,,the ,,gospels ,,in ,,the ,,second     
,,century      ,,an ,,examination ,,of  
,,the ,,critical ,,part ,,of ,a ,,work  
,,entitled ',,supernatural ,,religion'  
,,by    ,w4 ,,sanday1 ,m4,a4            
,rector of ,barton-on-the-,heath1       
,warwickshire2  and late ,fellow of     
,trinity ,college1 ,oxford4  ,author of 
a ,work on the ,fourth ,gospel4         
,,london3  #ahgf4            ,i had     
hoped to inscribe in this book the      
revered and cherished  name of my old   
head master1 ,,dr4 ,,pears of ,repton4  
,his consent had  been very kindly and  
warmly given1 and ,i was just on the    
point of  sending the dedication to the 
printers when ,i received a telegram    
naming the day and hour of his funeral4 
,his health had for some  time since his
 resignation of ,repton been seriously  
failing1 but ,i  had not anticipated    
that the end was so near4 ,all who knew 
him  will deplore his too early loss1   
and their regret will be shared  by the 
wider circle of those who can appreciate

 a life in which  there was nothing     
ignoble1 nothing ungenerous1 nothing    
unreal4 ,i  had long wished that he     
should receive some tribute of regard   
from  one whom he had done his best by  
precept1 and still more by  example1 to 
fit and train for his place and duty in 
the world4  ,this pleasure and this     
honour have been denied me4 ,i cannot   
place  my book1 as ,i had hoped1 in his 
hand1 but ,i may still lay it           
reverently upon his tomb4               
,,contents    ,,chap4    ,i4            
,,introductory    ,,ii4   ,,on          
,,quotations ,,generally ,,in ,,the     
,,early ,,christian ,,writers    ,,iii4 
,,the ,,apostolic ,,fathers    ,,iv4    
,,justin ,,martyr    ,v4                
,,hegesippus--,,papias    ,,vi4   ,,the 
,,clementine ,,homilies    ,,vii4       
,,basilides ,,and ,,valentinus          
,,viii4 ,,marcion    ,,ix4              
,,tatian--,,dionysius ,,of ,,corinth    
,x4                                     
,,melito--,,apollinaris--,,athenagoras--

,,the ,,epistle ,,of ,,vienne ,,and     
,,lyons    ,,xi4   ,,ptolomaeus ,,and   
,,heracleon--,,celsus--,,the            
,,muratorian ,,fragment    ,,xii4  ,,the
 ,,external ,,evidence ,,for ,,the      
,,fourth ,,gospel    ,,xiii4 ,,on ,,the 
,,state ,,of ,,the ,,canon ,,in ,,the   
,,last ,,quarter ,,of ,,the ,,second    
,,century    ,,xiv4  ,,conclusion       
,,endnotes    ,,appendix4 ,,supplemental
 ,,note ,,on ,,the ,,reconstruction ,,of
 ,,marcion',s ,,gospel    ,,indices     
,,preface4      ,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 ,society1 and that it may    
therefore be classed  under the head of 
,apologetics4 ,i am aware that this will
 be a  drawback to it in the eyes of    
some1 and ,i confess that it is not     
altogether a recommendation in my own4  
,ideally speaking1 ,apologetics ought to
 have no existence distinct  from the   
general and unanimous search for truth1 

and in so far as  they tend to put any  
other consideration1 no matter how high 
or  pure in itself1 in the place of     
truth1 they must needs stand aside  from
 the path of science4    ,but1 on the   
other hand1 the question of true belief 
itself is  immensely wide4 ,it is       
impossible to approach what is merely a 
branch of a vast subject without some   
general conclusions already  formed as  
to the whole4 ,the mind cannot1 if it   
would1 become a  sheet of blank paper on
 which the writing is inscribed by an   
external process alone4 ,it must needs  
have its praejudicia--  i4e4 judgments  
formed on grounds extrinsic to the      
special matter  of enquiry--of one sort 
or another4 ,accordingly we find that an
  absolutely and strictly impartial     
temper never has existed and  never     
will4 ,if it did1 its verdict would     
still be false1 because  it would       
represent an incomplete or              
half-suppressed humanity4  ,there is no 
question that touches1 directly or      

indirectly1 on the  moral and spiritual 
nature of man that can be settled by the
 bare  reason4 ,a certain amount of     
sympathy is necessary in order to       
estimate the weight of the forces that  
are to be analysed3 yet  that very      
sympathy itself becomes an extraneous   
influence1 and the  perfect balance and 
adjustment of the reason is disturbed4  
,but though impartiality1 in the strict 
sense1 is not to be had1  there is      
another condition that may be rightly   
demanded--resolute  honesty4 ,this ,i   
hope may be attained as well from one   
point of  view as from another1 at least
 that there is no very great  antecedent
 reason to the contrary4 ,in past       
generations indeed  there was such a    
reason4 ,strongly negative views could  
only be  expressed at considerable      
personal risk and loss4 ,but now1 public
  opinion is so tolerant1 especially    
among the reading and thinking  classes1
 that both parties are practically upon 
much the same  footing4 ,indeed for bold

 and strong and less sensitive minds    
negative views will have an attraction  
and will find support that  will go far 
to neutralise any counterbalancing      
disadvantage4    ,on either side the    
remedy for the effects of bias must be  
found in  a rigorous and searching      
criticism4 ,if misleading statements and
  unsound arguments are allowed to pass 
unchallenged the fault will  not lie    
only with their author4    ,it will be  
hardly necessary for me to say that the 
,christian  ,evidence ,society is not   
responsible for the contents of this    
work1  except in so far as may be       
involved in the original request that ,i
  should write it4 ,i undertook the task
 at first with some hesitation1  and ,i 
could not have undertaken it at all     
without stipulating for  entire freedom4
 ,the ,society very kindly and liberally
 granted me  this1 and ,i am conscious  
of having to some extent availed myself 
of it4 ,i have not always stayed to     
consider whether the opinions  expressed

 were in exact accordance with those of 
the majority of  ,christians4 ,it will  
be enough if they should find points of 
contact  in some minds1 and the         
tentative element in them will perhaps  
be  the more indulgently judged now that
 the reconciliation of the  different   
branches of knowledge and belief is     
being so anxiously  sought for4    ,the 
instrument of the enquiry had to be     
fashioned as the enquiry  itself went   
on1 and ,i suspect that the consequences
 of this will  be apparent in some      
inequality and incompleteness in the    
earlier  portions4 ,for instance1 ,i am 
afraid that the textual analysis of  the
 quotations in ,justin may seem somewhat
 less satisfactory than  that of those  
in the ,clementine ,homilies1 though    
,justin's  quotations are the more      
important of the two4 ,still ,i hope    
that  the treatment of the first may be1
 for the scale of the book1             
sufficiently adequate4 ,there seemed to 
be a certain advantage in  presenting   

the results of the enquiry in the order 
in which it was  conducted4 ,if time and
 strength are allowed me1 ,i hope to be 
able  to carry several of the           
investigations that are begun in this   
book  some stages further4    ,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   
year4 ,the first of ,dr4 ,lightfoot's   
articles  in the ,contemporary ,review  
had then appeared4 ,the next two        
articles  7on the ,silence of ,eusebius 
and the ,ignatian ,epistles7 were also  
in advance of my own treatment of the   
same topics4 ,from this point  onwards  
,i was usually the first to finish1 and 
,i have been compelled  merely to allude
 to the progress of the controversy in  
notes4 ,seeing  the turn that ,dr4      
,lightfoot's review was taking1 and     
knowing how  utterly vain it would be   
for any one else to go over the same    
ground1  ,i felt myself more at liberty 

to follow a natural bent in confining   
myself pretty closely to the internal   
aspect of the enquiry4 ,my object  has  
been chiefly to test in detail the      
alleged quotations from our  ,gospels1  
while ,dr4 ,lightfoot has taken a wider 
sweep in collecting  and bringing to    
bear the collateral matter of which his 
unrivalled  knowledge of the early      
,christian literature gave him such     
command4  ,it will be seen that in some 
cases1 as notably in regard to the      
evidence of ,papias1 the external and   
the internal methods have  led to an    
opposite result2 and ,i shall look      
forward with much  interest to the      
further discussion of this subject4     
,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   
criticism4 ,i have also to thank him for
 his courtesy in sending  me a copy of  
the sixth edition of his work4 ,my      
obligations to  other writers ,i hope   

will be found duly acknowledged4 ,if ,i 
were to  single out the one book to     
which ,i owed most1 it would probably be
  ,credner's ',beitrage zur ,einleitung 
in die ,biblischen ,schriften1'  of     
which ,i have spoken somewhat fully in  
an early chapter4 ,i have  used a       
certain amount of discretion and economy
 in avoiding as a  rule the works of    
previous apologists 7such as ,semisch1  
,riggenbach1  ,norton1 ,hofstede de     
,groot7 and consulting rather those of  
an opposite  school in such             
representatives as ,hilgenfeld and      
,volkmar4 ,in this  way1 though ,i may  
very possibly have omitted some         
arguments which  may be sound1 ,i hope  
,i shall have put forward few that have 
been  already tried and found wanting4  
,as ,i have made rather large use of the
 argument supplied by text-  criticism1 
,i should perhaps say that to the best  
of my belief my  attention was first    
drawn to its importance by a note in    
,dr4 ,lightfoot's  work on ,revision4   

,the evidence adduced under this head   
will be found1  ,i believe1 to be       
independent of any particular theory of 
text-criticism4  ,the idea of the       
,analytical ,index is taken1 with some  
change of plan1  from ,volkmar4 ,it may 
serve to give a sort of coup d'oeil of  
the  subject4    ,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 off4 ,the proofs of    
this book have been seen in  their      
passage through the press by my friend  
the ,rev4 ,a4,j4 ,mason1  ,fellow of    
,trinity ,college1 ,cambridge1 whose    
exact scholarship has  been particularly
 valuable to me4 ,on another side than  
that of  scholarship ,i have derived the
 greatest benefit from the advice of  my
 friend ,james ,beddard1 ,m4,b41 of     
,nottingham1 who was among the  first to
 help me to realise1 and now does not   
suffer me to forget1  what a book ought 
to be4 ,the ,index of ,references to the

 ,gospels  has also been made for me4   
,the chapter on ,marcion has already    
appeared1 substantially in its  present 
form1 as a contribution to the          
,fortnightly ,review4                   
,,barton-,,on-,,the-,,heath1            
,,shipston-,,on-,,stour1                
,november1 #ahge4                ,greek 
epigraph3 ,ta de panta elenchoumena hupo
 tou photos       phaneroutai pan gar to
 phaneroumenon phos estin4              
,,chapter ,i4    ,,introductory4        
,it would be natural in a work of this  
kind1 which is a direct  review of a    
particular book1 to begin with an       
account of that  book1 and with some    
attempt to characterise it4 ,such had   
been my  own intention1 but there seems 
to be sufficient reason for  pursuing a 
different course4 ,on the one hand1 an  
account of a book  which has so recently
 appeared1 which has been so fully      
reviewed1  and which has excited so much
 attention1 would appear to be          
superfluous2 and1 on the other hand1 as 

the character of it has  become the     
subject of somewhat sharp controversy1  
and as controversy--  or at least the   
controversial temper--is the one thing  
that ,i wish  to avoid1 ,i have thought 
it well on the whole to abandon my first
  intention1 and to confine myself as   
much as possible to a criticism  of the 
argument and subject-matter1 with a view
 to ascertain the  real facts as to the 
formation of the ,canon of the four     
,gospels4    ,i shall correct1 where ,i 
am able to do so1 such mistakes as may  
happen to come under my notice and have 
not already been pointed  out by other  
reviewers1 only dilating upon them where
 what seem to  be false principles of   
criticism are involved4 ,on the general 
subject of these mistakes--misleading   
references and the like--,i  think that 
enough has been said ,endnote #b3a4     
,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 day4            
,inaccuracies no doubt have been found1 
not a few4 ,but1 unfortunately1 there is
 only one of our seats of  learning     
where--in theology at least--the study  
of accuracy has  quite the place that it
 deserves4 ,our best scholars and ablest
  men--with one or two conspicuous      
exceptions--do not write1 and the  work 
is left to be done by littrateurs and   
clergymen or  laymen who have never     
undergone the severe preliminary        
discipline  which scientific            
investigation requires4 ,thus a low     
standard is  set2 there are but few     
sound examples to follow1 and it is a   
chance whether the student's attention  
is directed to these at the  time when  
his habits of mind are being formed4    
,again1 it was claimed for              
',supernatural ,religion' on its first  
appearance that it was impartial4 ,the  
claim has been indignantly  denied1 and1
 ,i am afraid ,i must say1 with justice4
 ,any one  conversant with the subject  

7,i speak of the critical portion of    
the book7 will see that it is deeply    
coloured by the author's  prepossessions
 from beginning to end4 ,here again he  
has only imbibed  the temper of the     
nation4 ,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 mind4 ,an          
,englishman's political opinions are    
determined for him mainly  7though      
sometimes in the way of reaction7 by his
 antecedents and  education1 and his    
opinions on other subjects follow in    
their  train4 ,he takes them up with    
more of practical vigour and energy     
than breadth of reflection4 ,there is a 
contagion of party-spirit  in the air4  
,and thus advocacy on one side is simply
 met by  advocacy on the other4 ,such   
has at least been hitherto the history  
of ,english thought upon most great     
subjects4 ,we may hope that at  last    
this state of things is coming to an    

end4 ,but until now1 and  even now1 it  
has been difficult to find that quiet   
atmosphere in  which alone true         
criticism can flourish4    ,let it not  
be thought that these few remarks are   
made in a spirit  of censoriousness4    
,they are made by one who is only too   
conscious  of being subject to the very 
same conditions1 and who knows not  how 
far he may need indulgence on the same  
score himself4 ,how far  his own work is
 tainted with the spirit of advocacy it 
is not for  him to say4 ,he knows well  
that the author whom he has set himself 
to criticise is at least a writer of    
remarkable vigour and  ability1 and that
 he cannot lay claim to these qualities2
 but he  has confidence in the power of 
truth--whatever that truth may be--  to 
assert itself in the end4 ,an open and  
fair field and full and  free criticism 
are all that is needed to eliminate the 
effects of  individual strength or      
weakness4 ',the opinions of good men are
 but  knowledge in the                  

making'--especially where they are based
 upon a  survey of the original facts4  
,mistakes will be made and have         
currency for a time4 ,but little by     
little truth emerges2 it  receives the  
suffrages of those who are competent to 
judge2  gradually the controversy       
narrows2 parts of it are closed up      
entirely1 and a solid and permanent     
advance is made4           99       99  
99       99       99    ,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  
reason4 ,the divine origin of this      
communication is proved  by miracles4   
,miracles are proved by the record of   
,scripture1  which1 in its turn1 is     
attested by the history of the          
,canon4--,this  is certainly the kind of
 theory which was in favour at the end  
of  the last century1 and found         
expression in works like ,paley's       

,evidences4 ,it belongs to a time of    
vigorous and clear but  mechanical and  
narrow culture1 when the philosophy of  
religion was  made up of abrupt and     
violent contrasts2 when ,christianity   
7including under that name the ,old     
,testament as well as the ,new7  was    
thought to be simply true and all other 
religions simply  false2 when the       
revelation of divine truth was thought  
to be as  sudden and complete as the act
 of creation2 and when the presence  of 
any local and temporary elements in the 
,christian documents or  society was    
ignored4    ,the world has undergone a  
great change since then4 ,a new and far-
  reaching philosophy is gradually      
displacing the old4 ,the ,christian     
sees that evolution is as much a law of 
religion as of nature4 ,the  ,ethnic1 or
 non-,christian1 religions are no longer
 treated as  outside the pale of the    
,divine government4 ,each falls into its
  place as part of a vast divinely      
appointed scheme1 of the character  of  

which we are beginning to have some     
faint glimmerings4 ,other  religions are
 seen to be correlated to ,christianity 
much as the  other tentative efforts of 
nature are correlated to man4 ,a divine 
operation1 and what from our limited    
human point of view we should  call a   
special divine operation1 is not        
excluded but rather implied  in the     
physical process by which man has been  
planted on the earth1  and it is still  
more evidently implied in the           
corresponding process  of his spiritual 
enlightenment4 ,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           
,christianity4  ,rather it appears on a 
loftier height than ever4 ,the spiritual
  movements of recent times have opened 
men's eyes more and more to  its supreme
 spiritual excellence4 ,it is no longer 
possible to  resolve it into a mere     
'code of morals4' ,the ,christian ethics

 grow  organically out of the relations 
which ,christianity assumes between     
,god and man1 and in their fulness are  
inseparable from those relations4  ,the 
author of ',supernatural ,religion'     
speaks as if they were separable1  as if
 a man could assume all the ,christian  
graces merely by wishing  to assume     
them4 ,but he forgets the root of the   
whole ,christian system1  ',except ye be
 converted and become as little         
children1 ye shall in  no case enter    
into the kingdom of heaven4'    ,the old
 idea of the ,aufklrung that            
,christianity was nothing  more than a  
code of morals1 has now long ago been   
given up1 and  the self-complacency     
which characterised that movement has   
for the most part1 though not entirely1 
passed away4 ,the  nineteenth century is
 not in very many quarters regarded as  
the  goal of things4 ,and it will hardly
 now be maintained that  ,christianity  
is adequately represented by any of the 
many sects  and parties embraced under  

the name4 ,when we turn from even the   
best of these1 in its best and highest  
embodiment1 to the picture  that is put 
before us in the ,gospels1 how small    
does it seem6 ,we  feel that they all   
fall short of their ideal1 and that     
there is a  greater promise and         
potentiality of perfection in the root  
than  has ever yet appeared in branch or
 flower4    ,no doubt theology follows  
philosophy4 ,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 universe4 ,it has been so in every  
age1 and  it must needs be so now4 ,some
 readjustment1 perhaps a considerable   
readjustment1 of theological and        
scientific beliefs may be  necessary4   
,but there is1 ,i think1 a strong       
presumption that the  changes involved  
in theology will be less radical than   
often seems  to be supposed4 ,when we   
look back upon history1 the world has   

gone  through many similar crises       
before4 ,the discoveries of ,darwin and 
the philosophies of ,mill or ,hegel do  
not mark a greater relative  advance    
than the discoveries of ,newton and the 
philosophies of  ,descartes and ,locke4 
,these latter certainly had an effect   
upon  theology4 ,at one time they seemed
 to shake it to its base2 so much  so   
that ,bishop ,butler wrote in the       
,advertisement to the first  edition of 
his ,analogy that 'it is come to be     
taken for granted  that ,christianity is
 not so much as a subject of inquiry2   
but that  it is now at length discovered
 to be fictitious4' ,yet what do we  see
 after a lapse of a hundred and forty   
years8 ,it cannot be said  that there is
 less religious life and activity now   
than there was  then1 or that there has 
been so far any serious breach in the   
continuity of ,christian belief4 ,an eye
 that has learnt to watch  the larger   
movements of mankind will not allow     
itself to be  disturbed by local        

oscillations4 ,it is natural enough that
 some of  our thinkers and writers      
should imagine that the last word has   
been spoken1 and that they should be    
tempted to use the word  ',truth' as if 
it were their own peculiar possession4  
,but ,truth is  really a much vaster and
 more unattainable thing4 ,one man sees 
a  fragment of it here and another      
there2 but1 as a whole1 even in  any of 
its smallest subdivisions1 it exists not
 in the brain of  any one individual1   
but in the gradual1 and ever incomplete 
but  ever self-completing1 onward       
movement of the whole4 ',if any man     
think that he knoweth anything1 he      
knoweth nothing yet as he ought  to     
know4' ,the forms of ,christianity      
change1 but ,christianity  itself       
endures4 ,and it would seem as if we    
might well be content  to wait until it 
was realised a little less imperfectly  
before we  attempt to go farther afield4
    ,yet the work of adaptation must be 
done4 ,the present generation  has a    

task of its own to perform4 ,it is      
needful for it to revise  its opinions  
in view of the advances that have been  
made both in  general knowledge and in  
special theological criticism4 ,in so   
far  as ',supernatural ,religion' has   
helped to do this1 it has served  the   
cause of true progress2 but its main    
plan and design ,i cannot  but regard as
 out of date and aimed in the air4      
,the ,christian miracles1 or what in our
 ignorance we call miracles1  will not  
bear to be torn away from their context4
 ,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 accompaniment4  ,the
 ,life itself is the great miracle4     
,when we come to see it as it  really   
is1 and to enter1 if even in some dim   
and groping way1 into  its inner        
recesses1 we feel ourselves abashed and 
dumb4 ,yet this  self-evidential        
character is found in portions of the   
narrative  that are quite unmiraculous4 

,these1 perhaps1 are in reality the     
most marvellous1 though the miracles    
themselves will seem in place  when     
their spiritual significance is         
understood and they are  ranged in order
 round their common centre4 ,doubtless  
some elements  of superstition may be   
mixed up in the record as it has come   
down  to us4 ,there is a manifest gap   
between the reality and the story  of   
it4 ,the ,evangelists were for the most 
part ',jews who sought  after a sign4'  
,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 tangible4 ,we     
cannot now distinguish with any degree  
of accuracy between the  subjective and 
the objective in the report4 ,but that  
miracles1 or  what we call such1 did in 
some shape take place1 is1 ,i believe1  
simply a matter of attested fact4 ,when 
we consider it in its  relation to the  
rest of the narrative1 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 faith4    ,still the     
author of ',supernatural ,religion' is1 
no doubt1 justified  in raising the     
question1 ,did miracles really happen8  
,i only wish  to protest against the    
idea that such a question can be        
adequately  discussed as something      
isolated and distinct1 in which all that
  is necessary is to produce and        
substantiate the documents as in  a     
forensic process4 ,such a               
'world-historical' event 7if ,i may for 
the moment borrow an expressive         
,germanism7 as the founding of          
,christianity cannot be thrown into a   
merely forensic form4  ,considerations  
of this kind may indeed enter in1 but to
 suppose  that they can be justly       
estimated by themselves alone is an     
error4  ,and it is still more an error  
to suppose that the riddle of the       
universe1 or rather that part of the    

riddle which to us is most  important1  
the religious nature of man and1 the    
objective facts  and relations that     
correspond to it1 can all be reduced to 
some  four or five simple propositions  
which admit of being proved or          
disproved by a short and easy ,q4,e4,d4 
,it would have been a far more          
profitable enquiry if the author had    
asked himself1 ,what is ,revelation8    
,the time has come when this  should be 
asked and an attempt to obtain a more   
scientific  definition should be made4  
,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 ,christians4 
,obviously1 at the first blush1 there   
is a difference3 and that difference    
constitutes what we mean by             
,revelation4 ,let us have this as yet   
very imperfectly known  quantity        
scientifically ascertained1 without any 
attempt either to  minimise or to       

exaggerate4 ,i mean1 let the field which
 ,mr4 ,matthew  ,arnold has lately been 
traversing with much of his usual       
insight  but in a light and popular     
manner1 be seriously mapped out and     
explored4 ,pioneers have been at work1  
such as ,dr4 ,kuenen1 but not  perhaps  
quite without a bias3 let the same      
enquiry be taken up so  widely as that  
the effects of bias may be eliminated2  
and instead  of at once accepting the   
first crude results1 let us wait until  
they are matured by time4 ,this would be
 really fruitful and  productive1 and a 
positive addition to knowledge2 but     
reasoning  such as that in              
',supernatural ,religion' is vitiated at
 the outset1  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   
,revelation4 ,endnote #aj3a    ,with    
these reservations as to the main drift 
and bearing of the  argument1 we may    

however meet the author of              
',supernatural ,religion'  on his own   
ground4 ,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 happen4 ,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 
appeared4 ,in the first  place1 merely  
as a matter of historical attestation1  
the ,gospels  are not the strongest     
evidence for the ,christian miracles4   
,only  one of the four1 in its present  
shape1 is claimed as the work of  an    
,apostle1 and of that the genuineness is
 disputed4 ,the ,acts of  the ,apostles 
stand upon very much the same footing   
with the ,synoptic  ,gospels1 and of    
this book we are promised a further     
examination4  ,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 ,gospels2 and in these  
undoubted writings  ,st4 ,paul certainly
 shows by incidental allusions1 the good
 faith  of which cannot be questioned1  
that he believed himself to be  endowed 
with the power of working miracles1 and 
that miracles1  or what were thought to 
be such1 were actually wrought both by  
him and by his contemporaries4 ,he      
reminds the ,corinthians that  'the     
signs of an ,apostle were wrought among 
them 444 in signs1  and wonders1 and    
mighty deeds' 7,greek3 en saemeious kai 
terasi  kai dunamesi--the usual words   
for the higher forms of miracle--  #b   
,cor4 xii4 #ab74 ,he tells the ,romans  
that 'he will not dare to  speak of any 
of those things which ,christ hath not  
wrought in him1  to make the ,gentiles  
obedient1 by word and deed1 through     
mighty  signs and wonders1 by the power 
of the ,spirit of ,god' 7,greek3  en    
dunamei saemeion kai teraton1 en dunamei
 pneumator ,theou1  ,rom4 xv4 #ah1 #ai7 
,he asks the ,galatians whether 'he that

 ministereth  to them the ,spirit1 and  
worketh miracles ,greek3 ho energon     
dunameis  among them1 doeth it by the   
works of the law1 or by the hearing of  
faith8' 7,gal4 iii4 #e74 ,in the first  
,epistle to the ,corinthians1  he goes  
somewhat elaborately into the exact     
place in the ,christian  economy that is
 to be assigned to the working of       
miracles and gifts  of healing 7#a ,cor4
 xii4 #aj1 #bh1 #bi74 ,besides these    
allusions1 ,st4 ,paul  repeatedly refers
 to the cardinal miracles of the        
,resurrection and  ,ascension2 he refers
 to them as notorious and unquestionable
 facts  at a time when such an assertion
 might have been easily refuted4  ,on   
one occasion he gives a very            
circumstantial account of the testimony 
on which the belief in the ,resurrection
 rested 7#a ,cor4 xv4 #d-h74 ,and1  not 
only does he assert the ,resurrection as
 a fact1 but he builds  upon it a whole 
scheme of doctrine3 ',if ,christ be not 
risen1' he says1  'then is our preaching

 vain1 and your faith is also vain4' ,we
 do not  stay now to consider the exact 
philosophical weight of this evidence4  
,it will be time enough to do this when 
it has received the critical  discussion
 that may be presumed to be in store for
 it4 ,but as external  evidence1 in the 
legal sense1 it is probably the best    
that can be  produced1 and it has been  
entirely untouched so far4    ,again1 in
 considering the evidence for the age of
 the ,synoptic  ,gospels1 that which is 
derived from external sources is only a 
part1 and not perhaps the more important
 part1 of the whole4 ,it  points        
backwards indeed1 and we shall see with 
what amount of  force and range4 ,but   
there is still an interval within which 
only  approximate conclusions are       
possible4 ,these conclusions need to be 
supplemented from the phenomena of the  
documents themselves4 ,in  the relation 
of the ,gospels to the growth of the    
,christian society  and the development 
of ,christian doctrine1 and especially  

to the  great turning-point in the      
history1 the taking of ,jerusalem1 there
  is very considerable internal evidence
 for determining the date  within which 
they must have been composed4 ,it is    
well known that  many critics1 without  
any apologetic object1 have found a more
 or  less exact criterion in the        
eschatological discourses 7,matt4 xxiv1 
,mark xiii1 ,luke xxi4 #e-cf71 and to   
this large additions may be  made4 ,as  
,i hope some day to have an opportunity 
of discussing the  whole question of the
 origin and composition of the ,synoptic
  ,gospels1 ,i shall not go into this at
 present3 but in the mean time  it      
should be remembered that all these     
further questions lie in  the           
background1 and that in tracing the     
formation of the ,canon of  the ,gospels
 the whole of the evidence for          
miracles--even from this  ab extra point
 of view--is very far from being        
exhausted4    ,there is yet another     
remaining reason which makes the present

  enquiry of less importance than might 
be supposed1 derived from  the          
particular way in which the author has  
dealt with this  external evidence4 ,in 
order to explain the prima facie        
evidence for our canonical ,gospels1 he 
has been compelled to  assume the       
existence of other documents containing1
 so far as  appears1 the same or very   
similar matter4 ,in other words1 instead
  of four ,gospels he would give us five
 or six or seven4 ,i do not  know that1 
merely as a matter of policy1 and for   
apologetic  purposes only1 the best way 
to refute his conclusion would not be   
to admit his premisses and to insist    
upon the multiplication of  the evidence
 for the facts of the ,gospel history   
which his  argument would seem to       
involve4 ,i mention this however1 not   
with  any such object1 but rather to    
show that the truth of ,christianity  is
 not intimately affected1 and that there
 are no such great  reasons for         
partiality on one side or on the other4 

,i confess that it was a relief to me   
when ,i found that this must  be the    
case4 ,i do not think the time has come 
when the central  question can be       
approached with any safety4 ,rough and  
ready  methods 7such as ,i am afraid ,i 
must call the first part of             
',supernatural ,religion'7 may indeed   
cut the ,gordian knot1 but they  do not 
untie it4 ,a number of preliminary      
questions will have to be  determined   
with a greater degree of accuracy and   
with more general  consent than has been
 done hitherto4 ,the ,jewish and        
,christian  literature of the century   
before and of the two centuries after   
the birth of ,christ must undergo a more
 searching examination1 by  minds of    
different nationality and training1 both
 as to the date1  text1 and character of
 the several books4 ,the whole balance  
of an  argument may frequently be       
changed by some apparently minute and   
unimportant discovery2 while1 at        
present1 from the mere want of  consent 

as to the data1 the state of many a     
question is  necessarily chaotic4 ,it is
 far better that all these points should
  be discussed as disinterestedly as    
possible4 ,no work is so good as  that  
which is done without sight of the      
object to which it is  tending and where
 the workman has only his measure and   
rule to  trust to4 ,i am glad to think  
that the investigation which is to      
follow may be almost1 if not quite1     
classed in this category2 and  ,i hope  
,i may be able to conduct it with       
sufficient impartiality4  ,unconscious  
bias no man can escape1 but from        
conscious bias ,i  trust ,i shall be    
free4            ,,chapter ,,ii4    ,,on
 ,,quotations ,,generally ,,in ,,the    
,,early ,,christian ,,writers4      ,the
 subject then proposed for our          
investigation is the extent to  which   
the canonical ,gospels are attested by  
the early ,christian  writers1 or1 in   
other words1 the history of the process 
by which  they became canonical4 ,this  

will involve an enquiry into two        
things2 first1 the proof of the         
existence of the ,gospels1 and1         
secondly1 the degree of authority       
attributed to them4 ,practically  this  
second enquiry must be very subordinate 
to the first1 because  the data are much
 fewer2 but it too shall be dealt with1 
cursorily1 as the occasion arises1 and  
we shall be in a position  to speak upon
 it definitely before we conclude4      
,it will be convenient to follow the    
example that is set us in               
',supernatural ,religion1' and to take  
the first three1 or ,synoptic1  ,gospels
 separately from the fourth4            
99       99       99       99       99  
,at the outset the question will occur  
to us1 ,on what principle is  the       
enquiry to be conducted8 ,what sort of  
rule or standard are we  to assume8 ,in 
order to prove either the existence or  
the authority  of the ,gospels1 it is   
necessary that we should examine the    
quotations from them1 or what are       

alleged to be quotations from  them1 in 
the early writers4 ,now these quotations
 are notoriously  lax4 ,it will be      
necessary then to have some means of    
judging1 what  degree and kind of laxity
 is admissible2 what does1 and what does
  not1 prevent the reference of a       
quotation to a given source4    ,the    
author of ',supernatural ,religion1'    
indeed1 has not felt the  necessity for 
this preliminary step4 ,he has taken up1
 as it were1  at haphazard1 the first   
standard that came to his hand2 and1 not
  unnaturally1 this is found to be very 
much the standard of the  present       
literary age1 when both the mechanical  
and psychological  conditions are quite 
different from those that prevailed at  
the  beginning of the ,christian era4   
,he has thus been led to make a  number 
of assertions which will require a great
 deal of  qualification4 ,the only sound
 and scientific method is to make an    
induction 7if only a rough one7         
respecting the habit of early  quotation

 generally1 and then to apply it to the 
particular cases4    ,here there will be
 three classes of quotation more or less
  directly in point3 7#a7 the quotations
 from the ,old ,testament in  the ,new2 
7#b7 the quotations from the ,old       
,testament in the same  early writers   
whose quotations from the ,new          
,testament are the  point in question2  
7#c7 quotations from the ,new           
,testament1 and more  particularly from 
the ,gospels1 in the writers subsequent 
to these1  at a time when the ,canon of 
the ,gospels was fixed and we can be    
quite sure that our present ,gospels are
 being quoted4    ,this method of       
procedure however is not by any means so
 plain and  straightforward as it might 
seem4 ,the whole subject of ,old        
,testament quotations is highly         
perplexing4 ,most of the quotations     
that we meet with are taken from the    
,,lxx version2 and the text of  that    
version was at this particular time     
especially uncertain and  fluctuating4  

,there is evidence to show that it must 
have existed  in several forms which    
differed more or less from that of the  
extant ,,mss4 ,it would be rash         
therefore to conclude at once1  because 
we find a quotation differing from the  
present text of the  ,,lxx1 that it     
differed from that which was used by the
 writer  making the quotation4 ,in some 
cases this can be proved from the  same 
writer making the same quotation more   
than once and  differently each time1 or
 from another writer making it in       
agreement with our present text4 ,but in
 other cases it seems  probable that the
 writer had really a different text     
before him1  because he quotes it more  
than once1 or another writer quotes it1 
with the same variation4 ,this however  
is again an uncertain  criterion2 for   
the second writer may be copying the    
first1 or he  may be influenced by an   
unconscious reminiscence of what the    
first  had written4 ,the early          
,christian writers copied each other to 

an  extent that we should hardly be     
prepared for4 ,thus1 for instance1      
there is a string of quotations in the  
first ,epistle of ,clement of  ,rome    
7cc4 xiv1 xv7--,ps4 xxxvii4 #cf-ch2 ,is4
 xxix4 #ac2 ,ps4 lxii4 #d1  lxxviii4    
#cf1 #cg1 xxxi1 #ai1 xii4 #c-f2 and     
these very quotations in  the same order
 reappear in the ,alexandrine ,clement  
7,strom4 iv4 #f74  ,clement of          
,alexandria is indeed fond of copying   
his ,roman  namesake1 and does so       
without acknowledgment4 ,tertullian and 
,epiphanius in like manner drew largely 
from the works of ,irenaeus4  ,but this 
confuses evidence that would otherwise  
be clear4 ,for  instance1 in ,eph4 iv4  
#h ,st4 ,paul quotes ,ps4 lxviii4 #ai1  
but with a  marked variation from all   
the extant texts of the ,,lxx4 ,thus3-- 
,ps4 lxviii4 #ah 7#ai74    ,greek3      
,anabas eis hupsos aechmaloteusas       
aichmalosian1 elabes  domata en         
anthropon4    ,greek3 ,aechmaloteusen   
444 en anthropon ,hebrew3 alef1 perhaps 

from assimilation to ,n4,t4      ,eph4  
iv4 #h4    ,greek3 ,anabas eis hupsos   
aechmaltoteusen aichmalosian1 kai edoke 
domata tois anthropois4    ,greek3 kai  
om4 ,hebrew3 alef'#a1 ,a ,c'#b ,d'#a1 c4
 ,it4 ,vulg4 ,memph4  c42 ins4 ,b ,c'#c 
,d'#c ,hebrew3 alef'#d1 c4      ,now we 
should naturally think that this was a  
very free  quotation--so free that it   
substitutes 'giving' for 'receiving4'   
,a free quotation perhaps it may be1 but
 at any rate the very same  variation is
 found in ,justin 7,dial4 #ci74 ,and1   
strange to say1 in  five other passages 
which are quoted variantly by ,st4      
,paul1 ,justin  also agrees with him1   
,endnote #ah3a though cases on the other
  hand occur where ,justin differs from 
,st4 ,paul or holds a position  midway  
between him and the ,,lxx 7e4g4 #a ,cor4
 i4 #ai compared with  ,just4 ,dial4 cc4
 #abc1 #cb1 #gh1 where will be found    
some curious  variations1 agreement with
 ,,lxx1 partial agreement with ,,lxx1   
partial agreement with ,st4 ,paul74 ,now

 what are we to say to these  phenomena8
 ,have ,st4 ,paul and ,justin both a    
variant text of the  ,,lxx1 or is       
,justin quoting mediately through ,st4  
,paul8 ,probability  indeed seems to be 
on the side of the latter of these two  
alternatives1 because in one place      
7,dial4 cc4 #ie1 #if7 ,justin  quotes   
the two passages ,deut4 xxvii4 #bf and  
,deut4 xxi4 #bc  consecutively1 and     
applies them just as they are applied in
 ,gal4  iii4 #aj1 #ac ,endnote #ah3b4   
,on the other hand1 it is somewhat      
strange that ,justin nowhere refers to  
the ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul by  name1   
and that the allusions to them in the   
genuine writings1  except for these     
marked resemblances in the ,old         
,testament  quotations1 are few and     
uncertain4 ,the same relation is        
observed  between the ,pauline ,epistles
 and that of ,clement of ,rome4 ,in two 
places at least ,clement agrees1 or     
nearly agrees1 with ,st4 ,paul1  where  
both differ from the ,,lxx2 in c4 xiii  

7,greek3 ho kanchomenos  en ,kurio      
kanchastho2 compare #a ,cor4 i4 #ca1 #b 
,cor4 x1 #af71 and in  c4 xxxiv 7,greek3
 ophthalmhos ouk eiden k4t4l42 compare  
#a ,cor4 ii4  #i74 ,again1 in c4 xxxvi  
,clement has the ,greek3 puros phloga of
  ,heb4 i4 #g for ,greek3 pur phlegon of
 the ,,lxx4 ,the rest of the            
parallelisms in ,clement's ,epistle are 
for the most part with  ,clement of     
,alexandria1 who had evidently made a   
careful study of  his predecessor4 ,in  
one place1 c4 liii1 there is a          
remarkable  coincidence with ,barnabas  
7,greek3 ,mousae ,mousae katabaethi to  
tachos k4t4l42 compare ,barn4 cc4 iv and
 xiv74 ,in the ,epistle of  ,barnabas   
itself there is a combined quotation    
from ,gen4 xv4 #f1  xvii4 #e1 which has 
evidently and certainly been affected by
 ,rom4  iv4 #aa4 ,on the whole we may   
lean somewhat decidedly to the          
hypothesis of a mutual study of each    
other by the ,christian  writers1 though
 the other hypothesis of the existence  

of different  versions 7whether oral and
 traditional or in any shape written7   
cannot be excluded4 ,probably both will 
have to be taken into  account to       
explain all the facts4    ,another      
disturbing influence1 which will affect 
especially the  quotations in the       
,gospels1 is the possibility1 perhaps   
even  probability1 that many of these   
are made1 not directly from either      
,hebrew or ,,lxx1 but from or through   
,targums4 ,this would seem to be  the   
case especially with the remarkable     
applications of prophecy  in ,st4       
,matthew4 ,it must be admitted as       
possible that the  ,evangelist has      
followed some ,jewish interpretation    
that seemed to  bear a ,christian       
construction4 ,the quotation in ,matt4  
ii4 #f1 with  its curious insertion of  
the negative 7,greek3 oudamos elachistae
  for ,greek3 oligostos71 reappears     
identically in ,justin 7,dial4 c4  #gh74
 ,we shall probably have to touch upon  
this quotation when we  come to consider

 ,justin's relations to the canonical   
,gospels4 ,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 ,st4  ,matthew1 
but he may be quoting from a ,targum or 
from a peculiar  text4    ,any          
induction1 then1 in regard to the       
quotations from the ,,lxx  version will 
have to be used with caution and        
reserve4 ,and yet ,i  think it will be  
well to make such an induction roughly1 
especially in regard to the ,apostolic  
,fathers whose writings we  are to      
examine4           99       99       99 
99       99    ,the quotations from the 
,old ,testament in the ,new have1 as it 
is  well known1 been made the subject of
 a volume by ,mr4 ,mc,calman  ,turpie   
,endnote #bj3a1 which1 though perhaps   
not quite reaching a  high level of     
scholarship1 has yet evidently been put 
together  with much care and pains1 and 
will be sufficient for our purpose4     
,the summary result of ,mr4 ,turpie's   

investigation is this4 ,out of  two     
hundred and seventy-five in all which   
may be considered to be  quotations from
 the ,old ,testament1 fifty-three agree 
literally  both with the ,,lxx and the  
,hebrew1 ten with the ,hebrew and not   
with  the ,,lxx1 and thirty-seven with  
the ,,lxx and not with the ,hebrew1     
making in all just a hundred that are in
 literal 7or nearly  literal1 for slight
 variations of order are not taken into 
account7 agreement with some still      
extant authority4 ,on the other  hand1  
seventy-six passages differ both from   
the ,hebrew and ,,lxx  where the two are
 together1 ninety-nine differ from them 
where  they diverge1 and besides these1 
three1 though introduced with  marks of 
quotation1 have no assignable original  
in the ,old  ,testament at all4 ,leaving
 them for the present out of the        
question1 we have a hundred instances of
 agreement against a  hundred and       
seventy-five of difference2 or1 in other
 words1 the  proportion of difference to

 agreement is as seven to four4    ,this
 however must be taken with the caution 
given above2 that is  to say1 it must   
not at once be inferred that because the
 quotation  differs from extant         
authority therefore it necessarily      
differs  from all non-extant authority  
as well4 ,it should be added that the   
standard of agreement adopted by ,mr4   
,turpie is somewhat higher  than would  
be naturally held to be sufficient to   
refer a passage  to a given source4 ,his
 lists must therefore be used with these
  limitations4    ,turning to them1 we  
find that most of the possible forms of 
variation are exemplified within the    
bounds of the ,canon itself4 ,i  proceed
 to give a few classified instances of  
these4    ,greek3 ,alpha symbol         
,paraphrase4 ,many of the quotations    
from the  ,old ,testament in the ,new   
are highly paraphrastic4 ,we may take   
the  following as somewhat marked       
examples3 ,matt4 ii4 #f1 xii4 #ah-ba1   
xiii4 #ce1 xxvii4 #i1 #aj2 ,john viii4  

#ag1 xii4 #dj1 xiii4 #ah2  #a ,cor4 xiv4
 #ba2 #b ,cor4 ix4 #g4 ,matt4 xxvii4 #i1
 #aj would perhaps  mark an extreme     
point in freedom of quotation ,endnote  
#ba3a1 as  will be seen when it is      
compared with the original3--           
,matt4 xxvii4 #i4 #aj4    ,greek3 tote  
eplaerothae to phaethen dia tou         
prophaetou ,hieremiou  legontos ,kai    
elabon ta triakonta arguria1 taen timaen
 tou  tetimaemenou on etimaesanto apo   
nion ,israael1 kai edokan auta eis  ton 
argon tou kerameos1 katha sunetaxen moi 
,kurios4      ,zech4 xi4 #ac4    ,greek3
 ,kathes autous eis to choneutaerion1   
kai schepsomai ei  dokimon estin1 de    
tropon edokiamistheaen huper aotuon4    
,kai elabon  tous triakonta argurous kai
 enebalon autous eis oikon ,kuriou eis  
to choneutaerion4      ,it can hardly be
 possible that the ,evangelist has here 
been  influenced by any ,targum or      
version4 ,the form of his text has      
apparently been determined by the       
historical event to which the  prophecy 

is applied4 ,the sense of the original  
has been entirely  altered4 ,there the  
prophet obeys the command to put the    
thirty  pieces of silver1 which he had  
received as his shepherd's hire1  into  
the treasury ,greek3 choneutaerion4     
,here the hierarchical  party refuse to 
put them into the treasury4 ,the word   
'potter'  seems to be introduced from   
the ,hebrew4    ,greek3 ,beta symbol    
,quotations from ,memory4 ,among the    
numerous  paraphrastic quotations1 there
 are some that have specially the       
appearance of having been made from     
memory1 such as ,acts vii4 #cg2  ,rom4  
ix4 #i1 #ag1 #be1 #cc1 x4 #f-h1 xi4 #c1 
xii4 #ai1 xiv4 #aa2  #a ,cor4 i4 #ai1   
ii4 #i2 ,rev4 ii4 #bg4 ,of course it    
must always  be a matter of guess-work  
what is quoted from memory and what is  
not1 but in these quotations 7and in    
others which are ranged under  different
 heads7 there is just that general      
identity of sense along  with variety of
 expression which usually characterises 

such  quotations4 ,a simple instance    
would be--      ,rom4 ix4 #be4          
,greek3 hos kai en to ,osaee legei      
,kaleso ton out laon mou laon  mou kai  
taen ouk aegapaemenaen haegapaemenaen4  
,hosea ii4 #bc4    ,greek3 ,kai agapaeso
 taen ouk aegapaemenaen1 kai ero to ou  
lao mou  ,daos mou ei se4      ,greek3  
,gamma symbol ,paraphrase with          
,compression4 ,there are many marked    
examples of this2 such as ,matt4 xxii4  
#bd 7par472 ,mark iv4 #ab2 ,john  xii4  
#ad1 #ae2 ,rom4 iii4 #ae-ag1 x4 #ae2    
,heb4 xii4 #bj4 ,take the  first3--     
,matt4 xxii4 #bd4 ,greek3 ,mousaes eipen
 ,ean tis apothanae  mae echon tekna1   
epigambreusei o adelphos autou taen     
gunaika autou  kai anastaesei sperma to 
adelpho autou4      ,deut4 xxv4 #e4     
,greek3 ,ean de katoikosin adelphoi epi 
to  auto1 kai apothanae eis ex auton1   
sperma de mae ae auto1 ouk estai  ae    
gunae tou tethnaekotos exo andri mae    
engizonti o adelphos tou  andros autaes 
eiseleusetai pros autaen kai laepsetai  

autaen eauto  gunaika kai sunoikaesei   
autae4      ,it is highly probable that 
all the examples given under this head  
are really quotations from memory4      
,greek3 ,delta symbol ,paraphrase with  
,combination of ,passages4  ,this again 
is common2 e4g4 ,luke iv4 #ai2 ,john xv4
 #be1 xix4 #cf2  ,acts xiii4 #bb2 ,rom4 
iii4 #aa-ah1 ix4 #cc1 xi4 #h2 #a ,pet4  
ii4 #bd4 ,the passage  ,rom4 iii4 #aa-ah
 is highly composite1 and reminds us of 
long strings of  quotations that are    
found in some of the ,fathers2 it is    
made up of  ,ps4 xiv4 #a1 #b1 v4 #i1    
cxl4 #c1 x4 #g1 ,is4 lix4 #g1 #h1 ,ps4  
xxxvi4 #a4 ,a  shorter example is--     
,rom4 ix4 #cc4 ,greek3 ,kathos gegraptai
 ,idou tithaemi en  ,sion lithon        
proskommatos kai petran skandalou1 kai o
 pisteuon ep  auto ou                   
kataischunthaesetai4      ,is4 viii4    
#ad4 ,greek3 kai ouch hos lithou        
proskammati  sunantaesesthe1 oude os    
petras ptomati4    ,is4 xxviii4 #af4    
,greek3 ,idou ego emballo eis ta        

themelia  ,sion lithon4441 kai o        
pisteuon ou mae kataischunthae4         
,this fusion of passages is generally an
 act of 'unconscious  celebration4' ,if 
we were to apply the standard assumed in
  ',supernatural ,religion1' it would be
 pronounced impossible that  this and   
most of the passages above could have   
the originals to  which they are        
certainly to be referred4    ,greek3    
,epsilon symbol ,addition4 ,a few cases 
of addition may  be quoted1 e4g4 ,greek3
 mae aposteraesaes inserted in ,mark x4 
#ai1  ,greek3 kai eis thaeran in ,rom4  
xi4 #i4    ,greek3 ,zeta symbol ,change 
of ,sense and ,context4 ,but little     
regard--or what according to our modern 
habits would be considered  little      
regard--is paid to the sense and        
original context of the passage  quoted2
 e4g4 in ,matt4 viii4 #ag the idea of   
healing disease is substituted  for that
 of vicarious suffering1 in ,matt4 xi4  
#aj the persons are  altered 7,greek3   
sou for ,greek3 mou71 in ,acts vii4 #dc 

we find  ,greek3 ,babylonos for ,greek3 
,damaskos1 in #b ,cor4 vi4 #ag ',i will 
receive you' is put for ',i will go     
before you1' in ,heb4 i4 #g ',he  maketh
 ,his angels spirits' for ',he maketh   
the winds ,his  messengers4' ,this      
constant neglect of the context is a    
point that  should be borne in mind4    
,greek3 ,eta symbol ,inversion4         
,sometimes the sense of the original is 
so  far departed from that a seemingly  
opposite sense is substituted  for it4  
,thus in ,matt4 ii4 #f ,greek3 oudamos  
elachistae   oligostos of ,mic4 v4 #b1  
in ,rom4 xi4 #bf ,greek3 ek ,sion       
heneken  ,sion ,,lxx 'to ,sion' ,heb4 of
 ,is4 lix4 #bj1 in ,eph4 iv4 #h  ,greek3
 hedoken domata  helabes domata of ,ps4 
lxvii4 #ai4    ,greek3 ,theta symbol    
,different ,form of ,sentence4 ,the     
grammatical  form of the sentence is    
altered in ,matt4 xxvi4 #ca 7from aorist
 to future71  in ,luke viii4 #aj 7from  
oratio recta to oratio obliqua71 and in 
#a ,pet4  iii4 #aj-ab 7from the second  

person to the third74 ,this is a kind   
of variation that we should naturally   
look for4    ,greek3 ,iota symbol       
,mistaken ,ascriptions or ,nomenclature4
 ,the  following passages are wrongly   
assigned3--,mal4 iii4 #a to ,isaiah     
according to the correct reading of     
,mark i4 #b1 and ,zech4 xi4 #ac  to     
,jeremiah in ,matt4 xxvii4 #i1 #aj2     
,abiathar is apparently put for         
,abimelech in ,mark ii4 #bf2 in ,acts   
vii4 #af 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 ,shechem4  ,these are obviously      
lapses of memory4    ,greek3 ,kappa     
symbol ,quotations of ,doubtful ,origin4
 ,there are a  certain number of        
quotations1 introduced as such1 which   
can be assigned  directly to no ,old    
,testament original2 ,matt4 ii4 #bc     
7,greek3 ,nazoraios  klaethaesetai71 #a 
,tim4 v4 #ah 7'the labourer is worthy of
 his hire'71  ,john vii4 #ch 7'out of   

his belly shall flow rivers of living   
water'71  #db 7,christ should be born of
 ,bethlehem where ,david was71 ,eph4 v4 
#ad  7',awake thou that sleepest'74     
,endnote #be3a    ,it will be seen that1
 in spite of the reservations that we   
felt  compelled to make at the outset1  
the greater number of the  deviations   
noticed above can only be explained on a
 theory of free  quotation1 and         
remembering the extent to which the     
,jews relied  upon memory and the       
mechanical difficulties of exact        
reference and  verification1 this is    
just what before the fact we should have
  expected4           99       99       
99       99       99    ,the ,old       
,testament quotations in the canonical  
books afford us a  certain parallel to  
the object of our enquiry1 but one still
  nearer will of course be presented by 
the ,old ,testament quotations  in those
 books the ,new ,testament quotations in
 which we are to  investigate4 ,i have  
thought it best to draw up tables of    

these in  order to give an idea of the  
extent and character of the  variation4 
,in so tentative an enquiry as this1 the
 standard  throughout will hardly be so 
fixed and accurate as might be          
desirable2 the tabular statement        
therefore must be taken to be           
approximate1 but still ,i think it will 
be found sufficient for our  purpose2   
certain points come out with            
considerable clearness1 and  there is   
always an advantage in drawing data from
 a wide enough  area4 ,the quotations   
are ranged under heads according to the 
degree of approximation to the text of  
the ,,lxx4 ,in cases where the          
classification has seemed doubtful an   
indicatory mark 77 has been  used1      
showing by the side of the column on    
which it occurs to  which of the other  
two classes the instance leans4 ,all    
cases in  which this sign is used to the
 left of the middle column may be       
considered as for practical purposes    
literal quotations4 ,it may be  assumed1

 where the contrary is not stated1 that 
the quotations are  direct and not of   
the nature of allusions2 the marks of   
quotation  are generally quite          
unmistakeable 7,greek3 gegraptai1 legei1
  eipen1 c74 ,brief notes are added in  
the margin to call attention  to the    
more remarkable points1 especially to   
the repetition of the  same quotation in
 different writers and to the apparent  
bearing of  the passage upon the general
 habit of quotation4    ,taking the     
,apostolic ,fathers in order1 we come   
first to--                              
,clement of ,rome 7#a ,ep4 ad ,cor47    
,exact4        ,slightly                
,variant4     ,remarks4                 
,variant4                               
#c ,deut4 #cb4ad1ae4 also in ,justin1   
,is4 #c4e4 al4       differently4       
,is4 #ei4 #ad1 al4    #c4 ,wisd4 #b4bd4 
#d4 ,gen4 #d4c-h4                       
,acts #g4bg1                       ,ex4 
#b4ad                         more      
exactly4  #f4 ,gen4 #b4bc4              

#h4 ,ezek4 #cc4aa                       
,ezek4 #ah4cj    from ,apocryphal       
,ps4 #ajc4aj1aa4  or interpolated       
,jer4 #c4ai1bb4   ,ezekiel8             
,is4 #a4ah4                          #h4
 ,is4 #a4af-bj4                         
#aj4 ,gen4 #ab4a-c4                     
,gen4 #ac4ad-af4                        
,gen4 #ae4e1f4                          
#ab4 ,josh4 #b4c-ai4 compression and    
paraphrase4                             
#ac4 #a ,sam4 #b1aj4  similarly         
,jer4 #i4bc1bd4  ,st4 ,paul1 #a ,cor4   
#a4ca1 #b ,cor4                    #ac4 
,is4 #df4b4                             
#aj4ag4                                 
#ad4 ,prov4 #b4ba1   from memory8       
#bb4 v4l4 7,ps4 #cg4                    
#ci47                                   
#ad4 ,ps4 #cg4ce-ch4                    
,matt4 #ae4h1 ,mark                     
#ae4 ,is4 #bi4ac499     #g4f1 with par- 
#ae4,ps4 #gh4cf1cg499ae4 ,ps4 #fb4d499  
tial similarity1     ,ps4 #ca4ai499     
,clem4 ,alex41     ,ps4 #ab4c-f499      

following ,clem4                        
,rom4                    #af4 ,is4      
#ec4a-ab4                  quoted in    
full by  #af4 ,ps4 #bb4f-h4             
,justin1 also by  #ag4 ,gen4 #ah4bg4    
other writers                           
with text                               
slightly                                
different from                          
,clement4                               
#ag4 ,job #a4a1 v4l4                    
,job #ad4d1e1 v4l4,clem4 ,alex4         
similarly4                    #ag4 ,num4
 #ab4g4                                 
,ex4 #c4aa2 #d-aj4                      
,greek3 ego de    ,assumptio ,mosis1    
eimi atmis apo     ,hilg41 ,eldad       
kuthras4          and ,modad1 ,lft4     
#ah4 ,ps4 #hi4ba1v4l4,clem4 ,alex4 as   
#a ,sam4 #ac4ad4  ,,lxx4  #ah4 ,ps4     
#ea4a-ag4                               
#bj4 ,job #ch4aa4                       
#ba4 ,prov4 #ae4bg4  ,clem4 ,alex4      
similarly2 from                         
memory8 ,greek3  #bb4 ,ps4 #cd4aa-ag4   

legei gar pou4                          
#bc4 ,greek3       from an ,apo-        
palaiporoi eisin   cryphal book1        
oi dipsuchoi      ,ass4 ,mos4 or        
k4t4l4           ,eld4 and ,mod4        
#bc4 ,is4 #ac4bb4    composition and    
,mal4 #c4a4      compression4           
#bf4 ,ps4 #bh4g4     composition        
,ps4 #c-e4       from memory8           
,greek3 legei                           
gar pou4                                
#bg4 ,wisd4 #ab4ab4  from memory8       
,wisd4 #aa4bb4   cp4 ,eph4 #a4ai4       
,p#bg4 ,ps4 #ai4a-c4                    
#bh4 ,ps4 #aci4g-aj4 from memory8       
,greek3 legei                           
gar pou4  #bi4 ,deut4 #cb4h1i4          
#bi4 ,deut4 #d4cd4   from memory8       
,deut4 #ad4b4    or from an             
,num4 #ah4bg4    ,apocryphal            
#b ,chron4 #ca4   ,book8                
#ad4                                    
,ezek4 #dh4ab4                      #cj4
 ,prov4 #c4cd4                      #cj4
 ,job4 #aa4b1c4                         

,,lxx1 not ,heb4                        
#cb4 ,gen4 #ae4e                        
7,gen4 #bb4ag4                          
,gen4 #bf4d47                       #cc4
 ,gen4 #a4bf-bh47omissions47            
#cd4 ,is4 #dj4aj4    composition        
,is4 #fb4aa4     from memory8           
,prov4 #bd4ab4   ,clem4 ,alex4          
after ,clem4                            
,rom4                    #cd4 ,dan4     
#g4aj4                    curiously     
,is4 #f4c4                              
repeated                                
transposition2                          
see ,lightfoot1                         
ad4 loc4                                
#bd4 ,is4 #fd4d4     so in #a ,cor4     
#b4i4                    #ce4 ,ps4      
#ej4af-bc4                              
#cf4 ,ps4#ajd4d1v4l4                    
,heb4 #a4g4  #cf4 ,ps4 #b4g1h4          
,heb4 #a4e4  ,acts      ,ps4 #aaj4a     
#ac4cc4                    #ci4 ,job    
#d4af-e4e                               
7,job #ae4ae7                           

#db4 ,is4 #fj4ag4    from memory8       
,greek3 legei                           
gar pou4                                
#df4 ,greek3       from ,apocryphal     
,kollasthe tois    book1 or ,ecclus4    
agiois hoti oi    vi4 #cd8  ,clem4      
kollomenoi        ,alex4                
autois                                  
hagiasthaesontai  #df4 ,ps4 #ah4bf1bg4  
context ignored4  #dh4 ,ps4 #aah1ai1bj4 
,clem4 ,alex4                           
loosely4                                
#ej4 ,is4 #bf4bj4                       
,ezek4 #cg4ab4  from memory8  #ej4 ,ps4 
#cb4 #a1b4                              
#eb4 ,ps4 #fi4ca1cb4   #eb4 ,ps4        
#ej4ad1ae4                              
,ps4 #ea4ag4                            
#ec4 ,deut4#i4ab-ad4                    
,barnabas                        ,ex4   
#cb4g1h4                     similarly4 
#aa1ca1cb4                              
,compression4  #ed4 ,ps4 #bda4          
#ef4 ,ps4 #aah4ah4                      
,prov4 #c4ab4                           

,ps4 #ada4e4                            
#ef4 ,job #e4ag-bf1                     
v4l4                                    
#eg4 ,prov4 #a4bc-                      
#ca4                                    
99,footnote3 ,the quotations in this    
chapter are continuous1 and are  also   
found in ,clement of ,alexandria4       
,it will be observed that the longest   
passages are among those  that are      
quoted with the greatest accuracy 7e4g4 
,gen4 xiii4 #ad-af2  ,job v4 #ag-bf2    
,ps4 xix4 #a-c1 xxii4 #f-h1 xxxiv4      
#aa-ag1 li4 #a-ag2  ,prov4 i4 #bc-ca2   
,is4 i4 #af-bj1 liii4 #a-ab74 ,others1  
such as ,gen4  xii4 #a-c1 ,deut4 ix4    
#ab-ad1 ,job iv4 #af-v4 #e1 ,ps4 xxxvii4
 #ce-ch1 l4  #af-bc1 have only slight   
variations4 ,there are only two passages
 of  more than three consecutive verses 
in length that present wide             
divergences4 ,these are1 ,ps4 cxxxix4   
#g-aj1 which is introduced by a  vague  
reference ,greek3 legei gar pou and is  
evidently quoted  from memory1 and the  

historical narration ,josh4 ii4 #c-ai4  
,this is  perhaps what we should expect3
 in longer quotations it would be       
better worth the writer's while to refer
 to his cumbrous  manuscript4 ,these    
purely mechanical conditions are too    
much lost  sight of4 ,we must remember  
that the ancient writer had not a small 
compact reference ,bible at his side1   
but1 when he wished to verify  a        
reference1 would have to take an        
unwieldy roll out of its case1  and then
 would not find it divided into chapter 
and verse like our  modern books but    
would have only the columns1 and those  
perhaps  not numbered1 to guide him4 ,we
 must remember too that the memory  was 
much more practised and relied upon in  
ancient times1  especially among the    
,jews4    ,the composition of two or    
more passages is frequent1 and the      
fusion remarkably complete4 ,of all the 
cases in which two passages  are        
compounded1 always from different       
chapters and most commonly  from        

different books1 there is not1 ,i       
believe1 one in which there  is any mark
 of division or an indication of any    
kind that a  different source is being  
quoted from4 ,the same would hold good  
7with only a slight and apparent        
exception7 of the longer strings  of    
quotations in cc4 viii1 xxix1 and 7from 
,greek3 aegapaesan to  ,greek3 en auto7 
in c4 xv4 ,but here the question is     
complicated by  the possibility1 and in 
the first place at least perhaps        
probability1 that the writer is quoting 
from some apocryphal work  no longer    
extant4 ,it may be interesting to give  
one or two short  examples of the       
completeness with which the process of  
welding has  been carried out4 ,thus in 
c4 xvii1 the following reply is put into
  the mouth of ,moses when he receives  
his commission at the burning  bush1    
,greek3 tis eimi ego hoti me pempeis2   
ego de eimi  ischnophonos kai           
braduglossos4 ,the text of ,exod4 iii4  
#aa is  ,greek3 tis eimi ego1 oti       

poreusomai2 the rest of the quotation   
is taken from ,exod4 iv4 #aj4 ,in c4    
xxxiv ,clement introduces 'the          
,scripture' as saying1 ,greek3 ,muriai  
muriades pareistaekeisan auto  kai      
chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto kai 
ekekragon agios1  agios1 agios1 ,kurios 
,sabaoth1 plaeraes pasa hae ktisis taes 
doxaes  autou4 ,the first part of this  
quotation comes from ,dan4 vii4 #aj2    
the second1 from ,greek3 kai ekekragon1 
which is part of the  quotation1 from   
,is4 vi4 #c4 ,these examples have been  
taken almost  at random2 the others are 
blended quite as thoroughly4    ,some of
 the cases of combination and some of   
the divergences of  text may be         
accounted for by the assumption of lost 
apocryphal  books or texts2 but it would
 be wholly impossible1 and in fact no   
one would think of so attempting to     
account for all4 ,there can be  little  
doubt that ,clement quotes from memory1 
and none that he  quotes at times very  
freely4    ,we come next to the         

so-called ,epistle of ,barnabas1 the    
quotations  in which ,i proceed to      
tabulate in the same way3--             
,barnabas4         ,exact4              
,slightly         ,variant4             
,remarks4                               
,variant4                               
#b4 ,is4 #a4aa-ad4                      
note for exactness4                     
#b4 ,jer4 #g4bb1bc4   combination       
,zec4 #h4ag4      from memory8          
,ps4 #ea4ai4     strange addition4      
#c4 ,is4 #eh4d1 #e4                     
,is4 #eh4f-aj4                          
#d4 ,dan4 #g4bd      very               
,dan4 #g4g1 #h4    divergent4           
,ex4 #cd4bh4     combination            
,ex4 #ca4ah4      from memory8          
#d4 ,deut4 #i4ab4                       
see below4                      7,ex4   
#cb4g74                                 
,is4 #e4ba4                             
#e4 ,is4 #ed4e1g4                       
text of ,cod4 ,a4                       
7omissions47                    #e4     

,prov4 #a4ag4                           
,gen4 #a4bf4                            
#e4 ,zech4 #ac4g4    text of ,a4        
7,hilg47                                
,matt4 #bf4c4                           
,ps4 #bb4ba4     from memory8           
#e4 ,ps4 #aai4abj4                      
paraphrastic                            
,ps4 #bb4ag4       combination          
from memory8                       ,is4 
#ej4 #f1g4                              
7omissions47                   ditto4   
#f4 ,is4 #ej4h1i4    ditto4             
#f4 ,is4 #bh4af4                        
first clause                            
exact1 second                           
variant2 in ,n4,t4                      
quotations1                             
first variant1                          
second exact4                       ,is4
 #ej4g4                       note      
repetition1                             
nearer to ,,lxx4  #f4 ,ps4 #aah4bb4     
so ,matt4 #ba4db2                       
#a ,pet4 #aa4g4                         

#f4 ,ps4 #bb4ag                      #f4
 ,ps4 #aah4bd4    from memory8          
7order74                                
note repetition1                        
nearer to ,,lxx4  ,ps4 #aah4ab4         
,ps4 #bb4ai4                            
,is4 #c4i1 #aj4                         
,ex4 #cc4a4      from memory8           
,gen4 #a4bf4                     note   
repetition1  ,gen4 #a4bh4               
further from ,,lxx4                     
,ezek4 #aa4ai2   paraphrastic4          
#cf4bf4                                 
,ps4 #da4c4                             
,ps4 #bb4bc4     different version8     
,gen4 #a4bf1 #bh4 paraphrastic          
fusion4                                 
#g4 ,lev4 #bc4bi4    paraphrastic4      
,lev4 #af4g1 sqq4with apocryphal        
,lev4 #af4g4 sqq4  addition2 cp4        
,just4 and ,tert4                    #i4
 ,ps4 #ah4dd4                        #i4
 ,is4 #cc4ac4                           
#i4 ,jer4 #d4d4                         
,jer4 #g4b4                             

,ps4 #cd4ac4       ,is4 #a4b4           
but with additions4                     
,is4 #a4aj4                      from   
memory8                                 
,greek3 archontes                       
toutou for ,gr4                         
a4 ,zodomon4                            
,is4 #dj4c4      addition4              
,jer4 #d4c 1#d4   repetition1           
,jer4 #g4bf4      nearer to ,,lxx4      
,jer4 #i4bf4                            
,gen4 #ag4bf1 #bg2;inferred sense       
cf4 #ad4ad4      merely1 but            
with marks of                           
quotation4                              
#aj4 ,lev4 #aa1      selected examples1 
,deut4 #ad4       but with              
examples of                             
quotation4                              
,deut4 #d4a4      #aj4 ,ps4 #a4a4       
,lev4 #aa4c4                            
#aa4 ,jer4 #b4ab1 #ac4                  
,is4 #af4a1 #b4  ,greek3 ,zina for      
,greek3 ,zion4                    #aa4  
,is4 #de4 #b1 #c4                       

,greek3 gnosae ,a4                      
7,greek3 gnosin                         
,barn41 but in                          
other points more                       
divergent4                    ,is4      
#cc4af-ah4                              
omissions4  #aa4 ,ps4 #a4c-f4           
note for exactness4                     
#aa4 ,zeph4 #c4ai4   markedly diverse4  
,ezek4 #dg4ab4  ditto4                  
#ab4 ,is4 #fe4b4                        
#ab4 ,num4 #ba4i1    apparently a       
sqq4          quotation4                
,deut4 #bg4ae4  from memory8            
,ex4 #ag4ad4      #ab4 ,ps4 #aaj4a4     
#ab4 ,is4 #de4a4                        
,greek3 kurio for                       
,greek3 kuro4                    #ac4   
,gen4#be4ba1bc4                         
#ac4 ,gen4 #dh4aa-ai4very paraphrastic4 
,gen4 #ae4f2    combination2 cf4        
#ag4e4          ,rom4 #d4aa4            
#ad4 ,ex4 #bd4ah4    note addition of   
,greek3 naesteuon4                      
,ex4 #ca4ah4    note also for           

additions4                    #ad4      
,deut4 #i4ab-                           
repetition with                         
#ag4                           similar  
variation4                       7,ex4  
#cb4g47                     note reading
 of ,a4  #ad4 ,is4 #db4f1g4             
,greek3                                 
pepedaemenous for                       
,greek3 dedemenous                      
7kai om4 ,a474                          
,is4 #di4f1g4                      ,is4 
#fa4 #a1b4                              
,luke4 #d4ah1ai                         
diverges4                               
#ae4 ,ex4 #bj4h2     paraphrastic1      
,deut4 #e4ab4     with addition4        
,jer4 #ag4bd1be4very paraphrastic4      
,gen4 #b4b4                             
,ps4 #ij4d4     ,greek3 saemeron        
for ,greek3                             
exthes4  #ae4 ,is4 #a4ac4               
#af4 ,is4 #dj4ab4                       
omissions4                        ,is4  
#ff4a4                                  

#af4 ,is4 #di4ag4    completely         
paraphrastic4                           
,dan4 #i4bd4    ditto4                  
#be1 #bg4            ,the same remarks  
that were made upon ,clement will hold  
also for  ,barnabas1 except that he     
permits himself still greater licence4  
,the  marginal notes will have called   
attention to his eccentricities4 ,he is 
carried away by slight resemblances of  
sound2 e4g4 he puts ,greek3  himatia for
 ,greek3 iamata ,endnote #cd3a1 ,greek3 
,zina for ,greek3  ,zion1 ,greek3 ,kurio
 for ,greek3 ,kuro4 ,he not only omits  
clauses1 but  also adds to the text     
freely2 e4g4 in ,ps4 li4 #ai he makes   
the strange  insertion which is given in
 brackets1 ,greek3 ,thusia to ,theo     
kardia  suntetrimmenae1 osmae euodias to
 kurio kardia doxasousa ton peplakota   
autaen4 ,he has also added words and    
clauses in several other places4  ,there
 can be no question that he quotes      
largely from memory2 several of  his    
quotations are repeated more than once  

7,deu4 ix4 #ab2 ,is4 l4 #g2 ,ps4  xxii4 
#ag2 ,gen4 i4 #bh2 ,jer4 iv4 #d72 and of
 these only one1 ,deut4 ix4 #ab1        
reappears in the same form4 ,often he   
gives only the sense of a passage2      
sometimes he interprets1 as in ,is4 i4  
#aj1 where he paraphrases ,greek3       
archontes ,sodomon by the simpler       
,greek3 archontes tou laou toutou4 ,he  
has curiously combined the sense of     
,gen4 xvii4 #bf1 #bg with ,gen4 xiv4    
l#d--;in the pursuit of the four kings1 
it is said that ,abraham armed his      
servants three hundred and eighteen men2
 ,barnabas says that he  circumcised his
 household1 in all three hundred and    
eighteen men4 ,in  several cases a      
resemblance may be noticed between      
,barnabas and the text  of ,cod4 ,a1 but
 this does not appear consistently      
throughout4    ,it may be well to give a
 few examples of the extent to which    
,barnabas  can carry his freedom of     
quotation4 ,instances from the ,book of 
,daniel  should perhaps not be given1 as

 the text of that book is known to have 
been in a peculiarly corrupt and        
unsettled state2 so much so that1 when  
translation of ,theodotion was made     
towards the end of the second  century1 
it was adopted as the standard text4    
,barnabas also combines  passages1      
though not quite to such an extent or so
 elaborately as  ,clement1 and he too   
inserts no mark of division4 ,we will   
give an example  of this1 and at the    
same time of his paraphrastic method of 
quotation3--      ,barnabas c4 ix4      
,greek3 kai ti legei2 ,peritmaethaete to
 sklaeron taes kardias  humon1 kai ton  
trachaelon humon ou mae sklaerunaete4   
,jer4 iv4 #c1 #d and vii4 #bf4          
,greek3 ,peritmaethaete to theo humon1  
kai peritemesthe taen  sklaerokardian   
humon 444 kai esklaerunan ton trachaelon
 auton444      ,a similar case of       
paraphrase and combination1 with nothing
 to  mark the transition from one       
passage to the other1 would be in c4    
xi1 ,jer4 ii4 #ab1 #ac and ,is4 xvi4 #a1

 #b4 ,for paraphrase we may take  this1 
from the same chapter3--      ,barnabas 
c4 xi4    ,greek3 kai palin heteros     
prophaetaes legei ,kai aen hae gae      
,iakob epainoumenae para pasan taen     
gaen4    ,zeph4 iii4 #ai4    ,greek3 kai
 thaesomai autous eis kauchaema kai     
onomastous en pasae  tae gae4           
,barnabas c4 xv4    ,greek3 autous de   
moi marturei legon ,idou saemeron       
haemera estai  hos chilia etae4    ,ps4 
xc4 #d    ,greek3 hoti chilia etae en   
ophthalmois sou hos hae haemera hae     
echthes haetis diaelthe4      ,a very   
curious instance of freedom is the long 
narrative of ,jacob  blessing the two   
sons of ,joseph in c4 xiii 7compare     
,gen4 xlviii4  #aa-ai74 ,we note here   
7and elsewhere7 a kind of dramatic      
tendency1 a  fondness for throwing      
statements into the form of dialogue    
rather  than narrative4 ,as a narrative 
this passage may be compared with  the  
history of ,rahab and the spies in      
,clement4    ,and yet1 in spite of all  

this licence in quotation1 there are    
some  rather marked instances of        
exactness2 e4g4 ,is4 i4 #aa-ad in c4 ii1
  the combined passages from ,ps4 xxii4 
#ag1 cxvii4 #ab1 xxii4 #ai in c4  vi1   
and ,ps4 i4 #c-f in c4 xi4 ,it should   
also be remembered that in  one case1   
,deut4 ix4 #ab in cc4 iv and xiv1 the   
same variation is  repeated and is also 
found in ,justin4    ,it tallies with   
what we should expect1 supposing the    
writings  attributed to ,ignatius 7the  
seven ,epistles7 to be genuine1 that    
the quotations from the ,old as well as 
from the ,new ,testament in  them are   
few and brief4 ,a prisoner1 travelling  
in custody to the  place of execution1  
would naturally not fill his letters    
with long  and elaborate references4    
,the quotations from the ,old ,testament
  are as follows3--      ,exact4        
,slightly     ,variant4   ,remarks4     
variant4                                
,ad ,eph4   #e4 ,prov4 #c4cd            
,james4 #d4f1 #a ,pet4 #e4e1            

as ,ignatius4                           
,ad ,magn4  #ab4 ,prov4 #ah4ag4         
,ad ,trall4                  #h4 ,is4   
#eb4e4       ,the ,epistle to the       
,ephesians is found also in the ,syriac 
version4  ,the last quotation from      
,isaiah1 which is however not introduced
  with any express marks of reference1  
is very freely given4 ,the  original is1
 ,greek3 tade legei kurios1 di' humas   
dia pantos to  onoma mou blasphaemeitai 
en tois ethnesi1 for which ,ignatius    
has1  ,greek3 ouai gar di' ou epi       
mataiotaeti to onoma mou epi tinon      
blasphaemeitai4    ,the ,epistle of     
,polycarp to the ,philippians and the   
,martyrium ,s4  ,ignatii contain the    
following quotations3--        ,exact4  
,slightly      ,variant4    ,remarks4   
variant4                                
,polycarp1        #b4 ,ps4 #b4aa4       
,ad4 ,phil4                             
#aj4 ,tob4 #d4aa4                       
#ab4 ,ps4 #d4d2                         
in ,latin   but through                 

version only4   ,eph4 #d4bf4            
,mart4 ,s4 ,ign4                        
#b4 ,lev4 #bf4ab4   #f4 ,prov4 #aj4bd4  
,the quotation from ,leviticus differs  
widely from the original1  ,greek3 ,kai 
emperipataeso en humin kai esomai humon 
theos kai  humeis esesthe moi laos1 for 
which we read1 ,greek3 gegraptai  gar   
,enoikaeso en autois kai emperipataeso4 
,the quotations from the ,clementine    
,homilies may be thus  presented3--     
,exact4        ,slightly                
,variant4     ,remarks4                 
,hom4 #c4                               
#ah4 ,deut4 #cb4g4                      
#ci4 ,gen4 #ah4ba4                      
,gen4 #c4bb4                      #ci4  
,gen #f4f4                              
,gen4 #h4ba4                            
omission4                         ,gen4 
#bb4a4                                  
#db4 ,gen4 #c4c4       #dc4 ,gen4 #f4f4 
#dc4 ,gen4 #bb4a4                       
not quite as above4                     
,gen4 #ah4ba4                    as     

above4  ,gen4 #ae4ac-af4                
v4l4 comp4 text                         
of ,a2 note for                         
exactness4  #dd4 ,gen4 #ah4ba4          
as ,,lxx4                               
#de4 ,num4 #aa4cd    ,greek3 bounoun    
7al47           epithumion for          
,greek3 mnaemata                        
taes epithumas4                    #dg4 
,deut4 #cd4d1e4                         
#di4 ,gen4 #di4aj4                      
cf4 ,credner1                           
,beit4 #b4ec4  ,hom4 #aa4               
#bb4 ,gen4 #a4a4                        
,hom4 #af4                              
#f4 ,gen4 #c4bb4                        
twice with slightly                     
different order4  ,gen4 #c4e4           
#f4 ,ex4 #bb4bh4                        
#f4 ,deut4 #d4cd4    8mem4 ,greek3      
allothi tou                             
gegraptai4  ,jer4 #aj4aa4               
,deut4 #ac4f4    8mem4 ,greek3          
allae pou4                              
,josh4 #bc4g4                           

,deut4 #aj4ag4                      ,ps4
 #ce4aj4                                
,ps4 #ej4a4                             
,ps4 #hb4a4                             
,deut4 #aj4ad4                          
,deut4 #d4ci4                           
,deut4 #aj4ag4                          
repeated as above4                      
,deut4 #aj4ag4   very paraphrastic4     
,hom4 #af4                           #f4
 ,deut4 #d4ci4      #g4 ,deut4 #f4ac4   
,deut4 #f4d4                            
#h4 ,josh4 #bc4g4    as above4  #h4     
,exod4 #bb4ah                           
,jer4 #aj4aa4                           
,gen4 #a4a4                             
,ps4 #ai4b4                             
#h4 ,ps4 #ajb4bf4                       
,gen4 #a4bf4                            
#ac4 ,deut4 #ac4a-c1 very free4         
#i1 #e1 #c4        ,hom4 #ag4           
#ah4 ,num4 #ab4f4    paraphrastic       
,ex4 #cc4aa4     combination4  ,hom4    
#ah4                           #ag4 ,is4
 #dj4bf1bg4 free quotation4             

,deut4 #cj4ac4  ditto4  #ah4 ,is4 #a4c4 
,is4 #a4d4                              
,the example of the ,clementine         
,homilies shows conspicuously the       
extremely deceptive character of the    
argument from silence4 ,all  the        
quotations from the ,old ,testament     
found in them are taken from  five      
,homilies 7iii1 xi1 xvi1 xvii1 xviii7   
out of nineteen1 although  the ,homilies
 are lengthy compositions1 filling1 with
 the translation  and various readings1 
four hundred and fourteen large octavo  
pages  of ,dressel's edition ,endnote   
#ch3a4 ,of the whole number of          
quotations  all but seven are taken from
 two ,homilies1 iii and xvi4 ,if ,hom4  
xvi  and ,hom4 xviii had been lost1     
there would have been no evidence that  
the author was acquainted with any book 
of the ,old ,testament besides  the     
,pentateuch2 and1 if the five ,homilies 
had been lost1 there would  have been   
nothing to show that he was acquainted  
with the ,old ,testament  at all4 ,yet  

the loss of the two ,homilies would have
 left a volume  of three hundred and    
seventy-seven pages1 and that of the    
five a  volume of three hundred and     
fifteen pages4 ,in other words1 it is   
possible to read three hundred and      
fifteen pages of the ,homilies  with    
five breaks and come to no quotation    
from the ,old ,testament  at all1 or    
three hundred and fifteen pages with    
only two breaks  and come to none       
outside the ,pentateuch4 ,but the       
reduced volume  that we have supposed1  
containing the fourteen ,homilies1 would
  probably exceed in bulk the whole of  
the extant ,christian literature  of the
 second century up to the time of       
,irenaeus1 with the single  exception of
 the works of ,justin2 it will therefore
 be seen how  precarious must needs be  
any inference from the silence1 not of  
all these writings1 but merely of a     
portion of them4    ,for the rest1 the  
quotations in the ,homilies may be said 
to  observe a fair standard of          

exactness1 one apparently higher than   
that in the genuine ,epistle of ,clement
 to the ,corinthians2 at the  same time 
it should be remembered that the        
quotations in the  ,homilies are much   
shorter1 only two reaching a length of  
three  verses1 while the longest        
quotations in the ,epistle are precisely
  those that are most exact4 ,the most  
striking instance of accuracy  of       
quotation is perhaps ,gen4 xv4 #ac-af in
 ,hom4 iii4 #dc4 ,on the  other hand1   
there is marked freedom in the          
quotations from ,deut4  iv4 #cd1 x4 #ag1
 xiii4 #a-c1 xiii4 #f4 xxx4 #ae1 ,is4   
xl4 #bf1 #bg1 and  the combined passage1
 ,num4 xii4 #f and ,ex4 xxiii4 #aa4     
,there are  several repetitions1 but    
these occur too near to each other to   
permit of any inference4    ,our        
examination of the ,old ,testament      
quotations in ,justin is  greatly       
facilitated by the collection and       
discussion of them in  ,credner's       
,beitrge ,endnote #ci3a1 a noble example

 of that true  patient work which is    
indeed the reverse of showy1 but forms  
the  solid and well-laid foundation on  
which alone genuine knowledge  can be   
built4 ,credner has collected and       
compared in the most  elaborate manner  
the whole of ,justin's quotations with  
the various  readings in the ,,mss4 of  
the ,,lxx2 so that we may state our     
results  with a much greater confidence 
than in any other case 7except  perhaps 
,clement of ,rome1 where we have the    
equally accurate and  scholarly guidance
 of ,dr4 ,lightfoot ,endnote #dj3a7 that
 we are  not led astray by imperfect    
materials4 ,i have availed myself       
freely of ,credner's collection of      
variants1 indicating the cases  where   
the existence of documentary 7or1 in    
some places1  inferential7 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 belong4 ,i have     
also1 as hitherto1 not  assumed an      

absolutely strict standard for admission
 to the first  class of 'exact'         
quotations4 ,many of ,justin's          
quotations are very  long1 and it seemed
 only right that in these the standard  
should  be somewhat1 though very        
slightly1 relaxed4 ,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 memory1 and it may as 
a rule be assumed that all the          
instances in the first class and most   
7not quite all7 of those in  the second 
do not admit of such an explanation4 ,i 
have been glad  in every case where a   
truly scientific and most impartial     
writer  like ,credner gives his opinion1
 to make use of it instead of my  own4  
,i have the satisfaction to think that  
whatever may be the  value of the other 
sections of this enquiry1 this at least 
is  thoroughly sound1 and based upon a  
really exhaustive sifting of  the data4 
,the quotations given below are from the

 undoubted works of ,justin1  the       
,dialogue against ,tryphon and the      
,first ,apology2 the ,second  ,apology  
does not appear to contain any          
quotations either from the  ,old or ,new
 ,testament4         ,exact4            
,slightly           ,variant4           
,remarks4                               
variant4                                
,apol4 #a4ei1 ,gen4                     
#a4a-c4                                 
,dial4 #fb1 ,gen4 #a4                   
#bf-bh4                                 
,dial4 #ajb1 ,gen4                      
free quotation                          
#c4ae4                                  
7,credner74  ,d4#fb1 ,gen4 #c4bb4       
,d4#abg1 ,gen4                          
#g4af4                                  
,d4#aci1 ,gen4 #i4                      
#bd-bg4                                 
,d4#abg1 ,gen4 #aa4e4                   
free quotation                          
7,cr47  ,d4#ajb1 ,gen4 #aa4f4           
,d4#ib1 ,gen4 #ae4f4                    

free quotation                          
7,cr47                                  
,dial4#aj1 ,gen4                        
#ag4ad4             ,d4#abg1 ,gen4      
#ag4bb4                                 
,d4#ef1 ,gen4 #ah4                      
ver4 #b repeated                        
#a1 #b4                                 
similarly4                     ,gen4    
#ah4 #ac1 #ad4                          
repeated1                               
slightly more                     ,gen4 
#ah4 #af-bc1                            
divergent4                       #cc4   
,gen4 #ai4 #a1 #aj1                     
#af-bh 7om4 #bf74                       
marked exactness                        
in the whole                            
passage4  ,d4#ef1 ,gen4 #ba4            
#i-ab4                                  
,d4#abj1 ,gen4 #bf4d4                   
,d4#eh1 ,gen4 #bh4                      
#aj-ab4                                 
,d4#eh1 7v4l47 ,gen4                    
#bh4 #ac-ai4                            

7v4l47 ,gen4 #ca4                       
#aj-ac4                                 
,d4#ei1 ,gen4 #ce4a4   free quotation   
7,cr47  ,d4#eh1 ,gen4 #ce4              
#f-aj 7v4l47                            
,d4 #eb1 ,gen4 #di4                     
repeated    #h-ab4                      
similarly4  ,d4 #ei1 ,ex4 #b4 #bc4      
,d4 #fj1 ,ex4 #c4b-d4                   
,a4#a4 #fb1 ,ex4 #c4 #e4 from memory    
7,cr47                    ,d4 #ei1 ,ex4 
#c4 #af4                                
,a4 #a4fc1 ,ex4 #c4af  ver4#af freely   
7ter71 #ag4         quoted 7,cr47       
,greek3 eirae-                          
tai pou4                    ,d4 #abf1   
,ex4#f4b-d4                             
,d4 #di1 ,ex4 #ag4af4  free quotation   
7,cr47                                  
,d4 #id1 ,ex4 #bj4d4   ditto 7,cr47     
,d4 #ge1 ,ex4 #bc4bj1                   
from ,lectionary                        
#ba4                         7,cr47     
,d4#af1 ,lev4 #bf4dj1                   
,d4 #bj1 ,ex4 #cb4 #f4  free 7,cr47     

#da 7v4l47                              
,d4 #abf1 ,num4 #aa4                    
#bc4                                    
,a4#a4fj 7or4 obl471 free 7,cr47        
,d4 #id1 ,num4 #ba4                     
#h1i4                                   
,d4 #ajf1 ,num4 #bd4                    
through ,targum                         
#ag4                                    
7,cr47                                  
,d4 #af1 ,deut4 #aj4   from memory      
#af1 #ag4            7,cr47             
,d4#if1 ,deut4 #ba4bc4 both precisely   
,deut4 #bg4bf4  as ,st4 ,paul in        
,galatians1 and                         
quoted thence                           
7,cr47  ,d4 #abf1 ,deut4 #ca4           
#b1 #c 7v4l47                           
,d4 #gd1 ,deut4 #ca4                    
#af-ah 7v4l47                           
,d4 #aca1 ,deut4 #cb4                   
#g-i 7tr47                              
,d4#bj1 ,deut4 #cb4ae4                  
,d4 #aai1 ,deut4 #cb4                   
,targum 7,cr47    #af-bc4               

,d4 #acj1 ,deut4 #cb4                   
#dc 7v4l47                              
,d4 #ia1 ,deut4 #cc4                    
#ac-ag4                                 
,a4#a4 #dj1 ,ps4 #a and                 
parts repeated4   #b entire4            
,d4#ig1 ,ps4 #c4 #e1 #f4                
repeated1 more                          
freely4  ,d4#aad1 ,ps4 #h4d4            
,d4#bg1 ,ps4 #ad4c4                     
,d4#bh1 ,ps4#ah4dd1de4                  
,d4 #fd1 ,ps4#ai4f                      
perhaps from  7,a4#a4dj1 vv4#a-e74      
different                               
,,mss41 see                             
,credner4  ,d4#ig ff41 ,ps4 #bb4        
quoted as    #a-bc4                     
whole ,psalm                            
7bis74  ,d4#acc ff41 ,ps4 #bd           
entire4                                 
,d4#ada1 ,ps4 #cb4 #b4                  
,d4#ch1 ,ps4 #de4a-ag4                  
parts repeated4  ,d4#cg1 ,ps4 #dg4f-i4  
,d4#bb1 ,ps4 #di                        
entire4                                 

,d4#cd              from ,eph4 #d4h1    
,d4#cg ,ps4 #fh4h4      ,targum4        
,d4#cd1 ,ps4 #gb                        
entire4                                 
,d4 #abd1 ,ps4 #hb                      
entire4                                 
,d4#gc1 ,ps4 #if                        
note ,christian    entire4              
interpolation                           
in ver4 #aj4  ,d4#cg1 ,ps4 #ii          
entire4                            ,d4  
#hc1 ,ps4 #aaj4    from memory  ,d4#cb1 
,ps4 #aaj                          #a-d4
               7,cr47  entire4          
,d4#aaj1 ,ps4 #abh4c4  from memory      
,d4#he1 ,ps4 #adh4                      
7,cr47    #a1 #b4                       
,a4#a4 #cg1 ,is4 #a4                    
#c1 #d4                                 
,a4#a4 #dg1 ,is4 #a4g   sense only      
7,jer4 #b4ae74        7,cr47            
,d4#adj 7,a4#a4 #ec71                   
,is4 #a4i4                              
,a4#a4 #cg1 ,is4 #a4    from memory     
#aa-ad4             7,cr47              

,a4#a4 #dd 7#fa71 ,is4                  
omissions4                              
#a4af-cj4                               
,d4#hb1 ,is4 #a4 #bc4   from memory     
,a4#a4 #ci1 ,is4 #b4                    
7,cr47    #c1d4                         
,d4#ace1 ,is4 #b4 #e1f4                 
,targum 7,cr47  ,d4 #acc1 ,is4 #c4      
#i-ae 7v4l47                            
,d4#bg1 ,is4 #c4af4    free quotation   
7,cr47                    ,d4#acc1 ,is4 
#e4 #ah-                     repeated4  
#be 7v4l47                              
,d4#dc 7#ff71 ,is4 #g4                  
repeated1 with                          
#aj-ag 7v4l47                           
slight                                  
variation4                              
,a4#a4ce1 ,is4 #i4f4  free 7,cr47       
,d4#hg1 ,is4 #aa4a-c4                   
,a4#a4cb1 ,is4 #aa4a2 free combination  
,num4 #bd4ag4       7,cr47              
,d4#abc1 ,is4 #ad4a4                    
,d4#abc1 ,is4 #ai4bd1                   
#be4                                    

,d4#gh1 ,is4 #bi4ac1ad4                 
repeated 7v4l71                         
partly from                             
memory4  ,d4#gi1 ,is4 #cj4a-e4          
,d4#gj1 ,is4#cc4ac-ai4                  
,d4#fi1 ,is4 #ce4a-g4  ,a4#a4dh1 ,is4   
#ce4e1f4;free2 cf4 ,matt4               
#aa4e 7var47  ,d4#ej1 ,is4 #ci4 #h1     
#dj4a-ag4                               
,d4#abe ,is4#db4a-d4  cf4 ,matt4 #ab4   
,d4#ace              #ag-ba1            
,targum 7,cr47  ,d4#fe1 ,is4 #db4f-ac   
7v4l47                                  
,d4#abb1 ,is4 #db4af4  free 7,cr47      
,d4#abc1 ,is4 #db4ai1                   
#bj4                                    
,d4#abb1 ,is4 #dc4aj4                   
,a4#a4eb1 ,is4 #de4    cf4 ,rom4 #ad4aa4
                                        
#bd 7v4l47          ,d4#aba1 ,is4 #di4f 
7v4l47                                  
,d4#abb1 ,is4 #di4h                     
7v4l47                                  
,d4#ajb1 ,is4 #ej4d4                    
,a4#a4ch1 ,is4 #ej4                     

,barn41 ,tert41    #f-h4                
,cypr4  ,d4#aa1 ,is4 #ea4d1 #e4         
,d4#ag1 ,is4 #eb4e                      
7v4l47                                  
,d4#ab1 ,is4 #e #b1                     
#aj-ae1 #ec4a-ab1                       
#ed4a-f4                                
,a4#a4 #ej1 ,is4 #eb4                   
#ac-ec4ab4                              
,d4#ach1 ,is4 #ed4i4   very free4       
,d4#ad1 ,is4 #ee4c-ac4                  
,d4#ab1 ,is4 #ee4 #c-e4;from memory     
7,cr47  ,d4#af1 ,is4#eg4a-d4            
repeated4  ,d4#ae1 ,is4#eh4a-aa         
,greek3   7v4l47                        
himatia for                             
,greek3 iamata2                         
so ,barn41 ,tert1                       
,cyp41 ,amb41 ,aug4  ,d4#bg1 ,is4 #eh4  
#ac1 #ad4                               
,d4#bf1 ,is4 #fb4aj-                    
,greek3                      #aj-fc4f4  
susseismon for                          
,greek3                                 
sussaemon4  ,d4#be1 ,is4 #fc4ae-        

