for granted +that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but that +it is now at length discovered to be fictitious.' Yet what do we +see after a lapse of a hundred and forty years? It cannot be said +that there is less religious life and activity now than there was +then, or that there has been so far any serious breach in the +continuity of Christian belief. An eye that has learnt to watch +the larger movements of mankind will not allow itself to be +disturbed by local oscillations. It is natural enough that some of +our thinkers and writers should imagine that the last word has +been spoken, and that they should be tempted to use the word +'Truth' as if it were their own peculiar possession. But Truth is +really a much vaster and more unattainable thing. One man sees a +fragment of it here and another there; but, as a whole, even in +any of its smallest subdivisions, it exists not in the brain of +any one individual, but in the gradual, and ever incomplete but +ever self-completing, onward movement of the whole. 'If any man +think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought +to know.' The forms of Christianity change, but Christianity +itself endures. And it would seem as if we might well be content +to wait until it was realised a little less imperfectly before we +attempt to go farther afield. + +Yet the work of adaptation must be done. The present generation +has a task of its own to perform. It is needful for it to revise +its opinions in view of the advances that have been made both in +general knowledge and in special theological criticism. In so far +as 'Supernatural Religion' has helped to do this, it has served +the cause of true progress; but its main plan and design I cannot +but regard as out of date and aimed in the air. + +The Christian miracles, or what in our ignorance we call miracles, +will not bear to be torn away from their context. If they are +facts we must look at them in strict connection with that Ideal +Life to which they seem to form the almost natural accompaniment. +The Life itself is the great miracle. When we come to see it as it +really is, and to enter, if even in some dim and groping way, into +its inner recesses, we feel ourselves abashed and dumb. Yet this +self-evidential character is found in portions of the narrative +that are quite unmiraculous. These, perhaps, are in reality the +most marvellous, though the miracles themselves will seem in place +when their spiritual significance is understood and they are +ranged in order round their common centre. Doubtless some elements +of superstition may be mixed up in the record as it has come down +to us. There is a manifest gap between the reality and the story +of it. The Evangelists were for the most part 'Jews who sought +after a sign.' Something of this wonder-seeking curiosity may very +well have given a colour to their account of events in which the +really transcendental element was less visible and tangible. We +cannot now distinguish with any degree of accuracy between the +subjective and the objective in the report. But that miracles, or +what we call such, did in some shape take place, is, I believe, +simply a matter of attested fact. When we consider it in its +relation to the rest of the narrative, to tear out the miraculous +bodily from the Gospels seems to me in the first instance a +violation of history and criticism rather than of faith. + +Still the author of 'Supernatural Religion' is, no doubt, justified +in raising the question, Did miracles really happen? I only wish +to protest against the idea that such a question can be adequately +discussed as something isolated and distinct, in which all that +is necessary is to produce and substantiate the documents as in +a forensic process. Such a 'world-historical' event (if I may for +the moment borrow an expressive Germanism) as the founding of +Christianity cannot be thrown into a merely forensic form. +Considerations of this kind may indeed enter in, but to suppose +that they can be justly estimated by themselves alone is an error. +And it is still more an error to suppose that the riddle of the +universe, or rather that part of the riddle which to us is most +important, the religious nature of man and, the objective facts +and relations that correspond to it, can all be reduced to some +four or five simple propositions which admit of being proved or +disproved by a short and easy Q.E.D. + +It would have been a far more profitable enquiry if the author had +asked himself, What is Revelation? The time has come when this +should be asked and an attempt to obtain a more scientific +definition should be made. The comparative study of religions has +gone far enough to admit of a comparison between the Ethnic +religions and that which had its birth in Palestine--the religion +of the Jews and Christians. Obviously, at the first blush, there +is a difference: and that difference constitutes what we mean by +Revelation. Let us have this as yet very imperfectly known +quantity scientifically ascertained, without any attempt either to +minimise or to exaggerate. I mean, let the field which Mr. Matthew +Arnold has lately been traversing with much of his usual insight +but in a light and popular manner, be seriously mapped out and +explored. Pioneers have been at work, such as Dr. Kuenen, but not +perhaps quite without a bias: let the same enquiry be taken up so +widely as that the effects of bias may be eliminated; and instead +of at once accepting the first crude results, let us wait until +they are matured by time. This would be really fruitful and +productive, and a positive addition to knowledge; but reasoning +such as that in 'Supernatural Religion' is vitiated at the outset, +because it starts with the assumption that we know perfectly well +the meaning of a term of which our actual conception is vague and +indeterminate in the extreme--Divine Revelation. [Endnote 10:1] + +With these reservations as to the main drift and bearing of the +argument, we may however meet the author of 'Supernatural Religion' +on his own ground. It is a part of the question--though a more +subordinate part apparently than he seems to suppose--to decide +whether miracles did or did not really happen. Even of this part +too it is but quite a minor subdivision that is included in the +two volumes of his work that have hitherto appeared. In the first +place, merely as a matter of historical attestation, the Gospels +are not the strongest evidence for the Christian miracles. Only +one of the four, in its present shape, is claimed as the work of +an Apostle, and of that the genuineness is disputed. The Acts of +the Apostles stand upon very much the same footing with the Synoptic +Gospels, and of this book we are promised a further examination. +But we possess at least some undoubted writings of one who was +himself a chief actor in the events which followed immediately +upon those recorded in the Gospels; and in these undoubted writings +St. Paul certainly shows by incidental allusions, the good faith +of which cannot be questioned, that he believed himself to be +endowed with the power of working miracles, and that miracles, +or what were thought to be such, were actually wrought both by +him and by his contemporaries. He reminds the Corinthians that +'the signs of an Apostle were wrought among them ... in signs, +and wonders, and mighty deeds' ([Greek: en saemeious kai terasi +kai dunamesi]--the usual words for the higher forms of miracle-- +2 Cor. xii. 12). He tells the Romans that 'he will not dare to +speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought in him, +to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty +signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God' ([Greek: +en dunamei saemeion kai teraton, en dunamei pneumator Theou], +Rom. xv. 18, 19) He asks the Galatians whether 'he that ministereth +to them the Spirit, and worketh miracles [Greek: ho energon dunameis] +among them, doeth it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of +faith?' (Gal. iii. 5). In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, +he goes somewhat elaborately into the exact place in the Christian +economy that is to be assigned to the working of miracles and gifts +of healing (1 Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29). Besides these allusions, St. Paul +repeatedly refers to the cardinal miracles of the Resurrection and +Ascension; he refers to them as notorious and unquestionable facts +at a time when such an assertion might have been easily refuted. +On one occasion he gives a very circumstantial account of the testimony +on which the belief in the Resurrection rested (1 Cor. xv. 4-8). And, +not only does he assert the Resurrection as a fact, but he builds +upon it a whole scheme of doctrine: 'If Christ be not risen,' he says, +'then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.' We do not +stay now to consider the exact philosophical weight of this evidence. +It will be time enough to do this when it has received the critical +discussion that may be presumed to be in store for it. But as external +evidence, in the legal sense, it is probably the best that can be +produced, and it has been entirely untouched so far. + +Again, in considering the evidence for the age of the Synoptic +Gospels, that which is derived from external sources is only a +part, and not perhaps the more important part, of the whole. It +points backwards indeed, and we shall see with what amount of +force and range. But there is still an interval within which only +approximate conclusions are possible. These conclusions need to be +supplemented from the phenomena of the documents themselves. In +the relation of the Gospels to the growth of the Christian society +and the development of Christian doctrine, and especially to the +great turning-point in the history, the taking of Jerusalem, there +is very considerable internal evidence for determining the date +within which they must have been composed. It is well known that +many critics, without any apologetic object, have found a more or +less exact criterion in the eschatological discourses (Matt. xxiv, +Mark xiii, Luke xxi. 5-36), and to this large additions may be +made. As I hope some day to have an opportunity of discussing the +whole question of the origin and composition of the Synoptic +Gospels, I shall not go into this at present: but in the mean time +it should be remembered that all these further questions lie in +the background, and that in tracing the formation of the Canon of +the Gospels the whole of the evidence for miracles--even from this +_ab extra_ point of view--is very far from being exhausted. + +There is yet another remaining reason which makes the present +enquiry of less importance than might be supposed, derived from +the particular way in which the author has dealt with this +external evidence. In order to explain the _prima facie_ +evidence for our canonical Gospels, he has been compelled to +assume the existence of other documents containing, so far as +appears, the same or very similar matter. In other words, instead +of four Gospels he would give us five or six or seven. I do not +know that, merely as a matter of policy, and for apologetic +purposes only, the best way to refute his conclusion would not be +to admit his premisses and to insist upon the multiplication of +the evidence for the facts of the Gospel history which his +argument would seem to involve. I mention this however, not with +any such object, but rather to show that the truth of Christianity +is not intimately affected, and that there are no such great +reasons for partiality on one side or on the other. + +I confess that it was a relief to me when I found that this must +be the case. I do not think the time has come when the central +question can be approached with any safety. Rough and ready +methods (such as I am afraid I must call the first part of +'Supernatural Religion') may indeed cut the Gordian knot, but they +do not untie it. A number of preliminary questions will have to be +determined with a greater degree of accuracy and with more general +consent than has been done hitherto. The Jewish and Christian +literature of the century before and of the two centuries after +the birth of Christ must undergo a more searching examination, by +minds of different nationality and training, both as to the date, +text, and character of the several books. The whole balance of an +argument may frequently be changed by some apparently minute and +unimportant discovery; while, at present, from the mere want of +consent as to the data, the state of many a question is +necessarily chaotic. It is far better that all these points should +be discussed as disinterestedly as possible. No work is so good as +that which is done without sight of the object to which it is +tending and where the workman has only his measure and rule to +trust to. I am glad to think that the investigation which is to +follow may be almost, if not quite, classed in this category; and +I hope I may be able to conduct it with sufficient impartiality. +Unconscious bias no man can escape, but from conscious bias I +trust I shall be free. + + + + + +CHAPTER II. + +ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. + + +The subject then proposed for our investigation is the extent to +which the canonical Gospels are attested by the early Christian +writers, or, in other words, the history of the process by which +they became canonical. This will involve an enquiry into two +things; first, the proof of the existence of the Gospels, and, +secondly, the degree of authority attributed to them. Practically +this second enquiry must be very subordinate to the first, because +the data are much fewer; but it too shall be dealt with, +cursorily, as the occasion arises, and we shall be in a position +to speak upon it definitely before we conclude. + +It will be convenient to follow the example that is set us in +'Supernatural Religion,' and to take the first three, or Synoptic, +Gospels separately from the fourth. + + * * * * * + +At the outset the question will occur to us, On what principle is +the enquiry to be conducted? What sort of rule or standard are we +to assume? In order to prove either the existence or the authority +of the Gospels, it is necessary that we should examine the +quotations from them, or what are alleged to be quotations from +them, in the early writers. Now these quotations are notoriously +lax. It will be necessary then to have some means of judging, what +degree and kind of laxity is admissible; what does, and what does +not, prevent the reference of a quotation to a given source. + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' indeed, has not felt the +necessity for this preliminary step. He has taken up, as it were, +at haphazard, the first standard that came to his hand; and, not +unnaturally, this is found to be very much the standard of the +present literary age, when both the mechanical and psychological +conditions are quite different from those that prevailed at the +beginning of the Christian era. He has thus been led to make a +number of assertions which will require a great deal of +qualification. The only sound and scientific method is to make an +induction (if only a rough one) respecting the habit of early +quotation generally, and then to apply it to the particular cases. + +Here there will be three classes of quotation more or less +directly in point: (1) the quotations from the Old Testament in +the New; (2) the quotations from the Old Testament in the same +early writers whose quotations from the New Testament are the +point in question; (3) quotations from the New Testament, and more +particularly from the Gospels, in the writers subsequent to these, +at a time when the Canon of the Gospels was fixed and we can be +quite sure that our present Gospels are being quoted. + +This method of procedure however is not by any means so plain and +straightforward as it might seem. The whole subject of Old +Testament quotations is highly perplexing. Most of the quotations +that we meet with are taken from the LXX version; and the text of +that version was at this particular time especially uncertain and +fluctuating. There is evidence to show that it must have existed +in several forms which differed more or less from that of the +extant MSS. It would be rash therefore to conclude at once, +because we find a quotation differing from the present text of the +LXX, that it differed from that which was used by the writer +making the quotation. In some cases this can be proved from the +same writer making the same quotation more than once and +differently each time, or from another writer making it in +agreement with our present text. But in other cases it seems +probable that the writer had really a different text before him, +because he quotes it more than once, or another writer quotes it, +with the same variation. This however is again an uncertain +criterion; for the second writer may be copying the first, or he +may be influenced by an unconscious reminiscence of what the first +had written. The early Christian writers copied each other to an +extent that we should hardly be prepared for. Thus, for instance, +there is a string of quotations in the first Epistle of Clement of +Rome (cc. xiv, xv)--Ps. xxxvii. 36-38; Is. xxix. 13; Ps. lxii. 4, +lxxviii. 36, 37, xxxi, 19, xii. 3-6; and these very quotations in +the same order reappear in the Alexandrine Clement (Strom. iv. 6). +Clement of Alexandria is indeed fond of copying his Roman +namesake, and does so without acknowledgment. Tertullian and +Epiphanius in like manner drew largely from the works of Irenaeus. +But this confuses evidence that would otherwise be clear. For +instance, in Eph. iv. 8 St. Paul quotes Ps. lxviii. 19, but with a +marked variation from all the extant texts of the LXX. Thus:-- + + +_Ps._ lxviii. 18 (19). + +[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaloteusas aichmalosian, elabes +domata en anthropon.] + +[Greek: Aechmaloteusen ... en anthropon] [Hebrew: alef], perhaps +from assimilation to N.T. + + +_Eph._ iv. 8. + +[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaltoteusen aichmalosian, kai edoke +domata tois anthropois.] + +[Greek: kai] om. [Hebrew: alef]'1, A C'2 D'1, &c. It. Vulg. Memph. +&c.; ins. B C'3 D'3 [Hebrew: alef]'4, &c. + + +Now we should naturally think that this was a very free +quotation--so free that it substitutes 'giving' for 'receiving.' +A free quotation perhaps it may be, but at any rate the very same +variation is found in Justin (Dial. 39). And, strange to say, in +five other passages which are quoted variantly by St. Paul, Justin +also agrees with him, [Endnote 18:1] though cases on the other +hand occur where Justin differs from St. Paul or holds a position +midway between him and the LXX (e.g. 1 Cor. i. 19 compared with +Just. Dial. cc. 123, 32, 78, where will be found some curious +variations, agreement with LXX, partial agreement with LXX, +partial agreement with St. Paul). Now what are we to say to these +phenomena? Have St. Paul and Justin both a variant text of the +LXX, or is Justin quoting mediately through St. Paul? Probability +indeed seems to be on the side of the latter of these two +alternatives, because in one place (Dial. cc. 95, 96) Justin +quotes the two passages Deut. xxvii. 26 and Deut. xxi. 23 +consecutively, and applies them just as they are applied in Gal. +iii. 10, 13 [Endnote 18:2]. On the other hand, it is somewhat +strange that Justin nowhere refers to the Epistles of St. Paul by +name, and that the allusions to them in the genuine writings, +except for these marked resemblances in the Old Testament +quotations, are few and uncertain. The same relation is observed +between the Pauline Epistles and that of Clement of Rome. In two +places at least Clement agrees, or nearly agrees, with St. Paul, +where both differ from the LXX; in c. xiii ([Greek: ho kanchomenos +en Kurio kanchastho]; compare 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x, 16), and in +c. xxxiv ([Greek: ophthalmhos ouk eiden k.t.l.]; compare 1 Cor. ii. +9). Again, in c. xxxvi Clement has the [Greek: puros phloga] of +Heb. i. 7 for [Greek: pur phlegon] of the LXX. The rest of the +parallelisms in Clement's Epistle are for the most part with +Clement of Alexandria, who had evidently made a careful study of +his predecessor. In one place, c. liii, there is a remarkable +coincidence with Barnabas ([Greek: Mousae Mousae katabaethi to +tachos k.t.l.]; compare Barn. cc. iv and xiv). In the Epistle of +Barnabas itself there is a combined quotation from Gen. xv. 6, +xvii. 5, which has evidently and certainly been affected by Rom. +iv. 11. On the whole we may lean somewhat decidedly to the +hypothesis of a mutual study of each other by the Christian +writers, though the other hypothesis of the existence of different +versions (whether oral and traditional or in any shape written) +cannot be excluded. Probably both will have to be taken into +account to explain all the facts. + +Another disturbing influence, which will affect especially the +quotations in the Gospels, is the possibility, perhaps even +probability, that many of these are made, not directly from either +Hebrew or LXX, but from or through Targums. This would seem to be +the case especially with the remarkable applications of prophecy +in St. Matthew. It must be admitted as possible that the +Evangelist has followed some Jewish interpretation that seemed to +bear a Christian construction. The quotation in Matt. ii. 6, with +its curious insertion of the negative ([Greek: oudamos elachistae] +for [Greek: oligostos]), reappears identically in Justin (Dial. c. +78). We shall probably have to touch upon this quotation when we +come to consider Justin's relations to the canonical Gospels. It +certainly seems upon the face of it the more probable supposition +that he has here been influenced by the form of the text in St. +Matthew, but he may be quoting from a Targum or from a peculiar +text. + +Any induction, then, in regard to the quotations from the LXX +version will have to be used with caution and reserve. And yet I +think it will be well to make such an induction roughly, +especially in regard to the Apostolic Fathers whose writings we +are to examine. + + * * * * * + +The quotations from the Old Testament in the New have, as it is +well known, been made the subject of a volume by Mr. McCalman +Turpie [Endnote 20:1], which, though perhaps not quite reaching a +high level of scholarship, has yet evidently been put together +with much care and pains, and will be sufficient for our purpose. +The summary result of Mr. Turpie's investigation is this. Out of +two hundred and seventy-five in all which may be considered to be +quotations from the Old Testament, fifty-three agree literally +both with the LXX and the Hebrew, ten with the Hebrew and not with +the LXX, and thirty-seven with the LXX and not with the Hebrew, +making in all just a hundred that are in literal (or nearly +literal, for slight variations of order are not taken into +account) agreement with some still extant authority. On the other +hand, seventy-six passages differ both from the Hebrew and LXX +where the two are together, ninety-nine differ from them where +they diverge, and besides these, three, though introduced with +marks of quotation, have no assignable original in the Old +Testament at all. Leaving them for the present out of the +question, we have a hundred instances of agreement against a +hundred and seventy-five of difference; or, in other words, the +proportion of difference to agreement is as seven to four. + +This however must be taken with the caution given above; that is +to say, it must not at once be inferred that because the quotation +differs from extant authority therefore it necessarily differs +from all non-extant authority as well. It should be added that the +standard of agreement adopted by Mr. Turpie is somewhat higher +than would be naturally held to be sufficient to refer a passage +to a given source. His lists must therefore be used with these +limitations. + +Turning to them, we find that most of the possible forms of +variation are exemplified within the bounds of the Canon itself. I +proceed to give a few classified instances of these. + +[Greek: Alpha symbol] _Paraphrase_. Many of the quotations from the +Old Testament in the New are highly paraphrastic. We may take the +following as somewhat marked examples: Matt. ii. 6, xii. 18-21, +xiii. 35, xxvii. 9, 10; John viii. 17, xii. 40, xiii. 18; +1 Cor. xiv. 21; 2 Cor. ix. 7. Matt. xxvii. 9, 10 would perhaps +mark an extreme point in freedom of quotation [Endnote 21:1], as +will be seen when it is compared with the original:-- + + +_Matt_. xxvii. 9. 10. + +[Greek: [tote eplaerothae to phaethen dia tou prophaetou Hieremiou +legontos] Kai elabon ta triakonta arguria, taen timaen tou +tetimaemenou on etimaesanto apo nion Israael, kai edokan auta eis +ton argon tou kerameos, katha sunetaxen moi Kurios.] + + +_Zech_. xi. 13. + +[Greek: Kathes autous eis to choneutaerion, kai schepsomai ei +dokimon estin, de tropon edokiamistheaen huper aotuon. Kai elabon +tous triakonta argurous kai enebalon autous eis oikon Kuriou eis +to choneutaerion.] + + +It can hardly be possible that the Evangelist has here been +influenced by any Targum or version. The form of his text has +apparently been determined by the historical event to which the +prophecy is applied. The sense of the original has been entirely +altered. There the prophet obeys the command to put the thirty +pieces of silver, which he had received as his shepherd's hire, +into the treasury [Greek: choneutaerion]. Here the hierarchical +party refuse to put them into the treasury. The word 'potter' +seems to be introduced from the Hebrew. + +[Greek: Beta symbol] _Quotations from Memory_. Among the numerous +paraphrastic quotations, there are some that have specially the +appearance of having been made from memory, such as Acts vii. 37; +Rom. ix. 9, 17, 25, 33, x. 6-8, xi. 3, xii. 19, xiv. 11; +1 Cor. i. 19, ii. 9; Rev. ii. 27. Of course it must always +be a matter of guess-work what is quoted from memory and what is +not, but in these quotations (and in others which are ranged under +different heads) there is just that general identity of sense along +with variety of expression which usually characterises such +quotations. A simple instance would be-- + + +_Rom_. ix. 25. + +[Greek: [hos kai en to Osaee legei] Kaleso ton out laon mou laon +mou kai taen ouk aegapaemenaen haegapaemenaen.] + + +_Hosea_ ii. 23. + +[Greek: Kai agapaeso taen ouk aegapaemenaen, kai ero to ou lao mou +Daos mou ei se.] + + +[Greek: Gamma symbol] _Paraphrase with Compression._ There are many marked +examples of this; such as Matt. xxii. 24 (par.); Mark iv. 12; John +xii. 14, 15; Rom. iii. 15-17, x. 15; Heb. xii. 20. Take the +first:-- + + +_Matt._ xxii. 24. [Greek: [Mousaes eipen] Ean tis apothanae +mae echon tekna, epigambreusei o adelphos autou taen gunaika autou +kai anastaesei sperma to adelpho autou.] + + +_Deut._ xxv. 5. [Greek: Ean de katoikosin adelphoi epi to +auto, kai apothanae eis ex auton, sperma de mae ae auto, ouk estai +ae gunae tou tethnaekotos exo andri mae engizonti o adelphos tou +andros autaes eiseleusetai pros autaen kai laepsetai autaen eauto +gunaika kai sunoikaesei autae.] + + +It is highly probable that all the examples given under this head +are really quotations from memory. + +[Greek: Delta symbol] _Paraphrase with Combination of Passages._ +This again is common; e.g. Luke iv. 19; John xv. 25, xix. 36; +Acts xiii. 22; Rom. iii. 11-18, ix. 33, xi. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 24. The passage +Rom. iii. 11-18 is highly composite, and reminds us of long strings of +quotations that are found in some of the Fathers; it is made up of +Ps. xiv. 1, 2, v. 9, cxl. 3, x. 7, Is. lix. 7, 8, Ps. xxxvi. 1. A +shorter example is-- + + +_Rom._ ix. 33. [Greek: [Kathos gegraptai] Idou tithaemi en +Sion lithon proskommatos kai petran skandalou, kai o pisteuon ep +auto ou kataischunthaesetai.] + + +_Is._ viii. 14. [Greek: kai ouch hos lithou proskammati +sunantaesesthe, oude os petras ptomati.] + +_Is._ xxviii. 16. [Greek: Idou ego emballo eis ta themelia +Sion lithon..., kai o pisteuon ou mae kataischunthae.] + + +This fusion of passages is generally an act of 'unconscious +celebration.' If we were to apply the standard assumed in +'Supernatural Religion,' it would be pronounced impossible that +this and most of the passages above could have the originals to +which they are certainly to be referred. + +[Greek: Epsilon symbol] _Addition._ A few cases of addition may +be quoted, e.g. [Greek: mae aposteraesaes] inserted in Mark x. 19, +[Greek: kai eis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9. + +[Greek: Zeta symbol] _Change of Sense and Context._ But little +regard--or what according to our modern habits would be considered +little regard--is paid to the sense and original context of the passage +quoted; e.g. in Matt. viii. 17 the idea of healing disease is substituted +for that of vicarious suffering, in Matt. xi. 10 the persons are +altered ([Greek: sou] for [Greek: mou]), in Acts vii. 43 we find +[Greek: Babylonos] for [Greek: Damaskos], in 2 Cor. vi. 17 'I will +receive you' is put for 'I will go before you,' in Heb. i. 7 'He +maketh His angels spirits' for 'He maketh the winds His +messengers.' This constant neglect of the context is a point that +should be borne in mind. + +[Greek: Eta symbol] _Inversion._ Sometimes the sense of the original is so +far departed from that a seemingly opposite sense is substituted +for it. Thus in Matt. ii. 6 [Greek: oudamos elachistae = +oligostos] of Mic. v. 2, in Rom. xi. 26 [Greek: ek Sion = heneken +Sion] LXX= '_to_ Sion' Heb. of Is. lix. 20, in Eph. iv. 8 +[Greek: hedoken domata = helabes domata] of Ps. lxvii. 19. + +[Greek: Theta symbol] _Different Form of Sentence._ The grammatical +form of the sentence is altered in Matt. xxvi. 31 (from aorist to future), +in Luke viii. 10 (from oratio recta to oratio obliqua), and in 1 Pet. +iii. 10-12 (from the second person to the third). This is a kind +of variation that we should naturally look for. + +[Greek: Iota symbol] _Mistaken Ascriptions or Nomenclature._ The +following passages are wrongly assigned:--Mal. iii. 1 to Isaiah +according to the correct reading of Mark i. 2, and Zech. xi. 13 +to Jeremiah in Matt. xxvii. 9, 10; Abiathar is apparently put for +Abimelech in Mark ii. 26; in Acts vii. 16 there seems to be a +confusion between the purchase of Machpelah near Hebron by Abraham +and Jacob's purchase of land from Hamor the father of Shechem. +These are obviously lapses of memory. + +[Greek: Kappa symbol] _Quotations of Doubtful Origin_. There are a +certain number of quotations, introduced as such, which can be assigned +directly to no Old Testament original; Matt. ii. 23 ([Greek: Nazoraios +klaethaesetai]), 1 Tim. v. 18 ('the labourer is worthy of his hire'), +John vii. 38 ('out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water'), +42 (Christ should be born of Bethlehem where David was), Eph. v. 14 +('Awake thou that sleepest'). [Endnote 25:1] + +It will be seen that, in spite of the reservations that we felt +compelled to make at the outset, the greater number of the +deviations noticed above can only be explained on a theory of free +quotation, and remembering the extent to which the Jews relied +upon memory and the mechanical difficulties of exact reference and +verification, this is just what before the fact we should have +expected. + + * * * * * + +The Old Testament quotations in the canonical books afford us a +certain parallel to the object of our enquiry, but one still +nearer will of course be presented by the Old Testament quotations +in those books the New Testament quotations in which we are to +investigate. I have thought it best to draw up tables of these in +order to give an idea of the extent and character of the +variation. In so tentative an enquiry as this, the standard +throughout will hardly be so fixed and accurate as might be +desirable; the tabular statement therefore must be taken to be +approximate, but still I think it will be found sufficient for our +purpose; certain points come out with considerable clearness, and +there is always an advantage in drawing data from a wide enough +area. The quotations are ranged under heads according to the +degree of approximation to the text of the LXX. In cases where the +classification has seemed doubtful an indicatory mark (+) has been +used, showing by the side of the column on which it occurs to +which of the other two classes the instance leans. All cases in +which this sign is used to the left of the middle column may be +considered as for practical purposes literal quotations. It may be +assumed, where the contrary is not stated, that the quotations are +direct and not of the nature of allusions; the marks of quotation +are generally quite unmistakeable ([Greek: gegraptai, legei, +eipen], &c). Brief notes are added in the margin to call attention +to the more remarkable points, especially to the repetition of the +same quotation in different writers and to the apparent bearing of +the passage upon the general habit of quotation. + +Taking the Apostolic Fathers in order, we come first to-- + + _Clement of Rome (1 Ep. ad Cor._) + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | Variant._ | | + | |3 Deut. 32.14,15. |also in Justin, + | | Is. 3.5. al. | differently. + | | Is. 59. 14, al. | +3. Wisd. 2.24. | | | + |+4. Gen. 4.3-8. | |Acts 7.27, + | Ex. 2.14+ | | more exactly. +6. Gen. 2.23. | |8. Ezek. 33.11 |} + | | Ezek. 18.30 |}from Apocryphal + | | Ps. 103.10,11. |} or interpolated + | | Jer. 3.19,22. |} Ezekiel? + | | Is. 1.18. |} + |+8. Is. 1.16-20. | | + |10. Gen. 12.1-3. | | + | +Gen. 13.14-16. | | + | Gen. 15.5,6. | | + | |12. Josh. 2.3-19. |compression and + | | | paraphrase. + | | | + | |13. 1 Sam. 2,10. |}similarly + | | Jer. 9.23,24. |} St. Paul, 1 Cor. + | | | 1.31, 2 Cor. + |13. Is. 46.2. | | 10.17. + | |14. Prov. 2.21, |from memory? + | | 22. v.l. (Ps. 37.| + | | 39.) | + |14. Ps. 37.35-38.| |Matt. 15.8, Mark + | |15. Is. 29.13.* | 7.6, with par- +15.{Ps. 78.36,37.*|15. Ps. 62.4.* | | tial similarity, + {Ps. 31.19.* | | | Clem. Alex., + {Ps. 12.3-6.* | | | following Clem. + | | | Rom. + |+16. Is. 53.1-12.| |quoted in full by +16. Ps. 22.6-8. | | | Justin, also by +17. Gen. 18.27. | | | other writers + | | | with text + | | | slightly + | | | different from + | | | Clement. + | |17. Job 1.1, v.l. | + | | Job 14.4,5, v.l.|Clem. Alex. + | | | similarly. + |17. Num. 12.7. | | + | Ex. 3.11; 4-10.| | + | |[Greek: ego de |_Assumptio Mosis_, + | | eimi atmis apo | Hilg., _Eldad + | | kuthras.] | and Modad_, Lft. + | | | + | |18. Ps. 89.21,v.l.|}Clem. Alex. as + | | 1 Sam. 13.14. |} LXX. +18. Ps. 51.1-17. | | | + | |20. Job 38.11. | + | |21. Prov. 15.27. |Clem. Alex. + | | | similarly; from + | | | memory? [Greek: +22. Ps. 34.11-17. | | | legei gar pou.] + | |23. [Greek: |from an Apo- + | | palaiporoi eisin | cryphal book, + | | oi dipsuchoi | _Ass. Mos._ or + | | k.t.l.] | _Eld. and Mod._ + | | | + | |23. Is. 13.22. |}composition and + | | Mal. 3.1. |} compression. + | | | + | |26. Ps. 28.7. |}composition + | | Ps. 3-5. |} from memory? + | | | [Greek: legei + | | | gar pou.] + | |27. Wisd. 12.12. |}from memory? + | | Wisd. 11.22. |} cp. Eph. 1.19. +P27. Ps. 19.1-3. | | | + | |28. Ps. 139.7-10. |from memory? + | | |[Greek: legei + | | | gar pou.] +29. Deut. 32.8,9. | | | + | |29. Deut. 4.34. |}from memory? + | | Deut. 14.2. |} or from an + | | Num. 18.27. |} Apocryphal + | | 2 Chron. 31. |} Book? + | | 14. |} + | | Ezek. 48.12. |} + |30. Prov. 3.34. | | +30. Job. 11.2,3. | | |LXX, not Heb. + | |32. Gen. 15.5 | + | | (Gen. 22.17. | + | | Gen. 26.4.) | + |33. Gen. 1.26-28.|(omissions.) | + | |34. Is. 40.10. |}composition + | | Is. 62.11. |} from memory? + | | Prov. 24.12. |} Clem. Alex. + | | | after Clem. + | | | Rom. + |34. Dan. 7.10. |} |curiously + | Is. 6.3+. |} | repeated + | | | transposition; + | | | see Lightfoot, + | | | _ad. loc._ + | |24. Is. 64.4. |so in 1 Cor. 2.9. + |35. Ps. 50.16-23.| | + |36. Ps.104.4,v.l.| |Heb. 1.7. +36. Ps. 2.7,8. | | |Heb. 1.5. Acts + Ps. 110.1 | | | 13.33. + |39. Job 4.16-5.5 | | + | (Job 15.15) | | + | |42. Is. 60.17. |from memory? + | | | [Greek: legei + | | | gar pou.] + | |46. [Greek: |from Apocryphal + | | Kollasthe tois | book, or Ecclus. + | | agiois hoti oi | vi. 34? Clem. + | | kollomenoi | Alex. + | | autois | + | | hagiasthaesontai]| +46. Ps. 18.26,27. | | |context ignored. +48. Ps. 118,19,20.| | |Clem. Alex. + | | | loosely. + | |50. Is. 26.20. |} + | | Ezek. 37.12. |}from memory? +50. Ps. 32. 1,2. | | | + | |52. Ps. 69.31,32. | +52. Ps. 50.14,15.+|} | | + Ps. 51.17. |} | | + |53. Deut.9.12-14.|} |Barnabas + | Ex. 32.7,8. |} | similarly. + | 11,31,32. |} | Compression. +54. Ps. 241. | | | +56. Ps. 118.18. | | | + Prov. 3.12. | | | + Ps. 141.5. | | | + |+56. Job 5.17-26,| | + | v.l. | | + |+57. Prov. 1.23- | | + | 31. | | + +[*Footnote: The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are +also found in Clement of Alexandria.] + + +It will be observed that the longest passages are among those +that are quoted with the greatest accuracy (e.g. Gen. xiii. 14-16; +Job v. 17-26; Ps. xix. 1-3, xxii. 6-8, xxxiv. 11-17, li. 1-17; +Prov. i. 23-31; Is. i. 16-20, liii. 1-12). Others, such as Gen. +xii. 1-3, Deut. ix. 12-14, Job iv. 16-v. 5, Ps. xxxvii. 35-38, l. +16-23, have only slight variations. There are only two passages of +more than three consecutive verses in length that present wide +divergences. These are, Ps. cxxxix. 7-10, which is introduced by a +vague reference [Greek: legei gar pou] and is evidently quoted +from memory, and the historical narration Josh. ii. 3-19. This is +perhaps what we should expect: in longer quotations it would be +better worth the writer's while to refer to his cumbrous +manuscript. These purely mechanical conditions are too much lost +sight of. We must remember that the ancient writer had not a small +compact reference Bible at his side, but, when he wished to verify +a reference, would have to take an unwieldy roll out of its case, +and then would not find it divided into chapter and verse like our +modern books but would have only the columns, and those perhaps +not numbered, to guide him. We must remember too that the memory +was much more practised and relied upon in ancient times, +especially among the Jews. + +The composition of two or more passages is frequent, and the +fusion remarkably complete. Of all the cases in which two passages +are compounded, always from different chapters and most commonly +from different books, there is not, I believe, one in which there +is any mark of division or an indication of any kind that a +different source is being quoted from. The same would hold good +(with only a slight and apparent exception) of the longer strings +of quotations in cc. viii, xxix, and (from [Greek: aegapaesan] to +[Greek: en auto]) in c. xv. But here the question is complicated by +the possibility, and in the first place at least perhaps +probability, that the writer is quoting from some apocryphal work +no longer extant. It may be interesting to give one or two short +examples of the completeness with which the process of welding has +been carried out. Thus in c. xvii, the following reply is put into +the mouth of Moses when he receives his commission at the burning +bush, [Greek: tis eimi ego hoti me pempeis; ego de eimi +ischnophonos kai braduglossos.] The text of Exod. iii. 11 is +[Greek: tis eimi ego, oti poreusomai;] the rest of the quotation +is taken from Exod. iv. 10. In c. xxxiv Clement introduces 'the +Scripture' as saying, [Greek: Muriai muriades pareistaekeisan auto +kai chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto kai ekekragon agios, +agios, agios, Kurios Sabaoth, plaeraes pasa hae ktisis taes doxaes +autou.] The first part of this quotation comes from Dan. vii. 10; +the second, from [Greek: kai ekekragon], which is part of the +quotation, from Is. vi. 3. These examples have been taken almost +at random; the others are blended quite as thoroughly. + +Some of the cases of combination and some of the divergences of +text may be accounted for by the assumption of lost apocryphal +books or texts; but it would be wholly impossible, and in fact no +one would think of so attempting to account for all. There can be +little doubt that Clement quotes from memory, and none that he +quotes at times very freely. + +We come next to the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, the quotations +in which I proceed to tabulate in the same way:-- + + _Barnabas._ + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | Variant._ | | + |+2. Is. 1.11-14. | |note for exactness. + | |2. Jer. 7.22,23. |} combination + | | Zec. 8.17. |} from memory? + | | Ps. 51.19. |strange addition. + |3. Is. 58.4, 5. | | + | Is. 58.6-10. | | + | |4. Dan. 7.24 |}very + | | Dan. 7.7, 8. |} divergent. + | | Ex. 34.28. |}combination + | | Ex. 31.18. |} from memory? + |4. Deut. 9.12. | |see below. + | (Ex. 32.7). | | + | +Is. 5.21. | | + |+5. Is. 54.5,7. | |text of Cod. A. + | (omissions.)| | +5. Prov. 1.17. | | | + Gen. 1.26+. | | | + | |5. Zech. 13.7. |text of A. (Hilg.) + | | | Matt. 26.3. + | | Ps. 22.21. |from memory? + |5. Ps. 119.120. | |paraphrastic + | | Ps. 22.17. | combination + | | | from memory? + | Is. 50. 6,7. | | + | (omissions.) | |ditto. + | |6. Is. 50.8,9. |ditto. + |6. Is. 28.16. | |first clause + | | | exact, second + | | | variant; in N.T. + | | | quotations, + | | | first variant, + | | | second exact. + | Is. 50.7. | |note repetition, + | | | nearer to LXX. +6. Ps. 118.22. | | |so Matt. 21.42; + | | | 1 Pet. 11.7. + | | | +6. Ps. 22.17+ | |6. Ps. 118.24. |from memory? + (order). | | |note repetition, + | | | nearer to LXX. +Ps. 118.12. | | | +Ps. 22.19. | | | +Is. 3.9, 10. | | | + | | Ex. 33.1. |from memory? + | Gen. 1.26+. | |note repetition, +Gen. 1.28. | | | further from LXX. + | | Ezek. 11.19; |paraphrastic. + | | 36.26. | + | | Ps. 41.3. | + | | Ps. 22.23. |different version? + | | Gen. 1.26, 28. |paraphrastic + | | | fusion. + | |7. Lev. 23.29. |paraphrastic. + | | Lev. 16.7, sqq.|with apocryphal + | | Lev. 16.7. sqq.| addition; cp. + | | | Just. and Tert. + |9. Ps. 18.44. | | +9. Is. 33.13+. | | | + | |9. Jer. 4.4. | + | | Jer. 7.2. | + | | Ps. 34.13. | +Is. 1.2. | | |but with additions. + | Is. 1.10+. | |from memory? + | | |[Greek: archontes + | | | toutou] for [Gr. + | | | a. Zodomon.] + | | Is. 40.3. |addition. + | | Jer. 4.3 ,4. |}repetition, + | | Jer. 7.26. |} nearer to LXX. + | | Jer. 9.26. | + | | Gen. 17.26, 27;|inferred sense + | | cf. 14.14. | merely, but + | | | with marks of + | | | quotation. + | |10. Lev. 11, |selected examples, + | | Deut. 14. | but with + | | | examples of + | | | quotation. + | | Deut. 4.1. | +10. Ps. 1.1. | | | + | | Lev. 11.3. | + | |11. Jer. 2.12, 13.| + | | +Is. 16.1, 2. |[Greek: Zina] for + | | | [Greek: Zion]. + |11. Is. 45. 2, 3.| |[Greek: gnosae] A. + | | | ([Greek: gnosin] + | | | Barn., but in + | | | other points more + | | | divergent. + |+Is. 33.16-18. | |omissions. +11. Ps. 1.3-6. | | |note for exactness. + | |11. Zeph. 3.19. |markedly diverse. + | | Ezek. 47.12. |ditto. + |12. Is. 65.2. | | + | |12. Num. 21.9, |apparently a + | | sqq. | quotation. + | | Deut. 27.15. |from memory? + | | Ex. 17.14. | +12. Ps. 110.1. | | | + |12. Is. 45.1. | |[Greek: kurio] for + | | | [Greek: kuro]. + |13. Gen.25.21,23.| | + | |13. Gen. 48.11-19.|very paraphrastic. + | | Gen. 15.6; |combination; cf. + | | 17.5. | Rom. 4.11. + | |14. Ex. 24.18. |note addition of + | | |[Greek: naesteuon.] + | | Ex. 31.18. |note also for + | | | additions. + |14. Deut. 9.12- | |repetition with + | 17+. | | similar variation. + | (Ex. 32.7.) | |note reading of A. +14. Is. 42.6,7. | | |[Greek: + | | |pepedaemenous] for + | | |[Greek: dedemenous + | | |(kai] om. A.). + | Is. 49.6,7. | | +Is. 61. 1,2. | | |Luke. 4.18,19 + | | | diverges. + | |15. Ex. 20.8; |paraphrastic, + | | Deut. 5.12. | with addition. + | | Jer. 17.24,25.|very paraphrastic. + | | Gen. 2.2. | + | | Ps. 90.4. |[Greek: saemeron] + | | | for [Greek: + | | | exthes]. +15. Is. 1.13. | | | + |16. Is. 40.12. | |omissions. + | Is. 66.1. | | + | |16. Is. 49.17. |completely + | | | paraphrastic. + | | Dan. 9.24. |ditto. + | | 25, 27. | + + +The same remarks that were made upon Clement will hold also for +Barnabas, except that he permits himself still greater licence. The +marginal notes will have called attention to his eccentricities. He is +carried away by slight resemblances of sound; e.g. he puts [Greek: +himatia] for [Greek: iamata] [Endnote 34:1], [Greek: Zina] for [Greek: +Zion], [Greek: Kurio] for [Greek: Kuro]. He not only omits clauses, but +also adds to the text freely; e.g. in Ps. li. 19 he makes the strange +insertion which is given in brackets, [Greek: Thusia to Theo kardia +suntetrimmenae, [osmae euodias to kurio kardia doxasousa ton peplakota +autaen]]. He has also added words and clauses in several other places. +There can be no question that he quotes largely from memory; several of +his quotations are repeated more than once (Deu. ix. 12; Is. l. 7; Ps. +xxii. 17; Gen. i. 28; Jer. iv. 4); and of these only one, Deut. ix. 12, +reappears in the same form. Often he gives only the sense of a passage; +sometimes he interprets, as in Is. i. 10, where he paraphrases [Greek: +archontes Sodomon] by the simpler [Greek: archontes tou laou toutou]. He +has curiously combined the sense of Gen. xvii. 26, 27 with Gen. xiv. +l4--in the pursuit of the four kings, it is said that Abraham armed his +servants three hundred and eighteen men; Barnabas says that he +circumcised his household, in all three hundred and eighteen men. In +several cases a resemblance may be noticed between Barnabas and the text +of Cod. A, but this does not appear consistently throughout. + +It may be well to give a few examples of the extent to which Barnabas +can carry his freedom of quotation. Instances from the Book of Daniel +should perhaps not be given, as the text of that book is known to have +been in a peculiarly corrupt and unsettled state; so much so that, when +translation of Theodotion was made towards the end of the second +century, it was adopted as the standard text. Barnabas also combines +passages, though not quite to such an extent or so elaborately as +Clement, and he too inserts no mark of division. We will give an example +of this, and at the same time of his paraphrastic method of quotation:-- + + +_Barnabas_ c. ix. + +[Greek: [kai ti legei;] Peritmaethaete to sklaeron taes kardias +humon, kai ton trachaelon humon ou mae sklaerunaete.] + + +_Jer._ iv. 3, 4 _and_ vii. 26. + +[Greek: Peritmaethaete to theo humon, kai peritemesthe taen +sklaerokardian humon ... kai esklaerunan ton trachaelon auton...] + + +A similar case of paraphrase and combination, with nothing to +mark the transition from one passage to the other, would be in c. +xi, Jer. ii. 12, 13 and Is. xvi. 1, 2. For paraphrase we may take +this, from the same chapter:-- + + +_Barnabas_ c. xi. + +[Greek: [kai palin heteros prophaetaes legei] Kai aen hae gae +Iakob epainoumenae para pasan taen gaen.] + +_Zeph_. iii. 19. + +[Greek: kai thaesomai autous eis kauchaema kai onomastous en pasae +tae gae.] + + +_Barnabas_ c. xv. + +[Greek: [autous de moi marturei legon] Idou saemeron haemera estai +hos chilia etae.] + +_Ps_. xc. 4 + +[Greek: hoti chilia etae en ophthalmois sou hos hae haemera hae +echthes haetis diaelthe.] + + +A very curious instance of freedom is the long narrative of Jacob +blessing the two sons of Joseph in c. xiii (compare Gen. xlviii. +11-19). We note here (and elsewhere) a kind of dramatic tendency, a +fondness for throwing statements into the form of dialogue rather +than narrative. As a narrative this passage may be compared with +the history of Rahab and the spies in Clement. + +And yet, in spite of all this licence in quotation, there are some +rather marked instances of exactness; e.g. Is. i. 11-14 in c. ii, +the combined passages from Ps. xxii. 17, cxvii. 12, xxii. 19 in c. +vi, and Ps. i. 3-6 in c. xi. It should also be remembered that in +one case, Deut. ix. 12 in cc. iv and xiv, the same variation is +repeated and is also found in Justin. + +It tallies with what we should expect, supposing the writings +attributed to Ignatius (the seven Epistles) to be genuine, that +the quotations from the Old as well as from the New Testament in +them are few and brief. A prisoner, travelling in custody to the +place of execution, would naturally not fill his letters with long +and elaborate references. The quotations from the Old Testament +are as follows:-- + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | + | | | +_Ad Eph._ |5. Prov. 3.34 | |James. 4.6, 1 Pet. 5.5, + | | | as Ignatius. + | | | +_Ad Magn._ |12. Prov. 18.17. | | + | | | +_Ad Trall._ | |8. Is. 52.5. | + + +The Epistle to the Ephesians is found also in the Syriac version. +The last quotation from Isaiah, which is however not introduced +with any express marks of reference, is very freely given. The +original is, [Greek: tade legei kurios, di' humas dia pantos to +onoma mou blasphaemeitai en tois ethnesi], for which Ignatius has, +[Greek: ouai gar di' ou epi mataiotaeti to onoma mou epi tinon +blasphaemeitai]. + +The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians and the Martyrium S. +Ignatii contain the following quotations:-- + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | + | | | + Polycarp, | 2. Ps. 2.11. | | +_Ad. Phil._ | | | + | | | +10. Tob. 4.11. | | |} +12. Ps. 4.4; | | |}in Latin + but through | | |} version only. + Eph. 4.26. | | |} + | | | +_Mart. S. Ign._ | | | + | |2. Lev. 26.12. | +6. Prov. 10.24. | | | + + +The quotation from Leviticus differs widely from the original, +[Greek: Kai emperipataeso en humin kai esomai humon theos kai +humeis esesthe moi laos], for which we read, [Greek: [gegraptai +gar] Enoikaeso en autois kai emperipataeso]. + +The quotations from the Clementine Homilies may be thus +presented:-- + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | | | +Hom. 3. | |18. Deut. 32.7. | + |39. +Gen. 18.21. | | + | Gen. 3.22. | | +39. Gen 6.6. | | | + | Gen. 8.21. | |omission. + | Gen. 22.1. | | + | |42. Gen. 3.3. | +43. Gen. 6.6. | | | + |43. Gen. 22.1. | |not quite as above. + | +Gen. 18.21. | |as above. +Gen. 15.13-16. | | |v.l. comp. text + | | | of A; note for + | | | exactness. +44. Gen. 18.21. | | |as LXX. + | |45. Num. 11.34 |[Greek: bounoun + | | (al.) | epithumion] for + | | | [Greek: mnaemata + | | | taes epithumas]. + |47. Deut. 34.4,5.| | + |49. Gen. 49.10. | |cf. Credner, + | | | _Beit._ 2.53. +Hom. 11. | | | +22. Gen. 1.1. | | | +Hom. 16. | | | +6. Gen. 3.22. | | |twice with slightly + | | | different order. +Gen. 3.5. | | | + |6. Ex. 22.28. | | + | |6. Deut. 4.34. |?mem. [Greek: + | | | allothi tou + | | | gegraptai]. +Jer. 10.11. | | | + | | Deut. 13.6. |?mem. [Greek: + | | | allae pou]. + | | Josh. 23.7. | + | Deut. 10.17. | | +Ps. 35.10. | | | +Ps. 50.1. | | | +Ps. 82.1. | | | + | Deut. 10.14. | | + | Deut. 4.39. | | + | Deut. 10.17. | |repeated as above. + | | Deut. 10.17. |very paraphrastic. + | | | +Hom. 16. | |6. Deut. 4.39. | +7. Deut. 6.13. | | | + Deut. 6.4. | | | + | |8. Josh. 23.7. |as above. +8. Exod. 22.18 + | | | + Jer. 10.11. | | | + Gen. 1.1. | | | + Ps. 19.2. | | | + |8. Ps. 102.26. | | + Gen. 1.26. | | | + | |13. Deut. 13.1-3, |very free. + | | 9, 5, 3. | +Hom. 17. | |18. Num. 12.6. |}paraphrastic + | | Ex. 33.11. |} combination. +Hom. 18. | |17. Is. 40.26,27. |free quotation. + | | Deut. 30.13. |ditto. +18. Is. 1.3. | | | + Is. 1.4. | | | + + +The example of the Clementine Homilies shows conspicuously the +extremely deceptive character of the argument from silence. All +the quotations from the Old Testament found in them are taken from +five Homilies (iii, xi, xvi, xvii, xviii) out of nineteen, although +the Homilies are lengthy compositions, filling, with the translation +and various readings, four hundred and fourteen large octavo pages +of Dressel's edition [Endnote 38:1]. Of the whole number of quotations +all but seven are taken from two Homilies, iii and xvi. If Hom. xvi +and Hom. xviii had been lost, there would have been no evidence that +the author was acquainted with any book of the Old Testament besides +the Pentateuch; and, if the five Homilies had been lost, there would +have been nothing to show that he was acquainted with the Old Testament +at all. Yet the loss of the two Homilies would have left a volume +of three hundred and seventy-seven pages, and that of the five a +volume of three hundred and fifteen pages. In other words, it is +possible to read three hundred and fifteen pages of the Homilies +with five breaks and come to no quotation from the Old Testament +at all, or three hundred and fifteen pages with only two breaks +and come to none outside the Pentateuch. But the reduced volume +that we have supposed, containing the fourteen Homilies, would +probably exceed in bulk the whole of the extant Christian literature +of the second century up to the time of Irenaeus, with the single +exception of the works of Justin; it will therefore be seen how +precarious must needs be any inference from the silence, not of +all these writings, but merely of a portion of them. + +For the rest, the quotations in the Homilies may be said to +observe a fair standard of exactness, one apparently higher than +that in the genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; at the +same time it should be remembered that the quotations in the +Homilies are much shorter, only two reaching a length of three +verses, while the longest quotations in the Epistle are precisely +those that are most exact. The most striking instance of accuracy +of quotation is perhaps Gen. xv. 13-16 in Hom. iii. 43. On the +other hand, there is marked freedom in the quotations from Deut. +iv. 34, x. 17, xiii. 1-3, xiii. 6. xxx. 15, Is. xl. 26, 27, and +the combined passage, Num. xii. 6 and Ex. xxiii. 11. There are +several repetitions, but these occur too near to each other to +permit of any inference. + +Our examination of the Old Testament quotations in Justin is +greatly facilitated by the collection and discussion of them in +Credner's Beiträge [Endnote 39:1], a noble example of that true +patient work which is indeed the reverse of showy, but forms the +solid and well-laid foundation on which alone genuine knowledge +can be built. Credner has collected and compared in the most +elaborate manner the whole of Justin's quotations with the various +readings in the MSS. of the LXX; so that we may state our results +with a much greater confidence than in any other case (except +perhaps Clement of Rome, where we have the equally accurate and +scholarly guidance of Dr. Lightfoot [Endnote 40:1]) that we are +not led astray by imperfect materials. I have availed myself +freely of Credner's collection of variants, indicating the cases +where the existence of documentary (or, in some places, +inferential) evidence for Justin's readings has led to the +quotation being placed in a different class from that to which it +would at first sight seem to belong. I have also, as hitherto, not +assumed an absolutely strict standard for admission to the first +class of 'exact' quotations. Many of Justin's quotations are very +long, and it seemed only right that in these the standard should +be somewhat, though very slightly, relaxed. The chief point that +we have to determine is the extent to which the writers of the +first century were in the habit of freely paraphrasing or quoting +from memory, and it may as a rule be assumed that all the +instances in the first class and most (not quite all) of those in +the second do not admit of such an explanation. I have been glad +in every case where a truly scientific and most impartial writer +like Credner gives his opinion, to make use of it instead of my +own. I have the satisfaction to think that whatever may be the +value of the other sections of this enquiry, this at least is +thoroughly sound, and based upon a really exhaustive sifting of +the data. + +The quotations given below are from the undoubted works of Justin, +the Dialogue against Tryphon and the First Apology; the Second +Apology does not appear to contain any quotations either from the +Old or New Testament. + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | + | | | + |Apol. 1.59, Gen. | | + | 1.1-3. | | +Dial. 62, Gen. 1. | | | + 26-28. | | | + |Dial. 102, Gen. | |free quotation + | 3.15. | | (Credner). +D.62, Gen. 3.22. | | | + |D.127, Gen. | | + | 7.16. | | + |D.139, Gen. 9. | | + | 24-27. | | + |D.127, Gen. 11.5. | |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) +D.102, Gen. 11.6. | | | + |D.92, Gen. 15.6. | |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) + | |Dial.10, +Gen. | + | | 17.14. | +D.127, Gen. 17.22.| | | + |D.56, +Gen. 18. | |ver. 2 repeated + | 1, 2. | | similarly. + | +Gen. 18. 13, 14. | |repeated, + | | | slightly more + | +Gen. 18. 16-23, | | divergent. + | 33. | | + | +Gen. 19. 1, 10, | | + | 16-28 (om. 26). | |marked exactness + | | | in the whole + | | | passage. +D.56, Gen. 21. | | | + 9-12. | | | +D.120, Gen. 26.4. | | | +D.58, Gen. 28. | | | + 10-12. | | | + |D.58, +(v.l.) Gen. | | + | 28. 13-19. | | + | +(v.l.) Gen. 31. | | + | 10-13. | | + | |D.59, Gen. 35.1. |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) +D.58, Gen. 35. | | | + 6-10 (v.l.) | | | +D. 52, Gen. 49. | | |repeated + 8-12. | | | similarly. +D. 59, Ex. 2. 23. | | | +D. 60, Ex. 3.2-4+.| |A.1. 62, Ex. 3. 5. |from memory + | | | (Cr.) + |D. 59, Ex. 3. 16. | | + | |A. 1.63, Ex. 3.16 |ver.16 freely + | | (ter), 17. | quoted (Cr.) + | | | [Greek: eirae- + | | | tai pou.] + |D. 126, Ex.6.2-4. | | + | |D. 49, Ex. 17.16. |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) + | |D. 94, Ex. 20.4. |ditto (Cr.) + |D. 75, Ex. 23.20, | |from Lectionary + | 21. | | (Cr.) +D.16, Lev. 26.40, | |D. 20, Ex. 32. 6. |free (Cr.) + 41 (v.l.) | | | + |D. 126, Num. 11. | | + | 23. | | + | |A.1.60 (or. obl.), |free (Cr.) + | | D. 94, Num. 21. | + | | 8,9. | + |D. 106, Num. 24. | |through Targum + | 17. | | (Cr.) + | |D. 16, Deut. 10. |from memory + | | 16, 17. | (Cr.) + | |D.96, Deut. 21.23. |both precisely + | | Deut. 27.26. | as St. Paul in + | | | Galatians, and + | | | quoted thence + | | | (Cr.) +D. 126, Deut. 31. | | | + 2, 3 (v.l.) | | | +D. 74, Deut. 31. | | | + 16-18 (v.l.) | | | +D. 131, Deut. 32. | | | + 7-9 (tr.) | | | + |D.20, Deut. 32.15. | | +D. 119, Deut. 32. | | |Targum (Cr.) + 16-23. | | | +D. 130, Deut. 32. | | | +43 (v.l.) | | | + |D. 91, +Deut. 33. | | + | 13-17. | | +A.1. 40, Ps. 1 and| | |parts repeated. + 2 entire. | | | + |D.97, Ps. 3. 5, 6. | |repeated, more + | | | freely. +D.114, Ps. 8.4. | | | +D.27, Ps. 14.3. | | | +D.28, Ps.18.44,45.| | | +D. 64, Ps.19.6 | | |perhaps from +(A.1.40, vv.1-5). | | | different + | | | MSS., see + | | | Credner. +D.97 ff., Ps. 22. | | |quoted as + 1-23. | | | _whole_ Psalm + | | | (bis). +D.133 ff., Ps. 24 | | | + entire. | | | + |D.141, Ps. 32. 2. | | +D.38, Ps. 45.1-17.| | |parts repeated. +D.37, Ps. 47.6-9. | | | +D.22, Ps. 49 | | | + entire. | | | + | |D.34} |{from Eph. 4.8, + | |D.37} Ps. 68.8. |{ Targum. +D.34, Ps. 72 | | | +entire. | | | +D. 124, Ps. 82 | | | + entire. | | | +D.73, Ps. 96 | | |note Christian + entire. | | | interpolation + | | | in ver. 10. +D.37, Ps. 99 | | | + entire. | |D. 83, Ps. 110. |from memory +D.32, Ps. 110 | | 1-4. | (Cr.) +entire. | | | + | |D.110, Ps. 128.3. |from memory +D.85, Ps. 148. | | | (Cr.) + 1, 2. | | | +A.1. 37, Is. 1. | | | + 3, 4. | | | + | |A.1. 47, Is. 1.7 |sense only + | | (Jer. 2.15). | (Cr.) + | |D.140 (A.1. 53), | + | | Is. 1.9. | + | |A.1. 37, Is. 1. |from memory + | | 11-14. | (Cr.) + |A.1. 44 (61), Is. | |omissions. + | 1.16-30. | | + | |D.82, Is. 1. 23. |from memory +A.1. 39, Is. 2. | | | (Cr.) + 3,4. | | | + |D.135, Is. 2. 5,6. | |Targum (Cr.) +D. 133, Is. 3. | | | + 9-15 (v.l.) | | | + | |D.27, Is. 3.16. |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) + |D.133, Is. 5. 18- | |repeated. + | 25 (v.l.) | | + |D.43 (66), Is. 7. | |repeated, with + | 10-17 (v.l.) | | slight + | | | variation. + | | A.1.35, Is. 9.6. |free (Cr.) +D.87, Is. 11.1-3. | |[A.1.32, Is. 11.1; |free combination + | | Num. 24.17. | (Cr.)] + |D.123, Is. 14.1. | | +D.123, Is. 19.24, | | | + 25+. | | | + |D.78, Is. 29.13,14.| |repeated (v.l), + | | | partly from + | | | memory. +D.79, Is. 30.1-5. | | | + |D.70, Is.33.13-19. | | + |D.69, Is. 35.1-7. |A.1.48, Is. 35.5,6.|free; cf. Matt. + | | | 11.5 (var.) +D.50, Is. 39. 8, | | | + 40.1-17. | | | + | |D.125} Is.42.1-4. |{cf. Matt. 12. + | |D.135} |{ 17-21, + | | | Targum (Cr.) +D.65, Is. 42.6-13 | | | + (v.l.) | | | + | |D.122, Is. 42.16. |free (Cr.) + |D.123, Is. 42.19, | | + | 20. | | +D.122, Is. 43.10. | | | + | |A.1.52, Is. 45. |cf. Rom. 14.11. + | | 24 (v.l.) | +D.121, Is. 49.6 | | | + (v.l.) | | | +D.122, Is. 49.8 | | | + (v.l.) | | | + |D.102, Is. 50.4. | | +A.1.38, Is. 50. | | |Barn., Tert., + 6-8. | | | Cypr. +D.11, Is. 51.4, 5.| | | +D.17, Is. 52.5 | | | + (v.l.) | | | +D.12, Is. 5 2, | | | + 10-15, 53.1-12, | | | + 54.1-6. | | | + |A.1. 50, Is. 52. | | + | 13-53.12. | | + | |D.138, Is. 54.9. |very free. +D.14, Is. 55.3-13.| |[D.12, Is. 55. 3-5.|from memory + | | | (Cr.)] +D.16, Is.57.1-4. | | |repeated. +D.15, Is.58.1-11 | | |[Greek: + (v.l.) | | | himatia] for + | | |[Greek: iamata]; + | | |so Barn., Tert, + | | |Cyp., Amb., Aug. +D.27, Is. 58. | | | + 13, 14. | | | + |D.26, +Is. 62.10- | |[Greek: + | 10-63.6. | | susseismon] for + | | |[Greek: + | | | sussaemon]. +D.25, Is. 63.15- | | | + 19, 64.1-12. | | | +D.24, Is. 65. 1-3.| |[A.1.49, Is. 65. |from memory + | | 1-3. | (Cr.)] +D.136, Is. 65.8. | | | +D.135, Is. 65.9-12| | | +D.81, Is. 65.17-25| | | + | |D.22, Is. 66.1. |from memory + | | | (Cr.) +D.85, Is. 66.5-11.| | | + | |D.44, Is. 66. 24 |from memory + | | (ter). | (Cr.) + | |D.114, Jer. 2.13; |as from + | | Is. 16.1; | Jeremiah, + | | Jer. 3.8. | traditional + | | | combination; + | | | cf. Barn. 2. + |D.28, Jer. 4.3, 4 | | + | (v.l.) | | + | |D.23, Jer. 7.21,22.|free quotation + | | | (Cr.) + |D. 28, Jer. 9.25,26|[A.1.53, Jer. 9.26.|quoted freely + | | | as from + | | | Isaiah.] + |D.72, Jer. 11.19. | |omissions. + | |D. 78, Jer. 31.15 |so Matt. 2.18 + | | (38.15, LXX). | through + | | | Targum (Cr.) + | |D.123, Jer. 31.27 |free quotation + | | (38. 27). | (Cr.) + |D.11, Jer. 31.31, | | + |32 (38.31, 32). | | + | |D.72. |a passage quoted + | | | as from + | | | Jeremiah, + | | | which is not + | | | recognisable + | | | in our present + | | | texts. + | |D. 82, Ezek. 3. |free quotation + | | 17-19. | (Cr.) + | |D.45} Ezek. 14. |} repeated + | | 44} 20; cf. 14, |} similarly and + | | 140} 16, 18. |} equally + | | |} divergent from + | | |} LXX. +D.77, Ezek. 16. 3.| | | +D.21, Ezek. 20. | | | + 19-26. | | | +D.123, Ezek. 36. | | | + 12. | | | + | |A.1.52, Ezek. |very free (Cr.) + | | 37. 7. | + +[Footnote: Justin has in Dial. 31 (also in Apol. 1. 51, ver. 13, from +memory) a long quotation from Daniel, Dan. 7. 9-28; his text can only +be compared with a single MS. of the LXX, Codex Chisianus; from this +it differs considerably, but many of the differences reappear in the +version of Theodotion; 7. 10, 13 are also similarly quoted in Rev., +Mark, Clem. Rom.] + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | + | |D.19, Hos. 1.9. | + | |D.102, Hos.10.6. |referred to + | | | trial before + | | | Herod (Cr.) + | |D.87, Joel 2.28. |from memory + | | | (Cr.) + |D. 22, +Amos | | + |5.18-6. 7 (v.l.) | | + |D. 107, Jonah 4. | | + | 10-11 (v.l. Heb.)| | + |D. 109, Micah 4. | |divergent from + | 1-7 (Heb.?) | | LXX. + | |A.1.34} Micah 5.2. |{precisely as + | |D.78 } |{ Matt. 2.6. + | | | + | |A.1.52, Zech. 2.6. |{free quotations + | |D. 137, Zech. 2. 8.|{ (Cr.) + |D. 115, Zach. 2. |[D. 79, Zech. 3. |freely (Cr.)] + | 10-3. 2 (Heb.?) | 1, 2. | +D.106, Zach. 6.12.| | | + | |A.1.52, Zech. 12. |repeated di- + | | 11,12,10. | versely [note + | | | reading of + | | | Christian ori- + | | | gin (Cr.) in + | | | ver. 10: + | | | so John 19.37; + | | | cp. Rev. 1.7]. + | |D.43, Zech. 13. 7. |diversely in + | | | Matt. 26.31, + | | | proof that + | | | Justin is + | | | not dependent + | | | on Matthew + | | | (Cr.) + |D.28, 41, Mal. 1. |D. 117, Mal. 1. | + | 10-12 (v.l.) | 10-12. | + |D.62, +Joshua 5. | |omissions. + | 13-15; 6.1, 2 | | + | (v.l.) | | + | |D.118, 2 Sam. 7. |from memory + | | 14-16. | (Cr.) + | |D.39, 1 Kings 19. |freely (Cr.); + | | 14, 15, 18. | cf. Rom. 11.3. +A.1.55, Lam. 4. | | | + 20 (v.l.) | | | + | |D.79, Job 1.6. |sense only + | | | (Cr.) + |D.61, +Prov. 8. | |coincidence + | 21-36. | | with Ire- + | | | naeus. + +[Footnote: D. 72 a passage ostensibly from Ezra, but probably an +apocryphal addition, perhaps from Preaching of Peter; same quotation +in Lactantius.] + + +It is impossible not to be struck with the amount of matter that +Justin has transferred to his pages bodily. He has quoted nine +Psalms entire, and a tenth with the statement (twice repeated) +that it is given entire, though really he has only quoted twenty- +three verses. The later chapters of Isaiah are also given with +extraordinary fulness. These longer passages are generally quoted +accurately. If Justin's text differs from the received text of the +LXX, it is frequently found that he has some extant authority for +his reading. The way in which Credner has drawn out these +varieties of reading, and the results which he obtained as to the +relations and comparative value of the different MSS., form +perhaps the most interesting feature of his work. The more marked +divergences in Justin may be referred to two causes; (1) quotation +from memory, in which he indulges freely, especially in the +shorter passages, and more in the Apology than in the Dialogue +with Tryphon; (2) in Messianic passages the use of a Targum, not +immediately by Justin himself but in some previous document from +which he quotes, in order to introduce a more distinctly Christian +interpretation; the coincidences between Justin and other +Christian writers show that the text of the LXX had been thus +modified in a Christian sense, generally through a closer +comparison with and nearer return to the Hebrew, before his time. +The instances of free quotation are not perhaps quite fully given +in the above list, but it will be seen that though they form a +marked phenomenon, still more marked is the amount of exactness. +Any long, not Messianic, passage, it appears to be the rule with +Justin to quote exactly. Among the passages quoted freely there +seem to be none of greater length than four verses. + +The exactness is especially remarkable in the plain historical +narratives of the Pentateuch and the Psalms, though it is also +evident that Justin had the MS. before him, and referred to it +frequently throughout the quotations from the latter part of +Isaiah. Through following the arrangement of Credner we have +failed to notice the cases of combination; these however are +collected by Dr. Westcott (On the Canon, p. 156). The most +remarkable instance is in Apol. i. 52, where six different +passages from three separate writers are interwoven together and +assigned bodily to Zechariah. There are several more examples of +mistaken ascription. + + * * * * * + +The great advantage of collecting the quotations from the Old +Testament is that we are enabled to do so in regard to the very +same writers among whom our enquiry is to lie. We can thus form a +general idea of their idiosyncracies, and we know what to expect +when we come to examine a different class of quotations. There is, +however, the element of uncertainty of which I have spoken above. +We cannot be quite clear what text the writer had before him. This +difficulty also exists, though to a less degree, when we come to +consider quotations from the New Testament in writers of an early +date whom we know to have used our present Gospels as canonical. +The text of these Gospels is so comparatively fixed, and we have +such abundant materials for its reconstruction, that we can +generally say at once whether the writer is quoting from it freely +or not. We have thus a certain gain, though at the cost of the +drawback that we can no longer draw an inference as to the +practice of individuals, but merely attain to a general conclusion +as to the habits of mind current in the age. This too will be +subject to a deduction for the individual bent and peculiarities +of the writer. We must therefore, on the whole, attach less +importance to the examples under this section than under that +preceding. + +I chose two writers to be the subject of this examination almost, +I may say, at random, and chiefly because I had more convenient +access to their works at the time. The first of these is Irenaeus, +that is to say the portions still extant in the Greek of his +Treatise against Heresies, [Endnote 49:1] and the second +Epiphanius. + +Irenaeus is described by Dr. Tregelles 'as a close and careful +quoter in general from the New Testament' [Endnote 49:2]. He may +therefore be taken to represent a comparatively high standard of +accuracy. In the following table the quotations which are merely +allusive are included in brackets:-- + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | +I. Praef. Matt. 10.26.| | | +I.3.2,Matt. 5.18. | | |quoted from + | | | Gnostics +I.3, 3, Mark 5.31. | | |Gnostics. + | |I.3.5, Luke 14.27. |Valentinians. + |I.3.5, Mark 10. | |the same. +I.3.5, Matt. 10.34. | 21 (v.l.) | |the same. +I.3.5, Luke 3.17. | | |the same. +I.4.3, Matt. 10.8. | | | +[I.6.1, Matt. 5. | | | + 13, 14, al.] | |I.7.4, Matt. 8.9.} |}the same. + | | Luke 7.8. } |} + | |I.8.2, Matt. 27.46.|Valentinians. +I.8.2. Matt. 26.38. | | |the same. + |I.8.2, Matt. | |the same. + | 26.39. | | + | |I.8.2, John 12.27. |the same. + | |I.8.3, Luke |the same. + | | 9.57,58. | + | |I.8.3, Luke |the same. + | | 9.61,62. | + |I.8.3, Luke | |the same. + | 9.60. | | + |I.8.3, Luke 19.5.| |the same. + | |I.8.4, Luke 15,4. |the same. + |[I.8.4, Luke | |the same. + | 15.8, al.]| | + |I.8.4, Luke 2.28.| |the same. +[I.8.4., Luke | | |the same. + 6.36, al.] | | | +I.8.4, Luke 7.35 | | |the same. + (v.l.) | | | +I.8.5, John 1.1,2. | | |the same. +I.8.5, John 1.3 | | |the same. + (v.l.) | | | +I.8.5, John 1.4. | | |the same. + (v.l.) | | | + | |I.8.5, John 1.5. |the same. +I.8.5, John 1.14. | |I.8.5, John 1.14. |[the same + | | | verse rep- + | | | eated dif- + | | | ferently.] + | |[I.14.1. Matt. |Marcus. + | | 18.10,al.] | + |[I.16.1, Luke | |Marcosians. + | 15.8,al.]| | + | |[I.16.3, Matt. |the same. + | | 12,43,al.] | + |I.20.2, Luke | |the same. + | 2.49. | | + | |I.20.2, Mark 10.18.|['memoriter'- + | | | Stieren; but + | | | comp. Clem. + | | | Hom. and + | | | and Justin.] + |I.20.2, Matt. | |Marcosians. + | 21.23.| | + | |I.20.2, Luke 19.42.|the same. +I.20.2, Matt. | | |the same. + 11.28 (? om.).| | | + | |I.20.3, Luke 10.21.|the same; + | | (Matt. 11.25 | [v.l., comp. + | | 25.) | Marcion, + | | | Clem. Hom., + | | | Justin, &c.] + | |I.21.2, Luke 12.50.|Marcosians. + |I.21.2, Mark | |Marcosians. + | 10.36. | | +III.11.8, John | | | + 1.1-3 (?). | | | +III.11.8, Matt. | | | + 1.1,18 (v.l.)| | | + |III.11.8, Mark | |omissions. + | 1.1,2. | | +III.22.2, John 4.6. | | | +III.22.2, Matt. 26.38.| | | + |IV.26.1, } Matt. | | + |IV.40.3, } 13.38.| | + |IV.40.3, Matt. | | + | 13.25. | | +V.17.4, Matt. 3.10. | | | + | |V.36.2, John 14.2 | + | | (or obl.) | + | |Fragm. 14, Matt. | + | | 15.17. | + +On the whole these quotations of Irenaeus seem fairly to deserve +the praise given to them by Dr. Tregelles. Most of the free +quotations, it will be seen, belong not so much to Irenaeus +himself, as to the writers he is criticising. In some places (e.g. +iv. 6. 1, which is found in the Latin only) he expressly notes a +difference of text. In this very place, however, he shows that he +is quoting from memory, as he speaks of a parallel passage in St. +Mark which does not exist. Elsewhere there can be little doubt +that either he or the writer before him quoted loosely from +memory. Thus Luke xii. 50 is given as [Greek: allo baptisma echo +baptisthaenai kai panu epeigomai eis auto] for [Greek: baptisma de +echo baptisthaenai kai pos sunechomai heos hotou telesthae]. The +quotation from Matt. viii. 9 is represented as [Greek: kai gar ego +hupo taen emautou exousian echo stratiotas kai doulous kai ho ean +prostaxo poiousi], which is evidently free; those from Matt. +xviii. 10, xxvii. 46, Luke ix. 57, 58, 61, 62, xiv. 27, xix. 42, +John i. 5, 14 (where however there appears to be some confusion in +the text of Irenaeus), xiv. 2, also seem to be best explained as +made from memory. + +The list given below, of quotations from the Gospels in the +Panarium or 'Treatise against Heresies' of Epiphanius [Endnote +52:1], is not intended to be exhaustive. It has been made from the +shorter index of Petavius, and being confined to the 'praecipui +loci' consists chiefly of passages of substantial length and +entirely (I believe) of express quotations. It has been again +necessary to distinguish between the quotations made directly by +Epiphanius himself and those made by the heretical writers whose +works he is reviewing. + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | Variant._ | | +426A, Matt. 1.1; | | | + Matt. 1.18, | | | + (v.l.) | | | + |426BC, Matt. | |abridged, diver- + | 1.18-25+.| | gent in middle. + | |430B, Matt. 2.13. |Porphyry & Celsus. + | |44C, Matt. 5.34,37| + |59C, Matt. | | + | 5.17,18.| | +180B, Matt. 5.18+.| | |Valentinians. + | |226A, Matt. 5.45. | + |72A, Matt. 7.6. | |Basilidians. +404C, Matt. 7.15. | | | + | |67C. Matt. 8.11. | + | |650B. Matt. | + | | 8.28-34 (par.)| + |303A, Matt. | |Marcion. + | 9.17,16.| | + |71B, Matt. 10.33.| |Basilidians. + |274B, Matt. | | + | 10.16.| | +88A, Matt. 11.7. |143B, Matt. | |Gnostics. + | 11.18.| | + |254B, Matt. | |Marcosians. + | 11.28.| | + | |139AB, Matt. |Ebionites. + | | 12.48 sqq. (v.l.)| +174C, Matt. 10.26.| | | + | |464B, Matt. |Theodotus. + | | 12.31,32.| + |33A, Matt. 23.5. | | + | |218D, Matt. 15.4-6|Ptolemaeus. + | | (or. obl.)| + | |490C, Matt. 15.20.| + | | Mark 7.21,22.| + | |490A, Matt. 18.8. |}compression + | | Mark 9.43. |} + | |679BC, Matt. |Manes. + | | 13.24-30,37-39.| + | |152B, Matt. 5.27. | + |59CD, Matt. | | + | 19.10-12.| | + |59D, Matt. 19.6. | | + | |81A, Matt. 19.12. | + | |97D, Matt. 22.30. | + | |36BC, Matt. 23. |remarkable compo- + | | 23,25; 23.18-20.| sition, probably + | | | from memory. + | | (5.35); Mark | + | | 7.11-13; Matt. | + | | 23.15. | + | |226A, Matt. 23.29;|composition. + | | Luke 11.47.| + | |281A, Matt. 23.35.| + | |508C, Matt. 25.34.| + | |146AB, Matt. 26. |narrative. + | | 17,18; Mark 14. | + | | 12-14; Luke 22. | + | | 9-11. | + | |279D, Matt. 26.24.| + | |390B, Matt. 21.33,| + | | par. | + |50A, Matt. 28.19.| | + |427B, Mark 1.1,2.| | + | (v.1.)| | + |428C, Mark 1.4. | | + | |457D, Mark 3.29; |singular + | | Matt. 12.31; |composition. + | | Luke 12.10. | + |400D, Matt. 19.6;| | + | Mark 10.9. | | + | |650C, Matt. 8. |narrative. + | | 28-34; Mark 5. | + | | 1-20; Luke 8. | + | | 26-39. | + +[These last five quotations have already been given under Irenaeus, whom +Epiphanius is transcribing.] + + |464D, Luke 12.9; | |composition. + | Matt. 10.33.| | + |181B, Luke 14.27.| |Valentians. + |401A, Luke 21.34.| | + |143C, Luke 24.42.| | + | (v. 1.)| | + |349C, Luke 24. | |Marcion. + | 38,39| | +384B, John 1.1-3. | | | +148A, John 1.23. | | | + |148B, John | | + | 2.16,17.| | + |89C, John 3.12. | |Gnostics. + |274A, John 3.14 | | +59C, John 5.46. | | | + | |162B, John 5.8. | +66C, John 5.17. | | | + |919A, John 5.18. | | + | |117D, John 6.15. | + |89D, John 6.53. | |the same. + |279D, John 6.70. | | + | |279B, John 8.44. | + |463D, John 8.40. | |Theodotus. + | |148B, John 12.41. | + | |153A, John 12.22. | + |75C, John 14.6. | | +919C, John 14.10. | | | +921D, John 17.3. | | | + | |279D, John | + | | 17.11,12.| + |119D, John 18.36.| | + +It is impossible here not to notice the very large amount of +freedom in the quotations. The exact quotations number only +fifteen, the slightly variant thirty-seven, and the markedly +variant forty. By far the larger portion of this last class and +several instances in the second it seems most reasonable to refer +to the habit of quoting from memory. This is strikingly +illustrated by the passage 117 D, Where the retreat of Jesus and +His disciples to Ephraim is treated as a consequence of the +attempt 'to make Him king' (John vi. 15), though in reality it did +not take place till after the raising of Lazarus and just before +the Last Passover (see John xi. 54). A very remarkable case of +combination is found in 36 BC, where a single quotation is made up +of a cento of no less than six separate passages taken from all +three Synoptic Gospels and in the most broken order. Fusions so +complete as this are usually the result of unconscious acts of the +mind, i.e. of memory. A curious instance of the way in which the +Synoptic parallels are blended together in a compound which +differs from each and all of them is presented in 437 D ([Greek: +to blasphaemounti eis to pneuma to hagion ouk aphethaesetai auto +oute en to nun aioni oute en to mellonti]). Another example of +Epiphanius' manner in skipping backwards and forwards from one +Synoptic to another may be seen in 218 D, which is made up of +Matt. xv. 4-9 and Mark vii. 6-13. A strange mistake is made in 428 +D, where [Greek: paraekolouthaekoti] is taken with [Greek: tois +autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou]. Many kinds of variation find +examples in these quotations of Epiphanius, to some of which we +may have occasion to allude more particularly later on. + +It should be remembered that these are not by any means selected +examples. Neither Irenaeus nor Epiphanius are notorious for free +quotation--Irenaeus indeed is rather the reverse. Probably a much +more plentiful harvest of variations would have been obtained e.g. +from Clement of Alexandria, from whose writings numerous instances +of quotation following the sense only, of false ascription, of the +blending of passages, of quotations from memory, are given in the +treatise of Bp. Kaye [Endnote 56:1]. Dr. Westcott has recently +collected [Endnote 56:2] the quotations from Chrysostom _On the +Priesthood,_ with the result that about one half present +variations from the Apostolic texts, and some of these variations, +which he gives at length, are certainly very much to the point. + +I fear we shall have seemed to delay too long upon this first +preliminary stage of the enquiry, but it is highly desirable that +we should start with a good broad inductive basis to go upon. We +have now an instrument in our hands by which to test the alleged +quotations in the early writers; and, rough and approximate as +that instrument must still be admitted to be, it is at least much +better than none at all. + + + + + +CHAPTER III. + +THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. + + +To go at all thoroughly into all the questions that may be raised +as to the date and character of the Christian writings in the +early part of the second century would need a series of somewhat +elaborate monographs, and, important as it is that the data should +be fixed with the utmost attainable precision, the scaffolding +thus raised would, in a work like the present, be out of +proportion to the superstructure erected upon it. These are +matters that must be decided by the authority of those who have +made the provinces to which they belong a subject of special +study: all we can do will be to test the value of the several +authorities in passing. + +In regard to Clement of Rome, whose First (genuine) Epistle to the +Corinthians is the first writing that meets us, the author of +'Supernatural Religion' is quite right in saying that 'the great mass +of critics ... assign the composition of the Epistle to the end of the +first century (A.D. 95-100)' [Endnote 58:1]. There is as usual a right +and a left wing in the array of critics. The right includes several of +the older writers; among the moderns the most conspicuous figure is the +Roman Catholic Bishop Hefele. Tischendorf also, though as it is pointed +out somewhat inconsistently, leans to this side. According to their +opinion the Epistle would be written shortly before A.D. 70. On the +left, the names quoted are Volkmar, Baur, Scholten, Stap, and Schwegler +[Endnote 59:1]. Baur contents himself with the remark that the Epistle +to the Corinthians, 'as one of the oldest documents of Christian +antiquity, might have passed without question as a writing of the Roman +Clement,' had not this Clement become a legendary person and had so +many spurious works palmed off upon him [Endnote 59:2]. But it is +surely no argument to say that because a certain number of extravagant +and spurious writings are attributed to Clement, therefore one so sober +and consistent with his position, and one so well attested as this, is +not likely to have been written by him. The contrary inference would be +the more reasonable, for if Clement had not been an important person, +and if he had left no known and acknowledged writings, divergent +parties in the Church would have had no reason for making use of his +name. But arguments of this kind cannot have much weight. Probably not +one half of the writings attributed to Justin Martyr are genuine; but +no one on that account doubts the Apologies and the Dialogue with +Tryphon. + +Schwegler [Endnote 59:3], as is his wont, has developed the opinion of +Baur, adding some reasons of his own. Such as, that the letter shows +Pauline tendencies, while 'according to the most certain traditions' +Clement was a follower of St. Peter; but the evidence for the Epistle +(Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, A.D. 165-175, Hegesippus, and +Irenaeus in the most express terms) is much older and better than +these 'most certain traditions' (Tertullian and Origen), even if they +proved anything: 'in the Epistle of Clement use is made of the Epistle +to the Hebrews;' but surely, according to any sober canons of +criticism, the only light in which this argument can be regarded is as +so much evidence for the Epistle to the Hebrews: the Epistle implies a +development of the episcopate which 'demonstrably' (nachweislich) did +not take place until during the course of the second century; what the +'demonstration' is does not appear, and indeed it is only part of the +great fabric of hypothesis that makes up the Tübingen theory. + +Volkmar strikes into a new vein [Endnote 60:1]. The Epistle of Clement +presupposes the Book of Judith; but the Book of Judith must be dated +A.D. 117-118; and therefore the Epistle of Clement will fall about +A.D. 125. What is the ground for this reasoning? It consists in a +theory, which Volkmar adopted and developed from Hitzig, as to the +origin of the Book of Judith. That book is an allegorical or symbolical +representation of events in the early part of the rising of the Jews +under Barcochba; Judith is Judaea, Nebuchadnezzar Trajan; Assyria +stands for Syria, Nineveh for Antioch, Arphaxad for a Parthian king +Arsaces, Ecbatana for Nisibis or perhaps Batnae; Bagoas is the eunuch- +service in general; Holofernes is the Moor Lucius Quietus. Out of +these elements an elaborate historical theory is constructed, which +Ewald and Fritzsche have taken the trouble to refute on historical +grounds. To us it is very much as if Ivanhoe were made out to be +an allegory of incidents in the French Revolution; or as if the +'tale of Troy divine' were, not a nature-myth or Euemeristic legend +of long past ages, but a symbolical representation of events under +the Pisistratidae. + +Examples such as this are apt to draw from the English reader a +sweeping condemnation of German criticism, and yet they are really +only the sports or freaks of an exuberant activity. The long list +given in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 61:1] of those who +maintain the middle date of Clement's Epistle (A.D. 95-100) +includes apparently all the English writers, and among a number of +Germans the weighty names of Bleek, Ewald, Gieseler, Hilgenfeld, +Köstlin, Lipsius, Laurent, Reuss, and Ritschl. From the point of +view either of authority or of argument there can be little doubt +which is the soundest and most judicious decision. + +Now what is the bearing of the Epistle of Clement upon the +question of the currency and authority of the Synoptic Gospels? +There are two passages of some length which are without doubt +evangelical quotations, though whether they are derived from the +Canonical Gospels or not may be doubted. + +The first passage occurs in c. xiii. It will be necessary to give +it in full with the Synoptic parallels, in order to appreciate the +exact amount of difference and resemblance which it presents. + + +_Matt._ v. 7, vi. 14, |_Clem. ad Cor._ c. xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31, + vii. 12,2. | | vi. 38, 37, 38. + | [Especially re- | + | membering the word | + | of the Lord Jesus | + | which he spake ... | + | For thus he said:] | +v. 7. Blessed are | Pity ye, that ye may | vi. 36. Be ye mer- +the pitiful, for they | be pitied: forgive, | ciful, etc. vi. 37. Ac- +shall be pitied. vi. | that it may be for- | quit, and ye shall be +14. For if ye for | given unto you. As | acquitted. vi. 3 1. +give men their tres- | ye do, so shall it | And as ye would +passes, etc. vii. 12. | be done unto you: | that they should do +All things therefore | as ye give, so shall | unto you, do ye +whatsoever ye would | it be given. unto you: | also unto them like +that men should do | as ye judge, so shall | wise. vi. 38. Give, +unto you, even so do | it be judged unto | and it shall be given +ye unto them. vii. 2. | you: as ye are kind, | unto you. vi. 3 7. +For with what judg- | so shall kindness be | And judge not, and +ment ye judge, ye | shown unto you: | ye shall not be +shall be judged: and | | judged. +with what measure | with what measure | For with what +ye mete, it shall be | ye mete, with it shall | measure ye mete, it +measured unto you. | it be measured unto | shall be measured + | you. | unto you again. + + + [GREEK TABLE] +_Matt._ v. 7, vi. 14, |_Clem. ad Cor._ c. xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31, + vii. 12,2. | | vi. 38, 37, 38. + | | + v.7. makarioi hoi |eleeite hina eleaethaete.| vi. 36. ginesthe +eleaemones hoti autoi | |oiktirmones, k.t.l. +eleaethaesontai. | | + vi. 14. ean gar | aphiete hina aphethae | vi. 37. apoluete kai +aphaete tois anth. ta |humin. |apoluthaesesthe. +paraptomata auton. | | + vii. 12. panta oun | hos poieite houto | vi. 31. kai kathos +hosa ean thelaete hina |poiaethaesetai humin. |thelete hina poiosin +poiosin humin hoi anth.| |humin hoi anthropoi kai +houtos kai humeis | |humeis poieite autois + | |homoios poieite autois. + | hos didote houtos | vi. 38. didote, kai + |dothaesetai humin. |dothaesetai humin. +vii. 2. en ho gar | hos krinete houtos | vi. 37. kai mae +krimati krinete |krithaesetai humin. |krinete kai ou mae +krithaesesthe. | |krithaete. + | hos chraesteuesthe | + |houtos chraesteuthaesetai| + |humin. | +kai en ho metro | ho metro metreite en | vi. 38. to gar auto +metreite |auto metraethaesetai |metro ho metreite +metraethaesetai humin. |humin. |antimetraethaesetai + | |humin. + + +We are to determine whether this quotation was taken from the +Canonical Gospels. Let us try to balance the arguments on both +sides as fairly as possible. Dr. Lightfoot writes in his note upon +the passage as follows: 'As Clement's quotations are often very +loose, we need not go beyond the Canonical Gospels for the source +of this passage. The resemblance to the original is much closer +here, than it is for instance in his account of Rahab above, § 12. +The hypothesis therefore that Clement derived the saying from oral +tradition, or from some lost Gospel, is not needed.' (1) No doubt +it is true that Clement does often quote loosely. The difference +of language, taking the parallel clauses one by one, is not +greater than would be found in many of his quotations from the Old +Testament. (2) Supposing that the order of St. Luke is followed, +there will be no greater dislocation than e.g. in the quotation +from Deut. ix. 12-14 and Exod. xxxii. (7, 8), 11, 31, 32 in c. +liii, and the backward order of the quotation would have a +parallel in Clem. Hom. xvi. 13, where the verses Deut. xiii. 1-3, +5, 9 are quoted in the order Deut. xiii. 1-3, 9, 5, 3,--and +elsewhere. The composition of a passage from different places in +the same book, or more often from places in different books, such +as would be the case if Clement was following Matthew, frequently +occurs in his quotations from the Old Testament. (3) We have no +positive evidence of the presence of this passage in any non- +extant Gospel. (4) Arguments from the manner of quoting the Old +Testament to the manner of quoting the New must always be to a +certain extent _a fortiori_, for it is undeniable that the +New Testament did not as yet stand upon the same footing of +respect and authority as the Old, and the scarcity of MSS. must +have made it less accessible. In the case of converts from +Judaism, the Old Testament would have been largely committed to +memory in youth, while the knowledge of the New would be only +recently acquired. These considerations seem to favour the +hypothesis that Clement is quoting from our Gospels. + +But on the other hand it may be urged, (1) that the parallel +adduced by Dr. Lightfoot, the story of Rahab, is not quite in +point, because it is narrative, and narrative both in Clement and +the other writers of his time is dealt with more freely than +discourse. (2) The passage before us is also of greater length +than is usual in Clement's free quotations. I doubt whether as +long a piece of discourse can be found treated with equal freedom, +unless it is the two doubtful cases in c. viii and c. xxix. (3) It +will not fail to be noticed that the passage as it stands in +Clement has a roundness, a compactness, a balance of style, which +give it an individual and independent appearance. Fusions effected +by an unconscious process of thought are, it is true, sometimes +marked by this completeness; still there is a difficulty in +supposing the terse antitheses of the Clementine version to be +derived from the fuller, but more lax and disconnected, sayings in +our Gospels. (4) It is noticed in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote +65:1] that the particular phrase [Greek: chraesteusthe] has at +least a partial parallel in Justin [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kai +oiktirmones], though it has none in the Canonical Gospels. This +may seem to point to a documentary source no longer extant. + +Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we only knew +what was the common original of the two Synoptic texts. How do +they come to be so like and yet so different as they are? How do +they come to be so strangely broken up? The triple synopsis, which +has to do more with narrative, presents less difficulty, but the +problem raised by these fragmentary parallelisms in discourse is +dark and complex in the extreme; yet if it were only solved it +would in all probability give us the key to a wide class of +phenomena. The differences in these extra-canonical quotations do +not exceed the differences between the Synoptic Gospels +themselves; yet by far the larger proportion of critics regard the +resemblances in the Synoptics as due to a common written source +used either by all three or by two of them. The critics have not +however, I believe, given any satisfactory explanation of the +state of dispersion in which the fragments of this latter class +are found. All that can be at present done is to point out that +the solution of this problem and that of such quotations as the +one discussed in Clement hang together, and that while the one +remains open the other must also. + +Looking at the arguments on both sides, so far as we can give +them, I incline on the whole to the opinion that Clement is not +quoting directly from our Gospels, but I am quite aware of the +insecure ground on which this opinion rests. It is a nice balance +of probabilities, and the element of ignorance is so large that +the conclusion, whatever it is, must be purely provisional. +Anything like confident dogmatism on the subject seems to me +entirely out of place. + +Very much the same is to be said of the second passage in c. xlvi +compared with Matt. xxvi. 24, xviii. 6, or Luke xvii. 1, 2. It hardly +seems necessary to give the passage in full, as this is already done +in 'Supernatural Religion,' and it does not differ materially from +that first quoted, except that it is less complicated and the +supposition of a quotation from memory somewhat easier. The critic +indeed dismisses the question summarily enough. He says that 'the +slightest comparison of the passage with our Gospels is sufficient to +convince any unprejudiced mind that it is neither a combination of +texts nor a quotation from memory' [Endnote 66:1]. But this very +confident assertion is only the result of the hasty and superficial +examination that the author has given to the facts. He has set down +the impression that a modern might receive, at the first blush, +without having given any more extended study to the method of the +patristic quotations. I do not wish to impute blame to him for this, +because we are all sure to take up some points superficially; but the +misfortune is that he has spent his labour in the wrong place. He +has, in a manner, revived the old ecclesiastical argument from +authority by heaping together references, not always quite digested +and sifted, upon points that often do not need them, and he has +neglected that consecutive study of the originals which alone could +imbue his mind with their spirit and place him at the proper point of +view for his enquiry. + +The hypothesis that Clement's quotation is made _memoriter_ from our +Gospel is very far from being inadmissible. Were it not that the +other passage seems to lean the other way, I should be inclined to +regard it as quite the most probable solution. Such a fusion is +precisely what _would_ and frequently _does_ take place in quoting +from memory. It is important to notice the key phrases in the +quotation. The opening phrases [Greek: ouai to anthropo ekeino; kalon +aen auto ei ouk egennaethae] are found _exactly_ (though with +omissions) in Matt. xxvi. 24. Clement has in common with the +Synoptists all the more marked expressions but two, [Greek: +skandalisai] ([Greek: -sae] Synoptics), the unusual word [Greek: +mulos] (Matt., Mark), [Greek: katapontisthaenai] ([Greek: -thae] +Matt.), [Greek: eis taen thalassan] (Mark, Luke), [Greek: hena ton +mikron] ([Greek: mou] Clement, [Greek: touton] Synoptics). He differs +from them, so far as phraseology is concerned, only in writing _once_ +(the second time he agrees with the Synoptics) [Greek: ton eklekton +mou] for [Greek: ton mikron touton], by an easy paraphrase, and +[Greek: peritethaenai] where Mark and Luke have [Greek: perikeitai] +and Matthew [Greek: kremasthae]. But on the other hand, it should be +noticed that Matthew has, besides this variation, [Greek: en to +pelagei taes thalassaes], where the two companion Gospels have +[Greek: eis taen thalassan]; where he has [Greek: katapontisthae], +Mark has [Greek: beblaetai] and Luke [Greek: erriptai]; and in the +important phrase for 'it were better' all the three Gospels differ, +Matthew having [Greek: sumpherei], Mark [Greek: kalon estin], and +Luke [Greek: lusitelei]; so that it seems not at all too much to say +that Clement does not differ from the Synoptics more than they differ +from each other. The remarks that the author makes, in a general way, +upon these differences lead us to ask whether he has ever definitely +put to himself the question, How did they arise? He must be aware +that the mass of German authorities he is so fond of quoting admit of +only two alternatives, that the Synoptic writers copied either from +the same original or from each other, and that the idea of a merely +oral tradition is scouted in Germany. But if this is the case, if so +great a freedom has been exercised in transcription, is it strange +that Clement (or any other writer) should be equally free in +quotation? + +The author rightly notices--though he does not seem quite to +appreciate its bearing--the fact that Marcion and some codices (of +the Old Latin translation) insert, as Clement does, the phrase +[Greek: ei ouk egennaethae ae] in the text of St. Luke. Supposing +that this were the text of St. Luke's Gospel which Clement had before +him, it would surely be so much easier to regard his quotation as +directly taken from the Gospel; but the truer view perhaps would be +that we have here an instance (and the number of such instances in +the older MSS. is legion) of the tendency to interpolate by the +insertion of parallel passages from the same or from the other +Synoptic Gospels. Clement and Marcion (with the Old Latin) will then +confirm each other, as showing that even at this early date the two +passages, Matt. xxvi. 24 and Matt. xviii. 6 (Luke xvii. 2), had +already begun to be combined. + +There is one point more to be noticed before we leave the Epistle +of Clement. There is a quotation from Isaiah in this Epistle which +is common to it with the first two Synoptics. Of this Volkmar +writes as follows, giving the words of Clement, c. xv, 'The +Scripture says somewhere, This people honoureth me with their +lips, but their heart is far from me,' ([Greek: houtos ho laos +tois cheilesin me tima hae de kardia auton porro apestin ap' +emou]). 'This "Scripture" the writer found in Mark vii. 6 +(followed in Matt. xv. 8), and in that shape he could not at once +remember where it stood in the Old Testament. It is indeed Mark's +peculiar reproduction of Is. xxix. 13, in opposition to the +original and the LXX. A further proof that the Roman Christian has +here our Synoptic text in his mind, may be taken from c. xiii, +where he quotes Jer. ix. 24 with equal divergence from the LXX, +after the precedent of the Apostle (1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 17) +whose letters he expressly refers to (c. xlvii) [Endnote 69:1]. +It is difficult here to avoid the conclusion that Clement is +quoting the Old Testament through the medium of our Gospels. The +text of the LXX is this, [Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos en to +stomati autou kai en tois cheilesin auton timosin me]. Clement has +the passage exactly as it is given in Mark ([Greek: ho laos +houtos] Matt.), except that he writes [Greek: apestin] where both +of the Gospels have [Greek: apechei] with the LXX. The passage is +not Messianic, so that the variation cannot be referred to a +Targum; and though A. and six other MSS. in Holmes and Parsons +omit [Greek: en to stomati autou] (through wrong punctuation-- +Credner), still there is no MS. authority whatever, and naturally +could not be, for the omission of [Greek: engizei moi ... kai] and +for the change of [Greek: timosin] to [Greek: tima]. There can be +little doubt that this was a free quotation in the original of the +Synoptic Gospels, and it is in a high degree probable that it has +passed through them into Clement of Rome. It might perhaps be +suggested that Clement was possibly quoting the earlier document, +the original of our Synoptics, but this suggestion seems to be +excluded both by his further deviation from the LXX in [Greek: +apestin], and also by the phenomena of the last quotation we have +been discussing, which are certainly of a secondary character. +Altogether I cannot but regard this passage as the strongest +evidence we possess for the use of the Synoptic Gospels by +Clement; it seems to carry the presumption that he did use them up +to a considerable degree of probability. + +It is rather singular that Volkmar, whose speculations about the +Book of Judith we have seen above, should be so emphatic as he is +in asserting the use of all three Synoptics by Clement. We might +almost, though not quite, apply with a single change to this +critic a sentence originally levelled at Tischendorf, to the +intent that 'he systematically adopts the latest (earliest) +possible or impossible dates for all the writings of the first two +centuries,' but he is able to admit the use of the first and third +Synoptics (the publication of which he places respectively in 100 +and 110 A.D.) by throwing forward the date of Clement's Epistle, +through the Judith-hypothesis, to A.D. 125. We may however accept +the assertion for what it is worth, as coming from a mind +something less than impartial, while we reject the concomitant +theories. For my own part I do not feel able to speak with quite +the same confidence, and yet upon the whole the evidence, which on +a single instance might seem to incline the other way, does appear +to favour the conclusion that Clement used our present Canonical +Gospels. + + 2. + +There is not, so far as I am aware, any reason to complain of the +statement of opinion in 'Supernatural Religion' as to the date of +the so-called Epistle of Barnabas. Arguing then entirely from +authority, we may put the _terminus ad quem_ at about 130 +A.D. The only writer who is quoted as placing it later is Dr. +Donaldson, who has perhaps altered his mind in the later edition +of his work, as he now writes: 'Most (critics) have been inclined +to place it not later than the first quarter of the second +century, and all the indications of a date, though very slight, +point to this period' [Endnote 71:1]. + +The most important issue is raised on a quotation in c. iv, 'Many +are called but few chosen,' in the Greek of the Codex Sinaiticus +[Greek: [prosechomen, maepote, hos gegraptai], polloi klaetoi, +oligoi de eklektoi eurethomen.] This corresponds exactly with +Matt. xxii. 14, [Greek: polloi gar eisin klaetoi, oligoi de +eklektoi]. The passage occurs twice in our present received text +of St. Matthew, but in xx. 16 it is probably an interpolation. +There also occurs in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) viii. 3 the sentence, 'Many +were created but few shall be saved' [Endnote 71:2]. Our author +spends several pages in the attempt to prove that this is the +original of the quotation in Barnabas and not the saying in St. +Matthew. We have the usual positiveness of statement: 'There can +be no doubt that the sense of the reading in 4 Ezra is exactly +that of the Epistle.' 'It is impossible to imagine a saying more +irrelevant to its context than "Many are called but few chosen" in +Matt. xx. 16,' where it is indeed spurious, though the relevancy +of it might very well be maintained. In Matt. xxii. 14, where the +saying is genuine, 'it is clear that the facts distinctly +contradict the moral that "few are chosen."' When we come to a +passage with a fixed idea it is always easy to get out of it what +we wish to find. As to the relevancy or irrelevancy of the clause +in Matt. xxii. 14 I shall say nothing, because it is in either +case undoubtedly genuine. But it is surely a strange paradox to +maintain that the words 'Many were created but few shall be saved' +are nearer in meaning to 'Many are called but few chosen' than the +repetition of those very words themselves. Our author has +forgotten to notice that Barnabas has used the precise word +[Greek: klaetoi] just before; indeed it is the very point on which +his argument turns, 'because we are called do not let us therefore +rest idly upon our oars; Israel was called to great privileges, +yet they were abandoned by God as we see them; let us therefore +also take heed, for, as it is written, many are called but few +chosen.' I confess I find it difficult to conceive anything more +relevant, and equally so to see any special relevancy, in the +vague general statement 'Many were created but few shall be +saved.' + +But even if it were not so, if it were really a question between +similarity of context on the one hand and identity of language on +the other, there ought to be no hesitation in declaring that to be +the original of the quotation in which the language was identical +though the context might be somewhat different. Any one who has +studied patristic quotations will know that context counts for +very little indeed. What could be more to all appearance remote +from the context than the quotation in Heb. i. 7, 'Who maketh his +angels spirits and his ministers a flaming fire'? where the +original is certainly referring to the powers of nature, and means +'who maketh the winds his messengers and a flame of fire his +minister;' with the very same sounds we have a complete inversion +of the sense. This is one of the most frequent phenomena, as our +author cannot but know [Endnote 73:1]. + +Hilgenfeld, in his edition of the Epistle of Barnabas, repels +somewhat testily the imputation of Tischendorf, who criticises him +as if he supposed that the saying in St. Matthew was not directly +referred to [Endnote 73:2]. This Hilgenfeld denies to be the case. +In regard to the use of the word [Greek: gegraptai] introducing +the quotation, the same writer urges reasonably enough that it +cannot surprise us at a time when we learn from Justin Martyr that +the Gospels were read regularly at public worship; it ought not +however to be pressed too far as involving a claim to special +divine inspiration, as the same word is used in the Epistle in +regard to the apocryphal book of Enoch, and it is clear also from +Justin that the Canon of the Gospels was not yet formed but only +forming. + +The clause, 'Give to every one that asketh of thee' [Greek: panti +to aitounti se didou], though admitted into the text of c. xix by +Hilgenfeld and Weizsäcker, is wanting in the Sinaitic MS., and the +comparison with Luke vi. 30 or Matt. v. 42 therefore cannot be +insisted upon. + +The passage '[in order that He might show that] He came not to +call the righteous but sinners' ([Greek: hina deixae hoti ouk +aelthen kalesai dikaious alla amartolous] [Endnote 74:1]) is +removed by the hypothesis of an interpolation which is supported +by a precarious argument from Origen, and also by the fact that +[Greek: eis metanoian] has been added (clearly from Luke v. 32) by +later hands both to the text of Barnabas and in Matt. ix. 13 +[Endnote 74:2]. This theory of an interpolation is easily +advanced, and it is drawn so entirely from our ignorance that it +can seldom be positively disproved, but it ought surely to be +alleged with more convincing reasons than any that are put forward +here. We now possess six MSS. of the Epistle of Barnabas, +including the famous Codex Sinaiticus, the accuracy of which in +the Biblical portions can be amply tested, and all of these six +MSS., without exception, contain the passage. The addition of the +words [Greek: eis metanoian] represents much more the kind of +interpolations that were at all habitual. The interpolation +hypothesis, as I said, is easily advanced, but the _onus +probandi_ must needs lie heavily against it. In accepting the +text as it stands we simply obey the Baconian maxim _hypotheses +non fingimus_, but it is strange, and must be surprising to a +philosophic mind, to what an extent the more extreme representatives +of the negative criticism have gone back to the most condemned +parts of the scholastic method; inconvenient facts are explained +away by hypotheses as imaginary and unverifiable as the 'cycles +and epicycles' by which the schoolmen used to explain the motions +of the heavenly bodies. + +'If however,' the author continues, 'the passage 'originally +formed part of the text, it is absurd to affirm that it is any +proof of the use or existence of the first Gospel.' 'Absurd' is +under the circumstances a rather strong word to use; but, granting +that it would have been even 'absurd' to allege this passage, if +it had stood alone, as a sufficient proof of the use of the +Gospel, it does not follow that there can be any objection to the +more guarded statement that it invests the use of the Gospel with +a certain antecedent probability. No doubt the quotation +_may_ have been made from a lost Gospel, but here again +[Greek: eis aphanes ton muthon anenenkas ouk echei elenchon]-- +there is no verifying that about which we know nothing. The critic +may multiply Gospels as much as he pleases and an apologist at +least will not quarrel with him, but it would be more to the point +if he could prove the existence in these lost writings of matter +_conflicting_ with that contained in the extant Gospels. As +it is, the only result of these unverifiable hypotheses is to +raise up confirmatory documents in a quarter where apologists have +not hitherto claimed them. + +We are delaying, however, too long upon points of quite secondary +importance. Two more passages are adduced; one, an application of +Ps. cx (The Lord said unto my Lord) precisely as in Matt. xxii. +44, and the other a saying assigned to our Lord, 'They who wish to +see me and lay hold on my kingdom must receive me through +affliction and suffering.' Of neither of these can we speak +positively. There is perhaps a slight probability that the first +was suggested by our Gospel, and considering the character of the +verifiable quotations in Barnabas, which often follow the sense +only and not the words, the second may be 'a free reminiscence of +Matt. xvi. 24 compared with Acts xiv. 22,' but it is also possible +that it may be a saying quoted from an apocryphal Gospel. + +It should perhaps be added that Lardner and Dr. Westcott both +refer to a quotation of Zech. xiii. 7 which appears in the common +text of the Epistle in a form closely resembling that in which the +quotation is given in Matt. xxvi. 31 and diverging from the LXX, +but here again the Sinaitic Codex varies, and the text is too +uncertain to lay stress upon, though perhaps the addition [Greek: +taes poimnaes] may incline the balance to the view that the text +of the Gospel has influenced the form of the quotation [Endnote +76:1]. + +The general result of our examination of the Epistle of Barnabas +may perhaps be stated thus, that while not supplying by itself +certain and conclusive proof of the use of our Gospels, still the +phenomena accord better with the hypothesis of such a use. This +Epistle stands in the second line of the evidence, and as a +witness is rather confirmatory than principal. + + + 3. + +After Dr. Lightfoot's masterly exposition there is probably +nothing more to be said about the genuineness, date, and origin of +the Ignatian Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot has done in the most lucid +and admirable manner just that which is so difficult to do, and +which 'Supernatural Religion' has so signally failed in doing; he +has succeeded in conveying to the reader a true and just sense of +the exact weight and proportion of the different parts of the +evidence. He has avoided such phrases as 'absurd,' 'impossible,' +'preposterous,' that his opponent has dealt in so freely, but he +has weighed and balanced the evidence piece by piece; he has +carefully guarded his language so as never to let the positiveness +of his conclusion exceed what the premises will warrant; he has +dealt with the subject judicially and with a full consciousness of +the responsibility of his position [Endnote 77:1]. + +We cannot therefore, I think, do better than adopt Dr. Lightfoot's +conclusion as the basis of our investigation, and treat the +Curetonian (i.e. the three short Syriac) letters as (probably) +'the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the Vossian letters +(i.e. the shorter Greek recension of seven Epistles) are accepted +as valid testimony at all events for the middle of the second +century--the question of the genuineness of the letters being +waived.' + +The Curetonian Epistles will then be dated either in 107 or in 115 +A.D., the two alternative years assigned to the martyrdom of +Ignatius. In the Epistle to Polycarp which is given in this +version there is a parallel to Matt. x. 16, 'Be ye therefore wise +as serpents and harmless as doves.' The two passages may be +compared thus:-- + + _Ign. ad Pol._ ii. + +[Greek: Psronimos ginou hos ophis en apasin kai akeaios osei +perisetera.] + + _Matt._ x. 16. + +[Greek: Ginesthe oun psronimoi hos oi opheis kai akeaioi hos ai +peristerai.] + +We should naturally place this quotation in the second column of +our classified arrangement, as presenting a slight variation. At +the same time we should have little hesitation in referring it to +the passage in our Canonical Gospel. All the marked expressions +are identical, especially the precise and selected words [Greek: +phronimos] and [Greek: akeraios]. It is however possible that +Ignatius may be quoting, not directly from our Gospel, but from +one of the original documents (such as Ewald's hypothetical +'Spruch-sammlung') out of which our Gospel was composed--though it +is somewhat remarkable that this particular sentence is wanting in +the parallel passage in St. Luke (cf. Luke x. 3). This may be so +or not; we have no means of judging. But it should at any rate be +remembered that this original document, supposing it to have had a +substantive existence, most probably contained repeated references +to miracles. The critics who refer Matt. x. 16 to the document in +question, also agree in referring to it Matt. vii. 22, x. 8, xi. +5, xii. 24 foll., &c., which speak distinctly of miracles, and +precisely in that indirect manner which is the best kind of +evidence. Therefore if we accept the hypothesis suggested in +'Supernatural Religion'--and it is a mere hypothesis, quite +unverifiable--the evidence for miracles would not be materially +weakened. The author would, I suppose, admit that it is at least +equally probable that the saying was quoted from our present +Gospel. + +This probability would be considerably heightened if the allusion +to 'the star' in the Syriac of Eph. xix has, as it appears to +have, reference to the narrative of Matt. ii. In the Greek or +Vossian version of the Epistle it is expanded, 'How then was He +manifested to the ages? A star shone in heaven above all the +stars, and the light thereof was unspeakable, and the strangeness +thereof caused astonishment' ([Greek: Pos oun ephanerothae tois +aoisin; Astaer en ourano elampsen huper pantas tous asteras, kai +to phos autou aneklalaeton aen, kai xenismon pareichen hae +kainotaes autou]). This is precisely, one would suppose, the kind +of passage that might be taken as internal evidence of the +genuineness of the Curetonian and later character of the Vossian +version. The Syriac ([Greek: hatina en haesouchia Theou to asteri] +[or [Greek: apo tou asteros]] [Greek: eprachthae]), abrupt and +difficult as it is, does not look like an epitome of the Greek, +and the Greek has exactly that exaggerated and apocryphal +character which would seem to point to a later date. It +corresponds indeed somewhat nearly to the language of the +Protevangelium of James, §21, [Greek: eidomen astera pammegethae +lampsanta en tois astrois tou ouranou kai amblunonta tous allous +asteras hoste mae phainesthai autous]. Both in the Protevangelium +and in the Vossian Ignatius we see what is clearly a developement +of the narrative in St. Matthew. If the Vossian Epistles are +genuine, then by showing the existence of such a developement at +so early a date they will tend to throw back still further the +composition of the Canonical Gospel. If the Syriac version, on the +other hand, is the genuine one, it will be probable that Ignatius +is directly alluding to the narrative which is peculiar to the +first Evangelist. + +These are (so far as I am aware) the only coincidences that are +found in the Curetonian version. Their paucity cannot surprise us, +as in the same Curetonian text there is not a single quotation +from the Old Testament. One Old Testament quotation and two +Evangelical allusions occur in the Epistle to the Ephesians, which +is one of the three contained in Cureton's MS.; the fifth and +sixth chapters, however, in which they are found, are wanting in +the Syriac. The allusions are, in Eph. v, 'For if the prayer of +one or two have such power, how much more that of the bishop and +of the whole Church,' which appears to have some relation to Matt. +xviii. 19 ('If two of you shall agree' &c.), and in Eph. vi, 'For +all whom the master of the house sends to be over his own +household we ought to receive as we should him that sent him,' +which may be compared with Matt. x. 40 ('He that receiveth you' +&c.). Both these allusions have some probability, though neither +can be regarded as at all certain. The Epistle to the Trallians +has one coincidence in c. xi, 'These are not plants of the Father' +([Greek: phyteia Patros]), which recalls the striking expression +of Matt. xv. 13, 'Every plant ([Greek: pasa phyteia]) that my +heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.' This is a +marked metaphor, and it is not found in the other Synoptics; it is +therefore at least more probable that it is taken from St. +Matthew. The same must be said of another remarkable phrase in the +Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, c. vi, [Greek: ho choron choreito] +([Greek: ho dynamenos chorein choreito], Matt. xix. 12), and also +of the statement in c. i. of the same Epistle that Jesus was +baptized by John 'that He might fulfil all righteousness' ([Greek: +hina plaerothae pasa dikaiosynae hup' autou]). This corresponds +with the language of Matt. iii. 15 ([Greek: houtos gar prepon +estin haemin plaerosai pasan dikaiosynaen]), which also has no +parallel in the other Gospels. The use of the phrase [Greek: +plaerosai pasan dikaiosynaen] is so peculiar, and falls in so +entirely with the characteristic Christian Judaizing of our first +Evangelist, that it seems especially unreasonable to refer it to +any one else. There is not the smallest particle of evidence to +connect it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews to which our +author seems to hint that it may belong; indeed all that we know +of that Gospel may be said almost positively to exclude it. In +this Gospel our Lord is represented as saying, when His mother and +His brethren urge that He should accept baptism from John, 'What +have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him?' and it is +almost by compulsion that He is at last induced to accompany them. +It will be seen that this is really an _opposite_ version of +the event to that of Ignatius and the first Gospel, where the +objection comes from _John_ and is overruled by our Lord +Himself [Endnote 81:1]. + +There is however one quotation, introduced as such, in this same +Epistle, the source of which Eusebius did not know, but which +Origen refers to the 'Preaching of Peter' and Jerome seems to have +found in the Nazarene version of the 'Gospel according to the +Hebrews.' This phrase is attributed to our Lord when He appeared +'to those about Peter and said to them, Handle Me and see that I +am not an incorporeal spirit' ([Greek: psaelaphaesate me, kai +idete, hoti ouk eimi daimonion asomaton]). But for the statement +of Origen that these words occurred in the 'Preaching of Peter' +they might have been referred without much difficulty to Luke +xxiv. 39. The Preaching of Peter seems to have begun with the +Resurrection, and to have been an offshoot rather in the direction +of the Acts than the Gospels [Endnote 81:2]. It would not +therefore follow from the use of it by Ignatius here, that the +other quotations could also be referred to it. And, supposing it +to be taken from the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' this would +not annul what has been said above as to the reason for thinking +that Ignatius (or the writer who bears his name) cannot have used +that Gospel systematically and alone. + + + 4. + +Is the Epistle which purports to have been written by Polycarp to the +Philippians to be accepted as genuine? It is mentioned in the most +express terms by Irenaeus, who declares himself to have been a +disciple of Polycarp in his early youth, and speaks enthusiastically +of the teaching which he then received. Irenaeus was writing between +the years 180-190 A.D., and Polycarp is generally allowed to have +suffered martyrdom about 167 or 168 [Endnote 82:1]. But the way in +which Irenaeus speaks of the Epistle is such as to imply, not only +that it had been for some time in existence, but also that it had +been copied and disseminated and had attained a somewhat wide +circulation. He is appealing to the Catholic tradition in opposition +to heretical teaching such as that of Valentinus and Marcion, and he +says, 'There is an Epistle written by Polycarp to the Philippians of +great excellence [Greek: hikanotatae], from which those who wish to +do so and who care for their own salvation may learn both the +character of his faith and the preaching of the truth' [Endnote +82:2]. He would hardly have used such language if he had not had +reason to think that the Epistle was at least fairly accessible to +the Christians for whom he is writing. But allowing for the somewhat +slow (not too slow) multiplication and dissemination of writings +among the Christians, this will throw back the composition of the +letter well into the lifetime of Polycarp himself. In any case it +must have been current in circles immediately connected with +Polycarp's person. + +Against external evidence such as this the objections that are +brought are really of very slight weight. That which is reproduced +in 'Supernatural Religion' from an apparent contradiction between +c. ix and c. xiii, is dismissed even by writers such as Ritschl +who believe that one or both chapters are interpolated. In c. ix +the martyrdom of Ignatius is upheld as an example, in c. xiii +Polycarp asks for information about Ignatius 'et de his qui cum eo +sunt,' apparently as if he were still living. But, apart from the +easy and obvious solution which is accepted by Ritschl, following +Hefele and others, [Endnote 83:1] that the sentence is extant only +in the Latin translation and that the phrase 'qui cum eo sunt' is +merely a paraphrase for [Greek: ton met' autou]; apart from this, +even supposing the objection were valid, it would prove nothing +against the genuineness of the Epistle. It might be taken to prove +that the second passage is an interpolation; but a contradiction +between two passages in the same writing in no way tends to show +that that writing is not by its ostensible author. But surely +either interpolator or forger must have had more sense than to +place two such gross and absurd contradictions within about sixty +lines of each other. + +An argument brought by Dr. Hilgenfeld against the date dissolves +away entirely on examination. He thinks that the exhortation Orate +pro regibus (et potestatibus et principibus) in c. xii must needs +refer to the double rule of Antoninus Pius (147 A.D.) or Marcus +Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161 A.D.). But the writer of the +Epistle is only reproducing the words of St. Paul in 1 Tim. ii. 2 +([Greek: parakalo ... poieisthai deaeseis ... hyper basileon kai +panton ton en hyperochae onton]). The passage is wrongly referred +in 'Supernatural Religion' to 1 Pet. ii. 17 [Endnote 84:1]. It is +very clear that the language of Polycarp, like that of St. Paul, +is quite general. In order to limit it to the two Caesars we +should have had to read [Greek: hyper ton basileon]. + +The allusions which Schwegler finds to the Gnostic heresies are +explained when that critic at the end of his argument objects to +the Epistle that it makes use of a number of writings 'the origin +of which must be placed in the second century, such as the Acts, 1 +Peter, the Epistles to the Philippians and to the Ephesians, and 1 +Timothy.' The objection belongs to the gigantic confusion of fact +and hypothesis which makes up the so-called Tübingen theory, and +falls to the ground with it. + +It should be noticed that those who regard the Epistle as +interpolated yet maintain the genuineness of those portions which +are thought to contain allusions to the Gospels. Ritschl states +this [Endnote 84:2]; Dr. Donaldson confines the interpolation to +c. xiii [Endnote 84:3]; and Volkmar not only affirms with his +usual energy the genuineness of these portions of the Epistle, but +he also asserts that the allusions are really to our Gospels +[Endnote 84:4]. + +The first that meets us is in c. ii, 'Remembering what the Lord said +teaching, judge not that ye be not judged; forgive and it shall be +forgiven unto you; pity that ye may be pitied; with what measure ye +mete it shall be measured unto you again; and that blessed are the +poor and those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs +is the kingdom of God' [Endnote 85:1]. This passage (if taken from our +Gospels) is not a continuous quotation, but is made up from Luke vi. +36-38, 20, Matt. v. 10, or of still more _disjecta membra_ of St. +Matthew. It will be seen that it covers very similar ground with the +quotation in Clement, and there is also a somewhat striking point of +similarity with that writer in the phrase [Greek: eleeite hina +eleaetheate]. There is moreover a closer resemblance than to our +Gospels in the clause [Greek: aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin]. But +the order of the clauses is entirely different from that in Clement, +and the first clause [Greek: mae krinete hina mae krithaete] is +identical with St. Matthew and more nearly resembles the parallel in +St. Luke than in Clement. These are perplexing phenomena, and seem to +forbid a positive judgment. It would be natural to suppose, and all +that we know of the type of doctrine in the early Church would lead us +to believe, that the Sermon on the Mount would be one of the most +familiar parts of Christian teaching, that it would be largely +committed to memory and quoted from memory. There would be no +difficulty in employing that hypothesis here if the passage stood +alone. The breaking up of the order too would not surprise us when we +compare the way in which the same discourse appears in St. Luke and in +St. Matthew. But then comes in the strange coincidence in the single +clause with Clement; and there is also another curious phenomenon, the +phrase [Greek: aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin] compared with Luke's +[Greek: apoluete kai apoluthaesesthe] has very much the appearance of +a parallel translation from the same Aramaic original, which may +perhaps be the famous 'Spruch-sammlung.' This might however be +explained as the substitution of synonymous terms by the memory. There +is I believe nothing in the shape of direct evidence to show the +presence of a different version of the Sermon on the Mount in any of +the lost Gospels, and, on the other hand, there are considerable +traces of disturbance in the Canonical text (compare e.g. the various +readings on Matt. v. 44). It seems on the whole difficult to construct +a theory that shall meet all the facts. Perhaps a mixed hypothesis +would be best. It is probable that memory has been to some extent at +work (the form of the quotation naturally suggests this) and is to +account for some of Polycarp's variations; at the same time I cannot +but think that there has been somewhere a written version different +from our Gospels to which he and Clement have had access. + +There are several other sayings which seem to belong to the Sermon +on the Mount; thus in c. vi, 'If we pray the Lord to forgive us we +also ought to forgive' (cf. Matt. vi. 14 sq.); in c. viii, 'And if +we suffer for His name let us glorify Him' (cf. Matt. v. 11 sq.); +in c. xii, 'Pray for them that persecute you and hate you, and for +the enemies of the cross; that your fruit may be manifest in all +things, that ye may be therein perfect' (cf. Matt. v. 44, 48). All +these passages give the sense, but only the sense, of the first +(and partly also of the third) Gospel. There is however one +quotation which coincides verbally with two of the Synoptics +[Praying the all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation, as the +Lord said], The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak +([Greek: to men pneuma prothumon, hae de sarx asthenaes], Matt., +Mark, Polycarp; with the introductory clause compare, not Matt. +vi. 13, but xxvi. 41). In the cases where the sense alone is given +there is no reason to think that the writer intends to give more. +At the same time it will be observed that all the quotations refer +either to the double or triple synopsis where we have already +proof of the existence of the saying in question in more than a +single form, and not to those portions that are peculiar to the +individual Evangelists. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' is +therefore not without reason when he says that they may be derived +from other collections than our actual Gospels. The possibility +cannot be excluded. It ought however to be borne in mind that if +such collections did exist, and if Polycarp's allusions or +quotations are to be referred to them, they are to the same extent +evidence that these hypothetical collections did not materially +differ from our present Gospels, but rather bore to them very much +the same relation that they bear to each other. And I do not know +that we can better sum up the case in regard to the Apostolic +Fathers than thus; we have two alternatives to choose between, +either they made use of our present Gospels, or else of writings +so closely resembling our Gospels and so nearly akin to them that +their existence only proves the essential unity and homogeneity of +the evangelical tradition. + + + + + +CHAPTER IV. + +JUSTIN MARTYR. + + +Hitherto the extant remains of Christian literature have been +scanty and the stream of evangelical quotation has been equally +so, but as we approach the middle of the second century it becomes +much more abundant. We have copious quotations from a Gospel used +about the year 140 by Marcion; the Clementine Homilies, the date +of which however is more uncertain, also contain numerous +quotations; and there are still more in the undoubted works of +Justin Martyr. When I speak of quotations, I do not wish to beg +the question by implying that they are necessarily taken from our +present Gospels, I merely mean quotations from an evangelical +document of some sort. This reservation has to be made especially +in regard to Justin. + +Strictly according to the chronological order we should not have +to deal with Justin until somewhat later, but it will perhaps be +best to follow the order of 'Supernatural Religion,' the principle +of which appears to be to discuss the orthodox writers first and +heretical writings afterwards. Modern critics seem pretty +generally to place the two Apologies in the years 147-150 A.D. and +the Dialogue against Tryphon a little later. Dr. Keim indeed would +throw forward the date of Justin's writings as far as from 155-160 +on account of the mention of Marcion [Endnote 89:1], but this is +decided by both Hilgenfeld [Endnote 89:2] and Lipsius to be too +late. I see that Mr. Hort, whose opinion on such matters deserves +high respect, comes to the conclusion 'that we may without fear of +considerable error set down Justin's First Apology to 145, or +better still to 146, and his death to 148. The Second Apology, if +really separate from the First, will then fall in 146 or 147, and +the Dialogue with Tryphon about the same time' [Endnote 89:3] + +No definite conclusion can be drawn from the title given by Justin to +the work or works he used, that of the 'Memoirs' or 'Recollections' of +the Apostles, and it will be best to leave our further enquiry quite +unfettered by any assumption in respect to them. The title certainly +does not of necessity imply a single work composed by the Apostles +collectively [Endnote 89:4], any more than the parallel phrase 'the +writings of the Prophets' [Endnote 89:5] ([Greek: ta sungrammata ton +prophaeton]), which Justin couples with the 'Memoirs' as read together +in the public services of the Church, implies a single and joint +production on the part of the Prophets. This hypothesis too is open to +the very great objection that so authoritative a work, if it existed, +should have left absolutely no other trace behind it. So far as the +title is concerned, the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' may be either a +single work or an almost indefinite number. In one place Justin says +that the Memoirs were composed 'by His Apostles and their followers' +[Endnote 90:1], which seems to agree remarkably, though not exactly, +with the statement in the prologue to St. Luke. In another he says +expressly that the Memoirs are called Gospels ([Greek: ha kaleitai +euangelia]) [Endnote 90:2]. This clause has met with the usual fate of +parenthetic statements which do not quite fall in with preconceived +opinions, and is dismissed as a 'manifest interpolation,' a gloss +having crept into the text from the margin. It would be difficult to +estimate the exact amount of probability for or against this theory, +but possible at any rate it must be allowed to be; and though the +_primâ facie_ view of the genuineness of the words is supported by +another place in which a quotation is referred directly 'to the +Gospel,' still too much ought not perhaps to be built on this clause +alone. + + * * * * * + +A convenient distinction may be drawn between the material and +formal use of the Gospels; and the most satisfactory method +perhaps will be, to run rapidly through Justin's quotations, first +with a view to ascertain their relation to the Canonical Gospels +in respect to their general historical tenor, and secondly to +examine the amount of verbal agreement. I will try to bring out as +clearly as possible the double phenomena both of agreement and +difference; the former (in regard to which condensation will be +necessary) will be indicated both by touching in the briefest +manner the salient points and by the references in the margin; the +latter, which I have endeavoured to give as exhaustively as +possible, are brought out by italics in the text. The thread of +the narrative then, so far as it can be extracted from the genuine +writings of Justin, will be much as follows [Endnote 91:1]. + + According to Justin the Messiah + was born, without sin, of a +[SIDENOTES] virgin _who_ was descended from [SIDENOTES] +[Matt. 1.2-6.] David, Jesse, Phares, Judah, [Luke 3.31-34.] + Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, if + not (the reading here is doubtful) + from Adam himself. [Justin + therefore, it may be inferred, had + before him a genealogy, though + not apparently, as the Canonical + Gospels, that of Joseph but of + Mary.] To Mary it was announced + by the angel Gabriel [Luke 1.26.] + that, while yet a virgin, the + power of God, or of the Highest, [Luke 1.35.] + should overshadow her and she + should conceive and bear a Son [Luke 1.31.] +[Matt. 1.21.] whose name she should call Jesus, + because He should save His + people from their sins. Joseph + observing that Mary, his espoused, + was with child was +[Matt. 1.18-25.] warned in a dream not to put + her away, because that which + was in her womb was of the + Holy Ghost. Thus the prophecy, +[Matt. 1.23.] Is. vii. 14 (Behold the + virgin &c.), was fulfilled. The + mother of John the Baptist was [Luke 1.57.] + Elizabeth. The birth-place of + the Messiah had been indicated +[Matt. 2.5, 6.] by the prophecy of Micah (v. 2, + Bethlehem not the least among + the princes of Judah). There + He was born, as the Romans + might learn from the census + taken by Cyrenius the first + _procurator_ [Greek: [Luke 2.1, 2.] + epitropou] _of Judaea_. + His life extended from Cyrenius + to Pontius Pilate. So, in + consequence of this the first census + in Judaea, Joseph went up from + Nazareth where he dwelt to [Luke 2.4.] + Bethlehem _whence he was_, as a + member of the tribe of Judah. + The parents of Jesus could find + no lodging in Bethlehem, so it [Luke 2.7.] + came to pass that He was born + _in a cave near the village_ and + laid in a manger. At His birth [_ibid._] +[Matt. 2.1.] there came Magi _from Arabia_, + who knew by a star that had + appeared in the _heaven_ that a +[Matt. 2.2.] king had been born in Judaea. + Having paid Him their homage +[Matt. 2.11.] and offered gifts of gold, frankincense + and myrrh, they were +[Matt. 2.12.] warned not to return to Herod +[Matt. 2. 1-7.] whom they had consulted on + the way. He however not willing + that the Child should escape, +[Matt. 2.16.] ordered a massacre of _all_ the + children in Bethlehem, fulfilling +[Matt. 2.17, 18.] the prophecy of Jer. xxxi. 15 + (Rachel weeping for her children &c.). + Joseph and his wife meanwhile +[Matt. 2.13-15.] with the Babe had fled + to Egypt, for the Father resolved + that He to whom He had + given birth should not die before + He had preached His word + as a man. There they stayed +[Matt. 2.22] until Archelaus succeeded Herod, + and then returned. + + By process of nature He grew + to the age of thirty years or [Luke 3.23.] + more, _not comely of aspect_ (_as + had been prophesied_), practising +[Mark 6.3.] the trade of a carpenter, _making + ploughs and yokes, emblems of + righteousness_. He remained + hidden till John, the herald of + his coming, came forward, the +[Matt 17.12, 13.] spirit of Elias being in him, and +[Matt. 3.2.] as he _sat_ by the river Jordan [Luke 3.3.] + cried to men to repent. As he +[Matt. 3.4.] preached in his wild garb he + declared that he was not the [John 1.19 ff.] + Christ, but that One stronger +[Matt. 3.11, 12.] than he was coming after him [Luke 3. 16, 17.] + whose shoes he was not worthy + to bear, &c. The later history + of John Justin also mentions, +[Matt. 14.3.] how, having been put in prison, [Luke 3.20.] + at a feast on Herod's birthday +[Matt. 14.6 ff.] he was beheaded at the instance + of his sister's daughter. This +[Matt. 17.11-13.] John was Elias who was to come + before the Christ. + + At the baptism of Jesus _a fire + was kindled on the Jordan_, and, + as He went up out of the water, +[Matt. 3.16.] the Holy Ghost alighted upon [Luke 3.21, 22.] + Him, and a voice was heard from + heaven _saying in the words of + David_, 'Thou art My Son, _this + day have I begotten Thee_.' After +[Matt. 4.1, 9.] His baptism He was tempted by + the devil, who ended by claiming + homage from Him. To this + Christ replied, 'Get thee behind +[Matt 4.11.] Me, Satan,' &c. So the devil [Luke 4.13.] + departed from Him at that time + worsted and convicted. + + Justin knew that the words + of Jesus were short and concise, + not like those of a Sophist. That + He wrought miracles _might be + learnt from the Acts of Pontius + Pilate, fulfilling Is. xxxv. 4-6._ +[Matt. 9.29-31, Those who from their _birth_ were [Luke 18.35-43.] +32, 33. 1-8.] blind, dumb, lame, He healed-- [Luke 11.14 ff.] +[Matt. 4.23.] indeed He healed all sickness and [Luke 5.17-26.] +[Matt 9.18 ff.] disease--and He raised the dead. [Luke 8.41 ff.] + _The Jews ascribed these miracles [Luke 7. 11-18.] + to magic_. + + Jesus, too (like John, _whose + mission ceased when He appeared + in public_), began His ministry +[Matt 4.17.] by proclaiming that the kingdom + of heaven was at hand. + Many precepts of the Sermon + on the Mount Justin has preserved, +[Matt 5.20.] the righteousness of the +[Matt 5.28.] Scribes and Pharisees, the +[Matt 5.29-32.] adultery of the heart, the offending +[Matt 5.34, 37, eye, divorce, oaths, returning + 39] +[Matt 5.44.] good for evil, loving and praying +[Matt 5.42.] for enemies, giving to those that [Luke 6.30.] +[Matt 6.19, 20.] need, placing the treasure in +[Matt 6.25-27.] heaven, not caring for bodily [Luke 12.22-24.] +[Matt 5.45.] wants, but copying the mercy +[Matt 6.21, &c.] and goodness of God, not acting + from worldly motives--above all, +[Matt 7.22, 23.] deeds not words. [Luke 13.26, 27.] + + Justin quotes sayings from +[Matt. 8.11, 12.] the narrative of the centurion [Luke 13.28, 29.] +[Matt. 9.13.] of Capernaum and of the feast [Luke 5.32.] + in the house of Matthew. He +[Matt. 10.1 ff.] has, the choosing of the twelve [Luke 6.13.] + Apostles, with the name given +[Mark 3.17.] to the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges + or 'sons of thunder,' the com- + mission of the Apostles, the [Luke 10.19.] +[Matt. 11.12-15.] discourse after the departure of [Luke 16.16.] + the messengers of John, the +[Matt. 16.4.] sign of the prophet Jonas, the +[Matt. 13.3 ff.] parable of the sower, Peter's [Luke 8.5 ff.] +[Matt. 16.15-18.] confession, the announcement of [Luke 9.22.] +[Matt. 16.21.] the Passion. + + From the account of the last + journey and the closing scenes + of our Lord's life, Justin has, +[Matt. 19.16,17.] the history of the rich young [Luke 18.18,19.] +[Matt. 21.1 ff.] man, the entry into Jerusalem, [Luke 19.29 ff.] + the cleansing of the Temple, the [Luke 19.46.] +[Matt. 22.11.] wedding garment, the controversial + discourses about the [Luke 20.22-25.] +[Matt. 22.21.] tribute money, the resurrection, [Luke 20.35,36.] +[Matt. 22.37,38.] and the greatest commandment, +[Matt. 23.2 ff.] those directed against the Pha- [Luke 11.42,52.] +[Matt. 25.34,41.] risees and the eschatological +[Matt. 25.14-30.] discourse, the parable of the + talents. Justin's account of the + institution of the Lord's Supper [Luke 22.19,20.] + agrees with that of Luke. After +[Matt. 26.30.] it Jesus sang a hymn, and taking +[Matt. 26.36,37.] with Him three of His disciples + to the Mount of Olives He was + in an agony, His sweat falling in [Luke 22.42-44.] + _drops_ (not necessarily of blood) + to the ground. His captors + surrounded Him _like the 'horned + bulls' of Ps. xxii._ 11-14; there +[Matt. 26.56.] was none to help, for His followers + _to a man_ forsook Him. +[Matt. 26.57 ff.] He was led both before the [Luke 22.66 ff.] + Scribes and Pharisees and before +[Matt. 27.11 ff.] Pilate. In the trial before Pilate [Luke 23.1 ff.] +[Matt. 27.14] He kept silence, _as Ps. xxii._ 15. + Pilate sent Him bound to Herod. [Luke 23.7.] + + Justin relates most of the incidents + of the Crucifixion in detail, + for confirmation of which he refers + to the _Acts of Pilate_. He marks + especially the fulfilment in various + places of Ps. xxii. He has the + piercing with nails, the casting of [Luke 24.40.] +[Matt. 27.35.] lots and dividing of the garments, [Luke 23.34.] +[Matt. 27.39 ff.] the _sneers_ of the crowd [Luke 23.35.] + (somewhat expanded from the +[Matt. 27.42.] Synoptics), and their taunt, _He + who raised the dead_ let Him save +[Matt. 27.46.] Himself; also the cry of despair, + 'My God, My God, why hast + Thou forsaken Me?' and the last + words, 'Father, into Thy hands [Luke 23.46.] + I commend My Spirit.' + +[Matt. 27.57-60.] The burial took place in the + evening, the disciples being all +[Matt. 26.31,56.] scattered in accordance with + Zech. xiii. 7. On the third day, [Luke 24.21.] +[Matt. 28.1 ff.] the day of the sun or the first [Luke 24.1 ff.] + (or eighth) day of the week, + Jesus rose from the dead. He + then convinced His disciples that + His sufferings had been prophe- [Luke 24.26, 46.] + tically foretold and they repented [Luke 24.32.] + of having deserted Him. Having + given them His last commission + they saw Him ascend up into [Luke 24.50.] + heaven. Thus believing and + having first waited to receive + power from Him they went forth + into all the world and preached + the word of God. To this day +[Matt. 28.19] Christians baptize in the name + of the Father of all, and of our + Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the + Holy Ghost. + +[Matt. 28.12-15.] The Jews spread a story that + the disciples stole the body of + Jesus from the grave and so + deceived men by asserting that + He was risen from the dead and + ascended into heaven. + + There is nothing in Justin (as + in Luke xxiv, but cp. Acts i. 3) + to show that the Ascension did + not take place _on the same day_ + as the Resurrection. + +I have taken especial pains in the above summary to bring out the +points in which Justin way seem to differ from or add to the +canonical narratives. But, without stopping at present to consider +the bearing of these upon Justin's relation to the Gospels, I will +at once proceed to make some general remarks which the summary +seems to suggest. + +(1) If such is the outline of Justin's Gospel, it appears to be +really a question of comparatively small importance whether or not +he made use of our present Gospels in their present form. If he +did not use these Gospels he used other documents which contained +substantially the same matter. The question of the reality of +miracles clearly is not affected. Justin's documents, whatever +they were, not only contained repeated notices of the miracles in +general, the healing of the lame and the paralytic, of the maimed +and the dumb, and the raising of the dead--not only did they +include several discourses, such as the reply to the messengers of +John and the saying to the Centurion whose servant was healed, +which have direct reference to miracles, but they also give marked +prominence to the chief and cardinal miracles of the Gospel +history, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. It is antecedently +quite possible that the narrative of these events may have been +derived from a document other than our Gospels; but, if so, that +is only proof of the existence of further and independent evidence +to the truth of the history. This document, supposing it to exist, +is a surprising instance of the homogeneity of the evangelical +tradition; it differs from the three Synoptic Gospels, nay, we may +say even from the four Gospels, _less_ than they differ from +each other. + +(2) But we may go further than this. If Justin really used a +separate substantive document now lost, that document, to judge +from its contents, must have represented a secondary, or rather a +tertiary, stage of the evangelical literature; it must have +implied the previous existence of our present Gospels. I do not +now allude to the presence in it of added traits, such as the cave +of the Nativity and the fire on Jordan, which are of the nature of +those mythical details that we find more fully developed in the +Apocryphal Gospels. I do not so much refer to these--though, for +instance, in the case of the fire on Jordan it is highly probable +that Justin's statement is a translation into literal fact of the +canonical (and Justinian) saying, 'He shall baptize with the Holy +Ghost and with fire'--but, on general grounds, the relation which +this supposed document bears to the extant Gospels shows that it +must have been in point of time posterior to them. + +The earlier stages of evangelical composition present a nucleus, +with a more or less defined circumference, of unity, and outside +of this a margin of variety. There was a certain body of +narrative, which, in whatever form it was handed down--whether as +oral or written--at a very early date obtained a sort of general +recognition, and seems to have been as a matter of course +incorporated in the evangelical works as they appeared. + +Besides this there was also other matter which, without such +general recognition, had yet a considerable circulation, and, +though not found in all, was embodied in more than one of the +current compilations. But, as we should naturally expect, these +two classes did not exhaust the whole of the evangelical matter. +Each successive historian found himself able by special researches +to add something new and as yet unpublished to the common stock. +Thus, the first of our present Evangelists has thirty-five +sections or incidents besides the whole of the first two chapters +peculiar to himself. The third Evangelist has also two long +chapters of preliminary history, and as many as fifty-six sections +or incidents which have no parallel in the other Gospels. Much of +this peculiar matter in each case bears an individual and +characteristic stamp. The opening chapters of the first and third +Synoptics evidently contain two distinct and independent +traditions. So independent indeed are they, that the negative +school of critics maintain them to be irreconcilable, and the +attempts to harmonise them have certainly not been completely +successful [Endnote 101:1]. These differences, however, show what +rich quarries of tradition were open to the enquirer in the first +age of Christianity, and how readily he might add to the stores +already accumulated by his predecessors. But this state of things +did not last long. As in most cases of the kind, the productive +period soon ceased, and the later writers had a choice of two +things, either to harmonise the conflicting records of previous +historians, or to develope their details in the manner that we +find in the Apocryphal Gospels. + +But if Justin used a single and separate document or any set of +documents independent of the canonical, then we may say with +confidence that that document or set of documents belonged entirely to +this secondary stage. It possesses both the marks of secondary +formation. Such details as are added to the previous evangelical +tradition are just of that character which we find in the Apocryphal +Gospels. But these details are comparatively slight and insignificant; +the main tendency of Justin's Gospel (supposing it to be a separate +composition) was harmonistic. The writer can hardly have been ignorant +of our Canonical Gospels; he certainly had access, if not to them, yet +to the sources, both general and special, from which they are taken. +He not only drew from the main body of the evangelical tradition, but +also from those particular and individual strains which appear in the +first and third Synoptics. He has done this in the spirit of a true +_desultor_, passing backwards and forwards first to one and then to +the other, inventing no middle links, but merely piecing together the +two accounts as best he could. Indeed the preliminary portions of +Justin's Gospel read very much like the sort of rough _primâ facie_ +harmony which, without any more profound study, most people make for +themselves. But the harmonising process necessarily implies matter to +harmonise, and that matter must have had the closest possible +resemblance to the contents of our Gospels. + +If, then, Justin made use either of a single document or set of +documents distinct from those which have become canonical, we +conclude that it or they belonged to a later and more advanced +stage of formation. But it should be remembered that the case is a +hypothetical one. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems +inclined to maintain that Justin did use such a document or +documents, and not our Gospels. If he did, then the consequence +above stated seems to follow. But I do not at all care to press +this inference; it is no more secure than the premiss upon which +it is founded. Only it seems to me that the choice lies between +two alternatives and no more; either Justin used our Gospels, or +else he used a document later than our Gospels and presupposing +them. The reader may take which side of the alternative he +pleases. + +The question is, which hypothesis best covers and explains the +facts. It is not impossible that Justin may have had a special +Gospel such as has just been described. There is a tendency among +those critics who assign Justin's quotations to an uncanonical +source to find that source in the so-called Gospel according to +the Hebrews or some of its allied forms. But a large majority of +critics regard the Gospel according to the Hebrews as holding +precisely this secondary relation to the canonical Matthew. +Justin's document can hardly have been the Gospel according to the +Hebrews, at least alone, as that Gospel omitted the section Matt. +i. 18-ii. 23 [Endnote 103:1], which Justin certainly retained. But +it is within the bounds of possibility--it would be hazardous to +say more--that he may have had another Gospel so modified and +compiled as to meet all the conditions of the case. For my own +part, I think it decidedly the more probable hypothesis that he +used our present Gospels with some peculiar document, such as this +Gospel according to the Hebrews, or perhaps, as Dr. Hilgenfeld +thinks, the ground document of the Gospel according to Peter (a +work of which we know next to nothing except that it favoured +Docetism and was not very unlike the Canonical Gospels) and the +Protevangelium of James (or some older document on which that work +was founded) in addition. + +It will be well to try to establish this position a little more in +detail; and therefore I will proceed to collect first, the +evidence for the use, either mediate or direct, of the Synoptic +Gospels, and secondly, that for the use of one or more Apocryphal +Gospels. We still keep to the substance of Justin's Gospel, and +reserve the question of its form. + +Of those portions of the first Synoptic which appear to be derived +from a peculiar source, and for the presence of which we have no +evidence in any other Gospel of the same degree of originality, +Justin has the following: Joseph's suspicions of his wife, the +special statement of the significance of the name Jesus ('for He +shall save His people from their sins,' Matt. i. 21, verbally +identical), the note upon the fulfilment of the prophecy Is. vii. +14 ('Behold a virgin,' &c.), the visit of the Magi guided by a +star, their peculiar gifts, their consultation of Herod and the +warning given them not to return to him, the massacre of the +children at Bethlehem, fulfilling Jer. xxxi. 15, the descent into +Egypt, the return of the Holy Family at the succession of +Archelaus. The Temptations Justin gives in the order of Matthew. +From the Sermon on the Mount he has the verses v. 14, 20, 28, vi. +1, vii. 15, 21, and from the controversial discourse against the +Pharisees, xxiii. 15, 24, which are without parallels. The +prophecy, Is. xlii. 1-4, is applied as by Matthew alone. There is +an apparent allusion to the parable of the wedding garment. The +comment of the disciples upon the identification of the Baptist +with Elias (Matt. xvii. 13), the sign of the prophet Jonas +(Matt. xvi. 1, 4), and the triumphal entry (the ass _with the +colt_), show a special affinity to St. Matthew. And, lastly, in +concert with the same Evangelist, Justin has the calumnious report +of the Jews (Matt. xxviii. 12 15) and the baptismal formula (Matt. +xxviii. 19). + +Of the very few details that are peculiar to St. Mark, Justin has +the somewhat remarkable one of the bestowing of the surname +Boanerges on the sons of Zebedee. Mark also appears to approach +most nearly to Justin in the statements that Jesus practised the +trade of a carpenter (cf. Mark vi. 3) and that He healed those who +were diseased _from their birth_ (cf. Mark ix. 21), and +perhaps in the emphasis upon the oneness of God in the reply +respecting the greatest commandment. + +In common with St. Luke, Justin has the mission of the angel +Gabriel to Mary, the statement that Elizabeth was the mother of +John, that the census was taken under Cyrenius, that Joseph went +up from Nazareth to Bethlehem [Greek: hothen aen], that no room +was found in the inn, that Jesus was thirty years old when He +began His ministry, that He was sent from Pilate to Herod, with +the account of His last words. There are also special affinities +in the phrase quoted from the charge to the Seventy (Luke x. 19), +in the verse Luke xi. 52, in the account of the answer to the rich +young man, of the institution of the Lord's Supper, of the Agony +in the Garden, and of the Resurrection and Ascension. + +These coincidences are of various force. Some of the single verses +quoted, though possessing salient features in common, have also, +as we shall see, more or less marked differences. Too much stress +should not be laid on the allegation of the same prophecies, +because there may have been a certain understanding among the +Christians as to the prophecies to be quoted as well as the +versions in which they were to be quoted. But there are other +points of high importance. Just in proportion as an event is from +a historical point of view suspicious, it is significant as a +proof of the use of the Gospel in which it is contained; such +would be the adoration of the Magi, the slaughter of the +innocents, the flight into Egypt, the conjunction of the foal with +the ass in the entry into Jerusalem. All these are strong evidence +for the use of the first Gospel, which is confirmed in the highest +degree by the occurrence of a reflection peculiar to the +Evangelist, 'Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them +of John the Baptist' (Matt. xvii. 13, compare Dial. 49). Of the +same nature are the allusions to the census of Cyrenius (there is +no material discrepancy between Luke and Justin), and the +statement of the age at which the ministry of Jesus began. These +are almost certainly remarks by the third Evangelist himself, and +not found in any previously existing source. The remand to Herod +in all probability belonged to a source that was quite peculiar to +him. The same may be said with only a little less confidence of +the sections of the preliminary history. + +Taking these salient points together with the mass of the +coincidences each in its place, and with the due weight assigned +to it, the conviction seems forced upon us that Justin did either +mediately or immediately, and most probably immediately and +directly, make use of our Canonical Gospels. + +On the other hand, the argument that he used, whether in addition +to these or exclusively, a Gospel now lost, rests upon the +following data. Justin apparently differs from the Synoptics in +giving the genealogy of Mary, not of Joseph. In Apol. i. 34 he +says that Cyrenius was the first governor (procurator) of Judaea, +instead of saying that the census first took place under Cyrenius. +[It should be remarked, however, that in another place, Dial. 78, +he speaks of 'the census which then took place for the first time +([Greek: ousaes tote protaes]) under Cyrenius.'] He states that +Mary brought forth her Son in a cave near the village of +Bethlehem. He ten times over speaks of the Magi as coming from +Arabia, and not merely from the East. He says emphatically that +all the children ([Greek: pantas haplos tous paidas]) in Bethlehem +were slain without mentioning the limitation of age given in St. +Matthew. He alludes to details in the humble occupation of Jesus +who practised the trade of a carpenter. Speaking of the ministry +of John, he three times repeats the phrase _'as he sat'_ by +the river Jordan. At the baptism of Jesus he says that 'fire was +kindled on' or rather 'in the Jordan,' and that a voice was heard +saying, 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.' He adds +to the notice of the miracles that the Jews thought they were the +effect of magic. Twice he refers, as evidence for what he is +saying, to the Acts of Pontius Pilate. In two places Justin sees a +fulfilment of Ps. xxii, where none is pointed out by the +Synoptics. He says that _all_ the disciples forsook their +Master, which seems to overlook Peter's attack on the high +priest's servant. In the account of the Crucifixion he somewhat +amplifies the Synoptic version of the mocking gestures of the +crowd. And besides these matters of fact he has two sayings, 'In +whatsoever I find you, therein will I also judge you,' and 'There +shall be schisms and heresies,' which are without parallel, or +have no exact parallel, in our Gospels. + +Some of these points are not of any great importance. The +reference to the Acts of Pilate should in all probability be taken +along with the parallel reference to the census of Cyrenius, in +which Justin asserts that the birth of Jesus would be found +registered. Both appear to be based, not upon any actual document +that Justin had seen, but upon the bold assumption that the +official documents must contain a record of facts which he knew +from other sources [Endnote 107:1]. In regard to Cyrenius he +evidently has the Lucan version in his mind, though he seems to +have confused this with his knowledge that Cyrenius was the first +to exercise the Roman sovereignty in Judaea, which was matter of +history. Justin seems to be mistaken in regarding Cyrenius as +'procurator' [Greek: epitropou] of Judaea. He instituted the +census not in this capacity, but as proconsul of Syria. The first +procurator of Judaea was Coponius. Some of Justin's peculiarities +may quite fairly be explained as unintentional. General statements +without the due qualifications, such as those in regard to the +massacre of the children and the conduct of the disciples in +Gethsemane, are met with frequently enough to this day, and in +works of a more professedly critical character than Justin's. The +description of the carpenter's trade and of the crowd at the +Crucifixion may be merely rhetorical amplifications in the one +case of the general Synoptic statement, in the other of the +special statement in St. Mark. A certain fulness of style is +characteristic of Justin. That he attributes the genealogy to Mary +may be a natural instance of reflection; the inconsistency in the +Synoptic Gospels would not be at first perceived, and the simplest +way of removing it would be that which Justin has adopted. It +should be noticed however that he too distinctly says that Joseph +was of the tribe of Judah (Dial. 78) and that his family came from +Bethlehem, which looks very much like an unobliterated trace of +the same inconsistency. It is also noticeable that in the +narrative of the Baptism one of the best MSS. of the Old Latin (a, +Codex Vercellensis) has, in the form of an addition to Matt. iii. +15, 'et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut +timerent omnes qui advenerant,' and there is a very similar +addition in g1 (Codex San-Germanensis). Again, in Luke iii. 22 the +reading [Greek: ego saemeron gegennaeka se] for [Greek: en soi +eudokaesa] is shared with Justin by the most important Graeco- +Latin MS. D (Codex Bezae), and a, b, c, ff, l of the Old Version; +Augustine expressly states that the reading was found 'in several +respectable copies (aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus), though +not in the older Greek Codices.' + +There will then remain the specifying of Arabia as the home of the +Magi, the phrase [Greek: kathezomenos] used of John on the banks +of the Jordan, the two unparallelled sentences, and the cave of +the Nativity. Of these the phrase [Greek: kathezomenos], which +occurs in three places, Dial. 49, 51, 88, but always in Justin's +own narrative and not in quotation, _may_ be an accidental +recurrence; and it is not impossible that the other items may be +derived from an unwritten tradition. + +Still, on the whole, I incline to think that though there is not +conclusive proof that Justin used a lost Gospel besides the +present Canonical Gospels, it is the more probable hypothesis of +the two that he did. The explanations given above seem to me +reasonable and possible; they are enough, I think, to remove the +_necessity_ for assuming a lost document, but perhaps not +quite enough to destroy the greater probability. This conclusion, +we shall find, will be confirmed when we pass from considering the +substance of Justin's Gospel to its form. + +But now if we ask ourselves _what_ was this hypothetical lost +document, all we can say is, I believe, that the suggestions +hitherto offered are insufficient. The Gospels according to the +Hebrews or according to Peter and the Protevangelium of James have +been most in favour. The Gospel according to the Hebrews in the +form in which it was used by the Nazarenes contained the fire upon +Jordan, and as used by the Ebionites it had also the voice, 'This +day have I begotten Thee.' Credner [Endnote 110:1], and after him +Hilgenfeld [Endnote 110:2], thought that the Gospel according to +Peter was used. But we know next to nothing about this Gospel, +except that it was nearly related to the Gospel according to the +Hebrews, that it made the 'brethren of the Lord' sons of Joseph by +a former wife, that it was found by Serapion in the churches of +his diocese, Rhossus in Cilicia, that its use was at first +permitted but afterwards forbidden, as it was found to favour +Docetism, and that its contents were in the main orthodox though +in some respects perverted [Endnote 110:3]. Obviously these facts +and the name (which falls in with the theory--itself also somewhat +unsubstantial--that Justin's Gospel must have a 'Petrine' +character) are quite insufficient to build upon. The Protevangelium +of James, which it is thought might have been used in an earlier +form than that which has come down to us, contains the legend of +the cave, and has apparently a similar view to the Gospel last +mentioned as to the perpetual virginity of Mary. The kindred +Evangelium Thomae has the 'ploughs and yokes.' And there are some +similarities of language between the Protevangelium and Justin's +Gospel, which will come under review later [Endnote 110:4]. + +It does not, however, appear to have been noticed that these +Gospels satisfy most imperfectly the conditions of the problem. We +know that the Gospel according to the Hebrews in its Nazarene form +omitted the whole section Matt. i. 18--ii. 23, containing the +conception, the nativity, the visit of the Magi, and the flight +into Egypt, all of which were found in Justin's Gospel; while in +its Ebionite form it left out the first two chapters altogether. +There is not a tittle of evidence to show that the Gospel +according to Peter was any more complete; in proportion as it +resembled the Gospel according to the Hebrews the presumption is +that it was not. And the Protevangelium of James makes no mention +of Arabia, while it expressly says that the star appeared 'in the +East' (instead of 'in the heaven' as Justin); it also omits, and +rather seems to exclude, the flight into Egypt. + +It is therefore clear that whether Justin used these Gospels or +not, he cannot in any case have confined himself to them; unless +indeed this is possible in regard to the Gospel that bears the +name of Peter, though the possibility is drawn so entirely from +our ignorance that it can hardly be taken account of. We thus seem +to be reduced to the conclusion that Justin's Gospel or Gospels +was an unknown entity of which no historical evidence survives, +and this would almost be enough, according to the logical Law of +Parsimony, to drive us back upon the assumption that our present +Gospels only had been used. This assumption however still does not +appear to me wholly satisfactory, for reasons which will come out +more clearly when from considering the matter of the documents +which Justin used we pass to their form. + + * * * * * + +The reader already has before him a collection of Justin's +quotations from the Old Testament, the results of which may be +stated thus. From the Pentateuch eighteen passages are quoted +exactly, nineteen with slight variations, and eleven with marked +divergence. From the Psalms sixteen exactly, including nine (or +ten) whole Psalms, two with slight and three with decided +variation. From Isaiah twenty-five exactly, twelve slightly +variant, and sixteen decidedly. From the other Major Prophets +Justin has only three exact quotations, four slightly divergent, +and eleven diverging more widely. From the Minor Prophets and +other books he has two exact quotations, seven in which the +variation is slight, and thirteen in which it is marked. Of the +distinctly free quotations in the Pentateuch (eleven in all), +three may be thought to have a Messianic character (the burning +bush, the brazen serpent, the curse of the cross), but in none of +these does the variation appear to be due to this. Of the three +free quotations from the Psalms two are Messianic, and one of +these has probably been influenced by the Messianic application. +In the free quotations from Isaiah it is not quite easy to say +what are Messianic and what are not; but the only clear case in +which the Messianic application seems to have caused a marked +divergence is xlii. 1-4. Other passages, such as ii. 5, 6, vii. +10-17, lii. l3-liii. 12 (as quoted in A. i. 50), appear under the +head of slight variation. The long quotation lii. 10-liv. 6, in +Dial. 12, is given with substantial exactness. Turning to the +other Major Prophets, one passage, Jer. xxxi. 15, has probably +derived its shape from the Messianic application. And in the Minor +Prophets three passages (Hos. x. 6, Zech. xii. 10-12, and Micah v. +2) appear to have been thus affected. The rest of the free +quotations and some of the variations in those which are less free +may be set down to defect of memory or similar accidental causes. + +Let us now draw up a table of Justin's quotations from the Gospels +arranged as nearly as may be on the same standard and scale as +that of the quotations from the Old Testament. Such a table will +stand thus. [Those only which appear to be direct quotations are +given.] + + + _Exact._ |_Slightly variant._ | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | | | + |+D.49, Matt. 3.11, | |repeated in part + | 12 (v.l.) | | similarly. + |D. 51, Matt. 11. | |compounded with + | 12-15; Luke 16. | | omissions but + | 16+. | | striking resem- + | | | blances. +D. 49, Matt. 17. | | | + 11-13. | | | + |A.1.15, Matt. 5.28. | | + | |A.1.15, Matt. 5. |from memory? + | | 29; Mark 9.47. | + |A.1.15, Matt. 5.32. | |confusion of read- + | | | ings. + | |+A.1.15, Matt. |from memory? + | | 19.12. | + | |A.1.15, Matt. 5. |compounded. + | | 42; Luke 6.30, | + | | 34. | +Continuous.