THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY

_AN EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PART OF A WORKENTITLED 'SUPERNATURAL RELIGION'_

BY

W. SANDAY, M. A. 

_Rector of Barton-on-the-Heath, Warwickshire;and late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. Author of a Work on the Fourth Gospel. _

LONDON:1876. 

_I had hoped to inscribe in this book the revered and cherishedname of my old head master, DR. PEARS of Repton. His consent hadbeen very kindly and warmly given, and I was just on the point ofsending the dedication to the printers when I received a telegramnaming the day and hour of his funeral. His health had for sometime since his resignation of Repton been seriously failing, but Ihad not anticipated that the end was so near. All who knew himwill deplore his too early loss, and their regret will be sharedby the wider circle of those who can appreciate a life in whichthere was nothing ignoble, nothing ungenerous, nothing unreal. Ihad long wished that he should receive some tribute of regard fromone whom he had done his best by precept, and still more byexample, to fit and train for his place and duty in the world. This pleasure and this honour have been denied me. I cannot placemy book, as I had hoped, in his hand, but I may still lay itreverently upon his tomb. _

CONTENTS

CHAP. 

I. INTRODUCTORY

II. ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS

III. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

IV. JUSTIN MARTYR

V. HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS

VI. THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES

VII. BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS

VIII. MARCION

IX. TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH

X. MELITO--APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS

XI. PTOLOMAEUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT

XII. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL

XIII. ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY

XIV. CONCLUSION

[ENDNOTES]

APPENDIX. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL

INDICES

PREFACE. 

It will be well to explain at once that the following work hasbeen written at the request and is published at the cost of theChristian Evidence Society, and that it may therefore be classedunder the head of Apologetics. I am aware that this will be adrawback to it in the eyes of some, and I confess that it is notaltogether a recommendation in my own. 

Ideally speaking, Apologetics ought to have no existence distinctfrom the general and unanimous search for truth, and in so far asthey tend to put any other consideration, no matter how high orpure in itself, in the place of truth, they must needs stand asidefrom the path of science. 

But, on the other hand, the question of true belief itself isimmensely wide. It is impossible to approach what is merely abranch of a vast subject without some general conclusions alreadyformed as to the whole. The mind cannot, if it would, become asheet of blank paper on which the writing is inscribed by anexternal process alone. It must needs have its _praejudicia_--i. E. Judgments formed on grounds extrinsic to the special matterof enquiry--of one sort or another. Accordingly we find that anabsolutely and strictly impartial temper never has existed andnever will. If it did, its verdict would still be false, becauseit would represent an incomplete or half-suppressed humanity. There is no question that touches, directly or indirectly, on themoral and spiritual nature of man that can be settled by the barereason. A certain amount of sympathy is necessary in order toestimate the weight of the forces that are to be analysed: yetthat very sympathy itself becomes an extraneous influence, and theperfect balance and adjustment of the reason is disturbed. 

But though impartiality, in the strict sense, is not to be had, there is another condition that may be rightly demanded--resolutehonesty. This I hope may be attained as well from one point ofview as from another, at least that there is no very greatantecedent reason to the contrary. In past generations indeedthere was such a reason. Strongly negative views could only beexpressed at considerable personal risk and loss. But now, publicopinion is so tolerant, especially among the reading and thinkingclasses, that both parties are practically upon much the samefooting. Indeed for bold and strong and less sensitive mindsnegative views will have an attraction and will find support thatwill go far to neutralise any counterbalancing disadvantage. 

On either side the remedy for the effects of bias must be found ina rigorous and searching criticism. If misleading statements andunsound arguments are allowed to pass unchallenged the fault willnot lie only with their author. 

It will be hardly necessary for me to say that the ChristianEvidence Society is not responsible for the contents of this work, except in so far as may be involved in the original request that Ishould write it. I undertook the task at first with some hesitation, and I could not have undertaken it at all without stipulating forentire freedom. The Society very kindly and liberally granted methis, and I am conscious of having to some extent availed myselfof it. I have not always stayed to consider whether the opinionsexpressed were in exact accordance with those of the majority ofChristians. It will be enough if they should find points of contactin some minds, and the tentative element in them will perhaps bethe more indulgently judged now that the reconciliation of thedifferent branches of knowledge and belief is being so anxiouslysought for. 

The instrument of the enquiry had to be fashioned as the enquiryitself went on, and I suspect that the consequences of this willbe apparent in some inequality and incompleteness in the earlierportions. For instance, I am afraid that the textual analysis ofthe quotations in Justin may seem somewhat less satisfactory thanthat of those in the Clementine Homilies, though Justin'squotations are the more important of the two. Still I hope thatthe treatment of the first may be, for the scale of the book, sufficiently adequate. There seemed to be a certain advantage inpresenting the results of the enquiry in the order in which it wasconducted. If time and strength are allowed me, I hope to be ableto carry several of the investigations that are begun in this booksome stages further. 

I ought perhaps to explain that I was prevented by other engagementsfrom beginning seriously to work upon the subject until the latterend of December in last year. The first of Dr. Lightfoot's articlesin the Contemporary Review had then appeared. The next two articles(on the Silence of Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles) were alsoin advance of my own treatment of the same topics. From this pointonwards I was usually the first to finish, and I have been compelledmerely to allude to the progress of the controversy in notes. Seeingthe turn that Dr. Lightfoot's review was taking, and knowing howutterly vain it would be for any one else to go over the same ground, I felt myself more at liberty to follow a natural bent in confiningmyself pretty closely to the internal aspect of the enquiry. My objecthas been chiefly to test in detail the alleged quotations from ourGospels, while Dr. Lightfoot has taken a wider sweep in collectingand bringing to bear the collateral matter of which his unrivalledknowledge of the early Christian literature gave him such command. It will be seen that in some cases, as notably in regard to theevidence of Papias, the external and the internal methods haveled to an opposite result; and I shall look forward with muchinterest to the further discussion of this subject. 

I should be sorry to ignore the debt I am under to the author of'Supernatural Religion' for the copious materials he has suppliedto criticism. I have also to thank him for his courtesy in sendingme a copy of the sixth edition of his work. My obligations toother writers I hope will be found duly acknowledged. If I were tosingle out the one book to which I owed most, it would probably beCredner's 'Beitrage zur Einleitung in die Biblischen Schriften, 'of which I have spoken somewhat fully in an early chapter. I haveused a certain amount of discretion and economy in avoiding as arule the works of previous apologists (such as Semisch, Riggenbach, Norton, Hofstede de Groot) and consulting rather those of an oppositeschool in such representatives as Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. In thisway, though I may very possibly have omitted some arguments whichmay be sound, I hope I shall have put forward few that have beenalready tried and found wanting. 

As I have made rather large use of the argument supplied by text-criticism, I should perhaps say that to the best of my belief myattention was first drawn to its importance by a note in Dr. Lightfoot'swork on Revision. The evidence adduced under this head will be found, I believe, to be independent of any particular theory of text-criticism. The idea of the Analytical Index is taken, with some change of plan, from Volkmar. It may serve to give a sort of _coup d'oeil_ of thesubject. 

It is a pleasure to be able to mention another form of assistancefrom which it is one of the misfortunes of an anonymous writer tofind himself cut off. The proofs of this book have been seen intheir passage through the press by my friend the Rev. A. J. Mason, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, whose exact scholarship hasbeen particularly valuable to me. On another side than that ofscholarship I have derived the greatest benefit from the advice ofmy friend James Beddard, M. B. , of Nottingham, who was among thefirst to help me to realise, and now does not suffer me to forget, what a book ought to be. The Index of References to the Gospelshas also been made for me. 

The chapter on Marcion has already appeared, substantially in itspresent form, as a contribution to the Fortnightly Review. 

BARTON-ON-THE-HEATH, SHIPSTON-ON-STOUR, _November_, 1875. 

 [Greek epigraph: Ta de panta elenchoumena hupo tou photos phaneroutai pan gar to phaneroumenon phos estin. ]

CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

It would be natural in a work of this kind, which is a directreview of a particular book, to begin with an account of thatbook, and with some attempt to characterise it. Such had been myown intention, but there seems to be sufficient reason forpursuing a different course. On the one hand, an account of a bookwhich has so recently appeared, which has been so fully reviewed, and which has excited so much attention, would appear to besuperfluous; and, on the other hand, as the character of it hasbecome the subject of somewhat sharp controversy, and as controversy--or at least the controversial temper--is the one thing that I wishto avoid, I have thought it well on the whole to abandon my firstintention, and to confine myself as much as possible to a criticismof the argument and subject-matter, with a view to ascertain thereal facts as to the formation of the Canon of the four Gospels. 

I shall correct, where I am able to do so, such mistakes as mayhappen to come under my notice and have not already been pointedout by other reviewers, only dilating upon them where what seem tobe false principles of criticism are involved. On the generalsubject of these mistakes--misleading references and the like--Ithink that enough has been said [Endnote 2:1]. Much is perhapscharged upon the individual which is rather due to the system oftheological training and the habits of research that are common inEngland at the present day. Inaccuracies no doubt have been found, not a few. But, unfortunately, there is only one of our seats oflearning where--in theology at least--the study of accuracy hasquite the place that it deserves. Our best scholars and ablestmen--with one or two conspicuous exceptions--do not write, and thework is left to be done by _littérateurs_ and clergymen orlaymen who have never undergone the severe preliminary disciplinewhich scientific investigation requires. Thus a low standard isset; there are but few sound examples to follow, and it is achance whether the student's attention is directed to these at thetime when his habits of mind are being formed. 

Again, it was claimed for 'Supernatural Religion' on its firstappearance that it was impartial. The claim has been indignantlydenied, and, I am afraid I must say, with justice. Any oneconversant with the subject (I speak of the critical portion ofthe book) will see that it is deeply coloured by the author'sprepossessions from beginning to end. Here again he has only imbibedthe temper of the nation. Perhaps it is due to our politicalactivity and the system of party-government that the spirit ofparty seems to have taken such a deep root in the English mind. AnEnglishman's political opinions are determined for him mainly(though sometimes in the way of reaction) by his antecedents andeducation, and his opinions on other subjects follow in theirtrain. He takes them up with more of practical vigour and energythan breadth of reflection. There is a contagion of party-spiritin the air. And thus advocacy on one side is simply met byadvocacy on the other. Such has at least been hitherto the historyof English thought upon most great subjects. We may hope that atlast this state of things is coming to an end. But until now, andeven now, it has been difficult to find that quiet atmosphere inwhich alone true criticism can flourish. 

Let it not be thought that these few remarks are made in a spiritof censoriousness. They are made by one who is only too consciousof being subject to the very same conditions, and who knows nothow far he may need indulgence on the same score himself. How farhis own work is tainted with the spirit of advocacy it is not forhim to say. He knows well that the author whom he has set himselfto criticise is at least a writer of remarkable vigour andability, and that he cannot lay claim to these qualities; but hehas confidence in the power of truth--whatever that truth may be--to assert itself in the end. An open and fair field and full andfree criticism are all that is needed to eliminate the effects ofindividual strength or weakness. 'The opinions of good men are butknowledge in the making'--especially where they are based upon asurvey of the original facts. Mistakes will be made and havecurrency for a time. But little by little truth emerges; itreceives the suffrages of those who are competent to judge;gradually the controversy narrows; parts of it are closed upentirely, and a solid and permanent advance is made. 

 * * * * *

The author of 'Supernatural Religion' starts from a rigid andsomewhat antiquated view of Revelation--Revelation is 'a directand external communication by God to man of truths undiscoverableby human reason. The divine origin of this communication is provedby miracles. Miracles are proved by the record of Scripture, which, in its turn, is attested by the history of the Canon. --Thisis certainly the kind of theory which was in favour at the end ofthe last century, and found expression in works like Paley'sEvidences. It belongs to a time of vigorous and clear butmechanical and narrow culture, when the philosophy of religion wasmade up of abrupt and violent contrasts; when Christianity(including under that name the Old Testament as well as the New)was thought to be simply true and all other religions simplyfalse; when the revelation of divine truth was thought to be assudden and complete as the act of creation; and when the presenceof any local and temporary elements in the Christian documents orsociety was ignored. 

The world has undergone a great change since then. A new and far-reaching philosophy is gradually displacing the old. The Christiansees that evolution is as much a law of religion as of nature. TheEthnic, or non-Christian, religions are no longer treated asoutside the pale of the Divine government. Each falls into itsplace as part of a vast divinely appointed scheme, of the characterof which we are beginning to have some faint glimmerings. Otherreligions are seen to be correlated to Christianity much as theother tentative efforts of nature are correlated to man. A divineoperation, and what from our limited human point of view we shouldcall a _special_ divine operation, is not excluded but rather impliedin the physical process by which man has been planted on the earth, and it is still more evidently implied in the corresponding processof his spiritual enlightenment. The deeper and more comprehensiveview that we have been led to take as to the dealings of Providencehas not by any means been followed by a depreciation of Christianity. Rather it appears on a loftier height than ever. The spiritualmovements of recent times have opened men's eyes more and more toits supreme spiritual excellence. It is no longer possible toresolve it into a mere 'code of morals. ' The Christian ethics groworganically out of the relations which Christianity assumes betweenGod and man, and in their fulness are inseparable from those relations. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' speaks as if they were separable, as if a man could assume all the Christian graces merely by wishingto assume them. But he forgets the root of the whole Christian system, 'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall inno case enter into the kingdom of heaven. '

The old idea of the _Aufklärung_ that Christianity was nothingmore than a code of morals, has now long ago been given up, andthe self-complacency which characterised that movement hasfor the most part, though not entirely, passed away. Thenineteenth century is not in very many quarters regarded as thegoal of things. And it will hardly now be maintained thatChristianity is adequately represented by any of the many sectsand parties embraced under the name. When we turn from even thebest of these, in its best and highest embodiment, to the picturethat is put before us in the Gospels, how small does it seem! Wefeel that they all fall short of their ideal, and that there is agreater promise and potentiality of perfection in the root thanhas ever yet appeared in branch or flower. 

No doubt theology follows philosophy. The special conception ofthe relation of man to God naturally takes its colour from thewider conception as to the nature of all knowledge and therelation of God to the universe. It has been so in every age, andit must needs be so now. Some readjustment, perhaps a considerablereadjustment, of theological and scientific beliefs may benecessary. But there is, I think, a strong presumption that thechanges involved in theology will be less radical than often seemsto be supposed. When we look back upon history, the world has gonethrough many similar crises before. The discoveries of Darwin andthe philosophies of Mill or Hegel do not mark a greater relativeadvance than the discoveries of Newton and the philosophies ofDescartes and Locke. These latter certainly had an effect upontheology. At one time they seemed to shake it to its base; so muchso that Bishop Butler wrote in the Advertisement to the firstedition of his Analogy that 'it is come to be taken for grantedthat Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but thatit is now at length discovered to be fictitious. ' Yet what do wesee after a lapse of a hundred and forty years? It cannot be saidthat there is less religious life and activity now than there wasthen, or that there has been so far any serious breach in thecontinuity of Christian belief. An eye that has learnt to watchthe larger movements of mankind will not allow itself to bedisturbed by local oscillations. It is natural enough that some ofour thinkers and writers should imagine that the last word hasbeen spoken, and that they should be tempted to use the word'Truth' as if it were their own peculiar possession. But Truth isreally a much vaster and more unattainable thing. One man sees afragment of it here and another there; but, as a whole, even inany of its smallest subdivisions, it exists not in the brain ofany one individual, but in the gradual, and ever incomplete butever self-completing, onward movement of the whole. 'If any manthink that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he oughtto know. ' The forms of Christianity change, but Christianityitself endures. And it would seem as if we might well be contentto wait until it was realised a little less imperfectly before weattempt to go farther afield. 

Yet the work of adaptation must be done. The present generationhas a task of its own to perform. It is needful for it to reviseits opinions in view of the advances that have been made both ingeneral knowledge and in special theological criticism. In so faras 'Supernatural Religion' has helped to do this, it has servedthe cause of true progress; but its main plan and design I cannotbut regard as out of date and aimed in the air. 

The Christian miracles, or what in our ignorance we call miracles, will not bear to be torn away from their context. If they arefacts we must look at them in strict connection with that IdealLife to which they seem to form the almost natural accompaniment. The Life itself is the great miracle. When we come to see it as itreally is, and to enter, if even in some dim and groping way, intoits inner recesses, we feel ourselves abashed and dumb. Yet thisself-evidential character is found in portions of the narrativethat are quite unmiraculous. These, perhaps, are in reality themost marvellous, though the miracles themselves will seem in placewhen their spiritual significance is understood and they areranged in order round their common centre. Doubtless some elementsof superstition may be mixed up in the record as it has come downto us. There is a manifest gap between the reality and the storyof it. The Evangelists were for the most part 'Jews who soughtafter a sign. ' Something of this wonder-seeking curiosity may verywell have given a colour to their account of events in which thereally transcendental element was less visible and tangible. Wecannot now distinguish with any degree of accuracy between thesubjective and the objective in the report. But that miracles, orwhat we call such, did in some shape take place, is, I believe, simply a matter of attested fact. When we consider it in itsrelation to the rest of the narrative, to tear out the miraculousbodily from the Gospels seems to me in the first instance aviolation of history and criticism rather than of faith. 

Still the author of 'Supernatural Religion' is, no doubt, justifiedin raising the question, Did miracles really happen? I only wishto protest against the idea that such a question can be adequatelydiscussed as something isolated and distinct, in which all thatis necessary is to produce and substantiate the documents as ina forensic process. Such a 'world-historical' event (if I may forthe moment borrow an expressive Germanism) as the founding ofChristianity cannot be thrown into a merely forensic form. Considerations of this kind may indeed enter in, but to supposethat they can be justly estimated by themselves alone is an error. And it is still more an error to suppose that the riddle of theuniverse, or rather that part of the riddle which to us is mostimportant, the religious nature of man and, the objective factsand relations that correspond to it, can all be reduced to somefour or five simple propositions which admit of being proved ordisproved by a short and easy Q. E. D. 

It would have been a far more profitable enquiry if the author hadasked himself, What is Revelation? The time has come when thisshould be asked and an attempt to obtain a more scientificdefinition should be made. The comparative study of religions hasgone far enough to admit of a comparison between the Ethnicreligions and that which had its birth in Palestine--the religionof the Jews and Christians. Obviously, at the first blush, thereis a difference: and that difference constitutes what we mean byRevelation. Let us have this as yet very imperfectly knownquantity scientifically ascertained, without any attempt either tominimise or to exaggerate. I mean, let the field which Mr. MatthewArnold has lately been traversing with much of his usual insightbut in a light and popular manner, be seriously mapped out andexplored. Pioneers have been at work, such as Dr. Kuenen, but notperhaps quite without a bias: let the same enquiry be taken up sowidely as that the effects of bias may be eliminated; and insteadof at once accepting the first crude results, let us wait untilthey are matured by time. This would be really fruitful andproductive, and a positive addition to knowledge; but reasoningsuch as that in 'Supernatural Religion' is vitiated at the outset, because it starts with the assumption that we know perfectly wellthe meaning of a term of which our actual conception is vague andindeterminate in the extreme--Divine Revelation. [Endnote 10:1]

With these reservations as to the main drift and bearing of theargument, we may however meet the author of 'Supernatural Religion'on his own ground. It is a part of the question--though a moresubordinate part apparently than he seems to suppose--to decidewhether miracles did or did not really happen. Even of this parttoo it is but quite a minor subdivision that is included in thetwo volumes of his work that have hitherto appeared. In the firstplace, merely as a matter of historical attestation, the Gospelsare not the strongest evidence for the Christian miracles. Onlyone of the four, in its present shape, is claimed as the work ofan Apostle, and of that the genuineness is disputed. The Acts ofthe Apostles stand upon very much the same footing with the SynopticGospels, and of this book we are promised a further examination. But we possess at least some undoubted writings of one who washimself a chief actor in the events which followed immediatelyupon those recorded in the Gospels; and in these undoubted writingsSt. Paul certainly shows by incidental allusions, the good faithof which cannot be questioned, that he believed himself to beendowed with the power of working miracles, and that miracles, or what were thought to be such, were actually wrought both byhim and by his contemporaries. He reminds the Corinthians that'the signs of an Apostle were wrought among them ... In signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds' ([Greek: en saemeious kai terasikai dunamesi]--the usual words for the higher forms of miracle--2 Cor. Xii. 12). He tells the Romans that 'he will not dare tospeak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought in him, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mightysigns and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God' ([Greek:en dunamei saemeion kai teraton, en dunamei pneumator Theou], Rom. Xv. 18, 19) He asks the Galatians whether 'he that ministerethto them the Spirit, and worketh miracles [Greek: ho energon dunameis]among them, doeth it by the works of the law, or by the hearing offaith?' (Gal. Iii. 5). In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, he goes somewhat elaborately into the exact place in the Christianeconomy that is to be assigned to the working of miracles and giftsof healing (1 Cor. Xii. 10, 28, 29). Besides these allusions, St. Paulrepeatedly refers to the cardinal miracles of the Resurrection andAscension; he refers to them as notorious and unquestionable factsat a time when such an assertion might have been easily refuted. On one occasion he gives a very circumstantial account of the testimonyon which the belief in the Resurrection rested (1 Cor. Xv. 4-8). And, not only does he assert the Resurrection as a fact, but he buildsupon it a whole scheme of doctrine: 'If Christ be not risen, ' he says, 'then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. ' We do notstay now to consider the exact philosophical weight of this evidence. It will be time enough to do this when it has received the criticaldiscussion that may be presumed to be in store for it. But as externalevidence, in the legal sense, it is probably the best that can beproduced, and it has been entirely untouched so far. 

Again, in considering the evidence for the age of the SynopticGospels, that which is derived from external sources is only apart, and not perhaps the more important part, of the whole. Itpoints backwards indeed, and we shall see with what amount offorce and range. But there is still an interval within which onlyapproximate conclusions are possible. These conclusions need to besupplemented from the phenomena of the documents themselves. Inthe relation of the Gospels to the growth of the Christian societyand the development of Christian doctrine, and especially to thegreat turning-point in the history, the taking of Jerusalem, thereis very considerable internal evidence for determining the datewithin which they must have been composed. It is well known thatmany critics, without any apologetic object, have found a more orless exact criterion in the eschatological discourses (Matt. Xxiv, Mark xiii, Luke xxi. 5-36), and to this large additions may bemade. As I hope some day to have an opportunity of discussing thewhole question of the origin and composition of the SynopticGospels, I shall not go into this at present: but in the mean timeit should be remembered that all these further questions lie inthe background, and that in tracing the formation of the Canon ofthe Gospels the whole of the evidence for miracles--even from this_ab extra_ point of view--is very far from being exhausted. 

There is yet another remaining reason which makes the presentenquiry of less importance than might be supposed, derived fromthe particular way in which the author has dealt with thisexternal evidence. In order to explain the _prima facie_evidence for our canonical Gospels, he has been compelled toassume the existence of other documents containing, so far asappears, the same or very similar matter. In other words, insteadof four Gospels he would give us five or six or seven. I do notknow that, merely as a matter of policy, and for apologeticpurposes only, the best way to refute his conclusion would not beto admit his premisses and to insist upon the multiplication ofthe evidence for the facts of the Gospel history which hisargument would seem to involve. I mention this however, not withany such object, but rather to show that the truth of Christianityis not intimately affected, and that there are no such greatreasons for partiality on one side or on the other. 

I confess that it was a relief to me when I found that this mustbe the case. I do not think the time has come when the centralquestion can be approached with any safety. Rough and readymethods (such as I am afraid I must call the first part of'Supernatural Religion') may indeed cut the Gordian knot, but theydo not untie it. A number of preliminary questions will have to bedetermined with a greater degree of accuracy and with more generalconsent than has been done hitherto. The Jewish and Christianliterature of the century before and of the two centuries afterthe birth of Christ must undergo a more searching examination, byminds of different nationality and training, both as to the date, text, and character of the several books. The whole balance of anargument may frequently be changed by some apparently minute andunimportant discovery; while, at present, from the mere want ofconsent as to the data, the state of many a question isnecessarily chaotic. It is far better that all these points shouldbe discussed as disinterestedly as possible. No work is so good asthat which is done without sight of the object to which it istending and where the workman has only his measure and rule totrust to. I am glad to think that the investigation which is tofollow may be almost, if not quite, classed in this category; andI hope I may be able to conduct it with sufficient impartiality. Unconscious bias no man can escape, but from conscious bias Itrust I shall be free. 

CHAPTER II. 

ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 

The subject then proposed for our investigation is the extent towhich the canonical Gospels are attested by the early Christianwriters, or, in other words, the history of the process by whichthey became canonical. This will involve an enquiry into twothings; first, the proof of the existence of the Gospels, and, secondly, the degree of authority attributed to them. Practicallythis second enquiry must be very subordinate to the first, becausethe data are much fewer; but it too shall be dealt with, cursorily, as the occasion arises, and we shall be in a positionto speak upon it definitely before we conclude. 

It will be convenient to follow the example that is set us in'Supernatural Religion, ' and to take the first three, or Synoptic, Gospels separately from the fourth. 

 * * * * *

At the outset the question will occur to us, On what principle isthe enquiry to be conducted? What sort of rule or standard are weto assume? In order to prove either the existence or the authorityof the Gospels, it is necessary that we should examine thequotations from them, or what are alleged to be quotations fromthem, in the early writers. Now these quotations are notoriouslylax. It will be necessary then to have some means of judging, whatdegree and kind of laxity is admissible; what does, and what doesnot, prevent the reference of a quotation to a given source. 

The author of 'Supernatural Religion, ' indeed, has not felt thenecessity for this preliminary step. He has taken up, as it were, at haphazard, the first standard that came to his hand; and, notunnaturally, this is found to be very much the standard of thepresent literary age, when both the mechanical and psychologicalconditions are quite different from those that prevailed at thebeginning of the Christian era. He has thus been led to make anumber of assertions which will require a great deal ofqualification. The only sound and scientific method is to make aninduction (if only a rough one) respecting the habit of earlyquotation generally, and then to apply it to the particular cases. 

Here there will be three classes of quotation more or lessdirectly in point: (1) the quotations from the Old Testament inthe New; (2) the quotations from the Old Testament in the sameearly writers whose quotations from the New Testament are thepoint in question; (3) quotations from the New Testament, and moreparticularly from the Gospels, in the writers subsequent to these, at a time when the Canon of the Gospels was fixed and we can bequite sure that our present Gospels are being quoted. 

This method of procedure however is not by any means so plain andstraightforward as it might seem. The whole subject of OldTestament quotations is highly perplexing. Most of the quotationsthat we meet with are taken from the LXX version; and the text ofthat version was at this particular time especially uncertain andfluctuating. There is evidence to show that it must have existedin several forms which differed more or less from that of theextant MSS. It would be rash therefore to conclude at once, because we find a quotation differing from the present text of theLXX, that it differed from that which was used by the writermaking the quotation. In some cases this can be proved from thesame writer making the same quotation more than once anddifferently each time, or from another writer making it inagreement with our present text. But in other cases it seemsprobable that the writer had really a different text before him, because he quotes it more than once, or another writer quotes it, with the same variation. This however is again an uncertaincriterion; for the second writer may be copying the first, or hemay be influenced by an unconscious reminiscence of what the firsthad written. The early Christian writers copied each other to anextent that we should hardly be prepared for. Thus, for instance, there is a string of quotations in the first Epistle of Clement ofRome (cc. Xiv, xv)--Ps. Xxxvii. 36-38; Is. Xxix. 13; Ps. Lxii. 4, lxxviii. 36, 37, xxxi, 19, xii. 3-6; and these very quotations inthe same order reappear in the Alexandrine Clement (Strom. Iv. 6). Clement of Alexandria is indeed fond of copying his Romannamesake, and does so without acknowledgment. Tertullian andEpiphanius in like manner drew largely from the works of Irenaeus. But this confuses evidence that would otherwise be clear. Forinstance, in Eph. Iv. 8 St. Paul quotes Ps. Lxviii. 19, but with amarked variation from all the extant texts of the LXX. Thus:--

_Ps. _ lxviii. 18 (19). 

[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaloteusas aichmalosian, elabesdomata en anthropon. ]

[Greek: Aechmaloteusen ... En anthropon] [Hebrew: alef], perhapsfrom assimilation to N. T. 

_Eph. _ iv. 8. 

[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaltoteusen aichmalosian, kai edokedomata tois anthropois. ]

[Greek: kai] om. [Hebrew: alef]'1, A C'2 D'1, &c. It. Vulg. Memph. &c. ; ins. B C'3 D'3 [Hebrew: alef]'4, &c. 

Now we should naturally think that this was a very freequotation--so free that it substitutes 'giving' for 'receiving. 'A free quotation perhaps it may be, but at any rate the very samevariation is found in Justin (Dial. 39). And, strange to say, infive other passages which are quoted variantly by St. Paul, Justinalso agrees with him, [Endnote 18:1] though cases on the otherhand occur where Justin differs from St. Paul or holds a positionmidway between him and the LXX (e. G. 1 Cor. I. 19 compared withJust. Dial. Cc. 123, 32, 78, where will be found some curiousvariations, agreement with LXX, partial agreement with LXX, partial agreement with St. Paul). Now what are we to say to thesephenomena? Have St. Paul and Justin both a variant text of theLXX, or is Justin quoting mediately through St. Paul? Probabilityindeed seems to be on the side of the latter of these twoalternatives, because in one place (Dial. Cc. 95, 96) Justinquotes the two passages Deut. Xxvii. 26 and Deut. Xxi. 23consecutively, and applies them just as they are applied in Gal. Iii. 10, 13 [Endnote 18:2]. On the other hand, it is somewhatstrange that Justin nowhere refers to the Epistles of St. Paul byname, and that the allusions to them in the genuine writings, except for these marked resemblances in the Old Testamentquotations, are few and uncertain. The same relation is observedbetween the Pauline Epistles and that of Clement of Rome. In twoplaces at least Clement agrees, or nearly agrees, with St. Paul, where both differ from the LXX; in c. Xiii ([Greek: ho kanchomenosen Kurio kanchastho]; compare 1 Cor. I. 31, 2 Cor. X, 16), and inc. Xxxiv ([Greek: ophthalmhos ouk eiden k. T. L. ]; compare 1 Cor. Ii. 9). Again, in c. Xxxvi Clement has the [Greek: puros phloga] ofHeb. I. 7 for [Greek: pur phlegon] of the LXX. The rest of theparallelisms in Clement's Epistle are for the most part withClement of Alexandria, who had evidently made a careful study ofhis predecessor. In one place, c. Liii, there is a remarkablecoincidence with Barnabas ([Greek: Mousae Mousae katabaethi totachos k. T. L. ]; compare Barn. Cc. Iv and xiv). In the Epistle ofBarnabas itself there is a combined quotation from Gen. Xv. 6, xvii. 5, which has evidently and certainly been affected by Rom. Iv. 11. On the whole we may lean somewhat decidedly to thehypothesis of a mutual study of each other by the Christianwriters, though the other hypothesis of the existence of differentversions (whether oral and traditional or in any shape written)cannot be excluded. Probably both will have to be taken intoaccount to explain all the facts. 

Another disturbing influence, which will affect especially thequotations in the Gospels, is the possibility, perhaps evenprobability, that many of these are made, not directly from eitherHebrew or LXX, but from or through Targums. This would seem to bethe case especially with the remarkable applications of prophecyin St. Matthew. It must be admitted as possible that theEvangelist has followed some Jewish interpretation that seemed tobear a Christian construction. The quotation in Matt. Ii. 6, withits curious insertion of the negative ([Greek: oudamos elachistae]for [Greek: oligostos]), reappears identically in Justin (Dial. C. 78). We shall probably have to touch upon this quotation when wecome to consider Justin's relations to the canonical Gospels. Itcertainly seems upon the face of it the more probable suppositionthat he has here been influenced by the form of the text in St. Matthew, but he may be quoting from a Targum or from a peculiartext. 

Any induction, then, in regard to the quotations from the LXXversion will have to be used with caution and reserve. And yet Ithink it will be well to make such an induction roughly, especially in regard to the Apostolic Fathers whose writings weare to examine. 

 * * * * *

The quotations from the Old Testament in the New have, as it iswell known, been made the subject of a volume by Mr. McCalmanTurpie [Endnote 20:1], which, though perhaps not quite reaching ahigh level of scholarship, has yet evidently been put togetherwith much care and pains, and will be sufficient for our purpose. The summary result of Mr. Turpie's investigation is this. Out oftwo hundred and seventy-five in all which may be considered to bequotations from the Old Testament, fifty-three agree literallyboth with the LXX and the Hebrew, ten with the Hebrew and not withthe LXX, and thirty-seven with the LXX and not with the Hebrew, making in all just a hundred that are in literal (or nearlyliteral, for slight variations of order are not taken intoaccount) agreement with some still extant authority. On the otherhand, seventy-six passages differ both from the Hebrew and LXXwhere the two are together, ninety-nine differ from them wherethey diverge, and besides these, three, though introduced withmarks of quotation, have no assignable original in the OldTestament at all. Leaving them for the present out of thequestion, we have a hundred instances of agreement against ahundred and seventy-five of difference; or, in other words, theproportion of difference to agreement is as seven to four. 

This however must be taken with the caution given above; that isto say, it must not at once be inferred that because the quotationdiffers from extant authority therefore it necessarily differsfrom all non-extant authority as well. It should be added that thestandard of agreement adopted by Mr. Turpie is somewhat higherthan would be naturally held to be sufficient to refer a passageto a given source. His lists must therefore be used with theselimitations. 

Turning to them, we find that most of the possible forms ofvariation are exemplified within the bounds of the Canon itself. Iproceed to give a few classified instances of these. 

[Greek: Alpha symbol] _Paraphrase_. Many of the quotations from theOld Testament in the New are highly paraphrastic. We may take thefollowing as somewhat marked examples: Matt. Ii. 6, xii. 18-21, xiii. 35, xxvii. 9, 10; John viii. 17, xii. 40, xiii. 18;1 Cor. Xiv. 21; 2 Cor. Ix. 7. Matt. Xxvii. 9, 10 would perhapsmark an extreme point in freedom of quotation [Endnote 21:1], aswill be seen when it is compared with the original:--

_Matt_. Xxvii. 9. 10. 

[Greek: [tote eplaerothae to phaethen dia tou prophaetou Hieremioulegontos] Kai elabon ta triakonta arguria, taen timaen toutetimaemenou on etimaesanto apo nion Israael, kai edokan auta eiston argon tou kerameos, katha sunetaxen moi Kurios. ]

_Zech_. Xi. 13. 

[Greek: Kathes autous eis to choneutaerion, kai schepsomai eidokimon estin, de tropon edokiamistheaen huper aotuon. Kai elabontous triakonta argurous kai enebalon autous eis oikon Kuriou eisto choneutaerion. ]

It can hardly be possible that the Evangelist has here beeninfluenced by any Targum or version. The form of his text hasapparently been determined by the historical event to which theprophecy is applied. The sense of the original has been entirelyaltered. There the prophet obeys the command to put the thirtypieces of silver, which he had received as his shepherd's hire, into the treasury [Greek: choneutaerion]. Here the hierarchicalparty refuse to put them into the treasury. The word 'potter'seems to be introduced from the Hebrew. 

[Greek: Beta symbol] _Quotations from Memory_. Among the numerousparaphrastic quotations, there are some that have specially theappearance of having been made from memory, such as Acts vii. 37;Rom. Ix. 9, 17, 25, 33, x. 6-8, xi. 3, xii. 19, xiv. 11;1 Cor. I. 19, ii. 9; Rev. Ii. 27. Of course it must alwaysbe a matter of guess-work what is quoted from memory and what isnot, but in these quotations (and in others which are ranged underdifferent heads) there is just that general identity of sense alongwith variety of expression which usually characterises suchquotations. A simple instance would be--

_Rom_. Ix. 25. 

[Greek: [hos kai en to Osaee legei] Kaleso ton out laon mou laonmou kai taen ouk aegapaemenaen haegapaemenaen. ]

_Hosea_ ii. 23. 

[Greek: Kai agapaeso taen ouk aegapaemenaen, kai ero to ou lao mouDaos mou ei se. ]

[Greek: Gamma symbol] _Paraphrase with Compression. _ There are many markedexamples of this; such as Matt. Xxii. 24 (par. ); Mark iv. 12; Johnxii. 14, 15; Rom. Iii. 15-17, x. 15; Heb. Xii. 20. Take thefirst:--

_Matt. _ xxii. 24. [Greek: [Mousaes eipen] Ean tis apothanaemae echon tekna, epigambreusei o adelphos autou taen gunaika autoukai anastaesei sperma to adelpho autou. ]

_Deut. _ xxv. 5. [Greek: Ean de katoikosin adelphoi epi toauto, kai apothanae eis ex auton, sperma de mae ae auto, ouk estaiae gunae tou tethnaekotos exo andri mae engizonti o adelphos touandros autaes eiseleusetai pros autaen kai laepsetai autaen eautogunaika kai sunoikaesei autae. ]

It is highly probable that all the examples given under this headare really quotations from memory. 

[Greek: Delta symbol] _Paraphrase with Combination of Passages. _This again is common; e. G. Luke iv. 19; John xv. 25, xix. 36;Acts xiii. 22; Rom. Iii. 11-18, ix. 33, xi. 8; 1 Pet. Ii. 24. The passageRom. Iii. 11-18 is highly composite, and reminds us of long strings ofquotations that are found in some of the Fathers; it is made up ofPs. Xiv. 1, 2, v. 9, cxl. 3, x. 7, Is. Lix. 7, 8, Ps. Xxxvi. 1. Ashorter example is--

_Rom. _ ix. 33. [Greek: [Kathos gegraptai] Idou tithaemi enSion lithon proskommatos kai petran skandalou, kai o pisteuon epauto ou kataischunthaesetai. ]

_Is. _ viii. 14. [Greek: kai ouch hos lithou proskammatisunantaesesthe, oude os petras ptomati. ]

_Is. _ xxviii. 16. [Greek: Idou ego emballo eis ta themeliaSion lithon... , kai o pisteuon ou mae kataischunthae. ]

This fusion of passages is generally an act of 'unconsciouscelebration. ' If we were to apply the standard assumed in'Supernatural Religion, ' it would be pronounced impossible thatthis and most of the passages above could have the originals towhich they are certainly to be referred. 

[Greek: Epsilon symbol] _Addition. _ A few cases of addition maybe quoted, e. G. [Greek: mae aposteraesaes] inserted in Mark x. 19, [Greek: kai eis thaeran] in Rom. Xi. 9. 

[Greek: Zeta symbol] _Change of Sense and Context. _ But littleregard--or what according to our modern habits would be consideredlittle regard--is paid to the sense and original context of the passagequoted; e. G. In Matt. Viii. 17 the idea of healing disease is substitutedfor that of vicarious suffering, in Matt. Xi. 10 the persons arealtered ([Greek: sou] for [Greek: mou]), in Acts vii. 43 we find[Greek: Babylonos] for [Greek: Damaskos], in 2 Cor. Vi. 17 'I willreceive you' is put for 'I will go before you, ' in Heb. I. 7 'Hemaketh His angels spirits' for 'He maketh the winds Hismessengers. ' This constant neglect of the context is a point thatshould be borne in mind. 

[Greek: Eta symbol] _Inversion. _ Sometimes the sense of the original is sofar departed from that a seemingly opposite sense is substitutedfor it. Thus in Matt. Ii. 6 [Greek: oudamos elachistae =oligostos] of Mic. V. 2, in Rom. Xi. 26 [Greek: ek Sion = henekenSion] LXX= '_to_ Sion' Heb. Of Is. Lix. 20, in Eph. Iv. 8[Greek: hedoken domata = helabes domata] of Ps. Lxvii. 19. 

[Greek: Theta symbol] _Different Form of Sentence. _ The grammaticalform of the sentence is altered in Matt. Xxvi. 31 (from aorist to future), in Luke viii. 10 (from oratio recta to oratio obliqua), and in 1 Pet. Iii. 10-12 (from the second person to the third). This is a kindof variation that we should naturally look for. 

[Greek: Iota symbol] _Mistaken Ascriptions or Nomenclature. _ Thefollowing passages are wrongly assigned:--Mal. Iii. 1 to Isaiahaccording to the correct reading of Mark i. 2, and Zech. Xi. 13to Jeremiah in Matt. Xxvii. 9, 10; Abiathar is apparently put forAbimelech in Mark ii. 26; in Acts vii. 16 there seems to be aconfusion between the purchase of Machpelah near Hebron by Abrahamand Jacob's purchase of land from Hamor the father of Shechem. These are obviously lapses of memory. 

[Greek: Kappa symbol] _Quotations of Doubtful Origin_. There are acertain number of quotations, introduced as such, which can be assigneddirectly to no Old Testament original; Matt. Ii. 23 ([Greek: Nazoraiosklaethaesetai]), 1 Tim. V. 18 ('the labourer is worthy of his hire'), John vii. 38 ('out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water'), 42 (Christ should be born of Bethlehem where David was), Eph. V. 14('Awake thou that sleepest'). [Endnote 25:1]

It will be seen that, in spite of the reservations that we feltcompelled to make at the outset, the greater number of thedeviations noticed above can only be explained on a theory of freequotation, and remembering the extent to which the Jews reliedupon memory and the mechanical difficulties of exact reference andverification, this is just what before the fact we should haveexpected. 

 * * * * *

The Old Testament quotations in the canonical books afford us acertain parallel to the object of our enquiry, but one stillnearer will of course be presented by the Old Testament quotationsin those books the New Testament quotations in which we are toinvestigate. I have thought it best to draw up tables of these inorder to give an idea of the extent and character of thevariation. In so tentative an enquiry as this, the standardthroughout will hardly be so fixed and accurate as might bedesirable; the tabular statement therefore must be taken to beapproximate, but still I think it will be found sufficient for ourpurpose; certain points come out with considerable clearness, andthere is always an advantage in drawing data from a wide enougharea. The quotations are ranged under heads according to thedegree of approximation to the text of the LXX. In cases where theclassification has seemed doubtful an indicatory mark (+) has beenused, showing by the side of the column on which it occurs towhich of the other two classes the instance leans. All cases inwhich this sign is used to the left of the middle column may beconsidered as for practical purposes literal quotations. It may beassumed, where the contrary is not stated, that the quotations aredirect and not of the nature of allusions; the marks of quotationare generally quite unmistakeable ([Greek: gegraptai, legei, eipen], &c). Brief notes are added in the margin to call attentionto the more remarkable points, especially to the repetition of thesame quotation in different writers and to the apparent bearing ofthe passage upon the general habit of quotation. 

Taking the Apostolic Fathers in order, we come first to--

 _Clement of Rome (1 Ep. Ad Cor. _)

 _Exact. _ | _Slightly | _Variant. _ | _Remarks. _ | Variant. _ | | | |3 Deut. 32. 14, 15. |also in Justin, | | Is. 3. 5. Al. | differently. | | Is. 59. 14, al. |3. Wisd. 2. 24. | | | |+4. Gen. 4. 3-8. | |Acts 7. 27, | Ex. 2. 14+ | | more exactly. 6. Gen. 2. 23. | |8. Ezek. 33. 11 |} | | Ezek. 18. 30 |}from Apocryphal | | Ps. 103. 10, 11. |} or interpolated | | Jer. 3. 19, 22. |} Ezekiel? | | Is. 1. 18. |} |+8. Is. 1. 16-20. | | |10. Gen. 12. 1-3. | | | +Gen. 13. 14-16. | | | Gen. 15. 5, 6. | | | |12. Josh. 2. 3-19. |compression and | | | paraphrase. | | | | |13. 1 Sam. 2, 10. |}similarly | | Jer. 9. 23, 24. |} St. Paul, 1 Cor. | | | 1. 31, 2 Cor. |13. Is. 46. 2. | | 10. 17. | |14. Prov. 2. 21, |from memory? | | 22. V. L. (Ps. 37. | | | 39. ) | |14. Ps. 37. 35-38. | |Matt. 15. 8, Mark | |15. Is. 29. 13. * | 7. 6, with par-15. {Ps. 78. 36, 37. *|15. Ps. 62. 4. * | | tial similarity, {Ps. 31. 19. * | | | Clem. Alex. , {Ps. 12. 3-6. * | | | following Clem. | | | Rom. |+16. Is. 53. 1-12. | |quoted in full by16. Ps. 22. 6-8. | | | Justin, also by17. Gen. 18. 27. | | | other writers | | | with text | | | slightly | | | different from | | | Clement. | |17. Job 1. 1, v. L. | | | Job 14. 4, 5, v. L. |Clem. Alex. | | | similarly. |17. Num. 12. 7. | | | Ex. 3. 11; 4-10. | | | |[Greek: ego de |_Assumptio Mosis_, | | eimi atmis apo | Hilg. , _Eldad | | kuthras. ] | and Modad_, Lft. | | | | |18. Ps. 89. 21, v. L. |}Clem. Alex. As | | 1 Sam. 13. 14. |} LXX. 18. Ps. 51. 1-17. | | | | |20. Job 38. 11. | | |21. Prov. 15. 27. |Clem. Alex. | | | similarly; from | | | memory? [Greek:22. Ps. 34. 11-17. | | | legei gar pou. ] | |23. [Greek: |from an Apo- | | palaiporoi eisin | cryphal book, | | oi dipsuchoi | _Ass. Mos. _ or | | k. T. L. ] | _Eld. And Mod. _ | | | | |23. Is. 13. 22. |}composition and | | Mal. 3. 1. |} compression. | | | | |26. Ps. 28. 7. |}composition | | Ps. 3-5. |} from memory? | | | [Greek: legei | | | gar pou. ] | |27. Wisd. 12. 12. |}from memory? | | Wisd. 11. 22. |} cp. Eph. 1. 19. P27. Ps. 19. 1-3. | | | | |28. Ps. 139. 7-10. |from memory? | | |[Greek: legei | | | gar pou. ]29. Deut. 32. 8, 9. | | | | |29. Deut. 4. 34. |}from memory? | | Deut. 14. 2. |} or from an | | Num. 18. 27. |} Apocryphal | | 2 Chron. 31. |} Book? | | 14. |} | | Ezek. 48. 12. |} |30. Prov. 3. 34. | |30. Job. 11. 2, 3. | | |LXX, not Heb. | |32. Gen. 15. 5 | | | (Gen. 22. 17. | | | Gen. 26. 4. ) | |33. Gen. 1. 26-28. |(omissions. ) | | |34. Is. 40. 10. |}composition | | Is. 62. 11. |} from memory? | | Prov. 24. 12. |} Clem. Alex. | | | after Clem. | | | Rom. |34. Dan. 7. 10. |} |curiously | Is. 6. 3+. |} | repeated | | | transposition; | | | see Lightfoot, | | | _ad. Loc. _ | |24. Is. 64. 4. |so in 1 Cor. 2. 9. |35. Ps. 50. 16-23. | | |36. Ps. 104. 4, v. L. | |Heb. 1. 7. 36. Ps. 2. 7, 8. | | |Heb. 1. 5. Acts Ps. 110. 1 | | | 13. 33. |39. Job 4. 16-5. 5 | | | (Job 15. 15) | | | |42. Is. 60. 17. |from memory? | | | [Greek: legei | | | gar pou. ] | |46. [Greek: |from Apocryphal | | Kollasthe tois | book, or Ecclus. | | agiois hoti oi | vi. 34? Clem. | | kollomenoi | Alex. | | autois | | | hagiasthaesontai]|46. Ps. 18. 26, 27. | | |context ignored. 48. Ps. 118, 19, 20. | | |Clem. Alex. | | | loosely. | |50. Is. 26. 20. |} | | Ezek. 37. 12. |}from memory?50. Ps. 32. 1, 2. | | | | |52. Ps. 69. 31, 32. |52. Ps. 50. 14, 15. +|} | | Ps. 51. 17. |} | | |53. Deut. 9. 12-14. |} |Barnabas | Ex. 32. 7, 8. |} | similarly. | 11, 31, 32. |} | Compression. 54. Ps. 241. | | |56. Ps. 118. 18. | | | Prov. 3. 12. | | | Ps. 141. 5. | | | |+56. Job 5. 17-26, | | | v. L. | | |+57. Prov. 1. 23- | | | 31. | |

[*Footnote: The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and arealso found in Clement of Alexandria. ]

It will be observed that the longest passages are among thosethat are quoted with the greatest accuracy (e. G. Gen. Xiii. 14-16;Job v. 17-26; Ps. Xix. 1-3, xxii. 6-8, xxxiv. 11-17, li. 1-17;Prov. I. 23-31; Is. I. 16-20, liii. 1-12). Others, such as Gen. Xii. 1-3, Deut. Ix. 12-14, Job iv. 16-v. 5, Ps. Xxxvii. 35-38, l. 16-23, have only slight variations. There are only two passages ofmore than three consecutive verses in length that present widedivergences. These are, Ps. Cxxxix. 7-10, which is introduced by avague reference [Greek: legei gar pou] and is evidently quotedfrom memory, and the historical narration Josh. Ii. 3-19. This isperhaps what we should expect: in longer quotations it would bebetter worth the writer's while to refer to his cumbrousmanuscript. These purely mechanical conditions are too much lostsight of. We must remember that the ancient writer had not a smallcompact reference Bible at his side, but, when he wished to verifya reference, would have to take an unwieldy roll out of its case, and then would not find it divided into chapter and verse like ourmodern books but would have only the columns, and those perhapsnot numbered, to guide him. We must remember too that the memorywas much more practised and relied upon in ancient times, especially among the Jews. 

The composition of two or more passages is frequent, and thefusion remarkably complete. Of all the cases in which two passagesare compounded, always from different chapters and most commonlyfrom different books, there is not, I believe, one in which thereis any mark of division or an indication of any kind that adifferent source is being quoted from. The same would hold good(with only a slight and apparent exception) of the longer stringsof quotations in cc. Viii, xxix, and (from [Greek: aegapaesan] to[Greek: en auto]) in c. Xv. But here the question is complicated bythe possibility, and in the first place at least perhapsprobability, that the writer is quoting from some apocryphal workno longer extant. It may be interesting to give one or two shortexamples of the completeness with which the process of welding hasbeen carried out. Thus in c. Xvii, the following reply is put intothe mouth of Moses when he receives his commission at the burningbush, [Greek: tis eimi ego hoti me pempeis; ego de eimiischnophonos kai braduglossos. ] The text of Exod. Iii. 11 is[Greek: tis eimi ego, oti poreusomai;] the rest of the quotationis taken from Exod. Iv. 10. In c. Xxxiv Clement introduces 'theScripture' as saying, [Greek: Muriai muriades pareistaekeisan autokai chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto kai ekekragon agios, agios, agios, Kurios Sabaoth, plaeraes pasa hae ktisis taes doxaesautou. ] The first part of this quotation comes from Dan. Vii. 10;the second, from [Greek: kai ekekragon], which is part of thequotation, from Is. Vi. 3. These examples have been taken almostat random; the others are blended quite as thoroughly. 

Some of the cases of combination and some of the divergences oftext may be accounted for by the assumption of lost apocryphalbooks or texts; but it would be wholly impossible, and in fact noone would think of so attempting to account for all. There can belittle doubt that Clement quotes from memory, and none that hequotes at times very freely. 

We come next to the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, the quotationsin which I proceed to tabulate in the same way:--

 _Barnabas. _

 _Exact. _ | _Slightly | _Variant. _ | _Remarks. _ | Variant. _ | | |+2. Is. 1. 11-14. | |note for exactness. | |2. Jer. 7. 22, 23. |} combination | | Zec. 8. 17. |} from memory? | | Ps. 51. 19. |strange addition. |3. Is. 58. 4, 5. | | | Is. 58. 6-10. | | | |4. Dan. 7. 24 |}very | | Dan. 7. 7, 8. |} divergent. | | Ex. 34. 28. |}combination | | Ex. 31. 18. |} from memory? |4. Deut. 9. 12. | |see below. | (Ex. 32. 7). | | | +Is. 5. 21. | | |+5. Is. 54. 5, 7. | |text of Cod. A. | (omissions. )| |5. Prov. 1. 17. | | | Gen. 1. 26+. | | | | |5. Zech. 13. 7. |text of A. (Hilg. ) | | | Matt. 26. 3. | | Ps. 22. 21. |from memory? |5. Ps. 119. 120. | |paraphrastic | | Ps. 22. 17. | combination | | | from memory? | Is. 50. 6, 7. | | | (omissions. ) | |ditto. | |6. Is. 50. 8, 9. |ditto. |6. Is. 28. 16. | |first clause | | | exact, second | | | variant; in N. T. | | | quotations, | | | first variant, | | | second exact. | Is. 50. 7. | |note repetition, | | | nearer to LXX. 6. Ps. 118. 22. | | |so Matt. 21. 42; | | | 1 Pet. 11. 7. | | |6. Ps. 22. 17+ | |6. Ps. 118. 24. |from memory? (order). | | |note repetition, | | | nearer to LXX. Ps. 118. 12. | | |Ps. 22. 19. | | |Is. 3. 9, 10. | | | | | Ex. 33. 1. |from memory? | Gen. 1. 26+. | |note repetition, Gen. 1. 28. | | | further from LXX. | | Ezek. 11. 19; |paraphrastic. | | 36. 26. | | | Ps. 41. 3. | | | Ps. 22. 23. |different version? | | Gen. 1. 26, 28. |paraphrastic | | | fusion. | |7. Lev. 23. 29. |paraphrastic. | | Lev. 16. 7, sqq. |with apocryphal | | Lev. 16. 7. Sqq. | addition; cp. | | | Just. And Tert. |9. Ps. 18. 44. | |9. Is. 33. 13+. | | | | |9. Jer. 4. 4. | | | Jer. 7. 2. | | | Ps. 34. 13. |Is. 1. 2. | | |but with additions. | Is. 1. 10+. | |from memory? | | |[Greek: archontes | | | toutou] for [Gr. | | | a. Zodomon. ] | | Is. 40. 3. |addition. | | Jer. 4. 3, 4. |}repetition, | | Jer. 7. 26. |} nearer to LXX. | | Jer. 9. 26. | | | Gen. 17. 26, 27;|inferred sense | | cf. 14. 14. | merely, but | | | with marks of | | | quotation. | |10. Lev. 11, |selected examples, | | Deut. 14. | but with | | | examples of | | | quotation. | | Deut. 4. 1. |10. Ps. 1. 1. | | | | | Lev. 11. 3. | | |11. Jer. 2. 12, 13. | | | +Is. 16. 1, 2. |[Greek: Zina] for | | | [Greek: Zion]. |11. Is. 45. 2, 3. | |[Greek: gnosae] A. | | | ([Greek: gnosin] | | | Barn. , but in | | | other points more | | | divergent. |+Is. 33. 16-18. | |omissions. 11. Ps. 1. 3-6. | | |note for exactness. | |11. Zeph. 3. 19. |markedly diverse. | | Ezek. 47. 12. |ditto. |12. Is. 65. 2. | | | |12. Num. 21. 9, |apparently a | | sqq. | quotation. | | Deut. 27. 15. |from memory? | | Ex. 17. 14. |12. Ps. 110. 1. | | | |12. Is. 45. 1. | |[Greek: kurio] for | | | [Greek: kuro]. |13. Gen. 25. 21, 23. | | | |13. Gen. 48. 11-19. |very paraphrastic. | | Gen. 15. 6; |combination; cf. | | 17. 5. | Rom. 4. 11. | |14. Ex. 24. 18. |note addition of | | |[Greek: naesteuon. ] | | Ex. 31. 18. |note also for | | | additions. |14. Deut. 9. 12- | |repetition with | 17+. | | similar variation. | (Ex. 32. 7. ) | |note reading of A. 14. Is. 42. 6, 7. | | |[Greek: | | |pepedaemenous] for | | |[Greek: dedemenous | | |(kai] om. A. ). | Is. 49. 6, 7. | |Is. 61. 1, 2. | | |Luke. 4. 18, 19 | | | diverges. | |15. Ex. 20. 8; |paraphrastic, | | Deut. 5. 12. | with addition. | | Jer. 17. 24, 25. |very paraphrastic. | | Gen. 2. 2. | | | Ps. 90. 4. |[Greek: saemeron] | | | for [Greek: | | | exthes]. 15. Is. 1. 13. | | | |16. Is. 40. 12. | |omissions. | Is. 66. 1. | | | |16. Is. 49. 17. |completely | | | paraphrastic. | | Dan. 9. 24. |ditto. | | 25, 27. |

The same remarks that were made upon Clement will hold also forBarnabas, except that he permits himself still greater licence. Themarginal notes will have called attention to his eccentricities. He iscarried away by slight resemblances of sound; e. G. He puts [Greek:himatia] for [Greek: iamata] [Endnote 34:1], [Greek: Zina] for [Greek:Zion], [Greek: Kurio] for [Greek: Kuro]. He not only omits clauses, butalso adds to the text freely; e. G. In Ps. Li. 19 he makes the strangeinsertion which is given in brackets, [Greek: Thusia to Theo kardiasuntetrimmenae, [osmae euodias to kurio kardia doxasousa ton peplakotaautaen]]. He has also added words and clauses in several other places. There can be no question that he quotes largely from memory; several ofhis quotations are repeated more than once (Deu. Ix. 12; Is. L. 7; Ps. Xxii. 17; Gen. I. 28; Jer. Iv. 4); and of these only one, Deut. Ix. 12, reappears in the same form. Often he gives only the sense of a passage;sometimes he interprets, as in Is. I. 10, where he paraphrases [Greek:archontes Sodomon] by the simpler [Greek: archontes tou laou toutou]. Hehas curiously combined the sense of Gen. Xvii. 26, 27 with Gen. Xiv. L4--in the pursuit of the four kings, it is said that Abraham armed hisservants three hundred and eighteen men; Barnabas says that hecircumcised his household, in all three hundred and eighteen men. Inseveral cases a resemblance may be noticed between Barnabas and the textof Cod. A, but this does not appear consistently throughout. 

It may be well to give a few examples of the extent to which Barnabascan carry his freedom of quotation. Instances from the Book of Danielshould perhaps not be given, as the text of that book is known to havebeen in a peculiarly corrupt and unsettled state; so much so that, whentranslation of Theodotion was made towards the end of the secondcentury, it was adopted as the standard text. Barnabas also combinespassages, though not quite to such an extent or so elaborately asClement, and he too inserts no mark of division. We will give an exampleof this, and at the same time of his paraphrastic method of quotation:--

_Barnabas_ c. Ix. 

[Greek: [kai ti legei;] Peritmaethaete to sklaeron taes kardiashumon, kai ton trachaelon humon ou mae sklaerunaete. ]

_Jer. _ iv. 3, 4 _and_ vii. 26. 

[Greek: Peritmaethaete to theo humon, kai peritemesthe taensklaerokardian humon ... Kai esklaerunan ton trachaelon auton... ]

A similar case of paraphrase and combination, with nothing tomark the transition from one passage to the other, would be in c. Xi, Jer. Ii. 12, 13 and Is. Xvi. 1, 2. For paraphrase we may takethis, from the same chapter:--

_Barnabas_ c. Xi. 

[Greek: [kai palin heteros prophaetaes legei] Kai aen hae gaeIakob epainoumenae para pasan taen gaen. ]

_Zeph_. Iii. 19. 

[Greek: kai thaesomai autous eis kauchaema kai onomastous en pasaetae gae. ]

_Barnabas_ c. Xv. 

[Greek: [autous de moi marturei legon] Idou saemeron haemera estaihos chilia etae. ]

_Ps_. Xc. 4

[Greek: hoti chilia etae en ophthalmois sou hos hae haemera haeechthes haetis diaelthe. ]

A very curious instance of freedom is the long narrative of Jacobblessing the two sons of Joseph in c. Xiii (compare Gen. Xlviii. 11-19). We note here (and elsewhere) a kind of dramatic tendency, afondness for throwing statements into the form of dialogue ratherthan narrative. As a narrative this passage may be compared withthe history of Rahab and the spies in Clement. 

And yet, in spite of all this licence in quotation, there are somerather marked instances of exactness; e. G. Is. I. 11-14 in c. Ii, the combined passages from Ps. Xxii. 17, cxvii. 12, xxii. 19 in c. Vi, and Ps. I. 3-6 in c. Xi. It should also be remembered that inone case, Deut. Ix. 12 in cc. Iv and xiv, the same variation isrepeated and is also found in Justin. 

It tallies with what we should expect, supposing the writingsattributed to Ignatius (the seven Epistles) to be genuine, thatthe quotations from the Old as well as from the New Testament inthem are few and brief. A prisoner, travelling in custody to theplace of execution, would naturally not fill his letters with longand elaborate references. The quotations from the Old Testamentare as follows:--

 _Exact. _ | _Slightly | _Variant. _ | _Remarks. _ | variant. _ | | | | |_Ad Eph. _ |5. Prov. 3. 34 | |James. 4. 6, 1 Pet. 5. 5, | | | as Ignatius. | | |_Ad Magn. _ |12. Prov. 18. 17. | | | | |_Ad Trall. _ | |8. Is. 52. 5. |

The Epistle to the Ephesians is found also in the Syriac version. The last quotation from Isaiah, which is however not introducedwith any express marks of reference, is very freely given. Theoriginal is, [Greek: tade legei kurios, di' humas dia pantos toonoma mou blasphaemeitai en tois ethnesi], for which Ignatius has, [Greek: ouai gar di' ou epi mataiotaeti to onoma mou epi tinonblasphaemeitai]. 

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians and the Martyrium S. Ignatii contain the following quotations:--

 _Exact. _ | _Slightly | _Variant. _ | _Remarks. _ | variant. _ | | | | | Polycarp, | 2. Ps. 2. 11. | |_Ad. Phil. _ | | | | | |10. Tob. 4. 11. | | |}12. Ps. 4. 4; | | |}in Latin but through | | |} version only. Eph. 4. 26. | | |} | | |_Mart. S. Ign. _ | | | | |2. Lev. 26. 12. |6. Prov. 10. 24. | | |

The quotation from Leviticus differs widely from the original, [Greek: Kai emperipataeso en humin kai esomai humon theos kaihumeis esesthe moi laos], for which we read, [Greek: [gegraptaigar] Enoikaeso en autois kai emperipataeso]. 

The quotations from the Clementine Homilies may be thuspresented:--

 _Exact. _ | _Slightly | _Variant. _ | _Remarks. _ | | |Hom. 3. | |18. Deut. 32. 7. | |39. +Gen. 18. 21. | | | Gen. 3. 22. | |39. Gen 6. 6. | | | | Gen. 8. 21. | |omission. | Gen. 22. 1. | | | |42. Gen. 3. 3. |43. Gen. 6. 6. | | | |43. Gen. 22. 1. | |not quite as above. | +Gen. 18. 21. | |as above. Gen. 15. 13-16. | | |v. L. Comp. Text | | | of A; note for | | | exactness. 44. Gen. 18. 21. | | |as LXX. | |45. Num. 11. 34 |[Greek: bounoun | | (al. ) | epithumion] for | | | [Greek: mnaemata | | | taes epithumas]. |47. Deut. 34. 4, 5. | | |49. Gen. 49. 10. | |cf. Credner, | | | _Beit. _ 2. 53. Hom. 11. | | |22. Gen. 1. 1. | | |Hom. 16. | | |6. Gen. 3. 22. | | |twice with slightly | | | different order. Gen. 3. 5. | | | |6. Ex. 22. 28. | | | |6. Deut. 4. 34. |?mem. [Greek: | | | allothi tou | | | gegraptai]. Jer. 10. 11. | | | | | Deut. 13. 6. |?mem. [Greek: | | | allae pou]. | | Josh. 23. 7. | | Deut. 10. 17. | |Ps. 35. 10. | | |Ps. 50. 1. | | |Ps. 82. 1. | | | | Deut. 10. 14. | | | Deut. 4. 39. | | | Deut. 10. 17. | |repeated as above. | | Deut. 10. 17. |very paraphrastic. | | |Hom. 16. | |6. Deut. 4. 39. |7. Deut. 6. 13. | | | Deut. 6. 4. | | | | |8. Josh. 23. 7. |as above. 8. Exod. 22. 18 + | | | Jer. 10. 11. | | | Gen. 1. 1. | | | Ps. 19. 2. | | | |8. Ps. 102. 26. | | Gen. 1. 26. | | | | |13. Deut. 13. 1-3, |very free. | | 9, 5, 3. |Hom. 17. | |18. Num. 12. 6. |}paraphrastic | | Ex. 33. 11. |} combination. Hom. 18. | |17. Is. 40. 26, 27. |free quotation. | | Deut. 30. 13. |ditto. 18. Is. 1. 3. | | | Is. 1. 4. | | |

The example of the Clementine Homilies shows conspicuously theextremely deceptive character of the argument from silence. Allthe quotations from the Old Testament found in them are taken fromfive Homilies (iii, xi, xvi, xvii, xviii) out of nineteen, althoughthe Homilies are lengthy compositions, filling, with the translationand various readings, four hundred and fourteen large octavo pagesof Dressel's edition [Endnote 38:1]. Of the whole number of quotationsall but seven are taken from two Homilies, iii and xvi. If Hom. Xviand Hom. Xviii had been lost, there would have been no evidence thatthe author was acquainted with any book of the Old Testament besidesthe Pentateuch; and, if the five Homilies had been lost, there wouldhave been nothing to show that he was acquainted with the Old Testamentat all. Yet the loss of the two Homilies would have left a volumeof three hundred and seventy-seven pages, and that of the five avolume of three hundred and fifteen pages. In other words, it ispossible to read three hundred and fifteen pages of the Homilieswith five breaks and come to no quotation from the Old Testamentat all, or three hundred and fifteen pages with only two breaksand come to none outside the Pentateuch. But the reduced volumethat we have supposed, containing the fourteen Homilies, wouldprobably exceed in bulk the whole of the extant Christian literatureof the second century up to the time of Irenaeus, with the singleexception of the works of Justin; it will therefore be seen howprecarious must needs be any inference from the silence, not ofall these writings, but merely of a portion of them. 

For the rest, the quotations in the Homilies may be said toobserve a fair standard of exactness, one apparently higher thanthat in the genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; at thesame time it should be remembered that the quotations in theHomilies are much shorter, only two reaching a length of threeverses, while the longest quotations in the Epistle are preciselythose that are most exact. The most striking instance of accuracyof quotation is perhaps Gen. Xv. 13-16 in Hom. Iii. 43. On theother hand, there is marked freedom in the quotations from Deut. Iv. 34, x. 17, xiii. 1-3, xiii. 6. Xxx. 15, Is. Xl. 26, 27, andthe combined passage, Num. Xii. 6 and Ex. Xxiii. 11. There areseveral repetitions, but these occur too near to each other topermit of any inference. 

Our examination of the Old Testament quotations in Justin isgreatly facilitated by the collection and discussion of them inCredner's Beiträge [Endnote 39:1], a noble example of that truepatient work which is indeed the reverse of showy, but forms thesolid and well-laid foundation on which alone genuine knowledgecan be built. Credner has collected and compared in the mostelaborate manner the whole of Justin's quotations with the variousreadings in the MSS. Of the LXX; so that we may state our resultswith a much greater confidence than in any other case (exceptperhaps Clement of Rome, where we have the equally accurate andscholarly guidance of Dr. Lightfoot [Endnote 40:1]) that we arenot led astray by imperfect materials. I have availed myselffreely of Credner's collection of variants, indicating the caseswhere the existence of documentary (or, in some places, inferential) evidence for Justin's readings has led to thequotation being placed in a different class from that to which itwould at first sight seem to belong. I have also, as hitherto, notassumed an absolutely strict standard for admission to the firstclass of 'exact' quotations. Many of Justin's quotations are verylong, and it seemed only right that in these the standard shouldbe somewhat, though very slightly, relaxed. The chief point thatwe have to determine is the extent to which the writers of thefirst century were in the habit of freely paraphrasing or quotingfrom memory, and it may as a rule be assumed that all theinstances in the first class and most (not quite all) of those inthe second do not admit of such an explanation. I have been gladin every case where a truly scientific and most impartial writerlike Credner gives his opinion, to make use of it instead of myown. I have the satisfaction to think that whatever may be thevalue of the other sections of this enquiry, this at least isthoroughly sound, and based upon a really exhaustive sifting ofthe data. 

The quotations given below are from the undoubted works of Justin, the Dialogue against Tryphon and the First Apology; the SecondApology does not appear to contain any quotations either from theOld or New Testament. 

