Ex. Libris C. K. OGDEN .;/.. THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY AN EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PART OF A WORK ENTITLED 'SUPERNATURAL RELIGION' BY W. SANDAY, M.A. Rector of Barton-en-the- Heath, Warwickshire; and late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford Author of a Work on the Fourth Gospel MACMILLAN AND CO. 1876 [All rights reserved ] OXFORD: Printed by E. Pickard Hall aud J. H. Stacy. PRINTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY. I HAD HOPED TO INSCRIBE IN THIS BOOK THE REVERED AND CHERISHED NAME OF MY OLD HEAD MASTER, DR. PEARS OF REPTON. HIS CONSENT HAD BEEN VERY KINDLY AND WARMLY GIVEN, AND I WAS JUST ON THE POINT OF SENDING THE DEDI- CATION TO THE PRINTERS WHEN I RECEIVED A TELEGRAM NAMING THE DAY AND HOUR OF HIS FUNERAL. HIS HEALTH HAD FOR SOME TIME SINCE HIS RESIGNATION OF REPTON BEEN SERIOUSLY FAILING, BUT I HAD NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THE END WAS SO NEAR. ALL WHO KNEW HIM WILL DEPLORE HIS TOO EARLY LOSS, AND THEIR REGRET WILL BE SHARED BY THE WIDER CIRCLE OF THOSE WHO CAN APPRECIATE A LIFE IN WHICH THERE WAS NOTHING IGNOBLE, NOTHING UNGENEROUS, NOTHING UNREAL. I HAD- LONG WISHED THAT HE SHOULD RECEIVE SOME TRIBUTE OF REGARD FROM ONE WHOM HE HAD DONE HIS BEST BY PRECEPT, AND STILL MORE BY EXAMPLE, TO FIT AND TRAIN FOR HIS PLACE AND DUTY IN THE WORLD. THIS PLEASURE AND THIS HONOUR HAVE BEEN DENIED ME. I CANNOT PLACE MY BOOK, AS I HAD HOPED, IN HIS HAND, BUT I MAY STILL LAY IT REVERENTLY UPON HIS TOMB. 2000077 CONTENTS. INTRODUCTORY . i ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN- WRITERS 15 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 58 JUSTIN MARTYR 88 HEGESIPPUS PAPIAS 138 THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES 161 BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS ,88 VIII. MARCTON 204 IX. TATIAN DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH 238 X. MKI.ric) APOLLINARIS ATHENAGORAS THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS 244 XI. PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON -CELSUS- THE MURA- TORIAN FRAGMENT 254 XII. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL . 269 XIII. ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY 310 XIV. CONCLUSION 350 APPENDIX. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL . . 362 INDICES . 373 PREFACE. IT will be well to explain at once that the following work has been written at the request and is published at the cost of the Christian Evidence Society, and that it may therefore be classed under the head of Apolo- getics. I am aware that this will be a drawback to it in the eyes of some, and I confess that it is not alto- gether a recommendation in my own. Ideally speaking, Apologetics ought to have no ex- istence distinct from the general and unanimous search for truth, and in so far as they tend to put any other consideration, no matter how high or pure in itself, in the place of truth, they must needs stand aside from the path of science. But, on the other hand, the question of true belief itself is immensely wide. It is impossible to approach what is merely a branch of a vast subject without some general conclusions already formed as to the whole. The mind cannot, if it would, become a sheet of blank paper on which the writing is inscribed by an external process alone. It must needs have its praejudicia i.e. judgments formed on grounds extrinsic to the special matter of enquiry of one sort or another. Accordingly we find that an absolutely and strictly x PREFACE. impartial temper never has existed and never will. If it did, its verdict would still be false, because it would represent an incomplete or half-suppressed humanity. There is no question that touches, directly or indirectly, on the moral and spiritual nature of man that can be settled by the bare reason. A certain amount of sym- pathy is necessary in order to estimate the weight of the forces that are to be analysed : yet that very sym- pathy itself becomes an extraneous influence, and the perfect balance and adjustment of the reason is dis- turbed. But though impartiality, in the strict sense, is not to be had, there is another condition that may be rightly demanded resolute honesty. This I hope may be attained as well from one point of view as from another, at least that there is no very great antecedent reason to the contrary. In past generations indeed there was such a reason. Strongly negative views could only be expressed at considerable personal risk and loss. But now, public opinion is so tolerant, espe- cially among the reading and thinking classes, that both parties are practically upon much the same footing. Indeed for bold and strong and less sensitive minds negative views will have an attraction and will find support that will go far to neutralise any counter- balancing disadvantage. On either side the remedy for the effects of bias must be found in a rigorous and searching criticism. If misleading statements and unsound arguments are allowed to pass unchallenged the fault will not lie only with their author. PREFACE. xi It will be hardly necessary for me to say that the Christian Evidence Society is not responsible for the contents of this work, except in so far as may be in- volved in the original request that I should write it. I undertook the task at first with some hesitation, and I could not have undertaken it at all without stipu- lating for entire freedom. The Society very kindly and liberally granted me this, and I am conscious of having to some extent availed myself of it. I have not always stayed to consider whether the opinions expressed were in exact accordance with those of the majority of Chris- tians. It will be enough if they should find points of contact in some minds, and the tentative element in them will perhaps be the more indulgently judged now that the reconciliation of the different branches of know- ledge and belief is being so anxiously sought for. The instrument of the enquiry had to be fashioned as the enquiry itself went on, and I suspect that the consequences of this will be apparent in some inequality and incompleteness in the earlier portions. For instance, I am afraid that the textual analysis of the quotations in Justin may seem somewhat less satisfactory than that of those in the Clementine Homilies, though Jus- tin's quotations are the more important of the two. Still I hope that the treatment of the first may be, for the scale of the book, sufficiently adequate. There seemed to be a certain advantage in presenting the results of the enquiry in the order in which it was conducted. If time and strength are allowed me, I hope to be able to carry several of the investigations that are begun in this book some stages further. xii PREFACE. I ought perhaps to explain that I was prevented by other engagements from beginning seriously to work upon the subject until the latter end of December in last year. The first of Dr. Lightfoot's articles in the Contemporary Review had then appeared. The next two articles (on the Silence of Eusebius and the Igna- tian Epistles) were also in advance of my own treat- ment of the same topics. From this point onwards I was usually the first to finish, and I have been com- pelled merely to allude to the progress of the contro- versy in notes. Seeing the turn that Dr. Lightfoot's review was taking, and knowing how utterly vain it would be for any one else to go over the same ground, I felt myself more at liberty to follow a natural bent in confining myself pretty closely to the internal aspect of the enquiry. My object has been chiefly to test in detail the alleged quotations from our Gospels, while Dr. Lightfoot has taken a wider sweep in collecting and bringing to bear the collateral matter of which his unrivalled knowledge of the early Christian litera- ture gave him such command. It will be seen that in some cases, as notably in regard to the evidence of Papias, the external and the internal methods have led to an opposite result ; and I shall look forward with much interest to the further discussion of this subject. I should be sorry to ignore the debt I am under to the author of ' Supernatural Religion ' for the copious materials he has supplied to criticism. I have also to thank him for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the sixth edition of his work. My obligations to PREFACE. xiii other writers I hope will be found duly acknowledged. If I were to single out the one book to which I owed most, it would probably be Credner's ' Beitriige zur Einleitung in die Biblischen Schriften,' of which I have spoken somewhat fully in an early chapter. I have used a certain amount of discretion and economy in avoiding as a rule the works of previous apologists (such as Semisch, Riggenbach, Norton, Hofstede de Groot) and consulting rather those of an opposite school in such representatives as Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. In this way, though I may very possibly have omitted some arguments which may be sound, I hope I shall have put forward few that have been already tried and found wanting. As I have made rather large use of the argument supplied by text-criticism, I should perhaps say that to the best of my belief my attention was first drawn to its importance by a note in Dr. Lightfoot's work on Revision. The evidence adduced under this head will be found, I believe, to be independent of any particular theory of text-criticism. The idea of the Analytical Index is taken, with some change of plan, from Volkmar. It may serve to give a sort of coup d'ceil of the subject. It is a pleasure to be able to mention another form of 'assistance from which it is one of the misfortunes of an anonymous writer to find himself cut off. The proofs of this book have been seen in their passage through the press by my friend the Rev. A. J. Mason, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, whose exact scholarship has been particularly valuable to me. On another side than that of scholarship I have derived xiv PREFACE. the greatest benefit from the advice of my friend James Beddard, M.B., of Nottingham, who was among the first to help me to realise, and now does not suffer me to forget, what a book ought to be. The Index of References to the Gospels has also been made for me. The chapter on Marcion has already appeared, sub- stantially in its present form, as a contribution to the Fortnightly Review. BARTON-ON-THE-HEATH, SHIPSTON-ON-STOUR, November, 1875. ra e Trai/ra eXey^o/neva VTTO TOV (pcoros (pavepovrai' TTO.V yap TO (fiavepov/mevov ^)aJ9 tamv. ERRATA. P. 70, 1. 21, for ' fourth ' read first.' P. 197, 1. I, for 'Mark viii. 34' read 'Luke xiv. 27.' CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. IT would be natural in a work of this kind, which is a direct review of a particular book, to begin with an account of that book, and with some attempt to characterise it. Such had been my own intention, but there seems to be sufficient reason for pursuing a dif- ferent course. On the one hand, an account of a book which has so recently appeared, which has been so fully reviewed, and which has excited so much attention, would appear to be superfluous ; and, on the other hand, as the character of it has become the subject of somewhat sharp controversy, and as controversy or at least the controversial temper is the one thing that I wish to avoid, I have thought it well on the whole to abandon my first intention, and to confine myself as much as possible to a criticism of the argu- ment and subject-matter, with a view to ascertain the real facts as to the formation of the Canon of the four Gospels. I shall correct, where I am able to do so, such mistakes as may happen to come under my notice and have not already been pointed out by other re- viewers, only dilating upon them where what seem B INTRODUCTORY. to be false principles of criticism are involved. On the general subject of these mistakes misleading references and the like I think that enough has been said 1 . Much is perhaps charged upon the individual which is rather due to the system of theological training and the habits of research that are common in England at the present day. Inaccuracies no doubt have been found, not a few. But, unfortunately, there is only one of our seats of learning where in theology at least the study of accuracy has quite the place that it deserves. Our best scholars and ablest men with one or two conspicuous exceptions do not write, and the work is left to be done by litterateurs and clergymen or laymen who have never undergone the severe preliminary dis- cipline which scientific investigation requires. Thus a low standard is set ; there are but few sound examples to follow, and it is a chance whether the student's attention is directed to these at the time when his habits of mind are being formed. Again, it was claimed for 'Supernatural Religion' on its first appearance that it was impartial. The 1 With regard to the references in vol. i. p. 259, n. i, I had already observed, before the appearance of the preface to the sixth edition, that they were really intended to apply to the first part of the sentence anno- tated rather than the second. Still, as there is only one reference out of nine that really supports the proposition in immediate connection with which the references are made, the reader would be very apt to carry away a mistaken impression. The same must be said of the set of references defended on p. xl. sqq. of the new preface. The expressions used do not accurately represent the state of the facts. It is not careful writing, and I am afraid it must be said that the prejudice of the author has determined the side to which the expression leans. But how difficult is it to make words express all the due shades and qualifications of meaning how diffi- cult especially for a mind that seems to be naturally distinguished by force rather than by exactness and delicacy of observation ! We have all ' les defauts de nos qualite's.' INTRODUCTORY. claim has been indignantly denied, and, I am afraid I must say, with justice. Any one conversant with the subject (I speak of the critical portion of the book) will see that it is deeply coloured by the author's pre- possessions from beginning to end. Here again he has only imbibed the temper of the nation. Perhaps it is due to our political activity and the system of party- government that the spirit of party seems to have taken such a deep root in the English mind. An English- man's political opinions are determined for him mainly (though sometimes in the way of reaction) by his antecedents and education, and his opinions on other subjects follow in their train. He takes them up with more of practical vigour and energy than breadth of reflection. There is a contagion of party-spirit in the air. And thus advocacy on one side is simply met by advocacy on the other. Such has at least been hitherto the history of English thought upon most great subjects. We may hope that at last this state of things is coming to an end. But until now, and even now, it has been difficult to find that quiet atmosphere in which alone true criticism can flourish. Let it not be thought that these few remarks are made in a spirit of censoriousness. They are made by one who is only too conscious of being subject to the very same conditions, and who knows not how far he may need indulgence on the same score himself. How far his own work is tainted with the spirit of advocacy it is not for him to say. He knows well that the author whom he has set himself to criticise is at least a writer of remarkable vigour and ability, and that he cannot lay claim to these qualities ; but he has confidence in the power of truth whatever that truth B 2 INTRODUCTORY. may be to assert itself in the end. An open and fair field and full and free criticism are all that is needed to eliminate the effects of individual strength or weak- ness. 'The opinions of good men are but knowledge in the making' especially where they are based upon a survey of the original facts. Mistakes will be made and have currency for a time. But little by little truth emerges ; it receives the suffrages of those who are competent to judge ; gradually the controversy narrows ; parts of it are closed up entirely, and a solid and per- manent advance is made. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' starts from a rigid and somewhat antiquated view of Revelation Revelation is a direct and external communication by God to man of truths undiscoverable by human reason. The divine origin of this communication is proved by miracles. Miracles are proved by the record of Scrip- ture, which, in its turn, is attested by the history of the Canon. This is certainly the kind of theory which was in favour at the end of the last century, and found ex- pression in works like Paley's Evidences. It belongs to a time of vigorous and clear but mechanical and narrow culture, when the philosophy of religion was made up of abrupt and violent contrasts ; when Christianity (including under that name the Old Testament as well as the New) was thought to be simply true and all other religions simply false; when the revelation of divine truth was thought to be as sudden and complete as the act of creation ; and when the presence of any local and temporary elements in the Christian documents or society was ignored. The world has undergone a great change since then. INTRODUCTORY. A new and far-reaching philosophy is gradually dis- placing the old. The Christian sees that evolution is as much a law of religion as of nature. The Ethnic, or non-Christian, religions are no longer treated as outside the pale of the Divine government. Each falls into its place as part of a vast divinely appointed scheme, of the character of which we are beginning to have some faint glimmerings. Other religions are seen to be correlated to Christianity much as the other tentative efforts of nature are correlated to man. A divine operation, and what from our limited human point of view we should call a special divine operation, is not excluded but rather implied in the physical process by which man has been planted on the earth, and it is still more evidently implied in the correspond- ing process of his spiritual enlightenment. The deeper and more comprehensive view that we have been led to take as to the dealings of Providence has not by any means been followed by a depreciation of Christianity. Rather it appears on a loftier height than ever. The spiritual movements of recent times have opened men's eyes more and more to its supreme spiritual excellence. It is no longer possible to resolve it into a mere ' code of morals.' The Christian ethics grow organically out of the relations which Christianity assumes between God and man, and in their fulness are inseparable from those relations. The author of ' Supernatural Religion ' speaks as if they were separable, as if a man could assume all the Christian graces merely by wishing to assume them. But he forgets the root of the whole Christian system, ' Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.' INTRODUCTORY. The old idea of the Aufklarung that Christianity was nothing more than a code of morals, has now long ago been given up, and the self-complacency which character- ised that movement has for the most part, though not entirely, passed away. The nineteenth century is not in very many quarters regarded as the goal of things. And it will hardly now be maintained that Christianity is adequately represented by any of the many sects and parties embraced under the name. When we turn from even the best of these, in its best and highest embodi- ment, to the picture that is put before us in the Gospels, how small does it seem ! We feel that they all fall short of their ideal, and that there is a greater promise and potentiality of perfection in the root than has ever yet appeared in branch or flower. No doubt theology follows philosophy. The special conception of the relation of man to God naturally takes its colour from the wider conception as to the nature of all knowledge and the relation of God to the universe. It has been so in every age, and it must needs be so now. Some readjustment, perhaps a con- siderable readjustment, of theological and scientific beliefs may be necessary. But there is, I think, a strong presumption that the changes involved in theology will be less radical than often seems to be supposed. When we look back upon history, the world has gone through many similar crises before. The discoveries of Darwin and the philosophies of Mill or Hegel do not mark a greater relative advance than the disco- veries of Newton and the philosophies of Descartes and Locke. These latter certainly had an effect upon theology. At one time they seemed to shake it to its base ; so much so that Bishop Butler wrote in INTRODUCTORY. the Advertisement to the first edition of his Analogy that ' it is come to be taken for granted that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but that it is now at length discovered to be fictitious.' Yet what do we see after a lapse of a hundred and forty years? It cannot be said that there is less religious life and activity now than there was then, or that there has been so far any serious breach in the continuity of Christian belief. An eye that has learnt to watch the larger movements of mankind will not allow itself to be disturbed by local oscillations. It is natural enough that some of our thinkers and writers should imagine that the last word has been spoken, and that they should be tempted to use the word 'Truth' as if it were their own peculiar possession. But Truth is really a much vaster and more unattainable thing. One man sees a fragment of it here and another there ; but, as a whole, even in any of its smallest subdivisions, it exists not in the brain of any one individual, but in the gradual, and ever incomplete but ever self-completing, onward move- ment of the whole. ' If any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know/ The forms of Christianity change, but Christianity itself endures. And it would seem as if we might well be content to wait until it was realised a little less im- perfectly before we attempt to go farther afield. Yet the work of adaptation must be done. The present generation has a task of its own to perform. It is needful for it to revise its opinions in view of the advances that have been made both in general know- ledge and in special theological criticism. In so far as ' Supernatural Religion' has helped to do this, it has served the cause of true progress ; but its main plan 8 INTRODUCTORY. and design I cannot but regard as out of date and aimed in the air. The Christian miracles, or what in our ignorance we call miracles, will not bear to be torn away from their context. If they are facts we must look at them in strict connection with that Ideal Life to which they seem to form the almost natural accompaniment. The Life itself is the great miracle. When we come to see it as it really is, and to enter, if even in some dim and groping way, into its inner recesses, we feel ourselves abashed and dumb. Yet this self-evidential character is found in portions of the narrative that are quite un- miraculous. These, perhaps, are in reality the most marvellous, though the miracles themselves will seem in place when their spiritual significance is understood and they are ranged in order round their common centre. Doubtless some elements of superstition may be mixed up in the record as it has come down to us. There is a manifest gap between the reality and the story of it. The Evangelists were for the most part ' Jews who sought after a sign.' Something of this wonder-seeking curiosity may very well have given a colour to their account of events in which the really transcendental element was less visible and tangible. We cannot now distinguish with any degree of accuracy between the subjective and the objective in the report. But that miracles, or what we call such, did in some shape take place, is, I believe, simply a matter of attested fact. When we consider it in its relation to the rest of the narrative, to tear out the miraculous bodily from the Gospels seems to me in the first instance a violation of history and criticism rather than of faith. Still the author of 'Supernatural Religion' is, no INTRODUCTORY. doubt, justified in raising the question, Did miracles really happen ? I only wish to protest against the idea that such a question can be adequately discussed as something isolated and distinct, in which all that is necessary is to produce and substantiate the documents as in a forensic process. Such a ' world-historical ' event (if I may for the moment borrow an expressive Ger- manism) as the founding of Christianity cannot be thrown into a merely forensic form. Considerations of this kind may indeed enter in, but to suppose that they can be justly estimated by themselves alone is an error. And it is still more an error to suppose that the riddle of the universe, or rather that part of the riddle which to us is most important, the religious nature of man and the objective facts and relations that correspond to it, can all be reduced to some four or five simple pro- positions which admit of being proved or disproved by a short and easy Q. E. D. It would have been a far more profitable enquiry if the author had asked himself, What is Revelation ? The time has come when this should be asked and an attempt to obtain a more scientific definition should be made. The comparative study of religions has gone far enough to admit of a comparison between the Ethnic religions and that which had its birth in Palestine the religion of the Jews and Christians. Obviously, at the first blush, there is a difference : and that difference constitutes what we mean by Revelation. Let us have this as yet very imperfectly known quantity scientifically ascertained, without any attempt either to minimise or to exaggerate. I mean, let the field which Mr. Matthew Arnold has lately been traversing with much of his usual insight but in a light and popular manner, be seriously mapped 10 INTRODUCTORY. out and explored. Pioneers have been at work, such as Dr. Kuenen, but not perhaps quite without a bias : let the same enquiry be taken up so widely as that the effects of bias may be eliminated ; and instead of at once accepting the first crude results, let us wait until they are matured by time. This would be really fruitful and productive, and a positive addition to knowledge ; but reasoning such as that in ' Supernatural Religion' is vitiated at the outset, because it starts with the assumption that we know perfectly well the meaning of a term of which our actual conception is vague and indeterminate in the extreme Divine Revelation \ With these reservations as to the main drift and bearing of the argument, we may however meet the author of ' Supernatural Religion ' on his own ground. It is a part of the question though a more subordinate part apparently than he seems to suppose to decide whether miracles did or did not really happen. Even of this part too it is but quite a minor subdivision that is included in the two volumes of his work that have hitherto appeared. In the first place, merely as a matter of historical attestation, the Gospels are not the strongest evidence for the Christian miracles. Only one of the four, in its present shape, is claimed as the 1 Much harm has been done by rashly pressing human metaphors and analogies ; such as, that Revelation is a message from God and therefore must be infallible, &c. This is just the sort of argument that the Deists used in the last century, insisting that a revelation, properly so called, must be presented with conclusive proofs, must be universal, must be complete, and drawing the conclusion that Christianity is not such a revelation. This kind of reasoning has received-its sentence once for all from Bishop Butler. We have nothing to do with what must be (of which we are, by the nature of the case, incompetent judges), but simply with what is. INTRODUCTORY. n work of an Apostle, and of that the genuineness is disputed. The Acts of the Apostles stand upon very much the same footing with the Synoptic Gospels, and of this book we are promised a further examination. But we possess at least some undoubted writings of one who was himself a chief actor in the events which followed immediately upon those recorded in the Gospels ; and in these undoubted writings St. Paul certainly shows by incidental allusions, the good faith of which cannot be questioned, that he believed himself to be endowed with the power of working miracles, and that miracles, or what were thought to be such, were actually wrought both by him and by his contemporaries. He reminds the Corinthians that 'the signs of an Apostle were wrought among them . . in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds ' (tv o-^etot? /cat re/3aara rois ffpunra. dvdpanois. j)XH<&<*>T(v(r(v . . . tv dvGpa- Kai om. X 1 A C 2 D 1 , &C. It. TTOIJ N, perhaps from assimila- Vulg. Memph. &c. ; ins. B C 3 tion to N. T. D 3 K 4 , &c. Now we should naturally think that this was a very free quotation so free that it substitutes 'giving' for 're- ceiving.' A free quotation perhaps it may be, but at any rate the very same variation is found in Justin (Dial. 39). And, strange to say, in five other passages which are quoted variantly by St. Paul, Justin also agrees with him 1 , though cases on the other hand occur where Justin differs from St. Paul or holds a posi- tion midway between him and the LXX (e. g. I Cor. i. 19 compared with Just. Dial. cc. 123, 32, 78, where will be found some curious variations, agreement with LXX, partial agreement with LXX, partial agreement with St. Paul). Now what are we to say to these phenomena? Have St. Paul and Justin both a variant text of the LXX, or is Justin quoting mediately through St. Paul ? Probability indeed seems to be on the side of the latter of these two alternatives, because in one place (Dial. cc. 95, 96) Justin quotes the two passages Deut. xxvii. 26 and Deut. xxi. 23 consecutively, and applies them just as they are applied in Gal. iii. 10, I3 2 . On the other hand, it is somewhat strange that Justin nowhere refers to the Epistles of St. Paul by name, and that the allu- sions to them in the genuine writings, except for these 1 Cf. Westcott, Canon, p. 152, n. 2 (3rd ed. 1870). 