{ |A.1.15, Matt. 6. | | + { |19, 20; 16.26; 6.20.| | + | | | + |Continuous.{ |A.1.15 (D.96), |from memory(Cr.), + | { | Luke 6.36; | but prob. diff- + | { | Matt. 5.45; 6. | erent document; + | { | 25-27; Luke 12.| rather marked + | { | 22-24; Matt. 6.| identity in + | { | 32, 33; 6.21. | phrase. + |A.1.15, Matt. 6.1. | | +A.1.15, Matt. 9. | | | do the last + 13(?). | | | words belong + | | | to the + | |C | quotation? + | |o { A.1.15, Luke| + | |n { 6.32; Matt.| + | |t { 5.46. | + | |i { A.1.15, (D. |repeated in part + | |n { 128), Luke | similarly, in + | |u { 6.27, 28; | part diversely; + | |o { Matt. 5.44. | confusion in + | |u | MSS. + | |s | + | |s | +Continuous. { |A.1.16, Luke 6.29 | | + { | (Matt. 5.39, 40.) | | + { | |A.1.16, Matt. 5. | + { | | 22 (v.l.) | + { | |A.1.16, Matt. 5 |[Greek: + { | | 41. | angaeusei.] + { |A.1.16, Matt. 5.16. | | + | |D.93, A,1.16, | + | | Matt. 22.40,37,| + | | 38. | + | |A.1.16, D.101, |repeated + | | Matt. 19.16, | diversely. + | | 17 (v.l.); Luke| + | | 18.18,19 (v.l.)| + |A.1.16, Matt. 5. | | + | 34,37. | | + {A.1.16, Matt. | | | + { 7.21. | | | +C { |A.1.16 (A.1.62), | |repeated in part +o { | Luke 10.16 (v.l.) | | similarly, in +n { | | | part diversely. +t { | |+A.1.16 (D.76), | +i { | | Matt. 7.22, 23 | +n { | | (v.l.); Luke | +u { | | 13.26,27 (v.l.)| +o { |A.1.16, Matt. 13. | |addition. +u { | 42, 43 (v.l.) | | +s { | |A.1.16 (D.35), | + { | | Matt. 7.15. | + { |A.1.16, Matt. 7. | | + { | 16, 19. | | +D.76, Matt. 8.11.| | | + 12+. | | | + | |D.35, [Greek: | + | | esontai schi- | + | | smata kai hai- | + | | reseis.] | + |D.76, Matt. 25.41 | | + | (v.l.) | | + |D.35, Matt. 7.15. | |repeated with + | | | nearer + | | | approach to + | | | Matthew, perh. + | | | v.l. + | |D.35, 82, Matt. |repeated with + | |24.24 (Mark 13. | similarity and + | | 22). | divergence. + | |D.82, Matt. 10. |freely. + | | 22, par. | +A.1.19, Luke 18. | | | + 27+. | | | + | |A.1.19, Luke 12. |compounded. + | | 4, 5; Matt. | + | | 10.28. | + | |A.1.17, Luke 12. | + | | 48 (v.l.) | + |D.76, Luke 10.19+ | |ins. [Greek: + | | | skolopendron.] +D.105, Matt. 5. | | | + 20. | | | + | |D.125, Matt. 13. |condensed narra- + | | 3 sqq. | tive. + | |+D.17, Luke 11. | + | | 52. | + |D.17, Matt. 23.23; | |compounded. + | Luke 11.42. | | + |D.17, 112, Matt. | |repeated simi- + | 23.27; 23.24. | | larly. + | |D.47, [Greek: en | + | | ois an humas | + | | katalabo en | + | | toutois kai | + | | krino.] | + |D.81, Luke 20. | |marked resem- + | 35, 36. | | blance with + | | | difference. +D.107, Matt.16.4.| | | + |D. 122, Matt. 23. | | + | 15. | | + |+D.17, Matt. 21. | | + | 13, 12. | | + | |+A.1.17, Luke 20.|narrative portion + | | 22-25 (v.l.) | free. + |D.100, A.1.63, | |repeated not + | Matt. 11.27 (v.l.)| | identically. + |D.76, 100, Luke | |repeated diverse- + | 9.22. | | diversely; + | | | free (Credner). +A.1.36, Matt. 21.| |D.53, Matt. 21.5.|(Zech. 9.9). + 5 (addition). | | | + | |A.1.66, Luke 22. | + | | 19, 20. | + |D.99, Matt. 26. | | + | 39 (v.l.) | | + | |D.103, Luke 22. | + | | 42-44. | + | |D.101, Matt. 27. | + | | 43. | + | |A.1.38, [Greek: | + | | ho nekrous | + | | anegeiras rhu- | + | | sastho eauton.]| +D.99, Matt. 27. | | |compounded. + 46; Mark 15.34.| | | +D.105, Luke 23. | | | + 46. + + +The total result may be taken to be that ten passages are +substantially exact, while twenty-five present slight and thirty- +two marked variations [Endnote 116:1]. This is only rough and +approximate, because of the passages that are put down as exact +two, or possibly three, can only be said to be so with a +qualification; though, on the other hand, there are passages +entered under the second class as 'slightly variant' which have a +leaning towards the first, and passages entered under the third +which have a perceptible leaning towards the second. We can +therefore afford to disregard these doubtful cases and accept the +classification very much as it stands. Comparing it then with the +parallel classification that has been made of the quotations from +the Old Testament, we find that in the latter sixty-four were +ranked as exact, forty-four as slightly variant, and fifty-four as +decidedly variant. If we reduce these roughly to a common standard +of comparison the proportion of variation may be represented +thus:-- + | Exact. | Slightly | Variant. + | | variant. | + | | | +Quotations from the Old Testament | 10 | 7 | 9 +Quotations from the Synoptic Gospels | 10 | 25 | 32 + +It will be seen from this at once how largely the proportion of +variation rises; it is indeed more than three times as high for +the quotations from the Gospels as for those from the Old Testament. +The amount of combination too is decidedly in excess of that which +is found in the Old Testament quotations. + +There is, it is true, something to be said on the other side. +Justin quotes the Old Testament rather as Scripture, the New +Testament rather as history. I think it will be felt that he has +permitted his own style a freer play in regard to the latter than +the former. The New Testament record had not yet acquired the same +degree of fixity as the Old. The 'many' compositions of which +St. Luke speaks in his preface were still in circulation, and were +only gradually dying out. One important step had been taken in the +regular reading of the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' at the Christian +assemblies. We have not indeed proof that these were confined to +the Canonical Gospels. Probably as yet they were not. But it +should be remembered that Irenaeus was now a boy, and that by the +time he had reached manhood the Canon of the Gospels had received +its definite form. + +Taking all these points into consideration I think we shall find +the various indications converge upon very much the same conclusion +as that at which we have already arrived. The _a priori_ probabilities +of the case, as well as the actual phenomena of Justin's Gospel, +alike tend to show that he did make use either mediately or immediately +of our Gospels, but that he did not assign to them an exclusive +authority, and that he probably made use along with them of other +documents no longer extant. + +The proof that Justin made use of each of our three Synoptics +individually is perhaps more striking from the point of view of +substance than of form, because his direct quotations are mostly +taken from the discourses rather than from the narrative, and +these discourses are usually found in more than a single Gospel, +while in proportion as they bear the stamp of originality and +authenticity it is difficult to assign them to any particular +reporter. There is however some strong and remarkable evidence of +this kind. + +At least one case of parallelism seems to prove almost decisively +the use of the first Gospel. It is necessary to give the quotation +and the original with the parallel from St. Mark side by side. + +_Justin, Dial._ c.49. + +[Greek: Aelias men eleusetai kai apokatastaesei panta, lego de +humin, hoti Aelias aedae aelthe kai ouk epegnosan auton all' +epoiaesan auto hosa aethelaesan. Kai gegraptai hoti tote sunaekan +oi mathaetai, hoti peri Ioannon tou Baptistou eipen autois.] + +_Matt._ xvii. 11-13. + +[Greek: Aelias men erchetai apokatastaesei panta, lego de humin +hoti Aelias aedae aelthen kai ouk epegnosan auton, alla epoiaesan +auto hosa aethelaesan, [outos kai ho uios tou anthropou mellei +paschein hup' auton.] Tote sunaekan oi mathaetai hoti peri Ioannou +tou Baptistou eipen autois.] The clause in brackets is placed at +the end of ver. 13 by D. and the Old Latin. + +_Mark._ ix. 12, 13. + +[Greek: Ho de ephae autois, Aelias [men] elthon proton +apokathistanei panta, kai pos gegraptai epi ton uion tou +anthropou, hina polla pathae kai exoudenaethae. Alla lego humin +hoti kai Aelias elaeluthen kai epoiaesan auto hosa aethelon, +kathos gegraptai ep' auton.] + + +We notice here, first, an important point, that Justin reproduces at +the end of his quotation what appears to be not so much a part of the +object-matter of the narrative as a _comment or reflection of the +Evangelist_ ('Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of +John the Baptist'). This was thought by Credner, who as a rule is +inclined to press the use of an apocryphal Gospel by Justin, to be +sufficient proof that the quotation is taken from our present Matthew +[Endnote 119:1]. On this point, however, there is an able and on the +whole a sound argument in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 119:2]. +There are certainly cases in which a similar comment or reflection is +found either in all three Synoptic Gospels or in two of them (e.g. +Matt. vii. 28, 29 = Mark i. 22 = Luke iv. 32; Matt. xiii. 34 = Mark +iv. 33, 34; Matt. xxvi. 43 = Mark xiv. 40; Matt. xix. 22 = Mark x. +22). The author consequently maintains that these were found in the +original document from which all three, or two Synoptics at least, +borrowed; and he notes that this very passage is assigned by Ewald to +the 'oldest Gospel.' + +The observation in itself is a fine and true one, and has an +important bearing upon the question as to the way in which our +Synoptic Gospels were composed. We may indeed remark in passing +that the author seems to have overlooked the fact that, when once +this principle of a common written basis or bases for the Synoptic +Gospels is accepted, nine-tenths of his own argument is overthrown; +for there are no divergences in the text of the patristic quotations +from the Gospels that may not be amply paralleled by the differences +which exist in the text of the several Gospels themselves, showing +that the Evangelists took liberties with their ground documents +to an extent that is really greater than that of any subsequent +misquotation. But putting aside for the present this _argumentum +ad hominem_ which seems to follow from the admission here made, +there is, I think, the strongest reason to conclude that in the +present case the first Evangelist is not merely reproducing his +ground document. There is one element in the question which the +author has omitted to notice; that is, the _parallel passage in +St. Mark._ This differs so widely from the text of St. Matthew as +to show that that text cannot accurately represent the original; +it also wants the reflective comment altogether. Accordingly, if +the author will turn to p. 275 of Ewald's book [Endnote 120:1] he +will find that that writer, though roughly assigning the passage +as it appears in both Synoptics to the 'oldest Gospel,' yet in +reconstructing the text of this Gospel does so, not by taking that +of either of the Synoptics pure and simple, but by mixing the two. +All the other critics who have dealt with this point, so far as I +am aware, have done the same. Holtzmann [Endnote 120:2] follows +Ewald, and Weiss [Endnote 120:3] accepts Mark's as more nearly the +original text. + +The very extent of the divergence in St. Mark throws out into striking +relief the close agreement of Justin's quotation with St. Matthew. +Here we have three verses word for word the same, even to the finest +shades of expression. To the single exception [Greek: eleusetai] +for [Greek: erchetai] I cannot, as Credner does [Endnote 120:4], +attach any importance. The present tense in the Gospel has undoubtedly +a future signification [Endnote 120:5], and Justin was very naturally +led to give it also a future form by [Greek: apokatastaesei] which +follows. For the rest, the order, particles, tenses are so absolutely +identical, where the text of St. Mark shows how inevitably they must +have differed in another Gospel or even in the original, that I can +see no alternative but to refer the quotation directly to our present +St. Matthew. + +If this passage had stood alone, taken in connection with the +coincidence of matter between Justin and the first Gospel, great +weight must have attached to it. But it does not by any means stand +alone. There is an exact verbal agreement in the verses Matt. v. 20 +('Except your righteousness' &c.) and Matt. vii. 21 ('Not every one +that saith unto me,' &c.) which are peculiar to the first Gospel. +There is a close agreement, if not always with the best, yet with some +very old, text of St. Matthew in v. 22 (note especially the striking +phrase and construction [Greek: enochos eis]), v. 28 (note [Greek: +blep. pros to epithum].), v. 41 (note the remarkable word [Greek: +angareusei]), xxv. 41, and not too great a divergence in v. 16, vi. 1 +([Greek: pros to theathaenai, ei de mae ge misthon ouk echete]), and +xix. 12, all of which passages are without parallel in any extant +Gospel. There are also marked resemblances to the Matthaean text in +synoptic passages such as Matt. iii. 11, 12 ([Greek: eis metanoian, ta +hupodaemata bastasai]), Matt. vi. 19, 20 ([Greek: hopou saes kai +brosis aphanizei], where Luke has simply [Greek: saes diaphtheirei], +and [Greek: diorussousi] where Luke has [Greek: engizei]), Matt. vii. +22, 23 ([Greek: ekeinae tae haemera Kurie, Kurie, k.t.l.]), Matt. xvi. +26 ([Greek: dosei] Matt. only, [Greek: antallagma] Matt., Mark), Matt. +xvi. 1, 4 (the last verse exactly). As these passages are all from the +discourses I do not wish to say that they may not be taken from other +Gospels than the canonical, but we have absolutely no evidence that +they were so taken, and every additional instance increases the +probability that they were taken directly from St. Matthew, which by +this time, I think, has reached a very high degree of presumption. + +I have reserved for a separate discussion a single instance which +I shall venture to add to those already quoted, although I am +aware that it is alleged on the opposite side. Justin has the +saying 'Let your yea be yea and your nay nay, for whatsoever is +more than these cometh of the Evil One' ([Greek: Mae omosaete +holos. Esto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou; to de perisson +touton ek tou ponaerou]), which is set against the first +Evangelist's 'Let your conversation be Yea yea, Nay nay, for +whatsoever is more than these cometh of the Evil One' ([Greek: ego +de lego humin mae omosai holos... Esto de ho logos humon nai nai, +ou ou; to de perisson, k.t.l.]). Now it is perfectly true that as +early as the Canonical Epistle of James (v. 12) we find the +reading [Greek: aeto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou], and that +in the Clementine Homilies twice over we read [Greek: esto humon +to nai nai, (kai) to ou ou], [Greek: kai] being inserted in one +instance and not in the other. Justin's reading is found also +exactly in Clement of Alexandria, and a similar reading (though +with the [Greek: aeto] of James) in Epiphanius. These last two +examples show that the misquotation was an easy one to fall into, +because there can be little doubt that Clement and Epiphanius +supposed themselves to be quoting the canonical text. There +remains however the fact that the Justinian form is supported by +the pseudo-Clementines; and at the first blush it might seem that +'Let your yea be yea' (stand to your word) made better, at least a +complete and more obvious, sense than 'Let your conversation be' +(let it not go beyond) 'Yea yea' &c [Endnote 122:1]. There is, +however, what seems to be a decisive proof that the original form +both of Justin's and the Clementine quotation is that which is +given in the first Gospel. Both Justin and the writer who passes +under the name of Clement add the clause 'Whatsoever is more than +these cometh of evil' (or 'of the Evil One'). But this, while it +tallies perfectly with the canonical reading, evidently excludes +any other. It is consequent and good sense to say, 'Do not go +beyond a plain yes or no, because whatever is in excess of this +must have an evil motive,' but the connection is entirely lost +when we substitute 'Keep your word, for whatever is more than this +has an evil motive'--more than what? + +The most important points that can be taken to imply a use of +St. Mark's Gospel have been already discussed as falling under +the head of matter rather than of form. + +The coincidences with Luke are striking but complicated. In his +earlier work, the 'Beiträge' [Endnote 123:1], Credner regarded as +a decided reference to the Prologue of this Gospel the statement +of Justin that his Memoirs were composed [Greek: hupo ton +apostolon autou kai ton ekeinois parakolouthaesanton]: but, in the +posthumous History of the Canon [Endnote 123:2], he retracts this +view, having come to recognise a greater frequency in the use of +the word [Greek: parakolouthein] in this sense. It will also of +course be noticed that Justin has [Greek: par. tois ap.] and not +[Greek: par. tois pragmasin], as Luke. It is doubtless true that +the use of the word can be paralleled to such an extent as to make +it not a matter of certainty that the Gospel is being quoted: +still I think there will be a certain probability that it has been +suggested by a reminiscence of this passage, and, strangely +enough, there is a parallel for the substitution of the historians +for the subject-matter of their history in Epiphanius, who reads +[Greek: par. tois autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou] [Endnote +124:1], where he is explicitly and unquestionably quoting St. +Luke. + +There are some marked coincidences of phrase in the account of the +Annunciation--[Greek: eperchesthai, episkaizein, dunamis +hupsistou] (a specially Lucan phrase), [Greek: to gennomenon] +(also a form characteristic of St. Luke), [Greek idou, sullaepsae +en gastri kai texae huion]. Of the other peculiarities of St. Luke +Justin has in exact accordance the last words upon the cross +([Greek: Pater, eis cheiras sou paratithemai to pneuma mou]). In +the Agony in the Garden Justin has the feature of the Bloody +Sweat; but it is right to notice-- + +(1) That he has [Greek: thromboi] alone, without [Greek: +haimatos]. Luke, [Greek: egeneto ho hidros autou hosei thromboi +haimatos katabainontes]. Justin, [Greek: hidros hosei thromboi +katecheito]. + +(2) That this is regarded as a fulfilment of Ps. xxii. 14 ('All my +tears are poured out' &c.). + +(3) That in continuing the quotation Justin follows Matthew rather +than Luke. These considerations may be held to qualify, though I +do not think that they suffice to remove, the conclusion that St. +Luke's Gospel is being quoted. It seems to be sufficiently clear +that [Greek: thromboi] might be used in this signification without +[Greek: aimatos] [Endnote 124:2], and it appears from the whole +manner of Justin's narrative that he intends to give merely the +sense and not the words, with the exception of the single saying +'Let this cup pass from Me,' which is taken from St. Matthew. We +cannot say positively that this feature did not occur in any other +Gospel, but there is absolutely no reason apart from this passage +to suppose that it did. The construction with [Greek: hosei] is in +some degree characteristic of St. Luke, as it occurs more often in +the works of that writer than in all the rest of the New Testament +put together. + +In narrating the institution of the Lord's Supper Justin has the +clause which is found only in St. Luke and St. Paul, 'This do in +remembrance of Me' ([Greek: mou] for [Greek: emaen]). The giving +of the cup he quotes rather after the first two Synoptics, and +adds 'that He gave it to them (the Apostles) alone.' This last +does not seem to be more than an inference of Justin's own. + +Two other sayings Justin has which are without parallel except in +St. Luke. One is from the mission of the seventy. + +_Justin, Dial._ 76 + +[Greek: Didomi humin exousian katapatein epano opheon, kai +skorpion, kai skolopendron, kai epano parsaes dunameos tou +echthrou.] + +_Luke_ x. 19. + +[Greek: Idou, didomi humin taen exousian tou patein epano epheon, +kai skorpion, kai epi pasan taen dunamin tou echthrou.] + +The insertion of [Greek: skolopendron] here is curious. It may be +perhaps to some extent paralleled by the insertion of [Greek: kai +eis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9: we have also seen a strange addition +in the quotation of Ps. li. 19 in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. ii). +Otherwise the resemblance of Justin to the Gospel is striking. The +second saying, 'To whom God has given more, of him shall more be +required' (Apol. i. 17), if quoted from the Gospel at all, is only +a paraphrase of Luke xii. 48. + +Besides these there are other passages, which are perhaps stronger +as separate items of evidence, where, in quoting synoptic matter, +Justin makes use of phrases which are found only in St. Luke and +are discountenanced by the other Evangelists. Thus in the account +of the rich young man, the three synoptical versions of the saying +that impossibilities with men are possible with God, run thus:-- + +_Luke_ xviii. 27. + +[Greek: Ta adunata para anthropois dunata para to Theo estin.] + +_Mark_ x. 27. + +[Greek: Para anthropois adunaton, all' ou para Theo; punta gar +dunata para to Theo]. + +_Matt_. xix. 26. + +[Greek: Para anthropois touto adunaton estin, para de Theo dunata +panta]. + +Here it will be observed that Matthew and Mark (as frequently +happens) are nearer to each other than either of them is to Luke. +This would lead us to infer that, as they are two to one, they +more nearly represent the common original, which has been somewhat +modified in the hands of St. Luke. But now Justin has the words +precisely as they stand in St. Luke, with the omission of [Greek: +estin], the order of which varies in the MSS. of the Gospel. This +must be taken as a strong proof that Justin has used the peculiar +text of the third Gospel. Again, it is to be noticed that in +another section of the triple synopsis (Mark xii. 20=Matt. xxii. +30=Luke xx. 35, 36) he has, in common with Luke and diverging from +the other Gospels which are in near agreement, the remarkable +compound [Greek: isangeloi] and the equally remarkable phrase +[Greek: huioi taes anastaseos] ([Greek: tekna tou Theou taes +anastaseos] Justin). This also I must regard as supplying a strong +argument for the direct use of the Gospel. Many similar instances +may be adduced; [Greek: erchetai] ([Greek: aexei] Justin) [Greek: +ho ischuroteros] (Luke iii. 16), [Greek: ho nomos kai hoi +prophaetai heos] ([Greek: mechri] Justin) [Greek: Ioannon] (Luke +xvi. 16), [Greek: panti to aitounti] (Luke vi. 30), [Greek: to +tuptonti se epi] ([Greek: sou] Justin) [Greek: taen siagona +pareche kai taen allaen k.t.l.] (Luke vi. 29; compare Matt. v. 39, +40), [Greek: ti me legeis agathon] and [Greek: oudeis agathos ei +mae] (Luke xviii. 19; compare Matt. xix. 17), [Greek: meta tauta +mae echonton] ([Greek: dunamenous] Justin) [Greek: perissoteron] +(om. Justin) [Greek: ti poiaesae k.t.l.] (Luke xii. 4, 5; compare +Matt. X. 28), [Greek: paeganon] and [Greek: agapaen tou Theou] +(Luke xi. 42). In the parallel passage to Luke ix. 22 (=Matt xvi. +21= Mark viii. 31) Justin has the striking word [Greek: +apodokimasthaenai], with Mark and Luke against Matthew, and +[Greek: hupo] with Mark against the [Greek: apo] of the two other +Synoptics. This last coincidence can perhaps hardly be pressed, as +[Greek: hupo] would be the more natural word to use. + +In the cases where we have only the double synopsis to compare +with Justin, we have no certain test to distinguish between the +primary and secondary features in the text of the Gospels. We +cannot say with confidence what belonged to the original document +and what to the later editor who reduced it to its present form. +In these cases therefore it is possible that when Justin has a +detail that is found in St. Matthew and wanting in St. Luke, or +found in St. Luke and wanting in St. Matthew, he is still not +quoting directly from either of those Gospels, but from the common +document on which they are based. The triple synopsis however +furnishes such a criterion. It enables us to see what was the +original text and how any single Evangelist has diverged from it. +Thus in the two instances quoted at the beginning of the last +paragraph it is evident that the Lucan text represents a deviation +from the original, and _that deviation Justin has reproduced_. The +word [Greek: isangeloi] may be taken as a crucial case. Both the +other Synoptics have simply [Greek hos angeloi], and this may be +set down as undoubtedly the reading of the original; the form +[Greek: isangeloi], which occurs nowhere else in the New +Testament, and I believe, so far as we know, nowhere else in Greek +before this passage [Endnote 128:1], has clearly been coined by +the third Evangelist and has been adopted from him by Justin. So +that in a quotation which otherwise presents considerable +variation we have what I think must be called the strongest +evidence that Justin really had St. Luke's narrative, either in +itself or in some secondary shape, before him. + +We are thus brought once more to the old result. If Justin did not +use our Gospels in their present shape as they have come down to +us, he used them in a later shape, not in an earlier. His +resemblances to them cannot be accounted for by the supposition +that he had access to the materials out of which they were +composed, because he reproduces features which by the nature of +the case cannot have been present in those originals, but of which +we are still able to trace the authorship and the exact point of +their insertion. Our Gospels form a secondary stage in the history +of the text, Justin's quotations a tertiary. In order to reach the +state in which it is found in Justin, the road lies _through_ our +Gospels, and not outside them. + +This however does not exclude the possibility that Justin may at +times quote from uncanonical Gospels as well. We have already seen +reason to think that he did so from the substance of the +Evangelical narrative, as it appears in his works, and this +conclusion too is not otherwise than confirmed by its form. The +degree and extent of the variations incline us to introduce such +an additional factor to account for them. Either Justin has used a +lost Gospel or Gospels, besides those that are still extant, or +else he has used a recension of these Gospels with some slight +changes of language and with some apocryphal additions. We have +seen that he has two short sayings and several minute details that +are not found in our present Gospels. A remarkable coincidence is +noticed in 'Supernatural Religion' with the Protevangelium of +James [Endnote 129:1]. As in that work so also in Justin, the +explanation of the name Jesus occurs in the address of the angel +to Mary, not to Joseph, 'Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy +Ghost and bear a Son and He shall be called the Son of the +Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His +people from their sins.' Again the Protevangelium has the phrase +'Thou shalt conceive of His Word,' which, though not directly +quoted, appears to receive countenance from Justin. The author +adds that 'Justin's divergences from the Protevangelium prevent +our supposing that in its present form it could have been the +actual source of his quotations,' though he thinks that he had +before him a still earlier work to which both the Protevangelium +and the third Gospel were indebted. So far as the Protevangelium +is concerned this may very probably have been the case; but what +reason there is for assuming that the same document was also +anterior to the third Gospel I am not aware. On the contrary, this +very passage seems to suggest an opposite conclusion. The +quotation in Justin and the address in the Protevangelium both +present a combination of narratives that are kept separate in the +first and third Gospels. But this very fact supplies a strong +presumption that the version of those Gospels is the earliest. It +is unlikely that the first Evangelist, if he had found his text +already existing as part of the speech of the angel to Mary, would +have transferred it to an address to Joseph; and it is little less +unlikely that the third Evangelist, finding the fuller version of +Justin and the Protevangelium, should have omitted from it one of +its most important features. If a further link is necessary to +connect Justin with the Protevangelium, that link comes into the +chain after our Gospels and not before. Dr. Hilgenfeld has also +noticed the phrase [Greek: charan de labousa Mariam] as common to +Justin and the Protevangelium [Endnote 130:1]. This, too, may +belong to the older original of the latter work. The other verbal +coincidences with the Gospel according to the Hebrews in the +account of the Baptism, and with that of Thomas in the 'ploughs +and yokes,' have been already mentioned, and are, I believe, along +with those just discussed, all that can be directly referred to an +apocryphal source. + +Besides these there are some coincidences in form between quotations +as they appear in Justin and in other writers, such as especially the +Clementine Homilies. These are thought to point to the existence of a +common Gospel (now lost) from which they may have been extracted. It +is unnecessary to repeat what has been said about one of these +passages ('Let your yea be yea,' &c.). Another corresponds roughly to +the verse Matt. xxv. 41, where both Justin and the Clementine Homilies +read [Greek: hupagete eis to skotos to exoteron o haetoimasen ho +pataer to satana (to diabolo] Clem. Hom.) [Greek: kai tois angelois +autou] for the canonical [Greek: poreuesthe ap' emou eis to pur to +aionion to haetoimasmenon k.t.l.] It is true that there is a +considerable approximation to the reading of Justin and the +Clementines, found especially in MSS. and authorities of a Western +character (D. Latt. Iren. Cypr. Hil.), but there still remains the +coincidence in regard to [Greek: exoteron](?) for [Greek: aionion] and +[Greek: skotos] for [Greek: pyr], which seems to be due to something +more than merely a variant text of the Gospel. A third meeting-point +between Justin and the Clementines is afforded by a text which we +shall have to touch upon when we come to speak of the fourth Gospel. +Of the other quotations common to the Clementines and Justin there is +a partial but not complete coincidence in regard to Matt. vii. 15, xi. +27, xix. 16, and Luke vi. 36. In Matt. vii. 15 the Clementines have +[Greek: polloi eleusontai] where Justin has once [Greek: polloi +eleusontai], once [Greek: polloi aexousin], and once the Matthaean +version [Greek: prosechete apo ton pseudoprophaeton oitines erchontai +k.t.l.] There is however a difference in regard to the reading [Greek: +en endumasi], where the Clementines have [Greek: en endumatie], and +Justin twice over [Greek: endedumenoi]. In Matt. xi. 27, Justin and +the Clementines agree as to the order of the clauses, and twice in the +use of the aorist [Greek: egno] (Justin has once [Greek: ginosko]), +but in the concluding clause ([Greek: ho [ois] Clem.] [Greek: ean +boulaetai ho nios apokalupsai]) Justin has uniformly in the three +places where the verse is quoted [Greek: ois an ho uhios apokalupsae]. +In Matt. xix. 16, 17 (Luke xviii. 18, 19) the Clementines and Justin +alternately adhere to the Canonical text while differing from each +other, but in the concluding phrase Justin has on one occasion the +Clementine reading, [Greek: ho pataer mou ho en tois ouranois]. In +Luke vi. 36 the Clementines have [Greek: ginesthe agathoi kai +ioktirmones], where Justin has [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kai +oiktirmones] against the Canonical [Greek: ginesthe oiktirmones]. On +the other hand, it should be said that the remaining quotations common +to the Clementines and Justin have to all appearance no relation to +each other. This applies to Matt. iv. 10, v. 39, 40, vi. 8, viii. 11, +x. 28; Luke xi. 52. Speaking generally we seem to observe in comparing +Justin and the Clementines phenomena not dissimilar to those which +appear on a comparison with the Canonical Gospels. There is perhaps +about the same degree at once of resemblance and divergence. + +The principal textual coincidence with other writers is that with +the Gospel used by the Marcosians as quoted by Irenaeus (Adv. +Haer. i. 20. 3). Here the reading of Matt. xi. 27 is given in a +form very similar to that of Justin, [Greek: oudeis hegno ton +patera ei mae ho uhios, kai (oude Justin) ton uhion, ei mae ho +pataer kai ho (ois] Justin) [Greek: an ho uhios apokalupsae]. +This verse however is quoted by the early writers, orthodox as well +as heretical, in almost every possible way, and it is not clear from +the account in Irenaeus whether the Marcosians used an extra- +canonical Gospel or merely a different text of the Canonical. +Irenaeus himself seems to hold the latter view, and in favour of +it may be urged the fact that they quote passages peculiar both to +the first and the third Gospel; on the other hand, one of their +quotations, [Greek: pollakis epethuaesa akousai hena ton logon +touton], does not appear to have a canonical original. + +On reviewing these results we find them present a chequered +appearance. There are no traces of coincidence so definite and +consistent as to justify us in laying the finger upon any +particular extra-canonical Gospel as that used by Justin. But upon +the whole it seems best to assume that some such Gospel was used, +certainly not to the exclusion of the Canonical Gospels, but +probably in addition to them. + +A confusing element in the whole question is that to which we have +just alluded in regard to the Gospel of the Marcosians. It is +often difficult to decide whether a writer has really before him +an unknown document or merely a variant text of one with which we +are familiar. In the case of Justin it is to be noticed that there +is often a very considerable approximation to his readings, not in +the best text, but in some very early attested text, of the +Canonical Gospels. It will be well to collect some of the most +prominent instances of this. + +Matt. iii. 15 ad fin. [Greek: kai pur anaephthae en to Iordanae] +Justin. So a. (Codex Vercellensis of the Old Latin translation) +adds 'et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut +timerent onmes qui advenerant;' g[1]. (Codex Sangermanensis of the +same) 'lumen magnum fulgebat de aqua,' &c. See above. + +Luke iii. 22. Justin reads [Greek: uhios mon ei su, ego saemeron +gegennaeka se]. So D, a, b, c, ff, l, Latin Fathers ('nonnulli +codices' Augustine). See above. + +Matt. v. 28. [Greek: hos un emblepsae] for [Greek: pas ho blepon]. +Origen five times as Justin, only once the accepted text. + +Matt. v. 29. Justin and Clement of Alexandria read here [Greek: +ekkopson] for [Greek: exele], probably from the next verse or from +Matt. xviii. 8. + +Matt. vi. 20. [Greek: ouranois] Clem. Alex. with Justin; [Greek: +ourano] the accepted reading. + +Matt. xvi. 26. [Greek: opheleitai] Justin with most MSS. both of +the Old Latin and of the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac +(Crowfoot), Clement, Hilary, and Lucifer, against [Greek: +ophelaethaesetai] of the best Alexandrine authorities. + +Matt. vi. 21. There is a striking coincidence here with Clement of +Alexandria, who reads, like Justin, [Greek: nous] for [Greek: +cardia]; it would seem that Clement had probably derived his +reading from Justin. + +Matt. v. 22. [Greek: hostis an orgisthae] Syr. Crt. (Crowfoot); so +Justin ([Greek: hos]). + +Matt. v. 16. Clement of Alexandria (with Tertullian and several +Latin Fathers) has [Greek: lampsato ta erga] and [Greek: ta agatha +erga], where Justin has [Greek: lampsato ta kala erga], for +[Greek: lampsato to phos]. Both readings would seem to be a gloss +on the original. + +Matt. v. 37. [Greek: kai] is inserted, as in Justin, by a, b, g, +h, Syr. Crt. and Pst. + +Luke x. 16. Justin has the reading [Greek: ho emou akouon akouei +ton aposteilantos me]: so D, i, l (of the Old Latin) in place of +[Greek: ho eme atheton k.t.l.]; in addition to it, E, a, b, Syr. +Crt. and Hel. &c. + +Matt. vii. 22. [Greek: ou to so anomati ephagomen kai epiomen] +Justin; similarly Origen, four times, and Syr. Crt. + +Luke xiii. 27. [Greek: anomias] for [Greek: adikias], D and +Justin. + +Matt. xiii. 43. [Greek: lampsosin] for [Greek: eklampsosin] with +Justin, D, and Origen (twice). + +Matt. xxv. 41. Of Justin's readings in this verse [Greek: +hupagete] for [Greek: poreuesthe] is found also in [Hebrew: ?] and +Hippolytus, [Greek: exoteron] for [Greek: aionion] in the cursive +manuscript numbered 40 (Credner; I am unable to verify this), +[Greek: ho haetoimasen ho pater mou] for [Greek: to haetoimasmenon] +D. 1, most Codd. of the Old Latin, Iren. Tert. Cypr. Hil. Hipp. +and Origen in the Latin translation. + +Luke xii. 48. D, like Justin, has here [Greek: pleon] for [Greek: +perissoteron] and also the compound form [Greek: apaitaesousin]. + +Luke xx. 24. Though in the main following (but loosely) the text +of Luke, Justin has here [Greek: to nomisma], as Matt., instead of +[Greek: daenarion]; so D. + +Though it will be seen that Justin has thus much in common with D +and the Old Latin version, it should be noticed that he has the +verse, Luke xxii. 19, and especially the clause [Greek: touto +poieite eis taen emaen anamnaesin] which is wanting in these +authorities. On the other hand, he appears to have with them and +other authorities, including Syr. Crt., the Agony in the Garden as +given in Luke xxii, 43,44, which verses are omitted in MSS. of the +best Alexandrine type. Luke xxiii. 34, Justin also has, with the +divided support of the majority of Greek MSS. Vulgate, c, e, f, ff +of the Old Latin, Syr. Crt. and Pst. &c. against B, D (prima +manu), a, b, Memph. (MSS.) Theb. + +These readings represent in the main a text which was undoubtedly +current and widely diffused in the second century. 'Though no +surviving manuscript of the Old Latin version dates before the +fourth century and most of them belong to a still later age, yet +the general correspondence of their text with that of the first +Latin Fathers is a sufficient voucher for its high antiquity. The +connexion subsisting between this Latin, version, the Curetonian +Syriac and Codex Bezae, proves that the text of these documents is +considerably older than the vellum on which they are written.' +Such is Dr. Scrivener's verdict upon the class of authorities with +which Justin shows the strongest affinity, and he goes on to add; +'Now it may be said without extravagance that no set of Scriptural +records affords a text less probable in itself, less sustained by +any rational principles of external evidence, than that of Cod. D, +of the Latin codices, and (so far as it accords with them) of +Cureton's Syriac. Interpolations as insipid in themselves as +unsupported by other evidence abound in them all.... It is no less +true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions +to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated +within a hundred years after it was composed' [Endnote 135:1]. +This is a point on which text critics of all schools are +substantially agreed. However much they may differ in other +respects, no one of them has ever thought of taking the text of +the Old Syriac and Old Latin translations as the basis of an +edition. There can be no question that this text belongs to an +advanced, though early, stage of corruption. + +At the same stage of corruption, then, Justin's quotations from +the Gospels are found, and this very fact is a proof of the +antiquity of originals so corrupted. The coincidences are too many +and too great all to be the result of accident or to be accounted +for by the parallel influence of the lost Gospels. The presence, +for instance, of the reading [Greek: o haetoimasen ho pataer] for +[Greek: to haetoimasmenon] in Irenaeus and Tertullian (who has +both 'quem praeparavit deus' and 'praeparatum') is a proof that it +was found in the canonical text at a date little later than +Justin's. And facts such as this, taken together with the +arguments which make it little less than certain that Justin had +either mediately or immediately access to our Gospels, render it +highly probable that he had a form of the canonical text before +him. + +And yet large as is the approximation to Justin's text that may be +made without stirring beyond the bounds of attested readings +within the Canon, I still retain the opinion previously expressed +that he did also make use of some extra-canonical book or books, +though what the precise document was the data are far too +insufficient to enable us to determine. So far as the history of +our present Gospels is concerned, I have only to insist upon the +alternative that Justin either used those Gospels themselves or +else a later work, of the nature of a harmony based upon them +[Endnote 136:1]. The theory (if it is really held) that he was +ignorant of our Gospels in any shape, seems to me, in view of the +facts, wholly untenable. + + + + + +CHAPTER V. + +HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS. + + +Dr. Lightfoot has rendered a great service to criticism by his +masterly exposure of the fallacies in the argument which has been +drawn from the silence of Eusebius in respect to the use of the +Canonical Gospels by the early writers [Endnote 138:1]. The author +of 'Supernatural Religion' is not to be blamed for using this +argument. In doing so he has only followed in the wake of the +Germans who have handed it on from one to the other without +putting it to a test so thorough and conclusive as that which has +now been applied [Endnote 138:2]. For the future, I imagine, the +question has been set at rest and will not need to be reopened +[Endnote 138:3]. + +Dr. Lightfoot has shown, with admirable fulness and precision, +that the object of Eusebius was only to note quotations in the +case of books the admission of which into the Canon had been or +was disputed. In the case of works, such as the four Gospels, that +were universally acknowledged, he only records what seem to him +interesting anecdotes or traditions respecting their authors or +the circumstances under which they were composed. This distinction +Dr. Lightfoot has established, not only by a careful examination +of the language of Eusebius, but also by comparing his statements +with the actual facts in regard to writings that are still extant, +and where we are able to verify his procedure. After thus testing +the references in Eusebius to Clement of Rome, the Ignatian +Epistles, Polycarp, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus, +Dr. Lightfoot arrives, by a strict and ample induction, at the +conclusion that the silence of Eusebius in respect to quotations +from any canonical book is so far an argument _in its favour_ +that it shows the book in question to have been generally +acknowledged by the early Church. Instead of being a proof that +the writer did not know the work in reference to which Eusebius is +silent, the presumption is rather that he did, like the rest of +the Church, receive it. Eusebius only records what seems to him +specially memorable, except where the place of the work in or out +of the Canon has itself to be vindicated. + +But if this holds good, then most of what is said against the use +of the Gospels by Hegesippus falls to the ground. Eusebius +expressly says [Endnote 140:1] that Hegesippus made occasional use +of the Gospel according to the Hebrews ([Greek: ek te tou kath' +Hebraious euangeliou ... tina tithaesin]). But apart from the +conclusion referred to above, the very language of Eusebius +([Greek: tithaesin tina ek]) is enough to suggest that the use of +the Gospel according to the Hebrews was subordinate and +subsidiary. Eusebius can hardly have spoken in this way of +'_the_ Gospel of which Hegesippus made use' in all the five +books of his 'Memoirs.' The expression tallies exactly with what +we should expect of a work used _in addition to_ but not +_to the exclusion_ of our Gospels. The fact that Eusebius +says nothing about these shows that his readers would take it for +granted that Hegesippus, as an orthodox Christian, received them. + +With this conclusion the fragments of the work of Hegesippus that +have come down to us agree. The quotations made in them are +explained most simply and naturally, on the assumption that our +Gospels have been used. The first to which we come is merely an +allusion to the narrative of Matt. ii; 'For Domitian feared the +coming of the Christ as much as Herod.' Those therefore who take +the statement of Eusebius to mean that Hegesippus used only the +Gospel according to the Hebrews are compelled to seek for the +account of the Massacre of the Innocents in that Gospel. It +appears however from Epiphanius that precisely this very portion +of the first Gospel was wanting in the Gospel according to the +Hebrews as used both by the Ebionites and by the Nazarenes. 'But +if it be doubtful whether some forms of that Gospel contained the +two opening chapters of Matthew, it is certain that Jerome found +them in the version which he translated' [Endnote 141:1]. I am +afraid that here, as in so many other cases, the words 'doubtful' +and 'certain' are used with very little regard to their meanings. +In support of the inference from Jerome, the author refers to De +Wette, Schwegler, and an article in a periodical publication by +Ewald. De Wette expressly says that the inference does _not_ +follow ('Aus Comm. ad Matt. ii. 6 ... lässt sich _nicht_ +schliessen dass er hierbei das Evang. der Hebr. verglichen +habe.... Nicht viel besser beweisen die St. ad Jes. xi. 1; ad +Abac. iii. 3') [Endnote 141:2]. He thinks that the presence of +these chapters in Jerome's copy cannot be satisfactorily proved, +but is probable just from this allusion in Hegesippus--in regard +to which De Wette simply follows the traditional, but, as we have +seen, erroneous assumption that Hegesippus used only the Gospel +according to the Hebrews. Schwegler [Endnote 141:3] gives no +reasons, but refers to the passages quoted from Jerome in Credner. +Credner, after examining these passages, comes to the conclusion +that 'the Gospel of the Nazarenes did _not_ contain the +chapters' [Endnote 141:4]. Ewald's periodical I cannot refer to, +but Hilgenfeld, after an elaborate review of the question, decides +that the chapters were omitted [Endnote 141:5]. This is the only +authority I can find for the 'certainty that Jerome found them' in +his version. + +On the whole, then, it seems decidedly more probable (certainties +we cannot deal in) that the incident referred to by Hegesippus was +missing from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That Gospel +therefore was not quoted by him, but, on the contrary, there is a +presumption that he is quoting from the Canonical Gospel. The +narrative of the parallel Gospel of St. Luke seems, if not to +exclude the Massacre of the Innocents, yet to imply an ignorance +of it. + +The next passage that appears to be quotation occurs in the +account of the death of James the Just; 'Why do ye ask me +concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He too sits in heaven on the +right hand of the great Power and will come on the clouds of +heaven' ([Greek: Ti me eperotate peri Iaesou tou huiou tou +anthropou? kai autos kathaetai en to ourano ek dexion taes +megalaes dunameos, kai mellei erchesthai epi ton nephelon tou +ouranou]). It seems natural to suppose that this is an allusion to +Matt. xxvi. 64, [Greek: ap' arti opsesthe ton huion tou anthropou +kathaemenon ek dexion taes dunameos, kai erchomenon epi ton +vephelon tou ouranou]. The passage is one that belongs to the +triple synopsis, and the form in which it appears in Hegesippus +shows a preponderating resemblance to the version of St. Matthew. +Mark inserts [Greek: kathaemenon] between [Greek: ek dexion] and +[Greek: taes dunameos], while Luke thinks it necessary to add +[Greek: tou theou]. The third Evangelist omits the phrase [Greek: +epi ton nephelon tou ouranou], altogether, and the second +substitutes [Greek: meta] for [Greek: epi]. In fact the phrase +[Greek: epi ton vephelon] occurs in the New Testament only in St. +Matthew; the Apocalypse, like St. Mark, has [Greek: meta] and +[Greek: epi] only with the singular. + +In like manner, when we find Hegesippus using the phrase [Greek: +prosopon ou lambaneis], this seems to be a reminiscence of Luke +xx. 21, where the synoptic parallels have [Greek: blepeis]. + +A more decided reference to the third Gospel occurs in the dying +prayer of St. James; [Greek: parakalo, kurie thee pater, aphes +autois; ou gar oidasiti poiousin], which corresponds to Luke +xxiii. 34, [Greek: pater, aphes autois; ou gar oidasin ti +poiousin]. There is the more reason to believe that Hegesippus' +quotation is derived from this source that it reproduces the +peculiar use of [Greek: aphienai] in the sense of 'forgive' +without an expressed object. Though the word is of very frequent +occurrence, I find no other instance of this in the New Testament +[Endnote 143:1], and the Clementine Homilies, in making the same +quotation, insert [Greek: tas hamartias auton]. The saying is well +known to be peculiar to St. Luke. There is perhaps a balance of +evidence against its genuineness, but this is of little +importance, as it undoubtedly formed part of the Gospel as early +as Irenaeus, who wrote much about the same time as Hegesippus. + +The remaining passage occurs in a fragment preserved from +Stephanus Gobarus, a writer of the sixth century, by Photius, +writing in the ninth. Referring to the saying 'Eye hath not seen,' +&c., Gobarus says 'that Hegesippus, an ancient and apostolical +man, asserts--he knows not why--that these words are vainly +spoken, and that those who use them give the lie to the sacred +writings and to our Lord Himself who said, "Blessed are your eyes +that see and your ears that hear,"' &c. 'Those who use these +words' are, we can hardly doubt, as Dr. Lightfoot after Routh has +shown [Endnote 144:1], the Gnostics, though Hegesippus would seem +to have forgotten I Cor. ii. 9. The anti-Pauline position assigned +to Hegesippus on the strength of this is, we must say, untenable. +But for the present we are concerned rather with the second +quotation, which agrees closely with Matt. xiii. 26 ([Greek: humon +de makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoti blepousin, kai ta ota humon hoti +akouousin]). The form of the quotation has a slightly nearer +resemblance to Luke x. 23 ([Greek: makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoi +blepontes ha blepete k.t.l.]), but the marked difference in the +remainder of the Lucan passage increases the presumption that +Hegesippus is quoting from the first Gospel [Endnote 144:2]. + +The use of the phrase [Greek: ton theion graphon] is important and +remarkable. There is not, so far as I am aware, any instance of so +definite an expression being applied to an apocryphal Gospel. It +would tend to prepare us for the strong assertion of the Canon of +the Gospels in Irenaeus; it would in fact mark the gradually +culminating process which went on in the interval which separated +Irenaeus from Justin. To this interval the evidence of Hegesippus +must be taken to apply, because though writing like Irenaeus under +Eleutherus (from 177 A.D.) he was his elder contemporary, and had +been received with high respect in Rome as early as the episcopate +of Anicetus (157-168 A.D.). + +The relations in which Hegesippus describes himself as standing to +the Churches and bishops of Corinth and Rome seem to be decisive +as to his substantial orthodoxy. This would give reason to think +that he made use of our present Gospels, and the few quotations +that have come down to us confirm that view not inconsiderably, +though by themselves they might not be quite sufficient to prove +it. + +There is one passage that may be thought to point to an apocryphal +Gospel, 'From these arose false Christs, false prophets, false +apostles;' which recalls a sentence in the Clementines, 'For there +shall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, +heresies, ambitions.' It is not, however, nearer to this than to +the canonical parallel, Matt. xxiv. 24 ('There shall arise false +Christs and false prophets'). + + + 2. + +In turning from Hegesippus to Papias we come at last to what seems +to be a definite and satisfactory statement as to the origin of +two at least of the Synoptic Gospels, and to what is really the +most enigmatic and tantalizing of all the patristic utterances. + +Like Hegesippus, Papias may be described as 'an ancient and +apostolic man,' and appears to have better deserved the title. He +is said to have suffered martyrdom under M. Aurelius about the +same time as Polycarp, 165-167 A.D. [Endnote 145:1] He wrote a +commentary on the Discourses or more properly Oracles of the Lord, +from which Eusebius extracted what seemed to him 'memorable' +statements respecting the origin of the first and second Gospels. +'Matthew,' Papias said [Endnote 146:1], 'wrote the oracles +([Greek: ta logia]) in the Hebrew tongue, and every one +interpreted them as he was able.' 'Mark, as the interpreter of +Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that he +remembered that was said or done by Christ. For he neither heard +the Lord nor attended upon Him, but later, as I said, upon Peter, +who taught according to the occasion and not as composing a +connected narrative of the Lord's discourses; so that Mark made no +mistake in writing down some things as he remembered them. For he +took care of one thing, not to omit any of the particulars that he +heard or to falsify any part of them.' + + * * * * * + +Let us take the second of these statements first. According to it +the Gospel of St. Mark consisted of notes taken down, or rather +recollected, from the teaching of Peter. It was not written 'in +order,' but it was an original work in the sense that it was first +put in writing by Mark himself, having previously existed only in +an oral form. + +Does this agree with the facts of the Gospel as it appears to us +now? There is a certain ambiguity as to the phrase 'in order.' We +cannot be quite sure what Papias meant by it, but the most natural +conclusion seems to be that it meant chronological order. If so, +the statement of Papias seems to be so far borne out that none of +the Synoptic Gospels is really in exact chronological order; but, +strange to say, if there is any in which an approach to such an +order is made, it is precisely this of St. Mark. This appears from +a comparison of the three Synoptics. From the point at which the +second Gospel begins, or, in other words, from the Baptism to the +Crucifixion, it seems to give the outline that the other two +Gospels follow [Endnote 147:1]. If either of them diverges from it +for a time it is only to return. The early part of St. Matthew is +broken up by the intrusion of the so-called Sermon on the Mount, +but all this time St. Mark is in approximate agreement with St. +Luke. For a short space the three Gospels go together. Then comes +a second break, where Luke introduces his version of the Sermon on +the Mount. Then the three rejoin and proceed together, Matthew +being thrown out by the way in which he has collected the parables +into a single chapter, and Luke later by the place which he has +assigned to the incident at Nazareth. After this Matthew and Mark +proceed side by side, Luke dropping out of the ranks. At the +confession of Peter he takes his place again, and there is a close +agreement in the order of the three narratives. The incident of +the miracle-worker is omitted by Matthew, and then comes the +insertion of a mass of extraneous matter by Luke. When he resumes +the thread of the common narrative again all three are together. +The insertion of a single parable on the part of Matthew, and +omissions on the part of Luke, are the only interruptions. There +is an approximate agreement of all three, we may say, for the rest +of the narrative. We observe throughout that, in by far the +preponderating number of instances, where Matthew differs from the +order of Mark, Luke and Mark agree, and where Luke differs from +the order of Mark, Matthew and Mark agree. Thus, for instance, in +the account of the healings in Peter's house and of the paralytic, +in the relation of the parables of Mark iv. 1-34 to the storm at +sea which follows, of the healing of Jairus' daughter to that of +the Gadarene demoniac and to the mission of the Twelve in the +place of Herod's reflections (Mark vi. 14-16), in the warning +against the Scribes and the widow's mite (Mark xii. 38-44), the +second and third Synoptics are allied against the first. On the +other hand, in the call of the four chief Apostles, the death of +the Baptist, the walking on the sea, the miracles in the land of +Gennesareth, the washing of hands, the Canaanitish woman, the +feeding of the four thousand and the discourses which follow, the +ambition of the sons of Zebedee, the anointing at Bethany, and +several insertions of the third Evangelist in regard to the last +events, the first two are allied against him. While Mark thus +receives such alternating support from one or other of his fellow +Evangelists, I am not aware of any clear case in which, as to the +order of the narratives, they are, united and he is alone, unless +we are to reckon as such his insertion of the incident of the +fugitive between Matt. xxvi. 56, 57, Luke xxii. 53, 54. + +It appears then that, so far as there is an order in the Synoptic +Gospels, the normal type of that order is to be found precisely in +St. Mark, whom Papias alleges to have written not in order. + +But again there seems to be evidence that the Gospel, in the form +in which it has come down to us, is not original but based upon +another document previously existing. When we come to examine +closely its verbal relations to the other two Synoptics, its +normal character is in the main borne out, but still not quite +completely. The number of particulars in which Matthew and Mark +agree together against Luke, or Mark and Luke agree together +against Matthew, is far in excess of that in which Matthew and +Luke are agreed against Mark. Mark is in most cases the middle +term which unites the other two. But still there remains a not +inconsiderable residuum of cases in which Matthew and Luke are in +combination and Mark at variance. The figures obtained by a not +quite exact and yet somewhat elaborate computation [Endnote 149:1] +are these; Matthew and Mark agree together against Luke in 1684 +particulars, Luke and Mark against Matthew in 944, but Matthew and +Luke against Mark in only 334. These 334 instances are distributed +pretty evenly over the whole of the narrative. Thus (to take a +case at random) in the parallel narratives Matt. xii. 1-8, Mark +ii. 23-28, Luke vi. 1-5 (the plucking of the ears on the Sabbath +day), there are fifty-one points (words or parts of words) common +to all three Evangelists, twenty-three are common only to Mark and +Luke, ten to Mark and Matthew, and eight to Matthew and Luke. In +the next section, the healing of the withered hand, twenty points +are found alike in all three Gospels, twenty-seven in Mark and +Luke, twenty-one in Mark and Matthew, and five in Matthew and +Luke. Many of these coincidences between the first and third +Synoptics are insignificant in the extreme. Thus, in the last +section referred to (Mark iii. 1-6=Matt. xii. 9-14=Luke vi. 6-11), +one is the insertion of the article [Greek: taen] ([Greek: +sunagogaen]), one the insertion of [Greek: sou] ([Greek: taen +cheira sou]), two the use of [Greek: de] for [Greek: kai], and one +that of [Greek: eipen] for [Greek: legei]. In the paragraph +before, the eight points of coincidence between Matthew and Luke +are made up thus, two [Greek: kai aesthion] (=[Greek kai +esthiein]), [Greek: eipon] (=[Greek: eipan]), [Greek: poiein, +eipen, met' autou] (=[Greek: sun auto]), [Greek: monous] (=[Greek: +monois]). But though such points as these, if they had been few in +number, might have been passed without notice, still, on the +whole, they reach a considerable aggregate and all are not equally +unimportant. Thus, in the account of the healing of the paralytic, +such phrases is [Greek epi klinaes, apaelthen eis ton oikon +autou], can hardly have come into the first and third Gospels and +be absent from the second by accident; so again the clause [Greek: +alla ballousin (blaeteon) oinon neon eis askous kainous]. In the +account of the healing of the bloody flux the important word +[Greek: tou kraspedou] is inserted in Matthew and Luke but not in +Mark; in that of the mission of the twelve Apostles, the two +Evangelists have, and the single one has not, the phrase [Greek: +kai therapeuein noson (nosous]), and the still more important +clause [Greek: lego humin anektoteron estai (gae) Sodomon ... en +haemera ... ae tae polei ekeinae]: in Luke ix. 7 (= Matt. xiv. 1) +Herod's title is [Greek: tetrarchaes], in Mark vi. 14 [Greek: +basileus]; in the succeeding paragraph [Greek: hoi ochloi +aekolouthaesan] and the important [Greek: to perisseuon (-san)] +are wanting in the intermediate Gospel; in the first prophecy of +the Passion it has [Greek: apo] where the other two have [Greek: +hupo], and [Greek: meta treis haemeras] where they have [Greek: +tae tritae haemera]: in the healing of the lunatic boy it omits +the noticeable [Greek: kai diestrammenae]: in the second prophecy +of the Passion it omits [Greek: mellei], in the paragraph about +offences, [Greek: elthein ta skandala ...ouai...di hou erchetai]. +These points might be easily multiplied as we go on; suffice it to +say that in the aggregate they seem to prove that the second +Gospel, in spite of its superior originality and adhesion to the +normal type, still does not entirely adhere to it or maintain its +primary character throughout. The theory that we have in the +second Gospel one of the primitive Synoptic documents is not +tenable. + +No doubt this is an embarrassing result. The question is easy to +ask and difficult to answer--If our St. Mark does not represent +the original form of the document, what does represent it? The +original document, if not quite like our Mark, must have been very +nearly like it; but how did any writer come to reproduce a +previous work with so little variation? If he had simply copied or +reproduced it without change, that would have been intelligible; +if he had added freely to it, that also would have been +intelligible: but, as it is, he seems to have put in a touch here +and made an erasure there on principles that it is difficult for +us now to follow. We are indeed here at the very _crux_ of +Synoptic criticism. + +For our present purpose however it is not necessary that the +question should be solved. We have already obtained an answer on +the two points raised by Papias. The second Gospel _is_ +written in order; it is _not_ an original document. These two +characteristics make it improbable that it is in its present shape +the document to which Papias alludes. + +Does his statement accord any better with the phenomena of the +first Gospel? He asserts that it was originally written in Hebrew, +and that the large majority of modern critics deny to have been +the case with our present Gospel. Many of the quotations in it +from the Old Testament are made directly from the Septuagint and +not from the Hebrew. There are turns of language which have the +stamp of an original Greek idiom and could not have come in +through translation. But, without going into this question as to +the original language of the first Gospel, a shorter method will +be to ask whether it can have been an original document at all? +The work to which Papias referred clearly was such, but the very +same investigation which shows that our present St. Mark was not +original, tells with increased force against St. Matthew. When a +document exists dealing with the same subject-matter as two other +documents, and those two other documents agree together and differ +from it on as many as 944 separate points, there can be little +doubt that in the great majority of those points it has deviated +from the original, and that it is therefore secondary in +character. It is both secondary and secondary on a lower stage +than St. Mark: it has preserved the features of the original with +a less amount of accuracy. The points of the triple synopsis on +which Matthew fails to receive verification are in all 944; those +on which Mark fails to receive verification 334; or, in other +words, the inaccuracies of Matthew are to those of Mark nearly as +three to one. In the case of Luke the proportion is still greater-- +as much as five to one. + +This is but a tithe of the arguments which show that the first +Gospel is a secondary composition. An original composition would +be homogeneous; it is markedly heterogeneous. The first two +chapters clearly belong to a different stock of materials from the +rest of the Gospel. A broad division is seen in regard to the Old +Testament quotations. Those which are common to the other two +Synoptists are almost if not quite uniformly taken from the +Septuagint; those, on the other hand, which seem to belong to the +reflection of the Evangelist betray more or less distinctly the +influence of the Hebrew [Endnote 153:1]. Our Gospel is thus seen +to be a recension of another original document or documents and +not an original document itself. + +Again, if our St. Matthew had been an original composition and had +appeared from the first in its present full and complete form, it +would be highly difficult to account for the omissions and +variations in Mark and Luke. We should be driven back, indeed, +upon all the impossibilities of the 'Benutzungs-hypothese.' On the +one hand, the close resemblance between the three compels us to +assume that the authors have either used each other's works or +common documents; but the differences practically preclude the +supposition that the later writer had before him the whole work of +his predecessor. If Luke had had before him the first two chapters +of Matthew he could not have written his own first two chapters as +he has done. + +Again, the character of the narrative is such as to be inconsistent +with the view that it proceeds from an eye-witness of the events. +Those graphic touches, which are so conspicuous in the fourth Gospel, +and come out from time to time in the second, are entirely wanting +in the first. If parallel narratives, such as the healing of the +paralytic, the cleansing of the Temple, or the feeding of the five +thousand, are compared, this will be very clearly seen. More; there +are features in the first Gospel that are to all appearance unhistorical +and due to the peculiar method of the writer. He has a way of +reduplicating, so to speak, the personages of one narrative in +order to make up for the omission of another [Endnote 154:1]. For +instance, he is silent as to the healing of the demoniac at Capernaum, +but, instead of this, he gives us two Gadarene demoniacs, at the same +time modifying the language in which he describes this latter incident +after the pattern of the former; in like manner he speaks of the +healing of two blind men at Jericho, but only because he had passed +over the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. Of a somewhat similar +nature is the adding of the ass's colt to the ass in the account +of the Triumphal Entry. There are also fragmentary sayings +repeated in the Gospel in a way that would be natural in a later +editor piecing together different documents and finding the same +saying in each, but unnatural in an eye- and ear-witness drawing +upon his own recollections. Some clear cases of this kind would be +Matt. v. 29, 30 (= Matt. xviii. 8, 9) the offending member, Matt. +v. 32 (= Matt. xix. 9) divorce, Matt. x. 38, 39 (= Matt. xvi. 24, +25) bearing the cross, loss and gain; and there are various others. + +These characteristics of the first Gospel forbid us to suppose +that it came fresh from the hands of the Apostle in the shape in +which we now have it; they also forbid us to identify it with the +work alluded to by Papias. Neither of the two first Gospels, as we +have them, complies with the conditions of Papias' description to +such an extent that we can claim Papias as a witness to them. + + * * * * * + +But now a further enquiry opens out upon us. The language of +Papias does not apply to our present Gospels; will it apply to +some earlier and more primary state of those Gospels, to documents +_incorporated in_ the works that have come down to us but not +co-extensive with them? German critics, it is well known, +distinguish between 'Matthäus'--the present Gospel that bears the +name of St. Matthew--and 'Ur-Matthäus,' or the original work of +that Apostle, 'Marcus'--our present St. Mark--and 'Ur-Marcus,' an +older and more original document, the real production of the +companion of St. Peter. Is it to these that Papias alludes? + +Here we have a much more tenable and probable hypothesis. Papias +says that Matthew composed 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia]) in +the Hebrew tongue. The meaning of the word [Greek: logia] has been +much debated. Perhaps the strictest translation of it is that +which has been given, 'oracles'--short but weighty and solemn or +sacred sayings. I should be sorry to say that the word would not +bear the sense assigned to it by Dr. Westcott, who paraphrases it +felicitously (from his point of view) by our word 'Gospel' +[Endnote 155:1]. It is, however, difficult to help feeling that +the _natural_ sense of the word has to be somewhat strained +in order to make it cover the whole of our present Gospel, and to +bring under it the record of facts to as great an extent as +discourse. It seems at least the simplest and most obvious +interpretation to confine the word strictly or mainly to +discourse. 'Matthew composed the discourses (those brief yet +authoritative discourses) in Hebrew.' + +At this point we are met by a further coincidence. The common +matter in the first three Gospels is divided into a triple +synopsis and a double synopsis--the first of course running +through all three Gospels, the second found only in St. Matthew +and St. Luke. But this double synopsis is nearly, though not +quite, confined to discourse; where it contains narration proper, +as in the account of John the Baptist and the Centurion of +Capernaum, discourse is largely mingled with it. But, if the +matter common to Matthew and Luke consists of discourse, may it +not be these very [Greek: logia] that Papias speaks of? Is it not +possible that the two Evangelists had access to the original work +of St. Matthew and incorporated its material into their own +Gospels in different ways? It would thus be easy to understand how +the name that belonged to a special and important part of the +first Gospel gradually came to be extended over the whole. Bulk +would not unnaturally be a great consideration with the early +Christians. The larger work would quickly displace the smaller; it +would contain all that the smaller contained with additions no +less valuable, and would therefore be eagerly sought by the +converts, whose object would be rather fulness of information than +the best historical attestation. The original work would be simply +lost, absorbed, in the larger works that grew out of it. + +This is the kind of presumption that we have for identifying the +Logia of Papias with the second ground document of the first +Gospel--the document, that is, which forms the basis of the double +synopsis between the first Gospel and the third. As a hypothesis +the identification of these two documents seems to clear up +several points. It gives a 'local habitation and a name' to a +document, the separate and independent existence of which there is +strong reason to suspect, and it explains how the name of St. +Matthew came to be placed at the head of the Gospel without +involving too great a breach in the continuity of the tradition. +It should be remembered that Papias is not giving his own +statement but that of the Presbyter John, which dates back to a +time contemporary with the composition of the Gospel. On the other +hand, by the time of Irenaeus, whose early life ran parallel with +the closing years of Papias, the title was undoubtedly given to +the Gospel in its present form. It is therefore as difficult to +think that the Gospel had no connection with the Apostle whose +name it bears, as it is impossible to regard it as entirely his +work. The Logia hypothesis seems to suggest precisely such an +intermediate relation as will satisfy both sides of the problem. + +There are, however, still difficulties in the way. When we attempt +to reconstruct the 'collection of discourses' the task is very far +from being an easy one. We do indeed find certain groups of +discourse in the first Gospel--such as the Sermon on the Mount ch. +v-vii, the commission of the Apostles ch. x, a series of parables +ch. xiii, of instructions in ch. xviii, invectives against the +Pharisees in ch. xxvi, and long eschatological discourses in ch. +xxiv and xxv, which seem at once to give a handle to the theory +that the Evangelist has incorporated a work consisting specially +of discourses into the main body of the Synoptic narrative. But +the appearance of roundness and completeness which these +discourses present is deceptive. If we are to suppose that the +form in which the discourses appear in St. Matthew at all nearly +represents their original structure, then how is it that the same +discourses are found in the third Gospel in such a state of +dispersion? How is it, for instance, that the parallel passages to +the Sermon on the Mount are found in St. Luke scattered over +chapters vi, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, with almost every possible +inversion and variety of order? Again, if the Matthaean sections +represent a substantive work, how are we to account for the +strange intrusion of the triple synopsis into the double? What are +we to say to the elaborately broken structure of ch. x? On the +other hand, if we are to take the Lucan form as nearer to the +original, that original must have been a singular agglomeration of +fragments which it is difficult to piece together. It is easy to +state a theory that shall look plausible so long as it is confined +to general terms, but when it comes to be worked out in detail it +will seem to be more and more difficult and involved at every +step. The Logia hypothesis in fact carries us at once into the +very nodus of Synoptic criticism, and, in the present state of the +question, must be regarded as still some way from being +established. + +The problem in regard to St. Mark and the triple synopsis is +considerably simpler. Here the difficulty arises from the +necessity of assuming a distinction between our present second +Gospel and the original document on which that Gospel is based. I +have already touched upon this point. The synoptical analysis +seems to conduct us to a ground document greatly resembling our +present St. Mark, which cannot however be quite identical with it, +as the Canonical Gospel is found to contain secondary features. +But apart from the fact that these secondary features are so +comparatively few that it is difficult to realise the existence of +a work in which they, and they only, should be absent, there is +this further obstacle to the identification even of the ground +document with the Mark of Papias, that even in that original shape +the Gospel still presented the normal type of the Synoptic order, +though 'order' is precisely the characteristic that Papias says +was, in this Gospel, wanting. + +Everywhere we meet with difficulties and complexities. The +testimony of Papias remains an enigma that can only be solved--if +ever it is solved--by close and detailed investigations. I am +bound in candour to say that, so far as I can see myself at +present, I am inclined to agree with the author of 'Supernatural +Religion' against his critics [Endnote 159:1], that the works to +which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in their +present form. + +What amount of significance this may have for the enquiry before +us is a further question. Papias is repeating what he had heard +from the Presbyter John, which would seem to take us up to the +very fountainhead of evangelical composition. But such a statement +does not preclude the possibility of subsequent changes in the +documents to which it refers. The difficulties and restrictions of +local communication must have made it hard for an individual to +trace all the phases of literary activity in a society so widely +spread as the Christian, even if it had come within the purpose of +the writer or his informant to state the whole, and not merely the +essential part, of what he knew. + + + + + +CHAPTER VI. + +THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. + + +It is unfortunate that there are not sufficient materials for +determining the date of the Clementine Homilies. Once given the +date and a conclusion of considerable certainty could be drawn +from them; but the date is uncertain, and with it the extent to +which they can be used as evidence either on one side or on the +other. + +Some time in the second century there sprang up a crop of +heretical writings in the Ebionite sect which were falsely +attributed to Clement of Rome. The two principal forms in which +these have come down to us are the so-called Homilies and +Recognitions. The Recognitions however are only extant in a Latin +translation by Rufinus, in which the quotations from the Gospels +have evidently been assimilated to the Canonical text which +Rufinus himself used. They are not, therefore, in any case +available for our purpose. Whether the Recognitions or the +Homilies came first in order of time is a question much debated +among critics, and the even way in which the best opinions seem to +be divided is a proof of the uncertainty of the data. On the one +side are ranged Credner, Ewald, Reuss, Schwegler, Schliemann, +Uhlhorn, Dorner, and Lücke, who assign the priority to the +Homilies: on the other, Hilgenfeld, Köstlin, Ritschl (doubtfully), +and Volkmar, who give the first place to the Recognitions [Endnote +162:1]. On the ground of authority perhaps the preference should +be given to the first of these, as representing more varied +parties and as carrying with them the greater weight of sound +judgment, but it is impossible to say that the evidence on either +side is decisive. + +The majority of critics assign the Clementines, in one form or the +other, to the middle of the second century. Credner, Schliemann, +Scholten, and Renan give this date to the Homilies; Volkmar and +Hilgenfeld to the Recognitions; Ritschl to both recensions alike +[Endnote 162:2]. We shall assume hypothetically that the Homilies +are rightly thus dated. I incline myself to think that this is +more probable, but, speaking objectively, the probability could +not have a higher value put upon it than, say, two in three. + +One reason for assigning the Homilies to the middle of the second +century is presented by the phenomena of the quotations from the +Gospels which correspond generally to those that are found in +writings of this date, and especially, as has been frequently +noticed, to those which we meet with in Justin. I proceed to give +a tabulated list of the quotations. In order to bring out a point +of importance I have indicated by a letter in the left margin the +presence in the Clementine quotations of some of the _peculiarities_ +of our present Gospels. When this letter is unbracketed, it denotes +that the passage is _only_ found in the Gospel so indicated; when +the letter is enclosed in brackets, it is implied that the passage +is synoptical, but that the Clementines reproduce expressions peculiar +to that particular Gospel. The direct quotations are marked by the +letter Q. Many of the references are merely allusive, and in more +it is sufficiently evident that the writer has allowed himself +considerable freedom [Endnote 163:1]. + + + _Exact._ |_Slightly variant._ | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | | | +(M.) | |8.21, Luke 4.6-8 |narrative. + | | (=Matt. 4.8-10), | + | | Q. | + | |3.55, [Greek: ho | + | | ponaeros estin | + | | ho peirazon.], | + | | Q. | + | |15.10, Matt. 5.3; | + | | Luke 6.20. | +M. |17.7, Matt. 5.8. | | +(M.) |3.51 } Matt. 5. | |repeated + |Ep. Pet. 2} 17,18. | | identically. + | |11.32, Matt. 5. |highly condensed + | | 21-48. | paraphrase, + | | | [Greek: oi + | | | en planae.] + | { Matt.5.44,| |allusive merely. + |12.32 { 45(=Luke | | + |3.19 {6.27, 28, | | + | {35). | | +M. |3.56, Matt. 5.34, | | + | 35, Q. | | +M. |3.55} Matt. 5.37. | |repeated identi- + |19.2} Q. | | cally; so + | | | Justin. +(M.) | |3.57. Matt. 5.45. | + | | Q. | + | | {|oblique and allu- + | |12.26 {| sive, repeated + | |18.2. {| in part simi- + | |11.12 {| larly; [Greek: + | | {| pherei ton + | | {| hueton]. +M. |3.55, Matt. 6,6, Q. | | +19.2, Matt.6.13 | | | + Q. | | | +(M.) |3.55, Matt. 6.32; | |combination. + | 6.8 (=Luke 12.30.)| | + | |18.16, Matt. 7.2 |oblique and allu- + | | (12). | sive. + |3.52, Matt. 7.7 | |[Greek: euris- + | (=Luke 11.9). | | kete] for + | | | [euraeskete] + | | | in both. +(L.M.) |3.56, Matt. 7.9-11 | |striking divi- + | (=Luke 11.11-13) | | sion of pecu- + | | | liarities of + | | | both Gospels. + | |12.32} Matt. 7.12 |repeated di- + | |7.4 } (=Luke | versely, + | |11.4 } 6.31. | allusive. +(M.) |18.17, Matt. 7. |(omissions), Q. | + | 13,14. | | + | |7.7. Matt. 7.13, |allusive para- + | | 14. | phrase. +(L.) |8.7, Luke 6.46. | | + |11.35, Matt. 7.15. | |Justin, in part + | | | similarly, in + | | | part diversely. +(M.) |8.4, Matt. 8.11, |(addition), Q. |Justin diversely. + | 12 (Luke 13.29). | | + |9.21, Matt. 8.9 | |allusive merely. + | (Luke 7.8). | | +(M.) |3.56, Matt. 9.13 |(addition), Q. |from LXX. + | (12.7). | | +(L.M.) | | {Matt. 10. |{ + | | { 13, 15= |{ + | | { Luke 10. |{ + | |13.30, { 5,6,10- |{mixed pecu- + | | 31. { 12 (9.5) |{ liarities, + | | { =Mark |{ oblique and + | | { 6.11. |{ allusive. +(L.M.) |17.5, Matt. 10.28 | |mixed peculia- + | (=Luke 12,4, 5), Q.| | rities; Justin + | | | diversely. + | |12.31, Matt. 10. |allusive merely. + | | 29, 30 (=Luke | + | | 12.6, 7). | + |3.17 {Matt. 11.11. | |allusive. + | {Luke 7.28. | | + |8.6, Matt. 11.25 |(addition)+. |perhaps from + | (=Luke x.21). | | Matt. 21.16. +(M.) | |17.4 } |{ + | |18.4 }Matt. 11.27 |{repeated simi- + | |18.7 } (=Luke |{ larly; cp. + | |18.13} 10.22), Q.|{ Justin, &c. + | |18.20} | +M. 3.52, Matt. | | | +(M.) |+19.2. Matt. 12. | |[Greek: allae + | 26, Q. | | pou.] +(M.L.) |+19.7, Matt. 12. | | + | 34 (=Luke 6. | | + | 45), Q. | | +M.11.33, Matt. |(addition), Q. | | + 12.42. | | | + |11.33, Matt. 12. | | + | 41 (=Luke 11. | | + | 32), Q. | | +(M.L.) |M.53, Matt. 13. | | + | 16 (=Luke 10. | | + | 24), +Q. | | +M.18.15, Matt. | | | + 13.35+. | | | +Mk. |19.20, Mark 4.34. | | +M. |19.2, Matt. 13. | | + |39, Q. | | +M.3.52, Matt. 15.| | | + 15 (om. [Greek:| | | + mou]), Q. | | | + | | {Matt. 15. |narrative. + | |11.19 {21-28 | + | | {(=Mark |[Greek: Iousta + | | {7.24-30). | Surophoini- + | | | kissa.] +(M.) |17.18, Matt. 16. | | + | 16 (par.) | | +M. | |Ep. Clem. 2, |allusive merely. + | | Matt. 16.19. | +M. |Ep. Clem. 6, Matt. | |ditto. + | 16.19. | | +(M.) |3.53, Matt. 17.5 | | + | (par.), Q. | | +M. | |12.29, Matt. 18. |addition [Greek: + | | 7, Q. | ta agatha + | | | elthein.] +M. |17.7, Matt. 18.10 | | + | (v.l.) | | +(L.) 3.71, Luke | | | + 10.7. (order) | | | + (=Matt.10.10). | | | +L. |+19.2, Luke 10.18. | | +L. | |9.22, Luke 10.20. |allusive merely. +L. | |17.5, Luke 18.6- | + | | 8, Q. (?) | + | |19.2, [Greek: mae |Cp. Eph. 4.27. + | | dote prophasin | + | | to ponaero], Q. | + | |3.53, Prophet like|Cp. Acts 3.22. + | | Moses, Q. | +(M.) |3.54, Matt. 19.8, | |sense more diver- + | 4 (=Mark 10.5, | | gent than + | 6), Q. | | words. + | | {Matt. 19. |} + | |17.4 { 16,17. |} + | |18.1 {Mark 10. |}repeated simi- + | |18.3 { 17,18. |} larly; cp. + | |18.17 {Luke 18. |} Justin. + | | 3.57 { 18,19. |} +L. | |3.63, Luke 19. |not quotation. + | | 5.9. | +M.8.4, Matt. 22. | | | + 14, Q. | | | +(M.) | |8.22, Matt. 22.9. |allusive merely. + | | 11. | + | | 3.50 {Matt. 22. |} + | | 2.51 {29 (=Mark |}repeated simi- + | |18.20 {12.24), Q. |} larly. + | | 3.50, [Greek: | + | | dia ti ou | + | | eulogon ton | + | | graphon;] | +(Mk.) 3.55, Mark | | | + 12.27 (par.), | | | +Mk. 3.57, Mark | | | + 12.29 [Greek: | | | + haemon], Q. | | | + | |17.7, Mark 12.30 |allusive. + | | (=Matt. 22.37). | + {|3.18, Matt. 23.2, | | +M. {| 3, Q. | | + {| |3.18, Matt. 23.13 |repeated simi- + {| | (=Luke 11.52). | larly. + | |18.15. | +(M.) |11.29, Matt. 23. | | + | 25, 26, Q. | | +(Mk.) {|3.15, Mark 13.2 | | + {|(par.), Q. | | + {| |3.15, Matt. 24.3 | + {| | (par.), Q. | +L. {| |Luke 19.43, Q. | + | |16.21, [Greek: | + | | esontai pseud- | + | | apostoloi]. | +(M.) |3.60 (3.64), Matt. | |part repeated + | 24.45-51 (= | | larly. + | Luke 12.42-46). | | +(M.) 3.65, Matt. | | | + 25.21 (= Luke | | | + 19.17). | | | +(M. L.) | |3.61, Matt. 25.26,|? mixed peculi- + | | 26,27 (=Luke 19.| arities. + | | 22,23). | + | | 2.51}[Greek: | + | | 3.50} ginesthe | + | |18.20} trapezitai | + | | } dokimoi.] | +M. | |19.2. Matt. 25. |[Greek: allae + | | 41, Q. | pou.] Justin + | | | +L. |11.20, Luke 23.34 | | + | (v.l.), Q. | | + | |17.7, Matt. 28.19.|allusive. + +By far the greater part of the quotations in the Clementine +Homilies are taken from the discourses, but some few have +reference to the narrative. There can hardly be said to be any +material difference from our Gospels, though several apocryphal +sayings and some apocryphal details are added. Thus the Clementine +writer calls John a 'Hemerobaptist,' i.e. member of a sect which +practised daily baptism [Endnote 167:1]. He talks about a rumour +which became current in the reign of Tiberius about the 'vernal +equinox,' that at the same season a king should arise in Judaea +who should work miracles, making the blind to see, the lame to +walk, healing every disease, including leprosy, and raising the +dead; in the incident of the Canaanite woman (whom, with Mark, he +calls a Syrophoenician) he adds her name, 'Justa,' and that of her +daughter 'Bernice;' he also limits the ministry of our Lord to one +year [Endnote 168:1]. Otherwise, with the exception of the sayings +marked as without parallel, all of the Clementine quotations have +a more or less close resemblance to our Gospels. + +We are struck at once by the small amount of exact coincidence, +which is considerably less than that which is found in the +quotations from the Old Testament. The proportion seems lower than +it is, because many of the passages that have been entered in the +above list do not profess to be quotations. Another phenomenon +equally remarkable is the extent to which the writer of the +Homilies has reproduced the peculiarities of particular extant +Gospels. So far front being it a colourless text, as it is in some +few places which present a parallel to our Synoptic Gospels, the +Clementine version both frequently includes passages that are +found only in some one of the canonical Gospels, and also, we may +say usually, repeats the characteristic phrases by which one +Gospel is distinguished from another. Thus we find that as many as +eighteen passages reappear in the Homilies that are found only in +St. Matthew; one of the extremely few that are found only in St. +Mark; and six of those that are peculiar to St. Luke. Taking the +first Gospel, we find that the Clementine Homilies contain (in an +allusive form) the promises to the pure in heart; as a quotation, +with close resemblance, the peculiar precepts in regard to oaths; +the special admonition to moderation of language which, as we have +seen, seems proved to be Matthaean by the clause [Greek: to gar +perisson touton k.t.l.]; with close resemblance, again, the +directions for secret prayer; identically, the somewhat remarkable +phrase, [Greek: deute pros me pantes hoi kopiontes]; all but +identically another phrase, also noteworthy, [Greek: pasa phuteia +haen ouk ephuteusen ho pataer [mou] ho ouranios ekrizothaesetai]; +with a resemblance that is closer in the text of B ([Greek: en to +ourano] for [Greek: en ouranois]), the saying respecting the +angels who behold the face of the Father; identically again, the +text [Greek: polloi klaetoi, oligoi de eklektoi]: in the shape of +an allusion only, the wedding garment; with near agreement, 'the +Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.' All these are passages +found only in the first Gospel, and in regard to which there is +just so much presumption that they had no large circulation among +non-extant Gospels, as they did not find their way into the two +other Gospels that have come down to us. + +There is, however, a passage that I have not mentioned here which +contains (if the canonical reading is correct) a strong indication +of the use of our actual St. Matthew. The whole history of this +passage is highly curious. In the chapter which contains so many +parables the Evangelist adds, by way of comment, that this form of +address was adopted in order 'that it might be fulfilled which was +spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I +will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation +of the world.' This is according to the received text, which +attributes the quotation to 'the prophet' ([Greek: dia tou +prophaetou]). It is really taken from Ps. lxxvii. 2, which is +ascribed in the heading to Asaph, who, according to the usage of +writers at this date, might be called a prophet, as he is in the +Septuagint version of 2 Chron. xxix. 30. The phrase [Greek: ho +prophaetaes legei] in quotations from the Psalms is not uncommon. +The received reading is that of by far the majority of the MSS. +and versions: the first hand of the Sinaitic, however, and the +valuable cursives 1 and 33 with the Aethiopic (a version on which +not much reliance can be placed) and m. of the Old Latin (Mai's +'Speculum,' presenting a mixed African text) [Endnote 170:1], +insert [Greek: Haesaiou] before [Greek: tou prophaetou]. It also +appears that Porphyry alleged this as an instance of false +ascription. Eusebius admits that it was found in some, though not +in the most accurate MSS., and Jerome says that in his day it was +still the reading of 'many.' + +All this is very fully and fairly stated in 'Supernatural +Religion' [Endnote 170:2], where it is maintained that [Greek: +Haesaiou] is the original reading. The critical question is one of +great difficulty; because, though the evidence of the Fathers is +naturally suspected on account of their desire to explain away the +mistake, and though we can easily imagine that the correction +would be made very early and would rapidly gain ground, still the +very great preponderance of critical authority is hard to get +over, and as a rule Eusebius seems to be trustworthy in his +estimate of MSS. Tischendorf (in his texts of 1864 and 1869) is, I +believe, the only critic of late who has admitted [Greek: +Haesaiou] into the text. + +The false ascription may be easily paralleled; as in Mark i. 2, +Matt. xxvii. 9, Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 28 (where a passage of +Jeremiah is quoted as Isaiah), &c. + +The relation of the Clementine and of the canonical quotations to +each other and to the Septuagint will be represented thus:- + +_Clem. Hom._ xviii. 15. + +[Greek: Kai ton Haesaian eipein; Anoixo to stoma mou en parabolais +kai exereuxomai kekrummena apo katabolaes kosmou.] + +_Matt._ xiii. 35. + +[Greek: Hopos plaerothe to rhaethen dia [Haesaiou?] tou prophaetou +legontos; Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, ereuxomai kekrummena +apo katabolaes kosmou] [om. [Greek: kosmou] a few of the best +MSS.] + +LXX. _Ps._ lxxvii. 2. + +[Greek: Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, phthegxomai problaemata +ap' archaes.] + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' contends for the reading +[Greek: Haesaiou], and yet does not see in the Clementine passage +a quotation from St. Matthew. He argues, with a strange domination +by modern ideas, that the quotation cannot be from St. Matthew +because of the difference of context, and declares it to be 'very +probable that the passage with its erroneous reference was derived +by both from another and common source.' Surely it is not +necessary to go back to the second century to find parallels for +the use of 'proof texts' without reference to the context; but, as +we have seen, context counts for little or nothing in these early +quotations,--verbal resemblance is much more important. The +supposition of a common earlier source for both the Canonical and +the Clementine text seems to me quite out of the question. There +can be little doubt that the reference to the Psalm is due to the +first Evangelist himself. Precisely up to this point he goes hand +in hand with St. Mark, and the quotation is introduced in his own +peculiar style and with his own peculiar formula, [Greek: hopos +plaerothae to rhaethen]. + +I must, however, again repeat that the surest criterion of the use +of a Gospel is to be sought in the presence of phrases or turns of +expression which are shown to be characteristic and distinctive of +that Gospel by a comparison with the synopsis of the other +Gospels. This criterion can be abundantly applied in the case of +the Clementine Homilies and St. Matthew. I will notice a little +more at length some of the instances that have been marked in the +above table. Let us first take the passage which has a parallel in +Matt. v. 18 and in Luke xvi. 17. The three versions will stand +thus:-- + +_Matt._ v. 18. + +[Greek: Amaen gar lego humin; heos an parelthae ho ouranos kai hae +gae iota en ae mia keraia ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou, heos an +panta genaetai.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 51. +_Ep. Pet._ c. 2. + +[Greek: Ho ouranos kai hae gae pareleusontai, iota en ae mia keraia +ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou] [Ep. Pet. adds [Greek: touto de +eiraeken, hina ta panta genaetai]]. + +_Luke_ xvi. 17. + +[Greek: Eukopoteron de esti, ton ouranon kai taen gaen parelthein, +ae tou nomou mian keraian pesein.] + +It will be seen that in the Clementines the passage is quoted +twice over, and each time with the variation [Greek pareleusontai] +for [Greek: heos an parelthae]. The author of 'Supernatural +Religion' argues from this that he is quoting from another Gospel +[Endnote 172:1]. No doubt the fact does tell, so far as it goes, +in that direction, but it is easy to attach too much weight to it. +The phenomenon of repeated variation may be even said to be a +common one in some writers. Dr. Westcott [Endnote 172:2] has +adduced examples from Chrysostom, and they would be as easy to +find in Epiphanius or Clement of Alexandria, where we can have no +doubt that the canonical Gospels are being quoted. A slight and +natural turn of expression such as this easily fixes itself in the +memory. The author also insists that the passage in the Gospel +quoted in the Clementines ended with the word [Green: nomou]; but +I think it may be left to any impartial person to say whether the +addition in the Epistle of Peter does not naturally point to a +termination such as is found in the first canonical Gospel. Our +critic seems unable to free himself from the standpoint (which he +represents ably enough) of the modern Englishman, or else is +little familiar with the fantastic trains and connections of +reasoning which are characteristic of the Clementines. + +Turning from these objections and comparing the Clementine +quotation first with the text of St. Matthew and then with that of +St. Luke, we cannot but be struck with its very close resemblance +to the former and with the wide divergence of the latter. The +passage is one where almost every word and syllable might easily +and naturally be altered--as the third Gospel shows that they have +been altered--and yet in the Clementines almost every peculiarity +of the Matthaean version has been retained. + +Another quotation which shows the delicacy of these verbal +relations is that which corresponds to Matt. vi. 32 (= Luke xii. +30):-- + +_Matt._ vi. 32. + +[Greek: Oide gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios, hoti chraezete +touton hapanton.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 55. + +[Greek: [ephae] Oiden gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios hoti +chraezete touton hapanton, prin auton axiosaete] (cp. Matt. vi. +8). + +_Luke_ xii. 30. + +[Greek: Humon de ho pataer oiden hoti chraezete touton.] + +The natural inference from the exactness of this coincidence with +the language of Matthew as compared with Luke, is not neutralised +by the paraphrastic addition from Matt. vi. 8, because such +additions and combinations, as will have been seen from our table +of quotations from the Old Testament, are of frequent occurrence. + +The quotation of Matt. v. 45 (= Luke vi. 35) is a good example of +the way in which the pseudo-Clement deals with quotations. The +passage is quoted as often as four times, with wide difference and +indeed complete confusion of text. It is impossible to determine +what text he really had before him; but through all this confusion +there is traceable a leaning to the Matthaean type rather than the +Lucan, ([Greek: [ho] pat[aer ho] en [tois] ouranois ... ton aelion +autou anatellei epi agathous kai ponaerous]). It does, however, +appear that he had some such phrase as [Greek: hueton pherei] or +[Greek: parechei] for [Greek: brechei], and in one of his quotations +he has the [Greek: ginesthe agathoi] (for [Greek: chraestoi]) +[Greek: kai oiktirmones] of Justin. Justin, on the other hand, +certainly had [Greek: brechei]. + +The, in any case, paraphrastic quotation or quotations which find +a parallel in Matt. vii. 13, 14 and Luke xiii. 24 are important as +seeming to indicate that, if not taken from our Gospel, they are +taken from another in a later stage of formation. The characteristic +Matthaean expressions [Greek: stenae] and [Greek: tethlimmenae] are +retained, but the distinction between [Greek: pulae] and [Greek: hodos] +has been lost, and both the epithets are applied indiscriminately to +[Greek: hodos]. + +In the narrative of the confession of Peter, which belongs to the +triple synopsis, and is assigned by Ewald to the 'Collection of +Discourses,' [Endnote 174:1] by Weiss [Endnote 174:2] and +Holtzmann [Endnote 175:1] to the original Gospel of St. Mark, the +Clementine writer follows Matthew alone in the phrase [Greek: Su +ei ho huios tou zontos Theou]. The synoptic parallels are-- + +_Matt._ xvi. 16. + +[Greek: Su ei ho Christos, ho huios tou Theou tou zontos.] + +_Mark_ viii. 29. + +[Greek: Su ei ho Christos.] + +_Luke_ ix. 20. + +[Greek: ton Christon tou Theou.] + +Holtzmann and Weiss seem to agree (the one explicitly, the other +implicitly) in taking the words [Greek: ho huios tou Theou tou +zontos] as an addition by the first Evangelist and as not a part +of the text of the original document. In that case there would be +the strongest reason to think that the pseudo-Clement had made use +of the canonical Gospel. Ewald, however, we may infer, from his +assigning the passage to the 'Collection of Discourses,' regards +it as presented by St. Matthew most nearly in its original form, +of which the other two synoptic versions would be abbreviations. +If this were so, it would then be _possible_ that the Clementine +quotation was made directly from the original document or from a +secondary document parallel to our first Gospel. The question that +is opened out as to the composition of the Synoptics is one of great +difficulty and complexity. In any case there is a balance of probability, +more or less decided, in favour of the reference to our present Gospel. + +Another very similar instance occurs in the next section of the +synoptic narrative, the Transfiguration. Here again the Clementine +Homilies insert a phrase which is only found in St. Matthew, +[Greek: [Houtos estin mou ho huios ho agapaetos], eis hon] +([Greek: en ho] Matt.) [Greek: aeudokaesa]. Ewald and Holtzmann +say nothing about the origin of this phrase; Weiss [Endnote 176:1] +thinks it is probably due to the first Evangelist. In that case +there would be an all but conclusive proof--in any case there will +be a presumption--that our first Gospel has been followed. + +But one of the most interesting, as well as the clearest, +indications of the use of the first Synoptic is derived from the +discourse directed against the Pharisees. It will be well to give +the parallel passages in full:-- + +_Matt._ xxiii. 25, 26. + +[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti +katharizete to exothen tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, esothen +de gemousin ex harpagaes kai adikias. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison +proton to entos tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, hina genaetai +kai to ektos auton katharon.] + +_Clem. Hom._ xi. 29. + +[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti +katharizete tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to exothen, esothen +de gemei rhupous. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison proton tou +potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to esothen, hina genaetai kai ta exo +auton kathara.] + +_Luke_ xi. 39. + +[Greek: Nun humeis hoi Pharisaioi to exothen tou potaerion kai tou +pinakos katharizete, to de esothen humon gemei harpagaes kai +ponaerias. Aphrones ouch ho poiaesas to exothen kai to esothen +epoiaese?] + +Here there is a very remarkable transition in the first Gospel +from the plural to the singular in the sudden turn of the address, +[Greek: Pharisaie tuphle]. This derives no countenance from the +third Gospel, but is exactly reproduced in the Clementine +Homilies, which follow closely the Matthaean version throughout. + +We may defer for the present the notice of a few passages which +with a more or less close resemblance to St. Matthew also contain +some of the peculiarities of St. Luke. + +Taking into account the whole extent to which the special +peculiarities of the first Gospel reappear in the Clementines, I +think we shall be left in little doubt that that Gospel has been +actually used by the writer. + +The peculiar features of our present St. Mark are known to be +extremely few, yet several of these are also found in the +Clementine Homilies. In the quotation Mark x. 5, 6 (= Matt. xix. +8, 4) the order of Mark is followed, though the words are more +nearly those of Matthew. In the divergent quotation Mark xii. 24 +(= Matt. xxii. 29) the Clementines, with Mark, introduce [Greek: +dia touto]. The concluding clause of the discussion about the +Levirate marriage stands (according to the best readings) thus:-- + +_Matt._ xxii. 32. + +[Greek: Ouk estin ho Theos nekron, alla zonton.] + +_Mark_ xii. 27. + +[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton.] + +_Luke_ xx. 38. + +[Greek: Theos de ouk estin nekron, alla zonton.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 55. + +[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton.] + +Here [Greek: Theos] is in Mark and the Clementines a predicate, +in Matthew the subject. In the introduction to the Eschatological +discourse the Clementines approach more nearly to St. Mark than to +any other Gospel: [Greek: Horate] ([Greek: blepeis], Mark) [Greek: +tas] ([Greek: megalas], Mark) [Greek: oikodomas tautas; amaen +humin lego] (as Matt.) [Greek: lithos epi lithon ou mae aphethae +ode, hos ou mae] (as Mark) [Greek: kathairethae] ([Greek: +kataluthae], Mark; other Gospels, future). Instead of [Greek: tas +oikodomas toutas] the other Gospels have [Greek: tauta--tauta +panta]. + +But there are two stronger cases than these. The Clementines and +Mark alone have the opening clause of the quotation from Deut. vi. +4, [Greek: Akoue, Israael, Kurios ho Theos haemon kurios eis +estin]. In the synopsis of the first Gospel this is omitted (Matt. +xxii. 37). There is a variation in the Clementine text, which for +[Greek: haemon] has, according to Dressel, [Greek: sou], and, +according to Cotelier, [Greek: humon]. Both these readings however +are represented among the authorities for the canonical text: +[Greek: sou] is found in c (Codex Colbertinus, one of the best +copies of the Old Latin), in the Memphitic and Aethiopic versions, +and in the Latin Fathers Cyprian and Hilary; [Greek: humon] +(vester) has the authority of the Viennese fragment i, another +representative of the primitive African form of the Old Latin +[Endnote 178:1]. + +The objection to the inference that the quotation is made from St. +Mark, derived from the context in which it appears in the +Clementines, is really quite nugatory. It is true that the +quotation is addressed to those 'who were beguiled to imagine many +gods,' and that 'there is no hint of the assertion of many gods in +the Gospel' [Endnote 178:2]; but just as little hint is there of +the assertion 'that God is evil' in the quotation [Greek: mae me +legete agathon] just before. There is not the slightest reason to +suppose that the Gospel from which the Clementines quote would +contain any such assertion. In this particular case the mode of +quotation cannot be said to be very unscrupulous; but even if it +were more so we need not go back to antiquity for parallels: they +are to be found in abundance in any ordinary collection of proof +texts of the Church Catechism or of the Thirty-nine Articles, or +in most works of popular controversy. I must confess to my +surprise that such an objection could be made by an experienced +critic. + +Credner [Endnote 179:1] gives the last as the one decided +approximation to our second Gospel, apparently overlooking the +minor points mentioned above; but, at the time when he wrote, the +concluding portion of the Homilies, which contains the other most +striking instance, had not yet been published. With regard to this +second instance, I must express my agreement with Canon Westcott +[Endnote 179:2] against the author of 'Supernatural Religion.' The +passage stands thus in the Clementines and the Gospel:-- + +_Clem. Hom._ xix. 20. + +[Greek: Dio kai tois autou mathaetais kat' idian epelue taes ton +ouranon basileias ta mustaeria.] + +_Mark_ iv. 34. + +... [Greek: kat' idian de tois mathaetais autou epeluen panta] +(compare iv. 11, [Greek: humin to mustaerion dedotai taes +basileias tou Theou]). + + The canonical reading, [Greek: tois mathaetais autou], rests +chiefly upon Western authority (D, b, c, e, f, Vulg.) with A, 1, +33, &c. and is adopted by Tregelles--it should be noted before the +discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus. The true reading is probably +that which appears in this MS. along with B, C, L, [Greek: Delta +symbol], [Greek: tois idiois mathaetais]. We have however already +seen the leaning of the Clementines for Western readings. + +When we compare the synopsis of St. Mark and St. Matthew together +we should be inclined to set this down as a very decided instance +of quotation from the former. The only circumstance that detracts +from the certainty of this conclusion is that a quotation had been +made just before which is certainly not from our canonical +Gospels, [Greek: ta mustaeria emoi kai tois huiois tou oikou mou +phulaxate]. This is rightly noted in 'Supernatural Religion.' All +that we can say is that it is a drawback--it is just a makeweight +in the opposite scale, as suggesting that the second quotation may +be also from an apocryphal Gospel; but it does not by any means +serve to counterbalance the presumption that the quotation is +canonical. The coincidence of language is very marked. The +peculiar compound [Greek: epiluo] occurs only once besides +([Greek: epilusis] also once) in the whole of the New Testament, +and not at all in the Gospels. + +With the third Gospel also there are coincidences. Of the passages +peculiar to this Gospel the Clementine writer has the fall of +Satan ([Greek: ton ponaeron], Clem.) like lightning from heaven, +'rejoice that your names are written in the book of life' +(expanded with evident freedom), the unjust judge, Zacchaeus, the +circumvallation of Jerusalem, and the prayer, for the forgiveness +of the Jews, upon the cross. It is unlikely that these passages, +which are wanting in all our extant Gospels, should have had any +other source than our third Synoptic. The 'circumvallation' +([Greek: pericharakosousin] Clem., [Greek: peribalousin charaka] +Luke) is especially important, as it is probable, and believed by +many critics, that this particular detail was added by the +Evangelist after the event. The parable of the unjust judge, +though reproduced with something of the freedom to which we are +accustomed in patristic narrative quotations both from the Old and +New Testament, has yet remarkable similarities of style and +diction ([Greek: ho kritaes taes adikias, poiaesei taen ekdikaesin +ton boonton pros auton haemeras kai nuktos, Lego humin, poaesei... +en tachei).] + +We have to add to these another class of peculiarities which occur +in places where the synoptic parallel has been preserved. Thus in +the Sermon on the Mount we find the following:-- + +_Matt._ vii. 21. + +[Greek: Ou pas ho legon moi, Kurie, Kurie, eiseleusetai eis taen +basileian ton ouranon, all' ho poion to thelaema tou patros mou +tou en ouranois] + +_Clem. Hom._ viii. 7. + +[Greek: Ti me legeis Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poieis a lego;] + +_Luke,_ vi. 46. + +[Greek: Ti de me kaleite Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poeite a lego;] + +This is one of a class of passages which form the _cruces_ +of Synoptic criticism. It is almost equally difficult to think and +not to think that both the canonical parallels are drawn from the +same original. The great majority of German critics maintain that +they are, and most of these would seek that original in the +'Spruchsammlung' or 'Collection of Discourses' by the Apostle St. +Matthew. This is usually (though not quite unanimously) held to +have been preserved most intact in the first Gospel. But if so, +the Lucan version represents a wide deviation from the original, +and precisely in proportion to the extent of that deviation is the +probability that the Clementine quotation is based upon it. The +more the individuality of the Evangelist has entered into the form +given to the saying the stronger is the presumption that his work +lay before the writer of the Clementines. In any case the +difference between the Matthaean and Lucan versions shows what +various shapes the synoptic tradition naturally assumed, and makes +it so much the less likely that the coincidence between St. Luke +and the Clementines is merely accidental. + +Another similar case, in which the issue is presented very +clearly, is afforded by the quotation, 'The labourer is worthy of +his hire.' + +_Matt._ x. 11. + +[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes taes trophaes autou estin.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 71. + +[Greek: [lagisamenoi hoti] axios estin ho ergataes tou misthou +autou;] + +_Luke_ x. 7. + +[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes tou misthou autou esti.] + +Here, if the Clementine writer had been following the first +Gospel, he would have had [Greek: trophaes] and not [Greek: +misthou]; and the assumption that there was here a non-extant +Gospel coincident with St. Luke is entirely gratuitous and, to an +extent, improbable. + +Besides these, it will be seen, by the tables given above, that +there are as many as eight passages in which the peculiarities not +only of one but of both Gospels (the first and third) appear +simultaneously. Perhaps it may be well to give examples of these +before we make any comment upon them. We may thus take-- + +_Matt._ vii. 9-11. + +[Greek: Ae tis estin ex humon anthropos, hon ean aitaesae ho huios +autou arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; kai ean ichthun aitaesae +mae ophin epidosei auto; ei oun humeis ponaeroi ontes oidate +domata agatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer +humon ho en tois ouranois dosei agatha tois aitousin auton;] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 56. + +[Greek: Tina aitaesei huios arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; ae +kai ichthun aitaesei, mae ophin epidosei auto; ei oun humeis, +ponaeroi ontes, oidate domata agatha didonai tois teknois humon, +poso mallon ho pataer humon ho ouranios dosei agatha tois +aitoumenois auton kai tois poiousin to thelema autou;] + +_Luke_ xi. 11-13. + +[Greek: Tina de ex humon ton matera aitaesei ho huios arton, mae +lithon epidosei auto; ae kai ichthun, mae anti ichthuos ophin +epidosei auto, ae kai ean aitaeoae oon, mae epidosei auto +skorpion; ei oun humeis, ponaeroi humarchontes, oidate domata +agatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer ho ex +ouranou dosei pneuma hagion tois aitousin auton;] + +In the earlier part of this quotation the Clementine writer seems +to follow the third Gospel ([Greek: tina aitaesei, hae kai]); in +the later part the first (omission of the antithesis between the +egg and the scorpion, [Greek: ontes, dosei agatha]). The two +Gospels are combined against the Clementines in [Greek: hex humon] +and the simpler [Greek: tois aitousin auton]. The second example +shall be-- + +_Matt._ x. 28. + +[Greek: Kai mae thobeisthe hapo ton aposteinonton to soma, taen de +psuchaen mae dunamenon aposteinan thobeisthe de mallon ton +dunamaenon kai psuchaen kai soma apolesai en geennae.] + +_Clem. Hom._ xviii. 5. + +[Greek: Mae phobaethaete apo tou aposteinontos to soma tae de +psuchae mae dunamenou ti poiaesai phobaethaete tou dunamenon kai +soma kai psuchaen eis taen geennan tou puros balein. Nai, lego +humin, touton phobaethaete.] + +_Luke xii._ 4, 5. [Greek: Mae phobaethaete apo ton +aposteinonton to soma kai meta tauta mae echonton perissoteron ti +poiaesai. Hupodeixo de humin tina phobaethaete phobaethaete ton +meta to aposteinai echonta exousian embalein eis ton geennan nai, +lego humin, touton phobaethaete.] + +In common with Matthew the Clementines have [Greek: tae de +psuchae] (acc. Matt.) ... [Greek: dunamenon]([Greek: -on] Matt.), +and [Greek: dunamenon kai soma kai psuchaen] (in inverted order, +Matt.); in common with Luke [Greek: mae phobaethaete, ti poiaesai, +[em]balein eis], and the clause [Greek: nai k.t.l.] The two +Gospels agree against the Clementines in the plural [Greek: ton +aposteinonton.] + +One more longer quotation:-- + +_Matt._ xxiv. 45-51. + +[Greek: Tis ara estin ho pistos doulos kai phronimos, hon +katestaesen ho kurios autou epi taes therapeias autou tou dounai +autois taen trophaen en kairo? makarios ho doulos ekeinos hon +elthon ho kurios autou heuraesei houto poiounta ... Ean de eipae +ho kakos doulos ekeinos en tae kardia autou; chronizei mou ho +kurios, kai arxaetai tuptein tous sundoulous autou esthiae de kai +pinae meta ton methuonton, haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou en +haemera hae ou prosdoka kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kai +dichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton hupokriton +thaesei.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 60. + +[Greek: Theou gar boulae anadeiknutai makarios ho anthropos +ekeinos hon katastaesei ho kurios autou epi taes therapeias ton +sundoulon hautou, tou didonai autois tas trophas en kairo auton, +mae ennooumenon kai legonta en tae kardia autou; chronizei ho +kurios mou elthein; kai arxaetai tuptein tous sundoulous autou, +esthion kai pinon meta te pornon kai methuonton; kai haexei ho +kurios tou doulou ekeinou en hora hae ou prosdoka kai en haemera +hae ou ginoskei, kai dichotomaesei auton, kai to apistoun autou +meros meta ton hupokriton thaesei.] + +_Luke_ xii. 42-45. + +[Greek: Tis ara estin ho pistos oikonomos kai phronimos, hon +katastaesei ho kurios epi taes therapeias autou, tou didonai en +kairo to sitometrion? makarios ho doulos ekeinos, hon elthon ho +kurios autou heuraesei poiounta hautos ... Ean de eipae ho doulos +ekeinos en tae kardia autou; chronizei ho kurios mou erchesthai; +kai arxaetai tuptein tous paidas kai tas paidiskas, esthiein te +kai pinein kai methuskesthai; haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou +en haemera hae ou prosdoka, kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kai +dichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton apiston thaesei.] + +I have given this passage in full, in spite of its length, +because it is interesting and characteristic; it might indeed +almost be said to be typical of the passages, not only in the +Clementine Homilies, but also in other writers like Justin, which +present this relation of double similarity to two of the +Synoptics. It should be noticed that the passage in the Homilies +is not introduced strictly as a quotation but is interwoven with +the text. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that the +opening clause, [Greek: Makarios ... sundolous autou], recurs +identically about thirty lines lower down. We observe that of the +peculiarities of the first Synoptic the Clementines have [Greek: +doulos] ([Greek: oikonomos], Luke), [Greek: [ho kurios] autou, +taen trophaen] ([Greek: tas trophas], Clem.; Luke, characteristically, +[Greek: to sitometrion]), the order of [Greek: en kairo, tous +sundolous autou] ([Greek: tous paidas kai tas paidiskas], Luke), +[Greek: meta ... methuonton], and [Greek: hupokriton] for +[Greek: apiston]. Of the peculiarities of the third Synoptic +the Clementines reproduce the future [Greek: katastaesei], the +present [Greek: didonai], the insertion of [Greek: elthein] +([Greek: erchesthai], Luke) after [Greek: chronizei], the order +of the words in this clause, and a trace of the word [Greek: apiston] +in [Greek: to apistoun autou meros]. The two Gospels support each +other in most of the places where the Clementines depart from them, +and especially in the two verses, one of which is paraphrased and +the other omitted. + +Now the question arises, What is the origin of this phenomenon of +double resemblance? It may be caused in three ways: either it may +proceed from alternate quoting of our two present Gospels; or it +may proceed from the quoting of a later harmony of those Gospels; +or, lastly, it may proceed from the quotation of a document +earlier than our two Synoptics, and containing both classes of +peculiarities, those which have been dropped in the first Gospel +as well as those which have been dropped in the third, as we find +to be frequently the case with St. Mark. + +Either of the first two of these hypotheses will clearly suit the +phenomena; but they will hardly admit of the third. It does indeed +derive a very slight countenance from the repetition of the +language of the last quotation: this repetition, however, occurs +at too short an interval to be of importance. But the theory that +the Clementine writer is quoting from a document older than the +two Synoptics, and indeed their common original, is excluded by +the amount of matter that is common to the two Synoptics and +either not found at all or found variantly in the Clementines. The +coincidence between the Synoptics, we may assume, is derived from +the fact that they both drew from a common original. The +phraseology in which they agree is in all probability that of the +original document itself. If therefore this phraseology is wanting +in the Clementine quotations they are not likely to have been +drawn directly from the document which underlies the Synoptics. +This conclusion too is confirmed by particulars. In the first +quotation we cannot set down quite positively the Clementine +expansion of [Greek: tois aitousin auton] as a later form, though +it most probably is so. But the strange and fantastic phrase in +the last quotation, [Greek: to apistoun auton meros meta ton +hupokriton thaesei], is almost certainly a combination of the +[Greek: hupokriton] of Matthew with a distorted reminiscence of the +[Greek: apiston] of Luke. + +We have then the same kind of choice set before us as in the case +of Justin. Either the Clementine writer quotes our present +Gospels, or else he quotes some other composition later than them, +and which implies them. In other words, if he does not bear +witness to our Gospels at first hand, he does so at second hand, +and by the interposition of a further intermediate stage. It is +quite possible that he may have had access to such a tertiary +document, and that it may be the same which is the source of his +apocryphal quotations: that he did draw from apocryphal sources, +partly perhaps oral, but probably in the main written, there can, +I think, be little doubt. Neither is it easy to draw the line and +say exactly what quotations shall be referred to such sources and +what shall not. The facts do not permit us to claim the exclusive +use of the canonical Gospels. But that they were used, mediately +or immediately and to a greater or less degree, is, I believe, +beyond question. + + + + + +CHAPTER VII + +BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS. + + +Still following the order of 'Supernatural Religion,' we pass +with the critic to another group of heretical writers in the +earlier part of the second century. In Basilides the Gnostic we +have the first of a chain of writers who, though not holding the +orthodox tradition of doctrine, yet called themselves Christians +(except under the stress of persecution) and used the Christian +books--whether or to what extent the extant documents of +Christianity we must now endeavour to determine. + +Basilides carries us back to an early date in point of time. He +taught at Alexandria in the reign of Hadrian (117-137 A.D.). +Hippolytus expounds at some length, and very much in their own +words, the doctrines of Basilides and his school. There is a +somewhat similar account by Epiphanius, and more incidental +allusions in Clement of Alexandria and Origen. + +The notices that have come down to us of the writings of Basilides +are confusing. Origen says that 'he had the effrontery to compose +a Gospel and call it by his own name' [Endnote 188:1]. Eusebius +quotes from Agrippa Castor, a contemporary and opponent from the +orthodox side, a statement that 'he wrote four and twenty books +(presumably of commentary) upon the Gospel' [Endnote 189:1]. +Clement of Alexandria gives rather copious extracts from the +twenty-third of these books, to which he gave the name of +'Exegetics' [Endnote 189:2]. + +Tischendorf assumes, in a manner that is not quite so 'arbitrary +and erroneous' [Endnote 189:3] as his critic seems to suppose, that +this Commentary was upon our four Gospels. It is not altogether clear +how far Eusebius is using the words of Agrippa Castor and how far +his own. If the latter, there can be no doubt that he understood +the statement of Agrippa Castor as Tischendorf understands his, +i.e. as referring to our present Gospels; but supposing his words +to be those of the earlier writer, it is possible that, coming +from the orthodox side, they may have been used in the sense which +Tischendorf attributes to them. There can be no question that +Irenaeus used [Greek: to euangelion] for the canonical Gospels +collectively, and Justin Martyr may _perhaps_ have done so. +Tischendorf himself does not maintain that it refers to our Gospels +_exclusively_. Practically the statements in regard to the +Commentary of Basilides lead to nothing. + +Neither does it appear any more clearly what was the nature of the +Gospel that Basilides wrote. The term [Greek: euangelion] had a +technical metaphysical sense in the Basilidian sect and was used +to designate a part of the transcendental Gnostic revelations. The +Gospel of Basilides may therefore, as Dr. Westcott suggests, +reasonably enough, have had a philosophical rather than a historical +character. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' censures Dr. Westcott +for this suggestion [Endnote 189:4], but a few pages further on +he seems to adopt it himself, though he applies it strangely to +the language of Eusebius or Agrippa Castor and not to Basilides' +own work. + +In any case Hippolytus expressly says that, after the generation +of Jesus, the Basilidians held 'the other events in the life of +the Saviour followed as they are written in the Gospels' [Endnote +190:1]. There is no reason at all to suppose that there was a +breach of continuity in this respect between Basilides and his +school. And if his Gospel really contained substantially the same +events as ours, it is a question of comparatively secondary +importance whether he actually made use of those Gospels or no. + +It is rather remarkable that Hippolytus and Epiphanius, who +furnish the fullest accounts of the tenets of Basilides (and his +followers), say nothing about his Gospel: neither does Irenaeus or +Clement of Alexandria; the first mention of it is in Origen's +Homily on St. Luke. This shows how unwarranted is the assumption +made in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 190:2] that because +Hippolytus says that Basilides appealed to a secret tradition he +professed to have received from Matthias, and Eusebius that he set +up certain imaginary prophets, 'Barcabbas and Barcoph,' he +therefore had no other authorities. The statement that he +'absolutely ignores the canonical Gospels altogether' and does not +'recognise any such works as of authority,' is much in excess of +the evidence. All that this really amounts to is that neither +Hippolytus nor Eusebius say in so many words that Basilides did +use our Gospels. It would be a fairer inference to argue from +their silence, and still more from that of the 'malleus +haereticorum' Epiphanius, that he did not in this depart from the +orthodox custom; otherwise the Fathers would have been sure to +charge him with it, as they did Marcion. It is really I believe a +not very unsafe conclusion, for heretical as well as orthodox +writers, that where the Fathers do not say to the contrary, they +accepted the same documents as themselves. + +The main questions that arise in regard to Basilides are two: +(1) Are the quotations supposed to be made by him really his? +(2) Are they quotations from our Gospels? + +The doubt as to the authorship of the quotations applies chiefly +to those which occur in the 'Refutation of the Heresies' by +Hippolytus. This writer begins his account of the Basilidian +tenets by saying, 'Let us see here how Basilides along with +Isidore and his crew belie Matthias,' [Endnote 191:1] &c. He goes +on using for the most part the singular [Greek: phaesin], but +sometimes inserting the plural [Greek: kat' autous]. Accordingly, +it has been urged that quotations which are referred to the head +of the school really belong to his later followers, and the +attempt has further been made to prove that the doctrines +described in this section of the work of Hippolytus are later in +their general character than those attributed to Basilides +himself. This latter argument is very fine drawn, and will not +bear any substantial weight. It is, however, probably true that a +confusion is sometimes found between the 'eponymus,' as it were, +of a school and his followers. Whether that has been the case here +is a question that we have not sufficient data for deciding +positively. The presumption is against it, but it must be admitted +to be possible. It seems a forced and unnatural position to +suppose that the disciples would go to one set of authorities and +the master to another, and equally unnatural to think that a later +critic, like Hippolytus, would confine himself to the works of +these disciples and that in none of the passages in which +quotations are introduced he has gone to the fountain head. We may +decline to dogmatise; but probability is in favour of the +supposition that some at least of the quotations given by +Hippolytus come directly from Basilides. + +Some of the quotations discussed in 'Supernatural Religion' are +expressly assigned to the school of Basilides. Thus Clement of +Alexandria, in stating the opinion which this school held on the +subject of marriage, says that they referred to our Lord's saying, +'All men cannot receive this,' &c. + +_Strom._ iii. I. 1. + +[Greek: Ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton, eisi gar eunouchoi oi +men ek genetaes oi de ex anankaes.] + +_Matt._ xix. 11, 12. + +[Greek: Ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton, all' ois dedotai, +eisin gar eunouchoi oitines ek kiolias maetros egennaethaesan +outos, kai eisin eunouchoi oitines eunouchisthaesan hupo ton +anthropon, k.t.l.] + +The reference of this to St. Matthew is far from being so +'preposterous' [Endnote 192:1] as the critic imagines. The use of +the word [Greek: chorein] in this sense is striking and peculiar: +it has no parallel in the New Testament, and but slight and few +parallels, as it appears from the lexicons and commentators, in +previous literature. The whole phrase is a remarkable one and the +verbal coincidence exact, the words that follow are an easy and +natural abridgment. On the same principles on which it is denied +that this is a quotation from St. Matthew it would be easy to +prove _a priori_ that many of the quotations in Clement of +Alexandria could not be taken from the canonical Gospels which, we +know, _are_ so taken. + +The fact that this passage is found among the Synoptics only in +St. Matthew must not count for nothing. The very small number of +additional facts and sayings that we are able to glean from the +writers who, according to 'Supernatural Religion,' have used +apocryphal Gospels so freely, seems to be proof that our present +Gospels were (as we should expect) the fullest and most +comprehensive of their kind. If, then, a passage is found only in +one of them, it is fair to conclude, not positively, but probably, +that it is drawn from some special source of information that was +not widely diffused. + +The same remarks hold good respecting another quotation found in +Epiphanius, which also comes under the general head of [Greek: +Basileidianoi], though it is introduced not only by the singular +[Greek: phaesin] but by the definite [Greek: phaesin ho agurtaes]. +Here the Basilidian quotation has a parallel also peculiar to St. +Matthew, from the Sermon on the Mount. + +_Epiph. Haer_. 72 A. + +[Greek: Mae bagaete tous margaritas emprosthen ton choiron, maede +dote to hagion tois kusi.] + +_Matt_ vii. 6. + +[Greek: Mae dote to hagion tois kusin, maede bagaete tous +margaritas humon emprosthen ton choiron.] The excellent +Alexandrine cursive I, with some others, has [Greek: dóte] for +[Greek: dôte] + +The transposition of clauses, such as we see here, is by no means +an infrequent phenomenon. There is a remarkable instance of it--to +go no further--in the text of the benedictions with which the +Sermon on the Mount begins. In respect to the order of the two +clauses, 'Blessed are they that mourn' and 'Blessed are the meek,' +there is a broad division in the MSS. and other authorities. For +the received order we find [Hebrew: aleph;], B, C, 1, the mass of +uncials and cursives, b, f, Syrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm., +Aeth.; for the reversed order, 'Blessed are the meek' and 'Blessed +are they that mourn,' are ranged D, 33, Vulg., a, c, f'1, g'1, h, +k, l, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus., Bas. (?), Hil. The balance is +probably on the side of the received reading, as the opposing +authorities are mostly Western, but they too make a formidable +array. The confusion in the text of St. Luke as to the early +clauses of the Lord's Prayer is well known. But if such things are +done in the green tree, if we find these variations in MSS. which +profess to be exact transcripts of the same original copy, how +much more may we expect to find them enter into mere quotations +that are often evidently made from memory, and for the sake of the +sense, not the words. In this instance however the verbal +resemblance is very close. As I have frequently said, to speak of +certainties in regard to any isolated passage that does not +present exceptional phenomena is inadmissible, but I have little +moral doubt that the quotation was really derived from St. +Matthew, and there is quite a fair probability that it was made by +Basilides himself. + +The Hippolytean quotations, the ascription of which to Basilides +or to his school we have left an open question, will assume a +considerable importance when we come to treat of the external +evidence for the fourth Gospel. Bearing upon the Synoptic Gospels, +we find an allusion to the star of the Magi and an exact verbal +quotation (introduced with [Greek: to eiraemenon]) of Luke i. 35, +[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamis hupsistou +episkiasei soi]. Both these have been already discussed with +reference to Justin. All the other Gospels in which the star of +the Magi is mentioned belong to a later stage of formation than +St. Matthew. The very parallelism between St. Matthew and St. Luke +shows that both Gospels were composed at a date when various +traditions as to the early portions of the history were current. +No doubt secondary, or rather tertiary, works, like the +Protevangelium of James, came to be composed later; but it is not +begging the question to say that if the allusion is made by +Basilides, it is not likely that at that date he should quote any +other Gospel than St. Matthew, simply because that is the earliest +form in which the story of the Magi has come down to us. + +The case is stronger in regard to the quotation from St. Luke. In +Justin's account of the Annunciation to Mary there was a +coincidence with the Protevangelium and a variation from the +canonical text in the phrase [Greek: pneuma kuriou] for [Greek: +pneuma hagion]; but in the Basilidian quotation the canonical text +is reproduced syllable for syllable and letter for letter, which, +when we consider how sensitive and delicate these verbal relations +are, must be taken as a strong proof of identity. The reader may +be reminded that the word [Greek: episkiazein], the phrase [Greek: +dunamism hupsistou], and the construction [Greek: eperchesthai +epi], are all characteristic of St. Luke: [Greek; episkiazein] +occurs once in the triple synopsis and besides only here and in +Acts v. 15: [Greek: hupsistos] occurs nine times in St. Luke's +writings and only four times besides; it is used by the Evangelist +especially in phrases like [Greek: uios, dunamis, prophaetaes, +doulos hupsistou], to which the only parallel is [Greek: hiereus +tou Theou tou hupsistou] in Heb. vii. 1. The construction of +[Greek: eperchesthai] with [Greek: epi] and the accusative is +found five times in the third Gospel and the Acts and not at all +besides in the New Testament; indeed the participial form, [Greek: +eperchomenos] (in the sense of 'future'), is the only shape in +which the word appears (twice) outside the eight times that it +occurs in St. Luke's writings. This is a body of evidence that +makes it extremely difficult to deny that the Basilidian quotation +has its original in the third Synoptic. + + + 2. + +The case in regard to Valentinus, the next great Gnostic leader, +who came forward about the year 140 A.D., is very similar to that +of Basilides, though the balance of the argument is slightly +altered. It is, on the one hand, still clearer that the greater +part of the evangelical references usually quoted are really from +our present actual Gospels, but, on the other hand, there is a +more distinct probability that these are to be assigned rather to +the School of Valentinus than to Valentinus himself. + +The supposed allusion to St. John we shall pass over for the +present. + +There is a string of allusions in the first book of Irenaeus, +'Adv. Haereses,' to the visit of Jesus as a child to the Passover +(Luke ii. 42), the jot or tittle of Matt. v. 18, the healing of +the issue of blood, the bearing of the cross (Luke xiv. 27 par.), +the sending of a sword and not peace, 'his fan is in his hand,' +the salt and light of the world, the healing of the centurion's +servant, of Jairus' daughter, the exclamations upon the cross, the +call of the unwilling disciples, Zacchaeus, Simon, &c. We may take +it, I believe, as admitted, and it is indeed quite indisputable, +that these are references to our present Gospels; but there is the +further question whether they are to be attributed directly to +Valentinus or to his followers, and I am quite prepared to admit +that there are no sufficient grounds for direct attribution to the +founder of the system. Irenaeus begins by saying that his +authorities are certain 'commentaries of the disciples of +Valentinus' and his own intercourse with some of them [Endnote +197:1]. He proceeds to announce his intention to give a 'brief and +clear account of the opinions of those who were then teaching +their false doctrines [Greek: nun paradidaskonton], that is, of +Ptolemaeus and his followers, a branch of the school of +Valentinus.' It is fair to infer that the description of the +Valentinian system which follows is drawn chiefly from these +sources. This need not, however, quite necessarily exclude works +by Valentinus himself. It is at any rate clear that Irenaeus had +some means of referring to the opinions of Valentinus as distinct +from his school; because, after giving a sketch of the system, he +proceeds to point out certain contradictions within the school +itself, quoting first Valentinus expressly, then a disciple called +Secundus, then 'another of their more distinguished and ambitious +teachers,' then 'others,' then a further subdivision, finally +returning to Ptolemaeus and his party again. On the whole, +Irenaeus seems to have had a pretty complete knowledge of the +writings and teaching of the Valentinians. We conclude therefore, +that, while it cannot be alleged positively that any of the +quotations or allusions were really made by Valentinus, it would +be rash to assert that none of them were made by him, or that he +did not use our present Gospels. + +However this may be, we cannot do otherwise than demur to the +statement implied in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 198:1], that +the references in Irenaeus can only be employed as evidence for +the Gnostic usage between the years 185-195 A.D. This is a +specimen of a kind of position that is frequently taken up by +critics upon that side, and that I cannot but think quite +unreasonable and uncritical. Without going into the question of +the date at which Irenaeus wrote at present, and assuming with the +author of 'Supernatural Religion' that his first three books were +published before the death of Eleutherus in A.D. 190--the latest +date possible for them,--it will be seen that the Gnostic teaching +to which Irenaeus refers is supposed to begin at a time when his +first book may very well have been concluded, and to end actually +five years later than the latest date at which this portion of the +work can have been published! Not only does the author allow no +time at all for Irenaeus to compose his own work, not only does he +allow none for him to become acquainted with the Gnostic +doctrines, and for those doctrines themselves to become +consolidated and expressed in writing, but he goes so far as to +make Irenaeus testify to a state of things five years at least, +and very probably ten, in advance of the time at which he was +himself writing! No doubt there is an oversight somewhere, but +this is the kind of oversight that ought not to be made. + +This, however, is an extreme instance of the fault to which I was +alluding--the tendency in the negative school to allow no time or +very little for processes that in the natural course of things +must certainly have required a more or less considerable interval. +On a moderate computation, the indirect testimony of Irenaeus may +be taken to refer--not to the period 185-195 A.D., which is out of +the question--but to that from 160-180 A.D. This is not pressing +the possibility, real as it is, that Valentinus himself, who +flourished from 140-160 A.D., may have been included. We may agree +with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that Irenaeus probably +made the personal acquaintance of the Valentinian leaders, and +obtained copies of their books, during his well-known visit to +Rome in 178 A.D. [Endnote 199:1] The applications of Scripture +would be taken chiefly from the books of which some would be +recent but others of an earlier date, and it can surely be no +exaggeration to place the formation of the body of doctrine which +they contained in the period 160-175 A.D. above mentioned. I doubt +whether a critic could be blamed who should go back ten years +further, but we shall be keeping on the safe side if we take our +_terminus a quo_ as to which these Gnostic writings can be +alleged in evidence at about the year 160. + +A genuine fragment of a letter of Valentinus has been preserved by +Clement of Alexandria in the second book of the Stromateis +[Endnote 200:1]. This is thought to contain references to St. +Matthew's Gospel by Dr. Westcott, and, strange to say, both to St. +Matthew and St. Luke by Volkmar. These references, however, are +not sufficiently clear to be pressed. + +A much less equivocal case is supplied by Hippolytus--less +equivocal at least so far as the reference goes. Among the +passages which received a specially Gnostic interpretation is Luke +i. 35, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the +Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing +which is born (of thee) shall be called the Son of God.' This is +quoted thus, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power +of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore that which is +born of thee shall be called holy.' + +_Luke_ i. 35. + +[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamis hupsistou +episkiasei soi, dio kai to gennomenon [ek sou] hagion klaethaesetai +huios Theon.] + +_Ref. Omn. Haes._ vi. 35. + +[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se... kai dunamis hupsistou +episkiasei soi... dio to gennomenon ek sou hagion klaethaesetai.] + +That St. Luke has been the original here seems to be beyond a +doubt. The omission of [Greek: huios Theou] is of very little +importance, because from its position [Greek: hagion] would more +naturally stand as a predicate, and the sentence would be quite as +complete without the [Greek: huios Theou] as with it. On the other +hand, it would be difficult to compress into so small a space so +many words and expressions that are peculiarly characteristic of +St. Luke. In addition to those which have just been noticed in +connection with Basilides, there is the very remarkable [Greek: to +gennomenon], which alone would be almost enough to stamp the whole +passage. + +We are still however pursued by the same ambiguity as in the case +of Basilides. It is not certain that the quotation is made from +the master and not from his scholars. There is no reason, indeed, +why it should be made from the latter rather than the former; the +point must in any case be left open: but it cannot be referred to +the master with so much certainty as to be directly producible +under his name. + +And yet, from whomsoever the quotation may have been made, if only +it has been given rightly by Hippolytus, it is a strong proof of +the antiquity of the Gospel. The words [Greek: ek sou], will be +noticed, are enclosed in brackets in the text of St. Luke as given +above. They are a corruption, though an early and well-supported +corruption, of the original. The authorities in their favour are C +(first hand), the good cursives 1 and 33, one form of the Vulgate, +a, c, e, m of the Old Latin, the Peshito Syriac, the Armenian and +Aethiopic versions, Irenaeus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Tertullian, +Cyprian, and Epiphanius. On the other hand, for the omission are +A. B, C (third hand), D, [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], and the rest of +the uncials and cursives, another form of the Vulgate, b, f, ff, +g'2, l of the Old Latin, the Harclean and Jerusalem Syriac, the +Memphitic, Gothic, and some MSS. of the Armenian versions, Origen, +Dionysius and Peter of Alexandria, and Eusebius. A text critic +will see at once on which side the balance lies. It is impossible +that [Greek: ek sou] could have been the reading of the autograph +copy, and it is not, I believe, admitted into the text by any +recent editor. But if it was present in the copy made use of by +the Gnostic writer, whoever he was, that copy must have been +already far enough removed from the original to admit of this +corruption; in other words, it has lineage enough to throw the +original some way behind it. We shall come to more of such +phenomena in the next chapter. + +I said just now that the quotation could not with certainty be +referred to Valentinus, but it is at least considerably earlier +than the contemporaries of Hippolytus. It appears that there was a +division in the Valentinian School upon the interpretation of this +very passage. Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, representing the Western +branch, took one side, while Axionicus and Bardesanes, representing +the Eastern, took the other. Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were both, +we know, contemporaries of Irenaeus, so that the quotation was used +among the Valentinians at least in the time of Irenaeus, and very +possibly earlier, for it usually takes a certain time for a subject +to be brought into controversy. We must thus take the _terminus ad quem_ +for the quotation not later than 180 A.D. How much further back it +goes we cannot say, but even then (if the Valentinian text is correctly +preserved by Hippolytus) it presents features of corruption. + +That the Valentinians made use of unwritten sources as well as of +written, and that they possessed a Gospel of their own which they +called the Gospel of Truth, does not affect the question of their +use of the Synoptics. For these very same Valentinians undoubtedly +did use the Synoptics, and not only them but also the fourth +Gospel. It is immediately after he has spoken of the 'unwritten' +tradition of the Valentinians that Irenaeus proceeds to give the +numerous quotations from the Synoptics referred to above, while in +the very same chapter, and within two sections of the place in +which he alludes to the Gospel of Truth, he expressly says that +these same Valentinians used the Gospel according to St. John +freely (plenissime) [Endnote 203:1]. It should also be remembered +that the alleged acceptance of the four Gospels by the Valentinians +rests upon the statement of Irenaeus [Endnote 203:2] as well as upon +that of the less scrupulous and accurate Tertullian. There is no +good reason for doubting it. + + + + + +CHAPTER VIII. + +MARCION. [Endnote 204:1] + + +Of the various chapters in the controversy with which we are +dealing, that which relates to the heretic Marcion is one of the +most interesting and important; important, because of the +comparative fixity of the data on which the question turns; +interesting, because of the peculiar nature of the problem to be +dealt with. + +We may cut down the preliminary disquisitions as to the life and +doctrines of Marcion, which have, indeed, a certain bearing upon +the point at issue, but will be found given with sufficient +fulness in 'Supernatural Religion,' or in any of the authorities. +As in most other points relating to this period, there is some +confusion in the chronological data, but these range within a +comparatively limited area. The most important evidence is that of +Justin, who, writing as a contemporary (about 147 A.D.) [Endnote +205:1], says that at that time Marcion had 'in every nation of men +caused many to blaspheme' [Endnote 205:2]; and again speaks of the +wide spread of his doctrines ([Greek: ho polloi peisthentes, +k.t.l.]) [Endnote 205:3]. Taking these statements along with +others in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, modern critics +seem to be agreed that Marcion settled in Rome and began to teach +his peculiar doctrines about 139-142 A.D. This is the date +assigned in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 205:4]. Volkmar gives +138 A.D. [Endnote 205:5] Tischendorf, on the apologetic side, +would throw back the date as far as 130, but this depends upon the +date assigned by him to Justin's 'Apology,' and conflicts too much +with the other testimony. + +It is also agreed that Marcion himself did actually use a certain +Gospel that is attributed to him. The exact contents and character +of that Gospel are not quite so clear, and its relation to the +Synoptic Gospels, and especially to our third Synoptic, which +bears the name of St. Luke, is the point that we have to +determine. + +The Church writers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, without +exception, describe Marcion's Gospel as a mutilated or amputated +version of St. Luke. They contrast his treatment of the +evangelical tradition with that pursued by his fellow-Gnostic, +Valentinus [Endnote 205:6]. Valentinus sought to prove his tenets +by wresting the interpretation of the Apostolic writings; Marcion +went more boldly to work, and, having first selected his Gospel, +our third Synoptic, cut out the passages both in it and in ten +Epistles of St. Paul, admitted by him to be genuine, which seemed +to conflict with his own system. He is also said to have made +additions, but these were in any case exceedingly slight. + +The statement of the Church writers should hardly, perhaps, be put +aside quite so summarily as is sometimes done. The life of +Irenaeus overlapped that of Marcion considerably, and there seems +to have been somewhat frequent communication between the Church at +Lyons, where he was first presbyter and afterwards bishop, and +that of Rome, where Marcion was settled; but Irenaeus [Endnote +206:1], as well as Tertullian and Epiphanius, alludes to the +mutilation of St. Luke's Gospel by Marcion as a notorious fact. +Too much stress, however, must not be laid upon this, because the +Catholic writers were certainly apt to assume that their own view +was the only one tenable. + +The modern controversy is more important, though it has to go back +to the ancient for its data. The question in debate may be stated +thus. Did Marcion, as the Church writers say, really mutilate our +so-called St. Luke (the name is not of importance, but we may use +it as standing for our third Synoptic in its present shape)? Or, +is it not possible that the converse may be true, and that +Marcion's Gospel was the original and ours an interpolated +version? The importance of this may, indeed, be exaggerated, +because Marcion's Gospel is at any rate evidence for the existence +at his date in a collected form of so much of the third Gospel +(rather more than two-thirds) as he received. Still the issue is +not inconsiderable: for, upon the second hypothesis, if the editor +of our present Gospel made use of that which was in the possession +of Marcion, his date may be--though it does not follow that it +certainly would be--thrown into the middle of the second century, +or even beyond, if the other external evidence would permit; +whereas, upon the first hypothesis, the Synoptic Gospel would be +proved to be current as early as 140 A.D.; and there will be room +for considerations which may tend to date it much earlier. There +will still be the third possibility that Marcion's Gospel may be +altogether independent of our present Synoptic, and that it may +represent a parallel recension of the evangelical tradition. This +would leave the date of the canonical Gospel undetermined. + +It is a fact worth noting that the controversy, at least in its +later and more important stages, had been fought, and, to all +appearance, fought out, within the Tübingen school itself. +Olshausen and Hahn, the two orthodox critics who were most +prominently engaged in it, after a time retired and left the field +entirely to the Tübingen writers. + +The earlier critics who impugned the traditional view appear to +have leaned rather to the theory that Marcion's Gospel and the +canonical Luke are, more or less, independent offshoots from the +common ground-stock of the evangelical narratives. Ritschl, and +after him Baur and Schwegler, adopted more decidedly the view that +the canonical Gospel was constructed out of Marcion's by +interpolations directed against that heretic's teaching. The +reaction came from a quarter whence it would not quite naturally +have been expected--from one whose name we have already seen +associated with some daring theories, Volkmar, Professor of +Theology at Zürich. With him was allied the more sober-minded, +laborious investigator, Hilgenfeld. Both these writers returned to +the charge once and again. Volkmar's original paper was +supplemented by an elaborate volume in 1852, and Hilgenfeld, in +like manner, has reasserted his conclusions. Baur and Ritschl +professed themselves convinced by the arguments brought forward, +and retracted or greatly modified their views. So far as I am +aware, Schwegler is the only writer whose opinion still stands as +it was at first expressed; but for some years before his death, +which occurred in 1857, he had left the theological field. + +Without at all prejudging the question on this score, it is +difficult not to feel a certain presumption in favour of a +conclusion which has been reached after such elaborate argument, +especially where, as here, there could be no suspicion of a merely +apologetic tendency on either side. Are we, then, to think that +our English critic has shown cause for reopening the discussion? +There is room to doubt whether he would quite maintain as much as +this himself. He has gone over the old ground, and reproduced the +old arguments; but these arguments already lay before Hilgenfeld +and Volkmar in their elaborate researches, and simply as a matter +of scale the chapter in 'Supernatural Religion' can hardly profess +to compete with these. + +Supposing, for the moment, that the author has proved the points +that he sets himself to prove, to what will this amount? He will +have shown (a) that the patristic statement that Marcion mutilated +St. Luke is not to be accepted at once without further question; +(b) that we cannot depend with perfect accuracy upon the details +of his Gospel, as reconstructed from the statements of Tertullian +and Epiphanius; (c) that it is difficult to explain the whole of +Marcion's alleged omissions, on purely, dogmatic grounds--assuming +the consistency of his method. + +With the exception of the first, I do not think these points are +proved to any important extent; but, even if they were, it would +still, I believe, be possible to show that Marcion's Gospel was +based upon our third Synoptic by arguments which hardly cross or +touch them at all. + +But, before we proceed further, it is well that we should have +some idea as to the contents of the Marcionitic Gospel. And here +we are brought into collision with the second of the propositions +just enunciated. Are we able to reconstruct that Gospel from the +materials available to us with any tolerable or sufficient +approach to accuracy? I believe no one who has gone into the +question carefully would deny that we can. Here it is necessary to +define and guard our statements, so that they may cover exactly as +much ground as they ought and no more. + +Our author quotes largely, especially from Volkmar, to show that +the evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius is not to be relied +upon. When we refer to the chapter in which Volkmar deals with +this subject [Endnote 209:1]--a chapter which is an admirable +specimen of the closeness and thoroughness of German research--we +do indeed find some such expressions, but to quote them alone +would give an entirely erroneous impression of the conclusion to +which the writer comes. He does not say that the statements of +Tertullian and Epiphanius are untrustworthy, simply and +absolutely, but only that they need to be applied with caution +_on certain points_. Such a point is especially the silence +of these writers as proving, or being supposed to prove, the +absence of the corresponding passage in Marcion's Gospel. It is +argued, very justly, that such an inference is sometimes +precarious. Again, in quoting longer passages, Epiphanius is in +the habit of abridging or putting an &c. ([Greek: kai ta hexaes-- +kai ta loipa]), instead of quoting the whole. This does not give a +complete guarantee for the intermediate portions, and leaves some +uncertainty as to where the passage ends. Generally it is true +that the object of the Fathers is not critical but dogmatic, to +refute Marcion's system out of his own Gospel. But when all +deductions have been made on these grounds, there are still ample +materials for reconstructing that Gospel with such an amount of +accuracy at least as can leave no doubt as to its character. The +wonder is that we are able to do so, and that the statements of +the Fathers should stand the test so well as they do. Epiphanius +especially often shows the most painstaking care and minuteness of +detail. He has reproduced the manuscript of Marcion's Gospel that +he had before him, even to its clerical errors [Endnote 210:1]. He +and Tertullian are writing quite independently, and yet they +confirm each other in a remarkable manner. 'If we compare the two +witnesses,' says Volkmar, 'we find the most satisfactory (sicher- +stellendste) coincidence in their statements, entirely independent +as they are, as well in regard to that which Marcion has in common +with Luke, as in regard to very many of the points in which his +text differed from the canonical. And this applies not only to +simple omissions which Epiphanius expressly notes and Tertullian +confirms by passing over what would otherwise have told against +Marcion, but also to the minor variations of the text which +Tertullian either happens to name or indicate by his translation, +while they are confirmed by the direct statement of [the other] +opponent who is equally bent on finding such differences' [Endnote +211:1]. Out of all the points on which they can be compared, there +is a real divergence only in two. Of these, one Volkmar attributes +to an oversight on the part of Epiphanius, and the other to a +clerical omission in his manuscript [Endnote 211:2]. When we +consider the cumbrousness of ancient MSS., the absence of +divisions in the text, and the consequent difficulty of making +exact references, this must needs be taken for a remarkable +result. And the very fact that we have two--or, including +Irenaeus, even three--independent authorities, makes the text of +Marcion's Gospel, so far as those authorities are available, or, +in other words, for the greater part of it, instead of being +uncertain among quite the most certain of all the achievements of +modern criticism [Endnote 211:3]. + +This is seen practically--to apply a simple test--in the large +amount of agreement between critics of the most various schools as +to the real contents of the Gospel. Our author indeed speaks much +of the 'disagreement.' But by what standard does he judge? Or, has +he ever estimated its extent? Putting aside merely verbal +differences, the total number of whole verses affected will be +represented in the following table:-- + +iv. 16-30: doubt as to exact extent of omissions affecting about + half the verses. + + 38, 39: omitted according to Hahn; retained according to + Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. + +vii. 29-35: omitted, Hahn and Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. + +x. 12-15: ditto ditto. + +xiii. 6-10: omitted, Volkmar; retained, Hilgenfeld and Rettig. + +xvii. 5-10: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. + + 14-19: doubt as to exact omissions. + +xix. 47, 48: omitted, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; retained, Hahn and + Anger. + +xxii. 17, 18: doubtful. + + 23-27: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. + + 43, 44: ditto ditto. + +xxiii. 39-42: ditto ditto. + + 47-49: omitted, Hahn; retained, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar. + +xxiv. 47-53: uncertain [Endnote 212:1]. + +This would give, as a maximum estimate of variation, some 55 +verses out of about 804, or, in other words, about seven per cent. +But such an estimate would be in fact much too high, as there can +be no doubt that the earlier researches of Hahn and Ritschl ought +to be corrected by those of Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; and the +difference between these two critics is quite insignificant. +Taking the severest view that it is possible to take, no one will +maintain that the differences between the critics are such as to +affect the main issue, so that upon one hypothesis one theory +would hold good, and upon another hypothesis another. It is a mere +question of detail. + +We may, then, reconstruct the Gospel used by Marcion with very +considerable confidence that we have its real contents before us. +In order to avoid any suspicion I will take the outline given in +'Supernatural Religion' (ii. p. 127), adding only the passage +St. Luke vii. 29-35, which, according to the author's statement (a +mistaken one, however) [Endnote 213:1], is 'generally agreed' to +have been wanting in Marcion's Gospel. In that Gospel, then, the +following portions of our present St. Luke were omitted:-- + +Chaps. i. and ii, including the prologue, the Nativity, and the +birth of John the Baptist. + +Chap. iii (with the exception of ver. 1), containing the baptism +of our Lord, the preaching of St. John, and the genealogy. + +iv. 1-13, 17-20, 24: the Temptation, the reading from Isaiah. + +vii. 29-35: the gluttonous man. + +xi. 29-32, 49-51: the sign of Jonas, and the blood of the +prophets. + +xiii. 1-9, 29-35: the slain Galileans, the fig-tree, Herod, +Jerusalem. + +xv. 11-32: the prodigal son. + +xvii. 5-10: the servant at meat. + +xviii. 