 _Exact. _ | _Slightly | _Variant. _ | _Remarks. _ | variant. _ | | | | | |Apol. 1. 59, Gen. | | | 1. 1-3. | |Dial. 62, Gen. 1. | | | 26-28. | | | |Dial. 102, Gen. | |free quotation | 3. 15. | | (Credner). D. 62, Gen. 3. 22. | | | |D. 127, Gen. | | | 7. 16. | | |D. 139, Gen. 9. | | | 24-27. | | |D. 127, Gen. 11. 5. | |free quotation | | | (Cr. )D. 102, Gen. 11. 6. | | | |D. 92, Gen. 15. 6. | |free quotation | | | (Cr. ) | |Dial. 10, +Gen. | | | 17. 14. |D. 127, Gen. 17. 22. | | | |D. 56, +Gen. 18. | |ver. 2 repeated | 1, 2. | | similarly. | +Gen. 18. 13, 14. | |repeated, | | | slightly more | +Gen. 18. 16-23, | | divergent. | 33. | | | +Gen. 19. 1, 10, | | | 16-28 (om. 26). | |marked exactness | | | in the whole | | | passage. D. 56, Gen. 21. | | | 9-12. | | |D. 120, Gen. 26. 4. | | |D. 58, Gen. 28. | | | 10-12. | | | |D. 58, +(v. L. ) Gen. | | | 28. 13-19. | | | +(v. L. ) Gen. 31. | | | 10-13. | | | |D. 59, Gen. 35. 1. |free quotation | | | (Cr. )D. 58, Gen. 35. | | | 6-10 (v. L. ) | | |D. 52, Gen. 49. | | |repeated 8-12. | | | similarly. D. 59, Ex. 2. 23. | | |D. 60, Ex. 3. 2-4+. | |A. 1. 62, Ex. 3. 5. |from memory | | | (Cr. ) |D. 59, Ex. 3. 16. | | | |A. 1. 63, Ex. 3. 16 |ver. 16 freely | | (ter), 17. | quoted (Cr. ) | | | [Greek: eirae- | | | tai pou. ] |D. 126, Ex. 6. 2-4. | | | |D. 49, Ex. 17. 16. |free quotation | | | (Cr. ) | |D. 94, Ex. 20. 4. |ditto (Cr. ) |D. 75, Ex. 23. 20, | |from Lectionary | 21. | | (Cr. )D. 16, Lev. 26. 40, | |D. 20, Ex. 32. 6. |free (Cr. ) 41 (v. L. ) | | | |D. 126, Num. 11. | | | 23. | | | |A. 1. 60 (or. Obl. ), |free (Cr. ) | | D. 94, Num. 21. | | | 8, 9. | |D. 106, Num. 24. | |through Targum | 17. | | (Cr. ) | |D. 16, Deut. 10. |from memory | | 16, 17. | (Cr. ) | |D. 96, Deut. 21. 23. |both precisely | | Deut. 27. 26. | as St. Paul in | | | Galatians, and | | | quoted thence | | | (Cr. )D. 126, Deut. 31. | | | 2, 3 (v. L. ) | | |D. 74, Deut. 31. | | | 16-18 (v. L. ) | | |D. 131, Deut. 32. | | | 7-9 (tr. ) | | | |D. 20, Deut. 32. 15. | |D. 119, Deut. 32. | | |Targum (Cr. ) 16-23. | | |D. 130, Deut. 32. | | |43 (v. L. ) | | | |D. 91, +Deut. 33. | | | 13-17. | |A. 1. 40, Ps. 1 and| | |parts repeated. 2 entire. | | | |D. 97, Ps. 3. 5, 6. | |repeated, more | | | freely. D. 114, Ps. 8. 4. | | |D. 27, Ps. 14. 3. | | |D. 28, Ps. 18. 44, 45. | | |D. 64, Ps. 19. 6 | | |perhaps from(A. 1. 40, vv. 1-5). | | | different | | | MSS. , see | | | Credner. D. 97 ff. , Ps. 22. | | |quoted as 1-23. | | | _whole_ Psalm | | | (bis). D. 133 ff. , Ps. 24 | | | entire. | | | |D. 141, Ps. 32. 2. | |D. 38, Ps. 45. 1-17. | | |parts repeated. D. 37, Ps. 47. 6-9. | | |D. 22, Ps. 49 | | | entire. | | | | |D. 34} |{from Eph. 4. 8, | |D. 37} Ps. 68. 8. |{ Targum. D. 34, Ps. 72 | | |entire. | | |D. 124, Ps. 82 | | | entire. | | |D. 73, Ps. 96 | | |note Christian entire. | | | interpolation | | | in ver. 10. D. 37, Ps. 99 | | | entire. | |D. 83, Ps. 110. |from memoryD. 32, Ps. 110 | | 1-4. | (Cr. )entire. | | | | |D. 110, Ps. 128. 3. |from memoryD. 85, Ps. 148. | | | (Cr. ) 1, 2. | | |A. 1. 37, Is. 1. | | | 3, 4. | | | | |A. 1. 47, Is. 1. 7 |sense only | | (Jer. 2. 15). | (Cr. ) | |D. 140 (A. 1. 53), | | | Is. 1. 9. | | |A. 1. 37, Is. 1. |from memory | | 11-14. | (Cr. ) |A. 1. 44 (61), Is. | |omissions. | 1. 16-30. | | | |D. 82, Is. 1. 23. |from memoryA. 1. 39, Is. 2. | | | (Cr. ) 3, 4. | | | |D. 135, Is. 2. 5, 6. | |Targum (Cr. )D. 133, Is. 3. | | | 9-15 (v. L. ) | | | | |D. 27, Is. 3. 16. |free quotation | | | (Cr. ) |D. 133, Is. 5. 18- | |repeated. | 25 (v. L. ) | | |D. 43 (66), Is. 7. | |repeated, with | 10-17 (v. L. ) | | slight | | | variation. | | A. 1. 35, Is. 9. 6. |free (Cr. )D. 87, Is. 11. 1-3. | |[A. 1. 32, Is. 11. 1; |free combination | | Num. 24. 17. | (Cr. )] |D. 123, Is. 14. 1. | |D. 123, Is. 19. 24, | | | 25+. | | | |D. 78, Is. 29. 13, 14. | |repeated (v. L), | | | partly from | | | memory. D. 79, Is. 30. 1-5. | | | |D. 70, Is. 33. 13-19. | | |D. 69, Is. 35. 1-7. |A. 1. 48, Is. 35. 5, 6. |free; cf. Matt. | | | 11. 5 (var. )D. 50, Is. 39. 8, | | | 40. 1-17. | | | | |D. 125} Is. 42. 1-4. |{cf. Matt. 12. | |D. 135} |{ 17-21, | | | Targum (Cr. )D. 65, Is. 42. 6-13 | | | (v. L. ) | | | | |D. 122, Is. 42. 16. |free (Cr. ) |D. 123, Is. 42. 19, | | | 20. | |D. 122, Is. 43. 10. | | | | |A. 1. 52, Is. 45. |cf. Rom. 14. 11. | | 24 (v. L. ) |D. 121, Is. 49. 6 | | | (v. L. ) | | |D. 122, Is. 49. 8 | | | (v. L. ) | | | |D. 102, Is. 50. 4. | |A. 1. 38, Is. 50. | | |Barn. , Tert. , 6-8. | | | Cypr. D. 11, Is. 51. 4, 5. | | |D. 17, Is. 52. 5 | | | (v. L. ) | | |D. 12, Is. 5 2, | | | 10-15, 53. 1-12, | | | 54. 1-6. | | | |A. 1. 50, Is. 52. | | | 13-53. 12. | | | |D. 138, Is. 54. 9. |very free. D. 14, Is. 55. 3-13. | |[D. 12, Is. 55. 3-5. |from memory | | | (Cr. )]D. 16, Is. 57. 1-4. | | |repeated. D. 15, Is. 58. 1-11 | | |[Greek: (v. L. ) | | | himatia] for | | |[Greek: iamata]; | | |so Barn. , Tert, | | |Cyp. , Amb. , Aug. D. 27, Is. 58. | | | 13, 14. | | | |D. 26, +Is. 62. 10- | |[Greek: | 10-63. 6. | | susseismon] for | | |[Greek: | | | sussaemon]. D. 25, Is. 63. 15- | | | 19, 64. 1-12. | | |D. 24, Is. 65. 1-3. | |[A. 1. 49, Is. 65. |from memory | | 1-3. | (Cr. )]D. 136, Is. 65. 8. | | |D. 135, Is. 65. 9-12| | |D. 81, Is. 65. 17-25| | | | |D. 22, Is. 66. 1. |from memory | | | (Cr. )D. 85, Is. 66. 5-11. | | | | |D. 44, Is. 66. 24 |from memory | | (ter). | (Cr. ) | |D. 114, Jer. 2. 13; |as from | | Is. 16. 1; | Jeremiah, | | Jer. 3. 8. | traditional | | | combination; | | | cf. Barn. 2. |D. 28, Jer. 4. 3, 4 | | | (v. L. ) | | | |D. 23, Jer. 7. 21, 22. |free quotation | | | (Cr. ) |D. 28, Jer. 9. 25, 26|[A. 1. 53, Jer. 9. 26. |quoted freely | | | as from | | | Isaiah. ] |D. 72, Jer. 11. 19. | |omissions. | |D. 78, Jer. 31. 15 |so Matt. 2. 18 | | (38. 15, LXX). | through | | | Targum (Cr. ) | |D. 123, Jer. 31. 27 |free quotation | | (38. 27). | (Cr. ) |D. 11, Jer. 31. 31, | | |32 (38. 31, 32). | | | |D. 72. |a passage quoted | | | as from | | | Jeremiah, | | | which is not | | | recognisable | | | in our present | | | texts. | |D. 82, Ezek. 3. |free quotation | | 17-19. | (Cr. ) | |D. 45} Ezek. 14. |} repeated | | 44} 20; cf. 14, |} similarly and | | 140} 16, 18. |} equally | | |} divergent from | | |} LXX. D. 77, Ezek. 16. 3. | | |D. 21, Ezek. 20. | | | 19-26. | | |D. 123, Ezek. 36. | | | 12. | | | | |A. 1. 52, Ezek. |very free (Cr. ) | | 37. 7. |

[Footnote: Justin has in Dial. 31 (also in Apol. 1. 51, ver. 13, frommemory) a long quotation from Daniel, Dan. 7. 9-28; his text can onlybe compared with a single MS. Of the LXX, Codex Chisianus; from thisit differs considerably, but many of the differences reappear in theversion of Theodotion; 7. 10, 13 are also similarly quoted in Rev. , Mark, Clem. Rom. ]

 _Exact. _ | _Slightly | _Variant. _ | _Remarks. _ | variant. _ | | | |D. 19, Hos. 1. 9. | | |D. 102, Hos. 10. 6. |referred to | | | trial before | | | Herod (Cr. ) | |D. 87, Joel 2. 28. |from memory | | | (Cr. ) |D. 22, +Amos | | |5. 18-6. 7 (v. L. ) | | |D. 107, Jonah 4. | | | 10-11 (v. L. Heb. )| | |D. 109, Micah 4. | |divergent from | 1-7 (Heb. ?) | | LXX. | |A. 1. 34} Micah 5. 2. |{precisely as | |D. 78 } |{ Matt. 2. 6. | | | | |A. 1. 52, Zech. 2. 6. |{free quotations | |D. 137, Zech. 2. 8. |{ (Cr. ) |D. 115, Zach. 2. |[D. 79, Zech. 3. |freely (Cr. )] | 10-3. 2 (Heb. ?) | 1, 2. |D. 106, Zach. 6. 12. | | | | |A. 1. 52, Zech. 12. |repeated di- | | 11, 12, 10. | versely [note | | | reading of | | | Christian ori- | | | gin (Cr. ) in | | | ver. 10: | | | so John 19. 37; | | | cp. Rev. 1. 7]. | |D. 43, Zech. 13. 7. |diversely in | | | Matt. 26. 31, | | | proof that | | | Justin is | | | not dependent | | | on Matthew | | | (Cr. ) |D. 28, 41, Mal. 1. |D. 117, Mal. 1. | | 10-12 (v. L. ) | 10-12. | |D. 62, +Joshua 5. | |omissions. | 13-15; 6. 1, 2 | | | (v. L. ) | | | |D. 118, 2 Sam. 7. |from memory | | 14-16. | (Cr. ) | |D. 39, 1 Kings 19. |freely (Cr. ); | | 14, 15, 18. | cf. Rom. 11. 3. A. 1. 55, Lam. 4. | | | 20 (v. L. ) | | | | |D. 79, Job 1. 6. |sense only | | | (Cr. ) |D. 61, +Prov. 8. | |coincidence | 21-36. | | with Ire- | | | naeus. 

[Footnote: D. 72 a passage ostensibly from Ezra, but probably anapocryphal addition, perhaps from Preaching of Peter; same quotationin Lactantius. ]

It is impossible not to be struck with the amount of matter thatJustin has transferred to his pages bodily. He has quoted ninePsalms entire, and a tenth with the statement (twice repeated)that it is given entire, though really he has only quoted twenty-three verses. The later chapters of Isaiah are also given withextraordinary fulness. These longer passages are generally quotedaccurately. If Justin's text differs from the received text of theLXX, it is frequently found that he has some extant authority forhis reading. The way in which Credner has drawn out thesevarieties of reading, and the results which he obtained as to therelations and comparative value of the different MSS. , formperhaps the most interesting feature of his work. The more markeddivergences in Justin may be referred to two causes; (1) quotationfrom memory, in which he indulges freely, especially in theshorter passages, and more in the Apology than in the Dialoguewith Tryphon; (2) in Messianic passages the use of a Targum, notimmediately by Justin himself but in some previous document fromwhich he quotes, in order to introduce a more distinctly Christianinterpretation; the coincidences between Justin and otherChristian writers show that the text of the LXX had been thusmodified in a Christian sense, generally through a closercomparison with and nearer return to the Hebrew, before his time. The instances of free quotation are not perhaps quite fully givenin the above list, but it will be seen that though they form amarked phenomenon, still more marked is the amount of exactness. Any long, not Messianic, passage, it appears to be the rule withJustin to quote exactly. Among the passages quoted freely thereseem to be none of greater length than four verses. 

The exactness is especially remarkable in the plain historicalnarratives of the Pentateuch and the Psalms, though it is alsoevident that Justin had the MS. Before him, and referred to itfrequently throughout the quotations from the latter part ofIsaiah. Through following the arrangement of Credner we havefailed to notice the cases of combination; these however arecollected by Dr. Westcott (On the Canon, p. 156). The mostremarkable instance is in Apol. I. 52, where six differentpassages from three separate writers are interwoven together andassigned bodily to Zechariah. There are several more examples ofmistaken ascription. 

 * * * * *

The great advantage of collecting the quotations from the OldTestament is that we are enabled to do so in regard to the verysame writers among whom our enquiry is to lie. We can thus form ageneral idea of their idiosyncracies, and we know what to expectwhen we come to examine a different class of quotations. There is, however, the element of uncertainty of which I have spoken above. We cannot be quite clear what text the writer had before him. Thisdifficulty also exists, though to a less degree, when we come toconsider quotations from the New Testament in writers of an earlydate whom we know to have used our present Gospels as canonical. The text of these Gospels is so comparatively fixed, and we havesuch abundant materials for its reconstruction, that we cangenerally say at once whether the writer is quoting from it freelyor not. We have thus a certain gain, though at the cost of thedrawback that we can no longer draw an inference as to thepractice of individuals, but merely attain to a general conclusionas to the habits of mind current in the age. This too will besubject to a deduction for the individual bent and peculiaritiesof the writer. We must therefore, on the whole, attach lessimportance to the examples under this section than under thatpreceding. 

I chose two writers to be the subject of this examination almost, I may say, at random, and chiefly because I had more convenientaccess to their works at the time. The first of these is Irenaeus, that is to say the portions still extant in the Greek of hisTreatise against Heresies, [Endnote 49:1] and the secondEpiphanius. 

Irenaeus is described by Dr. Tregelles 'as a close and carefulquoter in general from the New Testament' [Endnote 49:2]. He maytherefore be taken to represent a comparatively high standard ofaccuracy. In the following table the quotations which are merelyallusive are included in brackets:--

 _Exact. _ | _Slightly | _Variant. _ | _Remarks. _ | variant. _ | |I. Praef. Matt. 10. 26. | | |I. 3. 2, Matt. 5. 18. | | |quoted from | | | GnosticsI. 3, 3, Mark 5. 31. | | |Gnostics. | |I. 3. 5, Luke 14. 27. |Valentinians. |I. 3. 5, Mark 10. | |the same. I. 3. 5, Matt. 10. 34. | 21 (v. L. ) | |the same. I. 3. 5, Luke 3. 17. | | |the same. I. 4. 3, Matt. 10. 8. | | |[I. 6. 1, Matt. 5. | | | 13, 14, al. ] | |I. 7. 4, Matt. 8. 9. } |}the same. | | Luke 7. 8. } |} | |I. 8. 2, Matt. 27. 46. |Valentinians. I. 8. 2. Matt. 26. 38. | | |the same. |I. 8. 2, Matt. | |the same. | 26. 39. | | | |I. 8. 2, John 12. 27. |the same. | |I. 8. 3, Luke |the same. | | 9. 57, 58. | | |I. 8. 3, Luke |the same. | | 9. 61, 62. | |I. 8. 3, Luke | |the same. | 9. 60. | | |I. 8. 3, Luke 19. 5. | |the same. | |I. 8. 4, Luke 15, 4. |the same. |[I. 8. 4, Luke | |the same. | 15. 8, al. ]| | |I. 8. 4, Luke 2. 28. | |the same. [I. 8. 4. , Luke | | |the same. 6. 36, al. ] | | |I. 8. 4, Luke 7. 35 | | |the same. (v. L. ) | | |I. 8. 5, John 1. 1, 2. | | |the same. I. 8. 5, John 1. 3 | | |the same. (v. L. ) | | |I. 8. 5, John 1. 4. | | |the same. (v. L. ) | | | | |I. 8. 5, John 1. 5. |the same. I. 8. 5, John 1. 14. | |I. 8. 5, John 1. 14. |[the same | | | verse rep- | | | eated dif- | | | ferently. ] | |[I. 14. 1. Matt. |Marcus. | | 18. 10, al. ] | |[I. 16. 1, Luke | |Marcosians. | 15. 8, al. ]| | | |[I. 16. 3, Matt. |the same. | | 12, 43, al. ] | |I. 20. 2, Luke | |the same. | 2. 49. | | | |I. 20. 2, Mark 10. 18. |['memoriter'- | | | Stieren; but | | | comp. Clem. | | | Hom. And | | | and Justin. ] |I. 20. 2, Matt. | |Marcosians. | 21. 23. | | | |I. 20. 2, Luke 19. 42. |the same. I. 20. 2, Matt. | | |the same. 11. 28 (? om. ). | | | | |I. 20. 3, Luke 10. 21. |the same; | | (Matt. 11. 25 | [v. L. , comp. | | 25. ) | Marcion, | | | Clem. Hom. , | | | Justin, &c. ] | |I. 21. 2, Luke 12. 50. |Marcosians. |I. 21. 2, Mark | |Marcosians. | 10. 36. | |III. 11. 8, John | | | 1. 1-3 (?). | | |III. 11. 8, Matt. | | | 1. 1, 18 (v. L. )| | | |III. 11. 8, Mark | |omissions. | 1. 1, 2. | |III. 22. 2, John 4. 6. | | |III. 22. 2, Matt. 26. 38. | | | |IV. 26. 1, } Matt. | | |IV. 40. 3, } 13. 38. | | |IV. 40. 3, Matt. | | | 13. 25. | |V. 17. 4, Matt. 3. 10. | | | | |V. 36. 2, John 14. 2 | | | (or obl. ) | | |Fragm. 14, Matt. | | | 15. 17. |

On the whole these quotations of Irenaeus seem fairly to deservethe praise given to them by Dr. Tregelles. Most of the freequotations, it will be seen, belong not so much to Irenaeushimself, as to the writers he is criticising. In some places (e. G. Iv. 6. 1, which is found in the Latin only) he expressly notes adifference of text. In this very place, however, he shows that heis quoting from memory, as he speaks of a parallel passage in St. Mark which does not exist. Elsewhere there can be little doubtthat either he or the writer before him quoted loosely frommemory. Thus Luke xii. 50 is given as [Greek: allo baptisma echobaptisthaenai kai panu epeigomai eis auto] for [Greek: baptisma deecho baptisthaenai kai pos sunechomai heos hotou telesthae]. Thequotation from Matt. Viii. 9 is represented as [Greek: kai gar egohupo taen emautou exousian echo stratiotas kai doulous kai ho eanprostaxo poiousi], which is evidently free; those from Matt. Xviii. 10, xxvii. 46, Luke ix. 57, 58, 61, 62, xiv. 27, xix. 42, John i. 5, 14 (where however there appears to be some confusion inthe text of Irenaeus), xiv. 2, also seem to be best explained asmade from memory. 

The list given below, of quotations from the Gospels in thePanarium or 'Treatise against Heresies' of Epiphanius [Endnote52:1], is not intended to be exhaustive. It has been made from theshorter index of Petavius, and being confined to the 'praecipuiloci' consists chiefly of passages of substantial length andentirely (I believe) of express quotations. It has been againnecessary to distinguish between the quotations made directly byEpiphanius himself and those made by the heretical writers whoseworks he is reviewing. 

 _Exact. _ | _Slightly | _Variant. _ | _Remarks. _ | Variant. _ | |426A, Matt. 1. 1; | | | Matt. 1. 18, | | | (v. L. ) | | | |426BC, Matt. | |abridged, diver- | 1. 18-25+. | | gent in middle. | |430B, Matt. 2. 13. |Porphyry & Celsus. | |44C, Matt. 5. 34, 37| |59C, Matt. | | | 5. 17, 18. | |180B, Matt. 5. 18+. | | |Valentinians. | |226A, Matt. 5. 45. | |72A, Matt. 7. 6. | |Basilidians. 404C, Matt. 7. 15. | | | | |67C. Matt. 8. 11. | | |650B. Matt. | | | 8. 28-34 (par. )| |303A, Matt. | |Marcion. | 9. 17, 16. | | |71B, Matt. 10. 33. | |Basilidians. |274B, Matt. | | | 10. 16. | |88A, Matt. 11. 7. |143B, Matt. | |Gnostics. | 11. 18. | | |254B, Matt. | |Marcosians. | 11. 28. | | | |139AB, Matt. |Ebionites. | | 12. 48 sqq. (v. L. )|174C, Matt. 10. 26. | | | | |464B, Matt. |Theodotus. | | 12. 31, 32. | |33A, Matt. 23. 5. | | | |218D, Matt. 15. 4-6|Ptolemaeus. | | (or. Obl. )| | |490C, Matt. 15. 20. | | | Mark 7. 21, 22. | | |490A, Matt. 18. 8. |}compression | | Mark 9. 43. |} | |679BC, Matt. |Manes. | | 13. 24-30, 37-39. | | |152B, Matt. 5. 27. | |59CD, Matt. | | | 19. 10-12. | | |59D, Matt. 19. 6. | | | |81A, Matt. 19. 12. | | |97D, Matt. 22. 30. | | |36BC, Matt. 23. |remarkable compo- | | 23, 25; 23. 18-20. | sition, probably | | | from memory. | | (5. 35); Mark | | | 7. 11-13; Matt. | | | 23. 15. | | |226A, Matt. 23. 29;|composition. | | Luke 11. 47. | | |281A, Matt. 23. 35. | | |508C, Matt. 25. 34. | | |146AB, Matt. 26. |narrative. | | 17, 18; Mark 14. | | | 12-14; Luke 22. | | | 9-11. | | |279D, Matt. 26. 24. | | |390B, Matt. 21. 33, | | | par. | |50A, Matt. 28. 19. | | |427B, Mark 1. 1, 2. | | | (v. 1. )| | |428C, Mark 1. 4. | | | |457D, Mark 3. 29; |singular | | Matt. 12. 31; |composition. | | Luke 12. 10. | |400D, Matt. 19. 6;| | | Mark 10. 9. | | | |650C, Matt. 8. |narrative. | | 28-34; Mark 5. | | | 1-20; Luke 8. | | | 26-39. |

[These last five quotations have already been given under Irenaeus, whomEpiphanius is transcribing. ]

 |464D, Luke 12. 9; | |composition. | Matt. 10. 33. | | |181B, Luke 14. 27. | |Valentians. |401A, Luke 21. 34. | | |143C, Luke 24. 42. | | | (v. 1. )| | |349C, Luke 24. | |Marcion. | 38, 39| |384B, John 1. 1-3. | | |148A, John 1. 23. | | | |148B, John | | | 2. 16, 17. | | |89C, John 3. 12. | |Gnostics. |274A, John 3. 14 | |59C, John 5. 46. | | | | |162B, John 5. 8. |66C, John 5. 17. | | | |919A, John 5. 18. | | | |117D, John 6. 15. | |89D, John 6. 53. | |the same. |279D, John 6. 70. | | | |279B, John 8. 44. | |463D, John 8. 40. | |Theodotus. | |148B, John 12. 41. | | |153A, John 12. 22. | |75C, John 14. 6. | |919C, John 14. 10. | | |921D, John 17. 3. | | | | |279D, John | | | 17. 11, 12. | |119D, John 18. 36. | |

It is impossible here not to notice the very large amount offreedom in the quotations. The exact quotations number onlyfifteen, the slightly variant thirty-seven, and the markedlyvariant forty. By far the larger portion of this last class andseveral instances in the second it seems most reasonable to referto the habit of quoting from memory. This is strikinglyillustrated by the passage 117 D, Where the retreat of Jesus andHis disciples to Ephraim is treated as a consequence of theattempt 'to make Him king' (John vi. 15), though in reality it didnot take place till after the raising of Lazarus and just beforethe Last Passover (see John xi. 54). A very remarkable case ofcombination is found in 36 BC, where a single quotation is made upof a cento of no less than six separate passages taken from allthree Synoptic Gospels and in the most broken order. Fusions socomplete as this are usually the result of unconscious acts of themind, i. E. Of memory. A curious instance of the way in which theSynoptic parallels are blended together in a compound whichdiffers from each and all of them is presented in 437 D ([Greek:to blasphaemounti eis to pneuma to hagion ouk aphethaesetai autooute en to nun aioni oute en to mellonti]). Another example ofEpiphanius' manner in skipping backwards and forwards from oneSynoptic to another may be seen in 218 D, which is made up ofMatt. Xv. 4-9 and Mark vii. 6-13. A strange mistake is made in 428D, where [Greek: paraekolouthaekoti] is taken with [Greek: toisautoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou]. Many kinds of variation findexamples in these quotations of Epiphanius, to some of which wemay have occasion to allude more particularly later on. 

It should be remembered that these are not by any means selectedexamples. Neither Irenaeus nor Epiphanius are notorious for freequotation--Irenaeus indeed is rather the reverse. Probably a muchmore plentiful harvest of variations would have been obtained e. G. From Clement of Alexandria, from whose writings numerous instancesof quotation following the sense only, of false ascription, of theblending of passages, of quotations from memory, are given in thetreatise of Bp. Kaye [Endnote 56:1]. Dr. Westcott has recentlycollected [Endnote 56:2] the quotations from Chrysostom _On thePriesthood, _ with the result that about one half presentvariations from the Apostolic texts, and some of these variations, which he gives at length, are certainly very much to the point. 

I fear we shall have seemed to delay too long upon this firstpreliminary stage of the enquiry, but it is highly desirable thatwe should start with a good broad inductive basis to go upon. Wehave now an instrument in our hands by which to test the allegedquotations in the early writers; and, rough and approximate asthat instrument must still be admitted to be, it is at least muchbetter than none at all. 

CHAPTER III. 

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 

To go at all thoroughly into all the questions that may be raisedas to the date and character of the Christian writings in theearly part of the second century would need a series of somewhatelaborate monographs, and, important as it is that the data shouldbe fixed with the utmost attainable precision, the scaffoldingthus raised would, in a work like the present, be out ofproportion to the superstructure erected upon it. These arematters that must be decided by the authority of those who havemade the provinces to which they belong a subject of specialstudy: all we can do will be to test the value of the severalauthorities in passing. 

In regard to Clement of Rome, whose First (genuine) Epistle to theCorinthians is the first writing that meets us, the author of'Supernatural Religion' is quite right in saying that 'the great massof critics ... Assign the composition of the Epistle to the end of thefirst century (A. D. 95-100)' [Endnote 58:1]. There is as usual a rightand a left wing in the array of critics. The right includes several ofthe older writers; among the moderns the most conspicuous figure is theRoman Catholic Bishop Hefele. Tischendorf also, though as it is pointedout somewhat inconsistently, leans to this side. According to theiropinion the Epistle would be written shortly before A. D. 70. On theleft, the names quoted are Volkmar, Baur, Scholten, Stap, and Schwegler[Endnote 59:1]. Baur contents himself with the remark that the Epistleto the Corinthians, 'as one of the oldest documents of Christianantiquity, might have passed without question as a writing of the RomanClement, ' had not this Clement become a legendary person and had somany spurious works palmed off upon him [Endnote 59:2]. But it issurely no argument to say that because a certain number of extravagantand spurious writings are attributed to Clement, therefore one so soberand consistent with his position, and one so well attested as this, isnot likely to have been written by him. The contrary inference would bethe more reasonable, for if Clement had not been an important person, and if he had left no known and acknowledged writings, divergentparties in the Church would have had no reason for making use of hisname. But arguments of this kind cannot have much weight. Probably notone half of the writings attributed to Justin Martyr are genuine; butno one on that account doubts the Apologies and the Dialogue withTryphon. 

Schwegler [Endnote 59:3], as is his wont, has developed the opinion ofBaur, adding some reasons of his own. Such as, that the letter showsPauline tendencies, while 'according to the most certain traditions'Clement was a follower of St. Peter; but the evidence for the Epistle(Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, A. D. 165-175, Hegesippus, andIrenaeus in the most express terms) is much older and better thanthese 'most certain traditions' (Tertullian and Origen), even if theyproved anything: 'in the Epistle of Clement use is made of the Epistleto the Hebrews;' but surely, according to any sober canons ofcriticism, the only light in which this argument can be regarded is asso much evidence for the Epistle to the Hebrews: the Epistle implies adevelopment of the episcopate which 'demonstrably' (nachweislich) didnot take place until during the course of the second century; what the'demonstration' is does not appear, and indeed it is only part of thegreat fabric of hypothesis that makes up the Tübingen theory. 

Volkmar strikes into a new vein [Endnote 60:1]. The Epistle of Clementpresupposes the Book of Judith; but the Book of Judith must be datedA. D. 117-118; and therefore the Epistle of Clement will fall aboutA. D. 125. What is the ground for this reasoning? It consists in atheory, which Volkmar adopted and developed from Hitzig, as to theorigin of the Book of Judith. That book is an allegorical or symbolicalrepresentation of events in the early part of the rising of the Jewsunder Barcochba; Judith is Judaea, Nebuchadnezzar Trajan; Assyriastands for Syria, Nineveh for Antioch, Arphaxad for a Parthian kingArsaces, Ecbatana for Nisibis or perhaps Batnae; Bagoas is the eunuch-service in general; Holofernes is the Moor Lucius Quietus. Out ofthese elements an elaborate historical theory is constructed, whichEwald and Fritzsche have taken the trouble to refute on historicalgrounds. To us it is very much as if Ivanhoe were made out to bean allegory of incidents in the French Revolution; or as if the'tale of Troy divine' were, not a nature-myth or Euemeristic legendof long past ages, but a symbolical representation of events underthe Pisistratidae. 

Examples such as this are apt to draw from the English reader asweeping condemnation of German criticism, and yet they are reallyonly the sports or freaks of an exuberant activity. The long listgiven in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 61:1] of those whomaintain the middle date of Clement's Epistle (A. D. 95-100)includes apparently all the English writers, and among a number ofGermans the weighty names of Bleek, Ewald, Gieseler, Hilgenfeld, Köstlin, Lipsius, Laurent, Reuss, and Ritschl. From the point ofview either of authority or of argument there can be little doubtwhich is the soundest and most judicious decision. 

Now what is the bearing of the Epistle of Clement upon thequestion of the currency and authority of the Synoptic Gospels?There are two passages of some length which are without doubtevangelical quotations, though whether they are derived from theCanonical Gospels or not may be doubted. 

The first passage occurs in c. Xiii. It will be necessary to giveit in full with the Synoptic parallels, in order to appreciate theexact amount of difference and resemblance which it presents. 

_Matt. _ v. 7, vi. 14, |_Clem. Ad Cor. _ c. Xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31, vii. 12, 2. | | vi. 38, 37, 38. | [Especially re- | | membering the word | | of the Lord Jesus | | which he spake ... | | For thus he said:] |v. 7. Blessed are | Pity ye, that ye may | vi. 36. Be ye mer-the pitiful, for they | be pitied: forgive, | ciful, etc. Vi. 37. Ac-shall be pitied. Vi. | that it may be for- | quit, and ye shall be14. For if ye for | given unto you. As | acquitted. Vi. 3 1. Give men their tres- | ye do, so shall it | And as ye wouldpasses, etc. Vii. 12. | be done unto you: | that they should doAll things therefore | as ye give, so shall | unto you, do yewhatsoever ye would | it be given. Unto you: | also unto them likethat men should do | as ye judge, so shall | wise. Vi. 38. Give, unto you, even so do | it be judged unto | and it shall be givenye unto them. Vii. 2. | you: as ye are kind, | unto you. Vi. 3 7. For with what judg- | so shall kindness be | And judge not, andment ye judge, ye | shown unto you: | ye shall not beshall be judged: and | | judged. With what measure | with what measure | For with whatye mete, it shall be | ye mete, with it shall | measure ye mete, itmeasured unto you. | it be measured unto | shall be measured | you. | unto you again. 

 [GREEK TABLE]_Matt. _ v. 7, vi. 14, |_Clem. Ad Cor. _ c. Xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31, vii. 12, 2. | | vi. 38, 37, 38. | | v. 7. Makarioi hoi |eleeite hina eleaethaete. | vi. 36. Ginestheeleaemones hoti autoi | |oiktirmones, k. T. L. Eleaethaesontai. | | vi. 14. Ean gar | aphiete hina aphethae | vi. 37. Apoluete kaiaphaete tois anth. Ta |humin. |apoluthaesesthe. Paraptomata auton. | | vii. 12. Panta oun | hos poieite houto | vi. 31. Kai kathoshosa ean thelaete hina |poiaethaesetai humin. |thelete hina poiosinpoiosin humin hoi anth. | |humin hoi anthropoi kaihoutos kai humeis | |humeis poieite autois | |homoios poieite autois. | hos didote houtos | vi. 38. Didote, kai |dothaesetai humin. |dothaesetai humin. Vii. 2. En ho gar | hos krinete houtos | vi. 37. Kai maekrimati krinete |krithaesetai humin. |krinete kai ou maekrithaesesthe. | |krithaete. | hos chraesteuesthe | |houtos chraesteuthaesetai| |humin. |kai en ho metro | ho metro metreite en | vi. 38. To gar autometreite |auto metraethaesetai |metro ho metreitemetraethaesetai humin. |humin. |antimetraethaesetai | |humin. 

We are to determine whether this quotation was taken from theCanonical Gospels. Let us try to balance the arguments on bothsides as fairly as possible. Dr. Lightfoot writes in his note uponthe passage as follows: 'As Clement's quotations are often veryloose, we need not go beyond the Canonical Gospels for the sourceof this passage. The resemblance to the original is much closerhere, than it is for instance in his account of Rahab above, § 12. The hypothesis therefore that Clement derived the saying from oraltradition, or from some lost Gospel, is not needed. ' (1) No doubtit is true that Clement does often quote loosely. The differenceof language, taking the parallel clauses one by one, is notgreater than would be found in many of his quotations from the OldTestament. (2) Supposing that the order of St. Luke is followed, there will be no greater dislocation than e. G. In the quotationfrom Deut. Ix. 12-14 and Exod. Xxxii. (7, 8), 11, 31, 32 in c. Liii, and the backward order of the quotation would have aparallel in Clem. Hom. Xvi. 13, where the verses Deut. Xiii. 1-3, 5, 9 are quoted in the order Deut. Xiii. 1-3, 9, 5, 3, --andelsewhere. The composition of a passage from different places inthe same book, or more often from places in different books, suchas would be the case if Clement was following Matthew, frequentlyoccurs in his quotations from the Old Testament. (3) We have nopositive evidence of the presence of this passage in any non-extant Gospel. (4) Arguments from the manner of quoting the OldTestament to the manner of quoting the New must always be to acertain extent _a fortiori_, for it is undeniable that theNew Testament did not as yet stand upon the same footing ofrespect and authority as the Old, and the scarcity of MSS. Musthave made it less accessible. In the case of converts fromJudaism, the Old Testament would have been largely committed tomemory in youth, while the knowledge of the New would be onlyrecently acquired. These considerations seem to favour thehypothesis that Clement is quoting from our Gospels. 

But on the other hand it may be urged, (1) that the paralleladduced by Dr. Lightfoot, the story of Rahab, is not quite inpoint, because it is narrative, and narrative both in Clement andthe other writers of his time is dealt with more freely thandiscourse. (2) The passage before us is also of greater lengththan is usual in Clement's free quotations. I doubt whether aslong a piece of discourse can be found treated with equal freedom, unless it is the two doubtful cases in c. Viii and c. Xxix. (3) Itwill not fail to be noticed that the passage as it stands inClement has a roundness, a compactness, a balance of style, whichgive it an individual and independent appearance. Fusions effectedby an unconscious process of thought are, it is true, sometimesmarked by this completeness; still there is a difficulty insupposing the terse antitheses of the Clementine version to bederived from the fuller, but more lax and disconnected, sayings inour Gospels. (4) It is noticed in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote65:1] that the particular phrase [Greek: chraesteusthe] has atleast a partial parallel in Justin [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kaioiktirmones], though it has none in the Canonical Gospels. Thismay seem to point to a documentary source no longer extant. 

Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we only knewwhat was the common original of the two Synoptic texts. How dothey come to be so like and yet so different as they are? How dothey come to be so strangely broken up? The triple synopsis, whichhas to do more with narrative, presents less difficulty, but theproblem raised by these fragmentary parallelisms in discourse isdark and complex in the extreme; yet if it were only solved itwould in all probability give us the key to a wide class ofphenomena. The differences in these extra-canonical quotations donot exceed the differences between the Synoptic Gospelsthemselves; yet by far the larger proportion of critics regard theresemblances in the Synoptics as due to a common written sourceused either by all three or by two of them. The critics have nothowever, I believe, given any satisfactory explanation of thestate of dispersion in which the fragments of this latter classare found. All that can be at present done is to point out thatthe solution of this problem and that of such quotations as theone discussed in Clement hang together, and that while the oneremains open the other must also. 

Looking at the arguments on both sides, so far as we can givethem, I incline on the whole to the opinion that Clement is notquoting directly from our Gospels, but I am quite aware of theinsecure ground on which this opinion rests. It is a nice balanceof probabilities, and the element of ignorance is so large thatthe conclusion, whatever it is, must be purely provisional. Anything like confident dogmatism on the subject seems to meentirely out of place. 

Very much the same is to be said of the second passage in c. Xlvicompared with Matt. Xxvi. 24, xviii. 6, or Luke xvii. 1, 2. It hardlyseems necessary to give the passage in full, as this is already donein 'Supernatural Religion, ' and it does not differ materially fromthat first quoted, except that it is less complicated and thesupposition of a quotation from memory somewhat easier. The criticindeed dismisses the question summarily enough. He says that 'theslightest comparison of the passage with our Gospels is sufficient toconvince any unprejudiced mind that it is neither a combination oftexts nor a quotation from memory' [Endnote 66:1]. But this veryconfident assertion is only the result of the hasty and superficialexamination that the author has given to the facts. He has set downthe impression that a modern might receive, at the first blush, without having given any more extended study to the method of thepatristic quotations. I do not wish to impute blame to him for this, because we are all sure to take up some points superficially; but themisfortune is that he has spent his labour in the wrong place. Hehas, in a manner, revived the old ecclesiastical argument fromauthority by heaping together references, not always quite digestedand sifted, upon points that often do not need them, and he hasneglected that consecutive study of the originals which alone couldimbue his mind with their spirit and place him at the proper point ofview for his enquiry. 

The hypothesis that Clement's quotation is made _memoriter_ from ourGospel is very far from being inadmissible. Were it not that theother passage seems to lean the other way, I should be inclined toregard it as quite the most probable solution. Such a fusion isprecisely what _would_ and frequently _does_ take place in quotingfrom memory. It is important to notice the key phrases in thequotation. The opening phrases [Greek: ouai to anthropo ekeino; kalonaen auto ei ouk egennaethae] are found _exactly_ (though withomissions) in Matt. Xxvi. 24. Clement has in common with theSynoptists all the more marked expressions but two, [Greek:skandalisai] ([Greek: -sae] Synoptics), the unusual word [Greek:mulos] (Matt. , Mark), [Greek: katapontisthaenai] ([Greek: -thae]Matt. ), [Greek: eis taen thalassan] (Mark, Luke), [Greek: hena tonmikron] ([Greek: mou] Clement, [Greek: touton] Synoptics). He differsfrom them, so far as phraseology is concerned, only in writing _once_(the second time he agrees with the Synoptics) [Greek: ton eklektonmou] for [Greek: ton mikron touton], by an easy paraphrase, and[Greek: peritethaenai] where Mark and Luke have [Greek: perikeitai]and Matthew [Greek: kremasthae]. But on the other hand, it should benoticed that Matthew has, besides this variation, [Greek: en topelagei taes thalassaes], where the two companion Gospels have[Greek: eis taen thalassan]; where he has [Greek: katapontisthae], Mark has [Greek: beblaetai] and Luke [Greek: erriptai]; and in theimportant phrase for 'it were better' all the three Gospels differ, Matthew having [Greek: sumpherei], Mark [Greek: kalon estin], andLuke [Greek: lusitelei]; so that it seems not at all too much to saythat Clement does not differ from the Synoptics more than they differfrom each other. The remarks that the author makes, in a general way, upon these differences lead us to ask whether he has ever definitelyput to himself the question, How did they arise? He must be awarethat the mass of German authorities he is so fond of quoting admit ofonly two alternatives, that the Synoptic writers copied either fromthe same original or from each other, and that the idea of a merelyoral tradition is scouted in Germany. But if this is the case, if sogreat a freedom has been exercised in transcription, is it strangethat Clement (or any other writer) should be equally free inquotation?

The author rightly notices--though he does not seem quite toappreciate its bearing--the fact that Marcion and some codices (ofthe Old Latin translation) insert, as Clement does, the phrase[Greek: ei ouk egennaethae ae] in the text of St. Luke. Supposingthat this were the text of St. Luke's Gospel which Clement had beforehim, it would surely be so much easier to regard his quotation asdirectly taken from the Gospel; but the truer view perhaps would bethat we have here an instance (and the number of such instances inthe older MSS. Is legion) of the tendency to interpolate by theinsertion of parallel passages from the same or from the otherSynoptic Gospels. Clement and Marcion (with the Old Latin) will thenconfirm each other, as showing that even at this early date the twopassages, Matt. Xxvi. 24 and Matt. Xviii. 6 (Luke xvii. 2), hadalready begun to be combined. 

There is one point more to be noticed before we leave the Epistleof Clement. There is a quotation from Isaiah in this Epistle whichis common to it with the first two Synoptics. Of this Volkmarwrites as follows, giving the words of Clement, c. Xv, 'TheScripture says somewhere, This people honoureth me with theirlips, but their heart is far from me, ' ([Greek: houtos ho laostois cheilesin me tima hae de kardia auton porro apestin ap'emou]). 'This "Scripture" the writer found in Mark vii. 6(followed in Matt. Xv. 8), and in that shape he could not at onceremember where it stood in the Old Testament. It is indeed Mark'speculiar reproduction of Is. Xxix. 13, in opposition to theoriginal and the LXX. A further proof that the Roman Christian hashere our Synoptic text in his mind, may be taken from c. Xiii, where he quotes Jer. Ix. 24 with equal divergence from the LXX, after the precedent of the Apostle (1 Cor. I. 31, 2 Cor. X. 17)whose letters he expressly refers to (c. Xlvii) [Endnote 69:1]. It is difficult here to avoid the conclusion that Clement isquoting the Old Testament through the medium of our Gospels. Thetext of the LXX is this, [Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos en tostomati autou kai en tois cheilesin auton timosin me]. Clement hasthe passage exactly as it is given in Mark ([Greek: ho laoshoutos] Matt. ), except that he writes [Greek: apestin] where bothof the Gospels have [Greek: apechei] with the LXX. The passage isnot Messianic, so that the variation cannot be referred to aTargum; and though A. And six other MSS. In Holmes and Parsonsomit [Greek: en to stomati autou] (through wrong punctuation--Credner), still there is no MS. Authority whatever, and naturallycould not be, for the omission of [Greek: engizei moi ... Kai] andfor the change of [Greek: timosin] to [Greek: tima]. There can belittle doubt that this was a free quotation in the original of theSynoptic Gospels, and it is in a high degree probable that it haspassed through them into Clement of Rome. It might perhaps besuggested that Clement was possibly quoting the earlier document, the original of our Synoptics, but this suggestion seems to beexcluded both by his further deviation from the LXX in [Greek:apestin], and also by the phenomena of the last quotation we havebeen discussing, which are certainly of a secondary character. Altogether I cannot but regard this passage as the strongestevidence we possess for the use of the Synoptic Gospels byClement; it seems to carry the presumption that he did use them upto a considerable degree of probability. 

It is rather singular that Volkmar, whose speculations about theBook of Judith we have seen above, should be so emphatic as he isin asserting the use of all three Synoptics by Clement. We mightalmost, though not quite, apply with a single change to thiscritic a sentence originally levelled at Tischendorf, to theintent that 'he systematically adopts the latest (earliest)possible or impossible dates for all the writings of the first twocenturies, ' but he is able to admit the use of the first and thirdSynoptics (the publication of which he places respectively in 100and 110 A. D. ) by throwing forward the date of Clement's Epistle, through the Judith-hypothesis, to A. D. 125. We may however acceptthe assertion for what it is worth, as coming from a mindsomething less than impartial, while we reject the concomitanttheories. For my own part I do not feel able to speak with quitethe same confidence, and yet upon the whole the evidence, which ona single instance might seem to incline the other way, does appearto favour the conclusion that Clement used our present CanonicalGospels. 

 2. 

There is not, so far as I am aware, any reason to complain of thestatement of opinion in 'Supernatural Religion' as to the date ofthe so-called Epistle of Barnabas. Arguing then entirely fromauthority, we may put the _terminus ad quem_ at about 130A. D. The only writer who is quoted as placing it later is Dr. Donaldson, who has perhaps altered his mind in the later editionof his work, as he now writes: 'Most (critics) have been inclinedto place it not later than the first quarter of the secondcentury, and all the indications of a date, though very slight, point to this period' [Endnote 71:1]. 

The most important issue is raised on a quotation in c. Iv, 'Manyare called but few chosen, ' in the Greek of the Codex Sinaiticus[Greek: [prosechomen, maepote, hos gegraptai], polloi klaetoi, oligoi de eklektoi eurethomen. ] This corresponds exactly withMatt. Xxii. 14, [Greek: polloi gar eisin klaetoi, oligoi deeklektoi]. The passage occurs twice in our present received textof St. Matthew, but in xx. 16 it is probably an interpolation. There also occurs in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) viii. 3 the sentence, 'Manywere created but few shall be saved' [Endnote 71:2]. Our authorspends several pages in the attempt to prove that this is theoriginal of the quotation in Barnabas and not the saying in St. Matthew. We have the usual positiveness of statement: 'There canbe no doubt that the sense of the reading in 4 Ezra is exactlythat of the Epistle. ' 'It is impossible to imagine a saying moreirrelevant to its context than "Many are called but few chosen" inMatt. Xx. 16, ' where it is indeed spurious, though the relevancyof it might very well be maintained. In Matt. Xxii. 14, where thesaying is genuine, 'it is clear that the facts distinctlycontradict the moral that "few are chosen. "' When we come to apassage with a fixed idea it is always easy to get out of it whatwe wish to find. As to the relevancy or irrelevancy of the clausein Matt. Xxii. 14 I shall say nothing, because it is in eithercase undoubtedly genuine. But it is surely a strange paradox tomaintain that the words 'Many were created but few shall be saved'are nearer in meaning to 'Many are called but few chosen' than therepetition of those very words themselves. Our author hasforgotten to notice that Barnabas has used the precise word[Greek: klaetoi] just before; indeed it is the very point on whichhis argument turns, 'because we are called do not let us thereforerest idly upon our oars; Israel was called to great privileges, yet they were abandoned by God as we see them; let us thereforealso take heed, for, as it is written, many are called but fewchosen. ' I confess I find it difficult to conceive anything morerelevant, and equally so to see any special relevancy, in thevague general statement 'Many were created but few shall besaved. '

But even if it were not so, if it were really a question betweensimilarity of context on the one hand and identity of language onthe other, there ought to be no hesitation in declaring that to bethe original of the quotation in which the language was identicalthough the context might be somewhat different. Any one who hasstudied patristic quotations will know that context counts forvery little indeed. What could be more to all appearance remotefrom the context than the quotation in Heb. I. 7, 'Who maketh hisangels spirits and his ministers a flaming fire'? where theoriginal is certainly referring to the powers of nature, and means'who maketh the winds his messengers and a flame of fire hisminister;' with the very same sounds we have a complete inversionof the sense. This is one of the most frequent phenomena, as ourauthor cannot but know [Endnote 73:1]. 

Hilgenfeld, in his edition of the Epistle of Barnabas, repelssomewhat testily the imputation of Tischendorf, who criticises himas if he supposed that the saying in St. Matthew was not directlyreferred to [Endnote 73:2]. This Hilgenfeld denies to be the case. In regard to the use of the word [Greek: gegraptai] introducingthe quotation, the same writer urges reasonably enough that itcannot surprise us at a time when we learn from Justin Martyr thatthe Gospels were read regularly at public worship; it ought nothowever to be pressed too far as involving a claim to specialdivine inspiration, as the same word is used in the Epistle inregard to the apocryphal book of Enoch, and it is clear also fromJustin that the Canon of the Gospels was not yet formed but onlyforming. 

The clause, 'Give to every one that asketh of thee' [Greek: pantito aitounti se didou], though admitted into the text of c. Xix byHilgenfeld and Weizsäcker, is wanting in the Sinaitic MS. , and thecomparison with Luke vi. 30 or Matt. V. 42 therefore cannot beinsisted upon. 

The passage '[in order that He might show that] He came not tocall the righteous but sinners' ([Greek: hina deixae hoti oukaelthen kalesai dikaious alla amartolous] [Endnote 74:1]) isremoved by the hypothesis of an interpolation which is supportedby a precarious argument from Origen, and also by the fact that[Greek: eis metanoian] has been added (clearly from Luke v. 32) bylater hands both to the text of Barnabas and in Matt. Ix. 13[Endnote 74:2]. This theory of an interpolation is easilyadvanced, and it is drawn so entirely from our ignorance that itcan seldom be positively disproved, but it ought surely to bealleged with more convincing reasons than any that are put forwardhere. We now possess six MSS. Of the Epistle of Barnabas, including the famous Codex Sinaiticus, the accuracy of which inthe Biblical portions can be amply tested, and all of these sixMSS. , without exception, contain the passage. The addition of thewords [Greek: eis metanoian] represents much more the kind ofinterpolations that were at all habitual. The interpolationhypothesis, as I said, is easily advanced, but the _onusprobandi_ must needs lie heavily against it. In accepting thetext as it stands we simply obey the Baconian maxim _hypothesesnon fingimus_, but it is strange, and must be surprising to aphilosophic mind, to what an extent the more extreme representativesof the negative criticism have gone back to the most condemnedparts of the scholastic method; inconvenient facts are explainedaway by hypotheses as imaginary and unverifiable as the 'cyclesand epicycles' by which the schoolmen used to explain the motionsof the heavenly bodies. 

'If however, ' the author continues, 'the passage 'originallyformed part of the text, it is absurd to affirm that it is anyproof of the use or existence of the first Gospel. ' 'Absurd' isunder the circumstances a rather strong word to use; but, grantingthat it would have been even 'absurd' to allege this passage, ifit had stood alone, as a sufficient proof of the use of theGospel, it does not follow that there can be any objection to themore guarded statement that it invests the use of the Gospel witha certain antecedent probability. No doubt the quotation_may_ have been made from a lost Gospel, but here again[Greek: eis aphanes ton muthon anenenkas ouk echei elenchon]--there is no verifying that about which we know nothing. The criticmay multiply Gospels as much as he pleases and an apologist atleast will not quarrel with him, but it would be more to the pointif he could prove the existence in these lost writings of matter_conflicting_ with that contained in the extant Gospels. Asit is, the only result of these unverifiable hypotheses is toraise up confirmatory documents in a quarter where apologists havenot hitherto claimed them. 

We are delaying, however, too long upon points of quite secondaryimportance. Two more passages are adduced; one, an application ofPs. Cx (The Lord said unto my Lord) precisely as in Matt. Xxii. 44, and the other a saying assigned to our Lord, 'They who wish tosee me and lay hold on my kingdom must receive me throughaffliction and suffering. ' Of neither of these can we speakpositively. There is perhaps a slight probability that the firstwas suggested by our Gospel, and considering the character of theverifiable quotations in Barnabas, which often follow the senseonly and not the words, the second may be 'a free reminiscence ofMatt. Xvi. 24 compared with Acts xiv. 22, ' but it is also possiblethat it may be a saying quoted from an apocryphal Gospel. 

It should perhaps be added that Lardner and Dr. Westcott bothrefer to a quotation of Zech. Xiii. 7 which appears in the commontext of the Epistle in a form closely resembling that in which thequotation is given in Matt. Xxvi. 31 and diverging from the LXX, but here again the Sinaitic Codex varies, and the text is toouncertain to lay stress upon, though perhaps the addition [Greek:taes poimnaes] may incline the balance to the view that the textof the Gospel has influenced the form of the quotation [Endnote76:1]. 

The general result of our examination of the Epistle of Barnabasmay perhaps be stated thus, that while not supplying by itselfcertain and conclusive proof of the use of our Gospels, still thephenomena accord better with the hypothesis of such a use. ThisEpistle stands in the second line of the evidence, and as awitness is rather confirmatory than principal. 

 3. 

After Dr. Lightfoot's masterly exposition there is probablynothing more to be said about the genuineness, date, and origin ofthe Ignatian Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot has done in the most lucidand admirable manner just that which is so difficult to do, andwhich 'Supernatural Religion' has so signally failed in doing; hehas succeeded in conveying to the reader a true and just sense ofthe exact weight and proportion of the different parts of theevidence. He has avoided such phrases as 'absurd, ' 'impossible, ''preposterous, ' that his opponent has dealt in so freely, but hehas weighed and balanced the evidence piece by piece; he hascarefully guarded his language so as never to let the positivenessof his conclusion exceed what the premises will warrant; he hasdealt with the subject judicially and with a full consciousness ofthe responsibility of his position [Endnote 77:1]. 

We cannot therefore, I think, do better than adopt Dr. Lightfoot'sconclusion as the basis of our investigation, and treat theCuretonian (i. E. The three short Syriac) letters as (probably)'the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the Vossian letters(i. E. The shorter Greek recension of seven Epistles) are acceptedas valid testimony at all events for the middle of the secondcentury--the question of the genuineness of the letters beingwaived. '

The Curetonian Epistles will then be dated either in 107 or in 115A. D. , the two alternative years assigned to the martyrdom ofIgnatius. In the Epistle to Polycarp which is given in thisversion there is a parallel to Matt. X. 16, 'Be ye therefore wiseas serpents and harmless as doves. ' The two passages may becompared thus:--

 _Ign. Ad Pol. _ ii. 

[Greek: Psronimos ginou hos ophis en apasin kai akeaios oseiperisetera. ]

 _Matt. _ x. 16. 

[Greek: Ginesthe oun psronimoi hos oi opheis kai akeaioi hos aiperisterai. ]

We should naturally place this quotation in the second column ofour classified arrangement, as presenting a slight variation. Atthe same time we should have little hesitation in referring it tothe passage in our Canonical Gospel. All the marked expressionsare identical, especially the precise and selected words [Greek:phronimos] and [Greek: akeraios]. It is however possible thatIgnatius may be quoting, not directly from our Gospel, but fromone of the original documents (such as Ewald's hypothetical'Spruch-sammlung') out of which our Gospel was composed--though itis somewhat remarkable that this particular sentence is wanting inthe parallel passage in St. Luke (cf. Luke x. 3). This may be soor not; we have no means of judging. But it should at any rate beremembered that this original document, supposing it to have had asubstantive existence, most probably contained repeated referencesto miracles. The critics who refer Matt. X. 16 to the document inquestion, also agree in referring to it Matt. Vii. 22, x. 8, xi. 5, xii. 24 foll. , &c. , which speak distinctly of miracles, andprecisely in that indirect manner which is the best kind ofevidence. Therefore if we accept the hypothesis suggested in'Supernatural Religion'--and it is a mere hypothesis, quiteunverifiable--the evidence for miracles would not be materiallyweakened. The author would, I suppose, admit that it is at leastequally probable that the saying was quoted from our presentGospel. 

This probability would be considerably heightened if the allusionto 'the star' in the Syriac of Eph. Xix has, as it appears tohave, reference to the narrative of Matt. Ii. In the Greek orVossian version of the Epistle it is expanded, 'How then was Hemanifested to the ages? A star shone in heaven above all thestars, and the light thereof was unspeakable, and the strangenessthereof caused astonishment' ([Greek: Pos oun ephanerothae toisaoisin; Astaer en ourano elampsen huper pantas tous asteras, kaito phos autou aneklalaeton aen, kai xenismon pareichen haekainotaes autou]). This is precisely, one would suppose, the kindof passage that might be taken as internal evidence of thegenuineness of the Curetonian and later character of the Vossianversion. The Syriac ([Greek: hatina en haesouchia Theou to asteri][or [Greek: apo tou asteros]] [Greek: eprachthae]), abrupt anddifficult as it is, does not look like an epitome of the Greek, and the Greek has exactly that exaggerated and apocryphalcharacter which would seem to point to a later date. Itcorresponds indeed somewhat nearly to the language of theProtevangelium of James, §21, [Greek: eidomen astera pammegethaelampsanta en tois astrois tou ouranou kai amblunonta tous allousasteras hoste mae phainesthai autous]. Both in the Protevangeliumand in the Vossian Ignatius we see what is clearly a developementof the narrative in St. Matthew. If the Vossian Epistles aregenuine, then by showing the existence of such a developement atso early a date they will tend to throw back still further thecomposition of the Canonical Gospel. If the Syriac version, on theother hand, is the genuine one, it will be probable that Ignatiusis directly alluding to the narrative which is peculiar to thefirst Evangelist. 

These are (so far as I am aware) the only coincidences that arefound in the Curetonian version. Their paucity cannot surprise us, as in the same Curetonian text there is not a single quotationfrom the Old Testament. One Old Testament quotation and twoEvangelical allusions occur in the Epistle to the Ephesians, whichis one of the three contained in Cureton's MS. ; the fifth andsixth chapters, however, in which they are found, are wanting inthe Syriac. The allusions are, in Eph. V, 'For if the prayer ofone or two have such power, how much more that of the bishop andof the whole Church, ' which appears to have some relation to Matt. Xviii. 19 ('If two of you shall agree' &c. ), and in Eph. Vi, 'Forall whom the master of the house sends to be over his ownhousehold we ought to receive as we should him that sent him, 'which may be compared with Matt. X. 40 ('He that receiveth you'&c. ). Both these allusions have some probability, though neithercan be regarded as at all certain. The Epistle to the Trallianshas one coincidence in c. Xi, 'These are not plants of the Father'([Greek: phyteia Patros]), which recalls the striking expressionof Matt. Xv. 13, 'Every plant ([Greek: pasa phyteia]) that myheavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. ' This is amarked metaphor, and it is not found in the other Synoptics; it istherefore at least more probable that it is taken from St. Matthew. The same must be said of another remarkable phrase in theEpistle to the Smyrnaeans, c. Vi, [Greek: ho choron choreito]([Greek: ho dynamenos chorein choreito], Matt. Xix. 12), and alsoof the statement in c. I. Of the same Epistle that Jesus wasbaptized by John 'that He might fulfil all righteousness' ([Greek:hina plaerothae pasa dikaiosynae hup' autou]). This correspondswith the language of Matt. Iii. 15 ([Greek: houtos gar preponestin haemin plaerosai pasan dikaiosynaen]), which also has noparallel in the other Gospels. The use of the phrase [Greek:plaerosai pasan dikaiosynaen] is so peculiar, and falls in soentirely with the characteristic Christian Judaizing of our firstEvangelist, that it seems especially unreasonable to refer it toany one else. There is not the smallest particle of evidence toconnect it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews to which ourauthor seems to hint that it may belong; indeed all that we knowof that Gospel may be said almost positively to exclude it. Inthis Gospel our Lord is represented as saying, when His mother andHis brethren urge that He should accept baptism from John, 'Whathave I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him?' and it isalmost by compulsion that He is at last induced to accompany them. It will be seen that this is really an _opposite_ version ofthe event to that of Ignatius and the first Gospel, where theobjection comes from _John_ and is overruled by our LordHimself [Endnote 81:1]. 

There is however one quotation, introduced as such, in this sameEpistle, the source of which Eusebius did not know, but whichOrigen refers to the 'Preaching of Peter' and Jerome seems to havefound in the Nazarene version of the 'Gospel according to theHebrews. ' This phrase is attributed to our Lord when He appeared'to those about Peter and said to them, Handle Me and see that Iam not an incorporeal spirit' ([Greek: psaelaphaesate me, kaiidete, hoti ouk eimi daimonion asomaton]). But for the statementof Origen that these words occurred in the 'Preaching of Peter'they might have been referred without much difficulty to Lukexxiv. 39. The Preaching of Peter seems to have begun with theResurrection, and to have been an offshoot rather in the directionof the Acts than the Gospels [Endnote 81:2]. It would nottherefore follow from the use of it by Ignatius here, that theother quotations could also be referred to it. And, supposing itto be taken from the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews, ' this wouldnot annul what has been said above as to the reason for thinkingthat Ignatius (or the writer who bears his name) cannot have usedthat Gospel systematically and alone. 

 4. 

Is the Epistle which purports to have been written by Polycarp to thePhilippians to be accepted as genuine? It is mentioned in the mostexpress terms by Irenaeus, who declares himself to have been adisciple of Polycarp in his early youth, and speaks enthusiasticallyof the teaching which he then received. Irenaeus was writing betweenthe years 180-190 A. D. , and Polycarp is generally allowed to havesuffered martyrdom about 167 or 168 [Endnote 82:1]. But the way inwhich Irenaeus speaks of the Epistle is such as to imply, not onlythat it had been for some time in existence, but also that it hadbeen copied and disseminated and had attained a somewhat widecirculation. He is appealing to the Catholic tradition in oppositionto heretical teaching such as that of Valentinus and Marcion, and hesays, 'There is an Epistle written by Polycarp to the Philippians ofgreat excellence [Greek: hikanotatae], from which those who wish todo so and who care for their own salvation may learn both thecharacter of his faith and the preaching of the truth' [Endnote82:2]. He would hardly have used such language if he had not hadreason to think that the Epistle was at least fairly accessible tothe Christians for whom he is writing. But allowing for the somewhatslow (not too slow) multiplication and dissemination of writingsamong the Christians, this will throw back the composition of theletter well into the lifetime of Polycarp himself. In any case itmust have been current in circles immediately connected withPolycarp's person. 

Against external evidence such as this the objections that arebrought are really of very slight weight. That which is reproducedin 'Supernatural Religion' from an apparent contradiction betweenc. Ix and c. Xiii, is dismissed even by writers such as Ritschlwho believe that one or both chapters are interpolated. In c. Ixthe martyrdom of Ignatius is upheld as an example, in c. XiiiPolycarp asks for information about Ignatius 'et de his qui cum eosunt, ' apparently as if he were still living. But, apart from theeasy and obvious solution which is accepted by Ritschl, followingHefele and others, [Endnote 83:1] that the sentence is extant onlyin the Latin translation and that the phrase 'qui cum eo sunt' ismerely a paraphrase for [Greek: ton met' autou]; apart from this, even supposing the objection were valid, it would prove nothingagainst the genuineness of the Epistle. It might be taken to provethat the second passage is an interpolation; but a contradictionbetween two passages in the same writing in no way tends to showthat that writing is not by its ostensible author. But surelyeither interpolator or forger must have had more sense than toplace two such gross and absurd contradictions within about sixtylines of each other. 

An argument brought by Dr. Hilgenfeld against the date dissolvesaway entirely on examination. He thinks that the exhortation Oratepro regibus (et potestatibus et principibus) in c. Xii must needsrefer to the double rule of Antoninus Pius (147 A. D. ) or MarcusAurelius and Lucius Verus (161 A. D. ). But the writer of theEpistle is only reproducing the words of St. Paul in 1 Tim. Ii. 2([Greek: parakalo ... Poieisthai deaeseis ... Hyper basileon kaipanton ton en hyperochae onton]). The passage is wrongly referredin 'Supernatural Religion' to 1 Pet. Ii. 17 [Endnote 84:1]. It isvery clear that the language of Polycarp, like that of St. Paul, is quite general. In order to limit it to the two Caesars weshould have had to read [Greek: hyper ton basileon]. 

The allusions which Schwegler finds to the Gnostic heresies areexplained when that critic at the end of his argument objects tothe Epistle that it makes use of a number of writings 'the originof which must be placed in the second century, such as the Acts, 1Peter, the Epistles to the Philippians and to the Ephesians, and 1Timothy. ' The objection belongs to the gigantic confusion of factand hypothesis which makes up the so-called Tübingen theory, andfalls to the ground with it. 

It should be noticed that those who regard the Epistle asinterpolated yet maintain the genuineness of those portions whichare thought to contain allusions to the Gospels. Ritschl statesthis [Endnote 84:2]; Dr. Donaldson confines the interpolation toc. Xiii [Endnote 84:3]; and Volkmar not only affirms with hisusual energy the genuineness of these portions of the Epistle, buthe also asserts that the allusions are really to our Gospels[Endnote 84:4]. 

The first that meets us is in c. Ii, 'Remembering what the Lord saidteaching, judge not that ye be not judged; forgive and it shall beforgiven unto you; pity that ye may be pitied; with what measure yemete it shall be measured unto you again; and that blessed are thepoor and those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirsis the kingdom of God' [Endnote 85:1]. This passage (if taken from ourGospels) is not a continuous quotation, but is made up from Luke vi. 36-38, 20, Matt. V. 10, or of still more _disjecta membra_ of St. Matthew. It will be seen that it covers very similar ground with thequotation in Clement, and there is also a somewhat striking point ofsimilarity with that writer in the phrase [Greek: eleeite hinaeleaetheate]. There is moreover a closer resemblance than to ourGospels in the clause [Greek: aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin]. Butthe order of the clauses is entirely different from that in Clement, and the first clause [Greek: mae krinete hina mae krithaete] isidentical with St. Matthew and more nearly resembles the parallel inSt. Luke than in Clement. These are perplexing phenomena, and seem toforbid a positive judgment. It would be natural to suppose, and allthat we know of the type of doctrine in the early Church would lead usto believe, that the Sermon on the Mount would be one of the mostfamiliar parts of Christian teaching, that it would be largelycommitted to memory and quoted from memory. There would be nodifficulty in employing that hypothesis here if the passage stoodalone. The breaking up of the order too would not surprise us when wecompare the way in which the same discourse appears in St. Luke and inSt. Matthew. But then comes in the strange coincidence in the singleclause with Clement; and there is also another curious phenomenon, thephrase [Greek: aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin] compared with Luke's[Greek: apoluete kai apoluthaesesthe] has very much the appearance ofa parallel translation from the same Aramaic original, which mayperhaps be the famous 'Spruch-sammlung. ' This might however beexplained as the substitution of synonymous terms by the memory. Thereis I believe nothing in the shape of direct evidence to show thepresence of a different version of the Sermon on the Mount in any ofthe lost Gospels, and, on the other hand, there are considerabletraces of disturbance in the Canonical text (compare e. G. The variousreadings on Matt. V. 44). It seems on the whole difficult to constructa theory that shall meet all the facts. Perhaps a mixed hypothesiswould be best. It is probable that memory has been to some extent atwork (the form of the quotation naturally suggests this) and is toaccount for some of Polycarp's variations; at the same time I cannotbut think that there has been somewhere a written version differentfrom our Gospels to which he and Clement have had access. 

There are several other sayings which seem to belong to the Sermonon the Mount; thus in c. Vi, 'If we pray the Lord to forgive us wealso ought to forgive' (cf. Matt. Vi. 14 sq. ); in c. Viii, 'And ifwe suffer for His name let us glorify Him' (cf. Matt. V. 11 sq. );in c. Xii, 'Pray for them that persecute you and hate you, and forthe enemies of the cross; that your fruit may be manifest in allthings, that ye may be therein perfect' (cf. Matt. V. 44, 48). Allthese passages give the sense, but only the sense, of the first(and partly also of the third) Gospel. There is however onequotation which coincides verbally with two of the Synoptics[Praying the all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation, as theLord said], The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak([Greek: to men pneuma prothumon, hae de sarx asthenaes], Matt. , Mark, Polycarp; with the introductory clause compare, not Matt. Vi. 13, but xxvi. 41). In the cases where the sense alone is giventhere is no reason to think that the writer intends to give more. At the same time it will be observed that all the quotations refereither to the double or triple synopsis where we have alreadyproof of the existence of the saying in question in more than asingle form, and not to those portions that are peculiar to theindividual Evangelists. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' istherefore not without reason when he says that they may be derivedfrom other collections than our actual Gospels. The possibilitycannot be excluded. It ought however to be borne in mind that ifsuch collections did exist, and if Polycarp's allusions orquotations are to be referred to them, they are to the same extentevidence that these hypothetical collections did not materiallydiffer from our present Gospels, but rather bore to them very muchthe same relation that they bear to each other. And I do not knowthat we can better sum up the case in regard to the ApostolicFathers than thus; we have two alternatives to choose between, either they made use of our present Gospels, or else of writingsso closely resembling our Gospels and so nearly akin to them thattheir existence only proves the essential unity and homogeneity ofthe evangelical tradition. 

CHAPTER IV. 

JUSTIN MARTYR. 

Hitherto the extant remains of Christian literature have beenscanty and the stream of evangelical quotation has been equallyso, but as we approach the middle of the second century it becomesmuch more abundant. We have copious quotations from a Gospel usedabout the year 140 by Marcion; the Clementine Homilies, the dateof which however is more uncertain, also contain numerousquotations; and there are still more in the undoubted works ofJustin Martyr. When I speak of quotations, I do not wish to begthe question by implying that they are necessarily taken from ourpresent Gospels, I merely mean quotations from an evangelicaldocument of some sort. This reservation has to be made especiallyin regard to Justin. 

Strictly according to the chronological order we should not haveto deal with Justin until somewhat later, but it will perhaps bebest to follow the order of 'Supernatural Religion, ' the principleof which appears to be to discuss the orthodox writers first andheretical writings afterwards. Modern critics seem prettygenerally to place the two Apologies in the years 147-150 A. D. Andthe Dialogue against Tryphon a little later. Dr. Keim indeed wouldthrow forward the date of Justin's writings as far as from 155-160on account of the mention of Marcion [Endnote 89:1], but this isdecided by both Hilgenfeld [Endnote 89:2] and Lipsius to be toolate. I see that Mr. Hort, whose opinion on such matters deserveshigh respect, comes to the conclusion 'that we may without fear ofconsiderable error set down Justin's First Apology to 145, orbetter still to 146, and his death to 148. The Second Apology, ifreally separate from the First, will then fall in 146 or 147, andthe Dialogue with Tryphon about the same time' [Endnote 89:3]

No definite conclusion can be drawn from the title given by Justin tothe work or works he used, that of the 'Memoirs' or 'Recollections' ofthe Apostles, and it will be best to leave our further enquiry quiteunfettered by any assumption in respect to them. The title certainlydoes not of necessity imply a single work composed by the Apostlescollectively [Endnote 89:4], any more than the parallel phrase 'thewritings of the Prophets' [Endnote 89:5] ([Greek: ta sungrammata tonprophaeton]), which Justin couples with the 'Memoirs' as read togetherin the public services of the Church, implies a single and jointproduction on the part of the Prophets. This hypothesis too is open tothe very great objection that so authoritative a work, if it existed, should have left absolutely no other trace behind it. So far as thetitle is concerned, the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' may be either asingle work or an almost indefinite number. In one place Justin saysthat the Memoirs were composed 'by His Apostles and their followers'[Endnote 90:1], which seems to agree remarkably, though not exactly, with the statement in the prologue to St. Luke. In another he saysexpressly that the Memoirs are called Gospels ([Greek: ha kaleitaieuangelia]) [Endnote 90:2]. This clause has met with the usual fate ofparenthetic statements which do not quite fall in with preconceivedopinions, and is dismissed as a 'manifest interpolation, ' a glosshaving crept into the text from the margin. It would be difficult toestimate the exact amount of probability for or against this theory, but possible at any rate it must be allowed to be; and though the_primâ facie_ view of the genuineness of the words is supported byanother place in which a quotation is referred directly 'to theGospel, ' still too much ought not perhaps to be built on this clausealone. 

 * * * * *

A convenient distinction may be drawn between the material andformal use of the Gospels; and the most satisfactory methodperhaps will be, to run rapidly through Justin's quotations, firstwith a view to ascertain their relation to the Canonical Gospelsin respect to their general historical tenor, and secondly toexamine the amount of verbal agreement. I will try to bring out asclearly as possible the double phenomena both of agreement anddifference; the former (in regard to which condensation will benecessary) will be indicated both by touching in the briefestmanner the salient points and by the references in the margin; thelatter, which I have endeavoured to give as exhaustively aspossible, are brought out by italics in the text. The thread ofthe narrative then, so far as it can be extracted from the genuinewritings of Justin, will be much as follows [Endnote 91:1]. 

 According to Justin the Messiah was born, without sin, of a[SIDENOTES] virgin _who_ was descended from [SIDENOTES][Matt. 1. 2-6. ] David, Jesse, Phares, Judah, [Luke 3. 31-34. ] Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, if not (the reading here is doubtful) from Adam himself. [Justin therefore, it may be inferred, had before him a genealogy, though not apparently, as the Canonical Gospels, that of Joseph but of Mary. ] To Mary it was announced by the angel Gabriel [Luke 1. 26. ] that, while yet a virgin, the power of God, or of the Highest, [Luke 1. 35. ] should overshadow her and she should conceive and bear a Son [Luke 1. 31. ][Matt. 1. 21. ] whose name she should call Jesus, because He should save His people from their sins. Joseph observing that Mary, his espoused, was with child was[Matt. 1. 18-25. ] warned in a dream not to put her away, because that which was in her womb was of the Holy Ghost. Thus the prophecy, [Matt. 1. 23. ] Is. Vii. 14 (Behold the virgin &c. ), was fulfilled. The mother of John the Baptist was [Luke 1. 57. ] Elizabeth. The birth-place of the Messiah had been indicated[Matt. 2. 5, 6. ] by the prophecy of Micah (v. 2, Bethlehem not the least among the princes of Judah). There He was born, as the Romans might learn from the census taken by Cyrenius the first _procurator_ [Greek: [Luke 2. 1, 2. ] epitropou] _of Judaea_. His life extended from Cyrenius to Pontius Pilate. So, in consequence of this the first census in Judaea, Joseph went up from Nazareth where he dwelt to [Luke 2. 4. ] Bethlehem _whence he was_, as a member of the tribe of Judah. The parents of Jesus could find no lodging in Bethlehem, so it [Luke 2. 7. ] came to pass that He was born _in a cave near the village_ and laid in a manger. At His birth [_ibid. _][Matt. 2. 1. ] there came Magi _from Arabia_, who knew by a star that had appeared in the _heaven_ that a[Matt. 2. 2. ] king had been born in Judaea. Having paid Him their homage[Matt. 2. 11. ] and offered gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, they were[Matt. 2. 12. ] warned not to return to Herod[Matt. 2. 1-7. ] whom they had consulted on the way. He however not willing that the Child should escape, [Matt. 2. 16. ] ordered a massacre of _all_ the children in Bethlehem, fulfilling[Matt. 2. 17, 18. ] the prophecy of Jer. Xxxi. 15 (Rachel weeping for her children &c. ). Joseph and his wife meanwhile[Matt. 2. 13-15. ] with the Babe had fled to Egypt, for the Father resolved that He to whom He had given birth should not die before He had preached His word as a man. There they stayed[Matt. 2. 22] until Archelaus succeeded Herod, and then returned. 

 By process of nature He grew to the age of thirty years or [Luke 3. 23. ] more, _not comely of aspect_ (_as had been prophesied_), practising[Mark 6. 3. ] the trade of a carpenter, _making ploughs and yokes, emblems of righteousness_. He remained hidden till John, the herald of his coming, came forward, the[Matt 17. 12, 13. ] spirit of Elias being in him, and[Matt. 3. 2. ] as he _sat_ by the river Jordan [Luke 3. 3. ] cried to men to repent. As he[Matt. 3. 4. ] preached in his wild garb he declared that he was not the [John 1. 19 ff. ] Christ, but that One stronger[Matt. 3. 11, 12. ] than he was coming after him [Luke 3. 16, 17. ] whose shoes he was not worthy to bear, &c. The later history of John Justin also mentions, [Matt. 14. 3. ] how, having been put in prison, [Luke 3. 20. ] at a feast on Herod's birthday[Matt. 14. 6 ff. ] he was beheaded at the instance of his sister's daughter. This[Matt. 17. 11-13. ] John was Elias who was to come before the Christ. 

 At the baptism of Jesus _a fire was kindled on the Jordan_, and, as He went up out of the water, [Matt. 3. 16. ] the Holy Ghost alighted upon [Luke 3. 21, 22. ] Him, and a voice was heard from heaven _saying in the words of David_, 'Thou art My Son, _this day have I begotten Thee_. ' After[Matt. 4. 1, 9. ] His baptism He was tempted by the devil, who ended by claiming homage from Him. To this Christ replied, 'Get thee behind[Matt 4. 11. ] Me, Satan, ' &c. So the devil [Luke 4. 13. ] departed from Him at that time worsted and convicted. 

 Justin knew that the words of Jesus were short and concise, not like those of a Sophist. That He wrought miracles _might be learnt from the Acts of Pontius Pilate, fulfilling Is. Xxxv. 4-6. _[Matt. 9. 29-31, Those who from their _birth_ were [Luke 18. 35-43. ]32, 33. 1-8. ] blind, dumb, lame, He healed-- [Luke 11. 14 ff. ][Matt. 4. 23. ] indeed He healed all sickness and [Luke 5. 17-26. ][Matt 9. 18 ff. ] disease--and He raised the dead. [Luke 8. 41 ff. ] _The Jews ascribed these miracles [Luke 7. 11-18. ] to magic_. 

 Jesus, too (like John, _whose mission ceased when He appeared in public_), began His ministry[Matt 4. 17. ] by proclaiming that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Many precepts of the Sermon on the Mount Justin has preserved, [Matt 5. 20. ] the righteousness of the[Matt 5. 28. ] Scribes and Pharisees, the[Matt 5. 29-32. ] adultery of the heart, the offending[Matt 5. 34, 37, eye, divorce, oaths, returning 39][Matt 5. 44. ] good for evil, loving and praying[Matt 5. 42. ] for enemies, giving to those that [Luke 6. 30. ][Matt 6. 19, 20. ] need, placing the treasure in[Matt 6. 25-27. ] heaven, not caring for bodily [Luke 12. 22-24. ][Matt 5. 45. ] wants, but copying the mercy[Matt 6. 21, &c. ] and goodness of God, not acting from worldly motives--above all, [Matt 7. 22, 23. ] deeds not words. [Luke 13. 26, 27. ]

 Justin quotes sayings from[Matt. 8. 11, 12. ] the narrative of the centurion [Luke 13. 28, 29. ][Matt. 9. 13. ] of Capernaum and of the feast [Luke 5. 32. ] in the house of Matthew. He[Matt. 10. 1 ff. ] has, the choosing of the twelve [Luke 6. 13. ] Apostles, with the name given[Mark 3. 17. ] to the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges or 'sons of thunder, ' the com- mission of the Apostles, the [Luke 10. 19. ][Matt. 11. 12-15. ] discourse after the departure of [Luke 16. 16. ] the messengers of John, the[Matt. 16. 4. ] sign of the prophet Jonas, the[Matt. 13. 3 ff. ] parable of the sower, Peter's [Luke 8. 5 ff. ][Matt. 16. 15-18. ] confession, the announcement of [Luke 9. 22. ][Matt. 16. 21. ] the Passion. 