3 See Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 60; also Credner, Beitrdge, ii. 66 ('cer- tainly ' from St. Paul). IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 19 marked resemblances in the Old Testament quotations, are few and uncertain. The same relation is observed between the Pauline Epistles and that of Clement of Rome. In two places at least Clement agrees, or nearly agrees, with St. Paul, where both differ from the LXX ; in c. xiii (6 Kavxw/ieyos *v Kvptw Kav\acr9(i) ; compare i Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 16), ahd in c. xxxiv (d(f)da\p.bs OVK eT8ei; K.T.A.. ; compare i Cor. ii. 9). Again, in c. xxxvi Cle- ment has the irupos $A.oya of Heb. i. 7 for "nvp 0Aeyoy of the LXX. The rest of the parallelisms in Clement's Epistle are for the most part with Clement of Alex- andria, who had evidently made a careful study of his predecessor. In one place, c. liii, there is a remarkable coincidence with Barnabas (MowVij MCOU'OT/ Kara^di TO raxos K.r.A. ; compare Barn. cc. iv and xiv). In the Epistle of Barnabas itself there is a combined quotation from Gen. xv. 6, xvii. 5, which has evidently and cer- tainly been affected by Rom. iv. n. On the whole we may lean somewhat decidedly to the hypothesis of a mutual study of each other by the Christian writers, though the other hypothesis of the existence of different versions (whether oral and traditional or in any shape written) cannot be excluded. Probably both will have to be taken into account to explain all the facts. Another disturbing influence, which will affect espe- cially the quotations in the Gospels, is the possibility, perhaps even probability, that many of these are made, not directly from either Hebrew or LXX, but from or through Targums. This would seem to be the case especially with the remarkable applications of prophecy in St. Matthew. It must be admitted as possible that the Evangelist has followed some Jewish interpretation that seemed to bear a Christian construction. The C 2 20 ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY quotation in Matt. ii. 6, with its curious insertion of the negative (ovSajuws \a\Lo-Trj for dAiyooros), reappears iden- tically in Justin (Dial. c. 78). We shall probably have to touch upon this quotation when we come to consider Justin's relations to the canonical Gospels. It certainly seems upon the face of it the more probable supposition that he has here been influenced by the form of the text in St. Matthew, but he may be quoting from a Targum or from a peculiar text. Any induction, then, in regard to the quotations from the LXX version will have to be used with caution and reserve. And yet I think it will be well to make such an induction roughly, especially in regard to the Apostolic Fathers whose writings we are to examine. The quotations from the Old Testament in the New have, as it is well known, been made the subject of a volume by Mr. M c Calman Turpie 1 , which, though per- haps not quite reaching a high level of scholarship, has yet evidently been put together with much care and pains, and will be sufficient for our purpose. The summary result of Mr. Turpie's investigation is this. Out of two hundred and seventy-five in all which may be considered to be quotations from the Old Testament, fifty-three agree literally both with the LXX and the Hebrew, ten with the Hebrew and not with the LXX, and thirty-seven with the LXX and not with the Hebrew, making in all just a hundred that are in literal (or nearly literal, for slight variations of order are not taken into account) agreement with some still extant authority. On the other hand, seventy-six passages differ both from the Hebrew and LXX where 1 The Old Testament in the New (London and Edinburgh, 1868). IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 2,1 the two are together, ninety-nine differ from them where they diverge, and besides these, three, though introduced with marks of quotation, have no assignable original in the Old Testament at all. Leaving them for the pre- sent out of the question, we -have a hundred instances of agreement against a hundred and seventy-five of difference; or, in other words, the proportion of difference to agreement is. as seven to four. This however must be taken with the caution given above ; that is to say, it must not at once be inferred that because the quotation differs from extant authority therefore it necessarily differs from all non-extant autho- rity as well. It should be added that the standard of agreement adopted by Mr. Turpie is somewhat higher than would be naturally held to be sufficient to refer a passage to a given source. His lists must therefore be used with these limitations. Turning to them, we find that most of the possible forms of variation are exemplified within the bounds of the Canon itself. I proceed to give a few classified in- stances of these. (a) Paraphrase. Many of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New are highly paraphrastic. We may take the following as somewhat marked examples : Matt. ii. 6, xii. 18-21, xiii. 35, xxvii. 9, 10 ; John viii. 17, xii. 40, xiii. 18 ; i Cor. xiv. 21 ; 2 Cor.jx. 7. Matt, xxvii. 9, 10 would perhaps mark an extreme point in freedom of quotation 1 , as will be seen when it is compared with the original : 1 Mr. M'Clellan (The New Testament, &c., vol. i. p. 606, n. c) makes the suggestion, which from his point of view is necessary, that ' S. Matthew has cited a prophecy spoken by Jeremiah, but nowhere written in the Old Tes- tament, and of which the passage in Zechariah is only a partial reproduc- tion.' Cf. Credner, Beitrdge, ii. 152. 22 ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY Matt, xxvii. 9, 10. Zech. xi. 13. [Tore fVXr/peofy TO fadev 8ia Ka&s avTovs fls TO TOV Trpof^rou 'lepfju'ov \eyovros] piov, Kal crKtyopai d SoKipov eV- Kai eXapov ra rpiaKovra dpyvpia, TIV, ov Tponov f8oKindo-0r)v vrrfp TIJV Ti(jLj]v TOV TfTifJLTjiitvov ov fTi- avTa>v. Kal fXaftov TOVS rpiaKovra ufaavro a?ro v't&v 'lapaijX' (cat dpyvpovs Kal eve?a\ov avrovs fls t&aicav aiira fls TOV dypbv TOV OIKOV Kvpiov fls TO ^avevrrypioj'. Kfpa^fUis, Kada r<3 ou Xaco /xou Aaoj KOI TTJV OVK fjyaTTT]fj.(vr)v Tjyairrj/jifvrjv. p.ov tl d8eX yvvf) TOV T(dvT]KOTOS e^w dv8pl pr) avrov, (yyiovri' 6 d8(\8a/u(2s j = oAiyooro's of Mic. v. 2, in Rom. xi. 26 /c 2uoy = f LXX = 'to Sion' Heb. of Is. lix. 20, in Eph. iv. 8 I8co/cey 2>o'nxaTa=!Aa/3es 5o'^ara of Ps. Ixvii. 19. (6} Different Form of Sentence. The grammatical form of the sentence is altered in Matt. xxvi. 31 (from aorist to future), in Luke viii. 10 (from oratio recta to oratio obliqua), and in I Pet. iii. 10-12 (from the second person to the third). This is a kind of variation that we should naturally look for. (i) Mistaken Ascriptions or Nomenclature. The fol- lowing passages are wrongly assigned : Mai. iii. i to IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 2$ Isaiah according to the correct reading of Mark i. 2, and Zech. xi. 13 to Jeremiah in Matt, xxvii. 9, 10 ; Abiathar is apparently put for Abimelech in Mark ii. 26 ; in Acts vii. 16 there seems to be a confusion between the purchase of Machpelah near Hebron by Abraham and Jacob's purchase of land from Hamor the father of Shechem. These are obviously lapses of memory. (K) Quotations of Doubtful Origin. There are a certain number of quotations, introduced as such, which can be assigned directly to no Old Testament original ; Matt. ii. 23 (Nafcopatos /cA^o-erai), I 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 1 '). It will be seen that, in spite of the reservations that we felt compelled to make at the outset, the greater number of the deviations noticed above can only be explained on a theory of free quotation, and remembering the extent to which the Jews relied upon memory and the mechanical difficulties of exact reference and verification, this is just what before the fact we should have expected. The Old Testament quotations in the canonical books afford us a certain parallel to the object of our enquiry, but one still nearer will of course be presented by the Old Testament quotations in those books the New Testa- ment quotations in which we are to investigate. I have thought it best to draw up tables of these in order to give an idea of the extent and character of the variation. In so tentative an enquiry as this, the standard through- 1 We do not stay to discuss the real origin of these quotations : the last is probably not from the Old Testament at all. ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY out will hardly be so fixed and accurate as might be desirable ; the tabular statement therefore must be taken to be approximate, but still I think it will be found sufficient for our purpose ; certain points come out with considerable clearness, and there is always an advantage in drawing data from a wide enough area. The quo- tations are ranged under heads according to the degree of approximation to the text of the LXX. In cases where the classification has seemed doubtful an indi- catory mark (f) has been used, showing by the side of the column on which it occurs to which of the other two classes the instance leans. All cases in which this sign is used to the left of the middle column may be considered as for practical purposes literal quotations. It may be assumed, where the contrary is not stated, that the quotations are direct and not of the nature of allusions ; the marks of quotation are generally quite unmistakeable (ye'ypaTrrai, Ae'yet, tl-nfv, &c.). Brief notes are added in the margin to call attention to the more re- markable points, especially to the repetition of the same quotation in different writers and to the apparent bearing of the passage upon the general habit of quotation. Taking the Apostolic Fathers in order, we come first to Clement of Rome (i Ep. ad Cor.}. Exact. 3. Wisd. 2. 24. 6. Gen. 2. 23. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. 3. Deut. 32.14,15. also in Justin, dif- Is. 3- 5. al. ferently. Is. 59. 14, al. t4. Gen. 4. 3-8. Ex. 2. 14 f. Acts 7. 27, more exactly. 8. Ezek. 33.11. Ezek. 1 8. 30. Ps. 103.10, if. Jer. 3. 19, 22. Is. i. 18. from Apocry- ! phal or inter- polated Eze- kiel? IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. Exact. 15. [Ps. 78.36,37.' Ps. 31. ig. 1 [Ps. 12. 3-6. 1 16. Ps. 22. 6-8. 17. Gen. 18. 27. 18. Ps. 51. 1-17. 22. Ps. 34. 11-17. Slightly variant. f8. Is. i. 16-20. 10. Gen. 12.1-3. tGen.i3.i4-i6, Gen. 15. 5, 6. 13. Is. 46. 2. 14. Ps. 37- 35-38. 15. Ps. 62. 4. 1 f!6. Is. liii. 1-12. 17. Num. 12. 7. Ex.3.ii; 4.10. Variant. 12. Josh. 2. 3-19 13. I Sam. 2. 10. Jer. 9. 23, 24, 14. Prov. 2. 2i. 22, v.l. (Ps. 37, 39-) 15. Is. 29. I3. 1 17. Job i. i, v. 1. Jobi4.4,5,vl 17. <7w Of fils UTTO Kvdpas. 18. Ps. 89. 2 1, v.l. i Sam. 13. 14. 20. Job 38.11. 21. Prov. 15. 27. 23. fftv ol K.T.\. 23. Is. 13. 22. Mai. 3. i. 1 The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and Clement of Alexandria. Remarks. compression and paraphrase. 1 similarly St. J Paul, i Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. 10. 17. from memory ? Matt. 15. 8, Mark 7. 6, with par- tial similarity, Clem. Alex, fol- lowing Clem. Rom. quoted in full by Justin, also by other writers with text slight- ly different from Clement. Clem. Alex, simi- larly. Assumptio Mosis, Hi\g.,Eldadand Modad, Lft. Clem. Alex, as LXX. Clem. Alex, simi- larly ; from me- mory ? yap TTOV). from an Apocry- phal book, Ass. Mos. or Eld. and Mod. "(composition and J compression. are also found in C.\' QUOTATIONS GENERALLY Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remark*. 26. Ps. 28. 7. \ composition Ps- 3- 5- j from memory? 27. Wisd. 12. 12. 1 from memory ? Wisd. n. 22. J cp. Eph. i. 19. 27. Ps. 19. 1-3. 28. Ps. 139. 7-10. from memory ? 29. Dent 32. 8, 9. (\eyfi yap irov). 29. Deut. 4. 34. \ Deut. 14. 2. 1 from memory? Num. 1 8. 27. "| or from an 2 Chron. 31. Apocryphal 14. Book? Exek. 48. 12. j 30. Prov. 3. 34. 30. Job 1 1 . 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. j composition Is. 62. 11. > from memory ? Prov. 24. 12. ) Clem. Alex., after Clem. Rom. 34. Dan. 7. 10. Is. 6. 3 t- } curiously repeated transposition : see Lightfoot, ad. foe. 34. Is. 64. 4. so in I Cor. 2. q. 35. Ps. 50. 16-23. y 36. Ps. 104. 4, v.l. Heb. i. 7. 36. Ps. 2. 7, 8. Heb. i. K. Acts Ps. no. i. ) 15 55 39. Job 4. 1 6-5. 5. J O- DO' (Job 15. 15.) 42. Is. 60. 17. from memory ? (\tyti yap ov). 46. Ko\\afffft roTs ayiots on of from Apocryphal book, or Ecclus. . *oA.Xai/i6i'0( vi. 54? Clem. avrois ayia- Alex. 46. Ps. 18. 26, 27. 48. Ps. 118.19,20. context ignored. Clem. Alex. loosely. 50. Is. 26. 20. Ezek. 37. 12. f from memory ? 50. Ps. 32. i, 2. J IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 2 9 Exact. 52. Ps. 51. 17. 54. Ps. 24. i. 56. Ps. 118. 18. Prov. 3. 12. Ps. 141. 5. Variant. 52. Ps. 69. 31, 32. Remarks. Barnabas simi- larly. Com- pression. Slightly variant. 53. Deut. 9.1 2-14. Ex. 32. 7, 8, ii, 31. 3 2 - t56. Job 5. 17- 26, v. 1. t57. Prov. I. 23- 31- It will be observed that the longest passages are among those that are quoted with the greatest accuracy (e.g. Gen. xiii. 14-16; Job v. 17-26; Ps. xix. 1-3, xxii. 6-8, xxxiv. 11-17, li. 1-17 ; Prov. i. 23-31 ; Is. i. 16-20, liii. 1-12). Others, such as Gen. xii. 1-3, Deut. ix. 12-14, Job iv. i6-v. 5, Ps. xxxvii. 35-38, 1. 16-23, have only slight variations. There are only two passages of more than three consecutive verses in length that present wide divergences. These are, Ps. cxxxix. 7-10, which is introduced by a vague reference (Ae'yei yap -nov) and is evidently quoted from memory, and the historical narration Josh. ii. 3-19. This is perhaps what we should expect : in longer quotations it would be better worth the writer's while to refer to his cumbrous manuscript. These purely mechanical conditions are too much lost sight of. We must remember that the ancient writer had not a small compact reference Bible at his side, but, when he wished to verify a reference, would have to take an unwieldy roll out of its case, and then would not find it divided into chapter and verse like our modern books, but would have only the columns, and those perhaps not numbered, to guide him. We must re- 30 ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY member too that the memory was much more practised and relied upon in ancient times, especially among the Jews. The composition of two or more passages is frequent, and the fusion remarkably complete. Of all the cases in which two passages are compounded, always from different chapters and most commonly from different books, there is not, I believe, one in which there is any mark of division or an indication of any kind that a different source is being quoted from. The same would hold good (with only a slight and apparent exception) of the longer strings of quotations in cc. viii, xxix, and (from -fiya-nrjoav to fv avrut) in c. xv. But here the question is complicated by the possibility, and in the first place at least perhaps probability, that the writer is quoting from some apocryphal work no longer extant. It may be interesting to give one or two short examples of the completeness with which the process of welding has been carried out. Thus in c. xvii, the following reply is put into the mouth of Moses when he receives his commission at the burning bush, n's eyw, on pe Tre/XTrei? ; eyo> Se et/xi Ivxvocfrcavos nai The text of Exod. iii. 1 1 is TIS ei/xi eya>, ori the rest of the quotation is taken from Exod. iv. 10. In c. xxxiv Clement introduces 'the Scripture' as saying, Mvpicu fjivptabes TrapeioTTjKeicrav avnS KO! xf\iat x l ^ tc ^ e? f\ei.Tovp-yovv avrtf' nal lueKpayov ayios, ayt09, Hyios, Kvpios 2a0aw0, -n\ripr]s irarra f] KTUTIS TTJS Sofrrjs O.VTOV. The first part of this quotation comes from Dan. vii. 10 ; the second, from *ai efce'/cpayoi^ which is part of the quotation, from Is. vi. 3. These examples have been taken almost at random ; the others are blended quite as thoroughly. Some of the cases of combination and some of the IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 3 1 divergences of text may be accounted for by the as- sumption of lost apocryphal books or texts ; but it would be wholly impossible, and in fact no one would think of so attempting to account for all. There can be little doubt that Clement quotes from memory, and none that he quotes at times very freely. We come next to the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, the quotations in which I proceed to tabulate in the same way : Barnabas. Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. f2. Is. 1. 11-14. note for exactness. 2. Jer. 7. 22, 23. "1 combination Zech. 8.17. j from memory ? Ps. 51. 19. strange addition. 3. Is. 58. 4, 5. Is. 58. 6-10. 4. Dan. 7. 24. Dan. 7. 7, 8. f very divergent. Ex. 34. 28. 1 combination 4. Deut. 9. 12 Ex. 31. 18. J from memory ? see below. (Ex. 32. 7). tls. 5. 21. t5- Is - 53- 5. 7 text of Cod. A. (omissions). 5. Prov. I. 17. Gen. i. 26-J-. 5. Zech. 13. 7. text of A. (Hilg.) Matt. 26. 3. Ps. 22. 21. from memory ? 5. Ps. 119. 120. paraphrastic com- Ps. 22. 17. bination 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. quota- tions, first va- riant, second exact. Is. 50. 7- note repetition, nearer to LXX. 6. Ps. 118. 22. so Matt. 21. 42; i Pet. ii. 7. ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. 6. Ps. 1 1 8. 24. from memory ? 6. Ps. 22. 17f(or- note repetition, der). nearer to LXX. Ps. 118. 12. Ps. 22. 19. Is. 3. 9, 10. Ex. 33. i. from memory ? Gen. i. 26f. note repetition, fur- ther from LXX. Gen. I. 28. Ezek. ii. 19 paraphrastic. 36. 26. Ps. 41. 3. Ps. 22. 23. different version? Gen. i. 26, 28 paraphrastic fusion. 7. Lev. 23. 29. paraphrastic. Lev. 1 6. 7, sqq. with apocryphal addition ; cp. Just, and Tert. 9. Ps. 18. 44. 9. Is. 33. i3f. 9. Jer. 4. 4 . Jer. 7. 2. Ps. 34. 13. IS. I. 2. but with additions. Is. 1. 1 of. from memory ? dpxovrfs TOV \aov TOVTOV for a. 2o- 56/j.ajv. Is. 40. 3. addition. Jer. 4- 3, 4- '.repetition, neare r Jer. 7. 26. J to LXX. Jer. 9. 26. Gen. 1 7, 26, 27; inferred sense cf. 14. 14. merely, but with marks of quota- tion. 10. Lev. n.Deut. selected examples, 14. but with marks of quotation. Deut. 4. i. 10. Ps. 1. 1. Lev. 11. 3. 11. Jer. 2. 12, 13. fls. 16. i, 2. "Siva for 2iajv. 11. Is. 45. 2, 3. fvwar) A. (yvcumv Barn.), but in other points more divergent. IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 33 Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. tls. 33. 16-18. omissions. 11. Ps. i. 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 quo- sqq. tation. Deut. 27. 15. from memory? Ex. 17. 14. 12. Ps. iio.-i. 12. Is. 45.1. Kvpiy for Kipaj. 13. Gen. 25. 21, 23. 13. 661148.11-19. very paraphrastic. Gen. 15. 6; combination ; cf. 17-5- Rom. 4. ii. 14. Ex. 24. 18. note addition of VTjdTlVtaV. Ex. 31. 18. note also for ad- ditions. 14. Deut. 9. 12- repetition with si- '7t- milar variation. (Ex. 32. 7.) note reading of A. 14. Is. 42. 6, 7. irtTreSrjufvovs for S5tfitvovs (KCU om. A.). Is. 49. 6, 7. Is. 61. i, 2. Luke 4. 18, 19 diverges. 15. Ex. 20. 8; paraphrastic, with Deut. 5. 12. addition. Jer.i7.2 4 ,25. very paraphrastic. Gen. 2. 2. V Ps. 90. 4. armtpov for (\6(*. 15. Is. 1.13. 16. Is. 40. 12. omissions. Is. 66. i. 16. Is. 49. 17. completely para- phrastic. Dan. 9. 24, ditto. 25, 27. The same remarks that were made upon Clement will hold also for Barnabas, except that he permits himself still greater licence. The marginal notes will have called attention to his eccentricities. He is carried away by slight resemblances of sound ; e. g. he puts D 34 ON Q UO TA TIONS GEN ER ALL Y lp.dna for Za/xara 1 , Siva for Si /capia (rvvTCTpifj.fj.evr], [OO-/UT; evwSia? T<5 /cvpio) Kapbta boaovv by the simpler ap^ovres TOV \aov TOVTOV. He has curiously combined the sense of Gen. xvii. 26, 27 with Gen. xiv. 14 in the pursuit of the four kings, it is said that Abraham armed his servants three hundred and eighteen men ; Barnabas says that he circumcised his household, in all three hundred and eighteen men. In several cases a resemblance may be noticed between Barnabas and the text of Cod. A, but this does not appear consistently throughout. It may be well to give a few examples of the extent to which Barnabas can carry his freedom of quotation. Instances from the Book of Daniel should perhaps not be given, as the text of that book is known to have been in a peculiarly corrupt and unsettled state ; so much so that, when the translation of Theodotion was made towards the end of the second century, it was adopted as the standard text. Barnabas also combines passages, though not quite to such an extent or so elaborately, as Clement, 1 It should be noticed, however, that the same reading is found in Jus,tin and other writers. IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 35 and he too inserts no mark of division. We will give an example of this, and at the same time of his paraphrastic method of quotation : Barnabas c. ix. Jer. iv. 3, 4 and vii. 26. [KCU TI Aeye i ;] IlepiT/Lirj^j/re TO IlepiT/xTj&jTe T&> Qe<5 vp.>v, KOI v ov ^17 v . . . A similar case of paraphrase and combination, with nothing to mark the transition from one passage to the other, would be in c. xi, Jer. ii. 12, 13 and Is. xvi. I, 2. For paraphrase we may take this, from the same chapter : Barnabas c. xi. Zeph. iii. 19. [/cal TraAii' erepos 7rpo(pT)TT)s \f- Kal ()f](ro[j.ai ai/rovs ft? yet] Kat rjv fj yfj 'laKa>/3 eiraivov- Kal 6vofj.as ^i\ia ws 17 rjfj^pa TJ %d( (TT). A very curious instance of freedom is the long narra- tive of Jacob blessing the two sons of Joseph in c. xiii (compare Gen. xlviii. 11-19). We note here (and else- where) a kind of dramatic tendency, a fondness for throwing statements into the form of dialogue rather than narrative. As a narrative this passage may be compared with the history of Rahab and the spies in Clement. And yet, in spite of all this licence in quotation, there are some rather marked instances of exactness ; e. g. Is. i. 11-14 in c. ii, the combined passages from Ps. xxii. 17, cxvii. 12, xxii. 19 in c. vi, and Ps. i. 3-6 in D 2 ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY c. xi. It should also be remembered that in one case, Deut. ix. 12 in cc. iv and xiv, the same variation is repeated and is also found in Justin. It tallies with what we should expect, supposing the writings attributed to Ignatius (the seven Epistles) to be genuine, that the quotations from the Old as well as from the New Testament in them are few and brief. A prisoner, travelling in custody to the place of exe- cution, would naturally not fill his letters with long and elaborate references. The quotations from the Old Testament are as follows : Variant. Remarks. James 4. 6, i Pet. 5. 5, as Ignatius. 8. Is. 52. 5. The Epistle to the Ephesians is found also in the Syriac version. The last quotation from Isaiah, which is however not introduced with any express marks of reference, is very freely given. The original is, Ae'yei KV/HO?, Ai' v/xas 8ia TTCLVTOS TO oyo/ua JJ.QV iv TOIS edveffi, for which Ignatius has, Oval yap 6V ov em TO oVo/xa /xou eiri TIMV /3A Exact. Ad Eph. Slightly variant. 5. Prov. 3. 34. Ad Magn. Ad Troll. 12. Prov. 18. 17. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians and the Martyrium S. Ignatii contain the following quotations : Exact. Polycarp, Ad Phil. 10. Tob. 4. n. 12. Ps. 4. 4; but through Eph. 4. 26. Mart. S. Ign. 6. Prov. 10. 24. Slightly variant. 2. Ps. 2. ii. Variant. Remarks. in Latin version only. 2. Lev. 26. 12. IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 37 The quotation from Leviticus differs widely from the original, Kat e/xTreptTrarrjorft) en ^/iu> /cat Icro/xat v^Giv debs KOI vnris e. The quotations from the Clementine Homilies may be thus presented : Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. Horn. 3. 18. Deut. 32. 7. 39. fGen. 18. 21. Gen. 3. 22. 39. Gen. 6. 6. Gen. 8. 21. omission. Gen. 22. i. 42. Gen. 3. 3. 43. Gen. 6. 6. 43. Gen. 22. i. not quite as above. tGen. 1 8. 21. as above. Gen. 1 5. 1 3-1 6. v. 1. comp. text of A ; note for ex- actness. 44. Gen. 18. 21. as LXX. 45. Num. ii. 34 ftoW&V 1Tl0VLlltttV (al.) for fAvrjtiaTa TTJS 47. Deut. 34. 4, 5. (7Tteviua 49. Gen. 49. 10. cf. Credner, Beit. 2. 53- Horn. 11. 22. Gen. 1. 1. Horn. 16. 6. Gen. 3. 22. twice with slightly different order. Gen. 3. 5. 6. Ex. 22. 28. 6. Deut. 4. 34. ?mem. (d\\o0i irov ytypcurTai). Jer. 10. n. Deut. 13. 6. ?mem. (a\Xj; irov). Josh. 23. 7. Deut. 10. 17. Ps. 35- 10. Ps. 50. i. Ps. 82. i. Deut. 10. 14. Deut. 4. 39. Deut. 10. 17. repeated as above. Deut. 10.17. very paraphrastic. ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. Horn. 16. 6. Deut. 4. 39. 7. Deut. 6. 13. Deut. 6. 4. 8. Josh. 23. 7. as above. 8. Exod. 22. 28f. Jer. 10. 11. Gen. 1. 1. Ps. 19. 2. 8. Ps. 102. 26. Gen. I. 26. 13. Deut. 13. 1-3, very free. 9. 5. 3- Horn. 17. 18. Num. 12. 6. Ex. 33.11. "^ paraphrastic J combination. Horn. 18. 17. Is. 40. 26, 27. free quotation. Deut. 30. 15. ditto. 18. Is. 1.3. Is. i. 4. The example of the Clementine Homilies shows conspicuously the extremely deceptive character of the argument from silence. All the quotations from the Old Testament found in them are taken from five Homilies (iii, xi, xvi, xvii, xviii) out of nineteen, although the Homilies are lengthy compositions, filling, with the translation and various readings, four hundred and fourteen large octavo pages of Dressel's edition 1 . Of the whole number of quotations all but seven are taken from two Homilies, iii and xvi. If Horn, xvi and Horn, xviii had been lost, there would have been no evidence that the author was acquainted with any book of the Old Testament besides the Pentateuch ; and, if the five Homilies had been lost, there would have been nothing to show that he was acquainted with the Old Testament at all. Yet the loss of the two Homilies would have left a volume of three hundred and seventy-seven pages, and that of the five a volume 1 dementis Romani quae fervntur Homiliae Viginti (Gottingae, 1853). AV THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 39 of three hundred and fifteen pages. In other words, it is possible to read three hundred and fifteen pages of the Homilies with five breaks and come to no quo- tation from the Old Testament at all, or three hundred and fifteen pages with only two breaks and come to none outside the Pentateuch. But the reduced volume that we have supposed, containing the fourteen Homilies, would probably exceed in bulk the whole of the extant Christian literature of the second century up to the time of Irenaeus, with the single exception of the works of Justin ; it will therefore be seen how precarious must needs be any inference from the silence, not of all these writings, but merely of a portion of them. For the rest, the quotations in the Homilies may be said to observe a fair standard of exactness, one appa- rently higher than that in the genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians ; at the same time it should be remembered that the quotations in the Homilies are much shorter, only two reaching a length of three verses, while the longest quotations in the Epistle are precisely those that are most exact. The most striking instance of accuracy of quotation is perhaps Gen. xv. 13-16 in Horn. iii. 43. On the other hand, there is marked freedom in the quotations from Deut. iv. 34, x. 17, xiii. 1-3, xiii. 6. xxx. 15, Is. xl. 26, 27, and the combined passage, Num. xii. 6 and Ex. xxiii. n. There are several repetitions, but these occur too near to each other to permit of any inference. Our examination of the Old Testament quotations in Justin is greatly facilitated by the collection and discussion of them in Credner's Beitrage 1 , a noble 1 Beitrage zur Einleitung in die biblhchen Schriften (Halle, 1832). 40 ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY example of that true patient work which is indeed the reverse of showy, but forms the solid and well-laid foundation on which alone genuine knowledge can be built. Credner has collected and compared in the most elaborate manner the whole of Justin's quotations with the various readings in the MSS. of the LXX ; so that we may state our results with a much greater confidence than in any other case (except perhaps Clement of Rome, where we have the equally accurate and scholarly guidance of Dr. Lightfoot 1 ) that we are not led astray by imperfect materials. I have availed myself freely of Credner's collection of variants, indicating the cases where the existence of documentary (or, in some places, inferential) evidence for Justin's readings has led to the quotation being placed in a different class from that to which it would at first sight seem to belong. I have also, as hitherto, not assumed an absolutely strict standard for admission to the first class of ' exact ' quotations. Many of Justin's quotations are very long, and it seemed only right that in these the standard should be some- what, though very slightly, relaxed. The chief point that we have to determine is the extent to which the writers of the first century were in the habit of freely paraphrasing or quoting from memory, and it may as a rule be assumed that all the instances in the first class and most (not quite all) of those in the second do not admit of such an explanation. I have been glad in every case where a truly scientific and most impartial writer like Credner gives his opinion, to make use of it instead of my own. I have the satisfaction to think that whatever may be the value of the other 1 The Epistles o/S. Clement of Rome (London and Cambridge, 1869). 7,A' THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. sections of this enquiry, this at least is thoroughly sound, and based upon a really exhaustive sifting of the data. The quotations given below are from the undoubted works of Justin, the Dialogue against Tryphon and the First Apology; the Second Apology does not appear to contain any quotations either from the Old or New Testament. Exact. Dial. 62, Gen. i. 26-28. D. 62, Gen. 3. 22. D. 102, Gen. ii. 6. D.127,Gen.i7.22. D. 56, Gen. 21. 9-12. D. 120, Gen. 26. 4. D. 58, Gen. 28. 10-12. D. 58, Gen. 32. 22-30. D. 58, Gen. 35. 6-10 (v.l.) Slightly variant. Apol. 1. 59, Gen. i. 1-3. Dial. 102, Gen. 3. D.127,Gen. 7. 16. D. 139, Gen. 9. 24-27. D. 127, Gen. 11.5. D. 92, Gen. 15.6. D. 56, fGen. 18. I, 2. fGen. 18.13,14. fGen.iS. 16-23, 33- Gen. 19. i, 10, i6-28(om.26). D. 58, f (v.l.) Gen. 28.13-19. +(v. 1.) Gen. 31. 10-13. Variant. Dial.lO,fGen.i7. 14. D. 59, Gen. 35. i. Remarks. free quotation (Credner). free quotation(Cr.) free quotation(Cr-) ver. 2 repeated similarly, repeated, slightly more divergent. marked exactness in the whole passage. note for exactness, free quotation(Cr.) ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY Exact. D. 52, Gen. 49 8-12. D. 59, Ex. 2. 23. D. 60, Ex. 3. 2- 4 f D. 16, Lev. 26. 40, 41 (v.l.) D. 126, Deut. 31. 2, 3 (v.l.) D. 74, Deut. 31. 16-18 (v.l.) D. 131, Deut. 32. 7-9 (tr.) D. 119, Deut. 32. 16-23. D. 130, Deut. 32. 43 (v.l.) A. 1.40, Ps. land 2 entire. D. 114, Ps. 8. 4. D. 27, Ps. 14. 3. D.28,Ps.i8.44,4 5 . Slightly variant. D. 59, Ex. 3. 16. D. 126, Ex. 6. 2-4 D. 75, Ex. 23. 20, 21. D. 126, Num. n. 23- D. 106, Num. 24. 17- D. 20, Deut. 32. 15. D. 91, fDeut. 33. D.97, Ps. 3. 5,6. Variant. A. 1. 62, Ex. 3. 5 A. 1. 63, Ex. 3. 16 D. 49, Ex. 17. 16. D. 94, Ex. 20. 4. D. 20, Ex. 32. 6. A. 1. 60 (or. obi.), D. 94, Num. 21. 8,9. D. 16, Deut. 10. 16, 17. D. 96, Deut. 21.23 Deut. 27.26. Remarks. repeated similarly. from memory(Cr.) ver. 1 6freelyquoted (Cr.) (iprjTai Trot/. freequotation(Cr.) ditto (Cr.). from Lectionary (Cr.) free (Cr.) free (Cr.) through Targum (Cr.) from memory(Cr.) both precisely as St. Paul in Galatians, and quoted thence (Cr.) Targum (Cr.) jarts repeated. repeated, more freely. IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 43 Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. D. 64, Ps. 19. 1-6 perhaps from dif- (A.1.40,vv.i-5) ferent MSS., see Credner. D. 97 ff., Ps. 22 quoted as whole 1-23. Psalm (bis). D. 133 ff, Ps. 24 entire. D. 141, Ps. 32. 2. D.38,Ps.45.i-i7. parts repeated. D. 37, Ps. 47. 6-9. D. 22, Ps.49 entire. "}*" /from Eph. 4. 8, \ Targum. D. 34, Ps-72 entire. D. 124, Ps. 82 entire. D.73, Ps. 96 entire. note Christian in- D. 37, Ps. 99 entire. terpolation in ver. 10. D.32,Ps.i 10 entire. D. 83, Ps. 1 1 o.i -4. from memory(Cr.) D. 110, Ps. 128. 3. from memory(Cr.) D. 85, Ps. 148.1, 2. A.I. 37, Is. i. 3, 4. A. 1. 47, Is. i. 7 sense only (Cr.) (Jer. 2. 15). D. 140 (A. 1.53), Is. i. 9. A. 1.37, Is. i.i i- from memory(Cr.) 14- A. 1. 44 (61), Is. omissions. i. 16-30. D. 82, Is. i. 23. : rom memory(Cr.) A. 1.39,13.2.3,4. D. 135, Is. 2. 5, 6. Targum (Cr.) D. 133, 13.3.9-15 (V.I.) D. 27, Is. 3. 16. "ree quotation(Cr.) D. 133, Is. 5. 1 8- repeated. D. 43 (66), Is. 7. repeated, with 10-17 ( v -l-) slight variation. A. 1.35, Is. 9. 6. free (Cr.) D. 87, Is. ii. 1-3. ;A. 1.32, Is. ii.i; ree combination Num. 24. 17. (Cr.)] D. 123, Is. 14. i. D. 123, Is. 19. 24, 44 ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY Exact. D. 79, Is. 30. 1-5. D. 50, Is. 39. 8, 40. 1-17. D. 65, 13.42.6-13 (v.l.) D. 122, Is. 43. 10. D. 121, Is. 49. 6 (v.l.) D. 122, Is. 49. 8 (v.l.) A.1.38,Is.5o.6-8. D. 11, Is. 51. 4, 5. D.17,Is.52. 5 (v.l.) D.12, 15.52,10-15, 53.1-12,54.1-6. 0.14,15.55.3-13. D. 16, Is. 57. 1-4. D. 15, Is. 58.1-11 (v.l.) 0.27,13.58.13,14. D. 25, Is. 63. 15- 19, 64. I-I2. D. 24, Is. 65. 1-3. D. 136, Is. 65. 8. D. 135,15.65.9-1 2. D. 81, 13.65.17-25. Slightly variant 0.78,15.29.13,14. 0.70,13.33.13-19. D. 69, Is. 35. 1-7. D. 123, Is. 42. 19, 20. D. 102, Is. 50. 4. A. I. 50, Is. 52. D. 26,tls.62.io- 63.6. Variant. A. 1.48, Is. 35. 5, 6. D. 1251 T D _ 135 }ls. 4 2.i- 4 . D. 122, Is. 42. 16. A. 1. 52, Is. 45. 24 (v.l.) D. 138, Is. 54. 9. [D.12, Is. 55. 3-5. [A. 1. 49, Is. 65. Remarks. repeated (v. 1.), partly from me- mory. free; cf. Matt. n. 5 (var.) ("cf.Mat.12. 17-21, \ Targum (Cr.) free (Cr.) cf. Rom. 14. n. Barn., Tert., Cypr. very free, from memory (Cr.)] repeated. so Barn., Tert, Cyp.,Amb.,Aug. HQV for from memory (Cr.)] IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 45 Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. D. 22, Is. 66. i. from memory(Cr.) D. 85, Is. 66. 5-1 1. D. 44, Is. 66. 24 from memory(Cr.) (ter). D. 114, Jer. 2. 13; as from Jeremiah, Is. 1 6. i ; Jer. traditional com- 3.8. bination ; cf. Barn. 2. D. 28, Jer. 4. 3, 4 (V.I.) D. 23, Jer. 7. 21, 22. free quotation(Cr.) D.28,Jer.9.25,26. [A. 1. 53, Jer-9.26. quoted freely (Cr.) as from Isaiah.] D. 72, Jer. n. 19. omissions. D. 78, Jer. 31. 15 so Matt. 2. 1 8 (38. 15, LXX). through Tar- gum (Cr.) D. 123, Jer. 31.27 free quotation(Cr.) (38. 27). D. 11, Jer. 31.31, 32(38.31.32). D. 72. a passage quoted as from Jere- miah, which is not recognisable in our present texts. D. 82, Ezek. 3. free quotation(Cr.) 17-19. D - *5i Ezek. 14. 44 1 2o;cf.i4, 140J 16, 18. ,-repeated simi- I larly and equally | divergent from I LXX. D. 77, Ezek. 16. 3. D. 21, Ezek. 20. 19-26. D. 123, Ezek. 36. 12. A. 1. 52, Ezek. -1 *T *. very free (Cr.) [Justin has in Dial. 31 (also in Apol. 1. 51, ver. 13, from memory) a long quotation from Daniel, Dan. 7. 9-28; 'his text can only be com- pared with a single MS. of the LXX, Codex Chisianus; from this it differs considerably, but many of the differences reappear in the version of Theodotion; 7. 10, 13 are also similarly quoted in Rev., Mark, Clem. Rom.] ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. D. 19, Hos. i. 9. D. 102, Hos. 10.6 referred to trial before Herod (Cr.) D. 87, Joel 2. 