#ai1 #fd4a-ab4                          
,d4#bd1 ,is4 #fe4 #a-c4                 
,a4#a4di1 ,is4 #fe4   from memory       
#a-c4               7,cr47  ,d4#acf1    
,is4 #fe4h4                             
,d4#ace1 ,is4 #fe4i-ab                  
,d4#ha1 ,is4 #fe4ag-be                  
,d4#bb1 ,is4 #ff4a4    from memory      
7,cr47  ,d4#he1 ,is4 #ff4e-aa4          
,d4#dd1 ,is4 #ff4 #bd   from memory     
7ter74             7,cr47               
,d4#aad1 ,jer4 #b4ac2  as from          
,is4 #af4a2           ,jeremiah1        
,jer4 #c4h4           traditional       
combination2                            
cf4 ,barn4 #b4                          
,d4#bh1 ,jer4 #d4c1 #d                  
7v4l47                                  
,d4#bc1 ,jer4 #g4ba1bb4;free quotation  
7,cr47                    ,d4 #bh1 ,jer4
 #i4be1bf;,a4#a4ec1 ,jer4 #i4bf4quoted  
freely                                  
as from                                 
,isaiah4                    ,d4#gb1     
,jer4 #aa4ai4                           

omissions4                              
,d4 #gh1 ,jer4 #ca4ae  so ,matt4 #b4ah  
7#ch4ae1 ,,lxx74       through          
,targum 7,cr47                          
,d4#abc1 ,jer4 #ca4bg  free quotation   
7#ch4 #bg74          7,cr47             
,d4#aa1 ,jer4 #ca4ca1                   
#cb 7#ch4ca1 #cb74                      
,d4#gb4              a passage quoted   
as from                                 
,jeremiah1                              
which is not                            
recognisable                            
in our present                          
texts4                                  
,d4 #hb1 ,ezek4 #c4    free quotation   
#ag-ai4            7,cr47               
,d4#de ,ezek4 #ad4     repeated         
#dd  #bj2 cf4 #ad1  similarly and       
#adj  #af1 #ah4      equally            
divergent from                          
,,lxx4  ,d4#gg1 ,ezek4 #af4 #c4         
,d4#ba1 ,ezek4 #bj4                     
#ai-bf4                                 
,d4#abc1 ,ezek4 #cf4                    

#ab4                                    
,a4#a4eb1 ,ezek4      very free 7,cr47  
#cg4 #g4               ,footnote3       
,justin has in ,dial4 #ca 7also in      
,apol4 #a4 #ea1 ver4 #ac1 from  memory7 
a long quotation from ,daniel1 ,dan4 #g4
 #i-bh2 his text can only  be compared  
with a single ,,ms4 of the ,,lxx1 ,codex
 ,chisianus2 from this  it differs      
considerably1 but many of the           
differences reappear in the  version of 
,theodotion2 #g4 #aj1 #ac are also      
similarly quoted in ,rev41  ,mark1      
,clem4 ,rom4         ,exact4            
,slightly           ,variant4           
,remarks4                               
variant4                                
,d4#ai1 ,hos4 #a4i4                     
,d4#ajb1 ,hos4#aj4f4   referred to      
trial before                            
,herod 7,cr47                           
,d4#hg1 ,joel #b4bh4   from memory      
7,cr47                    ,d4 #bb1 ,amos
                                        
#e4ah-f4 #g 7v4l47                      

,d4 #ajg1 ,jonah #d4                    
#aj-aa 7v4l4 ,heb47                     
,d4 #aji1 ,micah #d4                    
divergent from                      #a-g
 7,heb487                               
,,lxx4                                  
,a4#a4cd ,micah #e4b4 precisely as      
,d4#gh                ,matt4 #b4f4      
,a4#a4eb1 ,zech4 #b4f4 free quotations  
,d4 #acg1 ,zech4 #b4 #h4 7,cr47         
,d4 #aae1 ,zach4 #b4   ,d4 #gi1 ,zech4  
#c4   freely 7,cr47                     
#aj-c4 #b 7,heb487    #a1 #b4           
,d4#ajf1 ,zach4 #f4ab4                  
,a4#a4eb1 ,zech4 #ab4  repeated di-     
#aa1ab1aj4         versely note         
reading of                              
,christian ori-                         
gin 7,cr47 in                           
ver4 #aj3                               
so ,john #ai4cg2                        
cp4 ,rev4 #a4g4                         
,d4#dc1 ,zech4 #ac4 #g4 diversely in    
,matt4 #bf4ca1                          
proof that                              

,justin is                              
not dependent                           
on ,matthew                             
7,cr47                    ,d4#bh1 #da1  
,mal4 #a4  ,d4 #aag1 ,mal4 #a4          
#aj-ab 7v4l47       #aj-ab4             
,d4#fb1 ,joshua #e4                     
omissions4                      #ac-ae2 
#f4a1 #b                                
7v4l47                                  
,d4#aah1 #b ,sam4 #g4   from memory     
#ad-af4             7,cr47              
,d4#ci1 #a ,kings #ai4  freely 7,cr472  
#ad1 #ae1 #ah4       cf4 ,rom4 #aa4c4   
,a4#a4ee1 ,lam4 #d4                     
#bj 7v4l47                              
,d4#gi1 ,job #a4f4     sense only       
7,cr47                    ,d4#fa1 ,prov4
 #h4                       coincidence  
#ba-cf4                                 
with ,ire-                              
naeus4    ,footnote3 ,d4 #gb a passage  
ostensibly from ,ezra1 but probably an  
apocryphal addition1 perhaps from       
,preaching of ,peter2 same quotation  in

 ,lactantius4      ,it is impossible not
 to be struck with the amount of matter 
that  ,justin has transferred to his    
pages bodily4 ,he has quoted nine       
,psalms entire1 and a tenth with the    
statement 7twice repeated7  that it is  
given entire1 though really he has only 
quoted twenty-  three verses4 ,the later
 chapters of ,isaiah are also given with
  extraordinary fulness4 ,these longer  
passages are generally quoted           
accurately4 ,if ,justin's text differs  
from the received text of the  ,,lxx1 it
 is frequently found that he has some   
extant authority for  his reading4 ,the 
way in which ,credner has drawn out     
these  varieties of reading1 and the    
results which he obtained as to the     
relations and comparative value of the  
different ,,mss41 form  perhaps the most
 interesting feature of his work4 ,the  
more marked  divergences in ,justin may 
be referred to two causes2 7#a7         
quotation  from memory1 in which he     
indulges freely1 especially in the      

shorter passages1 and more in the       
,apology than in the ,dialogue  with    
,tryphon2 7#b7 in ,messianic passages   
the use of a ,targum1 not  immediately  
by ,justin himself but in some previous 
document from  which he quotes1 in order
 to introduce a more distinctly         
,christian  interpretation2 the         
coincidences between ,justin and other  
,christian writers show that the text of
 the ,,lxx had been thus  modified in a 
,christian sense1 generally through a   
closer  comparison with and nearer      
return to the ,hebrew1 before his time4 
,the instances of free quotation are not
 perhaps quite fully given  in the above
 list1 but it will be seen that though  
they form a  marked phenomenon1 still   
more marked is the amount of exactness4 
,any long1 not ,messianic1 passage1 it  
appears to be the rule with  ,justin to 
quote exactly4 ,among the passages      
quoted freely there  seem to be none of 
greater length than four verses4    ,the
 exactness is especially remarkable in  

the plain historical  narratives of the 
,pentateuch and the ,psalms1 though it  
is also  evident that ,justin had the   
,,ms4 before him1 and referred to it    
frequently throughout the quotations    
from the latter part of  ,isaiah4       
,through following the arrangement of   
,credner we have  failed to notice the  
cases of combination2 these however are 
collected by ,dr4 ,westcott 7,on the    
,canon1 p4 #aef74 ,the most  remarkable 
instance is in ,apol4 i4 #eb1 where six 
different  passages from three separate 
writers are interwoven together and     
assigned bodily to ,zechariah4 ,there   
are several more examples of  mistaken  
ascription4           99       99       
99       99       99    ,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 lie4 ,we can thus form a  general    
idea of their idiosyncracies1 and we    
know what to expect  when we come to    

examine a different class of quotations4
 ,there is1  however1 the element of    
uncertainty of which ,i have spoken     
above4  ,we cannot be quite clear what  
text the writer had before him4 ,this   
difficulty also exists1 though to a less
 degree1 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    
canonical4  ,the text of these ,gospels 
is so comparatively fixed1 and we have  
such abundant materials for its         
reconstruction1 that we can  generally  
say at once whether the writer is       
quoting from it freely  or not4 ,we have
 thus a certain gain1 though at the cost
 of the  drawback that we can no longer 
draw an inference as to the  practice of
 individuals1 but merely attain to a    
general conclusion  as to the habits of 
mind current in the age4 ,this too will 
be  subject to a deduction for the      
individual bent and peculiarities  of   
the writer4 ,we must therefore1 on the  

whole1 attach less  importance to the   
examples under this section than under  
that  preceding4    ,i chose two writers
 to be the subject of this examination  
almost1  ,i may say1 at random1 and     
chiefly because ,i had more convenient  
access to their works at the time4 ,the 
first of these is ,irenaeus1  that is to
 say the portions still extant in the   
,greek of his  ,treatise against        
,heresies1 ,endnote #di3a and the second
  ,epiphanius4    ,irenaeus is described
 by ,dr4 ,tregelles 'as a close and     
careful  quoter in general from the ,new
 ,testament' ,endnote #di3b4 ,he may    
therefore be taken to represent a       
comparatively high standard of          
accuracy4 ,in the following table the   
quotations which are merely  allusive   
are included in brackets3--             
,exact4            ,slightly            
,variant4      ,remarks4                
variant4                         ,i4    
,praef4 ,matt4 #aj4bf4                  
,i4#c4b1,matt4 #e4ah4                   

quoted from                             
,gnostics  ,i4#c1 #c1 ,mark #e4ca4      
,gnostics4                              
,i4#c4e1 ,luke #ad4bg4 ,valentinians4   
,i4#c4e1 ,mark #aj4                     
the same4  ,i4#c4e1 ,matt4 #aj4cd4      
#ba 7v4l47                         the  
same4  ,i4#c4e1 ,luke #c4ag4            
the same4  ,i4#d4c1 ,matt4 #aj4h4       
,i4#f4a1 ,matt4 #e4                     
#ac1 #ad1 al4                           
,i4#g4d1 ,matt4 #h4i4 the same4         
,luke #g4h4                             
,i4#h4b1 ,matt4 #bg4df4,valentinians4   
,i4#h4b4 ,matt4 #bf4ch4                 
the same4                               
,i4#h4b1 ,matt4                         
the same4                               
#bf4ci4                                 
,i4#h4b1 ,john #ab4bg4 the same4        
,i4#h4c1 ,luke        the same4         
#i4eg1eh4                               
,i4#h4c1 ,luke        the same4         
#i4fa1fb4                               
,i4#h4c1 ,luke                          

the same4                               
#i4fj4                                  
,i4#h4c1 ,luke #ai4e4                   
the same4                               
,i4#h4d1 ,luke #ae1d4  the same4        
,i4#h4d1 ,luke                          
the same4                               
#ae4h1 al4                              
,i4#h4d1 ,luke #b4bh4                   
the same4  ,i4#h4d41 ,luke              
the same4           #f4cf1 al4          
,i4#h4d1 ,luke #g4ce                    
the same4              7v4l47           
,i4#h4e1 ,john #a4a1b4                  
the same4  ,i4#h4e1 ,john #a4c          
the same4              7v4l47           
,i4#h4e1 ,john #a4d4                    
the same4              7v4l47           
,i4#h4e1 ,john #a4e4   the same4        
,i4#h4e1 ,john #a4ad4                   
,i4#h4e1 ,john #a4ad4  the same         
verse rep-                              
eated dif-                              
ferently4                               
,i4#ad4a4 ,matt4     ,marcus4           

#ah4aj1;al4                             
,i4#af4a1 ,luke                         
,marcosians4                            
#ae4h1;al4                              
,i4#af4c1 ,matt4     the same4          
#ab1dc1;al4                             
,i4#bj4b1 ,luke                         
the same4                               
#b4di4                                  
,i4#bj4b1 ,mark #aj4ah4'memoriter'-     
,stieren2 but                           
comp4 ,clem4                            
,hom4 and                               
and ,justin4                            
,i4#bj4b1 ,matt4                        
,marcosians4                            
#ba4bc4                                 
,i4#bj4b1 ,luke #ai4db4the same4        
,i4#bj4b1 ,matt4                        
the same4          #aa4bh 78 om474      
,i4#bj4c1 ,luke #aj4ba4the same2        
7,matt4 #aa4be  v4l41 comp4             
#be47       ,marcion1                   
,clem4 ,hom41                           
,justin1 c4                             

,i4#ba4b1 ,luke #ab4ej4,marcosians4     
,i4#ba4b1 ,mark                         
,marcosians4                            
#aj4cf4                                 
,,iii4#aa4h1 ,john                      
#a4a-c 7874                             
,,iii4#aa4h1 ,matt4                     
#a4a1ah 7v4l47                          
,,iii4#aa4h1 ,mark                      
omissions4                              
#a4a1b4                                 
,,iii4#bb4b1 ,john #d4f4                
,,iii4#bb4b1 ,matt4 #bf4ch4             
,,iv4#bf4a1  ,matt4                     
,,iv4#dj4c1  #ac4ch4                    
,,iv4#dj4c1 ,matt4                      
#ac4be4                       ,v4#ag4d1 
,matt4 #c4aj4                           
,v4#cf4b1 ,john #ad4b                   
7or obl47                               
,fragm4 #ad1 ,matt4                     
#ae4ag4      ,on the whole these        
quotations of ,irenaeus seem fairly to  
deserve  the praise given to them by    
,dr4 ,tregelles4 ,most of the free      

quotations1 it will be seen1 belong not 
so much to ,irenaeus  himself1 as to the
 writers he is criticising4 ,in some    
places 7e4g4  iv4 #f4 #a1 which is found
 in the ,latin only7 he expressly notes 
a  difference of text4 ,in this very    
place1 however1 he shows that he  is    
quoting from memory1 as he speaks of a  
parallel passage in ,st4  ,mark which   
does not exist4 ,elsewhere there can be 
little doubt  that either he or the     
writer before him quoted loosely from   
memory4 ,thus ,luke xii4 #ej is given as
 ,greek3 allo baptisma echo             
baptisthaenai kai panu epeigomai eis    
auto for ,greek3 baptisma de  echo      
baptisthaenai kai pos sunechomai heos   
hotou telesthae4 ,the  quotation from   
,matt4 viii4 #i is represented as       
,greek3 kai gar ego  hupo taen emautou  
exousian echo stratiotas kai doulous kai
 ho ean  prostaxo poiousi1 which is     
evidently free2 those from ,matt4       
xviii4 #aj1 xxvii4 #df1 ,luke ix4 #eg1  
#eh1 #fa1 #fb1 xiv4 #bg1 xix4 #db1      

,john i4 #e1 #ad 7where however there   
appears to be some confusion in  the    
text of ,irenaeus71 xiv4 #b1 also seem  
to be best explained as  made from      
memory4    ,the list given below1 of    
quotations from the ,gospels in the     
,panarium or ',treatise against         
,heresies' of ,epiphanius ,endnote      
#eb3a1 is not intended to be exhaustive4
 ,it has been made from the  shorter    
index of ,petavius1 and being confined  
to the 'praecipui  loci' consists       
chiefly of passages of substantial      
length and  entirely 7,i believe7 of    
express quotations4 ,it has been again  
necessary to distinguish between the    
quotations made directly by  ,epiphanius
 himself and those made by the heretical
 writers whose  works he is reviewing4  
,exact4        ,slightly                
,variant4     ,remarks4                 
,variant4                               
#dbf;,a1 ,matt4 #a4a2                   
,matt4 #a4ah1                           
7v4l47                                  

#dbf;,,bc1 ,matt4                       
abridged1 diver-                        
#a4ah-be4                    gent in    
middle4                                 
#dcj;,b1 ,matt4 #b4ac4 ,porphyry        
,celsus4                                
#dd;,c1 ,matt4 #e4cd1cg                 
#ei;,c1 ,matt4                          
#e4ag1ah4                    #ahj;,b1   
,matt4 #e4ah4                           
,valentinians4                          
#bbf;,a1 ,matt4 #e4de4                  
#gb;,a1 ,matt4 #g4f4                    
,basilidians4  #djd;,c1 ,matt4 #g4ae4   
#fg;,c4 ,matt4 #h4aa4                   
#fej;,b4 ,matt4                         
#h4bh-cd 7par47                         
#cjc;,a1 ,matt4                         
,marcion4                               
#i4ag1af4                               
#ga;,b1 ,matt4 #aj4cc4                  
,basilidians4                           
#bgd;,b1 ,matt4                         
#aj4af4                    #hh;,a1      
,matt4 #aa4g4  #adc;,b1 ,matt4          

,gnostics4                              
#aa4ah4                                 
#bed;,b1 ,matt4                         
,marcosians4                            
#aa4bh4                                 
#aci;,,ab1 ,matt4      ,ebionites4      
#ab4dh sqq4 7v4l47  #agd;,c1 ,matt4     
#aj4bf4                                 
#dfd;,b1 ,matt4       ,theodotus4       
#ab4ca1cb4                    #cc;,a1   
,matt4 #bc4e4                           
#bah;,d1 ,matt4 #ae4d-f,ptolemaeus4     
7or4 obl47                              
#dij;,c1 ,matt4 #ae4bj4                 
,mark #g4ba1bb4                         
#dij;,a1 ,matt4 #ah4h4 compression      
,mark #i4dc4                            
#fgi;,,bc1 ,matt4      ,manes4          
#ac4bd-cj1cg-ci4                        
#aeb;,b1 ,matt4 #e4bg4                  
#ei;,,cd1 ,matt4                        
#ai4aj-ab4                              
#ei;,d1 ,matt4 #ai4f4                   
#ha;,a1 ,matt4 #ai4ab4                  
#ig;,d1 ,matt4 #bb4cj4                  

#cf;,,bc1 ,matt4 #bc4   remarkable      
compo-                                  
#bc1be2 #bc4ah-bj4  sition1 probably    
from memory4                            
7#e4ce72 ,mark                          
#g4aa-ac2 ,matt4                        
#bc4ae4                                 
#bbf;,a1 ,matt4 #bc4bi2;composition4    
,luke #aa4dg4                           
#bha;,a1 ,matt4 #bc4ce4                 
#ejh;,c1 ,matt4 #be4cd4                 
#adf;,,ab1 ,matt4 #bf4  narrative4      
#ag1ah2 ,mark #ad4                      
#ab-ad2 ,luke #bb4                      
#i-aa4                                  
#bgi;,d1 ,matt4 #bf4bd4                 
#cij;,b1 ,matt4 #ba4cc1                 
par4                                    
#ej;,a1 ,matt4 #bh4ai4                  
#dbg;,b1 ,mark #a4a1b4                  
7v4#a47                                 
#dbh;,c1 ,mark #a4d4                    
#deg;,d1 ,mark #c4bi2  singular         
,matt4 #ab4ca2    composition4          
,luke #ab4aj4                           

#djj;,d1 ,matt4 #ai4f2                  
,mark #aj4i4                            
#fej;,c1 ,matt4 #h4    narrative4       
#bh-cd2 ,mark #e4                       
#a-bj2 ,luke #h4                        
#bf-ci4              ,these last five   
quotations have already been given under
 ,irenaeus1 whom  ,epiphanius is        
transcribing4                           
#dfd;,d1 ,luke #ab4i2                   
composition4                            
,matt4 #aj4cc4                          
#aha;,b1 ,luke #ad4bg4                  
,valentians4                    #dja;,a1
 ,luke #ba4cd4                          
#adc;,c1 ,luke #bd4db4                  
7v4 #a47                                
#cdi;,c1 ,luke #bd4                     
,marcion4                               
#ch1ci                    #chd;,b1 ,john
 #a4a-c4                                
#adh;,a1 ,john #a4bc4                   
#adh;,b1 ,john                          
#b4af1ag4                               
#hi;,c1 ,john #c4ab4                    

,gnostics4                    #bgd;,a1  
,john #c4ad                      #ei;,c1
 ,john #e4df4                           
#afb;,b1 ,john #e4h4     #ff;,c1 ,john  
#e4ag4                                  
#iai;,a1 ,john #e4ah4                   
#aag;,d1 ,john #f4ae4                   
#hi;,d1 ,john #f4ec4                    
the same4                    #bgi;,d1   
,john #f4gj4                            
#bgi;,b1 ,john #h4dd4                   
#dfc;,d1 ,john #h4dj4                   
,theodotus4                             
#adh;,b1 ,john #ab4da4                  
#aec;,a1 ,john #ab4bb4                  
#ge;,c1 ,john #ad4f4                    
#iai;,c1 ,john #ad4aj4                  
#iba;,d1 ,john #ag4c4                   
#bgi;,d1 ,john                          
#ag4aa1ab4                    #aai;,d1  
,john #ah4cf4                      ,it  
is impossible here not to notice the    
very large amount of  freedom in the    
quotations4 ,the exact quotations number
 only  fifteen1 the slightly variant    

thirty-seven1 and the markedly  variant 
forty4 ,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  
memory4 ,this is strikingly  illustrated
 by the passage #aag ,d1 ,where the     
retreat of ,jesus and  ,his disciples to
 ,ephraim is treated as a consequence of
 the  attempt 'to make ,him king' 7,john
 vi4 #ae71 though in reality it did  not
 take place till after the raising of   
,lazarus and just before  the ,last     
,passover 7see ,john xi4 #ed74 ,a very  
remarkable case of  combination is found
 in #cf ,,bc1 where a single quotation  
is made up  of a cento of no less than  
six separate passages taken from all    
three ,synoptic ,gospels and in the most
 broken order4 ,fusions so  complete as 
this are usually the result of          
unconscious acts of the  mind1 i4e4 of  
memory4 ,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 #dcg ,d 7,greek3  to       
blasphaemounti eis to pneuma to hagion  
ouk aphethaesetai auto  oute en to nun  
aioni oute en to mellonti74 ,another    
example of  ,epiphanius' manner in      
skipping backwards and forwards from one
  ,synoptic to another may be seen in   
#bah ,d1 which is made up of  ,matt4 xv4
 #d-i and ,mark vii4 #f-ac4 ,a strange  
mistake is made in #dbh  ,d1 where      
,greek3 paraekolouthaekoti is taken with
 ,greek3 tois  autoptais kai hupaeretais
 tou logou4 ,many kinds of variation    
find  examples in these quotations of   
,epiphanius1 to some of which we  may   
have occasion to allude more            
particularly later on4    ,it should be 
remembered that these are not by any    
means selected  examples4 ,neither      
,irenaeus nor ,epiphanius are notorious 
for free  quotation--,irenaeus indeed is
 rather the reverse4 ,probably a much   
more plentiful harvest of variations    
would have been obtained e4g4  from     

,clement of ,alexandria1 from whose     
writings numerous instances  of         
quotation following the sense only1 of  
false ascription1 of the  blending of   
passages1 of quotations from memory1 are
 given in the  treatise of ,bp4 ,kaye   
,endnote #ef3a4 ,dr4 ,westcott has      
recently  collected ,endnote #ef3b the  
quotations from ,chrysostom ,on the     
,priesthood1 with the result that about 
one half present  variations from the   
,apostolic texts1 and some of these     
variations1  which he gives at length1  
are certainly very much to the point4   
,i fear we shall have seemed to delay   
too long upon this first  preliminary   
stage of the enquiry1 but it is highly  
desirable that  we should start with a  
good broad inductive basis to go upon4  
,we  have now an instrument in our hands
 by which to test the alleged           
quotations in the early writers2 and1   
rough and approximate as  that          
instrument must still be admitted to be1
 it is at least much  better than none  

at all4            ,,chapter ,,iii4     
,,the ,,apostolic ,,fathers4      ,to go
 at all thoroughly into all the         
questions that may be raised  as to the 
date and character of the ,christian    
writings in the  early part of the      
second century would need a series of   
somewhat  elaborate monographs1 and1    
important as it is that the data should 
be fixed with the utmost attainable     
precision1 the scaffolding  thus raised 
would1 in a work like the present1 be   
out of  proportion to the superstructure
 erected upon it4 ,these are  matters   
that must be decided by the authority of
 those who have  made the provinces to  
which they belong a subject of special  
study3 all we can do will be to test the
 value of the several  authorities in   
passing4    ,in regard to ,clement of   
,rome1 whose ,first 7genuine7 ,epistle  
to the  ,corinthians is the first       
writing that meets us1 the author of    
',supernatural ,religion' is quite right
 in saying that 'the great mass  of     

critics 444 assign the composition of   
the ,epistle to the end of the  first   
century 7,a4,d4 #ie-ajj7' ,endnote      
#eh3a4 ,there is as usual a right  and a
 left wing in the array of critics4 ,the
 right includes several of  the older   
writers2 among the moderns the most     
conspicuous figure is the  ,roman       
,catholic ,bishop ,hefele4 ,tischendorf 
also1 though as it is pointed  out      
somewhat inconsistently1 leans to this  
side4 ,according to their  opinion the  
,epistle would be written shortly before
 ,a4,d4 #gj4 ,on the  left1 the names   
quoted are ,volkmar1 ,baur1 ,scholten1  
,stap1 and ,schwegler  ,endnote #ei3a4  
,baur contents himself with the remark  
that the ,epistle  to the ,corinthians1 
'as one of the oldest documents of      
,christian  antiquity1 might have passed
 without question as a writing of the   
,roman  ,clement1' had not this ,clement
 become a legendary person and had so   
many spurious works palmed off upon him 
,endnote #ei3b4 ,but it is  surely no   

argument to say that because a certain  
number of extravagant  and spurious     
writings are attributed to ,clement1    
therefore one so sober  and consistent  
with his position1 and one so well      
attested as this1 is  not likely to have
 been written by him4 ,the contrary     
inference would be  the more reasonable1
 for if ,clement had not been an        
important person1  and if he had left no
 known and acknowledged writings1       
divergent  parties in the ,church would 
have had no reason for making use of his
  name4 ,but arguments of this kind     
cannot have much weight4 ,probably not  
one half of the writings attributed to  
,justin ,martyr are genuine2 but  no one
 on that account doubts the ,apologies  
and the ,dialogue with  ,tryphon4       
,schwegler ,endnote #ei3c1 as is his    
wont1 has developed the opinion of      
,baur1 adding some reasons of his own4  
,such as1 that the letter shows         
,pauline tendencies1 while 'according to
 the most certain traditions'  ,clement 

was a follower of ,st4 ,peter2 but the  
evidence for the ,epistle  7,polycarp1  
,dionysius of ,corinth1 ,a4,d4 #afe-age1
 ,hegesippus1 and  ,irenaeus in the most
 express terms7 is much older and better
 than  these 'most certain traditions'  
7,tertullian and ,origen71 even if they 
proved anything3 'in the ,epistle of    
,clement use is made of the ,epistle  to
 the ,hebrews2' but surely1 according to
 any sober canons of  criticism1 the    
only light in which this argument can be
 regarded is as  so much evidence for   
the ,epistle to the ,hebrews3 the       
,epistle implies a  development of the  
episcopate which 'demonstrably'         
7nachweislich7 did  not take place until
 during the course of the second        
century2 what the  'demonstration' is   
does not appear1 and indeed it is only  
part of the  great fabric of hypothesis 
that makes up the ,tbingen theory4      
,volkmar strikes into a new vein        
,endnote #fj3a4 ,the ,epistle of        
,clement  presupposes the ,book of      

,judith2 but the ,book of ,judith must  
be dated  ,a4,d4 #aag-aah2 and therefore
 the ,epistle of ,clement will fall     
about  ,a4,d4 #abe4 ,what is the ground 
for this reasoning8 ,it consists in a   
theory1 which ,volkmar adopted and      
developed from ,hitzig1 as to the       
origin of the ,book of ,judith4 ,that   
book is an allegorical or symbolical    
representation of events in the early   
part of the rising of the ,jews  under  
,barcochba2 ,judith is ,judaea1         
,nebuchadnezzar ,trajan2 ,assyria       
stands for ,syria1 ,nineveh for         
,antioch1 ,arphaxad for a ,parthian king
  ,arsaces1 ,ecbatana for ,nisibis or   
perhaps ,batnae2 ,bagoas is the eunuch- 
service in general2 ,holofernes is the  
,moor ,lucius ,quietus4 ,out of  these  
elements an elaborate historical theory 
is constructed1 which  ,ewald and       
,fritzsche have taken the trouble to    
refute on historical  grounds4 ,to us it
 is very much as if ,ivanhoe were made  
out to be  an allegory of incidents in  

the ,french ,revolution2 or as if the   
'tale of ,troy divine' were1 not a      
nature-myth or ,euemeristic legend  of  
long past ages1 but a symbolical        
representation of events under  the     
,pisistratidae4    ,examples such as    
this are apt to draw from the ,english  
reader a  sweeping condemnation of      
,german criticism1 and yet they are     
really  only the sports or freaks of an 
exuberant activity4 ,the long list      
given in ',supernatural ,religion'      
,endnote #fa3a of those who  maintain   
the middle date of ,clement's ,epistle  
7,a4,d4 #ie-ajj7  includes apparently   
all the ,english writers1 and among a   
number of  ,germans the weighty names of
 ,bleek1 ,ewald1 ,gieseler1 ,hilgenfeld1
  ,kstlin1 ,lipsius1 ,laurent1 ,reuss1  
and ,ritschl4 ,from the point of  view  
either of authority or of argument there
 can be little doubt  which is the      
soundest and most judicious decision4   
,now what is the bearing of the ,epistle
 of ,clement upon the  question of the  

currency and authority of the ,synoptic 
,gospels8  ,there are two passages of   
some length which are without doubt     
evangelical quotations1 though whether  
they are derived from the  ,canonical   
,gospels or not may be doubted4    ,the 
first passage occurs in c4 xiii4 ,it    
will be necessary to give  it in full   
with the ,synoptic parallels1 in order  
to appreciate the  exact amount of      
difference and resemblance which it     
presents4      ,matt4 v4 #g1 vi4 #ad1   
,clem4 ad ,cor4 c4 xiii4 ,luke vi4 #cf1 
#cg1 #ca1   vii4 #ab1b4                 
vi4 #ch1 #cg1 #ch4                      
,especially re-                         
membering the word                      
of the ,lord ,jesus                     
which he spake 444                      
,for thus he said3        v4 #g4        
,blessed are      ,pity ye1 that ye may 
vi4 #cf4 ,be ye mer-  the pitiful1 for  
they  be pitied3 forgive1      ciful1   
etc4 vi4 #cg4 ,ac-  shall be pitied4 vi4
   that it may be for-      quit1 and ye

 shall be  #ad4 ,for if ye for          
given unto you4 ,as       acquitted4 vi4
 #c #a4  give men their tres-   ye do1  
so shall it       ,and as ye would      
passes1 etc4 vii4 #ab4  be done unto    
you3        that they should do  ,all   
things therefore   as ye give1 so shall 
unto you1 do ye  whatsoever ye would    
it be given4 unto you3   also unto them 
like  that men should do     as ye      
judge1 so shall    wise4 vi4 #ch4 ,give1
  unto you1 even so do   it be judged   
unto        and it shall be given  ye   
unto them4 vii4 #b4  you3 as ye are     
kind1     unto you4 vi4 #c #g4  ,for    
with what judg-    so shall kindness be 
,and judge not1 and  ment ye judge1 ye  
shown unto you3          ye shall not be
  shall be judged3 and                  
judged4  with what measure      with    
what measure          ,for with what  ye
 mete1 it shall be   ye mete1 with it   
shall   measure ye mete1 it  measured   
unto you4     it be measured unto       
shall be measured                       

you4                     unto you again4
                                        
,,greek ,,table  ,matt4 v4 #g1 vi4 #ad1 
,clem4 ad ,cor4 c4 xiii4 ,luke vi4 #cf1 
#cg1 #ca1   vii4 #ab1b4                 
vi4 #ch1 #cg1 #ch4                      
v4#g4 makarioi hoi    eleeite hina      
eleaethaete4  vi4 #cf4 ginesthe         
eleaemones hoti autoi                   
oiktirmones1 k4t4l4  eleaethaesontai4   
vi4 #ad4 ean gar        aphiete hina    
aphethae    vi4 #cg4 apoluete kai       
aphaete tois anth4 ta  humin4           
apoluthaesesthe4  paraptomata auton4    
vii4 #ab4 panta oun     hos poieite     
houto        vi4 #ca4 kai kathos  hosa  
ean thelaete hina poiaethaesetai humin4 
thelete hina poiosin  poiosin humin hoi 
anth4                         humin hoi 
anthropoi kai  houtos kai humeis        
humeis poieite autois                   
homoios poieite autois4                 
hos didote houtos        vi4 #ch4       
didote1 kai                             
dothaesetai humin4       dothaesetai    

humin4  vii4 #b4 en ho gar        hos   
krinete houtos       vi4 #cg4 kai mae   
krimati krinete        krithaesetai     
humin4      krinete kai ou mae          
krithaesesthe4                          
krithaete4                           hos
 chraesteuesthe                         
houtos chraesteuthaesetai               
humin4                     kai en ho    
metro          ho metro metreite en     
vi4 #ch4 to gar auto  metreite          
auto metraethaesetai     metro ho       
metreite  metraethaesetai humin4 humin4 
antimetraethaesetai                     
humin4      ,we are to determine whether
 this quotation was taken from the      
,canonical ,gospels4 ,let us try to     
balance the arguments on both  sides as 
fairly as possible4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot     
writes in his note upon  the passage as 
follows3 ',as ,clement's quotations are 
often very  loose1 we need not go beyond
 the ,canonical ,gospels for the source 
of this passage4 ,the resemblance to the
 original is much closer  here1 than it 

is for instance in his account of ,rahab
 above1  #ab4  ,the hypothesis therefore
 that ,clement derived the saying from  
oral  tradition1 or from some lost      
,gospel1 is not needed4' 7#a7 ,no doubt 
it is true that ,clement does often     
quote loosely4 ,the difference  of      
language1 taking the parallel clauses   
one by one1 is not  greater than would  
be found in many of his quotations from 
the ,old  ,testament4 7#b7 ,supposing   
that the order of ,st4 ,luke is         
followed1  there will be no greater     
dislocation than e4g4 in the quotation  
from ,deut4 ix4 #ab-ad and ,exod4 xxxii4
 7#g1 #h71 #aa1 #ca1 #cb in c4  liii1   
and the backward order of the quotation 
would have a  parallel in ,clem4 ,hom4  
xvi4 #ac1 where the verses ,deut4 xiii4 
#a-c1  #e1 #i are quoted in the order   
,deut4 xiii4 #a-c1 #i1 #e1 #c1--;and    
elsewhere4 ,the composition of a passage
 from different places in  the same     
book1 or more often from places in      
different books1 such  as would be the  

case if ,clement was following ,matthew1
 frequently  occurs in his quotations   
from the ,old ,testament4 7#c7 ,we have 
no  positive evidence of the presence of
 this passage in any non-  extant       
,gospel4 7#d7 ,arguments from the manner
 of quoting the ,old  ,testament to the 
manner of quoting the ,new must always  
be to a  certain extent a fortiori1 for 
it is undeniable that the  ,new         
,testament did not as yet stand upon the
 same footing of  respect and authority 
as the ,old1 and the scarcity of ,,mss4 
must  have made it less accessible4 ,in 
the case of converts from  ,judaism1 the
 ,old ,testament would have been largely
 committed to  memory in youth1 while   
the knowledge of the ,new would be only 
recently acquired4 ,these considerations
 seem to favour the  hypothesis that    
,clement is quoting from our ,gospels4  
,but on the other hand it may be urged1 
7#a7 that the parallel  adduced by ,dr4 
,lightfoot1 the story of ,rahab1 is not 
quite in  point1 because it is          

narrative1 and narrative both in        
,clement and  the other writers of his  
time is dealt with more freely than     
discourse4 7#b7 ,the passage before us  
is also of greater length  than is usual
 in ,clement's free quotations4 ,i doubt
 whether as  long a piece of discourse  
can be found treated with equal freedom1
  unless it is the two doubtful cases in
 c4 viii and c4 xxix4 7#c7 ,it  will not
 fail to be noticed that the passage as 
it stands in  ,clement has a roundness1 
a compactness1 a balance of style1 which
  give it an individual and independent 
appearance4 ,fusions effected  by an    
unconscious process of thought are1 it  
is true1 sometimes  marked by this      
completeness2 still there is a          
difficulty in  supposing the terse      
antitheses of the ,clementine version to
 be  derived from the fuller1 but more  
lax and disconnected1 sayings in  our   
,gospels4 7#d7 ,it is noticed in        
',supernatural ,religion' ,endnote      
#fe3a that the particular phrase ,greek3

 chraesteusthe has at  least a partial  
parallel in ,justin ,greek3 ginesthe    
chraestoi kai  oiktirmones1 though it   
has none in the ,canonical ,gospels4    
,this  may seem to point to a           
documentary source no longer extant4    
,doubtless light would be thrown upon   
the question if we only knew  what was  
the common original of the two ,synoptic
 texts4 ,how do  they come to be so like
 and yet so different as they are8 ,how 
do  they come to be so strangely broken 
up8 ,the triple synopsis1 which  has to 
do more with narrative1 presents less   
difficulty1 but the  problem raised by  
these fragmentary parallelisms in       
discourse is  dark and complex in the   
extreme2 yet if it were only solved it  
would in all probability give us the key
 to a wide class of  phenomena4 ,the    
differences in these extra-canonical    
quotations do  not exceed the           
differences between the ,synoptic       
,gospels  themselves2 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 them4 ,the      
critics have not  however1 ,i believe1  
given any satisfactory explanation of   
the  state of dispersion in which the   
fragments of this latter class  are     
found4 ,all that can be at present done 
is to point out that  the solution of   
this problem and that of such quotations
 as the  one discussed in ,clement hang 
together1 and that while the one        
remains open the other must also4       
,looking at the arguments on both sides1
 so far as we can give  them1 ,i incline
 on the whole to the opinion that       
,clement is not  quoting directly from  
our ,gospels1 but ,i am quite aware of  
the  insecure ground on which this      
opinion rests4 ,it is a nice balance  of
 probabilities1 and the element of      
ignorance is so large that  the         
conclusion1 whatever it is1 must be     
purely provisional4  ,anything like     
confident dogmatism on the subject seems

 to me  entirely out of place4    ,very 
much the same is to be said of the      
second passage in c4 xlvi  compared with
 ,matt4 xxvi4 #bd1 xviii4 #f1 or ,luke  
xvii4 #a1 #b4 ,it hardly  seems         
necessary to give the passage in full1  
as this is already done  in             
',supernatural ,religion1' and it does  
not differ materially from  that first  
quoted1 except that it is less          
complicated and the  supposition of a   
quotation from memory somewhat easier4  
,the critic  indeed dismisses the       
question summarily enough4 ,he says that
 'the  slightest comparison of the      
passage with our ,gospels is sufficient 
to  convince any unprejudiced mind that 
it is neither a combination of  texts   
nor a quotation from memory' ,endnote   
#ff3a4 ,but this very  confident        
assertion is only the result of the     
hasty and superficial  examination that 
the author has given to the facts4 ,he  
has set down  the impression that a     
modern might receive1 at the first      

blush1  without having given any more   
extended study to the method of the     
patristic quotations4 ,i do not wish to 
impute blame to him for this1  because  
we are all sure to take up some points  
superficially2 but the  misfortune is   
that he has spent his labour in the     
wrong place4 ,he  has1 in a manner1     
revived the old ecclesiastical argument 
from  authority by heaping together     
references1 not always quite digested   
and sifted1 upon points that often do   
not need them1 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 enquiry4    ,the
 hypothesis that ,clement's quotation is
 made memoriter from our  ,gospel is    
very far from being inadmissible4 ,were 
it not that the  other passage seems to 
lean the other way1 ,i should be        
inclined to  regard it as quite the most
 probable solution4 ,such a fusion is   
precisely what would and frequently does

 take place in quoting  from memory4 ,it
 is important to notice the key phrases 
in the  quotation4 ,the opening phrases 
,greek3 ouai to anthropo ekeino2 kalon  
aen auto ei ouk egennaethae are found   
exactly 7though with  omissions7 in     
,matt4 xxvi4 #bd4 ,clement has in common
 with the  ,synoptists all the more     
marked expressions but two1 ,greek3     
skandalisai 7,greek3 -sae ,synoptics71  
the unusual word ,greek3  mulos 7,matt41
 ,mark71 ,greek3 katapontisthaenai      
7,greek3 -thae  ,matt471 ,greek3 eis    
taen thalassan 7,mark1 ,luke71 ,greek3  
hena ton  mikron 7,greek3 mou ,clement1 
,greek3 touton ,synoptics74 ,he differs 
from them1 so far as phraseology is     
concerned1 only in writing once  7the   
second time he agrees with the          
,synoptics7 ,greek3 ton eklekton  mou   
for ,greek3 ton mikron touton1 by an    
easy paraphrase1 and  ,greek3           
peritethaenai where ,mark and ,luke have
 ,greek3 perikeitai  and ,matthew       
,greek3 kremasthae4 ,but on the other   

hand1 it should be  noticed that        
,matthew has1 besides this variation1   
,greek3 en to  pelagei taes thalassaes1 
where the two companion ,gospels have   
,greek3 eis taen thalassan2 where he has
 ,greek3 katapontisthae1  ,mark has     
,greek3 beblaetai and ,luke ,greek3     
erriptai2 and in the  important phrase  
for 'it were better' all the three      
,gospels differ1  ,matthew having       
,greek3 sumpherei1 ,mark ,greek3 kalon  
estin1 and  ,luke ,greek3 lusitelei2 so 
that it seems not at all too much to say
  that ,clement does not differ from the
 ,synoptics more than they differ  from 
each other4 ,the remarks that the author
 makes1 in a general way1  upon these   
differences lead us to ask whether he   
has ever definitely  put to himself the 
question1 ,how did they arise8 ,he must 
be aware  that the mass of ,german      
authorities he is so fond of quoting    
admit of  only two alternatives1 that   
the ,synoptic writers copied either from
  the same original or from each other1 

and that the idea of a merely  oral     
tradition is scouted in ,germany4 ,but  
if this is the case1 if so  great a     
freedom has been exercised in           
transcription1 is it strange  that      
,clement 7or any other writer7 should be
 equally free in  quotation8    ,the    
author rightly notices--though he does  
not seem quite to  appreciate its       
bearing--the fact that ,marcion and some
 codices 7of  the ,old ,latin           
translation7 insert1 as ,clement does1  
the phrase  ,greek3 ei ouk egennaethae  
ae in the text of ,st4 ,luke4 ,supposing
  that this were the text of ,st4       
,luke's ,gospel which ,clement had      
before  him1 it would surely be so much 
easier to regard his quotation as       
directly taken from the ,gospel2 but the
 truer view perhaps would be  that we   
have here an instance 7and the number of
 such instances in  the older ,,mss4 is 
legion7 of the tendency to interpolate  
by the  insertion of parallel passages  
from the same or from the other         

,synoptic ,gospels4 ,clement and        
,marcion 7with the ,old ,latin7 will    
then  confirm each other1 as showing    
that even at this early date the two    
passages1 ,matt4 xxvi4 #bd and ,matt4   
xviii4 #f 7,luke xvii4 #b71 had  already
 begun to be combined4    ,there is one 
point more to be noticed before we leave
 the ,epistle  of ,clement4 ,there is a 
quotation from ,isaiah in this ,epistle 
which  is common to it with the first   
two ,synoptics4 ,of this ,volkmar       
writes as follows1 giving the words of  
,clement1 c4 xv1 ',the  ,scripture says 
somewhere1 ,this people honoureth me    
with their  lips1 but their heart is far
 from me1' 7,greek3 houtos ho laos  tois
 cheilesin me tima hae de kardia auton  
porro apestin ap'  emou74 ',this        
,scripture the writer found in ,mark    
vii4 #f  7followed in ,matt4 xv4 #h71   
and in that shape he could not at once  
remember where it stood in the ,old     
,testament4 ,it is indeed ,mark's       
peculiar reproduction of ,is4 xxix4 #ac1

 in opposition to the  original and the 
,,lxx4 ,a further proof that the ,roman 
,christian has  here our ,synoptic text 
in his mind1 may be taken from c4 xiii1 
where he quotes ,jer4 ix4 #bd with equal
 divergence from the ,,lxx1  after the  
precedent of the ,apostle 7#a ,cor4 i4  
#ca1 #b ,cor4 x4 #ag7  whose letters he 
expressly refers to 7c4 xlvii7 ,endnote 
#fi3a4  ,it is difficult here to avoid  
the conclusion that ,clement is  quoting
 the ,old ,testament through the medium 
of our ,gospels4 ,the  text of the ,,lxx
 is this1 ,greek3 engizei moi ho laos   
houtos en to  stomati autou kai en tois 
cheilesin auton timosin me4 ,clement has
  the passage exactly as it is given in 
,mark 7,greek3 ho laos  houtos ,matt471 
except that he writes ,greek3 apestin   
where both  of the ,gospels have ,greek3
 apechei with the ,,lxx4 ,the passage is
  not ,messianic1 so that the variation 
cannot be referred to a  ,targum2 and   
though ,a4 and six other ,,mss4 in      
,holmes and ,parsons  omit ,greek3 en to

 stomati autou 7through wrong           
punctuation--  ,credner71 still there is
 no ,,ms4 authority whatever1 and       
naturally  could not be1 for the        
omission of ,greek3 engizei moi 444 kai 
and  for the change of ,greek3 timosin  
to ,greek3 tima4 ,there can be  little  
doubt that this was a free quotation in 
the original of the  ,synoptic ,gospels1
 and it is in a high degree probable    
that it has  passed through them into   
,clement of ,rome4 ,it might perhaps be 
suggested that ,clement was possibly    
quoting the earlier document1  the      
original of our ,synoptics1 but this    
suggestion seems to be  excluded both by
 his further deviation from the ,,lxx in
 ,greek3  apestin1 and also by the      
phenomena of the last quotation we have 
been discussing1 which are certainly of 
a secondary character4  ,altogether ,i  
cannot but regard this passage as the   
strongest  evidence we possess for the  
use of the ,synoptic ,gospels by        
,clement2 it seems to carry the         

presumption that he did use them up  to 
a considerable degree of probability4   
,it is rather singular that ,volkmar1   
whose speculations about the  ,book of  
,judith we have seen above1 should be so
 emphatic as he is  in asserting the use
 of all three ,synoptics by ,clement4   
,we might  almost1 though not quite1    
apply with a single change to this      
critic a sentence originally levelled at
 ,tischendorf1 to the  intent that 'he  
systematically adopts the latest        
7earliest7  possible or impossible dates
 for all the writings of the first two  
centuries1' but he is able to admit the 
use of the first and third  ,synoptics  
7the publication of which he places     
respectively in #ajj  and #aaj ,a4,d47  
by throwing forward the date of         
,clement's ,epistle1  through the       
,judith-hypothesis1 to ,a4,d4 #abe4 ,we 
may however accept  the assertion for   
what it is worth1 as coming from a mind 
something less than impartial1 while we 
reject the concomitant  theories4 ,for  

my own part ,i do not feel able to speak
 with quite  the same confidence1 and   
yet upon the whole the evidence1 which  
on  a single instance might seem to     
incline the other way1 does appear  to  
favour the conclusion that ,clement used
 our present ,canonical  ,gospels4      
#b4    ,there is not1 so far as ,i am   
aware1 any reason to complain of the    
statement of opinion in ',supernatural  
,religion' as to the date of  the       
so-called ,epistle of ,barnabas4        
,arguing then entirely from  authority1 
we may put the terminus ad quem at about
 #acj  ,a4,d4 ,the only writer who is   
quoted as placing it later is ,dr4      
,donaldson1 who has perhaps altered his 
mind in the later edition  of his work1 
as he now writes3 ',most 7critics7 have 
been inclined  to place it not later    
than the first quarter of the second    
century1 and all the indications of a   
date1 though very slight1  point to this
 period' ,endnote #ga3a4    ,the most   
important issue is raised on a quotation

 in c4 iv1 ',many  are called but few   
chosen1' in the ,greek of the ,codex    
,sinaiticus  ,greek3 prosechomen1       
maepote1 hos gegraptai1 polloi klaetoi1 
oligoi de eklektoi eurethomen4 ,this    
corresponds exactly with  ,matt4 xxii4  
#ad1 ,greek3 polloi gar eisin klaetoi1  
oligoi de  eklektoi4 ,the passage occurs
 twice in our present received text  of 
,st4 ,matthew1 but in xx4 #af it is     
probably an interpolation4  ,there also 
occurs in #d ,ezra 7#b ,esdras7 viii4 #c
 the sentence1 ',many  were created but 
few shall be saved' ,endnote #ga3b4 ,our
 author  spends several pages in the    
attempt to prove that this is the       
original of the quotation in ,barnabas  
and not the saying in ,st4  ,matthew4   
,we have the usual positiveness of      
statement3 ',there can  be no doubt that
 the sense of the reading in #d ,ezra is
 exactly  that of the ,epistle4' ',it is
 impossible to imagine a saying more    
irrelevant to its context than ,many are
 called but few chosen in  ,matt4 xx4   

#af1' where it is indeed spurious1      
though the relevancy  of it might very  
well be maintained4 ,in ,matt4 xxii4    
#ad1 where the  saying is genuine1 'it  
is clear that the facts distinctly      
contradict the moral that few are       
chosen4' ,when we come to a  passage    
with a fixed idea it is always easy to  
get out of it what  we wish to find4 ,as
 to the relevancy or irrelevancy of the 
clause  in ,matt4 xxii4 #ad ,i shall say
 nothing1 because it is in either  case 
undoubtedly genuine4 ,but it is surely a
 strange paradox to  maintain that the  
words ',many were created but few shall 
be saved'  are nearer in meaning to     
',many are called but few chosen' than  
the  repetition of those very words     
themselves4 ,our author has  forgotten  
to notice that ,barnabas has used the   
precise word  ,greek3 klaetoi just      
before2 indeed it is the very point on  
which  his argument turns1 'because we  
are called do not let us therefore  rest
 idly upon our oars2 ,israel was called 

to great privileges1  yet they were     
abandoned by ,god as we see them2 let us
 therefore  also take heed1 for1 as it  
is written1 many are called but few     
chosen4' ,i confess ,i find it difficult
 to conceive anything more  relevant1   
and equally so to see any special       
relevancy1 in the  vague general        
statement ',many were created but few   
shall be  saved4'    ,but even if it    
were not so1 if it were really a        
question between  similarity of context 
on the one hand and identity of language
 on  the other1 there ought to be no    
hesitation in declaring that to be  the 
original of the quotation in which the  
language was identical  though the      
context might be somewhat different4    
,any one who has  studied patristic     
quotations will know that context counts
 for  very little indeed4 ,what could be
 more to all appearance remote  from the
 context than the quotation in ,heb4 i4 
#g1 ',who maketh his  angels spirits and
 his ministers a flaming fire'8 where   

the  original is certainly referring to 
the powers of nature1 and means  'who   
maketh the winds his messengers and a   
flame of fire his  minister2' with the  
very same sounds we have a complete     
inversion  of the sense4 ,this is one of
 the most frequent phenomena1 as our    
author cannot but know ,endnote #gc3a4  
,hilgenfeld1 in his edition of the      
,epistle of ,barnabas1 repels  somewhat 
testily the imputation of ,tischendorf1 
who criticises him  as if he supposed   
that the saying in ,st4 ,matthew was not
 directly  referred to ,endnote #gc3b4  
,this ,hilgenfeld denies to be the case4
  ,in regard to the use of the word     
,greek3 gegraptai introducing  the      
quotation1 the same writer urges        
reasonably enough that it  cannot       
surprise us at a time when we learn from
 ,justin ,martyr that  the ,gospels were
 read regularly at public worship2 it   
ought not  however to be pressed too far
 as involving a claim to special  divine
 inspiration1 as the same word is used  

in the ,epistle in  regard to the       
apocryphal book of ,enoch1 and it is    
clear also from  ,justin that the ,canon
 of the ,gospels was not yet formed but 
only  forming4    ,the clause1 ',give to
 every one that asketh of thee' ,greek3 
panti  to aitounti se didou1 though     
admitted into the text of c4 xix by     
,hilgenfeld and ,weizscker1 is wanting  
in the ,sinaitic ,,ms41 and the         
comparison with ,luke vi4 #cj or ,matt4 
v4 #db therefore cannot be  insisted    
upon4    ,the passage 'in order that ,he
 might show that ,he came not to  call  
the righteous but sinners' 7,greek3 hina
 deixae hoti ouk  aelthen kalesai       
dikaious alla amartolous ,endnote #gd3a7
 is  removed by the hypothesis of an    
interpolation which is supported  by a  
precarious argument from ,origen1 and   
also by the fact that  ,greek3 eis      
metanoian has been added 7clearly from  
,luke v4 #cb7 by  later hands both to   
the text of ,barnabas and in ,matt4 ix4 
#ac  ,endnote #gd3b4 ,this theory of an 

interpolation is easily  advanced1 and  
it is drawn so entirely from our        
ignorance that it  can seldom be        
positively disproved1 but it ought      
surely to be  alleged with more         
convincing reasons than any that are put
 forward  here4 ,we now possess six     
,,mss4 of the ,epistle of ,barnabas1    
including the famous ,codex ,sinaiticus1
 the accuracy of which in  the ,biblical
 portions can be amply tested1 and all  
of these six  ,,mss41 without exception1
 contain the passage4 ,the addition of  
the  words ,greek3 eis metanoian        
represents much more the kind of        
interpolations that were at all         
habitual4 ,the interpolation            
hypothesis1 as ,i said1 is easily       
advanced1 but the onus  probandi must   
needs lie heavily against it4 ,in       
accepting the  text as it stands we     
simply obey the ,baconian maxim         
hypotheses  non fingimus1 but it is     
strange1 and must be surprising to a    
philosophic mind1 to what an extent the 

more extreme representatives  of the    
negative criticism have gone back to the
 most condemned  parts of the scholastic
 method2 inconvenient facts are         
explained  away by hypotheses as        
imaginary and unverifiable as the       
'cycles  and epicycles' by which the    
schoolmen used to explain the motions   
of the heavenly bodies4    ',if         
however1' the author continues1 'the    
passage 'originally  formed part of the 
text1 it is absurd to affirm that it is 
any  proof of the use or existence of   
the first ,gospel4' ',absurd' is  under 
the circumstances a rather strong word  
to use2 but1 granting  that it would    
have been even 'absurd' to allege this  
passage1 if  it had stood alone1 as a   
sufficient proof of the use of the      
,gospel1 it does not follow that there  
can be any objection to the  more       
guarded statement that it invests the   
use of the ,gospel with  a certain      
antecedent probability4 ,no doubt the   
quotation  may have been made from a    

lost ,gospel1 but here again  ,greek3   
eis aphanes ton muthon anenenkas ouk    
echei elenchon--  there is no verifying 
that about which we know nothing4 ,the  
critic  may multiply ,gospels as much as
 he pleases and an apologist at  least  
will not quarrel with him1 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 ,gospels4 ,as  it is1 the 
only result of these unverifiable       
hypotheses is to  raise up confirmatory 
documents in a quarter where apologists 
have  not hitherto claimed them4    ,we 
are delaying1 however1 too long upon    
points of quite secondary  importance4  
,two more passages are adduced2 one1 an 
application of  ,ps4 cx 7,the ,lord said
 unto my ,lord7 precisely as in ,matt4  
xxii4  #dd1 and the other a saying      
assigned to our ,lord1 ',they who wish  
to  see me and lay hold on my kingdom   
must receive me through  affliction and 
suffering4' ,of neither of these can we 

speak  positively4 ,there is perhaps a  
slight probability that the first  was  
suggested by our ,gospel1 and           
considering the character of the        
verifiable quotations in ,barnabas1     
which often follow the sense  only and  
not the words1 the second may be 'a free
 reminiscence of  ,matt4 xvi4 #bd       
compared with ,acts xiv4 #bb1' but it is
 also possible  that it may be a saying 
quoted from an apocryphal ,gospel4      
,it should perhaps be added that        
,lardner and ,dr4 ,westcott both  refer 
to a quotation of ,zech4 xiii4 #g which 
appears in the common  text of the      
,epistle in a form closely resembling   
that in which the  quotation is given in
 ,matt4 xxvi4 #ca and diverging from the
 ,,lxx1  but here again the ,sinaitic   
,codex varies1 and the text is too      
uncertain to lay stress upon1 though    
perhaps the addition ,greek3  taes      
poimnaes may incline the balance to the 
view that the text  of the ,gospel has  
influenced the form of the quotation    

,endnote  #gf3a4    ,the general result 
of our examination of the ,epistle of   
,barnabas  may perhaps be stated thus1  
that while not supplying by itself      
certain and conclusive proof of the use 
of our ,gospels1 still the  phenomena   
accord better with the hypothesis of    
such a use4 ,this  ,epistle stands in   
the second line of the evidence1 and as 
a  witness is rather confirmatory than  
principal4                              
#c4    ,after ,dr4 ,lightfoot's masterly
 exposition there is probably  nothing  
more to be said about the genuineness1  
date1 and origin of  the ,ignatian      
,epistles4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot has done in  
the most lucid  and admirable manner    
just that which is so difficult to do1  
and  which ',supernatural ,religion' has
 so signally failed in doing2 he  has   
succeeded in conveying to the reader a  
true and just sense of  the exact weight
 and proportion of the different parts  
of the  evidence4 ,he has avoided such  
phrases as 'absurd1' 'impossible1'      

'preposterous1' that his opponent has   
dealt in so freely1 but he  has weighed 
and balanced the evidence piece by      
piece2 he has  carefully guarded his    
language so as never to let the         
positiveness  of his conclusion exceed  
what the premises will warrant2 he has  
dealt with the subject judicially and   
with a full consciousness of  the       
responsibility of his position ,endnote 
#gg3a4    ,we cannot therefore1 ,i      
think1 do better than adopt ,dr4        
,lightfoot's  conclusion as the basis of
 our investigation1 and treat the       
,curetonian 7i4e4 the three short       
,syriac7 letters as 7probably7  'the    
work of the genuine ,ignatius1 while the
 ,vossian letters  7i4e4 the shorter    
,greek recension of seven ,epistles7 are
 accepted  as valid testimony at all    
events for the middle of the second     
century--the question of the genuineness
 of the letters being  waived4'    ,the 
,curetonian ,epistles will then be dated
 either in #ajg or in #aae  ,a4,d41 the 

two alternative years assigned to the   
martyrdom of  ,ignatius4 ,in the        
,epistle to ,polycarp which is given in 
this  version there is a parallel to    
,matt4 x4 #af1 ',be ye therefore wise   
as serpents and harmless as doves4' ,the
 two passages may be  compared thus3--  
,ign4 ad ,pol4 ii4    ,greek3 ,psronimos
 ginou hos ophis en apasin kai akeaios  
osei  perisetera4         ,matt4 x4 #af4
    ,greek3 ,ginesthe oun psronimoi hos 
oi opheis kai akeaioi hos ai            
peristerai4    ,we should naturally     
place this quotation in the second      
column of  our classified arrangement1  
as presenting a slight variation4 ,at   
the same time we should have little     
hesitation in referring it to  the      
passage in our ,canonical ,gospel4 ,all 
the marked expressions  are identical1  
especially the precise and selected     
words ,greek3  phronimos and ,greek3    
akeraios4 ,it is however possible that  
,ignatius may be quoting1 not directly  
from our ,gospel1 but from  one of the  

original documents 7such as ,ewald's    
hypothetical  ',spruch-sammlung'7 out of
 which our ,gospel was composed--though 
it  is somewhat remarkable that this    
particular sentence is wanting in  the  
parallel passage in ,st4 ,luke 7cf4     
,luke x4 #c74 ,this may be so  or not2  
we have no means of judging4 ,but it    
should at any rate be  remembered that  
this original document1 supposing it to 
have had a  substantive existence1 most 
probably contained repeated references  
to miracles4 ,the critics who refer     
,matt4 x4 #af to the document in        
question1 also agree in referring to it 
,matt4 vii4 #bb1 x4 #h1 xi4  #e1 xii4   
#bd foll41 c41 which speak distinctly of
 miracles1 and  precisely in that       
indirect manner which is the best kind  
of  evidence4 ,therefore if we accept   
the hypothesis suggested in             
',supernatural ,religion'--and it is a  
mere hypothesis1 quite                  
unverifiable--the evidence for miracles 
would not be materially  weakened4 ,the 

author would1 ,i suppose1 admit that it 
is at least  equally probable that the  
saying was quoted from our present      
,gospel4    ,this probability would be  
considerably heightened if the allusion 
to 'the star' in the ,syriac of ,eph4   
xix has1 as it appears to  have1        
reference to the narrative of ,matt4 ii4
 ,in the ,greek or  ,vossian version of 
the ,epistle it is expanded1 ',how then 
was ,he  manifested to the ages8 ,a star
 shone in heaven above all the  stars1  
and the light thereof was unspeakable1  
and the strangeness  thereof caused     
astonishment' 7,greek3 ,pos oun         
ephanerothae tois  aoisin2 ,astaer en   
ourano elampsen huper pantas tous       
asteras1 kai  to phos autou aneklalaeton
 aen1 kai xenismon pareichen hae        
kainotaes autou74 ,this is precisely1   
one would suppose1 the kind  of passage 
that might be taken as internal evidence
 of the  genuineness of the ,curetonian 
and later character of the ,vossian     
version4 ,the ,syriac 7,greek3 hatina en

 haesouchia ,theou to asteri  or ,greek3
 apo tou asteros ,greek3 eprachthae71   
abrupt and  difficult as it is1 does not
 look like an epitome of the ,greek1    
and the ,greek has exactly that         
exaggerated and apocryphal  character   
which would seem to point to a later    
date4 ,it  corresponds indeed somewhat  
nearly to the language of the           
,protevangelium of ,james1 #ba1 ,greek3 
eidomen astera pammegethae  lampsanta en
 tois astrois tou ouranou kai amblunonta
 tous allous  asteras hoste mae         
phainesthai autous4 ,both in the        
,protevangelium  and in the ,vossian    
,ignatius we see what is clearly a      
developement  of the narrative in ,st4  
,matthew4 ,if the ,vossian ,epistles are
  genuine1 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 ,gospel4 ,if the ,syriac     
version1 on the  other hand1 is the     
genuine one1 it will be probable that   

,ignatius  is directly alluding to the  
narrative which is peculiar to the      
first ,evangelist4    ,these are 7so far
 as ,i am aware7 the only coincidences  
that are  found in the ,curetonian      
version4 ,their paucity cannot surprise 
us1  as in the same ,curetonian text    
there is not a single quotation  from   
the ,old ,testament4 ,one ,old          
,testament quotation and two            
,evangelical allusions occur in the     
,epistle to the ,ephesians1 which  is   
one of the three contained in ,cureton's
 ,,ms42 the fifth and  sixth chapters1  
however1 in which they are found1 are   
wanting in  the ,syriac4 ,the allusions 
are1 in ,eph4 v1 ',for if the prayer of 
one or two have such power1 how much    
more that of the bishop and  of the     
whole ,church1' which appears to have   
some relation to ,matt4  xviii4 #ai     
7',if two of you shall agree' c471 and  
in ,eph4 vi1 ',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 him1'  which may be
 compared with ,matt4 x4 #dj 7',he that 
receiveth you'  c474 ,both these        
allusions have some probability1 though 
neither  can be regarded as at all      
certain4 ,the ,epistle to the ,trallians
  has one coincidence in c4 xi1 ',these 
are not plants of the ,father'  7,greek3
 phyteia ,patros71 which recalls the    
striking expression  of ,matt4 xv4 #ac1 
',every plant 7,greek3 pasa phyteia7    
that my  heavenly ,father hath not      
planted shall be rooted up4' ,this is a 
marked metaphor1 and it is not found in 
the other ,synoptics2 it is  therefore  
at least more probable that it is taken 
from ,st4  ,matthew4 ,the same must be  
said of another remarkable phrase in the
  ,epistle to the ,smyrnaeans1 c4 vi1   
,greek3 ho choron choreito  7,greek3 ho 
dynamenos chorein choreito1 ,matt4 xix4 
#ab71 and also  of the statement in c4  
i4 of the same ,epistle that ,jesus was 
baptized by ,john 'that ,he might fulfil
 all righteousness' 7,greek3  hina      

plaerothae pasa dikaiosynae hup' autou74
 ,this corresponds  with the language of
 ,matt4 iii4 #ae 7,greek3 houtos gar    
prepon  estin haemin plaerosai pasan    
dikaiosynaen71 which also has no        
parallel in the other ,gospels4 ,the use
 of the phrase ,greek3  plaerosai pasan 
dikaiosynaen is so peculiar1 and falls  
in so  entirely with the characteristic 
,christian ,judaizing of our first      
,evangelist1 that it seems especially   
unreasonable to refer it to  any one    
else4 ,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 belong2 indeed all that we know  
of that ,gospel may be said almost      
positively to exclude it4 ,in  this     
,gospel our ,lord is represented as     
saying1 when ,his mother and  ,his      
brethren urge that ,he should accept    
baptism from ,john1 ',what  have ,i     
sinned that ,i should go and be baptized
 by him8' and it is  almost by          

compulsion that ,he is at last induced  
to accompany them4  ,it will be seen    
that this is really an opposite version 
of  the event to that of ,ignatius and  
the first ,gospel1 where the  objection 
comes from ,john and is overruled by our
 ,lord  ,himself ,endnote #ha3a4        
,there is however one quotation1        
introduced as such1 in this same        
,epistle1 the source of which ,eusebius 
did not know1 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  ,hebrews4' ,this      
phrase is attributed to our ,lord when  
,he appeared  'to those about ,peter and
 said to them1 ,handle ,me and see that 
,i  am not an incorporeal spirit'       
7,greek3 psaelaphaesate me1 kai  idete1 
hoti ouk eimi daimonion asomaton74 ,but 
for the statement  of ,origen that these
 words occurred in the ',preaching of   
,peter'  they might have been referred  
without much difficulty to ,luke  xxiv4 

#ci4 ,the ,preaching of ,peter seems to 
have begun with the  ,resurrection1 and 
to have been an offshoot rather in the  
direction  of the ,acts than the        
,gospels ,endnote #ha3b4 ,it would not  
therefore follow from the use of it by  
,ignatius here1 that the  other         
quotations could also be referred to it4
 ,and1 supposing it  to be taken from   
the ',gospel according to the ,hebrews1'
 this would  not annul what has been    
said above as to the reason for thinking
  that ,ignatius 7or the writer who     
bears his name7 cannot have used  that  
,gospel systematically and alone4       
#d4    ,is the ,epistle which purports  
to have been written by ,polycarp to the
  ,philippians to be accepted as        
genuine8 ,it is mentioned in the most   
express terms by ,irenaeus1 who declares
 himself to have been a  disciple of    
,polycarp in his early youth1 and speaks
 enthusiastically  of the teaching which
 he then received4 ,irenaeus was writing
 between  the years #ahj-aij ,a4,d41 and

 ,polycarp is generally allowed to have 
suffered martyrdom about #afg or #afh   
,endnote #hb3a4 ,but the way in  which  
,irenaeus speaks of the ,epistle is such
 as to imply1 not only  that it had been
 for some time in existence1 but also   
that it had  been copied and            
disseminated and had attained a somewhat
 wide  circulation4 ,he is appealing to 
the ,catholic tradition in opposition   
to heretical teaching such as that of   
,valentinus and ,marcion1 and he  says1 
',there is an ,epistle written by       
,polycarp to the ,philippians of  great 
excellence ,greek3 hikanotatae1 from    
which those who wish to  do so and who  
care for their own salvation may learn  
both the  character of his faith and the
 preaching of the truth' ,endnote       
#hb3b4 ,he would hardly have used such  
language if he had not had  reason to   
think that the ,epistle was at least    
fairly accessible to  the ,christians   
for whom he is writing4 ,but allowing   
for the somewhat  slow 7not too slow7   

multiplication and dissemination of     
writings  among the ,christians1 this   
will throw back the composition of the  
letter well into the lifetime of        
,polycarp himself4 ,in any case it  must
 have been current in circles           
immediately connected with  ,polycarp's 
person4    ,against external evidence   
such as this the objections that are    
brought are really of very slight       
weight4 ,that which is reproduced  in   
',supernatural ,religion' from an       
apparent contradiction between  c4 ix   
and c4 xiii1 is dismissed even by       
writers such as ,ritschl  who believe   
that one or both chapters are           
interpolated4 ,in c4 ix  the martyrdom  
of ,ignatius is upheld as an example1 in
 c4 xiii  ,polycarp asks for information
 about ,ignatius 'et de his qui cum eo  
sunt1' apparently as if he were still   
living4 ,but1 apart from the  easy and  
obvious solution which is accepted by   
,ritschl1 following  ,hefele and others1
 ,endnote #hc3a that the sentence is    

extant only  in the ,latin translation  
and that the phrase 'qui cum eo sunt' is
  merely a paraphrase for ,greek3 ton   
met' autou2 apart from this1  even      
supposing the objection were valid1 it  
would prove nothing  against the        
genuineness of the ,epistle4 ,it might  
be taken to prove  that the second      
passage is an interpolation2 but a      
contradiction  between two passages in  
the same writing in no way tends to show
  that that writing is not by its       
ostensible author4 ,but surely  either  
interpolator or forger must have had    
more sense than to  place two such gross
 and absurd contradictions within about 
sixty  lines of each other4    ,an      
argument brought by ,dr4 ,hilgenfeld    
against the date dissolves  away        
entirely on examination4 ,he thinks that
 the exhortation ,orate  pro regibus 7et
 potestatibus et principibus7 in c4 xii 
must needs  refer to the double rule of 
,antoninus ,pius 7#adg ,a4,d47 or       
,marcus  ,aurelius and ,lucius ,verus   

7#afa ,a4,d474 ,but the writer of the   
,epistle is only reproducing the words  
of ,st4 ,paul in #a ,tim4 ii4 #b        
7,greek3 parakalo 444 poieisthai        
deaeseis 444 hyper basileon kai  panton 
ton en hyperochae onton74 ,the passage  
is wrongly referred  in ',supernatural  
,religion' to #a ,pet4 ii4 #ag ,endnote 
#hd3a4 ,it is  very clear that the      
language of ,polycarp1 like that of ,st4
 ,paul1  is quite general4 ,in order to 
limit it to the two ,caesars we  should 
have had to read ,greek3 hyper ton      
basileon4    ,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 century1  
such as the ,acts1 #a  ,peter1 the      
,epistles to the ,philippians and to the
 ,ephesians1 and #a  ,timothy4' ,the    
objection belongs to the gigantic       
confusion of fact  and hypothesis which 

makes up the so-called ,tbingen theory1 
and  falls to the ground with it4    ,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 ,gospels4 ,ritschl     
states  this ,endnote #hd3b2 ,dr4       
,donaldson confines the interpolation to
  c4 xiii ,endnote #hd3c2 and ,volkmar  
not only affirms with his  usual energy 
the genuineness of these portions of the
 ,epistle1 but  he also asserts that the
 allusions are really to our ,gospels   
,endnote #hd3d4    ,the first that meets
 us is in c4 ii1 ',remembering what the 
,lord said  teaching1 judge not that ye 
be not judged2 forgive and it shall be  
forgiven unto you2 pity that ye may be  
pitied2 with what measure ye  mete it   
shall be measured unto you again2 and   
that blessed are the  poor and those who
 are persecuted for righteousness' sake1
 for theirs  is the kingdom of ,god'    
,endnote #he3a4 ,this passage 7if taken 

from our  ,gospels7 is not a continuous 
quotation1 but is made up from ,luke vi4
  #cf-ch1 #bj1 ,matt4 v4 #aj1 or of     
still more disjecta membra of ,st4      
,matthew4 ,it will be seen that it      
covers very similar ground with the     
quotation in ,clement1 and there is also
 a somewhat striking point of           
similarity with that writer in the      
phrase ,greek3 eleeite hina             
eleaetheate4 ,there is moreover a closer
 resemblance than to our  ,gospels in   
the clause ,greek3 aphiete kai          
aphethaesetai humin4 ,but  the order of 
the clauses is entirely different from  
that in ,clement1  and the first clause 
,greek3 mae krinete hina mae krithaete  
is  identical with ,st4 ,matthew and    
more nearly resembles the parallel in   
,st4 ,luke than in ,clement4 ,these are 
perplexing phenomena1 and seem to       
forbid a positive judgment4 ,it would be
 natural to suppose1 and all  that we   
know of the type of doctrine in the     
early ,church would lead us  to believe1

 that the ,sermon on the ,mount would be
 one of the most  familiar parts of     
,christian teaching1 that it would be   
largely  committed to memory and quoted 
from memory4 ,there would be no         
difficulty in employing that hypothesis 
here if the passage stood  alone4 ,the  
breaking up of the order too would not  
surprise us when we  compare the way in 
which the same discourse appears in ,st4
 ,luke and in  ,st4 ,matthew4 ,but then 
comes in the strange coincidence in the 
single  clause with ,clement2 and there 
is also another curious phenomenon1 the 
phrase ,greek3 aphiete kai aphethaesetai
 humin compared with ,luke's  ,greek3   
apoluete kai apoluthaesesthe has very   
much the appearance of  a parallel      
translation from the same ,aramaic      
original1 which may  perhaps be the     
famous ',spruch-sammlung4' ,this might  
however be  explained as the            
substitution of synonymous terms by the 
memory4 ,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 ,gospels1 and1 on the other hand1 
there are considerable  traces of       
disturbance in the ,canonical text      
7compare e4g4 the various  readings on  
,matt4 v4 #dd74 ,it seems on the whole  
difficult to construct  a theory that   
shall meet all the facts4 ,perhaps a    
mixed hypothesis  would be best4 ,it is 
probable that memory has been to some   
extent at  work 7the form of the        
quotation naturally suggests this7 and  
is to  account for some of ,polycarp's  
variations2 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 access4    ,there are several other 
sayings which seem to belong to the     
,sermon  on the ,mount2 thus in c4 vi1  
',if we pray the ,lord to forgive us we 
also ought to forgive' 7cf4 ,matt4 vi4  
#ad sq472 in c4 viii1 ',and if  we      
suffer for ,his name let us glorify     

,him' 7cf4 ,matt4 v4 #aa sq472  in c4   
xii1 ',pray for them that persecute you 
and hate you1 and for  the enemies of   
the cross2 that your fruit may be       
manifest in all  things1 that ye may be 
therein perfect' 7cf4 ,matt4 v4 #dd1    
#dh74 ,all  these passages give the     
sense1 but only the sense1 of the first 
7and partly also of the third7 ,gospel4 
,there is however one  quotation which  
coincides verbally with two of the      
,synoptics  ,praying the all-seeing ,god
 not to lead us into temptation1 as the 
,lord said1 ,the spirit indeed is       
willing but the flesh is weak  7,greek3 
to men pneuma prothumon1 hae de sarx    
asthenaes1 ,matt41  ,mark1 ,polycarp2   
with the introductory clause compare1   
not ,matt4  vi4 #ac1 but xxvi4 #da74 ,in
 the cases where the sense alone is     
given  there is no reason to think that 
the writer intends to give more4  ,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 form1 and not to those portions  
that are peculiar to the  individual    
,evangelists4 ,the author of            
',supernatural ,religion' is  therefore 
not without reason when he says that    
they may be derived  from other         
collections than our actual ,gospels4   
,the possibility  cannot be excluded4   
,it ought however to be borne in mind   
that if  such collections did exist1 and
 if ,polycarp's allusions or  quotations
 are to be referred to them1 they are to
 the same extent  evidence that these   
hypothetical collections did not        
materially  differ from our present     
,gospels1 but rather bore to them very  
much  the same relation that they bear  
to each other4 ,and ,i do not know  that
 we can better sum up the case in regard
 to the ,apostolic  ,fathers than thus2 
we have two alternatives to choose      
between1  either they made use of our   
present ,gospels1 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 tradition4                  
,,chapter ,,iv4    ,,justin ,,martyr4   
,hitherto the extant remains of         
,christian literature have been  scanty 
and the stream of evangelical quotation 
has been equally  so1 but as we approach
 the middle of the second century it    
becomes  much more abundant4 ,we have   
copious quotations from a ,gospel used  
about the year #adj by ,marcion2 the    
,clementine ,homilies1 the date  of     
which however is more uncertain1 also   
contain numerous  quotations2 and there 
are still more in the undoubted works of
  ,justin ,martyr4 ,when ,i speak of    
quotations1 ,i do not wish to beg  the  
question by implying that they are      
necessarily taken from our  present     
,gospels1 ,i merely mean quotations from
 an evangelical  document of some sort4 
,this reservation has to be made        

especially  in regard to ,justin4       
,strictly according to the chronological
 order we should not have  to deal with 
,justin until somewhat later1 but it    
will perhaps be  best to follow the     
order of ',supernatural ,religion1' the 
principle  of which appears to be to    
discuss the orthodox writers first and  
heretical writings afterwards4 ,modern  
critics seem pretty  generally to place 
the two ,apologies in the years #adg-aej
 ,a4,d4 and  the ,dialogue against      
,tryphon a little later4 ,dr4 ,keim     
indeed would  throw forward the date of 
,justin's writings as far as from       
#aee-afj  on account of the mention of  
,marcion ,endnote #hi3a1 but this is    
decided by both ,hilgenfeld ,endnote    
#hi3b and ,lipsius to be too  late4 ,i  
see that ,mr4 ,hort1 whose opinion on   
such matters deserves  high respect1    
comes to the conclusion 'that we may    
without fear of  considerable error set 
down ,justin's ,first ,apology to #ade1 
or  better still to #adf1 and his death 

to #adh4 ,the ,second ,apology1 if      
really separate from the ,first1 will   
then fall in #adf or #adg1 and  the     
,dialogue with ,tryphon about the same  
time' ,endnote #hi3c    ,no definite    
conclusion can be drawn from the title  
given by ,justin to  the work or works  
he used1 that of the ',memoirs' or      
',recollections' of  the ,apostles1 and 
it will be best to leave our further    
enquiry quite  unfettered by any        
assumption in respect to them4 ,the     
title certainly  does not of necessity  
imply a single work composed by the     
,apostles  collectively ,endnote #hi3d1 
any more than the parallel phrase 'the  
writings of the ,prophets' ,endnote     
#hi3e 7,greek3 ta sungrammata ton       
prophaeton71 which ,justin couples with 
the ',memoirs' as read together  in the 
public services of the ,church1 implies 
a single and joint  production on the   
part of the ,prophets4 ,this hypothesis 
too is open to  the very great objection
 that so authoritative a work1 if it    

existed1  should have left absolutely no
 other trace behind it4 ,so far as the  
title is concerned1 the ',memoirs of the
 ,apostles' may be either a  single work
 or an almost indefinite number4 ,in one
 place ,justin says  that the ,memoirs  
were composed 'by ,his ,apostles and    
their followers'  ,endnote #ij3a1 which 
seems to agree remarkably1 though not   
exactly1  with the statement in the     
prologue to ,st4 ,luke4 ,in another he  
says  expressly that the ,memoirs are   
called ,gospels 7,greek3 ha kaleitai    
euangelia7 ,endnote #ij3b4 ,this clause 
has met with the usual fate of          
parenthetic statements which do not     
quite fall in with preconceived         
opinions1 and is dismissed as a         
'manifest interpolation1' a gloss       
having crept into the text from the     
margin4 ,it would be difficult to       
estimate the exact amount of probability
 for or against this theory1  but       
possible at any rate it must be allowed 
to be2 and though the  prim facie view  

of the genuineness of the words is      
supported by  another place in which a  
quotation is referred directly 'to the  
,gospel1' still too much ought not      
perhaps to be built on this clause      
alone4           99       99       99   
99       99    ,a convenient distinction
 may be drawn between the material and  
formal use of the ,gospels2 and the most
 satisfactory method  perhaps will be1  
to run rapidly through ,justin's        
quotations1 first  with a view to       
ascertain their relation to the         
,canonical ,gospels  in respect to their
 general historical tenor1 and secondly 
to  examine the amount of verbal        
agreement4 ,i will try to bring out as  
clearly as possible the double phenomena
 both of agreement and  difference2 the 
former 7in regard to which condensation 
will be  necessary7 will be indicated   
both by touching in the briefest  manner
 the salient points and by the          
references in the margin2 the  latter1  
which ,i have endeavoured to give as    

exhaustively as  possible1 are brought  
out by italics in the text4 ,the thread 
of  the narrative then1 so far as it can
 be extracted from the genuine  writings
 of ,justin1 will be much as follows    
,endnote #ia3a4                         
,according to ,justin the ,messiah      
was born1 without sin1 of a  ,,sidenotes
       virgin who was descended from    
,,sidenotes  ,matt4 #a4b-f4    ,david1  
,jesse1 ,phares1 ,judah1        ,luke   
#c4ca-cd4                    ,jacob1    
,isaac1 and ,abraham1 if                
not 7the reading here is doubtful7      
from ,adam himself4 ,justin             
therefore1 it may be inferred1 had      
before him a genealogy1 though          
not apparently1 as the ,canonical       
,gospels1 that of ,joseph but of        
,mary4 ,to ,mary it was announced       
by the angel ,gabriel                   
,luke #a4bf4                    that1   
while yet a virgin1 the                 
power of ,god1 or of the ,highest1      
,luke #a4ce4                    should  

overshadow her and she                  
should conceive and bear a ,son         
,luke #a4ca4  ,matt4 #a4ba4     whose   
name she should call ,jesus1            
because ,he should save ,his            
people from their sins4 ,joseph         
observing that ,mary1 his espoused1     
was with child was  ,matt4 #a4ah-be4    
warned in a dream not to put            
her away1 because that which            
was in her womb was of the              
,holy ,ghost4 ,thus the prophecy1       
,matt4 #a4bc4     ,is4 vii4 #ad 7,behold
 the                    virgin c471 was 
fulfilled4 ,the                         
mother of ,john the ,baptist was        
,luke #a4eg4                            
,elizabeth4 ,the birth-place of         
the ,messiah had been indicated  ,matt4 
#b4e1 #f4   by the prophecy of ,micah   
7v4 #b1                    ,bethlehem   
not the least among                     
the princes of ,judah74 ,there          
,he was born1 as the ,romans            
might learn from the census             

taken by ,cyrenius the first            
procurator ,greek3                ,luke 
#b4a1 #b4                    epitropou  
of ,judaea4                    ,his life
 extended from ,cyrenius                
to ,pontius ,pilate4 ,so1 in            
consequence of this the first census    
in ,judaea1 ,joseph went up from        
,nazareth where he dwelt to             
,luke #b4d4                             
,bethlehem whence he was1 as a          
member of the tribe of ,judah4          
,the parents of ,jesus could find       
no lodging in ,bethlehem1 so it         
,luke #b4g4                    came to  
pass that ,he was born                  
in a cave near the village and          
laid in a manger4 ,at ,his birth        
ibid4  ,matt4 #b4a4      there came     
,magi from ,arabia1                     
who knew by a star that had             
appeared in the heaven that a  ,matt4   
#b4b4      king had been born in        
,judaea4                    ,having paid
 ,him their homage  ,matt4 #b4aa4       

and offered gifts of gold1 frankincense 
and myrrh1 they were  ,matt4 #b4ab4     
warned not to return to ,herod  ,matt4  
#b4 #a-g4   whom they had consulted on  
the way4 ,he however not willing        
that the ,child should escape1  ,matt4  
#b4af4     ordered a massacre of all the
                    children in         
,bethlehem1 fulfilling  ,matt4 #b4ag1   
#ah4 the prophecy of ,jer4 xxxi4 #ae    
7,rachel weeping for her children c474  
,joseph and his wife meanwhile  ,matt4  
#b4ac-ae4  with the ,babe had fled      
to ,egypt1 for the ,father resolved     
that ,he to whom ,he had                
given birth should not die before       
,he had preached ,his word              
as a man4 ,there they stayed  ,matt4    
#b4bb      until ,archelaus succeeded   
,herod1                    and then     
returned4                      ,by      
process of nature ,he grew              
to the age of thirty years or           
,luke #c4bc4                    more1   
not comely of aspect 7as                

had been prophesied71 practising  ,mark 
#f4c4       the trade of a carpenter1   
making                    ploughs and   
yokes1 emblems of                       
righteousness4 ,he remained             
hidden till ,john1 the herald of        
his coming1 came forward1 the  ,matt    
#ag4ab1 #ac4 spirit of ,elias being in  
him1 and  ,matt4 #c4b4      as he sat by
 the river ,jordan     ,luke #c4c4      
cried to men to repent4 ,as he  ,matt4  
#c4d4      preached in his wild garb he 
declared that he was not the            
,john #a4ai ff4                         
,christ1 but that ,one stronger  ,matt4 
#c4aa1 #ab4 than he was coming after him
        ,luke #c4 #af1 #ag4             
whose shoes he was not worthy           
to bear1 c4 ,the later history          
of ,john ,justin also mentions1  ,matt4 
#ad4c4     how1 having been put in      
prison1     ,luke #c4bj4                
at a feast on ,herod's birthday  ,matt4 
#ad4f ff4  he was beheaded at the       
instance                    of his      

sister's daughter4 ,this  ,matt4        
#ag4aa-ac4 ,john was ,elias who was to  
come                    before the      
,christ4                      ,at the   
baptism of ,jesus a fire                
was kindled on the ,jordan1 and1        
as ,he went up out of the water1  ,matt4
 #c4af4     the ,holy ,ghost alighted   
upon        ,luke #c4ba1 #bb4           
,him1 and a voice was heard from        
heaven saying in the words of           
,david1 ',thou art ,my ,son1 this       
day have ,i begotten ,thee4' ,after     
,matt4 #d4a1 #i4   ,his baptism ,he was 
tempted by                    the devil1
 who ended by claiming                  
homage from ,him4 ,to this              
,christ replied1 ',get thee behind      
,matt #d4aa4      ,me1 ,satan1' c4 ,so  
the devil        ,luke #d4ac4           
departed from ,him at that time         
worsted and convicted4                  
,justin knew that the words             
of ,jesus were short and concise1       
not like those of a ,sophist4 ,that     

,he wrought miracles might be           
learnt from the ,acts of ,pontius       
,pilate1 fulfilling ,is4 xxxv4 #d-f4    
,matt4 #i4bi-ca1   ,those who from their
 birth were   ,luke #ah4ce-dc4  #cb1    
#cc4 #a-h4     blind1 dumb1 lame1 ,he   
healed--      ,luke #aa4ad ff4  ,matt4  
#d4bc4     indeed ,he healed all        
sickness and   ,luke #e4ag-bf4  ,matt   
#i4ah ff4   disease--and ,he raised the 
dead4    ,luke #h4da ff4                
,the ,jews ascribed these miracles      
,luke #g4 #aa-ah4                    to 
magic4                      ,jesus1 too 
7like ,john1 whose                      
mission ceased when ,he appeared        
in public71 began ,his ministry  ,matt  
#d4ag4      by proclaiming that the     
kingdom                    of heaven was
 at hand4                    ,many      
precepts of the ,sermon                 
on the ,mount ,justin has preserved1    
,matt #e4bj4      the righteousness of  
the  ,matt #e4bh4      ,scribes and     
,pharisees1 the  ,matt #e4bi-cb4        

adultery of the heart1 the offending    
,matt #e4cd1 #cg1   eye1 divorce1 oaths1
 returning          #ci  ,matt #e4dd4   
good for evil1 loving and praying  ,matt
 #e4db4      for enemies1 giving to     
those that   ,luke #f4cj4  ,matt #f4ai1 
#bj4  need1 placing the treasure in     
,matt #f4be-bg4   heaven1 not caring for
 bodily       ,luke #ab4bb-bd4  ,matt   
#e4de4      wants1 but copying the mercy
  ,matt #f4ba1 c4  and goodness of ,god1
 not acting                    from     
worldly motives--above all1  ,matt      
#g4bb1 #bc4  deeds not words4           
,luke #ac4bf1 #bg4                      
,justin quotes sayings from  ,matt4     
#h4aa1 #ab4 the narrative of the        
centurion      ,luke #ac4bh1 #bi4       
,matt4 #i4ac4     of ,capernaum and of  
the feast       ,luke #e4cb4            
in the house of ,matthew4 ,he  ,matt4   
#aj4a ff4  has1 the choosing of the     
twelve     ,luke #f4ac4                 
,apostles1 with the name given  ,mark   
#c4ag4      to the sons of ,zebedee1    

,boanerges                    or 'sons  
of thunder1' the com-                   
mission of the ,apostles1 the           
,luke #aj4ai4  ,matt4 #aa4ab-ae4        
discourse after the departure of        
,luke #af4af4                    the    
messengers of ,john1 the  ,matt4 #af4d4 
sign of the prophet ,jonas1 the  ,matt4 
#ac4c ff4  parable of the sower1        
,peter's       ,luke #h4e ff4  ,matt4   
#af4ae-ah4 confession1 the announcement 
of     ,luke #i4bb4  ,matt4 #af4ba4     
the ,passion4                      ,from
 the account of the last                
journey and the closing scenes          
of our ,lord's life1 ,justin has1       
,matt4 #ai4af1ag4 the history of the    
rich young       ,luke #ah4ah1ai4       
,matt4 #ba4a ff4  man1 the entry into   
,jerusalem1      ,luke #ai4bi ff4       
the cleansing of the ,temple1 the       
,luke #ai4df4  ,matt4 #bb4aa4    wedding
 garment1 the controversial             
discourses about the                    
,luke #bj4bb-be4  ,matt4 #bb4ba4        

tribute money1 the resurrection1        
,luke #bj4ce1cf4  ,matt4 #bb4cg1ch4 and 
the greatest commandment1  ,matt4 #bc4b 
ff4  those directed against the ,pha-   
,luke #aa4db1eb4  ,matt4 #be4cd1da4     
risees and the eschatological  ,matt4   
#be4ad-cj4 discourse1 the parable of the
                    talents4 ,justin's  
account of the                          
institution of the ,lord's ,supper      
,luke #bb4ai1bj4                        
agrees with that of ,luke4 ,after       
,matt4 #bf4cj4    it ,jesus sang a hymn1
 and taking  ,matt4 #bf4cf1cg4 with ,him
 three of ,his disciples                
to the ,mount of ,olives ,he was        
in an agony1 ,his sweat falling in      
,luke #bb4db-dd4                        
drops 7not necessarily of blood7        
to the ground4 ,his captors             
surrounded ,him like the 'horned        
bulls' of ,ps4 xxii4 #aa-ad2 there      
,matt4 #bf4ef4    was none to help1 for 
,his followers                    to a  
man forsook ,him4  ,matt4 #bf4eg ff4 ,he

 was led both before the          ,luke 
#bb4ff ff4                    ,scribes  
and ,pharisees and before  ,matt4 #bg4aa
 ff4 ,pilate4 ,in the trial before      
,pilate  ,luke #bc4a ff4  ,matt4 #bg4ad 
,he kept silence1 as ,ps4 xxii4 #ae4    
,pilate sent ,him bound to ,herod4      
,luke #bc4g4                            
,justin relates most of the incidents   
of the ,crucifixion in detail1          
for confirmation of which he refers     
to the ,acts of ,pilate4 ,he marks      
especially the fulfilment in various    
places of ,ps4 xxii4 ,he has the        
piercing with nails1 the casting of     
,luke #bd4dj4  ,matt4 #bg4ce4    lots   
and dividing of the garments1  ,luke    
#bc4cd4  ,matt4 #bg4ci ff4 the sneers of
 the crowd           ,luke #bc4ce4      
7somewhat expanded from the  ,matt4     
#bg4db4    ,synoptics71 and their taunt1
 ,he                    who raised the  
dead let ,him save  ,matt4 #bg4df4      
,himself2 also the cry of despair1      
',my ,god1 ,my ,god1 why hast           