 From the account of the last journey and the closing scenes of our Lord's life, Justin has, [Matt. 19. 16, 17. ] the history of the rich young [Luke 18. 18, 19. ][Matt. 21. 1 ff. ] man, the entry into Jerusalem, [Luke 19. 29 ff. ] the cleansing of the Temple, the [Luke 19. 46. ][Matt. 22. 11. ] wedding garment, the controversial discourses about the [Luke 20. 22-25. ][Matt. 22. 21. ] tribute money, the resurrection, [Luke 20. 35, 36. ][Matt. 22. 37, 38. ] and the greatest commandment, [Matt. 23. 2 ff. ] those directed against the Pha- [Luke 11. 42, 52. ][Matt. 25. 34, 41. ] risees and the eschatological[Matt. 25. 14-30. ] discourse, the parable of the talents. Justin's account of the institution of the Lord's Supper [Luke 22. 19, 20. ] agrees with that of Luke. After[Matt. 26. 30. ] it Jesus sang a hymn, and taking[Matt. 26. 36, 37. ] with Him three of His disciples to the Mount of Olives He was in an agony, His sweat falling in [Luke 22. 42-44. ] _drops_ (not necessarily of blood) to the ground. His captors surrounded Him _like the 'horned bulls' of Ps. Xxii. _ 11-14; there[Matt. 26. 56. ] was none to help, for His followers _to a man_ forsook Him. [Matt. 26. 57 ff. ] He was led both before the [Luke 22. 66 ff. ] Scribes and Pharisees and before[Matt. 27. 11 ff. ] Pilate. In the trial before Pilate [Luke 23. 1 ff. ][Matt. 27. 14] He kept silence, _as Ps. Xxii. _ 15. Pilate sent Him bound to Herod. [Luke 23. 7. ]

 Justin relates most of the incidents of the Crucifixion in detail, for confirmation of which he refers to the _Acts of Pilate_. He marks especially the fulfilment in various places of Ps. Xxii. He has the piercing with nails, the casting of [Luke 24. 40. ][Matt. 27. 35. ] lots and dividing of the garments, [Luke 23. 34. ][Matt. 27. 39 ff. ] the _sneers_ of the crowd [Luke 23. 35. ] (somewhat expanded from the[Matt. 27. 42. ] Synoptics), and their taunt, _He who raised the dead_ let Him save[Matt. 27. 46. ] Himself; also the cry of despair, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' and the last words, 'Father, into Thy hands [Luke 23. 46. ] I commend My Spirit. '

[Matt. 27. 57-60. ] The burial took place in the evening, the disciples being all[Matt. 26. 31, 56. ] scattered in accordance with Zech. Xiii. 7. On the third day, [Luke 24. 21. ][Matt. 28. 1 ff. ] the day of the sun or the first [Luke 24. 1 ff. ] (or eighth) day of the week, Jesus rose from the dead. He then convinced His disciples that His sufferings had been prophe- [Luke 24. 26, 46. ] tically foretold and they repented [Luke 24. 32. ] of having deserted Him. Having given them His last commission they saw Him ascend up into [Luke 24. 50. ] heaven. Thus believing and having first waited to receive power from Him they went forth into all the world and preached the word of God. To this day[Matt. 28. 19] Christians baptize in the name of the Father of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost. 

[Matt. 28. 12-15. ] The Jews spread a story that the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the grave and so deceived men by asserting that He was risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. 

 There is nothing in Justin (as in Luke xxiv, but cp. Acts i. 3) to show that the Ascension did not take place _on the same day_ as the Resurrection. 

I have taken especial pains in the above summary to bring out thepoints in which Justin way seem to differ from or add to thecanonical narratives. But, without stopping at present to considerthe bearing of these upon Justin's relation to the Gospels, I willat once proceed to make some general remarks which the summaryseems to suggest. 

(1) If such is the outline of Justin's Gospel, it appears to bereally a question of comparatively small importance whether or nothe made use of our present Gospels in their present form. If hedid not use these Gospels he used other documents which containedsubstantially the same matter. The question of the reality ofmiracles clearly is not affected. Justin's documents, whateverthey were, not only contained repeated notices of the miracles ingeneral, the healing of the lame and the paralytic, of the maimedand the dumb, and the raising of the dead--not only did theyinclude several discourses, such as the reply to the messengers ofJohn and the saying to the Centurion whose servant was healed, which have direct reference to miracles, but they also give markedprominence to the chief and cardinal miracles of the Gospelhistory, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. It is antecedentlyquite possible that the narrative of these events may have beenderived from a document other than our Gospels; but, if so, thatis only proof of the existence of further and independent evidenceto the truth of the history. This document, supposing it to exist, is a surprising instance of the homogeneity of the evangelicaltradition; it differs from the three Synoptic Gospels, nay, we maysay even from the four Gospels, _less_ than they differ fromeach other. 

(2) But we may go further than this. If Justin really used aseparate substantive document now lost, that document, to judgefrom its contents, must have represented a secondary, or rather atertiary, stage of the evangelical literature; it must haveimplied the previous existence of our present Gospels. I do notnow allude to the presence in it of added traits, such as the caveof the Nativity and the fire on Jordan, which are of the nature ofthose mythical details that we find more fully developed in theApocryphal Gospels. I do not so much refer to these--though, forinstance, in the case of the fire on Jordan it is highly probablethat Justin's statement is a translation into literal fact of thecanonical (and Justinian) saying, 'He shall baptize with the HolyGhost and with fire'--but, on general grounds, the relation whichthis supposed document bears to the extant Gospels shows that itmust have been in point of time posterior to them. 

The earlier stages of evangelical composition present a nucleus, with a more or less defined circumference, of unity, and outsideof this a margin of variety. There was a certain body ofnarrative, which, in whatever form it was handed down--whether asoral or written--at a very early date obtained a sort of generalrecognition, and seems to have been as a matter of courseincorporated in the evangelical works as they appeared. 

Besides this there was also other matter which, without suchgeneral recognition, had yet a considerable circulation, and, though not found in all, was embodied in more than one of thecurrent compilations. But, as we should naturally expect, thesetwo classes did not exhaust the whole of the evangelical matter. Each successive historian found himself able by special researchesto add something new and as yet unpublished to the common stock. Thus, the first of our present Evangelists has thirty-fivesections or incidents besides the whole of the first two chapterspeculiar to himself. The third Evangelist has also two longchapters of preliminary history, and as many as fifty-six sectionsor incidents which have no parallel in the other Gospels. Much ofthis peculiar matter in each case bears an individual andcharacteristic stamp. The opening chapters of the first and thirdSynoptics evidently contain two distinct and independenttraditions. So independent indeed are they, that the negativeschool of critics maintain them to be irreconcilable, and theattempts to harmonise them have certainly not been completelysuccessful [Endnote 101:1]. These differences, however, show whatrich quarries of tradition were open to the enquirer in the firstage of Christianity, and how readily he might add to the storesalready accumulated by his predecessors. But this state of thingsdid not last long. As in most cases of the kind, the productiveperiod soon ceased, and the later writers had a choice of twothings, either to harmonise the conflicting records of previoushistorians, or to develope their details in the manner that wefind in the Apocryphal Gospels. 

But if Justin used a single and separate document or any set ofdocuments independent of the canonical, then we may say withconfidence that that document or set of documents belonged entirely tothis secondary stage. It possesses both the marks of secondaryformation. Such details as are added to the previous evangelicaltradition are just of that character which we find in the ApocryphalGospels. But these details are comparatively slight and insignificant;the main tendency of Justin's Gospel (supposing it to be a separatecomposition) was harmonistic. The writer can hardly have been ignorantof our Canonical Gospels; he certainly had access, if not to them, yetto the sources, both general and special, from which they are taken. He not only drew from the main body of the evangelical tradition, butalso from those particular and individual strains which appear in thefirst and third Synoptics. He has done this in the spirit of a true_desultor_, passing backwards and forwards first to one and then tothe other, inventing no middle links, but merely piecing together thetwo accounts as best he could. Indeed the preliminary portions ofJustin's Gospel read very much like the sort of rough _primâ facie_harmony which, without any more profound study, most people make forthemselves. But the harmonising process necessarily implies matter toharmonise, and that matter must have had the closest possibleresemblance to the contents of our Gospels. 

If, then, Justin made use either of a single document or set ofdocuments distinct from those which have become canonical, weconclude that it or they belonged to a later and more advancedstage of formation. But it should be remembered that the case is ahypothetical one. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seemsinclined to maintain that Justin did use such a document ordocuments, and not our Gospels. If he did, then the consequenceabove stated seems to follow. But I do not at all care to pressthis inference; it is no more secure than the premiss upon whichit is founded. Only it seems to me that the choice lies betweentwo alternatives and no more; either Justin used our Gospels, orelse he used a document later than our Gospels and presupposingthem. The reader may take which side of the alternative hepleases. 

The question is, which hypothesis best covers and explains thefacts. It is not impossible that Justin may have had a specialGospel such as has just been described. There is a tendency amongthose critics who assign Justin's quotations to an uncanonicalsource to find that source in the so-called Gospel according tothe Hebrews or some of its allied forms. But a large majority ofcritics regard the Gospel according to the Hebrews as holdingprecisely this secondary relation to the canonical Matthew. Justin's document can hardly have been the Gospel according to theHebrews, at least alone, as that Gospel omitted the section Matt. I. 18-ii. 23 [Endnote 103:1], which Justin certainly retained. Butit is within the bounds of possibility--it would be hazardous tosay more--that he may have had another Gospel so modified andcompiled as to meet all the conditions of the case. For my ownpart, I think it decidedly the more probable hypothesis that heused our present Gospels with some peculiar document, such as thisGospel according to the Hebrews, or perhaps, as Dr. Hilgenfeldthinks, the ground document of the Gospel according to Peter (awork of which we know next to nothing except that it favouredDocetism and was not very unlike the Canonical Gospels) and theProtevangelium of James (or some older document on which that workwas founded) in addition. 

It will be well to try to establish this position a little more indetail; and therefore I will proceed to collect first, theevidence for the use, either mediate or direct, of the SynopticGospels, and secondly, that for the use of one or more ApocryphalGospels. We still keep to the substance of Justin's Gospel, andreserve the question of its form. 

Of those portions of the first Synoptic which appear to be derivedfrom a peculiar source, and for the presence of which we have noevidence in any other Gospel of the same degree of originality, Justin has the following: Joseph's suspicions of his wife, thespecial statement of the significance of the name Jesus ('for Heshall save His people from their sins, ' Matt. I. 21, verballyidentical), the note upon the fulfilment of the prophecy Is. Vii. 14 ('Behold a virgin, ' &c. ), the visit of the Magi guided by astar, their peculiar gifts, their consultation of Herod and thewarning given them not to return to him, the massacre of thechildren at Bethlehem, fulfilling Jer. Xxxi. 15, the descent intoEgypt, the return of the Holy Family at the succession ofArchelaus. The Temptations Justin gives in the order of Matthew. From the Sermon on the Mount he has the verses v. 14, 20, 28, vi. 1, vii. 15, 21, and from the controversial discourse against thePharisees, xxiii. 15, 24, which are without parallels. Theprophecy, Is. Xlii. 1-4, is applied as by Matthew alone. There isan apparent allusion to the parable of the wedding garment. Thecomment of the disciples upon the identification of the Baptistwith Elias (Matt. Xvii. 13), the sign of the prophet Jonas(Matt. Xvi. 1, 4), and the triumphal entry (the ass _with thecolt_), show a special affinity to St. Matthew. And, lastly, inconcert with the same Evangelist, Justin has the calumnious reportof the Jews (Matt. Xxviii. 12 15) and the baptismal formula (Matt. Xxviii. 19). 

Of the very few details that are peculiar to St. Mark, Justin hasthe somewhat remarkable one of the bestowing of the surnameBoanerges on the sons of Zebedee. Mark also appears to approachmost nearly to Justin in the statements that Jesus practised thetrade of a carpenter (cf. Mark vi. 3) and that He healed those whowere diseased _from their birth_ (cf. Mark ix. 21), andperhaps in the emphasis upon the oneness of God in the replyrespecting the greatest commandment. 

In common with St. Luke, Justin has the mission of the angelGabriel to Mary, the statement that Elizabeth was the mother ofJohn, that the census was taken under Cyrenius, that Joseph wentup from Nazareth to Bethlehem [Greek: hothen aen], that no roomwas found in the inn, that Jesus was thirty years old when Hebegan His ministry, that He was sent from Pilate to Herod, withthe account of His last words. There are also special affinitiesin the phrase quoted from the charge to the Seventy (Luke x. 19), in the verse Luke xi. 52, in the account of the answer to the richyoung man, of the institution of the Lord's Supper, of the Agonyin the Garden, and of the Resurrection and Ascension. 

These coincidences are of various force. Some of the single versesquoted, though possessing salient features in common, have also, as we shall see, more or less marked differences. Too much stressshould not be laid on the allegation of the same prophecies, because there may have been a certain understanding among theChristians as to the prophecies to be quoted as well as theversions in which they were to be quoted. But there are otherpoints of high importance. Just in proportion as an event is froma historical point of view suspicious, it is significant as aproof of the use of the Gospel in which it is contained; suchwould be the adoration of the Magi, the slaughter of theinnocents, the flight into Egypt, the conjunction of the foal withthe ass in the entry into Jerusalem. All these are strong evidencefor the use of the first Gospel, which is confirmed in the highestdegree by the occurrence of a reflection peculiar to theEvangelist, 'Then the disciples understood that He spake unto themof John the Baptist' (Matt. Xvii. 13, compare Dial. 49). Of thesame nature are the allusions to the census of Cyrenius (there isno material discrepancy between Luke and Justin), and thestatement of the age at which the ministry of Jesus began. Theseare almost certainly remarks by the third Evangelist himself, andnot found in any previously existing source. The remand to Herodin all probability belonged to a source that was quite peculiar tohim. The same may be said with only a little less confidence ofthe sections of the preliminary history. 

Taking these salient points together with the mass of thecoincidences each in its place, and with the due weight assignedto it, the conviction seems forced upon us that Justin did eithermediately or immediately, and most probably immediately anddirectly, make use of our Canonical Gospels. 

On the other hand, the argument that he used, whether in additionto these or exclusively, a Gospel now lost, rests upon thefollowing data. Justin apparently differs from the Synoptics ingiving the genealogy of Mary, not of Joseph. In Apol. I. 34 hesays that Cyrenius was the first governor (procurator) of Judaea, instead of saying that the census first took place under Cyrenius. [It should be remarked, however, that in another place, Dial. 78, he speaks of 'the census which then took place for the first time([Greek: ousaes tote protaes]) under Cyrenius. '] He states thatMary brought forth her Son in a cave near the village ofBethlehem. He ten times over speaks of the Magi as coming fromArabia, and not merely from the East. He says emphatically thatall the children ([Greek: pantas haplos tous paidas]) in Bethlehemwere slain without mentioning the limitation of age given in St. Matthew. He alludes to details in the humble occupation of Jesuswho practised the trade of a carpenter. Speaking of the ministryof John, he three times repeats the phrase _'as he sat'_ bythe river Jordan. At the baptism of Jesus he says that 'fire waskindled on' or rather 'in the Jordan, ' and that a voice was heardsaying, 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. ' He addsto the notice of the miracles that the Jews thought they were theeffect of magic. Twice he refers, as evidence for what he issaying, to the Acts of Pontius Pilate. In two places Justin sees afulfilment of Ps. Xxii, where none is pointed out by theSynoptics. He says that _all_ the disciples forsook theirMaster, which seems to overlook Peter's attack on the highpriest's servant. In the account of the Crucifixion he somewhatamplifies the Synoptic version of the mocking gestures of thecrowd. And besides these matters of fact he has two sayings, 'Inwhatsoever I find you, therein will I also judge you, ' and 'Thereshall be schisms and heresies, ' which are without parallel, orhave no exact parallel, in our Gospels. 

Some of these points are not of any great importance. Thereference to the Acts of Pilate should in all probability be takenalong with the parallel reference to the census of Cyrenius, inwhich Justin asserts that the birth of Jesus would be foundregistered. Both appear to be based, not upon any actual documentthat Justin had seen, but upon the bold assumption that theofficial documents must contain a record of facts which he knewfrom other sources [Endnote 107:1]. In regard to Cyrenius heevidently has the Lucan version in his mind, though he seems tohave confused this with his knowledge that Cyrenius was the firstto exercise the Roman sovereignty in Judaea, which was matter ofhistory. Justin seems to be mistaken in regarding Cyrenius as'procurator' [Greek: epitropou] of Judaea. He instituted thecensus not in this capacity, but as proconsul of Syria. The firstprocurator of Judaea was Coponius. Some of Justin's peculiaritiesmay quite fairly be explained as unintentional. General statementswithout the due qualifications, such as those in regard to themassacre of the children and the conduct of the disciples inGethsemane, are met with frequently enough to this day, and inworks of a more professedly critical character than Justin's. Thedescription of the carpenter's trade and of the crowd at theCrucifixion may be merely rhetorical amplifications in the onecase of the general Synoptic statement, in the other of thespecial statement in St. Mark. A certain fulness of style ischaracteristic of Justin. That he attributes the genealogy to Marymay be a natural instance of reflection; the inconsistency in theSynoptic Gospels would not be at first perceived, and the simplestway of removing it would be that which Justin has adopted. Itshould be noticed however that he too distinctly says that Josephwas of the tribe of Judah (Dial. 78) and that his family came fromBethlehem, which looks very much like an unobliterated trace ofthe same inconsistency. It is also noticeable that in thenarrative of the Baptism one of the best MSS. Of the Old Latin (a, Codex Vercellensis) has, in the form of an addition to Matt. Iii. 15, 'et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita uttimerent omnes qui advenerant, ' and there is a very similaraddition in g1 (Codex San-Germanensis). Again, in Luke iii. 22 thereading [Greek: ego saemeron gegennaeka se] for [Greek: en soieudokaesa] is shared with Justin by the most important Graeco-Latin MS. D (Codex Bezae), and a, b, c, ff, l of the Old Version;Augustine expressly states that the reading was found 'in severalrespectable copies (aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus), thoughnot in the older Greek Codices. '

There will then remain the specifying of Arabia as the home of theMagi, the phrase [Greek: kathezomenos] used of John on the banksof the Jordan, the two unparallelled sentences, and the cave ofthe Nativity. Of these the phrase [Greek: kathezomenos], whichoccurs in three places, Dial. 49, 51, 88, but always in Justin'sown narrative and not in quotation, _may_ be an accidentalrecurrence; and it is not impossible that the other items may bederived from an unwritten tradition. 

Still, on the whole, I incline to think that though there is notconclusive proof that Justin used a lost Gospel besides thepresent Canonical Gospels, it is the more probable hypothesis ofthe two that he did. The explanations given above seem to mereasonable and possible; they are enough, I think, to remove the_necessity_ for assuming a lost document, but perhaps notquite enough to destroy the greater probability. This conclusion, we shall find, will be confirmed when we pass from considering thesubstance of Justin's Gospel to its form. 

But now if we ask ourselves _what_ was this hypothetical lostdocument, all we can say is, I believe, that the suggestionshitherto offered are insufficient. The Gospels according to theHebrews or according to Peter and the Protevangelium of James havebeen most in favour. The Gospel according to the Hebrews in theform in which it was used by the Nazarenes contained the fire uponJordan, and as used by the Ebionites it had also the voice, 'Thisday have I begotten Thee. ' Credner [Endnote 110:1], and after himHilgenfeld [Endnote 110:2], thought that the Gospel according toPeter was used. But we know next to nothing about this Gospel, except that it was nearly related to the Gospel according to theHebrews, that it made the 'brethren of the Lord' sons of Joseph bya former wife, that it was found by Serapion in the churches ofhis diocese, Rhossus in Cilicia, that its use was at firstpermitted but afterwards forbidden, as it was found to favourDocetism, and that its contents were in the main orthodox thoughin some respects perverted [Endnote 110:3]. Obviously these factsand the name (which falls in with the theory--itself also somewhatunsubstantial--that Justin's Gospel must have a 'Petrine'character) are quite insufficient to build upon. The Protevangeliumof James, which it is thought might have been used in an earlierform than that which has come down to us, contains the legend ofthe cave, and has apparently a similar view to the Gospel lastmentioned as to the perpetual virginity of Mary. The kindredEvangelium Thomae has the 'ploughs and yokes. ' And there are somesimilarities of language between the Protevangelium and Justin'sGospel, which will come under review later [Endnote 110:4]. 

It does not, however, appear to have been noticed that theseGospels satisfy most imperfectly the conditions of the problem. Weknow that the Gospel according to the Hebrews in its Nazarene formomitted the whole section Matt. I. 18--ii. 23, containing theconception, the nativity, the visit of the Magi, and the flightinto Egypt, all of which were found in Justin's Gospel; while inits Ebionite form it left out the first two chapters altogether. There is not a tittle of evidence to show that the Gospelaccording to Peter was any more complete; in proportion as itresembled the Gospel according to the Hebrews the presumption isthat it was not. And the Protevangelium of James makes no mentionof Arabia, while it expressly says that the star appeared 'in theEast' (instead of 'in the heaven' as Justin); it also omits, andrather seems to exclude, the flight into Egypt. 

It is therefore clear that whether Justin used these Gospels ornot, he cannot in any case have confined himself to them; unlessindeed this is possible in regard to the Gospel that bears thename of Peter, though the possibility is drawn so entirely fromour ignorance that it can hardly be taken account of. We thus seemto be reduced to the conclusion that Justin's Gospel or Gospelswas an unknown entity of which no historical evidence survives, and this would almost be enough, according to the logical Law ofParsimony, to drive us back upon the assumption that our presentGospels only had been used. This assumption however still does notappear to me wholly satisfactory, for reasons which will come outmore clearly when from considering the matter of the documentswhich Justin used we pass to their form. 

 * * * * *

The reader already has before him a collection of Justin'squotations from the Old Testament, the results of which may bestated thus. From the Pentateuch eighteen passages are quotedexactly, nineteen with slight variations, and eleven with markeddivergence. From the Psalms sixteen exactly, including nine (orten) whole Psalms, two with slight and three with decidedvariation. From Isaiah twenty-five exactly, twelve slightlyvariant, and sixteen decidedly. From the other Major ProphetsJustin has only three exact quotations, four slightly divergent, and eleven diverging more widely. From the Minor Prophets andother books he has two exact quotations, seven in which thevariation is slight, and thirteen in which it is marked. Of thedistinctly free quotations in the Pentateuch (eleven in all), three may be thought to have a Messianic character (the burningbush, the brazen serpent, the curse of the cross), but in none ofthese does the variation appear to be due to this. Of the threefree quotations from the Psalms two are Messianic, and one ofthese has probably been influenced by the Messianic application. In the free quotations from Isaiah it is not quite easy to saywhat are Messianic and what are not; but the only clear case inwhich the Messianic application seems to have caused a markeddivergence is xlii. 1-4. Other passages, such as ii. 5, 6, vii. 10-17, lii. L3-liii. 12 (as quoted in A. I. 50), appear under thehead of slight variation. The long quotation lii. 10-liv. 6, inDial. 12, is given with substantial exactness. Turning to theother Major Prophets, one passage, Jer. Xxxi. 15, has probablyderived its shape from the Messianic application. And in the MinorProphets three passages (Hos. X. 6, Zech. Xii. 10-12, and Micah v. 2) appear to have been thus affected. The rest of the freequotations and some of the variations in those which are less freemay be set down to defect of memory or similar accidental causes. 

Let us now draw up a table of Justin's quotations from the Gospelsarranged as nearly as may be on the same standard and scale asthat of the quotations from the Old Testament. Such a table willstand thus. [Those only which appear to be direct quotations aregiven. ]

 _Exact. _ |_Slightly variant. _ | _Variant. _ | _Remarks. _ | | | |+D. 49, Matt. 3. 11, | |repeated in part | 12 (v. L. ) | | similarly. |D. 51, Matt. 11. | |compounded with | 12-15; Luke 16. | | omissions but | 16+. | | striking resem- | | | blances. D. 49, Matt. 17. | | | 11-13. | | | |A. 1. 15, Matt. 5. 28. | | | |A. 1. 15, Matt. 5. |from memory? | | 29; Mark 9. 47. | |A. 1. 15, Matt. 5. 32. | |confusion of read- | | | ings. | |+A. 1. 15, Matt. |from memory? | | 19. 12. | | |A. 1. 15, Matt. 5. |compounded. | | 42; Luke 6. 30, | | | 34. |Continuous. { |A. 1. 15, Matt. 6. | | { |19, 20; 16. 26; 6. 20. | | | | | |Continuous. { |A. 1. 15 (D. 96), |from memory(Cr. ), | { | Luke 6. 36; | but prob. Diff- | { | Matt. 5. 45; 6. | erent document; | { | 25-27; Luke 12. | rather marked | { | 22-24; Matt. 6. | identity in | { | 32, 33; 6. 21. | phrase. |A. 1. 15, Matt. 6. 1. | |A. 1. 15, Matt. 9. | | | do the last 13(?). | | | words belong | | | to the | |C | quotation? | |o { A. 1. 15, Luke| | |n { 6. 32; Matt. | | |t { 5. 46. | | |i { A. 1. 15, (D. |repeated in part | |n { 128), Luke | similarly, in | |u { 6. 27, 28; | part diversely; | |o { Matt. 5. 44. | confusion in | |u | MSS. | |s | | |s |Continuous. { |A. 1. 16, Luke 6. 29 | | { | (Matt. 5. 39, 40. ) | | { | |A. 1. 16, Matt. 5. | { | | 22 (v. L. ) | { | |A. 1. 16, Matt. 5 |[Greek: { | | 41. | angaeusei. ] { |A. 1. 16, Matt. 5. 16. | | | |D. 93, A, 1. 16, | | | Matt. 22. 40, 37, | | | 38. | | |A. 1. 16, D. 101, |repeated | | Matt. 19. 16, | diversely. | | 17 (v. L. ); Luke| | | 18. 18, 19 (v. L. )| |A. 1. 16, Matt. 5. | | | 34, 37. | | {A. 1. 16, Matt. | | | { 7. 21. | | |C { |A. 1. 16 (A. 1. 62), | |repeated in parto { | Luke 10. 16 (v. L. ) | | similarly, inn { | | | part diversely. T { | |+A. 1. 16 (D. 76), |i { | | Matt. 7. 22, 23 |n { | | (v. L. ); Luke |u { | | 13. 26, 27 (v. L. )|o { |A. 1. 16, Matt. 13. | |addition. U { | 42, 43 (v. L. ) | |s { | |A. 1. 16 (D. 35), | { | | Matt. 7. 15. | { |A. 1. 16, Matt. 7. | | { | 16, 19. | |D. 76, Matt. 8. 11. | | | 12+. | | | | |D. 35, [Greek: | | | esontai schi- | | | smata kai hai- | | | reseis. ] | |D. 76, Matt. 25. 41 | | | (v. L. ) | | |D. 35, Matt. 7. 15. | |repeated with | | | nearer | | | approach to | | | Matthew, perh. | | | v. L. | |D. 35, 82, Matt. |repeated with | |24. 24 (Mark 13. | similarity and | | 22). | divergence. | |D. 82, Matt. 10. |freely. | | 22, par. |A. 1. 19, Luke 18. | | | 27+. | | | | |A. 1. 19, Luke 12. |compounded. | | 4, 5; Matt. | | | 10. 28. | | |A. 1. 17, Luke 12. | | | 48 (v. L. ) | |D. 76, Luke 10. 19+ | |ins. [Greek: | | | skolopendron. ]D. 105, Matt. 5. | | | 20. | | | | |D. 125, Matt. 13. |condensed narra- | | 3 sqq. | tive. | |+D. 17, Luke 11. | | | 52. | |D. 17, Matt. 23. 23; | |compounded. | Luke 11. 42. | | |D. 17, 112, Matt. | |repeated simi- | 23. 27; 23. 24. | | larly. | |D. 47, [Greek: en | | | ois an humas | | | katalabo en | | | toutois kai | | | krino. ] | |D. 81, Luke 20. | |marked resem- | 35, 36. | | blance with | | | difference. D. 107, Matt. 16. 4. | | | |D. 122, Matt. 23. | | | 15. | | |+D. 17, Matt. 21. | | | 13, 12. | | | |+A. 1. 17, Luke 20. |narrative portion | | 22-25 (v. L. ) | free. |D. 100, A. 1. 63, | |repeated not | Matt. 11. 27 (v. L. )| | identically. |D. 76, 100, Luke | |repeated diverse- | 9. 22. | | diversely; | | | free (Credner). A. 1. 36, Matt. 21. | |D. 53, Matt. 21. 5. |(Zech. 9. 9). 5 (addition). | | | | |A. 1. 66, Luke 22. | | | 19, 20. | |D. 99, Matt. 26. | | | 39 (v. L. ) | | | |D. 103, Luke 22. | | | 42-44. | | |D. 101, Matt. 27. | | | 43. | | |A. 1. 38, [Greek: | | | ho nekrous | | | anegeiras rhu- | | | sastho eauton. ]|D. 99, Matt. 27. | | |compounded. 46; Mark 15. 34. | | |D. 105, Luke 23. | | | 46. 

The total result may be taken to be that ten passages aresubstantially exact, while twenty-five present slight and thirty-two marked variations [Endnote 116:1]. This is only rough andapproximate, because of the passages that are put down as exacttwo, or possibly three, can only be said to be so with aqualification; though, on the other hand, there are passagesentered under the second class as 'slightly variant' which have aleaning towards the first, and passages entered under the thirdwhich have a perceptible leaning towards the second. We cantherefore afford to disregard these doubtful cases and accept theclassification very much as it stands. Comparing it then with theparallel classification that has been made of the quotations fromthe Old Testament, we find that in the latter sixty-four wereranked as exact, forty-four as slightly variant, and fifty-four asdecidedly variant. If we reduce these roughly to a common standardof comparison the proportion of variation may be representedthus:-- | Exact. | Slightly | Variant. | | variant. | | | |Quotations from the Old Testament | 10 | 7 | 9Quotations from the Synoptic Gospels | 10 | 25 | 32

It will be seen from this at once how largely the proportion ofvariation rises; it is indeed more than three times as high forthe quotations from the Gospels as for those from the Old Testament. The amount of combination too is decidedly in excess of that whichis found in the Old Testament quotations. 

There is, it is true, something to be said on the other side. Justin quotes the Old Testament rather as Scripture, the NewTestament rather as history. I think it will be felt that he haspermitted his own style a freer play in regard to the latter thanthe former. The New Testament record had not yet acquired the samedegree of fixity as the Old. The 'many' compositions of whichSt. Luke speaks in his preface were still in circulation, and wereonly gradually dying out. One important step had been taken in theregular reading of the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' at the Christianassemblies. We have not indeed proof that these were confined tothe Canonical Gospels. Probably as yet they were not. But itshould be remembered that Irenaeus was now a boy, and that by thetime he had reached manhood the Canon of the Gospels had receivedits definite form. 

Taking all these points into consideration I think we shall findthe various indications converge upon very much the same conclusionas that at which we have already arrived. The _a priori_ probabilitiesof the case, as well as the actual phenomena of Justin's Gospel, alike tend to show that he did make use either mediately or immediatelyof our Gospels, but that he did not assign to them an exclusiveauthority, and that he probably made use along with them of otherdocuments no longer extant. 

The proof that Justin made use of each of our three Synopticsindividually is perhaps more striking from the point of view ofsubstance than of form, because his direct quotations are mostlytaken from the discourses rather than from the narrative, andthese discourses are usually found in more than a single Gospel, while in proportion as they bear the stamp of originality andauthenticity it is difficult to assign them to any particularreporter. There is however some strong and remarkable evidence ofthis kind. 

At least one case of parallelism seems to prove almost decisivelythe use of the first Gospel. It is necessary to give the quotationand the original with the parallel from St. Mark side by side. 

_Justin, Dial. _ c. 49. 

[Greek: Aelias men eleusetai kai apokatastaesei panta, lego dehumin, hoti Aelias aedae aelthe kai ouk epegnosan auton all'epoiaesan auto hosa aethelaesan. Kai gegraptai hoti tote sunaekanoi mathaetai, hoti peri Ioannon tou Baptistou eipen autois. ]

_Matt. _ xvii. 11-13. 

[Greek: Aelias men erchetai apokatastaesei panta, lego de huminhoti Aelias aedae aelthen kai ouk epegnosan auton, alla epoiaesanauto hosa aethelaesan, [outos kai ho uios tou anthropou melleipaschein hup' auton. ] Tote sunaekan oi mathaetai hoti peri Ioannoutou Baptistou eipen autois. ] The clause in brackets is placed atthe end of ver. 13 by D. And the Old Latin. 

_Mark. _ ix. 12, 13. 

[Greek: Ho de ephae autois, Aelias [men] elthon protonapokathistanei panta, kai pos gegraptai epi ton uion touanthropou, hina polla pathae kai exoudenaethae. Alla lego huminhoti kai Aelias elaeluthen kai epoiaesan auto hosa aethelon, kathos gegraptai ep' auton. ]

We notice here, first, an important point, that Justin reproduces atthe end of his quotation what appears to be not so much a part of theobject-matter of the narrative as a _comment or reflection of theEvangelist_ ('Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them ofJohn the Baptist'). This was thought by Credner, who as a rule isinclined to press the use of an apocryphal Gospel by Justin, to besufficient proof that the quotation is taken from our present Matthew[Endnote 119:1]. On this point, however, there is an able and on thewhole a sound argument in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 119:2]. There are certainly cases in which a similar comment or reflection isfound either in all three Synoptic Gospels or in two of them (e. G. Matt. Vii. 28, 29 = Mark i. 22 = Luke iv. 32; Matt. Xiii. 34 = Markiv. 33, 34; Matt. Xxvi. 43 = Mark xiv. 40; Matt. Xix. 22 = Mark x. 22). The author consequently maintains that these were found in theoriginal document from which all three, or two Synoptics at least, borrowed; and he notes that this very passage is assigned by Ewald tothe 'oldest Gospel. '

The observation in itself is a fine and true one, and has animportant bearing upon the question as to the way in which ourSynoptic Gospels were composed. We may indeed remark in passingthat the author seems to have overlooked the fact that, when oncethis principle of a common written basis or bases for the SynopticGospels is accepted, nine-tenths of his own argument is overthrown;for there are no divergences in the text of the patristic quotationsfrom the Gospels that may not be amply paralleled by the differenceswhich exist in the text of the several Gospels themselves, showingthat the Evangelists took liberties with their ground documentsto an extent that is really greater than that of any subsequentmisquotation. But putting aside for the present this _argumentumad hominem_ which seems to follow from the admission here made, there is, I think, the strongest reason to conclude that in thepresent case the first Evangelist is not merely reproducing hisground document. There is one element in the question which theauthor has omitted to notice; that is, the _parallel passage inSt. Mark. _ This differs so widely from the text of St. Matthew asto show that that text cannot accurately represent the original;it also wants the reflective comment altogether. Accordingly, ifthe author will turn to p. 275 of Ewald's book [Endnote 120:1] hewill find that that writer, though roughly assigning the passageas it appears in both Synoptics to the 'oldest Gospel, ' yet inreconstructing the text of this Gospel does so, not by taking thatof either of the Synoptics pure and simple, but by mixing the two. All the other critics who have dealt with this point, so far as Iam aware, have done the same. Holtzmann [Endnote 120:2] followsEwald, and Weiss [Endnote 120:3] accepts Mark's as more nearly theoriginal text. 

The very extent of the divergence in St. Mark throws out into strikingrelief the close agreement of Justin's quotation with St. Matthew. Here we have three verses word for word the same, even to the finestshades of expression. To the single exception [Greek: eleusetai]for [Greek: erchetai] I cannot, as Credner does [Endnote 120:4], attach any importance. The present tense in the Gospel has undoubtedlya future signification [Endnote 120:5], and Justin was very naturallyled to give it also a future form by [Greek: apokatastaesei] whichfollows. For the rest, the order, particles, tenses are so absolutelyidentical, where the text of St. Mark shows how inevitably they musthave differed in another Gospel or even in the original, that I cansee no alternative but to refer the quotation directly to our presentSt. Matthew. 

If this passage had stood alone, taken in connection with thecoincidence of matter between Justin and the first Gospel, greatweight must have attached to it. But it does not by any means standalone. There is an exact verbal agreement in the verses Matt. V. 20('Except your righteousness' &c. ) and Matt. Vii. 21 ('Not every onethat saith unto me, ' &c. ) which are peculiar to the first Gospel. There is a close agreement, if not always with the best, yet with somevery old, text of St. Matthew in v. 22 (note especially the strikingphrase and construction [Greek: enochos eis]), v. 28 (note [Greek:blep. Pros to epithum]. ), v. 41 (note the remarkable word [Greek:angareusei]), xxv. 41, and not too great a divergence in v. 16, vi. 1([Greek: pros to theathaenai, ei de mae ge misthon ouk echete]), andxix. 12, all of which passages are without parallel in any extantGospel. There are also marked resemblances to the Matthaean text insynoptic passages such as Matt. Iii. 11, 12 ([Greek: eis metanoian, tahupodaemata bastasai]), Matt. Vi. 19, 20 ([Greek: hopou saes kaibrosis aphanizei], where Luke has simply [Greek: saes diaphtheirei], and [Greek: diorussousi] where Luke has [Greek: engizei]), Matt. Vii. 22, 23 ([Greek: ekeinae tae haemera Kurie, Kurie, k. T. L. ]), Matt. Xvi. 26 ([Greek: dosei] Matt. Only, [Greek: antallagma] Matt. , Mark), Matt. Xvi. 1, 4 (the last verse exactly). As these passages are all from thediscourses I do not wish to say that they may not be taken from otherGospels than the canonical, but we have absolutely no evidence thatthey were so taken, and every additional instance increases theprobability that they were taken directly from St. Matthew, which bythis time, I think, has reached a very high degree of presumption. 

I have reserved for a separate discussion a single instance whichI shall venture to add to those already quoted, although I amaware that it is alleged on the opposite side. Justin has thesaying 'Let your yea be yea and your nay nay, for whatsoever ismore than these cometh of the Evil One' ([Greek: Mae omosaeteholos. Esto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou; to de perissontouton ek tou ponaerou]), which is set against the firstEvangelist's 'Let your conversation be Yea yea, Nay nay, forwhatsoever is more than these cometh of the Evil One' ([Greek: egode lego humin mae omosai holos... Esto de ho logos humon nai nai, ou ou; to de perisson, k. T. L. ]). Now it is perfectly true that asearly as the Canonical Epistle of James (v. 12) we find thereading [Greek: aeto de humon to nai nai, kai to ou ou], and thatin the Clementine Homilies twice over we read [Greek: esto humonto nai nai, (kai) to ou ou], [Greek: kai] being inserted in oneinstance and not in the other. Justin's reading is found alsoexactly in Clement of Alexandria, and a similar reading (thoughwith the [Greek: aeto] of James) in Epiphanius. These last twoexamples show that the misquotation was an easy one to fall into, because there can be little doubt that Clement and Epiphaniussupposed themselves to be quoting the canonical text. Thereremains however the fact that the Justinian form is supported bythe pseudo-Clementines; and at the first blush it might seem that'Let your yea be yea' (stand to your word) made better, at least acomplete and more obvious, sense than 'Let your conversation be'(let it not go beyond) 'Yea yea' &c [Endnote 122:1]. There is, however, what seems to be a decisive proof that the original formboth of Justin's and the Clementine quotation is that which isgiven in the first Gospel. Both Justin and the writer who passesunder the name of Clement add the clause 'Whatsoever is more thanthese cometh of evil' (or 'of the Evil One'). But this, while ittallies perfectly with the canonical reading, evidently excludesany other. It is consequent and good sense to say, 'Do not gobeyond a plain yes or no, because whatever is in excess of thismust have an evil motive, ' but the connection is entirely lostwhen we substitute 'Keep your word, for whatever is more than thishas an evil motive'--more than what?

The most important points that can be taken to imply a use ofSt. Mark's Gospel have been already discussed as falling underthe head of matter rather than of form. 

The coincidences with Luke are striking but complicated. In hisearlier work, the 'Beiträge' [Endnote 123:1], Credner regarded asa decided reference to the Prologue of this Gospel the statementof Justin that his Memoirs were composed [Greek: hupo tonapostolon autou kai ton ekeinois parakolouthaesanton]: but, in theposthumous History of the Canon [Endnote 123:2], he retracts thisview, having come to recognise a greater frequency in the use ofthe word [Greek: parakolouthein] in this sense. It will also ofcourse be noticed that Justin has [Greek: par. Tois ap. ] and not[Greek: par. Tois pragmasin], as Luke. It is doubtless true thatthe use of the word can be paralleled to such an extent as to makeit not a matter of certainty that the Gospel is being quoted:still I think there will be a certain probability that it has beensuggested by a reminiscence of this passage, and, strangelyenough, there is a parallel for the substitution of the historiansfor the subject-matter of their history in Epiphanius, who reads[Greek: par. Tois autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou] [Endnote124:1], where he is explicitly and unquestionably quoting St. Luke. 

There are some marked coincidences of phrase in the account of theAnnunciation--[Greek: eperchesthai, episkaizein, dunamishupsistou] (a specially Lucan phrase), [Greek: to gennomenon](also a form characteristic of St. Luke), [Greek idou, sullaepsaeen gastri kai texae huion]. Of the other peculiarities of St. LukeJustin has in exact accordance the last words upon the cross([Greek: Pater, eis cheiras sou paratithemai to pneuma mou]). Inthe Agony in the Garden Justin has the feature of the BloodySweat; but it is right to notice--

(1) That he has [Greek: thromboi] alone, without [Greek:haimatos]. Luke, [Greek: egeneto ho hidros autou hosei thromboihaimatos katabainontes]. Justin, [Greek: hidros hosei thromboikatecheito]. 

(2) That this is regarded as a fulfilment of Ps. Xxii. 14 ('All mytears are poured out' &c. ). 

(3) That in continuing the quotation Justin follows Matthew ratherthan Luke. These considerations may be held to qualify, though Ido not think that they suffice to remove, the conclusion that St. Luke's Gospel is being quoted. It seems to be sufficiently clearthat [Greek: thromboi] might be used in this signification without[Greek: aimatos] [Endnote 124:2], and it appears from the wholemanner of Justin's narrative that he intends to give merely thesense and not the words, with the exception of the single saying'Let this cup pass from Me, ' which is taken from St. Matthew. Wecannot say positively that this feature did not occur in any otherGospel, but there is absolutely no reason apart from this passageto suppose that it did. The construction with [Greek: hosei] is insome degree characteristic of St. Luke, as it occurs more often inthe works of that writer than in all the rest of the New Testamentput together. 

In narrating the institution of the Lord's Supper Justin has theclause which is found only in St. Luke and St. Paul, 'This do inremembrance of Me' ([Greek: mou] for [Greek: emaen]). The givingof the cup he quotes rather after the first two Synoptics, andadds 'that He gave it to them (the Apostles) alone. ' This lastdoes not seem to be more than an inference of Justin's own. 

Two other sayings Justin has which are without parallel except inSt. Luke. One is from the mission of the seventy. 

_Justin, Dial. _ 76

[Greek: Didomi humin exousian katapatein epano opheon, kaiskorpion, kai skolopendron, kai epano parsaes dunameos touechthrou. ]

_Luke_ x. 19. 

[Greek: Idou, didomi humin taen exousian tou patein epano epheon, kai skorpion, kai epi pasan taen dunamin tou echthrou. ]

The insertion of [Greek: skolopendron] here is curious. It may beperhaps to some extent paralleled by the insertion of [Greek: kaieis thaeran] in Rom. Xi. 9: we have also seen a strange additionin the quotation of Ps. Li. 19 in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. Ii). Otherwise the resemblance of Justin to the Gospel is striking. Thesecond saying, 'To whom God has given more, of him shall more berequired' (Apol. I. 17), if quoted from the Gospel at all, is onlya paraphrase of Luke xii. 48. 

Besides these there are other passages, which are perhaps strongeras separate items of evidence, where, in quoting synoptic matter, Justin makes use of phrases which are found only in St. Luke andare discountenanced by the other Evangelists. Thus in the accountof the rich young man, the three synoptical versions of the sayingthat impossibilities with men are possible with God, run thus:--

_Luke_ xviii. 27. 

[Greek: Ta adunata para anthropois dunata para to Theo estin. ]

_Mark_ x. 27. 

[Greek: Para anthropois adunaton, all' ou para Theo; punta gardunata para to Theo]. 

_Matt_. Xix. 26. 

[Greek: Para anthropois touto adunaton estin, para de Theo dunatapanta]. 

Here it will be observed that Matthew and Mark (as frequentlyhappens) are nearer to each other than either of them is to Luke. This would lead us to infer that, as they are two to one, theymore nearly represent the common original, which has been somewhatmodified in the hands of St. Luke. But now Justin has the wordsprecisely as they stand in St. Luke, with the omission of [Greek:estin], the order of which varies in the MSS. Of the Gospel. Thismust be taken as a strong proof that Justin has used the peculiartext of the third Gospel. Again, it is to be noticed that inanother section of the triple synopsis (Mark xii. 20=Matt. Xxii. 30=Luke xx. 35, 36) he has, in common with Luke and diverging fromthe other Gospels which are in near agreement, the remarkablecompound [Greek: isangeloi] and the equally remarkable phrase[Greek: huioi taes anastaseos] ([Greek: tekna tou Theou taesanastaseos] Justin). This also I must regard as supplying a strongargument for the direct use of the Gospel. Many similar instancesmay be adduced; [Greek: erchetai] ([Greek: aexei] Justin) [Greek:ho ischuroteros] (Luke iii. 16), [Greek: ho nomos kai hoiprophaetai heos] ([Greek: mechri] Justin) [Greek: Ioannon] (Lukexvi. 16), [Greek: panti to aitounti] (Luke vi. 30), [Greek: totuptonti se epi] ([Greek: sou] Justin) [Greek: taen siagonapareche kai taen allaen k. T. L. ] (Luke vi. 29; compare Matt. V. 39, 40), [Greek: ti me legeis agathon] and [Greek: oudeis agathos eimae] (Luke xviii. 19; compare Matt. Xix. 17), [Greek: meta tautamae echonton] ([Greek: dunamenous] Justin) [Greek: perissoteron](om. Justin) [Greek: ti poiaesae k. T. L. ] (Luke xii. 4, 5; compareMatt. X. 28), [Greek: paeganon] and [Greek: agapaen tou Theou](Luke xi. 42). In the parallel passage to Luke ix. 22 (=Matt xvi. 21= Mark viii. 31) Justin has the striking word [Greek:apodokimasthaenai], with Mark and Luke against Matthew, and[Greek: hupo] with Mark against the [Greek: apo] of the two otherSynoptics. This last coincidence can perhaps hardly be pressed, as[Greek: hupo] would be the more natural word to use. 

In the cases where we have only the double synopsis to comparewith Justin, we have no certain test to distinguish between theprimary and secondary features in the text of the Gospels. Wecannot say with confidence what belonged to the original documentand what to the later editor who reduced it to its present form. In these cases therefore it is possible that when Justin has adetail that is found in St. Matthew and wanting in St. Luke, orfound in St. Luke and wanting in St. Matthew, he is still notquoting directly from either of those Gospels, but from the commondocument on which they are based. The triple synopsis howeverfurnishes such a criterion. It enables us to see what was theoriginal text and how any single Evangelist has diverged from it. Thus in the two instances quoted at the beginning of the lastparagraph it is evident that the Lucan text represents a deviationfrom the original, and _that deviation Justin has reproduced_. Theword [Greek: isangeloi] may be taken as a crucial case. Both theother Synoptics have simply [Greek hos angeloi], and this may beset down as undoubtedly the reading of the original; the form[Greek: isangeloi], which occurs nowhere else in the NewTestament, and I believe, so far as we know, nowhere else in Greekbefore this passage [Endnote 128:1], has clearly been coined bythe third Evangelist and has been adopted from him by Justin. Sothat in a quotation which otherwise presents considerablevariation we have what I think must be called the strongestevidence that Justin really had St. Luke's narrative, either initself or in some secondary shape, before him. 

We are thus brought once more to the old result. If Justin did notuse our Gospels in their present shape as they have come down tous, he used them in a later shape, not in an earlier. Hisresemblances to them cannot be accounted for by the suppositionthat he had access to the materials out of which they werecomposed, because he reproduces features which by the nature ofthe case cannot have been present in those originals, but of whichwe are still able to trace the authorship and the exact point oftheir insertion. Our Gospels form a secondary stage in the historyof the text, Justin's quotations a tertiary. In order to reach thestate in which it is found in Justin, the road lies _through_ ourGospels, and not outside them. 

This however does not exclude the possibility that Justin may attimes quote from uncanonical Gospels as well. We have already seenreason to think that he did so from the substance of theEvangelical narrative, as it appears in his works, and thisconclusion too is not otherwise than confirmed by its form. Thedegree and extent of the variations incline us to introduce suchan additional factor to account for them. Either Justin has used alost Gospel or Gospels, besides those that are still extant, orelse he has used a recension of these Gospels with some slightchanges of language and with some apocryphal additions. We haveseen that he has two short sayings and several minute details thatare not found in our present Gospels. A remarkable coincidence isnoticed in 'Supernatural Religion' with the Protevangelium ofJames [Endnote 129:1]. As in that work so also in Justin, theexplanation of the name Jesus occurs in the address of the angelto Mary, not to Joseph, 'Behold thou shalt conceive of the HolyGhost and bear a Son and He shall be called the Son of theHighest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save Hispeople from their sins. ' Again the Protevangelium has the phrase'Thou shalt conceive of His Word, ' which, though not directlyquoted, appears to receive countenance from Justin. The authoradds that 'Justin's divergences from the Protevangelium preventour supposing that in its present form it could have been theactual source of his quotations, ' though he thinks that he hadbefore him a still earlier work to which both the Protevangeliumand the third Gospel were indebted. So far as the Protevangeliumis concerned this may very probably have been the case; but whatreason there is for assuming that the same document was alsoanterior to the third Gospel I am not aware. On the contrary, thisvery passage seems to suggest an opposite conclusion. Thequotation in Justin and the address in the Protevangelium bothpresent a combination of narratives that are kept separate in thefirst and third Gospels. But this very fact supplies a strongpresumption that the version of those Gospels is the earliest. Itis unlikely that the first Evangelist, if he had found his textalready existing as part of the speech of the angel to Mary, wouldhave transferred it to an address to Joseph; and it is little lessunlikely that the third Evangelist, finding the fuller version ofJustin and the Protevangelium, should have omitted from it one ofits most important features. If a further link is necessary toconnect Justin with the Protevangelium, that link comes into thechain after our Gospels and not before. Dr. Hilgenfeld has alsonoticed the phrase [Greek: charan de labousa Mariam] as common toJustin and the Protevangelium [Endnote 130:1]. This, too, maybelong to the older original of the latter work. The other verbalcoincidences with the Gospel according to the Hebrews in theaccount of the Baptism, and with that of Thomas in the 'ploughsand yokes, ' have been already mentioned, and are, I believe, alongwith those just discussed, all that can be directly referred to anapocryphal source. 

Besides these there are some coincidences in form between quotationsas they appear in Justin and in other writers, such as especially theClementine Homilies. These are thought to point to the existence of acommon Gospel (now lost) from which they may have been extracted. Itis unnecessary to repeat what has been said about one of thesepassages ('Let your yea be yea, ' &c. ). Another corresponds roughly tothe verse Matt. Xxv. 41, where both Justin and the Clementine Homiliesread [Greek: hupagete eis to skotos to exoteron o haetoimasen hopataer to satana (to diabolo] Clem. Hom. ) [Greek: kai tois angeloisautou] for the canonical [Greek: poreuesthe ap' emou eis to pur toaionion to haetoimasmenon k. T. L. ] It is true that there is aconsiderable approximation to the reading of Justin and theClementines, found especially in MSS. And authorities of a Westerncharacter (D. Latt. Iren. Cypr. Hil. ), but there still remains thecoincidence in regard to [Greek: exoteron](?) for [Greek: aionion] and[Greek: skotos] for [Greek: pyr], which seems to be due to somethingmore than merely a variant text of the Gospel. A third meeting-pointbetween Justin and the Clementines is afforded by a text which weshall have to touch upon when we come to speak of the fourth Gospel. Of the other quotations common to the Clementines and Justin there isa partial but not complete coincidence in regard to Matt. Vii. 15, xi. 27, xix. 16, and Luke vi. 36. In Matt. Vii. 15 the Clementines have[Greek: polloi eleusontai] where Justin has once [Greek: polloieleusontai], once [Greek: polloi aexousin], and once the Matthaeanversion [Greek: prosechete apo ton pseudoprophaeton oitines erchontaik. T. L. ] There is however a difference in regard to the reading [Greek:en endumasi], where the Clementines have [Greek: en endumatie], andJustin twice over [Greek: endedumenoi]. In Matt. Xi. 27, Justin andthe Clementines agree as to the order of the clauses, and twice in theuse of the aorist [Greek: egno] (Justin has once [Greek: ginosko]), but in the concluding clause ([Greek: ho [ois] Clem. ] [Greek: eanboulaetai ho nios apokalupsai]) Justin has uniformly in the threeplaces where the verse is quoted [Greek: ois an ho uhios apokalupsae]. In Matt. Xix. 16, 17 (Luke xviii. 18, 19) the Clementines and Justinalternately adhere to the Canonical text while differing from eachother, but in the concluding phrase Justin has on one occasion theClementine reading, [Greek: ho pataer mou ho en tois ouranois]. InLuke vi. 36 the Clementines have [Greek: ginesthe agathoi kaiioktirmones], where Justin has [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kaioiktirmones] against the Canonical [Greek: ginesthe oiktirmones]. Onthe other hand, it should be said that the remaining quotations commonto the Clementines and Justin have to all appearance no relation toeach other. This applies to Matt. Iv. 10, v. 39, 40, vi. 8, viii. 11, x. 28; Luke xi. 52. Speaking generally we seem to observe in comparingJustin and the Clementines phenomena not dissimilar to those whichappear on a comparison with the Canonical Gospels. There is perhapsabout the same degree at once of resemblance and divergence. 

The principal textual coincidence with other writers is that withthe Gospel used by the Marcosians as quoted by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. I. 20. 3). Here the reading of Matt. Xi. 27 is given in aform very similar to that of Justin, [Greek: oudeis hegno tonpatera ei mae ho uhios, kai (oude Justin) ton uhion, ei mae hopataer kai ho (ois] Justin) [Greek: an ho uhios apokalupsae]. This verse however is quoted by the early writers, orthodox as wellas heretical, in almost every possible way, and it is not clear fromthe account in Irenaeus whether the Marcosians used an extra-canonical Gospel or merely a different text of the Canonical. Irenaeus himself seems to hold the latter view, and in favour ofit may be urged the fact that they quote passages peculiar both tothe first and the third Gospel; on the other hand, one of theirquotations, [Greek: pollakis epethuaesa akousai hena ton logontouton], does not appear to have a canonical original. 

On reviewing these results we find them present a chequeredappearance. There are no traces of coincidence so definite andconsistent as to justify us in laying the finger upon anyparticular extra-canonical Gospel as that used by Justin. But uponthe whole it seems best to assume that some such Gospel was used, certainly not to the exclusion of the Canonical Gospels, butprobably in addition to them. 

A confusing element in the whole question is that to which we havejust alluded in regard to the Gospel of the Marcosians. It isoften difficult to decide whether a writer has really before himan unknown document or merely a variant text of one with which weare familiar. In the case of Justin it is to be noticed that thereis often a very considerable approximation to his readings, not inthe best text, but in some very early attested text, of theCanonical Gospels. It will be well to collect some of the mostprominent instances of this. 

Matt. Iii. 15 ad fin. [Greek: kai pur anaephthae en to Iordanae]Justin. So a. (Codex Vercellensis of the Old Latin translation)adds 'et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita uttimerent onmes qui advenerant;' g[1]. (Codex Sangermanensis of thesame) 'lumen magnum fulgebat de aqua, ' &c. See above. 

Luke iii. 22. Justin reads [Greek: uhios mon ei su, ego saemerongegennaeka se]. So D, a, b, c, ff, l, Latin Fathers ('nonnullicodices' Augustine). See above. 

Matt. V. 28. [Greek: hos un emblepsae] for [Greek: pas ho blepon]. Origen five times as Justin, only once the accepted text. 

Matt. V. 29. Justin and Clement of Alexandria read here [Greek:ekkopson] for [Greek: exele], probably from the next verse or fromMatt. Xviii. 8. 

Matt. Vi. 20. [Greek: ouranois] Clem. Alex. With Justin; [Greek:ourano] the accepted reading. 

Matt. Xvi. 26. [Greek: opheleitai] Justin with most MSS. Both ofthe Old Latin and of the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac(Crowfoot), Clement, Hilary, and Lucifer, against [Greek:ophelaethaesetai] of the best Alexandrine authorities. 

Matt. Vi. 21. There is a striking coincidence here with Clement ofAlexandria, who reads, like Justin, [Greek: nous] for [Greek:cardia]; it would seem that Clement had probably derived hisreading from Justin. 

Matt. V. 22. [Greek: hostis an orgisthae] Syr. Crt. (Crowfoot); soJustin ([Greek: hos]). 

Matt. V. 16. Clement of Alexandria (with Tertullian and severalLatin Fathers) has [Greek: lampsato ta erga] and [Greek: ta agathaerga], where Justin has [Greek: lampsato ta kala erga], for[Greek: lampsato to phos]. Both readings would seem to be a glosson the original. 

Matt. V. 37. [Greek: kai] is inserted, as in Justin, by a, b, g, h, Syr. Crt. And Pst. 

Luke x. 16. Justin has the reading [Greek: ho emou akouon akoueiton aposteilantos me]: so D, i, l (of the Old Latin) in place of[Greek: ho eme atheton k. T. L. ]; in addition to it, E, a, b, Syr. Crt. And Hel. &c. 

Matt. Vii. 22. [Greek: ou to so anomati ephagomen kai epiomen]Justin; similarly Origen, four times, and Syr. Crt. 

Luke xiii. 27. [Greek: anomias] for [Greek: adikias], D andJustin. 

Matt. Xiii. 43. [Greek: lampsosin] for [Greek: eklampsosin] withJustin, D, and Origen (twice). 

Matt. Xxv. 41. Of Justin's readings in this verse [Greek:hupagete] for [Greek: poreuesthe] is found also in [Hebrew: ?] andHippolytus, [Greek: exoteron] for [Greek: aionion] in the cursivemanuscript numbered 40 (Credner; I am unable to verify this), [Greek: ho haetoimasen ho pater mou] for [Greek: to haetoimasmenon]D. 1, most Codd. Of the Old Latin, Iren. Tert. Cypr. Hil. Hipp. And Origen in the Latin translation. 

Luke xii. 48. D, like Justin, has here [Greek: pleon] for [Greek:perissoteron] and also the compound form [Greek: apaitaesousin]. 

Luke xx. 24. Though in the main following (but loosely) the textof Luke, Justin has here [Greek: to nomisma], as Matt. , instead of[Greek: daenarion]; so D. 

Though it will be seen that Justin has thus much in common with Dand the Old Latin version, it should be noticed that he has theverse, Luke xxii. 19, and especially the clause [Greek: toutopoieite eis taen emaen anamnaesin] which is wanting in theseauthorities. On the other hand, he appears to have with them andother authorities, including Syr. Crt. , the Agony in the Garden asgiven in Luke xxii, 43, 44, which verses are omitted in MSS. Of thebest Alexandrine type. Luke xxiii. 34, Justin also has, with thedivided support of the majority of Greek MSS. Vulgate, c, e, f, ffof the Old Latin, Syr. Crt. And Pst. &c. Against B, D (primamanu), a, b, Memph. (MSS. ) Theb. 

These readings represent in the main a text which was undoubtedlycurrent and widely diffused in the second century. 'Though nosurviving manuscript of the Old Latin version dates before thefourth century and most of them belong to a still later age, yetthe general correspondence of their text with that of the firstLatin Fathers is a sufficient voucher for its high antiquity. Theconnexion subsisting between this Latin, version, the CuretonianSyriac and Codex Bezae, proves that the text of these documents isconsiderably older than the vellum on which they are written. 'Such is Dr. Scrivener's verdict upon the class of authorities withwhich Justin shows the strongest affinity, and he goes on to add;'Now it may be said without extravagance that no set of Scripturalrecords affords a text less probable in itself, less sustained byany rational principles of external evidence, than that of Cod. D, of the Latin codices, and (so far as it accords with them) ofCureton's Syriac. Interpolations as insipid in themselves asunsupported by other evidence abound in them all.... It is no lesstrue to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptionsto which the New Testament has ever been subjected originatedwithin a hundred years after it was composed' [Endnote 135:1]. This is a point on which text critics of all schools aresubstantially agreed. However much they may differ in otherrespects, no one of them has ever thought of taking the text ofthe Old Syriac and Old Latin translations as the basis of anedition. There can be no question that this text belongs to anadvanced, though early, stage of corruption. 

At the same stage of corruption, then, Justin's quotations fromthe Gospels are found, and this very fact is a proof of theantiquity of originals so corrupted. The coincidences are too manyand too great all to be the result of accident or to be accountedfor by the parallel influence of the lost Gospels. The presence, for instance, of the reading [Greek: o haetoimasen ho pataer] for[Greek: to haetoimasmenon] in Irenaeus and Tertullian (who hasboth 'quem praeparavit deus' and 'praeparatum') is a proof that itwas found in the canonical text at a date little later thanJustin's. And facts such as this, taken together with thearguments which make it little less than certain that Justin hadeither mediately or immediately access to our Gospels, render ithighly probable that he had a form of the canonical text beforehim. 

And yet large as is the approximation to Justin's text that may bemade without stirring beyond the bounds of attested readingswithin the Canon, I still retain the opinion previously expressedthat he did also make use of some extra-canonical book or books, though what the precise document was the data are far tooinsufficient to enable us to determine. So far as the history ofour present Gospels is concerned, I have only to insist upon thealternative that Justin either used those Gospels themselves orelse a later work, of the nature of a harmony based upon them[Endnote 136:1]. The theory (if it is really held) that he wasignorant of our Gospels in any shape, seems to me, in view of thefacts, wholly untenable. 

CHAPTER V. 

HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS. 

Dr. Lightfoot has rendered a great service to criticism by hismasterly exposure of the fallacies in the argument which has beendrawn from the silence of Eusebius in respect to the use of theCanonical Gospels by the early writers [Endnote 138:1]. The authorof 'Supernatural Religion' is not to be blamed for using thisargument. In doing so he has only followed in the wake of theGermans who have handed it on from one to the other withoutputting it to a test so thorough and conclusive as that which hasnow been applied [Endnote 138:2]. For the future, I imagine, thequestion has been set at rest and will not need to be reopened[Endnote 138:3]. 

Dr. Lightfoot has shown, with admirable fulness and precision, that the object of Eusebius was only to note quotations in thecase of books the admission of which into the Canon had been orwas disputed. In the case of works, such as the four Gospels, thatwere universally acknowledged, he only records what seem to himinteresting anecdotes or traditions respecting their authors orthe circumstances under which they were composed. This distinctionDr. Lightfoot has established, not only by a careful examinationof the language of Eusebius, but also by comparing his statementswith the actual facts in regard to writings that are still extant, and where we are able to verify his procedure. After thus testingthe references in Eusebius to Clement of Rome, the IgnatianEpistles, Polycarp, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus, Dr. Lightfoot arrives, by a strict and ample induction, at theconclusion that the silence of Eusebius in respect to quotationsfrom any canonical book is so far an argument _in its favour_that it shows the book in question to have been generallyacknowledged by the early Church. Instead of being a proof thatthe writer did not know the work in reference to which Eusebius issilent, the presumption is rather that he did, like the rest ofthe Church, receive it. Eusebius only records what seems to himspecially memorable, except where the place of the work in or outof the Canon has itself to be vindicated. 

But if this holds good, then most of what is said against the useof the Gospels by Hegesippus falls to the ground. Eusebiusexpressly says [Endnote 140:1] that Hegesippus made occasional useof the Gospel according to the Hebrews ([Greek: ek te tou kath'Hebraious euangeliou ... Tina tithaesin]). But apart from theconclusion referred to above, the very language of Eusebius([Greek: tithaesin tina ek]) is enough to suggest that the use ofthe Gospel according to the Hebrews was subordinate andsubsidiary. Eusebius can hardly have spoken in this way of'_the_ Gospel of which Hegesippus made use' in all the fivebooks of his 'Memoirs. ' The expression tallies exactly with whatwe should expect of a work used _in addition to_ but not_to the exclusion_ of our Gospels. The fact that Eusebiussays nothing about these shows that his readers would take it forgranted that Hegesippus, as an orthodox Christian, received them. 

With this conclusion the fragments of the work of Hegesippus thathave come down to us agree. The quotations made in them areexplained most simply and naturally, on the assumption that ourGospels have been used. The first to which we come is merely anallusion to the narrative of Matt. Ii; 'For Domitian feared thecoming of the Christ as much as Herod. ' Those therefore who takethe statement of Eusebius to mean that Hegesippus used only theGospel according to the Hebrews are compelled to seek for theaccount of the Massacre of the Innocents in that Gospel. Itappears however from Epiphanius that precisely this very portionof the first Gospel was wanting in the Gospel according to theHebrews as used both by the Ebionites and by the Nazarenes. 'Butif it be doubtful whether some forms of that Gospel contained thetwo opening chapters of Matthew, it is certain that Jerome foundthem in the version which he translated' [Endnote 141:1]. I amafraid that here, as in so many other cases, the words 'doubtful'and 'certain' are used with very little regard to their meanings. In support of the inference from Jerome, the author refers to DeWette, Schwegler, and an article in a periodical publication byEwald. De Wette expressly says that the inference does _not_follow ('Aus Comm. Ad Matt. Ii. 6 ... Lässt sich _nicht_schliessen dass er hierbei das Evang. Der Hebr. Verglichenhabe.... Nicht viel besser beweisen die St. Ad Jes. Xi. 1; adAbac. Iii. 3') [Endnote 141:2]. He thinks that the presence ofthese chapters in Jerome's copy cannot be satisfactorily proved, but is probable just from this allusion in Hegesippus--in regardto which De Wette simply follows the traditional, but, as we haveseen, erroneous assumption that Hegesippus used only the Gospelaccording to the Hebrews. Schwegler [Endnote 141:3] gives noreasons, but refers to the passages quoted from Jerome in Credner. Credner, after examining these passages, comes to the conclusionthat 'the Gospel of the Nazarenes did _not_ contain thechapters' [Endnote 141:4]. Ewald's periodical I cannot refer to, but Hilgenfeld, after an elaborate review of the question, decidesthat the chapters were omitted [Endnote 141:5]. This is the onlyauthority I can find for the 'certainty that Jerome found them' inhis version. 

On the whole, then, it seems decidedly more probable (certaintieswe cannot deal in) that the incident referred to by Hegesippus wasmissing from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That Gospeltherefore was not quoted by him, but, on the contrary, there is apresumption that he is quoting from the Canonical Gospel. Thenarrative of the parallel Gospel of St. Luke seems, if not toexclude the Massacre of the Innocents, yet to imply an ignoranceof it. 

The next passage that appears to be quotation occurs in theaccount of the death of James the Just; 'Why do ye ask meconcerning Jesus the Son of Man? He too sits in heaven on theright hand of the great Power and will come on the clouds ofheaven' ([Greek: Ti me eperotate peri Iaesou tou huiou touanthropou? kai autos kathaetai en to ourano ek dexion taesmegalaes dunameos, kai mellei erchesthai epi ton nephelon tououranou]). It seems natural to suppose that this is an allusion toMatt. Xxvi. 64, [Greek: ap' arti opsesthe ton huion tou anthropoukathaemenon ek dexion taes dunameos, kai erchomenon epi tonvephelon tou ouranou]. The passage is one that belongs to thetriple synopsis, and the form in which it appears in Hegesippusshows a preponderating resemblance to the version of St. Matthew. Mark inserts [Greek: kathaemenon] between [Greek: ek dexion] and[Greek: taes dunameos], while Luke thinks it necessary to add[Greek: tou theou]. The third Evangelist omits the phrase [Greek:epi ton nephelon tou ouranou], altogether, and the secondsubstitutes [Greek: meta] for [Greek: epi]. In fact the phrase[Greek: epi ton vephelon] occurs in the New Testament only in St. Matthew; the Apocalypse, like St. Mark, has [Greek: meta] and[Greek: epi] only with the singular. 

In like manner, when we find Hegesippus using the phrase [Greek:prosopon ou lambaneis], this seems to be a reminiscence of Lukexx. 21, where the synoptic parallels have [Greek: blepeis]. 

A more decided reference to the third Gospel occurs in the dyingprayer of St. James; [Greek: parakalo, kurie thee pater, aphesautois; ou gar oidasiti poiousin], which corresponds to Lukexxiii. 34, [Greek: pater, aphes autois; ou gar oidasin tipoiousin]. There is the more reason to believe that Hegesippus'quotation is derived from this source that it reproduces thepeculiar use of [Greek: aphienai] in the sense of 'forgive'without an expressed object. Though the word is of very frequentoccurrence, I find no other instance of this in the New Testament[Endnote 143:1], and the Clementine Homilies, in making the samequotation, insert [Greek: tas hamartias auton]. The saying is wellknown to be peculiar to St. Luke. There is perhaps a balance ofevidence against its genuineness, but this is of littleimportance, as it undoubtedly formed part of the Gospel as earlyas Irenaeus, who wrote much about the same time as Hegesippus. 

The remaining passage occurs in a fragment preserved fromStephanus Gobarus, a writer of the sixth century, by Photius, writing in the ninth. Referring to the saying 'Eye hath not seen, '&c. , Gobarus says 'that Hegesippus, an ancient and apostolicalman, asserts--he knows not why--that these words are vainlyspoken, and that those who use them give the lie to the sacredwritings and to our Lord Himself who said, "Blessed are your eyesthat see and your ears that hear, "' &c. 'Those who use thesewords' are, we can hardly doubt, as Dr. Lightfoot after Routh hasshown [Endnote 144:1], the Gnostics, though Hegesippus would seemto have forgotten I Cor. Ii. 9. The anti-Pauline position assignedto Hegesippus on the strength of this is, we must say, untenable. But for the present we are concerned rather with the secondquotation, which agrees closely with Matt. Xiii. 26 ([Greek: humonde makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoti blepousin, kai ta ota humon hotiakouousin]). The form of the quotation has a slightly nearerresemblance to Luke x. 23 ([Greek: makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoiblepontes ha blepete k. T. L. ]), but the marked difference in theremainder of the Lucan passage increases the presumption thatHegesippus is quoting from the first Gospel [Endnote 144:2]. 

The use of the phrase [Greek: ton theion graphon] is important andremarkable. There is not, so far as I am aware, any instance of sodefinite an expression being applied to an apocryphal Gospel. Itwould tend to prepare us for the strong assertion of the Canon ofthe Gospels in Irenaeus; it would in fact mark the graduallyculminating process which went on in the interval which separatedIrenaeus from Justin. To this interval the evidence of Hegesippusmust be taken to apply, because though writing like Irenaeus underEleutherus (from 177 A. D. ) he was his elder contemporary, and hadbeen received with high respect in Rome as early as the episcopateof Anicetus (157-168 A. D. ). 

The relations in which Hegesippus describes himself as standing tothe Churches and bishops of Corinth and Rome seem to be decisiveas to his substantial orthodoxy. This would give reason to thinkthat he made use of our present Gospels, and the few quotationsthat have come down to us confirm that view not inconsiderably, though by themselves they might not be quite sufficient to proveit. 

There is one passage that may be thought to point to an apocryphalGospel, 'From these arose false Christs, false prophets, falseapostles;' which recalls a sentence in the Clementines, 'For thereshall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, heresies, ambitions. ' It is not, however, nearer to this than tothe canonical parallel, Matt. Xxiv. 24 ('There shall arise falseChrists and false prophets'). 

 2. 

In turning from Hegesippus to Papias we come at last to what seemsto be a definite and satisfactory statement as to the origin oftwo at least of the Synoptic Gospels, and to what is really themost enigmatic and tantalizing of all the patristic utterances. 

Like Hegesippus, Papias may be described as 'an ancient andapostolic man, ' and appears to have better deserved the title. Heis said to have suffered martyrdom under M. Aurelius about thesame time as Polycarp, 165-167 A. D. [Endnote 145:1] He wrote acommentary on the Discourses or more properly Oracles of the Lord, from which Eusebius extracted what seemed to him 'memorable'statements respecting the origin of the first and second Gospels. 'Matthew, ' Papias said [Endnote 146:1], 'wrote the oracles([Greek: ta logia]) in the Hebrew tongue, and every oneinterpreted them as he was able. ' 'Mark, as the interpreter ofPeter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that heremembered that was said or done by Christ. For he neither heardthe Lord nor attended upon Him, but later, as I said, upon Peter, who taught according to the occasion and not as composing aconnected narrative of the Lord's discourses; so that Mark made nomistake in writing down some things as he remembered them. For hetook care of one thing, not to omit any of the particulars that heheard or to falsify any part of them. '

 * * * * *

Let us take the second of these statements first. According to itthe Gospel of St. Mark consisted of notes taken down, or ratherrecollected, from the teaching of Peter. It was not written 'inorder, ' but it was an original work in the sense that it was firstput in writing by Mark himself, having previously existed only inan oral form. 