28. from memory(Cr.) D. 22, fAmos 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^Mj ca } 1 g ( precisely as D. 78 { 2. t Matt. 2. 6. A. 1.52, Zech. 2. 6 ( free quotations D. 137, Zech. 2. 8 1 (Cr.) D. 115, Zach. 2 [D. 79, Zech. 3 freely (Cr.)] 10-3. 2 (Heb.?) I, 2. D.106,Zach.6.i2 A. 1.52, Zech. 12 repeated diversely 11,12, IO. [note reading of Christian origin (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, Mai. i. D. 117, Mai. i. 10-12 (v.l.) IO-I2. D. 62, f Joshua 5. omissions. 13-15 ; 6. i, 2 (v.l.) D. 118, 2 Sam. 7. rom memory(Cr.) 14-16. D. 39, i Kings 19. freely (Cr.) ; cf. 14,15,18. Rom. n. 3. A. I. 55, Lam. 4. 20 (V. 1.) D. 61, fProv. 8. D. 79, Job i. 6. ense only (Cr.) coincidence with 21-36. Irenaeus. [D. 72 a passage ostensibly from Ezra, but probably an apocryphal addi- tion, perhaps from Preaching of Peter? same quotation in Lactantius.] IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 47 It is impossible not to be struck with the amount of matter that Justin has transferred to his pages bodily. He has quoted nine Psalms entire, and a tenth with the statement (twice repeated) that it is given entire, though really he has only quoted twenty-three verses. The later chapters of Isaiah are also given with extra- ordinary fulness. These longer passages are generally quoted accurately. If Justin's text differs from the received text of the LXX, it is frequently found that he has some extant authority for his reading. The way in which Credner has drawn out these varieties of reading, and the results which he obtained as to the relations and comparative value of the different MSS., form perhaps the most interesting feature of his work. The more marked divergences in Justin may be referred to two causes; (i) quotation from memory, in which he indulges freely, especially in the shorter passages, and more in the Apology than in the Dialogue with Tryphon ; (2) in Messianic passages the use of a Targum, not immediately by Justin himself but in some previous document from which he quotes, in order to introduce a more distinctly Christian interpretation ; the coinci- dences between Justin and other Christian writers show that the text of the LXX had been thus modified in a Christian sense, generally through a closer comparison with and nearer return to the Hebrew, before his time. The instances of free quotation are not perhaps quite fully given in the above list, but it will be seen that though they form a marked phenomenon, still more marked is the amount of exactness. Any long, not Messianic, passage, it appears to be the rule with Justin to quote exactly. Among the passages quoted freely there seem to be none of greater length than four verses. 48 ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY The exactness is especially remarkable in the plain historical narratives of the Pentateuch and the Psalms, though it is also evident that Justin had the MS. before him, and referred to, it frequently throughout the quotations from the latter part of Isaiah. Through following the arrangement of Credner we have failed to notice the cases of combination ; these however are collected by Dr. Westcott (On the Canon, p. 156). The most remarkable instance is in Apol. i. 52, where six different passages from three separate writers are in- terwoven together and assigned bodily to Zechariah. There are several more examples of mistaken ascrip- tion. The great advantage of collecting the quotations from the Old Testament is that we are enabled to do so in regard to the very same writers among whom our enquiry is to lie. We can thus form a general idea of their idiosyncracies, and we know what to expect when we come to examine a different class of quo- tations. There is, however, the element of uncertainty of which I have spoken above. We cannot be quite clear what text the writer had before him. This difficulty also exists, though to a less degree, when we come to consider quotations from the New Testament in writers of an early date whom we know to have used our present Gospels as canonical. The text of these Gospels is so comparatively fixed, and we have such abundant materials for its reconstruction, that we can generally say at once whether the writer is quoting from it freely or not. We have thus a certain gain, though at the cost of the drawback that we can no longer draw an inference as to the practice of individuals, /.Y THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 49 but merely attain to a general conclusion as to the habits of mind current in the age. This too will be subject to a deduction for the individual bent and peculiarities of the writer. We must therefore, on the whole, attach less importance to the examples under this section than under that preceding. I chose two writers to be the subject of this ex- amination almost, I may say, at random, and chiefly because I had more convenient access to their works at the time. The first of these is Irenaeus, that is to say the portions still extant in the Greek of his Treatise against Heresies ', and the second Epiphanius. Irenaeus is described by Dr. Tregelles 'as a close and careful quoter in general from the New Testament V He may therefore be taken to represent a comparatively high standard of accuracy. In the following table the quotations which are merely allusive are included in brackets : Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. I.Prsef.Matt.io.26. 1.3.2, Matt. 5. 1 8. quoted from Gno sties. 1.3.3, Mark 5. 31. Gnostics. 1.3. 5, Luke 14. 27. Valentinians. I. 3. 5, Mark 10. the same. 1.3.5, Matt. 10.34. 21 (V.I.) the same. I. 3. 5, Luke 3. 1 7. the same. 1.4.3, Matt. 10.8. [I. 6. 1, Matt. 5. 13. 14. a1 -] I. 7. 4, Matt. 8. q. Luke 7. 8. I the same. 1 The Latin translation is not in most cases a sufficient guarantee for the original text. The Greek has been preserved in the shape of long extracts by Epiphanius and others. The edition used is that of Stieren, Lipsiae, 1853- 2 Home's Introduction (ed. 1856), p. 333. ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY Exact. 1. 8. 2, Matt. 26. 38. [I. 8. 4, Luke 6. 36, al.] I. 8. 4, Luke 7. 35 (v.l.) 1. 8.5, John 1. 1, 2. I. 8. 5, John i. 3 (v.l.) I. 8. 5, John i. 4. I. 8. 5, John i. 14. I. 20. 2, Matt, ii 28 ?om.. Slightly variant. .8. 2, Matt. 26. 39. . 8. 3, Luke 9. 60, . 8. 3, Luke 19. 5, I. 8. 4, Luke 15 8, al.] :. 8. 4, Luke 2. 28 [I. 16. 1, Luke 15 8, al.] I. 20. 2, Luke 2 49- I. 20. 2, Matt. 21 23- Variant. 8.2, Matt. 27. 46. 8. 2, John 1 2. 27. 8. 3, Luke 9. 57, 58. 8.3, Luke 9.61, 62. 8. 4, Luke 15. 4, I. 8. 5, John i. 5. I. 8.5, John 1. 14 1. 14. 1, Matt. 18 10, al.] 1. 16. 3, Matt. 12 43. al.] I. 20. 2, Mark 10 18. I.20.2,Lukei9.42 1. 20. 3, Luke 10.2 1 (Matt, ii 25-) I.2l.2,Lukei2.50 Remarks. Valentinians. lie same. he same, he same, he same. he same. he same, he same, he same, he same. the same, he same. the same. the same, the same. the same. :he same. the same verse repeated differ- ently.] Marcus. Marcosians. the same. the same. ['memoriter' Stie- ren ; but comp. Clem. Horn, and Justin.] Marcosians. the same, the same. the same ; [v. 1., comp. Marcion, Clem. Horn., Justin, &c.] Marcosians. IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. Exact. III. 11. 8, John i. i-3(?)- III. 11. 8, Matt. i. i, 18 (v.l.) III. 22. 2, John 4. 6. III. 22. 2, Matt. 26. 38. V.17.4,Matt.3.io. Slightly variant. I. 21. 2, Mark 10. 36. III. 11. 8, Mark i. I, 2. IV. 26. 1, 1 Matt. IV. 40. 3, J 13-38- IV. 40. 3, Matt. 13- 25- Variant. V. 36. 2, John 14. 2 (or. obi.) Fragm. 14, Matt. Remarks. Marcosians. On the whole these quotations of Irenaeus seem fairly to deserve the praise given to them by Dr. Tregelles. Most of the free quotations, it will be seen, belong not so much to Irenaeus himself, as to the writers he is criticising. In some places (e. g. iv. 6. i, which is found in the Latin only) he expressly notes a difference of text. In this very place, however, he shows that he is quoting from memory, as he speaks of a parallel passage in St. Mark which does not exist. Elsewhere there can be little doubt that either he or the writer before him quoted loosely from memory. Thus Luke xii. 50 is given as aAAo (3dirTicompression. Manes. remarkable com- position, pro- bably from me- mory. composition. narrative. singular composi- tion. narrative. 54 ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. 218 D, Matt. 15 4-9 ; Mark 7 6-13. 224 c, Mark 7. 13 Ptolemaeans. 1045 c, Mark 14. 5I.5 2 - 115s, Luke i. 34, 144 D, Luke i. 34 35- 35 (v.l.) 154 D, Luke 2. 14. 95 A, Luke i. 76, strange composi- i7. tion. 322 D, Luke 5. 14 / Marcion. (v.l.) 155 A B, Luke 2. 48, 49. 155 c, Luke 3. 23. 154 D, Luke 2. n. 181 c, Luke 3. 17. Valentinians. 428 D, Luke 1. 1-4. 205 D, Luke 8. 10; Mark 4. II; Matt. 13. n. 325 A, Luke 7. 27. Marcion. 325 B, Luke 7. 36- the same. 38. 326 D, Luke 8. 23 ; Matt. 8. 26. the same (and Epi- phanius ?). 194 D, Luke 9. 58. 194 D, Luke 9.61. Valentinians. the same. 194 D, Luke 9. 62. the same. 254 c, Luke 10. Vtarcosians. 21, 22 ; Matt. II. 25-27. 255 B, Luke 1 2. 50. the same. [These last five quotations have already been given under Irenaeus, whom Epiphanius is transcribing.] composition. 464 D, Luke 12.9; Matt. 10. 33. 181 B, Luke 14. 27. 401 A, Luke 2 1. 34. 143 c, Luke 24. 42 (v.l.) 349 c, Luke 24. 38, 39- Valentinians. Marcion. 7.Y THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. 55 Exact. 384 B.John 1. 1-3. 148 A, John i. 23. 59 c, John 5. 46. 66 c. John 5. 17. 919 c, John 14.10. 92 ID, John 17. 3. Slightly variant. Variant. 148 B, John 2. 16, 17- 89 c, John 3. 12. 274 A, John 3. 14. 919 A, John 5. 18. 89 D, John 6. 53. 279 D, John 6. 70. 463 D, John 8. 40. 75 c, John 14. 6. 1 19 D, John 1 8. 36. 162 B, John 5. 8. 117 D, John 6. 15. 279 B, John 8. 44. 148 B, John 12.41. 153 A, John 1 2. 22. 279 D, John 17, II, 12. Remarks. Gnostics. the same. Theodotus. It is impossible here not to notice the very large amount of freedom in the quotations. The exact quo- tations number only fifteen, the slightly variant thirty- seven, and the markedly variant forty. By far the larger portion of this last class and several instances in the second it seems most reasonable to refer to the habit of quoting from memory. This is strikingly illustrated by the passage 117 D, where the retreat of Jesus and His disciples to Ephraim is treated as a con- sequence of the attempt ' to make Him king ' (John vi. 15), though in reality it did not take place till after the raising of Lazarus and just before the Last Passover (see John xi. 54). A very remarkable case of com- bination is found in 36 B c, where a single quotation is made up of a cento of no less than six separate passages taken from all three Synoptic Gospels and 56 ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY in the most broken order. Fusions so complete as this are usually the result of unconscious acts of the mind, i.e. of memory. A curious instance of the way in which the Synoptic parallels are blended together in a compound which differs from each and all of them is presented in 437 D (rw /SAao-^ryjuowTi ds TO TO ayiov OVK d$07jv. Vii. 12. irdvra ovv a>s TTOU'ITC ovra Troirj- vi. 31. Kal KaQws oo-a tav BeXijTf iva OfafTai i^uv. tfe'Xere Iva TTOIOXTIV noiaxnv vfuv oi avd. v^v ol avdpanrot KOI THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 63 Matt. v. 7, vi. 14, vii. Clem, ad Cor. c. xiii. Luke vi. 36, 37, 31, 12, 2. 38, 37. OUTWS (cat v/ms TroteTrf v/itft? Troiftre avrols airrols. ofwicos. r fii'Sore OVTWS So- vi. 38. Si'Sorc, KQI &T](TfTai V[UV. do0r)CTTCU V/JUV. vii. 2. fvqtyap Kpt- ob? Kpiverf OVTVS vi. 37. *"*' /? K P'" pan KpivfTfKpidfjcrfcrdf. KpidrjfffTat, vfuv. vtre KCU ov e ourws vfj.v. KCU fi> w nerpu) (p p-eTpai peTpeire *v VI. 38- r< p 7 a P fitTpdre nfTpr)6r)crtTai aurw fj.fTpr)6t) fj.tr pdre avri- vfj.lv. ft,eTprj6r](TTai vplv. We are to determine whether this quotation was taken from the Canonical Gospels. Let us try to balance the arguments on both sides as fairly as pos- sible. Dr. Lightfoot writes in his note upon the passage as follows : ' As Clement's quotations are often very loose, we need not go beyond the Canonical Gospels for the source of this passage. The resemblance to the original is much closer here, than it is for instance in his account of Rahab above, 12. The hypothesis therefore that Clement derived the saying from oral tradition, or from some lost Gospel, is not needed.' (1) No doubt it is true that Clement does often quote loosely. The difference of language, taking the parallel clauses one by one, is not greater than would be found in many of his quotations from the Old Testament. (2) Supposing that the order of St. Luke is followed, there will be no greater dislocation than e. g. in the quotation from Deut. ix. 12-14 an d Exod. xxxii. (7, 8), n, 31, 32 in c. liii, and the backward order of the quotation would have a parallel in Clem. Horn. xvi. 13, where the verses Deut. xiii. 1-3, 5, 9 are quoted 64 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. in the order Deut. xiii. 1-3, 9, 5, 3, and elsewhere. The composition of a passage from different places in the same book, or more often from places in different books, such as would be the case if Clement was following Matthew, frequently occurs in his quotations from the Old Testament. (3) We have no positive evidence of the presence of this passage in any non-extant Gospel. (4) Arguments from the manner of quoting the Old Testament to the manner of quoting the New must always be to a certain extent a fortiori, for it is unde- niable that the New Testament did not as yet stand upon the same footing of respect and authority as the Old, and the scarcity of MSS. must have made it less accessible. In the case of converts from Judaism, the Old Testament would have been largely committed to memory in youth, while the knowledge of the New would be only recently acquired. These considerations seem to favour the hypothesis that Clement is quoting from our Gospels. But on the other hand it may be urged, (i) that the parallel adduced by Dr. Lightfoot, the story of Rahab, is not quite in point, because it is narrative, and nar- rative both in Clement and the other writers of his time is dealt with more freely than discourse. (2) The pas- sage before us is also of greater length than is usual in Clement's free quotations. I doubt whether as long a piece of discourse can be found treated with equal freedom, unless it is the two doubtful cases in c. viii and c. xxix. (3) It will not fail to be noticed that the passage as it stands in Clement has a roundness, a com- pactness, a balance of style, which give it an individual and independent appearance. Fusions effected by an unconscious process of thought are, it is true, sometimes THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 65 marked by this completeness ; still there is a difficulty in supposing the terse antitheses of the Clementine ver- sion to be derived from the fuller, but more lax and dis- connected, sayings in our Gospels. (4) It is noticed in ' Supernatural Religion l ' that the particular phrase has at least a partial parallel in Justin xp-qarol KOL olKrippnvts) , though it has none in the Canonical Gospels. This may seem to point to a docu- mentary source no longer extant. Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we only knew what was the common original of the two Synoptic texts. How do they come to be so like and yet so different as they are ? How do they come to be so strangely broken up ? The triple synopsis, which has to do more with narrative, presents less difficulty, but the problem raised by these fragmentary parallelisms in discourse is dark and complex in the extreme ; yet if it were only solved it would in all probability give us the key to a wide class of phenomena. The differences in these extra-canonical quotations do not exceed the differences between the Synoptic Gospels themselves ; yet by far the larger proportion of critics regard the resemblances in the Synoptics as due to a common written source used either by all three or by two of them. The critics have not however, I believe, given any satisfactory explanation of the state of dispersion in which the fragments of this latter class are found. All that can be at present done is to point out that the solution of this problem and that of such quota- tions as the one discussed in Clement hang together, and that while the one remains open the other must also. 1 i. p. 226. F 66 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Looking at the arguments on both sides, so far as we can give them, I incline on the whole to the opinion that Clement is not quoting directly from our Gospels, but I am quite aware of the insecure ground on which this opinion rests. It is a nice balance of probabilities, and the element of ignorance is so large that the con- clusion, whatever it is, must be purely provisional. Any- thing like confident dogmatism on the subject seems to me entirely out of place. Very much the same is to be said of the second pas- sage in c. xlvi compared with Matt. xxvi. 24, xviii. 6, or Luke xvii. I, 2. It hardly seems necessary to give the passage in full, as this is already done in ' Super- natural Religion,' and it does not differ materially from that first quoted, except that it is less complicated and the supposition of a quotation from memory somewhat easier. The critic indeed dismisses the question sum- marily enough. He says that ' the slightest comparison of the passage with our Gospels is sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mind that it is neither a combination of texts nor a quotation from memory 1 .' But this very confident assertion is only the result of the hasty and superficial examination that the author has given to the facts. He has set down the impression that a modern might receive, at the first blush, without having given any more extended study to the method of the patristic quotations. I do not wish to impute blame to him for this, because we are all sure to take up some points superficially; but the misfortune is that he has spent his labour in the wrong place. He has, in a manner, revived the old ecclesiastical argument from authority by heaping together references, not always quite di- 1 i. p. 228. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 67 gested and sifted, upon points that often do not need them, and he has neglected that consecutive study of the originals which alone could imbue his mind with their spirit and place him at the proper point of view for his enquiry. The hypothesis that Clement's quotation is made mcmoriter from our Gospel is very far from being inadmissible. Were it not that the other passage seems to lean the other way, I should be inclined to regard it as quite the most probable solution. Such a fusion is precisely what would and frequently docs take place in quoting from memory. It is important to notice the key phrases in the quotation. The opening phrases oval TO) avOptotTip e/cetva)' Ka\bu i)v avra> et OVK yfvvr\Qr\ are found exactly (though with omissions) in Matt. xxvi. 24. Clement has in common with the Synoptists all the more marked expressions but two, 0Kavba.\iaai (-077 Synoptics), the unusual word fj.v\os (Matt., Mark), Kara-novncrOrivai (-drj Matt.), et's Ti]i< QaXava-av (Mark, Luke), Zva T&V /ii/cp<3i> OXOL- Clement, TOV'TUV Synoptics). He differs from them, so far as phraseology is concerned, only in writing once (the second time he agrees with the Synoptics) TUV eK\(KT&v IJLOV for T&V [j.iKpu>v TovTwv, by an easy paraphrase, and TTfpireOrivai where Mark and Luke have -rrept'icetrai and Matthew Kpe/xao-0/}. But on the other hand, it should be noticed that Matthew has, besides this variation, tv TW -rreAayei TIJS 0aAao- oro/ian aiirov KCU kv rots \ft\ecriv avrutv Tijmoxny [if. Clement has the passage exactly as it is given in Mark (6 Aaos OVTOS Matt.), except that he writes uTreortv where both of the Gospels have cnre'xei with the LXX. The passage is not Messianic, so that the variation cannot be referred to a Targum ; and though A. and six other MSS. in Holmes and Parsons omit fv rw oro'/icm avrov (through wrong punctuation Credner), still there is no MS. authority whatever, and naturally could not be, for the omission of eyyifet JU.GI . . /cat and for the change of rt/xcoo-tf to rt/za. There can be little doubt that this was a free quotation in the original of the Synoptic Gospels, and it is in a high degree probable that it has passed through them into Clement 1 Der Ursprung, p. 138. 70 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. of Rome. It might perhaps be suggested that Clement was possibly quoting the earlier document, the original of our Synoptics, but this suggestion seems to be ex- cluded both by his further deviation from the LXX in aTreoru;, and also by the phenomena of the last quotation we have been discussing, which are certainly of a secondary character. Altogether I cannot but regard this passage as the strongest evidence we possess for the use of the Synoptic Gospels by Clement ; it seems to carry the presumption that he did use them up to a considerable degree of probability. It is rather singular that Volkmar, whose speculations about the Book of Judith we have seen above, should be so emphatic as he is in asserting the use of all three Synoptics by Clement. We might almost, though not quite, apply with a single change to this critic a sentence originally levelled at Tischendorf, to the intent that ' he systematically adopts the latest (earliest) possible or impossible dates for all the writings of the first two centuries,' but he is able to admit the use of the third and fourth Synoptics (the publication of which he places respectively in 100 and no A.D.) by throwing forward the date of Clement's Epistle, through the Judith-hypothesis, to A.D. 125. We may however accept the assertion for what it is worth, as coming from a mind something less than impartial, while we reject the concomitant theories. For my own part I do not feel able to speak with quite the same confidence, and yet upon the whole the evi- dence, which on a single instance might seem to incline the other way, does appear to favour the conclusion that Clement used our present Canonical Gospels. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 71 2. There is not, so far as I am aware, any reason to complain of the statement of opinion in ' Supernatural Religion' as to the date of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas. Arguing then entirely from authority, we may put the terminus ad quern at about 130 A. D. The only writer who is quoted as placing it later is Dr. Donaldson, who has perhaps altered his mind in the later edition of his work, as he now writes : ' Most (critics) have been inclined to place it not later than the first quarter of the second century, and all the indica- tions of a date, though very slight, point to this period 1 .' The most important issue is raised on a quotation in c. iv, 'Many are called but few chosen,' in the Greek of the Codex Sinaiticus [7ipoM>, //.jjTTore, o>s yeypctTrrai], TroAAoi KATJTOI, oAi'yoi 8e CK\fKTol evpe0ly*as OVK l^ct lAeyxoy there is no verifying that about which we know nothing. The critic may multiply Gospels as much as he pleases and an apologist at least will not quarrel with him, but it would be more to the point if he could prove the existence in these lost writings of matter conflicting with that contained in the extant Gospels. As it is, the only result of these unverifiable hypotheses is to raise up confirmatory documents in a quarter where apologists have not hitherto claimed them. We are delaying, however, too long upon points of quite secondary importance. Two more passages are ad- duced ; one, an application of Ps. ex (The Lord said unto my Lord) precisely as in Matt. xxii. 44, and the other a saying assigned to our Lord, ' They who wish to see me and lay hold on my kingdom must receive me through affliction and suffering.' Of neither of these can we speak positively. There is perhaps a slight probability that the first was suggested by our Gospel, and con- sidering the character of the verifiable quotations in Barnabas, which often follow the sense only and not the words, the second may be 'a free reminiscence of Matt. xvi. 24 compared with Acts xiv. 22,' but it is also possible that it may be a saying quoted from an apocryphal Gospel. It should perhaps be added that Lardner and Dr. 76 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Westcott both refer to a quotation of Zech. xiii. 7 which appears in the common text of the Epistle in a form closely resembling that in which the quotation is given in Matt. xxvi. 3 1 and diverging from the LXX, but here again the Sinaitic Codex varies, and the text is too uncertain to lay stress upon, though perhaps the addition rrjs Troi^.vr]s may incline the balance to the view that the text of the Gospel has influenced the form of the quotation 1 . The general result of our examination of the Epistle of Barnabas may perhaps be stated thus, that while not supplying by itself certain and conclusive proof of the use of our Gospels, still the phenomena accord better with the hypothesis of such a use. This Epistle stands in the second line of the evidence, and as a witness is rather confirmatory than principal. 3- After Dr. Lightfoot's masterly exposition there is pro-' bably nothing more to be said about the genuineness, date, and origin of the Ignatian Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot has done in the most lucid and admirable manner just that which is so difficult to do, and which ' Supernatural Religion ' has so signally failed in doing ; he has suc- ceeded in conveying to the reader a true and just sense of the exact weight and proportion of the different parts of the evidence. He has avoided such phrases as 'absurd,' 'impossible,' 'preposterous,' that his opponent has dealt in so freely, but he has weighed and balanced the evidence piece by piece ; he has carefully guarded his language so as never to let the positiveness of his 1 Lardner, Credibility, &c., ii. p. 23 ; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 50, n. 5. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 77 conclusion exceed what the premises will warrant ; he has dealt with the subject judicially and with a full consciousness of the responsibility of his position 1 . We cannot therefore, I think, do better than adopt Dr. Lightfoot's conclusion as the basis of our investi- gation, and treat the Curetonian (i. e. the three short Syriac) letters as (probably) 'the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the Vossian letters (i. e. the shorter Greek recension of seven Epistles) are accepted as valid testimony at all events for the middle of the second century the question of the genuineness of the letters being waived.' The Curetonian Epistles will then be dated either in 107 or in 115 A.D., the two alternative years assigned to the martyrdom of Ignatius. In the Epistle to Polycarp which is given in this version there is a parallel to Matt. x. 1 6, 'Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.' The two passages may be compared thus : Ign. ad Pol. ii. Matt. x. 16. <&p6vip.os yivov coy ofpis fv ana- Tivf&df ovv (ppovipoi cas oi CTIV KOL aKfpaios cocret Trepiarfpa. otpeis KOI OKtpaun coy at Trepicrrepai. We should naturally place this quotation in the second column of our classified arrangement, as pre- 1 Since this was written the author of ' Supernatural Religion ' has replied in the preface to his sixth edition. He has stated his case in the ablest possible manner : still I do not think that there is anything to retract in what has been written above. There would have been something to retract if Dr. Lightfoot had maintained positively the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles. As to the Syriac, the question seems to me to stand thus. On the one side are certain improbabilities I admit, improbabilities, though not of the weightiest kind which are met about half way by the parallel cases quoted. On the other hand, there is the express testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp quoted in its turn by Irenaeus. Now I cannot think that there is any improbability so great (considering our ignorance) as not to be outweighed by this external evidence. 78 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. senting a slight variation. At the same time we should have little hesitation in referring it to the passage in our Canonical Gospel. All the marked expressions are identical, especially the precise and selected words i/^o9 and a/cepaios. It is however possible that Ignatius may be quoting, not directly from our Gospel, but from one of the original documents (such as Ewald's hypothetical ' Spruch-sammlung ') out of which our Gospel was composed though it is somewhat remark- able that this particular sentence is wanting in the parallel passage in St. Luke (cf. Luke x. 3). This may be so or not ; we have no means of judging. But it should at any rate be remembered that this original document, supposing it to have had a substantive exist- ence, most probably contained repeated references to miracles. The critics who refer Matt. x. 16 to the document in question, also agree in referring to it Matt. vii. 22, x. 8, xi. 5, xii. 24 foil., &c., which speak distinctly of miracles, and precisely in that indirect manner which is the best kind of evidence. Therefore if we accept the hypothesis suggested in ' Supernatural Religion ' and it is a mere hypothesis, quite unverifiable the evidence for miracles would not be materially weak- ened. The author would, I suppose, admit that it is at least equally probable that the saying was quoted from our present Gospel. This probability would be considerably heightened if the allusion to 'the star' in the Syriac of Eph. xix has, as it appears to have, reference to the narrative of Matt. ii. In the Greek or Vossian version of the Epistle it is expanded, ' How then was He manifested to the ages ? A star shone in heaven above all the stars, and the light thereof was unspeakable, and the strangeness THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 79 thereof caused astonishment' (ITcSs ovv f(pavcpd>6ri rots aluxTiv ; ^Atrn/p ev ovpavS> lAa/x\|fep VTiep iravras TOVS darepas, not TO (p&s avrou avfK\d\rjToi> rjv, KCU ^VKT^OV Trapet^e^ rj KaivoTris avrov) , This is precisely, one would suppose, the kind of passage that might be taken as internal evidence of the genuineness of the Curetonian and later character of the Vossian version. The Syriac (ariva. Iv ?/ore fj.rj ^atVecr^at arrows. Both in the Protevangelium and in the Vossian Ignatius we see what is clearly a developement of the narrative in St. Matthew. If the Vossian Epistles are genuine, then by showing the existence of such a developement at so early a date they will tend to throw back still further the composition of the Canonical Gospel. If the Syriac version, on the other hand, is the genuine one, it will be probable that Ignatius is directly alluding to the narrative which is peculiar to the first Evangelist. These are (so far as I am aware) the only coincidences that are found in the Curetonian version. Their paucity cannot surprise us, as in the same Curetonian text there is not a single quotation from the Old Testament. One Old Testament quotation and two Evangelical allusions occur in the Epistle to the Ephesians, which is one of the three contained in Cureton's MS. ; the fifth and sixth chapters, however, in which they are found, are wanting in the Syriac. The allusions are, in Eph. v, 80 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. ' For if the prayer of one or two have such power, how much more that of the bishop and of the whole Church,' which appears to have some relation to Matt, xviii. 