,thou forsaken ,me8' and the last       
words1 ',father1 into ,thy hands        
,luke #bc4df4                    ,i     
commend ,my ,spirit4'    ,matt4         
#bg4eg-fj4 ,the burial took place in the
                    evening1 the        
disciples being all  ,matt4 #bf4ca1ef4  
scattered in accordance with            
,zech4 xiii4 #g4 ,on the third day1     
,luke #bd4ba4  ,matt4 #bh4a ff4  the day
 of the sun or the first     ,luke #bd4a
 ff4                    7or eighth7 day 
of the week1                    ,jesus  
rose from the dead4 ,he                 
then convinced ,his disciples that      
,his sufferings had been prophe-        
,luke #bd4bf1 #df4                      
tically foretold and they repented      
,luke #bd4cb4                    of     
having deserted ,him4 ,having           
given them ,his last commission         
they saw ,him ascend up into            
,luke #bd4ej4                    heaven4
 ,thus believing and                    
having first waited to receive          

power from ,him they went forth         
into all the world and preached         
the word of ,god4 ,to this day  ,matt4  
#bh4ai     ,christians baptize in the   
name                    of the ,father  
of all1 and of our                      
,saviour ,jesus ,christ1 and of the     
,holy ,ghost4    ,matt4 #bh4ab-ae4 ,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 heaven4                   
,there is nothing in ,justin 7as        
in ,luke xxiv1 but cp4 ,acts i4 #c7     
to show that the ,ascension did         
not take place on the same day          
as the ,resurrection4    ,i have taken  
especial pains in the above summary to  
bring out the  points in which ,justin  
way seem to differ from or add to the   
canonical narratives4 ,but1 without     
stopping at present to consider  the    
bearing of these upon ,justin's relation

 to the ,gospels1 ,i will  at once      
proceed to make some general remarks    
which the summary  seems to suggest4    
7#a7 ,if such is the outline of         
,justin's ,gospel1 it appears to be     
really a question of comparatively small
 importance whether or not  he made use 
of our present ,gospels in their present
 form4 ,if he  did not use these        
,gospels he used other documents which  
contained  substantially the same       
matter4 ,the question of the reality of 
miracles clearly is not affected4       
,justin's documents1 whatever  they     
were1 not only contained repeated       
notices of the miracles in  general1 the
 healing of the lame and the paralytic1 
of the maimed  and the dumb1 and the    
raising of the dead--not only did they  
include several discourses1 such as the 
reply to the messengers of  ,john and   
the saying to the ,centurion whose      
servant was healed1  which have direct  
reference to miracles1 but they also    
give marked  prominence to the chief and

 cardinal miracles of the ,gospel       
history1 the ,incarnation and the       
,resurrection4 ,it is antecedently      
quite possible that the narrative of    
these events may have been  derived from
 a document other than our ,gospels2    
but1 if so1 that  is only proof of the  
existence of further and independent    
evidence  to the truth of the history4  
,this document1 supposing it to exist1  
is a surprising instance of the         
homogeneity of the evangelical          
tradition2 it differs from the three    
,synoptic ,gospels1 nay1 we may  say    
even from the four ,gospels1 less than  
they differ from  each other4    7#b7   
,but we may go further than this4 ,if   
,justin really used a  separate         
substantive document now lost1 that     
document1 to judge  from its contents1  
must have represented a secondary1 or   
rather a  tertiary1 stage of the        
evangelical literature2 it must have    
implied the previous existence of our   
present ,gospels4 ,i do not  now allude 

to the presence in it of added traits1  
such as the cave  of the ,nativity and  
the fire on ,jordan1 which are of the   
nature of  those mythical details that  
we find more fully developed in the     
,apocryphal ,gospels4 ,i do not so much 
refer to these--though1 for  instance1  
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 7and ,justinian7 
saying1 ',he shall baptize with the     
,holy  ,ghost and with fire'--but1 on   
general grounds1 the relation which     
this supposed document bears to the     
extant ,gospels shows that it  must have
 been in point of time posterior to     
them4    ,the earlier stages of         
evangelical composition present a       
nucleus1  with a more or less defined   
circumference1 of unity1 and outside  of
 this a margin of variety4 ,there was a 
certain body of  narrative1 which1 in   
whatever form it was handed             
down--whether as  oral or written--at a 

very early date obtained a sort of      
general  recognition1 and seems to have 
been as a matter of course  incorporated
 in the evangelical works as they       
appeared4    ,besides this there was    
also other matter which1 without such   
general recognition1 had yet a          
considerable circulation1 and1  though  
not found in all1 was embodied in more  
than one of the  current compilations4  
,but1 as we should naturally expect1    
these  two classes did not exhaust the  
whole of the evangelical matter4  ,each 
successive historian found himself able 
by special researches  to add something 
new and as yet unpublished to the common
 stock4  ,thus1 the first of our present
 ,evangelists has thirty-five  sections 
or incidents besides the whole of the   
first two chapters  peculiar to himself4
 ,the third ,evangelist has also two    
long  chapters of preliminary history1  
and as many as fifty-six sections  or   
incidents which have no parallel in the 
other ,gospels4 ,much of  this peculiar 

matter in each case bears an individual 
and  characteristic stamp4 ,the opening 
chapters of the first and third         
,synoptics evidently contain two        
distinct and independent  traditions4   
,so independent indeed are they1 that   
the negative  school of critics maintain
 them to be irreconcilable1 and the     
attempts to harmonise them have         
certainly not been completely           
successful ,endnote #aja3a4 ,these      
differences1 however1 show what  rich   
quarries of tradition were open to the  
enquirer in the first  age of           
,christianity1 and how readily he might 
add to the stores  already accumulated  
by his predecessors4 ,but this state of 
things  did not last long4 ,as in most  
cases of the kind1 the productive       
period soon ceased1 and the later       
writers had a choice of two  things1    
either to harmonise the conflicting     
records of previous  historians1 or to  
develope their details in the manner    
that we  find in the ,apocryphal        

,gospels4    ,but if ,justin used a     
single and separate document or any set 
of  documents independent of the        
canonical1 then we may say with         
confidence that that document or set of 
documents belonged entirely to  this    
secondary stage4 ,it possesses both the 
marks of secondary  formation4 ,such    
details as are added to the previous    
evangelical  tradition are just of that 
character which we find in the          
,apocryphal  ,gospels4 ,but these       
details are comparatively slight and    
insignificant2  the main tendency of    
,justin's ,gospel 7supposing it to be a 
separate  composition7 was harmonistic4 
,the writer can hardly have been        
ignorant  of our ,canonical ,gospels2 he
 certainly had access1 if not to them1  
yet  to the sources1 both general and   
special1 from which they are taken4  ,he
 not only drew from the main body of the
 evangelical tradition1 but  also from  
those particular and individual strains 
which appear in the  first and third    

,synoptics4 ,he has done this in the    
spirit of a true  desultor1 passing     
backwards and forwards first to one and 
then to  the other1 inventing no middle 
links1 but merely piecing together the  
two accounts as best he could4 ,indeed  
the preliminary portions of  ,justin's  
,gospel read very much like the sort of 
rough prim facie  harmony which1 without
 any more profound study1 most people   
make for  themselves4 ,but the          
harmonising process necessarily implies 
matter to  harmonise1 and that matter   
must have had the closest possible      
resemblance to the contents of our      
,gospels4    ,if1 then1 ,justin made use
 either of a single document or set of  
documents distinct from those which have
 become canonical1 we  conclude that it 
or they belonged to a later and more    
advanced  stage of formation4 ,but it   
should be remembered that the case is a 
hypothetical one4 ,the author of        
',supernatural ,religion' seems         
inclined to maintain that ,justin did   

use such a document or  documents1 and  
not our ,gospels4 ,if he did1 then the  
consequence  above stated seems to      
follow4 ,but ,i do not at all care to   
press  this inference2 it is no more    
secure than the premiss upon which  it  
is founded4 ,only it seems to me that   
the choice lies between  two            
alternatives and no more2 either ,justin
 used our ,gospels1 or  else he used a  
document later than our ,gospels and    
presupposing  them4 ,the reader may take
 which side of the alternative he       
pleases4    ,the question is1 which     
hypothesis best covers and explains the 
facts4 ,it is not impossible that       
,justin may have had a special  ,gospel 
such as has just been described4 ,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      
forms4 ,but a large majority of  critics
 regard the ,gospel according to the    

,hebrews as holding  precisely this     
secondary relation to the canonical     
,matthew4  ,justin's document can hardly
 have been the ,gospel according to the 
,hebrews1 at least alone1 as that       
,gospel omitted the section ,matt4  i4  
#ah-;ii4 #bc ,endnote #ajc3a1 which     
,justin certainly retained4 ,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 case4 ,for my own 
part1 ,i think it decidedly the more    
probable hypothesis that he  used our   
present ,gospels with some peculiar     
document1 such as this  ,gospel         
according to the ,hebrews1 or perhaps1  
as ,dr4 ,hilgenfeld  thinks1 the ground 
document of the ,gospel according to    
,peter 7a  work of which we know next to
 nothing except that it favoured        
,docetism and was not very unlike the   
,canonical ,gospels7 and the            
,protevangelium of ,james 7or some older

 document on which that work  was       
founded7 in addition4    ,it will be    
well to try to establish this position a
 little more in  detail2 and therefore  
,i will proceed to collect first1 the   
evidence for the use1 either mediate or 
direct1 of the ,synoptic  ,gospels1 and 
secondly1 that for the use of one or    
more ,apocryphal  ,gospels4 ,we still   
keep to the substance of ,justin's      
,gospel1 and  reserve the question of   
its form4    ,of those portions of the  
first ,synoptic which appear to be      
derived  from a peculiar source1 and for
 the presence of which we have no       
evidence in any other ,gospel of the    
same degree of originality1  ,justin has
 the following3 ,joseph's suspicions of 
his wife1 the  special statement of the 
significance of the name ,jesus 7'for   
,he  shall save ,his people from their  
sins1' ,matt4 i4 #ba1 verbally          
identical71 the note upon the fulfilment
 of the prophecy ,is4 vii4  #ad         
7',behold a virgin1' c471 the visit of  

the ,magi guided by a  star1 their      
peculiar gifts1 their consultation of   
,herod and the  warning given them not  
to return to him1 the massacre of the   
children at ,bethlehem1 fulfilling ,jer4
 xxxi4 #ae1 the descent into  ,egypt1   
the return of the ,holy ,family at the  
succession of  ,archelaus4 ,the         
,temptations ,justin gives in the order 
of ,matthew4  ,from the ,sermon on the  
,mount he has the verses v4 #ad1 #bj1   
#bh1 vi4  #a1 vii4 #ae1 #ba1 and from   
the controversial discourse against the 
,pharisees1 xxiii4 #ae1 #bd1 which are  
without parallels4 ,the  prophecy1 ,is4 
xlii4 #a-d1 is applied as by ,matthew   
alone4 ,there is  an apparent allusion  
to the parable of the wedding garment4  
,the  comment of the disciples upon the 
identification of the ,baptist  with    
,elias 7,matt4 xvii4 #ac71 the sign of  
the prophet ,jonas  7,matt4 xvi4 #a1    
#d71 and the triumphal entry 7the ass   
with the  colt71 show a special affinity
 to ,st4 ,matthew4 ,and1 lastly1 in     

concert with the same ,evangelist1      
,justin has the calumnious report  of   
the ,jews 7,matt4 xxviii4 #ab #ae7 and  
the baptismal formula 7,matt4  xxviii4  
#ai74    ,of the very few details that  
are peculiar to ,st4 ,mark1 ,justin has 
the somewhat remarkable one of the      
bestowing of the surname  ,boanerges on 
the sons of ,zebedee4 ,mark also appears
 to approach  most nearly to ,justin in 
the statements that ,jesus practised the
  trade of a carpenter 7cf4 ,mark vi4   
#c7 and that ,he healed those who  were 
diseased from their birth 7cf4 ,mark ix4
 #ba71 and  perhaps in the emphasis upon
 the oneness of ,god in the reply       
respecting the greatest commandment4    
,in common with ,st4 ,luke1 ,justin has 
the mission of the angel  ,gabriel to   
,mary1 the statement that ,elizabeth was
 the mother of  ,john1 that the census  
was taken under ,cyrenius1 that ,joseph 
went  up from ,nazareth to ,bethlehem   
,greek3 hothen aen1 that no room  was   
found in the inn1 that ,jesus was thirty

 years old when ,he  began ,his         
ministry1 that ,he was sent from ,pilate
 to ,herod1 with  the account of ,his   
last words4 ,there are also special     
affinities  in the phrase quoted from   
the charge to the ,seventy 7,luke x4    
#ai71  in the verse ,luke xi4 #eb1 in   
the account of the answer to the rich   
young man1 of the institution of the    
,lord's ,supper1 of the ,agony  in the  
,garden1 and of the ,resurrection and   
,ascension4    ,these coincidences are  
of various force4 ,some of the single   
verses  quoted1 though possessing       
salient features in common1 have also1  
as we shall see1 more or less marked    
differences4 ,too much stress  should   
not be laid on the allegation of the    
same prophecies1  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 quoted4 ,but there are 
other  points of high importance4 ,just 
in proportion as an event is from  a    

historical point of view suspicious1 it 
is significant as a  proof of the use of
 the ,gospel in which it is contained2  
such  would be the adoration of the     
,magi1 the slaughter of the  innocents1 
the flight into ,egypt1 the conjunction 
of the foal with  the ass in the entry  
into ,jerusalem4 ,all these are strong  
evidence  for the use of the first      
,gospel1 which is confirmed in the      
highest  degree by the occurrence of a  
reflection peculiar to the  ,evangelist1
 ',then the disciples understood that   
,he spake unto them  of ,john the       
,baptist' 7,matt4 xvii4 #ac1 compare    
,dial4 #di74 ,of the  same nature are   
the allusions to the census of ,cyrenius
 7there is  no material discrepancy     
between ,luke and ,justin71 and the     
statement of the age at which the       
ministry of ,jesus began4 ,these  are   
almost certainly remarks by the third   
,evangelist himself1 and  not found in  
any previously existing source4 ,the    
remand to ,herod  in all probability    

belonged to a source that was quite     
peculiar to  him4 ,the same may be said 
with only a little less confidence of   
the sections of the preliminary history4
    ,taking these salient points        
together with the mass of the           
coincidences each in its place1 and with
 the due weight assigned  to it1 the    
conviction seems forced upon us that    
,justin did either  mediately or        
immediately1 and most probably          
immediately and  directly1 make use of  
our ,canonical ,gospels4    ,on the     
other hand1 the argument that he used1  
whether in addition  to these or        
exclusively1 a ,gospel now lost1 rests  
upon the  following data4 ,justin       
apparently differs from the ,synoptics  
in  giving the genealogy of ,mary1 not  
of ,joseph4 ,in ,apol4 i4 #cd he  says  
that ,cyrenius was the first governor   
7procurator7 of ,judaea1  instead of    
saying that the census first took place 
under ,cyrenius4  ,it should be         
remarked1 however1 that in another      

place1 ,dial4 #gh1  he speaks of 'the   
census which then took place for the    
first time  7,greek3 ousaes tote        
protaes7 under ,cyrenius4' ,he states   
that  ,mary brought forth her ,son in a 
cave near the village of  ,bethlehem4   
,he ten times over speaks of the ,magi  
as coming from  ,arabia1 and not merely 
from the ,east4 ,he says emphatically   
that  all the children 7,greek3 pantas  
haplos tous paidas7 in ,bethlehem  were 
slain without mentioning the limitation 
of age given in ,st4  ,matthew4 ,he     
alludes to details in the humble        
occupation of ,jesus  who practised the 
trade of a carpenter4 ,speaking of the  
ministry  of ,john1 he three times      
repeats the phrase 'as he sat' by  the  
river ,jordan4 ,at the baptism of ,jesus
 he says that 'fire was  kindled on' or 
rather 'in the ,jordan1' and that a     
voice was heard  saying1 ',thou art ,my 
,son1 this day have ,i begotten ,thee4' 
,he adds  to the notice of the miracles 
that the ,jews thought they were the    

effect of magic4 ,twice he refers1 as   
evidence for what he is  saying1 to the 
,acts of ,pontius ,pilate4 ,in two      
places ,justin sees a  fulfilment of    
,ps4 xxii1 where none is pointed out by 
the  ,synoptics4 ,he says that all the  
disciples forsook their  ,master1 which 
seems to overlook ,peter's attack on the
 high  priest's servant4 ,in the account
 of the ,crucifixion he somewhat        
amplifies the ,synoptic version of the  
mocking gestures of the  crowd4 ,and    
besides these matters of fact he has two
 sayings1 ',in  whatsoever ,i find you1 
therein will ,i also judge you1' and    
',there  shall be schisms and heresies1'
 which are without parallel1 or  have no
 exact parallel1 in our ,gospels4       
,some of these points are not of any    
great importance4 ,the  reference to the
 ,acts of ,pilate should in all         
probability be taken  along with the    
parallel reference to the census of     
,cyrenius1 in  which ,justin asserts    
that the birth of ,jesus would be found 

registered4 ,both appear to be based1   
not upon any actual document  that      
,justin had seen1 but upon the bold     
assumption that the  official documents 
must contain a record of facts which he 
knew  from other sources ,endnote       
#ajg3a4 ,in regard to ,cyrenius he      
evidently has the ,lucan version in his 
mind1 though he seems to  have confused 
this with his knowledge that ,cyrenius  
was the first  to exercise the ,roman   
sovereignty in ,judaea1 which was matter
 of  history4 ,justin seems to be       
mistaken in regarding ,cyrenius as      
'procurator' ,greek3 epitropou of       
,judaea4 ,he instituted the  census not 
in this capacity1 but as proconsul of   
,syria4 ,the first  procurator of       
,judaea was ,coponius4 ,some of         
,justin's peculiarities  may quite      
fairly be explained as unintentional4   
,general statements  without the due    
qualifications1 such as those in regard 
to the  massacre of the children and the
 conduct of the disciples in            

,gethsemane1 are met with frequently    
enough to this day1 and in  works of a  
more professedly critical character than
 ,justin's4 ,the  description of the    
carpenter's trade and of the crowd at   
the  ,crucifixion may be merely         
rhetorical amplifications in the one    
case of the general ,synoptic statement1
 in the other of the  special statement 
in ,st4 ,mark4 ,a certain fulness of    
style is  characteristic of ,justin4    
,that he attributes the genealogy to    
,mary  may be a natural instance of     
reflection2 the inconsistency in the    
,synoptic ,gospels would not be at first
 perceived1 and the simplest  way of    
removing it would be that which ,justin 
has adopted4 ,it  should be noticed     
however that he too distinctly says that
 ,joseph  was of the tribe of ,judah    
7,dial4 #gh7 and that his family came   
from  ,bethlehem1 which looks very much 
like an unobliterated trace of  the same
 inconsistency4 ,it is also noticeable  
that in the  narrative of the ,baptism  

one of the best ,,mss4 of the ,old      
,latin 7a1  ,codex ,vercellensis7 has1  
in the form of an addition to ,matt4    
iii4  #ae1 'et cum baptizaretur lumen   
ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut      
timerent omnes qui advenerant1' and     
there is a very similar  addition in g#a
 7,codex ,san-,germanensis74 ,again1 in 
,luke iii4 #bb the  reading ,greek3 ego 
saemeron gegennaeka se for ,greek3 en   
soi  eudokaesa is shared with ,justin by
 the most important ,graeco-  ,latin    
,,ms4 ,d 7,codex ,bezae71 and a1 b1 c1  
ff1 l of the ,old ,version2  ,augustine 
expressly states that the reading was   
found 'in several  respectable copies   
7aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus71   
though  not in the older ,greek         
,codices4'    ,there will then remain   
the specifying of ,arabia as the home of
 the  ,magi1 the phrase ,greek3         
kathezomenos used of ,john on the banks 
of the ,jordan1 the two unparallelled   
sentences1 and the cave of  the         
,nativity4 ,of these the phrase ,greek3 

kathezomenos1 which  occurs in three    
places1 ,dial4 #di1 #ea1 #hh1 but always
 in ,justin's  own narrative and not in 
quotation1 may be an accidental         
recurrence2 and it is not impossible    
that the other items may be  derived    
from an unwritten tradition4    ,still1 
on the whole1 ,i incline to think that  
though there is not  conclusive proof   
that ,justin used a lost ,gospel besides
 the  present ,canonical ,gospels1 it is
 the more probable hypothesis of  the   
two that he did4 ,the explanations given
 above seem to me  reasonable and       
possible2 they are enough1 ,i think1 to 
remove the  necessity for assuming a    
lost document1 but perhaps not  quite   
enough to destroy the greater           
probability4 ,this conclusion1  we shall
 find1 will be confirmed when we pass   
from considering the  substance of      
,justin's ,gospel to its form4    ,but  
now if we ask ourselves what was this   
hypothetical lost  document1 all we can 
say is1 ,i believe1 that the suggestions

  hitherto offered are insufficient4    
,the ,gospels according to the  ,hebrews
 or according to ,peter and the         
,protevangelium of ,james have  been    
most in favour4 ,the ,gospel according  
to the ,hebrews in the  form in which it
 was used by the ,nazarenes contained   
the fire upon  ,jordan1 and as used by  
the ,ebionites it had also the voice1   
',this  day have ,i begotten ,thee4'    
,credner ,endnote #aaj3a1 and after him 
,hilgenfeld ,endnote #aaj3b1 thought    
that the ,gospel according to  ,peter   
was used4 ,but we know next to nothing  
about this ,gospel1  except that it was 
nearly related to the ,gospel according 
to the  ,hebrews1 that it made the      
'brethren of the ,lord' sons of ,joseph 
by  a former wife1 that it was found by 
,serapion in the churches of  his       
diocese1 ,rhossus in ,cilicia1 that its 
use was at first  permitted but         
afterwards forbidden1 as it was found to
 favour  ,docetism1 and that its        
contents were in the main orthodox      

though  in some respects perverted      
,endnote #aaj3c4 ,obviously these facts 
and the name 7which falls in with the   
theory--itself also somewhat            
unsubstantial--that ,justin's ,gospel   
must have a ',petrine'  character7 are  
quite insufficient to build upon4 ,the  
,protevangelium  of ,james1 which it is 
thought might have been used in an      
earlier  form than that which has come  
down to us1 contains the legend of  the 
cave1 and has apparently a similar view 
to the ,gospel last  mentioned as to the
 perpetual virginity of ,mary4 ,the     
kindred  ,evangelium ,thomae has the    
'ploughs and yokes4' ,and there are some
  similarities of language between the  
,protevangelium and ,justin's  ,gospel1 
which will come under review later      
,endnote #aaj3d4    ,it does not1       
however1 appear to have been noticed    
that these  ,gospels satisfy most       
imperfectly the conditions of the       
problem4 ,we  know that the ,gospel     
according to the ,hebrews in its        

,nazarene form  omitted the whole       
section ,matt4 i4 #ah--;ii4 #bc1        
containing the  conception1 the         
nativity1 the visit of the ,magi1 and   
the flight  into ,egypt1 all of which   
were found in ,justin's ,gospel2 while  
in  its ,ebionite form it left out the  
first two chapters altogether4  ,there  
is not a tittle of evidence to show that
 the ,gospel  according to ,peter was   
any more complete2 in proportion as it  
resembled the ,gospel according to the  
,hebrews the presumption is  that it was
 not4 ,and the ,protevangelium of ,james
 makes no mention  of ,arabia1 while it 
expressly says that the star appeared   
'in the  ,east' 7instead of 'in the     
heaven' as ,justin72 it also omits1 and 
rather seems to exclude1 the flight into
 ,egypt4    ,it is therefore clear that 
whether ,justin used these ,gospels or  
not1 he cannot in any case have confined
 himself to them2 unless  indeed this is
 possible in regard to the ,gospel that 
bears the  name of ,peter1 though the   

possibility is drawn so entirely from   
our ignorance that it can hardly be     
taken account of4 ,we thus seem  to be  
reduced to the conclusion that ,justin's
 ,gospel or ,gospels  was an unknown    
entity of which no historical evidence  
survives1  and this would almost be     
enough1 according to the logical ,law of
  ,parsimony1 to drive us back upon the 
assumption that our present  ,gospels   
only had been used4 ,this assumption    
however still does not  appear to me    
wholly satisfactory1 for reasons which  
will come out  more clearly when from   
considering the matter of the documents 
which ,justin used we pass to their     
form4           99       99       99    
99       99    ,the reader already has  
before him a collection of ,justin's    
quotations from the ,old ,testament1 the
 results of which may be  stated thus4  
,from the ,pentateuch eighteen passages 
are quoted  exactly1 nineteen with      
slight variations1 and eleven with      
marked  divergence4 ,from the ,psalms   

sixteen exactly1 including nine 7or     
ten7 whole ,psalms1 two with slight and 
three with decided  variation4 ,from    
,isaiah twenty-five exactly1 twelve     
slightly  variant1 and sixteen          
decidedly4 ,from the other ,major       
,prophets  ,justin has only three exact 
quotations1 four slightly divergent1    
and eleven diverging more widely4 ,from 
the ,minor ,prophets and  other books he
 has two exact quotations1 seven in     
which the  variation is slight1 and     
thirteen in which it is marked4 ,of the 
distinctly free quotations in the       
,pentateuch 7eleven in all71  three may 
be thought to have a ,messianic         
character 7the burning  bush1 the brazen
 serpent1 the curse of the cross71 but  
in none of  these does the variation    
appear to be due to this4 ,of the three 
free quotations from the ,psalms two are
 ,messianic1 and one of  these has      
probably been influenced by the         
,messianic application4  ,in the free   
quotations from ,isaiah it is not quite 

easy to say  what are ,messianic and    
what are not2 but the only clear case in
  which the ,messianic application seems
 to have caused a marked  divergence is 
xlii4 #a-d4 ,other passages1 such as ii4
 #e1 #f1 vii4  #aj-ag1 lii4 l#c-liii4   
#ab 7as quoted in ,a4 i4 #ej71 appear   
under the  head of slight variation4    
,the long quotation lii4 #aj-liv4 #f1 in
  ,dial4 #ab1 is given with substantial 
exactness4 ,turning to the  other ,major
 ,prophets1 one passage1 ,jer4 xxxi4    
#ae1 has probably  derived its shape    
from the ,messianic application4 ,and in
 the ,minor  ,prophets three passages   
7,hos4 x4 #f1 ,zech4 xii4 #aj-ab1 and   
,micah v4  #b7 appear to have been thus 
affected4 ,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 causes4    ,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    
,testament4 ,such a table will  stand   
thus4 ,those only which appear to be    
direct quotations are  given4           
,exact4     ,slightly variant4          
,variant4     ,remarks4                 
,d4#di1 ,matt4 #c4aa1                   
repeated in part                     #ab
 7v4l47                                 
similarly4                   ,d4 #ea1   
,matt4 #aa4                             
compounded with                         
#ab-ae2 ,luke #af4                      
omissions but                     #af4  
striking resem-                         
blances4  ,d4 #di1 ,matt4 #ag4          
#aa-ac4                                 
,a4#a4ae1 ,matt4 #e4bh4                 
,a4#a4ae1 ,matt4 #e4 from memory8       
#bi2 ,mark #i4dg4                       
,a4#a4ae1 ,matt4 #e4cb4                 
confusion of read-                      
ings4                                   
,a4#a4ae1 ,matt4   from memory8         
#ai4ab4                                 

,a4#a4ae1 ,matt4 #e4 compounded4        
#db2 ,luke #f4cj1                       
#cd4              ,continuous4          
,a4#a4ae1 ,matt4 #f4                    
#ai1 #bj2 #af4bf2 #f4bj4                
,continuous4        ,a4#a4ae 7,d4#if71  
from memory7,cr471                      
,luke #f4cf2       but prob4 diff-      
,matt4 #e4de2 #f4   erent document2     
#be-bg2 ,luke #ab4  rather marked       
#bb-bd2 ,matt4 #f4  identity in         
#cb1 #cc2 #f4ba4    phrase4             
,a4#a4ae1 ,matt4 #f4a4                  
,a4#a4ae1 ,matt4 #i4                    
do the last    #ac7874                  
words belong                            
to the                                  
,c                  quotation8          
o  ,a4#a4ae1  ,luke                     
n    #f4cb2 ,matt4                      
t    #e4df4                             
i  ,a4#a4ae1 7,d4  repeated in part     
n  #abh71 ,luke     similarly1 in       
u  #f4bg1 #bh2      part diversely2     
o  ,matt4 #e4dd4    confusion in        

u                  ,,mss4               
s                                       
s                  ,continuous4         
,a4#a4af1 ,luke #f4bi                   
7,matt4 #e4ci1 #dj47                    
,a4#a4af1 ,matt4 #e4                    
#bb 7v4l47                              
,a4#a4af1 ,matt4 #e  ,greek3            
#da4             angaeusei4             
,a4#a4af1 ,matt4 #e4af4                 
,d4#ic1 ,a1#a4af1                       
,matt4 #bb4dj1cg1                       
#ch4                                    
,a4#a4af1 ,d4#aja1   repeated           
,matt4 #ai4af1     diversely4           
#ag 7v4l472 ,luke                       
#ah4ah1ai 7v4l47                        
,a4#a4af1 ,matt4 #e4                    
#cd1cg4                                 
,a4#a4af1 ,matt4                        
#g4ba4                                  
,c               ,a4#a4af 7,a4#a4fb71   
repeated in part  o                     
,luke #aj4af 7v4l47                     
similarly1 in  n                        

part diversely4  t                      
,a4#a4af 7,d4#gf71    i                 
,matt4 #g4bb1 #bc   n                   
7v4l472 ,luke     u                     
#ac4bf1bg 7v4l47  o                     
,a4#a4af1 ,matt4 #ac4                   
addition4  u                 #db1 #dc   
7v4l47                        s         
,a4#a4af 7,d4#ce71                      
,matt4 #g4ae4                           
,a4#a4af1 ,matt4 #g4                    
#af1 #ai4                               
,d4#gf1 ,matt4 #h4aa4                   
#ab4                                    
,d4#ce1 ,greek3                         
esontai schi-                           
smata kai hai-                          
reseis4                          ,d4#gf1
 ,matt4 #be4da                          
7v4l47                                  
,d4#ce1 ,matt4 #g4ae4                   
repeated with                           
nearer                                  
approach to                             
,matthew1 perh4                         

v4l4                                    
,d4#ce1 #hb1 ,matt4  repeated with      
#bd4bd 7,mark #ac4    similarity and    
#bb74             divergence4           
,d4#hb1 ,matt4 #aj4  freely4            
#bb1 par4         ,a4#a4ai1 ,luke #ah4  
#bg4                                    
,a4#a4ai1 ,luke #ab4 compounded4        
#d1 #e2 ,matt4                          
#aj4bh4                                 
,a4#a4ag1 ,luke #ab4                    
#dh 7v4l47                              
,d4#gf1 ,luke #aj4ai                    
ins4 ,greek3                            
skolopendron4  ,d4#aje1 ,matt4 #e4      
#bj4                                    
,d4#abe1 ,matt4 #ac4 condensed narra-   
#c sqq4           tive4                 
,d4#ag1 ,luke #aa4                      
#eb4                                    
,d4#ag1 ,matt4 #bc4bc2                  
compounded4                     ,luke   
#aa4db4                                 
,d4#ag1 #aab1 ,matt4                    
repeated simi-                          

#bc4bg2 #bc4bd4                         
larly4                                  
,d4#dg1 ,greek3 en                      
ois an humas                            
katalabo en                             
toutois kai                             
krino4                           ,d4#ha1
 ,luke #bj4                       marked
 resem-                     #ce1 #cf4   
blance with                             
difference4  ,d4#ajg1 ,matt4#af4d4      
,d4 #abb1 ,matt4 #bc4                   
#ae4                                    
,d4#ag1 ,matt4 #ba4                     
#ac1 #ab4                               
,a4#a4ag1 ,luke #bj4narrative portion   
#bb-be 7v4l47     free4                 
,d4#ajj1 ,a4#a4fc1                      
repeated not                     ,matt4 
#aa4bg 7v4l47                           
identically4                   ,d4#gf1  
#ajj1 ,luke                             
repeated diverse-                       
#i4bb4                                  
diversely2                              

free 7,credner74  ,a4#a4cf1 ,matt4 #ba4 
,d4#ec1 ,matt4 #ba4e47,zech4 #i4i74     
#e 7addition74                          
,a4#a4ff1 ,luke #bb4                    
#ai1 #bj4                               
,d4#ii1 ,matt4 #bf4                     
#ci 7v4l47                              
,d4#ajc1 ,luke #bb4                     
#db-dd4                                 
,d4#aja1 ,matt4 #bg4                    
#dc4                                    
,a4#a4ch1 ,greek3                       
ho nekrous                              
anegeiras rhu-                          
sastho eauton4  ,d4#ii1 ,matt4 #bg4     
compounded4    #df2 ,mark #ae4cd4       
,d4#aje1 ,luke #bc4                     
#df4      ,the total result may be taken
 to be that ten passages are            
substantially exact1 while twenty-five  
present slight and thirty-  two marked  
variations ,endnote #aaf3a4 ,this is    
only rough and  approximate1 because of 
the passages that are put down as exact 
two1 or possibly three1 can only be said

 to be so with a  qualification2 though1
 on the other hand1 there are passages  
entered under the second class as       
'slightly variant' which have a  leaning
 towards the first1 and passages entered
 under the third  which have a          
perceptible leaning towards the second4 
,we can  therefore afford to disregard  
these doubtful cases and accept the     
classification very much as it stands4  
,comparing it then with the  parallel   
classification that has been made of the
 quotations from  the ,old ,testament1  
we find that in the latter sixty-four   
were  ranked as exact1 forty-four as    
slightly variant1 and fifty-four as     
decidedly variant4 ,if we reduce these  
roughly to a common standard  of        
comparison the proportion of variation  
may be represented  thus3--             
,exact4  ,slightly  ,variant4           
variant4                                
,quotations from the ,old ,testament    
#aj        #g        #i  ,quotations    
from the ,synoptic ,gospels    #aj      

#be       #cb    ,it will be seen from  
this at once how largely the proportion 
of  variation rises2 it is indeed more  
than three times as high for  the       
quotations from the ,gospels as for     
those from the ,old ,testament4  ,the   
amount of combination too is decidedly  
in excess of that which  is found in the
 ,old ,testament quotations4    ,there  
is1 it is true1 something to be said on 
the other side4  ,justin quotes the ,old
 ,testament rather as ,scripture1 the   
,new  ,testament rather as history4 ,i  
think it will be felt that he has       
permitted his own style a freer play in 
regard to the latter than  the former4  
,the ,new ,testament record had not yet 
acquired the same  degree of fixity as  
the ,old4 ,the 'many' compositions of   
which  ,st4 ,luke speaks in his preface 
were still in circulation1 and were     
only gradually dying out4 ,one important
 step had been taken in the  regular    
reading of the ',memoirs of the         
,apostles' at the ,christian            

assemblies4 ,we have not indeed proof   
that these were confined to  the        
,canonical ,gospels4 ,probably as yet   
they were not4 ,but it  should be       
remembered that ,irenaeus was now a boy1
 and that by the  time he had reached   
manhood the ,canon of the ,gospels had  
received  its definite form4    ,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 arrived4 ,the a priori     
probabilities  of the case1 as well as  
the actual phenomena of ,justin's       
,gospel1  alike tend to show that he did
 make use either mediately or           
immediately  of our ,gospels1 but that  
he did not assign to them an exclusive  
authority1 and that he probably made use
 along with them of other  documents no 
longer extant4    ,the proof that       
,justin made use of each of our three   
,synoptics  individually is perhaps more
 striking from the point of view of     

substance than of form1 because his     
direct quotations are mostly  taken from
 the discourses rather than from the    
narrative1 and  these discourses are    
usually found in more than a single     
,gospel1  while in proportion as they   
bear the stamp of originality and       
authenticity it is difficult to assign  
them to any particular  reporter4 ,there
 is however some strong and remarkable  
evidence of  this kind4    ,at least one
 case of parallelism seems to prove     
almost decisively  the use of the first 
,gospel4 ,it is necessary to give the   
quotation  and the original with the    
parallel from ,st4 ,mark side by side4  
,justin1 ,dial4 c4#di4    ,greek3       
,aelias men eleusetai kai apokatastaesei
 panta1 lego de  humin1 hoti ,aelias    
aedae aelthe kai ouk epegnosan auton    
all'  epoiaesan auto hosa aethelaesan4  
,kai gegraptai hoti tote sunaekan  oi   
mathaetai1 hoti peri ,ioannon tou       
,baptistou eipen autois4    ,matt4 xvii4
 #aa-ac4    ,greek3 ,aelias men erchetai

 apokatastaesei panta1 lego de humin    
hoti ,aelias aedae aelthen kai ouk      
epegnosan auton1 alla epoiaesan  auto   
hosa aethelaesan1 outos kai ho uios tou 
anthropou mellei  paschein hup' auton4  
,tote sunaekan oi mathaetai hoti peri   
,ioannou  tou ,baptistou eipen autois4  
,the clause in brackets is placed at    
the end of ver4 #ac by ,d4 and the ,old 
,latin4    ,mark4 ix4 #ab1 #ac4         
,greek3 ,ho de ephae autois1 ,aelias men
 elthon proton  apokathistanei panta1   
kai pos gegraptai epi ton uion tou      
anthropou1 hina polla pathae kai        
exoudenaethae4 ,alla lego humin  hoti   
kai ,aelias elaeluthen kai epoiaesan    
auto hosa aethelon1  kathos gegraptai   
ep' auton4      ,we notice here1 first1 
an important point1 that ,justin        
reproduces at  the end of his quotation 
what appears to be not so much a part of
 the  object-matter of the narrative as 
a comment or reflection of the          
,evangelist 7',then the disciples       
understood that ,he spake unto them of  

,john the ,baptist'74 ,this was thought 
by ,credner1 who as a rule is  inclined 
to press the use of an apocryphal       
,gospel by ,justin1 to be  sufficient   
proof that the quotation is taken from  
our present ,matthew  ,endnote #aai3a4  
,on this point1 however1 there is an    
able and on the  whole a sound argument 
in ',supernatural ,religion' ,endnote   
#aai3b4  ,there are certainly cases in  
which a similar comment or reflection is
  found either in all three ,synoptic   
,gospels or in two of them 7e4g4  ,matt4
 vii4 #bh1 #bi  ,mark i4 #bb  ,luke iv4 
#cb2 ,matt4 xiii4 #cd  ,mark  iv4 #cc1  
#cd2 ,matt4 xxvi4 #dc  ,mark xiv4 #dj2  
,matt4 xix4 #bb  ,mark x4  #bb74 ,the   
author consequently maintains that these
 were found in the  original document   
from which all three1 or two ,synoptics 
at least1  borrowed2 and he notes that  
this very passage is assigned by ,ewald 
to  the 'oldest ,gospel4'    ,the       
observation in itself is a fine and true
 one1 and has an  important bearing upon

 the question as to the way in which our
  ,synoptic ,gospels were composed4 ,we 
may indeed remark in passing  that the  
author seems to have overlooked the fact
 that1 when once  this principle of a   
common written basis or bases for the   
,synoptic  ,gospels is accepted1        
nine-tenths of his own argument is      
overthrown2  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 themselves1 showing
  that the ,evangelists took liberties  
with their ground documents  to an      
extent that is really greater than that 
of any subsequent  misquotation4 ,but   
putting aside for the present this      
argumentum  ad hominem which seems to   
follow from the admission here made1    
there is1 ,i think1 the strongest reason
 to conclude that in the  present case  
the first ,evangelist is not merely     
reproducing his  ground document4 ,there

 is one element in the question which   
the  author has omitted to notice2 that 
is1 the parallel passage in  ,st4 ,mark4
 ,this differs so widely from the text  
of ,st4 ,matthew as  to show that that  
text cannot accurately represent the    
original2  it also wants the reflective 
comment altogether4 ,accordingly1 if    
the author will turn to p4 #bge of      
,ewald's book ,endnote #abj3a he  will  
find that that writer1 though roughly   
assigning the passage  as it appears in 
both ,synoptics to the 'oldest ,gospel1'
 yet in  reconstructing the text of this
 ,gospel does so1 not by taking that  of
 either of the ,synoptics pure and      
simple1 but by mixing the two4  ,all the
 other critics who have dealt with this 
point1 so far as ,i  am aware1 have done
 the same4 ,holtzmann ,endnote #abj3b   
follows  ,ewald1 and ,weiss ,endnote    
#abj3c accepts ,mark's as more nearly   
the  original text4    ,the very extent 
of the divergence in ,st4 ,mark throws  
out into striking  relief the close     

agreement of ,justin's quotation with   
,st4 ,matthew4  ,here we have three     
verses word for word the same1 even to  
the finest  shades of expression4 ,to   
the single exception ,greek3 eleusetai  
for ,greek3 erchetai ,i cannot1 as      
,credner does ,endnote #abj3d1  attach  
any importance4 ,the present tense in   
the ,gospel has undoubtedly  a future   
signification ,endnote #abj3e1 and      
,justin was very naturally  led to give 
it also a future form by ,greek3        
apokatastaesei which  follows4 ,for the 
rest1 the order1 particles1 tenses are  
so absolutely  identical1 where the text
 of ,st4 ,mark shows how inevitably they
 must  have differed in another ,gospel 
or even in the original1 that ,i can    
see no alternative but to refer the     
quotation directly to our present  ,st4 
,matthew4    ,if this passage had stood 
alone1 taken in connection with the     
coincidence of matter between ,justin   
and the first ,gospel1 great  weight    
must have attached to it4 ,but it does  

not by any means stand  alone4 ,there is
 an exact verbal agreement in the verses
 ,matt4 v4 #bj  7',except your          
righteousness' c47 and ,matt4 vii4 #ba  
7',not every one  that saith unto me1'  
c47 which are peculiar to the first     
,gospel4  ,there is a close agreement1  
if not always with the best1 yet with   
some  very old1 text of ,st4 ,matthew in
 v4 #bb 7note especially the striking   
phrase and construction ,greek3 enochos 
eis71 v4 #bh 7note ,greek3  blep4 pros  
to epithum471 v4 #da 7note the          
remarkable word ,greek3  angareusei71   
xxv4 #da1 and not too great a divergence
 in v4 #af1 vi4 #a  7,greek3 pros to    
theathaenai1 ei de mae ge misthon ouk   
echete71 and  xix4 #ab1 all of which    
passages are without parallel in any    
extant  ,gospel4 ,there are also marked 
resemblances to the ,matthaean text in  
synoptic passages such as ,matt4 iii4   
#aa1 #ab 7,greek3 eis metanoian1 ta     
hupodaemata bastasai71 ,matt4 vi4 #ai1  
#bj 7,greek3 hopou saes kai  brosis     

aphanizei1 where ,luke has simply       
,greek3 saes diaphtheirei1  and ,greek3 
diorussousi where ,luke has ,greek3     
engizei71 ,matt4 vii4  #bb1 #bc 7,greek3
 ekeinae tae haemera ,kurie1 ,kurie1    
k4t4l471 ,matt4 xvi4  #bf 7,greek3 dosei
 ,matt4 only1 ,greek3 antallagma ,matt41
 ,mark71 ,matt4  xvi4 #a1 #d 7the last  
verse exactly74 ,as these passages are  
all from the  discourses ,i do not wish 
to say that they may not be taken from  
other  ,gospels than the canonical1 but 
we have absolutely no evidence that     
they were so taken1 and every additional
 instance increases the  probability    
that they were taken directly from ,st4 
,matthew1 which by  this time1 ,i think1
 has reached a very high degree of      
presumption4    ,i have reserved for a  
separate discussion a single instance   
which  ,i shall venture to add to those 
already quoted1 although ,i am  aware   
that it is alleged on the opposite side4
 ,justin has the  saying ',let your yea 
be yea and your nay nay1 for whatsoever 

is  more than these cometh of the ,evil 
,one' 7,greek3 ,mae omosaete  holos4    
,esto de humon to nai nai1 kai to ou ou2
 to de perisson  touton ek tou          
ponaerou71 which is set against the     
first  ,evangelist's ',let your         
conversation be ,yea yea1 ,nay nay1 for 
whatsoever is more than these cometh of 
the ,evil ,one' 7,greek3 ego  de lego   
humin mae omosai holos444 ,esto de ho   
logos humon nai nai1  ou ou2 to de      
perisson1 k4t4l474 ,now it is perfectly 
true that as  early as the ,canonical   
,epistle of ,james 7v4 #ab7 we find the 
reading ,greek3 aeto de humon to nai    
nai1 kai to ou ou1 and that  in the     
,clementine ,homilies twice over we read
 ,greek3 esto humon  to nai nai1 7kai7  
to ou ou1 ,greek3 kai being inserted in 
one  instance and not in the other4     
,justin's reading is found also  exactly
 in ,clement of ,alexandria1 and a      
similar reading 7though  with the       
,greek3 aeto of ,james7 in ,epiphanius4 
,these last two  examples show that the 

misquotation was an easy one to fall    
into1  because there can be little doubt
 that ,clement and ,epiphanius  supposed
 themselves to be quoting the canonical 
text4 ,there  remains however the fact  
that the ,justinian form is supported by
  the pseudo-,clementines2 and at the   
first blush it might seem that  ',let   
your yea be yea' 7stand to your word7   
made better1 at least a  complete and   
more obvious1 sense than ',let your     
conversation be'  7let it not go beyond7
 ',yea yea' c ,endnote #abb3a4 ,there   
is1  however1 what seems to be a        
decisive proof that the original form   
both of ,justin's and the ,clementine   
quotation is that which is  given in the
 first ,gospel4 ,both ,justin and the   
writer who passes  under the name of    
,clement add the clause ',whatsoever is 
more than  these cometh of evil' 7or 'of
 the ,evil ,one'74 ,but this1 while it  
tallies perfectly with the canonical    
reading1 evidently excludes  any other4 
,it is consequent and good sense to say1

 ',do not go  beyond a plain yes or no1 
because whatever is in excess of this   
must have an evil motive1' but the      
connection is entirely lost  when we    
substitute ',keep your word1 for        
whatever is more than this  has an evil 
motive'--more than what8    ,the most   
important points that can be taken to   
imply a use of  ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel    
have been already discussed as falling  
under  the head of matter rather than of
 form4    ,the coincidences with ,luke  
are striking but complicated4 ,in his   
earlier work1 the ',beitrge' ,endnote   
#abc3a1 ,credner regarded as  a decided 
reference to the ,prologue of this      
,gospel the statement  of ,justin that  
his ,memoirs were composed ,greek3 hupo 
ton  apostolon autou kai ton ekeinois   
parakolouthaesanton3 but1 in the        
posthumous ,history of the ,canon       
,endnote #abc3b1 he retracts this  view1
 having come to recognise a greater     
frequency in the use of  the word       
,greek3 parakolouthein in this sense4   

,it will also of  course be noticed that
 ,justin has ,greek3 par4 tois ap4 and  
not  ,greek3 par4 tois pragmasin1 as    
,luke4 ,it is doubtless true that  the  
use of the word can be paralleled to    
such an extent as to make  it not a     
matter of certainty that the ,gospel is 
being quoted3  still ,i think there will
 be a certain probability that it has   
been  suggested by a reminiscence of    
this passage1 and1 strangely  enough1   
there is a parallel for the substitution
 of the historians  for the             
subject-matter of their history in      
,epiphanius1 who reads  ,greek3 par4    
tois autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou
 ,endnote  #abd3a1 where he is          
explicitly and unquestionably quoting   
,st4  ,luke4    ,there are some marked  
coincidences of phrase in the account of
 the  ,annunciation--,greek3            
eperchesthai1 episkaizein1 dunamis      
hupsistou 7a specially ,lucan phrase71  
,greek3 to gennomenon  7also a form     
characteristic of ,st4 ,luke71 ,greek   

idou1 sullaepsae  en gastri kai texae   
huion4 ,of the other peculiarities of   
,st4 ,luke  ,justin has in exact        
accordance the last words upon the cross
  7,greek3 ,pater1 eis cheiras sou      
paratithemai to pneuma mou74 ,in  the   
,agony in the ,garden ,justin has the   
feature of the ,bloody  ,sweat2 but it  
is right to notice--    7#a7 ,that he   
has ,greek3 thromboi alone1 without     
,greek3  haimatos4 ,luke1 ,greek3       
egeneto ho hidros autou hosei thromboi  
haimatos katabainontes4 ,justin1 ,greek3
 hidros hosei thromboi  katecheito4     
7#b7 ,that this is regarded as a        
fulfilment of ,ps4 xxii4 #ad 7',all my  
tears are poured out' c474    7#c7 ,that
 in continuing the quotation ,justin    
follows ,matthew rather  than ,luke4    
,these considerations may be held to    
qualify1 though ,i  do not think that   
they suffice to remove1 the conclusion  
that ,st4  ,luke's ,gospel is being     
quoted4 ,it seems to be sufficiently    
clear  that ,greek3 thromboi might be   

used in this signification without      
,greek3 aimatos ,endnote #abd3b1 and it 
appears from the whole  manner of       
,justin's narrative that he intends to  
give merely the  sense and not the      
words1 with the exception of the single 
saying  ',let this cup pass from ,me1'  
which is taken from ,st4 ,matthew4 ,we  
cannot say positively that this feature 
did not occur in any other  ,gospel1 but
 there is absolutely no reason apart    
from this passage  to suppose that it   
did4 ,the construction with ,greek3     
hosei is in  some degree characteristic 
of ,st4 ,luke1 as it occurs more often  
in  the works of that writer than in all
 the rest of the ,new ,testament  put   
together4    ,in narrating the          
institution of the ,lord's ,supper      
,justin has the  clause which is found  
only in ,st4 ,luke and ,st4 ,paul1      
',this do in  remembrance of ,me'       
7,greek3 mou for ,greek3 emaen74 ,the   
giving  of the cup he quotes rather     
after the first two ,synoptics1 and     

adds 'that ,he gave it to them 7the     
,apostles7 alone4' ,this last  does not 
seem to be more than an inference of    
,justin's own4    ,two other sayings    
,justin has which are without parallel  
except in  ,st4 ,luke4 ,one is from the 
mission of the seventy4    ,justin1     
,dial4 #gf    ,greek3 ,didomi humin     
exousian katapatein epano opheon1 kai   
skorpion1 kai skolopendron1 kai epano   
parsaes dunameos tou  echthrou4    ,luke
 x4 #ai4    ,greek3 ,idou1 didomi humin 
taen exousian tou patein epano epheon1  
kai skorpion1 kai epi pasan taen dunamin
 tou echthrou4    ,the insertion of     
,greek3 skolopendron here is curious4   
,it may be  perhaps to some extent      
paralleled by the insertion of ,greek3  
kai  eis thaeran in ,rom4 xi4 #i3 we    
have also seen a strange addition  in   
the quotation of ,ps4 li4 #ai in the    
,epistle of ,barnabas 7c4 ii74          
,otherwise the resemblance of ,justin to
 the ,gospel is striking4 ,the  second  
saying1 ',to whom ,god has given more1  

of him shall more be  required' 7,apol4 
i4 #ag71 if quoted from the ,gospel at  
all1 is only  a paraphrase of ,luke xii4
 #dh4    ,besides these there are other 
passages1 which are perhaps stronger  as
 separate items of evidence1 where1 in  
quoting synoptic matter1  ,justin makes 
use of phrases which are found only in  
,st4 ,luke and  are discountenanced by  
the other ,evangelists4 ,thus in the    
account  of the rich young man1 the     
three synoptical versions of the saying 
that impossibilities with men are       
possible with ,god1 run thus3--    ,luke
 xviii4 #bg4    ,greek3 ,ta adunata para
 anthropois dunata para to ,theo estin4 
,mark x4 #bg4    ,greek3 ,para          
anthropois adunaton1 all' ou para ,theo2
 punta gar  dunata para to ,theo4       
,matt4 xix4 #bf4    ,greek3 ,para       
anthropois touto adunaton estin1 para de
 ,theo dunata  panta4    ,here it will  
be observed that ,matthew and ,mark 7as 
frequently  happens7 are nearer to each 
other than either of them is to ,luke4  

,this would lead us to infer that1 as   
they are two to one1 they  more nearly  
represent the common original1 which has
 been somewhat  modified in the hands of
 ,st4 ,luke4 ,but now ,justin has the   
words  precisely as they stand in ,st4  
,luke1 with the omission of ,greek3     
estin1 the order of which varies in the 
,,mss4 of the ,gospel4 ,this  must be   
taken as a strong proof that ,justin has
 used the peculiar  text of the third   
,gospel4 ,again1 it is to be noticed    
that in  another section of the triple  
synopsis 7,mark xii4 #bj,matt4 xxii4    
#cj,luke xx4 #ce1 #cf7 he has1 in common
 with ,luke and diverging from  the     
other ,gospels which are in near        
agreement1 the remarkable  compound     
,greek3 isangeloi and the equally       
remarkable phrase  ,greek3 huioi taes   
anastaseos 7,greek3 tekna tou ,theou    
taes  anastaseos ,justin74 ,this also ,i
 must regard as supplying a strong      
argument for the direct use of the      
,gospel4 ,many similar instances  may be

 adduced2 ,greek3 erchetai 7,greek3     
aexei ,justin7 ,greek3  ho ischuroteros 
7,luke iii4 #af71 ,greek3 ho nomos kai  
hoi  prophaetai heos 7,greek3 mechri    
,justin7 ,greek3 ,ioannon 7,luke  xvi4  
#af71 ,greek3 panti to aitounti 7,luke  
vi4 #cj71 ,greek3 to  tuptonti se epi   
7,greek3 sou ,justin7 ,greek3 taen      
siagona  pareche kai taen allaen k4t4l4 
7,luke vi4 #bi2 compare ,matt4 v4 #ci1  
#dj71 ,greek3 ti me legeis agathon and  
,greek3 oudeis agathos ei  mae 7,luke   
xviii4 #ai2 compare ,matt4 xix4 #ag71   
,greek3 meta tauta  mae echonton        
7,greek3 dunamenous ,justin7 ,greek3    
perissoteron  7om4 ,justin7 ,greek3 ti  
poiaesae k4t4l4 7,luke xii4 #d1 #e2     
compare  ,matt4 ,x4 #bh71 ,greek3       
paeganon and ,greek3 agapaen tou ,theou 
7,luke xi4 #db74 ,in the parallel       
passage to ,luke ix4 #bb 7,matt xvi4    
#ba ,mark viii4 #ca7 ,justin has the    
striking word ,greek3                   
apodokimasthaenai1 with ,mark and ,luke 
against ,matthew1 and  ,greek3 hupo with

 ,mark against the ,greek3 apo of the   
two other  ,synoptics4 ,this last       
coincidence can perhaps hardly be       
pressed1 as  ,greek3 hupo would be the  
more natural word to use4    ,in the    
cases where we have only the double     
synopsis to compare  with ,justin1 we   
have no certain test to distinguish     
between the  primary and secondary      
features in the text of the ,gospels4   
,we  cannot say with confidence what    
belonged to the original document  and  
what to the later editor who reduced it 
to its present form4  ,in these cases   
therefore it is possible that when      
,justin has a  detail that is found in  
,st4 ,matthew and wanting in ,st4 ,luke1
 or  found in ,st4 ,luke and wanting in 
,st4 ,matthew1 he is still not  quoting 
directly from either of those ,gospels1 
but from the common  document on which  
they are based4 ,the triple synopsis    
however  furnishes such a criterion4 ,it
 enables us to see what was the         
original text and how any single        

,evangelist has diverged from it4  ,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 original1 and that
 deviation ,justin has reproduced4 ,the 
word ,greek3 isangeloi may be taken as a
 crucial case4 ,both the  other         
,synoptics have simply ,greek hos       
angeloi1 and this may be  set down as   
undoubtedly the reading of the original2
 the form  ,greek3 isangeloi1 which     
occurs nowhere else in the ,new         
,testament1 and ,i believe1 so far as we
 know1 nowhere else in ,greek  before   
this passage ,endnote #abh3a1 has       
clearly been coined by  the third       
,evangelist and has been adopted from   
him by ,justin4 ,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 ,st4 ,luke's         
narrative1 either in  itself or in some 
secondary shape1 before him4    ,we are 

thus brought once more to the old       
result4 ,if ,justin did not  use our    
,gospels in their present shape as they 
have come down to  us1 he used them in a
 later shape1 not in an earlier4 ,his   
resemblances to them cannot be accounted
 for by the supposition  that he had    
access to the materials out of which    
they were  composed1 because he         
reproduces features which by the nature 
of  the case cannot have been present in
 those originals1 but of which  we are  
still able to trace the authorship and  
the exact point of  their insertion4    
,our ,gospels form a secondary stage in 
the history  of the text1 ,justin's     
quotations a tertiary4 ,in order to     
reach the  state in which it is found in
 ,justin1 the road lies through our     
,gospels1 and not outside them4    ,this
 however does not exclude the           
possibility that ,justin may at  times  
quote from uncanonical ,gospels as well4
 ,we have already seen  reason to think 
that he did so from the substance of the

  ,evangelical narrative1 as it appears 
in his works1 and this  conclusion too  
is not otherwise than confirmed by its  
form4 ,the  degree and extent of the    
variations incline us to introduce such 
an additional factor to account for     
them4 ,either ,justin has used a  lost  
,gospel or ,gospels1 besides those that 
are still extant1 or  else he has used a
 recension of these ,gospels with some  
slight  changes of language and with    
some apocryphal additions4 ,we have     
seen that he has two short sayings and  
several minute details that  are not    
found in our present ,gospels4 ,a       
remarkable coincidence is  noticed in   
',supernatural ,religion' with the      
,protevangelium of  ,james ,endnote     
#abi3a4 ,as in that work so also in     
,justin1 the  explanation of the name   
,jesus occurs in the address of the     
angel  to ,mary1 not to ,joseph1        
',behold thou shalt conceive of the     
,holy  ,ghost and bear a ,son and ,he   
shall be called the ,son of the         

,highest1 and thou shalt call ,his name 
,jesus1 for ,he shall save ,his  people 
from their sins4' ,again the            
,protevangelium has the phrase  ',thou  
shalt conceive of ,his ,word1' which1   
though not directly  quoted1 appears to 
receive countenance from ,justin4 ,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 quotations1' though he thinks that  
he had  before him a still earlier work 
to which both the ,protevangelium  and  
the third ,gospel were indebted4 ,so far
 as the ,protevangelium  is concerned   
this may very probably have been the    
case2 but what  reason there is for     
assuming that the same document was also
  anterior to the third ,gospel ,i am   
not aware4 ,on the contrary1 this  very 
passage seems to suggest an opposite    
conclusion4 ,the  quotation in ,justin  
and the address in the ,protevangelium  
both  present a combination of          

narratives that are kept separate in the
  first and third ,gospels4 ,but this   
very fact supplies a strong  presumption
 that the version of those ,gospels is  
the earliest4 ,it  is unlikely that the 
first ,evangelist1 if he had found his  
text  already existing as part of the   
speech of the angel to ,mary1 would     
have transferred it to an address to    
,joseph2 and it is little less  unlikely
 that the third ,evangelist1 finding the
 fuller version of  ,justin and the     
,protevangelium1 should have omitted    
from it one of  its most important      
features4 ,if a further link is         
necessary to  connect ,justin with the  
,protevangelium1 that link comes into   
the  chain after our ,gospels and not   
before4 ,dr4 ,hilgenfeld has also       
noticed the phrase ,greek3 charan de    
labousa ,mariam as common to  ,justin   
and the ,protevangelium ,endnote #acj3a4
 ,this1 too1 may  belong to the older   
original of the latter work4 ,the other 
verbal  coincidences with the ,gospel   

according to the ,hebrews in the        
account of the ,baptism1 and with that  
of ,thomas in the 'ploughs  and yokes1' 
have been already mentioned1 and are1 ,i
 believe1 along  with those just        
discussed1 all that can be directly     
referred to an  apocryphal source4      
,besides these there are some           
coincidences in form between quotations 
as they appear in ,justin and in other  
writers1 such as especially the         
,clementine ,homilies4 ,these are       
thought to point to the existence of a  
common ,gospel 7now lost7 from which    
they may have been extracted4 ,it  is   
unnecessary to repeat what has been said
 about one of these  passages 7',let    
your yea be yea1' c474 ,another         
corresponds roughly to  the verse ,matt4
 xxv4 #da1 where both ,justin and the   
,clementine ,homilies  read ,greek3     
hupagete eis to skotos to exoteron o    
haetoimasen ho  pataer to satana 7to    
diabolo ,clem4 ,hom47 ,greek3 kai tois  
angelois  autou for the canonical       

,greek3 poreuesthe ap' emou eis to pur  
to  aionion to haetoimasmenon k4t4l4 ,it
 is true that there is a  considerable  
approximation to the reading of ,justin 
and the  ,clementines1 found especially 
in ,,mss4 and authorities of a ,western 
character 7,d4 ,latt4 ,iren4 ,cypr4     
,hil471 but there still remains the     
coincidence in regard to ,greek3        
exoteron787 for ,greek3 aionion and     
,greek3 skotos for ,greek3 pyr1 which   
seems to be due to something  more than 
merely a variant text of the ,gospel4 ,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     
,gospel4  ,of the other quotations      
common to the ,clementines and ,justin  
there is  a partial but not complete    
coincidence in regard to ,matt4 vii4    
#ae1 xi4  #bg1 xix4 #af1 and ,luke vi4  
#cf4 ,in ,matt4 vii4 #ae the            
,clementines have  ,greek3 polloi       
eleusontai where ,justin has once       

,greek3 polloi  eleusontai1 once ,greek3
 polloi aexousin1 and once the          
,matthaean  version ,greek3 prosechete  
apo ton pseudoprophaeton oitines        
erchontai  k4t4l4 ,there is however a   
difference in regard to the reading     
,greek3  en endumasi1 where the         
,clementines have ,greek3 en endumatie1 
and  ,justin twice over ,greek3         
endedumenoi4 ,in ,matt4 xi4 #bg1 ,justin
 and  the ,clementines agree as to the  
order of the clauses1 and twice in the  
use of the aorist ,greek3 egno 7,justin 
has once ,greek3 ginosko71  but in the  
concluding clause 7,greek3 ho ois ,clem4
 ,greek3 ean  boulaetai ho nios         
apokalupsai7 ,justin has uniformly in   
the three  places where the verse is    
quoted ,greek3 ois an ho uhios          
apokalupsae4  ,in ,matt4 xix4 #af1 #ag  
7,luke xviii4 #ah1 #ai7 the ,clementines
 and ,justin  alternately adhere to the 
,canonical text while differing from    
each  other1 but in the concluding      
phrase ,justin has on one occasion the  

,clementine reading1 ,greek3 ho pataer  
mou ho en tois ouranois4 ,in  ,luke vi4 
#cf the ,clementines have ,greek3       
ginesthe agathoi kai  ioktirmones1 where
 ,justin has ,greek3 ginesthe chraestoi 
kai  oiktirmones against the ,canonical 
,greek3 ginesthe oiktirmones4 ,on  the  
other hand1 it should be said that the  
remaining quotations common  to the     
,clementines and ,justin have to all    
appearance no relation to  each other4  
,this applies to ,matt4 iv4 #aj1 v4 #ci1
 #dj1 vi4 #h1 viii4 #aa1  x4 #bh2 ,luke 
xi4 #eb4 ,speaking generally we seem to 
observe in comparing  ,justin and the   
,clementines phenomena not dissimilar to
 those which  appear on a comparison    
with the ,canonical ,gospels4 ,there is 
perhaps  about the same degree at once  
of resemblance and divergence4    ,the  
principal textual coincidence with other
 writers is that with  the ,gospel used 
by the ,marcosians as quoted by         
,irenaeus 7,adv4  ,haer4 i4 #bj4 #c74   
,here the reading of ,matt4 xi4 #bg is  

given in a  form very similar to that of
 ,justin1 ,greek3 oudeis hegno ton      
patera ei mae ho uhios1 kai 7oude       
,justin7 ton uhion1 ei mae ho  pataer   
kai ho 7ois ,justin7 ,greek3 an ho uhios
 apokalupsae4  ,this verse however is   
quoted by the early writers1 orthodox as
 well  as heretical1 in almost every    
possible way1 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 ,canonical4  ,irenaeus himself seems
 to hold the latter view1 and in favour 
of  it may be urged the fact that they  
quote passages peculiar both to  the    
first and the third ,gospel2 on the     
other hand1 one of their  quotations1   
,greek3 pollakis epethuaesa akousai hena
 ton logon  touton1 does not appear to  
have a canonical original4    ,on       
reviewing these results we find them    
present a chequered  appearance4 ,there 
are no traces of coincidence so definite
 and  consistent as to justify us in    

laying the finger upon any  particular  
extra-canonical ,gospel as that used by 
,justin4 ,but upon  the whole it seems  
best to assume that some such ,gospel   
was used1  certainly not to the         
exclusion of the ,canonical ,gospels1   
but  probably in addition to them4    ,a
 confusing element in the whole question
 is that to which we have  just alluded 
in regard to the ,gospel of the         
,marcosians4 ,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 familiar4 ,in the case of       
,justin it is to be noticed that there  
is often a very considerable            
approximation to his readings1 not in   
the best text1 but in some very early   
attested text1 of the  ,canonical       
,gospels4 ,it will be well to collect   
some of the most  prominent instances of
 this4    ,matt4 iii4 #ae ad fin4       
,greek3 kai pur anaephthae en to        
,iordanae  ,justin4 ,so a4 7,codex      

,vercellensis of the ,old ,latin        
translation7  adds 'et cum baptizaretur 
lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut
  timerent onmes qui advenerant2' g#a4  
7,codex ,sangermanensis of the  same7   
'lumen magnum fulgebat de aqua1' c4 ,see
 above4    ,luke iii4 #bb4 ,justin reads
 ,greek3 uhios mon ei su1 ego saemeron  
gegennaeka se4 ,so ,d1 a1 b1 c1 ff1 l1  
,latin ,fathers 7'nonnulli  codices'    
,augustine74 ,see above4    ,matt4 v4   
#bh4 ,greek3 hos un emblepsae for       
,greek3 pas ho blepon4  ,origen five    
times as ,justin1 only once the accepted
 text4    ,matt4 v4 #bi4 ,justin and    
,clement of ,alexandria read here       
,greek3  ekkopson for ,greek3 exele1    
probably from the next verse or from    
,matt4 xviii4 #h4    ,matt4 vi4 #bj4    
,greek3 ouranois ,clem4 ,alex4 with     
,justin2 ,greek3  ourano the accepted   
reading4    ,matt4 xvi4 #bf4 ,greek3    
opheleitai ,justin with most ,,mss4 both
 of  the ,old ,latin and of the         
,vulgate1 the ,curetonian ,syriac       

7,crowfoot71 ,clement1 ,hilary1 and     
,lucifer1 against ,greek3               
ophelaethaesetai of the best            
,alexandrine authorities4    ,matt4 vi4 
#ba4 ,there is a striking coincidence   
here with ,clement of  ,alexandria1 who 
reads1 like ,justin1 ,greek3 nous for   
,greek3  cardia2 it would seem that     
,clement had probably derived his       
reading from ,justin4    ,matt4 v4 #bb4 
,greek3 hostis an orgisthae ,syr4 ,crt4 
7,crowfoot72 so  ,justin 7,greek3 hos74 
,matt4 v4 #af4 ,clement of ,alexandria  
7with ,tertullian and several  ,latin   
,fathers7 has ,greek3 lampsato ta erga  
and ,greek3 ta agatha  erga1 where      
,justin has ,greek3 lampsato ta kala    
erga1 for  ,greek3 lampsato to phos4    
,both readings would seem to be a gloss 
on the original4    ,matt4 v4 #cg4      
,greek3 kai is inserted1 as in ,justin1 
by a1 b1 g1  h1 ,syr4 ,crt4 and ,pst4   
,luke x4 #af4 ,justin has the reading   
,greek3 ho emou akouon akouei  ton      
aposteilantos me3 so ,d1 i1 l 7of the   

,old ,latin7 in place of  ,greek3 ho eme
 atheton k4t4l42 in addition to it1 ,e1 
a1 b1 ,syr4  ,crt4 and ,hel4 c4         
,matt4 vii4 #bb4 ,greek3 ou to so       
anomati ephagomen kai epiomen  ,justin2 
similarly ,origen1 four times1 and ,syr4
 ,crt4    ,luke xiii4 #bg4 ,greek3      
anomias for ,greek3 adikias1 ,d and     
,justin4    ,matt4 xiii4 #dc4 ,greek3   
lampsosin for ,greek3 eklampsosin with  
,justin1 ,d1 and ,origen 7twice74       
,matt4 xxv4 #da4 ,of ,justin's readings 
in this verse ,greek3  hupagete for     
,greek3 poreuesthe is found also in     
,hebrew3 8 and  ,hippolytus1 ,greek3    
exoteron for ,greek3 aionion in the     
cursive  manuscript numbered #dj        
7,credner2 ,i am unable to verify this71
  ,greek3 ho haetoimasen ho pater mou   
for ,greek3 to haetoimasmenon  ,d4 #a1  
most ,codd4 of the ,old ,latin1 ,iren4  
,tert4 ,cypr4 ,hil4 ,hipp4  and ,origen 
in the ,latin translation4    ,luke xii4
 #dh4 ,d1 like ,justin1 has here ,greek3
 pleon for ,greek3  perissoteron and    

also the compound form ,greek3          
apaitaesousin4    ,luke xx4 #bd4 ,though
 in the main following 7but loosely7 the
 text  of ,luke1 ,justin has here       
,greek3 to nomisma1 as ,matt41 instead  
of  ,greek3 daenarion2 so ,d4    ,though
 it will be seen that ,justin has thus  
much in common with ,d  and the ,old    
,latin version1 it should be noticed    
that he has the  verse1 ,luke xxii4 #ai1
 and especially the clause ,greek3 touto
  poieite eis taen emaen anamnaesin     
which is wanting in these  authorities4 
,on the other hand1 he appears to have  
with them and  other authorities1       
including ,syr4 ,crt41 the ,agony in the
 ,garden as  given in ,luke xxii1       
#dc1dd1 which verses are omitted in     
,,mss4 of the  best ,alexandrine type4  
,luke xxiii4 #cd1 ,justin also has1 with
 the  divided support of the majority of
 ,greek ,,mss4 ,vulgate1 c1 e1 f1 ff  of
 the ,old ,latin1 ,syr4 ,crt4 and ,pst4 
c4 against ,b1 ,d 7prima  manu71 a1 b1  
,memph4 7,,mss47 ,theb4    ,these       

readings represent in the main a text   
which was undoubtedly  current and      
widely diffused in the second century4  
',though no  surviving manuscript of the
 ,old ,latin version dates before the   
fourth century and most of them belong  
to a still later age1 yet  the general  
correspondence of their text with that  
of the first  ,latin ,fathers is a      
sufficient voucher for its high         
antiquity4 ,the  connexion subsisting   
between this ,latin1 version1 the       
,curetonian  ,syriac and ,codex ,bezae1 
proves that the text of these documents 
is  considerably older than the vellum  
on which they are written4'  ,such is   
,dr4 ,scrivener's verdict upon the class
 of authorities with  which ,justin     
shows the strongest affinity1 and he    
goes on to add2  ',now it may be said   
without extravagance that no set of     
,scriptural  records affords a text less
 probable in itself1 less sustained by  
any rational principles of external     
evidence1 than that of ,cod4 ,d1  of the

 ,latin codices1 and 7so far as it      
accords with them7 of  ,cureton's       
,syriac4 ,interpolations as insipid in  
themselves as  unsupported by other     
evidence abound in them all4444 ,it is  
no less  true to fact than paradoxical  
in sound1 that the worst corruptions  to
 which the ,new ,testament has ever been
 subjected originated  within a hundred 
years after it was composed' ,endnote   
#ace3a4  ,this is a point on which text 
critics of all schools are              
substantially agreed4 ,however much they
 may differ in other  respects1 no one  
of them has ever thought of taking the  
text of  the ,old ,syriac and ,old      
,latin translations as the basis of an  
edition4 ,there can be no question that 
this text belongs to an  advanced1      
though early1 stage of corruption4      
,at the same stage of corruption1 then1 
,justin's quotations from  the ,gospels 
are found1 and this very fact is a proof
 of the  antiquity of originals so      
corrupted4 ,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      
,gospels4 ,the presence1  for instance1 
of the reading ,greek3 o haetoimasen ho 
pataer for  ,greek3 to haetoimasmenon in
 ,irenaeus and ,tertullian 7who has     
both 'quem praeparavit deus' and        
'praeparatum'7 is a proof that it  was  
found in the canonical text at a date   
little later than  ,justin's4 ,and facts
 such as this1 taken together with the  
arguments which make it little less than
 certain that ,justin had  either       
mediately or immediately access to our  
,gospels1 render it  highly probable    
that he had a form of the canonical text
 before  him4    ,and yet large as is   
the approximation to ,justin's text that
 may be  made without stirring beyond   
the bounds of attested readings  within 
the ,canon1 ,i still retain the opinion 
previously expressed  that he did also  
make use of some extra-canonical book or
 books1  though what the precise        

document was the data are far too       
insufficient to enable us to determine4 
,so far as the history of  our present  
,gospels is concerned1 ,i have only to  
insist upon the  alternative that       
,justin either used those ,gospels      
themselves or  else a later work1 of the
 nature of a harmony based upon them    
,endnote #acf3a4 ,the theory 7if it is  
really held7 that he was  ignorant of   
our ,gospels in any shape1 seems to me1 
in view of the  facts1 wholly untenable4
            ,,chapter ,v4               
,,hegesippus--,,papias4      ,dr4       
,lightfoot has rendered a great service 
to criticism by his  masterly exposure  
of the fallacies in the argument which  
has been  drawn from the silence of     
,eusebius in respect to the use of the  
,canonical ,gospels by the early writers
 ,endnote #ach3a4 ,the author  of       
',supernatural ,religion' is not to be  
blamed for using this  argument4 ,in    
doing so he has only followed in the    
wake of the  ,germans who have handed it

 on from one to the other without       
putting it to a test so thorough and    
conclusive as that which has  now been  
applied ,endnote #ach3b4 ,for the       
future1 ,i imagine1 the  question has   
been set at rest and will not need to be
 reopened  ,endnote #ach3c4    ,dr4     
,lightfoot has shown1 with admirable    
fulness and precision1  that the object 
of ,eusebius was only to note quotations
 in the  case of books the admission of 
which into the ,canon had been or  was  
disputed4 ,in the case of works1 such as
 the four ,gospels1 that  were          
universally acknowledged1 he only       
records what seem to him  interesting   
anecdotes or traditions respecting their
 authors or  the circumstances under    
which they were composed4 ,this         
distinction  ,dr4 ,lightfoot has        
established1 not only by a careful      
examination  of the language of         
,eusebius1 but also by comparing his    
statements  with the actual facts in    
regard to writings that are still       

extant1  and where we are able to verify
 his procedure4 ,after thus testing  the
 references in ,eusebius to ,clement of 
,rome1 the ,ignatian  ,epistles1        
,polycarp1 ,justin1 ,theophilus of      
,antioch1 and ,irenaeus1  ,dr4          
,lightfoot arrives1 by a strict and     
ample induction1 at the  conclusion that
 the silence of ,eusebius in respect to 
quotations  from any canonical book is  
so far an argument in its favour  that  
it shows the book in question to have   
been generally  acknowledged by the     
early ,church4 ,instead of being a proof
 that  the writer did not know the work 
in reference to which ,eusebius is      
silent1 the presumption is rather that  
he did1 like the rest of  the ,church1  
receive it4 ,eusebius only records what 
seems to him  specially memorable1      
except where the place of the work in or
 out  of the ,canon has itself to be    
vindicated4    ,but if this holds good1 
then most of what is said against the   
use  of the ,gospels by ,hegesippus     

falls to the ground4 ,eusebius          
expressly says ,endnote #adj3a that     
,hegesippus made occasional use  of the 
,gospel according to the ,hebrews       
7,greek3 ek te tou kath'  ,hebraious    
euangeliou 444 tina tithaesin74 ,but    
apart from the  conclusion referred to  
above1 the very language of ,eusebius   
7,greek3 tithaesin tina ek7 is enough to
 suggest that the use of  the ,gospel   
according to the ,hebrews was           
subordinate and  subsidiary4 ,eusebius  
can hardly have spoken in this way of   
'the ,gospel of which ,hegesippus made  
use' in all the five  books of his      
',memoirs4' ,the expression tallies     
exactly with what  we should expect of a
 work used in addition to but not  to   
the exclusion of our ,gospels4 ,the fact
 that ,eusebius  says nothing about     
these shows that his readers would take 
it for  granted that ,hegesippus1 as an 
orthodox ,christian1 received them4     
,with this conclusion the fragments of  
the work of ,hegesippus that  have come 

down to us agree4 ,the quotations made  
in them are  explained most simply and  
naturally1 on the assumption that our   
,gospels have been used4 ,the first to  
which we come is merely an  allusion to 
the narrative of ,matt4 ii2 ',for       
,domitian feared the  coming of the     
,christ as much as ,herod4' ,those      
therefore who take  the statement of    
,eusebius to mean that ,hegesippus used 
only the  ,gospel according to the      
,hebrews are compelled to seek for the  
account of the ,massacre of the         
,innocents in that ,gospel4 ,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 ,nazarenes4 ',but 
if it be doubtful whether some forms of 
that ,gospel contained the  two opening 
chapters of ,matthew1 it is certain that
 ,jerome found  them in the version     
which he translated' ,endnote #ada3a4 ,i
 am  afraid that here1 as in so many    

other cases1 the words 'doubtful'  and  
'certain' are used with very little     
regard to their meanings4  ,in support  
of the inference from ,jerome1 the      
author refers to ,de  ,wette1           
,schwegler1 and an article in a         
periodical publication by  ,ewald4 ,de  
,wette expressly says that the inference
 does not  follow 7',aus ,comm4 ad      
,matt4 ii4 #f 444 lsst sich nicht       
schliessen dass er hierbei das ,evang4  
der ,hebr4 verglichen  habe4444 ,nicht  
viel besser beweisen die ,st4 ad ,jes4  
xi4 #a2 ad  ,abac4 iii4 #c'7 ,endnote   
#ada3b4 ,he thinks that the presence of 
these chapters in ,jerome's copy cannot 
be satisfactorily proved1  but is       
probable just from this allusion in     
,hegesippus--in regard  to which ,de    
,wette simply follows the traditional1  
but1 as we have  seen1 erroneous        
assumption that ,hegesippus used only   
the ,gospel  according to the ,hebrews4 
,schwegler ,endnote #ada3c gives no     
reasons1 but refers to the passages     

quoted from ,jerome in ,credner4        
,credner1 after examining these         
passages1 comes to the conclusion  that 
'the ,gospel of the ,nazarenes did not  
contain the  chapters' ,endnote #ada3d4 
,ewald's periodical ,i cannot refer to1 
but ,hilgenfeld1 after an elaborate     
review of the question1 decides  that   
the chapters were omitted ,endnote      
#ada3e4 ,this is the only  authority ,i 
can find for the 'certainty that ,jerome
 found them' in  his version4    ,on the
 whole1 then1 it seems decidedly more   
probable 7certainties  we cannot deal   
in7 that the incident referred to by    
,hegesippus was  missing from the       
,gospel according to the ,hebrews4 ,that
 ,gospel  therefore was not quoted by   
him1 but1 on the contrary1 there is a   
presumption that he is quoting from the 
,canonical ,gospel4 ,the  narrative of  
the parallel ,gospel of ,st4 ,luke      
seems1 if not to  exclude the ,massacre 
of the ,innocents1 yet to imply an      
ignorance  of it4    ,the next passage  

that appears to be quotation occurs in  
the  account of the death of ,james the 
,just2 ',why do ye ask me  concerning   
,jesus the ,son of ,man8 ,he too sits in
 heaven on the  right hand of the great 
,power and will come on the clouds of   
heaven' 7,greek3 ,ti me eperotate peri  
,iaesou tou huiou tou  anthropou8 kai   
autos kathaetai en to ourano ek dexion  
taes  megalaes dunameos1 kai mellei     
erchesthai epi ton nephelon tou         
ouranou74 ,it seems natural to suppose  
that this is an allusion to  ,matt4     
xxvi4 #fd1 ,greek3 ap' arti opsesthe ton
 huion tou anthropou  kathaemenon ek    
dexion taes dunameos1 kai erchomenon epi
 ton  vephelon tou ouranou4 ,the passage
 is one that belongs to the  triple     
synopsis1 and the form in which it      
appears in ,hegesippus  shows a         
preponderating resemblance to the       
version of ,st4 ,matthew4  ,mark inserts
 ,greek3 kathaemenon between ,greek3 ek 
dexion and  ,greek3 taes dunameos1 while
 ,luke thinks it necessary to add       

,greek3 tou theou4 ,the third           
,evangelist omits the phrase ,greek3    
epi ton nephelon tou ouranou1           
altogether1 and the second  substitutes 
,greek3 meta for ,greek3 epi4 ,in fact  
the phrase  ,greek3 epi ton vephelon    
occurs in the ,new ,testament only in   
,st4  ,matthew2 the ,apocalypse1 like   
,st4 ,mark1 has ,greek3 meta and        
,greek3 epi only with the singular4     
,in like manner1 when we find           
,hegesippus using the phrase ,greek3    
prosopon ou lambaneis1 this seems to be 
a reminiscence of ,luke  xx4 #ba1 where 
the synoptic parallels have ,greek3     
blepeis4    ,a more decided reference to
 the third ,gospel occurs in the dying  
prayer of ,st4 ,james2 ,greek3 parakalo1
 kurie thee pater1 aphes  autois2 ou gar
 oidasiti poiousin1 which corresponds to
 ,luke  xxiii4 #cd1 ,greek3 pater1 aphes
 autois2 ou gar oidasin ti  poiousin4   
,there is the more reason to believe    
that ,hegesippus'  quotation is derived 
from this source that it reproduces the 

peculiar use of ,greek3 aphienai in the 
sense of 'forgive'  without an expressed
 object4 ,though the word is of very    
frequent  occurrence1 ,i find no other  
instance of this in the ,new ,testament 
,endnote #adc3a1 and the ,clementine    
,homilies1 in making the same           
quotation1 insert ,greek3 tas hamartias 
auton4 ,the saying is well  known to be 
peculiar to ,st4 ,luke4 ,there is       
perhaps a balance of  evidence against  
its genuineness1 but this is of little  
importance1 as it undoubtedly formed    
part of the ,gospel as early  as        
,irenaeus1 who wrote much about the same
 time as ,hegesippus4    ,the remaining 
passage occurs in a fragment preserved  
from  ,stephanus ,gobarus1 a writer of  
the sixth century1 by ,photius1  writing
 in the ninth4 ,referring to the saying 
',eye hath not seen1'  c41 ,gobarus says
 'that ,hegesippus1 an ancient and      
apostolical  man1 asserts--he knows not 
why--that these words are vainly        
spoken1 and that those who use them give

 the lie to the sacred  writings and to 
our ,lord ,himself who said1 ,blessed   
are your eyes  that see and your ears   
that hear1' c4 ',those who use these    
words' are1 we can hardly doubt1 as ,dr4
 ,lightfoot after ,routh has  shown     
,endnote #add3a1 the ,gnostics1 though  
,hegesippus would seem  to have         
forgotten ,i ,cor4 ii4 #i4 ,the         
anti-,pauline position assigned  to     
,hegesippus on the strength of this is1 
we must say1 untenable4  ,but for the   
present we are concerned rather with the
 second  quotation1 which agrees closely
 with ,matt4 xiii4 #bf 7,greek3 humon   
de makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoti         
blepousin1 kai ta ota humon hoti        
akouousin74 ,the form of the quotation  
has a slightly nearer  resemblance to   
,luke x4 #bc 7,greek3 makarioi hoi      
ophthalmoi hoi  blepontes ha blepete    
k4t4l471 but the marked difference in   
the  remainder of the ,lucan passage    
increases the presumption that          
,hegesippus is quoting from the first   

,gospel ,endnote #add3b4    ,the use of 
the phrase ,greek3 ton theion graphon is
 important and  remarkable4 ,there is   
not1 so far as ,i am aware1 any instance
 of so  definite an expression being    
applied to an apocryphal ,gospel4 ,it   
would tend to prepare us for the strong 
assertion of the ,canon of  the ,gospels
 in ,irenaeus2 it would in fact mark the
 gradually  culminating process which   
went on in the interval which separated 
,irenaeus from ,justin4 ,to this        
interval the evidence of ,hegesippus    
must be taken to apply1 because though  
writing like ,irenaeus under            
,eleutherus 7from #agg ,a4,d47 he was   
his elder contemporary1 and had  been   
received with high respect in ,rome as  
early as the episcopate  of ,anicetus   
7#aeg-afh ,a4,d474    ,the relations in 
which ,hegesippus describes himself as  
standing to  the ,churches and bishops  
of ,corinth and ,rome seem to be        
decisive  as to his substantial         
orthodoxy4 ,this would give reason to   

think  that he made use of our present  
,gospels1 and the few quotations  that  
have come down to us confirm that view  
not inconsiderably1  though by          
themselves they might not be quite      
sufficient to prove  it4    ,there is   
one passage that may be thought to point
 to an apocryphal  ,gospel1 ',from these
 arose false ,christs1 false prophets1  
false  apostles2' which recalls a       
sentence in the ,clementines1 ',for     
there  shall be1 as the ,lord said1     
false apostles1 false prophets1         
heresies1 ambitions4' ,it is not1       
however1 nearer to this than to  the    
canonical parallel1 ,matt4 xxiv4 #bd    
7',there shall arise false  ,christs and
 false prophets'74                      
#b4    ,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 ,gospels1 and to 
what is really the  most enigmatic and  
tantalizing of all the patristic        

utterances4    ,like ,hegesippus1       
,papias may be described as 'an ancient 
and  apostolic man1' and appears to have
 better deserved the title4 ,he  is said
 to have suffered martyrdom under ,m4   
,aurelius about the  same time as       
,polycarp1 #afe-afg ,a4,d4 ,endnote     
#ade3a ,he wrote a  commentary on the   
,discourses or more properly ,oracles of
 the ,lord1  from which ,eusebius       
extracted what seemed to him 'memorable'
  statements respecting the origin of   
the first and second ,gospels4          
',matthew1' ,papias said ,endnote       
#adf3a1 'wrote the oracles  7,greek3 ta 
logia7 in the ,hebrew tongue1 and every 
one  interpreted them as he was able4'  
',mark1 as the interpreter of  ,peter1  
wrote down accurately1 though not in    
order1 all that he  remembered that was 
said or done by ,christ4 ,for he neither
 heard  the ,lord nor attended upon     
,him1 but later1 as ,i said1 upon       
,peter1  who taught according to the    
occasion and not as composing a         

connected narrative of the ,lord's      
discourses2 so that ,mark made no       
mistake in writing down some things as  
he remembered them4 ,for he  took care  
of one thing1 not to omit any of the    
particulars that he  heard or to falsify
 any part of them4'           99        
99       99       99       99    ,let us
 take the second of these statements    
first4 ,according to it  the ,gospel of 
,st4 ,mark consisted of notes taken     
down1 or rather  recollected1 from the  
teaching of ,peter4 ,it was not written 
'in  order1' but it was an original work
 in the sense that it was first  put in 
writing by ,mark himself1 having        
previously existed only in  an oral     
form4    ,does this agree with the facts
 of the ,gospel as it appears to us     
now8 ,there is a certain ambiguity as to
 the phrase 'in order4' ,we  cannot be  
quite sure what ,papias meant by it1 but
 the most natural  conclusion seems to  
be that it meant chronological order4   
,if so1  the statement of ,papias seems 

to be so far borne out that none of  the
 ,synoptic ,gospels is really in exact  
chronological order2 but1  strange to   
say1 if there is any in which an        
approach to such an  order is made1 it  
is precisely this of ,st4 ,mark4 ,this  
appears from  a comparison of the three 
,synoptics4 ,from the point at which the
  second ,gospel begins1 or1 in other   
words1 from the ,baptism to the         
,crucifixion1 it seems to give the      
outline that the other two  ,gospels    
follow ,endnote #adg3a4 ,if either of   
them diverges from it  for a time it is 
only to return4 ,the early part of ,st4 
,matthew is  broken up by the intrusion 
of the so-called ,sermon on the ,mount1 
but all this time ,st4 ,mark is in      
approximate agreement with ,st4  ,luke4 
,for a short space the three ,gospels go
 together4 ,then comes  a second break1 
where ,luke introduces his version of   
the ,sermon on  the ,mount4 ,then the   
three rejoin and proceed together1      
,matthew  being thrown out by the way in

 which he has collected the parables    
into a single chapter1 and ,luke later  
by the place which he has  assigned to  
the incident at ,nazareth4 ,after this  
,matthew and ,mark  proceed side by     
side1 ,luke dropping out of the ranks4  
,at the  confession of ,peter he takes  
his place again1 and there is a close   
agreement in the order of the three     
narratives4 ,the incident of  the       
miracle-worker is omitted by ,matthew1  
and then comes the  insertion of a mass 
of extraneous matter by ,luke4 ,when he 
resumes  the thread of the common       
narrative again all three are together4 
,the insertion of a single parable on   
the part of ,matthew1 and  omissions on 
the part of ,luke1 are the only         
interruptions4 ,there  is an approximate
 agreement of all three1 we may say1 for
 the rest  of the narrative4 ,we observe
 throughout that1 in by far the         
preponderating number of instances1     
where ,matthew differs from the  order  
of ,mark1 ,luke and ,mark agree1 and    

where ,luke differs from  the order of  
,mark1 ,matthew and ,mark agree4 ,thus1 
for instance1 in  the account of the    
healings in ,peter's house and of the   
paralytic1  in the relation of the      
parables of ,mark iv4 #a-cd to the storm
 at  sea which follows1 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 7,mark vi4 #ad-af71 in the  
warning  against the ,scribes and the   
widow's mite 7,mark xii4 #ch-dd71 the   
second and third ,synoptics are allied  
against the first4 ,on the  other hand1 
in the call of the four chief ,apostles1
 the death of  the ,baptist1 the walking
 on the sea1 the miracles in the land of
  ,gennesareth1 the washing of hands1   
the ,canaanitish woman1 the  feeding of 
the four thousand and the discourses    
which follow1 the  ambition of the sons 
of ,zebedee1 the anointing at ,bethany1 
and  several insertions of the third    
,evangelist in regard to the last       

events1 the first two are allied against
 him4 ,while ,mark thus  receives such  
alternating support from one or other of
 his fellow  ,evangelists1 ,i am not    
aware of any clear case in which1 as to 
the  order of the narratives1 they are1 
united and he is alone1 unless  we are  
to reckon as such his insertion of the  
incident of the  fugitive between ,matt4
 xxvi4 #ef1 #eg1 ,luke xxii4 #ec1 #ed4  
,it appears then that1 so far as there  
is an order in the ,synoptic  ,gospels1 
the normal type of that order is to be  
found precisely in  ,st4 ,mark1 whom    
,papias alleges to have written not in  
order4    ,but again there seems to be  
evidence that the ,gospel1 in the form  
in which it has come down to us1 is not 
original but based upon  another        
document previously existing4 ,when we  
come to examine  closely its verbal     
relations to the other two ,synoptics1  
its  normal character is in the main    
borne out1 but still not quite          
completely4 ,the number of particulars  

in which ,matthew and ,mark  agree      
together against ,luke1 or ,mark and    
,luke agree together  against ,matthew1 
is far in excess of that in which       
,matthew and  ,luke are agreed against  
,mark4 ,mark is in most cases the middle
  term which unites the other two4 ,but 
still there remains a not               
inconsiderable residuum of cases in     
which ,matthew and ,luke are in         
combination and ,mark at variance4 ,the 
figures obtained by a not  quite exact  
and yet somewhat elaborate computation  
,endnote #adi3a  are these2 ,matthew and
 ,mark agree together against ,luke in  
#afhd  particulars1 ,luke and ,mark     
against ,matthew in #idd1 but ,matthew  
and  ,luke against ,mark in only #ccd4  
,these #ccd instances are distributed   
pretty evenly over the whole of the     
narrative4 ,thus 7to take a  case at    
random7 in the parallel narratives      
,matt4 xii4 #a-h1 ,mark  ii4 #bc-bh1    
,luke vi4 #a-e 7the plucking of the ears
 on the ,sabbath  day71 there are       

fifty-one points 7words or parts of     
words7 common  to all three             
,evangelists1 twenty-three are common   
only to ,mark and  ,luke1 ten to ,mark  
and ,matthew1 and eight to ,matthew and 
,luke4 ,in  the next section1 the       
healing of the withered hand1 twenty    
points  are found alike in all three    
,gospels1 twenty-seven in ,mark and     
,luke1 twenty-one in ,mark and ,matthew1
 and five in ,matthew and  ,luke4 ,many 
of these coincidences between the first 
and third  ,synoptics are insignificant 
in the extreme4 ,thus1 in the last      
section referred to 7,mark iii4         
#a-f,matt4 xii4 #i-ad,luke vi4 #f-aa71  
one is the insertion of the article     
,greek3 taen 7,greek3  sunagogaen71 one 
the insertion of ,greek3 sou 7,greek3   
taen  cheira sou71 two the use of       
,greek3 de for ,greek3 kai1 and one     
that of ,greek3 eipen for ,greek3 legei4
 ,in the paragraph  before1 the eight   
points of coincidence between ,matthew  
and ,luke  are made up thus1 two ,greek3

 kai aesthion 7,greek kai  esthiein71   
,greek3 eipon 7,greek3 eipan71 ,greek3  
poiein1  eipen1 met' autou 7,greek3 sun 
auto71 ,greek3 monous 7,greek3  monois74
 ,but though such points as these1 if   
they had been few in  number1 might have
 been passed without notice1 still1 on  
the  whole1 they reach a considerable   
aggregate and all are not equally       
unimportant4 ,thus1 in the account of   
the healing of the paralytic1  such     
phrases is ,greek epi klinaes1 apaelthen
 eis ton oikon  autou1 can hardly have  
come into the first and third ,gospels  
and  be absent from the second by       
accident2 so again the clause ,greek3   
alla ballousin 7blaeteon7 oinon neon eis
 askous kainous4 ,in the  account of the
 healing of the bloody flux the         
important word  ,greek3 tou kraspedou is
 inserted in ,matthew and ,luke but not 
in  ,mark2 in that of the mission of the
 twelve ,apostles1 the two  ,evangelists
 have1 and the single one has not1 the  
phrase ,greek3  kai therapeuein noson   