31-34: announcement of the Passion. + +xix. 29-48: the Triumphal Entry, woes of Jerusalem, cleansing of +the Temple. + +xx. 9-18, 37, 38: the wicked husbandmen; the God of Abraham. + +xxi. 1-4, 18, 21, 22: the widow's mite; 'a hair of your head;' +flight of the Church. + +xxii. 16-18, 28-30, 35-38, 49-51: the fruit of the vine, 'eat at +my table,' 'buy a sword,' the high-priest's servant. + +xxiv. 47-53: the last commission, the Ascension. + +Here we have another remarkable phenomenon. The Gospel stands to +our Synoptic entirely in the relation of _defect_. We may say +entirely, for the additions are so insignificant--some thirty +words in all, and those for the most part supported by other +authority--that for practical purposes they need not be reckoned. +With the exception of these thirty words inserted, and some, also +slight, alterations of phrase, Marcion's Gospel presents simply an +_abridgment_ of our St. Luke. + +Does not this almost at once exclude the idea that they can be +independent works? If it does not, then let us compare the two in +detail. There is some disturbance and re-arrangement in the first +chapter of Marcion's Gospel, though the substance is that of the +third Synoptic; but from this point onwards the two move step by +step together but for the omissions and a single transposition +(iv. 27 to xvii. 18). Out of fifty-three sections peculiar to St. +Luke--from iv. 16 onwards--all but eight were found also in +Marcion's Gospel. They are found, too, in precisely the same +order. Curious and intricate as is the mosaic work of the third +Gospel, all the intricacies of its pattern are reproduced in the +Gospel of Marcion. Where Luke makes an insertion in the +groundstock of the narrative, there Marcion makes an insertion +also; where Luke omits part of the narrative, Marcion does the +same. Among the documents peculiar to St. Luke are some of a very +marked and individual character, which seem to have come from some +private source of information. Such, for instance, would be the +document viii. 1-3, which introduces names so entirely unknown to +the rest of the evangelical tradition as Joanna and Susanna +[Endnote 215:1]. A trace of the same, or an allied document, +appears in chap. xxiv, where we have again the name Joanna, and +afterwards that of the obscure disciple Cleopas. Again, the +mention of Martha and Mary is common only to St. Luke and the +fourth Gospel. Zacchaeus is peculiar to St. Luke. Yet, not only +does each of the sections relating to these personages re-appear +in Marcion's Gospel, but it re-appears precisely at the same +place. A marked peculiarity in St. Luke's Gospel is the 'great +intercalation' of discourses, ix. 51 to xviii. 14, evidently +inserted without regard to chronological order. Yet this +peculiarity, too, is faithfully reproduced in the Gospel of +Marcion with the same disregard of chronology--the only change +being the omission of about forty-one verses from a total of three +hundred and eighty. When Luke has the other two Synoptics against +him, as in the insertions Matt. xiv. 3-12, Mark vi. 17-29, and +again Matt. xx. 20-28, Mark x. 35-45, and Matt. xxi. 20-22, Mark +xi. 20-26, Marcion has them against him too. Where the third +Synoptist breaks off from his companions (Luke ix. 17, 18) and +leaves a gap, Marcion leaves one too. It has been noticed as +characteristic of St. Luke that, where he has recorded a similar +incident before, he omits what might seem to be a repetition of +it: this characteristic is exactly reflected in Marcion, and that +in regard to the very same incidents. Then, wherever the patristic +statements give us the opportunity of comparing Marcion's text +with the Synoptic--and this they do very largely indeed--the two +are found to coincide with no greater variation than would be +found between any two not directly related manuscripts of the same +text. It would be easy to multiply these points, and to carry them +to any degree of detail; if more precise and particular evidence +is needed it shall be forthcoming, but in the meantime I think it +may be asserted with confidence that two alternatives only are +possible. Either Marcion's Gospel is an abridgment of our present +St. Luke, or else our present St. Luke is an expansion by +interpolation of Marcion's Gospel, or of a document co-extensive +with it. No third hypothesis is tenable. + +It remains, then, to enquire which of these two Gospels had the +priority--Marcion's or Luke's; which is to stand first, both in +order of time and of authenticity. This, too, is a point that +there are ample data for determining. + +(1.) And, first, let us consider what presumption is raised by any +other part of Marcion's procedure. Is it likely that he would have +cut down a document previously existing? or, have we reason for +thinking that he would be scrupulous in keeping such a document +intact? + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' himself makes use of this +very argument; but I cannot help suspecting that his application +of it has slipped in through an oversight or misapprehension. When +first I came across the argument as employed by him, I was struck +by it at once as important if only it was sound. But, upon +examination, not only does it vanish into thin air as an argument +in support of the thesis he is maintaining, but there remains in +its place a positive argument that tells directly and strongly +against that thesis. A passage is quoted from Canon Westcott, in +which it is stated that while Tertullian and Epiphanius accuse +Marcion of altering the text of the books which he received, so +far as his treatment of the Epistles is concerned this is not +borne out by the facts, out of seven readings noticed by +Epiphanius two only being unsupported by other authority. It is +argued from this that Marcion 'equally preserved without +alteration the text which he found in his manuscript of the +Gospel.' 'We have no reason to believe the accusation of the +Fathers in regard to the Gospel--which we cannot fully test-- +better founded than that in regard to the Epistles, which we can +test, and find unfounded' [Endnote 217:1]. No doubt the premisses +of this argument are true, and so also is the conclusion, strictly +as it stands. It is true that the Fathers accuse Marcion of +tampering with the text in various places, both in the Epistles +and in the Gospels where the allegation can be tested, and where +it is found that the supposed perversion is simply a difference of +reading, proved to be such by its presence in other authorities +[Endnote 217:2]. But what is this to the point? It is not +contended that Marcion altered to any considerable extent (though +he did slightly even in the Epistles [Endnote 217:3]) the text +_which he retained_, but that he mutilated and cut out whole +passages from that text. He can be proved to have done this in +regard to the Epistles, and therefore it is fair to infer that he +dealt in the same way with the Gospel. This is the amended form in +which the argument ought to stand. It is certain that Marcion made +a large excision before Rom. xi. 33, and another after Rom. viii. +11; he also cut out the 'mentiones Abrahae' from Gal. iii. 7, 14, +16-18 [Endnote 218:1]. I say nothing about his excision of the +last two chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, because on that +point a controversy might be raised. But the genuineness of these +other passages is undisputed and indisputable. It cannot be argued +here that our text of the Epistle has suffered from later +interpolation, and therefore, I repeat, it is so much the more +probable that Marcion took from the text of the Gospel than that a +later editor added to it. + +(2.) In examining the internal evidence from the nature and +structure of Marcion's Gospel, it has hitherto been the custom to +lay most stress upon its dogmatic character. The controversy in +Germany has turned chiefly on this. The critics have set +themselves to show that the variations in Marcion's Gospel either +could or could not be explained as omissions dictated by the +exigencies of his dogmatic system. This was a task which suited +well the subtlety and inventiveness of the German mind, and it has +been handled with all the usual minuteness and elaboration. The +result has been that not only have Volkmar and Hilgenfeld proved +their point to their own satisfaction, but they also convinced +Ritschl and partially Baur; and generally we may say that in +Germany it seems to be agreed at the present time that the +hypothesis of a mutilated Luke suits the dogmatic argument better +than that of later Judaising interpolations. + +I have no wish to disparage the results of these labours, which +are carried out with the splendid thoroughness that one so much +admires. Looking at the subject as impartially as I can, I am +inclined to think that the case is made out in the main. The +single instance of the perverted sense assigned to [Greek: +kataelthen] in iv. 31 must needs go a long way. Marcion evidently +intends the word to be taken in a transcendental sense of the +emanation and descent to earth of the Aeon Christus [Endnote +219:1]. It is impossible to think that this sense is more original +than the plain historical use of the word by St. Luke, or to +mistake the dogmatic motive in the heretical recension. There is +also an evident reason for the omission of the first chapters +which relate the human birth of Christ, which Marcion denied, and +one somewhat less evident, though highly probable, for the +omission of the account of the Baptist's ministry, John being +regarded as the finisher of the Old Testament dispensation--the +work of the Demiurge. This omission is not quite consistently +carried out, as the passage vii. 24-28 is retained--probably +because ver. 28 itself seemed to contain a sufficient qualification. +The genealogy, as well as viii. 19, was naturally omitted for the +same reason as the Nativity. The narrative of the Baptism Marcion +could not admit, because it supplied the foundation for that very +Ebionism to which his own system was diametrically opposed. The +Temptation, x. 21 ('Lord ... of earth'), xxii. 18 ('the fruit of +the vine'), xxii. 30 ('eat and drink at my table'), and the Ascension, +may have been omitted because they contained matter that seemed too +anthropomorphic or derogatory to the Divine Nature. On the other hand, +xi. 29-32 (Jonah and Solomon), xi. 49-51 (prophets and apostles), +xiii. 1 sqq. (the fig-tree, as the Jewish people?), xiii. 31-35 (the +prophet in Jerusalem), the prodigal son (perhaps?), the wicked +husbandmen (more probably), the triumphal entry (as the fulfilment +of prophecy), the announcement of the Passion (also as such), xxi. +21, 22 (the same), and the frequent allusions to the Old Testament +Scriptures, seem to have been expunged as recognising or belonging +to the kingdom of the Demiurge [Endnote 220:1]. Again, the changes +in xiii. 28, xvi. 17, xx. 35, are fully in accordance with +Marcion's system [Endnote 220:2]. The reading which Marcion had in +xi. 22 is expressly stated to have been common to the Gnostic +heretics generally. In some of these instances the dogmatic motive +is gross and palpable, in most it seems to have been made out, but +some (such as especially xiii. 1-9) are still doubtful, and the +method of excision does not appear to have been carried out with +complete consistency. + +This, indeed, was only to be expected. We are constantly reminded +that Tertullian, a man, with all his faults, of enormous literary +and general power, did not possess the critical faculty, and no +more was that faculty likely to be found in Marcion. It is an +anachronism to suppose that he would sit down to his work with +that regularity of method and with that subtle appreciation of the +affinities of dogma which characterise the modern critic. The +Septuagint translators betray an evident desire to soften down the +anthropomorphism of the Hebrew; but how easy would it be to +convict them of inconsistency, and to show that they left standing +expressions as strong as any that they changed! If we judge +Marcion's procedure by a standard suited to the age in which he +lived, our wonder will be, not that he has shown so little, but so +much, consistency and insight. + +I think, therefore, that the dogmatic argument, so far as it goes, +tells distinctly in favour of the 'mutilation' hypothesis. But at +the same time it should not be pressed too far. I should be +tempted to say that the almost exclusive and certainly excessive +use of arguments derived from the history of dogma was the prime +fallacy which lies at the root of the Tübingen criticism. How can +it be thought that an Englishman, or a German, trained under and +surrounded by the circumstances of the nineteenth century, should +be able to thread all the mazes in the mind of a Gnostic or an +Ebionite in the second? It is difficult enough for us to lay down +a law for the actions of our own immediate neighbours and friends; +how much more difficult to 'cast the shell of habit,' and place +ourselves at the point of view of a civilisation and world of +thought wholly different from our own, so as not only to explain +its apparent aberrations, but to be able to say, positively, 'this +must have been so,' 'that must have been otherwise.' Yet such is +the strange and extravagant supposition that we are assumed to +make. No doubt the argument from dogma has its place in criticism; +but, on the whole, the literary argument is safer, more removed +from the influence of subjective impressions, more capable of +being cast into a really scientific form. + +(3.) I pass over other literary arguments which hardly admit of +this form of expression--such as the improbability that the +Preface or Prologue was not part of the original Gospel, but a +later accretion; or, again, from Marcion's treatment of the +Synoptic matter in the third Gospel, both points which might be +otherwise worth dilating upon. I pass over these, and come at +once, without further delay, to the one point which seems to me +really to decide the character of Marcion's Gospel and its +relation to the Synoptic. The argument to which I allude is that +from style and diction. True the English mind is apt to receive +literary arguments of that kind with suspicion, and very justly so +long as they rest upon a mere vague subjective _ipse dixit_; +but here the question can be reduced to one of definite figures +and of weighing and measuring. Bruder's Concordance is a dismal- +looking volume--a mere index of words, and nothing more. But it +has an eloquence of its own for the scientific investigator. It is +strange how clearly many points stand out when this test comes to +be applied, which before had been vague and obscure. This is +especially the case in regard to the Synoptic Gospels; for, in the +first place, the vocabulary of the writers is very limited and +similar phrases have constant tendency to recur, and, in the +second place, the critic has the immense advantage of being +enabled to compare their treatment of the same common matter, so +that he can readily ascertain what are the characteristic +modifications introduced by each. Dr. Holtzmann, following Zeller +and Lekebusch, has made a full and careful analysis of the style +and vocabulary of St. Luke [Endnote 223:1], but of course without +reference to the particular omissions of Marcion. Let us then, +with the help of Bruder, apply Holtzmann's results to these +omissions, with a view to see whether there is evidence that they +are by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel. + +It would be beyond the proportions of the present enquiry to +exhibit all the evidence in full. I shall, therefore, not +transcribe the whole of my notes, but merely give a few samples of +the sort of evidence producible, along with a brief summary of the +general results. + +Taking first certain points by which the style of the third +Evangelist is distinguished from that of the first in their +treatment of common matter, Dr. Holtzmann observes, that where +Matthew has [Greek: grammateus], Luke has in six places the word +[Greek: nomikos], which is only found three times besides in the +New Testament (once in St. Mark, and twice in the Epistle to +Titus). Of the places where it is used by St. Luke, one is the +omitted passage, vii. 30. In citations where Matthew has [Greek: +to rhaethen] (14 times; not at all in Luke), Luke prefers the +perfect form [Greek: to eiraemenon], so in ii. 24 (Acts twice); +compare [Greek: eiraetai], iv. 21. Where Matthew has [Greek: arti] +(7 times), Luke has always [Greek: nun], never [Greek: arti]: +[Greek: nun] is used in the following passages, omitted by +Marcion: i. 48, ii. 29, xix. 42, xxii. 18, 36. With Matthew the +word [Greek: eleos] is masculine, with Luke neuter, so five times +in ch. i. and in x. 37, which was retained by Marcion. + +Among the peculiarities of style noted by Dr. Holtzmann which +recur in the omitted portions the following are perhaps some of +the more striking. Peculiar use of [Greek: to] covering a whole +phrase, i. 62 [Greek: to ti an theloi kaleisthai], xix. 48, xxii. +37, and five other places. Peculiar attraction of the relative +with preceding case of [Greek: pas], iii. 19, xix. 37, and +elsewhere. The formula [Greek: elege (eipe) de parabolaen] (not +found in the other Synoptics), xiii. 6, xx. 9, 19, and ten times +besides. [Greek: Tou] pleonastic with the infinitive, once in +Mark, six times in Matthew, twenty-five times in Luke, of which +three times in chap. i, twice in chap. ii, iv. 10, xxi. 22. +Peculiar combinations with [Greek: kata, kata to ethos, eiothos, +eithismenon], i. 9, ii. 27, 42, and twice. [Greek: Kath' +haemeran], once in the other Gospels, thirteen times in Luke and +Acts xix. 47; [Greek: kat' etos], ii. 41; [Greek: kata] with +peculiar genitive of place, iv. 14 (xxiii. 5) [Endnote 224:1]. +Protasis introduced by [Greek: kai hote], ii. 21, 22, 42, [Greek: +kai hos], ii. 39, xv. 25, xix. 41. Uses of [Greek: egeneto], +especially with [Greek: en to] and infinitive, twice in Mark, in +Luke twenty-two times, i. 8, ii. 6, iii. 21, xxiv. 51; [Greek: en +to] with the infinitive, three times in St. Matthew, once in St. +Mark, thirty-seven times in St. Luke, including i. 8, 21, ii. 6, +27, 43, iii. 21. Adverbs: [Greek: exaes] and [Greek: kathexaes], +ten times in the third Gospel and the Acts alone in the New +Testament, i. 3; [Greek: achri], twenty times in the third Gospel +and Acts, only once in the other Gospels, i. 20, iv. 13; [Greek: +exaiphnaes], four times in the Gospel and Acts, once besides in +the New Testament, ii. 13; [Greek: parachraema], seventeen times +in the Gospel and Acts, twice in the rest of the New Testament, i. +64; [Greek: en meso], thirteen times in the Gospel and Acts, five +times in the other Synoptics, ii. 46, xxi. 21. Fondness for +optative in indirect constructions, i. 29, 62, iii. 15, xv. 26. +Peculiar combination of participles, ii. 36 ([Greek: probebaekuia +zaesasa]), iii. 23 ([Greek: archomenos on]), iv. 20 ([Greek: +ptuxas apodous]), very frequent. [Greek: Einai], with participle +for finite verb (forty-eight times in all), i. 7, 10, 20, 21, 22, +ii. 8, 26, 33, 51, iii. 23, iv. 16 ([Greek: aen tethrammenos], +omitted by Marcion), iv. 17, 20, xv. 24, 32, xviii. 34, xix. 47, +xx. 17, xxiv. 53. Construction of [Greek: pros] with accusative +after [Greek: eipein, lalein, apokrinesthai], frequent in Luke, +rare in the rest of the New Testament, i. 13, 18, 19, 28, 34, 55, +61, 73, ii. 15, 18, 34, 48, 49, iii. 12, 13, 14, iv. 4, xiii. 7, +34, xv. 22, xviii. 31, xix. 33, 39, xx. 9, 14, 19. This is thrown +into marked relief by the contrast with the other Synoptics; the +only two places where Matthew appears to have the construction are +both ambiguous, iii. 15 (doubtful reading, probably [Greek: +auto]), and xxvii. 14 ([Greek: apekrithae auto pros oude hen +rhaema]). No other evangelist speaks so much of [Greek: Pneuma +hagion], i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 25, 66, iii. 16, 22, iv. 1 (found +also in Marcion's reading of xi. 2). Peculiar use of pronouns: +Luke has the combination [Greek: kai autos] twenty-eight times, +Matthew only twice (one false reading), Mark four or perhaps five +times, i. 17, 22, ii. 28, iii. 23, xv. 14; [Greek: kai autoi] Mark +has not at all, Matthew twice, Luke thirteen times, including ii. +50, xviii. 34, xxiv. 52. + +We now come to the test supplied by the vocabulary. The following +are some of the words peculiar to St. Luke, or found in his +writings with marked and characteristic frequency, which occur in +those parts of our present Gospel that were wanting in Marcion's +recension: [Greek: anestaen, anastas] occur three times in St. +Matthew, twice in St. John, four times in the writings of St. +Paul, twenty-six times in the third Gospel and thirty-five times +in the Acts, and are found in i. 39, xv. 18, 20; [Greek: +antilegein] appears in ii. 34, five times in the rest of the +Gospel and the Acts, and only four times together in the rest of +the New Testament; [Greek: hapas] occurs twenty times in the +Gospel, sixteen times in the Acts, only ten times in the rest of +the New Testament, but in ii. 39, iii. 16, 21, iv. 6, xv. 13, xix. +37, 48, xxi. 4 (bis); three of these are, however, doubtful +readings. [Greek: aphesis ton amartion], ten times in the Gospel +and Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament, i. 77, +iii. 3. [Greek: dei], Dr. Holtzmann says, 'is found more often in +St. Luke than in all the other writers of the New Testament put +together.' This does not appear to be strictly true; it is, +however, found nineteen times in the Gospel and twenty-five times +in the Acts to twenty-four times in the three other Gospels; it +occurs in ii. 49, xiii. 33, xv. 32, xxii. 37. [Greek: dechesthai], +twenty-four times in the Gospel and Acts, twenty-six times in the +rest of the New Testament, six times in St. Matthew, three in St. +Mark, ii. 28, xxii. 17. [Greek: diatassein], nine times in the +Gospel and Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament +(Matthew once), iii. 13, xvii. 9, 10. [Greek: dierchesthai] occurs +thirty-two times in the Gospel and Acts, twice in each of the +other Synoptics, and eight times in the rest of the New Testament, +and is found in ii. 15, 35. [Greek: dioti], i. 13, ii. 7 (xxi. 28, +and Acts, not besides in the Gospels). [Greek: ean], xxii. 51 +(once besides in the Gospel, eight times in the Acts, and three +times in the rest of the New Testament). [Greek: ethos], i. 9, ii. +42, eight times besides in St. Luke's writings and only twice in +the rest of the New Testament. [Greek: enantion], five times in +St. Luke's writings, once besides, i. 8. [Greek: enopion], +correcting the readings, twenty times in the Gospel, fourteen +times in the Acts, not at all in the other Synoptists, once in St. +John, four times in chap. i, iv. 7, xv. 18, 21 (this will be +noticed as a very remarkable instance of the extent to which the +diction of the third Evangelist impressed itself upon his +writings). [Greek: epibibazein], xix. 35 (and twice, only by St. +Luke). [Greek: epipiptein], i. 12, xv. 20 (eight times in the Acts +and three times in the rest of the New Testament). [Greek: ai +eraemoi], only in St. Luke, i. 80, and twice. [Greek: etos] +(fifteen times in the Gospel, eleven times in the Acts, three +times in the other Synoptics and three times in St. John), four +times in chap. ii, iii. 1, 23, xiii, 7, 8, xv. 29. [Greek: +thaumazein epi tini], Gospel and Acts five times (only besides in +Mark xii. 17), ii. 33. [Greek: ikanos] in the sense of 'much,' +'many,' seven times in the Gospel, eighteen times in the Acts, and +only three times besides in the New Testament, iii. 16, xx. 9 +(compare xxii. 38). [Greek: kathoti] (like [Greek: kathexaes] +above), is only found in St. Luke's writings, i. 7, and five times +in the rest of the Gospel and the Acts. [Greek: latreuein], 'in +Luke, much oftener than in other parts of the New Testament,' i. +74, ii. 37, iv. 8, and five times in the Acts. [Greek: limos], six +times in the Gospel and Acts, six times in the rest of the New +Testament, xv. 14, 17. [Greek: maen] (month), i. 24, 26, 36, 56 +(iv. 25), alone in the Gospels, in the Acts five times. [Greek: +oikos] for 'family,' i. 27, 33, 69, ii. 4, and three times besides +in the Gospel, nine times in the Acts. [Greek: plaethos] +(especially in the form [Greek: pan to plaethos]), twenty-five +times in St. Luke's writings, seven times in the rest of the New +Testament, 1. 19, ii. 13, xix. 37. [Greek: plaesai, plaesthaenai], +twenty-two times in St. Luke's writings, only three times besides +in the New Testament, i. 15, 23, 41, 57, 67, ii. 6, 21, 22, xxi. +22. [Greek: prosdokan], eleven times in the Gospel and Acts, five +times in the rest of the New Testament (Matthew twice and 2 +Peter), i. 21, iii. 15. [Greek: skaptein], only in Luke three +times, xiii. 8. [Greek: speudein], except in 2 Peter iii. 12, only +in St. Luke's writings, ii. 16. [Greek: sullambanein], ten times +in the Gospel and Acts, five times in the rest of the New +Testament, i. 24, 31, 36, ii. 21. [Greek: sumballein], only in +Lucan writings, six times, ii. 19. [Greek: sunechein], nine times +in the Gospel and Acts, three times besides in the New Testament, +xix. 43. [Greek: sotaeria], in chap. i. three times, in the rest +of the Gospel and Acts seven times, not in the other Synoptic +Gospels. [Greek: hupostrephein], twenty-two times in the Gospel, +eleven times in the Acts, and only five times in the rest of the +New Testament (three of which are doubtful readings), i. 56, ii. +20, 39, 43, 45, iv. 1, (14), xxiv. 52. [Greek: hupsistos] occurs +nine times in the Gospel and Acts, four times in the rest of the +New Testament, i. 32, 35, 76, ii. 14, xix. 38. [Greek: hupsos] is +also found in i. 78, xxiv. 49. [Greek: charis] is found, among the +Synoptics, only in St. Luke, eight times in the Gospel, seventeen +times in the Acts, i. 30, ii. 40, 52, xvii. 9. [Greek: hosei] +occurs nineteen times in the Gospel and Acts (four doubtful +readings, of which two are probably false), seventeen times in the +rest of the New Testament (ten doubtful readings, of which in the +Synoptic Gospels three are probably false), i. 56, iii. 23. + +It should be remembered that the above are only samples from the +whole body of evidence, which would take up a much larger space if +exhibited in full. The total result may be summarised thus. +Accepting the scheme of Marcion's Gospel given some pages back, +which is substantially that of 'Supernatural Religion,' Marcion +will have omitted a total of 309 verses. In those verses there are +found 111 distinct peculiarities of St. Luke's style, numbering in +all 185 separate instances; there are also found 138 words +peculiar to or specially characteristic of the third Evangelist, +with 224 instances. In other words, the verified peculiarities of +St. Luke's style and diction (and how marked many of these are +will have been seen from the examples above) are found in the +portions of the Gospel omitted by Marcion in a proportion +averaging considerably more than one to each verse! [Endnote +229:1] Coming to detail, we find that in the principal omission-- +that of the first two chapters, containing 132 verses--there are +47 distinct peculiarities of style, with 105 instances; and 82 +characteristic words, with 144 instances. In the 23 verses of +chap. iii. omitted by Marcion (for the genealogy need not be +reckoned), the instances are 18 and 14, making a total of 32. In +18 verses omitted from chap. iv. the instances are 13 and 8 = 21. +In another longer passage--the parable of the prodigal son--the +instances are 8 of the first class and 20 of the second. In 20 +verses omitted from chap. xix. the instances are 11 and 6; and in +11 verses omitted from chap. xx, 9 and 8. Of all the isolated +fragments that Marcion had ejected from his Gospel, there are only +four--iv. 24, xi. 49-51, xx. 37, 38, xxii. 28-30, nine verses in +all--in which no peculiarities have been noticed. And yet even +here the traces of authorship are not wanting. It happens +strangely enough that in a list of parallel passages given by Dr. +Holtzmann to illustrate the affinities of thought between St. Luke +and St. Paul, two of these very passages--xi. 49 and xx. 38-- +occur. I had intended to pursue the investigation through these +resemblances, but it seems superfluous to carry it further. + +It is difficult to see what appeal can be made against evidence +such as this. A certain allowance should indeed be made for +possible errors of computation, and some of the points may have +been wrongly entered, though care has been taken to put down +nothing that was not verified by its preponderating presence in +the Lucan writings, and especially by its presence in that portion +of the Gospel which Marcion undoubtedly received. But as a rule +the method applies itself mechanically, and when every deduction +has been made, there will still remain a mass of evidence that it +does not seem too much to describe as overwhelming. + +(4.) We may assume, then, that there is definite proof that the +Gospel used by Marcion presupposes our present St. Luke, in its +complete form, as it has been handed down to us. But when once +this assumption has been made, another set of considerations comes +in, which also carry with them an important inference. If +Marcion's Gospel was an extract from a manuscript containing our +present St. Luke, then not only is it certain that that Gospel was +already in existence, but there is further evidence to show that +it must have been in existence for some time. The argument in this +case is drawn from another branch of Biblical science to which we +have already had occasion to appeal--text-criticism. Marcion's +Gospel, it is known, presents certain readings which differ both +from the received and other texts. Some of these are thought by +Volkmar and Hilgenfeld to be more original and to have a better +right to stand in the text than those which are at present found +there. These critics, however, base their opinion for the most +part on internal grounds, and the readings defended by them are +not as a rule those which are supported by other manuscript +authority. It is to this second class rather that I refer as +bearing upon the age of the canonical Gospel. The most important +various readings of the existence of which we have proof in +Marcion's Gospel are as follows [Endnote 231:1]:-- + +v. 14. The received (and best) text is [Greek: eis marturion +autois]. Marcion, according to the express statement of Epiphanius +(312 B), read [Greek: hina ae morturion touto humin], which is +confirmed by Tertullian, who gives (_Marc._ iv. 8) 'Ut sit +vobis in testimonium.' The same or a similar reading is found in +D, [Greek: hina eis marturion ae humin touto], 'ut sit in +testimonium vobis hoc,' d; 'ut sit in testimonium (--monia, ff) +hoc vobis,' a (Codex Vercellensis), b (Codex Veronensis), c (Codex +Colbertinus), ff (Codex Corbeiensis), l (Codex Rhedigerianus), of +the Old Latin [Endnote 231:2]. + +v. 39 was _probably_ omitted by Marcion (this is inferred +from the silence of Tertullian by Hilgenfeld, p. 403, and Rönsch, +p. 634). The verse is also omitted in D, a, b, c, d, e, ff. + +x. 22. Marcion's reading of this verse corresponded with that of +other Gnostics, but has no extant manuscript authority. We have +touched upon it elsewhere. + +x. 25. [Greek: zoaen aionion], Marcion omitted [Greek: aionion] +(Tert. _Adv. Marc._ iv. 25); so also the Old Latin Codex g'2 +(San Germanensis). + +xi. 2. Marcion read [Greek: eltheto to hagion pneuma sou eph' +haemas] (or an equivalent; see Rönsch, p. 640) either for the +clause [Greek: hagiasthaeto to onoma sou] or for [Greek: +genaethaeto to thelaema sou], which is omitted in B, L, 1, Vulg., +ff, Syr. Crt. There is a curious stray [Greek: eph' haemas] in D +which may conceivably be a trace of Marcion's reading. + +xii. 14. Marcion (and probably Tertullian) read [Greek: kritaen] +(or [Greek: dikastaen]) only for [Greek: kritaen ae meristaen]; so +D, a ('ut videtur,' Tregelles), c, Syr. Crt. + +xii. 38. Marcion had [Greek: tae hesperinae phulakae] for [Greek: +en tae deutera phulakae kai en tae tritae phulakae]. So b: D, c, +e, ff, i, Iren. 334, Syr. Crt., combine the two readings in +various ways. + +xvi. 12. Marcion read [Greek: emon] for [Greek: humeteron]. So e +(Palatinus), i (Vindobonensis), l (Rhedigerianus). [Greek: +haemeteron] B. L, Origen. + +xvii. 2. Marcion inserted the words [Greek: ouk egennaethae ae] +(Tert. iv. 35), 'ne nasceretur aut,' a, b, c, ff, i, l. + +xviii. 19. Here again Marcion had a variation which is unsupported +by manuscript authority, but has to some extent a parallel in the +Clementine Homilies, Justin, &c. + +xxi. 18. was omitted by Marcion (Epiph. 316 B), and is also +omitted in the Curetonian Syriac. + +xxi. 27. Tertullian (iv. 39) gives the reading of Marcion as 'cum +plurima virtute' = [Greek: meta dunameos pollaes [kai doxaes]], +for [Greek: meta dun. k. dox. pollaes]; so D ([Greek: en dun. +pol.]), and approximately Vulg., a, c, e, f, ff, Syr. Crt., Syr. +Pst. + +xxiii. 2. Marcion read [Greek: diastrephonta to ethnos kai +katalionta ton nomon kai tous prophaetas kai keleuonta phorous mae +dounai kai anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna] (Epiph., 316 +D), where [Greek: kataluonta ton nomon kai tous prophaetas] and +[Greek: anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna] are additions to +the text, and [Greek: keleuonta phorous mae dounai] is a +variation. Of the two additions the first finds support in b, (c), +e, (ff), i, l; the second is inserted, with some variation, by c +and e in verse 5. + + We may thus tabulate the relation of Marcion to these various +authorities. The brackets indicate that the agreement is only +approximate. Marcion agrees with-- + +D, d, v. 14, v. 39; xii. 14, (xii. 28), (xxi. 27). + +a (Verc.), v. 14, v. 39, xii. 14 (apparently), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27). + +b (Ver.), v. 14, v. 39. xii. 38, xvii. 2, (xxiii. 2). + +c (Colb.), v. 14, v. 39, xii. 14, (xii. 38), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27), +(xxiii. 2), (xxiii. 2). + +e (Pal.), v. 39, (xii. 38), xvi. 12, (xxi. 27), xxiii. 2, (xxiii. +2). + +ff (Corb.), v. 14, v. 39, (xii. 38), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27), (xxiii. +2). + +g'2 (Germ.), x. 25. + +i (Vind.), (xii. 38), xvi. 12, xvii. 2, xxiii. 2. + +l (Rhed.), v. 14, xvi. 12, xvii. 2, xiii. 2. + +Syr. Crt., xii. 14, (xii. 38), xxi. 18, (xxi. 27). + +It is worth noticing that xxii. 19 b, 20 (which is omitted in D, +a, b, c, ff, i, l) appears to have been found in Marcion's Gospel, +as in the Vulgate, c, and f (see Rönsch, p. 239). [Greek: apo tou +mnaemeiou] in xxiv. 9 is also found (Rönsch, p. 246), though +omitted by D, a, b, c, e, ff, l. There is no evidence to show +whether the additions in ix. 55, xxiii. 34, and xxii. 43, 44 were +present in Marcion's Gospel or not. + +It will be observed that the readings given above have all what is +called a 'Western' character. The Curetonian Syriac is well known +to have Western affinities [Endnote 233:1]. Codd. a, b, c, and the +fragment of i which extends from Luke x. 6 to xxiii. 10, represent +the most primitive type of the Old Latin version; e, ff, and I +give a more mixed text. As we should expect, the revised Latin +text of Cod. f has no representation in Marcion's Gospel [Endnote +233:2]. + +These textual phenomena are highly interesting, but at the same +time an exact analysis of them is difficult. No simple hypothesis +will account for them. There can be no doubt that Marcion's +readings are, in the technical sense, false; they are a deviation +from the type of the pure and unadulterated text. At a certain +point, evidently of the remotest antiquity, in the history of +transcription, there was a branching off which gave rise to those +varieties of reading which, though they are not confined to +Western manuscripts, still, from their preponderance in these, are +called by the general name of 'Western.' But when we come to +consider the relations among those Western documents themselves, +no regular descent or filiation seems traceable. Certain broad +lines indeed we can mark off as between the earlier and later +forms of the Old Latin, though even here the outline is in places +confused; but at what point are we to insert that most remarkable +document of antiquity, the Curetonian Syriac? For instance, there +are cases (e.g. xvii. 2, xxiii. 2) where Marcion and the Old Latin +are opposed to the Old Syriac, where the latter has undoubtedly +preserved the correct reading. To judge from these alone, we +should naturally conclude that the Syriac was simply an older and +purer type than Marcion's Gospel and the Latin. But then again, on +the other hand, there are cases (such as the omission of xxi. 18) +where Marcion and the Syriac are combined, and the Old Latin +adheres to the truer type. This will tend to show that, even at +that early period, there must have been some comparison and +correction--a _con_vergence as well as a _di_vergence-- +of manuscripts, and not always a mere reproduction of the +particular copy which the scribe had before him; at the same time +it will also show that Marcion's Gospel, so far from being an +original document, has behind it a deep historical background, and +stands at the head of a series of copies which have already passed +through a number of hands, and been exposed to a proportionate +amount of corruption. Our author is inclined to lay stress upon +the 'slow multiplication and dissemination of MSS.' Perhaps he may +somewhat exaggerate this, as antiquarians give us a surprising +account of the case and rapidity with which books were produced by +the aid of slave-labour [Endnote 235:1]. But even at Rome the +publishing trade upon this large scale was a novelty dating back +no further than to Atticus, the friend of Cicero, and we should +naturally expect that among the Christians--a poor and widely +scattered body, whose tenets would cut them off from the use of +such public machinery--the multiplication of MSS. would be slower +and more attended with difficulty. But the slower it was the more +certainly do such phenomena as these of Marcion's text throw back +the origin of the prototype from which that text was derived. In +the year 140 A.D. Marcion possesses a Gospel which is already in +an advanced stage of transcription--which has not only undergone +those changes which in some regions the text underwent before it +was translated into Latin, but has undergone other changes +besides. Some of its peculiarities are not those of the earliest +form of the Latin version, but of that version in what may be +called its second stage (e.g. xvi. 12). It has also affinities to +another version kindred to the Latin and occupying a similar place +to the Old Latin among the Churches of Syria. These circumstances +together point to an antiquity fully as great as any that an +orthodox critic would claim. + +It should not be thought that because such indications are +indirect they are therefore any the less certain. There is perhaps +hardly a single uncanonical Christian document that is admittedly +and indubitably older than Marcion; so that direct evidence there +is naturally none. But neither is there any direct evidence for +the antiquity of man or of the earth. The geologist judges by the +fossils which he finds embedded in the strata as relics of an +extinct age; so here, in the Gospel of Marcion, do we find relics +which to the initiated eye carry with them their own story. + +Nor, on the other hand, can it rightly be argued that because the +history of these remains is not wholly to be recovered, therefore +no inference from them is possible. In the earlier stages of a +science like palaeontology it might have been argued in just the +same way that the difficulties and confusion in the classification +invalidated the science along with its one main inference +altogether. Yet we can see that such an argument would have been +mistaken. There will probably be some points in every science +which will never be cleared up to the end of time. The affirmation +of the antiquity of Marcion's Gospel rests upon the simple axiom +that every event must have a cause, and that in order to produce +complicated phenomena the interaction of complicated causes is +necessary. Such an assumption involves time, and I think it is a +safe proposition to assert that, in order to bring the text of +Marcion's Gospel into the state in which we find it, there must +have been a long previous history, and the manuscripts through +which it was conveyed must have parted far from the parent stem. + +The only way in which the inference drawn from the text of +Marcion's Gospel can be really met would be by showing that the +text of the Latin and Syriac translations is older and more +original than that which is universally adopted by text-critics. I +should hardly suppose that the author of 'Supernatural Religion' +will be prepared to maintain this. If he does, the subject can +then be argued. In the meantime, these two arguments, the literary +and the textual--for the others are but subsidiary--must, I think, +be held to prove the high antiquity of our present Gospel. + + + + + +CHAPTER IX. + +TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. + + +Tatian was a teacher of rhetoric, an Assyrian by birth, who was +converted to Christianity by Justin Martyr, but after his death +fell into heresy, leaning towards the Valentinian Gnosticism, and +combining with this an extreme asceticism. + +The death of Justin is clearly the pivot on which his date will +hinge. If we are to accept the conclusions of Mr. Hort this will +have occurred in the year 148 A.D.; according to Volkmar it would +fall not before 155 A.D., and in the ordinary view as late as 163- +165 A.D. [Endnote 238:1] The beginning of Tatian's literary +activity will follow accordingly. + +Tatian's first work of importance, an 'Address to Greeks,' which +is still extant, was written soon after the death of Justin. It +contains no references to the Synoptic Gospels upon which stress +can be laid. + +An allusion to Matth. vi. 19 in the Stromateis of Clement [Endnote +238:2] has been attributed to Tatian, but I hardly know for what +reason. It is introduced simply by [Greek: tis (biazetai tis +legon)], but there were other Encratites besides Tatian, and the +very fact that he has been mentioned by name twice before in the +chapter makes it the less likely that he should be introduced so +vaguely. + +The chief interest however in regard to Tatian centres in his so- +called 'Diatessaron,' which is usually supposed to have been a +harmony of the four Gospels. + +Eusebius mentions this in the following terms: 'Tatian however, +their former leader, put together, I know not how, a sort of +patchwork or combination of the Gospels and called it the +"Diatessaron," which is still current with some.' [Endnote 239:1] + +I am rather surprised to see that Credner, who is followed by the +author of 'Supernatural Religion,' argues from this that Eusebius +had not seen the work in question [Endnote 239:2]. This inference +is not by any means conveyed by the Greek. [Greek: Ouk oid' hopos] +(thus introduced) is an idiomatic phrase referring to the +principle on which the harmony was constructed, and might well be +paraphrased 'a curious sort of patchwork or dovetailing,' 'a not +very intelligible dovetailing,' &c. Standing in the position it +does, the phrase can hardly mean anything else. Besides it is not +likely that Eusebius, an eager collector and reader of books, with +the run of Pamphilus' library, should not have been acquainted +with a work that he says himself was current in more quarters than +one. Eusebius, it will be observed, is quite explicit in his +statement. He says that the Diatessaron was a harmony of the +Gospels, i.e. (in his sense) of our present Gospels, and that +Tatian gave the name of Diatessaron to his work himself. We do not +know upon what these statements rest, but there ought to be some +valid reason before we dismiss them entirely. + +Epiphanius writes that 'Tatian is said to have composed the +Diatessaron Gospel which some call the "Gospel according to the +Hebrews"' [Endnote 240:1]. And Theodoret tells us that 'Tatian +also composed the Gospel which is called the Diatessaron, cutting +out the genealogies and all that shows the Lord to have been born +of the seed of David according to the flesh.' 'This,' he adds, +'was used not only by his own party, but also by those who +followed the teaching of the Apostles, as they had not perceived +the mischievous design of the composition, but in their simplicity +made use of the book on account of its conciseness.' Theodoret +found more than two hundred copies in the churches of his diocese +(Cyrrhus in Syria), which he removed and replaced with the works +of the four Evangelists [Endnote 240:2]. + +Victor of Capua in the sixth century speaks of Tatian's work as a +'Diapente' rather than a 'Diatessaron' [Endnote 240:3]. If we are +to believe the Syrian writer Bar-Salibi in the twelfth century, +Ephrem Syrus commented on Tatian's Diatessaron, and it began with +the opening words of St. John. This statement however is referred +by Gregory Bar-Hebraeus not to the Harmony of Tatian, but to one +by Ammonius made in the third century [Endnote 241:1]. + +Here there is clearly a good deal of confusion. + +But now we come to the question, was Tatian's work really a +Harmony of our four Gospels? The strongest presumption that it was +is derived from Irenaeus. Irenaeus, it is well known, speaks of +the four Gospels with absolute decision, as if it were a law of +nature that their number must be four, neither more nor less +[Endnote 241:2], and his four Gospels were certainly the same as +our own. But Tatian wrote within a comparatively short interval of +Irenaeus. It is sufficiently clear that Irenaeus held his opinion +at the very time that Tatian wrote, though it was not published +until later. Here then we have a coincidence which makes it +difficult to think that Tatian's four Gospels were different from +ours. + +The theory that finds favour with Credner [Endnote 241:3] and his +followers, including the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' is +that Tatian's Gospel was the same as that used by Justin. I am +myself not inclined to think this theory improbable; it would have +been still less so, if Tatian had been the master and Justin the +pupil [Endnote 241:4]. We have seen that the phenomena of Justin's +evangelical quotations are as well met by the hypothesis that he +made use of a Harmony as by any other. But that Harmony, as we +have also seen, included at least our three Synoptics. The +evidence (which we shall consider presently) for the use of the +fourth Gospel by Tatian is so strong as to make it improbable that +that work was not included in the Diatessaron. The fifth work, +alluded to by Victor of Capua, may possibly have been the Gospel +according to the Hebrews. + + + 2. + +Just as the interest of Tatian turns upon the interpretation to be +put upon a single term 'Diatessaron,' so the interest of Dionysius +of Corinth depends upon what we are to understand by his phrase +'the Scriptures of the Lord.' + +In a fragment, preserved by Eusebius, of an epistle addressed to +Soter Bishop of Rome (168-176 A.D.) and the Roman Church, +Dionysius complains that his letters had been tampered with. 'As +brethren pressed me to write letters I wrote them. And these the +apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some +things and adding others, for whom the woe is prepared. It is not +wonderful, then, if some have ventured to tamper with the +Scriptures of the Lord when they have laid their plots against +writings that have no such claims as they' [Endnote 242:1]. It +must needs be a straining of language to make the Scriptures here +refer, as the author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to do, to +the Old Testament. It is true that Justin lays great stress upon +type and prophecy as pointing to Christ, but there is a +considerable step between this and calling the whole of the Old +Testament 'Scriptures of the Lord.' On the other hand, we can +hardly think that Dionysius refers to a complete collection of +writings like the New Testament. It seems most natural to suppose +that he is speaking of Gospels--possibly not the canonical alone, +and yet, with Irenaeus in our mind's eye, we shall say probably to +them. There is the further reason for this application of the +words that Dionysius is known to have written against Marcion--'he +defended the canon of the truth' [Endnote 243:1], Eusebius says-- +and such 'tampering' as he describes was precisely what Marcion +had been guilty of. + + * * * * * + +The reader will judge for himself what is the weight of the kind +of evidence produced in this chapter. I give a chapter to it +because the author of 'Supernatural Religion' has done the same. +Doubtless it is not the sort of evidence that would bear pressing +in a court of English law, but in a question of balanced +probabilities it has I think a decided leaning to one side, and +that the side opposed to the conclusions of 'Supernatural +Religion.' + + + + + +CHAPTER X. + +MELITO--APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS. + + +We pass on, still in a region of fragments--'waifs and strays' of +the literature of the second century--and of partial and indirect +(though on that account not necessarily less important) +indications. + +In Melito of Sardis (c. 176 A.D) it is interesting to notice the +first appearance of a phrase that was destined later to occupy a +conspicuous position. Writing to his friend Onesimus, who had +frequently asked for selections from the Law and the Prophets +bearing upon the Saviour, and generally for information respecting +the number and order of 'the Old Books,' Melito says 'that he had +gone to the East and reached the spot where the preaching had been +delivered and the acts done, and that having learnt accurately the +books of the Old Covenant (or Testament) he had sent a list of +them'--which is subjoined [Endnote 244:1]. Melito uses the word +which became established as the title used to distinguish the +elder Scriptures from the younger--the Old Covenant or Testament +([Greek: hae palaia diathaekae]); and it is argued from this that +he implies the existence of a 'definite New Testament, a written +antitype to 'the Old' [Endnote 245:1] The inference however seems +to be somewhat in excess of what can be legitimately drawn. By +[Greek: palaia diathaekae] is meant rather the subject or contents +of the books than the books themselves. It is the system of +things, the dispensation accomplished 'in heavenly places,' to +which the books belong, not the actual collected volume. The +parallel of 2 Cor. iii. 14 ([Greek: epi tae anagnosei taes palaias +diathaekaes]), which is ably pointed to in 'Supernatural Religion' +[Endnote 245:2], is too close to allow the inference of a written +New Testament. And yet, though the word has not actually acquired +this meaning, it was in process of acquiring it, and had already +gone some way to acquire it. The books were already there, and, as +we see from Irenaeus, critical collections of them had already +begun to be made. Within thirty years of the time when Melito is +writing Tertullian uses the phrase Novum Testamentum precisely in +our modern sense, intimating that it had then become the current +designation [Endnote 245:3]. This being the case we cannot wonder +that there should be a certain reflex hint of such a sense in the +words of Melito. + +The tract 'On Faith,' published in Syriac by Dr. Cureton and +attributed to Melito, is not sufficiently authenticated to have +value as evidence. + +It should be noted that Melito's fragments contain nothing +especially on the Gospels. + + + 2. + +Some time between 176-180 A.D. Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of +Hierapolis, addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius an apology of +which rather more than three lines have come down to us. A more +important fragment however is assigned to this writer in the +Paschal Chronicle, a work of the seventh century. Here it is said +that 'Apollinaris, the most holy bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, who +lived near the times of the Apostles, in his book about Easter, +taught much the same, saying thus: "There are some who through +ignorance wrangle about these matters, in a pardonable manner; for +ignorance does not admit of blame but rather needs instruction. +And they say that on the 14th the Lord ate the lamb with His +disciples, and that on the great day of unleavened bread He +himself suffered; and they relate that this is in their view the +statement of Matthew. Whence their opinion is in conflict with the +law, and according to them the Gospels are made to be at +variance"' [Endnote 246:1]. This variance or disagreement in the +Gospels evidently has reference to the apparent discrepancy +between the Synoptics, especially St. Matthew and St. John, the +former treating the Last Supper as the Paschal meal, the latter +placing it before the Feast of the Passover and making the +Crucifixion coincide with the slaughter of the Paschal lamb. +Apollinaris would thus seem to recognise both the first and the +fourth Gospels as authoritative. + +Is this fragment of Apollinaris genuine? It is alleged against it +[Endnote 247:1] (1) that Eusebius was ignorant of any such work on +Easter, and that there is no mention of it in such notices of +Apollinaris and his writings as have come down to us from +Theodoret, Jerome, and Photius. There are some good remarks on +this point by Routh (who is quoted in 'Supernatural Religion' +_apparently_ as adverse to the genuineness of the fragments). +He says: 'There seems to me to be nothing in these extracts to +compel us to deny the authorship of Apollinaris. Nor must we +refuse credit to the author of the Preface [to the Paschal +Chronicle] any more than to other writers of the same times on +whose testimony many books of the ancients have been received, +although not mentioned by Eusebius or any other of his contemporaries; +especially as Eusebius declares below that it was only some select +books that had come to his hands out of many that Apollinaris had +written' [Endnote 247:2]. It is objected (2) that Apollinaris is +not likely to have spoken of a controversy in which the whole Asiatic +Church was engaged as the opinion of a 'few ignorant wranglers' A +fair objection, if he was really speaking of such a controversy. +But the great issue between the Churches of Asia and that of Rome +was whether the Paschal festival should be kept, according to the +Jewish custom, always on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, or +whether it should be kept on the Friday after the Paschal full moon, +on whatever day of the month it might fall. The fragment appears +rather to allude to some local dispute as to the day on which the +Lord suffered. To go thoroughly into this question would involve +us in all the mazes of the so-called Paschal controversy, and in +the end a precise and certain conclusion would probably be impossible. +So far as I am aware, all the writers who have entered into the +discussion start with assuming the genuineness of the Apollinarian +fragment. + +There remains however the fact that it rests only upon the attestation +of a writer of the seventh century, who may possibly be wrong, but, +if so, has been led into his error not wilfully but by accident. +No reason can be alleged for the forging or purposely false ascription +of a fragment like this, and it bears the stamp of good faith in that +it asks indulgence for opponents instead of censure. We may perhaps +safely accept the fragment with some, not large, deduction from its +weight. + + 3. + +An instance of the precariousness of the argument from silence +would be supplied by the writer who comes next under review-- +Athenagoras. No mention whatever is made of Athenagoras either by +Eusebius or Jerome, though he appears to have been an author of a +certain importance, two of whose works, an Apology addressed to +Marcus Aurelius and Commodus and a treatise on the Resurrection, +are still extant. The genuineness of neither of these works is +doubted. + +The Apology, which may be dated about 177 A.D., contains a few +references to our Lord's discourses, but not such as can have any +great weight as evidence. The first that is usually given, a +parallel to Matt. v. 39, 40 (good for evil), is introduced in such +a way as to show that the author intends only to give the sense +and not the words. The same may be said of another sentence that +is compared with Mark x. 6 [Endnote 249:1]:-- + +_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 33._ + +[Greek: Hoti en archae ho Theos hena andra eplase kai mian +gunaika.] + +_Mark x. 6_ + +[Greek: Apo de archaes ktiseos arsen kai thaelu epoiaesen autous +ho Theos.] + +All that can be said is that the thought here appears to have been +suggested by the Gospel--and that not quite immediately. + +A much closer--and indeed, we can hardly doubt, a real--parallel +is presented by a longer passage:-- + +_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 11._ + +What then are the precepts in which we are instructed? I say unto +you: Love your enemies, bless them that curse, pray for them that +persecute you; that ye may become the sons of your Father which is +in heaven: who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, +and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. + +[Greek: Tines oun haemon hoi logoi, hois entrephometha; lego +humin, agapate tous echthrous humon, eulogeite tous kataromenous, +proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas, hopos genaesthe huioi tou +patros humon tou en ouranois, hos ton haelion autou anatellei epi +ponaerous kai agathous kai brechei epi dikaious kai adikous.] + +_Matt_. v. 44, 45. + +I say unto you: Love your enemies [bless them that curse you, do +good to them that hate you], and pray for them that persecute you; +that ye may become the sons of your Father which is in heaven: for +he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth +rain on the just and the unjust. + +[Greek: ego de lego humin, agapate tous echthrous humon +[eulogeite tous kataromenous humas, kalos poiete tous misountas +humas], proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas hopos genaesthe +huioi tou patros humon tou en ouranois, hoti ton haelion autou +anatellei epi ponaerous kai agathous kai brechei epi dikaious kai +adikous.] + +The bracketed clauses in the text of St. Matthew are both omitted +and inserted by a large body of authorities, but, as it is rightly +remarked in 'Supernatural Religion,' they are always either both +omitted or both inserted; we must therefore believe that the +omission and insertion of one only by Athenagoras is without +manuscript precedent. Otherwise the exactness of the parallel is +great; and it is thrown the more into relief when we compare the +corresponding passage in St. Luke. + +The quotation is completed in the next chapter of Athenagoras' +work:-- + +_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ._ 12. + +For if ye love, he says, them which love and lend to them which +lend to you, what reward shall ye have? + +[Greek: Ean gar agapate, phaesin, tous agapontas, kai daineizete +tois daneizousin humin, tina misthon hexete;] + + _Matt._ v. 46. + +For if ye shall love them which love you, what reward have ye? + +[Greek: Ean gar agapaesaete tous agapontas humas tina misthon +echete;] + +Here the middle clause in the quotation appears to be a +reminiscence of St. Luke vi. 34 ([Greek: ean danisaete par' hon +elpizete labein]). Justin also, it should be noted, has [Greek: +agapate] (but [Greek: ei agapate]) for [Greek: agapaesaete]. If +this passage had stood alone, taking into account the variations +and the even run and balance of the language we might have thought +perhaps that Athenagoras had had before him a different version. +Yet the [Greek: tina misthon], compared with the [Greek: poia +charis] of St. Luke and [Greek: ti kainon poieite] of Justin, +would cause misgivings, and greater run and balance is precisely +what would result from 'unconscious cerebration.' + +Two more references are pointed out to Matt. v. 28 and Matt. v. +32, one with slight, the other with medium, variation, which leave +the question very much in the same position. + +We ought not to omit to notice that Athenagoras quotes one +uncanonical saying, introducing it with the phrase [Greek: palin +haemin legontos tou logou]. I am not at all clear that this is not +merely one of the 'precepts' [Greek: oi logoi] alluded to above. +At any rate it is exceedingly doubtful that the Logos is here +personified. It seems rather parallel to the [Greek: ho logos +edaelou] of Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. 129). + +Considering the date at which he wrote I have little doubt that +Athenagoras is actually quoting from the Synoptics, but he cannot, +on the whole, be regarded as a very powerful witness for them. + + + 4. + +After the cruel persecution from which the Churches of Vienne and +Lyons had suffered in the year 177 A.D., a letter was written in +their name, containing an account of what had happened, which +Lardner describes as 'the finest thing of the kind in all +antiquity' [Endnote 251:1]. This letter, which was addressed to +the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, contained several quotations +from the New Testament, and among them one that is evidently from +St. Luke's Gospel. + +It is said of one of the martyrs, Vettius Epagathus, that his +manner of life was so strict that, young as he was, he could claim +a share in the testimony borne to the more aged Zacharias. Indeed +he had _walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the +Lord blameless_, and in the service of his neighbour untiring, +&c. [Endnote 252:1] The italicised words are a verbatim +reproduction of Luke i. 6. + +There is an ambiguity in the words [Greek: sunexisousthai tae tou +presbuterou Zachariou marturia]. The genitive after [Greek: marturia] +may be either subjective or objective--'the testimony borne _by_' +or 'the testimony borne _to_ or _of_' the aged Zacharias. I have +little doubt that the translation given above is the right one. +It has the authority of Lardner ('equalled the character of') and +Routh ('Zachariae senioris elogio aequaretur'), and seems to be +imperatively required by the context. The eulogy passed upon +Vettius Epagathus is justified by the uniform strictness of his +daily life (he has walked in _all_ the commandments &c.), not by +the single act of his constancy in death. + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' apparently following +Hilgenfeld [Endnote 252:2], adopts the other translation, and +bases on it an argument that the allusion is to the _martyrdom_ +of Zacharias, and therefore not to our third Gospel in which no +mention of that martyrdom is contained. On the other hand, we are +reminded that the narrative of the martyrdom of Zacharias enters +into the Protevangelium of James. That apocryphal Gospel however +contains nothing approaching to the words which coincide exactly +with the text of St. Luke. + +Even if there had been a greater doubt than there is as to the +application of [Greek: marturia], it would be difficult to resist +the conclusion that the Synoptic Gospel is being quoted. The words +occur in the most peculiar and distinctive portion of the Gospel; +and the correspondence is so exact and the phrase itself so +striking as not to admit of any other source. The order, the +choice of words, the construction, even to the use of the nominative +[Greek: ámemptos] where we might very well have had the adverb +[Greek: amémptôs], all point the same way. These fine edges of the +quotation, so to speak, must needs have been rubbed off in the +course of transmission through several documents. But there is +not a trace of any other document that contained such a remark +upon the character of Zacharias. + +This instance of a Synoptic quotation may, I think, safely be +depended upon. + +Another allusion, a little lower down in the Epistle, which speaks +of the same Vettius Epagathus as 'having in himself the Paraclete +[there is a play on the use of the word [Greek: paraklaetos] just +before], the Spirit, more abundantly than Zacharias,' though in +exaggerated and bad taste, probably has reference to Luke i. 67, +'And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Ghost,' &c. + +[Footnote: Mr. Mason calls my attention to [Greek: enduma +numphikon] in § 13, and also to the misleading statement in +_S.R._ ii. p. 201 that 'no writing of the New Testament is +directly referred to.' I should perhaps have more fault to find +with the sentence on p. 204, 'It follows clearly and few venture +to doubt,' &c. I have assumed however for some time that the +reader will be on his guard against expressions such as these.] + + + + + +CHAPTER XI. + +PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. + + +We are now very near emerging into open daylight; but there are +three items in the evidence which lie upon the border of the +debateable ground, and as questions have been raised about these +it may be well for us to discuss them. + +We have already had occasion to speak of the two Gnostics +Ptolemaeus and Heracleon. It is necessary, in the first place, to +define the date of their evidence with greater precision, and, in +the second, to consider its bearing. + +Let us then, in attempting to do this, dismiss all secondary and +precarious matter; such as (1) the argument drawn by Tischendorf +[Endnote 254:1] from the order in which the names of the disciples +of Valentinus are mentioned and from an impossible statement of +Epiphanius which seems to make Heracleon older than Cerdon, and +(2) the argument that we find in Volkmar and 'Supernatural +Religion' [Endnote 254:2] from the use of the present tense by +Hippolytus, as if the two writers, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, were +contemporaries of his own in 225-235 A.D. Hippolytus does indeed +say, speaking of a division in the school of Valentinus, 'Those +who are of Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say' &c. +But there is no reason why there should not be a kind of historic +present, just as we might say, 'The Atomists, of whom are +Leucippus and Democritus, hold' &c., or 'St. Peter says this, St. +Paul says that.' The account of such presents would seem to be +that the writer speaks as if quoting from a book that he has +actually before him. It is not impossible that Heracleon and +Ptolemaeus may have been still living at the time when Hippolytus +wrote, but this cannot be inferred simply from the tense of the +verb. Surer data are supplied by Irenaeus. + +Irenaeus mentions Ptolemaeus several times in his first and second +books, and on one occasion he couples with his the name of +Heracleon. But to what date does this evidence of Irenaeus refer? +At what time was Irenaeus himself writing. We have seen that the +_terminus ad quem_, at least for the first three books, is +supplied by the death of Eleutherus (c. A.D. 190). On the other +hand, the third book at least was written after the publication of +the Greek version of the Old Testament by Theodotion, which +Epiphanius tells us appeared in the reign of Commodus (180-190 +A.D.). A still more precise date is given to Theodotion's work in +the Paschal Chronicle, which places it under the Consuls Marcellus +(Massuet would read 'Marullus') and Aelian in the year 184 A.D. +[Endnote 255:1] This last statement is worth very little, and it +is indeed disputed whether Theodotion's version can have appeared +so late as this. At any rate we must assume that it was in the +hands of Irenaeus about 185 A.D., and it will be not before this +that the third book of the work 'Against Heresies' was written. It +will perhaps sufficiently satisfy all parties if we suppose that +Irenaeus was engaged in writing his first three books between the +years 182-188 A.D. But the name of Ptolemaeus is mentioned very +near the beginning of the Preface; so that Irenaeus would be +committing to paper the statement of his acquaintance with +Ptolemaeus as early as 182 A.D. + +This is however the last link in the chain. Let us trace it a +little further backwards. Irenaeus' acquaintance with Ptolemaeus +can hardly have been a fact of yesterday at the time when he +wrote. Ptolemaeus represented the 'Italian' branch of the +Valentinian school, and therefore it seems a fair supposition that +Irenaeus would come in contact with him during his visit to Rome +in 178 A.D.; and the four years from that date to 182 A.D. can +hardly be otherwise than a short period to allow for the necessary +intimacy with his teaching to have been formed. + +But we are carried back one step further still. It is not only +Ptolemaeus but Ptolemaeus _and his party_ ([Greek: hoi peri +Ptolemaion]) [Endnote 256:1]. There has been time for Ptolemaeus +to found a school within a school of his own; and his school has +already begun to express its opinions, either collectively or +through its individual members. + +In this way the real date of Ptolemaeus seems still to recede, but +I will not endeavour any further to put a numerical value upon it +which might be thought to be prejudiced. It will be best for the +reader to fill up the blank according to his own judgment. + +Heracleon will to a certain extent go with Ptolemaeus, with whom +he is persistently coupled, though, as he is only mentioned once +by Irenaeus, the data concerning him are less precise. They are +however supplemented by an allusion in the fourth book of the +Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria (which appears to have been +written in the last decade of the century) to Heracleon as one of +the chief of the school of Valentinus [Endnote 257:1], and perhaps +also by a statement of Origen to the effect that Heracleon was said +to be a [Greek: gnorimos] of Valentinus himself [Endnote 257:2]. +The meaning of the latter term is questioned, and it is certainly +true that it may stand for pupil or scholar, as Elisha was to Elijah +or as the Apostles were to their Master; but that it could possibly +be applied to two persons who never came into personal contact must +be, I cannot but think, very doubtful. This then, if true, would +throw back Heracleon some little way even beyond 160 A.D. + +From the passage in the Stromateis we gather that Heracleon, if he +did not (as is usually inferred) write a commentary, yet wrote an +isolated exposition of a portion of St. Luke's Gospel. In the same +way we learn from Origen that he wrote a commentary upon St. John. + +We shall probably not be wrong in referring many of the +Valentinian quotations given by Irenaeus to Ptolemaeus and +Heracleon. By the first writer we also have extant an Epistle to a +disciple called Flora, which has been preserved by Epiphanius. +This Epistle, which there is no reason to doubt, contains +unequivocal references to our first Gospel. + + +_Epistle to Flora. Epiph. Haer._ 217 A. + +[Greek: oikia gar ae polis meristheisa eph' heautaen hoti mae +dunatai staenai [ho sotaer haemon apephaenato].] + +_Ibid._ 217 D. + +[Greek: [ephae autois hoti] Mousaes pros taen sklaerokardian humon +epetrepse to apoluein taen gunaika autou. Ap' archaes gar ou +gegonen houtos. Theos gar (phaesi) sunezeuxe tautaen taen suzugian +kai ho sunezeuxen ho kurios, anthropos (ephae) mae chorizeto.] + +_Ibid. 218 D. + +[Greek: ho gar Theos (phaesin) eipe tima ton patera sou kai taen +maetera sou, hina eu soi genaetai; humeis de (phaesin) eiraekate +(tois presbuterois legon), doron to Theo ho ean ophelaethaes ex +emou, kai aekurosate ton nomon tou Theou, dia taen paradosin humon +ton presbuteron. Touto de Haesaias exephonaesen eipon; ho laos +houtos tois cheilesi me tima hae de kardia auton porro apechei ap' +emou. Mataen de sebontai me, didaskontes didaskalias, entalmata +anthropon.] + +_Ibid._ 220 D, 221 A. + +[Greek: to gar, Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai odonta anti odontos ... +ego gar lego humin mae antistaenai holos to ponaero alla ean tis +se rhapisae strepson auto kai taen allaen siagona.] + + +_Matt._ xii. 25 (_Mark_ iii. 25, _Luke_ xi. 17). + +[Greek: pasa polis ae oikia meristheisa kath' heautaes ou +stathaesetai.] + +_Matt._ xix. 8, 6 (_Mark_ x. 5, 6, 9). + +[Greek: legei autois; Hoti Mousaes pros taen sklaerokardian humon +epetrepsen humin apolusai tas gunaikas humon' ap' archaes de ou +gegonen houtos. ... ho oun ho theos sunezeuxen anthropos mae +chorizeto.] + +_Matt._ xv. 4-8 (_Mark_ vii. 10, 11, 6, 9). + +[Greek: ho gar theos eneteilato legon, Tima ton patera kai taen +maetera ... humeis de legete; hos an eipae to patri ae tae maetri; +Doron ho ean ex emou ophelaethaes,... kai aekurosate ton nomon tou +Theou dia taen paradosin humon. Hupokritai, kalos eprophaeteusen +peri humon Haesaias legon; Ho laos houtos tois cheilesin me tima, +hae de kardia auton porro apechei ap' emou; mataen de sebontai me +didaskontes didaskalias entalmata anthropon.] + +_Matt_. v. 38, 39 (_Luke_ vi. 29). + +[Greek: aekousate oti erraethae, Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai +odonta anti odontos ego de lego hymin mae antistaenai to ponaero +all hostis se rapizei eis taen dexian siagona sou, strephon auto +kai taen allaen.] + + +Some doubt indeed appears to be entertained by the author of +'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 259:1] as to whether these +quotations are really taken from the first Synoptic; but it would +hardly have arisen if he had made a more special study of the +phenomena of patristic quotation. If he had done this, I do not +think there would have been any question on the subject. A +comparison of the other Synoptic parallels, and of the Septuagint +in the case of the quotation from Isaiah, will make the agreement +with the Matthaean text still more conspicuous. It is instructive +to notice the reproduction of the most characteristic features of +this text--[Greek: polis, meristheisa] ([Greek: ean meristhae] +Mark, [Greek: diameristheisa] Luke), [Greek: hoti Mousaes, +epetrepsen apolu[sai] t[as] gunaik[as], ou gegonen oitos, +aekurosate .. dia taen p., ophthalmon ... odontos, antistaenai to +ponaero, strepson], and the order and cast of sentence in all the +quotations. The first quotation, with [Greek: eph eautaen] and +[Greek: dunatai staenai], which may be compared (though, from the +context, somewhat doubtfully) with Mark, presents, I believe, the +only trace of the influence of any other text. + +To what period in the life of Ptolemaeus this Epistle to Flora may +have belonged we have no means of knowing; but it is unlikely that +the writer should have used one set of documents at one part of +his life and another set at another. Viewed along with so much +confirmatory matter in the account of the Valentinians by +Irenaeus, the evidence may be taken as that of Ptolemaeus himself +rather than of this single letter. + + + 2. + +The question in regard to Celsus, whose attacks upon Christianity +called forth such an elaborate reply from Origen, is chiefly one +of date. To go into this at once adequately and independently +would need a much longer investigation than can be admitted into +the present work. The subject has quite recently been treated in a +monograph by the well-known writer Dr. Keim [Endnote 260:1], and, +as there will be in this case no suspicion of partiality, I shall +content myself with stating Dr. Keim's conclusions. + +Origen himself, Dr. Keim thinks, was writing under the Emperor +Philip about A.D. 248. But he regards his opponent Celsus, not as +a contemporary, but as belonging to a past age (Contra Celsum, i. +8, vii. 11), and his work as nothing recent, but rather as having +obtained a certain celebrity in heathen literature (v. 3). For all +this it had to be disinterred, as it were, and that not without +difficulty, by a Christian (viii. 76). + +Exact and certain knowledge however about Celsus Origen did not +possess. He leans to the opinion that his opponent was an +Epicurean of that name who lived 'under Hadrian and later' (i. 8). +This Epicurean had also written several books against Magic (i. +68). Now it is known that there was a Celsus, a friend of Lucian, +who had also written against Magic, and to whom Lucian dedicated +his 'Pseudomantis, or Alexander of Abonoteichos.' + +It was clearly obvious to identify the two persons, and there was +much to be said in favour of the identification. But there was +this difficulty. Origen indeed speaks of the Celsus to whom he is +replying as an Epicurean, and here and there Epicurean opinions +are expressed in the fragments of the original work that Origen +has preserved. But Origen himself was somewhat puzzled to find +that the main principles of the author were rather Platonic or +Neo-platonic than Epicurean, and this observation has been +confirmed by modern enquiry. The Celsus of Origen is in reality a +Platonist. + +It still being acknowledged that the friend of Lucian was an +Epicurean, this discovery seemed fatal to the supposition that he +was the author of the work against the Christians. Accordingly +there was a tendency among critics, though not quite a unanimous +tendency, to separate again the two personalities which had been +united. At this point Dr. Keim comes upon the scene, and he asks +the question, Was Lucian's friend really an Epicurean? Lucian +nowhere says so in plain words, but it was taken as a _primâ +facie_ inference from some of the language used by him. For +instance, he describes the Platonists as being on good terms with +this very Alexander of Abonoteichos whom he is ridiculing and +exposing. He appeals to Celsus to say whether a certain work of +Epicurus is not his finest. He says that his friend will be +pleased to know that one of his objects in writing is to see +justice done to Epicurus. All these expressions Dr. Keim thinks +may be explained as the quiet playful irony that was natural to +Lucian, and from other indications in the work he concludes that +Lucian's Celsus may well have been a Platonist, though not a +bigoted one, just as Lucian himself was not in any strict and +narrow sense an Epicurean. + +When once the possibility of the identification is conceded, there +are, as Dr. Keim urges, strong reasons for its adoption. The +characters of the two owners of the name Celsus, so far as they +can be judged from the work of Origen on the one hand and Lucian +on the other, are the same. Both are distinguished for their +opposition to magical arts. The Celsus of the Pseudomantis is a +friend of Lucian, and it is precisely from a friend of Lucian that +the 'Word of Truth' replied to by Origen might be supposed to have +come. Lastly, time and place both support the identification. The +Celsus of Lucian lived under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, and +Dr. Keim decides, after an elaborate examination of the internal +evidence, that the Celsus of Origen wrote his work in the year 178 +A.D., towards the close of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. + +Such is Dr. Keim's view. In the date assigned to the [Greek: Logos +alaethaes] it does not differ materially from that of the large +majority of critics. Grätz alone goes as far back as to the time +of Hadrian. Hagenbach, Hasse, Tischendorf, and Friedländer fix +upon the middle, Mosheim, Gieseler, Baur, and Engelhardt upon the +second half, of the second century; while the following writers +assume either generally the reign of Marcus Aurelius, or specially +with Dr. Keim one of the two great persecutions--Spencer, +Tillemont, Neander, Tzschirner, Jachmann, Bindemann, Lommatzsch, +Hase, Redepenning, Zeller. The only two writers mentioned by Dr. +Keim as contending for a later date are Ueberweg and Volkmar, 'who +strangely misunderstands both Origen and Baur' [Endnote 263:1]. +Volkmar is followed by the author of 'Supernatural Religion.' + +At whatever date Celsus wrote, it appears to be sufficiently clear +that he knew and used all the four canonical Gospels [Endnote 263:2]. + + + 3. + +The last document that need be discussed by us at present is the +remarkable fragment which, from its discoverer and from its +contents, bears the name of the Canon of Muratori [Endnote 263:3]. + +Whatever was the original title and whatever may have been the +extent of the work from which it is taken, the portion of it that +has come down to us is by far the most important of all the direct +evidence for the Canon both of the Gospels and of the New +Testament in general with which we have yet had to deal. It is +indeed the first in which the conception of a Canon is quite +unequivocally put forward. We have for the first time a definite +list of the books received by the Church and a distinct separation +made between these and those that are rejected. + +The fragment begins abruptly with the end of a sentence apparently +relating to the composition of the Gospel according to St. Mark. +Then follows 'in the third place the Gospel according to St. +Luke,' of which some account is given. 'The fourth of the Gospels' +is that of John, 'one of the disciples of the Lord.' A legend is +related as to the origin of this Gospel. Then mention is made of +the Acts, which are attributed to Luke. Then follow thirteen +Epistles of St. Paul by name. Two Epistles professing to be +addressed to the Laodiceans and Alexandrines are dismissed as +forged in the interests of the heresy of Marcion. The Epistle of +Jude and two that bear the superscription of John are admitted. +Likewise the two Apocalypses of John and Peter. [No mention is +made, it will be seen, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of that of +James, of I and II Peter, and of III John.] [Endnote 264:1] + +The Pastor of Hermas, a work of recent date, may be read but not +published in the Church before the people, and cannot be included +either in the number of the prophets or apostles. + +On the other hand nothing at all can be received of Arsinous, +Valentinus, or Miltiades; neither the new Marcionite book of +Psalms, which with Basilides and the Asian founder of the +Cataphryges (or the founder of the Asian Cataphryges, i.e. +Montanus) is rejected. + +The importance of this will be seen at a glance. The chief +question is here again in regard to the date, which must be +determined from the document itself. A sufficiently clear +indication seems to be given in the language used respecting the +Pastor of Hermas. This work is said to have been composed 'very +lately in our times, Pius the brother of the writer occupying the +episcopal chair of the Roman Church.' The episcopate of Pius is +dated from 142-157 A.D., so that 157 A.D. may be taken as the +starting-point from which we have to reckon the interval implied +by the words 'very recently in our times' (nuperrime temporibus +nostris). Taking these words in their natural sense, I should +think that the furthest limit they would fairly admit of would be +a generation, or say thirty years, after the death of Pius (for +even in taking a date such as this we are obliged to assume that +the Pastor was published only just before the death of that +bishop). The most probable construction seems to be that the +unknown author meant that the Pastor of Hermas was composed within +his own memory. Volkmar is doubtless right in saying [Endnote +265:1] that he meant to distinguish the work in question from the +writings of the Prophets and Apostles, but still the double use of +the words 'nuperrime' and 'temporibus nostris' plainly indicate +something more definite than merely 'our post-apostolic time.' If +this had been the sense we should have had some such word as +'recentius' instead of 'nuperrime.' The argument of 'Supernatural +Religion' [Endnote 265:2], that 'in supposing that the writer may +have appropriately used the phrase thirty or forty years after the +time of Pius so much licence is taken that there is absolutely no +reason why a still greater interval may not be allowed,' is +clearly playing fast and loose with language, and doing so for no +good reason; for the only ground for assigning a later date is +that the earlier one is inconvenient for the critic's theory. The +other indications tally quite sufficiently with the date 170-190 +A.D. Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, the Marcionites, we know were +active long before this period. The Montanists (who appear under +the name by which they were generally known in the earlier +writings, 'Cataphryges') were beginning to be notorious, and are +mentioned in the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons. +Miltiades was a contemporary of Claudius Apollinaris who wrote +against him [Endnote 266:1]. All the circumstances point to such a +date as that of Irenaeus, and the conception of the Canon is very +similar to that which we should gather from the great work +'Against Heresies.' If this does not agree with preconceived +opinions as to what the state of the Canon ought to have been, it +is the opinion that ought to be rectified accordingly, and not +plain words explained away. + +I can see no sound objection to the date 170-180 A.D., but by +adding ten years to this we shall reach the extreme limit +admissible. + +I do not know whether it is necessary to refer to the objection +from the absence of any mention of the first two Synoptic Gospels, +through the mutilated state of the document. It is true that the +inference that they were originally mentioned rests only 'upon +conjecture' [Endnote 266:2], but it is the kind of conjecture +that, taking all things into consideration--the extent to which +the evidence of the fragment in other respects corresponds with +the Catholic tradition, the state of the Canon in Irenaeus, the +relation of the evidence for the first Gospel in particular to +that for the others--can be reckoned at very little less than +ninety-nine chances out of a hundred. + +To the same class belongs Dr. Donaldson's suggestion [Endnote 267:1] +that the passage which contains the indication of date may be an +interpolation. It is always possible that the particular passage +that happens to be important in any document of this date may be +an interpolation, but the chances that it really is so must be in +any case very slight, and here there is no valid reason for suspecting +interpolation. It does not at all follow, as Dr. Donaldson seems +to think, that because a document is mutilated therefore it is more +likely to be interpolated; for interpolation is the result of quite +a different series of accidents. The interpolation, if it were such, +could not well be accidental because it has no appearance of being +a gloss; on the other hand, only far-fetched and improbable motives +can be alleged for it as intentional. + +The full statement of the fragment in regard to St. Luke's Gospel +is as follows. 'Luke the physician after the Ascension of Christ, +having been taken into his company by Paul, wrote in his own name +to the best of his judgment (ex opinione), and, though he had not +himself seen the Lord in the flesh, so far as he could ascertain; +accordingly he begins his narrative with the birth of John.' The +greater part of this account appears to be taken simply from the +Preface to the Gospel, which is supplemented by the tradition that +St. Luke was a physician and also the author of the Acts. As +evidence to those facts a document dating some hundred years after +the composition of the Gospel is not of course very weighty; its +real importance is as showing the authority which the Gospel at +this date possessed in the Church. That authority cannot have been +acquired in a day, but represents the culmination of a long and +gradual movement. What we have to note is that the movement, some +of the stages of which we have been tracing, has now definitely +reached its culmination. + +In regard to the fourth Gospel the Muratorian fragment has a +longer story to tell, but before we touch upon this, and before we +proceed to draw together the threads of the previous enquiry, it +will be well for us first to bring up the evidence for the fourth +Gospel to the same date and position as that for the other three. +This then will be the subject of the next chapter. + + + + + +CHAPTER XII. + +THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. + + +The fourth Gospel was, upon any theory, written later than the +others, and it is not clear that it was published as soon as it +was written. Both tradition and the internal evidence of the +concluding chapter seem to point to the existence of somewhat +peculiar relations between the Evangelist and the presbyters of +the Asian Church, which would make it not improbable that the +Gospel was retained for some time by the latter within their own +private circle before it was given to the Church at large. + +We have the express statement of Irenaeus [Endnote 269:1], who, if +he was born as is commonly supposed at Smyrna about 140 A.D., must +be a good authority, that the Apostle St. John lived on till the +times of Trajan (98-117 A.D.). If so, it is very possible that the +Gospel was not yet published, or barely published, when Clement of +Rome wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians. Neither, considering +its almost esoteric character and the slow rate at which such a +work would travel at first, should we be very much surprised if it +was not in the hands of Barnabas (probably in Alexandria) and +Hermas (at Rome). In no case indeed could the silence of these two +writers be of much moment, as in the Epistle of Barnabas the +allusions to the New Testament literature are extremely few and +slight, while in the Shepherd of Hermas there are no clear and +certain references either to the Old Testament or the New +Testament at all. + +And yet there is a lively controversy round these two names as to +whether or not they contain evidence for the fourth Gospel, and +that they do is maintained not only by apologists, but also by +writers of quite unquestionable impartiality like Dr. Keim. Dr. +Keim, it will be remembered, argues against the Johannean +authorship of the Gospel, and yet on this particular point he +seems to be almost an advocate for the side to which he is +opposed. + +'Volkmar,' he says [Endnote 270:1], 'has recently spoken of Barnabas +as undeniably ignorant of the Logos-Gospel, and explained the early +date assigned to his Epistle by Ewald and Weizsäcker and now also +by Riggenbach as due to their perplexity at finding in it no trace +of St. John. There is room for another opinion. However much it +may be shown that Barnabas gives neither an incident nor a single +sentence from the Gospel, that he is unacquainted with the conception +of the Logos, that expressions like 'water and blood,' or the +Old Testament types of Christ, and especially the serpent reared +in the wilderness as an object of faith, are employed by him +independently--for all this the deeper order of conceptions in +the Epistle coincides in the gross or in detail so repeatedly with +the Gospel that science must either assume a connection between +them, or, if it leaves the problem unsolved, renounces its own +calling. "The Son of God" was to be manifested in the flesh, +manifested through suffering, to go to his glory through death and +the Cross, to bring life and the immanent presence of the Godhead, +such is here and there the leading idea. Existing before the +foundation of the world, the Lord of the world, the sender of the +prophets, the object of their prophecies, beheld even by Abraham, +in the person of Moses himself typified as the only centre of +Israel's hopes, and in so far already revealed and glorified in +type before his incarnation, he was at last to appear, to dwell +among us, to be seen, not as son of David but as Son of God, in +the garment of the flesh, by those who could not even endure the +light of this world's sun. So did he come; nay, so did he die to +fulfil the promise, in the very act of his apparent defeat to +dispense purification, pardon, life, to destroy death, to overcome +the devil, to show forth the Resurrection, and with the Resurrection +his right to future judgment; at the same time, it is true, to fill +up the measure of the sins of Israel, whom he had loved exceedingly +and for whom he had done such great wonders and signs, and to prepare +for himself again a new people who should keep his commandments, +his new law. The mission that his Father gave him he has accomplished, +of his own free will and for our sake--the true explanation of his +death--did he suffer. "The Jews" have not hoped upon him, clearly +as the typical design of the Old Testament and Moses himself pointed +to him, and, in opposition to the spiritual teaching of Moses, they +have been seduced into the carnal and sensual by the devil; they +have set their trust and their hopes, not upon God, but upon the +fleshly circumcision and upon the visible house of God, worshipping +the Lord in the temple almost like the heathen. But the Christian +raises himself above the flesh and its lusts, which disturb the +faculties of knowledge as well as those of will, to the Spirit +and the spiritual service of God, above the ways of darkness to +the ways of light; he presses on to faith, and with faith to +perfect knowledge, as one born again, who is full of the Spirit +of God, in whom God dwells and prophesies, interpreting past and +future without being seen or heard; as taught of God and fulfilling +the commandments of the new law of the Lord, a lover of the brethren, +and in himself the child of peace, of joy, and of love. For this +class of ideas there is no analogy in St. Paul, or even in the +Epistle to the Hebrews, but only in this Gospel, much as the +connection has hitherto been overlooked. Indeed, though it may +still in places be questioned on which side the relation of dependence +lies (it might be thought that Barnabas supplied the ideas, John +the application of them, and the conception of the Logos crowning all), +in any case the Gospel appeared at a date near to that of the +Epistle of Barnabas. With more reason may it be said that it is +not until we come to the Epistle of Barnabas that we find stiff +scholastic theory a more predominant typology, an artificialised +view of Judaism; besides the points of view always appear as +something received and not originated--water and blood, new law, +new people--and in the solemn manifestation of the Son of God +immediately after the selection of the Apostles, in the great +but fruitless exhibition of miracle and love for Israel, there +is evidently allusion to history, that is, to John ii and xii.' + +'The Epistle of Barnabas,' Dr. Keim adds, 'after the lucid +demonstration of Volkmar--in spite of Hilgenfeld and Weizäcker, +and now also of Riggenbach--was undoubtedly written at the time of +the rebuilding of the temple under the Emperor Hadrian, about the +year 120 A.D. (according to Volkmar, at the earliest, 118-119), at +latest 130.' + +It is not to be expected that this full and able statement should +carry conviction to every reader. And yet I believe that it has +some solid foundation. The single instances are not perhaps such +as could be pressed very far, but they derive a certain weight +when taken together and as parts of a wider circle of ideas. The +application of the type of the brazen serpent to Jesus in c. xii. +may have been suggested by John iii. 14 sqq., but we cannot say +that it was so with certainty. The same application is made by +Justin in a place where there is perhaps less reason to assume a +connection with the fourth Gospel; and we know that types and +prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and +were soon collected in a kind of common stock from which every one +drew at his pleasure. A stronger case, and one that I incline to +think of some importance, is supplied by the peculiar combination +of 'the water and the cross' in Barn. c. xi; not that here there +is a direct and immediate, but more probably a mediate, connection +with the fourth Gospel. The phrase [Greek: ho uios tou theou] is +not peculiar to, though it is more frequent in, and to some degree +characteristic of, the Gospel and First Epistle of St. John. +[Greek: Phanerousthai] may be claimed more decidedly, especially +by comparison with the other Gospels, though it occurs with +similar reference to the Incarnation in the later Pauline +Epistles. [Greek: 'Elthein en sarki] is again rightly classed as a +Johannean phrase, though the exact counterpart is found rather in +the Epistles than the Gospel. The doctrine of pre-existence is +certainly taught in such passages as the application of the text, +'Let us make man in our image,' which is said to have been +addressed to the Son 'from the foundation of the world' (c. v). +Generally I think it may be said that the doctrine of the +Incarnation, the typology, and the use of the Old Testament +prophecies, approximate, most distinctly to the Johannean type, +though under the latter heads there is of course much debased +exaggeration. The soteriology we might be perhaps tempted to +connect rather on the one hand with the Epistle to the Hebrews, +and on the other with those of St. Paul. There may be something of +an echo of the fourth Gospel in the allusion--to the unbelief and +carnalised religion of the Jews. But the whole question of the +speculative affinities of a writing like this requires subtle and +delicate handling, and should be rather a subject for special +treatment than an episode in an enquiry like the present. The +opinion of Dr. Keim must be of weight, but on the whole I think it +will be safest and fairest to say that, while the round assertion +that the author of the Epistle was ignorant of our Gospel is not +justified, the positive evidence that he made use of it is not +sufficiently clear to be pressed controversially. + + * * * * * + +A similar condition of things may be predicated of the Shepherd of +Hermas, though with a more decided leaning to the negative side. +Here again Dr. Keim [Endnote 273:1], as well as Canon Westcott +[Endnote 273:2], thinks that we can trace an acquaintance with the +Gospel, but the indications are too general and uncertain to be relied +upon. The imagery of the shepherd and the flock, as perhaps of the +tower and the gate, may, be as well taken from the scenes of the +Roman Campagna as from any previous writing. The keeping of the +commandments is a commonplace of Christianity, not to say of +religion. And the Divine immanence in the soul is conceived rather +in the spirit of the elder Gospels than of the fourth. + +There is a nearer approach perhaps in the identification of 'the +gate' with the 'Son of God,' and in the explanation with which it +is accompanied. 'The rock is old because the Son of God is older +than the whole of His creation; so that He was assessor to His +Father in the creation of the world; the gate is new, because He +was made manifest at the consummation of the last days, and they +who are to be saved enter by it into the kingdom of God' (Sim. ix. +12). Here too we have the doctrine of pre-existence; and +considering the juxtaposition of these three points, the pre- +existence, the gate (which is the only access to the Lord), the +identification of the gate with the incarnation of Jesus, we may +say perhaps a _possible_ reference to the fourth Gospel; +_probable_ it might be somewhat too much to call it. We must +leave the reader to form his own estimate. + + * * * * * + +A somewhat greater force, but not as yet complete cogency, +attaches to the evidence of the Ignatian letters. A parallel is +alleged to a passage in the Epistle to the Romans which is found +both in the Syriac and in the shorter Greek or Vossian version. 'I +take no relish in corruptible food or in the pleasures of this +life. I desire bread of God, heavenly bread, bread of life, which +is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born in the +latter days of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire drink +of God, His blood, which is love imperishable and ever-abiding +life' [Endnote 275:1] (Ep. ad Rom. c. vii). This is compared with +the discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum in the sixth chapter +of St. John. It should be said that there is a difference of +reading, though not one that materially influences the question, +in the Syriac. If the parallel holds good, the peculiar diction of +the author must be seen in the substitution of [Greek: poma] for +[Greek: posis] of John vi. 55, and [Greek: aennaos zoae] for +[Greek zoae aionios], of John vi. 54. [The Ignatian phrase is +perhaps more than doubtful, as it does not appear either in the +Syriac, the Armenian, or the Latin version.] Still this need not +stand in the way of referring the original of the passage +ultimately to the Gospel. The ideas are so remarkable that it +seems difficult to suppose either are accidental coincidence or +quotation from another writer. I suspect that Ignatius or the +author of the Epistle really had the fourth Gospel in his mind, +though not quite vividly, and by a train of comparatively remote +suggestions. + +The next supposed allusion is from the Epistle to the +Philadelphians: 'The Spirit, coming from God, is not to be +deceived; for it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth, +and it searcheth that which is hidden' [Endnote 275:2]. This is +obviously the converse of John iii. 5, where it is said that we do +not know the way of the Spirit, which is like the wind, &c. And +yet the exact verbal similarity of the phrase [Greek: oiden pothen +erchetai kai pou hupagei], and its appearance in the same +connection, spoken of the Spirit, leads us to think that there +was--as there may very well have been--an association of ideas. +This particular phrase [Greek: pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei] is +very characteristically Johannean. It occurs three times over in +the fourth Gospel, and not at all in the rest of the New +Testament. The combination of [Greek: erchesthai] and [Greek +hupagein] also occurs twice, and [Greek: pou [opou] hupago [-gei, +-geis]] in all twelve times in the Gospel and once in the Epistle +([Greek: ouk oide pou hupagei]); this too, it is striking to +observe, not at all elsewhere. The very word [Greek: hupago] is +not found at all in St. Paul, St. Peter, or the Epistle to the +Hebrews. Taken together with the special application to the +Spirit, this must be regarded as a strong case. + +Neither do the arguments of 'Supernatural Religion' succeed in +proving that there is no connection with St. John in such +sentences as, 'There is one God who manifested Himself through +Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word' (Ad Magn. c. viii), +or who is Himself the door of the Father (Ad Philad. c. ix). In +regard to the first of these especially, it is doubtless true that +Philo also has 'the eternal Word,' which is even the 'Son' of God; +but the idea is much more consciously metaphorical, and not only +did the incarnation of the Logos in a historical person never +enter into Philo's mind, but 'there is no room for it in his +system' [Endnote 276:1]. + +It should be said that these latter passages are all found only in +the Vossian recension of the Epistles, and therefore, as we saw +above, are in any case evidence for the first half of the second +century, while they _may_ be the genuine works of Ignatius. + + * * * * * + +The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which goes very much +with the Ignatian Epistles and the external evidence for which it +is so hard to resist, testifies to the fourth Gospel through the +so-called first Epistle. That this Epistle is really by the same +author as the Gospel is not indeed absolutely undoubted, but I +imagine that it is as certain as any fact of literature can be. +The evidence of style and diction is overwhelming [Endnote 277:1]. +We may set side by side the two passages which are thought to be +parallel. + +_Ep. ad Phil_. c. vii. + +[Greek: Pas gar hos an mae homologae Iaesoun Christon en sarki +elaeluthenai antichristos esti; kai hos an mae homologae to +marturion tou staurou ek tou diabolou esti; kai hos an methodeuae +ta logia tou Kuriou pros tas idias epithumias, kai legae maete +anastasin maete krisin einai, outos prototokos esti tou Satana.] + +1 _John_ vi. 2, 3. + +[Greek: Pan pneuma ho homologei Iaesoun Christon en sarki +elaeluthota ek tou Theou estin. Kai pan pneuma ho mae homologei +tou Iaesoun ek tou Theou ouk estin, kai touto estin to tou +antichristou, k.t.l.] + +This is precisely one of those passages where at a superficial +glance we are inclined to think that there is no parallel, but +where a deeper consideration tends to convince us of the opposite. +The suggestion of Dr. Scholten cannot indeed be quite excluded, +that both writers I have adopted a formula in use in the early +Church against various heretics' [Endnote 277:2]. But if such a +formula existed it is highly probable that it took its rise from +St. John's Epistle. This passage of the Epistle of Polycarp is the +earliest instance of the use of the word 'Antichrist' outside the +Johannean writings in which, alone of the New Testament, it occurs +five times. Here too it occurs in conjunction with other +characteristic phrases, [Greek: homologein, en sarki elaeluthenai, +ek tou diabolou]. The phraseology and turns of expression in these +two verses accord so entirely with those of the rest of the +Epistle and of the Gospel that we must needs take them to be the +original work of the writer and not a quotation, and we can hardly +do otherwise than see an echo of them in the words of Polycarp. + +There is naturally a certain hesitation in using evidence for the +Epistle as available also for the Gospel, but I have little doubt +that it may justly so be used and with no real diminution of its +force. The chance that the Epistle had a separate author is too +small to be practically worth considering. + +This then will apply to the case of Papias, of whose relations to +the fourth Gospel we have no record, but of whom Eusebius expressly +says, that 'he made use of testimonies from the first Epistle of John.' +There is the less reason to doubt this statement, as in _every_ +instance in which a similar assertion of Eusebius can be verified +it is found to hold good. It is much more probable that he would +overlook real analogies than be led astray by merely imaginary +ones--which is rather a modern form of error. In textual matters +the ancients were not apt to go wrong through over-subtlety, and +Eusebius himself does not, I believe, deserve the charge of +'inaccuracy and haste' that is made against him [Endnote 278:1]. + + * * * * * + +In regard to the much disputed question of the use of the fourth +Gospel by Justin, those who maintain the affirmative have again +emphatic support from Dr. Keim [Endnote 278:2]. We will examine +some of the instances which are adduced on this side. + +And first, in his account of John the Baptist, Justin has two +particulars which are found in the fourth Gospel and in no other. +That Gospel alone makes the Baptist himself declare, 'I am not the +Christ;' and it alone puts into his mouth the application of the +prophecy of Isaiah, 'I am the voice of one crying in the +wilderness.' Justin combines these two sayings, treating them as +an answer made by John to some who supposed that he was the +Christ. + +_Justin, Dial_. c. 88. + +To whom he himself also cried: 'I am not the Christ, but the voice +of one crying [Greek: ouk eimi o Christos, alla phonae boontos]; +for there shall come one stronger than I,' &c. + +_John_ i. 19, 20, 23. + +And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and +Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, +and denied not: but confessed, I am not the Christ [Greek: oti ouk +eimi ego o Christos]... I am the voice of one crying [Greek: ego +phonae boontos] in the wilderness,' &c. + +The passage in Justin does not profess to be a direct quotation; +it is merely a historical reproduction, and, as such, it has quite +as much accuracy as we should expect to find. The circumstantial +coincidences are too close to be the result of accident. And Dr. +Keim is doubtless right in ridiculing Volkmar's notion that Justin +has merely developed Acts xiii. 25, which contains neither of the +two phrases ([Greek: ho Christos, phonae boontos]) in question. To +refer the passage to an unknown source such as the Gospel +according to the Hebrews--all we know of which shows its +affinities to have been rather on the side of the Synoptics--when +we have a known source in the fourth Gospel ready to hand, is +quite unreasonable [Endnote 280:1]. + +No great weight, though perhaps some fractional quantity, can be +ascribed to the statement that Jesus healed those who were maimed +from their birth ([Greek: tous ek genetaes paerous] [Endnote +280:2]). The word [Greek: paeros] is used specially for the blind, +and the fourth Evangelist is the only one who mentions the healing +of congenital infirmity, which he does under this same phrase +[Greek: ek genetaes], and that of a case of blindness (John ix. +1). The possibility urged in 'Supernatural Religion,' that Justin +may be merely drawing from tradition, may detract from the force +of this but cannot altogether remove it, especially as we have no +other trace of a tradition containing this particular. + +Tischendorf [Endnote 280:3] lays stress on a somewhat remarkable +phenomenon in connection with the quotation of Zech. xvi. 10, +'They shall look on him whom they pierced.' Justin gives the text +of this in precisely the same form as St. John, and with the same +variation from the Septuagint, [Greek: opsontai eis hon +exekentaesan] for [Greek: epiblepsontai pros me anth hon +katorchaesanto]--a variation which is also found in Rev. i. 7. +Those who believe that the Apocalypse had the same author as the +Gospel, naturally see in this a confirmation of their view, and it +would seem to follow that Justin had had either one or both +writings before him. But the assumption of an identity of +authorship between the Apocalypse and the Gospel, though I believe +less unreasonable than is generally supposed, still is too much +disputed to build anything upon in argument. We must not ignore +the other theory, that all three writers had before them and may +have used independently a divergent text of the Septuagint. Some +countenance is given to this by the fact that ten MSS. of the +Septuagint present the same reading [Endnote 281:1]. There can be +little doubt however that it was in its origin a Christian +correction, which had the double advantage of at once bringing the +Greek into closer conformity to the Hebrew, and of also furnishing +support to the Christian application of the prophecy. Whether this +correction was made before either the Apocalypse or the Gospel +were written, or whether it appeared in these works for the first +time and from them was copied into other Christian writings, must +remain an open question. + +The saying in Apol. i. 63, 'so that they are rightly convicted +both by the prophetic Spirit and by Christ Himself, that they knew +neither the Father nor the Son' ([Greek: oute ton patera oute ton +uion egnosan]), certainly presents a close resemblance to John +xvi. 3, [Greek: ouk egnosan ton patera oude eme]. But a study of +the context seems to make it clear that the only passage +consciously present to Justin's mind was Matt. xi. 27. Dr. Keim +thinks that St. John supplied him with a commentary oh the +Matthaean text; but the coincidence may be after all accidental. + +But the most important isolated case of literary parallelism is +the well-known passage in Apol. i. 61 [Endnote 281:2]. + +_Apol_. i. 61. + +For Christ said: Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into +the kingdom of heaven. Now that it is impossible for those who +have once been born to return into the wombs of those who bare +them is evident to all. + +[Greek: Kai gar ho Christos eipen, An mae anagennaethaete, ou mae +eiselthaete eis taen Basileian ton ouranon. Hoti de kai adunaton +eis tas maetras ton tekouson tous hapax gennomenous embaenai, +phaneron pasin esti.] + +_John_ iii. 3-5. + +Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, +Except any one be born over again (or possibly 'from above'), he +cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a +man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his +mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say +unto thee, Except any one be born of Water and Spirit, he cannot +enter into the kingdom of God. + +[Greek: Apekrithae Iaesous kai eipen auto Amaen amaen lego soi, +ean mae tis gennaethae anothen ou dunatai idein taen Basilaian tou +Theou. Legei pros aouton ho Nikodaemos, Pos dunatai anthropos +gennaethaenai geron on; mae dunatai eis taen koilian taes maertros +autou deuteron eiselthein kai gennaethaenai; k.t.l.] + + +Here we have first to determine the meaning of the word [Greek: anothen] +in the phrase [Greek: gennaethae anothen] of John iii. 3 on which +the extent of the parallelism to some degree turns. Does it mean +'be born _over again_,' like Justin's [Greek: anagennaethaete]? +Or does it mean 'be born _from above_,' i.e. by a heavenly, divine, +regeneration? To express an opinion in favour of the first of these +views would naturally be to incur the charge of taking it up merely to +suit the occasion. It is not however necessary; for it is sufficient to +know that whether or not this meaning was originally intended by the +Evangelist, it is a meaning that Justin might certainly put upon the +words. That this is the case is sufficiently proved by the fact that +the Syriac version (which is quoted in 'Supernatural Religion,' by a +pardonable mistake, on the other side [Endnote 283:1]) actually +translates the words thus. So also does the Vulgate; with Tertullian +('renatus'), Augustine, Chrysostom (partly), Luther, Calvin, +Maldonatus, &c. For the sense 'from above' are the Gothic version, +Origen, Cyril, Theophylact, Bengel, &c.; on the whole a fairly equal +division of opinion. The question has been of late elaborately +re-argued by Mr. McClellan [Endnote 283:2], who decides in favour of +'again.' But, without taking sides either way, it is clear that Justin +would have had abundant support, in particular that of his own national +version, if he intended [Greek: anagennaethaete] to be a paraphrase of +[Greek: gennaethae anothen]. + +It is obvious that if he is quoting St. John the quotation is +throughout paraphrastic. And yet it is equally noticeable that he +does not use the exact Johannean phrase, he uses others that are +in each case almost precisely equivalent. He does not say [Greek: +our dunatai idein--taen basileian ton ouranon], but he says +[Greek: ou mae eiselthaete eis--taen basileian ton ouranon], the +latter pair phrases which the Synoptics have already taught us to +regard as convertible. He does not say [Greek: mae dunatai eis +taen koilian taes maetros autou deuteron eiselthein kai +gennaethaenai], but he says [Greek: adunaton eis tas maetras ton +tekouson tous hapax gennomenous embaebai]. And the scale seems +decisively turned by the very remarkable combination in Justin and +St. John of the saying respecting spiritual regeneration with the +same strangely gross physical misconception. It is all but +impossible that two minds without concert or connection should +have thought of introducing anything of the kind. Nicodemus makes +an objection, and Justin by repeating the same objection, and in a +form that savours so strongly of platitude, has shown, I think we +must say, conclusively, that he was aware that the objection had +been made. + +Such are some of the chief literary coincidences between Justin +and the fourth Gospel; but there are others more profound. Justin +undoubtedly has the one cardinal doctrine of the fourth Gospel-- +the doctrine of the Logos. + +Thus he writes. 'Jesus Christ is in the proper sense [Greek: +idios] the only Son begotten of God, being His Word [Greek: logos] +and Firstborn Power' [Endnote 284:1]. Again, 'But His Son who +alone is rightly [Greek: kurios] called Son, who before all +created things was with Him and begotten of Him as His Word, when +in the beginning He created and ordered all things through Him,' +&c. Again, 'Now the next Power to God the Father and Lord of all, +and Son [Endnote 284:2], is the Word, of whom we shall relate in +what follows how He was made flesh and became Man.' Again, +'The Word of God is His Son.' Again, speaking of the Gentile +philosophers and lawgivers, 'Since they did not know all things +respecting the Word, who is Christ, they have also frequently +contradicted each other.' These passages are given by Tischendorf, +and they might be added to without difficulty; but it is not +questioned that the term Logos is found frequently in Justin's +writings, and in the same sense in which it is used in the +Prologue of the fourth Gospel of the eternal Son of God, who is at +the same time the historical person Jesus Christ. + +The natural inference that Justin was acquainted with the fourth +Gospel is met by suggesting other sources for the doctrine. These +sources are of two kinds, Jewish or Alexandrine. + +It is no doubt true that a vivid personification of the Wisdom of +God is found both in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha. Thus +in the book of Proverbs we have an elaborate ode upon Wisdom as +the eternal assessor in the counsels of God: 'The Lord possessed +me in' the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was +set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth +was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there +were no fountains of water ... When He prepared the heavens, I was +there: when He set a compass upon the face of the deep ... Then I +was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His +delight, rejoicing always before Him' [Endnote 285:1]. The ideas +of which this is perhaps the clearest expression are found more +vaguely in other parts of the same book, in the Psalms, and in the +book of Job, but they are further expanded and developed in the +two Apocryphal books of Wisdom. There [Endnote 285:2] Wisdom is +represented as the 'breath of the power of God, and a pure +influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty,' as 'the +brightness [Greek: apaugasma] of the everlasting light, the +unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His +goodness.' Wisdom 'sitteth by the throne' of God. She reacheth +from one end to another mightily: and sweetly doth she order all +things.' 'She is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of God +and a lover of His works.' God 'created her before the world' +[Endnote 286:1]. We also get by the side of this, but in quite a +subordinate place and in a much less advanced stage of personification, +the idea of the Word or Logos: 'O God of my fathers ... who hast +made all things with thy word, and ordained man through thy wisdom' +[Endnote 286:2]. 'It was neither herb nor mollifying plaister that +restored them to health: but thy word, O Lord, which healeth all things.' +It was 'the Almighty word' ([Greek: ho pantodunamos logos]) 'that +leaped down from heaven' to slay the Egyptians. + +But still it will be seen that there is a distinct gap between +these conceptions and that which we find in Justin. The leading +idea is that of Wisdom, not of the Word. The Word is not even +personified separately; it is merely the emitted power or energy +of God. And the personification of Wisdom is still to a large +extent poetical, it does not attain to separate metaphysical +hypostasis; it is not thought of as being really personal. + +The Philonian conception, on the other hand, is metaphysical, but +it contains many elements that are quite discordant and +inconsistent with that which we find in Justin. That it must have +been so will be seen at once when we think of the sources from +which Philo's doctrine was derived. It included in itself the +Platonic theory of Ideas, the diffused Logos or _anima mundi_ +of the Stoics, and the Oriental angelology or doctrine of +intermediate beings between God and man. On its Platonic side the +Logos is the Idea of Ideas summing up the world of high +abstractions which themselves are also regarded as possessing a +separate individuality; they are Logoi by the side of the Logos. +On its Stoic side it becomes a Pantheistic Essence pervading the +life of things; it is 'the law,' 'the bond' which holds the world +together; the world is its 'garment.' On its Eastern side, the +Logos is the 'Archangel,' the 'Captain of the hosts of heaven,' +the 'Mother-city' from which they issue as colonists, the 'Vice- +gerent' of the Great King [Endnote 287:1]. + +It needed a more powerful mind than Justin's to reduce all this to +its simple Christian expression, to take the poetry of Judaea and +the philosophy of Alexandria and to interpret and realise both in +the light of the historical events of the birth and life of +Christ. 'The Word became flesh' is the key by which Justin is made +intelligible, and that key is supplied by the fourth Gospel. No +other Christian writer had combined these two ideas before--the +divine Logos, with the historical personality of Jesus. When +therefore we find the ideas combined as in Justin, we are +necessarily referred to the fourth Gospel for them; for the +strangely inverted suggestion of Volkmar, that the author of the +fourth Gospel borrowed from Justin, is on chronological, if not on +other grounds, certainly untenable. We shall see that the fourth +Gospel was without doubt in existence at the date which Volkmar +assigns to Justin's Apology, 150 A. D. + + * * * * * + +The history of the discussion as to the relation of the Clementine +Homilies to the fourth Gospel is highly instructive, not only in +itself, but also for the light which it throws upon the general +character of our enquiry and the documents with which it is +concerned. It has been already mentioned that up to the year 1853 +the Clementine Homilies were only extant in a mutilated form, +ending abruptly in the middle of Hom. xix. 14. In that year a +complete edition was at last published by Dressel from a +manuscript in the Vatican containing the rest of the nineteenth +and the twentieth Homily. The older portion occupies in all, with +the translation and critical apparatus, 381 large octavo pages in +Dressel's edition; the portion added by Dressel occupies 34. And +yet up to 1853, though the Clementine Homilies had been carefully +studied with reference to the use of the fourth Gospel, only a few +indications had been found, and those were disputed. In fact, the +controversy was very much at such a point as others with which we +have been dealing; there was a certain probability in favour of +the conclusion that the Gospel had been used, but still +considerably short of the highest. Since the publication of the +conclusion of the Homilies the question has been set at rest. +Hilgenfeld, who had hitherto been a determined advocate of the +negative theory, at once gave up his ground [Endnote 288:1]; and +Volkmar, who had somewhat less to retract, admitted and admits +[Endnote 288:2] that the fact of the use of the Gospel must be +considered as proved. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' stands +alone in still resisting this conviction [Endnote 288:3], but the +result I suspect will be only to show in stronger relief the one- +sidedness of his critical method. + +We will follow the example that is set us in presenting the whole +of the passages alleged to contain allusions to the fourth Gospel; +and it is the more interesting to do so with the key that the +recent discovery has put into Our hands. The first runs thus:-- + +_Hom._ iii. 52. + +Therefore he, being a true prophet, said: I am the gate of life; +he that entereth in through me entereth into life: for the +teaching that can save is none other [than mine]. + +[Greek: Dia touto autos alaethaes on prophaetaes elegen; Ego eimi +hae pulae taes zoaes; ho di' emou eiserchomenos eiserchetai eis +taen zoaen; hos ouk ousaes heteras taes sozein dunamenaes +didaskalias.] + +_John_ x. 9. + +I am the door: by me if any one enter in, he shall be saved, and +shall come in and go out, and shall find pasture. + +[Greek: Ego eimi hae thura; di' emou ean tis eiselthae sothaesetai +kai eiseleusetai kai exeleusetai kai nomaen heuraesei.] + + +Apart from other evidence it would have been somewhat precarious +to allege this as proof of the use of the fourth Gospel, and yet I +believe there would have been a distinct probability that it was +taken from that work. The parallel is much closer--in spite of +[Greek: thura] for [Greek: pulae]--than is Matt. vii. 13, 14 (the +'narrow gate') which is adduced in 'Supernatural Religion,' and +the interval is very insufficiently bridged over by Ps. cxviii. +19, 20 ('This is the gate of the Lord'). The key-note of the +passage is given in the identification of the gate with the person +of the Saviour ('_I_ am the door') and in the remarkable +expression 'he that entereth in _through me_,' which is +retained in the Homily. It is curious to notice the way in which +the [Greek: sothaesetai] of the Gospel has been expanded +exegetically. + +Less doubtful--and indeed we should have thought almost beyond a +doubt--is the next reference; 'My sheep hear my voice.' + +_Hom._ iii. 52. + +[Greek: ta ema probata akouei taes emaes phonaes.] + +_John_ x. 27. [Greek: ta probata ta ema taes phonaes mou +akouei.] + +'There was no more common representation amongst the Jews of the +relation of God and his people than that of Shepherd and his +sheep' [Endnote 290:1]. That is to say, it occurs of Jehovah or of +the Messiah some twelve or fifteen times in the Old and New +Testament together, but never with anything at all closely +approaching to the precise and particular feature given here. Let +the reader try to estimate the chances that another source than +the fourth Gospel is being quoted. Criticism is made null and void +when such seemingly plain indications as this are discarded in +favour of entirely unknown quantities like the 'Gospel according +to the Hebrews.' If the author of 'Supernatural Religion' were to +turn his own powers of derisive statement against his own +hypotheses they would present a very strange appearance. + +The reference that follows has in some respects a rather marked +resemblance to that which we were discussing in Justin, and for +the relation between them to be fully appreciated should be given +along with it:-- + +_Justin, Apol._ i. 61. + +Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom of +heaven. + +[Greek: An mae anagennaethaete ou mae eiselthaete eis taen +basileian ton ouranon.] + +_Clem. Hom._ xi. 26. + +Verily I say unto you, Except ye be born again with living water, +in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ye shall not enter +into the kingdom of heaven. + +[Greek: Amaen humin lego, ean mae anagennaethaete hudati zonti eis +onoma patros, uhiou, hagiou pneumatos, ou mae eiselthaete eis taen +basileian ton ouranon.] + +_John_ iii. 3, 5. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except +any one be born over again (or 'from above') he cannot see the +kingdom of God ... Except any one be born of water and Spirit, he +cannot enter into the kingdom of God. + +[Greek: Amaen amaen lego soi, ean mae tis gennaethae anothen, ou +dunatai idein taen basileian tou Theou ... ean mae tis gennaethae +ex hudatos kai pneumatos, ou dunatai eiselthein eis taen basileian +tou Theou.] + +[Greek: pneum]. add. [Greek: hagiou] Vulg. (Clementine edition), +a, ff, m, Aeth., Orig. (Latin translator). + + +Here it will be noticed that Justin and the Clementines have four +points in common, [Greek: anagennaethaete] for [Greek: gennaethae +anothen], the second person plural (twice over) for [Greek: tis] +and the singular, [Greek: ou mae] and the subjunctive for [Greek: +ou dunatai] and infinitive, and [Greek: taen basileian ton +ouranon], for [Greek: taen basileian tou Theou]. To the last of +these points much importance could not be attached in itself, as +it represents a persistent difference between the first and the +other Synoptists even where they had the same original. As both +the Clementines and Justin used the first Gospel more than the +others, it is only natural that they should fall into the habit of +using its characteristic phrase. Neither would the other points +have had very much importance taken separately, but their +importance increases considerably when they come to be taken +together. + +On the other hand, we observe in the Clementines (where it is +however connected with Matt. xxviii. 19) the sufficiently near +equivalent for the striking Johannean phrase [Greek: ex hudatos +kai pneumatos] which is omitted entirely by Justin. + +The most probable view of the case seems to be that both the +Clementines and Justin are quoting from memory. Both have in their +memory the passage of St. John, but both have also distinctly +before them (so much the more distinctly as it is the Gospel which +they habitually used) the parallel passage in Matt. xviii. 3-- +where _all the last three_ out of the four common variations +are found, besides, along with the Clementines, the omission of +the second [Greek: amaen],--'Verily I say unto you, Except ye be +converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into +the kingdom of heaven' ([Greek: on mae eiseathaete eis taen +basileian ton ouranon]). It is out of the question that this +_only_ should have been present to the mind of the writers; +and, in view of the repetition of Nicodemus' misunderstanding by +Justin and of the baptism by water and Spirit in the Clementine +Homilies, it seems equally difficult to exclude the reference to +St. John. It is in fact a Johannean saying in a Matthaean +framework. + +There is the more reason to accept this solution, that neither +Justin nor the Clementines can in any case represent the original +form of the passages quoted. If Justin's version were correct, +whence did the Clementines get the [Greek: hudati zonti k.t.l.]? if +the Clementine, then whence did Justin get the misconception of +Nicodemus? But the Clementine version is in any case too eccentric +to stand. + +The last passage is the one that is usually considered to be +decisive as to the use of the fourth Gospel. + + +_Hom_. xix. 22. + +Hence too our Teacher, when explaining to those who asked of him +respecting the man who was blind from his birth and recovered his +sight, whether this man sinned or his parents that he should be +born blind, replied: Neither this man sinned, nor his parents; but +that through him the power of God might be manifested healing the +sins of ignorance. + +[Greek: Hothen kai didaskalos haemon peri tou [Endnote 293:1] ek +genetaes paerou kai anablepsantos par' autou exetazon erotaesasin, +ei ohutos haemarten ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae +[Endnote 293:1] apekrinato oute ohutos ti haemarten, oute oi +goneis autou, all' hina di autou phanerothae hae dunamis tou Theou +taes agnoias iomenae ta hamartaemata.] + + +_John_ ix. 1-3. + +And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his +disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his +parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither +hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God +should be manifested in him. + +[Greek: Kai paragon eiden anthropon tuphlon ek genetaes. Kai +aerotaesan auton oi mathaetai autou legontes, Rhabbei, tis +haemarten, ohutos ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae; +apekrithae Iaesous, Oute ohutos haemarten oute oi goneis autou, +all' hina phanerothae ta erga tou Theou en auto.] + + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' undertakes to show 'that +the context of this passage in the Homily bears positive +characteristics which render it impossible that it can have been +taken from the fourth Gospel' [Endnote 293:2]. I think we may +venture to say that he does indeed show somewhat conspicuously the +way in which he uses the word 'impossible' and the kind of grounds +on which that and such like terms are employed throughout his +work. + +It is a notorious fact, abundantly established by certain +quotations from the Old Testament and elsewhere, that the last +thing regarded by the early patristic writers was context. But in +this case the context is perfectly in keeping, and to a clear and +unprejudiced eye it presents no difficulty. The Clementine writer +is speaking of the origin of physical infirmities, and he says +that these are frequently due, not to moral error, but to mere +ignorance on the part of parents. As an instance of this he gives +the case of the man who was born blind, of whom our Lord expressly +said that neither he nor his parents had sinned--morally or in +such a way as to deserve punishment. On the contrary they had +erred simply through ignorance, and the object of the miracle was +to make a display of the Divine mercy removing the consequences of +such error. 'And in reality,' he proceeds, 'things of this kind +are the result of ignorance. The misfortunes of which you spoke, +proceed from ignorance and not from any wicked action.' This is +perfectly compatible with every word of the Johannean narrative. +The concluding clause of the quotation is merely a paraphrase of +the original (no part of the quotation professes to be exact), +bringing out a little more prominently the special point of the +argument. There is ample room for this. The predetermined object +of the miracle, says St. John, was to display the works of God, +and the Clementine writer specifies the particular work of God +displayed--the mercy which heals the evil consequences of +ignorance. If there is anything here at all inconsistent with the +Gospel it would be interesting to know (and we are not told) what +was the kind of original that the author of the Homily really had +before him. + +A further discussion of this passage I should hardly suppose to be +necessary. Nothing could be more wanton than to assign this +passage to an imaginary Gospel merely on the ground alleged. The +hypothesis was less violent in regard to the Synoptic Gospels, +which clearly contain a large amount of common matter that might +also have found its way into other hands. We have evidence of the +existence of other Gospels presenting a certain amount of affinity +to the first Gospel, but the fourth is stamped with an idiosyncracy +which makes it unique in its kind. If there is to be this freedom +in inventing unknown documents, reproducing almost verbatim the +features of known ones, sober criticism is at an end. + +That the Clementine Homilies imply the use of the fourth Gospel +may be considered to be, not indeed certain in a strict sense of +the word, but as probable as most human affairs can be. The real +element or doubt is in regard to their date, and their evidence +must be taken subject to this uncertainty. + + * * * * * + +It is perhaps hardly worth while to delay over the Epistle to +Diognetus: not that I do not believe the instances alleged by +Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott [Endnote 295:1] to be in themselves +sound, but because there exists too little evidence to determine +the date of the Epistle, and because it may be doubted whether the +argument for the use of the fourth Gospel in the Epistle can be +expressed strongly in an objective form. The allusions in question +are not direct quotations, but are rather reminiscences of +language. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' has treated them +as if they were the former [Endnote 296:1]; he has enquired into +the context &c., not very successfully. But such enquiry is really +out of place. When the writer of the Epistle says, 'Christians +dwell in the world but are not of the world' [Greek: ouk xisi de +ek tou kosmou] = exactly John xvii. 14; note peculiar use of the +preposition); 'For God loved men for whose sakes He made the world +... unto whom He sent His only begotten Son' (= John iii. 16, 'God +so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son'); 'How will +you love Him who so beforehand loved you' [Greek: proagapaesanta]; +cf. i John iv. 19, [Greek: protos aegapaesen] 'He sent His Son as +wishing to save ... and not to condemn' ([Greek: sozon ... krinon] +of. John iii. 16),--the probability is about as great that he had +in his mind St. John's language as it would be if the same phrases +were to occur in a modern sermon. It is a real probability; but +not one that can be urged very strongly. + + * * * * * + +Of more importance--indeed of high importance--is the evidence +drawn from the remains of earlier writers preserved by Irenaeus +and Hippolytus. There is a clear reference to the fourth Gospel in +a passage for which Irenaeus alleges the authority of certain +'Presbyters,' who at the least belonged to an elder generation +than his own. There can be little doubt indeed that they are the +same as those whom he describes three sentences later and with +only a momentary break in the oblique narration into which the +passage is thrown, as 'the Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles.' +It may be well to give the language of Irenaeus in full as it has +been the subject of some controversy. Speaking of the rewards of +the just in the next world, he says [Endnote 297:1]:-- + +'For Esaias says, "Like as the new heaven and new earth which I +create remain before me, saith the Lord, so your seed and your +name shall stand." And as the Presbyters say, then too those who +are thought worthy to have their abode in Heaven shall go thither, +and some shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, while others shall +possess the splendour of the City; for everywhere the Saviour +shall be seen according as they shall be worthy who look upon Him. +[So far the sentence has been in oratio recta, but here it becomes +oblique.] And [they say] that there is this distinction in +dwelling between those who bear fruit an hundred fold and those +who bear sixty and those who bear thirty, some of whom shall be +carried off into the Heavens, some shall stay in Paradise, and +some shall dwell in the City. And for this reason, [they say that] +the Lord declared ([Greek: eipaekenai]) that _in my Father's_ +[realm] _are many mansions;_ for all things [are] of God, who +gives to all the fitting habitation: even as His Word saith +(_ait_), that to all is allotted by the Father as each is or +shall be worthy. And this is (_est_) the couch upon which +they shall recline who are bidden to His marriage supper. That +this is (_esse_) the order and disposition of the saved, the +Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles, say,' etc. + +That Irenaeus is here merely giving the 'exegesis of his own day,' +as the author of 'Supernatural Religion' suggests [Endnote 297:2], +is not for a moment tenable. Irenaeus does indeed interpose for +two sentences (Omnia enim... ad nuptias) to give his own comment +on the saying of the Presbyters; but these are sharply cut off +from the rest by the use of the present indicative instead of the +infinitive. There can be no question at all that the quotation 'in +My Father's realm are many mansions' [Greek: en tois ton Patros +mon monas einai pollas] belongs to the Presbyters, and there can +be but little doubt that these Presbyters are the same as those +spoken of as 'disciples of the Apostles.' + +Whether they were also 'the Presbyters' referred to as his +authority by Papias is quite a secondary and subordinate question. +Considering the Chiliastic character of the passage, the +conjecture [Endnote 298:1] that they were does not seem to me +unreasonable. This however we cannot determine positively. It is +quite enough that Irenaeus evidently attributes to them an +antiquity considerably beyond his own; that, in fact, he looks +upon them as supplying the intermediate link between his age and +that of the Apostles. + + * * * * * + +Two quotations from the fourth Gospel are attributed to Basilides, +both of them quite indisputable as quotations. The first is found +in the twenty-second chapter of the seventh book of the +'Refutation,' 'That was the true light which lighteth every man +that cometh into the world [Endnote 298:2] ([Greek: aen to phos to +alaethinon, o photizei panta anthropon erchomenon eis ton kosmon] += John i. 9), and the second in the twenty-seventh chapter, 'My +hour is not yet come' ([Greek: oupo aekei aeora mon] = John ii. +4). Both of these passages are instances of the exegesis by which +the Basilidian doctrines were defended. + +The real question is here, as in regard to the Synoptics, whether +the quotations were made by Basilides himself or by his disciples, +'Isidore and his crew.' The second instance I am disposed to think +may possibly be due to the later representatives of this school, +because, though the quotation is introduced by [Greek: phaesi] in +the singular, and though Basilides himself can in no case be +excluded, still there is nothing in the chapter to identify the +subject of [Greek: phaesi] specially with him, and in the next +sentence Hippolytus writes, 'This is that which they understand +([Greek: ho kat' autous nenoaemenos]) by the inner spiritual man,' +&c. But the earlier instance is different. There Basilides himself +does seem to be specially singled out. + +He is mentioned by name only two sentences above that in which the +quotation occurs. Hippolytus is referring to the Basilidian +doctrine of the origin of things. He says, 'Now since it was not +allowable to say that something non-existent had come into being +as a projection from a non-existent Deity--for Basilides avoids +and shuns the existences of things brought into being by +projection [Endnote 299:1]--for what need is there of projection, +or why should matter be presupposed in order that God should make +a world, just as a spider its web or as mortal man in making +things takes brass or wood or any other portion of matter? But He +spake--so he says--and it was done, and this is, as these men say, +that which is said by Moses: "Let there be light, and there was +light." Whence, he says, came the light? Out of nothing; for we +are not told--he says--whence it came, but only that it was at the +voice of Him that spake. Now He that spake--he says--was not, and +that which was made, was not. Out of that which was not--he says-- +was made the seed of the world, the word which was spoken, "Let +there be light;" and this--he says--is that which is spoken in +the Gospels; "That was the true light which lighteth every man +that cometh into the world.'" We must not indeed overlook the fact +that the plural occurs once in the middle of this passage as +introducing the words of Moses; 'as these men say.' And yet, +though this decidedly modifies, I do not think that it removes the +probability that Basilides himself is being quoted. It seems a +fair inference that at the beginning of the passage Hippolytus had +the work of Basilides actually before him; and the single +digression in [Greek: legousin houtoi] does not seem enough to +show that it was laid aside. This is confirmed when we look back +two chapters at the terms in which the whole account of the +Basilidian system is introduced. 'Let us see,' Hippolytus says, +'how flagrantly Basilides as well as (B. [Greek: homou kai]) +Isidore and all their crew contradict not only Matthias but the +Saviour himself.' Stress is laid upon the name of Basilides, as if +to say, 'It is not merely a new-fangled heresy, but dates back to +the head and founder of the school.' When in the very next +sentence Hippolytus begins with [Greek: phaesi], the natural +construction certainly seems to be that he is quoting some work of +Basilides which he takes as typical of the doctrine of the whole +school. A later work would not suit his purpose or prove his +point. Basilides includes Isidore, but Isidore does not include +Basilides. + +We conclude then that there is a probability--not an overwhelming, +but quite a substantial, probability--that Basilides himself used +the fourth Gospel, and used it as an authoritative record of the +life of Christ. But Basilides began to teach in 125 A.D., so that +his evidence, supposing it to be valid, dates from a very early +period indeed: and it should be remembered that this is the only +uncertainty to which it is subject. That the quotation is really +from St. John cannot be doubted. + +The account which Hippolytus gives of the Valentinians also +contains an allusion to the fourth Gospel; 'All who came before Me +are thieves and robbers' (cf. John x. 8). But here the master and +the disciples are more confused. Less equivocal evidence is +afforded by the statements of Irenaeus respecting the Valentinians. +He says that the Valentinians used the fourth Gospel very freely +(plenissime) [Endnote 301:1]. This applies to a date that cannot +be in any case later than 180 A.D., and that may extend almost +indefinitely backwards. There is no reason to say that it does not +include Valentinus himself. Positive evidence is wanting, but negative +evidence still more. Apart from evidence to the contrary, there must +be a presumption against the introduction of a new work which becomes +at once a frequently quoted authority midway in the history of a school. + +But to keep to facts apart from presumptions. Irenaeus represents +Ptolemaeus as quoting largely from the Prologue to the Gospel. But +Ptolemaeus, as we have seen, had already gathered a school about +him when Irenaeus became acquainted with him. His evidence +therefore may fairly be said to cover the period from 165-175 A.D. +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to be somewhat beside +the mark when he says that 'in regard to Ptolemaeus all that is +affirmed is that in the Epistle to Flora ascribed to him +expressions found in John i. 3 are used.' True it is that such +expressions are found, and before we accept the theory in +'Supernatural Religion' that the parenthesis in which they occur +is due to Epiphanius who quotes the letter in full himself +[Endnote 302:1], it is only right that some other instance should +be given of such parenthetic interruption. The form in which the +letter is quoted, not in fragments interspersed with comments but +complete and at full length, with a formal heading and close, +really excludes such a hypothesis. But, a century and a half +before Epiphanius, Irenaeus had given a string of Valentinian +comments on the Prologue, ending with the words, 'Et Ptolemaeus +quidem ita' [Endnote 302:2]. Heracleon, too, is coupled with +Ptolemaeus by Irenaeus [Endnote 302:3], and according to the view +of the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' had a school around him +at the time of Irenaeus' visit to Rome in 178 A.D. But this +Heracleon was the author of a Commentary on St. John's Gospel to +which Origen in his own parallel work frequently alludes. These +are indeed dismissed in 'Supernatural Religion' as 'unsupported +references.' But we may well ask, what support they need. The +references are made in evident good faith. He says, for instance +[Endnote 302:4], that Heracleon's exegesis of John i. 3, 'All +things were made by Him,' excluding from this the world and its +contents, is very forced and without authority. Again, he has +misinterpreted John i. 4, making 'in Him was life' mean not 'in +Him' but 'in spiritual men.' Again, he wrongly attributes John i. +18 not to the Evangelist, but to the Baptist. And so on. The +allusions are all made in this incidental manner; and the life of +Origen, if he was born, as is supposed, about 185 A.D., would +overlap that of Heracleon. What evidence could be more sufficient? +or if such evidence is to be discarded, what evidence are we to +accept? Is it to be of the kind that is relied upon for referring +quotations to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the Gospel +according to Peter, or the [Greek: Genna Marias]? There are +sometimes no doubt reasonable grounds for scepticism as to the +patristic statements, but none such are visible here. On the +contrary, that Heracleon should have written a commentary on the +fourth Gospel falls in entirely with what Irenaeus says as to the +large use that was made of that Gospel by the Valentinians. + + * * * * * + +As we approach the end of the third and beginning of the fourth +quarter of the second century the evidence for the fourth Gospel +becomes widespread and abundant. At this date we have attention +called to the discrepancy between the Gospels as to the date of +the Crucifixion by Claudius Apollinaris. We have also Tatian, the +Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, the heathen Celsus +and the Muratorian Canon, and then a very few years later +Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus. + +I imagine that there can be really no doubt about Tatian. Whatever +may have been the nature of the Diatessaron, the 'Address to the +Greeks' contains references which it is mere paradox to dispute. I +will not press the first of these which is given by Dr. Westcott, +not because I do not believe that it is ultimately based upon the +fourth Gospel, still less that there is the slightest contradiction +to St. John's doctrine, but because Tatian's is a philosophical comment +perhaps a degree too far removed from the original to be quite +producible as evidence. It is one of the earliest speculations as to +the ontological relation between the Father and the Son. In the +beginning God was alone--though all things were with Him potentially. +By the mere act of volition He gave birth to the Logos, who was the +real originative cause of things. Yet the existence of the Logos was +not such as to involve a separation of identity in the Godhead; it +involved no diminution in Him from whom the Logos issued. Having been +thus first begotten, the Logos in turn begat our creation, &c. The +Logos is thus represented as being at once prior to creation (the +Johannean [Greek: en archae]) and the efficient cause of it--which is +precisely the doctrine of the Prologue. + +The other two passages are however quite unequivocal. + + +_Orat. ad Graecos_, c. xiii. + +And this is therefore that saying: The darkness comprehends not +the light. + +[Greek: Kai touto estin ara to eiraemenon Hae skotia to phos ou +katalambanei.] + + +_John_ i. 5. + +And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness +comprehended it not. + +[Greek: Kai to phos en tae skotia phainei, kai hae skotia auto ou +katelaben.] + + +On this there is the following comment in 'Supernatural Religion' +[Endnote 305:1]: '"The saying" is distinctly different in language +from the parallel in the Gospel, and it may be from a different +Gospel. We have already remarked that Philo called the Logos "the +Light," and quoting in a peculiar form, Ps. xxvi. 1: 'For the Lord +is my light ([Greek: phos]) and my Saviour,' he goes on to say +that as the sun divides day and night, so Moses says, 'God divides +light and darkness' ([Greek: Theon phos kai skotos diateichisai]), +when we turn away to things of sense we use 'another light' which +is in no way different from 'darkness.' The constant use of the +same similitude of light and darkness in the Canonical Epistles +shows how current it was in the Church; and nothing is more +certain than the fact that it was neither originated by, nor +confined to, the fourth Gospel.' Such criticism refutes itself, +and it is far too characteristic of the whole book. Nothing is +adduced that even remotely corresponds to the very remarkable +phrase [Greek: hae skotia to phos katalambanei], and yet for these +imaginary parallels one that is perfectly plain and direct is +rejected. + +The use of the phrase [Greek: to eiraemenon] should be noticed. It +is the formula used, especially by St. Luke, in quotation from the +Old Testament Scriptures. + +The other passage is:-- + + +_Orat. ad Graecos_, c. xix. + +All things were by him, and without him hath been made nothing. + +[Greek: Panta hup' autou kai choris autou gegonen oude hen.] + + +_John_ i. 3. + +All things were made through him; and without him was nothing made +[that hath been made]. + +[Greek: Panta di' autou egeneto, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen +[ho gegonen]]. 'The early Fathers, no less than the early +heretics,' placed the full stop at [Greek: oude hen], connecting +the words that follow with the next sentence. See M'Clellan and +Tregelles _ad loc_. + + +'Tatian here speaks of God and not of the Logos, and in this +respect, as well as language and context, the passage differs from +the fourth Gospel' [Endnote 306:1], &c. Nevertheless it may safely +be left to the reader to say whether or not it was taken from it. + +The Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons contains the +following:-- + + +_Ep. Vienne. et Lugd_. § iv. + +Thus too was fulfilled that which was spoken by our Lord; that a +time shall come in which every one that killeth you shall think +that he offereth God service. + +[Greek: Eleusetai kairos en o pas ho apokteinas humas doxei +latreian prospherein to Theo.] + + +_John_ xvi. 2. + +Yea, the hour cometh, that every one that killeth you will think +he offereth God service. + +[Greek: All' erchetai hora hina pas ho apokteinas humas, doxae +latreian prospherein to Theo.] + + +It is true that there are 'indications of similar discourses' in +the Synoptics, but of none containing a trait at all closely +resembling this. The chances that precisely the same combination +of words ([Greek: ho apokteinas humas doxei latreian prospherein +to Theo]) occurred in a lost Gospel must be necessarily very small +indeed, especially when we remember that the original saying was +probably spoken in Aramaic and not in Greek [Endnote 307:1]. + +Dr. Keim, in the elaborate monograph mentioned above, decides that +Celsus made use of the fourth Gospel. He remarks upon it as +curious, that more traces should indeed be found 'both in Celsus +and his contemporary Tatian of John than of his two nearest +predecessors' [Endnote 307:2]. Of the instances given by Dr. Keim, +the first (i. 41, the sign seen by the Baptist) depends on a +somewhat doubtful reading ([Greek: para to Ioannae], which should +be perhaps [Greek: para to Iordanae]); the second, the demand for +a sign localised specially in the temple (i. 67; of. John x. 23, +24), seems fairly to hold good. 