{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_10955/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_10955","id":"gutenberg_10955","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10955","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Gospels -- Canon","Bible. Gospels -- Evidences, authority, etc.","Cassels, Walter Richard, 1826-1907. Supernatural religion","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church history -- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600","Revelation -- Biblical teaching"],"text":"THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY\n\n\n_AN EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PART OF A WORK\nENTITLED 'SUPERNATURAL RELIGION'_\n\n\nBY\n\nW. SANDAY, M.A.\n\n\n_Rector of Barton-on-the-Heath, Warwickshire;\nand late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford.\nAuthor of a Work on the Fourth Gospel._\n\n\n\n\nLONDON:\n1876.\n\n\n\n\n\n_I had hoped to inscribe in this book the revered and cherished\nname of my old head master, DR. PEARS of Repton. His consent had\nbeen very kindly and warmly given, and I was just on the point of\nsending the dedication to the printers when I received a telegram\nnaming the day and hour of his funeral. His health had for some\ntime since his resignation of Repton been seriously failing, but I\nhad not anticipated that the end was so near. All who knew him\nwill deplore his too early loss, and their regret will be shared\nby the wider circle of those who can appreciate a life in which\nthere was nothing ignoble, nothing ungenerous, nothing unreal. I\nhad long wished that he should receive some tribute of regard from\none whom he had done his best by precept, and still more by\nexample, to fit and train for his place and duty in the world.\nThis pleasure and this honour have been denied me. I cannot place\nmy book, as I had hoped, in his hand, but I may still lay it\nreverently upon his tomb._\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nCHAP.\n\nI.    INTRODUCTORY\n\nII.   ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS\n\nIII.  THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS\n\nIV.   JUSTIN MARTYR\n\nV.    HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS\n\nVI.   THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES\n\nVII.  BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS\n\nVIII. MARCION\n\nIX.   TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH\n\nX.    MELITO--APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS\n\nXI.   PTOLOMAEUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT\n\nXII.  THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL\n\nXIII. ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY\n\nXIV.  CONCLUSION\n\n[ENDNOTES]\n\nAPPENDIX. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL\n\nINDICES\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nIt will be well to explain at once that the following work has\nbeen written at the request and is published at the cost of the\nChristian Evidence Society, and that it may therefore be classed\nunder the head of Apologetics. I am aware that this will be a\ndrawback to it in the eyes of some, and I confess that it is not\naltogether a recommendation in my own.\n\nIdeally speaking, Apologetics ought to have no existence distinct\nfrom the general and unanimous search for truth, and in so far as\nthey tend to put any other consideration, no matter how high or\npure in itself, in the place of truth, they must needs stand aside\nfrom the path of science.\n\nBut, on the other hand, the question of true belief itself is\nimmensely wide. It is impossible to approach what is merely a\nbranch of a vast subject without some general conclusions already\nformed as to the whole. The mind cannot, if it would, become a\nsheet of blank paper on which the writing is inscribed by an\nexternal process alone. It must needs have its _praejudicia_--\ni.e. judgments formed on grounds extrinsic to the special matter\nof enquiry--of one sort or another. Accordingly we find that an\nabsolutely and strictly impartial temper never has existed and\nnever will. If it did, its verdict would still be false, because\nit would represent an incomplete or half-suppressed humanity.\nThere is no question that touches, directly or indirectly, on the\nmoral and spiritual nature of man that can be settled by the bare\nreason. A certain amount of sympathy is necessary in order to\nestimate the weight of the forces that are to be analysed: yet\nthat very sympathy itself becomes an extraneous influence, and the\nperfect balance and adjustment of the reason is disturbed.\n\nBut though impartiality, in the strict sense, is not to be had,\nthere is another condition that may be rightly demanded--resolute\nhonesty. This I hope may be attained as well from one point of\nview as from another, at least that there is no very great\nantecedent reason to the contrary. In past generations indeed\nthere was such a reason. Strongly negative views could only be\nexpressed at considerable personal risk and loss. But now, public\nopinion is so tolerant, especially among the reading and thinking\nclasses, that both parties are practically upon much the same\nfooting. Indeed for bold and strong and less sensitive minds\nnegative views will have an attraction and will find support that\nwill go far to neutralise any counterbalancing disadvantage.\n\nOn either side the remedy for the effects of bias must be found in\na rigorous and searching criticism. If misleading statements and\nunsound arguments are allowed to pass unchallenged the fault will\nnot lie only with their author.\n\nIt will be hardly necessary for me to say that the Christian\nEvidence Society is not responsible for the contents of this work,\nexcept in so far as may be involved in the original request that I\nshould write it. I undertook the task at first with some hesitation,\nand I could not have undertaken it at all without stipulating for\nentire freedom. The Society very kindly and liberally granted me\nthis, and I am conscious of having to some extent availed myself\nof it. I have not always stayed to consider whether the opinions\nexpressed were in exact accordance with those of the majority of\nChristians. It will be enough if they should find points of contact\nin some minds, and the tentative element in them will perhaps be\nthe more indulgently judged now that the reconciliation of the\ndifferent branches of knowledge and belief is being so anxiously\nsought for.\n\nThe instrument of the enquiry had to be fashioned as the enquiry\nitself went on, and I suspect that the consequences of this will\nbe apparent in some inequality and incompleteness in the earlier\nportions. For instance, I am afraid that the textual analysis of\nthe quotations in Justin may seem somewhat less satisfactory than\nthat of those in the Clementine Homilies, though Justin's\nquotations are the more important of the two. Still I hope that\nthe treatment of the first may be, for the scale of the book,\nsufficiently adequate. There seemed to be a certain advantage in\npresenting the results of the enquiry in the order in which it was\nconducted. If time and strength are allowed me, I hope to be able\nto carry several of the investigations that are begun in this book\nsome stages further.\n\nI ought perhaps to explain that I was prevented by other engagements\nfrom beginning seriously to work upon the subject until the latter\nend of December in last year. The first of Dr. Lightfoot's articles\nin the Contemporary Review had then appeared. The next two articles\n(on the Silence of Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles) were also\nin advance of my own treatment of the same topics. From this point\nonwards I was usually the first to finish, and I have been compelled\nmerely to allude to the progress of the controversy in notes. Seeing\nthe turn that Dr. Lightfoot's review was taking, and knowing how\nutterly vain it would be for any one else to go over the same ground,\nI felt myself more at liberty to follow a natural bent in confining\nmyself pretty closely to the internal aspect of the enquiry. My object\nhas been chiefly to test in detail the alleged quotations from our\nGospels, while Dr. Lightfoot has taken a wider sweep in collecting\nand bringing to bear the collateral matter of which his unrivalled\nknowledge of the early Christian literature gave him such command.\nIt will be seen that in some cases, as notably in regard to the\nevidence of Papias, the external and the internal methods have\nled to an opposite result; and I shall look forward with much\ninterest to the further discussion of this subject.\n\nI should be sorry to ignore the debt I am under to the author of\n'Supernatural Religion' for the copious materials he has supplied\nto criticism. I have also to thank him for his courtesy in sending\nme a copy of the sixth edition of his work. My obligations to\nother writers I hope will be found duly acknowledged. If I were to\nsingle out the one book to which I owed most, it would probably be\nCredner's 'Beitrage zur Einleitung in die Biblischen Schriften,'\nof which I have spoken somewhat fully in an early chapter. I have\nused a certain amount of discretion and economy in avoiding as a\nrule the works of previous apologists (such as Semisch, Riggenbach,\nNorton, Hofstede de Groot) and consulting rather those of an opposite\nschool in such representatives as Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. In this\nway, though I may very possibly have omitted some arguments which\nmay be sound, I hope I shall have put forward few that have been\nalready tried and found wanting.\n\nAs I have made rather large use of the argument supplied by text-\ncriticism, I should perhaps say that to the best of my belief my\nattention was first drawn to its importance by a note in Dr. Lightfoot's\nwork on Revision. The evidence adduced under this head will be found,\nI believe, to be independent of any particular theory of text-criticism.\nThe idea of the Analytical Index is taken, with some change of plan,\nfrom Volkmar. It may serve to give a sort of _coup d'oeil_ of the\nsubject.\n\nIt is a pleasure to be able to mention another form of assistance\nfrom which it is one of the misfortunes of an anonymous writer to\nfind himself cut off. The proofs of this book have been seen in\ntheir passage through the press by my friend the Rev. A.J. Mason,\nFellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, whose exact scholarship has\nbeen particularly valuable to me. On another side than that of\nscholarship I have derived the greatest benefit from the advice of\nmy friend James Beddard, M.B., of Nottingham, who was among the\nfirst to help me to realise, and now does not suffer me to forget,\nwhat a book ought to be. The Index of References to the Gospels\nhas also been made for me.\n\nThe chapter on Marcion has already appeared, substantially in its\npresent form, as a contribution to the Fortnightly Review.\n\nBARTON-ON-THE-HEATH,\n  SHIPSTON-ON-STOUR,\n            _November_, 1875.\n\n\n\n\n\n    [Greek epigraph: Ta de panta elenchoumena hupo tou photos\n     phaneroutai pan gar to phaneroumenon phos estin.]\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nINTRODUCTORY.\n\n\nIt would be natural in a work of this kind, which is a direct\nreview of a particular book, to begin with an account of that\nbook, and with some attempt to characterise it. Such had been my\nown intention, but there seems to be sufficient reason for\npursuing a different course. On the one hand, an account of a book\nwhich has so recently appeared, which has been so fully reviewed,\nand which has excited so much attention, would appear to be\nsuperfluous; and, on the other hand, as the character of it has\nbecome the subject of somewhat sharp controversy, and as controversy--\nor at least the controversial temper--is the one thing that I wish\nto avoid, I have thought it well on the whole to abandon my first\nintention, and to confine myself as much as possible to a criticism\nof the argument and subject-matter, with a view to ascertain the\nreal facts as to the formation of the Canon of the four Gospels.\n\nI shall correct, where I am able to do so, such mistakes as may\nhappen to come under my notice and have not already been pointed\nout by other reviewers, only dilating upon them where what seem to\nbe false principles of criticism are involved. On the general\nsubject of these mistakes--misleading references and the like--I\nthink that enough has been said [Endnote 2:1]. Much is perhaps\ncharged upon the individual which is rather due to the system of\ntheological training and the habits of research that are common in\nEngland at the present day. Inaccuracies no doubt have been found,\nnot a few. But, unfortunately, there is only one of our seats of\nlearning where--in theology at least--the study of accuracy has\nquite the place that it deserves. Our best scholars and ablest\nmen--with one or two conspicuous exceptions--do not write, and the\nwork is left to be done by _litt\u00e9rateurs_ and clergymen or\nlaymen who have never undergone the severe preliminary discipline\nwhich scientific investigation requires. Thus a low standard is\nset; there are but few sound examples to follow, and it is a\nchance whether the student's attention is directed to these at the\ntime when his habits of mind are being formed.\n\nAgain, it was claimed for 'Supernatural Religion' on its first\nappearance that it was impartial. The claim has been indignantly\ndenied, and, I am afraid I must say, with justice. Any one\nconversant with the subject (I speak of the critical portion of\nthe book) will see that it is deeply coloured by the author's\nprepossessions from beginning to end. Here again he has only imbibed\nthe temper of the nation. Perhaps it is due to our political\nactivity and the system of party-government that the spirit of\nparty seems to have taken such a deep root in the English mind. An\nEnglishman's political opinions are determined for him mainly\n(though sometimes in the way of reaction) by his antecedents and\neducation, and his opinions on other subjects follow in their\ntrain. He takes them up with more of practical vigour and energy\nthan breadth of reflection. There is a contagion of party-spirit\nin the air. And thus advocacy on one side is simply met by\nadvocacy on the other. Such has at least been hitherto the history\nof English thought upon most great subjects. We may hope that at\nlast this state of things is coming to an end. But until now, and\neven now, it has been difficult to find that quiet atmosphere in\nwhich alone true criticism can flourish.\n\nLet it not be thought that these few remarks are made in a spirit\nof censoriousness. They are made by one who is only too conscious\nof being subject to the very same conditions, and who knows not\nhow far he may need indulgence on the same score himself. How far\nhis own work is tainted with the spirit of advocacy it is not for\nhim to say. He knows well that the author whom he has set himself\nto criticise is at least a writer of remarkable vigour and\nability, and that he cannot lay claim to these qualities; but he\nhas confidence in the power of truth--whatever that truth may be--\nto assert itself in the end. An open and fair field and full and\nfree criticism are all that is needed to eliminate the effects of\nindividual strength or weakness. 'The opinions of good men are but\nknowledge in the making'--especially where they are based upon a\nsurvey of the original facts. Mistakes will be made and have\ncurrency for a time. But little by little truth emerges; it\nreceives the suffrages of those who are competent to judge;\ngradually the controversy narrows; parts of it are closed up\nentirely, and a solid and permanent advance is made.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe author of 'Supernatural Religion' starts from a rigid and\nsomewhat antiquated view of Revelation--Revelation is 'a direct\nand external communication by God to man of truths undiscoverable\nby human reason. The divine origin of this communication is proved\nby miracles. Miracles are proved by the record of Scripture,\nwhich, in its turn, is attested by the history of the Canon.--This\nis certainly the kind of theory which was in favour at the end of\nthe last century, and found expression in works like Paley's\nEvidences. It belongs to a time of vigorous and clear but\nmechanical and narrow culture, when the philosophy of religion was\nmade up of abrupt and violent contrasts; when Christianity\n(including under that name the Old Testament as well as the New)\nwas thought to be simply true and all other religions simply\nfalse; when the revelation of divine truth was thought to be as\nsudden and complete as the act of creation; and when the presence\nof any local and temporary elements in the Christian documents or\nsociety was ignored.\n\nThe world has undergone a great change since then. A new and far-\nreaching philosophy is gradually displacing the old. The Christian\nsees that evolution is as much a law of religion as of nature. The\nEthnic, or non-Christian, religions are no longer treated as\noutside the pale of the Divine government. Each falls into its\nplace as part of a vast divinely appointed scheme, of the character\nof which we are beginning to have some faint glimmerings. Other\nreligions are seen to be correlated to Christianity much as the\nother tentative efforts of nature are correlated to man. A divine\noperation, and what from our limited human point of view we should\ncall a _special_ divine operation, is not excluded but rather implied\nin the physical process by which man has been planted on the earth,\nand it is still more evidently implied in the corresponding process\nof his spiritual enlightenment. The deeper and more comprehensive\nview that we have been led to take as to the dealings of Providence\nhas not by any means been followed by a depreciation of Christianity.\nRather it appears on a loftier height than ever. The spiritual\nmovements of recent times have opened men's eyes more and more to\nits supreme spiritual excellence. It is no longer possible to\nresolve it into a mere 'code of morals.' The Christian ethics grow\norganically out of the relations which Christianity assumes between\nGod and man, and in their fulness are inseparable from those relations.\nThe author of 'Supernatural Religion' speaks as if they were separable,\nas if a man could assume all the Christian graces merely by wishing\nto assume them. But he forgets the root of the whole Christian system,\n'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall in\nno case enter into the kingdom of heaven.'\n\nThe old idea of the _Aufkl\u00e4rung_ that Christianity was nothing\nmore than a code of morals, has now long ago been given up, and\nthe self-complacency which characterised that movement has\nfor the most part, though not entirely, passed away. The\nnineteenth century is not in very many quarters regarded as the\ngoal of things. And it will hardly now be maintained that\nChristianity is adequately represented by any of the many sects\nand parties embraced under the name. When we turn from even the\nbest of these, in its best and highest embodiment, to the picture\nthat is put before us in the Gospels, how small does it seem! We\nfeel that they all fall short of their ideal, and that there is a\ngreater promise and potentiality of perfection in the root than\nhas ever yet appeared in branch or flower.\n\nNo doubt theology follows philosophy. The special conception of\nthe relation of man to God naturally takes its colour from the\nwider conception as to the nature of all knowledge and the\nrelation of God to the universe. It has been so in every age, and\nit must needs be so now. Some readjustment, perhaps a considerable\nreadjustment, of theological and scientific beliefs may be\nnecessary. But there is, I think, a strong presumption that the\nchanges involved in theology will be less radical than often seems\nto be supposed. When we look back upon history, the world has gone\nthrough many similar crises before. The discoveries of Darwin and\nthe philosophies of Mill or Hegel do not mark a greater relative\nadvance than the discoveries of Newton and the philosophies of\nDescartes and Locke. These latter certainly had an effect upon\ntheology. At one time they seemed to shake it to its base; so much\nso that Bishop Butler wrote in the Advertisement to the first\nedition of his Analogy that 'it is come to be taken for granted\nthat Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but that\nit is now at length discovered to be fictitious.' Yet what do we\nsee after a lapse of a hundred and forty years? It cannot be said\nthat there is less religious life and activity now than there was\nthen, or that there has been so far any serious breach in the\ncontinuity of Christian belief. An eye that has learnt to watch\nthe larger movements of mankind will not allow itself to be\ndisturbed by local oscillations. It is natural enough that some of\nour thinkers and writers should imagine that the last word has\nbeen spoken, and that they should be tempted to use the word\n'Truth' as if it were their own peculiar possession. But Truth is\nreally a much vaster and more unattainable thing. One man sees a\nfragment of it here and another there; but, as a whole, even in\nany of its smallest subdivisions, it exists not in the brain of\nany one individual, but in the gradual, and ever incomplete but\never self-completing, onward movement of the whole. 'If any man\nthink that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought\nto know.' The forms of Christianity change, but Christianity\nitself endures. And it would seem as if we might well be content\nto wait until it was realised a little less imperfectly before we\nattempt to go farther afield.\n\nYet the work of adaptation must be done. The present generation\nhas a task of its own to perform. It is needful for it to revise\nits opinions in view of the advances that have been made both in\ngeneral knowledge and in special theological criticism. In so far\nas 'Supernatural Religion' has helped to do this, it has served\nthe cause of true progress; but its main plan and design I cannot\nbut regard as out of date and aimed in the air.\n\nThe Christian miracles, or what in our ignorance we call miracles,\nwill not bear to be torn away from their context. If they are\nfacts we must look at them in strict connection with that Ideal\nLife to which they seem to form the almost natural accompaniment.\nThe Life itself is the great miracle. When we come to see it as it\nreally is, and to enter, if even in some dim and groping way, into\nits inner recesses, we feel ourselves abashed and dumb. Yet this\nself-evidential character is found in portions of the narrative\nthat are quite unmiraculous. These, perhaps, are in reality the\nmost marvellous, though the miracles themselves will seem in place\nwhen their spiritual significance is understood and they are\nranged in order round their common centre. Doubtless some elements\nof superstition may be mixed up in the record as it has come down\nto us. There is a manifest gap between the reality and the story\nof it. The Evangelists were for the most part 'Jews who sought\nafter a sign.' Something of this wonder-seeking curiosity may very\nwell have given a colour to their account of events in which the\nreally transcendental element was less visible and tangible. We\ncannot now distinguish with any degree of accuracy between the\nsubjective and the objective in the report. But that miracles, or\nwhat we call such, did in some shape take place, is, I believe,\nsimply a matter of attested fact. When we consider it in its\nrelation to the rest of the narrative, to tear out the miraculous\nbodily from the Gospels seems to me in the first instance a\nviolation of history and criticism rather than of faith.\n\nStill the author of 'Supernatural Religion' is, no doubt, justified\nin raising the question, Did miracles really happen? I only wish\nto protest against the idea that such a question can be adequately\ndiscussed as something isolated and distinct, in which all that\nis necessary is to produce and substantiate the documents as in\na forensic process. Such a 'world-historical' event (if I may for\nthe moment borrow an expressive Germanism) as the founding of\nChristianity cannot be thrown into a merely forensic form.\nConsiderations of this kind may indeed enter in, but to suppose\nthat they can be justly estimated by themselves alone is an error.\nAnd it is still more an error to suppose that the riddle of the\nuniverse, or rather that part of the riddle which to us is most\nimportant, the religious nature of man and, the objective facts\nand relations that correspond to it, can all be reduced to some\nfour or five simple propositions which admit of being proved or\ndisproved by a short and easy Q.E.D.\n\nIt would have been a far more profitable enquiry if the author had\nasked himself, What is Revelation? The time has come when this\nshould be asked and an attempt to obtain a more scientific\ndefinition should be made. The comparative study of religions has\ngone far enough to admit of a comparison between the Ethnic\nreligions and that which had its birth in Palestine--the religion\nof the Jews and Christians. Obviously, at the first blush, there\nis a difference: and that difference constitutes what we mean by\nRevelation. Let us have this as yet very imperfectly known\nquantity scientifically ascertained, without any attempt either to\nminimise or to exaggerate. I mean, let the field which Mr. Matthew\nArnold has lately been traversing with much of his usual insight\nbut in a light and popular manner, be seriously mapped out and\nexplored. Pioneers have been at work, such as Dr. Kuenen, but not\nperhaps quite without a bias: let the same enquiry be taken up so\nwidely as that the effects of bias may be eliminated; and instead\nof at once accepting the first crude results, let us wait until\nthey are matured by time. This would be really fruitful and\nproductive, and a positive addition to knowledge; but reasoning\nsuch as that in 'Supernatural Religion' is vitiated at the outset,\nbecause it starts with the assumption that we know perfectly well\nthe meaning of a term of which our actual conception is vague and\nindeterminate in the extreme--Divine Revelation. [Endnote 10:1]\n\nWith these reservations as to the main drift and bearing of the\nargument, we may however meet the author of 'Supernatural Religion'\non his own ground. It is a part of the question--though a more\nsubordinate part apparently than he seems to suppose--to decide\nwhether miracles did or did not really happen. Even of this part\ntoo it is but quite a minor subdivision that is included in the\ntwo volumes of his work that have hitherto appeared. In the first\nplace, merely as a matter of historical attestation, the Gospels\nare not the strongest evidence for the Christian miracles. Only\none of the four, in its present shape, is claimed as the work of\nan Apostle, and of that the genuineness is disputed. The Acts of\nthe Apostles stand upon very much the same footing with the Synoptic\nGospels, and of this book we are promised a further examination.\nBut we possess at least some undoubted writings of one who was\nhimself a chief actor in the events which followed immediately\nupon those recorded in the Gospels; and in these undoubted writings\nSt. Paul certainly shows by incidental allusions, the good faith\nof which cannot be questioned, that he believed himself to be\nendowed with the power of working miracles, and that miracles,\nor what were thought to be such, were actually wrought both by\nhim and by his contemporaries. He reminds the Corinthians that\n'the signs of an Apostle were wrought among them ... in signs,\nand wonders, and mighty deeds' ([Greek: en saemeious kai terasi\nkai dunamesi]--the usual words for the higher forms of miracle--\n2 Cor. xii. 12). He tells the Romans that 'he will not dare to\nspeak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought in him,\nto make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty\nsigns and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God' ([Greek:\nen dunamei saemeion kai teraton, en dunamei pneumator Theou],\nRom. xv. 18, 19) He asks the Galatians whether 'he that ministereth\nto them the Spirit, and worketh miracles [Greek: ho energon dunameis]\namong them, doeth it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of\nfaith?' (Gal. iii. 5). In the first Epistle to the Corinthians,\nhe goes somewhat elaborately into the exact place in the Christian\neconomy that is to be assigned to the working of miracles and gifts\nof healing (1 Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29). Besides these allusions, St. Paul\nrepeatedly refers to the cardinal miracles of the Resurrection and\nAscension; he refers to them as notorious and unquestionable facts\nat a time when such an assertion might have been easily refuted.\nOn one occasion he gives a very circumstantial account of the testimony\non which the belief in the Resurrection rested (1 Cor. xv. 4-8). And,\nnot only does he assert the Resurrection as a fact, but he builds\nupon it a whole scheme of doctrine: 'If Christ be not risen,' he says,\n'then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.' We do not\nstay now to consider the exact philosophical weight of this evidence.\nIt will be time enough to do this when it has received the critical\ndiscussion that may be presumed to be in store for it. But as external\nevidence, in the legal sense, it is probably the best that can be\nproduced, and it has been entirely untouched so far.\n\nAgain, in considering the evidence for the age of the Synoptic\nGospels, that which is derived from external sources is only a\npart, and not perhaps the more important part, of the whole. It\npoints backwards indeed, and we shall see with what amount of\nforce and range. But there is still an interval within which only\napproximate conclusions are possible. These conclusions need to be\nsupplemented from the phenomena of the documents themselves. In\nthe relation of the Gospels to the growth of the Christian society\nand the development of Christian doctrine, and especially to the\ngreat turning-point in the history, the taking of Jerusalem, there\nis very considerable internal evidence for determining the date\nwithin which they must have been composed. It is well known that\nmany critics, without any apologetic object, have found a more or\nless exact criterion in the eschatological discourses (Matt. xxiv,\nMark xiii, Luke xxi. 5-36), and to this large additions may be\nmade. As I hope some day to have an opportunity of discussing the\nwhole question of the origin and composition of the Synoptic\nGospels, I shall not go into this at present: but in the mean time\nit should be remembered that all these further questions lie in\nthe background, and that in tracing the formation of the Canon of\nthe Gospels the whole of the evidence for miracles--even from this\n_ab extra_ point of view--is very far from being exhausted.\n\nThere is yet another remaining reason which makes the present\nenquiry of less importance than might be supposed, derived from\nthe particular way in which the author has dealt with this\nexternal evidence. In order to explain the _prima facie_\nevidence for our canonical Gospels, he has been compelled to\nassume the existence of other documents containing, so far as\nappears, the same or very similar matter. In other words, instead\nof four Gospels he would give us five or six or seven. I do not\nknow that, merely as a matter of policy, and for apologetic\npurposes only, the best way to refute his conclusion would not be\nto admit his premisses and to insist upon the multiplication of\nthe evidence for the facts of the Gospel history which his\nargument would seem to involve. I mention this however, not with\nany such object, but rather to show that the truth of Christianity\nis not intimately affected, and that there are no such great\nreasons for partiality on one side or on the other.\n\nI confess that it was a relief to me when I found that this must\nbe the case. I do not think the time has come when the central\nquestion can be approached with any safety. Rough and ready\nmethods (such as I am afraid I must call the first part of\n'Supernatural Religion') may indeed cut the Gordian knot, but they\ndo not untie it. A number of preliminary questions will have to be\ndetermined with a greater degree of accuracy and with more general\nconsent than has been done hitherto. The Jewish and Christian\nliterature of the century before and of the two centuries after\nthe birth of Christ must undergo a more searching examination, by\nminds of different nationality and training, both as to the date,\ntext, and character of the several books. The whole balance of an\nargument may frequently be changed by some apparently minute and\nunimportant discovery; while, at present, from the mere want of\nconsent as to the data, the state of many a question is\nnecessarily chaotic. It is far better that all these points should\nbe discussed as disinterestedly as possible. No work is so good as\nthat which is done without sight of the object to which it is\ntending and where the workman has only his measure and rule to\ntrust to. I am glad to think that the investigation which is to\nfollow may be almost, if not quite, classed in this category; and\nI hope I may be able to conduct it with sufficient impartiality.\nUnconscious bias no man can escape, but from conscious bias I\ntrust I shall be free.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS.\n\n\nThe subject then proposed for our investigation is the extent to\nwhich the canonical Gospels are attested by the early Christian\nwriters, or, in other words, the history of the process by which\nthey became canonical. This will involve an enquiry into two\nthings; first, the proof of the existence of the Gospels, and,\nsecondly, the degree of authority attributed to them. Practically\nthis second enquiry must be very subordinate to the first, because\nthe data are much fewer; but it too shall be dealt with,\ncursorily, as the occasion arises, and we shall be in a position\nto speak upon it definitely before we conclude.\n\nIt will be convenient to follow the example that is set us in\n'Supernatural Religion,' and to take the first three, or Synoptic,\nGospels separately from the fourth.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAt the outset the question will occur to us, On what principle is\nthe enquiry to be conducted? What sort of rule or standard are we\nto assume? In order to prove either the existence or the authority\nof the Gospels, it is necessary that we should examine the\nquotations from them, or what are alleged to be quotations from\nthem, in the early writers. Now these quotations are notoriously\nlax. It will be necessary then to have some means of judging, what\ndegree and kind of laxity is admissible; what does, and what does\nnot, prevent the reference of a quotation to a given source.\n\nThe author of 'Supernatural Religion,' indeed, has not felt the\nnecessity for this preliminary step. He has taken up, as it were,\nat haphazard, the first standard that came to his hand; and, not\nunnaturally, this is found to be very much the standard of the\npresent literary age, when both the mechanical and psychological\nconditions are quite different from those that prevailed at the\nbeginning of the Christian era. He has thus been led to make a\nnumber of assertions which will require a great deal of\nqualification. The only sound and scientific method is to make an\ninduction (if only a rough one) respecting the habit of early\nquotation generally, and then to apply it to the particular cases.\n\nHere there will be three classes of quotation more or less\ndirectly in point: (1) the quotations from the Old Testament in\nthe New; (2) the quotations from the Old Testament in the same\nearly writers whose quotations from the New Testament are the\npoint in question; (3) quotations from the New Testament, and more\nparticularly from the Gospels, in the writers subsequent to these,\nat a time when the Canon of the Gospels was fixed and we can be\nquite sure that our present Gospels are being quoted.\n\nThis method of procedure however is not by any means so plain and\nstraightforward as it might seem. The whole subject of Old\nTestament quotations is highly perplexing. Most of the quotations\nthat we meet with are taken from the LXX version; and the text of\nthat version was at this particular time especially uncertain and\nfluctuating. There is evidence to show that it must have existed\nin several forms which differed more or less from that of the\nextant MSS. It would be rash therefore to conclude at once,\nbecause we find a quotation differing from the present text of the\nLXX, that it differed from that which was used by the writer\nmaking the quotation. In some cases this can be proved from the\nsame writer making the same quotation more than once and\ndifferently each time, or from another writer making it in\nagreement with our present text. But in other cases it seems\nprobable that the writer had really a different text before him,\nbecause he quotes it more than once, or another writer quotes it,\nwith the same variation. This however is again an uncertain\ncriterion; for the second writer may be copying the first, or he\nmay be influenced by an unconscious reminiscence of what the first\nhad written. The early Christian writers copied each other to an\nextent that we should hardly be prepared for. Thus, for instance,\nthere is a string of quotations in the first Epistle of Clement of\nRome (cc. xiv, xv)--Ps. xxxvii. 36-38; Is. xxix. 13; Ps. lxii. 4,\nlxxviii. 36, 37, xxxi, 19, xii. 3-6; and these very quotations in\nthe same order reappear in the Alexandrine Clement (Strom. iv. 6).\nClement of Alexandria is indeed fond of copying his Roman\nnamesake, and does so without acknowledgment. Tertullian and\nEpiphanius in like manner drew largely from the works of Irenaeus.\nBut this confuses evidence that would otherwise be clear. For\ninstance, in Eph. iv. 8 St. Paul quotes Ps. lxviii. 19, but with a\nmarked variation from all the extant texts of the LXX. Thus:--\n\n\n_Ps._ lxviii. 18 (19).\n\n[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaloteusas aichmalosian, elabes\ndomata en anthropon.]\n\n[Greek: Aechmaloteusen ... en anthropon] [Hebrew: alef], perhaps\nfrom assimilation to N.T.\n\n\n_Eph._ iv. 8.\n\n[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaltoteusen aichmalosian, kai edoke\ndomata tois anthropois.]\n\n[Greek: kai] om. [Hebrew: alef]'1, A C'2 D'1, &c. It. Vulg. Memph.\n&c.; ins. B C'3 D'3 [Hebrew: alef]'4, &c.\n\n\nNow we should naturally think that this was a very free\nquotation--so free that it substitutes 'giving' for 'receiving.'\nA free quotation perhaps it may be, but at any rate the very same\nvariation is found in Justin (Dial. 39). And, strange to say, in\nfive other passages which are quoted variantly by St. Paul, Justin\nalso agrees with him, [Endnote 18:1] though cases on the other\nhand occur where Justin differs from St. Paul or holds a position\nmidway between him and the LXX (e.g. 1 Cor. i. 19 compared with\nJust. Dial. cc. 123, 32, 78, where will be found some curious\nvariations, agreement with LXX, partial agreement with LXX,\npartial agreement with St. Paul). Now what are we to say to these\nphenomena? Have St. Paul and Justin both a variant text of the\nLXX, or is Justin quoting mediately through St. Paul? Probability\nindeed seems to be on the side of the latter of these two\nalternatives, because in one place (Dial. cc. 95, 96) Justin\nquotes the two passages Deut. xxvii. 26 and Deut. xxi. 23\nconsecutively, and applies them just as they are applied in Gal.\niii. 10, 13 [Endnote 18:2]. On the other hand, it is somewhat\nstrange that Justin nowhere refers to the Epistles of St. Paul by\nname, and that the allusions to them in the genuine writings,\nexcept for these marked resemblances in the Old Testament\nquotations, are few and uncertain. The same relation is observed\nbetween the Pauline Epistles and that of Clement of Rome. In two\nplaces at least Clement agrees, or nearly agrees, with St. Paul,\nwhere both differ from the LXX; in c. xiii ([Greek: ho kanchomenos\nen Kurio kanchastho]; compare 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x, 16), and in\nc. xxxiv ([Greek: ophthalmhos ouk eiden k.t.l.]; compare 1 Cor. ii.\n9). Again, in c. xxxvi Clement has the [Greek: puros phloga] of\nHeb. i. 7 for [Greek: pur phlegon] of the LXX. The rest of the\nparallelisms in Clement's Epistle are for the most part with\nClement of Alexandria, who had evidently made a careful study of\nhis predecessor. In one place, c. liii, there is a remarkable\ncoincidence with Barnabas ([Greek: Mousae Mousae katabaethi to\ntachos k.t.l.]; compare Barn. cc. iv and xiv). In the Epistle of\nBarnabas itself there is a combined quotation from Gen. xv. 6,\nxvii. 5, which has evidently and certainly been affected by Rom.\niv. 11. On the whole we may lean somewhat decidedly to the\nhypothesis of a mutual study of each other by the Christian\nwriters, though the other hypothesis of the existence of different\nversions (whether oral and traditional or in any shape written)\ncannot be excluded. Probably both will have to be taken into\naccount to explain all the facts.\n\nAnother disturbing influence, which will affect especially the\nquotations in the Gospels, is the possibility, perhaps even\nprobability, that many of these are made, not directly from either\nHebrew or LXX, but from or through Targums. This would seem to be\nthe case especially with the remarkable applications of prophecy\nin St. Matthew. It must be admitted as possible that the\nEvangelist has followed some Jewish interpretation that seemed to\nbear a Christian construction. The quotation in Matt. ii. 6, with\nits curious insertion of the negative ([Greek: oudamos elachistae]\nfor [Greek: oligostos]), reappears identically in Justin (Dial. c.\n78). We shall probably have to touch upon this quotation when we\ncome to consider Justin's relations to the canonical Gospels. It\ncertainly seems upon the face of it the more probable supposition\nthat he has here been influenced by the form of the text in St.\nMatthew, but he may be quoting from a Targum or from a peculiar\ntext.\n\nAny induction, then, in regard to the quotations from the LXX\nversion will have to be used with caution and reserve. And yet I\nthink it will be well to make such an induction roughly,\nespecially in regard to the Apostolic Fathers whose writings we\nare to examine.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe quotations from the Old Testament in the New have, as it is\nwell known, been made the subject of a volume by Mr. McCalman\nTurpie [Endnote 20:1], which, though perhaps not quite reaching a\nhigh level of scholarship, has yet evidently been put together\nwith much care and pains, and will be sufficient for our purpose.\nThe summary result of Mr. Turpie's investigation is this. Out of\ntwo hundred and seventy-five in all which may be considered to be\nquotations from the Old Testament, fifty-three agree literally\nboth with the LXX and the Hebrew, ten with the Hebrew and not with\nthe LXX, and thirty-seven with the LXX and not with the Hebrew,\nmaking in all just a hundred that are in literal (or nearly\nliteral, for slight variations of order are not taken into\naccount) agreement with some still extant authority. On the other\nhand, seventy-six passages differ both from the Hebrew and LXX\nwhere the two are together, ninety-nine differ from them where\nthey diverge, and besides these, three, though introduced with\nmarks of quotation, have no assignable original in the Old\nTestament at all. Leaving them for the present out of the\nquestion, we have a hundred instances of agreement against a\nhundred and seventy-five of difference; or, in other words, the\nproportion of difference to agreement is as seven to four.\n\nThis however must be taken with the caution given above; that is\nto say, it must not at once be inferred that because the quotation\ndiffers from extant authority therefore it necessarily differs\nfrom all non-extant authority as well. It should be added that the\nstandard of agreement adopted by Mr. Turpie is somewhat higher\nthan would be naturally held to be sufficient to refer a passage\nto a given source. His lists must therefore be used with these\nlimitations.\n\nTurning to them, we find that most of the possible forms of\nvariation are exemplified within the bounds of the Canon itself. I\nproceed to give a few classified instances of these.\n\n[Greek: Alpha symbol] _Paraphrase_. Many of the quotations from the\nOld Testament in the New are highly paraphrastic. We may take the\nfollowing as somewhat marked examples: Matt. ii. 6, xii. 18-21,\nxiii. 35, xxvii. 9, 10; John viii. 17, xii. 40, xiii. 18;\n1 Cor. xiv. 21; 2 Cor. ix. 7. Matt. xxvii. 9, 10 would perhaps\nmark an extreme point in freedom of quotation [Endnote 21:1], as\nwill be seen when it is compared with the original:--\n\n\n_Matt_. xxvii. 9. 10.\n\n[Greek: [tote eplaerothae to phaethen dia tou prophaetou Hieremiou\nlegontos] Kai elabon ta triakonta arguria, taen timaen tou\ntetimaemenou on etimaesanto apo nion Israael, kai edokan auta eis\nton argon tou kerameos, katha sunetaxen moi Kurios.]\n\n\n_Zech_. xi. 13.\n\n[Greek: Kathes autous eis to choneutaerion, kai schepsomai ei\ndokimon estin, de tropon edokiamistheaen huper aotuon. Kai elabon\ntous triakonta argurous kai enebalon autous eis oikon Kuriou eis\nto choneutaerion.]\n\n\nIt can hardly be possible that the Evangelist has here been\ninfluenced by any Targum or version. The form of his text has\napparently been determined by the historical event to which the\nprophecy is applied. The sense of the original has been entirely\naltered. There the prophet obeys the command to put the thirty\npieces of silver, which he had received as his shepherd's hire,\ninto the treasury [Greek: choneutaerion]. Here the hierarchical\nparty refuse to put them into the treasury. The word 'potter'\nseems to be introduced from the Hebrew.\n\n[Greek: Beta symbol] _Quotations from Memory_. Among the numerous\nparaphrastic quotations, there are some that have specially the\nappearance of having been made from memory, such as Acts vii. 37;\nRom. ix. 9, 17, 25, 33, x. 6-8, xi. 3, xii. 19, xiv. 11;\n1 Cor. i. 19, ii. 9; Rev. ii. 27. Of course it must always\nbe a matter of guess-work what is quoted from memory and what is\nnot, but in these quotations (and in others which are ranged under\ndifferent heads) there is just that general identity of sense along\nwith variety of expression which usually characterises such\nquotations. A simple instance would be--\n\n\n_Rom_. ix. 25.\n\n[Greek: [hos kai en to Osaee legei] Kaleso ton out laon mou laon\nmou kai taen ouk aegapaemenaen haegapaemenaen.]\n\n\n_Hosea_ ii. 23.\n\n[Greek: Kai agapaeso taen ouk aegapaemenaen, kai ero to ou lao mou\nDaos mou ei se.]\n\n\n[Greek: Gamma symbol] _Paraphrase with Compression._ There are many marked\nexamples of this; such as Matt. xxii. 24 (par.); Mark iv. 12; John\nxii. 14, 15; Rom. iii. 15-17, x. 15; Heb. xii. 20. Take the\nfirst:--\n\n\n_Matt._ xxii. 24. [Greek: [Mousaes eipen] Ean tis apothanae\nmae echon tekna, epigambreusei o adelphos autou taen gunaika autou\nkai anastaesei sperma to adelpho autou.]\n\n\n_Deut._ xxv. 5. [Greek: Ean de katoikosin adelphoi epi to\nauto, kai apothanae eis ex auton, sperma de mae ae auto, ouk estai\nae gunae tou tethnaekotos exo andri mae engizonti o adelphos tou\nandros autaes eiseleusetai pros autaen kai laepsetai autaen eauto\ngunaika kai sunoikaesei autae.]\n\n\nIt is highly probable that all the examples given under this head\nare really quotations from memory.\n\n[Greek: Delta symbol] _Paraphrase with Combination of Passages._\nThis again is common; e.g. Luke iv. 19; John xv. 25, xix. 36;\nActs xiii. 22; Rom. iii. 11-18, ix. 33, xi. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 24. The passage\nRom. iii. 11-18 is highly composite, and reminds us of long strings of\nquotations that are found in some of the Fathers; it is made up of\nPs. xiv. 1, 2, v. 9, cxl. 3, x. 7, Is. lix. 7, 8, Ps. xxxvi. 1. A\nshorter example is--\n\n\n_Rom._ ix. 33. [Greek: [Kathos gegraptai] Idou tithaemi en\nSion lithon proskommatos kai petran skandalou, kai o pisteuon ep\nauto ou kataischunthaesetai.]\n\n\n_Is._ viii. 14. [Greek: kai ouch hos lithou proskammati\nsunantaesesthe, oude os petras ptomati.]\n\n_Is._ xxviii. 16. [Greek: Idou ego emballo eis ta themelia\nSion lithon..., kai o pisteuon ou mae kataischunthae.]\n\n\nThis fusion of passages is generally an act of 'unconscious\ncelebration.' If we were to apply the standard assumed in\n'Supernatural Religion,' it would be pronounced impossible that\nthis and most of the passages above could have the originals to\nwhich they are certainly to be referred.\n\n[Greek: Epsilon symbol] _Addition._ A few cases of addition may\nbe quoted, e.g. [Greek: mae aposteraesaes] inserted in Mark x. 19,\n[Greek: kai eis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9.\n\n[Greek: Zeta symbol] _Change of Sense and Context._ But little\nregard--or what according to our modern habits would be considered\nlittle regard--is paid to the sense and original context of the passage\nquoted; e.g. in Matt. viii. 17 the idea of healing disease is substituted\nfor that of vicarious suffering, in Matt. xi. 10 the persons are\naltered ([Greek: sou] for [Greek: mou]), in Acts vii. 43 we find\n[Greek: Babylonos] for [Greek: Damaskos], in 2 Cor. vi. 17 'I will\nreceive you' is put for 'I will go before you,' in Heb. i. 7 'He\nmaketh His angels spirits' for 'He maketh the winds His\nmessengers.' This constant neglect of the context is a point that\nshould be borne in mind.\n\n[Greek: Eta symbol] _Inversion._ Sometimes the sense of the original is so\nfar departed from that a seemingly opposite sense is substituted\nfor it. Thus in Matt. ii. 6 [Greek: oudamos elachistae =\noligostos] of Mic. v. 2, in Rom. xi. 26 [Greek: ek Sion = heneken\nSion] LXX= '_to_ Sion' Heb. of Is. lix. 20, in Eph. iv. 8\n[Greek: hedoken domata = helabes domata] of Ps. lxvii. 19.\n\n[Greek: Theta symbol] _Different Form of Sentence._ The grammatical\nform of the sentence is altered in Matt. xxvi. 31 (from aorist to future),\nin Luke viii. 10 (from oratio recta to oratio obliqua), and in 1 Pet.\niii. 10-12 (from the second person to the third). This is a kind\nof variation that we should naturally look for.\n\n[Greek: Iota symbol] _Mistaken Ascriptions or Nomenclature._ The\nfollowing passages are wrongly assigned:--Mal. iii. 1 to Isaiah\naccording to the correct reading of Mark i. 2, and Zech. xi. 13\nto Jeremiah in Matt. xxvii. 9, 10; Abiathar is apparently put for\nAbimelech in Mark ii. 26; in Acts vii. 16 there seems to be a\nconfusion between the purchase of Machpelah near Hebron by Abraham\nand Jacob's purchase of land from Hamor the father of Shechem.\nThese are obviously lapses of memory.\n\n[Greek: Kappa symbol] _Quotations of Doubtful Origin_. There are a\ncertain number of quotations, introduced as such, which can be assigned\ndirectly to no Old Testament original; Matt. ii. 23 ([Greek: Nazoraios\nklaethaesetai]), 1 Tim. v. 18 ('the labourer is worthy of his hire'),\nJohn vii. 38 ('out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water'),\n42 (Christ should be born of Bethlehem where David was), Eph. v. 14\n('Awake thou that sleepest'). [Endnote 25:1]\n\nIt will be seen that, in spite of the reservations that we felt\ncompelled to make at the outset, the greater number of the\ndeviations noticed above can only be explained on a theory of free\nquotation, and remembering the extent to which the Jews relied\nupon memory and the mechanical difficulties of exact reference and\nverification, this is just what before the fact we should have\nexpected.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Old Testament quotations in the canonical books afford us a\ncertain parallel to the object of our enquiry, but one still\nnearer will of course be presented by the Old Testament quotations\nin those books the New Testament quotations in which we are to\ninvestigate. I have thought it best to draw up tables of these in\norder to give an idea of the extent and character of the\nvariation. In so tentative an enquiry as this, the standard\nthroughout will hardly be so fixed and accurate as might be\ndesirable; the tabular statement therefore must be taken to be\napproximate, but still I think it will be found sufficient for our\npurpose; certain points come out with considerable clearness, and\nthere is always an advantage in drawing data from a wide enough\narea. The quotations are ranged under heads according to the\ndegree of approximation to the text of the LXX. In cases where the\nclassification has seemed doubtful an indicatory mark (+) has been\nused, showing by the side of the column on which it occurs to\nwhich of the other two classes the instance leans. All cases in\nwhich this sign is used to the left of the middle column may be\nconsidered as for practical purposes literal quotations. It may be\nassumed, where the contrary is not stated, that the quotations are\ndirect and not of the nature of allusions; the marks of quotation\nare generally quite unmistakeable ([Greek: gegraptai, legei,\neipen], &c). Brief notes are added in the margin to call attention\nto the more remarkable points, especially to the repetition of the\nsame quotation in different writers and to the apparent bearing of\nthe passage upon the general habit of quotation.\n\nTaking the Apostolic Fathers in order, we come first to--\n\n                    _Clement of Rome (1 Ep. ad Cor._)\n\n     _Exact._     |   _Slightly     |    _Variant._    | _Remarks._\n                  |    Variant._    |                  |\n                  |                 |3 Deut. 32.14,15. |also in Justin,\n                  |                 | Is. 3.5. al.     |  differently.\n                  |                 | Is. 59. 14, al.  |\n3. Wisd. 2.24.    |                 |                  |\n                  |+4. Gen. 4.3-8.  |                  |Acts 7.27,\n                  |   Ex. 2.14+     |                  |  more exactly.\n6. Gen. 2.23.     |                 |8. Ezek. 33.11    |}\n                  |                 |   Ezek. 18.30    |}from Apocryphal\n                  |                 |   Ps. 103.10,11. |} or interpolated\n                  |                 |   Jer. 3.19,22.  |} Ezekiel?\n                  |                 |   Is. 1.18.      |}\n                  |+8. Is. 1.16-20. |                  |\n                  |10. Gen. 12.1-3. |                  |\n                  | +Gen. 13.14-16. |                  |\n                  |  Gen. 15.5,6.   |                  |\n                  |                 |12. Josh. 2.3-19. |compression and\n                  |                 |                  |  paraphrase.\n                  |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |13. 1 Sam. 2,10.  |}similarly\n                  |                 |    Jer. 9.23,24. |} St. Paul, 1 Cor.\n                  |                 |                  |  1.31, 2 Cor.\n                  |13. Is. 46.2.    |                  |  10.17.\n                  |                 |14. Prov. 2.21,   |from memory?\n                  |                 | 22. v.l. (Ps. 37.|\n                  |                 | 39.)             |\n                  |14. Ps. 37.35-38.|                  |Matt. 15.8, Mark\n                  |                 |15. Is. 29.13.*   |  7.6, with par-\n15.{Ps. 78.36,37.*|15. Ps. 62.4.*   |                  |  tial similarity,\n   {Ps. 31.19.*   |                 |                  |  Clem. Alex.,\n   {Ps. 12.3-6.*  |                 |                  |  following Clem.\n                  |                 |                  |  Rom.\n                  |+16. Is. 53.1-12.|                  |quoted in full by\n16. Ps. 22.6-8.   |                 |                  |  Justin, also by\n17. Gen. 18.27.   |                 |                  |  other writers\n                  |                 |                  |  with text\n                  |                 |                  |  slightly\n                  |                 |                  |  different from\n                  |                 |                  |  Clement.\n                  |                 |17. Job 1.1, v.l. |\n                  |                 |  Job 14.4,5, v.l.|Clem. Alex.\n                  |                 |                  |  similarly.\n                  |17. Num. 12.7.   |                  |\n                  |  Ex. 3.11; 4-10.|                  |\n                  |                 |[Greek: ego de    |_Assumptio Mosis_,\n                  |                 | eimi atmis apo   |  Hilg., _Eldad\n                  |                 | kuthras.]        |  and Modad_, Lft.\n                  |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |18. Ps. 89.21,v.l.|}Clem. Alex. as\n                  |                 |    1 Sam. 13.14. |} LXX.\n18. Ps. 51.1-17.  |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |20. Job 38.11.    |\n                  |                 |21. Prov. 15.27.  |Clem. Alex.\n                  |                 |                  |  similarly; from\n                  |                 |                  |  memory? [Greek:\n22. Ps. 34.11-17. |                 |                  |  legei gar pou.]\n                  |                 |23. [Greek:       |from an Apo-\n                  |                 | palaiporoi eisin |  cryphal book,\n                  |                 | oi dipsuchoi     | _Ass. Mos._ or\n                  |                 | k.t.l.]          | _Eld. and Mod._\n                  |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |23. Is. 13.22.    |}composition and\n                  |                 |    Mal. 3.1.     |} compression.\n                  |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |26. Ps. 28.7.     |}composition\n                  |                 |    Ps. 3-5.      |} from memory?\n                  |                 |                  | [Greek: legei\n                  |                 |                  |  gar pou.]\n                  |                 |27. Wisd. 12.12.  |}from memory?\n                  |                 |    Wisd. 11.22.  |} cp. Eph. 1.19.\nP27. Ps. 19.1-3.  |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |28. Ps. 139.7-10. |from memory?\n                  |                 |                  |[Greek: legei\n                  |                 |                  | gar pou.]\n29. Deut. 32.8,9. |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |29. Deut. 4.34.   |}from memory?\n                  |                 |    Deut. 14.2.   |} or from an\n                  |                 |    Num. 18.27.   |} Apocryphal\n                  |                 |    2 Chron. 31.  |} Book?\n                  |                 |      14.         |}\n                  |                 |    Ezek. 48.12.  |}\n                  |30. Prov. 3.34.  |                  |\n30. Job. 11.2,3.  |                 |                  |LXX, not Heb.\n                  |                 |32. Gen. 15.5     |\n                  |                 |   (Gen. 22.17.   |\n                  |                 |    Gen. 26.4.)   |\n                  |33. Gen. 1.26-28.|(omissions.)      |\n                  |                 |34. Is. 40.10.    |}composition\n                  |                 |    Is. 62.11.    |} from memory?\n                  |                 |    Prov. 24.12.  |} Clem. Alex.\n                  |                 |                  |  after Clem.\n                  |                 |                  |  Rom.\n                  |34. Dan. 7.10.   |}                 |curiously\n                  |    Is. 6.3+.    |}                 |  repeated\n                  |                 |                  |  transposition;\n                  |                 |                  |  see Lightfoot,\n                  |                 |                  | _ad. loc._\n                  |                 |24. Is. 64.4.     |so in 1 Cor. 2.9.\n                  |35. Ps. 50.16-23.|                  |\n                  |36. Ps.104.4,v.l.|                  |Heb. 1.7.\n36. Ps. 2.7,8.    |                 |                  |Heb. 1.5.  Acts\n    Ps. 110.1     |                 |                  | 13.33.\n                  |39. Job 4.16-5.5 |                  |\n                  |   (Job 15.15)   |                  |\n                  |                 |42. Is. 60.17.    |from memory?\n                  |                 |                  | [Greek: legei\n                  |                 |                  | gar pou.]\n                  |                 |46. [Greek:       |from Apocryphal\n                  |                 | Kollasthe tois   | book, or Ecclus.\n                  |                 | agiois hoti oi   | vi. 34?  Clem.\n                  |                 | kollomenoi       | Alex.\n                  |                 | autois           |\n                  |                 | hagiasthaesontai]|\n46. Ps. 18.26,27. |                 |                  |context ignored.\n48. Ps. 118,19,20.|                 |                  |Clem. Alex.\n                  |                 |                  | loosely.\n                  |                 |50. Is. 26.20.    |}\n                  |                 |    Ezek. 37.12.  |}from memory?\n50. Ps. 32. 1,2.  |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |52. Ps. 69.31,32. |\n52. Ps. 50.14,15.+|}                |                  |\n    Ps. 51.17.    |}                |                  |\n                  |53. Deut.9.12-14.|}                 |Barnabas\n                  |    Ex. 32.7,8.  |}                 |  similarly.\n                  |       11,31,32. |}                 |  Compression.\n54. Ps. 241.      |                 |                  |\n56. Ps. 118.18.   |                 |                  |\n    Prov. 3.12.   |                 |                  |\n    Ps. 141.5.    |                 |                  |\n                  |+56. Job 5.17-26,|                  |\n                  |     v.l.        |                  |\n                  |+57. Prov. 1.23- |                  |\n                  |     31.         |                  |\n\n[*Footnote: The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are\nalso found in Clement of Alexandria.]\n\n\nIt will be observed that the longest passages are among those\nthat are quoted with the greatest accuracy (e.g. Gen. xiii. 14-16;\nJob v. 17-26; Ps. xix. 1-3, xxii. 6-8, xxxiv. 11-17, li. 1-17;\nProv. i. 23-31; Is. i. 16-20, liii. 1-12). Others, such as Gen.\nxii. 1-3, Deut. ix. 12-14, Job iv. 16-v. 5, Ps. xxxvii. 35-38, l.\n16-23, have only slight variations. There are only two passages of\nmore than three consecutive verses in length that present wide\ndivergences. These are, Ps. cxxxix. 7-10, which is introduced by a\nvague reference [Greek: legei gar pou] and is evidently quoted\nfrom memory, and the historical narration Josh. ii. 3-19. This is\nperhaps what we should expect: in longer quotations it would be\nbetter worth the writer's while to refer to his cumbrous\nmanuscript. These purely mechanical conditions are too much lost\nsight of. We must remember that the ancient writer had not a small\ncompact reference Bible at his side, but, when he wished to verify\na reference, would have to take an unwieldy roll out of its case,\nand then would not find it divided into chapter and verse like our\nmodern books but would have only the columns, and those perhaps\nnot numbered, to guide him. We must remember too that the memory\nwas much more practised and relied upon in ancient times,\nespecially among the Jews.\n\nThe composition of two or more passages is frequent, and the\nfusion remarkably complete. Of all the cases in which two passages\nare compounded, always from different chapters and most commonly\nfrom different books, there is not, I believe, one in which there\nis any mark of division or an indication of any kind that a\ndifferent source is being quoted from. The same would hold good\n(with only a slight and apparent exception) of the longer strings\nof quotations in cc. viii, xxix, and (from [Greek: aegapaesan] to\n[Greek: en auto]) in c. xv. But here the question is complicated by\nthe possibility, and in the first place at least perhaps\nprobability, that the writer is quoting from some apocryphal work\nno longer extant. It may be interesting to give one or two short\nexamples of the completeness with which the process of welding has\nbeen carried out. Thus in c. xvii, the following reply is put into\nthe mouth of Moses when he receives his commission at the burning\nbush, [Greek: tis eimi ego hoti me pempeis; ego de eimi\nischnophonos kai braduglossos.] The text of Exod. iii. 11 is\n[Greek: tis eimi ego, oti poreusomai;] the rest of the quotation\nis taken from Exod. iv. 10. In c. xxxiv Clement introduces 'the\nScripture' as saying, [Greek: Muriai muriades pareistaekeisan auto\nkai chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto kai ekekragon agios,\nagios, agios, Kurios Sabaoth, plaeraes pasa hae ktisis taes doxaes\nautou.] The first part of this quotation comes from Dan. vii. 10;\nthe second, from [Greek: kai ekekragon], which is part of the\nquotation, from Is. vi. 3. These examples have been taken almost\nat random; the others are blended quite as thoroughly.\n\nSome of the cases of combination and some of the divergences of\ntext may be accounted for by the assumption of lost apocryphal\nbooks or texts; but it would be wholly impossible, and in fact no\none would think of so attempting to account for all. There can be\nlittle doubt that Clement quotes from memory, and none that he\nquotes at times very freely.\n\nWe come next to the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, the quotations\nin which I proceed to tabulate in the same way:--\n\n                          _Barnabas._\n\n     _Exact._     |   _Slightly     |    _Variant._    | _Remarks._\n                  |    Variant._    |                  |\n                  |+2. Is. 1.11-14. |                  |note for exactness.\n                  |                 |2. Jer. 7.22,23.  |} combination\n                  |                 |   Zec. 8.17.     |} from memory?\n                  |                 |   Ps. 51.19.     |strange addition.\n                  |3. Is. 58.4, 5.  |                  |\n                  |   Is. 58.6-10.  |                  |\n                  |                 |4. Dan. 7.24      |}very\n                  |                 |   Dan. 7.7, 8.   |} divergent.\n                  |                 |   Ex. 34.28.     |}combination\n                  |                 |   Ex. 31.18.     |} from memory?\n                  |4. Deut. 9.12.   |                  |see below.\n                  |  (Ex. 32.7).    |                  |\n                  |  +Is. 5.21.     |                  |\n                  |+5. Is. 54.5,7.  |                  |text of Cod. A.\n                  |     (omissions.)|                  |\n5. Prov. 1.17.    |                 |                  |\n   Gen. 1.26+.    |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |5. Zech. 13.7.    |text of A. (Hilg.)\n                  |                 |                  |  Matt. 26.3.\n                  |                 |   Ps. 22.21.     |from memory?\n                  |5. Ps. 119.120.  |                  |paraphrastic\n                  |                 |   Ps. 22.17.     |  combination\n                  |                 |                  |  from memory?\n                  |   Is. 50. 6,7.  |                  |\n                  |    (omissions.) |                  |ditto.\n                  |                 |6. Is. 50.8,9.    |ditto.\n                  |6. Is. 28.16.    |                  |first clause\n                  |                 |                  |  exact, second\n                  |                 |                  |  variant; in N.T.\n                  |                 |                  |  quotations,\n                  |                 |                  |  first variant,\n                  |                 |                  |  second exact.\n                  |   Is. 50.7.     |                  |note repetition,\n                  |                 |                  |  nearer to LXX.\n6. Ps. 118.22.    |                 |                  |so Matt. 21.42;\n                  |                 |                  |  1 Pet. 11.7.\n                  |                 |                  |\n6. Ps. 22.17+     |                 |6. Ps. 118.24.    |from memory?\n   (order).       |                 |                  |note repetition,\n                  |                 |                  |  nearer to LXX.\nPs. 118.12.       |                 |                  |\nPs. 22.19.        |                 |                  |\nIs. 3.9, 10.      |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |   Ex. 33.1.      |from memory?\n                  |   Gen. 1.26+.   |                  |note repetition,\nGen. 1.28.        |                 |                  |  further from LXX.\n                  |                 |   Ezek. 11.19;   |paraphrastic.\n                  |                 |     36.26.       |\n                  |                 |   Ps. 41.3.      |\n                  |                 |   Ps. 22.23.     |different version?\n                  |                 |   Gen. 1.26, 28. |paraphrastic\n                  |                 |                  |  fusion.\n                  |                 |7. Lev. 23.29.    |paraphrastic.\n                  |                 |   Lev. 16.7, sqq.|with apocryphal\n                  |                 |   Lev. 16.7. sqq.|  addition; cp.\n                  |                 |                  |  Just. and Tert.\n                  |9. Ps. 18.44.    |                  |\n9. Is. 33.13+.    |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |9. Jer. 4.4.      |\n                  |                 |   Jer. 7.2.      |\n                  |                 |   Ps. 34.13.     |\nIs. 1.2.          |                 |                  |but with additions.\n                  |   Is. 1.10+.    |                  |from memory?\n                  |                 |                  |[Greek: archontes\n                  |                 |                  | toutou] for [Gr.\n                  |                 |                  | a. Zodomon.]\n                  |                 |   Is. 40.3.      |addition.\n                  |                 |   Jer. 4.3 ,4.   |}repetition,\n                  |                 |   Jer. 7.26.     |} nearer to LXX.\n                  |                 |   Jer. 9.26.     |\n                  |                 |   Gen. 17.26, 27;|inferred sense\n                  |                 |    cf. 14.14.    |  merely, but\n                  |                 |                  |  with marks of\n                  |                 |                  |  quotation.\n                  |                 |10. Lev. 11,      |selected examples,\n                  |                 |    Deut. 14.     |  but with\n                  |                 |                  |  examples of\n                  |                 |                  |  quotation.\n                  |                 |    Deut. 4.1.    |\n10. Ps. 1.1.      |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |    Lev. 11.3.    |\n                  |                 |11. Jer. 2.12, 13.|\n                  |                 |   +Is. 16.1, 2.  |[Greek: Zina] for\n                  |                 |                  |  [Greek: Zion].\n                  |11. Is. 45. 2, 3.|                  |[Greek: gnosae] A.\n                  |                 |                  | ([Greek: gnosin]\n                  |                 |                  | Barn., but in\n                  |                 |                  | other points more\n                  |                 |                  | divergent.\n                  |+Is. 33.16-18.   |                  |omissions.\n11. Ps. 1.3-6.    |                 |                  |note for exactness.\n                  |                 |11. Zeph. 3.19.   |markedly diverse.\n                  |                 |    Ezek. 47.12.  |ditto.\n                  |12. Is. 65.2.    |                  |\n                  |                 |12. Num. 21.9,    |apparently a\n                  |                 |     sqq.         | quotation.\n                  |                 |    Deut. 27.15.  |from memory?\n                  |                 |    Ex. 17.14.    |\n12. Ps. 110.1.    |                 |                  |\n                  |12. Is. 45.1.    |                  |[Greek: kurio] for\n                  |                 |                  | [Greek: kuro].\n                  |13. Gen.25.21,23.|                  |\n                  |                 |13. Gen. 48.11-19.|very paraphrastic.\n                  |                 |    Gen. 15.6;    |combination; cf.\n                  |                 |     17.5.        |  Rom. 4.11.\n                  |                 |14. Ex. 24.18.    |note addition of\n                  |                 |                  |[Greek: naesteuon.]\n                  |                 |    Ex. 31.18.    |note also for\n                  |                 |                  |  additions.\n                  |14. Deut. 9.12-  |                  |repetition with\n                  |     17+.        |                  | similar variation.\n                  |   (Ex. 32.7.)   |                  |note reading of A.\n14. Is. 42.6,7.   |                 |                  |[Greek:\n                  |                 |                  |pepedaemenous] for\n                  |                 |                  |[Greek: dedemenous\n                  |                 |                  |(kai] om. A.).\n                  |    Is. 49.6,7.  |                  |\nIs. 61. 1,2.      |                 |                  |Luke. 4.18,19\n                  |                 |                  |  diverges.\n                  |                 |15. Ex. 20.8;     |paraphrastic,\n                  |                 |    Deut. 5.12.   |  with addition.\n                  |                 |    Jer. 17.24,25.|very paraphrastic.\n                  |                 |    Gen. 2.2.     |\n                  |                 |    Ps. 90.4.     |[Greek: saemeron]\n                  |                 |                  |  for [Greek:\n                  |                 |                  |  exthes].\n15. Is. 1.13.     |                 |                  |\n                  |16. Is. 40.12.   |                  |omissions.\n                  |    Is. 66.1.    |                  |\n                  |                 |16. Is. 49.17.    |completely\n                  |                 |                  |  paraphrastic.\n                  |                 |    Dan. 9.24.    |ditto.\n                  |                 |     25, 27.      |\n\n\nThe same remarks that were made upon Clement will hold also for\nBarnabas, except that he permits himself still greater licence. The\nmarginal notes will have called attention to his eccentricities. He is\ncarried away by slight resemblances of sound; e.g. he puts [Greek:\nhimatia] for [Greek: iamata] [Endnote 34:1], [Greek: Zina] for [Greek:\nZion], [Greek: Kurio] for [Greek: Kuro]. He not only omits clauses, but\nalso adds to the text freely; e.g. in Ps. li. 19 he makes the strange\ninsertion which is given in brackets, [Greek: Thusia to Theo kardia\nsuntetrimmenae, [osmae euodias to kurio kardia doxasousa ton peplakota\nautaen]]. He has also added words and clauses in several other places.\nThere can be no question that he quotes largely from memory; several of\nhis quotations are repeated more than once (Deu. ix. 12; Is. l. 7; Ps.\nxxii. 17; Gen. i. 28; Jer. iv. 4); and of these only one, Deut. ix. 12,\nreappears in the same form. Often he gives only the sense of a passage;\nsometimes he interprets, as in Is. i. 10, where he paraphrases [Greek:\narchontes Sodomon] by the simpler [Greek: archontes tou laou toutou]. He\nhas curiously combined the sense of Gen. xvii. 26, 27 with Gen. xiv.\nl4--in the pursuit of the four kings, it is said that Abraham armed his\nservants three hundred and eighteen men; Barnabas says that he\ncircumcised his household, in all three hundred and eighteen men. In\nseveral cases a resemblance may be noticed between Barnabas and the text\nof Cod. A, but this does not appear consistently throughout.\n\nIt may be well to give a few examples of the extent to which Barnabas\ncan carry his freedom of quotation. Instances from the Book of Daniel\nshould perhaps not be given, as the text of that book is known to have\nbeen in a peculiarly corrupt and unsettled state; so much so that, when\ntranslation of Theodotion was made towards the end of the second\ncentury, it was adopted as the standard text. Barnabas also combines\npassages, though not quite to such an extent or so elaborately as\nClement, and he too inserts no mark of division. We will give an example\nof this, and at the same time of his paraphrastic method of quotation:--\n\n\n_Barnabas_ c. ix.\n\n[Greek: [kai ti legei;] Peritmaethaete to sklaeron taes kardias\nhumon, kai ton trachaelon humon ou mae sklaerunaete.]\n\n\n_Jer._ iv. 3, 4 _and_ vii. 26.\n\n[Greek: Peritmaethaete to theo humon, kai peritemesthe taen\nsklaerokardian humon ... kai esklaerunan ton trachaelon auton...]\n\n\nA similar case of paraphrase and combination, with nothing to\nmark the transition from one passage to the other, would be in c.\nxi, Jer. ii. 12, 13 and Is. xvi. 1, 2. For paraphrase we may take\nthis, from the same chapter:--\n\n\n_Barnabas_ c. xi.\n\n[Greek: [kai palin heteros prophaetaes legei] Kai aen hae gae\nIakob epainoumenae para pasan taen gaen.]\n\n_Zeph_. iii. 19.\n\n[Greek: kai thaesomai autous eis kauchaema kai onomastous en pasae\ntae gae.]\n\n\n_Barnabas_ c. xv.\n\n[Greek: [autous de moi marturei legon] Idou saemeron haemera estai\nhos chilia etae.]\n\n_Ps_. xc. 4\n\n[Greek: hoti chilia etae en ophthalmois sou hos hae haemera hae\nechthes haetis diaelthe.]\n\n\nA very curious instance of freedom is the long narrative of Jacob\nblessing the two sons of Joseph in c. xiii (compare Gen. xlviii.\n11-19). We note here (and elsewhere) a kind of dramatic tendency, a\nfondness for throwing statements into the form of dialogue rather\nthan narrative. As a narrative this passage may be compared with\nthe history of Rahab and the spies in Clement.\n\nAnd yet, in spite of all this licence in quotation, there are some\nrather marked instances of exactness; e.g. Is. i. 11-14 in c. ii,\nthe combined passages from Ps. xxii. 17, cxvii. 12, xxii. 19 in c.\nvi, and Ps. i. 3-6 in c. xi. It should also be remembered that in\none case, Deut. ix. 12 in cc. iv and xiv, the same variation is\nrepeated and is also found in Justin.\n\nIt tallies with what we should expect, supposing the writings\nattributed to Ignatius (the seven Epistles) to be genuine, that\nthe quotations from the Old as well as from the New Testament in\nthem are few and brief. A prisoner, travelling in custody to the\nplace of execution, would naturally not fill his letters with long\nand elaborate references. The quotations from the Old Testament\nare as follows:--\n\n  _Exact._  |    _Slightly    | _Variant._  | _Remarks._\n            |     variant._   |             |\n            |                 |             |\n_Ad Eph._   |5. Prov. 3.34    |             |James. 4.6, 1 Pet. 5.5,\n            |                 |             |  as Ignatius.\n            |                 |             |\n_Ad Magn._  |12. Prov. 18.17. |             |\n            |                 |             |\n_Ad Trall._ |                 |8. Is. 52.5. |\n\n\nThe Epistle to the Ephesians is found also in the Syriac version.\nThe last quotation from Isaiah, which is however not introduced\nwith any express marks of reference, is very freely given. The\noriginal is, [Greek: tade legei kurios, di' humas dia pantos to\nonoma mou blasphaemeitai en tois ethnesi], for which Ignatius has,\n[Greek: ouai gar di' ou epi mataiotaeti to onoma mou epi tinon\nblasphaemeitai].\n\nThe Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians and the Martyrium S.\nIgnatii contain the following quotations:--\n\n    _Exact._     |  _Slightly    |  _Variant._   | _Remarks._\n                 |   variant._   |               |\n                 |               |               |\n Polycarp,       | 2. Ps. 2.11.  |               |\n_Ad. Phil._      |               |               |\n                 |               |               |\n10. Tob. 4.11.   |               |               |}\n12. Ps. 4.4;     |               |               |}in Latin\n but through     |               |               |}  version only.\n Eph. 4.26.      |               |               |}\n                 |               |               |\n_Mart. S. Ign._  |               |               |\n                 |               |2. Lev. 26.12. |\n6. Prov. 10.24.  |               |               |\n\n\nThe quotation from Leviticus differs widely from the original,\n[Greek: Kai emperipataeso en humin kai esomai humon theos kai\nhumeis esesthe moi laos], for which we read, [Greek: [gegraptai\ngar] Enoikaeso en autois kai emperipataeso].\n\nThe quotations from the Clementine Homilies may be thus\npresented:--\n\n     _Exact._     |   _Slightly     |    _Variant._    | _Remarks._\n                  |                 |                  |\nHom. 3.           |                 |18. Deut. 32.7.   |\n                  |39. +Gen. 18.21. |                  |\n                  |     Gen. 3.22.  |                  |\n39. Gen 6.6.      |                 |                  |\n                  |     Gen. 8.21.  |                  |omission.\n                  |     Gen. 22.1.  |                  |\n                  |                 |42. Gen. 3.3.     |\n43. Gen. 6.6.     |                 |                  |\n                  |43. Gen. 22.1.   |                  |not quite as above.\n                  |   +Gen. 18.21.  |                  |as above.\nGen. 15.13-16.    |                 |                  |v.l. comp. text\n                  |                 |                  |  of A; note for\n                  |                 |                  |  exactness.\n44. Gen. 18.21.   |                 |                  |as LXX.\n                  |                 |45. Num. 11.34    |[Greek: bounoun\n                  |                 |   (al.)          | epithumion] for\n                  |                 |                  | [Greek: mnaemata\n                  |                 |                  | taes epithumas].\n                  |47. Deut. 34.4,5.|                  |\n                  |49. Gen. 49.10.  |                  |cf. Credner,\n                  |                 |                  | _Beit._ 2.53.\nHom. 11.          |                 |                  |\n22. Gen. 1.1.     |                 |                  |\nHom. 16.          |                 |                  |\n6. Gen. 3.22.     |                 |                  |twice with slightly\n                  |                 |                  |  different order.\nGen. 3.5.         |                 |                  |\n                  |6. Ex. 22.28.    |                  |\n                  |                 |6. Deut. 4.34.    |?mem. [Greek:\n                  |                 |                  |  allothi tou\n                  |                 |                  |  gegraptai].\nJer. 10.11.       |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |   Deut. 13.6.    |?mem. [Greek:\n                  |                 |                  | allae pou].\n                  |                 |   Josh. 23.7.    |\n                  |   Deut. 10.17.  |                  |\nPs. 35.10.        |                 |                  |\nPs. 50.1.         |                 |                  |\nPs. 82.1.         |                 |                  |\n                  |   Deut. 10.14.  |                  |\n                  |   Deut. 4.39.   |                  |\n                  |   Deut. 10.17.  |                  |repeated as above.\n                  |                 |   Deut. 10.17.   |very paraphrastic.\n                  |                 |                  |\nHom. 16.          |                 |6. Deut. 4.39.    |\n7. Deut. 6.13.    |                 |                  |\n   Deut. 6.4.     |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |8. Josh. 23.7.    |as above.\n8. Exod. 22.18 +  |                 |                  |\n   Jer. 10.11.    |                 |                  |\n   Gen. 1.1.      |                 |                  |\n   Ps. 19.2.      |                 |                  |\n                  |8. Ps. 102.26.   |                  |\n   Gen. 1.26.     |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |13. Deut. 13.1-3, |very free.\n                  |                 |    9, 5, 3.      |\nHom. 17.          |                 |18. Num. 12.6.    |}paraphrastic\n                  |                 |    Ex. 33.11.    |} combination.\nHom. 18.          |                 |17. Is. 40.26,27. |free quotation.\n                  |                 |    Deut. 30.13.  |ditto.\n18. Is. 1.3.      |                 |                  |\n    Is. 1.4.      |                 |                  |\n\n\nThe example of the Clementine Homilies shows conspicuously the\nextremely deceptive character of the argument from silence. All\nthe quotations from the Old Testament found in them are taken from\nfive Homilies (iii, xi, xvi, xvii, xviii) out of nineteen, although\nthe Homilies are lengthy compositions, filling, with the translation\nand various readings, four hundred and fourteen large octavo pages\nof Dressel's edition [Endnote 38:1]. Of the whole number of quotations\nall but seven are taken from two Homilies, iii and xvi. If Hom. xvi\nand Hom. xviii had been lost, there would have been no evidence that\nthe author was acquainted with any book of the Old Testament besides\nthe Pentateuch; and, if the five Homilies had been lost, there would\nhave been nothing to show that he was acquainted with the Old Testament\nat all. Yet the loss of the two Homilies would have left a volume\nof three hundred and seventy-seven pages, and that of the five a\nvolume of three hundred and fifteen pages. In other words, it is\npossible to read three hundred and fifteen pages of the Homilies\nwith five breaks and come to no quotation from the Old Testament\nat all, or three hundred and fifteen pages with only two breaks\nand come to none outside the Pentateuch. But the reduced volume\nthat we have supposed, containing the fourteen Homilies, would\nprobably exceed in bulk the whole of the extant Christian literature\nof the second century up to the time of Irenaeus, with the single\nexception of the works of Justin; it will therefore be seen how\nprecarious must needs be any inference from the silence, not of\nall these writings, but merely of a portion of them.\n\nFor the rest, the quotations in the Homilies may be said to\nobserve a fair standard of exactness, one apparently higher than\nthat in the genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; at the\nsame time it should be remembered that the quotations in the\nHomilies are much shorter, only two reaching a length of three\nverses, while the longest quotations in the Epistle are precisely\nthose that are most exact. The most striking instance of accuracy\nof quotation is perhaps Gen. xv. 13-16 in Hom. iii. 43. On the\nother hand, there is marked freedom in the quotations from Deut.\niv. 34, x. 17, xiii. 1-3, xiii. 6. xxx. 15, Is. xl. 26, 27, and\nthe combined passage, Num. xii. 6 and Ex. xxiii. 11. There are\nseveral repetitions, but these occur too near to each other to\npermit of any inference.\n\nOur examination of the Old Testament quotations in Justin is\ngreatly facilitated by the collection and discussion of them in\nCredner's Beitr\u00e4ge [Endnote 39:1], a noble example of that true\npatient work which is indeed the reverse of showy, but forms the\nsolid and well-laid foundation on which alone genuine knowledge\ncan be built. Credner has collected and compared in the most\nelaborate manner the whole of Justin's quotations with the various\nreadings in the MSS. of the LXX; so that we may state our results\nwith a much greater confidence than in any other case (except\nperhaps Clement of Rome, where we have the equally accurate and\nscholarly guidance of Dr. Lightfoot [Endnote 40:1]) that we are\nnot led astray by imperfect materials. I have availed myself\nfreely of Credner's collection of variants, indicating the cases\nwhere the existence of documentary (or, in some places,\ninferential) evidence for Justin's readings has led to the\nquotation being placed in a different class from that to which it\nwould at first sight seem to belong. I have also, as hitherto, not\nassumed an absolutely strict standard for admission to the first\nclass of 'exact' quotations. Many of Justin's quotations are very\nlong, and it seemed only right that in these the standard should\nbe somewhat, though very slightly, relaxed. The chief point that\nwe have to determine is the extent to which the writers of the\nfirst century were in the habit of freely paraphrasing or quoting\nfrom memory, and it may as a rule be assumed that all the\ninstances in the first class and most (not quite all) of those in\nthe second do not admit of such an explanation. I have been glad\nin every case where a truly scientific and most impartial writer\nlike Credner gives his opinion, to make use of it instead of my\nown. I have the satisfaction to think that whatever may be the\nvalue of the other sections of this enquiry, this at least is\nthoroughly sound, and based upon a really exhaustive sifting of\nthe data.\n\nThe quotations given below are from the undoubted works of Justin,\nthe Dialogue against Tryphon and the First Apology; the Second\nApology does not appear to contain any quotations either from the\nOld or New Testament.\n\n     _Exact._     |   _Slightly       |    _Variant._     | _Remarks._\n                  |    variant._      |                   |\n                  |                   |                   |\n                  |Apol. 1.59, Gen.   |                   |\n                  |  1.1-3.           |                   |\nDial. 62, Gen. 1. |                   |                   |\n  26-28.          |                   |                   |\n                  |Dial. 102, Gen.    |                   |free quotation\n                  |  3.15.            |                   | (Credner).\nD.62, Gen. 3.22.  |                   |                   |\n                  |D.127, Gen.        |                   |\n                  |  7.16.            |                   |\n                  |D.139, Gen. 9.     |                   |\n                  |  24-27.           |                   |\n                  |D.127, Gen. 11.5.  |                   |free quotation\n                  |                   |                   | (Cr.)\nD.102, Gen. 11.6. |                   |                   |\n                  |D.92, Gen. 15.6.   |                   |free quotation\n                  |                   |                   | (Cr.)\n                  |                   |Dial.10, +Gen.     |\n                  |                   |  17.14.           |\nD.127, Gen. 17.22.|                   |                   |\n                  |D.56, +Gen. 18.    |                   |ver. 2 repeated\n                  |  1, 2.            |                   |  similarly.\n                  | +Gen. 18. 13, 14. |                   |repeated,\n                  |                   |                   |  slightly more\n                  | +Gen. 18. 16-23,  |                   |  divergent.\n                  |   33.             |                   |\n                  | +Gen. 19. 1, 10,  |                   |\n                  |  16-28 (om. 26).  |                   |marked exactness\n                  |                   |                   |  in the whole\n                  |                   |                   |  passage.\nD.56, Gen. 21.    |                   |                   |\n  9-12.           |                   |                   |\nD.120, Gen. 26.4. |                   |                   |\nD.58, Gen. 28.    |                   |                   |\n  10-12.          |                   |                   |\n                  |D.58, +(v.l.) Gen. |                   |\n                  |      28. 13-19.   |                   |\n                  |  +(v.l.) Gen. 31. |                   |\n                  |    10-13.         |                   |\n                  |                   |D.59, Gen. 35.1.   |free quotation\n                  |                   |                   | (Cr.)\nD.58, Gen. 35.    |                   |                   |\n  6-10 (v.l.)     |                   |                   |\nD. 52, Gen. 49.   |                   |                   |repeated\n  8-12.           |                   |                   | similarly.\nD. 59, Ex. 2. 23. |                   |                   |\nD. 60, Ex. 3.2-4+.|                   |A.1. 62, Ex. 3. 5. |from memory\n                  |                   |                   | (Cr.)\n                  |D. 59, Ex. 3. 16.  |                   |\n                  |                   |A. 1.63, Ex. 3.16  |ver.16 freely\n                  |                   | (ter), 17.        | quoted (Cr.)\n                  |                   |                   | [Greek: eirae-\n                  |                   |                   |  tai pou.]\n                  |D. 126, Ex.6.2-4.  |                   |\n                  |                   |D. 49, Ex. 17.16.  |free quotation\n                  |                   |                   | (Cr.)\n                  |                   |D. 94, Ex. 20.4.   |ditto (Cr.)\n                  |D. 75, Ex. 23.20,  |                   |from Lectionary\n                  |           21.     |                   | (Cr.)\nD.16, Lev. 26.40, |                   |D. 20, Ex. 32. 6.  |free (Cr.)\n  41 (v.l.)       |                   |                   |\n                  |D. 126, Num. 11.   |                   |\n                  |             23.   |                   |\n                  |                   |A.1.60 (or. obl.), |free (Cr.)\n                  |                   |  D. 94, Num. 21.  |\n                  |                   |  8,9.             |\n                  |D. 106, Num. 24.   |                   |through Targum\n                  |  17.              |                   | (Cr.)\n                  |                   |D. 16, Deut. 10.   |from memory\n                  |                   |  16, 17.          |  (Cr.)\n                  |                   |D.96, Deut. 21.23. |both precisely\n                  |                   |      Deut. 27.26. | as St. Paul in\n                  |                   |                   | Galatians, and\n                  |                   |                   | quoted thence\n                  |                   |                   | (Cr.)\nD. 126, Deut. 31. |                   |                   |\n  2, 3 (v.l.)     |                   |                   |\nD. 74, Deut. 31.  |                   |                   |\n  16-18 (v.l.)    |                   |                   |\nD. 131, Deut. 32. |                   |                   |\n  7-9 (tr.)       |                   |                   |\n                  |D.20, Deut. 32.15. |                   |\nD. 119, Deut. 32. |                   |                   |Targum (Cr.)\n  16-23.          |                   |                   |\nD. 130, Deut. 32. |                   |                   |\n43 (v.l.)         |                   |                   |\n                  |D. 91, +Deut. 33.  |                   |\n                  | 13-17.            |                   |\nA.1. 40, Ps. 1 and|                   |                   |parts repeated.\n 2 entire.        |                   |                   |\n                  |D.97, Ps. 3. 5, 6. |                   |repeated, more\n                  |                   |                   | freely.\nD.114, Ps. 8.4.   |                   |                   |\nD.27, Ps. 14.3.   |                   |                   |\nD.28, Ps.18.44,45.|                   |                   |\nD. 64, Ps.19.6    |                   |                   |perhaps from\n(A.1.40, vv.1-5). |                   |                   |  different\n                  |                   |                   |  MSS., see\n                  |                   |                   |  Credner.\nD.97 ff., Ps. 22. |                   |                   |quoted as\n  1-23.           |                   |                   |  _whole_ Psalm\n                  |                   |                   |  (bis).\nD.133 ff., Ps. 24 |                   |                   |\n  entire.         |                   |                   |\n                  |D.141, Ps. 32. 2.  |                   |\nD.38, Ps. 45.1-17.|                   |                   |parts repeated.\nD.37, Ps. 47.6-9. |                   |                   |\nD.22, Ps. 49      |                   |                   |\n  entire.         |                   |                   |\n                  |                   |D.34}              |{from Eph. 4.8,\n                  |                   |D.37} Ps. 68.8.    |{  Targum.\nD.34, Ps. 72      |                   |                   |\nentire.           |                   |                   |\nD. 124, Ps. 82    |                   |                   |\n  entire.         |                   |                   |\nD.73, Ps. 96      |                   |                   |note Christian\n  entire.         |                   |                   |  interpolation\n                  |                   |                   |  in ver. 10.\nD.37, Ps. 99      |                   |                   |\n  entire.         |                   |D. 83, Ps. 110.    |from memory\nD.32, Ps. 110     |                   |  1-4.             |  (Cr.)\nentire.           |                   |                   |\n                  |                   |D.110, Ps. 128.3.  |from memory\nD.85, Ps. 148.    |                   |                   |  (Cr.)\n  1, 2.           |                   |                   |\nA.1. 37, Is. 1.   |                   |                   |\n  3, 4.           |                   |                   |\n                  |                   |A.1. 47, Is. 1.7   |sense only\n                  |                   | (Jer. 2.15).      |  (Cr.)\n                  |                   |D.140 (A.1. 53),   |\n                  |                   |  Is. 1.9.         |\n                  |                   |A.1. 37, Is. 1.    |from memory\n                  |                   |  11-14.           |  (Cr.)\n                  |A.1. 44 (61), Is.  |                   |omissions.\n                  |  1.16-30.         |                   |\n                  |                   |D.82, Is. 1. 23.   |from memory\nA.1. 39, Is. 2.   |                   |                   |  (Cr.)\n  3,4.            |                   |                   |\n                  |D.135, Is. 2. 5,6. |                   |Targum (Cr.)\nD. 133, Is. 3.    |                   |                   |\n  9-15 (v.l.)     |                   |                   |\n                  |                   |D.27, Is. 3.16.    |free quotation\n                  |                   |                   |  (Cr.)\n                  |D.133, Is. 5. 18-  |                   |repeated.\n                  |  25 (v.l.)        |                   |\n                  |D.43 (66), Is. 7.  |                   |repeated, with\n                  |  10-17 (v.l.)     |                   |  slight\n                  |                   |                   |  variation.\n                  |                   | A.1.35, Is. 9.6.  |free (Cr.)\nD.87, Is. 11.1-3. |                   |[A.1.32, Is. 11.1; |free combination\n                  |                   |  Num. 24.17.      | (Cr.)]\n                  |D.123, Is. 14.1.   |                   |\nD.123, Is. 19.24, |                   |                   |\n  25+.            |                   |                   |\n                  |D.78, Is. 29.13,14.|                   |repeated (v.l),\n                  |                   |                   |  partly from\n                  |                   |                   |  memory.\nD.79, Is. 30.1-5. |                   |                   |\n                  |D.70, Is.33.13-19. |                   |\n                  |D.69, Is. 35.1-7.  |A.1.48, Is. 35.5,6.|free; cf. Matt.\n                  |                   |                   |  11.5 (var.)\nD.50, Is. 39. 8,  |                   |                   |\n  40.1-17.        |                   |                   |\n                  |                   |D.125} Is.42.1-4.  |{cf. Matt. 12.\n                  |                   |D.135}             |{ 17-21,\n                  |                   |                   |  Targum (Cr.)\nD.65, Is. 42.6-13 |                   |                   |\n (v.l.)           |                   |                   |\n                  |                   |D.122, Is. 42.16.  |free (Cr.)\n                  |D.123, Is. 42.19,  |                   |\n                  |  20.              |                   |\nD.122, Is. 43.10. |                   |                   |\n                  |                   |A.1.52, Is. 45.    |cf. Rom. 14.11.\n                  |                   |  24 (v.l.)        |\nD.121, Is. 49.6   |                   |                   |\n (v.l.)           |                   |                   |\nD.122, Is. 49.8   |                   |                   |\n (v.l.)           |                   |                   |\n                  |D.102, Is. 50.4.   |                   |\nA.1.38, Is. 50.   |                   |                   |Barn., Tert.,\n  6-8.            |                   |                   |  Cypr.\nD.11, Is. 51.4, 5.|                   |                   |\nD.17, Is. 52.5    |                   |                   |\n (v.l.)           |                   |                   |\nD.12, Is. 5 2,    |                   |                   |\n  10-15, 53.1-12, |                   |                   |\n  54.1-6.         |                   |                   |\n                  |A.1. 50, Is. 52.   |                   |\n                  |  13-53.12.        |                   |\n                  |                   |D.138, Is. 54.9.   |very free.\nD.14, Is. 55.3-13.|                   |[D.12, Is. 55. 3-5.|from memory\n                  |                   |                   | (Cr.)]\nD.16, Is.57.1-4.  |                   |                   |repeated.\nD.15, Is.58.1-11  |                   |                   |[Greek:\n (v.l.)           |                   |                   |  himatia] for\n                  |                   |                   |[Greek: iamata];\n                  |                   |                   |so Barn., Tert,\n                  |                   |                   |Cyp., Amb., Aug.\nD.27, Is. 58.     |                   |                   |\n  13, 14.         |                   |                   |\n                  |D.26, +Is. 62.10-  |                   |[Greek:\n                  |  10-63.6.         |                   | susseismon] for\n                  |                   |                   |[Greek:\n                  |                   |                   | sussaemon].\nD.25, Is. 63.15-  |                   |                   |\n 19, 64.1-12.     |                   |                   |\nD.24, Is. 65. 1-3.|                   |[A.1.49, Is. 65.   |from memory\n                  |                   | 1-3.              | (Cr.)]\nD.136, Is. 65.8.  |                   |                   |\nD.135, Is. 65.9-12|                   |                   |\nD.81, Is. 65.17-25|                   |                   |\n                  |                   |D.22, Is. 66.1.    |from memory\n                  |                   |                   | (Cr.)\nD.85, Is. 66.5-11.|                   |                   |\n                  |                   |D.44, Is. 66. 24   |from memory\n                  |                   | (ter).            | (Cr.)\n                  |                   |D.114, Jer. 2.13;  |as from\n                  |                   | Is. 16.1;         |  Jeremiah,\n                  |                   | Jer. 3.8.         |  traditional\n                  |                   |                   |  combination;\n                  |                   |                   |  cf. Barn. 2.\n                  |D.28, Jer. 4.3, 4  |                   |\n                  | (v.l.)            |                   |\n                  |                   |D.23, Jer. 7.21,22.|free quotation\n                  |                   |                   | (Cr.)\n                  |D. 28, Jer. 9.25,26|[A.1.53, Jer. 9.26.|quoted freely\n                  |                   |                   |  as from\n                  |                   |                   |  Isaiah.]\n                  |D.72, Jer. 11.19.  |                   |omissions.\n                  |                   |D. 78, Jer. 31.15  |so Matt. 2.18\n                  |                   | (38.15, LXX).     |  through\n                  |                   |                   |  Targum (Cr.)\n                  |                   |D.123, Jer. 31.27  |free quotation\n                  |                   | (38. 27).         | (Cr.)\n                  |D.11, Jer. 31.31,  |                   |\n                  |32 (38.31, 32).    |                   |\n                  |                   |D.72.              |a passage quoted\n                  |                   |                   |  as from\n                  |                   |                   |  Jeremiah,\n                  |                   |                   |  which is not\n                  |                   |                   |  recognisable\n                  |                   |                   |  in our present\n                  |                   |                   |  texts.\n                  |                   |D. 82, Ezek. 3.    |free quotation\n                  |                   |  17-19.           | (Cr.)\n                  |                   |D.45} Ezek. 14.    |} repeated\n                  |                   |  44}  20; cf. 14, |} similarly and\n                  |                   | 140}  16, 18.     |} equally\n                  |                   |                   |} divergent from\n                  |                   |                   |} LXX.\nD.77, Ezek. 16. 3.|                   |                   |\nD.21, Ezek. 20.   |                   |                   |\n  19-26.          |                   |                   |\nD.123, Ezek. 36.  |                   |                   |\n  12.             |                   |                   |\n                  |                   |A.1.52, Ezek.      |very free (Cr.)\n                  |                   |  37. 7.           |\n\n[Footnote: Justin has in Dial. 31 (also in Apol. 1. 51, ver. 13, from\nmemory) a long quotation from Daniel, Dan. 7. 9-28; his text can only\nbe compared with a single MS. of the LXX, Codex Chisianus; from this\nit differs considerably, but many of the differences reappear in the\nversion of Theodotion; 7. 10, 13 are also similarly quoted in Rev.,\nMark, Clem. Rom.]\n\n     _Exact._     |   _Slightly       |    _Variant._     | _Remarks._\n                  |    variant._      |                   |\n                  |                   |D.19, Hos. 1.9.    |\n                  |                   |D.102, Hos.10.6.   |referred to\n                  |                   |                   |  trial before\n                  |                   |                   |  Herod (Cr.)\n                  |                   |D.87, Joel 2.28.   |from memory\n                  |                   |                   | (Cr.)\n                  |D. 22, +Amos       |                   |\n                  |5.18-6. 7 (v.l.)   |                   |\n                  |D. 107, Jonah 4.   |                   |\n                  |  10-11 (v.l. Heb.)|                   |\n                  |D. 109, Micah 4.   |                   |divergent from\n                  |  1-7 (Heb.?)      |                   |  LXX.\n                  |                   |A.1.34} Micah 5.2. |{precisely as\n                  |                   |D.78   }           |{  Matt. 2.6.\n                  |                   |                   |\n                  |                   |A.1.52, Zech. 2.6. |{free quotations\n                  |                   |D. 137, Zech. 2. 8.|{ (Cr.)\n                  |D. 115, Zach. 2.   |[D. 79, Zech. 3.   |freely (Cr.)]\n                  |  10-3. 2 (Heb.?)  |  1, 2.            |\nD.106, Zach. 6.12.|                   |                   |\n                  |                   |A.1.52, Zech. 12.  |repeated di-\n                  |                   |  11,12,10.        | versely [note\n                  |                   |                   | reading of\n                  |                   |                   | Christian ori-\n                  |                   |                   | gin (Cr.) in\n                  |                   |                   | ver. 10:\n                  |                   |                   | so John 19.37;\n                  |                   |                   | cp. Rev. 1.7].\n                  |                   |D.43, Zech. 13. 7. |diversely in\n                  |                   |                   |  Matt. 26.31,\n                  |                   |                   |  proof that\n                  |                   |                   |  Justin is\n                  |                   |                   |  not dependent\n                  |                   |                   |  on Matthew\n                  |                   |                   |  (Cr.)\n                  |D.28, 41, Mal. 1.  |D. 117, Mal. 1.    |\n                  |  10-12 (v.l.)     |  10-12.           |\n                  |D.62, +Joshua 5.   |                   |omissions.\n                  |  13-15; 6.1, 2    |                   |\n                  |  (v.l.)           |                   |\n                  |                   |D.118, 2 Sam. 7.   |from memory\n                  |                   |  14-16.           |  (Cr.)\n                  |                   |D.39, 1 Kings 19.  |freely (Cr.);\n                  |                   |  14, 15, 18.      | cf. Rom. 11.3.\nA.1.55, Lam. 4.   |                   |                   |\n  20 (v.l.)       |                   |                   |\n                  |                   |D.79, Job 1.6.     |sense only\n                  |                   |                   |  (Cr.)\n                  |D.61, +Prov. 8.    |                   |coincidence\n                  |  21-36.           |                   |  with Ire-\n                  |                   |                   |  naeus.\n\n[Footnote: D. 72 a passage ostensibly from Ezra, but probably an\napocryphal addition, perhaps from Preaching of Peter; same quotation\nin Lactantius.]\n\n\nIt is impossible not to be struck with the amount of matter that\nJustin has transferred to his pages bodily. He has quoted nine\nPsalms entire, and a tenth with the statement (twice repeated)\nthat it is given entire, though really he has only quoted twenty-\nthree verses. The later chapters of Isaiah are also given with\nextraordinary fulness. These longer passages are generally quoted\naccurately. If Justin's text differs from the received text of the\nLXX, it is frequently found that he has some extant authority for\nhis reading. The way in which Credner has drawn out these\nvarieties of reading, and the results which he obtained as to the\nrelations and comparative value of the different MSS., form\nperhaps the most interesting feature of his work. The more marked\ndivergences in Justin may be referred to two causes; (1) quotation\nfrom memory, in which he indulges freely, especially in the\nshorter passages, and more in the Apology than in the Dialogue\nwith Tryphon; (2) in Messianic passages the use of a Targum, not\nimmediately by Justin himself but in some previous document from\nwhich he quotes, in order to introduce a more distinctly Christian\ninterpretation; the coincidences between Justin and other\nChristian writers show that the text of the LXX had been thus\nmodified in a Christian sense, generally through a closer\ncomparison with and nearer return to the Hebrew, before his time.\nThe instances of free quotation are not perhaps quite fully given\nin the above list, but it will be seen that though they form a\nmarked phenomenon, still more marked is the amount of exactness.\nAny long, not Messianic, passage, it appears to be the rule with\nJustin to quote exactly. Among the passages quoted freely there\nseem to be none of greater length than four verses.\n\nThe exactness is especially remarkable in the plain historical\nnarratives of the Pentateuch and the Psalms, though it is also\nevident that Justin had the MS. before him, and referred to it\nfrequently throughout the quotations from the latter part of\nIsaiah. Through following the arrangement of Credner we have\nfailed to notice the cases of combination; these however are\ncollected by Dr. Westcott (On the Canon, p. 156). The most\nremarkable instance is in Apol. i. 52, where six different\npassages from three separate writers are interwoven together and\nassigned bodily to Zechariah. There are several more examples of\nmistaken ascription.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe great advantage of collecting the quotations from the Old\nTestament is that we are enabled to do so in regard to the very\nsame writers among whom our enquiry is to lie. We can thus form a\ngeneral idea of their idiosyncracies, and we know what to expect\nwhen we come to examine a different class of quotations. There is,\nhowever, the element of uncertainty of which I have spoken above.\nWe cannot be quite clear what text the writer had before him. This\ndifficulty also exists, though to a less degree, when we come to\nconsider quotations from the New Testament in writers of an early\ndate whom we know to have used our present Gospels as canonical.\nThe text of these Gospels is so comparatively fixed, and we have\nsuch abundant materials for its reconstruction, that we can\ngenerally say at once whether the writer is quoting from it freely\nor not. We have thus a certain gain, though at the cost of the\ndrawback that we can no longer draw an inference as to the\npractice of individuals, but merely attain to a general conclusion\nas to the habits of mind current in the age. This too will be\nsubject to a deduction for the individual bent and peculiarities\nof the writer. We must therefore, on the whole, attach less\nimportance to the examples under this section than under that\npreceding.\n\nI chose two writers to be the subject of this examination almost,\nI may say, at random, and chiefly because I had more convenient\naccess to their works at the time. The first of these is Irenaeus,\nthat is to say the portions still extant in the Greek of his\nTreatise against Heresies, [Endnote 49:1] and the second\nEpiphanius.\n\nIrenaeus is described by Dr. Tregelles 'as a close and careful\nquoter in general from the New Testament' [Endnote 49:2]. He may\ntherefore be taken to represent a comparatively high standard of\naccuracy. In the following table the quotations which are merely\nallusive are included in brackets:--\n\n     _Exact._         |   _Slightly     |    _Variant._     | _Remarks._\n                      |    variant._    |                   |\nI. Praef. Matt. 10.26.|                 |                   |\nI.3.2,Matt. 5.18.     |                 |                   |quoted from\n                      |                 |                   |  Gnostics\nI.3, 3, Mark 5.31.    |                 |                   |Gnostics.\n                      |                 |I.3.5, Luke 14.27. |Valentinians.\n                      |I.3.5, Mark 10.  |                   |the same.\nI.3.5, Matt. 10.34.   |  21 (v.l.)      |                   |the same.\nI.3.5, Luke 3.17.     |                 |                   |the same.\nI.4.3, Matt. 10.8.    |                 |                   |\n[I.6.1, Matt. 5.      |                 |                   |\n  13, 14, al.]        |                 |I.7.4, Matt. 8.9.} |}the same.\n                      |                 |       Luke 7.8. } |}\n                      |                 |I.8.2, Matt. 27.46.|Valentinians.\nI.8.2. Matt. 26.38.   |                 |                   |the same.\n                      |I.8.2, Matt.     |                   |the same.\n                      |       26.39.    |                   |\n                      |                 |I.8.2, John 12.27. |the same.\n                      |                 |I.8.3, Luke        |the same.\n                      |                 |       9.57,58.    |\n                      |                 |I.8.3, Luke        |the same.\n                      |                 |       9.61,62.    |\n                      |I.8.3, Luke      |                   |the same.\n                      |       9.60.     |                   |\n                      |I.8.3, Luke 19.5.|                   |the same.\n                      |                 |I.8.4, Luke 15,4.  |the same.\n                      |[I.8.4, Luke     |                   |the same.\n                      |       15.8, al.]|                   |\n                      |I.8.4, Luke 2.28.|                   |the same.\n[I.8.4., Luke         |                 |                   |the same.\n         6.36, al.]   |                 |                   |\nI.8.4, Luke 7.35      |                 |                   |the same.\n            (v.l.)    |                 |                   |\nI.8.5, John 1.1,2.    |                 |                   |the same.\nI.8.5, John 1.3       |                 |                   |the same.\n            (v.l.)    |                 |                   |\nI.8.5, John 1.4.      |                 |                   |the same.\n            (v.l.)    |                 |                   |\n                      |                 |I.8.5, John 1.5.   |the same.\nI.8.5, John 1.14.     |                 |I.8.5, John 1.14.  |[the same\n                      |                 |                   |  verse rep-\n                      |                 |                   |  eated dif-\n                      |                 |                   |  ferently.]\n                      |                 |[I.14.1. Matt.     |Marcus.\n                      |                 |        18.10,al.] |\n                      |[I.16.1, Luke    |                   |Marcosians.\n                      |        15.8,al.]|                   |\n                      |                 |[I.16.3, Matt.     |the same.\n                      |                 |        12,43,al.] |\n                      |I.20.2, Luke     |                   |the same.\n                      |        2.49.    |                   |\n                      |                 |I.20.2, Mark 10.18.|['memoriter'-\n                      |                 |                   | Stieren; but\n                      |                 |                   | comp. Clem.\n                      |                 |                   | Hom. and\n                      |                 |                   | and Justin.]\n                      |I.20.2, Matt.    |                   |Marcosians.\n                      |           21.23.|                   |\n                      |                 |I.20.2, Luke 19.42.|the same.\nI.20.2, Matt.         |                 |                   |the same.\n        11.28 (? om.).|                 |                   |\n                      |                 |I.20.3, Luke 10.21.|the same;\n                      |                 |      (Matt. 11.25 | [v.l., comp.\n                      |                 |         25.)      | Marcion,\n                      |                 |                   | Clem. Hom.,\n                      |                 |                   | Justin, &c.]\n                      |                 |I.21.2, Luke 12.50.|Marcosians.\n                      |I.21.2, Mark     |                   |Marcosians.\n                      |        10.36.   |                   |\nIII.11.8, John        |                 |                   |\n          1.1-3 (?).  |                 |                   |\nIII.11.8, Matt.       |                 |                   |\n         1.1,18 (v.l.)|                 |                   |\n                      |III.11.8, Mark   |                   |omissions.\n                      |          1.1,2. |                   |\nIII.22.2, John 4.6.   |                 |                   |\nIII.22.2, Matt. 26.38.|                 |                   |\n                      |IV.26.1, } Matt. |                   |\n                      |IV.40.3, } 13.38.|                   |\n                      |IV.40.3, Matt.   |                   |\n                      |         13.25.  |                   |\nV.17.4, Matt. 3.10.   |                 |                   |\n                      |                 |V.36.2, John 14.2  |\n                      |                 |         (or obl.) |\n                      |                 |Fragm. 14, Matt.   |\n                      |                 |           15.17.  |\n\nOn the whole these quotations of Irenaeus seem fairly to deserve\nthe praise given to them by Dr. Tregelles. Most of the free\nquotations, it will be seen, belong not so much to Irenaeus\nhimself, as to the writers he is criticising. In some places (e.g.\niv. 6. 1, which is found in the Latin only) he expressly notes a\ndifference of text. In this very place, however, he shows that he\nis quoting from memory, as he speaks of a parallel passage in St.\nMark which does not exist. Elsewhere there can be little doubt\nthat either he or the writer before him quoted loosely from\nmemory. Thus Luke xii. 50 is given as [Greek: allo baptisma echo\nbaptisthaenai kai panu epeigomai eis auto] for [Greek: baptisma de\necho baptisthaenai kai pos sunechomai heos hotou telesthae]. The\nquotation from Matt. viii. 9 is represented as [Greek: kai gar ego\nhupo taen emautou exousian echo stratiotas kai doulous kai ho ean\nprostaxo poiousi], which is evidently free; those from Matt.\nxviii. 10, xxvii. 46, Luke ix. 57, 58, 61, 62, xiv. 27, xix. 42,\nJohn i. 5, 14 (where however there appears to be some confusion in\nthe text of Irenaeus), xiv. 2, also seem to be best explained as\nmade from memory.\n\nThe list given below, of quotations from the Gospels in the\nPanarium or 'Treatise against Heresies' of Epiphanius [Endnote\n52:1], is not intended to be exhaustive. It has been made from the\nshorter index of Petavius, and being confined to the 'praecipui\nloci' consists chiefly of passages of substantial length and\nentirely (I believe) of express quotations. It has been again\nnecessary to distinguish between the quotations made directly by\nEpiphanius himself and those made by the heretical writers whose\nworks he is reviewing.\n\n     _Exact._     |   _Slightly     |    _Variant._    | _Remarks._\n                  |    Variant._    |                  |\n426A, Matt. 1.1;  |                 |                  |\n      Matt. 1.18, |                 |                  |\n           (v.l.) |                 |                  |\n                  |426BC, Matt.     |                  |abridged, diver-\n                  |        1.18-25+.|                  |  gent in middle.\n                  |                 |430B, Matt. 2.13. |Porphyry & Celsus.\n                  |                 |44C, Matt. 5.34,37|\n                  |59C, Matt.       |                  |\n                  |         5.17,18.|                  |\n180B, Matt. 5.18+.|                 |                  |Valentinians.\n                  |                 |226A, Matt. 5.45. |\n                  |72A, Matt. 7.6.  |                  |Basilidians.\n404C, Matt. 7.15. |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |67C. Matt. 8.11.  |\n                  |                 |650B. Matt.       |\n                  |                 |    8.28-34 (par.)|\n                  |303A, Matt.      |                  |Marcion.\n                  |         9.17,16.|                  |\n                  |71B, Matt. 10.33.|                  |Basilidians.\n                  |274B, Matt.      |                  |\n                  |           10.16.|                  |\n88A, Matt. 11.7.  |143B, Matt.      |                  |Gnostics.\n                  |           11.18.|                  |\n                  |254B, Matt.      |                  |Marcosians.\n                  |           11.28.|                  |\n                  |                 |139AB, Matt.      |Ebionites.\n                  |                 | 12.48 sqq. (v.l.)|\n174C, Matt. 10.26.|                 |                  |\n                  |                 |464B, Matt.       |Theodotus.\n                  |                 |         12.31,32.|\n                  |33A, Matt. 23.5. |                  |\n                  |                 |218D, Matt. 15.4-6|Ptolemaeus.\n                  |                 |        (or. obl.)|\n                  |                 |490C, Matt. 15.20.|\n                  |                 |     Mark 7.21,22.|\n                  |                 |490A, Matt. 18.8. |}compression\n                  |                 |      Mark 9.43.  |}\n                  |                 |679BC, Matt.      |Manes.\n                  |                 |   13.24-30,37-39.|\n                  |                 |152B, Matt. 5.27. |\n                  |59CD, Matt.      |                  |\n                  |        19.10-12.|                  |\n                  |59D, Matt. 19.6. |                  |\n                  |                 |81A, Matt. 19.12. |\n                  |                 |97D, Matt. 22.30. |\n                  |                 |36BC, Matt. 23.   |remarkable compo-\n                  |                 |  23,25; 23.18-20.|  sition, probably\n                  |                 |                  |  from memory.\n                  |                 |  (5.35); Mark    |\n                  |                 |  7.11-13; Matt.  |\n                  |                 |  23.15.          |\n                  |                 |226A, Matt. 23.29;|composition.\n                  |                 |       Luke 11.47.|\n                  |                 |281A, Matt. 23.35.|\n                  |                 |508C, Matt. 25.34.|\n                  |                 |146AB, Matt. 26.  |narrative.\n                  |                 |  17,18; Mark 14. |\n                  |                 |  12-14; Luke 22. |\n                  |                 |  9-11.           |\n                  |                 |279D, Matt. 26.24.|\n                  |                 |390B, Matt. 21.33,|\n                  |                 |  par.            |\n                  |50A, Matt. 28.19.|                  |\n                  |427B, Mark 1.1,2.|                  |\n                  |           (v.1.)|                  |\n                  |428C, Mark 1.4.  |                  |\n                  |                 |457D, Mark 3.29;  |singular\n                  |                 |  Matt. 12.31;    |composition.\n                  |                 |  Luke 12.10.     |\n                  |400D, Matt. 19.6;|                  |\n                  |      Mark 10.9. |                  |\n                  |                 |650C, Matt. 8.    |narrative.\n                  |                 |  28-34; Mark 5.  |\n                  |                 |  1-20; Luke 8.   |\n                  |                 |  26-39.          |\n\n[These last five quotations have already been given under Irenaeus, whom\nEpiphanius is transcribing.]\n\n                  |464D, Luke 12.9; |                  |composition.\n                  |     Matt. 10.33.|                  |\n                  |181B, Luke 14.27.|                  |Valentians.\n                  |401A, Luke 21.34.|                  |\n                  |143C, Luke 24.42.|                  |\n                  |          (v. 1.)|                  |\n                  |349C, Luke 24.   |                  |Marcion.\n                  |            38,39|                  |\n384B, John 1.1-3. |                 |                  |\n148A, John 1.23.  |                 |                  |\n                  |148B, John       |                  |\n                  |         2.16,17.|                  |\n                  |89C, John 3.12.  |                  |Gnostics.\n                  |274A, John 3.14  |                  |\n59C, John 5.46.   |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |162B, John 5.8.   |\n66C, John 5.17.   |                 |                  |\n                  |919A, John 5.18. |                  |\n                  |                 |117D, John 6.15.  |\n                  |89D, John 6.53.  |                  |the same.\n                  |279D, John 6.70. |                  |\n                  |                 |279B, John 8.44.  |\n                  |463D, John 8.40. |                  |Theodotus.\n                  |                 |148B, John 12.41. |\n                  |                 |153A, John 12.22. |\n                  |75C, John 14.6.  |                  |\n919C, John 14.10. |                 |                  |\n921D, John 17.3.  |                 |                  |\n                  |                 |279D, John        |\n                  |                 |         17.11,12.|\n                  |119D, John 18.36.|                  |\n\nIt is impossible here not to notice the very large amount of\nfreedom in the quotations. The exact quotations number only\nfifteen, the slightly variant thirty-seven, and the markedly\nvariant forty. By far the larger portion of this last class and\nseveral instances in the second it seems most reasonable to refer\nto the habit of quoting from memory. This is strikingly\nillustrated by the passage 117 D, Where the retreat of Jesus and\nHis disciples to Ephraim is treated as a consequence of the\nattempt 'to make Him king' (John vi. 15), though in reality it did\nnot take place till after the raising of Lazarus and just before\nthe Last Passover (see John xi. 54). A very remarkable case of\ncombination is found in 36 BC, where a single quotation is made up\nof a cento of no less than six separate passages taken from all\nthree Synoptic Gospels and in the most broken order. Fusions so\ncomplete as this are usually the result of unconscious acts of the\nmind, i.e. of memory. A curious instance of the way in which the\nSynoptic parallels are blended together in a compound which\ndiffers from each and all of them is presented in 437 D ([Greek:\nto blasphaemounti eis to pneuma to hagion ouk aphethaesetai auto\noute en to nun aioni oute en to mellonti]). Another example of\nEpiphanius' manner in skipping backwards and forwards from one\nSynoptic to another may be seen in 218 D, which is made up of\nMatt. xv. 4-9 and Mark vii. 6-13. A strange mistake is made in 428\nD, where [Greek: paraekolouthaekoti] is taken with [Greek: tois\nautoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou]. Many kinds of variation find\nexamples in these quotations of Epiphanius, to some of which we\nmay have occasion to allude more particularly later on.\n\nIt should be remembered that these are not by any means selected\nexamples. Neither Irenaeus nor Epiphanius are notorious for free\nquotation--Irenaeus indeed is rather the reverse. Probably a much\nmore plentiful harvest of variations would have been obtained e.g.\nfrom Clement of Alexandria, from whose writings numerous instances\nof quotation following the sense only, of false ascription, of the\nblending of passages, of quotations from memory, are given in the\ntreatise of Bp. Kaye [Endnote 56:1]. Dr. Westcott has recently\ncollected [Endnote 56:2] the quotations from Chrysostom _On the\nPriesthood,_ with the result that about one half present\nvariations from the Apostolic texts, and some of these variations,\nwhich he gives at length, are certainly very much to the point.\n\nI fear we shall have seemed to delay too long upon this first\npreliminary stage of the enquiry, but it is highly desirable that\nwe should start with a good broad inductive basis to go upon. We\nhave now an instrument in our hands by which to test the alleged\nquotations in the early writers; and, rough and approximate as\nthat instrument must still be admitted to be, it is at least much\nbetter than none at all.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.\n\n\nTo go at all thoroughly into all the questions that may be raised\nas to the date and character of the Christian writings in the\nearly part of the second century would need a series of somewhat\nelaborate monographs, and, important as it is that the data should\nbe fixed with the utmost attainable precision, the scaffolding\nthus raised would, in a work like the present, be out of\nproportion to the superstructure erected upon it. These are\nmatters that must be decided by the authority of those who have\nmade the provinces to which they belong a subject of special\nstudy: all we can do will be to test the value of the several\nauthorities in passing.\n\nIn regard to Clement of Rome, whose First (genuine) Epistle to the\nCorinthians is the first writing that meets us, the author of\n'Supernatural Religion' is quite right in saying that 'the great mass\nof critics ... assign the composition of the Epistle to the end of the\nfirst century (A.D. 95-100)' [Endnote 58:1]. There is as usual a right\nand a left wing in the array of critics. The right includes several of\nthe older writers; among the moderns the most conspicuous figure is the\nRoman Catholic Bishop Hefele. Tischendorf also, though as it is pointed\nout somewhat inconsistently, leans to this side. According to their\nopinion the Epistle would be written shortly before A.D. 70. On the\nleft, the names quoted are Volkmar, Baur, Scholten, Stap, and Schwegler\n[Endnote 59:1]. Baur contents himself with the remark that the Epistle\nto the Corinthians, 'as one of the oldest documents of Christian\nantiquity, might have passed without question as a writing of the Roman\nClement,' had not this Clement become a legendary person and had so\nmany spurious works palmed off upon him [Endnote 59:2]. But it is\nsurely no argument to say that because a certain number of extravagant\nand spurious writings are attributed to Clement, therefore one so sober\nand consistent with his position, and one so well attested as this, is\nnot likely to have been written by him. The contrary inference would be\nthe more reasonable, for if Clement had not been an important person,\nand if he had left no known and acknowledged writings, divergent\nparties in the Church would have had no reason for making use of his\nname. But arguments of this kind cannot have much weight. Probably not\none half of the writings attributed to Justin Martyr are genuine; but\nno one on that account doubts the Apologies and the Dialogue with\nTryphon.\n\nSchwegler [Endnote 59:3], as is his wont, has developed the opinion of\nBaur, adding some reasons of his own. Such as, that the letter shows\nPauline tendencies, while 'according to the most certain traditions'\nClement was a follower of St. Peter; but the evidence for the Epistle\n(Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, A.D. 165-175, Hegesippus, and\nIrenaeus in the most express terms) is much older and better than\nthese 'most certain traditions' (Tertullian and Origen), even if they\nproved anything: 'in the Epistle of Clement use is made of the Epistle\nto the Hebrews;' but surely, according to any sober canons of\ncriticism, the only light in which this argument can be regarded is as\nso much evidence for the Epistle to the Hebrews: the Epistle implies a\ndevelopment of the episcopate which 'demonstrably' (nachweislich) did\nnot take place until during the course of the second century; what the\n'demonstration' is does not appear, and indeed it is only part of the\ngreat fabric of hypothesis that makes up the T\u00fcbingen theory.\n\nVolkmar strikes into a new vein [Endnote 60:1]. The Epistle of Clement\npresupposes the Book of Judith; but the Book of Judith must be dated\nA.D. 117-118; and therefore the Epistle of Clement will fall about\nA.D. 125. What is the ground for this reasoning? It consists in a\ntheory, which Volkmar adopted and developed from Hitzig, as to the\norigin of the Book of Judith. That book is an allegorical or symbolical\nrepresentation of events in the early part of the rising of the Jews\nunder Barcochba; Judith is Judaea, Nebuchadnezzar Trajan; Assyria\nstands for Syria, Nineveh for Antioch, Arphaxad for a Parthian king\nArsaces, Ecbatana for Nisibis or perhaps Batnae; Bagoas is the eunuch-\nservice in general; Holofernes is the Moor Lucius Quietus. Out of\nthese elements an elaborate historical theory is constructed, which\nEwald and Fritzsche have taken the trouble to refute on historical\ngrounds. To us it is very much as if Ivanhoe were made out to be\nan allegory of incidents in the French Revolution; or as if the\n'tale of Troy divine' were, not a nature-myth or Euemeristic legend\nof long past ages, but a symbolical representation of events under\nthe Pisistratidae.\n\nExamples such as this are apt to draw from the English reader a\nsweeping condemnation of German criticism, and yet they are really\nonly the sports or freaks of an exuberant activity. The long list\ngiven in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 61:1] of those who\nmaintain the middle date of Clement's Epistle (A.D. 95-100)\nincludes apparently all the English writers, and among a number of\nGermans the weighty names of Bleek, Ewald, Gieseler, Hilgenfeld,\nK\u00f6stlin, Lipsius, Laurent, Reuss, and Ritschl. From the point of\nview either of authority or of argument there can be little doubt\nwhich is the soundest and most judicious decision.\n\nNow what is the bearing of the Epistle of Clement upon the\nquestion of the currency and authority of the Synoptic Gospels?\nThere are two passages of some length which are without doubt\nevangelical quotations, though whether they are derived from the\nCanonical Gospels or not may be doubted.\n\nThe first passage occurs in c. xiii. It will be necessary to give\nit in full with the Synoptic parallels, in order to appreciate the\nexact amount of difference and resemblance which it presents.\n\n\n_Matt._ v. 7, vi. 14, |_Clem. ad Cor._ c. xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31,\n vii. 12,2.           |                         | vi. 38, 37, 38.\n                      |  [Especially re-        |\n                      | membering the word      |\n                      | of the Lord Jesus       |\n                      | which he spake ...      |\n                      | For thus he said:]      |\nv. 7. Blessed are     | Pity ye, that ye may    | vi. 36. Be ye mer-\nthe pitiful, for they | be pitied: forgive,     | ciful, etc. vi. 37. Ac-\nshall be pitied. vi.  | that it may be for-     | quit, and ye shall be\n14. For if ye for     | given unto you. As      | acquitted. vi. 3 1.\ngive men their tres-  | ye do, so shall it      | And as ye would\npasses, etc. vii. 12. | be done unto you:       | that they should do\nAll things therefore  | as ye give, so shall    | unto you, do ye\nwhatsoever ye would   | it be given. unto you:  | also unto them like\nthat men should do    | as ye judge, so shall   | wise. vi. 38. Give,\nunto you, even so do  | it be judged unto       | and it shall be given\nye unto them. vii. 2. | you: as ye are kind,    | unto you. vi. 3 7.\nFor with what judg-   | so shall kindness be    | And judge not, and\nment ye judge, ye     | shown unto you:         | ye shall not be\nshall be judged: and  |                         | judged.\nwith what measure     | with what measure       |   For with what\nye mete, it shall be  | ye mete, with it shall  | measure ye mete, it\nmeasured unto you.    | it be measured unto     | shall be measured\n                      | you.                    | unto you again.\n\n\n                             [GREEK TABLE]\n_Matt._ v. 7, vi. 14,  |_Clem. ad Cor._ c. xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31,\n vii. 12,2.            |                         | vi. 38, 37, 38.\n                       |                         |\n  v.7. makarioi hoi    |eleeite hina eleaethaete.|  vi. 36. ginesthe\neleaemones hoti autoi  |                         |oiktirmones, k.t.l.\neleaethaesontai.       |                         |\n  vi. 14. ean gar      |  aphiete hina aphethae  |  vi. 37. apoluete kai\naphaete tois anth. ta  |humin.                   |apoluthaesesthe.\nparaptomata auton.     |                         |\n  vii. 12. panta oun   |  hos poieite houto      |  vi. 31. kai kathos\nhosa ean thelaete hina |poiaethaesetai humin.    |thelete hina poiosin\npoiosin humin hoi anth.|                         |humin hoi anthropoi kai\nhoutos kai humeis      |                         |humeis poieite autois\n                       |                         |homoios poieite autois.\n                       |  hos didote houtos      |  vi. 38. didote, kai\n                       |dothaesetai humin.       |dothaesetai humin.\nvii. 2. en ho gar      |  hos krinete houtos     |  vi. 37. kai mae\nkrimati krinete        |krithaesetai humin.      |krinete kai ou mae\nkrithaesesthe.         |                         |krithaete.\n                       |  hos chraesteuesthe     |\n                       |houtos chraesteuthaesetai|\n                       |humin.                   |\nkai en ho metro        |  ho metro metreite en   |  vi. 38. to gar auto\nmetreite               |auto metraethaesetai     |metro ho metreite\nmetraethaesetai humin. |humin.                   |antimetraethaesetai\n                       |                         |humin.\n\n\nWe are to determine whether this quotation was taken from the\nCanonical Gospels. Let us try to balance the arguments on both\nsides as fairly as possible. Dr. Lightfoot writes in his note upon\nthe passage as follows: 'As Clement's quotations are often very\nloose, we need not go beyond the Canonical Gospels for the source\nof this passage. The resemblance to the original is much closer\nhere, than it is for instance in his account of Rahab above, \u00a7 12.\nThe hypothesis therefore that Clement derived the saying from oral\ntradition, or from some lost Gospel, is not needed.' (1) No doubt\nit is true that Clement does often quote loosely. The difference\nof language, taking the parallel clauses one by one, is not\ngreater than would be found in many of his quotations from the Old\nTestament. (2) Supposing that the order of St. Luke is followed,\nthere will be no greater dislocation than e.g. in the quotation\nfrom Deut. ix. 12-14 and Exod. xxxii. (7, 8), 11, 31, 32 in c.\nliii, and the backward order of the quotation would have a\nparallel in Clem. Hom. xvi. 13, where the verses Deut. xiii. 1-3,\n5, 9 are quoted in the order Deut. xiii. 1-3, 9, 5, 3,--and\nelsewhere. The composition of a passage from different places in\nthe same book, or more often from places in different books, such\nas would be the case if Clement was following Matthew, frequently\noccurs in his quotations from the Old Testament. (3) We have no\npositive evidence of the presence of this passage in any non-\nextant Gospel. (4) Arguments from the manner of quoting the Old\nTestament to the manner of quoting the New must always be to a\ncertain extent _a fortiori_, for it is undeniable that the\nNew Testament did not as yet stand upon the same footing of\nrespect and authority as the Old, and the scarcity of MSS. must\nhave made it less accessible. In the case of converts from\nJudaism, the Old Testament would have been largely committed to\nmemory in youth, while the knowledge of the New would be only\nrecently acquired. These considerations seem to favour the\nhypothesis that Clement is quoting from our Gospels.\n\nBut on the other hand it may be urged, (1) that the parallel\nadduced by Dr. Lightfoot, the story of Rahab, is not quite in\npoint, because it is narrative, and narrative both in Clement and\nthe other writers of his time is dealt with more freely than\ndiscourse. (2) The passage before us is also of greater length\nthan is usual in Clement's free quotations. I doubt whether as\nlong a piece of discourse can be found treated with equal freedom,\nunless it is the two doubtful cases in c. viii and c. xxix. (3) It\nwill not fail to be noticed that the passage as it stands in\nClement has a roundness, a compactness, a balance of style, which\ngive it an individual and independent appearance. Fusions effected\nby an unconscious process of thought are, it is true, sometimes\nmarked by this completeness; still there is a difficulty in\nsupposing the terse antitheses of the Clementine version to be\nderived from the fuller, but more lax and disconnected, sayings in\nour Gospels. (4) It is noticed in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote\n65:1] that the particular phrase [Greek: chraesteusthe] has at\nleast a partial parallel in Justin [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kai\noiktirmones], though it has none in the Canonical Gospels. This\nmay seem to point to a documentary source no longer extant.\n\nDoubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we only knew\nwhat was the common original of the two Synoptic texts. How do\nthey come to be so like and yet so different as they are? How do\nthey come to be so strangely broken up? The triple synopsis, which\nhas to do more with narrative, presents less difficulty, but the\nproblem raised by these fragmentary parallelisms in discourse is\ndark and complex in the extreme; yet if it were only solved it\nwould in all probability give us the key to a wide class of\nphenomena. The differences in these extra-canonical quotations do\nnot exceed the differences between the Synoptic Gospels\nthemselves; yet by far the larger proportion of critics regard the\nresemblances in the Synoptics as due to a common written source\nused either by all three or by two of them. The critics have not\nhowever, I believe, given any satisfactory explanation of the\nstate of dispersion in which the fragments of this latter class\nare found. All that can be at present done is to point out that\nthe solution of this problem and that of such quotations as the\none discussed in Clement hang together, and that while the one\nremains open the other must also.\n\nLooking at the arguments on both sides, so far as we can give\nthem, I incline on the whole to the opinion that Clement is not\nquoting directly from our Gospels, but I am quite aware of the\ninsecure ground on which this opinion rests. It is a nice balance\nof probabilities, and the element of ignorance is so large that\nthe conclusion, whatever it is, must be purely provisional.\nAnything like confident dogmatism on the subject seems to me\nentirely out of place.\n\nVery much the same is to be said of the second passage in c. xlvi\ncompared with Matt. xxvi. 24, xviii. 6, or Luke xvii. 1, 2. It hardly\nseems necessary to give the passage in full, as this is already done\nin 'Supernatural Religion,' and it does not differ materially from\nthat first quoted, except that it is less complicated and the\nsupposition of a quotation from memory somewhat easier. The critic\nindeed dismisses the question summarily enough. He says that 'the\nslightest comparison of the passage with our Gospels is sufficient to\nconvince any unprejudiced mind that it is neither a combination of\ntexts nor a quotation from memory' [Endnote 66:1]. But this very\nconfident assertion is only the result of the hasty and superficial\nexamination that the author has given to the facts. He has set down\nthe impression that a modern might receive, at the first blush,\nwithout having given any more extended study to the method of the\npatristic quotations. I do not wish to impute blame to him for this,\nbecause we are all sure to take up some points superficially; but the\nmisfortune is that he has spent his labour in the wrong place. He\nhas, in a manner, revived the old ecclesiastical argument from\nauthority by heaping together references, not always quite digested\nand sifted, upon points that often do not need them, and he has\nneglected that consecutive study of the originals which alone could\nimbue his mind with their spirit and place him at the proper point of\nview for his enquiry.\n\nThe hypothesis that Clement's quotation is made _memoriter_ from our\nGospel is very far from being inadmissible. Were it not that the\nother passage seems to lean the other way, I should be inclined to\nregard it as quite the most probable solution. Such a fusion is\nprecisely what _would_ and frequently _does_ take place in quoting\nfrom memory. It is important to notice the key phrases in the\nquotation. The opening phrases [Greek: ouai to anthropo ekeino; kalon\naen auto ei ouk egennaethae] are found _exactly_ (though with\nomissions) in Matt. xxvi. 24. Clement has in common with the\nSynoptists all the more marked expressions but two, [Greek:\nskandalisai] ([Greek: -sae] Synoptics), the unusual word [Greek:\nmulos] (Matt., Mark), [Greek: katapontisthaenai] ([Greek: -thae]\nMatt.), [Greek: eis taen thalassan] (Mark, Luke), [Greek: hena ton\nmikron] ([Greek: mou] Clement, [Greek: touton] Synoptics). He differs\nfrom them, so far as phraseology is concerned, only in writing _once_\n(the second time he agrees with the Synoptics) [Greek: ton eklekton\nmou] for [Greek: ton mikron touton], by an easy paraphrase, and\n[Greek: peritethaenai] where Mark and Luke have [Greek: perikeitai]\nand Matthew [Greek: kremasthae]. But on the other hand, it should be\nnoticed that Matthew has, besides this variation, [Greek: en to\npelagei taes thalassaes], where the two companion Gospels have\n[Greek: eis taen thalassan]; where he has [Greek: katapontisthae],\nMark has [Greek: beblaetai] and Luke [Greek: erriptai]; and in the\nimportant phrase for 'it were better' all the three Gospels differ,\nMatthew having [Greek: sumpherei], Mark [Greek: kalon estin], and\nLuke [Greek: lusitelei]; so that it seems not at all too much to say\nthat Clement does not differ from the Synoptics more than they differ\nfrom each other. The remarks that the author makes, in a general way,\nupon these differences lead us to ask whether he has ever definitely\nput to himself the question, How did they arise? He must be aware\nthat the mass of German authorities he is so fond of quoting admit of\nonly two alternatives, that the Synoptic writers copied either from\nthe same original or from each other, and that the idea of a merely\noral tradition is scouted in Germany. But if this is the case, if so\ngreat a freedom has been exercised in transcription, is it strange\nthat Clement (or any other writer) should be equally free in\nquotation?\n\nThe author rightly notices--though he does not seem quite to\nappreciate its bearing--the fact that Marcion and some codices (of\nthe Old Latin translation) insert, as Clement does, the phrase\n[Greek: ei ouk egennaethae ae] in the text of St. Luke. Supposing\nthat this were the text of St. Luke's Gospel which Clement had before\nhim, it would surely be so much easier to regard his quotation as\ndirectly taken from the Gospel; but the truer view perhaps would be\nthat we have here an instance (and the number of such instances in\nthe older MSS. is legion) of the tendency to interpolate by the\ninsertion of parallel passages from the same or from the other\nSynoptic Gospels. Clement and Marcion (with the Old Latin) will then\nconfirm each other, as showing that even at this early date the two\npassages, Matt. xxvi. 24 and Matt. xviii. 6 (Luke xvii. 2), had\nalready begun to be combined.\n\nThere is one point more to be noticed before we leave the Epistle\nof Clement. There is a quotation from Isaiah in this Epistle which\nis common to it with the first two Synoptics. Of this Volkmar\nwrites as follows, giving the words of Clement, c. xv, 'The\nScripture says somewhere, This people honoureth me with their\nlips, but their heart is far from me,' ([Greek: houtos ho laos\ntois cheilesin me tima hae de kardia auton porro apestin ap'\nemou]). 'This \"Scripture\" the writer found in Mark vii. 6\n(followed in Matt. xv. 8), and in that shape he could not at once\nremember where it stood in the Old Testament. It is indeed Mark's\npeculiar reproduction of Is. xxix. 13, in opposition to the\noriginal and the LXX. A further proof that the Roman Christian has\nhere our Synoptic text in his mind, may be taken from c. xiii,\nwhere he quotes Jer. ix. 24 with equal divergence from the LXX,\nafter the precedent of the Apostle (1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 17)\nwhose letters he expressly refers to (c. xlvii) [Endnote 69:1].\nIt is difficult here to avoid the conclusion that Clement is\nquoting the Old Testament through the medium of our Gospels. The\ntext of the LXX is this, [Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos en to\nstomati autou kai en tois cheilesin auton timosin me]. Clement has\nthe passage exactly as it is given in Mark ([Greek: ho laos\nhoutos] Matt.), except that he writes [Greek: apestin] where both\nof the Gospels have [Greek: apechei] with the LXX. The passage is\nnot Messianic, so that the variation cannot be referred to a\nTargum; and though A. and six other MSS. in Holmes and Parsons\nomit [Greek: en to stomati autou] (through wrong punctuation--\nCredner), still there is no MS. authority whatever, and naturally\ncould not be, for the omission of [Greek: engizei moi ... kai] and\nfor the change of [Greek: timosin] to [Greek: tima]. There can be\nlittle doubt that this was a free quotation in the original of the\nSynoptic Gospels, and it is in a high degree probable that it has\npassed through them into Clement of Rome. It might perhaps be\nsuggested that Clement was possibly quoting the earlier document,\nthe original of our Synoptics, but this suggestion seems to be\nexcluded both by his further deviation from the LXX in [Greek:\napestin], and also by the phenomena of the last quotation we have\nbeen discussing, which are certainly of a secondary character.\nAltogether I cannot but regard this passage as the strongest\nevidence we possess for the use of the Synoptic Gospels by\nClement; it seems to carry the presumption that he did use them up\nto a considerable degree of probability.\n\nIt is rather singular that Volkmar, whose speculations about the\nBook of Judith we have seen above, should be so emphatic as he is\nin asserting the use of all three Synoptics by Clement. We might\nalmost, though not quite, apply with a single change to this\ncritic a sentence originally levelled at Tischendorf, to the\nintent that 'he systematically adopts the latest (earliest)\npossible or impossible dates for all the writings of the first two\ncenturies,' but he is able to admit the use of the first and third\nSynoptics (the publication of which he places respectively in 100\nand 110 A.D.) by throwing forward the date of Clement's Epistle,\nthrough the Judith-hypothesis, to A.D. 125. We may however accept\nthe assertion for what it is worth, as coming from a mind\nsomething less than impartial, while we reject the concomitant\ntheories. For my own part I do not feel able to speak with quite\nthe same confidence, and yet upon the whole the evidence, which on\na single instance might seem to incline the other way, does appear\nto favour the conclusion that Clement used our present Canonical\nGospels.\n\n                             2.\n\nThere is not, so far as I am aware, any reason to complain of the\nstatement of opinion in 'Supernatural Religion' as to the date of\nthe so-called Epistle of Barnabas. Arguing then entirely from\nauthority, we may put the _terminus ad quem_ at about 130\nA.D. The only writer who is quoted as placing it later is Dr.\nDonaldson, who has perhaps altered his mind in the later edition\nof his work, as he now writes: 'Most (critics) have been inclined\nto place it not later than the first quarter of the second\ncentury, and all the indications of a date, though very slight,\npoint to this period' [Endnote 71:1].\n\nThe most important issue is raised on a quotation in c. iv, 'Many\nare called but few chosen,' in the Greek of the Codex Sinaiticus\n[Greek: [prosechomen, maepote, hos gegraptai], polloi klaetoi,\noligoi de eklektoi eurethomen.] This corresponds exactly with\nMatt. xxii. 14, [Greek: polloi gar eisin klaetoi, oligoi de\neklektoi]. The passage occurs twice in our present received text\nof St. Matthew, but in xx. 16 it is probably an interpolation.\nThere also occurs in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) viii. 3 the sentence, 'Many\nwere created but few shall be saved' [Endnote 71:2]. Our author\nspends several pages in the attempt to prove that this is the\noriginal of the quotation in Barnabas and not the saying in St.\nMatthew. We have the usual positiveness of statement: 'There can\nbe no doubt that the sense of the reading in 4 Ezra is exactly\nthat of the Epistle.' 'It is impossible to imagine a saying more\nirrelevant to its context than \"Many are called but few chosen\" in\nMatt. xx. 16,' where it is indeed spurious, though the relevancy\nof it might very well be maintained. In Matt. xxii. 14, where the\nsaying is genuine, 'it is clear that the facts distinctly\ncontradict the moral that \"few are chosen.\"' When we come to a\npassage with a fixed idea it is always easy to get out of it what\nwe wish to find. As to the relevancy or irrelevancy of the clause\nin Matt. xxii. 14 I shall say nothing, because it is in either\ncase undoubtedly genuine. But it is surely a strange paradox to\nmaintain that the words 'Many were created but few shall be saved'\nare nearer in meaning to 'Many are called but few chosen' than the\nrepetition of those very words themselves. Our author has\nforgotten to notice that Barnabas has used the precise word\n[Greek: klaetoi] just before; indeed it is the very point on which\nhis argument turns, 'because we are called do not let us therefore\nrest idly upon our oars; Israel was called to great privileges,\nyet they were abandoned by God as we see them; let us therefore\nalso take heed, for, as it is written, many are called but few\nchosen.' I confess I find it difficult to conceive anything more\nrelevant, and equally so to see any special relevancy, in the\nvague general statement 'Many were created but few shall be\nsaved.'\n\nBut even if it were not so, if it were really a question between\nsimilarity of context on the one hand and identity of language on\nthe other, there ought to be no hesitation in declaring that to be\nthe original of the quotation in which the language was identical\nthough the context might be somewhat different. Any one who has\nstudied patristic quotations will know that context counts for\nvery little indeed. What could be more to all appearance remote\nfrom the context than the quotation in Heb. i. 7, 'Who maketh his\nangels spirits and his ministers a flaming fire'? where the\noriginal is certainly referring to the powers of nature, and means\n'who maketh the winds his messengers and a flame of fire his\nminister;' with the very same sounds we have a complete inversion\nof the sense. This is one of the most frequent phenomena, as our\nauthor cannot but know [Endnote 73:1].\n\nHilgenfeld, in his edition of the Epistle of Barnabas, repels\nsomewhat testily the imputation of Tischendorf, who criticises him\nas if he supposed that the saying in St. Matthew was not directly\nreferred to [Endnote 73:2]. This Hilgenfeld denies to be the case.\nIn regard to the use of the word [Greek: gegraptai] introducing\nthe quotation, the same writer urges reasonably enough that it\ncannot surprise us at a time when we learn from Justin Martyr that\nthe Gospels were read regularly at public worship; it ought not\nhowever to be pressed too far as involving a claim to special\ndivine inspiration, as the same word is used in the Epistle in\nregard to the apocryphal book of Enoch, and it is clear also from\nJustin that the Canon of the Gospels was not yet formed but only\nforming.\n\nThe clause, 'Give to every one that asketh of thee' [Greek: panti\nto aitounti se didou], though admitted into the text of c. xix by\nHilgenfeld and Weizs\u00e4cker, is wanting in the Sinaitic MS., and the\ncomparison with Luke vi. 30 or Matt. v. 42 therefore cannot be\ninsisted upon.\n\nThe passage '[in order that He might show that] He came not to\ncall the righteous but sinners' ([Greek: hina deixae hoti ouk\naelthen kalesai dikaious alla amartolous] [Endnote 74:1]) is\nremoved by the hypothesis of an interpolation which is supported\nby a precarious argument from Origen, and also by the fact that\n[Greek: eis metanoian] has been added (clearly from Luke v. 32) by\nlater hands both to the text of Barnabas and in Matt. ix. 13\n[Endnote 74:2]. This theory of an interpolation is easily\nadvanced, and it is drawn so entirely from our ignorance that it\ncan seldom be positively disproved, but it ought surely to be\nalleged with more convincing reasons than any that are put forward\nhere. We now possess six MSS. of the Epistle of Barnabas,\nincluding the famous Codex Sinaiticus, the accuracy of which in\nthe Biblical portions can be amply tested, and all of these six\nMSS., without exception, contain the passage. The addition of the\nwords [Greek: eis metanoian] represents much more the kind of\ninterpolations that were at all habitual. The interpolation\nhypothesis, as I said, is easily advanced, but the _onus\nprobandi_ must needs lie heavily against it. In accepting the\ntext as it stands we simply obey the Baconian maxim _hypotheses\nnon fingimus_, but it is strange, and must be surprising to a\nphilosophic mind, to what an extent the more extreme representatives\nof the negative criticism have gone back to the most condemned\nparts of the scholastic method; inconvenient facts are explained\naway by hypotheses as imaginary and unverifiable as the 'cycles\nand epicycles' by which the schoolmen used to explain the motions\nof the heavenly bodies.\n\n'If however,' the author continues, 'the passage 'originally\nformed part of the text, it is absurd to affirm that it is any\nproof of the use or existence of the first Gospel.' 'Absurd' is\nunder the circumstances a rather strong word to use; but, granting\nthat it would have been even 'absurd' to allege this passage, if\nit had stood alone, as a sufficient proof of the use of the\nGospel, it does not follow that there can be any objection to the\nmore guarded statement that it invests the use of the Gospel with\na certain antecedent probability. No doubt the quotation\n_may_ have been made from a lost Gospel, but here again\n[Greek: eis aphanes ton muthon anenenkas ouk echei elenchon]--\nthere is no verifying that about which we know nothing. The critic\nmay multiply Gospels as much as he pleases and an apologist at\nleast will not quarrel with him, but it would be more to the point\nif he could prove the existence in these lost writings of matter\n_conflicting_ with that contained in the extant Gospels. As\nit is, the only result of these unverifiable hypotheses is to\nraise up confirmatory documents in a quarter where apologists have\nnot hitherto claimed them.\n\nWe are delaying, however, too long upon points of quite secondary\nimportance. Two more passages are adduced; one, an application of\nPs. cx (The Lord said unto my Lord) precisely as in Matt. xxii.\n44, and the other a saying assigned to our Lord, 'They who wish to\nsee me and lay hold on my kingdom must receive me through\naffliction and suffering.' Of neither of these can we speak\npositively. There is perhaps a slight probability that the first\nwas suggested by our Gospel, and considering the character of the\nverifiable quotations in Barnabas, which often follow the sense\nonly and not the words, the second may be 'a free reminiscence of\nMatt. xvi. 24 compared with Acts xiv. 22,' but it is also possible\nthat it may be a saying quoted from an apocryphal Gospel.\n\nIt should perhaps be added that Lardner and Dr. Westcott both\nrefer to a quotation of Zech. xiii. 7 which appears in the common\ntext of the Epistle in a form closely resembling that in which the\nquotation is given in Matt. xxvi. 31 and diverging from the LXX,\nbut here again the Sinaitic Codex varies, and the text is too\nuncertain to lay stress upon, though perhaps the addition [Greek:\ntaes poimnaes] may incline the balance to the view that the text\nof the Gospel has influenced the form of the quotation [Endnote\n76:1].\n\nThe general result of our examination of the Epistle of Barnabas\nmay perhaps be stated thus, that while not supplying by itself\ncertain and conclusive proof of the use of our Gospels, still the\nphenomena accord better with the hypothesis of such a use. This\nEpistle stands in the second line of the evidence, and as a\nwitness is rather confirmatory than principal.\n\n\n                             3.\n\nAfter Dr. Lightfoot's masterly exposition there is probably\nnothing more to be said about the genuineness, date, and origin of\nthe Ignatian Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot has done in the most lucid\nand admirable manner just that which is so difficult to do, and\nwhich 'Supernatural Religion' has so signally failed in doing; he\nhas succeeded in conveying to the reader a true and just sense of\nthe exact weight and proportion of the different parts of the\nevidence. He has avoided such phrases as 'absurd,' 'impossible,'\n'preposterous,' that his opponent has dealt in so freely, but he\nhas weighed and balanced the evidence piece by piece; he has\ncarefully guarded his language so as never to let the positiveness\nof his conclusion exceed what the premises will warrant; he has\ndealt with the subject judicially and with a full consciousness of\nthe responsibility of his position [Endnote 77:1].\n\nWe cannot therefore, I think, do better than adopt Dr. Lightfoot's\nconclusion as the basis of our investigation, and treat the\nCuretonian (i.e. the three short Syriac) letters as (probably)\n'the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the Vossian letters\n(i.e. the shorter Greek recension of seven Epistles) are accepted\nas valid testimony at all events for the middle of the second\ncentury--the question of the genuineness of the letters being\nwaived.'\n\nThe Curetonian Epistles will then be dated either in 107 or in 115\nA.D., the two alternative years assigned to the martyrdom of\nIgnatius. In the Epistle to Polycarp which is given in this\nversion there is a parallel to Matt. x. 16, 'Be ye therefore wise\nas serpents and harmless as doves.' The two passages may be\ncompared thus:--\n\n     _Ign. ad Pol._ ii.\n\n[Greek: Psronimos ginou hos ophis en apasin kai akeaios osei\nperisetera.]\n\n     _Matt._ x. 16.\n\n[Greek: Ginesthe oun psronimoi hos oi opheis kai akeaioi hos ai\nperisterai.]\n\nWe should naturally place this quotation in the second column of\nour classified arrangement, as presenting a slight variation. At\nthe same time we should have little hesitation in referring it to\nthe passage in our Canonical Gospel. All the marked expressions\nare identical, especially the precise and selected words [Greek:\nphronimos] and [Greek: akeraios]. It is however possible that\nIgnatius may be quoting, not directly from our Gospel, but from\none of the original documents (such as Ewald's hypothetical\n'Spruch-sammlung') out of which our Gospel was composed--though it\nis somewhat remarkable that this particular sentence is wanting in\nthe parallel passage in St. Luke (cf. Luke x. 3). This may be so\nor not; we have no means of judging. But it should at any rate be\nremembered that this original document, supposing it to have had a\nsubstantive existence, most probably contained repeated references\nto miracles. The critics who refer Matt. x. 16 to the document in\nquestion, also agree in referring to it Matt. vii. 22, x. 8, xi.\n5, xii. 24 foll., &c., which speak distinctly of miracles, and\nprecisely in that indirect manner which is the best kind of\nevidence. Therefore if we accept the hypothesis suggested in\n'Supernatural Religion'--and it is a mere hypothesis, quite\nunverifiable--the evidence for miracles would not be materially\nweakened. The author would, I suppose, admit that it is at least\nequally probable that the saying was quoted from our present\nGospel.\n\nThis probability would be considerably heightened if the allusion\nto 'the star' in the Syriac of Eph. xix has, as it appears to\nhave, reference to the narrative of Matt. ii. In the Greek or\nVossian version of the Epistle it is expanded, 'How then was He\nmanifested to the ages? A star shone in heaven above all the\nstars, and the light thereof was unspeakable, and the strangeness\nthereof caused astonishment' ([Greek: Pos oun ephanerothae tois\naoisin; Astaer en ourano elampsen huper pantas tous asteras, kai\nto phos autou aneklalaeton aen, kai xenismon pareichen hae\nkainotaes autou]). This is precisely, one would suppose, the kind\nof passage that might be taken as internal evidence of the\ngenuineness of the Curetonian and later character of the Vossian\nversion. The Syriac ([Greek: hatina en haesouchia Theou to asteri]\n[or [Greek: apo tou asteros]] [Greek: eprachthae]), abrupt and\ndifficult as it is, does not look like an epitome of the Greek,\nand the Greek has exactly that exaggerated and apocryphal\ncharacter which would seem to point to a later date. It\ncorresponds indeed somewhat nearly to the language of the\nProtevangelium of James, \u00a721, [Greek: eidomen astera pammegethae\nlampsanta en tois astrois tou ouranou kai amblunonta tous allous\nasteras hoste mae phainesthai autous]. Both in the Protevangelium\nand in the Vossian Ignatius we see what is clearly a developement\nof the narrative in St. Matthew. If the Vossian Epistles are\ngenuine, then by showing the existence of such a developement at\nso early a date they will tend to throw back still further the\ncomposition of the Canonical Gospel. If the Syriac version, on the\nother hand, is the genuine one, it will be probable that Ignatius\nis directly alluding to the narrative which is peculiar to the\nfirst Evangelist.\n\nThese are (so far as I am aware) the only coincidences that are\nfound in the Curetonian version. Their paucity cannot surprise us,\nas in the same Curetonian text there is not a single quotation\nfrom the Old Testament. One Old Testament quotation and two\nEvangelical allusions occur in the Epistle to the Ephesians, which\nis one of the three contained in Cureton's MS.; the fifth and\nsixth chapters, however, in which they are found, are wanting in\nthe Syriac. The allusions are, in Eph. v, 'For if the prayer of\none or two have such power, how much more that of the bishop and\nof the whole Church,' which appears to have some relation to Matt.\nxviii. 19 ('If two of you shall agree' &c.), and in Eph. vi, 'For\nall whom the master of the house sends to be over his own\nhousehold we ought to receive as we should him that sent him,'\nwhich may be compared with Matt. x. 40 ('He that receiveth you'\n&c.). Both these allusions have some probability, though neither\ncan be regarded as at all certain. The Epistle to the Trallians\nhas one coincidence in c. xi, 'These are not plants of the Father'\n([Greek: phyteia Patros]), which recalls the striking expression\nof Matt. xv. 13, 'Every plant ([Greek: pasa phyteia]) that my\nheavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.' This is a\nmarked metaphor, and it is not found in the other Synoptics; it is\ntherefore at least more probable that it is taken from St.\nMatthew. The same must be said of another remarkable phrase in the\nEpistle to the Smyrnaeans, c. vi, [Greek: ho choron choreito]\n([Greek: ho dynamenos chorein choreito], Matt. xix. 12), and also\nof the statement in c. i. of the same Epistle that Jesus was\nbaptized by John 'that He might fulfil all righteousness' ([Greek:\nhina plaerothae pasa dikaiosynae hup' autou]). This corresponds\nwith the language of Matt. iii. 15 ([Greek: houtos gar prepon\nestin haemin plaerosai pasan dikaiosynaen]), which also has no\nparallel in the other Gospels. The use of the phrase [Greek:\nplaerosai pasan dikaiosynaen] is so peculiar, and falls in so\nentirely with the characteristic Christian Judaizing of our first\nEvangelist, that it seems especially unreasonable to refer it to\nany one else. There is not the smallest particle of evidence to\nconnect it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews to which our\nauthor seems to hint that it may belong; indeed all that we know\nof that Gospel may be said almost positively to exclude it. In\nthis Gospel our Lord is represented as saying, when His mother and\nHis brethren urge that He should accept baptism from John, 'What\nhave I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him?' and it is\nalmost by compulsion that He is at last induced to accompany them.\nIt will be seen that this is really an _opposite_ version of\nthe event to that of Ignatius and the first Gospel, where the\nobjection comes from _John_ and is overruled by our Lord\nHimself [Endnote 81:1].\n\nThere is however one quotation, introduced as such, in this same\nEpistle, the source of which Eusebius did not know, but which\nOrigen refers to the 'Preaching of Peter' and Jerome seems to have\nfound in the Nazarene version of the 'Gospel according to the\nHebrews.' This phrase is attributed to our Lord when He appeared\n'to those about Peter and said to them, Handle Me and see that I\nam not an incorporeal spirit' ([Greek: psaelaphaesate me, kai\nidete, hoti ouk eimi daimonion asomaton]). But for the statement\nof Origen that these words occurred in the 'Preaching of Peter'\nthey might have been referred without much difficulty to Luke\nxxiv. 39. The Preaching of Peter seems to have begun with the\nResurrection, and to have been an offshoot rather in the direction\nof the Acts than the Gospels [Endnote 81:2]. It would not\ntherefore follow from the use of it by Ignatius here, that the\nother quotations could also be referred to it. And, supposing it\nto be taken from the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' this would\nnot annul what has been said above as to the reason for thinking\nthat Ignatius (or the writer who bears his name) cannot have used\nthat Gospel systematically and alone.\n\n\n                             4.\n\nIs the Epistle which purports to have been written by Polycarp to the\nPhilippians to be accepted as genuine? It is mentioned in the most\nexpress terms by Irenaeus, who declares himself to have been a\ndisciple of Polycarp in his early youth, and speaks enthusiastically\nof the teaching which he then received. Irenaeus was writing between\nthe years 180-190 A.D., and Polycarp is generally allowed to have\nsuffered martyrdom about 167 or 168 [Endnote 82:1]. But the way in\nwhich Irenaeus speaks of the Epistle is such as to imply, not only\nthat it had been for some time in existence, but also that it had\nbeen copied and disseminated and had attained a somewhat wide\ncirculation. He is appealing to the Catholic tradition in opposition\nto heretical teaching such as that of Valentinus and Marcion, and he\nsays, 'There is an Epistle written by Polycarp to the Philippians of\ngreat excellence [Greek: hikanotatae], from which those who wish to\ndo so and who care for their own salvation may learn both the\ncharacter of his faith and the preaching of the truth' [Endnote\n82:2]. He would hardly have used such language if he had not had\nreason to think that the Epistle was at least fairly accessible to\nthe Christians for whom he is writing. But allowing for the somewhat\nslow (not too slow) multiplication and dissemination of writings\namong the Christians, this will throw back the composition of the\nletter well into the lifetime of Polycarp himself. In any case it\nmust have been current in circles immediately connected with\nPolycarp's person.\n\nAgainst external evidence such as this the objections that are\nbrought are really of very slight weight. That which is reproduced\nin 'Supernatural Religion' from an apparent contradiction between\nc. ix and c. xiii, is dismissed even by writers such as Ritschl\nwho believe that one or both chapters are interpolated. In c. ix\nthe martyrdom of Ignatius is upheld as an example, in c. xiii\nPolycarp asks for information about Ignatius 'et de his qui cum eo\nsunt,' apparently as if he were still living. But, apart from the\neasy and obvious solution which is accepted by Ritschl, following\nHefele and others, [Endnote 83:1] that the sentence is extant only\nin the Latin translation and that the phrase 'qui cum eo sunt' is\nmerely a paraphrase for [Greek: ton met' autou]; apart from this,\neven supposing the objection were valid, it would prove nothing\nagainst the genuineness of the Epistle. It might be taken to prove\nthat the second passage is an interpolation; but a contradiction\nbetween two passages in the same writing in no way tends to show\nthat that writing is not by its ostensible author. But surely\neither interpolator or forger must have had more sense than to\nplace two such gross and absurd contradictions within about sixty\nlines of each other.\n\nAn argument brought by Dr. Hilgenfeld against the date dissolves\naway entirely on examination. He thinks that the exhortation Orate\npro regibus (et potestatibus et principibus) in c. xii must needs\nrefer to the double rule of Antoninus Pius (147 A.D.) or Marcus\nAurelius and Lucius Verus (161 A.D.). But the writer of the\nEpistle is only reproducing the words of St. Paul in 1 Tim. ii. 2\n([Greek: parakalo ... poieisthai deaeseis ... hyper basileon kai\npanton ton en hyperochae onton]). The passage is wrongly referred\nin 'Supernatural Religion' to 1 Pet. ii. 17 [Endnote 84:1]. It is\nvery clear that the language of Polycarp, like that of St. Paul,\nis quite general. In order to limit it to the two Caesars we\nshould have had to read [Greek: hyper ton basileon].\n\nThe allusions which Schwegler finds to the Gnostic heresies are\nexplained when that critic at the end of his argument objects to\nthe Epistle that it makes use of a number of writings 'the origin\nof which must be placed in the second century, such as the Acts, 1\nPeter, the Epistles to the Philippians and to the Ephesians, and 1\nTimothy.' The objection belongs to the gigantic confusion of fact\nand hypothesis which makes up the so-called T\u00fcbingen theory, and\nfalls to the ground with it.\n\nIt should be noticed that those who regard the Epistle as\ninterpolated yet maintain the genuineness of those portions which\nare thought to contain allusions to the Gospels. Ritschl states\nthis [Endnote 84:2]; Dr. Donaldson confines the interpolation to\nc. xiii [Endnote 84:3]; and Volkmar not only affirms with his\nusual energy the genuineness of these portions of the Epistle, but\nhe also asserts that the allusions are really to our Gospels\n[Endnote 84:4].\n\nThe first that meets us is in c. ii, 'Remembering what the Lord said\nteaching, judge not that ye be not judged; forgive and it shall be\nforgiven unto you; pity that ye may be pitied; with what measure ye\nmete it shall be measured unto you again; and that blessed are the\npoor and those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs\nis the kingdom of God' [Endnote 85:1]. This passage (if taken from our\nGospels) is not a continuous quotation, but is made up from Luke vi.\n36-38, 20, Matt. v. 10, or of still more _disjecta membra_ of St.\nMatthew. It will be seen that it covers very similar ground with the\nquotation in Clement, and there is also a somewhat striking point of\nsimilarity with that writer in the phrase [Greek: eleeite hina\neleaetheate]. There is moreover a closer resemblance than to our\nGospels in the clause [Greek: aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin]. But\nthe order of the clauses is entirely different from that in Clement,\nand the first clause [Greek: mae krinete hina mae krithaete] is\nidentical with St. Matthew and more nearly resembles the parallel in\nSt. Luke than in Clement. These are perplexing phenomena, and seem to\nforbid a positive judgment. It would be natural to suppose, and all\nthat we know of the type of doctrine in the early Church would lead us\nto believe, that the Sermon on the Mount would be one of the most\nfamiliar parts of Christian teaching, that it would be largely\ncommitted to memory and quoted from memory. There would be no\ndifficulty in employing that hypothesis here if the passage stood\nalone. The breaking up of the order too would not surprise us when we\ncompare the way in which the same discourse appears in St. Luke and in\nSt. Matthew. But then comes in the strange coincidence in the single\nclause with Clement; and there is also another curious phenomenon, the\nphrase [Greek: aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin] compared with Luke's\n[Greek: apoluete kai apoluthaesesthe] has very much the appearance of\na parallel translation from the same Aramaic original, which may\nperhaps be the famous 'Spruch-sammlung.' This might however be\nexplained as the substitution of synonymous terms by the memory. There\nis I believe nothing in the shape of direct evidence to show the\npresence of a different version of the Sermon on the Mount in any of\nthe lost Gospels, and, on the other hand, there are considerable\ntraces of disturbance in the Canonical text (compare e.g. the various\nreadings on Matt. v. 44). It seems on the whole difficult to construct\na theory that shall meet all the facts. Perhaps a mixed hypothesis\nwould be best. It is probable that memory has been to some extent at\nwork (the form of the quotation naturally suggests this) and is to\naccount for some of Polycarp's variations; at the same time I cannot\nbut think that there has been somewhere a written version different\nfrom our Gospels to which he and Clement have had access.