7nosous71 and the still more important  
clause ,greek3 lego humin anektoteron   
estai 7gae7 ,sodomon 444 en  haemera 444
 ae tae polei ekeinae3 in ,luke ix4 #g 7
 ,matt4 xiv4 #a7  ,herod's title is     
,greek3 tetrarchaes1 in ,mark vi4 #ad   
,greek3  basileus2 in the succeeding    
paragraph ,greek3 hoi ochloi            
aekolouthaesan and the important ,greek3
 to perisseuon 7-san7  are wanting in   
the intermediate ,gospel2 in the first  
prophecy of  the ,passion it has ,greek3
 apo where the other two have ,greek3   
hupo1 and ,greek3 meta treis haemeras   
where they have ,greek3  tae tritae     
haemera3 in the healing of the lunatic  
boy it omits  the noticeable ,greek3 kai
 diestrammenae3 in the second prophecy  
of the ,passion it omits ,greek3 mellei1
 in the paragraph about  offences1      
,greek3 elthein ta skandala 444ouai444di
 hou erchetai4  ,these points might be  
easily multiplied as we go on2 suffice  
it to  say that in the aggregate they   
seem to prove that the second  ,gospel1 

in spite of its superior originality and
 adhesion to the  normal type1 still    
does not entirely adhere to it or       
maintain its  primary character         
throughout4 ,the theory that we have in 
the  second ,gospel one of the primitive
 ,synoptic documents is not  tenable4   
,no doubt this is an embarrassing       
result4 ,the question is easy to  ask   
and difficult to answer--,if our ,st4   
,mark does not represent  the original  
form of the document1 what does         
represent it8 ,the  original document1  
if not quite like our ,mark1 must have  
been very  nearly like it2 but how did  
any writer come to reproduce a  previous
 work with so little variation8 ,if he  
had simply copied or  reproduced it     
without change1 that would have been    
intelligible2  if he had added freely to
 it1 that also would have been          
intelligible3 but1 as it is1 he seems to
 have put in a touch here  and made an  
erasure there on principles that it is  
difficult for  us now to follow4 ,we are

 indeed here at the very crux of        
,synoptic criticism4    ,for our present
 purpose however it is not necessary    
that the  question should be solved4 ,we
 have already obtained an answer on  the
 two points raised by ,papias4 ,the     
second ,gospel is  written in order2 it 
is not an original document4 ,these two 
characteristics make it improbable that 
it is in its present shape  the document
 to which ,papias alludes4    ,does his 
statement accord any better with the    
phenomena of the  first ,gospel8 ,he    
asserts that it was originally written  
in ,hebrew1  and that the large majority
 of modern critics deny to have been    
the case with our present ,gospel4 ,many
 of the quotations in it  from the ,old 
,testament are made directly from the   
,septuagint and  not from the ,hebrew4  
,there are turns of language which have 
the  stamp of an original ,greek idiom  
and could not have come in  through     
translation4 ,but1 without going into   
this question as to  the original       

language of the first ,gospel1 a shorter
 method will  be to ask whether it can  
have been an original document at all8  
,the work to which ,papias referred     
clearly was such1 but the very  same    
investigation which shows that our      
present ,st4 ,mark was not  original1   
tells with increased force against ,st4 
,matthew4 ,when a  document exists      
dealing with the same subject-matter as 
two other  documents1 and those two     
other documents agree together and      
differ  from it on as many as #idd      
separate points1 there can be little    
doubt that in the great majority of     
those points it has deviated  from the  
original1 and that it is therefore      
secondary in  character4 ,it is both    
secondary and secondary on a lower stage
  than ,st4 ,mark3 it has preserved the 
features of the original with  a less   
amount of accuracy4 ,the points of the  
triple synopsis on  which ,matthew fails
 to receive verification are in all     
#idd2 those  on which ,mark fails to    

receive verification #ccd2 or1 in other 
words1 the inaccuracies of ,matthew are 
to those of ,mark nearly as  three to   
one4 ,in the case of ,luke the          
proportion is still greater--  as much  
as five to one4    ,this is but a tithe 
of the arguments which show that the    
first  ,gospel is a secondary           
composition4 ,an original composition   
would  be homogeneous2 it is markedly   
heterogeneous4 ,the first two  chapters 
clearly belong to a different stock of  
materials from the  rest of the ,gospel4
 ,a broad division is seen in regard to 
the ,old  ,testament quotations4 ,those 
which are common to the other two       
,synoptists are almost if not quite     
uniformly taken from the  ,septuagint2  
those1 on the other hand1 which seem to 
belong to the  reflection of the        
,evangelist betray more or less         
distinctly the  influence of the ,hebrew
 ,endnote #aec3a4 ,our ,gospel is thus  
seen  to be a recension of another      
original document or documents and  not 

an original document itself4    ,again1 
if our ,st4 ,matthew had been an        
original composition and had  appeared  
from the first in its present full and  
complete form1 it  would be highly      
difficult to account for the omissions  
and  variations in ,mark and ,luke4 ,we 
should be driven back1 indeed1  upon all
 the impossibilities of the             
',benutzungs-hypothese4' ,on the  one   
hand1 the close resemblance between the 
three compels us to  assume that the    
authors have either used each other's   
works or  common documents2 but the     
differences practically preclude the    
supposition that the later writer had   
before him the whole work of  his       
predecessor4 ,if ,luke had had before   
him the first two chapters  of ,matthew 
he could not have written his own first 
two chapters as  he has done4    ,again1
 the character of the narrative is such 
as to be inconsistent  with the view    
that it proceeds from an eye-witness of 
the events4  ,those graphic touches1    

which are so conspicuous in the fourth  
,gospel1  and come out from time to time
 in the second1 are entirely wanting  in
 the first4 ,if parallel narratives1    
such as the healing of the  paralytic1  
the cleansing of the ,temple1 or the    
feeding of the five  thousand1 are      
compared1 this will be very clearly     
seen4 ,more2 there  are features in the 
first ,gospel that are to all appearance
 unhistorical  and due to the peculiar  
method of the writer4 ,he has a way of  
reduplicating1 so to speak1 the         
personages of one narrative in  order to
 make up for the omission of another    
,endnote #aed3a4 ,for  instance1 he is  
silent as to the healing of the demoniac
 at ,capernaum1  but1 instead of this1  
he gives us two ,gadarene demoniacs1 at 
the same  time modifying the language in
 which he describes this latter incident
  after the pattern of the former2 in   
like manner he speaks of the  healing of
 two blind men at ,jericho1 but only    
because he had passed  over the healing 

of the blind man at ,bethsaida4 ,of a   
somewhat similar  nature is the adding  
of the ass's colt to the ass in the     
account  of the ,triumphal ,entry4      
,there are also fragmentary sayings     
repeated in the ,gospel in a way that   
would be natural in a later  editor     
piecing together different documents and
 finding the same  saying in each1 but  
unnatural in an eye- and ear-witness    
drawing  upon his own recollections4    
,some clear cases of this kind would be 
,matt4 v4 #bi1 #cj 7 ,matt4 xviii4 #h1  
#i7 the offending member1 ,matt4  v4 #cb
 7 ,matt4 xix4 #i7 divorce1 ,matt4 x4   
#ch1 #ci 7 ,matt4 xvi4 #bd1  #be7       
bearing the cross1 loss and gain2 and   
there are various others4    ,these     
characteristics of the first ,gospel    
forbid us to suppose  that it came fresh
 from the hands of the ,apostle in the  
shape in  which we now have it2 they    
also forbid us to identify it with the  
work alluded to by ,papias4 ,neither of 
the two first ,gospels1 as we  have     

them1 complies with the conditions of   
,papias' description to  such an extent 
that we can claim ,papias as a witness  
to them4           99       99       99 
99       99    ,but now a further       
enquiry opens out upon us4 ,the language
 of  ,papias does not apply to our      
present ,gospels2 will it apply to  some
 earlier and more primary state of those
 ,gospels1 to documents  incorporated in
 the works that have come down to us but
 not  co-extensive with them8 ,german   
critics1 it is well known1  distinguish 
between ',matthus'--the present ,gospel 
that bears the  name of ,st4            
,matthew--and ',ur-,matthus1' or the    
original work of  that ,apostle1        
',marcus'--our present ,st4 ,mark--and  
',ur-,marcus1' an  older and more       
original document1 the real production  
of the  companion of ,st4 ,peter4 ,is it
 to these that ,papias alludes8    ,here
 we have a much more tenable and        
probable hypothesis4 ,papias  says that 
,matthew composed 'the oracles' 7,greek3

 ta logia7 in  the ,hebrew tongue4 ,the 
meaning of the word ,greek3 logia has   
been  much debated4 ,perhaps the        
strictest translation of it is that     
which has been given1 'oracles'--short  
but weighty and solemn or  sacred       
sayings4 ,i should be sorry to say that 
the word would not  bear the sense      
assigned to it by ,dr4 ,westcott1 who   
paraphrases it  felicitously 7from his  
point of view7 by our word ',gospel'    
,endnote #aee3a4 ,it is1 however1       
difficult to help feeling that  the     
natural sense of the word has to be     
somewhat strained  in order to make it  
cover the whole of our present ,gospel1 
and to  bring under it the record of    
facts to as great an extent as          
discourse4 ,it seems at least the       
simplest and most obvious               
interpretation to confine the word      
strictly or mainly to  discourse4       
',matthew composed the discourses 7those
 brief yet  authoritative discourses7 in
 ,hebrew4'    ,at this point we are met 

by a further coincidence4 ,the common   
matter in the first three ,gospels is   
divided into a triple  synopsis and a   
double synopsis--the first of course    
running  through all three ,gospels1 the
 second found only in ,st4 ,matthew  and
 ,st4 ,luke4 ,but this double synopsis  
is nearly1 though not  quite1 confined  
to discourse2 where it contains         
narration proper1  as in the account of 
,john the ,baptist and the ,centurion of
  ,capernaum1 discourse is largely      
mingled with it4 ,but1 if the  matter   
common to ,matthew and ,luke consists of
 discourse1 may it  not be these very   
,greek3 logia that ,papias speaks of8   
,is it not  possible that the two       
,evangelists had access to the original 
work  of ,st4 ,matthew and incorporated 
its material into their own  ,gospels in
 different ways8 ,it would thus be easy 
to understand how  the name that        
belonged to a special and important part
 of the  first ,gospel gradually came to
 be extended over the whole4 ,bulk      

would not unnaturally be a great        
consideration with the early            
,christians4 ,the larger work would     
quickly displace the smaller2 it  would 
contain all that the smaller contained  
with additions no  less valuable1 and   
would therefore be eagerly sought by the
  converts1 whose object would be rather
 fulness of information than  the best  
historical attestation4 ,the original   
work would be simply  lost1 absorbed1 in
 the larger works that grew out of it4  
,this is the kind of presumption that we
 have for identifying the  ,logia of    
,papias with the second ground document 
of the first  ,gospel--the document1    
that is1 which forms the basis of the   
double  synopsis between the first      
,gospel and the third4 ,as a hypothesis 
the identification of these two         
documents seems to clear up  several    
points4 ,it gives a 'local habitation   
and a name' to a  document1 the separate
 and independent existence of which     
there is  strong reason to suspect1 and 

it explains how the name of ,st4        
,matthew came to be placed at the head  
of the ,gospel without  involving too   
great a breach in the continuity of the 
tradition4  ,it should be remembered    
that ,papias is not giving his own      
statement but that of the ,presbyter    
,john1 which dates back to a  time      
contemporary with the composition of the
 ,gospel4 ,on the other  hand1 by the   
time of ,irenaeus1 whose early life ran 
parallel with  the closing years of     
,papias1 the title was undoubtedly given
 to  the ,gospel in its present form4   
,it is therefore as difficult to  think 
that the ,gospel had no connection with 
the ,apostle whose  name it bears1 as it
 is impossible to regard it as entirely 
his  work4 ,the ,logia hypothesis seems 
to suggest precisely such an            
intermediate relation as will satisfy   
both sides of the problem4    ,there    
are1 however1 still difficulties in the 
way4 ,when we attempt  to reconstruct   
the 'collection of discourses' the task 

is very far  from being an easy one4 ,we
 do indeed find certain groups of       
discourse in the first ,gospel--such as 
the ,sermon on the ,mount ch4  v-vii1   
the commission of the ,apostles ch4 x1 a
 series of parables  ch4 xiii1 of       
instructions in ch4 xviii1 invectives   
against the  ,pharisees in ch4 xxvi1 and
 long eschatological discourses in ch4  
xxiv and xxv1 which seem at once to give
 a handle to the theory  that the       
,evangelist has incorporated a work     
consisting specially  of discourses into
 the main body of the ,synoptic         
narrative4 ,but  the appearance of      
roundness and completeness which these  
discourses present is deceptive4 ,if we 
are to suppose that the  form in which  
the discourses appear in ,st4 ,matthew  
at all nearly  represents their original
 structure1 then how is it that the same
  discourses are found in the third     
,gospel in such a state of  dispersion8 
,how is it1 for instance1 that the      
parallel passages to  the ,sermon on the

 ,mount are found in ,st4 ,luke         
scattered over  chapters vi1 xi1 xii1   
xiii1 xiv1 xvi1 with almost every       
possible  inversion and variety of      
order8 ,again1 if the ,matthaean        
sections  represent a substantive work1 
how are we to account for the  strange  
intrusion of the triple synopsis into   
the double8 ,what are  we to say to the 
elaborately broken structure of ch4 x8  
,on the  other hand1 if we are to take  
the ,lucan form as nearer to the        
original1 that original must have been a
 singular agglomeration of  fragments   
which it is difficult to piece together4
 ,it is easy to  state a theory that    
shall look plausible so long as it is   
confined  to general terms1 but when it 
comes to be worked out in detail it     
will seem to be more and more difficult 
and involved at every  step4 ,the ,logia
 hypothesis in fact carries us at once  
into the  very nodus of ,synoptic       
criticism1 and1 in the present state of 
the  question1 must be regarded as still

 some way from being  established4      
,the problem in regard to ,st4 ,mark and
 the triple synopsis is  considerably   
simpler4 ,here the difficulty arises    
from the  necessity of assuming a       
distinction between our present second  
,gospel and the original document on    
which that ,gospel is based4 ,i  have   
already touched upon this point4 ,the   
synoptical analysis  seems to conduct us
 to a ground document greatly resembling
 our  present ,st4 ,mark1 which cannot  
however be quite identical with it1  as 
the ,canonical ,gospel is found to      
contain secondary features4  ,but apart 
from the fact that these secondary      
features are so  comparatively few that 
it is difficult to realise the existence
 of  a work in which they1 and they     
only1 should be absent1 there is  this  
further obstacle to the identification  
even of the ground  document with the   
,mark of ,papias1 that even in that     
original shape  the ,gospel still       
presented the normal type of the        

,synoptic order1  though 'order' is     
precisely the characteristic that       
,papias says  was1 in this ,gospel1     
wanting4    ,everywhere we meet with    
difficulties and complexities4 ,the     
testimony of ,papias remains an enigma  
that can only be solved--if  ever it is 
solved--by close and detailed           
investigations4 ,i am  bound in candour 
to say that1 so far as ,i can see myself
 at  present1 ,i am inclined to agree   
with the author of ',supernatural       
,religion' against his critics ,endnote 
#aei3a1 that the works to  which ,papias
 alludes cannot be our present ,gospels 
in their  present form4    ,what amount 
of significance this may have for the   
enquiry before  us is a further         
question4 ,papias is repeating what he  
had heard  from the ,presbyter ,john1   
which would seem to take us up to the   
very fountainhead of evangelical        
composition4 ,but such a statement  does
 not preclude the possibility of        
subsequent changes in the  documents to 

which it refers4 ,the difficulties and  
restrictions of  local communication    
must have made it hard for an individual
 to  trace all the phases of literary   
activity in a society so widely  spread 
as the ,christian1 even if it had come  
within the purpose of  the writer or his
 informant to state the whole1 and not  
merely the  essential part1 of what he  
knew4            ,,chapter ,,vi4        
,,the ,,clementine ,,homilies4      ,it 
is unfortunate that there are not       
sufficient materials for  determining   
the date of the ,clementine ,homilies4  
,once given the  date and a conclusion  
of considerable certainty could be drawn
  from them2 but the date is uncertain1 
and with it the extent to  which they   
can be used as evidence either on one   
side or on the  other4    ,some time in 
the second century there sprang up a    
crop of  heretical writings in the      
,ebionite sect which were falsely       
attributed to ,clement of ,rome4 ,the   
two principal forms in which  these have

 come down to us are the so-called      
,homilies and  ,recognitions4 ,the      
,recognitions however are only extant in
 a ,latin  translation by ,rufinus1 in  
which the quotations from the ,gospels  
have evidently been assimilated to the  
,canonical text which  ,rufinus himself 
used4 ,they are not1 therefore1 in any  
case  available for our purpose4        
,whether the ,recognitions or the       
,homilies came first in order of time is
 a question much debated  among critics1
 and the even way in which the best     
opinions seem to  be divided is a proof 
of the uncertainty of the data4 ,on the 
one  side are ranged ,credner1 ,ewald1  
,reuss1 ,schwegler1 ,schliemann1        
,uhlhorn1 ,dorner1 and ,lcke1 who assign
 the priority to the  ,homilies3 on the 
other1 ,hilgenfeld1 ,kstlin1 ,ritschl   
7doubtfully71  and ,volkmar1 who give   
the first place to the ,recognitions    
,endnote  #afb3a4 ,on the ground of     
authority perhaps the preference should 
be given to the first of these1 as      

representing more varied  parties and as
 carrying with them the greater weight  
of sound  judgment1 but it is impossible
 to say that the evidence on either     
side is decisive4    ,the majority of   
critics assign the ,clementines1 in one 
form or the  other1 to the middle of the
 second century4 ,credner1 ,schliemann1 
,scholten1 and ,renan give this date to 
the ,homilies2 ,volkmar and  ,hilgenfeld
 to the ,recognitions2 ,ritschl to both 
recensions alike  ,endnote #afb3b4 ,we  
shall assume hypothetically that the    
,homilies  are rightly thus dated4 ,i   
incline myself to think that this is    
more probable1 but1 speaking            
objectively1 the probability could  not 
have a higher value put upon it than1   
say1 two in three4    ,one reason for   
assigning the ,homilies to the middle of
 the second  century is presented by the
 phenomena of the quotations from the   
,gospels which correspond generally to  
those that are found in  writings of    
this date1 and especially1 as has been  

frequently  noticed1 to those which we  
meet with in ,justin4 ,i proceed to give
  a tabulated list of the quotations4   
,in order to bring out a point  of      
importance ,i have indicated by a letter
 in the left margin the  presence in the
 ,clementine quotations of some of the  
peculiarities  of our present ,gospels4 
,when this letter is unbracketed1 it    
denotes  that the passage is only found 
in the ,gospel so indicated2 when  the  
letter is enclosed in brackets1 it is   
implied that the passage  is synoptical1
 but that the ,clementines reproduce    
expressions peculiar  to that particular
 ,gospel4 ,the direct quotations are    
marked by the  letter ,q4 ,many of the  
references are merely allusive1 and in  
more  it is sufficiently evident that   
the writer has allowed himself          
considerable freedom ,endnote #afc3a4   
,exact4     ,slightly variant4          
,variant4      ,remarks4                
7,m47                                   
#h4ba1 ,luke #d4f-h  narrative4         

7,matt4 #d4h-aj71                       
,q4                                     
#c4ee1 ,greek3 ho                       
ponaeros estin                          
ho peirazon41                           
,q4                                     
#ae4aj1 ,matt4 #e4c2                    
,luke #f4bj4        ,m4                 
#ag4g1 ,matt4 #e4h4                     
7,m47             #c4ea      ,matt4 #e4 
repeated                   ,ep4 ,pet4 #b
  #ag1ah4                               
identically4                            
#aa4cb1 ,matt4 #e4   highly condensed   
#ba-dh4            paraphrase1          
,greek3 oi                              
en planae4                              
,matt4#e4dd1                  allusive  
merely4                   #ab4cb        
#de7,luke                               
#c4ai  #f4bg1 #bh1                      
#ce74                             ,m4   
#c4ef1 ,matt4 #e4cd1                    
#ce1 ,q4                                
,m4               #c4ee ,matt4 #e4cg4   

repeated identi-                   #ai4b
   ,q4                                  
cally2 so                               
,justin4  7,m47                         
#c4eg4 ,matt4 #e4de4                    
,q4                                     
oblique and allu-                       
#ab4bf              sive1 repeated      
#ah4b4              in part simi-       
#aa4ab              larly2 ,greek3      
pherei ton                              
hueton4  ,m4               #c4ee1 ,matt4
 #f1f1 ,q4                     #ai4b1   
,matt4#f4ac                             
,q4                                     
7,m47             #c4ee1 ,matt4 #f4cb2  
combination4                     #f4h   
7,luke #ab4cj47                         
#ah4af1 ,matt4 #g4b  oblique and allu-  
7#ab74             sive4                
#c4eb1 ,matt4 #g4g                      
,greek3 euris-                          
7,luke #aa4i74                          
kete for                                
euraeskete                              

in both4  7,l4,m47           #c4ef1     
,matt4 #g4i-aa                          
striking divi-                          
7,luke #aa4aa-ac7                       
sion of pecu-                           
liarities of                            
both ,gospels4                          
#ab4cb ,matt4 #g4ab repeated di-        
#g4d   7,luke       versely1            
#aa4d    #f4ca4      allusive4  7,m47   
#ah4ag1 ,matt4 #g4     7omissions71 ,q4 
#ac1ad4                                 
#g4g4 ,matt4 #g4ac1  allusive para-     
#ad4               phrase4  7,l47       
#h4g1 ,luke #f4df4                      
#aa4ce1 ,matt4 #g4ae4                   
,justin1 in part                        
similarly1 in                           
part diversely4  7,m47             #h4d1
 ,matt4 #h4aa1    7addition71 ,q4       
,justin diversely4                      
#ab 7,luke #ac4bi74                     
#i4ba1 ,matt4 #h4i                      
allusive merely4                        
7,luke #g4h74                           

7,m47             #c4ef1 ,matt4 #i4ac   
7addition71 ,q4    from ,,lxx4          
7#ab4g74                                
7,l4,m47                                
,matt4 #aj4                             
#ac1 #ae                                
,luke #aj4                              
#ac4cj1  #e1f1aj-  mixed pecu-          
#ca4   #ab 7#i4e7  liarities1           
,mark     oblique and                   
#f4aa4     allusive4  7,l4,m47          
#ag4e1 ,matt4 #aj4bh                    
mixed peculia-                    7,luke
 #ab1d1 #e71 ,q4                        
rities2 ,justin                         
diversely4                              
#ab4ca1 ,matt4 #aj4  allusive merely4   
#bi1 #cj 7,luke                         
#ab4f1 #g74                             
#c4ag ,matt4 #aa4aa4                    
allusive4                        ,luke  
#g4bh4                                  
#h4f1 ,matt4 #aa4be    7addition74      
perhaps from                    7,luke  
x4#ba74                          ,matt4 

#ba4af4  7,m47                          
#ag4d                                   
#ah4d ,matt4 #aa4bg repeated simi-      
#ah4g  7,luke      larly2 cp4           
#ah4ac  #aj4bb71 ,q4 ,justin1 c4        
#ah4bj              ,m4 #c4eb1 ,matt4   
7,m47             #ai4b4 ,matt4 #ab4    
,greek3 allae                     #bf1  
,q4                                pou4 
7,m4,l47           #ai4g1 ,matt4 #ab4   
#cd 7,luke #f4                          
#de71 ,q4                               
,m4#aa4cc1 ,matt4   7addition71 ,q4     
#ab4db4                                 
#aa4cc1 ,matt4 #ab4                     
#da 7,luke #aa4                         
#cb71 ,q4                               
7,m4,l47           ,m4#ec1 ,matt4 #ac4  
#af 7,luke #aj4                         
#bd71 ,q4                               
,m4#ah4ae1 ,matt4                       
#ac4ce4                                 
,mk4              #ai4bj1 ,mark #d4cd4  
,m4               #ai4b1 ,matt4 #ac4    
#ci1 ,q4                                

,m4#c4eb1 ,matt4 #ae4                   
#ae 7om4 ,greek3                        
mou71 ,q4                               
,matt4 #ae4  narrative4                 
#aa4ai #ba-bh                           
7,mark     ,greek3 ,iousta              
#g4bd-cj74    ,surophoini-              
kissa4  7,m47             #ag4ah1 ,matt4
 #af4                                   
#af 7par47                              
,m4                                     
,ep4 ,clem4 #b1      allusive merely4   
,matt4 #af4ai4      ,m4                 
,ep4 ,clem4 #f1 ,matt4                  
ditto4                     #af4ai4      
7,m47             #c4ec1 ,matt4 #ag4e   
7par471 ,q4                             
,m4                                     
#ab4bi1 ,matt4 #ah4  addition ,greek3   
#g1 ,q4             ta agatha           
elthein4  ,m4               #ag4g1      
,matt4 #ah4aj                           
7v4l47                                  
7,l47 #c4ga1 ,luke                      
#aj4g4 7order7                          

7,matt4#aj4aj74                         
,l4               #ai4b1 ,luke #aj4ah4  
,l4                                     
#i4bb1 ,luke #aj4bj4 allusive merely4   
,l4                                     
#ag4e1 ,luke #ah4f-                     
#h1 ,q4 787                             
#ai4b1 ,greek3 mae ,cp4 ,eph4 #d4bg4    
dote prophasin                          
to ponaero1 ,q4                         
#c4ec1 ,prophet like,cp4 ,acts #c4bb4   
,moses1 ,q4         7,m47               
#c4ed1 ,matt4 #ai4h1                    
sense more diver-                     #d
 7,mark #aj4e1                          
gent than                     #f71 ,q4  
words4                                  
,matt4 #ai4                             
#ag4d    #af1ag4                        
#ah4a  ,mark #aj4   repeated simi-      
#ah4c    #ag1ah4     larly2 cp4         
#ah4ag ,luke #ah4     ,justin4          
#c4eg   #ah1ai4     ,l4                 
#c4fc1 ,luke #ai4    not quotation4     
#e4i4              ,m4#h4d1 ,matt4 #bb4 

#ad1 ,q4                                
7,m47                                   
#h4bb1 ,matt4 #bb4i4 allusive merely4   
#aa4                                    
#c4ej ,matt4 #bb4                       
#b4ea #bi 7,mark  repeated simi-        
#ah4bj #ab4bd71 ,q4   larly4            
#c4ej1 ,greek3                          
dia ti ou                               
eulogon ton                             
graphon2         7,mk47 #c4ee1 ,mark    
#ab4bg 7par471                          
,mk4 #c4eg1 ,mark                       
#ab4bi ,greek3                          
haemon1 ,q4                             
#ag4g1 ,mark #ab4cj  allusive4          
7,matt4 #bb4cg74                        
#c4ah1 ,matt4 #bc4b1                    
,m4                #c1 ,q4              
#c4ah1 ,matt4 #bc4ac repeated simi-     
7,luke #aa4eb74    larly4               
#ah4ae4              7,m47              
#aa4bi1 ,matt4 #bc4                     
#be1 #bf1 ,q4                           
7,mk47           #c4ae1 ,mark #ac4b     

7par471 ,q4                             
#c4ae1 ,matt4 #bd4c                     
7par471 ,q4        ,l4                  
,luke #ai4dc1 ,q4                       
#af4ba1 ,greek3                         
esontai pseud-                          
apostoloi4       7,m47             #c4fj
 7#c4fd71 ,matt4                    part
 repeated                     #bd4de-ea 
7                           larly4      
,luke #ab4db-df74                       
7,m47 #c4fe1 ,matt4                     
#be4ba 7 ,luke                          
#ai4ag74                                
7,m4 ,l47                               
#c4fa1 ,matt4 #be4bf18 mixed peculi-    
#bf1bg 7,luke #ai4  arities4            
#bb1bc74                                
#b4ea;,greek3                           
#c4ej ginesthe                          
#ah4bj trapezitai                       
dokimoi4    ,m4                         
#ai4b4 ,matt4 #be4   ,greek3 allae      
#da1 ,q4            pou4  ,justin       
,l4               #aa4bj1 ,luke #bc4cd  

7v4l471 ,q4                             
#ag4g1 ,matt4 #bh4ai4;allusive4    ,by  
far the greater part of the quotations  
in the ,clementine  ,homilies are taken 
from the discourses1 but some few have  
reference to the narrative4 ,there can  
hardly be said to be any  material      
difference from our ,gospels1 though    
several apocryphal  sayings and some    
apocryphal details are added4 ,thus the 
,clementine  writer calls ,john a       
',hemerobaptist1' i4e4 member of a sect 
which  practised daily baptism ,endnote 
#afg3a4 ,he talks about a rumour  which 
became current in the reign of ,tiberius
 about the 'vernal  equinox1' that at   
the same season a king should arise in  
,judaea  who should work miracles1      
making the blind to see1 the lame to    
walk1 healing every disease1 including  
leprosy1 and raising the  dead2 in the  
incident of the ,canaanite woman 7whom1 
with ,mark1 he  calls a ,syrophoenician7
 he adds her name1 ',justa1' and that of
 her  daughter ',bernice2' he also      

limits the ministry of our ,lord to one 
year ,endnote #afh3a4 ,otherwise1 with  
the exception of the sayings  marked as 
without parallel1 all of the ,clementine
 quotations have  a more or less close  
resemblance to our ,gospels4    ,we are 
struck at once by the small amount of   
exact coincidence1  which is            
considerably less than that which is    
found in the  quotations from the ,old  
,testament4 ,the proportion seems lower 
than  it is1 because many of the        
passages that have been entered in the  
above list do not profess to be         
quotations4 ,another phenomenon  equally
 remarkable is the extent to which the  
writer of the  ,homilies has reproduced 
the peculiarities of particular extant  
,gospels4 ,so far front being it a      
colourless text1 as it is in some  few  
places which present a parallel to our  
,synoptic ,gospels1 the  ,clementine    
version both frequently includes        
passages that are  found only in some   
one of the canonical ,gospels1 and also1

 we may  say usually1 repeats the       
characteristic phrases by which one     
,gospel is distinguished from another4  
,thus we find that as many as  eighteen 
passages reappear in the ,homilies that 
are found only in  ,st4 ,matthew2 one of
 the extremely few that are found only  
in ,st4  ,mark2 and six of those that   
are peculiar to ,st4 ,luke4 ,taking the 
first ,gospel1 we find that the         
,clementine ,homilies contain 7in an    
allusive form7 the promises to the pure 
in heart2 as a quotation1  with close   
resemblance1 the peculiar precepts in   
regard to oaths2  the special admonition
 to moderation of language which1 as we 
have  seen1 seems proved to be          
,matthaean by the clause ,greek3 to gar 
perisson touton k4t4l42 with close      
resemblance1 again1 the  directions for 
secret prayer2 identically1 the somewhat
 remarkable  phrase1 ,greek3 deute pros 
me pantes hoi kopiontes2 all but        
identically another phrase1 also        
noteworthy1 ,greek3 pasa phuteia  haen  

ouk ephuteusen ho pataer mou ho ouranios
 ekrizothaesetai2  with a resemblance   
that is closer in the text of ,b        
7,greek3 en to  ourano for ,greek3 en   
ouranois71 the saying respecting the    
angels who behold the face of the       
,father2 identically again1 the  text   
,greek3 polloi klaetoi1 oligoi de       
eklektoi3 in the shape of  an allusion  
only1 the wedding garment2 with near    
agreement1 'the  ,scribes and ,pharisees
 sit in ,moses' seat4' ,all these are   
passages  found only in the first       
,gospel1 and in regard to which there is
  just so much presumption that they had
 no large circulation among  non-extant 
,gospels1 as they did not find their way
 into the two  other ,gospels that have 
come down to us4    ,there is1 however1 
a passage that ,i have not mentioned    
here which  contains 7if the canonical  
reading is correct7 a strong indication 
of the use of our actual ,st4 ,matthew4 
,the whole history of this  passage is  
highly curious4 ,in the chapter which   

contains so many  parables the          
,evangelist adds1 by way of comment1    
that this form of  address was adopted  
in order 'that it might be fulfilled    
which was  spoken by the prophet1       
saying1 ,i will open my mouth in        
parables2 ,i  will utter things which   
have been kept secret from the          
foundation  of the world4' ,this is     
according to the received text1 which   
attributes the quotation to 'the        
prophet' 7,greek3 dia tou  prophaetou74 
,it is really taken from ,ps4 lxxvii4   
#b1 which is  ascribed in the heading to
 ,asaph1 who1 according to the usage of 
writers at this date1 might be called a 
prophet1 as he is in the  ,septuagint   
version of #b ,chron4 xxix4 #cj4 ,the   
phrase ,greek3 ho  prophaetaes legei in 
quotations from the ,psalms is not      
uncommon4  ,the received reading is that
 of by far the majority of the ,,mss4   
and versions3 the first hand of the     
,sinaitic1 however1 and the  valuable   
cursives #a and #cc with the ,aethiopic 

7a version on which  not much reliance  
can be placed7 and m4 of the ,old ,latin
 7,mai's  ',speculum1' presenting a     
mixed ,african text7 ,endnote #agj3a1   
insert ,greek3 ,haesaiou before ,greek3 
tou prophaetou4 ,it also  appears that  
,porphyry alleged this as an instance of
 false  ascription4 ,eusebius admits    
that it was found in some1 though not   
in the most accurate ,,mss41 and ,jerome
 says that in his day it was  still the 
reading of 'many4'    ,all this is very 
fully and fairly stated in              
',supernatural  ,religion' ,endnote     
#agj3b1 where it is maintained that     
,greek3  ,haesaiou is the original      
reading4 ,the critical question is one  
of  great difficulty2 because1 though   
the evidence of the ,fathers is         
naturally suspected on account of their 
desire to explain away the  mistake1 and
 though we can easily imagine that the  
correction  would be made very early and
 would rapidly gain ground1 still the   
very great preponderance of critical    

authority is hard to get  over1 and as a
 rule ,eusebius seems to be trustworthy 
in his  estimate of ,,mss4 ,tischendorf 
7in his texts of #ahfd and #ahfi7 is1 ,i
  believe1 the only critic of late who  
has admitted ,greek3  ,haesaiou into the
 text4    ,the false ascription may be  
easily paralleled2 as in ,mark i4 #b1   
,matt4 xxvii4 #i1 ,justin1 ,dial4 c4    
,tryph4 #bh 7where a passage of         
,jeremiah is quoted as ,isaiah71 c4     
,the relation of the ,clementine and of 
the canonical quotations to  each other 
and to the ,septuagint will be          
represented thus3-    ,clem4 ,hom4      
xviii4 #ae4    ,greek3 ,kai ton         
,haesaian eipein2 ,anoixo to stoma mou  
en parabolais  kai exereuxomai          
kekrummena apo katabolaes kosmou4       
,matt4 xiii4 #ce4    ,greek3 ,hopos     
plaerothe to rhaethen dia ,haesaiou8 tou
 prophaetou  legontos2 ,anoixo en       
parabolais to stoma mou1 ereuxomai      
kekrummena  apo katabolaes kosmou om4   
,greek3 kosmou a few of the best  ,,mss4

    ,,lxx4 ,ps4 lxxvii4 #b4    ,greek3  
,anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou1     
phthegxomai problaemata  ap' archaes4   
,the author of ',supernatural ,religion'
 contends for the reading  ,greek3      
,haesaiou1 and yet does not see in the  
,clementine passage  a quotation from   
,st4 ,matthew4 ,he argues1 with a       
strange domination  by modern ideas1    
that the quotation cannot be from ,st4  
,matthew  because of the difference of  
context1 and declares it to be 'very    
probable that the passage with its      
erroneous reference was derived  by both
 from another and common source4'       
,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 context2 but1 as  we   
have seen1 context counts for little or 
nothing in these early                  
quotations1--verbal resemblance is much 
more important4 ,the  supposition of a  
common earlier source for both the      
,canonical and  the ,clementine text    

seems to me quite out of the question4  
,there  can be little doubt that the    
reference to the ,psalm is due to the   
first ,evangelist himself4 ,precisely up
 to this point he goes hand  in hand    
with ,st4 ,mark1 and the quotation is   
introduced in his own  peculiar style   
and with his own peculiar formula1      
,greek3 hopos  plaerothae to rhaethen4  
,i must1 however1 again repeat that the 
surest criterion of the use  of a       
,gospel is to be sought in the presence 
of phrases or turns of  expression which
 are shown to be characteristic and     
distinctive of  that ,gospel by a       
comparison with the synopsis of the     
other  ,gospels4 ,this criterion can be 
abundantly applied in the case of  the  
,clementine ,homilies and ,st4 ,matthew4
 ,i will notice a little  more at length
 some of the instances that have been   
marked in the  above table4 ,let us     
first take the passage which has a      
parallel in  ,matt4 v4 #ah and in ,luke 
xvi4 #ag4 ,the three versions will stand

  thus3--    ,matt4 v4 #ah4    ,greek3  
,amaen gar lego humin2 heos an parelthae
 ho ouranos kai hae  gae iota en ae mia 
keraia ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou1  
heos an  panta genaetai4    ,clem4 ,hom4
 iii4 #ea4  ,ep4 ,pet4 c4 #b4    ,greek3
 ,ho ouranos kai hae gae pareleusontai1 
iota en ae mia keraia  ou mae parelthae 
apo tou nomou ,ep4 ,pet4 adds ,greek3   
touto de  eiraeken1 hina ta panta       
genaetai4    ,luke xvi4 #ag4    ,greek3 
,eukopoteron de esti1 ton ouranon kai   
taen gaen parelthein1  ae tou nomou mian
 keraian pesein4    ,it will be seen    
that in the ,clementines the passage is 
quoted  twice over1 and each time with  
the variation ,greek pareleusontai  for 
,greek3 heos an parelthae4 ,the author  
of ',supernatural  ,religion' argues    
from this that he is quoting from       
another ,gospel  ,endnote #agb3a4 ,no   
doubt the fact does tell1 so far as it  
goes1  in that direction1 but it is easy
 to attach too much weight to it4  ,the 
phenomenon of repeated variation may be 

even said to be a  common one in some   
writers4 ,dr4 ,westcott ,endnote #agb3b 
has  adduced examples from ,chrysostom1 
and they would be as easy to  find in   
,epiphanius or ,clement of ,alexandria1 
where we can have no  doubt that the    
canonical ,gospels are being quoted4 ,a 
slight and  natural turn of expression  
such as this easily fixes itself in the 
memory4 ,the author also insists that   
the passage in the ,gospel  quoted in   
the ,clementines ended with the word    
,green3 nomou2 but  ,i think it may be  
left to any impartial person to say     
whether the  addition in the ,epistle of
 ,peter does not naturally point to a   
termination such as is found in the     
first canonical ,gospel4 ,our  critic   
seems unable to free himself from the   
standpoint 7which he  represents ably   
enough7 of the modern ,englishman1 or   
else is  little familiar with the       
fantastic trains and connections of     
reasoning which are characteristic of   
the ,clementines4    ,turning from these

 objections and comparing the           
,clementine  quotation first with the   
text of ,st4 ,matthew and then with that
 of  ,st4 ,luke1 we cannot but be struck
 with its very close resemblance  to the
 former and with the wide divergence of 
the latter4 ,the  passage is one where  
almost every word and syllable might    
easily  and naturally be altered--as the
 third ,gospel shows that they have     
been altered--and yet in the            
,clementines almost every peculiarity   
of the ,matthaean version has been      
retained4    ,another quotation which   
shows the delicacy of these verbal      
relations is that which corresponds to  
,matt4 vi4 #cb 7 ,luke xii4  #cj73--    
,matt4 vi4 #cb4    ,greek3 ,oide gar ho 
pataer humon ho ouranios1 hoti chraezete
  touton hapanton4    ,clem4 ,hom4 iii4 
#ee4    ,greek3 ephae ,oiden gar ho     
pataer humon ho ouranios hoti  chraezete
 touton hapanton1 prin auton axiosaete  
7cp4 ,matt4 vi4  #h74    ,luke xii4 #cj4
    ,greek3 ,humon de ho pataer oiden   

hoti chraezete touton4    ,the natural  
inference from the exactness of this    
coincidence with  the language of       
,matthew as compared with ,luke1 is not 
neutralised  by the paraphrastic        
addition from ,matt4 vi4 #h1 because    
such  additions and combinations1 as    
will have been seen from our table  of  
quotations from the ,old ,testament1 are
 of frequent occurrence4    ,the        
quotation of ,matt4 v4 #de 7 ,luke vi4  
#ce7 is a good example of  the way in   
which the pseudo-,clement deals with    
quotations4 ,the  passage is quoted as  
often as four times1 with wide          
difference and  indeed complete         
confusion of text4 ,it is impossible to 
determine  what text he really had      
before him2 but through all this        
confusion  there is traceable a leaning 
to the ,matthaean type rather than the  
,lucan1 7,greek3 ho pataer ho en tois   
ouranois 444 ton aelion  autou anatellei
 epi agathous kai ponaerous74 ,it does1 
however1  appear that he had some such  

phrase as ,greek3 hueton pherei or      
,greek3 parechei for ,greek3 brechei1   
and in one of his quotations  he has the
 ,greek3 ginesthe agathoi 7for ,greek3  
chraestoi7  ,greek3 kai oiktirmones of  
,justin4 ,justin1 on the other hand1    
certainly had ,greek3 brechei4    ,the1 
in any case1 paraphrastic quotation or  
quotations which find  a parallel in    
,matt4 vii4 #ac1 #ad and ,luke xiii4 #bd
 are important as  seeming to indicate  
that1 if not taken from our ,gospel1    
they are  taken from another in a later 
stage of formation4 ,the characteristic 
,matthaean expressions ,greek3 stenae   
and ,greek3 tethlimmenae are  retained1 
but the distinction between ,greek3     
pulae and ,greek3 hodos  has been lost1 
and both the epithets are applied       
indiscriminately to  ,greek3 hodos4     
,in the narrative of the confession of  
,peter1 which belongs to the  triple    
synopsis1 and is assigned by ,ewald to  
the ',collection of  ,discourses1'      
,endnote #agd3a by ,weiss ,endnote      

#agd3b and  ,holtzmann ,endnote #age3a  
to the original ,gospel of ,st4 ,mark1  
the  ,clementine writer follows ,matthew
 alone in the phrase ,greek3 ,su  ei ho 
huios tou zontos ,theou4 ,the synoptic  
parallels are--    ,matt4 xvi4 #af4     
,greek3 ,su ei ho ,christos1 ho huios   
tou ,theou tou zontos4    ,mark viii4   
#bi4    ,greek3 ,su ei ho ,christos4    
,luke ix4 #bj4    ,greek3 ton ,christon 
tou ,theou4    ,holtzmann and ,weiss    
seem to agree 7the one explicitly1 the  
other  implicitly7 in taking the words  
,greek3 ho huios tou ,theou tou  zontos 
as an addition by the first ,evangelist 
and as not a part  of the text of the   
original document4 ,in that case there  
would be  the strongest reason to think 
that the pseudo-,clement had made use   
of the canonical ,gospel4 ,ewald1       
however1 we may infer1 from his         
assigning the passage to the            
',collection of ,discourses1' regards   
it as presented by ,st4 ,matthew most   
nearly in its original form1  of which  

the other two synoptic versions would be
 abbreviations4  ,if this were so1 it   
would then be possible that the         
,clementine  quotation was made directly
 from the original document or from a   
secondary document parallel to our first
 ,gospel4 ,the question that  is opened 
out as to the composition of the        
,synoptics is one of great  difficulty  
and complexity4 ,in any case there is a 
balance of probability1  more or less   
decided1 in favour of the reference to  
our present ,gospel4    ,another very   
similar instance occurs in the next     
section of the  synoptic narrative1 the 
,transfiguration4 ,here again the       
,clementine  ,homilies insert a phrase  
which is only found in ,st4 ,matthew1   
,greek3 ,houtos estin mou ho huios ho   
agapaetos1 eis hon  7,greek3 en ho      
,matt47 ,greek3 aeudokaesa4 ,ewald and  
,holtzmann  say nothing about the origin
 of this phrase2 ,weiss ,endnote #agf3a 
thinks it is probably due to the first  
,evangelist4 ,in that case  there would 

be an all but conclusive proof--in any  
case there will  be a presumption--that 
our first ,gospel has been followed4    
,but one of the most interesting1 as    
well as the clearest1  indications of   
the use of the first ,synoptic is       
derived from the  discourse directed    
against the ,pharisees4 ,it will be well
 to give  the parallel passages in      
full3--    ,matt4 xxiii4 #be1 #bf4      
,greek3 ,ouai humin grammateis kai      
,pharisaioi1 hupokritai1 hoti           
katharizete to exothen tou potaeriou kai
 taes paropsidos1 esothen  de gemousin  
ex harpagaes kai adikias4 ,pharisaie    
tuphle1 katharison  proton to entos tou 
potaeriou kai taes paropsidos1 hina     
genaetai  kai to ektos auton katharon4  
,clem4 ,hom4 xi4 #bi4    ,greek3 ,ouai  
humin grammateis kai ,pharisaioi1       
hupokritai1 hoti  katharizete tou       
potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to        
exothen1 esothen  de gemei rhupous4     
,pharisaie tuphle1 katharison proton tou
  potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to      

esothen1 hina genaetai kai ta exo  auton
 kathara4    ,luke xi4 #ci4    ,greek3  
,nun humeis hoi ,pharisaioi to exothen  
tou potaerion kai tou  pinakos          
katharizete1 to de esothen humon gemei  
harpagaes kai  ponaerias4 ,aphrones ouch
 ho poiaesas to exothen kai to esothen  
epoiaese8    ,here there is a very      
remarkable transition in the first      
,gospel  from the plural to the singular
 in the sudden turn of the address1     
,greek3 ,pharisaie tuphle4 ,this derives
 no countenance from the  third ,gospel1
 but is exactly reproduced in the       
,clementine  ,homilies1 which follow    
closely the ,matthaean version          
throughout4    ,we may defer for the    
present the notice of a few passages    
which  with a more or less close        
resemblance to ,st4 ,matthew also       
contain  some of the peculiarities of   
,st4 ,luke4    ,taking into account the 
whole extent to which the special       
peculiarities of the first ,gospel      
reappear in the ,clementines1 ,i  think 

we shall be left in little doubt that   
that ,gospel has been  actually used by 
the writer4    ,the peculiar features of
 our present ,st4 ,mark are known to be 
extremely few1 yet several of these are 
also found in the  ,clementine          
,homilies4 ,in the quotation ,mark x4   
#e1 #f 7 ,matt4 xix4  #h1 #d7 the order 
of ,mark is followed1 though the words  
are more  nearly those of ,matthew4 ,in 
the divergent quotation ,mark xii4 #bd  
7 ,matt4 xxii4 #bi7 the ,clementines1   
with ,mark1 introduce ,greek3  dia      
touto4 ,the concluding clause of the    
discussion about the  ,levirate marriage
 stands 7according to the best readings7
 thus3--    ,matt4 xxii4 #cb4    ,greek3
 ,ouk estin ho ,theos nekron1 alla      
zonton4    ,mark xii4 #bg4    ,greek3   
,ouk estin ,theos nekron1 alla zonton4  
,luke xx4 #ch4    ,greek3 ,theos de ouk 
estin nekron1 alla zonton4    ,clem4    
,hom4 iii4 #ee4    ,greek3 ,ouk estin   
,theos nekron1 alla zonton4    ,here    
,greek3 ,theos is in ,mark and the      

,clementines a predicate1  in ,matthew  
the subject4 ,in the introduction to the
 ,eschatological  discourse the         
,clementines approach more nearly to    
,st4 ,mark than to  any other ,gospel3  
,greek3 ,horate 7,greek3 blepeis1 ,mark7
 ,greek3  tas 7,greek3 megalas1 ,mark7  
,greek3 oikodomas tautas2 amaen  humin  
lego 7as ,matt47 ,greek3 lithos epi     
lithon ou mae aphethae  ode1 hos ou mae 
7as ,mark7 ,greek3 kathairethae 7,greek3
  kataluthae1 ,mark2 other ,gospels1    
future74 ,instead of ,greek3 tas        
oikodomas toutas the other ,gospels have
 ,greek3 tauta--tauta  panta4    ,but   
there are two stronger cases than these4
 ,the ,clementines and  ,mark alone have
 the opening clause of the quotation    
from ,deut4 vi4  #d1 ,greek3 ,akoue1    
,israael1 ,kurios ho ,theos haemon      
kurios eis  estin4 ,in the synopsis of  
the first ,gospel this is omitted       
7,matt4  xxii4 #cg74 ,there is a        
variation in the ,clementine text1 which
 for  ,greek3 haemon has1 according to  

,dressel1 ,greek3 sou1 and1  according  
to ,cotelier1 ,greek3 humon4 ,both these
 readings however  are represented among
 the authorities for the canonical text3
  ,greek3 sou is found in c 7,codex     
,colbertinus1 one of the best  copies of
 the ,old ,latin71 in the ,memphitic and
 ,aethiopic versions1  and in the ,latin
 ,fathers ,cyprian and ,hilary2 ,greek3 
humon  7vester7 has the authority of the
 ,viennese fragment i1 another          
representative of the primitive ,african
 form of the ,old ,latin  ,endnote      
#agh3a4    ,the objection to the        
inference that the quotation is made    
from ,st4  ,mark1 derived from the      
context in which it appears in the      
,clementines1 is really quite nugatory4 
,it is true that the  quotation is      
addressed to those 'who were beguiled to
 imagine many  gods1' and that 'there is
 no hint of the assertion of many gods  
in  the ,gospel' ,endnote #agh3b2 but   
just as little hint is there of  the    
assertion 'that ,god is evil' in the    

quotation ,greek3 mae me  legete agathon
 just before4 ,there is not the         
slightest reason to  suppose that the   
,gospel from which the ,clementines     
quote would  contain any such assertion4
 ,in this particular case the mode of   
quotation cannot be said to be very     
unscrupulous2 but even if it  were more 
so we need not go back to antiquity for 
parallels3 they  are to be found in     
abundance in any ordinary collection of 
proof  texts of the ,church ,catechism  
or of the ,thirty-nine ,articles1 or  in
 most works of popular controversy4 ,i  
must confess to my  surprise that such  
an objection could be made by an        
experienced  critic4    ,credner        
,endnote #agi3a gives the last as the   
one decided  approximation to our second
 ,gospel1 apparently overlooking the    
minor points mentioned above2 but1 at   
the time when he wrote1 the  concluding 
portion of the ,homilies1 which contains
 the other most  striking instance1 had 
not yet been published4 ,with regard to 

this  second instance1 ,i must express  
my agreement with ,canon ,westcott      
,endnote #agi3b against the author of   
',supernatural ,religion4' ,the  passage
 stands thus in the ,clementines and the
 ,gospel3--    ,clem4 ,hom4 xix4 #bj4   
,greek3 ,dio kai tois autou mathaetais  
kat' idian epelue taes ton  ouranon     
basileias ta mustaeria4    ,mark iv4    
#cd4    444 ,greek3 kat' idian de tois  
mathaetais autou epeluen panta  7compare
 iv4 #aa1 ,greek3 humin to mustaerion   
dedotai taes  basileias tou ,theou74    
,the canonical reading1 ,greek3 tois    
mathaetais autou1 rests  chiefly upon   
,western authority 7,d1 b1 c1 e1 f1     
,vulg47 with ,a1 #a1  #cc1 c4 and is    
adopted by ,tregelles--it should be     
noted before the  discovery of the      
,codex ,sinaiticus4 ,the true reading is
 probably  that which appears in this   
,,ms4 along with ,b1 ,c1 ,l1 ,greek3    
,delta  symbol1 ,greek3 tois idiois     
mathaetais4 ,we have however already    
seen the leaning of the ,clementines for

 ,western readings4    ,when we compare 
the synopsis of ,st4 ,mark and ,st4     
,matthew together  we should be inclined
 to set this down as a very decided     
instance  of quotation from the former4 
,the only circumstance that detracts    
from the certainty of this conclusion is
 that a quotation had been  made just   
before which is certainly not from our  
canonical  ,gospels1 ,greek3 ta         
mustaeria emoi kai tois huiois tou oikou
 mou  phulaxate4 ,this is rightly noted 
in ',supernatural ,religion4' ,all  that
 we can say is that it is a drawback--it
 is just a makeweight  in the opposite  
scale1 as suggesting that the second    
quotation may  be also from an          
apocryphal ,gospel2 but it does not by  
any means  serve to counterbalance the  
presumption that the quotation is       
canonical4 ,the coincidence of language 
is very marked4 ,the  peculiar compound 
,greek3 epiluo occurs only once besides 
7,greek3 epilusis also once7 in the     
whole of the ,new ,testament1  and not  

at all in the ,gospels4    ,with the    
third ,gospel also there are            
coincidences4 ,of the passages  peculiar
 to this ,gospel the ,clementine writer 
has the fall of  ,satan 7,greek3 ton    
ponaeron1 ,clem47 like lightning from   
heaven1  'rejoice that your names are   
written in the book of life'  7expanded 
with evident freedom71 the unjust judge1
 ,zacchaeus1 the  circumvallation of    
,jerusalem1 and the prayer1 for the     
forgiveness  of the ,jews1 upon the     
cross4 ,it is unlikely that these       
passages1  which are wanting in all our 
extant ,gospels1 should have had any    
other source than our third ,synoptic4  
,the 'circumvallation'  7,greek3        
pericharakosousin ,clem41 ,greek3       
peribalousin charaka  ,luke7 is         
especially important1 as it is probable1
 and believed by  many critics1 that    
this particular detail was added by the 
,evangelist after the event4 ,the       
parable of the unjust judge1  though    
reproduced with something of the freedom

 to which we are  accustomed in         
patristic narrative quotations both from
 the ,old and  ,new ,testament1 has yet 
remarkable similarities of style and    
diction 7,greek3 ho kritaes taes        
adikias1 poiaesei taen ekdikaesin  ton  
boonton pros auton haemeras kai nuktos1 
,lego humin1 poaesei444  en tachei74    
,we have to add to these another class  
of peculiarities which occur  in places 
where the synoptic parallel has been    
preserved4 ,thus in  the ,sermon on the 
,mount we find the following3--         
,matt4 vii4 #ba4    ,greek3 ,ou pas ho  
legon moi1 ,kurie1 ,kurie1 eiseleusetai 
eis taen  basileian ton ouranon1 all' ho
 poion to thelaema tou patros mou  tou  
en ouranois    ,clem4 ,hom4 viii4 #g4   
,greek3 ,ti me legeis ,kurie1 ,kurie1   
kai ou poieis a lego2    ,luke1 vi4 #df4
    ,greek3 ,ti de me kaleite ,kurie1   
,kurie1 kai ou poeite a lego2    ,this  
is one of a class of passages which form
 the cruces  of ,synoptic criticism4 ,it
 is almost equally difficult to think   

and  not to think that both the         
canonical parallels are drawn from the  
same original4 ,the great majority of   
,german critics maintain that  they are1
 and most of these would seek that      
original in the  ',spruchsammlung' or   
',collection of ,discourses' by the     
,apostle ,st4  ,matthew4 ,this is       
usually 7though not quite unanimously7  
held to  have been preserved most intact
 in the first ,gospel4 ,but if so1  the 
,lucan version represents a wide        
deviation from the original1  and       
precisely in proportion to the extent of
 that deviation is the  probability that
 the ,clementine quotation is based upon
 it4 ,the  more the individuality of the
 ,evangelist has entered into the form  
given to the saying the stronger is the 
presumption that his work  lay before   
the writer of the ,clementines4 ,in any 
case the  difference between the        
,matthaean and ,lucan versions shows    
what  various shapes the synoptic       
tradition naturally assumed1 and makes  

it so much the less likely that the     
coincidence between ,st4 ,luke  and the 
,clementines is merely accidental4      
,another similar case1 in which the     
issue is presented very  clearly1 is    
afforded by the quotation1 ',the        
labourer is worthy of  his hire4'       
,matt4 x4 #aa4    ,greek3 ,axios gar ho 
ergataes taes trophaes autou estin4     
,clem4 ,hom4 iii4 #ga4    ,greek3       
lagisamenoi hoti axios estin ho ergataes
 tou misthou  autou2    ,luke x4 #g4    
,greek3 ,axios gar ho ergataes tou      
misthou autou esti4    ,here1 if the    
,clementine writer had been following   
the first  ,gospel1 he would have had   
,greek3 trophaes and not ,greek3        
misthou2 and the assumption that there  
was here a non-extant  ,gospel          
coincident with ,st4 ,luke is entirely  
gratuitous and1 to an  extent1          
improbable4    ,besides these1 it will  
be seen1 by the tables given above1 that
  there are as many as eight passages in
 which the peculiarities not  only of   

one but of both ,gospels 7the first and 
third7 appear  simultaneously4 ,perhaps 
it may be well to give examples of these
  before we make any comment upon them4 
,we may thus take--    ,matt4 vii4      
#i-aa4    ,greek3 ,ae tis estin ex humon
 anthropos1 hon ean aitaesae ho huios   
autou arton1 mae lithon epidosei auto2  
kai ean ichthun aitaesae  mae ophin     
epidosei auto2 ei oun humeis ponaeroi   
ontes oidate  domata agatha didonai tois
 teknois humon1 poso mallon ho pataer   
humon ho en tois ouranois dosei agatha  
tois aitousin auton2    ,clem4 ,hom4    
iii4 #ef4    ,greek3 ,tina aitaesei     
huios arton1 mae lithon epidosei auto2  
ae  kai ichthun aitaesei1 mae ophin     
epidosei auto2 ei oun humeis1  ponaeroi 
ontes1 oidate domata agatha didonai tois
 teknois humon1  poso mallon ho pataer  
humon ho ouranios dosei agatha tois     
aitoumenois auton kai tois poiousin to  
thelema autou2    ,luke xi4 #aa-ac4     
,greek3 ,tina de ex humon ton matera    
aitaesei ho huios arton1 mae  lithon    

epidosei auto2 ae kai ichthun1 mae anti 
ichthuos ophin  epidosei auto1 ae kai   
ean aitaeoae oon1 mae epidosei auto     
skorpion2 ei oun humeis1 ponaeroi       
humarchontes1 oidate domata  agatha     
didonai tois teknois humon1 poso mallon 
ho pataer ho ex  ouranou dosei pneuma   
hagion tois aitousin auton2    ,in the  
earlier part of this quotation the      
,clementine writer seems  to follow the 
third ,gospel 7,greek3 tina aitaesei1   
hae kai72 in  the later part the first  
7omission of the antithesis between the 
egg and the scorpion1 ,greek3 ontes1    
dosei agatha74 ,the two  ,gospels are   
combined against the ,clementines in    
,greek3 hex humon  and the simpler      
,greek3 tois aitousin auton4 ,the second
 example  shall be--    ,matt4 x4 #bh4  
,greek3 ,kai mae thobeisthe hapo ton    
aposteinonton to soma1 taen de  psuchaen
 mae dunamenon aposteinan thobeisthe de 
mallon ton  dunamaenon kai psuchaen kai 
soma apolesai en geennae4    ,clem4     
,hom4 xviii4 #e4    ,greek3 ,mae        

phobaethaete apo tou aposteinontos to   
soma tae de  psuchae mae dunamenou ti   
poiaesai phobaethaete tou dunamenon kai 
soma kai psuchaen eis taen geennan tou  
puros balein4 ,nai1 lego  humin1 touton 
phobaethaete4    ,luke xii4 #d1 #e4     
,greek3 ,mae phobaethaete apo ton       
aposteinonton to soma kai meta tauta mae
 echonton perissoteron ti  poiaesai4    
,hupodeixo de humin tina phobaethaete   
phobaethaete ton  meta to aposteinai    
echonta exousian embalein eis ton       
geennan nai1  lego humin1 touton        
phobaethaete4    ,in common with        
,matthew the ,clementines have ,greek3  
tae de  psuchae 7acc4 ,matt47 444       
,greek3 dunamenon7,greek3 -on ,matt471  
and ,greek3 dunamenon kai soma kai      
psuchaen 7in inverted order1  ,matt472  
in common with ,luke ,greek3 mae        
phobaethaete1 ti poiaesai1  embalein    
eis1 and the clause ,greek3 nai k4t4l4  
,the two  ,gospels agree against the    
,clementines in the plural ,greek3 ton  
aposteinonton4    ,one more longer      

quotation3--    ,matt4 xxiv4 #de-ea4    
,greek3 ,tis ara estin ho pistos doulos 
kai phronimos1 hon  katestaesen ho      
kurios autou epi taes therapeias autou  
tou dounai  autois taen trophaen en     
kairo8 makarios ho doulos ekeinos hon   
elthon ho kurios autou heuraesei houto  
poiounta 444 ,ean de eipae  ho kakos    
doulos ekeinos en tae kardia autou2     
chronizei mou ho  kurios1 kai arxaetai  
tuptein tous sundoulous autou esthiae de
 kai  pinae meta ton methuonton1 haexei 
ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou en  haemera
 hae ou prosdoka kai en hora hae ou     
ginoskei1 kai  dichotomaesei auton kai  
to meros autou meta ton hupokriton      
thaesei4    ,clem4 ,hom4 iii4 #fj4      
,greek3 ,theou gar boulae anadeiknutai  
makarios ho anthropos  ekeinos hon      
katastaesei ho kurios autou epi taes    
therapeias ton  sundoulon hautou1 tou   
didonai autois tas trophas en kairo     
auton1  mae ennooumenon kai legonta en  
tae kardia autou2 chronizei ho  kurios  
mou elthein2 kai arxaetai tuptein tous  

sundoulous autou1  esthion kai pinon    
meta te pornon kai methuonton2 kai      
haexei ho  kurios tou doulou ekeinou en 
hora hae ou prosdoka kai en haemera  hae
 ou ginoskei1 kai dichotomaesei auton1  
kai to apistoun autou  meros meta ton   
hupokriton thaesei4    ,luke xii4       
#db-de4    ,greek3 ,tis ara estin ho    
pistos oikonomos kai phronimos1 hon     
katastaesei ho kurios epi taes          
therapeias autou1 tou didonai en  kairo 
to sitometrion8 makarios ho doulos      
ekeinos1 hon elthon ho  kurios autou    
heuraesei poiounta hautos 444 ,ean de   
eipae ho doulos  ekeinos en tae kardia  
autou2 chronizei ho kurios mou          
erchesthai2  kai arxaetai tuptein tous  
paidas kai tas paidiskas1 esthiein te   
kai pinein kai methuskesthai2 haexei ho 
kurios tou doulou ekeinou  en haemera   
hae ou prosdoka1 kai en hora hae ou     
ginoskei1 kai  dichotomaesei auton kai  
to meros autou meta ton apiston thaesei4
    ,i have given this passage in full1 
in spite of its length1  because it is  

interesting and characteristic2 it might
 indeed  almost be said to be typical of
 the passages1 not only in the          
,clementine ,homilies1 but also in other
 writers like ,justin1 which  present   
this relation of double similarity to   
two of the  ,synoptics4 ,it should be   
noticed that the passage in the         
,homilies  is not introduced strictly as
 a quotation but is interwoven with  the
 text4 ,on the other hand1 it should be 
mentioned that the  opening clause1     
,greek3 ,makarios 444 sundolous autou1  
recurs  identically about thirty lines  
lower down4 ,we observe that of the     
peculiarities of the first ,synoptic the
 ,clementines have ,greek3  doulos      
7,greek3 oikonomos1 ,luke71 ,greek3 ho  
kurios autou1  taen trophaen 7,greek3   
tas trophas1 ,clem42 ,luke1             
characteristically1  ,greek3 to         
sitometrion71 the order of ,greek3 en   
kairo1 tous  sundolous autou 7,greek3   
tous paidas kai tas paidiskas1 ,luke71  
,greek3 meta 444 methuonton1 and ,greek3

 hupokriton for  ,greek3 apiston4 ,of   
the peculiarities of the third ,synoptic
  the ,clementines reproduce the future 
,greek3 katastaesei1 the  present       
,greek3 didonai1 the insertion of       
,greek3 elthein  7,greek3 erchesthai1   
,luke7 after ,greek3 chronizei1 the     
order  of the words in this clause1 and 
a trace of the word ,greek3 apiston  in 
,greek3 to apistoun autou meros4 ,the   
two ,gospels support each  other in most
 of the places where the ,clementines   
depart from them1  and especially in the
 two verses1 one of which is paraphrased
 and  the other omitted4    ,now the    
question arises1 ,what is the origin of 
this phenomenon of  double resemblance8 
,it may be caused in three ways3 either 
it may  proceed from alternate quoting  
of our two present ,gospels2 or it  may 
proceed from the quoting of a later     
harmony of those ,gospels2  or1 lastly1 
it may proceed from the quotation of a  
document  earlier than our two          
,synoptics1 and containing both classes 

of  peculiarities1 those which have been
 dropped in the first ,gospel  as well  
as those which have been dropped in the 
third1 as we find  to be frequently the 
case with ,st4 ,mark4    ,either of the 
first two of these hypotheses will      
clearly suit the  phenomena2 but they   
will hardly admit of the third4 ,it does
 indeed  derive a very slight           
countenance from the repetition of the  
language of the last quotation3 this    
repetition1 however1 occurs  at too     
short an interval to be of importance4  
,but the theory that  the ,clementine   
writer is quoting from a document older 
than the  two ,synoptics1 and indeed    
their common original1 is excluded by   
the amount of matter that is common to  
the two ,synoptics and  either not found
 at all or found variantly in the       
,clementines4 ,the  coincidence between 
the ,synoptics1 we may assume1 is       
derived from  the fact that they both   
drew from a common original4 ,the       
phraseology in which they agree is in   

all probability that of the  original   
document itself4 ,if therefore this     
phraseology is wanting  in the          
,clementine quotations they are not     
likely to have been  drawn directly from
 the document which underlies the       
,synoptics4  ,this conclusion too is    
confirmed by particulars4 ,in the first 
quotation we cannot set down quite      
positively the ,clementine  expansion of
 ,greek3 tois aitousin auton as a later 
form1 though  it most probably is so4   
,but the strange and fantastic phrase in
  the last quotation1 ,greek3 to        
apistoun auton meros meta ton           
hupokriton thaesei1 is almost certainly 
a combination of the  ,greek3 hupokriton
 of ,matthew with a distorted           
reminiscence of the  ,greek3 apiston of 
,luke4    ,we have then the same kind of
 choice set before us as in the case  of
 ,justin4 ,either the ,clementine writer
 quotes our present  ,gospels1 or else  
he quotes some other composition later  
than them1  and which implies them4 ,in 

other words1 if he does not bear        
witness to our ,gospels at first hand1  
he does so at second hand1  and by the  
interposition of a further intermediate 
stage4 ,it is  quite possible that he   
may have had access to such a tertiary  
document1 and that it may be the same   
which is the source of his  apocryphal  
quotations3 that he did draw from       
apocryphal sources1  partly perhaps     
oral1 but probably in the main written1 
there can1  ,i think1 be little doubt4  
,neither is it easy to draw the line and
  say exactly what quotations shall be  
referred to such sources and  what shall
 not4 ,the facts do not permit us to    
claim the exclusive  use of the         
canonical ,gospels4 ,but that they were 
used1 mediately  or immediately and to a
 greater or less degree1 is1 ,i believe1
  beyond question4            ,,chapter 
,,vii    ,,basilides ,,and ,,valentinus4
      ,still following the order of     
',supernatural ,religion1' we pass  with
 the critic to another group of         

heretical writers in the  earlier part  
of the second century4 ,in ,basilides   
the ,gnostic we  have the first of a    
chain of writers who1 though not holding
 the  orthodox tradition of doctrine1   
yet called themselves ,christians       
7except under the stress of persecution7
 and used the ,christian  books--whether
 or to what extent the extant documents 
of  ,christianity we must now endeavour 
to determine4    ,basilides carries us  
back to an early date in point of time4 
,he  taught at ,alexandria in the reign 
of ,hadrian 7#aag-acg ,a4,d474          
,hippolytus expounds at some length1 and
 very much in their own  words1 the     
doctrines of ,basilides and his school4 
,there is a  somewhat similar account by
 ,epiphanius1 and more incidental       
allusions in ,clement of ,alexandria and
 ,origen4    ,the notices that have come
 down to us of the writings of          
,basilides  are confusing4 ,origen says 
that 'he had the effrontery to compose  
a ,gospel and call it by his own name'  

,endnote #ahh3a4 ,eusebius  quotes from 
,agrippa ,castor1 a contemporary and    
opponent from the  orthodox side1 a     
statement that 'he wrote four and twenty
 books  7presumably of commentary7 upon 
the ,gospel' ,endnote #ahi3a4  ,clement 
of ,alexandria gives rather copious     
extracts from the  twenty-third of these
 books1 to which he gave the name of    
',exegetics' ,endnote #ahi3b4           
,tischendorf assumes1 in a manner that  
is not quite so 'arbitrary  and         
erroneous' ,endnote #ahi3c as his critic
 seems to suppose1 that  this           
,commentary was upon our four ,gospels4 
,it is not altogether clear  how far    
,eusebius is using the words of ,agrippa
 ,castor and how far  his own4 ,if the  
latter1 there can be no doubt that he   
understood  the statement of ,agrippa   
,castor as ,tischendorf understands his1
  i4e4 as referring to our present      
,gospels2 but supposing his words  to be
 those of the earlier writer1 it is     
possible that1 coming  from the orthodox

 side1 they may have been used in the   
sense which  ,tischendorf attributes to 
them4 ,there can be no question that    
,irenaeus used ,greek3 to euangelion for
 the canonical ,gospels  collectively1  
and ,justin ,martyr may perhaps have    
done so4  ,tischendorf himself does not 
maintain that it refers to our ,gospels 
exclusively4 ,practically the statements
 in regard to the  ,commentary of       
,basilides lead to nothing4    ,neither 
does it appear any more clearly what was
 the nature of the  ,gospel that        
,basilides wrote4 ,the term ,greek3     
euangelion had a  technical metaphysical
 sense in the ,basilidian sect and was  
used  to designate a part of the        
transcendental ,gnostic revelations4    
,the  ,gospel of ,basilides may         
therefore1 as ,dr4 ,westcott suggests1  
reasonably enough1 have had a           
philosophical rather than a historical  
character4 ,the author of ',supernatural
 ,religion' censures ,dr4 ,westcott  for
 this suggestion ,endnote #ahi3d1 but a 

few pages further on  he seems to adopt 
it himself1 though he applies it        
strangely to  the language of ,eusebius 
or ,agrippa ,castor and not to          
,basilides'  own work4    ,in any case  
,hippolytus expressly says that1 after  
the generation  of ,jesus1 the          
,basilidians held 'the other events in  
the life of  the ,saviour followed as   
they are written in the ,gospels'       
,endnote  #aij3a4 ,there is no reason at
 all to suppose that there was a  breach
 of continuity in this respect between  
,basilides and his  school4 ,and if his 
,gospel really contained substantially  
the same  events as ours1 it is a       
question of comparatively secondary     
importance whether he actually made use 
of those ,gospels or no4    ,it is      
rather remarkable that ,hippolytus and  
,epiphanius1 who  furnish the fullest   
accounts of the tenets of ,basilides    
7and his  followers71 say nothing about 
his ,gospel3 neither does ,irenaeus or  
,clement of ,alexandria2 the first      

mention of it is in ,origen's  ,homily  
on ,st4 ,luke4 ,this shows how          
unwarranted is the assumption  made in  
',supernatural ,religion' ,endnote      
#aij3b that because  ,hippolytus says   
that ,basilides appealed to a secret    
tradition he  professed to have received
 from ,matthias1 and ,eusebius that he  
set  up certain imaginary prophets1     
',barcabbas and ,barcoph1' he  therefore
 had no other authorities4 ,the         
statement that he  'absolutely ignores  
the canonical ,gospels altogether' and  
does not  'recognise any such works as  
of authority1' is much in excess of  the
 evidence4 ,all that this really amounts
 to is that neither  ,hippolytus nor    
,eusebius say in so many words that     
,basilides did  use our ,gospels4 ,it   
would be a fairer inference to argue    
from  their silence1 and still more from
 that of the 'malleus  haereticorum'    
,epiphanius1 that he did not in this    
depart from the  orthodox custom2       
otherwise the ,fathers would have been  

sure to  charge him with it1 as they did
 ,marcion4 ,it is really ,i believe a   
not very unsafe conclusion1 for         
heretical as well as orthodox  writers1 
that where the ,fathers do not say to   
the contrary1 they  accepted the same   
documents as themselves4    ,the main   
questions that arise in regard to       
,basilides are two3  7#a7 ,are the      
quotations supposed to be made by him   
really his8  7#b7 ,are they quotations  
from our ,gospels8    ,the doubt as to  
the authorship of the quotations applies
 chiefly  to those which occur in the   
',refutation of the ,heresies' by       
,hippolytus4 ,this writer begins his    
account of the ,basilidian  tenets by   
saying1 ',let us see here how ,basilides
 along with  ,isidore and his crew belie
 ,matthias1' ,endnote #aia3a c4 ,he goes
  on using for the most part the        
singular ,greek3 phaesin1 but  sometimes
 inserting the plural ,greek3 kat'      
autous4 ,accordingly1  it has been urged
 that quotations which are referred to  

the head  of the school really belong to
 his later followers1 and the  attempt  
has further been made to prove that the 
doctrines  described in this section of 
the work of ,hippolytus are later in    
their general character than those      
attributed to ,basilides  himself4 ,this
 latter argument is very fine drawn1 and
 will not  bear any substantial weight4 
,it is1 however1 probably true that a   
confusion is sometimes found between the
 'eponymus1' as it were1  of a school   
and his followers4 ,whether that has    
been the case here  is a question that  
we have not sufficient data for deciding
  positively4 ,the presumption is       
against it1 but it must be admitted  to 
be possible4 ,it seems a forced and     
unnatural position to  suppose that the 
disciples would go to one set of        
authorities and  the master to another1 
and equally unnatural to think that a   
later  critic1 like ,hippolytus1 would  
confine himself to the works of  these  
disciples and that in none of the       

passages in which  quotations are       
introduced he has gone to the fountain  
head4 ,we may  decline to dogmatise2 but
 probability is in favour of the        
supposition that some at least of the   
quotations given by  ,hippolytus come   
directly from ,basilides4    ,some of   
the quotations discussed in             
',supernatural ,religion' are  expressly
 assigned to the school of ,basilides4  
,thus ,clement of  ,alexandria1 in      
stating the opinion which this school   
held on the  subject of marriage1 says  
that they referred to our ,lord's       
saying1  ',all men cannot receive this1'
 c4    ,strom4 iii4 ,i4 #a4    ,greek3  
,ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton1   
eisi gar eunouchoi oi  men ek genetaes  
oi de ex anankaes4    ,matt4 xix4 #aa1  
#ab4    ,greek3 ,ou pantes chorousi ton 
logon touton1 all' ois dedotai1  eisin  
gar eunouchoi oitines ek kiolias maetros
 egennaethaesan  outos1 kai eisin       
eunouchoi oitines eunouchisthaesan hupo 
ton  anthropon1 k4t4l4    ,the reference

 of this to ,st4 ,matthew is far from   
being so  'preposterous' ,endnote #aib3a
 as the critic imagines4 ,the use of    
the word ,greek3 chorein in this sense  
is striking and peculiar3  it has no    
parallel in the ,new ,testament1 and but
 slight and few  parallels1 as it       
appears from the lexicons and           
commentators1 in  previous literature4  
,the whole phrase is a remarkable one   
and the  verbal coincidence exact1 the  
words that follow are an easy and       
natural abridgment4 ,on the same        
principles on which it is denied  that  
this is a quotation from ,st4 ,matthew  
it would be easy to  prove a priori that
 many of the quotations in ,clement of  
,alexandria could not be taken from the 
canonical ,gospels which1 we  know1 are 
so taken4    ,the fact that this passage
 is found among the ,synoptics only in  
,st4 ,matthew must not count for        
nothing4 ,the very small number of      
additional facts and sayings that we are
 able to glean from the  writers who1   

according to ',supernatural ,religion1' 
have used  apocryphal ,gospels so       
freely1 seems to be proof that our      
present  ,gospels were 7as we should    
expect7 the fullest and most            
comprehensive of their kind4 ,if1 then1 
a passage is found only in  one of them1
 it is fair to conclude1 not positively1
 but probably1  that it is drawn from   
some special source of information that 
was  not widely diffused4    ,the same  
remarks hold good respecting another    
quotation found in  ,epiphanius1 which  
also comes under the general head of    
,greek3  ,basileidianoi1 though it is   
introduced not only by the singular     
,greek3 phaesin but by the definite     
,greek3 phaesin ho agurtaes4  ,here the 
,basilidian quotation has a parallel    
also peculiar to ,st4  ,matthew1 from   
the ,sermon on the ,mount4    ,epiph4   
,haer4 #gb ,a4    ,greek3 ,mae bagaete  
tous margaritas emprosthen ton choiron1 
maede  dote to hagion tois kusi4        
,matt vii4 #f4    ,greek3 ,mae dote to  

hagion tois kusin1 maede bagaete tous   
margaritas humon emprosthen ton choiron4
 ,the excellent  ,alexandrine cursive   
,i1 with some others1 has ,greek3 dte   
for  ,greek3 dte    ,the transposition  
of clauses1 such as we see here1 is by  
no means  an infrequent phenomenon4     
,there is a remarkable instance of      
it--to  go no further--in the text of   
the benedictions with which the  ,sermon
 on the ,mount begins4 ,in respect to   
the order of the two  clauses1 ',blessed
 are they that mourn' and ',blessed are 
the meek1'  there is a broad division in
 the ,,mss4 and other authorities4 ,for 
the received order we find ,hebrew3     
aleph21 ,b1 ,c1 #a1 the mass of  uncials
 and cursives1 b1 f1 ,syrr4 ,pst4 and   
,hcl41 ,memph41 ,arm41  ,aeth42 for the 
reversed order1 ',blessed are the meek' 
and ',blessed  are they that mourn1' are
 ranged ,d1 #cc1 ,vulg41 a1 c1 f'#a1    
g'#a1 h1  k1 l1 ,syr4 ,crt41 ,clem41    
,orig41 ,eus41 ,bas4 7871 ,hil4 ,the    
balance is  probably on the side of the 

received reading1 as the opposing       
authorities are mostly ,western1 but    
they too make a formidable  array4 ,the 
confusion in the text of ,st4 ,luke as  
to the early  clauses of the ,lord's    
,prayer is well known4 ,but if such     
things are  done in the green tree1 if  
we find these variations in ,,mss4 which
  profess to be exact transcripts of the
 same original copy1 how  much more may 
we expect to find them enter into mere  
quotations  that are often evidently    
made from memory1 and for the sake of   
the  sense1 not the words4 ,in this     
instance however the verbal  resemblance
 is very close4 ,as ,i have frequently  
said1 to speak of  certainties in regard
 to any isolated passage that does not  
present exceptional phenomena is        
inadmissible1 but ,i have little  moral 
doubt that the quotation was really     
derived from ,st4  ,matthew1 and there  
is quite a fair probability that it was 
made by  ,basilides himself4    ,the    
,hippolytean quotations1 the ascription 

of which to ,basilides  or to his school
 we have left an open question1 will    
assume a  considerable importance when  
we come to treat of the external        
evidence for the fourth ,gospel4        
,bearing upon the ,synoptic ,gospels1   
we find an allusion to the star of the  
,magi and an exact verbal  quotation    
7introduced with ,greek3 to eiraemenon7 
of ,luke i4 #ce1  ,greek3 ,pneuma hagion
 epeleusetai epi se1 kai dunamis        
hupsistou  episkiasei soi4 ,both these  
have been already discussed with        
reference to ,justin4 ,all the other    
,gospels in which the star of  the ,magi
 is mentioned belong to a later stage of
 formation than  ,st4 ,matthew4 ,the    
very parallelism between ,st4 ,matthew  
and ,st4 ,luke  shows that both ,gospels
 were composed at a date when various   
traditions as to the early portions of  
the history were current4  ,no doubt    
secondary1 or rather tertiary1 works1   
like the  ,protevangelium of ,james1    
came to be composed later2 but it is not

  begging the question to say that if   
the allusion is made by  ,basilides1 it 
is not likely that at that date he      
should quote any  other ,gospel than    
,st4 ,matthew1 simply because that is   
the earliest  form in which the story of
 the ,magi has come down to us4    ,the 
case is stronger in regard to the       
quotation from ,st4 ,luke4 ,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      
,greek3 pneuma kuriou for ,greek3       
pneuma hagion2 but in the ,basilidian   
quotation the canonical text  is        
reproduced syllable for syllable and    
letter for letter1 which1  when we      
consider how sensitive and delicate     
these verbal relations  are1 must be    
taken as a strong proof of identity4    
,the reader may  be reminded that the   
word ,greek3 episkiazein1 the phrase    
,greek3  dunamism hupsistou1 and the    
construction ,greek3 eperchesthai  epi1 

are all characteristic of ,st4 ,luke3   
,greek2 episkiazein  occurs once in the 
triple synopsis and besides only here   
and in  ,acts v4 #ae3 ,greek3 hupsistos 
occurs nine times in ,st4 ,luke's       
writings and only four times besides2 it
 is used by the ,evangelist  especially 
in phrases like ,greek3 uios1 dunamis1  
prophaetaes1  doulos hupsistou1 to which
 the only parallel is ,greek3 hiereus   
tou ,theou tou hupsistou in ,heb4 vii4  
#a4 ,the construction of  ,greek3       
eperchesthai with ,greek3 epi and the   
accusative is  found five times in the  
third ,gospel and the ,acts and not at  
all  besides in the ,new ,testament2    
indeed the participial form1 ,greek3    
eperchomenos 7in the sense of 'future'71
 is the only shape in  which the word   
appears 7twice7 outside the eight times 
that it  occurs in ,st4 ,luke's         
writings4 ,this is a body of evidence   
that  makes it extremely difficult to   
deny that the ,basilidian quotation  has
 its original in the third ,synoptic4   

#b4    ,the case in regard to           
,valentinus1 the next great ,gnostic    
leader1  who came forward about the year
 #adj ,a4,d41 is very similar to that   
of ,basilides1 though the balance of the
 argument is slightly  altered4 ,it is1 
on the one hand1 still clearer that the 
greater  part of the evangelical        
references usually quoted are really    
from  our present actual ,gospels1 but1 
on the other hand1 there is a  more     
distinct probability that these are to  
be assigned rather to  the ,school of   
,valentinus than to ,valentinus himself4
    ,the supposed allusion to ,st4 ,john
 we shall pass over for the  present4   
,there is a string of allusions in the  
first book of ,irenaeus1  ',adv4        
,haereses1' to the visit of ,jesus as a 
child to the ,passover  7,luke ii4 #db71
 the jot or tittle of ,matt4 v4 #ah1 the
 healing of  the issue of blood1 the    
bearing of the cross 7,luke xiv4 #bg    
par471  the sending of a sword and not  
peace1 'his fan is in his hand1'  the   

salt and light of the world1 the healing
 of the centurion's  servant1 of        
,jairus' daughter1 the exclamations upon
 the cross1 the  call of the unwilling  
disciples1 ,zacchaeus1 ,simon1 c4 ,we   
may take  it1 ,i believe1 as admitted1  
and it is indeed quite indisputable1    
that these are references to our present
 ,gospels2 but there is the  further    
question whether they are to be         
attributed directly to  ,valentinus or  
to his followers1 and ,i am quite       
prepared to admit  that there are no    
sufficient grounds for direct           
attribution to the  founder of the      
system4 ,irenaeus begins by saying that 
his  authorities are certain            
'commentaries of the disciples of       
,valentinus' and his own intercourse    
with some of them ,endnote  #aig3a4 ,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 ,greek3 nun     
paradidaskonton1 that is1 of            

,ptolemaeus and his followers1 a branch 
of the school of  ,valentinus4' ,it is  
fair to infer that the description of   
the  ,valentinian system which follows  
is drawn chiefly from these  sources4   
,this need not1 however1 quite          
necessarily exclude works  by           
,valentinus himself4 ,it is at any rate 
clear that ,irenaeus had  some means of 
referring to the opinions of ,valentinus
 as distinct  from his school2 because1 
after giving a sketch of the system1 he 
proceeds to point out certain           
contradictions within the school        
itself1 quoting first ,valentinus       
expressly1 then a disciple called       
,secundus1 then 'another of their more  
distinguished and ambitious  teachers1' 
then 'others1' then a further           
subdivision1 finally  returning to      
,ptolemaeus and his party again4 ,on the
 whole1  ,irenaeus seems to have had a  
pretty complete knowledge of the        
writings and teaching of the            
,valentinians4 ,we conclude therefore1  

that1 while it cannot be alleged        
positively that any of the  quotations  
or allusions were really made by        
,valentinus1 it would  be rash to assert
 that none of them were made by him1 or 
that he  did not use our present        
,gospels4    ,however this may be1 we   
cannot do otherwise than demur to the   
statement implied in ',supernatural     
,religion' ,endnote #aih3a1 that  the   
references in ,irenaeus can only be     
employed as evidence for  the ,gnostic  
usage between the years #ahe-aie ,a4,d4 
,this is a  specimen of a kind of       
position that is frequently taken up by 
critics upon that side1 and that ,i     
cannot but think quite  unreasonable and
 uncritical4 ,without going into the    
question of  the date at which ,irenaeus
 wrote at present1 and assuming with the
  author of ',supernatural ,religion'   
that his first three books were         
published before the death of           
,eleutherus in ,a4,d4 #aij--the latest  
date possible for them1--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 concluded1 and to end    
actually  five years later than the     
latest date at which this portion of the
  work can have been published6 ,not    
only does the author allow no  time at  
all for ,irenaeus to compose his own    
work1 not only does he  allow none for  
him to become acquainted with the       
,gnostic  doctrines1 and for those      
doctrines themselves to become          
consolidated and expressed in writing1  
but he goes so far as to  make ,irenaeus
 testify to a state of things five years
 at least1  and very probably ten1 in   
advance of the time at which he was     
himself writing6 ,no doubt there is an  
oversight somewhere1 but  this is the   
kind of oversight that ought not to be  
made4    ,this1 however1 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 interval4  
,on a moderate computation1 the indirect
 testimony of ,irenaeus may  be taken to
 refer--not to the period #ahe-aie      
,a4,d41 which is out of  the            
question--but to that from #afj-ahj     
,a4,d4 ,this is not pressing  the       
possibility1 real as it is1 that        
,valentinus himself1 who  flourished    
from #adj-afj ,a4,d41 may have been     
included4 ,we may agree  with the author
 of ',supernatural ,religion' that      
,irenaeus probably  made the personal   
acquaintance of the ,valentinian        
leaders1 and  obtained copies of their  
books1 during his well-known visit to   
,rome in #agh ,a4,d4 ,endnote #aii3a    
,the applications of ,scripture  would  
be taken chiefly from the books of which
 some would be  recent but others of an 
earlier date1 and it can surely be no   
exaggeration to place the formation of  
the body of doctrine which  they        

contained in the period #afj-age ,a4,d4 
above mentioned4 ,i doubt  whether a    
critic could be blamed who should go    
back ten years  further1 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 #afj4    ,a  
genuine fragment of a letter of         
,valentinus has been preserved by       
,clement of ,alexandria in the second   
book of the ,stromateis  ,endnote       
#bjj3a4 ,this is thought to contain     
references to ,st4  ,matthew's ,gospel  
by ,dr4 ,westcott1 and1 strange to say1 
both to ,st4  ,matthew and ,st4 ,luke by
 ,volkmar4 ,these references1 however1  
are  not sufficiently clear to be       
pressed4    ,a much less equivocal case 
is supplied by ,hippolytus--less        
equivocal at least so far as the        
reference goes4 ,among the  passages    
which received a specially ,gnostic     
interpretation is ,luke  i4 #ce1 ',the  
,holy ,ghost shall come upon thee1 and  

the power of the  ,most ,high shall     
overshadow thee3 wherefore also the holy
 thing  which is born 7of thee7 shall be
 called the ,son of ,god4' ,this is     
quoted thus1 ',the ,holy ,ghost shall   
come upon thee1 and the power  of the   
,most ,high shall overshadow thee3      
wherefore that which is  born of thee   
shall be called holy4'    ,luke i4 #ce4 
,greek3 ,pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi  
se1 kai dunamis hupsistou  episkiasei   
soi1 dio kai to gennomenon ek sou hagion
 klaethaesetai  huios ,theon4    ,ref4  
,omn4 ,haes4 vi4 #ce4    ,greek3 ,pneuma
 hagion epeleusetai epi se444 kai       
dunamis hupsistou  episkiasei soi444 dio
 to gennomenon ek sou hagion            
klaethaesetai4    ,that ,st4 ,luke has  
been the original here seems to be      
beyond a  doubt4 ,the omission of       
,greek3 huios ,theou is of very little  
importance1 because from its position   
,greek3 hagion would more  naturally    
stand as a predicate1 and the sentence  
would be quite as  complete without the 

,greek3 huios ,theou as with it4 ,on the
 other  hand1 it would be difficult to  
compress into so small a space so  many 
words and expressions that are          
peculiarly characteristic of  ,st4      
,luke4 ,in addition to those which have 
just been noticed in  connection with   
,basilides1 there is the very remarkable
 ,greek3 to  gennomenon1 which alone    
would be almost enough to stamp the     
whole  passage4    ,we are still however
 pursued by the same ambiguity as in the
 case  of ,basilides4 ,it is not certain
 that the quotation is made from  the   
master and not from his scholars4 ,there
 is no reason1 indeed1  why it should be
 made from the latter rather than the   
former2 the  point must in any case be  
left open3 but it cannot be referred to 
the master with so much certainty as to 
be directly producible  under his name4 
,and yet1 from whomsoever the quotation 
may have been made1 if only  it has been
 given rightly by ,hippolytus1 it is a  
strong proof of  the antiquity of the   

,gospel4 ,the words ,greek3 ek sou1 will
 be  noticed1 are enclosed in brackets  
in the text of ,st4 ,luke as given      
above4 ,they are a corruption1 though an
 early and well-supported  corruption1  
of the original4 ,the authorities in    
their favour are ,c  7first hand71 the  
good cursives #a and #cc1 one form of   
the ,vulgate1  a1 c1 e1 m of the ,old   
,latin1 the ,peshito ,syriac1 the       
,armenian and  ,aethiopic versions1     
,irenaeus1 ,gregory ,thaumaturgus1      
,tertullian1  ,cyprian1 and ,epiphanius4
 ,on the other hand1 for the omission   
are  ,a4 ,b1 ,c 7third hand71 ,d1       
,hebrew3 ,aleph symbol1 and the rest of 
the uncials and cursives1 another form  
of the ,vulgate1 b1 f1 ff1  g'#b1 l of  
the ,old ,latin1 the ,harclean and      
,jerusalem ,syriac1 the  ,memphitic1    
,gothic1 and some ,,mss4 of the         
,armenian versions1 ,origen1  ,dionysius
 and ,peter of ,alexandria1 and         
,eusebius4 ,a text critic  will see at  
once on which side the balance lies4 ,it

 is impossible  that ,greek3 ek sou     
could have been the reading of the      
autograph  copy1 and it is not1 ,i      
believe1 admitted into the text by any  
recent editor4 ,but if it was present in
 the copy made use of by  the ,gnostic  
writer1 whoever he was1 that copy must  
have been  already far enough removed   
from the original to admit of this      
corruption2 in other words1 it has      
lineage enough to throw the  original   
some way behind it4 ,we shall come to   
more of such  phenomena in the next     
chapter4    ,i said just now that the   
quotation could not with certainty be   
referred to ,valentinus1 but it is at   
least considerably earlier  than the    
contemporaries of ,hippolytus4 ,it      
appears that there was a  division in   
the ,valentinian ,school upon the       
interpretation of this  very passage4   
,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon1 representing
 the ,western  branch1 took one side1   
while ,axionicus and ,bardesanes1       
representing  the ,eastern1 took the    

other4 ,ptolemaeus and ,heracleon were  
both1  we know1 contemporaries of       
,irenaeus1 so that the quotation was    
used  among the ,valentinians at least  
in the time of ,irenaeus1 and very      
possibly earlier1 for it usually takes a
 certain time for a subject  to be      
brought into controversy4 ,we must thus 
take the terminus ad quem  for the      
quotation not later than #ahj ,a4,d4    
,how much further back it  goes we      
cannot say1 but even then 7if the       
,valentinian text is correctly          
preserved by ,hippolytus7 it presents   
features of corruption4    ,that the    
,valentinians made use of unwritten     
sources as well as of  written1 and that
 they possessed a ,gospel of their own  
which they  called the ,gospel of       
,truth1 does not affect the question of 
their  use of the ,synoptics4 ,for these
 very same ,valentinians undoubtedly    
did use the ,synoptics1 and not only    
them but also the fourth  ,gospel4 ,it  
is immediately after he has spoken of   

the 'unwritten'  tradition of the       
,valentinians that ,irenaeus proceeds to
 give the  numerous quotations from the 
,synoptics referred to above1 while in  
the very same chapter1 and within two   
sections of the place in  which he      
alludes to the ,gospel of ,truth1 he    
expressly says that  these same         
,valentinians used the ,gospel according
 to ,st4 ,john  freely 7plenissime7     
,endnote #bjc3a4 ,it should also be     
remembered  that the alleged acceptance 
of the four ,gospels by the             
,valentinians  rests upon the statement 
of ,irenaeus ,endnote #bjc3b as well as 
upon  that of the less scrupulous and   
accurate ,tertullian4 ,there is no  good
 reason for doubting it4                
,,chapter ,,viii4    ,,marcion4 ,endnote
 #bjd3a      ,of the various chapters in
 the controversy with which we are      
dealing1 that which relates to the      
heretic ,marcion is one of the  most    
interesting and important2 important1   
because of the  comparative fixity of   

the data on which the question turns2   
interesting1 because of the peculiar    
nature of the problem to be  dealt with4
    ,we may cut down the preliminary    
disquisitions as to the life and        
doctrines of ,marcion1 which have1      
indeed1 a certain bearing upon  the     
point at issue1 but will be found given 
with sufficient  fulness in             
',supernatural ,religion1' or in any of 
the authorities4  ,as in most other     
points relating to this period1 there is
 some  confusion in the chronological   
data1 but these range within a          
comparatively limited area4 ,the most   
important evidence is that of  ,justin1 
who1 writing as a contemporary 7about   
#adg ,a4,d47 ,endnote  #bje3a1 says that
 at that time ,marcion had 'in every    
nation of men  caused many to blaspheme'
 ,endnote #bje3b2 and again speaks of   
the  wide spread of his doctrines       
7,greek3 ho polloi peisthentes1  k4t4l47
 ,endnote #bje3c4 ,taking these         
statements along with  others in        