19 (' If two of you shall agree' &c.), and in Eph. vi, ' For all whom the master of the house sends to be over his own household we ought to receive as we should him that sent him,' which may be compared with Matt. x. 40 ('He that receiveth you' &c.). Both these allusions have some probability, though neither can be regarded as at all certain. The Epistle to the Trallians has one coincidence in c. xi, 'These are not plants of the Father' (vreia) that my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.' This is a marked metaphor, and it is not found in the other Synop- tics ; it is therefore at least more probable that it is taken from St. Matthew. The same must be said of another remarkable phrase in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, c. vi, 6 xti>p>v x^peirco (6 bwdpfvos \wpeiv \u>peiTM, Matt. xix. 12), and also of the statement in c. i. of the same Epistle that Jesus was baptized by John ' that He might fulfil all righteousness' (tva Ti\rip(t)0fi iraaa biKaioa-vvr) v~' avrov). This corresponds with the language of Matt, iii. 15 (ovrws yap iiptiiov eortv fjiuv irXrjpSxTaL -nacrav biKaioavvriv), which also has no parallel in the other Gospels. The use of the phrase TrXripuxrai Tiacrav btKaioavvrjv is so peculiar, and falls in so entirely with the cha- racteristic Christian Judaizing of our first Evangelist, that it seems especially unreasonable to refer it to any one else. There is not the smallest particle of evidence to connect it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews to which our author seems to hint that it may belong ; indeed all that we know of that Gospel may be said THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 8 1 almost positively to exclude it. In this Gospel our Lord is represented as saying, when His mother and His brethren urge that He should accept baptism from John, 'What have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him?' and it is almost by compulsion that He is at last induced to accompany them. It will be seen that this is really an opposite version of the event to that of Ignatius and the first Gospel, where the objection comes from John and is overruled by our Lord Himself 1 . There is however one quotation, introduced as such, in this same Epistle, the source of which Eusebius did not know, but which Origen refers to the ' Preaching of Peter' and Jerome seems to have found in the Nazarene version of the ' Gospel according to the Hebrews.' This phrase is attributed to our Lord when He appeared ' to those about Peter and said to them, Handle Me and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit' (x//^\a$?7 Kai TI&VT&V r&v fv vTTepox^ SvTonv). The passage is wrongly referred in 'Supernatural Religion' to I Pet. ii. I/ 1 . It is very clear that the language of Polycarp, like that of St. Paul, is quite general. In order to limit it to the two Caesars we should have had to read vnep The allusions which Schwegler finds to the Gnostic heresies are explained when that critic at the end of his argument objects to the Epistle that it makes use of a number of writings 'the origin of which must be placed in the second century, such as the Acts, i Peter, the Epistles to the Philippians and to the Ephesians, and i Timothy.' The objection belongs to the gigantic confusion of fact and hypothesis which makes up the so-called Tubingen theory, and falls to the ground with it. It should be noticed that those who regard the Epistle as interpolated yet maintain the genuineness of those portions which are thought to contain allusions to the Gospels. Ritschl states this 2 ; Dr. Donaldson confines the interpolation to c. xiii 3 ; and Volkmar not only affirms with his usual energy the genuineness of these portions of the Epistle, but he also asserts that the allusions are really to our Gospels 4 . The first that meets us is in c. ii, ' Remembering what the Lord said teaching, Judge not that ye be not judged ; 1 Cf. S. R. i. p. 278. z Ent. d. a. K. pp. 593, 599. * Apostolical Fathers, p. 227 sq. * Ur sprung, pp. 43, 131. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 85 forgive and it shall be forgiven unto you ; pity that ye may be pitied ; with what measure ye mete it shall be measured unto you again ; and that blessed are the poor and those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God V This passage (if taken from our Gospels) is not a continuous quotation, but is made up from Luke vi. 36-38, 20, Matt. v. 10, or of still more disjecta membra of St. Matthew. It will be seen that it covers very similar ground with the quotation in Clement, and there is also a somewhat striking point of similarity with that writer in the phrase eAeetre tva eAerjtfT/re. There is moreover a closer re- semblance than to our Gospels in the clause d^tere /cai a$e07j 6 Kvpios oiodcntcav ^ Kpivtrt tva JUT) KpiOrJTC d(pi(T( Kal cupfOrjatTat vfttv i\ttirf 'iva t\(rj6rJTC kv ptTpy /uerpefre, avn- fj.fTpr}8riff(Tat vfj.iv Kal on (MKOpiot ol irreaxoi Kal of Sicax6/j.fvoi ivetctv StKaio- ovwjs, on CLVTUI> torlv 77 &acri\fia rov &fov. 86 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. strange coincidence in the single clause with Clement ; and there is also another curious phenomenon, the phrase d^u'ere KOI d$e07707jo-eo-0e has very much the appearance of a parallel translation from the same Aramaic original, which may perhaps be the famous ' Spruch-sammlung.' This might however be explained as the substitution of synonymous terms by the memory. There is I believe nothing in the shape of direct evidence to show the presence of a different version of the Sermon on the Mount in any of the lost Gospels, and, on the other hand, there are considerable traces of disturbance in the Canonical text (compare e.g. the various readings on Matt. v. 44). It seems on the whole difficult to construct a theory that shall meet all the facts. Perhaps a mixed hypothesis would be best. It is probable that memory has been to some extent at work (the form of the quotation naturally suggests this) and is to account for some of Polycarp's variations ; at the same time I cannot but think that there has been somewhere a written version different from our Gospels to which he and Clement have had access. There are several other sayings which seem to belong to the Sermon on the Mount ; thus in c. vi, ' If we pray the Lord to forgive us we also ought to forgive' (cf. Matt. vi. 14 sq.) ; in c. viii, ' And if we suffer for His name let us glorify Him' (cf. Matt. v. n sq.) ; in c. xii, 'Pray for them that persecute you and hate you, and for the enemies of the cross ; that your fruit may be manifest in all things, that ye may be therein perfect ' (cf. Matt. v. 44, 48) . All these passages give the sense, but only the sense, of the first (and partly also of the third) Gospel. There is however one quotation which coincides THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 87 verbally with two of the Synoptics [Praying the all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation, as the Lord said], The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak (TO juey TTvtifjia Tip6dviJ.ov, i] 8e va.pt; avOfvi'is, Matt., Mark, Polycarp ; with the introductory clause compare, not Matt. vi. 13, but xxvi. 41). In the cases where the sense alone is given there is no reason to think that the writer intends to give more. At the same time it will be observed that all the quotations refer either to the double or triple synopsis where we have already proof of the existence of the saying in question in more than a single form, and not to those portions that are peculiar to the individual Evangelists. The author of ' Supernatural Religion' is therefore not without reason when he says that they may be derived from other collections than our actual Gospels. The possibility cannot be excluded. It ought however to be borne in mind that if such collections did exist, and if Polycarp's allusions or quo- tations are to be referred to them, they are to the same extent evidence that these hypothetical collections did not materially differ from our present Gospels, but rather bore to them very much the same relation that they bear to each other. And I do not know that we can better sum up the case in regard to the Apostolic Fathers than thus ; we have two alternatives to choose between, either they made use of our present Gospels, or else of writings so closely resembling our Gospels and so nearly akin to them that their existence only proves the essential unity and homogeneity of the evangelical tradition. CHAPTER IV. JUSTIN MARTYR. HITHERTO the extant remains of Christian literature have been scanty and the stream of evangelical quo- tation has been equally so, but as we approach the middle of the second century it becomes much more abundant. We have copious quotations from a Gospel used about the year 140 by Marcion ; the Clemen- tine Homilies, the date of which however is more uncertain, also contain numerous quotations ; and there are still more in the undoubted works of Justin Martyr. When I speak of quotations, I do not wish to beg the question by implying that they are necessarily taken from our present Gospels, I merely mean quotations from an evangelical document of some sort. This reservation has to be made especially in regard to Justin. Strictly according to the chronological order we should not have to deal with Justin until somewhat later, but it will perhaps be best to follow the order of ' Supernatural Religion,' the principle of which appears JUSTIN MARTYR. to be to discuss the orthodox writers first and heretical writings afterwards. Modern critics seem pretty gene- rally to place the two Apologies in the years 147-1 50 A. D. and the Dialogue against Tryphon a little later. Dr. Keim indeed would throw forward the date of Justin's writings as far as from 155-160 on account of the mention of Marcion l , but this is decided by both Hilgenfeld 2 and Lipsius to be too late. I see that Mr. Hort, whose opinion on such matters deserves high respect, comes to the conclusion ' that we may without fear of considerable error set down Justin's First Apology to 145, or better still to 146, and his death to 148. The Second Apology, if really separate from the First, will then fall in 146 or 147, and the Dialogue with Tryphon about the same time V No definite conclusion can be drawn from the title given by Justin to the work or works he used, that of the 'Memoirs' or 'Recollections' of the Apostles, and it will be best to leave our further enquiry quite unfettered by any assumption in respect to them. The title certainly does not of necessity imply a single work composed by the Apostles collectively 4 , any more than the parallel phrase ' the writings of the Prophets 5 ' (TO, (rvyypa^ara T>V TipofyrjT&v), which Justin couples with the ' Memoirs ' as read together in the public services of the Church, implies a single and joint production on the part of the Prophets. This hypothesis too is 1 Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, i. p. 138, n. 2. 2 Einleitung in das N. T. p. 66, where Lipsius' view is also quoted. 3 Cf. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 88, n. 4. * As appears to be suggested in S. R. L p. 292. The reference in the note to Bleek, EM. p. 637 (and Ewald?), does not seem to be exactly to the point. & Apol. i. 67. 90 JUSTIN MARTYR. ' open to the very great objection that so authoritative a work, if it existed, should have left absolutely no other trace behind it. So far as the title is concerned, the ' Memoirs of the Apostles' may be either a single work or an almost indefinite number. In one place Justin says that the Memoirs were composed 'by His Apostles and their followers 1 ,' which seems to agree remarkably, though not exactly, with the statement in the prologue to St. Luke. In another he says expressly that the Memoirs are called Gospels (a /caXeiTcu e^ayyeAta) 2 . This clause has met with the usual fate of parenthetic statements which do not quite fall in with preconceived opinions, and is dismissed as a ' manifest interpolation,' a gloss having crept into the text from the margin. It would be difficult to estimate the exact amount of probability for or against this theory, but possible at any rate it must be allowed to be; and though the primd facie view of the genuineness of the words is supported by another place in which a quotation is referred directly 'to the Gospel,' still too rrfuch ought not perhaps to be built on this clause alone. A convenient distinction may be drawn between the material and formal use of the Gospels ; and the most satisfactory method perhaps will be, to run rapidly through Justin's quotations, first with a view to ascertain their relation to the Canonical Gospels in respect to their general historical tenor, and secondly to examine the amount of verbal agreement. I will try to bring out as clearly as possible the double phenomena both of agreement and difference ; the former (in regard to which condensation will be necessary) will be indicated 1 Dial, c. Tryph. 103. 2 Apol. i. 66 ; cf. S. R. i. p. 294. JUSTIN MARTYR. 91 both by touching in the briefest manner the salient points and by the references in the margin ; the latter, which I have endeavoured to give as exhaustively as possible, are brought out by italics in the text. The thread of the narrative then, so far as it can be extracted from the genuine writings of Justin, will be much as follows \ According to Justin the Mes- siah was born, without sin, of a virgin who was descended from Matt. i. 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 an- nounced by the angel Gabriel Luke 1.26. that, while yet a virgin, the power of God, or of the Highest, Luke i. 35. should overshadow her and she should conceive and bear a Son Lukei. 31. Matt. i. 21. whose name she should call Jesus, because He should save His people from their sins. Joseph observing that Mary, his es- poused, was with child was Matt. 1. 1 8-25. warned in a dream not to put 1 The evangelical references and allusions in Justin have been carefully collected by Credner and Hilgenfeld, and are here thrown together in a sort of running narrative. 92 JUSTIN MARTYR. her away, because that which was in her womb was of the Holy Ghost. Thus the pro- Matt, i. 23. phecy, Is. vii. 14 (Behold the virgin &c.), was fulfilled. The mother of John the Baptist was Luke i. 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 pro- Luke 2. i, 2. ctirator (eiriTponov) of Judaea. His life extended from Cyrenius to Pontius Pilate. So, in con- sequence 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. i. 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. ii. and offered gifts of gold, frank- JUSTIN MARTYR. 93 incense 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 mean- Matt. 2.13-15. while with the Babe had fled to Egypt, for the Father re- solved that He to whom He had given birth should not die be- fore 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.i7.i2,i3. 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 94 JUSTIN MARTYR, Matt. 3.11,12. than he was coming after him Lukes. 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. ii- 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 Lukes- 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. i, 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. ii. 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 1^18.35-43. 32,^,1-8. UTJJ u i TTI.IJ Luke 1 1. 14 ff. blind, dumb, lame, He healed Luke 5. 17-26. JUSTIN MARTYR. 95 Matt. 4. 23. indeed He healed all sickness and Matt. 9. 18 ff. disease and He raised the dead. Luke 8. 41 ff. The Jews ascribed these miracles Luke 7< Ix ~ l8 - to magic. Jesus, too (like John, whose mission ceased when He appeared in public], began His ministry- Matt. 4. 17. by proclaiming that the king- dom of heaven was at hand. Many precepts of the Sermon on the Mount Justin has pre- Matt. 5. 20. served, the righteousness of the Matt. 5. 28. Scribes and Pharisees, the Matt. 5. 29-32. adultery of the heart, the offend- Matt.5-34,37, j n g eve) divorce, oaths, returning 3Q 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 Lukei2. 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. O f Capernaum and of the feast Luke 5. 32. in the house of Matthew. He Matt. 10. i ff. has, the choosing of the twelve Luke 6. 13. Apostles, with the name given Mark 3. 1 7. to the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges or 'sons of thunder,' the com- mission of the Apostles, the Luke 10. 19. Matt. ii. 12- 15. discourse after the departure of Lukei6. 16. 96 JUSTIN MARTYR. 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. j 8 ' ' I5 ~ 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. 1 9. 1 6, 1 7. the history of the rich young Luke 18.18,19. Matt. 21. iff. man, the entry into Jerusalem, Luke 19. 29 ff. the cleansing of the Temple, the Luke 19. 46. Matt. 22. ii. wedding garment, the contro- versial discourses about the Luke2o.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- 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 Luke2 2.42-44. 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 fol- lowers to a man forsook Him. Matt. 26. 57 ff. He was led both before the Luke 22. 66 ff. Scribes and Pharisees and before JUSTIN MARTYR. 97 Matt. 27. ii ff. Pilate. In the trial before Pilate Luke 23. i 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 inci- dents of the Crucifixion in detail, for confirmation of which he refers to the Acts of Pilate. He marks especially the fulfilment in va- rious places of Ps. xxii. He has the piercing with nails, the casting Luke 24. 40. Matt. 27. 35.. .of lots and dividing of the gar- Luke 23. 34. Matt. 27. 39 ff. ments, the sneers of the crowd Luke 23. 35. (somewhat expanded from the Matt. 27. 42. Synoptics), and their taunt, He who raised tJie dcad\&\. 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- 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. i ff. the day of the sun or the first Luke 24. i 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. H 98 JUSTIN MARTYR. heaven. Thus believing and having first waited to receive power from Him they went forth into all the world ajid 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- The Jews, spread a story that the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the grave and so deceived men by asserting that He was risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. There is nothing in Justin (as in Luke xxiv, but cp. Acts i. 3) to show that the Ascension did not take place on the same day as the Resurrection. I have taken especial pains in the above summary to bring out the points in which Justin may seem to differ from or add to the canonical narratives. But, without stopping at present to consider the bearing of these upon Justin's relation to the Gospels, I will at once proceed to make some general remarks which the sum- mary seems to suggest. (i) If such is the outline of Justin's Gospel, it appears to be really a question of comparatively small import- ance whether or not he made use of our present Gospels in their present form. If he did not use these Gospels he used other documents which contained substantially the same matter. The question of the reality of miracles JUSTIN MARTYR. 99 clearly is not affected. Justin's documents, whatever they were, not only contained repeated notices of the miracles in general, the healing of the lame and the paralytic, of the maimed and the dumb, and the raising of the dead not only did they include several dis- courses, such as the reply to the messengers of John and the saying to the Centurion whose servant was healed, which have direct reference to miracles, but they also give marked prominence to the chief and cardinal miracles of the Gospel history, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. It is antecedently quite possible that the narrative of these events may have been de- rived from a document other than our Gospels ; but, if so, that is only proof of the existence of further and independent evidence to the truth of the history. This document, supposing it to exist, is a surprising instance of the homogeneity of the evangelical tradition ; it differs from the three Synoptic Gospels, nay, we may say even from the four Gospels, less than they differ from each other. (2) But we may go further than this. If Justin really used a separate substantive document now lost, that document, to judge from its contents, must have repre- sented a secondary, or rather a tertiary, stage of the evangelical literature ; it must have implied the previous existence of our present Gospels. I do not now allude to the presence in it of added traits, such as the cave of the Nativity and the fire on Jordan, which are of the nature of those mythical details that we find more fully developed in the Apocryphal Gospels. I do not so much refer to these though, for instance, in the case of the fire on Jordan it is highly probable that Justin's statement is a translation into literal fact of the canonical H 2 100 JUSTIN MARTYR. (and Justinian) saying, ' He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire' but, on general grounds, the relation which this supposed document bears to the extant Gospels shows that it must have been in point of time posterior to them. The earlier stages of evangelical composition present a nucleus, with a more or less defined circumference, of unity, and outside of this a margin of variety. There was a certain body of narrative, which, in whatever form it was handed down whether as oral or written at a very early date obtained a sort of general recognition, and seems to have been as a matter of course incor- porated in the evangelical works as they appeared. Besides this there was also other matter which, without such general recognition, had yet a considerable circu- lation, and, though not found in all, was embodied in more than one of the current compilations. But, as we should naturally expect, these two classes did not exhaust the whole of the evangelical matter. Each successive historian found himself able by special re- searches to add something new and as yet unpublished to the common stock. Thus, the first of our present Evangelists has thirty-five sections or incidents besides the whole of the first two chapters peculiar to himself. The third Evangelist has also two long chapters of pre- liminary history, and as many as fifty-six sections or incidents which have no parallel in the other Gospels. Much of this peculiar matter in each case bears an individual and characteristic stamp. The opening chapters of the first and third Synoptics evidently contain two distinct and independent traditions. So independent indeed are they, that the negative school of critics maintain them to be irreconcilable, and the JUSTIN MARTYR. 1O1 attempts to harmonise them have certainly not been completely successful 1 . These differences, however, show what rich quarries of tradition were open to the enquirer in the first age of Christianity, and how readily he might add to the stores already accumulated by his predecessors. But this state of things did not last long. As in most cases of the kind, the productive period soon ceased, and the later writers had a choice of two things, either to harmonise the conflicting records of previous historians, or to develope their details in the manner that we find in the Apocryphal Gospels. But if Justin used a single and separate document or any set of documents independent of the canonical, then we may say with confidence that that document or set of documents belonged entirely to this secondary stage. It possesses both the marks of secondary forma- tion. Such details as are added to the previous evan- gelical tradition are just of that character which we find in the Apocryphal Gospels. But these details are com- paratively slight and insignificant ; the main tendency of Justin's Gospel (supposing it to be a separate compo- sition) was harmonistic. The writer can hardly have been ignorant of our Canonical Gospels ; he certainly had access, if not to them, yet to the sources, both general and special, from which they are taken. He not only drew from the main body of the evangelical tradition, but also from those particular and individual strains which appear in the first and third Synoptics. He has done this in the spirit of a true desultor, passing backwards and forwards first to one and then to the 1 This was written before the appearance of Mr. M Clellan's important work on the Four Gospels (The New Testament, vol. i, London, 1875), to which I have not yet had time to give the study that it deserves. 102 JUSTIN MARTYR. other, inventing no middle links, but merely piecing together the two accounts as best he could. Indeed the preliminary portions of Justin's Gospel read very much like the sort of rough prima facie harmony which, without any more profound study, most people make for themselves. But the harmonising process neces- sarily implies matter to harmonise, and that matter must have had the closest possible resemblance to the contents of our Gospels. If, then, Justin made use either of a single document or set of documents distinct from those which have become canonical, we conclude that it or they belonged to a later and more advanced stage of formation. But it should be remembered that the case is a hypothetical one. The author of ' Supernatural Religion ' seems inclined to maintain that Justin did use such a docu- ment or documents, and not our Gospels. If he did, then the consequence above stated seems to follow. But I do not at all care to press this inference ; it is no more secure than the premiss upon which it is founded. Only it seems to me that the choice lies between two alternatives and no more ; either Justin used our Gospels, or else he used a document later than our Gospels and presupposing them. The reader may take which side of the alternative he pleases. The question is, which hypothesis best covers and explains the facts. It is not impossible that Justin may have had a special Gospel such as has just been described. There is a tendency among those critics who assign Justin's quotations to an uncanonical source to find that source in the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews or some of its allied forms. But a large majority of critics regard the Gospel according to the JUSTIN MARTYR. 103 Hebrews as holding precisely this secondary relation to the canonical Matthew. Justin's document can hardly have been the Gospel according to the Hebrews, at least alone, as that Gospel omitted the section Matt. i. 18- ii. 23 \ .which Justin certainly retained. But it is within the bounds of possibility it would be hazardous to say more that he may have had another Gospel so modified and compiled as to meet all the conditions of the case. For my own part, I think it decidedly the more probable hypothesis that he used our present Gospels with some peculiar document, such as this Gospel according to the Hebrews, or perhaps, as Dr. Hilgenfeld thinks, the ground document of the Gospel according to Peter (a work of which we know next to nothing except that it favoured Docetism and was not very unlike the Canonical Gospels) and the Protevangelium of James (or some older docu- ment on which that work was founded) in addition. It will be well to try to establish this position a little more in detail ; and therefore I will proceed to collect first, the evidence for the use, either mediate or direct, of the Synoptic Gospels, and secondly, that for the use of one or more Apocryphal Gospels. We still keep to the substance of Justin's Gospel, and reserve the question of its form. Of those portions of the first Synoptic which appear to be derived from a peculiar source, and for the presence of which we have no evidence in any other Gospel of the same degree of originality, Justin has the following : Joseph's suspicions of his wife, the special statement of the significance of the name Jesus ('for He shall save 1 Unless indeed it was found in one of the many forms of the Gospel (cf. S. R. i. p. 436, and p. 141 below). The section appears in none of the forms reproduced by Dr. Hilgenfeld (N. T. extra Can. Recept. Fasc. iv). 104 JUSTIN MARTYR. His people from their sins,' Matt. i. 21, verbally iden- tical), the note upon the fulfilment of the prophecy Is. vii. 14 (' Behold a virgin,' &c.), the visit of the Magi guided by a star, their peculiar gifts, their consultation of Herod and the warning given them not to return to him, the massacre of the children at Bethlehem, fulfilling Jer. xxxi, 15, the descent into Egypt, the return of the Holy Family at the succession of Archelaus. The Temp- tations Justin gives in the order of Matthew. From the Sermon on the Mount he has the verses v. 14, 20, 28, vi. i, vii. 15, 21, and from the controversial dis- course against the Pharisees, xxiii. 15, 24, which are without parallels. The prophecy, Is. xlii. 1-4, is applied as by Matthew alone. There is an apparent allusion to the parable of the wedding garment. The comment of the disciples upon the identification of the Baptist with Elias (Matt. xvii. 13), the sign of the prophet Jonas (Matt. xvi. i, 4), and the triumphal entry (the ass with the colt\ show a special affinity to St. Matthew. And, lastly, in concert with the same Evangelist, Justin has the calumnious report of the Jews (Matt, xxviii. 12-15) and the baptismal formula (Matt, xxviii. 19). Of the very few details that are peculiar to St. Mark, Justin has the somewhat remarkable one of the bestow- ing of the surname Boanerges on the sons of Zebedee. Mark also appears to approach most nearly to Justin in the statements that Jesus practised the trade of a car- penter (cf. Mark vi. 3) and that He healed those who were diseased from their birth (cf. Mark ix. 21), and perhaps in the emphasis upon the oneness of God in the reply respecting the greatest commandment. In common -with St. Luke, Justin has the mission of the angel Gabriel to Mary, the statement that Elizabeth JUSTIN MARTYR. 105 was the mother of John, that the census was taken under Cyrenius, that Joseph went up from Nazareth to Beth- lehem odcv T]V, that no room was found in the inn, that Jesus was thirty years old when He began His ministry, that He was sent from Pilate to Herod, with the account of His last words. There are also special affinities in the phrase quoted from the charge to the Seventy (Luke x. 19), in the verse Luke xi. 52, in the account of the answer to the rich young man, of the institution of the Lord's Supper, of the Agony in -the Garden, and of the Resurrection and Ascension. These coincidences are of various force. Some of the single verses quoted, though possessing salient features in common, have also, as we shall see, more or less marked differences. Too much stress should not be laid on the allegation of the same prophecies, because there may have been a certain understanding among the Christians as to the prophecies to be quoted as well as the versions in which they were to be quoted. But there are other points of high importance. Just in proportion as an event is from a historical point of view suspicious, it is significant as a proof of the use of the Gospel in which it is contained ; such would be the adoration of the Magi, the slaughter of the inno- cents, the flight into Egypt, the conjunction of the foal with the ass in the entry into Jerusalem. All these are strong evidence for the use of the first Gospel, which is confirmed in the highest degree by the occurrence of a reflection peculiar to the Evangelist, 'Then the disci- ples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist' (Matt. xvii. 13, compare Dial. 49). Of the same nature are the allusions to the census of Cyre- nius (there is no material discrepancy between Luke 106 JUSTIN MARTYR. and Justin), and the statement of the age at which the ministry of Jesus began. These are almost certainly remarks by the third Evangelist himself, and not found in any previously existing source. The remand to Herod in all probability belonged to a source that was quite peculiar to him. The same may be said with only a little less confidence of the sections of the preliminary history. Taking these salient points together with the mass of the coincidences each in its place, and with the due weight assigned to it, the conviction seems forced upon us that Justin did either mediately or immediately, and most probably immediately and directly, make use of our Canonical Gospels. On the other hand, the argument that he used, whether in addition to these or exclusively, a Gospel now lost, rests upon the following data. Justin apparently differs from the Synoptics in giving the genealogy of Mary, not of Joseph. In Apol. i. 34 he says that Cyrenius was the first governor (procurator) of Judaea, instead of saying that the census first took place under Cyrenius. [It should be remarked, however, that in another place, Dial. 78, he speaks of ' the census which then took place for the first time (owq? rore 7rpwr?js) under Cyrenius/] He states that Mary brought forth her Son in a cave near the village of Bethlehem. He ten times over speaks of the Magi as coming from Arabia, and not merely from the East. He says emphatically that all the children (ndvTas O.TT\WS TOVS Ttalbas) in Bethlehem were slain with- out mentioning the limitation of age given in St. Matthew. He alludes to details in the humble occupation of Jesus who practised the trade of a carpenter. Speaking of the ministry of John, he three times repeats the phrase ' as he sat ' by the river Jordan. At the. baptism of Jesus he says JUSTIN MARTYR. 