Does this agree with the facts of the Gospel as it appears to usnow? There is a certain ambiguity as to the phrase 'in order. ' Wecannot be quite sure what Papias meant by it, but the most naturalconclusion seems to be that it meant chronological order. If so, the statement of Papias seems to be so far borne out that none ofthe Synoptic Gospels is really in exact chronological order; but, strange to say, if there is any in which an approach to such anorder is made, it is precisely this of St. Mark. This appears froma comparison of the three Synoptics. From the point at which thesecond Gospel begins, or, in other words, from the Baptism to theCrucifixion, it seems to give the outline that the other twoGospels follow [Endnote 147:1]. If either of them diverges from itfor a time it is only to return. The early part of St. Matthew isbroken up by the intrusion of the so-called Sermon on the Mount, but all this time St. Mark is in approximate agreement with St. Luke. For a short space the three Gospels go together. Then comesa second break, where Luke introduces his version of the Sermon onthe Mount. Then the three rejoin and proceed together, Matthewbeing thrown out by the way in which he has collected the parablesinto a single chapter, and Luke later by the place which he hasassigned to the incident at Nazareth. After this Matthew and Markproceed side by side, Luke dropping out of the ranks. At theconfession of Peter he takes his place again, and there is a closeagreement in the order of the three narratives. The incident ofthe miracle-worker is omitted by Matthew, and then comes theinsertion of a mass of extraneous matter by Luke. When he resumesthe thread of the common narrative again all three are together. The insertion of a single parable on the part of Matthew, andomissions on the part of Luke, are the only interruptions. Thereis an approximate agreement of all three, we may say, for the restof the narrative. We observe throughout that, in by far thepreponderating number of instances, where Matthew differs from theorder of Mark, Luke and Mark agree, and where Luke differs fromthe order of Mark, Matthew and Mark agree. Thus, for instance, inthe account of the healings in Peter's house and of the paralytic, in the relation of the parables of Mark iv. 1-34 to the storm atsea which follows, of the healing of Jairus' daughter to that ofthe Gadarene demoniac and to the mission of the Twelve in theplace of Herod's reflections (Mark vi. 14-16), in the warningagainst the Scribes and the widow's mite (Mark xii. 38-44), thesecond and third Synoptics are allied against the first. On theother hand, in the call of the four chief Apostles, the death ofthe Baptist, the walking on the sea, the miracles in the land ofGennesareth, the washing of hands, the Canaanitish woman, thefeeding of the four thousand and the discourses which follow, theambition of the sons of Zebedee, the anointing at Bethany, andseveral insertions of the third Evangelist in regard to the lastevents, the first two are allied against him. While Mark thusreceives such alternating support from one or other of his fellowEvangelists, I am not aware of any clear case in which, as to theorder of the narratives, they are, united and he is alone, unlesswe are to reckon as such his insertion of the incident of thefugitive between Matt. Xxvi. 56, 57, Luke xxii. 53, 54. 

It appears then that, so far as there is an order in the SynopticGospels, the normal type of that order is to be found precisely inSt. Mark, whom Papias alleges to have written not in order. 

But again there seems to be evidence that the Gospel, in the formin which it has come down to us, is not original but based uponanother document previously existing. When we come to examineclosely its verbal relations to the other two Synoptics, itsnormal character is in the main borne out, but still not quitecompletely. The number of particulars in which Matthew and Markagree together against Luke, or Mark and Luke agree togetheragainst Matthew, is far in excess of that in which Matthew andLuke are agreed against Mark. Mark is in most cases the middleterm which unites the other two. But still there remains a notinconsiderable residuum of cases in which Matthew and Luke are incombination and Mark at variance. The figures obtained by a notquite exact and yet somewhat elaborate computation [Endnote 149:1]are these; Matthew and Mark agree together against Luke in 1684particulars, Luke and Mark against Matthew in 944, but Matthew andLuke against Mark in only 334. These 334 instances are distributedpretty evenly over the whole of the narrative. Thus (to take acase at random) in the parallel narratives Matt. Xii. 1-8, Markii. 23-28, Luke vi. 1-5 (the plucking of the ears on the Sabbathday), there are fifty-one points (words or parts of words) commonto all three Evangelists, twenty-three are common only to Mark andLuke, ten to Mark and Matthew, and eight to Matthew and Luke. Inthe next section, the healing of the withered hand, twenty pointsare found alike in all three Gospels, twenty-seven in Mark andLuke, twenty-one in Mark and Matthew, and five in Matthew andLuke. Many of these coincidences between the first and thirdSynoptics are insignificant in the extreme. Thus, in the lastsection referred to (Mark iii. 1-6=Matt. Xii. 9-14=Luke vi. 6-11), one is the insertion of the article [Greek: taen] ([Greek:sunagogaen]), one the insertion of [Greek: sou] ([Greek: taencheira sou]), two the use of [Greek: de] for [Greek: kai], and onethat of [Greek: eipen] for [Greek: legei]. In the paragraphbefore, the eight points of coincidence between Matthew and Lukeare made up thus, two [Greek: kai aesthion] (=[Greek kaiesthiein]), [Greek: eipon] (=[Greek: eipan]), [Greek: poiein, eipen, met' autou] (=[Greek: sun auto]), [Greek: monous] (=[Greek:monois]). But though such points as these, if they had been few innumber, might have been passed without notice, still, on thewhole, they reach a considerable aggregate and all are not equallyunimportant. Thus, in the account of the healing of the paralytic, such phrases is [Greek epi klinaes, apaelthen eis ton oikonautou], can hardly have come into the first and third Gospels andbe absent from the second by accident; so again the clause [Greek:alla ballousin (blaeteon) oinon neon eis askous kainous]. In theaccount of the healing of the bloody flux the important word[Greek: tou kraspedou] is inserted in Matthew and Luke but not inMark; in that of the mission of the twelve Apostles, the twoEvangelists have, and the single one has not, the phrase [Greek:kai therapeuein noson (nosous]), and the still more importantclause [Greek: lego humin anektoteron estai (gae) Sodomon ... Enhaemera ... Ae tae polei ekeinae]: in Luke ix. 7 (= Matt. Xiv. 1)Herod's title is [Greek: tetrarchaes], in Mark vi. 14 [Greek:basileus]; in the succeeding paragraph [Greek: hoi ochloiaekolouthaesan] and the important [Greek: to perisseuon (-san)]are wanting in the intermediate Gospel; in the first prophecy ofthe Passion it has [Greek: apo] where the other two have [Greek:hupo], and [Greek: meta treis haemeras] where they have [Greek:tae tritae haemera]: in the healing of the lunatic boy it omitsthe noticeable [Greek: kai diestrammenae]: in the second prophecyof the Passion it omits [Greek: mellei], in the paragraph aboutoffences, [Greek: elthein ta skandala ... Ouai... Di hou erchetai]. These points might be easily multiplied as we go on; suffice it tosay that in the aggregate they seem to prove that the secondGospel, in spite of its superior originality and adhesion to thenormal type, still does not entirely adhere to it or maintain itsprimary character throughout. The theory that we have in thesecond Gospel one of the primitive Synoptic documents is nottenable. 

No doubt this is an embarrassing result. The question is easy toask and difficult to answer--If our St. Mark does not representthe original form of the document, what does represent it? Theoriginal document, if not quite like our Mark, must have been verynearly like it; but how did any writer come to reproduce aprevious work with so little variation? If he had simply copied orreproduced it without change, that would have been intelligible;if he had added freely to it, that also would have beenintelligible: but, as it is, he seems to have put in a touch hereand made an erasure there on principles that it is difficult forus now to follow. We are indeed here at the very _crux_ ofSynoptic criticism. 

For our present purpose however it is not necessary that thequestion should be solved. We have already obtained an answer onthe two points raised by Papias. The second Gospel _is_written in order; it is _not_ an original document. These twocharacteristics make it improbable that it is in its present shapethe document to which Papias alludes. 

Does his statement accord any better with the phenomena of thefirst Gospel? He asserts that it was originally written in Hebrew, and that the large majority of modern critics deny to have beenthe case with our present Gospel. Many of the quotations in itfrom the Old Testament are made directly from the Septuagint andnot from the Hebrew. There are turns of language which have thestamp of an original Greek idiom and could not have come inthrough translation. But, without going into this question as tothe original language of the first Gospel, a shorter method willbe to ask whether it can have been an original document at all?The work to which Papias referred clearly was such, but the verysame investigation which shows that our present St. Mark was notoriginal, tells with increased force against St. Matthew. When adocument exists dealing with the same subject-matter as two otherdocuments, and those two other documents agree together and differfrom it on as many as 944 separate points, there can be littledoubt that in the great majority of those points it has deviatedfrom the original, and that it is therefore secondary incharacter. It is both secondary and secondary on a lower stagethan St. Mark: it has preserved the features of the original witha less amount of accuracy. The points of the triple synopsis onwhich Matthew fails to receive verification are in all 944; thoseon which Mark fails to receive verification 334; or, in otherwords, the inaccuracies of Matthew are to those of Mark nearly asthree to one. In the case of Luke the proportion is still greater--as much as five to one. 

This is but a tithe of the arguments which show that the firstGospel is a secondary composition. An original composition wouldbe homogeneous; it is markedly heterogeneous. The first twochapters clearly belong to a different stock of materials from therest of the Gospel. A broad division is seen in regard to the OldTestament quotations. Those which are common to the other twoSynoptists are almost if not quite uniformly taken from theSeptuagint; those, on the other hand, which seem to belong to thereflection of the Evangelist betray more or less distinctly theinfluence of the Hebrew [Endnote 153:1]. Our Gospel is thus seento be a recension of another original document or documents andnot an original document itself. 

Again, if our St. Matthew had been an original composition and hadappeared from the first in its present full and complete form, itwould be highly difficult to account for the omissions andvariations in Mark and Luke. We should be driven back, indeed, upon all the impossibilities of the 'Benutzungs-hypothese. ' On theone hand, the close resemblance between the three compels us toassume that the authors have either used each other's works orcommon documents; but the differences practically preclude thesupposition that the later writer had before him the whole work ofhis predecessor. If Luke had had before him the first two chaptersof Matthew he could not have written his own first two chapters ashe has done. 

Again, the character of the narrative is such as to be inconsistentwith the view that it proceeds from an eye-witness of the events. Those graphic touches, which are so conspicuous in the fourth Gospel, and come out from time to time in the second, are entirely wantingin the first. If parallel narratives, such as the healing of theparalytic, the cleansing of the Temple, or the feeding of the fivethousand, are compared, this will be very clearly seen. More; thereare features in the first Gospel that are to all appearance unhistoricaland due to the peculiar method of the writer. He has a way ofreduplicating, so to speak, the personages of one narrative inorder to make up for the omission of another [Endnote 154:1]. Forinstance, he is silent as to the healing of the demoniac at Capernaum, but, instead of this, he gives us two Gadarene demoniacs, at the sametime modifying the language in which he describes this latter incidentafter the pattern of the former; in like manner he speaks of thehealing of two blind men at Jericho, but only because he had passedover the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. Of a somewhat similarnature is the adding of the ass's colt to the ass in the accountof the Triumphal Entry. There are also fragmentary sayingsrepeated in the Gospel in a way that would be natural in a latereditor piecing together different documents and finding the samesaying in each, but unnatural in an eye- and ear-witness drawingupon his own recollections. Some clear cases of this kind would beMatt. V. 29, 30 (= Matt. Xviii. 8, 9) the offending member, Matt. V. 32 (= Matt. Xix. 9) divorce, Matt. X. 38, 39 (= Matt. Xvi. 24, 25) bearing the cross, loss and gain; and there are various others. 

These characteristics of the first Gospel forbid us to supposethat it came fresh from the hands of the Apostle in the shape inwhich we now have it; they also forbid us to identify it with thework alluded to by Papias. Neither of the two first Gospels, as wehave them, complies with the conditions of Papias' description tosuch an extent that we can claim Papias as a witness to them. 

 * * * * *

But now a further enquiry opens out upon us. The language ofPapias does not apply to our present Gospels; will it apply tosome earlier and more primary state of those Gospels, to documents_incorporated in_ the works that have come down to us but notco-extensive with them? German critics, it is well known, distinguish between 'Matthäus'--the present Gospel that bears thename of St. Matthew--and 'Ur-Matthäus, ' or the original work ofthat Apostle, 'Marcus'--our present St. Mark--and 'Ur-Marcus, ' anolder and more original document, the real production of thecompanion of St. Peter. Is it to these that Papias alludes?

Here we have a much more tenable and probable hypothesis. Papiassays that Matthew composed 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia]) inthe Hebrew tongue. The meaning of the word [Greek: logia] has beenmuch debated. Perhaps the strictest translation of it is thatwhich has been given, 'oracles'--short but weighty and solemn orsacred sayings. I should be sorry to say that the word would notbear the sense assigned to it by Dr. Westcott, who paraphrases itfelicitously (from his point of view) by our word 'Gospel'[Endnote 155:1]. It is, however, difficult to help feeling thatthe _natural_ sense of the word has to be somewhat strainedin order to make it cover the whole of our present Gospel, and tobring under it the record of facts to as great an extent asdiscourse. It seems at least the simplest and most obviousinterpretation to confine the word strictly or mainly todiscourse. 'Matthew composed the discourses (those brief yetauthoritative discourses) in Hebrew. '

At this point we are met by a further coincidence. The commonmatter in the first three Gospels is divided into a triplesynopsis and a double synopsis--the first of course runningthrough all three Gospels, the second found only in St. Matthewand St. Luke. But this double synopsis is nearly, though notquite, confined to discourse; where it contains narration proper, as in the account of John the Baptist and the Centurion ofCapernaum, discourse is largely mingled with it. But, if thematter common to Matthew and Luke consists of discourse, may itnot be these very [Greek: logia] that Papias speaks of? Is it notpossible that the two Evangelists had access to the original workof St. Matthew and incorporated its material into their ownGospels in different ways? It would thus be easy to understand howthe name that belonged to a special and important part of thefirst Gospel gradually came to be extended over the whole. Bulkwould not unnaturally be a great consideration with the earlyChristians. The larger work would quickly displace the smaller; itwould contain all that the smaller contained with additions noless valuable, and would therefore be eagerly sought by theconverts, whose object would be rather fulness of information thanthe best historical attestation. The original work would be simplylost, absorbed, in the larger works that grew out of it. 

This is the kind of presumption that we have for identifying theLogia of Papias with the second ground document of the firstGospel--the document, that is, which forms the basis of the doublesynopsis between the first Gospel and the third. As a hypothesisthe identification of these two documents seems to clear upseveral points. It gives a 'local habitation and a name' to adocument, the separate and independent existence of which there isstrong reason to suspect, and it explains how the name of St. Matthew came to be placed at the head of the Gospel withoutinvolving too great a breach in the continuity of the tradition. It should be remembered that Papias is not giving his ownstatement but that of the Presbyter John, which dates back to atime contemporary with the composition of the Gospel. On the otherhand, by the time of Irenaeus, whose early life ran parallel withthe closing years of Papias, the title was undoubtedly given tothe Gospel in its present form. It is therefore as difficult tothink that the Gospel had no connection with the Apostle whosename it bears, as it is impossible to regard it as entirely hiswork. The Logia hypothesis seems to suggest precisely such anintermediate relation as will satisfy both sides of the problem. 

There are, however, still difficulties in the way. When we attemptto reconstruct the 'collection of discourses' the task is very farfrom being an easy one. We do indeed find certain groups ofdiscourse in the first Gospel--such as the Sermon on the Mount ch. V-vii, the commission of the Apostles ch. X, a series of parablesch. Xiii, of instructions in ch. Xviii, invectives against thePharisees in ch. Xxvi, and long eschatological discourses in ch. Xxiv and xxv, which seem at once to give a handle to the theorythat the Evangelist has incorporated a work consisting speciallyof discourses into the main body of the Synoptic narrative. Butthe appearance of roundness and completeness which thesediscourses present is deceptive. If we are to suppose that theform in which the discourses appear in St. Matthew at all nearlyrepresents their original structure, then how is it that the samediscourses are found in the third Gospel in such a state ofdispersion? How is it, for instance, that the parallel passages tothe Sermon on the Mount are found in St. Luke scattered overchapters vi, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, with almost every possibleinversion and variety of order? Again, if the Matthaean sectionsrepresent a substantive work, how are we to account for thestrange intrusion of the triple synopsis into the double? What arewe to say to the elaborately broken structure of ch. X? On theother hand, if we are to take the Lucan form as nearer to theoriginal, that original must have been a singular agglomeration offragments which it is difficult to piece together. It is easy tostate a theory that shall look plausible so long as it is confinedto general terms, but when it comes to be worked out in detail itwill seem to be more and more difficult and involved at everystep. The Logia hypothesis in fact carries us at once into thevery nodus of Synoptic criticism, and, in the present state of thequestion, must be regarded as still some way from beingestablished. 

The problem in regard to St. Mark and the triple synopsis isconsiderably simpler. Here the difficulty arises from thenecessity of assuming a distinction between our present secondGospel and the original document on which that Gospel is based. Ihave already touched upon this point. The synoptical analysisseems to conduct us to a ground document greatly resembling ourpresent St. Mark, which cannot however be quite identical with it, as the Canonical Gospel is found to contain secondary features. But apart from the fact that these secondary features are socomparatively few that it is difficult to realise the existence ofa work in which they, and they only, should be absent, there isthis further obstacle to the identification even of the grounddocument with the Mark of Papias, that even in that original shapethe Gospel still presented the normal type of the Synoptic order, though 'order' is precisely the characteristic that Papias sayswas, in this Gospel, wanting. 

Everywhere we meet with difficulties and complexities. Thetestimony of Papias remains an enigma that can only be solved--ifever it is solved--by close and detailed investigations. I ambound in candour to say that, so far as I can see myself atpresent, I am inclined to agree with the author of 'SupernaturalReligion' against his critics [Endnote 159:1], that the works towhich Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in theirpresent form. 

What amount of significance this may have for the enquiry beforeus is a further question. Papias is repeating what he had heardfrom the Presbyter John, which would seem to take us up to thevery fountainhead of evangelical composition. But such a statementdoes not preclude the possibility of subsequent changes in thedocuments to which it refers. The difficulties and restrictions oflocal communication must have made it hard for an individual totrace all the phases of literary activity in a society so widelyspread as the Christian, even if it had come within the purpose ofthe writer or his informant to state the whole, and not merely theessential part, of what he knew. 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 

It is unfortunate that there are not sufficient materials fordetermining the date of the Clementine Homilies. Once given thedate and a conclusion of considerable certainty could be drawnfrom them; but the date is uncertain, and with it the extent towhich they can be used as evidence either on one side or on theother. 

Some time in the second century there sprang up a crop ofheretical writings in the Ebionite sect which were falselyattributed to Clement of Rome. The two principal forms in whichthese have come down to us are the so-called Homilies andRecognitions. The Recognitions however are only extant in a Latintranslation by Rufinus, in which the quotations from the Gospelshave evidently been assimilated to the Canonical text whichRufinus himself used. They are not, therefore, in any caseavailable for our purpose. Whether the Recognitions or theHomilies came first in order of time is a question much debatedamong critics, and the even way in which the best opinions seem tobe divided is a proof of the uncertainty of the data. On the oneside are ranged Credner, Ewald, Reuss, Schwegler, Schliemann, Uhlhorn, Dorner, and Lücke, who assign the priority to theHomilies: on the other, Hilgenfeld, Köstlin, Ritschl (doubtfully), and Volkmar, who give the first place to the Recognitions [Endnote162:1]. On the ground of authority perhaps the preference shouldbe given to the first of these, as representing more variedparties and as carrying with them the greater weight of soundjudgment, but it is impossible to say that the evidence on eitherside is decisive. 

The majority of critics assign the Clementines, in one form or theother, to the middle of the second century. Credner, Schliemann, Scholten, and Renan give this date to the Homilies; Volkmar andHilgenfeld to the Recognitions; Ritschl to both recensions alike[Endnote 162:2]. We shall assume hypothetically that the Homiliesare rightly thus dated. I incline myself to think that this ismore probable, but, speaking objectively, the probability couldnot have a higher value put upon it than, say, two in three. 

One reason for assigning the Homilies to the middle of the secondcentury is presented by the phenomena of the quotations from theGospels which correspond generally to those that are found inwritings of this date, and especially, as has been frequentlynoticed, to those which we meet with in Justin. I proceed to givea tabulated list of the quotations. In order to bring out a pointof importance I have indicated by a letter in the left margin thepresence in the Clementine quotations of some of the _peculiarities_of our present Gospels. When this letter is unbracketed, it denotesthat the passage is _only_ found in the Gospel so indicated; whenthe letter is enclosed in brackets, it is implied that the passageis synoptical, but that the Clementines reproduce expressions peculiarto that particular Gospel. The direct quotations are marked by theletter Q. Many of the references are merely allusive, and in moreit is sufficiently evident that the writer has allowed himselfconsiderable freedom [Endnote 163:1]. 

 _Exact. _ |_Slightly variant. _ | _Variant. _ | _Remarks. _ | | |(M. ) | |8. 21, Luke 4. 6-8 |narrative. | | (=Matt. 4. 8-10), | | | Q. | | |3. 55, [Greek: ho | | | ponaeros estin | | | ho peirazon. ], | | | Q. | | |15. 10, Matt. 5. 3; | | | Luke 6. 20. |M. |17. 7, Matt. 5. 8. | |(M. ) |3. 51 } Matt. 5. | |repeated |Ep. Pet. 2} 17, 18. | | identically. | |11. 32, Matt. 5. |highly condensed | | 21-48. | paraphrase, | | | [Greek: oi | | | en planae. ] | { Matt. 5. 44, | |allusive merely. |12. 32 { 45(=Luke | | |3. 19 {6. 27, 28, | | | {35). | |M. |3. 56, Matt. 5. 34, | | | 35, Q. | |M. |3. 55} Matt. 5. 37. | |repeated identi- |19. 2} Q. | | cally; so | | | Justin. (M. ) | |3. 57. Matt. 5. 45. | | | Q. | | | {|oblique and allu- | |12. 26 {| sive, repeated | |18. 2. {| in part simi- | |11. 12 {| larly; [Greek: | | {| pherei ton | | {| hueton]. M. |3. 55, Matt. 6, 6, Q. | |19. 2, Matt. 6. 13 | | | Q. | | |(M. ) |3. 55, Matt. 6. 32; | |combination. | 6. 8 (=Luke 12. 30. )| | | |18. 16, Matt. 7. 2 |oblique and allu- | | (12). | sive. |3. 52, Matt. 7. 7 | |[Greek: euris- | (=Luke 11. 9). | | kete] for | | | [euraeskete] | | | in both. (L. M. ) |3. 56, Matt. 7. 9-11 | |striking divi- | (=Luke 11. 11-13) | | sion of pecu- | | | liarities of | | | both Gospels. | |12. 32} Matt. 7. 12 |repeated di- | |7. 4 } (=Luke | versely, | |11. 4 } 6. 31. | allusive. (M. ) |18. 17, Matt. 7. |(omissions), Q. | | 13, 14. | | | |7. 7. Matt. 7. 13, |allusive para- | | 14. | phrase. (L. ) |8. 7, Luke 6. 46. | | |11. 35, Matt. 7. 15. | |Justin, in part | | | similarly, in | | | part diversely. (M. ) |8. 4, Matt. 8. 11, |(addition), Q. |Justin diversely. | 12 (Luke 13. 29). | | |9. 21, Matt. 8. 9 | |allusive merely. | (Luke 7. 8). | |(M. ) |3. 56, Matt. 9. 13 |(addition), Q. |from LXX. | (12. 7). | |(L. M. ) | | {Matt. 10. |{ | | { 13, 15= |{ | | { Luke 10. |{ | |13. 30, { 5, 6, 10- |{mixed pecu- | | 31. { 12 (9. 5) |{ liarities, | | { =Mark |{ oblique and | | { 6. 11. |{ allusive. (L. M. ) |17. 5, Matt. 10. 28 | |mixed peculia- | (=Luke 12, 4, 5), Q. | | rities; Justin | | | diversely. | |12. 31, Matt. 10. |allusive merely. | | 29, 30 (=Luke | | | 12. 6, 7). | |3. 17 {Matt. 11. 11. | |allusive. | {Luke 7. 28. | | |8. 6, Matt. 11. 25 |(addition)+. |perhaps from | (=Luke x. 21). | | Matt. 21. 16. (M. ) | |17. 4 } |{ | |18. 4 }Matt. 11. 27 |{repeated simi- | |18. 7 } (=Luke |{ larly; cp. | |18. 13} 10. 22), Q. |{ Justin, &c. | |18. 20} |M. 3. 52, Matt. | | |(M. ) |+19. 2. Matt. 12. | |[Greek: allae | 26, Q. | | pou. ](M. L. ) |+19. 7, Matt. 12. | | | 34 (=Luke 6. | | | 45), Q. | |M. 11. 33, Matt. |(addition), Q. | | 12. 42. | | | |11. 33, Matt. 12. | | | 41 (=Luke 11. | | | 32), Q. | |(M. L. ) |M. 53, Matt. 13. | | | 16 (=Luke 10. | | | 24), +Q. | |M. 18. 15, Matt. | | | 13. 35+. | | |Mk. |19. 20, Mark 4. 34. | |M. |19. 2, Matt. 13. | | |39, Q. | |M. 3. 52, Matt. 15. | | | 15 (om. [Greek:| | | mou]), Q. | | | | | {Matt. 15. |narrative. | |11. 19 {21-28 | | | {(=Mark |[Greek: Iousta | | {7. 24-30). | Surophoini- | | | kissa. ](M. ) |17. 18, Matt. 16. | | | 16 (par. ) | |M. | |Ep. Clem. 2, |allusive merely. | | Matt. 16. 19. |M. |Ep. Clem. 6, Matt. | |ditto. | 16. 19. | |(M. ) |3. 53, Matt. 17. 5 | | | (par. ), Q. | |M. | |12. 29, Matt. 18. |addition [Greek: | | 7, Q. | ta agatha | | | elthein. ]M. |17. 7, Matt. 18. 10 | | | (v. L. ) | |(L. ) 3. 71, Luke | | | 10. 7. (order) | | | (=Matt. 10. 10). | | |L. |+19. 2, Luke 10. 18. | |L. | |9. 22, Luke 10. 20. |allusive merely. L. | |17. 5, Luke 18. 6- | | | 8, Q. (?) | | |19. 2, [Greek: mae |Cp. Eph. 4. 27. | | dote prophasin | | | to ponaero], Q. | | |3. 53, Prophet like|Cp. Acts 3. 22. | | Moses, Q. |(M. ) |3. 54, Matt. 19. 8, | |sense more diver- | 4 (=Mark 10. 5, | | gent than | 6), Q. | | words. | | {Matt. 19. |} | |17. 4 { 16, 17. |} | |18. 1 {Mark 10. |}repeated simi- | |18. 3 { 17, 18. |} larly; cp. | |18. 17 {Luke 18. |} Justin. | | 3. 57 { 18, 19. |}L. | |3. 63, Luke 19. |not quotation. | | 5. 9. |M. 8. 4, Matt. 22. | | | 14, Q. | | |(M. ) | |8. 22, Matt. 22. 9. |allusive merely. | | 11. | | | 3. 50 {Matt. 22. |} | | 2. 51 {29 (=Mark |}repeated simi- | |18. 20 {12. 24), Q. |} larly. | | 3. 50, [Greek: | | | dia ti ou | | | eulogon ton | | | graphon;] |(Mk. ) 3. 55, Mark | | | 12. 27 (par. ), | | |Mk. 3. 57, Mark | | | 12. 29 [Greek: | | | haemon], Q. | | | | |17. 7, Mark 12. 30 |allusive. | | (=Matt. 22. 37). | {|3. 18, Matt. 23. 2, | |M. {| 3, Q. | | {| |3. 18, Matt. 23. 13 |repeated simi- {| | (=Luke 11. 52). | larly. | |18. 15. |(M. ) |11. 29, Matt. 23. | | | 25, 26, Q. | |(Mk. ) {|3. 15, Mark 13. 2 | | {|(par. ), Q. | | {| |3. 15, Matt. 24. 3 | {| | (par. ), Q. |L. {| |Luke 19. 43, Q. | | |16. 21, [Greek: | | | esontai pseud- | | | apostoloi]. |(M. ) |3. 60 (3. 64), Matt. | |part repeated | 24. 45-51 (= | | larly. | Luke 12. 42-46). | |(M. ) 3. 65, Matt. | | | 25. 21 (= Luke | | | 19. 17). | | |(M. L. ) | |3. 61, Matt. 25. 26, |? mixed peculi- | | 26, 27 (=Luke 19. | arities. | | 22, 23). | | | 2. 51}[Greek: | | | 3. 50} ginesthe | | |18. 20} trapezitai | | | } dokimoi. ] |M. | |19. 2. Matt. 25. |[Greek: allae | | 41, Q. | pou. ] Justin | | |L. |11. 20, Luke 23. 34 | | | (v. L. ), Q. | | | |17. 7, Matt. 28. 19. |allusive. 

By far the greater part of the quotations in the ClementineHomilies are taken from the discourses, but some few havereference to the narrative. There can hardly be said to be anymaterial difference from our Gospels, though several apocryphalsayings and some apocryphal details are added. Thus the Clementinewriter calls John a 'Hemerobaptist, ' i. E. Member of a sect whichpractised daily baptism [Endnote 167:1]. He talks about a rumourwhich became current in the reign of Tiberius about the 'vernalequinox, ' that at the same season a king should arise in Judaeawho should work miracles, making the blind to see, the lame towalk, healing every disease, including leprosy, and raising thedead; in the incident of the Canaanite woman (whom, with Mark, hecalls a Syrophoenician) he adds her name, 'Justa, ' and that of herdaughter 'Bernice;' he also limits the ministry of our Lord to oneyear [Endnote 168:1]. Otherwise, with the exception of the sayingsmarked as without parallel, all of the Clementine quotations havea more or less close resemblance to our Gospels. 

We are struck at once by the small amount of exact coincidence, which is considerably less than that which is found in thequotations from the Old Testament. The proportion seems lower thanit is, because many of the passages that have been entered in theabove list do not profess to be quotations. Another phenomenonequally remarkable is the extent to which the writer of theHomilies has reproduced the peculiarities of particular extantGospels. So far front being it a colourless text, as it is in somefew places which present a parallel to our Synoptic Gospels, theClementine version both frequently includes passages that arefound only in some one of the canonical Gospels, and also, we maysay usually, repeats the characteristic phrases by which oneGospel is distinguished from another. Thus we find that as many aseighteen passages reappear in the Homilies that are found only inSt. Matthew; one of the extremely few that are found only in St. Mark; and six of those that are peculiar to St. Luke. Taking thefirst Gospel, we find that the Clementine Homilies contain (in anallusive form) the promises to the pure in heart; as a quotation, with close resemblance, the peculiar precepts in regard to oaths;the special admonition to moderation of language which, as we haveseen, seems proved to be Matthaean by the clause [Greek: to garperisson touton k. T. L. ]; with close resemblance, again, thedirections for secret prayer; identically, the somewhat remarkablephrase, [Greek: deute pros me pantes hoi kopiontes]; all butidentically another phrase, also noteworthy, [Greek: pasa phuteiahaen ouk ephuteusen ho pataer [mou] ho ouranios ekrizothaesetai];with a resemblance that is closer in the text of B ([Greek: en toourano] for [Greek: en ouranois]), the saying respecting theangels who behold the face of the Father; identically again, thetext [Greek: polloi klaetoi, oligoi de eklektoi]: in the shape ofan allusion only, the wedding garment; with near agreement, 'theScribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. ' All these are passagesfound only in the first Gospel, and in regard to which there isjust so much presumption that they had no large circulation amongnon-extant Gospels, as they did not find their way into the twoother Gospels that have come down to us. 

There is, however, a passage that I have not mentioned here whichcontains (if the canonical reading is correct) a strong indicationof the use of our actual St. Matthew. The whole history of thispassage is highly curious. In the chapter which contains so manyparables the Evangelist adds, by way of comment, that this form ofaddress was adopted in order 'that it might be fulfilled which wasspoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; Iwill utter things which have been kept secret from the foundationof the world. ' This is according to the received text, whichattributes the quotation to 'the prophet' ([Greek: dia touprophaetou]). It is really taken from Ps. Lxxvii. 2, which isascribed in the heading to Asaph, who, according to the usage ofwriters at this date, might be called a prophet, as he is in theSeptuagint version of 2 Chron. Xxix. 30. The phrase [Greek: hoprophaetaes legei] in quotations from the Psalms is not uncommon. The received reading is that of by far the majority of the MSS. And versions: the first hand of the Sinaitic, however, and thevaluable cursives 1 and 33 with the Aethiopic (a version on whichnot much reliance can be placed) and m. Of the Old Latin (Mai's'Speculum, ' presenting a mixed African text) [Endnote 170:1], insert [Greek: Haesaiou] before [Greek: tou prophaetou]. It alsoappears that Porphyry alleged this as an instance of falseascription. Eusebius admits that it was found in some, though notin the most accurate MSS. , and Jerome says that in his day it wasstill the reading of 'many. '

All this is very fully and fairly stated in 'SupernaturalReligion' [Endnote 170:2], where it is maintained that [Greek:Haesaiou] is the original reading. The critical question is one ofgreat difficulty; because, though the evidence of the Fathers isnaturally suspected on account of their desire to explain away themistake, and though we can easily imagine that the correctionwould be made very early and would rapidly gain ground, still thevery great preponderance of critical authority is hard to getover, and as a rule Eusebius seems to be trustworthy in hisestimate of MSS. Tischendorf (in his texts of 1864 and 1869) is, Ibelieve, the only critic of late who has admitted [Greek:Haesaiou] into the text. 

The false ascription may be easily paralleled; as in Mark i. 2, Matt. Xxvii. 9, Justin, Dial. C. Tryph. 28 (where a passage ofJeremiah is quoted as Isaiah), &c. 

The relation of the Clementine and of the canonical quotations toeach other and to the Septuagint will be represented thus:-

_Clem. Hom. _ xviii. 15. 

[Greek: Kai ton Haesaian eipein; Anoixo to stoma mou en parabolaiskai exereuxomai kekrummena apo katabolaes kosmou. ]

_Matt. _ xiii. 35. 

[Greek: Hopos plaerothe to rhaethen dia [Haesaiou?] tou prophaetoulegontos; Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, ereuxomai kekrummenaapo katabolaes kosmou] [om. [Greek: kosmou] a few of the bestMSS. ]

LXX. _Ps. _ lxxvii. 2. 

[Greek: Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, phthegxomai problaemataap' archaes. ]

The author of 'Supernatural Religion' contends for the reading[Greek: Haesaiou], and yet does not see in the Clementine passagea quotation from St. Matthew. He argues, with a strange dominationby modern ideas, that the quotation cannot be from St. Matthewbecause of the difference of context, and declares it to be 'veryprobable that the passage with its erroneous reference was derivedby both from another and common source. ' Surely it is notnecessary to go back to the second century to find parallels forthe use of 'proof texts' without reference to the context; but, aswe have seen, context counts for little or nothing in these earlyquotations, --verbal resemblance is much more important. Thesupposition of a common earlier source for both the Canonical andthe Clementine text seems to me quite out of the question. Therecan be little doubt that the reference to the Psalm is due to thefirst Evangelist himself. Precisely up to this point he goes handin hand with St. Mark, and the quotation is introduced in his ownpeculiar style and with his own peculiar formula, [Greek: hoposplaerothae to rhaethen]. 

I must, however, again repeat that the surest criterion of the useof a Gospel is to be sought in the presence of phrases or turns ofexpression which are shown to be characteristic and distinctive ofthat Gospel by a comparison with the synopsis of the otherGospels. This criterion can be abundantly applied in the case ofthe Clementine Homilies and St. Matthew. I will notice a littlemore at length some of the instances that have been marked in theabove table. Let us first take the passage which has a parallel inMatt. V. 18 and in Luke xvi. 17. The three versions will standthus:--

_Matt. _ v. 18. 

[Greek: Amaen gar lego humin; heos an parelthae ho ouranos kai haegae iota en ae mia keraia ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou, heos anpanta genaetai. ]

_Clem. Hom. _ iii. 51. _Ep. Pet. _ c. 2. 

[Greek: Ho ouranos kai hae gae pareleusontai, iota en ae mia keraiaou mae parelthae apo tou nomou] [Ep. Pet. Adds [Greek: touto deeiraeken, hina ta panta genaetai]]. 

_Luke_ xvi. 17. 

[Greek: Eukopoteron de esti, ton ouranon kai taen gaen parelthein, ae tou nomou mian keraian pesein. ]

It will be seen that in the Clementines the passage is quotedtwice over, and each time with the variation [Greek pareleusontai]for [Greek: heos an parelthae]. The author of 'SupernaturalReligion' argues from this that he is quoting from another Gospel[Endnote 172:1]. No doubt the fact does tell, so far as it goes, in that direction, but it is easy to attach too much weight to it. The phenomenon of repeated variation may be even said to be acommon one in some writers. Dr. Westcott [Endnote 172:2] hasadduced examples from Chrysostom, and they would be as easy tofind in Epiphanius or Clement of Alexandria, where we can have nodoubt that the canonical Gospels are being quoted. A slight andnatural turn of expression such as this easily fixes itself in thememory. The author also insists that the passage in the Gospelquoted in the Clementines ended with the word [Green: nomou]; butI think it may be left to any impartial person to say whether theaddition in the Epistle of Peter does not naturally point to atermination such as is found in the first canonical Gospel. Ourcritic seems unable to free himself from the standpoint (which herepresents ably enough) of the modern Englishman, or else islittle familiar with the fantastic trains and connections ofreasoning which are characteristic of the Clementines. 

Turning from these objections and comparing the Clementinequotation first with the text of St. Matthew and then with that ofSt. Luke, we cannot but be struck with its very close resemblanceto the former and with the wide divergence of the latter. Thepassage is one where almost every word and syllable might easilyand naturally be altered--as the third Gospel shows that they havebeen altered--and yet in the Clementines almost every peculiarityof the Matthaean version has been retained. 

Another quotation which shows the delicacy of these verbalrelations is that which corresponds to Matt. Vi. 32 (= Luke xii. 30):--

_Matt. _ vi. 32. 

[Greek: Oide gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios, hoti chraezetetouton hapanton. ]

_Clem. Hom. _ iii. 55. 

[Greek: [ephae] Oiden gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios hotichraezete touton hapanton, prin auton axiosaete] (cp. Matt. Vi. 8). 

_Luke_ xii. 30. 

[Greek: Humon de ho pataer oiden hoti chraezete touton. ]

The natural inference from the exactness of this coincidence withthe language of Matthew as compared with Luke, is not neutralisedby the paraphrastic addition from Matt. Vi. 8, because suchadditions and combinations, as will have been seen from our tableof quotations from the Old Testament, are of frequent occurrence. 

The quotation of Matt. V. 45 (= Luke vi. 35) is a good example ofthe way in which the pseudo-Clement deals with quotations. Thepassage is quoted as often as four times, with wide difference andindeed complete confusion of text. It is impossible to determinewhat text he really had before him; but through all this confusionthere is traceable a leaning to the Matthaean type rather than theLucan, ([Greek: [ho] pat[aer ho] en [tois] ouranois ... Ton aelionautou anatellei epi agathous kai ponaerous]). It does, however, appear that he had some such phrase as [Greek: hueton pherei] or[Greek: parechei] for [Greek: brechei], and in one of his quotationshe has the [Greek: ginesthe agathoi] (for [Greek: chraestoi])[Greek: kai oiktirmones] of Justin. Justin, on the other hand, certainly had [Greek: brechei]. 

The, in any case, paraphrastic quotation or quotations which finda parallel in Matt. Vii. 13, 14 and Luke xiii. 24 are important asseeming to indicate that, if not taken from our Gospel, they aretaken from another in a later stage of formation. The characteristicMatthaean expressions [Greek: stenae] and [Greek: tethlimmenae] areretained, but the distinction between [Greek: pulae] and [Greek: hodos]has been lost, and both the epithets are applied indiscriminately to[Greek: hodos]. 

In the narrative of the confession of Peter, which belongs to thetriple synopsis, and is assigned by Ewald to the 'Collection ofDiscourses, ' [Endnote 174:1] by Weiss [Endnote 174:2] andHoltzmann [Endnote 175:1] to the original Gospel of St. Mark, theClementine writer follows Matthew alone in the phrase [Greek: Suei ho huios tou zontos Theou]. The synoptic parallels are--

_Matt. _ xvi. 16. 

[Greek: Su ei ho Christos, ho huios tou Theou tou zontos. ]

_Mark_ viii. 29. 

[Greek: Su ei ho Christos. ]

_Luke_ ix. 20. 

[Greek: ton Christon tou Theou. ]

Holtzmann and Weiss seem to agree (the one explicitly, the otherimplicitly) in taking the words [Greek: ho huios tou Theou touzontos] as an addition by the first Evangelist and as not a partof the text of the original document. In that case there would bethe strongest reason to think that the pseudo-Clement had made useof the canonical Gospel. Ewald, however, we may infer, from hisassigning the passage to the 'Collection of Discourses, ' regardsit as presented by St. Matthew most nearly in its original form, of which the other two synoptic versions would be abbreviations. If this were so, it would then be _possible_ that the Clementinequotation was made directly from the original document or from asecondary document parallel to our first Gospel. The question thatis opened out as to the composition of the Synoptics is one of greatdifficulty and complexity. In any case there is a balance of probability, more or less decided, in favour of the reference to our present Gospel. 

Another very similar instance occurs in the next section of thesynoptic narrative, the Transfiguration. Here again the ClementineHomilies insert a phrase which is only found in St. Matthew, [Greek: [Houtos estin mou ho huios ho agapaetos], eis hon]([Greek: en ho] Matt. ) [Greek: aeudokaesa]. Ewald and Holtzmannsay nothing about the origin of this phrase; Weiss [Endnote 176:1]thinks it is probably due to the first Evangelist. In that casethere would be an all but conclusive proof--in any case there willbe a presumption--that our first Gospel has been followed. 

But one of the most interesting, as well as the clearest, indications of the use of the first Synoptic is derived from thediscourse directed against the Pharisees. It will be well to givethe parallel passages in full:--

_Matt. _ xxiii. 25, 26. 

[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hotikatharizete to exothen tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, esothende gemousin ex harpagaes kai adikias. Pharisaie tuphle, katharisonproton to entos tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, hina genaetaikai to ektos auton katharon. ]

_Clem. Hom. _ xi. 29. 

[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hotikatharizete tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to exothen, esothende gemei rhupous. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison proton toupotaeriou kai taes paropsidos to esothen, hina genaetai kai ta exoauton kathara. ]

_Luke_ xi. 39. 

[Greek: Nun humeis hoi Pharisaioi to exothen tou potaerion kai toupinakos katharizete, to de esothen humon gemei harpagaes kaiponaerias. Aphrones ouch ho poiaesas to exothen kai to esothenepoiaese?]

Here there is a very remarkable transition in the first Gospelfrom the plural to the singular in the sudden turn of the address, [Greek: Pharisaie tuphle]. This derives no countenance from thethird Gospel, but is exactly reproduced in the ClementineHomilies, which follow closely the Matthaean version throughout. 

We may defer for the present the notice of a few passages whichwith a more or less close resemblance to St. Matthew also containsome of the peculiarities of St. Luke. 

Taking into account the whole extent to which the specialpeculiarities of the first Gospel reappear in the Clementines, Ithink we shall be left in little doubt that that Gospel has beenactually used by the writer. 

The peculiar features of our present St. Mark are known to beextremely few, yet several of these are also found in theClementine Homilies. In the quotation Mark x. 5, 6 (= Matt. Xix. 8, 4) the order of Mark is followed, though the words are morenearly those of Matthew. In the divergent quotation Mark xii. 24(= Matt. Xxii. 29) the Clementines, with Mark, introduce [Greek:dia touto]. The concluding clause of the discussion about theLevirate marriage stands (according to the best readings) thus:--

_Matt. _ xxii. 32. 

[Greek: Ouk estin ho Theos nekron, alla zonton. ]

_Mark_ xii. 27. 

[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton. ]

_Luke_ xx. 38. 

[Greek: Theos de ouk estin nekron, alla zonton. ]

_Clem. Hom. _ iii. 55. 

[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton. ]

Here [Greek: Theos] is in Mark and the Clementines a predicate, in Matthew the subject. In the introduction to the Eschatologicaldiscourse the Clementines approach more nearly to St. Mark than toany other Gospel: [Greek: Horate] ([Greek: blepeis], Mark) [Greek:tas] ([Greek: megalas], Mark) [Greek: oikodomas tautas; amaenhumin lego] (as Matt. ) [Greek: lithos epi lithon ou mae aphethaeode, hos ou mae] (as Mark) [Greek: kathairethae] ([Greek:kataluthae], Mark; other Gospels, future). Instead of [Greek: tasoikodomas toutas] the other Gospels have [Greek: tauta--tautapanta]. 

But there are two stronger cases than these. The Clementines andMark alone have the opening clause of the quotation from Deut. Vi. 4, [Greek: Akoue, Israael, Kurios ho Theos haemon kurios eisestin]. In the synopsis of the first Gospel this is omitted (Matt. Xxii. 37). There is a variation in the Clementine text, which for[Greek: haemon] has, according to Dressel, [Greek: sou], and, according to Cotelier, [Greek: humon]. Both these readings howeverare represented among the authorities for the canonical text:[Greek: sou] is found in c (Codex Colbertinus, one of the bestcopies of the Old Latin), in the Memphitic and Aethiopic versions, and in the Latin Fathers Cyprian and Hilary; [Greek: humon](vester) has the authority of the Viennese fragment i, anotherrepresentative of the primitive African form of the Old Latin[Endnote 178:1]. 

The objection to the inference that the quotation is made from St. Mark, derived from the context in which it appears in theClementines, is really quite nugatory. It is true that thequotation is addressed to those 'who were beguiled to imagine manygods, ' and that 'there is no hint of the assertion of many gods inthe Gospel' [Endnote 178:2]; but just as little hint is there ofthe assertion 'that God is evil' in the quotation [Greek: mae melegete agathon] just before. There is not the slightest reason tosuppose that the Gospel from which the Clementines quote wouldcontain any such assertion. In this particular case the mode ofquotation cannot be said to be very unscrupulous; but even if itwere more so we need not go back to antiquity for parallels: theyare to be found in abundance in any ordinary collection of prooftexts of the Church Catechism or of the Thirty-nine Articles, orin most works of popular controversy. I must confess to mysurprise that such an objection could be made by an experiencedcritic. 

Credner [Endnote 179:1] gives the last as the one decidedapproximation to our second Gospel, apparently overlooking theminor points mentioned above; but, at the time when he wrote, theconcluding portion of the Homilies, which contains the other moststriking instance, had not yet been published. With regard to thissecond instance, I must express my agreement with Canon Westcott[Endnote 179:2] against the author of 'Supernatural Religion. ' Thepassage stands thus in the Clementines and the Gospel:--

_Clem. Hom. _ xix. 20. 

[Greek: Dio kai tois autou mathaetais kat' idian epelue taes tonouranon basileias ta mustaeria. ]

_Mark_ iv. 34. 

... [Greek: kat' idian de tois mathaetais autou epeluen panta](compare iv. 11, [Greek: humin to mustaerion dedotai taesbasileias tou Theou]). 

 The canonical reading, [Greek: tois mathaetais autou], restschiefly upon Western authority (D, b, c, e, f, Vulg. ) with A, 1, 33, &c. And is adopted by Tregelles--it should be noted before thediscovery of the Codex Sinaiticus. The true reading is probablythat which appears in this MS. Along with B, C, L, [Greek: Deltasymbol], [Greek: tois idiois mathaetais]. We have however alreadyseen the leaning of the Clementines for Western readings. 

When we compare the synopsis of St. Mark and St. Matthew togetherwe should be inclined to set this down as a very decided instanceof quotation from the former. The only circumstance that detractsfrom the certainty of this conclusion is that a quotation had beenmade just before which is certainly not from our canonicalGospels, [Greek: ta mustaeria emoi kai tois huiois tou oikou mouphulaxate]. This is rightly noted in 'Supernatural Religion. ' Allthat we can say is that it is a drawback--it is just a makeweightin the opposite scale, as suggesting that the second quotation maybe also from an apocryphal Gospel; but it does not by any meansserve to counterbalance the presumption that the quotation iscanonical. The coincidence of language is very marked. Thepeculiar compound [Greek: epiluo] occurs only once besides([Greek: epilusis] also once) in the whole of the New Testament, and not at all in the Gospels. 

With the third Gospel also there are coincidences. Of the passagespeculiar to this Gospel the Clementine writer has the fall ofSatan ([Greek: ton ponaeron], Clem. ) like lightning from heaven, 'rejoice that your names are written in the book of life'(expanded with evident freedom), the unjust judge, Zacchaeus, thecircumvallation of Jerusalem, and the prayer, for the forgivenessof the Jews, upon the cross. It is unlikely that these passages, which are wanting in all our extant Gospels, should have had anyother source than our third Synoptic. The 'circumvallation'([Greek: pericharakosousin] Clem. , [Greek: peribalousin charaka]Luke) is especially important, as it is probable, and believed bymany critics, that this particular detail was added by theEvangelist after the event. The parable of the unjust judge, though reproduced with something of the freedom to which we areaccustomed in patristic narrative quotations both from the Old andNew Testament, has yet remarkable similarities of style anddiction ([Greek: ho kritaes taes adikias, poiaesei taen ekdikaesinton boonton pros auton haemeras kai nuktos, Lego humin, poaesei... En tachei). ]

We have to add to these another class of peculiarities which occurin places where the synoptic parallel has been preserved. Thus inthe Sermon on the Mount we find the following:--

_Matt. _ vii. 21. 

[Greek: Ou pas ho legon moi, Kurie, Kurie, eiseleusetai eis taenbasileian ton ouranon, all' ho poion to thelaema tou patros moutou en ouranois]

_Clem. Hom. _ viii. 7. 

[Greek: Ti me legeis Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poieis a lego;]

_Luke, _ vi. 46. 

[Greek: Ti de me kaleite Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poeite a lego;]

This is one of a class of passages which form the _cruces_of Synoptic criticism. It is almost equally difficult to think andnot to think that both the canonical parallels are drawn from thesame original. The great majority of German critics maintain thatthey are, and most of these would seek that original in the'Spruchsammlung' or 'Collection of Discourses' by the Apostle St. Matthew. This is usually (though not quite unanimously) held tohave been preserved most intact in the first Gospel. But if so, the Lucan version represents a wide deviation from the original, and precisely in proportion to the extent of that deviation is theprobability that the Clementine quotation is based upon it. Themore the individuality of the Evangelist has entered into the formgiven to the saying the stronger is the presumption that his worklay before the writer of the Clementines. In any case thedifference between the Matthaean and Lucan versions shows whatvarious shapes the synoptic tradition naturally assumed, and makesit so much the less likely that the coincidence between St. Lukeand the Clementines is merely accidental. 

Another similar case, in which the issue is presented veryclearly, is afforded by the quotation, 'The labourer is worthy ofhis hire. '

_Matt. _ x. 11. 

[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes taes trophaes autou estin. ]

_Clem. Hom. _ iii. 71. 

[Greek: [lagisamenoi hoti] axios estin ho ergataes tou misthouautou;]

_Luke_ x. 7. 

[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes tou misthou autou esti. ]

Here, if the Clementine writer had been following the firstGospel, he would have had [Greek: trophaes] and not [Greek:misthou]; and the assumption that there was here a non-extantGospel coincident with St. Luke is entirely gratuitous and, to anextent, improbable. 

Besides these, it will be seen, by the tables given above, thatthere are as many as eight passages in which the peculiarities notonly of one but of both Gospels (the first and third) appearsimultaneously. Perhaps it may be well to give examples of thesebefore we make any comment upon them. We may thus take--

_Matt. _ vii. 9-11. 

[Greek: Ae tis estin ex humon anthropos, hon ean aitaesae ho huiosautou arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; kai ean ichthun aitaesaemae ophin epidosei auto; ei oun humeis ponaeroi ontes oidatedomata agatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataerhumon ho en tois ouranois dosei agatha tois aitousin auton;]

_Clem. Hom. _ iii. 56. 

[Greek: Tina aitaesei huios arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; aekai ichthun aitaesei, mae ophin epidosei auto; ei oun humeis, ponaeroi ontes, oidate domata agatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer humon ho ouranios dosei agatha toisaitoumenois auton kai tois poiousin to thelema autou;]

_Luke_ xi. 11-13. 

[Greek: Tina de ex humon ton matera aitaesei ho huios arton, maelithon epidosei auto; ae kai ichthun, mae anti ichthuos ophinepidosei auto, ae kai ean aitaeoae oon, mae epidosei autoskorpion; ei oun humeis, ponaeroi humarchontes, oidate domataagatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer ho exouranou dosei pneuma hagion tois aitousin auton;]

In the earlier part of this quotation the Clementine writer seemsto follow the third Gospel ([Greek: tina aitaesei, hae kai]); inthe later part the first (omission of the antithesis between theegg and the scorpion, [Greek: ontes, dosei agatha]). The twoGospels are combined against the Clementines in [Greek: hex humon]and the simpler [Greek: tois aitousin auton]. The second exampleshall be--

_Matt. _ x. 28. 

[Greek: Kai mae thobeisthe hapo ton aposteinonton to soma, taen depsuchaen mae dunamenon aposteinan thobeisthe de mallon tondunamaenon kai psuchaen kai soma apolesai en geennae. ]

_Clem. Hom. _ xviii. 5. 

[Greek: Mae phobaethaete apo tou aposteinontos to soma tae depsuchae mae dunamenou ti poiaesai phobaethaete tou dunamenon kaisoma kai psuchaen eis taen geennan tou puros balein. Nai, legohumin, touton phobaethaete. ]

_Luke xii. _ 4, 5. [Greek: Mae phobaethaete apo tonaposteinonton to soma kai meta tauta mae echonton perissoteron tipoiaesai. Hupodeixo de humin tina phobaethaete phobaethaete tonmeta to aposteinai echonta exousian embalein eis ton geennan nai, lego humin, touton phobaethaete. ]

In common with Matthew the Clementines have [Greek: tae depsuchae] (acc. Matt. ) ... [Greek: dunamenon]([Greek: -on] Matt. ), and [Greek: dunamenon kai soma kai psuchaen] (in inverted order, Matt. ); in common with Luke [Greek: mae phobaethaete, ti poiaesai, [em]balein eis], and the clause [Greek: nai k. T. L. ] The twoGospels agree against the Clementines in the plural [Greek: tonaposteinonton. ]

One more longer quotation:--

_Matt. _ xxiv. 45-51. 

[Greek: Tis ara estin ho pistos doulos kai phronimos, honkatestaesen ho kurios autou epi taes therapeias autou tou dounaiautois taen trophaen en kairo? makarios ho doulos ekeinos honelthon ho kurios autou heuraesei houto poiounta ... Ean de eipaeho kakos doulos ekeinos en tae kardia autou; chronizei mou hokurios, kai arxaetai tuptein tous sundoulous autou esthiae de kaipinae meta ton methuonton, haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou enhaemera hae ou prosdoka kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kaidichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton hupokritonthaesei. ]

_Clem. Hom. _ iii. 60. 

[Greek: Theou gar boulae anadeiknutai makarios ho anthroposekeinos hon katastaesei ho kurios autou epi taes therapeias tonsundoulon hautou, tou didonai autois tas trophas en kairo auton, mae ennooumenon kai legonta en tae kardia autou; chronizei hokurios mou elthein; kai arxaetai tuptein tous sundoulous autou, esthion kai pinon meta te pornon kai methuonton; kai haexei hokurios tou doulou ekeinou en hora hae ou prosdoka kai en haemerahae ou ginoskei, kai dichotomaesei auton, kai to apistoun autoumeros meta ton hupokriton thaesei. ]

_Luke_ xii. 42-45. 

[Greek: Tis ara estin ho pistos oikonomos kai phronimos, honkatastaesei ho kurios epi taes therapeias autou, tou didonai enkairo to sitometrion? makarios ho doulos ekeinos, hon elthon hokurios autou heuraesei poiounta hautos ... Ean de eipae ho doulosekeinos en tae kardia autou; chronizei ho kurios mou erchesthai;kai arxaetai tuptein tous paidas kai tas paidiskas, esthiein tekai pinein kai methuskesthai; haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinouen haemera hae ou prosdoka, kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kaidichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton apiston thaesei. ]

I have given this passage in full, in spite of its length, because it is interesting and characteristic; it might indeedalmost be said to be typical of the passages, not only in theClementine Homilies, but also in other writers like Justin, whichpresent this relation of double similarity to two of theSynoptics. It should be noticed that the passage in the Homiliesis not introduced strictly as a quotation but is interwoven withthe text. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that theopening clause, [Greek: Makarios ... Sundolous autou], recursidentically about thirty lines lower down. We observe that of thepeculiarities of the first Synoptic the Clementines have [Greek:doulos] ([Greek: oikonomos], Luke), [Greek: [ho kurios] autou, taen trophaen] ([Greek: tas trophas], Clem. ; Luke, characteristically, [Greek: to sitometrion]), the order of [Greek: en kairo, toussundolous autou] ([Greek: tous paidas kai tas paidiskas], Luke), [Greek: meta ... Methuonton], and [Greek: hupokriton] for[Greek: apiston]. Of the peculiarities of the third Synopticthe Clementines reproduce the future [Greek: katastaesei], thepresent [Greek: didonai], the insertion of [Greek: elthein]([Greek: erchesthai], Luke) after [Greek: chronizei], the orderof the words in this clause, and a trace of the word [Greek: apiston]in [Greek: to apistoun autou meros]. The two Gospels support eachother in most of the places where the Clementines depart from them, and especially in the two verses, one of which is paraphrased andthe other omitted. 

Now the question arises, What is the origin of this phenomenon ofdouble resemblance? It may be caused in three ways: either it mayproceed from alternate quoting of our two present Gospels; or itmay proceed from the quoting of a later harmony of those Gospels;or, lastly, it may proceed from the quotation of a documentearlier than our two Synoptics, and containing both classes ofpeculiarities, those which have been dropped in the first Gospelas well as those which have been dropped in the third, as we findto be frequently the case with St. Mark. 

Either of the first two of these hypotheses will clearly suit thephenomena; but they will hardly admit of the third. It does indeedderive a very slight countenance from the repetition of thelanguage of the last quotation: this repetition, however, occursat too short an interval to be of importance. But the theory thatthe Clementine writer is quoting from a document older than thetwo Synoptics, and indeed their common original, is excluded bythe amount of matter that is common to the two Synoptics andeither not found at all or found variantly in the Clementines. Thecoincidence between the Synoptics, we may assume, is derived fromthe fact that they both drew from a common original. Thephraseology in which they agree is in all probability that of theoriginal document itself. If therefore this phraseology is wantingin the Clementine quotations they are not likely to have beendrawn directly from the document which underlies the Synoptics. This conclusion too is confirmed by particulars. In the firstquotation we cannot set down quite positively the Clementineexpansion of [Greek: tois aitousin auton] as a later form, thoughit most probably is so. But the strange and fantastic phrase inthe last quotation, [Greek: to apistoun auton meros meta tonhupokriton thaesei], is almost certainly a combination of the[Greek: hupokriton] of Matthew with a distorted reminiscence of the[Greek: apiston] of Luke. 

We have then the same kind of choice set before us as in the caseof Justin. Either the Clementine writer quotes our presentGospels, or else he quotes some other composition later than them, and which implies them. In other words, if he does not bearwitness to our Gospels at first hand, he does so at second hand, and by the interposition of a further intermediate stage. It isquite possible that he may have had access to such a tertiarydocument, and that it may be the same which is the source of hisapocryphal quotations: that he did draw from apocryphal sources, partly perhaps oral, but probably in the main written, there can, I think, be little doubt. Neither is it easy to draw the line andsay exactly what quotations shall be referred to such sources andwhat shall not. The facts do not permit us to claim the exclusiveuse of the canonical Gospels. But that they were used, mediatelyor immediately and to a greater or less degree, is, I believe, beyond question. 

CHAPTER VII

BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS. 

Still following the order of 'Supernatural Religion, ' we passwith the critic to another group of heretical writers in theearlier part of the second century. In Basilides the Gnostic wehave the first of a chain of writers who, though not holding theorthodox tradition of doctrine, yet called themselves Christians(except under the stress of persecution) and used the Christianbooks--whether or to what extent the extant documents ofChristianity we must now endeavour to determine. 

Basilides carries us back to an early date in point of time. Hetaught at Alexandria in the reign of Hadrian (117-137 A. D. ). Hippolytus expounds at some length, and very much in their ownwords, the doctrines of Basilides and his school. There is asomewhat similar account by Epiphanius, and more incidentalallusions in Clement of Alexandria and Origen. 

The notices that have come down to us of the writings of Basilidesare confusing. Origen says that 'he had the effrontery to composea Gospel and call it by his own name' [Endnote 188:1]. Eusebiusquotes from Agrippa Castor, a contemporary and opponent from theorthodox side, a statement that 'he wrote four and twenty books(presumably of commentary) upon the Gospel' [Endnote 189:1]. Clement of Alexandria gives rather copious extracts from thetwenty-third of these books, to which he gave the name of'Exegetics' [Endnote 189:2]. 

Tischendorf assumes, in a manner that is not quite so 'arbitraryand erroneous' [Endnote 189:3] as his critic seems to suppose, thatthis Commentary was upon our four Gospels. It is not altogether clearhow far Eusebius is using the words of Agrippa Castor and how farhis own. If the latter, there can be no doubt that he understoodthe statement of Agrippa Castor as Tischendorf understands his, i. E. As referring to our present Gospels; but supposing his wordsto be those of the earlier writer, it is possible that, comingfrom the orthodox side, they may have been used in the sense whichTischendorf attributes to them. There can be no question thatIrenaeus used [Greek: to euangelion] for the canonical Gospelscollectively, and Justin Martyr may _perhaps_ have done so. Tischendorf himself does not maintain that it refers to our Gospels_exclusively_. Practically the statements in regard to theCommentary of Basilides lead to nothing. 

Neither does it appear any more clearly what was the nature of theGospel that Basilides wrote. The term [Greek: euangelion] had atechnical metaphysical sense in the Basilidian sect and was usedto designate a part of the transcendental Gnostic revelations. TheGospel of Basilides may therefore, as Dr. Westcott suggests, reasonably enough, have had a philosophical rather than a historicalcharacter. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' censures Dr. Westcottfor this suggestion [Endnote 189:4], but a few pages further onhe seems to adopt it himself, though he applies it strangely tothe language of Eusebius or Agrippa Castor and not to Basilides'own work. 

In any case Hippolytus expressly says that, after the generationof Jesus, the Basilidians held 'the other events in the life ofthe Saviour followed as they are written in the Gospels' [Endnote190:1]. There is no reason at all to suppose that there was abreach of continuity in this respect between Basilides and hisschool. And if his Gospel really contained substantially the sameevents as ours, it is a question of comparatively secondaryimportance whether he actually made use of those Gospels or no. 

It is rather remarkable that Hippolytus and Epiphanius, whofurnish the fullest accounts of the tenets of Basilides (and hisfollowers), say nothing about his Gospel: neither does Irenaeus orClement of Alexandria; the first mention of it is in Origen'sHomily on St. Luke. This shows how unwarranted is the assumptionmade in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 190:2] that becauseHippolytus says that Basilides appealed to a secret tradition heprofessed to have received from Matthias, and Eusebius that he setup certain imaginary prophets, 'Barcabbas and Barcoph, ' hetherefore had no other authorities. The statement that he'absolutely ignores the canonical Gospels altogether' and does not'recognise any such works as of authority, ' is much in excess ofthe evidence. All that this really amounts to is that neitherHippolytus nor Eusebius say in so many words that Basilides diduse our Gospels. It would be a fairer inference to argue fromtheir silence, and still more from that of the 'malleushaereticorum' Epiphanius, that he did not in this depart from theorthodox custom; otherwise the Fathers would have been sure tocharge him with it, as they did Marcion. It is really I believe anot very unsafe conclusion, for heretical as well as orthodoxwriters, that where the Fathers do not say to the contrary, theyaccepted the same documents as themselves. 

The main questions that arise in regard to Basilides are two:(1) Are the quotations supposed to be made by him really his?(2) Are they quotations from our Gospels?

The doubt as to the authorship of the quotations applies chieflyto those which occur in the 'Refutation of the Heresies' byHippolytus. This writer begins his account of the Basilidiantenets by saying, 'Let us see here how Basilides along withIsidore and his crew belie Matthias, ' [Endnote 191:1] &c. He goeson using for the most part the singular [Greek: phaesin], butsometimes inserting the plural [Greek: kat' autous]. Accordingly, it has been urged that quotations which are referred to the headof the school really belong to his later followers, and theattempt has further been made to prove that the doctrinesdescribed in this section of the work of Hippolytus are later intheir general character than those attributed to Basilideshimself. This latter argument is very fine drawn, and will notbear any substantial weight. It is, however, probably true that aconfusion is sometimes found between the 'eponymus, ' as it were, of a school and his followers. Whether that has been the case hereis a question that we have not sufficient data for decidingpositively. The presumption is against it, but it must be admittedto be possible. It seems a forced and unnatural position tosuppose that the disciples would go to one set of authorities andthe master to another, and equally unnatural to think that a latercritic, like Hippolytus, would confine himself to the works ofthese disciples and that in none of the passages in whichquotations are introduced he has gone to the fountain head. We maydecline to dogmatise; but probability is in favour of thesupposition that some at least of the quotations given byHippolytus come directly from Basilides. 

Some of the quotations discussed in 'Supernatural Religion' areexpressly assigned to the school of Basilides. Thus Clement ofAlexandria, in stating the opinion which this school held on thesubject of marriage, says that they referred to our Lord's saying, 'All men cannot receive this, ' &c. 

_Strom. _ iii. I. 1. 

[Greek: Ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton, eisi gar eunouchoi oimen ek genetaes oi de ex anankaes. ]

_Matt. _ xix. 11, 12. 

[Greek: Ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton, all' ois dedotai, eisin gar eunouchoi oitines ek kiolias maetros egennaethaesanoutos, kai eisin eunouchoi oitines eunouchisthaesan hupo tonanthropon, k. T. L. ]

The reference of this to St. Matthew is far from being so'preposterous' [Endnote 192:1] as the critic imagines. The use ofthe word [Greek: chorein] in this sense is striking and peculiar:it has no parallel in the New Testament, and but slight and fewparallels, as it appears from the lexicons and commentators, inprevious literature. The whole phrase is a remarkable one and theverbal coincidence exact, the words that follow are an easy andnatural abridgment. On the same principles on which it is deniedthat this is a quotation from St. Matthew it would be easy toprove _a priori_ that many of the quotations in Clement ofAlexandria could not be taken from the canonical Gospels which, weknow, _are_ so taken. 

The fact that this passage is found among the Synoptics only inSt. Matthew must not count for nothing. The very small number ofadditional facts and sayings that we are able to glean from thewriters who, according to 'Supernatural Religion, ' have usedapocryphal Gospels so freely, seems to be proof that our presentGospels were (as we should expect) the fullest and mostcomprehensive of their kind. If, then, a passage is found only inone of them, it is fair to conclude, not positively, but probably, that it is drawn from some special source of information that wasnot widely diffused. 

The same remarks hold good respecting another quotation found inEpiphanius, which also comes under the general head of [Greek:Basileidianoi], though it is introduced not only by the singular[Greek: phaesin] but by the definite [Greek: phaesin ho agurtaes]. Here the Basilidian quotation has a parallel also peculiar to St. Matthew, from the Sermon on the Mount. 

_Epiph. Haer_. 72 A. 

[Greek: Mae bagaete tous margaritas emprosthen ton choiron, maededote to hagion tois kusi. ]

_Matt_ vii. 6. 

[Greek: Mae dote to hagion tois kusin, maede bagaete tousmargaritas humon emprosthen ton choiron. ] The excellentAlexandrine cursive I, with some others, has [Greek: dóte] for[Greek: dôte]

The transposition of clauses, such as we see here, is by no meansan infrequent phenomenon. There is a remarkable instance of it--togo no further--in the text of the benedictions with which theSermon on the Mount begins. In respect to the order of the twoclauses, 'Blessed are they that mourn' and 'Blessed are the meek, 'there is a broad division in the MSS. And other authorities. Forthe received order we find [Hebrew: aleph;], B, C, 1, the mass ofuncials and cursives, b, f, Syrr. Pst. And Hcl. , Memph. , Arm. , Aeth. ; for the reversed order, 'Blessed are the meek' and 'Blessedare they that mourn, ' are ranged D, 33, Vulg. , a, c, f'1, g'1, h, k, l, Syr. Crt. , Clem. , Orig. , Eus. , Bas. (?), Hil. The balance isprobably on the side of the received reading, as the opposingauthorities are mostly Western, but they too make a formidablearray. The confusion in the text of St. Luke as to the earlyclauses of the Lord's Prayer is well known. But if such things aredone in the green tree, if we find these variations in MSS. Whichprofess to be exact transcripts of the same original copy, howmuch more may we expect to find them enter into mere quotationsthat are often evidently made from memory, and for the sake of thesense, not the words. In this instance however the verbalresemblance is very close. As I have frequently said, to speak ofcertainties in regard to any isolated passage that does notpresent exceptional phenomena is inadmissible, but I have littlemoral doubt that the quotation was really derived from St. Matthew, and there is quite a fair probability that it was made byBasilides himself. 

The Hippolytean quotations, the ascription of which to Basilidesor to his school we have left an open question, will assume aconsiderable importance when we come to treat of the externalevidence for the fourth Gospel. Bearing upon the Synoptic Gospels, we find an allusion to the star of the Magi and an exact verbalquotation (introduced with [Greek: to eiraemenon]) of Luke i. 35, [Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamis hupsistouepiskiasei soi]. Both these have been already discussed withreference to Justin. All the other Gospels in which the star ofthe Magi is mentioned belong to a later stage of formation thanSt. Matthew. The very parallelism between St. Matthew and St. Lukeshows that both Gospels were composed at a date when varioustraditions as to the early portions of the history were current. No doubt secondary, or rather tertiary, works, like theProtevangelium of James, came to be composed later; but it is notbegging the question to say that if the allusion is made byBasilides, it is not likely that at that date he should quote anyother Gospel than St. Matthew, simply because that is the earliestform in which the story of the Magi has come down to us. 

The case is stronger in regard to the quotation from St. Luke. InJustin's account of the Annunciation to Mary there was acoincidence with the Protevangelium and a variation from thecanonical text in the phrase [Greek: pneuma kuriou] for [Greek:pneuma hagion]; but in the Basilidian quotation the canonical textis reproduced syllable for syllable and letter for letter, which, when we consider how sensitive and delicate these verbal relationsare, must be taken as a strong proof of identity. The reader maybe reminded that the word [Greek: episkiazein], the phrase [Greek:dunamism hupsistou], and the construction [Greek: eperchesthaiepi], are all characteristic of St. Luke: [Greek; episkiazein]occurs once in the triple synopsis and besides only here and inActs v. 15: [Greek: hupsistos] occurs nine times in St. Luke'swritings and only four times besides; it is used by the Evangelistespecially in phrases like [Greek: uios, dunamis, prophaetaes, doulos hupsistou], to which the only parallel is [Greek: hiereustou Theou tou hupsistou] in Heb. Vii. 1. The construction of[Greek: eperchesthai] with [Greek: epi] and the accusative isfound five times in the third Gospel and the Acts and not at allbesides in the New Testament; indeed the participial form, [Greek:eperchomenos] (in the sense of 'future'), is the only shape inwhich the word appears (twice) outside the eight times that itoccurs in St. Luke's writings. This is a body of evidence thatmakes it extremely difficult to deny that the Basilidian quotationhas its original in the third Synoptic. 

 2. 

The case in regard to Valentinus, the next great Gnostic leader, who came forward about the year 140 A. D. , is very similar to thatof Basilides, though the balance of the argument is slightlyaltered. It is, on the one hand, still clearer that the greaterpart of the evangelical references usually quoted are really fromour present actual Gospels, but, on the other hand, there is amore distinct probability that these are to be assigned rather tothe School of Valentinus than to Valentinus himself. 

The supposed allusion to St. John we shall pass over for thepresent. 

There is a string of allusions in the first book of Irenaeus, 'Adv. Haereses, ' to the visit of Jesus as a child to the Passover(Luke ii. 42), the jot or tittle of Matt. V. 18, the healing ofthe issue of blood, the bearing of the cross (Luke xiv. 27 par. ), the sending of a sword and not peace, 'his fan is in his hand, 'the salt and light of the world, the healing of the centurion'sservant, of Jairus' daughter, the exclamations upon the cross, thecall of the unwilling disciples, Zacchaeus, Simon, &c. We may takeit, I believe, as admitted, and it is indeed quite indisputable, that these are references to our present Gospels; but there is thefurther question whether they are to be attributed directly toValentinus or to his followers, and I am quite prepared to admitthat there are no sufficient grounds for direct attribution to thefounder of the system. Irenaeus begins by saying that hisauthorities are certain 'commentaries of the disciples ofValentinus' and his own intercourse with some of them [Endnote197:1]. He proceeds to announce his intention to give a 'brief andclear account of the opinions of those who were then teachingtheir false doctrines [Greek: nun paradidaskonton], that is, ofPtolemaeus and his followers, a branch of the school ofValentinus. ' It is fair to infer that the description of theValentinian system which follows is drawn chiefly from thesesources. This need not, however, quite necessarily exclude worksby Valentinus himself. It is at any rate clear that Irenaeus hadsome means of referring to the opinions of Valentinus as distinctfrom his school; because, after giving a sketch of the system, heproceeds to point out certain contradictions within the schoolitself, quoting first Valentinus expressly, then a disciple calledSecundus, then 'another of their more distinguished and ambitiousteachers, ' then 'others, ' then a further subdivision, finallyreturning to Ptolemaeus and his party again. On the whole, Irenaeus seems to have had a pretty complete knowledge of thewritings and teaching of the Valentinians. We conclude therefore, that, while it cannot be alleged positively that any of thequotations or allusions were really made by Valentinus, it wouldbe rash to assert that none of them were made by him, or that hedid not use our present Gospels. 