,irenaeus1 ,tertullian1 and ,epiphanius1
 modern critics  seem to be agreed that 
,marcion settled in ,rome and began to  
teach  his peculiar doctrines about     
#aci-adb ,a4,d4 ,this is the date       
assigned in ',supernatural ,religion'   
,endnote #bje3d4 ,volkmar gives  #ach   
,a4,d4 ,endnote #bje3e ,tischendorf1 on 
the apologetic side1  would throw back  
the date as far as #acj1 but this       
depends upon the  date assigned by him  
to ,justin's ',apology1' and conflicts  
too much  with the other testimony4     
,it is also agreed that ,marcion himself
 did actually use a certain  ,gospel    
that is attributed to him4 ,the exact   
contents and character  of that ,gospel 
are not quite so clear1 and its relation
 to the  ,synoptic ,gospels1 and        
especially to our third ,synoptic1 which
  bears the name of ,st4 ,luke1 is the  
point that we have to  determine4       
,the ,church writers1 ,irenaeus1        
,tertullian1 and ,epiphanius1 without   
exception1 describe ,marcion's ,gospel  

as a mutilated or amputated  version of 
,st4 ,luke4 ,they contrast his treatment
 of the  evangelical tradition with that
 pursued by his fellow-,gnostic1        
,valentinus ,endnote #bje3f4 ,valentinus
 sought to prove his tenets  by wresting
 the interpretation of the ,apostolic   
writings2 ,marcion  went more boldly to 
work1 and1 having first selected his    
,gospel1  our third ,synoptic1 cut out  
the passages both in it and in ten      
,epistles of ,st4 ,paul1 admitted by him
 to be genuine1 which seemed  to        
conflict with his own system4 ,he is    
also said to have made  additions1 but  
these were in any case exceedingly      
slight4    ,the statement of the ,church
 writers should hardly1 perhaps1 be put 
aside quite so summarily as is sometimes
 done4 ,the life of  ,irenaeus          
overlapped that of ,marcion             
considerably1 and there seems  to have  
been somewhat frequent communication    
between the ,church at  ,lyons1 where he
 was first presbyter and afterwards     

bishop1 and  that of ,rome1 where       
,marcion was settled2 but ,irenaeus     
,endnote  #bjf3a1 as well as ,tertullian
 and ,epiphanius1 alludes to the        
mutilation of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel by   
,marcion as a notorious fact4  ,too much
 stress1 however1 must not be laid upon 
this1 because the  ,catholic writers    
were certainly apt to assume that their 
own view  was the only one tenable4     
,the modern controversy is more         
important1 though it has to go back  to 
the ancient for its data4 ,the question 
in debate may be stated  thus4 ,did     
,marcion1 as the ,church writers say1   
really mutilate our  so-called ,st4     
,luke 7the name is not of importance1   
but we may use  it as standing for our  
third ,synoptic in its present shape78  
,or1  is it not possible that the       
converse may be true1 and that          
,marcion's ,gospel was the original and 
ours an interpolated  version8 ,the     
importance of this may1 indeed1 be      
exaggerated1  because ,marcion's ,gospel

 is at any rate evidence for the        
existence  at his date in a collected   
form of so much of the third ,gospel    
7rather more than two-thirds7 as he     
received4 ,still the issue is  not      
inconsiderable3 for1 upon the second    
hypothesis1 if the editor  of our       
present ,gospel made use of that which  
was in the possession  of ,marcion1 his 
date may be--though it does not follow  
that it  certainly would be--thrown into
 the middle of the second century1  or  
even beyond1 if the other external      
evidence would permit2  whereas1 upon   
the first hypothesis1 the ,synoptic     
,gospel would be  proved to be current  
as early as #adj ,a4,d42 and there will 
be room  for considerations which may   
tend to date it much earlier4 ,there    
will still be the third possibility that
 ,marcion's ,gospel may be  altogether  
independent of our present ,synoptic1   
and that it may  represent a parallel   
recension of the evangelical tradition4 
,this  would leave the date of the      

canonical ,gospel undetermined4    ,it  
is a fact worth noting that the         
controversy1 at least in its  later and 
more important stages1 had been fought1 
and1 to all  appearance1 fought out1    
within the ,tbingen school itself4      
,olshausen and ,hahn1 the two orthodox  
critics who were most  prominently      
engaged in it1 after a time retired and 
left the field  entirely to the ,tbingen
 writers4    ,the earlier critics who   
impugned the traditional view appear to 
have leaned rather to the theory that   
,marcion's ,gospel and the  canonical   
,luke are1 more or less1 independent    
offshoots from the  common ground-stock 
of the evangelical narratives4 ,ritschl1
 and  after him ,baur and ,schwegler1   
adopted more decidedly the view that    
the canonical ,gospel was constructed   
out of ,marcion's by  interpolations    
directed against that heretic's         
teaching4 ,the  reaction came from a    
quarter whence it would not quite       
naturally  have been expected--from one 

whose name we have already seen         
associated with some daring theories1   
,volkmar1 ,professor of  ,theology at   
,zrich4 ,with him was allied the more   
sober-minded1  laborious investigator1  
,hilgenfeld4 ,both these writers        
returned to  the charge once and again4 
,volkmar's original paper was           
supplemented by an elaborate volume in  
#aheb1 and ,hilgenfeld1 in  like manner1
 has reasserted his conclusions4 ,baur  
and ,ritschl  professed themselves      
convinced by the arguments brought      
forward1  and retracted or greatly      
modified their views4 ,so far as ,i am  
aware1 ,schwegler is the only writer    
whose opinion still stands as  it was at
 first expressed2 but for some years    
before his death1  which occurred in    
#aheg1 he had left the theological      
field4    ,without at all prejudging the
 question on this score1 it is          
difficult not to feel a certain         
presumption in favour of a  conclusion  
which has been reached after such       

elaborate argument1  especially where1  
as here1 there could be no suspicion of 
a merely  apologetic tendency on either 
side4 ,are we1 then1 to think that  our 
,english critic has shown cause for     
reopening the discussion8  ,there is    
room to doubt whether he would quite    
maintain as much as  this himself4 ,he  
has gone over the old ground1 and       
reproduced the  old arguments2 but these
 arguments already lay before           
,hilgenfeld  and ,volkmar in their      
elaborate researches1 and simply as a   
matter  of scale the chapter in         
',supernatural ,religion' can hardly    
profess  to compete with these4         
,supposing1 for the moment1 that the    
author has proved the points  that he   
sets himself to prove1 to what will this
 amount8 ,he will  have shown 7a7 that  
the patristic statement that ,marcion   
mutilated  ,st4 ,luke is not to be      
accepted at once without further        
question2  7b7 that we cannot depend    
with perfect accuracy upon the details  

of his ,gospel1 as reconstructed from   
the statements of ,tertullian  and      
,epiphanius2 7c7 that it is difficult to
 explain the whole of  ,marcion's       
alleged omissions1 on purely1 dogmatic  
grounds--assuming  the consistency of   
his method4    ,with the exception of   
the first1 ,i do not think these points 
are  proved to any important extent2    
but1 even if they were1 it would  still1
 ,i believe1 be possible to show that   
,marcion's ,gospel was  based upon our  
third ,synoptic by arguments which      
hardly cross or  touch them at all4     
,but1 before we proceed further1 it is  
well that we should have  some idea as  
to the contents of the ,marcionitic     
,gospel4 ,and here  we are brought into 
collision with the second of the        
propositions  just enunciated4 ,are we  
able to reconstruct that ,gospel from   
the  materials available to us with any 
tolerable or sufficient  approach to    
accuracy8 ,i believe no one who has gone
 into the  question carefully would deny

 that we can4 ,here it is necessary to  
define and guard our statements1 so that
 they may cover exactly as  much ground 
as they ought and no more4    ,our      
author quotes largely1 especially from  
,volkmar1 to show that  the evidence of 
,tertullian and ,epiphanius is not to be
 relied  upon4 ,when we refer to the    
chapter in which ,volkmar deals with    
this subject ,endnote #bji3a--;a chapter
 which is an admirable  specimen of the 
closeness and thoroughness of ,german   
research--we  do indeed find some such  
expressions1 but to quote them alone    
would give an entirely erroneous        
impression of the conclusion to  which  
the writer comes4 ,he does not say that 
the statements of  ,tertullian and      
,epiphanius are untrustworthy1 simply   
and  absolutely1 but only that they need
 to be applied with caution  on certain 
points4 ,such a point is especially the 
silence  of these writers as proving1 or
 being supposed to prove1 the  absence  
of the corresponding passage in         

,marcion's ,gospel4 ,it is  argued1 very
 justly1 that such an inference is      
sometimes  precarious4 ,again1 in       
quoting longer passages1 ,epiphanius is 
in  the habit of abridging or putting an
 c4 7,greek3 kai ta hexaes--  kai ta    
loipa71 instead of quoting the whole4   
,this does not give a  complete         
guarantee for the intermediate portions1
 and leaves some  uncertainty as to     
where the passage ends4 ,generally it is
 true  that the object of the ,fathers  
is not critical but dogmatic1 to  refute
 ,marcion's system out of his own       
,gospel4 ,but when all  deductions have 
been made on these grounds1 there are   
still ample  materials for              
reconstructing that ,gospel with such an
 amount of  accuracy at least as can    
leave no doubt as to its character4 ,the
  wonder is that we are able to do so1  
and that the statements of  the ,fathers
 should stand the test so well as they  
do4 ,epiphanius  especially often shows 
the most painstaking care and minuteness

 of  detail4 ,he has reproduced the     
manuscript of ,marcion's ,gospel that   
he had before him1 even to its clerical 
errors ,endnote #baj3a4 ,he  and        
,tertullian are writing quite           
independently1 and yet they  confirm    
each other in a remarkable manner4 ',if 
we compare the two  witnesses1' says    
,volkmar1 'we find the most satisfactory
 7sicher-  stellendste7 coincidence in  
their statements1 entirely independent  
as they are1 as well in regard to that  
which ,marcion has in common  with      
,luke1 as in regard to very many of the 
points in which his  text differed from 
the canonical4 ,and this applies not    
only to  simple omissions which         
,epiphanius expressly notes and         
,tertullian  confirms by passing over   
what would otherwise have told against  
,marcion1 but also to the minor         
variations of the text which            
,tertullian either happens to name or   
indicate by his translation1  while they
 are confirmed by the direct statement  

of the other  opponent who is equally   
bent on finding such differences'       
,endnote  #baa3a4 ,out of all the points
 on which they can be compared1 there   
is a real divergence only in two4 ,of   
these1 one ,volkmar attributes  to an   
oversight on the part of ,epiphanius1   
and the other to a  clerical omission in
 his manuscript ,endnote #baa3b4 ,when  
we  consider the cumbrousness of ancient
 ,,mss41 the absence of  divisions in   
the text1 and the consequent difficulty 
of making  exact references1 this must  
needs be taken for a remarkable  result4
 ,and the very fact that we have        
two--or1 including  ,irenaeus1 even     
three--independent authorities1 makes   
the text of  ,marcion's ,gospel1 so far 
as those authorities are available1 or1 
in other words1 for the greater part of 
it1 instead of being  uncertain among   
quite the most certain of all the       
achievements of  modern criticism       
,endnote #baa3c4    ,this is seen       
practically--to apply a simple test--in 

the large  amount of agreement between  
critics of the most various schools as  
to the real contents of the ,gospel4    
,our author indeed speaks much  of the  
'disagreement4' ,but by what standard   
does he judge8 ,or1 has  he ever        
estimated its extent8 ,putting aside    
merely verbal  differences1 the total   
number of whole verses affected will be 
represented in the following table3--   
iv4    #af-cj3 doubt as to exact extent 
of omissions affecting about            
half the verses4           #ch1 #ci3    
omitted according to ,hahn2 retained    
according to         ,hilgenfeld and    
,volkmar4    vii4   #bi-ce3 omitted1    
,hahn and ,ritschl2 retained1           
,hilgenfeld and ,volkmar4    x4         
#ab-ae3  ditto                          
ditto4    xiii4  #f-aj3 omitted1        
,volkmar2 retained1 ,hilgenfeld and     
,rettig4    xvii4  #e-aj3 omitted1      
,ritschl2 retained1 ,volkmar and        
,hilgenfeld4           #ad-ai3 doubt as 
to exact omissions4    xix4   #dg1 #dh3 

omitted1 ,hilgenfeld and ,volkmar2      
retained1 ,hahn and         ,anger4     
xxii4  #ag1 #ah3 doubtful4              
#bc-bg3 omitted1 ,ritschl2 retained1    
,hilgenfeld and ,volkmar4           #dc1
 #dd3      ditto                        
ditto4    xxiii4 #ci-db3       ditto    
ditto4           #dg-di3 omitted1 ,hahn2
 retained1 ,ritschl1 ,hilgenfeld1       
,volkmar4    xxiv4  #dg-ec3 uncertain   
,endnote #bab3a4    ,this would give1 as
 a maximum estimate of variation1 some  
#ee  verses out of about #hjd1 or1 in   
other words1 about seven per cent4  ,but
 such an estimate would be in fact much 
too high1 as there can  be no doubt that
 the earlier researches of ,hahn and    
,ritschl ought  to be corrected by those
 of ,hilgenfeld and ,volkmar2 and the   
difference between these two critics is 
quite insignificant4  ,taking the       
severest view that it is possible to    
take1 no one will  maintain that the    
differences between the critics are such
 as to  affect the main issue1 so that  

upon one hypothesis one theory  would   
hold good1 and upon another hypothesis  
another4 ,it is a mere  question of     
detail4    ,we may1 then1 reconstruct   
the ,gospel used by ,marcion with very  
considerable confidence that we have its
 real contents before us4  ,in order to 
avoid any suspicion ,i will take the    
outline given in  ',supernatural        
,religion' 7ii4 p4 #abg71 adding only   
the passage  ,st4 ,luke vii4 #bi-ce1    
which1 according to the author's        
statement 7a  mistaken one1 however7    
,endnote #bac3a1 is 'generally agreed'  
to  have been wanting in ,marcion's     
,gospel4 ,in that ,gospel1 then1 the    
following portions of our present ,st4  
,luke were omitted3--    ,chaps4 i4 and 
ii1 including the prologue1 the         
,nativity1 and the  birth of ,john the  
,baptist4    ,chap4 iii 7with the       
exception of ver4 #a71 containing the   
baptism  of our ,lord1 the preaching of 
,st4 ,john1 and the genealogy4    iv4   
#a-ac1 #ag-bj1 #bd3 the ,temptation1 the

 reading from ,isaiah4    vii4 #bi-ce3  
the gluttonous man4    xi4 #bi-cb1      
#di-ea3 the sign of ,jonas1 and the     
blood of the  prophets4    xiii4 #a-i1  
#bi-ce3 the slain ,galileans1 the       
fig-tree1 ,herod1  ,jerusalem4    xv4   
#aa-cb3 the prodigal son4    xvii4      
#e-aj3 the servant at meat4    xviii4   
#ca-cd3 announcement of the ,passion4   
xix4 #bi-dh3 the ,triumphal ,entry1 woes
 of ,jerusalem1 cleansing of  the       
,temple4    xx4 #i-ah1 #cg1 #ch3 the    
wicked husbandmen2 the ,god of ,abraham4
    xxi4 #a-d1 #ah1 #ba1 #bb3 the       
widow's mite2 'a hair of your head2'    
flight of the ,church4    xxii4 #af-ah1 
#bh-cj1 #ce-ch1 #di-ea3 the fruit of the
 vine1 'eat at  my table1' 'buy a       
sword1' the high-priest's servant4      
xxiv4 #dg-ec3 the last commission1 the  
,ascension4    ,here we have another    
remarkable phenomenon4 ,the ,gospel     
stands to  our ,synoptic entirely in the
 relation of defect4 ,we may say        
entirely1 for the additions are so      

insignificant--some thirty  words in    
all1 and those for the most part        
supported by other  authority--that for 
practical purposes they need not be     
reckoned4  ,with the exception of these 
thirty words inserted1 and some1 also   
slight1 alterations of phrase1          
,marcion's ,gospel presents simply an   
abridgment of our ,st4 ,luke4    ,does  
not this almost at once exclude the idea
 that they can be  independent works8   
,if it does not1 then let us compare the
 two in  detail4 ,there is some         
disturbance and re-arrangement in the   
first  chapter of ,marcion's ,gospel1   
though the substance is that of the     
third ,synoptic2 but from this point    
onwards the two move step by  step      
together but for the omissions and a    
single transposition  7iv4 #bg to xvii4 
#ah74 ,out of fifty-three sections      
peculiar to ,st4  ,luke--from iv4 #af   
onwards--all but eight were found also  
in  ,marcion's ,gospel4 ,they are found1
 too1 in precisely the same  order4     

,curious and intricate as is the mosaic 
work of the third  ,gospel1 all the     
intricacies of its pattern are          
reproduced in the  ,gospel of ,marcion4 
,where ,luke makes an insertion in the  
groundstock of the narrative1 there     
,marcion makes an insertion  also2 where
 ,luke omits part of the narrative1     
,marcion does the  same4 ,among the     
documents peculiar to ,st4 ,luke are    
some of a very  marked and individual   
character1 which seem to have come from 
some  private source of information4    
,such1 for instance1 would be the       
document viii4 #a-c1 which introduces   
names so entirely unknown to  the rest  
of the evangelical tradition as ,joanna 
and ,susanna  ,endnote #bae3a4 ,a trace 
of the same1 or an allied document1     
appears in chap4 xxiv1 where we have    
again the name ,joanna1 and  afterwards 
that of the obscure disciple ,cleopas4  
,again1 the  mention of ,martha and     
,mary is common only to ,st4 ,luke and  
the  fourth ,gospel4 ,zacchaeus is      

peculiar to ,st4 ,luke4 ,yet1 not only  
does each of the sections relating to   
these personages re-appear  in          
,marcion's ,gospel1 but it re-appears   
precisely at the same  place4 ,a marked 
peculiarity in ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel is  
the 'great  intercalation' of           
discourses1 ix4 #ea to xviii4 #ad1      
evidently  inserted without regard to   
chronological order4 ,yet this          
peculiarity1 too1 is faithfully         
reproduced in the ,gospel of  ,marcion  
with the same disregard of              
chronology--the only change  being the  
omission of about forty-one verses from 
a total of three  hundred and eighty4   
,when ,luke has the other two ,synoptics
 against  him1 as in the insertions     
,matt4 xiv4 #c-ab1 ,mark vi4 #ag-bi1 and
  again ,matt4 xx4 #bj-bh1 ,mark x4     
#ce-de1 and ,matt4 xxi4 #bj-bb1 ,mark   
xi4 #bj-bf1 ,marcion has them against   
him too4 ,where the third  ,synoptist   
breaks off from his companions 7,luke   
ix4 #ag1 #ah7 and  leaves a gap1        

,marcion leaves one too4 ,it has been   
noticed as  characteristic of ,st4 ,luke
 that1 where he has recorded a similar  
incident before1 he omits what might    
seem to be a repetition of  it3 this    
characteristic is exactly reflected in  
,marcion1 and that  in regard to the    
very same incidents4 ,then1 wherever the
 patristic  statements give us the      
opportunity of comparing ,marcion's text
  with the ,synoptic--and this they do  
very largely indeed--the two  are found 
to coincide with no greater variation   
than would be  found between any two not
 directly related manuscripts of the    
same  text4 ,it would be easy to        
multiply these points1 and to carry them
  to any degree of detail2 if more      
precise and particular evidence  is     
needed it shall be forthcoming1 but in  
the meantime ,i think it  may be        
asserted with confidence that two       
alternatives only are  possible4 ,either
 ,marcion's ,gospel is an abridgment of 
our present  ,st4 ,luke1 or else our    

present ,st4 ,luke is an expansion by   
interpolation of ,marcion's ,gospel1 or 
of a document co-extensive  with it4 ,no
 third hypothesis is tenable4    ,it    
remains1 then1 to enquire which of these
 two ,gospels had the                   
priority--,marcion's or ,luke's2 which  
is to stand first1 both in  order of    
time and of authenticity4 ,this1 too1 is
 a point that  there are ample data for 
determining4    7#a47 ,and1 first1 let  
us consider what presumption is raised  
by any  other part of ,marcion's        
procedure4 ,is it likely that he would  
have  cut down a document previously    
existing8 or1 have we reason for        
thinking that he would be scrupulous in 
keeping such a document  intact8    ,the
 author of ',supernatural ,religion'    
himself makes use of this  very         
argument2 but ,i cannot help suspecting 
that his application  of it has slipped 
in through an oversight or              
misapprehension4 ,when  first ,i came   
across the argument as employed by him1 

,i was struck  by it at once as         
important if only it was sound4 ,but1   
upon  examination1 not only does it     
vanish into thin air as an argument  in 
support of the thesis he is maintaining1
 but there remains in  its place a      
positive argument that tells directly   
and strongly  against that thesis4 ,a   
passage is quoted from ,canon ,westcott1
 in  which it is stated that while      
,tertullian and ,epiphanius accuse      
,marcion of altering the text of the    
books which he received1 so  far as his 
treatment of the ,epistles is concerned 
this is not  borne out by the facts1 out
 of seven readings noticed by           
,epiphanius two only being unsupported  
by other authority4 ,it is  argued from 
this that ,marcion 'equally preserved   
without  alteration the text which he   
found in his manuscript of the          
,gospel4' ',we have no reason to believe
 the accusation of the  ,fathers in     
regard to the ,gospel--which we cannot  
fully test--  better founded than that  

in regard to the ,epistles1 which we can
  test1 and find unfounded' ,endnote    
#bag3a4 ,no doubt the premisses  of this
 argument are true1 and so also is the  
conclusion1 strictly  as it stands4 ,it 
is true that the ,fathers accuse        
,marcion of  tampering with the text in 
various places1 both in the ,epistles   
and in the ,gospels where the allegation
 can be tested1 and where  it is found  
that the supposed perversion is simply a
 difference of  reading1 proved to be   
such by its presence in other           
authorities  ,endnote #bag3b4 ,but what 
is this to the point8 ,it is not        
contended that ,marcion altered to any  
considerable extent 7though  he did     
slightly even in the ,epistles ,endnote 
#bag3c7 the text  which he retained1 but
 that he mutilated and cut out whole    
passages from that text4 ,he can be     
proved to have done this in  regard to  
the ,epistles1 and therefore it is fair 
to infer that he  dealt in the same way 
with the ,gospel4 ,this is the amended  

form in  which the argument ought to    
stand4 ,it is certain that ,marcion made
  a large excision before ,rom4 xi4 #cc1
 and another after ,rom4 viii4  #aa2 he 
also cut out the 'mentiones ,abrahae'   
from ,gal4 iii4 #g1 #ad1  #af-ah        
,endnote #bah3a4 ,i say nothing about   
his excision of the  last two chapters  
of the ,epistle to the ,romans1 because 
on that  point a controversy might be   
raised4 ,but the genuineness of these   
other passages is undisputed and        
indisputable4 ,it cannot be argued  here
 that our text of the ,epistle has      
suffered from later  interpolation1 and 
therefore1 ,i repeat1 it is so much the 
more  probable that ,marcion took from  
the text of the ,gospel than that a     
later editor added to it4    7#b47 ,in  
examining the internal evidence from the
 nature and  structure of ,marcion's    
,gospel1 it has hitherto been the custom
 to  lay most stress upon its dogmatic  
character4 ,the controversy in  ,germany
 has turned chiefly on this4 ,the       

critics have set  themselves to show    
that the variations in ,marcion's       
,gospel either  could or could not be   
explained as omissions dictated by the  
exigencies of his dogmatic system4 ,this
 was a task which suited  well the      
subtlety and inventiveness of the       
,german mind1 and it has  been handled  
with all the usual minuteness and       
elaboration4 ,the  result has been that 
not only have ,volkmar and ,hilgenfeld  
proved  their point to their own        
satisfaction1 but they also convinced   
,ritschl and partially ,baur2 and       
generally we may say that in  ,germany  
it seems to be agreed at the present    
time that the  hypothesis of a mutilated
 ,luke suits the dogmatic argument      
better  than that of later ,judaising   
interpolations4    ,i have no wish to   
disparage the results of these labours1 
which  are carried out with the splendid
 thoroughness that one so much  admires4
 ,looking at the subject as impartially 
as ,i can1 ,i am  inclined to think that

 the case is made out in the main4 ,the 
single instance of the perverted sense  
assigned to ,greek3  kataelthen in iv4  
#ca must needs go a long way4 ,marcion  
evidently  intends the word to be taken 
in a transcendental sense of the        
emanation and descent to earth of the   
,aeon ,christus ,endnote  #bai3a4 ,it is
 impossible to think that this sense is 
more original  than the plain historical
 use of the word by ,st4 ,luke1 or to   
mistake the dogmatic motive in the      
heretical recension4 ,there is  also an 
evident reason for the omission of the  
first chapters  which relate the human  
birth of ,christ1 which ,marcion denied1
 and  one somewhat less evident1 though 
highly probable1 for the  omission of   
the account of the ,baptist's ministry1 
,john being  regarded as the finisher of
 the ,old ,testament dispensation--the  
work of the ,demiurge4 ,this omission is
 not quite consistently  carried out1 as
 the passage vii4 #bd-bh is             
retained--probably  because ver4 #bh    

itself seemed to contain a sufficient   
qualification4  ,the genealogy1 as well 
as viii4 #ai1 was naturally omitted for 
the  same reason as the ,nativity4 ,the 
narrative of the ,baptism ,marcion      
could not admit1 because it supplied the
 foundation for that very  ,ebionism to 
which his own system was diametrically  
opposed4 ,the  ,temptation1 x4 #ba      
7',lord 444 of earth'71 xxii4 #ah 7'the 
fruit of  the vine'71 xxii4 #cj 7'eat   
and drink at my table'71 and the        
,ascension1  may have been omitted      
because they contained matter that      
seemed too  anthropomorphic or          
derogatory to the ,divine ,nature4 ,on  
the other hand1  xi4 #bi-cb 7,jonah and 
,solomon71 xi4 #di-ea 7prophets and     
apostles71  xiii4 #a sqq4 7the fig-tree1
 as the ,jewish people871 xiii4 #ca-ce  
7the  prophet in ,jerusalem71 the       
prodigal son 7perhaps871 the wicked     
husbandmen 7more probably71 the         
triumphal entry 7as the fulfilment  of  
prophecy71 the announcement of the      

,passion 7also as such71 xxi4  #ba1 #bb 
7the same71 and the frequent allusions  
to the ,old ,testament  ,scriptures1    
seem to have been expunged as           
recognising or belonging  to the kingdom
 of the ,demiurge ,endnote #bbj3a4      
,again1 the changes  in xiii4 #bh1 xvi4 
#ag1 xx4 #ce1 are fully in accordance   
with  ,marcion's system ,endnote #bbj3b4
 ,the reading which ,marcion had in  xi4
 #bb is expressly stated to have been   
common to the ,gnostic  heretics        
generally4 ,in some of these instances  
the dogmatic motive  is gross and       
palpable1 in most it seems to have been 
made out1 but  some 7such as especially 
xiii4 #a-i7 are still doubtful1 and the 
method of excision does not appear to   
have been carried out with  complete    
consistency4    ,this1 indeed1 was only 
to be expected4 ,we are constantly      
reminded  that ,tertullian1 a man1 with 
all his faults1 of enormous literary    
and general power1 did not possess the  
critical faculty1 and no  more was that 

faculty likely to be found in ,marcion4 
,it is an  anachronism to suppose that  
he would sit down to his work with  that
 regularity of method and with that     
subtle appreciation of the  affinities  
of dogma which characterise the modern  
critic4 ,the  ,septuagint translators   
betray an evident desire to soften down 
the  anthropomorphism of the ,hebrew2   
but how easy would it be to  convict    
them of inconsistency1 and to show that 
they left standing  expressions as      
strong as any that they changed6 ,if we 
judge  ,marcion's procedure by a        
standard suited to the age in which he  
lived1 our wonder will be1 not that he  
has shown so little1 but so  much1      
consistency and insight4    ,i think1   
therefore1 that the dogmatic argument1  
so far as it goes1  tells distinctly in 
favour of the 'mutilation' hypothesis4  
,but at  the same time it should not be 
pressed too far4 ,i should be  tempted  
to say that the almost exclusive and    
certainly excessive  use of arguments   

derived from the history of dogma was   
the prime  fallacy which lies at the    
root of the ,tbingen criticism4 ,how can
  it be thought that an ,englishman1 or 
a ,german1 trained under and  surrounded
 by the circumstances of the nineteenth 
century1 should  be able to thread all  
the mazes in the mind of a ,gnostic or  
an  ,ebionite in the second8 ,it is     
difficult enough for us to lay down  a  
law for the actions of our own immediate
 neighbours and friends2  how much more 
difficult to 'cast the shell of habit1' 
and place  ourselves at the point of    
view of a civilisation and world of     
thought wholly different from our own1  
so as not only to explain  its apparent 
aberrations1 but to be able to say1     
positively1 'this  must have been so1'  
'that must have been otherwise4' ,yet   
such is  the strange and extravagant    
supposition that we are assumed to      
make4 ,no doubt the argument from dogma 
has its place in criticism2  but1 on the
 whole1 the literary argument is safer1 

more removed  from the influence of     
subjective impressions1 more capable of 
being cast into a really scientific     
form4    7#c47 ,i pass over other       
literary arguments which hardly admit of
  this form of expression--such as the  
improbability that the  ,preface or     
,prologue was not part of the original  
,gospel1 but a  later accretion2 or1    
again1 from ,marcion's treatment of the 
,synoptic matter in the third ,gospel1  
both points which might be  otherwise   
worth dilating upon4 ,i pass over these1
 and come at  once1 without further     
delay1 to the one point which seems to  
me  really to decide the character of   
,marcion's ,gospel and its  relation to 
the ,synoptic4 ,the argument to which ,i
 allude is that  from style and diction4
 ,true the ,english mind is apt to      
receive  literary arguments of that kind
 with suspicion1 and very justly so     
long as they rest upon a mere vague     
subjective ipse dixit2  but here the    
question can be reduced to one of       

definite figures  and of weighing and   
measuring4 ,bruder's ,concordance is a  
dismal-  looking volume--a mere index of
 words1 and nothing more4 ,but it  has  
an eloquence of its own for the         
scientific investigator4 ,it is  strange
 how clearly many points stand out when 
this test comes to  be applied1 which   
before had been vague and obscure4 ,this
 is  especially the case in regard to   
the ,synoptic ,gospels2 for1 in the     
first place1 the vocabulary of the      
writers is very limited and  similar    
phrases have constant tendency to recur1
 and1 in the  second place1 the critic  
has the immense advantage of being      
enabled to compare their treatment of   
the same common matter1 so  that he can 
readily ascertain what are the          
characteristic  modifications introduced
 by each4 ,dr4 ,holtzmann1 following    
,zeller  and ,lekebusch1 has made a full
 and careful analysis of the style  and 
vocabulary of ,st4 ,luke ,endnote       
#bbc3a1 but of course without  reference

 to the particular omissions of         
,marcion4 ,let us then1  with the help  
of ,bruder1 apply ,holtzmann's results  
to these  omissions1 with a view to see 
whether there is evidence that they  are
 by the same hand as the rest of the    
,gospel4    ,it would be beyond the     
proportions of the present enquiry to   
exhibit all the evidence in full4 ,i    
shall1 therefore1 not  transcribe the   
whole of my notes1 but merely give a few
 samples of  the sort of evidence       
producible1 along with a brief summary  
of the  general results4    ,taking     
first certain points by which the style 
of the third  ,evangelist is            
distinguished from that of the first in 
their  treatment of common matter1 ,dr4 
,holtzmann observes1 that where         
,matthew has ,greek3 grammateus1 ,luke  
has in six places the word  ,greek3     
nomikos1 which is only found three times
 besides in the  ,new ,testament 7once  
in ,st4 ,mark1 and twice in the ,epistle
 to  ,titus74 ,of the places where it is

 used by ,st4 ,luke1 one is the  omitted
 passage1 vii4 #cj4 ,in citations where 
,matthew has ,greek3  to rhaethen 7#ad  
times2 not at all in ,luke71 ,luke      
prefers the  perfect form ,greek3 to    
eiraemenon1 so in ii4 #bd 7,acts twice72
  compare ,greek3 eiraetai1 iv4 #ba4    
,where ,matthew has ,greek3 arti  7#g   
times71 ,luke has always ,greek3 nun1   
never ,greek3 arti3  ,greek3 nun is used
 in the following passages1 omitted by  
,marcion3 i4 #dh1 ii4 #bi1 xix4 #db1    
xxii4 #ah1 #cf4 ,with ,matthew the  word
 ,greek3 eleos is masculine1 with ,luke 
neuter1 so five times  in ch4 i4 and in 
x4 #cg1 which was retained by ,marcion4 
,among the peculiarities of style noted 
by ,dr4 ,holtzmann which  recur in the  
omitted portions the following are      
perhaps some of  the more striking4     
,peculiar use of ,greek3 to covering a  
whole  phrase1 i4 #fb ,greek3 to ti an  
theloi kaleisthai1 xix4 #dh1 xxii4  #cg1
 and five other places4 ,peculiar       
attraction of the relative  with        

preceding case of ,greek3 pas1 iii4 #ai1
 xix4 #cg1 and  elsewhere4 ,the formula 
,greek3 elege 7eipe7 de parabolaen 7not 
found in the other ,synoptics71 xiii4   
#f1 xx4 #i1 #ai1 and ten times  besides4
 ,greek3 ,tou pleonastic with the       
infinitive1 once in  ,mark1 six times in
 ,matthew1 twenty-five times in ,luke1  
of which  three times in chap4 i1 twice 
in chap4 ii1 iv4 #aj1 xxi4 #bb4         
,peculiar combinations with ,greek3     
kata1 kata to ethos1 eiothos1           
eithismenon1 i4 #i1 ii4 #bg1 #db1 and   
twice4 ,greek3 ,kath'  haemeran1 once in
 the other ,gospels1 thirteen times in  
,luke and  ,acts xix4 #dg2 ,greek3 kat' 
etos1 ii4 #da2 ,greek3 kata with        
peculiar genitive of place1 iv4 #ad     
7xxiii4 #e7 ,endnote #bbd3a4  ,protasis 
introduced by ,greek3 kai hote1 ii4 #ba1
 #bb1 #db1 ,greek3  kai hos1 ii4 #ci1   
xv4 #be1 xix4 #da4 ,uses of ,greek3     
egeneto1  especially with ,greek3 en to 
and infinitive1 twice in ,mark1 in      
,luke twenty-two times1 i4 #h1 ii4 #f1  

iii4 #ba1 xxiv4 #ea2 ,greek3 en  to with
 the infinitive1 three times in ,st4    
,matthew1 once in ,st4  ,mark1          
thirty-seven times in ,st4 ,luke1       
including i4 #h1 #ba1 ii4 #f1  #bg1 #dc1
 iii4 #ba4 ,adverbs3 ,greek3 exaes and  
,greek3 kathexaes1  ten times in the    
third ,gospel and the ,acts alone in the
 ,new  ,testament1 i4 #c2 ,greek3 achri1
 twenty times in the third ,gospel  and 
,acts1 only once in the other ,gospels1 
i4 #bj1 iv4 #ac2 ,greek3  exaiphnaes1   
four times in the ,gospel and ,acts1    
once besides in  the ,new ,testament1   
ii4 #ac2 ,greek3 parachraema1 seventeen 
times  in the ,gospel and ,acts1 twice  
in the rest of the ,new ,testament1 i4  
#fd2 ,greek3 en meso1 thirteen times in 
the ,gospel and ,acts1 five  times in   
the other ,synoptics1 ii4 #df1 xxi4 #ba4
 ,fondness for  optative in indirect    
constructions1 i4 #bi1 #fb1 iii4 #ae1   
xv4 #bf4  ,peculiar combination of      
participles1 ii4 #cf 7,greek3           
probebaekuia  zaesasa71 iii4 #bc        

7,greek3 archomenos on71 iv4 #bj        
7,greek3  ptuxas apodous71 very         
frequent4 ,greek3 ,einai1 with          
participle  for finite verb 7forty-eight
 times in all71 i4 #g1 #aj1 #bj1 #ba1   
#bb1  ii4 #h1 #bf1 #cc1 #ea1 iii4 #bc1  
iv4 #af 7,greek3 aen tethrammenos1      
omitted by ,marcion71 iv4 #ag1 #bj1 xv4 
#bd1 #cb1 xviii4 #cd1 xix4 #dg1  xx4    
#ag1 xxiv4 #ec4 ,construction of ,greek3
 pros with accusative  after ,greek3    
eipein1 lalein1 apokrinesthai1 frequent 
in ,luke1  rare in the rest of the ,new 
,testament1 i4 #ac1 #ah1 #ai1 #bh1 #cd1 
#ee1  #fa1 #gc1 ii4 #ae1 #ah1 #cd1 #dh1 
#di1 iii4 #ab1 #ac1 #ad1 iv4 #d1 xiii4  
#g1  #cd1 xv4 #bb1 xviii4 #ca1 xix4 #cc1
 #ci1 xx4 #i1 #ad1 #ai4 ,this is thrown 
into marked relief by the contrast with 
the other ,synoptics2 the  only two     
places where ,matthew appears to have   
the construction are  both ambiguous1   
iii4 #ae 7doubtful reading1 probably    
,greek3  auto71 and xxvii4 #ad 7,greek3 
apekrithae auto pros oude hen  rhaema74 

,no other evangelist speaks so much of  
,greek3 ,pneuma  hagion1 i4 #ae1 #ce1   
#da1 #fg1 ii4 #be1 #ff1 iii4 #af1 #bb1  
iv4 #a 7found  also in ,marcion's       
reading of xi4 #b74 ,peculiar use of    
pronouns3  ,luke has the combination    
,greek3 kai autos twenty-eight times1   
,matthew only twice 7one false reading71
 ,mark four or perhaps five  times1 i4  
#ag1 #bb1 ii4 #bh1 iii4 #bc1 xv4 #ad2   
,greek3 kai autoi ,mark  has not at all1
 ,matthew twice1 ,luke thirteen times1  
including ii4  #ej1 xviii4 #cd1 xxiv4   
#eb4    ,we now come to the test        
supplied by the vocabulary4 ,the        
following  are some of the words        
peculiar to ,st4 ,luke1 or found in his 
writings with marked and characteristic 
frequency1 which occur in  those parts  
of our present ,gospel that were wanting
 in ,marcion's  recension3 ,greek3      
anestaen1 anastas occur three times in  
,st4  ,matthew1 twice in ,st4 ,john1    
four times in the writings of ,st4      
,paul1 twenty-six times in the third    

,gospel and thirty-five times  in the   
,acts1 and are found in i4 #ci1 xv4 #ah1
 #bj2 ,greek3  antilegein appears in ii4
 #cd1 five times in the rest of the     
,gospel and the ,acts1 and only four    
times together in the rest of  the ,new 
,testament2 ,greek3 hapas occurs twenty 
times in the  ,gospel1 sixteen times in 
the ,acts1 only ten times in the rest of
  the ,new ,testament1 but in ii4 #ci1  
iii4 #af1 #ba1 iv4 #f1 xv4 #ac1 xix4    
#cg1 #dh1 xxi4 #d 7bis72 three of these 
are1 however1 doubtful  readings4       
,greek3 aphesis ton amartion1 ten times 
in the ,gospel  and ,acts1 seven times  
in the rest of the ,new ,testament1 i4  
#gg1  iii4 #c4 ,greek3 dei1 ,dr4        
,holtzmann says1 'is found more often in
  ,st4 ,luke than in all the other      
writers of the ,new ,testament put      
together4' ,this does not appear to be  
strictly true2 it is1  however1 found   
nineteen times in the ,gospel and       
twenty-five times  in the ,acts to      
twenty-four times in the three other    

,gospels2 it  occurs in ii4 #di1 xiii4  
#cc1 xv4 #cb1 xxii4 #cg4 ,greek3        
dechesthai1  twenty-four times in the   
,gospel and ,acts1 twenty-six times in  
the  rest of the ,new ,testament1 six   
times in ,st4 ,matthew1 three in ,st4   
,mark1 ii4 #bh1 xxii4 #ag4 ,greek3      
diatassein1 nine times in the  ,gospel  
and ,acts1 seven times in the rest of   
the ,new ,testament  7,matthew once71   
iii4 #ac1 xvii4 #i1 #aj4 ,greek3        
dierchesthai occurs  thirty-two times in
 the ,gospel and ,acts1 twice in each of
 the  other ,synoptics1 and eight times 
in the rest of the ,new ,testament1  and
 is found in ii4 #ae1 #ce4 ,greek3      
dioti1 i4 #ac1 ii4 #g 7xxi4 #bh1  and   
,acts1 not besides in the ,gospels74    
,greek3 ean1 xxii4 #ea  7once besides in
 the ,gospel1 eight times in the ,acts1 
and three  times in the rest of the ,new
 ,testament74 ,greek3 ethos1 i4 #i1 ii4 
#db1 eight times besides in ,st4 ,luke's
 writings and only twice in  the rest of
 the ,new ,testament4 ,greek3 enantion1 

five times in  ,st4 ,luke's writings1   
once besides1 i4 #h4 ,greek3 enopion1   
correcting the readings1 twenty times in
 the ,gospel1 fourteen  times in the    
,acts1 not at all in the other          
,synoptists1 once in ,st4  ,john1 four  
times in chap4 i1 iv4 #g1 xv4 #ah1 #ba  
7this will be  noticed as a very        
remarkable instance of the extent to    
which the  diction of the third         
,evangelist impressed itself upon his   
writings74 ,greek3 epibibazein1 xix4 #ce
 7and twice1 only by ,st4  ,luke74      
,greek3 epipiptein1 i4 #ab1 xv4 #bj     
7eight times in the ,acts  and three    
times in the rest of the ,new           
,testament74 ,greek3 ai  eraemoi1 only  
in ,st4 ,luke1 i4 #hj1 and twice4       
,greek3 etos  7fifteen times in the     
,gospel1 eleven times in the ,acts1     
three  times in the other ,synoptics and
 three times in ,st4 ,john71 four  times
 in chap4 ii1 iii4 #a1 #bc1 xiii1 #g1   
#h1 xv4 #bi4 ,greek3  thaumazein epi    
tini1 ,gospel and ,acts five times 7only

 besides in  ,mark xii4 #ag71 ii4 #cc4  
,greek3 ikanos in the sense of 'much1'  
'many1' seven times in the ,gospel1     
eighteen times in the ,acts1 and  only  
three times besides in the ,new         
,testament1 iii4 #af1 xx4 #i  7compare  
xxii4 #ch74 ,greek3 kathoti 7like       
,greek3 kathexaes  above71 is only found
 in ,st4 ,luke's writings1 i4 #g1 and   
five times  in the rest of the ,gospel  
and the ,acts4 ,greek3 latreuein1 'in   
,luke1 much oftener than in other parts 
of the ,new ,testament1' i4  #gd1 ii4   
#cg1 iv4 #h1 and five times in the      
,acts4 ,greek3 limos1 six  times in the 
,gospel and ,acts1 six times in the rest
 of the ,new  ,testament1 xv4 #ad1 #ag4 
,greek3 maen 7month71 i4 #bd1 #bf1 #cf1 
#ef  7iv4 #be71 alone in the ,gospels1  
in the ,acts five times4 ,greek3  oikos 
for 'family1' i4 #bg1 #cc1 #fi1 ii4 #d1 
and three times besides  in the ,gospel1
 nine times in the ,acts4 ,greek3       
plaethos  7especially in the form       
,greek3 pan to plaethos71 twenty-five   

times in ,st4 ,luke's writings1 seven   
times in the rest of the ,new           
,testament1 #a4 #ai1 ii4 #ac1 xix4 #cg4 
,greek3 plaesai1 plaesthaenai1          
twenty-two times in ,st4 ,luke's        
writings1 only three times besides  in  
the ,new ,testament1 i4 #ae1 #bc1 #da1  
#eg1 #fg1 ii4 #f1 #ba1 #bb1 xxi4  #bb4  
,greek3 prosdokan1 eleven times in the  
,gospel and ,acts1 five  times in the   
rest of the ,new ,testament 7,matthew   
twice and #b  ,peter71 i4 #ba1 iii4 #ae4
 ,greek3 skaptein1 only in ,luke three  
times1 xiii4 #h4 ,greek3 speudein1      
except in #b ,peter iii4 #ab1 only  in  
,st4 ,luke's writings1 ii4 #af4 ,greek3 
sullambanein1 ten times  in the ,gospel 
and ,acts1 five times in the rest of the
 ,new  ,testament1 i4 #bd1 #ca1 #cf1 ii4
 #ba4 ,greek3 sumballein1 only in       
,lucan writings1 six times1 ii4 #ai4    
,greek3 sunechein1 nine times  in the   
,gospel and ,acts1 three times besides  
in the ,new ,testament1  xix4 #dc4      
,greek3 sotaeria1 in chap4 i4 three     

times1 in the rest  of the ,gospel and  
,acts seven times1 not in the other     
,synoptic  ,gospels4 ,greek3            
hupostrephein1 twenty-two times in the  
,gospel1  eleven times in the ,acts1 and
 only five times in the rest of the     
,new ,testament 7three of which are     
doubtful readings71 i4 #ef1 ii4  #bj1   
#ci1 #dc1 #de1 iv4 #a1 7#ad71 xxiv4 #eb4
 ,greek3 hupsistos occurs  nine times in
 the ,gospel and ,acts1 four times in   
the rest of the  ,new ,testament1 i4    
#cb1 #ce1 #gf1 ii4 #ad1 xix4 #ch4       
,greek3 hupsos is  also found in i4 #gh1
 xxiv4 #di4 ,greek3 charis is found1    
among the  ,synoptics1 only in ,st4     
,luke1 eight times in the ,gospel1      
seventeen  times in the ,acts1 i4 #cj1  
ii4 #dj1 #eb1 xvii4 #i4 ,greek3 hosei   
occurs nineteen times in the ,gospel and
 ,acts 7four doubtful  readings1 of     
which two are probably false71 seventeen
 times in the  rest of the ,new         
,testament 7ten doubtful readings1 of   
which in the  ,synoptic ,gospels three  

are probably false71 i4 #ef1 iii4 #bc4  
,it should be remembered that the above 
are only samples from the  whole body of
 evidence1 which would take up a much   
larger space if  exhibited in full4 ,the
 total result may be summarised thus4   
,accepting the scheme of ,marcion's     
,gospel given some pages back1  which is
 substantially that of ',supernatural   
,religion1' ,marcion  will have omitted 
a total of #cji verses4 ,in those verses
 there are  found #aaa distinct         
peculiarities of ,st4 ,luke's style1    
numbering in  all #ahe separate         
instances2 there are also found #ach    
words  peculiar to or specially         
characteristic of the third ,evangelist1
  with #bbd instances4 ,in other words1 
the verified peculiarities of  ,st4     
,luke's style and diction 7and how      
marked many of these are  will have been
 seen from the examples above7 are found
 in the  portions of the ,gospel omitted
 by ,marcion in a proportion  averaging 
considerably more than one to each      

verse6 ,endnote  #bbi3a ,coming to      
detail1 we find that in the principal   
omission--  that of the first two       
chapters1 containing #acb verses--there 
are  #dg distinct peculiarities of      
style1 with #aje instances2 and #hb     
characteristic words1 with #add         
instances4 ,in the #bc verses of  chap4 
iii4 omitted by ,marcion 7for the       
genealogy need not be  reckoned71 the   
instances are #ah and #ad1 making a     
total of #cb4 ,in  #ah verses omitted   
from chap4 iv4 the instances are #ac and
 #h  #ba4  ,in another longer           
passage--the parable of the prodigal    
son--the  instances are #h of the first 
class and #bj of the second4 ,in #bj    
verses omitted from chap4 xix4 the      
instances are #aa and #f2 and in  #aa   
verses omitted from chap4 xx1 #i and #h4
 ,of all the isolated  fragments that   
,marcion had ejected from his ,gospel1  
there are only  four--iv4 #bd1 xi4      
#di-ea1 xx4 #cg1 #ch1 xxii4 #bh-cj1 nine
 verses in  all--in which no            

peculiarities have been noticed4 ,and   
yet even  here the traces of authorship 
are not wanting4 ,it happens  strangely 
enough that in a list of parallel       
passages given by ,dr4  ,holtzmann to   
illustrate the affinities of thought    
between ,st4 ,luke  and ,st4 ,paul1 two 
of these very passages--xi4 #di and xx4 
#ch--  occur4 ,i had intended to pursue 
the investigation through these         
resemblances1 but it seems superfluous  
to carry it further4    ,it is difficult
 to see what appeal can be made against 
evidence  such as this4 ,a certain      
allowance should indeed be made for     
possible errors of computation1 and some
 of the points may have  been wrongly   
entered1 though care has been taken to  
put down  nothing that was not verified 
by its preponderating presence in  the  
,lucan writings1 and especially by its  
presence in that portion  of the ,gospel
 which ,marcion undoubtedly received4   
,but as a rule  the method applies      
itself mechanically1 and when every     

deduction  has been made1 there will    
still remain a mass of evidence that it 
does not seem too much to describe as   
overwhelming4    7#d47 ,we may assume1  
then1 that there is definite proof that 
the  ,gospel used by ,marcion           
presupposes our present ,st4 ,luke1 in  
its  complete form1 as it has been      
handed down to us4 ,but when once  this 
assumption has been made1 another set of
 considerations comes  in1 which also   
carry with them an important inference4 
,if  ,marcion's ,gospel was an extract  
from a manuscript containing our        
present ,st4 ,luke1 then not only is it 
certain that that ,gospel was  already  
in existence1 but there is further      
evidence to show that  it must have been
 in existence for some time4 ,the       
argument in this  case is drawn from    
another branch of ,biblical science to  
which we  have already had occasion to  
appeal--text-criticism4 ,marcion's      
,gospel1 it is known1 presents certain  
readings which differ both  from the    

received and other texts4 ,some of these
 are thought by  ,volkmar and           
,hilgenfeld to be more original and to  
have a better  right to stand in the    
text than those which are at present    
found  there4 ,these critics1 however1  
base their opinion for the most  part on
 internal grounds1 and the readings     
defended by them are  not as a rule     
those which are supported by other      
manuscript  authority4 ,it is to this   
second class rather that ,i refer as    
bearing upon the age of the canonical   
,gospel4 ,the most important  various   
readings of the existence of which we   
have proof in  ,marcion's ,gospel are as
 follows ,endnote #bca3a3--    v4 #ad4  
,the received 7and best7 text is ,greek3
 eis marturion  autois4 ,marcion1       
according to the express statement of   
,epiphanius  7#cab ,b71 read ,greek3    
hina ae morturion touto humin1 which is 
confirmed by ,tertullian1 who gives     
7,marc4 iv4 #h7 ',ut sit  vobis in      
testimonium4' ,the same or a similar    

reading is found in  ,d1 ,greek3 hina   
eis marturion ae humin touto1 'ut sit in
  testimonium vobis hoc1' d2 'ut sit in 
testimonium 7--monia1 ff7  hoc vobis1' a
 7,codex ,vercellensis71 b 7,codex      
,veronensis71 c 7,codex  ,colbertinus71 
ff 7,codex ,corbeiensis71 l 7,codex     
,rhedigerianus71 of  the ,old ,latin    
,endnote #bca3b4    v4 #ci was probably 
omitted by ,marcion 7this is inferred   
from the silence of ,tertullian by      
,hilgenfeld1 p4 #djc1 and ,rnsch1  p4   
#fcd74 ,the verse is also omitted in ,d1
 a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 ff4    x4 #bb4          
,marcion's reading of this verse        
corresponded with that of  other        
,gnostics1 but has no extant manuscript 
authority4 ,we have  touched upon it    
elsewhere4    x4 #be4 ,greek3 zoaen     
aionion1 ,marcion omitted ,greek3       
aionion  7,tert4 ,adv4 ,marc4 iv4 #be72 
so also the ,old ,latin ,codex g'#b     
7,san ,germanensis74    xi4 #b4 ,marcion
 read ,greek3 eltheto to hagion pneuma  
sou eph'  haemas 7or an equivalent2 see 

,rnsch1 p4 #fdj7 either for the  clause 
,greek3 hagiasthaeto to onoma sou or for
 ,greek3  genaethaeto to thelaema sou1  
which is omitted in ,b1 ,l1 #a1 ,vulg41 
ff1 ,syr4 ,crt4 ,there is a curious     
stray ,greek3 eph' haemas in ,d  which  
may conceivably be a trace of ,marcion's
 reading4    xii4 #ad4 ,marcion 7and    
probably ,tertullian7 read ,greek3      
kritaen  7or ,greek3 dikastaen7 only for
 ,greek3 kritaen ae meristaen2 so  ,d1 a
 7'ut videtur1' ,tregelles71 c1 ,syr4   
,crt4    xii4 #ch4 ,marcion had ,greek3 
tae hesperinae phulakae for ,greek3  en 
tae deutera phulakae kai en tae tritae  
phulakae4 ,so b3 ,d1 c1  e1 ff1 i1      
,iren4 #ccd1 ,syr4 ,crt41 combine the   
two readings in  various ways4    xvi4  
#ab4 ,marcion read ,greek3 emon for     
,greek3 humeteron4 ,so e  7,palatinus71 
i 7,vindobonensis71 l 7,rhedigerianus74 
,greek3  haemeteron ,b4 ,l1 ,origen4    
xvii4 #b4 ,marcion inserted the words   
,greek3 ouk egennaethae ae  7,tert4 iv4 
#ce71 'ne nasceretur aut1' a1 b1 c1 ff1 

i1 l4    xviii4 #ai4 ,here again        
,marcion had a variation which is       
unsupported  by manuscript authority1   
but has to some extent a parallel in the
  ,clementine ,homilies1 ,justin1 c4    
xxi4 #ah4 was omitted by ,marcion       
7,epiph4 #caf ,b71 and is also  omitted 
in the ,curetonian ,syriac4    xxi4 #bg4
 ,tertullian 7iv4 #ci7 gives the reading
 of ,marcion as 'cum  plurima virtute'  
,greek3 meta dunameos pollaes kai       
doxaes1  for ,greek3 meta dun4 k4 dox4  
pollaes2 so ,d 7,greek3 en dun4  pol471 
and approximately ,vulg41 a1 c1 e1 f1   
ff1 ,syr4 ,crt41 ,syr4  ,pst4    xxiii4 
#b4 ,marcion read ,greek3 diastrephonta 
to ethnos kai  katalionta ton nomon kai 
tous prophaetas kai keleuonta phorous   
mae  dounai kai anastrephonta tas       
gunaikas kai ta tekna 7,epiph41 #caf    
,d71 where ,greek3 kataluonta ton nomon 
kai tous prophaetas and  ,greek3        
anastrephonta tas gunaikas kai ta tekna 
are additions to  the text1 and ,greek3 
keleuonta phorous mae dounai is a       

variation4 ,of the two additions the    
first finds support in b1 7c71  e1 7ff71
 i1 l2 the second is inserted1 with some
 variation1 by c  and e in verse #e4    
,we may thus tabulate the relation of   
,marcion to these various  authorities4 
,the brackets indicate that the         
agreement is only  approximate4 ,marcion
 agrees with--    ,d1 d1 v4 #ad1 v4 #ci2
 xii4 #ad1 7xii4 #bh71 7xxi4 #bg74    a 
7,verc471 v4 #ad1 v4 #ci1 xii4 #ad      
7apparently71 xvii4 #b1 7xxi4 #bg74    b
 7,ver471 v4 #ad1 v4 #ci4 xii4 #ch1     
xvii4 #b1 7xxiii4 #b74    c 7,colb471 v4
 #ad1 v4 #ci1 xii4 #ad1 7xii4 #ch71     
xvii4 #b1 7xxi4 #bg71  7xxiii4 #b71     
7xxiii4 #b74    e 7,pal471 v4 #ci1 7xii4
 #ch71 xvi4 #ab1 7xxi4 #bg71 xxiii4 #b1 
7xxiii4  #b74    ff 7,corb471 v4 #ad1 v4
 #ci1 7xii4 #ch71 xvii4 #b1 7xxi4 #bg71 
7xxiii4  #b74    g'#b 7,germ471 x4 #be4 
i 7,vind471 7xii4 #ch71 xvi4 #ab1 xvii4 
#b1 xxiii4 #b4    l 7,rhed471 v4 #ad1   
xvi4 #ab1 xvii4 #b1 xiii4 #b4    ,syr4  
,crt41 xii4 #ad1 7xii4 #ch71 xxi4 #ah1  

7xxi4 #bg74    ,it is worth noticing    
that xxii4 #ai b1 #bj 7which is omitted 
in ,d1  a1 b1 c1 ff1 i1 l7 appears to   
have been found in ,marcion's ,gospel1  
as in the ,vulgate1 c1 and f 7see       
,rnsch1 p4 #bci74 ,greek3 apo tou       
mnaemeiou in xxiv4 #i is also found     
7,rnsch1 p4 #bdf71 though  omitted by   
,d1 a1 b1 c1 e1 ff1 l4 ,there is no     
evidence to show  whether the additions 
in ix4 #ee1 xxiii4 #cd1 and xxii4 #dc1  
#dd were  present in ,marcion's ,gospel 
or not4    ,it will be observed that the
 readings given above have all what is  
called a ',western' character4 ,the     
,curetonian ,syriac is well known  to   
have ,western affinities ,endnote       
#bcc3a4 ,codd4 a1 b1 c1 and the         
fragment of i which extends from ,luke  
x4 #f to xxiii4 #aj1 represent  the most
 primitive type of the ,old ,latin      
version2 e1 ff1 and ,i  give a more     
mixed text4 ,as we should expect1 the   
revised ,latin  text of ,cod4 f has no  
representation in ,marcion's ,gospel    

,endnote  #bcc3b4    ,these textual     
phenomena are highly interesting1 but at
 the same  time an exact analysis of    
them is difficult4 ,no simple hypothesis
  will account for them4 ,there can be  
no doubt that ,marcion's  readings are1 
in the technical sense1 false2 they are 
a deviation  from the type of the pure  
and unadulterated text4 ,at a certain   
point1 evidently of the remotest        
antiquity1 in the history of            
transcription1 there was a branching off
 which gave rise to those  varieties of 
reading which1 though they are not      
confined to  ,western manuscripts1      
still1 from their preponderance in      
these1 are  called by the general name  
of ',western4' ,but when we come to     
consider the relations among those      
,western documents themselves1  no      
regular descent or filiation seems      
traceable4 ,certain broad  lines indeed 
we can mark off as between the earlier  
and later  forms of the ,old ,latin1    
though even here the outline is in      

places  confused2 but at what point are 
we to insert that most remarkable       
document of antiquity1 the ,curetonian  
,syriac8 ,for instance1 there  are cases
 7e4g4 xvii4 #b1 xxiii4 #b7 where       
,marcion and the ,old ,latin  are       
opposed to the ,old ,syriac1 where the  
latter has undoubtedly  preserved the   
correct reading4 ,to judge from these   
alone1 we  should naturally conclude    
that the ,syriac was simply an older and
  purer type than ,marcion's ,gospel and
 the ,latin4 ,but then again1 on  the   
other hand1 there are cases 7such as the
 omission of xxi4 #ah7  where ,marcion  
and the ,syriac are combined1 and the   
,old ,latin  adheres to the truer type4 
,this will tend to show that1 even at   
that early period1 there must have been 
some comparison and  correction--a      
convergence as well as a divergence--   
of manuscripts1 and not always a mere   
reproduction of the  particular copy    
which the scribe had before him2 at the 
same time  it will also show that       

,marcion's ,gospel1 so far from being an
  original document1 has behind it a    
deep historical background1 and  stands 
at the head of a series of copies which 
have already passed  through a number of
 hands1 and been exposed to a           
proportionate  amount of corruption4    
,our author is inclined to lay stress   
upon  the 'slow multiplication and      
dissemination of ,,mss4' ,perhaps he may
  somewhat exaggerate this1 as          
antiquarians give us a surprising       
account of the case and rapidity with   
which books were produced by  the aid of
 slave-labour ,endnote #bce3a4 ,but even
 at ,rome the  publishing trade upon    
this large scale was a novelty dating   
back  no further than to ,atticus1 the  
friend of ,cicero1 and we should        
naturally expect that among the         
,christians--a poor and widely          
scattered body1 whose tenets would cut  
them off from the use of  such public   
machinery--the multiplication of ,,mss4 
would be slower  and more attended with 

difficulty4 ,but the slower it was the  
more  certainly do such phenomena as    
these of ,marcion's text throw back  the
 origin of the prototype from which that
 text was derived4 ,in  the year #adj   
,a4,d4 ,marcion possesses a ,gospel     
which is already in  an advanced stage  
of transcription--which has not only    
undergone  those changes which in some  
regions the text underwent before it    
was translated into ,latin1 but has     
undergone other changes  besides4 ,some 
of its peculiarities are not those of   
the earliest  form of the ,latin        
version1 but of that version in what may
 be  called its second stage 7e4g4 xvi4 
#ab74 ,it has also affinities to        
another version kindred to the ,latin   
and occupying a similar place  to the   
,old ,latin among the ,churches of      
,syria4 ,these circumstances  together  
point to an antiquity fully as great as 
any that an  orthodox critic would      
claim4    ,it should not be thought that
 because such indications are  indirect 

they are therefore any the less certain4
 ,there is perhaps  hardly a single     
uncanonical ,christian document that is 
admittedly  and indubitably older than  
,marcion2 so that direct evidence there 
is naturally none4 ,but neither is there
 any direct evidence for  the antiquity 
of man or of the earth4 ,the geologist  
judges by the  fossils which he finds   
embedded in the strata as relics of an  
extinct age2 so here1 in the ,gospel of 
,marcion1 do we find relics  which to   
the initiated eye carry with them their 
own story4    ,nor1 on the other hand1  
can it rightly be argued that because   
the  history of these remains is not    
wholly to be recovered1 therefore  no   
inference from them is possible4 ,in the
 earlier stages of a  science like      
palaeontology it might have been argued 
in just the  same way that the          
difficulties and confusion in the       
classification  invalidated the science 
along with its one main inference       
altogether4 ,yet we can see that such an

 argument would have been  mistaken4    
,there will probably be some points in  
every science  which will never be      
cleared up to the end of time4 ,the     
affirmation  of the antiquity of        
,marcion's ,gospel rests upon the simple
 axiom  that every event must have a    
cause1 and that in order to produce     
complicated phenomena the interaction of
 complicated causes is  necessary4 ,such
 an assumption involves time1 and ,i    
think it is a  safe proposition to      
assert that1 in order to bring the text 
of  ,marcion's ,gospel into the state in
 which we find it1 there must  have been
 a long previous history1 and the       
manuscripts through  which it was       
conveyed must have parted far from the  
parent stem4    ,the only way in which  
the inference drawn from the text of    
,marcion's ,gospel can be really met    
would be by showing that the  text of   
the ,latin and ,syriac translations is  
older and more  original than that which
 is universally adopted by text-critics4

 ,i  should hardly suppose that the     
author of ',supernatural ,religion'     
will be prepared to maintain this4 ,if  
he does1 the subject can  then be       
argued4 ,in the meantime1 these two     
arguments1 the literary  and the        
textual--for the others are but         
subsidiary--must1 ,i think1  be held to 
prove the high antiquity of our present 
,gospel4            ,,chapter ,,ix4     
,,tatian--,,dionysius ,,of ,,corinth4   
,tatian was a teacher of rhetoric1 an   
,assyrian by birth1 who was  converted  
to ,christianity by ,justin ,martyr1 but
 after his death  fell into heresy1     
leaning towards the ,valentinian        
,gnosticism1 and  combining with this an
 extreme asceticism4    ,the death of   
,justin is clearly the pivot on which   
his date will  hinge4 ,if we are to     
accept the conclusions of ,mr4 ,hort    
this will  have occurred in the year    
#adh ,a4,d42 according to ,volkmar it   
would  fall not before #aee ,a4,d41 and 
in the ordinary view as late as #afc-   

#afe ,a4,d4 ,endnote #bch3a ,the        
beginning of ,tatian's literary         
activity will follow accordingly4       
,tatian's first work of importance1 an  
',address to ,greeks1' which  is still  
extant1 was written soon after the death
 of ,justin4 ,it  contains no references
 to the ,synoptic ,gospels upon which   
stress  can be laid4    ,an allusion to 
,matth4 vi4 #ai in the ,stromateis of   
,clement ,endnote  #bch3b has been      
attributed to ,tatian1 but ,i hardly    
know for what  reason4 ,it is introduced
 simply by ,greek3 tis 7biazetai tis    
legon71 but there were other ,encratites
 besides ,tatian1 and the  very fact    
that he has been mentioned by name twice
 before in the  chapter makes it the    
less likely that he should be introduced
 so  vaguely4    ,the chief interest    
however in regard to ,tatian centres in 
his so-  called ',diatessaron1' which is
 usually supposed to have been a        
harmony of the four ,gospels4           
,eusebius mentions this in the following

 terms3 ',tatian however1  their former 
leader1 put together1 ,i know not how1 a
 sort of  patchwork or combination of   
the ,gospels and called it the          
,diatessaron1 which is still current    
with some4' ,endnote #bci3a    ,i am    
rather surprised to see that ,credner1  
who is followed by the  author of       
',supernatural ,religion1' argues from  
this that ,eusebius  had not seen the   
work in question ,endnote #bci3b4 ,this 
inference  is not by any means conveyed 
by the ,greek4 ,greek3 ,ouk oid' hopos  
7thus introduced7 is an idiomatic phrase
 referring to the  principle on which   
the harmony was constructed1 and might  
well be  paraphrased 'a curious sort of 
patchwork or dovetailing1' 'a not  very 
intelligible dovetailing1' c4 ,standing 
in the position it  does1 the phrase can
 hardly mean anything else4 ,besides it 
is not  likely that ,eusebius1 an eager 
collector and reader of books1 with  the
 run of ,pamphilus' library1 should not 
have been acquainted  with a work that  

he says himself was current in more     
quarters than  one4 ,eusebius1 it will  
be observed1 is quite explicit in his   
statement4 ,he says that the            
,diatessaron was a harmony of the       
,gospels1 i4e4 7in his sense7 of our    
present ,gospels1 and that  ,tatian gave
 the name of ,diatessaron to his work   
himself4 ,we do not  know upon what     
these statements rest1 but there ought  
to be some  valid reason before we      
dismiss them entirely4    ,epiphanius   
writes that ',tatian is said to have    
composed the  ,diatessaron ,gospel which
 some call the ,gospel according to the 
,hebrews' ,endnote #bdj3a4 ,and         
,theodoret tells us that ',tatian  also 
composed the ,gospel which is called the
 ,diatessaron1 cutting  out the         
genealogies and all that shows the ,lord
 to have been born  of the seed of      
,david according to the flesh4' ',this1'
 he adds1  'was used not only by his own
 party1 but also by those who  followed 
the teaching of the ,apostles1 as they  

had not perceived  the mischievous      
design of the composition1 but in their 
simplicity  made use of the book on     
account of its conciseness4' ,theodoret 
found more than two hundred copies in   
the churches of his diocese  7,cyrrhus  
in ,syria71 which he removed and        
replaced with the works  of the four    
,evangelists ,endnote #bdj3b4    ,victor
 of ,capua in the sixth century speaks  
of ,tatian's work as a  ',diapente'     
rather than a ',diatessaron' ,endnote   
#bdj3c4 ,if we are  to believe the      
,syrian writer ,bar-,salibi in the      
twelfth century1  ,ephrem ,syrus        
commented on ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 and
 it began with  the opening words of    
,st4 ,john4 ,this statement however is  
referred  by ,gregory ,bar-,hebraeus not
 to the ,harmony of ,tatian1 but to one 
by ,ammonius made in the third century  
,endnote #bda3a4    ,here there is      
clearly a good deal of confusion4       
,but now we come to the question1 was   
,tatian's work really a  ,harmony of our

 four ,gospels8 ,the strongest          
presumption that it was  is derived from
 ,irenaeus4 ,irenaeus1 it is well known1
 speaks of  the four ,gospels with      
absolute decision1 as if it were a law  
of  nature that their number must be    
four1 neither more nor less  ,endnote   
#bda3b1 and his four ,gospels were      
certainly the same as  our own4 ,but    
,tatian wrote within a comparatively    
short interval of  ,irenaeus4 ,it is    
sufficiently clear that ,irenaeus held  
his opinion  at the very time that      
,tatian wrote1 though it was not        
published  until later4 ,here then we   
have a coincidence which makes it       
difficult to think that ,tatian's four  
,gospels were different from  ours4     
,the theory that finds favour with      
,credner ,endnote #bda3c and his        
followers1 including the author of      
',supernatural ,religion1' is  that     
,tatian's ,gospel was the same as that  
used by ,justin4 ,i am  myself not      
inclined to think this theory           

improbable2 it would have  been still   
less so1 if ,tatian had been the master 
and ,justin the  pupil ,endnote #bda3d4 
,we have seen that the phenomena of     
,justin's  evangelical quotations are as
 well met by the hypothesis that he     
made use of a ,harmony as by any other4 
,but that ,harmony1 as we  have also    
seen1 included at least our three       
,synoptics4 ,the  evidence 7which we    
shall consider presently7 for the use of
 the  fourth ,gospel by ,tatian is so   
strong as to make it improbable that    
that work was not included in the       
,diatessaron4 ,the fifth work1  alluded 
to by ,victor of ,capua1 may possibly   
have been the ,gospel  according to the 
,hebrews4                               
#b4    ,just as the interest of ,tatian 
turns upon the interpretation to be  put
 upon a single term ',diatessaron1' so  
the interest of ,dionysius  of ,corinth 
depends upon what we are to understand  
by his phrase  'the ,scriptures of the  
,lord4'    ,in a fragment1 preserved by 

,eusebius1 of an epistle addressed to   
,soter ,bishop of ,rome 7#afh-agf       
,a4,d47 and the ,roman ,church1         
,dionysius complains that his letters   
had been tampered with4 ',as  brethren  
pressed me to write letters ,i wrote    
them4 ,and these the  apostles of the   
devil have filled with tares1 taking    
away some  things and adding others1 for
 whom the woe is prepared4 ,it is not   
wonderful1 then1 if some have ventured  
to tamper with the  ,scriptures of the  
,lord when they have laid their plots   
against  writings that have no such     
claims as they' ,endnote #bdb3a4 ,it    
must needs be a straining of language to
 make the ,scriptures here  refer1 as   
the author of ',supernatural ,religion' 
seems to do1 to  the ,old ,testament4   
,it is true that ,justin lays great     
stress upon  type and prophecy as       
pointing to ,christ1 but there is a     
considerable step between this and      
calling the whole of the ,old           
,testament ',scriptures of the ,lord4'  

,on the other hand1 we can  hardly think
 that ,dionysius refers to a complete   
collection of  writings like the ,new   
,testament4 ,it seems most natural to   
suppose  that he is speaking of         
,gospels--possibly not the canonical    
alone1  and yet1 with ,irenaeus in our  
mind's eye1 we shall say probably to    
them4 ,there is the further reason for  
this application of the  words that     
,dionysius is known to have written     
against ,marcion--'he  defended the     
canon of the truth' ,endnote #bdc3a1    
,eusebius says--  and such 'tampering'  
as he describes was precisely what      
,marcion  had been guilty of4           
99       99       99       99       99  
,the reader will judge for himself what 
is the weight of the kind  of evidence  
produced in this chapter4 ,i give a     
chapter to it  because the author of    
',supernatural ,religion' has done the  
same4  ,doubtless it is not the sort of 
evidence that would bear pressing  in a 
court of ,english law1 but in a question

 of balanced  probabilities it has ,i   
think a decided leaning to one side1 and
  that the side opposed to the          
conclusions of ',supernatural           
,religion4'            ,,chapter ,x4    
,,melito--,,apollinaris--,,athenagoras--
,,the ,,epistle ,,of ,,vienne ,,and     
,,lyons4      ,we pass on1 still in a   
region of fragments--'waifs and strays' 
of  the literature of the second        
century--and of partial and indirect    
7though on that account not necessarily 
less important7  indications4    ,in    
,melito of ,sardis 7c4 #agf ,a4,d7 it is
 interesting to notice the  first       
appearance of a phrase that was destined
 later to occupy a  conspicuous         
position4 ,writing to his friend        
,onesimus1 who had  frequently asked for
 selections from the ,law and the       
,prophets  bearing upon the ,saviour1   
and generally for information respecting
  the number and order of 'the ,old     
,books1' ,melito says 'that he had  gone
 to the ,east and reached the spot where

 the preaching had been  delivered and  
the acts done1 and that having learnt   
accurately the  books of the ,old       
,covenant 7or ,testament7 he had sent a 
list of  them'--which is subjoined      
,endnote #bdd3a4 ,melito uses the word  
which became established as the title   
used to distinguish the  elder          
,scriptures from the younger--the ,old  
,covenant or ,testament  7,greek3 hae   
palaia diathaekae72 and it is argued    
from this that  he implies the existence
 of a 'definite ,new ,testament1 a      
written  antitype to 'the ,old' ,endnote
 #bde3a ,the inference however seems  to
 be somewhat in excess of what can be   
legitimately drawn4 ,by  ,greek3 palaia 
diathaekae is meant rather the subject  
or contents  of the books than the books
 themselves4 ,it is the system of       
things1 the dispensation accomplished   
'in heavenly places1' to  which the     
books belong1 not the actual collected  
volume4 ,the  parallel of #b ,cor4 iii4 
#ad 7,greek3 epi tae anagnosei taes     

palaias  diathaekaes71 which is ably    
pointed to in ',supernatural ,religion' 
,endnote #bde3b1 is too close to allow  
the inference of a written  ,new        
,testament4 ,and yet1 though the word   
has not actually acquired  this meaning1
 it was in process of acquiring it1 and 
had already  gone some way to acquire   
it4 ,the books were already there1 and1 
as  we see from ,irenaeus1 critical     
collections of them had already  begun  
to be made4 ,within thirty years of the 
time when ,melito is  writing           
,tertullian uses the phrase ,novum      
,testamentum precisely in  our modern   
sense1 intimating that it had then      
become the current  designation ,endnote
 #bde3c4 ,this being the case we cannot 
wonder  that there should be a certain  
reflex hint of such a sense in the      
words of ,melito4    ,the tract ',on    
,faith1' published in ,syriac by ,dr4   
,cureton and  attributed to ,melito1 is 
not sufficiently authenticated to have  
value as evidence4    ,it should be     

noted that ,melito's fragments contain  
nothing  especially on the ,gospels4    
#b4    ,some time between #agf-ahj      
,a4,d4 ,claudius ,apollinaris1 ,bishop  
of  ,hierapolis1 addressed to the       
,emperor ,marcus ,aurelius an apology of
  which rather more than three lines    
have come down to us4 ,a more  important
 fragment however is assigned to this   
writer in the  ,paschal ,chronicle1 a   
work of the seventh century4 ,here it is
 said  that ',apollinaris1 the most holy
 bishop of ,hierapolis in ,asia1 who    
lived near the times of the ,apostles1  
in his book about ,easter1  taught much 
the same1 saying thus3 ,there are some  
who through  ignorance wrangle about    
these matters1 in a pardonable manner2  
for  ignorance does not admit of blame  
but rather needs instruction4  ,and they
 say that on the #adth the ,lord ate the
 lamb with ,his  disciples1 and that on 
the great day of unleavened bread ,he   
himself suffered2 and they relate that  
this is in their view the  statement of 

,matthew4 ,whence their opinion is in   
conflict with the  law1 and according to
 them the ,gospels are made to be at    
variance' ,endnote #bdf3a4 ,this        
variance or disagreement in the         
,gospels evidently has reference to the 
apparent discrepancy  between the       
,synoptics1 especially ,st4 ,matthew and
 ,st4 ,john1 the  former treating the   
,last ,supper as the ,paschal meal1 the 
latter  placing it before the ,feast of 
the ,passover and making the            
,crucifixion coincide with the slaughter
 of the ,paschal lamb4  ,apollinaris    
would thus seem to recognise both the   
first and the  fourth ,gospels as       
authoritative4    ,is this fragment of  
,apollinaris genuine8 ,it is alleged    
against it  ,endnote #bdg3a 7#a7 that   
,eusebius was ignorant of any such work 
on  ,easter1 and that there is no       
mention of it in such notices of        
,apollinaris and his writings as have   
come down to us from  ,theodoret1       
,jerome1 and ,photius4 ,there are some  

good remarks on  this point by ,routh   
7who is quoted in ',supernatural        
,religion'  apparently as adverse to the
 genuineness of the fragments74  ,he    
says3 ',there seems to me to be nothing 
in these extracts to  compel us to deny 
the authorship of ,apollinaris4 ,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         
received1  although not mentioned by    
,eusebius or any other of his           
contemporaries2  especially as ,eusebius
 declares below that it was only some   
select  books that had come to his hands
 out of many that ,apollinaris had      
written' ,endnote #bdg3b4 ,it is        
objected 7#b7 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 objection1 
if he was really speaking of such a     

controversy4  ,but the great issue      
between the ,churches of ,asia and that 
of ,rome  was whether the ,paschal      
festival should be kept1 according to   
the  ,jewish custom1 always on the      
fourteenth day of the month ,nisan1 or  
whether it should be kept on the ,friday
 after the ,paschal full moon1  on      
whatever day of the month it might fall4
 ,the fragment appears  rather to allude
 to some local dispute as to the day on 
which the  ,lord suffered4 ,to go       
thoroughly into this question would     
involve  us in all the mazes of the     
so-called ,paschal controversy1 and in  
the end a precise and certain conclusion
 would probably be impossible4  ,so far 
as ,i am aware1 all the writers who have
 entered into the  discussion start with
 assuming the genuineness of the        
,apollinarian  fragment4    ,there      
remains however the fact that it rests  
only upon the attestation  of a writer  
of the seventh century1 who may possibly
 be wrong1 but1  if so1 has been led    

into his error not wilfully but by      
accident4  ,no reason can be alleged for
 the forging or purposely false         
ascription  of a fragment like this1 and
 it bears the stamp of good faith in    
that  it asks indulgence for opponents  
instead of censure4 ,we may perhaps     
safely accept the fragment with some1   
not large1 deduction from its  weight4  
#c4    ,an instance of the              
precariousness of the argument from     
silence  would be supplied by the writer
 who comes next under review--          
,athenagoras4 ,no mention whatever is   
made of ,athenagoras either by          
,eusebius or ,jerome1 though he appears 
to have been an author of a  certain    
importance1 two of whose works1 an      
,apology addressed to  ,marcus ,aurelius
 and ,commodus and a treatise on the    
,resurrection1  are still extant4 ,the  
genuineness of neither of these works is
  doubted4    ,the ,apology1 which may  
be dated about #agg ,a4,d41 contains a  
few  references to our ,lord's          

discourses1 but not such as can have any
  great weight as evidence4 ,the first  
that is usually given1 a  parallel to   
,matt4 v4 #ci1 #dj 7good for evil71 is  
introduced in such  a way as to show    
that the author intends only to give the
 sense  and not the words4 ,the same may
 be said of another sentence that  is   
compared with ,mark x4 #f ,endnote      
#bdi3a3--    ,athenagoras1 ,leg4 pro    
,christ4 #cc4    ,greek3 ,hoti en archae
 ho ,theos hena andra eplase kai mian   
gunaika4    ,mark x4 #f    ,greek3 ,apo 
de archaes ktiseos arsen kai thaelu     
epoiaesen autous  ho ,theos4    ,all    
that can be said is that the thought    
here appears to have been  suggested by 
the ,gospel--and that not quite         
immediately4    ,a much closer--and     
indeed1 we can hardly doubt1 a          
real--parallel  is presented by a longer
 passage3--    ,athenagoras1 ,leg4 pro  
,christ4 #aa4    ,what then are the     
precepts in which we are instructed8 ,i 
say unto  you3 ,love your enemies1 bless

 them that curse1 pray for them that    
persecute you2 that ye may become the   
sons of your ,father which is  in       
heaven3 who maketh his sun to rise on   
the evil and the good1  and sendeth rain
 on the just and the unjust4    ,greek3 
,tines oun haemon hoi logoi1 hois       
entrephometha2 lego  humin1 agapate tous
 echthrous humon1 eulogeite tous        
kataromenous1  proseuchesthe huper ton  
diokonton humas1 hopos genaesthe huioi  
tou  patros humon tou en ouranois1 hos  
ton haelion autou anatellei epi         
ponaerous kai agathous kai brechei epi  
dikaious kai adikous4    ,matt4 v4 #dd1 
#de4    ,i say unto you3 ,love your     
enemies bless them that curse you1 do   
good to them that hate you1 and pray for
 them that persecute you2  that ye may  
become the sons of your ,father which is
 in heaven3 for  he maketh his sun to   
rise on the evil and the good1 and      
sendeth  rain on the just and the       
unjust4    ,greek3 ego de lego humin1   
agapate tous echthrous humon  eulogeite 

tous kataromenous humas1 kalos poiete   
tous misountas  humas1 proseuchesthe    
huper ton diokonton humas hopos         
genaesthe  huioi tou patros humon tou en
 ouranois1 hoti ton haelion autou       
anatellei epi ponaerous kai agathous kai
 brechei epi dikaious kai  adikous4     
,the bracketed clauses in the text of   
,st4 ,matthew are both omitted  and     
inserted by a large body of authorities1
 but1 as it is rightly  remarked in     
',supernatural ,religion1' they are     
always either both  omitted or both     
inserted2 we must therefore believe that
 the  omission and insertion of one only
 by ,athenagoras is without  manuscript 
precedent4 ,otherwise the exactness of  
the parallel is  great2 and it is thrown
 the more into relief when we compare   
the  corresponding passage in ,st4      
,luke4    ,the quotation is completed in
 the next chapter of ,athenagoras'      
work3--    ,athenagoras1 ,leg4 pro      
,christ4 #ab4    ,for if ye love1 he    
says1 them which love and lend to them  

which  lend to you1 what reward shall ye
 have8    ,greek3 ,ean gar agapate1     
phaesin1 tous agapontas1 kai daineizete 
tois daneizousin humin1 tina misthon    
hexete2     ,matt4 v4 #df4    ,for if ye
 shall love them which love you1 what   
reward have ye8    ,greek3 ,ean gar     
agapaesaete tous agapontas humas tina   
misthon  echete2    ,here the middle    
clause in the quotation appears to be a 
reminiscence of ,st4 ,luke vi4 #cd      
7,greek3 ean danisaete par' hon         
elpizete labein74 ,justin also1 it      
should be noted1 has ,greek3  agapate   
7but ,greek3 ei agapate7 for ,greek3    
agapaesaete4 ,if  this passage had stood
 alone1 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 version4  ,yet the     
,greek3 tina misthon1 compared with the 
,greek3 poia  charis of ,st4 ,luke and  
,greek3 ti kainon poieite of ,justin1   
would cause misgivings1 and greater run 

and balance is precisely  what would    
result from 'unconscious cerebration4'  
,two more references are pointed out to 
,matt4 v4 #bh and ,matt4 v4  #cb1 one   
with slight1 the other with medium1     
variation1 which leave  the question    
very much in the same position4    ,we  
ought not to omit to notice that        
,athenagoras quotes one  uncanonical    
saying1 introducing it with the phrase  
,greek3 palin  haemin legontos tou      
logou4 ,i am not at all clear that this 
is not  merely one of the 'precepts'    
,greek3 oi logoi alluded to above4  ,at 
any rate it is exceedingly doubtful that
 the ,logos is here  personified4 ,it   
seems rather parallel to the ,greek3 ho 
logos  edaelou of ,justin 7,dial4 c4    
,tryph4 #abi74    ,considering the date 
at which he wrote ,i have little doubt  
that  ,athenagoras is actually quoting  
from the ,synoptics1 but he cannot1  on 
the whole1 be regarded as a very        
powerful witness for them4              
#d4    ,after the cruel persecution from

 which the ,churches of ,vienne and     
,lyons had suffered in the year #agg    
,a4,d41 a letter was written in  their  
name1 containing an account of what had 
happened1 which  ,lardner describes as  
'the finest thing of the kind in all    
antiquity' ,endnote #bea3a4 ,this       
letter1 which was addressed to  the     
,churches of ,asia and ,phrygia1        
contained several quotations  from the  
,new ,testament1 and among them one that
 is evidently from  ,st4 ,luke's        
,gospel4    ,it is said of one of the   
martyrs1 ,vettius ,epagathus1 that his  
manner of life was so strict that1 young
 as he was1 he could claim  a share in  
the testimony borne to the more aged    
,zacharias4 ,indeed  he had walked in   
all the commandments and ordinances of  
the  ,lord blameless1 and in the service
 of his neighbour untiring1  c4 ,endnote
 #beb3a ,the italicised words are a     
verbatim  reproduction of ,luke i4 #f4  
,there is an ambiguity in the words     
,greek3 sunexisousthai tae tou          

presbuterou ,zachariou marturia4 ,the   
genitive after ,greek3 marturia  may be 
either subjective or objective--'the    
testimony borne by'  or 'the testimony  
borne to or of' the aged ,zacharias4 ,i 
have  little doubt that the translation 
given above is the right one4  ,it has  
the authority of ,lardner 7'equalled the
 character of'7 and  ,routh 7',zachariae
 senioris elogio aequaretur'71 and seems
 to be  imperatively required by the    
context4 ,the eulogy passed upon        
,vettius ,epagathus is justified by the 
uniform strictness of his  daily life   
7he has walked in all the commandments  
c471 not by  the single act of his      
constancy in death4    ,the author of   
',supernatural ,religion1' apparently   
following  ,hilgenfeld ,endnote #beb3b1 
adopts the other translation1 and  bases
 on it an argument that the allusion is 
to the martyrdom  of ,zacharias1 and    
therefore not to our third ,gospel in   
which no  mention of that martyrdom is  
contained4 ,on the other hand1 we are   

reminded that the narrative of the      
martyrdom of ,zacharias enters  into the
 ,protevangelium of ,james4 ,that       
apocryphal ,gospel however  contains    
nothing approaching to the words which  
coincide exactly  with the text of ,st4 
,luke4    ,even if there had been a     
greater doubt than there is as to the   
application of ,greek3 marturia1 it     
would be difficult to resist  the       
conclusion that the ,synoptic ,gospel is
 being quoted4 ,the words  occur in the 
most peculiar and distinctive portion of
 the ,gospel2  and the correspondence is
 so exact and the phrase itself so      
striking as not to admit of any other   
source4 ,the order1 the  choice of      
words1 the construction1 even to the use
 of the nominative  ,greek3 memptos     
where we might very well have had the   
adverb  ,greek3 ammpts1 all point the   
same way4 ,these fine edges of the      
quotation1 so to speak1 must needs have 
been rubbed off in the  course of       
transmission through several documents4 

,but there is  not a trace of any other 
document that contained such a remark   
upon the character of ,zacharias4       
,this instance of a ,synoptic quotation 
may1 ,i think1 safely be  depended upon4
    ,another allusion1 a little lower   
down in the ,epistle1 which speaks  of  
the same ,vettius ,epagathus as 'having 
in himself the ,paraclete  there is a   
play on the use of the word ,greek3     
paraklaetos just  before1 the ,spirit1  
more abundantly than ,zacharias1' though
 in  exaggerated and bad taste1 probably
 has reference to ,luke i4 #fg1  ',and  
,zacharias his father was filled with   
the ,holy ,ghost1' c4    ,footnote3 ,mr4
 ,mason calls my attention to ,greek3   
enduma  numphikon in  #ac1 and also to  
the misleading statement in  ,s4,r4 ii4 
p4 #bja that 'no writing of the ,new    
,testament is  directly referred to4' ,i
 should perhaps have more fault to find 
with the sentence on p4 #bjd1 ',it      
follows clearly and few venture  to     
doubt1' c4 ,i have assumed however for  

some time that the  reader will be on   
his guard against expressions such as   
these4            ,,chapter ,,xi4       
,,ptolemaeus ,,and                      
,,heracleon--,,celsus--,,the            
,,muratorian ,,fragment4      ,we are   
now very near emerging into open        
daylight2 but there are  three items in 
the evidence which lie upon the border  
of the  debateable ground1 and as       
questions have been raised about these  
it may be well for us to discuss them4  
,we have already had occasion to speak  
of the two ,gnostics  ,ptolemaeus and   
,heracleon4 ,it is necessary1 in the    
first place1 to  define the date of     
their evidence with greater precision1  
and1 in  the second1 to consider its    
bearing4    ,let us then1 in attempting 
to do this1 dismiss all secondary and   
precarious matter2 such as 7#a7 the     
argument drawn by ,tischendorf  ,endnote
 #bed3a from the order in which the     
names of the disciples  of ,valentinus  
are mentioned and from an impossible    

statement of  ,epiphanius which seems to
 make ,heracleon older than ,cerdon1 and
  7#b7 the argument that we find in     
,volkmar and ',supernatural  ,religion' 
,endnote #bed3b from the use of the     
present tense by  ,hippolytus1 as if the
 two writers1 ,ptolemaeus and           
,heracleon1 were  contemporaries of his 
own in #bbe-bce ,a4,d4 ,hippolytus does 
indeed  say1 speaking of a division in  
the school of ,valentinus1 ',those  who 
are of ,italy1 of whom is ,heracleon and
 ,ptolemaeus1 say' c4  ,but there is no 
reason why there should not be a kind of
 historic  present1 just as we might    
say1 ',the ,atomists1 of whom are       
,leucippus and ,democritus1 hold' c41 or
 ',st4 ,peter says this1 ,st4  ,paul    
says that4' ,the account of such        
presents would seem to be  that the     
writer speaks as if quoting from a book 
that he has  actually before him4 ,it is
 not impossible that ,heracleon and     
,ptolemaeus may have been still living  
at the time when ,hippolytus  wrote1 but

 this cannot be inferred simply from the
 tense of the  verb4 ,surer data are    
supplied by ,irenaeus4    ,irenaeus     
mentions ,ptolemaeus several times in   
his first and second  books1 and on one 
occasion he couples with his the name of
  ,heracleon4 ,but to what date does    
this evidence of ,irenaeus refer8  ,at  
what time was ,irenaeus himself writing4
 ,we have seen that the  terminus ad    
quem1 at least for the first three      
books1 is  supplied by the death of     
,eleutherus 7c4 ,a4,d4 #aij74 ,on the   
other  hand1 the third book at least was
 written after the publication of  the  
,greek version of the ,old ,testament by
 ,theodotion1 which  ,epiphanius tells  
us appeared in the reign of ,commodus   
7#ahj-aij  ,a4,d474 ,a still more       
precise date is given to ,theodotion's  
work in  the ,paschal ,chronicle1 which 
places it under the ,consuls ,marcellus 
7,massuet would read ',marullus'7 and   
,aelian in the year #ahd ,a4,d4         
,endnote #bee3a ,this last statement is 

worth very little1 and it  is indeed    
disputed whether ,theodotion's version  
can have appeared  so late as this4 ,at 
any rate we must assume that it was in  
the  hands of ,irenaeus about #ahe      
,a4,d41 and it will be not before this  
that the third book of the work         
',against ,heresies' was written4 ,it   
will perhaps sufficiently satisfy all   
parties if we suppose that  ,irenaeus   
was engaged in writing his first three  
books between the  years #ahb-ahh ,a4,d4
 ,but the name of ,ptolemaeus is        
mentioned very  near the beginning of   
the ,preface2 so that ,irenaeus would be
  committing to paper the statement of  
his acquaintance with  ,ptolemaeus as   
early as #ahb ,a4,d4    ,this is however
 the last link in the chain4 ,let us    
trace it a  little further backwards4   
,irenaeus' acquaintance with ,ptolemaeus
  can hardly have been a fact of        
yesterday at the time when he  wrote4   
,ptolemaeus represented the ',italian'  
branch of the  ,valentinian school1 and 

therefore it seems a fair supposition   
that  ,irenaeus would come in contact   
with him during his visit to ,rome  in  
#agh ,a4,d42 and the four years from    
that date to #ahb ,a4,d4 can  hardly be 
otherwise than a short period to allow  
for the necessary  intimacy with his    
teaching to have been formed4    ,but we
 are carried back one step further      
still4 ,it is not only  ,ptolemaeus but 
,ptolemaeus and his party 7,greek3 hoi  
peri  ,ptolemaion7 ,endnote #bef3a4     
,there has been time for ,ptolemaeus  to
 found a school within a school of his  
own2 and his school has  already begun  
to express its opinions1 either         
collectively or  through its individual 
members4    ,in this way the real date  
of ,ptolemaeus seems still to recede1   
but  ,i will not endeavour any further  
to put a numerical value upon it  which 
might be thought to be prejudiced4 ,it  
will be best for the  reader to fill up 
the blank according to his own judgment4
    ,heracleon will to a certain extent 

go with ,ptolemaeus1 with whom  he is   
persistently coupled1 though1 as he is  
only mentioned once  by ,irenaeus1 the  
data concerning him are less precise4   
,they are  however supplemented by an   
allusion in the fourth book of the      
,stromateis of ,clement of ,alexandria  
7which appears to have been  written in 
the last decade of the century7 to      
,heracleon as one of  the chief of the  
school of ,valentinus ,endnote #beg3a1  
and perhaps  also by a statement of     
,origen to the effect that ,heracleon   
was said  to be a ,greek3 gnorimos of   
,valentinus himself ,endnote #beg3b4    
,the meaning of the latter term is      
questioned1 and it is certainly  true   
that it may stand for pupil or scholar1 
as ,elisha was to ,elijah  or as the    
,apostles were to their ,master2 but    
that it could possibly  be applied to   
two persons who never came into personal
 contact must  be1 ,i cannot but think1 
very doubtful4 ,this then1 if true1     
would  throw back ,heracleon some little

 way even beyond #afj ,a4,d4    ,from   
the passage in the ,stromateis we gather
 that ,heracleon1 if he  did not 7as is 
usually inferred7 write a commentary1   
yet wrote an  isolated exposition of a  
portion of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel4 ,in the
 same  way we learn from ,origen that he
 wrote a commentary upon ,st4 ,john4    
,we shall probably not be wrong in      
referring many of the  ,valentinian     
quotations given by ,irenaeus to        
,ptolemaeus and  ,heracleon4 ,by the    
first writer we also have extant an     
,epistle to a  disciple called ,flora1  
which has been preserved by ,epiphanius4
  ,this ,epistle1 which there is no     
reason to doubt1 contains  unequivocal  
references to our first ,gospel4        
,epistle to ,flora4 ,epiph4 ,haer4 #bag 
,a4    ,greek3 oikia gar ae polis       
meristheisa eph' heautaen hoti mae      
dunatai staenai ho sotaer haemon        
apephaenato4    ,ibid4 #bag ,d4         
,greek3 ephae autois hoti ,mousaes pros 
taen sklaerokardian humon  epetrepse to 

apoluein taen gunaika autou4 ,ap'       
archaes gar ou  gegonen houtos4 ,theos  
gar 7phaesi7 sunezeuxe tautaen taen     
suzugian  kai ho sunezeuxen ho kurios1  
anthropos 7ephae7 mae chorizeto4        
,ibid4 #bah ,d4    ,greek3 ho gar ,theos
 7phaesin7 eipe tima ton patera sou kai 
taen  maetera sou1 hina eu soi genaetai2
 humeis de 7phaesin7 eiraekate  7tois   
presbuterois legon71 doron to ,theo ho  
ean ophelaethaes ex  emou1 kai          
aekurosate ton nomon tou ,theou1 dia    
taen paradosin humon  ton presbuteron4  
,touto de ,haesaias exephonaesen eipon2 
ho laos  houtos tois cheilesi me tima   
hae de kardia auton porro apechei ap'   
emou4 ,mataen de sebontai me1           
didaskontes didaskalias1 entalmata      
anthropon4    ,ibid4 #bbj ,d1 #bba ,a4  
,greek3 to gar1 ,ophthalmon anti        
ophthalmou kai odonta anti odontos 444  
ego gar lego humin mae antistaenai holos
 to ponaero alla ean tis  se rhapisae   
strepson auto kai taen allaen siagona4  
,matt4 xii4 #be 7,mark iii4 #be1  ,luke 

xi4 #ag74    ,greek3 pasa polis ae oikia
 meristheisa kath' heautaes ou          
stathaesetai4    ,matt4 xix4 #h1 #f     
7,mark x4 #e1 #f1 #i74    ,greek3 legei 
autois2 ,hoti ,mousaes pros taen        
sklaerokardian humon  epetrepsen humin  
apolusai tas gunaikas humon' ap' archaes
 de ou  gegonen houtos4 444 ho oun ho   
theos sunezeuxen anthropos mae          
chorizeto4    ,matt4 xv4 #d-h 7,mark    
vii4 #aj1 #aa1 #f1 #i74    ,greek3 ho   
gar theos eneteilato legon1 ,tima ton   
patera kai taen  maetera 444 humeis de  
legete2 hos an eipae to patri ae tae    
maetri2  ,doron ho ean ex emou          
ophelaethaes1444 kai aekurosate ton     
nomon tou  ,theou dia taen paradosin    
humon4 ,hupokritai1 kalos eprophaeteusen
  peri humon ,haesaias legon2 ,ho laos  
houtos tois cheilesin me tima1  hae de  
kardia auton porro apechei ap' emou2    
mataen de sebontai me  didaskontes      
didaskalias entalmata anthropon4        
,matt4 v4 #ch1 #ci 7,luke vi4 #bi74     
,greek3 aekousate oti erraethae1        

,ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai  odonta 
anti odontos ego de lego hymin mae      
antistaenai to ponaero  all hostis se   
rapizei eis taen dexian siagona sou1    
strephon auto  kai taen allaen4         
,some doubt indeed appears to be        
entertained by the author of            
',supernatural ,religion' ,endnote      
#bei3a as to whether these  quotations  
are really taken from the first         
,synoptic2 but it would  hardly have    
arisen if he had made a more special    
study of the  phenomena of patristic    
quotation4 ,if he had done this1 ,i do  
not  think there would have been any    
question on the subject4 ,a  comparison 
of the other ,synoptic parallels1 and of
 the ,septuagint  in the case of the    
quotation from ,isaiah1 will make the   
agreement  with the ,matthaean text     
still more conspicuous4 ,it is          
instructive  to notice the reproduction 
of the most characteristic features of  
this text--,greek3 polis1 meristheisa   
7,greek3 ean meristhae  ,mark1 ,greek3  

diameristheisa ,luke71 ,greek3 hoti     
,mousaes1  epetrepsen apolusai tas      
gunaikas1 ou gegonen oitos1  aekurosate 
44 dia taen p41 ophthalmon 444 odontos1 
antistaenai to  ponaero1 strepson1 and  
the order and cast of sentence in all   
the  quotations4 ,the first quotation1  
with ,greek3 eph eautaen and  ,greek3   
dunatai staenai1 which may be compared  
7though1 from the  context1 somewhat    
doubtfully7 with ,mark1 presents1 ,i    
believe1 the  only trace of the         
influence of any other text4    ,to what
 period in the life of ,ptolemaeus this 
,epistle to ,flora may  have belonged we
 have no means of knowing2 but it is    
unlikely that  the writer should have   
used one set of documents at one part of
  his life and another set at another4  
,viewed along with so much  confirmatory
 matter in the account of the           
,valentinians by  ,irenaeus1 the        
evidence may be taken as that of        
,ptolemaeus himself  rather than of this
 single letter4                         

#b4    ,the question in regard to       
,celsus1 whose attacks upon             
,christianity  called forth such an     
elaborate reply from ,origen1 is chiefly
 one  of date4 ,to go into this at once 
adequately and independently  would need
 a much longer investigation than can be
 admitted into  the present work4 ,the  
subject has quite recently been treated 
in a  monograph by the well-known writer
 ,dr4 ,keim ,endnote #bfj3a1 and1  as   
there will be in this case no suspicion 
of partiality1 ,i shall  content myself 
with stating ,dr4 ,keim's conclusions4  
,origen himself1 ,dr4 ,keim thinks1 was 
writing under the ,emperor  ,philip     
about ,a4,d4 #bdh4 ,but he regards his  
opponent ,celsus1 not as  a             
contemporary1 but as belonging to a past
 age 7,contra ,celsum1 i4  #h1 vii4     
#aa71 and his work as nothing recent1   
but rather as having  obtained a certain
 celebrity in heathen literature 7v4    
#c74 ,for all  this it had to be        
disinterred1 as it were1 and that not   

without  difficulty1 by a ,christian    
7viii4 #gf74    ,exact and certain      
knowledge however about ,celsus ,origen 
did not  possess4 ,he leans to the      
opinion that his opponent was an        
,epicurean of that name who lived 'under
 ,hadrian and later' 7i4 #h74  ,this    
,epicurean had also written several     
books against ,magic 7i4  #fh74 ,now it 
is known that there was a ,celsus1 a    
friend of ,lucian1  who had also written
 against ,magic1 and to whom ,lucian    
dedicated  his ',pseudomantis1 or       
,alexander of ,abonoteichos4'    ,it was
 clearly obvious to identify the two    
persons1 and there was  much to be said 
in favour of the identification4 ,but   
there was  this difficulty4 ,origen     
indeed speaks of the ,celsus to whom he 
is  replying as an ,epicurean1 and here 
and there ,epicurean opinions  are      
expressed in the fragments of the       
original work that ,origen  has         
preserved4 ,but ,origen himself was     
somewhat puzzled to find  that the main 

principles of the author were rather    
,platonic or  ,neo-platonic than        
,epicurean1 and this observation has    
been  confirmed by modern enquiry4 ,the 
,celsus of ,origen is in reality a      
,platonist4    ,it still being          
acknowledged that the friend of ,lucian 
was an  ,epicurean1 this discovery      
seemed fatal to the supposition that he 
was the author of the work against the  
,christians4 ,accordingly  there was a  
tendency among critics1 though not quite
 a unanimous  tendency1 to separate     
again the two personalities which had   
been  united4 ,at this point ,dr4 ,keim 
comes upon the scene1 and he asks  the  
question1 ,was ,lucian's friend really  
an ,epicurean8 ,lucian  nowhere says so 
in plain words1 but it was taken as a   
prim  facie inference from some of the  
language used by him4 ,for  instance1 he
 describes the ,platonists as being on  
good terms with  this very ,alexander of
 ,abonoteichos whom he is ridiculing and
  exposing4 ,he appeals to ,celsus to   

say whether a certain work of  ,epicurus
 is not his finest4 ,he says that his   
friend will be  pleased to know that one
 of his objects in writing is to see    
justice done to ,epicurus4 ,all these   
expressions ,dr4 ,keim thinks  may be   
explained as the quiet playful irony    
that was natural to  ,lucian1 and from  
other indications in the work he        
concludes that  ,lucian's ,celsus may   
well have been a ,platonist1 though not 
a  bigoted one1 just as ,lucian himself 
was not in any strict and  narrow sense 
an ,epicurean4    ,when once the        
possibility of the identification is    
conceded1 there  are1 as ,dr4 ,keim     
urges1 strong reasons for its adoption4 
,the  characters of the two owners of   
the name ,celsus1 so far as they  can be
 judged from the work of ,origen on the 
one hand and ,lucian  on the other1 are 
the same4 ,both are distinguished for   
their  opposition to magical arts4 ,the 
,celsus of the ,pseudomantis is a       
friend of ,lucian1 and it is precisely  

from a friend of ,lucian that  the      
',word of ,truth' replied to by ,origen 
might be supposed to have  come4        
,lastly1 time and place both support the
 identification4 ,the  ,celsus of       
,lucian lived under ,marcus ,aurelius   
and ,commodus1 and  ,dr4 ,keim decides1 
after an elaborate examination of the   
internal  evidence1 that the ,celsus of 
,origen wrote his work in the year #agh 
,a4,d41 towards the close of the reign  
of ,marcus ,aurelius4    ,such is ,dr4  
,keim's view4 ,in the date assigned to  
the ,greek3 ,logos  alaethaes it does   
not differ materially from that of the  
large  majority of critics4 ,grtz alone 
goes as far back as to the time  of     
,hadrian4 ,hagenbach1 ,hasse1           
,tischendorf1 and ,friedlnder fix  upon 
the middle1 ,mosheim1 ,gieseler1 ,baur1 
and ,engelhardt upon the  second half1  
of the second century2 while the        
following writers  assume either        
generally the reign of ,marcus          
,aurelius1 or specially  with ,dr4 ,keim

 one of the two great                   
persecutions--,spencer1  ,tillemont1    
,neander1 ,tzschirner1 ,jachmann1       
,bindemann1 ,lommatzsch1  ,hase1        
,redepenning1 ,zeller4 ,the only two    
writers mentioned by ,dr4  ,keim as     
contending for a later date are         
,ueberweg and ,volkmar1 'who  strangely 
misunderstands both ,origen and ,baur'  
,endnote #bfc3a4  ,volkmar is followed  
by the author of ',supernatural         
,religion4'    ,at whatever date ,celsus
 wrote1 it appears to be sufficiently   
clear  that he knew and used all the    
four canonical ,gospels ,endnote #bfc3b4
                                   #c4  
,the last document that need be         
discussed by us at present is the       
remarkable fragment which1 from its     
discoverer and from its  contents1 bears
 the name of the ,canon of ,muratori    
,endnote #bfc3c4    ,whatever was the   
original title and whatever may have    
been the  extent of the work from which 
it is taken1 the portion of it that  has

 come down to us is by far the most     
important of all the direct  evidence   
for the ,canon both of the ,gospels and 
of the ,new  ,testament in general with 
which we have yet had to deal4 ,it is   
indeed the first in which the conception
 of a ,canon is quite  unequivocally put
 forward4 ,we have for the first time a 
definite  list of the books received by 
the ,church and a distinct separation   
made between these and those that are   
rejected4    ,the fragment begins       
abruptly with the end of a sentence     
apparently  relating to the composition 
of the ,gospel according to ,st4 ,mark4 
,then follows 'in the third place the   
,gospel according to ,st4  ,luke1' of   
which some account is given4 ',the      
fourth of the ,gospels'  is that of     
,john1 'one of the disciples of the     
,lord4' ,a legend is  related as to the 
origin of this ,gospel4 ,then mention is
 made of  the ,acts1 which are          
attributed to ,luke4 ,then follow       
thirteen  ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul by    

name4 ,two ,epistles professing to be   
addressed to the ,laodiceans and        
,alexandrines are dismissed as  forged  
in the interests of the heresy of       
,marcion4 ,the ,epistle of  ,jude and   
two that bear the superscription of     
,john are admitted4  ,likewise the two  
,apocalypses of ,john and ,peter4 ,no   
mention is  made1 it will be seen1 of   
the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 of that of
  ,james1 of ,i and ,,ii ,peter1 and of 
,,iii ,john4 ,endnote #bfd3a    ,the    
,pastor of ,hermas1 a work of recent    
date1 may be read but not  published in 
the ,church before the people1 and      
cannot be included  either in the number
 of the prophets or apostles4    ,on the
 other hand nothing at all can be       
received of ,arsinous1  ,valentinus1 or 
,miltiades2 neither the new ,marcionite 
book of  ,psalms1 which with ,basilides 
and the ,asian founder of the           
,cataphryges 7or the founder of the     
,asian ,cataphryges1 i4e4  ,montanus7 is
 rejected4    ,the importance of this   

will be seen at a glance4 ,the chief    
question is here again in regard to the 
date1 which must be  determined from the
 document itself4 ,a sufficiently clear 
indication seems to be given in the     
language used respecting the  ,pastor of
 ,hermas4 ,this work is said to have    
been composed 'very  lately in our      
times1 ,pius the brother of the writer  
occupying the  episcopal chair of the   
,roman ,church4' ,the episcopate of     
,pius is  dated from #adb-aeg ,a4,d41 so
 that #aeg ,a4,d4 may be taken as the   
starting-point from which we have to    
reckon the interval implied  by the     
words 'very recently in our times'      
7nuperrime temporibus  nostris74 ,taking
 these words in their natural sense1 ,i 
should  think that the furthest limit   
they would fairly admit of would be  a  
generation1 or say thirty years1 after  
the death of ,pius 7for  even in taking 
a date such as this we are obliged to   
assume that  the ,pastor was published  
only just before the death of that      

bishop74 ,the most probable construction
 seems to be that the  unknown author   
meant that the ,pastor of ,hermas was   
composed within  his own memory4        
,volkmar is doubtless right in saying   
,endnote  #bfe3a that he meant to       
distinguish the work in question from   
the  writings of the ,prophets and      
,apostles1 but still the double use of  
the words 'nuperrime' and 'temporibus   
nostris' plainly indicate  something    
more definite than merely 'our          
post-apostolic time4' ,if  this had been
 the sense we should have had some such 
word as  'recentius' instead of         
'nuperrime4' ,the argument of           
',supernatural  ,religion' ,endnote     
#bfe3b1 that 'in supposing that the     
writer may  have appropriately used the 
phrase thirty or forty years after the  
time of ,pius so much licence is taken  
that there is absolutely no  reason why 
a still greater interval may not be     
allowed1' is  clearly playing fast and  
loose with language1 and doing so for no

  good reason2 for the only ground for  
assigning a later date is  that the     
earlier one is inconvenient for the     
critic's theory4 ,the  other indications
 tally quite sufficiently with the date 
#agj-aij  ,a4,d4 ,basilides1            
,valentinus1 ,marcion1 the ,marcionites1
 we know were  active long before this  
period4 ,the ,montanists 7who appear    
under  the name by which they were      
generally known in the earlier          
writings1 ',cataphryges'7 were beginning
 to be notorious1 and are  mentioned in 
the letter of the ,churches of ,vienne  
and ,lyons4  ,miltiades was a           
contemporary of ,claudius ,apollinaris  
who wrote  against him ,endnote #bff3a4 
,all the circumstances point to such a  
date as that of ,irenaeus1 and the      
conception of the ,canon is very        
similar to that which we should gather  
from the great work  ',against          
,heresies4' ,if this does not agree with
 preconceived  opinions as to what the  
state of the ,canon ought to have been1 

it  is the opinion that ought to be     
rectified accordingly1 and not  plain   
words explained away4    ,i can see no  
sound objection to the date #agj-ahj    
,a4,d41 but by  adding ten years to this
 we shall reach the extreme limit       
admissible4    ,i do not know whether it
 is necessary to refer to the objection 
from the absence of any mention of the  
first two ,synoptic ,gospels1  through  
the mutilated state of the document4 ,it
 is true that the  inference that they  
were originally mentioned rests only    
'upon  conjecture' ,endnote #bff3b1 but 
it is the kind of conjecture  that1     
taking all things into                  
consideration--the extent to which  the 
evidence of the fragment in other       
respects corresponds with  the ,catholic
 tradition1 the state of the ,canon in  
,irenaeus1 the  relation of the evidence
 for the first ,gospel in particular to 
that for the others--can be reckoned at 
very little less than  ninety-nine      
chances out of a hundred4    ,to the    

same class belongs ,dr4 ,donaldson's    
suggestion ,endnote #bfg3a  that the    
passage which contains the indication of
 date may be an  interpolation4 ,it is  
always possible that the particular     
passage  that happens to be important in
 any document of this date may be  an   
interpolation1 but the chances that it  
really is so must be in  any case very  
slight1 and here there is no valid      
reason for suspecting  interpolation4   
,it does not at all follow1 as ,dr4     
,donaldson seems  to think1 that because
 a document is mutilated therefore it is
 more  likely to be interpolated2 for   
interpolation is the result of quite  a 
different series of accidents4 ,the     
interpolation1 if it were such1  could  
not well be accidental because it has no
 appearance of being  a gloss2 on the   
other hand1 only far-fetched and        
improbable motives  can be alleged for  
it as intentional4    ,the full         
statement of the fragment in regard to  
,st4 ,luke's ,gospel  is as follows4    

',luke the physician after the          
,ascension of ,christ1  having been     
taken into his company by ,paul1 wrote  
in his own name  to the best of his     
judgment 7ex opinione71 and1 though he  
had not  himself seen the ,lord in the  
flesh1 so far as he could ascertain2    
accordingly he begins his narrative with
 the birth of ,john4' ,the  greater part
 of this account appears to be taken    
simply from the  ,preface to the        
,gospel1 which is supplemented by the   
tradition that  ,st4 ,luke was a        
physician and also the author of the    
,acts4 ,as  evidence to those facts a   
document dating some hundred years after
  the composition of the ,gospel is not 
of course very weighty2 its  real       
importance is as showing the authority  
which the ,gospel at  this date         
possessed in the ,church4 ,that         
authority cannot have been  acquired in 
a day1 but represents the culmination of
 a long and  gradual movement4 ,what we 
have to note is that the movement1 some 

of the stages of which we have been     
tracing1 has now definitely  reached its
 culmination4    ,in regard to the      
fourth ,gospel the ,muratorian fragment 
has a  longer story to tell1 but before 
we touch upon this1 and before we       
proceed to draw together the threads of 
the previous enquiry1 it  will be well  
for us first to bring up the evidence   
for the fourth  ,gospel to the same date
 and position as that for the other     
three4  ,this then will be the subject  
of the next chapter4                    
,,chapter ,,xii4    ,,the ,,external    
,,evidence ,,for ,,the ,,fourth         
,,gospel4      ,the fourth ,gospel was1 
upon any theory1 written later than the 
others1 and it is not clear that it was 
published as soon as it  was written4   
,both tradition and the internal        
evidence of the  concluding chapter seem
 to point to the existence of somewhat  
peculiar relations between the          
,evangelist and the presbyters of  the  
,asian ,church1 which would make it not 

improbable that the  ,gospel was        
retained for some time by the latter    
within their own  private circle before 
it was given to the ,church at large4   
,we have the express statement of       
,irenaeus ,endnote #bfi3a1 who1 if  he  
was born as is commonly supposed at     
,smyrna about #adj ,a4,d41 must  be a   
good authority1 that the ,apostle ,st4  
,john lived on till the  times of       
,trajan 7#ih-aag ,a4,d474 ,if so1 it is 
very possible that the  ,gospel was not 
yet published1 or barely published1 when
 ,clement of  ,rome wrote his ,epistle  
to the ,corinthians4 ,neither1          
considering  its almost esoteric        
character and the slow rate at which    
such a  work would travel at first1     
should we be very much surprised if it  
was not in the hands of ,barnabas       
7probably in ,alexandria7 and  ,hermas  
7at ,rome74 ,in no case indeed could the
 silence of these two  writers be of    
much moment1 as in the ,epistle of      
,barnabas the  allusions to the ,new    

,testament literature are extremely few 
and  slight1 while in the ,shepherd of  
,hermas there are no clear and  certain 
references either to the ,old ,testament
 or the ,new  ,testament at all4    ,and
 yet there is a lively controversy round
 these two names as to  whether or not  
they contain evidence for the fourth    
,gospel1 and  that they do is maintained
 not only by apologists1 but also by    
writers of quite unquestionable         
impartiality like ,dr4 ,keim4 ,dr4      
,keim1 it will be remembered1 argues    
against the ,johannean  authorship of   
the ,gospel1 and yet on this particular 
point he  seems to be almost an advocate
 for the side to which he is  opposed4  
',volkmar1' he says ,endnote #bgj3a1    
'has recently spoken of ,barnabas  as   
undeniably ignorant of the              
,logos-,gospel1 and explained the early 
date assigned to his ,epistle by ,ewald 
and ,weizscker and now also  by         
,riggenbach as due to their perplexity  
at finding in it no trace  of ,st4      

,john4 ,there is room for another       
opinion4 ,however much it  may be shown 
that ,barnabas gives neither an incident
 nor a single  sentence from the        
,gospel1 that he is unacquainted with   
the conception  of the ,logos1 that     
expressions like 'water and blood1' or  
the  ,old ,testament types of ,christ1  
and especially the serpent reared  in   
the wilderness as an object of faith1   
are employed by him  independently--for 
all this the deeper order of conceptions
 in  the ,epistle coincides in the gross
 or in detail so repeatedly with  the   
,gospel that science must either assume 
a connection between  them1 or1 if it   
leaves the problem unsolved1 renounces  
its own  calling4 ,the ,son of ,god was 
to be manifested in the flesh1          
manifested through suffering1 to go to  
his glory through death and  the ,cross1
 to bring life and the immanent presence
 of the ,godhead1  such is here and     
there the leading idea4 ,existing before
 the  foundation of the world1 the ,lord

 of the world1 the sender of the        
prophets1 the object of their           
prophecies1 beheld even by ,abraham1  in
 the person of ,moses himself typified  
as the only centre of  ,israel's hopes1 
and in so far already revealed and      
glorified in  type before his           
incarnation1 he was at last to appear1  
to dwell  among us1 to be seen1 not as  
son of ,david but as ,son of ,god1 in   
the garment of the flesh1 by those who  
could not even endure the  light of this
 world's sun4 ,so did he come2 nay1 so  
did he die to  fulfil the promise1 in   
the very act of his apparent defeat to  
dispense purification1 pardon1 life1 to 
destroy death1 to overcome  the devil1  
to show forth the ,resurrection1 and    
with the ,resurrection  his right to    
future judgment2 at the same time1 it is
 true1 to fill  up the measure of the   
sins of ,israel1 whom he had loved      
exceedingly  and for whom he had done   
such great wonders and signs1 and to    
prepare  for himself again a new people 

who should keep his commandments1  his  
new law4 ,the mission that his ,father  
gave him he has accomplished1  of his   
own free will and for our sake--the true
 explanation of his  death--did he      
suffer4 ,the ,jews have not hoped upon  
him1 clearly  as the typical design of  
the ,old ,testament and ,moses himself  
pointed  to him1 and1 in opposition to  
the spiritual teaching of ,moses1 they  
have been seduced into the carnal and   
sensual by the devil2 they  have set    
their trust and their hopes1 not upon   
,god1 but upon the  fleshly circumcision
 and upon the visible house of ,god1    
worshipping  the ,lord in the temple    
almost like the heathen4 ,but the       
,christian  raises himself above the    
flesh and its lusts1 which disturb the  
faculties of knowledge as well as those 
of will1 to the ,spirit  and the        
spiritual service of ,god1 above the    
ways of darkness to  the ways of light2 
he presses on to faith1 and with faith  
to  perfect knowledge1 as one born      

again1 who is full of the ,spirit  of   
,god1 in whom ,god dwells and           
prophesies1 interpreting past and       
future without being seen or heard2 as  
taught of ,god and fulfilling  the      
commandments of the new law of the      
,lord1 a lover of the brethren1  and in 
himself the child of peace1 of joy1 and 
of love4 ,for this  class of ideas there
 is no analogy in ,st4 ,paul1 or even in
 the  ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 but only
 in this ,gospel1 much as the           
connection has hitherto been overlooked4
 ,indeed1 though it may  still in places
 be questioned on which side the        
relation of dependence  lies 7it might  
be thought that ,barnabas supplied the  
ideas1 ,john  the application of them1  
and the conception of the ,logos        
crowning all71  in any case the ,gospel 
appeared at a date near to that of the  
,epistle of ,barnabas4 ,with more reason
 may it be said that it is  not until we
 come to the ,epistle of ,barnabas that 
we find stiff  scholastic theory a more 

predominant typology1 an artificialised 
view of ,judaism2 besides the points of 
view always appear as  something        
received and not originated--water and  
blood1 new law1  new people--and in the 
solemn manifestation of the ,son of ,god
  immediately after the selection of the
 ,apostles1 in the great  but fruitless 
exhibition of miracle and love for      
,israel1 there  is evidently allusion to
 history1 that is1 to ,john ii and xii4'
    ',the ,epistle of ,barnabas1' ,dr4  
,keim adds1 'after the lucid            
demonstration of ,volkmar--in spite of  
,hilgenfeld and ,weizcker1  and now also
 of ,riggenbach--was undoubtedly written
 at the time of  the rebuilding of the  
temple under the ,emperor ,hadrian1     
about the  year #abj ,a4,d4 7according  
to ,volkmar1 at the earliest1 #aah-aai71
 at  latest #acj4'    ,it is not to be  
expected that this full and able        
statement should  carry conviction to   
every reader4 ,and yet ,i believe that  
it has  some solid foundation4 ,the     

single instances are not perhaps such   
as could be pressed very far1 but they  
derive a certain weight  when taken     
together and as parts of a wider circle 
of ideas4 ,the  application of the type 
of the brazen serpent to ,jesus in c4   
xii4  may have been suggested by ,john  
iii4 #ad sqq41 but we cannot say  that  
it was so with certainty4 ,the same     
application is made by  ,justin in a    
place where there is perhaps less reason
 to assume a  connection with the fourth
 ,gospel2 and we know that types and    
prophecies were eagerly sought out by   
the early ,christians1 and  were soon   
collected in a kind of common stock from
 which every one  drew at his pleasure4 
,a stronger case1 and one that ,i       
incline to  think of some importance1 is
 supplied by the peculiar combination   
of 'the water and the cross' in ,barn4  
c4 xi2 not that here there  is a direct 
and immediate1 but more probably a      
mediate1 connection  with the fourth    
,gospel4 ,the phrase ,greek3 ho uios tou

 theou is  not peculiar to1 though it is
 more frequent in1 and to some degree   
characteristic of1 the ,gospel and      
,first ,epistle of ,st4 ,john4  ,greek3 
,phanerousthai may be claimed more      
decidedly1 especially  by comparison    
with the other ,gospels1 though it      
occurs with  similar reference to the   
,incarnation in the later ,pauline      
,epistles4 ,greek3 ',elthein en sarki is
 again rightly classed as a  ,johannean 
phrase1 though the exact counterpart is 
found rather in  the ,epistles than the 
,gospel4 ,the doctrine of pre-existence 
is  certainly taught in such passages as
 the application of the text1  ',let us 
make man in our image1' which is said to
 have been  addressed to the ,son 'from 
the foundation of the world' 7c4 v74    
,generally ,i think it may be said that 
the doctrine of the  ,incarnation1 the  
typology1 and the use of the ,old       
,testament  prophecies1 approximate1    
most distinctly to the ,johannean type1 
though under the latter heads there is  

of course much debased  exaggeration4   
,the soteriology we might be perhaps    
tempted to  connect rather on the one   
hand with the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 
and on the other with those of ,st4     
,paul4 ,there may be something of  an   
echo of the fourth ,gospel in the       
allusion--to the unbelief and           
carnalised religion of the ,jews4 ,but  
the whole question of the  speculative  
affinities of a writing like this       
requires subtle and  delicate handling1 
and should be rather a subject for      
special  treatment than an episode in an
 enquiry like the present4 ,the  opinion
 of ,dr4 ,keim must be of weight1 but on
 the whole ,i think it  will be safest  
and fairest to say that1 while the round
 assertion  that the author of the      
,epistle was ignorant of our ,gospel is 
not  justified1 the positive evidence   
that he made use of it is not           
sufficiently clear to be pressed        
controversially4           99       99  
99       99       99    ,a similar      

condition of things may be predicated of
 the ,shepherd of  ,hermas1 though with 
a more decided leaning to the negative  
side4  ,here again ,dr4 ,keim ,endnote  
#bgc3a1 as well as ,canon ,westcott     
,endnote #bgc3b1 thinks that we can     
trace an acquaintance with the  ,gospel1
 but the indications are too general and
 uncertain to be relied  upon4 ,the     
imagery of the shepherd and the flock1  
as perhaps of the  tower and the gate1  
may1 be as well taken from the scenes of
 the  ,roman ,campagna as from any      
previous writing4 ,the keeping of the   
commandments is a commonplace of        
,christianity1 not to say of  religion4 
,and the ,divine immanence in the soul  
is conceived rather  in the spirit of   
the elder ,gospels than of the fourth4  
,there is a nearer approach perhaps in  
the identification of 'the  gate' with  
the ',son of ,god1' and in the          
explanation with which it  is           
accompanied4 ',the rock is old because  
the ,son of ,god is older  than the     

whole of ,his creation2 so that ,he was 
assessor to ,his  ,father in the        
creation of the world2 the gate is new1 
because ,he  was made manifest at the   
consummation of the last days1 and they 
who are to be saved enter by it into the
 kingdom of ,god' 7,sim4 ix4  #ab74     
,here too we have the doctrine of       
pre-existence2 and  considering the     
juxtaposition of these three points1 the
 pre-  existence1 the gate 7which is the
 only access to the ,lord71 the         
identification of the gate with the     
incarnation of ,jesus1 we may  say      
perhaps a possible reference to the     
fourth ,gospel2  probable it might be   
somewhat too much to call it4 ,we must  
leave the reader to form his own        
estimate4           99       99       99
       99       99    ,a somewhat       
greater force1 but not as yet complete  
cogency1  attaches to the evidence of   
the ,ignatian letters4 ,a parallel is   
alleged to a passage in the ,epistle to 
the ,romans which is found  both in the 

,syriac and in the shorter ,greek or    
,vossian version4 ',i  take no relish in
 corruptible food or in the pleasures of
 this  life4 ,i desire bread of ,god1   
heavenly bread1 bread of life1 which  is
 the flesh of ,jesus ,christ1 the ,son  
of ,god1 who was born in the  latter    
days of the seed of ,david and ,abraham2
 and ,i desire drink  of ,god1 ,his     
blood1 which is love imperishable and   
ever-abiding  life' ,endnote #bge3a     
7,ep4 ad ,rom4 c4 vii74 ,this is        
compared with  the discourse in the     
synagogue at ,capernaum in the sixth    
chapter  of ,st4 ,john4 ,it should be   
said that there is a difference of      
reading1 though not one that materially 
influences the question1  in the        
,syriac4 ,if the parallel holds good1   
the peculiar diction of  the author must
 be seen in the substitution of ,greek3 
poma for  ,greek3 posis of ,john vi4    
#ee1 and ,greek3 aennaos zoae for       
,greek zoae aionios1 of ,john vi4 #ed4  
,the ,ignatian phrase is  perhaps more  

than doubtful1 as it does not appear    
either in the  ,syriac1 the ,armenian1  
or the ,latin version4 ,still this need 
not  stand in the way of referring the  
original of the passage  ultimately to  
the ,gospel4 ,the ideas are so          
remarkable that it  seems difficult to  
suppose either are accidental           
coincidence or  quotation from another  
writer4 ,i suspect that ,ignatius or the
  author of the ,epistle really had the 
fourth ,gospel in his mind1  though not 
quite vividly1 and by a train of        
comparatively remote  suggestions4      
,the next supposed allusion is from the 
,epistle to the  ,philadelphians3 ',the 
,spirit1 coming from ,god1 is not to be 
deceived2 for it knoweth whence it      
cometh and whither it goeth1  and it    
searcheth that which is hidden' ,endnote
 #bge3b4 ,this is  obviously the        
converse of ,john iii4 #e1 where it is  
said that we do  not know the way of the
 ,spirit1 which is like the wind1 c4    
,and  yet the exact verbal similarity of

 the phrase ,greek3 oiden pothen        
erchetai kai pou hupagei1 and its       
appearance in the same  connection1     
spoken of the ,spirit1 leads us to think
 that there  was--as there may very well
 have been--an association of ideas4    
,this particular phrase ,greek3 pothen  
erchetai kai pou hupagei is  very       
characteristically ,johannean4 ,it      
occurs three times over in  the fourth  
,gospel1 and not at all in the rest of  
the ,new  ,testament4 ,the combination  
of ,greek3 erchesthai and ,greek        
hupagein also occurs twice1 and ,greek3 
pou opou hupago -gei1  -geis in all     
twelve times in the ,gospel and once in 
the ,epistle  7,greek3 ouk oide pou     
hupagei72 this too1 it is striking to   
observe1 not at all elsewhere4 ,the very
 word ,greek3 hupago is  not found at   
all in ,st4 ,paul1 ,st4 ,peter1 or the  
,epistle to the  ,hebrews4 ,taken       
together with the special application to
 the  ,spirit1 this must be regarded as 
a strong case4    ,neither do the       

arguments of ',supernatural ,religion'  
succeed in  proving that there is no    
connection with ,st4 ,john in such      
sentences as1 ',there is one ,god who   
manifested ,himself through  ,jesus     
,christ ,his ,son1 who is ,his eternal  
,word' 7,ad ,magn4 c4 viii71  or who is 
,himself the door of the ,father 7,ad   
,philad4 c4 ix74 ,in  regard to the     
first of these especially1 it is        
doubtless true that  ,philo also has    
'the eternal ,word1' which is even the  
',son' of ,god2  but the idea is much   
more consciously metaphorical1 and not  
only  did the incarnation of the ,logos 
in a historical person never  enter into
 ,philo's mind1 but 'there is no room   
for it in his  system' ,endnote #bgf3a4 
,it should be said that these latter    
passages are all found only in  the     
,vossian recension of the ,epistles1 and
 therefore1 as we saw  above1 are in any
 case evidence for the first half of the
 second  century1 while they may be the 
genuine works of ,ignatius4           99

       99       99       99       99    
,the ,epistle of ,polycarp to the       
,philippians1 which goes very much  with
 the ,ignatian ,epistles and the        
external evidence for which it  is so   
hard to resist1 testifies to the fourth 
,gospel through the  so-called first    
,epistle4 ,that this ,epistle is really 
by the same  author as the ,gospel is   
not indeed absolutely undoubted1 but ,i 
imagine that it is as certain as any    
fact of literature can be4  ,the        
evidence of style and diction is        
overwhelming ,endnote #bgg3a4  ,we may  
set side by side the two passages which 
are thought to be  parallel4    ,ep4 ad 
,phil4 c4 vii4    ,greek3 ,pas gar hos  
an mae homologae ,iaesoun ,christon en  
sarki  elaeluthenai antichristos esti2  
kai hos an mae homologae to  marturion  
tou staurou ek tou diabolou esti2 kai   
hos an methodeuae  ta logia tou ,kuriou 
pros tas idias epithumias1 kai legae    
maete  anastasin maete krisin einai1    
outos prototokos esti tou ,satana4    #a

 ,john vi4 #b1 #c4    ,greek3 ,pan      
pneuma ho homologei ,iaesoun ,christon  
en sarki  elaeluthota ek tou ,theou     
estin4 ,kai pan pneuma ho mae homologei 
tou ,iaesoun ek tou ,theou ouk estin1   
kai touto estin to tou  antichristou1   
k4t4l4    ,this is precisely one of     
those passages where at a superficial   
glance we are inclined to think that    
there is no parallel1 but  where a      
deeper consideration tends to convince  
us of the opposite4  ,the suggestion of 
,dr4 ,scholten cannot indeed be quite   
excluded1  that both writers ,i have    
adopted a formula in use in the early   
,church against various heretics'       
,endnote #bgg3b4 ,but if such a  formula
 existed it is highly probable that it  
took its rise from  ,st4 ,john's        
,epistle4 ,this passage of the ,epistle 
of ,polycarp is the  earliest instance  
of the use of the word ',antichrist'    
outside the  ,johannean writings in     
which1 alone of the ,new ,testament1 it 
occurs  five times4 ,here too it occurs 

in conjunction with other               
characteristic phrases1 ,greek3         
homologein1 en sarki elaeluthenai1  ek  
tou diabolou4 ,the phraseology and turns
 of expression in these  two verses     
accord so entirely with those of the    
rest of the  ,epistle and of the ,gospel
 that we must needs take them to be the 
original work of the writer and not a   
quotation1 and we can hardly  do        
otherwise than see an echo of them in   
the words of ,polycarp4    ,there is    
naturally a certain hesitation in using 
evidence for the  ,epistle as available 
also for the ,gospel1 but ,i have little
 doubt  that it may justly so be used   
and with no real diminution of its      
force4 ,the chance that the ,epistle had
 a separate author is too  small to be  
practically worth considering4    ,this 
then will apply to the case of ,papias1 
of whose relations to  the fourth       
,gospel we have no record1 but of whom  
,eusebius expressly  says1 that 'he made
 use of testimonies from the first      

,epistle of ,john4'  ,there is the less 
reason to doubt this statement1 as in   
every  instance in which a similar      
assertion of ,eusebius can be verified  
it is found to hold good4 ,it is much   
more probable that he would  overlook   
real analogies than be led astray by    
merely imaginary  ones--which is rather 
a modern form of error4 ,in textual     
matters  the ancients were not apt to go
 wrong through over-subtlety1 and       
,eusebius himself does not1 ,i believe1 
deserve the charge of  'inaccuracy and  
haste' that is made against him ,endnote
 #bgh3a4           99       99       99 
99       99    ,in regard to the much   
disputed question of the use of the     
fourth  ,gospel by ,justin1 those who   
maintain the affirmative have again     
emphatic support from ,dr4 ,keim        
,endnote #bgh3b4 ,we will examine  some 
of the instances which are adduced on   
this side4    ,and first1 in his account
 of ,john the ,baptist1 ,justin has two 
particulars which are found in the      

fourth ,gospel and in no other4  ,that  
,gospel alone makes the ,baptist himself
 declare1 ',i am not the  ,christ2' and 
it alone puts into his mouth the        
application of the  prophecy of ,isaiah1
 ',i am the voice of one crying in the  
wilderness4' ,justin combines these two 
sayings1 treating them as  an answer    
made by ,john to some who supposed that 
he was the  ,christ4    ,justin1 ,dial4 
c4 #hh4    ,to whom he himself also     
cried3 ',i am not the ,christ1 but the  
voice  of one crying ,greek3 ouk eimi o 
,christos1 alla phonae boontos2  for    
there shall come one stronger than ,i1' 
c4    ,john i4 #ai1 #bj1 #bc4    ,and   
this is the record of ,john1 when the   
,jews sent priests and  ,levites from   
,jerusalem to ask him1 ,who art thou8   
,and he confessed1  and denied not3 but 
confessed1 ,i am not the ,christ ,greek3
 oti ouk  eimi ego o ,christos444 ,i am 
the voice of one crying ,greek3 ego     
phonae boontos in the wilderness1' c4   
,the passage in ,justin does not profess

 to be a direct quotation2  it is merely
 a historical reproduction1 and1 as     
such1 it has quite  as much accuracy as 
we should expect to find4 ,the          
circumstantial  coincidences are too    
close to be the result of accident4 ,and
 ,dr4  ,keim is doubtless right in      
ridiculing ,volkmar's notion that       
,justin  has merely developed ,acts     
xiii4 #be1 which contains neither of the
  two phrases 7,greek3 ho ,christos1    
phonae boontos7 in question4 ,to  refer 
the passage to an unknown source such as
 the ,gospel  according to the          
,hebrews--all we know of which shows its
  affinities to have been rather on the 
side of the ,synoptics--when  we have a 
known source in the fourth ,gospel ready
 to hand1 is  quite unreasonable        
,endnote #bhj3a4    ,no great weight1   
though perhaps some fractional quantity1
 can be  ascribed to the statement that 
,jesus healed those who were maimed     
from their birth 7,greek3 tous ek       
genetaes paerous ,endnote  #bhj3b74 ,the

 word ,greek3 paeros is used specially  
for the blind1  and the fourth          
,evangelist is the only one who mentions
 the healing  of congenital infirmity1  
which he does under this same phrase    
,greek3 ek genetaes1 and that of a case 
of blindness 7,john ix4  #a74 ,the      
possibility urged in ',supernatural     
,religion1' that ,justin  may be merely 
drawing from tradition1 may detract from
 the force  of this but cannot          
altogether remove it1 especially as we  
have no  other trace of a tradition     
containing this particular4             
,tischendorf ,endnote #bhj3c lays stress
 on a somewhat remarkable  phenomenon in
 connection with the quotation of ,zech4
 xvi4 #aj1  ',they shall look on him    
whom they pierced4' ,justin gives the   
text  of this in precisely the same form
 as ,st4 ,john1 and with the same       
variation from the ,septuagint1 ,greek3 
opsontai eis hon  exekentaesan for      
,greek3 epiblepsontai pros me anth hon  
katorchaesanto--a variation which is    

also found in ,rev4 i4 #g4  ,those who  
believe that the ,apocalypse had the    
same author as the  ,gospel1 naturally  
see in this a confirmation of their     
view1 and it  would seem to follow that 
,justin had had either one or both      
writings before him4 ,but the assumption
 of an identity of  authorship between  
the ,apocalypse and the ,gospel1 though 
,i believe  less unreasonable than is   
generally supposed1 still is too much   
disputed to build anything upon in      
argument4 ,we must not ignore  the other
 theory1 that all three writers had     
before them and may  have used          
independently a divergent text of the   
,septuagint4 ,some  countenance is given
 to this by the fact that ten ,,mss4 of 
the  ,septuagint present the same       
reading ,endnote #bha3a4 ,there can be  
little doubt however that it was in its 
origin a ,christian  correction1 which  
had the double advantage of at once     
bringing the  ,greek into closer        
conformity to the ,hebrew1 and of also  

furnishing  support to the ,christian   
application of the prophecy4 ,whether   
this  correction was made before either 
the ,apocalypse or the ,gospel  were    
written1 or whether it appeared in these
 works for the first  time and from them
 was copied into other ,christian       
writings1 must  remain an open question4
    ,the saying in ,apol4 i4 #fc1 'so   
that they are rightly convicted  both by
 the prophetic ,spirit and by ,christ   
,himself1 that they knew  neither the   
,father nor the ,son' 7,greek3 oute ton 
patera oute ton  uion egnosan71         
certainly presents a close resemblance  
to ,john  xvi4 #c1 ,greek3 ouk egnosan  
ton patera oude eme4 ,but a study of    
the context seems to make it clear that 
the only passage  consciously present to
 ,justin's mind was ,matt4 xi4 #bg4 ,dr4
 ,keim  thinks that ,st4 ,john supplied 
him with a commentary oh the  ,matthaean
 text2 but the coincidence may be after 
all accidental4    ,but the most        
important isolated case of literary     

parallelism is  the well-known passage  
in ,apol4 i4 #fa ,endnote #bha3b4       
,apol4 i4 #fa4    ,for ,christ said3    
,except ye be born again ye shall not   
enter into  the kingdom of heaven4 ,now 
that it is impossible for those who     
have once been born to return into the  
wombs of those who bare  them is evident
 to all4    ,greek3 ,kai gar ho         
,christos eipen1 ,an mae                
anagennaethaete1 ou mae  eiselthaete eis
 taen ,basileian ton ouranon4 ,hoti de  
kai adunaton  eis tas maetras ton       
tekouson tous hapax gennomenous         
embaenai1  phaneron pasin esti4    ,john
 iii4 #c-e4    ,jesus answered and said 
unto him1 ,verily1 verily1 ,i say unto  
thee1  ,except any one be born over     
again 7or possibly 'from above'71 he    
cannot see the kingdom of ,god4         
,nicodemus saith unto him1 ,how can a   
man be born when he is old8 can he enter
 a second time into his  mother's womb1 
and be born8 ,jesus answered1 ,verily1  
verily1 ,i say  unto thee1 ,except any  

one be born of ,water and ,spirit1 he   
cannot  enter into the kingdom of ,god4 
,greek3 ,apekrithae ,iaesous kai eipen  
auto ,amaen amaen lego soi1  ean mae tis
 gennaethae anothen ou dunatai idein    
taen ,basilaian tou  ,theou4 ,legei pros
 aouton ho ,nikodaemos1 ,pos dunatai    
anthropos  gennaethaenai geron on2 mae  
dunatai eis taen koilian taes maertros  
autou deuteron eiselthein kai           
gennaethaenai2 k4t4l4      ,here we have
 first to determine the meaning of the  
word ,greek3 anothen  in the phrase     
,greek3 gennaethae anothen of ,john iii4
 #c on which  the extent of the         
parallelism to some degree turns4 ,does 
it mean  'be born over again1' like     
,justin's ,greek3 anagennaethaete8  ,or 
does it mean 'be born from above1' i4e4 
by a heavenly1 divine1  regeneration8   
,to express an opinion in favour of the 
first of these  views would naturally be
 to incur the charge of taking it up    
merely to  suit the occasion4 ,it is not
 however necessary2 for it is sufficient

 to  know that whether or not this      
meaning was originally intended by the  
,evangelist1 it is a meaning that       
,justin might certainly put upon the    
words4 ,that this is the case is        
sufficiently proved by the fact that    
the ,syriac version 7which is quoted in 
',supernatural ,religion1' by a         
pardonable mistake1 on the other side   
,endnote #bhc3a7 actually  translates   
the words thus4 ,so also does the       
,vulgate2 with ,tertullian  7'renatus'71
 ,augustine1 ,chrysostom 7partly71      
,luther1 ,calvin1  ,maldonatus1 c4 ,for 
the sense 'from above' are the ,gothic  
version1  ,origen1 ,cyril1 ,theophylact1
 ,bengel1 c42 on the whole a fairly     
equal  division of opinion4 ,the        
question has been of late elaborately   
re-argued by ,mr4 ,mc,clellan ,endnote  
#bhc3b1 who decides in favour of        
'again4' ,but1 without taking sides     
either way1 it is clear that ,justin    
would have had abundant support1 in     
particular that of his own national     

version1 if he intended ,greek3         
anagennaethaete to be a paraphrase of   
,greek3 gennaethae anothen4    ,it is   
obvious that if he is quoting ,st4 ,john
 the quotation is  throughout           
paraphrastic4 ,and yet it is equally    
noticeable that he  does not use the    
exact ,johannean phrase1 he uses others 
that are  in each case almost precisely 
equivalent4 ,he does not say ,greek3    
our dunatai idein--taen basileian ton   
ouranon1 but he says  ,greek3 ou mae    
eiselthaete eis--taen basileian ton     
ouranon1 the  latter pair phrases which 
the ,synoptics have already taught us to
  regard as convertible4 ,he does not   
say ,greek3 mae dunatai eis  taen       
koilian taes maetros autou deuteron     
eiselthein kai  gennaethaenai1 but he   
says ,greek3 adunaton eis tas maetras   
ton  tekouson tous hapax gennomenous    
embaebai4 ,and the scale seems          
decisively turned by the very remarkable
 combination in ,justin and  ,st4 ,john 
of the saying respecting spiritual      

regeneration with the  same strangely   
gross physical misconception4 ,it is all
 but  impossible that two minds without 
concert or connection should  have      
thought of introducing anything of the  
kind4 ,nicodemus makes  an objection1   
and ,justin by repeating the same       
objection1 and in a  form that savours  
so strongly of platitude1 has shown1 ,i 
think we  must say1 conclusively1 that  
he was aware that the objection had     
been made4    ,such are some of the     
chief literary coincidences between     
,justin  and the fourth ,gospel2 but    
there are others more profound4 ,justin 
undoubtedly has the one cardinal        
doctrine of the fourth ,gospel--  the   
doctrine of the ,logos4    ,thus he     
writes4 ',jesus ,christ is in the proper
 sense ,greek3  idios the only ,son     
begotten of ,god1 being ,his ,word      
,greek3 logos  and ,firstborn ,power'   
,endnote #bhd3a4 ,again1 ',but ,his ,son
 who  alone is rightly ,greek3 kurios   
called ,son1 who before all  created    

things was with ,him and begotten of    
,him as ,his ,word1 when  in the        
beginning ,he created and ordered all   
things through ,him1'  c4 ,again1 ',now 
the next ,power to ,god the ,father and 
,lord of all1  and ,son ,endnote #bhd3b1
 is the ,word1 of whom we shall relate  
in  what follows how ,he was made flesh 
and became ,man4' ,again1  ',the ,word  
of ,god is ,his ,son4' ,again1 speaking 
of the ,gentile  philosophers and       
lawgivers1 ',since they did not know all
 things  respecting the ,word1 who is   
,christ1 they have also frequently      
contradicted each other4' ,these        
passages are given by ,tischendorf1  and
 they might be added to without         
difficulty2 but it is not  questioned   
that the term ,logos is found frequently
 in ,justin's  writings1 and in the same
 sense in which it is used in the       
,prologue of the fourth ,gospel of the  
eternal ,son of ,god1 who is at  the    
same time the historical person ,jesus  
,christ4    ,the natural inference that 

,justin was acquainted with the fourth  
,gospel is met by suggesting other      
sources for the doctrine4 ,these        
sources are of two kinds1 ,jewish or    
,alexandrine4    ,it is no doubt true   
that a vivid personification of the     
,wisdom of  ,god is found both in the   
,old ,testament and in the ,apocrypha4  
,thus  in the book of ,proverbs we have 
an elaborate ode upon ,wisdom as  the   
eternal assessor in the counsels of     
,god3 ',the ,lord possessed  me in' the 
beginning of ,his way1 before ,his works
 of old4 ,i was  set up from            
everlasting1 from the beginning1 or ever
 the earth  was4 ,when there were no    
depths1 ,i was brought forth2 when there
  were no fountains of water 444 ,when  
,he prepared the heavens1 ,i was  there3
 when ,he set a compass upon the face of
 the deep 444 ,then ,i  was by ,him1 as 
one brought up with ,him3 and ,i was    
daily ,his  delight1 rejoicing always   
before ,him' ,endnote #bhe3a4 ,the ideas
  of which this is perhaps the clearest 

expression are found more  vaguely in   
other parts of the same book1 in the    
,psalms1 and in the  book of ,job1 but  
they are further expanded and developed 
in the  two ,apocryphal books of        
,wisdom4 ,there ,endnote #bhe3b ,wisdom 
is  represented as the 'breath of the   
power of ,god1 and a pure  influence    
flowing from the glory of the           
,almighty1' as 'the  brightness ,greek3 
apaugasma of the everlasting light1 the 
unspotted mirror of the power of ,god1  
and the image of ,his  goodness4'       
,wisdom 'sitteth by the throne' of ,god4
 ,she reacheth  from one end to another 
mightily3 and sweetly doth she order all
  things4' ',she is privy to the        
mysteries of the knowledge of ,god  and 
a lover of ,his works4' ,god 'created   
her before the world'  ,endnote #bhf3a4 
,we also get by the side of this1 but in
 quite a  subordinate place and in a    
much less advanced stage of             
personification1  the idea of the ,word 
or ,logos3 ',o ,god of my fathers 444   

who hast  made all things with thy word1
 and ordained man through thy wisdom'   
,endnote #bhf3b4 ',it was neither herb  
nor mollifying plaister that  restored  
them to health3 but thy word1 ,o ,lord1 
which healeth all things4'  ,it was 'the
 ,almighty word' 7,greek3 ho            
pantodunamos logos7 'that  leaped down  
from heaven' to slay the ,egyptians4    
,but still it will be seen that there is
 a distinct gap between  these          
conceptions and that which we find in   
,justin4 ,the leading  idea is that of  
,wisdom1 not of the ,word4 ,the ,word is
 not even  personified separately2 it is
 merely the emitted power or energy  of 
,god4 ,and the personification of       
,wisdom is still to a large  extent     
poetical1 it does not attain to separate
 metaphysical  hypostasis2 it is not    
thought of as being really personal4    
,the ,philonian conception1 on the other
 hand1 is metaphysical1 but  it contains
 many elements that are quite discordant
 and  inconsistent with that which we   

find in ,justin4 ,that it must have     
been so will be seen at once when we    
think of the sources from  which        
,philo's doctrine was derived4 ,it      
included in itself the  ,platonic theory
 of ,ideas1 the diffused ,logos or anima
 mundi  of the ,stoics1 and the         
,oriental angelology or doctrine of     
intermediate beings between ,god and    
man4 ,on its ,platonic side the  ,logos 
is the ,idea of ,ideas summing up the   
world of high  abstractions which       
themselves are also regarded as         
possessing a  separate individuality2   
they are ,logoi by the side of the      
,logos4  ,on its ,stoic side it becomes 
a ,pantheistic ,essence pervading the   
life of things2 it is 'the law1' 'the   
bond' which holds the world  together2  
the world is its 'garment4' ,on its     
,eastern side1 the  ,logos is the       
',archangel1' the ',captain of the hosts
 of heaven1'  the ',mother-city' from   
which they issue as colonists1 the      
',vice-  gerent' of the ,great ,king    

,endnote #bhg3a4    ,it needed a more   
powerful mind than ,justin's to reduce  
all this to  its simple ,christian      
expression1 to take the poetry of       
,judaea and  the philosophy of          
,alexandria and to interpret and realise
 both in  the light of the historical   
events of the birth and life of         
,christ4 ',the ,word became flesh' is   
the key by which ,justin is made        
intelligible1 and that key is supplied  
by the fourth ,gospel4 ,no  other       
,christian writer had combined these two
 ideas before--the  divine ,logos1 with 
the historical personality of ,jesus4   
,when  therefore we find the ideas      
combined as in ,justin1 we are          
necessarily referred to the fourth      
,gospel for them2 for the  strangely    
inverted suggestion of ,volkmar1 that   
the author of the  fourth ,gospel       
borrowed from ,justin1 is on            
chronological1 if not on  other grounds1
 certainly untenable4 ,we shall see that
 the fourth  ,gospel was without doubt  

in existence at the date which ,volkmar 
assigns to ,justin's ,apology1 #aej ,a4 
,d4           99       99       99      
99       99    ,the history of the      
discussion as to the relation of the    
,clementine  ,homilies to the fourth    
,gospel is highly instructive1 not only 
in  itself1 but also for the light which
 it throws upon the general  character  
of our enquiry and the documents with   
which it is  concerned4 ,it has been    
already mentioned that up to the year   
#ahec  the ,clementine ,homilies were   
only extant in a mutilated form1  ending
 abruptly in the middle of ,hom4 xix4   
#ad4 ,in that year a  complete edition  
was at last published by ,dressel from a
  manuscript in the ,vatican containing 
the rest of the nineteenth  and the     
twentieth ,homily4 ,the older portion   
occupies in all1 with  the translation  
and critical apparatus1 #cha large      
octavo pages in  ,dressel's edition2 the
 portion added by ,dressel occupies #cd4
 ,and  yet up to #ahec1 though the      

,clementine ,homilies had been carefully
  studied with reference to the use of  
the fourth ,gospel1 only a few          
indications had been found1 and those   
were disputed4 ,in fact1 the            
controversy was very much at such a     
point as others with which we  have been
 dealing2 there was a certain           
probability in favour of  the conclusion
 that the ,gospel had been used1 but    
still  considerably short of the        
highest4 ,since the publication of the  
conclusion of the ,homilies the question
 has been set at rest4  ,hilgenfeld1 who
 had hitherto been a determined advocate
 of the  negative theory1 at once gave  
up his ground ,endnote #bhh3a2 and      
,volkmar1 who had somewhat less to      
retract1 admitted and admits  ,endnote  
#bhh3b that the fact of the use of the  
,gospel must be  considered as proved4  
,the author of ',supernatural ,religion'
 stands  alone in still resisting this  
conviction ,endnote #bhh3c1 but the     
result ,i suspect will be only to show  

in stronger relief the one-  sidedness  
of his critical method4    ,we will     
follow the example that is set us in    
presenting the whole  of the passages   
alleged to contain allusions to the     
fourth ,gospel2  and it is the more     
interesting to do so with the key that  
the  recent discovery has put into ,our 
hands4 ,the first runs thus3--    ,hom4 
iii4 #eb4    ,therefore he1 being a true
 prophet1 said3 ,i am the gate of life2 
he that entereth in through me entereth 
into life3 for the  teaching that can   
save is none other than mine4    ,greek3
 ,dia touto autos alaethaes on          
prophaetaes elegen2 ,ego eimi  hae pulae
 taes zoaes2 ho di' emou eiserchomenos  
eiserchetai eis  taen zoaen2 hos ouk    
ousaes heteras taes sozein dunamenaes   
didaskalias4    ,john x4 #i4    ,i am   
the door3 by me if any one enter in1 he 
shall be saved1 and  shall come in and  
go out1 and shall find pasture4         
,greek3 ,ego eimi hae thura2 di' emou   
ean tis eiselthae sothaesetai  kai      

eiseleusetai kai exeleusetai kai nomaen 
heuraesei4      ,apart from other       
evidence it would have been somewhat    
precarious  to allege this as proof of  
the use of the fourth ,gospel1 and yet  
,i  believe there would have been a     
distinct probability that it was  taken 
from that work4 ,the parallel is much   
closer--in spite of  ,greek3 thura for  
,greek3 pulae--than is ,matt4 vii4 #ac1 
#ad 7the  'narrow gate'7 which is       
adduced in ',supernatural ,religion1'   
and  the interval is very insufficiently
 bridged over by ,ps4 cxviii4  #ai1 #bj 
7',this is the gate of the ,lord'74 ,the
 key-note of the  passage is given in   
the identification of the gate with the 
person  of the ,saviour 7',i am the     
door'7 and in the remarkable  expression
 'he that entereth in through me1' which
 is  retained in the ,homily4 ,it is    
curious to notice the way in which  the 
,greek3 sothaesetai of the ,gospel has  
been expanded  exegetically4    ,less   
doubtful--and indeed we should have     

thought almost beyond a  doubt--is the  
next reference2 ',my sheep hear my      
voice4'    ,hom4 iii4 #eb4    ,greek3 ta
 ema probata akouei taes emaes phonaes4 
,john x4 #bg4 ,greek3 ta probata ta ema 
taes phonaes mou  akouei4    ',there was
 no more common representation amongst  
the ,jews of the  relation of ,god and  
his people than that of ,shepherd and   
his  sheep' ,endnote #bij3a4 ,that is to
 say1 it occurs of ,jehovah or of  the  
,messiah some twelve or fifteen times in
 the ,old and ,new  ,testament together1
 but never with anything at all closely 
approaching to the precise and          
particular feature given here4 ,let  the
 reader try to estimate the chances that
 another source than  the fourth ,gospel
 is being quoted4 ,criticism is made    
null and void  when such seemingly plain
 indications as this are discarded in   
favour of entirely unknown quantities   
like the ',gospel according  to the     
,hebrews4' ,if the author of            
',supernatural ,religion' were to  turn 

his own powers of derisive statement    
against his own  hypotheses they would  
present a very strange appearance4      
,the reference that follows has in some 
respects a rather marked  resemblance to
 that which we were discussing in       
,justin1 and for  the relation between  
them to be fully appreciated should be  
given  along with it3--    ,justin1     
,apol4 i4 #fa4    ,except ye be born    
again ye shall not enter into the       
kingdom of  heaven4    ,greek3 ,an mae  
anagennaethaete ou mae eiselthaete eis  
taen  basileian ton ouranon4    ,clem4  
,hom4 xi4 #bf4    ,verily ,i say unto   
you1 ,except ye be born again with      
living water1  in the name of the       
,father1 ,son1 and ,holy ,ghost1 ye     
shall not enter  into the kingdom of    
heaven4    ,greek3 ,amaen humin lego1   
ean mae anagennaethaete hudati zonti eis
  onoma patros1 uhiou1 hagiou pneumatos1
 ou mae eiselthaete eis taen  basileian 
ton ouranon4    ,john iii4 #c1 #e4      
,verily1 verily1 ,i say unto thee1      

,except  any one be born over again 7or 
'from above'7 he cannot see the  kingdom
 of ,god 444 ,except any one be born of 
water and ,spirit1 he  cannot enter into
 the kingdom of ,god4    ,greek3 ,amaen 
amaen lego soi1 ean mae tis gennaethae  
anothen1 ou  dunatai idein taen         
basileian tou ,theou 444 ean mae tis    
gennaethae  ex hudatos kai pneumatos1 ou
 dunatai eiselthein eis taen basileian  
tou ,theou4    ,greek3 pneum4 add4      
,greek3 hagiou ,vulg4 7,clementine      
edition71  a1 ff1 m1 ,aeth41 ,orig4     
7,latin translator74      ,here it will 
be noticed that ,justin and the         
,clementines have four  points in       
common1 ,greek3 anagennaethaete for     
,greek3 gennaethae  anothen1 the second 
person plural 7twice over7 for ,greek3  
tis  and the singular1 ,greek3 ou mae   
and the subjunctive for ,greek3  ou     
dunatai and infinitive1 and ,greek3 taen
 basileian ton  ouranon1 for ,greek3    
taen basileian tou ,theou4 ,to the last 
of  these points much importance could  

not be attached in itself1 as  it       
represents a persistent difference      
between the first and the  other        
,synoptists even where they had the same
 original4 ,as both  the ,clementines   
and ,justin used the first ,gospel more 
than the  others1 it is only natural    
that they should fall into the habit of 
using its characteristic phrase4        
,neither would the other points  have   
had very much importance taken          
separately1 but their  importance       
increases considerably when they come to
 be taken  together4    ,on the other   
hand1 we observe in the ,clementines    
7where it is  however connected with    
,matt4 xxviii4 #ai7 the sufficiently    
near  equivalent for the striking       
,johannean phrase ,greek3 ex hudatos    
kai pneumatos which is omitted entirely 
by ,justin4    ,the most probable view  
of the case seems to be that both the   
,clementines and ,justin are quoting    
from memory4 ,both have in their  memory
 the passage of ,st4 ,john1 but both    

have also distinctly  before them 7so   
much the more distinctly as it is the   
,gospel which  they habitually used7 the
 parallel passage in ,matt4 xviii4 #c-- 
where all the last three out of the four
 common variations  are found1 besides1 
along with the ,clementines1 the        
omission of  the second ,greek3         
amaen1--',verily ,i say unto you1       
,except ye be  converted1 and become as 
little children1 ye shall not enter into
  the kingdom of heaven' 7,greek3 on mae
 eiseathaete eis taen  basileian ton    
ouranon74 ,it is out of the question    
that this  only should have been present
 to the mind of the writers2  and1 in   
view of the repetition of ,nicodemus'   
misunderstanding by  ,justin and of the 
baptism by water and ,spirit in the     
,clementine  ,homilies1 it seems equally
 difficult to exclude the reference to  
,st4 ,john4 ,it is in fact a ,johannean 
saying in a ,matthaean  framework4      
,there is the more reason to accept this
 solution1 that neither  ,justin nor the

 ,clementines can in any case represent 
the original  form of the passages      
quoted4 ,if ,justin's version were      
correct1  whence did the ,clementines   
get the ,greek3 hudati zonti k4t4l48 if 
the ,clementine1 then whence did ,justin
 get the misconception of  ,nicodemus8  
,but the ,clementine version is in any  
case too eccentric  to stand4    ,the   
last passage is the one that is usually 
considered to be  decisive as to the use
 of the fourth ,gospel4      ,hom4 xix4 
#bb4    ,hence too our ,teacher1 when   
explaining to those who asked of him    
respecting the man who was blind from   
his birth and recovered his  sight1     
whether this man sinned or his parents  
that he should be  born blind1 replied3 
,neither this man sinned1 nor his       
parents2 but  that through him the power
 of ,god might be manifested healing the
  sins of ignorance4    ,greek3 ,hothen 
kai didaskalos haemon peri tou ,endnote 
#bic3a ek  genetaes paerou kai          
anablepsantos par' autou exetazon       

erotaesasin1  ei ohutos haemarten ae oi 
goneis autou1 hina tuphlos gennaethae   
,endnote #bic3a apekrinato oute ohutos  
ti haemarten1 oute oi  goneis autou1    
all' hina di autou phanerothae hae      
dunamis tou ,theou  taes agnoias iomenae
 ta hamartaemata4      ,john ix4 #a-c4  
,and as he passed by1 he saw a man blind
 from his birth4 ,and his  disciples    
asked him1 saying1 ,rabbi1 who sinned1  
this man or his  parents1 that he should
 be born blind8 ,jesus answered1        
,neither  hath this man sinned1 nor his 
parents3 but that the works of ,god     
should be manifested in him4    ,greek3 
,kai paragon eiden anthropon tuphlon ek 
genetaes4 ,kai  aerotaesan auton oi     
mathaetai autou legontes1 ,rhabbei1 tis 
haemarten1 ohutos ae oi goneis autou1   
hina tuphlos gennaethae2  apekrithae    
,iaesous1 ,oute ohutos haemarten oute oi
 goneis autou1  all' hina phanerothae ta
 erga tou ,theou en auto4      ,the     
author of ',supernatural ,religion'     
undertakes to show 'that  the context of

 this passage in the ,homily bears      
positive  characteristics which render  
it impossible that it can have been     
taken from the fourth ,gospel' ,endnote 
#bic3b4 ,i think we may  venture to say 
that he does indeed show somewhat       
conspicuously the  way in which he uses 
the word 'impossible' and the kind of   
grounds  on which that and such like    
terms are employed throughout his  work4
    ,it is a notorious fact1 abundantly 
established by certain  quotations from 
the ,old ,testament and elsewhere1 that 
the last  thing regarded by the early   
patristic writers was context4 ,but in  
this case the context is perfectly in   
keeping1 and to a clear and             
unprejudiced eye it presents no         
difficulty4 ,the ,clementine writer  is 
speaking of the origin of physical      
infirmities1 and he says  that these are
 frequently due1 not to moral error1 but
 to mere  ignorance on the part of      
parents4 ,as an instance of this he     
gives  the case of the man who was born 

blind1 of whom our ,lord expressly  said
 that neither he nor his parents had    
sinned--morally or in  such a way as to 
deserve punishment4 ,on the contrary    
they had  erred simply through          
ignorance1 and the object of the miracle
 was  to make a display of the ,divine  
mercy removing the consequences of  such
 error4 ',and in reality1' he proceeds1 
'things of this kind  are the result of 
ignorance4 ,the misfortunes of which you
 spoke1  proceed from ignorance and not 
from any wicked action4' ,this is       
perfectly compatible with every word of 
the ,johannean narrative4  ,the         
concluding clause of the quotation is   
merely a paraphrase of  the original 7no
 part of the quotation professes to be  
exact71  bringing out a little more     
prominently the special point of the    
argument4 ,there is ample room for this4
 ,the predetermined object  of the      
miracle1 says ,st4 ,john1 was to display
 the works of ,god1  and the ,clementine
 writer specifies the particular work of

 ,god  displayed--the mercy which heals 
the evil consequences of  ignorance4 ,if
 there is anything here at all          
inconsistent with the  ,gospel it would 
be interesting to know 7and we are not  
told7 what  was the kind of original    
that the author of the ,homily really   
had  before him4    ,a further          
discussion of this passage ,i should    
hardly suppose to be  necessary4        
,nothing could be more wanton than to   
assign this  passage to an imaginary    
,gospel merely on the ground alleged4   
,the  hypothesis was less violent in    
regard to the ,synoptic ,gospels1  which
 clearly contain a large amount of      
common matter that might  also have     
found its way into other hands4 ,we have
 evidence of the  existence of other    
,gospels presenting a certain amount of 
affinity  to the first ,gospel1 but the 
fourth is stamped with an idiosyncracy  
which makes it unique in its kind4 ,if  
there is to be this freedom  in         
inventing unknown documents1 reproducing

 almost verbatim the  features of known 
ones1 sober criticism is at an end4     
,that the ,clementine ,homilies imply   
the use of the fourth ,gospel  may be   
considered to be1 not indeed certain in 
a strict sense of  the word1 but as     
probable as most human affairs can be4  
,the real  element or doubt is in regard
 to their date1 and their evidence  must
 be taken subject to this uncertainty4  
99       99       99       99       99  
,it is perhaps hardly worth while to    
delay over the ,epistle to  ,diognetus3 
not that ,i do not believe the instances
 alleged by  ,tischendorf and ,dr4      
,westcott ,endnote #bie3a to be in      
themselves  sound1 but because there    
exists too little evidence to determine 
the date of the ,epistle1 and because it
 may be doubted whether the  argument   
for the use of the fourth ,gospel in the
 ,epistle can be  expressed strongly in 
an objective form4 ,the allusions in    
question  are not direct quotations1 but
 are rather reminiscences of  language4 

,the author of ',supernatural ,religion'
 has treated them  as if they were the  
former ,endnote #bif3a2 he has enquired 
into  the context c41 not very          
successfully4 ,but such enquiry is      
really  out of place4 ,when the writer  
of the ,epistle says1 ',christians      
dwell in the world but are not of the   
world' ,greek3 ouk xisi de  ek tou      
kosmou  exactly ,john xvii4 #ad2 note   
peculiar use of the  preposition72 ',for
 ,god loved men for whose sakes ,he made
 the world  444 unto whom ,he sent ,his 
only begotten ,son' 7 ,john iii4 #af1   
',god  so loved the world that ,he gave 
,his only-begotten ,son'72 ',how will   
you love ,him who so beforehand loved   
you' ,greek3 proagapaesanta2  cf4 i     
,john iv4 #ai1 ,greek3 protos aegapaesen
 ',he sent ,his ,son as  wishing to save
 444 and not to condemn' 7,greek3 sozon 
444 krinon  of4 ,john iii4 #af71--the   
probability is about as great that he   
had  in his mind ,st4 ,john's language  
as it would be if the same phrases  were

 to occur in a modern sermon4 ,it is a  
real probability2 but  not one that can 
be urged very strongly4           99    
99       99       99       99    ,of    
more importance--indeed of high         
importance--is the evidence  drawn from 
the remains of earlier writers preserved
 by ,irenaeus  and ,hippolytus4 ,there  
is a clear reference to the fourth      
,gospel in  a passage for which         
,irenaeus alleges the authority of      
certain  ',presbyters1' who at the least
 belonged to an elder generation  than  
his own4 ,there can be little doubt     
indeed that they are the  same as those 
whom he describes three sentences later 
and with  only a momentary break in the 
oblique narration into which the        
passage is thrown1 as 'the ,presbyters1 
disciples of the ,apostles4'  ,it may be
 well to give the language of ,irenaeus 
in full as it has  been the subject of  
some controversy4 ,speaking of the      
rewards of  the just in the next world1 
he says ,endnote #big3a3--    ',for     

,esaias says1 ,like as the new heaven   
and new earth which ,i  create remain   
before me1 saith the ,lord1 so your seed
 and your  name shall stand4 ,and as the
 ,presbyters say1 then too those who    
are thought worthy to have their abode  
in ,heaven shall go thither1  and some  
shall enjoy the delights of ,paradise1  
while others shall  possess the         
splendour of the ,city2 for everywhere  
the ,saviour  shall be seen according as
 they shall be worthy who look upon     
,him4  ,so far the sentence has been in 
oratio recta1 but here it becomes       
oblique4 ,and they say that there is    
this distinction in  dwelling between   
those who bear fruit an hundred fold and
 those  who bear sixty and those who    
bear thirty1 some of whom shall be      
carried off into the ,heavens1 some     
shall stay in ,paradise1 and  some shall
 dwell in the ,city4 ,and for this      
reason1 they say that  the ,lord        
declared 7,greek3 eipaekenai7 that in my
 ,father's  realm are many mansions2 for

 all things are of ,god1 who  gives to  
all the fitting habitation3 even as ,his
 ,word saith  7ait71 that to all is     
allotted by the ,father as each is or   
shall be worthy4 ,and this is 7est7 the 
couch upon which  they shall recline who
 are bidden to ,his marriage supper4    
,that  this is 7esse7 the order and     
disposition of the saved1 the           
,presbyters1 disciples of the ,apostles1
 say1' etc4    ,that ,irenaeus is here  
merely giving the 'exegesis of his own  
day1'  as the author of ',supernatural  
,religion' suggests ,endnote #big3b1  is
 not for a moment tenable4 ,irenaeus    
does indeed interpose for  two sentences
 7,omnia enim444 ad nuptias7 to give his
 own comment  on the saying of the      
,presbyters2 but these are sharply cut  
off  from the rest by the use of the    
present indicative instead of the       
infinitive4 ,there can be no question at
 all that the quotation 'in  ,my        
,father's realm are many mansions'      
,greek3 en tois ton ,patros  mon monas  

einai pollas belongs to the ,presbyters1
 and there can  be but little doubt that
 these ,presbyters are the same as those
  spoken of as 'disciples of the        
,apostles4'    ,whether they were also  
'the ,presbyters' referred to as his    
authority by ,papias is quite a         
secondary and subordinate question4     
,considering the ,chiliastic character  
of the passage1 the  conjecture ,endnote
 #bih3a that they were does not seem to 
me  unreasonable4 ,this however we      
cannot determine positively4 ,it is     
quite enough that ,irenaeus evidently   
attributes to them an  antiquity        
considerably beyond his own2 that1 in   
fact1 he looks  upon them as supplying  
the intermediate link between his age   
and  that of the ,apostles4           99
       99       99       99       99    
,two quotations from the fourth ,gospel 
are attributed to ,basilides1  both of  
them quite indisputable as quotations4  
,the first is found  in the             
twenty-second chapter of the seventh    

book of the  ',refutation1' ',that was  
the true light which lighteth every man 
that cometh into the world ,endnote     
#bih3b 7,greek3 aen to phos to          
alaethinon1 o photizei panta anthropon  
erchomenon eis ton kosmon   ,john i4    
#i71 and the second in the              
twenty-seventh chapter1 ',my  hour is   
not yet come' 7,greek3 oupo aekei aeora 
mon  ,john ii4  #d74 ,both of these     
passages are instances of the exegesis  
by which  the ,basilidian doctrines were
 defended4    ,the real question is     
here1 as in regard to the ,synoptics1   
whether  the quotations were made by    
,basilides himself or by his disciples1 
',isidore and his crew4' ,the second    
instance ,i am disposed to think  may   
possibly be due to the later            
representatives of this school1         
because1 though the quotation is        
introduced by ,greek3 phaesi in  the    
singular1 and though ,basilides himself 
can in no case be  excluded1 still there
 is nothing in the chapter to identify  

the  subject of ,greek3 phaesi specially
 with him1 and in the next  sentence    
,hippolytus writes1 ',this is that which
 they understand  7,greek3 ho kat'      
autous nenoaemenos7 by the inner        
spiritual man1'  c4 ,but the earlier    
instance is different4 ,there ,basilides
 himself  does seem to be specially     
singled out4    ,he is mentioned by name
 only two sentences above that in which 
the  quotation occurs4 ,hippolytus is   
referring to the ,basilidian  doctrine  
of the origin of things4 ,he says1 ',now
 since it was not  allowable to say that
 something non-existent had come into   
being  as a projection from a           
non-existent ,deity--for ,basilides     
avoids  and shuns the existences of     
things brought into being by  projection
 ,endnote #bii3a--;for what need is     
there of projection1  or why should     
matter be presupposed in order that ,god
 should make  a world1 just as a spider 
its web or as mortal man in making      
things takes brass or wood or any other 

portion of matter8 ,but ,he  spake--so  
he says--and it was done1 and this is1  
as these men say1  that which is said by
 ,moses3 ,let there be light1 and there 
was  light4 ,whence1 he says1 came the  
light8 ,out of nothing2 for we  are not 
told--he says--whence it came1 but only 
that it was at the  voice of ,him that  
spake4 ,now ,he that spake--he says--was
 not1 and  that which was made1 was not4
 ,out of that which was not--he says--  
was made the seed of the world1 the word
 which was spoken1 ,let  there be light2
 and this--he says--is that which is    
spoken in  the ,gospels2 ,that was the  
true light which lighteth every man     
that cometh into the world4' ,we must   
not indeed overlook the fact  that the  
plural occurs once in the middle of this
 passage as  introducing the words of   
,moses2 'as these men say4' ,and yet1   
though this decidedly modifies1 ,i do   
not think that it removes the           
probability that ,basilides himself is  
being quoted4 ,it seems a  fair         

inference that at the beginning of the  
passage ,hippolytus had  the work of    
,basilides actually before him2 and the 
single  digression in ,greek3 legousin  
houtoi does not seem enough to  show    
that it was laid aside4 ,this is        
confirmed when we look back  two        
chapters at the terms in which the whole
 account of the  ,basilidian system is  
introduced4 ',let us see1' ,hippolytus  
says1  'how flagrantly ,basilides as    
well as 7,b4 ,greek3 homou kai7         
,isidore and all their crew contradict  
not only ,matthias but the  ,saviour    
himself4' ,stress is laid upon the name 
of ,basilides1 as if  to say1 ',it is   
not merely a new-fangled heresy1 but    
dates back to  the head and founder of  
the school4' ,when in the very next     
sentence ,hippolytus begins with ,greek3
 phaesi1 the natural  construction      
certainly seems to be that he is quoting
 some work of  ,basilides which he takes
 as typical of the doctrine of the whole
  school4 ,a later work would not suit  

his purpose or prove his  point4        
,basilides includes ,isidore1 but       
,isidore does not include  ,basilides4  
,we conclude then that there is a       
probability--not an overwhelming1  but  
quite a substantial1 probability--that  
,basilides himself used  the fourth     
,gospel1 and used it as an authoritative
 record of the  life of ,christ4 ,but   
,basilides began to teach in #abe       
,a4,d41 so that  his evidence1 supposing
 it to be valid1 dates from a very early
  period indeed3 and it should be       
remembered that this is the only        
uncertainty to which it is subject4     
,that the quotation is really  from ,st4
 ,john cannot be doubted4    ,the       
account which ,hippolytus gives of the  
,valentinians also  contains an allusion
 to the fourth ,gospel2 ',all who came  
before ,me  are thieves and robbers'    
7cf4 ,john x4 #h74 ,but here the master 
and  the disciples are more confused4   
,less equivocal evidence is  afforded by
 the statements of ,irenaeus respecting 

the ,valentinians4  ,he says that the   
,valentinians used the fourth ,gospel   
very freely  7plenissime7 ,endnote      
#cja3a4 ,this applies to a date that    
cannot  be in any case later than #ahj  
,a4,d41 and that may extend almost      
indefinitely backwards4 ,there is no    
reason to say that it does not  include 
,valentinus himself4 ,positive evidence 
is wanting1 but negative  evidence still
 more4 ,apart from evidence to the      
contrary1 there must  be a presumption  
against the introduction of a new work  
which becomes  at once a frequently     
quoted authority midway in the history  
of a school4    ,but to keep to facts   
apart from presumptions4 ,irenaeus      
represents  ,ptolemaeus as quoting      
largely from the ,prologue to the       
,gospel4 ,but  ,ptolemaeus1 as we have  
seen1 had already gathered a school     
about  him when ,irenaeus became        
acquainted with him4 ,his evidence      
therefore may fairly be said to cover   
the period from #afe-age ,a4,d4  ,the   

author of ',supernatural ,religion'     
seems to be somewhat beside  the mark   
when he says that 'in regard to         
,ptolemaeus all that is  affirmed is    
that in the ,epistle to ,flora ascribed 
to him  expressions found in ,john i4 #c
 are used4' ,true it is that such       
expressions are found1 and before we    
accept the theory in  ',supernatural    
,religion' that the parenthesis in which
 they occur  is due to ,epiphanius who  
quotes the letter in full himself       
,endnote #cjb3a1 it is only right that  
some other instance should  be given of 
such parenthetic interruption4 ,the form
 in which the  letter is quoted1 not in 
fragments interspersed with comments but
  complete and at full length1 with a   
formal heading and close1  really       
excludes such a hypothesis4 ,but1 a     
century and a half  before ,epiphanius1 
,irenaeus had given a string of         
,valentinian  comments on the ,prologue1
 ending with the words1 ',et ,ptolemaeus
  quidem ita' ,endnote #cjb3b4          

,heracleon1 too1 is coupled with        
,ptolemaeus by ,irenaeus ,endnote       
#cjb3c1 and according to the view  of   
the author of ',supernatural ,religion1'
 had a school around him  at the time of
 ,irenaeus' visit to ,rome in #agh      
,a4,d4 ,but this  ,heracleon was the    
author of a ,commentary on ,st4 ,john's 
,gospel to  which ,origen in his own    
parallel work frequently alludes4 ,these
  are indeed dismissed in ',supernatural
 ,religion' as 'unsupported             
references4' ,but we may well ask1 what 
support they need4 ,the  references are 
made in evident good faith4 ,he says1   
for instance  ,endnote #cjb3d1 that     
,heracleon's exegesis of ,john i4 #c1   
',all  things were made by ,him1'       
excluding from this the world and its   
contents1 is very forced and without    
authority4 ,again1 he has               
misinterpreted ,john i4 #d1 making 'in  
,him was life' mean not 'in  ,him' but  
'in spiritual men4' ,again1 he wrongly  
attributes ,john i4  #ah not to the     

,evangelist1 but to the ,baptist4 ,and  
so on4 ,the  allusions are all made in  
this incidental manner2 and the life of 
,origen1 if he was born1 as is supposed1
 about #ahe ,a4,d41 would  overlap that 
of ,heracleon4 ,what evidence could be  
more sufficient8  or if such evidence is
 to be discarded1 what evidence are we  
to  accept8 ,is it to be of the kind    
that is relied upon for referring       
quotations to the ,gospel according to  
the ,hebrews1 or the ,gospel  according 
to ,peter1 or the ,greek3 ,genna        
,marias8 ,there are  sometimes no doubt 
reasonable grounds for scepticism as to 
the  patristic statements1 but none such
 are visible here4 ,on the  contrary1   
that ,heracleon should have written a   
commentary on the  fourth ,gospel falls 
in entirely with what ,irenaeus says as 
to the  large use that was made of that 
,gospel by the ,valentinians4           
99       99       99       99       99  
,as we approach the end of the third and
 beginning of the fourth  quarter of the

 second century the evidence for the    
fourth ,gospel  becomes widespread and  
abundant4 ,at this date we have         
attention  called to the discrepancy    
between the ,gospels as to the date of  
the ,crucifixion by ,claudius           
,apollinaris4 ,we have also ,tatian1 the
  ,epistle of the ,churches of ,vienne  
and ,lyons1 the heathen ,celsus  and the
 ,muratorian ,canon1 and then a very few
 years later  ,theophilus of ,antioch   
and ,irenaeus4    ,i imagine that there 
can be really no doubt about ,tatian4   
,whatever  may have been the nature of  
the ,diatessaron1 the ',address to the  
,greeks' contains references which it is
 mere paradox to dispute4 ,i  will not  
press the first of these which is given 
by ,dr4 ,westcott1  not because ,i do   
not believe that it is ultimately based 
upon the  fourth ,gospel1 still less    
that there is the slightest             
contradiction  to ,st4 ,john's doctrine1
 but because ,tatian's is a             
philosophical comment  perhaps a degree 

too far removed from the original to be 
quite  producible as evidence4 ,it is   
one of the earliest speculations as to  
the ontological relation between the    
,father and the ,son4 ,in the  beginning
 ,god was alone--though all things were 
with ,him potentially4  ,by the mere act
 of volition ,he gave birth to the      
,logos1 who was the  real originative   
cause of things4 ,yet the existence of  
the ,logos was  not such as to involve a
 separation of identity in the ,godhead2
 it  involved no diminution in ,him from
 whom the ,logos issued4 ,having been   
thus first begotten1 the ,logos in turn 
begat our creation1 c4 ,the  ,logos is  
thus represented as being at once prior 
to creation 7the  ,johannean ,greek3 en 
archae7 and the efficient cause of      
it--which is  precisely the doctrine of 
the ,prologue4    ,the other two        
passages are however quite unequivocal4 
,orat4 ad ,graecos1 c4 xiii4    ,and    
this is therefore that saying3 ,the     
darkness comprehends not  the light4    

,greek3 ,kai touto estin ara to         
eiraemenon ,hae skotia to phos ou       
katalambanei4      ,john i4 #e4    ,and 
the light shineth in the darkness2 and  
the darkness  comprehended it not4      
,greek3 ,kai to phos en tae skotia      
phainei1 kai hae skotia auto ou         
katelaben4      ,on this there is the   
following comment in ',supernatural     
,religion'  ,endnote #cje3a3 ',the      
saying is distinctly different in       
language  from the parallel in the      
,gospel1 and it may be from a different 
,gospel4 ,we have already remarked that 
,philo called the ,logos the  ,light1   
and quoting in a peculiar form1 ,ps4    
xxvi4 #a3 ',for the ,lord  is my light  
7,greek3 phos7 and my ,saviour1' he goes
 on to say  that as the sun divides day 
and night1 so ,moses says1 ',god divides
  light and darkness' 7,greek3 ,theon   
phos kai skotos diateichisai71  when we 
turn away to things of sense we use     
'another light' which  is in no way     
different from 'darkness4' ,the constant

 use of the  same similitude of light   
and darkness in the ,canonical ,epistles
  shows how current it was in the       
,church2 and nothing is more  certain   
than the fact that it was neither       
originated by1 nor  confined to1 the    
fourth ,gospel4' ,such criticism refutes
 itself1  and it is far too             
characteristic of the whole book4       
,nothing is  adduced that even remotely 
corresponds to the very remarkable      
phrase ,greek3 hae skotia to phos       
katalambanei1 and yet for these         
imaginary parallels one that is         
perfectly plain and direct is  rejected4
    ,the use of the phrase ,greek3 to   
eiraemenon should be noticed4 ,it  is   
the formula used1 especially by ,st4    
,luke1 in quotation from the  ,old      
,testament ,scriptures4    ,the other   
passage is3--      ,orat4 ad ,graecos1  
c4 xix4    ,all things were by him1 and 
without him hath been made nothing4     
,greek3 ,panta hup' autou kai choris    
autou gegonen oude hen4      ,john i4   

#c4    ,all things were made through    
him2 and without him was nothing made   
that hath been made4    ,greek3 ,panta  
di' autou egeneto1 kai choris autou     
egeneto oude hen  ho gegonen4 ',the     
early ,fathers1 no less than the early  
heretics1' placed the full stop at      
,greek3 oude hen1 connecting  the words 
that follow with the next sentence4 ,see
 ,m',clellan and  ,tregelles ad loc4    
',tatian here speaks of ,god and not of 
the ,logos1 and in this  respect1 as    
well as language and context1 the       
passage differs from  the fourth        
,gospel' ,endnote #cjf3a1 c4            
,nevertheless it may safely  be left to 
the reader to say whether or not it was 
taken from it4    ,the ,epistle of the  
,churches of ,vienne and ,lyons contains
 the  following3--      ,ep4 ,vienne4 et
 ,lugd4  iv4    ,thus too was fulfilled 
that which was spoken by our ,lord2 that
 a  time shall come in which every one  
that killeth you shall think  that he   
offereth ,god service4    ,greek3       

,eleusetai kairos en o pas ho apokteinas
 humas doxei  latreian prospherein to   
,theo4      ,john xvi4 #b4    ,yea1 the 
hour cometh1 that every one that killeth
 you will think  he offereth ,god       
service4    ,greek3 ,all' erchetai hora 
hina pas ho apokteinas humas1 doxae     
latreian prospherein to ,theo4      ,it 
is true that there are 'indications of  
similar discourses' in  the ,synoptics1 
but of none containing a trait at all   
closely  resembling this4 ,the chances  
that precisely the same combination  of 
words 7,greek3 ho apokteinas humas doxei
 latreian prospherein  to ,theo7        
occurred in a lost ,gospel must be      
necessarily very small  indeed1         
especially when we remember that the    
original saying was  probably spoken in 
,aramaic and not in ,greek ,endnote     
#cjg3a4    ,dr4 ,keim1 in the elaborate 
monograph mentioned above1 decides that 
,celsus made use of the fourth ,gospel4 
,he remarks upon it as  curious1 that   
more traces should indeed be found 'both

 in ,celsus  and his contemporary       
,tatian of ,john than of his two nearest
  predecessors' ,endnote #cjg3b4 ,of the
 instances given by ,dr4 ,keim1  the    
first 7i4 #da1 the sign seen by the     
,baptist7 depends on a  somewhat        
doubtful reading 7,greek3 para to       
,ioannae1 which should  be perhaps      
,greek3 para to ,iordanae72 the second1 
the demand for  a sign localised        
specially in the temple 7i4 #fg2 of4    
,john x4 #bc1  #bd71 seems fairly to    
hold good4 ',the destination of ,jesus  
alike  for good and evil' 7iv4 #g1 'that
 those who received it1 having  been    
good1 should be saved2 while those who  
received it not1  having been shown to  
be bad1 should be punished'7 is indeed  
an  idea peculiarly ,johannean and      
creates a presumption of the  use of the
 ,gospel2 we ought not perhaps to say   
more4 ,i can hardly  consider the simple
 allusions to 'flight' 7,greek3         
pheugein1 ii4  #i2 ,greek3 taede kakeise
 apodedrakenai1 i4 #fb7 as necessarily  

references to the retreat to ,ephraim in
 ,john xi4 #ed4 ,so too the  expression 
'bound' in ii4 #i1 and the 'conflict    
with ,satan' in vi4  #db1 ii4 #dg1 seem 
too vague to be used as proof4 ,still   
,volkmar too  declares it to be         
'notorious' that ,celsus was acquainted 
with the  fourth ,gospel1 alleging i4   
#fg 7as above71 ii4 #ca 7an allusion to 
the ,logos71 ii4 #cf 7a satirical       
allusion to the issue of blood and      
water71 which passages really seem on   
the whole to justify the  assertion1    
though not in a quite unqualified form4 
,we ought not to omit to mention that   
there is a second fragment  by          
,apollinaris1 bishop of ,hierapolis1    
besides that to which we  have already  
alluded1 and preserved like it in the   
,paschal  ,chronicle1 which confirms    
unequivocally the conclusion that he    
knew and used the fourth ,gospel4       
,amongst other titles that are  applied 
to the crucified ,saviour1 he is spoken 
of as 'having been  pierced in ,his     

sacred side1' as 'having poured out of  
,his side  those two cleansing streams1 
water and blood1 word and spirit'       
,endnote #cjh3a4 ,this incident is      
recorded only in the fourth  ,gospel4   
,in like manner when ,athenagoras says  
',the ,father and the ,son being  one'  
7,greek3 henos ontos tou ,patros kai tou
 ,uiou71 it is  probable that he is     
alluding to ,john x4 #cj1 ',i and my    
,father are  one1' not to mention an    
alleged1 but perhaps somewhat more      
doubtful1 reference to ,john xvii4 #c   
,endnote #cjh3b4    ,but the most       
decisive witness before we come to      
,irenaeus is the  ,muratorian ,canon4   
,here we have the fourth ,gospel        
definitely  assigned to its author1 and 
finally established in its place        
amongst the canonical or authoritative  
books4 ,it is true that the  account of 
the way in which the ,gospel came to be 
composed is  mixed up with legendary    
matter4 ,according to it the ,gospel was
  written in obedience to a dream sent  

to ,andrew the ,apostle1 after  he and  
his fellow disciples and bishops had    
fasted for three days  at the request of
 ,john4 ,in this dream it was revealed  
that ,john  should write the narrative  
subject to the revision of the rest4 ,so
  the ,gospel is the work of an         
eyewitness1 and1 though it and the      
other ,gospels differ in the objects of 
their teaching1 all are  inspired by the
 same ,spirit4    ,there may perhaps in 
this be some kernel of historical fact1 
as  the sort of joint authorship or     
revision to which it points seems  to   
find some support in the concluding     
verses of the ,gospel 7'we  know that   
his witness is true'74 ,however this may
 be1 the evidence  of the fragment is of
 more real importance and value1 as     
showing  the estimation in which at this
 date the ,gospel was held4 ,it         
corresponds very much to what is now    
implied in the word  'canonical1' and   
indeed the ,muratorian fragment presents
 us with a  tentative or provisional    