107 that ' fire was kindled on ' or rather ' in the Jordan,' and that a- voice was heard saying, ' Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.' He adds to the notice of the miracles that the Jews thought they were the effect of magic. Twice he refers, as evidence for what he is saying, to the Acts of Pontius Pilate. In two places Justin sees a fulfilment of Ps. xxii, where none is pointed out by the Synoptics. He says that all the disciples forsook their Master, which seems to overlook Peter's attack on the high priest's servant. In the account of the Crucifixion he somewhat amplifies the Synoptic version of the mocking gestures of the crowd. And besides these matters of fact he has two sayings, ' In whatsoever I find you, therein will I also judge you,' and ' There shall be schisms and heresies,' which are without parallel, or have no exact parallel, in our Gospels. Some of these points are not of any great import- ance. The reference to the Acts of Pilate should in all probability be taken along with the parallel refe- rence to the census of Cyrenius, in which Justin asserts that the birth of Jesus would be found registered. Both appear to be based, not upon any actual document that Justin had seen, but upon the bold assumption that the official documents must contain a record of facts which he knew from other sources \ In regard to Cyre- nius he evidently has the Lucan version in his mind, though he seems to have confused this with his know- ledge that Cyrenius was the first to exercise the Roman 1 In like manner Tertullian refers his readers to the ' autograph copies ' of St. Paul's Epistles, and the very ' chairs of the Apostles,' preserved at Corinth and elsewhere (De Praescripe. Haeret. c. 36). Tertullian also refers to the census of Augustus, quern testem fidelissimum dominicae nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt ' (Adv. Marc. iv. 7). 108 JUSTIN MARTYR. sovereignty in Judaea, which was matter of history. Justin seems to be mistaken in regarding Cyrenius as 'procurator' (emrpoTrou) of Judaea. He instituted the census not in this capacity, but as proconsul of Syria. The first procurator of Judaea was Coponius. Some of Justin's peculiarities may quite fairly be explained as unintentional. General statements without the due qualifications, such as those in regard to the massacre of the children and the conduct of the disciples in Gethsemane, are met with frequently enough to this day, and in works of a more professedly critical character than Justin's. The description of the car- penter's trade and of the crowd at the Crucifixion may be merely rhetorical amplifications in the one case of the general Synoptic statement, in the other of the special statement in St. Mark. A certain fulness of style is characteristic of Justin. That he attributes the genealogy to Mary may be a natural instance of reflec- tion ; the inconsistency in the Synoptic Gospels would not be at first perceived, and the simplest way of re- moving it would be that which Justin has adopted. It should be noticed however that he too distinctly says that Joseph was of the tribe of Judah (Dial. 78) and that his family came from Bethlehem, which looks very much like an unobliterated trace of the same inconsis- tency. It is also noticeable that in the narrative of the Baptism one of the best MSS. of the Old Latin (a, Codex Vercellensis) has, in the form of an addition to Matt. iii. 15, ' et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens cir- cumfulsit de aqua ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant,' and there is a very similar addition in g 1 (Codex San- Germanensis). Again, in Luke iii. 22 the reading ey&> -yeyevvrjKa ae for tv ao\ ti/boKrjaa is shared with JUSTIN MARTYR. 109 Justin by the most important Grseco-Latin MS. D (Codex Bezae) and a, b, c, ff, 1 of the Old Version ; Augustine expressly states that the reading was found 'in several respectable copies (aliquibus fide dignis ex- emplaribus), though not in the older Greek Codices.' There will then remain the specifying of Arabia as the home of the Magi, the phrase KaQeoij.vos used of John on the banks of the Jordan, the two unparallelled sentences, and the cave of the Nativity. Of these the phrase /ca0e- {opevos, which occurs in three places, Dial. 49, 51, 88, but always in Justin's own narrative and not in quotation, may be an accidental recurrence ; and it is not impos- sible that the other items may be derived from an unwritten tradition. Still, on the whole, I incline to think that though there is not conclusive proof that Justin used a lost Gospel besides the present Canonical Gospels, it is the more probable hypothesis of the two that he did. The explanations given above seem to me reasonable and possible ; they are enough, I think, to remove the necessity for assuming a lost document, but perhaps not quite enough to destroy the greater probability. This conclusion, we shall find, will be confirmed when we pass from considering the substance of Justin's Gospel to its form. But now if we ask ourselves what was this hypo- thetical lost document, all we can say is, I believe, that the suggestions hitherto offered are insufficient. The Gospels according to the Hebrews or according to Peter and the Protevangelium of James have been most in favour. The Gospel according to the Hebrews in the form in which it was used by the Nazarenes contained the fire upon Jordan, and as used by the 110 JUSTIN MARTYR. Ebionites it had also the voice, ' This day have I be- gotten Thee.' Credner 1 , and after him Hilgenfeld 2 , thought that the Gospel according to Peter was used. But we know next to nothing about this Gospel, except that it was nearly related to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, that it made the ' brethren of the Lord ' sons of Joseph by a former wife, that it was found by Serapion in the churches of his diocese, Rhossus in Cilicia, that its use was at first permitted but afterwards forbidden, as it was found to favour Docetism, and that its contents were in the main orthodox though in some respects perverted 3 . Obviously these facts and the name (which falls in with the theory itself also somewhat unsub- stantial that Justin's Gospel must have a ' Petrine ' character) are quite insufficient to build upon. The Protevangelium of James, which it is thought might have been used in an earlier form than that which has come down to us, contains the legend of the cave, and has apparently a similar view to the Gospel last men- tioned as to the perpetual virginity of Mary. The kindred Evangelium Thomae has the ' ploughs and yokes.' And there are some similarities of language between the Protevangelium and Justin's Gospel, which will come under review later 4 . It does not, however, appear to have been noticed that these Gospels satisfy most imperfectly the con- ditions of the problem. We know that the Gospel ac- cording to the Hebrews in its Nazarene form omitted the whole section Matt. i. i8-ii. 23, containing the 1 Beitrdge, i. p. 261 sqq. a Evangelien Justin's u. s. w., p. 270 sqq. 3 The chief authority is Eus. H. E. vi. 12. 4 Cf. Hilgenfeld, Ev. Justin's, p. 157. JUSTIN MARTYR. 1 1 1 conception, the nativity, the visit of the Magi, and the flight into Egypt, all of which were found in Justin's Gospel ; while in its Ebionite form it left out the first two chapters altogether. There is not a tittle of evi- dence to show that the Gospel according to Peter was any more complete ; in proportion as it resembled the Gospel according to the Hebrews the presumption is that it was not. And the Protevangelium of James makes no mention of Arabia, while it expressly says that the star appeared ' in the East ' (instead of ' in the heaven ' as Justin) ; it also omits, and rather seems to exclude, the flight into Egypt. It is therefore clear that whether Justin used these Gospels or not, he cannot in any case have confined himself to them ; unless indeed this is possible in regard to the Gospel that bears the name of Peter, though the possibility is drawn so entirely from our ignorance that it can hardly be taken account of. We thus seem to be reduced to the conclusion that Justin's Gospel or Gospels was an unknown entity of which no historical evidence survives, and this would almost be enough, according to the logical Law of Parsimony, to drive us back upon the assumption that our present Gospels only had been used. This assumption however still does not appear to me wholly satisfactory, for reasons which will come out more clearly when from considering the matter of the documents which Justin used we pass to their form. The reader already has before him a collection of Justin's quotations from the Old Testament, the results of which may be stated thus. From the Pentateuch eighteen passages are quoted exactly, nineteen with , I JUSTIN MARTYR. slight variations, and eleven with marked divergence. From the Psalms sixteen exactly, including nine (or ten) whole Psalms, two with slight and three with decided variation. From Isaiah twenty-five exactly, twelve slightly variant, and sixteen decidedly. From the other Major Prophets Justin has only three exact quotations, four slightly divergent, and eleven diverging more widely. From the Minor Prophets and other books he has two exact quotations, seven in which the varia- tion is slight, and thirteen in which it is marked. Of the distinctly free quotations in the Pentateuch (eleven in all), three may be thought to have a Messianic character (the burning bush, the brazen serpent, the curse of the cross), but in none of these does the variation appear to be due to this. Of the three free quotations from the Psalms two are Messianic, and one of these has probably been influenced by the Messianic application. In the free quotations from Isaiah it is not quite easy to say what are Messianic and what are not ; but the only clear case in which the Messianic application seems to have caused a marked divergence is xlii. 1-4. Other passages, such as ii. 5, 6, vii. 10- 17, Hi. 13-liii. 12 (as quoted in A. i. 50), appear under the head of slight variation. The long quotation lii. 10- liv. 6, in Dial. 12, is given with substantial exactness. Turning to the other Major Prophets, one passage, Jer. xxxi. 15, has probably derived its shape from the Messianic application. And in the Minor Prophets three passages (Hos. x. 6, Zech. xii. 10-12, and Micah v. 2) appear to have been thus affected. The rest of the free quotations and some of the variations in those which are less free may be set down to defect of memory or similar accidental causes. JUSTIN MARTYR. Let us now draw up a table of Justin's quotations from the Gospels arranged as nearly as may be on the same standard and scale as that of the quotations from the Old Testament. Such a table will stand thus. [Those only which appear to be direct quotations are given.] 1) Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. fD. 49, Matt. 3.11, repeated in part 12 (V.I.) similarly. D. 51, Matt. 11. compounded with 12-15; Luke 16. omissions but i6f. striking resem- blances. . 4',, 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. confusion of read- 3 2 - ings. fA. 1.15, Matt. 19. from memory ? 12. A. 1. 15, Matt. 5. compounded. 42 ; Luke 6. 30, 34- ( A. 1. 15, Matt. 6. 19, 20; 1 6. 26; ( 6. 20. f A. 1. 15 (D. 96), from memory(Cr.), Luke 6. 36 ; but prob. differ- IJ Matt. 5. 45 ; 6. ent document ; .5 S 25-27; Luke 1 2. rather marked 1 22-24; Matt. 6. identity in U I 32, 33; 6. 21. phrase. A. 1.15, Matt. 6. i. . 1. 15, Matt. 9. do the last words i3(?)- belong to the quotation ? A. 1. 15, Luke ; 6. 32 ; Matt. 5- 46- .H A. 1. 15 (D. repeated in part g 1 28), Luke similarly, in part U 6. 27, 28; diversely : con- \ Matt. 5. 44. fusion in MSS. JUSTIN MARTYR. Exact. U /A. 1. 16, Matt. 7. 21. D 76, Matt. 8. ii. I2f. Slightly variant. A. 1. 16, Luke 6. 29 (Matt. 5. 39, 40). A. 1. 16. Matt. 5 1 6. A. 1. 16, Matt. 5. 34- 37- A. 1.16 (A. 1.62). Luke i o.i 6 (v.l.) A. 1.16, Matt. 13. 42, 43 (v. 1.) A. 1. 16, Matt. 7. 16, 19. D. 76, Matt. 25. 41 (v. 1.) D. 35, Matt. 7. 15. Variant. A. 1. 16, Matt. 5. 22 (v.l.) A. 1. 16, Matt. 5. 41. D. 93, A. 1. 16, Matt. 22.40,37, 38. A. 1. 16, D. 101, Matt. 19. 1 6, 17 (v.l.); Luke 1 8. 18,19 (v-1.) fA. 1. 16 (D. 76), Matt. 7. 22, 23 (v.l.); Luke 13. 26, 27 (v.l.) A. 1. 16 (D. 35), Matt. 7. 15. D. 35, tffovrai axi- a^una Kai aipt- aeis. D. 35, 82, Matt. 24. 24 (Mark 13. 22). D. 82, Matt. 10. 22, par. Remarks. repeated diversely. repeated in part similarly-, in part diversely. addition. repeated with near- er approach to Matthew, perh. v.l. repeated with si- milarity and di- vergence. freely. JUSTIN MARTYR. Exact. A. 1. 19, Luke 18. D.105,Matt.5.2o. D.107,Matt.i6.4 A. 1.36, Matt. 21. 5 (addition). Slightly variant. D. 76, Luke 10. i 9 t. D. 17, Matt. 23. 23; Luke 1 1. 42. D. 17, 112, Matt. 23. 27; 23. 24. D. 81, Luke 20. 35. 36. D. 122, Matt. 23. !? tD. 17, Matt. 21. 13. I2 - D. 100, A. 1. 63, Matt. ii. 27 (v.l.) D. 76, 100, Luke 9. 22. D. 99, Matt. 26. 39 (v.l.) Variant. A. 1. 19, Luke 12. 4, 5 ; Matt. 10. 28. A. 1. 17, Luke 12. 48 (v.l.) D. 125, Matt. 13. 3sqq. fD. 17, Luke n. 5 2 - D. 47, iv ois av V/J.CLS iv TOVTOIS Kal t A. 1.1 7, Luke 20. 22-25 (v.l.) D. 53, Matt. 21.5, A. 1. 66, Luke 22, 19, 20. D. 103, Luke 22. 42-44. D. 101, Matt. 27. 43- Remarks. compounded. ins. ffno\ovfvSpuiv. condensed narra- tive. compounded, repeated similarly. marked resem- blance with dif- ference. narrative portion free. repeated not iden- tically. repeated diversely ; free (Credner). (Zech. 9. 9 ). I 2 n6 JUSTIN MARTYR. Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. A. 1. 38, 6 dvfytipas pvaa- aOca tavTov. D. 99, Matt. 27. compounded. 46; Mark 15. 34- D. 105, Luke 23. 46. The total result may be taken to be that ten passages are substantially exact, while twenty-five present slight and thirty-two marked variations 1 . This is only rough and approximate, because of the passages that are put down as exact two, or possibly three, can only be said to be so with a qualification ; though, on the other hand, there are passages entered under the second class as ' slightly variant' which have a leaning towards the first, and passages entered under the third which have a per- ceptible leaning towards the second. We can therefore afford to disregard these doubtful cases and accept the classification very much as it stands. Comparing it then with the parallel classification that has been made of the quotations from the Old Testament, we find that in the latter sixty-four were ranked as exact, forty-four as slightly variant, and fifty-four as decidedly variant. If we reduce these roughly to a common standard of comparison the proportion of variation may be represented thus : Quotations from the Old Testament . Quotations from the Synoptic Gospels 10 10 Slightly variant. 7 25 9 32 It will be seen from this at once how largely the pro- 1 A somewhat similar classification has been made by De Wette, Einlei- tung in das N. T., pp. 104-110, in which however the standard seems to be somewhat lower than that which I have assumed; several instances of variation which I had classed as decided, De Wette considers to be only slight. I hope I may consider this a proof that the classification above given has not been influenced by bias. JUSTIN MARTYR. 117 portion of variation rises ; it is indeed more than three times as high for the quotations from the Gospels as for those from the Old Testament. The amount of combi- nation too is decidedly in excess of that which is found in the Old Testament quotations. There is, it is true, something to be said on the other side. Justin quotes the Old Testament rather as Scrip- ture, the New Testament rather as history. I think it will be felt that he has permitted his own style a freer play in regard to the latter than the former. The New Testament record had not yet acquired the same degree of fixity as the Old. The ' many ' compositions of which St. Luke speaks in his preface were still in circu- lation, and were only gradually dying out. One im- portant step had been taken in the regular reading of the ' Memoirs of the Apostles ' at the Christian assem- blies. We have not indeed proof that these were con- fined to the Canonical Gospels. Probably as yet they were not. But it should be remembered that Irenaeus was now a boy, and that by the time he had reached manhood the Canon of the Gospels had received its definite form. Taking all these points into consideration I think we shall find the various indications converge upon very much the same conclusion as that at which we have already arrived. The a priori probabilities of the case, as well as the actual phenomena of Justin's Gospel, alike tend to show that he did make use either medi- ately or immediately of our Gospels, but that he did not assign to them an exclusive authority, and that he probably made use along with them of other documents no longer extant. The proof that Justin made use of each of our three ll8 JUSTIN MARTYR. Synoptics individually is perhaps more striking from the point of view of substance than of form, because his direct quotations are mostly taken from the discourses rather than from the narrative, and these discourses are usually found in more than a single Gospel, while in pro- portion as they bear the stamp of originality and authen- ticity it is difficult to assign them to any particular reporter. There is however some strong and remarkable evidence of this kind. At least one case of parallelism seems to prove almost decisively the use of the first Gospel. It is necessary to give the quotation and the original with the parallel from St. Mark side by side. Justin, Dial. c. 49. Matt. xvii. 11-13. "HX/as fj.tv e\(V(rfrai KOI O.TTO- 'HX/ar ^t.ev ep^erai cai anoKara- KaraaTTjO-fi irdvra' Xe'yea 8e v^juv, o-njwej ndvra' Xe'yw 8e vfj.lv on on 'HXias jjfSjj rfKBe KOI OVK eVe- 'HAt'as fj$r) r)\6ev Kal OVK eVeyi/a)- yvaxrav avrov aXX fTroirjcrav avra> (rav avrov, d\\a iifoaj(fav avrta ocra offa TfdfXrjirav. Kai yeypanrai on fj6e'\r](Tav' [ovroos Kal 6 vibs rov rote a~vi>ffK.av ol fJiadrjTai, on Trepi av6pa>nov fj.tX\fi Trdir^fiv vir av- \j/ Trpwrov dnoKnCiffTavfi iruvra' Kn\ TTWS yf-ypanrai eVi rov vlbv rov dv6pa>irov, Iva TroXXa irdOrf Ka\ eov- 8evr)6f). d\\a \eyco vjj.1v on Kal 'HX/ay f\t)\v6(v Kal fTruirja-av airw oo-a fjdeXov, Ka8a>s yeypaTrrai eV alrov. We notice here, first, an important point, that Justin reproduces at the end of his quotation what appears to JUSTIN MARTYR. 119 be not so much a part of the object-matter of the narra- tive as a comment or reflection of the Evangelist (' Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist'). This was thought by Credner, who as a rule is inclined to press the use of an apocryphal Gospel by Justin, to be sufficient proof that the quota- tion is taken from our present Matthew 1 . On this point, however, there is an able and on the whole a sound argument in ' Supernatural Religion 2 .' There are cer- tainly' cases in which a similar comment or reflection is found either in all three Synoptic Gospels or in two of them (e. g. Matt. vii. 28, 29 = Mark i. 22 = Luke iv. 32 ; Matt. xiii. 34 = Mark iv. 33, 34; Matt. xxvi. 43 = Mark xiv. 40 ; Matt. xix. 22 = Mark x. 22). The author con- sequently maintains that these were found in the original document from which all three, or two Synoptics at least, borrowed ; and he notes that this very passage is as- signed by Ewald to the ' oldest Gospel.' The observation in itself is a fine and true one, and has an important bearing upon the question as to the way in which our Synoptic Gospels were composed. We may indeed remark in passing that the author seems to have overlooked the fact that, when once this principle of a common written basis or bases for the Synoptic Gospels is accepted, nine-tenths of his own argument is overthrown ; for there are no divergences in the text of the patristic quotations from the Gospels that may not be amply paralleled by the differences which exist in the text of the several Gospels themselves, showing that the Evangelists took liberties with their ground docu- ments to an extent that is really greater than that of 1 Beitrage, i. p. 237. a S. R. i. p. 396 sqq. 120 JUSTIN MARTYR. any subsequent misquotation. But putting aside for the present this argumentum ad homincin which seems to follow from the admission here made, there is, I think, the strongest reason to conclude that in the present case the first Evangelist is not merely reproducing his ground document. There is one element in the question which the author has omitted to notice ; that is, the parallel passage in St. Mark. This differs so widely from the text of St. Matthew as to show that that text cannot accurately represent the original ; it also wants the re- flective comment altogether. Accordingly, if the author will turn to p. 275 of Ewald's book 1 he will find that that writer, though roughly assigning the passage as it appears in both Synoptics to the ' oldest Gospel,' yet in reconstructing the text of this Gospel does so, not by taking that of either of the Synoptics pure and simple, but by mixing the two. All the other critics who have dealt with this point, so far as I am aware, have done the same. Holtzmann 2 follows Ewald, and Weiss 3 ac- cepts Mark's as more nearly the original text. The very extent of the divergence in St. Mark throws out into striking relief the close agreement of Justin's quotation with St. Matthew. Here we have three verses word for word the same, even to the finest shades of expression. To the single exception eAevo-erai for epx erai I cannot, as Credner does*, attach any importance. The present tense in the Gospel has undoubtedly a future signification 5 , and Justin was very naturally led to give 1 Die drei ersten Evangelien, Gottingen, 1850. [A second, revised, edition of this work has recently appeared.] 2 Die Synoptischen Evangelien, Leipzig, 1863, p. 88. 3 Das Marcus-evangelium, Berlin, 1872, p. 299. * Beitrdge, i. p. 219. 5 Dr. Westcott well calls this ' the prophetic sense of the present * (On the Canon, p. 128). JUSTIN MARTYR. 121 it also a future form by aTroKaraorT/aet which follows. For the rest, the order, particles, tenses are so absolutely identical, where the text of St. Mark shows how inevit- ably they must have differed in another Gospel or even in the original, that I can see no alternative but to refer the quotation directly to our present St. Matthew. If this passage had stood alone, taken in connection with the coincidence of matter between Justin and the first Gospel, great weight must have attached to it. But it does not by any means stand alone. There is an exact verbal agreement in the verses Matt. v. 20 (' Except your righteousness' &c.) and Matt. vii. 21 (' Not every one that saith unto me,' &c.) which are peculiar to the first Gospel. There is a close agreement, if not always with the best, yet with some very old, text of St. Matthew in v. 22 (note especially the striking phrase and construction evo\os eis), v. 28 (note /3A.eTr. Trpos TO fmdvfj..}, v. 41 (note the remarkable word dyyapewet), xxv. 41, and not too great a divergence in v. 16, vi. I (irpos TO dfa6f)vai, d 8e ^77 ye jJLtcrdov OVK l^ere), and xix. 12, all of which passages are without parallel in any extant Gospel. There are also marked resemblances to the Matthaean text in synoptic passages such as Matt. iii. 11,12 (eis ^fTcn'oiav, TO. t>7ro8r^ara /3acrraiJ.G>v TO val vai, Kal TO ov ov' TO be itepKrcrov TOVTIDV e/c TOV Tiovrjpov}, which is set against the first Evangelist's ' Let your con- versation be Yea yea, Nay nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of the Evil One ' (eyo> be Ae'yo) vp.lv firj 6fj.6crai oAco? . . . "Eorco be 6 Ao'yos Vjuwy val vai, ov ov' TO be TTepio-0-oV, K. r. A.). Now it is perfectly true that as early as the Canonical Epistle of James (v. 12) we find the reading r/ro> be v^S>v TO val vai, Kal TO ov ov, and that in the Clementine Homilies twice over we read lo-rcu v^v TO val vaf, (KOI) TO ov ov, Kal being inserted in one instance and not in the other. Justin's reading is found also exactly in Clement of Alexandria, and a similar reading (though with the ?/TO> of James) in Epiphanius. These last two examples show that the misquotation was an easy one to fall into, because there can be little doubt that Clement and Ephiphanius supposed themselves to be quoting the canonical text. There remains however the fact that the Justinian form is supported by the pseudo-Clementines ; and at the first blush it might seem that 'Let your yea be yea' (stand to your word) made better, at least a complete and more obvious, sense than 'Let your conversation be' (let it not go beyond) ' Yea yea' &c. \ There is, however, what seems to be 1 This is meaningless,' writes Mr. Baring-Gould of the canonical text, J US TIN MART YR. 123 a decisive proof that the original form both of Justin's and the Clementine quotation is that which is given in the first Gospel. Both Justin and the writer who passes under the name of Clement add the clause 'Whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil' (or 'of the Evil One '). But this, while it tallies perfectly with the canonical reading, evidently excludes any other. It is consequent and good sense to say, ' Do not go beyond a plain yes or no, because whatever is in excess of this must have an evil motive,' but the connection is entirely lost when we substitute ' Keep your word, for whatever is more than this has an evil motive' more than what ? The most important points that can be taken to imply a use of St. Mark's Gospel have been already discussed as falling under the head of matter rather than of form. The coincidences with Luke are striking but com- plicated. In his earlier work, the ' Beitrage Y Credner regarded as a decided reference to the Prologue of this Gospel the statement of Justin that his Memoirs were composed vnb r&v a-nooroXuiV avrov Kal TU>V fxtivms irapa- Ko\ovOr](rdi>To)v : but, in the posthumous History of the Canon ~, he retracts this view, having come to recognise a greater frequency in the use of the word -napaKoXovQelv in this sense. It will also of course be noticed that Justin has Trap, rots a-, and not Trap. TOIS it pay pan iv, as Luke. It is doubtless true that the use of the word can rather hastily, and forgetting, as it would appear, the concluding clause {Lost and Hos He Gospels, p. 166) ; cp. S. R. i. p. 354, ii. p. 28. 1 i. pp. 196, 227, 258. 2 Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon (ed. Volkmar, Berlin, 1 860), p. 16. 124 JUSTIN MARTYR. be paralleled to such an extent as to make it not a matter of certainty that the Gospel is being quoted : still I think there will be a certain probability that it has been suggested by a reminiscence of this passage, and, strangely enough, there is a parallel for the sub- stitution of the historians for the subject-matter of their history in Epiphanius, who reads Trap, rots aro7rrai9 /cat i>7r?7peVais TOV \6yov 1 , where he is explicitly and unques- tionably quoting St. Luke. There are some marked coincidences of phrase in the account of the Annunciation eWpxeo-flai, 8vvaiJ.is V\I/I n - 2 > an( i others maintain) in the evangelical language than that the drops of sweat 'resembled blood;' weret seems to qualify ai/iaros as much JUSTIN MARTYR. 125 and it appears from the whole manner of Justin's nar- rative that he intends to give merely the sense and not the words, with the exception of the single saying ' Let this cup pass from Me,' which is taken from St. Matthew. We cannot say positively that this feature did not occur in any other Gospel, but there is absolutely no reason apart from this passage to suppose that it did. The construction with wtret is in some degree cha- racteristic of St. Luke, as it occurs more often in the works of that writer than in all the rest of the New Testament put together. In narrating the institution of the Lord's Supper Justin has the clause which is found only in St. Luke and St. Paul, 'This do in remembrance of Me' (MOV for *\i.r\v). The giving of the cup he quotes rather after the first two Synoptics, and adds ' that He gave it to them (the Apostles) alone.' This last does not seem to be more than an inference of Justin's own. Two other sayings Justin has which are without parallel except in St. Luke. One is from the mission of the seventy. Justin, Dial. 76. Luke x. 19. Ai5o)/LU vp.1v f^ovaLav Karmra- 'iSou, 8l8cafj,i Vfjuv TTJV f^owiav Tflv fTrdvco o(p(a>v, KUI (TKOpirifov, TOV Trarelv enava> ofpecw, Kal crKop- Kal CTKO\oirev8pa>i', KOI eVaV&> TTO- irttav, /cat eVi Tfacrav TTJV bvvap.iv crrjs 8vi>dfjif(os TOV f^dpov. TOV (%0pov. The insertion of vKoXo-nevSpGiv here is curious. It may be perhaps to some extent paralleled by the insertion of /cat a? Oijpav in Rom. xi. 9 : we have also seen a strange addition in the quotation of Ps. li. 19 in the as OponQoi. Compare especially the interesting parallels from medical writers quoted by M'Clellan ad loc. 126 JUSTIN MARTYR. Epistle of Barnabas (c. ii). Otherwise the resemblance of Justin to the Gospel is striking. The second saying, ' To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required' (Apol. i. 17), if quoted from the Gospel at all, is only a paraphrase of Luke xii. 48. Besides these there are other passages, which are perhaps stronger as separate items of evidence, where, in quoting synoptic matter, Justin makes use of phrases which are found only in St. Luke and are discountenanced by the other Evangelists. Thus in the account of the rich young man, the three synoptical versions of the saying that impossibilities with men are possible with God, run thus : Luke xviii. 27. Mark x. 27. Matt. xix. 26. Ta aBvvara napa av- Ilapa avBpumois dSu- Tlapa. avdpanois rou- dpatTTQis 8vvara irapa VO.TOV, aXX* ov irapa. TO dSvvarov e crrti', irapa TCO Oew f(rriv. Qfm' iravra yap 8vvara 8e 0ea> Svvara iravra. Here it will be observed that Matthew and Mark (as frequently happens) are nearer to each other than either of them is to Luke. This would lead us to infer that, as they are two to one, they more nearly repre- sent the common original, which has been somewhat modified in the hands of St. Luke. But now Justin has the words precisely as they stand in St. Luke, with the omission of eorir, the order of which varies in the MSS. of the Gospel. This must be taken as a strong proof that Justin has used the peculiar text of the third Gospel. Again, it is to be noticed that in another section of the triple synopsis (Mark xii. 20 = Matt. xxii. 30 = Luke xx. 35, 36) he has, in common with Luke and diverging from the other Gospels which are in near agreement, the remarkable compound iVciyyeAoi JUSTIN MARTYR. 127 and the equally remarkable phrase viol rf/s cWcrrdo-eco? (re'/a-a rov 0eoC rf/s 1 a2'aorarrea)s Justin). This also I must regard as supplying a strong argument for the direct use of the Gospel. Many similar instances may be adduced ; ep\tTa.L (fjfi Justin) 6 iVxwpo'repos (Luke iii. 16), u PO'JUOS /cat ot TrpO(f)i]TaL eco? (^XP 1 - Justin) 'la>dvvov (Luke xvi. 1 6), iravTi rw alrovvri. (Luke vi. 30), TW TVITTOVTL and aydirrjv TOV 0eou (Luke xi. 42). In the parallel passage to Luke ix. 22 (=Matt xvi. 21 = Mark viii. 3 1) Justin has the striking word a-noSoKt/xao-^mt, with Mark and Luke against Matthew, and inro with Mark against the OTTO of the two other Synoptics. This last coincidence can perhaps hardly be pressed, as VTTO would be the more natural word to use. In the cases where we have only the double synopsis to compare with Justin, we have no certain test to distinguish between the primary and secondary features in the text of the Gospels. We cannot say with con- fidence what belonged to the original document and what to the later editor who reduced it to its present form. In these cases therefore it is possible that when Justin has a detail that is found in St. Matthew and want- ing in St. Luke, or found in St. Luke and wanting in St. Matthew, he is still not quoting directly from either of those Gospels, but from the common document on which they are based. The triple synopsis however furnishes such a criterion. It enables us to see what was the original text and how any single Evangelist has diverged 128 JUSTIN MARTYR. from it. Thus in the two instances quoted at the beginning of the last paragraph it is evident that the Lucan text represents a deviation from the original, and that deviation Justin has reproduced. The word lo-dyyeAoi may be taken as a crucial case. Both the other Synoptics have simply ws ayyeAoi, and this may be set down as undoubtedly the reading of the original ; the form iVdyyeAoi, which occurs nowhere else in the New Tes- tament, and I believe, so far as we know, nowhere else in Greek before this passage 1 , has clearly been coined by the third Evangelist and has been adopted from him by Justin. So that in a quotation which otherwise presents considerable variation we have what I think must be called the strongest evidence that Justin really had St. Luke's narrative, either in itself or in some secondary shape, before him. We are thus brought once more to the old result. If Justin did not use our Gospels in their present shape as they have come down to us, he used them in a later shape, not in an earlier. His resemblances to them cannot be accounted for by the supposition that he had access to the materials out of which they were composed, because he reproduces features which by the nature of the case cannot have been present in those originals, but of which we are still able to trace the authorship and the exact point of their insertion. Our Gospels form a secondary stage in the history of the text, Justin's quotations a tertiary. In order to reach the state in which it is found in Justin, the road lies through our Gospels, and not outside them. 1 The only parallel that I can find quoted is a reference by Mr. M'Clellan to Philo i. 164 (ed. Mangey), where the phrase is however iocs d-yyt\oir JUSTIN MARTYR. 