However this may be, we cannot do otherwise than demur to thestatement implied in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 198:1], thatthe references in Irenaeus can only be employed as evidence forthe Gnostic usage between the years 185-195 A. D. This is aspecimen of a kind of position that is frequently taken up bycritics upon that side, and that I cannot but think quiteunreasonable and uncritical. Without going into the question ofthe date at which Irenaeus wrote at present, and assuming with theauthor of 'Supernatural Religion' that his first three books werepublished before the death of Eleutherus in A. D. 190--the latestdate possible for them, --it will be seen that the Gnostic teachingto which Irenaeus refers is supposed to begin at a time when hisfirst book may very well have been concluded, and to end actuallyfive years later than the latest date at which this portion of thework can have been published! Not only does the author allow notime at all for Irenaeus to compose his own work, not only does heallow none for him to become acquainted with the Gnosticdoctrines, and for those doctrines themselves to becomeconsolidated and expressed in writing, but he goes so far as tomake Irenaeus testify to a state of things five years at least, and very probably ten, in advance of the time at which he washimself writing! No doubt there is an oversight somewhere, butthis is the kind of oversight that ought not to be made. 

This, however, is an extreme instance of the fault to which I wasalluding--the tendency in the negative school to allow no time orvery little for processes that in the natural course of thingsmust certainly have required a more or less considerable interval. On a moderate computation, the indirect testimony of Irenaeus maybe taken to refer--not to the period 185-195 A. D. , which is out ofthe question--but to that from 160-180 A. D. This is not pressingthe possibility, real as it is, that Valentinus himself, whoflourished from 140-160 A. D. , may have been included. We may agreewith the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that Irenaeus probablymade the personal acquaintance of the Valentinian leaders, andobtained copies of their books, during his well-known visit toRome in 178 A. D. [Endnote 199:1] The applications of Scripturewould be taken chiefly from the books of which some would berecent but others of an earlier date, and it can surely be noexaggeration to place the formation of the body of doctrine whichthey contained in the period 160-175 A. D. Above mentioned. I doubtwhether a critic could be blamed who should go back ten yearsfurther, but we shall be keeping on the safe side if we take our_terminus a quo_ as to which these Gnostic writings can bealleged in evidence at about the year 160. 

A genuine fragment of a letter of Valentinus has been preserved byClement of Alexandria in the second book of the Stromateis[Endnote 200:1]. This is thought to contain references to St. Matthew's Gospel by Dr. Westcott, and, strange to say, both to St. Matthew and St. Luke by Volkmar. These references, however, arenot sufficiently clear to be pressed. 

A much less equivocal case is supplied by Hippolytus--lessequivocal at least so far as the reference goes. Among thepassages which received a specially Gnostic interpretation is Lukei. 35, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of theMost High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thingwhich is born (of thee) shall be called the Son of God. ' This isquoted thus, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the powerof the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore that which isborn of thee shall be called holy. '

_Luke_ i. 35. 

[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamis hupsistouepiskiasei soi, dio kai to gennomenon [ek sou] hagion klaethaesetaihuios Theon. ]

_Ref. Omn. Haes. _ vi. 35. 

[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se... Kai dunamis hupsistouepiskiasei soi... Dio to gennomenon ek sou hagion klaethaesetai. ]

That St. Luke has been the original here seems to be beyond adoubt. The omission of [Greek: huios Theou] is of very littleimportance, because from its position [Greek: hagion] would morenaturally stand as a predicate, and the sentence would be quite ascomplete without the [Greek: huios Theou] as with it. On the otherhand, it would be difficult to compress into so small a space somany words and expressions that are peculiarly characteristic ofSt. Luke. In addition to those which have just been noticed inconnection with Basilides, there is the very remarkable [Greek: togennomenon], which alone would be almost enough to stamp the wholepassage. 

We are still however pursued by the same ambiguity as in the caseof Basilides. It is not certain that the quotation is made fromthe master and not from his scholars. There is no reason, indeed, why it should be made from the latter rather than the former; thepoint must in any case be left open: but it cannot be referred tothe master with so much certainty as to be directly producibleunder his name. 

And yet, from whomsoever the quotation may have been made, if onlyit has been given rightly by Hippolytus, it is a strong proof ofthe antiquity of the Gospel. The words [Greek: ek sou], will benoticed, are enclosed in brackets in the text of St. Luke as givenabove. They are a corruption, though an early and well-supportedcorruption, of the original. The authorities in their favour are C(first hand), the good cursives 1 and 33, one form of the Vulgate, a, c, e, m of the Old Latin, the Peshito Syriac, the Armenian andAethiopic versions, Irenaeus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Epiphanius. On the other hand, for the omission areA. B, C (third hand), D, [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], and the rest ofthe uncials and cursives, another form of the Vulgate, b, f, ff, g'2, l of the Old Latin, the Harclean and Jerusalem Syriac, theMemphitic, Gothic, and some MSS. Of the Armenian versions, Origen, Dionysius and Peter of Alexandria, and Eusebius. A text criticwill see at once on which side the balance lies. It is impossiblethat [Greek: ek sou] could have been the reading of the autographcopy, and it is not, I believe, admitted into the text by anyrecent editor. But if it was present in the copy made use of bythe Gnostic writer, whoever he was, that copy must have beenalready far enough removed from the original to admit of thiscorruption; in other words, it has lineage enough to throw theoriginal some way behind it. We shall come to more of suchphenomena in the next chapter. 

I said just now that the quotation could not with certainty bereferred to Valentinus, but it is at least considerably earlierthan the contemporaries of Hippolytus. It appears that there was adivision in the Valentinian School upon the interpretation of thisvery passage. Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, representing the Westernbranch, took one side, while Axionicus and Bardesanes, representingthe Eastern, took the other. Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were both, we know, contemporaries of Irenaeus, so that the quotation was usedamong the Valentinians at least in the time of Irenaeus, and verypossibly earlier, for it usually takes a certain time for a subjectto be brought into controversy. We must thus take the _terminus ad quem_for the quotation not later than 180 A. D. How much further back itgoes we cannot say, but even then (if the Valentinian text is correctlypreserved by Hippolytus) it presents features of corruption. 

That the Valentinians made use of unwritten sources as well as ofwritten, and that they possessed a Gospel of their own which theycalled the Gospel of Truth, does not affect the question of theiruse of the Synoptics. For these very same Valentinians undoubtedlydid use the Synoptics, and not only them but also the fourthGospel. It is immediately after he has spoken of the 'unwritten'tradition of the Valentinians that Irenaeus proceeds to give thenumerous quotations from the Synoptics referred to above, while inthe very same chapter, and within two sections of the place inwhich he alludes to the Gospel of Truth, he expressly says thatthese same Valentinians used the Gospel according to St. Johnfreely (plenissime) [Endnote 203:1]. It should also be rememberedthat the alleged acceptance of the four Gospels by the Valentiniansrests upon the statement of Irenaeus [Endnote 203:2] as well as uponthat of the less scrupulous and accurate Tertullian. There is nogood reason for doubting it. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

MARCION. [Endnote 204:1]

Of the various chapters in the controversy with which we aredealing, that which relates to the heretic Marcion is one of themost interesting and important; important, because of thecomparative fixity of the data on which the question turns;interesting, because of the peculiar nature of the problem to bedealt with. 

We may cut down the preliminary disquisitions as to the life anddoctrines of Marcion, which have, indeed, a certain bearing uponthe point at issue, but will be found given with sufficientfulness in 'Supernatural Religion, ' or in any of the authorities. As in most other points relating to this period, there is someconfusion in the chronological data, but these range within acomparatively limited area. The most important evidence is that ofJustin, who, writing as a contemporary (about 147 A. D. ) [Endnote205:1], says that at that time Marcion had 'in every nation of mencaused many to blaspheme' [Endnote 205:2]; and again speaks of thewide spread of his doctrines ([Greek: ho polloi peisthentes, k. T. L. ]) [Endnote 205:3]. Taking these statements along withothers in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, modern criticsseem to be agreed that Marcion settled in Rome and began to teachhis peculiar doctrines about 139-142 A. D. This is the dateassigned in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 205:4]. Volkmar gives138 A. D. [Endnote 205:5] Tischendorf, on the apologetic side, would throw back the date as far as 130, but this depends upon thedate assigned by him to Justin's 'Apology, ' and conflicts too muchwith the other testimony. 

It is also agreed that Marcion himself did actually use a certainGospel that is attributed to him. The exact contents and characterof that Gospel are not quite so clear, and its relation to theSynoptic Gospels, and especially to our third Synoptic, whichbears the name of St. Luke, is the point that we have todetermine. 

The Church writers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, withoutexception, describe Marcion's Gospel as a mutilated or amputatedversion of St. Luke. They contrast his treatment of theevangelical tradition with that pursued by his fellow-Gnostic, Valentinus [Endnote 205:6]. Valentinus sought to prove his tenetsby wresting the interpretation of the Apostolic writings; Marcionwent more boldly to work, and, having first selected his Gospel, our third Synoptic, cut out the passages both in it and in tenEpistles of St. Paul, admitted by him to be genuine, which seemedto conflict with his own system. He is also said to have madeadditions, but these were in any case exceedingly slight. 

The statement of the Church writers should hardly, perhaps, be putaside quite so summarily as is sometimes done. The life ofIrenaeus overlapped that of Marcion considerably, and there seemsto have been somewhat frequent communication between the Church atLyons, where he was first presbyter and afterwards bishop, andthat of Rome, where Marcion was settled; but Irenaeus [Endnote206:1], as well as Tertullian and Epiphanius, alludes to themutilation of St. Luke's Gospel by Marcion as a notorious fact. Too much stress, however, must not be laid upon this, because theCatholic writers were certainly apt to assume that their own viewwas the only one tenable. 

The modern controversy is more important, though it has to go backto the ancient for its data. The question in debate may be statedthus. Did Marcion, as the Church writers say, really mutilate ourso-called St. Luke (the name is not of importance, but we may useit as standing for our third Synoptic in its present shape)? Or, is it not possible that the converse may be true, and thatMarcion's Gospel was the original and ours an interpolatedversion? The importance of this may, indeed, be exaggerated, because Marcion's Gospel is at any rate evidence for the existenceat his date in a collected form of so much of the third Gospel(rather more than two-thirds) as he received. Still the issue isnot inconsiderable: for, upon the second hypothesis, if the editorof our present Gospel made use of that which was in the possessionof Marcion, his date may be--though it does not follow that itcertainly would be--thrown into the middle of the second century, or even beyond, if the other external evidence would permit;whereas, upon the first hypothesis, the Synoptic Gospel would beproved to be current as early as 140 A. D. ; and there will be roomfor considerations which may tend to date it much earlier. Therewill still be the third possibility that Marcion's Gospel may bealtogether independent of our present Synoptic, and that it mayrepresent a parallel recension of the evangelical tradition. Thiswould leave the date of the canonical Gospel undetermined. 

It is a fact worth noting that the controversy, at least in itslater and more important stages, had been fought, and, to allappearance, fought out, within the Tübingen school itself. Olshausen and Hahn, the two orthodox critics who were mostprominently engaged in it, after a time retired and left the fieldentirely to the Tübingen writers. 

The earlier critics who impugned the traditional view appear tohave leaned rather to the theory that Marcion's Gospel and thecanonical Luke are, more or less, independent offshoots from thecommon ground-stock of the evangelical narratives. Ritschl, andafter him Baur and Schwegler, adopted more decidedly the view thatthe canonical Gospel was constructed out of Marcion's byinterpolations directed against that heretic's teaching. Thereaction came from a quarter whence it would not quite naturallyhave been expected--from one whose name we have already seenassociated with some daring theories, Volkmar, Professor ofTheology at Zürich. With him was allied the more sober-minded, laborious investigator, Hilgenfeld. Both these writers returned tothe charge once and again. Volkmar's original paper wassupplemented by an elaborate volume in 1852, and Hilgenfeld, inlike manner, has reasserted his conclusions. Baur and Ritschlprofessed themselves convinced by the arguments brought forward, and retracted or greatly modified their views. So far as I amaware, Schwegler is the only writer whose opinion still stands asit was at first expressed; but for some years before his death, which occurred in 1857, he had left the theological field. 

Without at all prejudging the question on this score, it isdifficult not to feel a certain presumption in favour of aconclusion which has been reached after such elaborate argument, especially where, as here, there could be no suspicion of a merelyapologetic tendency on either side. Are we, then, to think thatour English critic has shown cause for reopening the discussion?There is room to doubt whether he would quite maintain as much asthis himself. He has gone over the old ground, and reproduced theold arguments; but these arguments already lay before Hilgenfeldand Volkmar in their elaborate researches, and simply as a matterof scale the chapter in 'Supernatural Religion' can hardly professto compete with these. 

Supposing, for the moment, that the author has proved the pointsthat he sets himself to prove, to what will this amount? He willhave shown (a) that the patristic statement that Marcion mutilatedSt. Luke is not to be accepted at once without further question;(b) that we cannot depend with perfect accuracy upon the detailsof his Gospel, as reconstructed from the statements of Tertullianand Epiphanius; (c) that it is difficult to explain the whole ofMarcion's alleged omissions, on purely, dogmatic grounds--assumingthe consistency of his method. 

With the exception of the first, I do not think these points areproved to any important extent; but, even if they were, it wouldstill, I believe, be possible to show that Marcion's Gospel wasbased upon our third Synoptic by arguments which hardly cross ortouch them at all. 

But, before we proceed further, it is well that we should havesome idea as to the contents of the Marcionitic Gospel. And herewe are brought into collision with the second of the propositionsjust enunciated. Are we able to reconstruct that Gospel from thematerials available to us with any tolerable or sufficientapproach to accuracy? I believe no one who has gone into thequestion carefully would deny that we can. Here it is necessary todefine and guard our statements, so that they may cover exactly asmuch ground as they ought and no more. 

Our author quotes largely, especially from Volkmar, to show thatthe evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius is not to be reliedupon. When we refer to the chapter in which Volkmar deals withthis subject [Endnote 209:1]--a chapter which is an admirablespecimen of the closeness and thoroughness of German research--wedo indeed find some such expressions, but to quote them alonewould give an entirely erroneous impression of the conclusion towhich the writer comes. He does not say that the statements ofTertullian and Epiphanius are untrustworthy, simply andabsolutely, but only that they need to be applied with caution_on certain points_. Such a point is especially the silenceof these writers as proving, or being supposed to prove, theabsence of the corresponding passage in Marcion's Gospel. It isargued, very justly, that such an inference is sometimesprecarious. Again, in quoting longer passages, Epiphanius is inthe habit of abridging or putting an &c. ([Greek: kai ta hexaes--kai ta loipa]), instead of quoting the whole. This does not give acomplete guarantee for the intermediate portions, and leaves someuncertainty as to where the passage ends. Generally it is truethat the object of the Fathers is not critical but dogmatic, torefute Marcion's system out of his own Gospel. But when alldeductions have been made on these grounds, there are still amplematerials for reconstructing that Gospel with such an amount ofaccuracy at least as can leave no doubt as to its character. Thewonder is that we are able to do so, and that the statements ofthe Fathers should stand the test so well as they do. Epiphaniusespecially often shows the most painstaking care and minuteness ofdetail. He has reproduced the manuscript of Marcion's Gospel thathe had before him, even to its clerical errors [Endnote 210:1]. Heand Tertullian are writing quite independently, and yet theyconfirm each other in a remarkable manner. 'If we compare the twowitnesses, ' says Volkmar, 'we find the most satisfactory (sicher-stellendste) coincidence in their statements, entirely independentas they are, as well in regard to that which Marcion has in commonwith Luke, as in regard to very many of the points in which histext differed from the canonical. And this applies not only tosimple omissions which Epiphanius expressly notes and Tertullianconfirms by passing over what would otherwise have told againstMarcion, but also to the minor variations of the text whichTertullian either happens to name or indicate by his translation, while they are confirmed by the direct statement of [the other]opponent who is equally bent on finding such differences' [Endnote211:1]. Out of all the points on which they can be compared, thereis a real divergence only in two. Of these, one Volkmar attributesto an oversight on the part of Epiphanius, and the other to aclerical omission in his manuscript [Endnote 211:2]. When weconsider the cumbrousness of ancient MSS. , the absence ofdivisions in the text, and the consequent difficulty of makingexact references, this must needs be taken for a remarkableresult. And the very fact that we have two--or, includingIrenaeus, even three--independent authorities, makes the text ofMarcion's Gospel, so far as those authorities are available, or, in other words, for the greater part of it, instead of beinguncertain among quite the most certain of all the achievements ofmodern criticism [Endnote 211:3]. 

This is seen practically--to apply a simple test--in the largeamount of agreement between critics of the most various schools asto the real contents of the Gospel. Our author indeed speaks muchof the 'disagreement. ' But by what standard does he judge? Or, hashe ever estimated its extent? Putting aside merely verbaldifferences, the total number of whole verses affected will berepresented in the following table:--

iv. 16-30: doubt as to exact extent of omissions affecting about half the verses. 

 38, 39: omitted according to Hahn; retained according to Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. 

vii. 29-35: omitted, Hahn and Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. 

x. 12-15: ditto ditto. 

xiii. 6-10: omitted, Volkmar; retained, Hilgenfeld and Rettig. 

xvii. 5-10: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. 

 14-19: doubt as to exact omissions. 

xix. 47, 48: omitted, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; retained, Hahn and Anger. 

xxii. 17, 18: doubtful. 

 23-27: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. 

 43, 44: ditto ditto. 

xxiii. 39-42: ditto ditto. 

 47-49: omitted, Hahn; retained, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar. 

xxiv. 47-53: uncertain [Endnote 212:1]. 

This would give, as a maximum estimate of variation, some 55verses out of about 804, or, in other words, about seven per cent. But such an estimate would be in fact much too high, as there canbe no doubt that the earlier researches of Hahn and Ritschl oughtto be corrected by those of Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; and thedifference between these two critics is quite insignificant. Taking the severest view that it is possible to take, no one willmaintain that the differences between the critics are such as toaffect the main issue, so that upon one hypothesis one theorywould hold good, and upon another hypothesis another. It is a merequestion of detail. 

We may, then, reconstruct the Gospel used by Marcion with veryconsiderable confidence that we have its real contents before us. In order to avoid any suspicion I will take the outline given in'Supernatural Religion' (ii. P. 127), adding only the passageSt. Luke vii. 29-35, which, according to the author's statement (amistaken one, however) [Endnote 213:1], is 'generally agreed' tohave been wanting in Marcion's Gospel. In that Gospel, then, thefollowing portions of our present St. Luke were omitted:--

Chaps. I. And ii, including the prologue, the Nativity, and thebirth of John the Baptist. 

Chap. Iii (with the exception of ver. 1), containing the baptismof our Lord, the preaching of St. John, and the genealogy. 

iv. 1-13, 17-20, 24: the Temptation, the reading from Isaiah. 

vii. 29-35: the gluttonous man. 

xi. 29-32, 49-51: the sign of Jonas, and the blood of theprophets. 

xiii. 1-9, 29-35: the slain Galileans, the fig-tree, Herod, Jerusalem. 

xv. 11-32: the prodigal son. 

xvii. 5-10: the servant at meat. 

xviii. 31-34: announcement of the Passion. 

xix. 29-48: the Triumphal Entry, woes of Jerusalem, cleansing ofthe Temple. 

xx. 9-18, 37, 38: the wicked husbandmen; the God of Abraham. 

xxi. 1-4, 18, 21, 22: the widow's mite; 'a hair of your head;'flight of the Church. 

xxii. 16-18, 28-30, 35-38, 49-51: the fruit of the vine, 'eat atmy table, ' 'buy a sword, ' the high-priest's servant. 

xxiv. 47-53: the last commission, the Ascension. 

Here we have another remarkable phenomenon. The Gospel stands toour Synoptic entirely in the relation of _defect_. We may sayentirely, for the additions are so insignificant--some thirtywords in all, and those for the most part supported by otherauthority--that for practical purposes they need not be reckoned. With the exception of these thirty words inserted, and some, alsoslight, alterations of phrase, Marcion's Gospel presents simply an_abridgment_ of our St. Luke. 

Does not this almost at once exclude the idea that they can beindependent works? If it does not, then let us compare the two indetail. There is some disturbance and re-arrangement in the firstchapter of Marcion's Gospel, though the substance is that of thethird Synoptic; but from this point onwards the two move step bystep together but for the omissions and a single transposition(iv. 27 to xvii. 18). Out of fifty-three sections peculiar to St. Luke--from iv. 16 onwards--all but eight were found also inMarcion's Gospel. They are found, too, in precisely the sameorder. Curious and intricate as is the mosaic work of the thirdGospel, all the intricacies of its pattern are reproduced in theGospel of Marcion. Where Luke makes an insertion in thegroundstock of the narrative, there Marcion makes an insertionalso; where Luke omits part of the narrative, Marcion does thesame. Among the documents peculiar to St. Luke are some of a verymarked and individual character, which seem to have come from someprivate source of information. Such, for instance, would be thedocument viii. 1-3, which introduces names so entirely unknown tothe rest of the evangelical tradition as Joanna and Susanna[Endnote 215:1]. A trace of the same, or an allied document, appears in chap. Xxiv, where we have again the name Joanna, andafterwards that of the obscure disciple Cleopas. Again, themention of Martha and Mary is common only to St. Luke and thefourth Gospel. Zacchaeus is peculiar to St. Luke. Yet, not onlydoes each of the sections relating to these personages re-appearin Marcion's Gospel, but it re-appears precisely at the sameplace. A marked peculiarity in St. Luke's Gospel is the 'greatintercalation' of discourses, ix. 51 to xviii. 14, evidentlyinserted without regard to chronological order. Yet thispeculiarity, too, is faithfully reproduced in the Gospel ofMarcion with the same disregard of chronology--the only changebeing the omission of about forty-one verses from a total of threehundred and eighty. When Luke has the other two Synoptics againsthim, as in the insertions Matt. Xiv. 3-12, Mark vi. 17-29, andagain Matt. Xx. 20-28, Mark x. 35-45, and Matt. Xxi. 20-22, Markxi. 20-26, Marcion has them against him too. Where the thirdSynoptist breaks off from his companions (Luke ix. 17, 18) andleaves a gap, Marcion leaves one too. It has been noticed ascharacteristic of St. Luke that, where he has recorded a similarincident before, he omits what might seem to be a repetition ofit: this characteristic is exactly reflected in Marcion, and thatin regard to the very same incidents. Then, wherever the patristicstatements give us the opportunity of comparing Marcion's textwith the Synoptic--and this they do very largely indeed--the twoare found to coincide with no greater variation than would befound between any two not directly related manuscripts of the sametext. It would be easy to multiply these points, and to carry themto any degree of detail; if more precise and particular evidenceis needed it shall be forthcoming, but in the meantime I think itmay be asserted with confidence that two alternatives only arepossible. Either Marcion's Gospel is an abridgment of our presentSt. Luke, or else our present St. Luke is an expansion byinterpolation of Marcion's Gospel, or of a document co-extensivewith it. No third hypothesis is tenable. 

It remains, then, to enquire which of these two Gospels had thepriority--Marcion's or Luke's; which is to stand first, both inorder of time and of authenticity. This, too, is a point thatthere are ample data for determining. 

(1. ) And, first, let us consider what presumption is raised by anyother part of Marcion's procedure. Is it likely that he would havecut down a document previously existing? or, have we reason forthinking that he would be scrupulous in keeping such a documentintact?

The author of 'Supernatural Religion' himself makes use of thisvery argument; but I cannot help suspecting that his applicationof it has slipped in through an oversight or misapprehension. Whenfirst I came across the argument as employed by him, I was struckby it at once as important if only it was sound. But, uponexamination, not only does it vanish into thin air as an argumentin support of the thesis he is maintaining, but there remains inits place a positive argument that tells directly and stronglyagainst that thesis. A passage is quoted from Canon Westcott, inwhich it is stated that while Tertullian and Epiphanius accuseMarcion of altering the text of the books which he received, sofar as his treatment of the Epistles is concerned this is notborne out by the facts, out of seven readings noticed byEpiphanius two only being unsupported by other authority. It isargued from this that Marcion 'equally preserved withoutalteration the text which he found in his manuscript of theGospel. ' 'We have no reason to believe the accusation of theFathers in regard to the Gospel--which we cannot fully test--better founded than that in regard to the Epistles, which we cantest, and find unfounded' [Endnote 217:1]. No doubt the premissesof this argument are true, and so also is the conclusion, strictlyas it stands. It is true that the Fathers accuse Marcion oftampering with the text in various places, both in the Epistlesand in the Gospels where the allegation can be tested, and whereit is found that the supposed perversion is simply a difference ofreading, proved to be such by its presence in other authorities[Endnote 217:2]. But what is this to the point? It is notcontended that Marcion altered to any considerable extent (thoughhe did slightly even in the Epistles [Endnote 217:3]) the text_which he retained_, but that he mutilated and cut out wholepassages from that text. He can be proved to have done this inregard to the Epistles, and therefore it is fair to infer that hedealt in the same way with the Gospel. This is the amended form inwhich the argument ought to stand. It is certain that Marcion madea large excision before Rom. Xi. 33, and another after Rom. Viii. 11; he also cut out the 'mentiones Abrahae' from Gal. Iii. 7, 14, 16-18 [Endnote 218:1]. I say nothing about his excision of thelast two chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, because on thatpoint a controversy might be raised. But the genuineness of theseother passages is undisputed and indisputable. It cannot be arguedhere that our text of the Epistle has suffered from laterinterpolation, and therefore, I repeat, it is so much the moreprobable that Marcion took from the text of the Gospel than that alater editor added to it. 

(2. ) In examining the internal evidence from the nature andstructure of Marcion's Gospel, it has hitherto been the custom tolay most stress upon its dogmatic character. The controversy inGermany has turned chiefly on this. The critics have setthemselves to show that the variations in Marcion's Gospel eithercould or could not be explained as omissions dictated by theexigencies of his dogmatic system. This was a task which suitedwell the subtlety and inventiveness of the German mind, and it hasbeen handled with all the usual minuteness and elaboration. Theresult has been that not only have Volkmar and Hilgenfeld provedtheir point to their own satisfaction, but they also convincedRitschl and partially Baur; and generally we may say that inGermany it seems to be agreed at the present time that thehypothesis of a mutilated Luke suits the dogmatic argument betterthan that of later Judaising interpolations. 

I have no wish to disparage the results of these labours, whichare carried out with the splendid thoroughness that one so muchadmires. Looking at the subject as impartially as I can, I aminclined to think that the case is made out in the main. Thesingle instance of the perverted sense assigned to [Greek:kataelthen] in iv. 31 must needs go a long way. Marcion evidentlyintends the word to be taken in a transcendental sense of theemanation and descent to earth of the Aeon Christus [Endnote219:1]. It is impossible to think that this sense is more originalthan the plain historical use of the word by St. Luke, or tomistake the dogmatic motive in the heretical recension. There isalso an evident reason for the omission of the first chapterswhich relate the human birth of Christ, which Marcion denied, andone somewhat less evident, though highly probable, for theomission of the account of the Baptist's ministry, John beingregarded as the finisher of the Old Testament dispensation--thework of the Demiurge. This omission is not quite consistentlycarried out, as the passage vii. 24-28 is retained--probablybecause ver. 28 itself seemed to contain a sufficient qualification. The genealogy, as well as viii. 19, was naturally omitted for thesame reason as the Nativity. The narrative of the Baptism Marcioncould not admit, because it supplied the foundation for that veryEbionism to which his own system was diametrically opposed. TheTemptation, x. 21 ('Lord ... Of earth'), xxii. 18 ('the fruit ofthe vine'), xxii. 30 ('eat and drink at my table'), and the Ascension, may have been omitted because they contained matter that seemed tooanthropomorphic or derogatory to the Divine Nature. On the other hand, xi. 29-32 (Jonah and Solomon), xi. 49-51 (prophets and apostles), xiii. 1 sqq. (the fig-tree, as the Jewish people?), xiii. 31-35 (theprophet in Jerusalem), the prodigal son (perhaps?), the wickedhusbandmen (more probably), the triumphal entry (as the fulfilmentof prophecy), the announcement of the Passion (also as such), xxi. 21, 22 (the same), and the frequent allusions to the Old TestamentScriptures, seem to have been expunged as recognising or belongingto the kingdom of the Demiurge [Endnote 220:1]. Again, the changesin xiii. 28, xvi. 17, xx. 35, are fully in accordance withMarcion's system [Endnote 220:2]. The reading which Marcion had inxi. 22 is expressly stated to have been common to the Gnosticheretics generally. In some of these instances the dogmatic motiveis gross and palpable, in most it seems to have been made out, butsome (such as especially xiii. 1-9) are still doubtful, and themethod of excision does not appear to have been carried out withcomplete consistency. 

This, indeed, was only to be expected. We are constantly remindedthat Tertullian, a man, with all his faults, of enormous literaryand general power, did not possess the critical faculty, and nomore was that faculty likely to be found in Marcion. It is ananachronism to suppose that he would sit down to his work withthat regularity of method and with that subtle appreciation of theaffinities of dogma which characterise the modern critic. TheSeptuagint translators betray an evident desire to soften down theanthropomorphism of the Hebrew; but how easy would it be toconvict them of inconsistency, and to show that they left standingexpressions as strong as any that they changed! If we judgeMarcion's procedure by a standard suited to the age in which helived, our wonder will be, not that he has shown so little, but somuch, consistency and insight. 

I think, therefore, that the dogmatic argument, so far as it goes, tells distinctly in favour of the 'mutilation' hypothesis. But atthe same time it should not be pressed too far. I should betempted to say that the almost exclusive and certainly excessiveuse of arguments derived from the history of dogma was the primefallacy which lies at the root of the Tübingen criticism. How canit be thought that an Englishman, or a German, trained under andsurrounded by the circumstances of the nineteenth century, shouldbe able to thread all the mazes in the mind of a Gnostic or anEbionite in the second? It is difficult enough for us to lay downa law for the actions of our own immediate neighbours and friends;how much more difficult to 'cast the shell of habit, ' and placeourselves at the point of view of a civilisation and world ofthought wholly different from our own, so as not only to explainits apparent aberrations, but to be able to say, positively, 'thismust have been so, ' 'that must have been otherwise. ' Yet such isthe strange and extravagant supposition that we are assumed tomake. No doubt the argument from dogma has its place in criticism;but, on the whole, the literary argument is safer, more removedfrom the influence of subjective impressions, more capable ofbeing cast into a really scientific form. 

(3. ) I pass over other literary arguments which hardly admit ofthis form of expression--such as the improbability that thePreface or Prologue was not part of the original Gospel, but alater accretion; or, again, from Marcion's treatment of theSynoptic matter in the third Gospel, both points which might beotherwise worth dilating upon. I pass over these, and come atonce, without further delay, to the one point which seems to mereally to decide the character of Marcion's Gospel and itsrelation to the Synoptic. The argument to which I allude is thatfrom style and diction. True the English mind is apt to receiveliterary arguments of that kind with suspicion, and very justly solong as they rest upon a mere vague subjective _ipse dixit_;but here the question can be reduced to one of definite figuresand of weighing and measuring. Bruder's Concordance is a dismal-looking volume--a mere index of words, and nothing more. But ithas an eloquence of its own for the scientific investigator. It isstrange how clearly many points stand out when this test comes tobe applied, which before had been vague and obscure. This isespecially the case in regard to the Synoptic Gospels; for, in thefirst place, the vocabulary of the writers is very limited andsimilar phrases have constant tendency to recur, and, in thesecond place, the critic has the immense advantage of beingenabled to compare their treatment of the same common matter, sothat he can readily ascertain what are the characteristicmodifications introduced by each. Dr. Holtzmann, following Zellerand Lekebusch, has made a full and careful analysis of the styleand vocabulary of St. Luke [Endnote 223:1], but of course withoutreference to the particular omissions of Marcion. Let us then, with the help of Bruder, apply Holtzmann's results to theseomissions, with a view to see whether there is evidence that theyare by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel. 

It would be beyond the proportions of the present enquiry toexhibit all the evidence in full. I shall, therefore, nottranscribe the whole of my notes, but merely give a few samples ofthe sort of evidence producible, along with a brief summary of thegeneral results. 

Taking first certain points by which the style of the thirdEvangelist is distinguished from that of the first in theirtreatment of common matter, Dr. Holtzmann observes, that whereMatthew has [Greek: grammateus], Luke has in six places the word[Greek: nomikos], which is only found three times besides in theNew Testament (once in St. Mark, and twice in the Epistle toTitus). Of the places where it is used by St. Luke, one is theomitted passage, vii. 30. In citations where Matthew has [Greek:to rhaethen] (14 times; not at all in Luke), Luke prefers theperfect form [Greek: to eiraemenon], so in ii. 24 (Acts twice);compare [Greek: eiraetai], iv. 21. Where Matthew has [Greek: arti](7 times), Luke has always [Greek: nun], never [Greek: arti]:[Greek: nun] is used in the following passages, omitted byMarcion: i. 48, ii. 29, xix. 42, xxii. 18, 36. With Matthew theword [Greek: eleos] is masculine, with Luke neuter, so five timesin ch. I. And in x. 37, which was retained by Marcion. 

Among the peculiarities of style noted by Dr. Holtzmann whichrecur in the omitted portions the following are perhaps some ofthe more striking. Peculiar use of [Greek: to] covering a wholephrase, i. 62 [Greek: to ti an theloi kaleisthai], xix. 48, xxii. 37, and five other places. Peculiar attraction of the relativewith preceding case of [Greek: pas], iii. 19, xix. 37, andelsewhere. The formula [Greek: elege (eipe) de parabolaen] (notfound in the other Synoptics), xiii. 6, xx. 9, 19, and ten timesbesides. [Greek: Tou] pleonastic with the infinitive, once inMark, six times in Matthew, twenty-five times in Luke, of whichthree times in chap. I, twice in chap. Ii, iv. 10, xxi. 22. Peculiar combinations with [Greek: kata, kata to ethos, eiothos, eithismenon], i. 9, ii. 27, 42, and twice. [Greek: Kath'haemeran], once in the other Gospels, thirteen times in Luke andActs xix. 47; [Greek: kat' etos], ii. 41; [Greek: kata] withpeculiar genitive of place, iv. 14 (xxiii. 5) [Endnote 224:1]. Protasis introduced by [Greek: kai hote], ii. 21, 22, 42, [Greek:kai hos], ii. 39, xv. 25, xix. 41. Uses of [Greek: egeneto], especially with [Greek: en to] and infinitive, twice in Mark, inLuke twenty-two times, i. 8, ii. 6, iii. 21, xxiv. 51; [Greek: ento] with the infinitive, three times in St. Matthew, once in St. Mark, thirty-seven times in St. Luke, including i. 8, 21, ii. 6, 27, 43, iii. 21. Adverbs: [Greek: exaes] and [Greek: kathexaes], ten times in the third Gospel and the Acts alone in the NewTestament, i. 3; [Greek: achri], twenty times in the third Gospeland Acts, only once in the other Gospels, i. 20, iv. 13; [Greek:exaiphnaes], four times in the Gospel and Acts, once besides inthe New Testament, ii. 13; [Greek: parachraema], seventeen timesin the Gospel and Acts, twice in the rest of the New Testament, i. 64; [Greek: en meso], thirteen times in the Gospel and Acts, fivetimes in the other Synoptics, ii. 46, xxi. 21. Fondness foroptative in indirect constructions, i. 29, 62, iii. 15, xv. 26. Peculiar combination of participles, ii. 36 ([Greek: probebaekuiazaesasa]), iii. 23 ([Greek: archomenos on]), iv. 20 ([Greek:ptuxas apodous]), very frequent. [Greek: Einai], with participlefor finite verb (forty-eight times in all), i. 7, 10, 20, 21, 22, ii. 8, 26, 33, 51, iii. 23, iv. 16 ([Greek: aen tethrammenos], omitted by Marcion), iv. 17, 20, xv. 24, 32, xviii. 34, xix. 47, xx. 17, xxiv. 53. Construction of [Greek: pros] with accusativeafter [Greek: eipein, lalein, apokrinesthai], frequent in Luke, rare in the rest of the New Testament, i. 13, 18, 19, 28, 34, 55, 61, 73, ii. 15, 18, 34, 48, 49, iii. 12, 13, 14, iv. 4, xiii. 7, 34, xv. 22, xviii. 31, xix. 33, 39, xx. 9, 14, 19. This is throwninto marked relief by the contrast with the other Synoptics; theonly two places where Matthew appears to have the construction areboth ambiguous, iii. 15 (doubtful reading, probably [Greek:auto]), and xxvii. 14 ([Greek: apekrithae auto pros oude henrhaema]). No other evangelist speaks so much of [Greek: Pneumahagion], i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 25, 66, iii. 16, 22, iv. 1 (foundalso in Marcion's reading of xi. 2). Peculiar use of pronouns:Luke has the combination [Greek: kai autos] twenty-eight times, Matthew only twice (one false reading), Mark four or perhaps fivetimes, i. 17, 22, ii. 28, iii. 23, xv. 14; [Greek: kai autoi] Markhas not at all, Matthew twice, Luke thirteen times, including ii. 50, xviii. 34, xxiv. 52. 

We now come to the test supplied by the vocabulary. The followingare some of the words peculiar to St. Luke, or found in hiswritings with marked and characteristic frequency, which occur inthose parts of our present Gospel that were wanting in Marcion'srecension: [Greek: anestaen, anastas] occur three times in St. Matthew, twice in St. John, four times in the writings of St. Paul, twenty-six times in the third Gospel and thirty-five timesin the Acts, and are found in i. 39, xv. 18, 20; [Greek:antilegein] appears in ii. 34, five times in the rest of theGospel and the Acts, and only four times together in the rest ofthe New Testament; [Greek: hapas] occurs twenty times in theGospel, sixteen times in the Acts, only ten times in the rest ofthe New Testament, but in ii. 39, iii. 16, 21, iv. 6, xv. 13, xix. 37, 48, xxi. 4 (bis); three of these are, however, doubtfulreadings. [Greek: aphesis ton amartion], ten times in the Gospeland Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament, i. 77, iii. 3. [Greek: dei], Dr. Holtzmann says, 'is found more often inSt. Luke than in all the other writers of the New Testament puttogether. ' This does not appear to be strictly true; it is, however, found nineteen times in the Gospel and twenty-five timesin the Acts to twenty-four times in the three other Gospels; itoccurs in ii. 49, xiii. 33, xv. 32, xxii. 37. [Greek: dechesthai], twenty-four times in the Gospel and Acts, twenty-six times in therest of the New Testament, six times in St. Matthew, three in St. Mark, ii. 28, xxii. 17. [Greek: diatassein], nine times in theGospel and Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament(Matthew once), iii. 13, xvii. 9, 10. [Greek: dierchesthai] occursthirty-two times in the Gospel and Acts, twice in each of theother Synoptics, and eight times in the rest of the New Testament, and is found in ii. 15, 35. [Greek: dioti], i. 13, ii. 7 (xxi. 28, and Acts, not besides in the Gospels). [Greek: ean], xxii. 51(once besides in the Gospel, eight times in the Acts, and threetimes in the rest of the New Testament). [Greek: ethos], i. 9, ii. 42, eight times besides in St. Luke's writings and only twice inthe rest of the New Testament. [Greek: enantion], five times inSt. Luke's writings, once besides, i. 8. [Greek: enopion], correcting the readings, twenty times in the Gospel, fourteentimes in the Acts, not at all in the other Synoptists, once in St. John, four times in chap. I, iv. 7, xv. 18, 21 (this will benoticed as a very remarkable instance of the extent to which thediction of the third Evangelist impressed itself upon hiswritings). [Greek: epibibazein], xix. 35 (and twice, only by St. Luke). [Greek: epipiptein], i. 12, xv. 20 (eight times in the Actsand three times in the rest of the New Testament). [Greek: aieraemoi], only in St. Luke, i. 80, and twice. [Greek: etos](fifteen times in the Gospel, eleven times in the Acts, threetimes in the other Synoptics and three times in St. John), fourtimes in chap. Ii, iii. 1, 23, xiii, 7, 8, xv. 29. [Greek:thaumazein epi tini], Gospel and Acts five times (only besides inMark xii. 17), ii. 33. [Greek: ikanos] in the sense of 'much, ''many, ' seven times in the Gospel, eighteen times in the Acts, andonly three times besides in the New Testament, iii. 16, xx. 9(compare xxii. 38). [Greek: kathoti] (like [Greek: kathexaes]above), is only found in St. Luke's writings, i. 7, and five timesin the rest of the Gospel and the Acts. [Greek: latreuein], 'inLuke, much oftener than in other parts of the New Testament, ' i. 74, ii. 37, iv. 8, and five times in the Acts. [Greek: limos], sixtimes in the Gospel and Acts, six times in the rest of the NewTestament, xv. 14, 17. [Greek: maen] (month), i. 24, 26, 36, 56(iv. 25), alone in the Gospels, in the Acts five times. [Greek:oikos] for 'family, ' i. 27, 33, 69, ii. 4, and three times besidesin the Gospel, nine times in the Acts. [Greek: plaethos](especially in the form [Greek: pan to plaethos]), twenty-fivetimes in St. Luke's writings, seven times in the rest of the NewTestament, 1. 19, ii. 13, xix. 37. [Greek: plaesai, plaesthaenai], twenty-two times in St. Luke's writings, only three times besidesin the New Testament, i. 15, 23, 41, 57, 67, ii. 6, 21, 22, xxi. 22. [Greek: prosdokan], eleven times in the Gospel and Acts, fivetimes in the rest of the New Testament (Matthew twice and 2Peter), i. 21, iii. 15. [Greek: skaptein], only in Luke threetimes, xiii. 8. [Greek: speudein], except in 2 Peter iii. 12, onlyin St. Luke's writings, ii. 16. [Greek: sullambanein], ten timesin the Gospel and Acts, five times in the rest of the NewTestament, i. 24, 31, 36, ii. 21. [Greek: sumballein], only inLucan writings, six times, ii. 19. [Greek: sunechein], nine timesin the Gospel and Acts, three times besides in the New Testament, xix. 43. [Greek: sotaeria], in chap. I. Three times, in the restof the Gospel and Acts seven times, not in the other SynopticGospels. [Greek: hupostrephein], twenty-two times in the Gospel, eleven times in the Acts, and only five times in the rest of theNew Testament (three of which are doubtful readings), i. 56, ii. 20, 39, 43, 45, iv. 1, (14), xxiv. 52. [Greek: hupsistos] occursnine times in the Gospel and Acts, four times in the rest of theNew Testament, i. 32, 35, 76, ii. 14, xix. 38. [Greek: hupsos] isalso found in i. 78, xxiv. 49. [Greek: charis] is found, among theSynoptics, only in St. Luke, eight times in the Gospel, seventeentimes in the Acts, i. 30, ii. 40, 52, xvii. 9. [Greek: hosei]occurs nineteen times in the Gospel and Acts (four doubtfulreadings, of which two are probably false), seventeen times in therest of the New Testament (ten doubtful readings, of which in theSynoptic Gospels three are probably false), i. 56, iii. 23. 

It should be remembered that the above are only samples from thewhole body of evidence, which would take up a much larger space ifexhibited in full. The total result may be summarised thus. Accepting the scheme of Marcion's Gospel given some pages back, which is substantially that of 'Supernatural Religion, ' Marcionwill have omitted a total of 309 verses. In those verses there arefound 111 distinct peculiarities of St. Luke's style, numbering inall 185 separate instances; there are also found 138 wordspeculiar to or specially characteristic of the third Evangelist, with 224 instances. In other words, the verified peculiarities ofSt. Luke's style and diction (and how marked many of these arewill have been seen from the examples above) are found in theportions of the Gospel omitted by Marcion in a proportionaveraging considerably more than one to each verse! [Endnote229:1] Coming to detail, we find that in the principal omission--that of the first two chapters, containing 132 verses--there are47 distinct peculiarities of style, with 105 instances; and 82characteristic words, with 144 instances. In the 23 verses ofchap. Iii. Omitted by Marcion (for the genealogy need not bereckoned), the instances are 18 and 14, making a total of 32. In18 verses omitted from chap. Iv. The instances are 13 and 8 = 21. In another longer passage--the parable of the prodigal son--theinstances are 8 of the first class and 20 of the second. In 20verses omitted from chap. Xix. The instances are 11 and 6; and in11 verses omitted from chap. Xx, 9 and 8. Of all the isolatedfragments that Marcion had ejected from his Gospel, there are onlyfour--iv. 24, xi. 49-51, xx. 37, 38, xxii. 28-30, nine verses inall--in which no peculiarities have been noticed. And yet evenhere the traces of authorship are not wanting. It happensstrangely enough that in a list of parallel passages given by Dr. Holtzmann to illustrate the affinities of thought between St. Lukeand St. Paul, two of these very passages--xi. 49 and xx. 38--occur. I had intended to pursue the investigation through theseresemblances, but it seems superfluous to carry it further. 

It is difficult to see what appeal can be made against evidencesuch as this. A certain allowance should indeed be made forpossible errors of computation, and some of the points may havebeen wrongly entered, though care has been taken to put downnothing that was not verified by its preponderating presence inthe Lucan writings, and especially by its presence in that portionof the Gospel which Marcion undoubtedly received. But as a rulethe method applies itself mechanically, and when every deductionhas been made, there will still remain a mass of evidence that itdoes not seem too much to describe as overwhelming. 

(4. ) We may assume, then, that there is definite proof that theGospel used by Marcion presupposes our present St. Luke, in itscomplete form, as it has been handed down to us. But when oncethis assumption has been made, another set of considerations comesin, which also carry with them an important inference. IfMarcion's Gospel was an extract from a manuscript containing ourpresent St. Luke, then not only is it certain that that Gospel wasalready in existence, but there is further evidence to show thatit must have been in existence for some time. The argument in thiscase is drawn from another branch of Biblical science to which wehave already had occasion to appeal--text-criticism. Marcion'sGospel, it is known, presents certain readings which differ bothfrom the received and other texts. Some of these are thought byVolkmar and Hilgenfeld to be more original and to have a betterright to stand in the text than those which are at present foundthere. These critics, however, base their opinion for the mostpart on internal grounds, and the readings defended by them arenot as a rule those which are supported by other manuscriptauthority. It is to this second class rather that I refer asbearing upon the age of the canonical Gospel. The most importantvarious readings of the existence of which we have proof inMarcion's Gospel are as follows [Endnote 231:1]:--

v. 14. The received (and best) text is [Greek: eis marturionautois]. Marcion, according to the express statement of Epiphanius(312 B), read [Greek: hina ae morturion touto humin], which isconfirmed by Tertullian, who gives (_Marc. _ iv. 8) 'Ut sitvobis in testimonium. ' The same or a similar reading is found inD, [Greek: hina eis marturion ae humin touto], 'ut sit intestimonium vobis hoc, ' d; 'ut sit in testimonium (--monia, ff)hoc vobis, ' a (Codex Vercellensis), b (Codex Veronensis), c (CodexColbertinus), ff (Codex Corbeiensis), l (Codex Rhedigerianus), ofthe Old Latin [Endnote 231:2]. 

v. 39 was _probably_ omitted by Marcion (this is inferredfrom the silence of Tertullian by Hilgenfeld, p. 403, and Rönsch, p. 634). The verse is also omitted in D, a, b, c, d, e, ff. 

x. 22. Marcion's reading of this verse corresponded with that ofother Gnostics, but has no extant manuscript authority. We havetouched upon it elsewhere. 

x. 25. [Greek: zoaen aionion], Marcion omitted [Greek: aionion](Tert. _Adv. Marc. _ iv. 25); so also the Old Latin Codex g'2(San Germanensis). 

xi. 2. Marcion read [Greek: eltheto to hagion pneuma sou eph'haemas] (or an equivalent; see Rönsch, p. 640) either for theclause [Greek: hagiasthaeto to onoma sou] or for [Greek:genaethaeto to thelaema sou], which is omitted in B, L, 1, Vulg. , ff, Syr. Crt. There is a curious stray [Greek: eph' haemas] in Dwhich may conceivably be a trace of Marcion's reading. 

xii. 14. Marcion (and probably Tertullian) read [Greek: kritaen](or [Greek: dikastaen]) only for [Greek: kritaen ae meristaen]; soD, a ('ut videtur, ' Tregelles), c, Syr. Crt. 

xii. 38. Marcion had [Greek: tae hesperinae phulakae] for [Greek:en tae deutera phulakae kai en tae tritae phulakae]. So b: D, c, e, ff, i, Iren. 334, Syr. Crt. , combine the two readings invarious ways. 

xvi. 12. Marcion read [Greek: emon] for [Greek: humeteron]. So e(Palatinus), i (Vindobonensis), l (Rhedigerianus). [Greek:haemeteron] B. L, Origen. 

xvii. 2. Marcion inserted the words [Greek: ouk egennaethae ae](Tert. Iv. 35), 'ne nasceretur aut, ' a, b, c, ff, i, l. 

xviii. 19. Here again Marcion had a variation which is unsupportedby manuscript authority, but has to some extent a parallel in theClementine Homilies, Justin, &c. 

xxi. 18. Was omitted by Marcion (Epiph. 316 B), and is alsoomitted in the Curetonian Syriac. 

xxi. 27. Tertullian (iv. 39) gives the reading of Marcion as 'cumplurima virtute' = [Greek: meta dunameos pollaes [kai doxaes]], for [Greek: meta dun. K. Dox. Pollaes]; so D ([Greek: en dun. Pol. ]), and approximately Vulg. , a, c, e, f, ff, Syr. Crt. , Syr. Pst. 

xxiii. 2. Marcion read [Greek: diastrephonta to ethnos kaikatalionta ton nomon kai tous prophaetas kai keleuonta phorous maedounai kai anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna] (Epiph. , 316D), where [Greek: kataluonta ton nomon kai tous prophaetas] and[Greek: anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna] are additions tothe text, and [Greek: keleuonta phorous mae dounai] is avariation. Of the two additions the first finds support in b, (c), e, (ff), i, l; the second is inserted, with some variation, by cand e in verse 5. 

 We may thus tabulate the relation of Marcion to these variousauthorities. The brackets indicate that the agreement is onlyapproximate. Marcion agrees with--

D, d, v. 14, v. 39; xii. 14, (xii. 28), (xxi. 27). 

a (Verc. ), v. 14, v. 39, xii. 14 (apparently), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27). 

b (Ver. ), v. 14, v. 39. Xii. 38, xvii. 2, (xxiii. 2). 

c (Colb. ), v. 14, v. 39, xii. 14, (xii. 38), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27), (xxiii. 2), (xxiii. 2). 

e (Pal. ), v. 39, (xii. 38), xvi. 12, (xxi. 27), xxiii. 2, (xxiii. 2). 

ff (Corb. ), v. 14, v. 39, (xii. 38), xvii. 2, (xxi. 27), (xxiii. 2). 

g'2 (Germ. ), x. 25. 

i (Vind. ), (xii. 38), xvi. 12, xvii. 2, xxiii. 2. 

l (Rhed. ), v. 14, xvi. 12, xvii. 2, xiii. 2. 

Syr. Crt. , xii. 14, (xii. 38), xxi. 18, (xxi. 27). 

It is worth noticing that xxii. 19 b, 20 (which is omitted in D, a, b, c, ff, i, l) appears to have been found in Marcion's Gospel, as in the Vulgate, c, and f (see Rönsch, p. 239). [Greek: apo toumnaemeiou] in xxiv. 9 is also found (Rönsch, p. 246), thoughomitted by D, a, b, c, e, ff, l. There is no evidence to showwhether the additions in ix. 55, xxiii. 34, and xxii. 43, 44 werepresent in Marcion's Gospel or not. 

It will be observed that the readings given above have all what iscalled a 'Western' character. The Curetonian Syriac is well knownto have Western affinities [Endnote 233:1]. Codd. A, b, c, and thefragment of i which extends from Luke x. 6 to xxiii. 10, representthe most primitive type of the Old Latin version; e, ff, and Igive a more mixed text. As we should expect, the revised Latintext of Cod. F has no representation in Marcion's Gospel [Endnote233:2]. 

These textual phenomena are highly interesting, but at the sametime an exact analysis of them is difficult. No simple hypothesiswill account for them. There can be no doubt that Marcion'sreadings are, in the technical sense, false; they are a deviationfrom the type of the pure and unadulterated text. At a certainpoint, evidently of the remotest antiquity, in the history oftranscription, there was a branching off which gave rise to thosevarieties of reading which, though they are not confined toWestern manuscripts, still, from their preponderance in these, arecalled by the general name of 'Western. ' But when we come toconsider the relations among those Western documents themselves, no regular descent or filiation seems traceable. Certain broadlines indeed we can mark off as between the earlier and laterforms of the Old Latin, though even here the outline is in placesconfused; but at what point are we to insert that most remarkabledocument of antiquity, the Curetonian Syriac? For instance, thereare cases (e. G. Xvii. 2, xxiii. 2) where Marcion and the Old Latinare opposed to the Old Syriac, where the latter has undoubtedlypreserved the correct reading. To judge from these alone, weshould naturally conclude that the Syriac was simply an older andpurer type than Marcion's Gospel and the Latin. But then again, onthe other hand, there are cases (such as the omission of xxi. 18)where Marcion and the Syriac are combined, and the Old Latinadheres to the truer type. This will tend to show that, even atthat early period, there must have been some comparison andcorrection--a _con_vergence as well as a _di_vergence--of manuscripts, and not always a mere reproduction of theparticular copy which the scribe had before him; at the same timeit will also show that Marcion's Gospel, so far from being anoriginal document, has behind it a deep historical background, andstands at the head of a series of copies which have already passedthrough a number of hands, and been exposed to a proportionateamount of corruption. Our author is inclined to lay stress uponthe 'slow multiplication and dissemination of MSS. ' Perhaps he maysomewhat exaggerate this, as antiquarians give us a surprisingaccount of the case and rapidity with which books were produced bythe aid of slave-labour [Endnote 235:1]. But even at Rome thepublishing trade upon this large scale was a novelty dating backno further than to Atticus, the friend of Cicero, and we shouldnaturally expect that among the Christians--a poor and widelyscattered body, whose tenets would cut them off from the use ofsuch public machinery--the multiplication of MSS. Would be slowerand more attended with difficulty. But the slower it was the morecertainly do such phenomena as these of Marcion's text throw backthe origin of the prototype from which that text was derived. Inthe year 140 A. D. Marcion possesses a Gospel which is already inan advanced stage of transcription--which has not only undergonethose changes which in some regions the text underwent before itwas translated into Latin, but has undergone other changesbesides. Some of its peculiarities are not those of the earliestform of the Latin version, but of that version in what may becalled its second stage (e. G. Xvi. 12). It has also affinities toanother version kindred to the Latin and occupying a similar placeto the Old Latin among the Churches of Syria. These circumstancestogether point to an antiquity fully as great as any that anorthodox critic would claim. 

It should not be thought that because such indications areindirect they are therefore any the less certain. There is perhapshardly a single uncanonical Christian document that is admittedlyand indubitably older than Marcion; so that direct evidence thereis naturally none. But neither is there any direct evidence forthe antiquity of man or of the earth. The geologist judges by thefossils which he finds embedded in the strata as relics of anextinct age; so here, in the Gospel of Marcion, do we find relicswhich to the initiated eye carry with them their own story. 

Nor, on the other hand, can it rightly be argued that because thehistory of these remains is not wholly to be recovered, thereforeno inference from them is possible. In the earlier stages of ascience like palaeontology it might have been argued in just thesame way that the difficulties and confusion in the classificationinvalidated the science along with its one main inferencealtogether. Yet we can see that such an argument would have beenmistaken. There will probably be some points in every sciencewhich will never be cleared up to the end of time. The affirmationof the antiquity of Marcion's Gospel rests upon the simple axiomthat every event must have a cause, and that in order to producecomplicated phenomena the interaction of complicated causes isnecessary. Such an assumption involves time, and I think it is asafe proposition to assert that, in order to bring the text ofMarcion's Gospel into the state in which we find it, there musthave been a long previous history, and the manuscripts throughwhich it was conveyed must have parted far from the parent stem. 

The only way in which the inference drawn from the text ofMarcion's Gospel can be really met would be by showing that thetext of the Latin and Syriac translations is older and moreoriginal than that which is universally adopted by text-critics. Ishould hardly suppose that the author of 'Supernatural Religion'will be prepared to maintain this. If he does, the subject canthen be argued. In the meantime, these two arguments, the literaryand the textual--for the others are but subsidiary--must, I think, be held to prove the high antiquity of our present Gospel. 

CHAPTER IX. 

TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. 

Tatian was a teacher of rhetoric, an Assyrian by birth, who wasconverted to Christianity by Justin Martyr, but after his deathfell into heresy, leaning towards the Valentinian Gnosticism, andcombining with this an extreme asceticism. 

The death of Justin is clearly the pivot on which his date willhinge. If we are to accept the conclusions of Mr. Hort this willhave occurred in the year 148 A. D. ; according to Volkmar it wouldfall not before 155 A. D. , and in the ordinary view as late as 163-165 A. D. [Endnote 238:1] The beginning of Tatian's literaryactivity will follow accordingly. 

Tatian's first work of importance, an 'Address to Greeks, ' whichis still extant, was written soon after the death of Justin. Itcontains no references to the Synoptic Gospels upon which stresscan be laid. 

An allusion to Matth. Vi. 19 in the Stromateis of Clement [Endnote238:2] has been attributed to Tatian, but I hardly know for whatreason. It is introduced simply by [Greek: tis (biazetai tislegon)], but there were other Encratites besides Tatian, and thevery fact that he has been mentioned by name twice before in thechapter makes it the less likely that he should be introduced sovaguely. 

The chief interest however in regard to Tatian centres in his so-called 'Diatessaron, ' which is usually supposed to have been aharmony of the four Gospels. 

Eusebius mentions this in the following terms: 'Tatian however, their former leader, put together, I know not how, a sort ofpatchwork or combination of the Gospels and called it the"Diatessaron, " which is still current with some. ' [Endnote 239:1]

I am rather surprised to see that Credner, who is followed by theauthor of 'Supernatural Religion, ' argues from this that Eusebiushad not seen the work in question [Endnote 239:2]. This inferenceis not by any means conveyed by the Greek. [Greek: Ouk oid' hopos](thus introduced) is an idiomatic phrase referring to theprinciple on which the harmony was constructed, and might well beparaphrased 'a curious sort of patchwork or dovetailing, ' 'a notvery intelligible dovetailing, ' &c. Standing in the position itdoes, the phrase can hardly mean anything else. Besides it is notlikely that Eusebius, an eager collector and reader of books, withthe run of Pamphilus' library, should not have been acquaintedwith a work that he says himself was current in more quarters thanone. Eusebius, it will be observed, is quite explicit in hisstatement. He says that the Diatessaron was a harmony of theGospels, i. E. (in his sense) of our present Gospels, and thatTatian gave the name of Diatessaron to his work himself. We do notknow upon what these statements rest, but there ought to be somevalid reason before we dismiss them entirely. 

Epiphanius writes that 'Tatian is said to have composed theDiatessaron Gospel which some call the "Gospel according to theHebrews"' [Endnote 240:1]. And Theodoret tells us that 'Tatianalso composed the Gospel which is called the Diatessaron, cuttingout the genealogies and all that shows the Lord to have been bornof the seed of David according to the flesh. ' 'This, ' he adds, 'was used not only by his own party, but also by those whofollowed the teaching of the Apostles, as they had not perceivedthe mischievous design of the composition, but in their simplicitymade use of the book on account of its conciseness. ' Theodoretfound more than two hundred copies in the churches of his diocese(Cyrrhus in Syria), which he removed and replaced with the worksof the four Evangelists [Endnote 240:2]. 

Victor of Capua in the sixth century speaks of Tatian's work as a'Diapente' rather than a 'Diatessaron' [Endnote 240:3]. If we areto believe the Syrian writer Bar-Salibi in the twelfth century, Ephrem Syrus commented on Tatian's Diatessaron, and it began withthe opening words of St. John. This statement however is referredby Gregory Bar-Hebraeus not to the Harmony of Tatian, but to oneby Ammonius made in the third century [Endnote 241:1]. 

Here there is clearly a good deal of confusion. 

But now we come to the question, was Tatian's work really aHarmony of our four Gospels? The strongest presumption that it wasis derived from Irenaeus. Irenaeus, it is well known, speaks ofthe four Gospels with absolute decision, as if it were a law ofnature that their number must be four, neither more nor less[Endnote 241:2], and his four Gospels were certainly the same asour own. But Tatian wrote within a comparatively short interval ofIrenaeus. It is sufficiently clear that Irenaeus held his opinionat the very time that Tatian wrote, though it was not publisheduntil later. Here then we have a coincidence which makes itdifficult to think that Tatian's four Gospels were different fromours. 

The theory that finds favour with Credner [Endnote 241:3] and hisfollowers, including the author of 'Supernatural Religion, ' isthat Tatian's Gospel was the same as that used by Justin. I ammyself not inclined to think this theory improbable; it would havebeen still less so, if Tatian had been the master and Justin thepupil [Endnote 241:4]. We have seen that the phenomena of Justin'sevangelical quotations are as well met by the hypothesis that hemade use of a Harmony as by any other. But that Harmony, as wehave also seen, included at least our three Synoptics. Theevidence (which we shall consider presently) for the use of thefourth Gospel by Tatian is so strong as to make it improbable thatthat work was not included in the Diatessaron. The fifth work, alluded to by Victor of Capua, may possibly have been the Gospelaccording to the Hebrews. 

 2. 

Just as the interest of Tatian turns upon the interpretation to beput upon a single term 'Diatessaron, ' so the interest of Dionysiusof Corinth depends upon what we are to understand by his phrase'the Scriptures of the Lord. '

In a fragment, preserved by Eusebius, of an epistle addressed toSoter Bishop of Rome (168-176 A. D. ) and the Roman Church, Dionysius complains that his letters had been tampered with. 'Asbrethren pressed me to write letters I wrote them. And these theapostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away somethings and adding others, for whom the woe is prepared. It is notwonderful, then, if some have ventured to tamper with theScriptures of the Lord when they have laid their plots againstwritings that have no such claims as they' [Endnote 242:1]. Itmust needs be a straining of language to make the Scriptures hererefer, as the author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to do, tothe Old Testament. It is true that Justin lays great stress upontype and prophecy as pointing to Christ, but there is aconsiderable step between this and calling the whole of the OldTestament 'Scriptures of the Lord. ' On the other hand, we canhardly think that Dionysius refers to a complete collection ofwritings like the New Testament. It seems most natural to supposethat he is speaking of Gospels--possibly not the canonical alone, and yet, with Irenaeus in our mind's eye, we shall say probably tothem. There is the further reason for this application of thewords that Dionysius is known to have written against Marcion--'hedefended the canon of the truth' [Endnote 243:1], Eusebius says--and such 'tampering' as he describes was precisely what Marcionhad been guilty of. 

 * * * * *

The reader will judge for himself what is the weight of the kindof evidence produced in this chapter. I give a chapter to itbecause the author of 'Supernatural Religion' has done the same. Doubtless it is not the sort of evidence that would bear pressingin a court of English law, but in a question of balancedprobabilities it has I think a decided leaning to one side, andthat the side opposed to the conclusions of 'SupernaturalReligion. '

CHAPTER X. 

MELITO--APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS. 

We pass on, still in a region of fragments--'waifs and strays' ofthe literature of the second century--and of partial and indirect(though on that account not necessarily less important)indications. 

In Melito of Sardis (c. 176 A. D) it is interesting to notice thefirst appearance of a phrase that was destined later to occupy aconspicuous position. Writing to his friend Onesimus, who hadfrequently asked for selections from the Law and the Prophetsbearing upon the Saviour, and generally for information respectingthe number and order of 'the Old Books, ' Melito says 'that he hadgone to the East and reached the spot where the preaching had beendelivered and the acts done, and that having learnt accurately thebooks of the Old Covenant (or Testament) he had sent a list ofthem'--which is subjoined [Endnote 244:1]. Melito uses the wordwhich became established as the title used to distinguish theelder Scriptures from the younger--the Old Covenant or Testament([Greek: hae palaia diathaekae]); and it is argued from this thathe implies the existence of a 'definite New Testament, a writtenantitype to 'the Old' [Endnote 245:1] The inference however seemsto be somewhat in excess of what can be legitimately drawn. By[Greek: palaia diathaekae] is meant rather the subject or contentsof the books than the books themselves. It is the system ofthings, the dispensation accomplished 'in heavenly places, ' towhich the books belong, not the actual collected volume. Theparallel of 2 Cor. Iii. 14 ([Greek: epi tae anagnosei taes palaiasdiathaekaes]), which is ably pointed to in 'Supernatural Religion'[Endnote 245:2], is too close to allow the inference of a writtenNew Testament. And yet, though the word has not actually acquiredthis meaning, it was in process of acquiring it, and had alreadygone some way to acquire it. The books were already there, and, aswe see from Irenaeus, critical collections of them had alreadybegun to be made. Within thirty years of the time when Melito iswriting Tertullian uses the phrase Novum Testamentum precisely inour modern sense, intimating that it had then become the currentdesignation [Endnote 245:3]. This being the case we cannot wonderthat there should be a certain reflex hint of such a sense in thewords of Melito. 

The tract 'On Faith, ' published in Syriac by Dr. Cureton andattributed to Melito, is not sufficiently authenticated to havevalue as evidence. 

It should be noted that Melito's fragments contain nothingespecially on the Gospels. 

 2. 

Some time between 176-180 A. D. Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop ofHierapolis, addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius an apology ofwhich rather more than three lines have come down to us. A moreimportant fragment however is assigned to this writer in thePaschal Chronicle, a work of the seventh century. Here it is saidthat 'Apollinaris, the most holy bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, wholived near the times of the Apostles, in his book about Easter, taught much the same, saying thus: "There are some who throughignorance wrangle about these matters, in a pardonable manner; forignorance does not admit of blame but rather needs instruction. And they say that on the 14th the Lord ate the lamb with Hisdisciples, and that on the great day of unleavened bread Hehimself suffered; and they relate that this is in their view thestatement of Matthew. Whence their opinion is in conflict with thelaw, and according to them the Gospels are made to be atvariance"' [Endnote 246:1]. This variance or disagreement in theGospels evidently has reference to the apparent discrepancybetween the Synoptics, especially St. Matthew and St. John, theformer treating the Last Supper as the Paschal meal, the latterplacing it before the Feast of the Passover and making theCrucifixion coincide with the slaughter of the Paschal lamb. Apollinaris would thus seem to recognise both the first and thefourth Gospels as authoritative. 

Is this fragment of Apollinaris genuine? It is alleged against it[Endnote 247:1] (1) that Eusebius was ignorant of any such work onEaster, and that there is no mention of it in such notices ofApollinaris and his writings as have come down to us fromTheodoret, Jerome, and Photius. There are some good remarks onthis point by Routh (who is quoted in 'Supernatural Religion'_apparently_ as adverse to the genuineness of the fragments). He says: 'There seems to me to be nothing in these extracts tocompel us to deny the authorship of Apollinaris. Nor must werefuse credit to the author of the Preface [to the PaschalChronicle] any more than to other writers of the same times onwhose testimony many books of the ancients have been received, although not mentioned by Eusebius or any other of his contemporaries;especially as Eusebius declares below that it was only some selectbooks that had come to his hands out of many that Apollinaris hadwritten' [Endnote 247:2]. It is objected (2) that Apollinaris isnot likely to have spoken of a controversy in which the whole AsiaticChurch was engaged as the opinion of a 'few ignorant wranglers' Afair objection, if he was really speaking of such a controversy. But the great issue between the Churches of Asia and that of Romewas whether the Paschal festival should be kept, according to theJewish custom, always on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, orwhether it should be kept on the Friday after the Paschal full moon, on whatever day of the month it might fall. The fragment appearsrather to allude to some local dispute as to the day on which theLord suffered. To go thoroughly into this question would involveus in all the mazes of the so-called Paschal controversy, and inthe end a precise and certain conclusion would probably be impossible. So far as I am aware, all the writers who have entered into thediscussion start with assuming the genuineness of the Apollinarianfragment. 

There remains however the fact that it rests only upon the attestationof a writer of the seventh century, who may possibly be wrong, but, if so, has been led into his error not wilfully but by accident. No reason can be alleged for the forging or purposely false ascriptionof a fragment like this, and it bears the stamp of good faith in thatit asks indulgence for opponents instead of censure. We may perhapssafely accept the fragment with some, not large, deduction from itsweight. 

 3. 

An instance of the precariousness of the argument from silencewould be supplied by the writer who comes next under review--Athenagoras. No mention whatever is made of Athenagoras either byEusebius or Jerome, though he appears to have been an author of acertain importance, two of whose works, an Apology addressed toMarcus Aurelius and Commodus and a treatise on the Resurrection, are still extant. The genuineness of neither of these works isdoubted. 

The Apology, which may be dated about 177 A. D. , contains a fewreferences to our Lord's discourses, but not such as can have anygreat weight as evidence. The first that is usually given, aparallel to Matt. V. 39, 40 (good for evil), is introduced in sucha way as to show that the author intends only to give the senseand not the words. The same may be said of another sentence thatis compared with Mark x. 6 [Endnote 249:1]:--

_Athenagoras, Leg. Pro Christ. 33. _

[Greek: Hoti en archae ho Theos hena andra eplase kai miangunaika. ]

_Mark x. 6_

[Greek: Apo de archaes ktiseos arsen kai thaelu epoiaesen autousho Theos. ]

All that can be said is that the thought here appears to have beensuggested by the Gospel--and that not quite immediately. 

A much closer--and indeed, we can hardly doubt, a real--parallelis presented by a longer passage:--

_Athenagoras, Leg. Pro Christ. 11. _

What then are the precepts in which we are instructed? I say untoyou: Love your enemies, bless them that curse, pray for them thatpersecute you; that ye may become the sons of your Father which isin heaven: who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. 

[Greek: Tines oun haemon hoi logoi, hois entrephometha; legohumin, agapate tous echthrous humon, eulogeite tous kataromenous, proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas, hopos genaesthe huioi toupatros humon tou en ouranois, hos ton haelion autou anatellei epiponaerous kai agathous kai brechei epi dikaious kai adikous. ]

_Matt_. V. 44, 45. 

I say unto you: Love your enemies [bless them that curse you, dogood to them that hate you], and pray for them that persecute you;that ye may become the sons of your Father which is in heaven: forhe maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendethrain on the just and the unjust. 

[Greek: ego de lego humin, agapate tous echthrous humon[eulogeite tous kataromenous humas, kalos poiete tous misountashumas], proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas hopos genaesthehuioi tou patros humon tou en ouranois, hoti ton haelion autouanatellei epi ponaerous kai agathous kai brechei epi dikaious kaiadikous. ]

The bracketed clauses in the text of St. Matthew are both omittedand inserted by a large body of authorities, but, as it is rightlyremarked in 'Supernatural Religion, ' they are always either bothomitted or both inserted; we must therefore believe that theomission and insertion of one only by Athenagoras is withoutmanuscript precedent. Otherwise the exactness of the parallel isgreat; and it is thrown the more into relief when we compare thecorresponding passage in St. Luke. 

The quotation is completed in the next chapter of Athenagoras'work:--

_Athenagoras, Leg. Pro Christ. _ 12. 

For if ye love, he says, them which love and lend to them whichlend to you, what reward shall ye have?

[Greek: Ean gar agapate, phaesin, tous agapontas, kai daineizetetois daneizousin humin, tina misthon hexete;]

 _Matt. _ v. 46. 

For if ye shall love them which love you, what reward have ye?

[Greek: Ean gar agapaesaete tous agapontas humas tina misthonechete;]

Here the middle clause in the quotation appears to be areminiscence of St. Luke vi. 34 ([Greek: ean danisaete par' honelpizete labein]). Justin also, it should be noted, has [Greek:agapate] (but [Greek: ei agapate]) for [Greek: agapaesaete]. Ifthis passage had stood alone, taking into account the variationsand the even run and balance of the language we might have thoughtperhaps that Athenagoras had had before him a different version. Yet the [Greek: tina misthon], compared with the [Greek: poiacharis] of St. Luke and [Greek: ti kainon poieite] of Justin, would cause misgivings, and greater run and balance is preciselywhat would result from 'unconscious cerebration. '

Two more references are pointed out to Matt. V. 28 and Matt. V. 32, one with slight, the other with medium, variation, which leavethe question very much in the same position. 

We ought not to omit to notice that Athenagoras quotes oneuncanonical saying, introducing it with the phrase [Greek: palinhaemin legontos tou logou]. I am not at all clear that this is notmerely one of the 'precepts' [Greek: oi logoi] alluded to above. At any rate it is exceedingly doubtful that the Logos is herepersonified. It seems rather parallel to the [Greek: ho logosedaelou] of Justin (Dial. C. Tryph. 129). 

Considering the date at which he wrote I have little doubt thatAthenagoras is actually quoting from the Synoptics, but he cannot, on the whole, be regarded as a very powerful witness for them. 

 4. 

After the cruel persecution from which the Churches of Vienne andLyons had suffered in the year 177 A. D. , a letter was written intheir name, containing an account of what had happened, whichLardner describes as 'the finest thing of the kind in allantiquity' [Endnote 251:1]. This letter, which was addressed tothe Churches of Asia and Phrygia, contained several quotationsfrom the New Testament, and among them one that is evidently fromSt. Luke's Gospel. 

It is said of one of the martyrs, Vettius Epagathus, that hismanner of life was so strict that, young as he was, he could claima share in the testimony borne to the more aged Zacharias. Indeedhe had _walked in all the commandments and ordinances of theLord blameless_, and in the service of his neighbour untiring, &c. [Endnote 252:1] The italicised words are a verbatimreproduction of Luke i. 6. 

There is an ambiguity in the words [Greek: sunexisousthai tae toupresbuterou Zachariou marturia]. The genitive after [Greek: marturia]may be either subjective or objective--'the testimony borne _by_'or 'the testimony borne _to_ or _of_' the aged Zacharias. I havelittle doubt that the translation given above is the right one. It has the authority of Lardner ('equalled the character of') andRouth ('Zachariae senioris elogio aequaretur'), and seems to beimperatively required by the context. The eulogy passed uponVettius Epagathus is justified by the uniform strictness of hisdaily life (he has walked in _all_ the commandments &c. ), not bythe single act of his constancy in death. 