,canon1 which was later to be amended1  
completed1 and ratified4 ,so far as the 
,gospels were concerned1 it  had already
 reached its final shape4 ,it included  
the same four  which now stand in our   
,bibles1 and the opposition that they   
met  with was so slight1 and so little  
serious1 that ,eusebius could  class    
them all among the ,homologoumena or    
books that were  universally            
acknowledged4            ,,chapter      
,,xiii4    ,,on ,,the ,,state ,,of ,,the
 ,,canon ,,in ,,the ,,last ,,quarter    
,,of ,,the ,,second ,,century4      ,i  
should not be very much surprised if the
 general reader who may  have followed  
our enquiry so far should experience at 
this point a  certain feeling of        
disappointment4 ,if he did not know     
beforehand  something of the            
subject-matter that was to be enquired  
into1 he  might not unnaturally be led  
to expect round assertions1 and  plain1 
pointblank1 decisive evidence4 ,such    
evidence has not been  offered to him   

for the simple reason that it does not  
exist4 ,in  its stead we have collected 
a great number of inferences of very    
various degrees of cogency1 from the    
possible and hypothetical1 up  to strong
 and very strong probability4 ,most of  
our time has been  taken up in weighing 
and testing these details1 and in the   
endeavour to assign to each as nearly as
 possible its just value4  ,it could not
 be thought strange if some minds were  
impatient of  such minutiae2 and where  
this objection was not felt1 it would   
still be very pardonable to complain    
that the evidence was at best           
inferential and probable4    ,an        
inference in which there are two or     
three steps may be often  quite as      
strong as that in which there is only   
one1 and  probabilities may mount up to 
a high degree of what is called  moral  
or practical certainty4 ,i cannot but   
think that many of  those which have    
been already obtained are of this       
character4 ,i  cannot but regard it as  

morally or practically certain that     
,marcion used our third ,gospel2 as     
morally or practically certain  that all
 four ,gospels were used in the         
,clementine ,homilies2 as  morally or   
practically certain that the existence  
of three at  least out of our four      
,gospels is implied in the writings of  
,justin2 as probable in a lower degree  
that the four were used by  ,basilides2 
as not really disputable 7apart from the
 presumption  afforded by earlier       
writers7 that they were widely used in  
the  interval which separates the       
writings of ,justin from those of       
,irenaeus4    ,all of these seem to me  
to be tolerably clear propositions4 ,but
  outside these there seems to be a     
considerable amount of  convergent      
evidence1 the separate items of which   
are less  convincing1 but which yet     
derive a certain force from the mere    
fact that they are convergent4 ,in the  
,apostolic ,fathers1 for  example1 there
 are instances of various kinds1 some   

stronger and  some weaker2 but the      
important point to notice is that they  
confirm each other4 ,every new case adds
 to the total weight of the  evidence1  
and helps to determine the bearing of   
those which seem  ambiguous4    ,it     
cannot be too much borne in mind that   
the evidence with which  we have been   
dealing is cumulative2 and as in all    
other cases of  cumulative evidence the 
subtraction of any single item is of    
less  importance than the addition of a 
new one4 ,supposing it to be  shown that
 some of the allusions which are thought
 to be taken  from our ,gospels were    
merely accidental coincidences of       
language1  this would not materially    
affect the part of the evidence which   
could not be so explained4 ,supposing   
even that some of these  allusions could
 be definitely referred to an apocryphal
 source1  the possibility would be      
somewhat1 but not so very much1         
increased  that other instances which   
bear resemblance to our ,gospels were   

also in their origin apocryphal4 ,but on
 the other hand1 if a  single instance  
of the use of a canonical ,gospel really
 holds  good1 it is proof of the        
existence of that ,gospel1 and every new
  instance renders the conclusion more  
probable1 and makes it more  and more   
difficult to account for the phenomena  
in any other way4    ,the author of     
',supernatural ,religion' seems to have 
overlooked  this4 ,he does not seem to  
have considered the mutual support which
  the different instances taken together
 lend to each other4 ,he  summons them  
up one by one1 and if any sort of       
possibility can be  shown of accounting 
for them in any other way than by the   
use of  our ,gospels he dismisses them  
altogether4 ,he makes no allowance  for 
any residual weight they may have4 ,he  
does not ask which is  the more probable
 hypothesis4 ,if the authentication of a
 document  is incomplete1 if the        
reference of a passage is not certain1  
he  treats it as if it did not exist4   

,he forgets the old story of the        
faggots1 which1 weak singly1 become     
strong when combined4 ,his  scales will 
not admit of any evidence short of the  
highest4  ,fractional quantities find no
 place in his reckoning4 ,if there is   
any flaw1 if there is any possible      
loophole for escape1 he does  not make  
the due deduction and accept the        
evidence with that  deduction1 but he   
ignores it entirely1 and goes on to the 
next  item just as if he were leaving   
nothing behind him4    ,this is really  
part and parcel of what was pointed out 
at the  outset as the fundamental       
mistake of his method4 ,it is much too  
forensic4 ,it takes as its model1 not   
the proper canons of  historical        
enquiry1 but the procedure of ,english  
law4 ,yet the  inappropriateness of such
 a method is seen as soon as we consider
  its object and origin4 ,the rules of  
evidence current in our law  courts were
 constructed specially with a view to   
the protection of  the accused1 and upon

 the assumption that it is better nine  
guilty  persons should escape1 than that
 one innocent person should be          
condemned4 ,clearly such rules will be  
inapplicable to the  historical question
 which of two hypotheses is most likely 
to be  true4 ,the author forgets that   
the negative hypothesis is just as  much
 a hypothesis as the positive1 and needs
 to be defended in  precisely the same  
manner4 ,either the ,gospels were used1 
or they  were not used4 ,in order to    
prove the second side of this           
alternative1 it is necessary to show not
 merely that it is  possible that they  
were not used1 but that the theory is   
the more probable of the two1 and       
accounts better for the  facts4 ,but the
 author of ',supernatural ,religion'    
hardly professes  or attempts to do     
this4 ,if he comes across a quotation   
apparently  taken from our ,gospels he  
is at once ready with his reply1 ',but  
it  may be taken from a lost ,gospel4'  
,granted2 it may4 ,but the extant       

,gospel is there1 and the quotation     
referable to it2 the lost  ,gospel is an
 unknown entity which may contain       
anything or nothing4  ,if we admit that 
the possibility of quotation from a lost
 ,gospel  impairs the certainty of the  
reference to an extant ,gospel1 it is   
still quite another thing to argue that 
it is the more probable  explanation and
 an explanation that the critic ought to
 accept4 ,in  very few cases1 ,i        
believe1 has the author so much as      
attempted to  do this4    ,we might then
 take a stand here1 and on the strength 
of what can  be satisfactorily proved1  
as well as of what can be probably      
inferred1 claim to have sufficiently    
established the use and  antiquity of   
the ,gospels4 ,this is1 ,i think1 quite 
a necessary  conclusion from the data   
hitherto collected4    ,but there is a  
further objection to be made to the     
procedure in  ',supernatural ,religion4'
 ,if the object were to obtain clear and
  simple and universally appreciable    

evidence1 ,i do not hesitate to  say    
that the enquiry ends just where it     
ought to have begun4  ,through the      
faulty method that he has employed the  
author forgets  that he has a hypothesis
 to make good and to carry through4 ,he 
forgets that he has to account on the   
negative theory1 just as we  account on 
the positive1 for a definite state of   
things4 ,it may  sound paradoxical1 but 
there is really no great boldness in the
  paradox1 when we affirm that at least 
the high antiquity of the  ,gospels     
could be proved1 even if not one jot or 
tittle of the  evidence that we have    
been discussing had existed4 ,supposing 
that  all those fragmentary remains of  
the primitive ,christian  literature    
that we have been ransacking so minutely
 had been swept  away1 supposing that   
the causes that have handed it down to  
us in  such a mutilated and impaired    
condition had done their work still     
more effectually1 and that for the first
 eighty years of the  second century    

there was no ,christian literature      
extant at all2  still ,i maintain that1 
in order to explain the phenomena that  
we  find after that date1 we should have
 to recur to the same  assumptions that 
our previous enquiry would seem to have 
established for us4    ,hitherto we have
 had to grope our way with difficulty   
and care2  but from this date onwards   
all ambiguity and uncertainty           
disappears4 ,it is like emerging out of 
twilight into the broad  blaze of day4  
,there is really a greater disproportion
 than we  might expect between the      
evidence of the end of the century and  
that which leads up to it4 ,from ,justin
 to ,irenaeus the ,christian  writings  
are fragmentary and few1 but with       
,irenaeus a whole body  of literature   
seems suddenly to start into being4     
,irenaeus is  succeeded closely by      
,clement of ,alexandria1 ,clement by    
,tertullian1  ,tertullian by ,hippolytus
 and ,origen1 and the testimony which   
these  writers bear to the ,gospel is   

marvellously abundant and unanimous4  ,i
 calculate roughly that ,irenaeus quotes
 directly #aic verses of  the first     
,gospel and #gc of the fourth4 ,clement 
of ,alexandria and  ,tertullian must    
have quoted considerably more1 while in 
the extant  writings of ,origen the     
greater part of the ,new ,testament is  
actually quoted ,endnote #cae3a4    ,but
 more than this2 by the time of         
,irenaeus the canon of the four         
,gospels1 as we understand the word now1
 was practically formed4 ,we  have      
already seen that this was the case in  
the fragment of  ,muratori4 ,irenaeus is
 still more explicit4 ,in the famous    
passage  ,endnote #cae3b which is so    
often quoted as an instance of the      
weak-mindedness of the ,fathers1 he lays
 it down as a necessity of  things that 
the ,gospels should be four in number1  
neither less nor  more3--    ',for as   
there are four quarters of the world in 
which we live1 as  there are also four  
universal winds1 and as the ,church is  

scattered over all the earth1 and the   
,gospel is the pillar and  base of the  
,church and the breath 7or spirit7 of   
life1 it is  likely that it should have 
four pillars breathing immortality on   
every side and kindling afresh the life 
of men4 ,whence it is  evident that the 
,word1 the architect of all things1 who 
sitteth  upon the cherubim and holdeth  
all things together1 having been  made  
manifest unto men1 gave to us the       
,gospel in a fourfold shape1  but held  
together by one ,spirit4 ,as ,david1    
entreating for ,his  presence1 saith3   
,thou that sittest upon the ,cherubim   
show thyself4  ,for the ,cherubim are of
 fourfold visage1 and their visages are 
symbols of the economy of the ,son of   
man4444 ,and the ,gospels  therefore    
agree with them over which presideth    
,jesus ,christ4 ,that  which is         
according to ,john declares ,his        
generation from the ,father  sovereign  
and glorious1 saying thus3 ,in the      
beginning was the  ,word1 and the ,word 

was with ,god1 and the ,word was ,god4  
,and1 ,all  things were made by ,him1   
and without ,him was not anything       
made4444  ,but the ,gospel according to 
,luke1 as having a sacerdotal           
character1 begins with ,zacharias the   
priest offering incense unto  ,god4444  
,but ,matthew records ,his human        
generation1 saying1 ,the book  of the   
generation of ,jesus ,christ1 the ,son  
of ,david1 the ,son of  ,abraham4444    
,mark took his beginning from the       
prophetic ,spirit  coming down as it    
were from on high among men4 ,the       
beginning1 he  says1 of the ,gospel     
according as it is written in ,esaias   
the  prophet1 c4'    ,irenaeus also     
makes mention of the origin of the      
,gospels1 claiming  for their authors   
the gift of ,divine inspiration ,endnote
 #caf3a3--    ',for after that our ,lord
 rose from the dead and they were       
endowed  with the power of the ,holy    
,ghost coming upon them from on high1   
they were fully informed concerning all 

things1 and had a perfect  knowledge3   
they went out to the ends of the earth1 
preaching the  ,gospel of those good    
things that ,god hath given to us and   
proclaiming heavenly peace to men1      
having indeed both all in equal  measure
 and each one singly the ,gospel of     
,god4 ,so then ,matthew  among the ,jews
 put forth a written ,gospel in their   
own tongue  while ,peter and ,paul were 
preaching the ,gospel in ,rome and      
founding the ,church4 ,after their      
decease 7or 'departure'71 ,mark1  the   
disciple and interpreter of ,peter1     
himself too has handed down  to us in   
writing the subjects of ,peter's        
preaching4 ,and ,luke1 the  companion of
 ,paul1 put down in a book the ,gospel  
preached by him4  ,afterwards1 ,john1   
the disciple of the ,lord1 who also     
leaned upon  ,his breast1 likewise      
published his ,gospel while he dwelt at 
,ephesus in ,asia4'    ,we have not now 
to determine the exact value of these   
traditions2  what we have rather to     

notice is the fact that the ,gospels are
 at  this time definitely assigned to   
their reputed authors1 and that  they   
are already regarded as containing a    
special knowledge  divinely imparted4   
,it is evident that ,irenaeus would not 
for a  moment think of classing any     
other ,gospel by the side of the now    
strictly canonical four4    ,clement of 
,alexandria1 who1 ,eusebius says1 'was  
illustrious for  his writings1' in the  
year #aid gives a somewhat similar1 but 
not  quite identical1 account of the    
composition of the second ,gospel       
,endnote #cag3a4 ,he differs from       
,irenaeus in making ,st4 ,peter         
cognisant of the work of his follower4  
,neither is he quite  consistent with   
himself2 in one place he makes ,st4     
,peter  'authorise the ,gospel to be    
read in the churches2' in another he    
says that the ,apostle 'neither forbade 
nor encouraged it' ,endnote  #cag3b4    
,these statements have both of them been
 preserved for us  by ,eusebius1 who    

also alleges1 upon the authority of     
,clement1 that  the ',gospels containing
 the genealogies were written first4'   
',john1' he says1 'who came last1       
observing that the natural  details had 
been set forth clearly in the ,gospels1 
at the instance  of his friends and with
 the inspiration of the ,spirit 7,greek3
  pneumati theophoraethenta71 wrote a   
spiritual ,gospel' ,endnote  #cag3c4    
,clement draws a distinct line between  
the canonical and  uncanonical ,gospels4
 ,in quoting an apocryphal saying       
supposed to  have been given in answer  
to ,salome1 he says1 expressly3 ',we do 
not find this saying in the four        
,gospels that have been handed  down to 
us1 but in that according to the        
,egyptians' ,endnote  #cag3d4           
,tertullian is still more exclusive4 ,he
 not only regards the four  ,gospels as 
inspired and authoritative1 but he makes
 no use of any  extra-canonical ,gospel4
 ,the ,gospels indeed held for him      
precisely  the same position that they  

do with orthodox ,christians now4 ,he   
says respecting the ,gospels3 ',in the  
first place we lay it down  that the    
evangelical document 7evangelicum       
instrumentum ,endnote  #cah3a7 has for  
its authors the ,apostles1 to whom this 
office of  preaching the ,gospel was    
committed by the ,lord ,himself4 ,if it 
has  also ,apostolic men1 yet not these 
alone but in company with  ,apostles and
 after ,apostles4 ,for the preaching of 
disciples might  have been suspected of 
a desire for notoriety if it were not   
supported by the authority of ,masters1 
nay of ,christ1 who made the  ,apostles 
,masters4 ,in fine1 of the ,apostles1   
,john and ,matthew first  implant in us 
faith1 ,luke and ,mark renew it1        
starting from the  same principles1 so  
far as relates to the one ,god the      
,creator and  ,his ,christ born of the  
virgin1 to fulfil the law and the       
prophets'  ,endnote #cah3b4 ,he grounds 
the authority of the ,gospels upon the  
fact that they proceed either from      

,apostles or from those who held  close 
relation to ,apostles1 like ,mark1 'the 
interpreter of ,peter1'  and ,luke1 the 
companion of ,paul ,endnote #cah3c4 ,in 
another  passage he expressly asserts   
their authenticity ,endnote #cah3d1  and
 he claimed to use them and them alone  
as his weapons in the  conflict with    
heresy ,endnote #cah3e4    ,no less     
decided is the assertion of ,origen1 who
 writes3 ',as ,i have  learnt from      
tradition concerning the four ,gospels1 
which alone are  undisputed in the      
,church of ,god under heaven1 that the  
first in  order of the scripture is that
 according to ,matthew1 who was once  a 
publican but afterwards an ,apostle of  
,jesus ,christ 444 ,the  second is that 
according to ,mark1 who wrote as ,peter 
suggested to  him 444 ,the third is that
 according to ,luke1 the ,gospel        
commended  by ,paul 444 ,last of all    
that according to ,john' ,endnote       
#cai3a4  ,and again in his commentary   
upon the ,preface to ,st4 ,luke's       

,gospel  he expressly guards against the
 possibility that it might be  thought  
to have reference to the other          
7,canonical7 ,gospels3 ',in  this word  
of ,luke's have taken in hand there is a
 latent  accusation of those who without
 the grace of the ,holy ,spirit have    
rushed to the composing of ,gospels4    
,matthew1 indeed1 and ,mark1 and  ,john1
 and ,luke1 have not taken in hand to   
write1 but  have written ,gospels1 being
 full of the ,holy ,spirit 444 ,the     
,church has four ,gospels2 the ,heresies
 have many' ,endnote #cai3b4    ,but    
besides the ,fathers1 and without going 
beyond the bounds of  the second        
century1 there is other evidence of the 
most distinct  and important kind for   
the existence of a canon of the         
,gospels4  ,among the various           
translations of the ,new ,testament one 
certainly1  two very probably1 and three
 perhaps probably1 were made in the     
course of the second century4    ,the   
old ,latin 7as distinct from ,jerome's  

revised7 version of the  ,gospels and   
with them of a considerable portion of  
the ,new ,testament  was1 ,i think it   
may be said1 undoubtedly used by        
,tertullian and by  the ,latin          
translator of ,irenaeus1 who appears to 
be quoted by  ,tertullian1 and in that  
case could not be placed later than #bjj
 ,a4,d4  ,endnote #cbj3a ,on this point 
,i shall quote authorities that will    
hardly be questioned4 ,and first that of
 a writer who is accustomed to  weigh1  
with the accuracy of true science1 every
 word that he puts  down1 and who upon  
this subject is giving the result of a  
most minute  and careful investigation4 
,speaking of the ,latin translation of  
the  ,new ,testament as found in        
,tertullian he says3 ',although single  
portions of this1 especially passages   
which are translated in several         
different ways1 may be due to           
,tertullian himself1 still it cannot be 
doubted that in by far the majority of  
cases he has followed the text  of a    

version received in his time by the     
,africans and specially the             
,carthaginian ,christians1 and made     
perhaps long before his time1 and  that 
consequently his quotations represent   
the form of the earliest  ,latinized    
,scriptures accepted in those regions'  
,endnote #cbj3b4  ,again3 ',in the first
 place we may conclude from the writings
 of  ,tertullian1 that remarkable       
,carthaginian presbyter at the close of 
the second century1 that in his time    
there existed several1 perhaps  many1   
,latin translations of the ,bible 444   
,tertullian himself  frequently quotes  
in his writings one and the same passage
 of  ,scripture in entirely different   
forms1 which indeed in many cases  may  
be explained by his quoting freely from 
memory1 but certainly  not seldom has   
its ground in the diversity of the      
translations used  at the time' ,endnote
 #cba3a4 ,on this last point1 the unity 
of the  ,old ,latin version1 there is a 
difference of opinion among scholars1   

but none as to its date4 ,thus ,dr4     
,tregelles writes3 ',the expressions  of
 ,tertullian have been rightly rested on
 as showing that he knew  and recognised
 one translation1 and that this version 
was in several  places 7in his opinion7 
opposed to what was found in ,graeco    
authentico4  ,this version must have    
been made a sufficiently long time      
before the  age when ,tertullian wrote1 
and before the ,latin translator of     
,irenaeus1  for it to have got into     
general circulation4 ,this leads us back
 towards  the middle of the second      
century at the latest3 how much earlier 
the version may have been we have no    
proof2 for we are already led  back into
 the time when no records tell us       
anything respecting the  ,north ,african
 ,church' ,endnote #cba3b4 ,dr4         
,tregelles1 it should be  remembered1 is
 speaking as a text critic1 of which    
branch of science  his works are one of 
the noblest monuments1 and not directly 
of the  history of the ,canon4 ,his     

usual opponent in text critical matters1
  but an equally exact and trustworthy  
writer1 ,dr4 ,scrivener1 agrees  with   
him here both as to the unity of the    
version and as to its date  from the    
middle of the century ,endnote #cba3c4  
,dr4 ,westcott too  writes in his       
well-known and valuable article on the  
,vulgate in  ,smith's ,dictionary       
,endnote #cba3d3 ',tertullian distinctly
 recognises  the general currency of a  
,latin ,version of the ,new ,testament1 
though  not necessarily of every book at
 present included in the ,canon1 which  
even in his time had been able to mould 
the popular language4 ,this  was        
characterised by a rudeness and         
simplicity1 which seems to  point to the
 nature of its origin4' ,i do not       
suppose that the currency  at the end of
 the second century of a ,latin version1
 containing the  four ,gospels and no   
others1 will be questioned ,endnote     
#cbb3a4    ,with regard to the ,syriac  
version there is perhaps a somewhat     

greater room to doubt1 though ,dr4      
,tregelles begins his account of  this  
version by saying3 ',it may stand as an 
admitted fact that a  version of the    
,new ,testament in ,syriac existed in   
the second  century' ,endnote #cbb3b4   
,dr4 ,scrivener also says ,endnote      
#cbb3c3  ',the universal belief of later
 ages1 and the very nature of the  case1
 seem to render it unquestionable that  
the ,syrian ,church was  possessed of a 
translation both of the ,old and ,new   
,testament1  which it used habitually1  
and for public worship exclusively1 from
  the second century of our era         
downwards3 as early as ,a4,d4 #agj      
,greek3 ho ,syros is cited by ,melito on
 ,genesis xxii4 #ac4' ,the  external    
evidence1 however1 does not seem to be  
quite strong  enough to bear out any    
very positive assertion4 ,the appeal to 
the  ,syriac by ,melito ,endnote #cbb3d 
is pretty conclusive as to the          
existence of a ,syriac ,old ,testament1 
which1 being of ,christian  origin1     

would probably be accompanied by a      
translation of the ,new4  ,but on the   
other hand1 the language of ,eusebius   
respecting  ,hegesippus 7,greek3 ek te  
tou kath' ,hebraious euangeliou kai tou 
,syriakou 444 tina tithaesin7 seems to  
be rightly interpreted by  ,routh as    
having reference not to any 'version of 
the ,gospel1  but to a separate         
,syro-,hebraic 787 ,gospel' like that   
according to  the ,hebrews4 ,in any case
 the ,syriac ,scriptures 'were          
familiarly  used and claimed as his     
national version by ,ephraem of ,edessa'
  7#bii-cgh ,a4,d47 as well as by       
,aphraates in writings dating ,a4,d4    
#ccg  and #cdd ,endnote #cbc3a4    ,a   
nearer approximation of date would be   
obtained by determining the  age of the 
version represented by the celebrated   
,curetonian  fragments4 ,there is a     
strong tendency among critics1 which    
seems  rapidly approaching to a         
consensus1 to regard this as bearing the
  same relation to the ,peshito that the

 ,old ,latin does to ,jerome's          
,vulgate1 that of an older unrevised to 
a later revised version4 ,the  strength 
of the tendency in this direction may be
 seen by the very  cautious and         
qualified opinion expressed in the      
second edition of his  ,introduction by 
,dr4 ,scrivener1 who had previously     
taken a decidedly  antagonistic view1   
and also by the fact that ,mr4          
,m',clellan1 who is  usually an ally of 
,dr4 ,scrivener1 here appears on the    
side of his  opponents ,endnote #cbc3b4 
,all the writers who have hitherto been 
mentioned place either the ,curetonian  
,syriac or the ,peshito in the  second  
century1 and the majority1 as we have   
seen1 the ,curetonian4  ,dr4 ,tregelles1
 on a comparative examination of the    
text1 affirms that  'the ,curetonian    
,syriac presents such a text as we might
 have  concluded would be current in the
 second century' ,endnote #cbc3c4       
,english text criticism is probably on  
the whole in advance of  ,continental2  

but it may be noted that ,bleek 7who    
however was  imperfectly acquainted with
 the ,curetonian form of the text7 yet  
asserts that the ,syriac version        
'belongs without doubt to the second    
century ,a4,d4' ,endnote #cbd3a ,reuss  
,endnote #cbd3b places it at the        
beginning1 ,hilgenfeld towards the end  
,endnote #cbd3c1 of the third  century4 
,the question as to the age of the      
version is not necessarily  identical   
with that as to the age of the          
particular form of it  preserved in     
,cureton's fragments4 ,this would hold  
the same sort of  relation to the       
original text of the version that 7e4g47
 a1 or b1  or c--any primitive codex of 
the version--holds to the original  text
 of the ,old ,latin4 ,it also appears   
that the translation into  ,syriac of   
the different ,gospels1 conspicuously of
 ,st4 ,matthew's1  was made by different
 hands and at different times ,endnote  
#cbd3d4 ,bearing these considerations in
 mind1 we should still be  glad to know 

what answer those who assign the        
,curetonian text to  the second century 
make to the observation that it contains
 the  reading ,greek3 ,baethabara in    
,john i4 #bh which is generally  assumed
 to be not older than ,origen ,endnote  
#cbd3e4 ,on the other  hand1 the        
,curetonian1 like the ,old ,latin1 still
 has in ,john vii4 #h  ,greek3 ouk for  
,greek3 oupo--a change which1 according 
to ,dr4  ,scrivener ,endnote #cbd3f1    
'from the end of the third century      
downwards was very generally and widely 
diffused4' ,this whole set  of questions
 needs perhaps a more exhaustive        
discussion than it  has obtained        
hitherto ,endnote #cbd3g4    ,the third 
version that may be mentioned is the    
,egyptian4 ,in regard  to this ,dr4     
,lightfoot says ,endnote #cbe3a1 that   
'we should  probably not be exaggerating
 if we placed one or both of the        
principal ,egyptian versions1 the       
,memphitic and the ,thebaic1 or at      
least parts of them1 before the close of

 the second century4' ,in  support of   
this statement he quotes ,schwartz1 the 
principal  authority on the subject1    
'who will not be suspected of any       
theological bias4' ,the historical      
notices on which the conclusion  is     
founded are given in ,scrivener's       
',introduction4' ,if we are to  put a   
separate estimate upon these1 it would  
be perhaps that the  version was made in
 the second century somewhat more       
probably than  not2 it was certainly not
 made later than the first half of the  
third ,endnote #cbe3b4    ,putting this 
version however on one side1 the facts  
that have to  be explained are these4   
,towards the end of the second century  
we  find the four ,gospels in general   
circulation and invested with  full     
canonical authority1 in ,gaul1 at ,rome1
 in the province of  ,africa1 at        
,alexandria1 and in ,syria4 ,now if we  
think merely of the  time that would be 
taken in the transcription and          
dissemination of  ,,mss41 and of the    

struggle that works such as the ,gospels
 would  have to go through before they  
could obtain recognition1 and still     
more an exclusive recognition1 this     
alone would tend to overthrow  any such 
theory as that one of the ,gospels1 the 
fourth1 was not  composed before #aej   
,a4,d41 or indeed anywhere near that    
date4    ,but this is not by any means  
all4 ,it is merely the first step in a  
process that1 quite independently of the
 other external evidence1  thrusts the  
composition of the ,gospels backwards   
and backwards to  a date certainly as   
early as that which is claimed for them4
    ,let us define a little more closely
 the chronological bearings of  the     
subject4 ,there is a decidedly          
preponderant probability that  the      
,muratorian fragment was not written    
much later than #agj ,a4,d4  ,irenaeus1 
as we have seen1 was writing in the     
decade #ahj-aij ,a4,d4  ,but his        
evidence is surely valid for an earlier 
date than this4 ,he  is usually supposed

 to have been born about the year #adj  
,a4,d4  ,endnote #cbf3a1 and the way in 
which he describes his relations  to    
,polycarp will not admit of a date many 
years later4 ,but his  strong sense of  
the continuity of ,church doctrine and  
the  exceptional veneration that he     
accords to the ,gospels seem alone  to  
exclude the supposition that any of them
 should have been  composed in his own  
lifetime4 ,he is fond of quoting the    
',presbyters1' who connected his own age
 with that1 if not of the  ,apostles1   
yet of ,apostolic men4 ,pothinus1 bishop
 of ,lyons1 whom he  succeeded1 was more
 than ninety years old at the time of   
his  martyrdom in the persecution of    
,a4,d4 #agg ,endnote #cbf3b1 and  would 
thus in his boyhood be contemporary with
 the closing years  of the last         
,evangelist4 ,irenaeus also had before  
him a number of  writings--some1 e4g4   
the works of the ,marcosians1 in        
addition to  those that have been       
discussed in the course of this work--in

  which our ,gospels are largely quoted1
 and which1 to say the least1  were     
earlier than his own time of writing4   
,clement of ,alexandria began to        
flourish1 7,greek3 egnorizeto7  ,endnote
 #cbg3a1 in the reign of ,commodus      
7#ahj-aij ,a4,d471 and had  obtained a  
still wider celebrity as head of the    
,catechetical  ,school of ,alexandria in
 the time of ,severus ,endnote #cbg3b   
7#aic-  #baa74 ,the opinions therefore  
to which he gives expression in his     
works of this date were no doubt formed 
at a earlier period4 ,he  too appeals to
 the tradition of which he had been     
himself a  recipient4 ,he speaks of his 
teachers1 'those blessed and truly      
memorable men1' one in ,greece1 another 
in ,magna ,graecia1 a third  in         
,coele-,syria1 a fourth in ,egypt1 a    
fifth in ,assyria1 a sixth in           
,palestine1 to whom the doctrine of the 
,apostles had been handed  down from    
father to son ,endnote #cbg3c4          
,tertullian is still bolder4 ,in his    

controversy with ,marcion he            
confidently claims as on his side the   
tradition of the ,apostolic  ,churches4 
,by it is guaranteed the ,gospel of ,st4
 ,luke which he is  defending1 and not  
only that1 but the other ,gospels       
,endnote  #cbg3d4 ,in one passage       
,tertullian even goes so far as to send 
his  readers to the ,churches of        
,corinth1 ,philippi1 c4 for the very    
autographs 7'authenticae literae'7 of   
,st4 ,paul's ,epistles ,endnote  #cbg3e4
 ,but this is merely a characteristic   
flourish of rhetoric4  ,all for which   
the statements of ,tertullian may safely
 be said to  vouch is1 that the ,gospels
 had held their 'prerogative' position  
within his memory and that of most      
members of the ,church to which  he     
belonged4    ,but the evidence of the   
,fathers is most decisive when it is    
unconscious4 ,that the ,gospels as used 
by the ,christian writers at  the end of
 the first century1 so far from being of
 recent  composition1 had already a long

 history behind them1 is nothing  less  
than certain4 ,at this date they exhibit
 a text which bears  the marks of       
frequent transcription and advanced     
corruption4  ',origen's1' says ,dr4     
,scrivener ,endnote #cbh3a1 'is the     
highest  name among the critics and     
expositors of the early ,church2 he is  
perpetually engaged in the discussion of
 various readings of the  ,new          
,testament1 and employs language in     
describing the then state  of the text1 
which would be deemed strong if applied 
even to its  present condition with the 
changes which sixteen more centuries    
must needs have produced 444 ,respecting
 the sacred autographs1  their fate or  
their continued existence1 he seems to  
have had no  information1 and to have   
entertained no curiosity3 they had      
simply  passed by and were out of his   
reach4 ,had it not been for the         
diversities of copies in all the        
,gospels on other points 7he  writes7 he
 should not have ventured to object to  

the authenticity  of a certain passage  
7,matt4 xix4 #ai7 on internal grounds3  
,but  now1 saith he1 great in truth has 
become the diversity of  copies1 be it  
from the negligence of certain scribes1 
or from the  evil daring of some who    
correct what is written1 or from those  
who  in correcting add or take away what
 they think fit4' ,this is  respecting  
the ,,mss4 of one region only1 and now  
for another  ,endnote #cbh3b3 ',it is no
 less true to fact than paradoxical in  
sound1 that the worst corruptions to    
which the ,new ,testament has  ever been
 subjected1 originated within a hundred 
years after it  was composed2 that      
,irenaeus and the ,african ,fathers and 
the whole  ,western1 with a portion of  
the ,syrian ,church1 used far inferior  
manuscripts to those employed by        
,stunica1 or ,erasmus1 or ,stephens     
thirteen centuries later1 when moulding 
the ,textus ,receptus4'  ,possibly this 
is an exaggeration1 but no one will     
maintain that it  is a very large       

exaggeration of the facts4    ,i proceed
 to give a few examples which serve to  
bring out the  antiquity of the text4   
,and first from ,irenaeus4    ,there is 
a very remarkable passage in the work   
,against ,heresies  ,endnote #cbi3a1    
bearing not indeed directly upon the    
,gospels1 but  upon another book of the 
,new ,testament1 and yet throwing so    
much  light upon the condition of the   
text in ,irenaeus' time that it may  be 
well to refer to it here4 ,in discussing
 the signification of  the number of the
 beast in ,rev4 xiii4 #ah1 ,irenaeus    
already found  himself confronted by a  
variety of reading3 some ,,mss4 with    
which  he was acquainted read #faf      
7,greek3 chis'7 for #fff 7,greek3       
chxs'74  ,irenaeus himself was not in   
doubt that the latter was the  true     
reading4 ,he says that it was found in  
all the 'good and  ancient copies1' and 
that it was further attested by 'those  
who  had seen ,john face to face4' ,he  
thinks that the error was due to  the   

copyists1 who had substituted by mistake
 the letter ,greek3 i  for ,greek3 x4   
,he adds his belief that ,god would     
pardon those who  had done this without 
any evil motive4    ,here we have opened
 out a kind of vista extending back     
almost to  the person of ,st4 ,john     
himself4 ,there is already a            
multiplicity of  ,,mss41 and of these   
some are set apart 'as good and ancient'
  7,greek3 en pasi tois spoudaiois kai  
archaiois antigraphois74 ,the  method by
 which the correct reading had to be    
determined was as  much historical as it
 is with us at the present day4    ,a   
not dissimilar state of things is       
indicated somewhat less explicitly  in  
regard to the first ,gospel4 ,in the    
text of ,matt4 i4 #ah all the ,greek    
,,mss41 with one exception1 read1       
,greek3 tou de ,iaesou ,christou hae    
genesis outos aen1 ,b alone has ,greek3 
tou de ,christou ,iaesou4 ,the  ,greek  
of ,d is wanting at this point1 but the 
,latin1 d1 reads with the  best codices 

of the ,old ,latin1 the ,vulgate1 and   
the ,curetonian ,syriac1  ',christi     
autem generatio sic erat' 7or an        
equivalent74 ,now ,irenaeus  quotes this
 passage three times4 ,in the first     
passage ,endnote #ccj3a  the original   
,greek text of ,irenaeus has been       
preserved in a quotation of  ,germanus1 
,patriarch of ,constantinople 7the      
context also by ,anastasius  ,sinaita1  
but these words appear to be omitted72  
and the reading of  ,germanus           
corresponds to that of the great mass of
 ,,mss4 ,this however is  almost        
certainly false1 as the ancient ,latin  
translation of ,irenaeus has  ',christi 
autem generatio1' and it was extremely  
natural for a copyist to  substitute the
 generally received text1 especially in 
a combination of  words that was so     
familiar4 ,irenaeus leaves no doubt as  
to his own  reading on the next occasion
 when he quotes the passage1 as he does 
twice over4 ,here he says expressly3    
',ceterum1 potuerat dicere ,matthaeus3  

,jesu vero generatio sic erat2 sed      
praevidens ,spiritus sanctus            
depravatores1 et praemuniens contra     
fraudulentiam eorum1 per ,matthaeum     
ait3 ,christi autem generatio sic erat' 
,endnote #ccj3b4 ,irenaeus  founds an   
argument upon this directed against the 
heretics who supposed  that the         
,christus and ,jesus were not identical1
 but that ,jesus was the  son of ,mary1 
upon whom the aeon ,christus afterwards 
descended4 ,in  opposition to these     
,irenaeus maintains that the ,christus  
and ,jesus are  one and the same person4
    ,there is a division of opinion     
among modern critics as to which of  the
 two readings is to be admitted into the
 text2 ,griesbach1  ,lachmann1          
,tischendorf 7eighth edition71 and      
,scrivener support the  reading of the  
,,mss42 ,tregelles1 ,westcott and ,hort1
 and ,m',clellan  prefer that of        
,irenaeus4 ,the presence of this reading
 in the ,old  ,latin and ,curetonian    
,syriac proves its wide diffusion4 ,at  

the same  time it is clear that         
,irenaeus himself was aware of the      
presence  of the other reading in some  
copies which he regarded as bearing  the
 marks of heretical depravation4    ,it 
is unfortunate that fuller illustration 
cannot be given from  ,irenaeus1 but the
 number of the quotations from the      
,gospels of  which the ,greek text still
 remains is not large1 and where we have
  only the ,latin interpretation we     
cannot be sure that the actual  text of 
,irenaeus is before us4 ,much           
uncertainty is thus raised4  ,for       
instance1 a doubt is expressed by the   
editors of ,irenaeus  whether the words 
'without a cause' 7,greek3 eikae--sine  
caussa7  in the quotation of ,matt4 v4  
#bb ,endnote #cca3a belong to the       
original text or not4 ,probably they did
 so1 as they are found in  the ,old     
,latin and ,curetonian ,syriac and in   
,western authorities  generally4 ,they  
are wanting however in ,b1 in ,origen1  
and 'in the  true copies' according to  

,jerome1 c4 ,the words are expunged from
  the sacred text by ,lachmann1         
,tischendorf1 ,westcott and ,hort1 and  
,m',clellan4 ,there is a less weight of 
authority for their  retention4 ,in any 
case the double reading was certainly   
current at  the end of the second       
century1 as the words are found in      
,irenaeus  and omitted by ,tertullian4  
,the elaborately varied readings of     
,matt4 xi4 #be-bg and ,matt4 xix4  #af1 
#ag there can be little doubt are taken 
from the canonical  text4 ,they are both
 indeed found in a passage 7,adv4 ,haer4
 i4 #bj4  #b1 #c7 where ,irenaeus is    
quoting the heretical ,marcosians2 and  
various approximations are met with1 as 
we have seen1 under  ambiguous          
circumstances in ,justin1 the           
,clementine ,homilies1 and  ,marcion4   
,but similar approximations are also    
found in ,irenaeus  himself 7speaking in
 his own person71 in ,clement of        
,alexandria1  ,origen1 and ,epiphanius1 
who are undoubtedly quoting from our    

,gospels2 so that the presence of the   
variations at that early date  is       
proved1 though in the first case they   
receive none1 and in the  second very   
limited1 support from the extant ,,mss4 
,endnote #ccb3a  ,a variety of reading  
that was in the first instance          
accidental  seemed to afford a handle   
either to the orthodox or to heretical  
parties1 and each for a time maintained 
its own2 but with the  victory of the   
orthodox cause the heretical reading    
gave way1 and  was finally suppressed   
before the time at which the extant     
,,mss4  were written4    ,these are     
really conspicuous instances of the     
confusion of text  already existing1 but
 ,i forbear to press them because1      
though ,i do  not doubt myself the      
correctness of the account that has been
  given of them1 still there is just the
 ambiguity alluded to1 and ,i  do not   
wish to seem to assume the truth of any 
particular view4    ,for minor          
variations the text of ,irenaeus cannot 

be used  satisfactorily1 because it is  
always doubtful whether the ,latin      
version has correctly reproduced the    
original4 ,and even in those            
comparatively small portions where the  
,greek is still preserved1  it has come 
down to us through the medium of other  
writers1 and we  have just had an       
instance how easily the distinctive     
features of  the text might be          
obliterated4    ,neither of these       
elements of uncertainty exists in the   
case of  ,tertullian2 and therefore1 as 
the text of his ,new ,testament         
quotations has been edited in a very    
exact and careful form1 ,i  shall       
illustrate what has been said respecting
 the corruptions  introduced in the     
second century chiefly from him4 ,the   
following  may be taken as a few of the 
instances in which the existence of a   
variety of reading can be verified by a 
comparison of ,tertullian's  text with  
that of the ,,mss4 ,the brackets 7as    
before7 indicate  partial support4      

,matt4 iii4 #h4 ,dignos poenitentiae    
fructus 7,pudic4 #aj74  ,greek3 ,karpous
 axious taes metanoias ,textus          
,receptus1 ,l1 ,u1 #cc1  a1 g'#b1 m1    
,syrr4 ,crt4 and ,pst41 etc4 ,greek3    
,karpon axion t4 met4  ,b1 ,c 7,d71     
,greek3 ,d1 #a1 etc42 ,vulg41 b1 c1 d1  
f1 ff'#a1 ,syr4 ,hcl41  ,memph41 ,theb41
 ,iren41 ,orig41 etc4 ,tertullian       
himself has the  singular in ,hermog4   
#ab1 so that he seems to have had both  
readings in his copies4    ,matt4 v4 #d1
 #e4 ,the received order 'beati         
lugentes' and 'beati  mites' is followed
 in ,pat4 #aa ,rnsch p4 #ehi and        
,tisch41  correcting ,treg41 ,so        
,hebrew3 ,aleph symbol1 ,b1 ,c1 rel41 b1
 f1  ,syrr4 ,pst4 and ,hcl41 ,memph41   
,arm41 ,aeth4 ,order inverted in ,d1    
#cc1  ,vulg41 a1 c1 ff'#a1 g'#a4b1 h1 k1
 l1 ,syr4 ,crt41 ,clem41 ,orig41 ,eus41 
,hil4    ,matt4 v4 #af4 ',luceant opera 
vestra' for 'luceat lux vestra1' ,tert4 
7bis74 ,so ,hil41 ,ambr41 ,aug41        
,celest4 see above1 p4 #acd against  all

 ,,mss4 and versions4    ,matt4 v4 #bh4 
,qui viderit ad concupiscentiam1 etc4   
,this verse is  cited six times by      
,tertullian1 and ,rnsch says 7p4 #eij7  
that 'in  these six citations almost    
every variant of the ,greek text is     
represented4'    ,matt4 v4 #dh4 ,qui est
 in caelis3 ,greek3 ho en tois ouranois1
  ,textus ,receptus1 with ,greek3 ,delta
 symbol1 ,e'#b1 rel41 b1 c1 d1  g'#a1 h1
 ,syrr4 ,crt4 and ,pst41 ,clem41 ,greek3
 ho ouranios1 ,hebrew3  ,aleph symbol1  
,b1 ,d'#b1 ,z1 and i1 #cc1 ,vulg41 a1 f1
 etc4    ,matt4 vi4 #aj4 ,fiat voluntas 
tua in caelis et in terra1 omitting     
'sicut4' ,so ,d1 a1 b1 c1 ,aug4         
7expressly1 'some codices'74    ,matt4  
xi4 ii4 ,nemo major inter natos         
feminarum ,joanne baptizatore4    ',the 
form of this citation1 which neither    
corresponds with ,matt4  xi4 #aa nor    
with ,luke vii4 #bh1 coincides almost   
exactly with the  words which in both   
the ,greek and ,latin text of the ,codex
 ,bezae  form the conclusion of ,luke   

vii4 #bf1 ,greek3 hoti oudeis meizon  en
 gennaetois gunaikon prophaetaes        
,ioannou tou baptistou'  7,rnsch1 p4    
#fjh74    ,matt4 xiii4 #ae4 ,sanem3     
,greek3 iasmai1 ,k1 ,u1 ,x1 ,greek3     
,delta1  ,i2 ,latt4 7exc4 d71 ,syr4     
,crt42 ,greek3 iasomai1 ,b1 ,c1 ,d1     
,hebrew3  ,aleph symbol1 rel4    ,matt4 
xv4 #bf4 ,non est 7only71 so ,eus4 in   
,ps4 #hc2 ,greek3 exestin1  ,d1 a1 b1 c1
 ff1 g'#a1 #a1 ,syr4 ,crt41 ,orig41     
,hil42 ,greek3 ouk estin  kalon1 ,b1 ,c1
 ,hebrew aleph1 rel41 ,vulg41 c1 f1     
g'#b1 k1 ,orig4    ,there are of course 
few quotations that can be distinctly   
identified as taken from ,st4 ,mark1 but
 among these may be  noticed3--    ,mark
 i4 #bd4 ,scimus3 ,greek3 oidamen se1   
,hebrew aleph1 ,l1  ,greek3 ,delta1     
,memph41 ,iren41 ,orig41 ,eus42 ,greek3 
oida se tis  ei1 ,a1 ,b1 ,c1 ,d1 rel41  
,latt41 ,syrr4    ,mark ix4 #g4 ,hunc   
audite3 ,greek3 autou akouete1 ,a1 ,x1  
rel41 b1 f1  ,syrr42 ,greek3 akouete    
autou1 ,hebrew3 aleph ,b1 ,c1 ,d1 ,l1 a1

 c1  ff'#a1 etc4 ,this may be however   
from ,matt4 xvii4 #e1 where             
,tertullian's reading has somewhat      
stronger support4    ,the variations in 
quotations from ,st4 ,luke have been    
perhaps  sufficiently illustrated in the
 chapter on ,marcion4 ,we may  therefore
 omit this ,gospel and pass to ,st4     
,john4 ,a very remarkable  reading meets
 us at the outset4    ,john i4 #ac4 ,non
 ex sanguine nec ex voluntate carnis nec
 ex  voluntate viri1 sed ex deo natus   
est4 ,the ,greek of all the ,,mss4  and 
,versions1 with the single exception of 
b of the ,old ,latin1 is  ,greek3 oi    
egennaethaesan4 ,a sentence is thus     
applied to ,christ  that was originally 
intended to be applied to the           
,christian4  ,tertullian 7,de ,carne    
,christ4 #ai1 #bd71 though he also had  
the  right reading before him1 boldly   
accuses the ,valentinians of a          
falsification1 and lays stress upon the 
reading which he adopts as  proof of the
 veritable birth of ,christ from a      

virgin4 ,the same  text is found in b   
7,codex ,veronensis7 of the ,old ,latin1
 ,pseudo-  ,athanasius1 the ,latin      
translator of ,origen's commentary on   
,st4  ,matthew1 in ,augustine1 and three
 times in ,irenaeus4 ,the same codex    
has1 like ,tertullian1 the singular ex  
sanguine for the plural  ,greek3 ex     
ahimaton3 so ,eusebius and ,hilary4     
,john iii4 #cf4 ,manebit 7,greek3 mene1 
for ,greek3 mnei74 ,so b1  e1 g1 ,syr4  
,pst41 ,memph41 ,aeth41 ,iren41 ,cypr42 
against a1 c1 d1 f1  ff1 ,syrr4 ,crt4   
and ,hcl41 etc4    ,john v4 #c1 #d4 ,the
 famous paragraph which describes the   
moving of  the waters of the pool of    
,bethesda was found in ,tertullian's    
,,ms4  ,it is also found in the mass of 
,,mss41 in the ,old ,latin and          
,vulgate1 in ,syrr4 ,pst4 and ,jer41 and
 in some ,,mss4 of ,memph4 ,it is       
omitted in ,hebrew3 ,aleph symbol1 ,b1  
,c1 ,d 7v4 #d71 f1 l1 ,syr4  ,crt41     
,theb41 ,memph4 7most ,,mss474          
,tertullian gives the name of the  pool 

as ,bethsaida with ,b1 ,vulg41 c1 ,syr4 
,hcl41 ,memph4 ,most of the  authorities
 read ,greek3 baethesda4 ,greek3        
baethzatha1  baezatha1 ,berzeta1        
,belzatha1 and ,betzeta are also found4 
,john v4 #dc4 ,recepistis1 perf4 for    
pres4 7,greek3 lambanete74 ,so  a1 b1   
,iren41 ,vigil41 ,ambr41 ,jer4    ,john 
vi4 #ci4 ,non perdam ex eo quicquam4    
,here 'quicquam' is an  addition        
7,greek3 maeden71 found in ,d1 a1 b1 ff1
 ,syr4 ,crt4    ,john vi4 #ea4 ,et panis
 quem ego dedero pro salute mundi1 caro 
mea  est4 ,this almost exactly          
corresponds with the reading of ,hebrew3
  ,aleph1 ,greek3 ho artos hon ego doso 
huper taes tou kosmou zoaes1  hae sarx  
mou estin4 ,similarly1 but with         
inversion of the last two  clauses      
7,greek3 hae sarx mou estin huper taes  
tou kosmou zoaes71  ,b1 ,c1 ,d and ,t1  
#cc1 ,vulg41 a1 b1 c1 e1 m1 ,syr4 ,crt41
 ,theb41 ,aeth41  ,orig41 ,cypr4 ,the   
received text is ,greek3 kai ho artos de
 dae  ego doso1 hae sarx mou estin aen  

ego doso huper taes tou kosmou  zoaes1  
after ,e1 ,g1 ,h1 ,k1 ,m1 ,s1 etc4      
,john xii4 #cj4 ,venit 7 ,greek3 aelthen
 for ,greek3 gegonen71  with ,d         
7,tregelles71 also a1 b1 l1 n 7871      
,vulg4 7fuld471  ,hil41 ,victorin42     
,rnsch4    ,the instances that have been
 here given are all1 or nearly all1     
false readings on the part of           
,tertullian4 ,it is1 of course1 only  as
 such that they are in point for the    
present enquiry4 ,some few  of those    
mentioned have been admitted into the   
text by certain  modern editors4 ,thus1 
on ,matt4 v4 #d1 #e ,tertullian's       
reading finds  support in ,westcott and 
,hort3 and ,m',clellan1 against         
,tischendorf  and ,tregelles4 ,this     
instance perhaps should not be pressed4 
,i  leave it standing1 because it shows 
interesting relations between           
,tertullian and the various forms of the
 ,old ,latin4 ,the passage  omitted in  
,john v4 #c1 #d is argued for           
strenuously by ,mr4 ,m',clellan1  with  

more hesitation by ,dr4 ,scrivener1 and 
in ',supernatural ,religion'  7sixth    
edition71 against ,tregelles1           
,tischendorf1 ,milligan1 ,lightfoot1    
,westcott and ,hort4 ,in the same       
passage ,bethsaida is read by ,lachmann 
7margin7 and by ,westcott and ,hort4 ,in
 ,john vi4 #ea the reading of           
,tertullian and the ,sinaitic ,codex is 
defended by ,tischendorf2 the           
approximate reading of ,b1 ,c1 ,d1 c4 is
 admitted by ,lachmann1 ,tregelles1     
,milligan1 ,westcott and ,hort1 and the 
received text has an apologist  in ,mr4 
,m',clellan 7with ,tholuck and          
,wordsworth74 ,on these points then  it 
should be borne in mind that ,tertullian
 may present the true  reading2 on all  
the others he is pretty certainly wrong4
    ,let us now proceed to analyse      
roughly these erroneous 7in three  cases
 doubtfully erroneous7 readings4 ,we    
shall find ,endnote #ccf3a  that        
,tertullian--          ,agrees with     
,differs from  x 7,codex ,sinaiticus7 in

 ,mark          in ,matt4 iii4 #ah1 v4  
#af1 v4 #dh1  i4 #b #d1 ,john vi4 #ea4  
vi4 #aj1 xi4 #aa1 xiii4 #ae1 xv4        
#bf1 ,mark ix4 #g1 ,john i4 #ac1        
v4 #c1 #dc1 v4 #dc1 vi4 #ci1 xii4 #cj4  
,a 7,codex ,alexandrinus7 in            
,a in ,mark i4 #bd1 ,john i4 #ac1       
,mark ix4 #g1 ,john v4 #c1 #d4          
v4 #dc1 vi4 #ci1 xii4 #cj4  ,b 7,codex  
,vaticanus7 in ,john          ,b in     
,matt4 iii4 #h1 v4 #af1 v4 #dh1 vi4     
v4 #b1 7vi4 #ea74                       
#aj1 xi4 #aa1 xiii4 #ae1 xv4 #bf1       
,mark i4 #bd1 ix4 #g1 ,john i4 #ac1     
v4 #c1d1 ,v4 #dc1 vi4 #ci1 xii4 #cj4  ,c
 7,codex ,ephraemi--somewhat          ,c
 in ,matt4 iii4 #h1 xi4 #aa1 xiii4      
fragmentary7 in ,john                   
#ae1 xv4 #bf1 ,mark i4 #bd1 ix4 #g1     
7vi4 #ea74                              
,john i4 #ac1 v4 #c1 #d1 vi4 #ci4  ,d   
7,codex ,bezae--in some              ,d 
in ,matt4 7iii4 #h71 v4 #af1 v4 #dh1    
places wanting7 in ,matt4 vi4           
xiii4 #ae1 ,mark i4 #bd1 ix4 #g1  #aj1  

,xi4 #aa1 7xv4 #bf71 ,john 7vi4         
,john i4 #ac1 iii4 #cf1 v4 #d1 v4 #dc4  
#ea71 xii4 #cj4                         
,,greek ,,fathers4                      
,clement of ,alexandria1 in ,matt4      
v4 #af1 v4 #dh4                         
,origen1 in ,matt4 7xv4 #bf71 ,mark     
,origen1 in ,matt4 iii4 #h1 7xv4 #bf71  
i4 #bd1 ,john i4 #ac 7,latin trans-     
lator71 7vi4 #ea74                      
,eusebius1 in ,matt4 xv4 #bf1 ,mark     
i4 #bd1 ,john i4 #ac 7partially74       
,,latin ,,fathers4                      
,irenaeus1 in ,mark i4 #bd1 ,john       
,irenaeus in ,matt4 iii4 #h4    i4 #ac  
7ter71 iii4 #cf1 v4 #dc4                
,cyprian1 in ,john iii4 #cf1 7vi4 #ea74 
,augustine1 in ,matt4 v4 #af1 vi4 #aj4  
,ambrose1 in ,matt4 v4 #af1 ,john v4    
#dc4   ,hilary1 in ,matt4 v4 #af1 7xv4  
#bf71        ,john xii4 #cj4            
,others1 in ,matt4 v4 #af1 v4 #dh1      
,john i4 #ac1 v4 #dc1 xii4 #cj4         
,,versions4                         ,old
 ,latin--                            a  

7,codex ,vercellensis71 in ,matt4     a1
 in ,matt4 v4 #af1 v4 #dh1 xi4 #aa1     
7iii4 #h71 vi4 #aj1 xiii4 #ae1 7xv4     
,mark i4 #bd1 ix4 #g1 ,john i4 #ac1     
#bf71 ,john v4 #c1 #d1 v4 #dc1 7vi4     
iii4 #cf4    #ea71 xii4 #cj4            
b 7,codex ,veronensis71 in ,matt4       
b1 in ,matt4 iii4 #h1 v4 #af1 xi4 #aa1  
v4 #dh1 vi4 #aj1 xiii4 #ae1 7xv4 #cf71  
,mark i4 #bd4    ,mark ix4 #g1 ,john i4 
#ac1                iii4 #cf1 v4 #c1 #d1
 v4 #dc1               7vi4 #ea71 xii4  
#cj4                   c 7,codex        
,colbertinus71 in ,matt4      c1 in     
,matt4 iii4 #h1 v4 #af1 xi4 #aa1    v4  
#dh1 vi4 #aj1 xiii4 #ae1 7xv4 #bf71     
,mark i4 #bd1 ix4 #g1 ,john i4 #ac1     
,john v4 #c1 #d1 7vi4 #ea74             
iii4 #cf1 ,v4 #dc1 vi4 #ci1 xii4 #cj4  f
 7,codex ,brixianus71 in ,matt4         
f1 in ,matt4 iii4 #h1 v4 #af1 v4 #dh1   
xiii4 #ae1 ,mark ix4 #g4                
vi4 #aj1 xi4 #aj1 xv4 #bf1 ,mark        
i4 #bd1 ,john i4 #ac1 iii4 #cf1 v4 #c1  
#d1 v4 #dc1 vi4 #ci1 vi4 #ea1 xii4 #cj4 

,other codices1 in ,matt4 iii4 #h1      
,other codices1 in ,matt4 iii4 #h1      
vi4 #aj1 ,xiii4 #e1 7xv4 #bf71 ,john    
v4 #af1 v4 #dh1 vi4 #aj1 xi4 #aa1       
iii4 #cf1 v4 #c1 #d1 vi4 #ci1 7vi4 #ea71
   ,mark i4 #bd1 ix4 #g1 ,john i4 #ac1  
xii4 #cj4                               
iii4 #cf1 v4 #c1 #d1 v4 #dc1 vi4 #ci1   
vi4 #ea1 xii4 #cj4  ,vulgate1 in ,matt4 
xiii4 #ae1 ,john     ,vulgate1 in ,matt4
 iii4 #h1 v4 #af1    v4 #c1 #d1 7vi4    
#ea71 xii4 #cj            v4 #dh1 vi4   
#aj1 xi4 #aa1 xv4 #bf1    7fuld474      
,mark i4 #bd1 ix4 #g1 ,john i4 #ac1     
iii4 #cf1 v4 #dc1 vi4 #ci4  ,syriac--   
,syr4 ,crt4 7fragmentary71 in           
,syr4 ,crt41 in ,matt4 v4 #af1 vi4 #aj1 
,matt4 iii4 #h1 v4 #dh1 xiii4 #ae1      
xi4 #aa1 ,john 7i4 #ac1 8 ,tregelles7   
7xv4 #bf71 ,john 7i4 #ac1 8 ,crowfoot71 
iii4 #cf1 v4 #c1 #d1 v4 #dc4    vi4 #ci1
 7vi4 #ea474                   ,syr4    
,pst41 in ,matt4 iii4 #h1 v4 #dh1       
,syr4 ,pst41 in ,matt4 vi4 #aj1 ,mark   
,mark ix4 #g1 ,john iii4 #cf1 v4 #c1 #d4

    i4 #bd1 ,john i4 #ac1 7vi4 #ea71    
xii4 #cj    ,the evidence of this and   
the following versions is only given    
where it  is either expressly stated or 
left to be clearly inferred by the      
editors4    ,egyptian--  ,thebaic1 in   
,john 7vi4 #ea74           ,thebaic1 in 
,matt4 iii4 #h1 v4 #af1                 
,mark ix4 #g1 ,john v4 #c1 #d4          
,memphitic1 in ,mark i4 #bd1 ,john      
,memphitic1 in ,matt4 iii4 #h1 v4       
iii4 #cf4                               
#af1 7v4 #dh71 ,mark ix4 #g1 ,john      
v4 #c1 #d1 vi4 #ea4    ,summing up the  
results numerically they would be       
something of this  kind3--              
,,uncial ,,mss4               ,hebrew3  
,a    ,b    ,c    ,d              ,alef 
,agreement        #b     #b    #b    #a 
#e  ,difference      #ac     #e   #ad   
#i   #aj                     ,,greek    
,,fathers4                  ,clement    
of               ,alexandria4   ,origen4
   ,eusebius4  ,agreement        #a     
#d          #c  ,difference       #j    

#b          #j                          
,,latin ,,fathers4                      
,irenaeus4  ,cyprian4  ,augustine4      
,ambrose4  ,hilary4  ,others4           
,agreement    #d          #b          #b
          #b        #c        #e        
,difference   #a          #j          #j
          #j        #j        #j        
,,versions4                   ,,old     
,,latin4                ,,vulgate4      
a    b    c    f   rel4  ,agreement     
#h   #aa    #f    #b    #i         #d   
,difference    #g    #d   #aj   #ad     
#ad        #ab                          
,,syriac4        ,,egyptian4            
,crt4   ,pst4     ,theb4  ,memph4       
,agreement    #g      #e         #a     
#b  ,difference   #g      #e         #d 
#f      ,now the phenomena here1 as on  
other occasions when we have had to     
touch upon text criticism1 are not quite
 simple and straightforward4  ,it must  
be remembered too that our observations 
extend only over  a very narrow area4   
,within that area they are confined to  

the cases  where ,tertullian has gone   
wrong2 whereas1 in order to anything    
like a complete induction1 all the cases
 of various reading ought  to be        
considered4 ,some results1 however1 of a
 rough and approximate  kind may be said
 to be reached2 and ,i think that these 
will be  perhaps best exhibited if1     
premising that they are thus rough  and 
approximate1 we throw them into the     
shape of a genealogical tree4           
,tert4    b                             
_/                                      
_/   ,o4,l4 7a4c4 c47                   
_/                                      
_/     ,syr4 ,crt4                      
_/                                      
,tert4 ,o4,l4  _/                       
_/               ,greek ,fathers4       
_/                                      
,tert4 ,o4,l4_/                         
,syr4 ,crt4_/                           
_/                                      
_/                                      
_/                                      

_/  ,best ,alexandrine ,authorities4    
_/                                    _/
 ,western4                              
_/                     ,greek ,fathers  
_/                     ,memph4 ,theb4 _/
                                 _/     
_/                               _/     
_/                             _/       
_/                           _/         
,alexandrine4  ,western4                
_/                ,the ,sacred          
,autographs4      ,in accordance with   
the sketch here given we may present the
  history of the text1 up to the time   
when it reached ,tertullian1  thus4     
,first we have the sacred autographs1   
which are copied for  some time1 we need
 not say immaculately1 but without      
change on the  points included in the   
above analysis4 ,gradually a few errors 
slip  in1 which are found especially in 
the ,egyptian1 versions and in  the     
works of some ,alexandrine and          
,palestinian ,fathers4 ,but in time  a  
wider breach is made4 ,the process of   

corruption becomes more  rapid4 ,we     
reach at last that strange document     
which1 through more  or less remote     
descent1 became the parent of the       
,curetonian ,syriac  on the one hand and
 of the ,old ,latin on the other4 ,these
 two lines  severally branch off4 ,the  
,old ,latin itself divides4 ,one of its 
copies in particular 7b7 seems to       
represent a text that has a  close      
affinity to that of ,tertullian1 and    
among the group of  manuscripts to which
 it belongs is that which ,tertullian   
himself  most frequently and habitually 
used4    ,strictly speaking indeed there
 can be no true genealogical tree4  ,the
 course of descent is not clear and     
direct all the way4 ,there  is some     
confusion and some crossing and         
recrossing of the lines4  ,thus1 for    
instance1 there is the curious          
coincidence of ,tertullian  with        
,hebrew3 ,aleph1 a member of a group    
that had long seemed to  be left behind1
 in ,john vi4 #ea4 ,this however1 as it 

is only on a  point of order and that in
 a translation1 may very possibly be    
accidental2 ,i should incline to think  
that the reading of the  ,greek ,codex  
from which ,tertullian's ,latin was     
derived agreed  rather with that of ,b1 
,c1 ,d1 c41 and these phenomena would   
increase the probability that these     
manuscripts and ,tertullian had  really 
preserved the original text4 ,if that   
were the case--and it  is the conclusion
 arrived at by a decided majority of the
 best  editors--there would then be no  
considerable difficulty in regard  to   
the relation between ,tertullian and the
 five great ,uncials1 for  the reading  
of ,mark ix4 #g is of much less         
importance4 ,somewhat  more difficult to
 adjust would be ,tertullian's relations
 to the  different forms of the ,old    
,latin and ,curetonian ,syriac4 ,in one 
instance1 ,matt4 xi4 #aa 7or ,luke vii4 
#bf71 ,tertullian seems to  derive his  
text from the ,dd branch rather than the
 b branch of the  ,old ,latin4 ,in      

another 7,matt4 iii4 #h7 he seems to    
overleap b and  most copies of the ,old 
,latin altogether and go to the         
,curetonian  ,syriac4 ,how1 too1 did he 
come to have the paraphrastic reading of
  ,matt4 v4 #af which is found in no    
,,mss4 or versions but in ,justin       
7approximately71 ,clement of            
,alexandria1 and several ,latin         
,fathers8  ,the paraphrase might        
naturally enough occur to a single      
writer  here or there1 but the extent of
 the coincidence is remarkable4         
,perhaps we are to see here another sign
 of the study bestowed by  the ,fathers 
upon the writings of their predecessors 
leading to an  unconscious or           
semi-conscious reproduction of their    
deviations4 ,it  is a noticeable fact   
that in regard to the order of the      
clauses in  ,matt4 v4 #d1 #e1           
,tertullian has preserved what is       
probably the right  reading along with b
 alone1 the other copies of the ,old    
,latin 7all  except the revised f7 with 

the ,curetonian ,syriac having gone     
wrong4 ,on the whole the complexities   
and cross relations are less1  and the  
genealogical tree holds good to a       
greater extent1 than we  might have been
 prepared for4 ,the hypothesis that     
,tertullian used  a manuscript in the   
main resembling b of the ,old ,latin    
satisfies  most elements of the problem4
    ,but the merest glance at these     
phenomena must be enough to show  that  
the ,tbingen theory1 or any theory which
 attributes a late  origin to our       
,gospels1 is out of the question4 ,to   
bring the text  into the state in which 
it is found in the writings of          
,tertullian1  a century is not at all   
too long a period to allow4 ,in fact ,i 
doubt whether any subsequent century saw
 changes so great1 though  we should    
naturally suppose that corruption would 
proceed at an  advancing rate for every 
fresh copy that was made4 ,the phenomena
  that have to be accounted for are not1
 be it remembered1 such as  might be    

caused by the carelessness of a single  
scribe4 ,they are  spread over whole    
groups of ,,mss4 together4 ,we can trace
 the  gradual accessions of corruption  
at each step as we advance in the       
history of the text4 ,a certain false   
reading comes in at such a  point and   
spreads over all the manuscripts that   
start from that2  another comes in at a 
further stage and vitiates succeeding   
copies  there2 until at last a process  
of correction and revision sets in2     
recourse is had to the best standard    
manuscripts1 and a purer text  is       
recovered by comparison with these4 ,it 
is precisely such a text  that is       
presented by the ,old ,latin ,codex f1  
which1 we find  accordingly1 shows a    
maximum of difference from ,tertullian4 
,a  still more systematic revision1     
though executed--if we are to  judge    
from the instances brought to our       
notice--with somewhat  more reserve1 is 
seen in ,jerome's ,vulgate4    ,it seems
 unnecessary to dilate upon this point4 

,i will only  venture to repeat the     
statement which ,i made at starting2    
that if  the whole of the ,christian    
literature for the first three quarters 
of the second century could be blotted  
out1 and ,irenaeus and  ,tertullian     
alone remained1 as well as the later    
manuscripts with  which to compare them1
 there would still be ample proof that  
the  latest of our ,gospels cannot      
overstep the bounds of the first        
century4 ,the abundant indications of   
internal evidence are thus  confirmed1  
and the age and date of the ,synoptic   
,gospels1 ,i think  we may say1 within  
approximate limits1 established4    ,but
 we must not forget that there is a     
double challenge to be met4  ,the first 
part of it--that which relates to the   
evidence for the  existence of the      
,gospels--has been answered4 ,it remains
 to  consider how far the external      
evidence for the ,gospels goes to  prove
 their authenticity4 ,it may indeed well
 be asked how the  external evidence can

 be expected to prove the authenticity  
of  these records4 ,it does so1 to a    
considerable extent1 indirectly by      
throwing them back into closer contact  
with the facts4 ,it also  tends to      
establish the authority in which they   
were held1  certainly in the last       
quarter of the second century1 and very 
probably before4 ,by this time the      
,gospels were acknowledged to be  all   
that is now understood by the word      
'canonical4' ,they were  placed upon the
 same footing as the ,old ,testament    
,scriptures4 ,they  were looked up to   
with the same reverence and regarded as 
possessing the same ,divine inspiration4
 ,we may trace indeed some  of the steps
 by which this position was attained4   
,the ,greek3  gegraptai of the ,epistle 
of ,barnabas1 the public reading of the 
,gospels in the churches mentioned by   
,justin1 the ,greek3 to  eiraemenon of  
,tatian1 the ,greek3 guriakai graphai of
 ,dionysius  of ,corinth1 all prepare   
the way for the final culmination in the

  ,muratorian ,canon and ,irenaeus4 ,so 
complete had the process been  that     
,irenaeus does not seem to know of a    
time when the authority  of the ,gospels
 had been less than it was to him4 ,yet 
the process  had been1 of course1       
gradual4 ,the canonical ,gospels had to 
compete  with several others before they
 became canonical4 ,they had to make    
good their own claims and to displace   
rival documents2 and they  succeeded4   
,it is a striking instance of the       
'survival of the  fittest4' ,that they  
were really the fittest is confirmed by 
nearly  every fragment of the lost      
,gospels that remains1 but it would be  
almost sufficiently proved by the very  
fact that they survived4    ,in this    
indirect manner ,i think that the       
external evidence bears  out the        
position assigned to the canonical      
,gospels4 ,it has  preserved to us the  
judgment of the men of that time1 and   
there is  a certain relative sense in   
which the maxim1 ',securus judicat      

orbis terrarum1' is true4 ,the decisions
 of an age1 especially  decisions such  
as this where quite as much depended    
upon pious  feeling as upon logical     
reasoning1 are usually sounder than the 
arguments that are put forward to defend
 them4 ,we should hardly  endorse the   
arguments by which ,irenaeus proves a   
priori the  necessity of a 'four-fold   
,gospel1' but there is real weight in   
the  fact that four ,gospels and no more
 were accepted by him and others  like  
him4 ,it is difficult to read without   
impatience the rough  words that are    
applied to the early ,christian writers 
and to  contrast the self-complacency in
 which our own superior knowledge  is   
surveyed4 ,if there is something in     
which they are behind us1  there is much
 also in which we are behind them4      
,among the many  things for which ,mr4  
,arnold deserves our gratitude he       
deserves it  not least for the way in   
which he has singled out two sentences1 
one from ,st4 ,augustine and the other  

from the ,imitation1 ',domine  fecisti  
nos ad te et irrequietum est cor nostrum
 donec requiescat  in te1' and1 ',esto  
humilis et pacificus et erit tecum1     
,jesus4' ,the  men who could write thus 
are not to be despised4    ,but beyond  
their more general testimony it is not  
clear what else  the early ,fathers     
could be expected to do4 ,they could not
 prove--  at least their written remains
 that have come down to us could not    
prove--that the ,gospels were really    
written by the authors  traditionally   
assigned to them4 ,when we say that the 
very names of  the first two            
,evangelists are not mentioned before a 
date that may  be from #abj-aff 7or     
#aee7 ,a4,d4 and the third and fourth   
not before  #agj-age ,a4,d41 this alone 
is enough1 without introducing other    
elements of doubt1 to show that the     
evidence must needs be  inconclusive4   
,if the author of ',supernatural        
,religion' undertook  to show this1 he  
undertook a superfluous task4 ,so much  

at least1  ,mr4 ,arnold was right in    
saying1 'might be stated in a sentence  
and  proved in a page4' ,there is a     
presumption in favour of the  tradition1
 and perhaps1 considering the relation  
of ,irenaeus to  ,polycarp and of       
,polycarp to ,st4 ,john1 we may say1 a  
fairly strong  one2 but we need         
now-a-days1 to authenticate a document1 
closer  evidence than this4 ,the cases  
are not quite parallel1 and the         
difference between them is decidedly in 
favour of ,irenaeus1 but if  ,clement of
 ,alexandria could speak of an ,epistle 
written about #abe  ,a4,d4 is the work  
of the apostolic ,barnabas the companion
 of ,st4  ,paul ,endnote #cdf3a1 we must
 not lay too much stress upon the       
direct testimony of ,irenaeus when he   
attributes the fourth ,gospel  to the   
,apostle ,st4 ,john4    ,these are      
points for a different set of arguments 
to determine4  ,the ,gospel itself      
affords sufficient indications as to the
  position of its author4 ,for the      

conclusion that he was a  ,palestinian  
,jew1 who had lived in ,palestine before
 the destruction  of ,jerusalem1        
familiar with the hopes and expectations
 of his  people1 and himself mixed up   
with the events which he describes1     
there is evidence of such volume and    
variety as seems exceedingly  difficult 
to resist4 ,as ,i have gone into this   
subject at length  elsewhere ,endnote   
#cdg3a1 and as1 so far as ,i can see1 no
 new  element has been introduced into  
the question by ',supernatural          
,religion1' ,i shall not break the unity
 of the present work by  considering the
 objections brought in detail4 ,i am    
very ready to  recognise the ability    
with which many of these are stated1 but
 it  is the ability of the advocate     
rather than of the impartial  critic4   
,there is a constant tendency to draw   
conclusions much in  excess of the      
premisses4 ,an observation1 true in     
itself with a  certain qualification and
 restriction1 is made in an unqualified 

form1 and the truth that it contains is 
exaggerated4 ,above all1  wherever there
 is a margin of ignorance1 wherever a   
statement of  the ,evangelist is not    
capable of direct and exact             
verification1  the doubt is invariably  
given against him and he is brought in  
guilty either of ignorance or deception4
 ,i have no hesitation in  saying that  
if the principles of criticism applied  
to the fourth  ,gospel--not only by the 
author of ',supernatural ,religion1' but
 by  some other writers of repute1 such 
as ,dr4 ,scholten--were applied  to     
ordinary history or to the affairs of   
every-day life1 much that  is known     
actually to have happened could be shown
 on a priori  grounds to be impossible4 
,it is time that the extreme negative   
school should justify more completely   
their canons of criticism4  ,as it is1  
the laxity of these repels many a       
thoughtful mind quite  as firmly        
convinced as they can be of the         
necessity of free  enquiry and quite as 

anxious to reconcile the different sides
  of knowledge4 ,the question is not one
 merely of freedom or  tradition1 but of
 reason and logic2 and until there is   
more  agreement as to what is reasonable
 and what the laws of logic  demand1 the
 arguments are apt to run in parallel   
lines that never  meet ,endnote #cdh3a4 
,but1 it is said1 ',miracles require    
exceptional evidence4' ,true3           
exceptional evidence they both require  
and possess2 but that evidence is  not  
external4 ,incomparably the strongest   
attestation to the ,gospel  narratives  
is that which they bear to themselves4  
,miracles have  exceptional evidence    
because the non-miraculous portions of  
the  narrative with which they are bound
 up are exceptional4 ,these carry  their
 truth stamped upon their face1 and that
 truth is reflected back  upon the      
miracles4 ,it is on the internal        
investigation of the ,gospels  that the 
real issue lies4 ,and this is one main  
reason why the belief of  mankind so    

little depends upon formal apologetics4 
,we can all feel the  self- evidential  
force of the ,gospel story2 but who     
shall present it  adequately in words8  
,we are reminded of the fate of him who 
thought the  ark of ,god was falling and
 put out his hand to steady it--and1 for
 his  profanity1 died4 ,it can hardly be
 said that good intentions would be a   
sufficient justification1 because that a
 man should think himself fit  for the  
task would be in itself almost a        
sufficient sign that he was  mistaken4  
,it is not indeed quite incredible that 
the qualifications  should one day be   
found4 ,we seem almost to see that1 with
 a slight  alteration of circumstances1 
a little different training in early    
life1  such an one has almost been among
 us4 ,there are passages that make us   
think that the author of ',parochial and
 ,plain ,sermons' might have  touched   
even the ,gospels with cogency that yet 
was not profane4 ,but the  combination  
of qualities required is such as would  

hardly be found for  centuries together4
 ,the most fine and sensitive tact of   
piety would be  essential4 ,with it must
 go absolute sincerity and singleness of
 purpose4  ,any dash of mere            
conventionalism or self-seeking would   
spoil the whole4  ,there must be that   
clear illuminated insight that is only  
given to those  who are in a more than  
ordinary sense 'pure in heart4' ,and on 
the other  hand1 along with these unique
 spiritual qualities must go a sound and
  exact scientific training1 a just     
perception of logical force and  method1
 and a wide range of knowledge4 ,one of 
the great dangers and  drawbacks to the 
exercise of the critical faculty is that
 it tends to  destroy the spiritual     
intuition4 ,and just in like manner the 
too great  reliance upon this intuition 
benumbs and impoverishes the critical   
faculty4 ,yet1 in a mind that should    
present at all adequately the  internal 
evidence of the ,gospels1 both should   
co-exist in equal balance  and          

proportion4 ,we cannot say that there   
will never be such a mind1  but the     
asceticism of a life would be a         
necessary discipline for it  to go      
through1 and that such a life as the    
world has seldom seen4    ,in the       
meantime the private ,christian may well
 be content with what he  has4 ',if any 
man will do ,his will1 he shall know of 
the doctrine whether  it be of ,god4'   
,,chapter ,,xiv4    ,,conclusion4       
,and now that we have come to the end of
 the purely critical  portion of this   
enquiry1 ,i may perhaps be allowed to   
say a few  words on its general tendency
 and bearing4 ,as critics we have only  
the critical question to deal with4     
,certain evidence is presented  to us   
which it is our duty to weigh and test  
by reference to  logical and critical   
laws4 ,it must stand or fall on its own 
merits1 and any considerations brought  
in from without will be  irrelevant to  
the question at issue4 ,but after this  
is done we may  fairly look round and   

consider how our conclusion affects     
other  conclusions and in what direction
 it is leading us4 ,if we look at       
',supernatural ,religion' in this way we
 shall see that its tendency  is        
distinctly marked4 ,its attack will fall
 chiefly upon the middle  party in      
opinion4 ,and it will play into the     
hands of the two  extreme parties on    
either side4 ,there can be little doubt 
that  indirectly it will help the       
movement that is carrying so many into  
,ultramontanism1 and directly it is of  
course intended to win  converts to what
 may perhaps be called comprehensively  
,secularism4    ,now it is certainly    
true that the argument from consequences
 is  one that ought to be applied with  
great caution4 ,yet ,i am not at  all   
sure that it has not a real basis in    
philosophy as well as in  nature4 ,the  
very existence of these two great       
parties1 the  ,ultramontane and the     
,secularist1 over against each other1   
seems to  be it kind of standing protest

 against either of them4 ,if            
,ultramontanism is true1 how is it that 
so many wise and good men  openly avow  
,secularism8 ,if ',secularism is true1  
how is it that so  many of the finest   
and highest minds take refuge from it--a
  treacherous refuge1 ,i allow--in      
,ultramontanism8 ,there is  something in
 this more than a mere defective        
syllogism--more than  an insufficient   
presentation of the evidence4 ,truth1 in
 the widest  sense1 is that which is in 
accordance with the laws and conditions 
of human nature4 ,but where beliefs are 
so directly antithetical as  they are   
here1 the repugnance and resistance     
which each is found  to cause in so     
large a number of minds is in itself a  
proof that  those laws and conditions   
are insufficiently complied with4 ,to   
the  spectator1 standing outside of     
both1 this will seem to be easily       
explained3 the one sacrifices reason to 
faith2 the other  sacrifices faith to   
reason4 ,but there is abundant evidence 

to show  that both faith 7meaning       
thereby the religious emotions7 and     
reason are ineradicable elements in the 
human mind4 ,that which  seriously and  
permanently offends against either      
cannot be true4  ,for creatures         
differently constituted from man--either
 all reason  or all pure disembodied    
emotion--it might be otherwise2 but1 for
  man1 as he is1 the epithet 'true'     
seems to be excluded from any  set of   
propositions that has such results4     
,even in the more limited sense1 and    
confining the term to  propositions     
purely intellectual1 there is1 ,i think 
we must say1 a  presumption against the 
truth of that which involves so deep and
  wide a chasm in human nature4 ,without
 importing teleology1 we  should        
naturally expect that the intellect and 
the emotions should  be capable of      
working harmoniously together4 ,they do 
so in most  things3 why should they not 
in the highest matters of all8 ,if the  
one set of opinions is anti-rational and

 the other anti-emotional1  as we see   
practically that they are1 is not this  
in itself an  antecedent presumption    
against either of them8 ,it may not be  
enough to prove at once that the        
syllogism is defective3 still  less is  
it a sufficient warrant for establishing
 an opposite  syllogism4 ,but it does   
seem to be enough to give the scientific
  reasoner pause1 and to make him go    
over the line of his argument  again and
 again and yet again1 with the suspicion
 that there is  7as how well there may  
be67 a flaw somewhere4    ,it would not1
 ,i think1 be difficult to point out    
such flaws  ,endnote #ceb3a--some of    
them1 as it appears1 of considerable    
magnitude4 ,but the subject is one that 
would take us far away out  of our      
present course1 and for its proper      
development would  require a technical  
knowledge of the processes of physical  
science  which ,i do not possess4       
,leaving this on one side1 and regarding
  them only in the abstract1 the        

considerations stated above seem to     
point to the necessity of something of  
the nature of a compromise4  ,and yet   
there is1 strictly speaking1 no such    
thing as compromise  in opinions4       
,compromise belongs to the world of     
practice2 it is  only admitted by an    
illicit process into the world of       
thought4 ,the  author of ',supernatural 
,religion' is doubtless right in        
deprecating that 'illogical zeal which  
flings to the pursuing  wolves of doubt 
and unbelief1 scrap by scrap1' all the  
distinctive  doctrines of ,christianity4
 ,belief1 it is true1 must be ultimately
  logical to stand4 ,it must have an    
inner cohesion and inter-  dependence4  
,it must start from a fixed principle4  
,this has been1  and still is1 the      
besetting weakness of the theology of   
mediation4  ,it is apt to form itself   
merely by stripping off what seem to be 
excrescences from the outside1 and not  
by radically reconstructing  itself1 on 
a firmly established basis1 from within4

 ,the difficulty  in such a process is  
to draw the line4 ,there is a delusive  
appearance of roundness and completeness
 in the creeds of those  who either     
accept everything or deny everything3   
though1 even  here1 there is1 ,i think  
we may say1 always1 some little loophole
  left of belief or of denial1 which    
will inevitably expand until it  splits 
and destroys the whole structure4 ,but  
the moment we begin  to meet both       
parties half way1 there comes in that   
crucial  question3 ,why do you accept   
just so much and no more8 ,why do you   
deny just so much and no more8 ,endnote 
#ced3a    ,it must1 in candour1 be      
confessed that the synthetic formula for
 the  middle party in opinion has not   
yet been found4 ,other parties have     
their formulae1 but none that will      
really bear examination4 ,quod  semper1 
quod ubique1 quod ab omnibus1 would do  
excellently if there  was any belief    
that had been held 'always1 everywhere1 
and by all1' if  no discoveries had been

 made as to the facts1 and if there had 
been no  advance in the methods of      
knowledge4 ,the ultimate universality   
and the  absolute uniformity of physical
 antecedents has a plausible appearance 
until it is seen that logically carried 
out it reduces men to machines1         
annihilates responsibility1 and involves
 conclusions on the assumption  of the  
truth of which society could not hold   
together for a single day4  ,if we      
abandon these ,macedonian methods for   
unloosing the ,gordian knot  of things  
and keep to the slow and laborious way  
of gradual induction1  then ,i think it 
will be clear that all opinions must be 
held on the  most provisional tenure4 ,a
 vast number of problems will need to be
  worked out before any can be said to  
be established with a pretence to       
finality4 ,and the course which the     
inductive process is taking supplies    
one of the chief 'grounds of hope' to   
those who wish to hold that  middle     
position of which ,i have been speaking4

 ,the extreme theories  which from time 
to time have been advanced have not been
 able to hold  their ground4 ,no doubt  
they may have done the good that extreme
  theories usually do1 in bringing out  
either positively or negatively  one    
side or another of the truth2 but in    
themselves they have been  rejected as  
at once inadequate and unreal solutions 
of the facts4 ,first  we had the        
,rationalism 7properly so called7 of    
,paulus1 then the  ,mythical hypothesis 
of ,strauss1 and after that the         
',tendenz-kritik' of  ,baur4 ,but what  
candid person does not feel that each   
and all of these  contained             
exaggerations more incredible than the  
difficulties which  they sought to      
remove8 ,there has been on each of the  
points raised a  more or less definite  
ebb in the tide4 ,the moderate          
conclusion is seen  to be also the      
reasonable conclusion4 ,and not least is
 this the case  with the enquiry on     
which we have been just engaged4 ,the   

author of  ',supernatural ,religion' has
 overshot the mark very much indeed4    
,there  is1 as we have seen1 a certain  
truth in some things that he has said1  
but the whole sum of truth is very far  
from bearing out his conclusions4       
,when we look up from these detailed    
enquiries and lift up our eyes  to a    
wider horizon we shall be able to       
relegate them to their true  place4 ,the
 really imposing witness to the truth of
 ,christianity is  that which is        
supplied by history on the one hand1 and
 its own  internal attractiveness and   
conformity to human nature on the       
other4 ,strictly speaking1 perhaps1     
these are but two sides of the  same    
thing4 ,it is in history that the laws  
of human nature assume  a concrete shape
 and expression4 ,the fact that         
,christianity has  held its ground in   
the face of such long-continued and     
hostile  criticism is a proof that it   
must have some deeply-seated fitness    
and appropriateness for man4 ,and this  

goes a long way towards  saying that it 
is true4 ,it is a theory of things that 
is being  constantly tested by          
experience4 ,but the results of         
experience are  often expressed         
unconsciously4 ,they include many a     
subtle  indication that the mind has    
followed but cannot reproduce to  itself
 in set terms4 ,all the reasons that go 
to form a judge's  decision do not      
appear in his charge4 ,yet there we have
 a select  and highly-trained mind      
working upon matter that presents no    
very  great degree of complexity4 ,when 
we come to a question so wide1 so       
subtle and complex as ,christianity1 the
 individual mind ceases to  be competent
 to sit in judgment upon it4 ,it becomes
 necessary to  appeal to a much more    
extended tribunal1 and the verdict of   
that  tribunal will be given rather by  
acts than in words4 ,thus there  seems  
to have always been a sort of           
half-conscious feeling in  men's minds  
that there was more in ,christianity    

than the arguments  for it were able to 
bring out4 ,in looking back over the    
course  that apologetics have taken1 we 
cannot help being struck by a           
disproportion between the controversial 
aspect and the practical4  ,it will     
probably on the whole be admitted that  
the balance of  argument has in the past
 been usually somewhat on the side of   
the  apologists2 but the argumentative  
victory has seldom if ever been  so     
decisive as quite to account for the    
comparatively undisturbed  continuity of
 the religious life4 ,it was in the     
height of the  ,deist controversy that  
,wesley and ,whitfield began to preach1 
and  they made more converts by         
appealing to the emotions than probably 
,butler did by appealing to the reason4 
,a true philosophy must take account of 
these phenomena4 ,beliefs  which issue  
in that peculiarly fine and chastened   
and tender  spirit which is the proper  
note of ,christianity1 cannot1 under any
  circumstances1 be dismissed as        

'delusion4' ,surely if any product  of  
humanity is true and genuine1 it is to  
be found here4 ,there are  indeed truths
 which find a response in our hearts    
without  apparently going through any   
logical process1 not because they are   
illogical1 but because the scales of    
logic are not delicate and  sensitive   
enough to weigh them4    ',except ye be 
converted and become as little children1
 ye shall  not enter into the kingdom of
 heaven4' ',i will arise and go to my   
father1 and will say unto him3 ,father1 
,i have sinned against  heaven and      
before thee1 and am no more worthy to be
 called thy  son4' ',come unto me all ye
 that labour and are heavy laden1 and ,i
  will give you rest4' ,the plummet of  
science--physical or  metaphysical1     
moral or critical--has never sounded so 
deep as  sayings such as these4 ,we may 
pass them over unnoticed in our         
,bibles1 or let them slip glibly and    
thoughtlessly from the tongue2  but when
 they once really come home1 there is   

nothing to do but to  bow the head and  
cover the face and exclaim with the     
,apostle1  ',depart from me1 for ,i am a
 sinful man1 ,o ,lord4'    ,and yet     
there is that other side of the question
 which is represented  in ',supernatural
 ,religion1' and this too must have     
justice done to it4  ,there is an       
intellectual1 as well as a moral and    
spiritual1 synthesis  of things4 ,only  
it should be remembered that this       
synthesis has to  cover an immense      
number of facts of the most varied and  
intricate kind1  and that at present the
 nature of the facts themselves is in   
many cases  very far from being         
accurately ascertained4 ,we are         
constantly reminded  in reading         
',supernatural ,religion1' able and     
vigorous as it is1 how  much of its     
force depends rather upon our ignorance 
than our knowledge4  ,it supplies us    
with many opportunities of seeing how   
easily the whole  course and tenour of  
an argument may be changed by the       

introduction of  a new element4 ,for    
instance1 ,i imagine that if the author 
had given a  little deeper study to the 
seemingly minute and secondary subject  
of  text-criticism1 it would have       
aroused in him very considerable        
misgivings as to the results at which he
 seemed to have arrived4 ,there  is a   
solidarity in all the different         
departments of human knowledge and      
research1 especially among those that   
are allied in subject4 ,these are       
continually sending out offshoots and   
projections into the neighbouring       
regions1 and the conclusions of one     
science very often have to depend  upon 
those of another4 ,the course of enquiry
 that has been taken in  ',supernatural 
,religion' is peculiarly unfortunate4   
,it starts from the  wrong end4 ,it     
begins with propositions into which a   
priori  considerations largely enter1   
and1 from the standpoint given by these1
  it proceeds to dictate terms in a     
field that can only be trodden by       

patient and unprejudiced study4 ,a far  
more hopeful and scientific  process    
would have been to begin upon ground    
where dogmatic questions  do not enter1 
or enter only in a remote degree1 and   
where there is a  sufficient number of  
solid ascertainable facts to go upon1   
and then to  work the way steadily and  
cautiously upwards to higher            
generalisations4    ,it will have been  
seen in the course of the present       
enquiry how  many side questions need to
 be determined4 ,it would be well if    
monographs were written upon all the    
quotations from the ,old  ,testament in 
the ,christian literature of the first  
two centuries1  modelled upon ,credner's
 investigations into the quotations in  
,justin4 ,before this is done there     
should be a new and revised  edition of 
,holmes' and ,parsons' ,septuagint      
,endnote #cei3a4  ,everything short of  
this would be inadequate1 because we    
need to  know not only the best text1   
but every text that has definite        

historical attestation4 ,in this way it 
would be possible to arrive  at a       
tolerably exact1 instead of a merely    
approximate1 deduction  as to the habit 
of quotation generally1 which would     
supply a  firmer basis for inference in 
regard to the ,new ,testament than  that
 which has been assumed here4 ,at the   
same time monographs  should be written 
in ,english1 besides those already      
existing in  ,german1 upon the date or  
position of the writers whose works come
  under review4 ,without any attempt to 
prove a particular thesis1  the reader  
should be allowed to see precisely what 
the evidence is  and how far it goes4   
,then if he could not arrive at a       
positive  conclusion1 he could at least 
attain to the most probable4 ,and1      
lastly1 it is highly important that the 
whole question of the  composition and  
structure of the ,synoptic ,gospels     
should be  investigated to the very     
bottom4 ,much valuable labour has       
already  been expended upon this        

subject1 but the result1 though progress
  has been made1 is rather to show its  
extreme complexity and  difficulty than 
to produce any final settlement4 ,yet1  
as the  author of ',supernatural        
,religion' has rather dimly and         
inadequately  seen1 we are constantly   
thrown back upon assumptions borrowed   
from  this quarter4    ,pending such    
more mature and thorough enquiries1 ,i  
quite feel that  my own present         
contribution belongs to a transition    
stage1 and  cannot profess to be more   
than provisional4 ,but it will have     
served its purpose sufficiently if it   
has helped to mark out more  distinctly 
certain lines of the enquiry and to     
carry the  investigation along these a  
little way2 suggesting at the same      
time--what the facts themselves really  
suggest--counsels of  sobriety and      
moderation4    ,what the end will be1 it
 would be presumptuous to attempt to    
foretell4 ,it will probably be a long   
time before even these minor            

questions--much more the major questions
 into which they run up--  will be      
solved4 ,whether they will ever be      
solved--all of them at  least--in such a
 way as to compel entire assent is very 
doubtful4  ,error and imperfection seem 
to be permanently1 if we may hope       
diminishingly1 a condition of human     
thought and action4 ,it does  not appear
 to be the will of ,god that ,truth     
should ever be so  presented as to crush
 out all variety of opinion4 ,the       
conflict of  opinions is like that of   
,hercules with the ,hydra4 ,as fast as  
one  is cut down another arises in its  
place2 and there is no searing-  iron to
 scorch and cicatrize the wound4        
,however much we may  labour1 we can    
only arrive at an inner conviction1 not 
at  objective certainty4 ,all the       
glosses and asseverations in the  world 
cannot carry us an inch beyond the due  
weight of the  evidence vouchsafed to   
us4 ,an honest and brave mind will      
accept  manfully this condition of      

things1 and not seek for infallibility  
where it can find none4 ,it will adopt  
as its motto that noble  saying of      
,bishop ,butler--noble1 because so      
unflinchingly true1  though opposed to a
 sentimental optimism--',probability is 
the very  guide of life4'    ,with      
probabilities we have to deal1 in the   
intellectual sphere4  ,but1 when once   
this is thoroughly and honestly         
recognised1 even a  comparatively small 
balance of probability comes to have as 
much  moral weight as the most loudly   
vaunted certainty4 ,and meantime1  apart
 from and beneath the strife of tongues1
 there is the still  small voice which  
whispers to a man and bids him1 in no   
superstitious sense but with the gravity
 and humility which befits  a           
,christian1 to 'work out his own        
salvation with fear and  trembling4'    
,,endnotes      #b3a ,with regard to the
 references in vol4 i4 p4 #bei1 n4 #a1  
,i  had already observed1 before the    
appearance of the preface to the  sixth 

edition1 that they were really intended 
to apply to the  first part of the      
sentence annotated rather than the      
second4  ,still1 as there is only one   
reference out of nine that really       
supports the proposition in immediate   
connection with which the  references   
are made1 the reader would be very apt  
to carry away a  mistaken impression4   
,the same must be said of the set of    
references defended on p4 xl4 sqq4 of   
the new preface4 ,the  expressions used 
do not accurately represent the state of
 the  facts4 ,it is not careful writing1
 and ,i am afraid it must be said  that 
the prejudice of the author has         
determined the side which the           
expression leans4 ,but how difficult is 
it to make words express  all the due   
shades and qualifications of            
meaning--how difficult  especially for a
 mind that seems to be naturally        
distinguished by  force rather than by  
exactness and delicacy of observation6  
,we  have all 'les dfauts de nos        

qualits4'    #aj3a ,much harm has been  
done by rashly pressing human metaphors 
and  analogies2 such as1 that           
,revelation is a message from ,god and  
therefore must be infallible1 c4 ,this  
is just the sort of argument  that the  
,deists used in the last century1       
insisting that a revelation1  properly  
so called1 must be presented with       
conclusive proofs1 must  be universal1  
must be complete1 and drawing the       
conclusion that  ,christianity is not   
such a revelation4 ,this kind of        
reasoning has  received its sentence    
once for all from ,bishop ,butler4 ,we  
have nothing  to do with what must be   
7of which we are1 by the nature of the  
case1  incompetent judges71 but simply  
with what is4    #ah3a ,cf4 ,westcott1  
,canon1 p4 #aeb1 n4 #b 7#crd ed4 #ahgj74
    #ah3b ,see ,lightfoot1 ,galatians1  
p4 #fj2 also ,credner1  ,beitrge1 ii4   
#ff 7'certainly' from ,st4 ,paul74      
#bj3a ,the ,old ,testament in the ,new  
7,london and ,edinburgh1  #ahfh74       