\n\nThere are several other sayings which seem to belong to the Sermon\non the Mount; thus in c. vi, 'If we pray the Lord to forgive us we\nalso ought to forgive' (cf. Matt. vi. 14 sq.); in c. viii, 'And if\nwe suffer for His name let us glorify Him' (cf. Matt. v. 11 sq.);\nin c. xii, 'Pray for them that persecute you and hate you, and for\nthe enemies of the cross; that your fruit may be manifest in all\nthings, that ye may be therein perfect' (cf. Matt. v. 44, 48). All\nthese passages give the sense, but only the sense, of the first\n(and partly also of the third) Gospel. There is however one\nquotation which coincides verbally with two of the Synoptics\n[Praying the all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation, as the\nLord said], The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak\n([Greek: to men pneuma prothumon, hae de sarx asthenaes], Matt.,\nMark, Polycarp; with the introductory clause compare, not Matt.\nvi. 13, but xxvi. 41). In the cases where the sense alone is given\nthere is no reason to think that the writer intends to give more.\nAt the same time it will be observed that all the quotations refer\neither to the double or triple synopsis where we have already\nproof of the existence of the saying in question in more than a\nsingle form, and not to those portions that are peculiar to the\nindividual Evangelists. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' is\ntherefore not without reason when he says that they may be derived\nfrom other collections than our actual Gospels. The possibility\ncannot be excluded. It ought however to be borne in mind that if\nsuch collections did exist, and if Polycarp's allusions or\nquotations are to be referred to them, they are to the same extent\nevidence that these hypothetical collections did not materially\ndiffer from our present Gospels, but rather bore to them very much\nthe same relation that they bear to each other. And I do not know\nthat we can better sum up the case in regard to the Apostolic\nFathers than thus; we have two alternatives to choose between,\neither they made use of our present Gospels, or else of writings\nso closely resembling our Gospels and so nearly akin to them that\ntheir existence only proves the essential unity and homogeneity of\nthe evangelical tradition.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nJUSTIN MARTYR.\n\n\nHitherto the extant remains of Christian literature have been\nscanty and the stream of evangelical quotation has been equally\nso, but as we approach the middle of the second century it becomes\nmuch more abundant. We have copious quotations from a Gospel used\nabout the year 140 by Marcion; the Clementine Homilies, the date\nof which however is more uncertain, also contain numerous\nquotations; and there are still more in the undoubted works of\nJustin Martyr. When I speak of quotations, I do not wish to beg\nthe question by implying that they are necessarily taken from our\npresent Gospels, I merely mean quotations from an evangelical\ndocument of some sort. This reservation has to be made especially\nin regard to Justin.\n\nStrictly according to the chronological order we should not have\nto deal with Justin until somewhat later, but it will perhaps be\nbest to follow the order of 'Supernatural Religion,' the principle\nof which appears to be to discuss the orthodox writers first and\nheretical writings afterwards. Modern critics seem pretty\ngenerally to place the two Apologies in the years 147-150 A.D. and\nthe Dialogue against Tryphon a little later. Dr. Keim indeed would\nthrow forward the date of Justin's writings as far as from 155-160\non account of the mention of Marcion [Endnote 89:1], but this is\ndecided by both Hilgenfeld [Endnote 89:2] and Lipsius to be too\nlate. I see that Mr. Hort, whose opinion on such matters deserves\nhigh respect, comes to the conclusion 'that we may without fear of\nconsiderable error set down Justin's First Apology to 145, or\nbetter still to 146, and his death to 148. The Second Apology, if\nreally separate from the First, will then fall in 146 or 147, and\nthe Dialogue with Tryphon about the same time' [Endnote 89:3]\n\nNo definite conclusion can be drawn from the title given by Justin to\nthe work or works he used, that of the 'Memoirs' or 'Recollections' of\nthe Apostles, and it will be best to leave our further enquiry quite\nunfettered by any assumption in respect to them. The title certainly\ndoes not of necessity imply a single work composed by the Apostles\ncollectively [Endnote 89:4], any more than the parallel phrase 'the\nwritings of the Prophets' [Endnote 89:5] ([Greek: ta sungrammata ton\nprophaeton]), which Justin couples with the 'Memoirs' as read together\nin the public services of the Church, implies a single and joint\nproduction on the part of the Prophets. This hypothesis too is open to\nthe very great objection that so authoritative a work, if it existed,\nshould have left absolutely no other trace behind it. So far as the\ntitle is concerned, the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' may be either a\nsingle work or an almost indefinite number. In one place Justin says\nthat the Memoirs were composed 'by His Apostles and their followers'\n[Endnote 90:1], which seems to agree remarkably, though not exactly,\nwith the statement in the prologue to St. Luke. In another he says\nexpressly that the Memoirs are called Gospels ([Greek: ha kaleitai\neuangelia]) [Endnote 90:2]. This clause has met with the usual fate of\nparenthetic statements which do not quite fall in with preconceived\nopinions, and is dismissed as a 'manifest interpolation,' a gloss\nhaving crept into the text from the margin. It would be difficult to\nestimate the exact amount of probability for or against this theory,\nbut possible at any rate it must be allowed to be; and though the\n_prim\u00e2 facie_ view of the genuineness of the words is supported by\nanother place in which a quotation is referred directly 'to the\nGospel,' still too much ought not perhaps to be built on this clause\nalone.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA convenient distinction may be drawn between the material and\nformal use of the Gospels; and the most satisfactory method\nperhaps will be, to run rapidly through Justin's quotations, first\nwith a view to ascertain their relation to the Canonical Gospels\nin respect to their general historical tenor, and secondly to\nexamine the amount of verbal agreement. I will try to bring out as\nclearly as possible the double phenomena both of agreement and\ndifference; the former (in regard to which condensation will be\nnecessary) will be indicated both by touching in the briefest\nmanner the salient points and by the references in the margin; the\nlatter, which I have endeavoured to give as exhaustively as\npossible, are brought out by italics in the text. The thread of\nthe narrative then, so far as it can be extracted from the genuine\nwritings of Justin, will be much as follows [Endnote 91:1].\n\n                  According to Justin the Messiah\n                  was born, without sin, of a\n[SIDENOTES]       virgin _who_ was descended from     [SIDENOTES]\n[Matt. 1.2-6.]    David, Jesse, Phares, Judah,        [Luke 3.31-34.]\n                  Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, if\n                  not (the reading here is doubtful)\n                  from Adam himself. [Justin\n                  therefore, it may be inferred, had\n                  before him a genealogy, though\n                  not apparently, as the Canonical\n                  Gospels, that of Joseph but of\n                  Mary.] To Mary it was announced\n                  by the angel Gabriel                [Luke 1.26.]\n                  that, while yet a virgin, the\n                  power of God, or of the Highest,    [Luke 1.35.]\n                  should overshadow her and she\n                  should conceive and bear a Son      [Luke 1.31.]\n[Matt. 1.21.]     whose name she should call Jesus,\n                  because He should save His\n                  people from their sins. Joseph\n                  observing that Mary, his espoused,\n                  was with child was\n[Matt. 1.18-25.]  warned in a dream not to put\n                  her away, because that which\n                  was in her womb was of the\n                  Holy Ghost. Thus the prophecy,\n[Matt. 1.23.]     Is. vii. 14 (Behold the\n                  virgin &c.), was fulfilled. The\n                  mother of John the Baptist was      [Luke 1.57.]\n                  Elizabeth. The birth-place of\n                  the Messiah had been indicated\n[Matt. 2.5, 6.]   by the prophecy of Micah (v. 2,\n                  Bethlehem not the least among\n                  the princes of Judah). There\n                  He was born, as the Romans\n                  might learn from the census\n                  taken by Cyrenius the first\n                  _procurator_ [Greek:                [Luke 2.1, 2.]\n                  epitropou] _of Judaea_.\n                  His life extended from Cyrenius\n                  to Pontius Pilate. So, in\n                  consequence of this the first census\n                  in Judaea, Joseph went up from\n                  Nazareth where he dwelt to          [Luke 2.4.]\n                  Bethlehem _whence he was_, as a\n                  member of the tribe of Judah.\n                  The parents of Jesus could find\n                  no lodging in Bethlehem, so it      [Luke 2.7.]\n                  came to pass that He was born\n                  _in a cave near the village_ and\n                  laid in a manger. At His birth      [_ibid._]\n[Matt. 2.1.]      there came Magi _from Arabia_,\n                  who knew by a star that had\n                  appeared in the _heaven_ that a\n[Matt. 2.2.]      king had been born in Judaea.\n                  Having paid Him their homage\n[Matt. 2.11.]     and offered gifts of gold, frankincense\n                  and myrrh, they were\n[Matt. 2.12.]     warned not to return to Herod\n[Matt. 2. 1-7.]   whom they had consulted on\n                  the way. He however not willing\n                  that the Child should escape,\n[Matt. 2.16.]     ordered a massacre of _all_ the\n                  children in Bethlehem, fulfilling\n[Matt. 2.17, 18.] the prophecy of Jer. xxxi. 15\n                  (Rachel weeping for her children &c.).\n                  Joseph and his wife meanwhile\n[Matt. 2.13-15.]  with the Babe had fled\n                  to Egypt, for the Father resolved\n                  that He to whom He had\n                  given birth should not die before\n                  He had preached His word\n                  as a man. There they stayed\n[Matt. 2.22]      until Archelaus succeeded Herod,\n                  and then returned.\n\n                  By process of nature He grew\n                  to the age of thirty years or       [Luke 3.23.]\n                  more, _not comely of aspect_ (_as\n                  had been prophesied_), practising\n[Mark 6.3.]       the trade of a carpenter, _making\n                  ploughs and yokes, emblems of\n                  righteousness_. He remained\n                  hidden till John, the herald of\n                  his coming, came forward, the\n[Matt 17.12, 13.] spirit of Elias being in him, and\n[Matt. 3.2.]      as he _sat_ by the river Jordan     [Luke 3.3.]\n                  cried to men to repent. As he\n[Matt. 3.4.]      preached in his wild garb he\n                  declared that he was not the        [John 1.19 ff.]\n                  Christ, but that One stronger\n[Matt. 3.11, 12.] than he was coming after him        [Luke 3. 16, 17.]\n                  whose shoes he was not worthy\n                  to bear, &c. The later history\n                  of John Justin also mentions,\n[Matt. 14.3.]     how, having been put in prison,     [Luke 3.20.]\n                  at a feast on Herod's birthday\n[Matt. 14.6 ff.]  he was beheaded at the instance\n                  of his sister's daughter. This\n[Matt. 17.11-13.] John was Elias who was to come\n                  before the Christ.\n\n                  At the baptism of Jesus _a fire\n                  was kindled on the Jordan_, and,\n                  as He went up out of the water,\n[Matt. 3.16.]     the Holy Ghost alighted upon        [Luke 3.21, 22.]\n                  Him, and a voice was heard from\n                  heaven _saying in the words of\n                  David_, 'Thou art My Son, _this\n                  day have I begotten Thee_.' After\n[Matt. 4.1, 9.]   His baptism He was tempted by\n                  the devil, who ended by claiming\n                  homage from Him. To this\n                  Christ replied, 'Get thee behind\n[Matt 4.11.]      Me, Satan,' &c. So the devil        [Luke 4.13.]\n                  departed from Him at that time\n                  worsted and convicted.\n\n                  Justin knew that the words\n                  of Jesus were short and concise,\n                  not like those of a Sophist. That\n                  He wrought miracles _might be\n                  learnt from the Acts of Pontius\n                  Pilate, fulfilling Is. xxxv. 4-6._\n[Matt. 9.29-31,   Those who from their _birth_ were   [Luke 18.35-43.]\n32, 33. 1-8.]     blind, dumb, lame, He healed--      [Luke 11.14 ff.]\n[Matt. 4.23.]     indeed He healed all sickness and   [Luke 5.17-26.]\n[Matt 9.18 ff.]   disease--and He raised the dead.    [Luke 8.41 ff.]\n                  _The Jews ascribed these miracles   [Luke 7. 11-18.]\n                  to magic_.\n\n                  Jesus, too (like John, _whose\n                  mission ceased when He appeared\n                  in public_), began His ministry\n[Matt 4.17.]      by proclaiming that the kingdom\n                  of heaven was at hand.\n                  Many precepts of the Sermon\n                  on the Mount Justin has preserved,\n[Matt 5.20.]      the righteousness of the\n[Matt 5.28.]      Scribes and Pharisees, the\n[Matt 5.29-32.]   adultery of the heart, the offending\n[Matt 5.34, 37,   eye, divorce, oaths, returning\n        39]\n[Matt 5.44.]      good for evil, loving and praying\n[Matt 5.42.]      for enemies, giving to those that   [Luke 6.30.]\n[Matt 6.19, 20.]  need, placing the treasure in\n[Matt 6.25-27.]   heaven, not caring for bodily       [Luke 12.22-24.]\n[Matt 5.45.]      wants, but copying the mercy\n[Matt 6.21, &c.]  and goodness of God, not acting\n                  from worldly motives--above all,\n[Matt 7.22, 23.]  deeds not words.                    [Luke 13.26, 27.]\n\n                  Justin quotes sayings from\n[Matt. 8.11, 12.] the narrative of the centurion      [Luke 13.28, 29.]\n[Matt. 9.13.]     of Capernaum and of the feast       [Luke 5.32.]\n                  in the house of Matthew. He\n[Matt. 10.1 ff.]  has, the choosing of the twelve     [Luke 6.13.]\n                  Apostles, with the name given\n[Mark 3.17.]      to the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges\n                  or 'sons of thunder,' the com-\n                  mission of the Apostles, the        [Luke 10.19.]\n[Matt. 11.12-15.] discourse after the departure of    [Luke 16.16.]\n                  the messengers of John, the\n[Matt. 16.4.]     sign of the prophet Jonas, the\n[Matt. 13.3 ff.]  parable of the sower, Peter's       [Luke 8.5 ff.]\n[Matt. 16.15-18.] confession, the announcement of     [Luke 9.22.]\n[Matt. 16.21.]    the Passion.\n\n                  From the account of the last\n                  journey and the closing scenes\n                  of our Lord's life, Justin has,\n[Matt. 19.16,17.] the history of the rich young       [Luke 18.18,19.]\n[Matt. 21.1 ff.]  man, the entry into Jerusalem,      [Luke 19.29 ff.]\n                  the cleansing of the Temple, the    [Luke 19.46.]\n[Matt. 22.11.]    wedding garment, the controversial\n                  discourses about the                [Luke 20.22-25.]\n[Matt. 22.21.]    tribute money, the resurrection,    [Luke 20.35,36.]\n[Matt. 22.37,38.] and the greatest commandment,\n[Matt. 23.2 ff.]  those directed against the Pha-     [Luke 11.42,52.]\n[Matt. 25.34,41.] risees and the eschatological\n[Matt. 25.14-30.] discourse, the parable of the\n                  talents. Justin's account of the\n                  institution of the Lord's Supper    [Luke 22.19,20.]\n                  agrees with that of Luke. After\n[Matt. 26.30.]    it Jesus sang a hymn, and taking\n[Matt. 26.36,37.] with Him three of His disciples\n                  to the Mount of Olives He was\n                  in an agony, His sweat falling in   [Luke 22.42-44.]\n                  _drops_ (not necessarily of blood)\n                  to the ground. His captors\n                  surrounded Him _like the 'horned\n                  bulls' of Ps. xxii._ 11-14; there\n[Matt. 26.56.]    was none to help, for His followers\n                  _to a man_ forsook Him.\n[Matt. 26.57 ff.] He was led both before the          [Luke 22.66 ff.]\n                  Scribes and Pharisees and before\n[Matt. 27.11 ff.] Pilate. In the trial before Pilate  [Luke 23.1 ff.]\n[Matt. 27.14]     He kept silence, _as Ps. xxii._ 15.\n                  Pilate sent Him bound to Herod.     [Luke 23.7.]\n\n                  Justin relates most of the incidents\n                  of the Crucifixion in detail,\n                  for confirmation of which he refers\n                  to the _Acts of Pilate_. He marks\n                  especially the fulfilment in various\n                  places of Ps. xxii. He has the\n                  piercing with nails, the casting of [Luke 24.40.]\n[Matt. 27.35.]    lots and dividing of the garments,  [Luke 23.34.]\n[Matt. 27.39 ff.] the _sneers_ of the crowd           [Luke 23.35.]\n                  (somewhat expanded from the\n[Matt. 27.42.]    Synoptics), and their taunt, _He\n                  who raised the dead_ let Him save\n[Matt. 27.46.]    Himself; also the cry of despair,\n                  'My God, My God, why hast\n                  Thou forsaken Me?' and the last\n                  words, 'Father, into Thy hands      [Luke 23.46.]\n                  I commend My Spirit.'\n\n[Matt. 27.57-60.] The burial took place in the\n                  evening, the disciples being all\n[Matt. 26.31,56.] scattered in accordance with\n                  Zech. xiii. 7. On the third day,    [Luke 24.21.]\n[Matt. 28.1 ff.]  the day of the sun or the first     [Luke 24.1 ff.]\n                  (or eighth) day of the week,\n                  Jesus rose from the dead. He\n                  then convinced His disciples that\n                  His sufferings had been prophe-     [Luke 24.26, 46.]\n                  tically foretold and they repented  [Luke 24.32.]\n                  of having deserted Him. Having\n                  given them His last commission\n                  they saw Him ascend up into         [Luke 24.50.]\n                  heaven. Thus believing and\n                  having first waited to receive\n                  power from Him they went forth\n                  into all the world and preached\n                  the word of God. To this day\n[Matt. 28.19]     Christians baptize in the name\n                  of the Father of all, and of our\n                  Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the\n                  Holy Ghost.\n\n[Matt. 28.12-15.] The Jews spread a story that\n                  the disciples stole the body of\n                  Jesus from the grave and so\n                  deceived men by asserting that\n                  He was risen from the dead and\n                  ascended into heaven.\n\n                  There is nothing in Justin (as\n                  in Luke xxiv, but cp. Acts i. 3)\n                  to show that the Ascension did\n                  not take place _on the same day_\n                  as the Resurrection.\n\nI have taken especial pains in the above summary to bring out the\npoints in which Justin way seem to differ from or add to the\ncanonical narratives. But, without stopping at present to consider\nthe bearing of these upon Justin's relation to the Gospels, I will\nat once proceed to make some general remarks which the summary\nseems to suggest.\n\n(1) If such is the outline of Justin's Gospel, it appears to be\nreally a question of comparatively small importance whether or not\nhe made use of our present Gospels in their present form. If he\ndid not use these Gospels he used other documents which contained\nsubstantially the same matter. The question of the reality of\nmiracles clearly is not affected. Justin's documents, whatever\nthey were, not only contained repeated notices of the miracles in\ngeneral, the healing of the lame and the paralytic, of the maimed\nand the dumb, and the raising of the dead--not only did they\ninclude several discourses, such as the reply to the messengers of\nJohn and the saying to the Centurion whose servant was healed,\nwhich have direct reference to miracles, but they also give marked\nprominence to the chief and cardinal miracles of the Gospel\nhistory, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. It is antecedently\nquite possible that the narrative of these events may have been\nderived from a document other than our Gospels; but, if so, that\nis only proof of the existence of further and independent evidence\nto the truth of the history. This document, supposing it to exist,\nis a surprising instance of the homogeneity of the evangelical\ntradition; it differs from the three Synoptic Gospels, nay, we may\nsay even from the four Gospels, _less_ than they differ from\neach other.\n\n(2) But we may go further than this. If Justin really used a\nseparate substantive document now lost, that document, to judge\nfrom its contents, must have represented a secondary, or rather a\ntertiary, stage of the evangelical literature; it must have\nimplied the previous existence of our present Gospels. I do not\nnow allude to the presence in it of added traits, such as the cave\nof the Nativity and the fire on Jordan, which are of the nature of\nthose mythical details that we find more fully developed in the\nApocryphal Gospels. I do not so much refer to these--though, for\ninstance, in the case of the fire on Jordan it is highly probable\nthat Justin's statement is a translation into literal fact of the\ncanonical (and Justinian) saying, 'He shall baptize with the Holy\nGhost and with fire'--but, on general grounds, the relation which\nthis supposed document bears to the extant Gospels shows that it\nmust have been in point of time posterior to them.\n\nThe earlier stages of evangelical composition present a nucleus,\nwith a more or less defined circumference, of unity, and outside\nof this a margin of variety. There was a certain body of\nnarrative, which, in whatever form it was handed down--whether as\noral or written--at a very early date obtained a sort of general\nrecognition, and seems to have been as a matter of course\nincorporated in the evangelical works as they appeared.\n\nBesides this there was also other matter which, without such\ngeneral recognition, had yet a considerable circulation, and,\nthough not found in all, was embodied in more than one of the\ncurrent compilations. But, as we should naturally expect, these\ntwo classes did not exhaust the whole of the evangelical matter.\nEach successive historian found himself able by special researches\nto add something new and as yet unpublished to the common stock.\nThus, the first of our present Evangelists has thirty-five\nsections or incidents besides the whole of the first two chapters\npeculiar to himself. The third Evangelist has also two long\nchapters of preliminary history, and as many as fifty-six sections\nor incidents which have no parallel in the other Gospels. Much of\nthis peculiar matter in each case bears an individual and\ncharacteristic stamp. The opening chapters of the first and third\nSynoptics evidently contain two distinct and independent\ntraditions. So independent indeed are they, that the negative\nschool of critics maintain them to be irreconcilable, and the\nattempts to harmonise them have certainly not been completely\nsuccessful [Endnote 101:1]. These differences, however, show what\nrich quarries of tradition were open to the enquirer in the first\nage of Christianity, and how readily he might add to the stores\nalready accumulated by his predecessors. But this state of things\ndid not last long. As in most cases of the kind, the productive\nperiod soon ceased, and the later writers had a choice of two\nthings, either to harmonise the conflicting records of previous\nhistorians, or to develope their details in the manner that we\nfind in the Apocryphal Gospels.\n\nBut if Justin used a single and separate document or any set of\ndocuments independent of the canonical, then we may say with\nconfidence that that document or set of documents belonged entirely to\nthis secondary stage. It possesses both the marks of secondary\nformation. Such details as are added to the previous evangelical\ntradition are just of that character which we find in the Apocryphal\nGospels. But these details are comparatively slight and insignificant;\nthe main tendency of Justin's Gospel (supposing it to be a separate\ncomposition) was harmonistic. The writer can hardly have been ignorant\nof our Canonical Gospels; he certainly had access, if not to them, yet\nto the sources, both general and special, from which they are taken.\nHe not only drew from the main body of the evangelical tradition, but\nalso from those particular and individual strains which appear in the\nfirst and third Synoptics. He has done this in the spirit of a true\n_desultor_, passing backwards and forwards first to one and then to\nthe other, inventing no middle links, but merely piecing together the\ntwo accounts as best he could. Indeed the preliminary portions of\nJustin's Gospel read very much like the sort of rough _prim\u00e2 facie_\nharmony which, without any more profound study, most people make for\nthemselves. But the harmonising process necessarily implies matter to\nharmonise, and that matter must have had the closest possible\nresemblance to the contents of our Gospels.\n\nIf, then, Justin made use either of a single document or set of\ndocuments distinct from those which have become canonical, we\nconclude that it or they belonged to a later and more advanced\nstage of formation. But it should be remembered that the case is a\nhypothetical one. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems\ninclined to maintain that Justin did use such a document or\ndocuments, and not our Gospels. If he did, then the consequence\nabove stated seems to follow. But I do not at all care to press\nthis inference; it is no more secure than the premiss upon which\nit is founded. Only it seems to me that the choice lies between\ntwo alternatives and no more; either Justin used our Gospels, or\nelse he used a document later than our Gospels and presupposing\nthem. The reader may take which side of the alternative he\npleases.\n\nThe question is, which hypothesis best covers and explains the\nfacts. It is not impossible that Justin may have had a special\nGospel such as has just been described. There is a tendency among\nthose critics who assign Justin's quotations to an uncanonical\nsource to find that source in the so-called Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews or some of its allied forms. But a large majority of\ncritics regard the Gospel according to the Hebrews as holding\nprecisely this secondary relation to the canonical Matthew.\nJustin's document can hardly have been the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, at least alone, as that Gospel omitted the section Matt.\ni. 18-ii. 23 [Endnote 103:1], which Justin certainly retained. But\nit is within the bounds of possibility--it would be hazardous to\nsay more--that he may have had another Gospel so modified and\ncompiled as to meet all the conditions of the case. For my own\npart, I think it decidedly the more probable hypothesis that he\nused our present Gospels with some peculiar document, such as this\nGospel according to the Hebrews, or perhaps, as Dr. Hilgenfeld\nthinks, the ground document of the Gospel according to Peter (a\nwork of which we know next to nothing except that it favoured\nDocetism and was not very unlike the Canonical Gospels) and the\nProtevangelium of James (or some older document on which that work\nwas founded) in addition.\n\nIt will be well to try to establish this position a little more in\ndetail; and therefore I will proceed to collect first, the\nevidence for the use, either mediate or direct, of the Synoptic\nGospels, and secondly, that for the use of one or more Apocryphal\nGospels. We still keep to the substance of Justin's Gospel, and\nreserve the question of its form.\n\nOf those portions of the first Synoptic which appear to be derived\nfrom a peculiar source, and for the presence of which we have no\nevidence in any other Gospel of the same degree of originality,\nJustin has the following: Joseph's suspicions of his wife, the\nspecial statement of the significance of the name Jesus ('for He\nshall save His people from their sins,' Matt. i. 21, verbally\nidentical), the note upon the fulfilment of the prophecy Is. vii.\n14 ('Behold a virgin,' &c.), the visit of the Magi guided by a\nstar, their peculiar gifts, their consultation of Herod and the\nwarning given them not to return to him, the massacre of the\nchildren at Bethlehem, fulfilling Jer. xxxi. 15, the descent into\nEgypt, the return of the Holy Family at the succession of\nArchelaus. The Temptations Justin gives in the order of Matthew.\nFrom the Sermon on the Mount he has the verses v. 14, 20, 28, vi.\n1, vii. 15, 21, and from the controversial discourse against the\nPharisees, xxiii. 15, 24, which are without parallels. The\nprophecy, Is. xlii. 1-4, is applied as by Matthew alone. There is\nan apparent allusion to the parable of the wedding garment. The\ncomment of the disciples upon the identification of the Baptist\nwith Elias (Matt. xvii. 13), the sign of the prophet Jonas\n(Matt. xvi. 1, 4), and the triumphal entry (the ass _with the\ncolt_), show a special affinity to St. Matthew. And, lastly, in\nconcert with the same Evangelist, Justin has the calumnious report\nof the Jews (Matt. xxviii. 12 15) and the baptismal formula (Matt.\nxxviii. 19).\n\nOf the very few details that are peculiar to St. Mark, Justin has\nthe somewhat remarkable one of the bestowing of the surname\nBoanerges on the sons of Zebedee. Mark also appears to approach\nmost nearly to Justin in the statements that Jesus practised the\ntrade of a carpenter (cf. Mark vi. 3) and that He healed those who\nwere diseased _from their birth_ (cf. Mark ix. 21), and\nperhaps in the emphasis upon the oneness of God in the reply\nrespecting the greatest commandment.\n\nIn common with St. Luke, Justin has the mission of the angel\nGabriel to Mary, the statement that Elizabeth was the mother of\nJohn, that the census was taken under Cyrenius, that Joseph went\nup from Nazareth to Bethlehem [Greek: hothen aen], that no room\nwas found in the inn, that Jesus was thirty years old when He\nbegan His ministry, that He was sent from Pilate to Herod, with\nthe account of His last words. There are also special affinities\nin the phrase quoted from the charge to the Seventy (Luke x. 19),\nin the verse Luke xi. 52, in the account of the answer to the rich\nyoung man, of the institution of the Lord's Supper, of the Agony\nin the Garden, and of the Resurrection and Ascension.\n\nThese coincidences are of various force. Some of the single verses\nquoted, though possessing salient features in common, have also,\nas we shall see, more or less marked differences. Too much stress\nshould not be laid on the allegation of the same prophecies,\nbecause there may have been a certain understanding among the\nChristians as to the prophecies to be quoted as well as the\nversions in which they were to be quoted. But there are other\npoints of high importance. Just in proportion as an event is from\na historical point of view suspicious, it is significant as a\nproof of the use of the Gospel in which it is contained; such\nwould be the adoration of the Magi, the slaughter of the\ninnocents, the flight into Egypt, the conjunction of the foal with\nthe ass in the entry into Jerusalem. All these are strong evidence\nfor the use of the first Gospel, which is confirmed in the highest\ndegree by the occurrence of a reflection peculiar to the\nEvangelist, 'Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them\nof John the Baptist' (Matt. xvii. 13, compare Dial. 49). Of the\nsame nature are the allusions to the census of Cyrenius (there is\nno material discrepancy between Luke and Justin), and the\nstatement of the age at which the ministry of Jesus began. These\nare almost certainly remarks by the third Evangelist himself, and\nnot found in any previously existing source. The remand to Herod\nin all probability belonged to a source that was quite peculiar to\nhim. The same may be said with only a little less confidence of\nthe sections of the preliminary history.\n\nTaking these salient points together with the mass of the\ncoincidences each in its place, and with the due weight assigned\nto it, the conviction seems forced upon us that Justin did either\nmediately or immediately, and most probably immediately and\ndirectly, make use of our Canonical Gospels.\n\nOn the other hand, the argument that he used, whether in addition\nto these or exclusively, a Gospel now lost, rests upon the\nfollowing data. Justin apparently differs from the Synoptics in\ngiving the genealogy of Mary, not of Joseph. In Apol. i. 34 he\nsays that Cyrenius was the first governor (procurator) of Judaea,\ninstead of saying that the census first took place under Cyrenius.\n[It should be remarked, however, that in another place, Dial. 78,\nhe speaks of 'the census which then took place for the first time\n([Greek: ousaes tote protaes]) under Cyrenius.'] He states that\nMary brought forth her Son in a cave near the village of\nBethlehem. He ten times over speaks of the Magi as coming from\nArabia, and not merely from the East. He says emphatically that\nall the children ([Greek: pantas haplos tous paidas]) in Bethlehem\nwere slain without mentioning the limitation of age given in St.\nMatthew. He alludes to details in the humble occupation of Jesus\nwho practised the trade of a carpenter. Speaking of the ministry\nof John, he three times repeats the phrase _'as he sat'_ by\nthe river Jordan. At the baptism of Jesus he says that 'fire was\nkindled on' or rather 'in the Jordan,' and that a voice was heard\nsaying, 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.' He adds\nto the notice of the miracles that the Jews thought they were the\neffect of magic. Twice he refers, as evidence for what he is\nsaying, to the Acts of Pontius Pilate. In two places Justin sees a\nfulfilment of Ps. xxii, where none is pointed out by the\nSynoptics. He says that _all_ the disciples forsook their\nMaster, which seems to overlook Peter's attack on the high\npriest's servant. In the account of the Crucifixion he somewhat\namplifies the Synoptic version of the mocking gestures of the\ncrowd. And besides these matters of fact he has two sayings, 'In\nwhatsoever I find you, therein will I also judge you,' and 'There\nshall be schisms and heresies,' which are without parallel, or\nhave no exact parallel, in our Gospels.\n\nSome of these points are not of any great importance. The\nreference to the Acts of Pilate should in all probability be taken\nalong with the parallel reference to the census of Cyrenius, in\nwhich Justin asserts that the birth of Jesus would be found\nregistered. Both appear to be based, not upon any actual document\nthat Justin had seen, but upon the bold assumption that the\nofficial documents must contain a record of facts which he knew\nfrom other sources [Endnote 107:1]. In regard to Cyrenius he\nevidently has the Lucan version in his mind, though he seems to\nhave confused this with his knowledge that Cyrenius was the first\nto exercise the Roman sovereignty in Judaea, which was matter of\nhistory. Justin seems to be mistaken in regarding Cyrenius as\n'procurator' [Greek: epitropou] of Judaea. He instituted the\ncensus not in this capacity, but as proconsul of Syria. The first\nprocurator of Judaea was Coponius. Some of Justin's peculiarities\nmay quite fairly be explained as unintentional. General statements\nwithout the due qualifications, such as those in regard to the\nmassacre of the children and the conduct of the disciples in\nGethsemane, are met with frequently enough to this day, and in\nworks of a more professedly critical character than Justin's. The\ndescription of the carpenter's trade and of the crowd at the\nCrucifixion may be merely rhetorical amplifications in the one\ncase of the general Synoptic statement, in the other of the\nspecial statement in St. Mark. A certain fulness of style is\ncharacteristic of Justin. That he attributes the genealogy to Mary\nmay be a natural instance of reflection; the inconsistency in the\nSynoptic Gospels would not be at first perceived, and the simplest\nway of removing it would be that which Justin has adopted. It\nshould be noticed however that he too distinctly says that Joseph\nwas of the tribe of Judah (Dial. 78) and that his family came from\nBethlehem, which looks very much like an unobliterated trace of\nthe same inconsistency. It is also noticeable that in the\nnarrative of the Baptism one of the best MSS. of the Old Latin (a,\nCodex Vercellensis) has, in the form of an addition to Matt. iii.\n15, 'et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut\ntimerent omnes qui advenerant,' and there is a very similar\naddition in g1 (Codex San-Germanensis). Again, in Luke iii. 22 the\nreading [Greek: ego saemeron gegennaeka se] for [Greek: en soi\neudokaesa] is shared with Justin by the most important Graeco-\nLatin MS. D (Codex Bezae), and a, b, c, ff, l of the Old Version;\nAugustine expressly states that the reading was found 'in several\nrespectable copies (aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus), though\nnot in the older Greek Codices.'\n\nThere will then remain the specifying of Arabia as the home of the\nMagi, the phrase [Greek: kathezomenos] used of John on the banks\nof the Jordan, the two unparallelled sentences, and the cave of\nthe Nativity. Of these the phrase [Greek: kathezomenos], which\noccurs in three places, Dial. 49, 51, 88, but always in Justin's\nown narrative and not in quotation, _may_ be an accidental\nrecurrence; and it is not impossible that the other items may be\nderived from an unwritten tradition.\n\nStill, on the whole, I incline to think that though there is not\nconclusive proof that Justin used a lost Gospel besides the\npresent Canonical Gospels, it is the more probable hypothesis of\nthe two that he did. The explanations given above seem to me\nreasonable and possible; they are enough, I think, to remove the\n_necessity_ for assuming a lost document, but perhaps not\nquite enough to destroy the greater probability. This conclusion,\nwe shall find, will be confirmed when we pass from considering the\nsubstance of Justin's Gospel to its form.\n\nBut now if we ask ourselves _what_ was this hypothetical lost\ndocument, all we can say is, I believe, that the suggestions\nhitherto offered are insufficient. The Gospels according to the\nHebrews or according to Peter and the Protevangelium of James have\nbeen most in favour. The Gospel according to the Hebrews in the\nform in which it was used by the Nazarenes contained the fire upon\nJordan, and as used by the Ebionites it had also the voice, 'This\nday have I begotten Thee.' Credner [Endnote 110:1], and after him\nHilgenfeld [Endnote 110:2], thought that the Gospel according to\nPeter was used. But we know next to nothing about this Gospel,\nexcept that it was nearly related to the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, that it made the 'brethren of the Lord' sons of Joseph by\na former wife, that it was found by Serapion in the churches of\nhis diocese, Rhossus in Cilicia, that its use was at first\npermitted but afterwards forbidden, as it was found to favour\nDocetism, and that its contents were in the main orthodox though\nin some respects perverted [Endnote 110:3]. Obviously these facts\nand the name (which falls in with the theory--itself also somewhat\nunsubstantial--that Justin's Gospel must have a 'Petrine'\ncharacter) are quite insufficient to build upon. The Protevangelium\nof James, which it is thought might have been used in an earlier\nform than that which has come down to us, contains the legend of\nthe cave, and has apparently a similar view to the Gospel last\nmentioned as to the perpetual virginity of Mary. The kindred\nEvangelium Thomae has the 'ploughs and yokes.' And there are some\nsimilarities of language between the Protevangelium and Justin's\nGospel, which will come under review later [Endnote 110:4].\n\nIt does not, however, appear to have been noticed that these\nGospels satisfy most imperfectly the conditions of the problem. We\nknow that the Gospel according to the Hebrews in its Nazarene form\nomitted the whole section Matt. i. 18--ii. 23, containing the\nconception, the nativity, the visit of the Magi, and the flight\ninto Egypt, all of which were found in Justin's Gospel; while in\nits Ebionite form it left out the first two chapters altogether.\nThere is not a tittle of evidence to show that the Gospel\naccording to Peter was any more complete; in proportion as it\nresembled the Gospel according to the Hebrews the presumption is\nthat it was not. And the Protevangelium of James makes no mention\nof Arabia, while it expressly says that the star appeared 'in the\nEast' (instead of 'in the heaven' as Justin); it also omits, and\nrather seems to exclude, the flight into Egypt.\n\nIt is therefore clear that whether Justin used these Gospels or\nnot, he cannot in any case have confined himself to them; unless\nindeed this is possible in regard to the Gospel that bears the\nname of Peter, though the possibility is drawn so entirely from\nour ignorance that it can hardly be taken account of. We thus seem\nto be reduced to the conclusion that Justin's Gospel or Gospels\nwas an unknown entity of which no historical evidence survives,\nand this would almost be enough, according to the logical Law of\nParsimony, to drive us back upon the assumption that our present\nGospels only had been used. This assumption however still does not\nappear to me wholly satisfactory, for reasons which will come out\nmore clearly when from considering the matter of the documents\nwhich Justin used we pass to their form.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe reader already has before him a collection of Justin's\nquotations from the Old Testament, the results of which may be\nstated thus. From the Pentateuch eighteen passages are quoted\nexactly, nineteen with slight variations, and eleven with marked\ndivergence. From the Psalms sixteen exactly, including nine (or\nten) whole Psalms, two with slight and three with decided\nvariation. From Isaiah twenty-five exactly, twelve slightly\nvariant, and sixteen decidedly. From the other Major Prophets\nJustin has only three exact quotations, four slightly divergent,\nand eleven diverging more widely. From the Minor Prophets and\nother books he has two exact quotations, seven in which the\nvariation is slight, and thirteen in which it is marked. Of the\ndistinctly free quotations in the Pentateuch (eleven in all),\nthree may be thought to have a Messianic character (the burning\nbush, the brazen serpent, the curse of the cross), but in none of\nthese does the variation appear to be due to this. Of the three\nfree quotations from the Psalms two are Messianic, and one of\nthese has probably been influenced by the Messianic application.\nIn the free quotations from Isaiah it is not quite easy to say\nwhat are Messianic and what are not; but the only clear case in\nwhich the Messianic application seems to have caused a marked\ndivergence is xlii. 1-4. Other passages, such as ii. 5, 6, vii.\n10-17, lii. l3-liii. 12 (as quoted in A. i. 50), appear under the\nhead of slight variation. The long quotation lii. 10-liv. 6, in\nDial. 12, is given with substantial exactness. Turning to the\nother Major Prophets, one passage, Jer. xxxi. 15, has probably\nderived its shape from the Messianic application. And in the Minor\nProphets three passages (Hos. x. 6, Zech. xii. 10-12, and Micah v.\n2) appear to have been thus affected. The rest of the free\nquotations and some of the variations in those which are less free\nmay be set down to defect of memory or similar accidental causes.\n\nLet us now draw up a table of Justin's quotations from the Gospels\narranged as nearly as may be on the same standard and scale as\nthat of the quotations from the Old Testament. Such a table will\nstand thus. [Those only which appear to be direct quotations are\ngiven.]\n\n\n    _Exact._     |_Slightly variant._ |   _Variant._    | _Remarks._\n                 |                    |                 |\n                 |+D.49, Matt. 3.11,  |                 |repeated in part\n                 |  12 (v.l.)         |                 |  similarly.\n                 |D. 51, Matt. 11.    |                 |compounded with\n                 |  12-15; Luke 16.   |                 |  omissions but\n                 |  16+.              |                 |  striking resem-\n                 |                    |                 |  blances.\nD. 49, Matt. 17. |                    |                 |\n  11-13.         |                    |                 |\n                 |A.1.15, Matt. 5.28. |                 |\n                 |                    |A.1.15, Matt. 5. |from memory?\n                 |                    |  29; Mark 9.47. |\n                 |A.1.15, Matt. 5.32. |                 |confusion of read-\n                 |                    |                 |  ings.\n                 |                    |+A.1.15, Matt.   |from memory?\n                 |                    |  19.12.         |\n                 |                    |A.1.15, Matt. 5. |compounded.\n                 |                    |  42; Luke 6.30, |\n                 |                    |  34.            |\nContinuous.{     |A.1.15, Matt. 6.    |                 |\n           {     |19, 20; 16.26; 6.20.|                 |\n                 |                    |                 |\n                 |Continuous.{        |A.1.15 (D.96),   |from memory(Cr.),\n                 |           {        |  Luke 6.36;     |  but prob. diff-\n                 |           {        |  Matt. 5.45; 6. |  erent document;\n                 |           {        |  25-27; Luke 12.|  rather marked\n                 |           {        |  22-24; Matt. 6.|  identity in\n                 |           {        |  32, 33; 6.21.  |  phrase.\n                 |A.1.15, Matt. 6.1.  |                 |\nA.1.15, Matt. 9. |                    |                 |  do the last\n  13(?).         |                    |                 |  words belong\n                 |                    |                 |  to the\n                 |                    |C                |  quotation?\n                 |                    |o { A.1.15,  Luke|\n                 |                    |n {   6.32; Matt.|\n                 |                    |t {   5.46.      |\n                 |                    |i { A.1.15, (D.  |repeated in part\n                 |                    |n { 128), Luke   |  similarly, in\n                 |                    |u { 6.27, 28;    |  part diversely;\n                 |                    |o { Matt. 5.44.  |  confusion in\n                 |                    |u                |  MSS.\n                 |                    |s                |\n                 |                    |s                |\nContinuous. {    |A.1.16, Luke 6.29   |                 |\n            {    |  (Matt. 5.39, 40.) |                 |\n            {    |                    |A.1.16, Matt. 5. |\n            {    |                    |  22 (v.l.)      |\n            {    |                    |A.1.16, Matt. 5  |[Greek:\n            {    |                    |  41.            | angaeusei.]\n            {    |A.1.16, Matt. 5.16. |                 |\n                 |                    |D.93, A,1.16,    |\n                 |                    |  Matt. 22.40,37,|\n                 |                    |  38.            |\n                 |                    |A.1.16, D.101,   |repeated\n                 |                    |  Matt. 19.16,   |  diversely.\n                 |                    |  17 (v.l.); Luke|\n                 |                    |  18.18,19 (v.l.)|\n                 |A.1.16, Matt. 5.    |                 |\n                 |  34,37.            |                 |\n  {A.1.16, Matt. |                    |                 |\n  {  7.21.       |                    |                 |\nC {              |A.1.16 (A.1.62),    |                 |repeated in part\no {              |  Luke 10.16 (v.l.) |                 |  similarly, in\nn {              |                    |                 |  part diversely.\nt {              |                    |+A.1.16 (D.76),  |\ni {              |                    |  Matt. 7.22, 23 |\nn {              |                    |  (v.l.); Luke   |\nu {              |                    |  13.26,27 (v.l.)|\no {              |A.1.16, Matt. 13.   |                 |addition.\nu {              |  42, 43 (v.l.)     |                 |\ns {              |                    |A.1.16 (D.35),   |\n  {              |                    |  Matt. 7.15.    |\n  {              |A.1.16, Matt. 7.    |                 |\n  {              |  16, 19.           |                 |\nD.76, Matt. 8.11.|                    |                 |\n  12+.           |                    |                 |\n                 |                    |D.35, [Greek:    |\n                 |                    |  esontai schi-  |\n                 |                    |  smata kai hai- |\n                 |                    |  reseis.]       |\n                 |D.76, Matt. 25.41   |                 |\n                 |  (v.l.)            |                 |\n                 |D.35, Matt. 7.15.   |                 |repeated with\n                 |                    |                 |  nearer\n                 |                    |                 |  approach to\n                 |                    |                 |  Matthew, perh.\n                 |                    |                 |  v.l.\n                 |                    |D.35, 82, Matt.  |repeated with\n                 |                    |24.24 (Mark 13.  |  similarity and\n                 |                    |  22).           |  divergence.\n                 |                    |D.82, Matt. 10.  |freely.\n                 |                    |  22, par.       |\nA.1.19, Luke 18. |                    |                 |\n  27+.           |                    |                 |\n                 |                    |A.1.19, Luke 12. |compounded.\n                 |                    |  4, 5; Matt.    |\n                 |                    |  10.28.         |\n                 |                    |A.1.17, Luke 12. |\n                 |                    |  48 (v.l.)      |\n                 |D.76, Luke 10.19+   |                 |ins. [Greek:\n                 |                    |                 | skolopendron.]\nD.105, Matt. 5.  |                    |                 |\n  20.            |                    |                 |\n                 |                    |D.125, Matt. 13. |condensed narra-\n                 |                    |  3 sqq.         |  tive.\n                 |                    |+D.17, Luke 11.  |\n                 |                    |  52.            |\n                 |D.17, Matt. 23.23;  |                 |compounded.\n                 |  Luke 11.42.       |                 |\n                 |D.17, 112, Matt.    |                 |repeated simi-\n                 |  23.27; 23.24.     |                 |  larly.\n                 |                    |D.47, [Greek: en |\n                 |                    |  ois an humas   |\n                 |                    |  katalabo en    |\n                 |                    |  toutois kai    |\n                 |                    |  krino.]        |\n                 |D.81, Luke 20.      |                 |marked resem-\n                 |  35, 36.           |                 |  blance with\n                 |                    |                 |  difference.\nD.107, Matt.16.4.|                    |                 |\n                 |D. 122, Matt. 23.   |                 |\n                 |  15.               |                 |\n                 |+D.17, Matt. 21.    |                 |\n                 |  13, 12.           |                 |\n                 |                    |+A.1.17, Luke 20.|narrative portion\n                 |                    |  22-25 (v.l.)   |  free.\n                 |D.100, A.1.63,      |                 |repeated not\n                 |  Matt. 11.27 (v.l.)|                 |  identically.\n                 |D.76, 100, Luke     |                 |repeated diverse-\n                 |  9.22.             |                 |  diversely;\n                 |                    |                 |  free (Credner).\nA.1.36, Matt. 21.|                    |D.53, Matt. 21.5.|(Zech. 9.9).\n  5 (addition).  |                    |                 |\n                 |                    |A.1.66, Luke 22. |\n                 |                    |  19, 20.        |\n                 |D.99, Matt. 26.     |                 |\n                 |  39 (v.l.)         |                 |\n                 |                    |D.103, Luke 22.  |\n                 |                    |  42-44.         |\n                 |                    |D.101, Matt. 27. |\n                 |                    |  43.            |\n                 |                    |A.1.38, [Greek:  |\n                 |                    |  ho nekrous     |\n                 |                    |  anegeiras rhu- |\n                 |                    |  sastho eauton.]|\nD.99, Matt. 27.  |                    |                 |compounded.\n  46; Mark 15.34.|                    |                 |\nD.105, Luke 23.  |                    |                 |\n  46.\n\n\nThe total result may be taken to be that ten passages are\nsubstantially exact, while twenty-five present slight and thirty-\ntwo marked variations [Endnote 116:1]. This is only rough and\napproximate, because of the passages that are put down as exact\ntwo, or possibly three, can only be said to be so with a\nqualification; though, on the other hand, there are passages\nentered under the second class as 'slightly variant' which have a\nleaning towards the first, and passages entered under the third\nwhich have a perceptible leaning towards the second. We can\ntherefore afford to disregard these doubtful cases and accept the\nclassification very much as it stands. Comparing it then with the\nparallel classification that has been made of the quotations from\nthe Old Testament, we find that in the latter sixty-four were\nranked as exact, forty-four as slightly variant, and fifty-four as\ndecidedly variant. If we reduce these roughly to a common standard\nof comparison the proportion of variation may be represented\nthus:--\n                                     | Exact. | Slightly | Variant.\n                                     |        | variant. |\n                                     |        |          |\nQuotations from the Old Testament    |   10   |     7    |    9\nQuotations from the Synoptic Gospels |   10   |    25    |   32\n\nIt will be seen from this at once how largely the proportion of\nvariation rises; it is indeed more than three times as high for\nthe quotations from the Gospels as for those from the Old Testament.\nThe amount of combination too is decidedly in excess of that which\nis found in the Old Testament quotations.\n\nThere is, it is true, something to be said on the other side.\nJustin quotes the Old Testament rather as Scripture, the New\nTestament rather as history. I think it will be felt that he has\npermitted his own style a freer play in regard to the latter than\nthe former. The New Testament record had not yet acquired the same\ndegree of fixity as the Old. The 'many' compositions of which\nSt. Luke speaks in his preface were still in circulation, and were\nonly gradually dying out. One important step had been taken in the\nregular reading of the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' at the Christian\nassemblies. We have not indeed proof that these were confined to\nthe Canonical Gospels. Probably as yet they were not. But it\nshould be remembered that Irenaeus was now a boy, and that by the\ntime he had reached manhood the Canon of the Gospels had received\nits definite form.\n\nTaking all these points into consideration I think we shall find\nthe various indications converge upon very much the same conclusion\nas that at which we have already arrived. The _a priori_ probabilities\nof the case, as well as the actual phenomena of Justin's Gospel,\nalike tend to show that he did make use either mediately or immediately\nof our Gospels, but that he did not assign to them an exclusive\nauthority, and that he probably made use along with them of other\ndocuments no longer extant.\n\nThe proof that Justin made use of each of our three Synoptics\nindividually is perhaps more striking from the point of view of\nsubstance than of form, because his direct quotations are mostly\ntaken from the discourses rather than from the narrative, and\nthese discourses are usually found in more than a single Gospel,\nwhile in proportion as they bear the stamp of originality and\nauthenticity it is difficult to assign them to any particular\nreporter. There is however some strong and remarkable evidence of\nthis kind.\n\nAt least one case of parallelism seems to prove almost decisively\nthe use of the first Gospel. It is necessary to give the quotation\nand the original with the parallel from St. Mark side by side.\n\n_Justin, Dial._ c.49.\n\n[Greek: Aelias men eleusetai kai apokatastaesei panta, lego de\nhumin, hoti Aelias aedae aelthe kai ouk epegnosan auton all'\nepoiaesan auto hosa aethelaesan. Kai gegraptai hoti tote sunaekan\noi mathaetai, hoti peri Ioannon tou Baptistou eipen autois.]\n\n_Matt._ xvii. 11-13.\n\n[Greek: Aelias men erchetai apokatastaesei panta, lego de humin\nhoti Aelias aedae aelthen kai ouk epegnosan auton, alla epoiaesan\nauto hosa aethelaesan, [outos kai ho uios tou anthropou mellei\npaschein hup' auton.] Tote sunaekan oi mathaetai hoti peri Ioannou\ntou Baptistou eipen autois.] The clause in brackets is placed at\nthe end of ver. 13 by D. and the Old Latin.\n\n_Mark._ ix. 12, 13.\n\n[Greek: Ho de ephae autois, Aelias [men] elthon proton\napokathistanei panta, kai pos gegraptai epi ton uion tou\nanthropou, hina polla pathae kai exoudenaethae. Alla lego humin\nhoti kai Aelias elaeluthen kai epoiaesan auto hosa aethelon,\nkathos gegraptai ep' auton.]\n\n\nWe notice here, first, an important point, that Justin reproduces at\nthe end of his quotation what appears to be not so much a part of the\nobject-matter of the narrative as a _comment or reflection of the\nEvangelist_ ('Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of\nJohn the Baptist'). This was thought by Credner, who as a rule is\ninclined to press the use of an apocryphal Gospel by Justin, to be\nsufficient proof that the quotation is taken from our present Matthew\n[Endnote 119:1]. On this point, however, there is an able and on the\nwhole a sound argument in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 119:2].\nThere are certainly cases in which a similar comment or reflection is\nfound either in all three Synoptic Gospels or in two of them (e.g.\nMatt. vii. 28, 29 = Mark i. 22 = Luke iv. 32; Matt. xiii. 34 = Mark\niv. 33, 34; Matt. xxvi. 43 = Mark xiv. 40; Matt. xix. 22 = Mark x.\n22). The author consequently maintains that these were found in the\noriginal document from which all three, or two Synoptics at least,\nborrowed; and he notes that this very passage is assigned by Ewald to\nthe 'oldest Gospel.'\n\nThe observation in itself is a fine and true one, and has an\nimportant bearing upon the question as to the way in which our\nSynoptic Gospels were composed. We may indeed remark in passing\nthat the author seems to have overlooked the fact that, when once\nthis principle of a common written basis or bases for the Synoptic\nGospels is accepted, nine-tenths of his own argument is overthrown;\nfor there are no divergences in the text of the patristic quotations\nfrom the Gospels that may not be amply paralleled by the differences\nwhich exist in the text of the several Gospels themselves, showing\nthat the Evangelists took liberties with their ground documents\nto an extent that is really greater than that of any subsequent\nmisquotation. But putting aside for the present this _argumentum\nad hominem_ which seems to follow from the admission here made,\nthere is, I think, the strongest reason to conclude that in the\npresent case the first Evangelist is not merely reproducing his\nground document. There is one element in the question which the\nauthor has omitted to notice; that is, the _parallel passage in\nSt. Mark._ This differs so widely from the text of St. Matthew as\nto show that that text cannot accurately represent the original;\nit also wants the reflective comment altogether. Accordingly, if\nthe author will turn to p. 275 of Ewald's book [Endnote 120:1] he\nwill find that that writer, though roughly assigning the passage\nas it appears in both Synoptics to the 'oldest Gospel,' yet in\nreconstructing the text of this Gospel does so, not by taking that\nof either of the Synoptics pure and simple, but by mixing the two.\nAll the other critics who have dealt with this point, so far as I\nam aware, have done the same. Holtzmann [Endnote 120:2] follows\nEwald, and Weiss [Endnote 120:3] accepts Mark's as more nearly the\noriginal text.\n\nThe very extent of the divergence in St. Mark throws out into striking\nrelief the close agreement of Justin's quotation with St. Matthew.\nHere we have three verses word for word the same, even to the finest\nshades of expression. To the single exception [Greek: eleusetai]\nfor [Greek: erchetai] I cannot, as Credner does [Endnote 120:4],\nattach any importance. The present tense in the Gospel has undoubtedly\na future signification [Endnote 120:5], and Justin was very naturally\nled to give it also a future form by [Greek: apokatastaesei] which\nfollows. For the rest, the order, particles, tenses are so absolutely\nidentical, where the text of St. Mark shows how inevitably they must\nhave differed in another Gospel or even in the original, that I can\nsee no alternative but to refer the quotation directly to our present\nSt. Matthew.\n\nIf this passage had stood alone, taken in connection with the\ncoincidence of matter between Justin and the first Gospel, great\nweight must have attached to it. But it does not by any means stand\nalone. There is an exact verbal agreement in the verses Matt. v. 20\n('Except your righteousness' &c.) and Matt. vii. 21 ('Not every one\nthat saith unto me,' &c.) which are peculiar to the first Gospel.\nThere is a close agreement, if not always with the best, yet with some\nvery old, text of St. Matthew in v. 22 (note especially the striking\nphrase and construction [Greek: enochos eis]), v. 28 (note [Greek:\nblep. pros to epithum].), v. 41 (note the remarkable word [Greek:\nangareusei]), xxv. 41, and not too great a divergence in v. 16, vi. 1\n([Greek: pros to theathaenai, ei de mae ge misthon ouk echete]), and\nxix. 12, all of which passages are without parallel in any extant\nGospel. There are also marked resemblances to the Matthaean text in\nsynoptic passages such as Matt. iii. 11, 12 ([Greek: eis metanoian, ta\nhupodaemata bastasai]), Matt. vi. 19, 20 ([Greek: hopou saes kai\nbrosis aphanizei], where Luke has simply [Greek: saes diaphtheirei],\nand [Greek: diorussousi] where Luke has [Greek: engizei]), Matt. vii.\n22, 23 ([Greek: ekeinae tae haemera Kurie, Kurie, k.t.l.]), Matt. xvi.\n26 ([Greek: dosei] Matt. only, [Greek: antallagma] Matt., Mark), Matt.\nxvi. 1, 4 (the last verse exactly). As these passages are all from the\ndiscourses I do not wish to say that they may not be taken from other\nGospels than the canonical, but we have absolutely no evidence that\nthey were so taken, and every additional instance increases the\nprobability that they were taken directly from St. Matthew, which by\nthis time, I think, has reached a very high degree of presumption.\n\nI have reserved for a separate discussion a single instance which\nI shall venture to add to those already quoted, although I am\naware that it is alleged on the opposite side. Justin has the\nsaying 'Let your yea be yea and your nay nay, for whatsoever is\nmore than these cometh of the Evil One' ([Greek: Mae omosaete\nholos. Esto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou; to de perisson\ntouton ek tou ponaerou]), which is set against the first\nEvangelist's 'Let your conversation be Yea yea, Nay nay, for\nwhatsoever is more than these cometh of the Evil One' ([Greek: ego\nde lego humin mae omosai holos... Esto de ho logos humon nai nai,\nou ou; to de perisson, k.t.l.]). Now it is perfectly true that as\nearly as the Canonical Epistle of James (v. 12) we find the\nreading [Greek: aeto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou], and that\nin the Clementine Homilies twice over we read [Greek: esto humon\nto nai nai, (kai) to ou ou], [Greek: kai] being inserted in one\ninstance and not in the other. Justin's reading is found also\nexactly in Clement of Alexandria, and a similar reading (though\nwith the [Greek: aeto] of James) in Epiphanius. These last two\nexamples show that the misquotation was an easy one to fall into,\nbecause there can be little doubt that Clement and Epiphanius\nsupposed themselves to be quoting the canonical text. There\nremains however the fact that the Justinian form is supported by\nthe pseudo-Clementines; and at the first blush it might seem that\n'Let your yea be yea' (stand to your word) made better, at least a\ncomplete and more obvious, sense than 'Let your conversation be'\n(let it not go beyond) 'Yea yea' &c [Endnote 122:1]. There is,\nhowever, what seems to be a decisive proof that the original form\nboth of Justin's and the Clementine quotation is that which is\ngiven in the first Gospel. Both Justin and the writer who passes\nunder the name of Clement add the clause 'Whatsoever is more than\nthese cometh of evil' (or 'of the Evil One'). But this, while it\ntallies perfectly with the canonical reading, evidently excludes\nany other. It is consequent and good sense to say, 'Do not go\nbeyond a plain yes or no, because whatever is in excess of this\nmust have an evil motive,' but the connection is entirely lost\nwhen we substitute 'Keep your word, for whatever is more than this\nhas an evil motive'--more than what?\n\nThe most important points that can be taken to imply a use of\nSt. Mark's Gospel have been already discussed as falling under\nthe head of matter rather than of form.\n\nThe coincidences with Luke are striking but complicated. In his\nearlier work, the 'Beitr\u00e4ge' [Endnote 123:1], Credner regarded as\na decided reference to the Prologue of this Gospel the statement\nof Justin that his Memoirs were composed [Greek: hupo ton\napostolon autou kai ton ekeinois parakolouthaesanton]: but, in the\nposthumous History of the Canon [Endnote 123:2], he retracts this\nview, having come to recognise a greater frequency in the use of\nthe word [Greek: parakolouthein] in this sense. It will also of\ncourse be noticed that Justin has [Greek: par. tois ap.] and not\n[Greek: par. tois pragmasin], as Luke. It is doubtless true that\nthe use of the word can be paralleled to such an extent as to make\nit not a matter of certainty that the Gospel is being quoted:\nstill I think there will be a certain probability that it has been\nsuggested by a reminiscence of this passage, and, strangely\nenough, there is a parallel for the substitution of the historians\nfor the subject-matter of their history in Epiphanius, who reads\n[Greek: par. tois autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou] [Endnote\n124:1], where he is explicitly and unquestionably quoting St.\nLuke.\n\nThere are some marked coincidences of phrase in the account of the\nAnnunciation--[Greek: eperchesthai, episkaizein, dunamis\nhupsistou] (a specially Lucan phrase), [Greek: to gennomenon]\n(also a form characteristic of St. Luke), [Greek idou, sullaepsae\nen gastri kai texae huion]. Of the other peculiarities of St. Luke\nJustin has in exact accordance the last words upon the cross\n([Greek: Pater, eis cheiras sou paratithemai to pneuma mou]). In\nthe Agony in the Garden Justin has the feature of the Bloody\nSweat; but it is right to notice--\n\n(1) That he has [Greek: thromboi] alone, without [Greek:\nhaimatos]. Luke, [Greek: egeneto ho hidros autou hosei thromboi\nhaimatos katabainontes]. Justin, [Greek: hidros hosei thromboi\nkatecheito].\n\n(2) That this is regarded as a fulfilment of Ps. xxii. 14 ('All my\ntears are poured out' &c.).\n\n(3) That in continuing the quotation Justin follows Matthew rather\nthan Luke. These considerations may be held to qualify, though I\ndo not think that they suffice to remove, the conclusion that St.\nLuke's Gospel is being quoted. It seems to be sufficiently clear\nthat [Greek: thromboi] might be used in this signification without\n[Greek: aimatos] [Endnote 124:2], and it appears from the whole\nmanner of Justin's narrative that he intends to give merely the\nsense and not the words, with the exception of the single saying\n'Let this cup pass from Me,' which is taken from St. Matthew. We\ncannot say positively that this feature did not occur in any other\nGospel, but there is absolutely no reason apart from this passage\nto suppose that it did. The construction with [Greek: hosei] is in\nsome degree characteristic of St. Luke, as it occurs more often in\nthe works of that writer than in all the rest of the New Testament\nput together.\n\nIn narrating the institution of the Lord's Supper Justin has the\nclause which is found only in St. Luke and St. Paul, 'This do in\nremembrance of Me' ([Greek: mou] for [Greek: emaen]). The giving\nof the cup he quotes rather after the first two Synoptics, and\nadds 'that He gave it to them (the Apostles) alone.' This last\ndoes not seem to be more than an inference of Justin's own.\n\nTwo other sayings Justin has which are without parallel except in\nSt. Luke. One is from the mission of the seventy.\n\n_Justin, Dial._ 76\n\n[Greek: Didomi humin exousian katapatein epano opheon, kai\nskorpion, kai skolopendron, kai epano parsaes dunameos tou\nechthrou.]\n\n_Luke_ x. 19.\n\n[Greek: Idou, didomi humin taen exousian tou patein epano epheon,\nkai skorpion, kai epi pasan taen dunamin tou echthrou.]\n\nThe insertion of [Greek: skolopendron] here is curious. It may be\nperhaps to some extent paralleled by the insertion of [Greek: kai\neis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9: we have also seen a strange addition\nin the quotation of Ps. li. 19 in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. ii).\nOtherwise the resemblance of Justin to the Gospel is striking. The\nsecond saying, 'To whom God has given more, of him shall more be\nrequired' (Apol. i. 17), if quoted from the Gospel at all, is only\na paraphrase of Luke xii. 48.\n\nBesides these there are other passages, which are perhaps stronger\nas separate items of evidence, where, in quoting synoptic matter,\nJustin makes use of phrases which are found only in St. Luke and\nare discountenanced by the other Evangelists. Thus in the account\nof the rich young man, the three synoptical versions of the saying\nthat impossibilities with men are possible with God, run thus:--\n\n_Luke_ xviii. 27.\n\n[Greek: Ta adunata para anthropois dunata para to Theo estin.]\n\n_Mark_ x. 27.\n\n[Greek: Para anthropois adunaton, all' ou para Theo; punta gar\ndunata para to Theo].\n\n_Matt_. xix. 26.\n\n[Greek: Para anthropois touto adunaton estin, para de Theo dunata\npanta].\n\nHere it will be observed that Matthew and Mark (as frequently\nhappens) are nearer to each other than either of them is to Luke.\nThis would lead us to infer that, as they are two to one, they\nmore nearly represent the common original, which has been somewhat\nmodified in the hands of St. Luke. But now Justin has the words\nprecisely as they stand in St. Luke, with the omission of [Greek:\nestin], the order of which varies in the MSS. of the Gospel. This\nmust be taken as a strong proof that Justin has used the peculiar\ntext of the third Gospel. Again, it is to be noticed that in\nanother section of the triple synopsis (Mark xii. 20=Matt. xxii.\n30=Luke xx. 35, 36) he has, in common with Luke and diverging from\nthe other Gospels which are in near agreement, the remarkable\ncompound [Greek: isangeloi] and the equally remarkable phrase\n[Greek: huioi taes anastaseos] ([Greek: tekna tou Theou taes\nanastaseos] Justin). This also I must regard as supplying a strong\nargument for the direct use of the Gospel. Many similar instances\nmay be adduced; [Greek: erchetai] ([Greek: aexei] Justin) [Greek:\nho ischuroteros] (Luke iii. 16), [Greek: ho nomos kai hoi\nprophaetai heos] ([Greek: mechri] Justin) [Greek: Ioannon] (Luke\nxvi. 16), [Greek: panti to aitounti] (Luke vi. 30), [Greek: to\ntuptonti se epi] ([Greek: sou] Justin) [Greek: taen siagona\npareche kai taen allaen k.t.l.] (Luke vi. 29; compare Matt. v. 39,\n40), [Greek: ti me legeis agathon] and [Greek: oudeis agathos ei\nmae] (Luke xviii. 19; compare Matt. xix. 17), [Greek: meta tauta\nmae echonton] ([Greek: dunamenous] Justin) [Greek: perissoteron]\n(om. Justin) [Greek: ti poiaesae k.t.l.] (Luke xii. 4, 5; compare\nMatt. X. 28), [Greek: paeganon] and [Greek: agapaen tou Theou]\n(Luke xi. 42). In the parallel passage to Luke ix. 22 (=Matt xvi.\n21= Mark viii. 31) Justin has the striking word [Greek:\napodokimasthaenai], with Mark and Luke against Matthew, and\n[Greek: hupo] with Mark against the [Greek: apo] of the two other\nSynoptics. This last coincidence can perhaps hardly be pressed, as\n[Greek: hupo] would be the more natural word to use.\n\nIn the cases where we have only the double synopsis to compare\nwith Justin, we have no certain test to distinguish between the\nprimary and secondary features in the text of the Gospels. We\ncannot say with confidence what belonged to the original document\nand what to the later editor who reduced it to its present form.\nIn these cases therefore it is possible that when Justin has a\ndetail that is found in St. Matthew and wanting in St. Luke, or\nfound in St. Luke and wanting in St. Matthew, he is still not\nquoting directly from either of those Gospels, but from the common\ndocument on which they are based. The triple synopsis however\nfurnishes such a criterion. It enables us to see what was the\noriginal text and how any single Evangelist has diverged from it.\nThus in the two instances quoted at the beginning of the last\nparagraph it is evident that the Lucan text represents a deviation\nfrom the original, and _that deviation Justin has reproduced_. The\nword [Greek: isangeloi] may be taken as a crucial case. Both the\nother Synoptics have simply [Greek hos angeloi], and this may be\nset down as undoubtedly the reading of the original; the form\n[Greek: isangeloi], which occurs nowhere else in the New\nTestament, and I believe, so far as we know, nowhere else in Greek\nbefore this passage [Endnote 128:1], has clearly been coined by\nthe third Evangelist and has been adopted from him by Justin. So\nthat in a quotation which otherwise presents considerable\nvariation we have what I think must be called the strongest\nevidence that Justin really had St. Luke's narrative, either in\nitself or in some secondary shape, before him.\n\nWe are thus brought once more to the old result. If Justin did not\nuse our Gospels in their present shape as they have come down to\nus, he used them in a later shape, not in an earlier. His\nresemblances to them cannot be accounted for by the supposition\nthat he had access to the materials out of which they were\ncomposed, because he reproduces features which by the nature of\nthe case cannot have been present in those originals, but of which\nwe are still able to trace the authorship and the exact point of\ntheir insertion. Our Gospels form a secondary stage in the history\nof the text, Justin's quotations a tertiary. In order to reach the\nstate in which it is found in Justin, the road lies _through_ our\nGospels, and not outside them.\n\nThis however does not exclude the possibility that Justin may at\ntimes quote from uncanonical Gospels as well. We have already seen\nreason to think that he did so from the substance of the\nEvangelical narrative, as it appears in his works, and this\nconclusion too is not otherwise than confirmed by its form. The\ndegree and extent of the variations incline us to introduce such\nan additional factor to account for them. Either Justin has used a\nlost Gospel or Gospels, besides those that are still extant, or\nelse he has used a recension of these Gospels with some slight\nchanges of language and with some apocryphal additions. We have\nseen that he has two short sayings and several minute details that\nare not found in our present Gospels. A remarkable coincidence is\nnoticed in 'Supernatural Religion' with the Protevangelium of\nJames [Endnote 129:1]. As in that work so also in Justin, the\nexplanation of the name Jesus occurs in the address of the angel\nto Mary, not to Joseph, 'Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy\nGhost and bear a Son and He shall be called the Son of the\nHighest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His\npeople from their sins.' Again the Protevangelium has the phrase\n'Thou shalt conceive of His Word,' which, though not directly\nquoted, appears to receive countenance from Justin. The author\nadds that 'Justin's divergences from the Protevangelium prevent\nour supposing that in its present form it could have been the\nactual source of his quotations,' though he thinks that he had\nbefore him a still earlier work to which both the Protevangelium\nand the third Gospel were indebted. So far as the Protevangelium\nis concerned this may very probably have been the case; but what\nreason there is for assuming that the same document was also\nanterior to the third Gospel I am not aware. On the contrary, this\nvery passage seems to suggest an opposite conclusion. The\nquotation in Justin and the address in the Protevangelium both\npresent a combination of narratives that are kept separate in the\nfirst and third Gospels. But this very fact supplies a strong\npresumption that the version of those Gospels is the earliest. It\nis unlikely that the first Evangelist, if he had found his text\nalready existing as part of the speech of the angel to Mary, would\nhave transferred it to an address to Joseph; and it is little less\nunlikely that the third Evangelist, finding the fuller version of\nJustin and the Protevangelium, should have omitted from it one of\nits most important features. If a further link is necessary to\nconnect Justin with the Protevangelium, that link comes into the\nchain after our Gospels and not before. Dr. Hilgenfeld has also\nnoticed the phrase [Greek: charan de labousa Mariam] as common to\nJustin and the Protevangelium [Endnote 130:1]. This, too, may\nbelong to the older original of the latter work. The other verbal\ncoincidences with the Gospel according to the Hebrews in the\naccount of the Baptism, and with that of Thomas in the 'ploughs\nand yokes,' have been already mentioned, and are, I believe, along\nwith those just discussed, all that can be directly referred to an\napocryphal source.\n\nBesides these there are some coincidences in form between quotations\nas they appear in Justin and in other writers, such as especially the\nClementine Homilies. These are thought to point to the existence of a\ncommon Gospel (now lost) from which they may have been extracted. It\nis unnecessary to repeat what has been said about one of these\npassages ('Let your yea be yea,' &c.). Another corresponds roughly to\nthe verse Matt. xxv. 41, where both Justin and the Clementine Homilies\nread [Greek: hupagete eis to skotos to exoteron o haetoimasen ho\npataer to satana (to diabolo] Clem. Hom.) [Greek: kai tois angelois\nautou] for the canonical [Greek: poreuesthe ap' emou eis to pur to\naionion to haetoimasmenon k.t.l.] It is true that there is a\nconsiderable approximation to the reading of Justin and the\nClementines, found especially in MSS. and authorities of a Western\ncharacter (D. Latt. Iren. Cypr. Hil.), but there still remains the\ncoincidence in regard to [Greek: exoteron](?) for [Greek: aionion] and\n[Greek: skotos] for [Greek: pyr], which seems to be due to something\nmore than merely a variant text of the Gospel. A third meeting-point\nbetween Justin and the Clementines is afforded by a text which we\nshall have to touch upon when we come to speak of the fourth Gospel.\nOf the other quotations common to the Clementines and Justin there is\na partial but not complete coincidence in regard to Matt. vii. 15, xi.\n27, xix. 16, and Luke vi. 36. In Matt. vii. 15 the Clementines have\n[Greek: polloi eleusontai] where Justin has once [Greek: polloi\neleusontai], once [Greek: polloi aexousin], and once the Matthaean\nversion [Greek: prosechete apo ton pseudoprophaeton oitines erchontai\nk.t.l.] There is however a difference in regard to the reading [Greek:\nen endumasi], where the Clementines have [Greek: en endumatie], and\nJustin twice over [Greek: endedumenoi]. In Matt. xi. 27, Justin and\nthe Clementines agree as to the order of the clauses, and twice in the\nuse of the aorist [Greek: egno] (Justin has once [Greek: ginosko]),\nbut in the concluding clause ([Greek: ho [ois] Clem.] [Greek: ean\nboulaetai ho nios apokalupsai]) Justin has uniformly in the three\nplaces where the verse is quoted [Greek: ois an ho uhios apokalupsae].\nIn Matt. xix. 16, 17 (Luke xviii. 18, 19) the Clementines and Justin\nalternately adhere to the Canonical text while differing from each\nother, but in the concluding phrase Justin has on one occasion the\nClementine reading, [Greek: ho pataer mou ho en tois ouranois]. In\nLuke vi. 36 the Clementines have [Greek: ginesthe agathoi kai\nioktirmones], where Justin has [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kai\noiktirmones] against the Canonical [Greek: ginesthe oiktirmones]. On\nthe other hand, it should be said that the remaining quotations common\nto the Clementines and Justin have to all appearance no relation to\neach other. This applies to Matt. iv. 10, v. 39, 40, vi. 8, viii. 11,\nx. 28; Luke xi. 52. Speaking generally we seem to observe in comparing\nJustin and the Clementines phenomena not dissimilar to those which\nappear on a comparison with the Canonical Gospels. There is perhaps\nabout the same degree at once of resemblance and divergence.\n\nThe principal textual coincidence with other writers is that with\nthe Gospel used by the Marcosians as quoted by Irenaeus (Adv.\nHaer. i. 20. 3). Here the reading of Matt. xi. 27 is given in a\nform very similar to that of Justin, [Greek: oudeis hegno ton\npatera ei mae ho uhios, kai (oude Justin) ton uhion, ei mae ho\npataer kai ho (ois] Justin) [Greek: an ho uhios apokalupsae].\nThis verse however is quoted by the early writers, orthodox as well\nas heretical, in almost every possible way, and it is not clear from\nthe account in Irenaeus whether the Marcosians used an extra-\ncanonical Gospel or merely a different text of the Canonical.\nIrenaeus himself seems to hold the latter view, and in favour of\nit may be urged the fact that they quote passages peculiar both to\nthe first and the third Gospel; on the other hand, one of their\nquotations, [Greek: pollakis epethuaesa akousai hena ton logon\ntouton], does not appear to have a canonical original.\n\nOn reviewing these results we find them present a chequered\nappearance. There are no traces of coincidence so definite and\nconsistent as to justify us in laying the finger upon any\nparticular extra-canonical Gospel as that used by Justin. But upon\nthe whole it seems best to assume that some such Gospel was used,\ncertainly not to the exclusion of the Canonical Gospels, but\nprobably in addition to them.\n\nA confusing element in the whole question is that to which we have\njust alluded in regard to the Gospel of the Marcosians. It is\noften difficult to decide whether a writer has really before him\nan unknown document or merely a variant text of one with which we\nare familiar. In the case of Justin it is to be noticed that there\nis often a very considerable approximation to his readings, not in\nthe best text, but in some very early attested text, of the\nCanonical Gospels. It will be well to collect some of the most\nprominent instances of this.\n\nMatt. iii. 15 ad fin. [Greek: kai pur anaephthae en to Iordanae]\nJustin. So a. (Codex Vercellensis of the Old Latin translation)\nadds 'et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut\ntimerent onmes qui advenerant;' g[1]. (Codex Sangermanensis of the\nsame) 'lumen magnum fulgebat de aqua,' &c. See above.\n\nLuke iii. 22. Justin reads [Greek: uhios mon ei su, ego saemeron\ngegennaeka se]. So D, a, b, c, ff, l, Latin Fathers ('nonnulli\ncodices' Augustine). See above.\n\nMatt. v. 28. [Greek: hos un emblepsae] for [Greek: pas ho blepon].\nOrigen five times as Justin, only once the accepted text.\n\nMatt. v. 29. Justin and Clement of Alexandria read here [Greek:\nekkopson] for [Greek: exele], probably from the next verse or from\nMatt. xviii. 8.\n\nMatt. vi. 20. [Greek: ouranois] Clem. Alex. with Justin; [Greek:\nourano] the accepted reading.\n\nMatt. xvi. 26. [Greek: opheleitai] Justin with most MSS. both of\nthe Old Latin and of the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac\n(Crowfoot), Clement, Hilary, and Lucifer, against [Greek:\nophelaethaesetai] of the best Alexandrine authorities.\n\nMatt. vi. 21. There is a striking coincidence here with Clement of\nAlexandria, who reads, like Justin, [Greek: nous] for [Greek:\ncardia]; it would seem that Clement had probably derived his\nreading from Justin.\n\nMatt. v. 22. [Greek: hostis an orgisthae] Syr. Crt. (Crowfoot); so\nJustin ([Greek: hos]).\n\nMatt. v. 16. Clement of Alexandria (with Tertullian and several\nLatin Fathers) has [Greek: lampsato ta erga] and [Greek: ta agatha\nerga], where Justin has [Greek: lampsato ta kala erga], for\n[Greek: lampsato to phos]. Both readings would seem to be a gloss\non the original.\n\nMatt. v. 37. [Greek: kai] is inserted, as in Justin, by a, b, g,\nh, Syr. Crt. and Pst.\n\nLuke x. 16. Justin has the reading [Greek: ho emou akouon akouei\nton aposteilantos me]: so D, i, l (of the Old Latin) in place of\n[Greek: ho eme atheton k.t.l.]; in addition to it, E, a, b, Syr.\nCrt. and Hel. &c.\n\nMatt. vii. 22. [Greek: ou to so anomati ephagomen kai epiomen]\nJustin; similarly Origen, four times, and Syr. Crt.\n\nLuke xiii. 27. [Greek: anomias] for [Greek: adikias], D and\nJustin.\n\nMatt. xiii. 43. [Greek: lampsosin] for [Greek: eklampsosin] with\nJustin, D, and Origen (twice).\n\nMatt. xxv. 41. Of Justin's readings in this verse [Greek:\nhupagete] for [Greek: poreuesthe] is found also in [Hebrew: ?] and\nHippolytus, [Greek: exoteron] for [Greek: aionion] in the cursive\nmanuscript numbered 40 (Credner; I am unable to verify this),\n[Greek: ho haetoimasen ho pater mou] for [Greek: to haetoimasmenon]\nD. 1, most Codd. of the Old Latin, Iren. Tert. Cypr. Hil. Hipp.\nand Origen in the Latin translation.\n\nLuke xii. 48. D, like Justin, has here [Greek: pleon] for [Greek:\nperissoteron] and also the compound form [Greek: apaitaesousin].\n\nLuke xx. 24. Though in the main following (but loosely) the text\nof Luke, Justin has here [Greek: to nomisma], as Matt., instead of\n[Greek: daenarion]; so D.\n\nThough it will be seen that Justin has thus much in common with D\nand the Old Latin version, it should be noticed that he has the\nverse, Luke xxii. 19, and especially the clause [Greek: touto\npoieite eis taen emaen anamnaesin] which is wanting in these\nauthorities. On the other hand, he appears to have with them and\nother authorities, including Syr. Crt., the Agony in the Garden as\ngiven in Luke xxii, 43,44, which verses are omitted in MSS. of the\nbest Alexandrine type. Luke xxiii. 34, Justin also has, with the\ndivided support of the majority of Greek MSS. Vulgate, c, e, f, ff\nof the Old Latin, Syr. Crt. and Pst. &c. against B, D (prima\nmanu), a, b, Memph. (MSS.) Theb.\n\nThese readings represent in the main a text which was undoubtedly\ncurrent and widely diffused in the second century. 'Though no\nsurviving manuscript of the Old Latin version dates before the\nfourth century and most of them belong to a still later age, yet\nthe general correspondence of their text with that of the first\nLatin Fathers is a sufficient voucher for its high antiquity. The\nconnexion subsisting between this Latin, version, the Curetonian\nSyriac and Codex Bezae, proves that the text of these documents is\nconsiderably older than the vellum on which they are written.'\nSuch is Dr. Scrivener's verdict upon the class of authorities with\nwhich Justin shows the strongest affinity, and he goes on to add;\n'Now it may be said without extravagance that no set of Scriptural\nrecords affords a text less probable in itself, less sustained by\nany rational principles of external evidence, than that of Cod. D,\nof the Latin codices, and (so far as it accords with them) of\nCureton's Syriac. Interpolations as insipid in themselves as\nunsupported by other evidence abound in them all.... It is no less\ntrue to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions\nto which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated\nwithin a hundred years after it was composed' [Endnote 135:1].\nThis is a point on which text critics of all schools are\nsubstantially agreed. However much they may differ in other\nrespects, no one of them has ever thought of taking the text of\nthe Old Syriac and Old Latin translations as the basis of an\nedition. There can be no question that this text belongs to an\nadvanced, though early, stage of corruption.