The author of 'Supernatural Religion, ' apparently followingHilgenfeld [Endnote 252:2], adopts the other translation, andbases on it an argument that the allusion is to the _martyrdom_of Zacharias, and therefore not to our third Gospel in which nomention of that martyrdom is contained. On the other hand, we arereminded that the narrative of the martyrdom of Zacharias entersinto the Protevangelium of James. That apocryphal Gospel howevercontains nothing approaching to the words which coincide exactlywith the text of St. Luke. 

Even if there had been a greater doubt than there is as to theapplication of [Greek: marturia], it would be difficult to resistthe conclusion that the Synoptic Gospel is being quoted. The wordsoccur in the most peculiar and distinctive portion of the Gospel;and the correspondence is so exact and the phrase itself sostriking as not to admit of any other source. The order, thechoice of words, the construction, even to the use of the nominative[Greek: ámemptos] where we might very well have had the adverb[Greek: amémptôs], all point the same way. These fine edges of thequotation, so to speak, must needs have been rubbed off in thecourse of transmission through several documents. But there isnot a trace of any other document that contained such a remarkupon the character of Zacharias. 

This instance of a Synoptic quotation may, I think, safely bedepended upon. 

Another allusion, a little lower down in the Epistle, which speaksof the same Vettius Epagathus as 'having in himself the Paraclete[there is a play on the use of the word [Greek: paraklaetos] justbefore], the Spirit, more abundantly than Zacharias, ' though inexaggerated and bad taste, probably has reference to Luke i. 67, 'And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Ghost, ' &c. 

[Footnote: Mr. Mason calls my attention to [Greek: endumanumphikon] in § 13, and also to the misleading statement in_S. R. _ ii. P. 201 that 'no writing of the New Testament isdirectly referred to. ' I should perhaps have more fault to findwith the sentence on p. 204, 'It follows clearly and few ventureto doubt, ' &c. I have assumed however for some time that thereader will be on his guard against expressions such as these. ]

CHAPTER XI. 

PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 

We are now very near emerging into open daylight; but there arethree items in the evidence which lie upon the border of thedebateable ground, and as questions have been raised about theseit may be well for us to discuss them. 

We have already had occasion to speak of the two GnosticsPtolemaeus and Heracleon. It is necessary, in the first place, todefine the date of their evidence with greater precision, and, inthe second, to consider its bearing. 

Let us then, in attempting to do this, dismiss all secondary andprecarious matter; such as (1) the argument drawn by Tischendorf[Endnote 254:1] from the order in which the names of the disciplesof Valentinus are mentioned and from an impossible statement ofEpiphanius which seems to make Heracleon older than Cerdon, and(2) the argument that we find in Volkmar and 'SupernaturalReligion' [Endnote 254:2] from the use of the present tense byHippolytus, as if the two writers, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, werecontemporaries of his own in 225-235 A. D. Hippolytus does indeedsay, speaking of a division in the school of Valentinus, 'Thosewho are of Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say' &c. But there is no reason why there should not be a kind of historicpresent, just as we might say, 'The Atomists, of whom areLeucippus and Democritus, hold' &c. , or 'St. Peter says this, St. Paul says that. ' The account of such presents would seem to bethat the writer speaks as if quoting from a book that he hasactually before him. It is not impossible that Heracleon andPtolemaeus may have been still living at the time when Hippolytuswrote, but this cannot be inferred simply from the tense of theverb. Surer data are supplied by Irenaeus. 

Irenaeus mentions Ptolemaeus several times in his first and secondbooks, and on one occasion he couples with his the name ofHeracleon. But to what date does this evidence of Irenaeus refer?At what time was Irenaeus himself writing. We have seen that the_terminus ad quem_, at least for the first three books, issupplied by the death of Eleutherus (c. A. D. 190). On the otherhand, the third book at least was written after the publication ofthe Greek version of the Old Testament by Theodotion, whichEpiphanius tells us appeared in the reign of Commodus (180-190A. D. ). A still more precise date is given to Theodotion's work inthe Paschal Chronicle, which places it under the Consuls Marcellus(Massuet would read 'Marullus') and Aelian in the year 184 A. D. [Endnote 255:1] This last statement is worth very little, and itis indeed disputed whether Theodotion's version can have appearedso late as this. At any rate we must assume that it was in thehands of Irenaeus about 185 A. D. , and it will be not before thisthat the third book of the work 'Against Heresies' was written. Itwill perhaps sufficiently satisfy all parties if we suppose thatIrenaeus was engaged in writing his first three books between theyears 182-188 A. D. But the name of Ptolemaeus is mentioned verynear the beginning of the Preface; so that Irenaeus would becommitting to paper the statement of his acquaintance withPtolemaeus as early as 182 A. D. 

This is however the last link in the chain. Let us trace it alittle further backwards. Irenaeus' acquaintance with Ptolemaeuscan hardly have been a fact of yesterday at the time when hewrote. Ptolemaeus represented the 'Italian' branch of theValentinian school, and therefore it seems a fair supposition thatIrenaeus would come in contact with him during his visit to Romein 178 A. D. ; and the four years from that date to 182 A. D. Canhardly be otherwise than a short period to allow for the necessaryintimacy with his teaching to have been formed. 

But we are carried back one step further still. It is not onlyPtolemaeus but Ptolemaeus _and his party_ ([Greek: hoi periPtolemaion]) [Endnote 256:1]. There has been time for Ptolemaeusto found a school within a school of his own; and his school hasalready begun to express its opinions, either collectively orthrough its individual members. 

In this way the real date of Ptolemaeus seems still to recede, butI will not endeavour any further to put a numerical value upon itwhich might be thought to be prejudiced. It will be best for thereader to fill up the blank according to his own judgment. 

Heracleon will to a certain extent go with Ptolemaeus, with whomhe is persistently coupled, though, as he is only mentioned onceby Irenaeus, the data concerning him are less precise. They arehowever supplemented by an allusion in the fourth book of theStromateis of Clement of Alexandria (which appears to have beenwritten in the last decade of the century) to Heracleon as one ofthe chief of the school of Valentinus [Endnote 257:1], and perhapsalso by a statement of Origen to the effect that Heracleon was saidto be a [Greek: gnorimos] of Valentinus himself [Endnote 257:2]. The meaning of the latter term is questioned, and it is certainlytrue that it may stand for pupil or scholar, as Elisha was to Elijahor as the Apostles were to their Master; but that it could possiblybe applied to two persons who never came into personal contact mustbe, I cannot but think, very doubtful. This then, if true, wouldthrow back Heracleon some little way even beyond 160 A. D. 

From the passage in the Stromateis we gather that Heracleon, if hedid not (as is usually inferred) write a commentary, yet wrote anisolated exposition of a portion of St. Luke's Gospel. In the sameway we learn from Origen that he wrote a commentary upon St. John. 

We shall probably not be wrong in referring many of theValentinian quotations given by Irenaeus to Ptolemaeus andHeracleon. By the first writer we also have extant an Epistle to adisciple called Flora, which has been preserved by Epiphanius. This Epistle, which there is no reason to doubt, containsunequivocal references to our first Gospel. 

_Epistle to Flora. Epiph. Haer. _ 217 A. 

[Greek: oikia gar ae polis meristheisa eph' heautaen hoti maedunatai staenai [ho sotaer haemon apephaenato]. ]

_Ibid. _ 217 D. 

[Greek: [ephae autois hoti] Mousaes pros taen sklaerokardian humonepetrepse to apoluein taen gunaika autou. Ap' archaes gar ougegonen houtos. Theos gar (phaesi) sunezeuxe tautaen taen suzugiankai ho sunezeuxen ho kurios, anthropos (ephae) mae chorizeto. ]

_Ibid. 218 D. 

[Greek: ho gar Theos (phaesin) eipe tima ton patera sou kai taenmaetera sou, hina eu soi genaetai; humeis de (phaesin) eiraekate(tois presbuterois legon), doron to Theo ho ean ophelaethaes exemou, kai aekurosate ton nomon tou Theou, dia taen paradosin humonton presbuteron. Touto de Haesaias exephonaesen eipon; ho laoshoutos tois cheilesi me tima hae de kardia auton porro apechei ap'emou. Mataen de sebontai me, didaskontes didaskalias, entalmataanthropon. ]

_Ibid. _ 220 D, 221 A. 

[Greek: to gar, Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai odonta anti odontos ... Ego gar lego humin mae antistaenai holos to ponaero alla ean tisse rhapisae strepson auto kai taen allaen siagona. ]

_Matt. _ xii. 25 (_Mark_ iii. 25, _Luke_ xi. 17). 

[Greek: pasa polis ae oikia meristheisa kath' heautaes oustathaesetai. ]

_Matt. _ xix. 8, 6 (_Mark_ x. 5, 6, 9). 

[Greek: legei autois; Hoti Mousaes pros taen sklaerokardian humonepetrepsen humin apolusai tas gunaikas humon' ap' archaes de ougegonen houtos. ... Ho oun ho theos sunezeuxen anthropos maechorizeto. ]

_Matt. _ xv. 4-8 (_Mark_ vii. 10, 11, 6, 9). 

[Greek: ho gar theos eneteilato legon, Tima ton patera kai taenmaetera ... Humeis de legete; hos an eipae to patri ae tae maetri;Doron ho ean ex emou ophelaethaes, ... Kai aekurosate ton nomon touTheou dia taen paradosin humon. Hupokritai, kalos eprophaeteusenperi humon Haesaias legon; Ho laos houtos tois cheilesin me tima, hae de kardia auton porro apechei ap' emou; mataen de sebontai medidaskontes didaskalias entalmata anthropon. ]

_Matt_. V. 38, 39 (_Luke_ vi. 29). 

[Greek: aekousate oti erraethae, Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kaiodonta anti odontos ego de lego hymin mae antistaenai to ponaeroall hostis se rapizei eis taen dexian siagona sou, strephon autokai taen allaen. ]

Some doubt indeed appears to be entertained by the author of'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 259:1] as to whether thesequotations are really taken from the first Synoptic; but it wouldhardly have arisen if he had made a more special study of thephenomena of patristic quotation. If he had done this, I do notthink there would have been any question on the subject. Acomparison of the other Synoptic parallels, and of the Septuagintin the case of the quotation from Isaiah, will make the agreementwith the Matthaean text still more conspicuous. It is instructiveto notice the reproduction of the most characteristic features ofthis text--[Greek: polis, meristheisa] ([Greek: ean meristhae]Mark, [Greek: diameristheisa] Luke), [Greek: hoti Mousaes, epetrepsen apolu[sai] t[as] gunaik[as], ou gegonen oitos, aekurosate .. Dia taen p. , ophthalmon ... Odontos, antistaenai toponaero, strepson], and the order and cast of sentence in all thequotations. The first quotation, with [Greek: eph eautaen] and[Greek: dunatai staenai], which may be compared (though, from thecontext, somewhat doubtfully) with Mark, presents, I believe, theonly trace of the influence of any other text. 

To what period in the life of Ptolemaeus this Epistle to Flora mayhave belonged we have no means of knowing; but it is unlikely thatthe writer should have used one set of documents at one part ofhis life and another set at another. Viewed along with so muchconfirmatory matter in the account of the Valentinians byIrenaeus, the evidence may be taken as that of Ptolemaeus himselfrather than of this single letter. 

 2. 

The question in regard to Celsus, whose attacks upon Christianitycalled forth such an elaborate reply from Origen, is chiefly oneof date. To go into this at once adequately and independentlywould need a much longer investigation than can be admitted intothe present work. The subject has quite recently been treated in amonograph by the well-known writer Dr. Keim [Endnote 260:1], and, as there will be in this case no suspicion of partiality, I shallcontent myself with stating Dr. Keim's conclusions. 

Origen himself, Dr. Keim thinks, was writing under the EmperorPhilip about A. D. 248. But he regards his opponent Celsus, not asa contemporary, but as belonging to a past age (Contra Celsum, i. 8, vii. 11), and his work as nothing recent, but rather as havingobtained a certain celebrity in heathen literature (v. 3). For allthis it had to be disinterred, as it were, and that not withoutdifficulty, by a Christian (viii. 76). 

Exact and certain knowledge however about Celsus Origen did notpossess. He leans to the opinion that his opponent was anEpicurean of that name who lived 'under Hadrian and later' (i. 8). This Epicurean had also written several books against Magic (i. 68). Now it is known that there was a Celsus, a friend of Lucian, who had also written against Magic, and to whom Lucian dedicatedhis 'Pseudomantis, or Alexander of Abonoteichos. '

It was clearly obvious to identify the two persons, and there wasmuch to be said in favour of the identification. But there wasthis difficulty. Origen indeed speaks of the Celsus to whom he isreplying as an Epicurean, and here and there Epicurean opinionsare expressed in the fragments of the original work that Origenhas preserved. But Origen himself was somewhat puzzled to findthat the main principles of the author were rather Platonic orNeo-platonic than Epicurean, and this observation has beenconfirmed by modern enquiry. The Celsus of Origen is in reality aPlatonist. 

It still being acknowledged that the friend of Lucian was anEpicurean, this discovery seemed fatal to the supposition that hewas the author of the work against the Christians. Accordinglythere was a tendency among critics, though not quite a unanimoustendency, to separate again the two personalities which had beenunited. At this point Dr. Keim comes upon the scene, and he asksthe question, Was Lucian's friend really an Epicurean? Luciannowhere says so in plain words, but it was taken as a _primâfacie_ inference from some of the language used by him. Forinstance, he describes the Platonists as being on good terms withthis very Alexander of Abonoteichos whom he is ridiculing andexposing. He appeals to Celsus to say whether a certain work ofEpicurus is not his finest. He says that his friend will bepleased to know that one of his objects in writing is to seejustice done to Epicurus. All these expressions Dr. Keim thinksmay be explained as the quiet playful irony that was natural toLucian, and from other indications in the work he concludes thatLucian's Celsus may well have been a Platonist, though not abigoted one, just as Lucian himself was not in any strict andnarrow sense an Epicurean. 

When once the possibility of the identification is conceded, thereare, as Dr. Keim urges, strong reasons for its adoption. Thecharacters of the two owners of the name Celsus, so far as theycan be judged from the work of Origen on the one hand and Lucianon the other, are the same. Both are distinguished for theiropposition to magical arts. The Celsus of the Pseudomantis is afriend of Lucian, and it is precisely from a friend of Lucian thatthe 'Word of Truth' replied to by Origen might be supposed to havecome. Lastly, time and place both support the identification. TheCelsus of Lucian lived under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, andDr. Keim decides, after an elaborate examination of the internalevidence, that the Celsus of Origen wrote his work in the year 178A. D. , towards the close of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. 

Such is Dr. Keim's view. In the date assigned to the [Greek: Logosalaethaes] it does not differ materially from that of the largemajority of critics. Grätz alone goes as far back as to the timeof Hadrian. Hagenbach, Hasse, Tischendorf, and Friedländer fixupon the middle, Mosheim, Gieseler, Baur, and Engelhardt upon thesecond half, of the second century; while the following writersassume either generally the reign of Marcus Aurelius, or speciallywith Dr. Keim one of the two great persecutions--Spencer, Tillemont, Neander, Tzschirner, Jachmann, Bindemann, Lommatzsch, Hase, Redepenning, Zeller. The only two writers mentioned by Dr. Keim as contending for a later date are Ueberweg and Volkmar, 'whostrangely misunderstands both Origen and Baur' [Endnote 263:1]. Volkmar is followed by the author of 'Supernatural Religion. '

At whatever date Celsus wrote, it appears to be sufficiently clearthat he knew and used all the four canonical Gospels [Endnote 263:2]. 

 3. 

The last document that need be discussed by us at present is theremarkable fragment which, from its discoverer and from itscontents, bears the name of the Canon of Muratori [Endnote 263:3]. 

Whatever was the original title and whatever may have been theextent of the work from which it is taken, the portion of it thathas come down to us is by far the most important of all the directevidence for the Canon both of the Gospels and of the NewTestament in general with which we have yet had to deal. It isindeed the first in which the conception of a Canon is quiteunequivocally put forward. We have for the first time a definitelist of the books received by the Church and a distinct separationmade between these and those that are rejected. 

The fragment begins abruptly with the end of a sentence apparentlyrelating to the composition of the Gospel according to St. Mark. Then follows 'in the third place the Gospel according to St. Luke, ' of which some account is given. 'The fourth of the Gospels'is that of John, 'one of the disciples of the Lord. ' A legend isrelated as to the origin of this Gospel. Then mention is made ofthe Acts, which are attributed to Luke. Then follow thirteenEpistles of St. Paul by name. Two Epistles professing to beaddressed to the Laodiceans and Alexandrines are dismissed asforged in the interests of the heresy of Marcion. The Epistle ofJude and two that bear the superscription of John are admitted. Likewise the two Apocalypses of John and Peter. [No mention ismade, it will be seen, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of that ofJames, of I and II Peter, and of III John. ] [Endnote 264:1]

The Pastor of Hermas, a work of recent date, may be read but notpublished in the Church before the people, and cannot be includedeither in the number of the prophets or apostles. 

On the other hand nothing at all can be received of Arsinous, Valentinus, or Miltiades; neither the new Marcionite book ofPsalms, which with Basilides and the Asian founder of theCataphryges (or the founder of the Asian Cataphryges, i. E. Montanus) is rejected. 

The importance of this will be seen at a glance. The chiefquestion is here again in regard to the date, which must bedetermined from the document itself. A sufficiently clearindication seems to be given in the language used respecting thePastor of Hermas. This work is said to have been composed 'verylately in our times, Pius the brother of the writer occupying theepiscopal chair of the Roman Church. ' The episcopate of Pius isdated from 142-157 A. D. , so that 157 A. D. May be taken as thestarting-point from which we have to reckon the interval impliedby the words 'very recently in our times' (nuperrime temporibusnostris). Taking these words in their natural sense, I shouldthink that the furthest limit they would fairly admit of would bea generation, or say thirty years, after the death of Pius (foreven in taking a date such as this we are obliged to assume thatthe Pastor was published only just before the death of thatbishop). The most probable construction seems to be that theunknown author meant that the Pastor of Hermas was composed withinhis own memory. Volkmar is doubtless right in saying [Endnote265:1] that he meant to distinguish the work in question from thewritings of the Prophets and Apostles, but still the double use ofthe words 'nuperrime' and 'temporibus nostris' plainly indicatesomething more definite than merely 'our post-apostolic time. ' Ifthis had been the sense we should have had some such word as'recentius' instead of 'nuperrime. ' The argument of 'SupernaturalReligion' [Endnote 265:2], that 'in supposing that the writer mayhave appropriately used the phrase thirty or forty years after thetime of Pius so much licence is taken that there is absolutely noreason why a still greater interval may not be allowed, ' isclearly playing fast and loose with language, and doing so for nogood reason; for the only ground for assigning a later date isthat the earlier one is inconvenient for the critic's theory. Theother indications tally quite sufficiently with the date 170-190A. D. Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, the Marcionites, we know wereactive long before this period. The Montanists (who appear underthe name by which they were generally known in the earlierwritings, 'Cataphryges') were beginning to be notorious, and arementioned in the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons. Miltiades was a contemporary of Claudius Apollinaris who wroteagainst him [Endnote 266:1]. All the circumstances point to such adate as that of Irenaeus, and the conception of the Canon is verysimilar to that which we should gather from the great work'Against Heresies. ' If this does not agree with preconceivedopinions as to what the state of the Canon ought to have been, itis the opinion that ought to be rectified accordingly, and notplain words explained away. 

I can see no sound objection to the date 170-180 A. D. , but byadding ten years to this we shall reach the extreme limitadmissible. 

I do not know whether it is necessary to refer to the objectionfrom the absence of any mention of the first two Synoptic Gospels, through the mutilated state of the document. It is true that theinference that they were originally mentioned rests only 'uponconjecture' [Endnote 266:2], but it is the kind of conjecturethat, taking all things into consideration--the extent to whichthe evidence of the fragment in other respects corresponds withthe Catholic tradition, the state of the Canon in Irenaeus, therelation of the evidence for the first Gospel in particular tothat for the others--can be reckoned at very little less thanninety-nine chances out of a hundred. 

To the same class belongs Dr. Donaldson's suggestion [Endnote 267:1]that the passage which contains the indication of date may be aninterpolation. It is always possible that the particular passagethat happens to be important in any document of this date may bean interpolation, but the chances that it really is so must be inany case very slight, and here there is no valid reason for suspectinginterpolation. It does not at all follow, as Dr. Donaldson seemsto think, that because a document is mutilated therefore it is morelikely to be interpolated; for interpolation is the result of quitea different series of accidents. The interpolation, if it were such, could not well be accidental because it has no appearance of beinga gloss; on the other hand, only far-fetched and improbable motivescan be alleged for it as intentional. 

The full statement of the fragment in regard to St. Luke's Gospelis as follows. 'Luke the physician after the Ascension of Christ, having been taken into his company by Paul, wrote in his own nameto the best of his judgment (ex opinione), and, though he had nothimself seen the Lord in the flesh, so far as he could ascertain;accordingly he begins his narrative with the birth of John. ' Thegreater part of this account appears to be taken simply from thePreface to the Gospel, which is supplemented by the tradition thatSt. Luke was a physician and also the author of the Acts. Asevidence to those facts a document dating some hundred years afterthe composition of the Gospel is not of course very weighty; itsreal importance is as showing the authority which the Gospel atthis date possessed in the Church. That authority cannot have beenacquired in a day, but represents the culmination of a long andgradual movement. What we have to note is that the movement, someof the stages of which we have been tracing, has now definitelyreached its culmination. 

In regard to the fourth Gospel the Muratorian fragment has alonger story to tell, but before we touch upon this, and before weproceed to draw together the threads of the previous enquiry, itwill be well for us first to bring up the evidence for the fourthGospel to the same date and position as that for the other three. This then will be the subject of the next chapter. 

CHAPTER XII. 

THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

The fourth Gospel was, upon any theory, written later than theothers, and it is not clear that it was published as soon as itwas written. Both tradition and the internal evidence of theconcluding chapter seem to point to the existence of somewhatpeculiar relations between the Evangelist and the presbyters ofthe Asian Church, which would make it not improbable that theGospel was retained for some time by the latter within their ownprivate circle before it was given to the Church at large. 

We have the express statement of Irenaeus [Endnote 269:1], who, ifhe was born as is commonly supposed at Smyrna about 140 A. D. , mustbe a good authority, that the Apostle St. John lived on till thetimes of Trajan (98-117 A. D. ). If so, it is very possible that theGospel was not yet published, or barely published, when Clement ofRome wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians. Neither, consideringits almost esoteric character and the slow rate at which such awork would travel at first, should we be very much surprised if itwas not in the hands of Barnabas (probably in Alexandria) andHermas (at Rome). In no case indeed could the silence of these twowriters be of much moment, as in the Epistle of Barnabas theallusions to the New Testament literature are extremely few andslight, while in the Shepherd of Hermas there are no clear andcertain references either to the Old Testament or the NewTestament at all. 

And yet there is a lively controversy round these two names as towhether or not they contain evidence for the fourth Gospel, andthat they do is maintained not only by apologists, but also bywriters of quite unquestionable impartiality like Dr. Keim. Dr. Keim, it will be remembered, argues against the Johanneanauthorship of the Gospel, and yet on this particular point heseems to be almost an advocate for the side to which he isopposed. 

'Volkmar, ' he says [Endnote 270:1], 'has recently spoken of Barnabasas undeniably ignorant of the Logos-Gospel, and explained the earlydate assigned to his Epistle by Ewald and Weizsäcker and now alsoby Riggenbach as due to their perplexity at finding in it no traceof St. John. There is room for another opinion. However much itmay be shown that Barnabas gives neither an incident nor a singlesentence from the Gospel, that he is unacquainted with the conceptionof the Logos, that expressions like 'water and blood, ' or theOld Testament types of Christ, and especially the serpent rearedin the wilderness as an object of faith, are employed by himindependently--for all this the deeper order of conceptions inthe Epistle coincides in the gross or in detail so repeatedly withthe Gospel that science must either assume a connection betweenthem, or, if it leaves the problem unsolved, renounces its owncalling. "The Son of God" was to be manifested in the flesh, manifested through suffering, to go to his glory through death andthe Cross, to bring life and the immanent presence of the Godhead, such is here and there the leading idea. Existing before thefoundation of the world, the Lord of the world, the sender of theprophets, the object of their prophecies, beheld even by Abraham, in the person of Moses himself typified as the only centre ofIsrael's hopes, and in so far already revealed and glorified intype before his incarnation, he was at last to appear, to dwellamong us, to be seen, not as son of David but as Son of God, inthe garment of the flesh, by those who could not even endure thelight of this world's sun. So did he come; nay, so did he die tofulfil the promise, in the very act of his apparent defeat todispense purification, pardon, life, to destroy death, to overcomethe devil, to show forth the Resurrection, and with the Resurrectionhis right to future judgment; at the same time, it is true, to fillup the measure of the sins of Israel, whom he had loved exceedinglyand for whom he had done such great wonders and signs, and to preparefor himself again a new people who should keep his commandments, his new law. The mission that his Father gave him he has accomplished, of his own free will and for our sake--the true explanation of hisdeath--did he suffer. "The Jews" have not hoped upon him, clearlyas the typical design of the Old Testament and Moses himself pointedto him, and, in opposition to the spiritual teaching of Moses, theyhave been seduced into the carnal and sensual by the devil; theyhave set their trust and their hopes, not upon God, but upon thefleshly circumcision and upon the visible house of God, worshippingthe Lord in the temple almost like the heathen. But the Christianraises himself above the flesh and its lusts, which disturb thefaculties of knowledge as well as those of will, to the Spiritand the spiritual service of God, above the ways of darkness tothe ways of light; he presses on to faith, and with faith toperfect knowledge, as one born again, who is full of the Spiritof God, in whom God dwells and prophesies, interpreting past andfuture without being seen or heard; as taught of God and fulfillingthe commandments of the new law of the Lord, a lover of the brethren, and in himself the child of peace, of joy, and of love. For thisclass of ideas there is no analogy in St. Paul, or even in theEpistle to the Hebrews, but only in this Gospel, much as theconnection has hitherto been overlooked. Indeed, though it maystill in places be questioned on which side the relation of dependencelies (it might be thought that Barnabas supplied the ideas, Johnthe application of them, and the conception of the Logos crowning all), in any case the Gospel appeared at a date near to that of theEpistle of Barnabas. With more reason may it be said that it isnot until we come to the Epistle of Barnabas that we find stiffscholastic theory a more predominant typology, an artificialisedview of Judaism; besides the points of view always appear assomething received and not originated--water and blood, new law, new people--and in the solemn manifestation of the Son of Godimmediately after the selection of the Apostles, in the greatbut fruitless exhibition of miracle and love for Israel, thereis evidently allusion to history, that is, to John ii and xii. '

'The Epistle of Barnabas, ' Dr. Keim adds, 'after the luciddemonstration of Volkmar--in spite of Hilgenfeld and Weizäcker, and now also of Riggenbach--was undoubtedly written at the time ofthe rebuilding of the temple under the Emperor Hadrian, about theyear 120 A. D. (according to Volkmar, at the earliest, 118-119), atlatest 130. '

It is not to be expected that this full and able statement shouldcarry conviction to every reader. And yet I believe that it hassome solid foundation. The single instances are not perhaps suchas could be pressed very far, but they derive a certain weightwhen taken together and as parts of a wider circle of ideas. Theapplication of the type of the brazen serpent to Jesus in c. Xii. May have been suggested by John iii. 14 sqq. , but we cannot saythat it was so with certainty. The same application is made byJustin in a place where there is perhaps less reason to assume aconnection with the fourth Gospel; and we know that types andprophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, andwere soon collected in a kind of common stock from which every onedrew at his pleasure. A stronger case, and one that I incline tothink of some importance, is supplied by the peculiar combinationof 'the water and the cross' in Barn. C. Xi; not that here thereis a direct and immediate, but more probably a mediate, connectionwith the fourth Gospel. The phrase [Greek: ho uios tou theou] isnot peculiar to, though it is more frequent in, and to some degreecharacteristic of, the Gospel and First Epistle of St. John. [Greek: Phanerousthai] may be claimed more decidedly, especiallyby comparison with the other Gospels, though it occurs withsimilar reference to the Incarnation in the later PaulineEpistles. [Greek: 'Elthein en sarki] is again rightly classed as aJohannean phrase, though the exact counterpart is found rather inthe Epistles than the Gospel. The doctrine of pre-existence iscertainly taught in such passages as the application of the text, 'Let us make man in our image, ' which is said to have beenaddressed to the Son 'from the foundation of the world' (c. V). Generally I think it may be said that the doctrine of theIncarnation, the typology, and the use of the Old Testamentprophecies, approximate, most distinctly to the Johannean type, though under the latter heads there is of course much debasedexaggeration. The soteriology we might be perhaps tempted toconnect rather on the one hand with the Epistle to the Hebrews, and on the other with those of St. Paul. There may be something ofan echo of the fourth Gospel in the allusion--to the unbelief andcarnalised religion of the Jews. But the whole question of thespeculative affinities of a writing like this requires subtle anddelicate handling, and should be rather a subject for specialtreatment than an episode in an enquiry like the present. Theopinion of Dr. Keim must be of weight, but on the whole I think itwill be safest and fairest to say that, while the round assertionthat the author of the Epistle was ignorant of our Gospel is notjustified, the positive evidence that he made use of it is notsufficiently clear to be pressed controversially. 

 * * * * *

A similar condition of things may be predicated of the Shepherd ofHermas, though with a more decided leaning to the negative side. Here again Dr. Keim [Endnote 273:1], as well as Canon Westcott[Endnote 273:2], thinks that we can trace an acquaintance with theGospel, but the indications are too general and uncertain to be reliedupon. The imagery of the shepherd and the flock, as perhaps of thetower and the gate, may, be as well taken from the scenes of theRoman Campagna as from any previous writing. The keeping of thecommandments is a commonplace of Christianity, not to say ofreligion. And the Divine immanence in the soul is conceived ratherin the spirit of the elder Gospels than of the fourth. 

There is a nearer approach perhaps in the identification of 'thegate' with the 'Son of God, ' and in the explanation with which itis accompanied. 'The rock is old because the Son of God is olderthan the whole of His creation; so that He was assessor to HisFather in the creation of the world; the gate is new, because Hewas made manifest at the consummation of the last days, and theywho are to be saved enter by it into the kingdom of God' (Sim. Ix. 12). Here too we have the doctrine of pre-existence; andconsidering the juxtaposition of these three points, the pre-existence, the gate (which is the only access to the Lord), theidentification of the gate with the incarnation of Jesus, we maysay perhaps a _possible_ reference to the fourth Gospel;_probable_ it might be somewhat too much to call it. We mustleave the reader to form his own estimate. 

 * * * * *

A somewhat greater force, but not as yet complete cogency, attaches to the evidence of the Ignatian letters. A parallel isalleged to a passage in the Epistle to the Romans which is foundboth in the Syriac and in the shorter Greek or Vossian version. 'Itake no relish in corruptible food or in the pleasures of thislife. I desire bread of God, heavenly bread, bread of life, whichis the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born in thelatter days of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire drinkof God, His blood, which is love imperishable and ever-abidinglife' [Endnote 275:1] (Ep. Ad Rom. C. Vii). This is compared withthe discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum in the sixth chapterof St. John. It should be said that there is a difference ofreading, though not one that materially influences the question, in the Syriac. If the parallel holds good, the peculiar diction ofthe author must be seen in the substitution of [Greek: poma] for[Greek: posis] of John vi. 55, and [Greek: aennaos zoae] for[Greek zoae aionios], of John vi. 54. [The Ignatian phrase isperhaps more than doubtful, as it does not appear either in theSyriac, the Armenian, or the Latin version. ] Still this need notstand in the way of referring the original of the passageultimately to the Gospel. The ideas are so remarkable that itseems difficult to suppose either are accidental coincidence orquotation from another writer. I suspect that Ignatius or theauthor of the Epistle really had the fourth Gospel in his mind, though not quite vividly, and by a train of comparatively remotesuggestions. 

The next supposed allusion is from the Epistle to thePhiladelphians: 'The Spirit, coming from God, is not to bedeceived; for it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth, and it searcheth that which is hidden' [Endnote 275:2]. This isobviously the converse of John iii. 5, where it is said that we donot know the way of the Spirit, which is like the wind, &c. Andyet the exact verbal similarity of the phrase [Greek: oiden pothenerchetai kai pou hupagei], and its appearance in the sameconnection, spoken of the Spirit, leads us to think that therewas--as there may very well have been--an association of ideas. This particular phrase [Greek: pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei] isvery characteristically Johannean. It occurs three times over inthe fourth Gospel, and not at all in the rest of the NewTestament. The combination of [Greek: erchesthai] and [Greekhupagein] also occurs twice, and [Greek: pou [opou] hupago [-gei, -geis]] in all twelve times in the Gospel and once in the Epistle([Greek: ouk oide pou hupagei]); this too, it is striking toobserve, not at all elsewhere. The very word [Greek: hupago] isnot found at all in St. Paul, St. Peter, or the Epistle to theHebrews. Taken together with the special application to theSpirit, this must be regarded as a strong case. 

Neither do the arguments of 'Supernatural Religion' succeed inproving that there is no connection with St. John in suchsentences as, 'There is one God who manifested Himself throughJesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word' (Ad Magn. C. Viii), or who is Himself the door of the Father (Ad Philad. C. Ix). Inregard to the first of these especially, it is doubtless true thatPhilo also has 'the eternal Word, ' which is even the 'Son' of God;but the idea is much more consciously metaphorical, and not onlydid the incarnation of the Logos in a historical person neverenter into Philo's mind, but 'there is no room for it in hissystem' [Endnote 276:1]. 

It should be said that these latter passages are all found only inthe Vossian recension of the Epistles, and therefore, as we sawabove, are in any case evidence for the first half of the secondcentury, while they _may_ be the genuine works of Ignatius. 

 * * * * *

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which goes very muchwith the Ignatian Epistles and the external evidence for which itis so hard to resist, testifies to the fourth Gospel through theso-called first Epistle. That this Epistle is really by the sameauthor as the Gospel is not indeed absolutely undoubted, but Iimagine that it is as certain as any fact of literature can be. The evidence of style and diction is overwhelming [Endnote 277:1]. We may set side by side the two passages which are thought to beparallel. 

_Ep. Ad Phil_. C. Vii. 

[Greek: Pas gar hos an mae homologae Iaesoun Christon en sarkielaeluthenai antichristos esti; kai hos an mae homologae tomarturion tou staurou ek tou diabolou esti; kai hos an methodeuaeta logia tou Kuriou pros tas idias epithumias, kai legae maeteanastasin maete krisin einai, outos prototokos esti tou Satana. ]

1 _John_ vi. 2, 3. 

[Greek: Pan pneuma ho homologei Iaesoun Christon en sarkielaeluthota ek tou Theou estin. Kai pan pneuma ho mae homologeitou Iaesoun ek tou Theou ouk estin, kai touto estin to touantichristou, k. T. L. ]

This is precisely one of those passages where at a superficialglance we are inclined to think that there is no parallel, butwhere a deeper consideration tends to convince us of the opposite. The suggestion of Dr. Scholten cannot indeed be quite excluded, that both writers I have adopted a formula in use in the earlyChurch against various heretics' [Endnote 277:2]. But if such aformula existed it is highly probable that it took its rise fromSt. John's Epistle. This passage of the Epistle of Polycarp is theearliest instance of the use of the word 'Antichrist' outside theJohannean writings in which, alone of the New Testament, it occursfive times. Here too it occurs in conjunction with othercharacteristic phrases, [Greek: homologein, en sarki elaeluthenai, ek tou diabolou]. The phraseology and turns of expression in thesetwo verses accord so entirely with those of the rest of theEpistle and of the Gospel that we must needs take them to be theoriginal work of the writer and not a quotation, and we can hardlydo otherwise than see an echo of them in the words of Polycarp. 

There is naturally a certain hesitation in using evidence for theEpistle as available also for the Gospel, but I have little doubtthat it may justly so be used and with no real diminution of itsforce. The chance that the Epistle had a separate author is toosmall to be practically worth considering. 

This then will apply to the case of Papias, of whose relations tothe fourth Gospel we have no record, but of whom Eusebius expresslysays, that 'he made use of testimonies from the first Epistle of John. 'There is the less reason to doubt this statement, as in _every_instance in which a similar assertion of Eusebius can be verifiedit is found to hold good. It is much more probable that he wouldoverlook real analogies than be led astray by merely imaginaryones--which is rather a modern form of error. In textual mattersthe ancients were not apt to go wrong through over-subtlety, andEusebius himself does not, I believe, deserve the charge of'inaccuracy and haste' that is made against him [Endnote 278:1]. 

 * * * * *

In regard to the much disputed question of the use of the fourthGospel by Justin, those who maintain the affirmative have againemphatic support from Dr. Keim [Endnote 278:2]. We will examinesome of the instances which are adduced on this side. 

And first, in his account of John the Baptist, Justin has twoparticulars which are found in the fourth Gospel and in no other. That Gospel alone makes the Baptist himself declare, 'I am not theChrist;' and it alone puts into his mouth the application of theprophecy of Isaiah, 'I am the voice of one crying in thewilderness. ' Justin combines these two sayings, treating them asan answer made by John to some who supposed that he was theChrist. 

_Justin, Dial_. C. 88. 

To whom he himself also cried: 'I am not the Christ, but the voiceof one crying [Greek: ouk eimi o Christos, alla phonae boontos];for there shall come one stronger than I, ' &c. 

_John_ i. 19, 20, 23. 

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests andLevites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not: but confessed, I am not the Christ [Greek: oti oukeimi ego o Christos]... I am the voice of one crying [Greek: egophonae boontos] in the wilderness, ' &c. 

The passage in Justin does not profess to be a direct quotation;it is merely a historical reproduction, and, as such, it has quiteas much accuracy as we should expect to find. The circumstantialcoincidences are too close to be the result of accident. And Dr. Keim is doubtless right in ridiculing Volkmar's notion that Justinhas merely developed Acts xiii. 25, which contains neither of thetwo phrases ([Greek: ho Christos, phonae boontos]) in question. Torefer the passage to an unknown source such as the Gospelaccording to the Hebrews--all we know of which shows itsaffinities to have been rather on the side of the Synoptics--whenwe have a known source in the fourth Gospel ready to hand, isquite unreasonable [Endnote 280:1]. 

No great weight, though perhaps some fractional quantity, can beascribed to the statement that Jesus healed those who were maimedfrom their birth ([Greek: tous ek genetaes paerous] [Endnote280:2]). The word [Greek: paeros] is used specially for the blind, and the fourth Evangelist is the only one who mentions the healingof congenital infirmity, which he does under this same phrase[Greek: ek genetaes], and that of a case of blindness (John ix. 1). The possibility urged in 'Supernatural Religion, ' that Justinmay be merely drawing from tradition, may detract from the forceof this but cannot altogether remove it, especially as we have noother trace of a tradition containing this particular. 

Tischendorf [Endnote 280:3] lays stress on a somewhat remarkablephenomenon in connection with the quotation of Zech. Xvi. 10, 'They shall look on him whom they pierced. ' Justin gives the textof this in precisely the same form as St. John, and with the samevariation from the Septuagint, [Greek: opsontai eis honexekentaesan] for [Greek: epiblepsontai pros me anth honkatorchaesanto]--a variation which is also found in Rev. I. 7. Those who believe that the Apocalypse had the same author as theGospel, naturally see in this a confirmation of their view, and itwould seem to follow that Justin had had either one or bothwritings before him. But the assumption of an identity ofauthorship between the Apocalypse and the Gospel, though I believeless unreasonable than is generally supposed, still is too muchdisputed to build anything upon in argument. We must not ignorethe other theory, that all three writers had before them and mayhave used independently a divergent text of the Septuagint. Somecountenance is given to this by the fact that ten MSS. Of theSeptuagint present the same reading [Endnote 281:1]. There can belittle doubt however that it was in its origin a Christiancorrection, which had the double advantage of at once bringing theGreek into closer conformity to the Hebrew, and of also furnishingsupport to the Christian application of the prophecy. Whether thiscorrection was made before either the Apocalypse or the Gospelwere written, or whether it appeared in these works for the firsttime and from them was copied into other Christian writings, mustremain an open question. 

The saying in Apol. I. 63, 'so that they are rightly convictedboth by the prophetic Spirit and by Christ Himself, that they knewneither the Father nor the Son' ([Greek: oute ton patera oute tonuion egnosan]), certainly presents a close resemblance to Johnxvi. 3, [Greek: ouk egnosan ton patera oude eme]. But a study ofthe context seems to make it clear that the only passageconsciously present to Justin's mind was Matt. Xi. 27. Dr. Keimthinks that St. John supplied him with a commentary oh theMatthaean text; but the coincidence may be after all accidental. 

But the most important isolated case of literary parallelism isthe well-known passage in Apol. I. 61 [Endnote 281:2]. 

_Apol_. I. 61. 

For Christ said: Except ye be born again ye shall not enter intothe kingdom of heaven. Now that it is impossible for those whohave once been born to return into the wombs of those who barethem is evident to all. 

[Greek: Kai gar ho Christos eipen, An mae anagennaethaete, ou maeeiselthaete eis taen Basileian ton ouranon. Hoti de kai adunatoneis tas maetras ton tekouson tous hapax gennomenous embaenai, phaneron pasin esti. ]

_John_ iii. 3-5. 

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born over again (or possibly 'from above'), hecannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can aman be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into hismother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I sayunto thee, Except any one be born of Water and Spirit, he cannotenter into the kingdom of God. 

[Greek: Apekrithae Iaesous kai eipen auto Amaen amaen lego soi, ean mae tis gennaethae anothen ou dunatai idein taen Basilaian touTheou. Legei pros aouton ho Nikodaemos, Pos dunatai anthroposgennaethaenai geron on; mae dunatai eis taen koilian taes maertrosautou deuteron eiselthein kai gennaethaenai; k. T. L. ]

Here we have first to determine the meaning of the word [Greek: anothen]in the phrase [Greek: gennaethae anothen] of John iii. 3 on whichthe extent of the parallelism to some degree turns. Does it mean'be born _over again_, ' like Justin's [Greek: anagennaethaete]?Or does it mean 'be born _from above_, ' i. E. By a heavenly, divine, regeneration? To express an opinion in favour of the first of theseviews would naturally be to incur the charge of taking it up merely tosuit the occasion. It is not however necessary; for it is sufficient toknow that whether or not this meaning was originally intended by theEvangelist, it is a meaning that Justin might certainly put upon thewords. That this is the case is sufficiently proved by the fact thatthe Syriac version (which is quoted in 'Supernatural Religion, ' by apardonable mistake, on the other side [Endnote 283:1]) actuallytranslates the words thus. So also does the Vulgate; with Tertullian('renatus'), Augustine, Chrysostom (partly), Luther, Calvin, Maldonatus, &c. For the sense 'from above' are the Gothic version, Origen, Cyril, Theophylact, Bengel, &c. ; on the whole a fairly equaldivision of opinion. The question has been of late elaboratelyre-argued by Mr. McClellan [Endnote 283:2], who decides in favour of'again. ' But, without taking sides either way, it is clear that Justinwould have had abundant support, in particular that of his own nationalversion, if he intended [Greek: anagennaethaete] to be a paraphrase of[Greek: gennaethae anothen]. 

It is obvious that if he is quoting St. John the quotation isthroughout paraphrastic. And yet it is equally noticeable that hedoes not use the exact Johannean phrase, he uses others that arein each case almost precisely equivalent. He does not say [Greek:our dunatai idein--taen basileian ton ouranon], but he says[Greek: ou mae eiselthaete eis--taen basileian ton ouranon], thelatter pair phrases which the Synoptics have already taught us toregard as convertible. He does not say [Greek: mae dunatai eistaen koilian taes maetros autou deuteron eiselthein kaigennaethaenai], but he says [Greek: adunaton eis tas maetras tontekouson tous hapax gennomenous embaebai]. And the scale seemsdecisively turned by the very remarkable combination in Justin andSt. John of the saying respecting spiritual regeneration with thesame strangely gross physical misconception. It is all butimpossible that two minds without concert or connection shouldhave thought of introducing anything of the kind. Nicodemus makesan objection, and Justin by repeating the same objection, and in aform that savours so strongly of platitude, has shown, I think wemust say, conclusively, that he was aware that the objection hadbeen made. 

Such are some of the chief literary coincidences between Justinand the fourth Gospel; but there are others more profound. Justinundoubtedly has the one cardinal doctrine of the fourth Gospel--the doctrine of the Logos. 

Thus he writes. 'Jesus Christ is in the proper sense [Greek:idios] the only Son begotten of God, being His Word [Greek: logos]and Firstborn Power' [Endnote 284:1]. Again, 'But His Son whoalone is rightly [Greek: kurios] called Son, who before allcreated things was with Him and begotten of Him as His Word, whenin the beginning He created and ordered all things through Him, '&c. Again, 'Now the next Power to God the Father and Lord of all, and Son [Endnote 284:2], is the Word, of whom we shall relate inwhat follows how He was made flesh and became Man. ' Again, 'The Word of God is His Son. ' Again, speaking of the Gentilephilosophers and lawgivers, 'Since they did not know all thingsrespecting the Word, who is Christ, they have also frequentlycontradicted each other. ' These passages are given by Tischendorf, and they might be added to without difficulty; but it is notquestioned that the term Logos is found frequently in Justin'swritings, and in the same sense in which it is used in thePrologue of the fourth Gospel of the eternal Son of God, who is atthe same time the historical person Jesus Christ. 

The natural inference that Justin was acquainted with the fourthGospel is met by suggesting other sources for the doctrine. Thesesources are of two kinds, Jewish or Alexandrine. 

It is no doubt true that a vivid personification of the Wisdom ofGod is found both in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha. Thusin the book of Proverbs we have an elaborate ode upon Wisdom asthe eternal assessor in the counsels of God: 'The Lord possessedme in' the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I wasset up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earthwas. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when therewere no fountains of water ... When He prepared the heavens, I wasthere: when He set a compass upon the face of the deep ... Then Iwas by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily Hisdelight, rejoicing always before Him' [Endnote 285:1]. The ideasof which this is perhaps the clearest expression are found morevaguely in other parts of the same book, in the Psalms, and in thebook of Job, but they are further expanded and developed in thetwo Apocryphal books of Wisdom. There [Endnote 285:2] Wisdom isrepresented as the 'breath of the power of God, and a pureinfluence flowing from the glory of the Almighty, ' as 'thebrightness [Greek: apaugasma] of the everlasting light, theunspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of Hisgoodness. ' Wisdom 'sitteth by the throne' of God. She reachethfrom one end to another mightily: and sweetly doth she order allthings. ' 'She is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of Godand a lover of His works. ' God 'created her before the world'[Endnote 286:1]. We also get by the side of this, but in quite asubordinate place and in a much less advanced stage of personification, the idea of the Word or Logos: 'O God of my fathers ... Who hastmade all things with thy word, and ordained man through thy wisdom'[Endnote 286:2]. 'It was neither herb nor mollifying plaister thatrestored them to health: but thy word, O Lord, which healeth all things. 'It was 'the Almighty word' ([Greek: ho pantodunamos logos]) 'thatleaped down from heaven' to slay the Egyptians. 

But still it will be seen that there is a distinct gap betweenthese conceptions and that which we find in Justin. The leadingidea is that of Wisdom, not of the Word. The Word is not evenpersonified separately; it is merely the emitted power or energyof God. And the personification of Wisdom is still to a largeextent poetical, it does not attain to separate metaphysicalhypostasis; it is not thought of as being really personal. 

The Philonian conception, on the other hand, is metaphysical, butit contains many elements that are quite discordant andinconsistent with that which we find in Justin. That it must havebeen so will be seen at once when we think of the sources fromwhich Philo's doctrine was derived. It included in itself thePlatonic theory of Ideas, the diffused Logos or _anima mundi_of the Stoics, and the Oriental angelology or doctrine ofintermediate beings between God and man. On its Platonic side theLogos is the Idea of Ideas summing up the world of highabstractions which themselves are also regarded as possessing aseparate individuality; they are Logoi by the side of the Logos. On its Stoic side it becomes a Pantheistic Essence pervading thelife of things; it is 'the law, ' 'the bond' which holds the worldtogether; the world is its 'garment. ' On its Eastern side, theLogos is the 'Archangel, ' the 'Captain of the hosts of heaven, 'the 'Mother-city' from which they issue as colonists, the 'Vice-gerent' of the Great King [Endnote 287:1]. 

It needed a more powerful mind than Justin's to reduce all this toits simple Christian expression, to take the poetry of Judaea andthe philosophy of Alexandria and to interpret and realise both inthe light of the historical events of the birth and life ofChrist. 'The Word became flesh' is the key by which Justin is madeintelligible, and that key is supplied by the fourth Gospel. Noother Christian writer had combined these two ideas before--thedivine Logos, with the historical personality of Jesus. Whentherefore we find the ideas combined as in Justin, we arenecessarily referred to the fourth Gospel for them; for thestrangely inverted suggestion of Volkmar, that the author of thefourth Gospel borrowed from Justin, is on chronological, if not onother grounds, certainly untenable. We shall see that the fourthGospel was without doubt in existence at the date which Volkmarassigns to Justin's Apology, 150 A. D. 

 * * * * *

The history of the discussion as to the relation of the ClementineHomilies to the fourth Gospel is highly instructive, not only initself, but also for the light which it throws upon the generalcharacter of our enquiry and the documents with which it isconcerned. It has been already mentioned that up to the year 1853the Clementine Homilies were only extant in a mutilated form, ending abruptly in the middle of Hom. Xix. 14. In that year acomplete edition was at last published by Dressel from amanuscript in the Vatican containing the rest of the nineteenthand the twentieth Homily. The older portion occupies in all, withthe translation and critical apparatus, 381 large octavo pages inDressel's edition; the portion added by Dressel occupies 34. Andyet up to 1853, though the Clementine Homilies had been carefullystudied with reference to the use of the fourth Gospel, only a fewindications had been found, and those were disputed. In fact, thecontroversy was very much at such a point as others with which wehave been dealing; there was a certain probability in favour ofthe conclusion that the Gospel had been used, but stillconsiderably short of the highest. Since the publication of theconclusion of the Homilies the question has been set at rest. Hilgenfeld, who had hitherto been a determined advocate of thenegative theory, at once gave up his ground [Endnote 288:1]; andVolkmar, who had somewhat less to retract, admitted and admits[Endnote 288:2] that the fact of the use of the Gospel must beconsidered as proved. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' standsalone in still resisting this conviction [Endnote 288:3], but theresult I suspect will be only to show in stronger relief the one-sidedness of his critical method. 

We will follow the example that is set us in presenting the wholeof the passages alleged to contain allusions to the fourth Gospel;and it is the more interesting to do so with the key that therecent discovery has put into Our hands. The first runs thus:--

_Hom. _ iii. 52. 

Therefore he, being a true prophet, said: I am the gate of life;he that entereth in through me entereth into life: for theteaching that can save is none other [than mine]. 

[Greek: Dia touto autos alaethaes on prophaetaes elegen; Ego eimihae pulae taes zoaes; ho di' emou eiserchomenos eiserchetai eistaen zoaen; hos ouk ousaes heteras taes sozein dunamenaesdidaskalias. ]

_John_ x. 9. 

I am the door: by me if any one enter in, he shall be saved, andshall come in and go out, and shall find pasture. 

[Greek: Ego eimi hae thura; di' emou ean tis eiselthae sothaesetaikai eiseleusetai kai exeleusetai kai nomaen heuraesei. ]

Apart from other evidence it would have been somewhat precariousto allege this as proof of the use of the fourth Gospel, and yet Ibelieve there would have been a distinct probability that it wastaken from that work. The parallel is much closer--in spite of[Greek: thura] for [Greek: pulae]--than is Matt. Vii. 13, 14 (the'narrow gate') which is adduced in 'Supernatural Religion, ' andthe interval is very insufficiently bridged over by Ps. Cxviii. 19, 20 ('This is the gate of the Lord'). The key-note of thepassage is given in the identification of the gate with the personof the Saviour ('_I_ am the door') and in the remarkableexpression 'he that entereth in _through me_, ' which isretained in the Homily. It is curious to notice the way in whichthe [Greek: sothaesetai] of the Gospel has been expandedexegetically. 

Less doubtful--and indeed we should have thought almost beyond adoubt--is the next reference; 'My sheep hear my voice. '

_Hom. _ iii. 52. 

[Greek: ta ema probata akouei taes emaes phonaes. ]

_John_ x. 27. [Greek: ta probata ta ema taes phonaes mouakouei. ]

'There was no more common representation amongst the Jews of therelation of God and his people than that of Shepherd and hissheep' [Endnote 290:1]. That is to say, it occurs of Jehovah or ofthe Messiah some twelve or fifteen times in the Old and NewTestament together, but never with anything at all closelyapproaching to the precise and particular feature given here. Letthe reader try to estimate the chances that another source thanthe fourth Gospel is being quoted. Criticism is made null and voidwhen such seemingly plain indications as this are discarded infavour of entirely unknown quantities like the 'Gospel accordingto the Hebrews. ' If the author of 'Supernatural Religion' were toturn his own powers of derisive statement against his ownhypotheses they would present a very strange appearance. 

The reference that follows has in some respects a rather markedresemblance to that which we were discussing in Justin, and forthe relation between them to be fully appreciated should be givenalong with it:--

_Justin, Apol. _ i. 61. 

Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom ofheaven. 

[Greek: An mae anagennaethaete ou mae eiselthaete eis taenbasileian ton ouranon. ]

_Clem. Hom. _ xi. 26. 

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be born again with living water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ye shall not enterinto the kingdom of heaven. 

[Greek: Amaen humin lego, ean mae anagennaethaete hudati zonti eisonoma patros, uhiou, hagiou pneumatos, ou mae eiselthaete eis taenbasileian ton ouranon. ]

_John_ iii. 3, 5. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Exceptany one be born over again (or 'from above') he cannot see thekingdom of God ... Except any one be born of water and Spirit, hecannot enter into the kingdom of God. 

[Greek: Amaen amaen lego soi, ean mae tis gennaethae anothen, oudunatai idein taen basileian tou Theou ... Ean mae tis gennaethaeex hudatos kai pneumatos, ou dunatai eiselthein eis taen basileiantou Theou. ]

[Greek: pneum]. Add. [Greek: hagiou] Vulg. (Clementine edition), a, ff, m, Aeth. , Orig. (Latin translator). 

Here it will be noticed that Justin and the Clementines have fourpoints in common, [Greek: anagennaethaete] for [Greek: gennaethaeanothen], the second person plural (twice over) for [Greek: tis]and the singular, [Greek: ou mae] and the subjunctive for [Greek:ou dunatai] and infinitive, and [Greek: taen basileian tonouranon], for [Greek: taen basileian tou Theou]. To the last ofthese points much importance could not be attached in itself, asit represents a persistent difference between the first and theother Synoptists even where they had the same original. As boththe Clementines and Justin used the first Gospel more than theothers, it is only natural that they should fall into the habit ofusing its characteristic phrase. Neither would the other pointshave had very much importance taken separately, but theirimportance increases considerably when they come to be takentogether. 

On the other hand, we observe in the Clementines (where it ishowever connected with Matt. Xxviii. 19) the sufficiently nearequivalent for the striking Johannean phrase [Greek: ex hudatoskai pneumatos] which is omitted entirely by Justin. 

The most probable view of the case seems to be that both theClementines and Justin are quoting from memory. Both have in theirmemory the passage of St. John, but both have also distinctlybefore them (so much the more distinctly as it is the Gospel whichthey habitually used) the parallel passage in Matt. Xviii. 3--where _all the last three_ out of the four common variationsare found, besides, along with the Clementines, the omission ofthe second [Greek: amaen], --'Verily I say unto you, Except ye beconverted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter intothe kingdom of heaven' ([Greek: on mae eiseathaete eis taenbasileian ton ouranon]). It is out of the question that this_only_ should have been present to the mind of the writers;and, in view of the repetition of Nicodemus' misunderstanding byJustin and of the baptism by water and Spirit in the ClementineHomilies, it seems equally difficult to exclude the reference toSt. John. It is in fact a Johannean saying in a Matthaeanframework. 

There is the more reason to accept this solution, that neitherJustin nor the Clementines can in any case represent the originalform of the passages quoted. If Justin's version were correct, whence did the Clementines get the [Greek: hudati zonti k. T. L. ]? ifthe Clementine, then whence did Justin get the misconception ofNicodemus? But the Clementine version is in any case too eccentricto stand. 

The last passage is the one that is usually considered to bedecisive as to the use of the fourth Gospel. 

_Hom_. Xix. 22. 

Hence too our Teacher, when explaining to those who asked of himrespecting the man who was blind from his birth and recovered hissight, whether this man sinned or his parents that he should beborn blind, replied: Neither this man sinned, nor his parents; butthat through him the power of God might be manifested healing thesins of ignorance. 

[Greek: Hothen kai didaskalos haemon peri tou [Endnote 293:1] ekgenetaes paerou kai anablepsantos par' autou exetazon erotaesasin, ei ohutos haemarten ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae[Endnote 293:1] apekrinato oute ohutos ti haemarten, oute oigoneis autou, all' hina di autou phanerothae hae dunamis tou Theoutaes agnoias iomenae ta hamartaemata. ]

_John_ ix. 1-3. 

And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And hisdisciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or hisparents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neitherhath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of Godshould be manifested in him. 

[Greek: Kai paragon eiden anthropon tuphlon ek genetaes. Kaiaerotaesan auton oi mathaetai autou legontes, Rhabbei, tishaemarten, ohutos ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae;apekrithae Iaesous, Oute ohutos haemarten oute oi goneis autou, all' hina phanerothae ta erga tou Theou en auto. ]

The author of 'Supernatural Religion' undertakes to show 'thatthe context of this passage in the Homily bears positivecharacteristics which render it impossible that it can have beentaken from the fourth Gospel' [Endnote 293:2]. I think we mayventure to say that he does indeed show somewhat conspicuously theway in which he uses the word 'impossible' and the kind of groundson which that and such like terms are employed throughout hiswork. 

It is a notorious fact, abundantly established by certainquotations from the Old Testament and elsewhere, that the lastthing regarded by the early patristic writers was context. But inthis case the context is perfectly in keeping, and to a clear andunprejudiced eye it presents no difficulty. The Clementine writeris speaking of the origin of physical infirmities, and he saysthat these are frequently due, not to moral error, but to mereignorance on the part of parents. As an instance of this he givesthe case of the man who was born blind, of whom our Lord expresslysaid that neither he nor his parents had sinned--morally or insuch a way as to deserve punishment. On the contrary they haderred simply through ignorance, and the object of the miracle wasto make a display of the Divine mercy removing the consequences ofsuch error. 'And in reality, ' he proceeds, 'things of this kindare the result of ignorance. The misfortunes of which you spoke, proceed from ignorance and not from any wicked action. ' This isperfectly compatible with every word of the Johannean narrative. The concluding clause of the quotation is merely a paraphrase ofthe original (no part of the quotation professes to be exact), bringing out a little more prominently the special point of theargument. There is ample room for this. The predetermined objectof the miracle, says St. John, was to display the works of God, and the Clementine writer specifies the particular work of Goddisplayed--the mercy which heals the evil consequences ofignorance. If there is anything here at all inconsistent with theGospel it would be interesting to know (and we are not told) whatwas the kind of original that the author of the Homily really hadbefore him. 

A further discussion of this passage I should hardly suppose to benecessary. Nothing could be more wanton than to assign thispassage to an imaginary Gospel merely on the ground alleged. Thehypothesis was less violent in regard to the Synoptic Gospels, which clearly contain a large amount of common matter that mightalso have found its way into other hands. We have evidence of theexistence of other Gospels presenting a certain amount of affinityto the first Gospel, but the fourth is stamped with an idiosyncracywhich makes it unique in its kind. If there is to be this freedomin inventing unknown documents, reproducing almost verbatim thefeatures of known ones, sober criticism is at an end. 

That the Clementine Homilies imply the use of the fourth Gospelmay be considered to be, not indeed certain in a strict sense ofthe word, but as probable as most human affairs can be. The realelement or doubt is in regard to their date, and their evidencemust be taken subject to this uncertainty. 

 * * * * *

It is perhaps hardly worth while to delay over the Epistle toDiognetus: not that I do not believe the instances alleged byTischendorf and Dr. Westcott [Endnote 295:1] to be in themselvessound, but because there exists too little evidence to determinethe date of the Epistle, and because it may be doubted whether theargument for the use of the fourth Gospel in the Epistle can beexpressed strongly in an objective form. The allusions in questionare not direct quotations, but are rather reminiscences oflanguage. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' has treated themas if they were the former [Endnote 296:1]; he has enquired intothe context &c. , not very successfully. But such enquiry is reallyout of place. When the writer of the Epistle says, 'Christiansdwell in the world but are not of the world' [Greek: ouk xisi deek tou kosmou] = exactly John xvii. 14; note peculiar use of thepreposition); 'For God loved men for whose sakes He made the world... Unto whom He sent His only begotten Son' (= John iii. 16, 'Godso loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son'); 'How willyou love Him who so beforehand loved you' [Greek: proagapaesanta];cf. I John iv. 19, [Greek: protos aegapaesen] 'He sent His Son aswishing to save ... And not to condemn' ([Greek: sozon ... Krinon]of. John iii. 16), --the probability is about as great that he hadin his mind St. John's language as it would be if the same phraseswere to occur in a modern sermon. It is a real probability; butnot one that can be urged very strongly. 

 * * * * *

Of more importance--indeed of high importance--is the evidencedrawn from the remains of earlier writers preserved by Irenaeusand Hippolytus. There is a clear reference to the fourth Gospel ina passage for which Irenaeus alleges the authority of certain'Presbyters, ' who at the least belonged to an elder generationthan his own. There can be little doubt indeed that they are thesame as those whom he describes three sentences later and withonly a momentary break in the oblique narration into which thepassage is thrown, as 'the Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles. 'It may be well to give the language of Irenaeus in full as it hasbeen the subject of some controversy. Speaking of the rewards ofthe just in the next world, he says [Endnote 297:1]:--

'For Esaias says, "Like as the new heaven and new earth which Icreate remain before me, saith the Lord, so your seed and yourname shall stand. " And as the Presbyters say, then too those whoare thought worthy to have their abode in Heaven shall go thither, and some shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, while others shallpossess the splendour of the City; for everywhere the Saviourshall be seen according as they shall be worthy who look upon Him. [So far the sentence has been in oratio recta, but here it becomesoblique. ] And [they say] that there is this distinction indwelling between those who bear fruit an hundred fold and thosewho bear sixty and those who bear thirty, some of whom shall becarried off into the Heavens, some shall stay in Paradise, andsome shall dwell in the City. And for this reason, [they say that]the Lord declared ([Greek: eipaekenai]) that _in my Father's_[realm] _are many mansions;_ for all things [are] of God, whogives to all the fitting habitation: even as His Word saith(_ait_), that to all is allotted by the Father as each is orshall be worthy. And this is (_est_) the couch upon whichthey shall recline who are bidden to His marriage supper. Thatthis is (_esse_) the order and disposition of the saved, thePresbyters, disciples of the Apostles, say, ' etc. 

That Irenaeus is here merely giving the 'exegesis of his own day, 'as the author of 'Supernatural Religion' suggests [Endnote 297:2], is not for a moment tenable. Irenaeus does indeed interpose fortwo sentences (Omnia enim... Ad nuptias) to give his own commenton the saying of the Presbyters; but these are sharply cut offfrom the rest by the use of the present indicative instead of theinfinitive. There can be no question at all that the quotation 'inMy Father's realm are many mansions' [Greek: en tois ton Patrosmon monas einai pollas] belongs to the Presbyters, and there canbe but little doubt that these Presbyters are the same as thosespoken of as 'disciples of the Apostles. '

Whether they were also 'the Presbyters' referred to as hisauthority by Papias is quite a secondary and subordinate question. Considering the Chiliastic character of the passage, theconjecture [Endnote 298:1] that they were does not seem to meunreasonable. This however we cannot determine positively. It isquite enough that Irenaeus evidently attributes to them anantiquity considerably beyond his own; that, in fact, he looksupon them as supplying the intermediate link between his age andthat of the Apostles. 

 * * * * *

Two quotations from the fourth Gospel are attributed to Basilides, both of them quite indisputable as quotations. The first is foundin the twenty-second chapter of the seventh book of the'Refutation, ' 'That was the true light which lighteth every manthat cometh into the world [Endnote 298:2] ([Greek: aen to phos toalaethinon, o photizei panta anthropon erchomenon eis ton kosmon]= John i. 9), and the second in the twenty-seventh chapter, 'Myhour is not yet come' ([Greek: oupo aekei aeora mon] = John ii. 4). Both of these passages are instances of the exegesis by whichthe Basilidian doctrines were defended. 

The real question is here, as in regard to the Synoptics, whetherthe quotations were made by Basilides himself or by his disciples, 'Isidore and his crew. ' The second instance I am disposed to thinkmay possibly be due to the later representatives of this school, because, though the quotation is introduced by [Greek: phaesi] inthe singular, and though Basilides himself can in no case beexcluded, still there is nothing in the chapter to identify thesubject of [Greek: phaesi] specially with him, and in the nextsentence Hippolytus writes, 'This is that which they understand([Greek: ho kat' autous nenoaemenos]) by the inner spiritual man, '&c. But the earlier instance is different. There Basilides himselfdoes seem to be specially singled out. 

He is mentioned by name only two sentences above that in which thequotation occurs. Hippolytus is referring to the Basilidiandoctrine of the origin of things. He says, 'Now since it was notallowable to say that something non-existent had come into beingas a projection from a non-existent Deity--for Basilides avoidsand shuns the existences of things brought into being byprojection [Endnote 299:1]--for what need is there of projection, or why should matter be presupposed in order that God should makea world, just as a spider its web or as mortal man in makingthings takes brass or wood or any other portion of matter? But Hespake--so he says--and it was done, and this is, as these men say, that which is said by Moses: "Let there be light, and there waslight. " Whence, he says, came the light? Out of nothing; for weare not told--he says--whence it came, but only that it was at thevoice of Him that spake. Now He that spake--he says--was not, andthat which was made, was not. Out of that which was not--he says--was made the seed of the world, the word which was spoken, "Letthere be light;" and this--he says--is that which is spoken inthe Gospels; "That was the true light which lighteth every manthat cometh into the world. '" We must not indeed overlook the factthat the plural occurs once in the middle of this passage asintroducing the words of Moses; 'as these men say. ' And yet, though this decidedly modifies, I do not think that it removes theprobability that Basilides himself is being quoted. It seems afair inference that at the beginning of the passage Hippolytus hadthe work of Basilides actually before him; and the singledigression in [Greek: legousin houtoi] does not seem enough toshow that it was laid aside. This is confirmed when we look backtwo chapters at the terms in which the whole account of theBasilidian system is introduced. 'Let us see, ' Hippolytus says, 'how flagrantly Basilides as well as (B. [Greek: homou kai])Isidore and all their crew contradict not only Matthias but theSaviour himself. ' Stress is laid upon the name of Basilides, as ifto say, 'It is not merely a new-fangled heresy, but dates back tothe head and founder of the school. ' When in the very nextsentence Hippolytus begins with [Greek: phaesi], the naturalconstruction certainly seems to be that he is quoting some work ofBasilides which he takes as typical of the doctrine of the wholeschool. A later work would not suit his purpose or prove hispoint. Basilides includes Isidore, but Isidore does not includeBasilides. 

We conclude then that there is a probability--not an overwhelming, but quite a substantial, probability--that Basilides himself usedthe fourth Gospel, and used it as an authoritative record of thelife of Christ. But Basilides began to teach in 125 A. D. , so thathis evidence, supposing it to be valid, dates from a very earlyperiod indeed: and it should be remembered that this is the onlyuncertainty to which it is subject. That the quotation is reallyfrom St. John cannot be doubted. 

The account which Hippolytus gives of the Valentinians alsocontains an allusion to the fourth Gospel; 'All who came before Meare thieves and robbers' (cf. John x. 8). But here the master andthe disciples are more confused. Less equivocal evidence isafforded by the statements of Irenaeus respecting the Valentinians. He says that the Valentinians used the fourth Gospel very freely(plenissime) [Endnote 301:1]. This applies to a date that cannotbe in any case later than 180 A. D. , and that may extend almostindefinitely backwards. There is no reason to say that it does notinclude Valentinus himself. Positive evidence is wanting, but negativeevidence still more. Apart from evidence to the contrary, there mustbe a presumption against the introduction of a new work which becomesat once a frequently quoted authority midway in the history of a school. 

But to keep to facts apart from presumptions. Irenaeus representsPtolemaeus as quoting largely from the Prologue to the Gospel. ButPtolemaeus, as we have seen, had already gathered a school abouthim when Irenaeus became acquainted with him. His evidencetherefore may fairly be said to cover the period from 165-175 A. D. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to be somewhat besidethe mark when he says that 'in regard to Ptolemaeus all that isaffirmed is that in the Epistle to Flora ascribed to himexpressions found in John i. 3 are used. ' True it is that suchexpressions are found, and before we accept the theory in'Supernatural Religion' that the parenthesis in which they occuris due to Epiphanius who quotes the letter in full himself[Endnote 302:1], it is only right that some other instance shouldbe given of such parenthetic interruption. The form in which theletter is quoted, not in fragments interspersed with comments butcomplete and at full length, with a formal heading and close, really excludes such a hypothesis. But, a century and a halfbefore Epiphanius, Irenaeus had given a string of Valentiniancomments on the Prologue, ending with the words, 'Et Ptolemaeusquidem ita' [Endnote 302:2]. Heracleon, too, is coupled withPtolemaeus by Irenaeus [Endnote 302:3], and according to the viewof the author of 'Supernatural Religion, ' had a school around himat the time of Irenaeus' visit to Rome in 178 A. D. But thisHeracleon was the author of a Commentary on St. John's Gospel towhich Origen in his own parallel work frequently alludes. Theseare indeed dismissed in 'Supernatural Religion' as 'unsupportedreferences. ' But we may well ask, what support they need. Thereferences are made in evident good faith. He says, for instance[Endnote 302:4], that Heracleon's exegesis of John i. 3, 'Allthings were made by Him, ' excluding from this the world and itscontents, is very forced and without authority. Again, he hasmisinterpreted John i. 4, making 'in Him was life' mean not 'inHim' but 'in spiritual men. ' Again, he wrongly attributes John i. 18 not to the Evangelist, but to the Baptist. And so on. Theallusions are all made in this incidental manner; and the life ofOrigen, if he was born, as is supposed, about 185 A. D. , wouldoverlap that of Heracleon. What evidence could be more sufficient?or if such evidence is to be discarded, what evidence are we toaccept? Is it to be of the kind that is relied upon for referringquotations to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the Gospelaccording to Peter, or the [Greek: Genna Marias]? There aresometimes no doubt reasonable grounds for scepticism as to thepatristic statements, but none such are visible here. On thecontrary, that Heracleon should have written a commentary on thefourth Gospel falls in entirely with what Irenaeus says as to thelarge use that was made of that Gospel by the Valentinians. 

 * * * * *

As we approach the end of the third and beginning of the fourthquarter of the second century the evidence for the fourth Gospelbecomes widespread and abundant. At this date we have attentioncalled to the discrepancy between the Gospels as to the date ofthe Crucifixion by Claudius Apollinaris. We have also Tatian, theEpistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, the heathen Celsusand the Muratorian Canon, and then a very few years laterTheophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus. 

I imagine that there can be really no doubt about Tatian. Whatevermay have been the nature of the Diatessaron, the 'Address to theGreeks' contains references which it is mere paradox to dispute. Iwill not press the first of these which is given by Dr. Westcott, not because I do not believe that it is ultimately based upon thefourth Gospel, still less that there is the slightest contradictionto St. John's doctrine, but because Tatian's is a philosophical commentperhaps a degree too far removed from the original to be quiteproducible as evidence. It is one of the earliest speculations as tothe ontological relation between the Father and the Son. In thebeginning God was alone--though all things were with Him potentially. By the mere act of volition He gave birth to the Logos, who was thereal originative cause of things. Yet the existence of the Logos wasnot such as to involve a separation of identity in the Godhead; itinvolved no diminution in Him from whom the Logos issued. Having beenthus first begotten, the Logos in turn begat our creation, &c. TheLogos is thus represented as being at once prior to creation (theJohannean [Greek: en archae]) and the efficient cause of it--which isprecisely the doctrine of the Prologue. 

The other two passages are however quite unequivocal. 

_Orat. Ad Graecos_, c. Xiii. 

And this is therefore that saying: The darkness comprehends notthe light. 

[Greek: Kai touto estin ara to eiraemenon Hae skotia to phos oukatalambanei. ]

_John_ i. 5. 

And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darknesscomprehended it not. 

[Greek: Kai to phos en tae skotia phainei, kai hae skotia auto oukatelaben. ]

On this there is the following comment in 'Supernatural Religion'[Endnote 305:1]: '"The saying" is distinctly different in languagefrom the parallel in the Gospel, and it may be from a differentGospel. We have already remarked that Philo called the Logos "theLight, " and quoting in a peculiar form, Ps. Xxvi. 1: 'For the Lordis my light ([Greek: phos]) and my Saviour, ' he goes on to saythat as the sun divides day and night, so Moses says, 'God divideslight and darkness' ([Greek: Theon phos kai skotos diateichisai]), when we turn away to things of sense we use 'another light' whichis in no way different from 'darkness. ' The constant use of thesame similitude of light and darkness in the Canonical Epistlesshows how current it was in the Church; and nothing is morecertain than the fact that it was neither originated by, norconfined to, the fourth Gospel. ' Such criticism refutes itself, and it is far too characteristic of the whole book. Nothing isadduced that even remotely corresponds to the very remarkablephrase [Greek: hae skotia to phos katalambanei], and yet for theseimaginary parallels one that is perfectly plain and direct isrejected. 