129 This however does not exclude the possibility that Justin may at times quote from uncanonical Gospels as well. We have already seen reason to think that he did so from the substance of the Evangelical nar- rative, as it appears in his works, and this conclusion too is not othenvise than confirmed by its form. The degree and extent of the variations incline us to in- troduce such an additional factor to account for them. Either Justin has used a lost Gospel or Gospels, besides those that are still extant, or else he has used a recension of these Gospels with some slight changes of language and with some apocryphal additions. We have seen that he has two short sayings and several minute details that are not found in our present Gospels. A remark- able coincidence is noticed in ' Supernatural Religion ' with the Protevangelium of James l . As in that work so also in Justin, the explanation of the name Jesus occurs in the address of the angel to Mary, not to Joseph, ' Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost and bear a Son and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.' Again the Prot- evangelium has the phrase ' Thou shalt conceive of His Word,' which, though not directly quoted, appears to receive countenance from Justin. The author adds that ' Justin's divergences from the Protevangelium prevent our supposing that in its present form it could have been the actual source of his quotations,' though he thinks that he had before him a still earlier work to which both the Protevangelium and the third Gospel were indebted. So far as the Protevangelium is con- 1 S. R. i. p. 304 sqq. K 130 JUSTIN MARTYR. cerned this may very probably have been the case ; but what reason there is for assuming that the same docu- ment was also anterior to the third Gospel I am not aware. On the contrary, this very passage seems to suggest an opposite conclusion. The quotation in Justin and the address in the Protevangelium both present a combination of narratives that are kept sepa- rate in the first and third Gospels. But this very fact supplies a strong presumption that the version of those Gospels is the earliest. It is unlikely that the first Evangelist, if he had found his text already existing, as part of the speech of the angel to Mary, would have transferred it to an address to Joseph ; and it is little less unlikely that the third Evangelist, finding the fuller version of Justin and the Protevangelium, should have omitted from it one of its most important features. If a further link is necessary to connect Justin with the Protevangelium, that link comes into the chain after our Gospels and not before. Dr. Hilgenfeld has also noticed the phrase x. a P<* v ^ Aa/Souo-a Mapiap. as common to Justin and the Protevangelium '. This, too, may belong to the older original of the latter work. The other verbal coincidences with the Gospel ac- cording to the Hebrews in the account of the Baptism, and with that of Thomas in the 'ploughs and yokes,' have been already mentioned, and are, I believe, along with those just discussed, all that can be directly referred to an apocryphal source. Besides these there are some coincidences in form between quotations as they appear in Justin and in other writers, such as especially the Clementine Homi- 1 Ev. Justin s, p. 157. JUSTIN MARTYR. 131 lies. These are thought to point to the existence of a common Gospel (now lost) from which they may have been extracted. It is unnecessary to repeat what has been said about one of these passages (' Let your yea be yea,' &c.). Another corresponds roughly to the verse Matt. xxv. 41, where both Justin and the Clementine Homilies read v-ndyere eis TO tr/coro? TO ecoTepoy o 7;Toi/*aaei> 6 TraTTjp T(3 aaravq (TO> ia/3o'A(j> Clem. Horn.) /ecu TOLS dyyt- Aoi? a^Tov for the canonical iropfvea-Oc ax* e//,ou eis TO irvp TO alu>vLov TO ^Toifxa (?) for (u&viov and OVCO'TOS for irvp, which seems to be due to something more than merely a variant text of the Gospel. A third meeting-point between Justin and the Clementines is afforded by a text which we shall have to touch upon when we come to speak of the fourth Gospel. Of the other quotations common to the Clementines and Justin there is a partial but not complete coincidence in regard to Matt. vii. 15, xi. 27, xix. 1 6, and Luke vi. 36. In Matt vii. 15 the Clementines have TioAAot e\ewoj>Tcu where Justin has once TroAAot eAewoyTat, once TroAXoi ij^ova-iv, and once the Matthaean version Trpoo-e'^eTe auo TU>V tyevbo-npotyiiT&v ogives !pxoi>Tcu K. T. A. There is however a difference in regard to the reading Iv efSj^acn, where the Clementines have kv e^y/xaTt, and Justin twice over eySeik^eVot. In Matt. xi. 27, Justin and the Clementines agree as to the order of the clauses, and twice in the use of the aorist f-yvd) (Justin has once yi^wcr/cco), but in the concluding clause (w [ols Clem.] ecu> K 2 132 JUSTIN MARTYR. Justin has uniformly in the three places where the verse is quoted ots av 6 vlos aTro/caAin/Vrj. In Matt. xix. 16, 17 (Luke xviii. 18, 19) the Clementines and Justin alternately adhere to the Canonical text while differing from each other, but in the concluding phrase Justin has on one occasion the Clementine reading, 6 7107-77/3 juov 6 ev TOIS ovpavois. In Luke vi. 36 the Clementines have ylvevOe ayaOol /ecu olKTLpp.ovcs, where Justin has ytVecrfle \prjarol KOI oi/crtpptoz-'es against the Canonical yivfffOt ouri/a/xoyes. On the other hand, it should be said that the remaining quotations common to the Clementines and Justin have to all appearance no relation to each other. This applies to Matt. iv. 10, v. 39, 40, vi. 8, viii. n, x. 28 ; Luke xi. 52. Speaking generally we seem to observe in comparing Justin and the Clementines phenomena not dissimilar to those which appear on a comparison with the Canon- ical Gospels. There is perhaps about the same degree at once of resemblance and divergence. The principal textual coincidence with other writers is that with the Gospel used by the Marcosians as quoted by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. i. 20. 3). Here the reading of Matt. xi. 27 is given in a form very similar to that of Justin, ovbels tyvo) rov Trctrepa ei pi] 6 wo'?, /ecu (oi8e Justin) TOV inoV, et JUT) o Trcmjp /cat a> (ots Justin) av o vibs aTTOKa\v\lfr]. This verse however is quoted by the early writers, orthodox as well as heretical, in almost every possible way, and it is not clear from the account in Irenaeus whether the Marcosians used an extra- canonical Gospel or merely a different text of the Canonical. Irenaeus himself seems to hold the latter view, and in favour of it may be urged the fact that they quote passages peculiar both to the first and the third Gospel ; on the other hand, one of their quota- JUSTIN MARTYR. 133 tions, TroAAcms Tie6vfjL^cra aKOVcrai. eva rV, does not appear to have a canonical original. On reviewing these results we find them present a chequered appearance. There are no traces of coin- cidence so definite and consistent as to justify us in laying the finger upon any particular extra-canonical Gospel as that used by Justin. But upon the whole it seems best to assume that some such Gospel was used, certainly not to the exclusion of the Canonical Gospels, but probably in addition to them. A confusing element in the whole question is that to which we have just alluded in regard to the Gospel of the Marcosians. It is often difficult to decide whether a writer has really before him an unknown document or merely a variant text of one with which we are familiar. In the case of Justin it is to be noticed that there is often a very considerable approximation to his readings, not in the best text, but in some very early attested text, of the Canonical Gospels. It will be well to collect some of the most prominent instances of this. Matt. iii. 15 ad fin. ical irvp avqtpQr] \v TQ> 'lopSavy Justin. So a. (Codex Vercellensis of the Old Latin translation) adds ' et cum baptiza- retur lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant ; ' g l . (Codex Sangermanensis of the same) ' lumen . magnum fulgebat de aqua,' &c. See above. Luke iii. 22. Justin reads vlos pov tl av, e-ycu aijfiepov yfytwrjica at. So D, a, b, c, ff, 1, Latin Fathers (' nonnulli codices ' Augustine). See above. Matt. v. 28. 6s av e^\e\f/ri for was 6 /JXeffaii/. Origen five times as Justin, only once the accepted text. Matt. v. 29. Justin and Clement of Alexandria read here e>c>coi{/ov for f(Xe, probably from the next verse or from Matt, xviii. 8. Matt. vi. 20. ovpavots Clem. Alex, with Justin ; ovpavqi the accepted reading. Matt. xvi. 26. &(p(\eiTai Justin with most MSS. both of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac (Crowfoot), Clement, 134 JUSTIN MARTYR. Hilary, and Lucifer, against w Justin; similarly Origen, four times, and Syr. Crt. Luke xiii. 27. avofuas for aSiicias, D and Justin. Matt. xiii. 43. Ka^caaiv for tK\a.fj^iuaiv, with Justin, D, and Origen (twice). Matt. xxv. 41. Of Justin's readings in this verse vrrayfTf for voptvfaOt is found also in N and Hippolytus, fgwrtpov for aiuvtov in the cursive manuscript numbered 40 (Credner ; I am unable to verify this), & qToiiMiaev 6 iraTTjp pov for TO fjToifia.afj.fvov D. I, 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 n\eov for irtpiaaoTtpov and also the compound form airanrfaovaiv. Luke xx. 24. Though in the main following (but loosely) the text of Luke, Justin has here TO i>6fuafM, as Matt., instead of Srjvapiov ; soD. Though it will be seen that Justin has thus much in common with D and the Old Latin version, it should be noticed that he has the verse, Luke xxii. 19, and espe- cially the clause TOVTO Trouire eis TIJV e/z7)z> avdnvrifnv which is wanting in these authorities. On the other hand, he appears to have with them and other authorities, in- cluding Syr. Crt., the Agony in the Garden as given in Luke xxii. 43, 44, which verses are omitted in MSS. of the best Alexandrine type. Luke xxiii. 34, Justin also JUSTIN MARTYR. 135 has, with the divided support of the majority of Greek MSS. Vulgate, c, e, f, ff of the Old Latin, Syr. Crt. and Pst. &c. against B, D (prima manu), a, b, Memph. (MSS.) Theb. These readings represent in the main a text which was undoubtedly current and widely diffused in the second century. 'Though no surviving manuscript of the Old Latin version dates before the fourth century and most of them belong to a still later age, yet the general correspondence of their text with that of the first Latin Fathers is a sufficient voucher for its high antiquity. The connexion subsisting between this Latin version, the Curetonian Syriac and Codex Bezae, proves that the text of these documents is considerably older than the vellum on which they are written.' Such is Dr. Scrivener's verdict upon the class of authorities with which Justin shows the strongest affinity, and he goes on to add ; ' Now it may be said without extravagance that no set of Scriptural records affords a text less probable in itself, less sustained by any rational principles of external evidence, than that of Cod. D, of the Latin codices, and (so far as it accords with them) of Cureton's Syriac. Interpolations as insipid in themselves as un- supported by other evidence abound in them all .... It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testa- ment has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed V This is a point on which text critics of all schools are substan- tially agreed. However much they may differ in other respects, no one of them has ever thought of taking 1 Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T. p. 452 (2nd edition, 1874). 136 JUSTIN MARTYR. the text of the Old Syriac and Old Latin translations as the basis of an edition. There can be no question that this text belongs to an advanced, though early, stage of corruption. At the same stage of corruption, then, Justin's quo- tations from the Gospels are found, and this very fact is a proof of the antiquity of originals so corrupted. The coincidences are too many and too great all to be the result of accident or to be accounted for by the parallel influence of the lost Gospels. The presence, for instance, of the reading o fj-oiiJiacrev 6 r,a.Ti]p for TO f)Toifj.at his own belief in the canonicity of the fourth Gospel, but its undisputed canonicity, i. e. a historical fact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c. If I say that Hamlet is an undisputed play of Shakspeare's, I mean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare's myself, but that all the critics from Shakspeare's time downwards have believed it to be his.] 140 HEGESIPPUS. presumption is rather that he did, like the rest of the Church, receive it. Eusebius only records what seems to him specially memorable, except where the place of the work in or out of the Canon has itself to be vindicated. But if this holds good, then most of what is said against the use of the Gospels by Hegesippus falls to the ground. Eusebius expressly says 1 that Hegesippus made occasional use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews (!K re TOV naff c E/3pcuous evayyeAiov . . . rtva ri0jjo-u>). But apart from the conclusion referred to above, the very language of Eusebius (rLO^criv nva ex) is enough to suggest that the use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews was subordinate and subsidiary. Eusebius can hardly have spoken in this way of ' the Gospel of which Hegesippus made use' in all the five books of his ' Memoirs.' The expression tallies exactly with what we should expect of a work used in addition to but not to the exclusion of our Gospels. The fact that Eusebius says nothing about these shows that his readers would take it for granted that Hegesippus, as an orthodox Christian, received them. With this conclusion the fragments of the work of Hegesippus that have come down to us agree. The quotations made in them are explained most simply and naturally, on the assumption that our Gospels have been used. The first to which we come is merely an allusion to the narrative of Matt, ii ; ' For Domitian feared the coming of the Christ as much as Herod.' Those there- fore who take the statement of Eusebius to mean that Hegesippus used only the Gospel according to the Hebrews are compelled to seek for the account of the 1 H. E. iv. 22. HEGESIPPUS. 141 Massacre of the Innocents in that Gospel. It appears however from Epiphanius that precisely this very portion of the first Gospel was wanting in the Gospel according to the Hebrews as used both by the Ebionites and by the Nazarenes. ' But if it be doubtful whether some forms of that Gospel contained the two opening chapters of Matthew, it is certain that Jerome found them in the version which he translated V I am afraid that here, as in so many other cases, the words ' doubtful ' and ' certain ' are used with very little regard to their meanings. In support of the inference from Jerome, the author refers to De Wette, Schwegler, and an article in a periodical publication by Ewald. De Wette ex- pressly says that the inference does not follow ('Aus Comm. ad Matt. ii. 6 . . . lasst sich nicht schliessen dass er hierbei das Evang. der Hebr. verglichen habe .... Nicht viel besser beweisen die St. ad Jes. xi. i ; ad Abac. iii. 3 25 ). He thinks that the presence of these chapters in Jerome's copy cannot be satisfactorily proved, but is probable just from this allusion in Hegesippus in regard to which De Wette simply follows the tra- ditional, but, as we have seen, erroneous assumption that Hegesippus used only the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Schwegler 3 gives no reasons, but refers to the passages quoted from Jerome in Credner. Credner, after examining these passages, comes to the conclusion that ' the Gospel of the Nazarenes did not contain the chapters 4 .' Ewald's periodical I cannot refer to, but Hilgenfeld, after an elaborate review of the question, decides that the chapters were omitted 5 . This is the 1 S. R. i. p. 436. " Einleitung, p. 103. 3 Das Nachapost. Zeit. i. p. 238. * Beitrdge, i. p. 401. 5 Nov. Test, extra Can. Recept. Fasc. iv. pp. 19, zo. 143 HEGESIPPUS. only authority I can find for the ' certainty that Jerome found them ' in his version. On the whole, then, it seems decidedly more pro- bable (certainties we cannot deal in) that the incident referred to by Hegesippus was missing from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That Gospel therefore was not quoted by him, but, on the contrary, there is a pre- sumption that he is quoting from the Canonical Gospel. The narrative of the parallel Gospel of St. Luke seems, if not to exclude the Massacre of the Innocents, yet to imply an ignorance of it. The next passage that appears to be quotation occurs in the account of the death of James the Just ; ' Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus the Son of Man ? He too sits in heaven on the right hand of the great Power and will come on the clouds of heaven ' (Tt /xe e-Trepcorarc itfpl 'lr)crov TOV vlov TOV avOpanrov ; KOI avros /carrot zv rcS ovpavta (K bt&tov TT/S /xeya\Tj5 8wa/zea)s, KOI /xe'AXei e/>xeo-0at firl T&V vf$tXG>v TOV ovpavov). It seems natural to suppose that this is an allusion to Matt. xxvi. 64, art' apn oi//eo-0e TOV vibv TOV ai'6pu>TTOv KaQrintvov CK $eia>v TTJS Siwa/xecos, Kal fp^ofj.fi'ov 7:1 T&V vt(f)\)v TOV ovpavov. The passage is one that belongs to the triple synopsis, and the form in which it appears in Hegesippus shows a preponderating resemblance to the version of St. Matthew. Mark inserts Ka6riiJ.voi> between e/c bfi>v and TTJS 5wa/xeoos, while Luke thinks it necessary to add TOV deov. The third Evangelist omits the phrase CTTI T&V ^e^eXoSy TOV ovpavov altogether, and the second substitutes fierd for tni In fact the phrase CTH T&V ve(pe\u>v occurs in the New Testament only in St. Matthew ; the Apocalypse, like St. Mark, has /iera and u only with the singular. In like manner, when we find Hegesippus using the HEGESIPPUS. 143 phrase TTpoa-utirov ov Xa/x/Sareis, this seems to be a re- miniscence of Luke xx. 21, where the synoptic parallels have /3Ae7reis. A more decided reference to the third Gospel occurs in the dying prayer of St. James ; vapanaXS), Kvptf 0ee irdrep, afas avTolf' ov yap otScunn' iroiovo-iv, which corresponds to Luke xxiii. 34> Trdrep, a0es avrols' ov yap olbao-iv TL TrotoOo-ir. There is the more reason to believe that Hegesippus' quotation is derived from this source that it reproduces the peculiar use of dieWi in the sense of 'forgive' without an expressed object. Though the word is of very frequent occurrence, I find no other instance of this in the New Testament 1 , and the Cle- mentine Homilies, in making the same quotation, insert ras a/xaprias O.VT&V. The saying is well known to be peculiar to St. Luke. There is perhaps a balance of evidence against its genuineness, but this is of little importance, as it undoubtedly formed part of the Gospel as early as Irenaeus, who wrote much about the same time as Hegesippus. The remaining passage occurs in a fragment pre- served from Stephanus Gobarus, a writer of the sixth century, by Photius, writing in the ninth. Referring to the saying ' Eye hath not seen,' &c., Gobarus says ' that Hegesippus, an ancient and apostolical man, asserts he knows not why that these words are vainly spoken, and that those who use them give the lie to the sacred writings and to our Lord Himself who said, " Blessed are your eyes that see and your ears that 1 We have, however, had occasion to note a somewhat parallel, though not quite parallel, instance in the quotation of Clement of Rome and Poly- carp, df6-f)crtTai vfuv~\. 144 HEGESIPPUS. hear," ' &c. ' Those who use these words ' are, we can hardly doubt, as Dr. Lightfoot after Routh has shown \ the Gnostics, though Hegesippus would seem to have forgotten I Cor. ii. 9. The anti-Pauline position as- signed to Hegesippus on the strength of this is, we must say, untenable. But for the present we are con- cerned rather with the second quotation, which agrees closely with Matt. xiii. 26 (v^S>v 8e juaxapiot 01 o00aA/xo4 on (3keTrov(nv, KCU ra >ra v/ix,a>i> on anovovaiv). The form of the quotation has a slightly nearer resemblance to Luke x. 23 (//dKapiot 01 6(f)6aXp.ol ol /SAeTrorres a /3Ae7rere K. r. A..), but the marked difference in the remainder of the Lucan passage increases the presumption that Hegesippus is quoting from the first Gospel 2 . The use of the phrase rStv Qduv ypaQ&v is important and remarkable. There is not, so far as I am aware, any instance of so definite an expression being applied to an apocryphal Gospel. It would tend to prepare us for the strong assertion of the Canon of the Gospels in Irenaeus ; it would in fact mark the gradually culmi- nating process which went on in the interval which separated Irenaeus from Justin. To this interval the evidence of Hegesippus must be taken to apply, because though writing like Irenaeus under Eleutherus (from I77 A - D -) he was his elder contemporary, and had been received with high respect in Rome as early as the episcopate of Anicetus (157-168 A.D.). The relations in which Hegesippus describes himself 1 Contemporary Review, Dec. 1874, p. 8 ; cf. Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, i. p. 281 ad fin. 2 Tregelles, writing on the ' Ancient Syriac Versions ' in Smith's Dic- tionary, iii. p. 1635 a, says that 'these words might be a Greek rendering of Matt. xiii. 16 as they stand' in the Curetonian text. PAPIAS. 145 as standing to the Churches and bishops of Corinth and Rome seem to be decisive as to his substantial ortho- doxy. This would give reason to think that he made use of our present Gospels, and the few quotations that have come down to us confirm that view not inconsider- ably, though by themselves they might not be quite sufficient to prove it. There is one passage that may be thought to point to an apocryphal Gospel, ' From these arose false Christs, false prophets, false apostles ;' which recalls a sentence in the Clementines, ' For there shall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, heresies, ambitions.' It is not, however, nearer to this than to the canonical parallel, Matt. xxiv. 24 (' There shall arise false Christs and false prophets '). 2. In turning from Hegesippus to Papias we come at last to what seems to be a definite and satisfactory statement as to the origin of two at least of the Synoptic Gospels, and to what is really the most enig- matic and tantalizing of all the patristic utterances. Like Hegesippus, Papias may be described as 'an ancient and apostolic man,' and appears to have better deserved the title. He is said to have suffered martyr- dom under M. Aurelius about the same time as Polycarp, 165-167 A.D. 1 He wrote a commentary on the Discourses or more properly Oracles of ' the Lord, from which Eusebius extracted what seemed to him 'memorable' statements respecting the origin of the first and second 1 Or rather perhaps 155, 156; see p. 82 above. L 146 PAP I AS. Gospels. ' Matthew,' Papias said l , ' wrote the oracles (ra Ao'yta) in the Hebrew tongue, and every one interpreted them as he was able.' ' Mark, as the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered that was said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor attended upon Him, but later, as I said, upon Peter, who taught according to the occasion and not as composing a connected narra- tive of the Lord's discourses ; so that Mark made no mistake in writing down some things as he remem- bered them. For he took care of one thing, not to omit any of the particulars that he heard or to falsify any part of them.' Let us take the second of these statements first. According to it the Gospel of St. Mark consisted of notes taken down, or rather recollected, from the teach- ing of Peter. It was not written ' in order,' but it was an original work in the sense that it was first put in writing by Mark himself, having previously existed only in an oral form. Does this agree with the facts of the Gospel as it appears to us now? There is a certain ambiguity as to the phrase ' in order.' We cannot be quite sure what Papias meant by it, but the most natural conclusion seems to be that it meant chronological order. If so, the statement of Papias seems to be so far borne out that none of the Synoptic Gospels is really in exact chronological order ; but, strange to say, if there is any in which an approach to such an order is made, it is precisely this of St. Mark. This appears from a com- \ 1 H. E. iii. 39. P API AS. 147 parison of the three Synoptics. From the point at which the second Gospel begins, or, in other words, from the Baptism to the Crucifixion, it seems to give the outline that the other two Gospels follow l . If either of them diverges from it for a time it is only to return. The early part of St. Matthew is broken up by the intru- sion of the so-called Sermon on the Mount, but all this time St. Mark is in approximate agreement with St. Luke. For a short space the three Gospels go together. Then comes a second break, where Luke in- troduces his version of the Sermon on the Mount. Then the three rejoin and proceed together, Matthew being thrown out by the way in which he has collected the parables into a single chapter, and Luke later by the place which he has assigned to the incident at Naza- reth. After this Matthew and Mark proceed side by side, Luke dropping out of the ranks. At the con- fession of Peter he takes his place again, and there is a close agreement in the order of the three narratives. The incident of the miracle-worker is omitted by Mat- thew, and then comes the insertion of a mass of extra- neous matter by Luke. When he resumes the thread 1 In Mr. M'Clellan's recent Harmony I notice only two deviations from the order in St. Mark, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-29. In Mr. Fuller's Harmony (the Harmony itself and not the Table of Contents, in which there are several oversights) there seem to be two, Mark vi. 17-20, xiv. 3-9; in Dr. Robin- son's English Harmony three, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-20, xiv. 22-72 (considerable variation). Of these passages vi. 1 7-20 (the imprisonment of the Baptist) is the only one the place of which all three writers agree in changing. [Dr. Lightfoot, in Cont. Rev., Aug. 1875, p. 394, appeals to Anger and Tischendorf in proof of the contrary proposition, that the order of Mark cannot be maintained. But Tischendorf 's Harmony is based on the assump- tion that St. Luke's use of KaOerjs pledges him to a chronological order, and Anger adopts Griesbach's hypothesis that Mark is a compilation from Matthew and Luke. The remarks in the text turn, not upon precarious harmonistic results, but upon a simple comparison of the three Gospels.] L 2 148 PAPIAS. of the common narrative again all three are together. The insertion of a single parable on the part of Mat- thew, and omissions on the part of Luke, are the only interruptions. There is an approximate agreement of all three, we may say, for the rest of the narrative. We observe throughout that, in by far the preponderating number of instances, where Matthew differs from the order of Mark, Luke and Mark agree, and where Luke differs from the order of Mark, Matthew and Mark agree. Thus, for instance, in the account of the healings in Peter's house and of the paralytic, in the relation of the parables of Mark iv. 1-34 to the storm at sea which follows, of the healing of Jairus' daughter to that of the Gadarene demoniac and to the mission of the Twelve in the place of Herod's reflections (Mark vi. 14-16), in the warning against the Scribes and the widow's mite (Mark xii. 38-44), the second and third Synoptics are allied against the first. On the other hand, in the call of the four chief Apostles, the death of the Baptist, the walking on the sea, the miracles in the land of Gennesareth, the washing of hands, the Canaanitish woman, the feeding of the four thousand and the discourses which follow, the ambition of the sons of Zebedee, the anointing at Bethany, and several insertions of the third Evangelist in regard to the last events, the first two are allied against him. While Mark thus receives such alternating support from one or other of his fellow Evangelists, I am not aware of any clear case in which, as to the order of the narratives, they are united and he is alone, unless we are to reckon as such his insertion of the incident of the fugitive between Matt. xxvi. 56, 57, Luke xxii. 53, 54. It appears then that, so far as there is an order in PAP I AS. 149 the Synoptic Gospels, the normal type of that order is to be found precisely in St. Mark, whom Papias alleges to have written not in order. But again there seems to be evidence that the Gospel, in the form in which it has come down to us, is not original but based upon another document previously existing. When we come to examine closely its verbal relations to the other two Synoptics, its normal character is in the main borne out, but still not quite completely. The number of particulars in which Matthew and Mark agree together against Luke, or Mark and Luke agree together against Matthew, is far in excess of that in which Matthew and Luke are agreed against Mark. Mark is in most cases the middle term which unites the other two. But still there remains a not incon- siderable residuum of cases in which Matthew and Luke are in combination and Mark at variance. The figures obtained by a not quite exact and yet somewhat elabo- rate computation l are these ; Matthew and Mark agree together against Luke in 1684 particulars, Luke and Mark against Matthew in 944, but Matthew and Luke against Mark in only 334. These 334 instances are distributed pretty evenly over the whole of the nar- rative. Thus (to take a case at random) in the parallel narratives Matt. xii. 1-8, Mark ii. 23-28, Luke vi. 1-5 (the plucking of the ears on the Sabbath day), there are fifty-one points (words or parts of words) common to all three Evangelists, twenty-three are common only to Mark and Luke, ten to Mark and Matthew, and eight to Matthew and Luke. In the next section, the healing of 1 Perhaps I should explain that this was made by underlining the points of resemblance between the Gospels in different coloured pencil and reckoning up the results at the end of each section. 150 P API AS. the withered hand, twenty points are found alike in all three Gospels, twenty-seven in Mark and Luke, twenty- one in Mark and Matthew, and five in Matthew and Luke. Many of these coincidences between the first and third Synoptics are insignificant in the extreme. Thus, in the last section referred to (Mark iii. 1-6 = Matt. xii. 9-i4=Luke vi. 6-u), one is the insertion of the article rr)v ((nwaywyyjz;), one the insertion of vov (r?/y Xapa o-ov), two the use of 8e for /cm, and one that of ei/rev for Aeyet. In the paragraph before, the eight points of coincidence between Matthew and Luke are made up thus, two /ecu fjcrdiov ( = ical ecrflieir), cnrou ( = eurcu'), Troietv, eiTrtv, /xer' avrov ( = ), povovs ( = jur>Vcus). But though such points as these, if they had been few in number, might have been passed without notice, still, on the whole, they reach a considerable aggregate and all are not equally unimportant. Thus, in the account of the healing of the paralytic, such phrases as eTrt /cAfojjs, atrrjXOev ds TOV OIKOV amov, can hardly have come into the first and third Gospels and be absent from the second by accident ; so again the clause dAAa fiaXXovviv (/3/\ryreor) olvov viov ds O.O-KOVS Kaivovs. In the account of the healing of the bloody flux the important word TOV /cpao-WSou is inserted in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark ; in that of the mission of the twelve Apostles, the two Evange- lists have, and the single one has not, the phrase KOI OfpaTTevfiv vocrov (roVovs), and the still more important clause Ae'yo) i/fuv avfKTorepov eorcu (yf/) 2o8o'//o>i' . . . ev 7]fji pa ... ?*/ rrj Tro'Aei eiceCvr) : in Luke ix. J ( = Matt. xiv. i) Herod's title is rerpapx^s, in Mark vi. 14 fias ; in the succeeding paragraph ol ox\oi. riKo\ov8j](rav and the im- portant ro TifpLao-evov (-o-ar) are wanting in the inter- mediate Gospel ; in the first prophecy of the Passion it P API AS. 151 has di7o where the other two have 1/7:0', and p-era fipepas where they have rfj rplrri ?//x,epa : in the healing of the lunatic boy it omits the noticeable /cat Steorpa/^- : in the second prophecy of the Passion it omits i, in the paragraph about offences, eA0eu> ra ep(t TOV vfruv. M. 3. 