\n\nAt the same stage of corruption, then, Justin's quotations from\nthe Gospels are found, and this very fact is a proof of the\nantiquity of originals so corrupted. The coincidences are too many\nand too great all to be the result of accident or to be accounted\nfor by the parallel influence of the lost Gospels. The presence,\nfor instance, of the reading [Greek: o haetoimasen ho pataer] for\n[Greek: to haetoimasmenon] in Irenaeus and Tertullian (who has\nboth 'quem praeparavit deus' and 'praeparatum') is a proof that it\nwas found in the canonical text at a date little later than\nJustin's. And facts such as this, taken together with the\narguments which make it little less than certain that Justin had\neither mediately or immediately access to our Gospels, render it\nhighly probable that he had a form of the canonical text before\nhim.\n\nAnd yet large as is the approximation to Justin's text that may be\nmade without stirring beyond the bounds of attested readings\nwithin the Canon, I still retain the opinion previously expressed\nthat he did also make use of some extra-canonical book or books,\nthough what the precise document was the data are far too\ninsufficient to enable us to determine. So far as the history of\nour present Gospels is concerned, I have only to insist upon the\nalternative that Justin either used those Gospels themselves or\nelse a later work, of the nature of a harmony based upon them\n[Endnote 136:1]. The theory (if it is really held) that he was\nignorant of our Gospels in any shape, seems to me, in view of the\nfacts, wholly untenable.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nHEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS.\n\n\nDr. Lightfoot has rendered a great service to criticism by his\nmasterly exposure of the fallacies in the argument which has been\ndrawn from the silence of Eusebius in respect to the use of the\nCanonical Gospels by the early writers [Endnote 138:1]. The author\nof 'Supernatural Religion' is not to be blamed for using this\nargument. In doing so he has only followed in the wake of the\nGermans who have handed it on from one to the other without\nputting it to a test so thorough and conclusive as that which has\nnow been applied [Endnote 138:2]. For the future, I imagine, the\nquestion has been set at rest and will not need to be reopened\n[Endnote 138:3].\n\nDr. Lightfoot has shown, with admirable fulness and precision,\nthat the object of Eusebius was only to note quotations in the\ncase of books the admission of which into the Canon had been or\nwas disputed. In the case of works, such as the four Gospels, that\nwere universally acknowledged, he only records what seem to him\ninteresting anecdotes or traditions respecting their authors or\nthe circumstances under which they were composed. This distinction\nDr. Lightfoot has established, not only by a careful examination\nof the language of Eusebius, but also by comparing his statements\nwith the actual facts in regard to writings that are still extant,\nand where we are able to verify his procedure. After thus testing\nthe references in Eusebius to Clement of Rome, the Ignatian\nEpistles, Polycarp, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus,\nDr. Lightfoot arrives, by a strict and ample induction, at the\nconclusion that the silence of Eusebius in respect to quotations\nfrom any canonical book is so far an argument _in its favour_\nthat it shows the book in question to have been generally\nacknowledged by the early Church. Instead of being a proof that\nthe writer did not know the work in reference to which Eusebius is\nsilent, the presumption is rather that he did, like the rest of\nthe Church, receive it. Eusebius only records what seems to him\nspecially memorable, except where the place of the work in or out\nof the Canon has itself to be vindicated.\n\nBut if this holds good, then most of what is said against the use\nof the Gospels by Hegesippus falls to the ground. Eusebius\nexpressly says [Endnote 140:1] that Hegesippus made occasional use\nof the Gospel according to the Hebrews ([Greek: ek te tou kath'\nHebraious euangeliou ... tina tithaesin]). But apart from the\nconclusion referred to above, the very language of Eusebius\n([Greek: tithaesin tina ek]) is enough to suggest that the use of\nthe Gospel according to the Hebrews was subordinate and\nsubsidiary. Eusebius can hardly have spoken in this way of\n'_the_ Gospel of which Hegesippus made use' in all the five\nbooks of his 'Memoirs.' The expression tallies exactly with what\nwe should expect of a work used _in addition to_ but not\n_to the exclusion_ of our Gospels. The fact that Eusebius\nsays nothing about these shows that his readers would take it for\ngranted that Hegesippus, as an orthodox Christian, received them.\n\nWith this conclusion the fragments of the work of Hegesippus that\nhave come down to us agree. The quotations made in them are\nexplained most simply and naturally, on the assumption that our\nGospels have been used. The first to which we come is merely an\nallusion to the narrative of Matt. ii; 'For Domitian feared the\ncoming of the Christ as much as Herod.' Those therefore who take\nthe statement of Eusebius to mean that Hegesippus used only the\nGospel according to the Hebrews are compelled to seek for the\naccount of the Massacre of the Innocents in that Gospel. It\nappears however from Epiphanius that precisely this very portion\nof the first Gospel was wanting in the Gospel according to the\nHebrews as used both by the Ebionites and by the Nazarenes. 'But\nif it be doubtful whether some forms of that Gospel contained the\ntwo opening chapters of Matthew, it is certain that Jerome found\nthem in the version which he translated' [Endnote 141:1]. I am\nafraid that here, as in so many other cases, the words 'doubtful'\nand 'certain' are used with very little regard to their meanings.\nIn support of the inference from Jerome, the author refers to De\nWette, Schwegler, and an article in a periodical publication by\nEwald. De Wette expressly says that the inference does _not_\nfollow ('Aus Comm. ad Matt. ii. 6 ... l\u00e4sst sich _nicht_\nschliessen dass er hierbei das Evang. der Hebr. verglichen\nhabe.... Nicht viel besser beweisen die St. ad Jes. xi. 1; ad\nAbac. iii. 3') [Endnote 141:2]. He thinks that the presence of\nthese chapters in Jerome's copy cannot be satisfactorily proved,\nbut is probable just from this allusion in Hegesippus--in regard\nto which De Wette simply follows the traditional, but, as we have\nseen, erroneous assumption that Hegesippus used only the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews. Schwegler [Endnote 141:3] gives no\nreasons, but refers to the passages quoted from Jerome in Credner.\nCredner, after examining these passages, comes to the conclusion\nthat 'the Gospel of the Nazarenes did _not_ contain the\nchapters' [Endnote 141:4]. Ewald's periodical I cannot refer to,\nbut Hilgenfeld, after an elaborate review of the question, decides\nthat the chapters were omitted [Endnote 141:5]. This is the only\nauthority I can find for the 'certainty that Jerome found them' in\nhis version.\n\nOn the whole, then, it seems decidedly more probable (certainties\nwe cannot deal in) that the incident referred to by Hegesippus was\nmissing from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That Gospel\ntherefore was not quoted by him, but, on the contrary, there is a\npresumption that he is quoting from the Canonical Gospel. The\nnarrative of the parallel Gospel of St. Luke seems, if not to\nexclude the Massacre of the Innocents, yet to imply an ignorance\nof it.\n\nThe next passage that appears to be quotation occurs in the\naccount of the death of James the Just; 'Why do ye ask me\nconcerning Jesus the Son of Man? He too sits in heaven on the\nright hand of the great Power and will come on the clouds of\nheaven' ([Greek: Ti me eperotate peri Iaesou tou huiou tou\nanthropou? kai autos kathaetai en to ourano ek dexion taes\nmegalaes dunameos, kai mellei erchesthai epi ton nephelon tou\nouranou]). It seems natural to suppose that this is an allusion to\nMatt. xxvi. 64, [Greek: ap' arti opsesthe ton huion tou anthropou\nkathaemenon ek dexion taes dunameos, kai erchomenon epi ton\nvephelon tou ouranou]. The passage is one that belongs to the\ntriple synopsis, and the form in which it appears in Hegesippus\nshows a preponderating resemblance to the version of St. Matthew.\nMark inserts [Greek: kathaemenon] between [Greek: ek dexion] and\n[Greek: taes dunameos], while Luke thinks it necessary to add\n[Greek: tou theou]. The third Evangelist omits the phrase [Greek:\nepi ton nephelon tou ouranou], altogether, and the second\nsubstitutes [Greek: meta] for [Greek: epi]. In fact the phrase\n[Greek: epi ton vephelon] occurs in the New Testament only in St.\nMatthew; the Apocalypse, like St. Mark, has [Greek: meta] and\n[Greek: epi] only with the singular.\n\nIn like manner, when we find Hegesippus using the phrase [Greek:\nprosopon ou lambaneis], this seems to be a reminiscence of Luke\nxx. 21, where the synoptic parallels have [Greek: blepeis].\n\nA more decided reference to the third Gospel occurs in the dying\nprayer of St. James; [Greek: parakalo, kurie thee pater, aphes\nautois; ou gar oidasiti poiousin], which corresponds to Luke\nxxiii. 34, [Greek: pater, aphes autois; ou gar oidasin ti\npoiousin]. There is the more reason to believe that Hegesippus'\nquotation is derived from this source that it reproduces the\npeculiar use of [Greek: aphienai] in the sense of 'forgive'\nwithout an expressed object. Though the word is of very frequent\noccurrence, I find no other instance of this in the New Testament\n[Endnote 143:1], and the Clementine Homilies, in making the same\nquotation, insert [Greek: tas hamartias auton]. The saying is well\nknown to be peculiar to St. Luke. There is perhaps a balance of\nevidence against its genuineness, but this is of little\nimportance, as it undoubtedly formed part of the Gospel as early\nas Irenaeus, who wrote much about the same time as Hegesippus.\n\nThe remaining passage occurs in a fragment preserved from\nStephanus Gobarus, a writer of the sixth century, by Photius,\nwriting in the ninth. Referring to the saying 'Eye hath not seen,'\n&c., Gobarus says 'that Hegesippus, an ancient and apostolical\nman, asserts--he knows not why--that these words are vainly\nspoken, and that those who use them give the lie to the sacred\nwritings and to our Lord Himself who said, \"Blessed are your eyes\nthat see and your ears that hear,\"' &c. 'Those who use these\nwords' are, we can hardly doubt, as Dr. Lightfoot after Routh has\nshown [Endnote 144:1], the Gnostics, though Hegesippus would seem\nto have forgotten I Cor. ii. 9. The anti-Pauline position assigned\nto Hegesippus on the strength of this is, we must say, untenable.\nBut for the present we are concerned rather with the second\nquotation, which agrees closely with Matt. xiii. 26 ([Greek: humon\nde makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoti blepousin, kai ta ota humon hoti\nakouousin]). The form of the quotation has a slightly nearer\nresemblance to Luke x. 23 ([Greek: makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoi\nblepontes ha blepete k.t.l.]), but the marked difference in the\nremainder of the Lucan passage increases the presumption that\nHegesippus is quoting from the first Gospel [Endnote 144:2].\n\nThe use of the phrase [Greek: ton theion graphon] is important and\nremarkable. There is not, so far as I am aware, any instance of so\ndefinite an expression being applied to an apocryphal Gospel. It\nwould tend to prepare us for the strong assertion of the Canon of\nthe Gospels in Irenaeus; it would in fact mark the gradually\nculminating process which went on in the interval which separated\nIrenaeus from Justin. To this interval the evidence of Hegesippus\nmust be taken to apply, because though writing like Irenaeus under\nEleutherus (from 177 A.D.) he was his elder contemporary, and had\nbeen received with high respect in Rome as early as the episcopate\nof Anicetus (157-168 A.D.).\n\nThe relations in which Hegesippus describes himself as standing to\nthe Churches and bishops of Corinth and Rome seem to be decisive\nas to his substantial orthodoxy. This would give reason to think\nthat he made use of our present Gospels, and the few quotations\nthat have come down to us confirm that view not inconsiderably,\nthough by themselves they might not be quite sufficient to prove\nit.\n\nThere is one passage that may be thought to point to an apocryphal\nGospel, 'From these arose false Christs, false prophets, false\napostles;' which recalls a sentence in the Clementines, 'For there\nshall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets,\nheresies, ambitions.' It is not, however, nearer to this than to\nthe canonical parallel, Matt. xxiv. 24 ('There shall arise false\nChrists and false prophets').\n\n\n                             2.\n\nIn turning from Hegesippus to Papias we come at last to what seems\nto be a definite and satisfactory statement as to the origin of\ntwo at least of the Synoptic Gospels, and to what is really the\nmost enigmatic and tantalizing of all the patristic utterances.\n\nLike Hegesippus, Papias may be described as 'an ancient and\napostolic man,' and appears to have better deserved the title. He\nis said to have suffered martyrdom under M. Aurelius about the\nsame time as Polycarp, 165-167 A.D. [Endnote 145:1] He wrote a\ncommentary on the Discourses or more properly Oracles of the Lord,\nfrom which Eusebius extracted what seemed to him 'memorable'\nstatements respecting the origin of the first and second Gospels.\n'Matthew,' Papias said [Endnote 146:1], 'wrote the oracles\n([Greek: ta logia]) in the Hebrew tongue, and every one\ninterpreted them as he was able.' 'Mark, as the interpreter of\nPeter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that he\nremembered that was said or done by Christ. For he neither heard\nthe Lord nor attended upon Him, but later, as I said, upon Peter,\nwho taught according to the occasion and not as composing a\nconnected narrative of the Lord's discourses; so that Mark made no\nmistake in writing down some things as he remembered them. For he\ntook care of one thing, not to omit any of the particulars that he\nheard or to falsify any part of them.'\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet us take the second of these statements first. According to it\nthe Gospel of St. Mark consisted of notes taken down, or rather\nrecollected, from the teaching of Peter. It was not written 'in\norder,' but it was an original work in the sense that it was first\nput in writing by Mark himself, having previously existed only in\nan oral form.\n\nDoes this agree with the facts of the Gospel as it appears to us\nnow? There is a certain ambiguity as to the phrase 'in order.' We\ncannot be quite sure what Papias meant by it, but the most natural\nconclusion seems to be that it meant chronological order. If so,\nthe statement of Papias seems to be so far borne out that none of\nthe Synoptic Gospels is really in exact chronological order; but,\nstrange to say, if there is any in which an approach to such an\norder is made, it is precisely this of St. Mark. This appears from\na comparison of the three Synoptics. From the point at which the\nsecond Gospel begins, or, in other words, from the Baptism to the\nCrucifixion, it seems to give the outline that the other two\nGospels follow [Endnote 147:1]. If either of them diverges from it\nfor a time it is only to return. The early part of St. Matthew is\nbroken up by the intrusion of the so-called Sermon on the Mount,\nbut all this time St. Mark is in approximate agreement with St.\nLuke. For a short space the three Gospels go together. Then comes\na second break, where Luke introduces his version of the Sermon on\nthe Mount. Then the three rejoin and proceed together, Matthew\nbeing thrown out by the way in which he has collected the parables\ninto a single chapter, and Luke later by the place which he has\nassigned to the incident at Nazareth. After this Matthew and Mark\nproceed side by side, Luke dropping out of the ranks. At the\nconfession of Peter he takes his place again, and there is a close\nagreement in the order of the three narratives. The incident of\nthe miracle-worker is omitted by Matthew, and then comes the\ninsertion of a mass of extraneous matter by Luke. When he resumes\nthe thread of the common narrative again all three are together.\nThe insertion of a single parable on the part of Matthew, and\nomissions on the part of Luke, are the only interruptions. There\nis an approximate agreement of all three, we may say, for the rest\nof the narrative. We observe throughout that, in by far the\npreponderating number of instances, where Matthew differs from the\norder of Mark, Luke and Mark agree, and where Luke differs from\nthe order of Mark, Matthew and Mark agree. Thus, for instance, in\nthe account of the healings in Peter's house and of the paralytic,\nin the relation of the parables of Mark iv. 1-34 to the storm at\nsea which follows, of the healing of Jairus' daughter to that of\nthe Gadarene demoniac and to the mission of the Twelve in the\nplace of Herod's reflections (Mark vi. 14-16), in the warning\nagainst the Scribes and the widow's mite (Mark xii. 38-44), the\nsecond and third Synoptics are allied against the first. On the\nother hand, in the call of the four chief Apostles, the death of\nthe Baptist, the walking on the sea, the miracles in the land of\nGennesareth, the washing of hands, the Canaanitish woman, the\nfeeding of the four thousand and the discourses which follow, the\nambition of the sons of Zebedee, the anointing at Bethany, and\nseveral insertions of the third Evangelist in regard to the last\nevents, the first two are allied against him. While Mark thus\nreceives such alternating support from one or other of his fellow\nEvangelists, I am not aware of any clear case in which, as to the\norder of the narratives, they are, united and he is alone, unless\nwe are to reckon as such his insertion of the incident of the\nfugitive between Matt. xxvi. 56, 57, Luke xxii. 53, 54.\n\nIt appears then that, so far as there is an order in the Synoptic\nGospels, the normal type of that order is to be found precisely in\nSt. Mark, whom Papias alleges to have written not in order.\n\nBut again there seems to be evidence that the Gospel, in the form\nin which it has come down to us, is not original but based upon\nanother document previously existing. When we come to examine\nclosely its verbal relations to the other two Synoptics, its\nnormal character is in the main borne out, but still not quite\ncompletely. The number of particulars in which Matthew and Mark\nagree together against Luke, or Mark and Luke agree together\nagainst Matthew, is far in excess of that in which Matthew and\nLuke are agreed against Mark. Mark is in most cases the middle\nterm which unites the other two. But still there remains a not\ninconsiderable residuum of cases in which Matthew and Luke are in\ncombination and Mark at variance. The figures obtained by a not\nquite exact and yet somewhat elaborate computation [Endnote 149:1]\nare these; Matthew and Mark agree together against Luke in 1684\nparticulars, Luke and Mark against Matthew in 944, but Matthew and\nLuke against Mark in only 334. These 334 instances are distributed\npretty evenly over the whole of the narrative. Thus (to take a\ncase at random) in the parallel narratives Matt. xii. 1-8, Mark\nii. 23-28, Luke vi. 1-5 (the plucking of the ears on the Sabbath\nday), there are fifty-one points (words or parts of words) common\nto all three Evangelists, twenty-three are common only to Mark and\nLuke, ten to Mark and Matthew, and eight to Matthew and Luke. In\nthe next section, the healing of the withered hand, twenty points\nare found alike in all three Gospels, twenty-seven in Mark and\nLuke, twenty-one in Mark and Matthew, and five in Matthew and\nLuke. Many of these coincidences between the first and third\nSynoptics are insignificant in the extreme. Thus, in the last\nsection referred to (Mark iii. 1-6=Matt. xii. 9-14=Luke vi. 6-11),\none is the insertion of the article [Greek: taen] ([Greek:\nsunagogaen]), one the insertion of [Greek: sou] ([Greek: taen\ncheira sou]), two the use of [Greek: de] for [Greek: kai], and one\nthat of [Greek: eipen] for [Greek: legei]. In the paragraph\nbefore, the eight points of coincidence between Matthew and Luke\nare made up thus, two [Greek: kai aesthion] (=[Greek kai\nesthiein]), [Greek: eipon] (=[Greek: eipan]), [Greek: poiein,\neipen, met' autou] (=[Greek: sun auto]), [Greek: monous] (=[Greek:\nmonois]). But though such points as these, if they had been few in\nnumber, might have been passed without notice, still, on the\nwhole, they reach a considerable aggregate and all are not equally\nunimportant. Thus, in the account of the healing of the paralytic,\nsuch phrases is [Greek epi klinaes, apaelthen eis ton oikon\nautou], can hardly have come into the first and third Gospels and\nbe absent from the second by accident; so again the clause [Greek:\nalla ballousin (blaeteon) oinon neon eis askous kainous]. In the\naccount of the healing of the bloody flux the important word\n[Greek: tou kraspedou] is inserted in Matthew and Luke but not in\nMark; in that of the mission of the twelve Apostles, the two\nEvangelists have, and the single one has not, the phrase [Greek:\nkai therapeuein noson (nosous]), and the still more important\nclause [Greek: lego humin anektoteron estai (gae) Sodomon ... en\nhaemera ... ae tae polei ekeinae]: in Luke ix. 7 (= Matt. xiv. 1)\nHerod's title is [Greek: tetrarchaes], in Mark vi. 14 [Greek:\nbasileus]; in the succeeding paragraph [Greek: hoi ochloi\naekolouthaesan] and the important [Greek: to perisseuon (-san)]\nare wanting in the intermediate Gospel; in the first prophecy of\nthe Passion it has [Greek: apo] where the other two have [Greek:\nhupo], and [Greek: meta treis haemeras] where they have [Greek:\ntae tritae haemera]: in the healing of the lunatic boy it omits\nthe noticeable [Greek: kai diestrammenae]: in the second prophecy\nof the Passion it omits [Greek: mellei], in the paragraph about\noffences, [Greek: elthein ta skandala ...ouai...di hou erchetai].\nThese points might be easily multiplied as we go on; suffice it to\nsay that in the aggregate they seem to prove that the second\nGospel, in spite of its superior originality and adhesion to the\nnormal type, still does not entirely adhere to it or maintain its\nprimary character throughout. The theory that we have in the\nsecond Gospel one of the primitive Synoptic documents is not\ntenable.\n\nNo doubt this is an embarrassing result. The question is easy to\nask and difficult to answer--If our St. Mark does not represent\nthe original form of the document, what does represent it? The\noriginal document, if not quite like our Mark, must have been very\nnearly like it; but how did any writer come to reproduce a\nprevious work with so little variation? If he had simply copied or\nreproduced it without change, that would have been intelligible;\nif he had added freely to it, that also would have been\nintelligible: but, as it is, he seems to have put in a touch here\nand made an erasure there on principles that it is difficult for\nus now to follow. We are indeed here at the very _crux_ of\nSynoptic criticism.\n\nFor our present purpose however it is not necessary that the\nquestion should be solved. We have already obtained an answer on\nthe two points raised by Papias. The second Gospel _is_\nwritten in order; it is _not_ an original document. These two\ncharacteristics make it improbable that it is in its present shape\nthe document to which Papias alludes.\n\nDoes his statement accord any better with the phenomena of the\nfirst Gospel? He asserts that it was originally written in Hebrew,\nand that the large majority of modern critics deny to have been\nthe case with our present Gospel. Many of the quotations in it\nfrom the Old Testament are made directly from the Septuagint and\nnot from the Hebrew. There are turns of language which have the\nstamp of an original Greek idiom and could not have come in\nthrough translation. But, without going into this question as to\nthe original language of the first Gospel, a shorter method will\nbe to ask whether it can have been an original document at all?\nThe work to which Papias referred clearly was such, but the very\nsame investigation which shows that our present St. Mark was not\noriginal, tells with increased force against St. Matthew. When a\ndocument exists dealing with the same subject-matter as two other\ndocuments, and those two other documents agree together and differ\nfrom it on as many as 944 separate points, there can be little\ndoubt that in the great majority of those points it has deviated\nfrom the original, and that it is therefore secondary in\ncharacter. It is both secondary and secondary on a lower stage\nthan St. Mark: it has preserved the features of the original with\na less amount of accuracy. The points of the triple synopsis on\nwhich Matthew fails to receive verification are in all 944; those\non which Mark fails to receive verification 334; or, in other\nwords, the inaccuracies of Matthew are to those of Mark nearly as\nthree to one. In the case of Luke the proportion is still greater--\nas much as five to one.\n\nThis is but a tithe of the arguments which show that the first\nGospel is a secondary composition. An original composition would\nbe homogeneous; it is markedly heterogeneous. The first two\nchapters clearly belong to a different stock of materials from the\nrest of the Gospel. A broad division is seen in regard to the Old\nTestament quotations. Those which are common to the other two\nSynoptists are almost if not quite uniformly taken from the\nSeptuagint; those, on the other hand, which seem to belong to the\nreflection of the Evangelist betray more or less distinctly the\ninfluence of the Hebrew [Endnote 153:1]. Our Gospel is thus seen\nto be a recension of another original document or documents and\nnot an original document itself.\n\nAgain, if our St. Matthew had been an original composition and had\nappeared from the first in its present full and complete form, it\nwould be highly difficult to account for the omissions and\nvariations in Mark and Luke. We should be driven back, indeed,\nupon all the impossibilities of the 'Benutzungs-hypothese.' On the\none hand, the close resemblance between the three compels us to\nassume that the authors have either used each other's works or\ncommon documents; but the differences practically preclude the\nsupposition that the later writer had before him the whole work of\nhis predecessor. If Luke had had before him the first two chapters\nof Matthew he could not have written his own first two chapters as\nhe has done.\n\nAgain, the character of the narrative is such as to be inconsistent\nwith the view that it proceeds from an eye-witness of the events.\nThose graphic touches, which are so conspicuous in the fourth Gospel,\nand come out from time to time in the second, are entirely wanting\nin the first. If parallel narratives, such as the healing of the\nparalytic, the cleansing of the Temple, or the feeding of the five\nthousand, are compared, this will be very clearly seen. More; there\nare features in the first Gospel that are to all appearance unhistorical\nand due to the peculiar method of the writer. He has a way of\nreduplicating, so to speak, the personages of one narrative in\norder to make up for the omission of another [Endnote 154:1]. For\ninstance, he is silent as to the healing of the demoniac at Capernaum,\nbut, instead of this, he gives us two Gadarene demoniacs, at the same\ntime modifying the language in which he describes this latter incident\nafter the pattern of the former; in like manner he speaks of the\nhealing of two blind men at Jericho, but only because he had passed\nover the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. Of a somewhat similar\nnature is the adding of the ass's colt to the ass in the account\nof the Triumphal Entry. There are also fragmentary sayings\nrepeated in the Gospel in a way that would be natural in a later\neditor piecing together different documents and finding the same\nsaying in each, but unnatural in an eye- and ear-witness drawing\nupon his own recollections. Some clear cases of this kind would be\nMatt. v. 29, 30 (= Matt. xviii. 8, 9) the offending member, Matt.\nv. 32 (= Matt. xix. 9) divorce, Matt. x. 38, 39 (= Matt. xvi. 24,\n25) bearing the cross, loss and gain; and there are various others.\n\nThese characteristics of the first Gospel forbid us to suppose\nthat it came fresh from the hands of the Apostle in the shape in\nwhich we now have it; they also forbid us to identify it with the\nwork alluded to by Papias. Neither of the two first Gospels, as we\nhave them, complies with the conditions of Papias' description to\nsuch an extent that we can claim Papias as a witness to them.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut now a further enquiry opens out upon us. The language of\nPapias does not apply to our present Gospels; will it apply to\nsome earlier and more primary state of those Gospels, to documents\n_incorporated in_ the works that have come down to us but not\nco-extensive with them? German critics, it is well known,\ndistinguish between 'Matth\u00e4us'--the present Gospel that bears the\nname of St. Matthew--and 'Ur-Matth\u00e4us,' or the original work of\nthat Apostle, 'Marcus'--our present St. Mark--and 'Ur-Marcus,' an\nolder and more original document, the real production of the\ncompanion of St. Peter. Is it to these that Papias alludes?\n\nHere we have a much more tenable and probable hypothesis. Papias\nsays that Matthew composed 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia]) in\nthe Hebrew tongue. The meaning of the word [Greek: logia] has been\nmuch debated. Perhaps the strictest translation of it is that\nwhich has been given, 'oracles'--short but weighty and solemn or\nsacred sayings. I should be sorry to say that the word would not\nbear the sense assigned to it by Dr. Westcott, who paraphrases it\nfelicitously (from his point of view) by our word 'Gospel'\n[Endnote 155:1]. It is, however, difficult to help feeling that\nthe _natural_ sense of the word has to be somewhat strained\nin order to make it cover the whole of our present Gospel, and to\nbring under it the record of facts to as great an extent as\ndiscourse. It seems at least the simplest and most obvious\ninterpretation to confine the word strictly or mainly to\ndiscourse. 'Matthew composed the discourses (those brief yet\nauthoritative discourses) in Hebrew.'\n\nAt this point we are met by a further coincidence. The common\nmatter in the first three Gospels is divided into a triple\nsynopsis and a double synopsis--the first of course running\nthrough all three Gospels, the second found only in St. Matthew\nand St. Luke. But this double synopsis is nearly, though not\nquite, confined to discourse; where it contains narration proper,\nas in the account of John the Baptist and the Centurion of\nCapernaum, discourse is largely mingled with it. But, if the\nmatter common to Matthew and Luke consists of discourse, may it\nnot be these very [Greek: logia] that Papias speaks of? Is it not\npossible that the two Evangelists had access to the original work\nof St. Matthew and incorporated its material into their own\nGospels in different ways? It would thus be easy to understand how\nthe name that belonged to a special and important part of the\nfirst Gospel gradually came to be extended over the whole. Bulk\nwould not unnaturally be a great consideration with the early\nChristians. The larger work would quickly displace the smaller; it\nwould contain all that the smaller contained with additions no\nless valuable, and would therefore be eagerly sought by the\nconverts, whose object would be rather fulness of information than\nthe best historical attestation. The original work would be simply\nlost, absorbed, in the larger works that grew out of it.\n\nThis is the kind of presumption that we have for identifying the\nLogia of Papias with the second ground document of the first\nGospel--the document, that is, which forms the basis of the double\nsynopsis between the first Gospel and the third. As a hypothesis\nthe identification of these two documents seems to clear up\nseveral points. It gives a 'local habitation and a name' to a\ndocument, the separate and independent existence of which there is\nstrong reason to suspect, and it explains how the name of St.\nMatthew came to be placed at the head of the Gospel without\ninvolving too great a breach in the continuity of the tradition.\nIt should be remembered that Papias is not giving his own\nstatement but that of the Presbyter John, which dates back to a\ntime contemporary with the composition of the Gospel. On the other\nhand, by the time of Irenaeus, whose early life ran parallel with\nthe closing years of Papias, the title was undoubtedly given to\nthe Gospel in its present form. It is therefore as difficult to\nthink that the Gospel had no connection with the Apostle whose\nname it bears, as it is impossible to regard it as entirely his\nwork. The Logia hypothesis seems to suggest precisely such an\nintermediate relation as will satisfy both sides of the problem.\n\nThere are, however, still difficulties in the way. When we attempt\nto reconstruct the 'collection of discourses' the task is very far\nfrom being an easy one. We do indeed find certain groups of\ndiscourse in the first Gospel--such as the Sermon on the Mount ch.\nv-vii, the commission of the Apostles ch. x, a series of parables\nch. xiii, of instructions in ch. xviii, invectives against the\nPharisees in ch. xxvi, and long eschatological discourses in ch.\nxxiv and xxv, which seem at once to give a handle to the theory\nthat the Evangelist has incorporated a work consisting specially\nof discourses into the main body of the Synoptic narrative. But\nthe appearance of roundness and completeness which these\ndiscourses present is deceptive. If we are to suppose that the\nform in which the discourses appear in St. Matthew at all nearly\nrepresents their original structure, then how is it that the same\ndiscourses are found in the third Gospel in such a state of\ndispersion? How is it, for instance, that the parallel passages to\nthe Sermon on the Mount are found in St. Luke scattered over\nchapters vi, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, with almost every possible\ninversion and variety of order? Again, if the Matthaean sections\nrepresent a substantive work, how are we to account for the\nstrange intrusion of the triple synopsis into the double? What are\nwe to say to the elaborately broken structure of ch. x? On the\nother hand, if we are to take the Lucan form as nearer to the\noriginal, that original must have been a singular agglomeration of\nfragments which it is difficult to piece together. It is easy to\nstate a theory that shall look plausible so long as it is confined\nto general terms, but when it comes to be worked out in detail it\nwill seem to be more and more difficult and involved at every\nstep. The Logia hypothesis in fact carries us at once into the\nvery nodus of Synoptic criticism, and, in the present state of the\nquestion, must be regarded as still some way from being\nestablished.\n\nThe problem in regard to St. Mark and the triple synopsis is\nconsiderably simpler. Here the difficulty arises from the\nnecessity of assuming a distinction between our present second\nGospel and the original document on which that Gospel is based. I\nhave already touched upon this point. The synoptical analysis\nseems to conduct us to a ground document greatly resembling our\npresent St. Mark, which cannot however be quite identical with it,\nas the Canonical Gospel is found to contain secondary features.\nBut apart from the fact that these secondary features are so\ncomparatively few that it is difficult to realise the existence of\na work in which they, and they only, should be absent, there is\nthis further obstacle to the identification even of the ground\ndocument with the Mark of Papias, that even in that original shape\nthe Gospel still presented the normal type of the Synoptic order,\nthough 'order' is precisely the characteristic that Papias says\nwas, in this Gospel, wanting.\n\nEverywhere we meet with difficulties and complexities. The\ntestimony of Papias remains an enigma that can only be solved--if\never it is solved--by close and detailed investigations. I am\nbound in candour to say that, so far as I can see myself at\npresent, I am inclined to agree with the author of 'Supernatural\nReligion' against his critics [Endnote 159:1], that the works to\nwhich Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in their\npresent form.\n\nWhat amount of significance this may have for the enquiry before\nus is a further question. Papias is repeating what he had heard\nfrom the Presbyter John, which would seem to take us up to the\nvery fountainhead of evangelical composition. But such a statement\ndoes not preclude the possibility of subsequent changes in the\ndocuments to which it refers. The difficulties and restrictions of\nlocal communication must have made it hard for an individual to\ntrace all the phases of literary activity in a society so widely\nspread as the Christian, even if it had come within the purpose of\nthe writer or his informant to state the whole, and not merely the\nessential part, of what he knew.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES.\n\n\nIt is unfortunate that there are not sufficient materials for\ndetermining the date of the Clementine Homilies. Once given the\ndate and a conclusion of considerable certainty could be drawn\nfrom them; but the date is uncertain, and with it the extent to\nwhich they can be used as evidence either on one side or on the\nother.\n\nSome time in the second century there sprang up a crop of\nheretical writings in the Ebionite sect which were falsely\nattributed to Clement of Rome. The two principal forms in which\nthese have come down to us are the so-called Homilies and\nRecognitions. The Recognitions however are only extant in a Latin\ntranslation by Rufinus, in which the quotations from the Gospels\nhave evidently been assimilated to the Canonical text which\nRufinus himself used. They are not, therefore, in any case\navailable for our purpose. Whether the Recognitions or the\nHomilies came first in order of time is a question much debated\namong critics, and the even way in which the best opinions seem to\nbe divided is a proof of the uncertainty of the data. On the one\nside are ranged Credner, Ewald, Reuss, Schwegler, Schliemann,\nUhlhorn, Dorner, and L\u00fccke, who assign the priority to the\nHomilies: on the other, Hilgenfeld, K\u00f6stlin, Ritschl (doubtfully),\nand Volkmar, who give the first place to the Recognitions [Endnote\n162:1]. On the ground of authority perhaps the preference should\nbe given to the first of these, as representing more varied\nparties and as carrying with them the greater weight of sound\njudgment, but it is impossible to say that the evidence on either\nside is decisive.\n\nThe majority of critics assign the Clementines, in one form or the\nother, to the middle of the second century. Credner, Schliemann,\nScholten, and Renan give this date to the Homilies; Volkmar and\nHilgenfeld to the Recognitions; Ritschl to both recensions alike\n[Endnote 162:2]. We shall assume hypothetically that the Homilies\nare rightly thus dated. I incline myself to think that this is\nmore probable, but, speaking objectively, the probability could\nnot have a higher value put upon it than, say, two in three.\n\nOne reason for assigning the Homilies to the middle of the second\ncentury is presented by the phenomena of the quotations from the\nGospels which correspond generally to those that are found in\nwritings of this date, and especially, as has been frequently\nnoticed, to those which we meet with in Justin. I proceed to give\na tabulated list of the quotations. In order to bring out a point\nof importance I have indicated by a letter in the left margin the\npresence in the Clementine quotations of some of the _peculiarities_\nof our present Gospels. When this letter is unbracketed, it denotes\nthat the passage is _only_ found in the Gospel so indicated; when\nthe letter is enclosed in brackets, it is implied that the passage\nis synoptical, but that the Clementines reproduce expressions peculiar\nto that particular Gospel. The direct quotations are marked by the\nletter Q. Many of the references are merely allusive, and in more\nit is sufficiently evident that the writer has allowed himself\nconsiderable freedom [Endnote 163:1].\n\n\n    _Exact._     |_Slightly variant._ |   _Variant._     | _Remarks._\n                 |                    |                  |\n(M.)             |                    |8.21, Luke 4.6-8  |narrative.\n                 |                    | (=Matt. 4.8-10), |\n                 |                    |  Q.              |\n                 |                    |3.55, [Greek: ho  |\n                 |                    |  ponaeros estin  |\n                 |                    |  ho peirazon.],  |\n                 |                    |  Q.              |\n                 |                    |15.10, Matt. 5.3; |\n                 |                    |  Luke 6.20.      |\nM.               |17.7, Matt. 5.8.    |                  |\n(M.)             |3.51     } Matt. 5. |                  |repeated\n                 |Ep. Pet. 2}  17,18. |                  |  identically.\n                 |                    |11.32, Matt. 5.   |highly condensed\n                 |                    |  21-48.          |  paraphrase,\n                 |                    |                  |  [Greek: oi\n                 |                    |                  |  en planae.]\n                 |      {   Matt.5.44,|                  |allusive merely.\n                 |12.32 {   45(=Luke  |                  |\n                 |3.19  {6.27, 28,    |                  |\n                 |      {35).         |                  |\nM.               |3.56, Matt. 5.34,   |                  |\n                 |  35, Q.            |                  |\nM.               |3.55} Matt. 5.37.   |                  |repeated identi-\n                 |19.2}   Q.          |                  |  cally; so\n                 |                    |                  |  Justin.\n(M.)             |                    |3.57. Matt. 5.45. |\n                 |                    |      Q.          |\n                 |                    |                 {|oblique and allu-\n                 |                    |12.26            {|  sive, repeated\n                 |                    |18.2.            {|  in part simi-\n                 |                    |11.12            {|  larly; [Greek:\n                 |                    |                 {|  pherei ton\n                 |                    |                 {|  hueton].\nM.               |3.55, Matt. 6,6, Q. |                  |\n19.2, Matt.6.13  |                    |                  |\n  Q.             |                    |                  |\n(M.)             |3.55, Matt. 6.32;   |                  |combination.\n                 |  6.8 (=Luke 12.30.)|                  |\n                 |                    |18.16, Matt. 7.2  |oblique and allu-\n                 |                    |  (12).           |  sive.\n                 |3.52, Matt. 7.7     |                  |[Greek: euris-\n                 |  (=Luke 11.9).     |                  |  kete] for\n                 |                    |                  |  [euraeskete]\n                 |                    |                  |  in both.\n(L.M.)           |3.56, Matt. 7.9-11  |                  |striking divi-\n                 |  (=Luke 11.11-13)  |                  |  sion of pecu-\n                 |                    |                  |  liarities of\n                 |                    |                  |  both Gospels.\n                 |                    |12.32} Matt. 7.12 |repeated di-\n                 |                    |7.4  } (=Luke     |  versely,\n                 |                    |11.4 }   6.31.    |  allusive.\n(M.)             |18.17, Matt. 7.     |(omissions), Q.   |\n                 |  13,14.            |                  |\n                 |                    |7.7. Matt. 7.13,  |allusive para-\n                 |                    |  14.             |  phrase.\n(L.)             |8.7, Luke 6.46.     |                  |\n                 |11.35, Matt. 7.15.  |                  |Justin, in part\n                 |                    |                  |  similarly, in\n                 |                    |                  |  part diversely.\n(M.)             |8.4, Matt. 8.11,    |(addition), Q.    |Justin diversely.\n                 |  12 (Luke 13.29).  |                  |\n                 |9.21, Matt. 8.9     |                  |allusive merely.\n                 |  (Luke 7.8).       |                  |\n(M.)             |3.56, Matt. 9.13    |(addition), Q.    |from LXX.\n                 |  (12.7).           |                  |\n(L.M.)           |                    |       {Matt. 10. |{\n                 |                    |       { 13, 15=  |{\n                 |                    |       { Luke 10. |{\n                 |                    |13.30, { 5,6,10-  |{mixed pecu-\n                 |                    |  31.  { 12 (9.5) |{ liarities,\n                 |                    |       { =Mark    |{ oblique and\n                 |                    |       { 6.11.    |{ allusive.\n(L.M.)           |17.5, Matt. 10.28   |                  |mixed peculia-\n                 | (=Luke 12,4, 5), Q.|                  |  rities; Justin\n                 |                    |                  |  diversely.\n                 |                    |12.31, Matt. 10.  |allusive merely.\n                 |                    |  29, 30 (=Luke   |\n                 |                    |  12.6, 7).       |\n                 |3.17 {Matt. 11.11.  |                  |allusive.\n                 |     {Luke 7.28.    |                  |\n                 |8.6, Matt. 11.25    |(addition)+.      |perhaps from\n                 | (=Luke x.21).      |                  |  Matt. 21.16.\n(M.)             |                    |17.4 }            |{\n                 |                    |18.4 }Matt. 11.27 |{repeated simi-\n                 |                    |18.7 } (=Luke     |{ larly; cp.\n                 |                    |18.13}  10.22), Q.|{ Justin, &c.\n                 |                    |18.20}            |\nM. 3.52, Matt.   |                    |                  |\n(M.)             |+19.2. Matt. 12.    |                  |[Greek: allae\n                 |  26, Q.            |                  |  pou.]\n(M.L.)           |+19.7, Matt. 12.    |                  |\n                 |  34 (=Luke 6.      |                  |\n                 |  45), Q.           |                  |\nM.11.33, Matt.   |(addition), Q.      |                  |\n  12.42.         |                    |                  |\n                 |11.33, Matt. 12.    |                  |\n                 |  41 (=Luke 11.     |                  |\n                 |  32), Q.           |                  |\n(M.L.)           |M.53, Matt. 13.     |                  |\n                 |  16 (=Luke 10.     |                  |\n                 |  24), +Q.          |                  |\nM.18.15, Matt.   |                    |                  |\n  13.35+.        |                    |                  |\nMk.              |19.20, Mark 4.34.   |                  |\nM.               |19.2, Matt. 13.     |                  |\n                 |39, Q.              |                  |\nM.3.52, Matt. 15.|                    |                  |\n  15 (om. [Greek:|                    |                  |\n  mou]), Q.      |                    |                  |\n                 |                    |      {Matt. 15.  |narrative.\n                 |                    |11.19 {21-28      |\n                 |                    |      {(=Mark     |[Greek: Iousta\n                 |                    |      {7.24-30).  |  Surophoini-\n                 |                    |                  |  kissa.]\n(M.)             |17.18, Matt. 16.    |                  |\n                 |  16 (par.)         |                  |\nM.               |                    |Ep. Clem. 2,      |allusive merely.\n                 |                    |  Matt. 16.19.    |\nM.               |Ep. Clem. 6, Matt.  |                  |ditto.\n                 |  16.19.            |                  |\n(M.)             |3.53, Matt. 17.5    |                  |\n                 |  (par.), Q.        |                  |\nM.               |                    |12.29, Matt. 18.  |addition [Greek:\n                 |                    |  7, Q.           |  ta agatha\n                 |                    |                  |  elthein.]\nM.               |17.7, Matt. 18.10   |                  |\n                 |  (v.l.)            |                  |\n(L.) 3.71, Luke  |                    |                  |\n  10.7. (order)  |                    |                  |\n  (=Matt.10.10). |                    |                  |\nL.               |+19.2, Luke 10.18.  |                  |\nL.               |                    |9.22, Luke 10.20. |allusive merely.\nL.               |                    |17.5, Luke 18.6-  |\n                 |                    |  8, Q. (?)       |\n                 |                    |19.2, [Greek: mae |Cp. Eph. 4.27.\n                 |                    |  dote prophasin  |\n                 |                    |  to ponaero], Q. |\n                 |                    |3.53, Prophet like|Cp. Acts 3.22.\n                 |                    |  Moses, Q.       |\n(M.)             |3.54, Matt. 19.8,   |                  |sense more diver-\n                 |  4 (=Mark 10.5,    |                  |  gent than\n                 |  6), Q.            |                  |  words.\n                 |                    |      {Matt. 19.  |}\n                 |                    |17.4  {  16,17.   |}\n                 |                    |18.1  {Mark 10.   |}repeated simi-\n                 |                    |18.3  {  17,18.   |}  larly; cp.\n                 |                    |18.17 {Luke 18.   |}  Justin.\n                 |                    | 3.57 {  18,19.   |}\nL.               |                    |3.63, Luke 19.    |not quotation.\n                 |                    |  5.9.            |\nM.8.4, Matt. 22. |                    |                  |\n  14, Q.         |                    |                  |\n(M.)             |                    |8.22, Matt. 22.9. |allusive merely.\n                 |                    |  11.             |\n                 |                    | 3.50 {Matt. 22.  |}\n                 |                    | 2.51 {29 (=Mark  |}repeated simi-\n                 |                    |18.20 {12.24), Q. |}  larly.\n                 |                    | 3.50, [Greek:    |\n                 |                    |  dia ti ou       |\n                 |                    |  eulogon ton     |\n                 |                    |  graphon;]       |\n(Mk.) 3.55, Mark |                    |                  |\n  12.27 (par.),  |                    |                  |\nMk. 3.57, Mark   |                    |                  |\n  12.29 [Greek:  |                    |                  |\n  haemon], Q.    |                    |                  |\n                 |                    |17.7, Mark 12.30  |allusive.\n                 |                    |  (=Matt. 22.37). |\n                {|3.18, Matt. 23.2,   |                  |\nM.              {|  3, Q.             |                  |\n                {|                    |3.18, Matt. 23.13 |repeated simi-\n                {|                    |  (=Luke 11.52).  |  larly.\n                 |                    |18.15.            |\n(M.)             |11.29, Matt. 23.    |                  |\n                 |  25, 26, Q.        |                  |\n(Mk.)           {|3.15, Mark 13.2     |                  |\n                {|(par.), Q.          |                  |\n                {|                    |3.15, Matt. 24.3  |\n                {|                    |  (par.), Q.      |\nL.              {|                    |Luke 19.43, Q.    |\n                 |                    |16.21, [Greek:    |\n                 |                    |  esontai pseud-  |\n                 |                    |  apostoloi].     |\n(M.)             |3.60 (3.64), Matt.  |                  |part repeated\n                 |  24.45-51 (=       |                  |  larly.\n                 |  Luke 12.42-46).   |                  |\n(M.) 3.65, Matt. |                    |                  |\n  25.21 (= Luke  |                    |                  |\n  19.17).        |                    |                  |\n(M. L.)          |                    |3.61, Matt. 25.26,|? mixed peculi-\n                 |                    |  26,27 (=Luke 19.|  arities.\n                 |                    |  22,23).         |\n                 |                    | 2.51}[Greek:     |\n                 |                    | 3.50} ginesthe   |\n                 |                    |18.20} trapezitai |\n                 |                    |     } dokimoi.]  |\nM.               |                    |19.2. Matt. 25.   |[Greek: allae\n                 |                    |  41, Q.          |  pou.]  Justin\n                 |                    |                  |\nL.               |11.20, Luke 23.34   |                  |\n                 |  (v.l.), Q.        |                  |\n                 |                    |17.7, Matt. 28.19.|allusive.\n\nBy far the greater part of the quotations in the Clementine\nHomilies are taken from the discourses, but some few have\nreference to the narrative. There can hardly be said to be any\nmaterial difference from our Gospels, though several apocryphal\nsayings and some apocryphal details are added. Thus the Clementine\nwriter calls John a 'Hemerobaptist,' i.e. member of a sect which\npractised daily baptism [Endnote 167:1]. He talks about a rumour\nwhich became current in the reign of Tiberius about the 'vernal\nequinox,' that at the same season a king should arise in Judaea\nwho should work miracles, making the blind to see, the lame to\nwalk, healing every disease, including leprosy, and raising the\ndead; in the incident of the Canaanite woman (whom, with Mark, he\ncalls a Syrophoenician) he adds her name, 'Justa,' and that of her\ndaughter 'Bernice;' he also limits the ministry of our Lord to one\nyear [Endnote 168:1]. Otherwise, with the exception of the sayings\nmarked as without parallel, all of the Clementine quotations have\na more or less close resemblance to our Gospels.\n\nWe are struck at once by the small amount of exact coincidence,\nwhich is considerably less than that which is found in the\nquotations from the Old Testament. The proportion seems lower than\nit is, because many of the passages that have been entered in the\nabove list do not profess to be quotations. Another phenomenon\nequally remarkable is the extent to which the writer of the\nHomilies has reproduced the peculiarities of particular extant\nGospels. So far front being it a colourless text, as it is in some\nfew places which present a parallel to our Synoptic Gospels, the\nClementine version both frequently includes passages that are\nfound only in some one of the canonical Gospels, and also, we may\nsay usually, repeats the characteristic phrases by which one\nGospel is distinguished from another. Thus we find that as many as\neighteen passages reappear in the Homilies that are found only in\nSt. Matthew; one of the extremely few that are found only in St.\nMark; and six of those that are peculiar to St. Luke. Taking the\nfirst Gospel, we find that the Clementine Homilies contain (in an\nallusive form) the promises to the pure in heart; as a quotation,\nwith close resemblance, the peculiar precepts in regard to oaths;\nthe special admonition to moderation of language which, as we have\nseen, seems proved to be Matthaean by the clause [Greek: to gar\nperisson touton k.t.l.]; with close resemblance, again, the\ndirections for secret prayer; identically, the somewhat remarkable\nphrase, [Greek: deute pros me pantes hoi kopiontes]; all but\nidentically another phrase, also noteworthy, [Greek: pasa phuteia\nhaen ouk ephuteusen ho pataer [mou] ho ouranios ekrizothaesetai];\nwith a resemblance that is closer in the text of B ([Greek: en to\nourano] for [Greek: en ouranois]), the saying respecting the\nangels who behold the face of the Father; identically again, the\ntext [Greek: polloi klaetoi, oligoi de eklektoi]: in the shape of\nan allusion only, the wedding garment; with near agreement, 'the\nScribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.' All these are passages\nfound only in the first Gospel, and in regard to which there is\njust so much presumption that they had no large circulation among\nnon-extant Gospels, as they did not find their way into the two\nother Gospels that have come down to us.\n\nThere is, however, a passage that I have not mentioned here which\ncontains (if the canonical reading is correct) a strong indication\nof the use of our actual St. Matthew. The whole history of this\npassage is highly curious. In the chapter which contains so many\nparables the Evangelist adds, by way of comment, that this form of\naddress was adopted in order 'that it might be fulfilled which was\nspoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I\nwill utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation\nof the world.' This is according to the received text, which\nattributes the quotation to 'the prophet' ([Greek: dia tou\nprophaetou]). It is really taken from Ps. lxxvii. 2, which is\nascribed in the heading to Asaph, who, according to the usage of\nwriters at this date, might be called a prophet, as he is in the\nSeptuagint version of 2 Chron. xxix. 30. The phrase [Greek: ho\nprophaetaes legei] in quotations from the Psalms is not uncommon.\nThe received reading is that of by far the majority of the MSS.\nand versions: the first hand of the Sinaitic, however, and the\nvaluable cursives 1 and 33 with the Aethiopic (a version on which\nnot much reliance can be placed) and m. of the Old Latin (Mai's\n'Speculum,' presenting a mixed African text) [Endnote 170:1],\ninsert [Greek: Haesaiou] before [Greek: tou prophaetou]. It also\nappears that Porphyry alleged this as an instance of false\nascription. Eusebius admits that it was found in some, though not\nin the most accurate MSS., and Jerome says that in his day it was\nstill the reading of 'many.'\n\nAll this is very fully and fairly stated in 'Supernatural\nReligion' [Endnote 170:2], where it is maintained that [Greek:\nHaesaiou] is the original reading. The critical question is one of\ngreat difficulty; because, though the evidence of the Fathers is\nnaturally suspected on account of their desire to explain away the\nmistake, and though we can easily imagine that the correction\nwould be made very early and would rapidly gain ground, still the\nvery great preponderance of critical authority is hard to get\nover, and as a rule Eusebius seems to be trustworthy in his\nestimate of MSS. Tischendorf (in his texts of 1864 and 1869) is, I\nbelieve, the only critic of late who has admitted [Greek:\nHaesaiou] into the text.\n\nThe false ascription may be easily paralleled; as in Mark i. 2,\nMatt. xxvii. 9, Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 28 (where a passage of\nJeremiah is quoted as Isaiah), &c.\n\nThe relation of the Clementine and of the canonical quotations to\neach other and to the Septuagint will be represented thus:-\n\n_Clem. Hom._ xviii. 15.\n\n[Greek: Kai ton Haesaian eipein; Anoixo to stoma mou en parabolais\nkai exereuxomai kekrummena apo katabolaes kosmou.]\n\n_Matt._ xiii. 35.\n\n[Greek: Hopos plaerothe to rhaethen dia [Haesaiou?] tou prophaetou\nlegontos; Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, ereuxomai kekrummena\napo katabolaes kosmou] [om. [Greek: kosmou] a few of the best\nMSS.]\n\nLXX. _Ps._ lxxvii. 2.\n\n[Greek: Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, phthegxomai problaemata\nap' archaes.]\n\nThe author of 'Supernatural Religion' contends for the reading\n[Greek: Haesaiou], and yet does not see in the Clementine passage\na quotation from St. Matthew. He argues, with a strange domination\nby modern ideas, that the quotation cannot be from St. Matthew\nbecause of the difference of context, and declares it to be 'very\nprobable that the passage with its erroneous reference was derived\nby both from another and common source.' Surely it is not\nnecessary to go back to the second century to find parallels for\nthe use of 'proof texts' without reference to the context; but, as\nwe have seen, context counts for little or nothing in these early\nquotations,--verbal resemblance is much more important. The\nsupposition of a common earlier source for both the Canonical and\nthe Clementine text seems to me quite out of the question. There\ncan be little doubt that the reference to the Psalm is due to the\nfirst Evangelist himself. Precisely up to this point he goes hand\nin hand with St. Mark, and the quotation is introduced in his own\npeculiar style and with his own peculiar formula, [Greek: hopos\nplaerothae to rhaethen].\n\nI must, however, again repeat that the surest criterion of the use\nof a Gospel is to be sought in the presence of phrases or turns of\nexpression which are shown to be characteristic and distinctive of\nthat Gospel by a comparison with the synopsis of the other\nGospels. This criterion can be abundantly applied in the case of\nthe Clementine Homilies and St. Matthew. I will notice a little\nmore at length some of the instances that have been marked in the\nabove table. Let us first take the passage which has a parallel in\nMatt. v. 18 and in Luke xvi. 17. The three versions will stand\nthus:--\n\n_Matt._ v. 18.\n\n[Greek: Amaen gar lego humin; heos an parelthae ho ouranos kai hae\ngae iota en ae mia keraia ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou, heos an\npanta genaetai.]\n\n_Clem. Hom._ iii. 51.\n_Ep. Pet._ c. 2.\n\n[Greek: Ho ouranos kai hae gae pareleusontai, iota en ae mia keraia\nou mae parelthae apo tou nomou] [Ep. Pet. adds [Greek: touto de\neiraeken, hina ta panta genaetai]].\n\n_Luke_ xvi. 17.\n\n[Greek: Eukopoteron de esti, ton ouranon kai taen gaen parelthein,\nae tou nomou mian keraian pesein.]\n\nIt will be seen that in the Clementines the passage is quoted\ntwice over, and each time with the variation [Greek pareleusontai]\nfor [Greek: heos an parelthae]. The author of 'Supernatural\nReligion' argues from this that he is quoting from another Gospel\n[Endnote 172:1]. No doubt the fact does tell, so far as it goes,\nin that direction, but it is easy to attach too much weight to it.\nThe phenomenon of repeated variation may be even said to be a\ncommon one in some writers. Dr. Westcott [Endnote 172:2] has\nadduced examples from Chrysostom, and they would be as easy to\nfind in Epiphanius or Clement of Alexandria, where we can have no\ndoubt that the canonical Gospels are being quoted. A slight and\nnatural turn of expression such as this easily fixes itself in the\nmemory. The author also insists that the passage in the Gospel\nquoted in the Clementines ended with the word [Green: nomou]; but\nI think it may be left to any impartial person to say whether the\naddition in the Epistle of Peter does not naturally point to a\ntermination such as is found in the first canonical Gospel. Our\ncritic seems unable to free himself from the standpoint (which he\nrepresents ably enough) of the modern Englishman, or else is\nlittle familiar with the fantastic trains and connections of\nreasoning which are characteristic of the Clementines.\n\nTurning from these objections and comparing the Clementine\nquotation first with the text of St. Matthew and then with that of\nSt. Luke, we cannot but be struck with its very close resemblance\nto the former and with the wide divergence of the latter. The\npassage is one where almost every word and syllable might easily\nand naturally be altered--as the third Gospel shows that they have\nbeen altered--and yet in the Clementines almost every peculiarity\nof the Matthaean version has been retained.\n\nAnother quotation which shows the delicacy of these verbal\nrelations is that which corresponds to Matt. vi. 32 (= Luke xii.\n30):--\n\n_Matt._ vi. 32.\n\n[Greek: Oide gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios, hoti chraezete\ntouton hapanton.]\n\n_Clem. Hom._ iii. 55.\n\n[Greek: [ephae] Oiden gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios hoti\nchraezete touton hapanton, prin auton axiosaete] (cp. Matt. vi.\n8).\n\n_Luke_ xii. 30.\n\n[Greek: Humon de ho pataer oiden hoti chraezete touton.]\n\nThe natural inference from the exactness of this coincidence with\nthe language of Matthew as compared with Luke, is not neutralised\nby the paraphrastic addition from Matt. vi. 8, because such\nadditions and combinations, as will have been seen from our table\nof quotations from the Old Testament, are of frequent occurrence.\n\nThe quotation of Matt. v. 45 (= Luke vi. 35) is a good example of\nthe way in which the pseudo-Clement deals with quotations. The\npassage is quoted as often as four times, with wide difference and\nindeed complete confusion of text. It is impossible to determine\nwhat text he really had before him; but through all this confusion\nthere is traceable a leaning to the Matthaean type rather than the\nLucan, ([Greek: [ho] pat[aer ho] en [tois] ouranois ... ton aelion\nautou anatellei epi agathous kai ponaerous]). It does, however,\nappear that he had some such phrase as [Greek: hueton pherei] or\n[Greek: parechei] for [Greek: brechei], and in one of his quotations\nhe has the [Greek: ginesthe agathoi] (for [Greek: chraestoi])\n[Greek: kai oiktirmones] of Justin. Justin, on the other hand,\ncertainly had [Greek: brechei].\n\nThe, in any case, paraphrastic quotation or quotations which find\na parallel in Matt. vii. 13, 14 and Luke xiii. 24 are important as\nseeming to indicate that, if not taken from our Gospel, they are\ntaken from another in a later stage of formation. The characteristic\nMatthaean expressions [Greek: stenae] and [Greek: tethlimmenae] are\nretained, but the distinction between [Greek: pulae] and [Greek: hodos]\nhas been lost, and both the epithets are applied indiscriminately to\n[Greek: hodos].\n\nIn the narrative of the confession of Peter, which belongs to the\ntriple synopsis, and is assigned by Ewald to the 'Collection of\nDiscourses,' [Endnote 174:1] by Weiss [Endnote 174:2] and\nHoltzmann [Endnote 175:1] to the original Gospel of St. Mark, the\nClementine writer follows Matthew alone in the phrase [Greek: Su\nei ho huios tou zontos Theou]. The synoptic parallels are--\n\n_Matt._ xvi. 16.\n\n[Greek: Su ei ho Christos, ho huios tou Theou tou zontos.]\n\n_Mark_ viii. 29.\n\n[Greek: Su ei ho Christos.]\n\n_Luke_ ix. 20.\n\n[Greek: ton Christon tou Theou.]\n\nHoltzmann and Weiss seem to agree (the one explicitly, the other\nimplicitly) in taking the words [Greek: ho huios tou Theou tou\nzontos] as an addition by the first Evangelist and as not a part\nof the text of the original document. In that case there would be\nthe strongest reason to think that the pseudo-Clement had made use\nof the canonical Gospel. Ewald, however, we may infer, from his\nassigning the passage to the 'Collection of Discourses,' regards\nit as presented by St. Matthew most nearly in its original form,\nof which the other two synoptic versions would be abbreviations.\nIf this were so, it would then be _possible_ that the Clementine\nquotation was made directly from the original document or from a\nsecondary document parallel to our first Gospel. The question that\nis opened out as to the composition of the Synoptics is one of great\ndifficulty and complexity. In any case there is a balance of probability,\nmore or less decided, in favour of the reference to our present Gospel.\n\nAnother very similar instance occurs in the next section of the\nsynoptic narrative, the Transfiguration. Here again the Clementine\nHomilies insert a phrase which is only found in St. Matthew,\n[Greek: [Houtos estin mou ho huios ho agapaetos], eis hon]\n([Greek: en ho] Matt.) [Greek: aeudokaesa]. Ewald and Holtzmann\nsay nothing about the origin of this phrase; Weiss [Endnote 176:1]\nthinks it is probably due to the first Evangelist. In that case\nthere would be an all but conclusive proof--in any case there will\nbe a presumption--that our first Gospel has been followed.\n\nBut one of the most interesting, as well as the clearest,\nindications of the use of the first Synoptic is derived from the\ndiscourse directed against the Pharisees. It will be well to give\nthe parallel passages in full:--\n\n_Matt._ xxiii. 25, 26.\n\n[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti\nkatharizete to exothen tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, esothen\nde gemousin ex harpagaes kai adikias. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison\nproton to entos tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, hina genaetai\nkai to ektos auton katharon.]\n\n_Clem. Hom._ xi. 29.\n\n[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti\nkatharizete tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to exothen, esothen\nde gemei rhupous. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison proton tou\npotaeriou kai taes paropsidos to esothen, hina genaetai kai ta exo\nauton kathara.]\n\n_Luke_ xi. 39.\n\n[Greek: Nun humeis hoi Pharisaioi to exothen tou potaerion kai tou\npinakos katharizete, to de esothen humon gemei harpagaes kai\nponaerias. Aphrones ouch ho poiaesas to exothen kai to esothen\nepoiaese?]\n\nHere there is a very remarkable transition in the first Gospel\nfrom the plural to the singular in the sudden turn of the address,\n[Greek: Pharisaie tuphle]. This derives no countenance from the\nthird Gospel, but is exactly reproduced in the Clementine\nHomilies, which follow closely the Matthaean version throughout.\n\nWe may defer for the present the notice of a few passages which\nwith a more or less close resemblance to St. Matthew also contain\nsome of the peculiarities of St. Luke.\n\nTaking into account the whole extent to which the special\npeculiarities of the first Gospel reappear in the Clementines, I\nthink we shall be left in little doubt that that Gospel has been\nactually used by the writer.\n\nThe peculiar features of our present St. Mark are known to be\nextremely few, yet several of these are also found in the\nClementine Homilies. In the quotation Mark x. 5, 6 (= Matt. xix.\n8, 4) the order of Mark is followed, though the words are more\nnearly those of Matthew. In the divergent quotation Mark xii. 24\n(= Matt. xxii. 29) the Clementines, with Mark, introduce [Greek:\ndia touto]. The concluding clause of the discussion about the\nLevirate marriage stands (according to the best readings) thus:--\n\n_Matt._ xxii. 32.\n\n[Greek: Ouk estin ho Theos nekron, alla zonton.]\n\n_Mark_ xii. 27.\n\n[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton.]\n\n_Luke_ xx. 38.\n\n[Greek: Theos de ouk estin nekron, alla zonton.]\n\n_Clem. Hom._ iii. 55.\n\n[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton.]\n\nHere [Greek: Theos] is in Mark and the Clementines a predicate,\nin Matthew the subject. In the introduction to the Eschatological\ndiscourse the Clementines approach more nearly to St. Mark than to\nany other Gospel: [Greek: Horate] ([Greek: blepeis], Mark) [Greek:\ntas] ([Greek: megalas], Mark) [Greek: oikodomas tautas; amaen\nhumin lego] (as Matt.) [Greek: lithos epi lithon ou mae aphethae\node, hos ou mae] (as Mark) [Greek: kathairethae] ([Greek:\nkataluthae], Mark; other Gospels, future). Instead of [Greek: tas\noikodomas toutas] the other Gospels have [Greek: tauta--tauta\npanta].\n\nBut there are two stronger cases than these. The Clementines and\nMark alone have the opening clause of the quotation from Deut. vi.\n4, [Greek: Akoue, Israael, Kurios ho Theos haemon kurios eis\nestin]. In the synopsis of the first Gospel this is omitted (Matt.\nxxii. 37). There is a variation in the Clementine text, which for\n[Greek: haemon] has, according to Dressel, [Greek: sou], and,\naccording to Cotelier, [Greek: humon]. Both these readings however\nare represented among the authorities for the canonical text:\n[Greek: sou] is found in c (Codex Colbertinus, one of the best\ncopies of the Old Latin), in the Memphitic and Aethiopic versions,\nand in the Latin Fathers Cyprian and Hilary; [Greek: humon]\n(vester) has the authority of the Viennese fragment i, another\nrepresentative of the primitive African form of the Old Latin\n[Endnote 178:1].\n\nThe objection to the inference that the quotation is made from St.\nMark, derived from the context in which it appears in the\nClementines, is really quite nugatory. It is true that the\nquotation is addressed to those 'who were beguiled to imagine many\ngods,' and that 'there is no hint of the assertion of many gods in\nthe Gospel' [Endnote 178:2]; but just as little hint is there of\nthe assertion 'that God is evil' in the quotation [Greek: mae me\nlegete agathon] just before. There is not the slightest reason to\nsuppose that the Gospel from which the Clementines quote would\ncontain any such assertion. In this particular case the mode of\nquotation cannot be said to be very unscrupulous; but even if it\nwere more so we need not go back to antiquity for parallels: they\nare to be found in abundance in any ordinary collection of proof\ntexts of the Church Catechism or of the Thirty-nine Articles, or\nin most works of popular controversy. I must confess to my\nsurprise that such an objection could be made by an experienced\ncritic.\n\nCredner [Endnote 179:1] gives the last as the one decided\napproximation to our second Gospel, apparently overlooking the\nminor points mentioned above; but, at the time when he wrote, the\nconcluding portion of the Homilies, which contains the other most\nstriking instance, had not yet been published. With regard to this\nsecond instance, I must express my agreement with Canon Westcott\n[Endnote 179:2] against the author of 'Supernatural Religion.' The\npassage stands thus in the Clementines and the Gospel:--\n\n_Clem. Hom._ xix. 20.\n\n[Greek: Dio kai tois autou mathaetais kat' idian epelue taes ton\nouranon basileias ta mustaeria.]\n\n_Mark_ iv. 34.\n\n... [Greek: kat' idian de tois mathaetais autou epeluen panta]\n(compare iv. 11, [Greek: humin to mustaerion dedotai taes\nbasileias tou Theou]).\n\n The canonical reading, [Greek: tois mathaetais autou], rests\nchiefly upon Western authority (D, b, c, e, f, Vulg.) with A, 1,\n33, &c. and is adopted by Tregelles--it should be noted before the\ndiscovery of the Codex Sinaiticus. The true reading is probably\nthat which appears in this MS. along with B, C, L, [Greek: Delta\nsymbol], [Greek: tois idiois mathaetais]. We have however already\nseen the leaning of the Clementines for Western readings.\n\nWhen we compare the synopsis of St. Mark and St. Matthew together\nwe should be inclined to set this down as a very decided instance\nof quotation from the former. The only circumstance that detracts\nfrom the certainty of this conclusion is that a quotation had been\nmade just before which is certainly not from our canonical\nGospels, [Greek: ta mustaeria emoi kai tois huiois tou oikou mou\nphulaxate]. This is rightly noted in 'Supernatural Religion.' All\nthat we can say is that it is a drawback--it is just a makeweight\nin the opposite scale, as suggesting that the second quotation may\nbe also from an apocryphal Gospel; but it does not by any means\nserve to counterbalance the presumption that the quotation is\ncanonical. The coincidence of language is very marked. The\npeculiar compound [Greek: epiluo] occurs only once besides\n([Greek: epilusis] also once) in the whole of the New Testament,\nand not at all in the Gospels.\n\nWith the third Gospel also there are coincidences. Of the passages\npeculiar to this Gospel the Clementine writer has the fall of\nSatan ([Greek: ton ponaeron], Clem.) like lightning from heaven,\n'rejoice that your names are written in the book of life'\n(expanded with evident freedom), the unjust judge, Zacchaeus, the\ncircumvallation of Jerusalem, and the prayer, for the forgiveness\nof the Jews, upon the cross. It is unlikely that these passages,\nwhich are wanting in all our extant Gospels, should have had any\nother source than our third Synoptic. The 'circumvallation'\n([Greek: pericharakosousin] Clem., [Greek: peribalousin charaka]\nLuke) is especially important, as it is probable, and believed by\nmany critics, that this particular detail was added by the\nEvangelist after the event. The parable of the unjust judge,\nthough reproduced with something of the freedom to which we are\naccustomed in patristic narrative quotations both from the Old and\nNew Testament, has yet remarkable similarities of style and\ndiction ([Greek: ho kritaes taes adikias, poiaesei taen ekdikaesin\nton boonton pros auton haemeras kai nuktos, Lego humin, poaesei...\nen tachei).]\n\nWe have to add to these another class of peculiarities which occur\nin places where the synoptic parallel has been preserved. Thus in\nthe Sermon on the Mount we find the following:--\n\n_Matt._ vii. 21.\n\n[Greek: Ou pas ho legon moi, Kurie, Kurie, eiseleusetai eis taen\nbasileian ton ouranon, all' ho poion to thelaema tou patros mou\ntou en ouranois]\n\n_Clem. Hom._ viii. 7.\n\n[Greek: Ti me legeis Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poieis a lego;]\n\n_Luke,_ vi. 46.\n\n[Greek: Ti de me kaleite Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poeite a lego;]\n\nThis is one of a class of passages which form the _cruces_\nof Synoptic criticism. It is almost equally difficult to think and\nnot to think that both the canonical parallels are drawn from the\nsame original. The great majority of German critics maintain that\nthey are, and most of these would seek that original in the\n'Spruchsammlung' or 'Collection of Discourses' by the Apostle St.\nMatthew. This is usually (though not quite unanimously) held to\nhave been preserved most intact in the first Gospel. But if so,\nthe Lucan version represents a wide deviation from the original,\nand precisely in proportion to the extent of that deviation is the\nprobability that the Clementine quotation is based upon it. The\nmore the individuality of the Evangelist has entered into the form\ngiven to the saying the stronger is the presumption that his work\nlay before the writer of the Clementines. In any case the\ndifference between the Matthaean and Lucan versions shows what\nvarious shapes the synoptic tradition naturally assumed, and makes\nit so much the less likely that the coincidence between St. Luke\nand the Clementines is merely accidental.\n\nAnother similar case, in which the issue is presented very\nclearly, is afforded by the quotation, 'The labourer is worthy of\nhis hire.'\n\n_Matt._ x. 11.\n\n[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes taes trophaes autou estin.]\n\n_Clem. Hom._ iii. 71.\n\n[Greek: [lagisamenoi hoti] axios estin ho ergataes tou misthou\nautou;]\n\n_Luke_ x. 7.\n\n[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes tou misthou autou esti.]\n\nHere, if the Clementine writer had been following the first\nGospel, he would have had [Greek: trophaes] and not [Greek:\nmisthou]; and the assumption that there was here a non-extant\nGospel coincident with St. Luke is entirely gratuitous and, to an\nextent, improbable.\n\nBesides these, it will be seen, by the tables given above, that\nthere are as many as eight passages in which the peculiarities not\nonly of one but of both Gospels (the first and third) appear\nsimultaneously. Perhaps it may be well to give examples of these\nbefore we make any comment upon them. We may thus take--\n\n_Matt._ vii. 9-11.\n\n[Greek: Ae tis estin ex humon anthropos, hon ean aitaesae ho huios\nautou arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; kai ean ichthun aitaesae\nmae ophin epidosei auto; ei oun humeis ponaeroi ontes oidate\ndomata agatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer\nhumon ho en tois ouranois dosei agatha tois aitousin auton;]\n\n_Clem. Hom._ iii. 56.\n\n[Greek: Tina aitaesei huios arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; ae\nkai ichthun aitaesei, mae ophin epidosei auto; ei oun humeis,\nponaeroi ontes, oidate domata agatha didonai tois teknois humon,\nposo mallon ho pataer humon ho ouranios dosei agatha tois\naitoumenois auton kai tois poiousin to thelema autou;]\n\n_Luke_ xi. 11-13.\n\n[Greek: Tina de ex humon ton matera aitaesei ho huios arton, mae\nlithon epidosei auto; ae kai ichthun, mae anti ichthuos ophin\nepidosei auto, ae kai ean aitaeoae oon, mae epidosei auto\nskorpion; ei oun humeis, ponaeroi humarchontes, oidate domata\nagatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer ho ex\nouranou dosei pneuma hagion tois aitousin auton;]\n\nIn the earlier part of this quotation the Clementine writer seems\nto follow the third Gospel ([Greek: tina aitaesei, hae kai]); in\nthe later part the first (omission of the antithesis between the\negg and the scorpion, [Greek: ontes, dosei agatha]). The two\nGospels are combined against the Clementines in [Greek: hex humon]\nand the simpler [Greek: tois aitousin auton]. The second example\nshall be--\n\n_Matt._ x. 28.\n\n[Greek: Kai mae thobeisthe hapo ton aposteinonton to soma, taen de\npsuchaen mae dunamenon aposteinan thobeisthe de mallon ton\ndunamaenon kai psuchaen kai soma apolesai en geennae.]\n\n_Clem. Hom._ xviii. 5.\n\n[Greek: Mae phobaethaete apo tou aposteinontos to soma tae de\npsuchae mae dunamenou ti poiaesai phobaethaete tou dunamenon kai\nsoma kai psuchaen eis taen geennan tou puros balein. Nai, lego\nhumin, touton phobaethaete.]\n\n_Luke xii._ 4, 5. [Greek: Mae phobaethaete apo ton\naposteinonton to soma kai meta tauta mae echonton perissoteron ti\npoiaesai. Hupodeixo de humin tina phobaethaete phobaethaete ton\nmeta to aposteinai echonta exousian embalein eis ton geennan nai,\nlego humin, touton phobaethaete.]\n\nIn common with Matthew the Clementines have [Greek: tae de\npsuchae] (acc. Matt.) ... [Greek: dunamenon]([Greek: -on] Matt.),\nand [Greek: dunamenon kai soma kai psuchaen] (in inverted order,\nMatt.); in common with Luke [Greek: mae phobaethaete, ti poiaesai,\n[em]balein eis], and the clause [Greek: nai k.t.l.] The two\nGospels agree against the Clementines in the plural [Greek: ton\naposteinonton.]\n\nOne more longer quotation:--\n\n_Matt._ xxiv. 45-51.\n\n[Greek: Tis ara estin ho pistos doulos kai phronimos, hon\nkatestaesen ho kurios autou epi taes therapeias autou tou dounai\nautois taen trophaen en kairo? makarios ho doulos ekeinos hon\nelthon ho kurios autou heuraesei houto poiounta ... Ean de eipae\nho kakos doulos ekeinos en tae kardia autou; chronizei mou ho\nkurios, kai arxaetai tuptein tous sundoulous autou esthiae de kai\npinae meta ton methuonton, haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou en\nhaemera hae ou prosdoka kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kai\ndichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton hupokriton\nthaesei.]\n\n_Clem. Hom._ iii. 60.\n\n[Greek: Theou gar boulae anadeiknutai makarios ho anthropos\nekeinos hon katastaesei ho kurios autou epi taes therapeias ton\nsundoulon hautou, tou didonai autois tas trophas en kairo auton,\nmae ennooumenon kai legonta en tae kardia autou; chronizei ho\nkurios mou elthein; kai arxaetai tuptein tous sundoulous autou,\nesthion kai pinon meta te pornon kai methuonton; kai haexei ho\nkurios tou doulou ekeinou en hora hae ou prosdoka kai en haemera\nhae ou ginoskei, kai dichotomaesei auton, kai to apistoun autou\nmeros meta ton hupokriton thaesei.]\n\n_Luke_ xii. 42-45.\n\n[Greek: Tis ara estin ho pistos oikonomos kai phronimos, hon\nkatastaesei ho kurios epi taes therapeias autou, tou didonai en\nkairo to sitometrion? makarios ho doulos ekeinos, hon elthon ho\nkurios autou heuraesei poiounta hautos ... Ean de eipae ho doulos\nekeinos en tae kardia autou; chronizei ho kurios mou erchesthai;\nkai arxaetai tuptein tous paidas kai tas paidiskas, esthiein te\nkai pinein kai methuskesthai; haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou\nen haemera hae ou prosdoka, kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kai\ndichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton apiston thaesei.]\n\nI have given this passage in full, in spite of its length,\nbecause it is interesting and characteristic; it might indeed\nalmost be said to be typical of the passages, not only in the\nClementine Homilies, but also in other writers like Justin, which\npresent this relation of double similarity to two of the\nSynoptics. It should be noticed that the passage in the Homilies\nis not introduced strictly as a quotation but is interwoven with\nthe text. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that the\nopening clause, [Greek: Makarios ... sundolous autou], recurs\nidentically about thirty lines lower down. We observe that of the\npeculiarities of the first Synoptic the Clementines have [Greek:\ndoulos] ([Greek: oikonomos], Luke), [Greek: [ho kurios] autou,\ntaen trophaen] ([Greek: tas trophas], Clem.; Luke, characteristically,\n[Greek: to sitometrion]), the order of [Greek: en kairo, tous\nsundolous autou] ([Greek: tous paidas kai tas paidiskas], Luke),\n[Greek: meta ... methuonton], and [Greek: hupokriton] for\n[Greek: apiston]. Of the peculiarities of the third Synoptic\nthe Clementines reproduce the future [Greek: katastaesei], the\npresent [Greek: didonai], the insertion of [Greek: elthein]\n([Greek: erchesthai], Luke) after [Greek: chronizei], the order\nof the words in this clause, and a trace of the word [Greek: apiston]\nin [Greek: to apistoun autou meros]. The two Gospels support each\nother in most of the places where the Clementines depart from them,\nand especially in the two verses, one of which is paraphrased and\nthe other omitted.\n\nNow the question arises, What is the origin of this phenomenon of\ndouble resemblance? It may be caused in three ways: either it may\nproceed from alternate quoting of our two present Gospels; or it\nmay proceed from the quoting of a later harmony of those Gospels;\nor, lastly, it may proceed from the quotation of a document\nearlier than our two Synoptics, and containing both classes of\npeculiarities, those which have been dropped in the first Gospel\nas well as those which have been dropped in the third, as we find\nto be frequently the case with St. Mark.\n\nEither of the first two of these hypotheses will clearly suit the\nphenomena; but they will hardly admit of the third. It does indeed\nderive a very slight countenance from the repetition of the\nlanguage of the last quotation: this repetition, however, occurs\nat too short an interval to be of importance. But the theory that\nthe Clementine writer is quoting from a document older than the\ntwo Synoptics, and indeed their common original, is excluded by\nthe amount of matter that is common to the two Synoptics and\neither not found at all or found variantly in the Clementines. The\ncoincidence between the Synoptics, we may assume, is derived from\nthe fact that they both drew from a common original. The\nphraseology in which they agree is in all probability that of the\noriginal document itself. If therefore this phraseology is wanting\nin the Clementine quotations they are not likely to have been\ndrawn directly from the document which underlies the Synoptics.\nThis conclusion too is confirmed by particulars. In the first\nquotation we cannot set down quite positively the Clementine\nexpansion of [Greek: tois aitousin auton] as a later form, though\nit most probably is so. But the strange and fantastic phrase in\nthe last quotation, [Greek: to apistoun auton meros meta ton\nhupokriton thaesei], is almost certainly a combination of the\n[Greek: hupokriton] of Matthew with a distorted reminiscence of the\n[Greek: apiston] of Luke.\n\nWe have then the same kind of choice set before us as in the case\nof Justin. Either the Clementine writer quotes our present\nGospels, or else he quotes some other composition later than them,\nand which implies them. In other words, if he does not bear\nwitness to our Gospels at first hand, he does so at second hand,\nand by the interposition of a further intermediate stage. It is\nquite possible that he may have had access to such a tertiary\ndocument, and that it may be the same which is the source of his\napocryphal quotations: that he did draw from apocryphal sources,\npartly perhaps oral, but probably in the main written, there can,\nI think, be little doubt. Neither is it easy to draw the line and\nsay exactly what quotations shall be referred to such sources and\nwhat shall not. The facts do not permit us to claim the exclusive\nuse of the canonical Gospels. But that they were used, mediately\nor immediately and to a greater or less degree, is, I believe,\nbeyond question.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nBASILIDES AND VALENTINUS.\n\n\nStill following the order of 'Supernatural Religion,' we pass\nwith the critic to another group of heretical writers in the\nearlier part of the second century. In Basilides the Gnostic we\nhave the first of a chain of writers who, though not holding the\northodox tradition of doctrine, yet called themselves Christians\n(except under the stress of persecution) and used the Christian\nbooks--whether or to what extent the extant documents of\nChristianity we must now endeavour to determine.\n\nBasilides carries us back to an early date in point of time. He\ntaught at Alexandria in the reign of Hadrian (117-137 A.D.).\nHippolytus expounds at some length, and very much in their own\nwords, the doctrines of Basilides and his school. There is a\nsomewhat similar account by Epiphanius, and more incidental\nallusions in Clement of Alexandria and Origen.\n\nThe notices that have come down to us of the writings of Basilides\nare confusing. Origen says that 'he had the effrontery to compose\na Gospel and call it by his own name' [Endnote 188:1]. Eusebius\nquotes from Agrippa Castor, a contemporary and opponent from the\northodox side, a statement that 'he wrote four and twenty books\n(presumably of commentary) upon the Gospel' [Endnote 189:1].\nClement of Alexandria gives rather copious extracts from the\ntwenty-third of these books, to which he gave the name of\n'Exegetics' [Endnote 189:2].