'The destination of Jesus alike +for good and evil' (iv. 7, 'that those who received it, having +been good, should be saved; while those who received it not, +having been shown to be bad, should be punished') is indeed an +idea peculiarly Johannean and creates a _presumption_ of the +use of the Gospel; we ought not perhaps to say more. I can hardly +consider the simple allusions to 'flight' ([Greek: pheugein], ii. +9; [Greek: taede kakeise apodedrakenai], i. 62) as necessarily +references to the retreat to Ephraim in John xi. 54. So too the +expression 'bound' in ii. 9, and the 'conflict with Satan' in vi. +42, ii. 47, seem too vague to be used as proof. Still Volkmar too +declares it to be 'notorious' that Celsus was acquainted with the +fourth Gospel, alleging i. 67 (as above), ii. 31 (an allusion to +the Logos), ii. 36 (a satirical allusion to the issue of blood and +water), which passages really seem on the whole to justify the +assertion, though not in a quite unqualified form. + +We ought not to omit to mention that there is a second fragment +by Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, besides that to which we +have already alluded, and preserved like it in the Paschal +Chronicle, which confirms unequivocally the conclusion that he +knew and used the fourth Gospel. Amongst other titles that are +applied to the crucified Saviour, he is spoken of as 'having been +pierced in His sacred side,' as 'having poured out of His side +those two cleansing streams, water and blood, word and spirit' +[Endnote 308:1]. This incident is recorded only in the fourth +Gospel. + +In like manner when Athenagoras says 'The Father and the Son being +one' ([Greek: henos ontos tou Patros kai tou Uiou]), it is +probable that he is alluding to John x. 30, 'I and my Father are +one,' not to mention an alleged, but perhaps somewhat more +doubtful, reference to John xvii. 3 [Endnote 308:2]. + +But the most decisive witness before we come to Irenaeus is the +Muratorian Canon. Here we have the fourth Gospel definitely +assigned to its author, and finally established in its place +amongst the canonical or authoritative books. It is true that the +account of the way in which the Gospel came to be composed is +mixed up with legendary matter. According to it the Gospel was +written in obedience to a dream sent to Andrew the Apostle, after +he and his fellow disciples and bishops had fasted for three days +at the request of John. In this dream it was revealed that John +should write the narrative subject to the revision of the rest. So +the Gospel is the work of an eyewitness, and, though it and the +other Gospels differ in the objects of their teaching, all are +inspired by the same Spirit. + +There may perhaps in this be some kernel of historical fact, as +the sort of joint authorship or revision to which it points seems +to find some support in the concluding verses of the Gospel ('we +know that his witness is true'). However this may be, the evidence +of the fragment is of more real importance and value, as showing +the estimation in which at this date the Gospel was held. It +corresponds very much to what is now implied in the word +'canonical,' and indeed the Muratorian fragment presents us with a +tentative or provisional Canon, which was later to be amended, +completed, and ratified. So far as the Gospels were concerned, it +had already reached its final shape. It included the same four +which now stand in our Bibles, and the opposition that they met +with was so slight, and so little serious, that Eusebius could +class them all among the Homologoumena or books that were +universally acknowledged. + + + + + +CHAPTER XIII. + +ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY. + + +I should not be very much surprised if the general reader who may +have followed our enquiry so far should experience at this point a +certain feeling of disappointment. If he did not know beforehand +something of the subject-matter that was to be enquired into, he +might not unnaturally be led to expect round assertions, and +plain, pointblank, decisive evidence. Such evidence has not been +offered to him for the simple reason that it does not exist. In +its stead we have collected a great number of inferences of very +various degrees of cogency, from the possible and hypothetical, up +to strong and very strong probability. Most of our time has been +taken up in weighing and testing these details, and in the +endeavour to assign to each as nearly as possible its just value. +It could not be thought strange if some minds were impatient of +such minutiae; and where this objection was not felt, it would +still be very pardonable to complain that the evidence was at best +inferential and probable. + +An inference in which there are two or three steps may be often +quite as strong as that in which there is only one, and +probabilities may mount up to a high degree of what is called +moral or practical certainty. I cannot but think that many of +those which have been already obtained are of this character. I +cannot but regard it as morally or practically certain that +Marcion used our third Gospel; as morally or practically certain +that all four Gospels were used in the Clementine Homilies; as +morally or practically certain that the existence of three at +least out of our four Gospels is implied in the writings of +Justin; as probable in a lower degree that the four were used by +Basilides; as not really disputable (apart from the presumption +afforded by earlier writers) that they were widely used in the +interval which separates the writings of Justin from those of +Irenaeus. + +All of these seem to me to be tolerably clear propositions. But +outside these there seems to be a considerable amount of +convergent evidence, the separate items of which are less +convincing, but which yet derive a certain force from the mere +fact that they are convergent. In the Apostolic Fathers, for +example, there are instances of various kinds, some stronger and +some weaker; but the important point to notice is that they +confirm each other. Every new case adds to the total weight of the +evidence, and helps to determine the bearing of those which seem +ambiguous. + +It cannot be too much borne in mind that the evidence with which +we have been dealing is cumulative; and as in all other cases of +cumulative evidence the subtraction of any single item is of less +importance than the addition of a new one. Supposing it to be +shown that some of the allusions which are thought to be taken +from our Gospels were merely accidental coincidences of language, +this would not materially affect the part of the evidence which +could not be so explained. Supposing even that some of these +allusions could be definitely referred to an apocryphal source, +the possibility would be somewhat, but not so very much, increased +that other instances which bear resemblance to our Gospels were +also in their origin apocryphal. But on the other hand, if a +single instance of the use of a canonical Gospel really holds +good, it is proof of the existence of that Gospel, and every new +instance renders the conclusion more probable, and makes it more +and more difficult to account for the phenomena in any other way. + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to have overlooked +this. He does not seem to have considered the mutual support which +the different instances taken together lend to each other. He +summons them up one by one, and if any sort of possibility can be +shown of accounting for them in any other way than by the use of +our Gospels he dismisses them altogether. He makes no allowance +for any residual weight they may have. He does not ask which is +the more probable hypothesis. If the authentication of a document +is incomplete, if the reference of a passage is not certain, he +treats it as if it did not exist. He forgets the old story of the +faggots, which, weak singly, become strong when combined. His +scales will not admit of any evidence short of the highest. +Fractional quantities find no place in his reckoning. If there is +any flaw, if there is any possible loophole for escape, he does +not make the due deduction and accept the evidence with that +deduction, but he ignores it entirely, and goes on to the next +item just as if he were leaving nothing behind him. + +This is really part and parcel of what was pointed out at the +outset as the fundamental mistake of his method. It is much too +forensic. It takes as its model, not the proper canons of +historical enquiry, but the procedure of English law. Yet the +inappropriateness of such a method is seen as soon as we consider +its object and origin. The rules of evidence current in our law +courts were constructed specially with a view to the protection of +the accused, and upon the assumption that it is better nine guilty +persons should escape, than that one innocent person should be +condemned. Clearly such rules will be inapplicable to the +historical question which of two hypotheses is most likely to be +true. The author forgets that the negative hypothesis is just as +much a hypothesis as the positive, and needs to be defended in +precisely the same manner. Either the Gospels were used, or they +were not used. In order to prove the second side of this +alternative, it is necessary to show not merely that it is +_possible_ that they were not used, but that the theory is +the _more probable_ of the two, and accounts better for the +facts. But the author of 'Supernatural Religion' hardly professes +or attempts to do this. If he comes across a quotation apparently +taken from our Gospels he is at once ready with his reply, 'But it +may be taken from a lost Gospel.' Granted; it may. But the extant +Gospel is there, and the quotation referable to it; the lost +Gospel is an unknown entity which may contain anything or nothing. +If we admit that the possibility of quotation from a lost Gospel +impairs the certainty of the reference to an extant Gospel, it is +still quite another thing to argue that it is the more probable +explanation and an explanation that the critic ought to accept. In +very few cases, I believe, has the author so much as attempted to +do this. + +We might then take a stand here, and on the strength of what can +be satisfactorily proved, as well as of what can be probably +inferred, claim to have sufficiently established the use and +antiquity of the Gospels. This is, I think, quite a necessary +conclusion from the data hitherto collected. + +But there is a further objection to be made to the procedure in +'Supernatural Religion.' If the object were to obtain clear and +simple and universally appreciable evidence, I do not hesitate to +say that the enquiry ends just where it ought to have begun. +Through the faulty method that he has employed the author forgets +that he has a hypothesis to make good and to carry through. He +forgets that he has to account on the negative theory, just as we +account on the positive, for a definite state of things. It may +sound paradoxical, but there is really no great boldness in the +paradox, when we affirm that at least the high antiquity of the +Gospels could be proved, even if not one jot or tittle of the +evidence that we have been discussing had existed. Supposing that +all those fragmentary remains of the primitive Christian +literature that we have been ransacking so minutely had been swept +away, supposing that the causes that have handed it down to us in +such a mutilated and impaired condition had done their work still +more effectually, and that for the first eighty years of the +second century there was no Christian literature extant at all; +still I maintain that, in order to explain the phenomena that we +find after that date, we should have to recur to the same +assumptions that our previous enquiry would seem to have +established for us. + +Hitherto we have had to grope our way with difficulty and care; +but from this date onwards all ambiguity and uncertainty +disappears. It is like emerging out of twilight into the broad +blaze of day. There is really a greater disproportion than we +might expect between the evidence of the end of the century and +that which leads up to it. From Justin to Irenaeus the Christian +writings are fragmentary and few, but with Irenaeus a whole body +of literature seems suddenly to start into being. Irenaeus is +succeeded closely by Clement of Alexandria, Clement by Tertullian, +Tertullian by Hippolytus and Origen, and the testimony which these +writers bear to the Gospel is marvellously abundant and unanimous. +I calculate roughly that Irenaeus quotes directly 193 verses of +the first Gospel and 73 of the fourth. Clement of Alexandria and +Tertullian must have quoted considerably more, while in the extant +writings of Origen the greater part of the New Testament is +actually quoted [Endnote 315:1]. + +But more than this; by the time of Irenaeus the canon of the four +Gospels, as we understand the word now, was practically formed. We +have already seen that this was the case in the fragment of +Muratori. Irenaeus is still more explicit. In the famous passage +[Endnote 315:2] which is so often quoted as an instance of the +weak-mindedness of the Fathers, he lays it down as a necessity of +things that the Gospels should be four in number, neither less nor +more:-- + +'For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, as +there are also four universal winds, and as the Church is +scattered over all the earth, and the Gospel is the pillar and +base of the Church and the breath (or spirit) of life, it is +likely that it should have four pillars breathing immortality on +every side and kindling afresh the life of men. Whence it is +evident that the Word, the architect of all things, who sitteth +upon the cherubim and holdeth all things together, having been +made manifest unto men, gave to us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, +but held together by one Spirit. As David, entreating for His +presence, saith: Thou that sittest upon the Cherubim show thyself. +For the Cherubim are of fourfold visage, and their visages are +symbols of the economy of the Son of man.... And the Gospels +therefore agree with them over which presideth Jesus Christ. That +which is according to John declares His generation from the Father +sovereign and glorious, saying thus: In the beginning was the +Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And, All +things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.... +But the Gospel according to Luke, as having a sacerdotal +character, begins with Zacharias the priest offering incense unto +God.... But Matthew records His human generation, saying, The book +of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of +Abraham.... Mark took his beginning from the prophetic Spirit +coming down as it were from on high among men. The beginning, he +says, of the Gospel according as it is written in Esaias the +prophet, &c.' + +Irenaeus also makes mention of the origin of the Gospels, claiming +for their authors the gift of Divine inspiration [Endnote 316:1]:-- + +'For after that our Lord rose from the dead and they were endowed +with the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon them from on high, +they were fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect +knowledge: they went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the +Gospel of those good things that God hath given to us and +proclaiming heavenly peace to men, having indeed both all in equal +measure and each one singly the Gospel of God. So then Matthew +among the Jews put forth a written Gospel in their own tongue +while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and +founding the Church. After their decease (or 'departure'), Mark, +the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself too has handed down +to us in writing the subjects of Peter's preaching. And Luke, the +companion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him. +Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon +His breast, likewise published his Gospel while he dwelt at +Ephesus in Asia.' + +We have not now to determine the exact value of these traditions; +what we have rather to notice is the fact that the Gospels are at +this time definitely assigned to their reputed authors, and that +they are already regarded as containing a special knowledge +divinely imparted. It is evident that Irenaeus would not for a +moment think of classing any other Gospel by the side of the now +strictly canonical four. + +Clement of Alexandria, who, Eusebius says, 'was illustrious for +his writings,' in the year 194 gives a somewhat similar, but not +quite identical, account of the composition of the second Gospel +[Endnote 317:1]. He differs from Irenaeus in making St. Peter +cognisant of the work of his follower. Neither is he quite +consistent with himself; in one place he makes St. Peter +'authorise the Gospel to be read in the churches;' in another he +says that the Apostle 'neither forbade nor encouraged it' [Endnote +317:2]. These statements have both of them been preserved for us +by Eusebius, who also alleges, upon the authority of Clement, that +the 'Gospels containing the genealogies were written first.' +'John,' he says, 'who came last, observing that the natural +details had been set forth clearly in the Gospels, at the instance +of his friends and with the inspiration of the Spirit ([Greek: +pneumati theophoraethenta]), wrote a spiritual Gospel' [Endnote +317:3]. + +Clement draws a distinct line between the canonical and +uncanonical Gospels. In quoting an apocryphal saying supposed to +have been given in answer to Salome, he says, expressly: 'We do +not find this saying in the four Gospels that have been handed +down to us, but in that according to the Egyptians' [Endnote +317:4]. + +Tertullian is still more exclusive. He not only regards the four +Gospels as inspired and authoritative, but he makes no use of any +extra-canonical Gospel. The Gospels indeed held for him precisely +the same position that they do with orthodox Christians now. He +says respecting the Gospels: 'In the first place we lay it down +that the evangelical document (evangelicum instrumentum [Endnote +318:1]) has for its authors the Apostles, to whom this office of +preaching the Gospel was committed by the Lord Himself. If it has +also Apostolic men, yet not these alone but in company with +Apostles and after Apostles. For the preaching of disciples might +have been suspected of a desire for notoriety if it were not +supported by the authority of Masters, nay of Christ, who made the +Apostles Masters. In fine, of the Apostles, John and Matthew first +implant in us faith, Luke and Mark renew it, starting from the +same principles, so far as relates to the one God the Creator and +His Christ born of the virgin, to fulfil the law and the prophets' +[Endnote 318:2]. He grounds the authority of the Gospels upon the +fact that they proceed either from Apostles or from those who held +close relation to Apostles, like Mark, 'the interpreter of Peter,' +and Luke, the companion of Paul [Endnote 318:3]. In another +passage he expressly asserts their authenticity [Endnote 318:4], +and he claimed to use them and them alone as his weapons in the +conflict with heresy [Endnote 318:5]. + +No less decided is the assertion of Origen, who writes: 'As I have +learnt from tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are +undisputed in the Church of God under heaven, that the first in +order of the scripture is that according to Matthew, who was once +a publican but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... The +second is that according to Mark, who wrote as Peter suggested to +him ... The third is that according to Luke, the Gospel commended +by Paul ... Last of all that according to John' [Endnote 319:1]. +And again in his commentary upon the Preface to St. Luke's Gospel +he expressly guards against the possibility that it might be +thought to have reference to the other (Canonical) Gospels: 'In +this word of Luke's "_have taken in hand_" there is a latent +accusation of those who without the grace of the Holy Spirit have +rushed to the composing of Gospels. Matthew, indeed, and Mark, and +John, and Luke, have not "_taken in hand_" to write, but +_have written_ Gospels, being full of the Holy Spirit ... The +Church has four Gospels; the Heresies have many' [Endnote 319:2]. + +But besides the Fathers, and without going beyond the bounds of +the second century, there is other evidence of the most distinct +and important kind for the existence of a canon of the Gospels. +Among the various translations of the New Testament one certainly, +two very probably, and three perhaps probably, were made in the +course of the second century. + +The old Latin (as distinct from Jerome's revised) version of the +Gospels and with them of a considerable portion of the New Testament +was, I think it may be said, undoubtedly used by Tertullian and by +the Latin translator of Irenaeus, who appears to be quoted by +Tertullian, and in that case could not be placed later than 200 A.D. +[Endnote 320:1] On this point I shall quote authorities that will +hardly be questioned. And first that of a writer who is accustomed to +weigh, with the accuracy of true science, every word that he puts +down, and who upon this subject is giving the result of a most minute +and careful investigation. Speaking of the Latin translation of the +New Testament as found in Tertullian he says: 'Although single +portions of this, especially passages which are translated in several +different ways, may be due to Tertullian himself, still it cannot be +doubted that in by far the majority of cases he has followed the text +of a version received in his time by the Africans and specially the +Carthaginian Christians, and made perhaps long before his time, and +that consequently his quotations represent the form of the earliest +Latinized Scriptures accepted in those regions' [Endnote 320:2]. +Again: 'In the first place we may conclude from the writings of +Tertullian, that remarkable Carthaginian presbyter at the close of +the second century, that in his time there existed several, perhaps +many, Latin translations of the Bible ... Tertullian himself +frequently quotes in his writings one and the same passage of +Scripture in entirely different forms, which indeed in many cases +may be explained by his quoting freely from memory, but certainly +not seldom has its ground in the diversity of the translations used +at the time' [Endnote 321:1]. On this last point, the unity of the +Old Latin version, there is a difference of opinion among scholars, +but none as to its date. Thus Dr. Tregelles writes: 'The expressions +of Tertullian have been rightly rested on as showing that he knew +and recognised _one translation_, and that this version was in several +places (in his opinion) opposed to what was found "in Graeco authentico." +This version must have been made a sufficiently long time before the +age when Tertullian wrote, and before the Latin translator of Irenaeus, +for it to have got into general circulation. This leads us back _towards_ +the middle of the second century at the latest: how much _earlier_ +the version may have been we have no proof; for we are already led +back into the time when no records tell us anything respecting the +North African Church' [Endnote 321:2]. Dr. Tregelles, it should be +remembered, is speaking as a text critic, of which branch of science +his works are one of the noblest monuments, and not directly of the +history of the Canon. His usual opponent in text critical matters, +but an equally exact and trustworthy writer, Dr. Scrivener, agrees +with him here both as to the unity of the version and as to its date +from the middle of the century [Endnote 321:3]. Dr. Westcott too +writes in his well-known and valuable article on the Vulgate in +Smith's Dictionary [Endnote 321:4]: 'Tertullian distinctly recognises +the general currency of a Latin Version of the New Testament, though +not necessarily of every book at present included in the Canon, which +even in his time had been able to mould the popular language. This +was characterised by a "rudeness" and "simplicity," which seems to +point to the nature of its origin.' I do not suppose that the currency +at the end of the second century of a Latin version, containing the +four Gospels and no others, will be questioned [Endnote 322:1]. + +With regard to the Syriac version there is perhaps a somewhat +greater room to doubt, though Dr. Tregelles begins his account of +this version by saying: 'It may stand as an admitted fact that a +version of the New Testament in Syriac existed in the second +century' [Endnote 322:2]. Dr. Scrivener also says [Endnote 322:3]: +'The universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the +case, seem to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was +possessed of a translation both of the Old and New Testament, +which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively, from +the second century of our era downwards: as early as A.D. 170 +[Greek: ho Syros] is cited by Melito on Genesis xxii. 13.' The +external evidence, however, does not seem to be quite strong +enough to bear out any very positive assertion. The appeal to the +Syriac by Melito [Endnote 322:4] is pretty conclusive as to the +existence of a Syriac Old Testament, which, being of Christian +origin, would probably be accompanied by a translation of the New. +But on the other hand, the language of Eusebius respecting +Hegesippus ([Greek: ek te tou kath' Hebraious euangeliou kai tou +Syriakou ... tina tithaesin]) seems to be rightly interpreted by +Routh as having reference not to any '_version_ of the Gospel, +but to a separate Syro-Hebraic (?) Gospel' like that according to +the Hebrews. In any case the Syriac Scriptures 'were familiarly +used and claimed as his national version by Ephraem of Edessa' +(299-378 A.D.) as well as by Aphraates in writings dating A.D. 337 +and 344 [Endnote 323:1]. + +A nearer approximation of date would be obtained by determining the +age of the version represented by the celebrated Curetonian +fragments. There is a strong tendency among critics, which seems +rapidly approaching to a consensus, to regard this as bearing the +same relation to the Peshito that the Old Latin does to Jerome's +Vulgate, that of an older unrevised to a later revised version. The +strength of the tendency in this direction may be seen by the very +cautious and qualified opinion expressed in the second edition of his +Introduction by Dr. Scrivener, who had previously taken a decidedly +antagonistic view, and also by the fact that Mr. M'Clellan, who is +usually an ally of Dr. Scrivener, here appears on the side of his +opponents [Endnote 323:2]. All the writers who have hitherto been +mentioned place either the Curetonian Syriac or the Peshito in the +second century, and the majority, as we have seen, the Curetonian. +Dr. Tregelles, on a comparative examination of the text, affirms that +'the Curetonian Syriac presents such a text as we might have +concluded would be current in the second century' [Endnote 323:3]. +English text criticism is probably on the whole in advance of +Continental; but it may be noted that Bleek (who however was +imperfectly acquainted with the Curetonian form of the text) yet +asserts that the Syriac version 'belongs without doubt to the second +century A.D.' [Endnote 324:1] Reuss [Endnote 324:2] places it at the +beginning, Hilgenfeld towards the end [Endnote 324:3], of the third +century. + +The question as to the age of the version is not necessarily +identical with that as to the age of the particular form of it +preserved in Cureton's fragments. This would hold the same sort of +relation to the original text of the version that (e.g.) a, or b, +or c--any primitive codex of the version--holds to the original +text of the Old Latin. It also appears that the translation into +Syriac of the different Gospels, conspicuously of St. Matthew's, +was made by different hands and at different times [Endnote +324:4]. Bearing these considerations in mind, we should still be +glad to know what answer those who assign the Curetonian text to +the second century make to the observation that it contains the +reading [Greek: Baethabara] in John i. 28 which is generally +assumed to be not older than Origen [Endnote 324:5]. On the other +hand, the Curetonian, like the Old Latin, still has in John vii. 8 +[Greek: ouk] for [Greek: oupo]--a change which, according to Dr. +Scrivener [Endnote 324:6], 'from the end of the third century +downwards was very generally and widely diffused.' This whole set +of questions needs perhaps a more exhaustive discussion than it +has obtained hitherto [Endnote 324:7]. + +The third version that may be mentioned is the Egyptian. In regard +to this Dr. Lightfoot says [Endnote 325:1], that 'we should +probably not be exaggerating if we placed one or both of the +principal Egyptian versions, the Memphitic and the Thebaic, or at +least parts of them, before the close of the second century.' In +support of this statement he quotes Schwartz, the principal +authority on the subject, 'who will not be suspected of any +theological bias.' The historical notices on which the conclusion +is founded are given in Scrivener's 'Introduction.' If we are to +put a separate estimate upon these, it would be perhaps that the +version was made in the second century somewhat more probably than +not; it was certainly not made later than the first half of the +third [Endnote 325:2]. + +Putting this version however on one side, the facts that have to +be explained are these. Towards the end of the second century we +find the four Gospels in general circulation and invested with +full canonical authority, in Gaul, at Rome, in the province of +Africa, at Alexandria, and in Syria. Now if we think merely of the +time that would be taken in the transcription and dissemination of +MSS., and of the struggle that works such as the Gospels would +have to go through before they could obtain recognition, and still +more an exclusive recognition, this alone would tend to overthrow +any such theory as that one of the Gospels, the fourth, was not +composed before 150 A.D., or indeed anywhere near that date. + +But this is not by any means all. It is merely the first step in a +process that, quite independently of the other external evidence, +thrusts the composition of the Gospels backwards and backwards to +a date certainly as early as that which is claimed for them. + +Let us define a little more closely the chronological bearings of +the subject. There is a decidedly preponderant probability that +the Muratorian fragment was not written much later than 170 A.D. +Irenaeus, as we have seen, was writing in the decade 180-190 A.D. +But his evidence is surely valid for an earlier date than this. He +is usually supposed to have been born about the year 140 A.D. +[Endnote 326:1], and the way in which he describes his relations +to Polycarp will not admit of a date many years later. But his +strong sense of the continuity of Church doctrine and the +exceptional veneration that he accords to the Gospels seem alone +to exclude the supposition that any of them should have been +composed in his own lifetime. He is fond of quoting the +'Presbyters,' who connected his own age with that, if not of the +Apostles, yet of Apostolic men. Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, whom he +succeeded, was more than ninety years old at the time of his +martyrdom in the persecution of A.D. 177 [Endnote 326:2], and +would thus in his boyhood be contemporary with the closing years +of the last Evangelist. Irenaeus also had before him a number of +writings--some, e.g. the works of the Marcosians, in addition to +those that have been discussed in the course of this work--in +which our Gospels are largely quoted, and which, to say the least, +were earlier than his own time of writing. + +Clement of Alexandria began to flourish, ([Greek: egnorizeto]) +[Endnote 327:1], in the reign of Commodus (180-190 A.D.), and had +obtained a still wider celebrity as head of the Catechetical +School of Alexandria in the time of Severus [Endnote 327:2] (193- +211). The opinions therefore to which he gives expression in his +works of this date were no doubt formed at a earlier period. He +too appeals to the tradition of which he had been himself a +recipient. He speaks of his teachers, 'those blessed and truly +memorable men,' one in Greece, another in Magna Graecia, a third +in Coele-Syria, a fourth in Egypt, a fifth in Assyria, a sixth in +Palestine, to whom the doctrine of the Apostles had been handed +down from father to son [Endnote 327:3]. + +Tertullian is still bolder. In his controversy with Marcion he +confidently claims as on his side the tradition of the Apostolic +Churches. By it is guaranteed the Gospel of St. Luke which he is +defending, and not only that, but the other Gospels [Endnote +327:4]. In one passage Tertullian even goes so far as to send his +readers to the Churches of Corinth, Philippi, &c. for the very +autographs ('authenticae literae') of St. Paul's Epistles [Endnote +327:5]. But this is merely a characteristic flourish of rhetoric. +All for which the statements of Tertullian may safely be said to +vouch is, that the Gospels had held their 'prerogative' position +within his memory and that of most members of the Church to which +he belonged. + +But the evidence of the Fathers is most decisive when it is +unconscious. That the Gospels as used by the Christian writers at +the end of the first century, so far from being of recent +composition, had already a long history behind them, is nothing +less than certain. At this date they exhibit a text which bears +the marks of frequent transcription and advanced corruption. +'Origen's,' says Dr. Scrivener [Endnote 328:1], 'is the highest +name among the critics and expositors of the early Church; he is +perpetually engaged in the discussion of various readings of the +New Testament, and employs language in describing the then state +of the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even to its +present condition with the changes which sixteen more centuries +must needs have produced ... Respecting the sacred autographs, +their fate or their continued existence, he seems to have had no +information, and to have entertained no curiosity: they had simply +passed by and were out of his reach. Had it not been for the +diversities of copies in all the Gospels on other points (he +writes) he should not have ventured to object to the authenticity +of a certain passage (Matt. xix. 19) on internal grounds: "But +now," saith he, "great in truth has become the diversity of +copies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from the +evil daring of some who correct what is written, or from those who +in correcting add or take away what they think fit."' This is +respecting the MSS. of one region only, and now for another +[Endnote 328:2]: 'It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in +sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has +ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it +was composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole +Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior +manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens +thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.' +Possibly this is an exaggeration, but no one will maintain that it +is a very large exaggeration of the facts. + +I proceed to give a few examples which serve to bring out the +antiquity of the text. And first from Irenaeus. + +There is a very remarkable passage in the work Against Heresies +[Endnote 329:1], bearing not indeed directly upon the Gospels, but +upon another book of the New Testament, and yet throwing so much +light upon the condition of the text in Irenaeus' time that it may +be well to refer to it here. In discussing the signification of +the number of the beast in Rev. xiii. 18, Irenaeus already found +himself confronted by a variety of reading: some MSS. with which +he was acquainted read 616 ([Greek: chis']) for 666 ([Greek: chxs']). +Irenaeus himself was not in doubt that the latter was the +true reading. He says that it was found in all the 'good and +ancient copies,' and that it was further attested by 'those who +had seen John face to face.' He thinks that the error was due to +the copyists, who had substituted by mistake the letter [Greek: i] +for [Greek: x]. He adds his belief that God would pardon those who +had done this without any evil motive. + +Here we have opened out a kind of vista extending back almost to +the person of St. John himself. There is already a multiplicity of +MSS., and of these some are set apart 'as good and ancient' +([Greek: en pasi tois spoudaiois kai archaiois antigraphois]). The +method by which the correct reading had to be determined was as +much historical as it is with us at the present day. + +A not dissimilar state of things is indicated somewhat less explicitly +in regard to the first Gospel. In the text of Matt. i. 18 all the Greek +MSS., with one exception, read, [Greek: tou de Iaesou Christou hae +genesis outos aen], B alone has [Greek: tou de Christou Iaesou]. The +Greek of D is wanting at this point, but the Latin, d, reads with the +best codices of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Curetonian Syriac, +'Christi autem generatio sic erat' (or an equivalent). Now Irenaeus +quotes this passage three times. In the first passage [Endnote 330:1] +the original Greek text of Irenaeus has been preserved in a quotation of +Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (the context also by Anastasius +Sinaita, but these words appear to be omitted); and the reading of +Germanus corresponds to that of the great mass of MSS. This however is +almost certainly false, as the ancient Latin translation of Irenaeus has +'Christi autem generatio,' and it was extremely natural for a copyist to +substitute the generally received text, especially in a combination of +words that was so familiar. Irenaeus leaves no doubt as to his own +reading on the next occasion when he quotes the passage, as he does +twice over. Here he says expressly: 'Ceterum, potuerat dicere Matthaeus: +_Jesu vero generatio sic erat_; sed praevidens Spiritus sanctus +depravatores, et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum +ait: _Christi autem generatio sic erat_' [Endnote 330:2]. Irenaeus +founds an argument upon this directed against the heretics who supposed +that the Christus and Jesus were not identical, but that Jesus was the +son of Mary, upon whom the aeon Christus afterwards descended. In +opposition to these Irenaeus maintains that the Christus and Jesus are +one and the same person. + +There is a division of opinion among modern critics as to which of +the two readings is to be admitted into the text; Griesbach, +Lachmann, Tischendorf (eighth edition), and Scrivener support the +reading of the MSS.; Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and M'Clellan +prefer that of Irenaeus. The presence of this reading in the Old +Latin and Curetonian Syriac proves its wide diffusion. At the same +time it is clear that Irenaeus himself was aware of the presence +of the other reading in some copies which he regarded as bearing +the marks of heretical depravation. + +It is unfortunate that fuller illustration cannot be given from +Irenaeus, but the number of the quotations from the Gospels of +which the Greek text still remains is not large, and where we have +only the Latin interpretation we cannot be sure that the actual +text of Irenaeus is before us. Much uncertainty is thus raised. +For instance, a doubt is expressed by the editors of Irenaeus +whether the words 'without a cause' ([Greek: eikae]--sine caussa) +in the quotation of Matt. v. 22 [Endnote 331:1] belong to the +original text or not. Probably they did so, as they are found in +the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac and in Western authorities +generally. They are wanting however in B, in Origen, and 'in the +true copies' according to Jerome, &c. The words are expunged from +the sacred text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and +M'Clellan. There is a less weight of authority for their +retention. In any case the double reading was certainly current at +the end of the second century, as the words are found in Irenaeus +and omitted by Tertullian. + +The elaborately varied readings of Matt. xi. 25-27 and Matt. xix. +16, 17 there can be little doubt are taken from the canonical +text. They are both indeed found in a passage (Adv. Haer. i. 20. +2, 3) where Irenaeus is quoting the heretical Marcosians; and +various approximations are met with, as we have seen, under +ambiguous circumstances in Justin, the Clementine Homilies, and +Marcion. But similar approximations are also found in Irenaeus +himself (speaking in his own person), in Clement of Alexandria, +Origen, and Epiphanius, who are undoubtedly quoting from our +Gospels; so that the presence of the variations at that early date +is proved, though in the first case they receive none, and in the +second very limited, support from the extant MSS. [Endnote 332:1] +A variety of reading that was in the first instance accidental +seemed to afford a handle either to the orthodox or to heretical +parties, and each for a time maintained its own; but with the +victory of the orthodox cause the heretical reading gave way, and +was finally suppressed before the time at which the extant MSS. +were written. + +These are really conspicuous instances of the confusion of text +already existing, but I forbear to press them because, though I do +not doubt myself the correctness of the account that has been +given of them, still there is just the ambiguity alluded to, and I +do not wish to seem to assume the truth of any particular view. + +For minor variations the text of Irenaeus cannot be used +satisfactorily, because it is always doubtful whether the Latin +version has correctly reproduced the original. And even in those +comparatively small portions where the Greek is still preserved, +it has come down to us through the medium of other writers, and we +have just had an instance how easily the distinctive features of +the text might be obliterated. + +Neither of these elements of uncertainty exists in the case of +Tertullian; and therefore, as the text of his New Testament +quotations has been edited in a very exact and careful form, I +shall illustrate what has been said respecting the corruptions +introduced in the second century chiefly from him. The following +may be taken as a few of the instances in which the existence of a +variety of reading can be verified by a comparison of Tertullian's +text with that of the MSS. The brackets (as before) indicate +partial support. + +Matt. iii. 8. Dignos poenitentiae fructus (_Pudic_. 10). +[Greek: Karpous axious taes metanoias] Textus Receptus, L, U, 33, +a, g'2, m, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., etc. [Greek: Karpon axion t. met]. +B, C (D), [Greek: D], 1, etc.; Vulg., b, c, d, f, ff'1, Syr. Hcl., +Memph., Theb., Iren., Orig., etc. [Tertullian himself has the +singular in _Hermog._ 12, so that he seems to have had both +readings in his copies.] + +Matt. v. 4, 5. The received order 'beati lugentes' and 'beati +mites' is followed in _Pat_. 11 [Rönsch p. 589 and Tisch., +correcting Treg.], So [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, rel., b, f, +Syrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm., Aeth. Order inverted in D, 33, +Vulg., a, c, ff'1, g'1.2, h, k, l, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus., +Hil. + +Matt. v. 16. 'Luceant opera vestra' for 'luceat lux vestra,' Tert. +(bis). So Hil., Ambr., Aug., Celest. [see above, p. 134] against +all MSS. and versions. + +Matt. v. 28. Qui viderit ad concupiscentiam, etc. This verse is +cited six times by Tertullian, and Rönsch says (p. 590) that 'in +these six citations almost every variant of the Greek text is +represented.' + +Matt. v. 48. Qui est in caelis: [Greek: ho en tois ouranois], +Textus Receptus, with [Greek: Delta symbol], E'2, rel., b, c, d, +g'1, h, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., Clem., [Greek: ho ouranios], [Hebrew: +Aleph symbol], B, D'2, Z, and i, 33, Vulg., a, f, etc. + +Matt. vi. 10. Fiat voluntas tua in caelis et in terra, omitting +'sicut.' So D, a, b, c, Aug. (expressly, 'some codices'). + +Matt. xi. ii. Nemo major inter natos feminarum Joanne baptizatore. + +'The form of this citation, which neither corresponds with Matt. +xi. 11 nor with Luke vii. 28, coincides almost exactly with the +words which in both the Greek and Latin text of the Codex Bezae +form the conclusion of Luke vii. 26, [Greek: [hoti] oudeis meizon +en gennaetois gunaikon [prophaetaes] Ioannou tou baptistou]' +(Rönsch, p. 608). + +Matt. xiii. 15. Sanem: [Greek: iasômai], K, U, X, [Greek: Delta], +I; Latt. (exc. d), Syr. Crt.; [Greek: iasomai], B, C, D, [Hebrew: +Aleph symbol], rel. + +Matt. xv. 26. Non est (only), so Eus. in Ps. 83; [Greek: exestin], +D, a, b, c, ff, g'1, 1, Syr. Crt., Orig., Hil.; [Greek: ouk estin +kalon], B, C, [Hebrew aleph], rel., Vulg., c, f, g'2, k, Orig. + +There are of course few quotations that can be distinctly +identified as taken from St. Mark, but among these may be +noticed:-- + +Mark i. 24. Scimus: [Greek: oidamen se], [Hebrew aleph], L, +[Greek: Delta], Memph., Iren., Orig., Eus.; [Greek: oida se tis +ei], A, B, C, D, rel., Latt., Syrr. + +Mark ix. 7. Hunc audite: [Greek: autou akouete], A, X, rel., b, f, +Syrr.; [Greek: akouete autou], [Hebrew: aleph] B, C, D, L, a, c, +ff'1, etc. [This may be however from Matt. xvii. 5, where +Tertullian's reading has somewhat stronger support.] + +The variations in quotations from St. Luke have been perhaps +sufficiently illustrated in the chapter on Marcion. We may +therefore omit this Gospel and pass to St. John. A very remarkable +reading meets us at the outset. + +John i. 13. Non ex sanguine nec ex voluntate carnis nec ex +voluntate viri, sed ex deo natus est. The Greek of all the MSS. +and Versions, with the single exception of b of the Old Latin, is +[Greek: oi egennaethaesan]. A sentence is thus applied to Christ +that was originally intended to be applied to the Christian. +Tertullian (_De Carne Christ._ 19, 24), though he also had the +right reading before him, boldly accuses the Valentinians of a +falsification, and lays stress upon the reading which he adopts as +proof of the veritable birth of Christ from a virgin. The same +text is found in b (Codex Veronensis) of the Old Latin, Pseudo- +Athanasius, the Latin translator of Origen's commentary on St. +Matthew, in Augustine, and three times in Irenaeus. The same codex +has, like Tertullian, the singular ex sanguine for the plural +[Greek: ex ahimaton]: so Eusebius and Hilary. + +John iii. 36. Manebit (=[Greek: meneî], for [Greek: ménei]). So b, +e, g, Syr. Pst., Memph., Aeth., Iren., Cypr.; against a, c, d, f, +ff, Syrr. Crt. and Hcl., etc. + +John v. 3, 4. The famous paragraph which describes the moving of +the waters of the pool of Bethesda was found in Tertullian's MS. +It is also found in the mass of MSS., in the Old Latin and +Vulgate, in Syrr. Pst. and Jer., and in some MSS. of Memph. It is +omitted in [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, D (v. 4), f, l, Syr. +Crt., Theb., Memph. (most MSS.). Tertullian gives the name of the +pool as Bethsaida with B, Vulg., c, Syr. Hcl., Memph. Most of the +authorities read [Greek: baethesda]. [Greek: baethzatha, +baezatha], Berzeta, Belzatha, and Betzeta are also found. + +John v. 43. Recepistis, perf. for pres. ([Greek: lambanete]). So +a, b, Iren., Vigil., Ambr., Jer. + +John vi. 39. Non perdam ex eo quicquam. Here 'quicquam' is an +addition (=[Greek: maeden]), found in D, a, b, ff, Syr. Crt. + +John vi. 51. Et panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi, caro mea +est. This almost exactly corresponds with the reading of [Hebrew: +Aleph], [Greek: ho artos hon ego doso huper taes tou kosmou zoaes, +hae sarx mou estin]. Similarly, but with inversion of the last two +clauses ([Greek: hae sarx mou estin huper taes tou kosmou zoaes]), +B, C, D and T, 33, Vulg., a, b, c, e, m, Syr. Crt., Theb., Aeth., +Orig., Cypr. The received text is [Greek: kai ho artos [de] dae +ego doso, hae sarx mou estin aen ego doso huper taes tou kosmou +zoaes], after E, G, H, K, M, S, etc. + +John xii. 30. Venit (= [Greek: aelthen] for [Greek: gegonen]), +with D (Tregelles), [also a, b, l, n (?), Vulg. (_fuld_.), +Hil., Victorin.; Rönsch]. + +The instances that have been here given are all, or nearly all, +false readings on the part of Tertullian. It is, of course, only +as such that they are in point for the present enquiry. Some few +of those mentioned have been admitted into the text by certain +modern editors. Thus, on Matt. v. 4, 5 Tertullian's reading finds +support in Westcott and Hort: and M'Clellan, against Tischendorf +and Tregelles. [This instance perhaps should not be pressed. I +leave it standing, because it shows interesting relations between +Tertullian and the various forms of the Old Latin.] The passage +omitted in John v. 3, 4 is argued for strenuously by Mr. M'Clellan, +with more hesitation by Dr. Scrivener, and in 'Supernatural Religion' +(sixth edition), against Tregelles, Tischendorf, Milligan, Lightfoot, +Westcott and Hort. In the same passage Bethsaida is read by Lachmann +(margin) and by Westcott and Hort. In John vi. 51 the reading of +Tertullian and the Sinaitic Codex is defended by Tischendorf; the +approximate reading of B, C, D, &c. is admitted by Lachmann, Tregelles, +Milligan, Westcott and Hort, and the received text has an apologist +in Mr. M'Clellan (with Tholuck and Wordsworth). On these points then +it should be borne in mind that Tertullian _may_ present the true +reading; on all the others he is pretty certainly wrong. + +Let us now proceed to analyse roughly these erroneous (in three +cases _doubtfully_ erroneous) readings. We shall find [Endnote 336:1] +that Tertullian-- + + _Agrees with_ _Differs from_ +x (Codex Sinaiticus) in Mark | in Matt. iii. 18, v. 16, v. 48, +i. 2 4, John vi. 51. | vi. 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. + | 26, Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, + | v. 3, 43, v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. +A (Codex Alexandrinus) in |A in Mark i. 24, John i. 13, + Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4. | v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. +B (Codex Vaticanus) in John |B in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, vi. + v. 2, (vi. 51). | 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. 26, + | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + | v. 3,4, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. +C (Codex Ephraemi--somewhat |C in Matt. iii. 8, xi. 11, xiii. + fragmentary) in John | 15, xv. 26, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, + (vi. 51). | John i. 13, v. 3, 4, vi. 39. +D (Codex Bezae--in some |D in Matt. (iii. 8), v. 16, v. 48, +places wanting) in Matt. vi. | xiii. 15, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, +10, Xi. 11, (xv. 26), John (vi. | John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 4, v. 43. +51), xii. 30. | + | + GREEK FATHERS. | +Clement of Alexandria, in Matt. | +v. 16, v. 48. | +Origen, in Matt. (xv. 26), Mark |Origen, in Matt. iii. 8, (xv. 26), + i. 24, John i. 13 (Latin trans- | + lator), (vi. 51). | +Eusebius, in Matt. xv. 26, Mark | +i. 24, John i. 13 (partially). | + | + LATIN FATHERS. | +Irenaeus, in Mark i. 24, John |Irenaeus in Matt. iii. 8. + i. 13 (ter), iii. 36, v. 43. | +Cyprian, in John iii. 36, (vi. 51). | +Augustine, in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10. | +Ambrose, in Matt. v. 16, John v. 43. | +Hilary, in Matt. v. 16, (xv. 26), | + John xii. 30. | +Others, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, | + John i. 13, v. 43, xii. 30. | + | + VERSIONS. | +Old Latin-- | +a (Codex Vercellensis), in Matt. |a, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, xi. 11, + (iii. 8), vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + 26), John v. 3, 4, v. 43, (vi. | iii. 36. + 51), xii. 30. | +b (Codex Veronensis), in Matt. |b, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11, + v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 36), | Mark i. 24. + Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, | + iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, | + (vi. 51), xii. 30. | +c (Codex Colbertinus), in Matt. |c, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11, + v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 26), | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + John v. 3, 4, (vi. 51). | iii. 36, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. +f (Codex Brixianus), in Matt. |f, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, + xiii. 15, Mark ix. 7. | vi. 10, xi. 10, xv. 26, Mark + | i. 24, John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 3, + | 4, v. 43, vi. 39, vi. 51, xii. 30. +Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8, |Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8, + vi. 10, Xiii. 5, (xv. 26), John | v. 16, v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, + iii. 36, v. 3, 4, vi. 39, (vi. 51),| Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + xii. 30. | iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, vi. 39, + | vi. 51, xii. 30. +Vulgate, in Matt. xiii. 15, John |Vulgate, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, + v. 3, 4, (vi. 51), xii. 30 | v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, xv. 26, + (_fuld._). | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + | iii. 36, v. 43, vi. 39. +Syriac-- | +Syr. Crt. (fragmentary), in |Syr. Crt., in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10, + Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, xiii. 15, | xi. 11, John (i. 13, ? Tregelles) + (xv. 26), John (i. 13, ? Crowfoot),| iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43. + vi. 39, (vi. 51.). | +Syr. Pst., in Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, |Syr. Pst., in Matt. vi. 10, Mark + Mark ix. 7, John iii. 36, v. 3, 4. | i. 24, John i. 13, (vi. 51), + | xii. 30 + +[The evidence of this and the following versions is only given where it +is either expressly stated or left to be clearly inferred by the editors.] + +Egyptian-- +Thebaic, in John (vi. 51). |Thebaic, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, + | Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4. +Memphitic, in Mark i. 24, John |Memphitic, in Matt. iii. 8, v. + iii. 36. | 16, (v. 48), Mark ix. 7, John + | v. 3, 4, vi. 51. + +Summing up the results numerically they would be something of this +kind:-- + + UNCIAL MSS. + + [Hebrew: A B C D + Alef] + +Agreement 2 2 2 1 5 +Difference 13 5 14 9 10 + + + GREEK FATHERS. + + Clement + of + Alexandria. Origen. Eusebius. +Agreement 1 4 3 +Difference 0 2 0 + + + LATIN FATHERS. + + Irenaeus. Cyprian. Augustine. Ambrose. Hilary. Others. +Agreement 4 2 2 2 3 5 +Difference 1 0 0 0 0 0 + + + VERSIONS. + + OLD LATIN. VULGATE. + a b c f rel. +Agreement 8 11 6 2 9 4 +Difference 7 4 10 14 14 12 + + + SYRIAC. EGYPTIAN. + Crt. Pst. Theb. Memph. +Agreement 7 5 1 2 +Difference 7 5 4 6 + + +Now the phenomena here, as on other occasions when we have had to +touch upon text criticism, are not quite simple and straightforward. +It must be remembered too that our observations extend only over +a very narrow area. Within that area they are confined to the cases +where Tertullian has _gone wrong_; whereas, in order to anything +like a complete induction, all the cases of various reading ought +to be considered. Some results, however, of a rough and approximate +kind may be said to be reached; and I think that these will be +perhaps best exhibited if, premising that they are thus rough +and approximate, we throw them into the shape of a genealogical tree. + + Tert. b + \ / + \/ O.L. (a.c. &c.) + \ / + \/ Syr. Crt. + \ / + Tert. O.L.\ / + \/ + Greek Fathers. / + \ Tert. O.L./ + \ Syr. Crt./ + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / +Best Alexandrine Authorities. \ / + \ \ / Western. + \ / + \ Greek Fathers / + \ Memph. Theb. / + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / + || + Alexandrine. || Western. + || + /\ + The Sacred Autographs. + + +In accordance with the sketch here given we may present the +history of the text, up to the time when it reached Tertullian, +thus. First we have the sacred autographs, which are copied for +some time, we need not say immaculately, but without change on the +points included in the above analysis. Gradually a few errors slip +in, which are found especially in the Egyptian, versions and in +the works of some Alexandrine and Palestinian Fathers. But in time +a wider breach is made. The process of corruption becomes more +rapid. We reach at last that strange document which, through more +or less remote descent, became the parent of the Curetonian Syriac +on the one hand and of the Old Latin on the other. These two lines +severally branch off. The Old Latin itself divides. One of its +copies in particular (b) seems to represent a text that has a +close affinity to that of Tertullian, and among the group of +manuscripts to which it belongs is that which Tertullian himself +most frequently and habitually used. + +Strictly speaking indeed there can be no true genealogical tree. +The course of descent is not clear and direct all the way. There +is some confusion and some crossing and recrossing of the lines. +Thus, for instance, there is the curious coincidence of Tertullian +with [Hebrew: Aleph], a member of a group that had long seemed to +be left behind, in John vi. 51. This however, as it is only on a +point of order and that in a translation, may very possibly be +accidental; I should incline to think that the reading of the +Greek Codex from which Tertullian's Latin was derived agreed +rather with that of B, C, D, &c., and these phenomena would +increase the probability that these manuscripts and Tertullian had +really preserved the original text. If that were the case--and it +is the conclusion arrived at by a decided majority of the best +editors--there would then be no considerable difficulty in regard +to the relation between Tertullian and the five great Uncials, for +the reading of Mark ix. 7 is of much less importance. Somewhat +more difficult to adjust would be Tertullian's relations to the +different forms of the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac. In one +instance, Matt. xi. 11 (or Luke vii. 26), Tertullian seems to +derive his text from the Dd branch rather than the b branch of the +Old Latin. In another (Matt. iii. 8) he seems to overleap b and +most copies of the Old Latin altogether and go to the Curetonian +Syriac. How, too, did he come to have the paraphrastic reading of +Matt. v. 16 which is found in no MSS. or versions but in Justin +(approximately), Clement of Alexandria, and several Latin Fathers? +The paraphrase might naturally enough occur to a single writer +here or there, but the extent of the coincidence is remarkable. +Perhaps we are to see here another sign of the study bestowed by +the Fathers upon the writings of their predecessors leading to an +unconscious or semi-conscious reproduction of their deviations. It +is a noticeable fact that in regard to the order of the clauses in +Matt. v. 4, 5, Tertullian has preserved what is probably the right +reading along with b alone, the other copies of the Old Latin (all +except the revised f) with the Curetonian Syriac having gone +wrong. On the whole the complexities and cross relations are less, +and the genealogical tree holds good to a greater extent, than we +might have been prepared for. The hypothesis that Tertullian used +a manuscript in the main resembling b of the Old Latin satisfies +most elements of the problem. + +But the merest glance at these phenomena must be enough to show +that the Tübingen theory, or any theory which attributes a late +origin to our Gospels, is out of the question. To bring the text +into the state in which it is found in the writings of Tertullian, +a century is not at all too long a period to allow. In fact I +doubt whether any subsequent century saw changes so great, though +we should naturally suppose that corruption would proceed at an +advancing rate for every fresh copy that was made. The phenomena +that have to be accounted for are not, be it remembered, such as +might be caused by the carelessness of a single scribe. They are +spread over whole groups of MSS. together. We can trace the +gradual accessions of corruption at each step as we advance in the +history of the text. A certain false reading comes in at such a +point and spreads over all the manuscripts that start from that; +another comes in at a further stage and vitiates succeeding copies +there; until at last a process of correction and revision sets in; +recourse is had to the best standard manuscripts, and a purer text +is recovered by comparison with these. It is precisely such a text +that is presented by the Old Latin Codex f, which, we find +accordingly, shows a maximum of difference from Tertullian. A +still more systematic revision, though executed--if we are to +judge from the instances brought to our notice--with somewhat +more reserve, is seen in Jerome's Vulgate. + +It seems unnecessary to dilate upon this point. I will only +venture to repeat the statement which I made at starting; that if +the whole of the Christian literature for the first three quarters +of the second century could be blotted out, and Irenaeus and +Tertullian alone remained, as well as the later manuscripts with +which to compare them, there would still be ample proof that the +latest of our Gospels cannot overstep the bounds of the first +century. The abundant indications of internal evidence are thus +confirmed, and the age and date of the Synoptic Gospels, I think +we may say, within approximate limits, established. + +But we must not forget that there is a double challenge to be met. +The first part of it--that which relates to the evidence for the +existence of the Gospels--has been answered. It remains to +consider how far the external evidence for the Gospels goes to +prove their authenticity. It may indeed well be asked how the +external evidence can be expected to prove the authenticity of +these records. It does so, to a considerable extent, indirectly by +throwing them back into closer contact with the facts. It also +tends to establish the authority in which they were held, +certainly in the last quarter of the second century, and very +probably before. By this time the Gospels were acknowledged to be +all that is now understood by the word 'canonical.' They were +placed upon the same footing as the Old Testament Scriptures. They +were looked up to with the same reverence and regarded as +possessing the same Divine inspiration. We may trace indeed some +of the steps by which this position was attained. The [Greek: +gegraptai] of the Epistle of Barnabas, the public reading of the +Gospels in the churches mentioned by Justin, the [Greek: to +eiraemenon] of Tatian, the [Greek: guriakai graphai] of Dionysius +of Corinth, all prepare the way for the final culmination in the +Muratorian Canon and Irenaeus. So complete had the process been +that Irenaeus does not seem to know of a time when the authority +of the Gospels had been less than it was to him. Yet the process +had been, of course, gradual. The canonical Gospels had to compete +with several others before they became canonical. They had to make +good their own claims and to displace rival documents; and they +succeeded. It is a striking instance of the 'survival of the +fittest.' That they were really the fittest is confirmed by nearly +every fragment of the lost Gospels that remains, but it would be +almost sufficiently proved by the very fact that they survived. + +In this indirect manner I think that the external evidence bears +out the position assigned to the canonical Gospels. It has +preserved to us the judgment of the men of that time, and there is +a certain relative sense in which the maxim, 'Securus judicat +orbis terrarum,' is true. The decisions of an age, especially +decisions such as this where quite as much depended upon pious +feeling as upon logical reasoning, are usually sounder than the +arguments that are put forward to defend them. We should hardly +endorse the arguments by which Irenaeus proves _a priori_ the +necessity of a 'four-fold Gospel,' but there is real weight in the +fact that four Gospels and no more were accepted by him and others +like him. It is difficult to read without impatience the rough +words that are applied to the early Christian writers and to +contrast the self-complacency in which our own superior knowledge +is surveyed. If there is something in which they are behind us, +there is much also in which we are behind them. Among the many +things for which Mr. Arnold deserves our gratitude he deserves it +not least for the way in which he has singled out two sentences, +one from St. Augustine and the other from the Imitation, 'Domine +fecisti nos ad te et irrequietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat +in te,' and, 'Esto humilis et pacificus et erit tecum, Jesus.' The +men who could write thus are not to be despised. + +But beyond their more general testimony it is not clear what else +the early Fathers could be expected to do. They could not prove-- +at least their written remains that have come down to us could not +prove--that the Gospels were really written by the authors +traditionally assigned to them. When we say that the very names of +the first two Evangelists are not mentioned before a date that may +be from 120-166 (or 155) A.D. and the third and fourth not before +170-175 A.D., this alone is enough, without introducing other +elements of doubt, to show that the evidence must needs be +inconclusive. If the author of 'Supernatural Religion' undertook +to show this, he undertook a superfluous task. So much at least, +Mr. Arnold was right in saying, 'might be stated in a sentence and +proved in a page.' There is a presumption in favour of the +tradition, and perhaps, considering the relation of Irenaeus to +Polycarp and of Polycarp to St. John, we may say, a fairly strong +one; but we need now-a-days, to authenticate a document, closer +evidence than this. The cases are not quite parallel, and the +difference between them is decidedly in favour of Irenaeus, but if +Clement of Alexandria could speak of an Epistle written about 125 +A.D. is the work of the apostolic Barnabas the companion of St. +Paul [Endnote 346:1], we must not lay too much stress upon the +direct testimony of Irenaeus when he attributes the fourth Gospel +to the Apostle St. John. + +These are points for a different set of arguments to determine. +The Gospel itself affords sufficient indications as to the +position of its author. For the conclusion that he was a +Palestinian Jew, who had lived in Palestine before the destruction +of Jerusalem, familiar with the hopes and expectations of his +people, and himself mixed up with the events which he describes, +there is evidence of such volume and variety as seems exceedingly +difficult to resist. As I have gone into this subject at length +elsewhere [Endnote 347:1], and as, so far as I can see, no new +element has been introduced into the question by 'Supernatural +Religion,' I shall not break the unity of the present work by +considering the objections brought in detail. I am very ready to +recognise the ability with which many of these are stated, but it +is the ability of the advocate rather than of the impartial +critic. There is a constant tendency to draw conclusions much in +excess of the premisses. An observation, true in itself with a +certain qualification and restriction, is made in an unqualified +form, and the truth that it contains is exaggerated. Above all, +wherever there is a margin of ignorance, wherever a statement of +the Evangelist is not capable of direct and exact verification, +the doubt is invariably given against him and he is brought in +guilty either of ignorance or deception. I have no hesitation in +saying that if the principles of criticism applied to the fourth +Gospel--not only by the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' but by +some other writers of repute, such as Dr. Scholten--were applied +to ordinary history or to the affairs of every-day life, much that +is known actually to have happened could be shown on _a priori_ +grounds to be impossible. It is time that the extreme negative +school should justify more completely their canons of criticism. +As it is, the laxity of these repels many a thoughtful mind quite +as firmly convinced as they can be of the necessity of free +enquiry and quite as anxious to reconcile the different sides +of knowledge. The question is not one merely of freedom or +tradition, but of reason and logic; and until there is more +agreement as to what is reasonable and what the laws of logic +demand, the arguments are apt to run in parallel lines that never +meet [Endnote 348:1]. + +But, it is said, 'Miracles require exceptional evidence.' True: +exceptional evidence they both require and possess; but that evidence is +not external. Incomparably the strongest attestation to the Gospel +narratives is that which they bear to themselves. Miracles have +exceptional evidence because the non-miraculous portions of the +narrative with which they are bound up are exceptional. These carry +their truth stamped upon their face, and that truth is reflected back +upon the miracles. It is on the internal investigation of the Gospels +that the real issue lies. And this is one main reason why the belief of +mankind so little depends upon formal apologetics. We can all feel the +self- evidential force of the Gospel story; but who shall present it +adequately in words? We are reminded of the fate of him who thought the +ark of God was falling and put out his hand to steady it--and, for his +profanity, died. It can hardly be said that good intentions would be a +sufficient justification, because that a man should think himself fit +for the task would be in itself almost a sufficient sign that he was +mistaken. It is not indeed quite incredible that the qualifications +should one day be found. We seem almost to see that, with a slight +alteration of circumstances, a little different training in early life, +such an one has almost been among us. There are passages that make us +think that the author of 'Parochial and Plain Sermons' might have +touched even the Gospels with cogency that yet was not profane. But the +combination of qualities required is such as would hardly be found for +centuries together. The most fine and sensitive tact of piety would be +essential. With it must go absolute sincerity and singleness of purpose. +Any dash of mere conventionalism or self-seeking would spoil the whole. +There must be that clear illuminated insight that is only given to those +who are in a more than ordinary sense 'pure in heart.' And on the other +hand, along with these unique spiritual qualities must go a sound and +exact scientific training, a just perception of logical force and +method, and a wide range of knowledge. One of the great dangers and +drawbacks to the exercise of the critical faculty is that it tends to +destroy the spiritual intuition. And just in like manner the too great +reliance upon this intuition benumbs and impoverishes the critical +faculty. Yet, in a mind that should present at all adequately the +internal evidence of the Gospels, both should co-exist in equal balance +and proportion. We cannot say that there will never be such a mind, +but the asceticism of a life would be a necessary discipline for it +to go through, and that such a life as the world has seldom seen. + +In the meantime the private Christian may well be content with what he +has. 'If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether +it be of God.' + + + + + +CHAPTER XIV. + +CONCLUSION. + + +And now that we have come to the end of the purely critical +portion of this enquiry, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few +words on its general tendency and bearing. As critics we have only +the critical question to deal with. Certain evidence is presented +to us which it is our duty to weigh and test by reference to +logical and critical laws. It must stand or fall on its own +merits, and any considerations brought in from without will be +irrelevant to the question at issue. But after this is done we may +fairly look round and consider how our conclusion affects other +conclusions and in what direction it is leading us. If we look at +'Supernatural Religion' in this way we shall see that its tendency +is distinctly marked. Its attack will fall chiefly upon the middle +party in opinion. And it will play into the hands of the two +extreme parties on either side. There can be little doubt that +indirectly it will help the movement that is carrying so many into +Ultramontanism, and directly it is of course intended to win +converts to what may perhaps be called comprehensively Secularism. + +Now it is certainly true that the argument from consequences is +one that ought to be applied with great caution. Yet I am not at +all sure that it has not a real basis in philosophy as well as in +nature. The very existence of these two great parties, the +Ultramontane and the Secularist, over against each other, seems to +be it kind of standing protest against either of them. If +Ultramontanism is true, how is it that so many wise and good men +openly avow Secularism? If 'Secularism is true, how is it that so +many of the finest and highest minds take refuge from it--a +treacherous refuge, I allow--in Ultramontanism? There is +something in this more than a mere defective syllogism--more than +an insufficient presentation of the evidence. Truth, in the widest +sense, is that which is in accordance with the laws and conditions +of human nature. But where beliefs are so directly antithetical as +they are here, the repugnance and resistance which each is found +to cause in so large a number of minds is in itself a proof that +those laws and conditions are insufficiently complied with. To the +spectator, standing outside of both, this will seem to be easily +explained: the one sacrifices reason to faith; the other +sacrifices faith to reason. But there is abundant evidence to show +that both faith (meaning thereby the religious emotions) and +reason are ineradicable elements in the human mind. That which +seriously and permanently offends against either cannot be true. +For creatures differently constituted from man--either all reason +or all pure disembodied emotion--it might be otherwise; but, for +man, as he is, the epithet 'true' seems to be excluded from any +set of propositions that has such results. + +Even in the more limited sense, and confining the term to +propositions purely intellectual, there is, I think we must say, a +presumption against the truth of that which involves so deep and +wide a chasm in human nature. Without importing teleology, we +should naturally expect that the intellect and the emotions should +be capable of working harmoniously together. They do so in most +things: why should they not in the highest matters of all? If the +one set of opinions is anti-rational and the other anti-emotional, +as we see practically that they are, is not this in itself an +antecedent presumption against either of them? It may not be +enough to prove at once that the syllogism is defective: still +less is it a sufficient warrant for establishing an opposite +syllogism. But it does seem to be enough to give the scientific +reasoner pause, and to make him go over the line of his argument +again and again and yet again, with the suspicion that there is +(as how well there may be!) a flaw somewhere. + +It would not, I think, be difficult to point out such flaws +[Endnote 352:1]--some of them, as it appears, of considerable +magnitude. But the subject is one that would take us far away out +of our present course, and for its proper development would +require a technical knowledge of the processes of physical science +which I do not possess. Leaving this on one side, and regarding +them only in the abstract, the considerations stated above seem to +point to the necessity of something of the nature of a compromise. +And yet there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as compromise +in opinions. Compromise belongs to the world of practice; it is +only admitted by an illicit process into the world of thought. The +author of 'Supernatural Religion' is doubtless right in +deprecating that 'illogical zeal which flings to the pursuing +wolves of doubt and unbelief, scrap by scrap,' all the distinctive +doctrines of Christianity. Belief, it is true, must be ultimately +logical to stand. It must have an inner cohesion and inter- +dependence. It must start from a fixed principle. This has been, +and still is, the besetting weakness of the theology of mediation. +It is apt to form itself merely by stripping off what seem to be +excrescences from the outside, and not by radically reconstructing +itself, on a firmly established basis, from within. The difficulty +in such a process is to draw the line. There is a delusive +appearance of roundness and completeness in the creeds of those +who either accept everything or deny everything: though, even +here, there is, I think we may say, always, some little loophole +left of belief or of denial, which will inevitably expand until it +splits and destroys the whole structure. But the moment we begin +to meet both parties half way, there comes in that crucial +question: Why do you accept just so much and no more? Why do you +deny just so much and no more? [Endnote 354:1] + +It must, in candour, be confessed that the synthetic formula for the +middle party in opinion has not yet been found. Other parties have +their formulae, but none that will really bear examination. _Quod +semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus_, would do excellently if there +was any belief that had been held 'always, everywhere, and by all,' if +no discoveries had been made as to the facts, and if there had been no +advance in the methods of knowledge. The ultimate universality and the +absolute uniformity of physical antecedents has a plausible appearance +until it is seen that logically carried out it reduces men to machines, +annihilates responsibility, and involves conclusions on the assumption +of the truth of which society could not hold together for a single day. +If we abandon these Macedonian methods for unloosing the Gordian knot +of things and keep to the slow and laborious way of gradual induction, +then I think it will be clear that all opinions must be held on the +most provisional tenure. A vast number of problems will need to be +worked out before any can be said to be established with a pretence to +finality. And the course which the inductive process is taking supplies +one of the chief 'grounds of hope' to those who wish to hold that +middle position of which I have been speaking. The extreme theories +which from time to time have been advanced have not been able to hold +their ground. No doubt they may have done the good that extreme +theories usually do, in bringing out either positively or negatively +one side or another of the truth; but in themselves they have been +rejected as at once inadequate and unreal solutions of the facts. First +we had the Rationalism (properly so called) of Paulus, then the +Mythical hypothesis of Strauss, and after that the 'Tendenz-kritik' of +Baur. But what candid person does not feel that each and all of these +contained exaggerations more incredible than the difficulties which +they sought to remove? There has been on each of the points raised a +more or less definite ebb in the tide. The moderate conclusion is seen +to be also the reasonable conclusion. And not least is this the case +with the enquiry on which we have been just engaged. The author of +'Supernatural Religion' has overshot the mark very much indeed. There +is, as we have seen, a certain truth in some things that he has said, +but the whole sum of truth is very far from bearing out his conclusions. + +When we look up from these detailed enquiries and lift up our eyes +to a wider horizon we shall be able to relegate them to their true +place. The really imposing witness to the truth of Christianity is +that which is supplied by history on the one hand, and its own +internal attractiveness and conformity to human nature on the +other. Strictly speaking, perhaps, these are but two sides of the +same thing. It is in history that the laws of human nature assume +a concrete shape and expression. The fact that Christianity has +held its ground in the face of such long-continued and hostile +criticism is a proof that it must have some deeply-seated fitness +and appropriateness for man. And this goes a long way towards +saying that it is true. It is a theory of things that is being +constantly tested by experience. But the results of experience are +often expressed unconsciously. They include many a subtle +indication that the mind has followed but cannot reproduce to +itself in set terms. All the reasons that go to form a judge's +decision do not appear in his charge. Yet there we have a select +and highly-trained mind working upon matter that presents no very +great degree of complexity. When we come to a question so wide, so +subtle and complex as Christianity, the individual mind ceases to +be competent to sit in judgment upon it. It becomes necessary to +appeal to a much more extended tribunal, and the verdict of that +tribunal will be given rather by acts than in words. Thus there +seems to have always been a sort of half-conscious feeling in +men's minds that there was more in Christianity than the arguments +for it were able to bring out. In looking back over the course +that apologetics have taken, we cannot help being struck by a +disproportion between the controversial aspect and the practical. +It will probably on the whole be admitted that the balance of +argument has in the past been usually somewhat on the side of the +apologists; but the argumentative victory has seldom if ever been +so decisive as quite to account for the comparatively undisturbed +continuity of the religious life. It was in the height of the +Deist controversy that Wesley and Whitfield began to preach, and +they made more converts by appealing to the emotions than probably +Butler did by appealing to the reason. + +A true philosophy must take account of these phenomena. Beliefs +which issue in that peculiarly fine and chastened and tender +spirit which is the proper note of Christianity, cannot, under any +circumstances, be dismissed as 'delusion.' Surely if any product +of humanity is true and genuine, it is to be found here. There are +indeed truths which find a response in our hearts without +apparently going through any logical process, not because they are +illogical, but because the scales of logic are not delicate and +sensitive enough to weigh them. + +'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall +not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' 'I will arise and go to my +father, and will say unto him: Father, I have sinned against +heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy +son.' 'Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I +will give you rest.' The plummet of science--physical or +metaphysical, moral or critical--has never sounded so deep as +sayings such as these. We may pass them over unnoticed in our +Bibles, or let them slip glibly and thoughtlessly from the tongue; +but when they once really come home, there is nothing to do but to +bow the head and cover the face and exclaim with the Apostle, +'Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.' + +And yet there is that other side of the question which is represented +in 'Supernatural Religion,' and this too must have justice done to it. +There is an intellectual, as well as a moral and spiritual, synthesis +of things. Only it should be remembered that this synthesis has to +cover an immense number of facts of the most varied and intricate kind, +and that at present the nature of the facts themselves is in many cases +very far from being accurately ascertained. We are constantly reminded +in reading 'Supernatural Religion,' able and vigorous as it is, how +much of its force depends rather upon our ignorance than our knowledge. +It supplies us with many opportunities of seeing how easily the whole +course and tenour of an argument may be changed by the introduction of +a new element. For instance, I imagine that if the author had given a +little deeper study to the seemingly minute and secondary subject of +text-criticism, it would have aroused in him very considerable +misgivings as to the results at which he seemed to have arrived. There +is a solidarity in all the different departments of human knowledge and +research, especially among those that are allied in subject. These are +continually sending out offshoots and projections into the neighbouring +regions, and the conclusions of one science very often have to depend +upon those of another. The course of enquiry that has been taken in +'Supernatural Religion' is peculiarly unfortunate. It starts from the +wrong end. It begins with propositions into which _a priori_ +considerations largely enter, and, from the standpoint given by these, +it proceeds to dictate terms in a field that can only be trodden by +patient and unprejudiced study. A far more hopeful and scientific +process would have been to begin upon ground where dogmatic questions +do not enter, or enter only in a remote degree, and where there is a +sufficient number of solid ascertainable facts to go upon, and then to +work the way steadily and cautiously upwards to higher generalisations. + +It will have been seen in the course of the present enquiry how +many side questions need to be determined. It would be well if +monographs were written upon all the quotations from the Old +Testament in the Christian literature of the first two centuries, +modelled upon Credner's investigations into the quotations in +Justin. Before this is done there should be a new and revised +edition of Holmes' and Parsons' Septuagint [Endnote 359:1]. +Everything short of this would be inadequate, because we need to +know not only the best text, but every text that has definite +historical attestation. In this way it would be possible to arrive +at a tolerably exact, instead of a merely approximate, deduction +as to the habit of quotation generally, which would supply a +firmer basis for inference in regard to the New Testament than +that which has been assumed here. At the same time monographs +should be written in English, besides those already existing in +German, upon the date or position of the writers whose works come +under review. Without any attempt to prove a particular thesis, +the reader should be allowed to see precisely what the evidence is +and how far it goes. Then if he could not arrive at a positive +conclusion, he could at least attain to the most probable. And, +lastly, it is highly important that the whole question of the +composition and structure of the Synoptic Gospels should be +investigated to the very bottom. Much valuable labour has already +been expended upon this subject, but the result, though progress +has been made, is rather to show its extreme complexity and +difficulty than to produce any final settlement. Yet, as the +author of 'Supernatural Religion' has rather dimly and inadequately +seen, we are constantly thrown back upon assumptions borrowed from +this quarter. + +Pending such more mature and thorough enquiries, I quite feel that +my own present contribution belongs to a transition stage, and +cannot profess to be more than provisional. But it will have +served its purpose sufficiently if it has helped to mark out more +distinctly certain lines of the enquiry and to carry the +investigation along these a little way; suggesting at the same +time--what the facts themselves really suggest--counsels of +sobriety and moderation. + +What the end will be, it would be presumptuous to attempt to +foretell. It will probably be a long time before even these minor +questions--much more the major questions into which they run up-- +will be solved. Whether they will ever be solved--all of them at +least--in such a way as to compel entire assent is very doubtful. +Error and imperfection seem to be permanently, if we may hope +diminishingly, a condition of human thought and action. It does +not appear to be the will of God that Truth should ever be so +presented as to crush out all variety of opinion. The conflict of +opinions is like that of Hercules with the Hydra. As fast as one +is cut down another arises in its place; and there is no searing- +iron to scorch and cicatrize the wound. However much we may +labour, we can only arrive at an inner conviction, not at +objective certainty. All the glosses and asseverations in the +world cannot carry us an inch beyond the due weight of the +evidence vouchsafed to us. An honest and brave mind will accept +manfully this condition of things, and not seek for infallibility +where it can find none. It will adopt as its motto that noble +saying of Bishop Butler--noble, because so unflinchingly true, +though opposed to a sentimental optimism--'Probability is the very +guide of life.' + +With probabilities we have to deal, in the intellectual sphere. +But, when once this is thoroughly and honestly recognised, even a +comparatively small balance of probability comes to have as much +moral weight as the most loudly vaunted certainty. And meantime, +apart from and beneath the strife of tongues, there is the still +small voice which whispers to a man and bids him, in no +superstitious sense but with the gravity and humility which befits +a Christian, to 'work out his own salvation with fear and +trembling.' + + + + + +[ENDNOTES] + + +[2:1] With regard to the references in vol. i. p. 259, n. 1, I +had already observed, before the appearance of the preface to the +sixth edition, that they were really intended to apply to the +first part of the sentence annotated rather than the second. +Still, as there is only one reference out of nine that really +supports the proposition in immediate connection with which the +references are made, the reader would be very apt to carry away a +mistaken impression. The same must be said of the set of +references defended on p. xl. sqq. of the new preface. The +expressions used do not accurately represent the state of the +facts. It is not careful writing, and I am afraid it must be said +that the prejudice of the author has determined the side which the +expression leans. But how difficult is it to make words express +all the due shades and qualifications of meaning--how difficult +especially for a mind that seems to be naturally distinguished by +force rather than by exactness and delicacy of observation! We +have all 'les défauts de nos qualités.' + +[10:1] Much harm has been done by rashly pressing human metaphors and +analogies; such as, that Revelation is a _message_ from God and +therefore must be infallible, &c. This is just the sort of argument +that the Deists used in the last century, insisting that a revelation, +properly so called, _must_ be presented with conclusive proofs, _must_ +be universal, _must_ be complete, and drawing the conclusion that +Christianity is not such a revelation. This kind of reasoning has +received its sentence once for all from Bishop Butler. We have nothing +to do with what _must_ be (of which we are, by the nature of the case, +incompetent judges), but simply with what _is_. + +[18:1] Cf. Westcott, _Canon_, p. 152, n. 2 (3rd ed. 1870). + +[18:2] See Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 60; also Credner, +_Beiträge_, ii. 66 ('certainly' from St. Paul). + +[20:1] _The Old Testament in the New_ (London and Edinburgh, +1868). + +[21:1] Mr. M'Clellan (_The New Testament_, &c., vol. i. p. +606, n. c) makes the suggestion, which from his point of view is +necessary, that 'S. Matthew has cited a prophecy spoken by +Jeremiah, but nowhere written in the Old Testament, and of which +the passage in Zechariah is only a partial reproduction.' Cf. +Credner, _Beiträge_, ii. 152. + +[25:1] We do not stay to discuss the real origin of these +quotations: the last is probably not from the Old Testament at +all. + +[27:1] The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are also +found in Clement of Alexandria. + +[34:1] It should be noticed, however, that the same reading is +found in Justin and other writers. + +[38:1] _Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti_ +(Gottingae, 1853). + +[39:1] _Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften_ +(Halle, 1832). + +[40:1] _The Epistles of S. Clement of Rome_ (London and +Cambridge, 1869). + +[49:1] The Latin translation is not in most cases a sufficient +guarantee for the original text. The Greek has been preserved in +the shape of long extracts by Epiphanius and others. The edition +used is that of Stieren, Lipsiae, 1853. + +[49:2] Horne's _Introduction_ (ed. 1856), p. 333. + +[52:1] Ed. Dindorf, Lipsiae, 1859. [The index given in vol. iii. +p. 893 sqq. contains many inaccuracies, and is, indeed, of little +use for identifying the passages of Scripture.] + +[56:1] _Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of +Alexandria,_ p. 407 sqq. + +[56:2] In the new Preface to his work on the Canon (4th edition, +1875), p. xxxii. + +[58:1] _S.R._ i. p. 221, and note. + +[59:1] _S.R._ i. p. 222, n. 3. + +[59:2] _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ p. 74 (p. 82 _S.R._?). + +[59:3] _Das nachapost. Zeitalter_, p. 126 sq. + +[60:1] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 64; compare +Fritzche, art. 'Judith' in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_. + +[61:1] Vol. i. p. 221, n. I feel it due to the author to say that +I have found his long lists of references, though not seldom +faulty, very useful. I willingly acknowledge the justice of his +claim to have 'fully laid before readers the actual means of +judging of the accuracy of every statement which has been made' +(Preface to sixth edition, p. lxxx). + +[65:1] i. p. 226. + +[66:1] i. p. 228. + +[69:1] _Der Ursprung_, p. 138. + +[71:1] _The Apostolical Fathers_ (London, 1874), p. 273. + +[71:2] The original Greek of this work is lost, but in the text as +reconstructed by Hilgenfeld from five still extant versions +(Latin, Syriac, Aethiopic, Arabic, Armenian) the verse runs thus, +[Greek: polloi men ektisthaesan, oligoi de sothaesontai] +(_Messias Judaeorum_, p. 69). + +[73:1] A curious instance of disregard of context is to be seen in +Tertullian's reading of John i. 13, which he referred to +_Christ_, accusing the Valentinians of falsification because +they had the ordinary reading (cf. Rönsch, _Das Neue Testament +Tertullian's_, pp. 252, 654). Compare also p. 24 above. + +[73:2] _Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum_, Fasc. ii. +p. 69. + +[74:1] c. v. + +[74:2] _S. R._ i. p. 250 sqq. + +[76:1] Lardner, _Credibility, &c_., ii. p .23; Westcott, +_On the Canon_, p. 50, n. 5. + +[77:1] Since this was written the author of 'Supernatural +Religion' has replied in the preface to his sixth edition. He has +stated his case in the ablest possible manner: still I do not +think that there is anything to retract in what has been written +above. There _would_ have been something to retract if Dr. +Lightfoot had maintained positively the genuineness of the Vossian +Epistles. As to the Syriac, the question seems to me to stand +thus. On the one side are certain improbabilities--I admit, +improbabilities, though not of the weightiest kind--which are met +about half way by the parallel cases quoted. On the other hand, +there is the express testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp quoted +in its turn by Irenaeus. Now I cannot think that there is any +improbability so great (considering our ignorance) as not to be +outweighed by this external evidence. + +[81:1] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec._, Fasc. iv. +p. 15. + +[81:2] Cf. _ibid._, pp. 56, 62, also p. 29. + +[82:1] But see _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 838, from +which it appears that M. Waddington has recently proved the date +to be rather 155 or 156. Compare Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. +72, where reference is made to an essay by Lipsius, _Der +Märtyrertod Polycarp's_ in _Z. f. w. T._ 1874, ii. p. 180 +f. + +[82:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 3, 4. + +[83:1] _Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche_, p. 586; +Hefele, _Patrum Apostolicorum Opera_, p. lxxx. + +[84:1] Cf. _S. R._ i. p. 278. + +[84:2] _Ent. d. a. K._ pp. 593, 599. + +[84:3] _Apostolical Fathers_, p. 227 sq. + +[84:4] _Ursprung_, pp. 43, 131. + +[85:1] [Greek: mnaemoneuontes de hon eipen ho kurios didaskon; mae +krinete hina mae krithaete; aphiete kai aphethaesetai hymin; eleeite +hina eleaethaete; en ho metro metreite, antimetraethaesetai hymin; kai +hoti makarioi hoi ptochoi kai hoi diokomenoi heneken dikaiosynaes, hoti +auton estin hae basileia tou Theou.] + +[89:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, 1. p. 138, n. 2. + +[89:2] _Einleilung in das N. T._ p. 66, where Lipsius' view +is also quoted. + +[89:3] Cf. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 88, n. 4. + +[89:4] As appears to be suggested in _S. R._ i. p. 292. The +reference in the note to Bleek, _Einl._ p. 637 (and Ewald?), +does not seem to be exactly to the point. + +[89:5] _Apol._ i. 67. + +[90:1] _Dial. c. Tryph._ 103. + +[90:2] _Apol._ i. 66; cf. _S.R._ i. p. 294. + +[91:1] The evangelical references and allusions in Justin have +been carefully collected by Credner and Hilgenfeld, and are here +thrown together in a sort of running narrative. + +[101:1] This was written before the appearance of Mr. M'Clellan's +important work on the Four Gospels (_The New Testament_, vol. i, +London, 1875), to which I have not yet had time to give the +study that it deserves. + +[103:1] Unless indeed it was found in one of the many forms of the +Gospel (cf. _S.R._ i. P. 436, and p. 141 below). The section +appears in none of the forms reproduced by Dr. Hilgenfeld (_N.T. +extra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv). + +[107:1] In like manner Tertullian refers his readers to the +'autograph copies' of St. Paul's Epistles, and the very 'chairs of +the Apostles,' preserved at Corinth and elsewhere. (_De +Praescript. Haeret._ c. 36). Tertullian also refers to the +census of Augustus, 'quem testem fidelissimum dominicae +nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt' (_Adv. Marc._ iv. 7). + +[110:1] _Beiträge_, i. p. 261 sqq. + +[110:2] _Evangelien Justin's u.s.w._, p. 270 sqq. + +[110:3] The chief authority is Eus. _H. E._ vi. 12. + +[110:4] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157. + +[116:1] A somewhat similar classification has been made by De +Wette, _Einleitung in das N. T._, pp. 104-110, in which +however the standard seems to be somewhat lower than that which I +have assumed; several instances of variation which I had classed +as decided, De Wette considers to be only slight. I hope I may +consider this a proof that the classification above given has not +been influenced by bias. + +[119:1] _Beiträge_, i. p. 237. + +[119:2] _S.R._ i. p. 396 sqq. + +[120:1] _Die drei ersten Evangelien_, Göttingen, 1850. [A +second, revised, edition of this work has recently appeared.] + +[120:2] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, Leipzig, 1863, p. 88. + +[120:3] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, Berlin, 1872, p. 299. + +[120:4] _Beiträge_, i. p. 219. + +[120:5] Dr. Westcott well calls this 'the _prophetic_ sense +of the present' (_On the Canon_, p. 128). + +[122:1] 'This is meaningless,' writes Mr. Baring-Gould of the +canonical text, rather hastily, and forgetting, as it would +appear, the concluding cause (_Lost and Hostile Gospels_, p. +166); cp. _S.R._ i. p. 354, ii. p. 28. + +[123:1] i. pp. 196, 227, 258. + +[123:2] _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon_ (ed. +Volkmar, Berlin, 1860), p. 16. + +[124:1] _Adv. Haer._ 428 D. + +[124:2] I am not quite clear that more is meant (as Meyer, +Ellicott _Huls. Lect._ p. 339, n. 2, and others maintain) in +the evangelical language than that the drops of sweat 'resembled +blood;' [Greek: hosei] seems to qualify [Greek: haimatos] as much +as [Greek: thromboi]. Compare especially the interesting parallels +from medical writers quoted by McClellan _ad loc._ + +[128:1] The only parallel that I can find quoted is a reference by +Mr. McClellan to Philo i.164 (ed. Mangey), where the phrase is +however [Greek: isos angeloi (gegonos)]. + +[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 304 sqq. + +[130:1] _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157. + +[135:1] Scrivener, _Introduction to the Criticism of the N. +T_. p. 452 (2nd edition, 1874). + +[136:1] On reviewing this chapter I am inclined to lean more than +I did to the hypothesis that Justin used a Harmony. The phenomena +of variation seem to be too persistent and too evenly distributed +to allow of the supposition of alternate quoting from different +Gospels. But the data will need a closer weighing before this can +be determined. + +[138:1] _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 169 sqq. + +[138:2] Tischendorf, however, devotes several pages to an argument +which follows in the same line as Dr. Lightfoot's, and is, I +believe, in the main sound (_Wann wurden unsere Evangelien +verfasst?_ p. 113 sqq., 4th edition, 1866). + +[138:3] I gather from the sixth edition of _S. R._ that the +argument from silence is practically waived. If the silence of +Eusebius is not pressed as proving that the authors about whom he +is silent were ignorant of or did not acknowledge particular +Gospels, we on our side may be content not to press it as proving +that the Gospels in question _were_ acknowledged. The matter +may well be allowed to rest thus: that, so far as the silence of +Eusebius is concerned, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of +Corinth are not alleged either for the Gospels or against them. I +agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that the point is +not one of paramount importance, though it has been made more of +by other writers, e.g. Strauss and Renan. [The author has missed +Dr. Lightfoot's point on p. xxiii. What Eusebius bears testimony +to is, _not_ his own belief in the canonicity of the fourth +Gospel, but its _undisputed_ canonicity, i.e. a historical +fact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c. If I +say that _Hamlet_ is an undisputed play of Shakspeare's, I +mean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare's myself, but that +all the critics from Shakspeare's time downwards have believed it +to be his.] + +[140:1] _H. E._ iv. 22. + +[141:1] _S. R._ i. p. 436. + +[141:2] _Einleitung_, p. 103. + +[141:3] _Das Nachapost. Zeit._ i. p. 238. + +[141:4] _Beiträge_, i. p. 401. + +[141:5] _Nov. Test. extra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv. pp. 19, 20. + +[143:1] We have, however, had occasion to note a somewhat +parallel, though not quite parallel, instance in the quotation of +Clement of Rome and Polycarp, [Greek: aphiete, hina aphethae humin +(kai aphethaesetai humin)]. + +[144:1] _Contemporary Review_, Dec. 1874, p. 8; cf. Routh, +_Reliquiae Sacrae_, i. p. 281 _ad fin._ + +[144:2] Tregelles, writing on the 'Ancient Syriac Versions' in +Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1635 a, says that 'these words might +be a Greek rendering of Matt. xiii. 16 as they stand' in the +Curetonian text. + +[145:1] Or rather perhaps 155, 156; see p. 82 above. + +[146:1] _H.E._ iii. 39. + +[147:1] In Mr. M'Clellan's recent _Harmony_ I notice only two deviations +from the order in St. Mark, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-29. In Mr. Fuller's +_Harmony_ (the Harmony itself and not the Table of Contents, in which +there are several oversights) there seem to be two, Mark vi. 17-20, +xiv. 3-9; in Dr. Robinson's English _Harmony_ three, ii. 15-22, +vi. 17-20, xiv. 22-72 (considerable variation). Of these passages +vi. 17-20 (the imprisonment of the Baptist) is the only one the place +of which all three writers agree in changing. [Dr. Lightfoot, in +_Cont. Rev._, Aug. 1875, p. 394, appeals to Anger and Tischendorf +in proof of the contrary proposition, that the order of Mark cannot +be maintained. But Tischendorf's Harmony is based on the assumption +that St. Luke's use of [Greek: kathexaes] pledges him to a chronological +order, and Anger adopts Griesbach's hypothesis that Mark is a compilation +from Matthew and Luke. The remarks in the text turn, not upon precarious +harmonistic results, but upon a simple comparison of the three Gospels.] + +[149:1] Perhaps I should explain that this was made by underlining +the points of resemblance between the Gospels in different +coloured pencil and reckoning up the results at the end of each +section. + +[153:1] This subject has been carefully worked out since Credner +by Bleek and De Wette. The results will be found in Holtzmann, +_Synopt. Ev._ p. 259 sqq. + +[154:1] Cf. Holtzmann, _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, p. 255 +sq.; Ebrard, _The Gospel History_ (Engl. trans.), p. 247; +Bleek, _Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien_, i. +p. 367. The theory rests upon an acute observation, and has much +plausibility. + +[155:1] _On the Canon_, p. 181, n. 2. [That the word will +bear this sense appears still more decidedly from Dr. Lightfoot's +recent investigations, in view of which the two sentences that +follow should perhaps be cancelled; see _Cont. Rev._, Aug. +1875, p. 399 sqq.] + +[159:1] [It will be seen that the arguments above hardly touch +those of Dr. Lightfoot in the _Contemporary Review_ for +August and October: neither do Dr. Lightfoot's arguments seem very +much to affect them. The method of the one is chiefly external, +that of the other almost entirely internal. I can only for the +present leave what I had written; but I do not for a moment +suppose that the subject is fathomed even from the particular +standpoint that I have taken.] + +[162:1] The lists given in _Supernatural Religion_ (ii. p. 2) +seem to be correct so far as I am able to check them. In the +second edition of his work on the Origin of the Old Catholic +Church, Ritschl modified his previous opinion so far as to admit +that the indications were divided, sometimes on the one side, +sometimes on the other (p. 451, n. 1). There is a seasonable +warning in Reuss (_Gesch. h. S. N. T._ p. 254) that the +Tübingen critics here, as elsewhere, are apt to exaggerate the +polemical aspect of the writing. + +[162:2] It should be noticed that Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, though +assigning the second place to the Homilies, both take the +_terminus ad quem_ for this work no later than 180 A.D. It +seems that a Syriac version, partly of the Homilies, partly of the +Recognitions, exists in a MS. which itself was written in the year +411, and bears at that date marks of transcription from a still +earlier copy (cf. Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 341, n. 1). + +[163:1] This table is made, as in the case of Justin, with the +help of the collection of passages in the works of Credner and +Hilgenfeld. + +[167:1] Or rather perhaps 'morning baptism.' (Cf. Lightfoot, +_Colossians,_ p. 162 sqq., where the meaning of the name and +the character and relations of the sect are fully discussed). + +[168:1] _Hom._ i. 6; ii. 19, 23; iii. 73; iv. 1; xiii. 7; +xvii. 19. + +[170:1] So Tregelles expressly (_Introduction_, p. 240), after Wiseman; +Scrivener (_Introd._, p. 308) adds (?); M'Clellan classes with +'Italic Family' (p. lxxiii). [On returning to this passage I incline +rather more definitely to regard the reading [Greek: Haesaiou], from +the group in which it is found, as an early Alexandrine corruption. +Still the Clementine writer may have had it before him.] + +[170:2] ii. p. 10 sqq. + +[172:1] ii. p. 21. + +[172:2] Preface to the fourth edition of _Canon_, p. xxxii. + +[174:1] _Evangelien_, p. 31. + +[174:2] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 282. + +[175:1] _Synopt. Ev._ p. 193. + +[176:1] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 295. + +[178:1] A friend has kindly extracted for me, from Holmes and +Parsons, the authorities for the Septuagint text of Deut. vi. 4. +For [Greek: sou] there are 'Const. App. 219, 354, 355; Ignat. Epp. +104, 112; Clem. Al. 68, 718; Chrys. i. 482 et saepe, al.' For +_tuus_, 'Iren. (int.), Tert., Cypr., Ambr., Anonym. ap. Aug., +Gaud., Brix., Alii Latini.' No authorities for [Greek: humon]. Was +the change first introduced into the text of the New Testament? + +[178:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 25. + +[179:1] _Beiträge_, i. p. 326. + +[179:2] _On the Canon_, p. 261, n. 2. + +[188:1] _Hom._ 1. _in Lucam_. + +[189:1] _H.E._ iv. 7. + +[189:2] _Strom._ iv. 12. + +[189:3] _S.R._ ii. p. 42. + +[189:4] _Ibid._ n. 2; cp. p. 47. + +[190:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii, 27. + +[190:2] ii. p. 45. + +[191:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii. 20. + +[192:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 49. + +[197:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Pref. 2. + +[198:1] ii. p. 59. + +[199:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq. + +[200:1] _Strom._ ii. 20; see Westcott, _Canon_, p. 269; +Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 152. + +[203:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 7, 9. + +[203:2] _Ibid._ iii. 12. 12. + +[204:1] The corresponding chapter to this in 'Supernatural Religion' +has been considerably altered, and indeed in part rewritten, in the +sixth edition. The author very kindly sent me a copy of this after +the appearance of my article in the _Fortnightly Review_, and I at +once made use of it for the part of the work on which I was engaged; +but I regret that my attention was not directed, as it should have +been, to the changes in this chapter until it was too late to take +quite sufficient account of them. The argument, however, I think I +may say, is not materially affected. Several criticisms which I had +been led to make in the _Fortnightly_ I now find had been anticipated, +and these have been cancelled or a note added in the present work; +I have also appended to the volume a supplemental note of greater +length on the reconstruction of Marcion's text, the only point on +which I believe there is really very much room for doubt. + +[205:1] See above, p. 89. + +[205:2] _Apol._ i. 26. + +[205:3] _Ibid._ i. 58. + +[205:4] ii. p. 80. + +[205:5] _Der Ursprung_, p. 89. + +[205:6] Cf. Tertullian, _De Praescript. Haeret._ c. 38. + +[206:1] _Adv. Haer._ iv. 27. 2; 12. 12. + +[209:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, pp. 28-54. [Volkmar's view is +stated less inadequately in the sixth edition of _S. R._, but +still not quite adequately. Perhaps it could hardly be otherwise +where arguments that were originally adduced in favour of one +conclusion are employed to support its opposite.] + +[210:1] [Greek: oida] for [Greek: oidas] in Luke xiv. 20. Cf. +Volkmar, p. 46. + +[211:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, p. 45. + +[211:2] _Ibid._ pp. 46-48. + +[211:3] 'We have, in fact, no guarantee of the accuracy or +trustworthiness of any of their statements' (_S.R._ ii. p. +100). We have just the remarkable coincidence spoken of above. It +does not prove that Tertullian did not faithfully reproduce the +text of Marcion to show, which is the real drift of the argument +on the preceding page (_S.R._ ii. p. 99), that he had not the +canonical Gospel before him; rather it removes the suspicion that +he might have confused the text of Marcion's Gospel with the +canonical. + +[212:1] This table has been constructed from that of De Wette, +_Einleitung_, pp. 123-132, compared with the works of Volkmar +and Hilgenfeld. + +[213:1]: _S.R._ ii. p. 110, n. 3. The statement is mistaken +in regard to Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. Both these writers would make +Marcion retain this passage. It happens rather oddly that this is +one of the sections on which the philological evidence for St. +Luke's authorship is least abundant (see below). + +[215:1] There is direct evidence for the presence in Marcion's +Gospel of the passages relating to the personages here named, +except Martha and Mary; see _Tert. Adv. Marc._ iv. 19, 37, 43. + +[217:1] _S. R._ ii. 142 sq. + +[217:2] This admission does not damage the credit of Tertullian +and Epiphanius as witnesses; because what we want from them is a +statement of the facts; the construction which they put upon the +facts is a matter of no importance. + +[217:3] The omission in 2 Cor. iv. 13 must be due to Marcion +(_Epiph._ 321 c.); so probably an insertion in 1 Cor. ix. 8. + +[218:1] Tert. _Adv. Marc._ v. 16: 'Haec si Marcion de +industria erasit,' &c. V. 14: 'Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum +intercisae scripturae.' V. 3: 'Ostenditur quid supra haeretica +industria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae,' &c. Cf. Bleek, +_Einleitung_, p. 136; Hilgenfeld, _Evv. Justin's_, &c., p. 473. + +[219:1] 'Anno xv. Tiberii Christus Jesus de coelo manare dignatus +est' (Tert. _Adv. Marc._ i. 19). + +[220:1] I give mainly the explanations of Volkmar, who, it should +be remembered, is the very reverse of an apologist, indicating the +points where they seem least satisfactory. + +[220:2] It is highly probable that many of the points mentioned by +Tertullian and Epiphanius as 'adulterations' were simply various +readings in Marcion's Codex; such would be v. 14, x. 25, xvii. 2, +and xxiii. 2, which are directly supported by other authority: xi. +2 and xii. 28 would probably belong to this class. So perhaps the +insertion of iv. 27 in the history of the Samaritan leper. The +phenomenon of a transposition of verses from one part of a Gospel +to another is not an infrequent one in early MSS. + +[223:1] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, 1863, pp. 302 sqq. + +[224:1] Where a reference is given thus in brackets, it is +confirmatory, from the part of the Gospel retained by Marcion. + +[229:1] An analysis of the words which are only found in St. Luke, +or very rarely found elsewhere, gives the following results.--The +number of words found only in the portion of the Gospel retained +by Marcion and in the Acts is 231; that of words found in these +retained portions and not besides in the Gospels or the two other +Synoptics is 58; and both these classes together for the portions +omitted in Marcion's Gospel reach a total of 62, which is +decidedly under the proportion that might have been expected. The +list is diminished by a number of words which are found only in +the omitted and retained portions, furnishing evidence, as above, +that both proceed from the same hand. + +[231:1] This list has been made from the valuable work of Rönsch, +_Das Neue Testament Tertullian's_, 1871, and the critical +editions, compared with the text of Marcion's Gospel as given by +Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. + +[231:2] It might be thought that Tertullian was giving his own +text and not that of Marcion's Gospel, but this supposition is +excluded both by the confirmation which he receives from +Epiphanius, and also by the fact, which is generally admitted (see +_S.R._ ii. p. 100), that he had not the canonical Luke, but +only Marcion's Gospel before him. + +[233:1] See Crowfoot, _Observations on the Collation in Greek of +Cureton's Syriac Fragments of the Gospels_, 1872, p. 5; Scrivener, +_Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, 2nd edition, +1874, p. 452. + +[233:2] See Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 307 sq.; and Dr. Westcott's +article on the 'Vulgate' in Smith's Dictionary. It should be noticed +that Dr. Westcott's literation differs from that of Dr. Scrivener +and Tregelles, which has been adopted here. + +[235:1] Cf. Friedländer, _Sittengeschichte Roms_, iii. p. 315. + +[238:1] See p. 89, above. + +[238:2] _Strom._ iii. 12; compare _S.R._ ii. p. 151. + +[239:1] [Greek: Ho mentoi ge proteros auton archaegos ho Tatianos +sunapheian tina kai sunagogaen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion +suntheis to dia tessaron touto prosonomasin, ho kai para tisin +eiseti nun pheretai.] _H. E._ iv. 29. + +[239:2] _Beiträge_, i. p. 441. + +[240:1] _Haer._ 391 D (xlvi. 1). + +[240:2] [Greek: Outos kai to dia tessaron kaloumenon suntetheiken +euangelion, tas te genealogias perikopsas, kai ta alla, hosa ek +spermatos Dabid kata sorka genennaemenon ton Kurion deiknusin. +Echraesanto de touto ou monon oi taes ekeinou summorias, alla kai +oi tous apostolikois epomenoi dogmasi, taen taes sunthaekaes +kakourgian ouk egnokotes, all' aplousteron hos suntomo to biblio +chraesamenoi. Euron de kago pleious ae diakosias biblous toiautas +en tais par' haemin ekklaesiois tetimaemenas, kai pasas sunagagan +apethemaen, kai ta ton tettaron euangeliston anteisaegagon +euangelia] (_Haeret. Fab._ i. 20, quoted by Credner, _Beiträge_, +i. p. 442). + +[240:3] See _S.R._ ii. p. 15. + +[241:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 162; compare Credner, _Beiträge_, +i. p. 446 sqq. + +[241:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8. + +[241:3] _Beit_. i. p. 443. + +[241:4] May not Tatian have given his name to a collection of +materials begun, used, and left in a more or less advanced stage +of compilation, by Justin? However, we can really do little more +than note the resemblance: any theory we may form must be purely +conjectural. + +[242:1] [Greek: Epistolas gar adelphon axiosanton me grapsai +egarapsa. Kai tautas oi tou diabolon apostoloi zizanion gegemikan, +ha men exairountes, ha de prostithentes. Ois to ouai keitai. Ou +thaumaston ara, ei kai ton kuriakon rhadiourgaesai tines +epibeblaentai graphon, hopote tais ou toiautais epibebouleukasi.] +_H.E._ iv. 23 (Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 181). + +[243:1] [Greek: Allae d' epistolae tis autou pros Nikomaedeas +pheretai en hae taen Markionos airesin polemon to taes alaetheias +paristatai kanoni]. _H.E._ iv. 23_. + +[244:1] [Greek: Akribos mathon ta taes palaias diathaekaes Biblia, +hipotaxas epempsa soi.] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26 (Routh, _Rel. +Sac._ i. p. 119). + +[245:1] Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 201. + +[245:2] ii. p. 177. + +[245:3] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 1 (cf. Rönsch, _Das neue Testament +Tertullian's_, p. 48), 'duo deos dividens, proinde diversos, +alterum alterius instrumenti--vel, _quod magis usui est dicere, +testamenti_.' + +[246:1] [Greek: Eisi toinun hoi di' hagnoian philoneikousi peri +touton, sungnoston pragma peponthotes agnoia gar ou kataegorian +anadechetai, alla didachaes prosdeitai. Kai legousin hoti tae id' +to probaton meta ton mathaeton ephagen ho Kurios tae de mealier +haemera ton azumon autos epathen; kai diaegountai Matthaion outo +legein hos nenoaekasin; hothen asumphonos te nomo hae noaesis +auton, kai stasiazein dokei kat' autous ta euangelia.] _Chron. +Pasch._ in Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 160. + +[247:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 188 sqq. The reference to Routh is +given on p. 188, n. 1; that to Lardner in the same note should, I +believe, be ii. p. 316, not p. 296. + +[247:2] _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 167. + +[249:1] The quotations from Athenagoras are transcribed from +'Supernatural Religion' and Lardner (_Credibility &c._, ii. +p. 195 sq.). I have not access to the original work. + +[251:1] _Credibility &c._, ii. p. 161. + +[252:1] _Ep. Vien. et Lugd._ § 3 (in Routh, _Rel. Sac._ +i. p. 297). + +[252:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 203; _Evv. Justin's u.s.w._ p. +155. + +[254:1] _Wann wurden u.s.w._ p. 48 sq. + +[254:2] _Ursprung_, p. 130; _S.R._ ii. p. 222. + +[255:1] Cf. Credner, _Beiträge_, ii. p. 254. + +[256:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Praef. 2. + +[257:1] _Strom._ iv. 9. + +[257:2] [Greek: Ton Oualentinou legomenon einai gnorimon +Haerakleouna] ... Origen, _Comm. in Joh._ ii. p. 60 (quoted +by Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 127). + +[259:1] 'In affirming that [these quotations] are taken from the +Gospel according to St. Matthew apologists exhibit their usual +arbitrary haste,' &c. _S.R._ ii. p. 224. + +[260:1] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, Zurich, 1873. For what +follows, see especially p. 261 sqq. + +[263:1] Keim, _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 262. + +[263:2] _Ibid_. p. 228 sq.; Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 80. + +[263:3] The text of this document is printed in full by Routh, +_Rel. Sac_. i. pp. 394-396; Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 487 sqq.; +Hilgenfeld, _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N.T._ ad p. 40, n.; +Credner, _Geschichte des Noutestamentlichen Kanon_, ed. Volkmar, +p. 153 sqq., &c. + +[264:1] See however Dr. Lightfoot in _Cont. Rev_., Oct. 1875, p. 837. + +[265:1] _Ursprung_, p. 28. + +[265:2] ii. p. 245. + +[266:1] Cf. Credner, _Gesch. des Kanon_, p. 167. + +[266:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 241. + +[267:1] Quoted in _S.R._ ii. p. 247. + +[269:1] _Adv. Haer_. ii, 22. 5, iii. 3.4. + +[270:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. pp. 141-143. + +[273:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_. i. pp. 143, 144. + +[273:2] _On the Canon_, p. 182 sqq. + +[275:1] [Greek: Ouch haedomai trophae phthoras, oude haedonais tou +biou toutou. Arton Theou thelo, arton ouranion, arton zoaes, hos +estin sarx Iaesou Christou tou Huiou tou Theou tou genomenou en +hustero ek spermatos Dabid kai Abraam; kai poma Theou thelo to +haima aoutou, ho estin agapae aphthartos kai aennaos zoae.] _Ep. +ad Rom_. c. vii. + +[275:2] [Greek: Alla to Pneuma ou planatai, apo Theou on; oiden +gar pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei, kai ta drupta elenche]. +_Ep. ad Philad_. c. vii. + +[276:1] Cf. Lipsius in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_, i. p. 98. + +[277:1] The second and third Epistles stand upon a somewhat +different footing. + +[277:2] Cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 269. + +[278:1] _S.R._ ii p. 323. + +[278:2] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. p. 138 sq. + +[280:1] Cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 302. + +[280:2] So _Dial. c. Tryph_. 69; in _Apol._ i. 22 the +MSS. of Justin read [Greek: ponaerous], which might stand, though +some editors substitute or prefer [Greek: paerous]. In both +quotations [Greek: ek genetaes] is added. The nearest parallel in +the Synoptics is Mark ix. 21, [Greek: ek paidiothen] (of the +paralytic boy). + +[280:3] _Wann wurden u. s. w_. p. 34. + +[283:1] ii. p. 308. [Has the author perhaps misunderstood Credner +(_Beit_. i. p. 253), whose argument on this head is not indeed +quite clear?] + +[283:2] _The New Testament &c_., i. p. 709. + +[284:1] See _Apol_. i. 23, 32, 63; ii. 10. + +[284:2] [Greek: Hae de protae dunamis meta ton patera panton kai +despotaen Theon kai uios ho logos estin.] This is not quite +rightly translated by Tischendorf and in 'Supernatural Religion:' +[Greek: uios], like [Greek: dunamis], is a predicate; 'the next +Power who also stands in the relation of Son.' + +[285:1] Prov. viii. 22-24, 27, 30. + +[285:2] Wisd. vii. 25, 26; viii. 1, 4. + +[286:1] Ecclus. xxiv. 9. + +[286:2] Wisd. ix. 1, 2; xvi. 12; xviii. 15. + +[287:1] Cf. Lipsius in _S. B. L._ i. p. 95 sqq. + +[288:1] _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T_. (Halle, 1863), +p. 29; _Einleitung_, P. 43, n. + +[288:2] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 63. + +[288:3] ii. p. 346. + +[290:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 340. + +[293:1] The force of the article ([Greek: tou paerou]) should be +noticed, as showing that the incident (and therefore the Gospel) +is assumed to be well known. + +[293:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 341. + +[295:1] Tischendorf, _Wann wurden_, p. 40; Westcott, _Canon_, p. 80. + +[296:1] ii. p. 357 sqq. + +[297:1] _Adv. Haer._ V. 36. 1, 2. + +[297:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 329. + +[298:1] Advanced by Routh (or rather Feuardentius in his notes on +Irenaeus; cf. _Rel. Sac_. i. p. 31), and adopted by Tischendorf +and Dr. Westcott. [The identification has since been ably and +elaborately maintained by Dr. Lightfoot; see _Cont. Rev_. Oct. 1875, +p. 841 sqq.] + +[298:2] It is not necessary here to determine the sense in which +these words are to be taken. I had elsewhere given my reasons for +taking [Greek: erchomenon] with [Greek: anthropon], as A. V. +(_Fourth Gospel_, p. 6, n.). Mr. M'Clellan is now to be added +to the number of those who prefer to take it with [Greek: phos], +and argues ably in favour of his opinion. + +[299:1] The translation of this difficult passage has been left +on purpose somewhat baldly literal. The idea seems to be that +Basilides refused to accept projection or emanation as a +hypothesis to account for the existence of created things. Compare +Mansel, _Gnost. Her._ p. 148. + +[301:1] _Adv. Haer._. iii. 11. 7. + +[302:1] _Haer_. 216-222. + +[302:2] It should however be noticed that these words are given +only in the old Latin translation of Irenaeus and are wanting in +the Greek as preserved by Epiphanius. Whether the words were +accidentally omitted, or whether they were inserted inferentially, +for greater clearness, by the translator, it is hard to say. In +any case the bearing of the quotations must be very much the same. +If not made by Ptolemaeus himself, they were made by a contemporary +of Ptolemaeus, i.e. at least by a writer anterior to Irenaeus. + +[302:3] _Adv. Haer_. ii. 4. 1; cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq. + +[302:4] The somewhat copious fragments of Heracleon's Commentary +are given in Stieren's edition of Irenaeus, p. 938 sqq. Origen +says that Heracleon read 'Bethany' in John i. 28 (M'Clellan, +i. p. 708). + +[305:1] ii. p. 378. + +[306:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 379. + +[307:1] There is also perhaps a probable reference to St. John in +Section 6, [Greek: taes aionioi paegaes tou hudatos taes zoaes tou +exiontos ek taes naeduos tou Christou.] + +[307:2] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 229. + +[308:1] [Greek: ho taen hagian pleuran ekkentaetheis, ho ekcheas +ek taes pleuras autou ta duo palin katharsia, hudor kai aima, +logon kai pneuma]. See Routh, _Rel. Sac_. i. p. 161. + +[308:2] Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., ii. p. 196. + +[315:1] Tregelles in Horne's _Introduction_, p. 334. + +[315:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8. + +[316:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1. 1. + +[317:1] See Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., ii. pp. 223, 224, +and Eus. _H.E._ ii. 15 (14 Lardner). + +[317:2] Compare _H.E._ ii. 15 and vi. 14. + +[317:3] _H.E._ vi. 14. + +[317:4] _Strom._ iii. 13. + +[318:1] For the meaning of this word ('schriftliche +Beweisurkunde') see Rönsch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 48. + +[318:2] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 2. + +[318:2] _Ibid_. iv. 5. + +[318:4] _Ibid_. v. 9. + +[318:5] _Ibid_. iv. 2-5; compare v. 9, and Rönsch, pp. 53, 54. + +[319:1] Eus. _H.E._ vi. 25. + +[319:2] See M'Clellan on Luke i. 1-4. On the general position of +Origen in regard to the Canon, compare Hilgenfeld, _Kanon_, p. 49. + +[320:1] So Westcott in _S.D._ iii. 1692, n. Tregelles, in +Horne's _Introduction_, p. 333, speaks of this translation as +'coeval, apparently, with Irenaeus himself.' We must not, however, +omit to notice that Rönsch (p. 43, n.) is more reserved in his +verdict on the ground that the translation of Irenaeus 'in its +peculiarities and in its relation to Tertullian has not yet +received a thorough investigation;' compare Hilgenfeld, +_Einleitung_, p. 797. + +[320:2] Rönsch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 43. + +[321:1] Rönsch, _Itala und Vulgata_, pp. 2, 3. + +[321:2] Horne's _Introduction_, p. 233. + +[321:3] _Introduction_ (2nd ed.), pp. 300, 302, 450, 452. + +[321:4] iii. p. 1690 b. + +[322:1] Hilgenfeld, in his recent _Einleitung_, says expressly +(p. 797) that 'the New Testament had already in the second +century been translated into Latin.' This admission is not +affected by the argument which follows, which goes to prove that +the version used by Tertullian was not the 'Itala' properly so +called. + +[322:2] See Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1630 b. + +[322:3] _Introduction_, p. 274. + +[322:4] See Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. pp. 124 and 152. + +[323:1] See Scrivener, _loc. cit_. + +[323:2] See _New Testament_, &c., i. p. 635. + +[323:3] _S.D._ iii. p. 1634 b. + +[324:1] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 724. + +[324:2] _Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments_, +p. 302. + +[324:3] _Einleitung_, p. 804. + +[324:4] See Tregelles, _loc. cit_. + +[324:5] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. 805. It hardly seems +clear that Origen had _no_ MS. authority for his reading. + +[324:6] _Introduction_, p. 530. But [Greek: oupo] is admitted +into the text by Westcott and Hort. + +[324:7] 'The text of the Curetonian Gospels is in itself a +sufficient proof of the extreme antiquity of the Syriac Version. +This, as has been already remarked, offers a striking resemblance +to that of the Old Latin, and cannot be later than the middle or +close of the second century. It would be difficult to point out a +more interesting subject for criticism than the respective +relations of the Old Latin and Syriac Versions to the Latin and +Syriac Vulgates. But at present it is almost untouched.' Westcott, +_On the Canon_ (3rd ed.), p. 218, n. 3. + +[325:1] See Scrivener's _Introduction_, p. 324. + +[325:2] Cf. Bleek, _Einleitung_, p. 735; Reuss, _Gesch. +N.T._ p. 447. + +[326:1] This is the date commonly accepted since Massuet, _Diss. +in Irenaeum_, ii. 1. 2. Grabe had previously placed the date in +A.D. 108, Dodwell as early as A.D. 97 (of. Stieren, _Irenaeus_, +ii. pp. 32, 34, 182). + +[326:2] Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 306. + +[327:1] Eus. _H.E._ v. 11, vi. 6. Eusebius, in his, +'Chronicle,' speaks of Clement as eminent for his writings ([Greek +suntatton dielampen]) in A.D. 194. + +[327:2] The books called 'Stromateis' or 'Miscellanies' date from +this reign. _H.E._ vi. 6. + +[327:3] _Stromateis_, i. 1. + +[327:4] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 5. + +[327:5] _De Praescript. Haeret_. c. 36; see Scrivener, +_Introduction_, p. 446. + +[328:1] pp. 450, 451. + +[328:2] p. 452. These facts may be held to show that the books +were not regarded with the same veneration as now. + +[329:1] v. 30. 1. + +[330:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8. + +[330:2] _Ib_. iii. 14. 2. + +[331:1] Cf. _Adv. Haer._ iv. 13. 1. + +[332:1] The varieties of reading in this verse are exhibited in +full by Dr. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 120, notes 4 and 5. + +[336:1] Matt. v. 28 is omitted as too ambiguous and confusing, +though it is especially important for the point in question as +showing that Tertullian himself had a variety of MSS. before him. + +[336:2] St. Matthew's Gospel is wanting in this MS. to xxv. 6; two +leaves are also lost, from John vi. 50 to viii. 52. + +[346:1] _Strom_. ii. 20. + +[347:1] In a volume entitled _The Authorship and Historical +Character of the Fourth Gospel_, Macmillan, 1872. I may say +with reference to this book--a 'firstling' of theological study-- +that I am inclined now to think that I exaggerated somewhat the +importance of minute details as an evidence of the work of an +eye-witness. The whole of the arguments, however, summarised on +pp. 287-293 seem to me to be still perfectly valid and sound, and the +greater part of them--notably that which relates to the Messianic +expectations--is quite untouched by 'Supernatural Religion.' + +[348:1] It is instructive to compare the canons elaborately drawn +up by Mr. M'Clellan (_N.T._ i. 375-389) with those tacitly +assumed in 'Supernatural Religion.' The inference in the one case +seems to be 'possible, therefore true,' in the other, 'not +probable, or not confirmed, therefore false.' Surely neither of +these tallies with experience. + +[352:1] This, perhaps, is one that is apt to be overlooked. In +order to be quite sure that the process of analysis is complete it +must be supplemented and verified by the reversed process of +synthesis. If a compound has been resolved into its elements, we +cannot be sure that it has been resolved into _all_ its +elements until the original compound has been produced by their +recombination. Where this second reverse process fails, the +inference is that some unknown element which was originally +present has escaped in the analysis. The analysis may be true as +far as it goes, but it is incomplete. The causes are 'verae +causae,' but they are not all the causes in operation. So it seems +to be with the analysis of the vital organism. We may be said to +know entirely what air and water are because the chemist can +produce them, but we only know very imperfectly the nature of life +and will and conscience, because when the physiological analysis +has been carried as far as it will go there still remains a large +unknown element. Within this element may very well reside those +distinctive properties which make man (as the moralist is +_obliged_ to assume that he is) a responsible and religious +being. The hypotheses which lie at the root of morals and religion +are derived from another source than physiology, but physiology +does not exclude them, and will not do so until it gives a far +more verifiably complete account of human nature than it does at +present. + +[354:1] Mr. Browning has expressed this with his usual +incisiveness and penetration:-- + + 'I hear you recommend, I might at least + Eliminate, decrassify my faith ... + Still, when you bid me purify the same, + To such a process I discern no end, + Clearing off one excrescence to see two; + There's ever a next in size, now grown as big, + That meets the knife: I cut and cut again! + First cut the liquefaction, what comes last + But Fichte's clever cut at God himself?' + +But also, on the other hand:-- + + 'Where's + The gain? how can we guard our unbelief? + Just when we are safest, there's a sunset-touch, + A fancy from a flower-bell, some one's death, + A chorus ending from Euripides,-- + And that's enough for fifty hopes and fears, + As old and new at once as Nature's self, + To rap and knock and enter in our soul ... + All we have gained then by our unbelief + Is a life of doubt diversified by faith, + For one of faith diversified by doubt: + We called the chess-board white,--we call it black.' + + _Bishop Blongram's Apology_. + +[359:1] As to the defects of the present edition, see Tischendorf, +Prolegomena to _Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes_, +p. liii: 'Eae vero (collationes) quemadmodum in editis habentur +non modo universae graviter differunt inter se fide atque accuratione, +sed ad ipsos principales testes tam negligenter tamque male factae +sunt ut etiam atque etiam dolendum sit tantos numos rara liberalitate +per Angliam suppeditatos criticae sacrae parum profuisse.' Similarly +Credner, in regard to the use of the Codex Alexandrinus, _Beiträge_, +ii. 16: 'Wahrhaft unbegreiflich und unverzeihlich ist es, dass die +Herausgeber der kostbaren Kritischen Ausgabe der LXX, welcher zu Oxford +vor wenigen Jahren vollendet und von Holmes und Parsons besorgt worden +ist, statt cine sorgfältige Vergleichung des in London aufbewahrten +Cod. Alex. zu veranstalten, sich lediglich auf die Ausgabe von Grabe +beschränkt haben, dessen Kritik vielfach nicht einmal verstanden worden +ist.' + + + + + +APPENDIX. + +SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL. + + +If the reader should happen to possess the work of Rönsch, Das +Neue Testament Tertullian's, to which allusion has frequently been +made above, and will simply glance over the pages, noting the +references, from Luke iv. 16 to the end of the Gospel, I do not +think he will need any other proof of the sufficiency of the +grounds for the reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel, so as at least +to admit of a decision as to whether it was our present St. Luke +or not. + +Failing this, it may be well to give a brief example of the kind +of data available, going back straight to the original authorities +themselves. + +For this purpose we will take the first chapter that Marcion +preserved entire, Luke v, and set forth in full such fragments of +it as have come down to us. + +We take up the argument of Tertullian at the point where he begins +to treat of this chapter. + +In the fourth book of the treatise against Marcion Tertullian +begins by dealing with the Antitheses (a sort of criticism by +Marcion on what he regarded as the Judaising portions of the +Canonical Gospel), and then, in general terms, with the actual +Gospel which Marcion used. From the general he descends to the +particular, and in c.6 Tertullian pledges himself to show in +detail, that even in those parts of the Gospel which Marcion +retained there was enough to refute his own system. + +Marcion's Gospel began with the descent of Jesus upon Capernaum in +the fifteenth year of Tiberias. Tertullian makes points out of +this, also from the account of His preaching in the synagogue and +of the expulsion of the devil. After this incident Marcion's +Gospel represented our Lord as retiring into solitude. It did this +as it would appear in words very similar to those of the Canonical +Gospel. I place side by side the language of Tertullian with that +of the Vulgate (Codex Fuldensis, as given by Tregelles). I have +also compared the translation in the two codd., Vercellensis and +Veronensis, of the Old Latin in Bianchini's edition. It will be +remembered however that Tertullian is admitted to have Marcion's +(and _not_ the Canonical) Gospel before him, and he probably +translates directly from that. + +In solitudinem procedit.... Detentus a turbis: _Oportet me,_ +inquit, _el aliis civitatibus_ _annuntiare regnum dei._ + +Luke v. 42, 43: Ibat in desertum sertum locum ... et detinebant +illum ne discederet ab eis. Quibus ille ait quia, Et aliis +civitatibus oportet me evangelizare regnum dei. + +His discussion of the fifth chapter Tertullian begins by asking why, +out of all possible occupations, Christ should have fixed upon that +of fishing, to take from thence His apostles, Simon and the sons of +Zebedee. There was a meaning in the act which appears in the reply +to Peter, 'Thou shalt catch men,' where there is a reference to a +prophecy of Jeremiah (ch. xvi. 16). By this allusion Jesus sanctioned +those very prophecies which Marcion rejected. In the end the fishermen +left their boats and followed Him. + +De tot generibus operum quid utique ad piscaturam respexit ut, ab illa +in apostolos sumeret _Simonem et filios Zebedaei ... _dicens Petro +_trepidanti de copiosa indagine piscium: ne time abhinc enum homines +eris capiens...._ Denique _relictis naviculis secuti sunt ipsum..._ + +Luke v. 1-11:[1] Factum est autem cum turbae irruereut in eum et +ipse stabat secus stagnum Gennesareth:[2] et vidit duas +naves....[3] Ascendens in unam navem quae erat Simonis...[4] dixit +ad Simonem, Duc in altum, et laxate retia vestra in capturam. +[6]Et cum hoc fecissent concluserunt piscium multitudinem +copiosam.... [7]Et impleverunt ambas naviculas ita ut mergerentur. +[8]Quod cum videret Simon Petrus, procidit ad genua Jesu.... +[9]Stupor enim circumdederat eum ... [10]similiter autem Jacobum +et Johannem filios Zebedaei.... Et ait ad Simonem Jesus, Noli +timere, ex hoc jam homines eris capiens. [11]Et subductis ad +terram navibus relictis omnibus secuti sunt illum. + +For Noli timere &c., cod. a has, Noli timere, jam amodo eris +vivificans homines; cod. b, Nol. tim., ex hoc jam eris homines +vivificans. + +In passing to the incident of the leper, Tertullian argues that +the prohibition of contact with a leper was figurative, applying +really to the contact with sin. But the Godhead is incapable of +pollution, and therefore Jesus touched the leper. It would be in +vain for Marcion to suggest that this was done in contempt of the +law. For, upon his own (Docetic) theory, the body of Jesus was +phantasmal, and therefore could not receive pollution: so that +there would be no real contact or contempt of the law. Neither, as +Marcion maintained, did a comparison with the miracle of Elisha +tend to the disparagement of that prophet. True, Christ healed +with a word. So also with a word had the Creator made the world. +And, after all, the word of Christ produced no greater result than +a river which came from the Creator's hands. Further, the command +of Jesus to the leper when healed, showed His desire that the law +should be fulfilled. Nay, He added an explanation which conveyed +that He was not come to destroy the law, but Himself to fulfil it. +This He did deliberately, and not from mere indulgence to the man, +who, He knew, would wish to do as the law required. + +Argumentatur ... _in leprosi purgationem ... Tetigit leprosum_ ... +Et hoc opponit Marcion ... Christum ... verbo solo, et hoc semel functo, +curationem statim repraesentasse. Quantam ad gloriae humanae aversionem +pertinebat, _vetuit eum divulgare_. Quantum autem ad tutelam legis +jussit ordinem impleri. _Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer munus +quod praecepit Moyses_.... Itaque adjecit: _ut sit vobis in +testimonium_. + +Luke v. 12-14: [12] Ecce vir plenus lepra: et videns Jesum ... +rogavit eum dicens, Domine, si vis, potes me mundare. [13] Et +extendens manum tetigit illum dicens, Volo, mundare. Et confestim +lepra discessit ab illo. [14] Et ipse praecepit illi ut nemini +diceret, sed Vade ostende te sacerdoti, et offer pro emundatione +tua sicut praecepit Moses, in testimonium illis. + +For emundatione in ver. 14, a has purgatione; b as Vulg. Both a +and b have the form offers (see Rönsch, It. u. Vulg. p. 294), b +the plural sacerdotibus. Both codd. have a variation similar to +that of Marcion, ut sit etc.; a inserts hoc. + +Next follows the healing of the paralytic, which was done in +fulfilment of Is. xxxv. 2. The miracle also itself in its details +was a special and exact fulfilment of the prophecy contained in +the next verse, Is. xxxv. 3. That the Messiah should forgive sins +had been repeatedly prophesied, e.g. in Is. liii. 12, i. 18, Micah +vii. 18. Not only were these prophecies thus actually sanctioned +by Christ, but, in forgiving the sins of the paralytic, He was +only doing what the Creator or Demiurge had done before Him. In +proof of this Tertullian appeals to the examples of the Ninevites, +of David and Nathan, of Ahab, of Jonathan the son of Saul, and of +the chosen people themselves. Thus Marcion was doubly refuted, +because the prerogative of forgiveness was asserted of the Messiah +in the prophecies which he rejected and attributed to the Creator +whom he denied. In like manner, when Jesus called Himself the 'Son +of Man,' He did so in a real sense, signifying that He was really +born of a virgin. This appellation too had been applied to Him by +the prophet Daniel. (Dan. vii. 13, iii. 25). But if Jesus claimed +to be the Son of Man, if, standing before the Jews as a man, He +claimed as man the power of forgiving sins, He thereby showed that +He possessed a real human body and not the mere phantasm of which +Marcion spoke. + +_Curatur_ et _paralyticus_, et quidem in coetu, spectante populo... +Cum redintegratione membrorum virium quoque repraesentationem +pollicebatur: _Exsurge et tolle grabatum tuum;_--simul et animi +vigorem ad non timendos qui dicturi erant: _Qui dimittet peccata +nisi solus deus?_... Cum Judaei merito retractarent non posse hominem +_delicta dimittere_ sed _deum solum_, cur... _respondit, habere eum +potestatem dimittendi delicta_, quando et _filium hominis_ nominans +hominem nominaret? + +Luke v. 17-26: [17] Et factum est in una dierum et ipse sedebat +docens.... [18] Et ecce viri portantes in lecto hominem, qui erat +paralyticus, et quaerebant eum inferre... [19] et non invenientes +qua parte illum inferrent prae turba,... per tegulas... +summiserunt illum cum lecto in medium ante Jesum. [20] Quorum +fidem ut vidit, dixit, Homo, remittuntur tibi peccata tua. [21] Et +coeperunt cogitare Scribae et Pharisaei, dicentes, Quis est hic +qui loquitur blasphemias? quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus +deus? [22] Ut cognovit autem Jesus cogitationes eorum, respondens +dixit ad illos. ... [23] Quid est facilius dicere, Dimittuntur +tibi peccata, an dicere, Surge et ambula? [24] Ut autem sciatis +quia filius hominis potestatem habet in terra dimittere peccata, +ait paralytico, Tibi dico, surge, tolle lectum tuum et vade in +domum tuam. [25] Et confestim surgens ... abiit in domum suam. + +Grabatum is the reading of a in ver. 25. + +Marcion drew an argument from the calling of the publican (Levi)-- +one under ban of the law--as if it were done in disparagement of +the law. Tertullian reminds him in reply of the calling and +confession of Peter, who was a representative of the law. Further, +when he said that 'the whole need not a physician' Jesus declared +that the Jews were whole, the publicans sick. + +_Publicanum_ adlectum a domino ... dicendo, _medicum sanis +non esse necessarium sed male habentibus_... + +Luke v. 27-32: [27] Et post hoc exiit et vidit publicanum ... et +ait illi, Sequere me.... [30] Et murmurabant Pharisaei et Scribae +eorum... [31] et respondens Jesus dixit ad illos, Non egent qui +sani sunt medico sed qui male habent. + +The question respecting the disciples of John is turned against +Marcion, as a recognition of the Baptist's mission. If John had +not prepared the way for Christ, if he had not actually baptized +Him, if, in fact, there was that diversity between the two which +Marcion assumed, no one would ever have thought of instituting a +comparison between them or the conduct of their disciples. In His +reply, 'that the children of the bridegroom could not fast,' Jesus +virtually allowed the practice of the disciples of John, and +excused, as only for a time, that of His own disciples. The very +name, 'bridegroom,' was taken from the Old Testament (Ps. xix. 6 +sq., Is. lxi. 10, xlix. 18, Cant. iv. 8); and its assumption by +Christ was a sanction of marriage, and showed that Marcion did +wrong to condemn the married state. + +Unde autem et Joannes venit in medium?... Si nihil omnino +administrasset Joannes ... nemo _discipulos Christi manducantes et +bibentes_ ad formam _discipulorum Joannis assidue jejunantium et +orantium_ provocasset.... Nunc humiliter reddens rationem, quod _non +possent jejunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea +vero jejunaturos_ promittens, _cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset_. + +Luke v. 33-35: [33] At illi dixerunt ad eum, Quare discipuli +Johannis jejunant frequenter et obsecrationes faciunt, ... tui +autem edunt et bibunt? [34] Quibus ipse ait, Numquid potestis +filios sponsi dum cum illis est sponsus facere jejunare? [35] +Venient autem dies cum ablatus fuerit ab illis sponsus, tune +jejunabunt in illis diebus. + +In ver. 33, for obsecrationes a has orationes, and for edunt +manducant: a and b also have quamdiu (Vulg. cum) in ver. 35. + +Equally erroneous was Marcion's interpretation of the concluding +verses of the chapter which dealt with the distinction between old +and new. He indeed was intoxicated with 'new wine'--though the +real 'new wine' had been prophesied as far back as Jer. iv. 4 and +Is. xliii. 19--but He to whom belonged the new wine and the new +bottles also belonged the old. The difference between the old and +new dispensations was of developement and progression, not of +diversity or contrariety. Both had one and the same Author. + +Errasti in illa etiam domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova et +vetera discernere. Inflatus es _utribus veteribus_ et excerebratus es +_novo vino_: atque ita _veteri_, i.e. priori evangelio _pannum_ +haereticae _novitatis adsuisli ... Venum novum_ is _non committit in +veteres utres_ qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et _novum +additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento_ nisi cui non defuerit +vetus vestimentum. + +Luke v. 36-38: [36] Dicebat autem et similitudinem ad illos quia +nemo commissuram a vestimento novo inmittit in vestimentum +vetus.... [37] Et nemo mittit vinum novum in utres veteres.... +[38] Sed vinum novum in utres novos mittendum est. + +Of the phrases peculiar to Tertullian's version of Marcion's text, +a has pannum (-no) and adsuisti (-it). + +It is observed that Tertullian does not quote verse 39, which is +omitted by D, a, b, c, c, ff, l, and perhaps, also by Eusebius. + +Two of the Scholia of Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 322 D sqq.), nos. 1 +and 2, have reference to this chapter. + +[Greek: Echul. a. Apelthon deixon seauton to hierei kai +prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxe Mousaes, +hina ae marturion touto humin.] + +Luke v. 14. [Greek: Apeltheon deixon seauton to hierei, kai +prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxen Mousaes, +eis marturion autois.] + +v.l. [Greek: hina eis marturion] (D'1, [Greek: ae] D'2) [Greek: +humin touto] D, (a, b), c, ff, l. + +The comment of Epiphanius on this is similar to that of +Tertullian. To bid the leper 'do as Moses commanded,' was +practically to sanction the law of Moses. Epiphanius expressly +accuses Marcion of falsifying the phrase 'for a testimony unto +them.' He says that he changed 'them' to 'you,' without however, +even in this perverted form, preventing the text from recoiling +upon his own head [Greek: diestrepsas de to rhaeton, o Markion, +anti tou eipein 'eis marturion autois' marturion legon 'humin.' +kai touto saphos epseuso kata taes sautou kephalaes]. + +[Greek: Echol. B'. Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios +tou anthropou aphienai hamartias epi taes gaes.] + +Luke v. 24. [Greek: Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios +tou anthropou epi taes gaes aphienai hamartias.] + +In this order, [Hebrew aleph], A, C, D, rel., a, c, e, Syrr. Pst. +and Hcl., (Memph.), Goth., Arm., Aeth.; [Greek: ex. ech.] after +[Greek: ho, hu. t. a.], B, L, [Greek: Xi symbol], K, Vulg., b, f, +g'1, ff, l. + +By calling Himself 'Son of Man,' Epiphanius says, our Lord +asserts His proper manhood and repels Docetism, and, by claiming +'power upon earth,' He declares that earth not to belong to an +alien creation. + +Reverting to Tertullian, we observe, (1) that the narrative of the +draught of fishes, with the fear of Peter, and the promise _in +this form_, 'Thou shalt catch men,' ([Greek: Mae phobou apo tou +nun anthropous esae zogron]; the other Synoptists have, [Greek: +Deute opiso mou, kai poiaeso humas halieis anthropon]), are found +only in St. Luke; (2) that the second section of the chapter, the +healing of the leper, is placed by the other Synoptists in a +different order, by Mark immediately after our Lord's retirement +into solitude (= Luke iv. 42-44), and by Matthew after the Sermon +on the Mount; the phrase [Greek: eis marturion autois] is common +to all three Gospels, but in the text of St. Luke alone is there +the variant Ut sit vobis &c.; (3) that, while the remaining +sections follow in the same order in all the Synoptics, still +there is much to identify the text from which Tertullian is +quoting with that of Luke. Thus, in the account of the case of +Levi, the third Evangelist alone has the word [Greek: telonaen] +(=publicanum) and [Greek: hugiainontes] (=sani; the other Gospels +[Greek: ischontes] =valentes); in the question as to the practice +of the disciples of John, he alone has the allusion to prayers +([Greek: deaeseis poiountai]) and the combination 'eat and drink' +(the other Gospels, [Greek: ou naesteyousin]): he too has the +simple [Greek: epiblaema], for [Greek: epiblaema rhakous +agnaphou]. It seems quite incredible that these accumulated +coincidences should be merely the result of accident. + +But this is only the beginning. The same kind of coincidences run +uniformly all through the Gospel. From the next chapter, Luke vi, +Marcion had, in due order, the plucking of the ears of corn on the +sabbath day ('rubbing them with their hands,' Luke and Marcion +alone), the precedent of David and his companions and the +shewbread, the watching _of the Pharisees_ (so Luke only) to +see if He would heal on the sabbath day, the healing of the +withered hand--with an exact resemblance to the text of Luke and +divergence from the other Gospels (licetne animam liberare an +perdere? [Greek: psuchaen apolesai] Luke, [Greek: apokteinai] +Mark), in the order and words of Luke alone, the retreat into the +mountain for prayer, the selection of the twelve Apostles, and +then, in a strictly Lucan form and introduced precisely at the +same point, the Sermon on the Mount, the blessing on 'the poor' +(not the 'poor in spirit'), on those 'who hunger' (not on those +'who hunger and thirst after righteousness'), on those 'who weep, +for they shall laugh' (not on those 'who mourn, for they shall be +comforted'), with an exact translation of St. Luke and difference +from St. Matthew, the clause relating to those who are persecuted +and reviled: then follow the 'woes;' to the rich, 'for ye have +received your consolation;' to 'those who are full, for they shall +hunger;' to 'those who laugh now, for they shall mourn:' and so on +almost verse by verse. + +It is surely needless to go further. There are indeed very rarely +what seem to be reminiscences of the other Gospels (e.g. +'esurierunt discipuli' in the parallel to Luke vi. 1), but the +total amount of resemblance to St. Luke and divergence from St. +Matthew and St. Mark is overwhelming. Of course the remainder of +the evidence can easily be produced if necessary, but I do not +think it will long remain in doubt that our present St. Luke was +really the foundation of the Gospel that Marcion used. + + + + + +INDEX I. + +References to the Four Gospels. + + +The asterisk indicates that the passage in question is discussed +in some detail. + +_St. Matthew._ + +I. 1 2-6 18* 18 ff 18-25 21 23 +II. 1 1-7 1-23 2 5,6 6 11 12 13 13-15 16 17,18 18 22. +III. 2 4 8 10 11,12 15* 16 18 +IV. 1 8-10 9 10 11 17 18 23 +V. 1-48 3 4,5* 7* 8 10* 11 13,14 14 16* 17 17,18 18* 20 21-48 + 22 28 29 29,30 29,32 32 34* 37* 38,39 39,40 41 42 44,45 + 45* 46* 48 +VI. 1 1-34 6 8 10 13 14 19 19,20 20 21 25-27 25-37 32* 32,33 +VII. 1-29 2 6 7 9-11* 12 13,14* 15* 16 19 21* 22 22,23 28,29 +VIII. 9 11 11,12 17 26 28-34 +IX. 1-8 13* 16 17 22 29-31 33 +X. 1 8 10 11* 13 15 16* 22 26 28* 29,30 33 38,39 40 +XI. 5 7 10 11 12-15 18 26 25-27 27* 28 +XII. 1-8* 7 9-14* 17-21 18-21 24 25* 26 31,32 34 41 42 43 48 +XIII. 1-58 3 3ff 5 11 15 16 24-30 25 26* 34 35 37-39 38 39 42,43 +XIV. 1 3 3-12 6 +XV. 4-6 4-8* 4-9 8* 13 15 17 20 21-28 26 36 +XVI. 1 1-4 4 15-18 16* 19 21 24 24,25 26 +XVII. 3 5 11 11-13* 12,13 13 +XVIII. 1-35 3* 6 7 8 8,9 10 19 +XIX. 4 6* 8* 9 10-12 11,12* 12* 13 16,17* 17 19 22 26* +XX. 8 16 19 20-28 +XXI. 1 5 12,13 16 20-22 23 33 42 +XXII. 9 11 14* 21 24 29 30 32 37 38 39 40 44* +XXIII. 2 2,3 5 10 13 15 18 20 23 24 25 25,26* 27 29 35 +XXIV. 1-51 3 14 45-51* +XXV. 1-46 14-30 21 26,27 34 41* +XXVI. 1-75 17,18 24* 30 31* 36,37 38 39 41 43 56 56,57 57 64* +XXVII. 9 9,10* 11f. 14 35 39ff 42 43 46 57-60 +XXVIII. 1 12-15 19. + + +_St. Mark._ + +I. 1 2 4 17 22 24 26 +II. 23-28* 28 +III. 1-6* 17 23 25 29 +IV. 1-34 11 12 33,34 34* +V. 1-20 31 +VI. 3 11 14 17-29 +VII. 6* 6-13 7 10,11 11-13 13 21,22 24-30 +VIII. 29 31 34 +IX. 7 21 43 47 +X. 5 5,6 6 8 9 17 18 19 21 22 27* 37-45 +XI. 20-26 +XII. 17 20 24 27* 29* 30 38-44 +XIII. 2* 22 +XIV. 12,13 12-14 40 51,52 +XV. 14 34 +XVI. 14-16 + + +_St. Luke._ + +I. 1-4 1-80 3 6 7 7-10 8 9 12 13 15 17 18,19 19 20 20-22 21 23 24 + 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 34,35 35* 36 39 41 48 55 56 57 61 62 + 64 67 69 73 74 76 77 78 80 +II. 1,2 1-52 4 6 7 8 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 21,22 22 24 25 26 + 27 28 29 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 48,49 49 50 51 + 52 66 +III. 1 1-38 3 12-14 13 15 16 16,17 17 19 20 21 21,22 22 23 31-34 +IV. 1 1-13 4 6 6-8 7 8 10 13 14 16 17 17-20 18,19 19 20 24 25 32 + 42,43 42-44 +V. 1 1-11 1-39 12-14 14 17-26 24 27-32 32 33-35 36-38 39 +VI. 1 1-5* 1-49 6-11* 13 14* 20* 27,28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 36,37 + 36-38* 37,38 45 46* +VII. 2* 8 11-18 12* 24-28 26 27 28 29-35 30 35 36-38 +VIII. 1-3 5 10 19 23 26-39 41 +IX. 5 7 17,18 20 22 55 57,58 60 61 61,62 62 +X. 3 5,6 7* 10-12 16 18 19* 20 21 21,22 22 23 24 25 37 +XI. 2 9 11-13* 14 17 22 29-32 32 39 42 47 49-51 52 +XII. 4,5* 6,7 9 10 14 22-24 30 38 42-46* 48 50 +XIII. 1 sqq. 1-9 6 7 7-8 24* 26,27 27 28 28,29 29 29-35 31-35 33 34 +XIV. 27 +XV. 4 8 11-32 13 14 17 18 20 22 24 25 26 29 +XVI. 12 16 17* +XVII. 1,2* 2 5-10 9 9,10 +XVIII. 6-8 18,18 19 27* 31 31-34 34 35-43 +XIX. 5 9 17 22,23 29 29-48 33-39 35 37 37-48 38 41 42 43 46 47 +XX. 9 9-l8 14 17 19 21 22 22-25 24 25 35,36 35 37,38 38 +XXI. 1-4 4 18 21 21,22 22 27 28 34 +XXII. 9-11 16-18 17 18 18-36 19 19,20 28-30 30 35-38 37 38 42-44 + 43,44* 53,54 66 +XXIII. 1 ff. 2 5 7 34 35 46 +XXIV. 1 ff. 21 26 32 38,39 39* 40 42 46 47-53 49 50 5l 52 53 + + +_St. John._ + +I. 1,2 1-3 3* 4 5* 9 13 14 18 19 19,20* 23* 28 +II. 4 16,17 +III. 3-5* 5* 6 8 12 14 16 36 +IV. 6 +V. 2 3,4 4 8 17 18 43 46 +VI. 15 39 51 53 54* 55* 70 +VII. 8 38 42 +VIII. 17 40 44 +IX. 1-3* +X. 8 9* 23,24 27* 30 +XI. 54 +XII. 14,15 22 27 30 40 41 +XIII. 18 +XIV. 2 6 10 +XV. 25 +XVI. 2* 3 +XVII. 3 11,12 14* +XVIII. 36 +XIX. 36 37* + + + + + +INDEX II. + +Chronological and Analytical. + + + _Writer_. | _Works Extant_. | _Date_ | _Evangelical Documents + | | A.D. | used_. + | | | +Clement of |One genuine Epistle | c.95- |Traces, perhaps + Rome. | addressed to the | 100. | probable of the three + | Philippians. | | Synoptics. + | | | +Barnabas. |Pseud-egraphical | c.100- |Probably St. Matthew, + | Epistle | 125. | perhaps St. Luke, + | | | possibly the fourth Gospel. + | | | +Ignatius. |Three short Epistles,| 107 or |Probably St. Matthew, + | probably genuine. | 115. | and perhaps St. John. + | [Spurious, S.R.] | | + | | | + |Seven short Epistles,| |Probably St. Matthew, + | perhaps genuine. | | perhaps also St. John. + | [Spurious, S.R.] | | + | | | +Hermas. |Allegorical work, | c.135- |No distinct traces of + | entitled the | 140. | any writing of Old or + | 'Shepherd.' | | New Testament. + | | | +Polycarp. |Short Epistle to | c.140- |Doubtful traces of + | Philippians, | 155. | St. Matthew, probable + | probably genuine. | | of 1 John. + | [Spurious, S.R.] | | + | | | +Presbyters. |Quoted by Irenaeus. | c.140? |Probably St. John. + | | | +Papias. |Short fragments in | +155. |Some account of + | Eusebius. |[see pp.| works written by + | |145, 82;| St. Matthew and + | |164-167,| St. Mark, but + | |S.R.] | probably not our + | | | present Gospels in + | | | their present form. + | | | +Basilides. }|Allusions, not | c.125. |Certain use of + }| certain, in | | St. Luke and St. John, + }| Hippolytus, Clem. | | perhaps probably by +Basilidians.}| Alex., Epiphanius, | | Basilides himself. + | | | +Marcion. |Copious references | c.140. |Certainly the third + | in Tertullian and | | Gospel, with text + | Epiphanius. | | already corrupt. + | | | +Justin |Two Apologies and | +148. |Three Synoptic + Martyr. | Dialogue against | [166- | Gospels either + | Tryphon. | 167, | separately or in + | | S.R.] | Harmony, probably the + | | | fourth Gospel, and also + | | | an Apocryphal Gospel or + | | | Gospels; text showing + | | | marks of corruption. + | | | + |Old Latin translation| c.150. |Four Canonical + | of N.T. | | Gospels, with + | | | corrupt text. + | | | +Valentinus. }|Allusions, not | c.140. |References to all four + }| certain in | | Gospels, but not clear +Valentinians}| Hippolytus, &c. | before | by whom made. + | | 178. | + | | | +Clement. |Nineteen pseudo- | c.160? |Four Canonical Gospels + | epigraphical | | (possibly in a + | | | Harmony), with other + | | | Apocryphal sources + | | | to some extent. + | | | +Hegesippus. |Few fragments |fl.157- |Apparent traces of + | chiefly preserved | 180. | St. Matthew and + | by Eusebius. | | St. Luke. + | | | +Tatian. |Few allusions, |fl.150- |Diatessaron, + |'Address to Greeks.' | 170. | probably consisting + | | | of our four Gospels, + | | | quotations from + | | | St. John in Orat. + | | | ad Graec. + | | | + |Old Syriac | c.160? |Four Canonical Gospels, + | Translation of N.T. | | with corrupt text. + | | | + |Muratorian Fragment | c.170. |Four Gospels as + | | | Canonical. + | | | +Ptolomaeus. |Allusions in | before |Clear references + | Irenaeus, &c., | 178. | to St. Matthew and + | fragments in | | St. John. + | Epiphanius. | | + | | | +Heracleon. |Allusions in | before |Third and fourth + | Irenaeus, &c., | 178. | gospels. + | fragments in Origen.| | + | | | +Melito. |Few slight fragments.| c.176. |Doubtful indirect + | | | allusions to Canon + | | | of N.T. + | | | +Apollinaris. |Two slight fragments.| 176- |Allusion to + | | 180. | discrepancy + | | | between Gospels, + | | | fourth Gospel. + | | | +Athenagoras. |An Apology and tract | c.177. |One fairly clear + | on the Resurrection.| | quotation from + | | | St. Matthew, + | | | perhaps from + | | | St. Mark and + | | | St. John. + | | | +Churches of |An Epistle. | 177. |Clear allusions to + Vienne and | | | St. Luke and St. John, + Lyons. | | | perhaps also to + | | | St. Matthew. + | | | +Celsus. |Fragments in Origen. | c.178. |Somewhat vague traces + | | | of all four Gospels. + | | | +Irenaeus. |Treatise 'Against | c.140- |Four Gospels as + | Heresies.' | 202. | Canonical, with + | | | corrupt text. + | | | +Clement of |Several considerable |fl.185- |Four Gospels as + Alexandria | works. | 211. | Canonical, with + | | | corrupt text. + | | | +Tertullian. |Voluminous works. |fl.198- |Four Gospels as + | | 210. | Canonical, with + | | | corrupt text. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Gospels in the Second Century +by William Sanday + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY *** + +***** This file should be named 10955-8.txt or 10955-8.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/0/9/5/10955/ + +Produced by PG Distributed Proofreaders + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's +eBook number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, +compressed (zipped), HTML and others. + +Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks replace the old file and take over +the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed. +VERSIONS based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving +new filenames and etext numbers. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +EBooks posted prior to November 2003, with eBook numbers BELOW #10000, +are filed in directories based on their release date. If you want to +download any of these eBooks directly, rather than using the regular +search system you may utilize the following addresses and just +download by the etext year. + + https://www.gutenberg.org/etext06 + + (Or /etext 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 00, 99, + 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90) + +EBooks posted since November 2003, with etext numbers OVER #10000, are +filed in a different way. The year of a release date is no longer part +of the directory path. The path is based on the etext number (which is +identical to the filename). The path to the file is made up of single +digits corresponding to all but the last digit in the filename. For +example an eBook of filename 10234 would be found at: + + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/0/2/3/10234 + +or filename 24689 would be found at: + https://www.gutenberg.org/2/4/6/8/24689 + +An alternative method of locating eBooks: + https://www.gutenberg.org/GUTINDEX.ALL + + diff --git a/old/10955-8.zip b/old/10955-8.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b9d071f --- /dev/null +++ b/old/10955-8.zip diff --git a/old/10955.txt b/old/10955.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0d859b8 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/10955.txt @@ -0,0 +1,13784 @@ +Project Gutenberg's The Gospels in the Second Century, by William Sanday + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Gospels in the Second Century + An Examination of the Critical Part of a Work + Entitled 'Supernatural Religion' + +Author: William Sanday + +Release Date: February 6, 2004 [EBook #10955] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY *** + + + + +Produced by PG Distributed Proofreaders + + + + + + + + +THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY + + +_AN EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PART OF A WORK +ENTITLED 'SUPERNATURAL RELIGION'_ + + +BY + +W. SANDAY, M.A. + + +_Rector of Barton-on-the-Heath, Warwickshire; +and late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. +Author of a Work on the Fourth Gospel._ + + + + +LONDON: +1876. + + + + + +_I had hoped to inscribe in this book the revered and cherished +name of my old head master, DR. PEARS of Repton. His consent had +been very kindly and warmly given, and I was just on the point of +sending the dedication to the printers when I received a telegram +naming the day and hour of his funeral. His health had for some +time since his resignation of Repton been seriously failing, but I +had not anticipated that the end was so near. All who knew him +will deplore his too early loss, and their regret will be shared +by the wider circle of those who can appreciate a life in which +there was nothing ignoble, nothing ungenerous, nothing unreal. I +had long wished that he should receive some tribute of regard from +one whom he had done his best by precept, and still more by +example, to fit and train for his place and duty in the world. +This pleasure and this honour have been denied me. I cannot place +my book, as I had hoped, in his hand, but I may still lay it +reverently upon his tomb._ + + + + + +CONTENTS + +CHAP. + +I. INTRODUCTORY + +II. ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS + +III. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS + +IV. JUSTIN MARTYR + +V. HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS + +VI. THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES + +VII. BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS + +VIII. MARCION + +IX. TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH + +X. MELITO--APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS + +XI. PTOLOMAEUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT + +XII. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL + +XIII. ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY + +XIV. CONCLUSION + +[ENDNOTES] + +APPENDIX. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL + +INDICES + + + + + +PREFACE. + + +It will be well to explain at once that the following work has +been written at the request and is published at the cost of the +Christian Evidence Society, and that it may therefore be classed +under the head of Apologetics. I am aware that this will be a +drawback to it in the eyes of some, and I confess that it is not +altogether a recommendation in my own. + +Ideally speaking, Apologetics ought to have no existence distinct +from the general and unanimous search for truth, and in so far as +they tend to put any other consideration, no matter how high or +pure in itself, in the place of truth, they must needs stand aside +from the path of science. + +But, on the other hand, the question of true belief itself is +immensely wide. It is impossible to approach what is merely a +branch of a vast subject without some general conclusions already +formed as to the whole. The mind cannot, if it would, become a +sheet of blank paper on which the writing is inscribed by an +external process alone. It must needs have its _praejudicia_-- +i.e. judgments formed on grounds extrinsic to the special matter +of enquiry--of one sort or another. Accordingly we find that an +absolutely and strictly impartial temper never has existed and +never will. If it did, its verdict would still be false, because +it would represent an incomplete or half-suppressed humanity. +There is no question that touches, directly or indirectly, on the +moral and spiritual nature of man that can be settled by the bare +reason. A certain amount of sympathy is necessary in order to +estimate the weight of the forces that are to be analysed: yet +that very sympathy itself becomes an extraneous influence, and the +perfect balance and adjustment of the reason is disturbed. + +But though impartiality, in the strict sense, is not to be had, +there is another condition that may be rightly demanded--resolute +honesty. This I hope may be attained as well from one point of +view as from another, at least that there is no very great +antecedent reason to the contrary. In past generations indeed +there was such a reason. Strongly negative views could only be +expressed at considerable personal risk and loss. But now, public +opinion is so tolerant, especially among the reading and thinking +classes, that both parties are practically upon much the same +footing. Indeed for bold and strong and less sensitive minds +negative views will have an attraction and will find support that +will go far to neutralise any counterbalancing disadvantage. + +On either side the remedy for the effects of bias must be found in +a rigorous and searching criticism. If misleading statements and +unsound arguments are allowed to pass unchallenged the fault will +not lie only with their author. + +It will be hardly necessary for me to say that the Christian +Evidence Society is not responsible for the contents of this work, +except in so far as may be involved in the original request that I +should write it. I undertook the task at first with some hesitation, +and I could not have undertaken it at all without stipulating for +entire freedom. The Society very kindly and liberally granted me +this, and I am conscious of having to some extent availed myself +of it. I have not always stayed to consider whether the opinions +expressed were in exact accordance with those of the majority of +Christians. It will be enough if they should find points of contact +in some minds, and the tentative element in them will perhaps be +the more indulgently judged now that the reconciliation of the +different branches of knowledge and belief is being so anxiously +sought for. + +The instrument of the enquiry had to be fashioned as the enquiry +itself went on, and I suspect that the consequences of this will +be apparent in some inequality and incompleteness in the earlier +portions. For instance, I am afraid that the textual analysis of +the quotations in Justin may seem somewhat less satisfactory than +that of those in the Clementine Homilies, though Justin's +quotations are the more important of the two. Still I hope that +the treatment of the first may be, for the scale of the book, +sufficiently adequate. There seemed to be a certain advantage in +presenting the results of the enquiry in the order in which it was +conducted. If time and strength are allowed me, I hope to be able +to carry several of the investigations that are begun in this book +some stages further. + +I ought perhaps to explain that I was prevented by other engagements +from beginning seriously to work upon the subject until the latter +end of December in last year. The first of Dr. Lightfoot's articles +in the Contemporary Review had then appeared. The next two articles +(on the Silence of Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles) were also +in advance of my own treatment of the same topics. From this point +onwards I was usually the first to finish, and I have been compelled +merely to allude to the progress of the controversy in notes. Seeing +the turn that Dr. Lightfoot's review was taking, and knowing how +utterly vain it would be for any one else to go over the same ground, +I felt myself more at liberty to follow a natural bent in confining +myself pretty closely to the internal aspect of the enquiry. My object +has been chiefly to test in detail the alleged quotations from our +Gospels, while Dr. Lightfoot has taken a wider sweep in collecting +and bringing to bear the collateral matter of which his unrivalled +knowledge of the early Christian literature gave him such command. +It will be seen that in some cases, as notably in regard to the +evidence of Papias, the external and the internal methods have +led to an opposite result; and I shall look forward with much +interest to the further discussion of this subject. + +I should be sorry to ignore the debt I am under to the author of +'Supernatural Religion' for the copious materials he has supplied +to criticism. I have also to thank him for his courtesy in sending +me a copy of the sixth edition of his work. My obligations to +other writers I hope will be found duly acknowledged. If I were to +single out the one book to which I owed most, it would probably be +Credner's 'Beitrage zur Einleitung in die Biblischen Schriften,' +of which I have spoken somewhat fully in an early chapter. I have +used a certain amount of discretion and economy in avoiding as a +rule the works of previous apologists (such as Semisch, Riggenbach, +Norton, Hofstede de Groot) and consulting rather those of an opposite +school in such representatives as Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. In this +way, though I may very possibly have omitted some arguments which +may be sound, I hope I shall have put forward few that have been +already tried and found wanting. + +As I have made rather large use of the argument supplied by text- +criticism, I should perhaps say that to the best of my belief my +attention was first drawn to its importance by a note in Dr. Lightfoot's +work on Revision. The evidence adduced under this head will be found, +I believe, to be independent of any particular theory of text-criticism. +The idea of the Analytical Index is taken, with some change of plan, +from Volkmar. It may serve to give a sort of _coup d'oeil_ of the +subject. + +It is a pleasure to be able to mention another form of assistance +from which it is one of the misfortunes of an anonymous writer to +find himself cut off. The proofs of this book have been seen in +their passage through the press by my friend the Rev. A.J. Mason, +Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, whose exact scholarship has +been particularly valuable to me. On another side than that of +scholarship I have derived the greatest benefit from the advice of +my friend James Beddard, M.B., of Nottingham, who was among the +first to help me to realise, and now does not suffer me to forget, +what a book ought to be. The Index of References to the Gospels +has also been made for me. + +The chapter on Marcion has already appeared, substantially in its +present form, as a contribution to the Fortnightly Review. + +BARTON-ON-THE-HEATH, + SHIPSTON-ON-STOUR, + _November_, 1875. + + + + + + [Greek epigraph: Ta de panta elenchoumena hupo tou photos + phaneroutai pan gar to phaneroumenon phos estin.] + + + + + +CHAPTER I. + +INTRODUCTORY. + + +It would be natural in a work of this kind, which is a direct +review of a particular book, to begin with an account of that +book, and with some attempt to characterise it. Such had been my +own intention, but there seems to be sufficient reason for +pursuing a different course. On the one hand, an account of a book +which has so recently appeared, which has been so fully reviewed, +and which has excited so much attention, would appear to be +superfluous; and, on the other hand, as the character of it has +become the subject of somewhat sharp controversy, and as controversy-- +or at least the controversial temper--is the one thing that I wish +to avoid, I have thought it well on the whole to abandon my first +intention, and to confine myself as much as possible to a criticism +of the argument and subject-matter, with a view to ascertain the +real facts as to the formation of the Canon of the four Gospels. + +I shall correct, where I am able to do so, such mistakes as may +happen to come under my notice and have not already been pointed +out by other reviewers, only dilating upon them where what seem to +be false principles of criticism are involved. On the general +subject of these mistakes--misleading references and the like--I +think that enough has been said [Endnote 2:1]. Much is perhaps +charged upon the individual which is rather due to the system of +theological training and the habits of research that are common in +England at the present day. Inaccuracies no doubt have been found, +not a few. But, unfortunately, there is only one of our seats of +learning where--in theology at least--the study of accuracy has +quite the place that it deserves. Our best scholars and ablest +men--with one or two conspicuous exceptions--do not write, and the +work is left to be done by _litterateurs_ and clergymen or +laymen who have never undergone the severe preliminary discipline +which scientific investigation requires. Thus a low standard is +set; there are but few sound examples to follow, and it is a +chance whether the student's attention is directed to these at the +time when his habits of mind are being formed. + +Again, it was claimed for 'Supernatural Religion' on its first +appearance that it was impartial. The claim has been indignantly +denied, and, I am afraid I must say, with justice. Any one +conversant with the subject (I speak of the critical portion of +the book) will see that it is deeply coloured by the author's +prepossessions from beginning to end. Here again he has only imbibed +the temper of the nation. Perhaps it is due to our political +activity and the system of party-government that the spirit of +party seems to have taken such a deep root in the English mind. An +Englishman's political opinions are determined for him mainly +(though sometimes in the way of reaction) by his antecedents and +education, and his opinions on other subjects follow in their +train. He takes them up with more of practical vigour and energy +than breadth of reflection. There is a contagion of party-spirit +in the air. And thus advocacy on one side is simply met by +advocacy on the other. Such has at least been hitherto the history +of English thought upon most great subjects. We may hope that at +last this state of things is coming to an end. But until now, and +even now, it has been difficult to find that quiet atmosphere in +which alone true criticism can flourish. + +Let it not be thought that these few remarks are made in a spirit +of censoriousness. They are made by one who is only too conscious +of being subject to the very same conditions, and who knows not +how far he may need indulgence on the same score himself. How far +his own work is tainted with the spirit of advocacy it is not for +him to say. He knows well that the author whom he has set himself +to criticise is at least a writer of remarkable vigour and +ability, and that he cannot lay claim to these qualities; but he +has confidence in the power of truth--whatever that truth may be-- +to assert itself in the end. An open and fair field and full and +free criticism are all that is needed to eliminate the effects of +individual strength or weakness. 