55, Matt. 6. 6, Q. 19.2,Matt.6.i3,Q. (M.) 3. 55, Matt. 6. 32 ; combination. 6.8( = Lukei2. 30). 18. 16, Matt. 7. 2 oblique and allu- (12). sive. 3. 52, Matt. 7. 7 (vpiaKfTf for tvpr]- ( = Lukeii.9). oivi- (M.) 17. 18, Matt. 1 6. 7. 24-30). Kl aoa. 1 6 (par.) M. Ep. Clem. 2, Matt. allusive merely. 16. 19. M. Ep. Clem. 6, Matt. ditto. 16. 19. (M.) 3. 53, Matt. 17. 5 (par.), Q. M. 12. 29, Matt. 1 8. addition (TO afaBd 7,Q- (\0tiy). M. 17. 7, Matt. 1 8. 10 (V.I.) 1 66 THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. (L.) 3. 71, Luke 10. 7 (order) ( = Matt.io.io). L. f!9. 2, Luke 10. 18. L. 9. 22, Luke 10. 20. allusive merely. L. 17. 5, Luke 18. 6- 8, Q. (?)^ 19. 2, /XT) 80T 7T/)(5- Cp. Eph. 4. 27. d)CLfftV TW TTOTSTJpCi/) Q- 3. 53, Prophet like Cp. Acts 3. 22. Moses, Q. (M.) 3. 54, Matt. 19. 8, sense more diver- 4 ( = Markio. 5, gent than words. 6), Q. 17 . fMatt. 19. 1 }! ' 16, 17. j Mark 10. Jl'iSI 17,18. repeated simi- }- larly; cp. Jus- tin. 3 ' 57 L U i8?i9-' ! L. 3. 63, Luke 19.5, 9. not quotation. M. 8. 4, Matt. 22. 14, Q. (M.) 8. 22, Matt. 22. 9, allusive merely. II. 3. SOrMatt. 22. 18. 20 (12.24), Q. [repeated simi- t larly. 3. 50, SIOL ri ov vofirf ri fv\o- yov TWV fpatySiv; (Mk.) 3. 55, Mark 12. 27 (par.\ Q. Mk. 3. 57, Mark I 2.29(i7/*o;i').Q. 17. 7, Mark 12. 30 allusive. ( = Matt. 22. 37). r 3. 18, Matt. 23. 2, \ 3,Q- 3.18, Matt. 23. 13 repeated similarly. I ( = Luke 1 1. 52). 18. 15. (M.) 11. 29, Matt. 23. 25, 26, Q. (Mk.) r 3. 15, Mark 13. 2 (par.), Q. \ 3. 15, Matt. 24. 3 ] (par.), Q. L. Luke 19. 43, Q. THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 167 Exact. Slightly variant. Variant. Remarks. 16. 21. effovrai (M.) 3. 60(3. Qi\ Matt. ttvSawToloi. part repeated simi- 24- 45 -5 * ( = larly. Luke 1 2. 42-46). (M.) 3. 65, Matt. 25. 21 ( = Luke 19. 17). (M. L.) 3. 61, Matt. 25. 26, ? mixed peculi- 27 ( = Luke 19. arities. 22, 23). 2. 51}7iW7jrot)). It is really taken from Ps. Ixxvii. 2, which is ascribed in the heading to Asaph, who, according to the usage of writers at this date, might be called a prophet, as he is in the Septuagint version of 2 Chron. xxix. 30. The phrase 6 -npofa'iTrjs Ae'yei in quotations from the Psalms is not uncommon. The received reading 1 70 THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. is that of by far the majority of the MSS. and ver- sions : the first hand of the Sinaitic, however, and the valuable cursives I and 33 with the Aethiopic (a version on which not much reliance can be placed) and m. of the Old Latin (Mai's ' Speculum,' presenting a mixed African text 1 ), insert 'Ho-aiov before TOV -ny)o?;rou. It also appears that Porphyry alleged this as an instance of false ascription. Eusebius admits that it was found in some, though not in the most accurate MSS., and Jerome says that in his day it was still the reading of 'many.' All this is very fully and fairly stated in ' Supernatural Religion 2 ,' where it is maintained that 'H'o-aiou is the original reading. The critical question is one of great difficulty ; because, though the evidence of the Fathers is naturally suspected on account of their desire to explain away the mistake, and though we can easily imagine that the correction would be made very early and would rapidly gain ground, still the very great preponderance of critical authority is hard to get over, and as a rule Eusebius seems to be trustworthy in his estimate of MSS. Tischendorf (in his texts of 1864 and 1869) is, I believe, the only critic of late who has admitted 'Haaiou into the text. The false ascription^ may be easily paralleled ; as in Mark i. 2, Matt, xxvii. 9, Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 28 (where a passage of Jeremiah is quoted as Isaiah), &c. 1 So Tregelles expressly (Introduction, p. 240), after Wiseman ; Scrivener (Introd., p. 308) adds (,?) ; M'Clellan classes with ' Italic Family ' (p. Ixxiii). [On returning to this passage I incline rather more definitely to regard the reading 'Haatov, from the group in which it is found, as an early Alexandrine corruption. Still the Clementine writer may have had it before him.] - ii. p. 10 sqq. Till-: CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 171 The relation of the Clementine and of the canonical quotations to each other and to the Septuagint will be represented thus : Clem. Horn, xviii. 15. Mall. xiii. 35. Km TUV 'Htraiac (Ivtiv' 'Awta> "iijrws TrXr/pcaGf/ TO prjdiv 8ia T/> (m'>fj.(t fjiov (v 7ra/3a/3oXats KOI ['Hcraiou ?] rov Trpo(f)r)rov \tyov- ifl(NvofUU KfKpiifj.fj.fva TTO Kara- TOS' 'Avoi^co ev napaft(rfJ.OV. (TTt'lfM /iOU, tffU^OftM KfKpVflfJLfVn OTTO K(tTaf3o\r)s Konrfjtnv [om. KOffpov a few of the best MSS.] LXX. Ps. Ixxvii. 2. 'Apotptf tv TrapafttiXtris TO (jrofia pov, (pdty^opai Trpoft\rmaTa ait (ip\rj?. The author of ' Supernatural Religion ' contends for the reading 'llva'Lv, and yet does not see in the Cle- mentine passage a quotation from St. Matthew. He argues, with a strange domination by modern ideas, that the quotation cannot be from St. Matthew because of the difference of context, and declares it to be 'very probable that the passage with its erroneous reference was derived by both from another and common source.' Surely it is not necessary to go back to the second century to find parallels for the use of ' proof texts ' without reference to the context ; but, as we have seen, context counts for little or nothing in these early quo- tations, verbal resemblance is much more important. The supposition of a common earlier source for both the Canonical and the Clementine text seems to me quite out of the question. There can be little doubt that the reference to the Psalm is due to the first Evangelist himself. Precisely up to this point he goes hand in hand with St. Mark, and the quotation is intro- duced in his own peculiar style and with his own pecu- liar formula, OTTCOS irATj/jcoflr) TO pr\Qiv. 1 72 THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. I must, however, again repeat that the surest crite- rion of the use of a Gospel is to be sought in the presence of phrases or turns of expression which are shown to be characteristic and distinctive of that Gospel by a comparison with the synopsis of the other Gospels. This criterion can be abundantly applied in the case of the Clementine Homilies and St. Matthew. I will notice a little more at length some of the instances that have been marked in the above table. Let us first take the passage which has a parallel in Matt. v. 18 and in Luke xvi. 17. The three versions will stand thus : Clem. Horn. iii. 51. Matt. v. 1 8. Ep. Pet. c. 2. Luke xvi. 17. 'Ap.r)V yap Xeyw vfiiv" 'O ovpavbs Km fj yij T,vKO7T(OTfpov Se e'erri, ews av Trapf\6r) 6 ovpa- Trap(\fv OTI XPJlC fTe r v- XptjfTe TOVTOOV andv- on XPTI& Tf TOVTW a- rcav. T(ov. mbtw, irpiv avrov di (kv vp,eis ol apt- Teir Kal 4>aptcralot, VTTO- Katapicrcuot, vTTOKpirai, craloi TO et-uiOev TOV Kpirai, OTI Ka6api(T OTI Kadapi^ere TOV TTO- TTOTTjpiov KOL rov irlva- TO eu>6ev TOV TTOTrjpiov Trjpiov Kal TTJS irapatyi- KOS Ka6apieTe, TO 8e Kal TTJS -rrapo^io-os, eaw- Soy TO egaidfv, fvwdev e'(rco(9ei' i.pG>v yfp.fi ap- 6fv 8e yep.ovo-iv ( ap- &f ytp.fi pvnovs. *a- Kay>js xal irovqpias. Trayfjs Kal aftiKias. *a- pirrale Tv(p\e, KaOdpivov Atfrpoves 011% 6 7roir]O-as picraif TV(p\e, Kaddpiarov irp&rov TOV TroTypiov TO e' ? TO ofv TrpS)TOV TO evTos TOV Ka TT)S TTOTrjpiov Kal TTJS irapo- fO~a>6ev, Iva yivifrtu. Kal ^/iBos, Iva yfvrjTai Kal TO. f'a> avTutv KaBapd. TO fKTos avTaiv Kadapov. Here there is a very remarkable transition in the first Gospel from the plural to the singular in the sudden turn of the address, 4>apto-aie ruc/>Ae'. This derives no countenance from the third Gospel, but is exactly re- produced in the Clementine Homilies, which follow closely the Matthaean version throughout. We may defer for the present the notice of a few passages which with a more or less close resemblance 1 Das Marcus-evangelium, p. 295. THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 177 to St. Matthew also contain some of the peculiarities of St. Luke. Taking into account the whole extent to which the special peculiarities of the first Gospel reappear in the Clementines, I think we shall be left in little doubt that that Gospel has been actually used by the writer. The peculiar features of our present St. Mark are known to be extremely few, yet several of these are also found in the Clementine Homilies. In the quota- tion Mark x. 5, 6 (= Matt. xix. 8, 4) the order of Mark is followed, though the words are more nearly those of Matthew. In the divergent quotation Mark xii. 24 ( Matt. xxii. 29) the Clementines, with Mark, in- troduce 8m TOVTO. The concluding clause of the dis- cussion about the Levirate marriage stands (according to the best readings) thus : Matt. xxii. 32. Mark xii. 27. Luke xx. 38. OVK fcmv 6 Of os OVK effTiv Qfbs vfK- Qfbs 8f OVK tanv vfKpcav, dXXa a>vra>v, p&v, dXXri VTU>V. Here eo'j is in Mark and the Clementines a predicate, in Matthew the subject. In the introduction to the Eschatological discourse the Clementines approach more nearly to St. Mark than to any other Gospel : c Opare s, Mark) ras (/^teyaAa?, Mark) oto8o//.a? ravras ; a^v (as Matt.) \i6os tul Xidov ov p.rj a(pe6>i &be, os ov M (as Mark) KaOaipeOri (KaraAi/0?/, Mark ; other Gospels, future). Instead of ra? oi/co8o/xas ravras the other Gospels have raiira TO.VTO. Travra. But there are two stronger cases than these. The Clementines and Mark alone have the opening clause N 178 THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. of the quotation from Deut. vi. 4, "AKowe, 'la/iaTjA, Ki'pios 6 0eo? i]^Sv Kvpios ets eortV. In the synopsis of the first Gospel this is omitted (Matt. xxii. 37). There is a variation in the Clementine text, which for ?/juwi> has, according to Dressel, v. Both these readings however are represented among the authorities for the canonical text : vov is found in c (Codex Colbertinus, one of the best copies of. the Old Latin), in the Memphitic and Aethiopic versions, and in the Latin Fathers Cyprian and Hilary ; vpav (vester) has the authority of the Viennese fragment i, another representative of the primitive African form of the Old Latin l . The objection to the inference that the quotation is made from St. Mark, derived from the context in which it appears in the Clementines, is really quite nugatory. It is true that the quotation is addressed to those ' who were beguiled to imagine many gods/ and that ' there is no hint of the assertion of many gods in the Gospel - ;' but just as little hint is there of the assertion ' that God is evil' in the quotation JUT? /ie Ae'y^ r <- ayadov just before. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the Gospel from which the Clementines quote would contain any such assertion. In this particular case the mode of quotation cannot be said to be very unscrupulous ; but even if it were more so we need not go back to antiquity for parallels : they are to be found in abundance in any 1 A friend has kindly extracted for me, from Holmes and Parsons, the authorities for the Septuagint text of Deut. vi. 4. For aov there are 'Const. App. 219, 354, 355; Ignat. Epp. 104, 112; Clem. Al. 68, 718: Chrys. i. 482 et saepe, al.' For tuns, 'Iren. (int.), Tert., Cypr., Ambr., Anonym, ap. Aug., Gaud., Brix., Alii Latini.' No authorities for l^wv. Was the change first introduced into the text of the New Testament ? ' 2 S. R. ii. p. 25. THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 179 ordinary collection of proof texts of the Church Cate- chism or of the Thirty-nine Articles, or in most works of popular controversy. I must confess to my surprise that such an objection could be made by an experienced critic. Credner 1 gives the last as the one decided -approxima- tion to our second Gospel, apparently overlooking the minor points mentioned above ; but, at the time when he wrote, the concluding portion of the Homilies, which contains the other most striking instance, had not yet been published. With regard to this second instance, I must express my agreement with Canon Westcott a against the author of ' Supernatural Religion.' The pas- sage stands thus in the Clementines and the Gospel : Clem. Horn. xix. 20. Mark iv. 34. Ato KOI Tols O.VTOV [jiaffrjTais Kar" . . . KOT' l&iav 8f TOLS fiaOrjTals i&iav eneXvf TTJS rwv ovpav&p /3u StSorat TTJS /3at7tAetay TOV Qeov). The canonical reading, rois /uta^^rats O.VTOV, rests chiefly upon Western authority (D, b, c, e, f, Vulg.) with A, i, 33, &c. and is adopted by Tregelles it should be noted before the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus. The true reading is probably that which appears in this MS. along with ' B, C, L, A, rot? Ibiois ^a&jTcu?. We have however already seen the leaning of the Clementines for Western readings. When we compare the synopsis of St. Mark and St. Matthew together we should be inclined to set this down as a very decided instance of quotation from the former. The only circumstance that detracts 1 Beitrage, i. p. 326. 2 On the Canon, p. 261, n. 2. N 2 180 THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. from the certainty of this conclusion is that a quotation had been made just before which is certainly not from our canonical Gospels, ra p-va-ripia e/xoi KO.I rots wot? TOV OIKOV fj.ov (f)v\aa.T. This is rightly noted in ' Super- natural Religion.' All that we can say is that it is a drawback it is just a makeweight in the opposite scale, as suggesting that the second quotation may be also from an apocryphal Gospel ; but it does not by any means serve to counterbalance the presumption that the quotation* is canonical. The coincidence of language is very marked. The peculiar compound -i\vu> occurs only once besides (cTri'Avms also once) in the whole of the New Testament, and not at all in the Gospels. With the third Gospel also there are coincidences. Of the passages peculiar to this Gospel the Clementine writer has the fall of Satan (TOV irovr]p6i>, Clem.) like lightning from heaven, ' rejoice that your names are written in the book of life ' (expanded with evident freedom), the unjust judge, Zacchaeus, the circumvallation of Jerusalem, and the prayer, for the forgiveness of the Jews, upon the cross. It is unlikely that these passages, which are wanting in all our extant Gospels, should have had any other source than our third Synoptic. The ' circumvallation ' (TrepixapaKuxrovaiv Clem., TitpiftaKovaw Xpafca Luke) is especially important, as it is probable, and believed by many critics, that this particular detail was added by the Evangelist after the event. The parable of the unjust judge, though reproduced with something of the freedom to which we are accustomed in patristic narrative quotations both from the Old and New Testament, has yet remarkable similarities of style and diction (o K/HTT/S rijs dSiKt'a?, Troojcrei TIJV K$IKT](TIV TU>V THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 181 irpos avrov fj/jLtpas Kal VVKTOS, Ae'yco i>[J.lv, ev We have to add to these another class of peculiarities which occur in places where the synoptic parallel has been preserved. Thus in the Sermon on the Mount we find the following : Matt. vii. 21. Clem. Horn. viii. 7. Luke vi. 46. Ou Tra? 6 Xrywv /zot, Tt ^f Xym' Kv/}t. ortj *Atns yiip 6 fpyd- TTJS Tpotprjy avTov l TtVa (ilrfjafi vibs ap- Tiva 8e ( ipSiv TOV ai^pcoTro?, ov (av atTTj- TOV } pf) \i6ov tiri8warci irartpa aiTfjad 6 vios crrj 6 vios avrov Spror, ai>Tq> ' } fj KOI l^duv at- aproi>, p.f] \l6ov tTTi- p.1) \L6ov eVifitocrft av- Tijcret, fiij o(piv eVtScocret ScocTft avTw j fj Km l%- TO> ', Kai eav i\6iiv al- airw ' fl ovv Vfifls, 6vi>, p.f) avrl l^duus TTjcrT] p.fj oipiv eVtSaxTfi TrovrjptA ovrts, oiSare ofpiv eViScoerei avTT, TTOCTO) e'TuSaXTei OVTW (TKOp- 8(>p.aTa dyada 8i86vat /xaXXov 6 Trarijp vfjioiv TTIOV ' } fl ovv v^iely, rots ttKWOtf v/jLMV) TroVcp 6 ovpdvios Scocret dya- irovrjpol vrrdp^ovTes, 01- 6 TraTrjp vpSiv 6a Tols aiTOVfitvois av- Sare 86fj.aTa dya6a 81- THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 183 Matt. vii. 911. Clem. Horn. iii. 56. Luke xi. 1113. o fv nils oupni/oiy 8a>o~fi TOV KOI TOIS irotovo~iv dovai roty TfKvois vp.u>v, uyaffa roty aiToi'O-iv ai- TO 6e\rjp.a avTov , TTOITW ^iaXXov 6 Tra.TT)p 6 TOV tg ovpavov Scocret irvt v- /xa ayi.ov TO?? airoOoHi' avruv ; In the earlier part of this quotation the Clementine writer seems to follow the third Gospel (ru-a am/o-et, f/ KCU) ; in the later part the first (omission of the antithesis between the egg and the scorpion, otre?, Swo-ei ayaOa). The two Gospels are combined against the Clementines in f vp&i- and the simpler rot? alrovaiv CLVTOV. The second example shall be Matt. x. 28. Clem. Horn, xviii. 5. Luke xii. 4, 5. Kai pi) 0o/3fi(T$e MJ; x!J pr] irfipa /cat /iTa TaOra /i^ twafttvttv OTTO- Svvafjifvov TI Troirjcrai' fJ.rj f%6vTuv 7TfpKT(7ore- /creii/ai dp.evov vov Kal autfta KOI \l/vxf]v 8da> 8e V/JLIV Tiva (po- Kal uut^a tls TffV yftvvav TOV nv- (3r]6f)T(' (poftrjdtjTf TOV (iTroXecrat ev yrevvrj. pbs ffaXelv. Nat, Xe'ya> fj.fTa TO UTTOKTflvai e- vp.lv, TOVTOV (poj3f)8t]T( . %OVTO. fovo~tav f'jUj3a- Xflv fls rr)v yeevvav vai, Xeyw vjj.lv, TOVTOV In common with Matthew the Clementines have rrj 6e (ace. Matt.) . . bvra^i'ov (-wy Matt), and fav&fUMv Kal ^vyjjv (in inverted order, Matt.) ; in common with Luke p.j] (pofBrjdrjrc, TL TToujaai, [e/x]/3aAeu> ds, and the clause vai K. r. \. The two Gospels agree against the Clementines in the plural T&V a 184 THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. One more longer quotation : Matt. xxiv. 45-51- Clem. Horn. iii. 60. Luke xii. 42-45. Tls apa farrlv 6 iri- Qeov yap @OV\TJ TtV apa lar\v 6 TTL- crros SovXoj KOI (ppovi- araSeiKi/urai p.aKapir>s KUTfO~Tr)o~fv 6 6 avdpatiros eKtivos ov vifios, ov KuTao~Tr]O~fi ft Kvpios avTov eirl rijs Karacrr^crf i 6 Kvpios Kvpios firi TTJS Bfpantias Oepcnrdas OVTOV TOV ai/Tov enl rr/f Qepcnrdas avrov, TOV 8Mvat ff 8ovvai avTols rrjv rpo- ru>v (rvv8ov\a>i> aiirov, Kaipm TO (TiTOftfTplW ; (pfjv Iv Katpw ; P-OKCL- TOV 8i8('ivai avTols ray ftaitdpiof 6 SovXo? fKft- pios 6 8ov\os tKflvos ov Tpofpas tv Kaipui avTa>i>, vos, ov eX^obf 6 Kvptos e\6a>v 6 Kvpios avrov fj,rj tvvaovfttPov Kai \e- UVTOV fvprjrrfi TTOIOVVTU fvprjcrft oura) TfoiovvTa jovra ev TTJ Kap8ia av- OVTO>S . . . 'Eai' Se fl^j] . . . 'Eav 8e fLirrj 6 Ka- TOV' xpovL^fi 6 Kupios 6 8ov\os (Kflvos fv Tr/ KOS 8ov\os cKtlvos fv fiov fXddv Kai fip^T)- Kap8ia OVTOV- xpovi^i rfj Kap8iq avrov' XP~ v Kai aprjTai Tvmfiv npr]Tai TVTTTfiv TOVS Kai nivaiv perd re Trap- TOVS TratSas Kai Tas o-vi>8ov\ovs avTov (O-- t/u>v Kai p.(6voi>TU>v' KU\ 7rnt8tcrKay, faOidv re 6iT) 8e Kai Tr'ivrj p.eTa. Jj^fi 6 Kvpios TOV 8ov- Kai itive.iv /cat fifdv- T>V pedvovTuv , 7Jfi 6 Xou fKfivov (V &>pq f) ov (TK((T0ai' rj^fi 6 Kvpios Kvpios TOV 8ov\ov eKfi- 7tpoo~ooKq Kai ev r)p.(pq TOV SovXov fKfivov eV vov fv TjfJ.fpq T) ov TTpoo-- fi ov yivuHTKfi, Kai 81- fjp-tpq H ^ ifpotrdoKf, 8oKq Kai ev u>pq f] ov ^OTOfjL^ffft avrov, Kai Kai tv topq y ov yivd>- yii/cocr/ces, Kai SI^OTO- ro dirto-Tovv UVTOV fie- o~Kfi, Kai St^oro/xi]CTv TU>V 6f]p-et. TOV /uera T>V ai 6f]O~fL. 6f]0~fl. I have given this passage in full, in spite of its length, because it is interesting and characteristic ; it might indeed almost be said to be typical of the passages, not only in the Clementine Homilies, but also in other writers like Justin, which present this relation of double similarity to two of the Synoptics. It should be noticed that the passage in the Homilies is not introduced THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 185 strictly as a quotation but is interwoven with the text. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that the opening clause, MaKtipios . . . owfcovAow avrov. recurs identically about thirty lines lower down. We observe that of the peculiarities of the first Synoptic the Cle- mentines have oovAo? (OIK for the canonical Gospels collectively, and Justin Martyr may perhaps have done so. Tischen- dorf himself does not maintain that it refers to our Gospels exclusively. Practically the statements in regard to the Commentary of Basilides lead to nothing. Neither does it appear any more clearly what was the nature of the Gospel that Basilides wrote. The term ei/ayye'Aioy had a technical metaphysical sense in the Basilidian sect and was used to designate a part of the transcendental Gnostic revelations. The Gospel of Basilides may therefore, as Dr. Westcott suggests, reasonably enough, have had a philosophical rather than a historical character. The author of ' Supernatural Re- ligion' censures Dr. Westcott for this suggestion 4 , but a 1 H. E. iv. 7. 2 Strom, iv. 1 2. 3 S. R. ii. p. 42. * Ibid. n. 2 : cp. p. 47. 190 BASILIDES. few pages further on he seems to adopt it himself, though he applies it strangely to the language of Eusebius or Agrippa Castor and not to Basilides' own work. In any case Hippolytus expressly says that, after the generation of Jesus, the Basilidians held ' the other events in the life of the Saviour followed as they are written in the Gospels 1 .' There is no reason at all to suppose that there was a breach of continuity in this respect between Basilides and his school. And if his Gospel really contained substantially the same events as ours, it is a question of comparatively secondary importance whether he actually made use of those Gospels or no. It is rather remarkable that Hippolytus and Epipha- nius, who furnish the fullest accounts of the tenets of Basilides (and his followers), say nothing about his Gospel : neither does Irenaeus or Clement of Alex- andria ; the first mention of it is in Origen's Homily on St. Luke. This shows how unwarranted is the assumption made in ' Supernatural Religion 2 ' that be- cause Hippolytus says that Basilides appealed to a secret tradition he professed to have received from Matthias, and Eusebius that he set up certain imaginary prophets, ' Barcabbas and Barcoph,' he therefore had no other authorities. The statement that he ' absolutely ignores the canonical Gospels altogether' and does not ' recognise any such works as of authority,' is much in excess of the evidence. All that this really amounts to is that neither Hippolytus nor Eusebius say in so many words that Basilides did use our Gospels. It would be a fairer inference to argue from their silence, 1 Ref. Omn. Haer. vii. 27. 2 ii. p. 45. BASILIDES. 191 and still more from that ot" the ' malleus haereticorum ; Epiphanius, that he did not in this depart from the orthodox custom ; otherwise the Fathers would have been sure to charge him with it, as they did Mar- cion. It is really I believe a not very unsafe conclu- sion, for heretical as well as orthodox writers, that where the Fathers do not say to the contrary, they accepted the same documents as themselves. The main questions that arise in regard to Basilides are two: (i) Are the quotations supposed to be made by him really his? (2) Are they quotations from our Gospels ? The doubt as to the authorship of the quotations applies chiefly to those which occur in the ' Refutation of the Heresies ' by Hippolytus. This writer begins his account of the Basilidian tenets by saying, ' Let us see here how Basilides along with Isidore and his crew belie Matthias 1 ,' &c. He goes on using for the most part the singular pov(ri TUV \oynv TOVTOV, eicrl yap evvov^ni ol pev e' TOIITOV, dXX' ois Se'Sornr ficnv yap yevfrr/s ol 8e e' dvdyicr)s. evvov^oi oirives en KoiXias nijrpos (yevvi']8r]V ^oipcoK. The excel- lent Alexandrine cursive i , with some others, has Sore for STe. o 194 BASILIDES. The transposition of clauses, such as we see here, is by no means an infrequent phenomenon. There is a re- markable instance of it to go no further in the text of the benedictions with which the Sermon on the Mount begins. In respect to the order of the two clauses, ' Blessed are they that mourn ' and ' Blessed are the meek,' there is a broad division in the MSS. and other authorities. For the received order we find N, B, C, i , the mass of uncials and cursives, b, f, Syrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm., Aeth. ; for the reversed order, ' Blessed are the meek ' and ' Blessed are they that mourn,' are ranged D, 33, Vulg., a, c, f 1 , g 1 , h, k, 1, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus., Bas. (?), Hil. The balance is pro- bably on the side of the received reading, as the op- posing authorities are mostly Western, but they too make a formidable array. The confusion in the text of St. Luke as to the early clauses of the Lord's Prayer is well known. But if such things are done in the green tree, if we find these variations in MSS. which profess to be exact transcripts of the same original copy, how much more may we expect to find them enter into mere quotations that are often evidently made from memory, and for the sake of the sense, not the words. In this instance however the verbal resemblance is very close. As I have frequently said, to speak of certainties in regard to any isolated passage that does not present exceptional phenomena is inadmissible, but I have little moral doubt that the quotation was really derived from St. Matthew, and there is quite a fair probability that it was made by Basilides himself. The Hippolytean quotations, the ascription of which to Basilides or to his school we have left an open question, will assume a considerable importance when we come BASILIDES. to treat of the external evidence for the fourth Gospel. Bearing upon the Synoptic Gospels, we find an allusion to the star of the Magi and an exact verbal quotation (introduced with TO dprj^vov) of Luke i. 35, Oyev/j.a ayior eTieAeuo-ercu em o-e, KCU Sum/xis ityurrov eTTto-Ktacrci vol. Both these have been already discussed with reference to Justin. All the other Gospels in which the star of the Magi is mentioned belong to a later "stage of formation than St. Matthew. The very parallelism between St. Matthew and St. Luke shows that both Gospels were composed at a date when various traditions as to trie early portions of the history were current. No doubt secondary, or rather tertiary, works, like the Protevan- gelium of James, came to be composed later ; but it is not begging the question to say that if the allusion is made by Basilides, it is not likely that at that date he should quote any other Gospel than St. Matthew, simply because that is the earliest form in which the story of the Magi has come down to us. The case is stronger in regard to the quotation from St. Luke. In Justin's account of the Annunciation to Mary there was a coincidence with the Protevangelium and a variation from the canonical text in the phrase Tivevfjia. Kvpiov for TTi'tvfj.a a.yiov ; but in the Basilidian quotation the canonical text is reproduced syllable for syllable and letter for letter, which, when we consider how sensitive and delicate these verbal relations are, must be taken as a strong proof of identity. The reader may be reminded that the word e77io-/aaeiy, the phrase bvvafj-is v^iarov, and the construction f-ntpxto-Oai f-ni, are all characteristic of St. Luke : eiu occurs once in the triple synopsis and besides only here and in Acts v. 15 : V\I/HTTOS occurs nine times in St. Luke's writings O 2 196 VALENTINUS. and only four times besides ; it is used by the Evan- gelist especially in phrases like wos, Svm/xis, Trpo^rrjs, SouAos V\I/LCTTOV, to which the only parallel is tepei/s row TOV V\ISIO-TOV in Heb. vii. J. The construction of with CTTI and the accusative is found five times in the third Gospel and the Acts and not at all besides in the New Testament ; indeed the participial form, f-epxouevos (in the sense of 'future'), is the only shape in which the word appears (twice) outside the eight times that it occurs in St. Luke's writings. This is a body of evidence that makes it extremely difficult to deny that the Basilidian quotation has its original in the third Synoptic. 2. The case in regard to Valentinus, the next great Gnostic leader, who came forward about the year 140 A.D., is very similar to that of Basilides, though the balance of the argument is slightly altered. It is, on the one hand, still clearer that the greater part of the evangelical references usually quoted are really from our present actual Gospels, but, on the other hand, there is a more distinct probability that these are to be assigned rather to the School of Valentinus than to Valentinus himself. The supposed allusion to St. John we shall pass over for the present. There is a string of allusions in the first book of Irenaeus, 'Adv. Haereses,' to the visit of Jesus as a child to the Passover (Luke ii. 42), the jot or tittle of Matt. v. .18, the healing of the issue of blood, the bearing of the VALENTINUS. 197 cross (Mark viii. 34 par.), the sending of a sword and not peace, ' his fan is in his hand,' the salt and light of the world, the healing of the centurion's servant, of Jairus' daughter, the exclamations upon the cross, the call of the unwilling disciples, Zacchaeus, Simon, &c. We may take it, I believe, as admitted, and it is indeed quite indisputable, that these are references to our present Gospels ; but there is the further question whether they are to be attributed directly to Valentinus or to his followers, and I am quite prepared to admit that there are no sufficient grounds for direct attribution to the founder of the system. Irenaeus begins by saying that his authorities are certain 'commentaries of the disciples of Valentinus ' and his own intercourse with some of them l . He proceeds to announce his intention to give a ' brief and clear account of the opinions of those who were then teaching their false doctrines (vvv Trapabt.baa-Koi'Twv), that is, of Ptolemaeus and his followers, a branch of the school of Valentinus.' It is fair to infer that the description of the Valentinian system which follows is drawn chiefly from these sources. This need not, however, quite necessarily exclude works by Valentinus himself. It is at any rate clear that Irenaeus had some means of referring to the opinions of Valentinus as distinct from his school ; because, after giving a sketch of the system, he proceeds to point out certain contradictions within the school itself, quoting first Valentinus expressly, then a disciple called Secundus, then ' another of their more distinguished and ambitious teachers,' then ' others/ then a further subdivision, finally returning to Ptolemaeus and his party 1 Adv. Haer. i. Pref. 2. 198 VALENTINUS. again. On the whole, Irenaeus seems to have had a pretty complete knowledge of the writings and teaching of the Valentinians. We conclude therefore, that, while it cannot be alleged positively that any of the quota- tions or allusions were really made by Valentinus, it would be rash to assert that none of them were made by him, or that he did not use our present Gospels. However this may be, we cannot do otherwise than demur to the statement implied in ' Supernatural Religion Y that the references in Irenaeus can only be employed as evidence for the Gnostic usage between the years 185-195 A.D. This is a specimen of a kind of position that is frequently taken up by critics upon that side, and thaj: I cannot but think quite unreason- able and uncritical. Without going into the question of the date at which Irenaeus wrote at present, and assuming with the author of ' Supernatural Religion ' that his first three books were published before the death of Eleutherus in A.D. 190 the latest date possible for them, it will be seen that the Gnostic teaching to which Irenaeus refers is supposed to begin at a time when his first book may very well have been concluded, and to end actually five years later than the latest date at which this portion of the work can have been published ! Not only does the author allow no time at all for Irenaeus to compose his own work, not only does he allow none for him to become acquainted with the Gnostic doctrines, and for those doctrines themselves to become consolidated and expressed in writing, but he goes so far as to make Irenaeus testify to a state of things five years at least, and very probably P. 59- VALEXTIXUS. 