\n\nTischendorf assumes, in a manner that is not quite so 'arbitrary\nand erroneous' [Endnote 189:3] as his critic seems to suppose, that\nthis Commentary was upon our four Gospels. It is not altogether clear\nhow far Eusebius is using the words of Agrippa Castor and how far\nhis own. If the latter, there can be no doubt that he understood\nthe statement of Agrippa Castor as Tischendorf understands his,\ni.e. as referring to our present Gospels; but supposing his words\nto be those of the earlier writer, it is possible that, coming\nfrom the orthodox side, they may have been used in the sense which\nTischendorf attributes to them. There can be no question that\nIrenaeus used [Greek: to euangelion] for the canonical Gospels\ncollectively, and Justin Martyr may _perhaps_ have done so.\nTischendorf himself does not maintain that it refers to our Gospels\n_exclusively_. Practically the statements in regard to the\nCommentary of Basilides lead to nothing.\n\nNeither does it appear any more clearly what was the nature of the\nGospel that Basilides wrote. The term [Greek: euangelion] had a\ntechnical metaphysical sense in the Basilidian sect and was used\nto designate a part of the transcendental Gnostic revelations. The\nGospel of Basilides may therefore, as Dr. Westcott suggests,\nreasonably enough, have had a philosophical rather than a historical\ncharacter. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' censures Dr. Westcott\nfor this suggestion [Endnote 189:4], but a few pages further on\nhe seems to adopt it himself, though he applies it strangely to\nthe language of Eusebius or Agrippa Castor and not to Basilides'\nown work.\n\nIn any case Hippolytus expressly says that, after the generation\nof Jesus, the Basilidians held 'the other events in the life of\nthe Saviour followed as they are written in the Gospels' [Endnote\n190:1]. There is no reason at all to suppose that there was a\nbreach of continuity in this respect between Basilides and his\nschool. And if his Gospel really contained substantially the same\nevents as ours, it is a question of comparatively secondary\nimportance whether he actually made use of those Gospels or no.\n\nIt is rather remarkable that Hippolytus and Epiphanius, who\nfurnish the fullest accounts of the tenets of Basilides (and his\nfollowers), say nothing about his Gospel: neither does Irenaeus or\nClement of Alexandria; the first mention of it is in Origen's\nHomily on St. Luke. This shows how unwarranted is the assumption\nmade in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 190:2] that because\nHippolytus says that Basilides appealed to a secret tradition he\nprofessed to have received from Matthias, and Eusebius that he set\nup certain imaginary prophets, 'Barcabbas and Barcoph,' he\ntherefore had no other authorities. The statement that he\n'absolutely ignores the canonical Gospels altogether' and does not\n'recognise any such works as of authority,' is much in excess of\nthe evidence. All that this really amounts to is that neither\nHippolytus nor Eusebius say in so many words that Basilides did\nuse our Gospels. It would be a fairer inference to argue from\ntheir silence, and still more from that of the 'malleus\nhaereticorum' Epiphanius, that he did not in this depart from the\northodox custom; otherwise the Fathers would have been sure to\ncharge him with it, as they did Marcion. It is really I believe a\nnot very unsafe conclusion, for heretical as well as orthodox\nwriters, that where the Fathers do not say to the contrary, they\naccepted the same documents as themselves.\n\nThe main questions that arise in regard to Basilides are two:\n(1) Are the quotations supposed to be made by him really his?\n(2) Are they quotations from our Gospels?\n\nThe doubt as to the authorship of the quotations applies chiefly\nto those which occur in the 'Refutation of the Heresies' by\nHippolytus. This writer begins his account of the Basilidian\ntenets by saying, 'Let us see here how Basilides along with\nIsidore and his crew belie Matthias,' [Endnote 191:1] &c. He goes\non using for the most part the singular [Greek: phaesin], but\nsometimes inserting the plural [Greek: kat' autous]. Accordingly,\nit has been urged that quotations which are referred to the head\nof the school really belong to his later followers, and the\nattempt has further been made to prove that the doctrines\ndescribed in this section of the work of Hippolytus are later in\ntheir general character than those attributed to Basilides\nhimself. This latter argument is very fine drawn, and will not\nbear any substantial weight. It is, however, probably true that a\nconfusion is sometimes found between the 'eponymus,' as it were,\nof a school and his followers. Whether that has been the case here\nis a question that we have not sufficient data for deciding\npositively. The presumption is against it, but it must be admitted\nto be possible. It seems a forced and unnatural position to\nsuppose that the disciples would go to one set of authorities and\nthe master to another, and equally unnatural to think that a later\ncritic, like Hippolytus, would confine himself to the works of\nthese disciples and that in none of the passages in which\nquotations are introduced he has gone to the fountain head. We may\ndecline to dogmatise; but probability is in favour of the\nsupposition that some at least of the quotations given by\nHippolytus come directly from Basilides.\n\nSome of the quotations discussed in 'Supernatural Religion' are\nexpressly assigned to the school of Basilides. Thus Clement of\nAlexandria, in stating the opinion which this school held on the\nsubject of marriage, says that they referred to our Lord's saying,\n'All men cannot receive this,' &c.\n\n_Strom._ iii. I. 1.\n\n[Greek: Ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton, eisi gar eunouchoi oi\nmen ek genetaes oi de ex anankaes.]\n\n_Matt._ xix. 11, 12.\n\n[Greek: Ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton, all' ois dedotai,\neisin gar eunouchoi oitines ek kiolias maetros egennaethaesan\noutos, kai eisin eunouchoi oitines eunouchisthaesan hupo ton\nanthropon, k.t.l.]\n\nThe reference of this to St. Matthew is far from being so\n'preposterous' [Endnote 192:1] as the critic imagines. The use of\nthe word [Greek: chorein] in this sense is striking and peculiar:\nit has no parallel in the New Testament, and but slight and few\nparallels, as it appears from the lexicons and commentators, in\nprevious literature. The whole phrase is a remarkable one and the\nverbal coincidence exact, the words that follow are an easy and\nnatural abridgment. On the same principles on which it is denied\nthat this is a quotation from St. Matthew it would be easy to\nprove _a priori_ that many of the quotations in Clement of\nAlexandria could not be taken from the canonical Gospels which, we\nknow, _are_ so taken.\n\nThe fact that this passage is found among the Synoptics only in\nSt. Matthew must not count for nothing. The very small number of\nadditional facts and sayings that we are able to glean from the\nwriters who, according to 'Supernatural Religion,' have used\napocryphal Gospels so freely, seems to be proof that our present\nGospels were (as we should expect) the fullest and most\ncomprehensive of their kind. If, then, a passage is found only in\none of them, it is fair to conclude, not positively, but probably,\nthat it is drawn from some special source of information that was\nnot widely diffused.\n\nThe same remarks hold good respecting another quotation found in\nEpiphanius, which also comes under the general head of [Greek:\nBasileidianoi], though it is introduced not only by the singular\n[Greek: phaesin] but by the definite [Greek: phaesin ho agurtaes].\nHere the Basilidian quotation has a parallel also peculiar to St.\nMatthew, from the Sermon on the Mount.\n\n_Epiph. Haer_. 72 A.\n\n[Greek: Mae bagaete tous margaritas emprosthen ton choiron, maede\ndote to hagion tois kusi.]\n\n_Matt_ vii. 6.\n\n[Greek: Mae dote to hagion tois kusin, maede bagaete tous\nmargaritas humon emprosthen ton choiron.] The excellent\nAlexandrine cursive I, with some others, has [Greek: d\u00f3te] for\n[Greek: d\u00f4te]\n\nThe transposition of clauses, such as we see here, is by no means\nan infrequent phenomenon. There is a remarkable instance of it--to\ngo no further--in the text of the benedictions with which the\nSermon on the Mount begins. In respect to the order of the two\nclauses, 'Blessed are they that mourn' and 'Blessed are the meek,'\nthere is a broad division in the MSS. and other authorities. For\nthe received order we find [Hebrew: aleph;], B, C, 1, the mass of\nuncials and cursives, b, f, Syrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm.,\nAeth.; for the reversed order, 'Blessed are the meek' and 'Blessed\nare they that mourn,' are ranged D, 33, Vulg., a, c, f'1, g'1, h,\nk, l, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus., Bas. (?), Hil. The balance is\nprobably on the side of the received reading, as the opposing\nauthorities are mostly Western, but they too make a formidable\narray. The confusion in the text of St. Luke as to the early\nclauses of the Lord's Prayer is well known. But if such things are\ndone in the green tree, if we find these variations in MSS. which\nprofess to be exact transcripts of the same original copy, how\nmuch more may we expect to find them enter into mere quotations\nthat are often evidently made from memory, and for the sake of the\nsense, not the words. In this instance however the verbal\nresemblance is very close. As I have frequently said, to speak of\ncertainties in regard to any isolated passage that does not\npresent exceptional phenomena is inadmissible, but I have little\nmoral doubt that the quotation was really derived from St.\nMatthew, and there is quite a fair probability that it was made by\nBasilides himself.\n\nThe Hippolytean quotations, the ascription of which to Basilides\nor to his school we have left an open question, will assume a\nconsiderable importance when we come to treat of the external\nevidence for the fourth Gospel. Bearing upon the Synoptic Gospels,\nwe find an allusion to the star of the Magi and an exact verbal\nquotation (introduced with [Greek: to eiraemenon]) of Luke i. 35,\n[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamis hupsistou\nepiskiasei soi]. Both these have been already discussed with\nreference to Justin. All the other Gospels in which the star of\nthe Magi is mentioned belong to a later stage of formation than\nSt. Matthew. The very parallelism between St. Matthew and St. Luke\nshows that both Gospels were composed at a date when various\ntraditions as to the early portions of the history were current.\nNo doubt secondary, or rather tertiary, works, like the\nProtevangelium of James, came to be composed later; but it is not\nbegging the question to say that if the allusion is made by\nBasilides, it is not likely that at that date he should quote any\nother Gospel than St. Matthew, simply because that is the earliest\nform in which the story of the Magi has come down to us.\n\nThe case is stronger in regard to the quotation from St. Luke. In\nJustin's account of the Annunciation to Mary there was a\ncoincidence with the Protevangelium and a variation from the\ncanonical text in the phrase [Greek: pneuma kuriou] for [Greek:\npneuma hagion]; but in the Basilidian quotation the canonical text\nis reproduced syllable for syllable and letter for letter, which,\nwhen we consider how sensitive and delicate these verbal relations\nare, must be taken as a strong proof of identity. The reader may\nbe reminded that the word [Greek: episkiazein], the phrase [Greek:\ndunamism hupsistou], and the construction [Greek: eperchesthai\nepi], are all characteristic of St. Luke: [Greek; episkiazein]\noccurs once in the triple synopsis and besides only here and in\nActs v. 15: [Greek: hupsistos] occurs nine times in St. Luke's\nwritings and only four times besides; it is used by the Evangelist\nespecially in phrases like [Greek: uios, dunamis, prophaetaes,\ndoulos hupsistou], to which the only parallel is [Greek: hiereus\ntou Theou tou hupsistou] in Heb. vii. 1. The construction of\n[Greek: eperchesthai] with [Greek: epi] and the accusative is\nfound five times in the third Gospel and the Acts and not at all\nbesides in the New Testament; indeed the participial form, [Greek:\neperchomenos] (in the sense of 'future'), is the only shape in\nwhich the word appears (twice) outside the eight times that it\noccurs in St. Luke's writings. This is a body of evidence that\nmakes it extremely difficult to deny that the Basilidian quotation\nhas its original in the third Synoptic.\n\n\n                             2.\n\nThe case in regard to Valentinus, the next great Gnostic leader,\nwho came forward about the year 140 A.D., is very similar to that\nof Basilides, though the balance of the argument is slightly\naltered. It is, on the one hand, still clearer that the greater\npart of the evangelical references usually quoted are really from\nour present actual Gospels, but, on the other hand, there is a\nmore distinct probability that these are to be assigned rather to\nthe School of Valentinus than to Valentinus himself.\n\nThe supposed allusion to St. John we shall pass over for the\npresent.\n\nThere is a string of allusions in the first book of Irenaeus,\n'Adv. Haereses,' to the visit of Jesus as a child to the Passover\n(Luke ii. 42), the jot or tittle of Matt. v. 18, the healing of\nthe issue of blood, the bearing of the cross (Luke xiv. 27 par.),\nthe sending of a sword and not peace, 'his fan is in his hand,'\nthe salt and light of the world, the healing of the centurion's\nservant, of Jairus' daughter, the exclamations upon the cross, the\ncall of the unwilling disciples, Zacchaeus, Simon, &c. We may take\nit, I believe, as admitted, and it is indeed quite indisputable,\nthat these are references to our present Gospels; but there is the\nfurther question whether they are to be attributed directly to\nValentinus or to his followers, and I am quite prepared to admit\nthat there are no sufficient grounds for direct attribution to the\nfounder of the system. Irenaeus begins by saying that his\nauthorities are certain 'commentaries of the disciples of\nValentinus' and his own intercourse with some of them [Endnote\n197:1]. He proceeds to announce his intention to give a 'brief and\nclear account of the opinions of those who were then teaching\ntheir false doctrines [Greek: nun paradidaskonton], that is, of\nPtolemaeus and his followers, a branch of the school of\nValentinus.' It is fair to infer that the description of the\nValentinian system which follows is drawn chiefly from these\nsources. This need not, however, quite necessarily exclude works\nby Valentinus himself. It is at any rate clear that Irenaeus had\nsome means of referring to the opinions of Valentinus as distinct\nfrom his school; because, after giving a sketch of the system, he\nproceeds to point out certain contradictions within the school\nitself, quoting first Valentinus expressly, then a disciple called\nSecundus, then 'another of their more distinguished and ambitious\nteachers,' then 'others,' then a further subdivision, finally\nreturning to Ptolemaeus and his party again. On the whole,\nIrenaeus seems to have had a pretty complete knowledge of the\nwritings and teaching of the Valentinians. We conclude therefore,\nthat, while it cannot be alleged positively that any of the\nquotations or allusions were really made by Valentinus, it would\nbe rash to assert that none of them were made by him, or that he\ndid not use our present Gospels.\n\nHowever this may be, we cannot do otherwise than demur to the\nstatement implied in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 198:1], that\nthe references in Irenaeus can only be employed as evidence for\nthe Gnostic usage between the years 185-195 A.D. This is a\nspecimen of a kind of position that is frequently taken up by\ncritics upon that side, and that I cannot but think quite\nunreasonable and uncritical. Without going into the question of\nthe date at which Irenaeus wrote at present, and assuming with the\nauthor of 'Supernatural Religion' that his first three books were\npublished before the death of Eleutherus in A.D. 190--the latest\ndate possible for them,--it will be seen that the Gnostic teaching\nto which Irenaeus refers is supposed to begin at a time when his\nfirst book may very well have been concluded, and to end actually\nfive years later than the latest date at which this portion of the\nwork can have been published! Not only does the author allow no\ntime at all for Irenaeus to compose his own work, not only does he\nallow none for him to become acquainted with the Gnostic\ndoctrines, and for those doctrines themselves to become\nconsolidated and expressed in writing, but he goes so far as to\nmake Irenaeus testify to a state of things five years at least,\nand very probably ten, in advance of the time at which he was\nhimself writing! No doubt there is an oversight somewhere, but\nthis is the kind of oversight that ought not to be made.\n\nThis, however, is an extreme instance of the fault to which I was\nalluding--the tendency in the negative school to allow no time or\nvery little for processes that in the natural course of things\nmust certainly have required a more or less considerable interval.\nOn a moderate computation, the indirect testimony of Irenaeus may\nbe taken to refer--not to the period 185-195 A.D., which is out of\nthe question--but to that from 160-180 A.D. This is not pressing\nthe possibility, real as it is, that Valentinus himself, who\nflourished from 140-160 A.D., may have been included. We may agree\nwith the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that Irenaeus probably\nmade the personal acquaintance of the Valentinian leaders, and\nobtained copies of their books, during his well-known visit to\nRome in 178 A.D. [Endnote 199:1] The applications of Scripture\nwould be taken chiefly from the books of which some would be\nrecent but others of an earlier date, and it can surely be no\nexaggeration to place the formation of the body of doctrine which\nthey contained in the period 160-175 A.D. above mentioned. I doubt\nwhether a critic could be blamed who should go back ten years\nfurther, but we shall be keeping on the safe side if we take our\n_terminus a quo_ as to which these Gnostic writings can be\nalleged in evidence at about the year 160.\n\nA genuine fragment of a letter of Valentinus has been preserved by\nClement of Alexandria in the second book of the Stromateis\n[Endnote 200:1]. This is thought to contain references to St.\nMatthew's Gospel by Dr. Westcott, and, strange to say, both to St.\nMatthew and St. Luke by Volkmar. These references, however, are\nnot sufficiently clear to be pressed.\n\nA much less equivocal case is supplied by Hippolytus--less\nequivocal at least so far as the reference goes. Among the\npassages which received a specially Gnostic interpretation is Luke\ni. 35, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the\nMost High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing\nwhich is born (of thee) shall be called the Son of God.' This is\nquoted thus, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power\nof the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore that which is\nborn of thee shall be called holy.'\n\n_Luke_ i. 35.\n\n[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamis hupsistou\nepiskiasei soi, dio kai to gennomenon [ek sou] hagion klaethaesetai\nhuios Theon.]\n\n_Ref. Omn. Haes._ vi. 35.\n\n[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se... kai dunamis hupsistou\nepiskiasei soi... dio to gennomenon ek sou hagion klaethaesetai.]\n\nThat St. Luke has been the original here seems to be beyond a\ndoubt. The omission of [Greek: huios Theou] is of very little\nimportance, because from its position [Greek: hagion] would more\nnaturally stand as a predicate, and the sentence would be quite as\ncomplete without the [Greek: huios Theou] as with it. On the other\nhand, it would be difficult to compress into so small a space so\nmany words and expressions that are peculiarly characteristic of\nSt. Luke. In addition to those which have just been noticed in\nconnection with Basilides, there is the very remarkable [Greek: to\ngennomenon], which alone would be almost enough to stamp the whole\npassage.\n\nWe are still however pursued by the same ambiguity as in the case\nof Basilides. It is not certain that the quotation is made from\nthe master and not from his scholars. There is no reason, indeed,\nwhy it should be made from the latter rather than the former; the\npoint must in any case be left open: but it cannot be referred to\nthe master with so much certainty as to be directly producible\nunder his name.\n\nAnd yet, from whomsoever the quotation may have been made, if only\nit has been given rightly by Hippolytus, it is a strong proof of\nthe antiquity of the Gospel. The words [Greek: ek sou], will be\nnoticed, are enclosed in brackets in the text of St. Luke as given\nabove. They are a corruption, though an early and well-supported\ncorruption, of the original. The authorities in their favour are C\n(first hand), the good cursives 1 and 33, one form of the Vulgate,\na, c, e, m of the Old Latin, the Peshito Syriac, the Armenian and\nAethiopic versions, Irenaeus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Tertullian,\nCyprian, and Epiphanius. On the other hand, for the omission are\nA. B, C (third hand), D, [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], and the rest of\nthe uncials and cursives, another form of the Vulgate, b, f, ff,\ng'2, l of the Old Latin, the Harclean and Jerusalem Syriac, the\nMemphitic, Gothic, and some MSS. of the Armenian versions, Origen,\nDionysius and Peter of Alexandria, and Eusebius. A text critic\nwill see at once on which side the balance lies. It is impossible\nthat [Greek: ek sou] could have been the reading of the autograph\ncopy, and it is not, I believe, admitted into the text by any\nrecent editor. But if it was present in the copy made use of by\nthe Gnostic writer, whoever he was, that copy must have been\nalready far enough removed from the original to admit of this\ncorruption; in other words, it has lineage enough to throw the\noriginal some way behind it. We shall come to more of such\nphenomena in the next chapter.\n\nI said just now that the quotation could not with certainty be\nreferred to Valentinus, but it is at least considerably earlier\nthan the contemporaries of Hippolytus. It appears that there was a\ndivision in the Valentinian School upon the interpretation of this\nvery passage. Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, representing the Western\nbranch, took one side, while Axionicus and Bardesanes, representing\nthe Eastern, took the other. Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were both,\nwe know, contemporaries of Irenaeus, so that the quotation was used\namong the Valentinians at least in the time of Irenaeus, and very\npossibly earlier, for it usually takes a certain time for a subject\nto be brought into controversy. We must thus take the _terminus ad quem_\nfor the quotation not later than 180 A.D. How much further back it\ngoes we cannot say, but even then (if the Valentinian text is correctly\npreserved by Hippolytus) it presents features of corruption.\n\nThat the Valentinians made use of unwritten sources as well as of\nwritten, and that they possessed a Gospel of their own which they\ncalled the Gospel of Truth, does not affect the question of their\nuse of the Synoptics. For these very same Valentinians undoubtedly\ndid use the Synoptics, and not only them but also the fourth\nGospel. It is immediately after he has spoken of the 'unwritten'\ntradition of the Valentinians that Irenaeus proceeds to give the\nnumerous quotations from the Synoptics referred to above, while in\nthe very same chapter, and within two sections of the place in\nwhich he alludes to the Gospel of Truth, he expressly says that\nthese same Valentinians used the Gospel according to St. John\nfreely (plenissime) [Endnote 203:1]. It should also be remembered\nthat the alleged acceptance of the four Gospels by the Valentinians\nrests upon the statement of Irenaeus [Endnote 203:2] as well as upon\nthat of the less scrupulous and accurate Tertullian. There is no\ngood reason for doubting it.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nMARCION. [Endnote 204:1]\n\n\nOf the various chapters in the controversy with which we are\ndealing, that which relates to the heretic Marcion is one of the\nmost interesting and important; important, because of the\ncomparative fixity of the data on which the question turns;\ninteresting, because of the peculiar nature of the problem to be\ndealt with.\n\nWe may cut down the preliminary disquisitions as to the life and\ndoctrines of Marcion, which have, indeed, a certain bearing upon\nthe point at issue, but will be found given with sufficient\nfulness in 'Supernatural Religion,' or in any of the authorities.\nAs in most other points relating to this period, there is some\nconfusion in the chronological data, but these range within a\ncomparatively limited area. The most important evidence is that of\nJustin, who, writing as a contemporary (about 147 A.D.) [Endnote\n205:1], says that at that time Marcion had 'in every nation of men\ncaused many to blaspheme' [Endnote 205:2]; and again speaks of the\nwide spread of his doctrines ([Greek: ho polloi peisthentes,\nk.t.l.]) [Endnote 205:3]. Taking these statements along with\nothers in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, modern critics\nseem to be agreed that Marcion settled in Rome and began to teach\nhis peculiar doctrines about 139-142 A.D. This is the date\nassigned in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 205:4]. Volkmar gives\n138 A.D. [Endnote 205:5] Tischendorf, on the apologetic side,\nwould throw back the date as far as 130, but this depends upon the\ndate assigned by him to Justin's 'Apology,' and conflicts too much\nwith the other testimony.\n\nIt is also agreed that Marcion himself did actually use a certain\nGospel that is attributed to him. The exact contents and character\nof that Gospel are not quite so clear, and its relation to the\nSynoptic Gospels, and especially to our third Synoptic, which\nbears the name of St. Luke, is the point that we have to\ndetermine.\n\nThe Church writers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, without\nexception, describe Marcion's Gospel as a mutilated or amputated\nversion of St. Luke. They contrast his treatment of the\nevangelical tradition with that pursued by his fellow-Gnostic,\nValentinus [Endnote 205:6]. Valentinus sought to prove his tenets\nby wresting the interpretation of the Apostolic writings; Marcion\nwent more boldly to work, and, having first selected his Gospel,\nour third Synoptic, cut out the passages both in it and in ten\nEpistles of St. Paul, admitted by him to be genuine, which seemed\nto conflict with his own system. He is also said to have made\nadditions, but these were in any case exceedingly slight.\n\nThe statement of the Church writers should hardly, perhaps, be put\naside quite so summarily as is sometimes done. The life of\nIrenaeus overlapped that of Marcion considerably, and there seems\nto have been somewhat frequent communication between the Church at\nLyons, where he was first presbyter and afterwards bishop, and\nthat of Rome, where Marcion was settled; but Irenaeus [Endnote\n206:1], as well as Tertullian and Epiphanius, alludes to the\nmutilation of St. Luke's Gospel by Marcion as a notorious fact.\nToo much stress, however, must not be laid upon this, because the\nCatholic writers were certainly apt to assume that their own view\nwas the only one tenable.\n\nThe modern controversy is more important, though it has to go back\nto the ancient for its data. The question in debate may be stated\nthus. Did Marcion, as the Church writers say, really mutilate our\nso-called St. Luke (the name is not of importance, but we may use\nit as standing for our third Synoptic in its present shape)? Or,\nis it not possible that the converse may be true, and that\nMarcion's Gospel was the original and ours an interpolated\nversion? The importance of this may, indeed, be exaggerated,\nbecause Marcion's Gospel is at any rate evidence for the existence\nat his date in a collected form of so much of the third Gospel\n(rather more than two-thirds) as he received. Still the issue is\nnot inconsiderable: for, upon the second hypothesis, if the editor\nof our present Gospel made use of that which was in the possession\nof Marcion, his date may be--though it does not follow that it\ncertainly would be--thrown into the middle of the second century,\nor even beyond, if the other external evidence would permit;\nwhereas, upon the first hypothesis, the Synoptic Gospel would be\nproved to be current as early as 140 A.D.; and there will be room\nfor considerations which may tend to date it much earlier. There\nwill still be the third possibility that Marcion's Gospel may be\naltogether independent of our present Synoptic, and that it may\nrepresent a parallel recension of the evangelical tradition. This\nwould leave the date of the canonical Gospel undetermined.\n\nIt is a fact worth noting that the controversy, at least in its\nlater and more important stages, had been fought, and, to all\nappearance, fought out, within the T\u00fcbingen school itself.\nOlshausen and Hahn, the two orthodox critics who were most\nprominently engaged in it, after a time retired and left the field\nentirely to the T\u00fcbingen writers.\n\nThe earlier critics who impugned the traditional view appear to\nhave leaned rather to the theory that Marcion's Gospel and the\ncanonical Luke are, more or less, independent offshoots from the\ncommon ground-stock of the evangelical narratives. Ritschl, and\nafter him Baur and Schwegler, adopted more decidedly the view that\nthe canonical Gospel was constructed out of Marcion's by\ninterpolations directed against that heretic's teaching. The\nreaction came from a quarter whence it would not quite naturally\nhave been expected--from one whose name we have already seen\nassociated with some daring theories, Volkmar, Professor of\nTheology at Z\u00fcrich. With him was allied the more sober-minded,\nlaborious investigator, Hilgenfeld. Both these writers returned to\nthe charge once and again. Volkmar's original paper was\nsupplemented by an elaborate volume in 1852, and Hilgenfeld, in\nlike manner, has reasserted his conclusions. Baur and Ritschl\nprofessed themselves convinced by the arguments brought forward,\nand retracted or greatly modified their views. So far as I am\naware, Schwegler is the only writer whose opinion still stands as\nit was at first expressed; but for some years before his death,\nwhich occurred in 1857, he had left the theological field.\n\nWithout at all prejudging the question on this score, it is\ndifficult not to feel a certain presumption in favour of a\nconclusion which has been reached after such elaborate argument,\nespecially where, as here, there could be no suspicion of a merely\napologetic tendency on either side. Are we, then, to think that\nour English critic has shown cause for reopening the discussion?\nThere is room to doubt whether he would quite maintain as much as\nthis himself. He has gone over the old ground, and reproduced the\nold arguments; but these arguments already lay before Hilgenfeld\nand Volkmar in their elaborate researches, and simply as a matter\nof scale the chapter in 'Supernatural Religion' can hardly profess\nto compete with these.\n\nSupposing, for the moment, that the author has proved the points\nthat he sets himself to prove, to what will this amount? He will\nhave shown (a) that the patristic statement that Marcion mutilated\nSt. Luke is not to be accepted at once without further question;\n(b) that we cannot depend with perfect accuracy upon the details\nof his Gospel, as reconstructed from the statements of Tertullian\nand Epiphanius; (c) that it is difficult to explain the whole of\nMarcion's alleged omissions, on purely, dogmatic grounds--assuming\nthe consistency of his method.\n\nWith the exception of the first, I do not think these points are\nproved to any important extent; but, even if they were, it would\nstill, I believe, be possible to show that Marcion's Gospel was\nbased upon our third Synoptic by arguments which hardly cross or\ntouch them at all.\n\nBut, before we proceed further, it is well that we should have\nsome idea as to the contents of the Marcionitic Gospel. And here\nwe are brought into collision with the second of the propositions\njust enunciated. Are we able to reconstruct that Gospel from the\nmaterials available to us with any tolerable or sufficient\napproach to accuracy? I believe no one who has gone into the\nquestion carefully would deny that we can. Here it is necessary to\ndefine and guard our statements, so that they may cover exactly as\nmuch ground as they ought and no more.\n\nOur author quotes largely, especially from Volkmar, to show that\nthe evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius is not to be relied\nupon. When we refer to the chapter in which Volkmar deals with\nthis subject [Endnote 209:1]--a chapter which is an admirable\nspecimen of the closeness and thoroughness of German research--we\ndo indeed find some such expressions, but to quote them alone\nwould give an entirely erroneous impression of the conclusion to\nwhich the writer comes. He does not say that the statements of\nTertullian and Epiphanius are untrustworthy, simply and\nabsolutely, but only that they need to be applied with caution\n_on certain points_. Such a point is especially the silence\nof these writers as proving, or being supposed to prove, the\nabsence of the corresponding passage in Marcion's Gospel. It is\nargued, very justly, that such an inference is sometimes\nprecarious. Again, in quoting longer passages, Epiphanius is in\nthe habit of abridging or putting an &c. ([Greek: kai ta hexaes--\nkai ta loipa]), instead of quoting the whole. This does not give a\ncomplete guarantee for the intermediate portions, and leaves some\nuncertainty as to where the passage ends. Generally it is true\nthat the object of the Fathers is not critical but dogmatic, to\nrefute Marcion's system out of his own Gospel. But when all\ndeductions have been made on these grounds, there are still ample\nmaterials for reconstructing that Gospel with such an amount of\naccuracy at least as can leave no doubt as to its character. The\nwonder is that we are able to do so, and that the statements of\nthe Fathers should stand the test so well as they do. Epiphanius\nespecially often shows the most painstaking care and minuteness of\ndetail. He has reproduced the manuscript of Marcion's Gospel that\nhe had before him, even to its clerical errors [Endnote 210:1]. He\nand Tertullian are writing quite independently, and yet they\nconfirm each other in a remarkable manner. 'If we compare the two\nwitnesses,' says Volkmar, 'we find the most satisfactory (sicher-\nstellendste) coincidence in their statements, entirely independent\nas they are, as well in regard to that which Marcion has in common\nwith Luke, as in regard to very many of the points in which his\ntext differed from the canonical. And this applies not only to\nsimple omissions which Epiphanius expressly notes and Tertullian\nconfirms by passing over what would otherwise have told against\nMarcion, but also to the minor variations of the text which\nTertullian either happens to name or indicate by his translation,\nwhile they are confirmed by the direct statement of [the other]\nopponent who is equally bent on finding such differences' [Endnote\n211:1]. Out of all the points on which they can be compared, there\nis a real divergence only in two. Of these, one Volkmar attributes\nto an oversight on the part of Epiphanius, and the other to a\nclerical omission in his manuscript [Endnote 211:2]. When we\nconsider the cumbrousness of ancient MSS., the absence of\ndivisions in the text, and the consequent difficulty of making\nexact references, this must needs be taken for a remarkable\nresult. And the very fact that we have two--or, including\nIrenaeus, even three--independent authorities, makes the text of\nMarcion's Gospel, so far as those authorities are available, or,\nin other words, for the greater part of it, instead of being\nuncertain among quite the most certain of all the achievements of\nmodern criticism [Endnote 211:3].\n\nThis is seen practically--to apply a simple test--in the large\namount of agreement between critics of the most various schools as\nto the real contents of the Gospel. Our author indeed speaks much\nof the 'disagreement.' But by what standard does he judge? Or, has\nhe ever estimated its extent? Putting aside merely verbal\ndifferences, the total number of whole verses affected will be\nrepresented in the following table:--\n\niv.    16-30: doubt as to exact extent of omissions affecting about\n       half the verses.\n\n       38, 39: omitted according to Hahn; retained according to\n       Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.\n\nvii.   29-35: omitted, Hahn and Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.\n\nx.     12-15:  ditto                                         ditto.\n\nxiii.  6-10: omitted, Volkmar; retained, Hilgenfeld and Rettig.\n\nxvii.  5-10: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Volkmar and Hilgenfeld.\n\n       14-19: doubt as to exact omissions.\n\nxix.   47, 48: omitted, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; retained, Hahn and\n       Anger.\n\nxxii.  17, 18: doubtful.\n\n       23-27: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.\n\n       43, 44:      ditto                          ditto.\n\nxxiii. 39-42:       ditto                          ditto.\n\n       47-49: omitted, Hahn; retained, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar.\n\nxxiv.  47-53: uncertain [Endnote 212:1].\n\nThis would give, as a maximum estimate of variation, some 55\nverses out of about 804, or, in other words, about seven per cent.\nBut such an estimate would be in fact much too high, as there can\nbe no doubt that the earlier researches of Hahn and Ritschl ought\nto be corrected by those of Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; and the\ndifference between these two critics is quite insignificant.\nTaking the severest view that it is possible to take, no one will\nmaintain that the differences between the critics are such as to\naffect the main issue, so that upon one hypothesis one theory\nwould hold good, and upon another hypothesis another. It is a mere\nquestion of detail.\n\nWe may, then, reconstruct the Gospel used by Marcion with very\nconsiderable confidence that we have its real contents before us.\nIn order to avoid any suspicion I will take the outline given in\n'Supernatural Religion' (ii. p. 127), adding only the passage\nSt. Luke vii. 29-35, which, according to the author's statement (a\nmistaken one, however) [Endnote 213:1], is 'generally agreed' to\nhave been wanting in Marcion's Gospel. In that Gospel, then, the\nfollowing portions of our present St. Luke were omitted:--\n\nChaps. i. and ii, including the prologue, the Nativity, and the\nbirth of John the Baptist.\n\nChap. iii (with the exception of ver. 1), containing the baptism\nof our Lord, the preaching of St. John, and the genealogy.\n\niv. 1-13, 17-20, 24: the Temptation, the reading from Isaiah.\n\nvii. 29-35: the gluttonous man.\n\nxi. 29-32, 49-51: the sign of Jonas, and the blood of the\nprophets.\n\nxiii. 1-9, 29-35: the slain Galileans, the fig-tree, Herod,\nJerusalem.\n\nxv. 11-32: the prodigal son.\n\nxvii. 5-10: the servant at meat.\n\nxviii. 31-34: announcement of the Passion.\n\nxix. 29-48: the Triumphal Entry, woes of Jerusalem, cleansing of\nthe Temple.\n\nxx. 9-18, 37, 38: the wicked husbandmen; the God of Abraham.\n\nxxi. 1-4, 18, 21, 22: the widow's mite; 'a hair of your head;'\nflight of the Church.\n\nxxii. 16-18, 28-30, 35-38, 49-51: the fruit of the vine, 'eat at\nmy table,' 'buy a sword,' the high-priest's servant.\n\nxxiv. 47-53: the last commission, the Ascension.\n\nHere we have another remarkable phenomenon. The Gospel stands to\nour Synoptic entirely in the relation of _defect_. We may say\nentirely, for the additions are so insignificant--some thirty\nwords in all, and those for the most part supported by other\nauthority--that for practical purposes they need not be reckoned.\nWith the exception of these thirty words inserted, and some, also\nslight, alterations of phrase, Marcion's Gospel presents simply an\n_abridgment_ of our St. Luke.\n\nDoes not this almost at once exclude the idea that they can be\nindependent works? If it does not, then let us compare the two in\ndetail. There is some disturbance and re-arrangement in the first\nchapter of Marcion's Gospel, though the substance is that of the\nthird Synoptic; but from this point onwards the two move step by\nstep together but for the omissions and a single transposition\n(iv. 27 to xvii. 18). Out of fifty-three sections peculiar to St.\nLuke--from iv. 16 onwards--all but eight were found also in\nMarcion's Gospel. They are found, too, in precisely the same\norder. Curious and intricate as is the mosaic work of the third\nGospel, all the intricacies of its pattern are reproduced in the\nGospel of Marcion. Where Luke makes an insertion in the\ngroundstock of the narrative, there Marcion makes an insertion\nalso; where Luke omits part of the narrative, Marcion does the\nsame. Among the documents peculiar to St. Luke are some of a very\nmarked and individual character, which seem to have come from some\nprivate source of information. Such, for instance, would be the\ndocument viii. 1-3, which introduces names so entirely unknown to\nthe rest of the evangelical tradition as Joanna and Susanna\n[Endnote 215:1]. A trace of the same, or an allied document,\nappears in chap. xxiv, where we have again the name Joanna, and\nafterwards that of the obscure disciple Cleopas. Again, the\nmention of Martha and Mary is common only to St. Luke and the\nfourth Gospel. Zacchaeus is peculiar to St. Luke. Yet, not only\ndoes each of the sections relating to these personages re-appear\nin Marcion's Gospel, but it re-appears precisely at the same\nplace. A marked peculiarity in St. Luke's Gospel is the 'great\nintercalation' of discourses, ix. 51 to xviii. 14, evidently\ninserted without regard to chronological order. Yet this\npeculiarity, too, is faithfully reproduced in the Gospel of\nMarcion with the same disregard of chronology--the only change\nbeing the omission of about forty-one verses from a total of three\nhundred and eighty. When Luke has the other two Synoptics against\nhim, as in the insertions Matt. xiv. 3-12, Mark vi. 17-29, and\nagain Matt. xx. 20-28, Mark x. 35-45, and Matt. xxi. 20-22, Mark\nxi. 20-26, Marcion has them against him too. Where the third\nSynoptist breaks off from his companions (Luke ix. 17, 18) and\nleaves a gap, Marcion leaves one too. It has been noticed as\ncharacteristic of St. Luke that, where he has recorded a similar\nincident before, he omits what might seem to be a repetition of\nit: this characteristic is exactly reflected in Marcion, and that\nin regard to the very same incidents. Then, wherever the patristic\nstatements give us the opportunity of comparing Marcion's text\nwith the Synoptic--and this they do very largely indeed--the two\nare found to coincide with no greater variation than would be\nfound between any two not directly related manuscripts of the same\ntext. It would be easy to multiply these points, and to carry them\nto any degree of detail; if more precise and particular evidence\nis needed it shall be forthcoming, but in the meantime I think it\nmay be asserted with confidence that two alternatives only are\npossible. Either Marcion's Gospel is an abridgment of our present\nSt. Luke, or else our present St. Luke is an expansion by\ninterpolation of Marcion's Gospel, or of a document co-extensive\nwith it. No third hypothesis is tenable.\n\nIt remains, then, to enquire which of these two Gospels had the\npriority--Marcion's or Luke's; which is to stand first, both in\norder of time and of authenticity. This, too, is a point that\nthere are ample data for determining.\n\n(1.) And, first, let us consider what presumption is raised by any\nother part of Marcion's procedure. Is it likely that he would have\ncut down a document previously existing? or, have we reason for\nthinking that he would be scrupulous in keeping such a document\nintact?\n\nThe author of 'Supernatural Religion' himself makes use of this\nvery argument; but I cannot help suspecting that his application\nof it has slipped in through an oversight or misapprehension. When\nfirst I came across the argument as employed by him, I was struck\nby it at once as important if only it was sound. But, upon\nexamination, not only does it vanish into thin air as an argument\nin support of the thesis he is maintaining, but there remains in\nits place a positive argument that tells directly and strongly\nagainst that thesis. A passage is quoted from Canon Westcott, in\nwhich it is stated that while Tertullian and Epiphanius accuse\nMarcion of altering the text of the books which he received, so\nfar as his treatment of the Epistles is concerned this is not\nborne out by the facts, out of seven readings noticed by\nEpiphanius two only being unsupported by other authority. It is\nargued from this that Marcion 'equally preserved without\nalteration the text which he found in his manuscript of the\nGospel.' 'We have no reason to believe the accusation of the\nFathers in regard to the Gospel--which we cannot fully test--\nbetter founded than that in regard to the Epistles, which we can\ntest, and find unfounded' [Endnote 217:1]. No doubt the premisses\nof this argument are true, and so also is the conclusion, strictly\nas it stands. It is true that the Fathers accuse Marcion of\ntampering with the text in various places, both in the Epistles\nand in the Gospels where the allegation can be tested, and where\nit is found that the supposed perversion is simply a difference of\nreading, proved to be such by its presence in other authorities\n[Endnote 217:2]. But what is this to the point? It is not\ncontended that Marcion altered to any considerable extent (though\nhe did slightly even in the Epistles [Endnote 217:3]) the text\n_which he retained_, but that he mutilated and cut out whole\npassages from that text. He can be proved to have done this in\nregard to the Epistles, and therefore it is fair to infer that he\ndealt in the same way with the Gospel. This is the amended form in\nwhich the argument ought to stand. It is certain that Marcion made\na large excision before Rom. xi. 33, and another after Rom. viii.\n11; he also cut out the 'mentiones Abrahae' from Gal. iii. 7, 14,\n16-18 [Endnote 218:1]. I say nothing about his excision of the\nlast two chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, because on that\npoint a controversy might be raised. But the genuineness of these\nother passages is undisputed and indisputable. It cannot be argued\nhere that our text of the Epistle has suffered from later\ninterpolation, and therefore, I repeat, it is so much the more\nprobable that Marcion took from the text of the Gospel than that a\nlater editor added to it.\n\n(2.) In examining the internal evidence from the nature and\nstructure of Marcion's Gospel, it has hitherto been the custom to\nlay most stress upon its dogmatic character. The controversy in\nGermany has turned chiefly on this. The critics have set\nthemselves to show that the variations in Marcion's Gospel either\ncould or could not be explained as omissions dictated by the\nexigencies of his dogmatic system. This was a task which suited\nwell the subtlety and inventiveness of the German mind, and it has\nbeen handled with all the usual minuteness and elaboration. The\nresult has been that not only have Volkmar and Hilgenfeld proved\ntheir point to their own satisfaction, but they also convinced\nRitschl and partially Baur; and generally we may say that in\nGermany it seems to be agreed at the present time that the\nhypothesis of a mutilated Luke suits the dogmatic argument better\nthan that of later Judaising interpolations.\n\nI have no wish to disparage the results of these labours, which\nare carried out with the splendid thoroughness that one so much\nadmires. Looking at the subject as impartially as I can, I am\ninclined to think that the case is made out in the main. The\nsingle instance of the perverted sense assigned to [Greek:\nkataelthen] in iv. 31 must needs go a long way. Marcion evidently\nintends the word to be taken in a transcendental sense of the\nemanation and descent to earth of the Aeon Christus [Endnote\n219:1]. It is impossible to think that this sense is more original\nthan the plain historical use of the word by St. Luke, or to\nmistake the dogmatic motive in the heretical recension. There is\nalso an evident reason for the omission of the first chapters\nwhich relate the human birth of Christ, which Marcion denied, and\none somewhat less evident, though highly probable, for the\nomission of the account of the Baptist's ministry, John being\nregarded as the finisher of the Old Testament dispensation--the\nwork of the Demiurge. This omission is not quite consistently\ncarried out, as the passage vii. 24-28 is retained--probably\nbecause ver. 28 itself seemed to contain a sufficient qualification.\nThe genealogy, as well as viii. 19, was naturally omitted for the\nsame reason as the Nativity. The narrative of the Baptism Marcion\ncould not admit, because it supplied the foundation for that very\nEbionism to which his own system was diametrically opposed. The\nTemptation, x. 21 ('Lord ... of earth'), xxii. 18 ('the fruit of\nthe vine'), xxii. 30 ('eat and drink at my table'), and the Ascension,\nmay have been omitted because they contained matter that seemed too\nanthropomorphic or derogatory to the Divine Nature. On the other hand,\nxi. 29-32 (Jonah and Solomon), xi. 49-51 (prophets and apostles),\nxiii. 1 sqq. (the fig-tree, as the Jewish people?), xiii. 31-35 (the\nprophet in Jerusalem), the prodigal son (perhaps?), the wicked\nhusbandmen (more probably), the triumphal entry (as the fulfilment\nof prophecy), the announcement of the Passion (also as such), xxi.\n21, 22 (the same), and the frequent allusions to the Old Testament\nScriptures, seem to have been expunged as recognising or belonging\nto the kingdom of the Demiurge [Endnote 220:1]. Again, the changes\nin xiii. 28, xvi. 17, xx. 35, are fully in accordance with\nMarcion's system [Endnote 220:2]. The reading which Marcion had in\nxi. 22 is expressly stated to have been common to the Gnostic\nheretics generally. In some of these instances the dogmatic motive\nis gross and palpable, in most it seems to have been made out, but\nsome (such as especially xiii. 1-9) are still doubtful, and the\nmethod of excision does not appear to have been carried out with\ncomplete consistency.\n\nThis, indeed, was only to be expected. We are constantly reminded\nthat Tertullian, a man, with all his faults, of enormous literary\nand general power, did not possess the critical faculty, and no\nmore was that faculty likely to be found in Marcion. It is an\nanachronism to suppose that he would sit down to his work with\nthat regularity of method and with that subtle appreciation of the\naffinities of dogma which characterise the modern critic. The\nSeptuagint translators betray an evident desire to soften down the\nanthropomorphism of the Hebrew; but how easy would it be to\nconvict them of inconsistency, and to show that they left standing\nexpressions as strong as any that they changed! If we judge\nMarcion's procedure by a standard suited to the age in which he\nlived, our wonder will be, not that he has shown so little, but so\nmuch, consistency and insight.\n\nI think, therefore, that the dogmatic argument, so far as it goes,\ntells distinctly in favour of the 'mutilation' hypothesis. But at\nthe same time it should not be pressed too far. I should be\ntempted to say that the almost exclusive and certainly excessive\nuse of arguments derived from the history of dogma was the prime\nfallacy which lies at the root of the T\u00fcbingen criticism. How can\nit be thought that an Englishman, or a German, trained under and\nsurrounded by the circumstances of the nineteenth century, should\nbe able to thread all the mazes in the mind of a Gnostic or an\nEbionite in the second? It is difficult enough for us to lay down\na law for the actions of our own immediate neighbours and friends;\nhow much more difficult to 'cast the shell of habit,' and place\nourselves at the point of view of a civilisation and world of\nthought wholly different from our own, so as not only to explain\nits apparent aberrations, but to be able to say, positively, 'this\nmust have been so,' 'that must have been otherwise.' Yet such is\nthe strange and extravagant supposition that we are assumed to\nmake. No doubt the argument from dogma has its place in criticism;\nbut, on the whole, the literary argument is safer, more removed\nfrom the influence of subjective impressions, more capable of\nbeing cast into a really scientific form.\n\n(3.) I pass over other literary arguments which hardly admit of\nthis form of expression--such as the improbability that the\nPreface or Prologue was not part of the original Gospel, but a\nlater accretion; or, again, from Marcion's treatment of the\nSynoptic matter in the third Gospel, both points which might be\notherwise worth dilating upon. I pass over these, and come at\nonce, without further delay, to the one point which seems to me\nreally to decide the character of Marcion's Gospel and its\nrelation to the Synoptic. The argument to which I allude is that\nfrom style and diction. True the English mind is apt to receive\nliterary arguments of that kind with suspicion, and very justly so\nlong as they rest upon a mere vague subjective _ipse dixit_;\nbut here the question can be reduced to one of definite figures\nand of weighing and measuring. Bruder's Concordance is a dismal-\nlooking volume--a mere index of words, and nothing more. But it\nhas an eloquence of its own for the scientific investigator. It is\nstrange how clearly many points stand out when this test comes to\nbe applied, which before had been vague and obscure. This is\nespecially the case in regard to the Synoptic Gospels; for, in the\nfirst place, the vocabulary of the writers is very limited and\nsimilar phrases have constant tendency to recur, and, in the\nsecond place, the critic has the immense advantage of being\nenabled to compare their treatment of the same common matter, so\nthat he can readily ascertain what are the characteristic\nmodifications introduced by each. Dr. Holtzmann, following Zeller\nand Lekebusch, has made a full and careful analysis of the style\nand vocabulary of St. Luke [Endnote 223:1], but of course without\nreference to the particular omissions of Marcion. Let us then,\nwith the help of Bruder, apply Holtzmann's results to these\nomissions, with a view to see whether there is evidence that they\nare by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel.\n\nIt would be beyond the proportions of the present enquiry to\nexhibit all the evidence in full. I shall, therefore, not\ntranscribe the whole of my notes, but merely give a few samples of\nthe sort of evidence producible, along with a brief summary of the\ngeneral results.\n\nTaking first certain points by which the style of the third\nEvangelist is distinguished from that of the first in their\ntreatment of common matter, Dr. Holtzmann observes, that where\nMatthew has [Greek: grammateus], Luke has in six places the word\n[Greek: nomikos], which is only found three times besides in the\nNew Testament (once in St. Mark, and twice in the Epistle to\nTitus). Of the places where it is used by St. Luke, one is the\nomitted passage, vii. 30. In citations where Matthew has [Greek:\nto rhaethen] (14 times; not at all in Luke), Luke prefers the\nperfect form [Greek: to eiraemenon], so in ii. 24 (Acts twice);\ncompare [Greek: eiraetai], iv. 21. Where Matthew has [Greek: arti]\n(7 times), Luke has always [Greek: nun], never [Greek: arti]:\n[Greek: nun] is used in the following passages, omitted by\nMarcion: i. 48, ii. 29, xix. 42, xxii. 18, 36. With Matthew the\nword [Greek: eleos] is masculine, with Luke neuter, so five times\nin ch. i. and in x. 37, which was retained by Marcion.\n\nAmong the peculiarities of style noted by Dr. Holtzmann which\nrecur in the omitted portions the following are perhaps some of\nthe more striking. Peculiar use of [Greek: to] covering a whole\nphrase, i. 62 [Greek: to ti an theloi kaleisthai], xix. 48, xxii.\n37, and five other places. Peculiar attraction of the relative\nwith preceding case of [Greek: pas], iii. 19, xix. 37, and\nelsewhere. The formula [Greek: elege (eipe) de parabolaen] (not\nfound in the other Synoptics), xiii. 6, xx. 9, 19, and ten times\nbesides. [Greek: Tou] pleonastic with the infinitive, once in\nMark, six times in Matthew, twenty-five times in Luke, of which\nthree times in chap. i, twice in chap. ii, iv. 10, xxi. 22.\nPeculiar combinations with [Greek: kata, kata to ethos, eiothos,\neithismenon], i. 9, ii. 27, 42, and twice. [Greek: Kath'\nhaemeran], once in the other Gospels, thirteen times in Luke and\nActs xix. 47; [Greek: kat' etos], ii. 41; [Greek: kata] with\npeculiar genitive of place, iv. 14 (xxiii. 5) [Endnote 224:1].\nProtasis introduced by [Greek: kai hote], ii. 21, 22, 42, [Greek:\nkai hos], ii. 39, xv. 25, xix. 41. Uses of [Greek: egeneto],\nespecially with [Greek: en to] and infinitive, twice in Mark, in\nLuke twenty-two times, i. 8, ii. 6, iii. 21, xxiv. 51; [Greek: en\nto] with the infinitive, three times in St. Matthew, once in St.\nMark, thirty-seven times in St. Luke, including i. 8, 21, ii. 6,\n27, 43, iii. 21. Adverbs: [Greek: exaes] and [Greek: kathexaes],\nten times in the third Gospel and the Acts alone in the New\nTestament, i. 3; [Greek: achri], twenty times in the third Gospel\nand Acts, only once in the other Gospels, i. 20, iv. 13; [Greek:\nexaiphnaes], four times in the Gospel and Acts, once besides in\nthe New Testament, ii. 13; [Greek: parachraema], seventeen times\nin the Gospel and Acts, twice in the rest of the New Testament, i.\n64; [Greek: en meso], thirteen times in the Gospel and Acts, five\ntimes in the other Synoptics, ii. 46, xxi. 21. Fondness for\noptative in indirect constructions, i. 29, 62, iii. 15, xv. 26.\nPeculiar combination of participles, ii. 36 ([Greek: probebaekuia\nzaesasa]), iii. 23 ([Greek: archomenos on]), iv. 20 ([Greek:\nptuxas apodous]), very frequent. [Greek: Einai], with participle\nfor finite verb (forty-eight times in all), i. 7, 10, 20, 21, 22,\nii. 8, 26, 33, 51, iii. 23, iv. 16 ([Greek: aen tethrammenos],\nomitted by Marcion), iv. 17, 20, xv. 24, 32, xviii. 34, xix. 47,\nxx. 17, xxiv. 53. Construction of [Greek: pros] with accusative\nafter [Greek: eipein, lalein, apokrinesthai], frequent in Luke,\nrare in the rest of the New Testament, i. 13, 18, 19, 28, 34, 55,\n61, 73, ii. 15, 18, 34, 48, 49, iii. 12, 13, 14, iv. 4, xiii. 7,\n34, xv. 22, xviii. 31, xix. 33, 39, xx. 9, 14, 19. This is thrown\ninto marked relief by the contrast with the other Synoptics; the\nonly two places where Matthew appears to have the construction are\nboth ambiguous, iii. 15 (doubtful reading, probably [Greek:\nauto]), and xxvii. 14 ([Greek: apekrithae auto pros oude hen\nrhaema]). No other evangelist speaks so much of [Greek: Pneuma\nhagion], i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 25, 66, iii. 16, 22, iv. 1 (found\nalso in Marcion's reading of xi. 2). Peculiar use of pronouns:\nLuke has the combination [Greek: kai autos] twenty-eight times,\nMatthew only twice (one false reading), Mark four or perhaps five\ntimes, i. 17, 22, ii. 28, iii. 23, xv. 14; [Greek: kai autoi] Mark\nhas not at all, Matthew twice, Luke thirteen times, including ii.\n50, xviii. 34, xxiv. 52.\n\nWe now come to the test supplied by the vocabulary. The following\nare some of the words peculiar to St. Luke, or found in his\nwritings with marked and characteristic frequency, which occur in\nthose parts of our present Gospel that were wanting in Marcion's\nrecension: [Greek: anestaen, anastas] occur three times in St.\nMatthew, twice in St. John, four times in the writings of St.\nPaul, twenty-six times in the third Gospel and thirty-five times\nin the Acts, and are found in i. 39, xv. 18, 20; [Greek:\nantilegein] appears in ii. 34, five times in the rest of the\nGospel and the Acts, and only four times together in the rest of\nthe New Testament; [Greek: hapas] occurs twenty times in the\nGospel, sixteen times in the Acts, only ten times in the rest of\nthe New Testament, but in ii. 39, iii. 16, 21, iv. 6, xv. 13, xix.\n37, 48, xxi. 4 (bis); three of these are, however, doubtful\nreadings. [Greek: aphesis ton amartion], ten times in the Gospel\nand Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament, i. 77,\niii. 3. [Greek: dei], Dr. Holtzmann says, 'is found more often in\nSt. Luke than in all the other writers of the New Testament put\ntogether.' This does not appear to be strictly true; it is,\nhowever, found nineteen times in the Gospel and twenty-five times\nin the Acts to twenty-four times in the three other Gospels; it\noccurs in ii. 49, xiii. 33, xv. 32, xxii. 37. [Greek: dechesthai],\ntwenty-four times in the Gospel and Acts, twenty-six times in the\nrest of the New Testament, six times in St. Matthew, three in St.\nMark, ii. 28, xxii. 17. [Greek: diatassein], nine times in the\nGospel and Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament\n(Matthew once), iii. 13, xvii. 9, 10. [Greek: dierchesthai] occurs\nthirty-two times in the Gospel and Acts, twice in each of the\nother Synoptics, and eight times in the rest of the New Testament,\nand is found in ii. 15, 35. [Greek: dioti], i. 13, ii. 7 (xxi. 28,\nand Acts, not besides in the Gospels). [Greek: ean], xxii. 51\n(once besides in the Gospel, eight times in the Acts, and three\ntimes in the rest of the New Testament). [Greek: ethos], i. 9, ii.\n42, eight times besides in St. Luke's writings and only twice in\nthe rest of the New Testament. [Greek: enantion], five times in\nSt. Luke's writings, once besides, i. 8. [Greek: enopion],\ncorrecting the readings, twenty times in the Gospel, fourteen\ntimes in the Acts, not at all in the other Synoptists, once in St.\nJohn, four times in chap. i, iv. 7, xv. 18, 21 (this will be\nnoticed as a very remarkable instance of the extent to which the\ndiction of the third Evangelist impressed itself upon his\nwritings). [Greek: epibibazein], xix. 35 (and twice, only by St.\nLuke). [Greek: epipiptein], i. 12, xv. 20 (eight times in the Acts\nand three times in the rest of the New Testament). [Greek: ai\neraemoi], only in St. Luke, i. 80, and twice. [Greek: etos]\n(fifteen times in the Gospel, eleven times in the Acts, three\ntimes in the other Synoptics and three times in St. John), four\ntimes in chap. ii, iii. 1, 23, xiii, 7, 8, xv. 29. [Greek:\nthaumazein epi tini], Gospel and Acts five times (only besides in\nMark xii. 17), ii. 33. [Greek: ikanos] in the sense of 'much,'\n'many,' seven times in the Gospel, eighteen times in the Acts, and\nonly three times besides in the New Testament, iii. 16, xx. 9\n(compare xxii. 38). [Greek: kathoti] (like [Greek: kathexaes]\nabove), is only found in St. Luke's writings, i. 7, and five times\nin the rest of the Gospel and the Acts. [Greek: latreuein], 'in\nLuke, much oftener than in other parts of the New Testament,' i.\n74, ii. 37, iv. 8, and five times in the Acts. [Greek: limos], six\ntimes in the Gospel and Acts, six times in the rest of the New\nTestament, xv. 14, 17. [Greek: maen] (month), i. 24, 26, 36, 56\n(iv. 25), alone in the Gospels, in the Acts five times. [Greek:\noikos] for 'family,' i. 27, 33, 69, ii. 4, and three times besides\nin the Gospel, nine times in the Acts. [Greek: plaethos]\n(especially in the form [Greek: pan to plaethos]), twenty-five\ntimes in St. Luke's writings, seven times in the rest of the New\nTestament, 1. 19, ii. 13, xix. 37. [Greek: plaesai, plaesthaenai],\ntwenty-two times in St. Luke's writings, only three times besides\nin the New Testament, i. 15, 23, 41, 57, 67, ii. 6, 21, 22, xxi.\n22. [Greek: prosdokan], eleven times in the Gospel and Acts, five\ntimes in the rest of the New Testament (Matthew twice and 2\nPeter), i. 21, iii. 15. [Greek: skaptein], only in Luke three\ntimes, xiii. 8. [Greek: speudein], except in 2 Peter iii. 12, only\nin St. Luke's writings, ii. 16. [Greek: sullambanein], ten times\nin the Gospel and Acts, five times in the rest of the New\nTestament, i. 24, 31, 36, ii. 21. [Greek: sumballein], only in\nLucan writings, six times, ii. 19. [Greek: sunechein], nine times\nin the Gospel and Acts, three times besides in the New Testament,\nxix. 43. [Greek: sotaeria], in chap. i. three times, in the rest\nof the Gospel and Acts seven times, not in the other Synoptic\nGospels. [Greek: hupostrephein], twenty-two times in the Gospel,\neleven times in the Acts, and only five times in the rest of the\nNew Testament (three of which are doubtful readings), i. 56, ii.\n20, 39, 43, 45, iv. 1, (14), xxiv. 52. [Greek: hupsistos] occurs\nnine times in the Gospel and Acts, four times in the rest of the\nNew Testament, i. 32, 35, 76, ii. 14, xix. 38. [Greek: hupsos] is\nalso found in i. 78, xxiv. 49. [Greek: charis] is found, among the\nSynoptics, only in St. Luke, eight times in the Gospel, seventeen\ntimes in the Acts, i. 30, ii. 40, 52, xvii. 9. [Greek: hosei]\noccurs nineteen times in the Gospel and Acts (four doubtful\nreadings, of which two are probably false), seventeen times in the\nrest of the New Testament (ten doubtful readings, of which in the\nSynoptic Gospels three are probably false), i. 56, iii. 23.\n\nIt should be remembered that the above are only samples from the\nwhole body of evidence, which would take up a much larger space if\nexhibited in full. The total result may be summarised thus.\nAccepting the scheme of Marcion's Gospel given some pages back,\nwhich is substantially that of 'Supernatural Religion,' Marcion\nwill have omitted a total of 309 verses. In those verses there are\nfound 111 distinct peculiarities of St. Luke's style, numbering in\nall 185 separate instances; there are also found 138 words\npeculiar to or specially characteristic of the third Evangelist,\nwith 224 instances. In other words, the verified peculiarities of\nSt. Luke's style and diction (and how marked many of these are\nwill have been seen from the examples above) are found in the\nportions of the Gospel omitted by Marcion in a proportion\naveraging considerably more than one to each verse! [Endnote\n229:1] Coming to detail, we find that in the principal omission--\nthat of the first two chapters, containing 132 verses--there are\n47 distinct peculiarities of style, with 105 instances; and 82\ncharacteristic words, with 144 instances. In the 23 verses of\nchap. iii. omitted by Marcion (for the genealogy need not be\nreckoned), the instances are 18 and 14, making a total of 32. In\n18 verses omitted from chap. iv. the instances are 13 and 8 = 21.\nIn another longer passage--the parable of the prodigal son--the\ninstances are 8 of the first class and 20 of the second. In 20\nverses omitted from chap. xix. the instances are 11 and 6; and in\n11 verses omitted from chap. xx, 9 and 8. Of all the isolated\nfragments that Marcion had ejected from his Gospel, there are only\nfour--iv. 24, xi. 49-51, xx. 37, 38, xxii. 28-30, nine verses in\nall--in which no peculiarities have been noticed. And yet even\nhere the traces of authorship are not wanting. It happens\nstrangely enough that in a list of parallel passages given by Dr.\nHoltzmann to illustrate the affinities of thought between St. Luke\nand St. Paul, two of these very passages--xi. 49 and xx. 38--\noccur. I had intended to pursue the investigation through these\nresemblances, but it seems superfluous to carry it further.\n\nIt is difficult to see what appeal can be made against evidence\nsuch as this. A certain allowance should indeed be made for\npossible errors of computation, and some of the points may have\nbeen wrongly entered, though care has been taken to put down\nnothing that was not verified by its preponderating presence in\nthe Lucan writings, and especially by its presence in that portion\nof the Gospel which Marcion undoubtedly received. But as a rule\nthe method applies itself mechanically, and when every deduction\nhas been made, there will still remain a mass of evidence that it\ndoes not seem too much to describe as overwhelming.\n\n(4.) We may assume, then, that there is definite proof that the\nGospel used by Marcion presupposes our present St. Luke, in its\ncomplete form, as it has been handed down to us. But when once\nthis assumption has been made, another set of considerations comes\nin, which also carry with them an important inference. If\nMarcion's Gospel was an extract from a manuscript containing our\npresent St. Luke, then not only is it certain that that Gospel was\nalready in existence, but there is further evidence to show that\nit must have been in existence for some time. The argument in this\ncase is drawn from another branch of Biblical science to which we\nhave already had occasion to appeal--text-criticism. Marcion's\nGospel, it is known, presents certain readings which differ both\nfrom the received and other texts. Some of these are thought by\nVolkmar and Hilgenfeld to be more original and to have a better\nright to stand in the text than those which are at present found\nthere. These critics, however, base their opinion for the most\npart on internal grounds, and the readings defended by them are\nnot as a rule those which are supported by other manuscript\nauthority. It is to this second class rather that I refer as\nbearing upon the age of the canonical Gospel. The most important\nvarious readings of the existence of which we have proof in\nMarcion's Gospel are as follows [Endnote 231:1]:--\n\nv. 14. The received (and best) text is [Greek: eis marturion\nautois]. Marcion, according to the express statement of Epiphanius\n(312 B), read [Greek: hina ae morturion touto humin], which is\nconfirmed by Tertullian, who gives (_Marc._ iv. 8) 'Ut sit\nvobis in testimonium.' The same or a similar reading is found in\nD, [Greek: hina eis marturion ae humin touto], 'ut sit in\ntestimonium vobis hoc,' d; 'ut sit in testimonium (--monia, ff)\nhoc vobis,' a (Codex Vercellensis), b (Codex Veronensis), c (Codex\nColbertinus), ff (Codex Corbeiensis), l (Codex Rhedigerianus), of\nthe Old Latin [Endnote 231:2].\n\nv. 39 was _probably_ omitted by Marcion (this is inferred\nfrom the silence of Tertullian by Hilgenfeld, p. 403, and R\u00f6nsch,\np. 634). The verse is also omitted in D, a, b, c, d, e, ff.\n\nx. 22. Marcion's reading of this verse corresponded with that of\nother Gnostics, but has no extant manuscript authority. We have\ntouched upon it elsewhere.\n\nx. 25. [Greek: zoaen aionion], Marcion omitted [Greek: aionion]\n(Tert. _Adv. Marc._ iv. 25); so also the Old Latin Codex g'2\n(San Germanensis).\n\nxi. 2. Marcion read [Greek: eltheto to hagion pneuma sou eph'\nhaemas] (or an equivalent; see R\u00f6nsch, p. 640) either for the\nclause [Greek: hagiasthaeto to onoma sou] or for [Greek:\ngenaethaeto to thelaema sou], which is omitted in B, L, 1, Vulg.,\nff, Syr. Crt. There is a curious stray [Greek: eph' haemas] in D\nwhich may conceivably be a trace of Marcion's reading.\n\nxii. 14. Marcion (and probably Tertullian) read [Greek: kritaen]\n(or [Greek: dikastaen]) only for [Greek: kritaen ae meristaen]; so\nD, a ('ut videtur,' Tregelles), c, Syr. Crt.\n\nxii. 38. Marcion had [Greek: tae hesperinae phulakae] for [Greek:\nen tae deutera phulakae kai en tae tritae phulakae]. So b: D, c,\ne, ff, i, Iren. 334, Syr. Crt., combine the two readings in\nvarious ways.\n\nxvi. 12. Marcion read [Greek: emon] for [Greek: humeteron]. So e\n(Palatinus), i (Vindobonensis), l (Rhedigerianus). [Greek:\nhaemeteron] B. L, Origen.\n\nxvii. 2. Marcion inserted the words [Greek: ouk egennaethae ae]\n(Tert. iv. 35), 'ne nasceretur aut,' a, b, c, ff, i, l.\n\nxviii. 19. Here again Marcion had a variation which is unsupported\nby manuscript authority, but has to some extent a parallel in the\nClementine Homilies, Justin, &c.\n\nxxi. 18. was omitted by Marcion (Epiph. 316 B), and is also\nomitted in the Curetonian Syriac.\n\nxxi. 27. Tertullian (iv. 39) gives the reading of Marcion as 'cum\nplurima virtute' = [Greek: meta dunameos pollaes [kai doxaes]],\nfor [Greek: meta dun. k. dox. pollaes]; so D ([Greek: en dun.\npol.]), and approximately Vulg., a, c, e, f, ff, Syr. Crt., Syr.\nPst.\n\nxxiii. 2. Marcion read [Greek: diastrephonta to ethnos kai\nkatalionta ton nomon kai tous prophaetas kai keleuonta phorous mae\ndounai kai anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna] (Epiph., 316\nD), where [Greek: kataluonta ton nomon kai tous prophaetas] and\n[Greek: anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna] are additions to\nthe text, and [Greek: keleuonta phorous mae dounai] is a\nvariation. Of the two additions the first finds support in b, (c),\ne, (ff), i, l; the second is inserted, with some variation, by c\nand e in verse 5.\n\n We may thus tabulate the relation of Marcion to these various\nauthorities. The brackets indicate that the agreement is only\napproximate. Marcion agrees with--\n\nD, d, v. 14, v. 39; xii. 14, (xii. 28), (xxi. 27).\n\na (Verc.), v. 14, v. 39, xii. 14 (apparently), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27).\n\nb (Ver.), v. 14, v. 39. xii. 38, xvii. 2, (xxiii. 2).\n\nc (Colb.), v. 14, v. 39, xii. 14, (xii. 38), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27),\n(xxiii. 2), (xxiii. 2).\n\ne (Pal.), v. 39, (xii. 38), xvi. 12, (xxi. 27), xxiii. 2, (xxiii.\n2).\n\nff (Corb.), v. 14, v. 39, (xii. 38), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27), (xxiii.\n2).\n\ng'2 (Germ.), x. 25.\n\ni (Vind.), (xii. 38), xvi. 12, xvii. 2, xxiii. 2.\n\nl (Rhed.), v. 14, xvi. 12, xvii. 2, xiii. 2.\n\nSyr. Crt., xii. 14, (xii. 38), xxi. 18, (xxi. 27).\n\nIt is worth noticing that xxii. 19 b, 20 (which is omitted in D,\na, b, c, ff, i, l) appears to have been found in Marcion's Gospel,\nas in the Vulgate, c, and f (see R\u00f6nsch, p. 239). [Greek: apo tou\nmnaemeiou] in xxiv. 9 is also found (R\u00f6nsch, p. 246), though\nomitted by D, a, b, c, e, ff, l. There is no evidence to show\nwhether the additions in ix. 55, xxiii. 34, and xxii. 43, 44 were\npresent in Marcion's Gospel or not.\n\nIt will be observed that the readings given above have all what is\ncalled a 'Western' character. The Curetonian Syriac is well known\nto have Western affinities [Endnote 233:1]. Codd. a, b, c, and the\nfragment of i which extends from Luke x. 6 to xxiii. 10, represent\nthe most primitive type of the Old Latin version; e, ff, and I\ngive a more mixed text. As we should expect, the revised Latin\ntext of Cod. f has no representation in Marcion's Gospel [Endnote\n233:2].\n\nThese textual phenomena are highly interesting, but at the same\ntime an exact analysis of them is difficult. No simple hypothesis\nwill account for them. There can be no doubt that Marcion's\nreadings are, in the technical sense, false; they are a deviation\nfrom the type of the pure and unadulterated text. At a certain\npoint, evidently of the remotest antiquity, in the history of\ntranscription, there was a branching off which gave rise to those\nvarieties of reading which, though they are not confined to\nWestern manuscripts, still, from their preponderance in these, are\ncalled by the general name of 'Western.' But when we come to\nconsider the relations among those Western documents themselves,\nno regular descent or filiation seems traceable. Certain broad\nlines indeed we can mark off as between the earlier and later\nforms of the Old Latin, though even here the outline is in places\nconfused; but at what point are we to insert that most remarkable\ndocument of antiquity, the Curetonian Syriac? For instance, there\nare cases (e.g. xvii. 2, xxiii. 2) where Marcion and the Old Latin\nare opposed to the Old Syriac, where the latter has undoubtedly\npreserved the correct reading. To judge from these alone, we\nshould naturally conclude that the Syriac was simply an older and\npurer type than Marcion's Gospel and the Latin. But then again, on\nthe other hand, there are cases (such as the omission of xxi. 18)\nwhere Marcion and the Syriac are combined, and the Old Latin\nadheres to the truer type. This will tend to show that, even at\nthat early period, there must have been some comparison and\ncorrection--a _con_vergence as well as a _di_vergence--\nof manuscripts, and not always a mere reproduction of the\nparticular copy which the scribe had before him; at the same time\nit will also show that Marcion's Gospel, so far from being an\noriginal document, has behind it a deep historical background, and\nstands at the head of a series of copies which have already passed\nthrough a number of hands, and been exposed to a proportionate\namount of corruption. Our author is inclined to lay stress upon\nthe 'slow multiplication and dissemination of MSS.' Perhaps he may\nsomewhat exaggerate this, as antiquarians give us a surprising\naccount of the case and rapidity with which books were produced by\nthe aid of slave-labour [Endnote 235:1]. But even at Rome the\npublishing trade upon this large scale was a novelty dating back\nno further than to Atticus, the friend of Cicero, and we should\nnaturally expect that among the Christians--a poor and widely\nscattered body, whose tenets would cut them off from the use of\nsuch public machinery--the multiplication of MSS. would be slower\nand more attended with difficulty. But the slower it was the more\ncertainly do such phenomena as these of Marcion's text throw back\nthe origin of the prototype from which that text was derived. In\nthe year 140 A.D. Marcion possesses a Gospel which is already in\nan advanced stage of transcription--which has not only undergone\nthose changes which in some regions the text underwent before it\nwas translated into Latin, but has undergone other changes\nbesides. Some of its peculiarities are not those of the earliest\nform of the Latin version, but of that version in what may be\ncalled its second stage (e.g. xvi. 12). It has also affinities to\nanother version kindred to the Latin and occupying a similar place\nto the Old Latin among the Churches of Syria. These circumstances\ntogether point to an antiquity fully as great as any that an\northodox critic would claim.\n\nIt should not be thought that because such indications are\nindirect they are therefore any the less certain. There is perhaps\nhardly a single uncanonical Christian document that is admittedly\nand indubitably older than Marcion; so that direct evidence there\nis naturally none. But neither is there any direct evidence for\nthe antiquity of man or of the earth. The geologist judges by the\nfossils which he finds embedded in the strata as relics of an\nextinct age; so here, in the Gospel of Marcion, do we find relics\nwhich to the initiated eye carry with them their own story.\n\nNor, on the other hand, can it rightly be argued that because the\nhistory of these remains is not wholly to be recovered, therefore\nno inference from them is possible. In the earlier stages of a\nscience like palaeontology it might have been argued in just the\nsame way that the difficulties and confusion in the classification\ninvalidated the science along with its one main inference\naltogether. Yet we can see that such an argument would have been\nmistaken. There will probably be some points in every science\nwhich will never be cleared up to the end of time. The affirmation\nof the antiquity of Marcion's Gospel rests upon the simple axiom\nthat every event must have a cause, and that in order to produce\ncomplicated phenomena the interaction of complicated causes is\nnecessary. Such an assumption involves time, and I think it is a\nsafe proposition to assert that, in order to bring the text of\nMarcion's Gospel into the state in which we find it, there must\nhave been a long previous history, and the manuscripts through\nwhich it was conveyed must have parted far from the parent stem.\n\nThe only way in which the inference drawn from the text of\nMarcion's Gospel can be really met would be by showing that the\ntext of the Latin and Syriac translations is older and more\noriginal than that which is universally adopted by text-critics. I\nshould hardly suppose that the author of 'Supernatural Religion'\nwill be prepared to maintain this. If he does, the subject can\nthen be argued. In the meantime, these two arguments, the literary\nand the textual--for the others are but subsidiary--must, I think,\nbe held to prove the high antiquity of our present Gospel.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH.\n\n\nTatian was a teacher of rhetoric, an Assyrian by birth, who was\nconverted to Christianity by Justin Martyr, but after his death\nfell into heresy, leaning towards the Valentinian Gnosticism, and\ncombining with this an extreme asceticism.\n\nThe death of Justin is clearly the pivot on which his date will\nhinge. If we are to accept the conclusions of Mr. Hort this will\nhave occurred in the year 148 A.D.; according to Volkmar it would\nfall not before 155 A.D., and in the ordinary view as late as 163-\n165 A.D. [Endnote 238:1] The beginning of Tatian's literary\nactivity will follow accordingly.\n\nTatian's first work of importance, an 'Address to Greeks,' which\nis still extant, was written soon after the death of Justin. It\ncontains no references to the Synoptic Gospels upon which stress\ncan be laid.\n\nAn allusion to Matth. vi. 19 in the Stromateis of Clement [Endnote\n238:2] has been attributed to Tatian, but I hardly know for what\nreason. It is introduced simply by [Greek: tis (biazetai tis\nlegon)], but there were other Encratites besides Tatian, and the\nvery fact that he has been mentioned by name twice before in the\nchapter makes it the less likely that he should be introduced so\nvaguely.\n\nThe chief interest however in regard to Tatian centres in his so-\ncalled 'Diatessaron,' which is usually supposed to have been a\nharmony of the four Gospels.\n\nEusebius mentions this in the following terms: 'Tatian however,\ntheir former leader, put together, I know not how, a sort of\npatchwork or combination of the Gospels and called it the\n\"Diatessaron,\" which is still current with some.' [Endnote 239:1]\n\nI am rather surprised to see that Credner, who is followed by the\nauthor of 'Supernatural Religion,' argues from this that Eusebius\nhad not seen the work in question [Endnote 239:2]. This inference\nis not by any means conveyed by the Greek. [Greek: Ouk oid' hopos]\n(thus introduced) is an idiomatic phrase referring to the\nprinciple on which the harmony was constructed, and might well be\nparaphrased 'a curious sort of patchwork or dovetailing,' 'a not\nvery intelligible dovetailing,' &c. Standing in the position it\ndoes, the phrase can hardly mean anything else. Besides it is not\nlikely that Eusebius, an eager collector and reader of books, with\nthe run of Pamphilus' library, should not have been acquainted\nwith a work that he says himself was current in more quarters than\none. Eusebius, it will be observed, is quite explicit in his\nstatement. He says that the Diatessaron was a harmony of the\nGospels, i.e. (in his sense) of our present Gospels, and that\nTatian gave the name of Diatessaron to his work himself. We do not\nknow upon what these statements rest, but there ought to be some\nvalid reason before we dismiss them entirely.\n\nEpiphanius writes that 'Tatian is said to have composed the\nDiatessaron Gospel which some call the \"Gospel according to the\nHebrews\"' [Endnote 240:1]. And Theodoret tells us that 'Tatian\nalso composed the Gospel which is called the Diatessaron, cutting\nout the genealogies and all that shows the Lord to have been born\nof the seed of David according to the flesh.' 'This,' he adds,\n'was used not only by his own party, but also by those who\nfollowed the teaching of the Apostles, as they had not perceived\nthe mischievous design of the composition, but in their simplicity\nmade use of the book on account of its conciseness.' Theodoret\nfound more than two hundred copies in the churches of his diocese\n(Cyrrhus in Syria), which he removed and replaced with the works\nof the four Evangelists [Endnote 240:2].\n\nVictor of Capua in the sixth century speaks of Tatian's work as a\n'Diapente' rather than a 'Diatessaron' [Endnote 240:3]. If we are\nto believe the Syrian writer Bar-Salibi in the twelfth century,\nEphrem Syrus commented on Tatian's Diatessaron, and it began with\nthe opening words of St. John. This statement however is referred\nby Gregory Bar-Hebraeus not to the Harmony of Tatian, but to one\nby Ammonius made in the third century [Endnote 241:1].\n\nHere there is clearly a good deal of confusion.\n\nBut now we come to the question, was Tatian's work really a\nHarmony of our four Gospels? The strongest presumption that it was\nis derived from Irenaeus. Irenaeus, it is well known, speaks of\nthe four Gospels with absolute decision, as if it were a law of\nnature that their number must be four, neither more nor less\n[Endnote 241:2], and his four Gospels were certainly the same as\nour own. But Tatian wrote within a comparatively short interval of\nIrenaeus. It is sufficiently clear that Irenaeus held his opinion\nat the very time that Tatian wrote, though it was not published\nuntil later. Here then we have a coincidence which makes it\ndifficult to think that Tatian's four Gospels were different from\nours.\n\nThe theory that finds favour with Credner [Endnote 241:3] and his\nfollowers, including the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' is\nthat Tatian's Gospel was the same as that used by Justin. I am\nmyself not inclined to think this theory improbable; it would have\nbeen still less so, if Tatian had been the master and Justin the\npupil [Endnote 241:4]. We have seen that the phenomena of Justin's\nevangelical quotations are as well met by the hypothesis that he\nmade use of a Harmony as by any other. But that Harmony, as we\nhave also seen, included at least our three Synoptics. The\nevidence (which we shall consider presently) for the use of the\nfourth Gospel by Tatian is so strong as to make it improbable that\nthat work was not included in the Diatessaron. The fifth work,\nalluded to by Victor of Capua, may possibly have been the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews.\n\n\n                             2.\n\nJust as the interest of Tatian turns upon the interpretation to be\nput upon a single term 'Diatessaron,' so the interest of Dionysius\nof Corinth depends upon what we are to understand by his phrase\n'the Scriptures of the Lord.'\n\nIn a fragment, preserved by Eusebius, of an epistle addressed to\nSoter Bishop of Rome (168-176 A.D.) and the Roman Church,\nDionysius complains that his letters had been tampered with. 'As\nbrethren pressed me to write letters I wrote them. And these the\napostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some\nthings and adding others, for whom the woe is prepared. It is not\nwonderful, then, if some have ventured to tamper with the\nScriptures of the Lord when they have laid their plots against\nwritings that have no such claims as they' [Endnote 242:1]. It\nmust needs be a straining of language to make the Scriptures here\nrefer, as the author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to do, to\nthe Old Testament. It is true that Justin lays great stress upon\ntype and prophecy as pointing to Christ, but there is a\nconsiderable step between this and calling the whole of the Old\nTestament 'Scriptures of the Lord.' On the other hand, we can\nhardly think that Dionysius refers to a complete collection of\nwritings like the New Testament. It seems most natural to suppose\nthat he is speaking of Gospels--possibly not the canonical alone,\nand yet, with Irenaeus in our mind's eye, we shall say probably to\nthem. There is the further reason for this application of the\nwords that Dionysius is known to have written against Marcion--'he\ndefended the canon of the truth' [Endnote 243:1], Eusebius says--\nand such 'tampering' as he describes was precisely what Marcion\nhad been guilty of.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe reader will judge for himself what is the weight of the kind\nof evidence produced in this chapter. I give a chapter to it\nbecause the author of 'Supernatural Religion' has done the same.\nDoubtless it is not the sort of evidence that would bear pressing\nin a court of English law, but in a question of balanced\nprobabilities it has I think a decided leaning to one side, and\nthat the side opposed to the conclusions of 'Supernatural\nReligion.'\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nMELITO--APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS.\n\n\nWe pass on, still in a region of fragments--'waifs and strays' of\nthe literature of the second century--and of partial and indirect\n(though on that account not necessarily less important)\nindications.\n\nIn Melito of Sardis (c. 176 A.D) it is interesting to notice the\nfirst appearance of a phrase that was destined later to occupy a\nconspicuous position. Writing to his friend Onesimus, who had\nfrequently asked for selections from the Law and the Prophets\nbearing upon the Saviour, and generally for information respecting\nthe number and order of 'the Old Books,' Melito says 'that he had\ngone to the East and reached the spot where the preaching had been\ndelivered and the acts done, and that having learnt accurately the\nbooks of the Old Covenant (or Testament) he had sent a list of\nthem'--which is subjoined [Endnote 244:1]. Melito uses the word\nwhich became established as the title used to distinguish the\nelder Scriptures from the younger--the Old Covenant or Testament\n([Greek: hae palaia diathaekae]); and it is argued from this that\nhe implies the existence of a 'definite New Testament, a written\nantitype to 'the Old' [Endnote 245:1] The inference however seems\nto be somewhat in excess of what can be legitimately drawn. By\n[Greek: palaia diathaekae] is meant rather the subject or contents\nof the books than the books themselves. It is the system of\nthings, the dispensation accomplished 'in heavenly places,' to\nwhich the books belong, not the actual collected volume. The\nparallel of 2 Cor. iii. 14 ([Greek: epi tae anagnosei taes palaias\ndiathaekaes]), which is ably pointed to in 'Supernatural Religion'\n[Endnote 245:2], is too close to allow the inference of a written\nNew Testament. And yet, though the word has not actually acquired\nthis meaning, it was in process of acquiring it, and had already\ngone some way to acquire it. The books were already there, and, as\nwe see from Irenaeus, critical collections of them had already\nbegun to be made. Within thirty years of the time when Melito is\nwriting Tertullian uses the phrase Novum Testamentum precisely in\nour modern sense, intimating that it had then become the current\ndesignation [Endnote 245:3]. This being the case we cannot wonder\nthat there should be a certain reflex hint of such a sense in the\nwords of Melito.