'The opinions of good men are but +knowledge in the making'--especially where they are based upon a +survey of the original facts. Mistakes will be made and have +currency for a time. But little by little truth emerges; it +receives the suffrages of those who are competent to judge; +gradually the controversy narrows; parts of it are closed up +entirely, and a solid and permanent advance is made. + + * * * * * + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' starts from a rigid and +somewhat antiquated view of Revelation--Revelation is 'a direct +and external communication by God to man of truths undiscoverable +by human reason. The divine origin of this communication is proved +by miracles. Miracles are proved by the record of Scripture, +which, in its turn, is attested by the history of the Canon.--This +is certainly the kind of theory which was in favour at the end of +the last century, and found expression in works like Paley's +Evidences. It belongs to a time of vigorous and clear but +mechanical and narrow culture, when the philosophy of religion was +made up of abrupt and violent contrasts; when Christianity +(including under that name the Old Testament as well as the New) +was thought to be simply true and all other religions simply +false; when the revelation of divine truth was thought to be as +sudden and complete as the act of creation; and when the presence +of any local and temporary elements in the Christian documents or +society was ignored. + +The world has undergone a great change since then. A new and far- +reaching philosophy is gradually displacing the old. The Christian +sees that evolution is as much a law of religion as of nature. The +Ethnic, or non-Christian, religions are no longer treated as +outside the pale of the Divine government. Each falls into its +place as part of a vast divinely appointed scheme, of the character +of which we are beginning to have some faint glimmerings. Other +religions are seen to be correlated to Christianity much as the +other tentative efforts of nature are correlated to man. A divine +operation, and what from our limited human point of view we should +call a _special_ divine operation, is not excluded but rather implied +in the physical process by which man has been planted on the earth, +and it is still more evidently implied in the corresponding process +of his spiritual enlightenment. The deeper and more comprehensive +view that we have been led to take as to the dealings of Providence +has not by any means been followed by a depreciation of Christianity. +Rather it appears on a loftier height than ever. The spiritual +movements of recent times have opened men's eyes more and more to +its supreme spiritual excellence. It is no longer possible to +resolve it into a mere 'code of morals.' The Christian ethics grow +organically out of the relations which Christianity assumes between +God and man, and in their fulness are inseparable from those relations. +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' speaks as if they were separable, +as if a man could assume all the Christian graces merely by wishing +to assume them. But he forgets the root of the whole Christian system, +'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall in +no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.' + +The old idea of the _Aufklaerung_ that Christianity was nothing +more than a code of morals, has now long ago been given up, and +the self-complacency which characterised that movement has +for the most part, though not entirely, passed away. The +nineteenth century is not in very many quarters regarded as the +goal of things. And it will hardly now be maintained that +Christianity is adequately represented by any of the many sects +and parties embraced under the name. When we turn from even the +best of these, in its best and highest embodiment, to the picture +that is put before us in the Gospels, how small does it seem! We +feel that they all fall short of their ideal, and that there is a +greater promise and potentiality of perfection in the root than +has ever yet appeared in branch or flower. + +No doubt theology follows philosophy. The special conception of +the relation of man to God naturally takes its colour from the +wider conception as to the nature of all knowledge and the +relation of God to the universe. It has been so in every age, and +it must needs be so now. Some readjustment, perhaps a considerable +readjustment, of theological and scientific beliefs may be +necessary. But there is, I think, a strong presumption that the +changes involved in theology will be less radical than often seems +to be supposed. When we look back upon history, the world has gone +through many similar crises before. The discoveries of Darwin and +the philosophies of Mill or Hegel do not mark a greater relative +advance than the discoveries of Newton and the philosophies of +Descartes and Locke. These latter certainly had an effect upon +theology. At one time they seemed to shake it to its base; so much +so that Bishop Butler wrote in the Advertisement to the first +edition of his Analogy that 'it is come to be taken for granted +that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but that +it is now at length discovered to be fictitious.' Yet what do we +see after a lapse of a hundred and forty years? It cannot be said +that there is less religious life and activity now than there was +then, or that there has been so far any serious breach in the +continuity of Christian belief. An eye that has learnt to watch +the larger movements of mankind will not allow itself to be +disturbed by local oscillations. It is natural enough that some of +our thinkers and writers should imagine that the last word has +been spoken, and that they should be tempted to use the word +'Truth' as if it were their own peculiar possession. But Truth is +really a much vaster and more unattainable thing. One man sees a +fragment of it here and another there; but, as a whole, even in +any of its smallest subdivisions, it exists not in the brain of +any one individual, but in the gradual, and ever incomplete but +ever self-completing, onward movement of the whole. 'If any man +think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought +to know.' The forms of Christianity change, but Christianity +itself endures. And it would seem as if we might well be content +to wait until it was realised a little less imperfectly before we +attempt to go farther afield. + +Yet the work of adaptation must be done. The present generation +has a task of its own to perform. It is needful for it to revise +its opinions in view of the advances that have been made both in +general knowledge and in special theological criticism. In so far +as 'Supernatural Religion' has helped to do this, it has served +the cause of true progress; but its main plan and design I cannot +but regard as out of date and aimed in the air. + +The Christian miracles, or what in our ignorance we call miracles, +will not bear to be torn away from their context. If they are +facts we must look at them in strict connection with that Ideal +Life to which they seem to form the almost natural accompaniment. +The Life itself is the great miracle. When we come to see it as it +really is, and to enter, if even in some dim and groping way, into +its inner recesses, we feel ourselves abashed and dumb. Yet this +self-evidential character is found in portions of the narrative +that are quite unmiraculous. These, perhaps, are in reality the +most marvellous, though the miracles themselves will seem in place +when their spiritual significance is understood and they are +ranged in order round their common centre. Doubtless some elements +of superstition may be mixed up in the record as it has come down +to us. There is a manifest gap between the reality and the story +of it. The Evangelists were for the most part 'Jews who sought +after a sign.' Something of this wonder-seeking curiosity may very +well have given a colour to their account of events in which the +really transcendental element was less visible and tangible. We +cannot now distinguish with any degree of accuracy between the +subjective and the objective in the report. But that miracles, or +what we call such, did in some shape take place, is, I believe, +simply a matter of attested fact. When we consider it in its +relation to the rest of the narrative, to tear out the miraculous +bodily from the Gospels seems to me in the first instance a +violation of history and criticism rather than of faith. + +Still the author of 'Supernatural Religion' is, no doubt, justified +in raising the question, Did miracles really happen? I only wish +to protest against the idea that such a question can be adequately +discussed as something isolated and distinct, in which all that +is necessary is to produce and substantiate the documents as in +a forensic process. Such a 'world-historical' event (if I may for +the moment borrow an expressive Germanism) as the founding of +Christianity cannot be thrown into a merely forensic form. +Considerations of this kind may indeed enter in, but to suppose +that they can be justly estimated by themselves alone is an error. +And it is still more an error to suppose that the riddle of the +universe, or rather that part of the riddle which to us is most +important, the religious nature of man and, the objective facts +and relations that correspond to it, can all be reduced to some +four or five simple propositions which admit of being proved or +disproved by a short and easy Q.E.D. + +It would have been a far more profitable enquiry if the author had +asked himself, What is Revelation? The time has come when this +should be asked and an attempt to obtain a more scientific +definition should be made. The comparative study of religions has +gone far enough to admit of a comparison between the Ethnic +religions and that which had its birth in Palestine--the religion +of the Jews and Christians. Obviously, at the first blush, there +is a difference: and that difference constitutes what we mean by +Revelation. Let us have this as yet very imperfectly known +quantity scientifically ascertained, without any attempt either to +minimise or to exaggerate. I mean, let the field which Mr. Matthew +Arnold has lately been traversing with much of his usual insight +but in a light and popular manner, be seriously mapped out and +explored. Pioneers have been at work, such as Dr. Kuenen, but not +perhaps quite without a bias: let the same enquiry be taken up so +widely as that the effects of bias may be eliminated; and instead +of at once accepting the first crude results, let us wait until +they are matured by time. This would be really fruitful and +productive, and a positive addition to knowledge; but reasoning +such as that in 'Supernatural Religion' is vitiated at the outset, +because it starts with the assumption that we know perfectly well +the meaning of a term of which our actual conception is vague and +indeterminate in the extreme--Divine Revelation. [Endnote 10:1] + +With these reservations as to the main drift and bearing of the +argument, we may however meet the author of 'Supernatural Religion' +on his own ground. It is a part of the question--though a more +subordinate part apparently than he seems to suppose--to decide +whether miracles did or did not really happen. Even of this part +too it is but quite a minor subdivision that is included in the +two volumes of his work that have hitherto appeared. In the first +place, merely as a matter of historical attestation, the Gospels +are not the strongest evidence for the Christian miracles. Only +one of the four, in its present shape, is claimed as the work of +an Apostle, and of that the genuineness is disputed. The Acts of +the Apostles stand upon very much the same footing with the Synoptic +Gospels, and of this book we are promised a further examination. +But we possess at least some undoubted writings of one who was +himself a chief actor in the events which followed immediately +upon those recorded in the Gospels; and in these undoubted writings +St. Paul certainly shows by incidental allusions, the good faith +of which cannot be questioned, that he believed himself to be +endowed with the power of working miracles, and that miracles, +or what were thought to be such, were actually wrought both by +him and by his contemporaries. He reminds the Corinthians that +'the signs of an Apostle were wrought among them ... in signs, +and wonders, and mighty deeds' ([Greek: en saemeious kai terasi +kai dunamesi]--the usual words for the higher forms of miracle-- +2 Cor. xii. 12). He tells the Romans that 'he will not dare to +speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought in him, +to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty +signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God' ([Greek: +en dunamei saemeion kai teraton, en dunamei pneumator Theou], +Rom. xv. 18, 19) He asks the Galatians whether 'he that ministereth +to them the Spirit, and worketh miracles [Greek: ho energon dunameis] +among them, doeth it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of +faith?' (Gal. iii. 5). In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, +he goes somewhat elaborately into the exact place in the Christian +economy that is to be assigned to the working of miracles and gifts +of healing (1 Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29). Besides these allusions, St. Paul +repeatedly refers to the cardinal miracles of the Resurrection and +Ascension; he refers to them as notorious and unquestionable facts +at a time when such an assertion might have been easily refuted. +On one occasion he gives a very circumstantial account of the testimony +on which the belief in the Resurrection rested (1 Cor. xv. 4-8). And, +not only does he assert the Resurrection as a fact, but he builds +upon it a whole scheme of doctrine: 'If Christ be not risen,' he says, +'then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.' We do not +stay now to consider the exact philosophical weight of this evidence. +It will be time enough to do this when it has received the critical +discussion that may be presumed to be in store for it. But as external +evidence, in the legal sense, it is probably the best that can be +produced, and it has been entirely untouched so far. + +Again, in considering the evidence for the age of the Synoptic +Gospels, that which is derived from external sources is only a +part, and not perhaps the more important part, of the whole. It +points backwards indeed, and we shall see with what amount of +force and range. But there is still an interval within which only +approximate conclusions are possible. These conclusions need to be +supplemented from the phenomena of the documents themselves. In +the relation of the Gospels to the growth of the Christian society +and the development of Christian doctrine, and especially to the +great turning-point in the history, the taking of Jerusalem, there +is very considerable internal evidence for determining the date +within which they must have been composed. It is well known that +many critics, without any apologetic object, have found a more or +less exact criterion in the eschatological discourses (Matt. xxiv, +Mark xiii, Luke xxi. 5-36), and to this large additions may be +made. As I hope some day to have an opportunity of discussing the +whole question of the origin and composition of the Synoptic +Gospels, I shall not go into this at present: but in the mean time +it should be remembered that all these further questions lie in +the background, and that in tracing the formation of the Canon of +the Gospels the whole of the evidence for miracles--even from this +_ab extra_ point of view--is very far from being exhausted. + +There is yet another remaining reason which makes the present +enquiry of less importance than might be supposed, derived from +the particular way in which the author has dealt with this +external evidence. In order to explain the _prima facie_ +evidence for our canonical Gospels, he has been compelled to +assume the existence of other documents containing, so far as +appears, the same or very similar matter. In other words, instead +of four Gospels he would give us five or six or seven. I do not +know that, merely as a matter of policy, and for apologetic +purposes only, the best way to refute his conclusion would not be +to admit his premisses and to insist upon the multiplication of +the evidence for the facts of the Gospel history which his +argument would seem to involve. I mention this however, not with +any such object, but rather to show that the truth of Christianity +is not intimately affected, and that there are no such great +reasons for partiality on one side or on the other. + +I confess that it was a relief to me when I found that this must +be the case. I do not think the time has come when the central +question can be approached with any safety. Rough and ready +methods (such as I am afraid I must call the first part of +'Supernatural Religion') may indeed cut the Gordian knot, but they +do not untie it. A number of preliminary questions will have to be +determined with a greater degree of accuracy and with more general +consent than has been done hitherto. The Jewish and Christian +literature of the century before and of the two centuries after +the birth of Christ must undergo a more searching examination, by +minds of different nationality and training, both as to the date, +text, and character of the several books. The whole balance of an +argument may frequently be changed by some apparently minute and +unimportant discovery; while, at present, from the mere want of +consent as to the data, the state of many a question is +necessarily chaotic. It is far better that all these points should +be discussed as disinterestedly as possible. No work is so good as +that which is done without sight of the object to which it is +tending and where the workman has only his measure and rule to +trust to. I am glad to think that the investigation which is to +follow may be almost, if not quite, classed in this category; and +I hope I may be able to conduct it with sufficient impartiality. +Unconscious bias no man can escape, but from conscious bias I +trust I shall be free. + + + + + +CHAPTER II. + +ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. + + +The subject then proposed for our investigation is the extent to +which the canonical Gospels are attested by the early Christian +writers, or, in other words, the history of the process by which +they became canonical. This will involve an enquiry into two +things; first, the proof of the existence of the Gospels, and, +secondly, the degree of authority attributed to them. Practically +this second enquiry must be very subordinate to the first, because +the data are much fewer; but it too shall be dealt with, +cursorily, as the occasion arises, and we shall be in a position +to speak upon it definitely before we conclude. + +It will be convenient to follow the example that is set us in +'Supernatural Religion,' and to take the first three, or Synoptic, +Gospels separately from the fourth. + + * * * * * + +At the outset the question will occur to us, On what principle is +the enquiry to be conducted? What sort of rule or standard are we +to assume? In order to prove either the existence or the authority +of the Gospels, it is necessary that we should examine the +quotations from them, or what are alleged to be quotations from +them, in the early writers. Now these quotations are notoriously +lax. It will be necessary then to have some means of judging, what +degree and kind of laxity is admissible; what does, and what does +not, prevent the reference of a quotation to a given source. + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' indeed, has not felt the +necessity for this preliminary step. He has taken up, as it were, +at haphazard, the first standard that came to his hand; and, not +unnaturally, this is found to be very much the standard of the +present literary age, when both the mechanical and psychological +conditions are quite different from those that prevailed at the +beginning of the Christian era. He has thus been led to make a +number of assertions which will require a great deal of +qualification. The only sound and scientific method is to make an +induction (if only a rough one) respecting the habit of early +quotation generally, and then to apply it to the particular cases. + +Here there will be three classes of quotation more or less +directly in point: (1) the quotations from the Old Testament in +the New; (2) the quotations from the Old Testament in the same +early writers whose quotations from the New Testament are the +point in question; (3) quotations from the New Testament, and more +particularly from the Gospels, in the writers subsequent to these, +at a time when the Canon of the Gospels was fixed and we can be +quite sure that our present Gospels are being quoted. + +This method of procedure however is not by any means so plain and +straightforward as it might seem. The whole subject of Old +Testament quotations is highly perplexing. Most of the quotations +that we meet with are taken from the LXX version; and the text of +that version was at this particular time especially uncertain and +fluctuating. There is evidence to show that it must have existed +in several forms which differed more or less from that of the +extant MSS. It would be rash therefore to conclude at once, +because we find a quotation differing from the present text of the +LXX, that it differed from that which was used by the writer +making the quotation. In some cases this can be proved from the +same writer making the same quotation more than once and +differently each time, or from another writer making it in +agreement with our present text. But in other cases it seems +probable that the writer had really a different text before him, +because he quotes it more than once, or another writer quotes it, +with the same variation. This however is again an uncertain +criterion; for the second writer may be copying the first, or he +may be influenced by an unconscious reminiscence of what the first +had written. The early Christian writers copied each other to an +extent that we should hardly be prepared for. Thus, for instance, +there is a string of quotations in the first Epistle of Clement of +Rome (cc. xiv, xv)--Ps. xxxvii. 36-38; Is. xxix. 13; Ps. lxii. 4, +lxxviii. 36, 37, xxxi, 19, xii. 3-6; and these very quotations in +the same order reappear in the Alexandrine Clement (Strom. iv. 6). +Clement of Alexandria is indeed fond of copying his Roman +namesake, and does so without acknowledgment. Tertullian and +Epiphanius in like manner drew largely from the works of Irenaeus. +But this confuses evidence that would otherwise be clear. For +instance, in Eph. iv. 8 St. Paul quotes Ps. lxviii. 19, but with a +marked variation from all the extant texts of the LXX. Thus:-- + + +_Ps._ lxviii. 18 (19). + +[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaloteusas aichmalosian, elabes +domata en anthropon.] + +[Greek: Aechmaloteusen ... en anthropon] [Hebrew: alef], perhaps +from assimilation to N.T. + + +_Eph._ iv. 8. + +[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaltoteusen aichmalosian, kai edoke +domata tois anthropois.] + +[Greek: kai] om. [Hebrew: alef]'1, A C'2 D'1, &c. It. Vulg. Memph. +&c.; ins. B C'3 D'3 [Hebrew: alef]'4, &c. + + +Now we should naturally think that this was a very free +quotation--so free that it substitutes 'giving' for 'receiving.' +A free quotation perhaps it may be, but at any rate the very same +variation is found in Justin (Dial. 39). And, strange to say, in +five other passages which are quoted variantly by St. Paul, Justin +also agrees with him, [Endnote 18:1] though cases on the other +hand occur where Justin differs from St. Paul or holds a position +midway between him and the LXX (e.g. 1 Cor. i. 19 compared with +Just. Dial. cc. 123, 32, 78, where will be found some curious +variations, agreement with LXX, partial agreement with LXX, +partial agreement with St. Paul). Now what are we to say to these +phenomena? Have St. Paul and Justin both a variant text of the +LXX, or is Justin quoting mediately through St. Paul? Probability +indeed seems to be on the side of the latter of these two +alternatives, because in one place (Dial. cc. 95, 96) Justin +quotes the two passages Deut. xxvii. 26 and Deut. xxi. 23 +consecutively, and applies them just as they are applied in Gal. +iii. 10, 13 [Endnote 18:2]. On the other hand, it is somewhat +strange that Justin nowhere refers to the Epistles of St. Paul by +name, and that the allusions to them in the genuine writings, +except for these marked resemblances in the Old Testament +quotations, are few and uncertain. The same relation is observed +between the Pauline Epistles and that of Clement of Rome. In two +places at least Clement agrees, or nearly agrees, with St. Paul, +where both differ from the LXX; in c. xiii ([Greek: ho kanchomenos +en Kurio kanchastho]; compare 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x, 16), and in +c. xxxiv ([Greek: ophthalmhos ouk eiden k.t.l.]; compare 1 Cor. ii. +9). Again, in c. xxxvi Clement has the [Greek: puros phloga] of +Heb. i. 7 for [Greek: pur phlegon] of the LXX. The rest of the +parallelisms in Clement's Epistle are for the most part with +Clement of Alexandria, who had evidently made a careful study of +his predecessor. In one place, c. liii, there is a remarkable +coincidence with Barnabas ([Greek: Mousae Mousae katabaethi to +tachos k.t.l.]; compare Barn. cc. iv and xiv). In the Epistle of +Barnabas itself there is a combined quotation from Gen. xv. 6, +xvii. 5, which has evidently and certainly been affected by Rom. +iv. 11. On the whole we may lean somewhat decidedly to the +hypothesis of a mutual study of each other by the Christian +writers, though the other hypothesis of the existence of different +versions (whether oral and traditional or in any shape written) +cannot be excluded. Probably both will have to be taken into +account to explain all the facts. + +Another disturbing influence, which will affect especially the +quotations in the Gospels, is the possibility, perhaps even +probability, that many of these are made, not directly from either +Hebrew or LXX, but from or through Targums. This would seem to be +the case especially with the remarkable applications of prophecy +in St. Matthew. It must be admitted as possible that the +Evangelist has followed some Jewish interpretation that seemed to +bear a Christian construction. The quotation in Matt. ii. 6, with +its curious insertion of the negative ([Greek: oudamos elachistae] +for [Greek: oligostos]), reappears identically in Justin (Dial. c. +78). We shall probably have to touch upon this quotation when we +come to consider Justin's relations to the canonical Gospels. It +certainly seems upon the face of it the more probable supposition +that he has here been influenced by the form of the text in St. +Matthew, but he may be quoting from a Targum or from a peculiar +text. + +Any induction, then, in regard to the quotations from the LXX +version will have to be used with caution and reserve. And yet I +think it will be well to make such an induction roughly, +especially in regard to the Apostolic Fathers whose writings we +are to examine. + + * * * * * + +The quotations from the Old Testament in the New have, as it is +well known, been made the subject of a volume by Mr. McCalman +Turpie [Endnote 20:1], which, though perhaps not quite reaching a +high level of scholarship, has yet evidently been put together +with much care and pains, and will be sufficient for our purpose. +The summary result of Mr. Turpie's investigation is this. Out of +two hundred and seventy-five in all which may be considered to be +quotations from the Old Testament, fifty-three agree literally +both with the LXX and the Hebrew, ten with the Hebrew and not with +the LXX, and thirty-seven with the LXX and not with the Hebrew, +making in all just a hundred that are in literal (or nearly +literal, for slight variations of order are not taken into +account) agreement with some still extant authority. On the other +hand, seventy-six passages differ both from the Hebrew and LXX +where the two are together, ninety-nine differ from them where +they diverge, and besides these, three, though introduced with +marks of quotation, have no assignable original in the Old +Testament at all. Leaving them for the present out of the +question, we have a hundred instances of agreement against a +hundred and seventy-five of difference; or, in other words, the +proportion of difference to agreement is as seven to four. + +This however must be taken with the caution given above; that is +to say, it must not at once be inferred that because the quotation +differs from extant authority therefore it necessarily differs +from all non-extant authority as well. It should be added that the +standard of agreement adopted by Mr. Turpie is somewhat higher +than would be naturally held to be sufficient to refer a passage +to a given source. His lists must therefore be used with these +limitations. + +Turning to them, we find that most of the possible forms of +variation are exemplified within the bounds of the Canon itself. I +proceed to give a few classified instances of these. + +[Greek: Alpha symbol] _Paraphrase_. Many of the quotations from the +Old Testament in the New are highly paraphrastic. We may take the +following as somewhat marked examples: Matt. ii. 6, xii. 18-21, +xiii. 35, xxvii. 9, 10; John viii. 17, xii. 40, xiii. 18; +1 Cor. xiv. 21; 2 Cor. ix. 7. Matt. xxvii. 9, 10 would perhaps +mark an extreme point in freedom of quotation [Endnote 21:1], as +will be seen when it is compared with the original:-- + + +_Matt_. xxvii. 9. 10. + +[Greek: [tote eplaerothae to phaethen dia tou prophaetou Hieremiou +legontos] Kai elabon ta triakonta arguria, taen timaen tou +tetimaemenou on etimaesanto apo nion Israael, kai edokan auta eis +ton argon tou kerameos, katha sunetaxen moi Kurios.] + + +_Zech_. xi. 13. + +[Greek: Kathes autous eis to choneutaerion, kai schepsomai ei +dokimon estin, de tropon edokiamistheaen huper aotuon. Kai elabon +tous triakonta argurous kai enebalon autous eis oikon Kuriou eis +to choneutaerion.] + + +It can hardly be possible that the Evangelist has here been +influenced by any Targum or version. The form of his text has +apparently been determined by the historical event to which the +prophecy is applied. The sense of the original has been entirely +altered. There the prophet obeys the command to put the thirty +pieces of silver, which he had received as his shepherd's hire, +into the treasury [Greek: choneutaerion]. Here the hierarchical +party refuse to put them into the treasury. The word 'potter' +seems to be introduced from the Hebrew. + +[Greek: Beta symbol] _Quotations from Memory_. Among the numerous +paraphrastic quotations, there are some that have specially the +appearance of having been made from memory, such as Acts vii. 37; +Rom. ix. 9, 17, 25, 33, x. 6-8, xi. 3, xii. 19, xiv. 11; +1 Cor. i. 19, ii. 9; Rev. ii. 27. Of course it must always +be a matter of guess-work what is quoted from memory and what is +not, but in these quotations (and in others which are ranged under +different heads) there is just that general identity of sense along +with variety of expression which usually characterises such +quotations. A simple instance would be-- + + +_Rom_. ix. 25. + +[Greek: [hos kai en to Osaee legei] Kaleso ton out laon mou laon +mou kai taen ouk aegapaemenaen haegapaemenaen.] + + +_Hosea_ ii. 23. + +[Greek: Kai agapaeso taen ouk aegapaemenaen, kai ero to ou lao mou +Daos mou ei se.] + + +[Greek: Gamma symbol] _Paraphrase with Compression._ There are many marked +examples of this; such as Matt. xxii. 24 (par.); Mark iv. 12; John +xii. 14, 15; Rom. iii. 15-17, x. 15; Heb. xii. 20. Take the +first:-- + + +_Matt._ xxii. 24. [Greek: [Mousaes eipen] Ean tis apothanae +mae echon tekna, epigambreusei o adelphos autou taen gunaika autou +kai anastaesei sperma to adelpho autou.] + + +_Deut._ xxv. 5. [Greek: Ean de katoikosin adelphoi epi to +auto, kai apothanae eis ex auton, sperma de mae ae auto, ouk estai +ae gunae tou tethnaekotos exo andri mae engizonti o adelphos tou +andros autaes eiseleusetai pros autaen kai laepsetai autaen eauto +gunaika kai sunoikaesei autae.] + + +It is highly probable that all the examples given under this head +are really quotations from memory. + +[Greek: Delta symbol] _Paraphrase with Combination of Passages._ +This again is common; e.g. Luke iv. 19; John xv. 25, xix. 36; +Acts xiii. 22; Rom. iii. 11-18, ix. 33, xi. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 24. The passage +Rom. iii. 11-18 is highly composite, and reminds us of long strings of +quotations that are found in some of the Fathers; it is made up of +Ps. xiv. 1, 2, v. 9, cxl. 3, x. 7, Is. lix. 7, 8, Ps. xxxvi. 1. A +shorter example is-- + + +_Rom._ ix. 33. [Greek: [Kathos gegraptai] Idou tithaemi en +Sion lithon proskommatos kai petran skandalou, kai o pisteuon ep +auto ou kataischunthaesetai.] + + +_Is._ viii. 14. [Greek: kai ouch hos lithou proskammati +sunantaesesthe, oude os petras ptomati.] + +_Is._ xxviii. 16. [Greek: Idou ego emballo eis ta themelia +Sion lithon..., kai o pisteuon ou mae kataischunthae.] + + +This fusion of passages is generally an act of 'unconscious +celebration.' If we were to apply the standard assumed in +'Supernatural Religion,' it would be pronounced impossible that +this and most of the passages above could have the originals to +which they are certainly to be referred. + +[Greek: Epsilon symbol] _Addition._ A few cases of addition may +be quoted, e.g. [Greek: mae aposteraesaes] inserted in Mark x. 19, +[Greek: kai eis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9. + +[Greek: Zeta symbol] _Change of Sense and Context._ But little +regard--or what according to our modern habits would be considered +little regard--is paid to the sense and original context of the passage +quoted; e.g. in Matt. viii. 17 the idea of healing disease is substituted +for that of vicarious suffering, in Matt. xi. 10 the persons are +altered ([Greek: sou] for [Greek: mou]), in Acts vii. 43 we find +[Greek: Babylonos] for [Greek: Damaskos], in 2 Cor. vi. 17 'I will +receive you' is put for 'I will go before you,' in Heb. i. 7 'He +maketh His angels spirits' for 'He maketh the winds His +messengers.' This constant neglect of the context is a point that +should be borne in mind. + +[Greek: Eta symbol] _Inversion._ Sometimes the sense of the original is so +far departed from that a seemingly opposite sense is substituted +for it. Thus in Matt. ii. 6 [Greek: oudamos elachistae = +oligostos] of Mic. v. 2, in Rom. xi. 26 [Greek: ek Sion = heneken +Sion] LXX= '_to_ Sion' Heb. of Is. lix. 20, in Eph. iv. 8 +[Greek: hedoken domata = helabes domata] of Ps. lxvii. 19. + +[Greek: Theta symbol] _Different Form of Sentence._ The grammatical +form of the sentence is altered in Matt. xxvi. 31 (from aorist to future), +in Luke viii. 10 (from oratio recta to oratio obliqua), and in 1 Pet. +iii. 10-12 (from the second person to the third). This is a kind +of variation that we should naturally look for. + +[Greek: Iota symbol] _Mistaken Ascriptions or Nomenclature._ The +following passages are wrongly assigned:--Mal. iii. 1 to Isaiah +according to the correct reading of Mark i. 2, and Zech. xi. 13 +to Jeremiah in Matt. xxvii. 9, 10; Abiathar is apparently put for +Abimelech in Mark ii. 26; in Acts vii. 16 there seems to be a +confusion between the purchase of Machpelah near Hebron by Abraham +and Jacob's purchase of land from Hamor the father of Shechem. +These are obviously lapses of memory. + +[Greek: Kappa symbol] _Quotations of Doubtful Origin_. There are a +certain number of quotations, introduced as such, which can be assigned +directly to no Old Testament original; Matt. ii. 23 ([Greek: Nazoraios +klaethaesetai]), 1 Tim. v. 18 ('the labourer is worthy of his hire'), +John vii. 38 ('out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water'), +42 (Christ should be born of Bethlehem where David was), Eph. v. 14 +('Awake thou that sleepest'). [Endnote 25:1] + +It will be seen that, in spite of the reservations that we felt +compelled to make at the outset, the greater number of the +deviations noticed above can only be explained on a theory of free +quotation, and remembering the extent to which the Jews relied +upon memory and the mechanical difficulties of exact reference and +verification, this is just what before the fact we should have +expected. + + * * * * * + +The Old Testament quotations in the canonical books afford us a +certain parallel to the object of our enquiry, but one still +nearer will of course be presented by the Old Testament quotations +in those books the New Testament quotations in which we are to +investigate. I have thought it best to draw up tables of these in +order to give an idea of the extent and character of the +variation. In so tentative an enquiry as this, the standard +throughout will hardly be so fixed and accurate as might be +desirable; the tabular statement therefore must be taken to be +approximate, but still I think it will be found sufficient for our +purpose; certain points come out with considerable clearness, and +there is always an advantage in drawing data from a wide enough +area. The quotations are ranged under heads according to the +degree of approximation to the text of the LXX. In cases where the +classification has seemed doubtful an indicatory mark (+) has been +used, showing by the side of the column on which it occurs to +which of the other two classes the instance leans. All cases in +which this sign is used to the left of the middle column may be +considered as for practical purposes literal quotations. It may be +assumed, where the contrary is not stated, that the quotations are +direct and not of the nature of allusions; the marks of quotation +are generally quite unmistakeable ([Greek: gegraptai, legei, +eipen], &c). Brief notes are added in the margin to call attention +to the more remarkable points, especially to the repetition of the +same quotation in different writers and to the apparent bearing of +the passage upon the general habit of quotation. + +Taking the Apostolic Fathers in order, we come first to-- + + _Clement of Rome (1 Ep. ad Cor._) + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | Variant._ | | + | |3 Deut. 32.14,15. |also in Justin, + | | Is. 3.5. al. | differently. + | | Is. 59. 14, al. | +3. Wisd. 2.24. | | | + |+4. Gen. 4.3-8. | |Acts 7.27, + | Ex. 2.14+ | | more exactly. +6. Gen. 2.23. | |8. Ezek. 33.11 |} + | | Ezek. 18.30 |}from Apocryphal + | | Ps. 103.10,11. |} or interpolated + | | Jer. 3.19,22. |} Ezekiel? + | | Is. 1.18. |} + |+8. Is. 1.16-20. | | + |10. Gen. 12.1-3. | | + | +Gen. 13.14-16. | | + | Gen. 15.5,6. | | + | |12. Josh. 2.3-19. |compression and + | | | paraphrase. + | | | + | |13. 1 Sam. 2,10. |}similarly + | | Jer. 9.23,24. |} St. Paul, 1 Cor. + | | | 1.31, 2 Cor. + |13. Is. 46.2. | | 10.17. + | |14. Prov. 2.21, |from memory? + | | 22. v.l. (Ps. 37.| + | | 39.) | + |14. Ps. 37.35-38.| |Matt. 15.8, Mark + | |15. Is. 29.13.* | 7.6, with par- +15.{Ps. 78.36,37.*|15. Ps. 62.4.* | | tial similarity, + {Ps. 31.19.* | | | Clem. Alex., + {Ps. 12.3-6.* | | | following Clem. + | | | Rom. + |+16. Is. 53.1-12.| |quoted in full by +16. Ps. 22.6-8. | | | Justin, also by +17. Gen. 18.27. | | | other writers + | | | with text + | | | slightly + | | | different from + | | | Clement. + | |17. Job 1.1, v.l. | + | | Job 14.4,5, v.l.|Clem. Alex. + | | | similarly. + |17. Num. 12.7. | | + | Ex. 3.11; 4-10.| | + | |[Greek: ego de |_Assumptio Mosis_, + | | eimi atmis apo | Hilg., _Eldad + | | kuthras.] | and Modad_, Lft. + | | | + | |18. Ps. 89.21,v.l.|}Clem. Alex. as + | | 1 Sam. 13.14. |} LXX. +18. Ps. 51.1-17. | | | + | |20. Job 38.11. | + | |21. Prov. 15.27. |Clem. Alex. + | | | similarly; from + | | | memory? [Greek: +22. Ps. 34.11-17. | | | legei gar pou.] + | |23. [Greek: |from an Apo- + | | palaiporoi eisin | cryphal book, + | | oi dipsuchoi | _Ass. Mos._ or + | | k.t.l.] | _Eld. and Mod._ + | | | + | |23. Is. 13.22. |}composition and + | | Mal. 3.1. |} compression. + | | | + | |26. Ps. 28.7. |}composition + | | Ps. 3-5. |} from memory? + | | | [Greek: legei + | | | gar pou.] + | |27. Wisd. 12.12. |}from memory? + | | Wisd. 11.22. |} cp. Eph. 1.19. +P27. Ps. 19.1-3. | | | + | |28. Ps. 139.7-10. |from memory? + | | |[Greek: legei + | | | gar pou.] +29. Deut. 32.8,9. | | | + | |29. Deut. 4.34. |}from memory? + | | Deut. 14.2. |} or from an + | | Num. 18.27. |} Apocryphal + | | 2 Chron. 31. |} Book? + | | 14. |} + | | Ezek. 48.12. |} + |30. Prov. 3.34. | | +30. Job. 11.2,3. | | |LXX, not Heb. + | |32. Gen. 15.5 | + | | (Gen. 22.17. | + | | Gen. 26.4.) | + |33. Gen. 1.26-28.|(omissions.) | + | |34. Is. 40.10. |}composition + | | Is. 62.11. |} from memory? + | | Prov. 24.12. |} Clem. Alex. + | | | after Clem. + | | | Rom. + |34. Dan. 7.10. |} |curiously + | Is. 6.3+. |} | repeated + | | | transposition; + | | | see Lightfoot, + | | | _ad. loc._ + | |24. Is. 64.4. |so in 1 Cor. 2.9. + |35. Ps. 50.16-23.| | + |36. Ps.104.4,v.l.| |Heb. 1.7. +36. Ps. 2.7,8. | | |Heb. 1.5. Acts + Ps. 110.1 | | | 13.33. + |39. Job 4.16-5.5 | | + | (Job 15.15) | | + | |42. Is. 60.17. |from memory? + | | | [Greek: legei + | | | gar pou.] + | |46. [Greek: |from Apocryphal + | | Kollasthe tois | book, or Ecclus. + | | agiois hoti oi | vi. 34? Clem. + | | kollomenoi | Alex. + | | autois | + | | hagiasthaesontai]| +46. Ps. 18.26,27. | | |context ignored. +48. Ps. 118,19,20.| | |Clem. Alex. + | | | loosely. + | |50. Is. 26.20. |} + | | Ezek. 37.12. |}from memory? +50. Ps. 32. 1,2. | | | + | |52. Ps. 69.31,32. | +52. Ps. 50.14,15.+|} | | + Ps. 51.17. |} | | + |53. Deut.9.12-14.|} |Barnabas + | Ex. 32.7,8. |} | similarly. + | 11,31,32. |} | Compression. +54. Ps. 241. | | | +56. Ps. 118.18. | | | + Prov. 3.12. | | | + Ps. 141.5. | | | + |+56. Job 5.17-26,| | + | v.l. | | + |+57. Prov. 1.23- | | + | 31. | | + +[*Footnote: The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are +also found in Clement of Alexandria.] + + +It will be observed that the longest passages are among those +that are quoted with the greatest accuracy (e.g. Gen. xiii. 14-16; +Job v. 17-26; Ps. xix. 1-3, xxii. 6-8, xxxiv. 11-17, li. 1-17; +Prov. i. 23-31; Is. i. 16-20, liii. 1-12). Others, such as Gen. +xii. 1-3, Deut. ix. 12-14, Job iv. 16-v. 5, Ps. xxxvii. 35-38, l. +16-23, have only slight variations. There are only two passages of +more than three consecutive verses in length that present wide +divergences. These are, Ps. cxxxix. 7-10, which is introduced by a +vague reference [Greek: legei gar pou] and is evidently quoted +from memory, and the historical narration Josh. ii. 3-19. This is +perhaps what we should expect: in longer quotations it would be +better worth the writer's while to refer to his cumbrous +manuscript. These purely mechanical conditions are too much lost +sight of. We must remember that the ancient writer had not a small +compact reference Bible at his side, but, when he wished to verify +a reference, would have to take an unwieldy roll out of its case, +and then would not find it divided into chapter and verse like our +modern books but would have only the columns, and those perhaps +not numbered, to guide him. We must remember too that the memory +was much more practised and relied upon in ancient times, +especially among the Jews. + +The composition of two or more passages is frequent, and the +fusion remarkably complete. Of all the cases in which two passages +are compounded, always from different chapters and most commonly +from different books, there is not, I believe, one in which there +is any mark of division or an indication of any kind that a +different source is being quoted from. The same would hold good +(with only a slight and apparent exception) of the longer strings +of quotations in cc. viii, xxix, and (from [Greek: aegapaesan] to +[Greek: en auto]) in c. xv. But here the question is complicated by +the possibility, and in the first place at least perhaps +probability, that the writer is quoting from some apocryphal work +no longer extant. It may be interesting to give one or two short +examples of the completeness with which the process of welding has +been carried out. Thus in c. xvii, the following reply is put into +the mouth of Moses when he receives his commission at the burning +bush, [Greek: tis eimi ego hoti me pempeis; ego de eimi +ischnophonos kai braduglossos.] The text of Exod. iii. 11 is +[Greek: tis eimi ego, oti poreusomai;] the rest of the quotation +is taken from Exod. iv. 10. In c. xxxiv Clement introduces 'the +Scripture' as saying, [Greek: Muriai muriades pareistaekeisan auto +kai chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto kai ekekragon agios, +agios, agios, Kurios Sabaoth, plaeraes pasa hae ktisis taes doxaes +autou.] The first part of this quotation comes from Dan. vii. 10; +the second, from [Greek: kai ekekragon], which is part of the +quotation, from Is. vi. 3. These examples have been taken almost +at random; the others are blended quite as thoroughly. + +Some of the cases of combination and some of the divergences of +text may be accounted for by the assumption of lost apocryphal +books or texts; but it would be wholly impossible, and in fact no +one would think of so attempting to account for all. There can be +little doubt that Clement quotes from memory, and none that he +quotes at times very freely. + +We come next to the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, the quotations +in which I proceed to tabulate in the same way:-- + + _Barnabas._ + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | Variant._ | | + |+2. Is. 1.11-14. | |note for exactness. + | |2. Jer. 7.22,23. |} combination + | | Zec. 8.17. |} from memory? + | | Ps. 51.19. |strange addition. + |3. Is. 58.4, 5. | | + | Is. 58.6-10. | | + | |4. Dan. 7.24 |}very + | | Dan. 7.7, 8. |} divergent. + | | Ex. 34.28. |}combination + | | Ex. 31.18. |} from memory? + |4. Deut. 9.12. | |see below. + | (Ex. 32.7). | | + | +Is. 5.21. | | + |+5. Is. 54.5,7. | |text of Cod. A. + | (omissions.)| | +5. Prov. 1.17. | | | + Gen. 1.26+. | | | + | |5. Zech. 13.7. |text of A. (Hilg.) + | | | Matt. 26.3. + | | Ps. 22.21. |from memory? + |5. Ps. 119.120. | |paraphrastic + | | Ps. 22.17. | combination + | | | from memory? + | Is. 50. 6,7. | | + | (omissions.) | |ditto. + | |6. Is. 50.8,9. |ditto. + |6. Is. 28.16. | |first clause + | | | exact, second + | | | variant; in N.T. + | | | quotations, + | | | first variant, + | | | second exact. + | Is. 50.7. | |note repetition, + | | | nearer to LXX. +6. Ps. 118.22. | | |so Matt. 21.42; + | | | 1 Pet. 11.7. + | | | +6. Ps. 22.17+ | |6. Ps. 118.24. |from memory? + (order). | | |note repetition, + | | | nearer to LXX. +Ps. 118.12. | | | +Ps. 22.19. | | | +Is. 3.9, 10. | | | + | | Ex. 33.1. |from memory? + | Gen. 1.26+. | |note repetition, +Gen. 1.28. | | | further from LXX. + | | Ezek. 11.19; |paraphrastic. + | | 36.26. | + | | Ps. 41.3. | + | | Ps. 22.23. |different version? + | | Gen. 1.26, 28. |paraphrastic + | | | fusion. + | |7. Lev. 23.29. |paraphrastic. + | | Lev. 16.7, sqq.|with apocryphal + | | Lev. 16.7. sqq.| addition; cp. + | | | Just. and Tert. + |9. Ps. 18.44. | | +9. Is. 33.13+. | | | + | |9. Jer. 4.4. | + | | Jer. 7.2. | + | | Ps. 34.13. | +Is. 1.2. | | |but with additions. + | Is. 1.10+. | |from memory? + | | |[Greek: archontes + | | | toutou] for [Gr. + | | | a. Zodomon.] + | | Is. 40.3. |addition. + | | Jer. 4.3 ,4. |}repetition, + | | Jer. 7.26. |} nearer to LXX. + | | Jer. 9.26. | + | | Gen. 17.26, 27;|inferred sense + | | cf. 14.14. | merely, but + | | | with marks of + | | | quotation. + | |10. Lev. 11, |selected examples, + | | Deut. 14. | but with + | | | examples of + | | | quotation. + | | Deut. 4.1. | +10. Ps. 1.1. | | | + | | Lev. 11.3. | + | |11. Jer. 2.12, 13.| + | | +Is. 16.1, 2. |[Greek: Zina] for + | | | [Greek: Zion]. + |11. Is. 45. 2, 3.| |[Greek: gnosae] A. + | | | ([Greek: gnosin] + | | | Barn., but in + | | | other points more + | | | divergent. + |+Is. 33.16-18. | |omissions. +11. Ps. 1.3-6. | | |note for exactness. + | |11. Zeph. 3.19. |markedly diverse. + | | Ezek. 47.12. |ditto. + |12. Is. 65.2. | | + | |12. Num. 21.9, |apparently a + | | sqq. | quotation. + | | Deut. 27.15. |from memory? + | | Ex. 17.14. | +12. Ps. 110.1. | | | + |12. Is. 45.1. | |[Greek: kurio] for + | | | [Greek: kuro]. + |13. Gen.25.21,23.| | + | |13. Gen. 48.11-19.|very paraphrastic. + | | Gen. 15.6; |combination; cf. + | | 17.5. | Rom. 4.11. + | |14. Ex. 24.18. |note addition of + | | |[Greek: naesteuon.] + | | Ex. 31.18. |note also for + | | | additions. + |14. Deut. 9.12- | |repetition with + | 17+. | | similar variation. + | (Ex. 32.7.) | |note reading of A. +14. Is. 42.6,7. | | |[Greek: + | | |pepedaemenous] for + | | |[Greek: dedemenous + | | |(kai] om. A.). + | Is. 49.6,7. | | +Is. 61. 1,2. | | |Luke. 4.18,19 + | | | diverges. + | |15. Ex. 20.8; |paraphrastic, + | | Deut. 5.12. | with addition. + | | Jer. 17.24,25.|very paraphrastic. + | | Gen. 2.2. | + | | Ps. 90.4. |[Greek: saemeron] + | | | for [Greek: + | | | exthes]. +15. Is. 1.13. | | | + |16. Is. 40.12. | |omissions. + | Is. 66.1. | | + | |16. Is. 49.17. |completely + | | | paraphrastic. + | | Dan. 9.24. |ditto. + | | 25, 27. | + + +The same remarks that were made upon Clement will hold also for +Barnabas, except that he permits himself still greater licence. The +marginal notes will have called attention to his eccentricities. He is +carried away by slight resemblances of sound; e.g. he puts [Greek: +himatia] for [Greek: iamata] [Endnote 34:1], [Greek: Zina] for [Greek: +Zion], [Greek: Kurio] for [Greek: Kuro]. He not only omits clauses, but +also adds to the text freely; e.g. in Ps. li. 19 he makes the strange +insertion which is given in brackets, [Greek: Thusia to Theo kardia +suntetrimmenae, [osmae euodias to kurio kardia doxasousa ton peplakota +autaen]]. He has also added words and clauses in several other places. +There can be no question that he quotes largely from memory; several of +his quotations are repeated more than once (Deu. ix. 12; Is. l. 7; Ps. +xxii. 17; Gen. i. 28; Jer. iv. 4); and of these only one, Deut. ix. 12, +reappears in the same form. Often he gives only the sense of a passage; +sometimes he interprets, as in Is. i. 10, where he paraphrases [Greek: +archontes Sodomon] by the simpler [Greek: archontes tou laou toutou]. He +has curiously combined the sense of Gen. xvii. 26, 27 with Gen. xiv. +l4--in the pursuit of the four kings, it is said that Abraham armed his +servants three hundred and eighteen men; Barnabas says that he +circumcised his household, in all three hundred and eighteen men. In +several cases a resemblance may be noticed between Barnabas and the text +of Cod. A, but this does not appear consistently throughout. + +It may be well to give a few examples of the extent to which Barnabas +can carry his freedom of quotation. Instances from the Book of Daniel +should perhaps not be given, as the text of that book is known to have +been in a peculiarly corrupt and unsettled state; so much so that, when +translation of Theodotion was made towards the end of the second +century, it was adopted as the standard text. Barnabas also combines +passages, though not quite to such an extent or so elaborately as +Clement, and he too inserts no mark of division. We will give an example +of this, and at the same time of his paraphrastic method of quotation:-- + + +_Barnabas_ c. ix. + +[Greek: [kai ti legei;] Peritmaethaete to sklaeron taes kardias +humon, kai ton trachaelon humon ou mae sklaerunaete.] + + +_Jer._ iv. 3, 4 _and_ vii. 26. + +[Greek: Peritmaethaete to theo humon, kai peritemesthe taen +sklaerokardian humon ... kai esklaerunan ton trachaelon auton...] + + +A similar case of paraphrase and combination, with nothing to +mark the transition from one passage to the other, would be in c. +xi, Jer. ii. 12, 13 and Is. xvi. 1, 2. For paraphrase we may take +this, from the same chapter:-- + + +_Barnabas_ c. xi. + +[Greek: [kai palin heteros prophaetaes legei] Kai aen hae gae +Iakob epainoumenae para pasan taen gaen.] + +_Zeph_. iii. 19. + +[Greek: kai thaesomai autous eis kauchaema kai onomastous en pasae +tae gae.] + + +_Barnabas_ c. xv. + +[Greek: [autous de moi marturei legon] Idou saemeron haemera estai +hos chilia etae.] + +_Ps_. xc. 4 + +[Greek: hoti chilia etae en ophthalmois sou hos hae haemera hae +echthes haetis diaelthe.] + + +A very curious instance of freedom is the long narrative of Jacob +blessing the two sons of Joseph in c. xiii (compare Gen. xlviii. +11-19). We note here (and elsewhere) a kind of dramatic tendency, a +fondness for throwing statements into the form of dialogue rather +than narrative. As a narrative this passage may be compared with +the history of Rahab and the spies in Clement. + +And yet, in spite of all this licence in quotation, there are some +rather marked instances of exactness; e.g. Is. i. 11-14 in c. ii, +the combined passages from Ps. xxii. 17, cxvii. 12, xxii. 19 in c. +vi, and Ps. i. 3-6 in c. xi. It should also be remembered that in +one case, Deut. ix. 12 in cc. iv and xiv, the same variation is +repeated and is also found in Justin. + +It tallies with what we should expect, supposing the writings +attributed to Ignatius (the seven Epistles) to be genuine, that +the quotations from the Old as well as from the New Testament in +them are few and brief. A prisoner, travelling in custody to the +place of execution, would naturally not fill his letters with long +and elaborate references. The quotations from the Old Testament +are as follows:-- + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | + | | | +_Ad Eph._ |5. Prov. 3.34 | |James. 4.6, 1 Pet. 5.5, + | | | as Ignatius. + | | | +_Ad Magn._ |12. Prov. 18.17. | | + | | | +_Ad Trall._ | |8. Is. 52.5. | + + +The Epistle to the Ephesians is found also in the Syriac version. +The last quotation from Isaiah, which is however not introduced +with any express marks of reference, is very freely given. The +original is, [Greek: tade legei kurios, di' humas dia pantos to +onoma mou blasphaemeitai en tois ethnesi], for which Ignatius has, +[Greek: ouai gar di' ou epi mataiotaeti to onoma mou epi tinon +blasphaemeitai]. + +The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians and the Martyrium S. +Ignatii contain the following quotations:-- + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | + | | | + Polycarp, | 2. Ps. 2.11. | | +_Ad. Phil._ | | | + | | | +10. Tob. 4.11. | | |} +12. Ps. 4.4; | | |}in Latin + but through | | |} version only. + Eph. 4.26. | | |} + | | | +_Mart. S. Ign._ | | | + | |2. Lev. 26.12. | +6. Prov. 10.24. | | | + + +The quotation from Leviticus differs widely from the original, +[Greek: Kai emperipataeso en humin kai esomai humon theos kai +humeis esesthe moi laos], for which we read, [Greek: [gegraptai +gar] Enoikaeso en autois kai emperipataeso]. + +The quotations from the Clementine Homilies may be thus +presented:-- + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | | | +Hom. 3. | |18. Deut. 32.7. | + |39. +Gen. 18.21. | | + | Gen. 3.22. | | +39. Gen 6.6. | | | + | Gen. 8.21. | |omission. + | Gen. 22.1. | | + | |42. Gen. 3.3. | +43. Gen. 6.6. | | | + |43. Gen. 22.1. | |not quite as above. + | +Gen. 18.21. | |as above. +Gen. 15.13-16. | | |v.l. comp. text + | | | of A; note for + | | | exactness. +44. Gen. 18.21. | | |as LXX. + | |45. Num. 11.34 |[Greek: bounoun + | | (al.) | epithumion] for + | | | [Greek: mnaemata + | | | taes epithumas]. + |47. Deut. 34.4,5.| | + |49. Gen. 49.10. | |cf. Credner, + | | | _Beit._ 2.53. +Hom. 11. | | | +22. Gen. 1.1. | | | +Hom. 16. | | | +6. Gen. 3.22. | | |twice with slightly + | | | different order. +Gen. 3.5. | | | + |6. Ex. 22.28. | | + | |6. Deut. 4.34. |?mem. [Greek: + | | | allothi tou + | | | gegraptai]. +Jer. 10.11. | | | + | | Deut. 13.6. |?mem. [Greek: + | | | allae pou]. + | | Josh. 23.7. | + | Deut. 10.17. | | +Ps. 35.10. | | | +Ps. 50.1. | | | +Ps. 82.1. | | | + | Deut. 10.14. | | + | Deut. 4.39. | | + | Deut. 10.17. | |repeated as above. + | | Deut. 10.17. |very paraphrastic. + | | | +Hom. 16. | |6. Deut. 4.39. | +7. Deut. 6.13. | | | + Deut. 6.4. | | | + | |8. Josh. 23.7. |as above. +8. Exod. 22.18 + | | | + Jer. 10.11. | | | + Gen. 1.1. | | | + Ps. 19.2. | | | + |8. Ps. 102.26. | | + Gen. 1.26. | | | + | |13. Deut. 13.1-3, |very free. + | | 9, 5, 3. | +Hom. 17. | |18. Num. 12.6. |}paraphrastic + | | Ex. 33.11. |} combination. +Hom. 18. | |17. Is. 40.26,27. |free quotation. + | | Deut. 30.13. |ditto. +18. Is. 1.3. | | | + Is. 1.4. | | | + + +The example of the Clementine Homilies shows conspicuously the +extremely deceptive character of the argument from silence. All +the quotations from the Old Testament found in them are taken from +five Homilies (iii, xi, xvi, xvii, xviii) out of nineteen, although +the Homilies are lengthy compositions, filling, with the translation +and various readings, four hundred and fourteen large octavo pages +of Dressel's edition [Endnote 38:1]. Of the whole number of quotations +all but seven are taken from two Homilies, iii and xvi. If Hom. xvi +and Hom. xviii had been lost, there would have been no evidence that +the author was acquainted with any book of the Old Testament besides +the Pentateuch; and, if the five Homilies had been lost, there would +have been nothing to show that he was acquainted with the Old Testament +at all. Yet the loss of the two Homilies would have left a volume +of three hundred and seventy-seven pages, and that of the five a +volume of three hundred and fifteen pages. In other words, it is +possible to read three hundred and fifteen pages of the Homilies +with five breaks and come to no quotation from the Old Testament +at all, or three hundred and fifteen pages with only two breaks +and come to none outside the Pentateuch. But the reduced volume +that we have supposed, containing the fourteen Homilies, would +probably exceed in bulk the whole of the extant Christian literature +of the second century up to the time of Irenaeus, with the single +exception of the works of Justin; it will therefore be seen how +precarious must needs be any inference from the silence, not of +all these writings, but merely of a portion of them. + +For the rest, the quotations in the Homilies may be said to +observe a fair standard of exactness, one apparently higher than +that in the genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; at the +same time it should be remembered that the quotations in the +Homilies are much shorter, only two reaching a length of three +verses, while the longest quotations in the Epistle are precisely +those that are most exact. The most striking instance of accuracy +of quotation is perhaps Gen. xv. 13-16 in Hom. iii. 43. On the +other hand, there is marked freedom in the quotations from Deut. +iv. 34, x. 17, xiii. 1-3, xiii. 6. xxx. 15, Is. xl. 26, 27, and +the combined passage, Num. xii. 6 and Ex. xxiii. 11. There are +several repetitions, but these occur too near to each other to +permit of any inference. + +Our examination of the Old Testament quotations in Justin is +greatly facilitated by the collection and discussion of them in +Credner's Beitraege [Endnote 39:1], a noble example of that true +patient work which is indeed the reverse of showy, but forms the +solid and well-laid foundation on which alone genuine knowledge +can be built. Credner has collected and compared in the most +elaborate manner the whole of Justin's quotations with the various +readings in the MSS. of the LXX; so that we may state our results +with a much greater confidence than in any other case (except +perhaps Clement of Rome, where we have the equally accurate and +scholarly guidance of Dr. Lightfoot [Endnote 40:1]) that we are +not led astray by imperfect materials. I have availed myself +freely of Credner's collection of variants, indicating the cases +where the existence of documentary (or, in some places, +inferential) evidence for Justin's readings has led to the +quotation being placed in a different class from that to which it +would at first sight seem to belong. I have also, as hitherto, not +assumed an absolutely strict standard for admission to the first +class of 'exact' quotations. Many of Justin's quotations are very +long, and it seemed only right that in these the standard should +be somewhat, though very slightly, relaxed. The chief point that +we have to determine is the extent to which the writers of the +first century were in the habit of freely paraphrasing or quoting +from memory, and it may as a rule be assumed that all the +instances in the first class and most (not quite all) of those in +the second do not admit of such an explanation. I have been glad +in every case where a truly scientific and most impartial writer +like Credner gives his opinion, to make use of it instead of my +own. I have the satisfaction to think that whatever may be the +value of the other sections of this enquiry, this at least is +thoroughly sound, and based upon a really exhaustive sifting of +the data. + +The quotations given below are from the undoubted works of Justin, +the Dialogue against Tryphon and the First Apology; the Second +Apology does not appear to contain any quotations either from the +Old or New Testament. + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | + | | | + |Apol. 1.59, Gen. | | + | 1.1-3. | | +Dial. 62, Gen. 1. | | | + 26-28. | | | + |Dial. 102, Gen. | |free quotation + | 3.15. | | (Credner). +D.62, Gen. 3.22. | | | + |D.127, Gen. | | + | 7.16. | | + |D.139, Gen. 9. | | + | 24-27. | | + |D.127, Gen. 11.5. | |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) +D.102, Gen. 11.6. | | | + |D.92, Gen. 15.6. | |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) + | |Dial.10, +Gen. | + | | 17.14. | +D.127, Gen. 17.22.| | | + |D.56, +Gen. 18. | |ver. 2 repeated + | 1, 2. | | similarly. + | +Gen. 18. 13, 14. | |repeated, + | | | slightly more + | +Gen. 18. 16-23, | | divergent. + | 33. | | + | +Gen. 19. 1, 10, | | + | 16-28 (om. 26). | |marked exactness + | | | in the whole + | | | passage. +D.56, Gen. 21. | | | + 9-12. | | | +D.120, Gen. 26.4. | | | +D.58, Gen. 28. | | | + 10-12. | | | + |D.58, +(v.l.) Gen. | | + | 28. 13-19. | | + | +(v.l.) Gen. 31. | | + | 10-13. | | + | |D.59, Gen. 35.1. |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) +D.58, Gen. 35. | | | + 6-10 (v.l.) | | | +D. 52, Gen. 49. | | |repeated + 8-12. | | | similarly. +D. 59, Ex. 2. 23. | | | +D. 60, Ex. 3.2-4+.| |A.1. 62, Ex. 3. 5. |from memory + | | | (Cr.) + |D. 59, Ex. 3. 16. | | + | |A. 1.63, Ex. 3.16 |ver.16 freely + | | (ter), 17. | quoted (Cr.) + | | | [Greek: eirae- + | | | tai pou.] + |D. 126, Ex.6.2-4. | | + | |D. 49, Ex. 17.16. |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) + | |D. 94, Ex. 20.4. |ditto (Cr.) + |D. 75, Ex. 23.20, | |from Lectionary + | 21. | | (Cr.) +D.16, Lev. 26.40, | |D. 20, Ex. 32. 6. |free (Cr.) + 41 (v.l.) | | | + |D. 126, Num. 11. | | + | 23. | | + | |A.1.60 (or. obl.), |free (Cr.) + | | D. 94, Num. 21. | + | | 8,9. | + |D. 106, Num. 24. | |through Targum + | 17. | | (Cr.) + | |D. 16, Deut. 10. |from memory + | | 16, 17. | (Cr.) + | |D.96, Deut. 21.23. |both precisely + | | Deut. 27.26. | as St. Paul in + | | | Galatians, and + | | | quoted thence + | | | (Cr.) +D. 126, Deut. 31. | | | + 2, 3 (v.l.) | | | +D. 74, Deut. 31. | | | + 16-18 (v.l.) | | | +D. 131, Deut. 32. | | | + 7-9 (tr.) | | | + |D.20, Deut. 32.15. | | +D. 119, Deut. 32. | | |Targum (Cr.) + 16-23. | | | +D. 130, Deut. 32. | | | +43 (v.l.) | | | + |D. 91, +Deut. 33. | | + | 13-17. | | +A.1. 40, Ps. 1 and| | |parts repeated. + 2 entire. | | | + |D.97, Ps. 3. 5, 6. | |repeated, more + | | | freely. +D.114, Ps. 8.4. | | | +D.27, Ps. 14.3. | | | +D.28, Ps.18.44,45.| | | +D. 64, Ps.19.6 | | |perhaps from +(A.1.40, vv.1-5). | | | different + | | | MSS., see + | | | Credner. +D.97 ff., Ps. 22. | | |quoted as + 1-23. | | | _whole_ Psalm + | | | (bis). +D.133 ff., Ps. 24 | | | + entire. | | | + |D.141, Ps. 32. 2. | | +D.38, Ps. 45.1-17.| | |parts repeated. +D.37, Ps. 47.6-9. | | | +D.22, Ps. 49 | | | + entire. | | | + | |D.34} |{from Eph. 4.8, + | |D.37} Ps. 68.8. |{ Targum. +D.34, Ps. 72 | | | +entire. | | | +D. 124, Ps. 82 | | | + entire. | | | +D.73, Ps. 96 | | |note Christian + entire. | | | interpolation + | | | in ver. 10. +D.37, Ps. 99 | | | + entire. | |D. 83, Ps. 110. |from memory +D.32, Ps. 110 | | 1-4. | (Cr.) +entire. | | | + | |D.110, Ps. 128.3. |from memory +D.85, Ps. 148. | | | (Cr.) + 1, 2. | | | +A.1. 37, Is. 1. | | | + 3, 4. | | | + | |A.1. 47, Is. 1.7 |sense only + | | (Jer. 2.15). | (Cr.) + | |D.140 (A.1. 53), | + | | Is. 1.9. | + | |A.1. 37, Is. 1. |from memory + | | 11-14. | (Cr.) + |A.1. 44 (61), Is. | |omissions. + | 1.16-30. | | + | |D.82, Is. 1. 23. |from memory +A.1. 39, Is. 2. | | | (Cr.) + 3,4. | | | + |D.135, Is. 2. 5,6. | |Targum (Cr.) +D. 133, Is. 3. | | | + 9-15 (v.l.) | | | + | |D.27, Is. 3.16. |free quotation + | | | (Cr.) + |D.133, Is. 5. 18- | |repeated. + | 25 (v.l.) | | + |D.43 (66), Is. 7. | |repeated, with + | 10-17 (v.l.) | | slight + | | | variation. + | | A.1.35, Is. 9.6. |free (Cr.) +D.87, Is. 11.1-3. | |[A.1.32, Is. 11.1; |free combination + | | Num. 24.17. | (Cr.)] + |D.123, Is. 14.1. | | +D.123, Is. 19.24, | | | + 25+. | | | + |D.78, Is. 29.13,14.| |repeated (v.l), + | | | partly from + | | | memory. +D.79, Is. 30.1-5. | | | + |D.70, Is.33.13-19. | | + |D.69, Is. 35.1-7. |A.1.48, Is. 35.5,6.|free; cf. Matt. + | | | 11.5 (var.) +D.50, Is. 39. 8, | | | + 40.1-17. | | | + | |D.125} Is.42.1-4. |{cf. Matt. 12. + | |D.135} |{ 17-21, + | | | Targum (Cr.) +D.65, Is. 42.6-13 | | | + (v.l.) | | | + | |D.122, Is. 42.16. |free (Cr.) + |D.123, Is. 42.19, | | + | 20. | | +D.122, Is. 43.10. | | | + | |A.1.52, Is. 45. |cf. Rom. 14.11. + | | 24 (v.l.) | +D.121, Is. 49.6 | | | + (v.l.) | | | +D.122, Is. 49.8 | | | + (v.l.) | | | + |D.102, Is. 50.4. | | +A.1.38, Is. 50. | | |Barn., Tert., + 6-8. | | | Cypr. +D.11, Is. 51.4, 5.| | | +D.17, Is. 52.5 | | | + (v.l.) | | | +D.12, Is. 5 2, | | | + 10-15, 53.1-12, | | | + 54.1-6. | | | + |A.1. 50, Is. 52. | | + | 13-53.12. | | + | |D.138, Is. 54.9. |very free. +D.14, Is. 55.3-13.| |[D.12, Is. 55. 3-5.|from memory + | | | (Cr.)] +D.16, Is.57.1-4. | | |repeated. +D.15, Is.58.1-11 | | |[Greek: + (v.l.) | | | himatia] for + | | |[Greek: iamata]; + | | |so Barn., Tert, + | | |Cyp., Amb., Aug. +D.27, Is. 58. | | | + 13, 14. | | | + |D.26, +Is. 62.10- | |[Greek: + | 10-63.6. | | susseismon] for + | | |[Greek: + | | | sussaemon]. +D.25, Is. 63.15- | | | + 19, 64.1-12. | | | +D.24, Is. 65. 1-3.| |[A.1.49, Is. 65. |from memory + | | 1-3. | (Cr.)] +D.136, Is. 65.8. | | | +D.135, Is. 65.9-12| | | +D.81, Is. 65.17-25| | | + | |D.22, Is. 66.1. |from memory + | | | (Cr.) +D.85, Is. 66.5-11.| | | + | |D.44, Is. 66. 24 |from memory + | | (ter). | (Cr.) + | |D.114, Jer. 2.13; |as from + | | Is. 16.1; | Jeremiah, + | | Jer. 3.8. | traditional + | | | combination; + | | | cf. Barn. 2. + |D.28, Jer. 4.3, 4 | | + | (v.l.) | | + | |D.23, Jer. 7.21,22.|free quotation + | | | (Cr.) + |D. 28, Jer. 9.25,26|[A.1.53, Jer. 9.26.|quoted freely + | | | as from + | | | Isaiah.] + |D.72, Jer. 11.19. | |omissions. + | |D. 78, Jer. 31.15 |so Matt. 2.18 + | | (38.15, LXX). | through + | | | Targum (Cr.) + | |D.123, Jer. 31.27 |free quotation + | | (38. 27). | (Cr.) + |D.11, Jer. 31.31, | | + |32 (38.31, 32). | | + | |D.72. |a passage quoted + | | | as from + | | | Jeremiah, + | | | which is not + | | | recognisable + | | | in our present + | | | texts. + | |D. 82, Ezek. 3. |free quotation + | | 17-19. | (Cr.) + | |D.45} Ezek. 14. |} repeated + | | 44} 20; cf. 14, |} similarly and + | | 140} 16, 18. |} equally + | | |} divergent from + | | |} LXX. +D.77, Ezek. 16. 3.| | | +D.21, Ezek. 20. | | | + 19-26. | | | +D.123, Ezek. 36. | | | + 12. | | | + | |A.1.52, Ezek. |very free (Cr.) + | | 37. 7. | + +[Footnote: Justin has in Dial. 31 (also in Apol. 1. 51, ver. 13, from +memory) a long quotation from Daniel, Dan. 7. 9-28; his text can only +be compared with a single MS. of the LXX, Codex Chisianus; from this +it differs considerably, but many of the differences reappear in the +version of Theodotion; 7. 10, 13 are also similarly quoted in Rev., +Mark, Clem. Rom.] + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | + | |D.19, Hos. 1.9. | + | |D.102, Hos.10.6. |referred to + | | | trial before + | | | Herod (Cr.) + | |D.87, Joel 2.28. |from memory + | | | (Cr.) + |D. 22, +Amos | | + |5.18-6. 7 (v.l.) | | + |D. 107, Jonah 4. | | + | 10-11 (v.l. Heb.)| | + |D. 109, Micah 4. | |divergent from + | 1-7 (Heb.?) | | LXX. + | |A.1.34} Micah 5.2. |{precisely as + | |D.78 } |{ Matt. 2.6. + | | | + | |A.1.52, Zech. 2.6. |{free quotations + | |D. 137, Zech. 2. 8.|{ (Cr.) + |D. 115, Zach. 2. |[D. 79, Zech. 3. |freely (Cr.)] + | 10-3. 2 (Heb.?) | 1, 2. | +D.106, Zach. 6.12.| | | + | |A.1.52, Zech. 12. |repeated di- + | | 11,12,10. | versely [note + | | | reading of + | | | Christian ori- + | | | gin (Cr.) in + | | | ver. 10: + | | | so John 19.37; + | | | cp. Rev. 1.7]. + | |D.43, Zech. 13. 7. |diversely in + | | | Matt. 26.31, + | | | proof that + | | | Justin is + | | | not dependent + | | | on Matthew + | | | (Cr.) + |D.28, 41, Mal. 1. |D. 117, Mal. 1. | + | 10-12 (v.l.) | 10-12. | + |D.62, +Joshua 5. | |omissions. + | 13-15; 6.1, 2 | | + | (v.l.) | | + | |D.118, 2 Sam. 7. |from memory + | | 14-16. | (Cr.) + | |D.39, 1 Kings 19. |freely (Cr.); + | | 14, 15, 18. | cf. Rom. 11.3. +A.1.55, Lam. 4. | | | + 20 (v.l.) | | | + | |D.79, Job 1.6. |sense only + | | | (Cr.) + |D.61, +Prov. 8. | |coincidence + | 21-36. | | with Ire- + | | | naeus. + +[Footnote: D. 72 a passage ostensibly from Ezra, but probably an +apocryphal addition, perhaps from Preaching of Peter; same quotation +in Lactantius.] + + +It is impossible not to be struck with the amount of matter that +Justin has transferred to his pages bodily. He has quoted nine +Psalms entire, and a tenth with the statement (twice repeated) +that it is given entire, though really he has only quoted twenty- +three verses. The later chapters of Isaiah are also given with +extraordinary fulness. These longer passages are generally quoted +accurately. If Justin's text differs from the received text of the +LXX, it is frequently found that he has some extant authority for +his reading. The way in which Credner has drawn out these +varieties of reading, and the results which he obtained as to the +relations and comparative value of the different MSS., form +perhaps the most interesting feature of his work. The more marked +divergences in Justin may be referred to two causes; (1) quotation +from memory, in which he indulges freely, especially in the +shorter passages, and more in the Apology than in the Dialogue +with Tryphon; (2) in Messianic passages the use of a Targum, not +immediately by Justin himself but in some previous document from +which he quotes, in order to introduce a more distinctly Christian +interpretation; the coincidences between Justin and other +Christian writers show that the text of the LXX had been thus +modified in a Christian sense, generally through a closer +comparison with and nearer return to the Hebrew, before his time. +The instances of free quotation are not perhaps quite fully given +in the above list, but it will be seen that though they form a +marked phenomenon, still more marked is the amount of exactness. +Any long, not Messianic, passage, it appears to be the rule with +Justin to quote exactly. Among the passages quoted freely there +seem to be none of greater length than four verses. + +The exactness is especially remarkable in the plain historical +narratives of the Pentateuch and the Psalms, though it is also +evident that Justin had the MS. before him, and referred to it +frequently throughout the quotations from the latter part of +Isaiah. Through following the arrangement of Credner we have +failed to notice the cases of combination; these however are +collected by Dr. Westcott (On the Canon, p. 156). The most +remarkable instance is in Apol. i. 52, where six different +passages from three separate writers are interwoven together and +assigned bodily to Zechariah. There are several more examples of +mistaken ascription. + + * * * * * + +The great advantage of collecting the quotations from the Old +Testament is that we are enabled to do so in regard to the very +same writers among whom our enquiry is to lie. We can thus form a +general idea of their idiosyncracies, and we know what to expect +when we come to examine a different class of quotations. There is, +however, the element of uncertainty of which I have spoken above. +We cannot be quite clear what text the writer had before him. This +difficulty also exists, though to a less degree, when we come to +consider quotations from the New Testament in writers of an early +date whom we know to have used our present Gospels as canonical. +The text of these Gospels is so comparatively fixed, and we have +such abundant materials for its reconstruction, that we can +generally say at once whether the writer is quoting from it freely +or not. We have thus a certain gain, though at the cost of the +drawback that we can no longer draw an inference as to the +practice of individuals, but merely attain to a general conclusion +as to the habits of mind current in the age. This too will be +subject to a deduction for the individual bent and peculiarities +of the writer. We must therefore, on the whole, attach less +importance to the examples under this section than under that +preceding. + +I chose two writers to be the subject of this examination almost, +I may say, at random, and chiefly because I had more convenient +access to their works at the time. The first of these is Irenaeus, +that is to say the portions still extant in the Greek of his +Treatise against Heresies, [Endnote 49:1] and the second +Epiphanius. + +Irenaeus is described by Dr. Tregelles 'as a close and careful +quoter in general from the New Testament' [Endnote 49:2]. He may +therefore be taken to represent a comparatively high standard of +accuracy. In the following table the quotations which are merely +allusive are included in brackets:-- + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | variant._ | | +I. Praef. Matt. 10.26.| | | +I.3.2,Matt. 5.18. | | |quoted from + | | | Gnostics +I.3, 3, Mark 5.31. | | |Gnostics. + | |I.3.5, Luke 14.27. |Valentinians. + |I.3.5, Mark 10. | |the same. +I.3.5, Matt. 10.34. | 21 (v.l.) | |the same. +I.3.5, Luke 3.17. | | |the same. +I.4.3, Matt. 10.8. | | | +[I.6.1, Matt. 5. | | | + 13, 14, al.] | |I.7.4, Matt. 8.9.} |}the same. + | | Luke 7.8. } |} + | |I.8.2, Matt. 27.46.|Valentinians. +I.8.2. Matt. 26.38. | | |the same. + |I.8.2, Matt. | |the same. + | 26.39. | | + | |I.8.2, John 12.27. |the same. + | |I.8.3, Luke |the same. + | | 9.57,58. | + | |I.8.3, Luke |the same. + | | 9.61,62. | + |I.8.3, Luke | |the same. + | 9.60. | | + |I.8.3, Luke 19.5.| |the same. + | |I.8.4, Luke 15,4. |the same. + |[I.8.4, Luke | |the same. + | 15.8, al.]| | + |I.8.4, Luke 2.28.| |the same. +[I.8.4., Luke | | |the same. + 6.36, al.] | | | +I.8.4, Luke 7.35 | | |the same. + (v.l.) | | | +I.8.5, John 1.1,2. | | |the same. +I.8.5, John 1.3 | | |the same. + (v.l.) | | | +I.8.5, John 1.4. | | |the same. + (v.l.) | | | + | |I.8.5, John 1.5. |the same. +I.8.5, John 1.14. | |I.8.5, John 1.14. |[the same + | | | verse rep- + | | | eated dif- + | | | ferently.] + | |[I.14.1. Matt. |Marcus. + | | 18.10,al.] | + |[I.16.1, Luke | |Marcosians. + | 15.8,al.]| | + | |[I.16.3, Matt. |the same. + | | 12,43,al.] | + |I.20.2, Luke | |the same. + | 2.49. | | + | |I.20.2, Mark 10.18.|['memoriter'- + | | | Stieren; but + | | | comp. Clem. + | | | Hom. and + | | | and Justin.] + |I.20.2, Matt. | |Marcosians. + | 21.23.| | + | |I.20.2, Luke 19.42.|the same. +I.20.2, Matt. | | |the same. + 11.28 (? om.).| | | + | |I.20.3, Luke 10.21.|the same; + | | (Matt. 11.25 | [v.l., comp. + | | 25.) | Marcion, + | | | Clem. Hom., + | | | Justin, &c.] + | |I.21.2, Luke 12.50.|Marcosians. + |I.21.2, Mark | |Marcosians. + | 10.36. | | +III.11.8, John | | | + 1.1-3 (?). | | | +III.11.8, Matt. | | | + 1.1,18 (v.l.)| | | + |III.11.8, Mark | |omissions. + | 1.1,2. | | +III.22.2, John 4.6. | | | +III.22.2, Matt. 26.38.| | | + |IV.26.1, } Matt. | | + |IV.40.3, } 13.38.| | + |IV.40.3, Matt. | | + | 13.25. | | +V.17.4, Matt. 3.10. | | | + | |V.36.2, John 14.2 | + | | (or obl.) | + | |Fragm. 14, Matt. | + | | 15.17. | + +On the whole these quotations of Irenaeus seem fairly to deserve +the praise given to them by Dr. Tregelles. Most of the free +quotations, it will be seen, belong not so much to Irenaeus +himself, as to the writers he is criticising. In some places (e.g. +iv. 6. 1, which is found in the Latin only) he expressly notes a +difference of text. In this very place, however, he shows that he +is quoting from memory, as he speaks of a parallel passage in St. +Mark which does not exist. Elsewhere there can be little doubt +that either he or the writer before him quoted loosely from +memory. Thus Luke xii. 50 is given as [Greek: allo baptisma echo +baptisthaenai kai panu epeigomai eis auto] for [Greek: baptisma de +echo baptisthaenai kai pos sunechomai heos hotou telesthae]. The +quotation from Matt. viii. 9 is represented as [Greek: kai gar ego +hupo taen emautou exousian echo stratiotas kai doulous kai ho ean +prostaxo poiousi], which is evidently free; those from Matt. +xviii. 10, xxvii. 46, Luke ix. 57, 58, 61, 62, xiv. 27, xix. 42, +John i. 5, 14 (where however there appears to be some confusion in +the text of Irenaeus), xiv. 2, also seem to be best explained as +made from memory. + +The list given below, of quotations from the Gospels in the +Panarium or 'Treatise against Heresies' of Epiphanius [Endnote +52:1], is not intended to be exhaustive. It has been made from the +shorter index of Petavius, and being confined to the 'praecipui +loci' consists chiefly of passages of substantial length and +entirely (I believe) of express quotations. It has been again +necessary to distinguish between the quotations made directly by +Epiphanius himself and those made by the heretical writers whose +works he is reviewing. + + _Exact._ | _Slightly | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | Variant._ | | +426A, Matt. 1.1; | | | + Matt. 1.18, | | | + (v.l.) | | | + |426BC, Matt. | |abridged, diver- + | 1.18-25+.| | gent in middle. + | |430B, Matt. 2.13. |Porphyry & Celsus. + | |44C, Matt. 5.34,37| + |59C, Matt. | | + | 5.17,18.| | +180B, Matt. 5.18+.| | |Valentinians. + | |226A, Matt. 5.45. | + |72A, Matt. 7.6. | |Basilidians. +404C, Matt. 7.15. | | | + | |67C. Matt. 8.11. | + | |650B. Matt. | + | | 8.28-34 (par.)| + |303A, Matt. | |Marcion. + | 9.17,16.| | + |71B, Matt. 10.33.| |Basilidians. + |274B, Matt. | | + | 10.16.| | +88A, Matt. 11.7. |143B, Matt. | |Gnostics. + | 11.18.| | + |254B, Matt. | |Marcosians. + | 11.28.| | + | |139AB, Matt. |Ebionites. + | | 12.48 sqq. (v.l.)| +174C, Matt. 10.26.| | | + | |464B, Matt. |Theodotus. + | | 12.31,32.| + |33A, Matt. 23.5. | | + | |218D, Matt. 15.4-6|Ptolemaeus. + | | (or. obl.)| + | |490C, Matt. 15.20.| + | | Mark 7.21,22.| + | |490A, Matt. 18.8. |}compression + | | Mark 9.43. |} + | |679BC, Matt. |Manes. + | | 13.24-30,37-39.| + | |152B, Matt. 5.27. | + |59CD, Matt. | | + | 19.10-12.| | + |59D, Matt. 19.6. | | + | |81A, Matt. 19.12. | + | |97D, Matt. 22.30. | + | |36BC, Matt. 23. |remarkable compo- + | | 23,25; 23.18-20.| sition, probably + | | | from memory. + | | (5.35); Mark | + | | 7.11-13; Matt. | + | | 23.15. | + | |226A, Matt. 23.29;|composition. + | | Luke 11.47.| + | |281A, Matt. 23.35.| + | |508C, Matt. 25.34.| + | |146AB, Matt. 26. |narrative. + | | 17,18; Mark 14. | + | | 12-14; Luke 22. | + | | 9-11. | + | |279D, Matt. 26.24.| + | |390B, Matt. 21.33,| + | | par. | + |50A, Matt. 28.19.| | + |427B, Mark 1.1,2.| | + | (v.1.)| | + |428C, Mark 1.4. | | + | |457D, Mark 3.29; |singular + | | Matt. 12.31; |composition. + | | Luke 12.10. | + |400D, Matt. 19.6;| | + | Mark 10.9. | | + | |650C, Matt. 8. |narrative. + | | 28-34; Mark 5. | + | | 1-20; Luke 8. | + | | 26-39. | + +[These last five quotations have already been given under Irenaeus, whom +Epiphanius is transcribing.] + + |464D, Luke 12.9; | |composition. + | Matt. 10.33.| | + |181B, Luke 14.27.| |Valentians. + |401A, Luke 21.34.| | + |143C, Luke 24.42.| | + | (v. 1.)| | + |349C, Luke 24. | |Marcion. + | 38,39| | +384B, John 1.1-3. | | | +148A, John 1.23. | | | + |148B, John | | + | 2.16,17.| | + |89C, John 3.12. | |Gnostics. + |274A, John 3.14 | | +59C, John 5.46. | | | + | |162B, John 5.8. | +66C, John 5.17. | | | + |919A, John 5.18. | | + | |117D, John 6.15. | + |89D, John 6.53. | |the same. + |279D, John 6.70. | | + | |279B, John 8.44. | + |463D, John 8.40. | |Theodotus. + | |148B, John 12.41. | + | |153A, John 12.22. | + |75C, John 14.6. | | +919C, John 14.10. | | | +921D, John 17.3. | | | + | |279D, John | + | | 17.11,12.| + |119D, John 18.36.| | + +It is impossible here not to notice the very large amount of +freedom in the quotations. The exact quotations number only +fifteen, the slightly variant thirty-seven, and the markedly +variant forty. By far the larger portion of this last class and +several instances in the second it seems most reasonable to refer +to the habit of quoting from memory. This is strikingly +illustrated by the passage 117 D, Where the retreat of Jesus and +His disciples to Ephraim is treated as a consequence of the +attempt 'to make Him king' (John vi. 15), though in reality it did +not take place till after the raising of Lazarus and just before +the Last Passover (see John xi. 54). A very remarkable case of +combination is found in 36 BC, where a single quotation is made up +of a cento of no less than six separate passages taken from all +three Synoptic Gospels and in the most broken order. Fusions so +complete as this are usually the result of unconscious acts of the +mind, i.e. of memory. A curious instance of the way in which the +Synoptic parallels are blended together in a compound which +differs from each and all of them is presented in 437 D ([Greek: +to blasphaemounti eis to pneuma to hagion ouk aphethaesetai auto +oute en to nun aioni oute en to mellonti]). Another example of +Epiphanius' manner in skipping backwards and forwards from one +Synoptic to another may be seen in 218 D, which is made up of +Matt. xv. 4-9 and Mark vii. 6-13. A strange mistake is made in 428 +D, where [Greek: paraekolouthaekoti] is taken with [Greek: tois +autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou]. Many kinds of variation find +examples in these quotations of Epiphanius, to some of which we +may have occasion to allude more particularly later on. + +It should be remembered that these are not by any means selected +examples. Neither Irenaeus nor Epiphanius are notorious for free +quotation--Irenaeus indeed is rather the reverse. Probably a much +more plentiful harvest of variations would have been obtained e.g. +from Clement of Alexandria, from whose writings numerous instances +of quotation following the sense only, of false ascription, of the +blending of passages, of quotations from memory, are given in the +treatise of Bp. Kaye [Endnote 56:1]. Dr. Westcott has recently +collected [Endnote 56:2] the quotations from Chrysostom _On the +Priesthood,_ with the result that about one half present +variations from the Apostolic texts, and some of these variations, +which he gives at length, are certainly very much to the point. + +I fear we shall have seemed to delay too long upon this first +preliminary stage of the enquiry, but it is highly desirable that +we should start with a good broad inductive basis to go upon. We +have now an instrument in our hands by which to test the alleged +quotations in the early writers; and, rough and approximate as +that instrument must still be admitted to be, it is at least much +better than none at all. + + + + + +CHAPTER III. + +THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. + + +To go at all thoroughly into all the questions that may be raised +as to the date and character of the Christian writings in the +early part of the second century would need a series of somewhat +elaborate monographs, and, important as it is that the data should +be fixed with the utmost attainable precision, the scaffolding +thus raised would, in a work like the present, be out of +proportion to the superstructure erected upon it. These are +matters that must be decided by the authority of those who have +made the provinces to which they belong a subject of special +study: all we can do will be to test the value of the several +authorities in passing. + +In regard to Clement of Rome, whose First (genuine) Epistle to the +Corinthians is the first writing that meets us, the author of +'Supernatural Religion' is quite right in saying that 'the great mass +of critics ... assign the composition of the Epistle to the end of the +first century (A.D. 95-100)' [Endnote 58:1]. There is as usual a right +and a left wing in the array of critics. The right includes several of +the older writers; among the moderns the most conspicuous figure is the +Roman Catholic Bishop Hefele. Tischendorf also, though as it is pointed +out somewhat inconsistently, leans to this side. According to their +opinion the Epistle would be written shortly before A.D. 70. On the +left, the names quoted are Volkmar, Baur, Scholten, Stap, and Schwegler +[Endnote 59:1]. Baur contents himself with the remark that the Epistle +to the Corinthians, 'as one of the oldest documents of Christian +antiquity, might have passed without question as a writing of the Roman +Clement,' had not this Clement become a legendary person and had so +many spurious works palmed off upon him [Endnote 59:2]. But it is +surely no argument to say that because a certain number of extravagant +and spurious writings are attributed to Clement, therefore one so sober +and consistent with his position, and one so well attested as this, is +not likely to have been written by him. The contrary inference would be +the more reasonable, for if Clement had not been an important person, +and if he had left no known and acknowledged writings, divergent +parties in the Church would have had no reason for making use of his +name. But arguments of this kind cannot have much weight. Probably not +one half of the writings attributed to Justin Martyr are genuine; but +no one on that account doubts the Apologies and the Dialogue with +Tryphon. + +Schwegler [Endnote 59:3], as is his wont, has developed the opinion of +Baur, adding some reasons of his own. Such as, that the letter shows +Pauline tendencies, while 'according to the most certain traditions' +Clement was a follower of St. Peter; but the evidence for the Epistle +(Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, A.D. 165-175, Hegesippus, and +Irenaeus in the most express terms) is much older and better than +these 'most certain traditions' (Tertullian and Origen), even if they +proved anything: 'in the Epistle of Clement use is made of the Epistle +to the Hebrews;' but surely, according to any sober canons of +criticism, the only light in which this argument can be regarded is as +so much evidence for the Epistle to the Hebrews: the Epistle implies a +development of the episcopate which 'demonstrably' (nachweislich) did +not take place until during the course of the second century; what the +'demonstration' is does not appear, and indeed it is only part of the +great fabric of hypothesis that makes up the Tuebingen theory. + +Volkmar strikes into a new vein [Endnote 60:1]. The Epistle of Clement +presupposes the Book of Judith; but the Book of Judith must be dated +A.D. 117-118; and therefore the Epistle of Clement will fall about +A.D. 125. What is the ground for this reasoning? It consists in a +theory, which Volkmar adopted and developed from Hitzig, as to the +origin of the Book of Judith. That book is an allegorical or symbolical +representation of events in the early part of the rising of the Jews +under Barcochba; Judith is Judaea, Nebuchadnezzar Trajan; Assyria +stands for Syria, Nineveh for Antioch, Arphaxad for a Parthian king +Arsaces, Ecbatana for Nisibis or perhaps Batnae; Bagoas is the eunuch- +service in general; Holofernes is the Moor Lucius Quietus. Out of +these elements an elaborate historical theory is constructed, which +Ewald and Fritzsche have taken the trouble to refute on historical +grounds. To us it is very much as if Ivanhoe were made out to be +an allegory of incidents in the French Revolution; or as if the +'tale of Troy divine' were, not a nature-myth or Euemeristic legend +of long past ages, but a symbolical representation of events under +the Pisistratidae. + +Examples such as this are apt to draw from the English reader a +sweeping condemnation of German criticism, and yet they are really +only the sports or freaks of an exuberant activity. The long list +given in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 61:1] of those who +maintain the middle date of Clement's Epistle (A.D. 95-100) +includes apparently all the English writers, and among a number of +Germans the weighty names of Bleek, Ewald, Gieseler, Hilgenfeld, +Koestlin, Lipsius, Laurent, Reuss, and Ritschl. From the point of +view either of authority or of argument there can be little doubt +which is the soundest and most judicious decision. + +Now what is the bearing of the Epistle of Clement upon the +question of the currency and authority of the Synoptic Gospels? +There are two passages of some length which are without doubt +evangelical quotations, though whether they are derived from the +Canonical Gospels or not may be doubted. + +The first passage occurs in c. xiii. It will be necessary to give +it in full with the Synoptic parallels, in order to appreciate the +exact amount of difference and resemblance which it presents. + + +_Matt._ v. 7, vi. 14, |_Clem. ad Cor._ c. xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31, + vii. 12,2. | | vi. 38, 37, 38. + | [Especially re- | + | membering the word | + | of the Lord Jesus | + | which he spake ... | + | For thus he said:] | +v. 7. Blessed are | Pity ye, that ye may | vi. 36. Be ye mer- +the pitiful, for they | be pitied: forgive, | ciful, etc. vi. 37. Ac- +shall be pitied. vi. | that it may be for- | quit, and ye shall be +14. For if ye for | given unto you. As | acquitted. vi. 3 1. +give men their tres- | ye do, so shall it | And as ye would +passes, etc. vii. 12. | be done unto you: | that they should do +All things therefore | as ye give, so shall | unto you, do ye +whatsoever ye would | it be given. unto you: | also unto them like +that men should do | as ye judge, so shall | wise. vi. 38. Give, +unto you, even so do | it be judged unto | and it shall be given +ye unto them. vii. 2. | you: as ye are kind, | unto you. vi. 3 7. +For with what judg- | so shall kindness be | And judge not, and +ment ye judge, ye | shown unto you: | ye shall not be +shall be judged: and | | judged. +with what measure | with what measure | For with what +ye mete, it shall be | ye mete, with it shall | measure ye mete, it +measured unto you. | it be measured unto | shall be measured + | you. | unto you again. + + + [GREEK TABLE] +_Matt._ v. 7, vi. 14, |_Clem. ad Cor._ c. xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31, + vii. 12,2. | | vi. 38, 37, 38. + | | + v.7. makarioi hoi |eleeite hina eleaethaete.| vi. 36. ginesthe +eleaemones hoti autoi | |oiktirmones, k.t.l. +eleaethaesontai. | | + vi. 14. ean gar | aphiete hina aphethae | vi. 37. apoluete kai +aphaete tois anth. ta |humin. |apoluthaesesthe. +paraptomata auton. | | + vii. 12. panta oun | hos poieite houto | vi. 31. kai kathos +hosa ean thelaete hina |poiaethaesetai humin. |thelete hina poiosin +poiosin humin hoi anth.| |humin hoi anthropoi kai +houtos kai humeis | |humeis poieite autois + | |homoios poieite autois. + | hos didote houtos | vi. 38. didote, kai + |dothaesetai humin. |dothaesetai humin. +vii. 2. en ho gar | hos krinete houtos | vi. 37. kai mae +krimati krinete |krithaesetai humin. |krinete kai ou mae +krithaesesthe. | |krithaete. + | hos chraesteuesthe | + |houtos chraesteuthaesetai| + |humin. | +kai en ho metro | ho metro metreite en | vi. 38. to gar auto +metreite |auto metraethaesetai |metro ho metreite +metraethaesetai humin. |humin. |antimetraethaesetai + | |humin. + + +We are to determine whether this quotation was taken from the +Canonical Gospels. Let us try to balance the arguments on both +sides as fairly as possible. Dr. Lightfoot writes in his note upon +the passage as follows: 'As Clement's quotations are often very +loose, we need not go beyond the Canonical Gospels for the source +of this passage. The resemblance to the original is much closer +here, than it is for instance in his account of Rahab above, Sec. 12. +The hypothesis therefore that Clement derived the saying from oral +tradition, or from some lost Gospel, is not needed.' (1) No doubt +it is true that Clement does often quote loosely. The difference +of language, taking the parallel clauses one by one, is not +greater than would be found in many of his quotations from the Old +Testament. (2) Supposing that the order of St. Luke is followed, +there will be no greater dislocation than e.g. in the quotation +from Deut. ix. 12-14 and Exod. xxxii. (7, 8), 11, 31, 32 in c. +liii, and the backward order of the quotation would have a +parallel in Clem. Hom. xvi. 13, where the verses Deut. xiii. 1-3, +5, 9 are quoted in the order Deut. xiii. 1-3, 9, 5, 3,--and +elsewhere. The composition of a passage from different places in +the same book, or more often from places in different books, such +as would be the case if Clement was following Matthew, frequently +occurs in his quotations from the Old Testament. (3) We have no +positive evidence of the presence of this passage in any non- +extant Gospel. (4) Arguments from the manner of quoting the Old +Testament to the manner of quoting the New must always be to a +certain extent _a fortiori_, for it is undeniable that the +New Testament did not as yet stand upon the same footing of +respect and authority as the Old, and the scarcity of MSS. must +have made it less accessible. In the case of converts from +Judaism, the Old Testament would have been largely committed to +memory in youth, while the knowledge of the New would be only +recently acquired. These considerations seem to favour the +hypothesis that Clement is quoting from our Gospels. + +But on the other hand it may be urged, (1) that the parallel +adduced by Dr. Lightfoot, the story of Rahab, is not quite in +point, because it is narrative, and narrative both in Clement and +the other writers of his time is dealt with more freely than +discourse. (2) The passage before us is also of greater length +than is usual in Clement's free quotations. I doubt whether as +long a piece of discourse can be found treated with equal freedom, +unless it is the two doubtful cases in c. viii and c. xxix. (3) It +will not fail to be noticed that the passage as it stands in +Clement has a roundness, a compactness, a balance of style, which +give it an individual and independent appearance. Fusions effected +by an unconscious process of thought are, it is true, sometimes +marked by this completeness; still there is a difficulty in +supposing the terse antitheses of the Clementine version to be +derived from the fuller, but more lax and disconnected, sayings in +our Gospels. (4) It is noticed in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote +65:1] that the particular phrase [Greek: chraesteusthe] has at +least a partial parallel in Justin [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kai +oiktirmones], though it has none in the Canonical Gospels. This +may seem to point to a documentary source no longer extant. + +Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we only knew +what was the common original of the two Synoptic texts. How do +they come to be so like and yet so different as they are? How do +they come to be so strangely broken up? The triple synopsis, which +has to do more with narrative, presents less difficulty, but the +problem raised by these fragmentary parallelisms in discourse is +dark and complex in the extreme; yet if it were only solved it +would in all probability give us the key to a wide class of +phenomena. The differences in these extra-canonical quotations do +not exceed the differences between the Synoptic Gospels +themselves; yet by far the larger proportion of critics regard the +resemblances in the Synoptics as due to a common written source +used either by all three or by two of them. The critics have not +however, I believe, given any satisfactory explanation of the +state of dispersion in which the fragments of this latter class +are found. All that can be at present done is to point out that +the solution of this problem and that of such quotations as the +one discussed in Clement hang together, and that while the one +remains open the other must also. + +Looking at the arguments on both sides, so far as we can give +them, I incline on the whole to the opinion that Clement is not +quoting directly from our Gospels, but I am quite aware of the +insecure ground on which this opinion rests. It is a nice balance +of probabilities, and the element of ignorance is so large that +the conclusion, whatever it is, must be purely provisional. +Anything like confident dogmatism on the subject seems to me +entirely out of place. + +Very much the same is to be said of the second passage in c. xlvi +compared with Matt. xxvi. 24, xviii. 6, or Luke xvii. 1, 2. It hardly +seems necessary to give the passage in full, as this is already done +in 'Supernatural Religion,' and it does not differ materially from +that first quoted, except that it is less complicated and the +supposition of a quotation from memory somewhat easier. The critic +indeed dismisses the question summarily enough. He says that 'the +slightest comparison of the passage with our Gospels is sufficient to +convince any unprejudiced mind that it is neither a combination of +texts nor a quotation from memory' [Endnote 66:1]. But this very +confident assertion is only the result of the hasty and superficial +examination that the author has given to the facts. He has set down +the impression that a modern might receive, at the first blush, +without having given any more extended study to the method of the +patristic quotations. I do not wish to impute blame to him for this, +because we are all sure to take up some points superficially; but the +misfortune is that he has spent his labour in the wrong place. He +has, in a manner, revived the old ecclesiastical argument from +authority by heaping together references, not always quite digested +and sifted, upon points that often do not need them, and he has +neglected that consecutive study of the originals which alone could +imbue his mind with their spirit and place him at the proper point of +view for his enquiry. + +The hypothesis that Clement's quotation is made _memoriter_ from our +Gospel is very far from being inadmissible. Were it not that the +other passage seems to lean the other way, I should be inclined to +regard it as quite the most probable solution. Such a fusion is +precisely what _would_ and frequently _does_ take place in quoting +from memory. It is important to notice the key phrases in the +quotation. The opening phrases [Greek: ouai to anthropo ekeino; kalon +aen auto ei ouk egennaethae] are found _exactly_ (though with +omissions) in Matt. xxvi. 24. Clement has in common with the +Synoptists all the more marked expressions but two, [Greek: +skandalisai] ([Greek: -sae] Synoptics), the unusual word [Greek: +mulos] (Matt., Mark), [Greek: katapontisthaenai] ([Greek: -thae] +Matt.), [Greek: eis taen thalassan] (Mark, Luke), [Greek: hena ton +mikron] ([Greek: mou] Clement, [Greek: touton] Synoptics). He differs +from them, so far as phraseology is concerned, only in writing _once_ +(the second time he agrees with the Synoptics) [Greek: ton eklekton +mou] for [Greek: ton mikron touton], by an easy paraphrase, and +[Greek: peritethaenai] where Mark and Luke have [Greek: perikeitai] +and Matthew [Greek: kremasthae]. But on the other hand, it should be +noticed that Matthew has, besides this variation, [Greek: en to +pelagei taes thalassaes], where the two companion Gospels have +[Greek: eis taen thalassan]; where he has [Greek: katapontisthae], +Mark has [Greek: beblaetai] and Luke [Greek: erriptai]; and in the +important phrase for 'it were better' all the three Gospels differ, +Matthew having [Greek: sumpherei], Mark [Greek: kalon estin], and +Luke [Greek: lusitelei]; so that it seems not at all too much to say +that Clement does not differ from the Synoptics more than they differ +from each other. The remarks that the author makes, in a general way, +upon these differences lead us to ask whether he has ever definitely +put to himself the question, How did they arise? He must be aware +that the mass of German authorities he is so fond of quoting admit of +only two alternatives, that the Synoptic writers copied either from +the same original or from each other, and that the idea of a merely +oral tradition is scouted in Germany. But if this is the case, if so +great a freedom has been exercised in transcription, is it strange +that Clement (or any other writer) should be equally free in +quotation? + +The author rightly notices--though he does not seem quite to +appreciate its bearing--the fact that Marcion and some codices (of +the Old Latin translation) insert, as Clement does, the phrase +[Greek: ei ouk egennaethae ae] in the text of St. Luke. Supposing +that this were the text of St. Luke's Gospel which Clement had before +him, it would surely be so much easier to regard his quotation as +directly taken from the Gospel; but the truer view perhaps would be +that we have here an instance (and the number of such instances in +the older MSS. is legion) of the tendency to interpolate by the +insertion of parallel passages from the same or from the other +Synoptic Gospels. Clement and Marcion (with the Old Latin) will then +confirm each other, as showing that even at this early date the two +passages, Matt. xxvi. 24 and Matt. xviii. 6 (Luke xvii. 2), had +already begun to be combined. + +There is one point more to be noticed before we leave the Epistle +of Clement. There is a quotation from Isaiah in this Epistle which +is common to it with the first two Synoptics. Of this Volkmar +writes as follows, giving the words of Clement, c. xv, 'The +Scripture says somewhere, This people honoureth me with their +lips, but their heart is far from me,' ([Greek: houtos ho laos +tois cheilesin me tima hae de kardia auton porro apestin ap' +emou]). 'This "Scripture" the writer found in Mark vii. 6 +(followed in Matt. xv. 8), and in that shape he could not at once +remember where it stood in the Old Testament. It is indeed Mark's +peculiar reproduction of Is. xxix. 13, in opposition to the +original and the LXX. A further proof that the Roman Christian has +here our Synoptic text in his mind, may be taken from c. xiii, +where he quotes Jer. ix. 24 with equal divergence from the LXX, +after the precedent of the Apostle (1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 17) +whose letters he expressly refers to (c. xlvii) [Endnote 69:1]. +It is difficult here to avoid the conclusion that Clement is +quoting the Old Testament through the medium of our Gospels. The +text of the LXX is this, [Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos en to +stomati autou kai en tois cheilesin auton timosin me]. Clement has +the passage exactly as it is given in Mark ([Greek: ho laos +houtos] Matt.), except that he writes [Greek: apestin] where both +of the Gospels have [Greek: apechei] with the LXX. The passage is +not Messianic, so that the variation cannot be referred to a +Targum; and though A. and six other MSS. in Holmes and Parsons +omit [Greek: en to stomati autou] (through wrong punctuation-- +Credner), still there is no MS. authority whatever, and naturally +could not be, for the omission of [Greek: engizei moi ... kai] and +for the change of [Greek: timosin] to [Greek: tima]. There can be +little doubt that this was a free quotation in the original of the +Synoptic Gospels, and it is in a high degree probable that it has +passed through them into Clement of Rome. It might perhaps be +suggested that Clement was possibly quoting the earlier document, +the original of our Synoptics, but this suggestion seems to be +excluded both by his further deviation from the LXX in [Greek: +apestin], and also by the phenomena of the last quotation we have +been discussing, which are certainly of a secondary character. +Altogether I cannot but regard this passage as the strongest +evidence we possess for the use of the Synoptic Gospels by +Clement; it seems to carry the presumption that he did use them up +to a considerable degree of probability. + +It is rather singular that Volkmar, whose speculations about the +Book of Judith we have seen above, should be so emphatic as he is +in asserting the use of all three Synoptics by Clement. We might +almost, though not quite, apply with a single change to this +critic a sentence originally levelled at Tischendorf, to the +intent that 'he systematically adopts the latest (earliest) +possible or impossible dates for all the writings of the first two +centuries,' but he is able to admit the use of the first and third +Synoptics (the publication of which he places respectively in 100 +and 110 A.D.) by throwing forward the date of Clement's Epistle, +through the Judith-hypothesis, to A.D. 125. We may however accept +the assertion for what it is worth, as coming from a mind +something less than impartial, while we reject the concomitant +theories. For my own part I do not feel able to speak with quite +the same confidence, and yet upon the whole the evidence, which on +a single instance might seem to incline the other way, does appear +to favour the conclusion that Clement used our present Canonical +Gospels. + + 2. + +There is not, so far as I am aware, any reason to complain of the +statement of opinion in 'Supernatural Religion' as to the date of +the so-called Epistle of Barnabas. Arguing then entirely from +authority, we may put the _terminus ad quem_ at about 130 +A.D. The only writer who is quoted as placing it later is Dr. +Donaldson, who has perhaps altered his mind in the later edition +of his work, as he now writes: 'Most (critics) have been inclined +to place it not later than the first quarter of the second +century, and all the indications of a date, though very slight, +point to this period' [Endnote 71:1]. + +The most important issue is raised on a quotation in c. iv, 'Many +are called but few chosen,' in the Greek of the Codex Sinaiticus +[Greek: [prosechomen, maepote, hos gegraptai], polloi klaetoi, +oligoi de eklektoi eurethomen.] This corresponds exactly with +Matt. xxii. 14, [Greek: polloi gar eisin klaetoi, oligoi de +eklektoi]. The passage occurs twice in our present received text +of St. Matthew, but in xx. 16 it is probably an interpolation. +There also occurs in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) viii. 3 the sentence, 'Many +were created but few shall be saved' [Endnote 71:2]. Our author +spends several pages in the attempt to prove that this is the +original of the quotation in Barnabas and not the saying in St. +Matthew. We have the usual positiveness of statement: 'There can +be no doubt that the sense of the reading in 4 Ezra is exactly +that of the Epistle.' 'It is impossible to imagine a saying more +irrelevant to its context than "Many are called but few chosen" in +Matt. xx. 16,' where it is indeed spurious, though the relevancy +of it might very well be maintained. In Matt. xxii. 14, where the +saying is genuine, 'it is clear that the facts distinctly +contradict the moral that "few are chosen."' When we come to a +passage with a fixed idea it is always easy to get out of it what +we wish to find. As to the relevancy or irrelevancy of the clause +in Matt. xxii. 14 I shall say nothing, because it is in either +case undoubtedly genuine. But it is surely a strange paradox to +maintain that the words 'Many were created but few shall be saved' +are nearer in meaning to 'Many are called but few chosen' than the +repetition of those very words themselves. Our author has +forgotten to notice that Barnabas has used the precise word +[Greek: klaetoi] just before; indeed it is the very point on which +his argument turns, 'because we are called do not let us therefore +rest idly upon our oars; Israel was called to great privileges, +yet they were abandoned by God as we see them; let us therefore +also take heed, for, as it is written, many are called but few +chosen.' I confess I find it difficult to conceive anything more +relevant, and equally so to see any special relevancy, in the +vague general statement 'Many were created but few shall be +saved.' + +But even if it were not so, if it were really a question between +similarity of context on the one hand and identity of language on +the other, there ought to be no hesitation in declaring that to be +the original of the quotation in which the language was identical +though the context might be somewhat different. Any one who has +studied patristic quotations will know that context counts for +very little indeed. What could be more to all appearance remote +from the context than the quotation in Heb. i. 7, 'Who maketh his +angels spirits and his ministers a flaming fire'? where the +original is certainly referring to the powers of nature, and means +'who maketh the winds his messengers and a flame of fire his +minister;' with the very same sounds we have a complete inversion +of the sense. This is one of the most frequent phenomena, as our +author cannot but know [Endnote 73:1]. + +Hilgenfeld, in his edition of the Epistle of Barnabas, repels +somewhat testily the imputation of Tischendorf, who criticises him +as if he supposed that the saying in St. Matthew was not directly +referred to [Endnote 73:2]. This Hilgenfeld denies to be the case. +In regard to the use of the word [Greek: gegraptai] introducing +the quotation, the same writer urges reasonably enough that it +cannot surprise us at a time when we learn from Justin Martyr that +the Gospels were read regularly at public worship; it ought not +however to be pressed too far as involving a claim to special +divine inspiration, as the same word is used in the Epistle in +regard to the apocryphal book of Enoch, and it is clear also from +Justin that the Canon of the Gospels was not yet formed but only +forming. + +The clause, 'Give to every one that asketh of thee' [Greek: panti +to aitounti se didou], though admitted into the text of c. xix by +Hilgenfeld and Weizsaecker, is wanting in the Sinaitic MS., and the +comparison with Luke vi. 30 or Matt. v. 42 therefore cannot be +insisted upon. + +The passage '[in order that He might show that] He came not to +call the righteous but sinners' ([Greek: hina deixae hoti ouk +aelthen kalesai dikaious alla amartolous] [Endnote 74:1]) is +removed by the hypothesis of an interpolation which is supported +by a precarious argument from Origen, and also by the fact that +[Greek: eis metanoian] has been added (clearly from Luke v. 32) by +later hands both to the text of Barnabas and in Matt. ix. 13 +[Endnote 74:2]. This theory of an interpolation is easily +advanced, and it is drawn so entirely from our ignorance that it +can seldom be positively disproved, but it ought surely to be +alleged with more convincing reasons than any that are put forward +here. We now possess six MSS. of the Epistle of Barnabas, +including the famous Codex Sinaiticus, the accuracy of which in +the Biblical portions can be amply tested, and all of these six +MSS., without exception, contain the passage. The addition of the +words [Greek: eis metanoian] represents much more the kind of +interpolations that were at all habitual. The interpolation +hypothesis, as I said, is easily advanced, but the _onus +probandi_ must needs lie heavily against it. In accepting the +text as it stands we simply obey the Baconian maxim _hypotheses +non fingimus_, but it is strange, and must be surprising to a +philosophic mind, to what an extent the more extreme representatives +of the negative criticism have gone back to the most condemned +parts of the scholastic method; inconvenient facts are explained +away by hypotheses as imaginary and unverifiable as the 'cycles +and epicycles' by which the schoolmen used to explain the motions +of the heavenly bodies. + +'If however,' the author continues, 'the passage 'originally +formed part of the text, it is absurd to affirm that it is any +proof of the use or existence of the first Gospel.' 'Absurd' is +under the circumstances a rather strong word to use; but, granting +that it would have been even 'absurd' to allege this passage, if +it had stood alone, as a sufficient proof of the use of the +Gospel, it does not follow that there can be any objection to the +more guarded statement that it invests the use of the Gospel with +a certain antecedent probability. No doubt the quotation +_may_ have been made from a lost Gospel, but here again +[Greek: eis aphanes ton muthon anenenkas ouk echei elenchon]-- +there is no verifying that about which we know nothing. The critic +may multiply Gospels as much as he pleases and an apologist at +least will not quarrel with him, but it would be more to the point +if he could prove the existence in these lost writings of matter +_conflicting_ with that contained in the extant Gospels. As +it is, the only result of these unverifiable hypotheses is to +raise up confirmatory documents in a quarter where apologists have +not hitherto claimed them. + +We are delaying, however, too long upon points of quite secondary +importance. Two more passages are adduced; one, an application of +Ps. cx (The Lord said unto my Lord) precisely as in Matt. xxii. +44, and the other a saying assigned to our Lord, 'They who wish to +see me and lay hold on my kingdom must receive me through +affliction and suffering.' Of neither of these can we speak +positively. There is perhaps a slight probability that the first +was suggested by our Gospel, and considering the character of the +verifiable quotations in Barnabas, which often follow the sense +only and not the words, the second may be 'a free reminiscence of +Matt. xvi. 24 compared with Acts xiv. 22,' but it is also possible +that it may be a saying quoted from an apocryphal Gospel. + +It should perhaps be added that Lardner and Dr. Westcott both +refer to a quotation of Zech. xiii. 7 which appears in the common +text of the Epistle in a form closely resembling that in which the +quotation is given in Matt. xxvi. 31 and diverging from the LXX, +but here again the Sinaitic Codex varies, and the text is too +uncertain to lay stress upon, though perhaps the addition [Greek: +taes poimnaes] may incline the balance to the view that the text +of the Gospel has influenced the form of the quotation [Endnote +76:1]. + +The general result of our examination of the Epistle of Barnabas +may perhaps be stated thus, that while not supplying by itself +certain and conclusive proof of the use of our Gospels, still the +phenomena accord better with the hypothesis of such a use. This +Epistle stands in the second line of the evidence, and as a +witness is rather confirmatory than principal. + + + 3. + +After Dr. Lightfoot's masterly exposition there is probably +nothing more to be said about the genuineness, date, and origin of +the Ignatian Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot has done in the most lucid +and admirable manner just that which is so difficult to do, and +which 'Supernatural Religion' has so signally failed in doing; he +has succeeded in conveying to the reader a true and just sense of +the exact weight and proportion of the different parts of the +evidence. He has avoided such phrases as 'absurd,' 'impossible,' +'preposterous,' that his opponent has dealt in so freely, but he +has weighed and balanced the evidence piece by piece; he has +carefully guarded his language so as never to let the positiveness +of his conclusion exceed what the premises will warrant; he has +dealt with the subject judicially and with a full consciousness of +the responsibility of his position [Endnote 77:1]. + +We cannot therefore, I think, do better than adopt Dr. Lightfoot's +conclusion as the basis of our investigation, and treat the +Curetonian (i.e. the three short Syriac) letters as (probably) +'the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the Vossian letters +(i.e. the shorter Greek recension of seven Epistles) are accepted +as valid testimony at all events for the middle of the second +century--the question of the genuineness of the letters being +waived.' + +The Curetonian Epistles will then be dated either in 107 or in 115 +A.D., the two alternative years assigned to the martyrdom of +Ignatius. In the Epistle to Polycarp which is given in this +version there is a parallel to Matt. x. 16, 'Be ye therefore wise +as serpents and harmless as doves.' The two passages may be +compared thus:-- + + _Ign. ad Pol._ ii. + +[Greek: Psronimos ginou hos ophis en apasin kai akeaios osei +perisetera.] + + _Matt._ x. 16. + +[Greek: Ginesthe oun psronimoi hos oi opheis kai akeaioi hos ai +peristerai.] + +We should naturally place this quotation in the second column of +our classified arrangement, as presenting a slight variation. At +the same time we should have little hesitation in referring it to +the passage in our Canonical Gospel. All the marked expressions +are identical, especially the precise and selected words [Greek: +phronimos] and [Greek: akeraios]. It is however possible that +Ignatius may be quoting, not directly from our Gospel, but from +one of the original documents (such as Ewald's hypothetical +'Spruch-sammlung') out of which our Gospel was composed--though it +is somewhat remarkable that this particular sentence is wanting in +the parallel passage in St. Luke (cf. Luke x. 3). This may be so +or not; we have no means of judging. But it should at any rate be +remembered that this original document, supposing it to have had a +substantive existence, most probably contained repeated references +to miracles. The critics who refer Matt. x. 16 to the document in +question, also agree in referring to it Matt. vii. 22, x. 8, xi. +5, xii. 24 foll., &c., which speak distinctly of miracles, and +precisely in that indirect manner which is the best kind of +evidence. Therefore if we accept the hypothesis suggested in +'Supernatural Religion'--and it is a mere hypothesis, quite +unverifiable--the evidence for miracles would not be materially +weakened. The author would, I suppose, admit that it is at least +equally probable that the saying was quoted from our present +Gospel. + +This probability would be considerably heightened if the allusion +to 'the star' in the Syriac of Eph. xix has, as it appears to +have, reference to the narrative of Matt. ii. In the Greek or +Vossian version of the Epistle it is expanded, 'How then was He +manifested to the ages? A star shone in heaven above all the +stars, and the light thereof was unspeakable, and the strangeness +thereof caused astonishment' ([Greek: Pos oun ephanerothae tois +aoisin; Astaer en ourano elampsen huper pantas tous asteras, kai +to phos autou aneklalaeton aen, kai xenismon pareichen hae +kainotaes autou]). This is precisely, one would suppose, the kind +of passage that might be taken as internal evidence of the +genuineness of the Curetonian and later character of the Vossian +version. The Syriac ([Greek: hatina en haesouchia Theou to asteri] +[or [Greek: apo tou asteros]] [Greek: eprachthae]), abrupt and +difficult as it is, does not look like an epitome of the Greek, +and the Greek has exactly that exaggerated and apocryphal +character which would seem to point to a later date. It +corresponds indeed somewhat nearly to the language of the +Protevangelium of James, Sec.21, [Greek: eidomen astera pammegethae +lampsanta en tois astrois tou ouranou kai amblunonta tous allous +asteras hoste mae phainesthai autous]. Both in the Protevangelium +and in the Vossian Ignatius we see what is clearly a developement +of the narrative in St. Matthew. If the Vossian Epistles are +genuine, then by showing the existence of such a developement at +so early a date they will tend to throw back still further the +composition of the Canonical Gospel. If the Syriac version, on the +other hand, is the genuine one, it will be probable that Ignatius +is directly alluding to the narrative which is peculiar to the +first Evangelist. + +These are (so far as I am aware) the only coincidences that are +found in the Curetonian version. Their paucity cannot surprise us, +as in the same Curetonian text there is not a single quotation +from the Old Testament. One Old Testament quotation and two +Evangelical allusions occur in the Epistle to the Ephesians, which +is one of the three contained in Cureton's MS.; the fifth and +sixth chapters, however, in which they are found, are wanting in +the Syriac. The allusions are, in Eph. v, 'For if the prayer of +one or two have such power, how much more that of the bishop and +of the whole Church,' which appears to have some relation to Matt. +xviii. 19 ('If two of you shall agree' &c.), and in Eph. vi, 'For +all whom the master of the house sends to be over his own +household we ought to receive as we should him that sent him,' +which may be compared with Matt. x. 40 ('He that receiveth you' +&c.). Both these allusions have some probability, though neither +can be regarded as at all certain. The Epistle to the Trallians +has one coincidence in c. xi, 'These are not plants of the Father' +([Greek: phyteia Patros]), which recalls the striking expression +of Matt. xv. 13, 'Every plant ([Greek: pasa phyteia]) that my +heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.' This is a +marked metaphor, and it is not found in the other Synoptics; it is +therefore at least more probable that it is taken from St. +Matthew. The same must be said of another remarkable phrase in the +Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, c. vi, [Greek: ho choron choreito] +([Greek: ho dynamenos chorein choreito], Matt. xix. 12), and also +of the statement in c. i. of the same Epistle that Jesus was +baptized by John 'that He might fulfil all righteousness' ([Greek: +hina plaerothae pasa dikaiosynae hup' autou]). This corresponds +with the language of Matt. iii. 15 ([Greek: houtos gar prepon +estin haemin plaerosai pasan dikaiosynaen]), which also has no +parallel in the other Gospels. The use of the phrase [Greek: +plaerosai pasan dikaiosynaen] is so peculiar, and falls in so +entirely with the characteristic Christian Judaizing of our first +Evangelist, that it seems especially unreasonable to refer it to +any one else. There is not the smallest particle of evidence to +connect it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews to which our +author seems to hint that it may belong; indeed all that we know +of that Gospel may be said almost positively to exclude it. In +this Gospel our Lord is represented as saying, when His mother and +His brethren urge that He should accept baptism from John, 'What +have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him?' and it is +almost by compulsion that He is at last induced to accompany them. +It will be seen that this is really an _opposite_ version of +the event to that of Ignatius and the first Gospel, where the +objection comes from _John_ and is overruled by our Lord +Himself [Endnote 81:1]. + +There is however one quotation, introduced as such, in this same +Epistle, the source of which Eusebius did not know, but which +Origen refers to the 'Preaching of Peter' and Jerome seems to have +found in the Nazarene version of the 'Gospel according to the +Hebrews.' This phrase is attributed to our Lord when He appeared +'to those about Peter and said to them, Handle Me and see that I +am not an incorporeal spirit' ([Greek: psaelaphaesate me, kai +idete, hoti ouk eimi daimonion asomaton]). But for the statement +of Origen that these words occurred in the 'Preaching of Peter' +they might have been referred without much difficulty to Luke +xxiv. 39. The Preaching of Peter seems to have begun with the +Resurrection, and to have been an offshoot rather in the direction +of the Acts than the Gospels [Endnote 81:2]. It would not +therefore follow from the use of it by Ignatius here, that the +other quotations could also be referred to it. And, supposing it +to be taken from the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' this would +not annul what has been said above as to the reason for thinking +that Ignatius (or the writer who bears his name) cannot have used +that Gospel systematically and alone. + + + 4. + +Is the Epistle which purports to have been written by Polycarp to the +Philippians to be accepted as genuine? It is mentioned in the most +express terms by Irenaeus, who declares himself to have been a +disciple of Polycarp in his early youth, and speaks enthusiastically +of the teaching which he then received. Irenaeus was writing between +the years 180-190 A.D., and Polycarp is generally allowed to have +suffered martyrdom about 167 or 168 [Endnote 82:1]. But the way in +which Irenaeus speaks of the Epistle is such as to imply, not only +that it had been for some time in existence, but also that it had +been copied and disseminated and had attained a somewhat wide +circulation. He is appealing to the Catholic tradition in opposition +to heretical teaching such as that of Valentinus and Marcion, and he +says, 'There is an Epistle written by Polycarp to the Philippians of +great excellence [Greek: hikanotatae], from which those who wish to +do so and who care for their own salvation may learn both the +character of his faith and the preaching of the truth' [Endnote +82:2]. He would hardly have used such language if he had not had +reason to think that the Epistle was at least fairly accessible to +the Christians for whom he is writing. But allowing for the somewhat +slow (not too slow) multiplication and dissemination of writings +among the Christians, this will throw back the composition of the +letter well into the lifetime of Polycarp himself. In any case it +must have been current in circles immediately connected with +Polycarp's person. + +Against external evidence such as this the objections that are +brought are really of very slight weight. That which is reproduced +in 'Supernatural Religion' from an apparent contradiction between +c. ix and c. xiii, is dismissed even by writers such as Ritschl +who believe that one or both chapters are interpolated. In c. ix +the martyrdom of Ignatius is upheld as an example, in c. xiii +Polycarp asks for information about Ignatius 'et de his qui cum eo +sunt,' apparently as if he were still living. But, apart from the +easy and obvious solution which is accepted by Ritschl, following +Hefele and others, [Endnote 83:1] that the sentence is extant only +in the Latin translation and that the phrase 'qui cum eo sunt' is +merely a paraphrase for [Greek: ton met' autou]; apart from this, +even supposing the objection were valid, it would prove nothing +against the genuineness of the Epistle. It might be taken to prove +that the second passage is an interpolation; but a contradiction +between two passages in the same writing in no way tends to show +that that writing is not by its ostensible author. But surely +either interpolator or forger must have had more sense than to +place two such gross and absurd contradictions within about sixty +lines of each other. + +An argument brought by Dr. Hilgenfeld against the date dissolves +away entirely on examination. He thinks that the exhortation Orate +pro regibus (et potestatibus et principibus) in c. xii must needs +refer to the double rule of Antoninus Pius (147 A.D.) or Marcus +Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161 A.D.). But the writer of the +Epistle is only reproducing the words of St. Paul in 1 Tim. ii. 2 +([Greek: parakalo ... poieisthai deaeseis ... hyper basileon kai +panton ton en hyperochae onton]). The passage is wrongly referred +in 'Supernatural Religion' to 1 Pet. ii. 17 [Endnote 84:1]. It is +very clear that the language of Polycarp, like that of St. Paul, +is quite general. In order to limit it to the two Caesars we +should have had to read [Greek: hyper ton basileon]. + +The allusions which Schwegler finds to the Gnostic heresies are +explained when that critic at the end of his argument objects to +the Epistle that it makes use of a number of writings 'the origin +of which must be placed in the second century, such as the Acts, 1 +Peter, the Epistles to the Philippians and to the Ephesians, and 1 +Timothy.' The objection belongs to the gigantic confusion of fact +and hypothesis which makes up the so-called Tuebingen theory, and +falls to the ground with it. + +It should be noticed that those who regard the Epistle as +interpolated yet maintain the genuineness of those portions which +are thought to contain allusions to the Gospels. Ritschl states +this [Endnote 84:2]; Dr. Donaldson confines the interpolation to +c. xiii [Endnote 84:3]; and Volkmar not only affirms with his +usual energy the genuineness of these portions of the Epistle, but +he also asserts that the allusions are really to our Gospels +[Endnote 84:4]. + +The first that meets us is in c. ii, 'Remembering what the Lord said +teaching, judge not that ye be not judged; forgive and it shall be +forgiven unto you; pity that ye may be pitied; with what measure ye +mete it shall be measured unto you again; and that blessed are the +poor and those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs +is the kingdom of God' [Endnote 85:1]. This passage (if taken from our +Gospels) is not a continuous quotation, but is made up from Luke vi. +36-38, 20, Matt. v. 10, or of still more _disjecta membra_ of St. +Matthew. It will be seen that it covers very similar ground with the +quotation in Clement, and there is also a somewhat striking point of +similarity with that writer in the phrase [Greek: eleeite hina +eleaetheate]. There is moreover a closer resemblance than to our +Gospels in the clause [Greek: aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin]. But +the order of the clauses is entirely different from that in Clement, +and the first clause [Greek: mae krinete hina mae krithaete] is +identical with St. Matthew and more nearly resembles the parallel in +St. Luke than in Clement. These are perplexing phenomena, and seem to +forbid a positive judgment. It would be natural to suppose, and all +that we know of the type of doctrine in the early Church would lead us +to believe, that the Sermon on the Mount would be one of the most +familiar parts of Christian teaching, that it would be largely +committed to memory and quoted from memory. There would be no +difficulty in employing that hypothesis here if the passage stood +alone. The breaking up of the order too would not surprise us when we +compare the way in which the same discourse appears in St. Luke and in +St. Matthew. But then comes in the strange coincidence in the single +clause with Clement; and there is also another curious phenomenon, the +phrase [Greek: aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin] compared with Luke's +[Greek: apoluete kai apoluthaesesthe] has very much the appearance of +a parallel translation from the same Aramaic original, which may +perhaps be the famous 'Spruch-sammlung.' This might however be +explained as the substitution of synonymous terms by the memory. There +is I believe nothing in the shape of direct evidence to show the +presence of a different version of the Sermon on the Mount in any of +the lost Gospels, and, on the other hand, there are considerable +traces of disturbance in the Canonical text (compare e.g. the various +readings on Matt. v. 44). It seems on the whole difficult to construct +a theory that shall meet all the facts. Perhaps a mixed hypothesis +would be best. It is probable that memory has been to some extent at +work (the form of the quotation naturally suggests this) and is to +account for some of Polycarp's variations; at the same time I cannot +but think that there has been somewhere a written version different +from our Gospels to which he and Clement have had access. + +There are several other sayings which seem to belong to the Sermon +on the Mount; thus in c. vi, 'If we pray the Lord to forgive us we +also ought to forgive' (cf. Matt. vi. 14 sq.); in c. viii, 'And if +we suffer for His name let us glorify Him' (cf. Matt. v. 11 sq.); +in c. xii, 'Pray for them that persecute you and hate you, and for +the enemies of the cross; that your fruit may be manifest in all +things, that ye may be therein perfect' (cf. Matt. v. 44, 48). All +these passages give the sense, but only the sense, of the first +(and partly also of the third) Gospel. There is however one +quotation which coincides verbally with two of the Synoptics +[Praying the all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation, as the +Lord said], The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak +([Greek: to men pneuma prothumon, hae de sarx asthenaes], Matt., +Mark, Polycarp; with the introductory clause compare, not Matt. +vi. 13, but xxvi. 41). In the cases where the sense alone is given +there is no reason to think that the writer intends to give more. +At the same time it will be observed that all the quotations refer +either to the double or triple synopsis where we have already +proof of the existence of the saying in question in more than a +single form, and not to those portions that are peculiar to the +individual Evangelists. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' is +therefore not without reason when he says that they may be derived +from other collections than our actual Gospels. The possibility +cannot be excluded. It ought however to be borne in mind that if +such collections did exist, and if Polycarp's allusions or +quotations are to be referred to them, they are to the same extent +evidence that these hypothetical collections did not materially +differ from our present Gospels, but rather bore to them very much +the same relation that they bear to each other. And I do not know +that we can better sum up the case in regard to the Apostolic +Fathers than thus; we have two alternatives to choose between, +either they made use of our present Gospels, or else of writings +so closely resembling our Gospels and so nearly akin to them that +their existence only proves the essential unity and homogeneity of +the evangelical tradition. + + + + + +CHAPTER IV. + +JUSTIN MARTYR. + + +Hitherto the extant remains of Christian literature have been +scanty and the stream of evangelical quotation has been equally +so, but as we approach the middle of the second century it becomes +much more abundant. We have copious quotations from a Gospel used +about the year 140 by Marcion; the Clementine Homilies, the date +of which however is more uncertain, also contain numerous +quotations; and there are still more in the undoubted works of +Justin Martyr. When I speak of quotations, I do not wish to beg +the question by implying that they are necessarily taken from our +present Gospels, I merely mean quotations from an evangelical +document of some sort. This reservation has to be made especially +in regard to Justin. + +Strictly according to the chronological order we should not have +to deal with Justin until somewhat later, but it will perhaps be +best to follow the order of 'Supernatural Religion,' the principle +of which appears to be to discuss the orthodox writers first and +heretical writings afterwards. Modern critics seem pretty +generally to place the two Apologies in the years 147-150 A.D. and +the Dialogue against Tryphon a little later. Dr. Keim indeed would +throw forward the date of Justin's writings as far as from 155-160 +on account of the mention of Marcion [Endnote 89:1], but this is +decided by both Hilgenfeld [Endnote 89:2] and Lipsius to be too +late. I see that Mr. Hort, whose opinion on such matters deserves +high respect, comes to the conclusion 'that we may without fear of +considerable error set down Justin's First Apology to 145, or +better still to 146, and his death to 148. The Second Apology, if +really separate from the First, will then fall in 146 or 147, and +the Dialogue with Tryphon about the same time' [Endnote 89:3] + +No definite conclusion can be drawn from the title given by Justin to +the work or works he used, that of the 'Memoirs' or 'Recollections' of +the Apostles, and it will be best to leave our further enquiry quite +unfettered by any assumption in respect to them. The title certainly +does not of necessity imply a single work composed by the Apostles +collectively [Endnote 89:4], any more than the parallel phrase 'the +writings of the Prophets' [Endnote 89:5] ([Greek: ta sungrammata ton +prophaeton]), which Justin couples with the 'Memoirs' as read together +in the public services of the Church, implies a single and joint +production on the part of the Prophets. This hypothesis too is open to +the very great objection that so authoritative a work, if it existed, +should have left absolutely no other trace behind it. So far as the +title is concerned, the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' may be either a +single work or an almost indefinite number. In one place Justin says +that the Memoirs were composed 'by His Apostles and their followers' +[Endnote 90:1], which seems to agree remarkably, though not exactly, +with the statement in the prologue to St. Luke. In another he says +expressly that the Memoirs are called Gospels ([Greek: ha kaleitai +euangelia]) [Endnote 90:2]. This clause has met with the usual fate of +parenthetic statements which do not quite fall in with preconceived +opinions, and is dismissed as a 'manifest interpolation,' a gloss +having crept into the text from the margin. It would be difficult to +estimate the exact amount of probability for or against this theory, +but possible at any rate it must be allowed to be; and though the +_prima facie_ view of the genuineness of the words is supported by +another place in which a quotation is referred directly 'to the +Gospel,' still too much ought not perhaps to be built on this clause +alone. + + * * * * * + +A convenient distinction may be drawn between the material and +formal use of the Gospels; and the most satisfactory method +perhaps will be, to run rapidly through Justin's quotations, first +with a view to ascertain their relation to the Canonical Gospels +in respect to their general historical tenor, and secondly to +examine the amount of verbal agreement. I will try to bring out as +clearly as possible the double phenomena both of agreement and +difference; the former (in regard to which condensation will be +necessary) will be indicated both by touching in the briefest +manner the salient points and by the references in the margin; the +latter, which I have endeavoured to give as exhaustively as +possible, are brought out by italics in the text. The thread of +the narrative then, so far as it can be extracted from the genuine +writings of Justin, will be much as follows [Endnote 91:1]. + + According to Justin the Messiah + was born, without sin, of a +[SIDENOTES] virgin _who_ was descended from [SIDENOTES] +[Matt. 1.2-6.] David, Jesse, Phares, Judah, [Luke 3.31-34.] + Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, if + not (the reading here is doubtful) + from Adam himself. [Justin + therefore, it may be inferred, had + before him a genealogy, though + not apparently, as the Canonical + Gospels, that of Joseph but of + Mary.] To Mary it was announced + by the angel Gabriel [Luke 1.26.] + that, while yet a virgin, the + power of God, or of the Highest, [Luke 1.35.] + should overshadow her and she + should conceive and bear a Son [Luke 1.31.] +[Matt. 1.21.] whose name she should call Jesus, + because He should save His + people from their sins. Joseph + observing that Mary, his espoused, + was with child was +[Matt. 1.18-25.] warned in a dream not to put + her away, because that which + was in her womb was of the + Holy Ghost. Thus the prophecy, +[Matt. 1.23.] Is. vii. 14 (Behold the + virgin &c.), was fulfilled. The + mother of John the Baptist was [Luke 1.57.] + Elizabeth. The birth-place of + the Messiah had been indicated +[Matt. 2.5, 6.] by the prophecy of Micah (v. 2, + Bethlehem not the least among + the princes of Judah). There + He was born, as the Romans + might learn from the census + taken by Cyrenius the first + _procurator_ [Greek: [Luke 2.1, 2.] + epitropou] _of Judaea_. + His life extended from Cyrenius + to Pontius Pilate. So, in + consequence of this the first census + in Judaea, Joseph went up from + Nazareth where he dwelt to [Luke 2.4.] + Bethlehem _whence he was_, as a + member of the tribe of Judah. + The parents of Jesus could find + no lodging in Bethlehem, so it [Luke 2.7.] + came to pass that He was born + _in a cave near the village_ and + laid in a manger. At His birth [_ibid._] +[Matt. 2.1.] there came Magi _from Arabia_, + who knew by a star that had + appeared in the _heaven_ that a +[Matt. 2.2.] king had been born in Judaea. + Having paid Him their homage +[Matt. 2.11.] and offered gifts of gold, frankincense + and myrrh, they were +[Matt. 2.12.] warned not to return to Herod +[Matt. 2. 1-7.] whom they had consulted on + the way. He however not willing + that the Child should escape, +[Matt. 2.16.] ordered a massacre of _all_ the + children in Bethlehem, fulfilling +[Matt. 2.17, 18.] the prophecy of Jer. xxxi. 15 + (Rachel weeping for her children &c.). + Joseph and his wife meanwhile +[Matt. 2.13-15.] with the Babe had fled + to Egypt, for the Father resolved + that He to whom He had + given birth should not die before + He had preached His word + as a man. There they stayed +[Matt. 2.22] until Archelaus succeeded Herod, + and then returned. + + By process of nature He grew + to the age of thirty years or [Luke 3.23.] + more, _not comely of aspect_ (_as + had been prophesied_), practising +[Mark 6.3.] the trade of a carpenter, _making + ploughs and yokes, emblems of + righteousness_. He remained + hidden till John, the herald of + his coming, came forward, the +[Matt 17.12, 13.] spirit of Elias being in him, and +[Matt. 3.2.] as he _sat_ by the river Jordan [Luke 3.3.] + cried to men to repent. As he +[Matt. 3.4.] preached in his wild garb he + declared that he was not the [John 1.19 ff.] + Christ, but that One stronger +[Matt. 3.11, 12.] than he was coming after him [Luke 3. 16, 17.] + whose shoes he was not worthy + to bear, &c. The later history + of John Justin also mentions, +[Matt. 14.3.] how, having been put in prison, [Luke 3.20.] + at a feast on Herod's birthday +[Matt. 14.6 ff.] he was beheaded at the instance + of his sister's daughter. This +[Matt. 17.11-13.] John was Elias who was to come + before the Christ. + + At the baptism of Jesus _a fire + was kindled on the Jordan_, and, + as He went up out of the water, +[Matt. 3.16.] the Holy Ghost alighted upon [Luke 3.21, 22.] + Him, and a voice was heard from + heaven _saying in the words of + David_, 'Thou art My Son, _this + day have I begotten Thee_.' After +[Matt. 4.1, 9.] His baptism He was tempted by + the devil, who ended by claiming + homage from Him. To this + Christ replied, 'Get thee behind +[Matt 4.11.] Me, Satan,' &c. So the devil [Luke 4.13.] + departed from Him at that time + worsted and convicted. + + Justin knew that the words + of Jesus were short and concise, + not like those of a Sophist. That + He wrought miracles _might be + learnt from the Acts of Pontius + Pilate, fulfilling Is. xxxv. 4-6._ +[Matt. 9.29-31, Those who from their _birth_ were [Luke 18.35-43.] +32, 33. 1-8.] blind, dumb, lame, He healed-- [Luke 11.14 ff.] +[Matt. 4.23.] indeed He healed all sickness and [Luke 5.17-26.] +[Matt 9.18 ff.] disease--and He raised the dead. [Luke 8.41 ff.] + _The Jews ascribed these miracles [Luke 7. 11-18.] + to magic_. + + Jesus, too (like John, _whose + mission ceased when He appeared + in public_), began His ministry +[Matt 4.17.] by proclaiming that the kingdom + of heaven was at hand. + Many precepts of the Sermon + on the Mount Justin has preserved, +[Matt 5.20.] the righteousness of the +[Matt 5.28.] Scribes and Pharisees, the +[Matt 5.29-32.] adultery of the heart, the offending +[Matt 5.34, 37, eye, divorce, oaths, returning + 39] +[Matt 5.44.] good for evil, loving and praying +[Matt 5.42.] for enemies, giving to those that [Luke 6.30.] +[Matt 6.19, 20.] need, placing the treasure in +[Matt 6.25-27.] heaven, not caring for bodily [Luke 12.22-24.] +[Matt 5.45.] wants, but copying the mercy +[Matt 6.21, &c.] and goodness of God, not acting + from worldly motives--above all, +[Matt 7.22, 23.] deeds not words. [Luke 13.26, 27.] + + Justin quotes sayings from +[Matt. 8.11, 12.] the narrative of the centurion [Luke 13.28, 29.] +[Matt. 9.13.] of Capernaum and of the feast [Luke 5.32.] + in the house of Matthew. He +[Matt. 10.1 ff.] has, the choosing of the twelve [Luke 6.13.] + Apostles, with the name given +[Mark 3.17.] to the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges + or 'sons of thunder,' the com- + mission of the Apostles, the [Luke 10.19.] +[Matt. 11.12-15.] discourse after the departure of [Luke 16.16.] + the messengers of John, the +[Matt. 16.4.] sign of the prophet Jonas, the +[Matt. 13.3 ff.] parable of the sower, Peter's [Luke 8.5 ff.] +[Matt. 16.15-18.] confession, the announcement of [Luke 9.22.] +[Matt. 16.21.] the Passion. + + From the account of the last + journey and the closing scenes + of our Lord's life, Justin has, +[Matt. 19.16,17.] the history of the rich young [Luke 18.18,19.] +[Matt. 21.1 ff.] man, the entry into Jerusalem, [Luke 19.29 ff.] + the cleansing of the Temple, the [Luke 19.46.] +[Matt. 22.11.] wedding garment, the controversial + discourses about the [Luke 20.22-25.] +[Matt. 22.21.] tribute money, the resurrection, [Luke 20.35,36.] +[Matt. 22.37,38.] and the greatest commandment, +[Matt. 23.2 ff.] those directed against the Pha- [Luke 11.42,52.] +[Matt. 25.34,41.] risees and the eschatological +[Matt. 25.14-30.] discourse, the parable of the + talents. Justin's account of the + institution of the Lord's Supper [Luke 22.19,20.] + agrees with that of Luke. After +[Matt. 26.30.] it Jesus sang a hymn, and taking +[Matt. 26.36,37.] with Him three of His disciples + to the Mount of Olives He was + in an agony, His sweat falling in [Luke 22.42-44.] + _drops_ (not necessarily of blood) + to the ground. His captors + surrounded Him _like the 'horned + bulls' of Ps. xxii._ 11-14; there +[Matt. 26.56.] was none to help, for His followers + _to a man_ forsook Him. +[Matt. 26.57 ff.] He was led both before the [Luke 22.66 ff.] + Scribes and Pharisees and before +[Matt. 27.11 ff.] Pilate. In the trial before Pilate [Luke 23.1 ff.] +[Matt. 27.14] He kept silence, _as Ps. xxii._ 15. + Pilate sent Him bound to Herod. [Luke 23.7.] + + Justin relates most of the incidents + of the Crucifixion in detail, + for confirmation of which he refers + to the _Acts of Pilate_. He marks + especially the fulfilment in various + places of Ps. xxii. He has the + piercing with nails, the casting of [Luke 24.40.] +[Matt. 27.35.] lots and dividing of the garments, [Luke 23.34.] +[Matt. 27.39 ff.] the _sneers_ of the crowd [Luke 23.35.] + (somewhat expanded from the +[Matt. 27.42.] Synoptics), and their taunt, _He + who raised the dead_ let Him save +[Matt. 27.46.] Himself; also the cry of despair, + 'My God, My God, why hast + Thou forsaken Me?' and the last + words, 'Father, into Thy hands [Luke 23.46.] + I commend My Spirit.' + +[Matt. 27.57-60.] The burial took place in the + evening, the disciples being all +[Matt. 26.31,56.] scattered in accordance with + Zech. xiii. 7. On the third day, [Luke 24.21.] +[Matt. 28.1 ff.] the day of the sun or the first [Luke 24.1 ff.] + (or eighth) day of the week, + Jesus rose from the dead. He + then convinced His disciples that + His sufferings had been prophe- [Luke 24.26, 46.] + tically foretold and they repented [Luke 24.32.] + of having deserted Him. Having + given them His last commission + they saw Him ascend up into [Luke 24.50.] + heaven. Thus believing and + having first waited to receive + power from Him they went forth + into all the world and preached + the word of God. To this day +[Matt. 28.19] Christians baptize in the name + of the Father of all, and of our + Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the + Holy Ghost. + +[Matt. 28.12-15.] The Jews spread a story that + the disciples stole the body of + Jesus from the grave and so + deceived men by asserting that + He was risen from the dead and + ascended into heaven. + + There is nothing in Justin (as + in Luke xxiv, but cp. Acts i. 3) + to show that the Ascension did + not take place _on the same day_ + as the Resurrection. + +I have taken especial pains in the above summary to bring out the +points in which Justin way seem to differ from or add to the +canonical narratives. But, without stopping at present to consider +the bearing of these upon Justin's relation to the Gospels, I will +at once proceed to make some general remarks which the summary +seems to suggest. + +(1) If such is the outline of Justin's Gospel, it appears to be +really a question of comparatively small importance whether or not +he made use of our present Gospels in their present form. If he +did not use these Gospels he used other documents which contained +substantially the same matter. The question of the reality of +miracles clearly is not affected. Justin's documents, whatever +they were, not only contained repeated notices of the miracles in +general, the healing of the lame and the paralytic, of the maimed +and the dumb, and the raising of the dead--not only did they +include several discourses, such as the reply to the messengers of +John and the saying to the Centurion whose servant was healed, +which have direct reference to miracles, but they also give marked +prominence to the chief and cardinal miracles of the Gospel +history, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. It is antecedently +quite possible that the narrative of these events may have been +derived from a document other than our Gospels; but, if so, that +is only proof of the existence of further and independent evidence +to the truth of the history. This document, supposing it to exist, +is a surprising instance of the homogeneity of the evangelical +tradition; it differs from the three Synoptic Gospels, nay, we may +say even from the four Gospels, _less_ than they differ from +each other. + +(2) But we may go further than this. If Justin really used a +separate substantive document now lost, that document, to judge +from its contents, must have represented a secondary, or rather a +tertiary, stage of the evangelical literature; it must have +implied the previous existence of our present Gospels. I do not +now allude to the presence in it of added traits, such as the cave +of the Nativity and the fire on Jordan, which are of the nature of +those mythical details that we find more fully developed in the +Apocryphal Gospels. I do not so much refer to these--though, for +instance, in the case of the fire on Jordan it is highly probable +that Justin's statement is a translation into literal fact of the +canonical (and Justinian) saying, 'He shall baptize with the Holy +Ghost and with fire'--but, on general grounds, the relation which +this supposed document bears to the extant Gospels shows that it +must have been in point of time posterior to them. + +The earlier stages of evangelical composition present a nucleus, +with a more or less defined circumference, of unity, and outside +of this a margin of variety. There was a certain body of +narrative, which, in whatever form it was handed down--whether as +oral or written--at a very early date obtained a sort of general +recognition, and seems to have been as a matter of course +incorporated in the evangelical works as they appeared. + +Besides this there was also other matter which, without such +general recognition, had yet a considerable circulation, and, +though not found in all, was embodied in more than one of the +current compilations. But, as we should naturally expect, these +two classes did not exhaust the whole of the evangelical matter. +Each successive historian found himself able by special researches +to add something new and as yet unpublished to the common stock. +Thus, the first of our present Evangelists has thirty-five +sections or incidents besides the whole of the first two chapters +peculiar to himself. The third Evangelist has also two long +chapters of preliminary history, and as many as fifty-six sections +or incidents which have no parallel in the other Gospels. Much of +this peculiar matter in each case bears an individual and +characteristic stamp. The opening chapters of the first and third +Synoptics evidently contain two distinct and independent +traditions. So independent indeed are they, that the negative +school of critics maintain them to be irreconcilable, and the +attempts to harmonise them have certainly not been completely +successful [Endnote 101:1]. These differences, however, show what +rich quarries of tradition were open to the enquirer in the first +age of Christianity, and how readily he might add to the stores +already accumulated by his predecessors. But this state of things +did not last long. As in most cases of the kind, the productive +period soon ceased, and the later writers had a choice of two +things, either to harmonise the conflicting records of previous +historians, or to develope their details in the manner that we +find in the Apocryphal Gospels. + +But if Justin used a single and separate document or any set of +documents independent of the canonical, then we may say with +confidence that that document or set of documents belonged entirely to +this secondary stage. It possesses both the marks of secondary +formation. Such details as are added to the previous evangelical +tradition are just of that character which we find in the Apocryphal +Gospels. But these details are comparatively slight and insignificant; +the main tendency of Justin's Gospel (supposing it to be a separate +composition) was harmonistic. The writer can hardly have been ignorant +of our Canonical Gospels; he certainly had access, if not to them, yet +to the sources, both general and special, from which they are taken. +He not only drew from the main body of the evangelical tradition, but +also from those particular and individual strains which appear in the +first and third Synoptics. He has done this in the spirit of a true +_desultor_, passing backwards and forwards first to one and then to +the other, inventing no middle links, but merely piecing together the +two accounts as best he could. Indeed the preliminary portions of +Justin's Gospel read very much like the sort of rough _prima facie_ +harmony which, without any more profound study, most people make for +themselves. But the harmonising process necessarily implies matter to +harmonise, and that matter must have had the closest possible +resemblance to the contents of our Gospels. + +If, then, Justin made use either of a single document or set of +documents distinct from those which have become canonical, we +conclude that it or they belonged to a later and more advanced +stage of formation. But it should be remembered that the case is a +hypothetical one. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems +inclined to maintain that Justin did use such a document or +documents, and not our Gospels. If he did, then the consequence +above stated seems to follow. But I do not at all care to press +this inference; it is no more secure than the premiss upon which +it is founded. Only it seems to me that the choice lies between +two alternatives and no more; either Justin used our Gospels, or +else he used a document later than our Gospels and presupposing +them. The reader may take which side of the alternative he +pleases. + +The question is, which hypothesis best covers and explains the +facts. It is not impossible that Justin may have had a special +Gospel such as has just been described. There is a tendency among +those critics who assign Justin's quotations to an uncanonical +source to find that source in the so-called Gospel according to +the Hebrews or some of its allied forms. But a large majority of +critics regard the Gospel according to the Hebrews as holding +precisely this secondary relation to the canonical Matthew. +Justin's document can hardly have been the Gospel according to the +Hebrews, at least alone, as that Gospel omitted the section Matt. +i. 18-ii. 23 [Endnote 103:1], which Justin certainly retained. But +it is within the bounds of possibility--it would be hazardous to +say more--that he may have had another Gospel so modified and +compiled as to meet all the conditions of the case. For my own +part, I think it decidedly the more probable hypothesis that he +used our present Gospels with some peculiar document, such as this +Gospel according to the Hebrews, or perhaps, as Dr. Hilgenfeld +thinks, the ground document of the Gospel according to Peter (a +work of which we know next to nothing except that it favoured +Docetism and was not very unlike the Canonical Gospels) and the +Protevangelium of James (or some older document on which that work +was founded) in addition. + +It will be well to try to establish this position a little more in +detail; and therefore I will proceed to collect first, the +evidence for the use, either mediate or direct, of the Synoptic +Gospels, and secondly, that for the use of one or more Apocryphal +Gospels. We still keep to the substance of Justin's Gospel, and +reserve the question of its form. + +Of those portions of the first Synoptic which appear to be derived +from a peculiar source, and for the presence of which we have no +evidence in any other Gospel of the same degree of originality, +Justin has the following: Joseph's suspicions of his wife, the +special statement of the significance of the name Jesus ('for He +shall save His people from their sins,' Matt. i. 21, verbally +identical), the note upon the fulfilment of the prophecy Is. vii. +14 ('Behold a virgin,' &c.), the visit of the Magi guided by a +star, their peculiar gifts, their consultation of Herod and the +warning given them not to return to him, the massacre of the +children at Bethlehem, fulfilling Jer. xxxi. 15, the descent into +Egypt, the return of the Holy Family at the succession of +Archelaus. The Temptations Justin gives in the order of Matthew. +From the Sermon on the Mount he has the verses v. 14, 20, 28, vi. +1, vii. 15, 21, and from the controversial discourse against the +Pharisees, xxiii. 15, 24, which are without parallels. The +prophecy, Is. xlii. 1-4, is applied as by Matthew alone. There is +an apparent allusion to the parable of the wedding garment. The +comment of the disciples upon the identification of the Baptist +with Elias (Matt. xvii. 13), the sign of the prophet Jonas +(Matt. xvi. 1, 4), and the triumphal entry (the ass _with the +colt_), show a special affinity to St. Matthew. And, lastly, in +concert with the same Evangelist, Justin has the calumnious report +of the Jews (Matt. xxviii. 12 15) and the baptismal formula (Matt. +xxviii. 