The use of the phrase [Greek: to eiraemenon] should be noticed. Itis the formula used, especially by St. Luke, in quotation from theOld Testament Scriptures. 

The other passage is:--

_Orat. Ad Graecos_, c. Xix. 

All things were by him, and without him hath been made nothing. 

[Greek: Panta hup' autou kai choris autou gegonen oude hen. ]

_John_ i. 3. 

All things were made through him; and without him was nothing made[that hath been made]. 

[Greek: Panta di' autou egeneto, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen[ho gegonen]]. 'The early Fathers, no less than the earlyheretics, ' placed the full stop at [Greek: oude hen], connectingthe words that follow with the next sentence. See M'Clellan andTregelles _ad loc_. 

'Tatian here speaks of God and not of the Logos, and in thisrespect, as well as language and context, the passage differs fromthe fourth Gospel' [Endnote 306:1], &c. Nevertheless it may safelybe left to the reader to say whether or not it was taken from it. 

The Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons contains thefollowing:--

_Ep. Vienne. Et Lugd_. § iv. 

Thus too was fulfilled that which was spoken by our Lord; that atime shall come in which every one that killeth you shall thinkthat he offereth God service. 

[Greek: Eleusetai kairos en o pas ho apokteinas humas doxeilatreian prospherein to Theo. ]

_John_ xvi. 2. 

Yea, the hour cometh, that every one that killeth you will thinkhe offereth God service. 

[Greek: All' erchetai hora hina pas ho apokteinas humas, doxaelatreian prospherein to Theo. ]

It is true that there are 'indications of similar discourses' inthe Synoptics, but of none containing a trait at all closelyresembling this. The chances that precisely the same combinationof words ([Greek: ho apokteinas humas doxei latreian prosphereinto Theo]) occurred in a lost Gospel must be necessarily very smallindeed, especially when we remember that the original saying wasprobably spoken in Aramaic and not in Greek [Endnote 307:1]. 

Dr. Keim, in the elaborate monograph mentioned above, decides thatCelsus made use of the fourth Gospel. He remarks upon it ascurious, that more traces should indeed be found 'both in Celsusand his contemporary Tatian of John than of his two nearestpredecessors' [Endnote 307:2]. Of the instances given by Dr. Keim, the first (i. 41, the sign seen by the Baptist) depends on asomewhat doubtful reading ([Greek: para to Ioannae], which shouldbe perhaps [Greek: para to Iordanae]); the second, the demand fora sign localised specially in the temple (i. 67; of. John x. 23, 24), seems fairly to hold good. 'The destination of Jesus alikefor good and evil' (iv. 7, 'that those who received it, havingbeen good, should be saved; while those who received it not, having been shown to be bad, should be punished') is indeed anidea peculiarly Johannean and creates a _presumption_ of theuse of the Gospel; we ought not perhaps to say more. I can hardlyconsider the simple allusions to 'flight' ([Greek: pheugein], ii. 9; [Greek: taede kakeise apodedrakenai], i. 62) as necessarilyreferences to the retreat to Ephraim in John xi. 54. So too theexpression 'bound' in ii. 9, and the 'conflict with Satan' in vi. 42, ii. 47, seem too vague to be used as proof. Still Volkmar toodeclares it to be 'notorious' that Celsus was acquainted with thefourth Gospel, alleging i. 67 (as above), ii. 31 (an allusion tothe Logos), ii. 36 (a satirical allusion to the issue of blood andwater), which passages really seem on the whole to justify theassertion, though not in a quite unqualified form. 

We ought not to omit to mention that there is a second fragmentby Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, besides that to which wehave already alluded, and preserved like it in the PaschalChronicle, which confirms unequivocally the conclusion that heknew and used the fourth Gospel. Amongst other titles that areapplied to the crucified Saviour, he is spoken of as 'having beenpierced in His sacred side, ' as 'having poured out of His sidethose two cleansing streams, water and blood, word and spirit'[Endnote 308:1]. This incident is recorded only in the fourthGospel. 

In like manner when Athenagoras says 'The Father and the Son beingone' ([Greek: henos ontos tou Patros kai tou Uiou]), it isprobable that he is alluding to John x. 30, 'I and my Father areone, ' not to mention an alleged, but perhaps somewhat moredoubtful, reference to John xvii. 3 [Endnote 308:2]. 

But the most decisive witness before we come to Irenaeus is theMuratorian Canon. Here we have the fourth Gospel definitelyassigned to its author, and finally established in its placeamongst the canonical or authoritative books. It is true that theaccount of the way in which the Gospel came to be composed ismixed up with legendary matter. According to it the Gospel waswritten in obedience to a dream sent to Andrew the Apostle, afterhe and his fellow disciples and bishops had fasted for three daysat the request of John. In this dream it was revealed that Johnshould write the narrative subject to the revision of the rest. Sothe Gospel is the work of an eyewitness, and, though it and theother Gospels differ in the objects of their teaching, all areinspired by the same Spirit. 

There may perhaps in this be some kernel of historical fact, asthe sort of joint authorship or revision to which it points seemsto find some support in the concluding verses of the Gospel ('weknow that his witness is true'). However this may be, the evidenceof the fragment is of more real importance and value, as showingthe estimation in which at this date the Gospel was held. Itcorresponds very much to what is now implied in the word'canonical, ' and indeed the Muratorian fragment presents us with atentative or provisional Canon, which was later to be amended, completed, and ratified. So far as the Gospels were concerned, ithad already reached its final shape. It included the same fourwhich now stand in our Bibles, and the opposition that they metwith was so slight, and so little serious, that Eusebius couldclass them all among the Homologoumena or books that wereuniversally acknowledged. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 

I should not be very much surprised if the general reader who mayhave followed our enquiry so far should experience at this point acertain feeling of disappointment. If he did not know beforehandsomething of the subject-matter that was to be enquired into, hemight not unnaturally be led to expect round assertions, andplain, pointblank, decisive evidence. Such evidence has not beenoffered to him for the simple reason that it does not exist. Inits stead we have collected a great number of inferences of veryvarious degrees of cogency, from the possible and hypothetical, upto strong and very strong probability. Most of our time has beentaken up in weighing and testing these details, and in theendeavour to assign to each as nearly as possible its just value. It could not be thought strange if some minds were impatient ofsuch minutiae; and where this objection was not felt, it wouldstill be very pardonable to complain that the evidence was at bestinferential and probable. 

An inference in which there are two or three steps may be oftenquite as strong as that in which there is only one, andprobabilities may mount up to a high degree of what is calledmoral or practical certainty. I cannot but think that many ofthose which have been already obtained are of this character. Icannot but regard it as morally or practically certain thatMarcion used our third Gospel; as morally or practically certainthat all four Gospels were used in the Clementine Homilies; asmorally or practically certain that the existence of three atleast out of our four Gospels is implied in the writings ofJustin; as probable in a lower degree that the four were used byBasilides; as not really disputable (apart from the presumptionafforded by earlier writers) that they were widely used in theinterval which separates the writings of Justin from those ofIrenaeus. 

All of these seem to me to be tolerably clear propositions. Butoutside these there seems to be a considerable amount ofconvergent evidence, the separate items of which are lessconvincing, but which yet derive a certain force from the merefact that they are convergent. In the Apostolic Fathers, forexample, there are instances of various kinds, some stronger andsome weaker; but the important point to notice is that theyconfirm each other. Every new case adds to the total weight of theevidence, and helps to determine the bearing of those which seemambiguous. 

It cannot be too much borne in mind that the evidence with whichwe have been dealing is cumulative; and as in all other cases ofcumulative evidence the subtraction of any single item is of lessimportance than the addition of a new one. Supposing it to beshown that some of the allusions which are thought to be takenfrom our Gospels were merely accidental coincidences of language, this would not materially affect the part of the evidence whichcould not be so explained. Supposing even that some of theseallusions could be definitely referred to an apocryphal source, the possibility would be somewhat, but not so very much, increasedthat other instances which bear resemblance to our Gospels werealso in their origin apocryphal. But on the other hand, if asingle instance of the use of a canonical Gospel really holdsgood, it is proof of the existence of that Gospel, and every newinstance renders the conclusion more probable, and makes it moreand more difficult to account for the phenomena in any other way. 

The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to have overlookedthis. He does not seem to have considered the mutual support whichthe different instances taken together lend to each other. Hesummons them up one by one, and if any sort of possibility can beshown of accounting for them in any other way than by the use ofour Gospels he dismisses them altogether. He makes no allowancefor any residual weight they may have. He does not ask which isthe more probable hypothesis. If the authentication of a documentis incomplete, if the reference of a passage is not certain, hetreats it as if it did not exist. He forgets the old story of thefaggots, which, weak singly, become strong when combined. Hisscales will not admit of any evidence short of the highest. Fractional quantities find no place in his reckoning. If there isany flaw, if there is any possible loophole for escape, he doesnot make the due deduction and accept the evidence with thatdeduction, but he ignores it entirely, and goes on to the nextitem just as if he were leaving nothing behind him. 

This is really part and parcel of what was pointed out at theoutset as the fundamental mistake of his method. It is much tooforensic. It takes as its model, not the proper canons ofhistorical enquiry, but the procedure of English law. Yet theinappropriateness of such a method is seen as soon as we considerits object and origin. The rules of evidence current in our lawcourts were constructed specially with a view to the protection ofthe accused, and upon the assumption that it is better nine guiltypersons should escape, than that one innocent person should becondemned. Clearly such rules will be inapplicable to thehistorical question which of two hypotheses is most likely to betrue. The author forgets that the negative hypothesis is just asmuch a hypothesis as the positive, and needs to be defended inprecisely the same manner. Either the Gospels were used, or theywere not used. In order to prove the second side of thisalternative, it is necessary to show not merely that it is_possible_ that they were not used, but that the theory isthe _more probable_ of the two, and accounts better for thefacts. But the author of 'Supernatural Religion' hardly professesor attempts to do this. If he comes across a quotation apparentlytaken from our Gospels he is at once ready with his reply, 'But itmay be taken from a lost Gospel. ' Granted; it may. But the extantGospel is there, and the quotation referable to it; the lostGospel is an unknown entity which may contain anything or nothing. If we admit that the possibility of quotation from a lost Gospelimpairs the certainty of the reference to an extant Gospel, it isstill quite another thing to argue that it is the more probableexplanation and an explanation that the critic ought to accept. Invery few cases, I believe, has the author so much as attempted todo this. 

We might then take a stand here, and on the strength of what canbe satisfactorily proved, as well as of what can be probablyinferred, claim to have sufficiently established the use andantiquity of the Gospels. This is, I think, quite a necessaryconclusion from the data hitherto collected. 

But there is a further objection to be made to the procedure in'Supernatural Religion. ' If the object were to obtain clear andsimple and universally appreciable evidence, I do not hesitate tosay that the enquiry ends just where it ought to have begun. Through the faulty method that he has employed the author forgetsthat he has a hypothesis to make good and to carry through. Heforgets that he has to account on the negative theory, just as weaccount on the positive, for a definite state of things. It maysound paradoxical, but there is really no great boldness in theparadox, when we affirm that at least the high antiquity of theGospels could be proved, even if not one jot or tittle of theevidence that we have been discussing had existed. Supposing thatall those fragmentary remains of the primitive Christianliterature that we have been ransacking so minutely had been sweptaway, supposing that the causes that have handed it down to us insuch a mutilated and impaired condition had done their work stillmore effectually, and that for the first eighty years of thesecond century there was no Christian literature extant at all;still I maintain that, in order to explain the phenomena that wefind after that date, we should have to recur to the sameassumptions that our previous enquiry would seem to haveestablished for us. 

Hitherto we have had to grope our way with difficulty and care;but from this date onwards all ambiguity and uncertaintydisappears. It is like emerging out of twilight into the broadblaze of day. There is really a greater disproportion than wemight expect between the evidence of the end of the century andthat which leads up to it. From Justin to Irenaeus the Christianwritings are fragmentary and few, but with Irenaeus a whole bodyof literature seems suddenly to start into being. Irenaeus issucceeded closely by Clement of Alexandria, Clement by Tertullian, Tertullian by Hippolytus and Origen, and the testimony which thesewriters bear to the Gospel is marvellously abundant and unanimous. I calculate roughly that Irenaeus quotes directly 193 verses ofthe first Gospel and 73 of the fourth. Clement of Alexandria andTertullian must have quoted considerably more, while in the extantwritings of Origen the greater part of the New Testament isactually quoted [Endnote 315:1]. 

But more than this; by the time of Irenaeus the canon of the fourGospels, as we understand the word now, was practically formed. Wehave already seen that this was the case in the fragment ofMuratori. Irenaeus is still more explicit. In the famous passage[Endnote 315:2] which is so often quoted as an instance of theweak-mindedness of the Fathers, he lays it down as a necessity ofthings that the Gospels should be four in number, neither less normore:--

'For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, asthere are also four universal winds, and as the Church isscattered over all the earth, and the Gospel is the pillar andbase of the Church and the breath (or spirit) of life, it islikely that it should have four pillars breathing immortality onevery side and kindling afresh the life of men. Whence it isevident that the Word, the architect of all things, who sittethupon the cherubim and holdeth all things together, having beenmade manifest unto men, gave to us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit. As David, entreating for Hispresence, saith: Thou that sittest upon the Cherubim show thyself. For the Cherubim are of fourfold visage, and their visages aresymbols of the economy of the Son of man.... And the Gospelstherefore agree with them over which presideth Jesus Christ. Thatwhich is according to John declares His generation from the Fathersovereign and glorious, saying thus: In the beginning was theWord, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And, Allthings were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.... But the Gospel according to Luke, as having a sacerdotalcharacter, begins with Zacharias the priest offering incense untoGod.... But Matthew records His human generation, saying, The bookof the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son ofAbraham.... Mark took his beginning from the prophetic Spiritcoming down as it were from on high among men. The beginning, hesays, of the Gospel according as it is written in Esaias theprophet, &c. '

Irenaeus also makes mention of the origin of the Gospels, claimingfor their authors the gift of Divine inspiration [Endnote 316:1]:--

'For after that our Lord rose from the dead and they were endowedwith the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon them from on high, they were fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfectknowledge: they went out to the ends of the earth, preaching theGospel of those good things that God hath given to us andproclaiming heavenly peace to men, having indeed both all in equalmeasure and each one singly the Gospel of God. So then Matthewamong the Jews put forth a written Gospel in their own tonguewhile Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome andfounding the Church. After their decease (or 'departure'), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself too has handed downto us in writing the subjects of Peter's preaching. And Luke, thecompanion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned uponHis breast, likewise published his Gospel while he dwelt atEphesus in Asia. '

We have not now to determine the exact value of these traditions;what we have rather to notice is the fact that the Gospels are atthis time definitely assigned to their reputed authors, and thatthey are already regarded as containing a special knowledgedivinely imparted. It is evident that Irenaeus would not for amoment think of classing any other Gospel by the side of the nowstrictly canonical four. 

Clement of Alexandria, who, Eusebius says, 'was illustrious forhis writings, ' in the year 194 gives a somewhat similar, but notquite identical, account of the composition of the second Gospel[Endnote 317:1]. He differs from Irenaeus in making St. Petercognisant of the work of his follower. Neither is he quiteconsistent with himself; in one place he makes St. Peter'authorise the Gospel to be read in the churches;' in another hesays that the Apostle 'neither forbade nor encouraged it' [Endnote317:2]. These statements have both of them been preserved for usby Eusebius, who also alleges, upon the authority of Clement, thatthe 'Gospels containing the genealogies were written first. ''John, ' he says, 'who came last, observing that the naturaldetails had been set forth clearly in the Gospels, at the instanceof his friends and with the inspiration of the Spirit ([Greek:pneumati theophoraethenta]), wrote a spiritual Gospel' [Endnote317:3]. 

Clement draws a distinct line between the canonical anduncanonical Gospels. In quoting an apocryphal saying supposed tohave been given in answer to Salome, he says, expressly: 'We donot find this saying in the four Gospels that have been handeddown to us, but in that according to the Egyptians' [Endnote317:4]. 

Tertullian is still more exclusive. He not only regards the fourGospels as inspired and authoritative, but he makes no use of anyextra-canonical Gospel. The Gospels indeed held for him preciselythe same position that they do with orthodox Christians now. Hesays respecting the Gospels: 'In the first place we lay it downthat the evangelical document (evangelicum instrumentum [Endnote318:1]) has for its authors the Apostles, to whom this office ofpreaching the Gospel was committed by the Lord Himself. If it hasalso Apostolic men, yet not these alone but in company withApostles and after Apostles. For the preaching of disciples mighthave been suspected of a desire for notoriety if it were notsupported by the authority of Masters, nay of Christ, who made theApostles Masters. In fine, of the Apostles, John and Matthew firstimplant in us faith, Luke and Mark renew it, starting from thesame principles, so far as relates to the one God the Creator andHis Christ born of the virgin, to fulfil the law and the prophets'[Endnote 318:2]. He grounds the authority of the Gospels upon thefact that they proceed either from Apostles or from those who heldclose relation to Apostles, like Mark, 'the interpreter of Peter, 'and Luke, the companion of Paul [Endnote 318:3]. In anotherpassage he expressly asserts their authenticity [Endnote 318:4], and he claimed to use them and them alone as his weapons in theconflict with heresy [Endnote 318:5]. 

No less decided is the assertion of Origen, who writes: 'As I havelearnt from tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone areundisputed in the Church of God under heaven, that the first inorder of the scripture is that according to Matthew, who was oncea publican but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... Thesecond is that according to Mark, who wrote as Peter suggested tohim ... The third is that according to Luke, the Gospel commendedby Paul ... Last of all that according to John' [Endnote 319:1]. And again in his commentary upon the Preface to St. Luke's Gospelhe expressly guards against the possibility that it might bethought to have reference to the other (Canonical) Gospels: 'Inthis word of Luke's "_have taken in hand_" there is a latentaccusation of those who without the grace of the Holy Spirit haverushed to the composing of Gospels. Matthew, indeed, and Mark, andJohn, and Luke, have not "_taken in hand_" to write, but_have written_ Gospels, being full of the Holy Spirit ... TheChurch has four Gospels; the Heresies have many' [Endnote 319:2]. 

But besides the Fathers, and without going beyond the bounds ofthe second century, there is other evidence of the most distinctand important kind for the existence of a canon of the Gospels. Among the various translations of the New Testament one certainly, two very probably, and three perhaps probably, were made in thecourse of the second century. 

The old Latin (as distinct from Jerome's revised) version of theGospels and with them of a considerable portion of the New Testamentwas, I think it may be said, undoubtedly used by Tertullian and bythe Latin translator of Irenaeus, who appears to be quoted byTertullian, and in that case could not be placed later than 200 A. D. [Endnote 320:1] On this point I shall quote authorities that willhardly be questioned. And first that of a writer who is accustomed toweigh, with the accuracy of true science, every word that he putsdown, and who upon this subject is giving the result of a most minuteand careful investigation. Speaking of the Latin translation of theNew Testament as found in Tertullian he says: 'Although singleportions of this, especially passages which are translated in severaldifferent ways, may be due to Tertullian himself, still it cannot bedoubted that in by far the majority of cases he has followed the textof a version received in his time by the Africans and specially theCarthaginian Christians, and made perhaps long before his time, andthat consequently his quotations represent the form of the earliestLatinized Scriptures accepted in those regions' [Endnote 320:2]. Again: 'In the first place we may conclude from the writings ofTertullian, that remarkable Carthaginian presbyter at the close ofthe second century, that in his time there existed several, perhapsmany, Latin translations of the Bible ... Tertullian himselffrequently quotes in his writings one and the same passage ofScripture in entirely different forms, which indeed in many casesmay be explained by his quoting freely from memory, but certainlynot seldom has its ground in the diversity of the translations usedat the time' [Endnote 321:1]. On this last point, the unity of theOld Latin version, there is a difference of opinion among scholars, but none as to its date. Thus Dr. Tregelles writes: 'The expressionsof Tertullian have been rightly rested on as showing that he knewand recognised _one translation_, and that this version was in severalplaces (in his opinion) opposed to what was found "in Graeco authentico. "This version must have been made a sufficiently long time before theage when Tertullian wrote, and before the Latin translator of Irenaeus, for it to have got into general circulation. This leads us back _towards_the middle of the second century at the latest: how much _earlier_the version may have been we have no proof; for we are already ledback into the time when no records tell us anything respecting theNorth African Church' [Endnote 321:2]. Dr. Tregelles, it should beremembered, is speaking as a text critic, of which branch of sciencehis works are one of the noblest monuments, and not directly of thehistory of the Canon. His usual opponent in text critical matters, but an equally exact and trustworthy writer, Dr. Scrivener, agreeswith him here both as to the unity of the version and as to its datefrom the middle of the century [Endnote 321:3]. Dr. Westcott toowrites in his well-known and valuable article on the Vulgate inSmith's Dictionary [Endnote 321:4]: 'Tertullian distinctly recognisesthe general currency of a Latin Version of the New Testament, thoughnot necessarily of every book at present included in the Canon, whicheven in his time had been able to mould the popular language. Thiswas characterised by a "rudeness" and "simplicity, " which seems topoint to the nature of its origin. ' I do not suppose that the currencyat the end of the second century of a Latin version, containing thefour Gospels and no others, will be questioned [Endnote 322:1]. 

With regard to the Syriac version there is perhaps a somewhatgreater room to doubt, though Dr. Tregelles begins his account ofthis version by saying: 'It may stand as an admitted fact that aversion of the New Testament in Syriac existed in the secondcentury' [Endnote 322:2]. Dr. Scrivener also says [Endnote 322:3]:'The universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of thecase, seem to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church waspossessed of a translation both of the Old and New Testament, which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively, fromthe second century of our era downwards: as early as A. D. 170[Greek: ho Syros] is cited by Melito on Genesis xxii. 13. ' Theexternal evidence, however, does not seem to be quite strongenough to bear out any very positive assertion. The appeal to theSyriac by Melito [Endnote 322:4] is pretty conclusive as to theexistence of a Syriac Old Testament, which, being of Christianorigin, would probably be accompanied by a translation of the New. But on the other hand, the language of Eusebius respectingHegesippus ([Greek: ek te tou kath' Hebraious euangeliou kai touSyriakou ... Tina tithaesin]) seems to be rightly interpreted byRouth as having reference not to any '_version_ of the Gospel, but to a separate Syro-Hebraic (?) Gospel' like that according tothe Hebrews. In any case the Syriac Scriptures 'were familiarlyused and claimed as his national version by Ephraem of Edessa'(299-378 A. D. ) as well as by Aphraates in writings dating A. D. 337and 344 [Endnote 323:1]. 

A nearer approximation of date would be obtained by determining theage of the version represented by the celebrated Curetonianfragments. There is a strong tendency among critics, which seemsrapidly approaching to a consensus, to regard this as bearing thesame relation to the Peshito that the Old Latin does to Jerome'sVulgate, that of an older unrevised to a later revised version. Thestrength of the tendency in this direction may be seen by the verycautious and qualified opinion expressed in the second edition of hisIntroduction by Dr. Scrivener, who had previously taken a decidedlyantagonistic view, and also by the fact that Mr. M'Clellan, who isusually an ally of Dr. Scrivener, here appears on the side of hisopponents [Endnote 323:2]. All the writers who have hitherto beenmentioned place either the Curetonian Syriac or the Peshito in thesecond century, and the majority, as we have seen, the Curetonian. Dr. Tregelles, on a comparative examination of the text, affirms that'the Curetonian Syriac presents such a text as we might haveconcluded would be current in the second century' [Endnote 323:3]. English text criticism is probably on the whole in advance ofContinental; but it may be noted that Bleek (who however wasimperfectly acquainted with the Curetonian form of the text) yetasserts that the Syriac version 'belongs without doubt to the secondcentury A. D. ' [Endnote 324:1] Reuss [Endnote 324:2] places it at thebeginning, Hilgenfeld towards the end [Endnote 324:3], of the thirdcentury. 

The question as to the age of the version is not necessarilyidentical with that as to the age of the particular form of itpreserved in Cureton's fragments. This would hold the same sort ofrelation to the original text of the version that (e. G. ) a, or b, or c--any primitive codex of the version--holds to the originaltext of the Old Latin. It also appears that the translation intoSyriac of the different Gospels, conspicuously of St. Matthew's, was made by different hands and at different times [Endnote324:4]. Bearing these considerations in mind, we should still beglad to know what answer those who assign the Curetonian text tothe second century make to the observation that it contains thereading [Greek: Baethabara] in John i. 28 which is generallyassumed to be not older than Origen [Endnote 324:5]. On the otherhand, the Curetonian, like the Old Latin, still has in John vii. 8[Greek: ouk] for [Greek: oupo]--a change which, according to Dr. Scrivener [Endnote 324:6], 'from the end of the third centurydownwards was very generally and widely diffused. ' This whole setof questions needs perhaps a more exhaustive discussion than ithas obtained hitherto [Endnote 324:7]. 

The third version that may be mentioned is the Egyptian. In regardto this Dr. Lightfoot says [Endnote 325:1], that 'we shouldprobably not be exaggerating if we placed one or both of theprincipal Egyptian versions, the Memphitic and the Thebaic, or atleast parts of them, before the close of the second century. ' Insupport of this statement he quotes Schwartz, the principalauthority on the subject, 'who will not be suspected of anytheological bias. ' The historical notices on which the conclusionis founded are given in Scrivener's 'Introduction. ' If we are toput a separate estimate upon these, it would be perhaps that theversion was made in the second century somewhat more probably thannot; it was certainly not made later than the first half of thethird [Endnote 325:2]. 

Putting this version however on one side, the facts that have tobe explained are these. Towards the end of the second century wefind the four Gospels in general circulation and invested withfull canonical authority, in Gaul, at Rome, in the province ofAfrica, at Alexandria, and in Syria. Now if we think merely of thetime that would be taken in the transcription and dissemination ofMSS. , and of the struggle that works such as the Gospels wouldhave to go through before they could obtain recognition, and stillmore an exclusive recognition, this alone would tend to overthrowany such theory as that one of the Gospels, the fourth, was notcomposed before 150 A. D. , or indeed anywhere near that date. 

But this is not by any means all. It is merely the first step in aprocess that, quite independently of the other external evidence, thrusts the composition of the Gospels backwards and backwards toa date certainly as early as that which is claimed for them. 

Let us define a little more closely the chronological bearings ofthe subject. There is a decidedly preponderant probability thatthe Muratorian fragment was not written much later than 170 A. D. Irenaeus, as we have seen, was writing in the decade 180-190 A. D. But his evidence is surely valid for an earlier date than this. Heis usually supposed to have been born about the year 140 A. D. [Endnote 326:1], and the way in which he describes his relationsto Polycarp will not admit of a date many years later. But hisstrong sense of the continuity of Church doctrine and theexceptional veneration that he accords to the Gospels seem aloneto exclude the supposition that any of them should have beencomposed in his own lifetime. He is fond of quoting the'Presbyters, ' who connected his own age with that, if not of theApostles, yet of Apostolic men. Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, whom hesucceeded, was more than ninety years old at the time of hismartyrdom in the persecution of A. D. 177 [Endnote 326:2], andwould thus in his boyhood be contemporary with the closing yearsof the last Evangelist. Irenaeus also had before him a number ofwritings--some, e. G. The works of the Marcosians, in addition tothose that have been discussed in the course of this work--inwhich our Gospels are largely quoted, and which, to say the least, were earlier than his own time of writing. 

Clement of Alexandria began to flourish, ([Greek: egnorizeto])[Endnote 327:1], in the reign of Commodus (180-190 A. D. ), and hadobtained a still wider celebrity as head of the CatecheticalSchool of Alexandria in the time of Severus [Endnote 327:2] (193-211). The opinions therefore to which he gives expression in hisworks of this date were no doubt formed at a earlier period. Hetoo appeals to the tradition of which he had been himself arecipient. He speaks of his teachers, 'those blessed and trulymemorable men, ' one in Greece, another in Magna Graecia, a thirdin Coele-Syria, a fourth in Egypt, a fifth in Assyria, a sixth inPalestine, to whom the doctrine of the Apostles had been handeddown from father to son [Endnote 327:3]. 

Tertullian is still bolder. In his controversy with Marcion heconfidently claims as on his side the tradition of the ApostolicChurches. By it is guaranteed the Gospel of St. Luke which he isdefending, and not only that, but the other Gospels [Endnote327:4]. In one passage Tertullian even goes so far as to send hisreaders to the Churches of Corinth, Philippi, &c. For the veryautographs ('authenticae literae') of St. Paul's Epistles [Endnote327:5]. But this is merely a characteristic flourish of rhetoric. All for which the statements of Tertullian may safely be said tovouch is, that the Gospels had held their 'prerogative' positionwithin his memory and that of most members of the Church to whichhe belonged. 

But the evidence of the Fathers is most decisive when it isunconscious. That the Gospels as used by the Christian writers atthe end of the first century, so far from being of recentcomposition, had already a long history behind them, is nothingless than certain. At this date they exhibit a text which bearsthe marks of frequent transcription and advanced corruption. 'Origen's, ' says Dr. Scrivener [Endnote 328:1], 'is the highestname among the critics and expositors of the early Church; he isperpetually engaged in the discussion of various readings of theNew Testament, and employs language in describing the then stateof the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even to itspresent condition with the changes which sixteen more centuriesmust needs have produced ... Respecting the sacred autographs, their fate or their continued existence, he seems to have had noinformation, and to have entertained no curiosity: they had simplypassed by and were out of his reach. Had it not been for thediversities of copies in all the Gospels on other points (hewrites) he should not have ventured to object to the authenticityof a certain passage (Matt. Xix. 19) on internal grounds: "Butnow, " saith he, "great in truth has become the diversity ofcopies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from theevil daring of some who correct what is written, or from those whoin correcting add or take away what they think fit. "' This isrespecting the MSS. Of one region only, and now for another[Endnote 328:2]: 'It is no less true to fact than paradoxical insound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament hasever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after itwas composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the wholeWestern, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferiormanuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephensthirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus. 'Possibly this is an exaggeration, but no one will maintain that itis a very large exaggeration of the facts. 

I proceed to give a few examples which serve to bring out theantiquity of the text. And first from Irenaeus. 

There is a very remarkable passage in the work Against Heresies[Endnote 329:1], bearing not indeed directly upon the Gospels, butupon another book of the New Testament, and yet throwing so muchlight upon the condition of the text in Irenaeus' time that it maybe well to refer to it here. In discussing the signification ofthe number of the beast in Rev. Xiii. 18, Irenaeus already foundhimself confronted by a variety of reading: some MSS. With whichhe was acquainted read 616 ([Greek: chis']) for 666 ([Greek: chxs']). Irenaeus himself was not in doubt that the latter was thetrue reading. He says that it was found in all the 'good andancient copies, ' and that it was further attested by 'those whohad seen John face to face. ' He thinks that the error was due tothe copyists, who had substituted by mistake the letter [Greek: i]for [Greek: x]. He adds his belief that God would pardon those whohad done this without any evil motive. 

Here we have opened out a kind of vista extending back almost tothe person of St. John himself. There is already a multiplicity ofMSS. , and of these some are set apart 'as good and ancient'([Greek: en pasi tois spoudaiois kai archaiois antigraphois]). Themethod by which the correct reading had to be determined was asmuch historical as it is with us at the present day. 

A not dissimilar state of things is indicated somewhat less explicitlyin regard to the first Gospel. In the text of Matt. I. 18 all the GreekMSS. , with one exception, read, [Greek: tou de Iaesou Christou haegenesis outos aen], B alone has [Greek: tou de Christou Iaesou]. TheGreek of D is wanting at this point, but the Latin, d, reads with thebest codices of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Curetonian Syriac, 'Christi autem generatio sic erat' (or an equivalent). Now Irenaeusquotes this passage three times. In the first passage [Endnote 330:1]the original Greek text of Irenaeus has been preserved in a quotation ofGermanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (the context also by AnastasiusSinaita, but these words appear to be omitted); and the reading ofGermanus corresponds to that of the great mass of MSS. This however isalmost certainly false, as the ancient Latin translation of Irenaeus has'Christi autem generatio, ' and it was extremely natural for a copyist tosubstitute the generally received text, especially in a combination ofwords that was so familiar. Irenaeus leaves no doubt as to his ownreading on the next occasion when he quotes the passage, as he doestwice over. Here he says expressly: 'Ceterum, potuerat dicere Matthaeus:_Jesu vero generatio sic erat_; sed praevidens Spiritus sanctusdepravatores, et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeumait: _Christi autem generatio sic erat_' [Endnote 330:2]. Irenaeusfounds an argument upon this directed against the heretics who supposedthat the Christus and Jesus were not identical, but that Jesus was theson of Mary, upon whom the aeon Christus afterwards descended. Inopposition to these Irenaeus maintains that the Christus and Jesus areone and the same person. 

There is a division of opinion among modern critics as to which ofthe two readings is to be admitted into the text; Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf (eighth edition), and Scrivener support thereading of the MSS. ; Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and M'Clellanprefer that of Irenaeus. The presence of this reading in the OldLatin and Curetonian Syriac proves its wide diffusion. At the sametime it is clear that Irenaeus himself was aware of the presenceof the other reading in some copies which he regarded as bearingthe marks of heretical depravation. 

It is unfortunate that fuller illustration cannot be given fromIrenaeus, but the number of the quotations from the Gospels ofwhich the Greek text still remains is not large, and where we haveonly the Latin interpretation we cannot be sure that the actualtext of Irenaeus is before us. Much uncertainty is thus raised. For instance, a doubt is expressed by the editors of Irenaeuswhether the words 'without a cause' ([Greek: eikae]--sine caussa)in the quotation of Matt. V. 22 [Endnote 331:1] belong to theoriginal text or not. Probably they did so, as they are found inthe Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac and in Western authoritiesgenerally. They are wanting however in B, in Origen, and 'in thetrue copies' according to Jerome, &c. The words are expunged fromthe sacred text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, andM'Clellan. There is a less weight of authority for theirretention. In any case the double reading was certainly current atthe end of the second century, as the words are found in Irenaeusand omitted by Tertullian. 

The elaborately varied readings of Matt. Xi. 25-27 and Matt. Xix. 16, 17 there can be little doubt are taken from the canonicaltext. They are both indeed found in a passage (Adv. Haer. I. 20. 2, 3) where Irenaeus is quoting the heretical Marcosians; andvarious approximations are met with, as we have seen, underambiguous circumstances in Justin, the Clementine Homilies, andMarcion. But similar approximations are also found in Irenaeushimself (speaking in his own person), in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Epiphanius, who are undoubtedly quoting from ourGospels; so that the presence of the variations at that early dateis proved, though in the first case they receive none, and in thesecond very limited, support from the extant MSS. [Endnote 332:1]A variety of reading that was in the first instance accidentalseemed to afford a handle either to the orthodox or to hereticalparties, and each for a time maintained its own; but with thevictory of the orthodox cause the heretical reading gave way, andwas finally suppressed before the time at which the extant MSS. Were written. 

These are really conspicuous instances of the confusion of textalready existing, but I forbear to press them because, though I donot doubt myself the correctness of the account that has beengiven of them, still there is just the ambiguity alluded to, and Ido not wish to seem to assume the truth of any particular view. 

For minor variations the text of Irenaeus cannot be usedsatisfactorily, because it is always doubtful whether the Latinversion has correctly reproduced the original. And even in thosecomparatively small portions where the Greek is still preserved, it has come down to us through the medium of other writers, and wehave just had an instance how easily the distinctive features ofthe text might be obliterated. 

Neither of these elements of uncertainty exists in the case ofTertullian; and therefore, as the text of his New Testamentquotations has been edited in a very exact and careful form, Ishall illustrate what has been said respecting the corruptionsintroduced in the second century chiefly from him. The followingmay be taken as a few of the instances in which the existence of avariety of reading can be verified by a comparison of Tertullian'stext with that of the MSS. The brackets (as before) indicatepartial support. 

Matt. Iii. 8. Dignos poenitentiae fructus (_Pudic_. 10). [Greek: Karpous axious taes metanoias] Textus Receptus, L, U, 33, a, g'2, m, Syrr. Crt. And Pst. , etc. [Greek: Karpon axion t. Met]. B, C (D), [Greek: D], 1, etc. ; Vulg. , b, c, d, f, ff'1, Syr. Hcl. , Memph. , Theb. , Iren. , Orig. , etc. [Tertullian himself has thesingular in _Hermog. _ 12, so that he seems to have had bothreadings in his copies. ]

Matt. V. 4, 5. The received order 'beati lugentes' and 'beatimites' is followed in _Pat_. 11 [Rönsch p. 589 and Tisch. , correcting Treg. ], So [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, rel. , b, f, Syrr. Pst. And Hcl. , Memph. , Arm. , Aeth. Order inverted in D, 33, Vulg. , a, c, ff'1, g'1. 2, h, k, l, Syr. Crt. , Clem. , Orig. , Eus. , Hil. 

Matt. V. 16. 'Luceant opera vestra' for 'luceat lux vestra, ' Tert. (bis). So Hil. , Ambr. , Aug. , Celest. [see above, p. 134] againstall MSS. And versions. 

Matt. V. 28. Qui viderit ad concupiscentiam, etc. This verse iscited six times by Tertullian, and Rönsch says (p. 590) that 'inthese six citations almost every variant of the Greek text isrepresented. '

Matt. V. 48. Qui est in caelis: [Greek: ho en tois ouranois], Textus Receptus, with [Greek: Delta symbol], E'2, rel. , b, c, d, g'1, h, Syrr. Crt. And Pst. , Clem. , [Greek: ho ouranios], [Hebrew:Aleph symbol], B, D'2, Z, and i, 33, Vulg. , a, f, etc. 

Matt. Vi. 10. Fiat voluntas tua in caelis et in terra, omitting'sicut. ' So D, a, b, c, Aug. (expressly, 'some codices'). 

Matt. Xi. Ii. Nemo major inter natos feminarum Joanne baptizatore. 

'The form of this citation, which neither corresponds with Matt. Xi. 11 nor with Luke vii. 28, coincides almost exactly with thewords which in both the Greek and Latin text of the Codex Bezaeform the conclusion of Luke vii. 26, [Greek: [hoti] oudeis meizonen gennaetois gunaikon [prophaetaes] Ioannou tou baptistou]'(Rönsch, p. 608). 

Matt. Xiii. 15. Sanem: [Greek: iasômai], K, U, X, [Greek: Delta], I; Latt. (exc. D), Syr. Crt. ; [Greek: iasomai], B, C, D, [Hebrew:Aleph symbol], rel. 

Matt. Xv. 26. Non est (only), so Eus. In Ps. 83; [Greek: exestin], D, a, b, c, ff, g'1, 1, Syr. Crt. , Orig. , Hil. ; [Greek: ouk estinkalon], B, C, [Hebrew aleph], rel. , Vulg. , c, f, g'2, k, Orig. 

There are of course few quotations that can be distinctlyidentified as taken from St. Mark, but among these may benoticed:--

Mark i. 24. Scimus: [Greek: oidamen se], [Hebrew aleph], L, [Greek: Delta], Memph. , Iren. , Orig. , Eus. ; [Greek: oida se tisei], A, B, C, D, rel. , Latt. , Syrr. 

Mark ix. 7. Hunc audite: [Greek: autou akouete], A, X, rel. , b, f, Syrr. ; [Greek: akouete autou], [Hebrew: aleph] B, C, D, L, a, c, ff'1, etc. [This may be however from Matt. Xvii. 5, whereTertullian's reading has somewhat stronger support. ]

The variations in quotations from St. Luke have been perhapssufficiently illustrated in the chapter on Marcion. We maytherefore omit this Gospel and pass to St. John. A very remarkablereading meets us at the outset. 

John i. 13. Non ex sanguine nec ex voluntate carnis nec exvoluntate viri, sed ex deo natus est. The Greek of all the MSS. And Versions, with the single exception of b of the Old Latin, is[Greek: oi egennaethaesan]. A sentence is thus applied to Christthat was originally intended to be applied to the Christian. Tertullian (_De Carne Christ. _ 19, 24), though he also had theright reading before him, boldly accuses the Valentinians of afalsification, and lays stress upon the reading which he adopts asproof of the veritable birth of Christ from a virgin. The sametext is found in b (Codex Veronensis) of the Old Latin, Pseudo-Athanasius, the Latin translator of Origen's commentary on St. Matthew, in Augustine, and three times in Irenaeus. The same codexhas, like Tertullian, the singular ex sanguine for the plural[Greek: ex ahimaton]: so Eusebius and Hilary. 

John iii. 36. Manebit (=[Greek: meneî], for [Greek: ménei]). So b, e, g, Syr. Pst. , Memph. , Aeth. , Iren. , Cypr. ; against a, c, d, f, ff, Syrr. Crt. And Hcl. , etc. 

John v. 3, 4. The famous paragraph which describes the moving ofthe waters of the pool of Bethesda was found in Tertullian's MS. It is also found in the mass of MSS. , in the Old Latin andVulgate, in Syrr. Pst. And Jer. , and in some MSS. Of Memph. It isomitted in [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, D (v. 4), f, l, Syr. Crt. , Theb. , Memph. (most MSS. ). Tertullian gives the name of thepool as Bethsaida with B, Vulg. , c, Syr. Hcl. , Memph. Most of theauthorities read [Greek: baethesda]. [Greek: baethzatha, baezatha], Berzeta, Belzatha, and Betzeta are also found. 

John v. 43. Recepistis, perf. For pres. ([Greek: lambanete]). Soa, b, Iren. , Vigil. , Ambr. , Jer. 

John vi. 39. Non perdam ex eo quicquam. Here 'quicquam' is anaddition (=[Greek: maeden]), found in D, a, b, ff, Syr. Crt. 

John vi. 51. Et panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi, caro meaest. This almost exactly corresponds with the reading of [Hebrew:Aleph], [Greek: ho artos hon ego doso huper taes tou kosmou zoaes, hae sarx mou estin]. Similarly, but with inversion of the last twoclauses ([Greek: hae sarx mou estin huper taes tou kosmou zoaes]), B, C, D and T, 33, Vulg. , a, b, c, e, m, Syr. Crt. , Theb. , Aeth. , Orig. , Cypr. The received text is [Greek: kai ho artos [de] daeego doso, hae sarx mou estin aen ego doso huper taes tou kosmouzoaes], after E, G, H, K, M, S, etc. 

John xii. 30. Venit (= [Greek: aelthen] for [Greek: gegonen]), with D (Tregelles), [also a, b, l, n (?), Vulg. (_fuld_. ), Hil. , Victorin. ; Rönsch]. 

The instances that have been here given are all, or nearly all, false readings on the part of Tertullian. It is, of course, onlyas such that they are in point for the present enquiry. Some fewof those mentioned have been admitted into the text by certainmodern editors. Thus, on Matt. V. 4, 5 Tertullian's reading findssupport in Westcott and Hort: and M'Clellan, against Tischendorfand Tregelles. [This instance perhaps should not be pressed. Ileave it standing, because it shows interesting relations betweenTertullian and the various forms of the Old Latin. ] The passageomitted in John v. 3, 4 is argued for strenuously by Mr. M'Clellan, with more hesitation by Dr. Scrivener, and in 'Supernatural Religion'(sixth edition), against Tregelles, Tischendorf, Milligan, Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort. In the same passage Bethsaida is read by Lachmann(margin) and by Westcott and Hort. In John vi. 51 the reading ofTertullian and the Sinaitic Codex is defended by Tischendorf; theapproximate reading of B, C, D, &c. Is admitted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Milligan, Westcott and Hort, and the received text has an apologistin Mr. M'Clellan (with Tholuck and Wordsworth). On these points thenit should be borne in mind that Tertullian _may_ present the truereading; on all the others he is pretty certainly wrong. 

Let us now proceed to analyse roughly these erroneous (in threecases _doubtfully_ erroneous) readings. We shall find [Endnote 336:1]that Tertullian--

 _Agrees with_ _Differs from_x (Codex Sinaiticus) in Mark | in Matt. Iii. 18, v. 16, v. 48, i. 2 4, John vi. 51. | vi. 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. | 26, Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, | v. 3, 43, v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. A (Codex Alexandrinus) in |A in Mark i. 24, John i. 13, Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4. | v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. B (Codex Vaticanus) in John |B in Matt. Iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, vi. V. 2, (vi. 51). | 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. 26, | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, | v. 3, 4, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. C (Codex Ephraemi--somewhat |C in Matt. Iii. 8, xi. 11, xiii. Fragmentary) in John | 15, xv. 26, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, (vi. 51). | John i. 13, v. 3, 4, vi. 39. D (Codex Bezae--in some |D in Matt. (iii. 8), v. 16, v. 48, places wanting) in Matt. Vi. | xiii. 15, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, 10, Xi. 11, (xv. 26), John (vi. | John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 4, v. 43. 51), xii. 30. | | GREEK FATHERS. |Clement of Alexandria, in Matt. |v. 16, v. 48. |Origen, in Matt. (xv. 26), Mark |Origen, in Matt. Iii. 8, (xv. 26), i. 24, John i. 13 (Latin trans- | lator), (vi. 51). |Eusebius, in Matt. Xv. 26, Mark |i. 24, John i. 13 (partially). | | LATIN FATHERS. |Irenaeus, in Mark i. 24, John |Irenaeus in Matt. Iii. 8. I. 13 (ter), iii. 36, v. 43. |Cyprian, in John iii. 36, (vi. 51). |Augustine, in Matt. V. 16, vi. 10. |Ambrose, in Matt. V. 16, John v. 43. |Hilary, in Matt. V. 16, (xv. 26), | John xii. 30. |Others, in Matt. V. 16, v. 48, | John i. 13, v. 43, xii. 30. | | VERSIONS. |Old Latin-- |a (Codex Vercellensis), in Matt. |a, in Matt. V. 16, v. 48, xi. 11, (iii. 8), vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, 26), John v. 3, 4, v. 43, (vi. | iii. 36. 51), xii. 30. |b (Codex Veronensis), in Matt. |b, in Matt. Iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11, v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 36), | Mark i. 24. Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, | iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, | (vi. 51), xii. 30. |c (Codex Colbertinus), in Matt. |c, in Matt. Iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11, v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 26), | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, John v. 3, 4, (vi. 51). | iii. 36, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30. F (Codex Brixianus), in Matt. |f, in Matt. Iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, xiii. 15, Mark ix. 7. | vi. 10, xi. 10, xv. 26, Mark | i. 24, John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 3, | 4, v. 43, vi. 39, vi. 51, xii. 30. Other codices, in Matt. Iii. 8, |Other codices, in Matt. Iii. 8, vi. 10, Xiii. 5, (xv. 26), John | v. 16, v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, iii. 36, v. 3, 4, vi. 39, (vi. 51), | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, xii. 30. | iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, vi. 39, | vi. 51, xii. 30. Vulgate, in Matt. Xiii. 15, John |Vulgate, in Matt. Iii. 8, v. 16, v. 3, 4, (vi. 51), xii. 30 | v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, xv. 26, (_fuld. _). | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, | iii. 36, v. 43, vi. 39. Syriac-- |Syr. Crt. (fragmentary), in |Syr. Crt. , in Matt. V. 16, vi. 10, Matt. Iii. 8, v. 48, xiii. 15, | xi. 11, John (i. 13, ? Tregelles) (xv. 26), John (i. 13, ? Crowfoot), | iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43. Vi. 39, (vi. 51. ). |Syr. Pst. , in Matt. Iii. 8, v. 48, |Syr. Pst. , in Matt. Vi. 10, Mark Mark ix. 7, John iii. 36, v. 3, 4. | i. 24, John i. 13, (vi. 51), | xii. 30

[The evidence of this and the following versions is only given where itis either expressly stated or left to be clearly inferred by the editors. ]

Egyptian--Thebaic, in John (vi. 51). |Thebaic, in Matt. Iii. 8, v. 16, | Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4. Memphitic, in Mark i. 24, John |Memphitic, in Matt. Iii. 8, v. Iii. 36. | 16, (v. 48), Mark ix. 7, John | v. 3, 4, vi. 51. 

Summing up the results numerically they would be something of thiskind:--

 UNCIAL MSS. 

 [Hebrew: A B C D Alef]

Agreement 2 2 2 1 5Difference 13 5 14 9 10

 GREEK FATHERS. 

 Clement of Alexandria. Origen. Eusebius. Agreement 1 4 3Difference 0 2 0

 LATIN FATHERS. 

 Irenaeus. Cyprian. Augustine. Ambrose. Hilary. Others. Agreement 4 2 2 2 3 5Difference 1 0 0 0 0 0

 VERSIONS. 

 OLD LATIN. VULGATE. A b c f rel. Agreement 8 11 6 2 9 4Difference 7 4 10 14 14 12

 SYRIAC. EGYPTIAN. Crt. Pst. Theb. Memph. Agreement 7 5 1 2Difference 7 5 4 6

Now the phenomena here, as on other occasions when we have had totouch upon text criticism, are not quite simple and straightforward. It must be remembered too that our observations extend only overa very narrow area. Within that area they are confined to the caseswhere Tertullian has _gone wrong_; whereas, in order to anythinglike a complete induction, all the cases of various reading oughtto be considered. Some results, however, of a rough and approximatekind may be said to be reached; and I think that these will beperhaps best exhibited if, premising that they are thus roughand approximate, we throw them into the shape of a genealogical tree. 

 Tert. B \ / \/ O. L. (a. C. &c. ) \ / \/ Syr. Crt. \ / Tert. O. L. \ / \/ Greek Fathers. / \ Tert. O. L. / \ Syr. Crt. / \ / \ / \ / \ /Best Alexandrine Authorities. \ / \ \ / Western. \ / \ Greek Fathers / \ Memph. Theb. / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / || Alexandrine. || Western. || /\ The Sacred Autographs. 

In accordance with the sketch here given we may present thehistory of the text, up to the time when it reached Tertullian, thus. First we have the sacred autographs, which are copied forsome time, we need not say immaculately, but without change on thepoints included in the above analysis. Gradually a few errors slipin, which are found especially in the Egyptian, versions and inthe works of some Alexandrine and Palestinian Fathers. But in timea wider breach is made. The process of corruption becomes morerapid. We reach at last that strange document which, through moreor less remote descent, became the parent of the Curetonian Syriacon the one hand and of the Old Latin on the other. These two linesseverally branch off. The Old Latin itself divides. One of itscopies in particular (b) seems to represent a text that has aclose affinity to that of Tertullian, and among the group ofmanuscripts to which it belongs is that which Tertullian himselfmost frequently and habitually used. 

Strictly speaking indeed there can be no true genealogical tree. The course of descent is not clear and direct all the way. Thereis some confusion and some crossing and recrossing of the lines. Thus, for instance, there is the curious coincidence of Tertullianwith [Hebrew: Aleph], a member of a group that had long seemed tobe left behind, in John vi. 51. This however, as it is only on apoint of order and that in a translation, may very possibly beaccidental; I should incline to think that the reading of theGreek Codex from which Tertullian's Latin was derived agreedrather with that of B, C, D, &c. , and these phenomena wouldincrease the probability that these manuscripts and Tertullian hadreally preserved the original text. If that were the case--and itis the conclusion arrived at by a decided majority of the besteditors--there would then be no considerable difficulty in regardto the relation between Tertullian and the five great Uncials, forthe reading of Mark ix. 7 is of much less importance. Somewhatmore difficult to adjust would be Tertullian's relations to thedifferent forms of the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac. In oneinstance, Matt. Xi. 11 (or Luke vii. 26), Tertullian seems toderive his text from the Dd branch rather than the b branch of theOld Latin. In another (Matt. Iii. 8) he seems to overleap b andmost copies of the Old Latin altogether and go to the CuretonianSyriac. How, too, did he come to have the paraphrastic reading ofMatt. V. 16 which is found in no MSS. Or versions but in Justin(approximately), Clement of Alexandria, and several Latin Fathers?The paraphrase might naturally enough occur to a single writerhere or there, but the extent of the coincidence is remarkable. Perhaps we are to see here another sign of the study bestowed bythe Fathers upon the writings of their predecessors leading to anunconscious or semi-conscious reproduction of their deviations. Itis a noticeable fact that in regard to the order of the clauses inMatt. V. 4, 5, Tertullian has preserved what is probably the rightreading along with b alone, the other copies of the Old Latin (allexcept the revised f) with the Curetonian Syriac having gonewrong. On the whole the complexities and cross relations are less, and the genealogical tree holds good to a greater extent, than wemight have been prepared for. The hypothesis that Tertullian useda manuscript in the main resembling b of the Old Latin satisfiesmost elements of the problem. 

But the merest glance at these phenomena must be enough to showthat the Tübingen theory, or any theory which attributes a lateorigin to our Gospels, is out of the question. To bring the textinto the state in which it is found in the writings of Tertullian, a century is not at all too long a period to allow. In fact Idoubt whether any subsequent century saw changes so great, thoughwe should naturally suppose that corruption would proceed at anadvancing rate for every fresh copy that was made. The phenomenathat have to be accounted for are not, be it remembered, such asmight be caused by the carelessness of a single scribe. They arespread over whole groups of MSS. Together. We can trace thegradual accessions of corruption at each step as we advance in thehistory of the text. A certain false reading comes in at such apoint and spreads over all the manuscripts that start from that;another comes in at a further stage and vitiates succeeding copiesthere; until at last a process of correction and revision sets in;recourse is had to the best standard manuscripts, and a purer textis recovered by comparison with these. It is precisely such a textthat is presented by the Old Latin Codex f, which, we findaccordingly, shows a maximum of difference from Tertullian. Astill more systematic revision, though executed--if we are tojudge from the instances brought to our notice--with somewhatmore reserve, is seen in Jerome's Vulgate. 

It seems unnecessary to dilate upon this point. I will onlyventure to repeat the statement which I made at starting; that ifthe whole of the Christian literature for the first three quartersof the second century could be blotted out, and Irenaeus andTertullian alone remained, as well as the later manuscripts withwhich to compare them, there would still be ample proof that thelatest of our Gospels cannot overstep the bounds of the firstcentury. The abundant indications of internal evidence are thusconfirmed, and the age and date of the Synoptic Gospels, I thinkwe may say, within approximate limits, established. 

But we must not forget that there is a double challenge to be met. The first part of it--that which relates to the evidence for theexistence of the Gospels--has been answered. It remains toconsider how far the external evidence for the Gospels goes toprove their authenticity. It may indeed well be asked how theexternal evidence can be expected to prove the authenticity ofthese records. It does so, to a considerable extent, indirectly bythrowing them back into closer contact with the facts. It alsotends to establish the authority in which they were held, certainly in the last quarter of the second century, and veryprobably before. By this time the Gospels were acknowledged to beall that is now understood by the word 'canonical. ' They wereplaced upon the same footing as the Old Testament Scriptures. Theywere looked up to with the same reverence and regarded aspossessing the same Divine inspiration. We may trace indeed someof the steps by which this position was attained. The [Greek:gegraptai] of the Epistle of Barnabas, the public reading of theGospels in the churches mentioned by Justin, the [Greek: toeiraemenon] of Tatian, the [Greek: guriakai graphai] of Dionysiusof Corinth, all prepare the way for the final culmination in theMuratorian Canon and Irenaeus. So complete had the process beenthat Irenaeus does not seem to know of a time when the authorityof the Gospels had been less than it was to him. Yet the processhad been, of course, gradual. The canonical Gospels had to competewith several others before they became canonical. They had to makegood their own claims and to displace rival documents; and theysucceeded. It is a striking instance of the 'survival of thefittest. ' That they were really the fittest is confirmed by nearlyevery fragment of the lost Gospels that remains, but it would bealmost sufficiently proved by the very fact that they survived. 

In this indirect manner I think that the external evidence bearsout the position assigned to the canonical Gospels. It haspreserved to us the judgment of the men of that time, and there isa certain relative sense in which the maxim, 'Securus judicatorbis terrarum, ' is true. The decisions of an age, especiallydecisions such as this where quite as much depended upon piousfeeling as upon logical reasoning, are usually sounder than thearguments that are put forward to defend them. We should hardlyendorse the arguments by which Irenaeus proves _a priori_ thenecessity of a 'four-fold Gospel, ' but there is real weight in thefact that four Gospels and no more were accepted by him and otherslike him. It is difficult to read without impatience the roughwords that are applied to the early Christian writers and tocontrast the self-complacency in which our own superior knowledgeis surveyed. If there is something in which they are behind us, there is much also in which we are behind them. Among the manythings for which Mr. Arnold deserves our gratitude he deserves itnot least for the way in which he has singled out two sentences, one from St. Augustine and the other from the Imitation, 'Dominefecisti nos ad te et irrequietum est cor nostrum donec requiescatin te, ' and, 'Esto humilis et pacificus et erit tecum, Jesus. ' Themen who could write thus are not to be despised. 

But beyond their more general testimony it is not clear what elsethe early Fathers could be expected to do. They could not prove--at least their written remains that have come down to us could notprove--that the Gospels were really written by the authorstraditionally assigned to them. When we say that the very names ofthe first two Evangelists are not mentioned before a date that maybe from 120-166 (or 155) A. D. And the third and fourth not before170-175 A. D. , this alone is enough, without introducing otherelements of doubt, to show that the evidence must needs beinconclusive. If the author of 'Supernatural Religion' undertookto show this, he undertook a superfluous task. So much at least, Mr. Arnold was right in saying, 'might be stated in a sentence andproved in a page. ' There is a presumption in favour of thetradition, and perhaps, considering the relation of Irenaeus toPolycarp and of Polycarp to St. John, we may say, a fairly strongone; but we need now-a-days, to authenticate a document, closerevidence than this. The cases are not quite parallel, and thedifference between them is decidedly in favour of Irenaeus, but ifClement of Alexandria could speak of an Epistle written about 125A. D. Is the work of the apostolic Barnabas the companion of St. Paul [Endnote 346:1], we must not lay too much stress upon thedirect testimony of Irenaeus when he attributes the fourth Gospelto the Apostle St. John. 

These are points for a different set of arguments to determine. The Gospel itself affords sufficient indications as to theposition of its author. For the conclusion that he was aPalestinian Jew, who had lived in Palestine before the destructionof Jerusalem, familiar with the hopes and expectations of hispeople, and himself mixed up with the events which he describes, there is evidence of such volume and variety as seems exceedinglydifficult to resist. As I have gone into this subject at lengthelsewhere [Endnote 347:1], and as, so far as I can see, no newelement has been introduced into the question by 'SupernaturalReligion, ' I shall not break the unity of the present work byconsidering the objections brought in detail. I am very ready torecognise the ability with which many of these are stated, but itis the ability of the advocate rather than of the impartialcritic. There is a constant tendency to draw conclusions much inexcess of the premisses. An observation, true in itself with acertain qualification and restriction, is made in an unqualifiedform, and the truth that it contains is exaggerated. Above all, wherever there is a margin of ignorance, wherever a statement ofthe Evangelist is not capable of direct and exact verification, the doubt is invariably given against him and he is brought inguilty either of ignorance or deception. I have no hesitation insaying that if the principles of criticism applied to the fourthGospel--not only by the author of 'Supernatural Religion, ' but bysome other writers of repute, such as Dr. Scholten--were appliedto ordinary history or to the affairs of every-day life, much thatis known actually to have happened could be shown on _a priori_grounds to be impossible. It is time that the extreme negativeschool should justify more completely their canons of criticism. As it is, the laxity of these repels many a thoughtful mind quiteas firmly convinced as they can be of the necessity of freeenquiry and quite as anxious to reconcile the different sidesof knowledge. The question is not one merely of freedom ortradition, but of reason and logic; and until there is moreagreement as to what is reasonable and what the laws of logicdemand, the arguments are apt to run in parallel lines that nevermeet [Endnote 348:1]. 

But, it is said, 'Miracles require exceptional evidence. ' True:exceptional evidence they both require and possess; but that evidence isnot external. Incomparably the strongest attestation to the Gospelnarratives is that which they bear to themselves. Miracles haveexceptional evidence because the non-miraculous portions of thenarrative with which they are bound up are exceptional. These carrytheir truth stamped upon their face, and that truth is reflected backupon the miracles. It is on the internal investigation of the Gospelsthat the real issue lies. And this is one main reason why the belief ofmankind so little depends upon formal apologetics. We can all feel theself- evidential force of the Gospel story; but who shall present itadequately in words? We are reminded of the fate of him who thought theark of God was falling and put out his hand to steady it--and, for hisprofanity, died. It can hardly be said that good intentions would be asufficient justification, because that a man should think himself fitfor the task would be in itself almost a sufficient sign that he wasmistaken. It is not indeed quite incredible that the qualificationsshould one day be found. We seem almost to see that, with a slightalteration of circumstances, a little different training in early life, such an one has almost been among us. There are passages that make usthink that the author of 'Parochial and Plain Sermons' might havetouched even the Gospels with cogency that yet was not profane. But thecombination of qualities required is such as would hardly be found forcenturies together. The most fine and sensitive tact of piety would beessential. With it must go absolute sincerity and singleness of purpose. Any dash of mere conventionalism or self-seeking would spoil the whole. There must be that clear illuminated insight that is only given to thosewho are in a more than ordinary sense 'pure in heart. ' And on the otherhand, along with these unique spiritual qualities must go a sound andexact scientific training, a just perception of logical force andmethod, and a wide range of knowledge. One of the great dangers anddrawbacks to the exercise of the critical faculty is that it tends todestroy the spiritual intuition. And just in like manner the too greatreliance upon this intuition benumbs and impoverishes the criticalfaculty. Yet, in a mind that should present at all adequately theinternal evidence of the Gospels, both should co-exist in equal balanceand proportion. We cannot say that there will never be such a mind, but the asceticism of a life would be a necessary discipline for itto go through, and that such a life as the world has seldom seen. 

In the meantime the private Christian may well be content with what hehas. 'If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whetherit be of God. '

CHAPTER XIV. 

CONCLUSION. 

And now that we have come to the end of the purely criticalportion of this enquiry, I may perhaps be allowed to say a fewwords on its general tendency and bearing. As critics we have onlythe critical question to deal with. Certain evidence is presentedto us which it is our duty to weigh and test by reference tological and critical laws. It must stand or fall on its ownmerits, and any considerations brought in from without will beirrelevant to the question at issue. But after this is done we mayfairly look round and consider how our conclusion affects otherconclusions and in what direction it is leading us. If we look at'Supernatural Religion' in this way we shall see that its tendencyis distinctly marked. Its attack will fall chiefly upon the middleparty in opinion. And it will play into the hands of the twoextreme parties on either side. There can be little doubt thatindirectly it will help the movement that is carrying so many intoUltramontanism, and directly it is of course intended to winconverts to what may perhaps be called comprehensively Secularism. 

Now it is certainly true that the argument from consequences isone that ought to be applied with great caution. Yet I am not atall sure that it has not a real basis in philosophy as well as innature. The very existence of these two great parties, theUltramontane and the Secularist, over against each other, seems tobe it kind of standing protest against either of them. IfUltramontanism is true, how is it that so many wise and good menopenly avow Secularism? If 'Secularism is true, how is it that somany of the finest and highest minds take refuge from it--atreacherous refuge, I allow--in Ultramontanism? There issomething in this more than a mere defective syllogism--more thanan insufficient presentation of the evidence. Truth, in the widestsense, is that which is in accordance with the laws and conditionsof human nature. But where beliefs are so directly antithetical asthey are here, the repugnance and resistance which each is foundto cause in so large a number of minds is in itself a proof thatthose laws and conditions are insufficiently complied with. To thespectator, standing outside of both, this will seem to be easilyexplained: the one sacrifices reason to faith; the othersacrifices faith to reason. But there is abundant evidence to showthat both faith (meaning thereby the religious emotions) andreason are ineradicable elements in the human mind. That whichseriously and permanently offends against either cannot be true. For creatures differently constituted from man--either all reasonor all pure disembodied emotion--it might be otherwise; but, forman, as he is, the epithet 'true' seems to be excluded from anyset of propositions that has such results. 

Even in the more limited sense, and confining the term topropositions purely intellectual, there is, I think we must say, apresumption against the truth of that which involves so deep andwide a chasm in human nature. Without importing teleology, weshould naturally expect that the intellect and the emotions shouldbe capable of working harmoniously together. They do so in mostthings: why should they not in the highest matters of all? If theone set of opinions is anti-rational and the other anti-emotional, as we see practically that they are, is not this in itself anantecedent presumption against either of them? It may not beenough to prove at once that the syllogism is defective: stillless is it a sufficient warrant for establishing an oppositesyllogism. But it does seem to be enough to give the scientificreasoner pause, and to make him go over the line of his argumentagain and again and yet again, with the suspicion that there is(as how well there may be!) a flaw somewhere. 

It would not, I think, be difficult to point out such flaws[Endnote 352:1]--some of them, as it appears, of considerablemagnitude. But the subject is one that would take us far away outof our present course, and for its proper development wouldrequire a technical knowledge of the processes of physical sciencewhich I do not possess. Leaving this on one side, and regardingthem only in the abstract, the considerations stated above seem topoint to the necessity of something of the nature of a compromise. And yet there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as compromisein opinions. Compromise belongs to the world of practice; it isonly admitted by an illicit process into the world of thought. Theauthor of 'Supernatural Religion' is doubtless right indeprecating that 'illogical zeal which flings to the pursuingwolves of doubt and unbelief, scrap by scrap, ' all the distinctivedoctrines of Christianity. Belief, it is true, must be ultimatelylogical to stand. It must have an inner cohesion and inter-dependence. It must start from a fixed principle. This has been, and still is, the besetting weakness of the theology of mediation. It is apt to form itself merely by stripping off what seem to beexcrescences from the outside, and not by radically reconstructingitself, on a firmly established basis, from within. The difficultyin such a process is to draw the line. There is a delusiveappearance of roundness and completeness in the creeds of thosewho either accept everything or deny everything: though, evenhere, there is, I think we may say, always, some little loopholeleft of belief or of denial, which will inevitably expand until itsplits and destroys the whole structure. But the moment we beginto meet both parties half way, there comes in that crucialquestion: Why do you accept just so much and no more? Why do youdeny just so much and no more? [Endnote 354:1]

It must, in candour, be confessed that the synthetic formula for themiddle party in opinion has not yet been found. Other parties havetheir formulae, but none that will really bear examination. _Quodsemper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus_, would do excellently if therewas any belief that had been held 'always, everywhere, and by all, ' ifno discoveries had been made as to the facts, and if there had been noadvance in the methods of knowledge. The ultimate universality and theabsolute uniformity of physical antecedents has a plausible appearanceuntil it is seen that logically carried out it reduces men to machines, annihilates responsibility, and involves conclusions on the assumptionof the truth of which society could not hold together for a single day. If we abandon these Macedonian methods for unloosing the Gordian knotof things and keep to the slow and laborious way of gradual induction, then I think it will be clear that all opinions must be held on themost provisional tenure. A vast number of problems will need to beworked out before any can be said to be established with a pretence tofinality. And the course which the inductive process is taking suppliesone of the chief 'grounds of hope' to those who wish to hold thatmiddle position of which I have been speaking. The extreme theorieswhich from time to time have been advanced have not been able to holdtheir ground. No doubt they may have done the good that extremetheories usually do, in bringing out either positively or negativelyone side or another of the truth; but in themselves they have beenrejected as at once inadequate and unreal solutions of the facts. Firstwe had the Rationalism (properly so called) of Paulus, then theMythical hypothesis of Strauss, and after that the 'Tendenz-kritik' ofBaur. But what candid person does not feel that each and all of thesecontained exaggerations more incredible than the difficulties whichthey sought to remove? There has been on each of the points raised amore or less definite ebb in the tide. The moderate conclusion is seento be also the reasonable conclusion. And not least is this the casewith the enquiry on which we have been just engaged. The author of'Supernatural Religion' has overshot the mark very much indeed. Thereis, as we have seen, a certain truth in some things that he has said, but the whole sum of truth is very far from bearing out his conclusions. 

When we look up from these detailed enquiries and lift up our eyesto a wider horizon we shall be able to relegate them to their trueplace. The really imposing witness to the truth of Christianity isthat which is supplied by history on the one hand, and its owninternal attractiveness and conformity to human nature on theother. Strictly speaking, perhaps, these are but two sides of thesame thing. It is in history that the laws of human nature assumea concrete shape and expression. The fact that Christianity hasheld its ground in the face of such long-continued and hostilecriticism is a proof that it must have some deeply-seated fitnessand appropriateness for man. And this goes a long way towardssaying that it is true. It is a theory of things that is beingconstantly tested by experience. But the results of experience areoften expressed unconsciously. They include many a subtleindication that the mind has followed but cannot reproduce toitself in set terms. All the reasons that go to form a judge'sdecision do not appear in his charge. Yet there we have a selectand highly-trained mind working upon matter that presents no verygreat degree of complexity. When we come to a question so wide, sosubtle and complex as Christianity, the individual mind ceases tobe competent to sit in judgment upon it. It becomes necessary toappeal to a much more extended tribunal, and the verdict of thattribunal will be given rather by acts than in words. Thus thereseems to have always been a sort of half-conscious feeling inmen's minds that there was more in Christianity than the argumentsfor it were able to bring out. In looking back over the coursethat apologetics have taken, we cannot help being struck by adisproportion between the controversial aspect and the practical. It will probably on the whole be admitted that the balance ofargument has in the past been usually somewhat on the side of theapologists; but the argumentative victory has seldom if ever beenso decisive as quite to account for the comparatively undisturbedcontinuity of the religious life. It was in the height of theDeist controversy that Wesley and Whitfield began to preach, andthey made more converts by appealing to the emotions than probablyButler did by appealing to the reason. 

A true philosophy must take account of these phenomena. Beliefswhich issue in that peculiarly fine and chastened and tenderspirit which is the proper note of Christianity, cannot, under anycircumstances, be dismissed as 'delusion. ' Surely if any productof humanity is true and genuine, it is to be found here. There areindeed truths which find a response in our hearts withoutapparently going through any logical process, not because they areillogical, but because the scales of logic are not delicate andsensitive enough to weigh them. 

'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shallnot enter into the kingdom of heaven. ' 'I will arise and go to myfather, and will say unto him: Father, I have sinned againstheaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thyson. ' 'Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and Iwill give you rest. ' The plummet of science--physical ormetaphysical, moral or critical--has never sounded so deep assayings such as these. We may pass them over unnoticed in ourBibles, or let them slip glibly and thoughtlessly from the tongue;but when they once really come home, there is nothing to do but tobow the head and cover the face and exclaim with the Apostle, 'Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord. '

And yet there is that other side of the question which is representedin 'Supernatural Religion, ' and this too must have justice done to it. There is an intellectual, as well as a moral and spiritual, synthesisof things. Only it should be remembered that this synthesis has tocover an immense number of facts of the most varied and intricate kind, and that at present the nature of the facts themselves is in many casesvery far from being accurately ascertained. We are constantly remindedin reading 'Supernatural Religion, ' able and vigorous as it is, howmuch of its force depends rather upon our ignorance than our knowledge. It supplies us with many opportunities of seeing how easily the wholecourse and tenour of an argument may be changed by the introduction ofa new element. For instance, I imagine that if the author had given alittle deeper study to the seemingly minute and secondary subject oftext-criticism, it would have aroused in him very considerablemisgivings as to the results at which he seemed to have arrived. Thereis a solidarity in all the different departments of human knowledge andresearch, especially among those that are allied in subject. These arecontinually sending out offshoots and projections into the neighbouringregions, and the conclusions of one science very often have to dependupon those of another. The course of enquiry that has been taken in'Supernatural Religion' is peculiarly unfortunate. It starts from thewrong end. It begins with propositions into which _a priori_considerations largely enter, and, from the standpoint given by these, it proceeds to dictate terms in a field that can only be trodden bypatient and unprejudiced study. A far more hopeful and scientificprocess would have been to begin upon ground where dogmatic questionsdo not enter, or enter only in a remote degree, and where there is asufficient number of solid ascertainable facts to go upon, and then towork the way steadily and cautiously upwards to higher generalisations. 

It will have been seen in the course of the present enquiry howmany side questions need to be determined. It would be well ifmonographs were written upon all the quotations from the OldTestament in the Christian literature of the first two centuries, modelled upon Credner's investigations into the quotations inJustin. Before this is done there should be a new and revisededition of Holmes' and Parsons' Septuagint [Endnote 359:1]. Everything short of this would be inadequate, because we need toknow not only the best text, but every text that has definitehistorical attestation. In this way it would be possible to arriveat a tolerably exact, instead of a merely approximate, deductionas to the habit of quotation generally, which would supply afirmer basis for inference in regard to the New Testament thanthat which has been assumed here. At the same time monographsshould be written in English, besides those already existing inGerman, upon the date or position of the writers whose works comeunder review. Without any attempt to prove a particular thesis, the reader should be allowed to see precisely what the evidence isand how far it goes. Then if he could not arrive at a positiveconclusion, he could at least attain to the most probable. And, lastly, it is highly important that the whole question of thecomposition and structure of the Synoptic Gospels should beinvestigated to the very bottom. Much valuable labour has alreadybeen expended upon this subject, but the result, though progresshas been made, is rather to show its extreme complexity anddifficulty than to produce any final settlement. Yet, as theauthor of 'Supernatural Religion' has rather dimly and inadequatelyseen, we are constantly thrown back upon assumptions borrowed fromthis quarter. 

Pending such more mature and thorough enquiries, I quite feel thatmy own present contribution belongs to a transition stage, andcannot profess to be more than provisional. But it will haveserved its purpose sufficiently if it has helped to mark out moredistinctly certain lines of the enquiry and to carry theinvestigation along these a little way; suggesting at the sametime--what the facts themselves really suggest--counsels ofsobriety and moderation. 