\n\nThe tract 'On Faith,' published in Syriac by Dr. Cureton and\nattributed to Melito, is not sufficiently authenticated to have\nvalue as evidence.\n\nIt should be noted that Melito's fragments contain nothing\nespecially on the Gospels.\n\n\n                             2.\n\nSome time between 176-180 A.D. Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of\nHierapolis, addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius an apology of\nwhich rather more than three lines have come down to us. A more\nimportant fragment however is assigned to this writer in the\nPaschal Chronicle, a work of the seventh century. Here it is said\nthat 'Apollinaris, the most holy bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, who\nlived near the times of the Apostles, in his book about Easter,\ntaught much the same, saying thus: \"There are some who through\nignorance wrangle about these matters, in a pardonable manner; for\nignorance does not admit of blame but rather needs instruction.\nAnd they say that on the 14th the Lord ate the lamb with His\ndisciples, and that on the great day of unleavened bread He\nhimself suffered; and they relate that this is in their view the\nstatement of Matthew. Whence their opinion is in conflict with the\nlaw, and according to them the Gospels are made to be at\nvariance\"' [Endnote 246:1]. This variance or disagreement in the\nGospels evidently has reference to the apparent discrepancy\nbetween the Synoptics, especially St. Matthew and St. John, the\nformer treating the Last Supper as the Paschal meal, the latter\nplacing it before the Feast of the Passover and making the\nCrucifixion coincide with the slaughter of the Paschal lamb.\nApollinaris would thus seem to recognise both the first and the\nfourth Gospels as authoritative.\n\nIs this fragment of Apollinaris genuine? It is alleged against it\n[Endnote 247:1] (1) that Eusebius was ignorant of any such work on\nEaster, and that there is no mention of it in such notices of\nApollinaris and his writings as have come down to us from\nTheodoret, Jerome, and Photius. There are some good remarks on\nthis point by Routh (who is quoted in 'Supernatural Religion'\n_apparently_ as adverse to the genuineness of the fragments).\nHe says: 'There seems to me to be nothing in these extracts to\ncompel us to deny the authorship of Apollinaris. Nor must we\nrefuse credit to the author of the Preface [to the Paschal\nChronicle] any more than to other writers of the same times on\nwhose testimony many books of the ancients have been received,\nalthough not mentioned by Eusebius or any other of his contemporaries;\nespecially as Eusebius declares below that it was only some select\nbooks that had come to his hands out of many that Apollinaris had\nwritten' [Endnote 247:2]. It is objected (2) that Apollinaris is\nnot likely to have spoken of a controversy in which the whole Asiatic\nChurch was engaged as the opinion of a 'few ignorant wranglers' A\nfair objection, if he was really speaking of such a controversy.\nBut the great issue between the Churches of Asia and that of Rome\nwas whether the Paschal festival should be kept, according to the\nJewish custom, always on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, or\nwhether it should be kept on the Friday after the Paschal full moon,\non whatever day of the month it might fall. The fragment appears\nrather to allude to some local dispute as to the day on which the\nLord suffered. To go thoroughly into this question would involve\nus in all the mazes of the so-called Paschal controversy, and in\nthe end a precise and certain conclusion would probably be impossible.\nSo far as I am aware, all the writers who have entered into the\ndiscussion start with assuming the genuineness of the Apollinarian\nfragment.\n\nThere remains however the fact that it rests only upon the attestation\nof a writer of the seventh century, who may possibly be wrong, but,\nif so, has been led into his error not wilfully but by accident.\nNo reason can be alleged for the forging or purposely false ascription\nof a fragment like this, and it bears the stamp of good faith in that\nit asks indulgence for opponents instead of censure. We may perhaps\nsafely accept the fragment with some, not large, deduction from its\nweight.\n\n                             3.\n\nAn instance of the precariousness of the argument from silence\nwould be supplied by the writer who comes next under review--\nAthenagoras. No mention whatever is made of Athenagoras either by\nEusebius or Jerome, though he appears to have been an author of a\ncertain importance, two of whose works, an Apology addressed to\nMarcus Aurelius and Commodus and a treatise on the Resurrection,\nare still extant. The genuineness of neither of these works is\ndoubted.\n\nThe Apology, which may be dated about 177 A.D., contains a few\nreferences to our Lord's discourses, but not such as can have any\ngreat weight as evidence. The first that is usually given, a\nparallel to Matt. v. 39, 40 (good for evil), is introduced in such\na way as to show that the author intends only to give the sense\nand not the words. The same may be said of another sentence that\nis compared with Mark x. 6 [Endnote 249:1]:--\n\n_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 33._\n\n[Greek: Hoti en archae ho Theos hena andra eplase kai mian\ngunaika.]\n\n_Mark x. 6_\n\n[Greek: Apo de archaes ktiseos arsen kai thaelu epoiaesen autous\nho Theos.]\n\nAll that can be said is that the thought here appears to have been\nsuggested by the Gospel--and that not quite immediately.\n\nA much closer--and indeed, we can hardly doubt, a real--parallel\nis presented by a longer passage:--\n\n_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 11._\n\nWhat then are the precepts in which we are instructed? I say unto\nyou: Love your enemies, bless them that curse, pray for them that\npersecute you; that ye may become the sons of your Father which is\nin heaven: who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good,\nand sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.\n\n[Greek: Tines oun haemon hoi logoi, hois entrephometha; lego\nhumin, agapate tous echthrous humon, eulogeite tous kataromenous,\nproseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas, hopos genaesthe huioi tou\npatros humon tou en ouranois, hos ton haelion autou anatellei epi\nponaerous kai agathous kai brechei epi dikaious kai adikous.]\n\n_Matt_. v. 44, 45.\n\nI say unto you: Love your enemies [bless them that curse you, do\ngood to them that hate you], and pray for them that persecute you;\nthat ye may become the sons of your Father which is in heaven: for\nhe maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth\nrain on the just and the unjust.\n\n[Greek: ego de lego humin, agapate tous echthrous humon\n[eulogeite tous kataromenous humas, kalos poiete tous misountas\nhumas], proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas hopos genaesthe\nhuioi tou patros humon tou en ouranois, hoti ton haelion autou\nanatellei epi ponaerous kai agathous kai brechei epi dikaious kai\nadikous.]\n\nThe bracketed clauses in the text of St. Matthew are both omitted\nand inserted by a large body of authorities, but, as it is rightly\nremarked in 'Supernatural Religion,' they are always either both\nomitted or both inserted; we must therefore believe that the\nomission and insertion of one only by Athenagoras is without\nmanuscript precedent. Otherwise the exactness of the parallel is\ngreat; and it is thrown the more into relief when we compare the\ncorresponding passage in St. Luke.\n\nThe quotation is completed in the next chapter of Athenagoras'\nwork:--\n\n_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ._ 12.\n\nFor if ye love, he says, them which love and lend to them which\nlend to you, what reward shall ye have?\n\n[Greek: Ean gar agapate, phaesin, tous agapontas, kai daineizete\ntois daneizousin humin, tina misthon hexete;]\n\n _Matt._ v. 46.\n\nFor if ye shall love them which love you, what reward have ye?\n\n[Greek: Ean gar agapaesaete tous agapontas humas tina misthon\nechete;]\n\nHere the middle clause in the quotation appears to be a\nreminiscence of St. Luke vi. 34 ([Greek: ean danisaete par' hon\nelpizete labein]). Justin also, it should be noted, has [Greek:\nagapate] (but [Greek: ei agapate]) for [Greek: agapaesaete]. If\nthis passage had stood alone, taking into account the variations\nand the even run and balance of the language we might have thought\nperhaps that Athenagoras had had before him a different version.\nYet the [Greek: tina misthon], compared with the [Greek: poia\ncharis] of St. Luke and [Greek: ti kainon poieite] of Justin,\nwould cause misgivings, and greater run and balance is precisely\nwhat would result from 'unconscious cerebration.'\n\nTwo more references are pointed out to Matt. v. 28 and Matt. v.\n32, one with slight, the other with medium, variation, which leave\nthe question very much in the same position.\n\nWe ought not to omit to notice that Athenagoras quotes one\nuncanonical saying, introducing it with the phrase [Greek: palin\nhaemin legontos tou logou]. I am not at all clear that this is not\nmerely one of the 'precepts' [Greek: oi logoi] alluded to above.\nAt any rate it is exceedingly doubtful that the Logos is here\npersonified. It seems rather parallel to the [Greek: ho logos\nedaelou] of Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. 129).\n\nConsidering the date at which he wrote I have little doubt that\nAthenagoras is actually quoting from the Synoptics, but he cannot,\non the whole, be regarded as a very powerful witness for them.\n\n\n                             4.\n\nAfter the cruel persecution from which the Churches of Vienne and\nLyons had suffered in the year 177 A.D., a letter was written in\ntheir name, containing an account of what had happened, which\nLardner describes as 'the finest thing of the kind in all\nantiquity' [Endnote 251:1]. This letter, which was addressed to\nthe Churches of Asia and Phrygia, contained several quotations\nfrom the New Testament, and among them one that is evidently from\nSt. Luke's Gospel.\n\nIt is said of one of the martyrs, Vettius Epagathus, that his\nmanner of life was so strict that, young as he was, he could claim\na share in the testimony borne to the more aged Zacharias. Indeed\nhe had _walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the\nLord blameless_, and in the service of his neighbour untiring,\n&c. [Endnote 252:1] The italicised words are a verbatim\nreproduction of Luke i. 6.\n\nThere is an ambiguity in the words [Greek: sunexisousthai tae tou\npresbuterou Zachariou marturia]. The genitive after [Greek: marturia]\nmay be either subjective or objective--'the testimony borne _by_'\nor 'the testimony borne _to_ or _of_' the aged Zacharias. I have\nlittle doubt that the translation given above is the right one.\nIt has the authority of Lardner ('equalled the character of') and\nRouth ('Zachariae senioris elogio aequaretur'), and seems to be\nimperatively required by the context. The eulogy passed upon\nVettius Epagathus is justified by the uniform strictness of his\ndaily life (he has walked in _all_ the commandments &c.), not by\nthe single act of his constancy in death.\n\nThe author of 'Supernatural Religion,' apparently following\nHilgenfeld [Endnote 252:2], adopts the other translation, and\nbases on it an argument that the allusion is to the _martyrdom_\nof Zacharias, and therefore not to our third Gospel in which no\nmention of that martyrdom is contained. On the other hand, we are\nreminded that the narrative of the martyrdom of Zacharias enters\ninto the Protevangelium of James. That apocryphal Gospel however\ncontains nothing approaching to the words which coincide exactly\nwith the text of St. Luke.\n\nEven if there had been a greater doubt than there is as to the\napplication of [Greek: marturia], it would be difficult to resist\nthe conclusion that the Synoptic Gospel is being quoted. The words\noccur in the most peculiar and distinctive portion of the Gospel;\nand the correspondence is so exact and the phrase itself so\nstriking as not to admit of any other source. The order, the\nchoice of words, the construction, even to the use of the nominative\n[Greek: \u00e1memptos] where we might very well have had the adverb\n[Greek: am\u00e9mpt\u00f4s], all point the same way. These fine edges of the\nquotation, so to speak, must needs have been rubbed off in the\ncourse of transmission through several documents. But there is\nnot a trace of any other document that contained such a remark\nupon the character of Zacharias.\n\nThis instance of a Synoptic quotation may, I think, safely be\ndepended upon.\n\nAnother allusion, a little lower down in the Epistle, which speaks\nof the same Vettius Epagathus as 'having in himself the Paraclete\n[there is a play on the use of the word [Greek: paraklaetos] just\nbefore], the Spirit, more abundantly than Zacharias,' though in\nexaggerated and bad taste, probably has reference to Luke i. 67,\n'And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Ghost,' &c.\n\n[Footnote: Mr. Mason calls my attention to [Greek: enduma\nnumphikon] in \u00a7 13, and also to the misleading statement in\n_S.R._ ii. p. 201 that 'no writing of the New Testament is\ndirectly referred to.' I should perhaps have more fault to find\nwith the sentence on p. 204, 'It follows clearly and few venture\nto doubt,' &c. I have assumed however for some time that the\nreader will be on his guard against expressions such as these.]\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nPTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT.\n\n\nWe are now very near emerging into open daylight; but there are\nthree items in the evidence which lie upon the border of the\ndebateable ground, and as questions have been raised about these\nit may be well for us to discuss them.\n\nWe have already had occasion to speak of the two Gnostics\nPtolemaeus and Heracleon. It is necessary, in the first place, to\ndefine the date of their evidence with greater precision, and, in\nthe second, to consider its bearing.\n\nLet us then, in attempting to do this, dismiss all secondary and\nprecarious matter; such as (1) the argument drawn by Tischendorf\n[Endnote 254:1] from the order in which the names of the disciples\nof Valentinus are mentioned and from an impossible statement of\nEpiphanius which seems to make Heracleon older than Cerdon, and\n(2) the argument that we find in Volkmar and 'Supernatural\nReligion' [Endnote 254:2] from the use of the present tense by\nHippolytus, as if the two writers, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, were\ncontemporaries of his own in 225-235 A.D. Hippolytus does indeed\nsay, speaking of a division in the school of Valentinus, 'Those\nwho are of Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say' &c.\nBut there is no reason why there should not be a kind of historic\npresent, just as we might say, 'The Atomists, of whom are\nLeucippus and Democritus, hold' &c., or 'St. Peter says this, St.\nPaul says that.' The account of such presents would seem to be\nthat the writer speaks as if quoting from a book that he has\nactually before him. It is not impossible that Heracleon and\nPtolemaeus may have been still living at the time when Hippolytus\nwrote, but this cannot be inferred simply from the tense of the\nverb. Surer data are supplied by Irenaeus.\n\nIrenaeus mentions Ptolemaeus several times in his first and second\nbooks, and on one occasion he couples with his the name of\nHeracleon. But to what date does this evidence of Irenaeus refer?\nAt what time was Irenaeus himself writing. We have seen that the\n_terminus ad quem_, at least for the first three books, is\nsupplied by the death of Eleutherus (c. A.D. 190). On the other\nhand, the third book at least was written after the publication of\nthe Greek version of the Old Testament by Theodotion, which\nEpiphanius tells us appeared in the reign of Commodus (180-190\nA.D.). A still more precise date is given to Theodotion's work in\nthe Paschal Chronicle, which places it under the Consuls Marcellus\n(Massuet would read 'Marullus') and Aelian in the year 184 A.D.\n[Endnote 255:1] This last statement is worth very little, and it\nis indeed disputed whether Theodotion's version can have appeared\nso late as this. At any rate we must assume that it was in the\nhands of Irenaeus about 185 A.D., and it will be not before this\nthat the third book of the work 'Against Heresies' was written. It\nwill perhaps sufficiently satisfy all parties if we suppose that\nIrenaeus was engaged in writing his first three books between the\nyears 182-188 A.D. But the name of Ptolemaeus is mentioned very\nnear the beginning of the Preface; so that Irenaeus would be\ncommitting to paper the statement of his acquaintance with\nPtolemaeus as early as 182 A.D.\n\nThis is however the last link in the chain. Let us trace it a\nlittle further backwards. Irenaeus' acquaintance with Ptolemaeus\ncan hardly have been a fact of yesterday at the time when he\nwrote. Ptolemaeus represented the 'Italian' branch of the\nValentinian school, and therefore it seems a fair supposition that\nIrenaeus would come in contact with him during his visit to Rome\nin 178 A.D.; and the four years from that date to 182 A.D. can\nhardly be otherwise than a short period to allow for the necessary\nintimacy with his teaching to have been formed.\n\nBut we are carried back one step further still. It is not only\nPtolemaeus but Ptolemaeus _and his party_ ([Greek: hoi peri\nPtolemaion]) [Endnote 256:1]. There has been time for Ptolemaeus\nto found a school within a school of his own; and his school has\nalready begun to express its opinions, either collectively or\nthrough its individual members.\n\nIn this way the real date of Ptolemaeus seems still to recede, but\nI will not endeavour any further to put a numerical value upon it\nwhich might be thought to be prejudiced. It will be best for the\nreader to fill up the blank according to his own judgment.\n\nHeracleon will to a certain extent go with Ptolemaeus, with whom\nhe is persistently coupled, though, as he is only mentioned once\nby Irenaeus, the data concerning him are less precise. They are\nhowever supplemented by an allusion in the fourth book of the\nStromateis of Clement of Alexandria (which appears to have been\nwritten in the last decade of the century) to Heracleon as one of\nthe chief of the school of Valentinus [Endnote 257:1], and perhaps\nalso by a statement of Origen to the effect that Heracleon was said\nto be a [Greek: gnorimos] of Valentinus himself [Endnote 257:2].\nThe meaning of the latter term is questioned, and it is certainly\ntrue that it may stand for pupil or scholar, as Elisha was to Elijah\nor as the Apostles were to their Master; but that it could possibly\nbe applied to two persons who never came into personal contact must\nbe, I cannot but think, very doubtful. This then, if true, would\nthrow back Heracleon some little way even beyond 160 A.D.\n\nFrom the passage in the Stromateis we gather that Heracleon, if he\ndid not (as is usually inferred) write a commentary, yet wrote an\nisolated exposition of a portion of St. Luke's Gospel. In the same\nway we learn from Origen that he wrote a commentary upon St. John.\n\nWe shall probably not be wrong in referring many of the\nValentinian quotations given by Irenaeus to Ptolemaeus and\nHeracleon. By the first writer we also have extant an Epistle to a\ndisciple called Flora, which has been preserved by Epiphanius.\nThis Epistle, which there is no reason to doubt, contains\nunequivocal references to our first Gospel.\n\n\n_Epistle to Flora. Epiph. Haer._ 217 A.\n\n[Greek: oikia gar ae polis meristheisa eph' heautaen hoti mae\ndunatai staenai [ho sotaer haemon apephaenato].]\n\n_Ibid._ 217 D.\n\n[Greek: [ephae autois hoti] Mousaes pros taen sklaerokardian humon\nepetrepse to apoluein taen gunaika autou. Ap' archaes gar ou\ngegonen houtos. Theos gar (phaesi) sunezeuxe tautaen taen suzugian\nkai ho sunezeuxen ho kurios, anthropos (ephae) mae chorizeto.]\n\n_Ibid. 218 D.\n\n[Greek: ho gar Theos (phaesin) eipe tima ton patera sou kai taen\nmaetera sou, hina eu soi genaetai; humeis de (phaesin) eiraekate\n(tois presbuterois legon), doron to Theo ho ean ophelaethaes ex\nemou, kai aekurosate ton nomon tou Theou, dia taen paradosin humon\nton presbuteron. Touto de Haesaias exephonaesen eipon; ho laos\nhoutos tois cheilesi me tima hae de kardia auton porro apechei ap'\nemou. Mataen de sebontai me, didaskontes didaskalias, entalmata\nanthropon.]\n\n_Ibid._ 220 D, 221 A.\n\n[Greek: to gar, Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai odonta anti odontos ...\nego gar lego humin mae antistaenai holos to ponaero alla ean tis\nse rhapisae strepson auto kai taen allaen siagona.]\n\n\n_Matt._ xii. 25 (_Mark_ iii. 25,  _Luke_ xi. 17).\n\n[Greek: pasa polis ae oikia meristheisa kath' heautaes ou\nstathaesetai.]\n\n_Matt._ xix. 8, 6 (_Mark_ x. 5, 6, 9).\n\n[Greek: legei autois; Hoti Mousaes pros taen sklaerokardian humon\nepetrepsen humin apolusai tas gunaikas humon' ap' archaes de ou\ngegonen houtos. ... ho oun ho theos sunezeuxen anthropos mae\nchorizeto.]\n\n_Matt._ xv. 4-8 (_Mark_ vii. 10, 11, 6, 9).\n\n[Greek: ho gar theos eneteilato legon, Tima ton patera kai taen\nmaetera ... humeis de legete; hos an eipae to patri ae tae maetri;\nDoron ho ean ex emou ophelaethaes,... kai aekurosate ton nomon tou\nTheou dia taen paradosin humon. Hupokritai, kalos eprophaeteusen\nperi humon Haesaias legon; Ho laos houtos tois cheilesin me tima,\nhae de kardia auton porro apechei ap' emou; mataen de sebontai me\ndidaskontes didaskalias entalmata anthropon.]\n\n_Matt_. v. 38, 39 (_Luke_ vi. 29).\n\n[Greek: aekousate oti erraethae, Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai\nodonta anti odontos ego de lego hymin mae antistaenai to ponaero\nall hostis se rapizei eis taen dexian siagona sou, strephon auto\nkai taen allaen.]\n\n\nSome doubt indeed appears to be entertained by the author of\n'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 259:1] as to whether these\nquotations are really taken from the first Synoptic; but it would\nhardly have arisen if he had made a more special study of the\nphenomena of patristic quotation. If he had done this, I do not\nthink there would have been any question on the subject. A\ncomparison of the other Synoptic parallels, and of the Septuagint\nin the case of the quotation from Isaiah, will make the agreement\nwith the Matthaean text still more conspicuous. It is instructive\nto notice the reproduction of the most characteristic features of\nthis text--[Greek: polis, meristheisa] ([Greek: ean meristhae]\nMark, [Greek: diameristheisa] Luke), [Greek: hoti Mousaes,\nepetrepsen apolu[sai] t[as] gunaik[as], ou gegonen oitos,\naekurosate .. dia taen p., ophthalmon ... odontos, antistaenai to\nponaero, strepson], and the order and cast of sentence in all the\nquotations. The first quotation, with [Greek: eph eautaen] and\n[Greek: dunatai staenai], which may be compared (though, from the\ncontext, somewhat doubtfully) with Mark, presents, I believe, the\nonly trace of the influence of any other text.\n\nTo what period in the life of Ptolemaeus this Epistle to Flora may\nhave belonged we have no means of knowing; but it is unlikely that\nthe writer should have used one set of documents at one part of\nhis life and another set at another. Viewed along with so much\nconfirmatory matter in the account of the Valentinians by\nIrenaeus, the evidence may be taken as that of Ptolemaeus himself\nrather than of this single letter.\n\n\n                             2.\n\nThe question in regard to Celsus, whose attacks upon Christianity\ncalled forth such an elaborate reply from Origen, is chiefly one\nof date. To go into this at once adequately and independently\nwould need a much longer investigation than can be admitted into\nthe present work. The subject has quite recently been treated in a\nmonograph by the well-known writer Dr. Keim [Endnote 260:1], and,\nas there will be in this case no suspicion of partiality, I shall\ncontent myself with stating Dr. Keim's conclusions.\n\nOrigen himself, Dr. Keim thinks, was writing under the Emperor\nPhilip about A.D. 248. But he regards his opponent Celsus, not as\na contemporary, but as belonging to a past age (Contra Celsum, i.\n8, vii. 11), and his work as nothing recent, but rather as having\nobtained a certain celebrity in heathen literature (v. 3). For all\nthis it had to be disinterred, as it were, and that not without\ndifficulty, by a Christian (viii. 76).\n\nExact and certain knowledge however about Celsus Origen did not\npossess. He leans to the opinion that his opponent was an\nEpicurean of that name who lived 'under Hadrian and later' (i. 8).\nThis Epicurean had also written several books against Magic (i.\n68). Now it is known that there was a Celsus, a friend of Lucian,\nwho had also written against Magic, and to whom Lucian dedicated\nhis 'Pseudomantis, or Alexander of Abonoteichos.'\n\nIt was clearly obvious to identify the two persons, and there was\nmuch to be said in favour of the identification. But there was\nthis difficulty. Origen indeed speaks of the Celsus to whom he is\nreplying as an Epicurean, and here and there Epicurean opinions\nare expressed in the fragments of the original work that Origen\nhas preserved. But Origen himself was somewhat puzzled to find\nthat the main principles of the author were rather Platonic or\nNeo-platonic than Epicurean, and this observation has been\nconfirmed by modern enquiry. The Celsus of Origen is in reality a\nPlatonist.\n\nIt still being acknowledged that the friend of Lucian was an\nEpicurean, this discovery seemed fatal to the supposition that he\nwas the author of the work against the Christians. Accordingly\nthere was a tendency among critics, though not quite a unanimous\ntendency, to separate again the two personalities which had been\nunited. At this point Dr. Keim comes upon the scene, and he asks\nthe question, Was Lucian's friend really an Epicurean? Lucian\nnowhere says so in plain words, but it was taken as a _prim\u00e2\nfacie_ inference from some of the language used by him. For\ninstance, he describes the Platonists as being on good terms with\nthis very Alexander of Abonoteichos whom he is ridiculing and\nexposing. He appeals to Celsus to say whether a certain work of\nEpicurus is not his finest. He says that his friend will be\npleased to know that one of his objects in writing is to see\njustice done to Epicurus. All these expressions Dr. Keim thinks\nmay be explained as the quiet playful irony that was natural to\nLucian, and from other indications in the work he concludes that\nLucian's Celsus may well have been a Platonist, though not a\nbigoted one, just as Lucian himself was not in any strict and\nnarrow sense an Epicurean.\n\nWhen once the possibility of the identification is conceded, there\nare, as Dr. Keim urges, strong reasons for its adoption. The\ncharacters of the two owners of the name Celsus, so far as they\ncan be judged from the work of Origen on the one hand and Lucian\non the other, are the same. Both are distinguished for their\nopposition to magical arts. The Celsus of the Pseudomantis is a\nfriend of Lucian, and it is precisely from a friend of Lucian that\nthe 'Word of Truth' replied to by Origen might be supposed to have\ncome. Lastly, time and place both support the identification. The\nCelsus of Lucian lived under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, and\nDr. Keim decides, after an elaborate examination of the internal\nevidence, that the Celsus of Origen wrote his work in the year 178\nA.D., towards the close of the reign of Marcus Aurelius.\n\nSuch is Dr. Keim's view. In the date assigned to the [Greek: Logos\nalaethaes] it does not differ materially from that of the large\nmajority of critics. Gr\u00e4tz alone goes as far back as to the time\nof Hadrian. Hagenbach, Hasse, Tischendorf, and Friedl\u00e4nder fix\nupon the middle, Mosheim, Gieseler, Baur, and Engelhardt upon the\nsecond half, of the second century; while the following writers\nassume either generally the reign of Marcus Aurelius, or specially\nwith Dr. Keim one of the two great persecutions--Spencer,\nTillemont, Neander, Tzschirner, Jachmann, Bindemann, Lommatzsch,\nHase, Redepenning, Zeller. The only two writers mentioned by Dr.\nKeim as contending for a later date are Ueberweg and Volkmar, 'who\nstrangely misunderstands both Origen and Baur' [Endnote 263:1].\nVolkmar is followed by the author of 'Supernatural Religion.'\n\nAt whatever date Celsus wrote, it appears to be sufficiently clear\nthat he knew and used all the four canonical Gospels [Endnote 263:2].\n\n\n                             3.\n\nThe last document that need be discussed by us at present is the\nremarkable fragment which, from its discoverer and from its\ncontents, bears the name of the Canon of Muratori [Endnote 263:3].\n\nWhatever was the original title and whatever may have been the\nextent of the work from which it is taken, the portion of it that\nhas come down to us is by far the most important of all the direct\nevidence for the Canon both of the Gospels and of the New\nTestament in general with which we have yet had to deal. It is\nindeed the first in which the conception of a Canon is quite\nunequivocally put forward. We have for the first time a definite\nlist of the books received by the Church and a distinct separation\nmade between these and those that are rejected.\n\nThe fragment begins abruptly with the end of a sentence apparently\nrelating to the composition of the Gospel according to St. Mark.\nThen follows 'in the third place the Gospel according to St.\nLuke,' of which some account is given. 'The fourth of the Gospels'\nis that of John, 'one of the disciples of the Lord.' A legend is\nrelated as to the origin of this Gospel. Then mention is made of\nthe Acts, which are attributed to Luke. Then follow thirteen\nEpistles of St. Paul by name. Two Epistles professing to be\naddressed to the Laodiceans and Alexandrines are dismissed as\nforged in the interests of the heresy of Marcion. The Epistle of\nJude and two that bear the superscription of John are admitted.\nLikewise the two Apocalypses of John and Peter. [No mention is\nmade, it will be seen, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of that of\nJames, of I and II Peter, and of III John.] [Endnote 264:1]\n\nThe Pastor of Hermas, a work of recent date, may be read but not\npublished in the Church before the people, and cannot be included\neither in the number of the prophets or apostles.\n\nOn the other hand nothing at all can be received of Arsinous,\nValentinus, or Miltiades; neither the new Marcionite book of\nPsalms, which with Basilides and the Asian founder of the\nCataphryges (or the founder of the Asian Cataphryges, i.e.\nMontanus) is rejected.\n\nThe importance of this will be seen at a glance. The chief\nquestion is here again in regard to the date, which must be\ndetermined from the document itself. A sufficiently clear\nindication seems to be given in the language used respecting the\nPastor of Hermas. This work is said to have been composed 'very\nlately in our times, Pius the brother of the writer occupying the\nepiscopal chair of the Roman Church.' The episcopate of Pius is\ndated from 142-157 A.D., so that 157 A.D. may be taken as the\nstarting-point from which we have to reckon the interval implied\nby the words 'very recently in our times' (nuperrime temporibus\nnostris). Taking these words in their natural sense, I should\nthink that the furthest limit they would fairly admit of would be\na generation, or say thirty years, after the death of Pius (for\neven in taking a date such as this we are obliged to assume that\nthe Pastor was published only just before the death of that\nbishop). The most probable construction seems to be that the\nunknown author meant that the Pastor of Hermas was composed within\nhis own memory. Volkmar is doubtless right in saying [Endnote\n265:1] that he meant to distinguish the work in question from the\nwritings of the Prophets and Apostles, but still the double use of\nthe words 'nuperrime' and 'temporibus nostris' plainly indicate\nsomething more definite than merely 'our post-apostolic time.' If\nthis had been the sense we should have had some such word as\n'recentius' instead of 'nuperrime.' The argument of 'Supernatural\nReligion' [Endnote 265:2], that 'in supposing that the writer may\nhave appropriately used the phrase thirty or forty years after the\ntime of Pius so much licence is taken that there is absolutely no\nreason why a still greater interval may not be allowed,' is\nclearly playing fast and loose with language, and doing so for no\ngood reason; for the only ground for assigning a later date is\nthat the earlier one is inconvenient for the critic's theory. The\nother indications tally quite sufficiently with the date 170-190\nA.D. Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, the Marcionites, we know were\nactive long before this period. The Montanists (who appear under\nthe name by which they were generally known in the earlier\nwritings, 'Cataphryges') were beginning to be notorious, and are\nmentioned in the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons.\nMiltiades was a contemporary of Claudius Apollinaris who wrote\nagainst him [Endnote 266:1]. All the circumstances point to such a\ndate as that of Irenaeus, and the conception of the Canon is very\nsimilar to that which we should gather from the great work\n'Against Heresies.' If this does not agree with preconceived\nopinions as to what the state of the Canon ought to have been, it\nis the opinion that ought to be rectified accordingly, and not\nplain words explained away.\n\nI can see no sound objection to the date 170-180 A.D., but by\nadding ten years to this we shall reach the extreme limit\nadmissible.\n\nI do not know whether it is necessary to refer to the objection\nfrom the absence of any mention of the first two Synoptic Gospels,\nthrough the mutilated state of the document. It is true that the\ninference that they were originally mentioned rests only 'upon\nconjecture' [Endnote 266:2], but it is the kind of conjecture\nthat, taking all things into consideration--the extent to which\nthe evidence of the fragment in other respects corresponds with\nthe Catholic tradition, the state of the Canon in Irenaeus, the\nrelation of the evidence for the first Gospel in particular to\nthat for the others--can be reckoned at very little less than\nninety-nine chances out of a hundred.\n\nTo the same class belongs Dr. Donaldson's suggestion [Endnote 267:1]\nthat the passage which contains the indication of date may be an\ninterpolation. It is always possible that the particular passage\nthat happens to be important in any document of this date may be\nan interpolation, but the chances that it really is so must be in\nany case very slight, and here there is no valid reason for suspecting\ninterpolation. It does not at all follow, as Dr. Donaldson seems\nto think, that because a document is mutilated therefore it is more\nlikely to be interpolated; for interpolation is the result of quite\na different series of accidents. The interpolation, if it were such,\ncould not well be accidental because it has no appearance of being\na gloss; on the other hand, only far-fetched and improbable motives\ncan be alleged for it as intentional.\n\nThe full statement of the fragment in regard to St. Luke's Gospel\nis as follows. 'Luke the physician after the Ascension of Christ,\nhaving been taken into his company by Paul, wrote in his own name\nto the best of his judgment (ex opinione), and, though he had not\nhimself seen the Lord in the flesh, so far as he could ascertain;\naccordingly he begins his narrative with the birth of John.' The\ngreater part of this account appears to be taken simply from the\nPreface to the Gospel, which is supplemented by the tradition that\nSt. Luke was a physician and also the author of the Acts. As\nevidence to those facts a document dating some hundred years after\nthe composition of the Gospel is not of course very weighty; its\nreal importance is as showing the authority which the Gospel at\nthis date possessed in the Church. That authority cannot have been\nacquired in a day, but represents the culmination of a long and\ngradual movement. What we have to note is that the movement, some\nof the stages of which we have been tracing, has now definitely\nreached its culmination.\n\nIn regard to the fourth Gospel the Muratorian fragment has a\nlonger story to tell, but before we touch upon this, and before we\nproceed to draw together the threads of the previous enquiry, it\nwill be well for us first to bring up the evidence for the fourth\nGospel to the same date and position as that for the other three.\nThis then will be the subject of the next chapter.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTHE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL.\n\n\nThe fourth Gospel was, upon any theory, written later than the\nothers, and it is not clear that it was published as soon as it\nwas written. Both tradition and the internal evidence of the\nconcluding chapter seem to point to the existence of somewhat\npeculiar relations between the Evangelist and the presbyters of\nthe Asian Church, which would make it not improbable that the\nGospel was retained for some time by the latter within their own\nprivate circle before it was given to the Church at large.\n\nWe have the express statement of Irenaeus [Endnote 269:1], who, if\nhe was born as is commonly supposed at Smyrna about 140 A.D., must\nbe a good authority, that the Apostle St. John lived on till the\ntimes of Trajan (98-117 A.D.). If so, it is very possible that the\nGospel was not yet published, or barely published, when Clement of\nRome wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians. Neither, considering\nits almost esoteric character and the slow rate at which such a\nwork would travel at first, should we be very much surprised if it\nwas not in the hands of Barnabas (probably in Alexandria) and\nHermas (at Rome). In no case indeed could the silence of these two\nwriters be of much moment, as in the Epistle of Barnabas the\nallusions to the New Testament literature are extremely few and\nslight, while in the Shepherd of Hermas there are no clear and\ncertain references either to the Old Testament or the New\nTestament at all.\n\nAnd yet there is a lively controversy round these two names as to\nwhether or not they contain evidence for the fourth Gospel, and\nthat they do is maintained not only by apologists, but also by\nwriters of quite unquestionable impartiality like Dr. Keim. Dr.\nKeim, it will be remembered, argues against the Johannean\nauthorship of the Gospel, and yet on this particular point he\nseems to be almost an advocate for the side to which he is\nopposed.\n\n'Volkmar,' he says [Endnote 270:1], 'has recently spoken of Barnabas\nas undeniably ignorant of the Logos-Gospel, and explained the early\ndate assigned to his Epistle by Ewald and Weizs\u00e4cker and now also\nby Riggenbach as due to their perplexity at finding in it no trace\nof St. John. There is room for another opinion. However much it\nmay be shown that Barnabas gives neither an incident nor a single\nsentence from the Gospel, that he is unacquainted with the conception\nof the Logos, that expressions like 'water and blood,' or the\nOld Testament types of Christ, and especially the serpent reared\nin the wilderness as an object of faith, are employed by him\nindependently--for all this the deeper order of conceptions in\nthe Epistle coincides in the gross or in detail so repeatedly with\nthe Gospel that science must either assume a connection between\nthem, or, if it leaves the problem unsolved, renounces its own\ncalling. \"The Son of God\" was to be manifested in the flesh,\nmanifested through suffering, to go to his glory through death and\nthe Cross, to bring life and the immanent presence of the Godhead,\nsuch is here and there the leading idea. Existing before the\nfoundation of the world, the Lord of the world, the sender of the\nprophets, the object of their prophecies, beheld even by Abraham,\nin the person of Moses himself typified as the only centre of\nIsrael's hopes, and in so far already revealed and glorified in\ntype before his incarnation, he was at last to appear, to dwell\namong us, to be seen, not as son of David but as Son of God, in\nthe garment of the flesh, by those who could not even endure the\nlight of this world's sun. So did he come; nay, so did he die to\nfulfil the promise, in the very act of his apparent defeat to\ndispense purification, pardon, life, to destroy death, to overcome\nthe devil, to show forth the Resurrection, and with the Resurrection\nhis right to future judgment; at the same time, it is true, to fill\nup the measure of the sins of Israel, whom he had loved exceedingly\nand for whom he had done such great wonders and signs, and to prepare\nfor himself again a new people who should keep his commandments,\nhis new law. The mission that his Father gave him he has accomplished,\nof his own free will and for our sake--the true explanation of his\ndeath--did he suffer. \"The Jews\" have not hoped upon him, clearly\nas the typical design of the Old Testament and Moses himself pointed\nto him, and, in opposition to the spiritual teaching of Moses, they\nhave been seduced into the carnal and sensual by the devil; they\nhave set their trust and their hopes, not upon God, but upon the\nfleshly circumcision and upon the visible house of God, worshipping\nthe Lord in the temple almost like the heathen. But the Christian\nraises himself above the flesh and its lusts, which disturb the\nfaculties of knowledge as well as those of will, to the Spirit\nand the spiritual service of God, above the ways of darkness to\nthe ways of light; he presses on to faith, and with faith to\nperfect knowledge, as one born again, who is full of the Spirit\nof God, in whom God dwells and prophesies, interpreting past and\nfuture without being seen or heard; as taught of God and fulfilling\nthe commandments of the new law of the Lord, a lover of the brethren,\nand in himself the child of peace, of joy, and of love. For this\nclass of ideas there is no analogy in St. Paul, or even in the\nEpistle to the Hebrews, but only in this Gospel, much as the\nconnection has hitherto been overlooked. Indeed, though it may\nstill in places be questioned on which side the relation of dependence\nlies (it might be thought that Barnabas supplied the ideas, John\nthe application of them, and the conception of the Logos crowning all),\nin any case the Gospel appeared at a date near to that of the\nEpistle of Barnabas. With more reason may it be said that it is\nnot until we come to the Epistle of Barnabas that we find stiff\nscholastic theory a more predominant typology, an artificialised\nview of Judaism; besides the points of view always appear as\nsomething received and not originated--water and blood, new law,\nnew people--and in the solemn manifestation of the Son of God\nimmediately after the selection of the Apostles, in the great\nbut fruitless exhibition of miracle and love for Israel, there\nis evidently allusion to history, that is, to John ii and xii.'\n\n'The Epistle of Barnabas,' Dr. Keim adds, 'after the lucid\ndemonstration of Volkmar--in spite of Hilgenfeld and Weiz\u00e4cker,\nand now also of Riggenbach--was undoubtedly written at the time of\nthe rebuilding of the temple under the Emperor Hadrian, about the\nyear 120 A.D. (according to Volkmar, at the earliest, 118-119), at\nlatest 130.'\n\nIt is not to be expected that this full and able statement should\ncarry conviction to every reader. And yet I believe that it has\nsome solid foundation. The single instances are not perhaps such\nas could be pressed very far, but they derive a certain weight\nwhen taken together and as parts of a wider circle of ideas. The\napplication of the type of the brazen serpent to Jesus in c. xii.\nmay have been suggested by John iii. 14 sqq., but we cannot say\nthat it was so with certainty. The same application is made by\nJustin in a place where there is perhaps less reason to assume a\nconnection with the fourth Gospel; and we know that types and\nprophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and\nwere soon collected in a kind of common stock from which every one\ndrew at his pleasure. A stronger case, and one that I incline to\nthink of some importance, is supplied by the peculiar combination\nof 'the water and the cross' in Barn. c. xi; not that here there\nis a direct and immediate, but more probably a mediate, connection\nwith the fourth Gospel. The phrase [Greek: ho uios tou theou] is\nnot peculiar to, though it is more frequent in, and to some degree\ncharacteristic of, the Gospel and First Epistle of St. John.\n[Greek: Phanerousthai] may be claimed more decidedly, especially\nby comparison with the other Gospels, though it occurs with\nsimilar reference to the Incarnation in the later Pauline\nEpistles. [Greek: 'Elthein en sarki] is again rightly classed as a\nJohannean phrase, though the exact counterpart is found rather in\nthe Epistles than the Gospel. The doctrine of pre-existence is\ncertainly taught in such passages as the application of the text,\n'Let us make man in our image,' which is said to have been\naddressed to the Son 'from the foundation of the world' (c. v).\nGenerally I think it may be said that the doctrine of the\nIncarnation, the typology, and the use of the Old Testament\nprophecies, approximate, most distinctly to the Johannean type,\nthough under the latter heads there is of course much debased\nexaggeration. The soteriology we might be perhaps tempted to\nconnect rather on the one hand with the Epistle to the Hebrews,\nand on the other with those of St. Paul. There may be something of\nan echo of the fourth Gospel in the allusion--to the unbelief and\ncarnalised religion of the Jews. But the whole question of the\nspeculative affinities of a writing like this requires subtle and\ndelicate handling, and should be rather a subject for special\ntreatment than an episode in an enquiry like the present. The\nopinion of Dr. Keim must be of weight, but on the whole I think it\nwill be safest and fairest to say that, while the round assertion\nthat the author of the Epistle was ignorant of our Gospel is not\njustified, the positive evidence that he made use of it is not\nsufficiently clear to be pressed controversially.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA similar condition of things may be predicated of the Shepherd of\nHermas, though with a more decided leaning to the negative side.\nHere again Dr. Keim [Endnote 273:1], as well as Canon Westcott\n[Endnote 273:2], thinks that we can trace an acquaintance with the\nGospel, but the indications are too general and uncertain to be relied\nupon. The imagery of the shepherd and the flock, as perhaps of the\ntower and the gate, may, be as well taken from the scenes of the\nRoman Campagna as from any previous writing. The keeping of the\ncommandments is a commonplace of Christianity, not to say of\nreligion. And the Divine immanence in the soul is conceived rather\nin the spirit of the elder Gospels than of the fourth.\n\nThere is a nearer approach perhaps in the identification of 'the\ngate' with the 'Son of God,' and in the explanation with which it\nis accompanied. 'The rock is old because the Son of God is older\nthan the whole of His creation; so that He was assessor to His\nFather in the creation of the world; the gate is new, because He\nwas made manifest at the consummation of the last days, and they\nwho are to be saved enter by it into the kingdom of God' (Sim. ix.\n12). Here too we have the doctrine of pre-existence; and\nconsidering the juxtaposition of these three points, the pre-\nexistence, the gate (which is the only access to the Lord), the\nidentification of the gate with the incarnation of Jesus, we may\nsay perhaps a _possible_ reference to the fourth Gospel;\n_probable_ it might be somewhat too much to call it. We must\nleave the reader to form his own estimate.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA somewhat greater force, but not as yet complete cogency,\nattaches to the evidence of the Ignatian letters. A parallel is\nalleged to a passage in the Epistle to the Romans which is found\nboth in the Syriac and in the shorter Greek or Vossian version. 'I\ntake no relish in corruptible food or in the pleasures of this\nlife. I desire bread of God, heavenly bread, bread of life, which\nis the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born in the\nlatter days of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire drink\nof God, His blood, which is love imperishable and ever-abiding\nlife' [Endnote 275:1] (Ep. ad Rom. c. vii). This is compared with\nthe discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum in the sixth chapter\nof St. John. It should be said that there is a difference of\nreading, though not one that materially influences the question,\nin the Syriac. If the parallel holds good, the peculiar diction of\nthe author must be seen in the substitution of [Greek: poma] for\n[Greek: posis] of John vi. 55, and [Greek: aennaos zoae] for\n[Greek zoae aionios], of John vi. 54. [The Ignatian phrase is\nperhaps more than doubtful, as it does not appear either in the\nSyriac, the Armenian, or the Latin version.] Still this need not\nstand in the way of referring the original of the passage\nultimately to the Gospel. The ideas are so remarkable that it\nseems difficult to suppose either are accidental coincidence or\nquotation from another writer. I suspect that Ignatius or the\nauthor of the Epistle really had the fourth Gospel in his mind,\nthough not quite vividly, and by a train of comparatively remote\nsuggestions.\n\nThe next supposed allusion is from the Epistle to the\nPhiladelphians: 'The Spirit, coming from God, is not to be\ndeceived; for it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth,\nand it searcheth that which is hidden' [Endnote 275:2]. This is\nobviously the converse of John iii. 5, where it is said that we do\nnot know the way of the Spirit, which is like the wind, &c. And\nyet the exact verbal similarity of the phrase [Greek: oiden pothen\nerchetai kai pou hupagei], and its appearance in the same\nconnection, spoken of the Spirit, leads us to think that there\nwas--as there may very well have been--an association of ideas.\nThis particular phrase [Greek: pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei] is\nvery characteristically Johannean. It occurs three times over in\nthe fourth Gospel, and not at all in the rest of the New\nTestament. The combination of [Greek: erchesthai] and [Greek\nhupagein] also occurs twice, and [Greek: pou [opou] hupago [-gei,\n-geis]] in all twelve times in the Gospel and once in the Epistle\n([Greek: ouk oide pou hupagei]); this too, it is striking to\nobserve, not at all elsewhere. The very word [Greek: hupago] is\nnot found at all in St. Paul, St. Peter, or the Epistle to the\nHebrews. Taken together with the special application to the\nSpirit, this must be regarded as a strong case.\n\nNeither do the arguments of 'Supernatural Religion' succeed in\nproving that there is no connection with St. John in such\nsentences as, 'There is one God who manifested Himself through\nJesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word' (Ad Magn. c. viii),\nor who is Himself the door of the Father (Ad Philad. c. ix). In\nregard to the first of these especially, it is doubtless true that\nPhilo also has 'the eternal Word,' which is even the 'Son' of God;\nbut the idea is much more consciously metaphorical, and not only\ndid the incarnation of the Logos in a historical person never\nenter into Philo's mind, but 'there is no room for it in his\nsystem' [Endnote 276:1].\n\nIt should be said that these latter passages are all found only in\nthe Vossian recension of the Epistles, and therefore, as we saw\nabove, are in any case evidence for the first half of the second\ncentury, while they _may_ be the genuine works of Ignatius.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which goes very much\nwith the Ignatian Epistles and the external evidence for which it\nis so hard to resist, testifies to the fourth Gospel through the\nso-called first Epistle. That this Epistle is really by the same\nauthor as the Gospel is not indeed absolutely undoubted, but I\nimagine that it is as certain as any fact of literature can be.\nThe evidence of style and diction is overwhelming [Endnote 277:1].\nWe may set side by side the two passages which are thought to be\nparallel.\n\n_Ep. ad Phil_. c. vii.\n\n[Greek: Pas gar hos an mae homologae Iaesoun Christon en sarki\nelaeluthenai antichristos esti; kai hos an mae homologae to\nmarturion tou staurou ek tou diabolou esti; kai hos an methodeuae\nta logia tou Kuriou pros tas idias epithumias, kai legae maete\nanastasin maete krisin einai, outos prototokos esti tou Satana.]\n\n1 _John_ vi. 2, 3.\n\n[Greek: Pan pneuma ho homologei Iaesoun Christon en sarki\nelaeluthota ek tou Theou estin. Kai pan pneuma ho mae homologei\ntou Iaesoun ek tou Theou ouk estin, kai touto estin to tou\nantichristou, k.t.l.]\n\nThis is precisely one of those passages where at a superficial\nglance we are inclined to think that there is no parallel, but\nwhere a deeper consideration tends to convince us of the opposite.\nThe suggestion of Dr. Scholten cannot indeed be quite excluded,\nthat both writers I have adopted a formula in use in the early\nChurch against various heretics' [Endnote 277:2]. But if such a\nformula existed it is highly probable that it took its rise from\nSt. John's Epistle. This passage of the Epistle of Polycarp is the\nearliest instance of the use of the word 'Antichrist' outside the\nJohannean writings in which, alone of the New Testament, it occurs\nfive times. Here too it occurs in conjunction with other\ncharacteristic phrases, [Greek: homologein, en sarki elaeluthenai,\nek tou diabolou]. The phraseology and turns of expression in these\ntwo verses accord so entirely with those of the rest of the\nEpistle and of the Gospel that we must needs take them to be the\noriginal work of the writer and not a quotation, and we can hardly\ndo otherwise than see an echo of them in the words of Polycarp.\n\nThere is naturally a certain hesitation in using evidence for the\nEpistle as available also for the Gospel, but I have little doubt\nthat it may justly so be used and with no real diminution of its\nforce. The chance that the Epistle had a separate author is too\nsmall to be practically worth considering.\n\nThis then will apply to the case of Papias, of whose relations to\nthe fourth Gospel we have no record, but of whom Eusebius expressly\nsays, that 'he made use of testimonies from the first Epistle of John.'\nThere is the less reason to doubt this statement, as in _every_\ninstance in which a similar assertion of Eusebius can be verified\nit is found to hold good. It is much more probable that he would\noverlook real analogies than be led astray by merely imaginary\nones--which is rather a modern form of error. In textual matters\nthe ancients were not apt to go wrong through over-subtlety, and\nEusebius himself does not, I believe, deserve the charge of\n'inaccuracy and haste' that is made against him [Endnote 278:1].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn regard to the much disputed question of the use of the fourth\nGospel by Justin, those who maintain the affirmative have again\nemphatic support from Dr. Keim [Endnote 278:2]. We will examine\nsome of the instances which are adduced on this side.\n\nAnd first, in his account of John the Baptist, Justin has two\nparticulars which are found in the fourth Gospel and in no other.\nThat Gospel alone makes the Baptist himself declare, 'I am not the\nChrist;' and it alone puts into his mouth the application of the\nprophecy of Isaiah, 'I am the voice of one crying in the\nwilderness.' Justin combines these two sayings, treating them as\nan answer made by John to some who supposed that he was the\nChrist.\n\n_Justin, Dial_. c. 88.\n\nTo whom he himself also cried: 'I am not the Christ, but the voice\nof one crying [Greek: ouk eimi o Christos, alla phonae boontos];\nfor there shall come one stronger than I,' &c.\n\n_John_ i. 19, 20, 23.\n\nAnd this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and\nLevites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed,\nand denied not: but confessed, I am not the Christ [Greek: oti ouk\neimi ego o Christos]... I am the voice of one crying [Greek: ego\nphonae boontos] in the wilderness,' &c.\n\nThe passage in Justin does not profess to be a direct quotation;\nit is merely a historical reproduction, and, as such, it has quite\nas much accuracy as we should expect to find. The circumstantial\ncoincidences are too close to be the result of accident. And Dr.\nKeim is doubtless right in ridiculing Volkmar's notion that Justin\nhas merely developed Acts xiii. 25, which contains neither of the\ntwo phrases ([Greek: ho Christos, phonae boontos]) in question. To\nrefer the passage to an unknown source such as the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews--all we know of which shows its\naffinities to have been rather on the side of the Synoptics--when\nwe have a known source in the fourth Gospel ready to hand, is\nquite unreasonable [Endnote 280:1].\n\nNo great weight, though perhaps some fractional quantity, can be\nascribed to the statement that Jesus healed those who were maimed\nfrom their birth ([Greek: tous ek genetaes paerous] [Endnote\n280:2]). The word [Greek: paeros] is used specially for the blind,\nand the fourth Evangelist is the only one who mentions the healing\nof congenital infirmity, which he does under this same phrase\n[Greek: ek genetaes], and that of a case of blindness (John ix.\n1). The possibility urged in 'Supernatural Religion,' that Justin\nmay be merely drawing from tradition, may detract from the force\nof this but cannot altogether remove it, especially as we have no\nother trace of a tradition containing this particular.\n\nTischendorf [Endnote 280:3] lays stress on a somewhat remarkable\nphenomenon in connection with the quotation of Zech. xvi. 10,\n'They shall look on him whom they pierced.' Justin gives the text\nof this in precisely the same form as St. John, and with the same\nvariation from the Septuagint, [Greek: opsontai eis hon\nexekentaesan] for [Greek: epiblepsontai pros me anth hon\nkatorchaesanto]--a variation which is also found in Rev. i. 7.\nThose who believe that the Apocalypse had the same author as the\nGospel, naturally see in this a confirmation of their view, and it\nwould seem to follow that Justin had had either one or both\nwritings before him. But the assumption of an identity of\nauthorship between the Apocalypse and the Gospel, though I believe\nless unreasonable than is generally supposed, still is too much\ndisputed to build anything upon in argument. We must not ignore\nthe other theory, that all three writers had before them and may\nhave used independently a divergent text of the Septuagint. Some\ncountenance is given to this by the fact that ten MSS. of the\nSeptuagint present the same reading [Endnote 281:1]. There can be\nlittle doubt however that it was in its origin a Christian\ncorrection, which had the double advantage of at once bringing the\nGreek into closer conformity to the Hebrew, and of also furnishing\nsupport to the Christian application of the prophecy. Whether this\ncorrection was made before either the Apocalypse or the Gospel\nwere written, or whether it appeared in these works for the first\ntime and from them was copied into other Christian writings, must\nremain an open question.\n\nThe saying in Apol. i. 63, 'so that they are rightly convicted\nboth by the prophetic Spirit and by Christ Himself, that they knew\nneither the Father nor the Son' ([Greek: oute ton patera oute ton\nuion egnosan]), certainly presents a close resemblance to John\nxvi. 3, [Greek: ouk egnosan ton patera oude eme]. But a study of\nthe context seems to make it clear that the only passage\nconsciously present to Justin's mind was Matt. xi. 27. Dr. Keim\nthinks that St. John supplied him with a commentary oh the\nMatthaean text; but the coincidence may be after all accidental.\n\nBut the most important isolated case of literary parallelism is\nthe well-known passage in Apol. i. 61 [Endnote 281:2].\n\n_Apol_. i. 61.\n\nFor Christ said: Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into\nthe kingdom of heaven. Now that it is impossible for those who\nhave once been born to return into the wombs of those who bare\nthem is evident to all.\n\n[Greek: Kai gar ho Christos eipen, An mae anagennaethaete, ou mae\neiselthaete eis taen Basileian ton ouranon. Hoti de kai adunaton\neis tas maetras ton tekouson tous hapax gennomenous embaenai,\nphaneron pasin esti.]\n\n_John_ iii. 3-5.\n\nJesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,\nExcept any one be born over again (or possibly 'from above'), he\ncannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a\nman be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his\nmother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say\nunto thee, Except any one be born of Water and Spirit, he cannot\nenter into the kingdom of God.\n\n[Greek: Apekrithae Iaesous kai eipen auto Amaen amaen lego soi,\nean mae tis gennaethae anothen ou dunatai idein taen Basilaian tou\nTheou. Legei pros aouton ho Nikodaemos, Pos dunatai anthropos\ngennaethaenai geron on; mae dunatai eis taen koilian taes maertros\nautou deuteron eiselthein kai gennaethaenai; k.t.l.]\n\n\nHere we have first to determine the meaning of the word [Greek: anothen]\nin the phrase [Greek: gennaethae anothen] of John iii. 3 on which\nthe extent of the parallelism to some degree turns. Does it mean\n'be born _over again_,' like Justin's [Greek: anagennaethaete]?\nOr does it mean 'be born _from above_,' i.e. by a heavenly, divine,\nregeneration? To express an opinion in favour of the first of these\nviews would naturally be to incur the charge of taking it up merely to\nsuit the occasion. It is not however necessary; for it is sufficient to\nknow that whether or not this meaning was originally intended by the\nEvangelist, it is a meaning that Justin might certainly put upon the\nwords. That this is the case is sufficiently proved by the fact that\nthe Syriac version (which is quoted in 'Supernatural Religion,' by a\npardonable mistake, on the other side [Endnote 283:1]) actually\ntranslates the words thus. So also does the Vulgate; with Tertullian\n('renatus'), Augustine, Chrysostom (partly), Luther, Calvin,\nMaldonatus, &c. For the sense 'from above' are the Gothic version,\nOrigen, Cyril, Theophylact, Bengel, &c.; on the whole a fairly equal\ndivision of opinion. The question has been of late elaborately\nre-argued by Mr. McClellan [Endnote 283:2], who decides in favour of\n'again.' But, without taking sides either way, it is clear that Justin\nwould have had abundant support, in particular that of his own national\nversion, if he intended [Greek: anagennaethaete] to be a paraphrase of\n[Greek: gennaethae anothen].\n\nIt is obvious that if he is quoting St. John the quotation is\nthroughout paraphrastic. And yet it is equally noticeable that he\ndoes not use the exact Johannean phrase, he uses others that are\nin each case almost precisely equivalent. He does not say [Greek:\nour dunatai idein--taen basileian ton ouranon], but he says\n[Greek: ou mae eiselthaete eis--taen basileian ton ouranon], the\nlatter pair phrases which the Synoptics have already taught us to\nregard as convertible. He does not say [Greek: mae dunatai eis\ntaen koilian taes maetros autou deuteron eiselthein kai\ngennaethaenai], but he says [Greek: adunaton eis tas maetras ton\ntekouson tous hapax gennomenous embaebai]. And the scale seems\ndecisively turned by the very remarkable combination in Justin and\nSt. John of the saying respecting spiritual regeneration with the\nsame strangely gross physical misconception. It is all but\nimpossible that two minds without concert or connection should\nhave thought of introducing anything of the kind. Nicodemus makes\nan objection, and Justin by repeating the same objection, and in a\nform that savours so strongly of platitude, has shown, I think we\nmust say, conclusively, that he was aware that the objection had\nbeen made.\n\nSuch are some of the chief literary coincidences between Justin\nand the fourth Gospel; but there are others more profound. Justin\nundoubtedly has the one cardinal doctrine of the fourth Gospel--\nthe doctrine of the Logos.\n\nThus he writes. 'Jesus Christ is in the proper sense [Greek:\nidios] the only Son begotten of God, being His Word [Greek: logos]\nand Firstborn Power' [Endnote 284:1]. Again, 'But His Son who\nalone is rightly [Greek: kurios] called Son, who before all\ncreated things was with Him and begotten of Him as His Word, when\nin the beginning He created and ordered all things through Him,'\n&c. Again, 'Now the next Power to God the Father and Lord of all,\nand Son [Endnote 284:2], is the Word, of whom we shall relate in\nwhat follows how He was made flesh and became Man.' Again,\n'The Word of God is His Son.' Again, speaking of the Gentile\nphilosophers and lawgivers, 'Since they did not know all things\nrespecting the Word, who is Christ, they have also frequently\ncontradicted each other.' These passages are given by Tischendorf,\nand they might be added to without difficulty; but it is not\nquestioned that the term Logos is found frequently in Justin's\nwritings, and in the same sense in which it is used in the\nPrologue of the fourth Gospel of the eternal Son of God, who is at\nthe same time the historical person Jesus Christ.\n\nThe natural inference that Justin was acquainted with the fourth\nGospel is met by suggesting other sources for the doctrine. These\nsources are of two kinds, Jewish or Alexandrine.\n\nIt is no doubt true that a vivid personification of the Wisdom of\nGod is found both in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha. Thus\nin the book of Proverbs we have an elaborate ode upon Wisdom as\nthe eternal assessor in the counsels of God: 'The Lord possessed\nme in' the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was\nset up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth\nwas. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there\nwere no fountains of water ... When He prepared the heavens, I was\nthere: when He set a compass upon the face of the deep ... Then I\nwas by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His\ndelight, rejoicing always before Him' [Endnote 285:1]. The ideas\nof which this is perhaps the clearest expression are found more\nvaguely in other parts of the same book, in the Psalms, and in the\nbook of Job, but they are further expanded and developed in the\ntwo Apocryphal books of Wisdom. There [Endnote 285:2] Wisdom is\nrepresented as the 'breath of the power of God, and a pure\ninfluence flowing from the glory of the Almighty,' as 'the\nbrightness [Greek: apaugasma] of the everlasting light, the\nunspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His\ngoodness.' Wisdom 'sitteth by the throne' of God. She reacheth\nfrom one end to another mightily: and sweetly doth she order all\nthings.' 'She is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of God\nand a lover of His works.' God 'created her before the world'\n[Endnote 286:1]. We also get by the side of this, but in quite a\nsubordinate place and in a much less advanced stage of personification,\nthe idea of the Word or Logos: 'O God of my fathers ... who hast\nmade all things with thy word, and ordained man through thy wisdom'\n[Endnote 286:2]. 'It was neither herb nor mollifying plaister that\nrestored them to health: but thy word, O Lord, which healeth all things.'\nIt was 'the Almighty word' ([Greek: ho pantodunamos logos]) 'that\nleaped down from heaven' to slay the Egyptians.\n\nBut still it will be seen that there is a distinct gap between\nthese conceptions and that which we find in Justin. The leading\nidea is that of Wisdom, not of the Word. The Word is not even\npersonified separately; it is merely the emitted power or energy\nof God. And the personification of Wisdom is still to a large\nextent poetical, it does not attain to separate metaphysical\nhypostasis; it is not thought of as being really personal.\n\nThe Philonian conception, on the other hand, is metaphysical, but\nit contains many elements that are quite discordant and\ninconsistent with that which we find in Justin. That it must have\nbeen so will be seen at once when we think of the sources from\nwhich Philo's doctrine was derived. It included in itself the\nPlatonic theory of Ideas, the diffused Logos or _anima mundi_\nof the Stoics, and the Oriental angelology or doctrine of\nintermediate beings between God and man. On its Platonic side the\nLogos is the Idea of Ideas summing up the world of high\nabstractions which themselves are also regarded as possessing a\nseparate individuality; they are Logoi by the side of the Logos.\nOn its Stoic side it becomes a Pantheistic Essence pervading the\nlife of things; it is 'the law,' 'the bond' which holds the world\ntogether; the world is its 'garment.' On its Eastern side, the\nLogos is the 'Archangel,' the 'Captain of the hosts of heaven,'\nthe 'Mother-city' from which they issue as colonists, the 'Vice-\ngerent' of the Great King [Endnote 287:1].\n\nIt needed a more powerful mind than Justin's to reduce all this to\nits simple Christian expression, to take the poetry of Judaea and\nthe philosophy of Alexandria and to interpret and realise both in\nthe light of the historical events of the birth and life of\nChrist. 'The Word became flesh' is the key by which Justin is made\nintelligible, and that key is supplied by the fourth Gospel. No\nother Christian writer had combined these two ideas before--the\ndivine Logos, with the historical personality of Jesus. When\ntherefore we find the ideas combined as in Justin, we are\nnecessarily referred to the fourth Gospel for them; for the\nstrangely inverted suggestion of Volkmar, that the author of the\nfourth Gospel borrowed from Justin, is on chronological, if not on\nother grounds, certainly untenable. We shall see that the fourth\nGospel was without doubt in existence at the date which Volkmar\nassigns to Justin's Apology, 150 A. D.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe history of the discussion as to the relation of the Clementine\nHomilies to the fourth Gospel is highly instructive, not only in\nitself, but also for the light which it throws upon the general\ncharacter of our enquiry and the documents with which it is\nconcerned. It has been already mentioned that up to the year 1853\nthe Clementine Homilies were only extant in a mutilated form,\nending abruptly in the middle of Hom. xix. 14. In that year a\ncomplete edition was at last published by Dressel from a\nmanuscript in the Vatican containing the rest of the nineteenth\nand the twentieth Homily. The older portion occupies in all, with\nthe translation and critical apparatus, 381 large octavo pages in\nDressel's edition; the portion added by Dressel occupies 34. And\nyet up to 1853, though the Clementine Homilies had been carefully\nstudied with reference to the use of the fourth Gospel, only a few\nindications had been found, and those were disputed. In fact, the\ncontroversy was very much at such a point as others with which we\nhave been dealing; there was a certain probability in favour of\nthe conclusion that the Gospel had been used, but still\nconsiderably short of the highest. Since the publication of the\nconclusion of the Homilies the question has been set at rest.\nHilgenfeld, who had hitherto been a determined advocate of the\nnegative theory, at once gave up his ground [Endnote 288:1]; and\nVolkmar, who had somewhat less to retract, admitted and admits\n[Endnote 288:2] that the fact of the use of the Gospel must be\nconsidered as proved. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' stands\nalone in still resisting this conviction [Endnote 288:3], but the\nresult I suspect will be only to show in stronger relief the one-\nsidedness of his critical method.\n\nWe will follow the example that is set us in presenting the whole\nof the passages alleged to contain allusions to the fourth Gospel;\nand it is the more interesting to do so with the key that the\nrecent discovery has put into Our hands. The first runs thus:--\n\n_Hom._ iii. 52.\n\nTherefore he, being a true prophet, said: I am the gate of life;\nhe that entereth in through me entereth into life: for the\nteaching that can save is none other [than mine].\n\n[Greek: Dia touto autos alaethaes on prophaetaes elegen; Ego eimi\nhae pulae taes zoaes; ho di' emou eiserchomenos eiserchetai eis\ntaen zoaen; hos ouk ousaes heteras taes sozein dunamenaes\ndidaskalias.]\n\n_John_ x. 9.\n\nI am the door: by me if any one enter in, he shall be saved, and\nshall come in and go out, and shall find pasture.\n\n[Greek: Ego eimi hae thura; di' emou ean tis eiselthae sothaesetai\nkai eiseleusetai kai exeleusetai kai nomaen heuraesei.]\n\n\nApart from other evidence it would have been somewhat precarious\nto allege this as proof of the use of the fourth Gospel, and yet I\nbelieve there would have been a distinct probability that it was\ntaken from that work. The parallel is much closer--in spite of\n[Greek: thura] for [Greek: pulae]--than is Matt. vii. 13, 14 (the\n'narrow gate') which is adduced in 'Supernatural Religion,' and\nthe interval is very insufficiently bridged over by Ps. cxviii.\n19, 20 ('This is the gate of the Lord'). The key-note of the\npassage is given in the identification of the gate with the person\nof the Saviour ('_I_ am the door') and in the remarkable\nexpression 'he that entereth in _through me_,' which is\nretained in the Homily. It is curious to notice the way in which\nthe [Greek: sothaesetai] of the Gospel has been expanded\nexegetically.\n\nLess doubtful--and indeed we should have thought almost beyond a\ndoubt--is the next reference; 'My sheep hear my voice.'\n\n_Hom._ iii. 52.\n\n[Greek: ta ema probata akouei taes emaes phonaes.]\n\n_John_ x. 27. [Greek: ta probata ta ema taes phonaes mou\nakouei.]\n\n'There was no more common representation amongst the Jews of the\nrelation of God and his people than that of Shepherd and his\nsheep' [Endnote 290:1]. That is to say, it occurs of Jehovah or of\nthe Messiah some twelve or fifteen times in the Old and New\nTestament together, but never with anything at all closely\napproaching to the precise and particular feature given here. Let\nthe reader try to estimate the chances that another source than\nthe fourth Gospel is being quoted. Criticism is made null and void\nwhen such seemingly plain indications as this are discarded in\nfavour of entirely unknown quantities like the 'Gospel according\nto the Hebrews.' If the author of 'Supernatural Religion' were to\nturn his own powers of derisive statement against his own\nhypotheses they would present a very strange appearance.\n\nThe reference that follows has in some respects a rather marked\nresemblance to that which we were discussing in Justin, and for\nthe relation between them to be fully appreciated should be given\nalong with it:--\n\n_Justin, Apol._ i. 61.\n\nExcept ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom of\nheaven.\n\n[Greek: An mae anagennaethaete ou mae eiselthaete eis taen\nbasileian ton ouranon.]\n\n_Clem. Hom._ xi. 26.\n\nVerily I say unto you, Except ye be born again with living water,\nin the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ye shall not enter\ninto the kingdom of heaven.\n\n[Greek: Amaen humin lego, ean mae anagennaethaete hudati zonti eis\nonoma patros, uhiou, hagiou pneumatos, ou mae eiselthaete eis taen\nbasileian ton ouranon.]\n\n_John_ iii. 3, 5. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except\nany one be born over again (or 'from above') he cannot see the\nkingdom of God ... Except any one be born of water and Spirit, he\ncannot enter into the kingdom of God.\n\n[Greek: Amaen amaen lego soi, ean mae tis gennaethae anothen, ou\ndunatai idein taen basileian tou Theou ... ean mae tis gennaethae\nex hudatos kai pneumatos, ou dunatai eiselthein eis taen basileian\ntou Theou.]\n\n[Greek: pneum]. add. [Greek: hagiou] Vulg. (Clementine edition),\na, ff, m, Aeth., Orig. (Latin translator).\n\n\nHere it will be noticed that Justin and the Clementines have four\npoints in common, [Greek: anagennaethaete] for [Greek: gennaethae\nanothen], the second person plural (twice over) for [Greek: tis]\nand the singular, [Greek: ou mae] and the subjunctive for [Greek:\nou dunatai] and infinitive, and [Greek: taen basileian ton\nouranon], for [Greek: taen basileian tou Theou]. To the last of\nthese points much importance could not be attached in itself, as\nit represents a persistent difference between the first and the\nother Synoptists even where they had the same original. As both\nthe Clementines and Justin used the first Gospel more than the\nothers, it is only natural that they should fall into the habit of\nusing its characteristic phrase. Neither would the other points\nhave had very much importance taken separately, but their\nimportance increases considerably when they come to be taken\ntogether.\n\nOn the other hand, we observe in the Clementines (where it is\nhowever connected with Matt. xxviii. 19) the sufficiently near\nequivalent for the striking Johannean phrase [Greek: ex hudatos\nkai pneumatos] which is omitted entirely by Justin.\n\nThe most probable view of the case seems to be that both the\nClementines and Justin are quoting from memory. Both have in their\nmemory the passage of St. John, but both have also distinctly\nbefore them (so much the more distinctly as it is the Gospel which\nthey habitually used) the parallel passage in Matt. xviii. 3--\nwhere _all the last three_ out of the four common variations\nare found, besides, along with the Clementines, the omission of\nthe second [Greek: amaen],--'Verily I say unto you, Except ye be\nconverted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into\nthe kingdom of heaven' ([Greek: on mae eiseathaete eis taen\nbasileian ton ouranon]). It is out of the question that this\n_only_ should have been present to the mind of the writers;\nand, in view of the repetition of Nicodemus' misunderstanding by\nJustin and of the baptism by water and Spirit in the Clementine\nHomilies, it seems equally difficult to exclude the reference to\nSt. John. It is in fact a Johannean saying in a Matthaean\nframework.\n\nThere is the more reason to accept this solution, that neither\nJustin nor the Clementines can in any case represent the original\nform of the passages quoted. If Justin's version were correct,\nwhence did the Clementines get the [Greek: hudati zonti k.t.l.]? if\nthe Clementine, then whence did Justin get the misconception of\nNicodemus? But the Clementine version is in any case too eccentric\nto stand.\n\nThe last passage is the one that is usually considered to be\ndecisive as to the use of the fourth Gospel.\n\n\n_Hom_. xix. 22.\n\nHence too our Teacher, when explaining to those who asked of him\nrespecting the man who was blind from his birth and recovered his\nsight, whether this man sinned or his parents that he should be\nborn blind, replied: Neither this man sinned, nor his parents; but\nthat through him the power of God might be manifested healing the\nsins of ignorance.\n\n[Greek: Hothen kai didaskalos haemon peri tou [Endnote 293:1] ek\ngenetaes paerou kai anablepsantos par' autou exetazon erotaesasin,\nei ohutos haemarten ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae\n[Endnote 293:1] apekrinato oute ohutos ti haemarten, oute oi\ngoneis autou, all' hina di autou phanerothae hae dunamis tou Theou\ntaes agnoias iomenae ta hamartaemata.]\n\n\n_John_ ix. 1-3.\n\nAnd as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his\ndisciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his\nparents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither\nhath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God\nshould be manifested in him.\n\n[Greek: Kai paragon eiden anthropon tuphlon ek genetaes. Kai\naerotaesan auton oi mathaetai autou legontes, Rhabbei, tis\nhaemarten, ohutos ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae;\napekrithae Iaesous, Oute ohutos haemarten oute oi goneis autou,\nall' hina phanerothae ta erga tou Theou en auto.]\n\n\nThe author of 'Supernatural Religion' undertakes to show 'that\nthe context of this passage in the Homily bears positive\ncharacteristics which render it impossible that it can have been\ntaken from the fourth Gospel' [Endnote 293:2]. I think we may\nventure to say that he does indeed show somewhat conspicuously the\nway in which he uses the word 'impossible' and the kind of grounds\non which that and such like terms are employed throughout his\nwork.\n\nIt is a notorious fact, abundantly established by certain\nquotations from the Old Testament and elsewhere, that the last\nthing regarded by the early patristic writers was context. But in\nthis case the context is perfectly in keeping, and to a clear and\nunprejudiced eye it presents no difficulty. The Clementine writer\nis speaking of the origin of physical infirmities, and he says\nthat these are frequently due, not to moral error, but to mere\nignorance on the part of parents. As an instance of this he gives\nthe case of the man who was born blind, of whom our Lord expressly\nsaid that neither he nor his parents had sinned--morally or in\nsuch a way as to deserve punishment. On the contrary they had\nerred simply through ignorance, and the object of the miracle was\nto make a display of the Divine mercy removing the consequences of\nsuch error. 'And in reality,' he proceeds, 'things of this kind\nare the result of ignorance. The misfortunes of which you spoke,\nproceed from ignorance and not from any wicked action.' This is\nperfectly compatible with every word of the Johannean narrative.\nThe concluding clause of the quotation is merely a paraphrase of\nthe original (no part of the quotation professes to be exact),\nbringing out a little more prominently the special point of the\nargument. There is ample room for this. The predetermined object\nof the miracle, says St. John, was to display the works of God,\nand the Clementine writer specifies the particular work of God\ndisplayed--the mercy which heals the evil consequences of\nignorance. If there is anything here at all inconsistent with the\nGospel it would be interesting to know (and we are not told) what\nwas the kind of original that the author of the Homily really had\nbefore him.\n\nA further discussion of this passage I should hardly suppose to be\nnecessary. Nothing could be more wanton than to assign this\npassage to an imaginary Gospel merely on the ground alleged. The\nhypothesis was less violent in regard to the Synoptic Gospels,\nwhich clearly contain a large amount of common matter that might\nalso have found its way into other hands. We have evidence of the\nexistence of other Gospels presenting a certain amount of affinity\nto the first Gospel, but the fourth is stamped with an idiosyncracy\nwhich makes it unique in its kind. If there is to be this freedom\nin inventing unknown documents, reproducing almost verbatim the\nfeatures of known ones, sober criticism is at an end.\n\nThat the Clementine Homilies imply the use of the fourth Gospel\nmay be considered to be, not indeed certain in a strict sense of\nthe word, but as probable as most human affairs can be. The real\nelement or doubt is in regard to their date, and their evidence\nmust be taken subject to this uncertainty.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is perhaps hardly worth while to delay over the Epistle to\nDiognetus: not that I do not believe the instances alleged by\nTischendorf and Dr. Westcott [Endnote 295:1] to be in themselves\nsound, but because there exists too little evidence to determine\nthe date of the Epistle, and because it may be doubted whether the\nargument for the use of the fourth Gospel in the Epistle can be\nexpressed strongly in an objective form. The allusions in question\nare not direct quotations, but are rather reminiscences of\nlanguage. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' has treated them\nas if they were the former [Endnote 296:1]; he has enquired into\nthe context &c., not very successfully. But such enquiry is really\nout of place. When the writer of the Epistle says, 'Christians\ndwell in the world but are not of the world' [Greek: ouk xisi de\nek tou kosmou] = exactly John xvii. 14; note peculiar use of the\npreposition); 'For God loved men for whose sakes He made the world\n... unto whom He sent His only begotten Son' (= John iii. 16, 'God\nso loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son'); 'How will\nyou love Him who so beforehand loved you' [Greek: proagapaesanta];\ncf. i John iv. 19, [Greek: protos aegapaesen] 'He sent His Son as\nwishing to save ... and not to condemn' ([Greek: sozon ... krinon]\nof. John iii. 16),--the probability is about as great that he had\nin his mind St. John's language as it would be if the same phrases\nwere to occur in a modern sermon. It is a real probability; but\nnot one that can be urged very strongly.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOf more importance--indeed of high importance--is the evidence\ndrawn from the remains of earlier writers preserved by Irenaeus\nand Hippolytus. There is a clear reference to the fourth Gospel in\na passage for which Irenaeus alleges the authority of certain\n'Presbyters,' who at the least belonged to an elder generation\nthan his own. There can be little doubt indeed that they are the\nsame as those whom he describes three sentences later and with\nonly a momentary break in the oblique narration into which the\npassage is thrown, as 'the Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles.'\nIt may be well to give the language of Irenaeus in full as it has\nbeen the subject of some controversy. Speaking of the rewards of\nthe just in the next world, he says [Endnote 297:1]:--\n\n'For Esaias says, \"Like as the new heaven and new earth which I\ncreate remain before me, saith the Lord, so your seed and your\nname shall stand.\" And as the Presbyters say, then too those who\nare thought worthy to have their abode in Heaven shall go thither,\nand some shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, while others shall\npossess the splendour of the City; for everywhere the Saviour\nshall be seen according as they shall be worthy who look upon Him.\n[So far the sentence has been in oratio recta, but here it becomes\noblique.] And [they say] that there is this distinction in\ndwelling between those who bear fruit an hundred fold and those\nwho bear sixty and those who bear thirty, some of whom shall be\ncarried off into the Heavens, some shall stay in Paradise, and\nsome shall dwell in the City. And for this reason, [they say that]\nthe Lord declared ([Greek: eipaekenai]) that _in my Father's_\n[realm] _are many mansions;_ for all things [are] of God, who\ngives to all the fitting habitation: even as His Word saith\n(_ait_), that to all is allotted by the Father as each is or\nshall be worthy. And this is (_est_) the couch upon which\nthey shall recline who are bidden to His marriage supper. That\nthis is (_esse_) the order and disposition of the saved, the\nPresbyters, disciples of the Apostles, say,' etc.\n\nThat Irenaeus is here merely giving the 'exegesis of his own day,'\nas the author of 'Supernatural Religion' suggests [Endnote 297:2],\nis not for a moment tenable. Irenaeus does indeed interpose for\ntwo sentences (Omnia enim... ad nuptias) to give his own comment\non the saying of the Presbyters; but these are sharply cut off\nfrom the rest by the use of the present indicative instead of the\ninfinitive. There can be no question at all that the quotation 'in\nMy Father's realm are many mansions' [Greek: en tois ton Patros\nmon monas einai pollas] belongs to the Presbyters, and there can\nbe but little doubt that these Presbyters are the same as those\nspoken of as 'disciples of the Apostles.'\n\nWhether they were also 'the Presbyters' referred to as his\nauthority by Papias is quite a secondary and subordinate question.\nConsidering the Chiliastic character of the passage, the\nconjecture [Endnote 298:1] that they were does not seem to me\nunreasonable. This however we cannot determine positively. It is\nquite enough that Irenaeus evidently attributes to them an\nantiquity considerably beyond his own; that, in fact, he looks\nupon them as supplying the intermediate link between his age and\nthat of the Apostles.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTwo quotations from the fourth Gospel are attributed to Basilides,\nboth of them quite indisputable as quotations. The first is found\nin the twenty-second chapter of the seventh book of the\n'Refutation,' 'That was the true light which lighteth every man\nthat cometh into the world [Endnote 298:2] ([Greek: aen to phos to\nalaethinon, o photizei panta anthropon erchomenon eis ton kosmon]\n= John i. 9), and the second in the twenty-seventh chapter, 'My\nhour is not yet come' ([Greek: oupo aekei aeora mon] = John ii.\n4). Both of these passages are instances of the exegesis by which\nthe Basilidian doctrines were defended.\n\nThe real question is here, as in regard to the Synoptics, whether\nthe quotations were made by Basilides himself or by his disciples,\n'Isidore and his crew.' The second instance I am disposed to think\nmay possibly be due to the later representatives of this school,\nbecause, though the quotation is introduced by [Greek: phaesi] in\nthe singular, and though Basilides himself can in no case be\nexcluded, still there is nothing in the chapter to identify the\nsubject of [Greek: phaesi] specially with him, and in the next\nsentence Hippolytus writes, 'This is that which they understand\n([Greek: ho kat' autous nenoaemenos]) by the inner spiritual man,'\n&c. But the earlier instance is different. There Basilides himself\ndoes seem to be specially singled out.\n\nHe is mentioned by name only two sentences above that in which the\nquotation occurs. Hippolytus is referring to the Basilidian\ndoctrine of the origin of things. He says, 'Now since it was not\nallowable to say that something non-existent had come into being\nas a projection from a non-existent Deity--for Basilides avoids\nand shuns the existences of things brought into being by\nprojection [Endnote 299:1]--for what need is there of projection,\nor why should matter be presupposed in order that God should make\na world, just as a spider its web or as mortal man in making\nthings takes brass or wood or any other portion of matter? But He\nspake--so he says--and it was done, and this is, as these men say,\nthat which is said by Moses: \"Let there be light, and there was\nlight.