19). + +Of the very few details that are peculiar to St. Mark, Justin has +the somewhat remarkable one of the bestowing of the surname +Boanerges on the sons of Zebedee. Mark also appears to approach +most nearly to Justin in the statements that Jesus practised the +trade of a carpenter (cf. Mark vi. 3) and that He healed those who +were diseased _from their birth_ (cf. Mark ix. 21), and +perhaps in the emphasis upon the oneness of God in the reply +respecting the greatest commandment. + +In common with St. Luke, Justin has the mission of the angel +Gabriel to Mary, the statement that Elizabeth was the mother of +John, that the census was taken under Cyrenius, that Joseph went +up from Nazareth to Bethlehem [Greek: hothen aen], that no room +was found in the inn, that Jesus was thirty years old when He +began His ministry, that He was sent from Pilate to Herod, with +the account of His last words. There are also special affinities +in the phrase quoted from the charge to the Seventy (Luke x. 19), +in the verse Luke xi. 52, in the account of the answer to the rich +young man, of the institution of the Lord's Supper, of the Agony +in the Garden, and of the Resurrection and Ascension. + +These coincidences are of various force. Some of the single verses +quoted, though possessing salient features in common, have also, +as we shall see, more or less marked differences. Too much stress +should not be laid on the allegation of the same prophecies, +because there may have been a certain understanding among the +Christians as to the prophecies to be quoted as well as the +versions in which they were to be quoted. But there are other +points of high importance. Just in proportion as an event is from +a historical point of view suspicious, it is significant as a +proof of the use of the Gospel in which it is contained; such +would be the adoration of the Magi, the slaughter of the +innocents, the flight into Egypt, the conjunction of the foal with +the ass in the entry into Jerusalem. All these are strong evidence +for the use of the first Gospel, which is confirmed in the highest +degree by the occurrence of a reflection peculiar to the +Evangelist, 'Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them +of John the Baptist' (Matt. xvii. 13, compare Dial. 49). Of the +same nature are the allusions to the census of Cyrenius (there is +no material discrepancy between Luke and Justin), and the +statement of the age at which the ministry of Jesus began. These +are almost certainly remarks by the third Evangelist himself, and +not found in any previously existing source. The remand to Herod +in all probability belonged to a source that was quite peculiar to +him. The same may be said with only a little less confidence of +the sections of the preliminary history. + +Taking these salient points together with the mass of the +coincidences each in its place, and with the due weight assigned +to it, the conviction seems forced upon us that Justin did either +mediately or immediately, and most probably immediately and +directly, make use of our Canonical Gospels. + +On the other hand, the argument that he used, whether in addition +to these or exclusively, a Gospel now lost, rests upon the +following data. Justin apparently differs from the Synoptics in +giving the genealogy of Mary, not of Joseph. In Apol. i. 34 he +says that Cyrenius was the first governor (procurator) of Judaea, +instead of saying that the census first took place under Cyrenius. +[It should be remarked, however, that in another place, Dial. 78, +he speaks of 'the census which then took place for the first time +([Greek: ousaes tote protaes]) under Cyrenius.'] He states that +Mary brought forth her Son in a cave near the village of +Bethlehem. He ten times over speaks of the Magi as coming from +Arabia, and not merely from the East. He says emphatically that +all the children ([Greek: pantas haplos tous paidas]) in Bethlehem +were slain without mentioning the limitation of age given in St. +Matthew. He alludes to details in the humble occupation of Jesus +who practised the trade of a carpenter. Speaking of the ministry +of John, he three times repeats the phrase _'as he sat'_ by +the river Jordan. At the baptism of Jesus he says that 'fire was +kindled on' or rather 'in the Jordan,' and that a voice was heard +saying, 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.' He adds +to the notice of the miracles that the Jews thought they were the +effect of magic. Twice he refers, as evidence for what he is +saying, to the Acts of Pontius Pilate. In two places Justin sees a +fulfilment of Ps. xxii, where none is pointed out by the +Synoptics. He says that _all_ the disciples forsook their +Master, which seems to overlook Peter's attack on the high +priest's servant. In the account of the Crucifixion he somewhat +amplifies the Synoptic version of the mocking gestures of the +crowd. And besides these matters of fact he has two sayings, 'In +whatsoever I find you, therein will I also judge you,' and 'There +shall be schisms and heresies,' which are without parallel, or +have no exact parallel, in our Gospels. + +Some of these points are not of any great importance. The +reference to the Acts of Pilate should in all probability be taken +along with the parallel reference to the census of Cyrenius, in +which Justin asserts that the birth of Jesus would be found +registered. Both appear to be based, not upon any actual document +that Justin had seen, but upon the bold assumption that the +official documents must contain a record of facts which he knew +from other sources [Endnote 107:1]. In regard to Cyrenius he +evidently has the Lucan version in his mind, though he seems to +have confused this with his knowledge that Cyrenius was the first +to exercise the Roman sovereignty in Judaea, which was matter of +history. Justin seems to be mistaken in regarding Cyrenius as +'procurator' [Greek: epitropou] of Judaea. He instituted the +census not in this capacity, but as proconsul of Syria. The first +procurator of Judaea was Coponius. Some of Justin's peculiarities +may quite fairly be explained as unintentional. General statements +without the due qualifications, such as those in regard to the +massacre of the children and the conduct of the disciples in +Gethsemane, are met with frequently enough to this day, and in +works of a more professedly critical character than Justin's. The +description of the carpenter's trade and of the crowd at the +Crucifixion may be merely rhetorical amplifications in the one +case of the general Synoptic statement, in the other of the +special statement in St. Mark. A certain fulness of style is +characteristic of Justin. That he attributes the genealogy to Mary +may be a natural instance of reflection; the inconsistency in the +Synoptic Gospels would not be at first perceived, and the simplest +way of removing it would be that which Justin has adopted. It +should be noticed however that he too distinctly says that Joseph +was of the tribe of Judah (Dial. 78) and that his family came from +Bethlehem, which looks very much like an unobliterated trace of +the same inconsistency. It is also noticeable that in the +narrative of the Baptism one of the best MSS. of the Old Latin (a, +Codex Vercellensis) has, in the form of an addition to Matt. iii. +15, 'et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut +timerent omnes qui advenerant,' and there is a very similar +addition in g1 (Codex San-Germanensis). Again, in Luke iii. 22 the +reading [Greek: ego saemeron gegennaeka se] for [Greek: en soi +eudokaesa] is shared with Justin by the most important Graeco- +Latin MS. D (Codex Bezae), and a, b, c, ff, l of the Old Version; +Augustine expressly states that the reading was found 'in several +respectable copies (aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus), though +not in the older Greek Codices.' + +There will then remain the specifying of Arabia as the home of the +Magi, the phrase [Greek: kathezomenos] used of John on the banks +of the Jordan, the two unparallelled sentences, and the cave of +the Nativity. Of these the phrase [Greek: kathezomenos], which +occurs in three places, Dial. 49, 51, 88, but always in Justin's +own narrative and not in quotation, _may_ be an accidental +recurrence; and it is not impossible that the other items may be +derived from an unwritten tradition. + +Still, on the whole, I incline to think that though there is not +conclusive proof that Justin used a lost Gospel besides the +present Canonical Gospels, it is the more probable hypothesis of +the two that he did. The explanations given above seem to me +reasonable and possible; they are enough, I think, to remove the +_necessity_ for assuming a lost document, but perhaps not +quite enough to destroy the greater probability. This conclusion, +we shall find, will be confirmed when we pass from considering the +substance of Justin's Gospel to its form. + +But now if we ask ourselves _what_ was this hypothetical lost +document, all we can say is, I believe, that the suggestions +hitherto offered are insufficient. The Gospels according to the +Hebrews or according to Peter and the Protevangelium of James have +been most in favour. The Gospel according to the Hebrews in the +form in which it was used by the Nazarenes contained the fire upon +Jordan, and as used by the Ebionites it had also the voice, 'This +day have I begotten Thee.' Credner [Endnote 110:1], and after him +Hilgenfeld [Endnote 110:2], thought that the Gospel according to +Peter was used. But we know next to nothing about this Gospel, +except that it was nearly related to the Gospel according to the +Hebrews, that it made the 'brethren of the Lord' sons of Joseph by +a former wife, that it was found by Serapion in the churches of +his diocese, Rhossus in Cilicia, that its use was at first +permitted but afterwards forbidden, as it was found to favour +Docetism, and that its contents were in the main orthodox though +in some respects perverted [Endnote 110:3]. Obviously these facts +and the name (which falls in with the theory--itself also somewhat +unsubstantial--that Justin's Gospel must have a 'Petrine' +character) are quite insufficient to build upon. The Protevangelium +of James, which it is thought might have been used in an earlier +form than that which has come down to us, contains the legend of +the cave, and has apparently a similar view to the Gospel last +mentioned as to the perpetual virginity of Mary. The kindred +Evangelium Thomae has the 'ploughs and yokes.' And there are some +similarities of language between the Protevangelium and Justin's +Gospel, which will come under review later [Endnote 110:4]. + +It does not, however, appear to have been noticed that these +Gospels satisfy most imperfectly the conditions of the problem. We +know that the Gospel according to the Hebrews in its Nazarene form +omitted the whole section Matt. i. 18--ii. 23, containing the +conception, the nativity, the visit of the Magi, and the flight +into Egypt, all of which were found in Justin's Gospel; while in +its Ebionite form it left out the first two chapters altogether. +There is not a tittle of evidence to show that the Gospel +according to Peter was any more complete; in proportion as it +resembled the Gospel according to the Hebrews the presumption is +that it was not. And the Protevangelium of James makes no mention +of Arabia, while it expressly says that the star appeared 'in the +East' (instead of 'in the heaven' as Justin); it also omits, and +rather seems to exclude, the flight into Egypt. + +It is therefore clear that whether Justin used these Gospels or +not, he cannot in any case have confined himself to them; unless +indeed this is possible in regard to the Gospel that bears the +name of Peter, though the possibility is drawn so entirely from +our ignorance that it can hardly be taken account of. We thus seem +to be reduced to the conclusion that Justin's Gospel or Gospels +was an unknown entity of which no historical evidence survives, +and this would almost be enough, according to the logical Law of +Parsimony, to drive us back upon the assumption that our present +Gospels only had been used. This assumption however still does not +appear to me wholly satisfactory, for reasons which will come out +more clearly when from considering the matter of the documents +which Justin used we pass to their form. + + * * * * * + +The reader already has before him a collection of Justin's +quotations from the Old Testament, the results of which may be +stated thus. From the Pentateuch eighteen passages are quoted +exactly, nineteen with slight variations, and eleven with marked +divergence. From the Psalms sixteen exactly, including nine (or +ten) whole Psalms, two with slight and three with decided +variation. From Isaiah twenty-five exactly, twelve slightly +variant, and sixteen decidedly. From the other Major Prophets +Justin has only three exact quotations, four slightly divergent, +and eleven diverging more widely. From the Minor Prophets and +other books he has two exact quotations, seven in which the +variation is slight, and thirteen in which it is marked. Of the +distinctly free quotations in the Pentateuch (eleven in all), +three may be thought to have a Messianic character (the burning +bush, the brazen serpent, the curse of the cross), but in none of +these does the variation appear to be due to this. Of the three +free quotations from the Psalms two are Messianic, and one of +these has probably been influenced by the Messianic application. +In the free quotations from Isaiah it is not quite easy to say +what are Messianic and what are not; but the only clear case in +which the Messianic application seems to have caused a marked +divergence is xlii. 1-4. Other passages, such as ii. 5, 6, vii. +10-17, lii. l3-liii. 12 (as quoted in A. i. 50), appear under the +head of slight variation. The long quotation lii. 10-liv. 6, in +Dial. 12, is given with substantial exactness. Turning to the +other Major Prophets, one passage, Jer. xxxi. 15, has probably +derived its shape from the Messianic application. And in the Minor +Prophets three passages (Hos. x. 6, Zech. xii. 10-12, and Micah v. +2) appear to have been thus affected. The rest of the free +quotations and some of the variations in those which are less free +may be set down to defect of memory or similar accidental causes. + +Let us now draw up a table of Justin's quotations from the Gospels +arranged as nearly as may be on the same standard and scale as +that of the quotations from the Old Testament. Such a table will +stand thus. [Those only which appear to be direct quotations are +given.] + + + _Exact._ |_Slightly variant._ | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | | | + |+D.49, Matt. 3.11, | |repeated in part + | 12 (v.l.) | | similarly. + |D. 51, Matt. 11. | |compounded with + | 12-15; Luke 16. | | omissions but + | 16+. | | striking resem- + | | | blances. +D. 49, Matt. 17. | | | + 11-13. | | | + |A.1.15, Matt. 5.28. | | + | |A.1.15, Matt. 5. |from memory? + | | 29; Mark 9.47. | + |A.1.15, Matt. 5.32. | |confusion of read- + | | | ings. + | |+A.1.15, Matt. |from memory? + | | 19.12. | + | |A.1.15, Matt. 5. |compounded. + | | 42; Luke 6.30, | + | | 34. | +Continuous.{ |A.1.15, Matt. 6. | | + { |19, 20; 16.26; 6.20.| | + | | | + |Continuous.{ |A.1.15 (D.96), |from memory(Cr.), + | { | Luke 6.36; | but prob. diff- + | { | Matt. 5.45; 6. | erent document; + | { | 25-27; Luke 12.| rather marked + | { | 22-24; Matt. 6.| identity in + | { | 32, 33; 6.21. | phrase. + |A.1.15, Matt. 6.1. | | +A.1.15, Matt. 9. | | | do the last + 13(?). | | | words belong + | | | to the + | |C | quotation? + | |o { A.1.15, Luke| + | |n { 6.32; Matt.| + | |t { 5.46. | + | |i { A.1.15, (D. |repeated in part + | |n { 128), Luke | similarly, in + | |u { 6.27, 28; | part diversely; + | |o { Matt. 5.44. | confusion in + | |u | MSS. + | |s | + | |s | +Continuous. { |A.1.16, Luke 6.29 | | + { | (Matt. 5.39, 40.) | | + { | |A.1.16, Matt. 5. | + { | | 22 (v.l.) | + { | |A.1.16, Matt. 5 |[Greek: + { | | 41. | angaeusei.] + { |A.1.16, Matt. 5.16. | | + | |D.93, A,1.16, | + | | Matt. 22.40,37,| + | | 38. | + | |A.1.16, D.101, |repeated + | | Matt. 19.16, | diversely. + | | 17 (v.l.); Luke| + | | 18.18,19 (v.l.)| + |A.1.16, Matt. 5. | | + | 34,37. | | + {A.1.16, Matt. | | | + { 7.21. | | | +C { |A.1.16 (A.1.62), | |repeated in part +o { | Luke 10.16 (v.l.) | | similarly, in +n { | | | part diversely. +t { | |+A.1.16 (D.76), | +i { | | Matt. 7.22, 23 | +n { | | (v.l.); Luke | +u { | | 13.26,27 (v.l.)| +o { |A.1.16, Matt. 13. | |addition. +u { | 42, 43 (v.l.) | | +s { | |A.1.16 (D.35), | + { | | Matt. 7.15. | + { |A.1.16, Matt. 7. | | + { | 16, 19. | | +D.76, Matt. 8.11.| | | + 12+. | | | + | |D.35, [Greek: | + | | esontai schi- | + | | smata kai hai- | + | | reseis.] | + |D.76, Matt. 25.41 | | + | (v.l.) | | + |D.35, Matt. 7.15. | |repeated with + | | | nearer + | | | approach to + | | | Matthew, perh. + | | | v.l. + | |D.35, 82, Matt. |repeated with + | |24.24 (Mark 13. | similarity and + | | 22). | divergence. + | |D.82, Matt. 10. |freely. + | | 22, par. | +A.1.19, Luke 18. | | | + 27+. | | | + | |A.1.19, Luke 12. |compounded. + | | 4, 5; Matt. | + | | 10.28. | + | |A.1.17, Luke 12. | + | | 48 (v.l.) | + |D.76, Luke 10.19+ | |ins. [Greek: + | | | skolopendron.] +D.105, Matt. 5. | | | + 20. | | | + | |D.125, Matt. 13. |condensed narra- + | | 3 sqq. | tive. + | |+D.17, Luke 11. | + | | 52. | + |D.17, Matt. 23.23; | |compounded. + | Luke 11.42. | | + |D.17, 112, Matt. | |repeated simi- + | 23.27; 23.24. | | larly. + | |D.47, [Greek: en | + | | ois an humas | + | | katalabo en | + | | toutois kai | + | | krino.] | + |D.81, Luke 20. | |marked resem- + | 35, 36. | | blance with + | | | difference. +D.107, Matt.16.4.| | | + |D. 122, Matt. 23. | | + | 15. | | + |+D.17, Matt. 21. | | + | 13, 12. | | + | |+A.1.17, Luke 20.|narrative portion + | | 22-25 (v.l.) | free. + |D.100, A.1.63, | |repeated not + | Matt. 11.27 (v.l.)| | identically. + |D.76, 100, Luke | |repeated diverse- + | 9.22. | | diversely; + | | | free (Credner). +A.1.36, Matt. 21.| |D.53, Matt. 21.5.|(Zech. 9.9). + 5 (addition). | | | + | |A.1.66, Luke 22. | + | | 19, 20. | + |D.99, Matt. 26. | | + | 39 (v.l.) | | + | |D.103, Luke 22. | + | | 42-44. | + | |D.101, Matt. 27. | + | | 43. | + | |A.1.38, [Greek: | + | | ho nekrous | + | | anegeiras rhu- | + | | sastho eauton.]| +D.99, Matt. 27. | | |compounded. + 46; Mark 15.34.| | | +D.105, Luke 23. | | | + 46. + + +The total result may be taken to be that ten passages are +substantially exact, while twenty-five present slight and thirty- +two marked variations [Endnote 116:1]. This is only rough and +approximate, because of the passages that are put down as exact +two, or possibly three, can only be said to be so with a +qualification; though, on the other hand, there are passages +entered under the second class as 'slightly variant' which have a +leaning towards the first, and passages entered under the third +which have a perceptible leaning towards the second. We can +therefore afford to disregard these doubtful cases and accept the +classification very much as it stands. Comparing it then with the +parallel classification that has been made of the quotations from +the Old Testament, we find that in the latter sixty-four were +ranked as exact, forty-four as slightly variant, and fifty-four as +decidedly variant. If we reduce these roughly to a common standard +of comparison the proportion of variation may be represented +thus:-- + | Exact. | Slightly | Variant. + | | variant. | + | | | +Quotations from the Old Testament | 10 | 7 | 9 +Quotations from the Synoptic Gospels | 10 | 25 | 32 + +It will be seen from this at once how largely the proportion of +variation rises; it is indeed more than three times as high for +the quotations from the Gospels as for those from the Old Testament. +The amount of combination too is decidedly in excess of that which +is found in the Old Testament quotations. + +There is, it is true, something to be said on the other side. +Justin quotes the Old Testament rather as Scripture, the New +Testament rather as history. I think it will be felt that he has +permitted his own style a freer play in regard to the latter than +the former. The New Testament record had not yet acquired the same +degree of fixity as the Old. The 'many' compositions of which +St. Luke speaks in his preface were still in circulation, and were +only gradually dying out. One important step had been taken in the +regular reading of the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' at the Christian +assemblies. We have not indeed proof that these were confined to +the Canonical Gospels. Probably as yet they were not. But it +should be remembered that Irenaeus was now a boy, and that by the +time he had reached manhood the Canon of the Gospels had received +its definite form. + +Taking all these points into consideration I think we shall find +the various indications converge upon very much the same conclusion +as that at which we have already arrived. The _a priori_ probabilities +of the case, as well as the actual phenomena of Justin's Gospel, +alike tend to show that he did make use either mediately or immediately +of our Gospels, but that he did not assign to them an exclusive +authority, and that he probably made use along with them of other +documents no longer extant. + +The proof that Justin made use of each of our three Synoptics +individually is perhaps more striking from the point of view of +substance than of form, because his direct quotations are mostly +taken from the discourses rather than from the narrative, and +these discourses are usually found in more than a single Gospel, +while in proportion as they bear the stamp of originality and +authenticity it is difficult to assign them to any particular +reporter. There is however some strong and remarkable evidence of +this kind. + +At least one case of parallelism seems to prove almost decisively +the use of the first Gospel. It is necessary to give the quotation +and the original with the parallel from St. Mark side by side. + +_Justin, Dial._ c.49. + +[Greek: Aelias men eleusetai kai apokatastaesei panta, lego de +humin, hoti Aelias aedae aelthe kai ouk epegnosan auton all' +epoiaesan auto hosa aethelaesan. Kai gegraptai hoti tote sunaekan +oi mathaetai, hoti peri Ioannon tou Baptistou eipen autois.] + +_Matt._ xvii. 11-13. + +[Greek: Aelias men erchetai apokatastaesei panta, lego de humin +hoti Aelias aedae aelthen kai ouk epegnosan auton, alla epoiaesan +auto hosa aethelaesan, [outos kai ho uios tou anthropou mellei +paschein hup' auton.] Tote sunaekan oi mathaetai hoti peri Ioannou +tou Baptistou eipen autois.] The clause in brackets is placed at +the end of ver. 13 by D. and the Old Latin. + +_Mark._ ix. 12, 13. + +[Greek: Ho de ephae autois, Aelias [men] elthon proton +apokathistanei panta, kai pos gegraptai epi ton uion tou +anthropou, hina polla pathae kai exoudenaethae. Alla lego humin +hoti kai Aelias elaeluthen kai epoiaesan auto hosa aethelon, +kathos gegraptai ep' auton.] + + +We notice here, first, an important point, that Justin reproduces at +the end of his quotation what appears to be not so much a part of the +object-matter of the narrative as a _comment or reflection of the +Evangelist_ ('Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of +John the Baptist'). This was thought by Credner, who as a rule is +inclined to press the use of an apocryphal Gospel by Justin, to be +sufficient proof that the quotation is taken from our present Matthew +[Endnote 119:1]. On this point, however, there is an able and on the +whole a sound argument in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 119:2]. +There are certainly cases in which a similar comment or reflection is +found either in all three Synoptic Gospels or in two of them (e.g. +Matt. vii. 28, 29 = Mark i. 22 = Luke iv. 32; Matt. xiii. 34 = Mark +iv. 33, 34; Matt. xxvi. 43 = Mark xiv. 40; Matt. xix. 22 = Mark x. +22). The author consequently maintains that these were found in the +original document from which all three, or two Synoptics at least, +borrowed; and he notes that this very passage is assigned by Ewald to +the 'oldest Gospel.' + +The observation in itself is a fine and true one, and has an +important bearing upon the question as to the way in which our +Synoptic Gospels were composed. We may indeed remark in passing +that the author seems to have overlooked the fact that, when once +this principle of a common written basis or bases for the Synoptic +Gospels is accepted, nine-tenths of his own argument is overthrown; +for there are no divergences in the text of the patristic quotations +from the Gospels that may not be amply paralleled by the differences +which exist in the text of the several Gospels themselves, showing +that the Evangelists took liberties with their ground documents +to an extent that is really greater than that of any subsequent +misquotation. But putting aside for the present this _argumentum +ad hominem_ which seems to follow from the admission here made, +there is, I think, the strongest reason to conclude that in the +present case the first Evangelist is not merely reproducing his +ground document. There is one element in the question which the +author has omitted to notice; that is, the _parallel passage in +St. Mark._ This differs so widely from the text of St. Matthew as +to show that that text cannot accurately represent the original; +it also wants the reflective comment altogether. Accordingly, if +the author will turn to p. 275 of Ewald's book [Endnote 120:1] he +will find that that writer, though roughly assigning the passage +as it appears in both Synoptics to the 'oldest Gospel,' yet in +reconstructing the text of this Gospel does so, not by taking that +of either of the Synoptics pure and simple, but by mixing the two. +All the other critics who have dealt with this point, so far as I +am aware, have done the same. Holtzmann [Endnote 120:2] follows +Ewald, and Weiss [Endnote 120:3] accepts Mark's as more nearly the +original text. + +The very extent of the divergence in St. Mark throws out into striking +relief the close agreement of Justin's quotation with St. Matthew. +Here we have three verses word for word the same, even to the finest +shades of expression. To the single exception [Greek: eleusetai] +for [Greek: erchetai] I cannot, as Credner does [Endnote 120:4], +attach any importance. The present tense in the Gospel has undoubtedly +a future signification [Endnote 120:5], and Justin was very naturally +led to give it also a future form by [Greek: apokatastaesei] which +follows. For the rest, the order, particles, tenses are so absolutely +identical, where the text of St. Mark shows how inevitably they must +have differed in another Gospel or even in the original, that I can +see no alternative but to refer the quotation directly to our present +St. Matthew. + +If this passage had stood alone, taken in connection with the +coincidence of matter between Justin and the first Gospel, great +weight must have attached to it. But it does not by any means stand +alone. There is an exact verbal agreement in the verses Matt. v. 20 +('Except your righteousness' &c.) and Matt. vii. 21 ('Not every one +that saith unto me,' &c.) which are peculiar to the first Gospel. +There is a close agreement, if not always with the best, yet with some +very old, text of St. Matthew in v. 22 (note especially the striking +phrase and construction [Greek: enochos eis]), v. 28 (note [Greek: +blep. pros to epithum].), v. 41 (note the remarkable word [Greek: +angareusei]), xxv. 41, and not too great a divergence in v. 16, vi. 1 +([Greek: pros to theathaenai, ei de mae ge misthon ouk echete]), and +xix. 12, all of which passages are without parallel in any extant +Gospel. There are also marked resemblances to the Matthaean text in +synoptic passages such as Matt. iii. 11, 12 ([Greek: eis metanoian, ta +hupodaemata bastasai]), Matt. vi. 19, 20 ([Greek: hopou saes kai +brosis aphanizei], where Luke has simply [Greek: saes diaphtheirei], +and [Greek: diorussousi] where Luke has [Greek: engizei]), Matt. vii. +22, 23 ([Greek: ekeinae tae haemera Kurie, Kurie, k.t.l.]), Matt. xvi. +26 ([Greek: dosei] Matt. only, [Greek: antallagma] Matt., Mark), Matt. +xvi. 1, 4 (the last verse exactly). As these passages are all from the +discourses I do not wish to say that they may not be taken from other +Gospels than the canonical, but we have absolutely no evidence that +they were so taken, and every additional instance increases the +probability that they were taken directly from St. Matthew, which by +this time, I think, has reached a very high degree of presumption. + +I have reserved for a separate discussion a single instance which +I shall venture to add to those already quoted, although I am +aware that it is alleged on the opposite side. Justin has the +saying 'Let your yea be yea and your nay nay, for whatsoever is +more than these cometh of the Evil One' ([Greek: Mae omosaete +holos. Esto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou; to de perisson +touton ek tou ponaerou]), which is set against the first +Evangelist's 'Let your conversation be Yea yea, Nay nay, for +whatsoever is more than these cometh of the Evil One' ([Greek: ego +de lego humin mae omosai holos... Esto de ho logos humon nai nai, +ou ou; to de perisson, k.t.l.]). Now it is perfectly true that as +early as the Canonical Epistle of James (v. 12) we find the +reading [Greek: aeto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou], and that +in the Clementine Homilies twice over we read [Greek: esto humon +to nai nai, (kai) to ou ou], [Greek: kai] being inserted in one +instance and not in the other. Justin's reading is found also +exactly in Clement of Alexandria, and a similar reading (though +with the [Greek: aeto] of James) in Epiphanius. These last two +examples show that the misquotation was an easy one to fall into, +because there can be little doubt that Clement and Epiphanius +supposed themselves to be quoting the canonical text. There +remains however the fact that the Justinian form is supported by +the pseudo-Clementines; and at the first blush it might seem that +'Let your yea be yea' (stand to your word) made better, at least a +complete and more obvious, sense than 'Let your conversation be' +(let it not go beyond) 'Yea yea' &c [Endnote 122:1]. There is, +however, what seems to be a decisive proof that the original form +both of Justin's and the Clementine quotation is that which is +given in the first Gospel. Both Justin and the writer who passes +under the name of Clement add the clause 'Whatsoever is more than +these cometh of evil' (or 'of the Evil One'). But this, while it +tallies perfectly with the canonical reading, evidently excludes +any other. It is consequent and good sense to say, 'Do not go +beyond a plain yes or no, because whatever is in excess of this +must have an evil motive,' but the connection is entirely lost +when we substitute 'Keep your word, for whatever is more than this +has an evil motive'--more than what? + +The most important points that can be taken to imply a use of +St. Mark's Gospel have been already discussed as falling under +the head of matter rather than of form. + +The coincidences with Luke are striking but complicated. In his +earlier work, the 'Beitraege' [Endnote 123:1], Credner regarded as +a decided reference to the Prologue of this Gospel the statement +of Justin that his Memoirs were composed [Greek: hupo ton +apostolon autou kai ton ekeinois parakolouthaesanton]: but, in the +posthumous History of the Canon [Endnote 123:2], he retracts this +view, having come to recognise a greater frequency in the use of +the word [Greek: parakolouthein] in this sense. It will also of +course be noticed that Justin has [Greek: par. tois ap.] and not +[Greek: par. tois pragmasin], as Luke. It is doubtless true that +the use of the word can be paralleled to such an extent as to make +it not a matter of certainty that the Gospel is being quoted: +still I think there will be a certain probability that it has been +suggested by a reminiscence of this passage, and, strangely +enough, there is a parallel for the substitution of the historians +for the subject-matter of their history in Epiphanius, who reads +[Greek: par. tois autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou] [Endnote +124:1], where he is explicitly and unquestionably quoting St. +Luke. + +There are some marked coincidences of phrase in the account of the +Annunciation--[Greek: eperchesthai, episkaizein, dunamis +hupsistou] (a specially Lucan phrase), [Greek: to gennomenon] +(also a form characteristic of St. Luke), [Greek idou, sullaepsae +en gastri kai texae huion]. Of the other peculiarities of St. Luke +Justin has in exact accordance the last words upon the cross +([Greek: Pater, eis cheiras sou paratithemai to pneuma mou]). In +the Agony in the Garden Justin has the feature of the Bloody +Sweat; but it is right to notice-- + +(1) That he has [Greek: thromboi] alone, without [Greek: +haimatos]. Luke, [Greek: egeneto ho hidros autou hosei thromboi +haimatos katabainontes]. Justin, [Greek: hidros hosei thromboi +katecheito]. + +(2) That this is regarded as a fulfilment of Ps. xxii. 14 ('All my +tears are poured out' &c.). + +(3) That in continuing the quotation Justin follows Matthew rather +than Luke. These considerations may be held to qualify, though I +do not think that they suffice to remove, the conclusion that St. +Luke's Gospel is being quoted. It seems to be sufficiently clear +that [Greek: thromboi] might be used in this signification without +[Greek: aimatos] [Endnote 124:2], and it appears from the whole +manner of Justin's narrative that he intends to give merely the +sense and not the words, with the exception of the single saying +'Let this cup pass from Me,' which is taken from St. Matthew. We +cannot say positively that this feature did not occur in any other +Gospel, but there is absolutely no reason apart from this passage +to suppose that it did. The construction with [Greek: hosei] is in +some degree characteristic of St. Luke, as it occurs more often in +the works of that writer than in all the rest of the New Testament +put together. + +In narrating the institution of the Lord's Supper Justin has the +clause which is found only in St. Luke and St. Paul, 'This do in +remembrance of Me' ([Greek: mou] for [Greek: emaen]). The giving +of the cup he quotes rather after the first two Synoptics, and +adds 'that He gave it to them (the Apostles) alone.' This last +does not seem to be more than an inference of Justin's own. + +Two other sayings Justin has which are without parallel except in +St. Luke. One is from the mission of the seventy. + +_Justin, Dial._ 76 + +[Greek: Didomi humin exousian katapatein epano opheon, kai +skorpion, kai skolopendron, kai epano parsaes dunameos tou +echthrou.] + +_Luke_ x. 19. + +[Greek: Idou, didomi humin taen exousian tou patein epano epheon, +kai skorpion, kai epi pasan taen dunamin tou echthrou.] + +The insertion of [Greek: skolopendron] here is curious. It may be +perhaps to some extent paralleled by the insertion of [Greek: kai +eis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9: we have also seen a strange addition +in the quotation of Ps. li. 19 in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. ii). +Otherwise the resemblance of Justin to the Gospel is striking. The +second saying, 'To whom God has given more, of him shall more be +required' (Apol. i. 17), if quoted from the Gospel at all, is only +a paraphrase of Luke xii. 48. + +Besides these there are other passages, which are perhaps stronger +as separate items of evidence, where, in quoting synoptic matter, +Justin makes use of phrases which are found only in St. Luke and +are discountenanced by the other Evangelists. Thus in the account +of the rich young man, the three synoptical versions of the saying +that impossibilities with men are possible with God, run thus:-- + +_Luke_ xviii. 27. + +[Greek: Ta adunata para anthropois dunata para to Theo estin.] + +_Mark_ x. 27. + +[Greek: Para anthropois adunaton, all' ou para Theo; punta gar +dunata para to Theo]. + +_Matt_. xix. 26. + +[Greek: Para anthropois touto adunaton estin, para de Theo dunata +panta]. + +Here it will be observed that Matthew and Mark (as frequently +happens) are nearer to each other than either of them is to Luke. +This would lead us to infer that, as they are two to one, they +more nearly represent the common original, which has been somewhat +modified in the hands of St. Luke. But now Justin has the words +precisely as they stand in St. Luke, with the omission of [Greek: +estin], the order of which varies in the MSS. of the Gospel. This +must be taken as a strong proof that Justin has used the peculiar +text of the third Gospel. Again, it is to be noticed that in +another section of the triple synopsis (Mark xii. 20=Matt. xxii. +30=Luke xx. 35, 36) he has, in common with Luke and diverging from +the other Gospels which are in near agreement, the remarkable +compound [Greek: isangeloi] and the equally remarkable phrase +[Greek: huioi taes anastaseos] ([Greek: tekna tou Theou taes +anastaseos] Justin). This also I must regard as supplying a strong +argument for the direct use of the Gospel. Many similar instances +may be adduced; [Greek: erchetai] ([Greek: aexei] Justin) [Greek: +ho ischuroteros] (Luke iii. 16), [Greek: ho nomos kai hoi +prophaetai heos] ([Greek: mechri] Justin) [Greek: Ioannon] (Luke +xvi. 16), [Greek: panti to aitounti] (Luke vi. 30), [Greek: to +tuptonti se epi] ([Greek: sou] Justin) [Greek: taen siagona +pareche kai taen allaen k.t.l.] (Luke vi. 29; compare Matt. v. 39, +40), [Greek: ti me legeis agathon] and [Greek: oudeis agathos ei +mae] (Luke xviii. 19; compare Matt. xix. 17), [Greek: meta tauta +mae echonton] ([Greek: dunamenous] Justin) [Greek: perissoteron] +(om. Justin) [Greek: ti poiaesae k.t.l.] (Luke xii. 4, 5; compare +Matt. X. 28), [Greek: paeganon] and [Greek: agapaen tou Theou] +(Luke xi. 42). In the parallel passage to Luke ix. 22 (=Matt xvi. +21= Mark viii. 31) Justin has the striking word [Greek: +apodokimasthaenai], with Mark and Luke against Matthew, and +[Greek: hupo] with Mark against the [Greek: apo] of the two other +Synoptics. This last coincidence can perhaps hardly be pressed, as +[Greek: hupo] would be the more natural word to use. + +In the cases where we have only the double synopsis to compare +with Justin, we have no certain test to distinguish between the +primary and secondary features in the text of the Gospels. We +cannot say with confidence what belonged to the original document +and what to the later editor who reduced it to its present form. +In these cases therefore it is possible that when Justin has a +detail that is found in St. Matthew and wanting in St. Luke, or +found in St. Luke and wanting in St. Matthew, he is still not +quoting directly from either of those Gospels, but from the common +document on which they are based. The triple synopsis however +furnishes such a criterion. It enables us to see what was the +original text and how any single Evangelist has diverged from it. +Thus in the two instances quoted at the beginning of the last +paragraph it is evident that the Lucan text represents a deviation +from the original, and _that deviation Justin has reproduced_. The +word [Greek: isangeloi] may be taken as a crucial case. Both the +other Synoptics have simply [Greek hos angeloi], and this may be +set down as undoubtedly the reading of the original; the form +[Greek: isangeloi], which occurs nowhere else in the New +Testament, and I believe, so far as we know, nowhere else in Greek +before this passage [Endnote 128:1], has clearly been coined by +the third Evangelist and has been adopted from him by Justin. So +that in a quotation which otherwise presents considerable +variation we have what I think must be called the strongest +evidence that Justin really had St. Luke's narrative, either in +itself or in some secondary shape, before him. + +We are thus brought once more to the old result. If Justin did not +use our Gospels in their present shape as they have come down to +us, he used them in a later shape, not in an earlier. His +resemblances to them cannot be accounted for by the supposition +that he had access to the materials out of which they were +composed, because he reproduces features which by the nature of +the case cannot have been present in those originals, but of which +we are still able to trace the authorship and the exact point of +their insertion. Our Gospels form a secondary stage in the history +of the text, Justin's quotations a tertiary. In order to reach the +state in which it is found in Justin, the road lies _through_ our +Gospels, and not outside them. + +This however does not exclude the possibility that Justin may at +times quote from uncanonical Gospels as well. We have already seen +reason to think that he did so from the substance of the +Evangelical narrative, as it appears in his works, and this +conclusion too is not otherwise than confirmed by its form. The +degree and extent of the variations incline us to introduce such +an additional factor to account for them. Either Justin has used a +lost Gospel or Gospels, besides those that are still extant, or +else he has used a recension of these Gospels with some slight +changes of language and with some apocryphal additions. We have +seen that he has two short sayings and several minute details that +are not found in our present Gospels. A remarkable coincidence is +noticed in 'Supernatural Religion' with the Protevangelium of +James [Endnote 129:1]. As in that work so also in Justin, the +explanation of the name Jesus occurs in the address of the angel +to Mary, not to Joseph, 'Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy +Ghost and bear a Son and He shall be called the Son of the +Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His +people from their sins.' Again the Protevangelium has the phrase +'Thou shalt conceive of His Word,' which, though not directly +quoted, appears to receive countenance from Justin. The author +adds that 'Justin's divergences from the Protevangelium prevent +our supposing that in its present form it could have been the +actual source of his quotations,' though he thinks that he had +before him a still earlier work to which both the Protevangelium +and the third Gospel were indebted. So far as the Protevangelium +is concerned this may very probably have been the case; but what +reason there is for assuming that the same document was also +anterior to the third Gospel I am not aware. On the contrary, this +very passage seems to suggest an opposite conclusion. The +quotation in Justin and the address in the Protevangelium both +present a combination of narratives that are kept separate in the +first and third Gospels. But this very fact supplies a strong +presumption that the version of those Gospels is the earliest. It +is unlikely that the first Evangelist, if he had found his text +already existing as part of the speech of the angel to Mary, would +have transferred it to an address to Joseph; and it is little less +unlikely that the third Evangelist, finding the fuller version of +Justin and the Protevangelium, should have omitted from it one of +its most important features. If a further link is necessary to +connect Justin with the Protevangelium, that link comes into the +chain after our Gospels and not before. Dr. Hilgenfeld has also +noticed the phrase [Greek: charan de labousa Mariam] as common to +Justin and the Protevangelium [Endnote 130:1]. This, too, may +belong to the older original of the latter work. The other verbal +coincidences with the Gospel according to the Hebrews in the +account of the Baptism, and with that of Thomas in the 'ploughs +and yokes,' have been already mentioned, and are, I believe, along +with those just discussed, all that can be directly referred to an +apocryphal source. + +Besides these there are some coincidences in form between quotations +as they appear in Justin and in other writers, such as especially the +Clementine Homilies. These are thought to point to the existence of a +common Gospel (now lost) from which they may have been extracted. It +is unnecessary to repeat what has been said about one of these +passages ('Let your yea be yea,' &c.). Another corresponds roughly to +the verse Matt. xxv. 41, where both Justin and the Clementine Homilies +read [Greek: hupagete eis to skotos to exoteron o haetoimasen ho +pataer to satana (to diabolo] Clem. Hom.) [Greek: kai tois angelois +autou] for the canonical [Greek: poreuesthe ap' emou eis to pur to +aionion to haetoimasmenon k.t.l.] It is true that there is a +considerable approximation to the reading of Justin and the +Clementines, found especially in MSS. and authorities of a Western +character (D. Latt. Iren. Cypr. Hil.), but there still remains the +coincidence in regard to [Greek: exoteron](?) for [Greek: aionion] and +[Greek: skotos] for [Greek: pyr], which seems to be due to something +more than merely a variant text of the Gospel. A third meeting-point +between Justin and the Clementines is afforded by a text which we +shall have to touch upon when we come to speak of the fourth Gospel. +Of the other quotations common to the Clementines and Justin there is +a partial but not complete coincidence in regard to Matt. vii. 15, xi. +27, xix. 16, and Luke vi. 36. In Matt. vii. 15 the Clementines have +[Greek: polloi eleusontai] where Justin has once [Greek: polloi +eleusontai], once [Greek: polloi aexousin], and once the Matthaean +version [Greek: prosechete apo ton pseudoprophaeton oitines erchontai +k.t.l.] There is however a difference in regard to the reading [Greek: +en endumasi], where the Clementines have [Greek: en endumatie], and +Justin twice over [Greek: endedumenoi]. In Matt. xi. 27, Justin and +the Clementines agree as to the order of the clauses, and twice in the +use of the aorist [Greek: egno] (Justin has once [Greek: ginosko]), +but in the concluding clause ([Greek: ho [ois] Clem.] [Greek: ean +boulaetai ho nios apokalupsai]) Justin has uniformly in the three +places where the verse is quoted [Greek: ois an ho uhios apokalupsae]. +In Matt. xix. 16, 17 (Luke xviii. 18, 19) the Clementines and Justin +alternately adhere to the Canonical text while differing from each +other, but in the concluding phrase Justin has on one occasion the +Clementine reading, [Greek: ho pataer mou ho en tois ouranois]. In +Luke vi. 36 the Clementines have [Greek: ginesthe agathoi kai +ioktirmones], where Justin has [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kai +oiktirmones] against the Canonical [Greek: ginesthe oiktirmones]. On +the other hand, it should be said that the remaining quotations common +to the Clementines and Justin have to all appearance no relation to +each other. This applies to Matt. iv. 10, v. 39, 40, vi. 8, viii. 11, +x. 28; Luke xi. 52. Speaking generally we seem to observe in comparing +Justin and the Clementines phenomena not dissimilar to those which +appear on a comparison with the Canonical Gospels. There is perhaps +about the same degree at once of resemblance and divergence. + +The principal textual coincidence with other writers is that with +the Gospel used by the Marcosians as quoted by Irenaeus (Adv. +Haer. i. 20. 3). Here the reading of Matt. xi. 27 is given in a +form very similar to that of Justin, [Greek: oudeis hegno ton +patera ei mae ho uhios, kai (oude Justin) ton uhion, ei mae ho +pataer kai ho (ois] Justin) [Greek: an ho uhios apokalupsae]. +This verse however is quoted by the early writers, orthodox as well +as heretical, in almost every possible way, and it is not clear from +the account in Irenaeus whether the Marcosians used an extra- +canonical Gospel or merely a different text of the Canonical. +Irenaeus himself seems to hold the latter view, and in favour of +it may be urged the fact that they quote passages peculiar both to +the first and the third Gospel; on the other hand, one of their +quotations, [Greek: pollakis epethuaesa akousai hena ton logon +touton], does not appear to have a canonical original. + +On reviewing these results we find them present a chequered +appearance. There are no traces of coincidence so definite and +consistent as to justify us in laying the finger upon any +particular extra-canonical Gospel as that used by Justin. But upon +the whole it seems best to assume that some such Gospel was used, +certainly not to the exclusion of the Canonical Gospels, but +probably in addition to them. + +A confusing element in the whole question is that to which we have +just alluded in regard to the Gospel of the Marcosians. It is +often difficult to decide whether a writer has really before him +an unknown document or merely a variant text of one with which we +are familiar. In the case of Justin it is to be noticed that there +is often a very considerable approximation to his readings, not in +the best text, but in some very early attested text, of the +Canonical Gospels. It will be well to collect some of the most +prominent instances of this. + +Matt. iii. 15 ad fin. [Greek: kai pur anaephthae en to Iordanae] +Justin. So a. (Codex Vercellensis of the Old Latin translation) +adds 'et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut +timerent onmes qui advenerant;' g[1]. (Codex Sangermanensis of the +same) 'lumen magnum fulgebat de aqua,' &c. See above. + +Luke iii. 22. Justin reads [Greek: uhios mon ei su, ego saemeron +gegennaeka se]. So D, a, b, c, ff, l, Latin Fathers ('nonnulli +codices' Augustine). See above. + +Matt. v. 28. [Greek: hos un emblepsae] for [Greek: pas ho blepon]. +Origen five times as Justin, only once the accepted text. + +Matt. v. 29. Justin and Clement of Alexandria read here [Greek: +ekkopson] for [Greek: exele], probably from the next verse or from +Matt. xviii. 8. + +Matt. vi. 20. [Greek: ouranois] Clem. Alex. with Justin; [Greek: +ourano] the accepted reading. + +Matt. xvi. 26. [Greek: opheleitai] Justin with most MSS. both of +the Old Latin and of the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac +(Crowfoot), Clement, Hilary, and Lucifer, against [Greek: +ophelaethaesetai] of the best Alexandrine authorities. + +Matt. vi. 21. There is a striking coincidence here with Clement of +Alexandria, who reads, like Justin, [Greek: nous] for [Greek: +cardia]; it would seem that Clement had probably derived his +reading from Justin. + +Matt. v. 22. [Greek: hostis an orgisthae] Syr. Crt. (Crowfoot); so +Justin ([Greek: hos]). + +Matt. v. 16. Clement of Alexandria (with Tertullian and several +Latin Fathers) has [Greek: lampsato ta erga] and [Greek: ta agatha +erga], where Justin has [Greek: lampsato ta kala erga], for +[Greek: lampsato to phos]. Both readings would seem to be a gloss +on the original. + +Matt. v. 37. [Greek: kai] is inserted, as in Justin, by a, b, g, +h, Syr. Crt. and Pst. + +Luke x. 16. Justin has the reading [Greek: ho emou akouon akouei +ton aposteilantos me]: so D, i, l (of the Old Latin) in place of +[Greek: ho eme atheton k.t.l.]; in addition to it, E, a, b, Syr. +Crt. and Hel. &c. + +Matt. vii. 22. [Greek: ou to so anomati ephagomen kai epiomen] +Justin; similarly Origen, four times, and Syr. Crt. + +Luke xiii. 27. [Greek: anomias] for [Greek: adikias], D and +Justin. + +Matt. xiii. 43. [Greek: lampsosin] for [Greek: eklampsosin] with +Justin, D, and Origen (twice). + +Matt. xxv. 41. Of Justin's readings in this verse [Greek: +hupagete] for [Greek: poreuesthe] is found also in [Hebrew: ?] and +Hippolytus, [Greek: exoteron] for [Greek: aionion] in the cursive +manuscript numbered 40 (Credner; I am unable to verify this), +[Greek: ho haetoimasen ho pater mou] for [Greek: to haetoimasmenon] +D. 1, most Codd. of the Old Latin, Iren. Tert. Cypr. Hil. Hipp. +and Origen in the Latin translation. + +Luke xii. 48. D, like Justin, has here [Greek: pleon] for [Greek: +perissoteron] and also the compound form [Greek: apaitaesousin]. + +Luke xx. 24. Though in the main following (but loosely) the text +of Luke, Justin has here [Greek: to nomisma], as Matt., instead of +[Greek: daenarion]; so D. + +Though it will be seen that Justin has thus much in common with D +and the Old Latin version, it should be noticed that he has the +verse, Luke xxii. 19, and especially the clause [Greek: touto +poieite eis taen emaen anamnaesin] which is wanting in these +authorities. On the other hand, he appears to have with them and +other authorities, including Syr. Crt., the Agony in the Garden as +given in Luke xxii, 43,44, which verses are omitted in MSS. of the +best Alexandrine type. Luke xxiii. 34, Justin also has, with the +divided support of the majority of Greek MSS. Vulgate, c, e, f, ff +of the Old Latin, Syr. Crt. and Pst. &c. against B, D (prima +manu), a, b, Memph. (MSS.) Theb. + +These readings represent in the main a text which was undoubtedly +current and widely diffused in the second century. 'Though no +surviving manuscript of the Old Latin version dates before the +fourth century and most of them belong to a still later age, yet +the general correspondence of their text with that of the first +Latin Fathers is a sufficient voucher for its high antiquity. The +connexion subsisting between this Latin, version, the Curetonian +Syriac and Codex Bezae, proves that the text of these documents is +considerably older than the vellum on which they are written.' +Such is Dr. Scrivener's verdict upon the class of authorities with +which Justin shows the strongest affinity, and he goes on to add; +'Now it may be said without extravagance that no set of Scriptural +records affords a text less probable in itself, less sustained by +any rational principles of external evidence, than that of Cod. D, +of the Latin codices, and (so far as it accords with them) of +Cureton's Syriac. Interpolations as insipid in themselves as +unsupported by other evidence abound in them all.... It is no less +true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions +to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated +within a hundred years after it was composed' [Endnote 135:1]. +This is a point on which text critics of all schools are +substantially agreed. However much they may differ in other +respects, no one of them has ever thought of taking the text of +the Old Syriac and Old Latin translations as the basis of an +edition. There can be no question that this text belongs to an +advanced, though early, stage of corruption. + +At the same stage of corruption, then, Justin's quotations from +the Gospels are found, and this very fact is a proof of the +antiquity of originals so corrupted. The coincidences are too many +and too great all to be the result of accident or to be accounted +for by the parallel influence of the lost Gospels. The presence, +for instance, of the reading [Greek: o haetoimasen ho pataer] for +[Greek: to haetoimasmenon] in Irenaeus and Tertullian (who has +both 'quem praeparavit deus' and 'praeparatum') is a proof that it +was found in the canonical text at a date little later than +Justin's. And facts such as this, taken together with the +arguments which make it little less than certain that Justin had +either mediately or immediately access to our Gospels, render it +highly probable that he had a form of the canonical text before +him. + +And yet large as is the approximation to Justin's text that may be +made without stirring beyond the bounds of attested readings +within the Canon, I still retain the opinion previously expressed +that he did also make use of some extra-canonical book or books, +though what the precise document was the data are far too +insufficient to enable us to determine. So far as the history of +our present Gospels is concerned, I have only to insist upon the +alternative that Justin either used those Gospels themselves or +else a later work, of the nature of a harmony based upon them +[Endnote 136:1]. The theory (if it is really held) that he was +ignorant of our Gospels in any shape, seems to me, in view of the +facts, wholly untenable. + + + + + +CHAPTER V. + +HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS. + + +Dr. Lightfoot has rendered a great service to criticism by his +masterly exposure of the fallacies in the argument which has been +drawn from the silence of Eusebius in respect to the use of the +Canonical Gospels by the early writers [Endnote 138:1]. The author +of 'Supernatural Religion' is not to be blamed for using this +argument. In doing so he has only followed in the wake of the +Germans who have handed it on from one to the other without +putting it to a test so thorough and conclusive as that which has +now been applied [Endnote 138:2]. For the future, I imagine, the +question has been set at rest and will not need to be reopened +[Endnote 138:3]. + +Dr. Lightfoot has shown, with admirable fulness and precision, +that the object of Eusebius was only to note quotations in the +case of books the admission of which into the Canon had been or +was disputed. In the case of works, such as the four Gospels, that +were universally acknowledged, he only records what seem to him +interesting anecdotes or traditions respecting their authors or +the circumstances under which they were composed. This distinction +Dr. Lightfoot has established, not only by a careful examination +of the language of Eusebius, but also by comparing his statements +with the actual facts in regard to writings that are still extant, +and where we are able to verify his procedure. After thus testing +the references in Eusebius to Clement of Rome, the Ignatian +Epistles, Polycarp, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus, +Dr. Lightfoot arrives, by a strict and ample induction, at the +conclusion that the silence of Eusebius in respect to quotations +from any canonical book is so far an argument _in its favour_ +that it shows the book in question to have been generally +acknowledged by the early Church. Instead of being a proof that +the writer did not know the work in reference to which Eusebius is +silent, the presumption is rather that he did, like the rest of +the Church, receive it. Eusebius only records what seems to him +specially memorable, except where the place of the work in or out +of the Canon has itself to be vindicated. + +But if this holds good, then most of what is said against the use +of the Gospels by Hegesippus falls to the ground. Eusebius +expressly says [Endnote 140:1] that Hegesippus made occasional use +of the Gospel according to the Hebrews ([Greek: ek te tou kath' +Hebraious euangeliou ... tina tithaesin]). But apart from the +conclusion referred to above, the very language of Eusebius +([Greek: tithaesin tina ek]) is enough to suggest that the use of +the Gospel according to the Hebrews was subordinate and +subsidiary. Eusebius can hardly have spoken in this way of +'_the_ Gospel of which Hegesippus made use' in all the five +books of his 'Memoirs.' The expression tallies exactly with what +we should expect of a work used _in addition to_ but not +_to the exclusion_ of our Gospels. The fact that Eusebius +says nothing about these shows that his readers would take it for +granted that Hegesippus, as an orthodox Christian, received them. + +With this conclusion the fragments of the work of Hegesippus that +have come down to us agree. The quotations made in them are +explained most simply and naturally, on the assumption that our +Gospels have been used. The first to which we come is merely an +allusion to the narrative of Matt. ii; 'For Domitian feared the +coming of the Christ as much as Herod.' Those therefore who take +the statement of Eusebius to mean that Hegesippus used only the +Gospel according to the Hebrews are compelled to seek for the +account of the Massacre of the Innocents in that Gospel. It +appears however from Epiphanius that precisely this very portion +of the first Gospel was wanting in the Gospel according to the +Hebrews as used both by the Ebionites and by the Nazarenes. 'But +if it be doubtful whether some forms of that Gospel contained the +two opening chapters of Matthew, it is certain that Jerome found +them in the version which he translated' [Endnote 141:1]. I am +afraid that here, as in so many other cases, the words 'doubtful' +and 'certain' are used with very little regard to their meanings. +In support of the inference from Jerome, the author refers to De +Wette, Schwegler, and an article in a periodical publication by +Ewald. De Wette expressly says that the inference does _not_ +follow ('Aus Comm. ad Matt. ii. 6 ... laesst sich _nicht_ +schliessen dass er hierbei das Evang. der Hebr. verglichen +habe.... Nicht viel besser beweisen die St. ad Jes. xi. 1; ad +Abac. iii. 3') [Endnote 141:2]. He thinks that the presence of +these chapters in Jerome's copy cannot be satisfactorily proved, +but is probable just from this allusion in Hegesippus--in regard +to which De Wette simply follows the traditional, but, as we have +seen, erroneous assumption that Hegesippus used only the Gospel +according to the Hebrews. Schwegler [Endnote 141:3] gives no +reasons, but refers to the passages quoted from Jerome in Credner. +Credner, after examining these passages, comes to the conclusion +that 'the Gospel of the Nazarenes did _not_ contain the +chapters' [Endnote 141:4]. Ewald's periodical I cannot refer to, +but Hilgenfeld, after an elaborate review of the question, decides +that the chapters were omitted [Endnote 141:5]. This is the only +authority I can find for the 'certainty that Jerome found them' in +his version. + +On the whole, then, it seems decidedly more probable (certainties +we cannot deal in) that the incident referred to by Hegesippus was +missing from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That Gospel +therefore was not quoted by him, but, on the contrary, there is a +presumption that he is quoting from the Canonical Gospel. The +narrative of the parallel Gospel of St. Luke seems, if not to +exclude the Massacre of the Innocents, yet to imply an ignorance +of it. + +The next passage that appears to be quotation occurs in the +account of the death of James the Just; 'Why do ye ask me +concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He too sits in heaven on the +right hand of the great Power and will come on the clouds of +heaven' ([Greek: Ti me eperotate peri Iaesou tou huiou tou +anthropou? kai autos kathaetai en to ourano ek dexion taes +megalaes dunameos, kai mellei erchesthai epi ton nephelon tou +ouranou]). It seems natural to suppose that this is an allusion to +Matt. xxvi. 64, [Greek: ap' arti opsesthe ton huion tou anthropou +kathaemenon ek dexion taes dunameos, kai erchomenon epi ton +vephelon tou ouranou]. The passage is one that belongs to the +triple synopsis, and the form in which it appears in Hegesippus +shows a preponderating resemblance to the version of St. Matthew. +Mark inserts [Greek: kathaemenon] between [Greek: ek dexion] and +[Greek: taes dunameos], while Luke thinks it necessary to add +[Greek: tou theou]. The third Evangelist omits the phrase [Greek: +epi ton nephelon tou ouranou], altogether, and the second +substitutes [Greek: meta] for [Greek: epi]. In fact the phrase +[Greek: epi ton vephelon] occurs in the New Testament only in St. +Matthew; the Apocalypse, like St. Mark, has [Greek: meta] and +[Greek: epi] only with the singular. + +In like manner, when we find Hegesippus using the phrase [Greek: +prosopon ou lambaneis], this seems to be a reminiscence of Luke +xx. 21, where the synoptic parallels have [Greek: blepeis]. + +A more decided reference to the third Gospel occurs in the dying +prayer of St. James; [Greek: parakalo, kurie thee pater, aphes +autois; ou gar oidasiti poiousin], which corresponds to Luke +xxiii. 34, [Greek: pater, aphes autois; ou gar oidasin ti +poiousin]. There is the more reason to believe that Hegesippus' +quotation is derived from this source that it reproduces the +peculiar use of [Greek: aphienai] in the sense of 'forgive' +without an expressed object. Though the word is of very frequent +occurrence, I find no other instance of this in the New Testament +[Endnote 143:1], and the Clementine Homilies, in making the same +quotation, insert [Greek: tas hamartias auton]. The saying is well +known to be peculiar to St. Luke. There is perhaps a balance of +evidence against its genuineness, but this is of little +importance, as it undoubtedly formed part of the Gospel as early +as Irenaeus, who wrote much about the same time as Hegesippus. + +The remaining passage occurs in a fragment preserved from +Stephanus Gobarus, a writer of the sixth century, by Photius, +writing in the ninth. Referring to the saying 'Eye hath not seen,' +&c., Gobarus says 'that Hegesippus, an ancient and apostolical +man, asserts--he knows not why--that these words are vainly +spoken, and that those who use them give the lie to the sacred +writings and to our Lord Himself who said, "Blessed are your eyes +that see and your ears that hear,"' &c. 'Those who use these +words' are, we can hardly doubt, as Dr. Lightfoot after Routh has +shown [Endnote 144:1], the Gnostics, though Hegesippus would seem +to have forgotten I Cor. ii. 9. The anti-Pauline position assigned +to Hegesippus on the strength of this is, we must say, untenable. +But for the present we are concerned rather with the second +quotation, which agrees closely with Matt. xiii. 26 ([Greek: humon +de makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoti blepousin, kai ta ota humon hoti +akouousin]). The form of the quotation has a slightly nearer +resemblance to Luke x. 23 ([Greek: makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoi +blepontes ha blepete k.t.l.]), but the marked difference in the +remainder of the Lucan passage increases the presumption that +Hegesippus is quoting from the first Gospel [Endnote 144:2]. + +The use of the phrase [Greek: ton theion graphon] is important and +remarkable. There is not, so far as I am aware, any instance of so +definite an expression being applied to an apocryphal Gospel. It +would tend to prepare us for the strong assertion of the Canon of +the Gospels in Irenaeus; it would in fact mark the gradually +culminating process which went on in the interval which separated +Irenaeus from Justin. To this interval the evidence of Hegesippus +must be taken to apply, because though writing like Irenaeus under +Eleutherus (from 177 A.D.) he was his elder contemporary, and had +been received with high respect in Rome as early as the episcopate +of Anicetus (157-168 A.D.). + +The relations in which Hegesippus describes himself as standing to +the Churches and bishops of Corinth and Rome seem to be decisive +as to his substantial orthodoxy. This would give reason to think +that he made use of our present Gospels, and the few quotations +that have come down to us confirm that view not inconsiderably, +though by themselves they might not be quite sufficient to prove +it. + +There is one passage that may be thought to point to an apocryphal +Gospel, 'From these arose false Christs, false prophets, false +apostles;' which recalls a sentence in the Clementines, 'For there +shall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, +heresies, ambitions.' It is not, however, nearer to this than to +the canonical parallel, Matt. xxiv. 24 ('There shall arise false +Christs and false prophets'). + + + 2. + +In turning from Hegesippus to Papias we come at last to what seems +to be a definite and satisfactory statement as to the origin of +two at least of the Synoptic Gospels, and to what is really the +most enigmatic and tantalizing of all the patristic utterances. + +Like Hegesippus, Papias may be described as 'an ancient and +apostolic man,' and appears to have better deserved the title. He +is said to have suffered martyrdom under M. Aurelius about the +same time as Polycarp, 165-167 A.D. [Endnote 145:1] He wrote a +commentary on the Discourses or more properly Oracles of the Lord, +from which Eusebius extracted what seemed to him 'memorable' +statements respecting the origin of the first and second Gospels. +'Matthew,' Papias said [Endnote 146:1], 'wrote the oracles +([Greek: ta logia]) in the Hebrew tongue, and every one +interpreted them as he was able.' 'Mark, as the interpreter of +Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that he +remembered that was said or done by Christ. For he neither heard +the Lord nor attended upon Him, but later, as I said, upon Peter, +who taught according to the occasion and not as composing a +connected narrative of the Lord's discourses; so that Mark made no +mistake in writing down some things as he remembered them. For he +took care of one thing, not to omit any of the particulars that he +heard or to falsify any part of them.' + + * * * * * + +Let us take the second of these statements first. According to it +the Gospel of St. Mark consisted of notes taken down, or rather +recollected, from the teaching of Peter. It was not written 'in +order,' but it was an original work in the sense that it was first +put in writing by Mark himself, having previously existed only in +an oral form. + +Does this agree with the facts of the Gospel as it appears to us +now? There is a certain ambiguity as to the phrase 'in order.' We +cannot be quite sure what Papias meant by it, but the most natural +conclusion seems to be that it meant chronological order. If so, +the statement of Papias seems to be so far borne out that none of +the Synoptic Gospels is really in exact chronological order; but, +strange to say, if there is any in which an approach to such an +order is made, it is precisely this of St. Mark. This appears from +a comparison of the three Synoptics. From the point at which the +second Gospel begins, or, in other words, from the Baptism to the +Crucifixion, it seems to give the outline that the other two +Gospels follow [Endnote 147:1]. If either of them diverges from it +for a time it is only to return. The early part of St. Matthew is +broken up by the intrusion of the so-called Sermon on the Mount, +but all this time St. Mark is in approximate agreement with St. +Luke. For a short space the three Gospels go together. Then comes +a second break, where Luke introduces his version of the Sermon on +the Mount. Then the three rejoin and proceed together, Matthew +being thrown out by the way in which he has collected the parables +into a single chapter, and Luke later by the place which he has +assigned to the incident at Nazareth. After this Matthew and Mark +proceed side by side, Luke dropping out of the ranks. At the +confession of Peter he takes his place again, and there is a close +agreement in the order of the three narratives. The incident of +the miracle-worker is omitted by Matthew, and then comes the +insertion of a mass of extraneous matter by Luke. When he resumes +the thread of the common narrative again all three are together. +The insertion of a single parable on the part of Matthew, and +omissions on the part of Luke, are the only interruptions. There +is an approximate agreement of all three, we may say, for the rest +of the narrative. We observe throughout that, in by far the +preponderating number of instances, where Matthew differs from the +order of Mark, Luke and Mark agree, and where Luke differs from +the order of Mark, Matthew and Mark agree. Thus, for instance, in +the account of the healings in Peter's house and of the paralytic, +in the relation of the parables of Mark iv. 1-34 to the storm at +sea which follows, of the healing of Jairus' daughter to that of +the Gadarene demoniac and to the mission of the Twelve in the +place of Herod's reflections (Mark vi. 14-16), in the warning +against the Scribes and the widow's mite (Mark xii. 38-44), the +second and third Synoptics are allied against the first. On the +other hand, in the call of the four chief Apostles, the death of +the Baptist, the walking on the sea, the miracles in the land of +Gennesareth, the washing of hands, the Canaanitish woman, the +feeding of the four thousand and the discourses which follow, the +ambition of the sons of Zebedee, the anointing at Bethany, and +several insertions of the third Evangelist in regard to the last +events, the first two are allied against him. While Mark thus +receives such alternating support from one or other of his fellow +Evangelists, I am not aware of any clear case in which, as to the +order of the narratives, they are, united and he is alone, unless +we are to reckon as such his insertion of the incident of the +fugitive between Matt. xxvi. 56, 57, Luke xxii. 53, 54. + +It appears then that, so far as there is an order in the Synoptic +Gospels, the normal type of that order is to be found precisely in +St. Mark, whom Papias alleges to have written not in order. + +But again there seems to be evidence that the Gospel, in the form +in which it has come down to us, is not original but based upon +another document previously existing. When we come to examine +closely its verbal relations to the other two Synoptics, its +normal character is in the main borne out, but still not quite +completely. The number of particulars in which Matthew and Mark +agree together against Luke, or Mark and Luke agree together +against Matthew, is far in excess of that in which Matthew and +Luke are agreed against Mark. Mark is in most cases the middle +term which unites the other two. But still there remains a not +inconsiderable residuum of cases in which Matthew and Luke are in +combination and Mark at variance. The figures obtained by a not +quite exact and yet somewhat elaborate computation [Endnote 149:1] +are these; Matthew and Mark agree together against Luke in 1684 +particulars, Luke and Mark against Matthew in 944, but Matthew and +Luke against Mark in only 334. These 334 instances are distributed +pretty evenly over the whole of the narrative. Thus (to take a +case at random) in the parallel narratives Matt. xii. 1-8, Mark +ii. 23-28, Luke vi. 1-5 (the plucking of the ears on the Sabbath +day), there are fifty-one points (words or parts of words) common +to all three Evangelists, twenty-three are common only to Mark and +Luke, ten to Mark and Matthew, and eight to Matthew and Luke. In +the next section, the healing of the withered hand, twenty points +are found alike in all three Gospels, twenty-seven in Mark and +Luke, twenty-one in Mark and Matthew, and five in Matthew and +Luke. Many of these coincidences between the first and third +Synoptics are insignificant in the extreme. Thus, in the last +section referred to (Mark iii. 1-6=Matt. xii. 9-14=Luke vi. 6-11), +one is the insertion of the article [Greek: taen] ([Greek: +sunagogaen]), one the insertion of [Greek: sou] ([Greek: taen +cheira sou]), two the use of [Greek: de] for [Greek: kai], and one +that of [Greek: eipen] for [Greek: legei]. In the paragraph +before, the eight points of coincidence between Matthew and Luke +are made up thus, two [Greek: kai aesthion] (=[Greek kai +esthiein]), [Greek: eipon] (=[Greek: eipan]), [Greek: poiein, +eipen, met' autou] (=[Greek: sun auto]), [Greek: monous] (=[Greek: +monois]). But though such points as these, if they had been few in +number, might have been passed without notice, still, on the +whole, they reach a considerable aggregate and all are not equally +unimportant. Thus, in the account of the healing of the paralytic, +such phrases is [Greek epi klinaes, apaelthen eis ton oikon +autou], can hardly have come into the first and third Gospels and +be absent from the second by accident; so again the clause [Greek: +alla ballousin (blaeteon) oinon neon eis askous kainous]. In the +account of the healing of the bloody flux the important word +[Greek: tou kraspedou] is inserted in Matthew and Luke but not in +Mark; in that of the mission of the twelve Apostles, the two +Evangelists have, and the single one has not, the phrase [Greek: +kai therapeuein noson (nosous]), and the still more important +clause [Greek: lego humin anektoteron estai (gae) Sodomon ... en +haemera ... ae tae polei ekeinae]: in Luke ix. 7 (= Matt. xiv. 1) +Herod's title is [Greek: tetrarchaes], in Mark vi. 14 [Greek: +basileus]; in the succeeding paragraph [Greek: hoi ochloi +aekolouthaesan] and the important [Greek: to perisseuon (-san)] +are wanting in the intermediate Gospel; in the first prophecy of +the Passion it has [Greek: apo] where the other two have [Greek: +hupo], and [Greek: meta treis haemeras] where they have [Greek: +tae tritae haemera]: in the healing of the lunatic boy it omits +the noticeable [Greek: kai diestrammenae]: in the second prophecy +of the Passion it omits [Greek: mellei], in the paragraph about +offences, [Greek: elthein ta skandala ...ouai...di hou erchetai]. +These points might be easily multiplied as we go on; suffice it to +say that in the aggregate they seem to prove that the second +Gospel, in spite of its superior originality and adhesion to the +normal type, still does not entirely adhere to it or maintain its +primary character throughout. The theory that we have in the +second Gospel one of the primitive Synoptic documents is not +tenable. + +No doubt this is an embarrassing result. The question is easy to +ask and difficult to answer--If our St. Mark does not represent +the original form of the document, what does represent it? The +original document, if not quite like our Mark, must have been very +nearly like it; but how did any writer come to reproduce a +previous work with so little variation? If he had simply copied or +reproduced it without change, that would have been intelligible; +if he had added freely to it, that also would have been +intelligible: but, as it is, he seems to have put in a touch here +and made an erasure there on principles that it is difficult for +us now to follow. We are indeed here at the very _crux_ of +Synoptic criticism. + +For our present purpose however it is not necessary that the +question should be solved. We have already obtained an answer on +the two points raised by Papias. The second Gospel _is_ +written in order; it is _not_ an original document. These two +characteristics make it improbable that it is in its present shape +the document to which Papias alludes. + +Does his statement accord any better with the phenomena of the +first Gospel? He asserts that it was originally written in Hebrew, +and that the large majority of modern critics deny to have been +the case with our present Gospel. Many of the quotations in it +from the Old Testament are made directly from the Septuagint and +not from the Hebrew. There are turns of language which have the +stamp of an original Greek idiom and could not have come in +through translation. But, without going into this question as to +the original language of the first Gospel, a shorter method will +be to ask whether it can have been an original document at all? +The work to which Papias referred clearly was such, but the very +same investigation which shows that our present St. Mark was not +original, tells with increased force against St. Matthew. When a +document exists dealing with the same subject-matter as two other +documents, and those two other documents agree together and differ +from it on as many as 944 separate points, there can be little +doubt that in the great majority of those points it has deviated +from the original, and that it is therefore secondary in +character. It is both secondary and secondary on a lower stage +than St. Mark: it has preserved the features of the original with +a less amount of accuracy. The points of the triple synopsis on +which Matthew fails to receive verification are in all 944; those +on which Mark fails to receive verification 334; or, in other +words, the inaccuracies of Matthew are to those of Mark nearly as +three to one. In the case of Luke the proportion is still greater-- +as much as five to one. + +This is but a tithe of the arguments which show that the first +Gospel is a secondary composition. An original composition would +be homogeneous; it is markedly heterogeneous. The first two +chapters clearly belong to a different stock of materials from the +rest of the Gospel. A broad division is seen in regard to the Old +Testament quotations. Those which are common to the other two +Synoptists are almost if not quite uniformly taken from the +Septuagint; those, on the other hand, which seem to belong to the +reflection of the Evangelist betray more or less distinctly the +influence of the Hebrew [Endnote 153:1]. Our Gospel is thus seen +to be a recension of another original document or documents and +not an original document itself. + +Again, if our St. Matthew had been an original composition and had +appeared from the first in its present full and complete form, it +would be highly difficult to account for the omissions and +variations in Mark and Luke. We should be driven back, indeed, +upon all the impossibilities of the 'Benutzungs-hypothese.' On the +one hand, the close resemblance between the three compels us to +assume that the authors have either used each other's works or +common documents; but the differences practically preclude the +supposition that the later writer had before him the whole work of +his predecessor. If Luke had had before him the first two chapters +of Matthew he could not have written his own first two chapters as +he has done. + +Again, the character of the narrative is such as to be inconsistent +with the view that it proceeds from an eye-witness of the events. +Those graphic touches, which are so conspicuous in the fourth Gospel, +and come out from time to time in the second, are entirely wanting +in the first. If parallel narratives, such as the healing of the +paralytic, the cleansing of the Temple, or the feeding of the five +thousand, are compared, this will be very clearly seen. More; there +are features in the first Gospel that are to all appearance unhistorical +and due to the peculiar method of the writer. He has a way of +reduplicating, so to speak, the personages of one narrative in +order to make up for the omission of another [Endnote 154:1]. For +instance, he is silent as to the healing of the demoniac at Capernaum, +but, instead of this, he gives us two Gadarene demoniacs, at the same +time modifying the language in which he describes this latter incident +after the pattern of the former; in like manner he speaks of the +healing of two blind men at Jericho, but only because he had passed +over the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. Of a somewhat similar +nature is the adding of the ass's colt to the ass in the account +of the Triumphal Entry. There are also fragmentary sayings +repeated in the Gospel in a way that would be natural in a later +editor piecing together different documents and finding the same +saying in each, but unnatural in an eye- and ear-witness drawing +upon his own recollections. Some clear cases of this kind would be +Matt. v. 29, 30 (= Matt. xviii. 8, 9) the offending member, Matt. +v. 32 (= Matt. xix. 9) divorce, Matt. x. 38, 39 (= Matt. xvi. 24, +25) bearing the cross, loss and gain; and there are various others. + +These characteristics of the first Gospel forbid us to suppose +that it came fresh from the hands of the Apostle in the shape in +which we now have it; they also forbid us to identify it with the +work alluded to by Papias. Neither of the two first Gospels, as we +have them, complies with the conditions of Papias' description to +such an extent that we can claim Papias as a witness to them. + + * * * * * + +But now a further enquiry opens out upon us. The language of +Papias does not apply to our present Gospels; will it apply to +some earlier and more primary state of those Gospels, to documents +_incorporated in_ the works that have come down to us but not +co-extensive with them? German critics, it is well known, +distinguish between 'Matthaeus'--the present Gospel that bears the +name of St. Matthew--and 'Ur-Matthaeus,' or the original work of +that Apostle, 'Marcus'--our present St. Mark--and 'Ur-Marcus,' an +older and more original document, the real production of the +companion of St. Peter. Is it to these that Papias alludes? + +Here we have a much more tenable and probable hypothesis. Papias +says that Matthew composed 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia]) in +the Hebrew tongue. The meaning of the word [Greek: logia] has been +much debated. Perhaps the strictest translation of it is that +which has been given, 'oracles'--short but weighty and solemn or +sacred sayings. I should be sorry to say that the word would not +bear the sense assigned to it by Dr. Westcott, who paraphrases it +felicitously (from his point of view) by our word 'Gospel' +[Endnote 155:1]. It is, however, difficult to help feeling that +the _natural_ sense of the word has to be somewhat strained +in order to make it cover the whole of our present Gospel, and to +bring under it the record of facts to as great an extent as +discourse. It seems at least the simplest and most obvious +interpretation to confine the word strictly or mainly to +discourse. 'Matthew composed the discourses (those brief yet +authoritative discourses) in Hebrew.' + +At this point we are met by a further coincidence. The common +matter in the first three Gospels is divided into a triple +synopsis and a double synopsis--the first of course running +through all three Gospels, the second found only in St. Matthew +and St. Luke. But this double synopsis is nearly, though not +quite, confined to discourse; where it contains narration proper, +as in the account of John the Baptist and the Centurion of +Capernaum, discourse is largely mingled with it. But, if the +matter common to Matthew and Luke consists of discourse, may it +not be these very [Greek: logia] that Papias speaks of? Is it not +possible that the two Evangelists had access to the original work +of St. Matthew and incorporated its material into their own +Gospels in different ways? It would thus be easy to understand how +the name that belonged to a special and important part of the +first Gospel gradually came to be extended over the whole. Bulk +would not unnaturally be a great consideration with the early +Christians. The larger work would quickly displace the smaller; it +would contain all that the smaller contained with additions no +less valuable, and would therefore be eagerly sought by the +converts, whose object would be rather fulness of information than +the best historical attestation. The original work would be simply +lost, absorbed, in the larger works that grew out of it. + +This is the kind of presumption that we have for identifying the +Logia of Papias with the second ground document of the first +Gospel--the document, that is, which forms the basis of the double +synopsis between the first Gospel and the third. As a hypothesis +the identification of these two documents seems to clear up +several points. It gives a 'local habitation and a name' to a +document, the separate and independent existence of which there is +strong reason to suspect, and it explains how the name of St. +Matthew came to be placed at the head of the Gospel without +involving too great a breach in the continuity of the tradition. +It should be remembered that Papias is not giving his own +statement but that of the Presbyter John, which dates back to a +time contemporary with the composition of the Gospel. On the other +hand, by the time of Irenaeus, whose early life ran parallel with +the closing years of Papias, the title was undoubtedly given to +the Gospel in its present form. It is therefore as difficult to +think that the Gospel had no connection with the Apostle whose +name it bears, as it is impossible to regard it as entirely his +work. The Logia hypothesis seems to suggest precisely such an +intermediate relation as will satisfy both sides of the problem. + +There are, however, still difficulties in the way. When we attempt +to reconstruct the 'collection of discourses' the task is very far +from being an easy one. We do indeed find certain groups of +discourse in the first Gospel--such as the Sermon on the Mount ch. +v-vii, the commission of the Apostles ch. x, a series of parables +ch. xiii, of instructions in ch. xviii, invectives against the +Pharisees in ch. xxvi, and long eschatological discourses in ch. +xxiv and xxv, which seem at once to give a handle to the theory +that the Evangelist has incorporated a work consisting specially +of discourses into the main body of the Synoptic narrative. But +the appearance of roundness and completeness which these +discourses present is deceptive. If we are to suppose that the +form in which the discourses appear in St. Matthew at all nearly +represents their original structure, then how is it that the same +discourses are found in the third Gospel in such a state of +dispersion? How is it, for instance, that the parallel passages to +the Sermon on the Mount are found in St. Luke scattered over +chapters vi, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, with almost every possible +inversion and variety of order? Again, if the Matthaean sections +represent a substantive work, how are we to account for the +strange intrusion of the triple synopsis into the double? What are +we to say to the elaborately broken structure of ch. x? On the +other hand, if we are to take the Lucan form as nearer to the +original, that original must have been a singular agglomeration of +fragments which it is difficult to piece together. It is easy to +state a theory that shall look plausible so long as it is confined +to general terms, but when it comes to be worked out in detail it +will seem to be more and more difficult and involved at every +step. The Logia hypothesis in fact carries us at once into the +very nodus of Synoptic criticism, and, in the present state of the +question, must be regarded as still some way from being +established. + +The problem in regard to St. Mark and the triple synopsis is +considerably simpler. Here the difficulty arises from the +necessity of assuming a distinction between our present second +Gospel and the original document on which that Gospel is based. I +have already touched upon this point. The synoptical analysis +seems to conduct us to a ground document greatly resembling our +present St. Mark, which cannot however be quite identical with it, +as the Canonical Gospel is found to contain secondary features. +But apart from the fact that these secondary features are so +comparatively few that it is difficult to realise the existence of +a work in which they, and they only, should be absent, there is +this further obstacle to the identification even of the ground +document with the Mark of Papias, that even in that original shape +the Gospel still presented the normal type of the Synoptic order, +though 'order' is precisely the characteristic that Papias says +was, in this Gospel, wanting. + +Everywhere we meet with difficulties and complexities. The +testimony of Papias remains an enigma that can only be solved--if +ever it is solved--by close and detailed investigations. I am +bound in candour to say that, so far as I can see myself at +present, I am inclined to agree with the author of 'Supernatural +Religion' against his critics [Endnote 159:1], that the works to +which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in their +present form. + +What amount of significance this may have for the enquiry before +us is a further question. Papias is repeating what he had heard +from the Presbyter John, which would seem to take us up to the +very fountainhead of evangelical composition. But such a statement +does not preclude the possibility of subsequent changes in the +documents to which it refers. The difficulties and restrictions of +local communication must have made it hard for an individual to +trace all the phases of literary activity in a society so widely +spread as the Christian, even if it had come within the purpose of +the writer or his informant to state the whole, and not merely the +essential part, of what he knew. + + + + + +CHAPTER VI. + +THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. + + +It is unfortunate that there are not sufficient materials for +determining the date of the Clementine Homilies. Once given the +date and a conclusion of considerable certainty could be drawn +from them; but the date is uncertain, and with it the extent to +which they can be used as evidence either on one side or on the +other. + +Some time in the second century there sprang up a crop of +heretical writings in the Ebionite sect which were falsely +attributed to Clement of Rome. The two principal forms in which +these have come down to us are the so-called Homilies and +Recognitions. The Recognitions however are only extant in a Latin +translation by Rufinus, in which the quotations from the Gospels +have evidently been assimilated to the Canonical text which +Rufinus himself used. They are not, therefore, in any case +available for our purpose. Whether the Recognitions or the +Homilies came first in order of time is a question much debated +among critics, and the even way in which the best opinions seem to +be divided is a proof of the uncertainty of the data. On the one +side are ranged Credner, Ewald, Reuss, Schwegler, Schliemann, +Uhlhorn, Dorner, and Luecke, who assign the priority to the +Homilies: on the other, Hilgenfeld, Koestlin, Ritschl (doubtfully), +and Volkmar, who give the first place to the Recognitions [Endnote +162:1]. On the ground of authority perhaps the preference should +be given to the first of these, as representing more varied +parties and as carrying with them the greater weight of sound +judgment, but it is impossible to say that the evidence on either +side is decisive. + +The majority of critics assign the Clementines, in one form or the +other, to the middle of the second century. Credner, Schliemann, +Scholten, and Renan give this date to the Homilies; Volkmar and +Hilgenfeld to the Recognitions; Ritschl to both recensions alike +[Endnote 162:2]. We shall assume hypothetically that the Homilies +are rightly thus dated. I incline myself to think that this is +more probable, but, speaking objectively, the probability could +not have a higher value put upon it than, say, two in three. + +One reason for assigning the Homilies to the middle of the second +century is presented by the phenomena of the quotations from the +Gospels which correspond generally to those that are found in +writings of this date, and especially, as has been frequently +noticed, to those which we meet with in Justin. I proceed to give +a tabulated list of the quotations. In order to bring out a point +of importance I have indicated by a letter in the left margin the +presence in the Clementine quotations of some of the _peculiarities_ +of our present Gospels. When this letter is unbracketed, it denotes +that the passage is _only_ found in the Gospel so indicated; when +the letter is enclosed in brackets, it is implied that the passage +is synoptical, but that the Clementines reproduce expressions peculiar +to that particular Gospel. The direct quotations are marked by the +letter Q. Many of the references are merely allusive, and in more +it is sufficiently evident that the writer has allowed himself +considerable freedom [Endnote 163:1]. + + + _Exact._ |_Slightly variant._ | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ + | | | +(M.) | |8.21, Luke 4.6-8 |narrative. + | | (=Matt. 4.8-10), | + | | Q. | + | |3.55, [Greek: ho | + | | ponaeros estin | + | | ho peirazon.], | + | | Q. | + | |15.10, Matt. 5.3; | + | | Luke 6.20. | +M. |17.7, Matt. 5.8. | | +(M.) |3.51 } Matt. 5. | |repeated + |Ep. Pet. 2} 17,18. | | identically. + | |11.32, Matt. 5. |highly condensed + | | 21-48. | paraphrase, + | | | [Greek: oi + | | | en planae.] + | { Matt.5.44,| |allusive merely. + |12.32 { 45(=Luke | | + |3.19 {6.27, 28, | | + | {35). | | +M. |3.56, Matt. 5.34, | | + | 35, Q. | | +M. |3.55} Matt. 5.37. | |repeated identi- + |19.2} Q. | | cally; so + | | | Justin. +(M.) | |3.57. Matt. 5.45. | + | | Q. | + | | {|oblique and allu- + | |12.26 {| sive, repeated + | |18.2. {| in part simi- + | |11.12 {| larly; [Greek: + | | {| pherei ton + | | {| hueton]. +M. |3.55, Matt. 6,6, Q. | | +19.2, Matt.6.13 | | | + Q. | | | +(M.) |3.55, Matt. 6.32; | |combination. + | 6.8 (=Luke 12.30.)| | + | |18.16, Matt. 7.2 |oblique and allu- + | | (12). | sive. + |3.52, Matt. 7.7 | |[Greek: euris- + | (=Luke 11.9). | | kete] for + | | | [euraeskete] + | | | in both. +(L.M.) |3.56, Matt. 7.9-11 | |striking divi- + | (=Luke 11.11-13) | | sion of pecu- + | | | liarities of + | | | both Gospels. + | |12.32} Matt. 7.12 |repeated di- + | |7.4 } (=Luke | versely, + | |11.4 } 6.31. | allusive. +(M.) |18.17, Matt. 7. |(omissions), Q. | + | 13,14. | | + | |7.7. Matt. 7.13, |allusive para- + | | 14. | phrase. +(L.) |8.7, Luke 6.46. | | + |11.35, Matt. 7.15. | |Justin, in part + | | | similarly, in + | | | part diversely. +(M.) |8.4, Matt. 8.11, |(addition), Q. |Justin diversely. + | 12 (Luke 13.29). | | + |9.21, Matt. 8.9 | |allusive merely. + | (Luke 7.8). | | +(M.) |3.56, Matt. 9.13 |(addition), Q. |from LXX. + | (12.7). | | +(L.M.) | | {Matt. 10. |{ + | | { 13, 15= |{ + | | { Luke 10. |{ + | |13.30, { 5,6,10- |{mixed pecu- + | | 31. { 12 (9.5) |{ liarities, + | | { =Mark |{ oblique and + | | { 6.11. |{ allusive. +(L.M.) |17.5, Matt. 10.28 | |mixed peculia- + | (=Luke 12,4, 5), Q.| | rities; Justin + | | | diversely. + | |12.31, Matt. 10. |allusive merely. + | | 29, 30 (=Luke | + | | 12.6, 7). | + |3.17 {Matt. 11.11. | |allusive. + | {Luke 7.28. | | + |8.6, Matt. 11.25 |(addition)+. |perhaps from + | (=Luke x.21). | | Matt. 21.16. +(M.) | |17.4 } |{ + | |18.4 }Matt. 11.27 |{repeated simi- + | |18.7 } (=Luke |{ larly; cp. + | |18.13} 10.22), Q.|{ Justin, &c. + | |18.20} | +M. 3.52, Matt. | | | +(M.) |+19.2. Matt. 12. | |[Greek: allae + | 26, Q. | | pou.] +(M.L.) |+19.7, Matt. 12. | | + | 34 (=Luke 6. | | + | 45), Q. | | +M.11.33, Matt. |(addition), Q. | | + 12.42. | | | + |11.33, Matt. 12. | | + | 41 (=Luke 11. | | + | 32), Q. | | +(M.L.) |M.53, Matt. 13. | | + | 16 (=Luke 10. | | + | 24), +Q. | | +M.18.15, Matt. | | | + 13.35+. | | | +Mk. |19.20, Mark 4.34. | | +M. |19.2, Matt. 13. | | + |39, Q. | | +M.3.52, Matt. 15.| | | + 15 (om. [Greek:| | | + mou]), Q. | | | + | | {Matt. 15. |narrative. + | |11.19 {21-28 | + | | {(=Mark |[Greek: Iousta + | | {7.24-30). | Surophoini- + | | | kissa.] +(M.) |17.18, Matt. 16. | | + | 16 (par.) | | +M. | |Ep. Clem. 2, |allusive merely. + | | Matt. 16.19. | +M. |Ep. Clem. 6, Matt. | |ditto. + | 16.19. | | +(M.) |3.53, Matt. 17.5 | | + | (par.), Q. | | +M. | |12.29, Matt. 18. |addition [Greek: + | | 7, Q. | ta agatha + | | | elthein.] +M. |17.7, Matt. 18.10 | | + | (v.l.) | | +(L.) 3.71, Luke | | | + 10.7. (order) | | | + (=Matt.10.10). | | | +L. |+19.2, Luke 10.18. | | +L. | |9.22, Luke 10.20. |allusive merely. +L. | |17.5, Luke 18.6- | + | | 8, Q. (?) | + | |19.2, [Greek: mae |Cp. Eph. 4.27. + | | dote prophasin | + | | to ponaero], Q. | + | |3.53, Prophet like|Cp. Acts 3.22. + | | Moses, Q. | +(M.) |3.54, Matt. 19.8, | |sense more diver- + | 4 (=Mark 10.5, | | gent than + | 6), Q. | | words. + | | {Matt. 19. |} + | |17.4 { 16,17. |} + | |18.1 {Mark 10. |}repeated simi- + | |18.3 { 17,18. |} larly; cp. + | |18.17 {Luke 18. |} Justin. + | | 3.57 { 18,19. |} +L. | |3.63, Luke 19. |not quotation. + | | 5.9. | +M.8.4, Matt. 22. | | | + 14, Q. | | | +(M.) | |8.22, Matt. 22.9. |allusive merely. + | | 11. | + | | 3.50 {Matt. 22. |} + | | 2.51 {29 (=Mark |}repeated simi- + | |18.20 {12.24), Q. |} larly. + | | 3.50, [Greek: | + | | dia ti ou | + | | eulogon ton | + | | graphon;] | +(Mk.) 3.55, Mark | | | + 12.27 (par.), | | | +Mk. 3.57, Mark | | | + 12.29 [Greek: | | | + haemon], Q. | | | + | |17.7, Mark 12.30 |allusive. + | | (=Matt. 22.37). | + {|3.18, Matt. 23.2, | | +M. {| 3, Q. | | + {| |3.18, Matt. 23.13 |repeated simi- + {| | (=Luke 11.52). | larly. + | |18.15. | +(M.) |11.29, Matt. 23. | | + | 25, 26, Q. | | +(Mk.) {|3.15, Mark 13.2 | | + {|(par.), Q. | | + {| |3.15, Matt. 24.3 | + {| | (par.), Q. | +L. {| |Luke 19.43, Q. | + | |16.21, [Greek: | + | | esontai pseud- | + | | apostoloi]. | +(M.) |3.60 (3.64), Matt. | |part repeated + | 24.45-51 (= | | larly. + | Luke 12.42-46). | | +(M.) 3.65, Matt. | | | + 25.21 (= Luke | | | + 19.17). | | | +(M. L.) | |3.61, Matt. 25.26,|? mixed peculi- + | | 26,27 (=Luke 19.| arities. + | | 22,23). | + | | 2.51}[Greek: | + | | 3.50} ginesthe | + | |18.20} trapezitai | + | | } dokimoi.] | +M. | |19.2. Matt. 25. |[Greek: allae + | | 41, Q. | pou.] Justin + | | | +L. |11.20, Luke 23.34 | | + | (v.l.), Q. | | + | |17.7, Matt. 28.19.|allusive. + +By far the greater part of the quotations in the Clementine +Homilies are taken from the discourses, but some few have +reference to the narrative. There can hardly be said to be any +material difference from our Gospels, though several apocryphal +sayings and some apocryphal details are added. Thus the Clementine +writer calls John a 'Hemerobaptist,' i.e. member of a sect which +practised daily baptism [Endnote 167:1]. He talks about a rumour +which became current in the reign of Tiberius about the 'vernal +equinox,' that at the same season a king should arise in Judaea +who should work miracles, making the blind to see, the lame to +walk, healing every disease, including leprosy, and raising the +dead; in the incident of the Canaanite woman (whom, with Mark, he +calls a Syrophoenician) he adds her name, 'Justa,' and that of her +daughter 'Bernice;' he also limits the ministry of our Lord to one +year [Endnote 168:1]. Otherwise, with the exception of the sayings +marked as without parallel, all of the Clementine quotations have +a more or less close resemblance to our Gospels. + +We are struck at once by the small amount of exact coincidence, +which is considerably less than that which is found in the +quotations from the Old Testament. The proportion seems lower than +it is, because many of the passages that have been entered in the +above list do not profess to be quotations. Another phenomenon +equally remarkable is the extent to which the writer of the +Homilies has reproduced the peculiarities of particular extant +Gospels. So far front being it a colourless text, as it is in some +few places which present a parallel to our Synoptic Gospels, the +Clementine version both frequently includes passages that are +found only in some one of the canonical Gospels, and also, we may +say usually, repeats the characteristic phrases by which one +Gospel is distinguished from another. Thus we find that as many as +eighteen passages reappear in the Homilies that are found only in +St. Matthew; one of the extremely few that are found only in St. +Mark; and six of those that are peculiar to St. Luke. Taking the +first Gospel, we find that the Clementine Homilies contain (in an +allusive form) the promises to the pure in heart; as a quotation, +with close resemblance, the peculiar precepts in regard to oaths; +the special admonition to moderation of language which, as we have +seen, seems proved to be Matthaean by the clause [Greek: to gar +perisson touton k.t.l.]; with close resemblance, again, the +directions for secret prayer; identically, the somewhat remarkable +phrase, [Greek: deute pros me pantes hoi kopiontes]; all but +identically another phrase, also noteworthy, [Greek: pasa phuteia +haen ouk ephuteusen ho pataer [mou] ho ouranios ekrizothaesetai]; +with a resemblance that is closer in the text of B ([Greek: en to +ourano] for [Greek: en ouranois]), the saying respecting the +angels who behold the face of the Father; identically again, the +text [Greek: polloi klaetoi, oligoi de eklektoi]: in the shape of +an allusion only, the wedding garment; with near agreement, 'the +Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.' All these are passages +found only in the first Gospel, and in regard to which there is +just so much presumption that they had no large circulation among +non-extant Gospels, as they did not find their way into the two +other Gospels that have come down to us. + +There is, however, a passage that I have not mentioned here which +contains (if the canonical reading is correct) a strong indication +of the use of our actual St. Matthew. The whole history of this +passage is highly curious. In the chapter which contains so many +parables the Evangelist adds, by way of comment, that this form of +address was adopted in order 'that it might be fulfilled which was +spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I +will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation +of the world.' This is according to the received text, which +attributes the quotation to 'the prophet' ([Greek: dia tou +prophaetou]). It is really taken from Ps. lxxvii. 2, which is +ascribed in the heading to Asaph, who, according to the usage of +writers at this date, might be called a prophet, as he is in the +Septuagint version of 2 Chron. xxix. 30. The phrase [Greek: ho +prophaetaes legei] in quotations from the Psalms is not uncommon. +The received reading is that of by far the majority of the MSS. +and versions: the first hand of the Sinaitic, however, and the +valuable cursives 1 and 33 with the Aethiopic (a version on which +not much reliance can be placed) and m. of the Old Latin (Mai's +'Speculum,' presenting a mixed African text) [Endnote 170:1], +insert [Greek: Haesaiou] before [Greek: tou prophaetou]. It also +appears that Porphyry alleged this as an instance of false +ascription. Eusebius admits that it was found in some, though not +in the most accurate MSS., and Jerome says that in his day it was +still the reading of 'many.' + +All this is very fully and fairly stated in 'Supernatural +Religion' [Endnote 170:2], where it is maintained that [Greek: +Haesaiou] is the original reading. The critical question is one of +great difficulty; because, though the evidence of the Fathers is +naturally suspected on account of their desire to explain away the +mistake, and though we can easily imagine that the correction +would be made very early and would rapidly gain ground, still the +very great preponderance of critical authority is hard to get +over, and as a rule Eusebius seems to be trustworthy in his +estimate of MSS. Tischendorf (in his texts of 1864 and 1869) is, I +believe, the only critic of late who has admitted [Greek: +Haesaiou] into the text. + +The false ascription may be easily paralleled; as in Mark i. 2, +Matt. xxvii. 9, Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 28 (where a passage of +Jeremiah is quoted as Isaiah), &c. + +The relation of the Clementine and of the canonical quotations to +each other and to the Septuagint will be represented thus:- + +_Clem. Hom._ xviii. 15. + +[Greek: Kai ton Haesaian eipein; Anoixo to stoma mou en parabolais +kai exereuxomai kekrummena apo katabolaes kosmou.] + +_Matt._ xiii. 35. + +[Greek: Hopos plaerothe to rhaethen dia [Haesaiou?] tou prophaetou +legontos; Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, ereuxomai kekrummena +apo katabolaes kosmou] [om. [Greek: kosmou] a few of the best +MSS.] + +LXX. _Ps._ lxxvii. 2. + +[Greek: Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, phthegxomai problaemata +ap' archaes.] + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' contends for the reading +[Greek: Haesaiou], and yet does not see in the Clementine passage +a quotation from St. Matthew. He argues, with a strange domination +by modern ideas, that the quotation cannot be from St. Matthew +because of the difference of context, and declares it to be 'very +probable that the passage with its erroneous reference was derived +by both from another and common source.' Surely it is not +necessary to go back to the second century to find parallels for +the use of 'proof texts' without reference to the context; but, as +we have seen, context counts for little or nothing in these early +quotations,--verbal resemblance is much more important. The +supposition of a common earlier source for both the Canonical and +the Clementine text seems to me quite out of the question. There +can be little doubt that the reference to the Psalm is due to the +first Evangelist himself. Precisely up to this point he goes hand +in hand with St. Mark, and the quotation is introduced in his own +peculiar style and with his own peculiar formula, [Greek: hopos +plaerothae to rhaethen]. + +I must, however, again repeat that the surest criterion of the use +of a Gospel is to be sought in the presence of phrases or turns of +expression which are shown to be characteristic and distinctive of +that Gospel by a comparison with the synopsis of the other +Gospels. This criterion can be abundantly applied in the case of +the Clementine Homilies and St. Matthew. I will notice a little +more at length some of the instances that have been marked in the +above table. Let us first take the passage which has a parallel in +Matt. v. 18 and in Luke xvi. 17. The three versions will stand +thus:-- + +_Matt._ v. 18. + +[Greek: Amaen gar lego humin; heos an parelthae ho ouranos kai hae +gae iota en ae mia keraia ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou, heos an +panta genaetai.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 51. +_Ep. Pet._ c. 2. + +[Greek: Ho ouranos kai hae gae pareleusontai, iota en ae mia keraia +ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou] [Ep. Pet. adds [Greek: touto de +eiraeken, hina ta panta genaetai]]. + +_Luke_ xvi. 17. + +[Greek: Eukopoteron de esti, ton ouranon kai taen gaen parelthein, +ae tou nomou mian keraian pesein.] + +It will be seen that in the Clementines the passage is quoted +twice over, and each time with the variation [Greek pareleusontai] +for [Greek: heos an parelthae]. The author of 'Supernatural +Religion' argues from this that he is quoting from another Gospel +[Endnote 172:1]. No doubt the fact does tell, so far as it goes, +in that direction, but it is easy to attach too much weight to it. +The phenomenon of repeated variation may be even said to be a +common one in some writers. Dr. Westcott [Endnote 172:2] has +adduced examples from Chrysostom, and they would be as easy to +find in Epiphanius or Clement of Alexandria, where we can have no +doubt that the canonical Gospels are being quoted. A slight and +natural turn of expression such as this easily fixes itself in the +memory. The author also insists that the passage in the Gospel +quoted in the Clementines ended with the word [Green: nomou]; but +I think it may be left to any impartial person to say whether the +addition in the Epistle of Peter does not naturally point to a +termination such as is found in the first canonical Gospel. Our +critic seems unable to free himself from the standpoint (which he +represents ably enough) of the modern Englishman, or else is +little familiar with the fantastic trains and connections of +reasoning which are characteristic of the Clementines. + +Turning from these objections and comparing the Clementine +quotation first with the text of St. Matthew and then with that of +St. Luke, we cannot but be struck with its very close resemblance +to the former and with the wide divergence of the latter. The +passage is one where almost every word and syllable might easily +and naturally be altered--as the third Gospel shows that they have +been altered--and yet in the Clementines almost every peculiarity +of the Matthaean version has been retained. + +Another quotation which shows the delicacy of these verbal +relations is that which corresponds to Matt. vi. 32 (= Luke xii. +30):-- + +_Matt._ vi. 32. + +[Greek: Oide gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios, hoti chraezete +touton hapanton.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 55. + +[Greek: [ephae] Oiden gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios hoti +chraezete touton hapanton, prin auton axiosaete] (cp. Matt. vi. +8). + +_Luke_ xii. 30. + +[Greek: Humon de ho pataer oiden hoti chraezete touton.] + +The natural inference from the exactness of this coincidence with +the language of Matthew as compared with Luke, is not neutralised +by the paraphrastic addition from Matt. vi. 8, because such +additions and combinations, as will have been seen from our table +of quotations from the Old Testament, are of frequent occurrence. + +The quotation of Matt. v. 45 (= Luke vi. 35) is a good example of +the way in which the pseudo-Clement deals with quotations. The +passage is quoted as often as four times, with wide difference and +indeed complete confusion of text. It is impossible to determine +what text he really had before him; but through all this confusion +there is traceable a leaning to the Matthaean type rather than the +Lucan, ([Greek: [ho] pat[aer ho] en [tois] ouranois ... ton aelion +autou anatellei epi agathous kai ponaerous]). It does, however, +appear that he had some such phrase as [Greek: hueton pherei] or +[Greek: parechei] for [Greek: brechei], and in one of his quotations +he has the [Greek: ginesthe agathoi] (for [Greek: chraestoi]) +[Greek: kai oiktirmones] of Justin. Justin, on the other hand, +certainly had [Greek: brechei]. + +The, in any case, paraphrastic quotation or quotations which find +a parallel in Matt. vii. 13, 14 and Luke xiii. 24 are important as +seeming to indicate that, if not taken from our Gospel, they are +taken from another in a later stage of formation. The characteristic +Matthaean expressions [Greek: stenae] and [Greek: tethlimmenae] are +retained, but the distinction between [Greek: pulae] and [Greek: hodos] +has been lost, and both the epithets are applied indiscriminately to +[Greek: hodos]. + +In the narrative of the confession of Peter, which belongs to the +triple synopsis, and is assigned by Ewald to the 'Collection of +Discourses,' [Endnote 174:1] by Weiss [Endnote 174:2] and +Holtzmann [Endnote 175:1] to the original Gospel of St. Mark, the +Clementine writer follows Matthew alone in the phrase [Greek: Su +ei ho huios tou zontos Theou]. The synoptic parallels are-- + +_Matt._ xvi. 16. + +[Greek: Su ei ho Christos, ho huios tou Theou tou zontos.] + +_Mark_ viii. 29. + +[Greek: Su ei ho Christos.] + +_Luke_ ix. 20. + +[Greek: ton Christon tou Theou.] + +Holtzmann and Weiss seem to agree (the one explicitly, the other +implicitly) in taking the words [Greek: ho huios tou Theou tou +zontos] as an addition by the first Evangelist and as not a part +of the text of the original document. In that case there would be +the strongest reason to think that the pseudo-Clement had made use +of the canonical Gospel. Ewald, however, we may infer, from his +assigning the passage to the 'Collection of Discourses,' regards +it as presented by St. Matthew most nearly in its original form, +of which the other two synoptic versions would be abbreviations. +If this were so, it would then be _possible_ that the Clementine +quotation was made directly from the original document or from a +secondary document parallel to our first Gospel. The question that +is opened out as to the composition of the Synoptics is one of great +difficulty and complexity. In any case there is a balance of probability, +more or less decided, in favour of the reference to our present Gospel. + +Another very similar instance occurs in the next section of the +synoptic narrative, the Transfiguration. Here again the Clementine +Homilies insert a phrase which is only found in St. Matthew, +[Greek: [Houtos estin mou ho huios ho agapaetos], eis hon] +([Greek: en ho] Matt.) [Greek: aeudokaesa]. Ewald and Holtzmann +say nothing about the origin of this phrase; Weiss [Endnote 176:1] +thinks it is probably due to the first Evangelist. In that case +there would be an all but conclusive proof--in any case there will +be a presumption--that our first Gospel has been followed. + +But one of the most interesting, as well as the clearest, +indications of the use of the first Synoptic is derived from the +discourse directed against the Pharisees. It will be well to give +the parallel passages in full:-- + +_Matt._ xxiii. 25, 26. + +[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti +katharizete to exothen tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, esothen +de gemousin ex harpagaes kai adikias. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison +proton to entos tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, hina genaetai +kai to ektos auton katharon.] + +_Clem. Hom._ xi. 29. + +[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti +katharizete tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to exothen, esothen +de gemei rhupous. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison proton tou +potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to esothen, hina genaetai kai ta exo +auton kathara.] + +_Luke_ xi. 39. + +[Greek: Nun humeis hoi Pharisaioi to exothen tou potaerion kai tou +pinakos katharizete, to de esothen humon gemei harpagaes kai +ponaerias. Aphrones ouch ho poiaesas to exothen kai to esothen +epoiaese?] + +Here there is a very remarkable transition in the first Gospel +from the plural to the singular in the sudden turn of the address, +[Greek: Pharisaie tuphle]. This derives no countenance from the +third Gospel, but is exactly reproduced in the Clementine +Homilies, which follow closely the Matthaean version throughout. + +We may defer for the present the notice of a few passages which +with a more or less close resemblance to St. Matthew also contain +some of the peculiarities of St. Luke. + +Taking into account the whole extent to which the special +peculiarities of the first Gospel reappear in the Clementines, I +think we shall be left in little doubt that that Gospel has been +actually used by the writer. + +The peculiar features of our present St. Mark are known to be +extremely few, yet several of these are also found in the +Clementine Homilies. In the quotation Mark x. 5, 6 (= Matt. xix. +8, 4) the order of Mark is followed, though the words are more +nearly those of Matthew. In the divergent quotation Mark xii. 24 +(= Matt. xxii. 29) the Clementines, with Mark, introduce [Greek: +dia touto]. The concluding clause of the discussion about the +Levirate marriage stands (according to the best readings) thus:-- + +_Matt._ xxii. 32. + +[Greek: Ouk estin ho Theos nekron, alla zonton.] + +_Mark_ xii. 27. + +[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton.] + +_Luke_ xx. 38. + +[Greek: Theos de ouk estin nekron, alla zonton.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 55. + +[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton.] + +Here [Greek: Theos] is in Mark and the Clementines a predicate, +in Matthew the subject. In the introduction to the Eschatological +discourse the Clementines approach more nearly to St. Mark than to +any other Gospel: [Greek: Horate] ([Greek: blepeis], Mark) [Greek: +tas] ([Greek: megalas], Mark) [Greek: oikodomas tautas; amaen +humin lego] (as Matt.) [Greek: lithos epi lithon ou mae aphethae +ode, hos ou mae] (as Mark) [Greek: kathairethae] ([Greek: +kataluthae], Mark; other Gospels, future). Instead of [Greek: tas +oikodomas toutas] the other Gospels have [Greek: tauta--tauta +panta]. + +But there are two stronger cases than these. The Clementines and +Mark alone have the opening clause of the quotation from Deut. vi. +4, [Greek: Akoue, Israael, Kurios ho Theos haemon kurios eis +estin]. In the synopsis of the first Gospel this is omitted (Matt. +xxii. 37). There is a variation in the Clementine text, which for +[Greek: haemon] has, according to Dressel, [Greek: sou], and, +according to Cotelier, [Greek: humon]. Both these readings however +are represented among the authorities for the canonical text: +[Greek: sou] is found in c (Codex Colbertinus, one of the best +copies of the Old Latin), in the Memphitic and Aethiopic versions, +and in the Latin Fathers Cyprian and Hilary; [Greek: humon] +(vester) has the authority of the Viennese fragment i, another +representative of the primitive African form of the Old Latin +[Endnote 178:1]. + +The objection to the inference that the quotation is made from St. +Mark, derived from the context in which it appears in the +Clementines, is really quite nugatory. It is true that the +quotation is addressed to those 'who were beguiled to imagine many +gods,' and that 'there is no hint of the assertion of many gods in +the Gospel' [Endnote 178:2]; but just as little hint is there of +the assertion 'that God is evil' in the quotation [Greek: mae me +legete agathon] just before. There is not the slightest reason to +suppose that the Gospel from which the Clementines quote would +contain any such assertion. In this particular case the mode of +quotation cannot be said to be very unscrupulous; but even if it +were more so we need not go back to antiquity for parallels: they +are to be found in abundance in any ordinary collection of proof +texts of the Church Catechism or of the Thirty-nine Articles, or +in most works of popular controversy. I must confess to my +surprise that such an objection could be made by an experienced +critic. + +Credner [Endnote 179:1] gives the last as the one decided +approximation to our second Gospel, apparently overlooking the +minor points mentioned above; but, at the time when he wrote, the +concluding portion of the Homilies, which contains the other most +striking instance, had not yet been published. With regard to this +second instance, I must express my agreement with Canon Westcott +[Endnote 179:2] against the author of 'Supernatural Religion.' The +passage stands thus in the Clementines and the Gospel:-- + +_Clem. Hom._ xix. 20. + +[Greek: Dio kai tois autou mathaetais kat' idian epelue taes ton +ouranon basileias ta mustaeria.] + +_Mark_ iv. 34. + +... [Greek: kat' idian de tois mathaetais autou epeluen panta] +(compare iv. 11, [Greek: humin to mustaerion dedotai taes +basileias tou Theou]). + + The canonical reading, [Greek: tois mathaetais autou], rests +chiefly upon Western authority (D, b, c, e, f, Vulg.) with A, 1, +33, &c. and is adopted by Tregelles--it should be noted before the +discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus. The true reading is probably +that which appears in this MS. along with B, C, L, [Greek: Delta +symbol], [Greek: tois idiois mathaetais]. We have however already +seen the leaning of the Clementines for Western readings. + +When we compare the synopsis of St. Mark and St. Matthew together +we should be inclined to set this down as a very decided instance +of quotation from the former. The only circumstance that detracts +from the certainty of this conclusion is that a quotation had been +made just before which is certainly not from our canonical +Gospels, [Greek: ta mustaeria emoi kai tois huiois tou oikou mou +phulaxate]. This is rightly noted in 'Supernatural Religion.' All +that we can say is that it is a drawback--it is just a makeweight +in the opposite scale, as suggesting that the second quotation may +be also from an apocryphal Gospel; but it does not by any means +serve to counterbalance the presumption that the quotation is +canonical. The coincidence of language is very marked. The +peculiar compound [Greek: epiluo] occurs only once besides +([Greek: epilusis] also once) in the whole of the New Testament, +and not at all in the Gospels. + +With the third Gospel also there are coincidences. Of the passages +peculiar to this Gospel the Clementine writer has the fall of +Satan ([Greek: ton ponaeron], Clem.) like lightning from heaven, +'rejoice that your names are written in the book of life' +(expanded with evident freedom), the unjust judge, Zacchaeus, the +circumvallation of Jerusalem, and the prayer, for the forgiveness +of the Jews, upon the cross. It is unlikely that these passages, +which are wanting in all our extant Gospels, should have had any +other source than our third Synoptic. The 'circumvallation' +([Greek: pericharakosousin] Clem., [Greek: peribalousin charaka] +Luke) is especially important, as it is probable, and believed by +many critics, that this particular detail was added by the +Evangelist after the event. The parable of the unjust judge, +though reproduced with something of the freedom to which we are +accustomed in patristic narrative quotations both from the Old and +New Testament, has yet remarkable similarities of style and +diction ([Greek: ho kritaes taes adikias, poiaesei taen ekdikaesin +ton boonton pros auton haemeras kai nuktos, Lego humin, poaesei... +en tachei).] + +We have to add to these another class of peculiarities which occur +in places where the synoptic parallel has been preserved. Thus in +the Sermon on the Mount we find the following:-- + +_Matt._ vii. 21. + +[Greek: Ou pas ho legon moi, Kurie, Kurie, eiseleusetai eis taen +basileian ton ouranon, all' ho poion to thelaema tou patros mou +tou en ouranois] + +_Clem. Hom._ viii. 7. + +[Greek: Ti me legeis Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poieis a lego;] + +_Luke,_ vi. 46. + +[Greek: Ti de me kaleite Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poeite a lego;] + +This is one of a class of passages which form the _cruces_ +of Synoptic criticism. It is almost equally difficult to think and +not to think that both the canonical parallels are drawn from the +same original. The great majority of German critics maintain that +they are, and most of these would seek that original in the +'Spruchsammlung' or 'Collection of Discourses' by the Apostle St. +Matthew. This is usually (though not quite unanimously) held to +have been preserved most intact in the first Gospel. But if so, +the Lucan version represents a wide deviation from the original, +and precisely in proportion to the extent of that deviation is the +probability that the Clementine quotation is based upon it. The +more the individuality of the Evangelist has entered into the form +given to the saying the stronger is the presumption that his work +lay before the writer of the Clementines. In any case the +difference between the Matthaean and Lucan versions shows what +various shapes the synoptic tradition naturally assumed, and makes +it so much the less likely that the coincidence between St. Luke +and the Clementines is merely accidental. + +Another similar case, in which the issue is presented very +clearly, is afforded by the quotation, 'The labourer is worthy of +his hire.' + +_Matt._ x. 11. + +[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes taes trophaes autou estin.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 71. + +[Greek: [lagisamenoi hoti] axios estin ho ergataes tou misthou +autou;] + +_Luke_ x. 7. + +[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes tou misthou autou esti.] + +Here, if the Clementine writer had been following the first +Gospel, he would have had [Greek: trophaes] and not [Greek: +misthou]; and the assumption that there was here a non-extant +Gospel coincident with St. Luke is entirely gratuitous and, to an +extent, improbable. + +Besides these, it will be seen, by the tables given above, that +there are as many as eight passages in which the peculiarities not +only of one but of both Gospels (the first and third) appear +simultaneously. Perhaps it may be well to give examples of these +before we make any comment upon them. We may thus take-- + +_Matt._ vii. 9-11. + +[Greek: Ae tis estin ex humon anthropos, hon ean aitaesae ho huios +autou arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; kai ean ichthun aitaesae +mae ophin epidosei auto; ei oun humeis ponaeroi ontes oidate +domata agatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer +humon ho en tois ouranois dosei agatha tois aitousin auton;] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 56. + +[Greek: Tina aitaesei huios arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; ae +kai ichthun aitaesei, mae ophin epidosei auto; ei oun humeis, +ponaeroi ontes, oidate domata agatha didonai tois teknois humon, +poso mallon ho pataer humon ho ouranios dosei agatha tois +aitoumenois auton kai tois poiousin to thelema autou;] + +_Luke_ xi. 11-13. + +[Greek: Tina de ex humon ton matera aitaesei ho huios arton, mae +lithon epidosei auto; ae kai ichthun, mae anti ichthuos ophin +epidosei auto, ae kai ean aitaeoae oon, mae epidosei auto +skorpion; ei oun humeis, ponaeroi humarchontes, oidate domata +agatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer ho ex +ouranou dosei pneuma hagion tois aitousin auton;] + +In the earlier part of this quotation the Clementine writer seems +to follow the third Gospel ([Greek: tina aitaesei, hae kai]); in +the later part the first (omission of the antithesis between the +egg and the scorpion, [Greek: ontes, dosei agatha]). The two +Gospels are combined against the Clementines in [Greek: hex humon] +and the simpler [Greek: tois aitousin auton]. The second example +shall be-- + +_Matt._ x. 28. + +[Greek: Kai mae thobeisthe hapo ton aposteinonton to soma, taen de +psuchaen mae dunamenon aposteinan thobeisthe de mallon ton +dunamaenon kai psuchaen kai soma apolesai en geennae.] + +_Clem. Hom._ xviii. 5. + +[Greek: Mae phobaethaete apo tou aposteinontos to soma tae de +psuchae mae dunamenou ti poiaesai phobaethaete tou dunamenon kai +soma kai psuchaen eis taen geennan tou puros balein. Nai, lego +humin, touton phobaethaete.] + +_Luke xii._ 4, 5. [Greek: Mae phobaethaete apo ton +aposteinonton to soma kai meta tauta mae echonton perissoteron ti +poiaesai. Hupodeixo de humin tina phobaethaete phobaethaete ton +meta to aposteinai echonta exousian embalein eis ton geennan nai, +lego humin, touton phobaethaete.] + +In common with Matthew the Clementines have [Greek: tae de +psuchae] (acc. Matt.) ... [Greek: dunamenon]([Greek: -on] Matt.), +and [Greek: dunamenon kai soma kai psuchaen] (in inverted order, +Matt.); in common with Luke [Greek: mae phobaethaete, ti poiaesai, +[em]balein eis], and the clause [Greek: nai k.t.l.] The two +Gospels agree against the Clementines in the plural [Greek: ton +aposteinonton.] + +One more longer quotation:-- + +_Matt._ xxiv. 45-51. + +[Greek: Tis ara estin ho pistos doulos kai phronimos, hon +katestaesen ho kurios autou epi taes therapeias autou tou dounai +autois taen trophaen en kairo? makarios ho doulos ekeinos hon +elthon ho kurios autou heuraesei houto poiounta ... Ean de eipae +ho kakos doulos ekeinos en tae kardia autou; chronizei mou ho +kurios, kai arxaetai tuptein tous sundoulous autou esthiae de kai +pinae meta ton methuonton, haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou en +haemera hae ou prosdoka kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kai +dichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton hupokriton +thaesei.] + +_Clem. Hom._ iii. 60. + +[Greek: Theou gar boulae anadeiknutai makarios ho anthropos +ekeinos hon katastaesei ho kurios autou epi taes therapeias ton +sundoulon hautou, tou didonai autois tas trophas en kairo auton, +mae ennooumenon kai legonta en tae kardia autou; chronizei ho +kurios mou elthein; kai arxaetai tuptein tous sundoulous autou, +esthion kai pinon meta te pornon kai methuonton; kai haexei ho +kurios tou doulou ekeinou en hora hae ou prosdoka kai en haemera +hae ou ginoskei, kai dichotomaesei auton, kai to apistoun autou +meros meta ton hupokriton thaesei.] + +_Luke_ xii. 42-45. + +[Greek: Tis ara estin ho pistos oikonomos kai phronimos, hon +katastaesei ho kurios epi taes therapeias autou, tou didonai en +kairo to sitometrion? makarios ho doulos ekeinos, hon elthon ho +kurios autou heuraesei poiounta hautos ... Ean de eipae ho doulos +ekeinos en tae kardia autou; chronizei ho kurios mou erchesthai; +kai arxaetai tuptein tous paidas kai tas paidiskas, esthiein te +kai pinein kai methuskesthai; haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou +en haemera hae ou prosdoka, kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kai +dichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton apiston thaesei.] + +I have given this passage in full, in spite of its length, +because it is interesting and characteristic; it might indeed +almost be said to be typical of the passages, not only in the +Clementine Homilies, but also in other writers like Justin, which +present this relation of double similarity to two of the +Synoptics. It should be noticed that the passage in the Homilies +is not introduced strictly as a quotation but is interwoven with +the text. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that the +opening clause, [Greek: Makarios ... sundolous autou], recurs +identically about thirty lines lower down. We observe that of the +peculiarities of the first Synoptic the Clementines have [Greek: +doulos] ([Greek: oikonomos], Luke), [Greek: [ho kurios] autou, +taen trophaen] ([Greek: tas trophas], Clem.; Luke, characteristically, +[Greek: to sitometrion]), the order of [Greek: en kairo, tous +sundolous autou] ([Greek: tous paidas kai tas paidiskas], Luke), +[Greek: meta ... methuonton], and [Greek: hupokriton] for +[Greek: apiston]. Of the peculiarities of the third Synoptic +the Clementines reproduce the future [Greek: katastaesei], the +present [Greek: didonai], the insertion of [Greek: elthein] +([Greek: erchesthai], Luke) after [Greek: chronizei], the order +of the words in this clause, and a trace of the word [Greek: apiston] +in [Greek: to apistoun autou meros]. The two Gospels support each +other in most of the places where the Clementines depart from them, +and especially in the two verses, one of which is paraphrased and +the other omitted. + +Now the question arises, What is the origin of this phenomenon of +double resemblance? It may be caused in three ways: either it may +proceed from alternate quoting of our two present Gospels; or it +may proceed from the quoting of a later harmony of those Gospels; +or, lastly, it may proceed from the quotation of a document +earlier than our two Synoptics, and containing both classes of +peculiarities, those which have been dropped in the first Gospel +as well as those which have been dropped in the third, as we find +to be frequently the case with St. Mark. + +Either of the first two of these hypotheses will clearly suit the +phenomena; but they will hardly admit of the third. It does indeed +derive a very slight countenance from the repetition of the +language of the last quotation: this repetition, however, occurs +at too short an interval to be of importance. But the theory that +the Clementine writer is quoting from a document older than the +two Synoptics, and indeed their common original, is excluded by +the amount of matter that is common to the two Synoptics and +either not found at all or found variantly in the Clementines. The +coincidence between the Synoptics, we may assume, is derived from +the fact that they both drew from a common original. The +phraseology in which they agree is in all probability that of the +original document itself. If therefore this phraseology is wanting +in the Clementine quotations they are not likely to have been +drawn directly from the document which underlies the Synoptics. +This conclusion too is confirmed by particulars. In the first +quotation we cannot set down quite positively the Clementine +expansion of [Greek: tois aitousin auton] as a later form, though +it most probably is so. But the strange and fantastic phrase in +the last quotation, [Greek: to apistoun auton meros meta ton +hupokriton thaesei], is almost certainly a combination of the +[Greek: hupokriton] of Matthew with a distorted reminiscence of the +[Greek: apiston] of Luke. + +We have then the same kind of choice set before us as in the case +of Justin. Either the Clementine writer quotes our present +Gospels, or else he quotes some other composition later than them, +and which implies them. In other words, if he does not bear +witness to our Gospels at first hand, he does so at second hand, +and by the interposition of a further intermediate stage. It is +quite possible that he may have had access to such a tertiary +document, and that it may be the same which is the source of his +apocryphal quotations: that he did draw from apocryphal sources, +partly perhaps oral, but probably in the main written, there can, +I think, be little doubt. Neither is it easy to draw the line and +say exactly what quotations shall be referred to such sources and +what shall not. The facts do not permit us to claim the exclusive +use of the canonical Gospels. But that they were used, mediately +or immediately and to a greater or less degree, is, I believe, +beyond question. + + + + + +CHAPTER VII + +BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS. + + +Still following the order of 'Supernatural Religion,' we pass +with the critic to another group of heretical writers in the +earlier part of the second century. In Basilides the Gnostic we +have the first of a chain of writers who, though not holding the +orthodox tradition of doctrine, yet called themselves Christians +(except under the stress of persecution) and used the Christian +books--whether or to what extent the extant documents of +Christianity we must now endeavour to determine. + +Basilides carries us back to an early date in point of time. He +taught at Alexandria in the reign of Hadrian (117-137 A.D.). +Hippolytus expounds at some length, and very much in their own +words, the doctrines of Basilides and his school. There is a +somewhat similar account by Epiphanius, and more incidental +allusions in Clement of Alexandria and Origen. + +The notices that have come down to us of the writings of Basilides +are confusing. Origen says that 'he had the effrontery to compose +a Gospel and call it by his own name' [Endnote 188:1]. Eusebius +quotes from Agrippa Castor, a contemporary and opponent from the +orthodox side, a statement that 'he wrote four and twenty books +(presumably of commentary) upon the Gospel' [Endnote 189:1]. +Clement of Alexandria gives rather copious extracts from the +twenty-third of these books, to which he gave the name of +'Exegetics' [Endnote 189:2]. + +Tischendorf assumes, in a manner that is not quite so 'arbitrary +and erroneous' [Endnote 189:3] as his critic seems to suppose, that +this Commentary was upon our four Gospels. It is not altogether clear +how far Eusebius is using the words of Agrippa Castor and how far +his own. If the latter, there can be no doubt that he understood +the statement of Agrippa Castor as Tischendorf understands his, +i.e. as referring to our present Gospels; but supposing his words +to be those of the earlier writer, it is possible that, coming +from the orthodox side, they may have been used in the sense which +Tischendorf attributes to them. There can be no question that +Irenaeus used [Greek: to euangelion] for the canonical Gospels +collectively, and Justin Martyr may _perhaps_ have done so. +Tischendorf himself does not maintain that it refers to our Gospels +_exclusively_. Practically the statements in regard to the +Commentary of Basilides lead to nothing. + +Neither does it appear any more clearly what was the nature of the +Gospel that Basilides wrote. The term [Greek: euangelion] had a +technical metaphysical sense in the Basilidian sect and was used +to designate a part of the transcendental Gnostic revelations. The +Gospel of Basilides may therefore, as Dr. Westcott suggests, +reasonably enough, have had a philosophical rather than a historical +character. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' censures Dr. Westcott +for this suggestion [Endnote 189:4], but a few pages further on +he seems to adopt it himself, though he applies it strangely to +the language of Eusebius or Agrippa Castor and not to Basilides' +own work. + +In any case Hippolytus expressly says that, after the generation +of Jesus, the Basilidians held 'the other events in the life of +the Saviour followed as they are written in the Gospels' [Endnote +190:1]. There is no reason at all to suppose that there was a +breach of continuity in this respect between Basilides and his +school. And if his Gospel really contained substantially the same +events as ours, it is a question of comparatively secondary +importance whether he actually made use of those Gospels or no. + +It is rather remarkable that Hippolytus and Epiphanius, who +furnish the fullest accounts of the tenets of Basilides (and his +followers), say nothing about his Gospel: neither does Irenaeus or +Clement of Alexandria; the first mention of it is in Origen's +Homily on St. Luke. This shows how unwarranted is the assumption +made in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 190:2] that because +Hippolytus says that Basilides appealed to a secret tradition he +professed to have received from Matthias, and Eusebius that he set +up certain imaginary prophets, 'Barcabbas and Barcoph,' he +therefore had no other authorities. The statement that he +'absolutely ignores the canonical Gospels altogether' and does not +'recognise any such works as of authority,' is much in excess of +the evidence. All that this really amounts to is that neither +Hippolytus nor Eusebius say in so many words that Basilides did +use our Gospels. It would be a fairer inference to argue from +their silence, and still more from that of the 'malleus +haereticorum' Epiphanius, that he did not in this depart from the +orthodox custom; otherwise the Fathers would have been sure to +charge him with it, as they did Marcion. It is really I believe a +not very unsafe conclusion, for heretical as well as orthodox +writers, that where the Fathers do not say to the contrary, they +accepted the same documents as themselves. + +The main questions that arise in regard to Basilides are two: +(1) Are the quotations supposed to be made by him really his? +(2) Are they quotations from our Gospels? + +The doubt as to the authorship of the quotations applies chiefly +to those which occur in the 'Refutation of the Heresies' by +Hippolytus. This writer begins his account of the Basilidian +tenets by saying, 'Let us see here how Basilides along with +Isidore and his crew belie Matthias,' [Endnote 191:1] &c. He goes +on using for the most part the singular [Greek: phaesin], but +sometimes inserting the plural [Greek: kat' autous]. Accordingly, +it has been urged that quotations which are referred to the head +of the school really belong to his later followers, and the +attempt has further been made to prove that the doctrines +described in this section of the work of Hippolytus are later in +their general character than those attributed to Basilides +himself. This latter argument is very fine drawn, and will not +bear any substantial weight. It is, however, probably true that a +confusion is sometimes found between the 'eponymus,' as it were, +of a school and his followers. Whether that has been the case here +is a question that we have not sufficient data for deciding +positively. The presumption is against it, but it must be admitted +to be possible. It seems a forced and unnatural position to +suppose that the disciples would go to one set of authorities and +the master to another, and equally unnatural to think that a later +critic, like Hippolytus, would confine himself to the works of +these disciples and that in none of the passages in which +quotations are introduced he has gone to the fountain head. We may +decline to dogmatise; but probability is in favour of the +supposition that some at least of the quotations given by +Hippolytus come directly from Basilides. + +Some of the quotations discussed in 'Supernatural Religion' are +expressly assigned to the school of Basilides. Thus Clement of +Alexandria, in stating the opinion which this school held on the +subject of marriage, says that they referred to our Lord's saying, +'All men cannot receive this,' &c. + +_Strom._ iii. I. 1. + +[Greek: Ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton, eisi gar eunouchoi oi +men ek genetaes oi de ex anankaes.] + +_Matt._ xix. 11, 12. + +[Greek: Ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton, all' ois dedotai, +eisin gar eunouchoi oitines ek kiolias maetros egennaethaesan +outos, kai eisin eunouchoi oitines eunouchisthaesan hupo ton +anthropon, k.t.l.] + +The reference of this to St. Matthew is far from being so +'preposterous' [Endnote 192:1] as the critic imagines. The use of +the word [Greek: chorein] in this sense is striking and peculiar: +it has no parallel in the New Testament, and but slight and few +parallels, as it appears from the lexicons and commentators, in +previous literature. The whole phrase is a remarkable one and the +verbal coincidence exact, the words that follow are an easy and +natural abridgment. On the same principles on which it is denied +that this is a quotation from St. Matthew it would be easy to +prove _a priori_ that many of the quotations in Clement of +Alexandria could not be taken from the canonical Gospels which, we +know, _are_ so taken. + +The fact that this passage is found among the Synoptics only in +St. Matthew must not count for nothing. The very small number of +additional facts and sayings that we are able to glean from the +writers who, according to 'Supernatural Religion,' have used +apocryphal Gospels so freely, seems to be proof that our present +Gospels were (as we should expect) the fullest and most +comprehensive of their kind. If, then, a passage is found only in +one of them, it is fair to conclude, not positively, but probably, +that it is drawn from some special source of information that was +not widely diffused. + +The same remarks hold good respecting another quotation found in +Epiphanius, which also comes under the general head of [Greek: +Basileidianoi], though it is introduced not only by the singular +[Greek: phaesin] but by the definite [Greek: phaesin ho agurtaes]. +Here the Basilidian quotation has a parallel also peculiar to St. +Matthew, from the Sermon on the Mount. + +_Epiph. Haer_. 72 A. + +[Greek: Mae bagaete tous margaritas emprosthen ton choiron, maede +dote to hagion tois kusi.] + +_Matt_ vii. 6. + +[Greek: Mae dote to hagion tois kusin, maede bagaete tous +margaritas humon emprosthen ton choiron.] The excellent +Alexandrine cursive I, with some others, has [Greek: dote] for +[Greek: dote] + +The transposition of clauses, such as we see here, is by no means +an infrequent phenomenon. There is a remarkable instance of it--to +go no further--in the text of the benedictions with which the +Sermon on the Mount begins. In respect to the order of the two +clauses, 'Blessed are they that mourn' and 'Blessed are the meek,' +there is a broad division in the MSS. and other authorities. For +the received order we find [Hebrew: aleph;], B, C, 1, the mass of +uncials and cursives, b, f, Syrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm., +Aeth.; for the reversed order, 'Blessed are the meek' and 'Blessed +are they that mourn,' are ranged D, 33, Vulg., a, c, f'1, g'1, h, +k, l, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus., Bas. (?), Hil. The balance is +probably on the side of the received reading, as the opposing +authorities are mostly Western, but they too make a formidable +array. The confusion in the text of St. Luke as to the early +clauses of the Lord's Prayer is well known. But if such things are +done in the green tree, if we find these variations in MSS. which +profess to be exact transcripts of the same original copy, how +much more may we expect to find them enter into mere quotations +that are often evidently made from memory, and for the sake of the +sense, not the words. In this instance however the verbal +resemblance is very close. As I have frequently said, to speak of +certainties in regard to any isolated passage that does not +present exceptional phenomena is inadmissible, but I have little +moral doubt that the quotation was really derived from St. +Matthew, and there is quite a fair probability that it was made by +Basilides himself. + +The Hippolytean quotations, the ascription of which to Basilides +or to his school we have left an open question, will assume a +considerable importance when we come to treat of the external +evidence for the fourth Gospel. Bearing upon the Synoptic Gospels, +we find an allusion to the star of the Magi and an exact verbal +quotation (introduced with [Greek: to eiraemenon]) of Luke i. 35, +[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamis hupsistou +episkiasei soi]. Both these have been already discussed with +reference to Justin. All the other Gospels in which the star of +the Magi is mentioned belong to a later stage of formation than +St. Matthew. The very parallelism between St. Matthew and St. Luke +shows that both Gospels were composed at a date when various +traditions as to the early portions of the history were current. +No doubt secondary, or rather tertiary, works, like the +Protevangelium of James, came to be composed later; but it is not +begging the question to say that if the allusion is made by +Basilides, it is not likely that at that date he should quote any +other Gospel than St. Matthew, simply because that is the earliest +form in which the story of the Magi has come down to us. + +The case is stronger in regard to the quotation from St. Luke. In +Justin's account of the Annunciation to Mary there was a +coincidence with the Protevangelium and a variation from the +canonical text in the phrase [Greek: pneuma kuriou] for [Greek: +pneuma hagion]; but in the Basilidian quotation the canonical text +is reproduced syllable for syllable and letter for letter, which, +when we consider how sensitive and delicate these verbal relations +are, must be taken as a strong proof of identity. The reader may +be reminded that the word [Greek: episkiazein], the phrase [Greek: +dunamism hupsistou], and the construction [Greek: eperchesthai +epi], are all characteristic of St. Luke: [Greek; episkiazein] +occurs once in the triple synopsis and besides only here and in +Acts v. 15: [Greek: hupsistos] occurs nine times in St. Luke's +writings and only four times besides; it is used by the Evangelist +especially in phrases like [Greek: uios, dunamis, prophaetaes, +doulos hupsistou], to which the only parallel is [Greek: hiereus +tou Theou tou hupsistou] in Heb. vii. 1. The construction of +[Greek: eperchesthai] with [Greek: epi] and the accusative is +found five times in the third Gospel and the Acts and not at all +besides in the New Testament; indeed the participial form, [Greek: +eperchomenos] (in the sense of 'future'), is the only shape in +which the word appears (twice) outside the eight times that it +occurs in St. Luke's writings. This is a body of evidence that +makes it extremely difficult to deny that the Basilidian quotation +has its original in the third Synoptic. + + + 2. + +The case in regard to Valentinus, the next great Gnostic leader, +who came forward about the year 140 A.D., is very similar to that +of Basilides, though the balance of the argument is slightly +altered. It is, on the one hand, still clearer that the greater +part of the evangelical references usually quoted are really from +our present actual Gospels, but, on the other hand, there is a +more distinct probability that these are to be assigned rather to +the School of Valentinus than to Valentinus himself. + +The supposed allusion to St. John we shall pass over for the +present. + +There is a string of allusions in the first book of Irenaeus, +'Adv. Haereses,' to the visit of Jesus as a child to the Passover +(Luke ii. 42), the jot or tittle of Matt. v. 18, the healing of +the issue of blood, the bearing of the cross (Luke xiv. 27 par.), +the sending of a sword and not peace, 'his fan is in his hand,' +the salt and light of the world, the healing of the centurion's +servant, of Jairus' daughter, the exclamations upon the cross, the +call of the unwilling disciples, Zacchaeus, Simon, &c. We may take +it, I believe, as admitted, and it is indeed quite indisputable, +that these are references to our present Gospels; but there is the +further question whether they are to be attributed directly to +Valentinus or to his followers, and I am quite prepared to admit +that there are no sufficient grounds for direct attribution to the +founder of the system. Irenaeus begins by saying that his +authorities are certain 'commentaries of the disciples of +Valentinus' and his own intercourse with some of them [Endnote +197:1]. He proceeds to announce his intention to give a 'brief and +clear account of the opinions of those who were then teaching +their false doctrines [Greek: nun paradidaskonton], that is, of +Ptolemaeus and his followers, a branch of the school of +Valentinus.' It is fair to infer that the description of the +Valentinian system which follows is drawn chiefly from these +sources. This need not, however, quite necessarily exclude works +by Valentinus himself. It is at any rate clear that Irenaeus had +some means of referring to the opinions of Valentinus as distinct +from his school; because, after giving a sketch of the system, he +proceeds to point out certain contradictions within the school +itself, quoting first Valentinus expressly, then a disciple called +Secundus, then 'another of their more distinguished and ambitious +teachers,' then 'others,' then a further subdivision, finally +returning to Ptolemaeus and his party again. On the whole, +Irenaeus seems to have had a pretty complete knowledge of the +writings and teaching of the Valentinians. We conclude therefore, +that, while it cannot be alleged positively that any of the +quotations or allusions were really made by Valentinus, it would +be rash to assert that none of them were made by him, or that he +did not use our present Gospels. + +However this may be, we cannot do otherwise than demur to the +statement implied in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 198:1], that +the references in Irenaeus can only be employed as evidence for +the Gnostic usage between the years 185-195 A.D. This is a +specimen of a kind of position that is frequently taken up by +critics upon that side, and that I cannot but think quite +unreasonable and uncritical. Without going into the question of +the date at which Irenaeus wrote at present, and assuming with the +author of 'Supernatural Religion' that his first three books were +published before the death of Eleutherus in A.D. 190--the latest +date possible for them,--it will be seen that the Gnostic teaching +to which Irenaeus refers is supposed to begin at a time when his +first book may very well have been concluded, and to end actually +five years later than the latest date at which this portion of the +work can have been published! Not only does the author allow no +time at all for Irenaeus to compose his own work, not only does he +allow none for him to become acquainted with the Gnostic +doctrines, and for those doctrines themselves to become +consolidated and expressed in writing, but he goes so far as to +make Irenaeus testify to a state of things five years at least, +and very probably ten, in advance of the time at which he was +himself writing! No doubt there is an oversight somewhere, but +this is the kind of oversight that ought not to be made. + +This, however, is an extreme instance of the fault to which I was +alluding--the tendency in the negative school to allow no time or +very little for processes that in the natural course of things +must certainly have required a more or less considerable interval. +On a moderate computation, the indirect testimony of Irenaeus may +be taken to refer--not to the period 185-195 A.D., which is out of +the question--but to that from 160-180 A.D. This is not pressing +the possibility, real as it is, that Valentinus himself, who +flourished from 140-160 A.D., may have been included. We may agree +with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that Irenaeus probably +made the personal acquaintance of the Valentinian leaders, and +obtained copies of their books, during his well-known visit to +Rome in 178 A.D. [Endnote 199:1] The applications of Scripture +would be taken chiefly from the books of which some would be +recent but others of an earlier date, and it can surely be no +exaggeration to place the formation of the body of doctrine which +they contained in the period 160-175 A.D. above mentioned. I doubt +whether a critic could be blamed who should go back ten years +further, but we shall be keeping on the safe side if we take our +_terminus a quo_ as to which these Gnostic writings can be +alleged in evidence at about the year 160. + +A genuine fragment of a letter of Valentinus has been preserved by +Clement of Alexandria in the second book of the Stromateis +[Endnote 200:1]. This is thought to contain references to St. +Matthew's Gospel by Dr. Westcott, and, strange to say, both to St. +Matthew and St. Luke by Volkmar. These references, however, are +not sufficiently clear to be pressed. + +A much less equivocal case is supplied by Hippolytus--less +equivocal at least so far as the reference goes. Among the +passages which received a specially Gnostic interpretation is Luke +i. 35, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the +Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing +which is born (of thee) shall be called the Son of God.' This is +quoted thus, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power +of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore that which is +born of thee shall be called holy.' + +_Luke_ i. 35. + +[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamis hupsistou +episkiasei soi, dio kai to gennomenon [ek sou] hagion klaethaesetai +huios Theon.] + +_Ref. Omn. Haes._ vi. 35. + +[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se... kai dunamis hupsistou +episkiasei soi... dio to gennomenon ek sou hagion klaethaesetai.] + +That St. Luke has been the original here seems to be beyond a +doubt. The omission of [Greek: huios Theou] is of very little +importance, because from its position [Greek: hagion] would more +naturally stand as a predicate, and the sentence would be quite as +complete without the [Greek: huios Theou] as with it. On the other +hand, it would be difficult to compress into so small a space so +many words and expressions that are peculiarly characteristic of +St. Luke. In addition to those which have just been noticed in +connection with Basilides, there is the very remarkable [Greek: to +gennomenon], which alone would be almost enough to stamp the whole +passage. + +We are still however pursued by the same ambiguity as in the case +of Basilides. It is not certain that the quotation is made from +the master and not from his scholars. There is no reason, indeed, +why it should be made from the latter rather than the former; the +point must in any case be left open: but it cannot be referred to +the master with so much certainty as to be directly producible +under his name. + +And yet, from whomsoever the quotation may have been made, if only +it has been given rightly by Hippolytus, it is a strong proof of +the antiquity of the Gospel. The words [Greek: ek sou], will be +noticed, are enclosed in brackets in the text of St. Luke as given +above. They are a corruption, though an early and well-supported +corruption, of the original. The authorities in their favour are C +(first hand), the good cursives 1 and 33, one form of the Vulgate, +a, c, e, m of the Old Latin, the Peshito Syriac, the Armenian and +Aethiopic versions, Irenaeus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Tertullian, +Cyprian, and Epiphanius. On the other hand, for the omission are +A. B, C (third hand), D, [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], and the rest of +the uncials and cursives, another form of the Vulgate, b, f, ff, +g'2, l of the Old Latin, the Harclean and Jerusalem Syriac, the +Memphitic, Gothic, and some MSS. of the Armenian versions, Origen, +Dionysius and Peter of Alexandria, and Eusebius. A text critic +will see at once on which side the balance lies. It is impossible +that [Greek: ek sou] could have been the reading of the autograph +copy, and it is not, I believe, admitted into the text by any +recent editor. But if it was present in the copy made use of by +the Gnostic writer, whoever he was, that copy must have been +already far enough removed from the original to admit of this +corruption; in other words, it has lineage enough to throw the +original some way behind it. We shall come to more of such +phenomena in the next chapter. + +I said just now that the quotation could not with certainty be +referred to Valentinus, but it is at least considerably earlier +than the contemporaries of Hippolytus. It appears that there was a +division in the Valentinian School upon the interpretation of this +very passage. Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, representing the Western +branch, took one side, while Axionicus and Bardesanes, representing +the Eastern, took the other. Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were both, +we know, contemporaries of Irenaeus, so that the quotation was used +among the Valentinians at least in the time of Irenaeus, and very +possibly earlier, for it usually takes a certain time for a subject +to be brought into controversy. We must thus take the _terminus ad quem_ +for the quotation not later than 180 A.D. How much further back it +goes we cannot say, but even then (if the Valentinian text is correctly +preserved by Hippolytus) it presents features of corruption. + +That the Valentinians made use of unwritten sources as well as of +written, and that they possessed a Gospel of their own which they +called the Gospel of Truth, does not affect the question of their +use of the Synoptics. For these very same Valentinians undoubtedly +did use the Synoptics, and not only them but also the fourth +Gospel. It is immediately after he has spoken of the 'unwritten' +tradition of the Valentinians that Irenaeus proceeds to give the +numerous quotations from the Synoptics referred to above, while in +the very same chapter, and within two sections of the place in +which he alludes to the Gospel of Truth, he expressly says that +these same Valentinians used the Gospel according to St. John +freely (plenissime) [Endnote 203:1]. It should also be remembered +that the alleged acceptance of the four Gospels by the Valentinians +rests upon the statement of Irenaeus [Endnote 203:2] as well as upon +that of the less scrupulous and accurate Tertullian. There is no +good reason for doubting it. + + + + + +CHAPTER VIII. + +MARCION. [Endnote 204:1] + + +Of the various chapters in the controversy with which we are +dealing, that which relates to the heretic Marcion is one of the +most interesting and important; important, because of the +comparative fixity of the data on which the question turns; +interesting, because of the peculiar nature of the problem to be +dealt with. + +We may cut down the preliminary disquisitions as to the life and +doctrines of Marcion, which have, indeed, a certain bearing upon +the point at issue, but will be found given with sufficient +fulness in 'Supernatural Religion,' or in any of the authorities. +As in most other points relating to this period, there is some +confusion in the chronological data, but these range within a +comparatively limited area. The most important evidence is that of +Justin, who, writing as a contemporary (about 147 A.D.) [Endnote +205:1], says that at that time Marcion had 'in every nation of men +caused many to blaspheme' [Endnote 205:2]; and again speaks of the +wide spread of his doctrines ([Greek: ho polloi peisthentes, +k.t.l.]) [Endnote 205:3]. Taking these statements along with +others in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, modern critics +seem to be agreed that Marcion settled in Rome and began to teach +his peculiar doctrines about 139-142 A.D. This is the date +assigned in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 205:4]. Volkmar gives +138 A.D. [Endnote 205:5] Tischendorf, on the apologetic side, +would throw back the date as far as 130, but this depends upon the +date assigned by him to Justin's 'Apology,' and conflicts too much +with the other testimony. + +It is also agreed that Marcion himself did actually use a certain +Gospel that is attributed to him. The exact contents and character +of that Gospel are not quite so clear, and its relation to the +Synoptic Gospels, and especially to our third Synoptic, which +bears the name of St. Luke, is the point that we have to +determine. + +The Church writers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, without +exception, describe Marcion's Gospel as a mutilated or amputated +version of St. Luke. They contrast his treatment of the +evangelical tradition with that pursued by his fellow-Gnostic, +Valentinus [Endnote 205:6]. Valentinus sought to prove his tenets +by wresting the interpretation of the Apostolic writings; Marcion +went more boldly to work, and, having first selected his Gospel, +our third Synoptic, cut out the passages both in it and in ten +Epistles of St. Paul, admitted by him to be genuine, which seemed +to conflict with his own system. He is also said to have made +additions, but these were in any case exceedingly slight. + +The statement of the Church writers should hardly, perhaps, be put +aside quite so summarily as is sometimes done. The life of +Irenaeus overlapped that of Marcion considerably, and there seems +to have been somewhat frequent communication between the Church at +Lyons, where he was first presbyter and afterwards bishop, and +that of Rome, where Marcion was settled; but Irenaeus [Endnote +206:1], as well as Tertullian and Epiphanius, alludes to the +mutilation of St. Luke's Gospel by Marcion as a notorious fact. +Too much stress, however, must not be laid upon this, because the +Catholic writers were certainly apt to assume that their own view +was the only one tenable. + +The modern controversy is more important, though it has to go back +to the ancient for its data. The question in debate may be stated +thus. Did Marcion, as the Church writers say, really mutilate our +so-called St. Luke (the name is not of importance, but we may use +it as standing for our third Synoptic in its present shape)? Or, +is it not possible that the converse may be true, and that +Marcion's Gospel was the original and ours an interpolated +version? The importance of this may, indeed, be exaggerated, +because Marcion's Gospel is at any rate evidence for the existence +at his date in a collected form of so much of the third Gospel +(rather more than two-thirds) as he received. Still the issue is +not inconsiderable: for, upon the second hypothesis, if the editor +of our present Gospel made use of that which was in the possession +of Marcion, his date may be--though it does not follow that it +certainly would be--thrown into the middle of the second century, +or even beyond, if the other external evidence would permit; +whereas, upon the first hypothesis, the Synoptic Gospel would be +proved to be current as early as 140 A.D.; and there will be room +for considerations which may tend to date it much earlier. There +will still be the third possibility that Marcion's Gospel may be +altogether independent of our present Synoptic, and that it may +represent a parallel recension of the evangelical tradition. This +would leave the date of the canonical Gospel undetermined. + +It is a fact worth noting that the controversy, at least in its +later and more important stages, had been fought, and, to all +appearance, fought out, within the Tuebingen school itself. +Olshausen and Hahn, the two orthodox critics who were most +prominently engaged in it, after a time retired and left the field +entirely to the Tuebingen writers. + +The earlier critics who impugned the traditional view appear to +have leaned rather to the theory that Marcion's Gospel and the +canonical Luke are, more or less, independent offshoots from the +common ground-stock of the evangelical narratives. Ritschl, and +after him Baur and Schwegler, adopted more decidedly the view that +the canonical Gospel was constructed out of Marcion's by +interpolations directed against that heretic's teaching. The +reaction came from a quarter whence it would not quite naturally +have been expected--from one whose name we have already seen +associated with some daring theories, Volkmar, Professor of +Theology at Zuerich. With him was allied the more sober-minded, +laborious investigator, Hilgenfeld. Both these writers returned to +the charge once and again. Volkmar's original paper was +supplemented by an elaborate volume in 1852, and Hilgenfeld, in +like manner, has reasserted his conclusions. Baur and Ritschl +professed themselves convinced by the arguments brought forward, +and retracted or greatly modified their views. So far as I am +aware, Schwegler is the only writer whose opinion still stands as +it was at first expressed; but for some years before his death, +which occurred in 1857, he had left the theological field. + +Without at all prejudging the question on this score, it is +difficult not to feel a certain presumption in favour of a +conclusion which has been reached after such elaborate argument, +especially where, as here, there could be no suspicion of a merely +apologetic tendency on either side. Are we, then, to think that +our English critic has shown cause for reopening the discussion? +There is room to doubt whether he would quite maintain as much as +this himself. He has gone over the old ground, and reproduced the +old arguments; but these arguments already lay before Hilgenfeld +and Volkmar in their elaborate researches, and simply as a matter +of scale the chapter in 'Supernatural Religion' can hardly profess +to compete with these. + +Supposing, for the moment, that the author has proved the points +that he sets himself to prove, to what will this amount? He will +have shown (a) that the patristic statement that Marcion mutilated +St. Luke is not to be accepted at once without further question; +(b) that we cannot depend with perfect accuracy upon the details +of his Gospel, as reconstructed from the statements of Tertullian +and Epiphanius; (c) that it is difficult to explain the whole of +Marcion's alleged omissions, on purely, dogmatic grounds--assuming +the consistency of his method. + +With the exception of the first, I do not think these points are +proved to any important extent; but, even if they were, it would +still, I believe, be possible to show that Marcion's Gospel was +based upon our third Synoptic by arguments which hardly cross or +touch them at all. + +But, before we proceed further, it is well that we should have +some idea as to the contents of the Marcionitic Gospel. And here +we are brought into collision with the second of the propositions +just enunciated. Are we able to reconstruct that Gospel from the +materials available to us with any tolerable or sufficient +approach to accuracy? I believe no one who has gone into the +question carefully would deny that we can. Here it is necessary to +define and guard our statements, so that they may cover exactly as +much ground as they ought and no more. + +Our author quotes largely, especially from Volkmar, to show that +the evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius is not to be relied +upon. When we refer to the chapter in which Volkmar deals with +this subject [Endnote 209:1]--a chapter which is an admirable +specimen of the closeness and thoroughness of German research--we +do indeed find some such expressions, but to quote them alone +would give an entirely erroneous impression of the conclusion to +which the writer comes. He does not say that the statements of +Tertullian and Epiphanius are untrustworthy, simply and +absolutely, but only that they need to be applied with caution +_on certain points_. Such a point is especially the silence +of these writers as proving, or being supposed to prove, the +absence of the corresponding passage in Marcion's Gospel. It is +argued, very justly, that such an inference is sometimes +precarious. Again, in quoting longer passages, Epiphanius is in +the habit of abridging or putting an &c. ([Greek: kai ta hexaes-- +kai ta loipa]), instead of quoting the whole. This does not give a +complete guarantee for the intermediate portions, and leaves some +uncertainty as to where the passage ends. Generally it is true +that the object of the Fathers is not critical but dogmatic, to +refute Marcion's system out of his own Gospel. But when all +deductions have been made on these grounds, there are still ample +materials for reconstructing that Gospel with such an amount of +accuracy at least as can leave no doubt as to its character. The +wonder is that we are able to do so, and that the statements of +the Fathers should stand the test so well as they do. Epiphanius +especially often shows the most painstaking care and minuteness of +detail. He has reproduced the manuscript of Marcion's Gospel that +he had before him, even to its clerical errors [Endnote 210:1]. He +and Tertullian are writing quite independently, and yet they +confirm each other in a remarkable manner. 'If we compare the two +witnesses,' says Volkmar, 'we find the most satisfactory (sicher- +stellendste) coincidence in their statements, entirely independent +as they are, as well in regard to that which Marcion has in common +with Luke, as in regard to very many of the points in which his +text differed from the canonical. And this applies not only to +simple omissions which Epiphanius expressly notes and Tertullian +confirms by passing over what would otherwise have told against +Marcion, but also to the minor variations of the text which +Tertullian either happens to name or indicate by his translation, +while they are confirmed by the direct statement of [the other] +opponent who is equally bent on finding such differences' [Endnote +211:1]. Out of all the points on which they can be compared, there +is a real divergence only in two. Of these, one Volkmar attributes +to an oversight on the part of Epiphanius, and the other to a +clerical omission in his manuscript [Endnote 211:2]. When we +consider the cumbrousness of ancient MSS., the absence of +divisions in the text, and the consequent difficulty of making +exact references, this must needs be taken for a remarkable +result. And the very fact that we have two--or, including +Irenaeus, even three--independent authorities, makes the text of +Marcion's Gospel, so far as those authorities are available, or, +in other words, for the greater part of it, instead of being +uncertain among quite the most certain of all the achievements of +modern criticism [Endnote 211:3]. + +This is seen practically--to apply a simple test--in the large +amount of agreement between critics of the most various schools as +to the real contents of the Gospel. Our author indeed speaks much +of the 'disagreement.' But by what standard does he judge? Or, has +he ever estimated its extent? Putting aside merely verbal +differences, the total number of whole verses affected will be +represented in the following table:-- + +iv. 16-30: doubt as to exact extent of omissions affecting about + half the verses. + + 38, 39: omitted according to Hahn; retained according to + Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. + +vii. 29-35: omitted, Hahn and Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. + +x. 12-15: ditto ditto. + +xiii. 6-10: omitted, Volkmar; retained, Hilgenfeld and Rettig. + +xvii. 5-10: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. + + 14-19: doubt as to exact omissions. + +xix. 47, 48: omitted, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; retained, Hahn and + Anger. + +xxii. 17, 18: doubtful. + + 23-27: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. + + 43, 44: ditto ditto. + +xxiii. 39-42: ditto ditto. + + 47-49: omitted, Hahn; retained, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar. + +xxiv. 47-53: uncertain [Endnote 212:1]. + +This would give, as a maximum estimate of variation, some 55 +verses out of about 804, or, in other words, about seven per cent. +But such an estimate would be in fact much too high, as there can +be no doubt that the earlier researches of Hahn and Ritschl ought +to be corrected by those of Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; and the +difference between these two critics is quite insignificant. +Taking the severest view that it is possible to take, no one will +maintain that the differences between the critics are such as to +affect the main issue, so that upon one hypothesis one theory +would hold good, and upon another hypothesis another. It is a mere +question of detail. + +We may, then, reconstruct the Gospel used by Marcion with very +considerable confidence that we have its real contents before us. +In order to avoid any suspicion I will take the outline given in +'Supernatural Religion' (ii. p. 127), adding only the passage +St. Luke vii. 29-35, which, according to the author's statement (a +mistaken one, however) [Endnote 213:1], is 'generally agreed' to +have been wanting in Marcion's Gospel. In that Gospel, then, the +following portions of our present St. Luke were omitted:-- + +Chaps. i. and ii, including the prologue, the Nativity, and the +birth of John the Baptist. + +Chap. iii (with the exception of ver. 1), containing the baptism +of our Lord, the preaching of St. John, and the genealogy. + +iv. 1-13, 17-20, 24: the Temptation, the reading from Isaiah. + +vii. 29-35: the gluttonous man. + +xi. 29-32, 49-51: the sign of Jonas, and the blood of the +prophets. + +xiii. 1-9, 29-35: the slain Galileans, the fig-tree, Herod, +Jerusalem. + +xv. 11-32: the prodigal son. + +xvii. 5-10: the servant at meat. + +xviii. 31-34: announcement of the Passion. + +xix. 29-48: the Triumphal Entry, woes of Jerusalem, cleansing of +the Temple. + +xx. 9-18, 37, 38: the wicked husbandmen; the God of Abraham. + +xxi. 1-4, 18, 21, 22: the widow's mite; 'a hair of your head;' +flight of the Church. + +xxii. 16-18, 28-30, 35-38, 49-51: the fruit of the vine, 'eat at +my table,' 'buy a sword,' the high-priest's servant. + +xxiv. 47-53: the last commission, the Ascension. + +Here we have another remarkable phenomenon. The Gospel stands to +our Synoptic entirely in the relation of _defect_. We may say +entirely, for the additions are so insignificant--some thirty +words in all, and those for the most part supported by other +authority--that for practical purposes they need not be reckoned. +With the exception of these thirty words inserted, and some, also +slight, alterations of phrase, Marcion's Gospel presents simply an +_abridgment_ of our St. Luke. + +Does not this almost at once exclude the idea that they can be +independent works? If it does not, then let us compare the two in +detail. There is some disturbance and re-arrangement in the first +chapter of Marcion's Gospel, though the substance is that of the +third Synoptic; but from this point onwards the two move step by +step together but for the omissions and a single transposition +(iv. 27 to xvii. 18). Out of fifty-three sections peculiar to St. +Luke--from iv. 16 onwards--all but eight were found also in +Marcion's Gospel. They are found, too, in precisely the same +order. Curious and intricate as is the mosaic work of the third +Gospel, all the intricacies of its pattern are reproduced in the +Gospel of Marcion. Where Luke makes an insertion in the +groundstock of the narrative, there Marcion makes an insertion +also; where Luke omits part of the narrative, Marcion does the +same. Among the documents peculiar to St. Luke are some of a very +marked and individual character, which seem to have come from some +private source of information. Such, for instance, would be the +document viii. 1-3, which introduces names so entirely unknown to +the rest of the evangelical tradition as Joanna and Susanna +[Endnote 215:1]. A trace of the same, or an allied document, +appears in chap. xxiv, where we have again the name Joanna, and +afterwards that of the obscure disciple Cleopas. Again, the +mention of Martha and Mary is common only to St. Luke and the +fourth Gospel. Zacchaeus is peculiar to St. Luke. Yet, not only +does each of the sections relating to these personages re-appear +in Marcion's Gospel, but it re-appears precisely at the same +place. A marked peculiarity in St. Luke's Gospel is the 'great +intercalation' of discourses, ix. 51 to xviii. 14, evidently +inserted without regard to chronological order. Yet this +peculiarity, too, is faithfully reproduced in the Gospel of +Marcion with the same disregard of chronology--the only change +being the omission of about forty-one verses from a total of three +hundred and eighty. When Luke has the other two Synoptics against +him, as in the insertions Matt. xiv. 3-12, Mark vi. 17-29, and +again Matt. xx. 20-28, Mark x. 35-45, and Matt. xxi. 20-22, Mark +xi. 20-26, Marcion has them against him too. Where the third +Synoptist breaks off from his companions (Luke ix. 17, 18) and +leaves a gap, Marcion leaves one too. It has been noticed as +characteristic of St. Luke that, where he has recorded a similar +incident before, he omits what might seem to be a repetition of +it: this characteristic is exactly reflected in Marcion, and that +in regard to the very same incidents. Then, wherever the patristic +statements give us the opportunity of comparing Marcion's text +with the Synoptic--and this they do very largely indeed--the two +are found to coincide with no greater variation than would be +found between any two not directly related manuscripts of the same +text. It would be easy to multiply these points, and to carry them +to any degree of detail; if more precise and particular evidence +is needed it shall be forthcoming, but in the meantime I think it +may be asserted with confidence that two alternatives only are +possible. Either Marcion's Gospel is an abridgment of our present +St. Luke, or else our present St. Luke is an expansion by +interpolation of Marcion's Gospel, or of a document co-extensive +with it. No third hypothesis is tenable. + +It remains, then, to enquire which of these two Gospels had the +priority--Marcion's or Luke's; which is to stand first, both in +order of time and of authenticity. This, too, is a point that +there are ample data for determining. + +(1.) And, first, let us consider what presumption is raised by any +other part of Marcion's procedure. Is it likely that he would have +cut down a document previously existing? or, have we reason for +thinking that he would be scrupulous in keeping such a document +intact? + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' himself makes use of this +very argument; but I cannot help suspecting that his application +of it has slipped in through an oversight or misapprehension. When +first I came across the argument as employed by him, I was struck +by it at once as important if only it was sound. But, upon +examination, not only does it vanish into thin air as an argument +in support of the thesis he is maintaining, but there remains in +its place a positive argument that tells directly and strongly +against that thesis. A passage is quoted from Canon Westcott, in +which it is stated that while Tertullian and Epiphanius accuse +Marcion of altering the text of the books which he received, so +far as his treatment of the Epistles is concerned this is not +borne out by the facts, out of seven readings noticed by +Epiphanius two only being unsupported by other authority. It is +argued from this that Marcion 'equally preserved without +alteration the text which he found in his manuscript of the +Gospel.' 'We have no reason to believe the accusation of the +Fathers in regard to the Gospel--which we cannot fully test-- +better founded than that in regard to the Epistles, which we can +test, and find unfounded' [Endnote 217:1]. No doubt the premisses +of this argument are true, and so also is the conclusion, strictly +as it stands. It is true that the Fathers accuse Marcion of +tampering with the text in various places, both in the Epistles +and in the Gospels where the allegation can be tested, and where +it is found that the supposed perversion is simply a difference of +reading, proved to be such by its presence in other authorities +[Endnote 217:2]. But what is this to the point? It is not +contended that Marcion altered to any considerable extent (though +he did slightly even in the Epistles [Endnote 217:3]) the text +_which he retained_, but that he mutilated and cut out whole +passages from that text. He can be proved to have done this in +regard to the Epistles, and therefore it is fair to infer that he +dealt in the same way with the Gospel. This is the amended form in +which the argument ought to stand. It is certain that Marcion made +a large excision before Rom. xi. 33, and another after Rom. viii. +11; he also cut out the 'mentiones Abrahae' from Gal. iii. 7, 14, +16-18 [Endnote 218:1]. I say nothing about his excision of the +last two chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, because on that +point a controversy might be raised. But the genuineness of these +other passages is undisputed and indisputable. It cannot be argued +here that our text of the Epistle has suffered from later +interpolation, and therefore, I repeat, it is so much the more +probable that Marcion took from the text of the Gospel than that a +later editor added to it. + +(2.) In examining the internal evidence from the nature and +structure of Marcion's Gospel, it has hitherto been the custom to +lay most stress upon its dogmatic character. The controversy in +Germany has turned chiefly on this. The critics have set +themselves to show that the variations in Marcion's Gospel either +could or could not be explained as omissions dictated by the +exigencies of his dogmatic system. This was a task which suited +well the subtlety and inventiveness of the German mind, and it has +been handled with all the usual minuteness and elaboration. The +result has been that not only have Volkmar and Hilgenfeld proved +their point to their own satisfaction, but they also convinced +Ritschl and partially Baur; and generally we may say that in +Germany it seems to be agreed at the present time that the +hypothesis of a mutilated Luke suits the dogmatic argument better +than that of later Judaising interpolations. + +I have no wish to disparage the results of these labours, which +are carried out with the splendid thoroughness that one so much +admires. Looking at the subject as impartially as I can, I am +inclined to think that the case is made out in the main. The +single instance of the perverted sense assigned to [Greek: +kataelthen] in iv. 31 must needs go a long way. Marcion evidently +intends the word to be taken in a transcendental sense of the +emanation and descent to earth of the Aeon Christus [Endnote +219:1]. It is impossible to think that this sense is more original +than the plain historical use of the word by St. Luke, or to +mistake the dogmatic motive in the heretical recension. There is +also an evident reason for the omission of the first chapters +which relate the human birth of Christ, which Marcion denied, and +one somewhat less evident, though highly probable, for the +omission of the account of the Baptist's ministry, John being +regarded as the finisher of the Old Testament dispensation--the +work of the Demiurge. This omission is not quite consistently +carried out, as the passage vii. 24-28 is retained--probably +because ver. 28 itself seemed to contain a sufficient qualification. +The genealogy, as well as viii. 19, was naturally omitted for the +same reason as the Nativity. The narrative of the Baptism Marcion +could not admit, because it supplied the foundation for that very +Ebionism to which his own system was diametrically opposed. The +Temptation, x. 21 ('Lord ... of earth'), xxii. 18 ('the fruit of +the vine'), xxii. 30 ('eat and drink at my table'), and the Ascension, +may have been omitted because they contained matter that seemed too +anthropomorphic or derogatory to the Divine Nature. On the other hand, +xi. 29-32 (Jonah and Solomon), xi. 49-51 (prophets and apostles), +xiii. 1 sqq. (the fig-tree, as the Jewish people?), xiii. 31-35 (the +prophet in Jerusalem), the prodigal son (perhaps?), the wicked +husbandmen (more probably), the triumphal entry (as the fulfilment +of prophecy), the announcement of the Passion (also as such), xxi. +21, 22 (the same), and the frequent allusions to the Old Testament +Scriptures, seem to have been expunged as recognising or belonging +to the kingdom of the Demiurge [Endnote 220:1]. Again, the changes +in xiii. 28, xvi. 17, xx. 35, are fully in accordance with +Marcion's system [Endnote 220:2]. The reading which Marcion had in +xi. 22 is expressly stated to have been common to the Gnostic +heretics generally. In some of these instances the dogmatic motive +is gross and palpable, in most it seems to have been made out, but +some (such as especially xiii. 1-9) are still doubtful, and the +method of excision does not appear to have been carried out with +complete consistency. + +This, indeed, was only to be expected. We are constantly reminded +that Tertullian, a man, with all his faults, of enormous literary +and general power, did not possess the critical faculty, and no +more was that faculty likely to be found in Marcion. It is an +anachronism to suppose that he would sit down to his work with +that regularity of method and with that subtle appreciation of the +affinities of dogma which characterise the modern critic. The +Septuagint translators betray an evident desire to soften down the +anthropomorphism of the Hebrew; but how easy would it be to +convict them of inconsistency, and to show that they left standing +expressions as strong as any that they changed! If we judge +Marcion's procedure by a standard suited to the age in which he +lived, our wonder will be, not that he has shown so little, but so +much, consistency and insight. + +I think, therefore, that the dogmatic argument, so far as it goes, +tells distinctly in favour of the 'mutilation' hypothesis. But at +the same time it should not be pressed too far. I should be +tempted to say that the almost exclusive and certainly excessive +use of arguments derived from the history of dogma was the prime +fallacy which lies at the root of the Tuebingen criticism. How can +it be thought that an Englishman, or a German, trained under and +surrounded by the circumstances of the nineteenth century, should +be able to thread all the mazes in the mind of a Gnostic or an +Ebionite in the second? It is difficult enough for us to lay down +a law for the actions of our own immediate neighbours and friends; +how much more difficult to 'cast the shell of habit,' and place +ourselves at the point of view of a civilisation and world of +thought wholly different from our own, so as not only to explain +its apparent aberrations, but to be able to say, positively, 'this +must have been so,' 'that must have been otherwise.' Yet such is +the strange and extravagant supposition that we are assumed to +make. No doubt the argument from dogma has its place in criticism; +but, on the whole, the literary argument is safer, more removed +from the influence of subjective impressions, more capable of +being cast into a really scientific form. + +(3.) I pass over other literary arguments which hardly admit of +this form of expression--such as the improbability that the +Preface or Prologue was not part of the original Gospel, but a +later accretion; or, again, from Marcion's treatment of the +Synoptic matter in the third Gospel, both points which might be +otherwise worth dilating upon. I pass over these, and come at +once, without further delay, to the one point which seems to me +really to decide the character of Marcion's Gospel and its +relation to the Synoptic. The argument to which I allude is that +from style and diction. True the English mind is apt to receive +literary arguments of that kind with suspicion, and very justly so +long as they rest upon a mere vague subjective _ipse dixit_; +but here the question can be reduced to one of definite figures +and of weighing and measuring. Bruder's Concordance is a dismal- +looking volume--a mere index of words, and nothing more. But it +has an eloquence of its own for the scientific investigator. It is +strange how clearly many points stand out when this test comes to +be applied, which before had been vague and obscure. This is +especially the case in regard to the Synoptic Gospels; for, in the +first place, the vocabulary of the writers is very limited and +similar phrases have constant tendency to recur, and, in the +second place, the critic has the immense advantage of being +enabled to compare their treatment of the same common matter, so +that he can readily ascertain what are the characteristic +modifications introduced by each. Dr. Holtzmann, following Zeller +and Lekebusch, has made a full and careful analysis of the style +and vocabulary of St. Luke [Endnote 223:1], but of course without +reference to the particular omissions of Marcion. Let us then, +with the help of Bruder, apply Holtzmann's results to these +omissions, with a view to see whether there is evidence that they +are by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel. + +It would be beyond the proportions of the present enquiry to +exhibit all the evidence in full. I shall, therefore, not +transcribe the whole of my notes, but merely give a few samples of +the sort of evidence producible, along with a brief summary of the +general results. + +Taking first certain points by which the style of the third +Evangelist is distinguished from that of the first in their +treatment of common matter, Dr. Holtzmann observes, that where +Matthew has [Greek: grammateus], Luke has in six places the word +[Greek: nomikos], which is only found three times besides in the +New Testament (once in St. Mark, and twice in the Epistle to +Titus). Of the places where it is used by St. Luke, one is the +omitted passage, vii. 30. In citations where Matthew has [Greek: +to rhaethen] (14 times; not at all in Luke), Luke prefers the +perfect form [Greek: to eiraemenon], so in ii. 24 (Acts twice); +compare [Greek: eiraetai], iv. 21. Where Matthew has [Greek: arti] +(7 times), Luke has always [Greek: nun], never [Greek: arti]: +[Greek: nun] is used in the following passages, omitted by +Marcion: i. 48, ii. 29, xix. 42, xxii. 18, 36. With Matthew the +word [Greek: eleos] is masculine, with Luke neuter, so five times +in ch. i. and in x. 37, which was retained by Marcion. + +Among the peculiarities of style noted by Dr. Holtzmann which +recur in the omitted portions the following are perhaps some of +the more striking. Peculiar use of [Greek: to] covering a whole +phrase, i. 62 [Greek: to ti an theloi kaleisthai], xix. 48, xxii. +37, and five other places. Peculiar attraction of the relative +with preceding case of [Greek: pas], iii. 19, xix. 37, and +elsewhere. The formula [Greek: elege (eipe) de parabolaen] (not +found in the other Synoptics), xiii. 6, xx. 9, 19, and ten times +besides. [Greek: Tou] pleonastic with the infinitive, once in +Mark, six times in Matthew, twenty-five times in Luke, of which +three times in chap. i, twice in chap. ii, iv. 10, xxi. 22. +Peculiar combinations with [Greek: kata, kata to ethos, eiothos, +eithismenon], i. 9, ii. 27, 42, and twice. [Greek: Kath' +haemeran], once in the other Gospels, thirteen times in Luke and +Acts xix. 47; [Greek: kat' etos], ii. 41; [Greek: kata] with +peculiar genitive of place, iv. 14 (xxiii. 5) [Endnote 224:1]. +Protasis introduced by [Greek: kai hote], ii. 21, 22, 42, [Greek: +kai hos], ii. 39, xv. 25, xix. 41. Uses of [Greek: egeneto], +especially with [Greek: en to] and infinitive, twice in Mark, in +Luke twenty-two times, i. 8, ii. 6, iii. 21, xxiv. 51; [Greek: en +to] with the infinitive, three times in St. Matthew, once in St. +Mark, thirty-seven times in St. Luke, including i. 8, 21, ii. 6, +27, 43, iii. 21. Adverbs: [Greek: exaes] and [Greek: kathexaes], +ten times in the third Gospel and the Acts alone in the New +Testament, i. 3; [Greek: achri], twenty times in the third Gospel +and Acts, only once in the other Gospels, i. 20, iv. 13; [Greek: +exaiphnaes], four times in the Gospel and Acts, once besides in +the New Testament, ii. 13; [Greek: parachraema], seventeen times +in the Gospel and Acts, twice in the rest of the New Testament, i. +64; [Greek: en meso], thirteen times in the Gospel and Acts, five +times in the other Synoptics, ii. 46, xxi. 21. Fondness for +optative in indirect constructions, i. 29, 62, iii. 15, xv. 26. +Peculiar combination of participles, ii. 36 ([Greek: probebaekuia +zaesasa]), iii. 23 ([Greek: archomenos on]), iv. 20 ([Greek: +ptuxas apodous]), very frequent. [Greek: Einai], with participle +for finite verb (forty-eight times in all), i. 7, 10, 20, 21, 22, +ii. 8, 26, 33, 51, iii. 23, iv. 16 ([Greek: aen tethrammenos], +omitted by Marcion), iv. 17, 20, xv. 24, 32, xviii. 34, xix. 47, +xx. 17, xxiv. 53. Construction of [Greek: pros] with accusative +after [Greek: eipein, lalein, apokrinesthai], frequent in Luke, +rare in the rest of the New Testament, i. 13, 18, 19, 28, 34, 55, +61, 73, ii. 15, 18, 34, 48, 49, iii. 12, 13, 14, iv. 4, xiii. 7, +34, xv. 22, xviii. 31, xix. 33, 39, xx. 9, 14, 19. This is thrown +into marked relief by the contrast with the other Synoptics; the +only two places where Matthew appears to have the construction are +both ambiguous, iii. 15 (doubtful reading, probably [Greek: +auto]), and xxvii. 14 ([Greek: apekrithae auto pros oude hen +rhaema]). No other evangelist speaks so much of [Greek: Pneuma +hagion], i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 25, 66, iii. 16, 22, iv. 1 (found +also in Marcion's reading of xi. 2). Peculiar use of pronouns: +Luke has the combination [Greek: kai autos] twenty-eight times, +Matthew only twice (one false reading), Mark four or perhaps five +times, i. 17, 22, ii. 28, iii. 23, xv. 14; [Greek: kai autoi] Mark +has not at all, Matthew twice, Luke thirteen times, including ii. +50, xviii. 34, xxiv. 52. + +We now come to the test supplied by the vocabulary. The following +are some of the words peculiar to St. Luke, or found in his +writings with marked and characteristic frequency, which occur in +those parts of our present Gospel that were wanting in Marcion's +recension: [Greek: anestaen, anastas] occur three times in St. +Matthew, twice in St. John, four times in the writings of St. +Paul, twenty-six times in the third Gospel and thirty-five times +in the Acts, and are found in i. 39, xv. 18, 20; [Greek: +antilegein] appears in ii. 34, five times in the rest of the +Gospel and the Acts, and only four times together in the rest of +the New Testament; [Greek: hapas] occurs twenty times in the +Gospel, sixteen times in the Acts, only ten times in the rest of +the New Testament, but in ii. 39, iii. 16, 21, iv. 6, xv. 13, xix. +37, 48, xxi. 4 (bis); three of these are, however, doubtful +readings. [Greek: aphesis ton amartion], ten times in the Gospel +and Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament, i. 77, +iii. 3. [Greek: dei], Dr. Holtzmann says, 'is found more often in +St. Luke than in all the other writers of the New Testament put +together.' This does not appear to be strictly true; it is, +however, found nineteen times in the Gospel and twenty-five times +in the Acts to twenty-four times in the three other Gospels; it +occurs in ii. 49, xiii. 33, xv. 32, xxii. 37. [Greek: dechesthai], +twenty-four times in the Gospel and Acts, twenty-six times in the +rest of the New Testament, six times in St. Matthew, three in St. +Mark, ii. 28, xxii. 17. [Greek: diatassein], nine times in the +Gospel and Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament +(Matthew once), iii. 13, xvii. 9, 10. [Greek: dierchesthai] occurs +thirty-two times in the Gospel and Acts, twice in each of the +other Synoptics, and eight times in the rest of the New Testament, +and is found in ii. 15, 35. [Greek: dioti], i. 13, ii. 7 (xxi. 28, +and Acts, not besides in the Gospels). [Greek: ean], xxii. 51 +(once besides in the Gospel, eight times in the Acts, and three +times in the rest of the New Testament). [Greek: ethos], i. 9, ii. +42, eight times besides in St. Luke's writings and only twice in +the rest of the New Testament. [Greek: enantion], five times in +St. Luke's writings, once besides, i. 8. [Greek: enopion], +correcting the readings, twenty times in the Gospel, fourteen +times in the Acts, not at all in the other Synoptists, once in St. +John, four times in chap. i, iv. 7, xv. 18, 21 (this will be +noticed as a very remarkable instance of the extent to which the +diction of the third Evangelist impressed itself upon his +writings). [Greek: epibibazein], xix. 35 (and twice, only by St. +Luke). [Greek: epipiptein], i. 12, xv. 20 (eight times in the Acts +and three times in the rest of the New Testament). [Greek: ai +eraemoi], only in St. Luke, i. 80, and twice. [Greek: etos] +(fifteen times in the Gospel, eleven times in the Acts, three +times in the other Synoptics and three times in St. John), four +times in chap. ii, iii. 1, 23, xiii, 7, 8, xv. 29. [Greek: +thaumazein epi tini], Gospel and Acts five times (only besides in +Mark xii. 17), ii. 33. [Greek: ikanos] in the sense of 'much,' +'many,' seven times in the Gospel, eighteen times in the Acts, and +only three times besides in the New Testament, iii. 16, xx. 9 +(compare xxii. 38). [Greek: kathoti] (like [Greek: kathexaes] +above), is only found in St. Luke's writings, i. 7, and five times +in the rest of the Gospel and the Acts. [Greek: latreuein], 'in +Luke, much oftener than in other parts of the New Testament,' i. +74, ii. 37, iv. 8, and five times in the Acts. [Greek: limos], six +times in the Gospel and Acts, six times in the rest of the New +Testament, xv. 14, 17. [Greek: maen] (month), i. 24, 26, 36, 56 +(iv. 25), alone in the Gospels, in the Acts five times. [Greek: +oikos] for 'family,' i. 27, 33, 69, ii. 4, and three times besides +in the Gospel, nine times in the Acts. [Greek: plaethos] +(especially in the form [Greek: pan to plaethos]), twenty-five +times in St. Luke's writings, seven times in the rest of the New +Testament, 1. 19, ii. 13, xix. 37. [Greek: plaesai, plaesthaenai], +twenty-two times in St. Luke's writings, only three times besides +in the New Testament, i. 15, 23, 41, 57, 67, ii. 6, 21, 22, xxi. +22. [Greek: prosdokan], eleven times in the Gospel and Acts, five +times in the rest of the New Testament (Matthew twice and 2 +Peter), i. 21, iii. 15. [Greek: skaptein], only in Luke three +times, xiii. 8. [Greek: speudein], except in 2 Peter iii. 12, only +in St. Luke's writings, ii. 16. [Greek: sullambanein], ten times +in the Gospel and Acts, five times in the rest of the New +Testament, i. 24, 31, 36, ii. 21. [Greek: sumballein], only in +Lucan writings, six times, ii. 19. [Greek: sunechein], nine times +in the Gospel and Acts, three times besides in the New Testament, +xix. 43. [Greek: sotaeria], in chap. i. three times, in the rest +of the Gospel and Acts seven times, not in the other Synoptic +Gospels. [Greek: hupostrephein], twenty-two times in the Gospel, +eleven times in the Acts, and only five times in the rest of the +New Testament (three of which are doubtful readings), i. 56, ii. +20, 39, 43, 45, iv. 1, (14), xxiv. 52. [Greek: hupsistos] occurs +nine times in the Gospel and Acts, four times in the rest of the +New Testament, i. 32, 35, 76, ii. 14, xix. 38. [Greek: hupsos] is +also found in i. 78, xxiv. 49. [Greek: charis] is found, among the +Synoptics, only in St. Luke, eight times in the Gospel, seventeen +times in the Acts, i. 30, ii. 40, 52, xvii. 9. [Greek: hosei] +occurs nineteen times in the Gospel and Acts (four doubtful +readings, of which two are probably false), seventeen times in the +rest of the New Testament (ten doubtful readings, of which in the +Synoptic Gospels three are probably false), i. 56, iii. 23. + +It should be remembered that the above are only samples from the +whole body of evidence, which would take up a much larger space if +exhibited in full. The total result may be summarised thus. +Accepting the scheme of Marcion's Gospel given some pages back, +which is substantially that of 'Supernatural Religion,' Marcion +will have omitted a total of 309 verses. In those verses there are +found 111 distinct peculiarities of St. Luke's style, numbering in +all 185 separate instances; there are also found 138 words +peculiar to or specially characteristic of the third Evangelist, +with 224 instances. In other words, the verified peculiarities of +St. Luke's style and diction (and how marked many of these are +will have been seen from the examples above) are found in the +portions of the Gospel omitted by Marcion in a proportion +averaging considerably more than one to each verse! [Endnote +229:1] Coming to detail, we find that in the principal omission-- +that of the first two chapters, containing 132 verses--there are +47 distinct peculiarities of style, with 105 instances; and 82 +characteristic words, with 144 instances. In the 23 verses of +chap. iii. omitted by Marcion (for the genealogy need not be +reckoned), the instances are 18 and 14, making a total of 32. In +18 verses omitted from chap. iv. the instances are 13 and 8 = 21. +In another longer passage--the parable of the prodigal son--the +instances are 8 of the first class and 20 of the second. In 20 +verses omitted from chap. xix. the instances are 11 and 6; and in +11 verses omitted from chap. xx, 9 and 8. Of all the isolated +fragments that Marcion had ejected from his Gospel, there are only +four--iv. 24, xi. 49-51, xx. 37, 38, xxii. 28-30, nine verses in +all--in which no peculiarities have been noticed. And yet even +here the traces of authorship are not wanting. It happens +strangely enough that in a list of parallel passages given by Dr. +Holtzmann to illustrate the affinities of thought between St. Luke +and St. Paul, two of these very passages--xi. 49 and xx. 38-- +occur. I had intended to pursue the investigation through these +resemblances, but it seems superfluous to carry it further. + +It is difficult to see what appeal can be made against evidence +such as this. A certain allowance should indeed be made for +possible errors of computation, and some of the points may have +been wrongly entered, though care has been taken to put down +nothing that was not verified by its preponderating presence in +the Lucan writings, and especially by its presence in that portion +of the Gospel which Marcion undoubtedly received. But as a rule +the method applies itself mechanically, and when every deduction +has been made, there will still remain a mass of evidence that it +does not seem too much to describe as overwhelming. + +(4.) We may assume, then, that there is definite proof that the +Gospel used by Marcion presupposes our present St. Luke, in its +complete form, as it has been handed down to us. But when once +this assumption has been made, another set of considerations comes +in, which also carry with them an important inference. If +Marcion's Gospel was an extract from a manuscript containing our +present St. Luke, then not only is it certain that that Gospel was +already in existence, but there is further evidence to show that +it must have been in existence for some time. The argument in this +case is drawn from another branch of Biblical science to which we +have already had occasion to appeal--text-criticism. Marcion's +Gospel, it is known, presents certain readings which differ both +from the received and other texts. Some of these are thought by +Volkmar and Hilgenfeld to be more original and to have a better +right to stand in the text than those which are at present found +there. These critics, however, base their opinion for the most +part on internal grounds, and the readings defended by them are +not as a rule those which are supported by other manuscript +authority. It is to this second class rather that I refer as +bearing upon the age of the canonical Gospel. The most important +various readings of the existence of which we have proof in +Marcion's Gospel are as follows [Endnote 231:1]:-- + +v. 14. The received (and best) text is [Greek: eis marturion +autois]. Marcion, according to the express statement of Epiphanius +(312 B), read [Greek: hina ae morturion touto humin], which is +confirmed by Tertullian, who gives (_Marc._ iv. 8) 'Ut sit +vobis in testimonium.' The same or a similar reading is found in +D, [Greek: hina eis marturion ae humin touto], 'ut sit in +testimonium vobis hoc,' d; 'ut sit in testimonium (--monia, ff) +hoc vobis,' a (Codex Vercellensis), b (Codex Veronensis), c (Codex +Colbertinus), ff (Codex Corbeiensis), l (Codex Rhedigerianus), of +the Old Latin [Endnote 231:2]. + +v. 39 was _probably_ omitted by Marcion (this is inferred +from the silence of Tertullian by Hilgenfeld, p. 403, and Roensch, +p. 634). The verse is also omitted in D, a, b, c, d, e, ff. + +x. 22. Marcion's reading of this verse corresponded with that of +other Gnostics, but has no extant manuscript authority. We have +touched upon it elsewhere. + +x. 25. [Greek: zoaen aionion], Marcion omitted [Greek: aionion] +(Tert. _Adv. Marc._ iv. 25); so also the Old Latin Codex g'2 +(San Germanensis). + +xi. 2. Marcion read [Greek: eltheto to hagion pneuma sou eph' +haemas] (or an equivalent; see Roensch, p. 640) either for the +clause [Greek: hagiasthaeto to onoma sou] or for [Greek: +genaethaeto to thelaema sou], which is omitted in B, L, 1, Vulg., +ff, Syr. Crt. There is a curious stray [Greek: eph' haemas] in D +which may conceivably be a trace of Marcion's reading. + +xii. 14. Marcion (and probably Tertullian) read [Greek: kritaen] +(or [Greek: dikastaen]) only for [Greek: kritaen ae meristaen]; so +D, a ('ut videtur,' Tregelles), c, Syr. Crt. + +xii. 38. Marcion had [Greek: tae hesperinae phulakae] for [Greek: +en tae deutera phulakae kai en tae tritae phulakae]. So b: D, c, +e, ff, i, Iren. 334, Syr. Crt., combine the two readings in +various ways. + +xvi. 12. Marcion read [Greek: emon] for [Greek: humeteron]. So e +(Palatinus), i (Vindobonensis), l (Rhedigerianus). [Greek: +haemeteron] B. L, Origen. + +xvii. 2. Marcion inserted the words [Greek: ouk egennaethae ae] +(Tert. iv. 35), 'ne nasceretur aut,' a, b, c, ff, i, l. + +xviii. 19. Here again Marcion had a variation which is unsupported +by manuscript authority, but has to some extent a parallel in the +Clementine Homilies, Justin, &c. + +xxi. 18. was omitted by Marcion (Epiph. 316 B), and is also +omitted in the Curetonian Syriac. + +xxi. 27. Tertullian (iv. 39) gives the reading of Marcion as 'cum +plurima virtute' = [Greek: meta dunameos pollaes [kai doxaes]], +for [Greek: meta dun. k. dox. pollaes]; so D ([Greek: en dun. +pol.]), and approximately Vulg., a, c, e, f, ff, Syr. Crt., Syr. +Pst. + +xxiii. 2. Marcion read [Greek: diastrephonta to ethnos kai +katalionta ton nomon kai tous prophaetas kai keleuonta phorous mae +dounai kai anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna] (Epiph., 316 +D), where [Greek: kataluonta ton nomon kai tous prophaetas] and +[Greek: anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna] are additions to +the text, and [Greek: keleuonta phorous mae dounai] is a +variation. Of the two additions the first finds support in b, (c), +e, (ff), i, l; the second is inserted, with some variation, by c +and e in verse 5. + + We may thus tabulate the relation of Marcion to these various +authorities. The brackets indicate that the agreement is only +approximate. Marcion agrees with-- + +D, d, v. 14, v. 39; xii. 14, (xii. 28), (xxi. 27). + +a (Verc.), v. 14, v. 39, xii. 14 (apparently), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27). + +b (Ver.), v. 14, v. 39. xii. 38, xvii. 2, (xxiii. 2). + +c (Colb.), v. 14, v. 39, xii. 14, (xii. 38), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27), +(xxiii. 2), (xxiii. 2). + +e (Pal.), v. 39, (xii. 38), xvi. 12, (xxi. 27), xxiii. 2, (xxiii. +2). + +ff (Corb.), v. 14, v. 39, (xii. 38), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27), (xxiii. +2). + +g'2 (Germ.), x. 25. + +i (Vind.), (xii. 38), xvi. 12, xvii. 2, xxiii. 2. + +l (Rhed.), v. 14, xvi. 12, xvii. 2, xiii. 2. + +Syr. Crt., xii. 14, (xii. 38), xxi. 18, (xxi. 27). + +It is worth noticing that xxii. 19 b, 20 (which is omitted in D, +a, b, c, ff, i, l) appears to have been found in Marcion's Gospel, +as in the Vulgate, c, and f (see Roensch, p. 239). [Greek: apo tou +mnaemeiou] in xxiv. 9 is also found (Roensch, p. 246), though +omitted by D, a, b, c, e, ff, l. There is no evidence to show +whether the additions in ix. 55, xxiii. 34, and xxii. 43, 44 were +present in Marcion's Gospel or not. + +It will be observed that the readings given above have all what is +called a 'Western' character. The Curetonian Syriac is well known +to have Western affinities [Endnote 233:1]. Codd. a, b, c, and the +fragment of i which extends from Luke x. 6 to xxiii. 10, represent +the most primitive type of the Old Latin version; e, ff, and I +give a more mixed text. As we should expect, the revised Latin +text of Cod. f has no representation in Marcion's Gospel [Endnote +233:2]. + +These textual phenomena are highly interesting, but at the same +time an exact analysis of them is difficult. No simple hypothesis +will account for them. There can be no doubt that Marcion's +readings are, in the technical sense, false; they are a deviation +from the type of the pure and unadulterated text. At a certain +point, evidently of the remotest antiquity, in the history of +transcription, there was a branching off which gave rise to those +varieties of reading which, though they are not confined to +Western manuscripts, still, from their preponderance in these, are +called by the general name of 'Western.' But when we come to +consider the relations among those Western documents themselves, +no regular descent or filiation seems traceable. Certain broad +lines indeed we can mark off as between the earlier and later +forms of the Old Latin, though even here the outline is in places +confused; but at what point are we to insert that most remarkable +document of antiquity, the Curetonian Syriac? For instance, there +are cases (e.g. xvii. 2, xxiii. 2) where Marcion and the Old Latin +are opposed to the Old Syriac, where the latter has undoubtedly +preserved the correct reading. To judge from these alone, we +should naturally conclude that the Syriac was simply an older and +purer type than Marcion's Gospel and the Latin. But then again, on +the other hand, there are cases (such as the omission of xxi. 18) +where Marcion and the Syriac are combined, and the Old Latin +adheres to the truer type. This will tend to show that, even at +that early period, there must have been some comparison and +correction--a _con_vergence as well as a _di_vergence-- +of manuscripts, and not always a mere reproduction of the +particular copy which the scribe had before him; at the same time +it will also show that Marcion's Gospel, so far from being an +original document, has behind it a deep historical background, and +stands at the head of a series of copies which have already passed +through a number of hands, and been exposed to a proportionate +amount of corruption. Our author is inclined to lay stress upon +the 'slow multiplication and dissemination of MSS.' Perhaps he may +somewhat exaggerate this, as antiquarians give us a surprising +account of the case and rapidity with which books were produced by +the aid of slave-labour [Endnote 235:1]. But even at Rome the +publishing trade upon this large scale was a novelty dating back +no further than to Atticus, the friend of Cicero, and we should +naturally expect that among the Christians--a poor and widely +scattered body, whose tenets would cut them off from the use of +such public machinery--the multiplication of MSS. would be slower +and more attended with difficulty. But the slower it was the more +certainly do such phenomena as these of Marcion's text throw back +the origin of the prototype from which that text was derived. In +the year 140 A.D. Marcion possesses a Gospel which is already in +an advanced stage of transcription--which has not only undergone +those changes which in some regions the text underwent before it +was translated into Latin, but has undergone other changes +besides. Some of its peculiarities are not those of the earliest +form of the Latin version, but of that version in what may be +called its second stage (e.g. xvi. 12). It has also affinities to +another version kindred to the Latin and occupying a similar place +to the Old Latin among the Churches of Syria. These circumstances +together point to an antiquity fully as great as any that an +orthodox critic would claim. + +It should not be thought that because such indications are +indirect they are therefore any the less certain. There is perhaps +hardly a single uncanonical Christian document that is admittedly +and indubitably older than Marcion; so that direct evidence there +is naturally none. But neither is there any direct evidence for +the antiquity of man or of the earth. The geologist judges by the +fossils which he finds embedded in the strata as relics of an +extinct age; so here, in the Gospel of Marcion, do we find relics +which to the initiated eye carry with them their own story. + +Nor, on the other hand, can it rightly be argued that because the +history of these remains is not wholly to be recovered, therefore +no inference from them is possible. In the earlier stages of a +science like palaeontology it might have been argued in just the +same way that the difficulties and confusion in the classification +invalidated the science along with its one main inference +altogether. Yet we can see that such an argument would have been +mistaken. There will probably be some points in every science +which will never be cleared up to the end of time. The affirmation +of the antiquity of Marcion's Gospel rests upon the simple axiom +that every event must have a cause, and that in order to produce +complicated phenomena the interaction of complicated causes is +necessary. Such an assumption involves time, and I think it is a +safe proposition to assert that, in order to bring the text of +Marcion's Gospel into the state in which we find it, there must +have been a long previous history, and the manuscripts through +which it was conveyed must have parted far from the parent stem. + +The only way in which the inference drawn from the text of +Marcion's Gospel can be really met would be by showing that the +text of the Latin and Syriac translations is older and more +original than that which is universally adopted by text-critics. I +should hardly suppose that the author of 'Supernatural Religion' +will be prepared to maintain this. If he does, the subject can +then be argued. In the meantime, these two arguments, the literary +and the textual--for the others are but subsidiary--must, I think, +be held to prove the high antiquity of our present Gospel. + + + + + +CHAPTER IX. + +TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. + + +Tatian was a teacher of rhetoric, an Assyrian by birth, who was +converted to Christianity by Justin Martyr, but after his death +fell into heresy, leaning towards the Valentinian Gnosticism, and +combining with this an extreme asceticism. + +The death of Justin is clearly the pivot on which his date will +hinge. If we are to accept the conclusions of Mr. Hort this will +have occurred in the year 148 A.D.; according to Volkmar it would +fall not before 155 A.D., and in the ordinary view as late as 163- +165 A.D. [Endnote 238:1] The beginning of Tatian's literary +activity will follow accordingly. + +Tatian's first work of importance, an 'Address to Greeks,' which +is still extant, was written soon after the death of Justin. It +contains no references to the Synoptic Gospels upon which stress +can be laid. + +An allusion to Matth. vi. 19 in the Stromateis of Clement [Endnote +238:2] has been attributed to Tatian, but I hardly know for what +reason. It is introduced simply by [Greek: tis (biazetai tis +legon)], but there were other Encratites besides Tatian, and the +very fact that he has been mentioned by name twice before in the +chapter makes it the less likely that he should be introduced so +vaguely. + +The chief interest however in regard to Tatian centres in his so- +called 'Diatessaron,' which is usually supposed to have been a +harmony of the four Gospels. + +Eusebius mentions this in the following terms: 'Tatian however, +their former leader, put together, I know not how, a sort of +patchwork or combination of the Gospels and called it the +"Diatessaron," which is still current with some.' [Endnote 239:1] + +I am rather surprised to see that Credner, who is followed by the +author of 'Supernatural Religion,' argues from this that Eusebius +had not seen the work in question [Endnote 239:2]. This inference +is not by any means conveyed by the Greek. [Greek: Ouk oid' hopos] +(thus introduced) is an idiomatic phrase referring to the +principle on which the harmony was constructed, and might well be +paraphrased 'a curious sort of patchwork or dovetailing,' 'a not +very intelligible dovetailing,' &c. Standing in the position it +does, the phrase can hardly mean anything else. Besides it is not +likely that Eusebius, an eager collector and reader of books, with +the run of Pamphilus' library, should not have been acquainted +with a work that he says himself was current in more quarters than +one. Eusebius, it will be observed, is quite explicit in his +statement. He says that the Diatessaron was a harmony of the +Gospels, i.e. (in his sense) of our present Gospels, and that +Tatian gave the name of Diatessaron to his work himself. We do not +know upon what these statements rest, but there ought to be some +valid reason before we dismiss them entirely. + +Epiphanius writes that 'Tatian is said to have composed the +Diatessaron Gospel which some call the "Gospel according to the +Hebrews"' [Endnote 240:1]. And Theodoret tells us that 'Tatian +also composed the Gospel which is called the Diatessaron, cutting +out the genealogies and all that shows the Lord to have been born +of the seed of David according to the flesh.' 'This,' he adds, +'was used not only by his own party, but also by those who +followed the teaching of the Apostles, as they had not perceived +the mischievous design of the composition, but in their simplicity +made use of the book on account of its conciseness.' Theodoret +found more than two hundred copies in the churches of his diocese +(Cyrrhus in Syria), which he removed and replaced with the works +of the four Evangelists [Endnote 240:2]. + +Victor of Capua in the sixth century speaks of Tatian's work as a +'Diapente' rather than a 'Diatessaron' [Endnote 240:3]. If we are +to believe the Syrian writer Bar-Salibi in the twelfth century, +Ephrem Syrus commented on Tatian's Diatessaron, and it began with +the opening words of St. John. This statement however is referred +by Gregory Bar-Hebraeus not to the Harmony of Tatian, but to one +by Ammonius made in the third century [Endnote 241:1]. + +Here there is clearly a good deal of confusion. + +But now we come to the question, was Tatian's work really a +Harmony of our four Gospels? The strongest presumption that it was +is derived from Irenaeus. Irenaeus, it is well known, speaks of +the four Gospels with absolute decision, as if it were a law of +nature that their number must be four, neither more nor less +[Endnote 241:2], and his four Gospels were certainly the same as +our own. But Tatian wrote within a comparatively short interval of +Irenaeus. It is sufficiently clear that Irenaeus held his opinion +at the very time that Tatian wrote, though it was not published +until later. Here then we have a coincidence which makes it +difficult to think that Tatian's four Gospels were different from +ours. + +The theory that finds favour with Credner [Endnote 241:3] and his +followers, including the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' is +that Tatian's Gospel was the same as that used by Justin. I am +myself not inclined to think this theory improbable; it would have +been still less so, if Tatian had been the master and Justin the +pupil [Endnote 241:4]. We have seen that the phenomena of Justin's +evangelical quotations are as well met by the hypothesis that he +made use of a Harmony as by any other. But that Harmony, as we +have also seen, included at least our three Synoptics. The +evidence (which we shall consider presently) for the use of the +fourth Gospel by Tatian is so strong as to make it improbable that +that work was not included in the Diatessaron. The fifth work, +alluded to by Victor of Capua, may possibly have been the Gospel +according to the Hebrews. + + + 2. + +Just as the interest of Tatian turns upon the interpretation to be +put upon a single term 'Diatessaron,' so the interest of Dionysius +of Corinth depends upon what we are to understand by his phrase +'the Scriptures of the Lord.' + +In a fragment, preserved by Eusebius, of an epistle addressed to +Soter Bishop of Rome (168-176 A.D.) and the Roman Church, +Dionysius complains that his letters had been tampered with. 'As +brethren pressed me to write letters I wrote them. And these the +apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some +things and adding others, for whom the woe is prepared. It is not +wonderful, then, if some have ventured to tamper with the +Scriptures of the Lord when they have laid their plots against +writings that have no such claims as they' [Endnote 242:1]. It +must needs be a straining of language to make the Scriptures here +refer, as the author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to do, to +the Old Testament. It is true that Justin lays great stress upon +type and prophecy as pointing to Christ, but there is a +considerable step between this and calling the whole of the Old +Testament 'Scriptures of the Lord.' On the other hand, we can +hardly think that Dionysius refers to a complete collection of +writings like the New Testament. It seems most natural to suppose +that he is speaking of Gospels--possibly not the canonical alone, +and yet, with Irenaeus in our mind's eye, we shall say probably to +them. There is the further reason for this application of the +words that Dionysius is known to have written against Marcion--'he +defended the canon of the truth' [Endnote 243:1], Eusebius says-- +and such 'tampering' as he describes was precisely what Marcion +had been guilty of. + + * * * * * + +The reader will judge for himself what is the weight of the kind +of evidence produced in this chapter. I give a chapter to it +because the author of 'Supernatural Religion' has done the same. +Doubtless it is not the sort of evidence that would bear pressing +in a court of English law, but in a question of balanced +probabilities it has I think a decided leaning to one side, and +that the side opposed to the conclusions of 'Supernatural +Religion.' + + + + + +CHAPTER X. + +MELITO--APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS. + + +We pass on, still in a region of fragments--'waifs and strays' of +the literature of the second century--and of partial and indirect +(though on that account not necessarily less important) +indications. + +In Melito of Sardis (c. 176 A.D) it is interesting to notice the +first appearance of a phrase that was destined later to occupy a +conspicuous position. Writing to his friend Onesimus, who had +frequently asked for selections from the Law and the Prophets +bearing upon the Saviour, and generally for information respecting +the number and order of 'the Old Books,' Melito says 'that he had +gone to the East and reached the spot where the preaching had been +delivered and the acts done, and that having learnt accurately the +books of the Old Covenant (or Testament) he had sent a list of +them'--which is subjoined [Endnote 244:1]. Melito uses the word +which became established as the title used to distinguish the +elder Scriptures from the younger--the Old Covenant or Testament +([Greek: hae palaia diathaekae]); and it is argued from this that +he implies the existence of a 'definite New Testament, a written +antitype to 'the Old' [Endnote 245:1] The inference however seems +to be somewhat in excess of what can be legitimately drawn. By +[Greek: palaia diathaekae] is meant rather the subject or contents +of the books than the books themselves. It is the system of +things, the dispensation accomplished 'in heavenly places,' to +which the books belong, not the actual collected volume. The +parallel of 2 Cor. iii. 14 ([Greek: epi tae anagnosei taes palaias +diathaekaes]), which is ably pointed to in 'Supernatural Religion' +[Endnote 245:2], is too close to allow the inference of a written +New Testament. And yet, though the word has not actually acquired +this meaning, it was in process of acquiring it, and had already +gone some way to acquire it. The books were already there, and, as +we see from Irenaeus, critical collections of them had already +begun to be made. Within thirty years of the time when Melito is +writing Tertullian uses the phrase Novum Testamentum precisely in +our modern sense, intimating that it had then become the current +designation [Endnote 245:3]. This being the case we cannot wonder +that there should be a certain reflex hint of such a sense in the +words of Melito. + +The tract 'On Faith,' published in Syriac by Dr. Cureton and +attributed to Melito, is not sufficiently authenticated to have +value as evidence. + +It should be noted that Melito's fragments contain nothing +especially on the Gospels. + + + 2. + +Some time between 176-180 A.D. Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of +Hierapolis, addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius an apology of +which rather more than three lines have come down to us. A more +important fragment however is assigned to this writer in the +Paschal Chronicle, a work of the seventh century. Here it is said +that 'Apollinaris, the most holy bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, who +lived near the times of the Apostles, in his book about Easter, +taught much the same, saying thus: "There are some who through +ignorance wrangle about these matters, in a pardonable manner; for +ignorance does not admit of blame but rather needs instruction. +And they say that on the 14th the Lord ate the lamb with His +disciples, and that on the great day of unleavened bread He +himself suffered; and they relate that this is in their view the +statement of Matthew. Whence their opinion is in conflict with the +law, and according to them the Gospels are made to be at +variance"' [Endnote 246:1]. This variance or disagreement in the +Gospels evidently has reference to the apparent discrepancy +between the Synoptics, especially St. Matthew and St. John, the +former treating the Last Supper as the Paschal meal, the latter +placing it before the Feast of the Passover and making the +Crucifixion coincide with the slaughter of the Paschal lamb. +Apollinaris would thus seem to recognise both the first and the +fourth Gospels as authoritative. + +Is this fragment of Apollinaris genuine? It is alleged against it +[Endnote 247:1] (1) that Eusebius was ignorant of any such work on +Easter, and that there is no mention of it in such notices of +Apollinaris and his writings as have come down to us from +Theodoret, Jerome, and Photius. There are some good remarks on +this point by Routh (who is quoted in 'Supernatural Religion' +_apparently_ as adverse to the genuineness of the fragments). +He says: 'There seems to me to be nothing in these extracts to +compel us to deny the authorship of Apollinaris. Nor must we +refuse credit to the author of the Preface [to the Paschal +Chronicle] any more than to other writers of the same times on +whose testimony many books of the ancients have been received, +although not mentioned by Eusebius or any other of his contemporaries; +especially as Eusebius declares below that it was only some select +books that had come to his hands out of many that Apollinaris had +written' [Endnote 247:2]. It is objected (2) that Apollinaris is +not likely to have spoken of a controversy in which the whole Asiatic +Church was engaged as the opinion of a 'few ignorant wranglers' A +fair objection, if he was really speaking of such a controversy. +But the great issue between the Churches of Asia and that of Rome +was whether the Paschal festival should be kept, according to the +Jewish custom, always on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, or +whether it should be kept on the Friday after the Paschal full moon, +on whatever day of the month it might fall. The fragment appears +rather to allude to some local dispute as to the day on which the +Lord suffered. To go thoroughly into this question would involve +us in all the mazes of the so-called Paschal controversy, and in +the end a precise and certain conclusion would probably be impossible. +So far as I am aware, all the writers who have entered into the +discussion start with assuming the genuineness of the Apollinarian +fragment. + +There remains however the fact that it rests only upon the attestation +of a writer of the seventh century, who may possibly be wrong, but, +if so, has been led into his error not wilfully but by accident. +No reason can be alleged for the forging or purposely false ascription +of a fragment like this, and it bears the stamp of good faith in that +it asks indulgence for opponents instead of censure. We may perhaps +safely accept the fragment with some, not large, deduction from its +weight. + + 3. + +An instance of the precariousness of the argument from silence +would be supplied by the writer who comes next under review-- +Athenagoras. No mention whatever is made of Athenagoras either by +Eusebius or Jerome, though he appears to have been an author of a +certain importance, two of whose works, an Apology addressed to +Marcus Aurelius and Commodus and a treatise on the Resurrection, +are still extant. The genuineness of neither of these works is +doubted. + +The Apology, which may be dated about 177 A.D., contains a few +references to our Lord's discourses, but not such as can have any +great weight as evidence. The first that is usually given, a +parallel to Matt. v. 39, 40 (good for evil), is introduced in such +a way as to show that the author intends only to give the sense +and not the words. The same may be said of another sentence that +is compared with Mark x. 6 [Endnote 249:1]:-- + +_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 33._ + +[Greek: Hoti en archae ho Theos hena andra eplase kai mian +gunaika.] + +_Mark x. 6_ + +[Greek: Apo de archaes ktiseos arsen kai thaelu epoiaesen autous +ho Theos.] + +All that can be said is that the thought here appears to have been +suggested by the Gospel--and that not quite immediately. + +A much closer--and indeed, we can hardly doubt, a real--parallel +is presented by a longer passage:-- + +_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 11._ + +What then are the precepts in which we are instructed? I say unto +you: Love your enemies, bless them that curse, pray for them that +persecute you; that ye may become the sons of your Father which is +in heaven: who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, +and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. + +[Greek: Tines oun haemon hoi logoi, hois entrephometha; lego +humin, agapate tous echthrous humon, eulogeite tous kataromenous, +proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas, hopos genaesthe huioi tou +patros humon tou en ouranois, hos ton haelion autou anatellei epi +ponaerous kai agathous kai brechei epi dikaious kai adikous.] + +_Matt_. v. 44, 45. + +I say unto you: Love your enemies [bless them that curse you, do +good to them that hate you], and pray for them that persecute you; +that ye may become the sons of your Father which is in heaven: for +he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth +rain on the just and the unjust. + +[Greek: ego de lego humin, agapate tous echthrous humon +[eulogeite tous kataromenous humas, kalos poiete tous misountas +humas], proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas hopos genaesthe +huioi tou patros humon tou en ouranois, hoti ton haelion autou +anatellei epi ponaerous kai agathous kai brechei epi dikaious kai +adikous.] + +The bracketed clauses in the text of St. Matthew are both omitted +and inserted by a large body of authorities, but, as it is rightly +remarked in 'Supernatural Religion,' they are always either both +omitted or both inserted; we must therefore believe that the +omission and insertion of one only by Athenagoras is without +manuscript precedent. Otherwise the exactness of the parallel is +great; and it is thrown the more into relief when we compare the +corresponding passage in St. Luke. + +The quotation is completed in the next chapter of Athenagoras' +work:-- + +_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ._ 12. + +For if ye love, he says, them which love and lend to them which +lend to you, what reward shall ye have? + +[Greek: Ean gar agapate, phaesin, tous agapontas, kai daineizete +tois daneizousin humin, tina misthon hexete;] + + _Matt._ v. 46. + +For if ye shall love them which love you, what reward have ye? + +[Greek: Ean gar agapaesaete tous agapontas humas tina misthon +echete;] + +Here the middle clause in the quotation appears to be a +reminiscence of St. Luke vi. 34 ([Greek: ean danisaete par' hon +elpizete labein]). Justin also, it should be noted, has [Greek: +agapate] (but [Greek: ei agapate]) for [Greek: agapaesaete]. If +this passage had stood alone, taking into account the variations +and the even run and balance of the language we might have thought +perhaps that Athenagoras had had before him a different version. +Yet the [Greek: tina misthon], compared with the [Greek: poia +charis] of St. Luke and [Greek: ti kainon poieite] of Justin, +would cause misgivings, and greater run and balance is precisely +what would result from 'unconscious cerebration.' + +Two more references are pointed out to Matt. v. 28 and Matt. v. +32, one with slight, the other with medium, variation, which leave +the question very much in the same position. + +We ought not to omit to notice that Athenagoras quotes one +uncanonical saying, introducing it with the phrase [Greek: palin +haemin legontos tou logou]. I am not at all clear that this is not +merely one of the 'precepts' [Greek: oi logoi] alluded to above. +At any rate it is exceedingly doubtful that the Logos is here +personified. It seems rather parallel to the [Greek: ho logos +edaelou] of Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. 129). + +Considering the date at which he wrote I have little doubt that +Athenagoras is actually quoting from the Synoptics, but he cannot, +on the whole, be regarded as a very powerful witness for them. + + + 4. + +After the cruel persecution from which the Churches of Vienne and +Lyons had suffered in the year 177 A.D., a letter was written in +their name, containing an account of what had happened, which +Lardner describes as 'the finest thing of the kind in all +antiquity' [Endnote 251:1]. This letter, which was addressed to +the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, contained several quotations +from the New Testament, and among them one that is evidently from +St. Luke's Gospel. + +It is said of one of the martyrs, Vettius Epagathus, that his +manner of life was so strict that, young as he was, he could claim +a share in the testimony borne to the more aged Zacharias. Indeed +he had _walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the +Lord blameless_, and in the service of his neighbour untiring, +&c. [Endnote 252:1] The italicised words are a verbatim +reproduction of Luke i. 6. + +There is an ambiguity in the words [Greek: sunexisousthai tae tou +presbuterou Zachariou marturia]. The genitive after [Greek: marturia] +may be either subjective or objective--'the testimony borne _by_' +or 'the testimony borne _to_ or _of_' the aged Zacharias. I have +little doubt that the translation given above is the right one. +It has the authority of Lardner ('equalled the character of') and +Routh ('Zachariae senioris elogio aequaretur'), and seems to be +imperatively required by the context. The eulogy passed upon +Vettius Epagathus is justified by the uniform strictness of his +daily life (he has walked in _all_ the commandments &c.), not by +the single act of his constancy in death. + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' apparently following +Hilgenfeld [Endnote 252:2], adopts the other translation, and +bases on it an argument that the allusion is to the _martyrdom_ +of Zacharias, and therefore not to our third Gospel in which no +mention of that martyrdom is contained. On the other hand, we are +reminded that the narrative of the martyrdom of Zacharias enters +into the Protevangelium of James. That apocryphal Gospel however +contains nothing approaching to the words which coincide exactly +with the text of St. Luke. + +Even if there had been a greater doubt than there is as to the +application of [Greek: marturia], it would be difficult to resist +the conclusion that the Synoptic Gospel is being quoted. The words +occur in the most peculiar and distinctive portion of the Gospel; +and the correspondence is so exact and the phrase itself so +striking as not to admit of any other source. The order, the +choice of words, the construction, even to the use of the nominative +[Greek: amemptos] where we might very well have had the adverb +[Greek: amemptos], all point the same way. These fine edges of the +quotation, so to speak, must needs have been rubbed off in the +course of transmission through several documents. But there is +not a trace of any other document that contained such a remark +upon the character of Zacharias. + +This instance of a Synoptic quotation may, I think, safely be +depended upon. + +Another allusion, a little lower down in the Epistle, which speaks +of the same Vettius Epagathus as 'having in himself the Paraclete +[there is a play on the use of the word [Greek: paraklaetos] just +before], the Spirit, more abundantly than Zacharias,' though in +exaggerated and bad taste, probably has reference to Luke i. 67, +'And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Ghost,' &c. + +[Footnote: Mr. Mason calls my attention to [Greek: enduma +numphikon] in Sec. 13, and also to the misleading statement in +_S.R._ ii. p. 201 that 'no writing of the New Testament is +directly referred to.' I should perhaps have more fault to find +with the sentence on p. 204, 'It follows clearly and few venture +to doubt,' &c. I have assumed however for some time that the +reader will be on his guard against expressions such as these.] + + + + + +CHAPTER XI. + +PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. + + +We are now very near emerging into open daylight; but there are +three items in the evidence which lie upon the border of the +debateable ground, and as questions have been raised about these +it may be well for us to discuss them. + +We have already had occasion to speak of the two Gnostics +Ptolemaeus and Heracleon. It is necessary, in the first place, to +define the date of their evidence with greater precision, and, in +the second, to consider its bearing. + +Let us then, in attempting to do this, dismiss all secondary and +precarious matter; such as (1) the argument drawn by Tischendorf +[Endnote 254:1] from the order in which the names of the disciples +of Valentinus are mentioned and from an impossible statement of +Epiphanius which seems to make Heracleon older than Cerdon, and +(2) the argument that we find in Volkmar and 'Supernatural +Religion' [Endnote 254:2] from the use of the present tense by +Hippolytus, as if the two writers, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, were +contemporaries of his own in 225-235 A.D. Hippolytus does indeed +say, speaking of a division in the school of Valentinus, 'Those +who are of Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say' &c. +But there is no reason why there should not be a kind of historic +present, just as we might say, 'The Atomists, of whom are +Leucippus and Democritus, hold' &c., or 'St. Peter says this, St. +Paul says that.' The account of such presents would seem to be +that the writer speaks as if quoting from a book that he has +actually before him. It is not impossible that Heracleon and +Ptolemaeus may have been still living at the time when Hippolytus +wrote, but this cannot be inferred simply from the tense of the +verb. Surer data are supplied by Irenaeus. + +Irenaeus mentions Ptolemaeus several times in his first and second +books, and on one occasion he couples with his the name of +Heracleon. But to what date does this evidence of Irenaeus refer? +At what time was Irenaeus himself writing. We have seen that the +_terminus ad quem_, at least for the first three books, is +supplied by the death of Eleutherus (c. A.D. 190). On the other +hand, the third book at least was written after the publication of +the Greek version of the Old Testament by Theodotion, which +Epiphanius tells us appeared in the reign of Commodus (180-190 +A.D.). A still more precise date is given to Theodotion's work in +the Paschal Chronicle, which places it under the Consuls Marcellus +(Massuet would read 'Marullus') and Aelian in the year 184 A.D. +[Endnote 255:1] This last statement is worth very little, and it +is indeed disputed whether Theodotion's version can have appeared +so late as this. At any rate we must assume that it was in the +hands of Irenaeus about 185 A.D., and it will be not before this +that the third book of the work 'Against Heresies' was written. It +will perhaps sufficiently satisfy all parties if we suppose that +Irenaeus was engaged in writing his first three books between the +years 182-188 A.D. But the name of Ptolemaeus is mentioned very +near the beginning of the Preface; so that Irenaeus would be +committing to paper the statement of his acquaintance with +Ptolemaeus as early as 182 A.D. + +This is however the last link in the chain. Let us trace it a +little further backwards. Irenaeus' acquaintance with Ptolemaeus +can hardly have been a fact of yesterday at the time when he +wrote. Ptolemaeus represented the 'Italian' branch of the +Valentinian school, and therefore it seems a fair supposition that +Irenaeus would come in contact with him during his visit to Rome +in 178 A.D.; and the four years from that date to 182 A.D. can +hardly be otherwise than a short period to allow for the necessary +intimacy with his teaching to have been formed. + +But we are carried back one step further still. It is not only +Ptolemaeus but Ptolemaeus _and his party_ ([Greek: hoi peri +Ptolemaion]) [Endnote 256:1]. There has been time for Ptolemaeus +to found a school within a school of his own; and his school has +already begun to express its opinions, either collectively or +through its individual members. + +In this way the real date of Ptolemaeus seems still to recede, but +I will not endeavour any further to put a numerical value upon it +which might be thought to be prejudiced. It will be best for the +reader to fill up the blank according to his own judgment. + +Heracleon will to a certain extent go with Ptolemaeus, with whom +he is persistently coupled, though, as he is only mentioned once +by Irenaeus, the data concerning him are less precise. They are +however supplemented by an allusion in the fourth book of the +Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria (which appears to have been +written in the last decade of the century) to Heracleon as one of +the chief of the school of Valentinus [Endnote 257:1], and perhaps +also by a statement of Origen to the effect that Heracleon was said +to be a [Greek: gnorimos] of Valentinus himself [Endnote 257:2]. +The meaning of the latter term is questioned, and it is certainly +true that it may stand for pupil or scholar, as Elisha was to Elijah +or as the Apostles were to their Master; but that it could possibly +be applied to two persons who never came into personal contact must +be, I cannot but think, very doubtful. This then, if true, would +throw back Heracleon some little way even beyond 160 A.D. + +From the passage in the Stromateis we gather that Heracleon, if he +did not (as is usually inferred) write a commentary, yet wrote an +isolated exposition of a portion of St. Luke's Gospel. In the same +way we learn from Origen that he wrote a commentary upon St. John. + +We shall probably not be wrong in referring many of the +Valentinian quotations given by Irenaeus to Ptolemaeus and +Heracleon. By the first writer we also have extant an Epistle to a +disciple called Flora, which has been preserved by Epiphanius. +This Epistle, which there is no reason to doubt, contains +unequivocal references to our first Gospel. + + +_Epistle to Flora. Epiph. Haer._ 217 A. + +[Greek: oikia gar ae polis meristheisa eph' heautaen hoti mae +dunatai staenai [ho sotaer haemon apephaenato].] + +_Ibid._ 217 D. + +[Greek: [ephae autois hoti] Mousaes pros taen sklaerokardian humon +epetrepse to apoluein taen gunaika autou. Ap' archaes gar ou +gegonen houtos. Theos gar (phaesi) sunezeuxe tautaen taen suzugian +kai ho sunezeuxen ho kurios, anthropos (ephae) mae chorizeto.] + +_Ibid. 218 D. + +[Greek: ho gar Theos (phaesin) eipe tima ton patera sou kai taen +maetera sou, hina eu soi genaetai; humeis de (phaesin) eiraekate +(tois presbuterois legon), doron to Theo ho ean ophelaethaes ex +emou, kai aekurosate ton nomon tou Theou, dia taen paradosin humon +ton presbuteron. Touto de Haesaias exephonaesen eipon; ho laos +houtos tois cheilesi me tima hae de kardia auton porro apechei ap' +emou. Mataen de sebontai me, didaskontes didaskalias, entalmata +anthropon.] + +_Ibid._ 220 D, 221 A. + +[Greek: to gar, Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai odonta anti odontos ... +ego gar lego humin mae antistaenai holos to ponaero alla ean tis +se rhapisae strepson auto kai taen allaen siagona.] + + +_Matt._ xii. 25 (_Mark_ iii. 25, _Luke_ xi. 17). + +[Greek: pasa polis ae oikia meristheisa kath' heautaes ou +stathaesetai.] + +_Matt._ xix. 8, 6 (_Mark_ x. 5, 6, 9). + +[Greek: legei autois; Hoti Mousaes pros taen sklaerokardian humon +epetrepsen humin apolusai tas gunaikas humon' ap' archaes de ou +gegonen houtos. ... ho oun ho theos sunezeuxen anthropos mae +chorizeto.] + +_Matt._ xv. 4-8 (_Mark_ vii. 10, 11, 6, 9). + +[Greek: ho gar theos eneteilato legon, Tima ton patera kai taen +maetera ... humeis de legete; hos an eipae to patri ae tae maetri; +Doron ho ean ex emou ophelaethaes,... kai aekurosate ton nomon tou +Theou dia taen paradosin humon. Hupokritai, kalos eprophaeteusen +peri humon Haesaias legon; Ho laos houtos tois cheilesin me tima, +hae de kardia auton porro apechei ap' emou; mataen de sebontai me +didaskontes didaskalias entalmata anthropon.] + +_Matt_. v. 38, 39 (_Luke_ vi. 29). + +[Greek: aekousate oti erraethae, Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai +odonta anti odontos ego de lego hymin mae antistaenai to ponaero +all hostis se rapizei eis taen dexian siagona sou, strephon auto +kai taen allaen.] + + +Some doubt indeed appears to be entertained by the author of +'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 259:1] as to whether these +quotations are really taken from the first Synoptic; but it would +hardly have arisen if he had made a more special study of the +phenomena of patristic quotation. If he had done this, I do not +think there would have been any question on the subject. A +comparison of the other Synoptic parallels, and of the Septuagint +in the case of the quotation from Isaiah, will make the agreement +with the Matthaean text still more conspicuous. It is instructive +to notice the reproduction of the most characteristic features of +this text--[Greek: polis, meristheisa] ([Greek: ean meristhae] +Mark, [Greek: diameristheisa] Luke), [Greek: hoti Mousaes, +epetrepsen apolu[sai] t[as] gunaik[as], ou gegonen oitos, +aekurosate .. dia taen p., ophthalmon ... odontos, antistaenai to +ponaero, strepson], and the order and cast of sentence in all the +quotations. The first quotation, with [Greek: eph eautaen] and +[Greek: dunatai staenai], which may be compared (though, from the +context, somewhat doubtfully) with Mark, presents, I believe, the +only trace of the influence of any other text. + +To what period in the life of Ptolemaeus this Epistle to Flora may +have belonged we have no means of knowing; but it is unlikely that +the writer should have used one set of documents at one part of +his life and another set at another. Viewed along with so much +confirmatory matter in the account of the Valentinians by +Irenaeus, the evidence may be taken as that of Ptolemaeus himself +rather than of this single letter. + + + 2. + +The question in regard to Celsus, whose attacks upon Christianity +called forth such an elaborate reply from Origen, is chiefly one +of date. To go into this at once adequately and independently +would need a much longer investigation than can be admitted into +the present work. The subject has quite recently been treated in a +monograph by the well-known writer Dr. Keim [Endnote 260:1], and, +as there will be in this case no suspicion of partiality, I shall +content myself with stating Dr. Keim's conclusions. + +Origen himself, Dr. Keim thinks, was writing under the Emperor +Philip about A.D. 248. But he regards his opponent Celsus, not as +a contemporary, but as belonging to a past age (Contra Celsum, i. +8, vii. 11), and his work as nothing recent, but rather as having +obtained a certain celebrity in heathen literature (v. 3). For all +this it had to be disinterred, as it were, and that not without +difficulty, by a Christian (viii. 76). + +Exact and certain knowledge however about Celsus Origen did not +possess. He leans to the opinion that his opponent was an +Epicurean of that name who lived 'under Hadrian and later' (i. 8). +This Epicurean had also written several books against Magic (i. +68). Now it is known that there was a Celsus, a friend of Lucian, +who had also written against Magic, and to whom Lucian dedicated +his 'Pseudomantis, or Alexander of Abonoteichos.' + +It was clearly obvious to identify the two persons, and there was +much to be said in favour of the identification. But there was +this difficulty. Origen indeed speaks of the Celsus to whom he is +replying as an Epicurean, and here and there Epicurean opinions +are expressed in the fragments of the original work that Origen +has preserved. But Origen himself was somewhat puzzled to find +that the main principles of the author were rather Platonic or +Neo-platonic than Epicurean, and this observation has been +confirmed by modern enquiry. The Celsus of Origen is in reality a +Platonist. + +It still being acknowledged that the friend of Lucian was an +Epicurean, this discovery seemed fatal to the supposition that he +was the author of the work against the Christians. Accordingly +there was a tendency among critics, though not quite a unanimous +tendency, to separate again the two personalities which had been +united. At this point Dr. Keim comes upon the scene, and he asks +the question, Was Lucian's friend really an Epicurean? Lucian +nowhere says so in plain words, but it was taken as a _prima +facie_ inference from some of the language used by him. For +instance, he describes the Platonists as being on good terms with +this very Alexander of Abonoteichos whom he is ridiculing and +exposing. He appeals to Celsus to say whether a certain work of +Epicurus is not his finest. He says that his friend will be +pleased to know that one of his objects in writing is to see +justice done to Epicurus. All these expressions Dr. Keim thinks +may be explained as the quiet playful irony that was natural to +Lucian, and from other indications in the work he concludes that +Lucian's Celsus may well have been a Platonist, though not a +bigoted one, just as Lucian himself was not in any strict and +narrow sense an Epicurean. + +When once the possibility of the identification is conceded, there +are, as Dr. Keim urges, strong reasons for its adoption. The +characters of the two owners of the name Celsus, so far as they +can be judged from the work of Origen on the one hand and Lucian +on the other, are the same. Both are distinguished for their +opposition to magical arts. The Celsus of the Pseudomantis is a +friend of Lucian, and it is precisely from a friend of Lucian that +the 'Word of Truth' replied to by Origen might be supposed to have +come. Lastly, time and place both support the identification. The +Celsus of Lucian lived under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, and +Dr. Keim decides, after an elaborate examination of the internal +evidence, that the Celsus of Origen wrote his work in the year 178 +A.D., towards the close of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. + +Such is Dr. Keim's view. In the date assigned to the [Greek: Logos +alaethaes] it does not differ materially from that of the large +majority of critics. Graetz alone goes as far back as to the time +of Hadrian. Hagenbach, Hasse, Tischendorf, and Friedlaender fix +upon the middle, Mosheim, Gieseler, Baur, and Engelhardt upon the +second half, of the second century; while the following writers +assume either generally the reign of Marcus Aurelius, or specially +with Dr. Keim one of the two great persecutions--Spencer, +Tillemont, Neander, Tzschirner, Jachmann, Bindemann, Lommatzsch, +Hase, Redepenning, Zeller. The only two writers mentioned by Dr. +Keim as contending for a later date are Ueberweg and Volkmar, 'who +strangely misunderstands both Origen and Baur' [Endnote 263:1]. +Volkmar is followed by the author of 'Supernatural Religion.' + +At whatever date Celsus wrote, it appears to be sufficiently clear +that he knew and used all the four canonical Gospels [Endnote 263:2]. + + + 3. + +The last document that need be discussed by us at present is the +remarkable fragment which, from its discoverer and from its +contents, bears the name of the Canon of Muratori [Endnote 263:3]. + +Whatever was the original title and whatever may have been the +extent of the work from which it is taken, the portion of it that +has come down to us is by far the most important of all the direct +evidence for the Canon both of the Gospels and of the New +Testament in general with which we have yet had to deal. It is +indeed the first in which the conception of a Canon is quite +unequivocally put forward. We have for the first time a definite +list of the books received by the Church and a distinct separation +made between these and those that are rejected. + +The fragment begins abruptly with the end of a sentence apparently +relating to the composition of the Gospel according to St. Mark. +Then follows 'in the third place the Gospel according to St. +Luke,' of which some account is given. 'The fourth of the Gospels' +is that of John, 'one of the disciples of the Lord.' A legend is +related as to the origin of this Gospel. Then mention is made of +the Acts, which are attributed to Luke. Then follow thirteen +Epistles of St. Paul by name. Two Epistles professing to be +addressed to the Laodiceans and Alexandrines are dismissed as +forged in the interests of the heresy of Marcion. The Epistle of +Jude and two that bear the superscription of John are admitted. +Likewise the two Apocalypses of John and Peter. [No mention is +made, it will be seen, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of that of +James, of I and II Peter, and of III John.] [Endnote 264:1] + +The Pastor of Hermas, a work of recent date, may be read but not +published in the Church before the people, and cannot be included +either in the number of the prophets or apostles. + +On the other hand nothing at all can be received of Arsinous, +Valentinus, or Miltiades; neither the new Marcionite book of +Psalms, which with Basilides and the Asian founder of the +Cataphryges (or the founder of the Asian Cataphryges, i.e. +Montanus) is rejected. + +The importance of this will be seen at a glance. The chief +question is here again in regard to the date, which must be +determined from the document itself. A sufficiently clear +indication seems to be given in the language used respecting the +Pastor of Hermas. This work is said to have been composed 'very +lately in our times, Pius the brother of the writer occupying the +episcopal chair of the Roman Church.' The episcopate of Pius is +dated from 142-157 A.D., so that 157 A.D. may be taken as the +starting-point from which we have to reckon the interval implied +by the words 'very recently in our times' (nuperrime temporibus +nostris). Taking these words in their natural sense, I should +think that the furthest limit they would fairly admit of would be +a generation, or say thirty years, after the death of Pius (for +even in taking a date such as this we are obliged to assume that +the Pastor was published only just before the death of that +bishop). The most probable construction seems to be that the +unknown author meant that the Pastor of Hermas was composed within +his own memory. Volkmar is doubtless right in saying [Endnote +265:1] that he meant to distinguish the work in question from the +writings of the Prophets and Apostles, but still the double use of +the words 'nuperrime' and 'temporibus nostris' plainly indicate +something more definite than merely 'our post-apostolic time.' If +this had been the sense we should have had some such word as +'recentius' instead of 'nuperrime.' The argument of 'Supernatural +Religion' [Endnote 265:2], that 'in supposing that the writer may +have appropriately used the phrase thirty or forty years after the +time of Pius so much licence is taken that there is absolutely no +reason why a still greater interval may not be allowed,' is +clearly playing fast and loose with language, and doing so for no +good reason; for the only ground for assigning a later date is +that the earlier one is inconvenient for the critic's theory. The +other indications tally quite sufficiently with the date 170-190 +A.D. Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, the Marcionites, we know were +active long before this period. The Montanists (who appear under +the name by which they were generally known in the earlier +writings, 'Cataphryges') were beginning to be notorious, and are +mentioned in the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons. +Miltiades was a contemporary of Claudius Apollinaris who wrote +against him [Endnote 266:1]. All the circumstances point to such a +date as that of Irenaeus, and the conception of the Canon is very +similar to that which we should gather from the great work +'Against Heresies.' If this does not agree with preconceived +opinions as to what the state of the Canon ought to have been, it +is the opinion that ought to be rectified accordingly, and not +plain words explained away. + +I can see no sound objection to the date 170-180 A.D., but by +adding ten years to this we shall reach the extreme limit +admissible. + +I do not know whether it is necessary to refer to the objection +from the absence of any mention of the first two Synoptic Gospels, +through the mutilated state of the document. It is true that the +inference that they were originally mentioned rests only 'upon +conjecture' [Endnote 266:2], but it is the kind of conjecture +that, taking all things into consideration--the extent to which +the evidence of the fragment in other respects corresponds with +the Catholic tradition, the state of the Canon in Irenaeus, the +relation of the evidence for the first Gospel in particular to +that for the others--can be reckoned at very little less than +ninety-nine chances out of a hundred. + +To the same class belongs Dr. Donaldson's suggestion [Endnote 267:1] +that the passage which contains the indication of date may be an +interpolation. It is always possible that the particular passage +that happens to be important in any document of this date may be +an interpolation, but the chances that it really is so must be in +any case very slight, and here there is no valid reason for suspecting +interpolation. It does not at all follow, as Dr. Donaldson seems +to think, that because a document is mutilated therefore it is more +likely to be interpolated; for interpolation is the result of quite +a different series of accidents. The interpolation, if it were such, +could not well be accidental because it has no appearance of being +a gloss; on the other hand, only far-fetched and improbable motives +can be alleged for it as intentional. + +The full statement of the fragment in regard to St. Luke's Gospel +is as follows. 'Luke the physician after the Ascension of Christ, +having been taken into his company by Paul, wrote in his own name +to the best of his judgment (ex opinione), and, though he had not +himself seen the Lord in the flesh, so far as he could ascertain; +accordingly he begins his narrative with the birth of John.' The +greater part of this account appears to be taken simply from the +Preface to the Gospel, which is supplemented by the tradition that +St. Luke was a physician and also the author of the Acts. As +evidence to those facts a document dating some hundred years after +the composition of the Gospel is not of course very weighty; its +real importance is as showing the authority which the Gospel at +this date possessed in the Church. That authority cannot have been +acquired in a day, but represents the culmination of a long and +gradual movement. What we have to note is that the movement, some +of the stages of which we have been tracing, has now definitely +reached its culmination. + +In regard to the fourth Gospel the Muratorian fragment has a +longer story to tell, but before we touch upon this, and before we +proceed to draw together the threads of the previous enquiry, it +will be well for us first to bring up the evidence for the fourth +Gospel to the same date and position as that for the other three. +This then will be the subject of the next chapter. + + + + + +CHAPTER XII. + +THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. + + +The fourth Gospel was, upon any theory, written later than the +others, and it is not clear that it was published as soon as it +was written. Both tradition and the internal evidence of the +concluding chapter seem to point to the existence of somewhat +peculiar relations between the Evangelist and the presbyters of +the Asian Church, which would make it not improbable that the +Gospel was retained for some time by the latter within their own +private circle before it was given to the Church at large. + +We have the express statement of Irenaeus [Endnote 269:1], who, if +he was born as is commonly supposed at Smyrna about 140 A.D., must +be a good authority, that the Apostle St. John lived on till the +times of Trajan (98-117 A.D.). If so, it is very possible that the +Gospel was not yet published, or barely published, when Clement of +Rome wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians. Neither, considering +its almost esoteric character and the slow rate at which such a +work would travel at first, should we be very much surprised if it +was not in the hands of Barnabas (probably in Alexandria) and +Hermas (at Rome). In no case indeed could the silence of these two +writers be of much moment, as in the Epistle of Barnabas the +allusions to the New Testament literature are extremely few and +slight, while in the Shepherd of Hermas there are no clear and +certain references either to the Old Testament or the New +Testament at all. + +And yet there is a lively controversy round these two names as to +whether or not they contain evidence for the fourth Gospel, and +that they do is maintained not only by apologists, but also by +writers of quite unquestionable impartiality like Dr. Keim. Dr. +Keim, it will be remembered, argues against the Johannean +authorship of the Gospel, and yet on this particular point he +seems to be almost an advocate for the side to which he is +opposed. + +'Volkmar,' he says [Endnote 270:1], 'has recently spoken of Barnabas +as undeniably ignorant of the Logos-Gospel, and explained the early +date assigned to his Epistle by Ewald and Weizsaecker and now also +by Riggenbach as due to their perplexity at finding in it no trace +of St. John. There is room for another opinion. However much it +may be shown that Barnabas gives neither an incident nor a single +sentence from the Gospel, that he is unacquainted with the conception +of the Logos, that expressions like 'water and blood,' or the +Old Testament types of Christ, and especially the serpent reared +in the wilderness as an object of faith, are employed by him +independently--for all this the deeper order of conceptions in +the Epistle coincides in the gross or in detail so repeatedly with +the Gospel that science must either assume a connection between +them, or, if it leaves the problem unsolved, renounces its own +calling. "The Son of God" was to be manifested in the flesh, +manifested through suffering, to go to his glory through death and +the Cross, to bring life and the immanent presence of the Godhead, +such is here and there the leading idea. Existing before the +foundation of the world, the Lord of the world, the sender of the +prophets, the object of their prophecies, beheld even by Abraham, +in the person of Moses himself typified as the only centre of +Israel's hopes, and in so far already revealed and glorified in +type before his incarnation, he was at last to appear, to dwell +among us, to be seen, not as son of David but as Son of God, in +the garment of the flesh, by those who could not even endure the +light of this world's sun. So did he come; nay, so did he die to +fulfil the promise, in the very act of his apparent defeat to +dispense purification, pardon, life, to destroy death, to overcome +the devil, to show forth the Resurrection, and with the Resurrection +his right to future judgment; at the same time, it is true, to fill +up the measure of the sins of Israel, whom he had loved exceedingly +and for whom he had done such great wonders and signs, and to prepare +for himself again a new people who should keep his commandments, +his new law. The mission that his Father gave him he has accomplished, +of his own free will and for our sake--the true explanation of his +death--did he suffer. "The Jews" have not hoped upon him, clearly +as the typical design of the Old Testament and Moses himself pointed +to him, and, in opposition to the spiritual teaching of Moses, they +have been seduced into the carnal and sensual by the devil; they +have set their trust and their hopes, not upon God, but upon the +fleshly circumcision and upon the visible house of God, worshipping +the Lord in the temple almost like the heathen. But the Christian +raises himself above the flesh and its lusts, which disturb the +faculties of knowledge as well as those of will, to the Spirit +and the spiritual service of God, above the ways of darkness to +the ways of light; he presses on to faith, and with faith to +perfect knowledge, as one born again, who is full of the Spirit +of God, in whom God dwells and prophesies, interpreting past and +future without being seen or heard; as taught of God and fulfilling +the commandments of the new law of the Lord, a lover of the brethren, +and in himself the child of peace, of joy, and of love. For this +class of ideas there is no analogy in St. Paul, or even in the +Epistle to the Hebrews, but only in this Gospel, much as the +connection has hitherto been overlooked. Indeed, though it may +still in places be questioned on which side the relation of dependence +lies (it might be thought that Barnabas supplied the ideas, John +the application of them, and the conception of the Logos crowning all), +in any case the Gospel appeared at a date near to that of the +Epistle of Barnabas. With more reason may it be said that it is +not until we come to the Epistle of Barnabas that we find stiff +scholastic theory a more predominant typology, an artificialised +view of Judaism; besides the points of view always appear as +something received and not originated--water and blood, new law, +new people--and in the solemn manifestation of the Son of God +immediately after the selection of the Apostles, in the great +but fruitless exhibition of miracle and love for Israel, there +is evidently allusion to history, that is, to John ii and xii.' + +'The Epistle of Barnabas,' Dr. Keim adds, 'after the lucid +demonstration of Volkmar--in spite of Hilgenfeld and Weizaecker, +and now also of Riggenbach--was undoubtedly written at the time of +the rebuilding of the temple under the Emperor Hadrian, about the +year 120 A.D. (according to Volkmar, at the earliest, 118-119), at +latest 130.' + +It is not to be expected that this full and able statement should +carry conviction to every reader. And yet I believe that it has +some solid foundation. The single instances are not perhaps such +as could be pressed very far, but they derive a certain weight +when taken together and as parts of a wider circle of ideas. The +application of the type of the brazen serpent to Jesus in c. xii. +may have been suggested by John iii. 14 sqq., but we cannot say +that it was so with certainty. The same application is made by +Justin in a place where there is perhaps less reason to assume a +connection with the fourth Gospel; and we know that types and +prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and +were soon collected in a kind of common stock from which every one +drew at his pleasure. A stronger case, and one that I incline to +think of some importance, is supplied by the peculiar combination +of 'the water and the cross' in Barn. c. xi; not that here there +is a direct and immediate, but more probably a mediate, connection +with the fourth Gospel. The phrase [Greek: ho uios tou theou] is +not peculiar to, though it is more frequent in, and to some degree +characteristic of, the Gospel and First Epistle of St. John. +[Greek: Phanerousthai] may be claimed more decidedly, especially +by comparison with the other Gospels, though it occurs with +similar reference to the Incarnation in the later Pauline +Epistles. [Greek: 'Elthein en sarki] is again rightly classed as a +Johannean phrase, though the exact counterpart is found rather in +the Epistles than the Gospel. The doctrine of pre-existence is +certainly taught in such passages as the application of the text, +'Let us make man in our image,' which is said to have been +addressed to the Son 'from the foundation of the world' (c. v). +Generally I think it may be said that the doctrine of the +Incarnation, the typology, and the use of the Old Testament +prophecies, approximate, most distinctly to the Johannean type, +though under the latter heads there is of course much debased +exaggeration. The soteriology we might be perhaps tempted to +connect rather on the one hand with the Epistle to the Hebrews, +and on the other with those of St. Paul. There may be something of +an echo of the fourth Gospel in the allusion--to the unbelief and +carnalised religion of the Jews. But the whole question of the +speculative affinities of a writing like this requires subtle and +delicate handling, and should be rather a subject for special +treatment than an episode in an enquiry like the present. The +opinion of Dr. Keim must be of weight, but on the whole I think it +will be safest and fairest to say that, while the round assertion +that the author of the Epistle was ignorant of our Gospel is not +justified, the positive evidence that he made use of it is not +sufficiently clear to be pressed controversially. + + * * * * * + +A similar condition of things may be predicated of the Shepherd of +Hermas, though with a more decided leaning to the negative side. +Here again Dr. Keim [Endnote 273:1], as well as Canon Westcott +[Endnote 273:2], thinks that we can trace an acquaintance with the +Gospel, but the indications are too general and uncertain to be relied +upon. The imagery of the shepherd and the flock, as perhaps of the +tower and the gate, may, be as well taken from the scenes of the +Roman Campagna as from any previous writing. The keeping of the +commandments is a commonplace of Christianity, not to say of +religion. And the Divine immanence in the soul is conceived rather +in the spirit of the elder Gospels than of the fourth. + +There is a nearer approach perhaps in the identification of 'the +gate' with the 'Son of God,' and in the explanation with which it +is accompanied. 'The rock is old because the Son of God is older +than the whole of His creation; so that He was assessor to His +Father in the creation of the world; the gate is new, because He +was made manifest at the consummation of the last days, and they +who are to be saved enter by it into the kingdom of God' (Sim. ix. +12). Here too we have the doctrine of pre-existence; and +considering the juxtaposition of these three points, the pre- +existence, the gate (which is the only access to the Lord), the +identification of the gate with the incarnation of Jesus, we may +say perhaps a _possible_ reference to the fourth Gospel; +_probable_ it might be somewhat too much to call it. We must +leave the reader to form his own estimate. + + * * * * * + +A somewhat greater force, but not as yet complete cogency, +attaches to the evidence of the Ignatian letters. A parallel is +alleged to a passage in the Epistle to the Romans which is found +both in the Syriac and in the shorter Greek or Vossian version. 'I +take no relish in corruptible food or in the pleasures of this +life. I desire bread of God, heavenly bread, bread of life, which +is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born in the +latter days of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire drink +of God, His blood, which is love imperishable and ever-abiding +life' [Endnote 275:1] (Ep. ad Rom. c. vii). This is compared with +the discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum in the sixth chapter +of St. John. It should be said that there is a difference of +reading, though not one that materially influences the question, +in the Syriac. If the parallel holds good, the peculiar diction of +the author must be seen in the substitution of [Greek: poma] for +[Greek: posis] of John vi. 55, and [Greek: aennaos zoae] for +[Greek zoae aionios], of John vi. 54. [The Ignatian phrase is +perhaps more than doubtful, as it does not appear either in the +Syriac, the Armenian, or the Latin version.] Still this need not +stand in the way of referring the original of the passage +ultimately to the Gospel. The ideas are so remarkable that it +seems difficult to suppose either are accidental coincidence or +quotation from another writer. I suspect that Ignatius or the +author of the Epistle really had the fourth Gospel in his mind, +though not quite vividly, and by a train of comparatively remote +suggestions. + +The next supposed allusion is from the Epistle to the +Philadelphians: 'The Spirit, coming from God, is not to be +deceived; for it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth, +and it searcheth that which is hidden' [Endnote 275:2]. This is +obviously the converse of John iii. 5, where it is said that we do +not know the way of the Spirit, which is like the wind, &c. And +yet the exact verbal similarity of the phrase [Greek: oiden pothen +erchetai kai pou hupagei], and its appearance in the same +connection, spoken of the Spirit, leads us to think that there +was--as there may very well have been--an association of ideas. +This particular phrase [Greek: pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei] is +very characteristically Johannean. It occurs three times over in +the fourth Gospel, and not at all in the rest of the New +Testament. The combination of [Greek: erchesthai] and [Greek +hupagein] also occurs twice, and [Greek: pou [opou] hupago [-gei, +-geis]] in all twelve times in the Gospel and once in the Epistle +([Greek: ouk oide pou hupagei]); this too, it is striking to +observe, not at all elsewhere. The very word [Greek: hupago] is +not found at all in St. Paul, St. Peter, or the Epistle to the +Hebrews. Taken together with the special application to the +Spirit, this must be regarded as a strong case. + +Neither do the arguments of 'Supernatural Religion' succeed in +proving that there is no connection with St. John in such +sentences as, 'There is one God who manifested Himself through +Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word' (Ad Magn. c. viii), +or who is Himself the door of the Father (Ad Philad. c. ix). In +regard to the first of these especially, it is doubtless true that +Philo also has 'the eternal Word,' which is even the 'Son' of God; +but the idea is much more consciously metaphorical, and not only +did the incarnation of the Logos in a historical person never +enter into Philo's mind, but 'there is no room for it in his +system' [Endnote 276:1]. + +It should be said that these latter passages are all found only in +the Vossian recension of the Epistles, and therefore, as we saw +above, are in any case evidence for the first half of the second +century, while they _may_ be the genuine works of Ignatius. + + * * * * * + +The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which goes very much +with the Ignatian Epistles and the external evidence for which it +is so hard to resist, testifies to the fourth Gospel through the +so-called first Epistle. That this Epistle is really by the same +author as the Gospel is not indeed absolutely undoubted, but I +imagine that it is as certain as any fact of literature can be. +The evidence of style and diction is overwhelming [Endnote 277:1]. +We may set side by side the two passages which are thought to be +parallel. + +_Ep. ad Phil_. c. vii. + +[Greek: Pas gar hos an mae homologae Iaesoun Christon en sarki +elaeluthenai antichristos esti; kai hos an mae homologae to +marturion tou staurou ek tou diabolou esti; kai hos an methodeuae +ta logia tou Kuriou pros tas idias epithumias, kai legae maete +anastasin maete krisin einai, outos prototokos esti tou Satana.] + +1 _John_ vi. 2, 3. + +[Greek: Pan pneuma ho homologei Iaesoun Christon en sarki +elaeluthota ek tou Theou estin. Kai pan pneuma ho mae homologei +tou Iaesoun ek tou Theou ouk estin, kai touto estin to tou +antichristou, k.t.l.] + +This is precisely one of those passages where at a superficial +glance we are inclined to think that there is no parallel, but +where a deeper consideration tends to convince us of the opposite. +The suggestion of Dr. Scholten cannot indeed be quite excluded, +that both writers I have adopted a formula in use in the early +Church against various heretics' [Endnote 277:2]. But if such a +formula existed it is highly probable that it took its rise from +St. John's Epistle. This passage of the Epistle of Polycarp is the +earliest instance of the use of the word 'Antichrist' outside the +Johannean writings in which, alone of the New Testament, it occurs +five times. Here too it occurs in conjunction with other +characteristic phrases, [Greek: homologein, en sarki elaeluthenai, +ek tou diabolou]. The phraseology and turns of expression in these +two verses accord so entirely with those of the rest of the +Epistle and of the Gospel that we must needs take them to be the +original work of the writer and not a quotation, and we can hardly +do otherwise than see an echo of them in the words of Polycarp. + +There is naturally a certain hesitation in using evidence for the +Epistle as available also for the Gospel, but I have little doubt +that it may justly so be used and with no real diminution of its +force. The chance that the Epistle had a separate author is too +small to be practically worth considering. + +This then will apply to the case of Papias, of whose relations to +the fourth Gospel we have no record, but of whom Eusebius expressly +says, that 'he made use of testimonies from the first Epistle of John.' +There is the less reason to doubt this statement, as in _every_ +instance in which a similar assertion of Eusebius can be verified +it is found to hold good. It is much more probable that he would +overlook real analogies than be led astray by merely imaginary +ones--which is rather a modern form of error. In textual matters +the ancients were not apt to go wrong through over-subtlety, and +Eusebius himself does not, I believe, deserve the charge of +'inaccuracy and haste' that is made against him [Endnote 278:1]. + + * * * * * + +In regard to the much disputed question of the use of the fourth +Gospel by Justin, those who maintain the affirmative have again +emphatic support from Dr. Keim [Endnote 278:2]. We will examine +some of the instances which are adduced on this side. + +And first, in his account of John the Baptist, Justin has two +particulars which are found in the fourth Gospel and in no other. +That Gospel alone makes the Baptist himself declare, 'I am not the +Christ;' and it alone puts into his mouth the application of the +prophecy of Isaiah, 'I am the voice of one crying in the +wilderness.' Justin combines these two sayings, treating them as +an answer made by John to some who supposed that he was the +Christ. + +_Justin, Dial_. c. 88. + +To whom he himself also cried: 'I am not the Christ, but the voice +of one crying [Greek: ouk eimi o Christos, alla phonae boontos]; +for there shall come one stronger than I,' &c. + +_John_ i. 19, 20, 23. + +And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and +Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, +and denied not: but confessed, I am not the Christ [Greek: oti ouk +eimi ego o Christos]... I am the voice of one crying [Greek: ego +phonae boontos] in the wilderness,' &c. + +The passage in Justin does not profess to be a direct quotation; +it is merely a historical reproduction, and, as such, it has quite +as much accuracy as we should expect to find. The circumstantial +coincidences are too close to be the result of accident. And Dr. +Keim is doubtless right in ridiculing Volkmar's notion that Justin +has merely developed Acts xiii. 25, which contains neither of the +two phrases ([Greek: ho Christos, phonae boontos]) in question. To +refer the passage to an unknown source such as the Gospel +according to the Hebrews--all we know of which shows its +affinities to have been rather on the side of the Synoptics--when +we have a known source in the fourth Gospel ready to hand, is +quite unreasonable [Endnote 280:1]. + +No great weight, though perhaps some fractional quantity, can be +ascribed to the statement that Jesus healed those who were maimed +from their birth ([Greek: tous ek genetaes paerous] [Endnote +280:2]). The word [Greek: paeros] is used specially for the blind, +and the fourth Evangelist is the only one who mentions the healing +of congenital infirmity, which he does under this same phrase +[Greek: ek genetaes], and that of a case of blindness (John ix. +1). The possibility urged in 'Supernatural Religion,' that Justin +may be merely drawing from tradition, may detract from the force +of this but cannot altogether remove it, especially as we have no +other trace of a tradition containing this particular. + +Tischendorf [Endnote 280:3] lays stress on a somewhat remarkable +phenomenon in connection with the quotation of Zech. xvi. 10, +'They shall look on him whom they pierced.' Justin gives the text +of this in precisely the same form as St. John, and with the same +variation from the Septuagint, [Greek: opsontai eis hon +exekentaesan] for [Greek: epiblepsontai pros me anth hon +katorchaesanto]--a variation which is also found in Rev. i. 7. +Those who believe that the Apocalypse had the same author as the +Gospel, naturally see in this a confirmation of their view, and it +would seem to follow that Justin had had either one or both +writings before him. But the assumption of an identity of +authorship between the Apocalypse and the Gospel, though I believe +less unreasonable than is generally supposed, still is too much +disputed to build anything upon in argument. We must not ignore +the other theory, that all three writers had before them and may +have used independently a divergent text of the Septuagint. Some +countenance is given to this by the fact that ten MSS. of the +Septuagint present the same reading [Endnote 281:1]. There can be +little doubt however that it was in its origin a Christian +correction, which had the double advantage of at once bringing the +Greek into closer conformity to the Hebrew, and of also furnishing +support to the Christian application of the prophecy. Whether this +correction was made before either the Apocalypse or the Gospel +were written, or whether it appeared in these works for the first +time and from them was copied into other Christian writings, must +remain an open question. + +The saying in Apol. i. 63, 'so that they are rightly convicted +both by the prophetic Spirit and by Christ Himself, that they knew +neither the Father nor the Son' ([Greek: oute ton patera oute ton +uion egnosan]), certainly presents a close resemblance to John +xvi. 3, [Greek: ouk egnosan ton patera oude eme]. But a study of +the context seems to make it clear that the only passage +consciously present to Justin's mind was Matt. xi. 27. Dr. Keim +thinks that St. John supplied him with a commentary oh the +Matthaean text; but the coincidence may be after all accidental. + +But the most important isolated case of literary parallelism is +the well-known passage in Apol. i. 61 [Endnote 281:2]. + +_Apol_. i. 61. + +For Christ said: Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into +the kingdom of heaven. Now that it is impossible for those who +have once been born to return into the wombs of those who bare +them is evident to all. + +[Greek: Kai gar ho Christos eipen, An mae anagennaethaete, ou mae +eiselthaete eis taen Basileian ton ouranon. Hoti de kai adunaton +eis tas maetras ton tekouson tous hapax gennomenous embaenai, +phaneron pasin esti.] + +_John_ iii. 3-5. + +Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, +Except any one be born over again (or possibly 'from above'), he +cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a +man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his +mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say +unto thee, Except any one be born of Water and Spirit, he cannot +enter into the kingdom of God. + +[Greek: Apekrithae Iaesous kai eipen auto Amaen amaen lego soi, +ean mae tis gennaethae anothen ou dunatai idein taen Basilaian tou +Theou. Legei pros aouton ho Nikodaemos, Pos dunatai anthropos +gennaethaenai geron on; mae dunatai eis taen koilian taes maertros +autou deuteron eiselthein kai gennaethaenai; k.t.l.] + + +Here we have first to determine the meaning of the word [Greek: anothen] +in the phrase [Greek: gennaethae anothen] of John iii. 3 on which +the extent of the parallelism to some degree turns. Does it mean +'be born _over again_,' like Justin's [Greek: anagennaethaete]? +Or does it mean 'be born _from above_,' i.e. by a heavenly, divine, +regeneration? To express an opinion in favour of the first of these +views would naturally be to incur the charge of taking it up merely to +suit the occasion. It is not however necessary; for it is sufficient to +know that whether or not this meaning was originally intended by the +Evangelist, it is a meaning that Justin might certainly put upon the +words. That this is the case is sufficiently proved by the fact that +the Syriac version (which is quoted in 'Supernatural Religion,' by a +pardonable mistake, on the other side [Endnote 283:1]) actually +translates the words thus. So also does the Vulgate; with Tertullian +('renatus'), Augustine, Chrysostom (partly), Luther, Calvin, +Maldonatus, &c. For the sense 'from above' are the Gothic version, +Origen, Cyril, Theophylact, Bengel, &c.; on the whole a fairly equal +division of opinion. The question has been of late elaborately +re-argued by Mr. McClellan [Endnote 283:2], who decides in favour of +'again.' But, without taking sides either way, it is clear that Justin +would have had abundant support, in particular that of his own national +version, if he intended [Greek: anagennaethaete] to be a paraphrase of +[Greek: gennaethae anothen]. + +It is obvious that if he is quoting St. John the quotation is +throughout paraphrastic. And yet it is equally noticeable that he +does not use the exact Johannean phrase, he uses others that are +in each case almost precisely equivalent. He does not say [Greek: +our dunatai idein--taen basileian ton ouranon], but he says +[Greek: ou mae eiselthaete eis--taen basileian ton ouranon], the +latter pair phrases which the Synoptics have already taught us to +regard as convertible. He does not say [Greek: mae dunatai eis +taen koilian taes maetros autou deuteron eiselthein kai +gennaethaenai], but he says [Greek: adunaton eis tas maetras ton +tekouson tous hapax gennomenous embaebai]. And the scale seems +decisively turned by the very remarkable combination in Justin and +St. John of the saying respecting spiritual regeneration with the +same strangely gross physical misconception. It is all but +impossible that two minds without concert or connection should +have thought of introducing anything of the kind. Nicodemus makes +an objection, and Justin by repeating the same objection, and in a +form that savours so strongly of platitude, has shown, I think we +must say, conclusively, that he was aware that the objection had +been made. + +Such are some of the chief literary coincidences between Justin +and the fourth Gospel; but there are others more profound. Justin +undoubtedly has the one cardinal doctrine of the fourth Gospel-- +the doctrine of the Logos. + +Thus he writes. 'Jesus Christ is in the proper sense [Greek: +idios] the only Son begotten of God, being His Word [Greek: logos] +and Firstborn Power' [Endnote 284:1]. Again, 'But His Son who +alone is rightly [Greek: kurios] called Son, who before all +created things was with Him and begotten of Him as His Word, when +in the beginning He created and ordered all things through Him,' +&c. Again, 'Now the next Power to God the Father and Lord of all, +and Son [Endnote 284:2], is the Word, of whom we shall relate in +what follows how He was made flesh and became Man.' Again, +'The Word of God is His Son.' Again, speaking of the Gentile +philosophers and lawgivers, 'Since they did not know all things +respecting the Word, who is Christ, they have also frequently +contradicted each other.' These passages are given by Tischendorf, +and they might be added to without difficulty; but it is not +questioned that the term Logos is found frequently in Justin's +writings, and in the same sense in which it is used in the +Prologue of the fourth Gospel of the eternal Son of God, who is at +the same time the historical person Jesus Christ. + +The natural inference that Justin was acquainted with the fourth +Gospel is met by suggesting other sources for the doctrine. These +sources are of two kinds, Jewish or Alexandrine. + +It is no doubt true that a vivid personification of the Wisdom of +God is found both in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha. Thus +in the book of Proverbs we have an elaborate ode upon Wisdom as +the eternal assessor in the counsels of God: 'The Lord possessed +me in' the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was +set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth +was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there +were no fountains of water ... When He prepared the heavens, I was +there: when He set a compass upon the face of the deep ... Then I +was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His +delight, rejoicing always before Him' [Endnote 285:1]. The ideas +of which this is perhaps the clearest expression are found more +vaguely in other parts of the same book, in the Psalms, and in the +book of Job, but they are further expanded and developed in the +two Apocryphal books of Wisdom. There [Endnote 285:2] Wisdom is +represented as the 'breath of the power of God, and a pure +influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty,' as 'the +brightness [Greek: apaugasma] of the everlasting light, the +unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His +goodness.' Wisdom 'sitteth by the throne' of God. She reacheth +from one end to another mightily: and sweetly doth she order all +things.' 'She is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of God +and a lover of His works.' God 'created her before the world' +[Endnote 286:1]. We also get by the side of this, but in quite a +subordinate place and in a much less advanced stage of personification, +the idea of the Word or Logos: 'O God of my fathers ... who hast +made all things with thy word, and ordained man through thy wisdom' +[Endnote 286:2]. 'It was neither herb nor mollifying plaister that +restored them to health: but thy word, O Lord, which healeth all things.' +It was 'the Almighty word' ([Greek: ho pantodunamos logos]) 'that +leaped down from heaven' to slay the Egyptians. + +But still it will be seen that there is a distinct gap between +these conceptions and that which we find in Justin. The leading +idea is that of Wisdom, not of the Word. The Word is not even +personified separately; it is merely the emitted power or energy +of God. And the personification of Wisdom is still to a large +extent poetical, it does not attain to separate metaphysical +hypostasis; it is not thought of as being really personal. + +The Philonian conception, on the other hand, is metaphysical, but +it contains many elements that are quite discordant and +inconsistent with that which we find in Justin. That it must have +been so will be seen at once when we think of the sources from +which Philo's doctrine was derived. It included in itself the +Platonic theory of Ideas, the diffused Logos or _anima mundi_ +of the Stoics, and the Oriental angelology or doctrine of +intermediate beings between God and man. On its Platonic side the +Logos is the Idea of Ideas summing up the world of high +abstractions which themselves are also regarded as possessing a +separate individuality; they are Logoi by the side of the Logos. +On its Stoic side it becomes a Pantheistic Essence pervading the +life of things; it is 'the law,' 'the bond' which holds the world +together; the world is its 'garment.' On its Eastern side, the +Logos is the 'Archangel,' the 'Captain of the hosts of heaven,' +the 'Mother-city' from which they issue as colonists, the 'Vice- +gerent' of the Great King [Endnote 287:1]. + +It needed a more powerful mind than Justin's to reduce all this to +its simple Christian expression, to take the poetry of Judaea and +the philosophy of Alexandria and to interpret and realise both in +the light of the historical events of the birth and life of +Christ. 'The Word became flesh' is the key by which Justin is made +intelligible, and that key is supplied by the fourth Gospel. No +other Christian writer had combined these two ideas before--the +divine Logos, with the historical personality of Jesus. When +therefore we find the ideas combined as in Justin, we are +necessarily referred to the fourth Gospel for them; for the +strangely inverted suggestion of Volkmar, that the author of the +fourth Gospel borrowed from Justin, is on chronological, if not on +other grounds, certainly untenable. We shall see that the fourth +Gospel was without doubt in existence at the date which Volkmar +assigns to Justin's Apology, 150 A. D. + + * * * * * + +The history of the discussion as to the relation of the Clementine +Homilies to the fourth Gospel is highly instructive, not only in +itself, but also for the light which it throws upon the general +character of our enquiry and the documents with which it is +concerned. It has been already mentioned that up to the year 1853 +the Clementine Homilies were only extant in a mutilated form, +ending abruptly in the middle of Hom. xix. 14. In that year a +complete edition was at last published by Dressel from a +manuscript in the Vatican containing the rest of the nineteenth +and the twentieth Homily. The older portion occupies in all, with +the translation and critical apparatus, 381 large octavo pages in +Dressel's edition; the portion added by Dressel occupies 34. And +yet up to 1853, though the Clementine Homilies had been carefully +studied with reference to the use of the fourth Gospel, only a few +indications had been found, and those were disputed. In fact, the +controversy was very much at such a point as others with which we +have been dealing; there was a certain probability in favour of +the conclusion that the Gospel had been used, but still +considerably short of the highest. Since the publication of the +conclusion of the Homilies the question has been set at rest. +Hilgenfeld, who had hitherto been a determined advocate of the +negative theory, at once gave up his ground [Endnote 288:1]; and +Volkmar, who had somewhat less to retract, admitted and admits +[Endnote 288:2] that the fact of the use of the Gospel must be +considered as proved. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' stands +alone in still resisting this conviction [Endnote 288:3], but the +result I suspect will be only to show in stronger relief the one- +sidedness of his critical method. + +We will follow the example that is set us in presenting the whole +of the passages alleged to contain allusions to the fourth Gospel; +and it is the more interesting to do so with the key that the +recent discovery has put into Our hands. The first runs thus:-- + +_Hom._ iii. 52. + +Therefore he, being a true prophet, said: I am the gate of life; +he that entereth in through me entereth into life: for the +teaching that can save is none other [than mine]. + +[Greek: Dia touto autos alaethaes on prophaetaes elegen; Ego eimi +hae pulae taes zoaes; ho di' emou eiserchomenos eiserchetai eis +taen zoaen; hos ouk ousaes heteras taes sozein dunamenaes +didaskalias.] + +_John_ x. 9. + +I am the door: by me if any one enter in, he shall be saved, and +shall come in and go out, and shall find pasture. + +[Greek: Ego eimi hae thura; di' emou ean tis eiselthae sothaesetai +kai eiseleusetai kai exeleusetai kai nomaen heuraesei.] + + +Apart from other evidence it would have been somewhat precarious +to allege this as proof of the use of the fourth Gospel, and yet I +believe there would have been a distinct probability that it was +taken from that work. The parallel is much closer--in spite of +[Greek: thura] for [Greek: pulae]--than is Matt. vii. 13, 14 (the +'narrow gate') which is adduced in 'Supernatural Religion,' and +the interval is very insufficiently bridged over by Ps. cxviii. +19, 20 ('This is the gate of the Lord'). The key-note of the +passage is given in the identification of the gate with the person +of the Saviour ('_I_ am the door') and in the remarkable +expression 'he that entereth in _through me_,' which is +retained in the Homily. It is curious to notice the way in which +the [Greek: sothaesetai] of the Gospel has been expanded +exegetically. + +Less doubtful--and indeed we should have thought almost beyond a +doubt--is the next reference; 'My sheep hear my voice.' + +_Hom._ iii. 52. + +[Greek: ta ema probata akouei taes emaes phonaes.] + +_John_ x. 27. [Greek: ta probata ta ema taes phonaes mou +akouei.] + +'There was no more common representation amongst the Jews of the +relation of God and his people than that of Shepherd and his +sheep' [Endnote 290:1]. That is to say, it occurs of Jehovah or of +the Messiah some twelve or fifteen times in the Old and New +Testament together, but never with anything at all closely +approaching to the precise and particular feature given here. Let +the reader try to estimate the chances that another source than +the fourth Gospel is being quoted. Criticism is made null and void +when such seemingly plain indications as this are discarded in +favour of entirely unknown quantities like the 'Gospel according +to the Hebrews.' If the author of 'Supernatural Religion' were to +turn his own powers of derisive statement against his own +hypotheses they would present a very strange appearance. + +The reference that follows has in some respects a rather marked +resemblance to that which we were discussing in Justin, and for +the relation between them to be fully appreciated should be given +along with it:-- + +_Justin, Apol._ i. 61. + +Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom of +heaven. + +[Greek: An mae anagennaethaete ou mae eiselthaete eis taen +basileian ton ouranon.] + +_Clem. Hom._ xi. 26. + +Verily I say unto you, Except ye be born again with living water, +in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ye shall not enter +into the kingdom of heaven. + +[Greek: Amaen humin lego, ean mae anagennaethaete hudati zonti eis +onoma patros, uhiou, hagiou pneumatos, ou mae eiselthaete eis taen +basileian ton ouranon.] + +_John_ iii. 3, 5. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except +any one be born over again (or 'from above') he cannot see the +kingdom of God ... Except any one be born of water and Spirit, he +cannot enter into the kingdom of God. + +[Greek: Amaen amaen lego soi, ean mae tis gennaethae anothen, ou +dunatai idein taen basileian tou Theou ... ean mae tis gennaethae +ex hudatos kai pneumatos, ou dunatai eiselthein eis taen basileian +tou Theou.] + +[Greek: pneum]. add. [Greek: hagiou] Vulg. (Clementine edition), +a, ff, m, Aeth., Orig. (Latin translator). + + +Here it will be noticed that Justin and the Clementines have four +points in common, [Greek: anagennaethaete] for [Greek: gennaethae +anothen], the second person plural (twice over) for [Greek: tis] +and the singular, [Greek: ou mae] and the subjunctive for [Greek: +ou dunatai] and infinitive, and [Greek: taen basileian ton +ouranon], for [Greek: taen basileian tou Theou]. To the last of +these points much importance could not be attached in itself, as +it represents a persistent difference between the first and the +other Synoptists even where they had the same original. As both +the Clementines and Justin used the first Gospel more than the +others, it is only natural that they should fall into the habit of +using its characteristic phrase. Neither would the other points +have had very much importance taken separately, but their +importance increases considerably when they come to be taken +together. + +On the other hand, we observe in the Clementines (where it is +however connected with Matt. xxviii. 19) the sufficiently near +equivalent for the striking Johannean phrase [Greek: ex hudatos +kai pneumatos] which is omitted entirely by Justin. + +The most probable view of the case seems to be that both the +Clementines and Justin are quoting from memory. Both have in their +memory the passage of St. John, but both have also distinctly +before them (so much the more distinctly as it is the Gospel which +they habitually used) the parallel passage in Matt. xviii. 3-- +where _all the last three_ out of the four common variations +are found, besides, along with the Clementines, the omission of +the second [Greek: amaen],--'Verily I say unto you, Except ye be +converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into +the kingdom of heaven' ([Greek: on mae eiseathaete eis taen +basileian ton ouranon]). It is out of the question that this +_only_ should have been present to the mind of the writers; +and, in view of the repetition of Nicodemus' misunderstanding by +Justin and of the baptism by water and Spirit in the Clementine +Homilies, it seems equally difficult to exclude the reference to +St. John. It is in fact a Johannean saying in a Matthaean +framework. + +There is the more reason to accept this solution, that neither +Justin nor the Clementines can in any case represent the original +form of the passages quoted. If Justin's version were correct, +whence did the Clementines get the [Greek: hudati zonti k.t.l.]? if +the Clementine, then whence did Justin get the misconception of +Nicodemus? But the Clementine version is in any case too eccentric +to stand. + +The last passage is the one that is usually considered to be +decisive as to the use of the fourth Gospel. + + +_Hom_. xix. 22. + +Hence too our Teacher, when explaining to those who asked of him +respecting the man who was blind from his birth and recovered his +sight, whether this man sinned or his parents that he should be +born blind, replied: Neither this man sinned, nor his parents; but +that through him the power of God might be manifested healing the +sins of ignorance. + +[Greek: Hothen kai didaskalos haemon peri tou [Endnote 293:1] ek +genetaes paerou kai anablepsantos par' autou exetazon erotaesasin, +ei ohutos haemarten ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae +[Endnote 293:1] apekrinato oute ohutos ti haemarten, oute oi +goneis autou, all' hina di autou phanerothae hae dunamis tou Theou +taes agnoias iomenae ta hamartaemata.] + + +_John_ ix. 1-3. + +And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his +disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his +parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither +hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God +should be manifested in him. + +[Greek: Kai paragon eiden anthropon tuphlon ek genetaes. Kai +aerotaesan auton oi mathaetai autou legontes, Rhabbei, tis +haemarten, ohutos ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae; +apekrithae Iaesous, Oute ohutos haemarten oute oi goneis autou, +all' hina phanerothae ta erga tou Theou en auto.] + + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' undertakes to show 'that +the context of this passage in the Homily bears positive +characteristics which render it impossible that it can have been +taken from the fourth Gospel' [Endnote 293:2]. I think we may +venture to say that he does indeed show somewhat conspicuously the +way in which he uses the word 'impossible' and the kind of grounds +on which that and such like terms are employed throughout his +work. + +It is a notorious fact, abundantly established by certain +quotations from the Old Testament and elsewhere, that the last +thing regarded by the early patristic writers was context. But in +this case the context is perfectly in keeping, and to a clear and +unprejudiced eye it presents no difficulty. The Clementine writer +is speaking of the origin of physical infirmities, and he says +that these are frequently due, not to moral error, but to mere +ignorance on the part of parents. As an instance of this he gives +the case of the man who was born blind, of whom our Lord expressly +said that neither he nor his parents had sinned--morally or in +such a way as to deserve punishment. On the contrary they had +erred simply through ignorance, and the object of the miracle was +to make a display of the Divine mercy removing the consequences of +such error. 'And in reality,' he proceeds, 'things of this kind +are the result of ignorance. The misfortunes of which you spoke, +proceed from ignorance and not from any wicked action.' This is +perfectly compatible with every word of the Johannean narrative. +The concluding clause of the quotation is merely a paraphrase of +the original (no part of the quotation professes to be exact), +bringing out a little more prominently the special point of the +argument. There is ample room for this. The predetermined object +of the miracle, says St. John, was to display the works of God, +and the Clementine writer specifies the particular work of God +displayed--the mercy which heals the evil consequences of +ignorance. If there is anything here at all inconsistent with the +Gospel it would be interesting to know (and we are not told) what +was the kind of original that the author of the Homily really had +before him. + +A further discussion of this passage I should hardly suppose to be +necessary. Nothing could be more wanton than to assign this +passage to an imaginary Gospel merely on the ground alleged. The +hypothesis was less violent in regard to the Synoptic Gospels, +which clearly contain a large amount of common matter that might +also have found its way into other hands. We have evidence of the +existence of other Gospels presenting a certain amount of affinity +to the first Gospel, but the fourth is stamped with an idiosyncracy +which makes it unique in its kind. If there is to be this freedom +in inventing unknown documents, reproducing almost verbatim the +features of known ones, sober criticism is at an end. + +That the Clementine Homilies imply the use of the fourth Gospel +may be considered to be, not indeed certain in a strict sense of +the word, but as probable as most human affairs can be. The real +element or doubt is in regard to their date, and their evidence +must be taken subject to this uncertainty. + + * * * * * + +It is perhaps hardly worth while to delay over the Epistle to +Diognetus: not that I do not believe the instances alleged by +Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott [Endnote 295:1] to be in themselves +sound, but because there exists too little evidence to determine +the date of the Epistle, and because it may be doubted whether the +argument for the use of the fourth Gospel in the Epistle can be +expressed strongly in an objective form. The allusions in question +are not direct quotations, but are rather reminiscences of +language. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' has treated them +as if they were the former [Endnote 296:1]; he has enquired into +the context &c., not very successfully. But such enquiry is really +out of place. When the writer of the Epistle says, 'Christians +dwell in the world but are not of the world' [Greek: ouk xisi de +ek tou kosmou] = exactly John xvii. 14; note peculiar use of the +preposition); 'For God loved men for whose sakes He made the world +... unto whom He sent His only begotten Son' (= John iii. 16, 'God +so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son'); 'How will +you love Him who so beforehand loved you' [Greek: proagapaesanta]; +cf. i John iv. 19, [Greek: protos aegapaesen] 'He sent His Son as +wishing to save ... and not to condemn' ([Greek: sozon ... krinon] +of. John iii. 16),--the probability is about as great that he had +in his mind St. John's language as it would be if the same phrases +were to occur in a modern sermon. It is a real probability; but +not one that can be urged very strongly. + + * * * * * + +Of more importance--indeed of high importance--is the evidence +drawn from the remains of earlier writers preserved by Irenaeus +and Hippolytus. There is a clear reference to the fourth Gospel in +a passage for which Irenaeus alleges the authority of certain +'Presbyters,' who at the least belonged to an elder generation +than his own. There can be little doubt indeed that they are the +same as those whom he describes three sentences later and with +only a momentary break in the oblique narration into which the +passage is thrown, as 'the Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles.' +It may be well to give the language of Irenaeus in full as it has +been the subject of some controversy. Speaking of the rewards of +the just in the next world, he says [Endnote 297:1]:-- + +'For Esaias says, "Like as the new heaven and new earth which I +create remain before me, saith the Lord, so your seed and your +name shall stand." And as the Presbyters say, then too those who +are thought worthy to have their abode in Heaven shall go thither, +and some shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, while others shall +possess the splendour of the City; for everywhere the Saviour +shall be seen according as they shall be worthy who look upon Him. +[So far the sentence has been in oratio recta, but here it becomes +oblique.] And [they say] that there is this distinction in +dwelling between those who bear fruit an hundred fold and those +who bear sixty and those who bear thirty, some of whom shall be +carried off into the Heavens, some shall stay in Paradise, and +some shall dwell in the City. And for this reason, [they say that] +the Lord declared ([Greek: eipaekenai]) that _in my Father's_ +[realm] _are many mansions;_ for all things [are] of God, who +gives to all the fitting habitation: even as His Word saith +(_ait_), that to all is allotted by the Father as each is or +shall be worthy. And this is (_est_) the couch upon which +they shall recline who are bidden to His marriage supper. That +this is (_esse_) the order and disposition of the saved, the +Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles, say,' etc. + +That Irenaeus is here merely giving the 'exegesis of his own day,' +as the author of 'Supernatural Religion' suggests [Endnote 297:2], +is not for a moment tenable. Irenaeus does indeed interpose for +two sentences (Omnia enim... ad nuptias) to give his own comment +on the saying of the Presbyters; but these are sharply cut off +from the rest by the use of the present indicative instead of the +infinitive. There can be no question at all that the quotation 'in +My Father's realm are many mansions' [Greek: en tois ton Patros +mon monas einai pollas] belongs to the Presbyters, and there can +be but little doubt that these Presbyters are the same as those +spoken of as 'disciples of the Apostles.' + +Whether they were also 'the Presbyters' referred to as his +authority by Papias is quite a secondary and subordinate question. +Considering the Chiliastic character of the passage, the +conjecture [Endnote 298:1] that they were does not seem to me +unreasonable. This however we cannot determine positively. It is +quite enough that Irenaeus evidently attributes to them an +antiquity considerably beyond his own; that, in fact, he looks +upon them as supplying the intermediate link between his age and +that of the Apostles. + + * * * * * + +Two quotations from the fourth Gospel are attributed to Basilides, +both of them quite indisputable as quotations. The first is found +in the twenty-second chapter of the seventh book of the +'Refutation,' 'That was the true light which lighteth every man +that cometh into the world [Endnote 298:2] ([Greek: aen to phos to +alaethinon, o photizei panta anthropon erchomenon eis ton kosmon] += John i. 9), and the second in the twenty-seventh chapter, 'My +hour is not yet come' ([Greek: oupo aekei aeora mon] = John ii. +4). Both of these passages are instances of the exegesis by which +the Basilidian doctrines were defended. + +The real question is here, as in regard to the Synoptics, whether +the quotations were made by Basilides himself or by his disciples, +'Isidore and his crew.' The second instance I am disposed to think +may possibly be due to the later representatives of this school, +because, though the quotation is introduced by [Greek: phaesi] in +the singular, and though Basilides himself can in no case be +excluded, still there is nothing in the chapter to identify the +subject of [Greek: phaesi] specially with him, and in the next +sentence Hippolytus writes, 'This is that which they understand +([Greek: ho kat' autous nenoaemenos]) by the inner spiritual man,' +&c. But the earlier instance is different. There Basilides himself +does seem to be specially singled out. + +He is mentioned by name only two sentences above that in which the +quotation occurs. Hippolytus is referring to the Basilidian +doctrine of the origin of things. He says, 'Now since it was not +allowable to say that something non-existent had come into being +as a projection from a non-existent Deity--for Basilides avoids +and shuns the existences of things brought into being by +projection [Endnote 299:1]--for what need is there of projection, +or why should matter be presupposed in order that God should make +a world, just as a spider its web or as mortal man in making +things takes brass or wood or any other portion of matter? But He +spake--so he says--and it was done, and this is, as these men say, +that which is said by Moses: "Let there be light, and there was +light." Whence, he says, came the light? Out of nothing; for we +are not told--he says--whence it came, but only that it was at the +voice of Him that spake. Now He that spake--he says--was not, and +that which was made, was not. Out of that which was not--he says-- +was made the seed of the world, the word which was spoken, "Let +there be light;" and this--he says--is that which is spoken in +the Gospels; "That was the true light which lighteth every man +that cometh into the world.'" We must not indeed overlook the fact +that the plural occurs once in the middle of this passage as +introducing the words of Moses; 'as these men say.' And yet, +though this decidedly modifies, I do not think that it removes the +probability that Basilides himself is being quoted. It seems a +fair inference that at the beginning of the passage Hippolytus had +the work of Basilides actually before him; and the single +digression in [Greek: legousin houtoi] does not seem enough to +show that it was laid aside. This is confirmed when we look back +two chapters at the terms in which the whole account of the +Basilidian system is introduced. 'Let us see,' Hippolytus says, +'how flagrantly Basilides as well as (B. [Greek: homou kai]) +Isidore and all their crew contradict not only Matthias but the +Saviour himself.' Stress is laid upon the name of Basilides, as if +to say, 'It is not merely a new-fangled heresy, but dates back to +the head and founder of the school.' When in the very next +sentence Hippolytus begins with [Greek: phaesi], the natural +construction certainly seems to be that he is quoting some work of +Basilides which he takes as typical of the doctrine of the whole +school. A later work would not suit his purpose or prove his +point. Basilides includes Isidore, but Isidore does not include +Basilides. + +We conclude then that there is a probability--not an overwhelming, +but quite a substantial, probability--that Basilides himself used +the fourth Gospel, and used it as an authoritative record of the +life of Christ. But Basilides began to teach in 125 A.D., so that +his evidence, supposing it to be valid, dates from a very early +period indeed: and it should be remembered that this is the only +uncertainty to which it is subject. That the quotation is really +from St. John cannot be doubted. + +The account which Hippolytus gives of the Valentinians also +contains an allusion to the fourth Gospel; 'All who came before Me +are thieves and robbers' (cf. John x. 8). But here the master and +the disciples are more confused. Less equivocal evidence is +afforded by the statements of Irenaeus respecting the Valentinians. +He says that the Valentinians used the fourth Gospel very freely +(plenissime) [Endnote 301:1]. This applies to a date that cannot +be in any case later than 180 A.D., and that may extend almost +indefinitely backwards. There is no reason to say that it does not +include Valentinus himself. Positive evidence is wanting, but negative +evidence still more. Apart from evidence to the contrary, there must +be a presumption against the introduction of a new work which becomes +at once a frequently quoted authority midway in the history of a school. + +But to keep to facts apart from presumptions. Irenaeus represents +Ptolemaeus as quoting largely from the Prologue to the Gospel. But +Ptolemaeus, as we have seen, had already gathered a school about +him when Irenaeus became acquainted with him. His evidence +therefore may fairly be said to cover the period from 165-175 A.D. +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to be somewhat beside +the mark when he says that 'in regard to Ptolemaeus all that is +affirmed is that in the Epistle to Flora ascribed to him +expressions found in John i. 3 are used.' True it is that such +expressions are found, and before we accept the theory in +'Supernatural Religion' that the parenthesis in which they occur +is due to Epiphanius who quotes the letter in full himself +[Endnote 302:1], it is only right that some other instance should +be given of such parenthetic interruption. The form in which the +letter is quoted, not in fragments interspersed with comments but +complete and at full length, with a formal heading and close, +really excludes such a hypothesis. But, a century and a half +before Epiphanius, Irenaeus had given a string of Valentinian +comments on the Prologue, ending with the words, 'Et Ptolemaeus +quidem ita' [Endnote 302:2]. Heracleon, too, is coupled with +Ptolemaeus by Irenaeus [Endnote 302:3], and according to the view +of the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' had a school around him +at the time of Irenaeus' visit to Rome in 178 A.D. But this +Heracleon was the author of a Commentary on St. John's Gospel to +which Origen in his own parallel work frequently alludes. These +are indeed dismissed in 'Supernatural Religion' as 'unsupported +references.' But we may well ask, what support they need. The +references are made in evident good faith. He says, for instance +[Endnote 302:4], that Heracleon's exegesis of John i. 3, 'All +things were made by Him,' excluding from this the world and its +contents, is very forced and without authority. Again, he has +misinterpreted John i. 4, making 'in Him was life' mean not 'in +Him' but 'in spiritual men.' Again, he wrongly attributes John i. +18 not to the Evangelist, but to the Baptist. And so on. The +allusions are all made in this incidental manner; and the life of +Origen, if he was born, as is supposed, about 185 A.D., would +overlap that of Heracleon. What evidence could be more sufficient? +or if such evidence is to be discarded, what evidence are we to +accept? Is it to be of the kind that is relied upon for referring +quotations to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the Gospel +according to Peter, or the [Greek: Genna Marias]? There are +sometimes no doubt reasonable grounds for scepticism as to the +patristic statements, but none such are visible here. On the +contrary, that Heracleon should have written a commentary on the +fourth Gospel falls in entirely with what Irenaeus says as to the +large use that was made of that Gospel by the Valentinians. + + * * * * * + +As we approach the end of the third and beginning of the fourth +quarter of the second century the evidence for the fourth Gospel +becomes widespread and abundant. At this date we have attention +called to the discrepancy between the Gospels as to the date of +the Crucifixion by Claudius Apollinaris. We have also Tatian, the +Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, the heathen Celsus +and the Muratorian Canon, and then a very few years later +Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus. + +I imagine that there can be really no doubt about Tatian. Whatever +may have been the nature of the Diatessaron, the 'Address to the +Greeks' contains references which it is mere paradox to dispute. I +will not press the first of these which is given by Dr. Westcott, +not because I do not believe that it is ultimately based upon the +fourth Gospel, still less that there is the slightest contradiction +to St. John's doctrine, but because Tatian's is a philosophical comment +perhaps a degree too far removed from the original to be quite +producible as evidence. It is one of the earliest speculations as to +the ontological relation between the Father and the Son. In the +beginning God was alone--though all things were with Him potentially. +By the mere act of volition He gave birth to the Logos, who was the +real originative cause of things. Yet the existence of the Logos was +not such as to involve a separation of identity in the Godhead; it +involved no diminution in Him from whom the Logos issued. Having been +thus first begotten, the Logos in turn begat our creation, &c. The +Logos is thus represented as being at once prior to creation (the +Johannean [Greek: en archae]) and the efficient cause of it--which is +precisely the doctrine of the Prologue. + +The other two passages are however quite unequivocal. + + +_Orat. ad Graecos_, c. xiii. + +And this is therefore that saying: The darkness comprehends not +the light. + +[Greek: Kai touto estin ara to eiraemenon Hae skotia to phos ou +katalambanei.] + + +_John_ i. 5. + +And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness +comprehended it not. + +[Greek: Kai to phos en tae skotia phainei, kai hae skotia auto ou +katelaben.] + + +On this there is the following comment in 'Supernatural Religion' +[Endnote 305:1]: '"The saying" is distinctly different in language +from the parallel in the Gospel, and it may be from a different +Gospel. We have already remarked that Philo called the Logos "the +Light," and quoting in a peculiar form, Ps. xxvi. 1: 'For the Lord +is my light ([Greek: phos]) and my Saviour,' he goes on to say +that as the sun divides day and night, so Moses says, 'God divides +light and darkness' ([Greek: Theon phos kai skotos diateichisai]), +when we turn away to things of sense we use 'another light' which +is in no way different from 'darkness.' The constant use of the +same similitude of light and darkness in the Canonical Epistles +shows how current it was in the Church; and nothing is more +certain than the fact that it was neither originated by, nor +confined to, the fourth Gospel.' Such criticism refutes itself, +and it is far too characteristic of the whole book. Nothing is +adduced that even remotely corresponds to the very remarkable +phrase [Greek: hae skotia to phos katalambanei], and yet for these +imaginary parallels one that is perfectly plain and direct is +rejected. + +The use of the phrase [Greek: to eiraemenon] should be noticed. It +is the formula used, especially by St. Luke, in quotation from the +Old Testament Scriptures. + +The other passage is:-- + + +_Orat. ad Graecos_, c. xix. + +All things were by him, and without him hath been made nothing. + +[Greek: Panta hup' autou kai choris autou gegonen oude hen.] + + +_John_ i. 3. + +All things were made through him; and without him was nothing made +[that hath been made]. + +[Greek: Panta di' autou egeneto, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen +[ho gegonen]]. 'The early Fathers, no less than the early +heretics,' placed the full stop at [Greek: oude hen], connecting +the words that follow with the next sentence. See M'Clellan and +Tregelles _ad loc_. + + +'Tatian here speaks of God and not of the Logos, and in this +respect, as well as language and context, the passage differs from +the fourth Gospel' [Endnote 306:1], &c. Nevertheless it may safely +be left to the reader to say whether or not it was taken from it. + +The Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons contains the +following:-- + + +_Ep. Vienne. et Lugd_. Sec. iv. + +Thus too was fulfilled that which was spoken by our Lord; that a +time shall come in which every one that killeth you shall think +that he offereth God service. + +[Greek: Eleusetai kairos en o pas ho apokteinas humas doxei +latreian prospherein to Theo.] + + +_John_ xvi. 2. + +Yea, the hour cometh, that every one that killeth you will think +he offereth God service. + +[Greek: All' erchetai hora hina pas ho apokteinas humas, doxae +latreian prospherein to Theo.] + + +It is true that there are 'indications of similar discourses' in +the Synoptics, but of none containing a trait at all closely +resembling this. The chances that precisely the same combination +of words ([Greek: ho apokteinas humas doxei latreian prospherein +to Theo]) occurred in a lost Gospel must be necessarily very small +indeed, especially when we remember that the original saying was +probably spoken in Aramaic and not in Greek [Endnote 307:1]. + +Dr. Keim, in the elaborate monograph mentioned above, decides that +Celsus made use of the fourth Gospel. He remarks upon it as +curious, that more traces should indeed be found 'both in Celsus +and his contemporary Tatian of John than of his two nearest +predecessors' [Endnote 307:2]. Of the instances given by Dr. Keim, +the first (i. 41, the sign seen by the Baptist) depends on a +somewhat doubtful reading ([Greek: para to Ioannae], which should +be perhaps [Greek: para to Iordanae]); the second, the demand for +a sign localised specially in the temple (i. 67; of. John x. 23, +24), seems fairly to hold good. 