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.