\" Whence, he says, came the light? Out of nothing; for we\nare not told--he says--whence it came, but only that it was at the\nvoice of Him that spake. Now He that spake--he says--was not, and\nthat which was made, was not. Out of that which was not--he says--\nwas made the seed of the world, the word which was spoken, \"Let\nthere be light;\" and this--he says--is that which is spoken in\nthe Gospels; \"That was the true light which lighteth every man\nthat cometh into the world.'\" We must not indeed overlook the fact\nthat the plural occurs once in the middle of this passage as\nintroducing the words of Moses; 'as these men say.' And yet,\nthough this decidedly modifies, I do not think that it removes the\nprobability that Basilides himself is being quoted. It seems a\nfair inference that at the beginning of the passage Hippolytus had\nthe work of Basilides actually before him; and the single\ndigression in [Greek: legousin houtoi] does not seem enough to\nshow that it was laid aside. This is confirmed when we look back\ntwo chapters at the terms in which the whole account of the\nBasilidian system is introduced. 'Let us see,' Hippolytus says,\n'how flagrantly Basilides as well as (B. [Greek: homou kai])\nIsidore and all their crew contradict not only Matthias but the\nSaviour himself.' Stress is laid upon the name of Basilides, as if\nto say, 'It is not merely a new-fangled heresy, but dates back to\nthe head and founder of the school.' When in the very next\nsentence Hippolytus begins with [Greek: phaesi], the natural\nconstruction certainly seems to be that he is quoting some work of\nBasilides which he takes as typical of the doctrine of the whole\nschool. A later work would not suit his purpose or prove his\npoint. Basilides includes Isidore, but Isidore does not include\nBasilides.\n\nWe conclude then that there is a probability--not an overwhelming,\nbut quite a substantial, probability--that Basilides himself used\nthe fourth Gospel, and used it as an authoritative record of the\nlife of Christ. But Basilides began to teach in 125 A.D., so that\nhis evidence, supposing it to be valid, dates from a very early\nperiod indeed: and it should be remembered that this is the only\nuncertainty to which it is subject. That the quotation is really\nfrom St. John cannot be doubted.\n\nThe account which Hippolytus gives of the Valentinians also\ncontains an allusion to the fourth Gospel; 'All who came before Me\nare thieves and robbers' (cf. John x. 8). But here the master and\nthe disciples are more confused. Less equivocal evidence is\nafforded by the statements of Irenaeus respecting the Valentinians.\nHe says that the Valentinians used the fourth Gospel very freely\n(plenissime) [Endnote 301:1]. This applies to a date that cannot\nbe in any case later than 180 A.D., and that may extend almost\nindefinitely backwards. There is no reason to say that it does not\ninclude Valentinus himself. Positive evidence is wanting, but negative\nevidence still more. Apart from evidence to the contrary, there must\nbe a presumption against the introduction of a new work which becomes\nat once a frequently quoted authority midway in the history of a school.\n\nBut to keep to facts apart from presumptions. Irenaeus represents\nPtolemaeus as quoting largely from the Prologue to the Gospel. But\nPtolemaeus, as we have seen, had already gathered a school about\nhim when Irenaeus became acquainted with him. His evidence\ntherefore may fairly be said to cover the period from 165-175 A.D.\nThe author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to be somewhat beside\nthe mark when he says that 'in regard to Ptolemaeus all that is\naffirmed is that in the Epistle to Flora ascribed to him\nexpressions found in John i. 3 are used.' True it is that such\nexpressions are found, and before we accept the theory in\n'Supernatural Religion' that the parenthesis in which they occur\nis due to Epiphanius who quotes the letter in full himself\n[Endnote 302:1], it is only right that some other instance should\nbe given of such parenthetic interruption. The form in which the\nletter is quoted, not in fragments interspersed with comments but\ncomplete and at full length, with a formal heading and close,\nreally excludes such a hypothesis. But, a century and a half\nbefore Epiphanius, Irenaeus had given a string of Valentinian\ncomments on the Prologue, ending with the words, 'Et Ptolemaeus\nquidem ita' [Endnote 302:2]. Heracleon, too, is coupled with\nPtolemaeus by Irenaeus [Endnote 302:3], and according to the view\nof the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' had a school around him\nat the time of Irenaeus' visit to Rome in 178 A.D. But this\nHeracleon was the author of a Commentary on St. John's Gospel to\nwhich Origen in his own parallel work frequently alludes. These\nare indeed dismissed in 'Supernatural Religion' as 'unsupported\nreferences.' But we may well ask, what support they need. The\nreferences are made in evident good faith. He says, for instance\n[Endnote 302:4], that Heracleon's exegesis of John i. 3, 'All\nthings were made by Him,' excluding from this the world and its\ncontents, is very forced and without authority. Again, he has\nmisinterpreted John i. 4, making 'in Him was life' mean not 'in\nHim' but 'in spiritual men.' Again, he wrongly attributes John i.\n18 not to the Evangelist, but to the Baptist. And so on. The\nallusions are all made in this incidental manner; and the life of\nOrigen, if he was born, as is supposed, about 185 A.D., would\noverlap that of Heracleon. What evidence could be more sufficient?\nor if such evidence is to be discarded, what evidence are we to\naccept? Is it to be of the kind that is relied upon for referring\nquotations to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the Gospel\naccording to Peter, or the [Greek: Genna Marias]? There are\nsometimes no doubt reasonable grounds for scepticism as to the\npatristic statements, but none such are visible here. On the\ncontrary, that Heracleon should have written a commentary on the\nfourth Gospel falls in entirely with what Irenaeus says as to the\nlarge use that was made of that Gospel by the Valentinians.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs we approach the end of the third and beginning of the fourth\nquarter of the second century the evidence for the fourth Gospel\nbecomes widespread and abundant. At this date we have attention\ncalled to the discrepancy between the Gospels as to the date of\nthe Crucifixion by Claudius Apollinaris. We have also Tatian, the\nEpistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, the heathen Celsus\nand the Muratorian Canon, and then a very few years later\nTheophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus.\n\nI imagine that there can be really no doubt about Tatian. Whatever\nmay have been the nature of the Diatessaron, the 'Address to the\nGreeks' contains references which it is mere paradox to dispute. I\nwill not press the first of these which is given by Dr. Westcott,\nnot because I do not believe that it is ultimately based upon the\nfourth Gospel, still less that there is the slightest contradiction\nto St. John's doctrine, but because Tatian's is a philosophical comment\nperhaps a degree too far removed from the original to be quite\nproducible as evidence. It is one of the earliest speculations as to\nthe ontological relation between the Father and the Son. In the\nbeginning God was alone--though all things were with Him potentially.\nBy the mere act of volition He gave birth to the Logos, who was the\nreal originative cause of things. Yet the existence of the Logos was\nnot such as to involve a separation of identity in the Godhead; it\ninvolved no diminution in Him from whom the Logos issued. Having been\nthus first begotten, the Logos in turn begat our creation, &c. The\nLogos is thus represented as being at once prior to creation (the\nJohannean [Greek: en archae]) and the efficient cause of it--which is\nprecisely the doctrine of the Prologue.\n\nThe other two passages are however quite unequivocal.\n\n\n_Orat. ad Graecos_, c. xiii.\n\nAnd this is therefore that saying: The darkness comprehends not\nthe light.\n\n[Greek: Kai touto estin ara to eiraemenon Hae skotia to phos ou\nkatalambanei.]\n\n\n_John_ i. 5.\n\nAnd the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness\ncomprehended it not.\n\n[Greek: Kai to phos en tae skotia phainei, kai hae skotia auto ou\nkatelaben.]\n\n\nOn this there is the following comment in 'Supernatural Religion'\n[Endnote 305:1]: '\"The saying\" is distinctly different in language\nfrom the parallel in the Gospel, and it may be from a different\nGospel. We have already remarked that Philo called the Logos \"the\nLight,\" and quoting in a peculiar form, Ps. xxvi. 1: 'For the Lord\nis my light ([Greek: phos]) and my Saviour,' he goes on to say\nthat as the sun divides day and night, so Moses says, 'God divides\nlight and darkness' ([Greek: Theon phos kai skotos diateichisai]),\nwhen we turn away to things of sense we use 'another light' which\nis in no way different from 'darkness.' The constant use of the\nsame similitude of light and darkness in the Canonical Epistles\nshows how current it was in the Church; and nothing is more\ncertain than the fact that it was neither originated by, nor\nconfined to, the fourth Gospel.' Such criticism refutes itself,\nand it is far too characteristic of the whole book. Nothing is\nadduced that even remotely corresponds to the very remarkable\nphrase [Greek: hae skotia to phos katalambanei], and yet for these\nimaginary parallels one that is perfectly plain and direct is\nrejected.\n\nThe use of the phrase [Greek: to eiraemenon] should be noticed. It\nis the formula used, especially by St. Luke, in quotation from the\nOld Testament Scriptures.\n\nThe other passage is:--\n\n\n_Orat. ad Graecos_, c. xix.\n\nAll things were by him, and without him hath been made nothing.\n\n[Greek: Panta hup' autou kai choris autou gegonen oude hen.]\n\n\n_John_ i. 3.\n\nAll things were made through him; and without him was nothing made\n[that hath been made].\n\n[Greek: Panta di' autou egeneto, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen\n[ho gegonen]]. 'The early Fathers, no less than the early\nheretics,' placed the full stop at [Greek: oude hen], connecting\nthe words that follow with the next sentence. See M'Clellan and\nTregelles _ad loc_.\n\n\n'Tatian here speaks of God and not of the Logos, and in this\nrespect, as well as language and context, the passage differs from\nthe fourth Gospel' [Endnote 306:1], &c. Nevertheless it may safely\nbe left to the reader to say whether or not it was taken from it.\n\nThe Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons contains the\nfollowing:--\n\n\n_Ep. Vienne. et Lugd_. \u00a7 iv.\n\nThus too was fulfilled that which was spoken by our Lord; that a\ntime shall come in which every one that killeth you shall think\nthat he offereth God service.\n\n[Greek: Eleusetai kairos en o pas ho apokteinas humas doxei\nlatreian prospherein to Theo.]\n\n\n_John_ xvi. 2.\n\nYea, the hour cometh, that every one that killeth you will think\nhe offereth God service.\n\n[Greek: All' erchetai hora hina pas ho apokteinas humas, doxae\nlatreian prospherein to Theo.]\n\n\nIt is true that there are 'indications of similar discourses' in\nthe Synoptics, but of none containing a trait at all closely\nresembling this. The chances that precisely the same combination\nof words ([Greek: ho apokteinas humas doxei latreian prospherein\nto Theo]) occurred in a lost Gospel must be necessarily very small\nindeed, especially when we remember that the original saying was\nprobably spoken in Aramaic and not in Greek [Endnote 307:1].\n\nDr. Keim, in the elaborate monograph mentioned above, decides that\nCelsus made use of the fourth Gospel. He remarks upon it as\ncurious, that more traces should indeed be found 'both in Celsus\nand his contemporary Tatian of John than of his two nearest\npredecessors' [Endnote 307:2]. Of the instances given by Dr. Keim,\nthe first (i. 41, the sign seen by the Baptist) depends on a\nsomewhat doubtful reading ([Greek: para to Ioannae], which should\nbe perhaps [Greek: para to Iordanae]); the second, the demand for\na sign localised specially in the temple (i. 67; of. John x. 23,\n24), seems fairly to hold good. 'The destination of Jesus alike\nfor good and evil' (iv. 7, 'that those who received it, having\nbeen good, should be saved; while those who received it not,\nhaving been shown to be bad, should be punished') is indeed an\nidea peculiarly Johannean and creates a _presumption_ of the\nuse of the Gospel; we ought not perhaps to say more. I can hardly\nconsider the simple allusions to 'flight' ([Greek: pheugein], ii.\n9; [Greek: taede kakeise apodedrakenai], i. 62) as necessarily\nreferences to the retreat to Ephraim in John xi. 54. So too the\nexpression 'bound' in ii. 9, and the 'conflict with Satan' in vi.\n42, ii. 47, seem too vague to be used as proof. Still Volkmar too\ndeclares it to be 'notorious' that Celsus was acquainted with the\nfourth Gospel, alleging i. 67 (as above), ii. 31 (an allusion to\nthe Logos), ii. 36 (a satirical allusion to the issue of blood and\nwater), which passages really seem on the whole to justify the\nassertion, though not in a quite unqualified form.\n\nWe ought not to omit to mention that there is a second fragment\nby Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, besides that to which we\nhave already alluded, and preserved like it in the Paschal\nChronicle, which confirms unequivocally the conclusion that he\nknew and used the fourth Gospel. Amongst other titles that are\napplied to the crucified Saviour, he is spoken of as 'having been\npierced in His sacred side,' as 'having poured out of His side\nthose two cleansing streams, water and blood, word and spirit'\n[Endnote 308:1]. This incident is recorded only in the fourth\nGospel.\n\nIn like manner when Athenagoras says 'The Father and the Son being\none' ([Greek: henos ontos tou Patros kai tou Uiou]), it is\nprobable that he is alluding to John x. 30, 'I and my Father are\none,' not to mention an alleged, but perhaps somewhat more\ndoubtful, reference to John xvii. 3 [Endnote 308:2].\n\nBut the most decisive witness before we come to Irenaeus is the\nMuratorian Canon. Here we have the fourth Gospel definitely\nassigned to its author, and finally established in its place\namongst the canonical or authoritative books. It is true that the\naccount of the way in which the Gospel came to be composed is\nmixed up with legendary matter. According to it the Gospel was\nwritten in obedience to a dream sent to Andrew the Apostle, after\nhe and his fellow disciples and bishops had fasted for three days\nat the request of John. In this dream it was revealed that John\nshould write the narrative subject to the revision of the rest. So\nthe Gospel is the work of an eyewitness, and, though it and the\nother Gospels differ in the objects of their teaching, all are\ninspired by the same Spirit.\n\nThere may perhaps in this be some kernel of historical fact, as\nthe sort of joint authorship or revision to which it points seems\nto find some support in the concluding verses of the Gospel ('we\nknow that his witness is true'). However this may be, the evidence\nof the fragment is of more real importance and value, as showing\nthe estimation in which at this date the Gospel was held. It\ncorresponds very much to what is now implied in the word\n'canonical,' and indeed the Muratorian fragment presents us with a\ntentative or provisional Canon, which was later to be amended,\ncompleted, and ratified. So far as the Gospels were concerned, it\nhad already reached its final shape. It included the same four\nwhich now stand in our Bibles, and the opposition that they met\nwith was so slight, and so little serious, that Eusebius could\nclass them all among the Homologoumena or books that were\nuniversally acknowledged.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY.\n\n\nI should not be very much surprised if the general reader who may\nhave followed our enquiry so far should experience at this point a\ncertain feeling of disappointment. If he did not know beforehand\nsomething of the subject-matter that was to be enquired into, he\nmight not unnaturally be led to expect round assertions, and\nplain, pointblank, decisive evidence. Such evidence has not been\noffered to him for the simple reason that it does not exist. In\nits stead we have collected a great number of inferences of very\nvarious degrees of cogency, from the possible and hypothetical, up\nto strong and very strong probability. Most of our time has been\ntaken up in weighing and testing these details, and in the\nendeavour to assign to each as nearly as possible its just value.\nIt could not be thought strange if some minds were impatient of\nsuch minutiae; and where this objection was not felt, it would\nstill be very pardonable to complain that the evidence was at best\ninferential and probable.\n\nAn inference in which there are two or three steps may be often\nquite as strong as that in which there is only one, and\nprobabilities may mount up to a high degree of what is called\nmoral or practical certainty. I cannot but think that many of\nthose which have been already obtained are of this character. I\ncannot but regard it as morally or practically certain that\nMarcion used our third Gospel; as morally or practically certain\nthat all four Gospels were used in the Clementine Homilies; as\nmorally or practically certain that the existence of three at\nleast out of our four Gospels is implied in the writings of\nJustin; as probable in a lower degree that the four were used by\nBasilides; as not really disputable (apart from the presumption\nafforded by earlier writers) that they were widely used in the\ninterval which separates the writings of Justin from those of\nIrenaeus.\n\nAll of these seem to me to be tolerably clear propositions. But\noutside these there seems to be a considerable amount of\nconvergent evidence, the separate items of which are less\nconvincing, but which yet derive a certain force from the mere\nfact that they are convergent. In the Apostolic Fathers, for\nexample, there are instances of various kinds, some stronger and\nsome weaker; but the important point to notice is that they\nconfirm each other. Every new case adds to the total weight of the\nevidence, and helps to determine the bearing of those which seem\nambiguous.\n\nIt cannot be too much borne in mind that the evidence with which\nwe have been dealing is cumulative; and as in all other cases of\ncumulative evidence the subtraction of any single item is of less\nimportance than the addition of a new one. Supposing it to be\nshown that some of the allusions which are thought to be taken\nfrom our Gospels were merely accidental coincidences of language,\nthis would not materially affect the part of the evidence which\ncould not be so explained. Supposing even that some of these\nallusions could be definitely referred to an apocryphal source,\nthe possibility would be somewhat, but not so very much, increased\nthat other instances which bear resemblance to our Gospels were\nalso in their origin apocryphal. But on the other hand, if a\nsingle instance of the use of a canonical Gospel really holds\ngood, it is proof of the existence of that Gospel, and every new\ninstance renders the conclusion more probable, and makes it more\nand more difficult to account for the phenomena in any other way.\n\nThe author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to have overlooked\nthis. He does not seem to have considered the mutual support which\nthe different instances taken together lend to each other. He\nsummons them up one by one, and if any sort of possibility can be\nshown of accounting for them in any other way than by the use of\nour Gospels he dismisses them altogether. He makes no allowance\nfor any residual weight they may have. He does not ask which is\nthe more probable hypothesis. If the authentication of a document\nis incomplete, if the reference of a passage is not certain, he\ntreats it as if it did not exist. He forgets the old story of the\nfaggots, which, weak singly, become strong when combined. His\nscales will not admit of any evidence short of the highest.\nFractional quantities find no place in his reckoning. If there is\nany flaw, if there is any possible loophole for escape, he does\nnot make the due deduction and accept the evidence with that\ndeduction, but he ignores it entirely, and goes on to the next\nitem just as if he were leaving nothing behind him.\n\nThis is really part and parcel of what was pointed out at the\noutset as the fundamental mistake of his method. It is much too\nforensic. It takes as its model, not the proper canons of\nhistorical enquiry, but the procedure of English law. Yet the\ninappropriateness of such a method is seen as soon as we consider\nits object and origin. The rules of evidence current in our law\ncourts were constructed specially with a view to the protection of\nthe accused, and upon the assumption that it is better nine guilty\npersons should escape, than that one innocent person should be\ncondemned. Clearly such rules will be inapplicable to the\nhistorical question which of two hypotheses is most likely to be\ntrue. The author forgets that the negative hypothesis is just as\nmuch a hypothesis as the positive, and needs to be defended in\nprecisely the same manner. Either the Gospels were used, or they\nwere not used. In order to prove the second side of this\nalternative, it is necessary to show not merely that it is\n_possible_ that they were not used, but that the theory is\nthe _more probable_ of the two, and accounts better for the\nfacts. But the author of 'Supernatural Religion' hardly professes\nor attempts to do this. If he comes across a quotation apparently\ntaken from our Gospels he is at once ready with his reply, 'But it\nmay be taken from a lost Gospel.' Granted; it may. But the extant\nGospel is there, and the quotation referable to it; the lost\nGospel is an unknown entity which may contain anything or nothing.\nIf we admit that the possibility of quotation from a lost Gospel\nimpairs the certainty of the reference to an extant Gospel, it is\nstill quite another thing to argue that it is the more probable\nexplanation and an explanation that the critic ought to accept. In\nvery few cases, I believe, has the author so much as attempted to\ndo this.\n\nWe might then take a stand here, and on the strength of what can\nbe satisfactorily proved, as well as of what can be probably\ninferred, claim to have sufficiently established the use and\nantiquity of the Gospels. This is, I think, quite a necessary\nconclusion from the data hitherto collected.\n\nBut there is a further objection to be made to the procedure in\n'Supernatural Religion.' If the object were to obtain clear and\nsimple and universally appreciable evidence, I do not hesitate to\nsay that the enquiry ends just where it ought to have begun.\nThrough the faulty method that he has employed the author forgets\nthat he has a hypothesis to make good and to carry through. He\nforgets that he has to account on the negative theory, just as we\naccount on the positive, for a definite state of things. It may\nsound paradoxical, but there is really no great boldness in the\nparadox, when we affirm that at least the high antiquity of the\nGospels could be proved, even if not one jot or tittle of the\nevidence that we have been discussing had existed. Supposing that\nall those fragmentary remains of the primitive Christian\nliterature that we have been ransacking so minutely had been swept\naway, supposing that the causes that have handed it down to us in\nsuch a mutilated and impaired condition had done their work still\nmore effectually, and that for the first eighty years of the\nsecond century there was no Christian literature extant at all;\nstill I maintain that, in order to explain the phenomena that we\nfind after that date, we should have to recur to the same\nassumptions that our previous enquiry would seem to have\nestablished for us.\n\nHitherto we have had to grope our way with difficulty and care;\nbut from this date onwards all ambiguity and uncertainty\ndisappears. It is like emerging out of twilight into the broad\nblaze of day. There is really a greater disproportion than we\nmight expect between the evidence of the end of the century and\nthat which leads up to it. From Justin to Irenaeus the Christian\nwritings are fragmentary and few, but with Irenaeus a whole body\nof literature seems suddenly to start into being. Irenaeus is\nsucceeded closely by Clement of Alexandria, Clement by Tertullian,\nTertullian by Hippolytus and Origen, and the testimony which these\nwriters bear to the Gospel is marvellously abundant and unanimous.\nI calculate roughly that Irenaeus quotes directly 193 verses of\nthe first Gospel and 73 of the fourth. Clement of Alexandria and\nTertullian must have quoted considerably more, while in the extant\nwritings of Origen the greater part of the New Testament is\nactually quoted [Endnote 315:1].\n\nBut more than this; by the time of Irenaeus the canon of the four\nGospels, as we understand the word now, was practically formed. We\nhave already seen that this was the case in the fragment of\nMuratori. Irenaeus is still more explicit. In the famous passage\n[Endnote 315:2] which is so often quoted as an instance of the\nweak-mindedness of the Fathers, he lays it down as a necessity of\nthings that the Gospels should be four in number, neither less nor\nmore:--\n\n'For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, as\nthere are also four universal winds, and as the Church is\nscattered over all the earth, and the Gospel is the pillar and\nbase of the Church and the breath (or spirit) of life, it is\nlikely that it should have four pillars breathing immortality on\nevery side and kindling afresh the life of men. Whence it is\nevident that the Word, the architect of all things, who sitteth\nupon the cherubim and holdeth all things together, having been\nmade manifest unto men, gave to us the Gospel in a fourfold shape,\nbut held together by one Spirit. As David, entreating for His\npresence, saith: Thou that sittest upon the Cherubim show thyself.\nFor the Cherubim are of fourfold visage, and their visages are\nsymbols of the economy of the Son of man.... And the Gospels\ntherefore agree with them over which presideth Jesus Christ. That\nwhich is according to John declares His generation from the Father\nsovereign and glorious, saying thus: In the beginning was the\nWord, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And, All\nthings were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made....\nBut the Gospel according to Luke, as having a sacerdotal\ncharacter, begins with Zacharias the priest offering incense unto\nGod.... But Matthew records His human generation, saying, The book\nof the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of\nAbraham.... Mark took his beginning from the prophetic Spirit\ncoming down as it were from on high among men. The beginning, he\nsays, of the Gospel according as it is written in Esaias the\nprophet, &c.'\n\nIrenaeus also makes mention of the origin of the Gospels, claiming\nfor their authors the gift of Divine inspiration [Endnote 316:1]:--\n\n'For after that our Lord rose from the dead and they were endowed\nwith the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon them from on high,\nthey were fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect\nknowledge: they went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the\nGospel of those good things that God hath given to us and\nproclaiming heavenly peace to men, having indeed both all in equal\nmeasure and each one singly the Gospel of God. So then Matthew\namong the Jews put forth a written Gospel in their own tongue\nwhile Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and\nfounding the Church. After their decease (or 'departure'), Mark,\nthe disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself too has handed down\nto us in writing the subjects of Peter's preaching. And Luke, the\ncompanion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him.\nAfterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon\nHis breast, likewise published his Gospel while he dwelt at\nEphesus in Asia.'\n\nWe have not now to determine the exact value of these traditions;\nwhat we have rather to notice is the fact that the Gospels are at\nthis time definitely assigned to their reputed authors, and that\nthey are already regarded as containing a special knowledge\ndivinely imparted. It is evident that Irenaeus would not for a\nmoment think of classing any other Gospel by the side of the now\nstrictly canonical four.\n\nClement of Alexandria, who, Eusebius says, 'was illustrious for\nhis writings,' in the year 194 gives a somewhat similar, but not\nquite identical, account of the composition of the second Gospel\n[Endnote 317:1]. He differs from Irenaeus in making St. Peter\ncognisant of the work of his follower. Neither is he quite\nconsistent with himself; in one place he makes St. Peter\n'authorise the Gospel to be read in the churches;' in another he\nsays that the Apostle 'neither forbade nor encouraged it' [Endnote\n317:2]. These statements have both of them been preserved for us\nby Eusebius, who also alleges, upon the authority of Clement, that\nthe 'Gospels containing the genealogies were written first.'\n'John,' he says, 'who came last, observing that the natural\ndetails had been set forth clearly in the Gospels, at the instance\nof his friends and with the inspiration of the Spirit ([Greek:\npneumati theophoraethenta]), wrote a spiritual Gospel' [Endnote\n317:3].\n\nClement draws a distinct line between the canonical and\nuncanonical Gospels. In quoting an apocryphal saying supposed to\nhave been given in answer to Salome, he says, expressly: 'We do\nnot find this saying in the four Gospels that have been handed\ndown to us, but in that according to the Egyptians' [Endnote\n317:4].\n\nTertullian is still more exclusive. He not only regards the four\nGospels as inspired and authoritative, but he makes no use of any\nextra-canonical Gospel. The Gospels indeed held for him precisely\nthe same position that they do with orthodox Christians now. He\nsays respecting the Gospels: 'In the first place we lay it down\nthat the evangelical document (evangelicum instrumentum [Endnote\n318:1]) has for its authors the Apostles, to whom this office of\npreaching the Gospel was committed by the Lord Himself. If it has\nalso Apostolic men, yet not these alone but in company with\nApostles and after Apostles. For the preaching of disciples might\nhave been suspected of a desire for notoriety if it were not\nsupported by the authority of Masters, nay of Christ, who made the\nApostles Masters. In fine, of the Apostles, John and Matthew first\nimplant in us faith, Luke and Mark renew it, starting from the\nsame principles, so far as relates to the one God the Creator and\nHis Christ born of the virgin, to fulfil the law and the prophets'\n[Endnote 318:2]. He grounds the authority of the Gospels upon the\nfact that they proceed either from Apostles or from those who held\nclose relation to Apostles, like Mark, 'the interpreter of Peter,'\nand Luke, the companion of Paul [Endnote 318:3]. In another\npassage he expressly asserts their authenticity [Endnote 318:4],\nand he claimed to use them and them alone as his weapons in the\nconflict with heresy [Endnote 318:5].\n\nNo less decided is the assertion of Origen, who writes: 'As I have\nlearnt from tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are\nundisputed in the Church of God under heaven, that the first in\norder of the scripture is that according to Matthew, who was once\na publican but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... The\nsecond is that according to Mark, who wrote as Peter suggested to\nhim ... The third is that according to Luke, the Gospel commended\nby Paul ... Last of all that according to John' [Endnote 319:1].\nAnd again in his commentary upon the Preface to St. Luke's Gospel\nhe expressly guards against the possibility that it might be\nthought to have reference to the other (Canonical) Gospels: 'In\nthis word of Luke's \"_have taken in hand_\" there is a latent\naccusation of those who without the grace of the Holy Spirit have\nrushed to the composing of Gospels. Matthew, indeed, and Mark, and\nJohn, and Luke, have not \"_taken in hand_\" to write, but\n_have written_ Gospels, being full of the Holy Spirit ... The\nChurch has four Gospels; the Heresies have many' [Endnote 319:2].\n\nBut besides the Fathers, and without going beyond the bounds of\nthe second century, there is other evidence of the most distinct\nand important kind for the existence of a canon of the Gospels.\nAmong the various translations of the New Testament one certainly,\ntwo very probably, and three perhaps probably, were made in the\ncourse of the second century.\n\nThe old Latin (as distinct from Jerome's revised) version of the\nGospels and with them of a considerable portion of the New Testament\nwas, I think it may be said, undoubtedly used by Tertullian and by\nthe Latin translator of Irenaeus, who appears to be quoted by\nTertullian, and in that case could not be placed later than 200 A.D.\n[Endnote 320:1] On this point I shall quote authorities that will\nhardly be questioned. And first that of a writer who is accustomed to\nweigh, with the accuracy of true science, every word that he puts\ndown, and who upon this subject is giving the result of a most minute\nand careful investigation. Speaking of the Latin translation of the\nNew Testament as found in Tertullian he says: 'Although single\nportions of this, especially passages which are translated in several\ndifferent ways, may be due to Tertullian himself, still it cannot be\ndoubted that in by far the majority of cases he has followed the text\nof a version received in his time by the Africans and specially the\nCarthaginian Christians, and made perhaps long before his time, and\nthat consequently his quotations represent the form of the earliest\nLatinized Scriptures accepted in those regions' [Endnote 320:2].\nAgain: 'In the first place we may conclude from the writings of\nTertullian, that remarkable Carthaginian presbyter at the close of\nthe second century, that in his time there existed several, perhaps\nmany, Latin translations of the Bible ... Tertullian himself\nfrequently quotes in his writings one and the same passage of\nScripture in entirely different forms, which indeed in many cases\nmay be explained by his quoting freely from memory, but certainly\nnot seldom has its ground in the diversity of the translations used\nat the time' [Endnote 321:1]. On this last point, the unity of the\nOld Latin version, there is a difference of opinion among scholars,\nbut none as to its date. Thus Dr. Tregelles writes: 'The expressions\nof Tertullian have been rightly rested on as showing that he knew\nand recognised _one translation_, and that this version was in several\nplaces (in his opinion) opposed to what was found \"in Graeco authentico.\"\nThis version must have been made a sufficiently long time before the\nage when Tertullian wrote, and before the Latin translator of Irenaeus,\nfor it to have got into general circulation. This leads us back _towards_\nthe middle of the second century at the latest: how much _earlier_\nthe version may have been we have no proof; for we are already led\nback into the time when no records tell us anything respecting the\nNorth African Church' [Endnote 321:2]. Dr. Tregelles, it should be\nremembered, is speaking as a text critic, of which branch of science\nhis works are one of the noblest monuments, and not directly of the\nhistory of the Canon. His usual opponent in text critical matters,\nbut an equally exact and trustworthy writer, Dr. Scrivener, agrees\nwith him here both as to the unity of the version and as to its date\nfrom the middle of the century [Endnote 321:3]. Dr. Westcott too\nwrites in his well-known and valuable article on the Vulgate in\nSmith's Dictionary [Endnote 321:4]: 'Tertullian distinctly recognises\nthe general currency of a Latin Version of the New Testament, though\nnot necessarily of every book at present included in the Canon, which\neven in his time had been able to mould the popular language. This\nwas characterised by a \"rudeness\" and \"simplicity,\" which seems to\npoint to the nature of its origin.' I do not suppose that the currency\nat the end of the second century of a Latin version, containing the\nfour Gospels and no others, will be questioned [Endnote 322:1].\n\nWith regard to the Syriac version there is perhaps a somewhat\ngreater room to doubt, though Dr. Tregelles begins his account of\nthis version by saying: 'It may stand as an admitted fact that a\nversion of the New Testament in Syriac existed in the second\ncentury' [Endnote 322:2]. Dr. Scrivener also says [Endnote 322:3]:\n'The universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the\ncase, seem to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was\npossessed of a translation both of the Old and New Testament,\nwhich it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively, from\nthe second century of our era downwards: as early as A.D. 170\n[Greek: ho Syros] is cited by Melito on Genesis xxii. 13.' The\nexternal evidence, however, does not seem to be quite strong\nenough to bear out any very positive assertion. The appeal to the\nSyriac by Melito [Endnote 322:4] is pretty conclusive as to the\nexistence of a Syriac Old Testament, which, being of Christian\norigin, would probably be accompanied by a translation of the New.\nBut on the other hand, the language of Eusebius respecting\nHegesippus ([Greek: ek te tou kath' Hebraious euangeliou kai tou\nSyriakou ... tina tithaesin]) seems to be rightly interpreted by\nRouth as having reference not to any '_version_ of the Gospel,\nbut to a separate Syro-Hebraic (?) Gospel' like that according to\nthe Hebrews. In any case the Syriac Scriptures 'were familiarly\nused and claimed as his national version by Ephraem of Edessa'\n(299-378 A.D.) as well as by Aphraates in writings dating A.D. 337\nand 344 [Endnote 323:1].\n\nA nearer approximation of date would be obtained by determining the\nage of the version represented by the celebrated Curetonian\nfragments. There is a strong tendency among critics, which seems\nrapidly approaching to a consensus, to regard this as bearing the\nsame relation to the Peshito that the Old Latin does to Jerome's\nVulgate, that of an older unrevised to a later revised version. The\nstrength of the tendency in this direction may be seen by the very\ncautious and qualified opinion expressed in the second edition of his\nIntroduction by Dr. Scrivener, who had previously taken a decidedly\nantagonistic view, and also by the fact that Mr. M'Clellan, who is\nusually an ally of Dr. Scrivener, here appears on the side of his\nopponents [Endnote 323:2]. All the writers who have hitherto been\nmentioned place either the Curetonian Syriac or the Peshito in the\nsecond century, and the majority, as we have seen, the Curetonian.\nDr. Tregelles, on a comparative examination of the text, affirms that\n'the Curetonian Syriac presents such a text as we might have\nconcluded would be current in the second century' [Endnote 323:3].\nEnglish text criticism is probably on the whole in advance of\nContinental; but it may be noted that Bleek (who however was\nimperfectly acquainted with the Curetonian form of the text) yet\nasserts that the Syriac version 'belongs without doubt to the second\ncentury A.D.' [Endnote 324:1] Reuss [Endnote 324:2] places it at the\nbeginning, Hilgenfeld towards the end [Endnote 324:3], of the third\ncentury.\n\nThe question as to the age of the version is not necessarily\nidentical with that as to the age of the particular form of it\npreserved in Cureton's fragments. This would hold the same sort of\nrelation to the original text of the version that (e.g.) a, or b,\nor c--any primitive codex of the version--holds to the original\ntext of the Old Latin. It also appears that the translation into\nSyriac of the different Gospels, conspicuously of St. Matthew's,\nwas made by different hands and at different times [Endnote\n324:4]. Bearing these considerations in mind, we should still be\nglad to know what answer those who assign the Curetonian text to\nthe second century make to the observation that it contains the\nreading [Greek: Baethabara] in John i. 28 which is generally\nassumed to be not older than Origen [Endnote 324:5]. On the other\nhand, the Curetonian, like the Old Latin, still has in John vii. 8\n[Greek: ouk] for [Greek: oupo]--a change which, according to Dr.\nScrivener [Endnote 324:6], 'from the end of the third century\ndownwards was very generally and widely diffused.' This whole set\nof questions needs perhaps a more exhaustive discussion than it\nhas obtained hitherto [Endnote 324:7].\n\nThe third version that may be mentioned is the Egyptian. In regard\nto this Dr. Lightfoot says [Endnote 325:1], that 'we should\nprobably not be exaggerating if we placed one or both of the\nprincipal Egyptian versions, the Memphitic and the Thebaic, or at\nleast parts of them, before the close of the second century.' In\nsupport of this statement he quotes Schwartz, the principal\nauthority on the subject, 'who will not be suspected of any\ntheological bias.' The historical notices on which the conclusion\nis founded are given in Scrivener's 'Introduction.' If we are to\nput a separate estimate upon these, it would be perhaps that the\nversion was made in the second century somewhat more probably than\nnot; it was certainly not made later than the first half of the\nthird [Endnote 325:2].\n\nPutting this version however on one side, the facts that have to\nbe explained are these. Towards the end of the second century we\nfind the four Gospels in general circulation and invested with\nfull canonical authority, in Gaul, at Rome, in the province of\nAfrica, at Alexandria, and in Syria. Now if we think merely of the\ntime that would be taken in the transcription and dissemination of\nMSS., and of the struggle that works such as the Gospels would\nhave to go through before they could obtain recognition, and still\nmore an exclusive recognition, this alone would tend to overthrow\nany such theory as that one of the Gospels, the fourth, was not\ncomposed before 150 A.D., or indeed anywhere near that date.\n\nBut this is not by any means all. It is merely the first step in a\nprocess that, quite independently of the other external evidence,\nthrusts the composition of the Gospels backwards and backwards to\na date certainly as early as that which is claimed for them.\n\nLet us define a little more closely the chronological bearings of\nthe subject. There is a decidedly preponderant probability that\nthe Muratorian fragment was not written much later than 170 A.D.\nIrenaeus, as we have seen, was writing in the decade 180-190 A.D.\nBut his evidence is surely valid for an earlier date than this. He\nis usually supposed to have been born about the year 140 A.D.\n[Endnote 326:1], and the way in which he describes his relations\nto Polycarp will not admit of a date many years later. But his\nstrong sense of the continuity of Church doctrine and the\nexceptional veneration that he accords to the Gospels seem alone\nto exclude the supposition that any of them should have been\ncomposed in his own lifetime. He is fond of quoting the\n'Presbyters,' who connected his own age with that, if not of the\nApostles, yet of Apostolic men. Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, whom he\nsucceeded, was more than ninety years old at the time of his\nmartyrdom in the persecution of A.D. 177 [Endnote 326:2], and\nwould thus in his boyhood be contemporary with the closing years\nof the last Evangelist. Irenaeus also had before him a number of\nwritings--some, e.g. the works of the Marcosians, in addition to\nthose that have been discussed in the course of this work--in\nwhich our Gospels are largely quoted, and which, to say the least,\nwere earlier than his own time of writing.\n\nClement of Alexandria began to flourish, ([Greek: egnorizeto])\n[Endnote 327:1], in the reign of Commodus (180-190 A.D.), and had\nobtained a still wider celebrity as head of the Catechetical\nSchool of Alexandria in the time of Severus [Endnote 327:2] (193-\n211). The opinions therefore to which he gives expression in his\nworks of this date were no doubt formed at a earlier period. He\ntoo appeals to the tradition of which he had been himself a\nrecipient. He speaks of his teachers, 'those blessed and truly\nmemorable men,' one in Greece, another in Magna Graecia, a third\nin Coele-Syria, a fourth in Egypt, a fifth in Assyria, a sixth in\nPalestine, to whom the doctrine of the Apostles had been handed\ndown from father to son [Endnote 327:3].\n\nTertullian is still bolder. In his controversy with Marcion he\nconfidently claims as on his side the tradition of the Apostolic\nChurches. By it is guaranteed the Gospel of St. Luke which he is\ndefending, and not only that, but the other Gospels [Endnote\n327:4]. In one passage Tertullian even goes so far as to send his\nreaders to the Churches of Corinth, Philippi, &c. for the very\nautographs ('authenticae literae') of St. Paul's Epistles [Endnote\n327:5]. But this is merely a characteristic flourish of rhetoric.\nAll for which the statements of Tertullian may safely be said to\nvouch is, that the Gospels had held their 'prerogative' position\nwithin his memory and that of most members of the Church to which\nhe belonged.\n\nBut the evidence of the Fathers is most decisive when it is\nunconscious. That the Gospels as used by the Christian writers at\nthe end of the first century, so far from being of recent\ncomposition, had already a long history behind them, is nothing\nless than certain. At this date they exhibit a text which bears\nthe marks of frequent transcription and advanced corruption.\n'Origen's,' says Dr. Scrivener [Endnote 328:1], 'is the highest\nname among the critics and expositors of the early Church; he is\nperpetually engaged in the discussion of various readings of the\nNew Testament, and employs language in describing the then state\nof the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even to its\npresent condition with the changes which sixteen more centuries\nmust needs have produced ... Respecting the sacred autographs,\ntheir fate or their continued existence, he seems to have had no\ninformation, and to have entertained no curiosity: they had simply\npassed by and were out of his reach. Had it not been for the\ndiversities of copies in all the Gospels on other points (he\nwrites) he should not have ventured to object to the authenticity\nof a certain passage (Matt. xix. 19) on internal grounds: \"But\nnow,\" saith he, \"great in truth has become the diversity of\ncopies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from the\nevil daring of some who correct what is written, or from those who\nin correcting add or take away what they think fit.\"' This is\nrespecting the MSS. of one region only, and now for another\n[Endnote 328:2]: 'It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in\nsound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has\never been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it\nwas composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole\nWestern, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior\nmanuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens\nthirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.'\nPossibly this is an exaggeration, but no one will maintain that it\nis a very large exaggeration of the facts.\n\nI proceed to give a few examples which serve to bring out the\nantiquity of the text. And first from Irenaeus.\n\nThere is a very remarkable passage in the work Against Heresies\n[Endnote 329:1], bearing not indeed directly upon the Gospels, but\nupon another book of the New Testament, and yet throwing so much\nlight upon the condition of the text in Irenaeus' time that it may\nbe well to refer to it here. In discussing the signification of\nthe number of the beast in Rev. xiii. 18, Irenaeus already found\nhimself confronted by a variety of reading: some MSS. with which\nhe was acquainted read 616 ([Greek: chis']) for 666 ([Greek: chxs']).\nIrenaeus himself was not in doubt that the latter was the\ntrue reading. He says that it was found in all the 'good and\nancient copies,' and that it was further attested by 'those who\nhad seen John face to face.' He thinks that the error was due to\nthe copyists, who had substituted by mistake the letter [Greek: i]\nfor [Greek: x]. He adds his belief that God would pardon those who\nhad done this without any evil motive.\n\nHere we have opened out a kind of vista extending back almost to\nthe person of St. John himself. There is already a multiplicity of\nMSS., and of these some are set apart 'as good and ancient'\n([Greek: en pasi tois spoudaiois kai archaiois antigraphois]). The\nmethod by which the correct reading had to be determined was as\nmuch historical as it is with us at the present day.\n\nA not dissimilar state of things is indicated somewhat less explicitly\nin regard to the first Gospel. In the text of Matt. i. 18 all the Greek\nMSS., with one exception, read, [Greek: tou de Iaesou Christou hae\ngenesis outos aen], B alone has [Greek: tou de Christou Iaesou]. The\nGreek of D is wanting at this point, but the Latin, d, reads with the\nbest codices of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Curetonian Syriac,\n'Christi autem generatio sic erat' (or an equivalent). Now Irenaeus\nquotes this passage three times. In the first passage [Endnote 330:1]\nthe original Greek text of Irenaeus has been preserved in a quotation of\nGermanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (the context also by Anastasius\nSinaita, but these words appear to be omitted); and the reading of\nGermanus corresponds to that of the great mass of MSS. This however is\nalmost certainly false, as the ancient Latin translation of Irenaeus has\n'Christi autem generatio,' and it was extremely natural for a copyist to\nsubstitute the generally received text, especially in a combination of\nwords that was so familiar. Irenaeus leaves no doubt as to his own\nreading on the next occasion when he quotes the passage, as he does\ntwice over. Here he says expressly: 'Ceterum, potuerat dicere Matthaeus:\n_Jesu vero generatio sic erat_; sed praevidens Spiritus sanctus\ndepravatores, et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum\nait: _Christi autem generatio sic erat_' [Endnote 330:2]. Irenaeus\nfounds an argument upon this directed against the heretics who supposed\nthat the Christus and Jesus were not identical, but that Jesus was the\nson of Mary, upon whom the aeon Christus afterwards descended. In\nopposition to these Irenaeus maintains that the Christus and Jesus are\none and the same person.\n\nThere is a division of opinion among modern critics as to which of\nthe two readings is to be admitted into the text; Griesbach,\nLachmann, Tischendorf (eighth edition), and Scrivener support the\nreading of the MSS.; Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and M'Clellan\nprefer that of Irenaeus. The presence of this reading in the Old\nLatin and Curetonian Syriac proves its wide diffusion. At the same\ntime it is clear that Irenaeus himself was aware of the presence\nof the other reading in some copies which he regarded as bearing\nthe marks of heretical depravation.\n\nIt is unfortunate that fuller illustration cannot be given from\nIrenaeus, but the number of the quotations from the Gospels of\nwhich the Greek text still remains is not large, and where we have\nonly the Latin interpretation we cannot be sure that the actual\ntext of Irenaeus is before us. Much uncertainty is thus raised.\nFor instance, a doubt is expressed by the editors of Irenaeus\nwhether the words 'without a cause' ([Greek: eikae]--sine caussa)\nin the quotation of Matt. v. 22 [Endnote 331:1] belong to the\noriginal text or not. Probably they did so, as they are found in\nthe Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac and in Western authorities\ngenerally. They are wanting however in B, in Origen, and 'in the\ntrue copies' according to Jerome, &c. The words are expunged from\nthe sacred text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and\nM'Clellan. There is a less weight of authority for their\nretention. In any case the double reading was certainly current at\nthe end of the second century, as the words are found in Irenaeus\nand omitted by Tertullian.\n\nThe elaborately varied readings of Matt. xi. 25-27 and Matt. xix.\n16, 17 there can be little doubt are taken from the canonical\ntext. They are both indeed found in a passage (Adv. Haer. i. 20.\n2, 3) where Irenaeus is quoting the heretical Marcosians; and\nvarious approximations are met with, as we have seen, under\nambiguous circumstances in Justin, the Clementine Homilies, and\nMarcion. But similar approximations are also found in Irenaeus\nhimself (speaking in his own person), in Clement of Alexandria,\nOrigen, and Epiphanius, who are undoubtedly quoting from our\nGospels; so that the presence of the variations at that early date\nis proved, though in the first case they receive none, and in the\nsecond very limited, support from the extant MSS. [Endnote 332:1]\nA variety of reading that was in the first instance accidental\nseemed to afford a handle either to the orthodox or to heretical\nparties, and each for a time maintained its own; but with the\nvictory of the orthodox cause the heretical reading gave way, and\nwas finally suppressed before the time at which the extant MSS.\nwere written.\n\nThese are really conspicuous instances of the confusion of text\nalready existing, but I forbear to press them because, though I do\nnot doubt myself the correctness of the account that has been\ngiven of them, still there is just the ambiguity alluded to, and I\ndo not wish to seem to assume the truth of any particular view.\n\nFor minor variations the text of Irenaeus cannot be used\nsatisfactorily, because it is always doubtful whether the Latin\nversion has correctly reproduced the original. And even in those\ncomparatively small portions where the Greek is still preserved,\nit has come down to us through the medium of other writers, and we\nhave just had an instance how easily the distinctive features of\nthe text might be obliterated.\n\nNeither of these elements of uncertainty exists in the case of\nTertullian; and therefore, as the text of his New Testament\nquotations has been edited in a very exact and careful form, I\nshall illustrate what has been said respecting the corruptions\nintroduced in the second century chiefly from him. The following\nmay be taken as a few of the instances in which the existence of a\nvariety of reading can be verified by a comparison of Tertullian's\ntext with that of the MSS. The brackets (as before) indicate\npartial support.\n\nMatt. iii. 8. Dignos poenitentiae fructus (_Pudic_. 10).\n[Greek: Karpous axious taes metanoias] Textus Receptus, L, U, 33,\na, g'2, m, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., etc. [Greek: Karpon axion t. met].\nB, C (D), [Greek: D], 1, etc.; Vulg., b, c, d, f, ff'1, Syr. Hcl.,\nMemph., Theb., Iren., Orig., etc. [Tertullian himself has the\nsingular in _Hermog._ 12, so that he seems to have had both\nreadings in his copies.]\n\nMatt. v. 4, 5. The received order 'beati lugentes' and 'beati\nmites' is followed in _Pat_. 11 [R\u00f6nsch p. 589 and Tisch.,\ncorrecting Treg.], So [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, rel., b, f,\nSyrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm., Aeth. Order inverted in D, 33,\nVulg., a, c, ff'1, g'1.2, h, k, l, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus.,\nHil.\n\nMatt. v. 16. 'Luceant opera vestra' for 'luceat lux vestra,' Tert.\n(bis). So Hil., Ambr., Aug., Celest. [see above, p. 134] against\nall MSS. and versions.\n\nMatt. v. 28. Qui viderit ad concupiscentiam, etc. This verse is\ncited six times by Tertullian, and R\u00f6nsch says (p. 590) that 'in\nthese six citations almost every variant of the Greek text is\nrepresented.'\n\nMatt. v. 48. Qui est in caelis: [Greek: ho en tois ouranois],\nTextus Receptus, with [Greek: Delta symbol], E'2, rel., b, c, d,\ng'1, h, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., Clem., [Greek: ho ouranios], [Hebrew:\nAleph symbol], B, D'2, Z, and i, 33, Vulg., a, f, etc.\n\nMatt. vi. 10. Fiat voluntas tua in caelis et in terra, omitting\n'sicut.' So D, a, b, c, Aug. (expressly, 'some codices').\n\nMatt. xi. ii. Nemo major inter natos feminarum Joanne baptizatore.\n\n'The form of this citation, which neither corresponds with Matt.\nxi. 11 nor with Luke vii. 28, coincides almost exactly with the\nwords which in both the Greek and Latin text of the Codex Bezae\nform the conclusion of Luke vii. 26, [Greek: [hoti] oudeis meizon\nen gennaetois gunaikon [prophaetaes] Ioannou tou baptistou]'\n(R\u00f6nsch, p. 608).\n\nMatt. xiii. 15. Sanem: [Greek: ias\u00f4mai], K, U, X, [Greek: Delta],\nI; Latt. (exc. d), Syr. Crt.; [Greek: iasomai], B, C, D, [Hebrew:\nAleph symbol], rel.\n\nMatt. xv. 26. Non est (only), so Eus. in Ps. 83; [Greek: exestin],\nD, a, b, c, ff, g'1, 1, Syr. Crt., Orig., Hil.; [Greek: ouk estin\nkalon], B, C, [Hebrew aleph], rel., Vulg., c, f, g'2, k, Orig.\n\nThere are of course few quotations that can be distinctly\nidentified as taken from St. Mark, but among these may be\nnoticed:--\n\nMark i. 24. Scimus: [Greek: oidamen se], [Hebrew aleph], L,\n[Greek: Delta], Memph., Iren., Orig., Eus.; [Greek: oida se tis\nei], A, B, C, D, rel., Latt., Syrr.\n\nMark ix. 7. Hunc audite: [Greek: autou akouete], A, X, rel., b, f,\nSyrr.; [Greek: akouete autou], [Hebrew: aleph] B, C, D, L, a, c,\nff'1, etc. [This may be however from Matt. xvii. 5, where\nTertullian's reading has somewhat stronger support.]\n\nThe variations in quotations from St. Luke have been perhaps\nsufficiently illustrated in the chapter on Marcion. We may\ntherefore omit this Gospel and pass to St. John. A very remarkable\nreading meets us at the outset.\n\nJohn i. 13. Non ex sanguine nec ex voluntate carnis nec ex\nvoluntate viri, sed ex deo natus est. The Greek of all the MSS.\nand Versions, with the single exception of b of the Old Latin, is\n[Greek: oi egennaethaesan]. A sentence is thus applied to Christ\nthat was originally intended to be applied to the Christian.\nTertullian (_De Carne Christ._ 19, 24), though he also had the\nright reading before him, boldly accuses the Valentinians of a\nfalsification, and lays stress upon the reading which he adopts as\nproof of the veritable birth of Christ from a virgin. The same\ntext is found in b (Codex Veronensis) of the Old Latin, Pseudo-\nAthanasius, the Latin translator of Origen's commentary on St.\nMatthew, in Augustine, and three times in Irenaeus. The same codex\nhas, like Tertullian, the singular ex sanguine for the plural\n[Greek: ex ahimaton]: so Eusebius and Hilary.\n\nJohn iii. 36. Manebit (=[Greek: mene\u00ee], for [Greek: m\u00e9nei]). So b,\ne, g, Syr. Pst., Memph., Aeth., Iren., Cypr.; against a, c, d, f,\nff, Syrr. Crt. and Hcl., etc.\n\nJohn v. 3, 4. The famous paragraph which describes the moving of\nthe waters of the pool of Bethesda was found in Tertullian's MS.\nIt is also found in the mass of MSS., in the Old Latin and\nVulgate, in Syrr. Pst. and Jer., and in some MSS. of Memph. It is\nomitted in [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, D (v. 4), f, l, Syr.\nCrt., Theb., Memph. (most MSS.). Tertullian gives the name of the\npool as Bethsaida with B, Vulg., c, Syr. Hcl., Memph. Most of the\nauthorities read [Greek: baethesda]. [Greek: baethzatha,\nbaezatha], Berzeta, Belzatha, and Betzeta are also found.\n\nJohn v. 43. Recepistis, perf. for pres. ([Greek: lambanete]). So\na, b, Iren., Vigil., Ambr., Jer.\n\nJohn vi. 39. Non perdam ex eo quicquam. Here 'quicquam' is an\naddition (=[Greek: maeden]), found in D, a, b, ff, Syr. Crt.\n\nJohn vi. 51. Et panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi, caro mea\nest. This almost exactly corresponds with the reading of [Hebrew:\nAleph], [Greek: ho artos hon ego doso huper taes tou kosmou zoaes,\nhae sarx mou estin]. Similarly, but with inversion of the last two\nclauses ([Greek: hae sarx mou estin huper taes tou kosmou zoaes]),\nB, C, D and T, 33, Vulg., a, b, c, e, m, Syr. Crt., Theb., Aeth.,\nOrig., Cypr. The received text is [Greek: kai ho artos [de] dae\nego doso, hae sarx mou estin aen ego doso huper taes tou kosmou\nzoaes], after E, G, H, K, M, S, etc.\n\nJohn xii. 30. Venit (= [Greek: aelthen] for [Greek: gegonen]),\nwith D (Tregelles), [also a, b, l, n (?), Vulg. (_fuld_.),\nHil., Victorin.; R\u00f6nsch].\n\nThe instances that have been here given are all, or nearly all,\nfalse readings on the part of Tertullian. It is, of course, only\nas such that they are in point for the present enquiry. Some few\nof those mentioned have been admitted into the text by certain\nmodern editors. Thus, on Matt. v. 4, 5 Tertullian's reading finds\nsupport in Westcott and Hort: and M'Clellan, against Tischendorf\nand Tregelles. [This instance perhaps should not be pressed. I\nleave it standing, because it shows interesting relations between\nTertullian and the various forms of the Old Latin.] The passage\nomitted in John v. 3, 4 is argued for strenuously by Mr. M'Clellan,\nwith more hesitation by Dr. Scrivener, and in 'Supernatural Religion'\n(sixth edition), against Tregelles, Tischendorf, Milligan, Lightfoot,\nWestcott and Hort. In the same passage Bethsaida is read by Lachmann\n(margin) and by Westcott and Hort. In John vi. 51 the reading of\nTertullian and the Sinaitic Codex is defended by Tischendorf; the\napproximate reading of B, C, D, &c. is admitted by Lachmann, Tregelles,\nMilligan, Westcott and Hort, and the received text has an apologist\nin Mr. M'Clellan (with Tholuck and Wordsworth). On these points then\nit should be borne in mind that Tertullian _may_ present the true\nreading; on all the others he is pretty certainly wrong.\n\nLet us now proceed to analyse roughly these erroneous (in three\ncases _doubtfully_ erroneous) readings. We shall find [Endnote 336:1]\nthat Tertullian--\n\n      _Agrees with_                         _Differs from_\nx (Codex Sinaiticus) in Mark         | in Matt. iii. 18, v. 16, v. 48,\ni. 2 4, John vi. 51.                 |  vi. 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv.\n                                     |  26, Mark ix. 7, John i. 13,\n                                     |  v. 3, 43, v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30.\nA (Codex Alexandrinus) in            |A in Mark i. 24, John i. 13,\n  Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4.          |  v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30.\nB (Codex Vaticanus) in John          |B in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, vi.\n  v. 2, (vi. 51).                    |  10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. 26,\n                                     |  Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13,\n                                     |  v. 3,4, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30.\nC (Codex Ephraemi--somewhat          |C in Matt. iii. 8, xi. 11, xiii.\n  fragmentary) in John               |  15, xv. 26, Mark i. 24, ix. 7,\n  (vi. 51).                          |  John i. 13, v. 3, 4, vi. 39.\nD (Codex Bezae--in some              |D in Matt. (iii. 8), v. 16, v. 48,\nplaces wanting) in Matt. vi.         |  xiii. 15, Mark i. 24, ix. 7,\n10, Xi. 11, (xv. 26), John (vi.      |  John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 4, v. 43.\n51), xii. 30.                        |\n                                     |\n     GREEK FATHERS.                  |\nClement of Alexandria, in Matt.      |\nv. 16, v. 48.                        |\nOrigen, in Matt. (xv. 26), Mark      |Origen, in Matt. iii. 8, (xv. 26),\n  i. 24, John i. 13 (Latin trans-    |\n  lator), (vi. 51).                  |\nEusebius, in Matt. xv. 26, Mark      |\ni. 24, John i. 13 (partially).       |\n                                     |\n     LATIN FATHERS.                  |\nIrenaeus, in Mark i. 24, John        |Irenaeus in Matt. iii. 8.\n  i. 13 (ter), iii. 36, v. 43.       |\nCyprian, in John iii. 36, (vi. 51).  |\nAugustine, in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10.   |\nAmbrose, in Matt. v. 16, John v. 43. |\nHilary, in Matt. v. 16, (xv. 26),    |\n  John xii. 30.                      |\nOthers, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48,       |\n  John i. 13, v. 43, xii. 30.        |\n                                     |\n     VERSIONS.                       |\nOld Latin--                          |\na (Codex Vercellensis), in Matt.     |a, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, xi. 11,\n  (iii. 8), vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv.   |   Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13,\n  26), John v. 3, 4, v. 43, (vi.     |   iii. 36.\n  51), xii. 30.                      |\nb (Codex Veronensis), in Matt.       |b, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11,\n  v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 36), |   Mark i. 24.\n  Mark ix. 7, John i. 13,            |\n  iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43,           |\n  (vi. 51), xii. 30.                 |\nc (Codex Colbertinus), in Matt.      |c, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11,\n  v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 26), |   Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13,\n  John v. 3, 4, (vi. 51).            |   iii. 36, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30.\nf (Codex Brixianus), in Matt.        |f, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48,\n  xiii. 15, Mark ix. 7.              |   vi. 10, xi. 10, xv. 26, Mark\n                                     |   i. 24, John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 3,\n                                     |   4, v. 43, vi. 39, vi. 51, xii. 30.\nOther codices, in Matt. iii. 8,      |Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8,\n  vi. 10, Xiii. 5, (xv. 26), John    |   v. 16, v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11,\n  iii. 36, v. 3, 4, vi. 39, (vi. 51),|   Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13,\n  xii. 30.                           |   iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, vi. 39,\n                                     |   vi. 51, xii. 30.\nVulgate, in Matt. xiii. 15, John     |Vulgate, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16,\n  v. 3, 4, (vi. 51), xii. 30         |   v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, xv. 26,\n  (_fuld._).                         |   Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13,\n                                     |   iii. 36, v. 43, vi. 39.\nSyriac--                             |\nSyr. Crt. (fragmentary), in          |Syr. Crt., in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10,\n  Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, xiii. 15,     |   xi. 11, John (i. 13, ? Tregelles)\n  (xv. 26), John (i. 13, ? Crowfoot),|   iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43.\n  vi. 39, (vi. 51.).                 |\nSyr. Pst., in Matt. iii. 8, v. 48,   |Syr. Pst., in Matt. vi. 10, Mark\n  Mark ix. 7, John iii. 36, v. 3, 4. |   i. 24, John i. 13, (vi. 51),\n                                     |   xii. 30\n\n[The evidence of this and the following versions is only given where it\nis either expressly stated or left to be clearly inferred by the editors.]\n\nEgyptian--\nThebaic, in John (vi. 51).           |Thebaic, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16,\n                                     |  Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4.\nMemphitic, in Mark i. 24, John       |Memphitic, in Matt. iii. 8, v.\n  iii. 36.                           |  16, (v. 48), Mark ix. 7, John\n                                     |  v. 3, 4, vi. 51.\n\nSumming up the results numerically they would be something of this\nkind:--\n\n               UNCIAL MSS.\n\n           [Hebrew:    A    B    C    D\n            Alef]\n\nAgreement        2     2    2    1    5\nDifference      13     5   14    9   10\n\n\n               GREEK FATHERS.\n\n              Clement\n                 of\n             Alexandria.   Origen.   Eusebius.\nAgreement        1            4          3\nDifference       0            2          0\n\n\n               LATIN FATHERS.\n\n          Irenaeus.  Cyprian.  Augustine.  Ambrose.  Hilary.  Others.\nAgreement    4          2          2          2        3        5\nDifference   1          0          0          0        0        0\n\n\n               VERSIONS.\n\n               OLD LATIN.                VULGATE.\n              a    b    c    f   rel.\nAgreement     8   11    6    2    9         4\nDifference    7    4   10   14   14        12\n\n\n               SYRIAC.        EGYPTIAN.\n            Crt.   Pst.     Theb.  Memph.\nAgreement    7      5         1      2\nDifference   7      5         4      6\n\n\nNow the phenomena here, as on other occasions when we have had to\ntouch upon text criticism, are not quite simple and straightforward.\nIt must be remembered too that our observations extend only over\na very narrow area. Within that area they are confined to the cases\nwhere Tertullian has _gone wrong_; whereas, in order to anything\nlike a complete induction, all the cases of various reading ought\nto be considered. Some results, however, of a rough and approximate\nkind may be said to be reached; and I think that these will be\nperhaps best exhibited if, premising that they are thus rough\nand approximate, we throw them into the shape of a genealogical tree.\n\n                                 Tert.    b\n                                      \\  /\n                                       \\/   O.L. (a.c. &c.)\n                                        \\  /\n                                         \\/     Syr. Crt.\n                                          \\    /\n                                 Tert. O.L.\\  /\n                                            \\/\n             Greek Fathers.                 /\n                           \\     Tert. O.L./\n                            \\    Syr. Crt./\n                             \\           /\n                              \\         /\n                               \\       /\n                                \\     /\nBest Alexandrine Authorities.    \\   /\n             \\                    \\ / Western.\n              \\                    /\n               \\    Greek Fathers /\n                \\   Memph. Theb. /\n                 \\              /\n                  \\            /\n                   \\          /\n                    \\        /\n                     \\      /\n                      \\    /\n                       \\  /\n                        ||\n           Alexandrine. || Western.\n                        ||\n                        /\\\n              The Sacred Autographs.\n\n\nIn accordance with the sketch here given we may present the\nhistory of the text, up to the time when it reached Tertullian,\nthus. First we have the sacred autographs, which are copied for\nsome time, we need not say immaculately, but without change on the\npoints included in the above analysis. Gradually a few errors slip\nin, which are found especially in the Egyptian, versions and in\nthe works of some Alexandrine and Palestinian Fathers. But in time\na wider breach is made. The process of corruption becomes more\nrapid. We reach at last that strange document which, through more\nor less remote descent, became the parent of the Curetonian Syriac\non the one hand and of the Old Latin on the other. These two lines\nseverally branch off. The Old Latin itself divides. One of its\ncopies in particular (b) seems to represent a text that has a\nclose affinity to that of Tertullian, and among the group of\nmanuscripts to which it belongs is that which Tertullian himself\nmost frequently and habitually used.\n\nStrictly speaking indeed there can be no true genealogical tree.\nThe course of descent is not clear and direct all the way. There\nis some confusion and some crossing and recrossing of the lines.\nThus, for instance, there is the curious coincidence of Tertullian\nwith [Hebrew: Aleph], a member of a group that had long seemed to\nbe left behind, in John vi. 51. This however, as it is only on a\npoint of order and that in a translation, may very possibly be\naccidental; I should incline to think that the reading of the\nGreek Codex from which Tertullian's Latin was derived agreed\nrather with that of B, C, D, &c., and these phenomena would\nincrease the probability that these manuscripts and Tertullian had\nreally preserved the original text. If that were the case--and it\nis the conclusion arrived at by a decided majority of the best\neditors--there would then be no considerable difficulty in regard\nto the relation between Tertullian and the five great Uncials, for\nthe reading of Mark ix. 7 is of much less importance. Somewhat\nmore difficult to adjust would be Tertullian's relations to the\ndifferent forms of the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac. In one\ninstance, Matt. xi. 11 (or Luke vii. 26), Tertullian seems to\nderive his text from the Dd branch rather than the b branch of the\nOld Latin. In another (Matt. iii. 8) he seems to overleap b and\nmost copies of the Old Latin altogether and go to the Curetonian\nSyriac. How, too, did he come to have the paraphrastic reading of\nMatt. v. 16 which is found in no MSS. or versions but in Justin\n(approximately), Clement of Alexandria, and several Latin Fathers?\nThe paraphrase might naturally enough occur to a single writer\nhere or there, but the extent of the coincidence is remarkable.\nPerhaps we are to see here another sign of the study bestowed by\nthe Fathers upon the writings of their predecessors leading to an\nunconscious or semi-conscious reproduction of their deviations. It\nis a noticeable fact that in regard to the order of the clauses in\nMatt. v. 4, 5, Tertullian has preserved what is probably the right\nreading along with b alone, the other copies of the Old Latin (all\nexcept the revised f) with the Curetonian Syriac having gone\nwrong. On the whole the complexities and cross relations are less,\nand the genealogical tree holds good to a greater extent, than we\nmight have been prepared for. The hypothesis that Tertullian used\na manuscript in the main resembling b of the Old Latin satisfies\nmost elements of the problem.\n\nBut the merest glance at these phenomena must be enough to show\nthat the T\u00fcbingen theory, or any theory which attributes a late\norigin to our Gospels, is out of the question. To bring the text\ninto the state in which it is found in the writings of Tertullian,\na century is not at all too long a period to allow. In fact I\ndoubt whether any subsequent century saw changes so great, though\nwe should naturally suppose that corruption would proceed at an\nadvancing rate for every fresh copy that was made. The phenomena\nthat have to be accounted for are not, be it remembered, such as\nmight be caused by the carelessness of a single scribe. They are\nspread over whole groups of MSS. together. We can trace the\ngradual accessions of corruption at each step as we advance in the\nhistory of the text. A certain false reading comes in at such a\npoint and spreads over all the manuscripts that start from that;\nanother comes in at a further stage and vitiates succeeding copies\nthere; until at last a process of correction and revision sets in;\nrecourse is had to the best standard manuscripts, and a purer text\nis recovered by comparison with these. It is precisely such a text\nthat is presented by the Old Latin Codex f, which, we find\naccordingly, shows a maximum of difference from Tertullian. A\nstill more systematic revision, though executed--if we are to\njudge from the instances brought to our notice--with somewhat\nmore reserve, is seen in Jerome's Vulgate.\n\nIt seems unnecessary to dilate upon this point. I will only\nventure to repeat the statement which I made at starting; that if\nthe whole of the Christian literature for the first three quarters\nof the second century could be blotted out, and Irenaeus and\nTertullian alone remained, as well as the later manuscripts with\nwhich to compare them, there would still be ample proof that the\nlatest of our Gospels cannot overstep the bounds of the first\ncentury. The abundant indications of internal evidence are thus\nconfirmed, and the age and date of the Synoptic Gospels, I think\nwe may say, within approximate limits, established.\n\nBut we must not forget that there is a double challenge to be met.\nThe first part of it--that which relates to the evidence for the\nexistence of the Gospels--has been answered. It remains to\nconsider how far the external evidence for the Gospels goes to\nprove their authenticity. It may indeed well be asked how the\nexternal evidence can be expected to prove the authenticity of\nthese records. It does so, to a considerable extent, indirectly by\nthrowing them back into closer contact with the facts. It also\ntends to establish the authority in which they were held,\ncertainly in the last quarter of the second century, and very\nprobably before. By this time the Gospels were acknowledged to be\nall that is now understood by the word 'canonical.' They were\nplaced upon the same footing as the Old Testament Scriptures. They\nwere looked up to with the same reverence and regarded as\npossessing the same Divine inspiration. We may trace indeed some\nof the steps by which this position was attained. The [Greek:\ngegraptai] of the Epistle of Barnabas, the public reading of the\nGospels in the churches mentioned by Justin, the [Greek: to\neiraemenon] of Tatian, the [Greek: guriakai graphai] of Dionysius\nof Corinth, all prepare the way for the final culmination in the\nMuratorian Canon and Irenaeus. So complete had the process been\nthat Irenaeus does not seem to know of a time when the authority\nof the Gospels had been less than it was to him. Yet the process\nhad been, of course, gradual. The canonical Gospels had to compete\nwith several others before they became canonical. They had to make\ngood their own claims and to displace rival documents; and they\nsucceeded. It is a striking instance of the 'survival of the\nfittest.' That they were really the fittest is confirmed by nearly\nevery fragment of the lost Gospels that remains, but it would be\nalmost sufficiently proved by the very fact that they survived.\n\nIn this indirect manner I think that the external evidence bears\nout the position assigned to the canonical Gospels. It has\npreserved to us the judgment of the men of that time, and there is\na certain relative sense in which the maxim, 'Securus judicat\norbis terrarum,' is true. The decisions of an age, especially\ndecisions such as this where quite as much depended upon pious\nfeeling as upon logical reasoning, are usually sounder than the\narguments that are put forward to defend them. We should hardly\nendorse the arguments by which Irenaeus proves _a priori_ the\nnecessity of a 'four-fold Gospel,' but there is real weight in the\nfact that four Gospels and no more were accepted by him and others\nlike him. It is difficult to read without impatience the rough\nwords that are applied to the early Christian writers and to\ncontrast the self-complacency in which our own superior knowledge\nis surveyed. If there is something in which they are behind us,\nthere is much also in which we are behind them. Among the many\nthings for which Mr. Arnold deserves our gratitude he deserves it\nnot least for the way in which he has singled out two sentences,\none from St. Augustine and the other from the Imitation, 'Domine\nfecisti nos ad te et irrequietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat\nin te,' and, 'Esto humilis et pacificus et erit tecum, Jesus.' The\nmen who could write thus are not to be despised.\n\nBut beyond their more general testimony it is not clear what else\nthe early Fathers could be expected to do. They could not prove--\nat least their written remains that have come down to us could not\nprove--that the Gospels were really written by the authors\ntraditionally assigned to them. When we say that the very names of\nthe first two Evangelists are not mentioned before a date that may\nbe from 120-166 (or 155) A.D. and the third and fourth not before\n170-175 A.D., this alone is enough, without introducing other\nelements of doubt, to show that the evidence must needs be\ninconclusive. If the author of 'Supernatural Religion' undertook\nto show this, he undertook a superfluous task. So much at least,\nMr. Arnold was right in saying, 'might be stated in a sentence and\nproved in a page.' There is a presumption in favour of the\ntradition, and perhaps, considering the relation of Irenaeus to\nPolycarp and of Polycarp to St. John, we may say, a fairly strong\none; but we need now-a-days, to authenticate a document, closer\nevidence than this. The cases are not quite parallel, and the\ndifference between them is decidedly in favour of Irenaeus, but if\nClement of Alexandria could speak of an Epistle written about 125\nA.D. is the work of the apostolic Barnabas the companion of St.\nPaul [Endnote 346:1], we must not lay too much stress upon the\ndirect testimony of Irenaeus when he attributes the fourth Gospel\nto the Apostle St. John.\n\nThese are points for a different set of arguments to determine.\nThe Gospel itself affords sufficient indications as to the\nposition of its author. For the conclusion that he was a\nPalestinian Jew, who had lived in Palestine before the destruction\nof Jerusalem, familiar with the hopes and expectations of his\npeople, and himself mixed up with the events which he describes,\nthere is evidence of such volume and variety as seems exceedingly\ndifficult to resist. As I have gone into this subject at length\nelsewhere [Endnote 347:1], and as, so far as I can see, no new\nelement has been introduced into the question by 'Supernatural\nReligion,' I shall not break the unity of the present work by\nconsidering the objections brought in detail. I am very ready to\nrecognise the ability with which many of these are stated, but it\nis the ability of the advocate rather than of the impartial\ncritic. There is a constant tendency to draw conclusions much in\nexcess of the premisses. An observation, true in itself with a\ncertain qualification and restriction, is made in an unqualified\nform, and the truth that it contains is exaggerated. Above all,\nwherever there is a margin of ignorance, wherever a statement of\nthe Evangelist is not capable of direct and exact verification,\nthe doubt is invariably given against him and he is brought in\nguilty either of ignorance or deception. I have no hesitation in\nsaying that if the principles of criticism applied to the fourth\nGospel--not only by the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' but by\nsome other writers of repute, such as Dr. Scholten--were applied\nto ordinary history or to the affairs of every-day life, much that\nis known actually to have happened could be shown on _a priori_\ngrounds to be impossible. It is time that the extreme negative\nschool should justify more completely their canons of criticism.\nAs it is, the laxity of these repels many a thoughtful mind quite\nas firmly convinced as they can be of the necessity of free\nenquiry and quite as anxious to reconcile the different sides\nof knowledge. The question is not one merely of freedom or\ntradition, but of reason and logic; and until there is more\nagreement as to what is reasonable and what the laws of logic\ndemand, the arguments are apt to run in parallel lines that never\nmeet [Endnote 348:1].\n\nBut, it is said, 'Miracles require exceptional evidence.' True:\nexceptional evidence they both require and possess; but that evidence is\nnot external. Incomparably the strongest attestation to the Gospel\nnarratives is that which they bear to themselves. Miracles have\nexceptional evidence because the non-miraculous portions of the\nnarrative with which they are bound up are exceptional. These carry\ntheir truth stamped upon their face, and that truth is reflected back\nupon the miracles. It is on the internal investigation of the Gospels\nthat the real issue lies. And this is one main reason why the belief of\nmankind so little depends upon formal apologetics. We can all feel the\nself- evidential force of the Gospel story; but who shall present it\nadequately in words? We are reminded of the fate of him who thought the\nark of God was falling and put out his hand to steady it--and, for his\nprofanity, died. It can hardly be said that good intentions would be a\nsufficient justification, because that a man should think himself fit\nfor the task would be in itself almost a sufficient sign that he was\nmistaken. It is not indeed quite incredible that the qualifications\nshould one day be found. We seem almost to see that, with a slight\nalteration of circumstances, a little different training in early life,\nsuch an one has almost been among us. There are passages that make us\nthink that the author of 'Parochial and Plain Sermons' might have\ntouched even the Gospels with cogency that yet was not profane. But the\ncombination of qualities required is such as would hardly be found for\ncenturies together. The most fine and sensitive tact of piety would be\nessential. With it must go absolute sincerity and singleness of purpose.\nAny dash of mere conventionalism or self-seeking would spoil the whole.\nThere must be that clear illuminated insight that is only given to those\nwho are in a more than ordinary sense 'pure in heart.' And on the other\nhand, along with these unique spiritual qualities must go a sound and\nexact scientific training, a just perception of logical force and\nmethod, and a wide range of knowledge. One of the great dangers and\ndrawbacks to the exercise of the critical faculty is that it tends to\ndestroy the spiritual intuition. And just in like manner the too great\nreliance upon this intuition benumbs and impoverishes the critical\nfaculty. Yet, in a mind that should present at all adequately the\ninternal evidence of the Gospels, both should co-exist in equal balance\nand proportion. We cannot say that there will never be such a mind,\nbut the asceticism of a life would be a necessary discipline for it\nto go through, and that such a life as the world has seldom seen.\n\nIn the meantime the private Christian may well be content with what he\nhas. 'If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether\nit be of God.'\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\nAnd now that we have come to the end of the purely critical\nportion of this enquiry, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few\nwords on its general tendency and bearing. As critics we have only\nthe critical question to deal with. Certain evidence is presented\nto us which it is our duty to weigh and test by reference to\nlogical and critical laws. It must stand or fall on its own\nmerits, and any considerations brought in from without will be\nirrelevant to the question at issue. But after this is done we may\nfairly look round and consider how our conclusion affects other\nconclusions and in what direction it is leading us. If we look at\n'Supernatural Religion' in this way we shall see that its tendency\nis distinctly marked. Its attack will fall chiefly upon the middle\nparty in opinion. And it will play into the hands of the two\nextreme parties on either side. There can be little doubt that\nindirectly it will help the movement that is carrying so many into\nUltramontanism, and directly it is of course intended to win\nconverts to what may perhaps be called comprehensively Secularism.\n\nNow it is certainly true that the argument from consequences is\none that ought to be applied with great caution. Yet I am not at\nall sure that it has not a real basis in philosophy as well as in\nnature. The very existence of these two great parties, the\nUltramontane and the Secularist, over against each other, seems to\nbe it kind of standing protest against either of them. If\nUltramontanism is true, how is it that so many wise and good men\nopenly avow Secularism? If 'Secularism is true, how is it that so\nmany of the finest and highest minds take refuge from it--a\ntreacherous refuge, I allow--in Ultramontanism? There is\nsomething in this more than a mere defective syllogism--more than\nan insufficient presentation of the evidence. Truth, in the widest\nsense, is that which is in accordance with the laws and conditions\nof human nature. But where beliefs are so directly antithetical as\nthey are here, the repugnance and resistance which each is found\nto cause in so large a number of minds is in itself a proof that\nthose laws and conditions are insufficiently complied with. To the\nspectator, standing outside of both, this will seem to be easily\nexplained: the one sacrifices reason to faith; the other\nsacrifices faith to reason. But there is abundant evidence to show\nthat both faith (meaning thereby the religious emotions) and\nreason are ineradicable elements in the human mind. That which\nseriously and permanently offends against either cannot be true.\nFor creatures differently constituted from man--either all reason\nor all pure disembodied emotion--it might be otherwise; but, for\nman, as he is, the epithet 'true' seems to be excluded from any\nset of propositions that has such results.\n\nEven in the more limited sense, and confining the term to\npropositions purely intellectual, there is, I think we must say, a\npresumption against the truth of that which involves so deep and\nwide a chasm in human nature. Without importing teleology, we\nshould naturally expect that the intellect and the emotions should\nbe capable of working harmoniously together. They do so in most\nthings: why should they not in the highest matters of all? If the\none set of opinions is anti-rational and the other anti-emotional,\nas we see practically that they are, is not this in itself an\nantecedent presumption against either of them? It may not be\nenough to prove at once that the syllogism is defective: still\nless is it a sufficient warrant for establishing an opposite\nsyllogism. But it does seem to be enough to give the scientific\nreasoner pause, and to make him go over the line of his argument\nagain and again and yet again, with the suspicion that there is\n(as how well there may be!) a flaw somewhere.