'The destination of Jesus alike +for good and evil' (iv. 7, 'that those who received it, having +been good, should be saved; while those who received it not, +having been shown to be bad, should be punished') is indeed an +idea peculiarly Johannean and creates a _presumption_ of the +use of the Gospel; we ought not perhaps to say more. I can hardly +consider the simple allusions to 'flight' ([Greek: pheugein], ii. +9; [Greek: taede kakeise apodedrakenai], i. 62) as necessarily +references to the retreat to Ephraim in John xi. 54. So too the +expression 'bound' in ii. 9, and the 'conflict with Satan' in vi. +42, ii. 47, seem too vague to be used as proof. Still Volkmar too +declares it to be 'notorious' that Celsus was acquainted with the +fourth Gospel, alleging i. 67 (as above), ii. 31 (an allusion to +the Logos), ii. 36 (a satirical allusion to the issue of blood and +water), which passages really seem on the whole to justify the +assertion, though not in a quite unqualified form. + +We ought not to omit to mention that there is a second fragment +by Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, besides that to which we +have already alluded, and preserved like it in the Paschal +Chronicle, which confirms unequivocally the conclusion that he +knew and used the fourth Gospel. Amongst other titles that are +applied to the crucified Saviour, he is spoken of as 'having been +pierced in His sacred side,' as 'having poured out of His side +those two cleansing streams, water and blood, word and spirit' +[Endnote 308:1]. This incident is recorded only in the fourth +Gospel. + +In like manner when Athenagoras says 'The Father and the Son being +one' ([Greek: henos ontos tou Patros kai tou Uiou]), it is +probable that he is alluding to John x. 30, 'I and my Father are +one,' not to mention an alleged, but perhaps somewhat more +doubtful, reference to John xvii. 3 [Endnote 308:2]. + +But the most decisive witness before we come to Irenaeus is the +Muratorian Canon. Here we have the fourth Gospel definitely +assigned to its author, and finally established in its place +amongst the canonical or authoritative books. It is true that the +account of the way in which the Gospel came to be composed is +mixed up with legendary matter. According to it the Gospel was +written in obedience to a dream sent to Andrew the Apostle, after +he and his fellow disciples and bishops had fasted for three days +at the request of John. In this dream it was revealed that John +should write the narrative subject to the revision of the rest. So +the Gospel is the work of an eyewitness, and, though it and the +other Gospels differ in the objects of their teaching, all are +inspired by the same Spirit. + +There may perhaps in this be some kernel of historical fact, as +the sort of joint authorship or revision to which it points seems +to find some support in the concluding verses of the Gospel ('we +know that his witness is true'). However this may be, the evidence +of the fragment is of more real importance and value, as showing +the estimation in which at this date the Gospel was held. It +corresponds very much to what is now implied in the word +'canonical,' and indeed the Muratorian fragment presents us with a +tentative or provisional Canon, which was later to be amended, +completed, and ratified. So far as the Gospels were concerned, it +had already reached its final shape. It included the same four +which now stand in our Bibles, and the opposition that they met +with was so slight, and so little serious, that Eusebius could +class them all among the Homologoumena or books that were +universally acknowledged. + + + + + +CHAPTER XIII. + +ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY. + + +I should not be very much surprised if the general reader who may +have followed our enquiry so far should experience at this point a +certain feeling of disappointment. If he did not know beforehand +something of the subject-matter that was to be enquired into, he +might not unnaturally be led to expect round assertions, and +plain, pointblank, decisive evidence. Such evidence has not been +offered to him for the simple reason that it does not exist. In +its stead we have collected a great number of inferences of very +various degrees of cogency, from the possible and hypothetical, up +to strong and very strong probability. Most of our time has been +taken up in weighing and testing these details, and in the +endeavour to assign to each as nearly as possible its just value. +It could not be thought strange if some minds were impatient of +such minutiae; and where this objection was not felt, it would +still be very pardonable to complain that the evidence was at best +inferential and probable. + +An inference in which there are two or three steps may be often +quite as strong as that in which there is only one, and +probabilities may mount up to a high degree of what is called +moral or practical certainty. I cannot but think that many of +those which have been already obtained are of this character. I +cannot but regard it as morally or practically certain that +Marcion used our third Gospel; as morally or practically certain +that all four Gospels were used in the Clementine Homilies; as +morally or practically certain that the existence of three at +least out of our four Gospels is implied in the writings of +Justin; as probable in a lower degree that the four were used by +Basilides; as not really disputable (apart from the presumption +afforded by earlier writers) that they were widely used in the +interval which separates the writings of Justin from those of +Irenaeus. + +All of these seem to me to be tolerably clear propositions. But +outside these there seems to be a considerable amount of +convergent evidence, the separate items of which are less +convincing, but which yet derive a certain force from the mere +fact that they are convergent. In the Apostolic Fathers, for +example, there are instances of various kinds, some stronger and +some weaker; but the important point to notice is that they +confirm each other. Every new case adds to the total weight of the +evidence, and helps to determine the bearing of those which seem +ambiguous. + +It cannot be too much borne in mind that the evidence with which +we have been dealing is cumulative; and as in all other cases of +cumulative evidence the subtraction of any single item is of less +importance than the addition of a new one. Supposing it to be +shown that some of the allusions which are thought to be taken +from our Gospels were merely accidental coincidences of language, +this would not materially affect the part of the evidence which +could not be so explained. Supposing even that some of these +allusions could be definitely referred to an apocryphal source, +the possibility would be somewhat, but not so very much, increased +that other instances which bear resemblance to our Gospels were +also in their origin apocryphal. But on the other hand, if a +single instance of the use of a canonical Gospel really holds +good, it is proof of the existence of that Gospel, and every new +instance renders the conclusion more probable, and makes it more +and more difficult to account for the phenomena in any other way. + +The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to have overlooked +this. He does not seem to have considered the mutual support which +the different instances taken together lend to each other. He +summons them up one by one, and if any sort of possibility can be +shown of accounting for them in any other way than by the use of +our Gospels he dismisses them altogether. He makes no allowance +for any residual weight they may have. He does not ask which is +the more probable hypothesis. If the authentication of a document +is incomplete, if the reference of a passage is not certain, he +treats it as if it did not exist. He forgets the old story of the +faggots, which, weak singly, become strong when combined. His +scales will not admit of any evidence short of the highest. +Fractional quantities find no place in his reckoning. If there is +any flaw, if there is any possible loophole for escape, he does +not make the due deduction and accept the evidence with that +deduction, but he ignores it entirely, and goes on to the next +item just as if he were leaving nothing behind him. + +This is really part and parcel of what was pointed out at the +outset as the fundamental mistake of his method. It is much too +forensic. It takes as its model, not the proper canons of +historical enquiry, but the procedure of English law. Yet the +inappropriateness of such a method is seen as soon as we consider +its object and origin. The rules of evidence current in our law +courts were constructed specially with a view to the protection of +the accused, and upon the assumption that it is better nine guilty +persons should escape, than that one innocent person should be +condemned. Clearly such rules will be inapplicable to the +historical question which of two hypotheses is most likely to be +true. The author forgets that the negative hypothesis is just as +much a hypothesis as the positive, and needs to be defended in +precisely the same manner. Either the Gospels were used, or they +were not used. In order to prove the second side of this +alternative, it is necessary to show not merely that it is +_possible_ that they were not used, but that the theory is +the _more probable_ of the two, and accounts better for the +facts. But the author of 'Supernatural Religion' hardly professes +or attempts to do this. If he comes across a quotation apparently +taken from our Gospels he is at once ready with his reply, 'But it +may be taken from a lost Gospel.' Granted; it may. But the extant +Gospel is there, and the quotation referable to it; the lost +Gospel is an unknown entity which may contain anything or nothing. +If we admit that the possibility of quotation from a lost Gospel +impairs the certainty of the reference to an extant Gospel, it is +still quite another thing to argue that it is the more probable +explanation and an explanation that the critic ought to accept. In +very few cases, I believe, has the author so much as attempted to +do this. + +We might then take a stand here, and on the strength of what can +be satisfactorily proved, as well as of what can be probably +inferred, claim to have sufficiently established the use and +antiquity of the Gospels. This is, I think, quite a necessary +conclusion from the data hitherto collected. + +But there is a further objection to be made to the procedure in +'Supernatural Religion.' If the object were to obtain clear and +simple and universally appreciable evidence, I do not hesitate to +say that the enquiry ends just where it ought to have begun. +Through the faulty method that he has employed the author forgets +that he has a hypothesis to make good and to carry through. He +forgets that he has to account on the negative theory, just as we +account on the positive, for a definite state of things. It may +sound paradoxical, but there is really no great boldness in the +paradox, when we affirm that at least the high antiquity of the +Gospels could be proved, even if not one jot or tittle of the +evidence that we have been discussing had existed. Supposing that +all those fragmentary remains of the primitive Christian +literature that we have been ransacking so minutely had been swept +away, supposing that the causes that have handed it down to us in +such a mutilated and impaired condition had done their work still +more effectually, and that for the first eighty years of the +second century there was no Christian literature extant at all; +still I maintain that, in order to explain the phenomena that we +find after that date, we should have to recur to the same +assumptions that our previous enquiry would seem to have +established for us. + +Hitherto we have had to grope our way with difficulty and care; +but from this date onwards all ambiguity and uncertainty +disappears. It is like emerging out of twilight into the broad +blaze of day. There is really a greater disproportion than we +might expect between the evidence of the end of the century and +that which leads up to it. From Justin to Irenaeus the Christian +writings are fragmentary and few, but with Irenaeus a whole body +of literature seems suddenly to start into being. Irenaeus is +succeeded closely by Clement of Alexandria, Clement by Tertullian, +Tertullian by Hippolytus and Origen, and the testimony which these +writers bear to the Gospel is marvellously abundant and unanimous. +I calculate roughly that Irenaeus quotes directly 193 verses of +the first Gospel and 73 of the fourth. Clement of Alexandria and +Tertullian must have quoted considerably more, while in the extant +writings of Origen the greater part of the New Testament is +actually quoted [Endnote 315:1]. + +But more than this; by the time of Irenaeus the canon of the four +Gospels, as we understand the word now, was practically formed. We +have already seen that this was the case in the fragment of +Muratori. Irenaeus is still more explicit. In the famous passage +[Endnote 315:2] which is so often quoted as an instance of the +weak-mindedness of the Fathers, he lays it down as a necessity of +things that the Gospels should be four in number, neither less nor +more:-- + +'For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, as +there are also four universal winds, and as the Church is +scattered over all the earth, and the Gospel is the pillar and +base of the Church and the breath (or spirit) of life, it is +likely that it should have four pillars breathing immortality on +every side and kindling afresh the life of men. Whence it is +evident that the Word, the architect of all things, who sitteth +upon the cherubim and holdeth all things together, having been +made manifest unto men, gave to us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, +but held together by one Spirit. As David, entreating for His +presence, saith: Thou that sittest upon the Cherubim show thyself. +For the Cherubim are of fourfold visage, and their visages are +symbols of the economy of the Son of man.... And the Gospels +therefore agree with them over which presideth Jesus Christ. That +which is according to John declares His generation from the Father +sovereign and glorious, saying thus: In the beginning was the +Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And, All +things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.... +But the Gospel according to Luke, as having a sacerdotal +character, begins with Zacharias the priest offering incense unto +God.... But Matthew records His human generation, saying, The book +of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of +Abraham.... Mark took his beginning from the prophetic Spirit +coming down as it were from on high among men. The beginning, he +says, of the Gospel according as it is written in Esaias the +prophet, &c.' + +Irenaeus also makes mention of the origin of the Gospels, claiming +for their authors the gift of Divine inspiration [Endnote 316:1]:-- + +'For after that our Lord rose from the dead and they were endowed +with the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon them from on high, +they were fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect +knowledge: they went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the +Gospel of those good things that God hath given to us and +proclaiming heavenly peace to men, having indeed both all in equal +measure and each one singly the Gospel of God. So then Matthew +among the Jews put forth a written Gospel in their own tongue +while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and +founding the Church. After their decease (or 'departure'), Mark, +the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself too has handed down +to us in writing the subjects of Peter's preaching. And Luke, the +companion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him. +Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon +His breast, likewise published his Gospel while he dwelt at +Ephesus in Asia.' + +We have not now to determine the exact value of these traditions; +what we have rather to notice is the fact that the Gospels are at +this time definitely assigned to their reputed authors, and that +they are already regarded as containing a special knowledge +divinely imparted. It is evident that Irenaeus would not for a +moment think of classing any other Gospel by the side of the now +strictly canonical four. + +Clement of Alexandria, who, Eusebius says, 'was illustrious for +his writings,' in the year 194 gives a somewhat similar, but not +quite identical, account of the composition of the second Gospel +[Endnote 317:1]. He differs from Irenaeus in making St. Peter +cognisant of the work of his follower. Neither is he quite +consistent with himself; in one place he makes St. Peter +'authorise the Gospel to be read in the churches;' in another he +says that the Apostle 'neither forbade nor encouraged it' [Endnote +317:2]. These statements have both of them been preserved for us +by Eusebius, who also alleges, upon the authority of Clement, that +the 'Gospels containing the genealogies were written first.' +'John,' he says, 'who came last, observing that the natural +details had been set forth clearly in the Gospels, at the instance +of his friends and with the inspiration of the Spirit ([Greek: +pneumati theophoraethenta]), wrote a spiritual Gospel' [Endnote +317:3]. + +Clement draws a distinct line between the canonical and +uncanonical Gospels. In quoting an apocryphal saying supposed to +have been given in answer to Salome, he says, expressly: 'We do +not find this saying in the four Gospels that have been handed +down to us, but in that according to the Egyptians' [Endnote +317:4]. + +Tertullian is still more exclusive. He not only regards the four +Gospels as inspired and authoritative, but he makes no use of any +extra-canonical Gospel. The Gospels indeed held for him precisely +the same position that they do with orthodox Christians now. He +says respecting the Gospels: 'In the first place we lay it down +that the evangelical document (evangelicum instrumentum [Endnote +318:1]) has for its authors the Apostles, to whom this office of +preaching the Gospel was committed by the Lord Himself. If it has +also Apostolic men, yet not these alone but in company with +Apostles and after Apostles. For the preaching of disciples might +have been suspected of a desire for notoriety if it were not +supported by the authority of Masters, nay of Christ, who made the +Apostles Masters. In fine, of the Apostles, John and Matthew first +implant in us faith, Luke and Mark renew it, starting from the +same principles, so far as relates to the one God the Creator and +His Christ born of the virgin, to fulfil the law and the prophets' +[Endnote 318:2]. He grounds the authority of the Gospels upon the +fact that they proceed either from Apostles or from those who held +close relation to Apostles, like Mark, 'the interpreter of Peter,' +and Luke, the companion of Paul [Endnote 318:3]. In another +passage he expressly asserts their authenticity [Endnote 318:4], +and he claimed to use them and them alone as his weapons in the +conflict with heresy [Endnote 318:5]. + +No less decided is the assertion of Origen, who writes: 'As I have +learnt from tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are +undisputed in the Church of God under heaven, that the first in +order of the scripture is that according to Matthew, who was once +a publican but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... The +second is that according to Mark, who wrote as Peter suggested to +him ... The third is that according to Luke, the Gospel commended +by Paul ... Last of all that according to John' [Endnote 319:1]. +And again in his commentary upon the Preface to St. Luke's Gospel +he expressly guards against the possibility that it might be +thought to have reference to the other (Canonical) Gospels: 'In +this word of Luke's "_have taken in hand_" there is a latent +accusation of those who without the grace of the Holy Spirit have +rushed to the composing of Gospels. Matthew, indeed, and Mark, and +John, and Luke, have not "_taken in hand_" to write, but +_have written_ Gospels, being full of the Holy Spirit ... The +Church has four Gospels; the Heresies have many' [Endnote 319:2]. + +But besides the Fathers, and without going beyond the bounds of +the second century, there is other evidence of the most distinct +and important kind for the existence of a canon of the Gospels. +Among the various translations of the New Testament one certainly, +two very probably, and three perhaps probably, were made in the +course of the second century. + +The old Latin (as distinct from Jerome's revised) version of the +Gospels and with them of a considerable portion of the New Testament +was, I think it may be said, undoubtedly used by Tertullian and by +the Latin translator of Irenaeus, who appears to be quoted by +Tertullian, and in that case could not be placed later than 200 A.D. +[Endnote 320:1] On this point I shall quote authorities that will +hardly be questioned. And first that of a writer who is accustomed to +weigh, with the accuracy of true science, every word that he puts +down, and who upon this subject is giving the result of a most minute +and careful investigation. Speaking of the Latin translation of the +New Testament as found in Tertullian he says: 'Although single +portions of this, especially passages which are translated in several +different ways, may be due to Tertullian himself, still it cannot be +doubted that in by far the majority of cases he has followed the text +of a version received in his time by the Africans and specially the +Carthaginian Christians, and made perhaps long before his time, and +that consequently his quotations represent the form of the earliest +Latinized Scriptures accepted in those regions' [Endnote 320:2]. +Again: 'In the first place we may conclude from the writings of +Tertullian, that remarkable Carthaginian presbyter at the close of +the second century, that in his time there existed several, perhaps +many, Latin translations of the Bible ... Tertullian himself +frequently quotes in his writings one and the same passage of +Scripture in entirely different forms, which indeed in many cases +may be explained by his quoting freely from memory, but certainly +not seldom has its ground in the diversity of the translations used +at the time' [Endnote 321:1]. On this last point, the unity of the +Old Latin version, there is a difference of opinion among scholars, +but none as to its date. Thus Dr. Tregelles writes: 'The expressions +of Tertullian have been rightly rested on as showing that he knew +and recognised _one translation_, and that this version was in several +places (in his opinion) opposed to what was found "in Graeco authentico." +This version must have been made a sufficiently long time before the +age when Tertullian wrote, and before the Latin translator of Irenaeus, +for it to have got into general circulation. This leads us back _towards_ +the middle of the second century at the latest: how much _earlier_ +the version may have been we have no proof; for we are already led +back into the time when no records tell us anything respecting the +North African Church' [Endnote 321:2]. Dr. Tregelles, it should be +remembered, is speaking as a text critic, of which branch of science +his works are one of the noblest monuments, and not directly of the +history of the Canon. His usual opponent in text critical matters, +but an equally exact and trustworthy writer, Dr. Scrivener, agrees +with him here both as to the unity of the version and as to its date +from the middle of the century [Endnote 321:3]. Dr. Westcott too +writes in his well-known and valuable article on the Vulgate in +Smith's Dictionary [Endnote 321:4]: 'Tertullian distinctly recognises +the general currency of a Latin Version of the New Testament, though +not necessarily of every book at present included in the Canon, which +even in his time had been able to mould the popular language. This +was characterised by a "rudeness" and "simplicity," which seems to +point to the nature of its origin.' I do not suppose that the currency +at the end of the second century of a Latin version, containing the +four Gospels and no others, will be questioned [Endnote 322:1]. + +With regard to the Syriac version there is perhaps a somewhat +greater room to doubt, though Dr. Tregelles begins his account of +this version by saying: 'It may stand as an admitted fact that a +version of the New Testament in Syriac existed in the second +century' [Endnote 322:2]. Dr. Scrivener also says [Endnote 322:3]: +'The universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the +case, seem to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was +possessed of a translation both of the Old and New Testament, +which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively, from +the second century of our era downwards: as early as A.D. 170 +[Greek: ho Syros] is cited by Melito on Genesis xxii. 13.' The +external evidence, however, does not seem to be quite strong +enough to bear out any very positive assertion. The appeal to the +Syriac by Melito [Endnote 322:4] is pretty conclusive as to the +existence of a Syriac Old Testament, which, being of Christian +origin, would probably be accompanied by a translation of the New. +But on the other hand, the language of Eusebius respecting +Hegesippus ([Greek: ek te tou kath' Hebraious euangeliou kai tou +Syriakou ... tina tithaesin]) seems to be rightly interpreted by +Routh as having reference not to any '_version_ of the Gospel, +but to a separate Syro-Hebraic (?) Gospel' like that according to +the Hebrews. In any case the Syriac Scriptures 'were familiarly +used and claimed as his national version by Ephraem of Edessa' +(299-378 A.D.) as well as by Aphraates in writings dating A.D. 337 +and 344 [Endnote 323:1]. + +A nearer approximation of date would be obtained by determining the +age of the version represented by the celebrated Curetonian +fragments. There is a strong tendency among critics, which seems +rapidly approaching to a consensus, to regard this as bearing the +same relation to the Peshito that the Old Latin does to Jerome's +Vulgate, that of an older unrevised to a later revised version. The +strength of the tendency in this direction may be seen by the very +cautious and qualified opinion expressed in the second edition of his +Introduction by Dr. Scrivener, who had previously taken a decidedly +antagonistic view, and also by the fact that Mr. M'Clellan, who is +usually an ally of Dr. Scrivener, here appears on the side of his +opponents [Endnote 323:2]. All the writers who have hitherto been +mentioned place either the Curetonian Syriac or the Peshito in the +second century, and the majority, as we have seen, the Curetonian. +Dr. Tregelles, on a comparative examination of the text, affirms that +'the Curetonian Syriac presents such a text as we might have +concluded would be current in the second century' [Endnote 323:3]. +English text criticism is probably on the whole in advance of +Continental; but it may be noted that Bleek (who however was +imperfectly acquainted with the Curetonian form of the text) yet +asserts that the Syriac version 'belongs without doubt to the second +century A.D.' [Endnote 324:1] Reuss [Endnote 324:2] places it at the +beginning, Hilgenfeld towards the end [Endnote 324:3], of the third +century. + +The question as to the age of the version is not necessarily +identical with that as to the age of the particular form of it +preserved in Cureton's fragments. This would hold the same sort of +relation to the original text of the version that (e.g.) a, or b, +or c--any primitive codex of the version--holds to the original +text of the Old Latin. It also appears that the translation into +Syriac of the different Gospels, conspicuously of St. Matthew's, +was made by different hands and at different times [Endnote +324:4]. Bearing these considerations in mind, we should still be +glad to know what answer those who assign the Curetonian text to +the second century make to the observation that it contains the +reading [Greek: Baethabara] in John i. 28 which is generally +assumed to be not older than Origen [Endnote 324:5]. On the other +hand, the Curetonian, like the Old Latin, still has in John vii. 8 +[Greek: ouk] for [Greek: oupo]--a change which, according to Dr. +Scrivener [Endnote 324:6], 'from the end of the third century +downwards was very generally and widely diffused.' This whole set +of questions needs perhaps a more exhaustive discussion than it +has obtained hitherto [Endnote 324:7]. + +The third version that may be mentioned is the Egyptian. In regard +to this Dr. Lightfoot says [Endnote 325:1], that 'we should +probably not be exaggerating if we placed one or both of the +principal Egyptian versions, the Memphitic and the Thebaic, or at +least parts of them, before the close of the second century.' In +support of this statement he quotes Schwartz, the principal +authority on the subject, 'who will not be suspected of any +theological bias.' The historical notices on which the conclusion +is founded are given in Scrivener's 'Introduction.' If we are to +put a separate estimate upon these, it would be perhaps that the +version was made in the second century somewhat more probably than +not; it was certainly not made later than the first half of the +third [Endnote 325:2]. + +Putting this version however on one side, the facts that have to +be explained are these. Towards the end of the second century we +find the four Gospels in general circulation and invested with +full canonical authority, in Gaul, at Rome, in the province of +Africa, at Alexandria, and in Syria. Now if we think merely of the +time that would be taken in the transcription and dissemination of +MSS., and of the struggle that works such as the Gospels would +have to go through before they could obtain recognition, and still +more an exclusive recognition, this alone would tend to overthrow +any such theory as that one of the Gospels, the fourth, was not +composed before 150 A.D., or indeed anywhere near that date. + +But this is not by any means all. It is merely the first step in a +process that, quite independently of the other external evidence, +thrusts the composition of the Gospels backwards and backwards to +a date certainly as early as that which is claimed for them. + +Let us define a little more closely the chronological bearings of +the subject. There is a decidedly preponderant probability that +the Muratorian fragment was not written much later than 170 A.D. +Irenaeus, as we have seen, was writing in the decade 180-190 A.D. +But his evidence is surely valid for an earlier date than this. He +is usually supposed to have been born about the year 140 A.D. +[Endnote 326:1], and the way in which he describes his relations +to Polycarp will not admit of a date many years later. But his +strong sense of the continuity of Church doctrine and the +exceptional veneration that he accords to the Gospels seem alone +to exclude the supposition that any of them should have been +composed in his own lifetime. He is fond of quoting the +'Presbyters,' who connected his own age with that, if not of the +Apostles, yet of Apostolic men. Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, whom he +succeeded, was more than ninety years old at the time of his +martyrdom in the persecution of A.D. 177 [Endnote 326:2], and +would thus in his boyhood be contemporary with the closing years +of the last Evangelist. Irenaeus also had before him a number of +writings--some, e.g. the works of the Marcosians, in addition to +those that have been discussed in the course of this work--in +which our Gospels are largely quoted, and which, to say the least, +were earlier than his own time of writing. + +Clement of Alexandria began to flourish, ([Greek: egnorizeto]) +[Endnote 327:1], in the reign of Commodus (180-190 A.D.), and had +obtained a still wider celebrity as head of the Catechetical +School of Alexandria in the time of Severus [Endnote 327:2] (193- +211). The opinions therefore to which he gives expression in his +works of this date were no doubt formed at a earlier period. He +too appeals to the tradition of which he had been himself a +recipient. He speaks of his teachers, 'those blessed and truly +memorable men,' one in Greece, another in Magna Graecia, a third +in Coele-Syria, a fourth in Egypt, a fifth in Assyria, a sixth in +Palestine, to whom the doctrine of the Apostles had been handed +down from father to son [Endnote 327:3]. + +Tertullian is still bolder. In his controversy with Marcion he +confidently claims as on his side the tradition of the Apostolic +Churches. By it is guaranteed the Gospel of St. Luke which he is +defending, and not only that, but the other Gospels [Endnote +327:4]. In one passage Tertullian even goes so far as to send his +readers to the Churches of Corinth, Philippi, &c. for the very +autographs ('authenticae literae') of St. Paul's Epistles [Endnote +327:5]. But this is merely a characteristic flourish of rhetoric. +All for which the statements of Tertullian may safely be said to +vouch is, that the Gospels had held their 'prerogative' position +within his memory and that of most members of the Church to which +he belonged. + +But the evidence of the Fathers is most decisive when it is +unconscious. That the Gospels as used by the Christian writers at +the end of the first century, so far from being of recent +composition, had already a long history behind them, is nothing +less than certain. At this date they exhibit a text which bears +the marks of frequent transcription and advanced corruption. +'Origen's,' says Dr. Scrivener [Endnote 328:1], 'is the highest +name among the critics and expositors of the early Church; he is +perpetually engaged in the discussion of various readings of the +New Testament, and employs language in describing the then state +of the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even to its +present condition with the changes which sixteen more centuries +must needs have produced ... Respecting the sacred autographs, +their fate or their continued existence, he seems to have had no +information, and to have entertained no curiosity: they had simply +passed by and were out of his reach. Had it not been for the +diversities of copies in all the Gospels on other points (he +writes) he should not have ventured to object to the authenticity +of a certain passage (Matt. xix. 19) on internal grounds: "But +now," saith he, "great in truth has become the diversity of +copies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from the +evil daring of some who correct what is written, or from those who +in correcting add or take away what they think fit."' This is +respecting the MSS. of one region only, and now for another +[Endnote 328:2]: 'It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in +sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has +ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it +was composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole +Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior +manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens +thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.' +Possibly this is an exaggeration, but no one will maintain that it +is a very large exaggeration of the facts. + +I proceed to give a few examples which serve to bring out the +antiquity of the text. And first from Irenaeus. + +There is a very remarkable passage in the work Against Heresies +[Endnote 329:1], bearing not indeed directly upon the Gospels, but +upon another book of the New Testament, and yet throwing so much +light upon the condition of the text in Irenaeus' time that it may +be well to refer to it here. In discussing the signification of +the number of the beast in Rev. xiii. 18, Irenaeus already found +himself confronted by a variety of reading: some MSS. with which +he was acquainted read 616 ([Greek: chis']) for 666 ([Greek: chxs']). +Irenaeus himself was not in doubt that the latter was the +true reading. He says that it was found in all the 'good and +ancient copies,' and that it was further attested by 'those who +had seen John face to face.' He thinks that the error was due to +the copyists, who had substituted by mistake the letter [Greek: i] +for [Greek: x]. He adds his belief that God would pardon those who +had done this without any evil motive. + +Here we have opened out a kind of vista extending back almost to +the person of St. John himself. There is already a multiplicity of +MSS., and of these some are set apart 'as good and ancient' +([Greek: en pasi tois spoudaiois kai archaiois antigraphois]). The +method by which the correct reading had to be determined was as +much historical as it is with us at the present day. + +A not dissimilar state of things is indicated somewhat less explicitly +in regard to the first Gospel. In the text of Matt. i. 18 all the Greek +MSS., with one exception, read, [Greek: tou de Iaesou Christou hae +genesis outos aen], B alone has [Greek: tou de Christou Iaesou]. The +Greek of D is wanting at this point, but the Latin, d, reads with the +best codices of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Curetonian Syriac, +'Christi autem generatio sic erat' (or an equivalent). Now Irenaeus +quotes this passage three times. In the first passage [Endnote 330:1] +the original Greek text of Irenaeus has been preserved in a quotation of +Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (the context also by Anastasius +Sinaita, but these words appear to be omitted); and the reading of +Germanus corresponds to that of the great mass of MSS. This however is +almost certainly false, as the ancient Latin translation of Irenaeus has +'Christi autem generatio,' and it was extremely natural for a copyist to +substitute the generally received text, especially in a combination of +words that was so familiar. Irenaeus leaves no doubt as to his own +reading on the next occasion when he quotes the passage, as he does +twice over. Here he says expressly: 'Ceterum, potuerat dicere Matthaeus: +_Jesu vero generatio sic erat_; sed praevidens Spiritus sanctus +depravatores, et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum +ait: _Christi autem generatio sic erat_' [Endnote 330:2]. Irenaeus +founds an argument upon this directed against the heretics who supposed +that the Christus and Jesus were not identical, but that Jesus was the +son of Mary, upon whom the aeon Christus afterwards descended. In +opposition to these Irenaeus maintains that the Christus and Jesus are +one and the same person. + +There is a division of opinion among modern critics as to which of +the two readings is to be admitted into the text; Griesbach, +Lachmann, Tischendorf (eighth edition), and Scrivener support the +reading of the MSS.; Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and M'Clellan +prefer that of Irenaeus. The presence of this reading in the Old +Latin and Curetonian Syriac proves its wide diffusion. At the same +time it is clear that Irenaeus himself was aware of the presence +of the other reading in some copies which he regarded as bearing +the marks of heretical depravation. + +It is unfortunate that fuller illustration cannot be given from +Irenaeus, but the number of the quotations from the Gospels of +which the Greek text still remains is not large, and where we have +only the Latin interpretation we cannot be sure that the actual +text of Irenaeus is before us. Much uncertainty is thus raised. +For instance, a doubt is expressed by the editors of Irenaeus +whether the words 'without a cause' ([Greek: eikae]--sine caussa) +in the quotation of Matt. v. 22 [Endnote 331:1] belong to the +original text or not. Probably they did so, as they are found in +the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac and in Western authorities +generally. They are wanting however in B, in Origen, and 'in the +true copies' according to Jerome, &c. The words are expunged from +the sacred text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and +M'Clellan. There is a less weight of authority for their +retention. In any case the double reading was certainly current at +the end of the second century, as the words are found in Irenaeus +and omitted by Tertullian. + +The elaborately varied readings of Matt. xi. 25-27 and Matt. xix. +16, 17 there can be little doubt are taken from the canonical +text. They are both indeed found in a passage (Adv. Haer. i. 20. +2, 3) where Irenaeus is quoting the heretical Marcosians; and +various approximations are met with, as we have seen, under +ambiguous circumstances in Justin, the Clementine Homilies, and +Marcion. But similar approximations are also found in Irenaeus +himself (speaking in his own person), in Clement of Alexandria, +Origen, and Epiphanius, who are undoubtedly quoting from our +Gospels; so that the presence of the variations at that early date +is proved, though in the first case they receive none, and in the +second very limited, support from the extant MSS. [Endnote 332:1] +A variety of reading that was in the first instance accidental +seemed to afford a handle either to the orthodox or to heretical +parties, and each for a time maintained its own; but with the +victory of the orthodox cause the heretical reading gave way, and +was finally suppressed before the time at which the extant MSS. +were written. + +These are really conspicuous instances of the confusion of text +already existing, but I forbear to press them because, though I do +not doubt myself the correctness of the account that has been +given of them, still there is just the ambiguity alluded to, and I +do not wish to seem to assume the truth of any particular view. + +For minor variations the text of Irenaeus cannot be used +satisfactorily, because it is always doubtful whether the Latin +version has correctly reproduced the original. And even in those +comparatively small portions where the Greek is still preserved, +it has come down to us through the medium of other writers, and we +have just had an instance how easily the distinctive features of +the text might be obliterated. + +Neither of these elements of uncertainty exists in the case of +Tertullian; and therefore, as the text of his New Testament +quotations has been edited in a very exact and careful form, I +shall illustrate what has been said respecting the corruptions +introduced in the second century chiefly from him. The following +may be taken as a few of the instances in which the existence of a +variety of reading can be verified by a comparison of Tertullian's +text with that of the MSS. The brackets (as before) indicate +partial support. + +Matt. iii. 8. Dignos poenitentiae fructus (_Pudic_. 10). +[Greek: Karpous axious taes metanoias] Textus Receptus, L, U, 33, +a, g'2, m, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., etc. [Greek: Karpon axion t. met]. +B, C (D), [Greek: D], 1, etc.; Vulg., b, c, d, f, ff'1, Syr. Hcl., +Memph., Theb., Iren., Orig., etc. [Tertullian himself has the +singular in _Hermog._ 12, so that he seems to have had both +readings in his copies.] + +Matt. v. 4, 5. The received order 'beati lugentes' and 'beati +mites' is followed in _Pat_. 11 [Roensch p. 589 and Tisch., +correcting Treg.], So [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, rel., b, f, +Syrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm., Aeth. Order inverted in D, 33, +Vulg., a, c, ff'1, g'1.2, h, k, l, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus., +Hil. + +Matt. v. 16. 'Luceant opera vestra' for 'luceat lux vestra,' Tert. +(bis). So Hil., Ambr., Aug., Celest. [see above, p. 134] against +all MSS. and versions. + +Matt. v. 28. Qui viderit ad concupiscentiam, etc. This verse is +cited six times by Tertullian, and Roensch says (p. 590) that 'in +these six citations almost every variant of the Greek text is +represented.' + +Matt. v. 48. Qui est in caelis: [Greek: ho en tois ouranois], +Textus Receptus, with [Greek: Delta symbol], E'2, rel., b, c, d, +g'1, h, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., Clem., [Greek: ho ouranios], [Hebrew: +Aleph symbol], B, D'2, Z, and i, 33, Vulg., a, f, etc. + +Matt. vi. 10. Fiat voluntas tua in caelis et in terra, omitting +'sicut.' So D, a, b, c, Aug. (expressly, 'some codices'). + +Matt. xi. ii. Nemo major inter natos feminarum Joanne baptizatore. + +'The form of this citation, which neither corresponds with Matt. +xi. 11 nor with Luke vii. 28, coincides almost exactly with the +words which in both the Greek and Latin text of the Codex Bezae +form the conclusion of Luke vii. 26, [Greek: [hoti] oudeis meizon +en gennaetois gunaikon [prophaetaes] Ioannou tou baptistou]' +(Roensch, p. 608). + +Matt. xiii. 15. Sanem: [Greek: iasomai], K, U, X, [Greek: Delta], +I; Latt. (exc. d), Syr. Crt.; [Greek: iasomai], B, C, D, [Hebrew: +Aleph symbol], rel. + +Matt. xv. 26. Non est (only), so Eus. in Ps. 83; [Greek: exestin], +D, a, b, c, ff, g'1, 1, Syr. Crt., Orig., Hil.; [Greek: ouk estin +kalon], B, C, [Hebrew aleph], rel., Vulg., c, f, g'2, k, Orig. + +There are of course few quotations that can be distinctly +identified as taken from St. Mark, but among these may be +noticed:-- + +Mark i. 24. Scimus: [Greek: oidamen se], [Hebrew aleph], L, +[Greek: Delta], Memph., Iren., Orig., Eus.; [Greek: oida se tis +ei], A, B, C, D, rel., Latt., Syrr. + +Mark ix. 7. Hunc audite: [Greek: autou akouete], A, X, rel., b, f, +Syrr.; [Greek: akouete autou], [Hebrew: aleph] B, C, D, L, a, c, +ff'1, etc. [This may be however from Matt. xvii. 5, where +Tertullian's reading has somewhat stronger support.] + +The variations in quotations from St. Luke have been perhaps +sufficiently illustrated in the chapter on Marcion. We may +therefore omit this Gospel and pass to St. John. A very remarkable +reading meets us at the outset. + +John i. 13. Non ex sanguine nec ex voluntate carnis nec ex +voluntate viri, sed ex deo natus est. The Greek of all the MSS. +and Versions, with the single exception of b of the Old Latin, is +[Greek: oi egennaethaesan]. A sentence is thus applied to Christ +that was originally intended to be applied to the Christian. +Tertullian (_De Carne Christ._ 19, 24), though he also had the +right reading before him, boldly accuses the Valentinians of a +falsification, and lays stress upon the reading which he adopts as +proof of the veritable birth of Christ from a virgin. The same +text is found in b (Codex Veronensis) of the Old Latin, Pseudo- +Athanasius, the Latin translator of Origen's commentary on St. +Matthew, in Augustine, and three times in Irenaeus. The same codex +has, like Tertullian, the singular ex sanguine for the plural +[Greek: ex ahimaton]: so Eusebius and Hilary. + +John iii. 36. Manebit (=[Greek: menei], for [Greek: menei]). So b, +e, g, Syr. Pst., Memph., Aeth., Iren., Cypr.; against a, c, d, f, +ff, Syrr. Crt. and Hcl., etc. + +John v. 3, 4. The famous paragraph which describes the moving of +the waters of the pool of Bethesda was found in Tertullian's MS. +It is also found in the mass of MSS., in the Old Latin and +Vulgate, in Syrr. Pst. and Jer., and in some MSS. of Memph. It is +omitted in [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, D (v. 4), f, l, Syr. +Crt., Theb., Memph. (most MSS.). Tertullian gives the name of the +pool as Bethsaida with B, Vulg., c, Syr. Hcl., Memph. Most of the +authorities read [Greek: baethesda]. [Greek: baethzatha, +baezatha], Berzeta, Belzatha, and Betzeta are also found. + +John v. 43. Recepistis, perf. for pres. ([Greek: lambanete]). So +a, b, Iren., Vigil., Ambr., Jer. + +John vi. 39. Non perdam ex eo quicquam. Here 'quicquam' is an +addition (=[Greek: maeden]), found in D, a, b, ff, Syr. Crt. + +John vi. 51. Et panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi, caro mea +est. This almost exactly corresponds with the reading of [Hebrew: +Aleph], [Greek: ho artos hon ego doso huper taes tou kosmou zoaes, +hae sarx mou estin]. Similarly, but with inversion of the last two +clauses ([Greek: hae sarx mou estin huper taes tou kosmou zoaes]), +B, C, D and T, 33, Vulg., a, b, c, e, m, Syr. Crt., Theb., Aeth., +Orig., Cypr. The received text is [Greek: kai ho artos [de] dae +ego doso, hae sarx mou estin aen ego doso huper taes tou kosmou +zoaes], after E, G, H, K, M, S, etc. + +John xii. 30. Venit (= [Greek: aelthen] for [Greek: gegonen]), +with D (Tregelles), [also a, b, l, n (?), Vulg. (_fuld_.), +Hil., Victorin.; Roensch]. + +The instances that have been here given are all, or nearly all, +false readings on the part of Tertullian. It is, of course, only +as such that they are in point for the present enquiry. Some few +of those mentioned have been admitted into the text by certain +modern editors. Thus, on Matt. v. 4, 5 Tertullian's reading finds +support in Westcott and Hort: and M'Clellan, against Tischendorf +and Tregelles. [This instance perhaps should not be pressed. I +leave it standing, because it shows interesting relations between +Tertullian and the various forms of the Old Latin.] The passage +omitted in John v. 3, 4 is argued for strenuously by Mr. M'Clellan, +with more hesitation by Dr. Scrivener, and in 'Supernatural Religion' +(sixth edition), against Tregelles, Tischendorf, Milligan, Lightfoot, +Westcott and Hort. In the same passage Bethsaida is read by Lachmann +(margin) and by Westcott and Hort. In John vi. 51 the reading of +Tertullian and the Sinaitic Codex is defended by Tischendorf; the +approximate reading of B, C, D, &c. is admitted by Lachmann, Tregelles, +Milligan, Westcott and Hort, and the received text has an apologist +in Mr. M'Clellan (with Tholuck and Wordsworth). On these points then +it should be borne in mind that Tertullian _may_ present the true +reading; on all the others he is pretty certainly wrong. + +Let us now proceed to analyse roughly these erroneous (in three +cases _doubtfully_ erroneous) readings. We shall find [Endnote 336:1] +that Tertullian-- + + _Agrees with_ _Differs from_ +x (Codex Sinaiticus) in Mark | in Matt. iii. 18, v. 16, v. 48, +i. 2 4, John vi. 51. | vi. 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. + | 26, Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, + | v. 3, 43, v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. +A (Codex Alexandrinus) in |A in Mark i. 24, John i. 13, + Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4. | v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. +B (Codex Vaticanus) in John |B in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, vi. + v. 2, (vi. 51). | 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. 26, + | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + | v. 3,4, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. +C (Codex Ephraemi--somewhat |C in Matt. iii. 8, xi. 11, xiii. + fragmentary) in John | 15, xv. 26, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, + (vi. 51). | John i. 13, v. 3, 4, vi. 39. +D (Codex Bezae--in some |D in Matt. (iii. 8), v. 16, v. 48, +places wanting) in Matt. vi. | xiii. 15, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, +10, Xi. 11, (xv. 26), John (vi. | John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 4, v. 43. +51), xii. 30. | + | + GREEK FATHERS. | +Clement of Alexandria, in Matt. | +v. 16, v. 48. | +Origen, in Matt. (xv. 26), Mark |Origen, in Matt. iii. 8, (xv. 26), + i. 24, John i. 13 (Latin trans- | + lator), (vi. 51). | +Eusebius, in Matt. xv. 26, Mark | +i. 24, John i. 13 (partially). | + | + LATIN FATHERS. | +Irenaeus, in Mark i. 24, John |Irenaeus in Matt. iii. 8. + i. 13 (ter), iii. 36, v. 43. | +Cyprian, in John iii. 36, (vi. 51). | +Augustine, in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10. | +Ambrose, in Matt. v. 16, John v. 43. | +Hilary, in Matt. v. 16, (xv. 26), | + John xii. 30. | +Others, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, | + John i. 13, v. 43, xii. 30. | + | + VERSIONS. | +Old Latin-- | +a (Codex Vercellensis), in Matt. |a, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, xi. 11, + (iii. 8), vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + 26), John v. 3, 4, v. 43, (vi. | iii. 36. + 51), xii. 30. | +b (Codex Veronensis), in Matt. |b, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11, + v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 36), | Mark i. 24. + Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, | + iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, | + (vi. 51), xii. 30. | +c (Codex Colbertinus), in Matt. |c, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11, + v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 26), | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + John v. 3, 4, (vi. 51). | iii. 36, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. +f (Codex Brixianus), in Matt. |f, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, + xiii. 15, Mark ix. 7. | vi. 10, xi. 10, xv. 26, Mark + | i. 24, John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 3, + | 4, v. 43, vi. 39, vi. 51, xii. 30. +Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8, |Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8, + vi. 10, Xiii. 5, (xv. 26), John | v. 16, v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, + iii. 36, v. 3, 4, vi. 39, (vi. 51),| Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + xii. 30. | iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, vi. 39, + | vi. 51, xii. 30. +Vulgate, in Matt. xiii. 15, John |Vulgate, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, + v. 3, 4, (vi. 51), xii. 30 | v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, xv. 26, + (_fuld._). | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, + | iii. 36, v. 43, vi. 39. +Syriac-- | +Syr. Crt. (fragmentary), in |Syr. Crt., in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10, + Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, xiii. 15, | xi. 11, John (i. 13, ? Tregelles) + (xv. 26), John (i. 13, ? Crowfoot),| iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43. + vi. 39, (vi. 51.). | +Syr. Pst., in Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, |Syr. Pst., in Matt. vi. 10, Mark + Mark ix. 7, John iii. 36, v. 3, 4. | i. 24, John i. 13, (vi. 51), + | xii. 30 + +[The evidence of this and the following versions is only given where it +is either expressly stated or left to be clearly inferred by the editors.] + +Egyptian-- +Thebaic, in John (vi. 51). |Thebaic, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, + | Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4. +Memphitic, in Mark i. 24, John |Memphitic, in Matt. iii. 8, v. + iii. 36. | 16, (v. 48), Mark ix. 7, John + | v. 3, 4, vi. 51. + +Summing up the results numerically they would be something of this +kind:-- + + UNCIAL MSS. + + [Hebrew: A B C D + Alef] + +Agreement 2 2 2 1 5 +Difference 13 5 14 9 10 + + + GREEK FATHERS. + + Clement + of + Alexandria. Origen. Eusebius. +Agreement 1 4 3 +Difference 0 2 0 + + + LATIN FATHERS. + + Irenaeus. Cyprian. Augustine. Ambrose. Hilary. Others. +Agreement 4 2 2 2 3 5 +Difference 1 0 0 0 0 0 + + + VERSIONS. + + OLD LATIN. VULGATE. + a b c f rel. +Agreement 8 11 6 2 9 4 +Difference 7 4 10 14 14 12 + + + SYRIAC. EGYPTIAN. + Crt. Pst. Theb. Memph. +Agreement 7 5 1 2 +Difference 7 5 4 6 + + +Now the phenomena here, as on other occasions when we have had to +touch upon text criticism, are not quite simple and straightforward. +It must be remembered too that our observations extend only over +a very narrow area. Within that area they are confined to the cases +where Tertullian has _gone wrong_; whereas, in order to anything +like a complete induction, all the cases of various reading ought +to be considered. Some results, however, of a rough and approximate +kind may be said to be reached; and I think that these will be +perhaps best exhibited if, premising that they are thus rough +and approximate, we throw them into the shape of a genealogical tree. + + Tert. b + \ / + \/ O.L. (a.c. &c.) + \ / + \/ Syr. Crt. + \ / + Tert. O.L.\ / + \/ + Greek Fathers. / + \ Tert. O.L./ + \ Syr. Crt./ + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / +Best Alexandrine Authorities. \ / + \ \ / Western. + \ / + \ Greek Fathers / + \ Memph. Theb. / + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / + \ / + || + Alexandrine. || Western. + || + /\ + The Sacred Autographs. + + +In accordance with the sketch here given we may present the +history of the text, up to the time when it reached Tertullian, +thus. First we have the sacred autographs, which are copied for +some time, we need not say immaculately, but without change on the +points included in the above analysis. Gradually a few errors slip +in, which are found especially in the Egyptian, versions and in +the works of some Alexandrine and Palestinian Fathers. But in time +a wider breach is made. The process of corruption becomes more +rapid. We reach at last that strange document which, through more +or less remote descent, became the parent of the Curetonian Syriac +on the one hand and of the Old Latin on the other. These two lines +severally branch off. The Old Latin itself divides. One of its +copies in particular (b) seems to represent a text that has a +close affinity to that of Tertullian, and among the group of +manuscripts to which it belongs is that which Tertullian himself +most frequently and habitually used. + +Strictly speaking indeed there can be no true genealogical tree. +The course of descent is not clear and direct all the way. There +is some confusion and some crossing and recrossing of the lines. +Thus, for instance, there is the curious coincidence of Tertullian +with [Hebrew: Aleph], a member of a group that had long seemed to +be left behind, in John vi. 51. This however, as it is only on a +point of order and that in a translation, may very possibly be +accidental; I should incline to think that the reading of the +Greek Codex from which Tertullian's Latin was derived agreed +rather with that of B, C, D, &c., and these phenomena would +increase the probability that these manuscripts and Tertullian had +really preserved the original text. If that were the case--and it +is the conclusion arrived at by a decided majority of the best +editors--there would then be no considerable difficulty in regard +to the relation between Tertullian and the five great Uncials, for +the reading of Mark ix. 7 is of much less importance. Somewhat +more difficult to adjust would be Tertullian's relations to the +different forms of the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac. In one +instance, Matt. xi. 11 (or Luke vii. 26), Tertullian seems to +derive his text from the Dd branch rather than the b branch of the +Old Latin. In another (Matt. iii. 8) he seems to overleap b and +most copies of the Old Latin altogether and go to the Curetonian +Syriac. How, too, did he come to have the paraphrastic reading of +Matt. v. 16 which is found in no MSS. or versions but in Justin +(approximately), Clement of Alexandria, and several Latin Fathers? +The paraphrase might naturally enough occur to a single writer +here or there, but the extent of the coincidence is remarkable. +Perhaps we are to see here another sign of the study bestowed by +the Fathers upon the writings of their predecessors leading to an +unconscious or semi-conscious reproduction of their deviations. It +is a noticeable fact that in regard to the order of the clauses in +Matt. v. 4, 5, Tertullian has preserved what is probably the right +reading along with b alone, the other copies of the Old Latin (all +except the revised f) with the Curetonian Syriac having gone +wrong. On the whole the complexities and cross relations are less, +and the genealogical tree holds good to a greater extent, than we +might have been prepared for. The hypothesis that Tertullian used +a manuscript in the main resembling b of the Old Latin satisfies +most elements of the problem. + +But the merest glance at these phenomena must be enough to show +that the Tuebingen theory, or any theory which attributes a late +origin to our Gospels, is out of the question. To bring the text +into the state in which it is found in the writings of Tertullian, +a century is not at all too long a period to allow. In fact I +doubt whether any subsequent century saw changes so great, though +we should naturally suppose that corruption would proceed at an +advancing rate for every fresh copy that was made. The phenomena +that have to be accounted for are not, be it remembered, such as +might be caused by the carelessness of a single scribe. They are +spread over whole groups of MSS. together. We can trace the +gradual accessions of corruption at each step as we advance in the +history of the text. A certain false reading comes in at such a +point and spreads over all the manuscripts that start from that; +another comes in at a further stage and vitiates succeeding copies +there; until at last a process of correction and revision sets in; +recourse is had to the best standard manuscripts, and a purer text +is recovered by comparison with these. It is precisely such a text +that is presented by the Old Latin Codex f, which, we find +accordingly, shows a maximum of difference from Tertullian. A +still more systematic revision, though executed--if we are to +judge from the instances brought to our notice--with somewhat +more reserve, is seen in Jerome's Vulgate. + +It seems unnecessary to dilate upon this point. I will only +venture to repeat the statement which I made at starting; that if +the whole of the Christian literature for the first three quarters +of the second century could be blotted out, and Irenaeus and +Tertullian alone remained, as well as the later manuscripts with +which to compare them, there would still be ample proof that the +latest of our Gospels cannot overstep the bounds of the first +century. The abundant indications of internal evidence are thus +confirmed, and the age and date of the Synoptic Gospels, I think +we may say, within approximate limits, established. + +But we must not forget that there is a double challenge to be met. +The first part of it--that which relates to the evidence for the +existence of the Gospels--has been answered. It remains to +consider how far the external evidence for the Gospels goes to +prove their authenticity. It may indeed well be asked how the +external evidence can be expected to prove the authenticity of +these records. It does so, to a considerable extent, indirectly by +throwing them back into closer contact with the facts. It also +tends to establish the authority in which they were held, +certainly in the last quarter of the second century, and very +probably before. By this time the Gospels were acknowledged to be +all that is now understood by the word 'canonical.' They were +placed upon the same footing as the Old Testament Scriptures. They +were looked up to with the same reverence and regarded as +possessing the same Divine inspiration. We may trace indeed some +of the steps by which this position was attained. The [Greek: +gegraptai] of the Epistle of Barnabas, the public reading of the +Gospels in the churches mentioned by Justin, the [Greek: to +eiraemenon] of Tatian, the [Greek: guriakai graphai] of Dionysius +of Corinth, all prepare the way for the final culmination in the +Muratorian Canon and Irenaeus. So complete had the process been +that Irenaeus does not seem to know of a time when the authority +of the Gospels had been less than it was to him. Yet the process +had been, of course, gradual. The canonical Gospels had to compete +with several others before they became canonical. They had to make +good their own claims and to displace rival documents; and they +succeeded. It is a striking instance of the 'survival of the +fittest.' That they were really the fittest is confirmed by nearly +every fragment of the lost Gospels that remains, but it would be +almost sufficiently proved by the very fact that they survived. + +In this indirect manner I think that the external evidence bears +out the position assigned to the canonical Gospels. It has +preserved to us the judgment of the men of that time, and there is +a certain relative sense in which the maxim, 'Securus judicat +orbis terrarum,' is true. The decisions of an age, especially +decisions such as this where quite as much depended upon pious +feeling as upon logical reasoning, are usually sounder than the +arguments that are put forward to defend them. We should hardly +endorse the arguments by which Irenaeus proves _a priori_ the +necessity of a 'four-fold Gospel,' but there is real weight in the +fact that four Gospels and no more were accepted by him and others +like him. It is difficult to read without impatience the rough +words that are applied to the early Christian writers and to +contrast the self-complacency in which our own superior knowledge +is surveyed. If there is something in which they are behind us, +there is much also in which we are behind them. Among the many +things for which Mr. Arnold deserves our gratitude he deserves it +not least for the way in which he has singled out two sentences, +one from St. Augustine and the other from the Imitation, 'Domine +fecisti nos ad te et irrequietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat +in te,' and, 'Esto humilis et pacificus et erit tecum, Jesus.' The +men who could write thus are not to be despised. + +But beyond their more general testimony it is not clear what else +the early Fathers could be expected to do. They could not prove-- +at least their written remains that have come down to us could not +prove--that the Gospels were really written by the authors +traditionally assigned to them. When we say that the very names of +the first two Evangelists are not mentioned before a date that may +be from 120-166 (or 155) A.D. and the third and fourth not before +170-175 A.D., this alone is enough, without introducing other +elements of doubt, to show that the evidence must needs be +inconclusive. If the author of 'Supernatural Religion' undertook +to show this, he undertook a superfluous task. So much at least, +Mr. Arnold was right in saying, 'might be stated in a sentence and +proved in a page.' There is a presumption in favour of the +tradition, and perhaps, considering the relation of Irenaeus to +Polycarp and of Polycarp to St. John, we may say, a fairly strong +one; but we need now-a-days, to authenticate a document, closer +evidence than this. The cases are not quite parallel, and the +difference between them is decidedly in favour of Irenaeus, but if +Clement of Alexandria could speak of an Epistle written about 125 +A.D. is the work of the apostolic Barnabas the companion of St. +Paul [Endnote 346:1], we must not lay too much stress upon the +direct testimony of Irenaeus when he attributes the fourth Gospel +to the Apostle St. John. + +These are points for a different set of arguments to determine. +The Gospel itself affords sufficient indications as to the +position of its author. For the conclusion that he was a +Palestinian Jew, who had lived in Palestine before the destruction +of Jerusalem, familiar with the hopes and expectations of his +people, and himself mixed up with the events which he describes, +there is evidence of such volume and variety as seems exceedingly +difficult to resist. As I have gone into this subject at length +elsewhere [Endnote 347:1], and as, so far as I can see, no new +element has been introduced into the question by 'Supernatural +Religion,' I shall not break the unity of the present work by +considering the objections brought in detail. I am very ready to +recognise the ability with which many of these are stated, but it +is the ability of the advocate rather than of the impartial +critic. There is a constant tendency to draw conclusions much in +excess of the premisses. An observation, true in itself with a +certain qualification and restriction, is made in an unqualified +form, and the truth that it contains is exaggerated. Above all, +wherever there is a margin of ignorance, wherever a statement of +the Evangelist is not capable of direct and exact verification, +the doubt is invariably given against him and he is brought in +guilty either of ignorance or deception. I have no hesitation in +saying that if the principles of criticism applied to the fourth +Gospel--not only by the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' but by +some other writers of repute, such as Dr. Scholten--were applied +to ordinary history or to the affairs of every-day life, much that +is known actually to have happened could be shown on _a priori_ +grounds to be impossible. It is time that the extreme negative +school should justify more completely their canons of criticism. +As it is, the laxity of these repels many a thoughtful mind quite +as firmly convinced as they can be of the necessity of free +enquiry and quite as anxious to reconcile the different sides +of knowledge. The question is not one merely of freedom or +tradition, but of reason and logic; and until there is more +agreement as to what is reasonable and what the laws of logic +demand, the arguments are apt to run in parallel lines that never +meet [Endnote 348:1]. + +But, it is said, 'Miracles require exceptional evidence.' True: +exceptional evidence they both require and possess; but that evidence is +not external. Incomparably the strongest attestation to the Gospel +narratives is that which they bear to themselves. Miracles have +exceptional evidence because the non-miraculous portions of the +narrative with which they are bound up are exceptional. These carry +their truth stamped upon their face, and that truth is reflected back +upon the miracles. It is on the internal investigation of the Gospels +that the real issue lies. And this is one main reason why the belief of +mankind so little depends upon formal apologetics. We can all feel the +self- evidential force of the Gospel story; but who shall present it +adequately in words? We are reminded of the fate of him who thought the +ark of God was falling and put out his hand to steady it--and, for his +profanity, died. It can hardly be said that good intentions would be a +sufficient justification, because that a man should think himself fit +for the task would be in itself almost a sufficient sign that he was +mistaken. It is not indeed quite incredible that the qualifications +should one day be found. We seem almost to see that, with a slight +alteration of circumstances, a little different training in early life, +such an one has almost been among us. There are passages that make us +think that the author of 'Parochial and Plain Sermons' might have +touched even the Gospels with cogency that yet was not profane. But the +combination of qualities required is such as would hardly be found for +centuries together. The most fine and sensitive tact of piety would be +essential. With it must go absolute sincerity and singleness of purpose. +Any dash of mere conventionalism or self-seeking would spoil the whole. +There must be that clear illuminated insight that is only given to those +who are in a more than ordinary sense 'pure in heart.' And on the other +hand, along with these unique spiritual qualities must go a sound and +exact scientific training, a just perception of logical force and +method, and a wide range of knowledge. One of the great dangers and +drawbacks to the exercise of the critical faculty is that it tends to +destroy the spiritual intuition. And just in like manner the too great +reliance upon this intuition benumbs and impoverishes the critical +faculty. Yet, in a mind that should present at all adequately the +internal evidence of the Gospels, both should co-exist in equal balance +and proportion. We cannot say that there will never be such a mind, +but the asceticism of a life would be a necessary discipline for it +to go through, and that such a life as the world has seldom seen. + +In the meantime the private Christian may well be content with what he +has. 'If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether +it be of God.' + + + + + +CHAPTER XIV. + +CONCLUSION. + + +And now that we have come to the end of the purely critical +portion of this enquiry, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few +words on its general tendency and bearing. As critics we have only +the critical question to deal with. Certain evidence is presented +to us which it is our duty to weigh and test by reference to +logical and critical laws. It must stand or fall on its own +merits, and any considerations brought in from without will be +irrelevant to the question at issue. But after this is done we may +fairly look round and consider how our conclusion affects other +conclusions and in what direction it is leading us. If we look at +'Supernatural Religion' in this way we shall see that its tendency +is distinctly marked. Its attack will fall chiefly upon the middle +party in opinion. And it will play into the hands of the two +extreme parties on either side. There can be little doubt that +indirectly it will help the movement that is carrying so many into +Ultramontanism, and directly it is of course intended to win +converts to what may perhaps be called comprehensively Secularism. + +Now it is certainly true that the argument from consequences is +one that ought to be applied with great caution. Yet I am not at +all sure that it has not a real basis in philosophy as well as in +nature. The very existence of these two great parties, the +Ultramontane and the Secularist, over against each other, seems to +be it kind of standing protest against either of them. If +Ultramontanism is true, how is it that so many wise and good men +openly avow Secularism? If 'Secularism is true, how is it that so +many of the finest and highest minds take refuge from it--a +treacherous refuge, I allow--in Ultramontanism? There is +something in this more than a mere defective syllogism--more than +an insufficient presentation of the evidence. Truth, in the widest +sense, is that which is in accordance with the laws and conditions +of human nature. But where beliefs are so directly antithetical as +they are here, the repugnance and resistance which each is found +to cause in so large a number of minds is in itself a proof that +those laws and conditions are insufficiently complied with. To the +spectator, standing outside of both, this will seem to be easily +explained: the one sacrifices reason to faith; the other +sacrifices faith to reason. But there is abundant evidence to show +that both faith (meaning thereby the religious emotions) and +reason are ineradicable elements in the human mind. That which +seriously and permanently offends against either cannot be true. +For creatures differently constituted from man--either all reason +or all pure disembodied emotion--it might be otherwise; but, for +man, as he is, the epithet 'true' seems to be excluded from any +set of propositions that has such results. + +Even in the more limited sense, and confining the term to +propositions purely intellectual, there is, I think we must say, a +presumption against the truth of that which involves so deep and +wide a chasm in human nature. Without importing teleology, we +should naturally expect that the intellect and the emotions should +be capable of working harmoniously together. They do so in most +things: why should they not in the highest matters of all? If the +one set of opinions is anti-rational and the other anti-emotional, +as we see practically that they are, is not this in itself an +antecedent presumption against either of them? It may not be +enough to prove at once that the syllogism is defective: still +less is it a sufficient warrant for establishing an opposite +syllogism. But it does seem to be enough to give the scientific +reasoner pause, and to make him go over the line of his argument +again and again and yet again, with the suspicion that there is +(as how well there may be!) a flaw somewhere. + +It would not, I think, be difficult to point out such flaws +[Endnote 352:1]--some of them, as it appears, of considerable +magnitude. But the subject is one that would take us far away out +of our present course, and for its proper development would +require a technical knowledge of the processes of physical science +which I do not possess. Leaving this on one side, and regarding +them only in the abstract, the considerations stated above seem to +point to the necessity of something of the nature of a compromise. +And yet there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as compromise +in opinions. Compromise belongs to the world of practice; it is +only admitted by an illicit process into the world of thought. The +author of 'Supernatural Religion' is doubtless right in +deprecating that 'illogical zeal which flings to the pursuing +wolves of doubt and unbelief, scrap by scrap,' all the distinctive +doctrines of Christianity. Belief, it is true, must be ultimately +logical to stand. It must have an inner cohesion and inter- +dependence. It must start from a fixed principle. This has been, +and still is, the besetting weakness of the theology of mediation. +It is apt to form itself merely by stripping off what seem to be +excrescences from the outside, and not by radically reconstructing +itself, on a firmly established basis, from within. The difficulty +in such a process is to draw the line. There is a delusive +appearance of roundness and completeness in the creeds of those +who either accept everything or deny everything: though, even +here, there is, I think we may say, always, some little loophole +left of belief or of denial, which will inevitably expand until it +splits and destroys the whole structure. But the moment we begin +to meet both parties half way, there comes in that crucial +question: Why do you accept just so much and no more? Why do you +deny just so much and no more? [Endnote 354:1] + +It must, in candour, be confessed that the synthetic formula for the +middle party in opinion has not yet been found. Other parties have +their formulae, but none that will really bear examination. _Quod +semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus_, would do excellently if there +was any belief that had been held 'always, everywhere, and by all,' if +no discoveries had been made as to the facts, and if there had been no +advance in the methods of knowledge. The ultimate universality and the +absolute uniformity of physical antecedents has a plausible appearance +until it is seen that logically carried out it reduces men to machines, +annihilates responsibility, and involves conclusions on the assumption +of the truth of which society could not hold together for a single day. +If we abandon these Macedonian methods for unloosing the Gordian knot +of things and keep to the slow and laborious way of gradual induction, +then I think it will be clear that all opinions must be held on the +most provisional tenure. A vast number of problems will need to be +worked out before any can be said to be established with a pretence to +finality. And the course which the inductive process is taking supplies +one of the chief 'grounds of hope' to those who wish to hold that +middle position of which I have been speaking. The extreme theories +which from time to time have been advanced have not been able to hold +their ground. No doubt they may have done the good that extreme +theories usually do, in bringing out either positively or negatively +one side or another of the truth; but in themselves they have been +rejected as at once inadequate and unreal solutions of the facts. First +we had the Rationalism (properly so called) of Paulus, then the +Mythical hypothesis of Strauss, and after that the 'Tendenz-kritik' of +Baur. But what candid person does not feel that each and all of these +contained exaggerations more incredible than the difficulties which +they sought to remove? There has been on each of the points raised a +more or less definite ebb in the tide. The moderate conclusion is seen +to be also the reasonable conclusion. And not least is this the case +with the enquiry on which we have been just engaged. The author of +'Supernatural Religion' has overshot the mark very much indeed. There +is, as we have seen, a certain truth in some things that he has said, +but the whole sum of truth is very far from bearing out his conclusions. + +When we look up from these detailed enquiries and lift up our eyes +to a wider horizon we shall be able to relegate them to their true +place. The really imposing witness to the truth of Christianity is +that which is supplied by history on the one hand, and its own +internal attractiveness and conformity to human nature on the +other. Strictly speaking, perhaps, these are but two sides of the +same thing. It is in history that the laws of human nature assume +a concrete shape and expression. The fact that Christianity has +held its ground in the face of such long-continued and hostile +criticism is a proof that it must have some deeply-seated fitness +and appropriateness for man. And this goes a long way towards +saying that it is true. It is a theory of things that is being +constantly tested by experience. But the results of experience are +often expressed unconsciously. They include many a subtle +indication that the mind has followed but cannot reproduce to +itself in set terms. All the reasons that go to form a judge's +decision do not appear in his charge. Yet there we have a select +and highly-trained mind working upon matter that presents no very +great degree of complexity. When we come to a question so wide, so +subtle and complex as Christianity, the individual mind ceases to +be competent to sit in judgment upon it. It becomes necessary to +appeal to a much more extended tribunal, and the verdict of that +tribunal will be given rather by acts than in words. Thus there +seems to have always been a sort of half-conscious feeling in +men's minds that there was more in Christianity than the arguments +for it were able to bring out. In looking back over the course +that apologetics have taken, we cannot help being struck by a +disproportion between the controversial aspect and the practical. +It will probably on the whole be admitted that the balance of +argument has in the past been usually somewhat on the side of the +apologists; but the argumentative victory has seldom if ever been +so decisive as quite to account for the comparatively undisturbed +continuity of the religious life. It was in the height of the +Deist controversy that Wesley and Whitfield began to preach, and +they made more converts by appealing to the emotions than probably +Butler did by appealing to the reason. + +A true philosophy must take account of these phenomena. Beliefs +which issue in that peculiarly fine and chastened and tender +spirit which is the proper note of Christianity, cannot, under any +circumstances, be dismissed as 'delusion.' Surely if any product +of humanity is true and genuine, it is to be found here. There are +indeed truths which find a response in our hearts without +apparently going through any logical process, not because they are +illogical, but because the scales of logic are not delicate and +sensitive enough to weigh them. + +'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall +not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' 'I will arise and go to my +father, and will say unto him: Father, I have sinned against +heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy +son.' 'Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I +will give you rest.' The plummet of science--physical or +metaphysical, moral or critical--has never sounded so deep as +sayings such as these. We may pass them over unnoticed in our +Bibles, or let them slip glibly and thoughtlessly from the tongue; +but when they once really come home, there is nothing to do but to +bow the head and cover the face and exclaim with the Apostle, +'Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.' + +And yet there is that other side of the question which is represented +in 'Supernatural Religion,' and this too must have justice done to it. +There is an intellectual, as well as a moral and spiritual, synthesis +of things. Only it should be remembered that this synthesis has to +cover an immense number of facts of the most varied and intricate kind, +and that at present the nature of the facts themselves is in many cases +very far from being accurately ascertained. We are constantly reminded +in reading 'Supernatural Religion,' able and vigorous as it is, how +much of its force depends rather upon our ignorance than our knowledge. +It supplies us with many opportunities of seeing how easily the whole +course and tenour of an argument may be changed by the introduction of +a new element. For instance, I imagine that if the author had given a +little deeper study to the seemingly minute and secondary subject of +text-criticism, it would have aroused in him very considerable +misgivings as to the results at which he seemed to have arrived. There +is a solidarity in all the different departments of human knowledge and +research, especially among those that are allied in subject. These are +continually sending out offshoots and projections into the neighbouring +regions, and the conclusions of one science very often have to depend +upon those of another. The course of enquiry that has been taken in +'Supernatural Religion' is peculiarly unfortunate. It starts from the +wrong end. It begins with propositions into which _a priori_ +considerations largely enter, and, from the standpoint given by these, +it proceeds to dictate terms in a field that can only be trodden by +patient and unprejudiced study. A far more hopeful and scientific +process would have been to begin upon ground where dogmatic questions +do not enter, or enter only in a remote degree, and where there is a +sufficient number of solid ascertainable facts to go upon, and then to +work the way steadily and cautiously upwards to higher generalisations. + +It will have been seen in the course of the present enquiry how +many side questions need to be determined. It would be well if +monographs were written upon all the quotations from the Old +Testament in the Christian literature of the first two centuries, +modelled upon Credner's investigations into the quotations in +Justin. Before this is done there should be a new and revised +edition of Holmes' and Parsons' Septuagint [Endnote 359:1]. +Everything short of this would be inadequate, because we need to +know not only the best text, but every text that has definite +historical attestation. In this way it would be possible to arrive +at a tolerably exact, instead of a merely approximate, deduction +as to the habit of quotation generally, which would supply a +firmer basis for inference in regard to the New Testament than +that which has been assumed here. At the same time monographs +should be written in English, besides those already existing in +German, upon the date or position of the writers whose works come +under review. Without any attempt to prove a particular thesis, +the reader should be allowed to see precisely what the evidence is +and how far it goes. Then if he could not arrive at a positive +conclusion, he could at least attain to the most probable. And, +lastly, it is highly important that the whole question of the +composition and structure of the Synoptic Gospels should be +investigated to the very bottom. Much valuable labour has already +been expended upon this subject, but the result, though progress +has been made, is rather to show its extreme complexity and +difficulty than to produce any final settlement. Yet, as the +author of 'Supernatural Religion' has rather dimly and inadequately +seen, we are constantly thrown back upon assumptions borrowed from +this quarter. + +Pending such more mature and thorough enquiries, I quite feel that +my own present contribution belongs to a transition stage, and +cannot profess to be more than provisional. But it will have +served its purpose sufficiently if it has helped to mark out more +distinctly certain lines of the enquiry and to carry the +investigation along these a little way; suggesting at the same +time--what the facts themselves really suggest--counsels of +sobriety and moderation. + +What the end will be, it would be presumptuous to attempt to +foretell. It will probably be a long time before even these minor +questions--much more the major questions into which they run up-- +will be solved. Whether they will ever be solved--all of them at +least--in such a way as to compel entire assent is very doubtful. +Error and imperfection seem to be permanently, if we may hope +diminishingly, a condition of human thought and action. It does +not appear to be the will of God that Truth should ever be so +presented as to crush out all variety of opinion. The conflict of +opinions is like that of Hercules with the Hydra. As fast as one +is cut down another arises in its place; and there is no searing- +iron to scorch and cicatrize the wound. However much we may +labour, we can only arrive at an inner conviction, not at +objective certainty. All the glosses and asseverations in the +world cannot carry us an inch beyond the due weight of the +evidence vouchsafed to us. An honest and brave mind will accept +manfully this condition of things, and not seek for infallibility +where it can find none. It will adopt as its motto that noble +saying of Bishop Butler--noble, because so unflinchingly true, +though opposed to a sentimental optimism--'Probability is the very +guide of life.' + +With probabilities we have to deal, in the intellectual sphere. +But, when once this is thoroughly and honestly recognised, even a +comparatively small balance of probability comes to have as much +moral weight as the most loudly vaunted certainty. And meantime, +apart from and beneath the strife of tongues, there is the still +small voice which whispers to a man and bids him, in no +superstitious sense but with the gravity and humility which befits +a Christian, to 'work out his own salvation with fear and +trembling.' + + + + + +[ENDNOTES] + + +[2:1] With regard to the references in vol. i. p. 259, n. 1, I +had already observed, before the appearance of the preface to the +sixth edition, that they were really intended to apply to the +first part of the sentence annotated rather than the second. +Still, as there is only one reference out of nine that really +supports the proposition in immediate connection with which the +references are made, the reader would be very apt to carry away a +mistaken impression. The same must be said of the set of +references defended on p. xl. sqq. of the new preface. The +expressions used do not accurately represent the state of the +facts. It is not careful writing, and I am afraid it must be said +that the prejudice of the author has determined the side which the +expression leans. But how difficult is it to make words express +all the due shades and qualifications of meaning--how difficult +especially for a mind that seems to be naturally distinguished by +force rather than by exactness and delicacy of observation! We +have all 'les defauts de nos qualites.' + +[10:1] Much harm has been done by rashly pressing human metaphors and +analogies; such as, that Revelation is a _message_ from God and +therefore must be infallible, &c. This is just the sort of argument +that the Deists used in the last century, insisting that a revelation, +properly so called, _must_ be presented with conclusive proofs, _must_ +be universal, _must_ be complete, and drawing the conclusion that +Christianity is not such a revelation. This kind of reasoning has +received its sentence once for all from Bishop Butler. We have nothing +to do with what _must_ be (of which we are, by the nature of the case, +incompetent judges), but simply with what _is_. + +[18:1] Cf. Westcott, _Canon_, p. 152, n. 2 (3rd ed. 1870). + +[18:2] See Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 60; also Credner, +_Beitraege_, ii. 66 ('certainly' from St. Paul). + +[20:1] _The Old Testament in the New_ (London and Edinburgh, +1868). + +[21:1] Mr. M'Clellan (_The New Testament_, &c., vol. i. p. +606, n. c) makes the suggestion, which from his point of view is +necessary, that 'S. Matthew has cited a prophecy spoken by +Jeremiah, but nowhere written in the Old Testament, and of which +the passage in Zechariah is only a partial reproduction.' Cf. +Credner, _Beitraege_, ii. 152. + +[25:1] We do not stay to discuss the real origin of these +quotations: the last is probably not from the Old Testament at +all. + +[27:1] The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are also +found in Clement of Alexandria. + +[34:1] It should be noticed, however, that the same reading is +found in Justin and other writers. + +[38:1] _Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti_ +(Gottingae, 1853). + +[39:1] _Beitraege zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften_ +(Halle, 1832). + +[40:1] _The Epistles of S. Clement of Rome_ (London and +Cambridge, 1869). + +[49:1] The Latin translation is not in most cases a sufficient +guarantee for the original text. The Greek has been preserved in +the shape of long extracts by Epiphanius and others. The edition +used is that of Stieren, Lipsiae, 1853. + +[49:2] Horne's _Introduction_ (ed. 1856), p. 333. + +[52:1] Ed. Dindorf, Lipsiae, 1859. [The index given in vol. iii. +p. 893 sqq. contains many inaccuracies, and is, indeed, of little +use for identifying the passages of Scripture.] + +[56:1] _Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of +Alexandria,_ p. 407 sqq. + +[56:2] In the new Preface to his work on the Canon (4th edition, +1875), p. xxxii. + +[58:1] _S.R._ i. p. 221, and note. + +[59:1] _S.R._ i. p. 222, n. 3. + +[59:2] _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ p. 74 (p. 82 _S.R._?). + +[59:3] _Das nachapost. Zeitalter_, p. 126 sq. + +[60:1] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 64; compare +Fritzche, art. 'Judith' in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_. + +[61:1] Vol. i. p. 221, n. I feel it due to the author to say that +I have found his long lists of references, though not seldom +faulty, very useful. I willingly acknowledge the justice of his +claim to have 'fully laid before readers the actual means of +judging of the accuracy of every statement which has been made' +(Preface to sixth edition, p. lxxx). + +[65:1] i. p. 226. + +[66:1] i. p. 228. + +[69:1] _Der Ursprung_, p. 138. + +[71:1] _The Apostolical Fathers_ (London, 1874), p. 273. + +[71:2] The original Greek of this work is lost, but in the text as +reconstructed by Hilgenfeld from five still extant versions +(Latin, Syriac, Aethiopic, Arabic, Armenian) the verse runs thus, +[Greek: polloi men ektisthaesan, oligoi de sothaesontai] +(_Messias Judaeorum_, p. 69). + +[73:1] A curious instance of disregard of context is to be seen in +Tertullian's reading of John i. 13, which he referred to +_Christ_, accusing the Valentinians of falsification because +they had the ordinary reading (cf. Roensch, _Das Neue Testament +Tertullian's_, pp. 252, 654). Compare also p. 24 above. + +[73:2] _Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum_, Fasc. ii. +p. 69. + +[74:1] c. v. + +[74:2] _S. R._ i. p. 250 sqq. + +[76:1] Lardner, _Credibility, &c_., ii. p .23; Westcott, +_On the Canon_, p. 50, n. 5. + +[77:1] Since this was written the author of 'Supernatural +Religion' has replied in the preface to his sixth edition. He has +stated his case in the ablest possible manner: still I do not +think that there is anything to retract in what has been written +above. There _would_ have been something to retract if Dr. +Lightfoot had maintained positively the genuineness of the Vossian +Epistles. As to the Syriac, the question seems to me to stand +thus. On the one side are certain improbabilities--I admit, +improbabilities, though not of the weightiest kind--which are met +about half way by the parallel cases quoted. On the other hand, +there is the express testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp quoted +in its turn by Irenaeus. Now I cannot think that there is any +improbability so great (considering our ignorance) as not to be +outweighed by this external evidence. + +[81:1] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec._, Fasc. iv. +p. 15. + +[81:2] Cf. _ibid._, pp. 56, 62, also p. 29. + +[82:1] But see _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 838, from +which it appears that M. Waddington has recently proved the date +to be rather 155 or 156. Compare Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. +72, where reference is made to an essay by Lipsius, _Der +Maertyrertod Polycarp's_ in _Z. f. w. T._ 1874, ii. p. 180 +f. + +[82:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 3, 4. + +[83:1] _Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche_, p. 586; +Hefele, _Patrum Apostolicorum Opera_, p. lxxx. + +[84:1] Cf. _S. R._ i. p. 278. + +[84:2] _Ent. d. a. K._ pp. 593, 599. + +[84:3] _Apostolical Fathers_, p. 227 sq. + +[84:4] _Ursprung_, pp. 43, 131. + +[85:1] [Greek: mnaemoneuontes de hon eipen ho kurios didaskon; mae +krinete hina mae krithaete; aphiete kai aphethaesetai hymin; eleeite +hina eleaethaete; en ho metro metreite, antimetraethaesetai hymin; kai +hoti makarioi hoi ptochoi kai hoi diokomenoi heneken dikaiosynaes, hoti +auton estin hae basileia tou Theou.] + +[89:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, 1. p. 138, n. 2. + +[89:2] _Einleilung in das N. T._ p. 66, where Lipsius' view +is also quoted. + +[89:3] Cf. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 88, n. 4. + +[89:4] As appears to be suggested in _S. R._ i. p. 292. The +reference in the note to Bleek, _Einl._ p. 637 (and Ewald?), +does not seem to be exactly to the point. + +[89:5] _Apol._ i. 67. + +[90:1] _Dial. c. Tryph._ 103. + +[90:2] _Apol._ i. 66; cf. _S.R._ i. p. 294. + +[91:1] The evangelical references and allusions in Justin have +been carefully collected by Credner and Hilgenfeld, and are here +thrown together in a sort of running narrative. + +[101:1] This was written before the appearance of Mr. M'Clellan's +important work on the Four Gospels (_The New Testament_, vol. i, +London, 1875), to which I have not yet had time to give the +study that it deserves. + +[103:1] Unless indeed it was found in one of the many forms of the +Gospel (cf. _S.R._ i. P. 436, and p. 141 below). The section +appears in none of the forms reproduced by Dr. Hilgenfeld (_N.T. +extra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv). + +[107:1] In like manner Tertullian refers his readers to the +'autograph copies' of St. Paul's Epistles, and the very 'chairs of +the Apostles,' preserved at Corinth and elsewhere. (_De +Praescript. Haeret._ c. 36). Tertullian also refers to the +census of Augustus, 'quem testem fidelissimum dominicae +nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt' (_Adv. Marc._ iv. 7). + +[110:1] _Beitraege_, i. p. 261 sqq. + +[110:2] _Evangelien Justin's u.s.w._, p. 270 sqq. + +[110:3] The chief authority is Eus. _H. E._ vi. 12. + +[110:4] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157. + +[116:1] A somewhat similar classification has been made by De +Wette, _Einleitung in das N. T._, pp. 104-110, in which +however the standard seems to be somewhat lower than that which I +have assumed; several instances of variation which I had classed +as decided, De Wette considers to be only slight. I hope I may +consider this a proof that the classification above given has not +been influenced by bias. + +[119:1] _Beitraege_, i. p. 237. + +[119:2] _S.R._ i. p. 396 sqq. + +[120:1] _Die drei ersten Evangelien_, Goettingen, 1850. [A +second, revised, edition of this work has recently appeared.] + +[120:2] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, Leipzig, 1863, p. 88. + +[120:3] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, Berlin, 1872, p. 299. + +[120:4] _Beitraege_, i. p. 219. + +[120:5] Dr. Westcott well calls this 'the _prophetic_ sense +of the present' (_On the Canon_, p. 128). + +[122:1] 'This is meaningless,' writes Mr. Baring-Gould of the +canonical text, rather hastily, and forgetting, as it would +appear, the concluding cause (_Lost and Hostile Gospels_, p. +166); cp. _S.R._ i. p. 354, ii. p. 28. + +[123:1] i. pp. 196, 227, 258. + +[123:2] _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon_ (ed. +Volkmar, Berlin, 1860), p. 16. + +[124:1] _Adv. Haer._ 428 D. + +[124:2] I am not quite clear that more is meant (as Meyer, +Ellicott _Huls. Lect._ p. 339, n. 2, and others maintain) in +the evangelical language than that the drops of sweat 'resembled +blood;' [Greek: hosei] seems to qualify [Greek: haimatos] as much +as [Greek: thromboi]. Compare especially the interesting parallels +from medical writers quoted by McClellan _ad loc._ + +[128:1] The only parallel that I can find quoted is a reference by +Mr. McClellan to Philo i.164 (ed. Mangey), where the phrase is +however [Greek: isos angeloi (gegonos)]. + +[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 304 sqq. + +[130:1] _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157. + +[135:1] Scrivener, _Introduction to the Criticism of the N. +T_. p. 452 (2nd edition, 1874). + +[136:1] On reviewing this chapter I am inclined to lean more than +I did to the hypothesis that Justin used a Harmony. The phenomena +of variation seem to be too persistent and too evenly distributed +to allow of the supposition of alternate quoting from different +Gospels. But the data will need a closer weighing before this can +be determined. + +[138:1] _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 169 sqq. + +[138:2] Tischendorf, however, devotes several pages to an argument +which follows in the same line as Dr. Lightfoot's, and is, I +believe, in the main sound (_Wann wurden unsere Evangelien +verfasst?_ p. 113 sqq., 4th edition, 1866). + +[138:3] I gather from the sixth edition of _S. R._ that the +argument from silence is practically waived. If the silence of +Eusebius is not pressed as proving that the authors about whom he +is silent were ignorant of or did not acknowledge particular +Gospels, we on our side may be content not to press it as proving +that the Gospels in question _were_ acknowledged. The matter +may well be allowed to rest thus: that, so far as the silence of +Eusebius is concerned, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of +Corinth are not alleged either for the Gospels or against them. I +agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that the point is +not one of paramount importance, though it has been made more of +by other writers, e.g. Strauss and Renan. [The author has missed +Dr. Lightfoot's point on p. xxiii. What Eusebius bears testimony +to is, _not_ his own belief in the canonicity of the fourth +Gospel, but its _undisputed_ canonicity, i.e. a historical +fact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c. If I +say that _Hamlet_ is an undisputed play of Shakspeare's, I +mean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare's myself, but that +all the critics from Shakspeare's time downwards have believed it +to be his.] + +[140:1] _H. E._ iv. 22. + +[141:1] _S. R._ i. p. 436. + +[141:2] _Einleitung_, p. 103. + +[141:3] _Das Nachapost. Zeit._ i. p. 238. + +[141:4] _Beitraege_, i. p. 401. + +[141:5] _Nov. Test. extra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv. pp. 19, 20. + +[143:1] We have, however, had occasion to note a somewhat +parallel, though not quite parallel, instance in the quotation of +Clement of Rome and Polycarp, [Greek: aphiete, hina aphethae humin +(kai aphethaesetai humin)]. + +[144:1] _Contemporary Review_, Dec. 1874, p. 8; cf. Routh, +_Reliquiae Sacrae_, i. p. 281 _ad fin._ + +[144:2] Tregelles, writing on the 'Ancient Syriac Versions' in +Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1635 a, says that 'these words might +be a Greek rendering of Matt. xiii. 16 as they stand' in the +Curetonian text. + +[145:1] Or rather perhaps 155, 156; see p. 82 above. + +[146:1] _H.E._ iii. 39. + +[147:1] In Mr. M'Clellan's recent _Harmony_ I notice only two deviations +from the order in St. Mark, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-29. In Mr. Fuller's +_Harmony_ (the Harmony itself and not the Table of Contents, in which +there are several oversights) there seem to be two, Mark vi. 17-20, +xiv. 3-9; in Dr. Robinson's English _Harmony_ three, ii. 15-22, +vi. 17-20, xiv. 22-72 (considerable variation). Of these passages +vi. 17-20 (the imprisonment of the Baptist) is the only one the place +of which all three writers agree in changing. [Dr. Lightfoot, in +_Cont. Rev._, Aug. 1875, p. 394, appeals to Anger and Tischendorf +in proof of the contrary proposition, that the order of Mark cannot +be maintained. But Tischendorf's Harmony is based on the assumption +that St. Luke's use of [Greek: kathexaes] pledges him to a chronological +order, and Anger adopts Griesbach's hypothesis that Mark is a compilation +from Matthew and Luke. The remarks in the text turn, not upon precarious +harmonistic results, but upon a simple comparison of the three Gospels.] + +[149:1] Perhaps I should explain that this was made by underlining +the points of resemblance between the Gospels in different +coloured pencil and reckoning up the results at the end of each +section. + +[153:1] This subject has been carefully worked out since Credner +by Bleek and De Wette. The results will be found in Holtzmann, +_Synopt. Ev._ p. 259 sqq. + +[154:1] Cf. Holtzmann, _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, p. 255 +sq.; Ebrard, _The Gospel History_ (Engl. trans.), p. 247; +Bleek, _Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien_, i. +p. 367. The theory rests upon an acute observation, and has much +plausibility. + +[155:1] _On the Canon_, p. 181, n. 2. [That the word will +bear this sense appears still more decidedly from Dr. Lightfoot's +recent investigations, in view of which the two sentences that +follow should perhaps be cancelled; see _Cont. Rev._, Aug. +1875, p. 399 sqq.] + +[159:1] [It will be seen that the arguments above hardly touch +those of Dr. Lightfoot in the _Contemporary Review_ for +August and October: neither do Dr. Lightfoot's arguments seem very +much to affect them. The method of the one is chiefly external, +that of the other almost entirely internal. I can only for the +present leave what I had written; but I do not for a moment +suppose that the subject is fathomed even from the particular +standpoint that I have taken.] + +[162:1] The lists given in _Supernatural Religion_ (ii. p. 2) +seem to be correct so far as I am able to check them. In the +second edition of his work on the Origin of the Old Catholic +Church, Ritschl modified his previous opinion so far as to admit +that the indications were divided, sometimes on the one side, +sometimes on the other (p. 451, n. 1). There is a seasonable +warning in Reuss (_Gesch. h. S. N. T._ p. 254) that the +Tuebingen critics here, as elsewhere, are apt to exaggerate the +polemical aspect of the writing. + +[162:2] It should be noticed that Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, though +assigning the second place to the Homilies, both take the +_terminus ad quem_ for this work no later than 180 A.D. It +seems that a Syriac version, partly of the Homilies, partly of the +Recognitions, exists in a MS. which itself was written in the year +411, and bears at that date marks of transcription from a still +earlier copy (cf. Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 341, n. 1). + +[163:1] This table is made, as in the case of Justin, with the +help of the collection of passages in the works of Credner and +Hilgenfeld. + +[167:1] Or rather perhaps 'morning baptism.' (Cf. Lightfoot, +_Colossians,_ p. 162 sqq., where the meaning of the name and +the character and relations of the sect are fully discussed). + +[168:1] _Hom._ i. 6; ii. 19, 23; iii. 73; iv. 1; xiii. 7; +xvii. 19. + +[170:1] So Tregelles expressly (_Introduction_, p. 240), after Wiseman; +Scrivener (_Introd._, p. 308) adds (?); M'Clellan classes with +'Italic Family' (p. lxxiii). [On returning to this passage I incline +rather more definitely to regard the reading [Greek: Haesaiou], from +the group in which it is found, as an early Alexandrine corruption. +Still the Clementine writer may have had it before him.] + +[170:2] ii. p. 10 sqq. + +[172:1] ii. p. 21. + +[172:2] Preface to the fourth edition of _Canon_, p. xxxii. + +[174:1] _Evangelien_, p. 31. + +[174:2] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 282. + +[175:1] _Synopt. Ev._ p. 193. + +[176:1] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 295. + +[178:1] A friend has kindly extracted for me, from Holmes and +Parsons, the authorities for the Septuagint text of Deut. vi. 4. +For [Greek: sou] there are 'Const. App. 219, 354, 355; Ignat. Epp. +104, 112; Clem. Al. 68, 718; Chrys. i. 482 et saepe, al.' For +_tuus_, 'Iren. (int.), Tert., Cypr., Ambr., Anonym. ap. Aug., +Gaud., Brix., Alii Latini.' No authorities for [Greek: humon]. Was +the change first introduced into the text of the New Testament? + +[178:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 25. + +[179:1] _Beitraege_, i. p. 326. + +[179:2] _On the Canon_, p. 261, n. 2. + +[188:1] _Hom._ 1. _in Lucam_. + +[189:1] _H.E._ iv. 7. + +[189:2] _Strom._ iv. 12. + +[189:3] _S.R._ ii. p. 42. + +[189:4] _Ibid._ n. 2; cp. p. 47. + +[190:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii, 27. + +[190:2] ii. p. 45. + +[191:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii. 20. + +[192:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 49. + +[197:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Pref. 2. + +[198:1] ii. p. 59. + +[199:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq. + +[200:1] _Strom._ ii. 20; see Westcott, _Canon_, p. 269; +Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 152. + +[203:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 7, 9. + +[203:2] _Ibid._ iii. 12. 12. + +[204:1] The corresponding chapter to this in 'Supernatural Religion' +has been considerably altered, and indeed in part rewritten, in the +sixth edition. The author very kindly sent me a copy of this after +the appearance of my article in the _Fortnightly Review_, and I at +once made use of it for the part of the work on which I was engaged; +but I regret that my attention was not directed, as it should have +been, to the changes in this chapter until it was too late to take +quite sufficient account of them. The argument, however, I think I +may say, is not materially affected. Several criticisms which I had +been led to make in the _Fortnightly_ I now find had been anticipated, +and these have been cancelled or a note added in the present work; +I have also appended to the volume a supplemental note of greater +length on the reconstruction of Marcion's text, the only point on +which I believe there is really very much room for doubt. + +[205:1] See above, p. 89. + +[205:2] _Apol._ i. 26. + +[205:3] _Ibid._ i. 58. + +[205:4] ii. p. 80. + +[205:5] _Der Ursprung_, p. 89. + +[205:6] Cf. Tertullian, _De Praescript. Haeret._ c. 38. + +[206:1] _Adv. Haer._ iv. 27. 2; 12. 12. + +[209:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, pp. 28-54. [Volkmar's view is +stated less inadequately in the sixth edition of _S. R._, but +still not quite adequately. Perhaps it could hardly be otherwise +where arguments that were originally adduced in favour of one +conclusion are employed to support its opposite.] + +[210:1] [Greek: oida] for [Greek: oidas] in Luke xiv. 20. Cf. +Volkmar, p. 46. + +[211:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, p. 45. + +[211:2] _Ibid._ pp. 46-48. + +[211:3] 'We have, in fact, no guarantee of the accuracy or +trustworthiness of any of their statements' (_S.R._ ii. p. +100). We have just the remarkable coincidence spoken of above. It +does not prove that Tertullian did not faithfully reproduce the +text of Marcion to show, which is the real drift of the argument +on the preceding page (_S.R._ ii. p. 99), that he had not the +canonical Gospel before him; rather it removes the suspicion that +he might have confused the text of Marcion's Gospel with the +canonical. + +[212:1] This table has been constructed from that of De Wette, +_Einleitung_, pp. 123-132, compared with the works of Volkmar +and Hilgenfeld. + +[213:1]: _S.R._ ii. p. 110, n. 3. The statement is mistaken +in regard to Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. Both these writers would make +Marcion retain this passage. It happens rather oddly that this is +one of the sections on which the philological evidence for St. +Luke's authorship is least abundant (see below). + +[215:1] There is direct evidence for the presence in Marcion's +Gospel of the passages relating to the personages here named, +except Martha and Mary; see _Tert. Adv. Marc._ iv. 19, 37, 43. + +[217:1] _S. R._ ii. 142 sq. + +[217:2] This admission does not damage the credit of Tertullian +and Epiphanius as witnesses; because what we want from them is a +statement of the facts; the construction which they put upon the +facts is a matter of no importance. + +[217:3] The omission in 2 Cor. iv. 13 must be due to Marcion +(_Epiph._ 321 c.); so probably an insertion in 1 Cor. ix. 8. + +[218:1] Tert. _Adv. Marc._ v. 16: 'Haec si Marcion de +industria erasit,' &c. V. 14: 'Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum +intercisae scripturae.' V. 3: 'Ostenditur quid supra haeretica +industria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae,' &c. Cf. Bleek, +_Einleitung_, p. 136; Hilgenfeld, _Evv. Justin's_, &c., p. 473. + +[219:1] 'Anno xv. Tiberii Christus Jesus de coelo manare dignatus +est' (Tert. _Adv. Marc._ i. 19). + +[220:1] I give mainly the explanations of Volkmar, who, it should +be remembered, is the very reverse of an apologist, indicating the +points where they seem least satisfactory. + +[220:2] It is highly probable that many of the points mentioned by +Tertullian and Epiphanius as 'adulterations' were simply various +readings in Marcion's Codex; such would be v. 14, x. 25, xvii. 2, +and xxiii. 2, which are directly supported by other authority: xi. +2 and xii. 28 would probably belong to this class. So perhaps the +insertion of iv. 27 in the history of the Samaritan leper. The +phenomenon of a transposition of verses from one part of a Gospel +to another is not an infrequent one in early MSS. + +[223:1] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, 1863, pp. 302 sqq. + +[224:1] Where a reference is given thus in brackets, it is +confirmatory, from the part of the Gospel retained by Marcion. + +[229:1] An analysis of the words which are only found in St. Luke, +or very rarely found elsewhere, gives the following results.--The +number of words found only in the portion of the Gospel retained +by Marcion and in the Acts is 231; that of words found in these +retained portions and not besides in the Gospels or the two other +Synoptics is 58; and both these classes together for the portions +omitted in Marcion's Gospel reach a total of 62, which is +decidedly under the proportion that might have been expected. The +list is diminished by a number of words which are found only in +the omitted and retained portions, furnishing evidence, as above, +that both proceed from the same hand. + +[231:1] This list has been made from the valuable work of Roensch, +_Das Neue Testament Tertullian's_, 1871, and the critical +editions, compared with the text of Marcion's Gospel as given by +Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. + +[231:2] It might be thought that Tertullian was giving his own +text and not that of Marcion's Gospel, but this supposition is +excluded both by the confirmation which he receives from +Epiphanius, and also by the fact, which is generally admitted (see +_S.R._ ii. p. 100), that he had not the canonical Luke, but +only Marcion's Gospel before him. + +[233:1] See Crowfoot, _Observations on the Collation in Greek of +Cureton's Syriac Fragments of the Gospels_, 1872, p. 5; Scrivener, +_Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, 2nd edition, +1874, p. 452. + +[233:2] See Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 307 sq.; and Dr. Westcott's +article on the 'Vulgate' in Smith's Dictionary. It should be noticed +that Dr. Westcott's literation differs from that of Dr. Scrivener +and Tregelles, which has been adopted here. + +[235:1] Cf. Friedlaender, _Sittengeschichte Roms_, iii. p. 315. + +[238:1] See p. 89, above. + +[238:2] _Strom._ iii. 12; compare _S.R._ ii. p. 151. + +[239:1] [Greek: Ho mentoi ge proteros auton archaegos ho Tatianos +sunapheian tina kai sunagogaen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion +suntheis to dia tessaron touto prosonomasin, ho kai para tisin +eiseti nun pheretai.] _H. E._ iv. 29. + +[239:2] _Beitraege_, i. p. 441. + +[240:1] _Haer._ 391 D (xlvi. 1). + +[240:2] [Greek: Outos kai to dia tessaron kaloumenon suntetheiken +euangelion, tas te genealogias perikopsas, kai ta alla, hosa ek +spermatos Dabid kata sorka genennaemenon ton Kurion deiknusin. +Echraesanto de touto ou monon oi taes ekeinou summorias, alla kai +oi tous apostolikois epomenoi dogmasi, taen taes sunthaekaes +kakourgian ouk egnokotes, all' aplousteron hos suntomo to biblio +chraesamenoi. Euron de kago pleious ae diakosias biblous toiautas +en tais par' haemin ekklaesiois tetimaemenas, kai pasas sunagagan +apethemaen, kai ta ton tettaron euangeliston anteisaegagon +euangelia] (_Haeret. Fab._ i. 20, quoted by Credner, _Beitraege_, +i. p. 442). + +[240:3] See _S.R._ ii. p. 15. + +[241:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 162; compare Credner, _Beitraege_, +i. p. 446 sqq. + +[241:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8. + +[241:3] _Beit_. i. p. 443. + +[241:4] May not Tatian have given his name to a collection of +materials begun, used, and left in a more or less advanced stage +of compilation, by Justin? However, we can really do little more +than note the resemblance: any theory we may form must be purely +conjectural. + +[242:1] [Greek: Epistolas gar adelphon axiosanton me grapsai +egarapsa. Kai tautas oi tou diabolon apostoloi zizanion gegemikan, +ha men exairountes, ha de prostithentes. Ois to ouai keitai. Ou +thaumaston ara, ei kai ton kuriakon rhadiourgaesai tines +epibeblaentai graphon, hopote tais ou toiautais epibebouleukasi.] +_H.E._ iv. 23 (Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 181). + +[243:1] [Greek: Allae d' epistolae tis autou pros Nikomaedeas +pheretai en hae taen Markionos airesin polemon to taes alaetheias +paristatai kanoni]. _H.E._ iv. 23_. + +[244:1] [Greek: Akribos mathon ta taes palaias diathaekaes Biblia, +hipotaxas epempsa soi.] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26 (Routh, _Rel. +Sac._ i. p. 119). + +[245:1] Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 201. + +[245:2] ii. p. 177. + +[245:3] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 1 (cf. Roensch, _Das neue Testament +Tertullian's_, p. 48), 'duo deos dividens, proinde diversos, +alterum alterius instrumenti--vel, _quod magis usui est dicere, +testamenti_.' + +[246:1] [Greek: Eisi toinun hoi di' hagnoian philoneikousi peri +touton, sungnoston pragma peponthotes agnoia gar ou kataegorian +anadechetai, alla didachaes prosdeitai. Kai legousin hoti tae id' +to probaton meta ton mathaeton ephagen ho Kurios tae de mealier +haemera ton azumon autos epathen; kai diaegountai Matthaion outo +legein hos nenoaekasin; hothen asumphonos te nomo hae noaesis +auton, kai stasiazein dokei kat' autous ta euangelia.] _Chron. +Pasch._ in Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 160. + +[247:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 188 sqq. The reference to Routh is +given on p. 188, n. 1; that to Lardner in the same note should, I +believe, be ii. p. 316, not p. 296. + +[247:2] _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 167. + +[249:1] The quotations from Athenagoras are transcribed from +'Supernatural Religion' and Lardner (_Credibility &c._, ii. +p. 195 sq.). I have not access to the original work. + +[251:1] _Credibility &c._, ii. p. 161. + +[252:1] _Ep. Vien. et Lugd._ Sec. 3 (in Routh, _Rel. Sac._ +i. p. 297). + +[252:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 203; _Evv. Justin's u.s.w._ p. +155. + +[254:1] _Wann wurden u.s.w._ p. 48 sq. + +[254:2] _Ursprung_, p. 130; _S.R._ ii. p. 222. + +[255:1] Cf. Credner, _Beitraege_, ii. p. 254. + +[256:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Praef. 2. + +[257:1] _Strom._ iv. 9. + +[257:2] [Greek: Ton Oualentinou legomenon einai gnorimon +Haerakleouna] ... Origen, _Comm. in Joh._ ii. p. 60 (quoted +by Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 127). + +[259:1] 'In affirming that [these quotations] are taken from the +Gospel according to St. Matthew apologists exhibit their usual +arbitrary haste,' &c. _S.R._ ii. p. 224. + +[260:1] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, Zurich, 1873. For what +follows, see especially p. 261 sqq. + +[263:1] Keim, _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 262. + +[263:2] _Ibid_. p. 228 sq.; Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 80. + +[263:3] The text of this document is printed in full by Routh, +_Rel. Sac_. i. pp. 394-396; Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 487 sqq.; +Hilgenfeld, _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N.T._ ad p. 40, n.; +Credner, _Geschichte des Noutestamentlichen Kanon_, ed. Volkmar, +p. 153 sqq., &c. + +[264:1] See however Dr. Lightfoot in _Cont. Rev_., Oct. 1875, p. 837. + +[265:1] _Ursprung_, p. 28. + +[265:2] ii. p. 245. + +[266:1] Cf. Credner, _Gesch. des Kanon_, p. 167. + +[266:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 241. + +[267:1] Quoted in _S.R._ ii. p. 247. + +[269:1] _Adv. Haer_. ii, 22. 5, iii. 3.4. + +[270:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. pp. 141-143. + +[273:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_. i. pp. 143, 144. + +[273:2] _On the Canon_, p. 182 sqq. + +[275:1] [Greek: Ouch haedomai trophae phthoras, oude haedonais tou +biou toutou. Arton Theou thelo, arton ouranion, arton zoaes, hos +estin sarx Iaesou Christou tou Huiou tou Theou tou genomenou en +hustero ek spermatos Dabid kai Abraam; kai poma Theou thelo to +haima aoutou, ho estin agapae aphthartos kai aennaos zoae.] _Ep. +ad Rom_. c. vii. + +[275:2] [Greek: Alla to Pneuma ou planatai, apo Theou on; oiden +gar pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei, kai ta drupta elenche]. +_Ep. ad Philad_. c. vii. + +[276:1] Cf. Lipsius in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_, i. p. 98. + +[277:1] The second and third Epistles stand upon a somewhat +different footing. + +[277:2] Cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 269. + +[278:1] _S.R._ ii p. 323. + +[278:2] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. p. 138 sq. + +[280:1] Cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 302. + +[280:2] So _Dial. c. Tryph_. 69; in _Apol._ i. 22 the +MSS. of Justin read [Greek: ponaerous], which might stand, though +some editors substitute or prefer [Greek: paerous]. In both +quotations [Greek: ek genetaes] is added. The nearest parallel in +the Synoptics is Mark ix. 21, [Greek: ek paidiothen] (of the +paralytic boy). + +[280:3] _Wann wurden u. s. w_. p. 34. + +[283:1] ii. p. 308. [Has the author perhaps misunderstood Credner +(_Beit_. i. p. 253), whose argument on this head is not indeed +quite clear?] + +[283:2] _The New Testament &c_., i. p. 709. + +[284:1] See _Apol_. i. 23, 32, 63; ii. 10. + +[284:2] [Greek: Hae de protae dunamis meta ton patera panton kai +despotaen Theon kai uios ho logos estin.] This is not quite +rightly translated by Tischendorf and in 'Supernatural Religion:' +[Greek: uios], like [Greek: dunamis], is a predicate; 'the next +Power who also stands in the relation of Son.' + +[285:1] Prov. viii. 22-24, 27, 30. + +[285:2] Wisd. vii. 25, 26; viii. 1, 4. + +[286:1] Ecclus. xxiv. 9. + +[286:2] Wisd. ix. 1, 2; xvi. 12; xviii. 15. + +[287:1] Cf. Lipsius in _S. B. L._ i. p. 95 sqq. + +[288:1] _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T_. (Halle, 1863), +p. 29; _Einleitung_, P. 43, n. + +[288:2] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 63. + +[288:3] ii. p. 346. + +[290:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 340. + +[293:1] The force of the article ([Greek: tou paerou]) should be +noticed, as showing that the incident (and therefore the Gospel) +is assumed to be well known. + +[293:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 341. + +[295:1] Tischendorf, _Wann wurden_, p. 40; Westcott, _Canon_, p. 80. + +[296:1] ii. p. 357 sqq. + +[297:1] _Adv. Haer._ V. 36. 1, 2. + +[297:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 329. + +[298:1] Advanced by Routh (or rather Feuardentius in his notes on +Irenaeus; cf. _Rel. Sac_. i. p. 31), and adopted by Tischendorf +and Dr. Westcott. [The identification has since been ably and +elaborately maintained by Dr. Lightfoot; see _Cont. Rev_. Oct. 1875, +p. 841 sqq.] + +[298:2] It is not necessary here to determine the sense in which +these words are to be taken. I had elsewhere given my reasons for +taking [Greek: erchomenon] with [Greek: anthropon], as A. V. +(_Fourth Gospel_, p. 6, n.). Mr. M'Clellan is now to be added +to the number of those who prefer to take it with [Greek: phos], +and argues ably in favour of his opinion. + +[299:1] The translation of this difficult passage has been left +on purpose somewhat baldly literal. The idea seems to be that +Basilides refused to accept projection or emanation as a +hypothesis to account for the existence of created things. Compare +Mansel, _Gnost. Her._ p. 148. + +[301:1] _Adv. Haer._. iii. 11. 7. + +[302:1] _Haer_. 216-222. + +[302:2] It should however be noticed that these words are given +only in the old Latin translation of Irenaeus and are wanting in +the Greek as preserved by Epiphanius. Whether the words were +accidentally omitted, or whether they were inserted inferentially, +for greater clearness, by the translator, it is hard to say. In +any case the bearing of the quotations must be very much the same. +If not made by Ptolemaeus himself, they were made by a contemporary +of Ptolemaeus, i.e. at least by a writer anterior to Irenaeus. + +[302:3] _Adv. Haer_. ii. 4. 1; cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq. + +[302:4] The somewhat copious fragments of Heracleon's Commentary +are given in Stieren's edition of Irenaeus, p. 938 sqq. Origen +says that Heracleon read 'Bethany' in John i. 28 (M'Clellan, +i. p. 708). + +[305:1] ii. p. 378. + +[306:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 379. + +[307:1] There is also perhaps a probable reference to St. John in +Section 6, [Greek: taes aionioi paegaes tou hudatos taes zoaes tou +exiontos ek taes naeduos tou Christou.] + +[307:2] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 229. + +[308:1] [Greek: ho taen hagian pleuran ekkentaetheis, ho ekcheas +ek taes pleuras autou ta duo palin katharsia, hudor kai aima, +logon kai pneuma]. See Routh, _Rel. Sac_. i. p. 161. + +[308:2] Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., ii. p. 196. + +[315:1] Tregelles in Horne's _Introduction_, p. 334. + +[315:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8. + +[316:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1. 1. + +[317:1] See Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., ii. pp. 223, 224, +and Eus. _H.E._ ii. 15 (14 Lardner). + +[317:2] Compare _H.E._ ii. 15 and vi. 14. + +[317:3] _H.E._ vi. 14. + +[317:4] _Strom._ iii. 13. + +[318:1] For the meaning of this word ('schriftliche +Beweisurkunde') see Roensch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 48. + +[318:2] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 2. + +[318:2] _Ibid_. iv. 5. + +[318:4] _Ibid_. v. 9. + +[318:5] _Ibid_. iv. 2-5; compare v. 9, and Roensch, pp. 53, 54. + +[319:1] Eus. _H.E._ vi. 25. + +[319:2] See M'Clellan on Luke i. 1-4. On the general position of +Origen in regard to the Canon, compare Hilgenfeld, _Kanon_, p. 49. + +[320:1] So Westcott in _S.D._ iii. 1692, n. Tregelles, in +Horne's _Introduction_, p. 333, speaks of this translation as +'coeval, apparently, with Irenaeus himself.' We must not, however, +omit to notice that Roensch (p. 43, n.) is more reserved in his +verdict on the ground that the translation of Irenaeus 'in its +peculiarities and in its relation to Tertullian has not yet +received a thorough investigation;' compare Hilgenfeld, +_Einleitung_, p. 797. + +[320:2] Roensch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 43. + +[321:1] Roensch, _Itala und Vulgata_, pp. 2, 3. + +[321:2] Horne's _Introduction_, p. 233. + +[321:3] _Introduction_ (2nd ed.), pp. 300, 302, 450, 452. + +[321:4] iii. p. 1690 b. + +[322:1] Hilgenfeld, in his recent _Einleitung_, says expressly +(p. 797) that 'the New Testament had already in the second +century been translated into Latin.' This admission is not +affected by the argument which follows, which goes to prove that +the version used by Tertullian was not the 'Itala' properly so +called. + +[322:2] See Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1630 b. + +[322:3] _Introduction_, p. 274. + +[322:4] See Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. pp. 124 and 152. + +[323:1] See Scrivener, _loc. cit_. + +[323:2] See _New Testament_, &c., i. p. 635. + +[323:3] _S.D._ iii. p. 1634 b. + +[324:1] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 724. + +[324:2] _Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments_, +p. 302. + +[324:3] _Einleitung_, p. 804. + +[324:4] See Tregelles, _loc. cit_. + +[324:5] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. 805. It hardly seems +clear that Origen had _no_ MS. authority for his reading. + +[324:6] _Introduction_, p. 530. But [Greek: oupo] is admitted +into the text by Westcott and Hort. + +[324:7] 'The text of the Curetonian Gospels is in itself a +sufficient proof of the extreme antiquity of the Syriac Version. +This, as has been already remarked, offers a striking resemblance +to that of the Old Latin, and cannot be later than the middle or +close of the second century. It would be difficult to point out a +more interesting subject for criticism than the respective +relations of the Old Latin and Syriac Versions to the Latin and +Syriac Vulgates. But at present it is almost untouched.' Westcott, +_On the Canon_ (3rd ed.), p. 218, n. 3. + +[325:1] See Scrivener's _Introduction_, p. 324. + +[325:2] Cf. Bleek, _Einleitung_, p. 735; Reuss, _Gesch. +N.T._ p. 447. + +[326:1] This is the date commonly accepted since Massuet, _Diss. +in Irenaeum_, ii. 1. 2. Grabe had previously placed the date in +A.D. 108, Dodwell as early as A.D. 97 (of. Stieren, _Irenaeus_, +ii. pp. 32, 34, 182). + +[326:2] Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 306. + +[327:1] Eus. _H.E._ v. 11, vi. 6. Eusebius, in his, +'Chronicle,' speaks of Clement as eminent for his writings ([Greek +suntatton dielampen]) in A.D. 194. + +[327:2] The books called 'Stromateis' or 'Miscellanies' date from +this reign. _H.E._ vi. 6. + +[327:3] _Stromateis_, i. 1. + +[327:4] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 5. + +[327:5] _De Praescript. Haeret_. c. 36; see Scrivener, +_Introduction_, p. 446. + +[328:1] pp. 450, 451. + +[328:2] p. 452. These facts may be held to show that the books +were not regarded with the same veneration as now. + +[329:1] v. 30. 1. + +[330:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8. + +[330:2] _Ib_. iii. 14. 2. + +[331:1] Cf. _Adv. Haer._ iv. 13. 1. + +[332:1] The varieties of reading in this verse are exhibited in +full by Dr. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 120, notes 4 and 5. + +[336:1] Matt. v. 28 is omitted as too ambiguous and confusing, +though it is especially important for the point in question as +showing that Tertullian himself had a variety of MSS. before him. + +[336:2] St. Matthew's Gospel is wanting in this MS. to xxv. 6; two +leaves are also lost, from John vi. 50 to viii. 52. + +[346:1] _Strom_. ii. 20. + +[347:1] In a volume entitled _The Authorship and Historical +Character of the Fourth Gospel_, Macmillan, 1872. I may say +with reference to this book--a 'firstling' of theological study-- +that I am inclined now to think that I exaggerated somewhat the +importance of minute details as an evidence of the work of an +eye-witness. The whole of the arguments, however, summarised on +pp. 287-293 seem to me to be still perfectly valid and sound, and the +greater part of them--notably that which relates to the Messianic +expectations--is quite untouched by 'Supernatural Religion.' + +[348:1] It is instructive to compare the canons elaborately drawn +up by Mr. M'Clellan (_N.T._ i. 375-389) with those tacitly +assumed in 'Supernatural Religion.' The inference in the one case +seems to be 'possible, therefore true,' in the other, 'not +probable, or not confirmed, therefore false.' Surely neither of +these tallies with experience. + +[352:1] This, perhaps, is one that is apt to be overlooked. In +order to be quite sure that the process of analysis is complete it +must be supplemented and verified by the reversed process of +synthesis. If a compound has been resolved into its elements, we +cannot be sure that it has been resolved into _all_ its +elements until the original compound has been produced by their +recombination. Where this second reverse process fails, the +inference is that some unknown element which was originally +present has escaped in the analysis. The analysis may be true as +far as it goes, but it is incomplete. The causes are 'verae +causae,' but they are not all the causes in operation. So it seems +to be with the analysis of the vital organism. We may be said to +know entirely what air and water are because the chemist can +produce them, but we only know very imperfectly the nature of life +and will and conscience, because when the physiological analysis +has been carried as far as it will go there still remains a large +unknown element. Within this element may very well reside those +distinctive properties which make man (as the moralist is +_obliged_ to assume that he is) a responsible and religious +being. The hypotheses which lie at the root of morals and religion +are derived from another source than physiology, but physiology +does not exclude them, and will not do so until it gives a far +more verifiably complete account of human nature than it does at +present. + +[354:1] Mr. Browning has expressed this with his usual +incisiveness and penetration:-- + + 'I hear you recommend, I might at least + Eliminate, decrassify my faith ... + Still, when you bid me purify the same, + To such a process I discern no end, + Clearing off one excrescence to see two; + There's ever a next in size, now grown as big, + That meets the knife: I cut and cut again! + First cut the liquefaction, what comes last + But Fichte's clever cut at God himself?' + +But also, on the other hand:-- + + 'Where's + The gain? how can we guard our unbelief? + Just when we are safest, there's a sunset-touch, + A fancy from a flower-bell, some one's death, + A chorus ending from Euripides,-- + And that's enough for fifty hopes and fears, + As old and new at once as Nature's self, + To rap and knock and enter in our soul ... + All we have gained then by our unbelief + Is a life of doubt diversified by faith, + For one of faith diversified by doubt: + We called the chess-board white,--we call it black.' + + _Bishop Blongram's Apology_. + +[359:1] As to the defects of the present edition, see Tischendorf, +Prolegomena to _Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes_, +p. liii: 'Eae vero (collationes) quemadmodum in editis habentur +non modo universae graviter differunt inter se fide atque accuratione, +sed ad ipsos principales testes tam negligenter tamque male factae +sunt ut etiam atque etiam dolendum sit tantos numos rara liberalitate +per Angliam suppeditatos criticae sacrae parum profuisse.' Similarly +Credner, in regard to the use of the Codex Alexandrinus, _Beitraege_, +ii. 16: 'Wahrhaft unbegreiflich und unverzeihlich ist es, dass die +Herausgeber der kostbaren Kritischen Ausgabe der LXX, welcher zu Oxford +vor wenigen Jahren vollendet und von Holmes und Parsons besorgt worden +ist, statt cine sorgfaeltige Vergleichung des in London aufbewahrten +Cod. Alex. zu veranstalten, sich lediglich auf die Ausgabe von Grabe +beschraenkt haben, dessen Kritik vielfach nicht einmal verstanden worden +ist.' + + + + + +APPENDIX. + +SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL. + + +If the reader should happen to possess the work of Roensch, Das +Neue Testament Tertullian's, to which allusion has frequently been +made above, and will simply glance over the pages, noting the +references, from Luke iv. 16 to the end of the Gospel, I do not +think he will need any other proof of the sufficiency of the +grounds for the reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel, so as at least +to admit of a decision as to whether it was our present St. Luke +or not. + +Failing this, it may be well to give a brief example of the kind +of data available, going back straight to the original authorities +themselves. + +For this purpose we will take the first chapter that Marcion +preserved entire, Luke v, and set forth in full such fragments of +it as have come down to us. + +We take up the argument of Tertullian at the point where he begins +to treat of this chapter. + +In the fourth book of the treatise against Marcion Tertullian +begins by dealing with the Antitheses (a sort of criticism by +Marcion on what he regarded as the Judaising portions of the +Canonical Gospel), and then, in general terms, with the actual +Gospel which Marcion used. From the general he descends to the +particular, and in c.6 Tertullian pledges himself to show in +detail, that even in those parts of the Gospel which Marcion +retained there was enough to refute his own system. + +Marcion's Gospel began with the descent of Jesus upon Capernaum in +the fifteenth year of Tiberias. Tertullian makes points out of +this, also from the account of His preaching in the synagogue and +of the expulsion of the devil. After this incident Marcion's +Gospel represented our Lord as retiring into solitude. It did this +as it would appear in words very similar to those of the Canonical +Gospel. I place side by side the language of Tertullian with that +of the Vulgate (Codex Fuldensis, as given by Tregelles). I have +also compared the translation in the two codd., Vercellensis and +Veronensis, of the Old Latin in Bianchini's edition. It will be +remembered however that Tertullian is admitted to have Marcion's +(and _not_ the Canonical) Gospel before him, and he probably +translates directly from that. + +In solitudinem procedit.... Detentus a turbis: _Oportet me,_ +inquit, _el aliis civitatibus_ _annuntiare regnum dei._ + +Luke v. 42, 43: Ibat in desertum sertum locum ... et detinebant +illum ne discederet ab eis. Quibus ille ait quia, Et aliis +civitatibus oportet me evangelizare regnum dei. + +His discussion of the fifth chapter Tertullian begins by asking why, +out of all possible occupations, Christ should have fixed upon that +of fishing, to take from thence His apostles, Simon and the sons of +Zebedee. There was a meaning in the act which appears in the reply +to Peter, 'Thou shalt catch men,' where there is a reference to a +prophecy of Jeremiah (ch. xvi. 16). By this allusion Jesus sanctioned +those very prophecies which Marcion rejected. In the end the fishermen +left their boats and followed Him. + +De tot generibus operum quid utique ad piscaturam respexit ut, ab illa +in apostolos sumeret _Simonem et filios Zebedaei ... _dicens Petro +_trepidanti de copiosa indagine piscium: ne time abhinc enum homines +eris capiens...._ Denique _relictis naviculis secuti sunt ipsum..._ + +Luke v. 1-11:[1] Factum est autem cum turbae irruereut in eum et +ipse stabat secus stagnum Gennesareth:[2] et vidit duas +naves....[3] Ascendens in unam navem quae erat Simonis...[4] dixit +ad Simonem, Duc in altum, et laxate retia vestra in capturam. +[6]Et cum hoc fecissent concluserunt piscium multitudinem +copiosam.... [7]Et impleverunt ambas naviculas ita ut mergerentur. +[8]Quod cum videret Simon Petrus, procidit ad genua Jesu.... +[9]Stupor enim circumdederat eum ... [10]similiter autem Jacobum +et Johannem filios Zebedaei.... Et ait ad Simonem Jesus, Noli +timere, ex hoc jam homines eris capiens. [11]Et subductis ad +terram navibus relictis omnibus secuti sunt illum. + +For Noli timere &c., cod. a has, Noli timere, jam amodo eris +vivificans homines; cod. b, Nol. tim., ex hoc jam eris homines +vivificans. + +In passing to the incident of the leper, Tertullian argues that +the prohibition of contact with a leper was figurative, applying +really to the contact with sin. But the Godhead is incapable of +pollution, and therefore Jesus touched the leper. It would be in +vain for Marcion to suggest that this was done in contempt of the +law. For, upon his own (Docetic) theory, the body of Jesus was +phantasmal, and therefore could not receive pollution: so that +there would be no real contact or contempt of the law. Neither, as +Marcion maintained, did a comparison with the miracle of Elisha +tend to the disparagement of that prophet. True, Christ healed +with a word. So also with a word had the Creator made the world. +And, after all, the word of Christ produced no greater result than +a river which came from the Creator's hands. Further, the command +of Jesus to the leper when healed, showed His desire that the law +should be fulfilled. Nay, He added an explanation which conveyed +that He was not come to destroy the law, but Himself to fulfil it. +This He did deliberately, and not from mere indulgence to the man, +who, He knew, would wish to do as the law required. + +Argumentatur ... _in leprosi purgationem ... Tetigit leprosum_ ... +Et hoc opponit Marcion ... Christum ... verbo solo, et hoc semel functo, +curationem statim repraesentasse. Quantam ad gloriae humanae aversionem +pertinebat, _vetuit eum divulgare_. Quantum autem ad tutelam legis +jussit ordinem impleri. _Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer munus +quod praecepit Moyses_.... Itaque adjecit: _ut sit vobis in +testimonium_. + +Luke v. 12-14: [12] Ecce vir plenus lepra: et videns Jesum ... +rogavit eum dicens, Domine, si vis, potes me mundare. [13] Et +extendens manum tetigit illum dicens, Volo, mundare. Et confestim +lepra discessit ab illo. [14] Et ipse praecepit illi ut nemini +diceret, sed Vade ostende te sacerdoti, et offer pro emundatione +tua sicut praecepit Moses, in testimonium illis. + +For emundatione in ver. 14, a has purgatione; b as Vulg. Both a +and b have the form offers (see Roensch, It. u. Vulg. p. 294), b +the plural sacerdotibus. Both codd. have a variation similar to +that of Marcion, ut sit etc.; a inserts hoc. + +Next follows the healing of the paralytic, which was done in +fulfilment of Is. xxxv. 2. The miracle also itself in its details +was a special and exact fulfilment of the prophecy contained in +the next verse, Is. xxxv. 3. That the Messiah should forgive sins +had been repeatedly prophesied, e.g. in Is. liii. 12, i. 18, Micah +vii. 18. Not only were these prophecies thus actually sanctioned +by Christ, but, in forgiving the sins of the paralytic, He was +only doing what the Creator or Demiurge had done before Him. In +proof of this Tertullian appeals to the examples of the Ninevites, +of David and Nathan, of Ahab, of Jonathan the son of Saul, and of +the chosen people themselves. Thus Marcion was doubly refuted, +because the prerogative of forgiveness was asserted of the Messiah +in the prophecies which he rejected and attributed to the Creator +whom he denied. In like manner, when Jesus called Himself the 'Son +of Man,' He did so in a real sense, signifying that He was really +born of a virgin. This appellation too had been applied to Him by +the prophet Daniel. (Dan. vii. 13, iii. 25). But if Jesus claimed +to be the Son of Man, if, standing before the Jews as a man, He +claimed as man the power of forgiving sins, He thereby showed that +He possessed a real human body and not the mere phantasm of which +Marcion spoke. + +_Curatur_ et _paralyticus_, et quidem in coetu, spectante populo... +Cum redintegratione membrorum virium quoque repraesentationem +pollicebatur: _Exsurge et tolle grabatum tuum;_--simul et animi +vigorem ad non timendos qui dicturi erant: _Qui dimittet peccata +nisi solus deus?_... Cum Judaei merito retractarent non posse hominem +_delicta dimittere_ sed _deum solum_, cur... _respondit, habere eum +potestatem dimittendi delicta_, quando et _filium hominis_ nominans +hominem nominaret? + +Luke v. 17-26: [17] Et factum est in una dierum et ipse sedebat +docens.... [18] Et ecce viri portantes in lecto hominem, qui erat +paralyticus, et quaerebant eum inferre... [19] et non invenientes +qua parte illum inferrent prae turba,... per tegulas... +summiserunt illum cum lecto in medium ante Jesum. [20] Quorum +fidem ut vidit, dixit, Homo, remittuntur tibi peccata tua. [21] Et +coeperunt cogitare Scribae et Pharisaei, dicentes, Quis est hic +qui loquitur blasphemias? quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus +deus? [22] Ut cognovit autem Jesus cogitationes eorum, respondens +dixit ad illos. ... [23] Quid est facilius dicere, Dimittuntur +tibi peccata, an dicere, Surge et ambula? [24] Ut autem sciatis +quia filius hominis potestatem habet in terra dimittere peccata, +ait paralytico, Tibi dico, surge, tolle lectum tuum et vade in +domum tuam. [25] Et confestim surgens ... abiit in domum suam. + +Grabatum is the reading of a in ver. 25. + +Marcion drew an argument from the calling of the publican (Levi)-- +one under ban of the law--as if it were done in disparagement of +the law. Tertullian reminds him in reply of the calling and +confession of Peter, who was a representative of the law. Further, +when he said that 'the whole need not a physician' Jesus declared +that the Jews were whole, the publicans sick. + +_Publicanum_ adlectum a domino ... dicendo, _medicum sanis +non esse necessarium sed male habentibus_... + +Luke v. 27-32: [27] Et post hoc exiit et vidit publicanum ... et +ait illi, Sequere me.... [30] Et murmurabant Pharisaei et Scribae +eorum... [31] et respondens Jesus dixit ad illos, Non egent qui +sani sunt medico sed qui male habent. + +The question respecting the disciples of John is turned against +Marcion, as a recognition of the Baptist's mission. If John had +not prepared the way for Christ, if he had not actually baptized +Him, if, in fact, there was that diversity between the two which +Marcion assumed, no one would ever have thought of instituting a +comparison between them or the conduct of their disciples. In His +reply, 'that the children of the bridegroom could not fast,' Jesus +virtually allowed the practice of the disciples of John, and +excused, as only for a time, that of His own disciples. The very +name, 'bridegroom,' was taken from the Old Testament (Ps. xix. 6 +sq., Is. lxi. 10, xlix. 18, Cant. iv. 8); and its assumption by +Christ was a sanction of marriage, and showed that Marcion did +wrong to condemn the married state. + +Unde autem et Joannes venit in medium?... Si nihil omnino +administrasset Joannes ... nemo _discipulos Christi manducantes et +bibentes_ ad formam _discipulorum Joannis assidue jejunantium et +orantium_ provocasset.... Nunc humiliter reddens rationem, quod _non +possent jejunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea +vero jejunaturos_ promittens, _cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset_. + +Luke v. 33-35: [33] At illi dixerunt ad eum, Quare discipuli +Johannis jejunant frequenter et obsecrationes faciunt, ... tui +autem edunt et bibunt? [34] Quibus ipse ait, Numquid potestis +filios sponsi dum cum illis est sponsus facere jejunare? [35] +Venient autem dies cum ablatus fuerit ab illis sponsus, tune +jejunabunt in illis diebus. + +In ver. 33, for obsecrationes a has orationes, and for edunt +manducant: a and b also have quamdiu (Vulg. cum) in ver. 35. + +Equally erroneous was Marcion's interpretation of the concluding +verses of the chapter which dealt with the distinction between old +and new. He indeed was intoxicated with 'new wine'--though the +real 'new wine' had been prophesied as far back as Jer. iv. 4 and +Is. xliii. 19--but He to whom belonged the new wine and the new +bottles also belonged the old. The difference between the old and +new dispensations was of developement and progression, not of +diversity or contrariety. Both had one and the same Author. + +Errasti in illa etiam domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova et +vetera discernere. Inflatus es _utribus veteribus_ et excerebratus es +_novo vino_: atque ita _veteri_, i.e. priori evangelio _pannum_ +haereticae _novitatis adsuisli ... Venum novum_ is _non committit in +veteres utres_ qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et _novum +additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento_ nisi cui non defuerit +vetus vestimentum. + +Luke v. 36-38: [36] Dicebat autem et similitudinem ad illos quia +nemo commissuram a vestimento novo inmittit in vestimentum +vetus.... [37] Et nemo mittit vinum novum in utres veteres.... +[38] Sed vinum novum in utres novos mittendum est. + +Of the phrases peculiar to Tertullian's version of Marcion's text, +a has pannum (-no) and adsuisti (-it). + +It is observed that Tertullian does not quote verse 39, which is +omitted by D, a, b, c, c, ff, l, and perhaps, also by Eusebius. + +Two of the Scholia of Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 322 D sqq.), nos. 1 +and 2, have reference to this chapter. + +[Greek: Echul. a. Apelthon deixon seauton to hierei kai +prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxe Mousaes, +hina ae marturion touto humin.] + +Luke v. 14. [Greek: Apeltheon deixon seauton to hierei, kai +prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxen Mousaes, +eis marturion autois.] + +v.l. [Greek: hina eis marturion] (D'1, [Greek: ae] D'2) [Greek: +humin touto] D, (a, b), c, ff, l. + +The comment of Epiphanius on this is similar to that of +Tertullian. To bid the leper 'do as Moses commanded,' was +practically to sanction the law of Moses. Epiphanius expressly +accuses Marcion of falsifying the phrase 'for a testimony unto +them.' He says that he changed 'them' to 'you,' without however, +even in this perverted form, preventing the text from recoiling +upon his own head [Greek: diestrepsas de to rhaeton, o Markion, +anti tou eipein 'eis marturion autois' marturion legon 'humin.' +kai touto saphos epseuso kata taes sautou kephalaes]. + +[Greek: Echol. B'. Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios +tou anthropou aphienai hamartias epi taes gaes.] + +Luke v. 24. [Greek: Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios +tou anthropou epi taes gaes aphienai hamartias.] + +In this order, [Hebrew aleph], A, C, D, rel., a, c, e, Syrr. Pst. +and Hcl., (Memph.), Goth., Arm., Aeth.; [Greek: ex. ech.] after +[Greek: ho, hu. t. a.], B, L, [Greek: Xi symbol], K, Vulg., b, f, +g'1, ff, l. + +By calling Himself 'Son of Man,' Epiphanius says, our Lord +asserts His proper manhood and repels Docetism, and, by claiming +'power upon earth,' He declares that earth not to belong to an +alien creation. + +Reverting to Tertullian, we observe, (1) that the narrative of the +draught of fishes, with the fear of Peter, and the promise _in +this form_, 'Thou shalt catch men,' ([Greek: Mae phobou apo tou +nun anthropous esae zogron]; the other Synoptists have, [Greek: +Deute opiso mou, kai poiaeso humas halieis anthropon]), are found +only in St. Luke; (2) that the second section of the chapter, the +healing of the leper, is placed by the other Synoptists in a +different order, by Mark immediately after our Lord's retirement +into solitude (= Luke iv. 42-44), and by Matthew after the Sermon +on the Mount; the phrase [Greek: eis marturion autois] is common +to all three Gospels, but in the text of St. Luke alone is there +the variant Ut sit vobis &c.; (3) that, while the remaining +sections follow in the same order in all the Synoptics, still +there is much to identify the text from which Tertullian is +quoting with that of Luke. Thus, in the account of the case of +Levi, the third Evangelist alone has the word [Greek: telonaen] +(=publicanum) and [Greek: hugiainontes] (=sani; the other Gospels +[Greek: ischontes] =valentes); in the question as to the practice +of the disciples of John, he alone has the allusion to prayers +([Greek: deaeseis poiountai]) and the combination 'eat and drink' +(the other Gospels, [Greek: ou naesteyousin]): he too has the +simple [Greek: epiblaema], for [Greek: epiblaema rhakous +agnaphou]. It seems quite incredible that these accumulated +coincidences should be merely the result of accident. + +But this is only the beginning. The same kind of coincidences run +uniformly all through the Gospel. From the next chapter, Luke vi, +Marcion had, in due order, the plucking of the ears of corn on the +sabbath day ('rubbing them with their hands,' Luke and Marcion +alone), the precedent of David and his companions and the +shewbread, the watching _of the Pharisees_ (so Luke only) to +see if He would heal on the sabbath day, the healing of the +withered hand--with an exact resemblance to the text of Luke and +divergence from the other Gospels (licetne animam liberare an +perdere? [Greek: psuchaen apolesai] Luke, [Greek: apokteinai] +Mark), in the order and words of Luke alone, the retreat into the +mountain for prayer, the selection of the twelve Apostles, and +then, in a strictly Lucan form and introduced precisely at the +same point, the Sermon on the Mount, the blessing on 'the poor' +(not the 'poor in spirit'), on those 'who hunger' (not on those +'who hunger and thirst after righteousness'), on those 'who weep, +for they shall laugh' (not on those 'who mourn, for they shall be +comforted'), with an exact translation of St. Luke and difference +from St. Matthew, the clause relating to those who are persecuted +and reviled: then follow the 'woes;' to the rich, 'for ye have +received your consolation;' to 'those who are full, for they shall +hunger;' to 'those who laugh now, for they shall mourn:' and so on +almost verse by verse. + +It is surely needless to go further. There are indeed very rarely +what seem to be reminiscences of the other Gospels (e.g. +'esurierunt discipuli' in the parallel to Luke vi. 1), but the +total amount of resemblance to St. Luke and divergence from St. +Matthew and St. Mark is overwhelming. Of course the remainder of +the evidence can easily be produced if necessary, but I do not +think it will long remain in doubt that our present St. Luke was +really the foundation of the Gospel that Marcion used. + + + + + +INDEX I. + +References to the Four Gospels. + + +The asterisk indicates that the passage in question is discussed +in some detail. + +_St. Matthew._ + +I. 1 2-6 18* 18 ff 18-25 21 23 +II. 1 1-7 1-23 2 5,6 6 11 12 13 13-15 16 17,18 18 22. +III. 2 4 8 10 11,12 15* 16 18 +IV. 1 8-10 9 10 11 17 18 23 +V. 1-48 3 4,5* 7* 8 10* 11 13,14 14 16* 17 17,18 18* 20 21-48 + 22 28 29 29,30 29,32 32 34* 37* 38,39 39,40 41 42 44,45 + 45* 46* 48 +VI. 1 1-34 6 8 10 13 14 19 19,20 20 21 25-27 25-37 32* 32,33 +VII. 1-29 2 6 7 9-11* 12 13,14* 15* 16 19 21* 22 22,23 28,29 +VIII. 9 11 11,12 17 26 28-34 +IX. 1-8 13* 16 17 22 29-31 33 +X. 1 8 10 11* 13 15 16* 22 26 28* 29,30 33 38,39 40 +XI. 5 7 10 11 12-15 18 26 25-27 27* 28 +XII. 1-8* 7 9-14* 17-21 18-21 24 25* 26 31,32 34 41 42 43 48 +XIII. 1-58 3 3ff 5 11 15 16 24-30 25 26* 34 35 37-39 38 39 42,43 +XIV. 1 3 3-12 6 +XV. 4-6 4-8* 4-9 8* 13 15 17 20 21-28 26 36 +XVI. 1 1-4 4 15-18 16* 19 21 24 24,25 26 +XVII. 3 5 11 11-13* 12,13 13 +XVIII. 1-35 3* 6 7 8 8,9 10 19 +XIX. 4 6* 8* 9 10-12 11,12* 12* 13 16,17* 17 19 22 26* +XX. 8 16 19 20-28 +XXI. 1 5 12,13 16 20-22 23 33 42 +XXII. 9 11 14* 21 24 29 30 32 37 38 39 40 44* +XXIII. 2 2,3 5 10 13 15 18 20 23 24 25 25,26* 27 29 35 +XXIV. 1-51 3 14 45-51* +XXV. 1-46 14-30 21 26,27 34 41* +XXVI. 1-75 17,18 24* 30 31* 36,37 38 39 41 43 56 56,57 57 64* +XXVII. 9 9,10* 11f. 14 35 39ff 42 43 46 57-60 +XXVIII. 1 12-15 19. + + +_St. Mark._ + +I. 1 2 4 17 22 24 26 +II. 23-28* 28 +III. 1-6* 17 23 25 29 +IV. 1-34 11 12 33,34 34* +V. 1-20 31 +VI. 3 11 14 17-29 +VII. 6* 6-13 7 10,11 11-13 13 21,22 24-30 +VIII. 29 31 34 +IX. 7 21 43 47 +X. 5 5,6 6 8 9 17 18 19 21 22 27* 37-45 +XI. 20-26 +XII. 17 20 24 27* 29* 30 38-44 +XIII. 2* 22 +XIV. 12,13 12-14 40 51,52 +XV. 14 34 +XVI. 14-16 + + +_St. Luke._ + +I. 1-4 1-80 3 6 7 7-10 8 9 12 13 15 17 18,19 19 20 20-22 21 23 24 + 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 34,35 35* 36 39 41 48 55 56 57 61 62 + 64 67 69 73 74 76 77 78 80 +II. 1,2 1-52 4 6 7 8 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 21,22 22 24 25 26 + 27 28 29 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 48,49 49 50 51 + 52 66 +III. 1 1-38 3 12-14 13 15 16 16,17 17 19 20 21 21,22 22 23 31-34 +IV. 1 1-13 4 6 6-8 7 8 10 13 14 16 17 17-20 18,19 19 20 24 25 32 + 42,43 42-44 +V. 1 1-11 1-39 12-14 14 17-26 24 27-32 32 33-35 36-38 39 +VI. 1 1-5* 1-49 6-11* 13 14* 20* 27,28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 36,37 + 36-38* 37,38 45 46* +VII. 2* 8 11-18 12* 24-28 26 27 28 29-35 30 35 36-38 +VIII. 1-3 5 10 19 23 26-39 41 +IX. 5 7 17,18 20 22 55 57,58 60 61 61,62 62 +X. 3 5,6 7* 10-12 16 18 19* 20 21 21,22 22 23 24 25 37 +XI. 2 9 11-13* 14 17 22 29-32 32 39 42 47 49-51 52 +XII. 4,5* 6,7 9 10 14 22-24 30 38 42-46* 48 50 +XIII. 1 sqq. 1-9 6 7 7-8 24* 26,27 27 28 28,29 29 29-35 31-35 33 34 +XIV. 27 +XV. 4 8 11-32 13 14 17 18 20 22 24 25 26 29 +XVI. 12 16 17* +XVII. 1,2* 2 5-10 9 9,10 +XVIII. 6-8 18,18 19 27* 31 31-34 34 35-43 +XIX. 5 9 17 22,23 29 29-48 33-39 35 37 37-48 38 41 42 43 46 47 +XX. 9 9-l8 14 17 19 21 22 22-25 24 25 35,36 35 37,38 38 +XXI. 1-4 4 18 21 21,22 22 27 28 34 +XXII. 9-11 16-18 17 18 18-36 19 19,20 28-30 30 35-38 37 38 42-44 + 43,44* 53,54 66 +XXIII. 1 ff. 2 5 7 34 35 46 +XXIV. 1 ff. 21 26 32 38,39 39* 40 42 46 47-53 49 50 5l 52 53 + + +_St. John._ + +I. 1,2 1-3 3* 4 5* 9 13 14 18 19 19,20* 23* 28 +II. 4 16,17 +III. 3-5* 5* 6 8 12 14 16 36 +IV. 6 +V. 2 3,4 4 8 17 18 43 46 +VI. 15 39 51 53 54* 55* 70 +VII. 8 38 42 +VIII. 17 40 44 +IX. 1-3* +X. 8 9* 23,24 27* 30 +XI. 54 +XII. 14,15 22 27 30 40 41 +XIII. 18 +XIV. 2 6 10 +XV. 25 +XVI. 2* 3 +XVII. 3 11,12 14* +XVIII. 36 +XIX. 36 37* + + + + + +INDEX II. + +Chronological and Analytical. + + + _Writer_. | _Works Extant_. | _Date_ | _Evangelical Documents + | | A.D. | used_. + | | | +Clement of |One genuine Epistle | c.95- |Traces, perhaps + Rome. | addressed to the | 100. | probable of the three + | Philippians. | | Synoptics. + | | | +Barnabas. |Pseud-egraphical | c.100- |Probably St. Matthew, + | Epistle | 125. | perhaps St. Luke, + | | | possibly the fourth Gospel. + | | | +Ignatius. |Three short Epistles,| 107 or |Probably St. Matthew, + | probably genuine. | 115. | and perhaps St. John. + | [Spurious, S.R.] | | + | | | + |Seven short Epistles,| |Probably St. Matthew, + | perhaps genuine. | | perhaps also St. John. + | [Spurious, S.R.] | | + | | | +Hermas. |Allegorical work, | c.135- |No distinct traces of + | entitled the | 140. | any writing of Old or + | 'Shepherd.' | | New Testament. + | | | +Polycarp. |Short Epistle to | c.140- |Doubtful traces of + | Philippians, | 155. | St. Matthew, probable + | probably genuine. | | of 1 John. + | [Spurious, S.R.] | | + | | | +Presbyters. |Quoted by Irenaeus. | c.140? |Probably St. John. + | | | +Papias. |Short fragments in | +155. |Some account of + | Eusebius. |[see pp.| works written by + | |145, 82;| St. Matthew and + | |164-167,| St. Mark, but + | |S.R.] | probably not our + | | | present Gospels in + | | | their present form. + | | | +Basilides. }|Allusions, not | c.125. |Certain use of + }| certain, in | | St. Luke and St. John, + }| Hippolytus, Clem. | | perhaps probably by +Basilidians.}| Alex., Epiphanius, | | Basilides himself. + | | | +Marcion. |Copious references | c.140. |Certainly the third + | in Tertullian and | | Gospel, with text + | Epiphanius. | | already corrupt. + | | | +Justin |Two Apologies and | +148. |Three Synoptic + Martyr. | Dialogue against | [166- | Gospels either + | Tryphon. | 167, | separately or in + | | S.R.] | Harmony, probably the + | | | fourth Gospel, and also + | | | an Apocryphal Gospel or + | | | Gospels; text showing + | | | marks of corruption. + | | | + |Old Latin translation| c.150. |Four Canonical + | of N.T. | | Gospels, with + | | | corrupt text. + | | | +Valentinus. }|Allusions, not | c.140. |References to all four + }| certain in | | Gospels, but not clear +Valentinians}| Hippolytus, &c. | before | by whom made. + | | 178. | + | | | +Clement. |Nineteen pseudo- | c.160? |Four Canonical Gospels + | epigraphical | | (possibly in a + | | | Harmony), with other + | | | Apocryphal sources + | | | to some extent. + | | | +Hegesippus. |Few fragments |fl.157- |Apparent traces of + | chiefly preserved | 180. | St. Matthew and + | by Eusebius. | | St. Luke. + | | | +Tatian. |Few allusions, |fl.150- |Diatessaron, + |'Address to Greeks.' | 170. | probably consisting + | | | of our four Gospels, + | | | quotations from + | | | St. John in Orat. + | | | ad Graec. + | | | + |Old Syriac | c.160? |Four Canonical Gospels, + | Translation of N.T. | | with corrupt text. + | | | + |Muratorian Fragment | c.170. |Four Gospels as + | | | Canonical. + | | | +Ptolomaeus. |Allusions in | before |Clear references + | Irenaeus, &c., | 178. | to St. Matthew and + | fragments in | | St. John. + | Epiphanius. | | + | | | +Heracleon. |Allusions in | before |Third and fourth + | Irenaeus, &c., | 178. | gospels. + | fragments in Origen.| | + | | | +Melito. |Few slight fragments.| c.176. |Doubtful indirect + | | | allusions to Canon + | | | of N.T. + | | | +Apollinaris. |Two slight fragments.| 176- |Allusion to + | | 180. | discrepancy + | | | between Gospels, + | | | fourth Gospel. + | | | +Athenagoras. |An Apology and tract | c.177. |One fairly clear + | on the Resurrection.| | quotation from + | | | St. Matthew, + | | | perhaps from + | | | St. Mark and + | | | St. John. + | | | +Churches of |An Epistle. | 177. |Clear allusions to + Vienne and | | | St. Luke and St. John, + Lyons. | | | perhaps also to + | | | St. Matthew. + | | | +Celsus. |Fragments in Origen. | c.178. |Somewhat vague traces + | | | of all four Gospels. + | | | +Irenaeus. |Treatise 'Against | c.140- |Four Gospels as + | Heresies.' | 202. | Canonical, with + | | | corrupt text. + | | | +Clement of |Several considerable |fl.185- |Four Gospels as + Alexandria | works. | 211. | Canonical, with + | | | corrupt text. + | | | +Tertullian. |Voluminous works. |fl.198- |Four Gospels as + | | 210. | Canonical, with + | | | corrupt text. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Gospels in the Second Century +by William Sanday + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY *** + +***** This file should be named 10955.txt or 10955.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/0/9/5/10955/ + +Produced by PG Distributed Proofreaders + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's +eBook number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, +compressed (zipped), HTML and others. + +Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks replace the old file and take over +the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed. +VERSIONS based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving +new filenames and etext numbers. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +EBooks posted prior to November 2003, with eBook numbers BELOW #10000, +are filed in directories based on their release date. If you want to +download any of these eBooks directly, rather than using the regular +search system you may utilize the following addresses and just +download by the etext year. + + https://www.gutenberg.org/etext06 + + (Or /etext 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 00, 99, + 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90) + +EBooks posted since November 2003, with etext numbers OVER #10000, are +filed in a different way. The year of a release date is no longer part +of the directory path. The path is based on the etext number (which is +identical to the filename). The path to the file is made up of single +digits corresponding to all but the last digit in the filename. For +example an eBook of filename 10234 would be found at: + + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/0/2/3/10234 + +or filename 24689 would be found at: + https://www.gutenberg.org/2/4/6/8/24689 + +An alternative method of locating eBooks: + https://www.gutenberg.org/GUTINDEX.ALL + + diff --git a/old/10955.zip b/old/10955.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c82c939 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/10955.zip |