199 ten, in advance of the time at which he was himself writing ! No doubt there is an oversight somewhere, but this is the kind of oversight that ought not to be made. This, however, is an extreme instance of the fault to which I was alluding the tendency in the negative school to allow no time or very little for processes that in the natural course of things must certainly have required a more or less considerable interval. On a moderate computation, the indirect testimony of Ire- naeus may be taken to refer not to the period 185- 195 A.D., which is out of the question but to that from 160-180 A.D. This is not pressing the possibility, real as it is, that Valentinus himself, who flourished from 140-160 A. D., may have been included. We may agree with the author of ' Supernatural Religion ' that Irenaeus probably made the personal acquaintance of the Valentinian leaders, and obtained copies of their books, during his well-known visit to Rome in 178 A. D. l The applications of Scripture would be taken chiefly from the books of which some would be recent but others of an earlier date, and it can surely be no ex- aggeration to place the formation of the body of doctrine which they contained in the period 160- 175 A.D. above mentioned. I doubt whether a critic could be blamed who should go back ten years further, but we shall be keeping on the safe side if we take our terminus a quo as to which these Gnostic writings can be alleged in evidence at about the year 160. A genuine fragment of a letter of Valentinus has been preserved by Clement of Alexandria in the second book 1 S. R. ii. p. 211 sq. 200 VALENTINUS. of the Stromateis } . This is thought to contain references to St. Matthew's Gospel by Dr. Westcott, and, strange to say, both to St. Matthew and St. Luke by Volkmar. These references, however, are not sufficiently clear to be pressed. A much less equivocal case is supplied by Hippolytus less equivocal at least so far as the reference goes. Among the passages which received a specially Gnostic interpretation is Luke i. 35, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee : wherefore also the holy thing which is born (of thee) shall be called the Son of God.' This is quoted thus, ' The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee : wherefore that which is born of thee shall be called holy.' Luke i. 35. Ref. Omn. Haes. vi. 35. Ylvevfjui ayiov eVeXeucrerat rt Dwvpa ayiov tTrfXcva-erai eVii (Tf, Knl 8vvap.is v\l/iarrov fTTi twenty times in the third Gospel and Acts, only once in the other Gospels, i. 20, iv. 13; e 1 Where a reference is given thus in brackets, it is confirmatory, from the part of the Gospel retained by Marcion. MARC ION. 225 four times in the Gospel and Acts, once besides in the New Testament, ii. 13 ; Trapa\pijiJ.a, seventeen times in the Gospel and Acts, twice in the rest of the New Testament, i. 64 ; kv pta-y, thirteen times in the Gospel and Acts, five times in the other Synoptics, ii. 46, xxi. 21. Fondness for optative in indirect constructions, i. 29, 62, iii. 15, xv. 26. Peculiar combination of parti- ciples, ii. 36 (7rpo/3e/3/7/na <^crao-a), iii. 23 (apxopfvos an>), iv. 20 (TTTV^CLS anobov'i}, very frequent. Elvai, with par- ticiple for finite verb (forty-eight times in all), i. 7, 10, 20, 21, 22, ii. 8, 26, 33, 51, iii. 23, iv. 16 (?)v refyjapi/iuW, omitted by Marcion), iv. 17, 20, xv. 24, 32, xviii. 34, xix. 47, xx. 17, xxiv. 53. Construction of irpos with accusative after dntiv, AaAttz-, airoKpii^crOaL, frequent in Luke, rare in the rest of the New Testament, i. 13, 18, 19, 28, 34, 55, 61, 73, ii. 15, 18, 34, 48, 49, iii. 12, 13, 14, iv. 4, xiii. 7, 34, xv. 22, xviii. 31, xix. 33, 39, xx. 9, 14, 19. This is thrown into marked relief by the con- trast with the other Synoptics ; the only two places where Matthew appears to have the construction are both ambiguous, iii. 15 (doubtful reading, probably aiiru>), and xxvii. 14 (airfKpidri avrS) irpos oi/5e fv pr)jua). No other evangelist speaks so much of Uv^v^a ayiov, i- J 5> 35) 4 1 ) 67, ii. 25, 66, iii. 16, 22, iv. i (found also in Marcion's reading of xi. 2). Peculiar use of pronouns : Luke has the combination /cat avros twenty-eight times, Matthew only twice (one false reading), Mark four or perhaps five times, i. 17, 22, ii. 28, iii. 23, xv. 14; KOL aiiroi Mark has not at all, Matthew twice, Luke thirteen times, including ii. 50, xviii. 34, xxiv. 52. We now come to the test supplied by the vocabulary. The following are some of the words peculiar to St. Luke, or found in his writings with marked and charac- 226 MARCION. teristic frequency, which occur in those parts of our present Gospel that were wanting in Marcion's recen- sion : aiffnrrjv, avavTas occur three times in St. Matthew, twice in St. John, four times in the writings of St. Paul, twenty-six times in the third Gospel and thirty-five times in the Acts, and are found in i. 39, xv. 18, 20 ; avriXeytiv appears in ii. 34. five times in the rest of the Gospel and the Acts, and only four times together in the rest of the New Testament ; a?7as occurs twenty times in the Gospel, sixteen times in the Acts, only ten times in the rest of the New Testament, but in ii. 39, iii. 16, 21, iv. 6, xv. 13, xix. 37, 48, xxi. 4 (bis); three of these are, however, doubtful readings, a^ems rwv a^ap-TMV) ten times in the Gospel and Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament, i. 77, iii. 3. 8eT, Dr. Holtzmann says, 'is found more often in St. Luke than in all the other writers of the New Testament put to- gether.' This does not appear to be strictly true ; it is, however, found nineteen times in the Gospel and twenty-five times in the Acts to twenty-four times in the three other Gospels ; it occurs in ii. 49, xiii. 33, xv. 32, xxii. 37. 6e'xea0cu, twenty-four times in the Gospel and Acts, twenty-six times in the rest of the New Testament, six times in St. Matthew, three in St. Mark, ii. 28, xxii. 17. Siarao-o-eu;, nine times in the Gospel and Acts, seven times in the rest of the New Testament (Matthew once), iii. 13, xvii. 9, 10. 6iepx- o-0ai occurs thirty-two times in the Gospel and Acts. twice in each of the other Synoptics, and eight times in the rest of the New Testament, and is found in ii. 15, 35. 6toVi, i. 13, ii. 7 (xxi. 28, and Acts, not besides in the Gospels), eav, xxii. 51 (once besides in the Gospel, eight times in the Acts, and three times MARCION. 227 in the rest of the New Testament). ZOos, i. 9, ii. 42, eight times besides in St. Luke's writings and only twice in the rest of the New Testament, (vavriov, five times in St. Luke's writings, once besides, i. 8. (VMTTIOV, correcting the readings, twenty times in the Gospel, fourteen times in the Acts, not at all in the other Synoptists, once in St. John, four times in chap, i, iv. 7, xv. 1 8, 21 (this will be noticed as a very remarkable instance of the extent to which the diction of the third Evangelist impressed itself upon his writings). iri/3i- fia&ii', xix. 35 (and twice, only by St. Luke). eirnriTrrfiv, i. 12, xv. 20 (eight times in the Acts and three times in the rest of the New Testament), at epr^oi, only in St. Luke, i. 80, and twice. Iros (fifteen times in the Gospel, eleven times in the Acts, three times in the other Sy- noptics and three times in St. John), four times in chap, ii, iii. I, 23, xiii. /, 8, xv. 29. dav^aC^v eirC nvt, Gospel and Acts five times (only besides in Mark xii. 17), ii. 33. iKOfo's in the sense of ' much,' 'many,' seven times in the Gospel, eighteen times in the Acts, and only three times besides in the New Testament, iii. 16, xx. 9 (compare xxii. 38). /cavort (like Ka0erjs above), is only found in St. Luke's writings, i. 7, and five times in the rest of the Gospel and the Acts. Aarpewiy, ' in Luke much oftener than in other parts of the New Testa- ment,' i. 74, ii. 37, iv. 8, and five times in the Acts. Ai/xo?, six times in the Gospel and Acts, six times in the rest of the New Testament, xv. 14, 17. ^r\v (month), 5. 24, 26, 36, 56 (iv. 25), alone in the Gospels, in the Acts five times. OIKOS for ' family,' i. 27, 33, 69, ii. 4, and three times besides in the Gospel, nine times in the Acts. TrAfjflos (especially in the form mu> TO 7rA?j0os), twenty-five times in St. Luke's writings, seven times Q2 228 MARCION. in the rest of the New Testament, i. 19, ii. 13, xix. 37. -nATycrcu, -n\r]ffdi]i'ai, twenty-two times in St. Luke's writings, only three times besides in the New Testament, i. 15, 23, 41, 57, 67, ii. 6, 21, 22, xxi. 22. TTpoaboKav, eleven times in the Gospel and Acts, five times in the rest of the New Testament (Matthew twice and 2 Peter), i. 21, iii. 15. aKdTTTfLv, only in Luke three times, xiii. 8. a-nei- Seif, except in 2 Peter iii. 12, only in St. Luke's writings, ii. 1 6. (Tv\\a^j3di'fLi', ten times in the Gospel and Acts, five times in the rest of the New Testament, i. 24, 31, 36, ii. 21. ffvp/3' 77^0* in D which may conceivably be a trace of Marcion's reading. xii. 14. Marcion (and probably Tertnllian) read K^rty (or SiKaffT-fff) only for Kpnrfv 77 p.fpiarfiv ; so D, a (' ut videtur,' Tregelles), c, Syr. Crt. xii. 38. Marcion had TTJ fffirtpivrj v\a.Krj for fv Trj SfVTepq v\aicrj. So b : D, c, e, ff, i, Iren. 334, Syr. Crt., com- bine the two readings in various ways. xvi. 12. Marcion read tpbv for vptTtpov. So e (Palatinus), i (Yindobo- nensis), I (Rhedigerianus). fjpeTfpov B, L, Origen. xvii. 2. Marcion inserted the words OVK tyevvrjOr) rj (Tert. iv. 35), 'ne nasceretur aut,' a, b, c, ff, i, 1. xviii. 19. Here again Marcion had a variation which is unsupported by manuscript authority, but has to some extent a parallel in the Clementine Homilies, Justin, &c. xxi. 18 was omitted by Marcion (Epiph. 316 B), and is also omitted in the Curetonian Syriac. xxi. 27. Tertullian (iv. 39) gives the reading of Marcion as 'cum plurima virtute ' = fJLtrcL Swaptcas iroXX^s [KCU S6r)s], for /xerd ovv. n. So. iTo\\fjs ; so D (iv 8w. iroA.), and approximately Vulg., a, c, e, f, ff, Syr. Crt., Syr. Pst. xxiii. 2. Marcion read 8iaffTpeovTa TU eOvos nal KaTdXiovra TUV KJ/AOV xai rovs irpo awOts TO 8ia riaaap /3i/3A./ai Xpt]aafJ:evoi. Eivpov 5t Kayw Tr\eiovs fj Siaxofftas @i/3\ovs rotavras (v rats irap' rjfuv (KK\r/aiais TfTi^rjfj.(vas, Kal iraaas awayaywv direOfnr}v, Kal rd itav TfTTapaiv fvay~ff\iffru>v dvrtiari~fa.~fOv fiiayytXia (Haeret. Fab. i. 20, quoted by Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 442). 3 See S. R. ii. p. 15 . T ATI AN. 241 Diatessaron, and it began with the opening words of St. John. This statement however is referred by Gregory Bar-Hebraeus not to the Harmony of Tatian, but to one by Ammonius made in the third century : . Here there is clearly a good deal of confusion. But now we come to the question, was Tatian's work really a Harmony of our four Gospels ? The strongest presumption that it was is derived from Irenaeus. Ire- naeus, it is well known, speaks of the four Gospels with absolute decision, as if it were a law of nature that their number must be four, neither more nor less 2 , and his four Gospels were certainly the same as our own. But Tatian wrote within a comparatively short interval of Irenaeus. It is sufficiently clear that Irenaeus held his opinion at the very time that Tatian wrote, though it was not published until later. Here then we have a coincidence which makes it difficult to think that Tatian's four Gospels were different from ours. The theory that finds favour with Credner 3 and his followers, including the author of ' Supernatural Reli- gion,' is that Tatian's Gospel was the same as that used by Justin. I am myself not inclined to think this theory improbable ; it would have been still less so, if Tatian had been the master and Justin the pupil 4 . We have seen that the phenomena of Justin's evangelical quota- tions are as well met by the hypothesis that he made use of a Harmony as by any other. But that Harmony, 1 S. R. ii. p. 162 ; compare Credner, Beitr'dge, i. p. 446 sqq. 2 Adv. Haer. iii. II. 8. 3 Beit. i. p. 443. 4 May not Tatian have given his name to a collection of materials begun, used, and left in a more or less advanced stage of compilation, by Justin ? However, we can really do little more than note the resemblance : any theory we may form must be purely conjectural. R 142 DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. as we have also seen, included at least our three Synop- tics. The evidence (which we shall consider presently) for the use of the fourth Gospel .by Tatian is so strong as to make it improbable that that work was not in- cluded in the Diatessaron. The fifth work, alluded to by Victor of Capua, may possibly have been the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 2. Just as the interest of Tatian turns upon the interpre- tation to be put upon a single term ' Diatessaron,' so the interest of Dionysius of Corinth depends upon what we are to understand by his phrase ' the Scriptures of the Lord.' In a fragment, preserved by Eusebius, of an epistle addressed to Soter Bishop of Rome (168-176 A.D.) and the Roman Church, Dionysius complains that his letters had been tampered with. ' As brethren pressed me to write letters I wrote them. And these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others, for whom the woe is prepared. It is not wonderful, then, if some have ventured to tamper with the Scriptures of the Lord when they have laid their plots against writings that have no such claims as they 1 .' It must needs be a straining of language to make the Scriptures here refer, as the author of ' Super- natural Religion ' seems to do, to the Old Testament. It dtyat efpaif/a. Km ravras ol rov Sia@6\ov arruaroKoi ^i^aviaiv yeyf/j.iKav, & ntv egaipovvrfs, & St irpoffri- Oevrts. Ofs TO oval Kfirai. Ov Oav/j.affTov apa, fl /ecu rtav tcvpiaKuJv paSiovp- "fTJaai rives firilSefikrjVTai ypCKpwi', utroTf rafs ov roiavrais eiri@e@ov\tvKai\ov(iKovai trtpl TOVTOJV, avyyvaffrbv npayfta ireiroiOuTts- ayvoia -yap oil Karrjfopiav di>aSt\frai, d\\d SiSaxjjs ifpoaStfrai. Kcu \fyovatt> on rfj t5' TO irpo^arov intro. TWV fM0ijrwv eipaytv o Kvpios' ry 5J [ttyakri f^ipa vtav d^v^uuv auros firadtv KCU SujfovvTai MarOatov ovrca \fytiv us vfvoTjtcaaiv oOtv davfi^ou/os Tf vufuu 77 vorjais avrtav, leal araaid^dv SoKfi KCLT' O.VTOVS rd (vayyf\ta. Chron. Pasch. in Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p. 160. APOLLINARIS. 247 recognise both the first and the fourth Gospels as autho- ritative. Is this fragment of Apollinaris genuine ? It is alleged against it 1 (i) that Eusebius was ignorant of any such work on Easter, and that there is no mention of it in such notices of Apollinaris and his writings as have come down to us from Theodoret, Jerome, and Photius. There are some good remarks on this point by Routh (who is quoted in ' Supernatural Religion ' apparently as adverse to the genuineness of the fragments). He says : ' There seems to me to be nothing in these ex- tracts jto compel us to deny the authorship of Apolli- naris. Nor must we refuse credit to the author of the Preface [to the Paschal Chronicle] any more than to other writers of the same times on whose testimony many books of the ancients have been received, although not mentioned by Eusebius or any other of his contem- poraries ; especially as Eusebius declares below that it was only some select books that had come to his hands out of many that Apollinaris had written V It is ob- jected (2) that Apollinaris is not likely to have spoken of a controversy in which the whole Asiatic Church was engaged as the opinion of a 'few ignorant wranglers.' A fair objection, if he was really speaking of such a con- troversy. But the great issue between the Churches of Asia and that of Rome was whether the Paschal festival should be kept, according to the Jewish custom, always on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, or whether it should be kept on the Friday after the 1 S. R. ii. p. 188 sqq. The reference to Routh is given on p. 188, n. i ; that to Lardner in the same note should, I believe, be ii. p. 316, not p. 296. - Rel. Sac. i. p. 167. 248 A THEN A CORAS. Paschal full moon, on whatever day of the month it might fall. The fragment appears rather to allude to some local dispute as to the day on which the Lord suffered. To go thoroughly into this question would involve us in all the mazes of the so-called Paschal controversy, and in the end a precise and certain con- clusion would probably be impossible. So far as I am aware, all the writers who have entered into the discus- sion start with assuming the genuineness of the Apol- linarian fragment. There remains however the fact that it rests only upon the attestation of a writer of the seventh century, who may possibly be wrong, but, if so, has been led into his error not wilfully but by accident. No reason can be alleged for the forging or purposely false ascription of a fragment like this, and it bears the stamp of good faith in that it asks indulgence for opponents instead of censure. We may perhaps safely accept the frag- ment with some, not large, deduction from its weight. 3- An instance of the precariousness of the argument from silence would be supplied by the writer who comes next under review Athenagoras. No mention what- ever is made of Athenagoras either by Eusebius or Jerome, though he appears to have been an author of a certain importance, two of whose works, an Apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus and a treatise on the Resurrection, are still extant. The genuineness of neither of these works is doubted. The Apology, which may be dated about 177 A.D., contains a few references to our Lord's discourses, but A THEN A CORAS. 249 not such as can have any great weight as evidence. The first that is usually given, a parallel to Matt. v. 39, 40 (good for evil), is introduced in such a way as to show that the author intends only to give the sense and not the words. The same may be said of another sentence that is compared with Mark x. 6 l : Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 33. Mark x. 6. Ort (v apxf) 6 Qfos eva nvdpa 'ATTO Se ap^rjs Kri'crfcor tipofv Kni orAncre Kal p.iav yvvinKa. 6fj\v (Troirjatv airovs 6 Qeos. All that can be said is that the thought here appears to have been suggested by the Gospel and that not quite immediately. A much closer and indeed, we can hardly doubt, a real parallel is presented by a longer passage : Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ, n. Matt. v. 44, 45. What then are the precepts in which we are instructed ? I say unto you : Love your I say unto you : Love your enemies, bless them that curse, enemies [bless them that curse pray for them that persecute you, do good to them that you ; that ye may become the hate you], and pray for them sons of your Father which is that persecute you ; that ye in heaven: who maketh his may become the sons of your sun to rise on the evil and the Father which is in heaven : for good, and sendeth rain on the he maketh his sun to rise on just and the unjust. the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. 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. 250 ATHENAGORAS. TtWr ovv rj/jLcav ol Aoyoi, nls eiTp(f)6fj.fda ; Xe'yco vfjiiv, dyanare eyca 8f Xe'yw v^ii*, dycnrure TOIS TOVS e^Bpovy vp.a>v, f vXoyeire TOVS f%6povs vfj.a>v [ei'Xoyerrf TOVS KCITO.- K(iTapa>fjievovs, TTpop.tvovs vfj.as, KoXS>s Troieirf TOI : S viol TOV Trarpos vp.5>v TOV fv ovpa- TO>V 8idiKovru>v vpas orras yfvrjo-fff veils, os TOV r]\io!> avTov avaTeXXei viol TOV Trarpos vp.u>v TOV fv ovpa- eVi Trovrjpovs KOI dyaOovs Kal ftpt- vols, OTI TOV rjXiov ai/roC avareXXei )((i fTrl SiKaiovs Kal d8tKOvs. e/Tt novrjpovs Kal dyadovs Kal /3/K- ^ft enl diKaiovs Kal d8iKovs. The bracketed clauses in the text of St. Matthew are both omitted and inserted by a large body of authori- ties, but, as it is rightly remarked in ' Supernatural Religion,' they are always either both omitted or both inserted ; we must therefore believe that the omission and insertion of one only by Athenagoras is without manuscript precedent. Otherwise the exactness of the .parallel is great; and it is thrown the more into relief when we compare the corresponding passage in St. Luke. The quotation is completed in the next chapter of Athenagoras' work : Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 12. For if ye love, he says, them which love and lend to them which lend to you, what re- ward shall ye have ? Matt. v. 46. For if ye shall love them which love you, what reward have ye ? ap yap ycurrjo-rjTt TOVS ya- vpas riva p.i' 'Eav yap dyaTrare, (pr]o~lv, TOVS dyaTToivTus, Kal 8avti^Tf TOIS 8avei- ^OVITIV vp.1v, Ttva fj.to~6ov (f-eTe ; Here the middle clause in the quotation appears to be a reminiscence of St. Luke vi. 34 (ai> Scmcnjre Trap' &v eA-t- fT Aa/3cu>). Justin also, it should be noted, has a THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS. 251 (but el a-ya.7ra.Te) for ayaTTijfrrjTe. If this passage had stood alone, taking into account the variations and the even run and balance of the language we might have thought perhaps that Athenagoras had had before him a different version. Yet the riva ^Lvdou, compared with the TTota \dpi.s of St. Luke and rt K.O.WOV -noieire of Justin, would cause misgivings, and greater run and balance is precisely what would result from ' unconscious cerebration.' Two more references are pointed out to Matt. v. 28 and Matt. v. 32, one with slight, the other with medium, variation, which leave the question very much in the same position. We ought not to omit to notice that Athenagoras quotes one uncanonical saying, introducing it with the phrase -dXiv rjijui' AeyotTos TOV Ao'yov. I am not at all clear that this is not merely one of the ' precepts ' (ol Ao'yot) alluded to above. At any rate it is exceedingly doubtful that the Logos is here personified. It seems rather parallel to the 6 Ao'yo? ebijkov of Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. 129). Considering the date at which he wrote I have little doubt that Athenagoras is actually quoting from the Synoptics, but he cannot, on the whole, be regarded as a very powerful witness for them. 4- After the cruel persecution from which the Churches of Vienne and Lyons had suffered in the year 177 A.D., a letter was written in their name, containing an account of what had happened, which Lardner describes as ' the finest thing of the kind in all antiquity 1 .' This letter, 1 Credibility Qc., ii. p. 161. 252 THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYOXS. which was addressed to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, contained several quotations from the New Testament, and among them one that is evidently from St. Luke's Gospel. It is said of one of the martyrs, Vettius Epagathus, that his manner of life was so strict that, young as he was, he could claim a share in the testimony borne to the more aged Zacharias. Indeed he had walked in all tJie commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless, and in the service of his neighbour untiring, &C. 1 The italicised words are a verbatim reproduction of Lukei. 6. There is an ambiguity in the words pfcrj3vTpov Za-^apiov [Mdprvphf. The genitive after fj-aprvpiq may be either subjective or objective ' the testimony borne by" or 'the testimony borne to or of the aged Zacharias. I have little doubt that the translation given above is the right one. It has the authority of Lardner ('equalled the character of') and Routh (' Zachariae senioris elogio aequaretur '), and seems to be imperatively required by the context. The eulogy passed upon Vettius Epagathus is justified by the uniform strictness of his daily life (he has walked in all the commandments &c.), not by the single act of his constancy in death. The author of ' Supernatural Religion,' apparently following Hilgenfeld 2 , adopts the other translation, and bases on it an argument that the allusion is to the martyrdom of Zacharias. and therefore not to our third Gospel in which no mention of that martyrdom is contained. On the other hand, we are reminded that the narrative of the martyrdom of Zacharias enters into 1 Ep. Vlen. et Lugd. 3 (in Routh, Re!. Sac. i. p. 297). S. R. ii. p. 203 ; Evv. Justin's n. s. w. p. 155. THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS. 253 the Prptevangelium of James. That apocryphal Gospel however contains nothing approaching to the words which coincide exactly with the text of St. Luke. Even if there had been a greater doubt than there is as to the application of [jLciprvpiq, it would be difficult to resist the conclusion that the Synoptic Gospel is being quoted. The words occur in the most peculiar and distinctive portion of the Gospel ; and the corre- spondence is so exact and the phrase itself so striking as not to admit of any other source. The order, the choice of words, the construction, even to the use of the nominative t/^e/x-To? where we might very well have had the adverb ajtxeV^ 1 ""^, all point the same way. These fine edges of the quotation, so to speak, must needs have been rubbed off in the course of transmission through several documents. But there is not a trace of any other document that contained such a remark upon the character of Zacharias. This instance of a Synoptic quotation may, I think, safely be depended upon. Another allusion, a little lower down in the Epistle, which speaks of the same Vettius Epagathus as having in himself the Paraclete [there is a play on the use of the word TrapaKX^roj just beforel, the Spirit, more abund- antly than Zacharias,' though in exaggerated and bad taste, probably has reference to Luke i. 67, ' And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Ghost,' &c. [Mr. Mason calls my attention to (vSv^a vvufywuv in 13, and also to the misleading statement in S. R. ii. p. 201 that ' no writing of the New Testament is directly referred to.' I should perhaps have more fault to find with the sentence on p. 204, 'It follows clearly and few venture to doubt,' &c. I have assumed however for some time that the reader will be on his guard against expressions such as these.] CHAPTER XI. PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON CELSUS THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. WE are now very near emerging into open daylight : but there are three items in the evidence which lie upon the border of the debateable ground, and as questions have been raised about these it may be well for us to discuss them. We have already had occasion to speak of the two Gnostics Ptolemaeus and Heracleon. It is necessary, in the first place, to define the date of their evidence with greater precision, and, in the second, to consider its bearing. Let us then, in attempting to do this, dismiss all secondary and precarious matter; such as (i) the argument drawn by Tischendorf 1 from the order in which the names of the disciples of Valentinus are men- tioned and from an impossible statement of Epiphanius which seems to make Heracleon older than Cerdon, and (2) the argument that we find in Volkmar and ' Super- natural Religion 2 ' from the use of the present tense by Hippolytus, as if the two writers, Ptolemaeus and 1 Wann wurden u. s. w. p. 48 sq. 3 Ursprung, p. 130; S. R ii. p. 222. PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON. 255 Heracleon, were contemporaries of his own in 225- 235 A. D. Hippolytus does indeed say, speaking of a division in the school of Valentinus, 'Those who are of Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say' &c. But there is no reason why there should not be a kind of historic present, just as we might say, 'The Atomists, of whom are Leucippus and Democritus, hold ' &c., or ' St. Peter says this, St. Paul says that.' The account of such presents would seem to be that the writer speaks as if quoting from a book that he lias actually before him. It is not impossible that Heracleon and Ptole- maeus may have been still living at the time when Hippolytus wrote, but this cannot be inferred simply from the tense of the verb. Surer data are supplied by Irenaeus. Irenaeus mentions Ptolemaeus several times in his first and second books, and on one occasion he couples with his the name of Heracleon. But to what date does this evidence of Irenaeus refer? At what time was Irenaeus himself writing. We have seen that the terminus, ad qitem, at least for the first three books, is supplied by the death of Eleutherus (c. A. D. 190). On the other hand, the third book at least was written after the publication of the Greek version of the Old Testament by Theodotion, which Epiphanius tells us appeared in the reign of Commodus (180-190 A.D.). A still more precise date is given to Theodotion's work in the Paschal Chronicle, which places it under the Consuls Marcellus (Massuet would read ' Marullus ') and /Elian in the year 184 A.D. 1 This last statement is worth very little, and it is indeed disputed whether 1 Cf. Credner, Beitrdge, ii. p. 254. 256 PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON. Theodotion's version can have appeared so late as this. At any rate we must assume that it was in the hands of Irenaeus about 185 A.D., and it will be not before this that the third book of the work ' Against Heresies ' was written. It will perhaps sufficiently satisfy all parties if we suppose that Irenaeus was engaged in writing his first three books between the years 182- 188 A.D. But the name of Ptolemaeus is mentioned very near the beginning of the Preface ; so that Irenaeus would be committing to paper the statement of his acquaintance with Ptolemaeus as early as 182 A.D. This is however the last link in the chain. Let us trace it a little further backwards. Irenaeus' acquaint- ance with Ptolemaeus can hardly have been a fact of yesterday at the time when he wrote. Ptolemaeus represented the ' Italian ' branch of the Valentinian school, and therefore it seems a fair supposition that Irenaeus would come in contact with him during his visit to Rome in 178 A.D. ; and the four years from that date to 182 A.D. can hardly be otherwise than a short period to allow for the necessary intimacy with his teaching to have been formed. But we are carried back one step further still. It is not only Ptolemaeus but Ptolemaeus and Jiis party (ol 7T/H H TO \fjjLOiov 1 }. There has been time for Ptolemaeus to found a school within a school of his own ; and his school has already begun to express its opinions, either collectively or through its individual members. In this way the real date of Ptolemaeus seems still to recede, but I will not endeavour any further to put a numerical value upon it which might be thought to be 1 Adv. Haer. i. Praef. 2. PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON. 257 prejudiced. It will be best for the reader to fill up the blank according to his own judgment. Heracleon will to a certain extent go with Ptolemaeus, with whom he is persistently coupled, though, as he is only mentioned once by Irenaeus, the data concerning him are less precise. They are however supplemented by an allusion in the fourth book of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria (which appears to have been written in the last decade of the century) to Heracleon as one of the chief of the school of Valentinus 1 , and perhaps also by a statement of Origen to the effect that Hera- cleon was said to be a yucopi/zo? of Valentinus himself 2 . The meaning of the latter term is questioned, and it is certainly true that it may stand for pupil or scholar, as Elisha was to Elijah or as the Apostles were to their Master; but that it could possibly be applied to two persons who never came into personal contact must be, I cannot but think, very doubtful. This then, if true, would throw back Heracleon some little way even beyond 160 A.D. From the passage in the Stromateis we gather that Heracleon, if he did not (as is usually inferred) write a commentary, yet wrote an isolated exposition of a portion of St. Luke's Gospel. In the same way we learn from Origen that he wrote a commentary upon St. John. We shall probably not be wrong in referring many of the Valentinian quotations given by Irenaeus to Ptolemaeus and Heracleon. By the first writer we also have extant an Epistle to a disciple called Flora, which 1 Strom, iv. 9. 2 T^P OuoAevTiVov Xcyo/jitvov tlvcu yvupiftov 'HpaK\to]va . . . Origen, Comm. in Joh. ii. p. 60 (quoted by Volkmar, Ursprung, p. 127). S 258 PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON. has been preserved by Epiphanius. This Epistle, which there is no reason to doubt, contains unequivocal refer- ences to our first Gospel. Epistle to Flora. Epiph. Har. 2 1 7 A. oiKia yap ^ TrdXt? ufpiadflv fire, TO dnoXveiv TTJV yvva'iKa avTov. dir dp\rjs yap ov yeyovfv OUTGOS. Qfbs yap ((pT]o-l) vV 7rp(o~j3vTepa>v. TOVTO 8e 'Hcraias (f(pa>VT)O-(v finaiv' 6 \aos OVTOS Tols ^etXf(rt (JLC Tifia f] avrtov TToppa> an(\fi aTr' TTJV 8f crtftovTai fit, Matt. xv. 4-8 (Mark vii. 10, n, 6, 9). 6 yap Qfos eVfrft'Aaro Ae'ycof, Tipa TOV rraTfpa Kal TTJV p.r)Tfpa . . vp.fis 8e \eyfTe' os av eiirr) T(J> iraTpl r) rjj p-iJTpi' Acopoi/ 6 tav f e/iou V. VTTOKplTal, Ka\U>f TTfpl vp.a>v llcratas \eyu>V 'O \aos OVTOS TO'IS ^fiAfovV fj.f TI/JLU, T) 8e KapSia OVTCOV iroppo dire'xfL an* ffiov- p.aTr]i> 8e artftov- rai p.( 8i8do-Kovres ^tfiacrxaXi'aj tv- raX/iiara dvdparrrw. PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON. 25-9 Ibid. 220 D, 221 A. Matt. v. 38, 39 (Luke vi. 29). TO yap, 'O(pda\pnv dvrl o(f>daX- ^Kovcrare on fppfjdrj, 'O(pda\p.6v pov teal oftovra avr\ 686vrot . . . dvrl o vfuv fifj dvrKrrfjvai oSoiroy e'yu> 8e Xeyw v/iiv /-uy dvri- oXa>y TO> jrovripia dXXa eai> rt's (re crr^ai TW iroirrjpw' dXX' OOTJS at pairta-fl ffrptyov avrat KCU TTJV aXXijv parrlei (Is rr)v 8(iav s, TT)Z; TT., d(0aAju6V . . . oSoVros, avTLa-Trjvai TO and the order and cast of sentence in all the quotations. The first quotation, with e<' eaim/v and bvuarai