\n\nIt would not, I think, be difficult to point out such flaws\n[Endnote 352:1]--some of them, as it appears, of considerable\nmagnitude. But the subject is one that would take us far away out\nof our present course, and for its proper development would\nrequire a technical knowledge of the processes of physical science\nwhich I do not possess. Leaving this on one side, and regarding\nthem only in the abstract, the considerations stated above seem to\npoint to the necessity of something of the nature of a compromise.\nAnd yet there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as compromise\nin opinions. Compromise belongs to the world of practice; it is\nonly admitted by an illicit process into the world of thought. The\nauthor of 'Supernatural Religion' is doubtless right in\ndeprecating that 'illogical zeal which flings to the pursuing\nwolves of doubt and unbelief, scrap by scrap,' all the distinctive\ndoctrines of Christianity. Belief, it is true, must be ultimately\nlogical to stand. It must have an inner cohesion and inter-\ndependence. It must start from a fixed principle. This has been,\nand still is, the besetting weakness of the theology of mediation.\nIt is apt to form itself merely by stripping off what seem to be\nexcrescences from the outside, and not by radically reconstructing\nitself, on a firmly established basis, from within. The difficulty\nin such a process is to draw the line. There is a delusive\nappearance of roundness and completeness in the creeds of those\nwho either accept everything or deny everything: though, even\nhere, there is, I think we may say, always, some little loophole\nleft of belief or of denial, which will inevitably expand until it\nsplits and destroys the whole structure. But the moment we begin\nto meet both parties half way, there comes in that crucial\nquestion: Why do you accept just so much and no more? Why do you\ndeny just so much and no more? [Endnote 354:1]\n\nIt must, in candour, be confessed that the synthetic formula for the\nmiddle party in opinion has not yet been found. Other parties have\ntheir formulae, but none that will really bear examination. _Quod\nsemper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus_, would do excellently if there\nwas any belief that had been held 'always, everywhere, and by all,' if\nno discoveries had been made as to the facts, and if there had been no\nadvance in the methods of knowledge. The ultimate universality and the\nabsolute uniformity of physical antecedents has a plausible appearance\nuntil it is seen that logically carried out it reduces men to machines,\nannihilates responsibility, and involves conclusions on the assumption\nof the truth of which society could not hold together for a single day.\nIf we abandon these Macedonian methods for unloosing the Gordian knot\nof things and keep to the slow and laborious way of gradual induction,\nthen I think it will be clear that all opinions must be held on the\nmost provisional tenure. A vast number of problems will need to be\nworked out before any can be said to be established with a pretence to\nfinality. And the course which the inductive process is taking supplies\none of the chief 'grounds of hope' to those who wish to hold that\nmiddle position of which I have been speaking. The extreme theories\nwhich from time to time have been advanced have not been able to hold\ntheir ground. No doubt they may have done the good that extreme\ntheories usually do, in bringing out either positively or negatively\none side or another of the truth; but in themselves they have been\nrejected as at once inadequate and unreal solutions of the facts. First\nwe had the Rationalism (properly so called) of Paulus, then the\nMythical hypothesis of Strauss, and after that the 'Tendenz-kritik' of\nBaur. But what candid person does not feel that each and all of these\ncontained exaggerations more incredible than the difficulties which\nthey sought to remove? There has been on each of the points raised a\nmore or less definite ebb in the tide. The moderate conclusion is seen\nto be also the reasonable conclusion. And not least is this the case\nwith the enquiry on which we have been just engaged. The author of\n'Supernatural Religion' has overshot the mark very much indeed. There\nis, as we have seen, a certain truth in some things that he has said,\nbut the whole sum of truth is very far from bearing out his conclusions.\n\nWhen we look up from these detailed enquiries and lift up our eyes\nto a wider horizon we shall be able to relegate them to their true\nplace. The really imposing witness to the truth of Christianity is\nthat which is supplied by history on the one hand, and its own\ninternal attractiveness and conformity to human nature on the\nother. Strictly speaking, perhaps, these are but two sides of the\nsame thing. It is in history that the laws of human nature assume\na concrete shape and expression. The fact that Christianity has\nheld its ground in the face of such long-continued and hostile\ncriticism is a proof that it must have some deeply-seated fitness\nand appropriateness for man. And this goes a long way towards\nsaying that it is true. It is a theory of things that is being\nconstantly tested by experience. But the results of experience are\noften expressed unconsciously. They include many a subtle\nindication that the mind has followed but cannot reproduce to\nitself in set terms. All the reasons that go to form a judge's\ndecision do not appear in his charge. Yet there we have a select\nand highly-trained mind working upon matter that presents no very\ngreat degree of complexity. When we come to a question so wide, so\nsubtle and complex as Christianity, the individual mind ceases to\nbe competent to sit in judgment upon it. It becomes necessary to\nappeal to a much more extended tribunal, and the verdict of that\ntribunal will be given rather by acts than in words. Thus there\nseems to have always been a sort of half-conscious feeling in\nmen's minds that there was more in Christianity than the arguments\nfor it were able to bring out. In looking back over the course\nthat apologetics have taken, we cannot help being struck by a\ndisproportion between the controversial aspect and the practical.\nIt will probably on the whole be admitted that the balance of\nargument has in the past been usually somewhat on the side of the\napologists; but the argumentative victory has seldom if ever been\nso decisive as quite to account for the comparatively undisturbed\ncontinuity of the religious life. It was in the height of the\nDeist controversy that Wesley and Whitfield began to preach, and\nthey made more converts by appealing to the emotions than probably\nButler did by appealing to the reason.\n\nA true philosophy must take account of these phenomena. Beliefs\nwhich issue in that peculiarly fine and chastened and tender\nspirit which is the proper note of Christianity, cannot, under any\ncircumstances, be dismissed as 'delusion.' Surely if any product\nof humanity is true and genuine, it is to be found here. There are\nindeed truths which find a response in our hearts without\napparently going through any logical process, not because they are\nillogical, but because the scales of logic are not delicate and\nsensitive enough to weigh them.\n\n'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall\nnot enter into the kingdom of heaven.' 'I will arise and go to my\nfather, and will say unto him: Father, I have sinned against\nheaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy\nson.' 'Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I\nwill give you rest.' The plummet of science--physical or\nmetaphysical, moral or critical--has never sounded so deep as\nsayings such as these. We may pass them over unnoticed in our\nBibles, or let them slip glibly and thoughtlessly from the tongue;\nbut when they once really come home, there is nothing to do but to\nbow the head and cover the face and exclaim with the Apostle,\n'Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.'\n\nAnd yet there is that other side of the question which is represented\nin 'Supernatural Religion,' and this too must have justice done to it.\nThere is an intellectual, as well as a moral and spiritual, synthesis\nof things. Only it should be remembered that this synthesis has to\ncover an immense number of facts of the most varied and intricate kind,\nand that at present the nature of the facts themselves is in many cases\nvery far from being accurately ascertained. We are constantly reminded\nin reading 'Supernatural Religion,' able and vigorous as it is, how\nmuch of its force depends rather upon our ignorance than our knowledge.\nIt supplies us with many opportunities of seeing how easily the whole\ncourse and tenour of an argument may be changed by the introduction of\na new element. For instance, I imagine that if the author had given a\nlittle deeper study to the seemingly minute and secondary subject of\ntext-criticism, it would have aroused in him very considerable\nmisgivings as to the results at which he seemed to have arrived. There\nis a solidarity in all the different departments of human knowledge and\nresearch, especially among those that are allied in subject. These are\ncontinually sending out offshoots and projections into the neighbouring\nregions, and the conclusions of one science very often have to depend\nupon those of another. The course of enquiry that has been taken in\n'Supernatural Religion' is peculiarly unfortunate. It starts from the\nwrong end. It begins with propositions into which _a priori_\nconsiderations largely enter, and, from the standpoint given by these,\nit proceeds to dictate terms in a field that can only be trodden by\npatient and unprejudiced study. A far more hopeful and scientific\nprocess would have been to begin upon ground where dogmatic questions\ndo not enter, or enter only in a remote degree, and where there is a\nsufficient number of solid ascertainable facts to go upon, and then to\nwork the way steadily and cautiously upwards to higher generalisations.\n\nIt will have been seen in the course of the present enquiry how\nmany side questions need to be determined. It would be well if\nmonographs were written upon all the quotations from the Old\nTestament in the Christian literature of the first two centuries,\nmodelled upon Credner's investigations into the quotations in\nJustin. Before this is done there should be a new and revised\nedition of Holmes' and Parsons' Septuagint [Endnote 359:1].\nEverything short of this would be inadequate, because we need to\nknow not only the best text, but every text that has definite\nhistorical attestation. In this way it would be possible to arrive\nat a tolerably exact, instead of a merely approximate, deduction\nas to the habit of quotation generally, which would supply a\nfirmer basis for inference in regard to the New Testament than\nthat which has been assumed here. At the same time monographs\nshould be written in English, besides those already existing in\nGerman, upon the date or position of the writers whose works come\nunder review. Without any attempt to prove a particular thesis,\nthe reader should be allowed to see precisely what the evidence is\nand how far it goes. Then if he could not arrive at a positive\nconclusion, he could at least attain to the most probable. And,\nlastly, it is highly important that the whole question of the\ncomposition and structure of the Synoptic Gospels should be\ninvestigated to the very bottom. Much valuable labour has already\nbeen expended upon this subject, but the result, though progress\nhas been made, is rather to show its extreme complexity and\ndifficulty than to produce any final settlement. Yet, as the\nauthor of 'Supernatural Religion' has rather dimly and inadequately\nseen, we are constantly thrown back upon assumptions borrowed from\nthis quarter.\n\nPending such more mature and thorough enquiries, I quite feel that\nmy own present contribution belongs to a transition stage, and\ncannot profess to be more than provisional. But it will have\nserved its purpose sufficiently if it has helped to mark out more\ndistinctly certain lines of the enquiry and to carry the\ninvestigation along these a little way; suggesting at the same\ntime--what the facts themselves really suggest--counsels of\nsobriety and moderation.\n\nWhat the end will be, it would be presumptuous to attempt to\nforetell. It will probably be a long time before even these minor\nquestions--much more the major questions into which they run up--\nwill be solved. Whether they will ever be solved--all of them at\nleast--in such a way as to compel entire assent is very doubtful.\nError and imperfection seem to be permanently, if we may hope\ndiminishingly, a condition of human thought and action. It does\nnot appear to be the will of God that Truth should ever be so\npresented as to crush out all variety of opinion. The conflict of\nopinions is like that of Hercules with the Hydra. As fast as one\nis cut down another arises in its place; and there is no searing-\niron to scorch and cicatrize the wound. However much we may\nlabour, we can only arrive at an inner conviction, not at\nobjective certainty. All the glosses and asseverations in the\nworld cannot carry us an inch beyond the due weight of the\nevidence vouchsafed to us. An honest and brave mind will accept\nmanfully this condition of things, and not seek for infallibility\nwhere it can find none. It will adopt as its motto that noble\nsaying of Bishop Butler--noble, because so unflinchingly true,\nthough opposed to a sentimental optimism--'Probability is the very\nguide of life.'\n\nWith probabilities we have to deal, in the intellectual sphere.\nBut, when once this is thoroughly and honestly recognised, even a\ncomparatively small balance of probability comes to have as much\nmoral weight as the most loudly vaunted certainty. And meantime,\napart from and beneath the strife of tongues, there is the still\nsmall voice which whispers to a man and bids him, in no\nsuperstitious sense but with the gravity and humility which befits\na Christian, to 'work out his own salvation with fear and\ntrembling.'\n\n\n\n\n\n[ENDNOTES]\n\n\n[2:1] With regard to the references in vol. i. p. 259, n. 1, I\nhad already observed, before the appearance of the preface to the\nsixth edition, that they were really intended to apply to the\nfirst part of the sentence annotated rather than the second.\nStill, as there is only one reference out of nine that really\nsupports the proposition in immediate connection with which the\nreferences are made, the reader would be very apt to carry away a\nmistaken impression. The same must be said of the set of\nreferences defended on p. xl. sqq. of the new preface. The\nexpressions used do not accurately represent the state of the\nfacts. It is not careful writing, and I am afraid it must be said\nthat the prejudice of the author has determined the side which the\nexpression leans. But how difficult is it to make words express\nall the due shades and qualifications of meaning--how difficult\nespecially for a mind that seems to be naturally distinguished by\nforce rather than by exactness and delicacy of observation! We\nhave all 'les d\u00e9fauts de nos qualit\u00e9s.'\n\n[10:1] Much harm has been done by rashly pressing human metaphors and\nanalogies; such as, that Revelation is a _message_ from God and\ntherefore must be infallible, &c. This is just the sort of argument\nthat the Deists used in the last century, insisting that a revelation,\nproperly so called, _must_ be presented with conclusive proofs, _must_\nbe universal, _must_ be complete, and drawing the conclusion that\nChristianity is not such a revelation. This kind of reasoning has\nreceived its sentence once for all from Bishop Butler. We have nothing\nto do with what _must_ be (of which we are, by the nature of the case,\nincompetent judges), but simply with what _is_.\n\n[18:1] Cf. Westcott, _Canon_, p. 152, n. 2 (3rd ed. 1870).\n\n[18:2] See Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 60; also Credner,\n_Beitr\u00e4ge_, ii. 66 ('certainly' from St. Paul).\n\n[20:1] _The Old Testament in the New_ (London and Edinburgh,\n1868).\n\n[21:1] Mr. M'Clellan (_The New Testament_, &c., vol. i. p.\n606, n. c) makes the suggestion, which from his point of view is\nnecessary, that 'S. Matthew has cited a prophecy spoken by\nJeremiah, but nowhere written in the Old Testament, and of which\nthe passage in Zechariah is only a partial reproduction.' Cf.\nCredner, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, ii. 152.\n\n[25:1] We do not stay to discuss the real origin of these\nquotations: the last is probably not from the Old Testament at\nall.\n\n[27:1] The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are also\nfound in Clement of Alexandria.\n\n[34:1] It should be noticed, however, that the same reading is\nfound in Justin and other writers.\n\n[38:1] _Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti_\n(Gottingae, 1853).\n\n[39:1] _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften_\n(Halle, 1832).\n\n[40:1] _The Epistles of S. Clement of Rome_ (London and\nCambridge, 1869).\n\n[49:1] The Latin translation is not in most cases a sufficient\nguarantee for the original text. The Greek has been preserved in\nthe shape of long extracts by Epiphanius and others. The edition\nused is that of Stieren, Lipsiae, 1853.\n\n[49:2] Horne's _Introduction_ (ed. 1856), p. 333.\n\n[52:1] Ed. Dindorf, Lipsiae, 1859. [The index given in vol. iii.\np. 893 sqq. contains many inaccuracies, and is, indeed, of little\nuse for identifying the passages of Scripture.]\n\n[56:1] _Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of\nAlexandria,_ p. 407 sqq.\n\n[56:2] In the new Preface to his work on the Canon (4th edition,\n1875), p. xxxii.\n\n[58:1] _S.R._ i. p. 221, and note.\n\n[59:1] _S.R._ i. p. 222, n. 3.\n\n[59:2] _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ p. 74 (p. 82 _S.R._?).\n\n[59:3] _Das nachapost. Zeitalter_, p. 126 sq.\n\n[60:1] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 64; compare\nFritzche, art. 'Judith' in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_.\n\n[61:1] Vol. i. p. 221, n. I feel it due to the author to say that\nI have found his long lists of references, though not seldom\nfaulty, very useful. I willingly acknowledge the justice of his\nclaim to have 'fully laid before readers the actual means of\njudging of the accuracy of every statement which has been made'\n(Preface to sixth edition, p. lxxx).\n\n[65:1] i. p. 226.\n\n[66:1] i. p. 228.\n\n[69:1] _Der Ursprung_, p. 138.\n\n[71:1] _The Apostolical Fathers_ (London, 1874), p. 273.\n\n[71:2] The original Greek of this work is lost, but in the text as\nreconstructed by Hilgenfeld from five still extant versions\n(Latin, Syriac, Aethiopic, Arabic, Armenian) the verse runs thus,\n[Greek: polloi men ektisthaesan, oligoi de sothaesontai]\n(_Messias Judaeorum_, p. 69).\n\n[73:1] A curious instance of disregard of context is to be seen in\nTertullian's reading of John i. 13, which he referred to\n_Christ_, accusing the Valentinians of falsification because\nthey had the ordinary reading (cf. R\u00f6nsch, _Das Neue Testament\nTertullian's_, pp. 252, 654). Compare also p. 24 above.\n\n[73:2] _Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum_, Fasc. ii.\np. 69.\n\n[74:1] c. v.\n\n[74:2] _S. R._ i. p. 250 sqq.\n\n[76:1] Lardner, _Credibility, &c_., ii. p .23; Westcott,\n_On the Canon_, p. 50, n. 5.\n\n[77:1] Since this was written the author of 'Supernatural\nReligion' has replied in the preface to his sixth edition. He has\nstated his case in the ablest possible manner: still I do not\nthink that there is anything to retract in what has been written\nabove. There _would_ have been something to retract if Dr.\nLightfoot had maintained positively the genuineness of the Vossian\nEpistles. As to the Syriac, the question seems to me to stand\nthus. On the one side are certain improbabilities--I admit,\nimprobabilities, though not of the weightiest kind--which are met\nabout half way by the parallel cases quoted. On the other hand,\nthere is the express testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp quoted\nin its turn by Irenaeus. Now I cannot think that there is any\nimprobability so great (considering our ignorance) as not to be\noutweighed by this external evidence.\n\n[81:1] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec._, Fasc. iv.\np. 15.\n\n[81:2] Cf. _ibid._, pp. 56, 62, also p. 29.\n\n[82:1] But see _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 838, from\nwhich it appears that M. Waddington has recently proved the date\nto be rather 155 or 156. Compare Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p.\n72, where reference is made to an essay by Lipsius, _Der\nM\u00e4rtyrertod Polycarp's_ in _Z. f. w. T._ 1874, ii. p. 180\nf.\n\n[82:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 3, 4.\n\n[83:1] _Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche_, p. 586;\nHefele, _Patrum Apostolicorum Opera_, p. lxxx.\n\n[84:1] Cf. _S. R._ i. p. 278.\n\n[84:2] _Ent. d. a. K._ pp. 593, 599.\n\n[84:3] _Apostolical Fathers_, p. 227 sq.\n\n[84:4] _Ursprung_, pp. 43, 131.\n\n[85:1] [Greek: mnaemoneuontes de hon eipen ho kurios didaskon; mae\nkrinete hina mae krithaete; aphiete kai aphethaesetai hymin; eleeite\nhina eleaethaete; en ho metro metreite, antimetraethaesetai hymin; kai\nhoti makarioi hoi ptochoi kai hoi diokomenoi heneken dikaiosynaes, hoti\nauton estin hae basileia tou Theou.]\n\n[89:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, 1. p. 138, n. 2.\n\n[89:2] _Einleilung in das N. T._ p. 66, where Lipsius' view\nis also quoted.\n\n[89:3] Cf. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 88, n. 4.\n\n[89:4] As appears to be suggested in _S. R._ i. p. 292. The\nreference in the note to Bleek, _Einl._ p. 637 (and Ewald?),\ndoes not seem to be exactly to the point.\n\n[89:5] _Apol._ i. 67.\n\n[90:1] _Dial. c. Tryph._ 103.\n\n[90:2] _Apol._ i. 66; cf. _S.R._ i. p. 294.\n\n[91:1] The evangelical references and allusions in Justin have\nbeen carefully collected by Credner and Hilgenfeld, and are here\nthrown together in a sort of running narrative.\n\n[101:1] This was written before the appearance of Mr. M'Clellan's\nimportant work on the Four Gospels (_The New Testament_, vol. i,\nLondon, 1875), to which I have not yet had time to give the\nstudy that it deserves.\n\n[103:1] Unless indeed it was found in one of the many forms of the\nGospel (cf. _S.R._ i. P. 436, and p. 141 below). The section\nappears in none of the forms reproduced by Dr. Hilgenfeld (_N.T.\nextra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv).\n\n[107:1] In like manner Tertullian refers his readers to the\n'autograph copies' of St. Paul's Epistles, and the very 'chairs of\nthe Apostles,' preserved at Corinth and elsewhere. (_De\nPraescript. Haeret._ c. 36). Tertullian also refers to the\ncensus of Augustus, 'quem testem fidelissimum dominicae\nnativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt' (_Adv. Marc._ iv. 7).\n\n[110:1] _Beitr\u00e4ge_, i. p. 261 sqq.\n\n[110:2] _Evangelien Justin's u.s.w._, p. 270 sqq.\n\n[110:3] The chief authority is Eus. _H. E._ vi. 12.\n\n[110:4] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157.\n\n[116:1] A somewhat similar classification has been made by De\nWette, _Einleitung in das N. T._, pp. 104-110, in which\nhowever the standard seems to be somewhat lower than that which I\nhave assumed; several instances of variation which I had classed\nas decided, De Wette considers to be only slight. I hope I may\nconsider this a proof that the classification above given has not\nbeen influenced by bias.\n\n[119:1] _Beitr\u00e4ge_, i. p. 237.\n\n[119:2] _S.R._ i. p. 396 sqq.\n\n[120:1] _Die drei ersten Evangelien_, G\u00f6ttingen, 1850. [A\nsecond, revised, edition of this work has recently appeared.]\n\n[120:2] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, Leipzig, 1863, p. 88.\n\n[120:3] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, Berlin, 1872, p. 299.\n\n[120:4] _Beitr\u00e4ge_, i. p. 219.\n\n[120:5] Dr. Westcott well calls this 'the _prophetic_ sense\nof the present' (_On the Canon_, p. 128).\n\n[122:1] 'This is meaningless,' writes Mr. Baring-Gould of the\ncanonical text, rather hastily, and forgetting, as it would\nappear, the concluding cause (_Lost and Hostile Gospels_, p.\n166); cp. _S.R._ i. p. 354, ii. p. 28.\n\n[123:1] i. pp. 196, 227, 258.\n\n[123:2] _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon_ (ed.\nVolkmar, Berlin, 1860), p. 16.\n\n[124:1] _Adv. Haer._ 428 D.\n\n[124:2] I am not quite clear that more is meant (as Meyer,\nEllicott _Huls. Lect._ p. 339, n. 2, and others maintain) in\nthe evangelical language than that the drops of sweat 'resembled\nblood;' [Greek: hosei] seems to qualify [Greek: haimatos] as much\nas [Greek: thromboi]. Compare especially the interesting parallels\nfrom medical writers quoted by McClellan _ad loc._\n\n[128:1] The only parallel that I can find quoted is a reference by\nMr. McClellan to Philo i.164 (ed. Mangey), where the phrase is\nhowever [Greek: isos angeloi (gegonos)].\n\n[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 304 sqq.\n\n[130:1] _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157.\n\n[135:1] Scrivener, _Introduction to the Criticism of the N.\nT_. p. 452 (2nd edition, 1874).\n\n[136:1] On reviewing this chapter I am inclined to lean more than\nI did to the hypothesis that Justin used a Harmony. The phenomena\nof variation seem to be too persistent and too evenly distributed\nto allow of the supposition of alternate quoting from different\nGospels. But the data will need a closer weighing before this can\nbe determined.\n\n[138:1] _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 169 sqq.\n\n[138:2] Tischendorf, however, devotes several pages to an argument\nwhich follows in the same line as Dr. Lightfoot's, and is, I\nbelieve, in the main sound (_Wann wurden unsere Evangelien\nverfasst?_ p. 113 sqq., 4th edition, 1866).\n\n[138:3] I gather from the sixth edition of _S. R._ that the\nargument from silence is practically waived. If the silence of\nEusebius is not pressed as proving that the authors about whom he\nis silent were ignorant of or did not acknowledge particular\nGospels, we on our side may be content not to press it as proving\nthat the Gospels in question _were_ acknowledged. The matter\nmay well be allowed to rest thus: that, so far as the silence of\nEusebius is concerned, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of\nCorinth are not alleged either for the Gospels or against them. I\nagree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that the point is\nnot one of paramount importance, though it has been made more of\nby other writers, e.g. Strauss and Renan. [The author has missed\nDr. Lightfoot's point on p. xxiii. What Eusebius bears testimony\nto is, _not_ his own belief in the canonicity of the fourth\nGospel, but its _undisputed_ canonicity, i.e. a historical\nfact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c. If I\nsay that _Hamlet_ is an undisputed play of Shakspeare's, I\nmean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare's myself, but that\nall the critics from Shakspeare's time downwards have believed it\nto be his.]\n\n[140:1] _H. E._ iv. 22.\n\n[141:1] _S. R._ i. p. 436.\n\n[141:2] _Einleitung_, p. 103.\n\n[141:3] _Das Nachapost. Zeit._ i. p. 238.\n\n[141:4] _Beitr\u00e4ge_, i. p. 401.\n\n[141:5] _Nov. Test. extra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv. pp. 19, 20.\n\n[143:1] We have, however, had occasion to note a somewhat\nparallel, though not quite parallel, instance in the quotation of\nClement of Rome and Polycarp, [Greek: aphiete, hina aphethae humin\n(kai aphethaesetai humin)].\n\n[144:1] _Contemporary Review_, Dec. 1874, p. 8; cf. Routh,\n_Reliquiae Sacrae_, i. p. 281 _ad fin._\n\n[144:2] Tregelles, writing on the 'Ancient Syriac Versions' in\nSmith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1635 a, says that 'these words might\nbe a Greek rendering of Matt. xiii. 16 as they stand' in the\nCuretonian text.\n\n[145:1] Or rather perhaps 155, 156; see p. 82 above.\n\n[146:1] _H.E._ iii. 39.\n\n[147:1] In Mr. M'Clellan's recent _Harmony_ I notice only two deviations\nfrom the order in St. Mark, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-29. In Mr. Fuller's\n_Harmony_ (the Harmony itself and not the Table of Contents, in which\nthere are several oversights) there seem to be two, Mark vi. 17-20,\nxiv. 3-9; in Dr. Robinson's English _Harmony_ three, ii. 15-22,\nvi. 17-20, xiv. 22-72 (considerable variation). Of these passages\nvi. 17-20 (the imprisonment of the Baptist) is the only one the place\nof which all three writers agree in changing. [Dr. Lightfoot, in\n_Cont. Rev._, Aug. 1875, p. 394, appeals to Anger and Tischendorf\nin proof of the contrary proposition, that the order of Mark cannot\nbe maintained. But Tischendorf's Harmony is based on the assumption\nthat St. Luke's use of [Greek: kathexaes] pledges him to a chronological\norder, and Anger adopts Griesbach's hypothesis that Mark is a compilation\nfrom Matthew and Luke. The remarks in the text turn, not upon precarious\nharmonistic results, but upon a simple comparison of the three Gospels.]\n\n[149:1] Perhaps I should explain that this was made by underlining\nthe points of resemblance between the Gospels in different\ncoloured pencil and reckoning up the results at the end of each\nsection.\n\n[153:1] This subject has been carefully worked out since Credner\nby Bleek and De Wette. The results will be found in Holtzmann,\n_Synopt. Ev._ p. 259 sqq.\n\n[154:1] Cf. Holtzmann, _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, p. 255\nsq.; Ebrard, _The Gospel History_ (Engl. trans.), p. 247;\nBleek, _Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien_, i.\np. 367. The theory rests upon an acute observation, and has much\nplausibility.\n\n[155:1] _On the Canon_, p. 181, n. 2. [That the word will\nbear this sense appears still more decidedly from Dr. Lightfoot's\nrecent investigations, in view of which the two sentences that\nfollow should perhaps be cancelled; see _Cont. Rev._, Aug.\n1875, p. 399 sqq.]\n\n[159:1] [It will be seen that the arguments above hardly touch\nthose of Dr. Lightfoot in the _Contemporary Review_ for\nAugust and October: neither do Dr. Lightfoot's arguments seem very\nmuch to affect them. The method of the one is chiefly external,\nthat of the other almost entirely internal. I can only for the\npresent leave what I had written; but I do not for a moment\nsuppose that the subject is fathomed even from the particular\nstandpoint that I have taken.]\n\n[162:1] The lists given in _Supernatural Religion_ (ii. p. 2)\nseem to be correct so far as I am able to check them. In the\nsecond edition of his work on the Origin of the Old Catholic\nChurch, Ritschl modified his previous opinion so far as to admit\nthat the indications were divided, sometimes on the one side,\nsometimes on the other (p. 451, n. 1). There is a seasonable\nwarning in Reuss (_Gesch. h. S. N. T._ p. 254) that the\nT\u00fcbingen critics here, as elsewhere, are apt to exaggerate the\npolemical aspect of the writing.\n\n[162:2] It should be noticed that Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, though\nassigning the second place to the Homilies, both take the\n_terminus ad quem_ for this work no later than 180 A.D. It\nseems that a Syriac version, partly of the Homilies, partly of the\nRecognitions, exists in a MS. which itself was written in the year\n411, and bears at that date marks of transcription from a still\nearlier copy (cf. Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 341, n. 1).\n\n[163:1] This table is made, as in the case of Justin, with the\nhelp of the collection of passages in the works of Credner and\nHilgenfeld.\n\n[167:1] Or rather perhaps 'morning baptism.' (Cf. Lightfoot,\n_Colossians,_ p. 162 sqq., where the meaning of the name and\nthe character and relations of the sect are fully discussed).\n\n[168:1] _Hom._ i. 6; ii. 19, 23; iii. 73; iv. 1; xiii. 7;\nxvii. 19.\n\n[170:1] So Tregelles expressly (_Introduction_, p. 240), after Wiseman;\nScrivener (_Introd._, p. 308) adds (?); M'Clellan classes with\n'Italic Family' (p. lxxiii). [On returning to this passage I incline\nrather more definitely to regard the reading [Greek: Haesaiou], from\nthe group in which it is found, as an early Alexandrine corruption.\nStill the Clementine writer may have had it before him.]\n\n[170:2] ii. p. 10 sqq.\n\n[172:1] ii. p. 21.\n\n[172:2] Preface to the fourth edition of _Canon_, p. xxxii.\n\n[174:1] _Evangelien_, p. 31.\n\n[174:2] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 282.\n\n[175:1] _Synopt. Ev._ p. 193.\n\n[176:1] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 295.\n\n[178:1] A friend has kindly extracted for me, from Holmes and\nParsons, the authorities for the Septuagint text of Deut. vi. 4.\nFor [Greek: sou] there are 'Const. App. 219, 354, 355; Ignat. Epp.\n104, 112; Clem. Al. 68, 718; Chrys. i. 482 et saepe, al.' For\n_tuus_, 'Iren. (int.), Tert., Cypr., Ambr., Anonym. ap. Aug.,\nGaud., Brix., Alii Latini.' No authorities for [Greek: humon]. Was\nthe change first introduced into the text of the New Testament?\n\n[178:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 25.\n\n[179:1] _Beitr\u00e4ge_, i. p. 326.\n\n[179:2] _On the Canon_, p. 261, n. 2.\n\n[188:1] _Hom._ 1. _in Lucam_.\n\n[189:1] _H.E._ iv. 7.\n\n[189:2] _Strom._ iv. 12.\n\n[189:3] _S.R._ ii. p. 42.\n\n[189:4] _Ibid._ n. 2; cp. p. 47.\n\n[190:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii, 27.\n\n[190:2] ii. p. 45.\n\n[191:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii. 20.\n\n[192:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 49.\n\n[197:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Pref. 2.\n\n[198:1] ii. p. 59.\n\n[199:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq.\n\n[200:1] _Strom._ ii. 20; see Westcott, _Canon_, p. 269;\nVolkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 152.\n\n[203:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 7, 9.\n\n[203:2] _Ibid._ iii. 12. 12.\n\n[204:1] The corresponding chapter to this in 'Supernatural Religion'\nhas been considerably altered, and indeed in part rewritten, in the\nsixth edition. The author very kindly sent me a copy of this after\nthe appearance of my article in the _Fortnightly Review_, and I at\nonce made use of it for the part of the work on which I was engaged;\nbut I regret that my attention was not directed, as it should have\nbeen, to the changes in this chapter until it was too late to take\nquite sufficient account of them. The argument, however, I think I\nmay say, is not materially affected. Several criticisms which I had\nbeen led to make in the _Fortnightly_ I now find had been anticipated,\nand these have been cancelled or a note added in the present work;\nI have also appended to the volume a supplemental note of greater\nlength on the reconstruction of Marcion's text, the only point on\nwhich I believe there is really very much room for doubt.\n\n[205:1] See above, p. 89.\n\n[205:2] _Apol._ i. 26.\n\n[205:3] _Ibid._ i. 58.\n\n[205:4] ii. p. 80.\n\n[205:5] _Der Ursprung_, p. 89.\n\n[205:6] Cf. Tertullian, _De Praescript. Haeret._ c. 38.\n\n[206:1] _Adv. Haer._ iv. 27. 2; 12. 12.\n\n[209:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, pp. 28-54. [Volkmar's view is\nstated less inadequately in the sixth edition of _S. R._, but\nstill not quite adequately. Perhaps it could hardly be otherwise\nwhere arguments that were originally adduced in favour of one\nconclusion are employed to support its opposite.]\n\n[210:1] [Greek: oida] for [Greek: oidas] in Luke xiv. 20. Cf.\nVolkmar, p. 46.\n\n[211:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, p. 45.\n\n[211:2] _Ibid._ pp. 46-48.\n\n[211:3] 'We have, in fact, no guarantee of the accuracy or\ntrustworthiness of any of their statements' (_S.R._ ii. p.\n100). We have just the remarkable coincidence spoken of above. It\ndoes not prove that Tertullian did not faithfully reproduce the\ntext of Marcion to show, which is the real drift of the argument\non the preceding page (_S.R._ ii. p. 99), that he had not the\ncanonical Gospel before him; rather it removes the suspicion that\nhe might have confused the text of Marcion's Gospel with the\ncanonical.\n\n[212:1] This table has been constructed from that of De Wette,\n_Einleitung_, pp. 123-132, compared with the works of Volkmar\nand Hilgenfeld.\n\n[213:1]: _S.R._ ii. p. 110, n. 3. The statement is mistaken\nin regard to Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. Both these writers would make\nMarcion retain this passage. It happens rather oddly that this is\none of the sections on which the philological evidence for St.\nLuke's authorship is least abundant (see below).\n\n[215:1] There is direct evidence for the presence in Marcion's\nGospel of the passages relating to the personages here named,\nexcept Martha and Mary; see _Tert. Adv. Marc._ iv. 19, 37, 43.\n\n[217:1] _S. R._ ii. 142 sq.\n\n[217:2] This admission does not damage the credit of Tertullian\nand Epiphanius as witnesses; because what we want from them is a\nstatement of the facts; the construction which they put upon the\nfacts is a matter of no importance.\n\n[217:3] The omission in 2 Cor. iv. 13 must be due to Marcion\n(_Epiph._ 321 c.); so probably an insertion in 1 Cor. ix. 8.\n\n[218:1] Tert. _Adv. Marc._ v. 16: 'Haec si Marcion de\nindustria erasit,' &c. V. 14: 'Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum\nintercisae scripturae.' V. 3: 'Ostenditur quid supra haeretica\nindustria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae,' &c. Cf. Bleek,\n_Einleitung_, p. 136; Hilgenfeld, _Evv. Justin's_, &c., p. 473.\n\n[219:1] 'Anno xv. Tiberii Christus Jesus de coelo manare dignatus\nest' (Tert. _Adv. Marc._ i. 19).\n\n[220:1] I give mainly the explanations of Volkmar, who, it should\nbe remembered, is the very reverse of an apologist, indicating the\npoints where they seem least satisfactory.\n\n[220:2] It is highly probable that many of the points mentioned by\nTertullian and Epiphanius as 'adulterations' were simply various\nreadings in Marcion's Codex; such would be v. 14, x. 25, xvii. 2,\nand xxiii. 2, which are directly supported by other authority: xi.\n2 and xii. 28 would probably belong to this class. So perhaps the\ninsertion of iv. 27 in the history of the Samaritan leper. The\nphenomenon of a transposition of verses from one part of a Gospel\nto another is not an infrequent one in early MSS.\n\n[223:1] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, 1863, pp. 302 sqq.\n\n[224:1] Where a reference is given thus in brackets, it is\nconfirmatory, from the part of the Gospel retained by Marcion.\n\n[229:1] An analysis of the words which are only found in St. Luke,\nor very rarely found elsewhere, gives the following results.--The\nnumber of words found only in the portion of the Gospel retained\nby Marcion and in the Acts is 231; that of words found in these\nretained portions and not besides in the Gospels or the two other\nSynoptics is 58; and both these classes together for the portions\nomitted in Marcion's Gospel reach a total of 62, which is\ndecidedly under the proportion that might have been expected. The\nlist is diminished by a number of words which are found only in\nthe omitted and retained portions, furnishing evidence, as above,\nthat both proceed from the same hand.\n\n[231:1] This list has been made from the valuable work of R\u00f6nsch,\n_Das Neue Testament Tertullian's_, 1871, and the critical\neditions, compared with the text of Marcion's Gospel as given by\nHilgenfeld and Volkmar.\n\n[231:2] It might be thought that Tertullian was giving his own\ntext and not that of Marcion's Gospel, but this supposition is\nexcluded both by the confirmation which he receives from\nEpiphanius, and also by the fact, which is generally admitted (see\n_S.R._ ii. p. 100), that he had not the canonical Luke, but\nonly Marcion's Gospel before him.\n\n[233:1] See Crowfoot, _Observations on the Collation in Greek of\nCureton's Syriac Fragments of the Gospels_, 1872, p. 5; Scrivener,\n_Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, 2nd edition,\n1874, p. 452.\n\n[233:2] See Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 307 sq.; and Dr. Westcott's\narticle on the 'Vulgate' in Smith's Dictionary. It should be noticed\nthat Dr. Westcott's literation differs from that of Dr. Scrivener\nand Tregelles, which has been adopted here.\n\n[235:1] Cf. Friedl\u00e4nder, _Sittengeschichte Roms_, iii. p. 315.\n\n[238:1] See p. 89, above.\n\n[238:2] _Strom._ iii. 12; compare _S.R._ ii. p. 151.\n\n[239:1] [Greek: Ho mentoi ge proteros auton archaegos ho Tatianos\nsunapheian tina kai sunagogaen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion\nsuntheis to dia tessaron touto prosonomasin, ho kai para tisin\neiseti nun pheretai.] _H. E._ iv. 29.\n\n[239:2] _Beitr\u00e4ge_, i. p. 441.\n\n[240:1] _Haer._ 391 D (xlvi. 1).\n\n[240:2] [Greek: Outos kai to dia tessaron kaloumenon suntetheiken\neuangelion, tas te genealogias perikopsas, kai ta alla, hosa ek\nspermatos Dabid kata sorka genennaemenon ton Kurion deiknusin.\nEchraesanto de touto ou monon oi taes ekeinou summorias, alla kai\noi tous apostolikois epomenoi dogmasi, taen taes sunthaekaes\nkakourgian ouk egnokotes, all' aplousteron hos suntomo to biblio\nchraesamenoi. Euron de kago pleious ae diakosias biblous toiautas\nen tais par' haemin ekklaesiois tetimaemenas, kai pasas sunagagan\napethemaen, kai ta ton tettaron euangeliston anteisaegagon\neuangelia] (_Haeret. Fab._ i. 20, quoted by Credner, _Beitr\u00e4ge_,\ni. p. 442).\n\n[240:3] See _S.R._ ii. p. 15.\n\n[241:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 162; compare Credner, _Beitr\u00e4ge_,\ni. p. 446 sqq.\n\n[241:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8.\n\n[241:3] _Beit_. i. p. 443.\n\n[241:4] May not Tatian have given his name to a collection of\nmaterials begun, used, and left in a more or less advanced stage\nof compilation, by Justin? However, we can really do little more\nthan note the resemblance: any theory we may form must be purely\nconjectural.\n\n[242:1] [Greek: Epistolas gar adelphon axiosanton me grapsai\negarapsa. Kai tautas oi tou diabolon apostoloi zizanion gegemikan,\nha men exairountes, ha de prostithentes. Ois to ouai keitai. Ou\nthaumaston ara, ei kai ton kuriakon rhadiourgaesai tines\nepibeblaentai graphon, hopote tais ou toiautais epibebouleukasi.]\n_H.E._ iv. 23 (Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 181).\n\n[243:1] [Greek: Allae d' epistolae tis autou pros Nikomaedeas\npheretai en hae taen Markionos airesin polemon to taes alaetheias\nparistatai kanoni]. _H.E._ iv. 23_.\n\n[244:1] [Greek: Akribos mathon ta taes palaias diathaekaes Biblia,\nhipotaxas epempsa soi.] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26 (Routh, _Rel.\nSac._ i. p. 119).\n\n[245:1] Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 201.\n\n[245:2] ii. p. 177.\n\n[245:3] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 1 (cf. R\u00f6nsch, _Das neue Testament\nTertullian's_, p. 48), 'duo deos dividens, proinde diversos,\nalterum alterius instrumenti--vel, _quod magis usui est dicere,\ntestamenti_.'\n\n[246:1] [Greek: Eisi toinun hoi di' hagnoian philoneikousi peri\ntouton, sungnoston pragma peponthotes agnoia gar ou kataegorian\nanadechetai, alla didachaes prosdeitai. Kai legousin hoti tae id'\nto probaton meta ton mathaeton ephagen ho Kurios tae de mealier\nhaemera ton azumon autos epathen; kai diaegountai Matthaion outo\nlegein hos nenoaekasin; hothen asumphonos te nomo hae noaesis\nauton, kai stasiazein dokei kat' autous ta euangelia.] _Chron.\nPasch._ in Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 160.\n\n[247:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 188 sqq. The reference to Routh is\ngiven on p. 188, n. 1; that to Lardner in the same note should, I\nbelieve, be ii. p. 316, not p. 296.\n\n[247:2] _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 167.\n\n[249:1] The quotations from Athenagoras are transcribed from\n'Supernatural Religion' and Lardner (_Credibility &c._, ii.\np. 195 sq.). I have not access to the original work.\n\n[251:1] _Credibility &c._, ii. p. 161.\n\n[252:1] _Ep. Vien. et Lugd._ \u00a7 3 (in Routh, _Rel. Sac._\ni. p. 297).\n\n[252:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 203; _Evv. Justin's u.s.w._ p.\n155.\n\n[254:1] _Wann wurden u.s.w._ p. 48 sq.\n\n[254:2] _Ursprung_, p. 130; _S.R._ ii. p. 222.\n\n[255:1] Cf. Credner, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, ii. p. 254.\n\n[256:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Praef. 2.\n\n[257:1] _Strom._ iv. 9.\n\n[257:2] [Greek: Ton Oualentinou legomenon einai gnorimon\nHaerakleouna] ... Origen, _Comm. in Joh._ ii. p. 60 (quoted\nby Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 127).\n\n[259:1] 'In affirming that [these quotations] are taken from the\nGospel according to St. Matthew apologists exhibit their usual\narbitrary haste,' &c. _S.R._ ii. p. 224.\n\n[260:1] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, Zurich, 1873. For what\nfollows, see especially p. 261 sqq.\n\n[263:1] Keim, _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 262.\n\n[263:2] _Ibid_. p. 228 sq.; Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 80.\n\n[263:3] The text of this document is printed in full by Routh,\n_Rel. Sac_. i. pp. 394-396; Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 487 sqq.;\nHilgenfeld, _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N.T._ ad p. 40, n.;\nCredner, _Geschichte des Noutestamentlichen Kanon_, ed. Volkmar,\np. 153 sqq., &c.\n\n[264:1] See however Dr. Lightfoot in _Cont. Rev_., Oct. 1875, p. 837.\n\n[265:1] _Ursprung_, p. 28.\n\n[265:2] ii. p. 245.\n\n[266:1] Cf. Credner, _Gesch. des Kanon_, p. 167.\n\n[266:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 241.\n\n[267:1] Quoted in _S.R._ ii. p. 247.\n\n[269:1] _Adv. Haer_. ii, 22. 5, iii. 3.4.\n\n[270:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. pp. 141-143.\n\n[273:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_. i. pp. 143, 144.\n\n[273:2] _On the Canon_, p. 182 sqq.\n\n[275:1] [Greek: Ouch haedomai trophae phthoras, oude haedonais tou\nbiou toutou. Arton Theou thelo, arton ouranion, arton zoaes, hos\nestin sarx Iaesou Christou tou Huiou tou Theou tou genomenou en\nhustero ek spermatos Dabid kai Abraam; kai poma Theou thelo to\nhaima aoutou, ho estin agapae aphthartos kai aennaos zoae.] _Ep.\nad Rom_. c. vii.\n\n[275:2] [Greek: Alla to Pneuma ou planatai, apo Theou on; oiden\ngar pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei, kai ta drupta elenche].\n_Ep. ad Philad_. c. vii.\n\n[276:1] Cf. Lipsius in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_, i. p. 98.\n\n[277:1] The second and third Epistles stand upon a somewhat\ndifferent footing.\n\n[277:2] Cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 269.\n\n[278:1] _S.R._ ii p. 323.\n\n[278:2] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. p. 138 sq.\n\n[280:1] Cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 302.\n\n[280:2] So _Dial. c. Tryph_. 69; in _Apol._ i. 22 the\nMSS. of Justin read [Greek: ponaerous], which might stand, though\nsome editors substitute or prefer [Greek: paerous]. In both\nquotations [Greek: ek genetaes] is added. The nearest parallel in\nthe Synoptics is Mark ix. 21, [Greek: ek paidiothen] (of the\nparalytic boy).\n\n[280:3] _Wann wurden u. s. w_. p. 34.\n\n[283:1] ii. p. 308. [Has the author perhaps misunderstood Credner\n(_Beit_. i. p. 253), whose argument on this head is not indeed\nquite clear?]\n\n[283:2] _The New Testament &c_., i. p. 709.\n\n[284:1] See _Apol_. i. 23, 32, 63; ii. 10.\n\n[284:2] [Greek: Hae de protae dunamis meta ton patera panton kai\ndespotaen Theon kai uios ho logos estin.] This is not quite\nrightly translated by Tischendorf and in 'Supernatural Religion:'\n[Greek: uios], like [Greek: dunamis], is a predicate; 'the next\nPower who also stands in the relation of Son.'\n\n[285:1] Prov. viii. 22-24, 27, 30.\n\n[285:2] Wisd. vii. 25, 26; viii. 1, 4.\n\n[286:1] Ecclus. xxiv. 9.\n\n[286:2] Wisd. ix. 1, 2; xvi. 12; xviii. 15.\n\n[287:1] Cf. Lipsius in _S. B. L._ i. p. 95 sqq.\n\n[288:1] _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T_. (Halle, 1863),\np. 29; _Einleitung_, P. 43, n.\n\n[288:2] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 63.\n\n[288:3] ii. p. 346.\n\n[290:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 340.\n\n[293:1] The force of the article ([Greek: tou paerou]) should be\nnoticed, as showing that the incident (and therefore the Gospel)\nis assumed to be well known.\n\n[293:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 341.\n\n[295:1] Tischendorf, _Wann wurden_, p. 40; Westcott, _Canon_, p. 80.\n\n[296:1] ii. p. 357 sqq.\n\n[297:1] _Adv. Haer._ V. 36. 1, 2.\n\n[297:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 329.\n\n[298:1] Advanced by Routh (or rather Feuardentius in his notes on\nIrenaeus; cf. _Rel. Sac_. i. p. 31), and adopted by Tischendorf\nand Dr. Westcott. [The identification has since been ably and\nelaborately maintained by Dr. Lightfoot; see _Cont. Rev_. Oct. 1875,\np. 841 sqq.]\n\n[298:2] It is not necessary here to determine the sense in which\nthese words are to be taken. I had elsewhere given my reasons for\ntaking [Greek: erchomenon] with [Greek: anthropon], as A. V.\n(_Fourth Gospel_, p. 6, n.). Mr. M'Clellan is now to be added\nto the number of those who prefer to take it with [Greek: phos],\nand argues ably in favour of his opinion.\n\n[299:1] The translation of this difficult passage has been left\non purpose somewhat baldly literal. The idea seems to be that\nBasilides refused to accept projection or emanation as a\nhypothesis to account for the existence of created things. Compare\nMansel, _Gnost. Her._ p. 148.\n\n[301:1] _Adv. Haer._. iii. 11. 7.\n\n[302:1] _Haer_. 216-222.\n\n[302:2] It should however be noticed that these words are given\nonly in the old Latin translation of Irenaeus and are wanting in\nthe Greek as preserved by Epiphanius. Whether the words were\naccidentally omitted, or whether they were inserted inferentially,\nfor greater clearness, by the translator, it is hard to say. In\nany case the bearing of the quotations must be very much the same.\nIf not made by Ptolemaeus himself, they were made by a contemporary\nof Ptolemaeus, i.e. at least by a writer anterior to Irenaeus.\n\n[302:3] _Adv. Haer_. ii. 4. 1; cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq.\n\n[302:4] The somewhat copious fragments of Heracleon's Commentary\nare given in Stieren's edition of Irenaeus, p. 938 sqq. Origen\nsays that Heracleon read 'Bethany' in John i. 28 (M'Clellan,\ni. p. 708).\n\n[305:1] ii. p. 378.\n\n[306:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 379.\n\n[307:1] There is also perhaps a probable reference to St. John in\nSection 6, [Greek: taes aionioi paegaes tou hudatos taes zoaes tou\nexiontos ek taes naeduos tou Christou.]\n\n[307:2] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 229.\n\n[308:1] [Greek: ho taen hagian pleuran ekkentaetheis, ho ekcheas\nek taes pleuras autou ta duo palin katharsia, hudor kai aima,\nlogon kai pneuma]. See Routh, _Rel. Sac_. i. p. 161.\n\n[308:2] Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., ii. p. 196.\n\n[315:1] Tregelles in Horne's _Introduction_, p. 334.\n\n[315:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8.\n\n[316:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1. 1.\n\n[317:1] See Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., ii. pp. 223, 224,\nand Eus. _H.E._ ii. 15 (14 Lardner).\n\n[317:2] Compare _H.E._ ii. 15 and vi. 14.\n\n[317:3] _H.E._ vi. 14.\n\n[317:4] _Strom._ iii. 13.\n\n[318:1] For the meaning of this word ('schriftliche\nBeweisurkunde') see R\u00f6nsch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 48.\n\n[318:2] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 2.\n\n[318:2] _Ibid_. iv. 5.\n\n[318:4] _Ibid_. v. 9.\n\n[318:5] _Ibid_. iv. 2-5; compare v. 9, and R\u00f6nsch, pp. 53, 54.\n\n[319:1] Eus. _H.E._ vi. 25.\n\n[319:2] See M'Clellan on Luke i. 1-4. On the general position of\nOrigen in regard to the Canon, compare Hilgenfeld, _Kanon_, p. 49.\n\n[320:1] So Westcott in _S.D._ iii. 1692, n. Tregelles, in\nHorne's _Introduction_, p. 333, speaks of this translation as\n'coeval, apparently, with Irenaeus himself.' We must not, however,\nomit to notice that R\u00f6nsch (p. 43, n.) is more reserved in his\nverdict on the ground that the translation of Irenaeus 'in its\npeculiarities and in its relation to Tertullian has not yet\nreceived a thorough investigation;' compare Hilgenfeld,\n_Einleitung_, p. 797.\n\n[320:2] R\u00f6nsch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 43.\n\n[321:1] R\u00f6nsch, _Itala und Vulgata_, pp. 2, 3.\n\n[321:2] Horne's _Introduction_, p. 233.\n\n[321:3] _Introduction_ (2nd ed.), pp. 300, 302, 450, 452.\n\n[321:4] iii. p. 1690 b.\n\n[322:1] Hilgenfeld, in his recent _Einleitung_, says expressly\n(p. 797) that 'the New Testament had already in the second\ncentury been translated into Latin.' This admission is not\naffected by the argument which follows, which goes to prove that\nthe version used by Tertullian was not the 'Itala' properly so\ncalled.\n\n[322:2] See Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1630 b.\n\n[322:3] _Introduction_, p. 274.\n\n[322:4] See Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. pp. 124 and 152.\n\n[323:1] See Scrivener, _loc. cit_.\n\n[323:2] See _New Testament_, &c., i. p. 635.\n\n[323:3] _S.D._ iii. p. 1634 b.\n\n[324:1] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 724.\n\n[324:2] _Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments_,\np. 302.\n\n[324:3] _Einleitung_, p. 804.\n\n[324:4] See Tregelles, _loc. cit_.\n\n[324:5] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. 805. It hardly seems\nclear that Origen had _no_ MS. authority for his reading.\n\n[324:6] _Introduction_, p. 530. But [Greek: oupo] is admitted\ninto the text by Westcott and Hort.\n\n[324:7] 'The text of the Curetonian Gospels is in itself a\nsufficient proof of the extreme antiquity of the Syriac Version.\nThis, as has been already remarked, offers a striking resemblance\nto that of the Old Latin, and cannot be later than the middle or\nclose of the second century. It would be difficult to point out a\nmore interesting subject for criticism than the respective\nrelations of the Old Latin and Syriac Versions to the Latin and\nSyriac Vulgates. But at present it is almost untouched.' Westcott,\n_On the Canon_ (3rd ed.), p. 218, n. 3.\n\n[325:1] See Scrivener's _Introduction_, p. 324.\n\n[325:2] Cf. Bleek, _Einleitung_, p. 735; Reuss, _Gesch.\nN.T._ p. 447.\n\n[326:1] This is the date commonly accepted since Massuet, _Diss.\nin Irenaeum_, ii. 1. 2. Grabe had previously placed the date in\nA.D. 108, Dodwell as early as A.D. 97 (of. Stieren, _Irenaeus_,\nii. pp. 32, 34, 182).\n\n[326:2] Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 306.\n\n[327:1] Eus. _H.E._ v. 11, vi. 6. Eusebius, in his,\n'Chronicle,' speaks of Clement as eminent for his writings ([Greek\nsuntatton dielampen]) in A.D. 194.\n\n[327:2] The books called 'Stromateis' or 'Miscellanies' date from\nthis reign. _H.E._ vi. 6.\n\n[327:3] _Stromateis_, i. 1.\n\n[327:4] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 5.\n\n[327:5] _De Praescript. Haeret_. c. 36; see Scrivener,\n_Introduction_, p. 446.\n\n[328:1] pp. 450, 451.\n\n[328:2] p. 452. These facts may be held to show that the books\nwere not regarded with the same veneration as now.\n\n[329:1] v. 30. 1.\n\n[330:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8.\n\n[330:2] _Ib_. iii. 14. 2.\n\n[331:1] Cf. _Adv. Haer._ iv. 13. 1.\n\n[332:1] The varieties of reading in this verse are exhibited in\nfull by Dr. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 120, notes 4 and 5.\n\n[336:1] Matt. v. 28 is omitted as too ambiguous and confusing,\nthough it is especially important for the point in question as\nshowing that Tertullian himself had a variety of MSS. before him.\n\n[336:2] St. Matthew's Gospel is wanting in this MS. to xxv. 6; two\nleaves are also lost, from John vi. 50 to viii. 52.\n\n[346:1] _Strom_. ii. 20.\n\n[347:1] In a volume entitled _The Authorship and Historical\nCharacter of the Fourth Gospel_, Macmillan, 1872. I may say\nwith reference to this book--a 'firstling' of theological study--\nthat I am inclined now to think that I exaggerated somewhat the\nimportance of minute details as an evidence of the work of an\neye-witness. The whole of the arguments, however, summarised on\npp. 287-293 seem to me to be still perfectly valid and sound, and the\ngreater part of them--notably that which relates to the Messianic\nexpectations--is quite untouched by 'Supernatural Religion.'\n\n[348:1] It is instructive to compare the canons elaborately drawn\nup by Mr. M'Clellan (_N.T._ i. 375-389) with those tacitly\nassumed in 'Supernatural Religion.' The inference in the one case\nseems to be 'possible, therefore true,' in the other, 'not\nprobable, or not confirmed, therefore false.' Surely neither of\nthese tallies with experience.\n\n[352:1] This, perhaps, is one that is apt to be overlooked. In\norder to be quite sure that the process of analysis is complete it\nmust be supplemented and verified by the reversed process of\nsynthesis. If a compound has been resolved into its elements, we\ncannot be sure that it has been resolved into _all_ its\nelements until the original compound has been produced by their\nrecombination. Where this second reverse process fails, the\ninference is that some unknown element which was originally\npresent has escaped in the analysis. The analysis may be true as\nfar as it goes, but it is incomplete. The causes are 'verae\ncausae,' but they are not all the causes in operation. So it seems\nto be with the analysis of the vital organism. We may be said to\nknow entirely what air and water are because the chemist can\nproduce them, but we only know very imperfectly the nature of life\nand will and conscience, because when the physiological analysis\nhas been carried as far as it will go there still remains a large\nunknown element. Within this element may very well reside those\ndistinctive properties which make man (as the moralist is\n_obliged_ to assume that he is) a responsible and religious\nbeing. The hypotheses which lie at the root of morals and religion\nare derived from another source than physiology, but physiology\ndoes not exclude them, and will not do so until it gives a far\nmore verifiably complete account of human nature than it does at\npresent.\n\n[354:1] Mr. Browning has expressed this with his usual\nincisiveness and penetration:--\n\n    'I hear you recommend, I might at least\n     Eliminate, decrassify my faith ...\n     Still, when you bid me purify the same,\n     To such a process I discern no end,\n     Clearing off one excrescence to see two;\n     There's ever a next in size, now grown as big,\n     That meets the knife: I cut and cut again!\n     First cut the liquefaction, what comes last\n     But Fichte's clever cut at God himself?'\n\nBut also, on the other hand:--\n\n                                 'Where's\n     The gain? how can we guard our unbelief?\n     Just when we are safest, there's a sunset-touch,\n     A fancy from a flower-bell, some one's death,\n     A chorus ending from Euripides,--\n     And that's enough for fifty hopes and fears,\n     As old and new at once as Nature's self,\n     To rap and knock and enter in our soul ...\n     All we have gained then by our unbelief\n     Is a life of doubt diversified by faith,\n     For one of faith diversified by doubt:\n     We called the chess-board white,--we call it black.'\n\n                                _Bishop Blongram's Apology_.\n\n[359:1] As to the defects of the present edition, see Tischendorf,\nProlegomena to _Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes_,\np. liii: 'Eae vero (collationes) quemadmodum in editis habentur\nnon modo universae graviter differunt inter se fide atque accuratione,\nsed ad ipsos principales testes tam negligenter tamque male factae\nsunt ut etiam atque etiam dolendum sit tantos numos rara liberalitate\nper Angliam suppeditatos criticae sacrae parum profuisse.' Similarly\nCredner, in regard to the use of the Codex Alexandrinus, _Beitr\u00e4ge_,\nii. 16: 'Wahrhaft unbegreiflich und unverzeihlich ist es, dass die\nHerausgeber der kostbaren Kritischen Ausgabe der LXX, welcher zu Oxford\nvor wenigen Jahren vollendet und von Holmes und Parsons besorgt worden\nist, statt cine sorgf\u00e4ltige Vergleichung des in London aufbewahrten\nCod. Alex. zu veranstalten, sich lediglich auf die Ausgabe von Grabe\nbeschr\u00e4nkt haben, dessen Kritik vielfach nicht einmal verstanden worden\nist.'\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\nSUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL.\n\n\nIf the reader should happen to possess the work of R\u00f6nsch, Das\nNeue Testament Tertullian's, to which allusion has frequently been\nmade above, and will simply glance over the pages, noting the\nreferences, from Luke iv. 16 to the end of the Gospel, I do not\nthink he will need any other proof of the sufficiency of the\ngrounds for the reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel, so as at least\nto admit of a decision as to whether it was our present St. Luke\nor not.\n\nFailing this, it may be well to give a brief example of the kind\nof data available, going back straight to the original authorities\nthemselves.\n\nFor this purpose we will take the first chapter that Marcion\npreserved entire, Luke v, and set forth in full such fragments of\nit as have come down to us.\n\nWe take up the argument of Tertullian at the point where he begins\nto treat of this chapter.\n\nIn the fourth book of the treatise against Marcion Tertullian\nbegins by dealing with the Antitheses (a sort of criticism by\nMarcion on what he regarded as the Judaising portions of the\nCanonical Gospel), and then, in general terms, with the actual\nGospel which Marcion used. From the general he descends to the\nparticular, and in c.6 Tertullian pledges himself to show in\ndetail, that even in those parts of the Gospel which Marcion\nretained there was enough to refute his own system.\n\nMarcion's Gospel began with the descent of Jesus upon Capernaum in\nthe fifteenth year of Tiberias. Tertullian makes points out of\nthis, also from the account of His preaching in the synagogue and\nof the expulsion of the devil. After this incident Marcion's\nGospel represented our Lord as retiring into solitude. It did this\nas it would appear in words very similar to those of the Canonical\nGospel. I place side by side the language of Tertullian with that\nof the Vulgate (Codex Fuldensis, as given by Tregelles). I have\nalso compared the translation in the two codd., Vercellensis and\nVeronensis, of the Old Latin in Bianchini's edition. It will be\nremembered however that Tertullian is admitted to have Marcion's\n(and _not_ the Canonical) Gospel before him, and he probably\ntranslates directly from that.\n\nIn solitudinem procedit.... Detentus a turbis: _Oportet me,_\ninquit, _el aliis civitatibus_ _annuntiare regnum dei._\n\nLuke v. 42, 43: Ibat in desertum sertum locum ... et detinebant\nillum ne discederet ab eis. Quibus ille ait quia, Et aliis\ncivitatibus oportet me evangelizare regnum dei.\n\nHis discussion of the fifth chapter Tertullian begins by asking why,\nout of all possible occupations, Christ should have fixed upon that\nof fishing, to take from thence His apostles, Simon and the sons of\nZebedee. There was a meaning in the act which appears in the reply\nto Peter, 'Thou shalt catch men,' where there is a reference to a\nprophecy of Jeremiah (ch. xvi. 16). By this allusion Jesus sanctioned\nthose very prophecies which Marcion rejected. In the end the fishermen\nleft their boats and followed Him.\n\nDe tot generibus operum quid utique ad piscaturam respexit ut, ab illa\nin apostolos sumeret _Simonem et filios Zebedaei ... _dicens Petro\n_trepidanti de copiosa indagine piscium: ne time abhinc enum homines\neris capiens...._ Denique _relictis naviculis secuti sunt ipsum..._\n\nLuke v. 1-11:[1] Factum est autem cum turbae irruereut in eum et\nipse stabat secus stagnum Gennesareth:[2] et vidit duas\nnaves....[3] Ascendens in unam navem quae erat Simonis...[4] dixit\nad Simonem, Duc in altum, et laxate retia vestra in capturam.\n[6]Et cum hoc fecissent concluserunt piscium multitudinem\ncopiosam.... [7]Et impleverunt ambas naviculas ita ut mergerentur.\n[8]Quod cum videret Simon Petrus, procidit ad genua Jesu....\n[9]Stupor enim circumdederat eum ... [10]similiter autem Jacobum\net Johannem filios Zebedaei.... Et ait ad Simonem Jesus, Noli\ntimere, ex hoc jam homines eris capiens. [11]Et subductis ad\nterram navibus relictis omnibus secuti sunt illum.\n\nFor Noli timere &c., cod. a has, Noli timere, jam amodo eris\nvivificans homines; cod. b, Nol. tim., ex hoc jam eris homines\nvivificans.\n\nIn passing to the incident of the leper, Tertullian argues that\nthe prohibition of contact with a leper was figurative, applying\nreally to the contact with sin. But the Godhead is incapable of\npollution, and therefore Jesus touched the leper. It would be in\nvain for Marcion to suggest that this was done in contempt of the\nlaw. For, upon his own (Docetic) theory, the body of Jesus was\nphantasmal, and therefore could not receive pollution: so that\nthere would be no real contact or contempt of the law. Neither, as\nMarcion maintained, did a comparison with the miracle of Elisha\ntend to the disparagement of that prophet. True, Christ healed\nwith a word. So also with a word had the Creator made the world.\nAnd, after all, the word of Christ produced no greater result than\na river which came from the Creator's hands. Further, the command\nof Jesus to the leper when healed, showed His desire that the law\nshould be fulfilled. Nay, He added an explanation which conveyed\nthat He was not come to destroy the law, but Himself to fulfil it.\nThis He did deliberately, and not from mere indulgence to the man,\nwho, He knew, would wish to do as the law required.\n\nArgumentatur ... _in leprosi purgationem ... Tetigit leprosum_ ...\nEt hoc opponit Marcion ... Christum ... verbo solo, et hoc semel functo,\ncurationem statim repraesentasse. Quantam ad gloriae humanae aversionem\npertinebat, _vetuit eum divulgare_. Quantum autem ad tutelam legis\njussit ordinem impleri. _Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer munus\nquod praecepit Moyses_.... Itaque adjecit: _ut sit vobis in\ntestimonium_.\n\nLuke v. 12-14: [12] Ecce vir plenus lepra: et videns Jesum ...\nrogavit eum dicens, Domine, si vis, potes me mundare. [13] Et\nextendens manum tetigit illum dicens, Volo, mundare. Et confestim\nlepra discessit ab illo. [14] Et ipse praecepit illi ut nemini\ndiceret, sed Vade ostende te sacerdoti, et offer pro emundatione\ntua sicut praecepit Moses, in testimonium illis.\n\nFor emundatione in ver. 14, a has purgatione; b as Vulg. Both a\nand b have the form offers (see R\u00f6nsch, It. u. Vulg. p. 294), b\nthe plural sacerdotibus. Both codd. have a variation similar to\nthat of Marcion, ut sit etc.; a inserts hoc.\n\nNext follows the healing of the paralytic, which was done in\nfulfilment of Is. xxxv. 2. The miracle also itself in its details\nwas a special and exact fulfilment of the prophecy contained in\nthe next verse, Is. xxxv. 3. That the Messiah should forgive sins\nhad been repeatedly prophesied, e.g. in Is. liii. 12, i. 18, Micah\nvii. 18. Not only were these prophecies thus actually sanctioned\nby Christ, but, in forgiving the sins of the paralytic, He was\nonly doing what the Creator or Demiurge had done before Him. In\nproof of this Tertullian appeals to the examples of the Ninevites,\nof David and Nathan, of Ahab, of Jonathan the son of Saul, and of\nthe chosen people themselves. Thus Marcion was doubly refuted,\nbecause the prerogative of forgiveness was asserted of the Messiah\nin the prophecies which he rejected and attributed to the Creator\nwhom he denied. In like manner, when Jesus called Himself the 'Son\nof Man,' He did so in a real sense, signifying that He was really\nborn of a virgin. This appellation too had been applied to Him by\nthe prophet Daniel. (Dan. vii. 13, iii. 25). But if Jesus claimed\nto be the Son of Man, if, standing before the Jews as a man, He\nclaimed as man the power of forgiving sins, He thereby showed that\nHe possessed a real human body and not the mere phantasm of which\nMarcion spoke.\n\n_Curatur_ et _paralyticus_, et quidem in coetu, spectante populo...\nCum redintegratione membrorum virium quoque repraesentationem\npollicebatur: _Exsurge et tolle grabatum tuum;_--simul et animi\nvigorem ad non timendos qui dicturi erant: _Qui dimittet peccata\nnisi solus deus?_... Cum Judaei merito retractarent non posse hominem\n_delicta dimittere_ sed _deum solum_, cur... _respondit, habere eum\npotestatem dimittendi delicta_, quando et _filium hominis_ nominans\nhominem nominaret?\n\nLuke v. 17-26: [17] Et factum est in una dierum et ipse sedebat\ndocens.... [18] Et ecce viri portantes in lecto hominem, qui erat\nparalyticus, et quaerebant eum inferre... [19] et non invenientes\nqua parte illum inferrent prae turba,... per tegulas...\nsummiserunt illum cum lecto in medium ante Jesum. [20] Quorum\nfidem ut vidit, dixit, Homo, remittuntur tibi peccata tua. [21] Et\ncoeperunt cogitare Scribae et Pharisaei, dicentes, Quis est hic\nqui loquitur blasphemias? quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus\ndeus? [22] Ut cognovit autem Jesus cogitationes eorum, respondens\ndixit ad illos. ... [23] Quid est facilius dicere, Dimittuntur\ntibi peccata, an dicere, Surge et ambula? [24] Ut autem sciatis\nquia filius hominis potestatem habet in terra dimittere peccata,\nait paralytico, Tibi dico, surge, tolle lectum tuum et vade in\ndomum tuam. [25] Et confestim surgens ... abiit in domum suam.\n\nGrabatum is the reading of a in ver. 25.\n\nMarcion drew an argument from the calling of the publican (Levi)--\none under ban of the law--as if it were done in disparagement of\nthe law. Tertullian reminds him in reply of the calling and\nconfession of Peter, who was a representative of the law. Further,\nwhen he said that 'the whole need not a physician' Jesus declared\nthat the Jews were whole, the publicans sick.\n\n_Publicanum_ adlectum a domino ... dicendo, _medicum sanis\nnon esse necessarium sed male habentibus_...\n\nLuke v. 27-32: [27] Et post hoc exiit et vidit publicanum ... et\nait illi, Sequere me.... [30] Et murmurabant Pharisaei et Scribae\neorum... [31] et respondens Jesus dixit ad illos, Non egent qui\nsani sunt medico sed qui male habent.\n\nThe question respecting the disciples of John is turned against\nMarcion, as a recognition of the Baptist's mission. If John had\nnot prepared the way for Christ, if he had not actually baptized\nHim, if, in fact, there was that diversity between the two which\nMarcion assumed, no one would ever have thought of instituting a\ncomparison between them or the conduct of their disciples. In His\nreply, 'that the children of the bridegroom could not fast,' Jesus\nvirtually allowed the practice of the disciples of John, and\nexcused, as only for a time, that of His own disciples. The very\nname, 'bridegroom,' was taken from the Old Testament (Ps. xix. 6\nsq., Is. lxi. 10, xlix. 18, Cant. iv. 8); and its assumption by\nChrist was a sanction of marriage, and showed that Marcion did\nwrong to condemn the married state.\n\nUnde autem et Joannes venit in medium?... Si nihil omnino\nadministrasset Joannes ... nemo _discipulos Christi manducantes et\nbibentes_ ad formam _discipulorum Joannis assidue jejunantium et\norantium_ provocasset.... Nunc humiliter reddens rationem, quod _non\npossent jejunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea\nvero jejunaturos_ promittens, _cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset_.\n\nLuke v. 33-35: [33] At illi dixerunt ad eum, Quare discipuli\nJohannis jejunant frequenter et obsecrationes faciunt, ... tui\nautem edunt et bibunt? [34] Quibus ipse ait, Numquid potestis\nfilios sponsi dum cum illis est sponsus facere jejunare? [35]\nVenient autem dies cum ablatus fuerit ab illis sponsus, tune\njejunabunt in illis diebus.\n\nIn ver. 33, for obsecrationes a has orationes, and for edunt\nmanducant: a and b also have quamdiu (Vulg. cum) in ver. 35.\n\nEqually erroneous was Marcion's interpretation of the concluding\nverses of the chapter which dealt with the distinction between old\nand new. He indeed was intoxicated with 'new wine'--though the\nreal 'new wine' had been prophesied as far back as Jer. iv. 4 and\nIs. xliii. 19--but He to whom belonged the new wine and the new\nbottles also belonged the old. The difference between the old and\nnew dispensations was of developement and progression, not of\ndiversity or contrariety. Both had one and the same Author.\n\nErrasti in illa etiam domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova et\nvetera discernere. Inflatus es _utribus veteribus_ et excerebratus es\n_novo vino_: atque ita _veteri_, i.e. priori evangelio _pannum_\nhaereticae _novitatis adsuisli ... Venum novum_ is _non committit in\nveteres utres_ qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et _novum\nadditamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento_ nisi cui non defuerit\nvetus vestimentum.\n\nLuke v. 36-38: [36] Dicebat autem et similitudinem ad illos quia\nnemo commissuram a vestimento novo inmittit in vestimentum\nvetus.... [37] Et nemo mittit vinum novum in utres veteres....\n[38] Sed vinum novum in utres novos mittendum est.\n\nOf the phrases peculiar to Tertullian's version of Marcion's text,\na has pannum (-no) and adsuisti (-it).\n\nIt is observed that Tertullian does not quote verse 39, which is\nomitted by D, a, b, c, c, ff, l, and perhaps, also by Eusebius.\n\nTwo of the Scholia of Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 322 D sqq.), nos. 1\nand 2, have reference to this chapter.\n\n[Greek: Echul. a. Apelthon deixon seauton to hierei kai\nprosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxe Mousaes,\nhina ae marturion touto humin.]\n\nLuke v. 14. [Greek: Apeltheon deixon seauton to hierei, kai\nprosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxen Mousaes,\neis marturion autois.]\n\nv.l. [Greek: hina eis marturion] (D'1, [Greek: ae] D'2) [Greek:\nhumin touto] D, (a, b), c, ff, l.\n\nThe comment of Epiphanius on this is similar to that of\nTertullian. To bid the leper 'do as Moses commanded,' was\npractically to sanction the law of Moses. Epiphanius expressly\naccuses Marcion of falsifying the phrase 'for a testimony unto\nthem.' He says that he changed 'them' to 'you,' without however,\neven in this perverted form, preventing the text from recoiling\nupon his own head [Greek: diestrepsas de to rhaeton, o Markion,\nanti tou eipein 'eis marturion autois' marturion legon 'humin.'\nkai touto saphos epseuso kata taes sautou kephalaes].\n\n[Greek: Echol. B'. Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios\ntou anthropou aphienai hamartias epi taes gaes.]\n\nLuke v. 24. [Greek: Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios\ntou anthropou epi taes gaes aphienai hamartias.]\n\nIn this order, [Hebrew aleph], A, C, D, rel., a, c, e, Syrr. Pst.\nand Hcl., (Memph.), Goth., Arm., Aeth.; [Greek: ex. ech.] after\n[Greek: ho, hu. t. a.], B, L, [Greek: Xi symbol], K, Vulg., b, f,\ng'1, ff, l.\n\nBy calling Himself 'Son of Man,' Epiphanius says, our Lord\nasserts His proper manhood and repels Docetism, and, by claiming\n'power upon earth,' He declares that earth not to belong to an\nalien creation.\n\nReverting to Tertullian, we observe, (1) that the narrative of the\ndraught of fishes, with the fear of Peter, and the promise _in\nthis form_, 'Thou shalt catch men,' ([Greek: Mae phobou apo tou\nnun anthropous esae zogron]; the other Synoptists have, [Greek:\nDeute opiso mou, kai poiaeso humas halieis anthropon]), are found\nonly in St. Luke; (2) that the second section of the chapter, the\nhealing of the leper, is placed by the other Synoptists in a\ndifferent order, by Mark immediately after our Lord's retirement\ninto solitude (= Luke iv. 42-44), and by Matthew after the Sermon\non the Mount; the phrase [Greek: eis marturion autois] is common\nto all three Gospels, but in the text of St. Luke alone is there\nthe variant Ut sit vobis &c.; (3) that, while the remaining\nsections follow in the same order in all the Synoptics, still\nthere is much to identify the text from which Tertullian is\nquoting with that of Luke. Thus, in the account of the case of\nLevi, the third Evangelist alone has the word [Greek: telonaen]\n(=publicanum) and [Greek: hugiainontes] (=sani; the other Gospels\n[Greek: ischontes] =valentes); in the question as to the practice\nof the disciples of John, he alone has the allusion to prayers\n([Greek: deaeseis poiountai]) and the combination 'eat and drink'\n(the other Gospels, [Greek: ou naesteyousin]): he too has the\nsimple [Greek: epiblaema], for [Greek: epiblaema rhakous\nagnaphou]. It seems quite incredible that these accumulated\ncoincidences should be merely the result of accident.\n\nBut this is only the beginning. The same kind of coincidences run\nuniformly all through the Gospel. From the next chapter, Luke vi,\nMarcion had, in due order, the plucking of the ears of corn on the\nsabbath day ('rubbing them with their hands,' Luke and Marcion\nalone), the precedent of David and his companions and the\nshewbread, the watching _of the Pharisees_ (so Luke only) to\nsee if He would heal on the sabbath day, the healing of the\nwithered hand--with an exact resemblance to the text of Luke and\ndivergence from the other Gospels (licetne animam liberare an\nperdere? [Greek: psuchaen apolesai] Luke, [Greek: apokteinai]\nMark), in the order and words of Luke alone, the retreat into the\nmountain for prayer, the selection of the twelve Apostles, and\nthen, in a strictly Lucan form and introduced precisely at the\nsame point, the Sermon on the Mount, the blessing on 'the poor'\n(not the 'poor in spirit'), on those 'who hunger' (not on those\n'who hunger and thirst after righteousness'), on those 'who weep,\nfor they shall laugh' (not on those 'who mourn, for they shall be\ncomforted'), with an exact translation of St. Luke and difference\nfrom St. Matthew, the clause relating to those who are persecuted\nand reviled: then follow the 'woes;' to the rich, 'for ye have\nreceived your consolation;' to 'those who are full, for they shall\nhunger;' to 'those who laugh now, for they shall mourn:' and so on\nalmost verse by verse.\n\nIt is surely needless to go further. There are indeed very rarely\nwhat seem to be reminiscences of the other Gospels (e.g.\n'esurierunt discipuli' in the parallel to Luke vi. 1), but the\ntotal amount of resemblance to St. Luke and divergence from St.\nMatthew and St. Mark is overwhelming. Of course the remainder of\nthe evidence can easily be produced if necessary, but I do not\nthink it will long remain in doubt that our present St. Luke was\nreally the foundation of the Gospel that Marcion used.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX I.\n\nReferences to the Four Gospels.\n\n\nThe asterisk indicates that the passage in question is discussed\nin some detail.\n\n_St. Matthew._\n\nI.      1 2-6 18* 18 ff 18-25 21 23\nII.     1 1-7 1-23 2 5,6 6 11 12 13 13-15 16 17,18 18 22.\nIII.    2 4 8 10 11,12 15* 16 18\nIV.     1 8-10 9 10 11 17 18 23\nV.      1-48 3 4,5* 7* 8 10* 11 13,14 14 16* 17 17,18 18* 20 21-48\n           22 28 29 29,30 29,32 32 34* 37* 38,39 39,40 41 42 44,45\n           45* 46* 48\nVI.     1 1-34 6 8 10 13 14 19 19,20 20 21 25-27 25-37 32* 32,33\nVII.    1-29 2 6 7 9-11* 12 13,14* 15* 16 19 21* 22 22,23 28,29\nVIII.   9 11 11,12 17 26 28-34\nIX.     1-8 13* 16 17 22 29-31 33\nX.      1 8 10 11* 13 15 16* 22 26 28* 29,30 33 38,39 40\nXI.     5 7 10 11 12-15 18 26 25-27 27* 28\nXII.    1-8* 7 9-14* 17-21 18-21 24 25* 26 31,32 34 41 42 43 48\nXIII.   1-58 3 3ff 5 11 15 16 24-30 25 26* 34 35 37-39 38 39 42,43\nXIV.    1 3 3-12 6\nXV.     4-6 4-8* 4-9 8* 13 15 17 20 21-28 26 36\nXVI.    1 1-4 4 15-18 16* 19 21 24 24,25 26\nXVII.   3 5 11 11-13* 12,13 13\nXVIII.  1-35 3* 6 7 8 8,9 10 19\nXIX.    4 6* 8* 9 10-12 11,12* 12* 13 16,17* 17 19 22 26*\nXX.     8 16 19 20-28\nXXI.    1 5 12,13 16 20-22 23 33 42\nXXII.   9 11 14* 21 24 29 30 32 37 38 39 40 44*\nXXIII.  2 2,3 5 10 13 15 18 20 23 24 25 25,26* 27 29 35\nXXIV.   1-51 3 14 45-51*\nXXV.    1-46 14-30 21 26,27 34 41*\nXXVI.   1-75 17,18 24* 30 31* 36,37 38 39 41 43 56 56,57 57 64*\nXXVII.  9 9,10* 11f. 14 35 39ff 42 43 46 57-60\nXXVIII. 1 12-15 19.\n\n\n_St. Mark._\n\nI.      1 2 4 17 22 24 26\nII.     23-28* 28\nIII.    1-6* 17 23 25 29\nIV.     1-34 11 12 33,34 34*\nV.      1-20 31\nVI.     3 11 14 17-29\nVII.    6* 6-13 7 10,11 11-13 13 21,22 24-30\nVIII.   29 31 34\nIX.     7 21 43 47\nX.      5 5,6 6 8 9 17 18 19 21 22 27* 37-45\nXI.     20-26\nXII.    17 20 24 27* 29* 30 38-44\nXIII.   2* 22\nXIV.    12,13 12-14 40 51,52\nXV.     14 34\nXVI.    14-16\n\n\n_St. Luke._\n\nI.     1-4 1-80 3 6 7 7-10 8 9 12 13 15 17 18,19 19 20 20-22 21 23 24\n          26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 34,35 35* 36 39 41 48 55 56 57 61 62\n          64 67 69 73 74 76 77 78 80\nII.    1,2 1-52 4 6 7 8 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 21,22 22 24 25 26\n          27 28 29 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 48,49 49 50 51\n          52 66\nIII.   1 1-38 3 12-14 13 15 16 16,17 17 19 20 21 21,22 22 23 31-34\nIV.    1 1-13 4 6 6-8 7 8 10 13 14 16 17 17-20 18,19 19 20 24 25 32\n          42,43 42-44\nV.     1 1-11 1-39 12-14 14 17-26 24 27-32 32 33-35 36-38 39\nVI.    1 1-5* 1-49 6-11* 13 14* 20* 27,28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 36,37\n          36-38* 37,38 45 46*\nVII.   2* 8 11-18 12* 24-28 26 27 28 29-35 30 35 36-38\nVIII.  1-3 5 10 19 23 26-39 41\nIX.    5 7 17,18 20 22 55 57,58 60 61 61,62 62\nX.     3 5,6 7* 10-12 16 18 19* 20 21 21,22 22 23 24 25 37\nXI.    2 9 11-13* 14 17 22 29-32 32 39 42 47 49-51 52\nXII.   4,5* 6,7 9 10 14 22-24 30 38 42-46* 48 50\nXIII.  1 sqq. 1-9 6 7 7-8 24* 26,27 27 28 28,29 29 29-35 31-35 33 34\nXIV.   27\nXV.    4 8 11-32 13 14 17 18 20 22 24 25 26 29\nXVI.   12 16 17*\nXVII.  1,2* 2 5-10 9 9,10\nXVIII. 6-8 18,18 19 27* 31 31-34 34 35-43\nXIX.   5 9 17 22,23 29 29-48 33-39 35 37 37-48 38 41 42 43 46 47\nXX.    9 9-l8 14 17 19 21 22 22-25 24 25 35,36 35 37,38 38\nXXI.   1-4 4 18 21 21,22 22 27 28 34\nXXII.  9-11 16-18 17 18 18-36 19 19,20 28-30 30 35-38 37 38 42-44\n          43,44* 53,54 66\nXXIII. 1 ff. 2 5 7 34 35 46\nXXIV.  1 ff. 21 26 32 38,39 39* 40 42 46 47-53 49 50 5l 52 53\n\n\n_St. John._\n\nI.     1,2 1-3 3* 4 5* 9 13 14 18 19 19,20* 23* 28\nII.    4 16,17\nIII.   3-5* 5* 6 8 12 14 16 36\nIV.    6\nV.     2 3,4 4 8 17 18 43 46\nVI.    15 39 51 53 54* 55* 70\nVII.   8 38 42\nVIII.  17 40 44\nIX.    1-3*\nX.     8 9* 23,24 27* 30\nXI.    54\nXII.   14,15 22 27 30 40 41\nXIII.  18\nXIV.   2 6 10\nXV.    25\nXVI.   2* 3\nXVII.  3 11,12 14*\nXVIII. 36\nXIX.   36 37*\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX II.\n\nChronological and Analytical.\n\n\n _Writer_.   |   _Works Extant_.   | _Date_ | _Evangelical Documents\n             |                     |  A.D.  |         used_.\n             |                     |        |\nClement of   |One genuine Epistle  | c.95-  |Traces, perhaps\n Rome.       | addressed to the    |  100.  | probable of the three\n             | Philippians.        |        | Synoptics.\n             |                     |        |\nBarnabas.    |Pseud-egraphical     | c.100- |Probably St. Matthew,\n             |  Epistle            |   125. | perhaps St. Luke,\n             |                     |        | possibly the fourth Gospel.\n             |                     |        |\nIgnatius.    |Three short Epistles,| 107 or |Probably St. Matthew,\n             | probably genuine.   |  115.  | and perhaps St. John.\n             | [Spurious, S.R.]    |        |\n             |                     |        |\n             |Seven short Epistles,|        |Probably St. Matthew,\n             | perhaps genuine.    |        | perhaps also St. John.\n             | [Spurious, S.R.]    |        |\n             |                     |        |\nHermas.      |Allegorical work,    | c.135- |No distinct traces of\n             | entitled the        |   140. | any writing of Old or\n             | 'Shepherd.'         |        | New Testament.\n             |                     |        |\nPolycarp.    |Short Epistle to     | c.140- |Doubtful traces of\n             | Philippians,        |   155. | St. Matthew, probable\n             | probably genuine.   |        | of 1 John.\n             | [Spurious, S.R.]    |        |\n             |                     |        |\nPresbyters.  |Quoted by Irenaeus.  | c.140? |Probably St. John.\n             |                     |        |\nPapias.      |Short fragments in   | +155.  |Some account of\n             | Eusebius.           |[see pp.| works written by\n             |                     |145, 82;| St. Matthew and\n             |                     |164-167,| St. Mark, but\n             |                     |S.R.]   | probably not our\n             |                     |        | present Gospels in\n             |                     |        | their present form.\n             |                     |        |\nBasilides.  }|Allusions, not       | c.125. |Certain use of\n            }| certain, in         |        | St. Luke and St. John,\n            }| Hippolytus, Clem.   |        | perhaps probably by\nBasilidians.}| Alex., Epiphanius,  |        | Basilides himself.\n             |                     |        |\nMarcion.     |Copious references   | c.140. |Certainly the third\n             | in Tertullian and   |        | Gospel, with text\n             | Epiphanius.         |        | already corrupt.\n             |                     |        |\nJustin       |Two Apologies and    | +148.  |Three Synoptic\n Martyr.     | Dialogue against    | [166-  | Gospels either\n             | Tryphon.            |  167,  | separately or in\n             |                     |  S.R.] | Harmony, probably the\n             |                     |        | fourth Gospel, and also\n             |                     |        | an Apocryphal Gospel or\n             |                     |        | Gospels; text showing\n             |                     |        | marks of corruption.\n             |                     |        |\n             |Old Latin translation| c.150. |Four Canonical\n             | of N.T.             |        | Gospels, with\n             |                     |        | corrupt text.\n             |                     |        |\nValentinus. }|Allusions, not       | c.140. |References to all four\n            }| certain in          |        | Gospels, but not clear\nValentinians}| Hippolytus, &c.     | before | by whom made.\n             |                     |  178.  |\n             |                     |        |\nClement.     |Nineteen pseudo-     | c.160? |Four Canonical Gospels\n             | epigraphical        |        | (possibly in a\n             |                     |        | Harmony), with other\n             |                     |        | Apocryphal sources\n             |                     |        | to some extent.\n             |                     |        |\nHegesippus.  |Few fragments        |fl.157- |Apparent traces of\n             | chiefly preserved   |   180. | St. Matthew and\n             | by Eusebius.        |        | St. Luke.\n             |                     |        |\nTatian.      |Few allusions,       |fl.150- |Diatessaron,\n             |'Address to Greeks.' |   170. | probably consisting\n             |                     |        | of our four Gospels,\n             |                     |        | quotations from\n             |                     |        | St. John in Orat.\n             |                     |        | ad Graec.\n             |                     |        |\n             |Old Syriac           | c.160? |Four Canonical Gospels,\n             | Translation of N.T. |        | with corrupt text.\n             |                     |        |\n             |Muratorian Fragment  | c.170. |Four Gospels as\n             |                     |        | Canonical.\n             |                     |        |\nPtolomaeus.  |Allusions in         | before |Clear references\n             | Irenaeus, &c.,      |  178.  | to St. Matthew and\n             | fragments in        |        | St. John.\n             | Epiphanius.         |        |\n             |                     |        |\nHeracleon.   |Allusions in         | before |Third and fourth\n             | Irenaeus, &c.,      |  178.  | gospels.\n             | fragments in Origen.|        |\n             |                     |        |\nMelito.      |Few slight fragments.| c.176. |Doubtful indirect\n             |                     |        | allusions to Canon\n             |                     |        | of N.T.\n             |                     |        |\nApollinaris. |Two slight fragments.|  176-  |Allusion to\n             |                     |  180.  | discrepancy\n             |                     |        | between Gospels,\n             |                     |        | fourth Gospel.\n             |                     |        |\nAthenagoras. |An Apology and tract | c.177. |One fairly clear\n             | on the Resurrection.|        | quotation from\n             |                     |        | St. Matthew,\n             |                     |        | perhaps from\n             |                     |        | St. Mark and\n             |                     |        | St. John.\n             |                     |        |\nChurches of  |An Epistle.          |  177.  |Clear allusions to\n Vienne and  |                     |        | St. Luke and St. John,\n Lyons.      |                     |        | perhaps also to\n             |                     |        | St. Matthew.\n             |                     |        |\nCelsus.      |Fragments in Origen. | c.178. |Somewhat vague traces\n             |                     |        | of all four Gospels.\n             |                     |        |\nIrenaeus.    |Treatise 'Against    | c.140- |Four Gospels as\n             | Heresies.'          |   202. | Canonical, with\n             |                     |        | corrupt text.\n             |                     |        |\nClement of   |Several considerable |fl.185- |Four Gospels as\n Alexandria  | works.              |   211. | Canonical, with\n             |                     |        | corrupt text.\n             |                     |        |\nTertullian.  |Voluminous works.    |fl.198- |Four Gospels as\n             |                     |   210. | Canonical, with\n             |                     |        | corrupt text.","title":"The Gospels in the Second Century: An Examination of the Critical Part of a Work Entitled 'Supernatural Religion'","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":114265}