#ba3a ,mr4 ,m',clellan 7,the ,new       
,testament1 c41 vol4 i4 p4  #fjf1 n4 c7 
makes the suggestion1 which from his    
point of view is  necessary1 that ',s4  
,matthew has cited a prophecy spoken by 
,jeremiah1 but nowhere written in the   
,old ,testament1 and of which  the      
passage in ,zechariah is only a partial 
reproduction4' ,cf4  ,credner1 ,beitrge1
 ii4 #aeb4    #be3a ,we do not stay to  
discuss the real origin of these        
quotations3 the last is probably not    
from the ,old ,testament at  all4       
#bg3a ,the quotations in this chapter   
are continuous1 and are also  found in  
,clement of ,alexandria4    #cd3a ,it   
should be noticed1 however1 that the    
same reading is  found in ,justin and   
other writers4    #ch3a ,clementis      
,romani quae feruntur ,homiliae ,viginti
  7,gottingae1 #ahec74    #ci3a ,beitrge
 zur ,einleitung in die biblischen      
,schriften  7,halle1 #ahcb74    #dj3a   
,the ,epistles of ,s4 ,clement of ,rome 
7,london and  ,cambridge1 #ahfi74       

#di3a ,the ,latin translation is not in 
most cases a sufficient  guarantee for  
the original text4 ,the ,greek has been 
preserved in  the shape of long extracts
 by ,epiphanius and others4 ,the edition
  used is that of ,stieren1 ,lipsiae1   
#ahec4    #di3b ,horne's ,introduction  
7ed4 #ahef71 p4 #ccc4    #eb3a ,ed4     
,dindorf1 ,lipsiae1 #ahei4 ,the index   
given in vol4 iii4  p4 #hic sqq4        
contains many inaccuracies1 and is1     
indeed1 of little  use for identifying  
the passages of ,scripture4    #ef3a    
,some ,account of the ,writings and     
,opinions of ,clement of  ,alexandria1  
p4 #djg sqq4    #ef3b ,in the new       
,preface to his work on the ,canon 7#dth
 edition1  #ahge71 p4 xxxii4    #eh3a   
,s4,r4 i4 p4 #bba1 and note4    #ei3a   
,s4,r4 i4 p4 #bbb1 n4 #c4    #ei3b      
,lehrb4 chr4 ,dogmengesch4 p4 #gd 7p4   
#hb ,s4,r4874    #ei3c ,das nachapost4  
,zeitalter1 p4 #abf sq4    #fj3a ,der   
,ursprung unserer ,evangelien1 p4 #fd2  
compare  ,fritzche1 art4 ',judith' in   

,schenkel's ,bibel-,lexicon4    #fa3a   
,vol4 i4 p4 #bba1 n4 ,i feel it due to  
the author to say that  ,i have found   
his long lists of references1 though not
 seldom  faulty1 very useful4 ,i        
willingly acknowledge the justice of his
  claim to have 'fully laid before      
readers the actual means of  judging of 
the accuracy of every statement which   
has been made'  7,preface to sixth      
edition1 p4 lxxx74    #fe3a i4 p4 #bbf4 
#ff3a i4 p4 #bbh4    #fi3a ,der         
,ursprung1 p4 #ach4    #ga3a ,the       
,apostolical ,fathers 7,london1 #ahgd71 
p4 #bgc4    #ga3b ,the original ,greek  
of this work is lost1 but in the text as
  reconstructed by ,hilgenfeld from five
 still extant versions  7,latin1        
,syriac1 ,aethiopic1 ,arabic1 ,armenian7
 the verse runs thus1  ,greek3 polloi   
men ektisthaesan1 oligoi de sothaesontai
  7,messias ,judaeorum1 p4 #fi74        
#gc3a ,a curious instance of disregard  
of context is to be seen in             
,tertullian's reading of ,john i4 #ac1  

which he referred to  ,christ1 accusing 
the ,valentinians of falsification      
because  they had the ordinary reading  
7cf4 ,rnsch1 ,das ,neue ,testament      
,tertullian's1 pp4 #beb1 #fed74 ,compare
 also p4 #bd above4    #gc3b ,novum     
,testamentum extra ,canonem ,receptum1  
,fasc4 ii4  p4 #fi4    #gd3a c4 v4      
#gd3b ,s4 ,r4 i4 p4 #bej sqq4    #gf3a  
,lardner1 ,credibility1 c41 ii4 p 4#bc2 
,westcott1  ,on the ,canon1 p4 #ej1 n4  
#e4    #gg3a ,since this was written the
 author of ',supernatural  ,religion'   
has replied in the preface to his sixth 
edition4 ,he has  stated his case in the
 ablest possible manner3 still ,i do not
  think that there is anything to       
retract in what has been written  above4
 ,there would have been something to    
retract if ,dr4  ,lightfoot had         
maintained positively the genuineness of
 the ,vossian  ,epistles4 ,as to the    
,syriac1 the question seems to me to    
stand  thus4 ,on the one side are       
certain improbabilities--,i admit1      

improbabilities1 though not of the      
weightiest kind--which are met  about   
half way by the parallel cases quoted4  
,on the other hand1  there is the       
express testimony of the ,epistle of    
,polycarp quoted  in its turn by        
,irenaeus4 ,now ,i cannot think that    
there is any  improbability so great    
7considering our ignorance7 as not to be
  outweighed by this external evidence4 
#ha3a ,cf4 ,hilgenfeld1 ,nov4 ,test4    
ext4 ,can4 ,rec41 ,fasc4 iv4  p4 #ae4   
#ha3b ,cf4 ibid41 pp4 #ef1 #fb1 also p4 
#bi4    #hb3a ,but see ,contemporary    
,review1 #ahge1 p4 #hch1 from  which it 
appears that ,m4 ,waddington has        
recently proved the date  to be rather  
#aee or #aef4 ,compare ,hilgenfeld1     
,einleitung1 p4  #gb1 where reference is
 made to an essay by ,lipsius1 ,der     
,mrtyrertod ,polycarp's in ,z4 f4 w4 ,t4
 #ahgd1 ii4 p4 #ahj  f4    #hb3b ,adv4  
,haer4 iii4 #c1 #d4    #hc3a ,entstehung
 der alt-katholischen ,kirche1 p4 #ehf2 
,hefele1 ,patrum ,apostolicorum ,opera1 

p4 lxxx4    #hd3a ,cf4 ,s4 ,r4 i4 p4    
#bgh4    #hd3b ,ent4 d4 a4 ,k4 pp4 #eic1
 #eii4    #hd3c ,apostolical ,fathers1  
p4 #bbg sq4    #hd3d ,ursprung1 pp4 #dc1
 #aca4    #he3a ,greek3 mnaemoneuontes  
de hon eipen ho kurios didaskon2 mae    
krinete hina mae krithaete2 aphiete kai 
aphethaesetai hymin2 eleeite  hina      
eleaethaete2 en ho metro metreite1      
antimetraethaesetai hymin2 kai  hoti    
makarioi hoi ptochoi kai hoi diokomenoi 
heneken dikaiosynaes1 hoti  auton estin 
hae basileia tou ,theou4    #hi3a       
,geschichte ,jesu von ,nazara1 #a4 p4   
#ach1 n4 #b4    #hi3b ,einleilung in das
 ,n4 ,t4 p4 #ff1 where ,lipsius' view   
is also quoted4    #hi3c ,cf4 ,westcott1
 ,on the ,canon1 p4 #hh1 n4 #d4    #hi3d
 ,as appears to be suggested in ,s4 ,r4 
i4 p4 #bib4 ,the  reference in the note 
to ,bleek1 ,einl4 p4 #fcg 7and ,ewald871
  does not seem to be exactly to the    
point4    #hi3e ,apol4 i4 #fg4    #ij3a 
,dial4 c4 ,tryph4 #ajc4    #ij3b ,apol4 
i4 #ff2 cf4 ,s4,r4 i4 p4 #bid4    #ia3a 

,the evangelical references and         
allusions in ,justin have  been         
carefully collected by ,credner and     
,hilgenfeld1 and are here  thrown       
together in a sort of running narrative4
    #aja3a ,this was written before the 
appearance of ,mr4 ,m',clellan's        
important work on the ,four ,gospels    
7,the ,new ,testament1 vol4 i1  ,london1
 #ahge71 to which ,i have not yet had   
time to give the  study that it         
deserves4    #ajc3a ,unless indeed it   
was found in one of the many forms of   
the  ,gospel 7cf4 ,s4,r4 i4 ,p4 #dcf1   
and p4 #ada below74 ,the section        
appears in none of the forms reproduced 
by ,dr4 ,hilgenfeld 7,n4,t4  extra ,can4
 ,recept4 ,fasc4 iv74    #ajg3a ,in like
 manner ,tertullian refers his readers  
to the  'autograph copies' of ,st4      
,paul's ,epistles1 and the very 'chairs 
of  the ,apostles1' preserved at        
,corinth and elsewhere4 7,de            
,praescript4 ,haeret4 c4 #cf74          
,tertullian also refers to the  census  

of ,augustus1 'quem testem fidelissimum 
dominicae  nativitatis ,romana archiva  
custodiunt' 7,adv4 ,marc4 iv4 #g74      
#aaj3a ,beitrge1 i4 p4 #bfa sqq4        
#aaj3b ,evangelien ,justin's u4s4w41 p4 
#bgj sqq4    #aaj3c ,the chief authority
 is ,eus4 ,h4 ,e4 vi4 #ab4    #aaj3d    
,cf4 ,hilgenfeld1 ,ev4 ,justin's1 p4    
#aeg4    #aaf3a ,a somewhat similar     
classification has been made by ,de     
,wette1 ,einleitung in das ,n4 ,t41 pp4 
#ajd-aaj1 in which  however the standard
 seems to be somewhat lower than that   
which ,i  have assumed2 several         
instances of variation which ,i had     
classed  as decided1 ,de ,wette         
considers to be only slight4 ,i hope ,i 
may  consider this a proof that the     
classification above given has not  been
 influenced by bias4    #aai3a ,beitrge1
 i4 p4 #bcg4    #aai3b ,s4,r4 i4 p4 #cif
 sqq4    #abj3a ,die drei ersten        
,evangelien1 ,gttingen1 #ahej4 ,a       
second1 revised1 edition of this work   
has recently appeared4    #abj3b ,die   

,synoptischen ,evangelien1 ,leipzig1    
#ahfc1 p4 #hh4    #abj3c ,das           
,marcus-evangelium1 ,berlin1 #ahgb1 p4  
#bii4    #abj3d ,beitrge1 i4 p4 #bai4   
#abj3e ,dr4 ,westcott well calls this   
'the prophetic sense  of the present'   
7,on the ,canon1 p4 #abh74    #abb3a    
',this is meaningless1' writes ,mr4     
,baring-,gould of the  canonical text1  
rather hastily1 and forgetting1 as it   
would  appear1 the concluding cause     
7,lost and ,hostile ,gospels1 p4  #aff72
 cp4 ,s4,r4 i4 p4 #ced1 ii4 p4 #bh4     
#abc3a i4 pp4 #aif1 #bbg1 #beh4         
#abc3b ,geschichte des                  
,neutestamentlichen ,kanon 7ed4         
,volkmar1 ,berlin1 #ahfj71 p4 #af4      
#abd3a ,adv4 ,haer4 #dbh ,d4    #abd3b  
,i am not quite clear that more is meant
 7as ,meyer1  ,ellicott ,huls4 ,lect4 p4
 #cci1 n4 #b1 and others maintain7 in   
the evangelical language than that the  
drops of sweat 'resembled  blood2'      
,greek3 hosei seems to qualify ,greek3  
haimatos as much  as ,greek3 thromboi4  

,compare especially the interesting     
parallels  from medical writers quoted  
by ,mc,clellan ad loc4    #abh3a ,the   
only parallel that ,i can find quoted is
 a reference by  ,mr4 ,mc,clellan to    
,philo i4#afd 7ed4 ,mangey71 where the  
phrase is  however ,greek3 isos angeloi 
7gegonos74    #abi3a ,s4,r4 i4 p4 #cjd  
sqq4    #acj3a ,ev4 ,justin's1 p4 #aeg4 
#ace3a ,scrivener1 ,introduction to the 
,criticism of the ,n4  ,t4 p4 #deb 7#bnd
 edition1 #ahgd74    #acf3a ,on         
reviewing this chapter ,i am inclined to
 lean more than  ,i did to the          
hypothesis that ,justin used a ,harmony4
 ,the phenomena  of variation seem to be
 too persistent and too evenly          
distributed  to allow of the supposition
 of alternate quoting from different    
,gospels4 ,but the data will need a     
closer weighing before this can  be     
determined4    #ach3a ,contemporary     
,review1 #ahge1 p4 #afi sqq4    #ach3b  
,tischendorf1 however1 devotes several  
pages to an argument  which follows in  

the same line as ,dr4 ,lightfoot's1 and 
is1 ,i  believe1 in the main sound      
7,wann wurden unsere ,evangelien        
verfasst8 p4 #aac sqq41 #dth edition1   
#ahff74    #ach3c ,i gather from the    
sixth edition of ,s4 ,r4 that the       
argument from silence is practically    
waived4 ,if the silence of  ,eusebius is
 not pressed as proving that the authors
 about whom he  is silent were ignorant 
of or did not acknowledge particular    
,gospels1 we on our side may be content 
not to press it as proving  that the    
,gospels in question were acknowledged4 
,the matter  may well be allowed to rest
 thus3 that1 so far as the silence of   
,eusebius is concerned1 ,hegesippus1    
,papias1 and ,dionysius of  ,corinth are
 not alleged either for the ,gospels or 
against them4 ,i  agree with the author 
of ',supernatural ,religion' that the   
point is  not one of paramount          
importance1 though it has been made more
 of  by other writers1 e4g4 ,strauss and
 ,renan4 ,the author has missed  ,dr4   

,lightfoot's point on p4 xxiii4 ,what   
,eusebius bears testimony  to is1 not   
his own belief in the canonicity of the 
fourth  ,gospel1 but its undisputed     
canonicity1 i4e4 a historical  fact     
which includes within its range         
,hegesippus1 ,papias1 c4 ,if ,i  say    
that ,hamlet is an undisputed play of   
,shakspeare's1 ,i  mean1 not that ,i    
believe it to be ,shakspeare's myself1  
but that  all the critics from          
,shakspeare's time downwards have       
believed it  to be his4    #adj3a ,h4   
,e4 iv4 #bb4    #ada3a ,s4 ,r4 i4 p4    
#dcf4    #ada3b ,einleitung1 p4 #ajc4   
#ada3c ,das ,nachapost4 ,zeit4 i4 p4    
#bch4    #ada3d ,beitrge1 i4 p4 #dja4   
#ada3e ,nov4 ,test4 extra ,can4 ,recept4
 ,fasc4 iv4 pp4 #ai1 #bj4    #adc3a ,we 
have1 however1 had occasion to note a   
somewhat  parallel1 though not quite    
parallel1 instance in the quotation of  
,clement of ,rome and ,polycarp1 ,greek3
 aphiete1 hina aphethae humin  7kai     
aphethaesetai humin74    #add3a         

,contemporary ,review1 ,dec4 #ahgd1 p4  
#h2 cf4 ,routh1  ,reliquiae ,sacrae1 i4 
p4 #bha ad fin4    #add3b ,tregelles1   
writing on the ',ancient ,syriac        
,versions' in  ,smith's ,dictionary1    
iii4 p4 #afce a1 says that 'these words 
might  be a ,greek rendering of ,matt4  
xiii4 #af as they stand' in the         
,curetonian text4    #ade3a ,or rather  
perhaps #aee1 #aef2 see p4 #hb above4   
#adf3a ,h4,e4 iii4 #ci4    #adg3a ,in   
,mr4 ,m',clellan's recent ,harmony ,i   
notice only two deviations  from the    
order in ,st4 ,mark1 ii4 #ae-bb1 vi4    
#ag-bi4 ,in ,mr4 ,fuller's  ,harmony    
7the ,harmony itself and not the ,table 
of ,contents1 in which  there are       
several oversights7 there seem to be    
two1 ,mark vi4 #ag-bj1  xiv4 #c-i2 in   
,dr4 ,robinson's ,english ,harmony      
three1 ii4 #ae-bb1  vi4 #ag-bj1 xiv4    
#bb-gb 7considerable variation74 ,of    
these passages  vi4 #ag-bj 7the         
imprisonment of the ,baptist7 is the    
only one the place  of which all three  

writers agree in changing4 ,dr4         
,lightfoot1 in  ,cont4 ,rev41 ,aug4     
#ahge1 p4 #cid1 appeals to ,anger and   
,tischendorf  in proof of the contrary  
proposition1 that the order of ,mark    
cannot  be maintained4 ,but             
,tischendorf's ,harmony is based on the 
assumption  that ,st4 ,luke's use of    
,greek3 kathexaes pledges him to a      
chronological  order1 and ,anger adopts 
,griesbach's hypothesis that ,mark is a 
compilation  from ,matthew and ,luke4   
,the remarks in the text turn1 not upon 
precarious  harmonistic results1 but    
upon a simple comparison of the three   
,gospels4    #adi3a ,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  section4    
#aec3a ,this subject has been carefully 
worked out since ,credner  by ,bleek and
 ,de ,wette4 ,the results will be found 
in ,holtzmann1  ,synopt4 ,ev4 p4 #bei   

sqq4    #aed3a ,cf4 ,holtzmann1 ,die    
,synoptischen ,evangelien1 p4 #bee  sq42
 ,ebrard1 ,the ,gospel ,history 7,engl4 
trans471 p4 #bdg2  ,bleek1 ,synoptische 
,erklarung der drei ersten ,evangelien1 
i4  p4 #cfg4 ,the theory rests upon an  
acute observation1 and has much         
plausibility4    #aee3a ,on the ,canon1 
p4 #aha1 n4 #b4 ,that the word will     
bear this sense appears still more      
decidedly from ,dr4 ,lightfoot's  recent
 investigations1 in view of which the   
two sentences that  follow should       
perhaps be cancelled2 see ,cont4 ,rev41 
,aug4  #ahge1 p4 #cii sqq4    #aei3a ,it
 will be seen that the arguments above  
hardly touch  those of ,dr4 ,lightfoot  
in the ,contemporary ,review for        
,august and ,october3 neither do ,dr4   
,lightfoot's arguments seem very  much  
to affect them4 ,the method of the one  
is chiefly external1  that of the other 
almost entirely internal4 ,i can only   
for the  present leave what ,i had      
written2 but ,i do not for a moment     

suppose that the subject is fathomed    
even from the particular  standpoint    
that ,i have taken4    #afb3a ,the lists
 given in ,supernatural ,religion 7ii4  
p4 #b7  seem to be correct so far as ,i 
am able to check them4 ,in the  second  
edition of his work on the ,origin of   
the ,old ,catholic  ,church1 ,ritschl   
modified his previous opinion so far as 
to admit  that the indications were     
divided1 sometimes on the one side1     
sometimes on the other 7p4 #dea1 n4 #a74
 ,there is a seasonable  warning in     
,reuss 7,gesch4 h4 ,s4 ,n4 ,t4 p4 #bed7 
that the  ,tbingen critics here1 as     
elsewhere1 are apt to exaggerate the    
polemical aspect of the writing4        
#afb3b ,it should be noticed that       
,hilgenfeld and ,volkmar1 though        
assigning the second place to the       
,homilies1 both take the  terminus ad   
quem for this work no later than #ahj   
,a4,d4 ,it  seems that a ,syriac        
version1 partly of the ,homilies1 partly
 of the  ,recognitions1 exists in a     

,,ms4 which itself was written in the   
year  #daa1 and bears at that date marks
 of transcription from a still  earlier 
copy 7cf4 ,lightfoot1 ,galatians1 p4    
#cda1 n4 #a74    #afc3a ,this table is  
made1 as in the case of ,justin1 with   
the  help of the collection of passages 
in the works of ,credner and            
,hilgenfeld4    #afg3a ,or rather       
perhaps 'morning baptism4' 7,cf4        
,lightfoot1  ,colossians1 p4 #afb sqq41 
where the meaning of the name and  the  
character and relations of the sect are 
fully discussed74    #afh3a ,hom4 i4 #f2
 ii4 #ai1 #bc2 iii4 #gc2 iv4 #a2 xiii4  
#g2  xvii4 #ai4    #agj3a ,so ,tregelles
 expressly 7,introduction1 p4 #bdj71    
after ,wiseman2  ,scrivener 7,introd41  
p4 #cjh7 adds 7872 ,m',clellan classes  
with  ',italic ,family' 7p4 lxxiii74 ,on
 returning to this passage ,i incline   
rather more definitely to regard the    
reading ,greek3 ,haesaiou1 from  the    
group in which it is found1 as an early 
,alexandrine corruption4  ,still the    

,clementine writer may have had it      
before him4    #agj3b ii4 p4 #aj sqq4   
#agb3a ii4 p4 #ba4    #agb3b ,preface to
 the fourth edition of ,canon1 p4 xxxii4
    #agd3a ,evangelien1 p4 #ca4         
#agd3b ,das ,marcus-evangelium1 p4 #bhb4
    #age3a ,synopt4 ,ev4 p4 #aic4       
#agf3a ,das ,marcus-evangelium1 p4 #bie4
    #agh3a ,a friend has kindly         
extracted for me1 from ,holmes and      
,parsons1 the authorities for the       
,septuagint text of ,deut4 vi4 #d4  ,for
 ,greek3 sou there are ',const4 ,app4   
#bai1 #ced1 #cee2 ,ignat4 ,epp4  #ajd1  
#aab2 ,clem4 ,al4 #fh1 #gah2 ,chrys4 i4 
#dhb et saepe1 al4' ,for  tuus1 ',iren4 
7int471 ,tert41 ,cypr41 ,ambr41 ,anonym4
 ap4 ,aug41  ,gaud41 ,brix41 ,alii      
,latini4' ,no authorities for ,greek3   
humon4 ,was  the change first introduced
 into the text of the ,new ,testament8  
#agh3b ,s4 ,r4 ii4 p4 #be4    #agi3a    
,beitrge1 i4 p4 #cbf4    #agi3b ,on the 
,canon1 p4 #bfa1 n4 #b4    #ahh3a ,hom4 
#a4 in ,lucam4    #ahi3a ,h4,e4 iv4 #g4 

#ahi3b ,strom4 iv4 #ab4    #ahi3c ,s4,r4
 ii4 p4 #db4    #ahi3d ,ibid4 n4 #b2 cp4
 p4 #dg4    #aij3a ,ref4 ,omn4 ,haer4   
vii1 #bg4    #aij3b ii4 p4 #de4         
#aia3a ,ref4 ,omn4 ,haer4 vii4 #bj4     
#aib3a ,s4 ,r4 ii4 p4 #di4    #aig3a    
,adv4 ,haer4 i4 ,pref4 #b4    #aih3a ii4
 p4 #ei4    #aii3a ,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #baa   
sq4    #bjj3a ,strom4 ii4 #bj2 see      
,westcott1 ,canon1 p4 #bfi2  ,volkmar1  
,ursprung1 p4 #aeb4    #bjc3a ,adv4     
,haer4 iii4 #aa4 #g1 #i4    #bjc3b      
,ibid4 iii4 #ab4 #ab4    #bjd3a ,the    
corresponding chapter to this in        
',supernatural ,religion'  has been     
considerably altered1 and indeed in part
 rewritten1 in the  sixth edition4 ,the 
author very kindly sent me a copy of    
this after  the appearance of my article
 in the ,fortnightly ,review1 and ,i at 
once made use of it for the part of the 
work on which ,i was engaged2  but ,i   
regret that my attention was not        
directed1 as it should have  been1 to   
the changes in this chapter until it was

 too late to take  quite sufficient     
account of them4 ,the argument1 however1
 ,i think ,i  may say1 is not materially
 affected4 ,several criticisms which ,i 
had  been led to make in the            
,fortnightly ,i now find had been       
anticipated1  and these have been       
cancelled or a note added in the present
 work2  ,i have also appended to the    
volume a supplemental note of greater   
length on the reconstruction of         
,marcion's text1 the only point on      
which ,i believe there is really very   
much room for doubt4    #bje3a ,see     
above1 p4 #hi4    #bje3b ,apol4 i4 #bf4 
#bje3c ,ibid4 i4 #eh4    #bje3d ii4 p4  
#hj4    #bje3e ,der ,ursprung1 p4 #hi4  
#bje3f ,cf4 ,tertullian1 ,de            
,praescript4 ,haeret4 c4 #ch4    #bjf3a 
,adv4 ,haer4 iv4 #bg4 #b2 #ab4 #ab4     
#bji3a ,das ,ev4 ,marcion's1 pp4 #bh-ed4
 ,volkmar's view is  stated less        
inadequately in the sixth edition of ,s4
 ,r41 but  still not quite adequately4  
,perhaps it could hardly be otherwise   

where arguments that were originally    
adduced in favour of one  conclusion are
 employed to support its opposite4      
#baj3a ,greek3 oida for ,greek3 oidas in
 ,luke xiv4 #bj4 ,cf4  ,volkmar1 p4 #df4
    #baa3a ,das ,ev4 ,marcion's1 p4 #de4
    #baa3b ,ibid4 pp4 #df-dh4    #baa3c 
',we have1 in fact1 no guarantee of the 
accuracy or  trustworthiness of any of  
their statements' 7,s4,r4 ii4 p4  #ajj74
 ,we have just the remarkable           
coincidence spoken of above4 ,it  does  
not prove that ,tertullian did not      
faithfully reproduce the  text of       
,marcion to show1 which is the real     
drift of the argument  on the preceding 
page 7,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #ii71 that he had   
not the  canonical ,gospel before him2  
rather it removes the suspicion that  he
 might have confused the text of        
,marcion's ,gospel with the  canonical4 
#bab3a ,this table has been constructed 
from that of ,de ,wette1  ,einleitung1  
pp4 #abc-acb1 compared with the works of
 ,volkmar  and ,hilgenfeld4    #bac3a3  

,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #aaj1 n4 #c4 ,the         
statement is mistaken  in regard to     
,volkmar and ,hilgenfeld4 ,both these   
writers would make  ,marcion retain this
 passage4 ,it happens rather oddly that 
this is  one of the sections on which   
the philological evidence for ,st4      
,luke's authorship is least abundant    
7see below74    #bae3a ,there is direct 
evidence for the presence in ,marcion's 
,gospel of the passages relating to the 
personages here named1  except ,martha  
and ,mary2 see ,tert4 ,adv4 ,marc4 iv4  
#ai1 #cg1 #dc4    #bag3a ,s4 ,r4 ii4    
#adb sq4    #bag3b ,this admission does 
not damage the credit of ,tertullian    
and ,epiphanius as witnesses2 because   
what we want from them is a  statement  
of the facts2 the construction which    
they put upon the  facts is a matter of 
no importance4    #bag3c ,the omission  
in #b ,cor4 iv4 #ac must be due to      
,marcion  7,epiph4 #cba c472 so probably
 an insertion in #a ,cor4 ix4 #h4       
#bah3a ,tert4 ,adv4 ,marc4 v4 #af3      

',haec si ,marcion de  industria        
erasit1' c4 ,v4 #ad3 ',salio et hic     
amplissimum abruptum  intercisae        
scripturae4' ,v4 #c3 ',ostenditur quid  
supra haeretica  industria eraserit1    
mentionem scilicet ,abrahae1' c4 ,cf4   
,bleek1  ,einleitung1 p4 #acf2          
,hilgenfeld1 ,evv4 ,justin's1 c41 p4    
#dgc4    #bai3a ',anno xv4 ,tiberii     
,christus ,jesus de coelo manare        
dignatus  est' 7,tert4 ,adv4 ,marc4 i4  
#ai74    #bbj3a ,i give mainly the      
explanations of ,volkmar1 who1 it should
  be remembered1 is the very reverse of 
an apologist1 indicating the  points    
where they seem least satisfactory4     
#bbj3b ,it is highly probable that many 
of the points mentioned by  ,tertullian 
and ,epiphanius as 'adulterations' were 
simply various  readings in ,marcion's  
,codex2 such would be v4 #ad1 x4 #be1   
xvii4 #b1  and xxiii4 #b1 which are     
directly supported by other authority3  
xi4  #b and xii4 #bh would probably     
belong to this class4 ,so perhaps the   

insertion of iv4 #bg in the history of  
the ,samaritan leper4 ,the  phenomenon  
of a transposition of verses from one   
part of a ,gospel  to another is not an 
infrequent one in early ,,mss4    #bbc3a
 ,die ,synoptischen ,evangelien1 #ahfc1 
pp4 #cjb sqq4    #bbd3a ,where a        
reference is given thus in brackets1 it 
is  confirmatory1 from the part of the  
,gospel retained by ,marcion4    #bbi3a 
,an analysis of the words which are only
 found in ,st4 ,luke1  or very rarely   
found elsewhere1 gives the following    
results4--,the  number of words found   
only in the portion of the ,gospel      
retained  by ,marcion and in the ,acts  
is #bca2 that of words found in these   
retained portions and not besides in the
 ,gospels or the two other  ,synoptics  
is #eh2 and both these classes together 
for the portions  omitted in ,marcion's 
,gospel reach a total of #fb1 which is  
decidedly under the proportion that     
might have been expected4 ,the  list is 
diminished by a number of words which   

are found only in  the omitted and      
retained portions1 furnishing evidence1 
as above1  that both proceed from the   
same hand4    #bca3a ,this list has been
 made from the valuable work of ,rnsch1 
,das ,neue ,testament ,tertullian's1    
#ahga1 and the critical  editions1      
compared with the text of ,marcion's    
,gospel as given by  ,hilgenfeld and    
,volkmar4    #bca3b ,it might be thought
 that ,tertullian was giving his own    
text and not that of ,marcion's ,gospel1
 but this supposition is  excluded both 
by the confirmation which he receives   
from  ,epiphanius1 and also by the fact1
 which is generally admitted 7see       
,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #ajj71 that he had not the
 canonical ,luke1 but  only ,marcion's  
,gospel before him4    #bcc3a ,see      
,crowfoot1 ,observations on the         
,collation in ,greek of  ,cureton's     
,syriac ,fragments of the ,gospels1     
#ahgb1 p4 #e2 ,scrivener1  ,introduction
 to the ,criticism of the ,new          
,testament1 #bnd edition1  #ahgd1 p4    

#deb4    #bcc3b ,see ,scrivener1        
,introduction1 p4 #cjg sq42 and ,dr4    
,westcott's  article on the ',vulgate'  
in ,smith's ,dictionary4 ,it should be  
noticed  that ,dr4 ,westcott's          
literation differs from that of ,dr4    
,scrivener  and ,tregelles1 which has   
been adopted here4    #bce3a ,cf4       
,friedlnder1 ,sittengeschichte ,roms1   
iii4 p4 #cae4    #bch3a ,see p4 #hi1    
above4    #bch3b ,strom4 iii4 #ab2      
compare ,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #aea4    #bci3a   
,greek3 ,ho mentoi ge proteros auton    
archaegos ho ,tatianos  sunapheian tina 
kai sunagogaen ouk oid' hopos ton       
euangelion  suntheis to dia tessaron    
touto prosonomasin1 ho kai para tisin   
eiseti nun pheretai4 ,h4 ,e4 iv4 #bi4   
#bci3b ,beitrge1 i4 p4 #dda4    #bdj3a  
,haer4 #cia ,d 7xlvi4 #a74    #bdj3b    
,greek3 ,outos kai to dia tessaron      
kaloumenon suntetheiken  euangelion1 tas
 te genealogias perikopsas1 kai ta alla1
 hosa ek  spermatos ,dabid kata sorka   
genennaemenon ton ,kurion deiknusin4    

,echraesanto de touto ou monon oi taes  
ekeinou summorias1 alla kai  oi tous    
apostolikois epomenoi dogmasi1 taen taes
 sunthaekaes  kakourgian ouk egnokotes1 
all' aplousteron hos suntomo to biblio  
chraesamenoi4 ,euron de kago pleious ae 
diakosias biblous toiautas  en tais par'
 haemin ekklaesiois tetimaemenas1 kai   
pasas sunagagan  apethemaen1 kai ta ton 
tettaron euangeliston anteisaegagon     
euangelia 7,haeret4 ,fab4 i4 #bj1 quoted
 by ,credner1 ,beitrge1  i4 p4 #ddb74   
#bdj3c ,see ,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #ae4    #bda3a
 ,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #afb2 compare ,credner1  
,beitrge1  i4 p4 #ddf sqq4    #bda3b    
,adv4 ,haer4 iii4 #aa4 #h4    #bda3c    
,beit4 i4 p4 #ddc4    #bda3d ,may not   
,tatian have given his name to a        
collection of  materials begun1 used1   
and left in a more or less advanced     
stage  of compilation1 by ,justin8      
,however1 we can really do little more  
than note the resemblance3 any theory we
 may form must be purely  conjectural4  
#bdb3a ,greek3 ,epistolas gar adelphon  

axiosanton me grapsai  egarapsa4 ,kai   
tautas oi tou diabolon apostoloi        
zizanion gegemikan1  ha men exairountes1
 ha de prostithentes4 ,ois to ouai      
keitai4 ,ou  thaumaston ara1 ei kai ton 
kuriakon rhadiourgaesai tines           
epibeblaentai graphon1 hopote tais ou   
toiautais epibebouleukasi4  ,h4,e4 iv4  
#bc 7,routh1 ,rel4 ,sac4 i4 p4 #aha74   
#bdc3a ,greek3 ,allae d' epistolae tis  
autou pros ,nikomaedeas  pheretai en hae
 taen ,markionos airesin polemon to taes
 alaetheias  paristatai kanoni4 ,h4,e4  
iv4 #bc4    #bdd3a ,greek3 ,akribos     
mathon ta taes palaias diathaekaes      
,biblia1  hipotaxas epempsa soi4 ,euseb4
 ,h4,e4 iv4 #bf 7,routh1 ,rel4  ,sac4 i4
 p4 #aai74    #bde3a ,westcott1 ,on the 
,canon1 p4 #bja4    #bde3b ii4 p4 #agg4 
#bde3c ,adv4 ,marc4 iv4 #a 7cf4 ,rnsch1 
,das neue ,testament  ,tertullian's1 p4 
#dh71 'duo deos dividens1 proinde       
diversos1  alterum alterius             
instrumenti--vel1 quod magis usui est   
dicere1  testamenti4'    #bdf3a ,greek3 

,eisi toinun hoi di' hagnoian           
philoneikousi peri  touton1 sungnoston  
pragma peponthotes agnoia gar ou        
kataegorian  anadechetai1 alla didachaes
 prosdeitai4 ,kai legousin hoti tae id' 
to probaton meta ton mathaeton ephagen  
ho ,kurios tae de mealier  haemera ton  
azumon autos epathen2 kai diaegountai   
,matthaion outo  legein hos nenoaekasin2
 hothen asumphonos te nomo hae noaesis  
auton1 kai stasiazein dokei kat' autous 
ta euangelia4 ,chron4  ,pasch4 in       
,routh1 ,rel4 ,sac4 i4 p4 #afj4         
#bdg3a ,s4 ,r4 ii4 p4 #ahh sqq4 ,the    
reference to ,routh is  given on p4     
#ahh1 n4 #a2 that to ,lardner in the    
same note should1 ,i  believe1 be ii4 p4
 #caf1 not p4 #bif4    #bdg3b ,rel4     
,sac4 i4 p4 #afg4    #bdi3a ,the        
quotations from ,athenagoras are        
transcribed from  ',supernatural        
,religion' and ,lardner 7,credibility   
c41 ii4  p4 #aie sq474 ,i have not      
access to the original work4    #bea3a  
,credibility c41 ii4 p4 #afa4    #beb3a 

,ep4 ,vien4 et ,lugd4  #c 7in ,routh1   
,rel4 ,sac4  i4 p4 #big74    #beb3b     
,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #bjc2 ,evv4 ,justin's     
u4s4w4 p4  #aee4    #bed3a ,wann wurden 
u4s4w4 p4 #dh sq4    #bed3b ,ursprung1  
p4 #acj2 ,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #bbb4    #bee3a  
,cf4 ,credner1 ,beitrge1 ii4 p4 #bed4   
#bef3a ,adv4 ,haer4 i4 ,praef4 #b4      
#beg3a ,strom4 iv4 #i4    #beg3b ,greek3
 ,ton ,oualentinou legomenon einai      
gnorimon  ,haerakleouna 444 ,origen1    
,comm4 in ,joh4 ii4 p4 #fj 7quoted  by  
,volkmar1 ,ursprung1 p4 #abg74    #bei3a
 ',in affirming that these quotations   
are taken from the  ,gospel according to
 ,st4 ,matthew apologists exhibit their 
usual  arbitrary haste1' c4 ,s4,r4 ii4  
p4 #bbd4    #bfj3a ,celsus' ,wahres     
,wort1 ,zurich1 #ahgc4 ,for what        
follows1 see especially p4 #bfa sqq4    
#bfc3a ,keim1 ,celsus' ,wahres ,wort1 p4
 #bfb4    #bfc3b ,ibid4 p4 #bbh sq42    
,volkmar1 ,ursprung1 p4 #hj4    #bfc3c  
,the text of this document is printed in
 full by ,routh1  ,rel4 ,sac4 i4 pp4    

#cid-cif2 ,westcott1 ,on the ,canon1 p4 
#dhg sqq42  ,hilgenfeld1 ,der ,kanon und
 die ,kritik des ,n4,t4 ad p4 #dj1 n42  
,credner1 ,geschichte des               
,noutestamentlichen ,kanon1 ed4         
,volkmar1  p4 #aec sqq41 c4    #bfd3a   
,see however ,dr4 ,lightfoot in ,cont4  
,rev41 ,oct4 #ahge1 p4 #hcg4    #bfe3a  
,ursprung1 p4 #bh4    #bfe3b ii4 p4     
#bde4    #bff3a ,cf4 ,credner1 ,gesch4  
des ,kanon1 p4 #afg4    #bff3b ,s4,r4   
ii4 p4 #bda4    #bfg3a ,quoted in ,s4,r4
 ii4 p4 #bdg4    #bfi3a ,adv4 ,haer4 ii1
 #bb4 #e1 iii4 #c4d4    #bgj3a          
,geschichte ,jesu von ,nazara1 i4 pp4   
#ada-adc4    #bgc3a ,geschichte ,jesu   
von ,nazara4 i4 pp4 #adc1 #add4         
#bgc3b ,on the ,canon1 p4 #ahb sqq4     
#bge3a ,greek3 ,ouch haedomai trophae   
phthoras1 oude haedonais tou  biou      
toutou4 ,arton ,theou thelo1 arton      
ouranion1 arton zoaes1 hos  estin sarx  
,iaesou ,christou tou ,huiou tou ,theou 
tou genomenou en  hustero ek spermatos  
,dabid kai ,abraam2 kai poma ,theou     

thelo to  haima aoutou1 ho estin agapae 
aphthartos kai aennaos zoae4 ,ep4  ad   
,rom4 c4 vii4    #bge3b ,greek3 ,alla to
 ,pneuma ou planatai1 apo ,theou on2    
oiden  gar pothen erchetai kai pou      
hupagei1 kai ta drupta elenche4  ,ep4 ad
 ,philad4 c4 vii4    #bgf3a ,cf4        
,lipsius in ,schenkel's ,bibel-,lexicon1
 i4 p4 #ih4    #bgg3a ,the second and   
third ,epistles stand upon a somewhat   
different footing4    #bgg3b ,cf4 ,s4,r4
 ii4 p4 #bfi4    #bgh3a ,s4,r4 ii p4    
#cbc4    #bgh3b ,geschichte ,jesu von   
,nazara1 i4 p4 #ach sq4    #bhj3a ,cf4  
,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #cjb4    #bhj3b ,so ,dial4
 c4 ,tryph4 #fi2 in ,apol4 i4 #bb the   
,,mss4 of ,justin read ,greek3          
ponaerous1 which might stand1 though    
some editors substitute or prefer       
,greek3 paerous4 ,in both  quotations   
,greek3 ek genetaes is added4 ,the      
nearest parallel in  the ,synoptics is  
,mark ix4 #ba1 ,greek3 ek paidiothen 7of
 the  paralytic boy74    #bhj3c ,wann   
wurden u4 s4 w4 p4 #cd4    #bhc3a ii4 p4

 #cjh4 ,has the author perhaps          
misunderstood ,credner  7,beit4 i4 p4   
#bec71 whose argument on this head is   
not indeed  quite clear8    #bhc3b ,the 
,new ,testament c41 i4 p4 #gji4         
#bhd3a ,see ,apol4 i4 #bc1 #cb1 #fc2 ii4
 #aj4    #bhd3b ,greek3 ,hae de protae  
dunamis meta ton patera panton kai      
despotaen ,theon kai uios ho logos      
estin4 ,this is not quite  rightly      
translated by ,tischendorf and in       
',supernatural ,religion3'  ,greek3     
uios1 like ,greek3 dunamis1 is a        
predicate2 'the next  ,power who also   
stands in the relation of ,son4'        
#bhe3a ,prov4 viii4 #bb-bd1 #bg1 #cj4   
#bhe3b ,wisd4 vii4 #be1 #bf2 viii4 #a1  
#d4    #bhf3a ,ecclus4 xxiv4 #i4        
#bhf3b ,wisd4 ix4 #a1 #b2 xvi4 #ab2     
xviii4 #ae4    #bhg3a ,cf4 ,lipsius in  
,s4 ,b4 ,l4 i4 p4 #ie sqq4    #bhh3a    
,der ,kanon und die ,kritik des ,n4 ,t4 
7,halle1 #ahfc71  p4 #bi2 ,einleitung1  
,p4 #dc1 n4    #bhh3b ,der ,ursprung    
unserer ,evangelien1 p4 #fc4    #bhh3c  

ii4 p4 #cdf4    #bij3a ,s4 ,r4 ii4 p4   
#cdj4    #bic3a ,the force of the       
article 7,greek3 tou paerou7 should be  
noticed1 as showing that the incident   
7and therefore the ,gospel7  is assumed 
to be well known4    #bic3b ,s4,r4 ii4  
p4 #cda4    #bie3a ,tischendorf1 ,wann  
wurden1 p4 #dj2 ,westcott1 ,canon1 p4   
#hj4    #bif3a ii4 p4 #ceg sqq4         
#big3a ,adv4 ,haer4 ,v4 #cf4 #a1 #b4    
#big3b ,s4 ,r4 ii4 p4 #cbi4    #bih3a   
,advanced by ,routh 7or rather          
,feuardentius in his notes on           
,irenaeus2 cf4 ,rel4 ,sac4 i4 p4 #ca71  
and adopted by ,tischendorf  and ,dr4   
,westcott4 ,the identification has since
 been ably and  elaborately maintained  
by ,dr4 ,lightfoot2 see ,cont4 ,rev4    
,oct4 #ahge1  p4 #hda sqq4    #bih3b ,it
 is not necessary here to determine the 
sense in which  these words are to be   
taken4 ,i had elsewhere given my reasons
 for  taking ,greek3 erchomenon with    
,greek3 anthropon1 as ,a4 ,v4  7,fourth 
,gospel1 p4 #f1 n474 ,mr4 ,m',clellan is

 now to be added  to the number of those
 who prefer to take it with ,greek3     
phos1  and argues ably in favour of his 
opinion4    #bii3a ,the translation of  
this difficult passage has been left  on
 purpose somewhat baldly literal4 ,the  
idea seems to be that  ,basilides       
refused to accept projection or         
emanation as a  hypothesis to account   
for the existence of created things4    
,compare  ,mansel1 ,gnost4 ,her4 p4     
#adh4    #cja3a ,adv4 ,haer44 iii4 #aa4 
#g4    #cjb3a ,haer4 #baf-bbb4    #cjb3b
 ,it should however be noticed that     
these words are given  only in the old  
,latin translation of ,irenaeus and are 
wanting in  the ,greek as preserved by  
,epiphanius4 ,whether the words were    
accidentally omitted1 or whether they   
were inserted inferentially1  for       
greater clearness1 by the translator1 it
 is hard to say4 ,in  any case the      
bearing of the quotations must be very  
much the same4  ,if not made by         
,ptolemaeus himself1 they were made by a

 contemporary  of ,ptolemaeus1 i4e4 at  
least by a writer anterior to ,irenaeus4
    #cjb3c ,adv4 ,haer4 ii4 #d4 #a2 cf4 
,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #baa sq4    #cjb3d ,the   
somewhat copious fragments of           
,heracleon's ,commentary  are given in  
,stieren's edition of ,irenaeus1 p4 #ich
 sqq4 ,origen  says that ,heracleon read
 ',bethany' in ,john i4 #bh             
7,m',clellan1  i4 p4 #gjh74    #cje3a   
ii4 p4 #cgh4    #cjf3a ,s4,r4 ii4 p4    
#cgi4    #cjg3a ,there is also perhaps a
 probable reference to ,st4 ,john in    
,section #f1 ,greek3 taes aionioi       
paegaes tou hudatos taes zoaes tou      
exiontos ek taes naeduos tou ,christou4 
#cjg3b ,celsus' ,wahres ,wort1 p4 #bbi4 
#cjh3a ,greek3 ho taen hagian pleuran   
ekkentaetheis1 ho ekcheas  ek taes      
pleuras autou ta duo palin katharsia1   
hudor kai aima1  logon kai pneuma4 ,see 
,routh1 ,rel4 ,sac4 i4 p4 #afa4         
#cjh3b ,lardner1 ,credibility1 c41 ii4  
p4 #aif4    #cae3a ,tregelles in        
,horne's ,introduction1 p4 #ccd4        

#cae3b ,adv4 ,haer4 iii4 #aa4 #h4       
#caf3a ,adv4 ,haer4 iii4 #a4 #a4        
#cag3a ,see ,lardner1 ,credibility1 c41 
ii4 pp4 #bbc1 #bbd1  and ,eus4 ,h4,e4   
ii4 #ae 7#ad ,lardner74    #cag3b       
,compare ,h4,e4 ii4 #ae and vi4 #ad4    
#cag3c ,h4,e4 vi4 #ad4    #cag3d ,strom4
 iii4 #ac4    #cah3a ,for the meaning of
 this word 7'schriftliche               
,beweisurkunde'7 see ,rnsch1 ,das ,n4,t4
 ,tertullian's1 p4 #dh4    #cah3b ,adv4 
,marc4 iv4 #b4    #cah3b ,ibid4 iv4 #e4 
#cah3d ,ibid4 v4 #i4    #cah3e ,ibid4   
iv4 #b-e2 compare v4 #i1 and ,rnsch1 pp4
 #ec1 #ed4    #cai3a ,eus4 ,h4,e4 vi4   
#be4    #cai3b ,see ,m',clellan on ,luke
 i4 #a-d4 ,on the general position of   
,origen in regard to the ,canon1 compare
 ,hilgenfeld1 ,kanon1 p4 #di4    #cbj3a 
,so ,westcott in ,s4,d4 iii4 #afib1 n4  
,tregelles1 in  ,horne's ,introduction1 
p4 #ccc1 speaks of this translation as  
'coeval1 apparently1 with ,irenaeus     
himself4' ,we must not1 however1  omit  
to notice that ,rnsch 7p4 #dc1 n47 is   

more reserved in his  verdict on the    
ground that the translation of ,irenaeus
 'in its  peculiarities and in its      
relation to ,tertullian has not yet     
received a thorough investigation2'     
compare ,hilgenfeld1  ,einleitung1 p4   
#gig4    #cbj3b ,rnsch1 ,das ,n4,t4     
,tertullian's1 p4 #dc4    #cba3a ,rnsch1
 ,itala und ,vulgata1 pp4 #b1 #c4       
#cba3b ,horne's ,introduction1 p4 #bcc4 
#cba3c ,introduction 7#bnd ed471 pp4    
#cjj1 #cjb1 #dej1 #deb4    #cba3d iii4  
p4 #afij b4    #cbb3a ,hilgenfeld1 in   
his recent ,einleitung1 says expressly  
7p4 #gig7 that 'the ,new ,testament had 
already in the second  century been     
translated into ,latin4' ,this admission
 is not  affected by the argument which 
follows1 which goes to prove that  the  
version used by ,tertullian was not the 
',itala' properly so  called4    #cbb3b 
,see ,smith's ,dictionary1 iii4 p4 #afcj
 b4    #cbb3c ,introduction1 p4 #bgd4   
#cbb3d ,see ,routh1 ,rel4 ,sac4 i4 pp4  
#abd and #aeb4    #cbc3a ,see           

,scrivener1 loc4 cit4    #cbc3b ,see    
,new ,testament1 c41 i4 p4 #fce4        
#cbc3c ,s4,d4 iii4 p4 #afcd b4    #cbd3a
 ,einleitung in das ,neue ,testament1 p4
 #gbd4    #cbd3b ,geschichte der        
heiligen ,schriften ,neuen ,testaments1 
p4 #cjb4    #cbd3c ,einleitung1 p4 #hjd4
    #cbd3d ,see ,tregelles1 loc4 cit4   
#cbd3e ,cf4 ,hilgenfeld1 ,einleitung1 p4
 #hje4 ,it hardly seems  clear that     
,origen had no ,,ms4 authority for his  
reading4    #cbd3f ,introduction1 p4    
#ecj4 ,but ,greek3 oupo is admitted     
into the text by ,westcott and ,hort4   
#cbd3g ',the text of the ,curetonian    
,gospels is in itself a  sufficient     
proof of the extreme antiquity of the   
,syriac ,version4  ,this1 as has been   
already remarked1 offers a striking     
resemblance  to that of the ,old ,latin1
 and cannot be later than the middle or 
close of the second century4 ,it would  
be difficult to point out a  more       
interesting subject for criticism than  
the respective  relations of the ,old   

,latin and ,syriac ,versions to the     
,latin and  ,syriac ,vulgates4 ,but at  
present it is almost untouched4'        
,westcott1  ,on the ,canon 7#crd ed471  
p4 #bah1 n4 #c4    #cbe3a ,see          
,scrivener's ,introduction1 p4 #cbd4    
#cbe3b ,cf4 ,bleek1 ,einleitung1 p4     
#gce2 ,reuss1 ,gesch4  ,n4,t4 p4 #ddg4  
#cbf3a ,this is the date commonly       
accepted since ,massuet1 ,diss4  in     
,irenaeum1 ii4 #a4 #b4 ,grabe had       
previously placed the date in  ,a4,d4   
#ajh1 ,dodwell as early as ,a4,d4 #ig   
7of4 ,stieren1 ,irenaeus1  ii4 pp4 #cb1 
#cd1 #ahb74    #cbf3b ,routh1 ,rel4     
,sac4 i4 p4 #cjf4    #cbg3a ,eus4 ,h4,e4
 v4 #aa1 vi4 #f4 ,eusebius1 in his1     
',chronicle1' speaks of ,clement as     
eminent for his writings 7,greek        
suntatton dielampen7 in ,a4,d4 #aid4    
#cbg3b ,the books called ',stromateis'  
or ',miscellanies' date from  this      
reign4 ,h4,e4 vi4 #f4    #cbg3c         
,stromateis1 i4 #a4    #cbg3d ,adv4     
,marc4 iv4 #e4    #cbg3e ,de            

,praescript4 ,haeret4 c4 #cf2 see       
,scrivener1  ,introduction1 p4 #ddf4    
#cbh3a pp4 #dej1 #dea4    #cbh3b p4     
#deb4 ,these facts may be held to show  
that the books  were not regarded with  
the same veneration as now4    #cbi3a v4
 #cj4 #a4    #ccj3a ,adv4 ,haer4 iii4   
#aa4 #h4    #ccj3b ,ib4 iii4 #ad4 #b4   
#cca3a ,cf4 ,adv4 ,haer4 iv4 #ac4 #a4   
#ccb3a ,the varieties of reading in this
 verse are exhibited in  full by ,dr4   
,westcott1 ,on the ,canon1 p4 #abj1     
notes #d and #e4    #ccf3a ,matt4 v4 #bh
 is omitted as too ambiguous and        
confusing1  though it is especially     
important for the point in question as  
showing that ,tertullian himself had a  
variety of ,,mss4 before him4    #ccf3b 
,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel is wanting in   
this ,,ms4 to xxv4 #f2 two  leaves are  
also lost1 from ,john vi4 #ej to viii4  
#eb4    #cdf3a ,strom4 ii4 #bj4         
#cdg3a ,in a volume entitled ,the       
,authorship and ,historical  ,character 
of the ,fourth ,gospel1 ,macmillan1     

#ahgb4 ,i may say  with reference to    
this book--a 'firstling' of theological 
study--  that ,i am inclined now to     
think that ,i exaggerated somewhat the  
importance of minute details as an      
evidence of the work of an  eye-witness4
 ,the whole of the arguments1 however1  
summarised on  pp4 #bhg-bic seem to me  
to be still perfectly valid and sound1  
and the  greater part of them--notably  
that which relates to the ,messianic    
expectations--is quite untouched by     
',supernatural ,religion4'    #cdh3a ,it
 is instructive to compare the canons   
elaborately drawn  up by ,mr4           
,m',clellan 7,n4,t4 i4 #cge-chi7 with   
those tacitly  assumed in ',supernatural
 ,religion4' ,the inference in the one  
case  seems to be 'possible1 therefore  
true1' in the other1 'not  probable1 or 
not confirmed1 therefore false4' ,surely
 neither of  these tallies with         
experience4    #ceb3a ,this1 perhaps1 is
 one that is apt to be overlooked4 ,in  
order to be quite sure that the process 

of analysis is complete it  must be     
supplemented and verified by the        
reversed process of  synthesis4 ,if a   
compound has been resolved into its     
elements1 we  cannot be sure that it has
 been resolved into all its  elements   
until the original compound has been    
produced by their  recombination4 ,where
 this second reverse process fails1 the 
inference is that some unknown element  
which was originally  present has       
escaped in the analysis4 ,the analysis  
may be true as  far as it goes1 but it  
is incomplete4 ,the causes are 'verae   
causae1' but they are not all the causes
 in operation4 ,so it seems  to be with 
the analysis of the vital organism4 ,we 
may be said to  know entirely what air  
and water are because the chemist can   
produce them1 but we only know very     
imperfectly the nature of life  and will
 and conscience1 because when the       
physiological analysis  has been carried
 as far as it will go there still       
remains a large  unknown element4       

,within this element may very well      
reside those  distinctive properties    
which make man 7as the moralist is      
obliged to assume that he is7 a         
responsible and religious  being4 ,the  
hypotheses which lie at the root of     
morals and religion  are derived from   
another source than physiology1 but     
physiology  does not exclude them1 and  
will not do so until it gives a far     
more verifiably complete account of     
human nature than it does at  present4  
#ced3a ,mr4 ,browning has expressed this
 with his usual  incisiveness and       
penetration3--        ',i hear you      
recommend1 ,i might at least            
,eliminate1 decrassify my faith 444     
,still1 when you bid me purify the same1
       ,to such a process ,i discern no 
end1       ,clearing off one excrescence
 to see two2       ,there's ever a next 
in size1 now grown as big1       ,that  
meets the knife3 ,i cut and cut again6  
,first cut the liquefaction1 what comes 
last       ,but ,fichte's clever cut at 

,god himself8'    ,but also1 on the     
other hand3--                           
',where's       ,the gain8 how can we   
guard our unbelief8       ,just when we 
are safest1 there's a sunset-touch1     
,a fancy from a flower-bell1 some one's 
death1       ,a chorus ending from      
,euripides1--       ,and that's enough  
for fifty hopes and fears1       ,as old
 and new at once as ,nature's self1     
,to rap and knock and enter in our soul 
444       ,all we have gained then by   
our unbelief       ,is a life of doubt  
diversified by faith1       ,for one of 
faith diversified by doubt3       ,we   
called the chess-board white1--we call  
it black4'                              
,bishop ,blongram's ,apology4    #cei3a 
,as to the defects of the present       
edition1 see ,tischendorf1  ,prolegomena
 to ,vetus ,testamentum ,graece juxta   
,,lxx ,interpretes1  p4 liii3 ',eae vero
 7collationes7 quemadmodum in editis    
habentur  non modo universae graviter   
differunt inter se fide atque           

accuratione1  sed ad ipsos principales  
testes tam negligenter tamque male      
factae  sunt ut etiam atque etiam       
dolendum sit tantos numos rara          
liberalitate  per ,angliam suppeditatos 
criticae sacrae parum profuisse4'       
,similarly  ,credner1 in regard to the  
use of the ,codex ,alexandrinus1        
,beitrge1  ii4 #af3 ',wahrhaft          
unbegreiflich und unverzeihlich ist es1 
dass die  ,herausgeber der kostbaren    
,kritischen ,ausgabe der ,,lxx1 welcher 
zu ,oxford  vor wenigen ,jahren         
vollendet und von ,holmes und ,parsons  
besorgt worden  ist1 statt cine         
sorgfltige ,vergleichung des in ,london 
aufbewahrten  ,cod4 ,alex4 zu           
veranstalten1 sich lediglich auf die    
,ausgabe von ,grabe  beschrnkt haben1   
dessen ,kritik vielfach nicht einmal    
verstanden worden  ist4'                
,,appendix4    ,,supplemental ,,note    
,,on ,,the ,,reconstruction ,,of        
,,marcion',s ,,gospel4      ,if the     
reader should happen to possess the work

 of ,rnsch1 ,das  ,neue ,testament      
,tertullian's1 to which allusion has    
frequently been  made above1 and will   
simply glance over the pages1 noting the
  references1 from ,luke iv4 #af to the 
end of the ,gospel1 ,i do not  think he 
will need any other proof of the        
sufficiency of the  grounds for the     
reconstruction of ,marcion's ,gospel1 so
 as at least  to admit of a decision as 
to whether it was our present ,st4 ,luke
  or not4    ,failing this1 it may be   
well to give a brief example of the kind
  of data available1 going back straight
 to the original authorities            
themselves4    ,for this purpose we will
 take the first chapter that ,marcion   
preserved entire1 ,luke v1 and set forth
 in full such fragments of  it as have  
come down to us4    ,we take up the     
argument of ,tertullian at the point    
where he begins  to treat of this       
chapter4    ,in the fourth book of the  
treatise against ,marcion ,tertullian   
begins by dealing with the ,antitheses  

7a sort of criticism by  ,marcion on    
what he regarded as the ,judaising      
portions of the  ,canonical ,gospel71   
and then1 in general terms1 with the    
actual  ,gospel which ,marcion used4    
,from the general he descends to the    
particular1 and in c4#f ,tertullian     
pledges himself to show in  detail1 that
 even in those parts of the ,gospel     
which ,marcion  retained there was      
enough to refute his own system4        
,marcion's ,gospel began with the       
descent of ,jesus upon ,capernaum in    
the fifteenth year of ,tiberias4        
,tertullian makes points out of  this1  
also from the account of ,his preaching 
in the synagogue and  of the expulsion  
of the devil4 ,after this incident      
,marcion's  ,gospel represented our     
,lord as retiring into solitude4 ,it did
 this  as it would appear in words very 
similar to those of the ,canonical      
,gospel4 ,i place side by side the      
language of ,tertullian with that  of   
the ,vulgate 7,codex ,fuldensis1 as     

given by ,tregelles74 ,i have  also     
compared the translation in the two     
codd41 ,vercellensis and  ,veronensis1  
of the ,old ,latin in ,bianchini's      
edition4 ,it will be  remembered however
 that ,tertullian is admitted to have   
,marcion's  7and not the ,canonical7    
,gospel before him1 and he probably     
translates directly from that4    ,in   
solitudinem procedit4444 ,detentus a    
turbis3 ,oportet me1  inquit1 el aliis  
civitatibus annuntiare regnum dei4      
,luke v4 #db1 #dc3 ,ibat in desertum    
sertum locum 444 et detinebant  illum ne
 discederet ab eis4 ,quibus ille ait    
quia1 ,et aliis  civitatibus oportet me 
evangelizare regnum dei4    ,his        
discussion of the fifth chapter         
,tertullian begins by asking why1  out  
of all possible occupations1 ,christ    
should have fixed upon that  of fishing1
 to take from thence ,his apostles1     
,simon and the sons of  ,zebedee4 ,there
 was a meaning in the act which appears 
in the reply  to ,peter1 ',thou shalt   

catch men1' where there is a reference  
to a  prophecy of ,jeremiah 7ch4 xvi4   
#af74 ,by this allusion ,jesus          
sanctioned  those very prophecies which 
,marcion rejected4 ,in the end the      
fishermen  left their boats and followed
 ,him4    ,de tot generibus operum quid 
utique ad piscaturam respexit ut1 ab    
illa  in apostolos sumeret ,simonem et  
filios ,zebedaei 444 dicens ,petro      
trepidanti de copiosa indagine piscium3 
ne time abhinc enum homines  eris       
capiens4444 ,denique relictis naviculis 
secuti sunt ipsum444    ,luke v4 #a-aa3a
 ,factum est autem cum turbae irruereut 
in eum et  ipse stabat secus stagnum    
,gennesareth3#b et vidit duas           
naves4444#c ,ascendens in unam navem    
quae erat ,simonis444#d dixit  ad       
,simonem1 ,duc in altum1 et laxate retia
 vestra in capturam4  #f;,et cum hoc    
fecissent concluserunt piscium          
multitudinem  copiosam4444 #g;,et       
impleverunt ambas naviculas ita ut      
mergerentur4  #h,quod cum videret ,simon

 ,petrus1 procidit ad genua ,jesu4444   
#i,stupor enim circumdederat eum 444    
#ajsimiliter autem ,jacobum  et         
,johannem filios ,zebedaei4444 ,et ait  
ad ,simonem ,jesus1 ,noli  timere1 ex   
hoc jam homines eris capiens4 #aa;,et   
subductis ad  terram navibus relictis   
omnibus secuti sunt illum4    ,for ,noli
 timere c41 cod4 a has1 ,noli timere1   
jam amodo eris  vivificans homines2 cod4
 b1 ,nol4 tim41 ex hoc jam eris homines 
vivificans4    ,in passing to the       
incident of the leper1 ,tertullian      
argues that  the prohibition of contact 
with a leper was figurative1 applying   
really to the contact with sin4 ,but the
 ,godhead is incapable of  pollution1   
and therefore ,jesus touched the leper4 
,it would be in  vain for ,marcion to   
suggest that this was done in contempt  
of the  law4 ,for1 upon his own         
7,docetic7 theory1 the body of ,jesus   
was  phantasmal1 and therefore could not
 receive pollution3 so that  there would
 be no real contact or contempt of the  

law4 ,neither1 as  ,marcion maintained1 
did a comparison with the miracle of    
,elisha  tend to the disparagement of   
that prophet4 ,true1 ,christ healed     
with a word4 ,so also with a word had   
the ,creator made the world4  ,and1     
after all1 the word of ,christ produced 
no greater result than  a river which   
came from the ,creator's hands4         
,further1 the command  of ,jesus to the 
leper when healed1 showed ,his desire   
that the law  should be fulfilled4 ,nay1
 ,he added an explanation which conveyed
  that ,he was not come to destroy the  
law1 but ,himself to fulfil it4  ,this  
,he did deliberately1 and not from mere 
indulgence to the man1  who1 ,he knew1  
would wish to do as the law required4   
,argumentatur 444 in leprosi purgationem
 444 ,tetigit leprosum 444  ,et hoc     
opponit ,marcion 444 ,christum 444 verbo
 solo1 et hoc semel functo1  curationem 
statim repraesentasse4 ,quantam ad      
gloriae humanae aversionem  pertinebat1 
vetuit eum divulgare4 ,quantum autem ad 

tutelam legis  jussit ordinem impleri4  
,vade1 ostende te sacerdoti1 et offer   
munus  quod praecepit ,moyses4444       
,itaque adjecit3 ut sit vobis in        
testimonium4    ,luke v4 #ab-ad3 #ab    
,ecce vir plenus lepra3 et videns ,jesum
 444  rogavit eum dicens1 ,domine1 si   
vis1 potes me mundare4 #ac ,et          
extendens manum tetigit illum dicens1   
,volo1 mundare4 ,et confestim  lepra    
discessit ab illo4 #ad ,et ipse         
praecepit illi ut nemini  diceret1 sed  
,vade ostende te sacerdoti1 et offer pro
 emundatione  tua sicut praecepit       
,moses1 in testimonium illis4    ,for   
emundatione in ver4 #ad1 a has          
purgatione2 b as ,vulg4 ,both a  and b  
have the form offers 7see ,rnsch1 ,it4  
u4 ,vulg4 p4 #bid71 b  the plural       
sacerdotibus4 ,both codd4 have a        
variation similar to  that of ,marcion1 
ut sit etc42 a inserts hoc4    ,next    
follows the healing of the paralytic1   
which was done in  fulfilment of ,is4   
xxxv4 #b4 ,the miracle also itself in   

its details  was a special and exact    
fulfilment of the prophecy contained in 
the next verse1 ,is4 xxxv4 #c4 ,that the
 ,messiah should forgive sins  had been 
repeatedly prophesied1 e4g4 in ,is4     
liii4 #ab1 i4 #ah1 ,micah  vii4 #ah4    
,not only were these prophecies thus    
actually sanctioned  by ,christ1 but1 in
 forgiving the sins of the paralytic1   
,he was  only doing what the ,creator or
 ,demiurge had done before ,him4 ,in    
proof of this ,tertullian appeals to the
 examples of the ,ninevites1  of ,david 
and ,nathan1 of ,ahab1 of ,jonathan the 
son of ,saul1 and of  the chosen people 
themselves4 ,thus ,marcion was doubly   
refuted1  because the prerogative of    
forgiveness was asserted of the ,messiah
  in the prophecies which he rejected   
and attributed to the ,creator  whom he 
denied4 ,in like manner1 when ,jesus    
called ,himself the ',son  of ,man1' ,he
 did so in a real sense1 signifying that
 ,he was really  born of a virgin4 ,this
 appellation too had been applied to    

,him by  the prophet ,daniel4 7,dan4    
vii4 #ac1 iii4 #be74 ,but if ,jesus     
claimed  to be the ,son of ,man1 if1    
standing before the ,jews as a man1 ,he 
claimed as man the power of forgiving   
sins1 ,he thereby showed that  ,he      
possessed a real human body and not the 
mere phantasm of which  ,marcion spoke4 
,curatur et paralyticus1 et quidem in   
coetu1 spectante populo444  ,cum        
redintegratione membrorum virium quoque 
repraesentationem  pollicebatur3        
,exsurge et tolle grabatum tuum2--simul 
et animi  vigorem ad non timendos qui   
dicturi erant3 ,qui dimittet peccata    
nisi solus deus8444 ,cum ,judaei merito 
retractarent non posse hominem  delicta 
dimittere sed deum solum1 cur444        
respondit1 habere eum  potestatem       
dimittendi delicta1 quando et filium    
hominis nominans  hominem nominaret8    
,luke v4 #ag-bf3 #ag ,et factum est in  
una dierum et ipse sedebat  docens4444  
#ah ,et ecce viri portantes in lecto    
hominem1 qui erat  paralyticus1 et      

quaerebant eum inferre444 #ai et non    
invenientes  qua parte illum inferrent  
prae turba1444 per tegulas444           
summiserunt illum cum lecto in medium   
ante ,jesum4 #bj ,quorum  fidem ut      
vidit1 dixit1 ,homo1 remittuntur tibi   
peccata tua4 #ba ,et  coeperunt cogitare
 ,scribae et ,pharisaei1 dicentes1 ,quis
 est hic  qui loquitur blasphemias8 quis
 potest dimittere peccata nisi solus    
deus8 #bb ,ut cognovit autem ,jesus     
cogitationes eorum1 respondens  dixit ad
 illos4 444 #bc ,quid est facilius      
dicere1 ,dimittuntur  tibi peccata1 an  
dicere1 ,surge et ambula8 #bd ,ut autem 
sciatis  quia filius hominis potestatem 
habet in terra dimittere peccata1  ait  
paralytico1 ,tibi dico1 surge1 tolle    
lectum tuum et vade in  domum tuam4 #be 
,et confestim surgens 444 abiit in domum
 suam4    ,grabatum is the reading of a 
in ver4 #be4    ,marcion drew an        
argument from the calling of the        
publican 7,levi7--  one under ban of the
 law--as if it were done in             

disparagement of  the law4 ,tertullian  
reminds him in reply of the calling and 
confession of ,peter1 who was a         
representative of the law4 ,further1    
when he said that 'the whole need not a 
physician' ,jesus declared  that the    
,jews were whole1 the publicans sick4   
,publicanum adlectum a domino 444       
dicendo1 medicum sanis  non esse        
necessarium sed male habentibus444      
,luke v4 #bg-cb3 #bg ,et post hoc exiit 
et vidit publicanum 444 et  ait illi1   
,sequere me4444 #cj ,et murmurabant     
,pharisaei et ,scribae  eorum444 #ca et 
respondens ,jesus dixit ad illos1 ,non  
egent qui  sani sunt medico sed qui male
 habent4    ,the question respecting the
 disciples of ,john is turned against   
,marcion1 as a recognition of the       
,baptist's mission4 ,if ,john had  not  
prepared the way for ,christ1 if he had 
not actually baptized  ,him1 if1 in     
fact1 there was that diversity between  
the two which  ,marcion assumed1 no one 
would ever have thought of instituting a

  comparison between them or the conduct
 of their disciples4 ,in ,his  reply1   
'that the children of the bridegroom    
could not fast1' ,jesus  virtually      
allowed the practice of the disciples of
 ,john1 and  excused1 as only for a     
time1 that of ,his own disciples4 ,the  
very  name1 'bridegroom1' was taken from
 the ,old ,testament 7,ps4 xix4 #f  sq41
 ,is4 lxi4 #aj1 xlix4 #ah1 ,cant4 iv4   
#h72 and its assumption by  ,christ was 
a sanction of marriage1 and showed that 
,marcion did  wrong to condemn the      
married state4    ,unde autem et        
,joannes venit in medium8444 ,si nihil  
omnino  administrasset ,joannes 444 nemo
 discipulos ,christi manducantes et     
bibentes ad formam discipulorum ,joannis
 assidue jejunantium et  orantium       
provocasset4444 ,nunc humiliter reddens 
rationem1 quod non  possent jejunare    
filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset      
sponsus1 postea  vero jejunaturos       
promittens1 cum ablatus ab eis sponsus  
esset4    ,luke v4 #cc-ce3 #cc ,at illi 

dixerunt ad eum1 ,quare discipuli       
,johannis jejunant frequenter et        
obsecrationes faciunt1 444 tui  autem   
edunt et bibunt8 #cd ,quibus ipse ait1  
,numquid potestis  filios sponsi dum cum
 illis est sponsus facere jejunare8 #ce 
,venient autem dies cum ablatus fuerit  
ab illis sponsus1 tune  jejunabunt in   
illis diebus4    ,in ver4 #cc1 for      
obsecrationes a has orationes1 and for  
edunt  manducant3 a and b also have     
quamdiu 7,vulg4 cum7 in ver4 #ce4       
,equally erroneous was ,marcion's       
interpretation of the concluding  verses
 of the chapter which dealt with the    
distinction between old  and new4 ,he   
indeed was intoxicated with 'new        
wine'--though the  real 'new wine' had  
been prophesied as far back as ,jer4 iv4
 #d and  ,is4 xliii4 #ai--;but ,he to   
whom belonged the new wine and the new  
bottles also belonged the old4 ,the     
difference between the old and  new     
dispensations was of developement and   
progression1 not of  diversity or       

contrariety4 ,both had one and the same 
,author4    ,errasti in illa etiam      
domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova  
et  vetera discernere4 ,inflatus es     
utribus veteribus et excerebratus es    
novo vino3 atque ita veteri1 i4e4 priori
 evangelio pannum  haereticae novitatis 
adsuisli 444 ,venum novum is non        
committit in  veteres utres qui et      
veteres utres non habuerit1 et novum    
additamentum nemo inicit veteri         
vestimento nisi cui non defuerit  vetus 
vestimentum4    ,luke v4 #cf-ch3 #cf    
,dicebat autem et similitudinem ad illos
 quia  nemo commissuram a vestimento    
novo inmittit in vestimentum  vetus4444 
#cg ,et nemo mittit vinum novum in utres
 veteres4444  #ch ,sed vinum novum in   
utres novos mittendum est4    ,of the   
phrases peculiar to ,tertullian's       
version of ,marcion's text1  a has      
pannum 7-no7 and adsuisti 7-it74    ,it 
is observed that ,tertullian does not   
quote verse #ci1 which is  omitted by   
,d1 a1 b1 c1 c1 ff1 l1 and perhaps1 also

 by ,eusebius4    ,two of the ,scholia  
of ,epiphanius 7,adv4 ,haer4 #cbb ,d    
sqq471 nos4 #a  and #b1 have reference  
to this chapter4    ,greek3 ,echul4 a4  
,apelthon deixon seauton to hierei kai  
prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou1    
kathos prosetaxe ,mousaes1  hina ae     
marturion touto humin4    ,luke v4 #ad4 
,greek3 ,apeltheon deixon seauton to    
hierei1 kai  prosenenke peri tou        
katharismou sou1 kathos prosetaxen      
,mousaes1  eis marturion autois4    v4l4
 ,greek3 hina eis marturion 7,d'#a1     
,greek3 ae ,d'#b7 ,greek3  humin touto  
,d1 7a1 b71 c1 ff1 l4    ,the comment of
 ,epiphanius on this is similar to that 
of  ,tertullian4 ,to bid the leper 'do  
as ,moses commanded1' was  practically  
to sanction the law of ,moses4          
,epiphanius expressly  accuses ,marcion 
of falsifying the phrase 'for a         
testimony unto  them4' ,he says that he 
changed 'them' to 'you1' without        
however1  even in this perverted form1  
preventing the text from recoiling  upon

 his own head ,greek3 diestrepsas de to 
rhaeton1 o ,markion1  anti tou eipein   
'eis marturion autois' marturion legon  
'humin4'  kai touto saphos epseuso kata 
taes sautou kephalaes4    ,greek3       
,echol4 ,b'4 ,hina de eidaete hoti      
exousian echei ho uhios  tou anthropou  
aphienai hamartias epi taes gaes4       
,luke v4 #bd4 ,greek3 ,hina de eidaete  
hoti exousian echei ho uhios  tou       
anthropou epi taes gaes aphienai        
hamartias4    ,in this order1 ,hebrew   
aleph1 ,a1 ,c1 ,d1 rel41 a1 c1 e1 ,syrr4
 ,pst4  and ,hcl41 7,memph471 ,goth41   
,arm41 ,aeth42 ,greek3 ex4 ech4 after   
,greek3 ho1 hu4 t4 a41 ,b1 ,l1 ,greek3  
,xi symbol1 ,k1 ,vulg41 b1 f1  g'#a1 ff1
 l4    ,by calling ,himself ',son of    
,man1' ,epiphanius says1 our ,lord      
asserts ,his proper manhood and repels  
,docetism1 and1 by claiming  'power upon
 earth1' ,he declares that earth not to 
belong to an  alien creation4           
,reverting to ,tertullian1 we observe1  
7#a7 that the narrative of the  draught 

of fishes1 with the fear of ,peter1 and 
the promise in  this form1 ',thou shalt 
catch men1' 7,greek3 ,mae phobou apo tou
  nun anthropous esae zogron2 the other 
,synoptists have1 ,greek3  ,deute opiso 
mou1 kai poiaeso humas halieis          
anthropon71 are found  only in ,st4     
,luke2 7#b7 that the second section of  
the chapter1 the  healing of the leper1 
is placed by the other ,synoptists in a 
different order1 by ,mark immediately   
after our ,lord's retirement  into      
solitude 7 ,luke iv4 #db-dd71 and by    
,matthew after the ,sermon  on the      
,mount2 the phrase ,greek3 eis marturion
 autois is common  to all three         
,gospels1 but in the text of ,st4 ,luke 
alone is there  the variant ,ut sit     
vobis c42 7#c7 that1 while the remaining
  sections follow in the same order in  
all the ,synoptics1 still  there is much
 to identify the text from which        
,tertullian is  quoting with that of    
,luke4 ,thus1 in the account of the case
 of  ,levi1 the third ,evangelist alone 

has the word ,greek3 telonaen           
7publicanum7 and ,greek3 hugiainontes   
7sani2 the other ,gospels  ,greek3      
ischontes valentes72 in the question as 
to the practice  of the disciples of    
,john1 he alone has the allusion to     
prayers  7,greek3 deaeseis poiountai7   
and the combination 'eat and drink'     
7the other ,gospels1 ,greek3 ou         
naesteyousin73 he too has the  simple   
,greek3 epiblaema1 for ,greek3 epiblaema
 rhakous  agnaphou4 ,it seems quite     
incredible that these accumulated       
coincidences should be merely the result
 of accident4    ,but this is only the  
beginning4 ,the same kind of            
coincidences run  uniformly all through 
the ,gospel4 ,from the next chapter1    
,luke vi1  ,marcion had1 in due order1  
the plucking of the ears of corn on the 
sabbath day 7'rubbing them with their   
hands1' ,luke and ,marcion  alone71 the 
precedent of ,david and his companions  
and the  shewbread1 the watching of the 
,pharisees 7so ,luke only7 to  see if   

,he would heal on the sabbath day1 the  
healing of the  withered hand--with an  
exact resemblance to the text of ,luke  
and  divergence from the other ,gospels 
7licetne animam liberare an  perdere8   
,greek3 psuchaen apolesai ,luke1 ,greek3
 apokteinai  ,mark71 in the order and   
words of ,luke alone1 the retreat into  
the  mountain for prayer1 the selection 
of the twelve ,apostles1 and  then1 in a
 strictly ,lucan form and introduced    
precisely at the  same point1 the       
,sermon on the ,mount1 the blessing on  
'the poor'  7not the 'poor in spirit'71 
on those 'who hunger' 7not on those     
'who hunger and thirst after            
righteousness'71 on those 'who weep1    
for they shall laugh' 7not on those 'who
 mourn1 for they shall be  comforted'71 
with an exact translation of ,st4 ,luke 
and difference  from ,st4 ,matthew1 the 
clause relating to those who are        
persecuted  and reviled3 then follow the
 'woes2' to the rich1 'for ye have      
received your consolation2' to 'those   

who are full1 for they shall  hunger2'  
to 'those who laugh now1 for they shall 
mourn3' and so on  almost verse by      
verse4    ,it is surely needless to go  
further4 ,there are indeed very rarely  
what seem to be reminiscences of the    
other ,gospels 7e4g4  'esurierunt       
discipuli' in the parallel to ,luke vi4 
#a71 but the  total amount of           
resemblance to ,st4 ,luke and divergence
 from ,st4  ,matthew and ,st4 ,mark is  
overwhelming4 ,of course the remainder  
of  the evidence can easily be produced 
if necessary1 but ,i do not  think it   
will long remain in doubt that our      
present ,st4 ,luke was  really the      
foundation of the ,gospel that ,marcion 
used4            ,,index ,i4            
,references to the ,four ,gospels4      
,the asterisk indicates that the passage
 in question is discussed  in some      
detail4    ,st4 ,matthew4    ,i4      #a
 #b-f #ah99 #ah ff #ah-be #ba #bc  ,,ii4
     #a #a-g #a-bc #b #e1f #f #aa #ab   
#ac #ac-ae #af #ag1ah #ah #bb4  ,,iii4  

#b #d #h #aj #aa1ab #ae99 #af #ah  ,,iv4
     #a #h-aj #i #aj #aa #ag #ah #bc    
,v4      #a-dh #c #d1e99 #g99 #h #aj99  
#aa #ac1ad #ad #af99 #ag #ag1ah #ah99   
#bj #ba-dh             #bb #bh #bi      
#bi1cj #bi1cb #cb #cd99 #cg99 #ch1ci    
#ci1dj #da #db #dd1de             #de99 
#df99 #dh  ,,vi4     #a #a-cd #f #h #aj 
#ac #ad #ai #ai1bj #bj #ba #be-bg #be-cg
 #cb99 #cb1cc  ,,vii4    #a-bi #b #f #g 
#i-aa99 #ab #ac1ad99 #ae99 #af #ai #ba99
 #bb #bb1bc #bh1bi  ,,viii4   #i #aa    
#aa1ab #ag #bf #bh-cd  ,,ix4     #a-h   
#ac99 #af #ag #bb #bi-ca #cc  ,x4       
#a #h #aj #aa99 #ac #ae #af99 #bb #bf   
#bh99 #bi1cj #cc #ch1ci #dj  ,,xi4      
#e #g #aj #aa #ab-ae #ah #bf #be-bg     
#bg99 #bh  ,,xii4    #a-h99 #g #i-ad99  
#ag-ba #ah-ba #bd #be99 #bf #ca1cb #cd  
#da #db #dc #dh  ,,xiii4   #a-eh #c     
#c;ff #e #aa #ae #af #bd-cj #be #bf99   
#cd #ce #cg-ci #ch #ci #db1dc  ,,xiv4   
#a #c #c-ab #f  ,,xv4     #d-f #d-h99   
#d-i #h99 #ac #ae #ag #bj #ba-bh #bf #cf
  ,,xvi4    #a #a-d #d #ae-ah #af99 #ai 

#ba #bd #bd1be #bf  ,,xvii4   #c #e #aa 
#aa-ac99 #ab1ac #ac  ,,xviii4  #a-ce    
#c99 #f #g #h #h1i #aj #ai  ,,xix4    #d
 #f99 #h99 #i #aj-ab #aa1ab99 #ab99 #ac 
#af1ag99 #ag #ai #bb #bf99  ,,xx4     #h
 #af #ai #bj-bh  ,,xxi4    #a #e #ab1ac 
#af #bj-bb #bc #cc #db  ,,xxii4   #i #aa
 #ad99 #ba #bd #bi #cj #cb #cg #ch #ci  
#dj #dd99  ,,xxiii4  #b #b1c #e #aj #ac 
#ae #ah #bj #bc #bd #be #be1bf99 #bg #bi
 #ce  ,,xxiv4   #a-ea #c #ad #de-ea99   
,,xxv4    #a-df #ad-cj #ba #bf1bg #cd   
#da99  ,,xxvi4   #a-ge #ag1ah #bd99 #cj 
#ca99 #cf1cg #ch #ci #da #dc #ef #ef1eg 
#eg #fd99  ,,xxvii4  #i #i1aj99 #aa;f4  
#ad #ce #ci;ff #db #dc #df #eg-fj       
,,xxviii4 #a #ab-ae #ai4      ,st4      
,mark4    ,i4      #a #b #d #ag #bb #bd 
#bf  ,,ii4     #bc-bh99 #bh  ,,iii4     
#a-f99 #ag #bc #be #bi  ,,iv4     #a-cd 
#aa #ab #cc1cd #cd99  ,v4      #a-bj #ca
  ,,vi4     #c #aa #ad #ag-bi  ,,vii4   
#f99 #f-ac #g #aj1aa #aa-ac #ac #ba1bb  
#bd-cj  ,,viii4   #bi #ca #cd  ,,ix4    
#g #ba #dc #dg  ,x4      #e #e1f #f #h  

#i #ag #ah #ai #ba #bb #bg99 #cg-de     
,,xi4     #bj-bf  ,,xii4    #ag #bj #bd 
#bg99 #bi99 #cj #ch-dd  ,,xiii4   #b99  
#bb  ,,xiv4    #ab1ac #ab-ad #dj #ea1eb 
,,xv4     #ad #cd  ,,xvi4    #ad-af     
,st4 ,luke4    ,i4     #a-d #a-hj #c #f 
#g #g-aj #h #i #ab #ac #ae #ag #ah1ai   
#ai #bj #bj-bb #ba #bc #bd              
#bf #bg #bh #bi #ca #cb #cc #cd #cd1ce  
#ce99 #cf #ci #da #dh #ee #ef #eg #fa   
#fb            #fd #fg #fi #gc #gd #gf  
#gg #gh #hj  ,,ii4    #a1b #a-eb #d #f  
#g #h #aa #ac #ad #ae #af #ah #ai #bj   
#ba #ba1bb #bb #bd #be #bf              
#bg #bh #bi #cc #cd #ce #cf #cg #ci #dj 
#da #db #dc #de #df #dh1di #di #ej #ea  
#eb #ff  ,,iii4   #a #a-ch #c #ab-ad #ac
 #ae #af #af1ag #ag #ai #bj #ba #ba1bb  
#bb #bc #ca-cd  ,,iv4    #a #a-ac #d #f 
#f-h #g #h #aj #ac #ad #af #ag #ag-bj   
#ah1ai #ai #bj #bd #be #cb              
#db1dc #db-dd  ,v4     #a #a-aa #a-ci   
#ab-ad #ad #ag-bf #bd #bg-cb #cb #cc-ce 
#cf-ch #ci  ,,vi4    #a #a-e99 #a-di    
#f-aa99 #ac #ad99 #bj99 #bg1bh #bi #cj  

#ca #cb #cd #ce #cf #cf1cg              
#cf-ch99 #cg1ch #de #df99  ,,vii4   #b99
 #h #aa-ah #ab99 #bd-bh #bf #bg #bh     
#bi-ce #cj #ce #cf-ch  ,,viii4  #a-c #e 
#aj #ai #bc #bf-ci #da  ,,ix4    #e #g  
#ag1ah #bj #bb #ee #eg1eh #fj #fa #fa1fb
 #fb  ,x4     #c #e1f #g99 #aj-ab #af   
#ah #ai99 #bj #ba #ba1bb #bb #bc #bd #be
 #cg  ,,xi4    #b #i #aa-ac99 #ad #ag   
#bb #bi-cb #cb #ci #db #dg #di-ea #eb   
,,xii4   #d1e99 #f1g #i #aj #ad #bb-bd  
#cj #ch #db-df99 #dh #ej  ,,xiii4  #a   
sqq4 #a-i #f #g #g-h #bd99 #bf1bg #bg   
#bh #bh1bi #bi #bi-ce #ca-ce #cc #cd    
,,xiv4   #bg  ,,xv4    #d #h #aa-cb #ac 
#ad #ag #ah #bj #bb #bd #be #bf #bi     
,,xvi4   #ab #af #ag99  ,,xvii4  #a1b99 
#b #e-aj #i #i1aj  ,,xviii4 #f-h #ah1ah 
#ai #bg99 #ca #ca-cd #cd #ce-dc  ,,xix4 
#e #i #ag #bb1bc #bi #bi-dh #cc-ci #ce  
#cg #cg-dh #ch #da #db #dc #df #dg      
,,xx4    #i #i-l#h #ad #ag #ai #ba #bb  
#bb-be #bd #be #ce1cf #ce #cg1ch #ch    
,,xxi4   #a-d #d #ah #ba #ba1bb #bb #bg 
#bh #cd  ,,xxii4  #i-aa #af-ah #ag #ah  

#ah-cf #ai #ai1bj #bh-cj #cj #ce-ch #cg 
#ch #db-dd            #dc1dd99 #ec1ed   
#ff  ,,xxiii4 #a ff4 #b #e #g #cd #ce   
#df  ,,xxiv4  #a ff4 #ba #bf #cb #ch1ci 
#ci99 #dj #db #df #dg-ec #di #ej #el #eb
 #ec      ,st4 ,john4    ,i4     #a1b   
#a-c #c99 #d #e99 #i #ac #ad #ah #ai    
#ai1bj99 #bc99 #bh  ,,ii4    #d #af1ag  
,,iii4   #c-e99 #e99 #f #h #ab #ad #af  
#cf  ,,iv4    #f  ,v4     #b #c1d #d #h 
#ag #ah #dc #df  ,,vi4    #ae #ci #ea   
#ec #ed99 #ee99 #gj  ,,vii4   #h #ch #db
  ,,viii4  #ag #dj #dd  ,,ix4    #a-c99 
,x4     #h #i99 #bc1bd #bg99 #cj  ,,xi4 
#ed  ,,xii4   #ad1ae #bb #bg #cj #dj #da
  ,,xiii4  #ah  ,,xiv4   #b #f #aj      
,,xv4    #be  ,,xvi4   #b99 #c  ,,xvii4 
#c #aa1ab #ad99  ,,xviii4 #cf  ,,xix4   
#cf #cg99            ,,index ,,ii4      
,chronological and ,analytical4         
,writer4      ,works ,extant4    ,date  
,evangelical ,documents                 
,a4,d4           used4                  
,clement of   ,one genuine ,epistle     
c4#ie-  ,traces1 perhaps   ,rome4       

addressed to the      #ajj4   probable  
of the three                            
,philippians4                           
,synoptics4                             
,barnabas4    ,pseud-egraphical         
c4#ajj- ,probably ,st4 ,matthew1        
,epistle               #abe4  perhaps   
,st4 ,luke1                             
possibly the fourth ,gospel4            
,ignatius4    ,three short ,epistles1   
#ajg or ,probably ,st4 ,matthew1        
probably genuine4     #aae4   and       
perhaps ,st4 ,john4                     
,spurious1 ,s4,r4                       
,seven short ,epistles1        ,probably
 ,st4 ,matthew1                perhaps  
genuine4             perhaps also ,st4  
,john4                ,spurious1 ,s4,r4 
,hermas4      ,allegorical work1        
c4#ace- ,no distinct traces of          
entitled the           #adj4  any       
writing of ,old or                      
',shepherd4'                  ,new      
,testament4                             
,polycarp4    ,short ,epistle to        

c4#adj- ,doubtful traces of             
,philippians1           #aee4  ,st4     
,matthew1 probable                      
probably genuine4            of #a      
,john4                ,spurious1 ,s4,r4 
,presbyters4  ,quoted by ,irenaeus4     
c4#adj8 ,probably ,st4 ,john4           
,papias4      ,short fragments in       
#aee4  ,some account of                 
,eusebius4           see pp4 works      
written by                              
#ade1 #hb2 ,st4 ,matthew and            
#afd-afg1 ,st4 ,mark1 but               
,s4,r4    probably not our              
present ,gospels in                     
their present form4                     
,basilides4  ,allusions1 not            
c4#abe4 ,certain use of                 
certain1 in                  ,st4 ,luke 
and ,st4 ,john1                         
,hippolytus1 ,clem4            perhaps  
probably by  ,basilidians4 ,alex41      
,epiphanius1           ,basilides       
himself4                                
,marcion4     ,copious references       

c4#adj4 ,certainly the third            
in ,tertullian and            ,gospel1  
with text                ,epiphanius4   
already corrupt4                        
,justin       ,two ,apologies and       
#adh4  ,three ,synoptic   ,martyr4      
,dialogue against     #aff-   ,gospels  
either                ,tryphon4         
#afg1   separately or in                
,s4,r4  ,harmony1 probably the          
fourth ,gospel1 and also                
an ,apocryphal ,gospel or               
,gospels2 text showing                  
marks of corruption4                    
,old ,latin translation c4#aej4 ,four   
,canonical                of ,n4,t4     
,gospels1 with                          
corrupt text4                           
,valentinus4 ,allusions1 not            
c4#adj4 ,references to all four         
certain in                   ,gospels1  
but not clear  ,valentinians            
,hippolytus1 c4      before  by whom    
made4                                   
#agh4                                   

,clement4     ,nineteen pseudo-         
c4#afj8 ,four ,canonical ,gospels       
epigraphical                 7possibly  
in a                                    
,harmony71 with other                   
,apocryphal sources                     
to some extent4                         
,hegesippus4  ,few fragments            
fl4#aeg- ,apparent traces of            
chiefly preserved      #ahj4  ,st4      
,matthew and                by          
,eusebius4                 ,st4 ,luke4  
,tatian4      ,few allusions1           
fl4#aej- ,diatessaron1                  
',address to ,greeks4'    #agj4         
probably consisting                     
of our four ,gospels1                   
quotations from                         
,st4 ,john in ,orat4                    
ad ,graec4                              
,old ,syriac            c4#afj8 ,four   
,canonical ,gospels1                    
,translation of ,n4,t4          with    
corrupt text4                           
,muratorian ,fragment   c4#agj4 ,four   

,gospels as                             
,canonical4                             
,ptolomaeus4  ,allusions in             
before ,clear references                
,irenaeus1 c41        #agh4   to ,st4   
,matthew and                fragments in
                 ,st4 ,john4            
,epiphanius4                            
,heracleon4   ,allusions in             
before ,third and fourth                
,irenaeus1 c41        #agh4   gospels4  
fragments in ,origen4                   
,melito4      ,few slight fragments4    
c4#agf4 ,doubtful indirect              
allusions to ,canon                     
of ,n4,t4                               
,apollinaris4 ,two slight fragments4    
#agf-  ,allusion to                     
#ahj4   discrepancy                     
between ,gospels1                       
fourth ,gospel4                         
,athenagoras4 ,an ,apology and tract    
c4#agg4 ,one fairly clear               
on the ,resurrection4         quotation 
from                                    

,st4 ,matthew1                          
perhaps from                            
,st4 ,mark and                          
,st4 ,john4                             
,churches of  ,an ,epistle4             
#agg4  ,clear allusions to   ,vienne and
                                ,st4    
,luke and ,st4 ,john1   ,lyons4         
perhaps also to                         
,st4 ,matthew4                          
,celsus4      ,fragments in ,origen4    
c4#agh4 ,somewhat vague traces          
of all four ,gospels4                   
,irenaeus4    ,treatise ',against       
c4#adj- ,four ,gospels as               
,heresies4'             #bjb4           
,canonical1 with                        
corrupt text4                           
,clement of   ,several considerable     
fl4#ahe- ,four ,gospels as   ,alexandria
   works4                 #baa4         
,canonical1 with                        
corrupt text4                           
,tertullian4  ,voluminous works4        
fl4#aih- ,four ,gospels as              

#baj4  ,canonical1 with                 
corrupt text4