What the end will be, it would be presumptuous to attempt toforetell. It will probably be a long time before even these minorquestions--much more the major questions into which they run up--will be solved. Whether they will ever be solved--all of them atleast--in such a way as to compel entire assent is very doubtful. Error and imperfection seem to be permanently, if we may hopediminishingly, a condition of human thought and action. It doesnot appear to be the will of God that Truth should ever be sopresented as to crush out all variety of opinion. The conflict ofopinions is like that of Hercules with the Hydra. As fast as oneis cut down another arises in its place; and there is no searing-iron to scorch and cicatrize the wound. However much we maylabour, we can only arrive at an inner conviction, not atobjective certainty. All the glosses and asseverations in theworld cannot carry us an inch beyond the due weight of theevidence vouchsafed to us. An honest and brave mind will acceptmanfully this condition of things, and not seek for infallibilitywhere it can find none. It will adopt as its motto that noblesaying of Bishop Butler--noble, because so unflinchingly true, though opposed to a sentimental optimism--'Probability is the veryguide of life. '

With probabilities we have to deal, in the intellectual sphere. But, when once this is thoroughly and honestly recognised, even acomparatively small balance of probability comes to have as muchmoral weight as the most loudly vaunted certainty. And meantime, apart from and beneath the strife of tongues, there is the stillsmall voice which whispers to a man and bids him, in nosuperstitious sense but with the gravity and humility which befitsa Christian, to 'work out his own salvation with fear andtrembling. '

[ENDNOTES]

[2:1] With regard to the references in vol. I. P. 259, n. 1, Ihad already observed, before the appearance of the preface to thesixth edition, that they were really intended to apply to thefirst part of the sentence annotated rather than the second. Still, as there is only one reference out of nine that reallysupports the proposition in immediate connection with which thereferences are made, the reader would be very apt to carry away amistaken impression. The same must be said of the set ofreferences defended on p. Xl. Sqq. Of the new preface. Theexpressions used do not accurately represent the state of thefacts. It is not careful writing, and I am afraid it must be saidthat the prejudice of the author has determined the side which theexpression leans. But how difficult is it to make words expressall the due shades and qualifications of meaning--how difficultespecially for a mind that seems to be naturally distinguished byforce rather than by exactness and delicacy of observation! Wehave all 'les défauts de nos qualités. '

[10:1] Much harm has been done by rashly pressing human metaphors andanalogies; such as, that Revelation is a _message_ from God andtherefore must be infallible, &c. This is just the sort of argumentthat the Deists used in the last century, insisting that a revelation, properly so called, _must_ be presented with conclusive proofs, _must_be universal, _must_ be complete, and drawing the conclusion thatChristianity is not such a revelation. This kind of reasoning hasreceived its sentence once for all from Bishop Butler. We have nothingto do with what _must_ be (of which we are, by the nature of the case, incompetent judges), but simply with what _is_. 

[18:1] Cf. Westcott, _Canon_, p. 152, n. 2 (3rd ed. 1870). 

[18:2] See Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 60; also Credner, _Beiträge_, ii. 66 ('certainly' from St. Paul). 

[20:1] _The Old Testament in the New_ (London and Edinburgh, 1868). 

[21:1] Mr. M'Clellan (_The New Testament_, &c. , vol. I. P. 606, n. C) makes the suggestion, which from his point of view isnecessary, that 'S. Matthew has cited a prophecy spoken byJeremiah, but nowhere written in the Old Testament, and of whichthe passage in Zechariah is only a partial reproduction. ' Cf. Credner, _Beiträge_, ii. 152. 

[25:1] We do not stay to discuss the real origin of thesequotations: the last is probably not from the Old Testament atall. 

[27:1] The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are alsofound in Clement of Alexandria. 

[34:1] It should be noticed, however, that the same reading isfound in Justin and other writers. 

[38:1] _Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti_(Gottingae, 1853). 

[39:1] _Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften_(Halle, 1832). 

[40:1] _The Epistles of S. Clement of Rome_ (London andCambridge, 1869). 

[49:1] The Latin translation is not in most cases a sufficientguarantee for the original text. The Greek has been preserved inthe shape of long extracts by Epiphanius and others. The editionused is that of Stieren, Lipsiae, 1853. 

[49:2] Horne's _Introduction_ (ed. 1856), p. 333. 

[52:1] Ed. Dindorf, Lipsiae, 1859. [The index given in vol. Iii. P. 893 sqq. Contains many inaccuracies, and is, indeed, of littleuse for identifying the passages of Scripture. ]

[56:1] _Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement ofAlexandria, _ p. 407 sqq. 

[56:2] In the new Preface to his work on the Canon (4th edition, 1875), p. Xxxii. 

[58:1] _S. R. _ i. P. 221, and note. 

[59:1] _S. R. _ i. P. 222, n. 3. 

[59:2] _Lehrb. Chr. Dogmengesch. _ p. 74 (p. 82 _S. R. _?). 

[59:3] _Das nachapost. Zeitalter_, p. 126 sq. 

[60:1] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 64; compareFritzche, art. 'Judith' in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_. 

[61:1] Vol. I. P. 221, n. I feel it due to the author to say thatI have found his long lists of references, though not seldomfaulty, very useful. I willingly acknowledge the justice of hisclaim to have 'fully laid before readers the actual means ofjudging of the accuracy of every statement which has been made'(Preface to sixth edition, p. Lxxx). 

[65:1] i. P. 226. 

[66:1] i. P. 228. 

[69:1] _Der Ursprung_, p. 138. 

[71:1] _The Apostolical Fathers_ (London, 1874), p. 273. 

[71:2] The original Greek of this work is lost, but in the text asreconstructed by Hilgenfeld from five still extant versions(Latin, Syriac, Aethiopic, Arabic, Armenian) the verse runs thus, [Greek: polloi men ektisthaesan, oligoi de sothaesontai](_Messias Judaeorum_, p. 69). 

[73:1] A curious instance of disregard of context is to be seen inTertullian's reading of John i. 13, which he referred to_Christ_, accusing the Valentinians of falsification becausethey had the ordinary reading (cf. Rönsch, _Das Neue TestamentTertullian's_, pp. 252, 654). Compare also p. 24 above. 

[73:2] _Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum_, Fasc. Ii. P. 69. 

[74:1] c. V. 

[74:2] _S. R. _ i. P. 250 sqq. 

[76:1] Lardner, _Credibility, &c_. , ii. P . 23; Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 50, n. 5. 

[77:1] Since this was written the author of 'SupernaturalReligion' has replied in the preface to his sixth edition. He hasstated his case in the ablest possible manner: still I do notthink that there is anything to retract in what has been writtenabove. There _would_ have been something to retract if Dr. Lightfoot had maintained positively the genuineness of the VossianEpistles. As to the Syriac, the question seems to me to standthus. On the one side are certain improbabilities--I admit, improbabilities, though not of the weightiest kind--which are metabout half way by the parallel cases quoted. On the other hand, there is the express testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp quotedin its turn by Irenaeus. Now I cannot think that there is anyimprobability so great (considering our ignorance) as not to beoutweighed by this external evidence. 

[81:1] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Nov. Test. Ext. Can. Rec. _, Fasc. Iv. P. 15. 

[81:2] Cf. _ibid. _, pp. 56, 62, also p. 29. 

[82:1] But see _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 838, fromwhich it appears that M. Waddington has recently proved the dateto be rather 155 or 156. Compare Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. 72, where reference is made to an essay by Lipsius, _DerMärtyrertod Polycarp's_ in _Z. F. W. T. _ 1874, ii. P. 180f. 

[82:2] _Adv. Haer. _ iii. 3, 4. 

[83:1] _Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche_, p. 586;Hefele, _Patrum Apostolicorum Opera_, p. Lxxx. 

[84:1] Cf. _S. R. _ i. P. 278. 

[84:2] _Ent. D. A. K. _ pp. 593, 599. 

[84:3] _Apostolical Fathers_, p. 227 sq. 

[84:4] _Ursprung_, pp. 43, 131. 

[85:1] [Greek: mnaemoneuontes de hon eipen ho kurios didaskon; maekrinete hina mae krithaete; aphiete kai aphethaesetai hymin; eleeitehina eleaethaete; en ho metro metreite, antimetraethaesetai hymin; kaihoti makarioi hoi ptochoi kai hoi diokomenoi heneken dikaiosynaes, hotiauton estin hae basileia tou Theou. ]

[89:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, 1. P. 138, n. 2. 

[89:2] _Einleilung in das N. T. _ p. 66, where Lipsius' viewis also quoted. 

[89:3] Cf. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 88, n. 4. 

[89:4] As appears to be suggested in _S. R. _ i. P. 292. Thereference in the note to Bleek, _Einl. _ p. 637 (and Ewald?), does not seem to be exactly to the point. 

[89:5] _Apol. _ i. 67. 

[90:1] _Dial. C. Tryph. _ 103. 

[90:2] _Apol. _ i. 66; cf. _S. R. _ i. P. 294. 

[91:1] The evangelical references and allusions in Justin havebeen carefully collected by Credner and Hilgenfeld, and are herethrown together in a sort of running narrative. 

[101:1] This was written before the appearance of Mr. M'Clellan'simportant work on the Four Gospels (_The New Testament_, vol. I, London, 1875), to which I have not yet had time to give thestudy that it deserves. 

[103:1] Unless indeed it was found in one of the many forms of theGospel (cf. _S. R. _ i. P. 436, and p. 141 below). The sectionappears in none of the forms reproduced by Dr. Hilgenfeld (_N. T. Extra Can. Recept. _ Fasc. Iv). 

[107:1] In like manner Tertullian refers his readers to the'autograph copies' of St. Paul's Epistles, and the very 'chairs ofthe Apostles, ' preserved at Corinth and elsewhere. (_DePraescript. Haeret. _ c. 36). Tertullian also refers to thecensus of Augustus, 'quem testem fidelissimum dominicaenativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt' (_Adv. Marc. _ iv. 7). 

[110:1] _Beiträge_, i. P. 261 sqq. 

[110:2] _Evangelien Justin's u. S. W. _, p. 270 sqq. 

[110:3] The chief authority is Eus. _H. E. _ vi. 12. 

[110:4] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157. 

[116:1] A somewhat similar classification has been made by DeWette, _Einleitung in das N. T. _, pp. 104-110, in whichhowever the standard seems to be somewhat lower than that which Ihave assumed; several instances of variation which I had classedas decided, De Wette considers to be only slight. I hope I mayconsider this a proof that the classification above given has notbeen influenced by bias. 

[119:1] _Beiträge_, i. P. 237. 

[119:2] _S. R. _ i. P. 396 sqq. 

[120:1] _Die drei ersten Evangelien_, Göttingen, 1850. [Asecond, revised, edition of this work has recently appeared. ]

[120:2] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, Leipzig, 1863, p. 88. 

[120:3] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, Berlin, 1872, p. 299. 

[120:4] _Beiträge_, i. P. 219. 

[120:5] Dr. Westcott well calls this 'the _prophetic_ senseof the present' (_On the Canon_, p. 128). 

[122:1] 'This is meaningless, ' writes Mr. Baring-Gould of thecanonical text, rather hastily, and forgetting, as it wouldappear, the concluding cause (_Lost and Hostile Gospels_, p. 166); cp. _S. R. _ i. P. 354, ii. P. 28. 

[123:1] i. Pp. 196, 227, 258. 

[123:2] _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon_ (ed. Volkmar, Berlin, 1860), p. 16. 

[124:1] _Adv. Haer. _ 428 D. 

[124:2] I am not quite clear that more is meant (as Meyer, Ellicott _Huls. Lect. _ p. 339, n. 2, and others maintain) inthe evangelical language than that the drops of sweat 'resembledblood;' [Greek: hosei] seems to qualify [Greek: haimatos] as muchas [Greek: thromboi]. Compare especially the interesting parallelsfrom medical writers quoted by McClellan _ad loc. _

[128:1] The only parallel that I can find quoted is a reference byMr. McClellan to Philo i. 164 (ed. Mangey), where the phrase ishowever [Greek: isos angeloi (gegonos)]. 

[129:1] _S. R. _ i. P. 304 sqq. 

[130:1] _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157. 

[135:1] Scrivener, _Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T_. P. 452 (2nd edition, 1874). 

[136:1] On reviewing this chapter I am inclined to lean more thanI did to the hypothesis that Justin used a Harmony. The phenomenaof variation seem to be too persistent and too evenly distributedto allow of the supposition of alternate quoting from differentGospels. But the data will need a closer weighing before this canbe determined. 

[138:1] _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 169 sqq. 

[138:2] Tischendorf, however, devotes several pages to an argumentwhich follows in the same line as Dr. Lightfoot's, and is, Ibelieve, in the main sound (_Wann wurden unsere Evangelienverfasst?_ p. 113 sqq. , 4th edition, 1866). 

[138:3] I gather from the sixth edition of _S. R. _ that theargument from silence is practically waived. If the silence ofEusebius is not pressed as proving that the authors about whom heis silent were ignorant of or did not acknowledge particularGospels, we on our side may be content not to press it as provingthat the Gospels in question _were_ acknowledged. The mattermay well be allowed to rest thus: that, so far as the silence ofEusebius is concerned, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius ofCorinth are not alleged either for the Gospels or against them. Iagree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that the point isnot one of paramount importance, though it has been made more ofby other writers, e. G. Strauss and Renan. [The author has missedDr. Lightfoot's point on p. Xxiii. What Eusebius bears testimonyto is, _not_ his own belief in the canonicity of the fourthGospel, but its _undisputed_ canonicity, i. E. A historicalfact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c. If Isay that _Hamlet_ is an undisputed play of Shakspeare's, Imean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare's myself, but thatall the critics from Shakspeare's time downwards have believed itto be his. ]

[140:1] _H. E. _ iv. 22. 

[141:1] _S. R. _ i. P. 436. 

[141:2] _Einleitung_, p. 103. 

[141:3] _Das Nachapost. Zeit. _ i. P. 238. 

[141:4] _Beiträge_, i. P. 401. 

[141:5] _Nov. Test. Extra Can. Recept. _ Fasc. Iv. Pp. 19, 20. 

[143:1] We have, however, had occasion to note a somewhatparallel, though not quite parallel, instance in the quotation ofClement of Rome and Polycarp, [Greek: aphiete, hina aphethae humin(kai aphethaesetai humin)]. 

[144:1] _Contemporary Review_, Dec. 1874, p. 8; cf. Routh, _Reliquiae Sacrae_, i. P. 281 _ad fin. _

[144:2] Tregelles, writing on the 'Ancient Syriac Versions' inSmith's Dictionary, iii. P. 1635 a, says that 'these words mightbe a Greek rendering of Matt. Xiii. 16 as they stand' in theCuretonian text. 

[145:1] Or rather perhaps 155, 156; see p. 82 above. 

[146:1] _H. E. _ iii. 39. 

[147:1] In Mr. M'Clellan's recent _Harmony_ I notice only two deviationsfrom the order in St. Mark, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-29. In Mr. Fuller's_Harmony_ (the Harmony itself and not the Table of Contents, in whichthere are several oversights) there seem to be two, Mark vi. 17-20, xiv. 3-9; in Dr. Robinson's English _Harmony_ three, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-20, xiv. 22-72 (considerable variation). Of these passagesvi. 17-20 (the imprisonment of the Baptist) is the only one the placeof which all three writers agree in changing. [Dr. Lightfoot, in_Cont. Rev. _, Aug. 1875, p. 394, appeals to Anger and Tischendorfin proof of the contrary proposition, that the order of Mark cannotbe maintained. But Tischendorf's Harmony is based on the assumptionthat St. Luke's use of [Greek: kathexaes] pledges him to a chronologicalorder, and Anger adopts Griesbach's hypothesis that Mark is a compilationfrom Matthew and Luke. The remarks in the text turn, not upon precariousharmonistic results, but upon a simple comparison of the three Gospels. ]

[149:1] Perhaps I should explain that this was made by underliningthe points of resemblance between the Gospels in differentcoloured pencil and reckoning up the results at the end of eachsection. 

[153:1] This subject has been carefully worked out since Crednerby Bleek and De Wette. The results will be found in Holtzmann, _Synopt. Ev. _ p. 259 sqq. 

[154:1] Cf. Holtzmann, _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, p. 255sq. ; Ebrard, _The Gospel History_ (Engl. Trans. ), p. 247;Bleek, _Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien_, i. P. 367. The theory rests upon an acute observation, and has muchplausibility. 

[155:1] _On the Canon_, p. 181, n. 2. [That the word willbear this sense appears still more decidedly from Dr. Lightfoot'srecent investigations, in view of which the two sentences thatfollow should perhaps be cancelled; see _Cont. Rev. _, Aug. 1875, p. 399 sqq. ]

[159:1] [It will be seen that the arguments above hardly touchthose of Dr. Lightfoot in the _Contemporary Review_ forAugust and October: neither do Dr. Lightfoot's arguments seem verymuch to affect them. The method of the one is chiefly external, that of the other almost entirely internal. I can only for thepresent leave what I had written; but I do not for a momentsuppose that the subject is fathomed even from the particularstandpoint that I have taken. ]

[162:1] The lists given in _Supernatural Religion_ (ii. P. 2)seem to be correct so far as I am able to check them. In thesecond edition of his work on the Origin of the Old CatholicChurch, Ritschl modified his previous opinion so far as to admitthat the indications were divided, sometimes on the one side, sometimes on the other (p. 451, n. 1). There is a seasonablewarning in Reuss (_Gesch. H. S. N. T. _ p. 254) that theTübingen critics here, as elsewhere, are apt to exaggerate thepolemical aspect of the writing. 

[162:2] It should be noticed that Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, thoughassigning the second place to the Homilies, both take the_terminus ad quem_ for this work no later than 180 A. D. Itseems that a Syriac version, partly of the Homilies, partly of theRecognitions, exists in a MS. Which itself was written in the year411, and bears at that date marks of transcription from a stillearlier copy (cf. Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 341, n. 1). 

[163:1] This table is made, as in the case of Justin, with thehelp of the collection of passages in the works of Credner andHilgenfeld. 

[167:1] Or rather perhaps 'morning baptism. ' (Cf. Lightfoot, _Colossians, _ p. 162 sqq. , where the meaning of the name andthe character and relations of the sect are fully discussed). 

[168:1] _Hom. _ i. 6; ii. 19, 23; iii. 73; iv. 1; xiii. 7;xvii. 19. 

[170:1] So Tregelles expressly (_Introduction_, p. 240), after Wiseman;Scrivener (_Introd. _, p. 308) adds (?); M'Clellan classes with'Italic Family' (p. Lxxiii). [On returning to this passage I inclinerather more definitely to regard the reading [Greek: Haesaiou], fromthe group in which it is found, as an early Alexandrine corruption. Still the Clementine writer may have had it before him. ]

[170:2] ii. P. 10 sqq. 

[172:1] ii. P. 21. 

[172:2] Preface to the fourth edition of _Canon_, p. Xxxii. 

[174:1] _Evangelien_, p. 31. 

[174:2] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 282. 

[175:1] _Synopt. Ev. _ p. 193. 

[176:1] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 295. 

[178:1] A friend has kindly extracted for me, from Holmes andParsons, the authorities for the Septuagint text of Deut. Vi. 4. For [Greek: sou] there are 'Const. App. 219, 354, 355; Ignat. Epp. 104, 112; Clem. Al. 68, 718; Chrys. I. 482 et saepe, al. ' For_tuus_, 'Iren. (int. ), Tert. , Cypr. , Ambr. , Anonym. Ap. Aug. , Gaud. , Brix. , Alii Latini. ' No authorities for [Greek: humon]. Wasthe change first introduced into the text of the New Testament?

[178:2] _S. R. _ ii. P. 25. 

[179:1] _Beiträge_, i. P. 326. 

[179:2] _On the Canon_, p. 261, n. 2. 

[188:1] _Hom. _ 1. _in Lucam_. 

[189:1] _H. E. _ iv. 7. 

[189:2] _Strom. _ iv. 12. 

[189:3] _S. R. _ ii. P. 42. 

[189:4] _Ibid. _ n. 2; cp. P. 47. 

[190:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer. _ vii, 27. 

[190:2] ii. P. 45. 

[191:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer. _ vii. 20. 

[192:1] _S. R. _ ii. P. 49. 

[197:1] _Adv. Haer. _ i. Pref. 2. 

[198:1] ii. P. 59. 

[199:1] _S. R. _ ii. P. 211 sq. 

[200:1] _Strom. _ ii. 20; see Westcott, _Canon_, p. 269;Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 152. 

[203:1] _Adv. Haer. _ iii. 11. 7, 9. 

[203:2] _Ibid. _ iii. 12. 12. 

[204:1] The corresponding chapter to this in 'Supernatural Religion'has been considerably altered, and indeed in part rewritten, in thesixth edition. The author very kindly sent me a copy of this afterthe appearance of my article in the _Fortnightly Review_, and I atonce made use of it for the part of the work on which I was engaged;but I regret that my attention was not directed, as it should havebeen, to the changes in this chapter until it was too late to takequite sufficient account of them. The argument, however, I think Imay say, is not materially affected. Several criticisms which I hadbeen led to make in the _Fortnightly_ I now find had been anticipated, and these have been cancelled or a note added in the present work;I have also appended to the volume a supplemental note of greaterlength on the reconstruction of Marcion's text, the only point onwhich I believe there is really very much room for doubt. 

[205:1] See above, p. 89. 

[205:2] _Apol. _ i. 26. 

[205:3] _Ibid. _ i. 58. 

[205:4] ii. P. 80. 

[205:5] _Der Ursprung_, p. 89. 

[205:6] Cf. Tertullian, _De Praescript. Haeret. _ c. 38. 

[206:1] _Adv. Haer. _ iv. 27. 2; 12. 12. 

[209:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, pp. 28-54. [Volkmar's view isstated less inadequately in the sixth edition of _S. R. _, butstill not quite adequately. Perhaps it could hardly be otherwisewhere arguments that were originally adduced in favour of oneconclusion are employed to support its opposite. ]

[210:1] [Greek: oida] for [Greek: oidas] in Luke xiv. 20. Cf. Volkmar, p. 46. 

[211:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, p. 45. 

[211:2] _Ibid. _ pp. 46-48. 

[211:3] 'We have, in fact, no guarantee of the accuracy ortrustworthiness of any of their statements' (_S. R. _ ii. P. 100). We have just the remarkable coincidence spoken of above. Itdoes not prove that Tertullian did not faithfully reproduce thetext of Marcion to show, which is the real drift of the argumenton the preceding page (_S. R. _ ii. P. 99), that he had not thecanonical Gospel before him; rather it removes the suspicion thathe might have confused the text of Marcion's Gospel with thecanonical. 

[212:1] This table has been constructed from that of De Wette, _Einleitung_, pp. 123-132, compared with the works of Volkmarand Hilgenfeld. 

[213:1]: _S. R. _ ii. P. 110, n. 3. The statement is mistakenin regard to Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. Both these writers would makeMarcion retain this passage. It happens rather oddly that this isone of the sections on which the philological evidence for St. Luke's authorship is least abundant (see below). 

[215:1] There is direct evidence for the presence in Marcion'sGospel of the passages relating to the personages here named, except Martha and Mary; see _Tert. Adv. Marc. _ iv. 19, 37, 43. 

[217:1] _S. R. _ ii. 142 sq. 

[217:2] This admission does not damage the credit of Tertullianand Epiphanius as witnesses; because what we want from them is astatement of the facts; the construction which they put upon thefacts is a matter of no importance. 

[217:3] The omission in 2 Cor. Iv. 13 must be due to Marcion(_Epiph. _ 321 c. ); so probably an insertion in 1 Cor. Ix. 8. 

[218:1] Tert. _Adv. Marc. _ v. 16: 'Haec si Marcion deindustria erasit, ' &c. V. 14: 'Salio et hic amplissimum abruptumintercisae scripturae. ' V. 3: 'Ostenditur quid supra haereticaindustria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae, ' &c. Cf. Bleek, _Einleitung_, p. 136; Hilgenfeld, _Evv. Justin's_, &c. , p. 473. 

[219:1] 'Anno xv. Tiberii Christus Jesus de coelo manare dignatusest' (Tert. _Adv. Marc. _ i. 19). 

[220:1] I give mainly the explanations of Volkmar, who, it shouldbe remembered, is the very reverse of an apologist, indicating thepoints where they seem least satisfactory. 

[220:2] It is highly probable that many of the points mentioned byTertullian and Epiphanius as 'adulterations' were simply variousreadings in Marcion's Codex; such would be v. 14, x. 25, xvii. 2, and xxiii. 2, which are directly supported by other authority: xi. 2 and xii. 28 would probably belong to this class. So perhaps theinsertion of iv. 27 in the history of the Samaritan leper. Thephenomenon of a transposition of verses from one part of a Gospelto another is not an infrequent one in early MSS. 

[223:1] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, 1863, pp. 302 sqq. 

[224:1] Where a reference is given thus in brackets, it isconfirmatory, from the part of the Gospel retained by Marcion. 

[229:1] An analysis of the words which are only found in St. Luke, or very rarely found elsewhere, gives the following results. --Thenumber of words found only in the portion of the Gospel retainedby Marcion and in the Acts is 231; that of words found in theseretained portions and not besides in the Gospels or the two otherSynoptics is 58; and both these classes together for the portionsomitted in Marcion's Gospel reach a total of 62, which isdecidedly under the proportion that might have been expected. Thelist is diminished by a number of words which are found only inthe omitted and retained portions, furnishing evidence, as above, that both proceed from the same hand. 

[231:1] This list has been made from the valuable work of Rönsch, _Das Neue Testament Tertullian's_, 1871, and the criticaleditions, compared with the text of Marcion's Gospel as given byHilgenfeld and Volkmar. 

[231:2] It might be thought that Tertullian was giving his owntext and not that of Marcion's Gospel, but this supposition isexcluded both by the confirmation which he receives fromEpiphanius, and also by the fact, which is generally admitted (see_S. R. _ ii. P. 100), that he had not the canonical Luke, butonly Marcion's Gospel before him. 

[233:1] See Crowfoot, _Observations on the Collation in Greek ofCureton's Syriac Fragments of the Gospels_, 1872, p. 5; Scrivener, _Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, 2nd edition, 1874, p. 452. 

[233:2] See Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 307 sq. ; and Dr. Westcott'sarticle on the 'Vulgate' in Smith's Dictionary. It should be noticedthat Dr. Westcott's literation differs from that of Dr. Scrivenerand Tregelles, which has been adopted here. 

[235:1] Cf. Friedländer, _Sittengeschichte Roms_, iii. P. 315. 

[238:1] See p. 89, above. 

[238:2] _Strom. _ iii. 12; compare _S. R. _ ii. P. 151. 

[239:1] [Greek: Ho mentoi ge proteros auton archaegos ho Tatianossunapheian tina kai sunagogaen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelionsuntheis to dia tessaron touto prosonomasin, ho kai para tisineiseti nun pheretai. ] _H. E. _ iv. 29. 

[239:2] _Beiträge_, i. P. 441. 

[240:1] _Haer. _ 391 D (xlvi. 1). 

[240:2] [Greek: Outos kai to dia tessaron kaloumenon suntetheikeneuangelion, tas te genealogias perikopsas, kai ta alla, hosa ekspermatos Dabid kata sorka genennaemenon ton Kurion deiknusin. Echraesanto de touto ou monon oi taes ekeinou summorias, alla kaioi tous apostolikois epomenoi dogmasi, taen taes sunthaekaeskakourgian ouk egnokotes, all' aplousteron hos suntomo to bibliochraesamenoi. Euron de kago pleious ae diakosias biblous toiautasen tais par' haemin ekklaesiois tetimaemenas, kai pasas sunagaganapethemaen, kai ta ton tettaron euangeliston anteisaegagoneuangelia] (_Haeret. Fab. _ i. 20, quoted by Credner, _Beiträge_, i. P. 442). 

[240:3] See _S. R. _ ii. P. 15. 

[241:1] _S. R. _ ii. P. 162; compare Credner, _Beiträge_, i. P. 446 sqq. 

[241:2] _Adv. Haer. _ iii. 11. 8. 

[241:3] _Beit_. I. P. 443. 

[241:4] May not Tatian have given his name to a collection ofmaterials begun, used, and left in a more or less advanced stageof compilation, by Justin? However, we can really do little morethan note the resemblance: any theory we may form must be purelyconjectural. 

[242:1] [Greek: Epistolas gar adelphon axiosanton me grapsaiegarapsa. Kai tautas oi tou diabolon apostoloi zizanion gegemikan, ha men exairountes, ha de prostithentes. Ois to ouai keitai. Outhaumaston ara, ei kai ton kuriakon rhadiourgaesai tinesepibeblaentai graphon, hopote tais ou toiautais epibebouleukasi. ]_H. E. _ iv. 23 (Routh, _Rel. Sac. _ i. P. 181). 

[243:1] [Greek: Allae d' epistolae tis autou pros Nikomaedeaspheretai en hae taen Markionos airesin polemon to taes alaetheiasparistatai kanoni]. _H. E. _ iv. 23_. 

[244:1] [Greek: Akribos mathon ta taes palaias diathaekaes Biblia, hipotaxas epempsa soi. ] Euseb. _H. E. _ iv. 26 (Routh, _Rel. Sac. _ i. P. 119). 

[245:1] Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 201. 

[245:2] ii. P. 177. 

[245:3] _Adv. Marc. _ iv. 1 (cf. Rönsch, _Das neue TestamentTertullian's_, p. 48), 'duo deos dividens, proinde diversos, alterum alterius instrumenti--vel, _quod magis usui est dicere, testamenti_. '

[246:1] [Greek: Eisi toinun hoi di' hagnoian philoneikousi peritouton, sungnoston pragma peponthotes agnoia gar ou kataegoriananadechetai, alla didachaes prosdeitai. Kai legousin hoti tae id'to probaton meta ton mathaeton ephagen ho Kurios tae de mealierhaemera ton azumon autos epathen; kai diaegountai Matthaion outolegein hos nenoaekasin; hothen asumphonos te nomo hae noaesisauton, kai stasiazein dokei kat' autous ta euangelia. ] _Chron. Pasch. _ in Routh, _Rel. Sac. _ i. P. 160. 

[247:1] _S. R. _ ii. P. 188 sqq. The reference to Routh isgiven on p. 188, n. 1; that to Lardner in the same note should, Ibelieve, be ii. P. 316, not p. 296. 

[247:2] _Rel. Sac. _ i. P. 167. 

[249:1] The quotations from Athenagoras are transcribed from'Supernatural Religion' and Lardner (_Credibility &c. _, ii. P. 195 sq. ). I have not access to the original work. 

[251:1] _Credibility &c. _, ii. P. 161. 

[252:1] _Ep. Vien. Et Lugd. _ § 3 (in Routh, _Rel. Sac. _i. P. 297). 

[252:2] _S. R. _ ii. P. 203; _Evv. Justin's u. S. W. _ p. 155. 

[254:1] _Wann wurden u. S. W. _ p. 48 sq. 

[254:2] _Ursprung_, p. 130; _S. R. _ ii. P. 222. 

[255:1] Cf. Credner, _Beiträge_, ii. P. 254. 

[256:1] _Adv. Haer. _ i. Praef. 2. 

[257:1] _Strom. _ iv. 9. 

[257:2] [Greek: Ton Oualentinou legomenon einai gnorimonHaerakleouna] ... Origen, _Comm. In Joh. _ ii. P. 60 (quotedby Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 127). 

[259:1] 'In affirming that [these quotations] are taken from theGospel according to St. Matthew apologists exhibit their usualarbitrary haste, ' &c. _S. R. _ ii. P. 224. 

[260:1] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, Zurich, 1873. For whatfollows, see especially p. 261 sqq. 

[263:1] Keim, _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 262. 

[263:2] _Ibid_. P. 228 sq. ; Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 80. 

[263:3] The text of this document is printed in full by Routh, _Rel. Sac_. I. Pp. 394-396; Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 487 sqq. ;Hilgenfeld, _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T. _ ad p. 40, n. ;Credner, _Geschichte des Noutestamentlichen Kanon_, ed. Volkmar, p. 153 sqq. , &c. 

[264:1] See however Dr. Lightfoot in _Cont. Rev_. , Oct. 1875, p. 837. 

[265:1] _Ursprung_, p. 28. 

[265:2] ii. P. 245. 

[266:1] Cf. Credner, _Gesch. Des Kanon_, p. 167. 

[266:2] _S. R. _ ii. P. 241. 

[267:1] Quoted in _S. R. _ ii. P. 247. 

[269:1] _Adv. Haer_. Ii, 22. 5, iii. 3. 4. 

[270:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. Pp. 141-143. 

[273:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_. I. Pp. 143, 144. 

[273:2] _On the Canon_, p. 182 sqq. 

[275:1] [Greek: Ouch haedomai trophae phthoras, oude haedonais toubiou toutou. Arton Theou thelo, arton ouranion, arton zoaes, hosestin sarx Iaesou Christou tou Huiou tou Theou tou genomenou enhustero ek spermatos Dabid kai Abraam; kai poma Theou thelo tohaima aoutou, ho estin agapae aphthartos kai aennaos zoae. ] _Ep. Ad Rom_. C. Vii. 

[275:2] [Greek: Alla to Pneuma ou planatai, apo Theou on; oidengar pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei, kai ta drupta elenche]. _Ep. Ad Philad_. C. Vii. 

[276:1] Cf. Lipsius in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_, i. P. 98. 

[277:1] The second and third Epistles stand upon a somewhatdifferent footing. 

[277:2] Cf. _S. R. _ ii. P. 269. 

[278:1] _S. R. _ ii p. 323. 

[278:2] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. P. 138 sq. 

[280:1] Cf. _S. R. _ ii. P. 302. 

[280:2] So _Dial. C. Tryph_. 69; in _Apol. _ i. 22 theMSS. Of Justin read [Greek: ponaerous], which might stand, thoughsome editors substitute or prefer [Greek: paerous]. In bothquotations [Greek: ek genetaes] is added. The nearest parallel inthe Synoptics is Mark ix. 21, [Greek: ek paidiothen] (of theparalytic boy). 

[280:3] _Wann wurden u. S. W_. P. 34. 

[283:1] ii. P. 308. [Has the author perhaps misunderstood Credner(_Beit_. I. P. 253), whose argument on this head is not indeedquite clear?]

[283:2] _The New Testament &c_. , i. P. 709. 

[284:1] See _Apol_. I. 23, 32, 63; ii. 10. 

[284:2] [Greek: Hae de protae dunamis meta ton patera panton kaidespotaen Theon kai uios ho logos estin. ] This is not quiterightly translated by Tischendorf and in 'Supernatural Religion:'[Greek: uios], like [Greek: dunamis], is a predicate; 'the nextPower who also stands in the relation of Son. '

[285:1] Prov. Viii. 22-24, 27, 30. 

[285:2] Wisd. Vii. 25, 26; viii. 1, 4. 

[286:1] Ecclus. Xxiv. 9. 

[286:2] Wisd. Ix. 1, 2; xvi. 12; xviii. 15. 

[287:1] Cf. Lipsius in _S. B. L. _ i. P. 95 sqq. 

[288:1] _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T_. (Halle, 1863), p. 29; _Einleitung_, P. 43, n. 

[288:2] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 63. 

[288:3] ii. P. 346. 

[290:1] _S. R. _ ii. P. 340. 

[293:1] The force of the article ([Greek: tou paerou]) should benoticed, as showing that the incident (and therefore the Gospel)is assumed to be well known. 

[293:2] _S. R. _ ii. P. 341. 

[295:1] Tischendorf, _Wann wurden_, p. 40; Westcott, _Canon_, p. 80. 

[296:1] ii. P. 357 sqq. 

[297:1] _Adv. Haer. _ V. 36. 1, 2. 

[297:2] _S. R. _ ii. P. 329. 

[298:1] Advanced by Routh (or rather Feuardentius in his notes onIrenaeus; cf. _Rel. Sac_. I. P. 31), and adopted by Tischendorfand Dr. Westcott. [The identification has since been ably andelaborately maintained by Dr. Lightfoot; see _Cont. Rev_. Oct. 1875, p. 841 sqq. ]

[298:2] It is not necessary here to determine the sense in whichthese words are to be taken. I had elsewhere given my reasons fortaking [Greek: erchomenon] with [Greek: anthropon], as A. V. (_Fourth Gospel_, p. 6, n. ). Mr. M'Clellan is now to be addedto the number of those who prefer to take it with [Greek: phos], and argues ably in favour of his opinion. 

[299:1] The translation of this difficult passage has been lefton purpose somewhat baldly literal. The idea seems to be thatBasilides refused to accept projection or emanation as ahypothesis to account for the existence of created things. CompareMansel, _Gnost. Her. _ p. 148. 

[301:1] _Adv. Haer. _. Iii. 11. 7. 

[302:1] _Haer_. 216-222. 

[302:2] It should however be noticed that these words are givenonly in the old Latin translation of Irenaeus and are wanting inthe Greek as preserved by Epiphanius. Whether the words wereaccidentally omitted, or whether they were inserted inferentially, for greater clearness, by the translator, it is hard to say. Inany case the bearing of the quotations must be very much the same. If not made by Ptolemaeus himself, they were made by a contemporaryof Ptolemaeus, i. E. At least by a writer anterior to Irenaeus. 

[302:3] _Adv. Haer_. Ii. 4. 1; cf. _S. R. _ ii. P. 211 sq. 

[302:4] The somewhat copious fragments of Heracleon's Commentaryare given in Stieren's edition of Irenaeus, p. 938 sqq. Origensays that Heracleon read 'Bethany' in John i. 28 (M'Clellan, i. P. 708). 

[305:1] ii. P. 378. 

[306:1] _S. R. _ ii. P. 379. 

[307:1] There is also perhaps a probable reference to St. John inSection 6, [Greek: taes aionioi paegaes tou hudatos taes zoaes touexiontos ek taes naeduos tou Christou. ]

[307:2] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 229. 

[308:1] [Greek: ho taen hagian pleuran ekkentaetheis, ho ekcheasek taes pleuras autou ta duo palin katharsia, hudor kai aima, logon kai pneuma]. See Routh, _Rel. Sac_. I. P. 161. 

[308:2] Lardner, _Credibility_, &c. , ii. P. 196. 

[315:1] Tregelles in Horne's _Introduction_, p. 334. 

[315:2] _Adv. Haer. _ iii. 11. 8. 

[316:1] _Adv. Haer. _ iii. 1. 1. 

[317:1] See Lardner, _Credibility_, &c. , ii. Pp. 223, 224, and Eus. _H. E. _ ii. 15 (14 Lardner). 

[317:2] Compare _H. E. _ ii. 15 and vi. 14. 

[317:3] _H. E. _ vi. 14. 

[317:4] _Strom. _ iii. 13. 

[318:1] For the meaning of this word ('schriftlicheBeweisurkunde') see Rönsch, _Das N. T. Tertullian's_, p. 48. 

[318:2] _Adv. Marc. _ iv. 2. 

[318:2] _Ibid_. Iv. 5. 

[318:4] _Ibid_. V. 9. 

[318:5] _Ibid_. Iv. 2-5; compare v. 9, and Rönsch, pp. 53, 54. 

[319:1] Eus. _H. E. _ vi. 25. 

[319:2] See M'Clellan on Luke i. 1-4. On the general position ofOrigen in regard to the Canon, compare Hilgenfeld, _Kanon_, p. 49. 

[320:1] So Westcott in _S. D. _ iii. 1692, n. Tregelles, inHorne's _Introduction_, p. 333, speaks of this translation as'coeval, apparently, with Irenaeus himself. ' We must not, however, omit to notice that Rönsch (p. 43, n. ) is more reserved in hisverdict on the ground that the translation of Irenaeus 'in itspeculiarities and in its relation to Tertullian has not yetreceived a thorough investigation;' compare Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. 797. 

[320:2] Rönsch, _Das N. T. Tertullian's_, p. 43. 

[321:1] Rönsch, _Itala und Vulgata_, pp. 2, 3. 

[321:2] Horne's _Introduction_, p. 233. 

[321:3] _Introduction_ (2nd ed. ), pp. 300, 302, 450, 452. 

[321:4] iii. P. 1690 b. 

[322:1] Hilgenfeld, in his recent _Einleitung_, says expressly(p. 797) that 'the New Testament had already in the secondcentury been translated into Latin. ' This admission is notaffected by the argument which follows, which goes to prove thatthe version used by Tertullian was not the 'Itala' properly socalled. 

[322:2] See Smith's Dictionary, iii. P. 1630 b. 

[322:3] _Introduction_, p. 274. 

[322:4] See Routh, _Rel. Sac. _ i. Pp. 124 and 152. 

[323:1] See Scrivener, _loc. Cit_. 

[323:2] See _New Testament_, &c. , i. P. 635. 

[323:3] _S. D. _ iii. P. 1634 b. 

[324:1] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 724. 

[324:2] _Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments_, p. 302. 

[324:3] _Einleitung_, p. 804. 

[324:4] See Tregelles, _loc. Cit_. 

[324:5] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. 805. It hardly seemsclear that Origen had _no_ MS. Authority for his reading. 

[324:6] _Introduction_, p. 530. But [Greek: oupo] is admittedinto the text by Westcott and Hort. 

[324:7] 'The text of the Curetonian Gospels is in itself asufficient proof of the extreme antiquity of the Syriac Version. This, as has been already remarked, offers a striking resemblanceto that of the Old Latin, and cannot be later than the middle orclose of the second century. It would be difficult to point out amore interesting subject for criticism than the respectiverelations of the Old Latin and Syriac Versions to the Latin andSyriac Vulgates. But at present it is almost untouched. ' Westcott, _On the Canon_ (3rd ed. ), p. 218, n. 3. 

[325:1] See Scrivener's _Introduction_, p. 324. 

[325:2] Cf. Bleek, _Einleitung_, p. 735; Reuss, _Gesch. N. T. _ p. 447. 

[326:1] This is the date commonly accepted since Massuet, _Diss. In Irenaeum_, ii. 1. 2. Grabe had previously placed the date inA. D. 108, Dodwell as early as A. D. 97 (of. Stieren, _Irenaeus_, ii. Pp. 32, 34, 182). 

[326:2] Routh, _Rel. Sac. _ i. P. 306. 

[327:1] Eus. _H. E. _ v. 11, vi. 6. Eusebius, in his, 'Chronicle, ' speaks of Clement as eminent for his writings ([Greeksuntatton dielampen]) in A. D. 194. 

[327:2] The books called 'Stromateis' or 'Miscellanies' date fromthis reign. _H. E. _ vi. 6. 

[327:3] _Stromateis_, i. 1. 

[327:4] _Adv. Marc. _ iv. 5. 

[327:5] _De Praescript. Haeret_. C. 36; see Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 446. 

[328:1] pp. 450, 451. 

[328:2] p. 452. These facts may be held to show that the bookswere not regarded with the same veneration as now. 

[329:1] v. 30. 1. 

[330:1] _Adv. Haer. _ iii. 11. 8. 

[330:2] _Ib_. Iii. 14. 2. 

[331:1] Cf. _Adv. Haer. _ iv. 13. 1. 

[332:1] The varieties of reading in this verse are exhibited infull by Dr. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 120, notes 4 and 5. 

[336:1] Matt. V. 28 is omitted as too ambiguous and confusing, though it is especially important for the point in question asshowing that Tertullian himself had a variety of MSS. Before him. 

[336:2] St. Matthew's Gospel is wanting in this MS. To xxv. 6; twoleaves are also lost, from John vi. 50 to viii. 52. 

[346:1] _Strom_. Ii. 20. 

[347:1] In a volume entitled _The Authorship and HistoricalCharacter of the Fourth Gospel_, Macmillan, 1872. I may saywith reference to this book--a 'firstling' of theological study--that I am inclined now to think that I exaggerated somewhat theimportance of minute details as an evidence of the work of aneye-witness. The whole of the arguments, however, summarised onpp. 287-293 seem to me to be still perfectly valid and sound, and thegreater part of them--notably that which relates to the Messianicexpectations--is quite untouched by 'Supernatural Religion. '

[348:1] It is instructive to compare the canons elaborately drawnup by Mr. M'Clellan (_N. T. _ i. 375-389) with those tacitlyassumed in 'Supernatural Religion. ' The inference in the one caseseems to be 'possible, therefore true, ' in the other, 'notprobable, or not confirmed, therefore false. ' Surely neither ofthese tallies with experience. 

[352:1] This, perhaps, is one that is apt to be overlooked. Inorder to be quite sure that the process of analysis is complete itmust be supplemented and verified by the reversed process ofsynthesis. If a compound has been resolved into its elements, wecannot be sure that it has been resolved into _all_ itselements until the original compound has been produced by theirrecombination. Where this second reverse process fails, theinference is that some unknown element which was originallypresent has escaped in the analysis. The analysis may be true asfar as it goes, but it is incomplete. The causes are 'veraecausae, ' but they are not all the causes in operation. So it seemsto be with the analysis of the vital organism. We may be said toknow entirely what air and water are because the chemist canproduce them, but we only know very imperfectly the nature of lifeand will and conscience, because when the physiological analysishas been carried as far as it will go there still remains a largeunknown element. Within this element may very well reside thosedistinctive properties which make man (as the moralist is_obliged_ to assume that he is) a responsible and religiousbeing. The hypotheses which lie at the root of morals and religionare derived from another source than physiology, but physiologydoes not exclude them, and will not do so until it gives a farmore verifiably complete account of human nature than it does atpresent. 

[354:1] Mr. Browning has expressed this with his usualincisiveness and penetration:--

 'I hear you recommend, I might at least Eliminate, decrassify my faith ... Still, when you bid me purify the same, To such a process I discern no end, Clearing off one excrescence to see two; There's ever a next in size, now grown as big, That meets the knife: I cut and cut again! First cut the liquefaction, what comes last But Fichte's clever cut at God himself?'

But also, on the other hand:--

 'Where's The gain? how can we guard our unbelief? Just when we are safest, there's a sunset-touch, A fancy from a flower-bell, some one's death, A chorus ending from Euripides, -- And that's enough for fifty hopes and fears, As old and new at once as Nature's self, To rap and knock and enter in our soul ... All we have gained then by our unbelief Is a life of doubt diversified by faith, For one of faith diversified by doubt: We called the chess-board white, --we call it black. '

 _Bishop Blongram's Apology_. 

[359:1] As to the defects of the present edition, see Tischendorf, Prolegomena to _Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes_, p. Liii: 'Eae vero (collationes) quemadmodum in editis habenturnon modo universae graviter differunt inter se fide atque accuratione, sed ad ipsos principales testes tam negligenter tamque male factaesunt ut etiam atque etiam dolendum sit tantos numos rara liberalitateper Angliam suppeditatos criticae sacrae parum profuisse. ' SimilarlyCredner, in regard to the use of the Codex Alexandrinus, _Beiträge_, ii. 16: 'Wahrhaft unbegreiflich und unverzeihlich ist es, dass dieHerausgeber der kostbaren Kritischen Ausgabe der LXX, welcher zu Oxfordvor wenigen Jahren vollendet und von Holmes und Parsons besorgt wordenist, statt cine sorgfältige Vergleichung des in London aufbewahrtenCod. Alex. Zu veranstalten, sich lediglich auf die Ausgabe von Grabebeschränkt haben, dessen Kritik vielfach nicht einmal verstanden wordenist. '

APPENDIX. 

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL. 

If the reader should happen to possess the work of Rönsch, DasNeue Testament Tertullian's, to which allusion has frequently beenmade above, and will simply glance over the pages, noting thereferences, from Luke iv. 16 to the end of the Gospel, I do notthink he will need any other proof of the sufficiency of thegrounds for the reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel, so as at leastto admit of a decision as to whether it was our present St. Lukeor not. 

Failing this, it may be well to give a brief example of the kindof data available, going back straight to the original authoritiesthemselves. 

For this purpose we will take the first chapter that Marcionpreserved entire, Luke v, and set forth in full such fragments ofit as have come down to us. 

We take up the argument of Tertullian at the point where he beginsto treat of this chapter. 

In the fourth book of the treatise against Marcion Tertullianbegins by dealing with the Antitheses (a sort of criticism byMarcion on what he regarded as the Judaising portions of theCanonical Gospel), and then, in general terms, with the actualGospel which Marcion used. From the general he descends to theparticular, and in c. 6 Tertullian pledges himself to show indetail, that even in those parts of the Gospel which Marcionretained there was enough to refute his own system. 

Marcion's Gospel began with the descent of Jesus upon Capernaum inthe fifteenth year of Tiberias. Tertullian makes points out ofthis, also from the account of His preaching in the synagogue andof the expulsion of the devil. After this incident Marcion'sGospel represented our Lord as retiring into solitude. It did thisas it would appear in words very similar to those of the CanonicalGospel. I place side by side the language of Tertullian with thatof the Vulgate (Codex Fuldensis, as given by Tregelles). I havealso compared the translation in the two codd. , Vercellensis andVeronensis, of the Old Latin in Bianchini's edition. It will beremembered however that Tertullian is admitted to have Marcion's(and _not_ the Canonical) Gospel before him, and he probablytranslates directly from that. 

In solitudinem procedit.... Detentus a turbis: _Oportet me, _inquit, _el aliis civitatibus_ _annuntiare regnum dei. _

Luke v. 42, 43: Ibat in desertum sertum locum ... Et detinebantillum ne discederet ab eis. Quibus ille ait quia, Et aliiscivitatibus oportet me evangelizare regnum dei. 

His discussion of the fifth chapter Tertullian begins by asking why, out of all possible occupations, Christ should have fixed upon thatof fishing, to take from thence His apostles, Simon and the sons ofZebedee. There was a meaning in the act which appears in the replyto Peter, 'Thou shalt catch men, ' where there is a reference to aprophecy of Jeremiah (ch. Xvi. 16). By this allusion Jesus sanctionedthose very prophecies which Marcion rejected. In the end the fishermenleft their boats and followed Him. 

De tot generibus operum quid utique ad piscaturam respexit ut, ab illain apostolos sumeret _Simonem et filios Zebedaei ... _dicens Petro_trepidanti de copiosa indagine piscium: ne time abhinc enum homineseris capiens.... _ Denique _relictis naviculis secuti sunt ipsum... _

Luke v. 1-11:[1] Factum est autem cum turbae irruereut in eum etipse stabat secus stagnum Gennesareth:[2] et vidit duasnaves.... [3] Ascendens in unam navem quae erat Simonis... [4] dixitad Simonem, Duc in altum, et laxate retia vestra in capturam. [6]Et cum hoc fecissent concluserunt piscium multitudinemcopiosam.... [7]Et impleverunt ambas naviculas ita ut mergerentur. [8]Quod cum videret Simon Petrus, procidit ad genua Jesu.... [9]Stupor enim circumdederat eum ... [10]similiter autem Jacobumet Johannem filios Zebedaei.... Et ait ad Simonem Jesus, Nolitimere, ex hoc jam homines eris capiens. [11]Et subductis adterram navibus relictis omnibus secuti sunt illum. 

For Noli timere &c. , cod. A has, Noli timere, jam amodo erisvivificans homines; cod. B, Nol. Tim. , ex hoc jam eris hominesvivificans. 

In passing to the incident of the leper, Tertullian argues thatthe prohibition of contact with a leper was figurative, applyingreally to the contact with sin. But the Godhead is incapable ofpollution, and therefore Jesus touched the leper. It would be invain for Marcion to suggest that this was done in contempt of thelaw. For, upon his own (Docetic) theory, the body of Jesus wasphantasmal, and therefore could not receive pollution: so thatthere would be no real contact or contempt of the law. Neither, asMarcion maintained, did a comparison with the miracle of Elishatend to the disparagement of that prophet. True, Christ healedwith a word. So also with a word had the Creator made the world. And, after all, the word of Christ produced no greater result thana river which came from the Creator's hands. Further, the commandof Jesus to the leper when healed, showed His desire that the lawshould be fulfilled. Nay, He added an explanation which conveyedthat He was not come to destroy the law, but Himself to fulfil it. This He did deliberately, and not from mere indulgence to the man, who, He knew, would wish to do as the law required. 

Argumentatur ... _in leprosi purgationem ... Tetigit leprosum_ ... Et hoc opponit Marcion ... Christum ... Verbo solo, et hoc semel functo, curationem statim repraesentasse. Quantam ad gloriae humanae aversionempertinebat, _vetuit eum divulgare_. Quantum autem ad tutelam legisjussit ordinem impleri. _Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer munusquod praecepit Moyses_.... Itaque adjecit: _ut sit vobis intestimonium_. 

Luke v. 12-14: [12] Ecce vir plenus lepra: et videns Jesum ... Rogavit eum dicens, Domine, si vis, potes me mundare. [13] Etextendens manum tetigit illum dicens, Volo, mundare. Et confestimlepra discessit ab illo. [14] Et ipse praecepit illi ut neminidiceret, sed Vade ostende te sacerdoti, et offer pro emundationetua sicut praecepit Moses, in testimonium illis. 

For emundatione in ver. 14, a has purgatione; b as Vulg. Both aand b have the form offers (see Rönsch, It. U. Vulg. P. 294), bthe plural sacerdotibus. Both codd. Have a variation similar tothat of Marcion, ut sit etc. ; a inserts hoc. 

Next follows the healing of the paralytic, which was done infulfilment of Is. Xxxv. 2. The miracle also itself in its detailswas a special and exact fulfilment of the prophecy contained inthe next verse, Is. Xxxv. 3. That the Messiah should forgive sinshad been repeatedly prophesied, e. G. In Is. Liii. 12, i. 18, Micahvii. 18. Not only were these prophecies thus actually sanctionedby Christ, but, in forgiving the sins of the paralytic, He wasonly doing what the Creator or Demiurge had done before Him. Inproof of this Tertullian appeals to the examples of the Ninevites, of David and Nathan, of Ahab, of Jonathan the son of Saul, and ofthe chosen people themselves. Thus Marcion was doubly refuted, because the prerogative of forgiveness was asserted of the Messiahin the prophecies which he rejected and attributed to the Creatorwhom he denied. In like manner, when Jesus called Himself the 'Sonof Man, ' He did so in a real sense, signifying that He was reallyborn of a virgin. This appellation too had been applied to Him bythe prophet Daniel. (Dan. Vii. 13, iii. 25). But if Jesus claimedto be the Son of Man, if, standing before the Jews as a man, Heclaimed as man the power of forgiving sins, He thereby showed thatHe possessed a real human body and not the mere phantasm of whichMarcion spoke. 

_Curatur_ et _paralyticus_, et quidem in coetu, spectante populo... Cum redintegratione membrorum virium quoque repraesentationempollicebatur: _Exsurge et tolle grabatum tuum;_--simul et animivigorem ad non timendos qui dicturi erant: _Qui dimittet peccatanisi solus deus?_... Cum Judaei merito retractarent non posse hominem_delicta dimittere_ sed _deum solum_, cur... _respondit, habere eumpotestatem dimittendi delicta_, quando et _filium hominis_ nominanshominem nominaret?

Luke v. 17-26: [17] Et factum est in una dierum et ipse sedebatdocens.... [18] Et ecce viri portantes in lecto hominem, qui eratparalyticus, et quaerebant eum inferre... [19] et non invenientesqua parte illum inferrent prae turba, ... Per tegulas... Summiserunt illum cum lecto in medium ante Jesum. [20] Quorumfidem ut vidit, dixit, Homo, remittuntur tibi peccata tua. [21] Etcoeperunt cogitare Scribae et Pharisaei, dicentes, Quis est hicqui loquitur blasphemias? quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solusdeus? [22] Ut cognovit autem Jesus cogitationes eorum, respondensdixit ad illos. ... [23] Quid est facilius dicere, Dimittunturtibi peccata, an dicere, Surge et ambula? [24] Ut autem sciatisquia filius hominis potestatem habet in terra dimittere peccata, ait paralytico, Tibi dico, surge, tolle lectum tuum et vade indomum tuam. [25] Et confestim surgens ... Abiit in domum suam. 

Grabatum is the reading of a in ver. 25. 

Marcion drew an argument from the calling of the publican (Levi)--one under ban of the law--as if it were done in disparagement ofthe law. Tertullian reminds him in reply of the calling andconfession of Peter, who was a representative of the law. Further, when he said that 'the whole need not a physician' Jesus declaredthat the Jews were whole, the publicans sick. 

_Publicanum_ adlectum a domino ... Dicendo, _medicum sanisnon esse necessarium sed male habentibus_... 

Luke v. 27-32: [27] Et post hoc exiit et vidit publicanum ... Etait illi, Sequere me.... [30] Et murmurabant Pharisaei et Scribaeeorum... [31] et respondens Jesus dixit ad illos, Non egent quisani sunt medico sed qui male habent. 

The question respecting the disciples of John is turned againstMarcion, as a recognition of the Baptist's mission. If John hadnot prepared the way for Christ, if he had not actually baptizedHim, if, in fact, there was that diversity between the two whichMarcion assumed, no one would ever have thought of instituting acomparison between them or the conduct of their disciples. In Hisreply, 'that the children of the bridegroom could not fast, ' Jesusvirtually allowed the practice of the disciples of John, andexcused, as only for a time, that of His own disciples. The veryname, 'bridegroom, ' was taken from the Old Testament (Ps. Xix. 6sq. , Is. Lxi. 10, xlix. 18, Cant. Iv. 8); and its assumption byChrist was a sanction of marriage, and showed that Marcion didwrong to condemn the married state. 

Unde autem et Joannes venit in medium?... Si nihil omninoadministrasset Joannes ... Nemo _discipulos Christi manducantes etbibentes_ ad formam _discipulorum Joannis assidue jejunantium etorantium_ provocasset.... Nunc humiliter reddens rationem, quod _nonpossent jejunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, posteavero jejunaturos_ promittens, _cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset_. 

Luke v. 33-35: [33] At illi dixerunt ad eum, Quare discipuliJohannis jejunant frequenter et obsecrationes faciunt, ... Tuiautem edunt et bibunt? [34] Quibus ipse ait, Numquid potestisfilios sponsi dum cum illis est sponsus facere jejunare? [35]Venient autem dies cum ablatus fuerit ab illis sponsus, tunejejunabunt in illis diebus. 

In ver. 33, for obsecrationes a has orationes, and for eduntmanducant: a and b also have quamdiu (Vulg. Cum) in ver. 35. 

Equally erroneous was Marcion's interpretation of the concludingverses of the chapter which dealt with the distinction between oldand new. He indeed was intoxicated with 'new wine'--though thereal 'new wine' had been prophesied as far back as Jer. Iv. 4 andIs. Xliii. 19--but He to whom belonged the new wine and the newbottles also belonged the old. The difference between the old andnew dispensations was of developement and progression, not ofdiversity or contrariety. Both had one and the same Author. 

Errasti in illa etiam domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova etvetera discernere. Inflatus es _utribus veteribus_ et excerebratus es_novo vino_: atque ita _veteri_, i. E. Priori evangelio _pannum_haereticae _novitatis adsuisli ... Venum novum_ is _non committit inveteres utres_ qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et _novumadditamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento_ nisi cui non defueritvetus vestimentum. 

Luke v. 36-38: [36] Dicebat autem et similitudinem ad illos quianemo commissuram a vestimento novo inmittit in vestimentumvetus.... [37] Et nemo mittit vinum novum in utres veteres.... [38] Sed vinum novum in utres novos mittendum est. 

Of the phrases peculiar to Tertullian's version of Marcion's text, a has pannum (-no) and adsuisti (-it). 

It is observed that Tertullian does not quote verse 39, which isomitted by D, a, b, c, c, ff, l, and perhaps, also by Eusebius. 

Two of the Scholia of Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 322 D sqq. ), nos. 1and 2, have reference to this chapter. 

[Greek: Echul. A. Apelthon deixon seauton to hierei kaiprosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxe Mousaes, hina ae marturion touto humin. ]

Luke v. 14. [Greek: Apeltheon deixon seauton to hierei, kaiprosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxen Mousaes, eis marturion autois. ]

v. L. [Greek: hina eis marturion] (D'1, [Greek: ae] D'2) [Greek:humin touto] D, (a, b), c, ff, l. 

The comment of Epiphanius on this is similar to that ofTertullian. To bid the leper 'do as Moses commanded, ' waspractically to sanction the law of Moses. Epiphanius expresslyaccuses Marcion of falsifying the phrase 'for a testimony untothem. ' He says that he changed 'them' to 'you, ' without however, even in this perverted form, preventing the text from recoilingupon his own head [Greek: diestrepsas de to rhaeton, o Markion, anti tou eipein 'eis marturion autois' marturion legon 'humin. 'kai touto saphos epseuso kata taes sautou kephalaes]. 

[Greek: Echol. B'. Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhiostou anthropou aphienai hamartias epi taes gaes. ]

Luke v. 24. [Greek: Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhiostou anthropou epi taes gaes aphienai hamartias. ]

In this order, [Hebrew aleph], A, C, D, rel. , a, c, e, Syrr. Pst. And Hcl. , (Memph. ), Goth. , Arm. , Aeth. ; [Greek: ex. Ech. ] after[Greek: ho, hu. T. A. ], B, L, [Greek: Xi symbol], K, Vulg. , b, f, g'1, ff, l. 

By calling Himself 'Son of Man, ' Epiphanius says, our Lordasserts His proper manhood and repels Docetism, and, by claiming'power upon earth, ' He declares that earth not to belong to analien creation. 

Reverting to Tertullian, we observe, (1) that the narrative of thedraught of fishes, with the fear of Peter, and the promise _inthis form_, 'Thou shalt catch men, ' ([Greek: Mae phobou apo tounun anthropous esae zogron]; the other Synoptists have, [Greek:Deute opiso mou, kai poiaeso humas halieis anthropon]), are foundonly in St. Luke; (2) that the second section of the chapter, thehealing of the leper, is placed by the other Synoptists in adifferent order, by Mark immediately after our Lord's retirementinto solitude (= Luke iv. 42-44), and by Matthew after the Sermonon the Mount; the phrase [Greek: eis marturion autois] is commonto all three Gospels, but in the text of St. Luke alone is therethe variant Ut sit vobis &c. ; (3) that, while the remainingsections follow in the same order in all the Synoptics, stillthere is much to identify the text from which Tertullian isquoting with that of Luke. Thus, in the account of the case ofLevi, the third Evangelist alone has the word [Greek: telonaen](=publicanum) and [Greek: hugiainontes] (=sani; the other Gospels[Greek: ischontes] =valentes); in the question as to the practiceof the disciples of John, he alone has the allusion to prayers([Greek: deaeseis poiountai]) and the combination 'eat and drink'(the other Gospels, [Greek: ou naesteyousin]): he too has thesimple [Greek: epiblaema], for [Greek: epiblaema rhakousagnaphou]. It seems quite incredible that these accumulatedcoincidences should be merely the result of accident. 

But this is only the beginning. The same kind of coincidences rununiformly all through the Gospel. From the next chapter, Luke vi, Marcion had, in due order, the plucking of the ears of corn on thesabbath day ('rubbing them with their hands, ' Luke and Marcionalone), the precedent of David and his companions and theshewbread, the watching _of the Pharisees_ (so Luke only) tosee if He would heal on the sabbath day, the healing of thewithered hand--with an exact resemblance to the text of Luke anddivergence from the other Gospels (licetne animam liberare anperdere? [Greek: psuchaen apolesai] Luke, [Greek: apokteinai]Mark), in the order and words of Luke alone, the retreat into themountain for prayer, the selection of the twelve Apostles, andthen, in a strictly Lucan form and introduced precisely at thesame point, the Sermon on the Mount, the blessing on 'the poor'(not the 'poor in spirit'), on those 'who hunger' (not on those'who hunger and thirst after righteousness'), on those 'who weep, for they shall laugh' (not on those 'who mourn, for they shall becomforted'), with an exact translation of St. Luke and differencefrom St. Matthew, the clause relating to those who are persecutedand reviled: then follow the 'woes;' to the rich, 'for ye havereceived your consolation;' to 'those who are full, for they shallhunger;' to 'those who laugh now, for they shall mourn:' and so onalmost verse by verse. 

It is surely needless to go further. There are indeed very rarelywhat seem to be reminiscences of the other Gospels (e. G. 'esurierunt discipuli' in the parallel to Luke vi. 1), but thetotal amount of resemblance to St. Luke and divergence from St. Matthew and St. Mark is overwhelming. Of course the remainder ofthe evidence can easily be produced if necessary, but I do notthink it will long remain in doubt that our present St. Luke wasreally the foundation of the Gospel that Marcion used. 

INDEX I. 

References to the Four Gospels. 

The asterisk indicates that the passage in question is discussedin some detail. 

_St. Matthew. _

I. 1 2-6 18* 18 ff 18-25 21 23II. 1 1-7 1-23 2 5, 6 6 11 12 13 13-15 16 17, 18 18 22. III. 2 4 8 10 11, 12 15* 16 18IV. 1 8-10 9 10 11 17 18 23V. 1-48 3 4, 5* 7* 8 10* 11 13, 14 14 16* 17 17, 18 18* 20 21-48 22 28 29 29, 30 29, 32 32 34* 37* 38, 39 39, 40 41 42 44, 45 45* 46* 48VI. 1 1-34 6 8 10 13 14 19 19, 20 20 21 25-27 25-37 32* 32, 33VII. 1-29 2 6 7 9-11* 12 13, 14* 15* 16 19 21* 22 22, 23 28, 29VIII. 9 11 11, 12 17 26 28-34IX. 1-8 13* 16 17 22 29-31 33X. 1 8 10 11* 13 15 16* 22 26 28* 29, 30 33 38, 39 40XI. 5 7 10 11 12-15 18 26 25-27 27* 28XII. 1-8* 7 9-14* 17-21 18-21 24 25* 26 31, 32 34 41 42 43 48XIII. 1-58 3 3ff 5 11 15 16 24-30 25 26* 34 35 37-39 38 39 42, 43XIV. 1 3 3-12 6XV. 4-6 4-8* 4-9 8* 13 15 17 20 21-28 26 36XVI. 1 1-4 4 15-18 16* 19 21 24 24, 25 26XVII. 3 5 11 11-13* 12, 13 13XVIII. 1-35 3* 6 7 8 8, 9 10 19XIX. 4 6* 8* 9 10-12 11, 12* 12* 13 16, 17* 17 19 22 26*XX. 8 16 19 20-28XXI. 1 5 12, 13 16 20-22 23 33 42XXII. 9 11 14* 21 24 29 30 32 37 38 39 40 44*XXIII. 2 2, 3 5 10 13 15 18 20 23 24 25 25, 26* 27 29 35XXIV. 1-51 3 14 45-51*XXV. 1-46 14-30 21 26, 27 34 41*XXVI. 1-75 17, 18 24* 30 31* 36, 37 38 39 41 43 56 56, 57 57 64*XXVII. 9 9, 10* 11f. 14 35 39ff 42 43 46 57-60XXVIII. 1 12-15 19. 

_St. Mark. _

I. 1 2 4 17 22 24 26II. 23-28* 28III. 1-6* 17 23 25 29IV. 1-34 11 12 33, 34 34*V. 1-20 31VI. 3 11 14 17-29VII. 6* 6-13 7 10, 11 11-13 13 21, 22 24-30VIII. 29 31 34IX. 7 21 43 47X. 5 5, 6 6 8 9 17 18 19 21 22 27* 37-45XI. 20-26XII. 17 20 24 27* 29* 30 38-44XIII. 2* 22XIV. 12, 13 12-14 40 51, 52XV. 14 34XVI. 14-16

_St. Luke. _

I. 1-4 1-80 3 6 7 7-10 8 9 12 13 15 17 18, 19 19 20 20-22 21 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 34, 35 35* 36 39 41 48 55 56 57 61 62 64 67 69 73 74 76 77 78 80II. 1, 2 1-52 4 6 7 8 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 21, 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 48, 49 49 50 51 52 66III. 1 1-38 3 12-14 13 15 16 16, 17 17 19 20 21 21, 22 22 23 31-34IV. 1 1-13 4 6 6-8 7 8 10 13 14 16 17 17-20 18, 19 19 20 24 25 32 42, 43 42-44V. 1 1-11 1-39 12-14 14 17-26 24 27-32 32 33-35 36-38 39VI. 1 1-5* 1-49 6-11* 13 14* 20* 27, 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 36, 37 36-38* 37, 38 45 46*VII. 2* 8 11-18 12* 24-28 26 27 28 29-35 30 35 36-38VIII. 1-3 5 10 19 23 26-39 41IX. 5 7 17, 18 20 22 55 57, 58 60 61 61, 62 62X. 3 5, 6 7* 10-12 16 18 19* 20 21 21, 22 22 23 24 25 37XI. 2 9 11-13* 14 17 22 29-32 32 39 42 47 49-51 52XII. 4, 5* 6, 7 9 10 14 22-24 30 38 42-46* 48 50XIII. 1 sqq. 1-9 6 7 7-8 24* 26, 27 27 28 28, 29 29 29-35 31-35 33 34XIV. 27XV. 4 8 11-32 13 14 17 18 20 22 24 25 26 29XVI. 12 16 17*XVII. 1, 2* 2 5-10 9 9, 10XVIII. 6-8 18, 18 19 27* 31 31-34 34 35-43XIX. 5 9 17 22, 23 29 29-48 33-39 35 37 37-48 38 41 42 43 46 47XX. 9 9-l8 14 17 19 21 22 22-25 24 25 35, 36 35 37, 38 38XXI. 1-4 4 18 21 21, 22 22 27 28 34XXII. 9-11 16-18 17 18 18-36 19 19, 20 28-30 30 35-38 37 38 42-44 43, 44* 53, 54 66XXIII. 1 ff. 2 5 7 34 35 46XXIV. 1 ff. 21 26 32 38, 39 39* 40 42 46 47-53 49 50 5l 52 53

_St. John. _

I. 1, 2 1-3 3* 4 5* 9 13 14 18 19 19, 20* 23* 28II. 4 16, 17III. 3-5* 5* 6 8 12 14 16 36IV. 6V. 2 3, 4 4 8 17 18 43 46VI. 15 39 51 53 54* 55* 70VII. 8 38 42VIII. 17 40 44IX. 1-3*X. 8 9* 23, 24 27* 30XI. 54XII. 14, 15 22 27 30 40 41XIII. 18XIV. 2 6 10XV. 25XVI. 2* 3XVII. 3 11, 12 14*XVIII. 36XIX. 36 37*

INDEX II. 

Chronological and Analytical. 

 _Writer_. | _Works Extant_. | _Date_ | _Evangelical Documents | | A. D. | used_. | | |Clement of |One genuine Epistle | c. 95- |Traces, perhaps Rome. | addressed to the | 100. | probable of the three | Philippians. | | Synoptics. | | |Barnabas. |Pseud-egraphical | c. 100- |Probably St. Matthew, | Epistle | 125. | perhaps St. Luke, | | | possibly the fourth Gospel. | | |Ignatius. |Three short Epistles, | 107 or |Probably St. Matthew, | probably genuine. | 115. | and perhaps St. John. | [Spurious, S. R. ] | | | | | |Seven short Epistles, | |Probably St. Matthew, | perhaps genuine. | | perhaps also St. John. | [Spurious, S. R. ] | | | | |Hermas. |Allegorical work, | c. 135- |No distinct traces of | entitled the | 140. | any writing of Old or | 'Shepherd. ' | | New Testament. | | |Polycarp. |Short Epistle to | c. 140- |Doubtful traces of | Philippians, | 155. | St. Matthew, probable | probably genuine. | | of 1 John. | [Spurious, S. R. ] | | | | |Presbyters. |Quoted by Irenaeus. | c. 140? |Probably St. John. | | |Papias. |Short fragments in | +155. |Some account of | Eusebius. |[see pp. | works written by | |145, 82;| St. Matthew and | |164-167, | St. Mark, but | |S. R. ] | probably not our | | | present Gospels in | | | their present form. | | |Basilides. }|Allusions, not | c. 125. |Certain use of }| certain, in | | St. Luke and St. John, }| Hippolytus, Clem. | | perhaps probably byBasilidians. }| Alex. , Epiphanius, | | Basilides himself. | | |Marcion. |Copious references | c. 140. |Certainly the third | in Tertullian and | | Gospel, with text | Epiphanius. | | already corrupt. | | |Justin |Two Apologies and | +148. |Three Synoptic Martyr. | Dialogue against | [166- | Gospels either | Tryphon. | 167, | separately or in | | S. R. ] | Harmony, probably the | | | fourth Gospel, and also | | | an Apocryphal Gospel or | | | Gospels; text showing | | | marks of corruption. | | | |Old Latin translation| c. 150. |Four Canonical | of N. T. | | Gospels, with | | | corrupt text. | | |Valentinus. }|Allusions, not | c. 140. |References to all four }| certain in | | Gospels, but not clearValentinians}| Hippolytus, &c. | before | by whom made. | | 178. | | | |Clement. |Nineteen pseudo- | c. 160? |Four Canonical Gospels | epigraphical | | (possibly in a | | | Harmony), with other | | | Apocryphal sources | | | to some extent. | | |Hegesippus. |Few fragments |fl. 157- |Apparent traces of | chiefly preserved | 180. | St. Matthew and | by Eusebius. | | St. Luke. | | |Tatian. |Few allusions, |fl. 150- |Diatessaron, |'Address to Greeks. ' | 170. | probably consisting | | | of our four Gospels, | | | quotations from | | | St. John in Orat. | | | ad Graec. | | | |Old Syriac | c. 160? |Four Canonical Gospels, | Translation of N. T. | | with corrupt text. | | | |Muratorian Fragment | c. 170. |Four Gospels as | | | Canonical. | | |Ptolomaeus. |Allusions in | before |Clear references | Irenaeus, &c. , | 178. | to St. Matthew and | fragments in | | St. John. | Epiphanius. | | | | |Heracleon. |Allusions in | before |Third and fourth | Irenaeus, &c. , | 178. | gospels. | fragments in Origen. | | | | |Melito. |Few slight fragments. | c. 176. |Doubtful indirect | | | allusions to Canon | | | of N. T. | | |Apollinaris. |Two slight fragments. | 176- |Allusion to | | 180. | discrepancy | | | between Gospels, | | | fourth Gospel. | | |Athenagoras. |An Apology and tract | c. 177. |One fairly clear | on the Resurrection. | | quotation from | | | St. Matthew, | | | perhaps from | | | St. Mark and | | | St. John. | | |Churches of |An Epistle. | 177. |Clear allusions to Vienne and | | | St. Luke and St. John, Lyons. | | | perhaps also to | | | St. Matthew. | | |Celsus. |Fragments in Origen. | c. 178. |Somewhat vague traces | | | of all four Gospels. | | |Irenaeus. |Treatise 'Against | c. 140- |Four Gospels as | Heresies. ' | 202. | Canonical, with | | | corrupt text. | | |Clement of |Several considerable |fl. 185- |Four Gospels as Alexandria | works. | 211. | Canonical, with | | | corrupt text. | | |Tertullian. |Voluminous works. |fl. 198- |Four Gospels as | | 210. | Canonical, with | | | corrupt text.